of Salem that is King of Peace Without Father without Mother without kindred and hath neither beginning of his dayes neither end of life but is likened to the Sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer Now consider how great this man was vnto whom euen the Patriarch Abraham gaue the Tithe of the spoiles For verily they which are the children of Leui which receiue the office of Priest-hood haue a commandement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren though they came out of the loynes of Abraham But he whose kindred is not counted among them receiued Tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises And without all contradiction The lesse is blessed of the greater And heere men that dye receiue Tithes but there hee of whom it is witnessed That he liueth And to say as the thing is Leui also which receiueth Tithes payed Tithes in Abraham For he was yet in the Loynes of his Father when Melchisedec met him § II Now because this is our last re-encounter in this conflict Paul in the speciall of Tithes the last passage of all Scripture touching Tithes yea our A and â— reuiuing as by a circular course our neuer dying Melchis in our eternal Verity Christ wherein almost each word may goe for an argument we must therefore pierce a little more deeply in it by helpe of the same Spirit that proposeth it vnto vs and that so briefely as may be First then of his End next of his forme of arguing in this Chapter The chiefe End of this Epistle being to proue Christ our al-sufficient Sauiour King Prophet and Priest figured by the Law whose Ceremonies must therfore cease he handleth in this Chapter his Priest-hood only His course in arguing goeth from the Types to their Verities in a most perfect comparison both in simili and dissâ—mili The Types are two-fold the one moral perpetuall Melchisedec The other ceremonial and temporall Leui. Their natures are either simple in themselues or in Relation to their Verities Their Simple nature is that the Morall Type is noted heere with no Ceremoniall action for no such thing had he in him and the Ceremoniall Type with nothing Morall as he is compared heere to Christ in simili For though he also Tithed a Morall action yet it holdeth heere but in dissimili Their Relatiue nature with their Verities is of two § III considerations one from the matter of their actions Types how to be matched with their Verities another from the manner or their Orders In matter they hold both thus Whatsoeuer the Types did as Types the Verity must doe or answere being rightly matched as Aaron sacrificed Ergo so must Christ Aaron sacrificed with blood Ergo so must Christ But not Aaron sacrificed Bullocks Ergo so must Christ Our Golden rule in this is to goe no further then Scripture clearely leadeth vs and not from silence of the Apostles or priuatiue speeches to impose a positiue sacrifice of the Masse vpon Christ In manner or Order they hold not so Aarons and Melchisedecs Orders for whatsoeuer Christ did answering to Aaron yet that same did Christ after Melchisedecs Manner and Order not Aarons So that ONCE recorded only of Melchisedecs actions signifieth in Christ EVER and OFTEN to bee done and that OFTEN of Aarons actions signifieth in Christ ONCE onely yet that same ONCE ALL-sufficient in Melchisedecs Order For Perfection and Imperfection Perpetuitie and perishing are the Essentiall differences of their Orders So Christ in Melchisedecs Order perfected both Orders an heauenly difference and worthy to bee obserued Hebr. 7.8 9 10. chap. being fully cleared by the Apostle opposing that two thousand yeeres yeerely offering of Aaron to that One and Al-sufficient of CHRISTS And that ONCE blessing of Melchisedec of Abraham to that Euer blessing of CHRIST of Abraham and his posteritie Our conclusions then go thus through this Epistle from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Melchisedec to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ and from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aaron to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ for these are the Apostles owne notes Againe hundrethes of Aarons with thousands of his associates thousands of yeeres and millions of redoubled actions binde but only Christ and Christ onely once they binde not the Ministery of the Gospell belonging to Christs Priest-hood But Melchisedecs one onely blessing designing his Priest-hood bindeth Christ euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all his Ministery euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 May we not hereupon inferre then that if Melchisedecs seruice binde our Ministery his maintenance must also be due to them We see then that Vnity or Pluralitie is not euer requisite to passe alike betweene Types and Verities either in Person or action for One as is said may argue thousands and thousands but One otherwise we shal roue to Rome-ward § IV Of these grounds then will it follow that whatsoeuer the Apostle vseth as a Medium to draw on any conclusion from these Types to their Verities it must bee euen as the Types either a Morall or a Ceremoniall thing and the conclusion must follow the nature of the Medium for Aarons sacrifice being Ceremoniall cannot bind a Morall Conclusion on Christ or his Ministery and consequently Tithing being vsed here as a Medium of a Morall and perpetuall Conclusion must it selfe be also Moral and perpetuall as by a true Analysis of our Apostles purpose in the texts cited shall plainly appeare CHAP. V. This Analysis proueth Christs Priest-hood more excellent then Leuies His proofes are from the prerogatiue of Person Blessing and Tithing THe Apostle will proue in those first eleuen verses § I Melchisedecs Order of Priest-hood whereof Christ was the onely High Priest and perfection to be farre aboue and better then the Order of Aaron and Leui and so in it selfe onely al-sufficient He setteth downe first his Priest-hood till the fourth verse then the Collation His Priesthood in two points Function and Order Melchisedecs endlesse Priesthood His Function vers 1. He was a Priest and blessed Abraham He was also accepted and acknowledged as a Priest vers 2. Because Abraham gaue him Tithes of all These two points are the summe and perfection of peaceably setled Priest-hood For Blessing after this sort heere being Real and exhibitiue is the End and perfection of all Priest-hood and Priestly Office for that Legall forme of blessing vnder Leui Num. 6.23 is but as a prayer for Blessing as we yet vse to this day and had no Ceremonie it And againe to giue Tithes as did Abraham heere is the most proper testification of our due obedience to Christs Ministers the very fruits of our faith And this for his Function Next vers 3. commeth his Order Dignitie and Excellency § II thereof Without Father Mother Kindred Beginning Ending like the Sonne of God Remaineth a Priest for euer Those strange notes must be applied and vnderstood as well
of the Priesthood as the Person and more of Christ the Verity then his Type distinguished from him so that heere is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle cap. 5.11 compared with 11.8.13.14 24. For if we looke to the persons it is sure Melchisedec as such a man onely was both borne and dyed but not as he is proposed for such a Priest or type yea Christ the true Melchisedec was borne and dyed Christus Sacerdos mortuus est But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum Aarons perishing Priesthood The generall Apodosis to this on Aarons part goeth thus Aaron and Leui had Father and Mother not onely of their flesh but latelier even of their very Priest-hood and calling they had beginning and ending even in all things wherein they typed Christ imperfect therefore and cannot be likened to the Sonne of God as is Melchisedec His Priest-hood then consisteth in Blessing and Tithing and his perfection in perpetuitie of both thou canst not disioyne them Then we descend by the same degrees thus Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remaineth a Priest for euer like the Sonne of God without ending Beginning Kindred Mother or Father And of all these poynts was Christ the onely perfection Ergo He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ must appoynt a perpetuall Tithing for Christ as we shall heare more at large And this for his Priest-hood followeth their collation Heb. 7.4 Consider now how great this man was c. Here Paul entereth § III the very lists of this conflict prouing our Melchisedecs Priest-hood more perfect then Leuies vsing for all his middeses onely Blessing and Tithing The arguments are drawne from the circumstances viz The persons Blessed and Tithed the forme of the Blessing and Tithing the time of Blessing and Tithing In Person he reasoneth first from Abraham then from Leui himselfe From Abraham thus Whosoeuer is greater then Abraham Melchisedec greater then Abraham is greater then Leui. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo Greater then Leui. The Proposition he proueth thus vers 4. Abraham was a Patriarch Leui but a childe the fourth from this Patriarch And vers 6. Abraham had the promises Leui as all the faithfull enioyed the promises onely in the faith of Abraham So Abraham is greater then Leui. He proueth his Assumption That Melchisedec was greater then Abraham thus He who Blesseth and Titheth is greater then he who is Blessed and Tithed Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham Ergo Melchisedec is greater then Abraham The Proposition is the very 7. ver of Paul in the text cited The Assumption is proued by Moyses Historie and here vers 3.4.6 And this for Abrahams person followeth from Leuies person wherein let the Reader note that all Pauls proofes are onely from Tithing thus Greater then Leui. He that tithed Leui is greater then Leui Melchisedec tithed Leui. Ergo Greater then Leui. This Assumption he proueth vers 10 thus All that were in Abrahams loynes when Melchisedec met him were tithed in Abraham Leui was in Abrahams loynes then Ergo Leui was tithed in Abraham and so by Melchisedec § IV Now marke that although this last Syllogisme launceth onely against Leui All Abrahams seede Tithed in him Ios cap 7. because Paul heere had onely to doe with Leui as a Priest Yet the force of the Proposition fetcheth in all Abrahams Seede Seede I say not onely Legal but also Euangelical not onely of his flesh but also of his faith This for Melchisedecs Tithing of Abraham The Antithesis on Leuies part goeth thus Leui Tithed but his brethren Melchisedec Tithed Abraham Father both of Leui and all his brethren Brethren as is said both by flesh and faith Ergo All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing And such as see not this are too bigge in flesh too beggerly in faith Followeth the Circumstance in the Forme of their Tithing This point hath this Antithesis LEVI Vers 5. They which are the children of Leui. Which receiue the office of Priest-hood Haue a commaundement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren Though they came out of the Loynes of Abraham MELCHISEDEC Ver. 6. HE whose kindred is not counted amongst them Vers 3. Whose Priest-hood is 16. after the power of Endlesse life Gen. 14. Had offered to him freely and long before that Law Tithes by the Patriarch of both Leui and his brethren In whose loynes all his seed was both blessed and Tithed The chiefe note heere is that Melchisedecs forme of Tithing before the Law must be greater then Leuies Tithing by the Law and so Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui. For this action betweene Abraham and Melchisedec proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power working in both this ready and religious reuerence or rather that God euen taught Abraham who said hee would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to doe and concerned Abraham For said God I know Abraham Gen. 18.17.19 that hee will command his sonnes and houshold that they keepe the way of the Lord c. And this offer of Abrahams was not in his free option for as Abraham vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue freely so is it said v. 6. that Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He tithed Abraham as hauing authoritie They stroue in performing all duties and we in peruerting This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Forme followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing CHAP. VI. Melchisedecs Priest-hood more excellent then Aarons because he is a perpetuall Priest And this perpetuitie is proued by onely Tithing TIME being an argument whereupon dependeth § I the cheefe conclusion Melchisedec a perpetuall Priest of both the Apostles cause and our question we will looke more narrowly into it For were a Priest neuer so great and his blessing neuer so good what auaileth it if it â—â—anish The onely Triumph of Melchisedec ouer Leui is his Eternitie in all his endlesse Priest-hood Then if the Apostle proue his Priesthood perpetuall he winneth his cause and in prouing hereof seeing hee vseth heere no other Medium but a perpetuall Tithing he setleth our question And thus it goeth A Perpetuall Priest-hood is better then a Temporall Melchisedecs is Perpetuall Leuies was Temporall Melchisedecs therefore better then Leuies To proue the Assumption he reasoneth thus vers 8. for Melchisedec Hee that taketh Tithes and liueth is a Perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo Melchisedec is a Perpetuall Priest The Proposition is true for life euer affirmed maketh the Person endlesse and Tithing euer following life maketh a Priest-hood endlesse No Priest-hood without a Tithing § II The Assumption both for Melchisedecs perpetuitie and Leuies temporalitie is the eighth verse it selfe thus And heere that is vnder the Law dying men receiue Tithes viz. Leuites Leui died daily one succeeded daily in the Priest-hood to another and in end they
Tithing of them Pauls meaning to the Hebr. for that time was not come as is said they were poore new conuerted Christians euen those for whom Paul had gathered that collection in Achaia Asia and Româ— Paul onely as is said would draw them from Leui to Christ and that in the power and prerogatiue of Melchisedec in all things belonging to Leuies Priest-hood specially Blessing and Tithing They knew Tithes were due but not due to Christ this Paul teacheth them Let euery Christian ballance these arguments in the scales of an vpright conscience fixed and setled on the word of God and accordingly dispose of his affections § VIII Behold then lastly how fitly all things are matched in those types Comparison of Melchisedec Aaron and Christ and their veritie Christ Grace is ioyned to Eternitie and Law Bondage brought to an end Melchisedec Christs first freest and most perfect Priestly type and kingly too met Abraham freely without law and before Law and as a King fed him as a Priest blessed him all in freedome Abraham againe in whose loynes we were all then both fedde and blessed like a thankefull soule met also freely the free graces of God in Melchisedec likewise before Law And so Christ our true Melchisedec not commanded litle expected least of all deserued freely meeteth Abraham and all his seede ever feeding blessing to saluation and therefore must all we the seede of Abrahams flesh and faith returne to him 2 Cor 5.19.20 and to those in whom he hath put the Ministerie of reconciliation Tithes freely not as Legally coacted And this for Grace and Eternitie Now betweene Melchisedec and Christ interuened another solemne and great high Priest also Aaron But how quite after an other order and manner long after both Melchisedec and Abraham all in bonds called commanded his very sacrifices brought by force to the Altar nothing freely And so Abrahams posteritie gaâ—e him the like meeting Tithes by force of law Bondage and bonds on both sides Grace then beginneth and Grace endeth The Law coupled Melchisedec to Christ The Law goeth betweene as a bond coupling Grace to Grace Melchisedec to Christ And so Melchisedec as Gods Priest and Christs type with the Ministerie of Christs Gospel make vp both but one poynt in the Office-worke of our saluation Euen as an Euening and a Morning Gen. 1.5 made vp but one day in the Creation Christ was but as in dawning then he shineth now In Melchisedec he put the Word of benediction in his Ministerie he hath put the Word of Reconciliation Melchisedec typed Euerlasting promises in Christ his Ministry preach euerlasting performances in Christ Now glad promises and glad tydings of their performances are but one and therefore their maintenance iustly one Tithes Inheritance Leui a linke of the same chaine also a Priest of the same worke in effect though different in forme a Remembrancer for supporting the weaknes of those dayes interuening betweene the promises and the performances typing and foretelling by numbers of rites thousands of times Christs comming in their carnal sacrifices till they poynted him out as by a fingerly demonstration whom our Ministerie now Preach in a heauenly contemplation The dores of Faith in those dayes were much their Eyes Hic est and so trustâ—es Thomas must first put his finger in his side and then beleeue The dores of faith in our true Melchisedecs dayes are most our eares by hearing and so euen Abraham beleeued hic erit and it was imputed to him for Righteousnesse And he sawe the day of the Lord and reioyced But wee Hic fuit and therefore Blessed are they that haue not seene and yet beleeue So the generall end of all is one and the generall Inheritance for all still one Leui was vnder the Law as a tenent at will remoueable Melchisedec Christs Ministery as Freeholders Oaken-tenants Diuersitie of Orders made not diuersitie of Inheritance Tithes and Priest-hood came and goe together not Tithes and Leuies Priest-hood and therefore must not end till all Priest-hood end for Melchisedec yet liueth a Priest and taketh Tithes See part 1. c. 6. To that question then made part 1 cap. 6. Why the last § IX age of the world may not serue God without Tithes as the first two thousand yeeres did Order once setled must neuer be left The answere is euident We must neuer fall backe from Order to Confusion nor from Substance to Ceremonies This were to go backe againe from Canaan to the Flesh-pots of Aegypt from Heauen to Hel. Why may we not serue God without the Tables of the Law as they did two thousand yeeres They had the Image of that Law by nature and partly doubtlesse by Tradition so were they both by Law of Nature and Tradition prepared to a Tithing as fell out betweene Melchisedec and Abraham The first age was a time of confusion the people had no rest Deut. 12.8 c. and so small order but being once past Iordan they must not doe as of before Now are we past all the Bondages in Christ and must not go back againe to the Bound-Ages of the world Otherwise we inuert the whole method both of Creation and Redemption Creation began from darkenesse to light Euening and Morning made a day Redemption from falling to rising from beggerly rudiments of the Law to the rich reuelations of the Gospel from perishing types to eternall Verities And the Gospel againe in it selfe still growing Heb. 5.13.14 from milke for babes to strong meat for men of age We must euer grow neuer decrease Therefore Christ the first Author of Grace and perfection of all grace hath not cast all againe in the Chaos of Confusion Then seeing Nature at first freely doted The right of Tithes concluded Grace ensuing distinctly defined Iacob instructed in grace solemnely vowed Law succeeding strictly commaunded the Gospel reuiuing hath by reasons â—enued the Primitiue Churches by practise restored Tithes for Gods worship Let vs euer hold that Tithes are onely the true Inheritance of the Church flowing immediatly from God to his Ministerie in all ages as wee defined them part 1. cap. 1. The summe then of all the proofe from the Circumstance of time is Whatsoeuer is due to an eternall Priest is perpetuall by due Tithes were and are due to Melchisedec an Eternall Priest Ergo Tithes are perpetually due And by Consequent this Priest being the High-Priest of the Gospell Tithes are due to the Gospell CHAP. VIII The time of Melchisedecs first Tithing Foure doubts in his posterities Tithing To whom from whom whereof and for what vses Tithes are to be taken and imployed And if Princes may Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what TITHES thus setled as the Churches true Inheritance § I these doubts rest to be resolued How long Melchisedec Tithed First in Melchisedec and Abraham our Fundators Secondly in their succeeding posteritie In Melchisedec touching the time and continuing of his Tithing
thine Altar And now Christ the body of all taught long before he came to his sacrifice And last after him haue we Teaching without any sacrifice carnall by the Popes fauour Time first Morall in a Sabbath but thence were deriued § VII by the Law Gen. 2.3 Leuit. 25. those Ceremoniall Sabbathes of each seuenth yeere and the great Iubile of fiftie And so the Morall yet remaineth a Sabbath though not the same Indiuidual day from the Creation Place at first euery where Moral as appeareth by the Altars erected by Noah and Abraham in all their trauels Place began to be Typicall when Abrahams Altar and the offring vp of Isaac Gen. 13.3 2. Chron. 3.1 Iacobs Piller and Ornans Threshing floore Salomons Temple were all in one place on the Mount Moriah So had the Iewes at first in each Cities Synagogues and we our Churches now at libertie as at first Person first in each Family the first borne or Foris-familiat in their owne houses Quisque Episcopus domus suae They became Ceremoniall when first Moyses and Aaron Leuites Exod. 4 1◠and 28.1.41 Num. 1.47.50 and 3.6 7. secondly Leui resumed wholly by the Law Now againe we end as they began Iew and Gentile alike And so maintenance in like manner as hath beene at length touched before euer following the person and his condition All must stand as Christ left them Galath 4.9 Note then First That from the beginning all those fiue points came onely of God Secondly All fiue at Christs comming put off their Legall garments their beggerly habite of bondage and tooke on the habite of Euangelicall libertie in Melchisedec Therefore as Christ left vs them we must still keepe them 1. No adding nor detracting in Worship 2. No astricting to Persons 3. No releasing from Time 4. No limiting of Place 5. No abstracting of Maintenance CHAP. II. Paul in the generall of Maintenance Why hee spared his power in the speciall THus did Christ then and thus he spake Wee § I come next to his Apostles Their doings must needs also to haue been meane for their beginnings were yet but meane Matth. 10.25 and It is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master is at one time chiefly Melchisedec was not as yet setled in Salem that is Righteousnesse Lib. cap. 6. or Iustice had not yet wrought Peace and so Peace not graced by Religion and vnsetled Religion could yeeld no setled Maintenance This piece of comfort Christ left them Preach in euery Citie Ib. quo supra For the work-man is worthy of his meat Their Sayings are either in the Generall of Maintenance or in the speciall of Tithes yet once againe Tithes and euen in the Gospel Inf. cap. 4. In the General Paul is very much and in many places Many flourishes both from Logick and Rhetorick and on each flowre almost a swarme of Sacrilegious Waspes turning matter of hony in Venime 2. Pet. 3.16 peruerting them to their owne destruction Thus I haue saith Paul coueted no mans siluer nor golde Act 20.33 34 35. Paul in the generall of Maintenance nor apparell Yea yee know that these hands haue ministred vnto my necessities and to them that are with me I haue shewed you all things how that so labouring ye ought to Support the weake and to remember the words of the Lord Iesus how that he said It is a blessed thing to giue rather then to receiue Obiect Now if neither Gold nor Siluer nor apparell nor food but worke for all and all Preachers must striue to bee Pauls rather giue then take how then shal they take so huge a thing as Tithes No but worse then all this for if some men may 1. Cor. 4.11 all Preachers shal be Pauls to haue for almes Both hunger and thirst for clothes Nakednesse for Charitie Buffets and for harboury No certaine dwelling place all this good cheere had Paul § II Sol. Augustine But heere would that old Fathers saying doe well Distingue tempora concordabis Scripturas The truth is that when or where wee haue the Church as Paul had it Why Paul spared his power 2. Thes 3.8.9 that is vnder Peregrination and Persecution then must the Preachers be Pilgrims and Patients and yet Woe bee vnto them vnlesse they Preach So Paul tooke bread of no man for nought Why Not saith he but that we had authority Why then But because we would not be chargeable to any of you But why would hee not charge where he had authoritie to charge 1. Cor. 9 12. Neuerthelesse wee haue not vsed this power but suffer all things That we should not hinder the Gospell of Christ When Pauls example is to be followed Now take heed for if taking of that which was Pauls due would haue hindered the Gospell doubtlesse our men will rather renounce the Gospel then render the Tithes Ergo Pauls example were yet best To forbeare Tithes For answere When we are in Pauls dayes as is said we must vse Pauls deeds A man may seeke his due on a wrong day Paul was now but to plant the Gospel and that both to Iew and Gentile whose goods were alreadie taken vp for holy vses the one for obedience of Moses Law the other to their Idols Now if Paul should haue begun his reformation with Da mihi Decimas hee had made a planting indeed but with the top downeward But the Messias being once well rooted in their hearts who doubteth but then both Iew and Gentile as true Israelites the seed of Iacob would performe their Fathers Vow to these new Priests and Leuites of glad-tidings specially seeing they were to giue nothing De nouo neither yet so much as of before but onely a part of that to a right vse which of before they gaue to a wrong And if not so do yee thinke that Paul in a stablished Church-policy and peaceable State would haue neglected this authoritie which heere in so dangerous a time hee dare insinuate vnto them No in such case Paul found Canticum novum and could tell them 1. Cor. 9.1 c. He was an Apostle Hee was free He was a souldier and therefore must haue wages a Shepheard and must eat of the milke A planter of Vines and must eate of the fruit ful of allegories And when all was done alledged for him the Law comparing his Ministerie with Leui and for conclusion Let him that is taught in the Word Gal. 6.6 make him that teacheth him partaker Whereof Of all his goods How sib is this to Tithes How like to that precept Deut. 14. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake Paul then did but forbeare not forbid the power His time was not yet come But to answere Paul by Paul where should Paul lodge if Timothy were not hospitall 1. Tim. 3.2 They must be content of food and rayment 6.8 yet they must make others also wel to faire Tithes
then are the fruits for Christ setled The Magistrates in Pauls time were not Christians 2. Chron. 31. on whose power euen vnder the Law depended much the inbringing of Tithes Neither were Tithes giuen Leui straight with his seruice neither yet with the Law of Tithes The Law came Numb 18. before they were come to Canaan long but Tithes came not till the whole Land was diuided and enioyed in peace they not so much as entred the Land more then 50. yeeres after all this See Tremel Arg. on Num. Iosua CHAP. III. Pauls Generall Doctrine 1. Cor. 9. obiected against Tithes but proued for Tithes § I MAINTENANCE thus in the Generall concluded euen with consent the Question still remaineth of the Quota what the speciall must bee Paul say they neuer meant Tithes Why Because he is still onely in generall doctrine drawing conclusions from equities 1. Cor. 9. and examples where in Ten words he might more easily haue taken vp Tithes if hee had found it good Againe the matter and ground holdeth euer A Maintenance must be But the number most times includeth a Ceremony so now any other proportion as 9.8 c. may be now appointed as well as a Tenth part We answere The special of Tithes was from their beginning good til very neere Pauls Conuersion and therfore all his dispute must either end in Tithes or some other special If in Tithes then was it enough for him to refer vs to the former generals of Scripture whose special assumptions are so many times mentioned But if hee had meant any alteration then was he bound to a plainnes Act. 20 27 seeing hee saith I haue kept backe nothing but haue shewed you all the counsels of God And to proue his meaning must be Tithes let vs ponder a little these his positions till we come to plainer language He hath here a double dispute with his Corinthians one from equity of Ciuill examples The other from authoritie of former Scripture From Ciuill vers 7. in three points one from Warfaring 1. Cor. 9.7 two from Husbandrie all to one generall end Thus shortly No man goeth to warre without wages Planteth a Vine § II without eating of the fruit Feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke We fight for you we plant you we feed you Ergo Yee must furnish vs Wages Fruite and Milke This Syllogisme will bring vs to a double certaintie A Simili first of Masters secondly of Meanes Of Masters who is great Captaine of the Warres and who great Husband of the Labours Whereupon dependeth who are Souldiers and who labourers and so who are true Debters who Creditors The great Captaine is he who sendeth out his Souldiers § III the King not they whom by armes he defendeth MaintenaÌ„ce dependeth on the Master Luke 14.31 The great Husband he who setteth his seruants a work not the Vines laboured The great Shephead not the Sheepe fed This for the Masters For Meanes What and Whom to craue What for no souldier entereth himselfe waged till hee first know his wages Whom that is either Immediat or Mediat Immediat the great Captaine and King that wageth him Mediat when the souldier is cast ouer vpon the Kings people or Inheritance fought for And so in Husbandrie as Christ expoundeth his owne parable of the Housholder Matth. 20. To apply all then to our matter Our great Captaine is God Christ onely and so our Great Husband The Souldiers and Labourers not all Christians for these bee his Inheritance fought for are his Ministerie as heere Paul saith So I fight not as one that beateth the ayre Vers 26. The battell is continuall the labours endlesse therefore the wages must be perpetuall not as Ciuil warres and Wages that haue ends and vicissitudes for this Sacred Souldier must neuer leaue his calling Put hand to the plough Luke 9.62 and looke backe againe The Immediat debtor of the wages is God the great Captaine and therefore when he called Leui he said I am Immediatly thine Inheritance Num. 18.20 The Mediat Debtor is Gods Inheritance fought for his people And therefore God said Vers 21. I haue giuen Leui the Tenth of all Israel for his Inheritance So these arguments of Paul from ciuill similitudes smell either of Tithes or of nothing Followeth Pauls dispute from authoritie of Scripture Say I those things according to man 1. Cor. 8.9 Sayeth not the Law the § IV same also Heere are his Positions two-fold one General The Law applied by Paul to the Gospel Deut. 25.4 another Speciall The General is It is written in the Law of Moses Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the corne Followeth his application Doth God take care for Oxen 1. Cor. 9.10 â—ither saith he it not altogether for our sakes For our sakes no doubt it is written Behold heere Paul saith this general precept of the Law was written altogether for him and his brethren Therefore whatsoeuer portion of Gods Inheritance was deriued to Leui. being still in God must bee still for Paul and his fellow-Leuites labourers of the word or shal we thinke Paul alledged the Law to conclude neither Idem nor Eiusmodi No Leui made no bargaine with Israel he had not his calling of them and therfore not his condition by then and seeing now no man Prince or people can call the Ministery no man must measure their Maintenance It is a meere clipping of Gods wings 1. Cor. 9.12 13.14 Now come to Pauls Specials Doe yee not know that they § V that performe the holy things eat of the holy thing or things of the Temple The people in this case are neuer the masters Ergo They ought neuer to modifie the seruants means And they which waite at the Altar are partakers with the Altar Followeth Pauls application So also hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell Then yet he spareth But I haue vsed none of these things Now I aske If Paul had not spared but pressed these Lawes what particular vse could he make of them Sacrifices he could not claime Ergo Tithes or nothing But let vs marke first heere the force of his comparison then the Phrase and Emphasis of his words The comparison must haue this forme As Leui liued by the Law so must our Ministery by the Gospell Leui liued of holy things by the Law Ergo Our Ministery must liue of holy things by the Gospell His phrase of speech first in his Proposition then in his Application In the Proposition he setteth downe two sorts of holy meanes a Moral and a Ceremonial described from the diuers sorts of the seruices for which they were due The Moral by Ministring the holy things a word for all ages and all places and this hee coupleth with words for Meanes of the like nature viz. To eate of the things of the Temple Now OF is a Note of Inheritance and he
the flesh with whom Onely the comparison is instituted First as is said not onely flesh for then the onely Flesh had heere been blessed in Abraham and so Melchisedec not a Perpetuall but a Carnall type of Christ Secondly Though it had beene onely the Flesh yet not onely Leui for the reason of Leuies being Tithed heere is as true of all the Tribes as of Leui for all were alike in Abrahams loynes as Leui and if we frame not the Proposition generall thus All that were then in Abrahams loynes were tithed in Abraham Leui can no more come vnder the Assumption then the rest The cause then why Leui onely heere is specified was that his case was harder to include being Tithe-taker then his brethren payers and to subiect him being a Priest to the Priest-hood of Melchisedec as at length is noted Cap 7. § 5. As to the comparisons remeÌ„ber there be two one of Melch. with Leui this standeth wholly in dissimilibus and so all remoued from Christ the Verity of them both the other of Melchisedec and Christ both of one Order and so all things spoken of Melchisedec in the fift eleuen vers are transferred to Christ vers 13.14 c. and more then an illustrating comparison it is a demonstratiue conclusion à Typo ad Veritatem then which no Scripture yeeldeth more frequent or forcible CHAP. VI. §. V. THe Verbes vsed in both the Types as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present time of Leui notwithstanding they were dead and gone c. Obiect Not yet Leui dead and gone for in the Apostles dayes diuers Priests were still among the Iewes Answ How I vnderstand this is sufficiently set downe Cap. 6. § 6. Dead and gone they were euen then in Law though not yet buried as all the rest of their Ceremonies And if Paul had not held them then for dead He had not written this Epistle thrusting out Leui in this whole seuenth Chapter and reuiuing the Priest-hood of Melchisedec and Chap. 8.13 proclaiming both Priest-hood and Tabernacle to be finished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that he saith a new Testament he hath abrogate the olde now that which is disanulled and waxed old is ready to vanish away Ibidem S. V. THerefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed in praesenti to Melchisedec Obiect Wherefore must it No necâ—ssitie in Grammer will craue it And the reason you subioyne seemeth not of consequence to wit Seeing hee presently liueth since Tithing now 〈◊〉 not the point the Apost vrgeth but being greater Also the verb which the Apostle himselfe subioyneth is not a present but a preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which testifieth clearely if he had expressed the verbe which falleth to be repeated to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had expressed it in the same preterit time and not in the present Whereof this also may be a witnesse that vers 9. in one and the same clause speaking of Leuies Tithing he vseth the present participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and speaking of Melchisedec he vseth the foresaid preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though he would say Hee Leui that now taketh Tithes was then Tithed by Melchisedec Answ This argument is but Grammaticall and so but probable the Conclusion must rest vpon the point of Diuinitie And Si quae non prosint singula iuncta inuent Yet my Grammer-grippe was thus grounded that in one and the same enuntiation Grammarians vsually put all in the same Case Number and Times and seeing heere vers 8. Paul hath two words and so all in the present time of Melchisedec I held it good Grammer that those that were subaudite in the same verse should be of the same times too specially seeing the truth holdeth alike in both In summe thus Aaron dying Blesseth Titheth Melchisedec Liuing Blesseth Titheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then Heere is not referred to the day of Pauls writing this but to the Law and time of it and so the preterit verbs had marred nothing in Aaron if it had pleased the Apostâ—e to vse them nor yet the present verbes applied to Melchisedec Where you say the Apostles selfe subioyneth preterit verbs that is but in the 6. and 9. vers in the former prouing Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui because he Blessed and Tithed a greater person then did Leui and in the latter verse to proue that euen Leui himselfe was then Tithed by Melchisedec But heere vers 8. where his greatnesse is onely proued from Perpetuitie in Dying Tithing and Liuing Tithing heere I say Paul vseth onely verbes of the present time for perpetuall things must be euer present So Paul was Grammaticall enough in both Now to his Theologie Albeit those preterit verbes were onely proper for Melchisedec the Type who onely once Tithed Abraham yet seeing these verbes de praesenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are onely perfectly true of Christ the Veritie they must I say binde Tithing in praesenti vpon Christ If not so I would faine see clearely out of this 8. vers how Melchisedec hath any prerogatiue aboue Leui in these notes Dying and Liuing ioyned with Tithing for if we doe binde all these things vpon the onely Type then wee lose the Veritie Christ and as for the Types Leui as is said Tithing two thousand yeeres surpasseth that Melchisedecs one dayes Tithing in the prerogatiue of time Further in vâ—rtue of Christ the Verity though not yet then in the flesh yet may he be said euen then in Melchisedec his Type and Atturney to haue Tithed Abraham and by his Type Leui to Tithe vnder the Law as now when he is gone vp to the Father to Tithe vnder the Gospell as is said Chap. 6. § 10. So Tithing and Blessing are euer in Christ de praesenti how the particular practises in his Types passe de praeterito And so is hee in all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Dauids Prophecie proueth all these true euen of his Priesthood For the preterit Hee hath sworne For the Future And will not repent And fâ—r the present Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedec So Christ before his Incarnation was now is and euer shall be a Priest and therefore all accessorie to that Priesthood though not Eiusdem Ordinis Ordinationis must Blesse and Tithe euen as did the Inferiour Leuites who were not properly Sacerdotes yet ex Sacerdotio Leuitico But vers 13. as is said in the Treatise cleareth all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray how will you exclu e Tithing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing it is relatiue of all these things vrged in the whole preceding verses I confesse there be different degrees of the points compared and Blessing is aboue Tithing but the one must not thrust out the other Hac oportet facere illa non omittere yea Tithing is the very Hand-maid of Blessing for none may Blesse as Gods Minister but hee may also Tithe for
this part 7. cap. 5. § 2. adding from Nehem. 11. how they brought by lot but one man of ten to dwell at Ierusalem the nine parts liuing alwayes abroad in their Cities Seeing then onely the tenth man stayed at Ierusalem and that Tithes were their Inheritance why should this Inheritance be all carried vp and so nine parts againe downe like Post-wages according as they came and went by their courses Leuite then Num 18. from vers 20 to 25. hauing no cleare limitation nor distinction in the text must include the whole Tribe in their gift to Tithes Vers 20. He first debarreth Aarons Inheritance with Israel vers 21 and 24. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Causals as all translate For For saith he I haue giuen the children of Leui euen Aaron and all another Inheritance All the tenth of Israel Therefore seeing one and the same reason debarred all by exprâ—sse name heere from that Ciuill inheritance the same reason that is this Sacred inheritance must bee alike one and the same to all And I pray you marke the course and coherence of these texts Thou Aaron shalt haue no Ciuill Inheritance in Israâ—l vers 20. For vers 21. I haue giuen the children of Leui all the tenth of Israel What was this to Aaron that Hee must want his Inheritance because the onely inferiour Leuites had got an Inheritance vnlesse Aaron goe as a childe of Leui in that reason And Ioseph is plaine That Tithes were giuen for Leuites Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. Engl. in Vita Ios and Priest and Tribe Neither tooke I Tithes that were due to me as Priest from such as brought me them If men apply these to decimarum decimae first Ioseph was not now at Ierusalem whither these Tithes must beene brought Secondly Ioseph was no High-Priest Thirdly I neuer read those Tithes vnder one single name but still Tenthes of Tithes Otherwise the Priests had no Tithes Inheritance at all in Israel For their Decimarum decimae were not Tithes of Israel but of Leui and Leui in these accounts is no more an Israelite Indeed the Materia prima of both is one to wit the Tenth of Israel g uen to Leui whereof they againe gaue the other tenth but in Person Place and End they wholly differ and in these onely differences standeth the true difinition of what is M ral or Ceremonial Perpetual or Temporal in them Then the text giueth vs those two Syllogismes first All Tithes inheritance are payd by Israel to Leui. ver 21.24 Tenth of Tithes are not payd by Israel to Leui but by Leuie to Aaron 26. Ergo Tenth of Tithes are not Tithes-inheritance Againe The children of Leui had this inheritance giuen them All Priest were the children of Leui. Ergo All Priests had this Inheritance giuen them And for confirmation Deut. 18.1 The Priestes of the Leuits and all the Tribe of Leui shall haue no part nor inheritance with Israel but shall eate of the offerings of the Lord made by fire and his inheritance And Ezech 44 28. The Priesthood is their Inheritance And Iosu 13.14 Onely to the Tribe of Leui gaue he no inheritance Ergo as the whole Tribe was frustrate so the whole Tribe was supplied by this new inheritance Tithes But if we distinguish not according to other Scriptures those Offerings from the proper Inheritance we shall confound all for many oblations might the Priests and their males onely eate of and no inferior Leuit some might not remaine vneaten till to morrow but all tied to the Temple onely and Ierusalem So such Priests to wit nine for one as liued dispersed could not liue by those oblations So those oblations were not their inheritance They must haue no inheritance with or among Israel sayth the text yet must they liue mixed with and among Israel therefore their proper Inheritance must run dispersed with and among Israel and not confined to so small a part of Israel as onely Ierusalem But saith not Paul plainly Heb. 7. The sonnes of Leui receiuing the Priesthood haue a command to Tithe the people Is not here the command of Tithing directly giuen to the sonnes Priests and to take from the people Ergo Tithes are inheritance to Priestes as well as Leuites And yet Master Selden Reuiew pa 454. in it would proue from this same place of Paul that Priests were not partners in these first Tithes But what if this decima decimarum were not properly primò due to the Priests as Mr. Selden seemeth to auouch but to the high Priest The text bids directly giue it to Aaron the high Priest Numb 18.26 28. The beginning of the Chap from ver 8. to 20. he ioineth euer Aarons sons with himselfe as partners of all the oblations of the other Tribes but in this offering of decima decimarum we read no such compartnership not that I doubt but the sonnes of Aaron this Ceremony being performed might thereafter partake in and by him of this offering but the reason and Analogie of this in my iudgement is That as all the Tribes hauing Barne wine-presse must pay first that first Tith inheritance to the tribe of Leui before they durst put hand in their nine parts remaining so the Tribe of Leui must out of his inheritance giue a tenth also answering his Barnes and Wine-presses But to exempt all Priests from this were first to exempt the best though not the greatest part of that Tribeâ— from acknowledging God by an Offering as did the rest Secondly It giueth Leui a prerogatiue aboue all the rest of the Tribes voyd both of precept and reason The Earth is the Lords the fulnes thereof So the possessors of it acknowledge God by giuing their Tithes Tithes are yet a degree more holy to the Lord being made the generall Inheritance of his Ministers and Leuits but Their Tenths againe holiest of all proceeding from an holy Person the Tribe of Leui out of Holy Barnes and wine-presses the Tithes to holiest persons the High-priests at onely holy Place the Temple Now if it be asked how Aaron shall passe here who is still the Receiuer I answere Vltra Summum Nihil And as Aaron had that transcendent power onely he to offer that yeerly expiatory sacrifice for Prince people and himselfe too so by the same power might hee receiue in name of God the offrings of all subordinat to him and for them and himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfill and perfect all those points in his owne person And so albeit the other Priests all those points being duely performed might eate and partake of this Offering in the prerogatiue of Priesthood and Sonne-ship of Aaron yet prima instantiâ and in mounting the scale of this precept they are but Offerers not Receiuers You see Reader how loath we are to loose our interest in Tithes euen from the Law but remember still the law is neither our whole nor sole ground Then let mee aske Who gaue Tithes to Melchis dec Abraham
and comprehend not Herbs vnder that name They deliuer indeede that by Tradition from their Fathers all things growing out of the earth and fit for mans meat are Titheable c. But it seemeth saith Selden well that for this paiment of Herbs the Pharisees were of the truer side from Luke and Mathew allowed by Christ Here now is proued our Historia fallax by M. Seldens owne consent Therefore Out of M. Seldens iust obseruation here against Talmud would I aske leaue to affirme that the proofes from Talmud in others points of Tithing alleadged by him or Scaliger are not to goe for sure grounds seeing himselfe hath found them so erroneus in this And that it is no sure course of arguing the true intent of Precept by the sinistrous extent of Practise For although we had not here Christs latter approbation of that Tithing against the records of Rabbins yet the very Precepts themselues being well pondered will include all such Herbs and much more For euen that place Deut 26.12 Thine encrease Who taught the Talmudists that encrease here must signifie onely Mans meate Why should not Tithing be extended in this Text to all Encreasing And Leuit 27.30 All the Tithe of the Earth of the seede of the Earth of the fruite of the Tree is holy vnto the Lord Is there not much seede of the Earth that is not mans meat Seede here is not onely what by our Sowing commeth but also whatsoeuer by Gods firsts Blessing of all Creatures bringing foorth the kinde History of all times confirmeth this for Hay Hempe Oates Mines Quarries and the like haue beene subiect to Tithing as Selden hath obserued yea euen his Ruticilia Ruta caesa Chap 1. § 1 et chap 4. § 2. And true Analogie warranteth History For the Tribe of Leui was to bee supplied in euery their necessitie out of all that the Earth yeelded the other Tribes for their necessities This made Ierom interpret that of Num 18. In vsus et necessaria eorum separaui All the Tithe of the Earth againe may well enough include all Trade-encrease euen where no Seede-encrease is The Earth beareth All both vs and for vs. So whatsoeuer the Earth bringeth vs by way of Encrease yeerely of that wee owe a yeerely portion to God out of a tenth proportion And in this sense may we say Vbi Nummus nummum gignit nummus nummum soluet as Selden hath well obserued in the State of Venice where no Prediall Tithes are and therefore Selicha 7. §. 3. pag. 164. Chap. 7. §. 3. Personall due Now come we to M. Seldens Historie of the Opinions touching the Right of Tithes the third Article of his title handle in his seuenth Chapter § 3 c. and concerneth most our purpose The chiefe question saies Selden among the Diuines comes to this Whether by Gods immediate Morall Law the Euangelicall Priesthood haue a right to Tithes as to their Inheritance in equall degree as the Laie man hath to his Nine If euer Tiths were due by Gods immediate Morall Law they must be euer so this is sure Then our recourse must still be in examining by what Law Tithes were at first due All Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had euer Tithes Before Law by Practise Tradition Instinct of Gods Spirit Vnder Law by written Law agreeable to the former practise Whether both those were Morall Iudiciall or Ceremoniall wee shall heare anone And so what euer prerogatiue those Lawes gaue the Priesthood aboue the Laitie the same still remaineth The Tenth was euer first to be paied else the nine parts were not the Lay-mans Ibid. Or if saies Selden they haue Tithes onely as by humane Positiue Law and so giuen them for their spirituall labours that is in briefe Whether by originall distributiue iustice or by commutatiue they are payable How Kingdomes are by their owne Lawes Positiue seetled in Tithes is one thing and how they should be another thing And their so great differences among themselues argueth infallibly that they haue varied from the true foundation As to Iustice Distributiue and Commutatiue they hold alike also from the beginning euen in Leui vnder the Law all had the tenths for their Spirituall labour distributed vnto them and so hath the Gospell now As for that Title Humane Positiue Law we must haue a good ground to proue how Diuine Positiue Law which onely doted Tithes to Leui did resigne them vnder the power of Humane Positiue Law for the Gospell Here be strange odds Ibid. But the first opinion was sayes Selden That the Tenth considered quoad quotam partem c. is due onely by Law Positiue and Ecclesiasticall but quoad substantiam suam or Cleri sustentationem c. it is due by the Diuine Morall Law And to the purpose of this distinction they interprete the Leuiticall commandements of Tithes quoad substantiam and quoad quotam The quota being but a Iudiciall or as some will a Ceremoniall Law c And what a strange Distinguo is this to diuide the Tenth and quota as if both were not one The strongest Mathematicall imaginary abstraction cannot seperate them Maintenance indeed generally and so is their meaning may be free of a quota but a Tenth cannot But who taught them that Maintenance was Morall Diuine and the quota but Positiue and Ecclesiasticall Finde they any such trickes in the two Testaments What Positiue Law gaue Tithes to Melchisedec M. Seld ib. pag. 157. ad finem Because forsooth the Maintenance say they of the Ministerie in Generall is Morall or Naturall there being according to consideration of it se farre the very Character of it written in the Tables of mens hearts that is that Spirituall labourers are to be rewarded with temporall bountie as euery labourer is worthy of his hire But quoad quotum it is but a Iudiciall or Ceremoniall Law c. Heere haue wee three Lawes to ponder and to couche our Tithes vnder some one of them Tithes to be Ceremoniall is but a Ceremonie and as soone done as spoken no man euer durst offer a proofe for it To be Iudiciall they cannot First because that practise of Abraham and Vow of Iacob can neuer bee brought within the compasse of the Iewish Iudiciall Law no I say further within no Law meerely or onely Iewish Consider it well Yea Tithes Legally enacted as I doe thinke cannot bee properly Iudiciall For their Iudiciall Lawes properly so called and without mixture did concerne chiefly their Ciuill Common-wealth and so all the Tribes alike But the Law of Tithes went in fauours of onely Leui a Law proper and peculiar to the Priest-hood before and then to to All Priest-hood Melchisedechicall and Aaronicall Euangelicall and Legal Now how can either Melchisedec or Aaron come vnder the Iudiciall Law It is more then I haue yet obserued if the Iudicial Law gaue any order for the Priest-hood yea the Change of the Priest-hood made a change of the Law Heb. 7.12 Melchisedec
the question de iure should haue beene equally related The alleadging of so weake grounds as this Chap 10. pa. 273. and that Tale of Austen the first Bishop of Cantâ—rbury in Coniuring at a Masse of two dead persons for the none paiment of Tithes made the Clergy and many fauourers of Ius Diuinum suspect M. Seldens iudgement therein Whatsoeuer reasons moued him to silence in the stronger arguments himselfe best knoweth but what he of himsel e ingeniously protesteth herein I charitably beleeue and haue therefore more boldly added to his History my opinion de iure both which being mixed I hope shall both satâ—sfie him and setle others in the trueth But to say some thing for this Penitentiall if it find but a fauourable construction the matter in the maine touching Tithes being a Trueth though it be not in each point Demonstrable yet in many it is very Probable and so neither wholly ly Impudent nor blindnesse To trode Tithes then vp as neare as may be euen to Adam from the Law Consider first Tithes are giuen Leui by precept Numb 18.21 God gaue them as His of before for in the twentie verse hee said I am his inheritance How then finde we them in God Leuit 27.30 All the Tithe of the earth c. I S not shall be the Lords IS importeth yet a former Title And wee finde long before Tithes of All Vowed by Iacob This was no Legall Vow that is pendens ex arbitrio but Morall as he euen then Vowed God should be his God then Iacob must yet deriue it from a former Morall ground This found Iacob of three Generations standing in his Grandfather Abrahams paiment to Melchisedec See how neare we creepe to Adam Wee are like Ianus already on both sides of the world before and after the flood if Sem was Melchisedec as Selaens selfe seemes to hold But how came Abraham by this Either sure by a present instinct and Reuelation with Melchisedec or either by Education and Tradition from God and his forebears For as in the destruction of Sodom God said Gen. 18.17.19 Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I doe c. For I knowe him that he will command his sonnes and his household after him that they keepe the way of the Lord c. Now seeing God here in this present action against that same Sodom whose King Abraham had of late deliuered and paied Tithes on the point of his victory professeth that hee taught Abraham how to behaue himselfe and how to instruct others in matters of Gods seruice What Impudency or Blindnesse is it to ascribe also that Tithing after that victory to proceed from Gods instruction and Fatherly Education from Family to Family And if God taught Abraham so farre now come in the world shall we thinke he neglected to teach his immediat son Adam Or that Cain and Abel brought foorth In processe of time their sacrifices as by a present Reuelation and not either by a preceeding Instruction doubtlesse that same Processe of time argueth euidently a Training and Education in Gods worship Fides ex auditu euer Ordinarily Neither was this Penitentiall the first nor onely warrant ascribing this to that time M. Selden cap. 1. §. 3. For M. Selden had obserued euen from Tertullian that Cains Offering was not regarded because quod Offerebat non rectè diuidebat The Text giueth vs a sure warrant that Cains offering was wrong but whither in quoto or modo or both we haue freedome of Coniecture I would thinke he erred in all He was a stiffe-necked lewe in his manners a Niggard-hearted Iewe in his portion And seeing euen his Septuagints whom else where he so much vrgeth in this question read that of Gen 4.7 in that same sense of not diuiding aright the quantitie let vs either trust them so farre here or not be tied to them hereafter in other Scriptures Things then being so I had rather partake of this Penitentials alleadged Impudency and Blindnesse in vrging a Truth for the Church then of such Diuines Impudent and Imprudent boldnesse in purging the Church of Tithes without either Law or example of Scripture And so much for M. Seldens Historicall relation of the Diuines opinion touching Ius diuinum in Tiâ—hs The next thing I find coÌ„siderable concerning my grounds is a Counsell he giueth by way of two questions in his Reu. his 1. question thus Now me thinkes saith he Hee that argueth for Tithes from the Mosaicall Lawes of Tithing had neede more specially M. Selden Reuiew pa 455. lin vlt then any I haue yet seene hath neere done examine which of the two kindes are due in the Euangelicall Priesthood Why not the second as well as the first If by First and Second hee meanes as I take it the first Tithes due for Leui his maintenance the second Tithe due for the Feasts according to his owne diuision then the reason is cleare why the first must be due the second not to the Gospell The First Tithe not from onely vertue of Mosaiâ—all Law as often hath beene said but taking it in with better company we may well make vp this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer was giuen as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Leuitical Priesthood must be also the maintenance of the Euangelicall Priesthood But Tithes were giuen as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Leuiticall Priesthood Ergo. Tithes must bee also the maintenance of the Euangelicall Priesthood The assumption is cleare for Melchisedec Gen. 14. and Heb. 7. and by the whole course of the Law for Leui. The Proposition is strongly connected because the Melchisedecian Priesthood directly includeth the Euangelicall Otherwise we ouerthrow the whole Tipe and Veritie both Wee turne all to a naked History of Gen. 14. We belie Dauids Prophecy Psal 113. We disclaime Pauls Aitiologie Allegory and Anagogicall application of all to Christ Heb 7. But that that second Tith cannot now haue place is cleare because Principio Obiecto Fine that is in all respects they were meerely Ceremoniall hauing for End these typicall Feasts abolished by Christ for Place onely the Temple at Ierusalem For Persons the Iewish householders were the chiefe eaters All these are not onely mortua but euen mortifera for our times M. Selden Ibid. His second question is And futher to consider also how the payement of Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospell succeeds the payment from the Leuites to the sonnes of Aaron To this I haue I hope proued That Tithes are giuen for Inheritance to the whole Tribe of Leui as well Priests as Inferiour Leuites and so though the Inferiours might be the seruile receiuers leauiers yet the whole Priesthood was partner in the maine so the Iewish Laitie paied their Tithes euen to the Leuiticall Priesthood As for the point of Succession in this First the Leuites paied onely decimam decimarum the Tenth of Tithes to Aaron not to Aarons sonnes as wee haue proued
Now this Tithe was meerly Ceremoniall being first an Heaue Offering 2. tied onely to the High-Priest in Person and 3. to Ierusalem for Place Ergo not due now Secondly no proper Succession of the Gospell to the Law onely tempore neither in Person astricted to a Tribe not in the same nature or Order of Priesthood the true Succession is Melchisedec to Melchisedec where all things past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Promise not Rom. 4.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the law so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bringeth in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The intervening Law was but as a droppe yet of Diuine water too in the bottome of a bason appointed for a time to distinguish to diuide nay rather to drawe on and ioyne two streames of approching Grace the Promises and their Performances which meeting this droppe was quite swallowed vp by their fulnesse what it had of the first Fountaine common with those two Streames Naturall or Morall that was still retained being onely graced with new Euangelicall garments What it had in the propertie of a Partition wall Rites and Ceremonies all euanished as Mercurie from the fire So Tithes Inheritance being of the first Fountaine common Morall to all these Water-workes of Gods worship and therefore mixed with that Droppe of the Law could neuer be dried vp but recouer so much greater strength by the meeting of those two Streames as the Performances surpasse the Promises and the Gospell the Law But saies Selden these considerations can onely be M. Selden Ibid. where the knowledge of Fact proceeds For without distinction of these seuerall Tithes any argument drawen from them may soone be found a grosse fallacy that may both deceiue him which maketh it and those whom he teacheth Let the ingenuous Reader thinke of it Of this position would I faine haue a better reason then I can perceiue for our question for who will think that the truth of Diuine precept must rely vpon knowledge of Fact specially when the Fact must be trusted to Fabulous authors in many things Indeed when the Fact is recorded in the Tables of the Precept there may a man argue reciprocally a Causis ad effecta and contra But to bring in Talmud Targum M. Selden Reuiew p. 55 and Gemara to teach vs from what they say was done what should beene done by the Law it is in my iudgement quite out of square For first I may iustly doubt if their relation be true because we all haue found them in some erroneous viz in Tithing Herbs as aforesaid and in confounding the Lords frequent Precepts of keeping so many holy Feasts yeerely and thrice a yeere in a Leape-yeere each third yeere and so making the Tithes for Feasts not paieable each third yeere Certainely if I belieue those men in any thing it shal be more for reuerence of the Text then their Tales Secondly though their relation of the Fact were true in their times yet might it be much degenerate from the former ages Buxtorfus de opere â—almudico For the eldest of them wrote as some hold but at the Captiuitie of Babylon and there writes as we haue them but collected and receiued hundreds of yeere since Christ Thirdly Facts truely recorded doe not alwayes argue Lawes truely exâ—cuted Else the two High-Priests at Christs time must be good in Law because true in Fact and not condemned by any reproach in Scripture other then tacitely in the meaning of the Law at first giuen It is true the not distinguishing of one Tithe from another hath made men confound all and take the Morall for the Ceremoniall But whence I pray shall we draw our true distinction from the Text or Talmud Whether shall the Text tell Talmud what Tithes were to bee payed or Talmud tell vs what Tithes the Text should haue enioyned So Tithes are by Scripture most clearely distinguished and by Talmud meerely confounded Thus farre Reader haue I for thee trod the pathes of Mr. Seldens Historie of Tithes adding my owne Simple iudgement De Iure Both may stand together in regard of my plaine Positions from Scripture for the one and his owne Protestations that he meant nothing to the contrarie in his Historie Yea I ascribe it to Gods speciall prouidence that He and I should at one time as twinnes from one belly both come forth together and that I who as I take it was by conception the Esau and elder brother in this businesse yet in our birth should proue a Iacob catching his Historie as it were by the heele lest the incurious Reader as is said by too hot hunting the wilde Historie might defraud Iacob that is the Promises and Gospell of their due Primogeniture in the Right of Tithes My last aduice then is That howsoeuer Historicall varietie may delight thine eare yet let onely Scripture-Verity leade thine heart and direct thy Conscience to the Conclusion in things pertaining to God to whose Blessing I doe recommend these my Labours for thy Edification Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉