Tithing of them Pauls meaning to the Hebr. for that time was not come as is said they were poore new conuerted Christians euen those for whom Paul had gathered that collection in Achaia Asia and Româ— Paul onely as is said would draw them from Leui to Christ and that in the power and prerogatiue of Melchisedec in all things belonging to Leuies Priest-hood specially Blessing and Tithing They knew Tithes were due but not due to Christ this Paul teacheth them Let euery Christian ballance these arguments in the scales of an vpright conscience fixed and setled on the word of God and accordingly dispose of his affections § VIII Behold then lastly how fitly all things are matched in those types Comparison of Melchisedec Aaron and Christ and their veritie Christ Grace is ioyned to Eternitie and Law Bondage brought to an end Melchisedec Christs first freest and most perfect Priestly type and kingly too met Abraham freely without law and before Law and as a King fed him as a Priest blessed him all in freedome Abraham againe in whose loynes we were all then both fedde and blessed like a thankefull soule met also freely the free graces of God in Melchisedec likewise before Law And so Christ our true Melchisedec not commanded litle expected least of all deserued freely meeteth Abraham and all his seede ever feeding blessing to saluation and therefore must all we the seede of Abrahams flesh and faith returne to him 2 Cor 5.19.20 and to those in whom he hath put the Ministerie of reconciliation Tithes freely not as Legally coacted And this for Grace and Eternitie Now betweene Melchisedec and Christ interuened another solemne and great high Priest also Aaron But how quite after an other order and manner long after both Melchisedec and Abraham all in bonds called commanded his very sacrifices brought by force to the Altar nothing freely And so Abrahams posteritie gaâ—e him the like meeting Tithes by force of law Bondage and bonds on both sides Grace then beginneth and Grace endeth The Law coupled Melchisedec to Christ The Law goeth betweene as a bond coupling Grace to Grace Melchisedec to Christ And so Melchisedec as Gods Priest and Christs type with the Ministerie of Christs Gospel make vp both but one poynt in the Office-worke of our saluation Euen as an Euening and a Morning Gen. 1.5 made vp but one day in the Creation Christ was but as in dawning then he shineth now In Melchisedec he put the Word of benediction in his Ministerie he hath put the Word of Reconciliation Melchisedec typed Euerlasting promises in Christ his Ministry preach euerlasting performances in Christ Now glad promises and glad tydings of their performances are but one and therefore their maintenance iustly one Tithes Inheritance Leui a linke of the same chaine also a Priest of the same worke in effect though different in forme a Remembrancer for supporting the weaknes of those dayes interuening betweene the promises and the performances typing and foretelling by numbers of rites thousands of times Christs comming in their carnal sacrifices till they poynted him out as by a fingerly demonstration whom our Ministerie now Preach in a heauenly contemplation The dores of Faith in those dayes were much their Eyes Hic est and so trustâ—es Thomas must first put his finger in his side and then beleeue The dores of faith in our true Melchisedecs dayes are most our eares by hearing and so euen Abraham beleeued hic erit and it was imputed to him for Righteousnesse And he sawe the day of the Lord and reioyced But wee Hic fuit and therefore Blessed are they that haue not seene and yet beleeue So the generall end of all is one and the generall Inheritance for all still one Leui was vnder the Law as a tenent at will remoueable Melchisedec Christs Ministery as Freeholders Oaken-tenants Diuersitie of Orders made not diuersitie of Inheritance Tithes and Priest-hood came and goe together not Tithes and Leuies Priest-hood and therefore must not end till all Priest-hood end for Melchisedec yet liueth a Priest and taketh Tithes See part 1. c. 6. To that question then made part 1 cap. 6. Why the last § IX age of the world may not serue God without Tithes as the first two thousand yeeres did Order once setled must neuer be left The answere is euident We must neuer fall backe from Order to Confusion nor from Substance to Ceremonies This were to go backe againe from Canaan to the Flesh-pots of Aegypt from Heauen to Hel. Why may we not serue God without the Tables of the Law as they did two thousand yeeres They had the Image of that Law by nature and partly doubtlesse by Tradition so were they both by Law of Nature and Tradition prepared to a Tithing as fell out betweene Melchisedec and Abraham The first age was a time of confusion the people had no rest Deut. 12.8 c. and so small order but being once past Iordan they must not doe as of before Now are we past all the Bondages in Christ and must not go back againe to the Bound-Ages of the world Otherwise we inuert the whole method both of Creation and Redemption Creation began from darkenesse to light Euening and Morning made a day Redemption from falling to rising from beggerly rudiments of the Law to the rich reuelations of the Gospel from perishing types to eternall Verities And the Gospel againe in it selfe still growing Heb. 5.13.14 from milke for babes to strong meat for men of age We must euer grow neuer decrease Therefore Christ the first Author of Grace and perfection of all grace hath not cast all againe in the Chaos of Confusion Then seeing Nature at first freely doted The right of Tithes concluded Grace ensuing distinctly defined Iacob instructed in grace solemnely vowed Law succeeding strictly commaunded the Gospel reuiuing hath by reasons â—enued the Primitiue Churches by practise restored Tithes for Gods worship Let vs euer hold that Tithes are onely the true Inheritance of the Church flowing immediatly from God to his Ministerie in all ages as wee defined them part 1. cap. 1. The summe then of all the proofe from the Circumstance of time is Whatsoeuer is due to an eternall Priest is perpetuall by due Tithes were and are due to Melchisedec an Eternall Priest Ergo Tithes are perpetually due And by Consequent this Priest being the High-Priest of the Gospell Tithes are due to the Gospell CHAP. VIII The time of Melchisedecs first Tithing Foure doubts in his posterities Tithing To whom from whom whereof and for what vses Tithes are to be taken and imployed And if Princes may Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what TITHES thus setled as the Churches true Inheritance § I these doubts rest to be resolued How long Melchisedec Tithed First in Melchisedec and Abraham our Fundators Secondly in their succeeding posteritie In Melchisedec touching the time and continuing of his Tithing
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
is said left the distribution to Leui himselfe Gods end and Mans are heere quite contrary God gaue Leui a Maintenance from himself and free of mans option to be lifted before man should meddle with any thing to no other end Hebr. 13.17 but as Hezekiah said That they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord not to please the Laird or my Lord. That he should not stumble at such a huge-stone as How shall I liue That they may dâ—e it with ioy and not with greefe Deut. 33.9 Hee must misknow Father and Mother Brothers his owne childe when Gods cause is in hand as he did Exod. 32.27 28. Philip. 3.8 He must count all things dung for Christs sake But mans end is to asseruile the Gospell to his vile appetites And what greater argument to make a man speake as they please Then to be able to make him to eate as they please It is a sore sub ferula when Leuies portion was not giuen euery one fled to his Land Nehem. 13.10 And this maketh now many a poore Leuite yet weaker then poore engage the Gospel for his dinner And this pride against Gods Inheritance maketh many a Gut-Gospeller sell his owne inheritance to buy Tithes and in end is turned out of both And this for the persons owners of Tithes § VII The Persons payers Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec What persons must pay Tithes was a type of all his seed of his flesh and of his Faith then no flesh can scape The Law commanded all Israel to giue Leui Tithes and Leui himselfe escaped not Melchisedec All for whom Leui serued in the Tabernacle of the Congregation payed to Leui. Therefore all to whom Christ is preached pay Tithes to Christs Ministerie There is but one Dichotomie heere of the whole world either an Israelite or a Leuite An Ecclesiastick or a Laick sauing our Mungerall Gospellers as is said the next head shall make this more cleare § VIII Of what things Tithes are to be payed now Abraham gaue of ALL What things to be Tithed Gen. 14. Iacob Gen. 28. vowed to giue of all that God gaue him The Law in the time of the diuiding of the Land setteth downe chiefely that which commeth by and of the Land viz. Tillage and Pasturage and these Tithes are now commonly called Praediales Decimae Decimae praediales But Iacobs Vow and Abrahams practise teach vs that All includeth as well all trades as all persons for euery man is not a labourer of ground a Cain a keeper of cattell an Abel The Iewish Repub. went no further for that time But the Author to the Hebrewes chap. 7. vers 2. giueth first Of all and vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most men interpret Spoiles Where I wonder why some learned quarrell it as improper Deut. 20.1 2 3. seeing one point of Leuies office was to encourage in time of warre And seeing of the battels and of the Spoiles 1. Chro. 26.27 they did dedicate to maintaine the house of the Lord. Seeing God is by special name The Lord of Hostes And seeing the Ministery of the Gospell yet serueth much at warre where huge armies haue no calling but the warres shall all bee exempted from Tithes No euery man as hee gaineth he giueth proportionably and these are called Decimae Personales Decimae Personales and such in effect were all Abrahams Tithes for his came after a battell not after Tillage or Cattell And this personall Tithing is cleared by the Apostle saying Let him that is instructed in the Word this wil bring in euery soule hauing goods and receiuing instruction c. And if not so the one halfe if not the best halfe of the world shall go free for all mens goods stand not in Tillage or Pasturage All then must either pay or be payed for for seruants children and such like come not in count but housholders and Foris samiliats as Deut. 26.13 But God hath laid a course of such perpetuall equity and equalitie in all points and for all persons that nothing can go wrong if we go not from it Al persons must pay therefore no emulation for exception of persons All things as their encrease is must pay so Gods seruice shall lacke nothing necessary Once a yeere pay so no man is preuented nor precipitate for the yeeres reuolution giueth a recreation to all and whatsoeuer Trades And albeit Abraham said to the King of Sodom that § IX he would take nothing that was his yet Gods part was neither his nor his Neither had Abraham so much to giue of his owne for the time as of these Kings and Lots goods whom hee deliuered and of these others Kings goods Gen. 14. whom hee ouercame as the Historie beareth Now if hee gaue Tithes for their goods it must bee Spoyle for all came to Abraham Iure belli And if Spoiles then battels and warres are obliged to Tithing If warres and souldiers what trade can escape And though we say Spoiles it excludeth not Abrahams owne estate euen by the text for first Genesis hath Of all secondly Heb 7.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of all things So if Abraham had he gaue But vers 4. Paul addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of purpose as it seemeth to me to oblige warre as well as peace to this most solemne Nuncupation of Tithes to the Eternall Priest-hood of Melchisedec § X On the King of Sodoms words to Abraham Giue mee the persons Sodome a thankefull souldier and take the goods to thy selfe Wee haue two things to marke first it seemeth the King of Sodome had no ill meaning to grudge at Abrahams giuing Tithes to Melchisedec as most men vnderstand him for he had no reason seeing Abraham had restored to him all his people and goods yea euen himselfe to himselfe Chrysostome seemeth to take the place better applying it to the thankfulnesse in the King of Sodome who seeing God worke for him by Abrahams hand what himselfe could not doe and seeing Melchisedec the Priest of Abrahams God seale vp this victory in so powerfull and solemne manner the King then said to Abraham Giue mee the persons and take the goods to thy selfe If we should say heere Ambrose making 318. Vernus of Abraham types of these 318. Bishops of the Councell of Nice stretcheth the text much further That the King of Sodome might serue as a type of the Gentiles called to the Faith of Abraham who were neuer of Abrahams flesh it were no great absurditie for Sodome heere being but Lots neighbour by dwelling is made Lots brother in blessing hee enioyed fully the temporal blessing of the present victorie hee heard effectually the future blessings of Eternal felicitie sealed vp in Abraham and all his posteritie Flesh and Faith and so euen for Sodom himselfe when he should take him to the tents of Sem And should this man who had lost all both soules and substance and againe got all
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.
happinesse as best becommeth Your most sacred Maiesties most Loyall Subiect faithfull seruant obedient Disciple dutifull God-Sonne IAMES SEMPIL TO THE VSE OF THE READER TWentie twelue moneths are neere spent good Reader since I had studied this Lesson whereof I doe heere now render thee an account a Lesson I say not a Lecture and so but to be read by entreatie receiued as without authoritie and censured freely for all are well-come that come well Two things would I aduise thee touching it The causes mouing me to it and the course I hold in it The chiefe cause was his Maiesties both example and authoritie as I haue said to himselfe who the more Kingdomes God giueth him the more carefull he is to see the Kingdome of heauen replenish them and so directing sometimes Commissioners of all sorts and Callings for surueying Christs Sanctuary in his Kingdome of Scotland I was for one Amongst many things reformable we found one almost incurable Sacrilege had sealed vp Ignorance in many places Leui was fled to his Land Nehem. 13. because he lacked his portion Some that had at first ioyned themselues to our Reformation more for rapine sake as appeareth then Religion both Atheists Papists and some in shew Protestants a Sacrilegious trinitie as they pulled downe the Churches so pilled they the Church-rents laying this ground The one shall neuer be built and the other euer begge The Atheist because hee hath No Religion he must haue All the Tithes The Papist disliking the present Religion thinketh in Conscience he may take Tithes in Custodiam And the Third renounceth Ignorantia est mater pietatis but yet protesteth that Paupertas be nutrix Religionis both blinde and beggerly rudiments No skant of such Protestants As my soule may see ioy I sorrowed for this being farre from all hope of gaine for I am no Leuite and free of all malice for I haue no priuate enemie and I could wish no friend in the businesse But when I saw their Sacrilege so confirmed as they could picke out more texts for a pecke of Tithes then perhaps for a point of saluation and againe seeing the Prince so perplexed to see his Churches planted I was glad to goe to Schoole for my owne direction finding neuer better grounds then I receiued from our Diuine Dauids owne mouth viz. The Church had euer an inheritance entitled Tithes before vnder and after the Law whereupon may stand a goodly building And this for my Motiues Touching the course then I hold in it I draw the generall word Sacrilege to the onely point of Maintenance and Maintenance againe to that onely which Scripture calleth Inheritance viz. Tithes The point then to bee confirmed is Tithes inheritance are due to the Ministery of the Gospell by the Law of God Many doubt of this as I both heare and reade but more deliuer their iudgements then confiâ—me it by good arguments for in such case Custome is no Law and Law is not humane but dependeth onely on God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And for this cause doe I not skumme the Fathers or Antiquities further then I find them play vpon the text pro or contra Then as I require not my reasons to be receiued with the reuerence of a Father so I pray thee good Reader reiect them not as the raueries of a childe for the one is neither author of lyes nor the other of Truth The Philosopher taught vs better To conceit truely of all things according as they are for they are not what they are because such is our conceit of them In Diuine testimonies then we are to consider Quis dixit and Quid dictum and so to acquiesce keeping alwayes that noble Boerean custome of Scrutamini Scripturas not fide implicitâ to beleeue all because such a **** aid so In humane testimonies we are onely to weigh Quid and quo jure dictum not Quis for no simple truth resteth vpon this According to three ages foresaid doe I treate of the question before and vnder the Law in the first part vnder the Gospell in the second Obiections are brought for earch Period as I haue read or heard them but most part namelesse for I seek to cleare the Truth not to be the Whetstone of Contradiction some obiections from my owne priuate debating with my selfe all which I haue set downe heere fearing other men might stumble at the same for the Spirit of doubting is an earthly guest and common the Spirit of true resolution from aboue onely Truth being but One and Error infinite If all doubts then be not heere peculiarly answered yet the grounds well held will answere all The Towne of Abe in Phocis was preserued by Philip Macedo when he had destroyed all the rest because the people of that Towne were free of Sacrilege Now if that Philip were to take a suruey of our Towns Boroughes and Abbeyes how many Abbees would he find What would he leaue vndestroyed The cause of mens carel snesse of this sin now I take to bee that Time and Custome hath giuen it such authority that it is neither feared nor admired where vnder the Law and Poedagogie of the Iewes it was most-most-times as presently punished as children whipped at schoole Vzza struck dead Vzzia leaper and Achan with his whole race stonâ—d or destroyâ—d for Sacrilege We take all as the prouerb is To the long day but then shall there neither bee place for Restitution nor Sacrifice for purgation Foresee good Reader and farewell ANDREAE MELVINI IN AVTHOREM ET ARGVmentum Epigrammata QVestio quae argutos exercuit vsque Sophistas Imperiale diu Pontificale forum Disputat hanc acer sollerti Semplius arte Hunc nodum soluit non secat ense ferox Rex nodum vt Phrygium Macedo Quanto hic magis illo Pellaeo Scotus vindice victor ouat In Sacrilegium Sacrilegos Eiusdem QVod natura quod Ars quod Naturae auctor Artis Rerum auctori vno dedicat ore Sacrans Auri hoc sacra fames scelerato intercipit ausu Dum dirum expatrat Sacrilegumque nefas Haud legum metus aut Regum reuerentia tangit Deuota immani pectora auaritiae Temnitis humanum ius mortale tribunal Diuinum en summo ius mouet arma foro En Iudex sublime locat sub nube tribunal Aliger in flamma vindice tortor adest Vobis Sacrilegis obstructum est limen Olympi Tartarei Ditis ianua aperta patet Eiusdem EST fluctus Decumanus est ouum Decumanum Et porta in castris quae Decumana fuit Sic rerum Natura parens sic aemula rerum Naturae Ars opifex sic vtriusque Deus In Decumis ponens quae maxima Maximo illas Dignas se Decumas segregat ipse sibi Quod sibi secreuit numen quod vendicat vni Deberi haud reddi hoc qui velit ater homo est S. S. SONET Of Sinne and Sacrilege ALL Sinne seemes sweete all Sacrilege is Sinne And of all Sinnes
Purgation For Restitution c Leuit. 5.16 Hee shall restore that wherein hee hath offended in taking away of the holy thing and put the fift part more thereto and giue it vnto the Priest For Purgation Hee shall bring for his trespasse offering vnto the Lord a Ramme without blemish c. and so the Priest shall make an attonement for him If it be done of Knowledge that which is taken and all that the taker hath must bee for the Lord as a sacrifice for Restitution and he with his whole family stoned Ios 7. Act. 5.3 Prou. 20.25 and burnt for a Purgation So was done to Achan not much vnlike to Ananias and Saphira Yea It is a destruction for a man to deuour that which is sanctified Then from this our Definition wee speake now of Maintenance Inheritance Tithes thus § II All taking away of things consecrated to the Lord is Sacrilege All Tithes Inheritance are consecrated to the Lord. Ergo All taking away of Tithes is Sacrilege Obiect 1 This Assumption no man will flatly deny yet many distinguish it astricting this consecration of Tithes to the Lord onely to the time of the Law because onely there are Tithes by precept due to the Leuites and their Priesthood and that Priesthood now wholly abrogated and so Tithes no more to be payed Respon Alas heere now they erre not knowing the Scriptures § III for while they imagine Tithes and the Law to be Twinnes of one Time Ceremonies in what things they haue not read the Scripture as shall be a Cap. 6. ad fin cap. 7. proued And whereas they reckon Tithes amongst the Ceremonies of the Law heere they vnderstand not what they haue read For all the Ceremonies of Moyses Law were so ordained as they did prefigure something to bee done b Gal. 4.4 till the fulnesse of time was come c Heb. 9.10.23 And stood onely in meates and drinkes and diuers washings and carnall rites vntill the time of reformation And were similitudes of heauenly things All these we confesse were truely Legall Ceremonies leading to Christ by a d Heb. 7.16.28 carnall commandement and abolished in his Priesthood by an eternall oath But now as all these ceremonies looked onely to Christ and liued onely till he came so on the other part Euery thing that looked or led vs to Christ was not so ceremoniall nor yet by Christ abrogated No for this would shut vp both the Morall and Iudiciall Lawes yea the very Decalogue it selfe vnder the Ceremoniall Law But to giue some other instance herein Melchisedec looked to Christ yea typed Christ as a Priest Heb. 7.3 yet Melchisedec continueth a Priest for euer So if a thing may be typicall and yet neither Legall nor Ceremoniall much more things that were neuer Typicall as Tithes Then we aske What did Tithes prefigure in Christ What carnal rite were they expecting reformatioÌ„ What similitude of heauenly things In what place abolished And by what things supplied If no man answere we still say they haue read but vnderstaÌ„d not Cap 4. lib 6. p. 94. Edit 89. Fenner in his Theolog. most curiously noteth the significatioÌ„ of al Legal things vnto Christ but in Tithes although he offreth a signification as in other things yet hath he found none Obiect 2 Yet some one seemeth both to haue read and vnderstood out of the same places Heb. 9.10 That seeing Meates and drinkes were Leuiticall and Ceremoniall Tithes were Leuiticall meates and drinkes Ergo Tithes were Ceremoniall Neither were all meats and drinkes Ceremoniall Respon but onely such as had a Ceremoniall institution neither § IV were all Leuies Tithes meate and drink All Tithes are not meat for many things were tithed which might not bee eaten and were giuen him as a maintenance for all his necessities Num. 18.21 And Ierome translateth the same place In vsus necessaria eorum separaui Neither were such Tithes as were their meate and drinke such holy meates as the Apostle speaketh of Tithes though meat yet not Ceremoniall which were as is said similitudes of holy things arising from sacrifices and Legall oblations all abrogate by Christ Holy meates were astricted o only holy persons Leuit. 10.13 22.6 8.31 No stranger nor hired seruants in a Leuites house might eate of them And to holy times and places but Tithes once payed to Leuie Marke 2 26. might out of his hospitalitie bee eaten by all persons at all times and in all places of the Kingdome But I pray if Tithes had been so holy meat then why should prophane mouthes deuour them so now § V Yet some doe reade and say they vnderstand that if Obiect 3 astriction to holy and Ceremoniall persons or places maketh a thing truely Legall and Ceremoniall then Tithes can no longer escape Why Because they were astricted to the Temple a holy ceremoniall place and to Leui a holy ceremoniall person For the place they proue thus Deut. 12 6.17 Yee shall bring thither your burnt offrings and your Tithes And againe Thou mayest not eate within thy gates the Tithe of thy corne c. But thou shalt eate it bâ—fore the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose And lastly Mal. 3.10 Bring all the Tithes into the storehouse that there may be meate in my house Those texts proue plainly Tithes must bee brought to the Temple the Temple it was a ceremoniall place Leui a ceremoniall Priest both by Christ abrogated Ergo Tithes also ceremoniall Resp All truely read if as well vnderstood for as at first they took vp Tithes by distinction of times they would now carry all by confusion of matter Therefore must we be a little more painfull to make them somewhat more perfect CHAP. III. Foure sorts of Tithes and each discerned from another by Scripture Obiections answered TITHES in Scripture are first twofold payed by § I Israel and payed by Leui. By Israel Analysis of all the Tithes in the Script to discerne Tithes payed either to Leui alone or to other vses wherein Leui was also a partner To Leui alone were payed Tithes inheritance yearely To other vses Tithes were payed yearely or each third yeere Yearely to the holy Feasts Each third yeere for the poore c. of all these was Leui a partaker Tithes paid by Leui were Decimae Decimarum Tenth of Tithes Now this word Tithes being commonly taken by most men for Leuies inheritance whatsoeuer they reade by accident of the other Tithes in Scripture they apply it farre amisse to Tithes inheritance and so carry all away Parsonage Vicarage Altarage But to cleare all by Scripture The first three sorts of Tithes payed by Israel are orderly § II set downe in Deut. 14. beginning at vers 22. The first sort of Tithes Thou shalt giue the Tithe of all the increase of thy seede that commeth forth of the field yeere by yeere He addeth to whom and how
in very Offerings and yet import no Ceremonie For although the Tabernacle once built was a most Ceremoniall Type yet the peoples offering according as they had man and woman gold or siluer silke or linnen as materials to build it withall heere was no ceremoniall offering perfected and abolished by Christ For why may not euery Christian Moyses for building houses to Gods worship command their people Lift vp or offer of their substance to that vse Their Ceremoniall signification floweth neuer from § II the nature and proprietie of the words but because the whole circumstances of the Text shew the matter to be Ceremoniall For example Exod 29.23 c. both words are mixed for the lifting vp and shaking to and fro Leuit. 7.34 of the right shoulder and the breast of the Peace-offering Heere concurre a Priest an Altar an Offering or Sacrifice all which were meerely and onely Leuiticall Ceremonies yea Shaking and Heauing haue there their owne peculiar signification in Christ as all Diuines acknowledge But what if these words doe not import this Leuiticall Ceremonie Num. 8.5 c euen in Leuiticall and Ceremoniall Offerings The Leuites were offered to the Lord in place of the first borne by purification expiation shauing washing sacrificing at the doore of the Tabernacle by the hand of the Priest and so the Leuites are in the translations called a Shake-offering vnto the Lord Heere are all things most Ceremoniall saue only Shaking For neither reade we nor is it probable that so many thousand men could bee really shaken to and fro ad quatuor plagas mundi as was done with the right shoulder and brest of the Ramme aforesaid And if any man will draw Analogie from that Ceremoniall shaking to the shaking and dispersing of the Leuites thorow the foure corners of the Kingdome then as the word is so but Metaphoricall the matter is also Morall for Leuies successors vnder the Gospell are so scattered and shaken § III Of all these we gather a two-fold offering a Ceremoniall Morall offerings and a Morall The Ceremoniall peculiar to the Leuitical Law and performed euer by a Leuitical Priest full of rites as Altar Fire Offering Heauing Shaking or some such signifying Ceremonie as is said The Morall offering also two fold either to God onely and immediately or by mediation Only to God we offer out Prayers and praises Hos 14.2 Heb. 13.15 The calues or fruits of our lips By Mediation we offer to others either for Gods sake or for Gods seruice Act. 10.4 For his sake Thy almes is come vp into a remembrance before God Philip. 4 18. Act. 24.17 A sacrifice pleasant and acceptable to God Almes and offerings To others for Gods seruice euen those Tithes Gods Inheritance for all his officers offered long before that Ceremoniall Law continued so by that Law and why not also after that Law No carnall Priest Place or rite heere for Leui did not offer Tithes heere to God in name of Israel as was the nature of Ceremoniall offerings but receiued Tithes in name of God as Inheritance from Israel All Ceremoniall offerings must bee done at the onely doore of the Tabernacle But Israel offred these Tithes in all the Cities of their trauels as we haue proued All Ceremoniall offerings were due to the Onely Priests Num. 18.8 c. but Tithes are also due and as some thinke onely to the inferiour Leuites Offering then of Tithes heere is no other then Abrahams giuing to Melchisedec and Iaacobs vowing to giue Tithes They are called an offering because they should be freely offered not craued as the custome is to this day euen where Seculars are Tithers who are called vnto cryed vpon yet will scarcely take them hauing a resolution as they robbe the Lord so to ruine the labourer Thus we see Offering of it owne nature How Tithes are to be offered is a word for Gods worship in all ages To offer Tithes then is to giue them in such forme as God requireth in all gifts viz. Speedily as Exod. 22.29 With gladnesse Ecclesiastic 35.9 Not grudgingly or of necessitie for God loueth a cheerefull giuer 2. Cor. 9.7 Without murmuring Deut. 26.14 And finally In libertie of the spirit and liberalitie of the heart as was Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec Gen. 14.20 To make Tithes then a true Shake-offering shake off the sacrilegious vse of them and so lift vp thy heart a pure Heaue-offering to the Lord saying with the true Israelite Deut. 26.13 I haue put the hallowed things out of mine house and giuen it to the Leuite c. Lest the Lord one day shake both thy stocke and thy Tithe thy bodie and thy soule CHAP. V. Tithes not Ceremoniall in their End Two points of Leuies seruice and three degrees of Leuites for all which and to all which Tithes were giuen in Inheritance Sacrifices not properly Inheritance The â—ge vnder the Law concluded and more ancient rights preduced § I THe nature of Tithes being freed from Ceremonie their End is now quarrelled thus Whatsoeuer was ordained for the seruice of the Tabernacle must as the Tabernacle it selfe bee Ceremoniall Tithes Inheritance were giuen Leui for that seruice Ergo. The very text is their Assumption Num 18.21 Now God helpe Leuies successors that is such as bee of the Ministerie now a dayes for by this dealing hath Leui been a hundreth fold in better case vnder the Law then they be vnder the Gospell O Rich Aaron Type for a time And poore Melchisedec Priest for euer A great pitie pouertie should be perpetuall No remedie then but vp must the Tabernacle or downe must the Tithes For as to the preaching of that heauenly Tabernacle Christ Tithes not Ceremoniall it must goe for Gra-mercy Yet to say somewhat lest we lose all to the parts of this their Ceremoniall Syllogisme for little or no substance in it Both Proposition and Assumption lacke this word Onely to conclude the question aright For to be tyed to the Tabernacle and not Onely to it will not make a thing Ceremoniall For so shall we make the Decalogue it selfe Ceremoniall for it was also tyed to be read in that Tabernacle by Leui. Ceremoniall then must be Only with or Onely for the Tabernacle And if they say Tithes Inheritance are Onely for it then both Proposition and Assumption are false for two reasons I. The onely Ceremoniall seruice of the Tabernacle § II comprehended not Leuies whole function Two points of Leuies seruice II. Tithes were giuen to the whole Tribe for their whole function Their seruice and function stood in two points according to that Prophecie of Moyses Deut. 33.10 They shall teach Iaacob thy Iudgement and Israel thy Law 2. Chron. 17.7.8.9 They shall put incense before thy face and the burnt offering vpon thine Altar The first point we see is a scattered seruice according to a former Prophecie of Leuies owne Father I will diuide them viz. Leuites in
Iaacob Gen. 49.7 and scatter them in Israel to wit for teaching the people Gods Law not tyed Onely to that Tabernacle Act. 15.21 c. 2. Chro. 11.14 For Moyses in olde time hath in euery City them that preach him c. This point is Generall Morall and so Perpetuall deriued from the first Adam and by course prorogued to the second comming of the second Adam The second point of their function To put incense c. A seruice indeed Ceremoniall because tyed to the Tabernacle Onely beginning and ending with Leui. Then Morall scattered seruices craue euer a like Maintenance and Ceremoniall tyed seruice the like also and during the Law one Officer Leui discharging both the Morall and Ceremoniall seruices did eate of both sorts of Maintenance And this for proofe of the first point The Onely Tabernacle was not Leuies whole function The second point That Tithes were giuen them for § III their whole function not for one part and also to the whole Tribe and not one part thereof and chiefly if there be any ods to that scattered part and Morall seruice it is proued by the same text brought against vs as shal best appeare by a true Analysis of that whole Chap. Num. 18. Three degrees of Leuites The Tribe of Leui being distinguished by order of Office in High-Priest Priest and inferiour Leuites he setteth downe in this Chapter the Office of all and the Maintenance for all Their offices mixtly from verse 1. till 8. from 8. till 20. their maintenance common to the Priests but not to inferiour Leuites Nehem. 10.37 From 20. till 25. he setteth downe their common maintenance viz. Tithes Inheritance proper to the whole Tribe now because the Leuites were restrained from the portions of the Priests Vpon Deut. 12.6.17 Lyra and others conclude that Tithes heere are only for the inferiour Leuites exempting the Priests But the text is ill taken vp so for from the beginning till ver 20. he treateth only of the Priests Ceremoniall seruice touching Sacrificing and of the Ceremoniall maintenance which ariseth from the sacrifices and offrings in which Inferior Leuites had small handling and so as small a portion But from 20. he setteth downe their Inheritance by the onely name of Tithes This for Lyras guessing Anti 3. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. vita Ioseph fol. 534 I. in the English translation to whom we oppose Iosephus both a Iew and a Leuite yea of the Priests plainely allotting Tithes both to Priest and Leuites So to ascribe Gods inheritance to the least officers only hath no better warrant then Deliria Lyrae § IV But to climbe the tree of Knowledge by the owne true branches Tithes due to the whole Tribe Num. 18.20.21 heare what the Scripture saith Abraham gaue Tithes first to Melchisedec euen a great Priest before the Law And vnder the Law the Lord said to Aaron Thou sh lt haue none Inheritance in their Land I am thy Inheritaâ—ce And I haue giuen all the tenth of Israel for an Inheritance to the children of Leui. Shall not Aaron the High-Priest and the children of Leui comprehend the whole Tribe Further seeing the Priests heere are debarred all ciuill Inheritance as well as the Leuites why should they not liue of the Ecclesiastick as well as Leui Againe Neh. 10.37.38 Nehemiah with the people made a couenant to giue the Tithes of their Land vnto the Leuites in all the Cities of their trauell And a Priest the sonne of Aaron shal be with the Leuites when the Leuites take Tithes Some thinke this Priest the sonne of Aaron was but an ouerseer of Leuies Tithing that by their portion hee might know the true proportion of Decimae Decimarum which the Leuites were to take vp to Ierusalem and giue to his Father Aaron I rather hold with some others that the Priests heere were partners with the Leuites in Tithes Inheritance And that this Priest was not one single person for how could one man ouersee all the Leuites Tithing at one time in all the corners of the Countrey but a Priest in each place lifting for his brethren Priests as the Leuites for theirs in the Cities of their residence for they were mixed and dwelt together But if the Priests had no part in these Tithes tell vs whereupon they liued all that time of the yeere they remained at home out of Ierusalem They were diuided in foure and twentie Classes each Classe serued in his turne but for a Sabbath so each Classe came but twice a yeere so it seemeth they liued abroad some eight and fortie weekes and no part of oblations or sacrifices might be transported nor eaten out of Ierusalem Iudicent doctiores But heere they obiect Ios 13.14 The sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel are the Inheritance of the Tribe of Leui as he said vnto § V him So this word Inheritance Sacrifices not properly Inheritance maketh no more for perpetuall Tithing then for perpetuall Sacrificing For this Tremellius wisely noteth this speech to be both Synecdochicall in putting Sacrifices for all sorts of Offrings whereof Tithes was one And Metonymicall in putting Things consumed by fire for things reserued from fire Againe seeing these things were onely eaten by the Priests and their Families and onely at Ierusalem as all Scripture testifieth it is most cleare that Sacrifices were not Inheritance for the whole Tribe And 18. 7. But Iosua explaineth all this in the last of this same Chapter For the Lord God of Israel is their Inheritance as hee said vnto them Marke these last words as he said vnto them This he said onely in Num. 18. and there only Tithes are the Lords Inheritance and that for the whole Tribe as is said The very like Synecdoche is in that speech of gisting the Tithes for their seruice in the Tabernacle of the Congregation where Tithes were as due if not more for their scattered seruice But seeing the principall seruice of the Law was Typicall and Ceremoniall Moyses had reason to talke in Typicall and Ceremoniall termes as by Tabernacle to comprehend their whole seruice and that very iustly seeing all their seruice was discharged in but not onely in the Tabernacle This Synecdoche is frequent to this word Tabernacle of the Congregation for it being properly but that place where the Priests serued yet is it extended to Sanctum Sanctorum where Aarons rod was as in the Chapter proceeding vers 4.7 compared with Hebr. 9.4 and Leuit. 10.9 and Numb 1.49 c. § VI But how is Leui said to haue no Inheritance amongst their brethren How Leui is said to haue no inheritance seeing both of their labours and from their hands they receiue their Tithes and so seeme more to bee mixed among the Tribes then any one Tribe with another First I thinke because they had no such portion of the Land as they secondly for the different prerogatiue of their portions and tenures The Israelites
Kings dale Rom. 4.13 Parties Royall Melchisedec a King and Abraham heire of the world Melchisedec a Priest of the most high God All pâ—sse on Royall points and Abraham Patriarch of all the Faithfull Witnesse Royall The King of Sodom vers 21. Recorder or Clerke Royall viz. Moyses Gouernour of all Gods people Reuiued by a Royall Prophet Dauid Psal 110.4 and re-established in the most Royall dayes of the Gospell Hebr. 7.1 c. May wee not iustly say heere then that Heauen and Earth entred a league When as the true Melchisedec Possessor of Heauen and Earth first King of Iustice then King of Peace blessed Abraham and all his seede the heires of the world When shall this bargaine haue an end On whose part shall it faile So long as Earth is inhabited and by Abrahams of-spring manured so long must God haue his Inheritance Tithes Two Lessons heere not to be neglected in the order § II of this Historie Melchisedec Iustice Peace Religion and Tithing goeth before King of Salem that is Iustice and Righteousnesse goe before Peace and both goe before Tithes that is without Peace no setled Religion Then Peace is the daughter of Iustice and Religion the Garland of Peace Wheresoeuer then the Iust God procureth vs Peace wee ought to settle Religion in all points peaceably And where the Power and Peace is greatest there should Religion be purest not Poorest For Religion once rent Peace is violated and Peace violated breaketh the rod of Iustice This course began heere Abraham our Patriarch and patterne with Melchisedec so soone as by Gods Iustice he was made peaceable from those Kings his enemies he heareth Melchisedec Gods Messenger reuerently he rendereth him his due Tithes thankfully which two points paint out to vs generally the substance of all Religion This before the Law This course kept Moses at Gods command giuing a Law that when they should by Gods Iustice become peaceable in Canaan they should then haue Religion peaceable onely one worship of one God and pay to his Officiars his inheritance Tithes And this course followed all the good Kings vnder the Law So wee would know why this course may not also hold after the Law For heere haue wee the Corner-stone of all our building viz. That how soone a Priest is named so soone are Tithes named for his maintenance So Tithes and Priest-hood in generall not Legall Priest-hood are twins of one time They are of Nature Reciprocate that is the one cannot be without the other whereupon these two things will follow Tithes and Seculars neuer matched First That no marriage can be betweene any Secular person and Tithes Secondly That so long as God hath Officiars of his worship on Earth so long must Tithes be their Inheritance § III Obiect Against all this is obiected That before this Historie of Melchisedec our first right the world was some two thousand yeeres old and all this while was God worshipped yet all this while not a word of Tithes And why may not the last age of the world worshippe God without Tithes as well as the first And so Tithes bee onely the Lords Inheritance during the Law that first and onely named them so Sol. Resp First heere is a double question One concerning Tithes another concerning their title Inheritance A generall answere for both all things beginning together The Decalogue came with the Law but must not end with it See part 2. cap. 7. ad fin are not bound to end together and touching the Law it holdeth but in things Ceremoniall for Quod Morale est Mortale non est reade lib. 2. cap. 7. Secondly concerning Tithes wee must marke two things First As they are the goods of men generally Secondly The precise number in quoto as they are a Tenth of their goods And so these first two thousand yeeres though the quota pars Tithes for the first two thousand yeeres was not nominatim defined yet Res ipsa were to the same end employed and so God still worshipped Otherwise wee may also conclude against all the other foure generall points of Diuine seruice viz. God was not for two thousand yeeres worshipped because no Priest named no times affixed no place designed and no speciall forme prescribed and so by a like consequence wee may liue after the Law without all these as before it But we say all fiue were then re ipsa though more confused according to the time The first-borne then discharged the Priests office and the best of all their goods serued them for Tithes Gen. 18.19 So Cain and Abel the Church being then as in her cradle were taught by Tradition before Law Lib. 2. cap. 7. ad fin or by the Law of Nature that whatsoeuer the Earth yeelded vnto them a part yea a chiefe part thereof was due to the Lords peculiar worshippe And so each of them brought out vnto the Lord according to his labours Their Labours euen at first went as large as did Church maintenance vnder the Law out of all the fruits of the ground from Cains tillage And of all the bestiall of the field from Abels pasturage Now he who can discerne in these two brothers the Priest from the Laick may as easily sequestrate their portions Morall and Ceremoniall heere went all in a manner confusedly Tithes then are in quoto precisely named as soone as the Officiar on whom they euer depend is precisely named and both long before the Law And so for Tithes Now touching this title How Tithes may bee held § IV Gods Inheritance during the first two thousand yeeres Haue Inheritance seeing the Law only calleth them so To this we answer It followeth not A thing is not that which it is because it is not named as it is As to say Abraham was no Priest because he is not called by the name of Priest for whosoeuer sacrificed as first borne were Priests It is vsuall in Scripture sometimes to name things peculiarly before they be indeed so as the wandring Tabernacle and the Stone which Iacob erected as a piller Gen. 28.20.21.22 1. Sam. 1.7.9 were both named House of God but were not so till Salomon built there the Temple And sometime againe things are in effect that which they beare no name of till long after as Melchisedec heere was a Priest of an Order but yet not named of an Order till Dauid rose and also Tithes or that which supplied their roome were not called Inheritance til the owne fit time Yet that same right which God had from al beginning in mens goods was euer in effect Gods Inheritance And as the Mysteries of saluation began to be more cleared as heere where God presented to Abraham a Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he maketh Abraham to offer his goods also Orderly calling them at first Tithes And againe at such times as the Land was to be diuided and Iustice had begotten perfect Peace and that the name of Inheritance could
§ V They say that this Vow doth but bind vs to a maintenance in generall Tithes in quoto are not of the Law but not the same in quoto I answere Such Analogicall equities hold euen from the most Ceremoniall things of the Law to the Gospell But such things as are neither Ceremoniall nor clearely institute ad tempus or arbitrium binde the things themselues vpon vs and we haue shewed that neither Type Ceremonie nor temporall condition fell vpon Tithes That they were not onely nor first Legall Indeed if the only Law and first the Law had designed quot â—mpartem this dispute had been more doubtfull But seeing this Melchisedec that most Euangelicall Priest gaue vs the quote seeing Iacob before the Law as in a perpetuall Law Vowed the quote We see the Law is but a confirmer and Leui but an obseruer of that which was long before freely doted and for euer deuoted to Gods seruice The Law gaue but the same quote to a Priest of another Order for his time and shall that first that Euangelical that Euerlasting Priest-hood now reuiued againe come with dish in hand and say Quod vultis mihi dare And this for our Trinall harmonie in Iacobs Vision and Vow Now are some men much sollicite both heere and in the former point of Melchisedecs Possession What forme of Tithing it was Of what goods Yeerely or no As for Melchisedec the second part of this Treatise shall cleare him As to Iacobs Vow which heere we will end § VI to whom or how he payed it We say Gods promises and Iacobs performances alike Such was Iacobs Vow as was his Vision and such were the performances on his part as were the performances of Gods promises made to him Now God performed not all the points of that Vision to Iacob in his own person because not in that nature promised So Iacob performed not all his Vow in his owne person for the like reason God performed to Iacob himselfe the best part of that Vision viz. the heauenly Canaan and Iacob returneth in his owne person the best part of his Vow viz. The Lord was euer his God So his only seede enioyed the Earthly Canaan and therefore his onely seed payed Tithes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence is it clearely proued Who are Iacobs Seede That Iacobs Vow concerned as much if not more his seed as himselfe And if they will yet a strict his seede to his onely flesh vnder the Law because after this Iacob was called Israel Gen. 32.28 and the Israelites as Iaacobs seed performed all Let them remember first that the heauenly Canaan was the principall end of Iacobs iourney and so his Vow must stand till his seed goe thither Secondly Seed heere is more of his Faith then of his flesh for all the Families of the Earth which heere are blessed in Iacobs seede were not all of Iacobs flesh Rom. 9.6 but euen Iaphets seede comming home to the tents of Sem The Gentiles called therefore all subiect by Iacobs Vow to Tithing Such as refuse let them renounce both the ends of Iacobs Ladder Heauen and Earth and goe to their owne habitation And this for our Indenture CHAP. IX The Edict of Tithes though in Leuiticus yet proued to be no part of the Leuiticall Law and so Tithes in all points as the Lords Inheritance exempted from the Law § I NExt commeth our last Writ our Edict and that very orderly For God being possessed in Tâ—thes by Abraham contracted by Iacob good beginnings for a promise onely of the Land which must pay all Now after some foure hundred yeeres peregrination for their Faithes triall by the fiery afflictions of Aegypts fornace God intimateth vnto them this publike Edict Leuit. 27.30 Also all the Tithes of the Land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees IS not shall be the Lords All in Leuiticus not Legall or Ceremoniall Though this be in Leuiticus yet is it not of the Leuiticall Law because it containeth no Precept and therefore no Law yea it is a plaine exception from that Leuiticall Law For Moyses treating heere of the nature of Legall Vowes and of what things the people might Vow he telleth them Tithes were alreadie the Lords long agoe and therefore they might Vow none of their Tithes For to what end Iacob vowed them alreadie yet was not his Vow Legall or Ceremoniall as is said but Morall as was his vowing God should be his God Further Vowes of the Law here are voluntary at mans option to doe or not to doe Tithes not so And as this place of Leuiticus is but an Edict of Gods right so is it no right for Leui for Leuies right came not till Num. 18. In which also hee keepeth euer the same method first telling them Tithes are the Lords vers 20. and then giuing them to Leui vers 21. § II And though vers 26. he vseth the like phrase of the first borne as he doth heere of Tithes forbidding to vow any such for it is the Lords yet that same IS is relatiue to a preceding precept Exod. 13.2 Sanctifie vnto me all the first borne c. But no such Law for the ground of Gods Inheritance but Euangelicall Libertie and liberality proceeding from the instinct of God in man or tradition to and from the first man because Vt fides ita fidei opera ex auditu But the very Ethnicks as Paul saith not hauing the Law by nature did the things of the Law So they doted Tithes to their Gods And thus farre for our Possession Indenture and Edict prouing clearely Tithes to be the Lords before the Law with such euident conclusions drawne from the perpetuall equitie thereof teaching Tithes must also reach after that Law as also the title that God had from the beginning in all mens goods containing the two first ages Followeth the last age of the word SACRILEGE FOR THE GOSPELL THE SECOND PART CHAP. I. Christ and his Apostles concerning Tithes They did abrogate all Ceremoniall things GOD thus hauing from all beginning § I an heritable title to all mens goods and that by Natures light Transitio as is said not Moyses Law two thousand yeers And this his right by nature also defined euen In quoto to be a tenth part foure hundred yeeres before the Law And these same both Right and Quota by Commandement and Law continued til Christ came some two thousand yeeres Now are we to examine the Worlds last age vnder the Worlds onely Blisse Christ whether he hath yet any right in our goods or not and if a right whether the same in quoto or not The first will no man deny 1. Cor. 9.13.14 The last maketh most men adoe The Apostle cleareth the first That the one Minister must liue of the Gospell as the other did by the Law But whether hee did intend the same quota in saying Galath 6.6 Make him
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
thine Altar And now Christ the body of all taught long before he came to his sacrifice And last after him haue we Teaching without any sacrifice carnall by the Popes fauour Time first Morall in a Sabbath but thence were deriued § VII by the Law Gen. 2.3 Leuit. 25. those Ceremoniall Sabbathes of each seuenth yeere and the great Iubile of fiftie And so the Morall yet remaineth a Sabbath though not the same Indiuidual day from the Creation Place at first euery where Moral as appeareth by the Altars erected by Noah and Abraham in all their trauels Place began to be Typicall when Abrahams Altar and the offring vp of Isaac Gen. 13.3 2. Chron. 3.1 Iacobs Piller and Ornans Threshing floore Salomons Temple were all in one place on the Mount Moriah So had the Iewes at first in each Cities Synagogues and we our Churches now at libertie as at first Person first in each Family the first borne or Foris-familiat in their owne houses Quisque Episcopus domus suae They became Ceremoniall when first Moyses and Aaron Leuites Exod. 4 1◠and 28.1.41 Num. 1.47.50 and 3.6 7. secondly Leui resumed wholly by the Law Now againe we end as they began Iew and Gentile alike And so maintenance in like manner as hath beene at length touched before euer following the person and his condition All must stand as Christ left them Galath 4.9 Note then First That from the beginning all those fiue points came onely of God Secondly All fiue at Christs comming put off their Legall garments their beggerly habite of bondage and tooke on the habite of Euangelicall libertie in Melchisedec Therefore as Christ left vs them we must still keepe them 1. No adding nor detracting in Worship 2. No astricting to Persons 3. No releasing from Time 4. No limiting of Place 5. No abstracting of Maintenance CHAP. II. Paul in the generall of Maintenance Why hee spared his power in the speciall THus did Christ then and thus he spake Wee § I come next to his Apostles Their doings must needs also to haue been meane for their beginnings were yet but meane Matth. 10.25 and It is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master is at one time chiefly Melchisedec was not as yet setled in Salem that is Righteousnesse Lib. cap. 6. or Iustice had not yet wrought Peace and so Peace not graced by Religion and vnsetled Religion could yeeld no setled Maintenance This piece of comfort Christ left them Preach in euery Citie Ib. quo supra For the work-man is worthy of his meat Their Sayings are either in the Generall of Maintenance or in the speciall of Tithes yet once againe Tithes and euen in the Gospel Inf. cap. 4. In the General Paul is very much and in many places Many flourishes both from Logick and Rhetorick and on each flowre almost a swarme of Sacrilegious Waspes turning matter of hony in Venime 2. Pet. 3.16 peruerting them to their owne destruction Thus I haue saith Paul coueted no mans siluer nor golde Act 20.33 34 35. Paul in the generall of Maintenance nor apparell Yea yee know that these hands haue ministred vnto my necessities and to them that are with me I haue shewed you all things how that so labouring ye ought to Support the weake and to remember the words of the Lord Iesus how that he said It is a blessed thing to giue rather then to receiue Obiect Now if neither Gold nor Siluer nor apparell nor food but worke for all and all Preachers must striue to bee Pauls rather giue then take how then shal they take so huge a thing as Tithes No but worse then all this for if some men may 1. Cor. 4.11 all Preachers shal be Pauls to haue for almes Both hunger and thirst for clothes Nakednesse for Charitie Buffets and for harboury No certaine dwelling place all this good cheere had Paul § II Sol. Augustine But heere would that old Fathers saying doe well Distingue tempora concordabis Scripturas The truth is that when or where wee haue the Church as Paul had it Why Paul spared his power 2. Thes 3.8.9 that is vnder Peregrination and Persecution then must the Preachers be Pilgrims and Patients and yet Woe bee vnto them vnlesse they Preach So Paul tooke bread of no man for nought Why Not saith he but that we had authority Why then But because we would not be chargeable to any of you But why would hee not charge where he had authoritie to charge 1. Cor. 9 12. Neuerthelesse wee haue not vsed this power but suffer all things That we should not hinder the Gospell of Christ When Pauls example is to be followed Now take heed for if taking of that which was Pauls due would haue hindered the Gospell doubtlesse our men will rather renounce the Gospel then render the Tithes Ergo Pauls example were yet best To forbeare Tithes For answere When we are in Pauls dayes as is said we must vse Pauls deeds A man may seeke his due on a wrong day Paul was now but to plant the Gospel and that both to Iew and Gentile whose goods were alreadie taken vp for holy vses the one for obedience of Moses Law the other to their Idols Now if Paul should haue begun his reformation with Da mihi Decimas hee had made a planting indeed but with the top downeward But the Messias being once well rooted in their hearts who doubteth but then both Iew and Gentile as true Israelites the seed of Iacob would performe their Fathers Vow to these new Priests and Leuites of glad-tidings specially seeing they were to giue nothing De nouo neither yet so much as of before but onely a part of that to a right vse which of before they gaue to a wrong And if not so do yee thinke that Paul in a stablished Church-policy and peaceable State would haue neglected this authoritie which heere in so dangerous a time hee dare insinuate vnto them No in such case Paul found Canticum novum and could tell them 1. Cor. 9.1 c. He was an Apostle Hee was free He was a souldier and therefore must haue wages a Shepheard and must eat of the milke A planter of Vines and must eate of the fruit ful of allegories And when all was done alledged for him the Law comparing his Ministerie with Leui and for conclusion Let him that is taught in the Word Gal. 6.6 make him that teacheth him partaker Whereof Of all his goods How sib is this to Tithes How like to that precept Deut. 14. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake Paul then did but forbeare not forbid the power His time was not yet come But to answere Paul by Paul where should Paul lodge if Timothy were not hospitall 1. Tim. 3.2 They must be content of food and rayment 6.8 yet they must make others also wel to faire Tithes
impared Matrimonie might be better spared And seeing Lords Lairds haue measured Leuies maintenance so as will scarse proue meate to his owne mouth the lesse his burthen were the greater were his libertie in his calling But the difference betweene the Pope and vs is that Nature conformed to Gods Law leadeth vs Mans Law abridging Gods enforceth them If we enacted affirmatiuely that all Ministers must marry as the Pope doth his Negatiue That none shal marry I think it were aeque peccatuÌ„ vtrinque Leui was bound to marry for his only loines could breed a Legal Ministerie but now Iew and Gentil are a like sib to the Gospell the onely spirit begetteth a Minister Secondly I confesse That there is no greater Sacrilege § IV then when Leui himselfe playeth the Limmer Leui Sacrilegious is worst of all that is when a Bishop or a Minister inhaunceth all Bishopricks Abbacies Priories whatsoeuer is deuouted to Leuies Inheritance appropriating things due to the seed of their calling to the seed of their carkas to their onely sonnes what is due to their successors If our Church haue any such the Lord turne himselfe all in Eye to find them out and all in fire to purge them out Achans Achans But let vs heare Bellarmine sound his bels This Law § V of Tithes cannot bee Morall Bellarmines belles against Tithes because it did not oblige euer from the beginning Ans Obliging from the beginning is no sure note of things Morall and Perpetuall for then the Iewish indiuidual Sabbath must haue beene Moral for it was at the very beginning but continued not till the end Againe Incest did not at the beginning so strictly oblige as now shall we therefore hold it for no Morall precept or alterable now Morall then is whatsoeuer beginning at any time before Christ remaineth also after Christ Otherwise the Decalogue shall not be Morall Rom. 7.7 and if we flee to the Law of Nature we haue proued Tithes also by the Law of Nature Another bell of Bellarmines As the Law said Leui must haue all the Tithes in Israel So said it Leui must haue no Inheritance in Israel And so the negatiue must be Morall as well as the Affirmatiue but wee see many Ministers borne to Inheritance and purchasing Inheritance neither due nor descending to the Ministerie Ergo. This is a two edged sword one against the Pope whose chaire maketh him as great a Prince as any in Israel Let Baal plead for himselfe Iudg. 6.32 Another edge against our Ministerie who though they bring no other Inheritance to the Ministerie then the Gospel giueth yet they prouide for their children which Leuie did not I answere first for the children Leui did not prouide for them because hee needed not for God had prouided alreadie sufficiently for him and all his How Leui may haue Inheritance In generall I answere If this Leuiticall Law had bin our first ground for Tithes as it is but a branch of that generall whereby both they and we claime Tithes then Bellarmine had had some colour of his coniunction of the Negatiue and Affirmatiue as of one nature And yet by his leaue That Negatiue was peculiar to that onely Tribe in the diuision of that Land but the Affirmatiue of Tithes flowing from our first Patterne and Patron Melchisedec was common to all Nations as was his Priest-hood For no Nation saue this was enioyned to diuide themselues in twelue or thirteene distinct Tribes and so to diuide the Land among them and kept themselues still distinguished one from another and no people saue this had one onely Tribe reserued wholly and onely to the Ministery Therefore the Affirmatiue must bee Morall The Negatiue Temporall I confesse the Equitie of this Negatiue teacheth clearly § VI That the Sacred and Ciuill calling the Word Sacred and ciuil callings distinct and the World Priest and Prince should euer remaine distinct which two the Pope confoundeth and all such as doe ioyne sacred and secular publike callings in one person Yea I say further though a man bee borne to secular Lordships and Offices and thereafter called to the Ministerie yet must hee liue as hauing no inheritance that is he must abandon all that publike and ciuill calling in his owne person as Negotium huius seculi discharging that by others and so deriue it to his lawfull posterity of his flesh himself standing fast by Christs plough he must not plow with the Word and harrow with the World The Law then is not the patent of our possession § VII Melchisedec is our Patterne Melchisedec is our Patrone Melchisedec gaue our Patent Melchisedec tooke our possession The law as is said serued the owne time It coupled Melchisedec to Christ Great was the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell both touching Calling and Maintenance The Law tyed all and onely Leui to the Calling and so were his children both successors to his Office and heires of his Tithes In the Gospel the Spirit onely directeth all In the Law onely Israel Gods people onely Leui Gods Priest and as they had an externall calling so he gaue them a carnal Maintenance bound to their blood for the Priest-hood went by pedegree Neh. 7.64 But the Gospel touching descent personal in all circumstances is free calling after the manner of Melchisedec Internally and so giueth the maintenance to the Sent not to the Discent No mans seede astricted none debarred Iew and Gentile The patrimony and parentage meete neuer vnder Melchisedec and therefore Leuies Lawes are for Leuies selfe onely For seeing our flesh hath no part with Leui it were hard to debar vs that ordinary natural care which God alloweth all parents ouer their children The moderation heere must be as is said Ne implicent se negotijs huius seculi 2. Tim. 2.4 not to hunt with Esau forgetting their calling Before both Law and Melchisedec the first borne had both the best portion and were also Priests by practise then if a man now borne to secular possessions hauing both wife children which both hath bin and may be vnder the Gospel but neuer could bee vnder the Law be called to the Ministerie must this man either renounce his meanes or his Ministerie May not Leuies Lands and keepe Leuies cattell This were a beggerly rudiment indeed A man then may enioy his meanes and the Church censure his moderation § VIII The Moderatours in all such cases must bee onely Church-men who must giue to euery man his portion according to his neede Num. 26. â—4 33.54 2. Chron. 31. Neh. 13.13 So did God in the diuision of Canaan giue that Tribe most which needed most So were Tithes by Leui taken and by Leui distributed according to their courses To command the people to pay Tithes was Opus Regum but to diuide them Vix Regium Equitie then not Equalitie must leade the ballance for many circumstances may make one of the same calling more or lesse chargeable then another The
what shall bee the Medium and whom shall we craue or who hath power to settle it §. III. CHrist neither did nor said any thing against Tithes as in that Tithing of the Pharisie of all he had c. Obiect Neither was it a fault then but the Ordinance of God neither is it a fault now though not therefore a Necessitie Answ If once it was Gods Ordinance it must still be so till it be by a good warrant remoued Yea would not euen the whole Ceremoniall Law be yet in force if it were not by God himselfe remoued §. IV. IT is most true That seeing Christ hath not brought in a new Maintenance he hath not abrogated the old Obiect To make this argument good it behooueth to be vnderstood of the same office in the same people places and all cases concurring Answ It holdeth as well in the Genus as the Species for so long as there is a Priest-hood vpon earth so long must it haue a Maintenance Ergo either the olâ— or a new And that olde Maintenance was no otherwise Leuies but as Leui was a Priest and at a Priest-hood long before him Ergo seeing that same first Priest-hood liueth yet after Leui why should it loose the old Maintenance So I say in this case Christ did not onely not abrogate but could not so much as change the Maintenance because his will to the contrary was figured in and by his Type Melchisedec For though Christ changed the Priest-hood yet hee changed not the Maintenance Why Because he but changed that onely Priest-hood of the Law and Tithes were the Maintenance of Melchisedees Priest-hood before the Law which Priest-hood Christ heere perfecteth not as he perfected and fulfilled the Law by abrogating a great many things of it but by restoring this Priest-hood to his full perfection and so would change nothing but confirme all things belonging to it at first and were not Tithes one Was Abraham so idle in gifting Iacob so superstitious in vowing Paul so officious in applying Tithing Dying Liuing differently in Melchisedec and the Law as we may yet wipe Tithing quite out of our Text Ibidem NOw one word in all the Gosp l either plaine text or Consequence against Tithes Inheritance if nothing against it Then saith Tertul. Quod non notat Scriptura negat And to reply Non notat Euangelium decimas dandas ergo negat It followeth not seeing some Scripture noteth them and so Lex semel lata non deleta semper obligat Obiect True quibus lata quomodo Answ And quibus heere must be Sacerdotibus not Leuiticis solis but omnibus For by the Law of Tithes heere wee meant their generall extent beginning from Melchisedec downward which we draw euen froÌ„ the Gospel also as Cap. 4. following §. VII ANd so the Morall Time yet remaineth A Sabbath though not the same Indiuiduall day from the Creation Obiect And why may we not also haue still a Maintenance though not the same meanes and quotum Answ If yee admit of my ground the same quotum kept in the Sabbath will binde the same quotum in maintenance Still a seuenth day though not the same seuenth so still a tenth though not a Legall Iudaicall or Leuiticall tenth And wee know the Apostles changed the Sabbath but not the Maintenance In CHAP. II. §. II. PAul forbare Tithes because hee would not be chargeable 1. Corinth 9.12 and that because hee would not hinder the Gospell Obiect How is that proued to be the cause Answ It is the very Text it selfe Obiect And though he would not be chargeable but dispensed rather with his right yet should hee not haue declared what was his right As hee dispensed to take any wages but laboured with his owne hands yet he spared not to tell them The labourer is worthy of his wages Ergo Though hee dispensed with Tithes yet hee might haue tolde them that Tithes were his due Answ First consider that Paul heere is not teaching of purpose the point of Church-maintenance nor neuer did but onely stucke to the first foundation in Melchisedec as Hebr. 7. But heere he onely disputeth this that Hee and Barnabas had as much interest in the matter of Maintenance as other Apostles for which hee onely presseth the generall analogies of the Leuiticall Law But in all this Treatise I grow by degrees which would bee well obserued Againe Wages import no quote till they bee defined and Numb 18.31 the Tithes wee stand for are called the Wages of the Leuites Then a reason why you admit the word Wages and refuse the quote Tithes being both in both Testaments But for example say That a Preacher should call to all or some one of his flocke for Wages Maintenance Were he not fully answered with quota pars is yours if he could not answere it Then lâ—t him yet vrge Pauls best generall Giue me a part of all your goods Still hee is answered with quota pars And in satisfaction of Pauls generall he may tender vnto him a generall part of All and yet scarse proue one good meale so the poore Leuite may haue a long Lent with many fasting nights and Paul literally though not liberally answered The poore Leuite thus loseth Totum for lacking his quotum To haue recourse heere to quotes by Stipulation for a sufficient Maintenance first I answere where saith Paul so yea where saith any Scripture so Secondly You must as well respect quo modo as quotum there is euen a mysterie in the Modus So though you giue double and not AS God appointed you marre all The mysterie is this That as the meanes were made sufficient so the manner was most sweete in that mutuall relation of Giuing and Taking on both sides He must teach all and each Baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catechise all and each Gal. 6.6 He must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Watch and giue account for their soules Heb. 13.17 Comfort and pray for all and each Iam. 5.14 So They againe must giue him all and each of them a part of their goods and no one Iudas beare the bagge for all Each houshold must say I haue brought the Hallowed things out of my house and I haue giuen it to the Leuites not to a Lord to giue the Leuites This hath God squared to Tithes This could neuer be so perfectly practised on both sides vnder the Law as now vnder the Gospell This can no wit supply much lesse surpasse In CHAP. III. §. I. THe special of Tithes was from the beginning good till very neere Pauls Conuersion and therefore all his general dispute must end in Tithes or some other speciall Obiect Why a Speciall there is no necessitie in the world for it Answ If Paul tooke from vs a speciall Maintenance must he not giue speciall for speciall must he leaue vs a Black-patent neuer to be filled Wages that cannot be counted cannot bee craued Ibidem
this part 7. cap. 5. § 2. adding from Nehem. 11. how they brought by lot but one man of ten to dwell at Ierusalem the nine parts liuing alwayes abroad in their Cities Seeing then onely the tenth man stayed at Ierusalem and that Tithes were their Inheritance why should this Inheritance be all carried vp and so nine parts againe downe like Post-wages according as they came and went by their courses Leuite then Num 18. from vers 20 to 25. hauing no cleare limitation nor distinction in the text must include the whole Tribe in their gift to Tithes Vers 20. He first debarreth Aarons Inheritance with Israel vers 21 and 24. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Causals as all translate For For saith he I haue giuen the children of Leui euen Aaron and all another Inheritance All the tenth of Israel Therefore seeing one and the same reason debarred all by exprâ—sse name heere from that Ciuill inheritance the same reason that is this Sacred inheritance must bee alike one and the same to all And I pray you marke the course and coherence of these texts Thou Aaron shalt haue no Ciuill Inheritance in Israâ—l vers 20. For vers 21. I haue giuen the children of Leui all the tenth of Israel What was this to Aaron that Hee must want his Inheritance because the onely inferiour Leuites had got an Inheritance vnlesse Aaron goe as a childe of Leui in that reason And Ioseph is plaine That Tithes were giuen for Leuites Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. Engl. in Vita Ios and Priest and Tribe Neither tooke I Tithes that were due to me as Priest from such as brought me them If men apply these to decimarum decimae first Ioseph was not now at Ierusalem whither these Tithes must beene brought Secondly Ioseph was no High-Priest Thirdly I neuer read those Tithes vnder one single name but still Tenthes of Tithes Otherwise the Priests had no Tithes Inheritance at all in Israel For their Decimarum decimae were not Tithes of Israel but of Leui and Leui in these accounts is no more an Israelite Indeed the Materia prima of both is one to wit the Tenth of Israel g uen to Leui whereof they againe gaue the other tenth but in Person Place and End they wholly differ and in these onely differences standeth the true difinition of what is M ral or Ceremonial Perpetual or Temporal in them Then the text giueth vs those two Syllogismes first All Tithes inheritance are payd by Israel to Leui. ver 21.24 Tenth of Tithes are not payd by Israel to Leui but by Leuie to Aaron 26. Ergo Tenth of Tithes are not Tithes-inheritance Againe The children of Leui had this inheritance giuen them All Priest were the children of Leui. Ergo All Priests had this Inheritance giuen them And for confirmation Deut. 18.1 The Priestes of the Leuits and all the Tribe of Leui shall haue no part nor inheritance with Israel but shall eate of the offerings of the Lord made by fire and his inheritance And Ezech 44 28. The Priesthood is their Inheritance And Iosu 13.14 Onely to the Tribe of Leui gaue he no inheritance Ergo as the whole Tribe was frustrate so the whole Tribe was supplied by this new inheritance Tithes But if we distinguish not according to other Scriptures those Offerings from the proper Inheritance we shall confound all for many oblations might the Priests and their males onely eate of and no inferior Leuit some might not remaine vneaten till to morrow but all tied to the Temple onely and Ierusalem So such Priests to wit nine for one as liued dispersed could not liue by those oblations So those oblations were not their inheritance They must haue no inheritance with or among Israel sayth the text yet must they liue mixed with and among Israel therefore their proper Inheritance must run dispersed with and among Israel and not confined to so small a part of Israel as onely Ierusalem But saith not Paul plainly Heb. 7. The sonnes of Leui receiuing the Priesthood haue a command to Tithe the people Is not here the command of Tithing directly giuen to the sonnes Priests and to take from the people Ergo Tithes are inheritance to Priestes as well as Leuites And yet Master Selden Reuiew pa 454. in it would proue from this same place of Paul that Priests were not partners in these first Tithes But what if this decima decimarum were not properly primò due to the Priests as Mr. Selden seemeth to auouch but to the high Priest The text bids directly giue it to Aaron the high Priest Numb 18.26 28. The beginning of the Chap from ver 8. to 20. he ioineth euer Aarons sons with himselfe as partners of all the oblations of the other Tribes but in this offering of decima decimarum we read no such compartnership not that I doubt but the sonnes of Aaron this Ceremony being performed might thereafter partake in and by him of this offering but the reason and Analogie of this in my iudgement is That as all the Tribes hauing Barne wine-presse must pay first that first Tith inheritance to the tribe of Leui before they durst put hand in their nine parts remaining so the Tribe of Leui must out of his inheritance giue a tenth also answering his Barnes and Wine-presses But to exempt all Priests from this were first to exempt the best though not the greatest part of that Tribeâ— from acknowledging God by an Offering as did the rest Secondly It giueth Leui a prerogatiue aboue all the rest of the Tribes voyd both of precept and reason The Earth is the Lords the fulnes thereof So the possessors of it acknowledge God by giuing their Tithes Tithes are yet a degree more holy to the Lord being made the generall Inheritance of his Ministers and Leuits but Their Tenths againe holiest of all proceeding from an holy Person the Tribe of Leui out of Holy Barnes and wine-presses the Tithes to holiest persons the High-priests at onely holy Place the Temple Now if it be asked how Aaron shall passe here who is still the Receiuer I answere Vltra Summum Nihil And as Aaron had that transcendent power onely he to offer that yeerly expiatory sacrifice for Prince people and himselfe too so by the same power might hee receiue in name of God the offrings of all subordinat to him and for them and himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulfill and perfect all those points in his owne person And so albeit the other Priests all those points being duely performed might eate and partake of this Offering in the prerogatiue of Priesthood and Sonne-ship of Aaron yet prima instantiâ and in mounting the scale of this precept they are but Offerers not Receiuers You see Reader how loath we are to loose our interest in Tithes euen from the Law but remember still the law is neither our whole nor sole ground Then let mee aske Who gaue Tithes to Melchis dec Abraham
heere making leape-yeare of so many liâ—es to onely Spoiles a sore Spoile indeede a meere Sacriledge So Paul riseth still from degree to degree first He gaue him a Tithe Of All second euen of the Spoiles third Melchisedec Tithed the Patriarch that had the Promises fourth Hee Titheth and liueth fifth He Tithed euen Leui the Tith-taker Of all which nothing must be lost nothing confounded Not then A Tithe of All and a Tithe of the Spoiles but A Tithe of All yea euen of the Spoiles For all Types and of all chiefely this must haue euer the largest extent of sense that Nature or Analogie can afford them They be fundamentall things and so must beare all that can be truely built vpon them This Meeting then betweene Melchisedec and Abraham being a mutuall Type of all things that might concerne Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it must be extended to whatsoeuer might be afterwards intended both for Blessing and Tything proper to all Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Law and Gospell all Times all Persons all Things for all Ends as at length before To Tithe onely Spoiles then with M. Sel here were to cut off the whole grounds of the after coÌ„ming Law for Praediall Tithes And to Tithe no Spoiles with others were to cut off this very Text that of Pauls Gal. 6.6 enioyning him that is Catechised to coÌ„municate al his goods with him that Catechiseth him for many are Catechised that haue neither Tillage nor Pastorage All Predial Tithes are in a sort Personal they discharge euen the Persons laborers but all Personall Tithes cannot be held Prediall Yet both are here in the Prerogatiue of this Tipe Then If Abraham had sure he gaue else He was not Tithed if not Tithed not Blessed But he had nothing saue what he brought backe saith Targum This is doubtfull yet let it passe All the question now remaineth but de modo habendi It came by Warre yet His it was and His most lawfully then Abraham as he met with Melchisedec Had it was now His Ergo Abraham gaue of His owne Cornes Cattell Trades and all Trash did answere all both Prediall and Personall Tithes that euer could fall foorth hereafter They were the true Typicall encrease of all Barnes and all Wine-presses of all Peace and Warre-trades else our Type is naught and but a naked yea a very idle Historie And such as could drawe those three hundred and eighteene of Abrahams household seruants to Tipe these three hundred and eighteene Bishops of the first Councill of Nice would neuer haue refused this extent to this Type Ambrose in tam lucida vtriusque Testamenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that this mixed Tithing Prediall and Personall was in vse euen vnder the Law it seemeth cleare in that of the Pharisee Luk 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith hee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thee Tithe of all whatsoeuer I possesse Will any man say that this one or all Pharisees were labourers or Pasturers or astrict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to onely Tillage and Pastorage Did not Iacob Vow to giue God a Tenth of all that God gaue him Then this Vow binding his posteritie we must either say God giueth vs nothing but Prediall things which is fals or we must pay of Personall things as he giues vs them It goeth sure as properly for all Trades as all Ploughmen And euery soule hauing is bound to say with this Pharisee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It holdeth both in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Law did build must haue for foundation Abrahams practise and Iacobs Vow To astrict this Typicall Tithing then to onely Warres here and onely Spoiles were to giue the Blessing also to Warres and Spoiles onely and so to make onely Dauid and not Salomon the seed of Abraham the Patriarch here Blessed and Tithed turning that Royall word Beatipacifici in Beati polemici But the current of our Text as we first obserued is quite contrary The Tither here was first King of Righteousnesse then King of Peace In a word of Warre and Peace and so Tithed Abraham after a Warre in Peace So though all came as ex praeda yet did they answere praedia Whether we march a Warfare in our Conquering Word Dieu et mon droict If God maintaine Our Right he must not loose His owne right or be we setled in Salem with Beati pacifici we must be also Decimati pacifici Melchisedec must Blesse and Tithe Abraham and all his seede the King and all his subiects no exception M. Selden chap. 1. §. 2. The next passage of Tithes is in Iacobs Vow c. as in Gen 28.22 This Vow saith Iosephus Iacob performed vpon his returne 20. yeers after Into whose hands he gaue his Tithes appeares not But the chiefest Priest of that time was his father Isaac c. How farre euen this Historie of Iacobs Vow is to be enlarged aâ—d couched vnder his grand-father Abrahams example we haue noted at laâ—ge part 1. chap 8. § 3. But whether he performed any point of Tithing as Iosephus saith or to whom I dispute not Sure Tithing was but one branch of three in that Vow and all three neither were fully and personally by Iacob performed nor intended that in him they should end Good Reader remember them from the former places for auoiding repetition I see no necessitie of exacting any precise performance either of Abrahams practise or Iacobs Vow before the setling of their posteritie in Canaan and the coÌ„ming of Christ And as for Priests Ad Philadelp there was neuer any after Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till the Law came and so what hope of Tithes paied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all these were but as Caluin well termeth them Nuncupations of Tithes Sem then as Sem cannot be Melchisedec They may be one as I hold they were in person but not in Type Sem had father and mother end and beginning and so Fathered Christ Melchisedec was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Figured Christ Of the proprietie of his Order there was onely himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ the onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which onely is true Scripture langâ—ge So Sem could beget and did diuers Primogenit Priests but Melchisedec no more Melchisedecs And in this respect I care not though Ignatius hold Melchisedec for a Virgine Ad Philadelp though Sem was not and yet both one Person But for such as will abolish Tithes as meerely Popish they must first proue Melchisedec a Pope For Tithes are older then Peter In CHAP. II. THat Tithing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euery Herbe M. Selden cap. 1. §. 7. which is spoken of in the Gospell and obserued by the Scribes and Pharisees was neuer commanded in Scripture nor by their Canon Law requisite according to the opinion of their Doctors who restraineth the paiment of Tithes to thy encrease spoken of by Moyses
and comprehend not Herbs vnder that name They deliuer indeede that by Tradition from their Fathers all things growing out of the earth and fit for mans meat are Titheable c. But it seemeth saith Selden well that for this paiment of Herbs the Pharisees were of the truer side from Luke and Mathew allowed by Christ Here now is proued our Historia fallax by M. Seldens owne consent Therefore Out of M. Seldens iust obseruation here against Talmud would I aske leaue to affirme that the proofes from Talmud in others points of Tithing alleadged by him or Scaliger are not to goe for sure grounds seeing himselfe hath found them so erroneus in this And that it is no sure course of arguing the true intent of Precept by the sinistrous extent of Practise For although we had not here Christs latter approbation of that Tithing against the records of Rabbins yet the very Precepts themselues being well pondered will include all such Herbs and much more For euen that place Deut 26.12 Thine encrease Who taught the Talmudists that encrease here must signifie onely Mans meate Why should not Tithing be extended in this Text to all Encreasing And Leuit 27.30 All the Tithe of the Earth of the seede of the Earth of the fruite of the Tree is holy vnto the Lord Is there not much seede of the Earth that is not mans meat Seede here is not onely what by our Sowing commeth but also whatsoeuer by Gods firsts Blessing of all Creatures bringing foorth the kinde History of all times confirmeth this for Hay Hempe Oates Mines Quarries and the like haue beene subiect to Tithing as Selden hath obserued yea euen his Ruticilia Ruta caesa Chap 1. § 1 et chap 4. § 2. And true Analogie warranteth History For the Tribe of Leui was to bee supplied in euery their necessitie out of all that the Earth yeelded the other Tribes for their necessities This made Ierom interpret that of Num 18. In vsus et necessaria eorum separaui All the Tithe of the Earth againe may well enough include all Trade-encrease euen where no Seede-encrease is The Earth beareth All both vs and for vs. So whatsoeuer the Earth bringeth vs by way of Encrease yeerely of that wee owe a yeerely portion to God out of a tenth proportion And in this sense may we say Vbi Nummus nummum gignit nummus nummum soluet as Selden hath well obserued in the State of Venice where no Prediall Tithes are and therefore Selicha 7. §. 3. pag. 164. Chap. 7. §. 3. Personall due Now come we to M. Seldens Historie of the Opinions touching the Right of Tithes the third Article of his title handle in his seuenth Chapter § 3 c. and concerneth most our purpose The chiefe question saies Selden among the Diuines comes to this Whether by Gods immediate Morall Law the Euangelicall Priesthood haue a right to Tithes as to their Inheritance in equall degree as the Laie man hath to his Nine If euer Tiths were due by Gods immediate Morall Law they must be euer so this is sure Then our recourse must still be in examining by what Law Tithes were at first due All Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had euer Tithes Before Law by Practise Tradition Instinct of Gods Spirit Vnder Law by written Law agreeable to the former practise Whether both those were Morall Iudiciall or Ceremoniall wee shall heare anone And so what euer prerogatiue those Lawes gaue the Priesthood aboue the Laitie the same still remaineth The Tenth was euer first to be paied else the nine parts were not the Lay-mans Ibid. Or if saies Selden they haue Tithes onely as by humane Positiue Law and so giuen them for their spirituall labours that is in briefe Whether by originall distributiue iustice or by commutatiue they are payable How Kingdomes are by their owne Lawes Positiue seetled in Tithes is one thing and how they should be another thing And their so great differences among themselues argueth infallibly that they haue varied from the true foundation As to Iustice Distributiue and Commutatiue they hold alike also from the beginning euen in Leui vnder the Law all had the tenths for their Spirituall labour distributed vnto them and so hath the Gospell now As for that Title Humane Positiue Law we must haue a good ground to proue how Diuine Positiue Law which onely doted Tithes to Leui did resigne them vnder the power of Humane Positiue Law for the Gospell Here be strange odds Ibid. But the first opinion was sayes Selden That the Tenth considered quoad quotam partem c. is due onely by Law Positiue and Ecclesiasticall but quoad substantiam suam or Cleri sustentationem c. it is due by the Diuine Morall Law And to the purpose of this distinction they interprete the Leuiticall commandements of Tithes quoad substantiam and quoad quotam The quota being but a Iudiciall or as some will a Ceremoniall Law c And what a strange Distinguo is this to diuide the Tenth and quota as if both were not one The strongest Mathematicall imaginary abstraction cannot seperate them Maintenance indeed generally and so is their meaning may be free of a quota but a Tenth cannot But who taught them that Maintenance was Morall Diuine and the quota but Positiue and Ecclesiasticall Finde they any such trickes in the two Testaments What Positiue Law gaue Tithes to Melchisedec M. Seld ib. pag. 157. ad finem Because forsooth the Maintenance say they of the Ministerie in Generall is Morall or Naturall there being according to consideration of it se farre the very Character of it written in the Tables of mens hearts that is that Spirituall labourers are to be rewarded with temporall bountie as euery labourer is worthy of his hire But quoad quotum it is but a Iudiciall or Ceremoniall Law c. Heere haue wee three Lawes to ponder and to couche our Tithes vnder some one of them Tithes to be Ceremoniall is but a Ceremonie and as soone done as spoken no man euer durst offer a proofe for it To be Iudiciall they cannot First because that practise of Abraham and Vow of Iacob can neuer bee brought within the compasse of the Iewish Iudiciall Law no I say further within no Law meerely or onely Iewish Consider it well Yea Tithes Legally enacted as I doe thinke cannot bee properly Iudiciall For their Iudiciall Lawes properly so called and without mixture did concerne chiefly their Ciuill Common-wealth and so all the Tribes alike But the Law of Tithes went in fauours of onely Leui a Law proper and peculiar to the Priest-hood before and then to to All Priest-hood Melchisedechicall and Aaronicall Euangelicall and Legal Now how can either Melchisedec or Aaron come vnder the Iudiciall Law It is more then I haue yet obserued if the Iudicial Law gaue any order for the Priest-hood yea the Change of the Priest-hood made a change of the Law Heb. 7.12 Melchisedec
changed both Priesthood and Law not from what it was at first in that Typicall action betweene Melchisedec and Abraham but from what it was vnder the Law the other he renued and reuiued The Law then followeth the Priest-hood and therefore the Iudicials are no Iudges of things Sacerdotal and Sacred Such Priest-hood then such Law A Temporall and Ceremoniall Priest-hood Temporall and Ceremoniall Lawes pro rata such was the Priest-hood and Law Leuiticall in many things meerely Ceremoniall and so gone for euer in all things Temporall and so in some things reuiued renued and restored in that first perpetuall and Euangelicall Priest-hood of Melchisedec Aeterna aeternis aptanda is a receiued Maxime Ceremoniall then and Iudiciall are gone There rests but Morall and so if the enumeration of the three Lawes be sufficient and the remotion of the two true it followeth Tithes must be Morall But to Morallize yet a little more with them What shall this Morall be some will haue it all one with Naturall that Character in our hearts as if the Decalogue were but a second edition of this Morall or Naturall Law We may safely yet we neede not yeeld to all this For take him in his true Etymon and Morall will be but whatsoeuer concerneth Manners Now euery particular point of good Manners hath not a perfect Character printed in our fallen hearts Else what say we to Polygamie so long of olde tollerated so much yet and in so many parts held for no sinne What say wee to Pauls Concupiscence which he sayes he had not knowne but by the Law Rom. 7.7 Then Morall and Naturall are not wholly one And was it not a very Morall and Mannerly duetie from Abraham to Christ to pay Tithes for the maintenance of Gods Ministerie How then it came to be not Morall or vnmannerly with Christ let Schoole-men Canonists Ciuilians Common-Lawyers Et quot quot Sacri sacra fame laborant giue good reason for it and I am satisfied Morall then in that tripartite diuision of Lawes is much better ascribed to whatsoeuer thing is brought vnder a perpetuall Law of God neuer after to be abrogated although the perfect Character of it be not imprinted in our corrupt Nature Let vs say then of Tithes We had not knowne them but by the Law as Paul said of Concupiscence yet let them haue the like continuance as that of Concupiscence else giue vs a Legall limit of the Law of Tithes from Scripture But if Law should faile what say you to Melchisedecs Priest-hood and Abrahams practise Dauids Prophecie and Pauls application all these were of Grace and the Promises not of the Law Thus farre for Morall Now let vs consider of this Character by Nature in our hearts they talke so much of It is Naturall say they that the labourer haue his wages the Ministerie a Maintenance but the quota is not of Nature but Positiue Law Ergo An eleuenth ninth or lesse or more part may be assigned as well as a Tenth I answere It is most true that Nature is most liuely instructed with the Generals of all things and the more shee draweth ad Indiuidua the more erronious shee proueth And touching this point of Commutatiue Iustice it is so Naturall that the very beasts yea sauage beasts haue acknowledged it by true Retribution But is it not also a Character of our Nature to draw all Wages to their quota or is there any doing in Nature till this be done Then where Nature so bendeth and cannot binde of it selfe whatsoeuer may or hath power to settle Nature in these particulers must be for euer the onely stay of Nature and Nature neuer trusted to it selfe afterwards more then at first To the point then All Wages are due by a Wager to a Waged Wagers and Waged heere are either God with his Creatures or his Creatures among themselues Creatures in this case haue no power ouer the quota but ex mutuo pacto and so Nature can neuer define it for all and euer but must vary after all Circumstances But betweene God and his Creatures as our question now standeth God onely hath power of all Who shall serue How they shall serue For what they shall serue The quota is first Gods Leuit. 27. who dare refuse it Not Abraham not Israel not Abrahams seed Then God giueth this quota to his Ministerie Melchisedec Leui who dare except These be the true Positiue Lawes enlightning and rectifying our darke and crooked Nature to which we must euer either cleaue or shew where our Nature hath preuailed against them and how wee haue brought the Creator vnder mutuum pactum with his Creatures No he Wageth whom he will for his Wine-yard He giueth the Penny the quota for his wages he that came first to work excepted but proudly and idly against him that came last A penny for all a Tenth for all It is not at our option Though France Spaine Italy Germany the whole world make any other Positiue Lawes they make but so many Lawlesse Positions Such Histories cast but humane mists ouer Diuine Mysteries if we trust too much to them Againe although by Order of Nature as Schooles speake the Generall of Wages goeth before the quota yet in Scripture Method and point of Time there you shall finde the very quota as soone if not sooner then Maintenance in generall Our first is still that of Abraham Tithe of all heere is the onely quota Our second is Iacobs Vow Tithe of all againe the very quota Our third is the succeeding Lawes all the Tithe of the Land is the Lords Leuit. 27.30 Againe I haue giuen Leui all the Tenth in Israel for his Inheritance Is there any thing heere but the quota first the quota and still the quota But this quota say those Clerkes as Selden relates it being but a iudiciall Law M. Seld. ib. pag. 158. proceedeth now in the Gospell by Ecclesiastique Doctrine and only per vim exemplarem or by imitation of the Iewish state ordered by the Almightie and not per vim obligatiuam or any continuing force of it vnder the Gospell And that the Church was not bound to this part but freely might as well haue ordained the payment of a Ninth or Eleuenth according to various opportunitie First we haue said and I hope proued already That the Law of Tithes was no Iudiciall Law Secondly thoâ—e Diuines doe vs great wrong that take no notice of Tithes but as they goe out by that Law peculiar to the Iewish state excluding both that most excellent perpetua l and Euangelicall Type of Tithing in Melchisedec and Abraham reuiued and confirmed by Paul now to the Gospell and also that euer-binding Verbe of Iacob for Tithes Of All both which were the grounds of the Law but braunches of no written Law if not of Nature Moral diuine instinct and Tradition from a Principio Our Vis Exemplaris then should be deriued from our owne peculiar Examples A Priest-hood and Tithing before that
Now this Tithe was meerly Ceremoniall being first an Heaue Offering 2. tied onely to the High-Priest in Person and 3. to Ierusalem for Place Ergo not due now Secondly no proper Succession of the Gospell to the Law onely tempore neither in Person astricted to a Tribe not in the same nature or Order of Priesthood the true Succession is Melchisedec to Melchisedec where all things past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Promise not Rom. 4.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the law so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bringeth in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The intervening Law was but as a droppe yet of Diuine water too in the bottome of a bason appointed for a time to distinguish to diuide nay rather to drawe on and ioyne two streames of approching Grace the Promises and their Performances which meeting this droppe was quite swallowed vp by their fulnesse what it had of the first Fountaine common with those two Streames Naturall or Morall that was still retained being onely graced with new Euangelicall garments What it had in the propertie of a Partition wall Rites and Ceremonies all euanished as Mercurie from the fire So Tithes Inheritance being of the first Fountaine common Morall to all these Water-workes of Gods worship and therefore mixed with that Droppe of the Law could neuer be dried vp but recouer so much greater strength by the meeting of those two Streames as the Performances surpasse the Promises and the Gospell the Law But saies Selden these considerations can onely be M. Selden Ibid. where the knowledge of Fact proceeds For without distinction of these seuerall Tithes any argument drawen from them may soone be found a grosse fallacy that may both deceiue him which maketh it and those whom he teacheth Let the ingenuous Reader thinke of it Of this position would I faine haue a better reason then I can perceiue for our question for who will think that the truth of Diuine precept must rely vpon knowledge of Fact specially when the Fact must be trusted to Fabulous authors in many things Indeed when the Fact is recorded in the Tables of the Precept there may a man argue reciprocally a Causis ad effecta and contra But to bring in Talmud Targum M. Selden Reuiew p. 55 and Gemara to teach vs from what they say was done what should beene done by the Law it is in my iudgement quite out of square For first I may iustly doubt if their relation be true because we all haue found them in some erroneous viz in Tithing Herbs as aforesaid and in confounding the Lords frequent Precepts of keeping so many holy Feasts yeerely and thrice a yeere in a Leape-yeere each third yeere and so making the Tithes for Feasts not paieable each third yeere Certainely if I belieue those men in any thing it shal be more for reuerence of the Text then their Tales Secondly though their relation of the Fact were true in their times yet might it be much degenerate from the former ages Buxtorfus de opere â—almudico For the eldest of them wrote as some hold but at the Captiuitie of Babylon and there writes as we haue them but collected and receiued hundreds of yeere since Christ Thirdly Facts truely recorded doe not alwayes argue Lawes truely exâ—cuted Else the two High-Priests at Christs time must be good in Law because true in Fact and not condemned by any reproach in Scripture other then tacitely in the meaning of the Law at first giuen It is true the not distinguishing of one Tithe from another hath made men confound all and take the Morall for the Ceremoniall But whence I pray shall we draw our true distinction from the Text or Talmud Whether shall the Text tell Talmud what Tithes were to bee payed or Talmud tell vs what Tithes the Text should haue enioyned So Tithes are by Scripture most clearely distinguished and by Talmud meerely confounded Thus farre Reader haue I for thee trod the pathes of Mr. Seldens Historie of Tithes adding my owne Simple iudgement De Iure Both may stand together in regard of my plaine Positions from Scripture for the one and his owne Protestations that he meant nothing to the contrarie in his Historie Yea I ascribe it to Gods speciall prouidence that He and I should at one time as twinnes from one belly both come forth together and that I who as I take it was by conception the Esau and elder brother in this businesse yet in our birth should proue a Iacob catching his Historie as it were by the heele lest the incurious Reader as is said by too hot hunting the wilde Historie might defraud Iacob that is the Promises and Gospell of their due Primogeniture in the Right of Tithes My last aduice then is That howsoeuer Historicall varietie may delight thine eare yet let onely Scripture-Verity leade thine heart and direct thy Conscience to the Conclusion in things pertaining to God to whose Blessing I doe recommend these my Labours for thy Edification Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the question de iure should haue beene equally related The alleadging of so weake grounds as this Chap 10. pa. 273. and that Tale of Austen the first Bishop of Cantâ—rbury in Coniuring at a Masse of two dead persons for the none paiment of Tithes made the Clergy and many fauourers of Ius Diuinum suspect M. Seldens iudgement therein Whatsoeuer reasons moued him to silence in the stronger arguments himselfe best knoweth but what he of himsel e ingeniously protesteth herein I charitably beleeue and haue therefore more boldly added to his History my opinion de iure both which being mixed I hope shall both satâ—sfie him and setle others in the trueth But to say some thing for this Penitentiall if it find but a fauourable construction the matter in the maine touching Tithes being a Trueth though it be not in each point Demonstrable yet in many it is very Probable and so neither wholly ly Impudent nor blindnesse To trode Tithes then vp as neare as may be euen to Adam from the Law Consider first Tithes are giuen Leui by precept Numb 18.21 God gaue them as His of before for in the twentie verse hee said I am his inheritance How then finde we them in God Leuit 27.30 All the Tithe of the earth c. I S not shall be the Lords IS importeth yet a former Title And wee finde long before Tithes of All Vowed by Iacob This was no Legall Vow that is pendens ex arbitrio but Morall as he euen then Vowed God should be his God then Iacob must yet deriue it from a former Morall ground This found Iacob of three Generations standing in his Grandfather Abrahams paiment to Melchisedec See how neare we creepe to Adam Wee are like Ianus already on both sides of the world before and after the flood if Sem was Melchisedec as Selaens selfe seemes to hold But how came Abraham by this Either sure by a present instinct and Reuelation with Melchisedec or either by Education and Tradition from God and his forebears For as in the destruction of Sodom God said Gen. 18.17.19 Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I doe c. For I knowe him that he will command his sonnes and his household after him that they keepe the way of the Lord c. Now seeing God here in this present action against that same Sodom whose King Abraham had of late deliuered and paied Tithes on the point of his victory professeth that hee taught Abraham how to behaue himselfe and how to instruct others in matters of Gods seruice What Impudency or Blindnesse is it to ascribe also that Tithing after that victory to proceed from Gods instruction and Fatherly Education from Family to Family And if God taught Abraham so farre now come in the world shall we thinke he neglected to teach his immediat son Adam Or that Cain and Abel brought foorth In processe of time their sacrifices as by a present Reuelation and not either by a preceeding Instruction doubtlesse that same Processe of time argueth euidently a Training and Education in Gods worship Fides ex auditu euer Ordinarily Neither was this Penitentiall the first nor onely warrant ascribing this to that time M. Selden cap. 1. §. 3. For M. Selden had obserued euen from Tertullian that Cains Offering was not regarded because quod Offerebat non rectè diuidebat The Text giueth vs a sure warrant that Cains offering was wrong but whither in quoto or modo or both we haue freedome of Coniecture I would thinke he erred in all He was a stiffe-necked lewe in his manners a Niggard-hearted Iewe in his portion And seeing euen his Septuagints whom else where he so much vrgeth in this question read that of Gen 4.7 in that same sense of not diuiding aright the quantitie let vs either trust them so farre here or not be tied to them hereafter in other Scriptures Things then being so I had rather partake of this Penitentials alleadged Impudency and Blindnesse in vrging a Truth for the Church then of such Diuines Impudent and Imprudent boldnesse in purging the Church of Tithes without either Law or example of Scripture And so much for M. Seldens Historicall relation of the Diuines opinion touching Ius diuinum in Tiâ—hs The next thing I find coÌ„siderable concerning my grounds is a Counsell he giueth by way of two questions in his Reu. his 1. question thus Now me thinkes saith he Hee that argueth for Tithes from the Mosaicall Lawes of Tithing had neede more specially M. Selden Reuiew pa 455. lin vlt then any I haue yet seene hath neere done examine which of the two kindes are due in the Euangelicall Priesthood Why not the second as well as the first If by First and Second hee meanes as I take it the first Tithes due for Leui his maintenance the second Tithe due for the Feasts according to his owne diuision then the reason is cleare why the first must be due the second not to the Gospell The First Tithe not from onely vertue of Mosaiâ—all Law as often hath beene said but taking it in with better company we may well make vp this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer was giuen as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Leuitical Priesthood must be also the maintenance of the Euangelicall Priesthood But Tithes were giuen as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Leuiticall Priesthood Ergo. Tithes must bee also the maintenance of the Euangelicall Priesthood The assumption is cleare for Melchisedec Gen. 14. and Heb. 7. and by the whole course of the Law for Leui. The Proposition is strongly connected because the Melchisedecian Priesthood directly includeth the Euangelicall Otherwise we ouerthrow the whole Tipe and Veritie both Wee turne all to a naked History of Gen. 14. We belie Dauids Prophecy Psal 113. We disclaime Pauls Aitiologie Allegory and Anagogicall application of all to Christ Heb 7. But that that second Tith cannot now haue place is cleare because Principio Obiecto Fine that is in all respects they were meerely Ceremoniall hauing for End these typicall Feasts abolished by Christ for Place onely the Temple at Ierusalem For Persons the Iewish householders were the chiefe eaters All these are not onely mortua but euen mortifera for our times M. Selden Ibid. His second question is And futher to consider also how the payement of Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospell succeeds the payment from the Leuites to the sonnes of Aaron To this I haue I hope proued That Tithes are giuen for Inheritance to the whole Tribe of Leui as well Priests as Inferiour Leuites and so though the Inferiours might be the seruile receiuers leauiers yet the whole Priesthood was partner in the maine so the Iewish Laitie paied their Tithes euen to the Leuiticall Priesthood As for the point of Succession in this First the Leuites paied onely decimam decimarum the Tenth of Tithes to Aaron not to Aarons sonnes as wee haue proued