SECT. 1.

THere are two things for which this History being duely exa­mined doth discouer it selfe worthy to be taxed: The first is the wresting of holy Scrip­tures against their true sense: The other, the boasting of Iewish Rabbines without any soundnesse or shew of reason: for the Author (as it seemeth) bearing no good affection either to Priest, or payment of Tithes, when he would draw a text of Scripture to his pur­pose, he doth vsually garnish and set it forth with the expositions of the Iewes, and that in generall termes, as though he had them all at his fingers ends, and all of them were on his side, when as notwithstanding it will appeare that sometimes none rightly vnder­stood, sometimes insteed of all, only one is cited; as on that Text, Levit. 27.30. Also 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. The Hi­story saith, cap. 2. pag. 13. The Iewes apply this Scrip­ture to the second Tithe. The Iewes are here propoū ­ded [Page 2] in generall, yet there is none quoted but Salomoh Iarchi. Cap. 2. pag. 16. So on Deut. 26.12. [...] he saith this place of the yeare of tithing is interpreted by the common glosse of the Iewes, by the yeare of one Tithe, &c: and yet none is cited but Salomoh Iarchi; not­withstanding when Salomoh Iarchi speaks any thing that may seeme to make for the diuine right of ti­thing, then his testimony is curtol'd & contradicted, as is plaine in the very beginning of the History, Gen. 14.20. And Abraham gaue him tithe of all, that is (saith he) [...] of all that he had, as the ordina­ry glosse of Salomoh Iarchi there interprets. But here he leaues out these words, [...] i. be­cause he was the Priest, the whole sentēce 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. [...] [Page 3] 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; vter (que) 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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 su [...]posed, and the consequent thereof, that if it were [...] [...]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, [Page 6] 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, [Page 7] [...] i. according to the order or custome: or else saith that the letter Caph is here wanting; i. Thou art a Priest for euer.

[...] i. because thou art as Melchisedek was; & of him it is written, Gen. 14.18. & he was a Priest of the most high God: which agrees with the Syriacke translatiō, [...] i. after the similitude of Melchisedek: as also with the Epistle, [...], according to the order of Melchisedek: and in the Arabique, [...] like Melchisedek.

So then howsoeuer some interpreters may differ, and make needlesse scruples & doubts in their glosses on the Text, yet take it which way you will, this one thing appeares to be the generall cōsent of the Iewes, that the Tithes still followed the Priesthood.

If any say, the Priesthood is now abolished, and therefore also the Tithes; the answer is easie & com­mon, that this is true for the Leviticall Priesthood, & the Leviticall payment of Tithe. But the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, is not abolished, nor the Tithes to the same belonging, as the Apostle shewes, Heb. 7.8. And here men that die receiue tithes. but there he receiueth them, of whom it is witnessed, that he liueth.

Besides, the Iewes themselues acknowledge, that he which is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, hath right to take Tithes, as Melchisedek did: for so are the expresse wordes of Aben-Ezra on Psal. 110.4. The Lord sware, &c. ‘ [...] [Page 8] [...]’ i. Thou art a Priest. Euery Priest is a Minister: and so it is said, 2 Samuel. 8.18. and the sonnes of Dauid were Priests, that is, to serue the Lord: And beholde the meaning is, that Israel shall fight, and thou shalt take the tithe, as Melchisedek tooke it of Abraham.

I am not ignorant that the Iewes diuersly expoū ­ding this Psalme, sonne of Abraham, soone of Dauid, sonne of Messiah, teach that the word [...] is taken not only for a Priest, but also for a Prince. But Aben-Ezra here contradicts this; for though, as he confes­seth Esay 43.28. the Priests are called [...] i. the Rulers or Princes of the Sanctuary; yet he deny­eth that [...] doth any-where signifie a Prince, as on Gen. 14.18. and 41.45, &c. And very plainly on that Text, Esay 61.6. But yee shall be named the Priests of the Lord, and men shall say vnto you, the ministers of our God. He thus writeth, ‘ [...]’ i. I haue heretofore affirmed, that euery Priest is al­wayes taken for a Minister, as here it is witnessed, the Priests the Ministers of our God. And so doth he in this text interpret the word Priest, & not Prince, & saith; that this Priest shall take tithe as Melchisedek did: Now the reason why the Iewes thus constantly chal­lenge the Tithe as due to the Priest, is; for that they hold the Tithe to be God's part, and allotted by him vnto the Priest, so doth Ramban expressely teach on Gen. 14. ‘[Page 9] [...]’ i. Abraham would not take to himselfe so much as a threed or shoo-latchet, but he did separate God's part to giue it to the Priest. And so Esay 5.8, Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house, &c. Iarchi saith, ‘ [...]’ i. Ye rob God of his part in tithes. So also he expoūds that of Malach. 3.8. The tithes and offerings whereof ye spoyle the Priests & Levites. [...] that is, the spoyling of me. And in the Talmud Baba Kamah, cap. 7. fol. 69. it is said, [...] i. the tenth or tithe is god's riches: which agrees with that text of Levit. 27.30. All the tithe of the land, &c. is the Lord's, it is holy to the Lord. Nay the Iewes goe further in this kind, and teach that the Tithe is so the Lords, as that a man hath no right to the nine parts, till he hath giuen God the tenth, as R. Bechai testifi­eth on Deut. 14.23. ‘ [...]’ i. The tithe of thy corne and of thy wine. If thou pay the tithe▪ it is thy corne; if not, it is my corne. If thou pay the tithe, it is thy wine; if not, it is my wine: for it is said Hose. 2.9. Therefore I will returne, and take away my corne in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof.

That God chose the tenth for his part, Aben-Ezra on Deut. 14. takes vpon him to render a reason for it, which hee draweth from the perfection of number, ten in simple numbers being the highest we can arise [Page 10] vnto, without iteration of numbers vnder it, being as he tearmes it, ‘ [...]’ i. The beginning of the second Combination, and the end of the first, whereupon all other numbers doe de­pend. But I will not stand vpon such nice argumenta­tions, the certainty of the truth & the equity thereof being otherwise cleered. Abarbinell on Levit. 27.30. teacheth, that the tenth part is consecrate to God in regard of his prouidence and blessing of the fruits of the earth. And to this purpose R. Bechai on Deut. 14.22. writes thus; [...] i. Thou shalt giue the tithe of all the increase, &c. ‘ [...] &c.’ i. It is the fashion of the world, if a man haue ground, he puts it out to halfes, or for a third or fourth part, but it is not so with the Almighty; for he casseth the windes, raiseth the Cloudes, sends downe raine, disper­seth the deaw, makes fat the fruits of the Earth, and yet requires but one part of ten; therefore Moses ad­monisheth Israel diligently to pay the Tithe.

And hence it was, that euen before the Law, they held the payment of Tithes not to be a voluntary ob­lation, but a necessary duty, and worke of iustice and righteousnesse; and therefore Ramban on Gen. 14. saith, that the King of Sodom did intreat Abraham to [Page 11] giue him the persons. ‘ [...]’ i. after he saw the bounty of his heart, and his righte­ousnes, in that he gaue the tithe. By these and such like speeches, together with their reasons be­fore-mentioned, the Iewes ordinarily declare the Tithe to be God's part, and to be payd to the Priest by a perpetuall right. And the force of these reasons stands good, not only for the time vnder the Law, but also for the time both before and after the Law; for Malach. 3.6. God changeth not, neither is his arme shortned, or his goodnes to his creatures in blessing the fruits of the Earth diminished. In this therefore the Iewes speake no otherwise concerning Tithes, then the auncient Fathers of the Church and Councills haue spoken in former times: Among the rest

Concilium Lateranense primum, cap. 54. saith thus: Cùm non sit in homine quod semen serenti respōdeat, quoniam iuxta verbum Apostoli, 1 Cor. 3.7. Ne (que) qui plantat est aliquid, ne (que) qui rigat, sed qui incrementū dat Deus: ipsum quidem de mortificato semine pluri­mum fructum afferente, nimis avarè in decimis qui­dam defrandare nituntur, &c. And againe in the same place; Cùm autem in signū vniuersalis dominij quasi quodam titulo speciali sibi dominus decimas re­servaverit; nos &c. thereupon they decree there, ut decimae ante tributa solvantur. So also Concil. Tri­bur. cap. 13. speakes in right of Tithes. Quid si diceret dominus, nempe meus es homo, mea est terra quam co­lis, [Page 12] mea semina quae spargis, &c. and in the end giues these reasons for the payment of them: Decimae offe­rendae sunt à populo, ut hàc ratione Deus placatus, lar­giùs praestet quae necessaria sunt, & ut ministri Eccle­siae exinde relevati, liberiores fiant ad spiritualis offi­cij expletionem, &c. And this selfe-same reason is v­sed by R. Chaskin on Numb. 18.20.

But I returne againe to the History, where wee may obserue, that as the testimony of Iarchi was be­fore mangled and maymed, by leauing out a princi­pall part of it; so in the next words his meaning is restrained and perverted; for whereas Iarchi writes, that Abraham gaue Melchisedek tithe of all that he had, because he was the Priest; Here now the Histori­an saith; But it is hard to conceiue it of any other, all that he had, then all the substance, or all the spoyles that he had by that expedition. And yet on the other side more hard and harsh is the conceit of those, that to spoyle the Church of Tithes, doe teach, that Abra­ham payd nothing else but only tithe of spoyles. It is the aduise of Salomon, Prov. 20.18. Establish the thoughts by counsell, and by counsell make warre. And it is not to be thought that the Patriarch Abraham wanted this wisdome, or that he would vndertake a busines of such consequence and importance in any rash or vnadvised manner, but with prouident care & due praeparation. For Luke 14.31. What King going to make warre against another King, sitteth not downe first, and taketh counsell whether he be able, &c. Nay R. Levi Ben Gershon in his Collections from Iudg. 3. doth propound Abraham for a patterne and an ex­ample [Page 13] of warinesse and policy in this kind; teaching that as it is meet to make warre by counsell, so much more when his enemies are too strong for him, as A­braham did when he went to battell against the foure Kings, [...] for he diuided himselfe against them by night, that they might not perceiue him. He therefore that was thus carefull and circumspect in his actions, and able also to pursue the enemy with 318 persons, train'd vp in his own house, did no doubt in like sort furnish them euery way, & tooke with him sufficient & necessary prouision for that warre, which either was all spent before Melchi­sedek met him, or else why should he not pay tithes of that, being his own goods, aswell as of the spoiles, vnlesse he had tithed them before, when as the Text saith, he gaue him tithe of all, especially considering his answer to the King of Sodome, ver. 23. and his pra­ctise in the buriall of Sarah, Gen. 23.13. together with the like practise of Dauid in the 2. of Sam. 24.24.

That his prouision was so slender, that all was spent before he met Melchisedek, it is not likely; for it appeares by the circumstances of the Text, that Abraham very speedily preuail'd, and considering the distance of place betwixt Hebron in the land of Iu­dah, and Damascus out of the land, he obtained the victory (as the Iewes write) in an extraordinary and miraculous manner: so saith Ramban on Gen. 14.15. And therefore ver. 20. Melchisedek said vnto him; Blessed be the most high God, which hath deliuered thine enemies into thy hand. Againe, hauing speedi­ly vanquisht the enemies, he needed not waste much [Page 14] of his own substance; for he was now otherwise pro­uided, hauing to sustaine his soldiers with the spoiles that he had taken, and so he did as it is the Text ver. 24. saue only that which the yong men had eaten. And this practise vpon like occasion was vsuall, as Aben-Ezra signifies on Numb. 31.32. And the booty being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was sixe hundred thousand, and seuenty thousand, and fiue thousand sheep. ‘ [...]’ i. the rest of the prey besides that which they had ea­ten: for therefore it is called the rest, saith he. Abra­ham then being furnished with the spoyles, might here well spare his own goods: for certainly in this case the equity of the Apostles rule stands in force: Who goeth a warfare any time at his own cost? 1 Cor. 9.7. And therefore the Targum attributed to Iona­than Ben Vziel, if it be of any credit, he gaue him tithe [...] of all that he brought bach again, may comprehend all that Abraham brought backe againe, aswell of his owne goods, as of the spoyles. And the Targum of Onkelus doth restraine nothing, but speakes full as large as the Text, saying; ‘ [...]’ i. And he gaue him a tenth part of all. But let vs goe on with thhe History.

And to free it from doubt, the holy Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes first vsing the Text of Gene­sis in these words, [...] the tithe of all, after a few words interposed, explaines it by [...], the tithe of the spoyles, as if he had [Page 15] said, [...], the tithe of all the spoyles.

This manner of expounding the Text, cannot stand; for besides the vnsit connection, or rather con­vulsion of two seuerall texts, to make a new sense a­gainst the intendment of the Apostle, and iudgment of all interpreters, his conclusion is not sound: for A­braham did not pay the tithe of all the spoiles; but on­ly of his owne part of the spoyles: The young men had eaten part of them, before Abraham came to Melchisedek, as I lately mentioned. And if Abraham paide tithe of all the spoyles, then he payde of that which was not his own, which to doe were iniustice; for Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, which were confederate with him, Gen. 14.13. and went with him to warre, had also their share and part in the spoyles. ver. 24.

And hence it is that Iarchi on this text, touching the parting of the spoyle, saith; that Dauid learned of Abraham, when he said 1 Sam. 30.24. As his part is that goeth downe to battell, so shall his part be that tarryeth by the stuffe, they shall part alike. And there­fore it is further said in that place as he wel obserueth, ‘ [...]’ i. And it was so from that day and before. And he made it a statute and an ordinance; but it is not said from that day forward, because it was already made a statute in the dayes of Abraham. Therefore it is t ue that Abraham payde tithe of all, & also of the spoiles, but not [...], of all the spoyles; but [Page 16] generally as Iarchi saith it, [...] of all things that he had.

Some are so farre from thinking that Abraham payde tithe of all the spoyles, as that on the contrary they hold, that he payde no tithe of the spoyles at all, because he said to the King of Sodome, that he would not take so much as a threed or shoo-latchet of all that was his. But Ramban answeres this, in the testimony before cited, where he saith, ‘ [...] &c.’ i. Abraham would not take to himselfe so much as a shoo-latchet, but he did separate God's part, to giue it to the Priest. But it will be said, by what right did A­braham giue the tenth as God's part out of other mens goods? To this R. Abuhab makes answer, explai­ning the exposition of Ramban in these wordes, ‘ [...] &c.’ i. It may seeme at the first view, that Abraham's in­tent and will was to take all the substance to himselfe; and this is that which the Scripture testifieth, that he gaue the tithe, euen as a man giues the tithe of his goods. And so it is said, the King of Sodome came forth to meet him, that is to say, in respect of his substance; & when he saw that he did not giue it him, nor consent thereto, he intreated him, saying, giue me the persons. But our Rabbine is not cleare or resolute in his expo­sition; for behold Abraham said, I will not take of all that is thine so much as a threed or shoo-latchet, &c. for [Page 17] so according to this exposition he should pay tithe of that which was not his owne; to this therfore our Rabbine saith, that certainly by right it was his, but by reason of his great kindnesse and exceeding bounty, he would not take any thing, for Abraham trusted in his God, that he would giue him substance, and riches, and honor, and therefore would take nothing from him, lest he should say that he made Abraham rich.

The drift therefore of this answer is in effect to shew that Abraham gaue tithe of the spoyles, and yet of his own goods, for that the spoyles were his owne gotten in iust warre, and giuen without any wrong to the King of Sodome; and whereas Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre retain'd to themselues their part of the spoyles, it shewes that Abraham's giuing of his part, was of his owne voluntary curtesie, and not of any necessity. By this therefore that hath bin al­leadged, it is euident, according to the opinion of the Iewes, that Abraham dayde tithe of the spoiles, yet they doe not teach, that he payde tithe only of the spoyles, but the contrary; for R. Chaskuni saith on Gen. 14: That the bread and wine which Melchise­dek brought forth, was [...] that is, such things as were not tithed, ‘ [...]’ i. To the end that Abraham might set apart the tithe thereof. Therefore in his iudgment something else was then tithed beside spoyles: on those words in Gen. 25, 27. and Esau was a cunning hunter, Iarchi hath this glosse, ‘ [...] [Page 18] [...]’ i. He was cunning to deceiue and beguile his father with his words, asking him, father how doe they tithe salt? how doe they tithe straw or chaffe, that his father might thinke that he did accurately study the com­mandements of the Law. R. Bechai doth also relate this on the same Text. Now these & such like glosses, though in themselues idle and fabulous, yet they make this one thing plaine, that in those times they held tithes due to be payde, and that they were also payde of other things besides spoyles. Aben-Ezra on Gen. 28.22. expounds the words of Iacob, of all that thou shalt giue me will I giue the tenth to thee. [...] i. of all the goods that thou shalt giue me will I giue the tenth to thee. And why may we not likewise thinke that his grandfather Abraham payde tithe also of all the goods that God did giue him? either now at this meeting of Melchi­sedek, or else at other times: when as the Apostle makes the tithing here to countervail the tithing in the Law? Some say here of Iacob, as R. Bechai on Numb. 18. notes from Pirke R. Eliezer, that [...] i. he gaue also the tenth of his sonnes as holy to the Lord: which beginning with Beniamin, and so numbring them backward, they take to be Levi, euen as in tirhing their sheep, that which goeth last into the Coat, comes first out; and so saith Abarbinel on Levit. 27.30. But this is re­iected hy Aben-Ezra on Gen. 28.22. saying, ‘ [...] [Page 19] [...]’ i. That Levi should be the tenth, it is a figuratiue ex­position, and not according to the letter; for it is not in the Law, that a man should giue the tenth of his sonnes, but the tenth of bullocks, and of sheep, and of in­crease. Where he takes this for granted, that such tithes were to be payde by the Patriarches before the Law, as were vsually payde afterward in the time of the Law, otherwise his reason were nothing. In like manner may we say that Abraham payde not onely the tenth of spoyles, for it is not in the Law that a man should giue only the tenth of spoyles, but the tenth of bullocks, and of sheep, and of increase. Again the same Rabbine on Levit. 27. making mention of Abrahams tithing, and Iacob's tithing; which relation to the manner of tithing vnder the Law, giues vs to vnderstand, that in his conceit both for the things ti­thed, as also for the yearely payment of them, the or­der and practise was alike.

But what should I speake of the Rabbines? doth not the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Hebrews, comparing Abraham's paying of tithe with the pay­ment to Levi vnder the Law, implye that the pay­ment was alike in both? for when he saith, Heb. 7.9. Levi also which receiueth tithes, payde tithes in A­braham. Shall we imagine that Levi receiued tithes of diuerse things according to the Law, but payde tithes in Abraham only of the spoyles? Or that Mel­chisedek Priest of the most high God, to whom the Iewes say Tithes were payde, because he was the Priest, was confined and stinted perpetually to take [Page 20] tithe of nothing else but only spoyles? How will that agree with the scope of the Apostle in that place, who to proue the excellency of Melchisedek's Priesthood, among other reasons draweth one principall argu­ment, amplified with diuerse circumstances à iure de­cimandi, from the right of tithing. His right therfore in tithing must no way be lesse, but rather greater then Levi's was; which being proued only by the practise of Abraham's tithing; the Apostle doubtlesse doth here intend, that such Tithes at the least as Levi receiued, such also he payde in Abraham. But Levi did not receiue Tithes only of the spoiles; therefore he did not pay Tithes only of the spoiles. Nay I adde further, that Levi did not receiue any Tithe of the spoyles, or any part of the spoyles at all; for so the Iewes teach from these Texts of Scripture, Deut. 18.1. The Priests of the Levites, & all the Tribe of Levi, shall haue no part nor inheritance with Israel; that is, saith Iarchi, [...] i. They shal haue no part in the spoyle, nor inheritance in the land. Likewise Numb. 18.20. And the Lord said vnto Aa­ron, thou shalt haue no inheritance in their land, nei­ther shalt thou haue any part among them: where a­gaine is the same glosse of Iarchi, [...] i. They shall haue no part euen in the spoyle. And this is also confirmed by Ramban, and by R. Bechai on the same Text. ‘ [...]’ i. Our Doctors teach. In their land thou shalt haue no [Page 21] inheritance at the time of the diuision of the land, & thou shalt haue no part among them in the spoyle. I am thy part or portion, thou shalt feed at my Table. And whereas Numb. 31.28.29. a tribute was taken of the prey, one of fiue hundred from the souldiers part, and one of fifty from the peoples, which was giuen to Elea­zar and to the Leuites; Ramban in way of explanati­on, answereth that doubt in these words, ‘ [...] &c.’ i. This tribute was offered, because the spoyle came by the executing of God's vengeance vpon a land that was not theirs, Numb. 25.17. but in the land of Sihon and Og, they gaue not to the Priests and Leuites any thing thereof, for they were admonished to the contra­ry, where it is said, ‘ [...]’ i. Thou shalt haue no part among them, no not in the spoyle. And R. Bechai doth likewise confirme this wri­ting on the same Text. How then can Abraham's paying of Tithe be compared with that of the Law, if Abraham payde nothing but tithe of spoyles, and in the Law they payde no tithe of spoyles at all? Or to what end is it said; Levi that receiued tithes, payde tithes in Abraham, except he payd in Abraham some such tithes as he did receiue? and if so, then somthing else beside spoyles, for Levi receiued no tithe of spoyles, if we may beleeue the Iewes.

Againe, when the Apostle saith, ver. 8. Here men that die receiue tithes, but here he receiueth them of whom it is witnessed, that he liueth: he speakes in the plurall number [...], which being in the [Page 22] same manner without change of number applyed to Melchisedek, may seeme to include more then only tithe of spoyles; for making mention of them in ver. 4. he doth not speake in the plurall number, but only in the singular, [...].

But how shall the Priesthood of Melchisedek bee proued greater then Levi's in regard of the right of tithing, if Melchisedek receiue tithe but once, and of one person, and that only of spoyles, & that also by curtesie, when as Levi receiued them often, and of many persons, & of all things prescribed in the Law, & that by diuine authority; for ver. 5. they had a cō ­mandement to take Tithes. Surely this wil not argue a superiority, but rather an inferiority in Melchise­dek's Priesthood in regard of tithing, which is con­trary to the drift of the Apostle. Therefore I rather thinke whereas it is said in Heb. 7.2. first that Abra­ham gaue tithe of all things, and after gaue also the tithe of the spoyles, ver. 4. That the Apostle here in­folds an other argument to proue the greatnesse of Melchisedek's Priesthood aboue the Leviticall, be­cause Abraham did not onely pay to Melchisedek tithe of all things aswell as they did in the Law to Le­vi, but also gaue the tithe of the spoyles, which the Iewes say was not giuen in the Law. And some in­ducement for this may be gathered from the words of the Text it selfe; for in the first place it is said in the Greek, ver. 2. [...], he diuided the tithe; and after ver. 4. [...], he gaue euen of the spoyles; and so an­swerable to these are the Syriaque words, first [...] i. he diuided; then [...] he gaue: as though his latter [Page 23] had bin more free, & more then was in vse in the Le­viticall Law, for no doubt but the Apostle (brought vp at Gamaliel's feet) was well acquainted with the manner & practise of the Iewes in the payment of their Tithes.

But howsoeuer they teach, that no Tithe or part of spoyles was giuen to Leui, yet Aben-Ezra on Psal. 110.4. in the testimony before cited, doth plainely shew, that the Tithe of spoyles is to be giuen to him that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek; for of him he saith, Israel shall fight, and thou shalt receiue the tithe as Melchisedek did of Abraham. Now the Tithe taken after the fighting of a battell, what is it else but the Tithe of spoyles, except by a Synecdo­che we vnderstand by fighting; not only the action of souldiers in time of warre, but also the exercise of other Arts and vocations in time of peace. To con­clude therefore, the Apostle proueth Melchisedek to be greater then Leui from the right of tithing, not only in regard of the persons that payde tithe vnto him, to wit, Abraham & Levi, & the continuance of the payment, he receiuing thē of whō it is witnessed, that he liueth; but also in respect of the things them­selues, whereof tithes were pay'd, that is, of all things; yea euen of the spoyles, vnder which both personall and praediall Tithes may be comprehended,

The Syriaque & Arabique translations of the New Testament agree with this. And the testimonies al­leadged for Abraham's tithing of spoyles, doe none of them shew that he payde tithe only of the spoiles, but that he did pay the tithe of spoiles, which we doe [Page 24] not deny. And if the tithe of spoyles was God's part, as the Iewes themselues doe teach, in Abraham's ti­thing; then much more the Tithe of other goods, which in many things are obtain'd, not by the labour & industry of man, but only by the gracious proui­dence & blessing of God. All this while I haue mo­ued no quaestion (as some doe) about the interpreta­tion of the word [...], which properly signifies the chief parts or top of the heap; but I take it as it is here translated, spoyles; neither will I contend about the Syriaque translation, which hath Tithes and first fruits. And yet the word [...] rendred first fruits, Heb. 7.4. is of a more large extent; for in Heb. 7.3, it is expounded the beginning, ‘ [...]’ i. Hauing neither beginning of dayes. And in Luke 15.22. the chiefe or best, [...] i. Bring forth the best robe: which may well accord with the vulgar Latine in rhis, place; Decimas dedit de praecipuis. But for the Arabique word [...] to rest raine it here, as the Historian doth, to signifie Almes, must needes be a penurious & vn­proper exposition, the same being expressed in the best Arabique Lexicons by the Latine words aug­mentum, incrementū, thesaurus, corbona, perfectura, perfectus, but neuer cleemosyna. There is indeed an other word somewhat like this, springing from the same root, which is [...] explained by [...] righteousnesse, which also sometimes by a Synecdo­che signifieth Almes, as being parts of righteousnes. And so in Math 6.4. the Arabique [...] com­ming [Page 25] from the Hebrew is translated almes, as also the Hebrew terme it selfe is sometimes vsed, as Bechai shews on Deut. 26. [...] i. He that giues almes to the poore, giues almes to the Lord. But the proper word which the Arabiques vse for Almes, is [...] expressed in Math. 6.1.2. &c. and is deriued from the Hebrew Radix [...] misereri, whereas the other comes of [...] mundare, vel mundum esse. But neither of these words are found in this Text, but the other that is not expressed by the same Characters, which if in a borrowed sig­nification it be at any time either in the Alcoran, or elsewhere taken for Almes, yet it is altogether vn­proper and vnfit to vse any such exposition in this place, as it is vnfit that a gift which is presented to a Prince, should be called by the name of Almes. For how can we thinke that Melchisedek the King of Sa­lem, and Priest of the most high God was a receiuer of Almes, but rather a giuer, it being a more blessed thing to giue, then to receiue: Acts 20.35. And so much the Text it selfe, Gen. 14. together with the ex­positions of the Iewes doth import; where it is said that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to re­fresh Abraham's wearyed souldiers. There Iarchi thus glosseth, [...] i. So they vse to doe to thē that return'd weary from the warre.

Wherefore to shut vp this point, one thing we may note by the way, that if the Arabique translati­on here alleadged, may stand for sufficient authority, whereas the Historian makes it doubtful who should be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, stiling [Page 26] him in ambiguous and generall tearmes, The holy Author, but naming none: The Arabique puts this quaestion out of doubt; for it doth not only in the Title and inscription thereof call it the Epistle of S^t Paul, but doth expresse it to be in number the four­tenth of his Epistles, as it is stiled in the beginning thereof. And so also doth the Syriaque Translation without any scruple ascribe it plainly to S^t Paul.

SECT. 2.

THe next passage of Tithes is in Iacob's vow, Gen. 28.22. This stone which I haue set vp as a pillar shall be God's house, and all that thou shalt giue me, I will tithe, and giue the tenth to thee. This vow, if we read the beginning of it in ver. 20. seemes to be vttered conditionally, if God will bee with me, and keepe me in this iourney, &c. But R. Be­chai, and also Ramban doe otherwise expound it, and say expresly [...] That it is no condition, as Iarchi would haue it; for Iacob did not doubt of God's promises which he made vnto him, ver. 15. But saith Ramban, the Scripture speakes in this manner concerning things to come, as Gen. 28.15. [...] I will not forsake thee vntill I haue performed that that I haue promised thee. and so Numb. 36.4. [...] not if, but when the Iubily commeth. And Pagnine sheweth that the particle [...] is not alwayes to be taken as a note of a condition, and interpreted, si, if; but saith [Page 27] he, sunt qui ad [...] reducant, quia pro verò & cer­tè sumitur interdum, & est particula certò aliquid statuens. And Dauid Chimki giues examples for this in radice [...] as Numb. 1.30. [...] id est, [...] that is, certainely the Lord will make a new thing. So Prov. 3.34. [...] id est [...] Surely he scor­neth the scorners, as the last translation hath it. And in the same sense the word is vsed in Iob 22.20. &c. and elsewhere. Whereas therefore Abulensis and o­thers argue, that Tithes belong not to the Law of na­ture, or morall Law, because things morall are not to be vowed with condition but absolutely, the ground of that obiection is cleane taken away by this inter­pretation of the Text. For the Iewes teach that the vow of Iacob was not a conditionall, but an absolute vow. It followes in the History Which, Iosephus sayes, vpon his returne being after 20 yeares, he perfor­med, offering the tithe of all his substance, or [...], the tithe of all that he had gotten. Iose­phus doth not only say this, but also Iarchi on Gen. 28. ‘ [...]’ i. So he did at his returne when he said vnto him A­rise, goe to Bethel, Gen. 35.1. And Aben-Ezra like­wise on the same cap. 35.1. confirmes this saying, ‘ [...]’ i. In Bethel he performed his vow, and gaue the tithe of his substance to the honour of God. But that this was done after 20 yeares, neither doth Iosephus, or any o­ther [Page 28] Iew affirme. And if the computation of the yeares of the life of Iacob, set down by Iarchi on Gen. 28. be true, it was aboue 20, yea aboue 30 yeares be­fore he performed this vow; for he continued twen­ty yeares with Laban; as appeares Gen. 31.38. and 14 yeares (saith Iarchi) according to the opinion of their Doctors, he liued priuatly in the house of He­ber, after he had receiued the blessing, and before he went to Laban. And this they maintaine especially to make vp the full summe of 130 yeares of Iacob's age, when he came before Pharaoh, Gen. 47.9. Mercer al­so on Gen. 26.34. makes mention of this; but it being a matter of small moment, I let it passe, and looke a­gaine to the History.

Into whose hands he gaue the tithes, appeares not; but the chiefest Priest of that time was his father I­saac: for before Aaron, the Iewes said the Priesthood was wholly annexed to the first-borne of families, which agrees well with the sanctifying of the first-borne commanded in Aegypt, Exod. 13.

It is euident by the testimony of Ramban on Gen. 26.5. that the Patriarches were liberall in giuing their Tithes to the Priests of the Lord. ‘ [...]’ i. as to Shem and Heber and their disciples, as hee there saith. And among the Disciples of Shem & He­ber they account Iacob for one. And therefore on those words, Gen. 25.27. Iacob was a plaine man, and dwelt intents, Iarchi here glosseth, and Bechai and others. [...] i. the tent of Shem, and the tent of Heber. And on [Page 29] Gen. 37.3. Israel loued Ioseph more then all his sonnes, [...] because he begate him in his old age. The Targum of Onkelus expresseth it thus; [...] i. for he was a wise and vnderstanding childe; interpreting the words of the excellency of his apprehension and capacity; for o­therwise he begate also Beniamin in his old age after Ioseph; and hence it is that the Iewes say here as Iar­chi, [...] i. That Iacob committed to Ioseph whatsoeuer him­selfe had learned of Shem and Heber: and as Ramban saith, ‘ [...]’ i. He deliuered to him the wisdome and mysteries of the Law, and found him wise and capable of them▪ as though he had bin of ripe age. But now Shem and Heber being dead, as appeares by computation of time, to whom Iacob gaue his Tithe; or whether Isaac were the chiefest Priest of that time, it is altogether vncertaine. Aben-Ezra on Gen. 35.1. saith, that Iacob gaue his Tithe, [...] i. to him that was in that generation fit to receiue it, but who that should be, he leaues doubtfull. Mercer on ver. 15. saith, Dederit autem ipsi Heber aut eius filijs, vel potius consecrârit in usus sacros, &c. But the Histori­an saith,

As Abraham gaue Tithes to Shem, being the el­dest auncestor of the house; so it may be thought that Iacob payde his vow into the hands of Isaac, the chiefe of the family then liuing, as a first-borne, and a Priest [Page 30] also. I deny not but this may be thought so, but I cannot conceiue how it can be certainly thought or taken for a truth: for all hold [...]hat Iacob at his returne performed his vow at Bethel, a great while before he came to his father Isaac at Hebron, Gen. 35.27. so Io­sephus, Aben Ezra, Iarchi, & Ramban agree. Again after the performance of his vow, many things hap­pened to him by the way before he came to his fa­ther, as namely the death of Deborah, the birth of Ben­iamin, the death of Rachel, the sinne of Reuben; and therefore on ver. 22. Iarchi saith, ‘ [...]’ i. All these things happened to him whilst as yet he was not come to Isaac at Hebron: Neither is there any likelyhood that Isaac should meet Iacob at Bethel, & there receiue his Tithes; for Isaac was old and blind, Gen. 27.1. & Esau gaped for his death, ver. 41. before Iacob's first departure from him to goe to Laban. And hence it is that the Iewes speaking of the death of De­borah, Rebecca's nurse, and the mourning for her, say that it had relation to Rebecca her selfe, for whom Ia­cob especially mourned, and that therefore the place was called [...] the oake of mourning and la­mentation; but say they, as Ramban relates it, there is no mention made of her death, because she was bu­ried priuatly, without that funerall solemnity that o­thers had; for Iacob was not there, and Esau hated her, and would not come thither, and Isaac he was blind, and went not out of dores. Now if Isaac because of blindnes could not goe out to the buriall of [Page 31] his wife, much lesse could he goe to meet his sonne Iacob at Bethel, to take of him the Tithes. Where then, or how can it be thought that Iacob payde his vow into the hands of his father Isaac? And for that he saith.

Before Aaron the Iewes say the Priesthood was wholly annext to the first-borne of families, which a­grees well with the sanctifying of the first-borne com­manded in Aegypt. True it is that the Iewes in diuers places affirme that the Priesthood followed the birth-right, vntill such time as they sinned in worshipping ths golden calfe; but after that, the Priesthood, say they, was giuen to Levi, because among the rest only the Tribe of Levi was free from that transgression, which they gather, though weakely, from these words, Exod. 32.26. where Moses said, Who pertaineth to the Lord? let him come downe to mee. And all the sonnes of Levi gathered themselues vnto him. And this they also record on diuers Texts, as Iarchi shew­eth on Deut. 8.16. Exod. 32.26. Deut. 10.9. Malach. 2.6. And Chimki on 1 Kings 12, 31. But Ramban writing on Numb. 16. touching the rebellion of Corah, seemes to be of another minde in this point, for these are his words, ‘ [...]’ [Page 32] i. Now all this that I haue spoken concerning the first borne, is according to the tradition of our Doctors, which say that the seruice belonged to the first-borne; but according to the literall exposition, at the first all Israell were fit for the seruice of the sacrifices: for so was alwayes the custome in the high places of particu­lar or priuate persons; but Aaron was chosen for the seruice of the Tabernacle and Sanctuary, and against this election did Corah contend, and would haue re­stored the seruice to all Israell; for (saith he) all the con­gregation is holy euery one of them, as Numb. 16.3.

Againe this that Ramban writes concerning the Priesthood, is confirmed by the like testimony of R. Bechai on Exod. 12.1. pag. 79. grounded vpon the tradition of their Doctors. ‘ [...]’ i. whilst that Aaron was not chosen, all Israel were fit for the Priesthood; after that Aaron was chosen, all Is­rael were excepted. Therefore by these authorities of the Iewes, that cannot be altogether true, which is affirmed here, that before Aaron, the Priesthood was wholly annext to the first-borne of families. Neither doth this agree so well with the sanctifying of the first-borne, commanded in Aegypt, Exod. 13.2. for the sanctifying there commanded, was not only of the first-borne of man, but of beast, and that in respect of the death of the first-borne in Aegypt, both of man & beast, Exod. 12.29. Againe it appeares not in this rela­tion to what first-borne the Priesthood did belong; whether to the first-borne of the father or mother, or [Page 33] both: for this distinction is to be obserued, as R. Bechai writes on Exod. 13.2. & 11.5. with reference to Psal. 78.51. the one being called [...] the begin­ning of strēgth: the other [...] that first openeth the womb▪ Reuben was first borne to Iacob, but Ioseph to Rachel; & after Reubens sin, the birthright was giuen to Ioseph, the Kingdome to Iudah, but the Priesthood to Levi, as Bechai speakes on Gen. 49.3. and 28.21. But now the sanctifying of the first-borne comman­ded in Aegypt is expresly restrain'd to the first-borne of the mother; the first that openeth the wombe, as being best knowne, saith Bechai, and hauing speciall relation to the sanctified first-borne of the blessed vir­gine, the expectation & glory of all first-borne, Luke 2.7. Moreouer the name of first-borne in Scripture is not only properly, but also figuratiuely taken, and so it is said, Exod. 4.22. Israel is my sonne, euen my first borne: which is thus expounded in the Talmud Mas­sech, cap. 2. fol. 31. ‘ [...]’ Giuing a reason of the loue wherewith he loued them, he saith: Israel is my sonne, my first-borne. And so in Ier. 31.9. Ephraim is my first-borne. Chimki there giues tbe same interpretation, and so doth the Tar­gum of Ionathan in that place: Sometime the name of first-borne is ascribed to men in Scripture in re­gard of dignity and honour, Psal. 89.27. also I will make him my first-borne higher then the Kings of the earth. [...] He calls him first-borne (saith Chimki) because the [Page 34] first-borne hath dignity ouer the other sonnes; which was that priuiledge of birth-right, as R. Bechai thinks, that Esau sold to Iacob, Gen. 25.31. And so the Patri­arches and Fathers of the auncient Church, are in re­spect of honour tearmed the Congregation of the first-borne, Heb. 12.23. And further on Exod. 13.2. R. Bechai saith, that whereas the Lord smote all the first borne in the land of Egypt, Exod. 12.29. ‘ [...]’ i. That it is extended to the eldest in the family, if no first-borne were there, for he is also called a first borne. And in this sense the Patriarches and heads of fami­lies, whether first-borne or not, might be accounted insteed of Priests in their generation, and were also Prophets and Kings, as Chimki sheweth on Psal. 105.15. Touch not mine anointed, &c. But properly Priests they were not; for no man takes this honour to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Heb. 5.4. and we find but two orders of Priesthood in Scripture; the one after Melchisedek, the other after Aaron. The Priesthood of Aaron was not yet insti­tuted, & none but only Christ is said to be a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek; and to this pur­pose in the Talmud in Massech Nedarim, cap. 3. fol. 32. they write thus concerning Melchisedek Priest of the most high God, [...] i. he was a Priest, but his seed no Priest. To conclude therefore it is lest altogether vncertaine in this passage of the history, either what order of Priesthood it was that belonged to the first-borne, or what manner of first-borne [Page 35] it was to which the Priesthood was annexed. And yet he proceedes further in this kinde, saying: And Noah, Abraham, and Iob, and the like, are ac­counted by this right, Priests of that time. For proofe of this, Origen lib. 1. in Iob, is cited in the margent. But Origen doth not there say, that these were Priests by that right of primo-geniture, but thus: Erant nihilo­minus etiam eâ tempestate sacerdotes, necdum adhuc à lege ordinati, sed naturali sapientiâ hoc requirente ac perficiente, ita sacerdotio functus est Noah, &c: and againe speaking there of Iob's sacrificing for his sons & daughters, he doth not thence inferre that he was a Priest, but proues out of Iob 12.19. that there were Priests in his time, and then concludes doubtfully thus: Siue ergo memorati sacerdotes, siue ipse per seip­sum Iob offerebat hostias pro illis secundùm numerum illorum. But the Iewes they doe not teach that Iob was a Priest, but that he was a Iudge; for so Aben-Ezra in the conclusion of his Commentary on Iob, at the end of the booke directly expresseth, prouing it from cap. 22. ver. 9. of that book compared with cap. 29.13.14.15.16. his words are these. ‘ [...]’ i. His companions said vnto him, thou hast sent wi­dowes away empty: And this is a signe that he was a Iudge, and therefore he answers, I was a father to the poore, and I caused the widowes heart to sing for ioy. Furthermore to proue Iacob's Priesthood gained by the sale of the birth-right from Esau, the Historian [Page 36] saith, that Expresse mention is of his exercising this holy function in sacrifices during his fathers life, and for this alleadgeth Gen. 31.54. But he hath mistaken and mis-applyed this Text, if his owne author Rabbi Iarchi may be beleeued; for Iarchi doth not thinke that Iacob did here offer a sacrifice, neither doth he interpret the Text in that sense, but saith; ‘ [...]’ i. That he slew cattell to make a feast for his brethren and friends that came with Laban. And so often the word [...] doth signifie aswel mactare, as sacrificare; to slay, as to sacrifice. Neither could he with a good conscience invite them to his sacrifice, that were out of the couenant, being (as they were) of another re­ligion, as that iudicious Diuine M^r Perkins answers our aduersaries, alledging and interpreting this Text against their arguments for the sacrifice of the Masse, in his Reformed Catholicke.

Againe, all those that offered sacrifices were not Priests, as appeares by Samuel, 1 Sam. 7.9. For R. Levi Ben Gershom writing on that Text, saith plainly; [...] that Samuel was no Priest: and so S. Austin retract. lib. 2. cap. 43. & Chim­ki here sheweth that Iosuah did sacrifice in Gilgal, Io­suah 8.30. and Eliah in Carmel, 1 Kings 18. and so did Balaam, Numb. 23. Iarchi speaks of this, and R. Bechai on Numb. 18.7. and Deut. 2.8. who saith, that before the Tabernacle was set vp, the high places were per­mitted, & euery man that would, offered sacrifice on the top of his house, but after the erecting of the Ta­bernacle, [Page 37] they were prohibited so long as the hoste continued in the wildernesse, as in Levit. 17.3. [...]. Af­terward when they passed ouer Iordan for the space of 14 yeares, whilst they were imployed in subduing and diuiding the land, the vse of the high places was then lawfull, which being appointed by the direction of a Prophet, a stranger that was no Priest, might of­fer sacrifice in them. But when they come to Ierusa­lem, the inheritance mentioned, Deut. 12.9. then were they no longer lawfull. Therefore the Kings of Iudah are blamed, when they destroy'd not the high places. And touching the sacrifices of the Patriarchs, one thing here may be remembred, which in the first Tome of Councells, in the second Epistle of Anacle­tus, is recorded in these words; Initium sacerdotij Aaron fuit, licet Melchisedec prior obtulerit sacrifi­cium, & post eum Abraham, Isaae, & Iacob, sed hi spon­tanea voluntate, non sacerdotali autoritate ista fece­runt. Which sheweth, that in the iudgment of the ancients, though the Patriarches did offer sacrifice; yet that was no sufficient argument to proue them to be Priests. And if Cain and Abel were therefore both of them to be accounted Priests, because both of them did offer sacrifice, then was not the Priesthood before Aaron, wholly annexed to the first-borne of families; for Abel was no first-borne, and yet the sa­crifice of Abel was accepted, and not the sacrifice of Cain. But our author hath not yet done with this Treatise of the Priesthood, he presseth it further, say­ing, Whence obserue by the way, that both Abraham and Iacob, according to the right of that time, must be [Page 38] Priests also, when they payde these tithes.

I maruaile what he intends to make of this obser­uation, it may be would hence conclude that Priests should therefore pay tithes now aswell as other men, or else none to be payde at all. I answere there­fore to this, obserue also by the way, that first here is very slender euidence, brought either to proue that there was any such right of Priesthood, as he speakes of at that time, or that Abraham and Iacob were Priests by th t right (as hath already bin shewed;) for as for Abraham, though he saith that he was a first-borne, but proues it not; and saith also that the forme of offering his sonne Isaac iustifies him to be a Priest; Yet the Iewes account him a Priest in the offering of his sonne, no otherwise then as I shewed before by that fiction of theirs in translating the Priesthood from Melchisedek to Abraham, and so R. Chaskuni te­stifieth on Gen. 22.2. and offer him there for a burnt offering, &c. ‘ [...]’ i. He said in the presence of the Lord of the world, can there be a sacrifice without a Priest? to which he an­swered, I haue appointed thee already to be a Priest, as it is said, the Lord swore, and will not repent, &c. Psal. 110. And for Iacob's Priesthood, Baal Haturim on Gen. 28. writes thus, ‘ [...] [Page 39] [...]’ i. To put on garments is twice in the Masoreth here, viz: Gen. 28.20. and in Leuit. 21.10. which teacheth that Iacob was the high Priest, as it is in Bereshith Rabbah. The blessed Almighty said to Michael, Thou hast made Iacob my high Priest to haue a blemish, Le­vit. 21.18. for he halts vpon his thigh, as sure as thou liuest, thou must be faine to be the high Priest aboue in his roome: this is it that he saith; & will giue me bread to eat, and cloathes to put on, that he will confirme to me the Priesthood which I haue bought of Esau.

These words though strange in the literall sense, yet may be in some sort admitted in a figuratiue and spirituall application; for Iacob and all the Priests on earth were lame, and had all of them some one ble­mish or other to stayne them; and therefote Heb. 7.27. The high Priests of the Law were dayly to offer vp sacrifice, first for their own sinnes, and then for the sinnes of the people. But our Michael that fights a­gainst the Dragon, Rev. 12.7. Dan. 12.1. Our high Priest which is most perfect is aboue, and makes inter­cession for vs: for such an high Priest it became vs to haue, which is holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher then the Heauens, Heb. 7.26. But gtant that Abraham and Iacob were after a sort Priests, as our author would haue them, at that time when they payde their Tithes, and so al­so in that respect types of Christ that was in their [Page 40] loynes, and is the true high Priest, and the first-borne of euery creature, Coloss. 1.15. Yet in the action it self of paying tithes, they did nor represent Christ, but the Church and people of God that pay Tithes to Christ, represented in Melchisedek. And this is noted by Bucanus de peccato, quaest. 19. Cùm Levi dicatur de­cimatus in Abraham, quia fuit in lumbis Abrahae, Heb. 7.9. quomodò non etiam Christus in Adam peccasse dicitur? Resp. Quia non est communi more ratione seminali de semine viri natus, sed de spiritu sancto conceptus, ideo à peccato originali, eius (que) reatu liber, & exemptus extitit: Sicut nec in Abrahae lumbis deci­matus fuit, sed in Melchisedechi persona repraesenta­tus, ut aeternus sacerdos non decimas dans, sed accipi­ens. Christ did not pay Tithes in the loynes of A­braham, as Levi did, but was represented in the per­son of Melchisedek as an eternall Priest, not giuing, but receiuing Tithes. Therefore in this relation be­twixt Priest and people, Christ in the person of Mel­chisedek stands for the Priest, and Abraham for the people. And to this purpose S. Augustine on Iohn 3. writes thus: Abraham, Isaac, & Iacob, tres patres, & populus unus: tres patres in quibus figurabatur popu­lus. And after, In populo Iudaeorum figuratus est popu­lus Christianorum. And therefore say the Iewes; A­braham was first called Abram pater Syriae: and after the promise, Abraham pater multarum gentium, as Iarchi writes on Gen. 17. and Bechai on Deut. 26. fol. 30. And in the Talmud in Massech Beracoth cap. 1. fol. 13. he is called [...] i. father of all the world, both Iewes and Gentiles that belieue. There­fore [Page 41] Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedek, was herein a Type and patterne to all his posterity: for Ramban on Gen. 36.43. saith expresly, ‘ [...]’ i. The actions of the Patriarches, and the accidents that hapned to them had relation to their seed. And the same author and Bechai also on Gen. 12. doe ex­emplifie this in diuers particulars. And on Gen. 14. they make the foure Kings there named to signifie the foure Monarches of the world. And speaking there also of Abraham's tithing, he confirmes this saying, ‘ [...] &c.’ i. And this was a signe to Abraham, that there should be the house of God, and thither his seed should bring the tithes, & there they should blesse the Lord. Which is in like manner verified in the example of Iacob, that vowed Tithes, whereof saith Mercer on Gen. 28.22. Et hoc tam pro se quàm pro posteris suis vovet. Hee vowed not only for himselfe, but for his posterity. A­greeing herein with R Bechai, and Chaskuni, saying, ‘ [...]’ That Iacob's vow was a patterne for future generati­ons. No other expresse mention is of Tithes before Moses his time, vnlesse with the Iewes you dreame that the Leviticall Law was written before the Cre­ation. And yet by his leaue the Iewes alledge ano­ther text before Moses time; from whence they teach, that as Abraham and Iacob, so also Isaac payeth tithes, Gen. 26.12. Afterward Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same yeare an hundreth measures, or an [Page 42] hundreth fold by estimation. Whereupon saith Iarchi ‘ [...]’ i. Our Doctours say that this measuring was for the Tithes. And Ramban likewise on the same place con­firmes it, saying, ‘ [...]’ i. They write concerning the hundreth measures, that the measuring thereof was for the Tithes: and there he addeth further; That the Patriarches were liberall in giuing their Tithes to the Priests of the Lord, as to Shem and Heber, and their Disciples. If any thinke this collection of theirs, hath not sufficient ground or warrant from the Text, though this be granted, yet hereby appeares that the tradition of their aunce­stors and their opinion concurres in this, that all the Patriarches in their time, did duly pay their tithes to the Priests. Againe, the booke of Iob is supposed to haue bin written before Moses time; and the Iewes in the Talmud in Baba Bathra, cap. 1. fol. 15. among o­ther opinions, say that Iob liued in the time of Iacob: Aben-Ezra and Iarchi on Iob 1. say, he descended of the sonnes of Nachor, Abraham's brother; and so saith Chaskuni on Gen. 25. Origen in the beginning of his Commentary on Iob saith, that Moses was the Interpreter of the booke of Iob, out of Syriacke into Hebrew; and the Iewes in effect say as much; as R. Levi Ben Gershon in his praeface to the booke of Iob: and Aben-Ezra on Iob 2. And generally by most he is held to be more ancient then Moses. Now the Iewes interpret diuers sentences in his booke, to be vnderstood of Tithes, Iob 31.38. If my land cry against [Page 43] me, or the furrowes thereof complaine together. ‘ [...]’ i. that I haue not brought out my Tithes, as was meet, saith Iarchi. So Iob 24.19. Drought & heat cōsume the snow waters. The Chalde Paraphrase explains it thus, ‘ [...]’ i. Because they haue neglected the setting forth of the Tithe in the appointed time thereof, in the heat of summer, therefore the waters of the raine and snow are restrained fromt them. And so they expound this text in the Talmud Massech Shabath, cap. 2. fol. 32 ‘ [...]’ i. Through the sinne of omission of oblations & tithes, the heauens are shut vp, and restrained from sending downe deawe and raine; and men runne about to seeke their food, and find it not: as it is said Iob 24.19. Drought and heat, &c. But on the contrary if they duly pay their Tithes, they are blessed, as in Malachi 3. Bring all the Tithes, &c. And thus far the Talmud.

By this therefore it is apparent in the iudgment of these Writers, that it was no rare thing, but com­mon and vsuall both among Iewes and Gentiles to pay Tithes, & that also before Moses time. As for the dreame of the Iewes, that the Leviticall Law was written before the Creation, Dauid Chimki saith it is a dreame to them that know not the true interpretati­on of it, which he explaineth on Esai 22.11. saying, ‘ [...] &c.’ [Page 44] i. Our Doctours say that seuen things were created be­fore the world was created, and they are these; Para­dise, and the Law, and the righteous, and Israel, and the Throne of Glory, and Ierusalem, and Messiah the sonne of Dauid. But the meaning of this tradition is not (saith he) as the common sort of learners vnder­stand it, but that they were in potentia to be created, or in intention before the world was created, because these things are the perfection or end of the creation of the world. And Iarchi here saith, ‘ [...]’ i. Before he created the World, Ierusalem and the San­ctuary came into his thought. And Mercer on Gen. 1. takes it in the same sense, saying. Saue in part Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol. 1. Magni qui magnae est apud illos autoritatis parte 3, afferunt septem ante orbem condi­tum creata, 1. meo iudicio quae in mente divina essent ab aeterno; nam ante mundi exordium alioqui crea­tum nihil esse potuit propriè loquendo. Inter ea Mes­siam commemorant.

Moses Ben Maimon in Pirke Avoth, cap. 6. fol. 12. speakes to this point. ‘ [...]’ i. The Law is one of God's possessions, Prov. 8.22. The Lord hath possessed me in the beginning of his way, be­cause the creation thereof was before the World; for when it came into his thought to create the World, he said it shall be established by reason of the Law. And [Page 45] R. Bechai writes also of this on Deut. 34. fol. 243. Ther­fore by the Law written before the Creation, they meane, written in the Tables of God's diuine know­ledge, and of his eternall purpose and decree. Aben-Ezrah on Esai. 41.13. feare not, I will helpe thee, [...] saith. ‘ [...]’ i. The praeterperfect tense is put here for the future, and the reason is, because all decrees that are to come, are with God accounted as if they were. And againe because time past, and time to come, are only in respect of the Creatures, and not in respect of the Creator, who is actus purus. And hence it is that R. Bechai on Levit. 12. page 141. saith, that man was the first of Gods Creatures in intention, but the last in creation. But I wil not spend too many words about a dream, and yet a man would thinke that a grand Rabbi, who so earnestly vrgeth the authority of these Writers a­gainst vs in other places, should know the true mea­ning of his own masters, and acquaint vs aswell with their interpretations, as with their dreames. But grant that the Iewes, and these that are their followers, doe oftentimes tell vs many dreames, yet this one thing they teach plainly without dreaming, that though the Law was not written before Moses time, yet the Patriarches knew the Law, and kept it, and taught it their Children also before Moses time, as Ramban de­clareth on Gen. 26.5. and Bechai on Gen. 48.22. [Page 46] [...] &c. i. It seemes to me according to the iudgment of our Doctors, that our father Abraham learned the whole Law by the holy Spirit, & exercised himselfe therein, and also taught it his children. And so he speakes in the same place of Iacob, not much dissonant from that which Calvin writes concerning his vow of worshipping God, and paying Tithes, saying; Non quod suo arbitrio Deum coluerit, nam directio spiri­tus vice legis scriptae fuit. And therefore hence it may be thought that the Patriarchs payde tithes either by the knowledge of the Law according to the will of God, or else by the direction of the spirit of God, which was insteed of a Law vnto them.

SECT. 3.

TOuching Cain and Abel's sacrifice, mentioned in the passage following, and the diuers expo­sitions of that text, Gen. 4, 7. The writings of the Iewes, if it were needfull, might afford matter e­nough of discourse, which I will but point at.

Moses Ben Maimon in More Hanebucim writes, that the end for which sacrifices were commanded, did tend especially to the rooting out of Idolatry; for whereas the Gentiles worshipped beasts, as the Chal­deans and Aegyptians bullocks and sheep, with refe­rence to the Celestiall Signes, Aries, and Taurus, &c. therefore (saith he) God commanded these to be [Page 47] slaine in sacrifice. And because the Signe Aries is in his chiefest strength in the month Nisan, (which takes part of our March, and part of Aprill) therefore as Ramban notes on Exod. 12. in the Passeouer they were inioyned to kill a Lambe, and to cat it, to shew that the Israelites came not out of Aegypt by the power of the Signe, but by the decree of the highest, and that the Aegyptians God was not able to helpe them when he was in his greatest force. But Ramban and Bechai both of them on Levit. 1.2. confute this opinion of Maimon concerning sacrifices, affirming that before there was either Chaldean or Egyptian, sacrifices were offered; as by Cain, and Abel, and No­ah, and also by Adam at the first, as Chimki relates on Psal. 69.31. This shall please the Lord better then a yong bullocke that hath hornes and hoofes: That is, (say the Iewes) better then the Bullocke that Adam offered, that had hornes before hoofes, as it is in Mas­sech Cholin, cap. 3. fol. 60. In which respect Ramban on Gen. 22.9. obserueth that where it is written, Abra­ham builded an Altar there. ‘ [...]’ i. It is expressed with the article notificatiue [...] that Altar, meaning that he pointed at the Altar whereon Adam, and Cain, and Abel, and Noah did sacrifice. And therefore they said, that in the sacrifices there is contained a hidden and secret mysterie, hid­den indeed to them that haue the vaile vpon their hearts, 2 Cor. 3.15: but revealed to vs. For all sacri­fices had relation to Christ. And the Commande­ment of sacrificing was giuen to the Fathers; first that [Page 48] it might be the common exercise of piety, whilst they did professe themselues to be God's people, and that all things that they had, they receiued from him. And 2^ly that they might be admonished, that they stood in need of some expiation to reconcile them to God. The sacrifice of expiation is fully accomplished and ended in Christ. The other which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing, doth still continue. And the Iewes themselues confesse this, as Ramban on Levit. 23. and Chimki on Ier, 33.11. ‘ [...]’ i. All sacrifices shall cease, but the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing shall neuer cease. But I will speake no more of sacrifice, lest I digresse too farre from Tithes. Onely thus much the learned haue obserue from the sacrifice of Cain & Abel, that they acknow­ledged hereby that God from the beginning had a right in euery mans goods. And this right afterward by the practise of the Patriarches was declared to be Tithes.

SECT. 4.

THe next Section containes nothing but a re­lation of fables and fopperies. For as for Ca­balistique and doting curiosities, or identity of numbers in seuerall words, as in [...] and [...], first fruits and Tithes, or such like; for my part I list not spend time or paper in the reci [...]all of them, we need not seeke such proofes for the right of [Page 49] Tithes, the euidence of Scripture is sufficient. And if any be delighted with the reading of these toyes, Sa­lomoh Iarchi in diuers of his Commentaries, and Baal Haturim vpon the Pentateuch, can quickly furnish him with store of such stuffe.

But because the Author of the History among o­ther things doth here againe make mention of Abra­ham his successe, with his company of 318, together with Arithmeticall and nice speculations taken from thence, euen among Christians, as Clemens Alexan. Stromat. 5. Let him giue me leaue by the way to put him in mind, that hee needed not for this matter to haue gone any further then his owne R. Iarchi so of­ten recited by him, who I am sure touching this num­ber of 318, hath left vpon record as vaine and frivo­lous a fancie as any the History speaks of; for he saith, that none went with Abraham to warre against the foure Kings, but only Eliezer, and why? because for­sooth the letters contained in his name amount to the number of 318 [...] as though all the rest of Abraham's soldiers had bin nothing else but meere cyphares. But R. Bechai calls this conceit a riddle; and Aben-Ezra on the same Text, viz. Gen. 14. condemnes it. saying, ‘ [...]’ i. The number of the letters of Eliezer is but a figura-true glosse, for the Scripture speakes not by any such Arithmetical respect, for so whosoeuer will, may turne [Page 50] any names either to good or bad, but the word is to be taken according to the literall sense. Notwithstan­ding if we leaue the conceit of number; and consider the true signification of the name, we may referre it to a better vse: for Eliezer signifieth the helpe of God. And therefore Moses called one of his sonnes [...] Eliezer, for the God of my Fathers was my help (saith he) and deliuered me from the sword of Pharaoh, Exod. 18.4. In like manner Abraham also might call his seruant Eliezer, for the God of Abra­ham was his helpe, & deliuered him from the sword of his enemies. And therefore Melchisedek in this re­spect praised God, and said; Blessed be the most high God, which hath deliuered thine enemies into thy hand.

SECT. 5.

AFter the Historians discourse concerning the diuision of Tithes among the Iewes, he pro­pounds an example borrowed from Scaliger, whereby the order of the payment of the first fruits and heaue offerings, and the first tithe, and the se­cond tithe, may better appeare; and then hauing summed vp his account, he concludes that the hus­bandman yearely thus payed more then a sixt part of his increase; beside first fruits, almost a fift. But here notwithstanding these which are rehearsed, there are some other things left out, which should also by right be taken into the reckoning; for beside the first fruits and Therumahs, and first and second tithe, there was [...] Leuit. 19.9. & Deut. 24.19.20. the corner of the field, the gleaning, & the forgotten sheafe, which were taken out of the fruits of the husbandman: and though they were exemp­ted from tithing, yet not only the poore, but also the Leuites had a share in them; for so saith Iarchi on Deut. 14.27. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake, for he hath neither part nor in­heritance with thee, ‘[Page 101] [...]’ i. They shall haue no part with thee, except gleaning, that which is forgotten, and the corner of the field; & that which is common; for he also hath a part with thee in these, as well as thou, and they are not subiect to tithing. Moses Ben Maimon doth likewise con­firme this in his Commentary on Massech Theru­moth, cap. 1. fol. 48. Dauid de pomis in his Dictiona­ry in the word [...], where he briefly sheweth the order of tithing among the Iewes, doth there particularly expresse these things in the first place: & concerning the standing corne which was to be left at the end or corner of the field; which is called [...] (whereof there is a speciall Massecheth or Tractate in the Talmud) he saith that it hath no quantity prae­scribed in the Law, but according to the appoint­ment of their Doctors [...] a sixtieth part was required. But Baal Haturim on Leuit. 19.9. saith, that they were to leaue out [...] a fourtieth part. And in Massech Peah cap. 1. fol. 2. they say it was to be giuen proportionably accor­ding to the number of the poore, and the quantity of the field. To these we may also adde the 24. gifts of the Priesthood, omitted in this History; but often mentioned by the Iewes, as we shall after heare; which being considered and valued together with the rest, that which the husbandman payed out of his fruits, will amount to a greater fumme then what the History speakes of.

[Page 102]And if it was not thought too much to giue all this beside Tithes in the time of the Law, why shall it be thought too much to giue onely Tithes in the 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: [Page 103] 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, [Page 104] (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.

2^ly 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 [Page 105] 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 S^t 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.

[Page 106]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 [Page 107] 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, at (que) 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 [Page 108] 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. [Page 109] 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,

[Page 110] 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 qualiacun (que) 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 [Page 111] 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 haue no reason to trust them, or depend vpon their testimony; but to follow the Apostles rule, 1 Thessal. 5.21. [...], Trye all things, and keepe that which is good. But because wee stand so much vpon the Iewish Lawyers, I would faine know how they and the Christian Lawyer can be reconci­led in that which is deliuered in the next Section concerning Cattell, which is the second part of his diuision, and is thus expressed.

SECT. 6.

OF their cattel the firstborne were the Exod. 13.2. Lords, payed to the Priest, of cleane beasts in kind; of vncleane in money, with a fift part added Of the increase of them one Tithe only was payed, & that to the Leuites: Euery Tithe of Bullocke, and of sheepe of all that goeth vnder the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord, saith holyLevit. 27.26. & 32 Writ.

Thence at the tithing they vsed to shut the Lambes (for example) in a sheep-coat, where the straitnesse of the doore might permit but one at once to come out: Then opening the doore, either gently to hunt them out, or by placing the Ewes bleating neere them with­out, [Page 112] so to cause them runne forth one by one, while a seruant standing at the doore with a rod coloured with oker, solemnly told to the tenth, which with his rod he mark'd, so they vnderstand going vnder the rod.

That so mark'd, what euer it were, male, or female, worst, or best, was the Tithe, and might not be chan­ged.

First here to omit what maybe obiected touching the first-borne of cleane beasts from Deut. 14.23: whereas he saith, that the first of those that were vn­cleane were payed to the Priest in money, with a fift part added, though he pretend Text of Scripture, and stand much vpon the Iewish Lawyers; yet I take it, this cannot be iustified either by any text of Scrip­ture, or by any Iewish Lawyer: First, for Scripture it is plaine, that the first foale of the Asse, which was an vncleane beast, was not to be payed to the Priest in money, but was to be redeemed with a Lambe, Exod. 13.13. & 34.20. Againe the Iewes teach, that no first-borne of any vncleane beast was payed at all, but only of the Asse: Euen Salomoh Iarchi his owne man avoucheth this in his Commentary vpon the Texts before cited, Exod. 13.13. & 34.20. And euery first-borne of an Asse thou shalt redeeme with a Lambe, ‘ [...]’ i. The first of the Asse, but not the first of any other vncleane beast. To this also agreeth Aben Ezra and Chaskuni writing on the same Texts, and so doth Abarbinel on Levit. 27.27.

[Page 113] Rabbi Ioseph Karo in his [...] i. tractate of the firstling of the asse, hath these words, ‘ [...] &c.’ i. The first-borne of the vncleane beast was in vse in all places, and at all times, but it was not in vse saue only of Asses, which were to be redeemed with a Lambe. R. Bechai on Exod. 13.13. testifyeth the same thing, saying; ‘ [...] &c.’ i. And euery first foale of an Asse, only the Asse, and not the first of horses or camels. And the reason here­of (saith he) as their Doctors teach, is, because the Aegyptians are compared to Asses, as it is said Ezech. 23.2 [...]. Whose flesh is as the flesh of Asses. And againe, because the Israelites brought vp many Asses with them loaden with gold and siluer, and the Treasures of Aegypt. And therefore it is commanded that the first of the Asse should be redeemed, and not of other beasts, because the slaying of the first-borne, was the first-borne of the Aegyptians.

R. Moses Ben Maimon in the Talmud in Masse­cheth Becoroth, i. the Treatise of the first-borne, con­firmes this there, in his exposition of the Mishuaioth cap. 1. saying, ‘ [...]’ i. It is said to Aaron: And the first-borne of the vn­cleane beast shalt thou redeeme; he meaneth the first-borne of the Asse, because he tooke not the first of a­ny [Page 114] vncleane beast, but only the Asse. Where we see that Maimon expounds that place, concerning the vncleane beast, Numb. 18.15. to be vnderstood only of the asse. And as for that we read in Levit. 27.27. which is spoken of the dedication of vnclean beasts, it is not meant of the first-borne, for that was the Lords already, as ver. 26. But of such beasts as were vncleane, and had blemishes, & were vnfit for sacri­fice, and therefore were giuen as a vow or dedi­cation [...] for the repairing of the Temple, and not payed as a duty to the Priest, as the first-borne was; for so doth Iarchi and Ramban, and other Iewes expound that Text.

Where then, or how shall it be proued that the first-borne of vncleane beasts were payed to the Priest in money, with a fift part added? In the next words he saith,

Of the increase of them (that is) of their cattell, one Tithe only was payed, and that to the Leuites.

Here I will not in his owne Phrase proclaime that a man of no small name doth grosly slip; but I dare boldly say in plaine English, that he hath deli­uered in these words a grosse falshood according to the doctrine and practise of the Iewes, which he takes vpon him to relate: For they doe not teach that only one Tithe of their cattell was payed, or that it was payed either vnto the Leuites, or Priests at all; but contrary, That it was of the nature of the peace offerings, and to be eaten by the owners thē ­selues at Ierusalem.

And for proofe hereof, before I goe any further, [Page 115] I appeale first to his owne witnesse, Salomoh Iarchi vpon this very Text cited by himselfe, viz. Leuit. 27.32. And euery Tithe of Bullocke and of sheep of all that goeth vnder the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. Which Iarchi thus interpreteth. ‘ [...]’ i. Shall be holy to offer the blood and combustible parts thereof vpon the altar, and the flesh shall be eaten by the owners: for behold it is not reckoned among the gifts of the Priesthood, neither doe we finde that it should be giuen to the Priests.

It seemes strange that the Historian should so confidently alleadge the testimony of this Rabbine against vs in ver. 30. of this Chap, applying that Text to be meant onely of the second Tithe; and here on this ver. 32. the next but one after, either not to read him, or not to vnderstand him, or not to respect him, when as he writes so direct against this Histo­ry And yet I wil spare to impute this to ignorance or lazines, or impudent boldnes, or the like; though he spare not without cause to lay load on others in this kind, not remembring that of the Poêt. Iliad. 20. [...]. But bee it what it what it will, sure I am that beside Iarchi his Testimony in this place, with whom R. Bechai and Abarbinel on the same Text concurre in a manner word for word, both he and other Rabbines on di­uers texts of Scripture; and also in the Talmud doe [Page 116] plainly shew against this History, that the Tithe of beasts is a distinct and seuerall Tithe by it selfe, diffe­ring from the Priests and Leuites Tithe, Deut. 12.6. Ye shall bring thither your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your Tithes. Where Iarchi expounds [...] your Tithes, to be ‘ [...]’ i. The Tithe of beasts, and the second Tithe to be eaten within the wall at Ierusalem. And Rabbi Abuhab commenting vpon Iarchi in the same place, saith, ‘ [...]’ i. Iarchi speakes this, because that if he should inter­pret it, of the first Tithe, he was to giue that vnto the Leuite. Where he makes a manifest difference be­twixt the Leuites Tithe, and the Tithe of beasts; and and so doth Ramban on the same Text at large: like­wise on Amos 4.4. Come to Bethell, and transgresse to Gilgal, and multiply transgressions, and bring your sacrifices in the morning, and your Tithes after three yeares. It is in the originall [...] And your Tithes after three dayes. The Iewes therefore giue a double exposition of these words, either that [...] doth signifie yeares, as sometimes it is taken in Scripture, as Leuit. 25.29. [...] within a yeare may he re­deeme it: and so this Text of Amos hath reference to that in Deut. 14.28. At the end of three yeare th u shalt bring forth all the Tithes, &c. Or else it is taken in his proper signification for dayes; and in this sense [Page 117] they vnderstand here by Tithes, the Tithe of beasts, which Idolaters did offer contrary to the Law; for so are Iarchi his words; ‘ [...]’ i. The Law saith concerning the lesse holy things, Le­vit. 7.18. & 19.6.7. It shall be eaten the day ye offer it, or on the morrow, but idolaters say, after three dayes eat the Tithe of your cattell, or else the idolatrous Priests teach them so; as he further sheweth in this place, &c. In like manner Dauid Chimki on the same Text, accordeth with Iarchi in this interpreta­tion, saying; ‘ [...]’ i. After three dayes your Tithes: i. The Tithe of beasts, which is of the lesse holy things; and the Law saith concerning the lesse holy things; It shall be eaten the day ye offer it, or on the morrow: but they eat it after three dayes.

For the better clearing of these testimonies, wee must here note by the way, that the Iewes make two sorts of holy things, the one they call [...] the most holy: the other [...] the lesse holy. Iarchi grounds this distinction on Leuit. 21.22. The bread of his God, euen of the most holy, and of the holy shall he eate. The same distinction is commonly vsed by other Rabbines, as Aben Ezra on Numb. 18.9. And by Ramban on Leuit. 19.5. and Baal Haturim [Page 118] on Deut. 12.11. & so also in the Talmud as in Masse­cheth Gnorlah, cap. 2. fol. 81. and Chiduschin cap. 2. fol. 52. &c. The most holy things were such as onely the Priests were to eat of, as Iarchi sheweth on Numb. 18.10. and so Aben Ezra on Deut. 12.27. The lesse holy the people also might eat, as Aben Ezra signifies on Leuit. 7.15. and Deut. 12.27. and Iarchi on Levit. 10, 14. Among the first sort of these holy things they number the meat offering, the trespasse offering, the sinne offering, the first-borne, the shoul­der, the brest, &c. as appeares by Aben Ezra on Numb. 18.9. and Deut. 12.27. Among the second they reckon the peace-offerings, Leuit. 7.15. So doth Aben Ezra on this Text: and Ramban likewise testifieth the same thing on Leuit. 19.5. And when ye shall offer a peace-offering vnto the Lord, ye shall offer it freely: ‘ [...]’ i. He speakes this of the peace-offrings which were the lesse holy things, and were to be eaten by the ow­ners themselues, &c. And to this second sort of ho­ly things, the Iewes likewise doe referre the Tithe of Cattell, as is euident by Iarchi and Chimki, and o­thers in the places before cited. And Ramban further confirmes it on Numb. 5.10. And euery mans hal­lowed things shall be his, ‘ [...]’ [Page 119] i. The Scripture drawes all holy things, & giues them to the Priests, & doth not reserue of them but only the offering of thanksgiuing, & the peace-offrings, & the Passeouer, & the tithe of beasts, & the 2^d Tithe, & the planting of the 4^th yeare, that they should belong to the owners. Dauid de pomis in his dictionary in the word [...] shewing the diuers kinds of sacrifices among the Iewes, doth in all things agree with vs, in this that hath beene said concerning the Tithe of beasts, and so doth Moses Ben Maimon in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth, cap. 9. fol. 25. Mishneh in Meg­nashar Seni cap. 1. ‘ [...]’ i. Wee haue heretofore oftentimes mentioned that for the Tithe of beasts they offer the fat and the blood thereof, and the owners doe eat it in Ierusalem: that is, doe eat the flesh thereof, as Iarchi before expres­sed: Now the reason why the Iewes doe after this manner conceiue and teach concerding this Tithe, is related both by R. Bechai, and also by Iarchi on Le­vit. 27.33. to be, because (say they) it is not reckoned among the 24 gifts of the Priesthood (for that is the number that they make of them) according as I finde them set downe both by R. Bechai, and R. Chas­koni on Numb. 18. in this order. So Iarchi on Gen. 29.34. and in the Talmud in Massech Cholin 133. fol. 2 pag. ‘ [...] [Page 120] [...]’ i. The twenty foure gifts of the Priesthood were giuen to the Priests, twelue in Ierusalem, and twelue in the borders. The twelue that were giuen in Ierusalem are these, the sinne offering, the trespasse offering, the peace offerings of the Congregation, the skinnes of the holy things, the shew bread, the two loaues, the Omer or sheafe, the remainder of the meat offerings, the resi­due of the log, or pint of oyle, for the leaper, the oblati­on of the thanksgiuing, the oblation of the peace offe­ring, the oblation of the Ramme of the Nazarite. And these following are the twelue that were giuen in the borders. The great heaue offering, the heaue of­fering or oblation of the tithe, the cake, the first fruits, the first of the fleece, the shoulder, the two cheekes and the maw, the first borne of man, the first borne of the cleane beast, the firstling of the asse, the dedications or vowes, the field of possession, the robbery of the stran­ger, Leuit. 6.5. Numb. 5.7.8. These are the foure and twenty gifts that belonged to the Priesthood.

And among these there is no mention of the first-borne of any vncleane beast, but only the Asse, and no mention at all of the tithe of cattell. What sound­nesse there is in this their doctrine and interpretati­on [Page 121] of Scriptures, I leaue that to others, but what their opinion is touching the point here propoun­ded, their writings (as hath bin shewed) doe suffici­ently declare. And therefore by all this it is very ma­nifest, that our Historian hath set downe a false rela­tion of the Tithe of cattell, as it was in vse among the Iewes.

And whereas he goeth on in his History for the manner of tithing their cattell, and tells vs a tale of the streitnes of a doore for Lambes to goe through, & the Ewes bleating neere them without, and a seruant standing with a rod coloured with oker to marke the tenth, &c. Albeit happily some such custome might at some times be obserued in certaine places among the Iewes of later ages, & that not onely for Lambs, but a so for calfes, as Iarchi there notes: yet to make the Text Leuit. 27.32. to be the ground and warrant of this practise; or that Moses intended hereby to teach them that particular manner of marking the tenth, I thinke it carries but small shew of probabili­ty; for though the Historian say, So they vnderstand going vnder the rod: Yet certaine it is, that the chiefest and best learned of the Iewes doe not so vn­derstand it. Aben Ezra expoundeth [...] vnder the rod, to be [...] The shepheard or heard-mans rod; which was not a rod coloured with oker, but such a one as Dauid in Psal. 23.4. al­ludes vnto, where comparing God to a sheepheard, and himselfe to a sheepe, he saith ver. 4. thy rod & thy staffe they comfort me. On which words Chimki hath this glosse; ‘[Page 122] [...]’ i. For the shepheard feeds his sheep with the rod which he hath in his hand, and leanes vpon it when he stan­deth. And it seemes also that he numbred his sheep with it, as Chimki on Ier. 33.13. and Baal Haturim on Numb. 1.2. doth intimate. And this is more fully ex­plained in Ezech 20.37. And I will cause you to passe vnder the rod, &c: The same phrase is here vsed with that in Leuit. 27.32. as Chimki doth obserue, in­terpreting the words of the Text in this manner: ‘ [...]’ i. I will cause you to passe vnder the rod, according as it is said, of all that goeth vnder the rod, Leuit 27. that is to say, as he that telletth his sheep holds a rod in his hand, & telleth thē one by one, & the tenth brings out for the Tithe, so will I number you, & the sinner shall perish, &c. Where it is euident that R. Chimki explaines that Text of Leuit. by this of Ezech. & this also by that, but makes no mention of any such rod coloured with oker, as the History speakes of, either there to marke beasts, or here to marke men; neither doth the Text implye any such consequence. And indeed in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth cap. 9 where this is first spoken of, the Iewes doe not teach, that they did marke the tenth with a rod coloured with oker, but they numbred not only their sheepe, but also other cattell with a rod one by one till they [Page 123] came to the tenth, and the tenth that came forth [...] they mark'd with a red colour; for so doth Maimon in that place, and Dauid de pomis in his Dictionary expound [...] to be [...] i. a knowne name of a red co­lour: yet so that this was no such constant custome, but that it might be & was also changed. And there­fore in some cases (as there they doe declare) they did neither tell or marke the tenth in this manner, but tooke indifferently as might be, ten out of an hundred, and tithed also by guesse and coniecture, and therefore there they write thus: ‘ [...]’ i. The Tithe of beasts is annexed to the Tithe of corne, whereas therefore the tithe of corne is taken by guesse and coniecture, so also the tithe of beasts is taken by guesse and coniecture. Now what this guesse & con­iecture is, they doe also there explaine in the Com­mentary vpon the Talmud in these tearmes, ‘ [...]’ i. Whereas the Tithe of corne is one part of ten, so also the Tithe of beasts is one often, without going vnder the rod, but only that ten are before him, and he takes one of them: More may be alleadged from the same pla e to this purpose, but it being a point of small moment, this which hath beene said already, may be sufficient. It may be the fauourers of tbis Histo­ry [Page 124] will esteeme these to be but sleight obiections, propounded onely by a polyanthean predicant against the learned and peremptory conclusions of a grand polymathist and predominant Philologer: And yet as sleight as they are, they cut in pieces the one halfe of his Iewish History. For his Dichotomy is, that the yearely increase is either fruits of the ground, or ca tell, hauing done with the fruits of the ground so far forth as Scaliger gaue him direction, he comes in the next place to tithe of cattell; & here Scaliger leaues him; and therefore he writes at ran­dome on his owne head, contrary to the writings of all the Iewes; and for the vsuall manner of the tithing of their cattell he tells vs scarce a word of truth. And yet forsooth in his Preface pag. 6. he professeth that to supply the want of a full and faithfull collection of the historicall part, was the end and purpose why this was composed, which might remaine as a furnished armory for such as inquire about this Ecclesiasticall revenue.

See now what a faithfull collection, and what a furnisht armory he hath here left vs. If any obiect, that this practise of the Iewes in tithing their cattell, may bee questioned as not agreeable to precept and rules of Scripture; for this I answer, that so the grea­test part of this History may in that regard iustly be suspected. But the question is not now what is a­greeable or disagreeable to Scriptu e; but what was in truth the practise and manner of the Iewish ti­thing; for that is it the Historian vndertakes to teach vs: and if ye aske, where shall this be found, or how [Page 125] shall it appeare? he tells vs in his Review, pag. 453. that what the Iewish Lawyers and Doctours in the Talmud and later Comments haue deliuered, are testi­monies beyond excepti [...]n for the practise or historicall part;: And if they be so, then I am sure the Iewish Lawyers doe herein put the Christian Lawyer to his geofayle beyond all exception; for they mani­festly crosse and contradict this that he hath taught vs, as hath beene before demonstrated. Notwithstan­ding if we leaue the Iewish Writers, and follow the rule of the holy Scriptures, I take it to be an vn­doubted truth, that the Tithe of cattell was to be payed to the Leuite, which though it be not plaine in that Text which is quoted, Leuit. 27.32. yet adde rhereunto Numb. 18.21. and then it is fully cleared, But consider yet a little further what our Author hath deliuered in this 5 Section of his 2. Chap. con­cerning cattell and the first-borne thereof, and the manner of tithing them, together with the rod to marke them, and then iudge if he hath not here brought his owne Rabbi Iarchi with a rod to ierke himselfe; for here is a Tithe that Iarchi and the rest of the Iewes doe shew the Historian hath fowly mi­staken, and it is neither [...] nor [...], first or second Tithe. And therefore that diuision of his which he makes the ground of his discourse, and labours so much to iustifie, though he accompt it to be the best, will in conclusion proue starke naught; for this Tithe of cattell can not be reduced either to the first or second Tithe: not the first, for that was gi­uen to the Leuites, and was by the Iewes esteemed [Page 126] to be [...] for common vse or prophane, as Ram­ban saith on Deut. 14. and might bee eaten in any place, Numb. 18.31. But this (say the Iewes) was not giuen either to Priest or Leuite, but was alwayes accounted [...] holy, and might be eaten no-where but at Ierusalem, as hath beene proued before, both by Iarchi and Bechai on Leuit. 27. and other of the Iewes.

Againe, it is not the second Tithe, for that was Deut. 14.23: the Tithe of corne, wine and oyle, and not the Tithe of beasts, that also might be changed into money if the way were long, and the place of God's worship far off, Deut. 14.24.25. But the Tithe of beasts might not be changed, Leuit. 27.33. And if they bought cattell, oxe, or sheep, with the money to be eaten at Ierusalem, Deut. 14.26. yet that was not the tenth, nor to be accounted the Tithe of the cat­tell, but still the second Tithe; and therefore the Iewes doe ordinarily distinguish them in their wri­tings, calling the one [...] the tithe of beasts; and the other [...] the second tithe. So that if there were no other exception to be taken against his best diuision, but only this, this were suffi­cient to proue it naught, and therefore also by con­sequent a great part of his Iewish treatise that stands vpon this rotten foundation, can not be found.

But if this will not serue the turne to discouer the weakenes of the History, beside the former Tithe mistaken, there is yet an other Tithe among the Iewes, that the compiler of the History hath neue so much as once spoken of, and it comes not within the [Page 127] compasse of his diuision of first and second tithe, neither was it for the Priest or Leuite, or for the feasts, or for the poore, but of an other quality diffe­ring from these, & that is [...] the kings Tithe. Baal Haturim on Deut. [...]8.1. speaking of the cohaerence betwixt this and the precedent Chap. that treateth of the King, hath there these words: ‘ [...] &c. [...] &c. [...]’ i. The Priests of the Leuites shall haue no part, &c. this Chapter is annexed to the Chapter of the king, because the king he is anointed by the high Priest, and he pre­ferres the king in the first place, because he is greater then the other, &c. And againe whereas the Priest & Leuite doe take Tithe, so also shall the king, he shall take the tenth of your sheepe, as 1. Samuel 8.17. Whe­ther this manner of collection be warrantable from the Text, or not, I stand not to examine; it sufficeth to shew here by this authority, what was the iudg­ment of the Iewes touching the kings tithe, viz: that he might take a tenth as well as the Priest or Leuite, but yet could not take the Priest's or Leuite's Tithe, for the right of the one in taking Tithes, did not a­bridge the right of the other: And rhis point is iudi­ciously ohserued by that worthy religious Knight S^r Iames Sempill, in his Booke of Sacriledge for the Gospell, chap. 8. sect. 3. And so much also is implyed in this [...]estimony, & in other writings of the Iewes, answereable hereunto. For albeit Calvin on Numb. [Page 128] 18, 20. doth say, vetustissimum fuisse morem, ut reges decimarent colligitur ex 1 Sam. 8.15. that it is colle­cted from the 1 Samuel 8. that it was a most ancient custome that kings should take Tithe; yet whether that Scripture doth describe a iust king or a tyrant, the Iewes teach, that the tithe there spoken of, is not the Leuites Tithe, but an other Tithe after the Le­uites Tithe; for so are the expresse words of Chimki on that Text, 1 Samuel 8.15. & he will take the tenth of your seed, &c. ‘ [...]’ i. He shall take the tithe of the fields & vineyards, or of the fruits after the tithe of the Leuites: It is true indeed that there is a controuersie among the Rab­bines (as Chimki here notes) concerning [...] ius regni, the right of the kingdome in the things here mentioned: Rabbi Iudah saith, that this Text is written only to terrifie them, and discourage them from their enterprise in choosing a king: and so is Ralbag his opinion in that place. Rabbi Iosi saith, that whatsoeuer is spokē in this chapter of the king, the king hath power and right therein, and so say o­thers also, as appeares in the Talmud Sanhedrim cap. 2. fol. 20. where they discusse this matter at large. And hence it is that they expoūd the word [...] ver. 11. translated the manner of the king, to be [...] ius, the right of the king, or the kings due, according as the same word is vsed in Deut. 18.3. ‘ [...]’ i. This shall be the Priests duty from the people: and [Page 129] the Childe Paraphrase of Ionathan accords with it: [...] i. This shall be the king's Law. And as touching that in ver. 14. He will take your fields and your vineyards, &c: Chimki further there declareth, that their Doctors teach, that he might not take the fields and vineyards themselues, but the fruits, if his seruants stood in need of them, when they went to warre. And the reason hereof is, (saith he) because it is not said, he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliue-yards to him­selfe, but he will giue them to his seruants, that is, to his warriours that are with him; for otherwise all are his seruants. Not that he might take to himselfe the bo­dy of the fields and vineyards; for if so, then Ahab might haue taken Naboth's vineyard by the right of the kingdome, and Iesebel had not needed to haue v­sed all those lewd practises, and the shedding of inno­cent blood. Thus farre Chimki in this place.

And writing againe of the same subiect, 1 Kings 21. he confirmes his former exposition, and adds an other reason, why the text 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. ‘[Page 130] [...]’ 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 [Page 131] 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.

SECT. 7.

7 THat tithing of Luke 11.42. [...], euery herbe which is spoken of in the Gospel, and obserued by the Scribes and Pharises, was neuer commanded in Scripture, nor by their Canon-law requisite, accor­ding to the opinion of their Doctors, who restraine the payment of tithes to that Deut. 26.12. [...], that is, thy increase spoken of by Moses; and comprehend not herbes vnder that name.

To say that the tithing of euery herbe which is spoken of in the Gospel, &c: was neuer commanded in Scripture, is an assertion somewhat too bold, and peremptory, considering that the rules in Scripture touching payment of Tithe, are deliuered in such generall termes, as doe comprehend both herbes, and many other particulars vnder them, as Levit. 27.30. Numb. 18. 2 Chron. 31.5. &c. And as for the Iewes Canon law, it is neither Canon, nor law to vs, except it agree with the Canon of the Scripture: neither are we to depend vpon the opinion of their Doctors, which in many things is most vncertaine; for it is well knowne, their Doctors oftentimes differ in opinion. But how shall we be assured that they restraine the payment of tithes to [...] increase, and where doth it appeare, or by what reason, that they doe not comprehend herbes vnder that name? For all this there is no euidence brought in, but only [Page 147] his bare word, and we haue no cause to trust him on his word, because we haue found him faulty already in other passages of this History. In the beginning of his second Chap. he giues this word increase, a large extent, containing therein both fruits of the ground, and Cattell: But here it is restrained, and must not comprehend herbes; but wherefore not herbes, or what else it doth comprehend, we are yet to seeke. Dauid Chimki in his Miclol, tells vs, that [...] increase, is ‘ [...]’ i. A name that comprehendeth all fruit that is for meat; and if so, why not herbes? And it is called te­buah (saith he) because it is of the yeare ensuing, for that of the yeare past is called Abur. And Ramban on Exod, 22.29. saith, ‘ [...]’ i. The fruit of the field, and of the vineyard is called tebuah, because they bring it into the houses, being de­riued from a word that signifies to bring or carry in. R. Bechai on Deut. 8.8. saith, that [...] containes these fiue kindes, wheat, barly, rye, oates, and spelt, or beare-corne, as hath beene mentioned before. But R. Chaskuni on Deut. 14.22. speakes more largely, and saith, that here also merchandise is comprehended as lyable to tithing, ‘ [...]’

And so the Commentor vpon the Talmud Tag­nanith, cap. 1. fol. 9. ‘[Page 148] [...]’ makes it to containe Vsury and Merchandise, and e­uery thing whereby a man gaineth. Which commeth litle or nothing short of the practise of the Pharisee, when he said Luke 18.12. I pay tithe of all that I pos­sesse.

But how can we be resolued, that the Iewes re­straine the payment of tithe onely to tebuah in that sense which he intendeth; when as in their writings they vsually make mention of the tithing of Mam­mon, which generally signifies all kind of goods, or riches whatsoeuer. And therefore Abuhab speaking of Abraham's tithing, Gen. 14.20. saith, ‘ [...]’ i. That he gaue tithe as a man titheth his Mammon or his goods. And so saith Aben Ezra concerning Iacob's vow, I will giue the tenth to thee: Gen. 28. ‘ [...]’ i. Of all the Mammon or goods that thou shalt giue me. And so the same author on Gen. 35.1. saith of him, that he performed his vow, [...] and payde the tithe of his substance or goods. And therefore that which is noted by the Historian in his Review, pag. 455. That at this day, Qui religiosiores sunt iuter Iudaeos loco decimarum eleemosynam pen­dunt. De omnibus lucris decem aureos de centum, cen­tum de mille: though he call it almes, as he did also (before) Abraham's payment to Melchisedek, in the Syriak translation, yet ten out of an hundred, and an hundred out of a thousand, is in nature a true kinde [Page 149] of tithing, and keepes the iust proportion therein re­quired, and agrees also with their rules and expositi­ons formerly deliuered. But let vs see what followes in the History.

They deliuer indeed that by tradition from their fathers, all things growing out of the earth, and fit for man's meat, are titheable, Ramban part. 3. tract. de Termoth cap. 2. & Mikotsi in praecept. 145. which their Lawyers thus regularly expresse. ‘ [...]’ That is, euery thing that is kept as man's meat, and hath his growth from the earth, must pay the heaue-offering, and likewise tithe.

Where they make such herbes as are man's meate, tithable, but all such as are not man's meate they dis­charge of tithes.

These later words are not consonant to that which is taught in the Iewish History, and the rule here expressed in Hebrew Characters, for which he citeth Ramban and Mikotsi, is perverted, and plainly differs from that which is deliuered in the Talmud. For in the beginning of Massech. Meaishroth, i. the Treatise of the Tithes, where this is recorded, it is not said, [...] Euery thing that is kept as mans meat, &c. but thus, ‘ [...]’ i. Whatsoeuer is fit for meat, and that which is kept, and hath his growth from the earth, must pay tithe; and meat here being mentioned in generall, though some expositors doe restraine it, containes not onely [Page 150] man's meat, but also meat for Cattell: as Iarchi shewes in [...] i. Siliqua in Massech: Meaishroth cap. 2. And the Commentor vpon Maimon speakes of diuers kindes of graine that were tithed, which ordi­narily were accounted meat for cattell, albeit in time of dearth they were vsed also for man's meate: as vetches or tares, and such like.

Againe, that which is kept, comprehends some­thing else beside meat, as is euidently declared in the 3. Chap. of this Massech: fol. 63. where it is said, ‘ [...]’ i. Orygan, hyssop, and sweet margerom, which are in the court or garner, if they be kept, are subiect to ti­thing: and yet these are not properly man's meat: and Ramban in his Commentary in this place saith; it is the manner of these herbes to grow in gardens, and other places without any sowing of them, and (saith he) here it is said, if they be kept, [...], that is to say, in a place purpose­ly appointed for the keeping of them, they are liable to tithing: and how much doth this differ from the ti­thing of mynt and annise, and other herbes obserued by the Scribes and Pharises, and yet we see the tithe of these things are required by their Canon Law, and not repugnant to the opinion of their Doctors. But it is further added in the words following.

And out of that rule also they except whatsoe­uer was gleaned either out of Leuit. 19 9. & 10. eares of corne, or grapes, or had out of the corners of the field left in Haruest.

[Page 151]He meanes that these are also free from tithing, where one thing more must be reckoned among the rest, that is here omitted, and that is [...], which signifieth such fruit as is common: It is mentioned with the rest in the Commentaries on the Text, and also in the Talmud, as in Massech: Termoth, cap. 1, fol. 48: and Iarchi hereby vnderstands the fruit of such trees as grow in deserts and woods, which are not in the possession of any one man, as are small nuts, and such like, of which Iarchi and Ramban discourse in their Commentaries on Massech. Demai cap. 1. And the reason why these are not tithed, is not expressed by our Historian. But Iarchi on Deut. 14.2. saith, it is because the Leuite hath a share in these, as well as o­thers haue; and therefore (saith he) they are not sub­iect to tithing; which is likewise confirmed by Moses Ben Maimon in Termoth cap. 1. fol. 48.

But it seemes (saith the History) that for this pay­ment of herbes, the Pharises were of the truer side. Our Sauiour likes well their payment, and expresly sayes, they ought not omit it, which admonition of his was to them, while yet the Mosaicall Lawes mere not all ex­pired by the Consummatum est.

Albeit this History makes a difference betwixt the Iewish Lawyers and the Pharises, as if they were of two severall sides, for the matter and maner of ti­thing, yet no such difference appears in the due scan­ning of them: for doth not the tithing of Hyssop and sweete Marierom before mentioned, and the like to these prescribed in the Talmud, reach as far as the Pharises practise in tithing of Mynt and Annise, [Page 152] and other herbs; notwithstanding let the Talmudists and Pharises agree or disagree as they will, the admonition of our Sauiour, though somwhat too sleightly here alledged, doth fully decide the con­troversie: for he approuing and iustifyng the Pha­rises payment, doth herein teach vs how to iudge aright, without any further question.

And though this admonition was giuen while yet the Mosaicall Lawes were not all expired by the Consummatum est, yet after those Lawes were ex­pired it is not to be supposed that then all tithes ceased, or were to be consumed by the Consum­matum est; for it is evident that the payment of tithes hath been duly obserued in the Church of God both before and also after the Mosaicall Lawes.

8 After the second temple destroyed, and dispersi­on of the Iewes, their Law of first fruites, Therumahs, and tithes with them ceased: for their Doctors deter­mine that regularly no inhabitants but of the land of Israel w re to pay any although also among them be a wise exception for the lands of Seuaor, Moab, Am­mon, and Aegypt, because the first is neere their land of Israel, and many Israelits went thither and dwelt there, and the other three are round adioyning to their land of Israel.

Whatsoeuer was ceremoniall and typicall in the Leviticall Law, we acknowledge that it was abroga­ted by our Sauiour Christ, not after, but before the destruction of the second Temple, and before the dispersion of the Iewes: But yet the Iewes them­selues doe not hold that their Law of first fruits, [Page 153] Therumahs, & tithes, with them ceased, but only that the practise of the paiment of these, according to the Law, ceased; because they were dispersed & wanted meanes, hauing not wherewithall to pay them; for o­therwise they generally maintain their law to be per­petual & vnchangeable; so doth Chimki plead against the Christians of his time, as appeares by his obiecti­ons & answers to this purpose, set down at the end of his com. on the Psal. & on Mal. 3.4. his words are these ‘ [...]’ i. Hence yee see that the Law shall neuer be changed, but as it was giuen to Moses, so shall it remaine for euer, And so much also saith R. Bechai on Levit 27. fol. 161. And though the second Temple was des­troyed, yet, without doubt, as the Historian himselfe noteth out of Galatinus in his Review pag. 455. Most of them haue long since expected a third Temple, otherwise why were they so carefull to haue their lawes and speciall cases of first fruits and tithing so copiously deliuered, in fiue whole Massecheth, of their Talmud or body of their ciuill and Canon Law; which was many yeres after the destruction of the se­cond Temple made for the direction of the dispersed of their Nation? and so they expound those Chap­ters in Ezech. literally of a third Temple that they expect; although they are forced to confesse, and that according to the letter, that there shall be an altera­tion in divers particulars, differing from that which was before in the Law, as Iarchi declareth on Ezech. 41.5. first touching the Chambers of the Temple: [Page 154] againe Chimki on Ezech 41.22. notes an alteration in respect of the altar of wood, which is there called a table. and on Ezech. 25. & 4.18. & 22. he saith, there shall be an alteration or innovation in the or­der of sacrifices, and on Ezech. 44.17. he obserueth a change in the Priests garments; and in the feastes Ezech, 45.25. and diuers other things there ex­pressed. And yet notwithstanding all this, they are constant in opinion that the Law of Moses shall still continue without any change thereof: and therefore though the practise for payment of first fruits, The­rumahs and tithes with them ceased, yet the law of these ceased not, but in their iudgment is still of force, even as it was also before the payment of these was in vse. For the Law was giuen to Moses in mount Sinai: but their Doctors teach that they were not bound to pay the Therumahs and the tithes, vn­til they did possesse and inhabite the land, which was long after, as Ramban testifieth on Numb. 15.

But they deliuer, that who so of them tooke the pro­fits of land amongst the Cutheans or Samaritans their old enemies (or else-where in Aram; and so it seemes by consequent in any other land, sauing which they except) was not to pay any: touching which point many speciall cases are put by In Iad. Chaze­ka tract. de the­rum [...]h T. 1. & Mikotsi in prae­cept. 133. Rabbi Ben Maimon.

This is cleane contrary to that which they teach in the Talmud: for Aram is Syria, whence it is that the Iewes say, that Abraham was first called [...] i. Pater Syriae; and after the promise [...], Pa­ter multarum gentium, as Iarchi notes on Gen. 17. Now of Syria they say plainly in Massech: Megnaish­roth, [Page 155] cap. 5. fol. 64. that, he that hath land there of his owne, must pay tithe of that land: or if he buy the fruits there of an other mans land, before the time of tithing, he must likewise answere the tithe, but not after: & so doe Maimon & Iarchi in their Commentaries there explaine the rules, directly against that which is here deliuered.

The Historian therefore (as it seemes) perceiuing this errour, in his Review pag. 455. goes about to a­mend his bill, and to distinguish, and say; That of them that take the profits of land among the Samaritans, or in Aram, that is, Syria, must be vnderstood of a Iew dwelling among them, and tilling the land there; for regularly if the fruits of lands in Syria were taken by a Iew, residing still in his owne Countrey, he was to pay tithe of them. Massech: Demai cap. 6. & Meashar Perek 5.5.

But how doth he proue that this must be vnder­stood of a Iew dwelling among them, and tilling the land there? for no such distinction, limitation, or ex­ception appeares in the Talmud, or in the Commen­taries thereof. And if a Iew dwelling in his owne Countrey, and possessing land in Syria, was to pay the tithe of that land, why should he not also pay the tithe thereof, if he himselfe dwelt vpon the same land, considering that both the person, and also the place here specified, are both subiect to the Law of tithing by the rules and precepts of the Iewes? The History tells vs a little before, that the Israelites dwel­ling in Senaar, Moab, Ammon, and Aegypt, were to pay tithes there: Senaar, that is, Babylon so called, [Page 156] saith Rabbi Saadiah, on Dan. 1.2. ‘ [...]’ i. Because they that perished in the deluge, were cast downe thither. And Moab hath his denomination, quasi [...] of the father, saith Aben-Ezra, and Be­chai on Gen. 19.37. because these two, Moab and Am­mon, came by the incest of their father. Now if the Is­raelites dwelling in these lands, were to pay tithes, why not also in Syria, which had more affinity with Canaan, and the Lawes thereof, then the rest had? for as Maimon teacheth in his explication of Massech: Demai, cap. 6. fol. 18, ‘ [...]’ Syria which was subdued by Dauid, was reputed as the land of Israel, in respect of diuers lawes to which it was subiect. And among other, they relate in Sedar Teharoth, Massech: Iadim cap, 4. fol. 157. that the seuenth yeare, the yeare of rest, commanded Leuit. 25.1. and Deut. 15.1. was not obserued but on­ly in Canaan and Syria, for so are the words of the Commentor there, ‘ [...]’

In which yeare though no tithes were payable by the Law, yet in this place they deliuer it as a traditi­on of Moses from Sinai, that Babel, Aegypt, Am­mon, and Moab, which were out of the Holy Land, did pay the poore mans tithe in the seuenth yeare. And Moses Ben Maimon in his Preface to Sedar Ze­raim, saith also, that Ammon and Moab by the like tradition, payde likewise the second tithe in the se­uenth [Page 157] yeare; for these are there his wordes, fol. 2. pag. 2.

Therefore here the poore mans tithe, was not gi­uen insteed of the second tithe, nor one and the same with the second tithe, as the Historian hath before taught vs: for here they were giuen as two seuerall kindes of tithes in one and the same yeare, as the tra­ditions here testifie. But of this I haue spoken enough already▪ and therefore I passe it ouer, and proceede againe in the History.

At this day by their Law they pay none, those that liue in their land of Israel for want of their Priest­hood and Temple, those that liue dispersed in other Countreyes both for that reason, as also for the other, which restraine the payment of them to Canaan, and herein they all agree.

True it is, that the Leviticall Priesthood and Tem­ple is abolished by the spirituall and euerlasting Priesthood of Christ, who is a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedek; Though therefore at this day by their Law they pay no tithes, yet they them­selues acknowledge (as hath bin shewed before) that he which is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, must take tithes as Melchisedek did; for so saith Aben Ezra on Psal. 110. And these are the Tithes that we plead for, as continuing still due to be payde.

Further where he saith, that they restraine the pay­ment of them to Canaan, that cannot be vnderstood, but only of the Leuiticall payment, and yet the ex­ceptions [Page 158] formerly alledged of Aegypt, Ammon, Moab, Syria, and the like, doe crosse this. Besides, I haue before declared by the authority and testimony of the Iewes, that tithes were payde in the time of Iob in the land of Vz, which was no part of Canaan.

But the great Ioseph Scaliger sayes, He ask't some of them, whether if they might againe build their Temple (as after the Captivity they did) their Lawes of sacrifices, first fruits, and tithes, would be then re­viv'd; and their answer was, that to build it againe, were to no purpose, because they had no lawfull Priest­hood there, being not one of them that can proue him­selfe a Leuite, though many pretend to bee so, and some beare also the office of a kinde of Priesthood a­mongst them.

The answer of these Iewes to Scaliger, cannot well accord with that which their Doctors teach: for it is euident by their writings, as hath before bin proued, that they expect the building of a third Temple, and the reviving of their Lawes; for though they haue no lawfull Priesthood, not one of them being able to proue himselfe a Leuite; yet they teach, that they ex­pect the comming of Eliah, and that he at his com­ming will reduce euery one to his owne Tribe, as Chimki sheweth on Ezech. 47.23. In these termes, ‘ [...]’ i. Hereafter when Israel comes out of captivity, the Tribes shall be knowne, although they are now mixt [Page 159] together, and know not any man his owne Tribe; Eliah shall come, and by distinguishing of families, shall refer euery man to his owne Tribe. And of the comming of Eliah, on Leuit. 26.42. Then will I remember my couenant with Iacob, Iarchi hath this glosse. ‘ [...]’ i. Iacob in fiue places is written full, and Elihu in fiue places defectiue, wanting the letter Vau: for Iacob took a letter from Eliah's name, for a pawne or pledge, that hee should come and publish the redemption of his sonnes. And this, Iohn the Baptist hath already per­formed, who was that Eliah that was to come, Math. 11.14. Luke 1.17. Marke 9.13.

But now for the building againe of the Temple, and that future state of happines which the Iewes dreame of, there are many different opinions among themselues; Elias in Thisbi writes, that some of them by [...] The world to come, vnderstand the world of soules which beginnes presently after death: and some thereby, the time and dayes of the Messiah, and some after the generall resurrection of the dead. Moses Ben Maimon, in his commentary on Sanhedrin cap. 18. fol. [...]0. speakes of this, more at large on these words, ‘ [...]’ i. All Israel haue a part in the world to come: where he relates 5 seuerall opinions, most of thē much like the late treatise of the Calling of the Iewes, dreaming es­pecially of an earthly happines, & temporal kingdom [Page 160] in this world: But in the end after the recitall of them he reiects them all, and saith: That as the blind man cannot iudge of colours, nor the deafe of soundes, nor fishes knowe the element of fire, because their liuing is in the water which is the contrary: so the ioy of the spirituall world is not knowne in this corporall world, in respect of the excellency, whereof the Pro­phet Dauid saith, Psal. 31.19. O how great is thy good­nes which thou hast laide vp for them that feare thee! And so say the Doctors. ‘ [...]’ i In the world to come there is neither eating, nor drinking, nor washing, nor ointing &c: But the righteous sit with their Crownes on their heads, and are sustained by the brightnes of the divine presence; & so in effect, he concludes there against the former opinions, that the true blessednes of the world to come consists in beatifica visione Dei. And likewise for the building of the Temple, which they often speake of, some of their owne writings shew, that it must not be a materiall, but a spirituall Temple; so much doth R. Bechai intimate on Gen. 28.17. which place he applyes to the three Temples: The third whereof he would haue to be signified in these words, And this is the gate of heaven; where he saith. ‘ [...]’ i. And therfore here he mentions heaven, because it shal [Page 161] be the worke of heaven, and not the building of man, as the former were; in which he makes mention of a place, and house. Moses also points at this in the blessing of Beniamin, as the Iewes write on Deut, 33.12: and on Ier. 7.4. The same thing likewise is observed by Bechai, on Exod 27.20. That they bring vnto thee pure oile oliue beaten for the light that the Lampes may alwaies burne, [...] Heere saith Bechai, The first house stood 4 hundred and ten yeares, & the 2 foure hundred and twenty, ac­cording to the number conteined in the Word, [...] beaten, to signifie that the two first Sanctuaries should be beaten downe & destroyed: But the 3^d house which comes not vnder number, because the time thereof is not limited, is signified by the worde [...]; For the light, to which they apply that in Esa 60, 1. Arise, shine, for thy light is come: and Psal. 27.1. The Lord is my light and my salvation, and Psal, 118.27. The Lord is mighty and hath giuen vs light. In which texts they vnderstand a promise made of the returne of the divine presence to the third house, which was wanting in the second, for so the Iewes teach, that fiue things were wanting in the second Temple, that were in the first, viz: The Arke, the Vrim and Thummim, fire from heaven, the di­vine presence, and the spirit of prophecie, as Iarchi and Chimki shew on Hagg. 1.8. and so it is recorded in the Talmud, in Massech. Ioma cap. 1. fol. 21. But this defect is supplyed in the 3 house: and because (saith Bechai) there is no time limited for the standing of it, it being to continue for euer, therefore [Page 162] it is said (that the lampes may alwaies burne) to sig­nifie, that the excellency thereof shal last for euer, and the light thereof shall neuer cease.

Whatsoeuer therefore these Iewes answered Sca­liger, touching the building of the Temple; it ap­peares by the writings of their chiefest Doctors, that their third Temple must not be an earthly masse, or materiall building of timber or stone, but a spirituall, heavenly, and everlasting Temple.

That which followes in the History, touching the high-Priesthood of the Iewes, when they liued heere in England, is taken out of the records of Richard the first and King Iohn, which testifie a grant thereof, made and confirmed by letters patents; Iacobo Iudao de Londonijs presbytero Iudaeorum &c. But this being not at this time within the compasse of my walke, I meddle not with it; yet by occasion it puts me in mind that in the Bombergi Bible on Gen. 18. there is mention of one [...] i. Rabbi Moses of London, who is cited there as a Cōmentor on the text, which also shewes that they liued heere in former times; but when this was, or by what meanes they had their maintenance when they liued here, that is not so evident: I easily think with the Hi­storian, that they receiued neither Therumahs nor first fruits, nor tithes, as not belonging to them; for it was not requisite that tithes heere should be paide Presbyteris Iudaeorum: It sufficeth if without respect either of Iewes or Iewish fables, they be paide in due manner as they ought Presbyteris Christia­norum.

[Page 163]Hitherto following this Historian, we haue bin travailing in the land of Canaan, and are now vpon the suddaine brought into England, for multitude & variety of blessings, a second Canaan, where I thinke it good to rest, without any further rangeing; for as touching the newes that he relates about the pay­ment of tithes in forreine countryes, Greece, Italy, France, Spaine, & the like, it skills not much whether it be true or false, for it concernes vs especially in this case to enquire not factum, but ius, not what was done, but what ought to be done, & yet even in this kinde they that haue traced the History in those parts, haue therein discovered divers wandrings and aberrations: But for my part I had rather stay where I am, and take things as they are reported, then goe so far to make triall: only for a farewell looking back againe to the places where we haue been, a word or two also of the Iewish part of his Review, and so an end.

In his Review p. 450. he remembreth two adiuncts that belong to the story of Abrahams tithing, that is, who Melchisedek was, and where the place of his Kingdome of Salem was.

For the first he is generally reputed to be Shem by the common consent of the Iewes: but whether Shem or Iapheth were the eldest sonne of Noah, to whome the Priest-hood should belong, that is not so easily determined. For whereas he saith, that the Rabbins and divers other of the learned, will haue it, that Iapheth was the elder brother, and for this wri­teth in the margent, Eam esse Rabbinorum sententiam [Page 164] not at D. Chimki. [...] Yet the same Chimki on 1. Chro. 1. contrariam sententiam tenet, saying that Iapheth was greater in dignity, but yonger in yeares. But Aben-Ezra on Gen. 10.21. applies the same speech to Shem: and Iarchi there sayth, that it is not knowne whether Shem or Iapheth were the elder. R. Chaskuni on Gen. 9.25. saith, that Iapheth was the eldest, Cham the second, and Shem the third. But in the Tal­mud Sanhedrin cap. 8. fol. 69. with reference to Gen. 5.32. they say these wordes: ‘ [...]’ i. Shem was a yeere elder then Cham, and Cham a yeere elder then Iapheth, so Shem is found to be two yeares elder then Iapheth. For this therefore the Iewes agree not among themselues, and it being a question more intricate & disputable, then pertinent or pro­fitable, I passe it ouer, and come to the other ad­iunct concerning the place.

For the place of his Kingdome, Salem, it is taken (saith the Author) by S^t Hierom (as he learned from some Iewes) and from him by S^t Ambrose, Eucherius, Primasius, and others, that this Salem is that which seated on this side of Iordan, is some 80 miles distant from the plaine of Mamre, where Abraham liued and retaynes it's name in the Story of Iohns Ioh 3 23. baptisme. That S^t. Hierom learned this from the Iewes how can it be thought credible? for they generally hold that by Salem heere is meant Ierusalem, where Abra­ham gaue the tithes; and so saith the Targum plainly both on Gen. 14. & also on Psal. 76.2. where David [Page 165] Chimki writes thus.

Heere Chimki from Midras Tillim, relates a con­ceit of the Iewes touching this place, expressing it in such manner as if two Godfathers did striue for the name of it, Shem called it Salem, Abraham, Iereh, Gen. 22.14. Therefore to end the strife, and please both parties, God caused it to be called neither simply Sa­lem as Shem did; nor Iereh as Abraham; but cōpound of both in one word Ierusalem. Iereh signifies vision; & Salem, peace; for in the true Ierusalem there is true vision, and true peace. And that this place was first called Salem, and afterward Ierusalem, Iosephus plainly testifieth antiq. 1.11. saying, [...]. They called Salem after­ward Ierusalem. It is also called in Gen. 22.2. Mori­ah, as the Iewes teach, where Salomon after built the Temple, 2. Chron. 3.1. Therefore saith Baal Haturim. ‘ [...]’ i. That the land of Moriah by identity of number is the same with Ierusalem. In Iosuah 18.28. & 15.63. it is called Iebusi: as also in Iudg. 19.10. & 1.21. And in Ezech. 48.35. [...] The Lord is there. Rab. Levi Ben Gershom and Chimki, on Iosuah 10.1. write, that all the Kings of Ierusalem both in the time of Melchisedek, and in the dayes of Iosuah, were called by the name either of Melchisedek, or Adoni­sedek Kings, or Lords of righteousnes, as the name of the Kings of Egypt was Pharaoh: and they are so [Page 166] called, saith Chimki, ‘ [...]’ i. Because of Ierusalem which is the place of righteous­nes. And saith Ramban on Gen. 14. ‘ [...]’ i. This place doth iustifie or make righteous the in­habitants thereof, as it said Esai. 1.21. [...] i. Righteousnes lodged in it, 2. Pet. 3.13. compared with Ier. 23.6. & 33.16. And heere (say the Iewes) was the place where Abraham paid his tithes: whereby it appeares that the tithes were paid both to the Priests of God before the Law, and also were annexed to the place of Gods worship, as Aben-Ezra sheweth on Gen. 28, 22. writing thus. ‘ [...]’ i. This shall be the house of God, the place appointed for my prayer, and to bring thither the tithes of all the goods that thou shalt giue me. In like manner Ramban both on Gen. 14. and also on this text doth assigne the tithes to the place of God's worship, thus ex­pounding the text: &c: [...] i. When I returne to my fathers house I will serue the only true God in the chosen land, in the place of this stone which shall be to me the house of God, and thi­ther will I bring the tithe. Againe the same Author writing on Gen. 31.13. doth in like wordes further confirme this, that the tithes were to be brought to the house of God, the place appointed for his wor­ship. And thus much briefely for the two adiuncts of person and place before mentioned.

There is yet on grand quaere, as it seemes, in the [Page 167] opinion of the Historian, which in his Review Pag. 455. he moues in this manner. Now, me thinks, he that argues for tithes from the Mosaicall Lawes of tithing had need more especially then any I haue yet seene hath neuer done, examine which of the two kindes are due in the Evangelicall Priest-hood, why not the second as well as the first.

To this I answere, first that we challenge not tithes principally by vertue of the Mosaicall Lawes of tithing, neither do I thinke that he hath seene any purposely arguing for tithes, that doth fetch his chiefest reasons thence; But as the learned haue taught who haue handled this subiect, we claime them thus; As due to God by reservation, from the beginning, as following Christs Priest-hood, as the only certainty mentioned in Scripture, as also con­secrated to God by consent of Churches, and Edicts of Princes; as agreeing with the vse and practise of the Church in all times. But as for the Mosaicall Lawes and mandate of God concerning Levi, we make it not the ground of our title to tithes. And where he would haue vs examine which of the two kinds are due in the Evangelicall Priesthood, why not the second as well as the first; This hath beene fully answered by them that haue writtē of this argument, and haue made a more perfect division of tithes, then this of first and second: but because (as it seemes) the Iewes are in more credit with him then others, he may for this point haue also satisfaction from them: In the Talmud Rosh Hashanah cap. 1. fol. 12. on that text Deut. 14.26. which I haue giuen you [Page 168] for your inheritance; they write thus. ‘ [...]’ i. The Scripture ioyneth the first tithe to inheritance, to shew that as an inheritance ceaseth not, or hath no end, so the first tithe ceaseth not, or hath no end; and this is there twice repeated in the same page, which can by no meanes agree with the second tithe, for that ceased. Therefore the first tithe or tithe inheri­tance, which was sometimes assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle, is now due in the Evange­licall Priest-hood.

But he would haue vs consider also how the pai­ment of tithes from the Laity, to the Priests of the Gospell, succeeds to the paiment from the Levites, to the sonnes of Aaron: But these considerations can only be, where the knowledge of fact praeceedes: for without exact distinction of their several tithes, any argument drawne from them, may soone be found a grosse fallacy, that may both deceiue him which makes it, and those whom hee teaches: Let the ingenuous Reader thinke of it. And let the ingenuous Reader also thinke of this, that he which grounds a disputation or an His­tory vpon false principles, must needes deceiue him­selfe, and those whom hee teaches, and make vp his conclusion with grosse fallacies: for as the Philoso­pher sayth well, Physic: li. 1. cap. 2. [...]; One absurdity being granted, others will follow. But he hath heere forgotten the Iewish proverb, [...] i. vpbraid not thy companion with the blemish that is in thy self:

[Page 169] Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum. And indeed to speake plain, what is it else but a meere fal­lacie, by way of insinuatiō, to teach that the payment of tithes from the Laity, to the Priestes of the Gos­pell, succeds to the payment from the Levites to the sons of Aaron. Is there not heerein a manifest dis­parity betwixt the Leuites and the Laity? The Laity were alwaies to pay tithes, & by no right to receiue them; but the Leuites were alwaies to receiue them: For albeit out of the tithes that they did receiue, they were to pay a tenth to Aaron the high Priest, in ac­knowledgment of superiority: yet this payment was meerely ceremoniall, and therefore it is called as Iarchi notes on Num. 18. [...]. i. The oblation or heaue offering of the tithe, tyed only to the high Priest in person, and to Ierusalem for place: But the payment of the Laity to the Priests of the Gospell, is not ceremoniall. Againe there is no proper succession of the Gospell to the Law, in regard of Priest-hood, for the Priest-hood of the Gospell is directly included in the Priest-hood of Melchisedek, which was before the Priest-hood of Aaron: & therfore S^t. Hierom in his questions on Gen. calls the one, the Priest-hood of the vncircum­cised Church, and the other, the Priest hood of the circumcised Synagogue. And whereas Melchisedek being vncircumcised, blessed Abraham, that after was circumcised, and in him Levi and Aaron, of whom came the priest-hood; therefore hee con­cludes thus; Ex quo colligi vult Sacerdotium habentis praeputium benedixisse circumciso Sacerdotio Synago­gae: [Page 170] And so by consequent in this respect, he makes the Evangelicall Priest-hood not to succeed but to be before the Legall. It is further also to be conside­red, that the whole Tribe of Levi is interessed in the tithe and not only the inferior Levites, as hath before beene proued; for though they are divided, as Ram­ban notes on Gen. 17. ‘ [...]’ i. Into two families, the Sacerdotall office apart by it selfe, and the Leviticall apart by it selfe, yet it is but one Tribe, and one Prince over them, and that was Aaron. And to this whole Tribe were the tithes gi­uen, and therefore S^t. Hierom on Malach. 3. vnder the name of Levi comprehends the whole Priest-hood, saying, In filijs Levi, totam intellige Sacerdo­talem dignitatem. Therefore the whole Priest-hood was partaker of the tithe, and not only the inferiour Levites, though they might sometimes be the ser­uile receiuers of them, as the Gibeonites also in re­gard of their office were subiect to the Levites, who are therefore called Nethinim 1. Chron. 9.2. as Aben-Ezra and Iarchi shew on Ezra. 2.43. Because they were assigned to servile offices in the Temple, and giuen to the vse and service of the Levites.

Last of all we haue formerly proued in this Treatise that the first tithe or Levites tithe, was giuen to the sonnes of Aaron, that is, to the Priests, and namely in the time of Ezra, and that by the generall consent and testimony of the Iewes, neither was that consti­tution [Page 171] euer after reversed.

I demaund then to whom the Levites did pay their decimas decimarum, when as the first tithe it selfe out of the which they were taken, was then gi­uen immediatly to the Priests? We read indeed Num. 18.28. that the Levites were commanded to giue the tenth of their tithe, the Lords heaue offering to Aaron the Priest. But concerning the sense and meaning of this text, the Iewes dispute and differ in the Talmud Sanhedrin, cap. 11. fol. 90. Rabbi Iocha­nan argues from hence the certainty of the resurrec­tion, and because Aaron did not liue to enter into the land of Israel, and receiue the heaue offering, therfore (saith he) this teacheth, that he shall liue heareafter, and receiue it after the resurrection. Rabbi Ismael, he saith: ‘ [...]’ i The heaue offering was giuen to Aaron to signifie, that as he was partaker, so also his sonns were parta­kers of it, after him; Now the sonnes of Aaron were high Priests as well as Priests. Therfore where it is added;

But these considerations can only be, where the knowledge of fact preceedes:

What certaine knowledge of fact heerein hath he shewed vs, or how can there be any such certainty found among the Iewes, when as the greatest of their Doctors differ in iudgment for the exposition of this text, which is the ground of the fact heere menti­oned; some of them appropriating the heaue offe­ring of the tithe personally to Aaron himselfe, some [Page 172] to his sons successors, in the high Priest-hood, and some to the inferior Priests. Therfore in these matters, we haue from them much variety, but litle certainty; yet still more proofe for the divine right of tithes, then either hath, or can be shewed to the contrary: For since the Iewes teach vs, (as hath beene declared) that the tithe is God's part, allotted and paide euer to the Priest, and that the Patriarkes Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and the rest paide tithes before the Law, and that they were also paide in the time of Iob, and that the Priest after the order of Melchisedek hath right to take tithes, and that the first tithe or tithe inheritance must neuer cease; By these and such like conclusions, I take it, they af­foorde more arguments for confirmation of the di­vine right of tithes, then either hath as yet from them, or can be shewed against it.

The last of his Hebrew sentences, wherein also I will ioyne with him, and conclude, is set downe to­ward the end of the 2^d chap. of his Review; that is;

That among their Aphorismes both diuine and mo­rall, they tell vs, that as the Masoreth is the defence of the Law, so [...] Meigh­sheroth seag Leaighsher, that is, tithes payd, are the de­fence of riches; for which he quoteth in the margent Pirke Auoth cap. 3.

And in the same place, such an other sentence presently followes, which if this Author had well observed, I perswade my selfe, his History had neuer come to light, and that is, [...] i. silence is the hedge or defence of wisdome. But it is [Page 173] well yet, that now in the end not consonant to his former discourse, he acknowledgeth this that is spo­ken of tithes, to be a divine and morall Aphorisme: and surely not only this, but also many other such like morall and divine Aphorismes, are vttered by the Iewes, both in their Comments on the holy text, and also in the Talmud, which promise a blessing to them that duely pay their tithes, and a curse to those that doe withhold them.

That worthy learned Divine Master Hooker in his fift booke of Ecclesiasticall policy fol: 428. allead­ging this, that the Iewes were accustomed to name their tithes, the hedge of their riches, hath there a further observation saying, that an hedge doth onely fence and preserue that which is contained, whereas their tithes and offerings did more, because they pro­cured increase of the heape, out of which they were taken; And for this he citeth Malach. 3. Bring yee all the tithes into the store-house, that there may be meat in my house, (deale truly, defraud not God of his due but bring all,) and prooue if I will not open vnto you the windowes of heaven, and powre downe vpon you an vnmesurable blessing. On which wordes Rab­bi Bechai writing on Deut. 26. saith: Although it be vnlawfull to proue or tempt the Lord; for a man must not say I will performe such a commandement, to the end I may prosper in riches, for it is writen Deut. 6.16. yee shall not tempt the Lord your God &c: yet saith he heere, and the Iewes also in Massech Tagna­nith cap. 1. fol. 9. There is an exception for paiment of tithes and workes of mercy in this text of Malach. [Page 174] 3. and that other Proverb. 3.9. Honor the Lord with thy substance &c, where Iarchi and Ralbag vnder­stand it to be spoken of tithes, and Bechai also workes of charity to the poore; and for proofe of a blessing to the performance of these precepts, Ralbag applieth that in 2. Chron. 31.10. Since the peo­ple began to bring the offering into the house of the Lord, we haue eaten, and haue beene satisfied, and there is left in abundance, for the Lord hath blessed his people, and this abundance that is left: so on Deut 14.22. they write thus, ‘ [...]’ i. Pay tithes that thou maist be rich, pay tithes that thou come not to poverty. This is recorded by Ram­ban, and Bechai, and others, and in divers places in the Talmud, as Massech Sabuth cap. 16. fol. 119. Tag­nanith cap. 1. fol. 9. on Num. 5.10. Iarchi thus glos­seth, ‘ [...]’ i. The man that giues to the Priest the giftes that are fit for him, he shall haue riches in abundance: and so it is in Massech Beracoth, fol. 63. And Baal Ha­turim on Deut. 12.19. Take heed thou forsake not the Levite: he ioynes to that ver. 20. ‘ [...]’ i. When God shall enlarge thy border, and to signifie that a mans gift doth enlarge him, Prov. 18.16. Mea­ning a gift to the Priest. Deut. 16.4. And thou shalt reioyce in thy feast, thou, and thy sonne, and thy daugh­ter, and thy maide, and the Leuite, and the stranger, [Page 175] and the fatherlesse, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Here saith Iarchi, and Bechai on Gen. 37.1. The Leuite, the stranger, the fatherlesse, and the wi­dow, [...] i. foure that belong to me, answerable to foure that belong to thee: Thy sonne, thy daughter, thy man, thy maides ‘ [...]’ If thou comfort those that are mine, I will comfort those that are thine. Deut. 26.11. And thou shalt re­ioyce in euery good thing which the Lord thy God hath giuen thee. To this is annexed (saith Baal Haturim) when thou hast made an end of tithing, ver. 12. ‘ [...]’ i. For by reason of the due payment of tithes, thou shalt reioyce in euery good thing, according as they say, pay tithes that thou may'st prosper. And to this purpose the same Author on Leuit. 4.14. & Iarchi on Numb. 5.12. haue other speeches borrowed from the Tal­mud, Massech: Beracoth, cap. 9. fol. 63. all which tend to shew, that a blessing belongs to those that duly pay their tithes.

But it will be said, what is all this to vs? these things were spoken to the Iewes, and of their times. Ans. Yes, they pertaine to vs also, for God is no changeling: as they shew vs how he would blesse his owne people, if they did maintaine his Priests and Leuites as he appointed; so seeing God respecteth his Ministers now no lesse then in those times, they doe also signifie, that he will blesse vs too, if we doe [Page 176] maintaine them as he hath appointed, the one is a seruice and sacrifice no lesse acceptable vnto him, then the other, as our Apostle also sheweth most ex­cellently in Philip. 4.10.11. and 18.19, &c. Againe on the other side, many are the punishments recorded by the Iewes, which follow the contempt & neglect of payment of tithes. Therfore saith Iarchi on Numb. 5.10, &c: [...] He that de­taines the tithe, so that it is not giuen in the due sea­son thereof, in the end his land shall yeeld him but the tithe of that it vsed to yeeld, agreeable with that sen­tence of S^t Austin De tempore, sermo 219. Si tu deci­mam non dederis, tu ad decimam revoceris. And to this effect they haue an History related by the Com­mentor on the Talmud in Massech: Tagnanith, cap. 1. fol. 9. and also by R. Bechai on Deut. 14. Of a certaine rich man that had land, which yearely bare him a thousand measures of corne, whereof he duly payde an hundred for the tithe: At his death he giues this land to his sonne, with a charge to doe the like in tithing, as he had done before him, which he did the first yeare after his fathers death, for the land brought forth a thousand measures, as before, and he gaue an hundreth thereof for the tithe. But the second yeare he hauing an euill eye, began to thinke with himselfe, that the tithe was a great matter, and therefore he forbade the lay­ing out of it. The next yeare after, the increase of that field was much diminished, and it afforded but an hundred measures in all, in regard whereof he was ex­ceedingly grieued and discontented: His neighbours therefore hearing of this, came vnto him, cloathed in [Page 177] white rayment, to make merry with him, and to com­fort him, to whom he said, It seemes to me that you so­lace your selues, and reioyce at my losse. But they an­swered him, should we be grieued for thee, that hast brought all this euill vpon thy selfe? Wherefore then didst thou not set forth thy tithe duly as thou shouldst haue done? Consider how that when the land came first into thy hand; thou wast the husbandman, or ma­ster and owner thereof, and God Almighty the Priest; for the Tithe was his part to dispose of: But now for­asmuch as thou hast not set forth his part vnto him, God he is become the housholder, and owner of the ground, and thou the Priest; for thy field doth not yeeld as it yeelded before, a thousand measures, but he hath set apart for thee an hundreth measures. And this is that which is written, Numb. 5.10. And euery mans hallowed things shall be his; that is to say, when he diuideth not as he ought, hee shall haue nothing himselfe, but the holy things that is, the tithe. And for this cause our wisemen affirme, he that witholdes his tithe, in the end it will come to passe, that he him­selfe shall haue nothing but the tithe: as it is written Esai 5.10. For ten acres of vines shall yeeld one bath, and the seed of an Homer shall yeeld an Ephah: that is the tithe: For an Ephah is the tenth part of an Ho­mer, as R. Chimki and Iarchi declare on this text. And thus farre also the Commentor on the Talmud. Againe Esai 5.8. Woe vnto them that ioyne house to house, & lay field to field, till there be no place that ye may be placed by your selues in the midst of the earth: Iarchi his glosse here is this: [Page 178] &c: [...] As thogh they thought that neither God hath any part in the land, nor the poore; his part in the tithes they spoyle, and rob the poore of their land, that they alone may dwell therein. And after he shewes the punish­ment hereof, That by reason of famine, their houses and land shall be left desolate, as in ver. 9. Likewise Amos 4.6. And therefore haue I giuen you cleanenesse of teeth in all your cities, and scarcenes of bread in all your places. Chimki here writes thus: As yee haue depriued my house of offerings and tithes, so haue I depriued you of bread and flesh in all your cities and places where you dwell. [...] requiting like for like. And hence it is also that in Massecheth Sabath cap. 2. fol. 32. they say, that through omission of paying Tithes, the heauens are restrain'd from sending downe dew and raine in due season, to which they apply that in Iob 24.19. And Iarchi wri­ting on Deut. 14.21.22. compar'd with 2 King. 19.26. makes this the cause, that the corne is blasted before it be growne vp: and Bechai, that the forraine enemy doth invade an dspoyle the land, &c: And though the Iewes payde not their Tithe in the fields, but on­ly after the fruits were carried into their barnes; as it is said Deut. 26.13. I haue brought the hallowed thing out of mine house, &c: Yet Aben-Ezra and Chaskuni there teach, that it was a prophanation & contempt, to dispose of any part thereof till the tithe was paid. And Maimon on Massec: Demai, c. 1. fol. 11. saith, that he that doth so, is guilty of death by the hand of heauē. In Exod. 13.13. and 34.20. where it is said concerning [Page 179] the first-borne of the Asse, if thou redeeme him not, thou shalt breake his necke. Salomoh Iarchi hath this conclusion: ‘ [...]’ i. He that spoiles the Priests goods, his owne goods also shall be spoyled.) The inference stands thus; If the ow­ner will not redeeme his Asse, by paying the Priest a lambe, then the Priest shall loose the lamb, which is his due, & then also the owner shall loose his Asse, which is more; for it is said he shall breake his necke.

In like manner the Countreyman sometimes ar­gues in an humor, and sayes, rather then I'le pay so much tithe, my ground shall lye fallow, or I'le spend in Law ten times the worth of it: If this be done, then the Priest must needs come short of the tithe, which is his due, and then also the Countreyman shall come short of the fruits and profits which are more: So that referring this case to that of the first-borne of an Asse, we may conclude with Iarchi, He that spoyles the Priests goods, doth also spoile his owne goods. But the Scripture sayth, Deut. 25.4. Thou shalt not muzzle the oxe that treadeth out the corne. And againe Deut. 22.10. Thou shalt not plowe with an Oxe and an Asse, the cleane, and vncleane, toge­ther. For why, saith Bavl Haturim on that place, when the Asse lookes vpon the Oxe, and sees him chew the cud, he frets and repines at him, (as many doe at the Priests maintenance,) because he thinkes that he alwayes feeds, when he doth but only chew the cud. Malach. 3.8. Will a man spoile his goods; [Page 180] yet haue yee spoiled me; but yee say, wherein haue wee spoyled thee; In tithes and offerings yee are cursed with a curse, for yee haue spoyled me, euen this whole nation.

Heere (saith Iarchi) The tithes and offerings wherof ye spoile the Priests & Levites, [...] i. That is the spoyling of me. And Chimki on those words, This whole nation, saith: It seemeth that for other transgressions before named, they were not all equall in them, but for the matter of tithes and offe­rings they were all alike culpable, and therefore he saith (this whole nation.) Whereby it appeares, that sacriledge is a generall and bewitching sin, a fact of euill conscience, and of perilous and pernicious con­sequence. It robs God, it robs man, the living, the dead, them that are yet vnborne. The living, pastor and People, the Pastor of his portion, the People of the food of their soules; The dead, patrons, founders, and benefactors, of their honor and honorable me­mories, who haue in their times over and be de tithes, out of the bounty and zeale of their heartes, giuen many great and rich endowments to the Church, and dedicated them to sacred vses; yea they rob them that are yet vnborne, to wit posterity and succeeding ages, which haue a right in these things; Nam dicata religioni iuris divini sunt non humani. But what speake I of posterity, which as yet are not come? or of the dead which are now gone? and can doe neither good, nor hurt; for a li­ving dog is better then a dead Lion: yet as Iosephs brethren, when their father was dead, came vnto [Page 181] him, and intreated him first, in their fathers name, & after said vnto him, Gen. 50.17. We pray thee for­giue the trespasse of the servants of thy fathers God, meaning (as Iarchi notes) that if he would not for­giue them for their fathers sake, who was now dead, yet he should consider that his fathers God lived for euer, and they were his servants, and therefore to be respected: so though our fore-fathers, honourable founders, and benefactors are dead, and we forget them, yet the God of our fathers still liues, able to right his own, & his servants wrongs. Salomon saith, Prov. 20.25. It is a snare for a man to devoure that which is sanctified, and after the vowes to enquire. On which words that worthy Knight S^r Henry Spel­man in his booke de non temerandis Ecclesijs, very well obserues, that a snare hath three properties 1. to catch sodenly 2. to hold surely, & 3 to destroy certain­ly, as he shewes in the example of Vzzah, Vzziah, 2, Chron. 26.19. Ieroboam, 1. Kings 13.4. Corah, & others. R. Levi Ben Gershom on Iosuah, 7. speaking of the sin of Achan, who is also called Achar 1. Chron. 2.7. because he troubled Israel, teacheth this lesson; That in euery congregation assembled together, one ought to hinder another from sinning against God: for somtimes a whole company is punished for the sinne of one private person, for Achan (saith he) transgressed in the accursed thing, and wrath came vpon the whole congregation; And for this cause the law commands Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy neighbour, and suffer him not to sinne.

[Page 182]In 2 Samuel 1.9. Saul being in distresse when he desired the Amalekite to slay him, saith: [...] i. Anguish is come vpon me. Thereby Chimki vnderstandeth the horror and punishment of his sin, for murthering the Priests of Nob, 1 Samuel 22.18. [...] i. That did weare the broydered coate, Exod. 18.4. And in this sense also R. Bechai, takes it on Levit. 14. fol. 143. And hence it is that the Iewes faigne, that for his fact done to Amalek when he spared Agag and the best sheep, &c: 1. Samuel. 15.9. A voyce sounded from heaven and said vnto him, be not thou iust overmuch. Eccles. 7.16. so for this of Nob the citty of the Priests which he smote with the edge of the sword, both child and suckling 1. Samuel 22.19. it was said likewise, be not thou wicked ouermuch, Eccles: 7.17. If it be overmuch wickednesse, occidere Presbyteros, to slay the Lords Priests, as Saul did heere, and Dioclesian in his time, Niceph. lib. 7. cap. 3. Then much more occidere Presbyterium, to slay the Priest-hood, by taking away the maintenance, as Iulian did. Theod. Lib. 3. cap. 6. & Niceph. Lib. 10. cap. 5. And in this sinne of Saul, Doeg also that was the instrument, was insnared, and therefore the Iewes obserue heere, 1 Samuel. 22.18. that for [...] his name is written by contraction [...] a fish; for he was taken in the net as a fish; for when the Sergeants that were commanded, would not moue their hand to fall vpon the Priests of the Lord, then the King faid to Doeg, turne thou and fall vpon the Priests, as who should say, thou hast accused them, doe thou [Page 183] slay them: so doth Chimki paraphrase on this place. Rabbi Saadiah Geon on Dan. 5.1. saith of Baltashar. ‘ [...]’ That his name signifieth a searcher of treasure; for he prophaned the treasure and holy vessels of the Sanctu­ary; and to him and to his company, Chimki applies that in Ier. 51.39. I will make them drunken, that they may reioyce, and sleepe a perpetuall sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord Where, saith he, other drunkards sleep in their drunkenesse and after wake againe; but these that made themselues merry in drin­king and carowzing in the vessells of the Sanctuary, they slept a perpetuall sleepe, and neuer waked any more: for they dyed in the midst of their drunkenesse, as it is written Dan. 5.30. The same night was Bal­tashar the King of the Chaldeans slaine.

It is reported in the Talmud Massech: Ioma, cap. 7. fol. 69. that Alexander the great being sollicited & perswaded by the Samaritans to spoyle the Temple of Ierusalem, when he came thither, and saw Simeon the high Priest, who being cloathed with the Priests garments, came forth to meet him, he presently ligh­ted downe from his chariot, and prostrating himselfe to the earth, embraced him with all humble and sub­missiue reuerence, and being demanded the reason, he answered, ‘ [...]’ i. The similitude of this mans forme gets the victory before me in the time of my warre: that is, as R. Bechai expounds it on Exod. 31. ‘[Page 184] [...]’ i. That it was an Angell that appeared vnto him in the likenes of the Priest. Whereby it came to passe, that Alexander desisting from his purpose, did not onely fauour the Iewes, and spare their Temple, but also gaue the Samaritans their enemies into their hands, whom they with diuers kinds of torments did put to death, and made a festiuall day for a remem­brance, that they which sought the ruine and de­struction of God's house, were themselues brought to vtter desolation.

How detestable the sin of sacriledge is, it will the better appeare, if together with the punishment wee consider the manifold pernicious consequents there­of, as namely, the decay of learning, the ruine of Re­ligion, and stopping the mouth of the Gospell, the bane of hospitality, the desolation of the poore, the dilapidation of Churches, the contempt of the mini­stery of the Church, and neglect of all goodnes, &c: For if the honos be taken away, the onus will soone fall to the ground, if the oyle be withdrawne, the lampe of the Sanctuary will soone be quenched. And as the Iewes write in their morall and dtuine Apho­rismes, ‘ [...]’ If there be no meale there is no law; no law, no law, no meale: as it is in Pirke Auoth cap. 3. ol. 8. and Baal Haturim on Deut. 32.1. At such time as the Taber­nacle was built, though men were so liberall in their voluntary contribution, that Moses was faine to stay [Page 185] them, Exod. 36.6. Yet as Baal Haturim notes, he gaue especiall commandement to bring oyle for the light, that the lampes might alwayes burne, Exod. 27.20. & Leuit. 24.2. because (saith he) this was a dayly and continuall charge, and required a common purse. And whereas mens affections are mutable, and of­tentimes their devotion soone cold, therefore also the portion of the Priests and Leuites was not left to the will of the people, but God himselfe by his Law prouided for them. And when the people failed in this duty, God's Vice-gerents here on earth stirred them vp to obedience; whence it was that good E­zechiah, 2 Chron. 31.4. commanded the people that dwelt in Ierusalem to giue a part to the Priests and Leuites, that they might be incouraged in the Law of the Lord; that is, saith Iarchi on this place, [...] with more alacrity, that whilst their mainte­nance was duly prouided for thē, they might cheare­fully, without distraction, labour in the Law of God; for the Law (saith he) was giuen to those that did eat Manna, and next vnto them are they that doe eat the Therumah: that is, as Baal Haturim expresseth it, and R. Bechai on Exod. 16.16. & 25.2. ‘ [...]’ He that establisheth the law, God Almighty prouides him his food without toyle, as those that did eat Man­na. R, Chaskuni also speakes to this purpose on Num. 18.20. I might be copious in this kind, but I hasten to an end. It is written Prov. 28.24. He that robbeth his father and mother, and saith, it is no transgression, [Page 186] is the companion of a man that destroyeth. The Iewes as Iarchi here, and Ramban on Leuit. 19.32. from Tal­mud Sanhedrim, cap. 11. fol. 102: doe expound this text thus: He that robs God his father, & the Church his mother, is the companion of Ieroboam the sonne of Nebat; that made Israel to sinne. For as Ieroboam made of the basest of the people to bee the Priests, 1 Kings 12.31. & 13.33. So these by taking away the tithes and revenues of the Church would make the Priests to be the basest of the people. And as Ierobo­am by those meanes, saith R. Levi Ben Gersham on that text, ‘ [...]’ i. Did draw the hearts of the common people, in that he freed them from the ordinary paiment of tithes to the Levites &c. So also the sacrilegious Politicians of our age, may happily by the like practise, win fa­vour with the people, as Ieroboam did. But cursed is that policy that fights against piety? for what saith the Scripture; 1. Kings. 13.34. This thing turned to sinne vnto the house of Ieroboam, euen to root it out and destroy it from the face of the earth. But on the other side, those that haue been gratious patrons & benefactors, noursing fathers, and noursing mothers of the Church, carefull of religion and the mainte­nance thereof, God hath ever multiplied his bles­sings vpon them and their posterity, as it is evident [Page 187] in divers of the good Kings of Israel: among others, to instance only in one, it is the observation of the Iewes concerning David, that when he had sinned in numbring the people, God said to the prophet, Goe and tell David, 2. Samuel. 24.12. & 1. Chron. 21.10. giuing him no other title but only David, as Chimki heere notes: But when he had a purpose in his heart to build an house for the Lord, then he said, goe and tell my servant David, 2. Samuel. 7.5. & 1. Chro. 17.4. shewing what accompt he makes of such, and how acceptable they are to him, when they seeke his glory and his Churches good. And for this cause though David intending to build an house for the Lord, could not effect it, yet as Iarchi shewes on 1. Chron. 17.10. God accepting his indevour for the deed it selfe, did therefore blesse him and his seed after him, and built vp his house for euer, according to the promise Psal. 99.4.36. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sunne before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moone, & as a faith­full witnesse in heaven. This in type was first perfor­med in the flourishing Kingdome of Salomon the sonne of Dauid, of whom saith Iarchi on 1. Chron. 29.23. As the moone is at the full in the fifteenth day of the month, so was Davids throne in Salomon, that was the fifteenth generation from Abraham, but af­ter was diminished and obscured like the moone vnto the dayes of Zedechiah whose light was made darknes, who had his eyes put out, and was after brought to Ba­bel, 2 Kings 25.7. But in truth this was fully verified in the eternall Kingdome of Christ the true sonne [Page 188] of David, who also in the dayes of his flesh, follo­wing and exceeding the example of David, testified his fervent loue and zeale to the house and Temple of God: when he was twelue yeares old, he was found in the Temple in the midst of the Doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. Luk. 2.46. He taught daily in the Temple Luk. 19.47. He cast out those that bought and sold in the Temple, and said to them, It is written, my house shall be called the house of prayer, but yee haue made it a denne of theeues. Math. 21.12.13. Esa. 56.7. Ier. 7.11. And for the tithes he said, these things yee ought to haue done, and not to haue left the other vndone. Luk. 11.42. Math. 23.23.

And lastly teaching vs our duty to God, and Cae­sar, hath commended vnto vs that sacred admoni­tion. Mark. 12.17. Giue to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. Agreea­ble to which precept of our Sauiour, the Iewes also, (that I may end as I began) haue a sentence among their divine and morall Aphorismes, which is thus expressed in Pirke Aboth cap. 3.

[...]

Giue vnto him of that which is his, for both thou & all that thou hast are his: So it is said by David; for all things come of thee, and of thine owne hand haue wee given thee, Chron. 29.14. For who hath first giuen to him, saith S^t. Paul, Rom. 11.35. And therefore with praise and thanksgiuing to God the Author and [Page 189] giuer of all blessings, let vs heere conclude, and shut vp all with the words of the Apostle, Rom. 11.36. [...]. For of him, & through him, and for him are all things, to him be glory for ever. Amen. [...]