Apostles by diuers precepts prouided for the poore but chiefly for those of the houshold of Faith Gal. 6.10 1. Cor. 16.1 and late Writers hold this to answere those Tithes for the poore This was called afterward by Moyses Deut. 26.12 The yeere of Tithing because this third yeere encreased one Tithing aboue the other two And such were Tithes payed by the Israelites followeth now The fourth sort of Tithes payed by Leui the Tithe-taker § VII to Aaron and his successors High-Priests The fourth sort of Tithes Num. 18.26 28. When ye shall take of the children of Israel the Tithes which I haue giuen you of them for your inheritance then shall yee tâ—ke an Heaue-offering of the same for the Lord the tenth part of the Tithe Behold heere Tithe-takers become Tithe-payers and so these Tithes cannot bee the Lords inheritance being defectiue in two of the generall notes agreeing to Gods inheritance viz. Person and Place in Person Vers 28. because they are payed by the Ordinary Officiar of receiuing Inheritance Leui to the onely High-Priest In Place Nehem. 10. â—8 And the Leuites shall bring vp the tenth part of the Tithes vnto the house of our God vnto the Chambers of the Treasure-house Now if all Tithes were brought vp to Ierusalem to what end should hee heere command to bring vp the tenth of them again Al this is ceremonial But marke yet Then it shall be counted vnto the Leuites as the encrease of the corne-floore or as the encrease of the wine-presse Then Tithes inheritance can no way be Ceremonial for heere they are to the Leuites euen as the Land was to the other Tribes And Leui giueth offrings viz. as first fruits Num. 18.11.12.13.27.29 Exod. 22.29 and so doth Ierome translate this place Primitias out of his Tithes as if they were his very Barnes his Wine-presse euen as the other Tribes did of their Barnes and Wine-presses Their offerings were all Ceremoniall their Inheritances not § VIII Obiect If they obiect The Policie and possessions of the whole Tribes were but Temporall and ended at Christ Ergo So must Leuies Inheritance Sol. We answere both ended on their parts but neither on Gods God hath yet the same generall interest in Canaan that he had from the beginning for Domini est terra plenitudo eius And the same peculiar interest in his owne patrimonie separated to his owne seruice If they yet reply The other Tribes were onely Temporall but Leui both Temporall and Ceremoniall Ergo So were Tithes his Inheritance Heere a peece of sacrilegious Sophistrie to conclude from His Priest-hood to Gods Patrimonie They are not of one nature nor both the sonnes of one father His Priesthood bred onely by the Law This Patrimonie long before both Leui and the Law His Priest-hood bringeth with it only Aetatem but this inheritance Aeternitatem That sort of Priest-hood was Leuies onely this sort of Patrimony was his also but not onely his And so in the diuision of the Land God said not This shall be Leuies inheritance Num. 18.20.22.24 but I am his inheritance And I haue giuen not I will giue Leui all the Tithes They were but Leuies secundariô they were and are the Lords primò Hauing setled the Tenth of Tithes in Aaron he subioyneth § IX vers 31. And yee shall eate it in all places c. This IT cannot be the Tenthes of Tithes as some gesse but it must bee Tithes Inheritance For first otho the Hebrew Pronoune is Masculine and must be Relatiue to Prouentuâ— area in the former verse which in the remainder was Tithes inheritance as the learned may perceiue Secondly Yee shall eate is spoken here to the Leuites but what reason had they to eate the Priests portions which themselues were to pay them Thirdly In all places cannot agree with things once tied to Aaron and Ierusalem vnlesse we dreame they carried them backe againe to all the places of their residence thorow the Countrey The true meaning then is this As the other Tribes must first giue God his Tithes before they might vse their nine parts so must Leui giue to Aaron his Tithe before hee put hand to Tithes his Inheritance And this done Tithes Inheritance were accounted vnto Leui as the encrease of their owne Barnes and Wine-presses though they had none and so they might eat them in all the places of their trauels Thus haue we brought these confounded matters to a method and sent each Tithe to his owne place But wonder it is to see the strange subtiltie of Sacrilege seated once in the hearts of men how they can alledge those texts Bring all the Tithes to Gods house to conclude this Bring no more Tithes to the Lords house for doubtlesse if it were not more for loue of the Tithes then the Text this Theologie should neuer be so frequent CHAP. IV. Tithes not Ceremoniall of their nature How to discerne a Morall offering from a Ceremoniall Tithes a Morall offering § I THe Text we see is full of Tithes and Tithes full of tentation to hungrie-zealed men Sacri Sacra fames so that we shall sooner solue their Syllogismes then dissolue their Sacrilege From the Institution of Tithes to Leui they reason two wayes First from their Nature Secondly from their End From their Nature thus All offerings of the children of Israel vnder the Law were Ceremoniall Tithes euen Inheritance were offered by Israel vnder the Law Ergo Tithes Inheritance were Ceremoniall And consequently cannot be due to the Gospell The Proposition they take The Assumption they proue thus For the Tithes of the Children of Israel Num. 18.24 which they shall offer as an Offering some reade Heaue-offering vnto the Lord I haue giuen the Leuites for an Inheritance Tithes by nature not Ceremoniall We confesse the Assumption truely read But because of the diuersitie of Translations we must looke vnto the Originall word and distinguish it in the Proposition Two Hebrew words Rum and Nuph are vsed by Moyses in diuers sorts of offerings the first signifying to Heaue or lift vp the second to Waue or shake to and fro Sometimes these words retaine their simple and common signification though the subiect bee sacred sometimes they import a meere Leuiticall Ceremony tending and ending in Christ For example Exod. 14.16 Lift thou vp thy rod c. Deut. 8.14 Lest thy heart be lifted vp c. Here is the first word without any Ceremony For the second word Exod. 20.25 In building the Altar a thing Deut. 27.5 both Sacred and Ceremoniall hee forbiddeth to lift vp or shake a Masons toole or instrument for hewing of it Heere was no Ceremonial end in Lifting but only God would haue these Altars during the time of their peregrination so built as they might be easily ouerthrowne and not serue for the superstition of others after their departure Exod. 35.21 c. Are both words vsed How to discerne the Ceremony and
§ V They say that this Vow doth but bind vs to a maintenance in generall Tithes in quoto are not of the Law but not the same in quoto I answere Such Analogicall equities hold euen from the most Ceremoniall things of the Law to the Gospell But such things as are neither Ceremoniall nor clearely institute ad tempus or arbitrium binde the things themselues vpon vs and we haue shewed that neither Type Ceremonie nor temporall condition fell vpon Tithes That they were not onely nor first Legall Indeed if the only Law and first the Law had designed quot â—mpartem this dispute had been more doubtfull But seeing this Melchisedec that most Euangelicall Priest gaue vs the quote seeing Iacob before the Law as in a perpetuall Law Vowed the quote We see the Law is but a confirmer and Leui but an obseruer of that which was long before freely doted and for euer deuoted to Gods seruice The Law gaue but the same quote to a Priest of another Order for his time and shall that first that Euangelical that Euerlasting Priest-hood now reuiued againe come with dish in hand and say Quod vultis mihi dare And this for our Trinall harmonie in Iacobs Vision and Vow Now are some men much sollicite both heere and in the former point of Melchisedecs Possession What forme of Tithing it was Of what goods Yeerely or no As for Melchisedec the second part of this Treatise shall cleare him As to Iacobs Vow which heere we will end § VI to whom or how he payed it We say Gods promises and Iacobs performances alike Such was Iacobs Vow as was his Vision and such were the performances on his part as were the performances of Gods promises made to him Now God performed not all the points of that Vision to Iacob in his own person because not in that nature promised So Iacob performed not all his Vow in his owne person for the like reason God performed to Iacob himselfe the best part of that Vision viz. the heauenly Canaan and Iacob returneth in his owne person the best part of his Vow viz. The Lord was euer his God So his only seede enioyed the Earthly Canaan and therefore his onely seed payed Tithes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence is it clearely proued Who are Iacobs Seede That Iacobs Vow concerned as much if not more his seed as himselfe And if they will yet a strict his seede to his onely flesh vnder the Law because after this Iacob was called Israel Gen. 32.28 and the Israelites as Iaacobs seed performed all Let them remember first that the heauenly Canaan was the principall end of Iacobs iourney and so his Vow must stand till his seed goe thither Secondly Seed heere is more of his Faith then of his flesh for all the Families of the Earth which heere are blessed in Iacobs seede were not all of Iacobs flesh Rom. 9.6 but euen Iaphets seede comming home to the tents of Sem The Gentiles called therefore all subiect by Iacobs Vow to Tithing Such as refuse let them renounce both the ends of Iacobs Ladder Heauen and Earth and goe to their owne habitation And this for our Indenture CHAP. IX The Edict of Tithes though in Leuiticus yet proued to be no part of the Leuiticall Law and so Tithes in all points as the Lords Inheritance exempted from the Law § I NExt commeth our last Writ our Edict and that very orderly For God being possessed in Tâ—thes by Abraham contracted by Iacob good beginnings for a promise onely of the Land which must pay all Now after some foure hundred yeeres peregrination for their Faithes triall by the fiery afflictions of Aegypts fornace God intimateth vnto them this publike Edict Leuit. 27.30 Also all the Tithes of the Land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees IS not shall be the Lords All in Leuiticus not Legall or Ceremoniall Though this be in Leuiticus yet is it not of the Leuiticall Law because it containeth no Precept and therefore no Law yea it is a plaine exception from that Leuiticall Law For Moyses treating heere of the nature of Legall Vowes and of what things the people might Vow he telleth them Tithes were alreadie the Lords long agoe and therefore they might Vow none of their Tithes For to what end Iacob vowed them alreadie yet was not his Vow Legall or Ceremoniall as is said but Morall as was his vowing God should be his God Further Vowes of the Law here are voluntary at mans option to doe or not to doe Tithes not so And as this place of Leuiticus is but an Edict of Gods right so is it no right for Leui for Leuies right came not till Num. 18. In which also hee keepeth euer the same method first telling them Tithes are the Lords vers 20. and then giuing them to Leui vers 21. § II And though vers 26. he vseth the like phrase of the first borne as he doth heere of Tithes forbidding to vow any such for it is the Lords yet that same IS is relatiue to a preceding precept Exod. 13.2 Sanctifie vnto me all the first borne c. But no such Law for the ground of Gods Inheritance but Euangelicall Libertie and liberality proceeding from the instinct of God in man or tradition to and from the first man because Vt fides ita fidei opera ex auditu But the very Ethnicks as Paul saith not hauing the Law by nature did the things of the Law So they doted Tithes to their Gods And thus farre for our Possession Indenture and Edict prouing clearely Tithes to be the Lords before the Law with such euident conclusions drawne from the perpetuall equitie thereof teaching Tithes must also reach after that Law as also the title that God had from the beginning in all mens goods containing the two first ages Followeth the last age of the word SACRILEGE FOR THE GOSPELL THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Christ and his Apostles concerning Tithes They did abrogate all Ceremoniall things GOD thus hauing from all beginning § I an heritable title to all mens goods and that by Natures light Transitio as is said not Moyses Law two thousand yeers And this his right by nature also defined euen In quoto to be a tenth part foure hundred yeeres before the Law And these same both Right and Quota by Commandement and Law continued til Christ came some two thousand yeeres Now are we to examine the Worlds last age vnder the Worlds onely Blisse Christ whether he hath yet any right in our goods or not and if a right whether the same in quoto or not The first will no man deny 1. Cor. 9.13.14 The last maketh most men adoe The Apostle cleareth the first That the one Minister must liue of the Gospell as the other did by the Law But whether hee did intend the same quota in saying Galath 6.6 Make him
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
in very Offerings and yet import no Ceremonie For although the Tabernacle once built was a most Ceremoniall Type yet the peoples offering according as they had man and woman gold or siluer silke or linnen as materials to build it withall heere was no ceremoniall offering perfected and abolished by Christ For why may not euery Christian Moyses for building houses to Gods worship command their people Lift vp or offer of their substance to that vse Their Ceremoniall signification floweth neuer from § II the nature and proprietie of the words but because the whole circumstances of the Text shew the matter to be Ceremoniall For example Exod 29.23 c. both words are mixed for the lifting vp and shaking to and fro Leuit. 7.34 of the right shoulder and the breast of the Peace-offering Heere concurre a Priest an Altar an Offering or Sacrifice all which were meerely and onely Leuiticall Ceremonies yea Shaking and Heauing haue there their owne peculiar signification in Christ as all Diuines acknowledge But what if these words doe not import this Leuiticall Ceremonie Num. 8.5 c euen in Leuiticall and Ceremoniall Offerings The Leuites were offered to the Lord in place of the first borne by purification expiation shauing washing sacrificing at the doore of the Tabernacle by the hand of the Priest and so the Leuites are in the translations called a Shake-offering vnto the Lord Heere are all things most Ceremoniall saue only Shaking For neither reade we nor is it probable that so many thousand men could bee really shaken to and fro ad quatuor plagas mundi as was done with the right shoulder and brest of the Ramme aforesaid And if any man will draw Analogie from that Ceremoniall shaking to the shaking and dispersing of the Leuites thorow the foure corners of the Kingdome then as the word is so but Metaphoricall the matter is also Morall for Leuies successors vnder the Gospell are so scattered and shaken § III Of all these we gather a two-fold offering a Ceremoniall Morall offerings and a Morall The Ceremoniall peculiar to the Leuitical Law and performed euer by a Leuitical Priest full of rites as Altar Fire Offering Heauing Shaking or some such signifying Ceremonie as is said The Morall offering also two fold either to God onely and immediately or by mediation Only to God we offer out Prayers and praises Hos 14.2 Heb. 13.15 The calues or fruits of our lips By Mediation we offer to others either for Gods sake or for Gods seruice Act. 10.4 For his sake Thy almes is come vp into a remembrance before God Philip. 4 18. Act. 24.17 A sacrifice pleasant and acceptable to God Almes and offerings To others for Gods seruice euen those Tithes Gods Inheritance for all his officers offered long before that Ceremoniall Law continued so by that Law and why not also after that Law No carnall Priest Place or rite heere for Leui did not offer Tithes heere to God in name of Israel as was the nature of Ceremoniall offerings but receiued Tithes in name of God as Inheritance from Israel All Ceremoniall offerings must bee done at the onely doore of the Tabernacle But Israel offred these Tithes in all the Cities of their trauels as we haue proued All Ceremoniall offerings were due to the Onely Priests Num. 18.8 c. but Tithes are also due and as some thinke onely to the inferiour Leuites Offering then of Tithes heere is no other then Abrahams giuing to Melchisedec and Iaacobs vowing to giue Tithes They are called an offering because they should be freely offered not craued as the custome is to this day euen where Seculars are Tithers who are called vnto cryed vpon yet will scarcely take them hauing a resolution as they robbe the Lord so to ruine the labourer Thus we see Offering of it owne nature How Tithes are to be offered is a word for Gods worship in all ages To offer Tithes then is to giue them in such forme as God requireth in all gifts viz. Speedily as Exod. 22.29 With gladnesse Ecclesiastic 35.9 Not grudgingly or of necessitie for God loueth a cheerefull giuer 2. Cor. 9.7 Without murmuring Deut. 26.14 And finally In libertie of the spirit and liberalitie of the heart as was Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec Gen. 14.20 To make Tithes then a true Shake-offering shake off the sacrilegious vse of them and so lift vp thy heart a pure Heaue-offering to the Lord saying with the true Israelite Deut. 26.13 I haue put the hallowed things out of mine house and giuen it to the Leuite c. Lest the Lord one day shake both thy stocke and thy Tithe thy bodie and thy soule CHAP. V. Tithes not Ceremoniall in their End Two points of Leuies seruice and three degrees of Leuites for all which and to all which Tithes were giuen in Inheritance Sacrifices not properly Inheritance The â—ge vnder the Law concluded and more ancient rights preduced § I THe nature of Tithes being freed from Ceremonie their End is now quarrelled thus Whatsoeuer was ordained for the seruice of the Tabernacle must as the Tabernacle it selfe bee Ceremoniall Tithes Inheritance were giuen Leui for that seruice Ergo. The very text is their Assumption Num 18.21 Now God helpe Leuies successors that is such as bee of the Ministerie now a dayes for by this dealing hath Leui been a hundreth fold in better case vnder the Law then they be vnder the Gospell O Rich Aaron Type for a time And poore Melchisedec Priest for euer A great pitie pouertie should be perpetuall No remedie then but vp must the Tabernacle or downe must the Tithes For as to the preaching of that heauenly Tabernacle Christ Tithes not Ceremoniall it must goe for Gra-mercy Yet to say somewhat lest we lose all to the parts of this their Ceremoniall Syllogisme for little or no substance in it Both Proposition and Assumption lacke this word Onely to conclude the question aright For to be tyed to the Tabernacle and not Onely to it will not make a thing Ceremoniall For so shall we make the Decalogue it selfe Ceremoniall for it was also tyed to be read in that Tabernacle by Leui. Ceremoniall then must be Only with or Onely for the Tabernacle And if they say Tithes Inheritance are Onely for it then both Proposition and Assumption are false for two reasons I. The onely Ceremoniall seruice of the Tabernacle § II comprehended not Leuies whole function Two points of Leuies seruice II. Tithes were giuen to the whole Tribe for their whole function Their seruice and function stood in two points according to that Prophecie of Moyses Deut. 33.10 They shall teach Iaacob thy Iudgement and Israel thy Law 2. Chron. 17.7.8.9 They shall put incense before thy face and the burnt offering vpon thine Altar The first point we see is a scattered seruice according to a former Prophecie of Leuies owne Father I will diuide them viz. Leuites in
impared Matrimonie might be better spared And seeing Lords Lairds haue measured Leuies maintenance so as will scarse proue meate to his owne mouth the lesse his burthen were the greater were his libertie in his calling But the difference betweene the Pope and vs is that Nature conformed to Gods Law leadeth vs Mans Law abridging Gods enforceth them If we enacted affirmatiuely that all Ministers must marry as the Pope doth his Negatiue That none shal marry I think it were aeque peccatuÌ„ vtrinque Leui was bound to marry for his only loines could breed a Legal Ministerie but now Iew and Gentil are a like sib to the Gospell the onely spirit begetteth a Minister Secondly I confesse That there is no greater Sacrilege § IV then when Leui himselfe playeth the Limmer Leui Sacrilegious is worst of all that is when a Bishop or a Minister inhaunceth all Bishopricks Abbacies Priories whatsoeuer is deuouted to Leuies Inheritance appropriating things due to the seed of their calling to the seed of their carkas to their onely sonnes what is due to their successors If our Church haue any such the Lord turne himselfe all in Eye to find them out and all in fire to purge them out Achans Achans But let vs heare Bellarmine sound his bels This Law § V of Tithes cannot bee Morall Bellarmines belles against Tithes because it did not oblige euer from the beginning Ans Obliging from the beginning is no sure note of things Morall and Perpetuall for then the Iewish indiuidual Sabbath must haue beene Moral for it was at the very beginning but continued not till the end Againe Incest did not at the beginning so strictly oblige as now shall we therefore hold it for no Morall precept or alterable now Morall then is whatsoeuer beginning at any time before Christ remaineth also after Christ Otherwise the Decalogue shall not be Morall Rom. 7.7 and if we flee to the Law of Nature we haue proued Tithes also by the Law of Nature Another bell of Bellarmines As the Law said Leui must haue all the Tithes in Israel So said it Leui must haue no Inheritance in Israel And so the negatiue must be Morall as well as the Affirmatiue but wee see many Ministers borne to Inheritance and purchasing Inheritance neither due nor descending to the Ministerie Ergo. This is a two edged sword one against the Pope whose chaire maketh him as great a Prince as any in Israel Let Baal plead for himselfe Iudg. 6.32 Another edge against our Ministerie who though they bring no other Inheritance to the Ministerie then the Gospel giueth yet they prouide for their children which Leuie did not I answere first for the children Leui did not prouide for them because hee needed not for God had prouided alreadie sufficiently for him and all his How Leui may haue Inheritance In generall I answere If this Leuiticall Law had bin our first ground for Tithes as it is but a branch of that generall whereby both they and we claime Tithes then Bellarmine had had some colour of his coniunction of the Negatiue and Affirmatiue as of one nature And yet by his leaue That Negatiue was peculiar to that onely Tribe in the diuision of that Land but the Affirmatiue of Tithes flowing from our first Patterne and Patron Melchisedec was common to all Nations as was his Priest-hood For no Nation saue this was enioyned to diuide themselues in twelue or thirteene distinct Tribes and so to diuide the Land among them and kept themselues still distinguished one from another and no people saue this had one onely Tribe reserued wholly and onely to the Ministery Therefore the Affirmatiue must bee Morall The Negatiue Temporall I confesse the Equitie of this Negatiue teacheth clearly § VI That the Sacred and Ciuill calling the Word Sacred and ciuil callings distinct and the World Priest and Prince should euer remaine distinct which two the Pope confoundeth and all such as doe ioyne sacred and secular publike callings in one person Yea I say further though a man bee borne to secular Lordships and Offices and thereafter called to the Ministerie yet must hee liue as hauing no inheritance that is he must abandon all that publike and ciuill calling in his owne person as Negotium huius seculi discharging that by others and so deriue it to his lawfull posterity of his flesh himself standing fast by Christs plough he must not plow with the Word and harrow with the World The Law then is not the patent of our possession § VII Melchisedec is our Patterne Melchisedec is our Patrone Melchisedec gaue our Patent Melchisedec tooke our possession The law as is said serued the owne time It coupled Melchisedec to Christ Great was the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell both touching Calling and Maintenance The Law tyed all and onely Leui to the Calling and so were his children both successors to his Office and heires of his Tithes In the Gospel the Spirit onely directeth all In the Law onely Israel Gods people onely Leui Gods Priest and as they had an externall calling so he gaue them a carnal Maintenance bound to their blood for the Priest-hood went by pedegree Neh. 7.64 But the Gospel touching descent personal in all circumstances is free calling after the manner of Melchisedec Internally and so giueth the maintenance to the Sent not to the Discent No mans seede astricted none debarred Iew and Gentile The patrimony and parentage meete neuer vnder Melchisedec and therefore Leuies Lawes are for Leuies selfe onely For seeing our flesh hath no part with Leui it were hard to debar vs that ordinary natural care which God alloweth all parents ouer their children The moderation heere must be as is said Ne implicent se negotijs huius seculi 2. Tim. 2.4 not to hunt with Esau forgetting their calling Before both Law and Melchisedec the first borne had both the best portion and were also Priests by practise then if a man now borne to secular possessions hauing both wife children which both hath bin and may be vnder the Gospel but neuer could bee vnder the Law be called to the Ministerie must this man either renounce his meanes or his Ministerie May not Leuies Lands and keepe Leuies cattell This were a beggerly rudiment indeed A man then may enioy his meanes and the Church censure his moderation § VIII The Moderatours in all such cases must bee onely Church-men who must giue to euery man his portion according to his neede Num. 26. â—4 33.54 2. Chron. 31. Neh. 13.13 So did God in the diuision of Canaan giue that Tribe most which needed most So were Tithes by Leui taken and by Leui distributed according to their courses To command the people to pay Tithes was Opus Regum but to diuide them Vix Regium Equitie then not Equalitie must leade the ballance for many circumstances may make one of the same calling more or lesse chargeable then another The
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
coupleth heere holy things to the Temple as Tithes were Numb 18. with the Tabernacle because these places were then the chiefest where both seruices were done though not the sole places as we haue said at large Lib. 1. cap. 5. The Ceremonial seruice Paul painteth out in their owne termes Waite at the Altar and Partaker with the Altar Now Waiting and With are notes of expiring as is the Altar And to say that Paul heere by both these members meaneth only the Ceremonial Maintenance were a double absurditie First A Tautologick description of one thing Secondly A neglect of the chiefest point he speaketh of Inheritance Ministring then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Word and Sacraments is onely proper to the Gospel 1. Cor. 9.1 Rom. 15.16 Are yee not saith Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my worke in the Lord And therefore onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inheritance is his due Heb. 13.10 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to waite at the Altar for we haue an Altar whereof they haue no authoritie to eate which serue in the Tabernacle § VI Pauls next phrase comes in his Application So also the Lord hath ordained in the preterit time we only aske heere where when was this ordinance giuen Paul giueth no precept heere but onely intimateth the Lords alike ordinance for both Law and Gospell one and the same Lord gaue it at first to Melchisedec a Priest for euer he gaue it To Leui for the Law he gaue it from Leui to Melchisedec againe he giueth it Then As Leui liued by the Law must we liue saith Paul by the Gospell Leui liued by a certaintie of holy things by the Law Ergo So must we by the Gospell haue certaintie Holy things must be certaine Things namelesse are nothing and voluntary almes vncertaine they cannot be Inheritance to the Lord and his Leuites Giue God therefore his Tenth or giue him a lesse number and a greater matter and aboue ten is no simple perfect number Paul then is wrong quarrelled for his vnplainenesse He speaketh like his Master when Iohn sent to know if it was he or no Matth. 11.2 3. Tell Iohn saith hee what things yee haue heard seene So while they aske Paul Doest thou meane Tithes or no He answereth They that ministered in the holy things liued euer of the holy things and so must we liue of the Gospel Such as are Christs or Pauls may easily discerne their affirmatiue meaning But wee shall heare better newes anon and euen from Paul Cap. seq Only remember that Paul had nothing to do here to speak in the Quoto of the Maintenance but onely to iustifie that he and Barnabas might liue vnlabouring as well as other Apostles Now remaineth their second assault from the Ceremonie § VII of the number and so any other number of new to be appointed Wee answere two wayes First Giue vs any other instance in any of these fiue generall points of Gods worship where the matter and number are of different natures It was Moral you say to giue Maintenance but Ceremonial in that it was a Tenth But let vs trie them briefly Person the Leuites were all Ceremoniall and so were their nūbers Classes Courses all temporal or ceremoniall Numbers not alwayes Ceremoniall Time The Sabbath or seuenth day Moral yet euen quoad numerum But the Sabbaths thence deriued of seuen yeeres and the Iubile Ceremonial and gone with their Nouilunes and so forth Formes of worship as pares of beasts or fowles for sacrifices Ten parts of measures of fine flower and such like Ceremonial and gone Place Where it was sole and vnique Ceremoniall and gone Maintenance Tenths for Feasts Ceremonial and gone both number and matter Tithes Inheritance Moral in both Not one instance we see to the contrary Secondly say that the Quota were yet in ballance what would we doe Is not whole mankinde heere diuided All are either Leuites or Israelites All must take or giue Who then shall bee Iudge The parties cannot for who shall make all of one minde So many kingdomes so many different conceits as many Prouinces as many different proportions Referre it to the Church-men they may proue couetous To the people they may be auaritious yea say further that God had left his portion without proportion could man proportion it better for his owne behoofe Ten is the last simple full and perfect number and so the smallest proportion in simple numbers as is said So we see we shall sooner diuide Totum then decide Quotum But God only hath iudged and that by his only Word and his Word onely Tithes for Inheritance And this for Pauls Doctrine and meaning in general Followeth his speciall of Tithes CHAP. IIII. Moyses Historie and Dauids Prophecie of Melchisedec applied by the Apostle to Christ How and how farre Types are to be matched with their Verities by the example of Melchisedec and Aaron with Christ § I BVT shall we haue no more in all the new Testament for Tithes but onely Allegories Examples and Circumlocutions Truely it needed not seeing they are sufficiently grounded alreadie Yet one Author whose writs some men could wish to bee as Non ens as himselfe is namelesse beginneth once more to talke and euen of Tithes and not to talke onely but Melchisedec Abraham Moyses are to him euen as this day Many suspect Paul and it is not impossible But howsoeuer his title is To the Hebrewes But our Sacrilegious Segniours may iustly deny themselues to be Hebreans for the word Sacrilege is seldome or neuer read in Hebrew Yet Paul found out a fit Greek word for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2.22 Act. 19.37 to spoile or robbe holy things But what is all this They will deny themselues to be Grecians too and I feare to be Christians before they yeeld they vnderstand not Paul he wrote not to them Heere now begin our matters of Melchisedec hard to be vttered of that euerlasting Priest-hood in his Order by Moyses nakedly propounded by Dauid but obscurely expounded heere are all repeated and to our owne dayes applied by this new Ioseph interpreting all Hee therefore that hath eares let him heare HISTORIE Gen. 14.18 ANd Melchisedec King of Salem broughtforth bread and wine and hee was a Priest of the most high God Therefore hee blessed him saying Blessed art thou Abraham of the most high God possessor of heauen earth And blessed bee the most high God vvhich deliuered thine enemies into thine hand and Abraham gaue him Tithes of all PROPHECIE Psal 110.4 The Lord sware and wil not repēt Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedec INTERPRETATION AND Application FOr this Melchisedec was King of Salem Priest of the most high God Heb. 7.1 who met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the Kings and blessed him To whom also Abraham gaue the Tithe of all things who first is by interpretation King of Righteousnesse after that also King
IF Paul had meant any alteration then was hee bound to a plainenesse seeing he saith I haue kept backe nothing but haue shewed you all the counsell of God Obiect Then should he haue spoken plainly of Tithes where he speakes of Maintenance but this he doth not Ergo hee meant not Tithes Answ The Counsell of God heere is to be vnderstood onely of things de nouo not that Paul was to repeate plainly the whole Counsell of God alreadie reuealed and of Nature Moral But remember still Pauls plainenesse is yet a comming Chap. 4. part 2. In CHAP. V. §. IV. MEchisedec 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 Obiect Quicke But is it also solide It is but the Priesthoods that are there compared Melchisedecs with Leuies Christs with it of the Law For Leui in this is not the Type of Christ Answ But these Priest-hoods are compared in the points of Blessing and Tithing peculiar to onely Priests And it Leui in this as you say was no Type of Christ then Tithes in Leui were not Typicall if not Typicall not Ceremoniall Ergo euer Morall for their Iudicials medled not with it But the truth is Melchisedec and Leui were both in all their doings heere recorded very Types of Christ but of diuers Orders that is Natures And the Endlesse Order of Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing is by Paul transferred on Christ as is there prooued In CHAP. VI. Against the Title PErpetuitie of Melchisedecs Priesthood proued by only Tithing Obiect Not But Greatnesse proued by Tithing and Blessing vers 4. and 7. and Perpetuitie in vers 3. Without father without mother and as the Syriak Whose neither father nor mother are written in the Genealogies c. Answ And is not Tithing in vers 8. ioyned with Time in their Dying and Liuing CHAP. VI. §. II. Against the second Syllogisme HE that taketh Tithes and liueth is a perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo c. Obiect The Argument seemeth not so but thus Hee that liueth is greater then hee that dyeth Thus in effect Both Priests Melchisedec and Aaron but who greatest He that liueth He that tooke He that blessed Both Priests is taken pro confesso or proued by Dauids testimony not by taking of Tithes Answ Seeing our point heere is of onely Time and that you yeeld He that liueth is the greater Priest then hee that is dead giuing the prerogatiue to the time present Why place you the prerogatiue of Tithing and Blessing vpon the preterit time againe For in bonis praesentiae quaeque semper optima So God calleth himselfe I am still though he both was and shall be Euen so though it be true that Melchisedec decimauit Tithed Blessed in the preterit yet that momentary praeterite in that one onely Tithing can haue no prerogatiue ouer Aarons Present and two thousand yeeres standing and how shall he be a greater Priest that Tooke then he that Taketh seeing you make him that Liueth greater then he that Dyeth these cannot both hold Neither can you imagine how to make him a Priest for euer by this text vnlesse he performe for euer such points as are in this text recorded proper to his Priest-hood and these are onely Blessing and Tithing To diuide these I thinke verily it goeth against all the course of these texts But I still submit my selfe and more of this afterwards And albeit Dauids Prophecie proued him a Priest yet Paul heere proueth euen the performance of that Prophecie from two proprieties of all Priest-hood Blessing and Tithing competent to no Calling but Priesthood and so Reciproke with all Priest-hood else how should wee more haue applied that Prophecie then Moyses Historie Gen. 14. if Paul had been silent CHAP. VI. §. III. ABraham typed all his posteritie the seed of his faith as well as the seed of his flesh Obiect True in matter of Iustifying not in this In this he but representeth his son Leui by the flesh with whom onely the comparison is institute Answ Euen in both The text saith vers 4. Abraham the Patriarch gaue him a tenth and vers 6. Hee Tithed Abraham and Blessed him hauing the Promises and vers 9. Hee Tithed also Leui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tithe-taker not as hauing the Promises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that I meane Leui belonged no way to the Promise God forbid but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are heere the proper correlates and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let vs weaue all these passages in one webbe of truth The Woafe goes thus disioyned in Tithing the Patriarch and Blessing him that had the Promises but the perfect webbe must be thus Melchisedec both Tithed and Blessed the Patriarch hauing the Promises In the second verse He first Blessed then Tithed for that is the right Order first to giue them Spirituall food before you exact their Carnall A sore checke to such Sacrilegious both Leuites as doe not and Laickes as cannot giue the milke of the Word and yet will deuoure the milke of Gods Church appointed to that end In the fourth verse Tithing commeth without naming Blessing And vers 6. Tithing goeth before Blessing Verse 8. Tithing againe alone and also vers 9. Then say I what more reason is there heere to separate Tithing from the Patriarch and the Promises then to separate Blessing seeing all three are so syllogistically wouen and interlaced Or shall we diuide Abrahams Patriarchship from his Promises and binde the first to his Flesh the second to his seed by Faith But Paul telleth vs plainly That God made Abraham a Father of many Nations Rom. 4. and in the verse preceding That the Promise might be firme to his whole seed not onely the seede of the Law but also to ohe seed of Faith Then seeing his Fathership reacheth euen to all Nations we know the Nations came not all of Abrahams flesh Ergo They must leape with Lazarus in his bosome by Faith Ergo Both Flesh and Faith Law and Gospell Leuite and Laicke Peace and Warres were heere Blessed and Tithed in their Father Abraham by that Priest for euer Melchisedec If then we be iustified with Pavl by Faith in the word and worke Blessing why not also with Iames by workes as witnesses in the word Tithing But to cleare his Fathership better to whom it belongeth Neither are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham c. Rom. 9.7 That is they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed Heere is Abrahams Fathership tyed onely to his Faith in the Promise and diuided from his flesh But heere say you he representeth but Leui his sonne by