This shall please the Lord better then a yong bullocke that hath hornes and hoofes That is say the Iewes better then the Bullocke that Adam offered that had hornes before hoofes as it is in Massech Cholin cap. 3. fol. 60. In which respect Ramban on Gen. 22.9 obserueth that where it is written Abraham builded an Altar there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is expressed with the article notificatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Altar meaning that he pointed at the Altar whereon Adam and Cain and Abel and Noah did sacrifice And therefore they said that in the sacrifices there is contained a hidden and secret mysterie hidden indeed to them that haue the vaile vpon their hearts 2 Cor. 3.15 but revealed to vs. For all sacrifices had relation to Christ And the Commandement of sacrificing was giuen to the Fathers first that it might be the common exercise of piety whilst they did professe themselues to be God's people and that all things that they had they receiued from him And 2ly that they might be admonished that they stood in need of some expiation to reconcile them to God The sacrifice of expiation is fully accomplished and ended in Christ The other which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing doth still continue And the Iewes themselues confesse this as Ramban on Levit. 23. and Chimki on Ier 33.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All sacrifices shall cease but the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing shall neuer cease But I will speake no more of sacrifice lest I digresse too farre from Tithes Onely thus much the learned haue obserue from the sacrifice of Cain Abel that they acknowledged hereby that God from the beginning had a right in euery mans goods And this right afterward by the practise of the Patriarches was declared to be Tithes SECT 4. THe next Section containes nothing but a relation of fables and fopperies For as for Cabalistique and doting curiosities or identity of numbers in seuerall words as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits and Tithes or such like for my part I list not spend time or paper in the reciâ—all of them we need not seeke such proofes for the right of Tithes the euidence of Scripture is sufficient And if any be delighted with the reading of these toyes Salomoh Iarchi in diuers of his Commentaries and Baal Haturim vpon the Pentateuch can quickly furnish him with store of such stuffe But because the Author of the History among other things doth here againe make mention of Abraham his successe with his company of 318 together with Arithmeticall and nice speculations taken from thence euen among Christians as Clemens Alexan. Stromat 5. Let him giue me leaue by the way to put him in mind that hee needed not for this matter to haue gone any further then his owne R. Iarchi so often recited by him who I am sure touching this number of 318 hath left vpon record as vaine and frivolous a fancie as any the History speaks of for he saith that none went with Abraham to warre against the foure Kings but only Eliezer and why because forsooth the letters contained in his name amount to the number of 318 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though all the rest of Abraham's soldiers had bin nothing else but meere cyphares But R. Bechai calls this conceit a riddle and Aben-Ezra on the same Text viz. Gen. 14. condemnes it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The number of the letters of Eliezer is but a figura-true glosse for the Scripture speakes not by any such Arithmetical respect for so whosoeuer will may turne any names either to good or bad but the word is to be taken according to the literall sense Notwithstanding if we leaue the conceit of number and consider the true signification of the name we may referre it to a better vse for Eliezer signifieth the helpe of God And therefore Moses called one of his sonnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eliezer for the God of my Fathers was my help saith he and deliuered me from the sword of Pharaoh Exod. 18.4 In like manner Abraham also might call his seruant Eliezer for the God of Abraham was his helpe deliuered him from the sword of his enemies And therefore Melchisedek in this respect praised God and said Blessed be the most high God which hath deliuered thine enemies into thy hand CAP. 2. Exod. 23.19 Levit 23.10 Numb 15.20 THe yearely increase being either fruits of the ground or cattell In the Law of fruits of the ground first the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in eares of wheat and Barly figgs grapes oliues pomgranates and dates And of these seuen only the first fruits o In Talmud in Seder Heraim Massechetâ— Biccurim atque inde receâ—tio es erum Iurisperiti were payde in what quantity the owner would Touching first fruits the History here doth avouch three things 1 That the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in eares of wheat and barly figs grapes oliues pomgranates and dates 2 That of these seuen onely the first fruites were payde 3 That they were payde in what quantity the owner would But of these three assertions there is not one of them sufficiently proued and as I take it being examined by holy Scripture not one of them true For first that the first fruits were offered in eares of wheat and barly c. The places of Scripture quoted in the margent doe not shew it that which commeth neerest is Levit. 23.10 When yee be come into the land which I giue vnto you and reape the haruest thereof then yee shall bring a sheafe of the first fruits of your haruest vnto the Priest The word here translated sheafe is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Iarchi taketh to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tenth part of an Ephah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did measure it with an Omer Exod. 16.18 and ver 36. the Omer is the tenth part of the Ephah which Aben-Ezra on Leuit. 5. saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. One mans meat for one day as Exod. 16.18 But this Text doth not proue that the first fruits were offered in eares of wheat and barlye c. but an Omer that is a sheafe or the tenth part of an Ephah And hence it is that Baal Haturim on Exod. 16.36 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Omer is annexed to the chapter of Manna to signifie that they should eat Manna vntill they had offered the Omer that is after they came into the land and did reap the haruest thereof Again Exod. 34.22 Thou shalt also obserue the feast of weekes in the time of the first fruites of wheat haruest Iarchi expounds the Text thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The first fruits of wheat haruest in which thou art to bring two loaues of wheat first fruits that is the first meat offring that comes of new wheat to the
time of the Gospell vnlesse we thinke it fitting that the spirituall sonnes of the Church should liue in all plenty and the spirituall Fathers goe a begging not considering what the Apostle saith Galat. 6.6 Let him that is taught in the word make him that taught him partaker of all his goods And that we may yet further see in what manner the Priests in the Law were partakers of the peoples goods I will here relate one thing more that R. Bechai hath on Numb 18.14 in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Doctours of happy memory in their discourses propound an example of a certaine woman that had a sheep which when she went to sheare the Priest came to her that she should giue him the first of the fleece Deut. 18.4 And when she brought forth the firstborne the Priest tooke that Numb 18.15 Now she seeing the case stand thus killed it then came the Priest and tooke the gifts Deut. 18.3 Afterward she said this flesh shall be a thing separate from the common vse then he tooke all Numb 18.14 In the beginning of this second Chapter of the History the Author in his Dichotomie saith that the yearely increase is either fruits of the ground or cattell I haue already spoken so much as I intended of the first and should now come to the other but before I enter vpon that considering that among other texts of holy Scripture wrested misinterpreted in this treatise we meet here with a crosse exposition of that text Leuit. 27.30 cited in pag. 13. of this Chapter I thinke it not amisse in a word or two to try the soundnes of it the rather because this Scripture hath vsually beene alleadged by iudicious and learned Diuines as a principal ground for the establishing of the diuine right in tithes But the Historian intending heere as it seemes to depriue vs of the benefit of this text and the true sense thereof doth therefore slylie bring it in by way of a Parenthesis and sayes that the Iewes apply it to the second Tithe which Tithe was meerely Leviticall is finished and so by consequent he doth insinuate that all haue erred who haue otherwise interpreted or vnderstood this text and therefore no hope here any longer of any hold or warrant for the Tithes we challenge But for answer to this though the Iewes be oftentimes idle and ridiculous in their interpretations and being enemies to Christianity giue vs cause to trust them no further then we see them yet to let these exceptions passe first I avouch that the chiefest and best learned of the Iewes doe not expound this text to be meant of the second tithe and because the Iewes in generall are heere named and yet none but one only is cited therefore that the truth may the better appeare I will oppose one of greater authority against him Aben Ezra a Iew often heretofore mentioned and one of speciall credit among them and therefore vsually stiled with an epithete Aben Ezra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aben Ezra the wise man he is plaine of an other opinion touching this Text his words are these on Leuit. 27.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that hath an heart to vnderstand the secret of the world shall also know the secret of the firstborne and the tenth And behold Abraham gaue tithe and fo also our father Iacob and I will further reueale part of the mysterie when I speake of the second tithe by the helpe of him that is first or one and hath no second 1 By which words it is euident first that he speaking of Abraham and Iacobs tithing taketh such Tithes to be meant here as Abraham Iacob payed before the Law 2ly Whereas he saith he will reueale part of the mystery when he comes to speake of the second Tithe he doth manifestly acknowledge that this place is not meant of the second Tithe therefore when he comes to the proper place thereof in his Commentary vpon Deut. 14.23 he doth there performe that which he did here promise His mysticall reason there expressed is taken from the perfection of number which I haue touched before and the drift of his speach tendeth to signifie in effect that as God is Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last so the beginning and the end the prime and the perfection the first and the tenth must bee consecrate to him And in this respect Philo Iudaeus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. de congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia pag. 342. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is some nerenesse as it were and affinity betweene God and the tenth And to like purpose writes Abarbinel on this Text of Leviticus But I let passe these curious speculations and subtilties about number ne fortè cùm de numero multum loquamur mensuram pondus negligere iudicemur as St Austin speakes in the like case de civit Dei lib. 11. cap. 31. neither doe I intend to dispute the question but only to free the Text from false interpretation and therefore I haue here produced this Rabbines Testimony a Iew against a Iew a better against a worse I might likewise here alleadge the authority of Lyra and others that in this agree with Aben Ezra and among the rest Abarbinel is very plaine that both first and second Tithe is comprehended in this Text saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of the corne of the ground that is the first tithe and the second tithe and he addes also a reason to shew that these are holy to the Lord as arising from his prouidence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his blessing of the increase of the earth which hath reference aswell to the first as to the second tithe But I come now to heare the aduerse party and to consider briefly the forme and reason of his testimony Levit. 27.30 All the Tithe of the land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords it is holy to the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture speakes of the second Tithe saith Salomoh Iarchi in this place It is the sentence rule of Hilary obserued by that Reuerend Father of the Church whose learned labour for the clearing of the truth in the question of tithes hath now long beene extant That he who readeth Scripture as he ought must not bring a sense to the words but fetch the sense from the words and not compell the Scripture to speake as he in preiudice conceiueth But R. Iarchi goes directly against this rule for he hauing a preiudiciall conceit that this Text must be interpreted of the second Tithe he therefore restraines all the particulars therein contained to his own purpose And because in Deut. 14.23 the place of the second Tithe it is said Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the Tithe of thy corne of thy wine of thine oyle therefore from thence hee expounds these in Leuit.
is fully cleared But consider yet a little further what our Author hath deliuered in this 5 Section of his 2. Chap. concerning cattell and the first-borne thereof and the manner of tithing them together with the rod to marke them and then iudge if he hath not here brought his owne Rabbi Iarchi with a rod to ierke himselfe for here is a Tithe that Iarchi and the rest of the Iewes doe shew the Historian hath fowly mistaken and it is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first or second Tithe And therefore that diuision of his which he makes the ground of his discourse and labours so much to iustifie though he accompt it to be the best will in conclusion proue starke naught for this Tithe of cattell can not be reduced either to the first or second Tithe not the first for that was giuen to the Leuites and was by the Iewes esteemed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for common vse or prophane as Ramban saith on Deut. 14. and might bee eaten in any place Numb 18.31 But this say the Iewes was not giuen either to Priest or Leuite but was alwayes accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy and might be eaten no-where but at Ierusalem as hath beene proued before both by Iarchi and Bechai on Leuit. 27. and other of the Iewes Againe it is not the second Tithe for that was Deut. 14.23 the Tithe of corne wine and oyle and not the Tithe of beasts that also might be changed into money if the way were long and the place of God's worship far off Deut. 14.24.25 But the Tithe of beasts might not be changed Leuit. 27.33 And if they bought cattell oxe or sheep with the money to be eaten at Ierusalem Deut. 14.26 yet that was not the tenth nor to be accounted the Tithe of the cattell but still the second Tithe and therefore the Iewes doe ordinarily distinguish them in their writings calling the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tithe of beasts and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second tithe So that if there were no other exception to be taken against his best diuision but only this this were sufficient to proue it naught and therefore also by consequent a great part of his Iewish treatise that stands vpon this rotten foundation can not be found But if this will not serue the turne to discouer the weakenes of the History beside the former Tithe mistaken there is yet an other Tithe among the Iewes that the compiler of the History hath neue so much as once spoken of and it comes not within the compasse of his diuision of first and second tithe neither was it for the Priest or Leuite or for the feasts or for the poore but of an other quality differing from these that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the kings Tithe Baal Haturim on Deut. â—8 1 speaking of the cohaerence betwixt this and the precedent Chap. that treateth of the King hath there these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Priests of the Leuites shall haue no part c. this Chapter is annexed to the Chapter of the king because the king he is anointed by the high Priest and he preferres the king in the first place because he is greater then the other c. And againe whereas the Priest Leuite doe take Tithe so also shall the king he shall take the tenth of your sheepe as 1. Samuel 8.17 Whether this manner of collection be warrantable from the Text or not I stand not to examine it sufficeth to shew here by this authority what was the iudgment of the Iewes touching the kings tithe viz that he might take a tenth as well as the Priest or Leuite but yet could not take the Priest's or Leuite's Tithe for the right of the one in taking Tithes did not abridge the right of the other And rhis point is iudiciously ohserued by that worthy religious Knight Sr Iames Sempill in his Booke of Sacriledge for the Gospell chap. 8. sect 3. And so much also is implyed in this â—estimony in other writings of the Iewes answereable hereunto For albeit Calvin on Numb 18 20. doth say vetustissimum fuisse morem ut reges decimarent colligitur ex 1 Sam. 8.15 that it is collected from the 1 Samuel 8. that it was a most ancient custome that kings should take Tithe yet whether that Scripture doth describe a iust king or a tyrant the Iewes teach that the tithe there spoken of is not the Leuites Tithe but an other Tithe after the Leuites Tithe for so are the expresse words of Chimki on that Text 1 Samuel 8.15 he will take the tenth of your seed c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He shall take the tithe of the fields vineyards or of the fruits after the tithe of the Leuites It is true indeed that there is a controuersie among the Rabbines as Chimki here notes concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius regni the right of the kingdome in the things here mentioned Rabbi Iudah saith that this Text is written only to terrifie them and discourage them from their enterprise in choosing a king and so is Ralbag his opinion in that place Rabbi Iosi saith that whatsoeuer is spokeÌ„ in this chapter of the king the king hath power and right therein and so say others also as appeares in the Talmud Sanhedrim cap. 2. fol. 20. where they discusse this matter at large And hence it is that they expouÌ„d the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 11. translated the manner of the king to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius the right of the king or the kings due according as the same word is vsed in Deut. 18.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the Priests duty from the people and the Childe Paraphrase of Ionathan accords with it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the king's Law And as touching that in ver 14. He will take your fields and your vineyards c Chimki further there declareth that their Doctors teach that he might not take the fields and vineyards themselues but the fruits if his seruants stood in need of them when they went to warre And the reason hereof is saith he because it is not said he will take your fields and your vineyards and your best oliue-yards to himselfe but he will giue them to his seruants that is to his warriours that are with him for otherwise all are his seruants Not that he might take to himselfe the body of the fields and vineyards for if so then Ahab might haue taken Naboth's vineyard by the right of the kingdome and Iesebel had not needed to haue vsed all those lewd practises and the shedding of innocent blood Thus farre Chimki in this place And writing againe of the same subiect 1 Kings 21. he confirmes his former exposition and adds an other reason why the text
Sanctuary for the meat-offering of the Omer that is brought in the Passeouer that is of barly as in Levit. 23.10 17. and so Bechai And Aben-Ezrah on Nehem 10.35 doth second this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And to bring the first fruits of our land as an Omer and two loaues By these authorities it appeares that in the feast of the Passeouer they offered an Omer or sheafe of the first fruites of barly and in the feast of Pentecost they presented for the first fruits of their wheat-haruest two loaues of fine flowre of wheat baken with leauen But all this while no mention here of first-fruits in eares of wheat and barly c. As for that Text Levit. 2.14 where there is mention of eares of corne dryed by the fire Aben-Ezra sheweth there that it is meant of a free-will offering saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That which is due is the first of the first fruites Exod. 34.26 not the first fruites in generall and if a man bring a meat offering of the first fruits he shall bring it as a free-will offering And the text imports as much for it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you offer a meat-offering c. Consider now what is taught in these testimonies before alleadged and then with one labour wee may easily descrye the falsehood of two of the forenamed assertions for here we see that an Omer or tenth part of an Ephah was offered for first fruites of barly and two loaues of fine flower for the first fruits of wheat And therefore the first fruits thereof were not payde in eares of barly or eares of wheat c. according to Scripture Againe an Omer of barly and two loaues of wheat determine in these particulars a set quantity of first fruits And therefore the first fruits were not payde in what quantity the owner would Beside as our Historian doth afterward relate from Scaliger that not Moses but the Iewes prescribed what should be the quantity of the therumah or heaue offering so it seemeth also by their writings that they appointed what should be the determinate quantity of the first fruits as may be gathered by the glosse of Baal Haturim on Deut. 26.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The letters of the word translated basket containe in number 60 to signifie that of first fruits they should pay a sixtieth part And herein he agrees with R. Simeon on Massech Bicurim cap. 3. fol. 85. Againe the same author on Numb 15.21 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The verse beginnes with Mem and endes with Mem to shew that a gift of a good eye is a fourtieth part For the Hebrew letter Mem in number stands for fourty I goe not about to iustifie these Cabalisticall collections from the Text but only by them to shew that the Iewes had among them a set quantity for their first fruits aswell as for their Therumahs as these glosses doe import flat against the History Now as before we haue declared for wheat and barly that the first fruits of them was not payde in eares of wheat and barly so for the other things specified in the history figges grapes oliues pomgranates and dates we doe not read in the Scripture that the first fruits of these are prescribed or expressed in particular but the fruits of corne wine and oyle Deut. 18.4 And so 2 Chronic. 31.5 The children of Israel brought abundance of first fruits of corne wine and oyle c. And Ramban on Deut. 14. as also on Exod. 22. teacheth concerning grapes oliues that the tithe of them was not due by the Law vntill such time as they yeelded wine oyle and so likewise may wee coniecture for the first fruits of them Or if the first fruits were payde both of grapes and oliues as the History saith and of wine and oyle too as the Scripture sheweth then the first fruits were not payde only of those seuen things which are before described And this is the last of those three assertions against which I tooke exception It was indeed propounded in the second place but blame me not though I binde not my selfe too strictly to order in following a confused History that hath in it as little truth as order The two former points I haue passed ouer briefly But this that he saith That of these seuen onely wheat barly figges c. the first fruits were payd it requires a litle larger explication All the proof that is brought for it is quoted in the margent viz Talmud in Seder Heraim Massechetb Biccurim atque inde recentiores eorum iurisperiti It is an easier taske for a man to quote the Talmud then to reade or vnderstand it and easier to read and vnderstand it then to iustifie or defend it And therefore as the Historian himselfe in his preface pag. 3. speaking of the diuine right of Tithes saith well that the holy Text must be the sole tryall of it so say we likewise concerning first fruits that what is spoken of them not the Iewish Talmud but the holy Text must bee the tryall of it for as the Iewes themselues teach the Talmud is but the exposition of the Text so saith Aben-Ezra on Exod. 19.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. and proposed to them That is the Law by tradition which is the exposition of the Law in writing Therfore here we desire to know quid scriptum est what Text of Scripture he hath for his warrant Scripture he sheweth none either because he would not or else could not finde any to serue his turne Notwithstanding for better satisfaction to the Reader herein I must confesse that the Iewish Commentators vpon the Scripture as Iarchi on Exod. 23.19 34.26 And on Deut. 26.2 Aben-Ezra on Nehem. â—0 and Chimki on 2 Chron. 31. doe all of them alleadge a place of Scripture on which this their assertion is grounded and that is Deut. 8.8 A land of wheat and barly and of vineyards and figge-trees and pomegranates a land of oyle oliue and hony Here are seuen kinds of fruits for which the land of Canaan is commended and of which onely the Iewes say the first fruits were payde If any obiect that Dates are here wanting which were reckoned in the former number for this we must know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated hony the Iewes in this place interpret Dates as Iarchi sheweth on Exod. 34.26 and Deut. 26.2 and 2 Chron. 31. And Chimki to make this more plaine on 2 Chron. 31.5 saith that by hony here they vnderstand Dates and addes this reason because saith he they brought neither first fruits nor oblations of hony hauing reference as it may seeme to that in Leuit. 2.11 All the meat offerings which ye shall offer vnto the Lord. shall be made without leauen for yee shall neither burne leauen nor hony in any offering of the Lord made by fire Not leauen nor hony saith Baal Haturim on this text because euill concupiscence is
second Tithe knowing that in truth that place meant no other Doubtlesse I can conceiue of this to be nothing else but a meere fiction and such a one that neither Iew nor Christian ought once to admit against the holy Scriptures For first hereby as he makes the Septuagints Translation more authenticall then the Hebrew Text implying therewithall that the same hath bin corrupted and changed and yet no corruption euer once noted before in this place so also that which he surmiseth is against reason for the second doth alwayes presuppose a first but how shall it be thought that the Scripture should here in expresse termes mention a second Tithe when as it doth no where expresly mention a first for though the ground of these distinctions be in Scripture viz Tithes for the Priest Tithes for the Leuite Tithes for the feasts and Tithes for the poore yet by these termes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Tithe and second Tithe or which shall be the first or which the second there neither is nor euer was any such matter in Scripture These indeed are notions deuised by the Rabbines for distinction sake but shall we therefore bring them into the Text and make Text of them whether shall the Rabbines follow the Text or the Text follow the Rabbines Surely this is nothing else but to make new Scripture and when that is done because the foresaid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not agree in gender the word being no where so construed therfore also to make as he doth in that place a new Grammer that the new Scripture may haue good construction And yet after all this consider it who will no Scripture no Masoreth no Targum no Grammer no Rabbin no reason either doth or can iustifie it And for the Septuagint Translation why may we not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alteram or posteriorem decimam an other Tithe or the later Tithe as well as decimam secundam the second tithe the word being often elsewhere vsed in that sense as the Greek Lexicons teach res aliqua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicitur quae ei postponitur and againe Quum verò dicitur temporis ratione exponitur etiam posterior veletiam iteratus ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so may it be taken also in this place Or if it be interpreted the second tithe must it needes be the second in the same order and manner as he would haue it as though the Septuagints that were so ancient intended hereby to establish this new deuise invented only by Rabbines of later times Doe not the best expositions disagree in setting down precisely the number and order of the Tithes St Hierome on Ezech. 45. reckons vp foure sorts of tithes and makes that first which the people payde to the Leuites and that rhe second which the Leuites thence payde to the Priests of which he saith Et haec est quae appellatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he differs from the Rabbines and all their followers and yet knew better then they what Scripture taught concerning first or second tithes But it is not enough for our Historian thus to corrupt the text to fortifie his owne fancies but he goes on and dallies yet further with this Scripture saying This place of the yeare of Tithing Sal. Iarchi ad dict loc Deut. is interpreted by the common glosse of the Iewes by the yeare of one Tithe as if the Text had bin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the yeare of one Tithe or of paying onely one Tithe First insteed of the common glosse of the Iewes he cites onely in the margent the proper glosse of Sal. Iarchi against whom I oppose Aben Ezra who doth not interpret the yeare of tithing by the yeare of one tithe or of paying onely one tithe but thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The yeare of tithing that is the poore mans tithe meaning the yeare of paying the poore mans tithe which was not payd in other yeares and this is answereable to that he said before that some held that all the three tithes were this yeare brought forth and therefore most probably it is termed the yeare of tithing because a new accrue of tithes came this yeare aboue the rest and so Bechai on Deut. 26.12 R Chaskuni on Deut. 14.28 hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt bring forth all the tithes i. It concernes thee to bring forth the first tithe the second tithe the poore mans tithe setting downe the three distinct tithes by three distinct and seuerall names And therefore that cannot be true which the Historian teacheth that the second tithe and the poore mans tithe are substantially the same and fitly goe vnder one name for that which was giuen insteed of the second tithe cannot properly be said to be the same But say the Iewes as he noteth in the third sixt yeares the poore mans tithe was giuen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insteed of the second tithe and therefore can no more fitly be said to be the same then Iohn may be said to be Peter because he sits in the same chaire wherein Peter sate yesterday Furthermore Iarchi and Bechai on Deut. 14.28 and Deut. 26.12 speake to this effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. If a man delay or put off the payment of his Tithes the first and second yeare after the Sabbaticall then of necessity he must bring them forth of his house the third yeare So that in this case all the three tithes by Iarchi his confession being brought forth this third yeare they must needes be accounted three seuerall kindes of Tithes and therefore the poore mans tithe was not alwayes payde insteed of the second tithe nor one and the same in substance with the second tithe And a maine difference is noted betwixt them in the Talmud in Seder Teharoth Massech Iadim cap. 4 fol. 157. Where the expositor attributes these words to R. Eliezer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The second tithe is holy but the poore mans tithe common or prophane For the one might only be eaten at Ierusalem but the other in any place the one belonged to the housholder the other to the poore And though regularly they teach that the poore mans tithe was payed only the third and sixt yeares yet in the place before-named they deliuer it as a tradition of Moses from Sinai that Babel Aegypt Ammon and Moab payed the poore mans tithe in the seuenth yeare and Ramban in his preface to Seder Heraim saith as much of the second tithe that the same was also payed in these places the seuenth yeare I would be loath to stand too long vpon this point and yet I thinke it not amisse to consider in what manner he goes about to prooue it from the text before cited First he takes the Septuagint translation for a full and perfect confirmation of his opinion that the poore mans tithe is
is to be vnderstood not of the fields themselues but of the fruits saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And an other reason is for that he saith Your fields your vine-yards and your oliue-yards but doth not say your houses to signifie that he speakes of the fruits and not of the body or substance of the ground But as for the tithe according to the opinion of their Doctours his words are euident on 1 Samuel 8.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. But the tithe of increase and of the fruits and of the sheep that is his due at all times whensoeuer he pleaseth for euen Salomon the king of Israel tooke it So that by these authorities it is apparent the Iewes held that the King had a right to take tithe and that this was different from the Priests and Leuites tithe which point our Historian hath altogether concealed and yet here is a more ancient and better right of tithing ascribed to the King then that which he records pag 13. to be deriued from the Pope Wherefore considering the manyfold defects and falshood of this History me thinkes these speaches might very well haue bin spared whereby he pretends that no Christian before himselfe euer taught what was considerable in the generall payment of tithe among the Iewes no not Scaliger though he vndertooke it and others without his help slothfully and ignorantly talke of a third tithe and a fourth tithe and indeed they know not what tithe c. What needed all this except he had either manifestly confuted those that haue heretofore written of this argument which he can neuer doe or had made a better diuision or Treatise of tithes then they which as yet he hath not done seeing that in this History first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the poore mans tithe which Aben Ezra and others on Deut. 14. call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third tithe is absurdly confounded with the second the tithe of Cattell contrary to the tradition of the Iewes grosly mistaken and the Kings tithe either slothfully or ignorantly omitted Insomuch that the great Doctours of the Iewes and their later Comments which he saith are testimonies beyond exception for the practise or Historicall part being truly examined do plainly testifie against him that what he hath written of their manner of tithing hath beene rightly heretofore termed Historia fallax a false and imperfect History Indeed I must confesse that whether we respect the beginning midle or end of the booke besides what he owes to Scaliger it is for two things very considerable The first is assentation in pleasing the multitude that are loath to pay tithes 2 The other is ostentation in pleasing himselfe with his owne praise In both which respects this worke is so sufficiently performed as that I thinke there needes nothing more to be added or if there be I make no doubt but it shall be answered This short Treatise touching the tithe of cattell among the Iewes hauing some yeares past bin pervsed by diuers Readers was at length returned againe into my hands together with a censure thereof written by an vncertaine author which though it nothing fauour this Worke but rather hindred the publishing of it which at that time was by some expected yet because it may giue some light for the better manifestation of the truth I haue thought good to insert it in this place The tenor thereof is this There be two maine points in controversie betweene the Author and Mr Selden 1 WHether the first-borne of other vncleane cattell aswell as of Asses were not to be redeemed by paying a Lambe vnto the Priest It is true the Scripture nameth onely the asse Exod. 13.13 34.20 because those were most common in that country but I take it that vncler that one he comprehendeth by a Synecdoche all other beasts vncleane for sacrifice whereunto I am led both by the tenth commandement Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house his oxe nor his asse where vnder the asse all other of that kinde are comprehended and by that which is written in Numb 18.15 The first-borne of the vncleane beast thou shalt redeeme which is generall and not as some Hebrew Writers doe to be restrained to the asse onely Also Leuit. 27.27 doth strongly confirme it if it be of any vncleane beast he shall redeeme it and giue the fift part more thereunto which to be meant of the first-borne the verse going before doth evince howsoeuer Iarchi and Ramban and other Iewes expound that text 2 Whether the tithe were to be payde to the Leuite of the increase of cattell That tithe was to be payde of cattell to the Leuite the next seemeth plaine Leuit. 27.32 of bullocks and of sheep the tenth shal be holy to the Lord. Where those words holy to the Lord are not to be taken as the Rabbines would haue it of wholy to offer vpon the altar but holy in regard they were the Lord's portion and by him bestowed vpon the Leuites as is apparent by the 30th verse before But touching that which is spoken of passing vnder the rod I agree with the author who well compareth these two texts Levit. 27.32 and Ezech. 20.37 And the marking with a red oaker I hold to be but a Rabbinicall conceit So as if the question be in these two points of the right of tithing according to the rules and precepts of the Scripture I hold the truth to be with Mr Selden but if of the exposition of the Rabbines it seemeth to be against him Touching the King's tithe which Mr Selden is taxed for not speaking of it he may as I thinke be well excused because howsoeuer you will iudge of that kinde of tithe it was nothing pertinent to his purpose who writeth onely of Tithes due to the Church In his Review pag. 456. he doth admonish those that argue for Tithes from the Mosaicall Lawes of tithing to examine which of the two kindes are due why not the second aswell as the first And to consider how the payment of the Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel succeeds to the payment from the Leuites to the sonnes of Aaron and I thinke also if something had not hindred he would also haue added and how the payment of the tithe of cattell to the Priests of the Gospell succeedes to the none-payment of them to the Priests of the Law but saith he these considerations can only be where knowledge of fact preceedes belike then his knowledge of fact here failed him and therefore he also failed vs and yet for all this we giue no more credit to the Iewes herein than we doe to his History for though their writings manifest vnto vs this knowledge of fact yet can they not proue this fact to be according to knowledge or agreeable to truth and euidence of Scripture 1 For first that the tithe of cattell should be holy to be offered vpon the altar as a peace-offering and not to be giuen to the Priest in
be offred for a peace-offering he here intends no such matter but saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And behold he shall giue the first-borne and the tenth in cattell and the seed of the ground which is the increase the first fruits and the tithe And so also speaking of Iacob's vow Gen. 28.22 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is not in the Law that a man should giue the tithe of his sonnes but the tithe of bullocks and of sheepe and increase In which places he mentioning the Tithe of Cattell with the fruits of the earth and confounding them here together doth plainly imply that he takes them to be holy all alike and in the same manner to be giuen and disposed of For when he saith he shall giue the first-borne and the tenth in Cattell and seede of the ground c. to whom thinke we in his iudgment shall he giue the tenth but to the Priest who also had the first-borne and the first fruits here mentioned for if we should expound the Text as some of the Iewes doe of the second Tithe that was not giuen to any but the owner tooke it himselfe and did eat it at Ierusalem as he did also the Tithe of cattell after the offering of the blood and combustible parts thereof Againe the same Author writing vpon this Text of Leuit. saith further 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. And behold Abraham gaue tithe and also Iacob our father c. To what end should he vse these words applying them to this Text except he thought that such Tithes were here meant as Abraham and Iacob payde before the Law and that they were also to be payde in such manner as they formerly payde them which was in those times to the Priest as is plaine in Abraham Gen. 13. for he gaue Melchisedek tithe of all say the Iewes because he was the Priest so the glosse of Iarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was the Priest as the glosse of the Iewes hath it and so in this place of Leuit. here is a declaration of God's right in tithes that they are holy to him and afterward in Numb 18. he sheweth that he giues them generally to the Leuites vnder which name of Leuites the Priests are also comprehended For we haue formerly shewed that euery Priest is a Leuite though euery Leuite be not a Priest The Answer to the Censure THe two maine points in controversie between the Author and Mr Selden are not rightly propounded for I. The question is not whether the first-borne of other vncleane cattell as well as of asses were not to be redeemed by paying a Lambe vnto the Priest for Mr Selden in his History makes no mention at all of the Asse but the question is whether the first-borne of vncleane beastes were payde to the Priest in money with a fift part added for this affirmatiuely is M. Selden's position set downe without any proofe against which the Author thus reasoneth 1 The first-borne of the Asse which was an vncleane beast was not to be payd to the Priest in money but was to be redeemed with a Lambe Exod 15.13 34.20 2 The Iewes teach that no first-borne of any vncleane beast was payde at all but only of the Asse which is evidently prooved by their testimonies at large Whereas therefore the Moderator heere between Mr Selden and the Author holdeth that vnder the name of the Asse are comprehended by a Synechdoche all other beasts vncleane for sacrifice giuing his reasons to confirme it admit without any further examination that this were true it nothing helps Mr Selden but more strongly opposeth his assertion for if not only the first-borne of the Asse was to be redeemed with a Lambe but also the first of all other vncleane beastes then was not the first-borne of vncleane beastes paide to the Priest in money with a fift part added II. The other question likewise is not so as it is here by the Moderator expressed viz. whether tithe were to be paide to the Levite of the increase of Cattell But whether it were paide vnto him in the Iewish manner of tithing not what is required in regarde of precept but what was performed in regard of practise for this is that which the Historian professeth to teach by the very title of his booke calling it the History of tithes that is the practise of payment of them And so in this second chap. his inscription is in the beginning How among the Iewes tithes were paide or thought due Now it is evidently proued by such writings of the Iewes as he himselfe saith are testimonies beyond exception for the practise or Historicall part that their practise for the tithing of Cattell is contrary to that which he hath deliuered If it be said that the expositions of the Iewes and their practise here is not agreeable to Scripture as the Moderator seemes to determine To this I answere that the same thing likewise may be said of divers other pointes taught in his History and vrged from the authority of the Iewes concerning first fruits Therumahs and tithes which cannot be iustified by Scripture as I haue before declared If therefore now leaving his former hold he will disclaime and forsake his Rabbines for they here forsake him and cleaue only to the Scripture for the right of tithing omitting the Iewish practise then I make no doubt but we shall quickly shake hands for though the tithe of Cattell was not paide to the Levite according to the practise of the Iewes yet I hold with the Moderator that it ought to be paide vnto him according to the precepts of the Scripture and yet that text of Scripture Levit. 27 32. which they alledge doth not prooue it neither is it apparent by the 30 verse which Mr Selden for an other purpose in his History pag. 13. following Scaliger and some of the Iewes doth apply only to the second tithe contrary to the iudgment of this Moderator and contrary also to the true meaning of the Scripture as hath been shewed already True it is that in that text of Levit. 27. there is expressed a declaration of God's right in tithes and that the tithes are his reserved portion but the donation of them to the Levits is else-where confirmed as in Numb 18.21 For behold I haue giuen the Children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance c. from whence I cōclude that if all the tenth were giuē to Levi then no doubt but the tenth of their Cattell as well as any other and whatsoeuer the Iewes write to the contrary it is but frivolous for albeit the tithe of Cattell as they argue be not expresly named in the number of the 24 giftes belonging to the Priesthood which also may be avouched of many other particulars yet without any exception it is plainly comprehended vnder the generall grant of the tithes to Levi which to any reasonable iudgment is sufficient