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
and of what things he got Tithes Once hee got sure it is and this Once in all his actions we haue found euer obligatorie of the posteritie typed in Mechisedec and Abraham It continued not because we reade neuer that Abraham or any of his met any more with Melchisedec and so hereafter Abraham neuer met with so good a Priest as himselfe Heere then was but a Nuncupation a Fundation of Priest-hood and Maintenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things began to be Orderly with Melchisedec But to be of Melchisedecs peculiar Order viz. Eternal this ceased on earth from this time til the law in his order both came and ceased and Christ the perfection of this Order and all Orders came So of Melchisedecs Order we haue but two Persons Melchisedec Type and Priest Christ Verity and High-Priest Againe it could not lasts for Tithes as is said require necessarily setled Religion Abraham was heere a stranger among Infidels He gaue Tithes as hee found the Priest let vs doe the like So heere Grace prepared the way to the Law by Gods good order because Grace must deliuer vs froÌ„ the Law by the same Order Now whereof Melchisedec got Tithes because it concerneth also the Posteritie we will there answer it And this for the doubts in our FuÌ„dators § II In the Posteritie we haue those questions to answere anent Tithing To whom Tithes due To what persons giuen From what persons taken Of what things taken And for was vses In all which hauing once found the Person giuer viz. God we shal easily finde the rest for he giueth for al respects And That onely God gaue Tithes It is cleere first in that action of Melchisedec and Abraham whose doings though they passed in the prerogatiue of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without either recorded law or like example yet no man will deny but that their calling was powerfull in the Spirit and so far aboue Law as this one action was a Law for euer Againe God hauing heere giuen Tithes to his Eternall Priest vnder the Law hee also giueth them to his Temporal Priests and Ministers So we haue heere two lessons First Tithes are pendicles of Priests not of Princes For though Melchisedec and Christ were both Princes and Priests yet are Tithes onely annexed to their Priest-hood Heb. 7. But to be plainer and neither wrong Prince nor Priest § III It is one question to say How Princes may Tithe Whether may Kings take a Tenth for their necessities Another Whether Kings may take Tithes Gods Inheritance Decimam Sacram from his Church or no For the first they will alledge 1. Sam. 8.15 And we see Princes daily lift lawfully subsidies of all proportions 10. 15. for maintenance of their estate yea our bodies our liues are liable hereto also But wonder it is that some learned should alledge this place of Samuel Pareus in Heb. 7. as a surrender of Gods right in Tithes vnto kings after Leui seeing Samuel speaketh heere onely of the Kings of the Iewes such as liued ioyntly with Leui vnder the Law Perkins in Iude. who neither did nor durst touch Leuies Tithes Kings then may Tithe but God must Tithe Neuer religious King thought otherwise nor neuer King had further authority for if any then doubtlesse vnder the Law But there Hezekiah our best rarest example setteth downe a patterne for all his posteritie Hee commandeth his people to pay Tithes to Leui according to the Law 2. Chron. 3â— hee maketh no new Law hee questioneth with the Priests and Leuites anent the heapes he causeth build chambers for the heapes but putteth neuer his hand in the heapes he leaueth that to the distribution of the Leuites for whom they were ordained For our Patro-Latrons were not then hatched Neither meane I but that a Princes need may bee such that Leui in dutie may and must yeeld him a portion as the Priest gaue Dauid the Shew bread 1. â—am 21.6 and Mat. 12.4 but let it come by Leui for auoiding of Sacrilege But why our Scottish Leuites can so little helpe their Dauid Cap. vlt. a Prince of so rare both Reformation and Religion shall be quickly knowne § IV Our second lesson floweth from the former The Positiue Law of Princes is not the fundamentall ground as many thinke tying Tithes to the Church Kings no fundators of Tithes No doubtlesse Gods Law led our forbeares Christian Kings and Churches so to doe For at first Tithes were either Morall or Ceremoniall If Morall Then all Kings are but Hezekiahs commanding to pay them according to the Law But if Ceremoniall then it is no lesse superstition now to restore them then it was Sacrilege then to refuse them For nothing that typed Christ as a Ceremonie may be reuiued after Christ in his Church The persons owners then in both Melchisedec and Leui were onely Ecclesiasticks Priests and Leuites all those to whose charge the Ministration of Gods worshippe was in any sort committed Filij Prophetarum Whereof it must follow that all and onely the Ministrie of the Gospel must liue by Tithes By Ministery I meane not onely the Preacher of the Word but also all and whatsoeuer inferiour Officers hauing warrant for their special callings in the Church else wee haue not both Priests and Leuites 2. King 2.3.5 4.38 42. 6.1 as Esay prophecied of the dayes of the Gospel And this of Esay must signifie Priests by Church-calling Cap. 66.21.1.2 9. Ministers not generally as Peter termeth all Christians a Royall Priest-hood § V Now whereas some hold that our Preachers may not answere the Priests Our Preachers answer to the Priests but onely the inferiour Leuites I see no warrant for it For if it be for their different Sacrifices from ours the name will neuer import the seruice out of the owne period of time but still such Priest such Sacrifice otherwise it should bind a carnall Sacrifice on Melchisedec the Type We answere those Priests then Genere not Specie Againe the inferior Leuites were by Calling as Ceremonial as Priests And our Preachers labour in Word and Sacraments resemble more the Priests seruices then that of the Leuites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Paul of the Priests 1. Cor. 9.13 very competent to our Ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.16 And the Gospel hath also the owne inferiour officers who may better answere to the inferiours of the Law Then All of Church-Calling must liue by the Church-Kitchin Away then with those Laick Bishops Parsons Priors § VI Patrons c. Such Patroni are Latrones Patro-Latrons But if the Church-Inheritance must go by the presentation of Laicks then let Lordships goe by the presentation of Leuites So shall we haue on both sides a perfect Hurlyburly-gouernment till each haue his due Tithes are the Churches Inheritance flowing from God Then in generall no man can present them and in particular Hezekias as
is said left the distribution to Leui himselfe Gods end and Mans are heere quite contrary God gaue Leui a Maintenance from himself and free of mans option to be lifted before man should meddle with any thing to no other end Hebr. 13.17 but as Hezekiah said That they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord not to please the Laird or my Lord. That he should not stumble at such a huge-stone as How shall I liue That they may dâ—e it with ioy and not with greefe Deut. 33.9 Hee must misknow Father and Mother Brothers his owne childe when Gods cause is in hand as he did Exod. 32.27 28. Philip. 3.8 He must count all things dung for Christs sake But mans end is to asseruile the Gospell to his vile appetites And what greater argument to make a man speake as they please Then to be able to make him to eate as they please It is a sore sub ferula when Leuies portion was not giuen euery one fled to his Land Nehem. 13.10 And this maketh now many a poore Leuite yet weaker then poore engage the Gospel for his dinner And this pride against Gods Inheritance maketh many a Gut-Gospeller sell his owne inheritance to buy Tithes and in end is turned out of both And this for the persons owners of Tithes § VII The Persons payers Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec What persons must pay Tithes was a type of all his seed of his flesh and of his Faith then no flesh can scape The Law commanded all Israel to giue Leui Tithes and Leui himselfe escaped not Melchisedec All for whom Leui serued in the Tabernacle of the Congregation payed to Leui. Therefore all to whom Christ is preached pay Tithes to Christs Ministerie There is but one Dichotomie heere of the whole world either an Israelite or a Leuite An Ecclesiastick or a Laick sauing our Mungerall Gospellers as is said the next head shall make this more cleare § VIII Of what things Tithes are to be payed now Abraham gaue of ALL What things to be Tithed Gen. 14. Iacob Gen. 28. vowed to giue of all that God gaue him The Law in the time of the diuiding of the Land setteth downe chiefely that which commeth by and of the Land viz. Tillage and Pasturage and these Tithes are now commonly called Praediales Decimae Decimae praediales But Iacobs Vow and Abrahams practise teach vs that All includeth as well all trades as all persons for euery man is not a labourer of ground a Cain a keeper of cattell an Abel The Iewish Repub. went no further for that time But the Author to the Hebrewes chap. 7. vers 2. giueth first Of all and vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most men interpret Spoiles Where I wonder why some learned quarrell it as improper Deut. 20.1 2 3. seeing one point of Leuies office was to encourage in time of warre And seeing of the battels and of the Spoiles 1. Chro. 26.27 they did dedicate to maintaine the house of the Lord. Seeing God is by special name The Lord of Hostes And seeing the Ministery of the Gospell yet serueth much at warre where huge armies haue no calling but the warres shall all bee exempted from Tithes No euery man as hee gaineth he giueth proportionably and these are called Decimae Personales Decimae Personales and such in effect were all Abrahams Tithes for his came after a battell not after Tillage or Cattell And this personall Tithing is cleared by the Apostle saying Let him that is instructed in the Word this wil bring in euery soule hauing goods and receiuing instruction c. And if not so the one halfe if not the best halfe of the world shall go free for all mens goods stand not in Tillage or Pasturage All then must either pay or be payed for for seruants children and such like come not in count but housholders and Foris samiliats as Deut. 26.13 But God hath laid a course of such perpetuall equity and equalitie in all points and for all persons that nothing can go wrong if we go not from it Al persons must pay therefore no emulation for exception of persons All things as their encrease is must pay so Gods seruice shall lacke nothing necessary Once a yeere pay so no man is preuented nor precipitate for the yeeres reuolution giueth a recreation to all and whatsoeuer Trades And albeit Abraham said to the King of Sodom that § IX he would take nothing that was his yet Gods part was neither his nor his Neither had Abraham so much to giue of his owne for the time as of these Kings and Lots goods whom hee deliuered and of these others Kings goods Gen. 14. whom hee ouercame as the Historie beareth Now if hee gaue Tithes for their goods it must bee Spoyle for all came to Abraham Iure belli And if Spoiles then battels and warres are obliged to Tithing If warres and souldiers what trade can escape And though we say Spoiles it excludeth not Abrahams owne estate euen by the text for first Genesis hath Of all secondly Heb 7.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of all things So if Abraham had he gaue But vers 4. Paul addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of purpose as it seemeth to me to oblige warre as well as peace to this most solemne Nuncupation of Tithes to the Eternall Priest-hood of Melchisedec § X On the King of Sodoms words to Abraham Giue mee the persons Sodome a thankefull souldier and take the goods to thy selfe Wee haue two things to marke first it seemeth the King of Sodome had no ill meaning to grudge at Abrahams giuing Tithes to Melchisedec as most men vnderstand him for he had no reason seeing Abraham had restored to him all his people and goods yea euen himselfe to himselfe Chrysostome seemeth to take the place better applying it to the thankfulnesse in the King of Sodome who seeing God worke for him by Abrahams hand what himselfe could not doe and seeing Melchisedec the Priest of Abrahams God seale vp this victory in so powerfull and solemne manner the King then said to Abraham Giue mee the persons and take the goods to thy selfe If we should say heere Ambrose making 318. Vernus of Abraham types of these 318. Bishops of the Councell of Nice stretcheth the text much further That the King of Sodome might serue as a type of the Gentiles called to the Faith of Abraham who were neuer of Abrahams flesh it were no great absurditie for Sodome heere being but Lots neighbour by dwelling is made Lots brother in blessing hee enioyed fully the temporal blessing of the present victorie hee heard effectually the future blessings of Eternal felicitie sealed vp in Abraham and all his posteritie Flesh and Faith and so euen for Sodom himselfe when he should take him to the tents of Sem And should this man who had lost all both soules and substance and againe got all
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉