AN ANSVVER TO THE IEVVISH PART OF Mr SELDEN'S HISTORY OF TITHES By STEPHEN NETTLES B. of Divinity PROV 3.9 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10. 9. Honour the Lord with thy riches and with the first fruits of all thine encrease 10. So shall thy barnes be filled with abundance and thy presses shall burst with new wine AC OX AT OXFORD Printed by IOHN LICHFIELD WILLIAM TVRNER Printers to the famous Vniuersity 1625. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL DOCTOR PRIDEAVX Rector of Exceter Colledge His MAIESTIE'S Professour in Divinity and Vice-Chancellour of the Vniversity of Oxford Reuerend and worthy Sir THE combination of zeale and learning wherewith God hath honourd You the loue You beare to the Hebrew studies and the cause handled in this litle tract together with the manifold fauours You haue pleased to vouchsafe me being as yet vnknowne vnto You haue beene the Allectiues to this small remembrance whereby coveting to shew my thankefulnesse I first offer vnto you the first fruits of these my poore indeauours And albeit comming now to write in this manner after the diuers treatises of tithes already extant I know it is but litle that can either be performed or expected from me in this subiect yet as the Iewes in gathering their fruits in Haruest beside their oblations and tithes had also their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 19.9 Deut. 24.19 20. i. the corner of the field the gleaning and the forgotten sheafe which were assigned to the vse and benefit of the poore so in some respect may I judge these scattered slender and poore Collections to be much of the like nature and therefore desiring to cast my mite into the treasury of the Church I present them vnto You in hope that as You haue already afforded them Your fauourable Construction so You will please also to assist them so farre as truth requires with your willing and able protection And thus beseeching the Almighty to blesse You and Your worthy labours to his glory and the good of the Church I take my leaue and rest Your Worships in all Christian duty to be commanded STEPHEN NETTLES Lexden May 4. 1625. THE PRAEFACE WHereas diuers Treatises haue bin published heeretofore in way of answer to the Booke intituled The History of Tithes it may be after this long silence it will now seeme strange and be thought a worke altogether vnseasonable and superfluous either to write or speake any more of that subiect Notwithstanding because the Historian himselfe and many others led rather with affection then judgement doe still much magnifie among the rest the Iewish part of that History as though some hidden matters of importance were involued therein I hope it shall not be offensiue to any sith this passage as yet hath not bin scanned if I as another witnes in the same cause endeauour only to bring in some evidence not yet explained that may helpe to vnfold cleare sundrie doubts and questions in this kind For albeit the Author of the History in the Praeface thereof offring it to the triall of the most censorious examination with a challenge against all opponents in his poëticall phrase Si falsa est accingere contra c. doth thereby insinuate that he hath written nothing but infallible truth And though also the authoritie of the Iewish Writers against the divine right of the Church in Tithes be alleaged with much confidence and ostentation and receiued also with great applause and more then ordinary approbation yet let praejudice and partiality with other sinister respects be laid aside and I make no doubt but there will appeare as much defect and errour euen in this part of the History as in any other whatsoeuer and that the writings of the Iewes though we depend not on them because in many things they are vaine and fabulous yet take them as they are being truly related will afford more grounds of proofe for the diuine right of Tithes then either hath as yet from them or can bee shewed against it I did wish expect that a more able workeman would haue vndertaken this taske and therefore these papers of mine which long since haue bin viewed and censured were neither at the first intended nor after hastened to the Presse But seeing in all this time I heare of no other discourse of this nature either performed or promised I haue at length yeelded to the desire and perswasion of such as might command me to publish this the rather because not long after the first appearing of the History I did in a publike Sermon take exception against diuerse parts thereof which being distastefull to some hearers I thought it did concerne me for better satisfaction aswell to the Eye as to the Eare to justifie with my pen what I avouched in the Pulpit and the same together with other obseruations to present to open view the intendment whereof ayming at nothing else but manifestation and confirmation of truth I am not carefull neither doe I thinke it needfull for this attempt to make any long apology Hauing therefore thus much praemised in way of Praeface I now passe forward vnto our purpose AN ANSVVER TO THE IEVVISH PART OF Mr SELDEN his History of Tithes SECT 1. THere are two things for which this History being duely examined doth discouer it selfe worthy to be taxed The first is the wresting of holy Scriptures against their true sense The other the boasting of Iewish Rabbines without any soundnesse or shew of reason for the Author as it seemeth bearing no good affection either to Priest or payment of Tithes when he would draw a text of Scripture to his purpose he doth vsually garnish and set it forth with the expositions of the Iewes and that in generall termes as though he had them all at his fingers ends and all of them were on his side when as notwithstanding it will appeare that sometimes none rightly vnderstood sometimes insteed of all only one is cited as on that Text Levit. 27.30 Also all the tithe of the land both of the seed of the ground and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords it is holy to the Lord. The History saith cap. 2. pag. 13. The Iewes apply this Scripture to the second Tithe The Iewes are here propoūded in generall yet there is none quoted but Salomoh Iarchi Cap. 2. pag. 16. So on Deut. 26.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith this place of the yeare of tithing is interpreted by the common glosse of the Iewes by the yeare of one Tithe c and yet none is cited but Salomoh Iarchi notwithstanding when Salomoh Iarchi speaks any thing that may seeme to make for the diuine right of tithing then his testimony is curtol'd contradicted as is plaine in the very beginning of the History Gen. 14.20 And Abraham gaue him tithe of all that is saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that he had as the ordinary glosse of Salomoh Iarchi there
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.
interprets But here he leaues out these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. because he was the Priest the whole senteÌ„ce being thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is And Abraham gaue him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest which later clause containes a reason why Abraham payde the Tithes to Melchisedek namely because he was the Priest implying thereby both a right in Melchisedek to receiue them and a duty in Abraham to pay them and so saith R. Bechai on that text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. According to the opinion of our Ancestors he was a Priest indeed and therefore Abraham gaue him the Tithe This is also further confirmed by the like testimony of Ramban Deut. 14.18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And hee was the Priest of the most high God To shew that Abraham would not giue the Tithe to the Priest of strange gods but because he knew him that he was the Priest of the most high God therefore hee gaue him the tithe for the honor of God And hereby was signified to Abraham that there should be the house of God and thither his posterity should bring the tithe the therumahs or oblations and that there they blesse the Lord. Of what credit this Ramban is Mercer on Genesis in the beginning pag. 3. tells vs in these wordes R. Mose Ben Nachman quem Ramban per Nun in fine appellant qui Moses Gerundensis cum alius R. Mose ben Maimon qui Rambam per Mem in fine vocatur sit qui R. Moses Aegyptius dicitur vterque vir insignis etsi Iudaei vt caeteri sint cum iudicio legendi Now this Testimony of Ramban implyes in it these things 1 That Abraham was to pay tithe to some one Priest or other 2 That not onely the Priests of the true God but also the Priests of strange gods among the Gentiles did in those times receiue Tithes 3 That Abraham payde the Tithes to the honour of God 4 That this payment was a president and type of the future payment of his posterity 5 That the payment of Tithes was annexed to the place of God's worship Aben Ezra on this Text and also on Gen. 28. ver 22. writes in a manner to the same effect and on Gen. 35.1 he saith of Iacob 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And in Bethel he performed his vow and gaue the Tithe of his substance for the honour of God to him that was in that generation for to receiue it That is to the Priest for in the Apostles language Heb. 7. a Priest and a receiuer of Tithes are aequipollents Insteed of saying Men that die are Priests he saith Men that die receiue Tithes Insteed of saying He that liues is a Priest he saith He that liues takes tithes as if in his iudgment Tithes and Priesthood were inseparable And therefore the Emphasis of the phrase he vseth Heb. 7.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Melchisedek tithed Abraham shewes both that he had authority to take Tithes and seemes also to subiect Abraham to a necessity of being tithed which is the same that Iarchi meanes in the testimony before cited saying that Abraham payde him tithe of all that he had because he was the Priest I haue the rather insisted vpon this that the Historian hath left out and excluded the Priest from receiuing Tithes because it seemes he doth it of set purpose for otherwise to what end doth he set downe those words in the beginning And gaue him tithe of all in that vncertaine manner not following any translation but leauing it doubtfull who should here be the giuer or for what cause doth he tell vs afterward That were it not for the holy exposition in that Epistle to the Hebrewes the relation in Genesis might as well bee vnderstood that on the other side Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had giuen to Abraham the tenth part of his estate the text indeed being both in the Hebrew and Septuagints so that no name immediatly preceding the mention of the gift it sufficiently thence appeares not who was the giuer c. This supposition is somewhat strange to which I may answere both for the thing suâ—posed and the consequent thereof that if it were 〈◊〉 â—â—lse we might with him conceiue it to be true 〈…〉 Apostle doth assure vs that it is false to what end therefore is it related for though he goe about to iustifie this assertion in his Review pag. 450. by the authority of Fathers acknowledge no fault at al to be in it yet how can this satisfie is it not a fault to call in question or make a doubt of that which the holy Scripture hath put out of doubt is it not a fault to oppose the imagination of mans braine against the determination of God's truth As for the testimony of S. Hierome writing not his owne but the Iewes opinion and other Fathers here alleadged it hath already bin sufficiently answered by others and therefore both in this and many things else my labour as it hath bin prevented so it may very well bee spared for I come but to gleane after others reaping Neither will I here recite the expositions of the Iewes against this conceit who generally vnderstand the Text according to the true interpretation thereof in the Epistle to the Hebrewes But suppose for argument sake that the holy Apostle had not fully cleared this truth yet that which the Historian would hereupon inferre will not follow viz That Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had given to Abraham the tenth part of his estate or as a portion to one of his posterity as hee speakes in his Review but that he gaue the tenth or tithe to Abraham as a duty still belonging to the Priest for in that sense doe those Iewes take it which were the first authors of this fancie that Melchisedek payd tithe to Abraham for they write that the Priesthood was translated from Melchisedek to Abraham because that Melchisedek vsed a preposterous order in his blessing in that he first blessed Abraham and after blessed God as it were preferring the seruant before the Master as R. Bechai and Chaskuni and others relate on Gen. 14.20 And to this they apply that in Psal 110.4 Thou art a Priest for euer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is because of the word that Melchisedek did speake as Rabbi Chimki there interprets it and Iarchi concerning Abraham which also they haue from the Talmud in Massech Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. But this is not generally receiued for Aben-Ezra on Gen. 14 reiects it saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Melchisedek spake as was fitting and did well in that he blessed Abraham first because he voluntarily offered himselfe to saue those that were led captiue and afterward he said and blessed be God that did helpe him and gaue his enemies into his hand therefore he interprets those words in the Psalme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. according to the order or custome or else saith
to signifie Almes must needes be a penurious vnproper exposition the same being expressed in the best Arabique Lexicons by the Latine words augmentum incrementū thesaurus corbona perfectura perfectus but neuer cleemosyna There is indeed an other word somewhat like this springing from the same root which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteousnesse which also sometimes by a Synecdoche signifieth Almes as being parts of righteousnes And so in Math 6.4 the Arabique 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comming from the Hebrew is translated almes as also the Hebrew terme it selfe is sometimes vsed as Bechai shews on Deut. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that giues almes to the poore giues almes to the Lord. But the proper word which the Arabiques vse for Almes is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressed in Math. 6.1.2 c. and is deriued from the Hebrew Radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misereri whereas the other comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mundare vel mundum esse But neither of these words are found in this Text but the other that is not expressed by the same Characters which if in a borrowed signification it be at any time either in the Alcoran or elsewhere taken for Almes yet it is altogether vnproper and vnfit to vse any such exposition in this place as it is vnfit that a gift which is presented to a Prince should be called by the name of Almes For how can we thinke that Melchisedek the King of Salem and Priest of the most high God was a receiuer of Almes but rather a giuer it being a more blessed thing to giue then to receiue Acts 20.35 And so much the Text it selfe Gen. 14. together with the expositions of the Iewes doth import where it is said that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham's wearyed souldiers There Iarchi thus glosseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So they vse to doe to thē that return'd weary from the warre Wherefore to shut vp this point one thing we may note by the way that if the Arabique translation here alleadged may stand for sufficient authority whereas the Historian makes it doubtful who should be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes stiling him in ambiguous and generall tearmes The holy Author but naming none The Arabique puts this quaestion out of doubt for it doth not only in the Title and inscription thereof call it the Epistle of St Paul but doth expresse it to be in number the fourtenth of his Epistles as it is stiled in the beginning thereof And so also doth the Syriaque Translation without any scruple ascribe it plainly to St Paul SECT 2. THe next passage of Tithes is in Iacob's vow Gen. 28.22 This stone which I haue set vp as a pillar shall be God's house and all that thou shalt giue me I will tithe and giue the tenth to thee This vow if we read the beginning of it in ver 20. seemes to be vttered conditionally if God will bee with me and keepe me in this iourney c. But R. Bechai and also Ramban doe otherwise expound it and say expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is no condition as Iarchi would haue it for Iacob did not doubt of God's promises which he made vnto him ver 15. But saith Ramban the Scripture speakes in this manner concerning things to come as Gen. 28.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not forsake thee vntill I haue performed that that I haue promised thee and so Numb 36.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not if but when the Iubily commeth And Pagnine sheweth that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not alwayes to be taken as a note of a condition and interpreted si if but saith he sunt qui ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducant quia pro verò certè sumitur interdum est particula certò aliquid statuens And Dauid Chimki giues examples for this in radice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Numb 1.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is certainely the Lord will make a new thing So Prov. 3.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Surely he scorneth the scorners as the last translation hath it And in the same sense the word is vsed in Iob 22.20 c. and elsewhere Whereas therefore Abulensis and others argue that Tithes belong not to the Law of nature or morall Law because things morall are not to be vowed with condition but absolutely the ground of that obiection is cleane taken away by this interpretation of the Text. For the Iewes teach that the vow of Iacob was not a conditionall but an absolute vow It followes in the History Which Iosephus sayes vpon his returne being after 20 yeares he performed offering the tithe of all his substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tithe of all that he had gotten Iosephus doth not only say this but also Iarchi on Gen. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So he did at his returne when he said vnto him Arise goe to Bethel Gen. 35.1 And Aben-Ezra likewise on the same cap. 35.1 confirmes this saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. In Bethel he performed his vow and gaue the tithe of his substance to the honour of God But that this was done after 20 yeares neither doth Iosephus or any other Iew affirme And if the computation of the yeares of the life of Iacob set down by Iarchi on Gen. 28. be true it was aboue 20 yea aboue 30 yeares before he performed this vow for he continued twenty yeares with Laban as appeares Gen. 31.38 and 14 yeares saith Iarchi according to the opinion of their Doctors he liued priuatly in the house of Heber after he had receiued the blessing and before he went to Laban And this they maintaine especially to make vp the full summe of 130 yeares of Iacob's age when he came before Pharaoh Gen. 47.9 Mercer also on Gen. 26.34 makes mention of this but it being a matter of small moment I let it passe and looke againe to the History Into whose hands he gaue the tithes appeares not but the chiefest Priest of that time was his father Isaac for before Aaron the Iewes said the Priesthood was wholly annexed to the first-borne of families which agrees well with the sanctifying of the first-borne commanded in Aegypt Exod. 13. It is euident by the testimony of Ramban on Gen. 26.5 that the Patriarches were liberall in giuing their Tithes to the Priests of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. as to Shem and Heber and their disciples as hee there saith And among the Disciples of Shem Heber they account Iacob for one And therefore on those words Gen. 25.27 Iacob was a plaine man and dwelt intents Iarchi here glosseth and Bechai and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the tent of Shem and the tent of Heber And on Gen. 37.3 Israel loued Ioseph more then all his
so in Ier. 31.9 Ephraim is my first-borne Chimki there giues tbe same interpretation and so doth the Targum of Ionathan in that place Sometime the name of first-borne is ascribed to men in Scripture in regard of dignity and honour Psal 89.27 also I will make him my first-borne higher then the Kings of the earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls him first-borne saith Chimki because the first-borne hath dignity ouer the other sonnes which was that priuiledge of birth-right as R. Bechai thinks that Esau sold to Iacob Gen. 25.31 And so the Patriarches and Fathers of the auncient Church are in respect of honour tearmed the Congregation of the first-borne Heb. 12.23 And further on Exod. 13.2 R. Bechai saith that whereas the Lord smote all the first borne in the land of Egypt Exod. 12.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it is extended to the eldest in the family if no first-borne were there for he is also called a first borne And in this sense the Patriarches and heads of families whether first-borne or not might be accounted insteed of Priests in their generation and were also Prophets and Kings as Chimki sheweth on Psal 105.15 Touch not mine anointed c. But properly Priests they were not for no man takes this honour to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron Heb. 5.4 and we find but two orders of Priesthood in Scripture the one after Melchisedek the other after Aaron The Priesthood of Aaron was not yet instituted none but only Christ is said to be a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedek and to this purpose in the Talmud in Massech Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. they write thus concerning Melchisedek Priest of the most high God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. he was a Priest but his seed no Priest To conclude therefore it is lest altogether vncertaine in this passage of the history either what order of Priesthood it was that belonged to the first-borne or what manner of first-borne it was to which the Priesthood was annexed And yet he proceedes further in this kinde saying And Noah Abraham and Iob and the like are accounted by this right Priests of that time For proofe of this Origen lib. 1. in Iob is cited in the margent But Origen doth not there say that these were Priests by that right of primo-geniture but thus Erant nihilominus etiam eâ tempestate sacerdotes necdum adhuc à lege ordinati sed naturali sapientiâ hoc requirente ac perficiente ita sacerdotio functus est Noah c and againe speaking there of Iob's sacrificing for his sons daughters he doth not thence inferre that he was a Priest but proues out of Iob 12.19 that there were Priests in his time and then concludes doubtfully thus Siue ergo memorati sacerdotes siue ipse per seipsum Iob offerebat hostias pro illis secundùm numerum illorum But the Iewes they doe not teach that Iob was a Priest but that he was a Iudge for so Aben-Ezra in the conclusion of his Commentary on Iob at the end of the booke directly expresseth prouing it from cap. 22. ver 9. of that book compared with cap. 29.13.14.15.16 his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. His companions said vnto him thou hast sent widowes away empty And this is a signe that he was a Iudge and therefore he answers I was a father to the poore and I caused the widowes heart to sing for ioy Furthermore to proue Iacob's Priesthood gained by the sale of the birth-right from Esau the Historian saith that Expresse mention is of his exercising this holy function in sacrifices during his fathers life and for this alleadgeth Gen. 31.54 But he hath mistaken and mis-applyed this Text if his owne author Rabbi Iarchi may be beleeued for Iarchi doth not thinke that Iacob did here offer a sacrifice neither doth he interpret the Text in that sense but saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That he slew cattell to make a feast for his brethren and friends that came with Laban And so often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie aswel mactare as sacrificare to slay as to sacrifice Neither could he with a good conscience invite them to his sacrifice that were out of the couenant being as they were of another religion as that iudicious Diuine Mr Perkins answers our aduersaries alledging and interpreting this Text against their arguments for the sacrifice of the Masse in his Reformed Catholicke Againe all those that offered sacrifices were not Priests as appeares by Samuel 1 Sam. 7.9 For R. Levi Ben Gershom writing on that Text saith plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Samuel was no Priest and so S. Austin retract lib. 2. cap. 43. Chimki here sheweth that Iosuah did sacrifice in Gilgal Iosuah 8.30 and Eliah in Carmel 1 Kings 18. and so did Balaam Numb 23. Iarchi speaks of this and R. Bechai on Numb 18.7 and Deut. 2.8 who saith that before the Tabernacle was set vp the high places were permitted euery man that would offered sacrifice on the top of his house but after the erecting of the Tabernacle they were prohibited so long as the hoste continued in the wildernesse as in Levit. 17.3 ◠Afterward when they passed ouer Iordan for the space of 14 yeares whilst they were imployed in subduing and diuiding the land the vse of the high places was then lawfull which being appointed by the direction of a Prophet a stranger that was no Priest might offer sacrifice in them But when they come to Ierusalem the inheritance mentioned Deut. 12.9 then were they no longer lawfull Therefore the Kings of Iudah are blamed when they destroy'd not the high places And touching the sacrifices of the Patriarchs one thing here may be remembred which in the first Tome of Councells in the second Epistle of Anacletus is recorded in these words Initium sacerdotij Aaron fuit licet Melchisedec prior obtulerit sacrificium post eum Abraham Isaae Iacob sed hi spontanea voluntate non sacerdotali autoritate ista fecerunt Which sheweth that in the iudgment of the ancients though the Patriarches did offer sacrifice yet that was no sufficient argument to proue them to be Priests And if Cain and Abel were therefore both of them to be accounted Priests because both of them did offer sacrifice then was not the Priesthood before Aaron wholly annexed to the first-borne of families for Abel was no first-borne and yet the sacrifice of Abel was accepted and not the sacrifice of Cain But our author hath not yet done with this Treatise of the Priesthood he presseth it further saying Whence obserue by the way that both Abraham and Iacob according to the right of that time must be Priests also when they payde these tithes I maruaile what he intends to make of this obseruation it may be would hence conclude that Priests should therefore pay tithes now aswell as other men or else none
resembled to these seeming at the first to be sweet as honey and after sowre as leauen And Ramban here concurring with Moses Ben Maimon in Moreh Hanebucim saith it was a custome among Idolaters to offer all their meat offerings with leauen and to mixe hony in all their sacrifices and therefore they are forbidden to be offered to God as on the contrary salt was required because by them it was loathed and so saith he The pillar which was allowed in the dayes of the Patriarches because afterwards it was abused by idolaters therefore God hated it as Deut. 16.22 Dauid de Pomis in his Dictionary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ramban on Levit. 23.17 write that in as much as sacrifices were offered to obtaine the fauour of God and appease his wrath therefore they did not bring them of such things that were onely sowre as leauen which had relation to iudgment nor of things which were altogether sweet as hony signifying mercy but of a mixt quality as it is said in the Creation of the world that he mixed mercy and iudgment together and created it But against this which by Chimki and the rest is here alleadged it is to be considered that though the text saith Leuit. 2.11 Ye shall neither burne leauen nor hony in any offering of the Lord made by fire Yet in the next verse it followes In the oblation of the first fruits ye shall offer them and so it is plaine Leuit. 23.17 and Chimki himselfe on Amos 4.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnes the Idolaters not for offering a sacrifice of thanksgiuing with leauen but for burning it vpon the altar against the Law Furthermore the text before rehearsed viz Deut. 8.8 and the intendment thereof being principally to amplifie and set forth the Commendation of the Land for the fruitfulnesse of the same there is no reason why we should restraine the signification or alter the proper sense of the words but rather giue euery word his largest extent and then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies hony be limited or restrained to signifie Dates especially when the Iewes themselues vnder this word comprehend the fatnesse and sweetnesse of all kind of fruits so saith Iarchi on Levit. 2.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All sweetnesse of fruit is called hony To the same purpose also speakes Ramban on Exod. 3.8 Ralbag on Iob. 20.17 Chimki on Psal 81.16 and Deut. 32.13 And Aben Ezra on Numb 16.13.14 and Bechai on Deut. 6.24 And so also by the like reason hony in this Text may better be extended to all other sweet and pleasant fruites then be contracted and stinted only to Dates And yet Aben-Ezra on Levit. 2.11 reporteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That many of them say the exposition of Debash is Dates and so euery-where a land flowing with milke and hony and they haue saith he a resemblance of a reason for it in the booke of Ezra Whereby as I take it he meanes the booke of Chronicles which were gathered by Ezra as the Iewes write after their returne from Babylon And in 2 Chron. 31.5 they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not hony but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dates So Chimki and Iarchi note on that Text. And our last translation interpreting the word in the Text hony writes in the margent dates But though it were to be so vnderstood in this place yet there is no probability or shew of reason why it should be thus expounded in that Text Deut. 8. or where it is found in many other Texts beside We may aswell beleeue that to be true which Baal Haturim writes of their pomegranates as this that they affirme of Dates for he on Numb 13.34 compared with Esai 40.22 saith that one of the Giants of the sonnes of Anak hauing eaten a pomegranate did cast away the pill thereof and afterward all the twelue spyes that were sent to search the land went into it to sit there and shade themselues from the heat of the Sunne And to make this good that the roome might seeme big enough and the men litle enough R. Iarchi seconds him with the like glosse on that text ver 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So we were in their sight we heard them say one to another there are pismires in the Vineyards like men that is the spyes heard the Gyants say so concerning them These and such like are the expositions and glosses of some of those grand Rabbies on whose testimony the History of Tithes is principally grounded But now suppose that Dates were to be vnderstood in that text as the Iewes would haue it doth it therefore follow because seuen kindes of fruits are there named that onely of those seuen and no more the first fruits should be payde so they teach also by the like warrant that there are iust seuen habitations or seuen seuerall vaults of hell must we therefore needes beleeue it to be true Chimki relates this on 2 Sam. 18.33 19.4 where Dauid mourning for the death of Absolom ingeminates those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my sonne my sonne eight times with seuen of them he raised him vp saith he out of the seuen vaults or mansions of Hell and with the eight he brought him into Paradise Iarchi also mentions this on Esai 20.23 and Baal Haturim on Deut. 15.8 from Massecheth Sutah cap. 1. fol 10. and Kimchi on 2 Kings 23.10 But before I leaue this point there is yet one other thing to be considered for what if more then seuen kinde of fruits be soūd to be contained in the foresaid text shall not the Law of first fruits take hold of them R. Bechai on this text Deut. 8.8 fol. 209.2 fol. 212.1 saith expresly that the land is here commended for ten things adding three to the former seuen for saith he Rye oates and spelt or beare corne are comprehended vnder wheat and barly which are named as the principall and no reason to the contrary but that of these they were to pay first fruits aswell as of the other therfore they were not payed only of seuen kindes It is written 2 Chron. 31.5 The children of Israel brought abundance of first fruits of corne wine and oyle and hony and of all the increase of the field Now vnder Corne the Iewes containe fiue seuerall specie's so saith Chimki in Miclol in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ramban on Deut. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Corne in the holy tongue signifies fiue known kinds which are the same that Bechai expresseth before therefore being vnder this word comprehended no question but of these the first fruits are also here required Againe the Iewes themselues vnderstanding this text to be spoken of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits properly as Chimki here expounds it when as in their former Catalogue of seuen among the rest they say that the first fruits were payed of grapes and oliues as I mentioned before and
vessell wherein they were brought 3 The reading of the Text. 4 An offering or oblation 5 Their reioycing in singing 6 The shaking of them to and fro 7 Their lodging in Ierusalem 1 The bringing of them vp to the place appointed for it was necessary that they should bring them vp to the House of the Sanctuary as it is written Deut. 26.2 And thou shalt goe to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose c. 2 The Vessell as it is said ver 2. And thou shalt put it in a basket It is also a precept of speciall choyse to bring euery kind in a basket by it selfe but if they brought them in one basket they were to be carefull that they should not confusedly be mixed together but barly in the lowest place and wheat vpon that and dates about that and pomgranates aboue them and figges aboue them all and something was to be put betweene euery species to seuer them one from another as leaues or such like And outwardly they compassed the figges with bunches of grapes They brought likewise in their hands turtle doues and young pigeons for it is said and thou shalt reioyce in euery good thing ver 11. and for this reioycing flesh was requisite They hanged also on the sides of their baskets turtle doues and yong pigeons to set forth adorne their first fruits Those that were on their baskets they offered for burnt sacrifice and those that were in their hands they gaue to the Priests of that ward together with the first fruits which they diuided among themselues as other holy things 3 The reading as it is said ver 5. And thou shalt answere and say c. that is he read the Text from those words ver 5. A Syrian was my father c. vntil those ver 10. And now loe I haue brought the first fruits of the land which thou O Lord hast giuen me And this answering was praise and thanksgiuing with lifting vp of voyce and that in the holy tongue as it is written Deut. 31.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. this song shall answere them and so it is here ver 5. thou shalt answere and say Deut 26.5 4 The oblation was a peace-offering 5 A song was required for it is said And thou shalt reioyce in euery good thing ver 11. and for this singing was necessary as it is Psal 33.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Sing chearefully with a loud voyce for so the Leuites did read with singing when they brought ihe first fruits after that they came into the Court. 6 The shaking of them to and fro as it is written Deut. 26.10 Numb 14.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God when as the Priest put his hand vnder the hand of the owners shaked it and this is that is said ver 4. Then the Priest shall take the basket out of thine hand that is to say to shake it to and fro 7 Lodging that albeit he brought his first fruits and offered his peace-offrings and performed all his duty that day yet it was not lawfull for him to depart the same day out of Ierusalem but that he should lodge there as it is said Deut. 16.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou shalt returne on the morrow and goe vnto thy Tents And so they teach all returning whereby thou returnest from the Sanctuary after thou art come thither shall not be but on the morrow Thus farre R. Bechai touching the manner of the Iewes in paying their first fruits as is described in their Talmud And among other questions touching first fruits he adds further that it is disputed among them whether a stranger were to pay them or not some say hee might not because he could not vse the words of the protestation Deut 26.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am come into the Country which the Lord sware vnto our fathers to giue vs. But the more generall and common opinion was that he might both bring the first fruits and likewise vse the protestation because Abraham is reputed also the father of strangers as it is said Gen. 17.5 I haue made thee a father of many Nations And it may be saith he that this is pointed at in the text where it is said ver 11. thou and the Leuite and the stranger that is among you Lastly for the end of the oblation of first fruits he affirmeth that it tended to the honour of God the dignity of the Priest and the great benefit of Israel 1 The honour of God in that they came to make prayer and supplication before him in that great and holy Temple for the multiplying of his benefites and acknowledging that all blessings proceeded only from him 2 The dignity of the Priest in that the Israelite wearied and turmoyled himselfe all the way to feed him with the first of his fruits and most choyce of them 3. The great benefite of Israel in that by the due obseruation of this precept the fruits were increased the food of the world blessed And so much for first fruits CAP. 3. NExt the Therumah or heaue offering or first fruites of Corne Wine Oyle Flecce and the like were also giuen to the Priests Deut. 18.4 I doe not well vnderstand in what sense these words the therumah or heaue offring or first fruits can properly be spoken in this place for hereby hee seemes to confound the first fruits the therumahs as if they were all one which according to the tradition and history of the Iewes are manifestly distinguished as appeares in the seuerall Tractates or Massecheths in the Talmud both of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heaue offerings And the place quoted in the margent viz Deut. 18.4 speakes directly of first fruits and not therumahs or heaue offerings howsoeuer some of the Iewes doe otherwise expound it For the first fruits were either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb 18.12.13 and the word vsed there in Deut. 18.4 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies first fruits yea the first of the first fruits But it being not determined by Moses of what quantity this heaue offering should be the Iewes anciently assest it to be enough at the fiftieth part Sal. Iarchi ad dict locum caeteri Jurisp D. Hieronymus ad â—…zech cap. 45 Cassianus collat 21. cap. 3. but so that no necessity was that euery one should pay so much he that payde a sixtieth part was discharged and many of the better devotion offred a fortieth The fiftieth part they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. that is an indifferent or competent therumah or heaue offering which they named also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the great heaue offering The fourtieth they stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Therumah of a faire eye Hanc loquendi formulam babes apud D. Matthaeum cap. 20.15 or liberally giueÌ„ And the sixtieth
27.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Of the seed of the ground that is corne of the fruit of the trees that is wine and oyle As though there were no seed of the ground but corne and no fruit of the trees but wine and oyle what is this else but contrary to the former rule to bring a sense to the words and not to take a sense from the words Againe to restraine this Text onely to the second Tithe is without any sufficient warrant considering that not only the second but also the first tithe is the Lords and holy to the Lord as Abarbinel here saith because it proceeds frō his blessing of the earth as a reserued portion to himselfe That it is the Lords appeareth Numb 18 21. For behold I haue giuen the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance He giues that here which in a peculiar manner was his owne to giue And therefore well saith Calvin touching this on Leuit. 27.30 His verbis ostendit Deus se decimas Leuitis assignando proprio iure cedere quae sunt quasi regale vectigal atque ita querimonias omnes compescit quia alioqui obstrepere poterant aliae tribus ultra modum se gravari And that the first tithe is the Lords Iarchi himselfe euidently sheweth on Malach. 3.8 Wherein haue we spoiled thee In tithes and offerings where saith Iarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The tithes and offerings which ye take from the Priests and Leuites that is the spoyling of me Which words are meant not of the second but of the first tithe which only belonged to the Priests Leuites and in defrauding them hereof God himselfe is said to be spoyled And so in Esay 5.8 Woe to them that ioyne house to house c. Iarchi hath the like saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Ye rob God of his part in tithes Beside as the first tithe is the Lords so also it is holy to the Lord Deut. 26.13 I haue brought the hallowed thing out of my house and also haue giuen it to the Leuites c. The Targum here saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I haue brought the holy Tithe out of my house 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And also haue giuen it to the Leuites that is the first Tithe saith Iarchi so he doth here interpret the words in ver 12. of the Leuites Tithe or first Tithe And this is likewise confirmed by Aben Ezra on Numb 18.29 and againe by Iarchi on Nehem. 12.47 And they gaue the holy things vnto the Leuites which Iarchi thus expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they gaue the Tithe to the Leuites whereby he implyeth that the first Tithe or Leuites Tithe is holy And to conclude if that be true which the Historian saith of the increase of their cattell one Tithe only was payed and that to the Leuites then it followeth that the first tithe or Leuites tithe is holy to the Lord for it is said Leuit. 27.32 Euery tithe of Bullock and of Sheepe of all that goeth vnder the rod the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. If then the first tithe be the Lords and holy to the Lord why shall it be excluded out of this text And if this verse be vnderstood of the first tithe as the History teacheth why shall not also the verses immediatly going before be vnderstood in like manner of the first tithe To this that hath bin said one thing more may be added that whereas Iarchi touching the redeeming of the tithe by adding the first part thereto as in Leuit 27.31 saith that this redeeming was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it may be free to be eaten in euery place First the adding of the first part is not prescribed at all in that text which they make to be the ground of the second tithe viz Deut. 14.23 Neither was the second tithe to be eaten in all places for that was proper only to the first tithe as Deut. 18.31 In regard whereof Ramban confutes Iarchi his exposition of those words in Deut. 26.4 nor giuen ought thereof for the dead c. to be meant of the second tithe therefore hath this glosse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To make a coffin and winding sheet for the dead Ramban here shewes that this exposition is not sound for saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It is declared in the Scripture that they might not prophane the second tithe out of Ierusalem but only if the way were too farre it was to be made in money and that money to be laid out at Ierusalem for some thing fit to be eaten there oxe and sheep c. Deut. 14 26. and therefore not to make a coffin or winding sheet for the dead and so much doth Chimki also note on Esay 62.9 But for this redeeming of the Tithe by adding the fift part thereto I take that to be agreeable to the truth which the iudicious interpreter Caluin touching this point hath deliuered on Leuit. 27 30. in these words Quòd verò ubi pecunia redimuntur decimae quintam partem aestimationi vult superaddi non eò tendit ut Levitae ex alieno damno lucrum faciant sed quia astutè aliquam vtilitatem captabant agrorum domini frumentum in pecuniam mutando fraudibus occurritur ne quid ex captiosâ permutatione Levitis decedat Eadem ratione animalia iubet qualiacunque erunt decimari nec pecuniâ redimi patitur quoniam si libera fuisset electio nullum unquam animal pingue aut vegetum venisset ad Levitas Ergo hâc lege remedium avaritiae sordibus fuit adhibitum Where we see also that Calvin doth manifestly interpret this Text of the first Tithe or Leuites tithe as the most or best interpreters doe so that here wee haue both Iewes and Christians against the foresaid History Wherefore though we loose the Tithes yet let vs not loose the Text let vs not loose the Truth for if this dealing with Scripture may currently passe Abraham payed Tithe of all that is only of the spoyles All the Tithe of the land is the Lords that is only the second Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the yeare of tithing that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Tithe or the yeare of paying onely one Tithe I say if this course may be allowed as Tithes are made no Tithes by wicked customes and prescriptions so Scripture shall be made no Scripture by corrupt glosses and false expositions and yet these matters are set forth with such a goodly outward shew as though forsooth they might admit no contradiction for thus saith the Author Many of no small name grosly slip in reckoning and diuiding these kindes of their Tithes but this here deliuered is from the holy Text and the Iewish Lawyers What wee receiue rightly deduced from the Text we willingly embrace but as for the Iewi h Lawyers they iarre among themselues they trust not one another and therefore we
other Rabbines on diuers texts of Scripture and also in the Talmud doe plainly shew against this History that the Tithe of beasts is a distinct and seuerall Tithe by it selfe differing from the Priests and Leuites Tithe Deut. 12.6 Ye shall bring thither your burnt offerings and your sacrifices and your Tithes Where Iarchi expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Tithes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of beasts and the second Tithe to be eaten within the wall at Ierusalem And Rabbi Abuhab commenting vpon Iarchi in the same place saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Iarchi speakes this because that if he should interpret it of the first Tithe he was to giue that vnto the Leuite Where he makes a manifest difference betwixt the Leuites Tithe and the Tithe of beasts and and so doth Ramban on the same Text at large likewise on Amos 4.4 Come to Bethell and transgresse to Gilgal and multiply transgressions and bring your sacrifices in the morning and your Tithes after three yeares It is in the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And your Tithes after three dayes The Iewes therefore giue a double exposition of these words either that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie yeares as sometimes it is taken in Scripture as Leuit. 25.29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within a yeare may he redeeme it and so this Text of Amos hath reference to that in Deut. 14.28 At the end of three yeare th u shalt bring forth all the Tithes c. Or else it is taken in his proper signification for dayes and in this sense they vnderstand here by Tithes the Tithe of beasts which Idolaters did offer contrary to the Law for so are Iarchi his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Law saith concerning the lesse holy things Levit 7.18 19.6.7 It shall be eaten the day ye offer it or on the morrow but idolaters say after three dayes eat the Tithe of your cattell or else the idolatrous Priests teach them so as he further sheweth in this place c. In like manner Dauid Chimki on the same Text accordeth with Iarchi in this interpretation saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. After three dayes your Tithes i. The Tithe of beasts which is of the lesse holy things and the Law saith concerning the lesse holy things It shall be eaten the day ye offer it or on the morrow but they eat it after three dayes For the better clearing of these testimonies wee must here note by the way that the Iewes make two sorts of holy things the one they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most holy the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lesse holy Iarchi grounds this distinction on Leuit. 21.22 The bread of his God euen of the most holy and of the holy shall he eate The same distinction is commonly vsed by other Rabbines as Aben Ezra on Numb 18.9 And by Ramban on Leuit. 19.5 and Baal Haturim on Deut. 12.11 so also in the Talmud as in Massecheth Gnorlah cap. 2. fol. 81. and Chiduschin cap. 2. fol. 52. c. The most holy things were such as onely the Priests were to eat of as Iarchi sheweth on Numb 18.10 and so Aben Ezra on Deut. 12.27 The lesse holy the people also might eat as Aben Ezra signifies on Leuit. 7.15 and Deut. 12.27 and Iarchi on Levit. 10 14. Among the first sort of these holy things they number the meat offering the trespasse offering the sinne offering the first-borne the shoulder the brest c. as appeares by Aben Ezra on Numb 18.9 and Deut. 12.27 Among the second they reckon the peace-offerings Leuit. 7.15 So doth Aben Ezra on this Text and Ramban likewise testifieth the same thing on Leuit. 19.5 And when ye shall offer a peace-offering vnto the Lord ye shall offer it freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He speakes this of the peace-offrings which were the lesse holy things and were to be eaten by the owners themselues c. And to this second sort of holy things the Iewes likewise doe referre the Tithe of Cattell as is euident by Iarchi and Chimki and others in the places before cited And Ramban further confirmes it on Numb 5.10 And euery mans hallowed things shall be his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture drawes all holy things giues them to the Priests doth not reserue of them but only the offering of thanksgiuing the peace-offrings the Passeouer the tithe of beasts the 2d Tithe the planting of the 4th yeare that they should belong to the owners Dauid de pomis in his dictionary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shewing the diuers kinds of sacrifices among the Iewes doth in all things agree with vs in this that hath beene said concerning the Tithe of beasts and so doth Moses Ben Maimon in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth cap. 9. fol. 25. Mishneh in Megnashar Seni cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Wee haue heretofore oftentimes mentioned that for the Tithe of beasts they offer the fat and the blood thereof and the owners doe eat it in Ierusalem that is doe eat the flesh thereof as Iarchi before expressed Now the reason why the Iewes doe after this manner conceiue and teach concerding this Tithe is related both by R. Bechai and also by Iarchi on Levit 27.33 to be because say they it is not reckoned among the 24 gifts of the Priesthood for that is the number that they make of them according as I finde them set downe both by R. Bechai and R. Chaskoni on Numb 18. in this order So Iarchi on Gen. 29.34 and in the Talmud in Massech Cholin 133. fol. 2 pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The twenty foure gifts of the Priesthood were giuen to the Priests twelue in Ierusalem and twelue in the borders The twelue that were giuen in Ierusalem are these the sinne offering the trespasse offering the peace offerings of the Congregation the skinnes of the holy things the shew bread the two loaues the Omer or sheafe the remainder of the meat offerings the residue of the log or pint of oyle for the leaper the oblation of the thanksgiuing the oblation of the peace offering the oblation of the Ramme of the Nazarite And these following are the twelue that were giuen in the borders The great heaue offering the heaue offering or oblation of the tithe the cake the first fruits the first of the fleece the shoulder the two cheekes and the maw the first borne of man the first borne of the cleane beast the firstling of the asse the dedications or vowes the field of possession the robbery of the stranger Leuit. 6.5 Numb 5.7.8 These are the foure and twenty gifts that belonged to the Priesthood And among these there is no mention of the first-borne of any vncleane beast but only the Asse and no mention at all of the tithe of cattell What soundnesse there is in this their doctrine