is to be vnderstood not of the fields themselues but of the fruits saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And an other reason is for that he saith Your fields your vine-yards and your oliue-yards but doth not say your houses to signifie that he speakes of the fruits and not of the body or substance of the ground But as for the tithe according to the opinion of their Doctours his words are euident on 1 Samuel 8.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. But the tithe of increase and of the fruits and of the sheep that is his due at all times whensoeuer he pleaseth for euen Salomon the king of Israel tooke it So that by these authorities it is apparent the Iewes held that the King had a right to take tithe and that this was different from the Priests and Leuites tithe which point our Historian hath altogether concealed and yet here is a more ancient and better right of tithing ascribed to the King then that which he records pag 13. to be deriued from the Pope Wherefore considering the manyfold defects and falshood of this History me thinkes these speaches might very well haue bin spared whereby he pretends that no Christian before himselfe euer taught what was considerable in the generall payment of tithe among the Iewes no not Scaliger though he vndertooke it and others without his help slothfully and ignorantly talke of a third tithe and a fourth tithe and indeed they know not what tithe c. What needed all this except he had either manifestly confuted those that haue heretofore written of this argument which he can neuer doe or had made a better diuision or Treatise of tithes then they which as yet he hath not done seeing that in this History first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the poore mans tithe which Aben Ezra and others on Deut. 14. call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third tithe is absurdly confounded with the second the tithe of Cattell contrary to the tradition of the Iewes grosly mistaken and the Kings tithe either slothfully or ignorantly omitted Insomuch that the great Doctours of the Iewes and their later Comments which he saith are testimonies beyond exception for the practise or Historicall part being truly examined do plainly testifie against him that what he hath written of their manner of tithing hath beene rightly heretofore termed Historia fallax a false and imperfect History Indeed I must confesse that whether we respect the beginning midle or end of the booke besides what he owes to Scaliger it is for two things very considerable The first is assentation in pleasing the multitude that are loath to pay tithes 2 The other is ostentation in pleasing himselfe with his owne praise In both which respects this worke is so sufficiently performed as that I thinke there needes nothing more to be added or if there be I make no doubt but it shall be answered This short Treatise touching the tithe of cattell among the Iewes hauing some yeares past bin pervsed by diuers Readers was at length returned againe into my hands together with a censure thereof written by an vncertaine author which though it nothing fauour this Worke but rather hindred the publishing of it which at that time was by some expected yet because it may giue some light for the better manifestation of the truth I haue thought good to insert it in this place The tenor thereof is this There be two maine points in controversie betweene the Author and Mr Selden 1 WHether the first-borne of other vncleane cattell aswell as of Asses were not to be redeemed by paying a Lambe vnto the Priest It is true the Scripture nameth onely the asse Exod. 13.13 34.20 because those were most common in that country but I take it that vncler that one he comprehendeth by a Synecdoche all other beasts vncleane for sacrifice whereunto I am led both by the tenth commandement Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house his oxe nor his asse where vnder the asse all other of that kinde are comprehended and by that which is written in Numb 18.15 The first-borne of the vncleane beast thou shalt redeeme which is generall and not as some Hebrew Writers doe to be restrained to the asse onely Also Leuit. 27.27 doth strongly confirme it if it be of any vncleane beast he shall redeeme it and giue the fift part more thereunto which to be meant of the first-borne the verse going before doth evince howsoeuer Iarchi and Ramban and other Iewes expound that text 2 Whether the tithe were to be payde to the Leuite of the increase of cattell That tithe was to be payde of cattell to the Leuite the next seemeth plaine Leuit. 27.32 of bullocks and of sheep the tenth shal be holy to the Lord. Where those words holy to the Lord are not to be taken as the Rabbines would haue it of wholy to offer vpon the altar but holy in regard they were the Lord's portion and by him bestowed vpon the Leuites as is apparent by the 30th verse before But touching that which is spoken of passing vnder the rod I agree with the author who well compareth these two texts Levit. 27.32 and Ezech. 20.37 And the marking with a red oaker I hold to be but a Rabbinicall conceit So as if the question be in these two points of the right of tithing according to the rules and precepts of the Scripture I hold the truth to be with Mr Selden but if of the exposition of the Rabbines it seemeth to be against him Touching the King's tithe which Mr Selden is taxed for not speaking of it he may as I thinke be well excused because howsoeuer you will iudge of that kinde of tithe it was nothing pertinent to his purpose who writeth onely of Tithes due to the Church In his Review pag. 456. he doth admonish those that argue for Tithes from the Mosaicall Lawes of tithing to examine which of the two kindes are due why not the second aswell as the first And to consider how the payment of the Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel succeeds to the payment from the Leuites to the sonnes of Aaron and I thinke also if something had not hindred he would also haue added and how the payment of the tithe of cattell to the Priests of the Gospell succeedes to the none-payment of them to the Priests of the Law but saith he these considerations can only be where knowledge of fact preceedes belike then his knowledge of fact here failed him and therefore he also failed vs and yet for all this we giue no more credit to the Iewes herein than we doe to his History for though their writings manifest vnto vs this knowledge of fact yet can they not proue this fact to be according to knowledge or agreeable to truth and euidence of Scripture 1 For first that the tithe of cattell should be holy to be offered vpon the altar as a peace-offering and not to be giuen to the Priest in
interprets But here he leaues out these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. because he was the Priest the whole senteÌ„ce being thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is And Abraham gaue him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest which later clause containes a reason why Abraham payde the Tithes to Melchisedek namely because he was the Priest implying thereby both a right in Melchisedek to receiue them and a duty in Abraham to pay them and so saith R. Bechai on that text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. According to the opinion of our Ancestors he was a Priest indeed and therefore Abraham gaue him the Tithe This is also further confirmed by the like testimony of Ramban Deut. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And hee was the Priest of the most high God To shew that Abraham would not giue the Tithe to the Priest of strange gods but because he knew him that he was the Priest of the most high God therefore hee gaue him the tithe for the honor of God And hereby was signified to Abraham that there should be the house of God and thither his posterity should bring the tithe the therumahs or oblations and that there they blesse the Lord. Of what credit this Ramban is Mercer on Genesis in the beginning pag. 3. tells vs in these wordes R. Mose Ben Nachman quem Ramban per Nun in fine appellant qui Moses Gerundensis cum alius R. Mose ben Maimon qui Rambam per Mem in fine vocatur sit qui R. Moses Aegyptius dicitur vterque vir insignis etsi Iudaei vt caeteri sint cum iudicio legendi Now this Testimony of Ramban implyes in it these things 1 That Abraham was to pay tithe to some one Priest or other 2 That not onely the Priests of the true God but also the Priests of strange gods among the Gentiles did in those times receiue Tithes 3 That Abraham payde the Tithes to the honour of God 4 That this payment was a president and type of the future payment of his posterity 5 That the payment of Tithes was annexed to the place of God's worship Aben Ezra on this Text and also on Gen. 28. ver 22. writes in a manner to the same effect and on Gen. 35.1 he saith of Iacob 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And in Bethel he performed his vow and gaue the Tithe of his substance for the honour of God to him that was in that generation for to receiue it That is to the Priest for in the Apostles language Heb. 7. a Priest and a receiuer of Tithes are aequipollents Insteed of saying Men that die are Priests he saith Men that die receiue Tithes Insteed of saying He that liues is a Priest he saith He that liues takes tithes as if in his iudgment Tithes and Priesthood were inseparable And therefore the Emphasis of the phrase he vseth Heb. 7.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Melchisedek tithed Abraham shewes both that he had authority to take Tithes and seemes also to subiect Abraham to a necessity of being tithed which is the same that Iarchi meanes in the testimony before cited saying that Abraham payde him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest I haue the rather insisted vpon this that the Historian hath left out and excluded the Priest from receiuing Tithes because it seemes he doth it of set purpose for otherwise to what end doth he set downe those words in the beginning And gaue him tithe of all in that vncertaine manner not following any translation but leauing it doubtfull who should here be the giuer or for what cause doth he tell vs afterward That were it not for the holy exposition in that Epistle to the Hebrewes the relation in Genesis might as well bee vnderstood that on the other side Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had giuen to Abraham the tenth part of his estate the text indeed being both in the Hebrew and Septuagints so that no name immediatly preceding the mention of the gift it sufficiently thence appeares not who was the giuer c. This supposition is somewhat strange to which I may answere both for the thing suâ—posed and the consequent thereof that if it were 〈◊〉 â—â—lse we might with him conceiue it to be true 〈…〉 Apostle doth assure vs that it is false to what end therefore is it related for though he goe about to iustifie this assertion in his Review pag. 450. by the authority of Fathers acknowledge no fault at al to be in it yet how can this satisfie is it not a fault to call in question or make a doubt of that which the holy Scripture hath put out of doubt is it not a fault to oppose the imagination of mans braine against the determination of God's truth As for the testimony of S. Hierome writing not his owne but the Iewes opinion and other Fathers here alleadged it hath already bin sufficiently answered by others and therefore both in this and many things else my labour as it hath bin prevented so it may very well bee spared for I come but to gleane after others reaping Neither will I here recite the expositions of the Iewes against this conceit who generally vnderstand the Text according to the true interpretation thereof in the Epistle to the Hebrewes But suppose for argument sake that the holy Apostle had not fully cleared this truth yet that which the Historian would hereupon inferre will not follow viz That Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had given to Abraham the tenth part of his estate or as a portion to one of his posterity as hee speakes in his Review but that he gaue the tenth or tithe to Abraham as a duty still belonging to the Priest for in that sense doe those Iewes take it which were the first authors of this fancie that Melchisedek payd tithe to Abraham for they write that the Priesthood was translated from Melchisedek to Abraham because that Melchisedek vsed a preposterous order in his blessing in that he first blessed Abraham and after blessed God as it were preferring the seruant before the Master as R. Bechai and Chaskuni and others relate on Gen. 14.20 And to this they apply that in Psal 110.4 Thou art a Priest for euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is because of the word that Melchisedek did speake as Rabbi Chimki there interprets it and Iarchi concerning Abraham which also they haue from the Talmud in Massech Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. But this is not generally receiued for Aben-Ezra on Gen. 14 reiects it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Melchisedek spake as was fitting and did well in that he blessed Abraham first because he voluntarily offered himselfe to saue those that were led captiue and afterward he said and blessed be God that did helpe him and gaue his enemies into his hand therefore he interprets those words in the Psalme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. according to the order or custome or else saith
second Tithe knowing that in truth that place meant no other Doubtlesse I can conceiue of this to be nothing else but a meere fiction and such a one that neither Iew nor Christian ought once to admit against the holy Scriptures For first hereby as he makes the Septuagints Translation more authenticall then the Hebrew Text implying therewithall that the same hath bin corrupted and changed and yet no corruption euer once noted before in this place so also that which he surmiseth is against reason for the second doth alwayes presuppose a first but how shall it be thought that the Scripture should here in expresse termes mention a second Tithe when as it doth no where expresly mention a first for though the ground of these distinctions be in Scripture viz Tithes for the Priest Tithes for the Leuite Tithes for the feasts and Tithes for the poore yet by these termes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Tithe and second Tithe or which shall be the first or which the second there neither is nor euer was any such matter in Scripture These indeed are notions deuised by the Rabbines for distinction sake but shall we therefore bring them into the Text and make Text of them whether shall the Rabbines follow the Text or the Text follow the Rabbines Surely this is nothing else but to make new Scripture and when that is done because the foresaid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not agree in gender the word being no where so construed therfore also to make as he doth in that place a new Grammer that the new Scripture may haue good construction And yet after all this consider it who will no Scripture no Masoreth no Targum no Grammer no Rabbin no reason either doth or can iustifie it And for the Septuagint Translation why may we not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alteram or posteriorem decimam an other Tithe or the later Tithe as well as decimam secundam the second tithe the word being often elsewhere vsed in that sense as the Greek Lexicons teach res aliqua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicitur quae ei postponitur and againe Quum verò dicitur temporis ratione exponitur etiam posterior veletiam iteratus ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so may it be taken also in this place Or if it be interpreted the second tithe must it needes be the second in the same order and manner as he would haue it as though the Septuagints that were so ancient intended hereby to establish this new deuise invented only by Rabbines of later times Doe not the best expositions disagree in setting down precisely the number and order of the Tithes St Hierome on Ezech. 45. reckons vp foure sorts of tithes and makes that first which the people payde to the Leuites and that rhe second which the Leuites thence payde to the Priests of which he saith Et haec est quae appellatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he differs from the Rabbines and all their followers and yet knew better then they what Scripture taught concerning first or second tithes But it is not enough for our Historian thus to corrupt the text to fortifie his owne fancies but he goes on and dallies yet further with this Scripture saying This place of the yeare of Tithing Sal. Iarchi ad dict loc Deut. is interpreted by the common glosse of the Iewes by the yeare of one Tithe as if the Text had bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the yeare of one Tithe or of paying onely one Tithe First insteed of the common glosse of the Iewes he cites onely in the margent the proper glosse of Sal. Iarchi against whom I oppose Aben Ezra who doth not interpret the yeare of tithing by the yeare of one tithe or of paying onely one tithe but thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The yeare of tithing that is the poore mans tithe meaning the yeare of paying the poore mans tithe which was not payd in other yeares and this is answereable to that he said before that some held that all the three tithes were this yeare brought forth and therefore most probably it is termed the yeare of tithing because a new accrue of tithes came this yeare aboue the rest and so Bechai on Deut. 26.12 R Chaskuni on Deut. 14.28 hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt bring forth all the tithes i. It concernes thee to bring forth the first tithe the second tithe the poore mans tithe setting downe the three distinct tithes by three distinct and seuerall names And therefore that cannot be true which the Historian teacheth that the second tithe and the poore mans tithe are substantially the same and fitly goe vnder one name for that which was giuen insteed of the second tithe cannot properly be said to be the same But say the Iewes as he noteth in the third sixt yeares the poore mans tithe was giuen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insteed of the second tithe and therefore can no more fitly be said to be the same then Iohn may be said to be Peter because he sits in the same chaire wherein Peter sate yesterday Furthermore Iarchi and Bechai on Deut. 14.28 and Deut. 26.12 speake to this effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. If a man delay or put off the payment of his Tithes the first and second yeare after the Sabbaticall then of necessity he must bring them forth of his house the third yeare So that in this case all the three tithes by Iarchi his confession being brought forth this third yeare they must needes be accounted three seuerall kindes of Tithes and therefore the poore mans tithe was not alwayes payde insteed of the second tithe nor one and the same in substance with the second tithe And a maine difference is noted betwixt them in the Talmud in Seder Teharoth Massech Iadim cap. 4 fol. 157. Where the expositor attributes these words to R. Eliezer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The second tithe is holy but the poore mans tithe common or prophane For the one might only be eaten at Ierusalem but the other in any place the one belonged to the housholder the other to the poore And though regularly they teach that the poore mans tithe was payed only the third and sixt yeares yet in the place before-named they deliuer it as a tradition of Moses from Sinai that Babel Aegypt Ammon and Moab payed the poore mans tithe in the seuenth yeare and Ramban in his preface to Seder Heraim saith as much of the second tithe that the same was also payed in these places the seuenth yeare I would be loath to stand too long vpon this point and yet I thinke it not amisse to consider in what manner he goes about to prooue it from the text before cited First he takes the Septuagint translation for a full and perfect confirmation of his opinion that the poore mans tithe is
time of the Gospell vnlesse we thinke it fitting that the spirituall sonnes of the Church should liue in all plenty and the spirituall Fathers goe a begging not considering what the Apostle saith Galat. 6.6 Let him that is taught in the word make him that taught him partaker of all his goods And that we may yet further see in what manner the Priests in the Law were partakers of the peoples goods I will here relate one thing more that R. Bechai hath on Numb 18.14 in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Doctours of happy memory in their discourses propound an example of a certaine woman that had a sheep which when she went to sheare the Priest came to her that she should giue him the first of the fleece Deut. 18.4 And when she brought forth the firstborne the Priest tooke that Numb 18.15 Now she seeing the case stand thus killed it then came the Priest and tooke the gifts Deut. 18.3 Afterward she said this flesh shall be a thing separate from the common vse then he tooke all Numb 18.14 In the beginning of this second Chapter of the History the Author in his Dichotomie saith that the yearely increase is either fruits of the ground or cattell I haue already spoken so much as I intended of the first and should now come to the other but before I enter vpon that considering that among other texts of holy Scripture wrested misinterpreted in this treatise we meet here with a crosse exposition of that text Leuit. 27.30 cited in pag. 13. of this Chapter I thinke it not amisse in a word or two to try the soundnes of it the rather because this Scripture hath vsually beene alleadged by iudicious and learned Diuines as a principal ground for the establishing of the diuine right in tithes But the Historian intending heere as it seemes to depriue vs of the benefit of this text and the true sense thereof doth therefore slylie bring it in by way of a Parenthesis and sayes that the Iewes apply it to the second Tithe which Tithe was meerely Leviticall is finished and so by consequent he doth insinuate that all haue erred who haue otherwise interpreted or vnderstood this text and therefore no hope here any longer of any hold or warrant for the Tithes we challenge But for answer to this though the Iewes be oftentimes idle and ridiculous in their interpretations and being enemies to Christianity giue vs cause to trust them no further then we see them yet to let these exceptions passe first I avouch that the chiefest and best learned of the Iewes doe not expound this text to be meant of the second tithe and because the Iewes in generall are heere named and yet none but one only is cited therefore that the truth may the better appeare I will oppose one of greater authority against him Aben Ezra a Iew often heretofore mentioned and one of speciall credit among them and therefore vsually stiled with an epithete Aben Ezra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aben Ezra the wise man he is plaine of an other opinion touching this Text his words are these on Leuit. 27.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that hath an heart to vnderstand the secret of the world shall also know the secret of the firstborne and the tenth And behold Abraham gaue tithe and fo also our father Iacob and I will further reueale part of the mysterie when I speake of the second tithe by the helpe of him that is first or one and hath no second 1 By which words it is euident first that he speaking of Abraham and Iacobs tithing taketh such Tithes to be meant here as Abraham Iacob payed before the Law 2ly Whereas he saith he will reueale part of the mystery when he comes to speake of the second Tithe he doth manifestly acknowledge that this place is not meant of the second Tithe therefore when he comes to the proper place thereof in his Commentary vpon Deut. 14.23 he doth there performe that which he did here promise His mysticall reason there expressed is taken from the perfection of number which I haue touched before and the drift of his speach tendeth to signifie in effect that as God is Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last so the beginning and the end the prime and the perfection the first and the tenth must bee consecrate to him And in this respect Philo Iudaeus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. de congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia pag. 342. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is some nerenesse as it were and affinity betweene God and the tenth And to like purpose writes Abarbinel on this Text of Leviticus But I let passe these curious speculations and subtilties about number ne fortè cùm de numero multum loquamur mensuram pondus negligere iudicemur as St Austin speakes in the like case de civit Dei lib. 11. cap. 31. neither doe I intend to dispute the question but only to free the Text from false interpretation and therefore I haue here produced this Rabbines Testimony a Iew against a Iew a better against a worse I might likewise here alleadge the authority of Lyra and others that in this agree with Aben Ezra and among the rest Abarbinel is very plaine that both first and second Tithe is comprehended in this Text saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of the corne of the ground that is the first tithe and the second tithe and he addes also a reason to shew that these are holy to the Lord as arising from his prouidence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his blessing of the increase of the earth which hath reference aswell to the first as to the second tithe But I come now to heare the aduerse party and to consider briefly the forme and reason of his testimony Levit. 27.30 All the Tithe of the land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords it is holy to the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture speakes of the second Tithe saith Salomoh Iarchi in this place It is the sentence rule of Hilary obserued by that Reuerend Father of the Church whose learned labour for the clearing of the truth in the question of tithes hath now long beene extant That he who readeth Scripture as he ought must not bring a sense to the words but fetch the sense from the words and not compell the Scripture to speake as he in preiudice conceiueth But R. Iarchi goes directly against this rule for he hauing a preiudiciall conceit that this Text must be interpreted of the second Tithe he therefore restraines all the particulars therein contained to his own purpose And because in Deut. 14.23 the place of the second Tithe it is said Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the Tithe of thy corne of thy wine of thine oyle therefore from thence hee expounds these in Leuit.
27.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Of the seed of the ground that is corne of the fruit of the trees that is wine and oyle As though there were no seed of the ground but corne and no fruit of the trees but wine and oyle what is this else but contrary to the former rule to bring a sense to the words and not to take a sense from the words Againe to restraine this Text onely to the second Tithe is without any sufficient warrant considering that not only the second but also the first tithe is the Lords and holy to the Lord as Abarbinel here saith because it proceeds frō his blessing of the earth as a reserued portion to himselfe That it is the Lords appeareth Numb 18 21. For behold I haue giuen the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance He giues that here which in a peculiar manner was his owne to giue And therefore well saith Calvin touching this on Leuit. 27.30 His verbis ostendit Deus se decimas Leuitis assignando proprio iure cedere quae sunt quasi regale vectigal atque ita querimonias omnes compescit quia alioqui obstrepere poterant aliae tribus ultra modum se gravari And that the first tithe is the Lords Iarchi himselfe euidently sheweth on Malach. 3.8 Wherein haue we spoiled thee In tithes and offerings where saith Iarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The tithes and offerings which ye take from the Priests and Leuites that is the spoyling of me Which words are meant not of the second but of the first tithe which only belonged to the Priests Leuites and in defrauding them hereof God himselfe is said to be spoyled And so in Esay 5.8 Woe to them that ioyne house to house c. Iarchi hath the like saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Ye rob God of his part in tithes Beside as the first tithe is the Lords so also it is holy to the Lord Deut. 26.13 I haue brought the hallowed thing out of my house and also haue giuen it to the Leuites c. The Targum here saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I haue brought the holy Tithe out of my house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And also haue giuen it to the Leuites that is the first Tithe saith Iarchi so he doth here interpret the words in ver 12. of the Leuites Tithe or first Tithe And this is likewise confirmed by Aben Ezra on Numb 18.29 and againe by Iarchi on Nehem. 12.47 And they gaue the holy things vnto the Leuites which Iarchi thus expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they gaue the Tithe to the Leuites whereby he implyeth that the first Tithe or Leuites Tithe is holy And to conclude if that be true which the Historian saith of the increase of their cattell one Tithe only was payed and that to the Leuites then it followeth that the first tithe or Leuites tithe is holy to the Lord for it is said Leuit. 27.32 Euery tithe of Bullock and of Sheepe of all that goeth vnder the rod the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. If then the first tithe be the Lords and holy to the Lord why shall it be excluded out of this text And if this verse be vnderstood of the first tithe as the History teacheth why shall not also the verses immediatly going before be vnderstood in like manner of the first tithe To this that hath bin said one thing more may be added that whereas Iarchi touching the redeeming of the tithe by adding the first part thereto as in Leuit 27.31 saith that this redeeming was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it may be free to be eaten in euery place First the adding of the first part is not prescribed at all in that text which they make to be the ground of the second tithe viz Deut. 14.23 Neither was the second tithe to be eaten in all places for that was proper only to the first tithe as Deut. 18.31 In regard whereof Ramban confutes Iarchi his exposition of those words in Deut. 26.4 nor giuen ought thereof for the dead c. to be meant of the second tithe therefore hath this glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To make a coffin and winding sheet for the dead Ramban here shewes that this exposition is not sound for saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is declared in the Scripture that they might not prophane the second tithe out of Ierusalem but only if the way were too farre it was to be made in money and that money to be laid out at Ierusalem for some thing fit to be eaten there oxe and sheep c. Deut. 14 26. and therefore not to make a coffin or winding sheet for the dead and so much doth Chimki also note on Esay 62.9 But for this redeeming of the Tithe by adding the fift part thereto I take that to be agreeable to the truth which the iudicious interpreter Caluin touching this point hath deliuered on Leuit. 27 30. in these words Quòd verò ubi pecunia redimuntur decimae quintam partem aestimationi vult superaddi non eò tendit ut Levitae ex alieno damno lucrum faciant sed quia astutè aliquam vtilitatem captabant agrorum domini frumentum in pecuniam mutando fraudibus occurritur ne quid ex captiosâ permutatione Levitis decedat Eadem ratione animalia iubet qualiacunque erunt decimari nec pecuniâ redimi patitur quoniam si libera fuisset electio nullum unquam animal pingue aut vegetum venisset ad Levitas Ergo hâc lege remedium avaritiae sordibus fuit adhibitum Where we see also that Calvin doth manifestly interpret this Text of the first Tithe or Leuites tithe as the most or best interpreters doe so that here wee haue both Iewes and Christians against the foresaid History Wherefore though we loose the Tithes yet let vs not loose the Text let vs not loose the Truth for if this dealing with Scripture may currently passe Abraham payed Tithe of all that is only of the spoyles All the Tithe of the land is the Lords that is only the second Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the yeare of tithing that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Tithe or the yeare of paying onely one Tithe I say if this course may be allowed as Tithes are made no Tithes by wicked customes and prescriptions so Scripture shall be made no Scripture by corrupt glosses and false expositions and yet these matters are set forth with such a goodly outward shew as though forsooth they might admit no contradiction for thus saith the Author Many of no small name grosly slip in reckoning and diuiding these kindes of their Tithes but this here deliuered is from the holy Text and the Iewish Lawyers What wee receiue rightly deduced from the Text we willingly embrace but as for the Iewi h Lawyers they iarre among themselues they trust not one another and therefore we
such sort as the Iewish Rabbines teach there is no text of Scripture to warrant it neither doe they alledge any but only this of Leuit. 27.32 which some of themselues confesse as Ramban on Deut. 14. that it doth not prescribe either to whom the tithe should be payde or in what manner it should be imployd but only declareth that it is holy to the Lord. Now then to appoint a sacrifice or any thing to be done in the worship of God of which sacrifices were a part without the will and Word of God what is it else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will-worship so often condemned in Scripture And whereas it was not lawfull for any man either to change or redeeme the tithe of his cattell how could it bee lawfull for him to eat it as they did the peace-offerings without speciall commaundement from God neither could all the flesh thereof be eaten by the owners as the Iewes seeme to affirme for Deut. 18.3 the shoulder the two cheekes and the maw of euery sacrifice was due to the Priest say the Iewes as a reward of Phinees his zeale the shoulder in respect of his hand as it is said Numb 25.7 he tooke a speare in his hand the cheeke with the tongue therein included in regard of his prayer Psal 106.30 then stood vp Phinees and prayde The maw with reference to that action of his Numb 25.8 he thrust them both thorough to wit tbe man of Israel and the woman thorough her belly or as Aben Ezra hath it the shoulder for his killing of the heaue-offerings the cheekes and the tongue for his blessing and the maw for his searching of the suspect vice Or as Ramban 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because these are the first or chiefe and principall members and therefore were giuen for the honour of the Almighty vnto his Ministers 2 Furthermore whereas in the wildernesse all beasts that were eaten were offered for peace-offerings Levit. 17. Ramban in the exposition of that Text Deut. 12.20 saith When the Lord your God shall enlarge your border and ye shall not all abide about the tabernacle as ye doe at this day in the wildernes then shall common flesh be permitted vnto you for it is impossible that ye should all goe from places far distant vnto the place that God shall choose and that ye should offer for peace-offrings whatsoeuer ye should eate In like manner also may I say in this case that it is impossible at least-wyse improbable that besides the multitude of other sacrifices euery tithe of bullocke and of sheepe and other cattell should all from the furthest parts yea from all the parts of Ganaan be brought vp to Ierusalem and be offered and eaten there by the husbandmen as the Rabbines teach especially when as the Lord himselfe to prevent this and the like trouble and inconveniency hath appointed for the second tithe Deut. 14.25 that if the way were too long for them and the place of God's worship far off they might change it into money and therewith buy things to be eaten at Ierusalem which was not granted for the tithe of cattell for the Law commands that that should not be changed 3 Againe the Iewes teach from Leuit. 17.4 that whil'st the Israelites were in the wildernes at which time also this precept was giuen concerning the tithe all flesh was holy and that they were neither to kill or eat any beast but such as were offered for peace-offrings till such time as they came into Canaan where they had more liberty granted Deut. 12.20 Why then should the Tithe at that time particularly be said to be holy to the Lord in respect of sacrifice when as other beasts if not all were in this regard holy aswell as the tenth vnlesse some further matter were signified thereby 4 Moreouer it is said concerning the tithe of cattell Leuit. 27.35 he shall not looke if it be good or bad neither shall he change it In the same sense as it is also said ver 10. He shall not alter it nor change it a good for a bad nor a bad for a good for why saith Bechai on this place the Law pointing at man's corruption if it should permit him to change a good one for a bad one he would in time also giue a bad one insteed of a good one and say that it is a good one and therefore saith he to prevent this fraud the Law doth punish him and saith that if he change beast for beast then both this and that which was changed for it shall be holy and in this sense doth Calvin also vnderstand this Text. Now this that is spoken of a good or bad one Iarchi doth interpret to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Such a beast as is either perfect or hath a blemish And certainly such a beast as hath a blemish because it could not be changed might happen to be the tenth for so the Text presupposeth But no beast hauing a blemish might be offered for a peace-offering Leuit. 3. and so much also doth Iarchi on this Text acknowledge Therefore in this case it is plaine that the tenth of cattell could not be offered vpon the Altar I demaund then how was it to be disposed of for here for this the Iewes are at strife among themselues R. Bechai speaking to this point of such beasts as were vnfit for sacrifice saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All such as these goe not into the Coat to be tithed because they are not fit for sacrifice But this will not agree with the Text that presupposeth the tenth beast may be good or may be bad that is haue a blemish and so vnfit for sacrifice Iarchi he saith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That if it had a blemish it might not be offered but was to be eaten according to the Law of the tithe But what Law or what tithe doth the Rabbine here meane not the tithe of the beast for the Law was in their conceit that that should be offered vpon the Altar Nor the second Tithe for the Text it selfe is against it for that might be changed and turned into money to be bestowed at Ierusalem if the iourney were long but the Tithe of beasts might not be changed Neither can it be meant of the poore man's Tithe for that was only the Tithe of the third yeare and to be eaten in the gates in the Countrey and not at Ierusalem It remaines therefore that it was to be eaten according to the Law of the first Tithe which was the Leuites Tithe and without any offering might be eaten in any place Numb 18.31 and in this sense I haue agreed with the Rabbine And questionlesse Aben-Ezra in his interpretation of the Text is on our side against the cōmon opinion of the Iewes for whereas some of them interpret the 30 verse of the second tithe which was to be eaten by the householder at Ierusalem and the 32 verse of the Tithe of beasts to