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 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 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 a In Iad Chazeka tract de therumâ—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 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 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 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
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 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 c 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 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 b Leuit. 19 9. 10. eares of corne or grapes or had out of the corners of the field left in Haruest 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 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
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 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 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 cōmandement 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 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 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
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 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 2ly 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 reciâ—all of them we need not seeke such proofes for the right of 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 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 CAP. 2. Exod. 23.19 Levit 23.10 Numb 15.20 THe yearely increase being either fruits of the ground or cattell In the Law of fruits of the ground first the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in eares of wheat and Barly figgs grapes oliues pomgranates and dates And of these seuen only the first fruits o In Talmud in Seder Heraim Massechetâ— Biccurim atque inde receâ—tio es erum Iurisperiti were payde in what quantity the owner would Touching first fruits the History here doth avouch three things 1 That the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in eares of wheat and barly figs grapes oliues pomgranates and dates 2 That of these seuen onely the first fruites were payde 3 That they were payde in what quantity the owner would But of these three assertions there is not one of them sufficiently proued and as I take it being examined by holy Scripture not one of them true For first that the first fruits were offered in eares of wheat and barly c. The places of Scripture quoted in the margent doe not shew it that which commeth neerest is Levit. 23.10 When yee be come into the land which I giue vnto you and reape the haruest thereof then yee shall bring a sheafe of the first fruits of your haruest vnto the Priest The word here translated sheafe is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Iarchi taketh to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tenth part of an Ephah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did measure it with an Omer Exod. 16.18 and ver 36. the Omer is the tenth part of the Ephah which Aben-Ezra on Leuit. 5. saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. One mans meat for one day as Exod. 16.18 But this Text doth not proue that the first fruits were offered in eares of wheat and barlye c. but an Omer that is a sheafe or the tenth part of an Ephah And hence it is that Baal Haturim on Exod. 16.36 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Omer is annexed to the chapter of Manna to signifie that they should eat Manna vntill they had offered the Omer that is after they came into the land and did reap the haruest thereof Again Exod. 34.22 Thou shalt also obserue the feast of weekes in the time of the first fruites of wheat haruest Iarchi expounds the Text thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The first fruits of wheat haruest in which thou art to bring two loaues of wheat first fruits that is the first meat offring that comes of new wheat to the
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 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 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. â—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 theÌ„ much like the late treatise of the Calling of the Iewes dreaming especially of an earthly happines temporal kingdom 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 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 3d 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