beneficed Church-men No Iosephs in her and all Iobs with vs And in stead to hold of the Church we hold all from the Church Both much amisse But wee returne to our Possession of Melchisedec in which men may yet Iustly aske vs what proofe we giue of these two Heb. 7.14 That Melchisedec was of an Order and that Order Euerlasting for no such matter in Moses Historie Psal 110.4 Take both then from Dauids Prophecie The Lord hath sworne and will not repent Thou art a Priest for Euer after the order of Melchisedec And heere we haue more That another must rise from that same order as farre aboue Melchisedec as he was aboue Abraham who therefore must performe all things of Melchisedec more at full both Blessing and Tithing as Priest feeding and Defending as King But because this Prophecie is an obscure Commentary of Moyses History we refer both to their due Interpretation where plainer Scripture shall chaine all together and that in the Worlds last age This for our first writ CHAP. VIII Gods second right to Tithes from Iacobs Vow Vowes not all Legall Tithes in Quoto due by his Vow SVCH then is our Possession in this re-encounter § I between Melchisedec and Abraham where al things passed vpon such a reciprocall readinesse and ripenesse as ruled both by one Spirit both in rendering and receiuing that men would rather thinke they practised points by custome or performed duties of Law then any matter thus emergent de nouo Abraham receiued reuerently the Lords Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Abraham returned thankfully to him the Lords Inheritance Tithes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Abraham saw the Lords Day Our second writ was our Contract and Indenture past between God and Iacob Iacob saw as much if not more as Abraham for the Mysterie of Saluation encreased alwayes and so he returned more then did Abraham Iacobs Vision Behold there stood a Ladder vpon the Earth and the top of it reached vp to heauen and loe Gen. 28.12 c. the Angels of God went vp and downe by it And behold the Lord stood aboue it and said I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father and the God of Isaac the Land whereon thou sleepest will I giue thee and thy seed c. Whereupon Iacob vowed a Vow saying Iacobs Vow Vers 20. If God will be with mee c. Then shall the Lord bee my God And this stone which I haue set vp as a piller shall bee Gods house Vers 21. Vers 22. And of all that thou shalt giue mee will I giue the Tenth vnto thee Not to his sonne Leui. Marke this Iacob vowed Tithes for him and his whole Seed to God and in Abraham was Leui Tithed saith Paul Hebr. 7. and God gaue them to Leui. Now this Ladder was Christ as all confesse euen that via veritas and vita Heere Iacob goeth a point beyond Abraham To build houses to God § II But because this beareth the name of a Vow men would turne all ouer to the Law Vowes not all Legall We answer Al Vowes are not euer of that Law but euen of Morall duties also as Esai 19.21 And this Vow now in hand concerneth all ages both vnder the Law and after in all the points of it But to answer briefliest and best out of this same text I aske might not Iacob as well vow for euer Tithes to God as that God should be his God Further God giueth Iacob special approbation of all the points of this Vow chap. 31.13 I am the God of Bethel for the first point Where thou annointedst the piller for the second of Gods house And for the thiâ—d Where thou madest a Vow vnâ—o mee viz. to pay Tithes So as Iacobs Vision was true his Vow was lawfull and these doubts bee but idle dreames of Sacrilegious slumbers To our purpose then Whom Iacobs Vision concerned his Vow concerned But his Vision concerneth all his posteritie Ergo So doth his Vow § III The equitie of the Proposition is this That as God dealt with Iacob in graces Iacobs Vow bindeth his seede so hee should meete God in gratefulnesse The Assumption is many wayes cleare in the Text but chiefely heere And in thee and thy seede shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed a promise as proper to the seed of Iacobs Faith as of his flesh a mysterie meerely Euangelicall All the Families of the Earth Iew and Gentile A promise of blessing as ample and as farre reaching as that first promise of the seede of the Woman Gen. 3.15 immediately after the fall of Adam All then that thinke to rise by faith from that fall or claime life by climbing this Ladder of Iacobs Vision must bee tyed to Iacobs Vow This Vision then is heritable the Vow heritable and therefore so long as any one point of the Vision is to be performed so long shal Tithes be Gods Inheritance viz. till Christs second comming Heere then is this Vow the very grand-childe of Abrahams Possession to Melchisedec an action heretably descended for doubtlesse Isaac failed in nothing Heere also haue wee a longer iourney for Iacob and his seede then from Beershebah to Haran and so backe againe yea a longer then from Aegypt to Earthly Canaan Our true Canaan the end of our iourney is the Kingdome of Heauen Iacobs iourneyes are types of our afflictions by which wee must goe and come thither as said Paul Act. 14.22 And because our iourney is dangerous long and wearisome therefore is our Ladder Christ sent downe to the Earth by and vpon which we must walke climbe and bee drawne to that God aboue it The Angels goe beside vp and downe to draw and conduct vs. God himselfe aboue readie to receiue vs great Moderator of the whole matter O high and heauenly Heere some Hebrew writers include a mystery of the § IV holy Trinitie but howsoeuer Iacobs Vow applied to his Vision this whole action between God and Iacob keepeth a Trinall Harmonie God calleth himselfe first the God of Abraham secondly the God of Isaac thirdly the God of Iacob Three things he promiseth first To giue him the Land he slept on secondly To multiply his seede as the dust of the earth thirdly In that seed to blesse all the Families of the earth Iacob meeteth these three by a three-pointed Vow First That the Lord shall be his God heere is a generall foundation of Religion for all his seed and for all ages Secondly He setleth the Circumstances Place That piller should bee Gods house a generall ground also for all ages for that typicall Temple and Iewish Synagogues vnder the Law and for our Churches Thirdly He annexeth Tithes Gods Inheritance to his worship and Religion Now seeing all men will admit the first two points to bee perpetuall and bind Iacobs posterity to worship God and to build houses thereto how shall they bee exempted from the third point in giuing the maintenance
holding by a common and ciuill Law the Leuites by a peculiar and diuine Tithes were the Lords and resigned by him to Leui the Lord and Leui both must first be payed before Israel can lawfully enioy his So is Leui both the first and the freest tenant and such as held of Leui were alwayes thought to haue the better tenures though now all things go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him that is vpside downe Neither was this tenth giuen to Leui Leui not the tenth part of Israel because he was the tenth part of Israel as others dreame For the Tribes were twelue and of all was Leui the least by great ods But if men may so much altum sapere fauour that curiositie that fauoureth the veritie for one might deriue it better from a correspondencie to the ten Commandements a chiefe part of their charge as who should say teach ten to all and take a tenth of all so both are perpetuall and proportionall Leui then being neither the twelfth thirteenth nor § VII scarse sixtieth part of the people it is cleare Num. 1.46 compared with 3.39 the people were 603550. the Leuites but 22000. beside the oddes of age reckoned that that was not the cause of giuing him the tenth for then the sixtieth part should haue been but his A pitifull wonder it is to see such learned men alledge such reasons But what then was the true reason of this donation Obserue it Thousands of yeeres before the Law are Tithes giuen to the Lord betweene Abraham and Melchisedec Gen. 14.20 and 28.22 then vowed by Iaacob Hereupon more then an hundren yeeres after God intimateth to his people Leuit. 27.30 That all the tithes of that Land were his his already his long before not made his now What needed all this if God had onely respected the generall prouision for a tenth twelfth or thirteenth Tribe Might not Canaan haue been diuided in ten twelue or thirteene parts to the lesser Tribe the smaller portion as God appointed Num. 26.54 And might not Tithes also haue been delayed till that time But this thirteenth portion must be in the Lord after another maner then the Land of Canaan was the Lords What more care of Leui then of all the Tribes Then of Iuda whereof Christ himselfe came Yet obserue § VIII God giueth Leui first a calling before he giueth him a condition The Calling should bring on the Condition Numb 1.49.50 for Aaron and his sonnes were taken vp as Priests Exod. 28. Euen so is Leui made the Lords more peculiarly then the other Tribes All this while hath Leui no portion the first newes he heareth is he shall haue no portion among his Brethren onely I am his portion saith the Lord Num. 18.20 and in the next verse I haue giuen the sonnes of Leui all the tenth c. Then hee subioyneth what moued him so to doe For his seruice in the Tabernacle of the Congregation and therefore Leui hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren Deut. 10.8.9 So we see the only Calling brought on the condition Neh. 7.94 This rule was euer kept vnder the Law he that could not proue his pedegree to the Priest-hood hee was debarred holy maintenance It should go so vnder the Gospell too Hee that cannot giue euidence of an inward calling his Euangelicall pedegree should not bee permitted propter beneficium ambire officium That this was the true cause and right course in Leuies maintenance it is euident by this that he who committed Sacrilege offended God Primariò against the first Table hee that robbed any other Tribe offended but in the second Table he spoiled not God he was but a theefe the other a sacrilegious theefe Shall we cleare it also by the Gospell Rom. 2.21 c. Thou which teachest another teachest thou not thy selfe Thou which preachest A man should not steale doest thou steale Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery doest thou commit adultery Heere we see in these three points he opposeth one and the same sinne vnder one and the same names but then Thou that abhorrest Idols committest thou Sacrilege What a strange change is in this opposition heere of Idolatrie to Sacrilege Paul proueth Sacrilege to be Idolatrie thus All couetousnesse is Idolatrie Col. 3.5 Ephes 5.5 Whereupon wee iustly inferre this Ergo All Sacrilege is Idolatrie Sacrilege being a coueting of Gods owne goods must bee most Idolatrous So haue we sufficiently proued that Tithes in no respect are Ceremoniall and that Tithes and the Law were not twinnes of one time as we proued from Leuit. 27. But say they Leuitic smelleth also of the Law for this see Chap. 9. Secondly we shew before either Law was giuen or Leui gotten Tithes were Gods by contract from Iacob Leuies father To this they reply This was a Vow and Vowes also smell of the Law Whereof also Chap. 8.9 Thirdly Tithes were first of all the Lords by most lawfull and powerfull possession passed betweene Abraham and that Priest of the most high God Melchisedec Of whom with the Apostle wee haue many things to say which are hard to be vttered because men bee dull of hearing and that by reason they be too quick in Tithing And this for production of Gods rights wee goe now to examine the pieces And first that which was first viz. Our Possession CHAP. VI. Tithes at first giuen Really and Royally neuer matched with Laicks Some Obiections answered § I OVR first right then is our Possession It goeth thus Gen. 14.18 And Melchisedec King of Salem brought forthbread and wine and hee was a Priest of the most high God And he blessed Abraham saying Blessed art thou Abraham of the most high God Possessor of Heauen and Earth and blessed bee the most high God who hath deliuered thine enemies into thine hand And Abraham gaue him Tithe of all Heere is a naked-like Historie to conteine so great Mysteries relatiue to nothing before it foretelling nothing to follow it It may be that Moyses saw no more in it then he set downe but Interpretations are of God Gen. 40.8 Luke 7.28 Lib. 2. cap. 4. And The least in the Kingdome of God is greater then Iohn Baptist whereof afterwards Howsoeuer Patent and Possession all in one yet heere haue we our most ancient and authenticke Patent and Possession of our Inheritance Simul semel actione vnicâ Marke therefore the dignitie of the Action both in Substance and Circumstances and of that which floweth from it For all is Reall all is Royall Time Royall in two respects First Because it was many hundred yeeres before the law A time of freedome when as no precept did presse any partie to it Secondly The particular time of the action is described by Royall circumstances vers 17. viz. after that faithfull Abraham redeemed faithfull Lot by the ruine of foure Kings Place Royall vers 17. For our Charter is dated in the Valley of Shaueth which is the
be of vse and all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I say did God claime his Inheritance Leuit. 27.30 declaring that those goods brought out at first by Cain and Abel confusedly and those Tithes offered by Abraham distinctly were both his Inheritance Marke that he but declareth Tithes to be his Inheritance without any precept for the Law made them onely Inheritance to Leui Num. 18.20 c. not to God and vnlesse we draw Gods right from the first beginnings as is said we shall neuer finde them the Lords by any other Scripture And this for Tithes both in matter and title CHAP. VII The word Inheritance maketh Tithes due to all ages Leuite Priest Minister words for all ages God hath a double inheritance The dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde HAuing found Gods Inheritance to haue begun § I with the beginning in effect and before the Law foure hundred yeeres by name of Tithes Inheritance what and the Law to haue prorogued them so till Christs dayes foure thousand yeeres How shall this Inheritance lose his vertue in Christ It seemeth heere that if we but vnderstood our naturall mother tongue we might easily know our heauenly Fathers will For Inheritance hath euer this prerogatiue That it can neuer bee taken from the lawfull Lord but either by consent of the owner or by Violence Tithes taken back by Violence as are all now adayes may reape Achans reward when God pleaseth As for Gods consent hereto wee will gladly expect either their proofe or our repossession Inheritance againe is either Personae or Officij If Personall then it goeth Iure Patris ad Filium If Official that is gifted by the supreme Lord to any office or seruice then it is Ius praedecessoris in successores Tithes are Inheritance both wayes Personall as they are the Lords Inheritance primò propriè and perpetuò Official as they are Leuies for the Lord that is as they are by the Lord annexed in Inheritance to the Ministery of his worship which worship though it alter in formes yet neuer in substance or Moral part thereof and therefore the Moral maintenance must euer be one for all Now if they obiect that Tithes being gifted to Leui in Official Inheritance can stand no longer then Leui he no longer then the Law We answere Tithes were at an Office and Priest-hood long before him and Leui as it signifieth the Office and not the Persons noteth all Ministers in all degrees and all ages So vnder the Law all the Leuites made vp but one Priest-hood though al Leuites were not properly Priests 2. Cor. 3.7 and the Apostle comparing the Law with the Gospell calleth both a Ministration and both their Officers Ministers and the Morall seruice in both Act. 15.21 Matth. 10.7 Preaching But to deriue the name of both Leuite and Priest by § II plainer warrant to the Ministery of the Gospell Esay prophecying directly of the dayes of the Euangelist Leuit Priest Minister are for all ages how God would worke amidst the Gentiles by the Ministery of the Iewes others then Leuites And they shall bring all your brethren that is Esay 66.20 c. the adopted Gentiles for an Offring to the Lord out of all Nations c. And I will take of them for Priests and Leuites saith the Lord. The speciall performance of this was when Paul was separated Apostle for the Gentiles and therefore he speaketh plainly of himselfe both as a Minister and as a Priest and by Consequent a Leuite Rom. 15.16 That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ towards the Gentiles Ministring the Gospell of God that the Offering vp of the Gentiles might bee acceptable So these are Words for all Worlds and all worships Leuite Priest Minister Euer such Priest-hood such Law And Leui at first Nomen proprium of one single man the sonne of Iaacob then of a whole Tribe for distinction with the rest In the end that Tribe being separated to Gods seruice Leui becommeth Officij nota and so common to all ages and therefore may iustly admit one common maintenance as their Inheritance And in this respect the Gospell succeedeth to the Law as the Law to Melchisedec and Melchisedec to the Priests of the confused age before him This were enough for our whole cause to defend it if we were in Possessorio but seeing we doe but plead for it wee must keepe nothing backe Inheritance pertaining to God in Scripture is twofold § III His people whom hee created to his owne Image God hath a double Inheritance Deut. 4.20 Heb. 1.2 His Tithes which he separated to his owne seruice Now in Scripture language Inheritance hath a prerogatiue heere aboue the Ciuili custome for the Son inherites ioyntly with the Father And so as the Father created the Son redeemed his Inheritance yea Him God made heire of all things and by him also made the worlds To come to Tithes then what wonder that being inheritance to the Father they be also the Sonnes Or shall we yet once more kill the Heire when the Father sendeth him in his Vineyard But what if no sooner the Fathers then the Sons Shall he yet for all this lose his Birth-right He is Coeternall with the Father The Father neuer receiued Tithes but by his Officiars as first of all by Melchisedec Then I aske whether were Tithes Inheritance to Melchisedec or not If not then had God no inheritance before the Law But the Law gaue none to God but onely to Leui and so God hath none at all Num. 18 20 2◠vnlesse wee deriue it from In principio And againe to ascribe Tithes as Inheritance to Leui a perishing Priest-hood and make them no Inheritance to an Eternall Priest-hood is beside all reason And to say Tithes may be Inheritance to Melchisedec so long as he liued euen as to Leui Then I aske when ended Melchisedec Heb. 7.3 He had neither beginning nor end of dayes but is likened to the Son of God and continueth a Priest for euer Ergo He must Tithe foreuer And the same Melchisedec in the same that hee was the Fathers Priest was also the Sons Type The Consequences are al good but a fitter time shal bring further strength lib. 2. § IV This for Tithes Inheritance in the person of our Royall Priest Melchisedec Dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde Vita Ioseph ad initium Royal I say in regard of the great oddes betweene that and this our age now For of old as writeth Iosephus The true marke of Nobilitie was to deriue a mans pedegree from the Priest-hood so Ioseph was a Gentleman because ex sanguine Sacerdotali And in our owne time the only best Tenure and Holding of Possessions was to hold of the Church But now all to the contrary For Rome hath frustrate her Ministry of Matrimony and wee at home ours of their Patrimonie Shee can bring forth no wel-begotten children and we but few well
partaker of all thy goods Hoc opus hic laborest § II Leui then being the last receiuer and so long as hee lasted Lord of a large Inheritance Leui dyed not without heires Tithes Our question is How Leui died without heires Or what did Christ the Sonne in putting Leui from his office of typing him whereby his Fathers Inheritance might not descend to the succeeding Officiars that Preach him And why these Beggerly rudiments Galath 4.9 and that perishing Priesthood of the Law had so rich a Patrimonie and the glorious and rich Reuelations of the Gospell so beggerly a Ministery For if Christ who changed both Priesthood and Law had likewise changed maintenance this had beene well Heb. 7.11.12 But since hee hath placed Priesthood for Priesthood and Law for Law why hath he not also put Maintenance for Maintenance First then of Christ himselfe then of his Apostles and that either by Deede or Word Part. 1. cap. 1. ad init Christs Doings in this his Spiritual Patrimony by Separation was euen like that of his Kingdome on Earth For although hee was a righteous King by carnall descent and King of Righteousnesse by diuine Essence yet was he poorer then the Foxes of the field Matth. 8.20 Act. 20.35 or the birds of the ayre So was it euer with him Melius dare quà m accipere both wayes Besides it was not the chiefe Lords part to take vp his owne Inheritance but his Officiars to whom also he gaue them as Inheritance So did the onely Ministery of both the former ages take Tithes Melchisedec and Leui. That Christ did nothing against them it is cleare for if they had signified any Ceremonie to be perfected in him he had doubtlesse by some one action answered it as he did the smallest of all Ceremonies which being once shewed Tithes are ended This for his Deeds His sayings are twice recorded First Matth. 23.25 Woe be vnto you Scribes and Pharisies for yee Tithe Minte and Annise and § III Cumine and leaue the weightier matters of the Law Christs â—ayings touching Tithes Iudgement Mercy and Fidelitie Heere he would seeme against Tithes but goe on These ought ye to haue done viz. Iudgement Mercy and Fidelitie and not to haue left the other viz. Tithing Now if we should inferre vpon this That so long as Iudgement Mercy and Fidelitie are in vse so long must Tithes bee They will answere That at this time Moyses Law was good vntill Consummatum est therefore we leaue this to the Apostles Christs second saying was That comparison betweene the Publican and the Pharisie vanting of himselfe I fast twice a weeke Luke 18 12. I giue Tithe of all that euer I possesse and yet Christ preferreth the Publican wherein hee condemneth not the Pharisie for his paying Tithes nor fasting but for his vaine boasting of his owne workes These are all wee haue of Christ Of all those Sacrilegious Tithers take great aduantage § IV For seeing Christ say they changed both Priest-hood and Law filling their roomes and hath neglected Patrimonie it is euident he hath abolished it No they still erre not knowing the Scriptures For it is most true That seeing he hath not brought in a new he hath not abrogated the olde for to change and to abolish are both one as they are relatiue to Moyses Law So that whatsoeuer Christ changed he abolished putting alwayes somewhat in place of it as carnall things in Spirituall Ceremonial in Substantial and perishing types in Eternal Verities Now one word in all the Gospell either plaine text or Consequence against Tithes Inheritance If nothing against it then saith Tertullian Quod non notat Scriptura negat But they reply heere Christ said nothing for them in the Gospell Ergo Negat quia non notat It followeth not thus vnlesse they say No Scripture speaketh for them and then they say false and therefore better said Lex semel lata non deleta semper obligat Enough then for vs God at first taught it The Law ordained it The Gospell neuer gain-sayed it For we must not expect Christ as a new Legislator of all our Morall duties No Hee came to perfect and abolish the Ceremoniall Law Rom. 8.1.4 to fulfill and make vs able to answere in him the Morall Law § V Against all those fiue points of Gods worship Christ or his Apostles haue spoken All Ceremoniall things abrogate by Christ or his Apostles Iohn 4.21 Marke 2.28 and Mat. 12.8 Col. 2.16 17. in so farre as they were Ceremoniall Against Place Ceremoniall Beleeue mee the houre commeth when yee shall neither in this mountaine nor at Ierusalem worshippe the Father Against Time The Sonne of man is Lord euen of the Sabbath So his Apostles chaunged it And Let no man condemne you c. In respect of an holy day c. Or of the Sabbaths Heb. 7.11 Against Ceremonial Person If perfection had been by the Priest-hood of the Leuites what needed another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec And wee see Christ chused Paul and many other Disciples and Apostles not of the Tribe of Leui. Against Worship in manner and matter Christs once Sacrifice defaced all theirs Heb. 13.20 Heb. 10. And we haue an Altar whereof they haue no authoritie to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Against the ceremonial maintenance of those ceremonial seruices Colos 2.16 and Heb. 13.9 10. Let no man therfore condemne you in meat and drinke c. which are but a shadow of things to come But the bodie is in Christ A precept for all sorts of men So Leui in regard of those restrictions a Ceremoniall Priest though he eat also of Gods Inheritance because he medled also with Gods Morall seruice in teaching his Law abroad he could not make the Inheritance Ceremonial 2 Chro. 17.7 8 9. nor defraud Melchisedec of his due Onely that which began with Leui ended with Leui. And that all those foresaid fiue points had euer in § VI them both a Moral and Ceremonial respect Order and Time of the points of Gods Worship Gen. 1.26 27 c. Gen. 3.15 the Ceremonial Law taking chiefe hold of the latter and so the Morall was euer the former and remaineth still it is cleare thus First Worship consisting before the fall in a perfect obedience 〈◊〉 God And after the fall in those Euangelical promises of our Redemption which with their performances now in Christ are both but one both morall and perpetual before the Law The Typical worship Gen. 4.3 Gen. 2.8 16 17 Gen. 4.3 Gen. 18.16 17 c. both before and after the fall came last For doubtlesse Adam as God taught him taught his sonnes before they sacrificed Which in processe of time came to passe Also vnder the Law the first point in our Legal Priests commission was Moral To teach Iacob thy Iudgements c. and then commeth the Ceremonial Deut 33.10 To put the burnt offering vpon
of Salem that is King of Peace Without Father without Mother without kindred and hath neither beginning of his dayes neither end of life but is likened to the Sonne of God and continueth a Priest for euer Now consider how great this man was vnto whom euen the Patriarch Abraham gaue the Tithe of the spoiles For verily they which are the children of Leui which receiue the office of Priest-hood haue a commandement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren though they came out of the loynes of Abraham But he whose kindred is not counted among them receiued Tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had the promises And without all contradiction The lesse is blessed of the greater And heere men that dye receiue Tithes but there hee of whom it is witnessed That he liueth And to say as the thing is Leui also which receiueth Tithes payed Tithes in Abraham For he was yet in the Loynes of his Father when Melchisedec met him § II Now because this is our last re-encounter in this conflict Paul in the speciall of Tithes the last passage of all Scripture touching Tithes yea our A and â— reuiuing as by a circular course our neuer dying Melchis in our eternal Verity Christ wherein almost each word may goe for an argument we must therefore pierce a little more deeply in it by helpe of the same Spirit that proposeth it vnto vs and that so briefely as may be First then of his End next of his forme of arguing in this Chapter The chiefe End of this Epistle being to proue Christ our al-sufficient Sauiour King Prophet and Priest figured by the Law whose Ceremonies must therfore cease he handleth in this Chapter his Priest-hood only His course in arguing goeth from the Types to their Verities in a most perfect comparison both in simili and dissâ—mili The Types are two-fold the one moral perpetuall Melchisedec The other ceremonial and temporall Leui. Their natures are either simple in themselues or in Relation to their Verities Their Simple nature is that the Morall Type is noted heere with no Ceremoniall action for no such thing had he in him and the Ceremoniall Type with nothing Morall as he is compared heere to Christ in simili For though he also Tithed a Morall action yet it holdeth heere but in dissimili Their Relatiue nature with their Verities is of two § III considerations one from the matter of their actions Types how to be matched with their Verities another from the manner or their Orders In matter they hold both thus Whatsoeuer the Types did as Types the Verity must doe or answere being rightly matched as Aaron sacrificed Ergo so must Christ Aaron sacrificed with blood Ergo so must Christ But not Aaron sacrificed Bullocks Ergo so must Christ Our Golden rule in this is to goe no further then Scripture clearely leadeth vs and not from silence of the Apostles or priuatiue speeches to impose a positiue sacrifice of the Masse vpon Christ In manner or Order they hold not so Aarons and Melchisedecs Orders for whatsoeuer Christ did answering to Aaron yet that same did Christ after Melchisedecs Manner and Order not Aarons So that ONCE recorded only of Melchisedecs actions signifieth in Christ EVER and OFTEN to bee done and that OFTEN of Aarons actions signifieth in Christ ONCE onely yet that same ONCE ALL-sufficient in Melchisedecs Order For Perfection and Imperfection Perpetuitie and perishing are the Essentiall differences of their Orders So Christ in Melchisedecs Order perfected both Orders an heauenly difference and worthy to bee obserued Hebr. 7.8 9 10. chap. being fully cleared by the Apostle opposing that two thousand yeeres yeerely offering of Aaron to that One and Al-sufficient of CHRISTS And that ONCE blessing of Melchisedec of Abraham to that Euer blessing of CHRIST of Abraham and his posteritie Our conclusions then go thus through this Epistle from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Melchisedec to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ and from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aaron to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ for these are the Apostles owne notes Againe hundrethes of Aarons with thousands of his associates thousands of yeeres and millions of redoubled actions binde but only Christ and Christ onely once they binde not the Ministery of the Gospell belonging to Christs Priest-hood But Melchisedecs one onely blessing designing his Priest-hood bindeth Christ euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all his Ministery euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 May we not hereupon inferre then that if Melchisedecs seruice binde our Ministery his maintenance must also be due to them We see then that Vnity or Pluralitie is not euer requisite to passe alike betweene Types and Verities either in Person or action for One as is said may argue thousands and thousands but One otherwise we shal roue to Rome-ward § IV Of these grounds then will it follow that whatsoeuer the Apostle vseth as a Medium to draw on any conclusion from these Types to their Verities it must bee euen as the Types either a Morall or a Ceremoniall thing and the conclusion must follow the nature of the Medium for Aarons sacrifice being Ceremoniall cannot bind a Morall Conclusion on Christ or his Ministery and consequently Tithing being vsed here as a Medium of a Morall and perpetuall Conclusion must it selfe be also Moral and perpetuall as by a true Analysis of our Apostles purpose in the texts cited shall plainly appeare CHAP. V. This Analysis proueth Christs Priest-hood more excellent then Leuies His proofes are from the prerogatiue of Person Blessing and Tithing THe Apostle will proue in those first eleuen verses § I Melchisedecs Order of Priest-hood whereof Christ was the onely High Priest and perfection to be farre aboue and better then the Order of Aaron and Leui and so in it selfe onely al-sufficient He setteth downe first his Priest-hood till the fourth verse then the Collation His Priesthood in two points Function and Order Melchisedecs endlesse Priesthood His Function vers 1. He was a Priest and blessed Abraham He was also accepted and acknowledged as a Priest vers 2. Because Abraham gaue him Tithes of all These two points are the summe and perfection of peaceably setled Priest-hood For Blessing after this sort heere being Real and exhibitiue is the End and perfection of all Priest-hood and Priestly Office for that Legall forme of blessing vnder Leui Num. 6.23 is but as a prayer for Blessing as we yet vse to this day and had no Ceremonie it And againe to giue Tithes as did Abraham heere is the most proper testification of our due obedience to Christs Ministers the very fruits of our faith And this for his Function Next vers 3. commeth his Order Dignitie and Excellency § II thereof Without Father Mother Kindred Beginning Ending like the Sonne of God Remaineth a Priest for euer Those strange notes must be applied and vnderstood as well
of the Priesthood as the Person and more of Christ the Verity then his Type distinguished from him so that heere is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle cap. 5.11 compared with 11.8.13.14 24. For if we looke to the persons it is sure Melchisedec as such a man onely was both borne and dyed but not as he is proposed for such a Priest or type yea Christ the true Melchisedec was borne and dyed Christus Sacerdos mortuus est But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum Aarons perishing Priesthood The generall Apodosis to this on Aarons part goeth thus Aaron and Leui had Father and Mother not onely of their flesh but latelier even of their very Priest-hood and calling they had beginning and ending even in all things wherein they typed Christ imperfect therefore and cannot be likened to the Sonne of God as is Melchisedec His Priest-hood then consisteth in Blessing and Tithing and his perfection in perpetuitie of both thou canst not disioyne them Then we descend by the same degrees thus Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remaineth a Priest for euer like the Sonne of God without ending Beginning Kindred Mother or Father And of all these poynts was Christ the onely perfection Ergo He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ must appoynt a perpetuall Tithing for Christ as we shall heare more at large And this for his Priest-hood followeth their collation Heb. 7.4 Consider now how great this man was c. Here Paul entereth § III the very lists of this conflict prouing our Melchisedecs Priest-hood more perfect then Leuies vsing for all his middeses onely Blessing and Tithing The arguments are drawne from the circumstances viz The persons Blessed and Tithed the forme of the Blessing and Tithing the time of Blessing and Tithing In Person he reasoneth first from Abraham then from Leui himselfe From Abraham thus Whosoeuer is greater then Abraham Melchisedec greater then Abraham is greater then Leui. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo Greater then Leui. The Proposition he proueth thus vers 4. Abraham was a Patriarch Leui but a childe the fourth from this Patriarch And vers 6. Abraham had the promises Leui as all the faithfull enioyed the promises onely in the faith of Abraham So Abraham is greater then Leui. He proueth his Assumption That Melchisedec was greater then Abraham thus He who Blesseth and Titheth is greater then he who is Blessed and Tithed Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham Ergo Melchisedec is greater then Abraham The Proposition is the very 7. ver of Paul in the text cited The Assumption is proued by Moyses Historie and here vers 3.4.6 And this for Abrahams person followeth from Leuies person wherein let the Reader note that all Pauls proofes are onely from Tithing thus Greater then Leui. He that tithed Leui is greater then Leui Melchisedec tithed Leui. Ergo Greater then Leui. This Assumption he proueth vers 10 thus All that were in Abrahams loynes when Melchisedec met him were tithed in Abraham Leui was in Abrahams loynes then Ergo Leui was tithed in Abraham and so by Melchisedec § IV Now marke that although this last Syllogisme launceth onely against Leui All Abrahams seede Tithed in him Ios cap 7. because Paul heere had onely to doe with Leui as a Priest Yet the force of the Proposition fetcheth in all Abrahams Seede Seede I say not onely Legal but also Euangelical not onely of his flesh but also of his faith This for Melchisedecs Tithing of Abraham The Antithesis on Leuies part goeth thus Leui Tithed but his brethren Melchisedec Tithed Abraham Father both of Leui and all his brethren Brethren as is said both by flesh and faith Ergo All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing And such as see not this are too bigge in flesh too beggerly in faith Followeth the Circumstance in the Forme of their Tithing This point hath this Antithesis LEVI Vers 5. They which are the children of Leui. Which receiue the office of Priest-hood Haue a commaundement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren Though they came out of the Loynes of Abraham MELCHISEDEC Ver. 6. HE whose kindred is not counted amongst them Vers 3. Whose Priest-hood is 16. after the power of Endlesse life Gen. 14. Had offered to him freely and long before that Law Tithes by the Patriarch of both Leui and his brethren In whose loynes all his seed was both blessed and Tithed The chiefe note heere is that Melchisedecs forme of Tithing before the Law must be greater then Leuies Tithing by the Law and so Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui. For this action betweene Abraham and Melchisedec proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power working in both this ready and religious reuerence or rather that God euen taught Abraham who said hee would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to doe and concerned Abraham For said God I know Abraham Gen. 18.17.19 that hee will command his sonnes and houshold that they keepe the way of the Lord c. And this offer of Abrahams was not in his free option for as Abraham vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue freely so is it said v. 6. that Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He tithed Abraham as hauing authoritie They stroue in performing all duties and we in peruerting This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Forme followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing CHAP. VI. Melchisedecs Priest-hood more excellent then Aarons because he is a perpetuall Priest And this perpetuitie is proued by onely Tithing TIME being an argument whereupon dependeth § I the cheefe conclusion Melchisedec a perpetuall Priest of both the Apostles cause and our question we will looke more narrowly into it For were a Priest neuer so great and his blessing neuer so good what auaileth it if it â—â—anish The onely Triumph of Melchisedec ouer Leui is his Eternitie in all his endlesse Priest-hood Then if the Apostle proue his Priesthood perpetuall he winneth his cause and in prouing hereof seeing hee vseth heere no other Medium but a perpetuall Tithing he setleth our question And thus it goeth A Perpetuall Priest-hood is better then a Temporall Melchisedecs is Perpetuall Leuies was Temporall Melchisedecs therefore better then Leuies To proue the Assumption he reasoneth thus vers 8. for Melchisedec Hee that taketh Tithes and liueth is a Perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo Melchisedec is a Perpetuall Priest The Proposition is true for life euer affirmed maketh the Person endlesse and Tithing euer following life maketh a Priest-hood endlesse No Priest-hood without a Tithing § II The Assumption both for Melchisedecs perpetuitie and Leuies temporalitie is the eighth verse it selfe thus And heere that is vnder the Law dying men receiue Tithes viz. Leuites Leui died daily one succeeded daily in the Priest-hood to another and in end they
to such as bee of humble and sanctified hearts Leui then is dead and no man denieth it Melchisedec is risen and some men beleeue it but that hee rose to take Tithes most men laugh at it We will assay therefore first after Leui and from Melchisedec to draw them vpon Christ secondly to deriue them from him to his Ministerie § VIII Paul hauing in the first ten verses compared Melchisedec with Aaron The Type applied by Paul to Christ Anagogice both as Christs Types He proueth vers 11. the weaknesse of Aarons Priest-hood because it was needfull that there should rise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Aaron both in Person Tribe and Order But from Melchisedec in Person onely not Order Then vers 13. commeth on the maine Conclusion by an Anagogicall application binding these prerogatiues of Melchisedec considered in the simple nature of a Type by a relatiue force on the Verity Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For hee of whom these things are spoken c. I thinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be sufficiently expressed by Of whom for this is true English for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as chap. 5.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of whom we haue much to say All then that is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of Melchisedec is heere by the Apostle inferred and transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to vnto and vpon Christ The construction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here with the Accusatiue case signifieth motum remouing or conueyance from one point to another So was Melchisedec but Christs Atturney heere to take seasing of his Patrimony and so must it not remaine still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but returne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All these prerogatiual Prepositions end euer in Christ as first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whom and by whom all things were Heb. 2.10 Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In whom and to whom all must rest and be referred Colos 1.16 17. Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom all things of Melchisedec were spoken Heb. 5.11 And lastly heere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on whom all rights titles and possessions prefigured by his Type must bee transferred for euer Then we reason thus from Pauls grounds Whatsouer is spoken heere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Melchisedec typically is transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnto Christ his veritie Tithing is spoken of Melchisedec typically Ergo Tithes must be transferred vnto Christ his verity Let any Christian shew wherein this doctrine faileth § IX But heere they say there is much made of nothing Tithes why touched hereby Paul The Apostle intended not heere to prooue Tithes due but to settle Christs Priest-hood as perpetual And so say I to Doubtlesse he neuer doubted that Tithes were due neither doubted they with whom he had to do therefore he taketh it with them pro confesso and vseth it as his onely Medium to resolue their doubt of the perpetuitie of Christs Priesthood Hee taketh Tithes hee liueth Ergo An eternall Priest Leui was but a dying Tithing Priest All things recorded of our Melchisedec are still truely affirmed in praesenti Hee Blesseth hee Titheth hee liueth his sacrifice endureth for euer Of Leui not one of all now true And when he euen liued all were not in all respects true for he daily dyed in Person and in end died quite from his office therefore in both imperfect His actions were daily redoubled and where euer repetition must be there can be no perfection Our Melchisedec had neuer a fellow made neuer a default therefore Al-sufficient This for drawing of Tithes vpon Christ § X Now in deriuing them from him we meete with a Cauil How Christ is said to take Tithes we layd for a ground chap. 4. That whatsoeuer the Type did that must the veritie also doe Ergo Seeing Melchisedec tooke Tithes Christ must take Tithes But Christ neuer Tithed c. For answer Christ taketh Tithes now even as his Father tooke them before him viz. by their Officers What was Essential in the Priest-hood of Mechisedec that Christ performeth euer really viz. Blessing But Tithing is onely a proprietie not of the Essence of Priest-hood and so bindeth not the veritie in his owne person for a workeman is not defined by his wages So in this point the Law of al similitudes must haue place nullum simile in omni simile And seeing Christ taketh almes being giuen to the poore may he not take his owne Patrimonie by his owne Officers whom he hath made his Ministers his Ambassadors putting the word of reconciliation in their mouthes 2 Cor. 5.19.20 and so his Inheritance in their hands Thus farre for the APostles arguments from the person taker Melchisedec Followeth from the giuer Abraham CHAP. VII Perpetuall Tithing prooued also by Abrahams deede A comparison betweene Melchisedec Leui and our Ministery The Conclusion of the lawfulnesse of Tithes MELCHISEDEC then Taketh Tithes and Liueth § I But a liuing taker must also haue a liuing giuer Abraham bindeth vs to Tithes Therefore the Apostle telleth vs heere That Abraham with his whole seede must be the Aequiualent giuer lasting as long as Melchisedecs Priest-hood and so Abraham giueth Tithes and liueth That all Abrahams posteritie make vp the person of the Giuer it is thus cleared And to say as the thing is Hebr. 7.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leui also which receiueth Tithes was Tithed in Abraham Then if Leui was Tithed I hope the other eleuen Tribes his brethren scaped not free But let vs heare why was Leui Tithed Because he was yet in the loynes of his Father Abraham when Melchisedec met him Then all that dare call Abraham Father euen as well that issued out of the loynes of his flesh as that are entered in the fellowship of his Faith are all heere in Abraham Tithed Flesh bringeth in the whole Tribes for they issued out of his very loynes as did Leui Faith includeth all the Families of the Earth as Abrahams seede whereby the poorest Lazarus leapeth to Abrahams bosome And that Faith hath no lesse force heere then Flesh it is cleare by the fourth and sixt verses Abraham the Patriarch was Tithed who had the Promises Then if he be a Father of our Faith let him be also the Father of our thankfulnes If we be Blessed in him let vs also be Tithed in him else our faith is but dead and he is not our Father But what if the seede of his Faith be more bound § II then the seed of his onely Flesh Rom. 9.7 8. Seed of Faith more bound to Tithes then Seede of Flesh Saith not Paul All are not Israel that are of Israel neither are they all children because they are the seede of Abraham c. that is they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God But the children of the Promise are counted for the Seede Then seeing Melchisedec blessed Abraham our
IF Paul had meant any alteration then was hee bound to a plainenesse seeing he saith I haue kept backe nothing but haue shewed you all the counsell of God Obiect Then should he haue spoken plainly of Tithes where he speakes of Maintenance but this he doth not Ergo hee meant not Tithes Answ The Counsell of God heere is to be vnderstood onely of things de nouo not that Paul was to repeate plainly the whole Counsell of God alreadie reuealed and of Nature Moral But remember still Pauls plainenesse is yet a comming Chap. 4. part 2. In CHAP. V. §. IV. MEchisedec tithed Abraham Father both of Leui and all his brethren Brethren as is said both by flesh and faith Ergo All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing And such as see not this are too bigge in flesh too beggerly in faith Obiect Quicke But is it also solide It is but the Priesthoods that are there compared Melchisedecs with Leuies Christs with it of the Law For Leui in this is not the Type of Christ Answ But these Priest-hoods are compared in the points of Blessing and Tithing peculiar to onely Priests And it Leui in this as you say was no Type of Christ then Tithes in Leui were not Typicall if not Typicall not Ceremoniall Ergo euer Morall for their Iudicials medled not with it But the truth is Melchisedec and Leui were both in all their doings heere recorded very Types of Christ but of diuers Orders that is Natures And the Endlesse Order of Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing is by Paul transferred on Christ as is there prooued In CHAP. VI. Against the Title PErpetuitie of Melchisedecs Priesthood proued by only Tithing Obiect Not But Greatnesse proued by Tithing and Blessing vers 4. and 7. and Perpetuitie in vers 3. Without father without mother and as the Syriak Whose neither father nor mother are written in the Genealogies c. Answ And is not Tithing in vers 8. ioyned with Time in their Dying and Liuing CHAP. VI. §. II. Against the second Syllogisme HE that taketh Tithes and liueth is a perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo c. Obiect The Argument seemeth not so but thus Hee that liueth is greater then hee that dyeth Thus in effect Both Priests Melchisedec and Aaron but who greatest He that liueth He that tooke He that blessed Both Priests is taken pro confesso or proued by Dauids testimony not by taking of Tithes Answ Seeing our point heere is of onely Time and that you yeeld He that liueth is the greater Priest then hee that is dead giuing the prerogatiue to the time present Why place you the prerogatiue of Tithing and Blessing vpon the preterit time againe For in bonis praesentiae quaeque semper optima So God calleth himselfe I am still though he both was and shall be Euen so though it be true that Melchisedec decimauit Tithed Blessed in the preterit yet that momentary praeterite in that one onely Tithing can haue no prerogatiue ouer Aarons Present and two thousand yeeres standing and how shall he be a greater Priest that Tooke then he that Taketh seeing you make him that Liueth greater then he that Dyeth these cannot both hold Neither can you imagine how to make him a Priest for euer by this text vnlesse he performe for euer such points as are in this text recorded proper to his Priest-hood and these are onely Blessing and Tithing To diuide these I thinke verily it goeth against all the course of these texts But I still submit my selfe and more of this afterwards And albeit Dauids Prophecie proued him a Priest yet Paul heere proueth euen the performance of that Prophecie from two proprieties of all Priest-hood Blessing and Tithing competent to no Calling but Priesthood and so Reciproke with all Priest-hood else how should wee more haue applied that Prophecie then Moyses Historie Gen. 14. if Paul had been silent CHAP. VI. §. III. ABraham typed all his posteritie the seed of his faith as well as the seed of his flesh Obiect True in matter of Iustifying not in this In this he but representeth his son Leui by the flesh with whom onely the comparison is institute Answ Euen in both The text saith vers 4. Abraham the Patriarch gaue him a tenth and vers 6. Hee Tithed Abraham and Blessed him hauing the Promises and vers 9. Hee Tithed also Leui 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tithe-taker not as hauing the Promises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not that I meane Leui belonged no way to the Promise God forbid but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are heere the proper correlates and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then let vs weaue all these passages in one webbe of truth The Woafe goes thus disioyned in Tithing the Patriarch and Blessing him that had the Promises but the perfect webbe must be thus Melchisedec both Tithed and Blessed the Patriarch hauing the Promises In the second verse He first Blessed then Tithed for that is the right Order first to giue them Spirituall food before you exact their Carnall A sore checke to such Sacrilegious both Leuites as doe not and Laickes as cannot giue the milke of the Word and yet will deuoure the milke of Gods Church appointed to that end In the fourth verse Tithing commeth without naming Blessing And vers 6. Tithing goeth before Blessing Verse 8. Tithing againe alone and also vers 9. Then say I what more reason is there heere to separate Tithing from the Patriarch and the Promises then to separate Blessing seeing all three are so syllogistically wouen and interlaced Or shall we diuide Abrahams Patriarchship from his Promises and binde the first to his Flesh the second to his seed by Faith But Paul telleth vs plainly That God made Abraham a Father of many Nations Rom. 4. and in the verse preceding That the Promise might be firme to his whole seed not onely the seede of the Law but also to ohe seed of Faith Then seeing his Fathership reacheth euen to all Nations we know the Nations came not all of Abrahams flesh Ergo They must leape with Lazarus in his bosome by Faith Ergo Both Flesh and Faith Law and Gospell Leuite and Laicke Peace and Warres were heere Blessed and Tithed in their Father Abraham by that Priest for euer Melchisedec If then we be iustified with Pavl by Faith in the word and worke Blessing why not also with Iames by workes as witnesses in the word Tithing But to cleare his Fathership better to whom it belongeth Neither are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham c. Rom. 9.7 That is they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed Heere is Abrahams Fathership tyed onely to his Faith in the Promise and diuided from his flesh But heere say you he representeth but Leui his sonne by
the flesh with whom Onely the comparison is instituted First as is said not onely flesh for then the onely Flesh had heere been blessed in Abraham and so Melchisedec not a Perpetuall but a Carnall type of Christ Secondly Though it had beene onely the Flesh yet not onely Leui for the reason of Leuies being Tithed heere is as true of all the Tribes as of Leui for all were alike in Abrahams loynes as Leui and if we frame not the Proposition generall thus All that were then in Abrahams loynes were tithed in Abraham Leui can no more come vnder the Assumption then the rest The cause then why Leui onely heere is specified was that his case was harder to include being Tithe-taker then his brethren payers and to subiect him being a Priest to the Priest-hood of Melchisedec as at length is noted Cap 7. § 5. As to the comparisons remeÌ„ber there be two one of Melch. with Leui this standeth wholly in dissimilibus and so all remoued from Christ the Verity of them both the other of Melchisedec and Christ both of one Order and so all things spoken of Melchisedec in the fift eleuen vers are transferred to Christ vers 13.14 c. and more then an illustrating comparison it is a demonstratiue conclusion à Typo ad Veritatem then which no Scripture yeeldeth more frequent or forcible CHAP. VI. §. V. THe Verbes vsed in both the Types as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present time of Leui notwithstanding they were dead and gone c. Obiect Not yet Leui dead and gone for in the Apostles dayes diuers Priests were still among the Iewes Answ How I vnderstand this is sufficiently set downe Cap. 6. § 6. Dead and gone they were euen then in Law though not yet buried as all the rest of their Ceremonies And if Paul had not held them then for dead He had not written this Epistle thrusting out Leui in this whole seuenth Chapter and reuiuing the Priest-hood of Melchisedec and Chap. 8.13 proclaiming both Priest-hood and Tabernacle to be finished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that he saith a new Testament he hath abrogate the olde now that which is disanulled and waxed old is ready to vanish away Ibidem S. V. THerefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed in praesenti to Melchisedec Obiect Wherefore must it No necâ—ssitie in Grammer will craue it And the reason you subioyne seemeth not of consequence to wit Seeing hee presently liueth since Tithing now 〈◊〉 not the point the Apost vrgeth but being greater Also the verb which the Apostle himselfe subioyneth is not a present but a preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which testifieth clearely if he had expressed the verbe which falleth to be repeated to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had expressed it in the same preterit time and not in the present Whereof this also may be a witnesse that vers 9. in one and the same clause speaking of Leuies Tithing he vseth the present participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and speaking of Melchisedec he vseth the foresaid preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though he would say Hee Leui that now taketh Tithes was then Tithed by Melchisedec Answ This argument is but Grammaticall and so but probable the Conclusion must rest vpon the point of Diuinitie And Si quae non prosint singula iuncta inuent Yet my Grammer-grippe was thus grounded that in one and the same enuntiation Grammarians vsually put all in the same Case Number and Times and seeing heere vers 8. Paul hath two words and so all in the present time of Melchisedec I held it good Grammer that those that were subaudite in the same verse should be of the same times too specially seeing the truth holdeth alike in both In summe thus Aaron dying Blesseth Titheth Melchisedec Liuing Blesseth Titheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then Heere is not referred to the day of Pauls writing this but to the Law and time of it and so the preterit verbs had marred nothing in Aaron if it had pleased the Apostâ—e to vse them nor yet the present verbes applied to Melchisedec Where you say the Apostles selfe subioyneth preterit verbs that is but in the 6. and 9. vers in the former prouing Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui because he Blessed and Tithed a greater person then did Leui and in the latter verse to proue that euen Leui himselfe was then Tithed by Melchisedec But heere vers 8. where his greatnesse is onely proued from Perpetuitie in Dying Tithing and Liuing Tithing heere I say Paul vseth onely verbes of the present time for perpetuall things must be euer present So Paul was Grammaticall enough in both Now to his Theologie Albeit those preterit verbes were onely proper for Melchisedec the Type who onely once Tithed Abraham yet seeing these verbes de praesenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are onely perfectly true of Christ the Veritie they must I say binde Tithing in praesenti vpon Christ If not so I would faine see clearely out of this 8. vers how Melchisedec hath any prerogatiue aboue Leui in these notes Dying and Liuing ioyned with Tithing for if we doe binde all these things vpon the onely Type then wee lose the Veritie Christ and as for the Types Leui as is said Tithing two thousand yeeres surpasseth that Melchisedecs one dayes Tithing in the prerogatiue of time Further in vâ—rtue of Christ the Verity though not yet then in the flesh yet may he be said euen then in Melchisedec his Type and Atturney to haue Tithed Abraham and by his Type Leui to Tithe vnder the Law as now when he is gone vp to the Father to Tithe vnder the Gospell as is said Chap. 6. § 10. So Tithing and Blessing are euer in Christ de praesenti how the particular practises in his Types passe de praeterito And so is hee in all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Dauids Prophecie proueth all these true euen of his Priesthood For the preterit Hee hath sworne For the Future And will not repent And fâ—r the present Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedec So Christ before his Incarnation was now is and euer shall be a Priest and therefore all accessorie to that Priesthood though not Eiusdem Ordinis Ordinationis must Blesse and Tithe euen as did the Inferiour Leuites who were not properly Sacerdotes yet ex Sacerdotio Leuitico But vers 13. as is said in the Treatise cleareth all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray how will you exclu e Tithing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing it is relatiue of all these things vrged in the whole preceding verses I confesse there be different degrees of the points compared and Blessing is aboue Tithing but the one must not thrust out the other Hac oportet facere illa non omittere yea Tithing is the very Hand-maid of Blessing for none may Blesse as Gods Minister but hee may also Tithe for
What calling was hee oâ— here Secular or Ecclesiastick M. Selden saith Both Abraham and Iacob must be Priests also when they paied Tithes True Hee was but not in the proprietie of this action M. Selden cap. 1 §. 2. ad sin but onely as considered apart iust like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Categories that in climbing are but Species and comming downe Genera yet not so full as so neither this example fitteth better the subord nate Priestes of the Law all of one Order of one Nature But Abraham and Melchisedec were neuer of one Order of Priesthood so though Abraham in one respect a Priest paied Tithes yet here as Priest he paied none At this time he was not so much as a Priest in priuilegiis primogeniturae bâ—ing the tenth in Linea recta from Sem now Melchisedec and so he paied a tenth as a meere secular sprigge of Sems roote For in this Priesthood by Primogeniture was neither Order Ordination nâ—r Subordination Abraham then here went for a Secular a Prince a Patriarch hauing the Promises Blessed and Tithed but not Blessing or Tithing Next I aske whether this solemne and most antient action betweene Melchisedec and Abraham should direct the after comming Law in the like generals or if that perishing Law should rectifie this euerstanding action doubtlesse we say the former Then seeing euen this Priest of God tooke Tithes euen of Abraham the Father and in his loines of all his seede why shall the Priestes vnder the Law be debarred from Tithes comming from Seculares Here then we haue the Priest the first proprietar The Leuites therefore vnder the Law were but as the Priestes seruants in leauing not the sole owners in enioyning And so much for the first sort of Tithes whether they went all to Ierusalem as Scal. affirmeth or were due to onely inferior Leuites as I take M. Selden to say Of the second sort of Tithes for the Feasts we haue no question with Scaliger therefore we follow him to the third sort Scal. Seguitur apud Tobiam It followeth in Tob. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I gaue the 3. Tith to whom it was meete He calleth it a third which is either to be called Of the third yeere For saith he it cannot be called a Third which is one with the First Scal. pag. 67. post med 68. ad med and againe pa 68. So saith Scal This Tith in the 1 2 4. and 5. yeeres was called prima decima but in yeeres 3. and 6. was called The poores Tithes c. For in the 7. yeere was no labouring and so no Tithing I answere Why not both a Third Tith and of the Third yeere The Scripture giueth vs the yeere and why should Scal cite Tobie for proofe of his first and second Tithes and disclaime him in his third Tithes all in one verse Againe what proofe bringeth he to make the first and second Tith both one in the third and sixt yeeres and to diuide them againe in the first second and fifth yeeres For seeing Scal will haue them as they are Leuites portion the first third and fifth yeeres all carried vp to Ierusalem how liued the poore then all these yeeres And seeing hee will haue them for the poore these other two yeeres here M. Selden pleadeth for mee How should the Leuites and Priests haue their liue-lode of these two yeeres And I hold this for a ground that so long as the end remaineth M. Sel cap 2. § 3. p. 14. so long remaine the meanes deuoted to that end But Leuies seruice being the end for which these first Tithes were deuoted admitteth no intermission but is yeerely the same Ergo so must his meanes be yeerely the same If it be replied that Leui is the first enrolled euen in these fiue and six yeeres with the poore I answere first Leuies meanes is here strangely abridged by encroaching of Strangers Fatherlesse and Widowes where hee was at first one and all now is he but the first partner and yet must he abate no point of his seruice whereas God euer supplied all such wants as in that Sabbaticall cessation of labouring the land the sixt yeere yeelded three yeeres encrease but no such matter for this fourth and sixt yeere the partners but not the portion is encreased So Leui may abound strangely in the one but beg strongly in the other for all the beggars are thrust vpon him Secondly Was not Leui also enrolled for a partner in the Festiuall Tithes yet will not Scaliger for this frustrate him of the first Tithes And yet Iunius will making first and second one So haue we of three Tithings a threefold confusion from three learned Authors Iunius the first and second one Scaliger the first and third one Selden the second and third one Which maketh mee rather simply cleaue to the words of the Text then thrust in commentaries for the ouerthrow of it or practise against precept And obserue there is neuer danger in distinguishing these points but euer in confounding For if we distinguish not that Text we shall confound all three At the end of three yeeres thou shalt bring foorth all the Tithe of thine encrease of the same yeere Deut. 14.28 and lay it within thy gates If we giue this word All his largest extent then we must confound all in All all three must be but one which all men denie Therefore we must still distinguish and if so then those three verses Deut 14.22.23 and 28. speake of three diuers Tithings seeing of Tithings Which Iosephus most clearely distinguisheth The English translation readeth all making it a third Tithe each yeere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. One to the Leuites another to the Feasts yeerly a third ioyned to these each third yeer Is not this a faire witnesse for our foresaide Text And against Ioseph and Tobit Selden bringeth but Targum and Talmud Maior vter Another Text Deut 26.12 When thou hast made an end of Tithing all the Tithes of thine encrease the third yeere which is the yeere of Tithing c. Why should this third ye re be termed The yeere of Tithing in the Text since no yeere was without a Tithing safe the Sabbaticall vnlesse a new accrue of Tithes came this yeere aboue the rest as most and best iâ—terâ—râ—ters with Ioseph and Tobit doe hold And seeing it bringeth a new End for Fatherlesse Widdowes Strangers and all Poore why not also a new Tithing There is neither reason nor Analogie to call it The yeere of Tithing because two Tithes in other yeers distinguish dare now confounded much lesse because three new partneâ—s are thrust on one mans portion Laicks on Leuies I confesse I could neuer yet giue a reason why this poore mans Tithe was cast vpon a third yeere seeing they were at all times to bee sustained but for the distinct natures of the Tithes themselues I thinke verily a simple eye may discerne it Mr.
coupleth heere holy things to the Temple as Tithes were Numb 18. with the Tabernacle because these places were then the chiefest where both seruices were done though not the sole places as we haue said at large Lib. 1. cap. 5. The Ceremonial seruice Paul painteth out in their owne termes Waite at the Altar and Partaker with the Altar Now Waiting and With are notes of expiring as is the Altar And to say that Paul heere by both these members meaneth only the Ceremonial Maintenance were a double absurditie First A Tautologick description of one thing Secondly A neglect of the chiefest point he speaketh of Inheritance Ministring then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Word and Sacraments is onely proper to the Gospel 1. Cor. 9.1 Rom. 15.16 Are yee not saith Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my worke in the Lord And therefore onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Inheritance is his due Heb. 13.10 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to waite at the Altar for we haue an Altar whereof they haue no authoritie to eate which serue in the Tabernacle § VI Pauls next phrase comes in his Application So also the Lord hath ordained in the preterit time we only aske heere where when was this ordinance giuen Paul giueth no precept heere but onely intimateth the Lords alike ordinance for both Law and Gospell one and the same Lord gaue it at first to Melchisedec a Priest for euer he gaue it To Leui for the Law he gaue it from Leui to Melchisedec againe he giueth it Then As Leui liued by the Law must we liue saith Paul by the Gospell Leui liued by a certaintie of holy things by the Law Ergo So must we by the Gospell haue certaintie Holy things must be certaine Things namelesse are nothing and voluntary almes vncertaine they cannot be Inheritance to the Lord and his Leuites Giue God therefore his Tenth or giue him a lesse number and a greater matter and aboue ten is no simple perfect number Paul then is wrong quarrelled for his vnplainenesse He speaketh like his Master when Iohn sent to know if it was he or no Matth. 11.2 3. Tell Iohn saith hee what things yee haue heard seene So while they aske Paul Doest thou meane Tithes or no He answereth They that ministered in the holy things liued euer of the holy things and so must we liue of the Gospel Such as are Christs or Pauls may easily discerne their affirmatiue meaning But wee shall heare better newes anon and euen from Paul Cap. seq Only remember that Paul had nothing to do here to speak in the Quoto of the Maintenance but onely to iustifie that he and Barnabas might liue vnlabouring as well as other Apostles Now remaineth their second assault from the Ceremonie § VII of the number and so any other number of new to be appointed Wee answere two wayes First Giue vs any other instance in any of these fiue generall points of Gods worship where the matter and number are of different natures It was Moral you say to giue Maintenance but Ceremonial in that it was a Tenth But let vs trie them briefly Person the Leuites were all Ceremoniall and so were their nūbers Classes Courses all temporal or ceremoniall Numbers not alwayes Ceremoniall Time The Sabbath or seuenth day Moral yet euen quoad numerum But the Sabbaths thence deriued of seuen yeeres and the Iubile Ceremonial and gone with their Nouilunes and so forth Formes of worship as pares of beasts or fowles for sacrifices Ten parts of measures of fine flower and such like Ceremonial and gone Place Where it was sole and vnique Ceremoniall and gone Maintenance Tenths for Feasts Ceremonial and gone both number and matter Tithes Inheritance Moral in both Not one instance we see to the contrary Secondly say that the Quota were yet in ballance what would we doe Is not whole mankinde heere diuided All are either Leuites or Israelites All must take or giue Who then shall bee Iudge The parties cannot for who shall make all of one minde So many kingdomes so many different conceits as many Prouinces as many different proportions Referre it to the Church-men they may proue couetous To the people they may be auaritious yea say further that God had left his portion without proportion could man proportion it better for his owne behoofe Ten is the last simple full and perfect number and so the smallest proportion in simple numbers as is said So we see we shall sooner diuide Totum then decide Quotum But God only hath iudged and that by his only Word and his Word onely Tithes for Inheritance And this for Pauls Doctrine and meaning in general Followeth his speciall of Tithes CHAP. IIII. Moyses Historie and Dauids Prophecie of Melchisedec applied by the Apostle to Christ How and how farre Types are to be matched with their Verities by the example of Melchisedec and Aaron with Christ § I BVT shall we haue no more in all the new Testament for Tithes but onely Allegories Examples and Circumlocutions Truely it needed not seeing they are sufficiently grounded alreadie Yet one Author whose writs some men could wish to bee as Non ens as himselfe is namelesse beginneth once more to talke and euen of Tithes and not to talke onely but Melchisedec Abraham Moyses are to him euen as this day Many suspect Paul and it is not impossible But howsoeuer his title is To the Hebrewes But our Sacrilegious Segniours may iustly deny themselues to be Hebreans for the word Sacrilege is seldome or neuer read in Hebrew Yet Paul found out a fit Greek word for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 2.22 Act. 19.37 to spoile or robbe holy things But what is all this They will deny themselues to be Grecians too and I feare to be Christians before they yeeld they vnderstand not Paul he wrote not to them Heere now begin our matters of Melchisedec hard to be vttered of that euerlasting Priest-hood in his Order by Moyses nakedly propounded by Dauid but obscurely expounded heere are all repeated and to our owne dayes applied by this new Ioseph interpreting all Hee therefore that hath eares let him heare HISTORIE Gen. 14.18 ANd Melchisedec King of Salem broughtforth bread and wine and hee was a Priest of the most high God Therefore hee blessed him saying Blessed art thou Abraham of the most high God possessor of heauen earth And blessed bee the most high God vvhich deliuered thine enemies into thine hand and Abraham gaue him Tithes of all PROPHECIE Psal 110.4 The Lord sware and wil not repēt Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedec INTERPRETATION AND Application FOr this Melchisedec was King of Salem Priest of the most high God Heb. 7.1 who met Abraham as he returned from the slaughter of the Kings and blessed him To whom also Abraham gaue the Tithe of all things who first is by interpretation King of Righteousnesse after that also King
Father who had the Promises Hebr. 7.6 If we will passe for sonnes of the same Promises in him we must be bound in him euer to returne our thankefulnesse to the Ministers of these glad tidings and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bindeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § III Some men say that Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec Abrahams Tithing was more then once this one time did not binde the posteritie but rather redeeme them from further Tithing I answere then his posteritie could not haue beene Tithed vnder the Law To this they reply a special law brought on that Tithing for Leui and came not by vertue of Abrahams deede I yet answere as often before the only Priest-hood brought Tithes to Leui because they were a Priest-hood long before him but a Priest-hood so farre different from his as Leui without a special law could not challenge Tithes as his due Besides that matter between Melchisedec and Abraham was in those daies so shut vp from mans vnderstanding as no man could fetch any conclusion from it for till Paul applied all heere it was doubtful to the Ancients whether Abraham gaue Tithes to Melchisedec or Melchisedec to him So perishing Leui could not serue himselfe heire to perpetual Melchisedec and therefore the Law was needfull for that age But now seeing the Apostle hath so perfectly cleared these clouds vnto vs that Leui Titheth and dieth Melchisedec Titheth and liueth what needeth vs a new Law It would but staine the prerogatiue of our Priest-hood and antiquitie of our title So if Abraham had by this one Tithing deliuered his posteritie from further Tithing neither had God drawne a Law of Tithing vpon them neither had Paul reuiued Tithes to the Euangel But say it had been but one Tithing for all then must § IV it be also but one blessing of Abraham for all and then Tithing euer answereth Blessing where are we Let vs not lose glad tydings for glad Tithings Lyra saith prettily Vt omnes in lumbis Adae peccauerunt ita omnes in lumbis Abrahae decimati sunt Blessing and Tithing are by Moyses coupled to the Priest-hood and by Paul Tithing once more then blessing and that in the very point of perpetuitie Then Quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet Further if that Once in Melchisedec argue not as is said perpetuitie then dying Leui shall resemble more a perpetuall Priest then liuing Melchisedec which is quite contrary to the Apostles minde for Leui Tithed neere two thousand yeeres and who will not thinke two thousand yeeres liker Eternitie then one houre Therefore Once is Endlesse life and Often Heb. 7.16 25. is carnal commandement as the Apostle termeth them And so Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth The Apostle had for him to vrge this argument § V more against Leui then the other Tribes Leui bound to pay Tithes to Melchisedec because Leui was a Priest and therefore the Tithe taker and so might seeme exempted from paying Tithes to any whereas the other Tribes in their owne persons payed Tithes to Leui as a Priest euen as Abraham did to Melchisedec the Priest But Paul telleth them that this Tithing must bee meant of Melchisedec which euen Leui himselfe must pay but could not during the Law of his owne Priest-hood therefore vvee may iustly hold Leui as Melchisedecs deputie till the dayes of correction For to say as it is Hebr. 9.10 euen Leui was an Officer of Christs his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pointing out his comming so no Tithing whatsoeuer but one way or other it hath a relation and his perfection In and to Christ and so Melch. stil liueth and taketh Tithes Rebuffas de Decimis as one noteth prettily Decimae erant ante Legem sub consilio In lege sub praecepto post legem in libertate Spiritus So liuing Tithing goeth euer with Melchisedec and dying Tithing with Leui but in all Tithes euer Gods Inheritance So soone then as Leui lost his Priest-hood he lost also his title in Tithes and became tied to pay Tithes to Melchisedec as his brethren Tribes and as both Iew and Gentile embracing the Euangel § VI Consider then the course that Paul hath kept in the matter of Maintenance Summa of Pauls doctrine touching Maintenance he was the Apostle of the Gentiles and so al his general Epistles were written to them saue this one to the Hebrewes The Gentiles neuer embracing Leuies Priest-hood could not be bound to Leuies Tithing they knew it not Therefore Paul hauing instructed them in the Rudiments of Christian Religion teacheth them their duetie touching Maintenance in general and yet alledged the generals of the Law as we heard from 1. Cor. 9. and to the Galath 6.6 Let him that is taught in the Word make him that teacheth him partaker of all his goods A precept as heauie as to haue said Giue him a Tenth of all thy goods And though Paul heere did not settle the Medium Sup. cap. 3. ad fin nor name the Quote yet Nature teacheth as is said that it must be at the option of neither partie and what better meanes for a midst then to haue our recourse to that course which God himselfe kept in proportioning that portion for his seruice both before and vnder the Law But heere writing to the Hebrewes very Iewes indeed who were fully instructed in all the points of Moyses Law and stucke too much to it hee vseth Tithing as a chiefe argument to confirme them in the Al-sufficiencie and Eternitie of Christs Priest-hood applying that most mysticall and hidde historie euen from them then of Melchisedec and Abrahams Blessing and Tithing vnto Christ the Veritie It was euen Christ our true Melchisedec of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these things were spoken He Blesseth hee Titheth hee liueth a fit and timely argument for the Iewes who were alreadie well acquainted with the Medium of his Conclusion But for the Gentiles vnfit and vntimely vnfit because it had bin as we speake to proue obscurumper obscurius vntimely because Tithes were euer as is said a most orderly Inheritance neuer able to be exacted but where both Church and Ciuill Policie are peaceably setled in Gods obedience and yet in Pauls owne dayes where Tithes could not haue place the proportion for the maintenance of the Gospel went a great deale higher for euery true Christian sold what he had brought it to the Apostles feet and all was made common a sore Tithing yet this lacked not Sacrilege Act. 4.32 5.1 as we see in Ananias and Saphira who kept backe a part of theirs but they payed well for it This was indeed to make the Preachers partakers of all their goods But I hope any man yet will rather agree to a Tithing then to this or rather to nothing let Melchisedec Moâ—ses Paul and God himselfe say what they list Neither did Paul write this to these Hebrewes as expecting § VII or exacting a present