CHAP. I. The Etymologie, and subiect of Sacrilege. Sacrilege heere specially meant of Tithes. Church maintenance diuided, defined.

SACRILEGE, is from Sacra, and Le­gere; §. I Legere heere, is to Gather, Etymologie of Sacrilege. and not to Reade holy things: for lacke of reading, or at least of vnderstan­ding, increaseth this Gathering. And though a holy gathering both may and must bee, hauing God for the head-gatherer; his Ministery as his Officers, for gathering his holy people to his heauenly foldes; his Patrimony to bee gathered by them, as the life of their labours: yet our Christian world so ouer­floweth with heapes of vnholy and godlesse gatherers, that Sacrilege now, signifieth nothing but filthy profa­nation of holy things.

To know this sinne well then, wee must first know, what are the sacred and holy things, wherein hee hath his being.

§. II Things, or Creatures sacred, are either by Creation or Separation. Subiect of Sacrilege. By Creation, heauenly, Angels: earth­ly, Man, to his owne Image. By Separation holy, are such of all his earthly creatures, as are separated from prophane or common vse to Gods seruice.

Things separat to this holy vse, are generally fiue. First, A forme of worsh p to be done, answering How, or What. Secondly, Time, When. Thirdly, Place, Where. Fourthly, Person, Who. And last, Maintenance for his cal­ling Of all these fiue is Sacrilege cōmitted, whensoeuer any point is with-holden from the vse it is ordained for.

§. III But to come to that point wherof we minde to treat, it signifieth onely, Sacrilege of Tithes. with-holding of Maintenance, the thiefe-exercise of men of our age, chiefly where the light is greatest, and the Person greatest. Any Religion will rob their Gods; but a Sacrilegious Protestant surpasseth all: So that no man now, in shew more religious, then some who in substance bee most Sacrilegious, (that is) Sac-religi [...]us; for that Religion feedeth best their soule, that filleth best their sack: A greedie kind of Gospellers, Pharisaically proud of their profession, Luke 18.12. all saue one thing: The Pharisie vaunted that he gaue Tithes of all he had: they will not (if they can) giue the Tithes of any thing they haue. The Gospell should be preached pure­ly, therefore the Preachers liue Poorely: Almes for Main­tenance.

§. IIII But Scripture giueth a two-fold Maintenance: from God immediatly; Mainte­nance diui­ded. or from mans Liberalitie: from God, either Perpetuall, or Temporall Maintenance.

§. V Perpetuall, whereby God from all beginning till the [Page 3] end of the world, Mainte­nance defi­ned. Num. 18.20.2i. prouided for the whole Ministerie of his worship in generall; and called euer in Scr [...]pture, Gods inheritance, viz. the first Tithing,

Temporall, whereby God prouided in speciall for such a seruice, such an Officer, and such a period of time: So were the portions of the Sacrifices, &c. a part of Leuies Maintenance for his ceremoniall seruice.

Maintenance flowing from Man, is, when (Gods in­heritance being first set apart) Hee separateth any thing from the common vse to the Lord of all that he hath. Leuit. 27.28.

Of these two sorts of Maintenance maketh Sacrilege his chiefe muster: which in proper speech, in place of Sacrilegium, Holy gathering, should haue said, Rom. 2.22. Sacri-fur­tum, holy theft: or Sacri-raptum, holy robbery. Pauls [...]. And this for his Etymologie: followeth his na­ture and Definition.

CHAP. II. Sacrilege defined, diuided: Some obiections answered.

SAcrilege (by Scripture defined) is, Leuit. 5.15. & 22.14. A taking a­way §. I of things consecrated vnto the Lord. Sacrilege Defined. Diuided.

It is done either of Ibid. Ignorance or knowledge.

If by Ignorance, it craued by the Law, both Restitu­tion and Purgation.

For Restitution, Leuit. 5.16. Hee shall restore that wherein hee hath offended, in taking away of the holy thing: and put the fift part more thereto, and giue it vnto the Priest.

For Purgation, Hee shall bring for his trespasse offering vnto the Lord, a Ramme without blemish, &c. and so the Priest shall make an attonement for him.

If it be done of Knowledge; that which is taken, and [Page 4] all that the taker hath, must bee for the Lord as a sacri­fice, for Restitution: and he with his whole family sto­ned, Ios. 7. Act. 5.3. Prou. 20.25. and burnt for a Purgation. So was done to Achan, not much vnlike to Ananias and Saphira. Yea, It is a de­struction for a man to deuour that which is sanctified.

Then from this our Definition, wee speake now of Maintenance, Inheritance, Tithes: thus,

• §. II All taking away of things consecrated to the Lord, is Sacrilege.
• All Tithes, Inheritance, are consecrated to the Lord.
• Ergo, All taking away of Tithes is Sacrilege.

Obiect. 1 This Assumption no man will flatly deny, yet many distinguish it: astricting this consecration of Tithes to the Lord, onely to the time of the Law: because onely there, are Tithes by precept due to the Leuites, and their Priesthood; and that Priesthood now wholly abroga­ted, and so Tithes no more to be payed.

Respon.Alas, heere now they erre, not knowing the Scrip­tures; §. III for while they imagine Tithes and the Law to be Twinnes of one Time, Ceremonies, in what things. they haue not read the Scrip­ture (as shall be Cap. 6. ad fin. & cap. 7. proued.) And whereas they reckon Tithes amongst the Ceremonies of the Law, heere they vnderstand not what they haue read. For all the Cere­monies of Moyses Law were so ordained, as they did prefigure something to bee done Gal. 4.4. till the fulnesse of time was come. Heb. 9.10.23. And stood onely in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnall rites, vntill the time of re­formation. And were similitudes of heauenly things. All these (we confesse) were truely Legall Ceremonies, lea­ding to Christ by a Heb. 7.16.28. carnall commandement; and abo­lished in his Priesthood by an eternall oath: But now, as all these ceremonies looked onely to Christ, and liued [Page 5] onely till he came: so on the other part, Euery thing that looked, or led vs to Christ, was not so ceremoniall, nor yet by Christ abrogated: No, for this would shut vp both the Morall and Iudiciall Lawes, yea the very Decalogue it selfe, vnder the Ceremoniall Law. But to giue some other instance herein; Melchisedec looked to Christ; yea, typed Christ as a Priest; Heb. 7.3. yet Melchisedec continueth a Priest for euer. So, if a thing may be typi­call; and yet neither Legall nor Ceremoniall; much more things that were neuer Typicall, as Tithes. Then we aske, What did Tithes prefigure in Christ? What carnal rite were they, expecting reformatiō? What simi­litude of heauenly things? In what place abolished? And by what things supplied? If no man answere, we still say they haue read, but vnderstād not. Cap 4. lib 6. p. 94. Edit. 89. Fenner in his Theolog. most curiously noteth the significatiō, of al Legal things vnto Christ, but in Tithes, although he offreth a signifi­cation (as in other things) yet hath he found none. Obiect. 2

Yet some one seemeth both to haue read and vnder­stood out of the same places, Heb. 9.10. That seeing

• Meates and drinkes were Leuiticall and Ceremoniall.
• Tithes were Leuiticall meates and drinkes.
• Ergo, Tithes were Ceremoniall.

Neither were all meats and drinkes Ceremoniall, Respon. but onely such as had a Ceremoniall institution: neither §. IV were all Leuies Tithes meate and drink, All Tithes are not meat. for many things were tithed which might not bee eaten, and were giuen him as a maintenance for all his necessities: Num. 18.21. And Ierome translateth the same place, In vsus & necessaria eorum separaui.

Neither were such Tithes as were their meate and drinke, such holy meates as the Apostle speaketh of, Tithes, though meat, yet not Cere­moniall. which were (as is said) similitudes of holy things, arising [Page 6] from sacrifices and Legall oblations, all abrogate by Christ Holy meates were astricted o only holy persons: Leuit. 10.13. & 22.6. & 8.31 No stranger, nor hired seruants in a Leuites house might eate of them: And to holy times and places: but Tithes once payed to Leuie, Marke 2 26. might out of his hospitalitie, bee eaten by all persons, at all times, and in all places of the Kingdome. But I pray, if Tithes had been so holy meat then, why should prophane mouthes deuour them so now?

§. V Yet some doe reade, and say they vnderstand, that if Obiect. 3 astriction to holy and Ceremoniall persons or places, maketh a thing truely Legall and Ceremoniall: then Tithes can no longer escape: Why? Because they were astricted to the Temple, a holy ceremoniall place, and to Leui, a holy ceremoniall person. For the place they proue thus, Deut. 12 6.17. Yee shall bring thither your burnt offrings and your Tithes: And againe, Thou mayest not eate within thy gates the Tithe of thy corne, &c. But thou shalt eate it b [...]fore the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose. And last­ly, Mal. 3.10. Bring all the Tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meate in my house. Those texts proue plainly, Tithes must bee brought to the Temple: the Temple it was a ceremoniall place: Leui a ceremoniall Priest, both by Christ abrogated: Ergo, Tithes also ceremoniall.

Resp.All truely read, if as well vnderstood: for as at first they took vp Tithes by distinction of times, they would now carry all by confusion of matter. Therefore must we be a little more painfull, to make them somewhat more perfect.

CHAP. III. Foure sorts of Tithes, and each discerned from another by Scripture. Obiections answered.

TITHES in Scripture are first twofold, payed by §. I Israel, and payed by Leui. By Israel, Analysis of all the Tithes in the Script. to discerne Tithes. payed either to Leui alone, or to other vses, wherein Leui was also a partner.

To Leui alone, were payed Tithes, inheritance, yearely.

To other vses, Tithes were payed, yearely, or each third yeere.

Yearely, to the holy Feasts.

Each third yeere, for the poore, &c. of all these was Leui a partaker.

Tithes paid by Leui, were Decimae Decimarum, Tenth of Tithes.

Now this word (Tithes) being commonly taken by most men for Leuies inheritance, whatsoeuer they reade (by accident) of the other Tithes in Scripture, they ap­ply it (farre amisse) to Tithes inheritance, and so carry all away, Parsonage, Vicarage, Altarage: But to cleare all by Scripture.

The first three sorts of Tithes payed by Israel, are or­derly §. II set downe in Deut. 14. beginning at vers. 22. The first sort of Tithes. Thou shalt giue the Tithe of all the increase of thy seede that com­meth forth of the field, yeere by yeere.] He addeth to whom and how, Num. 18.21. To Leui, and, for inheritance. And Leuit. 27.30.31. he is speciall of what, All the Tithe of the Land, of the seede of the ground, of the fruits of the trees, of bullock and sheepe, and of all that goeth vnder the rod.]

Heere now are those ordinary, yeerely Tithes: the [Page 8] Naturall, Ante Legem, sub Lege, & post Legem. Legall, and Euangelicall maintenance of Gods worship: and are set downe heere by Moses, [...], euer in the first roome, and onely priuiledged with that high title, The Lords inheritance.

§. III To discerne them liuely from the rest, remember these generall notes as they occurre in Scripture with Tithes. Three notes whereby to discerne Tithes. First, Of all.] Secondly, Yeere by yeere.] Thirdly, All places and persons.] All those shalt thou euer finde to a­gree with (and onely with) Tithes inheritance: the re­strictions import euer some Ceremonie, as in their par­ticuler collation shall plainely appeare.

Solution. To the argument then, Tithes must bee brought to the Temple, Ergo, Ceremoniall: It is cleare, that Tithes inheritance (as in the first sort) were neuer all tied to the Temple, nor Ierusalem: because all the Leuites were not tied to Ierusalem, but liued abroad many of them for reading of the Law vnto the people euery Sabbath day in their Synagogues, Act. 15.21. and so must haue had their sustenance where they serued.

That they stayed not all still at Ierusalem, is cleared by their turnes according to their lots, 1. Chron. 24.5. &c. And All the Leuites of the holy Citie were 284. and the re­sidue of Israel, Neh. 11.18.20. of the Priests, and of the Leuites, dwelt in the Cities of Iudah, euery one in his inheritance.] Now, that they drew their sustenance in the places of their seruice, it is also cleare, Neh. 10.37.38. That the Leuites might haue their Tithes in all the Cities of our trauell, &c. But the examination of the second sort will cleare this more.

§. IV The second sort of Tithes followeth in the next verse, The second sort of Tithes Vers. 23. & Deut. 12.6.17.11. &c. Vers. 24. And thou shalt eate before the Lord thy God (in the place where hee shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there) the Tithe of thy corne, of thy wine, and of thine oyle, &c. And if this way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to cary [Page 9] it, because the place is farre from thee, &c. Vers. 25. Then shalt thou make it in money, and binde vp the money in thy hand, and goe vnto the place, &c. Vers. 26. And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoeuer thy heart desireth, whether it be oxe, or sheepe, &c. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not for­sake, &c. Vers. 27.

These Tithes cannot be Inheritance, seeing they a­gree onely with one of our three generall notes proper thereto, viz. Yeerely. They are not of All, but of onely Corne, Wine, and Oyle, as vers. 23.] They are not for All places, but onely at Ierusalem, vers. 24.25.] And this ex­change of them into money, vers. 24. for the longnesse of the iourney, and difficultie of carriage, proueth cleare­ly, that Tithes inheritance being of All things, could not be first carried to Ierusalem, and thence backe againe, to be diuided among the dispersed Leuites.

Lyra on Deut. 12.6.17. Lyra and Iunius in A­nalysi sua con­tra quam priu [...] cum Tremellio others would confound these two verses, and make both but one tithing. But marke how the text it selfe distinguisheth them, vers. 22. Thou shalt giue of All: Heere, the Giuer is the Israelites, the Taker then must be the Leuites.] Vers. 23. Thou shalt eate, mea­ning the Israelites, as of before: So Giuing, Taking, and Eating, cannot meete In eadem personâ. And Num. 18.21. Tithes are called Haereditas vestra, meaning the onely Leuites: therefore the Israelites cannot be commanded heere, to eate them. And beside Scripture, wee oppose to Lyra, Iosephus saying, Amiq. lib. 4. pag. 91. A. D. Let the tenth part of the fruits (be­sides them that are due to the Priests and Leuites) which you are accustomed to sell in y ur markets (being reduced into rea­die money) bee spent in sacrifices and banquets in the sacred Citie.] And, Besides the two tenthes which I commanded you yeerely to pay (the one to the Leuites, and the other for your Festiuals) you shall for euery third yeere annex a third, to bee [Page 10] distributed amongst the poore, to women, widdowes and or­phants. Cap. 1.7.8.9. ] Againe, Tobit, another Iew also, payeth them all three, as three distinct Tithings: heere therefore olde Lyra begate a yong error.

§. V That place then of Malachi, Bring yee all the Tithes in­to the Storehouse, Genera sin­gulorum, non singula gene­rum. This vniuersall note, All, must bee All such Tithes as the Law appointed to be brought vp of each sort, not the whole Tithes of all sorts. This limita­tion of, All, is so agreeable to precepts of Logick, and so frequent in practise of Scripture, as it needeth no proofe.

2. Chro. 31.11. Malachies Store-house then, and Ezekias Chambers, were both one: the Chambers were built for the great heapes of Tithes, the heapes were for the Feasts, the Feasts for the Lords worship. Deut. 16.16. And if this course had not been held, seeing all the males, poore and rich, must haue been thrise a yeere at Ierusalem, they had rather fa­sted then feasted. Now the remainder of those heapes, were for those that either stayed still at Ierusalem, or as came out of their Cities to worshippe at Ierusalem, as Deut. 18.6. who all this time were not to liue of the sale of their owne patrimonies abroad, Deut. 18.7.8. but had a portion with their brethren staying at Ierusalem, and serued as they did, keeping each, one, both the Family he was of, and charge they were appointed vnto; as a Gershonite to a Gershonite, and so forth: the distribution of those Tithes, was by chosen men to that purpose, appointed in that same place, 2. Chron. 31.12. &c. of the Leuites themselues.

§. VI The third sort of Tithes in vers. 28. At the end of three yeeres thou shalt bring foorth all the Tithes of thine encrease the same yeere, Third sort of Tithes. and lay it vp within thy gates. Then the Le­uite shall come, Deut 14. Amos 4.4. (still the Leuite) because he hath no part, nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherlesse, [Page 11] and the widdow, which are within thy gates, and shall eate and be filled.

Now, seeing all inheritance is Yeerely, and these Tithes but each third yeere, they cannot be Gods inheritance. Whatsoeuer Ceremony may be in the time, (tertio an­no) yet the perpetuall equitie of those Tithes (ratione finis & vsus) holdeth still. For as Lyra alledgeth them to haue been instituted, for preseruation of the poore, from eating in necessity the meats of the Gentiles Idols. So haue the Apostles by diuers precepts prouided for the poore, but chiefly for those of the houshold of Faith: Gal. 6.10. 1. Cor. 16.1. and late Writers hold this to answere those Tithes for the poore. This was called afterward by Moyses, Deut. 26.12. The yeere of Tithing: because this third yeere encreased one Tithing aboue the other two. And such were Tithes payed by the Israelites, followeth now.

The fourth sort of Tithes, payed by Leui, the Tithe-taker, §. VII to Aaron, and his successors, High-Priests: The fourth sort of Tithes. Num. 18.26, 28. When ye shall take of the children of Israel the Tithes, which I haue giuen you of them for your inheritance, then shall yee t [...]ke an Heaue-offering of the same for the Lord, the tenth part of the Tithe.

Behold heere, Tithe-takers become Tithe-payers, and so these Tithes cannot bee the Lords inheritance, being defectiue in two of the generall notes agreeing to Gods inheritance, viz. Person and Place: in Person, Vers 28. be­cause they are payed by the Ordinary Officiar of recei­uing Inheritance, Leui, to the onely High-Priest. In Place; Nehem. 10. [...]8. And the Leuites shall bring vp the tenth part of the Tithes, vnto the house of our God, vnto the Chambers of the Treasure-house. Now if all Tithes were brought vp to Ierusalem, to what end should hee heere command to bring vp the tenth of them again? Al this is ceremonial.

But marke yet, Then it shall be counted vnto the Leuites, as the encrease of the corne-floore, or as the encrease of the wine-presse.

Then Tithes inheritance, can no way be Ceremonial, for heere they are to the Leuites, euen as the Land was to the other Tribes: And Leui giueth offrings, ( viz. as first fruits, Num. 18.11.12.13.27.29. & Exod. 22.29. and so doth Ierome translate this place, Primi­tias) out of his Tithes, as if they were his very Barnes, his Wine-presse, euen as the other Tribes did of their Barnes, and Wine-presses. Their offerings were all Ce­remoniall, their Inheritances, not.

§. VIII Obiect. If they obiect, The Policie and possessions of the whole Tribes were but Temporall, and ended at Christ, Ergo, So must Leuies Inheritance.

Sol. We answere, both ended on their parts, but neither on Gods: God hath yet the same generall interest in Ca­naan, that he had from the beginning, for Domini est ter­ra, & plenitudo eius: And the same peculiar interest, in his owne patrimonie separated to his owne seruice.

If they yet reply, The other Tribes were onely Tem­porall, but Leui both Temporall and Ceremoniall, Ergo, So were Tithes his Inheritance.

Heere a peece of sacrilegious Sophistrie, to conclude from His Priest-hood, to Gods Patrimonie. They are not of one nature, nor both the sonnes of one father. His Priesthood bred onely by the Law: This Patrimonie, long before both Leui and the Law. His Priest-hood, bringeth with it only Aetatem; but this inheritance, Ae­ternitatem. That sort of Priest-hood was Leuies onely, this sort of Patrimony was his also, but not onely his. And so, in the diuision of the Land, God said not, This shall be Leuies inheritance: Num. 18.20.22.24. but, I am his inheritance. And, I haue giuen, not, I will giue Leui all the Tithes. They [Page 13] were but Leuies, secundariô; they were, and are the Lords primò.

Hauing setled the Tenth of Tithes in Aaron, he sub­ioyneth §. IX vers. 31. And yee shall eate it in all places, &c. This, IT, cannot be the Tenthes of Tithes, as some gesse; but it must bee Tithes Inheritance: For first, otho. the Hebrew Pronoune is Masculine, and must be Relatiue to Prouen­tu [...] area, in the former verse, which (in the remainder) was Tithes inheritance, as the learned may perceiue.

Secondly, Yee shall eate, is spoken here to the Leuites: but what reason had they, to eate the Priests portions, which themselues were to pay them? Thirdly, In all pla­ces, cannot agree with things once tied to Aaron, and Ie­rusalem; vnlesse we dreame they carried them backe a­gaine to all the places of their residence, thorow the Countrey. The true meaning then is this: As the other Tribes must first giue God his Tithes, before they might vse their nine parts: so must Leui giue to Aaron his Tithe before hee put hand to Tithes his Inheritance: And this done, Tithes Inheritance were accounted vnto Le­ui, as the encrease of their owne Barnes and Wine-pres­ses, though they had none; and so they might eat them in all the places of their trauels.

Thus haue we brought these confounded matters to a method, and sent each Tithe to his owne place. But wonder it is to see the strange subtiltie of Sacrilege sea­ted once in the hearts of men, how they can alledge those texts, Bring all the Tithes to Gods house, to conclude this, Bring no more Tithes to the Lords house: for doubt­lesse, if it were not more for loue of the Tithes, then the Text, this Theologie should neuer be so frequent.

CHAP. IV. Tithes not Ceremoniall of their nature. How to discerne a Morall offering from a Ceremoniall. Tithes a Morall of­fering.

§. I THe Text we see is full of Tithes, and Tithes full of tentation to hungrie-zealed men: Sacri, Sacra fames. so that we shall sooner solue their Syllogismes, then dis­solue their Sacrilege. From the Institution of Tithes to Leui, they reason two wayes: First, from their Nature: Secondly, from their End. From their Nature, thus,

• All offerings of the children of Israel vnder the Law, were Ceremoniall.
• Tithes (euen Inheritance) were offered by Israel vnder the Law.
• Ergo, Tithes Inheritance were Ceremoniall.

And conse­quently, cannot be due to the Gospell. The Propositi­on they take. The Assumption they proue thus, For the Tithes of the Children of Israel, Num. 18.24. which they shall offer, as an Offering (some reade, Heaue-offering) vnto the Lord, I haue giuen the Leuites for an Inheritance.

Tithes by na­ture, not Ce­remoniall.We confesse the Assumption truely read: But because of the diuersitie of Translations, we must looke vnto the Originall word, and distinguish it in the Proposition. Two Hebrew words, Rum, and Nuph, are vsed by Moyses in diuers sorts of offerings: the first signifying to Heaue, or lift vp: the second, to Waue, or shake to and fro. Some­times these words retaine their simple and common sig­nification, though the subiect bee sacred: sometimes they import a meere Leuiticall Ceremony, tending and ending in Christ. For example, Exod. 14.16. Lift thou vp thy rod, &c. Deut. 8.14. Lest thy heart be lifted vp, &c. Here [Page 15] is the first word without any Ceremony. For the second word, Exod. 20.25. In building the Altar, a thing, Deut. 27.5. both Sacred and Ceremoniall, hee forbiddeth to lift vp or shake a Masons toole or instrument for hewing of it: Heere was no Ceremonial end in Lifting, but only God would haue these Altars during the time of their pere­grination, so built, as they might be easily ouerthrowne, and not serue for the superstition of others after their de­parture.] Exod. 35.21. &c. Are both words vsed, How to dis­cerne the Ce­remony. and in very Offerings, and yet import no Ceremonie. For al­though the Tabernacle once built, was a most Ceremo­niall Type, yet the peoples offering according as they had, man and woman, gold or siluer, silke or linnen, as materials to build it withall: heere was no ceremoniall offering perfected and abolished by Christ: For why may not euery Christian Moyses, for building houses to Gods worship, command their people, Lift vp, or offer of their substance to that vse?

Their Ceremoniall signification floweth neuer from §. II the nature and proprietie of the words, but because the whole circumstances of the Text shew the matter to be Ceremoniall. For example, Exod 29.23. &c. both words are mixed for the lifting vp, and shaking to and fro, Leuit. 7.34. of the right shoulder, and the breast of the Peace-offering. Heere concurre, a Priest, an Altar, an Offering or Sacri­fice, all which were meerely and onely Leuiticall Cere­monies: yea, Shaking, and Heauing, haue there, their owne peculiar signification in Christ, as all Diuines ac­knowledge. But what if these words doe not import this Leuiticall Ceremonie, Num. 8.5. &c, euen in Leuiticall and Ceremo­niall Offerings? The Leuites were offered to the Lord in place of the first borne, by purification, expiation, shauing, washing, sacrificing at the doore of the Taber­nacle, [Page 16] by the hand of the Priest, and so the Leuites are in the translations called, a Shake-offering vnto the Lord: Heere are all things most Ceremoniall, saue only Shaking. For neither reade we, nor is it probable, that so many thousand men could bee really shaken to and fro, ad quatuor plagas mundi, as was done with the right shoulder and brest of the Ramme aforesaid. And if any man will draw Analogie from that Ceremoniall sha­king, to the shaking and dispersing of the Leuites tho­row the foure corners of the Kingdome; then as the word is so, but Metaphoricall, the matter is also Morall: for Leuies successors vnder the Gospell are so scattered and shaken.

§. III Of all these we gather a two-fold offering, a Ceremo­niall, Morall offe­rings. and a Morall. The Ceremoniall, peculiar to the Leuitical Law, and performed euer by a Leuitical Priest: full of rites, as Altar, Fire, Offering, Heauing, Shaking, or some such signifying Ceremonie, as is said. The Mo­rall offering also two fold, either to God onely and im­mediately, or by mediation. Only to God we offer out Prayers and praises, Hos. 14.2. Heb. 13.15. The calues or fruits of our lips. By Me­diation we offer to others, either for Gods sake, or for Gods seruice. Act. 10.4. For his sake, Thy almes is come vp into a re­membrance before God: Philip. 4 18. Act. 24.17. A sacrifice pleasant and acceptable to God. Almes and offerings. To others for Gods seruice, euen those Tithes, Gods Inheritance, for all his officers, offered long before that Ceremoniall Law, continued so by that Law, and why not also after that Law? No carnall Priest, Place, or rite heere: for Leui did not offer Tithes heere to God in name of Israel, (as was the na­ture of Ceremoniall offerings) but receiued Tithes in name of God, as Inheritance, from Israel. All Ceremo­niall offerings must bee done at the onely doore of the [Page 17] Tabernacle: But Israel offred these Tithes in all the Ci­ties of their trauels, as we haue proued. All Ceremoni­all offerings were due to the Onely Priests: Num. 18.8. &c. but Tithes are also due, (and as some thinke onely) to the inferiour Leuites. Offering then of Tithes heere, is no other, then Abrahams giuing to Melchisedec, and Iaacobs vowing to giue Tithes. They are called an offering, because they should be freely offered, not craued, as the custome is to this day euen where Seculars are Tithers, who are called vnto, cryed vpon, yet will scarcely take them, hauing a resolution, as they robbe the Lord, so to ruine the la­bourer.

Thus we see, Offering, of it owne nature, How Tithes are to be of­fered. is a word for Gods worship in all ages. To offer Tithes then, is to giue them in such forme, as God requireth in all gifts, viz. Speedily, as Exod. 22.29. With gladnesse, Ecclesiastic. 35.9. Not grudgingly, or of necessitie, for God loueth a cheerefull giuer. 2. Cor. 9.7. Without murmuring. Deut. 26.14. And finally, In libertie of the spirit, and liberalitie of the heart, as was Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec. Gen. 14.20.

To make Tithes then a true Shake-offering, shake off the sacrilegious vse of them, and so lift vp thy heart a pure Heaue-offering to the Lord, saying with the true Israelite, Deut. 26.13. I haue put the hallowed things out of mine house, and giuen it to the Leuite, &c. Lest the Lord one day shake both thy stocke and thy Tithe, thy bodie and thy soule.

CHAP. V. Tithes not Ceremoniall in their End: Two points of Le­uies seruice, and three degrees of Leuites: for all which, and to all which, Tithes were giuen in Inheritance. Sacrifices not properly Inheritance. The [...]ge vnder the Law concluded, and more ancient rights preduced.

§. I THe nature of Tithes being freed from Ceremo­nie, their End is now quarrelled, thus:

Whatsoeuer was ordained for the seruice of the Tabernacle, must [as the Tabernacle it selfe] bee Ceremoniall.

Tithes (Inheritance) were giuen Leui for that seruice.

Ergo.

The very text is their Assumption, Num 18.21. Now God helpe Leuies successors, that is, such as bee of the Ministerie now a dayes: for by this dealing, hath Leui been a hundreth fold in better case vnder the Law, then they be vnder the Gospell. O Rich Aaron, Type for a time! And poore Melchisedec, Priest for euer! A great pitie, pouertie should be perpetuall. No remedie then, but vp must the Tabernacle, or downe must the Tithes. For as to the preaching of that heauenly Tabernacle, Christ: Tithes not Ceremoniall. it must goe for Gra-mercy. Yet to say somewhat, lest we lose all, to the parts of this their Ceremoniall Syl­logisme, [for little, or no substance in it:] Both Propo­sition and Assumption lacke this word (Onely) to con­clude the question aright. For to be tyed to the Taber­nacle: and not (Onely) to it, will not make a thing Ce­remoniall. For so shall we make the Decalogue it selfe Ceremoniall: for it was also tyed to be read in that Ta­bernacle by Leui. Ceremoniall then, must be, Only with, or Onely, for the Tabernacle. And if they say, Tithes In­heritance [Page 19] are Onely for it: then both Proposition and Assumption are false, for two reasons:

I. The onely Ceremoniall seruice of the Tabernacle §. II comprehended not Leuies whole function. Two points of Leuies ser­uice.

II. Tithes were giuen to the whole Tribe for their whole function. Their seruice and function stood in two points, according to that Prophecie of Moyses, Deut. 33.10. They shall teach Iaacob thy Iudgement, and Israel thy Law: 2. Chron. 17.7.8.9. They shall put incense before thy face, and the burnt offering vpon thine Altar. The first point we see is a scattered seruice, according to a former Prophecie of Leuies owne Fa­ther, I will diuide them (viz. Leuites) in Iaacob, Gen. 49.7. and scatter them in Israel, to wit, for teaching the people Gods Law, not tyed (Onely) to that Tabernacle: Act. 15.21. &c. 2. Chro. 11.14. For Moyses in olde time hath in euery City them that preach him, &c. This point is Generall, Morall, and so, Perpetuall: deriued from the first Adam, and by course prorogued to the second comming of the second Adam. The second point of their function, To put incense, &c. A seruice indeed Ce­remoniall, because tyed to the Tabernacle Onely, begin­ning and ending with Leui. Then, Morall scattered ser­uices, craue euer a like Maintenance; and Ceremoniall tyed seruice, the like also: and during the Law, one Of­ficer, Leui, discharging both the Morall and Ceremoni­all seruices, did eate of both sorts of Maintenance. And this for proofe of the first point: The Onely Tabernacle was not Leuies whole function.

The second point, That Tithes were giuen them for §. III their whole function, not for one part: and also, to the whole Tribe, and not one part thereof, and chiefly (if there be any ods) to that scattered part and Morall ser­uice, it is proued by the same text brought against vs: as shal best appeare by a true Analysis of that whole Chap.

Num. 18. Three de­grees of Le­uites.The Tribe of Leui being distinguished by order of Office, in High-Priest, Priest, and inferiour Leuites: he setteth downe in this Chapter the Office of all, and the Maintenance for all. Their offices (mixtly) from verse 1. till 8. from 8. till 20. their maintenance common to the Priests, but not to inferiour Leuites, Nehem. 10.37. From 20. till 25. he setteth downe their common maintenance viz. Tithes Inheritance proper to the whole Tribe: now because the Leuites were restrained from the portions of the Priests; Vpon Deut. 12.6.17. Lyra (and others) conclude, that Tithes heere, are only for the inferiour Leuites, exempting the Priests. But the text is ill taken vp so; for from the be­ginning till ver. 20. he treateth only of the Priests Cere­moniall seruice touching Sacrificing, and of the Cere­moniall maintenance, which ariseth from the sacrifices, and offrings; in which, Inferior Leuites had small hand­ling, and so as small a portion. But from 20. he setteth downe their Inheritance, by the onely name of Tithes. This for Lyras guessing, Anti 3. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. & vita Ioseph. fol. 534 I. in the Eng­lish translation. to whom we oppose Iosephus, both a Iew, and a Leuite, yea of the Priests; plainely al­lotting Tithes both to Priest and Leuites. So to ascribe Gods inheritance to the least officers only, hath no bet­ter warrant then Deliria Lyrae.

§. IV But to climbe the tree of Knowledge, by the owne true branches, Tithes due to the whole Tribe. Num. 18.20.21 heare what the Scripture saith. Abraham gaue Tithes first to Melchisedec, euen a great Priest, be­fore the Law. And vnder the Law, the Lord said to Aaron, Thou sh lt haue none Inheritance in their Land, I am thy Inherita [...]ce. And, I haue giuen all the tenth of Israel for an Inheritance, to the children of Leui. Shall not Aaron the High-Priest, and the children of Leui comprehend the whole Tribe? Further, seeing the Priests heere are debarred all ciuill Inheritance as well as the Leuites, [Page 21] why should they not liue of the Ecclesiastick, as well as Leui? Againe, Neh. 10.37.38. Nehemiah with the people made a coue­nant, to giue the Tithes of their Land vnto the Leuites in all the Cities of their trauell; And a Priest, the sonne of Aaron, shalbe with the Leuites when the Leuites take Tithes. Some thinke this Priest, the sonne of Aaron, was but an ouerseer of Leuies Tithing, that by their portion hee might know the true proportion of Decimae Decimarum, which the Leuites were to take vp to Ierusalem, and giue to his Father Aaron. I rather hold, (with some o­thers) that the Priests heere, were partners with the Le­uites in Tithes Inheritance: And that this Priest was not one single person, (for how could one man ouersee all the Leuites, Tithing at one time, in all the corners of the Countrey?) but a Priest in each place, lifting for his brethren Priests, as the Leuites for theirs, in the Cities of their residence: for they were mixed and dwelt toge­ther. But if the Priests had no part in these Tithes, tell vs whereupon they liued all that time of the yeere they remained at home out of Ierusalem? They were diui­ded in foure and twentie Classes; each Classe serued in his turne but for a Sabbath; so each Classe came but twice a yeere: so it seemeth they liued abroad some eight and fortie weekes, and no part of oblations or sacrifices might be transported, nor eaten out of Ierusalem. Iudi­cent doctiores.

But heere they obiect, Ios. 13.14. The sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel, are the Inheritance of the Tribe of Leui, as he said vn­to §. V him. So this word, Inheritance, Sacrifices not properly Inheritance. maketh no more for perpetuall Tithing, then for perpetuall Sacrificing. For this, Tremellius wisely noteth, this speech to be both Sy­necdochicall, in putting Sacrifices, for all sorts of Offrings (whereof Tithes was one): And Metonymicall, in put­ting [Page 22] Things consumed by fire, for things reserued from fire. Againe, seeing these things were onely eaten by the Priests and their Families, and onely at Ierusalem, as all Scripture testifieth; it is most cleare, that Sacrifi­ces were not Inheritance for the whole Tribe. And 18. 7. But Iosua explaineth all this in the last of this same Chapter, For the Lord God of Israel is their Inheritance, as hee said vnto them. Marke these last words, as he said vnto them: This he said onely in Num. 18. and there, only Tithes are the Lords Inheritance, and that for the whole Tribe, as is said. The very like Synecdoche, is in that speech of gisting the Tithes, for their seruice, in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, where Tithes were as due, (if not more) for their scattered seruice. But seeing the principall ser­uice of the Law was Typicall and Ceremoniall, Moyses had reason to talke in Typicall and Ceremoniall termes, as by Tabernacle, to comprehend their whole seruice; and that very iustly, seeing all their seruice was dischar­ged in, but not onely in, the Tabernacle. This Synecdoche is frequent to this word, Tabernacle of the Congregation: for it being properly, but that place where the Priests serued, yet is it extended to Sanctum Sanctorum, where Aarons rod was, as in the Chapter proceeding, vers. 4.7. compared with Hebr. 9.4. and Leuit. 10.9. and Numb. 1.49. &c.

§. VI But how is Leui said to haue no Inheritance amongst their brethren, How Leui is said to haue no inheri­tance. seeing both of their labours, and from their hands, they receiue their Tithes; and so, seeme more to bee mixed among the Tribes, then any one Tribe with another? First, I thinke, because they had no such portion of the Land as they: secondly, for the different prerogatiue of their portions and tenures; The Israelites holding by a common and ciuill Law; the Le­uites, [Page 23] by a peculiar and diuine: Tithes were the Lords, and resigned by him, to Leui; the Lord, and Leui, both must first be payed, before Israel can lawfully enioy his: So is Leui both the first, and the freest tenant: and such as held of Leui, were alwayes thought to haue the bet­ter tenures; though now, all things go [...] with him, that is, vpside downe.

Neither was this tenth giuen to Leui, Leui not the tenth part of Israel. because he was the tenth part of Israel, as others dreame. For the Tribes were twelue; and of all was Leui the least, by great ods. But if men may so much altum sapere; fauour that curio­sitie, that fauoureth the veritie: for one might deriue it better from a correspondencie to the ten Commande­ments, a chiefe part of their charge; as who should say, teach ten to all, and take a tenth of all: so both are per­petuall, and proportionall.

Leui then, being neither the twelfth, thirteenth, nor §. VII scarse sixtieth part of the people, it is cleare, Num. 1.46. compared with 3.39. the peo­ple were 603550. the Leuites but 22000. beside the oddes of age reckoned. that that was not the cause of giuing him the tenth: for then, the sixtieth part should haue been but his. A pitifull won­der it is, to see such learned men alledge such reasons. But what then was the true reason of this donation? Obserue it.

Thousands of yeeres before the Law, are Tithes gi­uen to the Lord betweene Abraham and Melchisedec; Gen. 14.20. and 28.22. then vowed by Iaacob. Hereupon, more then an hun­dren yeeres after, God intimateth to his people, Leuit. 27.30. That all the tithes of that Land were his; his already; his long before; not made his now. What needed all this, if God had onely respected the generall prouisi­on for a tenth, twelfth or thirteenth Tribe? Might not Canaan haue been diuided in ten, twelue, or thirteene parts, to the lesser Tribe, the smaller portion, as God ap­pointed, [Page 24] Num. 26.54.? And might not Tithes also haue been delayed till that time? But this thirteenth portion must be in the Lord after another maner, then the Land of Canaan was the Lords. What? more care of Leui, then of all the Tribes? Then of Iuda, whereof Christ himselfe came? Yet obserue.

§. VIII God giueth Leui first a calling, before he giueth him a condition: The Calling should bring on the Con­dition. Numb. 1.49.50. (for Aaron and his sonnes were taken vp as Priests, Exod. 28.) Euen so is Leui, made the Lords more peculiarly then the other Tribes: All this while hath Leui no portion: the first newes he hea­reth, is, he shall haue no portion among his Brethren; onely, I am his portion, saith the Lord, Num. 18.20. and in the next verse, I haue giuen the sonnes of Leui all the tenth, &c. Then hee subioyneth what moued him so to doe, For his seruice in the Tabernacle of the Congregation: and therefore Leui hath no part nor inheritance with his bre­thren, Deut. 10.8.9. So we see the only Calling brought on the condition.

Neh. 7.94.This rule was euer kept vnder the Law: he that could not proue his pedegree to the Priest-hood, hee was de­barred holy maintenance. It should go so vnder the Go­spell too: Hee that cannot giue euidence of an inward calling, (his Euangelicall pedegree) should not bee per­mitted, propter beneficium ambire officium. That this was the true cause, and right course in Leuies maintenance, it is euident by this, that he who committed Sacrilege, of­fended God Primariò, against the first Table: hee that robbed any other Tribe, offended but in the second Table; he spoiled not God: he was but, a theefe the o­ther, a sacrilegious theefe. Shall we cleare it also by the Gospell? Rom. 2.21. &c. Thou which teachest another, tea­chest thou not thy selfe? Thou which preachest, A man should [Page 25] not steale, doest thou steale? Thou that sayest, a man should not commit adultery, doest thou commit adultery? Heere we see in these three points, he opposeth one and the same sinne, vnder one and the same names: but then, Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? What a strange change is in this opposition heere, of Idolatrie to Sacrilege? Paul proueth Sacrilege to be Idolatrie thus, ‘ All couetousnesse is Idolatrie, Col. 3.5. Ephes. 5.5.’

Whereupon wee iustly inferre this, Ergo, All Sacri­lege is Idola­trie. Sacrilege being a coueting of Gods owne goods, must bee most Idolatrous.

So haue we sufficiently proued, that, Tithes in no re­spect are Ceremoniall: and that Tithes and the Law were not twinnes of one time, as we proued from Leuit. 27. But say they, Leuitic. smelleth also of the Law: for this see Chap. 9. Secondly, we shew, before either Law was giuen, or Leui gotten, Tithes were Gods by contract from Iacob, Leuies father. To this they reply, This was a Vow, and Vowes also smell of the Law: Whereof al­so Chap. 8.9. Thirdly, Tithes were first of all the Lords, by most lawfull, and powerfull possession, passed be­tweene Abraham, and that Priest of the most high God Melchisedec: Of whom (with the Apostle) wee haue many things to say, which are hard to be vttered, because men bee dull of hearing: and that by reason, they be too quick in Tithing. And this for production of Gods rights, wee goe now to examine the pieces. And first, that which was first, viz. Our Possession.

CHAP. VI. Tithes at first giuen Really, and Royally, neuer matched with Laicks. Some Obiections answered.

§. I OVR first right then is, our Possession: It goeth thus, Gen. 14.18. And Melchisedec King of Salem, brought forthbread and wine: and hee was a Priest of the most high God: And he blessed (Abraham) saying, Blessed art thou, Abraham, of the most high God, Possessor of Hea­uen and Earth: and blessed bee the most high God, who hath deliuered thine enemies into thine hand. And Abraham gaue him Tithe of all. Heere is a naked-like Historie to conteine so great Mysteries: relatiue to nothing before it, foretelling nothing to follow it. It may be that Moy­ses saw no more in it, then he set downe: but Interpreta­tions are of God. Gen. 40.8. Luke 7.28. Lib. 2. cap. 4. And The least in the Kingdome of God, is greater then Iohn Baptist: whereof afterwards. How­soeuer, Patent, and Possession all in one. yet heere haue we our most ancient, and authen­ticke Patent, and Possession of our Inheritance, Simul, & semel, actione vnicâ. Marke therefore the dignitie of the Action, both in Substance, and Circumstances, and of that which floweth from it. For all is Reall, all is Royall.

Time Royall, in two respects, First, Because it was many hundred yeeres before the law: A time of freedome, when as no precept did presse any partie to it. Secondly, The particular time of the action is described by Royall circumstances, vers. 17. viz. after that faithfull Abraham redeemed faithfull Lot, by the ruine of foure Kings.

Place Royall, vers. 17. For our Charter is dated in the Valley of Shaueth, which is the Kings dale.

Rom. 4.13. Parties Royall, Melchisedec a King, and Abraham heire of [Page 27] the world: Melchisedec, a Priest of the most high God: All p [...]sse on Royall points. and Abraham, Patriarch of all the Faithfull.

Witnesse Royall. The King of Sodom. vers. 21.

Recorder, or Clerke Royall, viz. Moyses, Gouernour of all Gods people: Reuiued by a Royall Prophet Dauid, Psal. 110.4. and re-established in the most Royall dayes of the Gospell, Hebr. 7.1. &c.

May wee not iustly say heere then, that Heauen and Earth entred a league? When as the true Melchisedec, Possessor of Heauen and Earth, first King of Iustice, then King of Peace, blessed Abraham, and all his seede, the heires of the world. When shall this bargaine haue an end? On whose part shall it faile? So long as Earth is in­habited, and by Abrahams of-spring manured; so long must God haue his Inheritance Tithes.

Two Lessons heere not to be neglected in the order §. II of this Historie: Melchisedec, Iustice, Peace, Religion and Tithing. goeth before King of Sa­lem, that is, Iustice and Righteousnesse goe before Peace, and both goe before Tithes, that is, without Peace, no setled Religion. Then, Peace is the daughter of Iustice, and Religion the Garland of Peace. Where­soeuer then the Iust God procureth vs Peace, wee ought to settle Religion (in all points) peaceably. And where the Power and Peace is greatest, there should Religion be purest, not Poorest For Religion once rent, Peace is violated: and Peace violated, breaketh the rod of Iustice.

This course began heere Abraham, our Patriarch and patterne, with Melchisedec, so soone as by Gods Iustice he was made peaceable from those Kings his enemies: he heareth Melchisedec, Gods Messenger, reuerently: he rendereth him his due, Tithes, thankfully: which two points, paint out to vs generally, the substance of all Re­ligion. This before the Law.

This course kept Moses at Gods command, giuing a Law, that when they should by Gods Iustice, become peaceable in Canaan, they should then haue Religion peaceable; onely one worship of one God: and pay to his Officiars his inheritance, Tithes. And this course followed all the good Kings vnder the Law. So wee would know, why this course may not also hold after the Law? For heere haue wee the Corner-stone of all our building, viz. That how soone a Priest is named, so soone are Tithes named for his maintenance. So Tithes and Priest-hood in generall (not Legall Priest-hood) are twins of one time. They are of Nature, Reciprocate: (that is) the one cannot be without the other: where­upon these two things will follow: Tithes and Seculars ne­uer matched. First, That no mar­riage can be, betweene any Secular person and Tithes. Secondly, That so long as God hath Officiars of his worship on Earth; so long must Tithes be their Inhe­ritance.

§. III Obiect. Against all this is obiected, That before this Historie of Melchisedec, (our first right) the world was some two thousand yeeres old: and all this while was God wor­shipped; yet all this while not a word of Tithes: And why may not the last age of the world, worshippe God without Tithes, as well as the first? And so Tithes bee onely the Lords Inheritance during the Law, that first, and onely, named them so?

Sol. Resp. First, heere is a double question. One concer­ning Tithes, another concerning their title, Inheritance. A generall answere for both; all things beginning toge­ther, The Decalogue came with the Law, but must not end with it See part. 2. cap. 7. ad fin. are not bound to end together: and touching the Law, it holdeth but in things Ceremoniall, for Quod Morale est. Mortale non est, reade lib. 2. cap. 7.

Secondly, concerning Tithes, wee must marke two [Page 29] things: First, As they are the goods of men generally. Secondly, The precise number in quoto, as they are a Tenth of their goods. And so, these first two thousand yeeres, though the quota pars, Tithes, for the first two thousand yeeres. was not (nominatim) defi­ned; yet Res ipsa, were to the same end employed; and so God still worshipped. Otherwise wee may also con­clude against all the other foure generall points of Di­uine seruice: viz. God was not for two thousand yeeres worshipped, because, no Priest named, no times affixed: no place designed: and no speciall forme prescribed: and so by a like consequence, wee may liue after the Law, without all these, as before it. But we say, all fiue were then re ipsa, though more confused according to the time. The first-borne then discharged the Priests office: and the best of all their goods serued them for Tithes. Gen. 18.19. So Cain and Abel (the Church being then as in her cra­dle) were taught by Tradition, before Law, Lib. 2. cap. 7. ad fin. or by the Law of Nature, that whatsoeuer the Earth yeelded vn­to them, a part (yea a chiefe part thereof) was due to the Lords peculiar worshippe. And so each of them brought out vnto the Lord, according to his labours. Their Labours euen at first, went as large as did Church maintenance vnder the Law, out of all the fruits of the ground, from Cains tillage: And of all the bestiall of the field, from Abels pasturage. Now, he who can discerne in these two brothers, the Priest from the Laick, may as easily sequestrate their portions. Morall and Ceremo­niall heere, went all in a manner, confusedly. Tithes then are (in quoto) precisely named, as soone as the Offi­ciar (on whom they euer depend) is precisely named: and both, long before the Law. And so for Tithes.

Now touching this title, (How Tithes may bee held §. IV Gods Inheritance) during the first two thousand yeeres, Haue Inhe­ritance. [Page 30] seeing the Law only calleth them so? To this we answer, It followeth not, A thing is not that which it is, because it is not named as it is. As to say, Abraham was no Priest, because he is not called by the name of Priest: for whoso­euer sacrificed as first borne, were Priests. It is vsuall in Scripture, sometimes to name things peculiarly, before they be indeed so: as, the wandring Tabernacle▪ and the Stone which Iacob erected as a piller, Gen. 28.20.21.22. 1. Sam. 1.7.9. were both named House of God; but were not so, till Salomon built there the Temple. And sometime againe, things are in effect that, which they beare no name of, till long after: as Melchise­dec heere, was a Priest of an Order; but yet not named of an Order till Dauid rose: and also Tithes, or that which supplied their roome, were not called (Inheritance) til the owne fit time. Yet that same right, which God had from al beginning in mens goods, was euer in effect Gods In­heritance. And as the Mysteries of saluation began to be more cleared (as heere, where God presented to Abra­ham a Priest, [...]) so he maketh Abraham to offer his goods also Orderly, calling them at first, Tithes. And againe, at such times as the Land was to be diuided, and Iustice had begotten perfect Peace; and that the name of Inheritance could be of vse, and all things [...]; then (I say) did God claime his Inheritance; Leuit. 27.30. declaring, that those goods brought out at first, by Cain and Abel con­fusedly; and those Tithes, offered by Abraham distinctly, were both his Inheritance. Marke that he but declareth Tithes to be his Inheritance, without any precept: for the Law made them onely Inheritance to Leui, Num. 18.20. &c. not to God: and vnlesse we draw Gods right from the first be­ginnings (as is said) we shall neuer finde them the Lords by any other Scripture. And this for Tithes, both in matter and title.

CHAP. VII. The word [Inheritance] maketh Tithes due to all ages. Leuite, Priest, Minister, words for all ages. God hath a dou­ble inheritance. The dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde.

HAuing found Gods Inheritance to haue begun §. I with the beginning in effect; and before the Law foure hundred yeeres, by name of Tithes; Inheritance, what. and the Law to haue prorogued them so, till Christs dayes, foure thousand yeeres: How shall this Inheritance lose his vertue in Christ? It seemeth heere, that if we but vnderstood our naturall mother tongue, we might easily know our heauenly Fathers will. For Inheritance hath euer this prerogatiue, That it can neuer bee taken from the lawfull Lord, but either by consent of the owner, or by Violence. Tithes taken back by Violence (as are all now adayes) may reape Achans reward, when God plea­seth. As for Gods consent hereto; wee will gladly ex­pect, either their proofe, or our repossession.

Inheritance, againe, is either Personae, or Officij. If Per­sonall, then it goeth Iure Patris ad Filium If Official (that is) gifted by the supreme Lord to any office or seruice, then it is Ius praedecessoris in successores. Tithes are Inhe­ritance both wayes; Personall, as they are the Lords In­heritance, primò, propriè and perpetuò. Official, as they are Leuies for the Lord, that is, as they are by the Lord an­nexed in Inheritance to the Ministery of his worship: which worship, though it alter in formes, yet neuer in substance, or Moral part thereof: and therefore, the Moral maintenance must euer be one for all.

Now if they obiect, that Tithes being gifted to Leui, in Official Inheritance, can stand no longer then Leui, & he no longer then the Law. We answere, Tithes were at an [Page 32] Office and Priest-hood long before him: and Leui, as it signifieth the Office, and not the Persons, noteth all Mi­nisters, in all degrees, and all ages. So vnder the Law, all the Leuites made vp but one Priest-hood, though al Le­uites were not properly Priests: 2. Cor. 3.7. and the Apostle com­paring the Law with the Gospell, calleth both a Mini­stration, and both their Officers, Ministers, and the Mo­rall seruice in both, Act. 15.21. Matth. 10.7. Preaching.

But to deriue the name of both Leuite and Priest by §. II plainer warrant, to the Ministery of the Gospell, E­say prophecying directly of the dayes of the Euangelist, Leuit, Priest, Minister, are for all ages. how God would worke amidst the Gentiles, by the Ministery of the Iewes, (others then Leuites) And they shall bring all your brethren (that is, Esay 66.20. &c. the adopted Gentiles) for an Offring to the Lord, out of all Nations &c. And I will take of them for Priests and Leuites, saith the Lord. The speciall performance of this was, when Paul was separa­ted Apostle for the Gentiles, and therefore he speaketh plainly of himselfe, both as a Minister, and as a Priest, and by Consequent a Leuite. Rom. 15.16. That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ, towards the Gentiles, Ministring the Gospell of God, that the (Offering vp) of the Gentiles might bee ac­ceptable. So these are Words for all Worlds, and all wor­ships, Leuite, Priest, Minister: Euer such Priest-hood, such Law. And Leui at first, Nomen proprium, of one single man, the sonne of Iaacob: then, of a whole Tribe for di­stinction with the rest. In the end, (that Tribe being se­parated to Gods seruice) Leui becommeth Officij nota: and so common to all ages: and therefore may iustly ad­mit one common maintenance, as their Inheritance. And in this respect, the Gospell succeedeth to the Law, as the Law to Melchisedec, and Melchisedec to the Priests of the confused age before him. This were enough for [Page 33] our whole cause to defend it, if we were in Possessorio, but seeing we doe but plead for it, wee must keepe nothing backe.

Inheritance pertaining to God in Scripture is twofold: §. III His people, whom hee created to his owne Image: God hath a double Inhe­ritance. Deut. 4.20. Heb. 1.2. His Tithes, which he separated to his owne seruice. Now in Scripture language, Inheritance hath a prerogatiue heere, aboue the Ciuili custome: for the Son inherites ioyntly with the Father. And so as the Father created, the Son redeemed his Inheritance: yea, Him God made heire of all things, and by him also made the worlds. To come to Tithes then, what wonder that being inheri­tance to the Father, they be also the Sonnes? Or shall we yet once more kill the Heire, when the Father sen­deth him in his Vineyard? But what if no sooner the Fathers then the Sons? Shall he yet for all this lose his Birth-right? He is Coeternall with the Father. The Fa­ther neuer receiued Tithes but by his Officiars, as first of all by Melchisedec. Then I aske, whether were Tithes, Inheritance to Melchisedec, or not? If not, then had God no inheritance before the Law, But the Law gaue none to God, but onely to Leui, and so God hath none at all, Num. 18, 20, 2 [...] vnlesse wee deriue it from In principio. And againe, to ascribe Tithes as Inheritance to Leui a perishing Priest-hood, and make them no Inheritance to an Eternall Priest-hood, is beside all reason. And to say, Tithes may be Inheritance to Melchisedec so long as he liued, euen as to Leui: Then I aske, when ended Melchisedec? Heb. 7.3. He had nei­ther beginning nor end of dayes, but is likened to the Son of God, and continueth a Priest for euer: Ergo, He must Tithe foreuer. And the same Melchisedec, in the same that hee was the Fathers Priest, was also the Sons Type. The Con­sequences are al good, but a fitter time shal bring further strength, lib. 2.

§. IV This for Tithes Inheritance in the person of our Roy­all Priest Melchisedec, Dignitie of the Church Ministery of olde. Vita Ioseph, ad initium. Royal (I say) in regard of the great oddes betweene that, and this our age now: For of old (as writeth Iosephus,) The true marke of Nobilitie was, to deriue a mans pedegree from the Priest-hood: so Io­seph was a Gentleman, because ex sanguine Sacerdotali. And in our owne time, the only best Tenure, and Holding of Possessions, was to hold of the Church: But now all to the contrary. For Rome hath frustrate her Ministry of Matrimony, and wee (at home) ours, of their Patrimo­nie. Shee can bring forth no wel-begotten children; and we, but few well beneficed Church-men. No Iosephs in her; and all Iobs with vs: And in stead to hold of the Church, we hold all from the Church. Both much amisse.

But wee returne to our Possession of Melchisedec, in which men may yet Iustly aske vs, what proofe we giue of these two? Heb. 7.14. That Melchisedec was of an Order, and that Order, Euerlasting: for no such matter in Moses Hi­storie. Psal. 110.4. Take both then from Dauids Prophecie. The Lord hath sworne and will not repent. Thou art a Priest for Euer, after the order of Melchisedec. And heere we haue more, That another must rise from that same order, as farre a­boue Melchisedec, as he was aboue Abraham: who there­fore must performe all things of Melchisedec more at full; both Blessing and Tithing, as Priest; feeding and Defen­ding as King. But because this Prophecie is an obscure Commentary of Moyses History, we refer both to their due Interpretation, where plainer Scripture shall chaine all together, and that in the Worlds last age. This for our first writ.

CHAP. VIII. Gods second right to Tithes from Iacobs Vow. Vowes not all Legall. Tithes in Quoto due by his Vow.

SVCH then is our Possession in this re-encounter §. I between Melchisedec and Abraham: where al things passed vpon such a reciprocall readinesse and ripe­nesse, (as ruled both by one Spirit) both in rendering and receiuing: that men would rather thinke, they pra­ctised points by custome, or performed duties of Law, then any matter thus emergent de nouo. Abraham recei­ued reuerently the Lords Priest [...]: Abraham, retur­ned thankfully to him the Lords Inheritance, Tithes, [...]. So Abraham saw the Lords Day.

Our second writ was, our Contract and Indenture, past between God and Iacob. Iacob saw as much (if not more) as Abraham, (for the Mysterie of Saluation encreased al­wayes) and so he returned more then did Abraham. Iacobs Vision Be­hold there stood a Ladder vpon the Earth, and the top of it reached vp to heauen, and loe, Gen. 28.12. &c. the Angels of God went vp and downe by it. And behold, the Lord stood aboue it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, the Land whereon thou sleepest will I giue thee and thy seed, &c. Whereupon Iacob vowed a Vow, saying, Iacobs Vow. Vers. 20. If God will be with mee, &c. Then shall the Lord bee my God. And this stone which I haue set vp as a piller, shall bee Gods house: Vers. 21. Vers. 22. And of all that thou shalt giue mee, will I giue the Tenth vnto thee: Not to his sonne Leui. Marke this, Iacob vowed Tithes for him, and his whole Seed, to God, (and in A­braham was Leui Tithed, saith Paul, Hebr. 7.) and God gaue them to Leui. Now this Ladder was Christ, as all confesse, euen that via veritas, and vita. Heere Iacob [Page 36] goeth a point beyond Abraham, To build houses to God.

§. II But because this beareth the name of a Vow, men would turne all ouer to the Law. Vowes not all Legall. We answer, Al Vowes are not euer of that Law, but euen of Morall duties also, as Esai. 19.21. And this Vow now in hand, concerneth all ages, both vnder the Law, and after, in all the points of it. But to answer briefliest and best, out of this same text: I aske, might not Iacob as well vow for euer, Tithes to God; as, that God should be his God? Further, God giueth Iacob special approbation of all the points of this Vow, chap. 31.13. I am the God of Bethel, for the first point.) Where thou annointedst the piller, for the second, of Gods house.) And for the thi [...]d, Where thou madest a Vow vn [...]o mee, viz. to pay Tithes▪) So as Iacobs Vision was true, his Vow was lawfull; and these doubts bee but idle dreames of Sacrilegious slumbers. To our purpose then.

• Whom Iacobs Vision concerned, his Vow concerned.
• But his Vision concerneth all his posteritie.
• Ergo, So doth his Vow.

§. III The equitie of the Proposition is this: That as God dealt with Iacob in graces, Iacobs Vow bindeth his seede. so hee should meete God in gratefulnesse. The Assumption is many wayes cleare in the Text, but chiefely heere: And in thee, and thy seede, shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed: a pro­mise as proper to the seed of Iacobs Faith, as of his flesh; a mysterie meerely Euangelicall, All the Families of the Earth, Iew and Gentile. A promise of blessing as am­ple, and as farre reaching, as that first promise of the seede of the Woman, Gen. 3.15. immediately after the fall of Adam. All then, that thinke to rise by faith from [Page 37] that fall, or claime life by climbing this Ladder of Ia­cobs Vision, must bee tyed to Iacobs Vow. This Vision then is heritable: the Vow heritable; and therefore so long as any one point of the Vision is to be performed, so long shal Tithes be Gods Inheritance, viz. till Christs second comming.

Heere then is this Vow, the very grand-childe of A­brahams Possession to Melchisedec; an action heretably descended, (for doubtlesse Isaac failed in nothing.) Heere also, haue wee a longer iourney for Iacob, and his seede, then from Beershebah to Haran, and so backe a­gaine: yea, a longer then from Aegypt to Earthly Ca­naan. Our true Canaan, the end of our iourney, is, the Kingdome of Heauen: Iacobs iourneyes are types of our afflictions, by which wee must goe, and come thi­ther, as said Paul. Act. 14.22. And because our iourney is dange­rous, long, and wearisome, therefore is our Ladder (Christ) sent downe to the Earth, by, and vpon which, we must walke, climbe, and bee drawne to that God a­boue it. The Angels goe beside vp and downe to draw, and conduct vs. God himselfe aboue readie to receiue vs; great Moderator of the whole matter. O high, and heauenly.

Heere some Hebrew writers include a mystery of the §. IV holy Trinitie: but howsoeuer, Iacobs Vow applied to his Vision. this whole action between God and Iacob, keepeth a Trinall Harmonie. God calleth himselfe, first, the God of Abraham: secondly, the God of Isaac: thirdly, the God of Iacob. Three things he promiseth, first, To giue him the Land he slept on: secondly, To mul­tiply his seede as the dust of the earth: thirdly, In that seed to blesse all the Families of the earth. Iacob meeteth these three by a three-pointed Vow: First, That, the Lord shall be his God: heere is a generall foundation of Re­ligion [Page 38] for all his seed, and for all ages. Secondly, He set­leth the Circumstances, Place; That piller should bee Gods house; a generall ground also for all ages; for that typi­call Temple, and Iewish Synagogues vnder the Law, and for our Churches. Thirdly, He annexeth Tithes, Gods Inheritance, to his worship and Religion. Now, seeing all men will admit the first two points to bee per­petuall, and bind Iacobs posterity, to worship God, and to build houses thereto; how shall they bee exempted from the third point, in giuing the maintenance?

§. V They say, that this Vow doth but bind vs to a main­tenance in generall, Tithes in quoto, are not of the Law. but not the same in quoto. I answere, Such Analogicall equities hold euen from the most Ce­remoniall things of the Law, to the Gospell: But such things as are neither Ceremoniall, nor clearely institute ad tempus, or arbitrium, binde the things themselues vp­on vs: and we haue shewed, that neither Type, Ceremo­nie, nor temporall condition fell vpon Tithes: That they were not onely, nor first Legall. Indeed, if the only Law, and first the Law, had designed quot [...]mpartem, this dis­pute had been more doubtfull: But seeing this Melchi­sedec, that most Euangelicall Priest, gaue vs the quote, seeing Iacob before the Law, as in a perpetuall Law, Vowed the quote: We see the Law is but a confirmer, and Leui but an obseruer of that, which was long be­fore freely doted, and for euer deuoted to Gods seruice. The Law gaue but the same quote, to a Priest of another Order, for his time: and shall that first, that Euangelical, that Euerlasting Priest-hood, now reuiued againe, come with dish in hand, and say, Quod vultis mihi dare? And this for our Trinall harmonie in Iacobs Vision and Vow.

Now are some men much sollicite, both heere, and in the former point of Melchisedecs Possession; What forme [Page 39] of Tithing it was? Of what goods? Yeerely or no?

As for Melchisedec, the second part of this Treatise shall cleare him. As to Iacobs Vow, (which heere we will end) §. VI to whom, or how he payed it. We say, Gods promi­ses, and Ia­cobs perfor­mances alike. Such was Iacobs Vow, as was his Vision; and such were the performan­ces on his part, as were the performances of Gods pro­mises made to him. Now God performed not all the points of that Vision to Iacob in his own person (because not in that nature promised): So Iacob performed not all his Vow in his owne person, for the like reason. God performed to Iacob himselfe, the best part of that Vision, viz. the heauenly Canaan: and Iacob returneth in his owne person, the best part of his Vow, viz. The Lord was euer his God. So his only seede enioyed the Earth­ly Canaan: and therefore his onely seed payed Tithes, [...].

Thence is it clearely proued, Who are Ia­cobs Seede. That Iacobs Vow con­cerned, as much (if not more) his seed, as himselfe. And if they will yet a strict his seede, to his onely flesh vnder the Law, because after this, Iacob was called Israel; Gen. 32.28. and the Israelites as Iaacobs seed, performed all: Let them re­member first, that the heauenly Canaan, was the princi­pall end of Iacobs iourney, and so his Vow must stand, till his seed goe thither. Secondly, Seed, heere, is more of his Faith, then of his flesh: for all the Families of the Earth, which heere are blessed in Iacobs seede, were not all of Iacobs flesh, Rom. 9.6. but euen Iaphets seede comming home to the tents of Sem; The Gentiles called: therefore, all subiect by Iacobs Vow to Tithing. Such as refuse, let them renounce both the ends of Iacobs Ladder, Heauen and Earth, and goe to their owne habitation. And this for our Indenture.

CHAP. IX. The Edict of Tithes, (though in Leuiticus, yet) proued to be no part of the Leuiticall Law: and so Tithes in all points (as the Lords Inheritance) exempted from the Law.

§. I NExt commeth our last Writ, our Edict, and that very orderly: For God being possessed in T [...]thes by Abraham; contracted by Iacob, (good begin­nings, for a promise onely of the Land which must pay all) Now, after some foure hundred yeeres peregrinati­on, for their Faithes triall, by the fiery afflictions of Ae­gypts fornace, God intimateth vnto them this publike Edict: Leuit. 27.30. Also all the Tithes of the Land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees, IS, (not shall be) the Lords. All in Leui­ticus, not Le­gall, or Cere­moniall. Though this be in Leuiticus, yet is it not of the Leuiticall Law, because it containeth no Precept, and therefore no Law: yea it is a plaine exception from that Leuiticall Law: For Moyses treating heere of the nature of Legall Vowes, and of what things the people might Vow, he telleth them, Tithes were alreadie the Lords, long agoe, and therefore they might Vow none of their Tithes. For to what end? Iacob vowed them alreadie, yet was not his Vow Legall or Ceremoniall (as is said) but Morall, as was his vowing, God should be his God. Further, Vowes of the Law, here are voluntary, at mans option, to doe, or not to doe, Tithes not so. And as this place of Leuiticus, is but an Edict of Gods right, so is it no right for Leui, for Leuies right came not till Num. 18. In which also, hee keepeth euer the same method: first telling them, Tithes are the Lords, vers. 20. and then, giuing them to Leui, vers. 21.

§. II And though, vers. 26. he vseth the like phrase of the [Page 41] first borne, as he doth heere of Tithes, forbidding to vow any such, for it is the Lords: yet that same (IS) is re­latiue to a preceding precept, Exod. 13.2. Sanctifie vnto me all the first borne, &c. But no such Law for the ground of Gods Inheritance, but Euangelicall Libertie, and li­berality proceeding from the instinct of God in man, or tradition to, and from the first man: because, Vt fides, ita fidei opera, ex auditu. But the very Ethnicks, as Paul saith, not hauing the Law, by nature did the things of the Law: So they doted Tithes to their Gods. And thus farre for our Possession, Indenture, and Edict, prouing clearely, Tithes to be the Lords before the Law; with such euident con­clusions, drawne from the perpetuall equitie thereof, teaching Tithes must also reach after that Law: as also the title, that God had from the beginning, in all mens goods, containing the two first ages. Followeth the last age of the word.

CHAP. I. Christ, and his Apostles concerning Tithes. They did abrogate all Ceremoniall things.

GOD thus hauing from all begin­ning §. I an heritable title to all mens goods, and that by Natures light, Transitio. (as is said) not Moyses Law, two thousand yeers: And this his right by nature also defined, euen (In quoto) to be a tenth part, foure hun­dred yeeres before the Law: And these same, both Right and Quota, by Commandement and Law, continued til Christ came, some two thousand yeeres. Now are we to examine, the Worlds last age, vnder the Worlds onely Blisse, Christ: whether he hath yet any right in our goods, or not: and if a right, whe­ther [Page 44] the same in quoto, or not? The first, will no man deny: 1. Cor. 9.13.14 The last, maketh most men adoe. The Apostle cleareth the first, That the one Minister must liue of the Gospell, as the other did by the Law. But whether hee did intend the same (quota) in saying, Galath. 6.6. Make him partaker of all thy goods, Hoc opus, hic laborest.

§. II Leui then being the last receiuer, and (so long as hee lasted) Lord of a large Inheritance, Leui dyed not without heires. Tithes: Our question is, How Leui died without heires? Or what did Christ, the Sonne, in putting Leui from his office of typing him, whereby his Fathers Inheritance might not descend to the succeeding Officiars that Preach him? And why these Beggerly rudiments, Galath. 4.9. and that perishing Priesthood of the Law, had so rich a Patrimonie; and the glorious and rich Reuelations of the Gospell, so beggerly a Mi­nistery? For if Christ (who changed both Priest­hood and Law) had likewise changed maintenance, this had beene well. Heb. 7.11.12. But since hee hath placed Priesthood for Priesthood, and Law for Law, why hath he not also put Maintenance for Maintenance. First then of Christ him­selfe, then of his Apostles: and that either by Deede, or Word.

Part. 1. cap. 1. ad init.Christs Doings in this his Spiritual Patrimony by Se­paration, was euen like that of his Kingdome on Earth. For although hee was a righteous King by carnall des­cent, and King of Righteousnesse by diuine Essence, yet was he poorer then the Foxes of the field, Matth. 8.20. Act. 20.35. or the birds of the ayre. So was it euer with him, Melius dare, quàm acci­pere, both wayes. Besides, it was not the chiefe Lords part to take vp his owne Inheritance, but his Officiars, to whom also he gaue them, as Inheritance. So did the onely Ministery of both the former ages take Tithes, Melchisedec, and Leui. That Christ did nothing against [Page 45] them, it is cleare: for if they had signified any Ceremo­nie to be perfected in him, he had (doubtlesse) by some one action, answered it, as he did the smallest of all Ce­remonies: which being once shewed, Tithes are ended. This for his Deeds.

His sayings are twice recorded: First, Matth. 23.25. Woe be vnto you Scribes and Pharisies, for yee Tithe Minte, and Annise, and §. III Cumine, and leaue the weightier matters of the Law, Christs [...]ay­ings touching Tithes. Iudge­ment, Mercy, and Fidelitie. Heere he would seeme against Tithes; but goe on: These ought ye to haue done, viz. Iudge­ment, Mercy, and Fidelitie: and not to haue left the other, viz. Tithing. Now if we should inferre vpon this, That so long as Iudgement, Mercy, and Fidelitie are in vse, so long must Tithes bee: They will answere, That at this time, Moyses Law was good, vntill Consummatum est; therefore we leaue this to the Apostles. Christs second saying was; That comparison betweene the Publican, and the Pharisie vanting of himselfe, I fast twice a weeke: Luke 18 12. I giue Tithe of all that euer I possesse, and yet Christ prefer­reth the Publican; wherein hee condemneth not the Pharisie for his paying Tithes, nor fasting; but for his vaine boasting, of his owne workes. These are all wee haue of Christ.

Of all those, Sacrilegious Tithers take great aduan­tage. §. IV For seeing Christ (say they) changed both Priest-hood and Law, filling their roomes, and hath neglected Patrimonie, it is euident he hath abolished it. No, they still erre, not knowing the Scriptures. For it is most true, That seeing he hath not brought in a new, he hath not abrogated the olde: for to change, and to abolish, are both one, as they are relatiue to Moyses Law: So that whatsoeuer Christ changed, he abolished; putting alwayes somewhat in place of it, as carnall things in Spi­rituall; [Page 46] Ceremonial, in Substantial; and perishing types, in Eternal Verities. Now, one word in all the Gospell, either plaine text, or Consequence, against Tithes Inhe­ritance? If nothing against it, then saith Tertullian, Quod non notat Scriptura, negat. But they reply heere, Christ said nothing for them in the Gospell. Ergo, Negat, quia non notat. It followeth not thus, vnlesse they say, No Scripture speaketh for them: and then they say false, and therefore better said, Lex semel lata, non deleta, sem­per obligat. Enough then for vs, God at first taught it, The Law ordained it, The Gospell neuer gain-sayed it. For we must not expect Christ as a new Legislator of all our Morall duties: No, Hee came to perfect and abo­lish the Ceremoniall Law, Rom. 8.1.4. to fulfill, and make vs able to answere in him, the Morall Law.

§. V Against all those fiue points of Gods worship, Christ or his Apostles haue spoken, All Ceremo­niall things abrogate by Christ, or his Apostles. Iohn 4.21. Marke 2.28. and Mat. 12.8. Col. 2.16, 17. in so farre as they were Ceremoniall. Against Place Ceremoniall, Beleeue mee, the houre commeth, when yee shall neither in this moun­taine, nor at Ierusalem worshippe the Father. Against Time, The Sonne of man is Lord euen of the Sabbath. So his Apostles chaunged it. And Let no man con­demne you, &c. In respect of an holy day, &c. Or of the Sabbaths.

Heb. 7.11.Against Ceremonial Person, If perfection had been by the Priest-hood of the Leuites, what needed another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec? And, wee see Christ chused Paul, and many other Disciples and Apo­stles, not of the Tribe of Leui.

Against Worship, in manner and matter, Christs once Sacrifice defaced all theirs: Heb. 13.20. Heb. 10. And, we haue an Al­tar, whereof they haue no authoritie to eate, which serue in the Tabernacle.

Against the ceremonial maintenance of those ceremo­nial seruices, Colos. 2.16. and Heb. 13.9, 10. Let no man therfore condemne you in meat and drinke, &c. which are but a shadow of things to come: But the bodie is in Christ: A precept for all sorts of men. So Leui, in regard of those restrictions, a Ceremoniall Priest, though he eat also of Gods Inheritance, because he med­led also with Gods Morall seruice in teaching his Law abroad; he could not make the Inheritance Ceremonial, 2 Chro. 17.7, 8, 9. nor defraud Melchisedec of his due. Onely that which began with Leui, ended with Leui.

And that all those foresaid fiue points had euer in §. VI them, both a Moral and Ceremonial respect, Order and Time of the points of Gods Wor­ship. Gen. 1.26, 27, &c. Gen. 3.15. the Cere­monial Law taking chiefe hold of the latter; and so the Morall was euer the former, and remaineth still, it is cleare thus:

First, Worship, consisting before the fall, in a perfect obedience [...] God: And after the fall, in those Euangeli­cal promises of our Redemption, which with their per­formances, now in Christ, are both but one, both morall and perpetual, before the Law. The Typical worship, Gen. 4.3. Gen. 2.8, 16, 17 Gen. 4.3. Gen. 18.16, 17, &c. both before and after the fall, came last. For doubtlesse, Adam, as God taught him, taught his sonnes, before they sacrificed, Which in processe of time came to passe. Also vn­der the Law, the first point in our Legal Priests commis­sion was Moral, To teach Iacob thy Iudgements, &c. and then commeth the Ceremonial, Deut 33.10. To put the burnt offering vpon thine Altar. And now, Christ the body of all, taught long before he came to his sacrifice. And last, after him haue we Teaching, without any sacrifice carnall, by the Popes fauour.

Time, first Morall in a Sabbath, but thence were de­riued §. VII by the Law, Gen. 2.3. Leuit. 25. those Ceremoniall Sabbathes of each seuenth yeere, and the great Iubile of fiftie. And so the [Page 48] Morall yet remaineth a Sabbath, though not the same Indiuidual day from the Creation.

Place. at first, euery where, Moral; as appeareth by the Altars erected by Noah and Abraham, in all their tra­uels. Place began to be Typicall, when Abrahams Altar, and the offring vp of Isaac, Gen. 13.3. 2. Chron. 3.1. Iacobs Piller, and Ornans Threshing▪ floore, Salomons Temple, were all in one place, on the Mount Moriah. So had the Iewes at first in each Cities Synagogues, and we our Churches now, at libertie, as at first.

Person, first, in each Family, the first borne, or Foris-familiat in their owne houses: Quisque, Episcopus domus suae. They became Ceremoniall, when first, Moyses and Aaron Leuites: Exod. 4 1 [...], and 28.1.41. Num. 1.47.50. and 3.6, 7. secondly, Leui resumed wholly by the Law. Now againe, we end as they began, Iew and Gen­tile alike. And so maintenance in like manner, as hath beene at length touched before, euer following the per­son and his condition.

All must stand as Christ left them. Galath. 4.9.Note then: First, That from the beginning all those fiue points came onely of God. Secondly, All fiue at Christs comming, put off their Legall garments, their beggerly habite of bondage, and tooke on the habite of Euangelicall libertie in Melchisedec. Therefore, as Christ left vs them, we must still keepe them,

• 1. No adding nor detracting in Worship.
• 2. No astricting to Persons.
• 3. No releasing from Time.
• 4. No limiting of Place.
• 5. No abstracting of Maintenance.

CHAP. II. Paul in the generall of Maintenance. Why hee spa­red his power in the speciall.

THus did Christ then, and thus he spake. Wee §. I come next to his Apostles. Their doings must needs also to haue been meane; for their begin­nings were yet but meane: Matth. 10.25. and It is enough for the Disci­ple to be as his Master is, at one time chiefly. Melchisedec was not as yet setled in Salem: that is, Righteousnesse, Lib. cap. 6. or Iustice, had not yet wrought Peace, and so Peace, not graced by Religion: and vnsetled Religion, could yeeld no setled Maintenance. This piece of comfort Christ left them, Preach in euery Citie: Ib. quo supra▪ For the work-man is wor­thy of his meat.

Their Sayings, are either in the Generall of Mainte­nance; or in the speciall of Tithes: (yet once againe Tithes, and euen in the Gospel). Inf. cap. 4.

In the General, Paul is very much, and in many pla­ces: Many flourishes both from Logick and Rhetorick: and on each flowre almost, a swarme of Sacrilegious Waspes turning matter of hony in Venime, 2. Pet. 3.16. peruerting them to their owne destruction. Thus,

I haue (saith Paul) coueted no mans siluer, nor golde, Act, 20.33, 34, 35. Paul in the generall of Mainte­nance. nor apparell.

Yea, yee know that these hands haue ministred vnto my necessities, and to them that are with me.

I haue shewed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought to Support the weake; and to remember the words of the Lord Iesus, how that he said. It is a blessed thing to giue, rather then to receiue.

Obiect. Now, if neither Gold, nor Siluer, nor apparell, nor food, [Page 50] but worke for all: and all Preachers must striue to bee Pauls, rather giue then take; how then shal they take so huge a thing, as Tithes? No, but worse then all this; for if some men may, 1. Cor. 4.11. all Preachers shal be Pauls, to haue for almes, Both hunger and thirst: for clothes, Nakednesse: for Charitie, Buffets; and for harboury, No certaine dwel­ling place; all this good cheere had Paul.

§. II Sol. Augustine. But heere would that old Fathers saying doe well, Di­stingue tempora, & concordabis Scripturas. The truth is, that when, or where, wee haue the Church as Paul had it, Why Paul spared his power. 2. Thes. 3.8.9. that is, vnder Peregrination and Persecution; then must the Preachers be Pilgrims, and Patients: and yet, Woe bee vnto them vnlesse they Preach. So Paul tooke bread of no man for nought: Why? Not (saith he) but that we had authority. Why then? But, because we would not be chargeable to any of you. But why would hee not charge, where he had authoritie to charge? 1. Cor. 9 12. Neuerthelesse, wee haue not vsed this power, but suffer all things, That we should not hinder the Gospell of Christ.

When Pauls example is to be followed.Now take heed, for if taking of that which was Pauls due, would haue hindered the Gospell; doubtlesse, our men will rather renounce the Gospel, then render the Tithes. Ergo, Pauls example were yet best, To forbeare Tithes. For answere, When we are in Pauls dayes (as is said) we must vse Pauls deeds. A man may seeke his due on a wrong day. Paul was now but to plant the Gospel, and that, both to Iew and Gentile, whose goods were alreadie taken vp for holy vses, the one for obedience of Moses Law, the other to their Idols. Now if Paul should haue begun his reformation with Da mihi Decimas, hee had made a planting indeed, but with the top downe­ward. But the Messias being once well rooted in their hearts, who doubteth, but then, both Iew and Gentile, [Page 51] as true Israelites, the seed of Iacob, would performe their Fathers Vow, to these new Priests and Leuites of glad­tidings; specially, seeing they were to giue nothing De nouo, neither yet so much as of before, but onely a part of that to a right vse, which of before they gaue to a wrong? And if not so, do yee thinke that Paul in a sta­blished Church-policy, and peaceable State, would haue neglected this authoritie, which heere in so dangerous a time hee dare insinuate vnto them? No, in such case Paul found Canticum novum, and could tell them, 1. Cor. 9.1. &c. He was an Apostle. Hee was free. He was a souldier, and there­fore must haue wages: a Shepheard, and must eat of the milke: A planter of Vines, and must eate of the fruit: ful of allegories. And when all was done, alledged for him the Law, comparing his Ministerie with Leui, and for conclusion, Let him that is taught in the Word, Gal. 6.6. make him that teacheth him, partaker; Whereof? Of all his goods. How sib is this to Tithes? How like to that precept, Deut. 14. And the Leuite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake? Paul then did but forbeare, not forbid the power. His time was not yet come. But to answere Paul by Paul, where should Paul lodge, if Timothy were not hospitall? 1. Tim. 3.2. They must be content of food and rayment, 6.8. yet they must make others also wel to faire. Tithes then, are the fruits for Christ setled. The Magistrates in Pauls time were not Christians; 2. Chron. 31. on whose power (euen vnder the Law) depended much the inbringing of Tithes Neither were Tithes giuen Leui, straight with his seruice, neither yet with the Law of Tithes. The Law came, Numb. 18. before they were come to Canaan long: but Tithes came not till the whole Land was diuided, and enioyed in peace, they not so much as entred the Land more then 50. yeeres after all this. See Tremel. Arg. on Num. & Iosua.

CHAP. III. Pauls Generall Doctrine, 1. Cor. 9. obiected against Tithes: but proued for Tithes.

§. I MAINTENANCE thus in the Generall concluded, euen with consent; the Question still remaineth of the Quota; what the speciall must bee? Paul (say they) neuer meant Tithes: Why? Because he is still onely in generall doctrine, drawing conclusions from equities, 1. Cor. 9. and examples: where, in Ten words, he might more easily haue taken vp Tithes, if hee had found it good: Againe, the matter and ground holdeth euer; A Maintenance must be. But the number most times in­cludeth a Ceremony; so now any other proportion as 9.8. &c. may be now appointed as well as a Tenth part.

We answere, The special of Tithes was from their be­ginning good, til very neere Pauls Conuersion; and ther­fore all his dispute must either end in Tithes, or some o­ther special. If in Tithes, then was it enough for him, to refer vs to the former generals of Scripture, whose speci­al assumptions are so many times mentioned. But if hee had meant any alteration, then was he bound to a plain­nes: Act. 20, 27, seeing hee saith, I haue kept backe nothing, but haue shewed you all the counsels of God. And to proue his mea­ning must be Tithes, let vs ponder a little these his posi­tions, till we come to plainer language.

He hath here a double dispute with his Corinthians, one from equity of Ciuill examples. The other, from au­thoritie of former Scripture.

From Ciuill, vers. 7. in three points: one from War­faring, 1. Cor. 9.7. two from Husbandrie: all to one generall end. Thus shortly.

• [Page 53]No man goeth to warre without wages: Planteth a Vine §. II without eating of the fruit: Feedeth a flock, and ea­teth not of the milke.
• We fight for you, we plant you, we feed you.
• Ergo, Yee must furnish vs, Wages, Fruite, and Milke.

This Syllogisme will bring vs to a double certaintie, A Simili, first, of Masters: secondly, of Meanes.

Of Masters, who is great Captaine of the Warres: and who great Husband of the Labours. Whereupon de­pendeth, who are Souldiers, and who labourers: and so, who are true Debters, who Creditors.

The great Captaine, is he who sendeth out his Soul­diers: §. III the King, not they whom by armes he defendeth. Maintenāce dependeth on the Master. Luke 14.31. The great Husband, he who setteth his seruants a work, not the Vines, laboured: The great Shephead, not the Sheepe fed. This for the Masters.

For Meanes, What, and Whom to craue: What, for no souldier entereth himselfe waged, till hee first know his wages. Whom, that is, either Immediat, or Mediat. Immediat, the great Captaine, and King that wageth him. Mediat, when the souldier is cast ouer vpon the Kings people, or Inheritance fought for: And so in Husbandrie, as Christ expoundeth his owne parable of the Housholder, Matth. 20.

To apply all then to our matter. Our great Captaine is God, Christ, onely: and so our Great Husband. The Souldiers and Labourers, (not all Christians, for these bee his Inheritance fought for) are his Ministerie, as heere Paul saith. So I fight not as one that beateth the ayre. Vers. 26. The battell is continuall, the labours endlesse, there­fore the wages must be perpetuall: not as Ciuil warres and Wages, that haue ends and vicissitudes: for [Page 54] this Sacred Souldier must neuer leaue his calling, Put hand to the plough, Luke 9.62. and looke backe againe.

The Immediat debtor of the wages, is God the great Captaine: and therefore when he called Leui, he said, I am (Immediatly) thine Inheritance. Num. 18.20. The Mediat Debtor, is Gods Inheritance fought for, his people: And therefore God said, Vers. 21. I haue giuen Leui the Tenth of all Israel for his Inheritance. So these arguments of Paul from ciuill si­militudes, smell either of Tithes, or of nothing.

Followeth Pauls dispute from authoritie of Scripture. Say I those things according to man? 1. Cor. 8.9. Sayeth not the Law the §. IV same also? Heere are his Positions two-fold, one Gene­ral, The Law ap­plied by Paul to the Gospel. Deut. 25.4. another Speciall. The General is, It is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not mussell the mouth of the Oxe, that treadeth out the corne. Followeth his application, Doth God take care for Oxen? 1. Cor. 9.10. [...]ither saith he it not (altoge­ther) for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, it is written.

Behold heere, Paul saith, this general precept of the Law was written altogether for him and his brethren. Therefore, whatsoeuer portion of Gods Inheritance was deriued to Leui. being still in God, must bee still for Paul and his fellow-Leuites, labourers of the word: or shal we thinke, Paul alledged the Law to conclude nei­ther, Idem nor Eiusmodi? No: Leui made no bargaine with Israel; he had not his calling of them, and therfore not his condition by then; and seeing now no man, Prince or people, can call the Ministery, no man must measure their Maintenance: It is a meere clipping of Gods wings.

1. Cor. 9.12, 13.14.Now come to Pauls Specials, Doe yee not know that they §. V that performe the holy things, eat of the holy thing (or things of the Temple? The people in this case are neuer the ma­sters: Ergo, They ought neuer to mo­difie the ser­uants means.) And they which waite at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? Followeth Pauls application. [Page 55] So also hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospell, should liue of the Gospell. Then yet he spareth, But I haue vsed none of these things Now I aske, If Paul had not spared, but pressed these Lawes, what particular vse could he make of them? Sacrifices he could not claime: Ergo, Tithes, or nothing. But let vs marke first heere the force of his comparison: then, the Phrase and Em­phasis of his words. The comparison must haue this forme,

• As Leui liued by the Law, so must our Ministery by the Gospell.
• Leui liued of holy things by the Law.
• Ergo, Our Ministery must liue of holy things by the Gospell.

His phrase of speech, first in his Proposition, then in his Application. In the Proposition he setteth downe two sorts of holy meanes, a Moral, and a Ceremonial, described from the diuers sorts of the seruices for which they were due. The Moral, by Ministring the holy things; a word for all ages, and all places: and this hee coupleth with words for Meanes of the like nature, viz. To eate of the things of the Temple. Now (OF) is a Note of Inhe­ritance: and he coupleth heere, holy things to the Tem­ple, as Tithes were, Numb 18. with the Tabernacle, be­cause these places were then the chiefest where both ser­uices were done, though not the sole places: as we haue said at large. Lib. 1. cap. 5.

The Ceremonial seruice Paul painteth out in their owne termes, Waite at the Altar, and Partaker with the Al­tar: Now, Waiting, and, With, are notes of expiring, as is the Altar. And to say, that Paul heere, by both these members, meaneth only the Ceremonial Maintenance, were a double absurditie: First, A Tautologick descrip­tion [Page 56] of one thing. Secondly, A neglect of the chiefest point he speaketh of, Inheritance. Ministring then [...] in Word and Sacraments, is onely proper to the Gospel: 1. Cor. 9.1. & Rom. 15.16. Are yee not (saith Paul) [...] my worke in the Lord? And therefore onely [...], Inheri­tance is his due: Heb. 13.10. not [...] to waite at the Altar, for we haue an Altar, whereof they haue no authoritie to eate, which serue in the Tabernacle.

§. VI Pauls next phrase comes in his Application, So also the Lord hath ordained; in the preterit time, we only aske heere, where, when was this ordinance giuen? Paul gi­ueth no precept heere, but onely intimateth the Lords alike ordinance for both Law and Gospell: one and the same Lord gaue it; at first to Melchisedec, a Priest for euer, he gaue it; To Leui for the Law he gaue it; from Leui to Melchisedec againe he giueth it. Then

• As Leui liued by the Law, must we liue ( saith Paul) by the Gospell.
• Leui liued by a certaintie of holy things by the Law.
• Ergo, So must we by the Gospell haue certaintie.

Holy things must be cer­taine.Things namelesse, are nothing: and voluntary almes, vncertaine, they cannot be Inheritance to the Lord, and his Leuites: Giue God therefore his Tenth, or giue him a lesse number, and a greater matter: and aboue ten, is no simple perfect number.

Paul then is wrong quarrelled for his vnplainenesse: He speaketh like his Master, when Iohn sent to know if it was he or no; Matth. 11.2, 3. Tell Iohn (saith hee) what things yee haue heard & seene: So while they aske Paul, Doest thou meane Tithes, or no? He answereth, They that ministered in the holy things, liued euer of the holy things; and so must we liue of the Gospel. Such as are Christs or Pauls, [Page 57] may easily discerne their affirmatiue meaning. But wee shall heare better newes anon, and euen from Paul: Cap. seq. On­ly remember, that Paul had nothing to do here to speak in the Quoto of the Maintenance; but onely to iustifie, that he and Barnabas might liue vnlabouring, as well as other Apostles.

Now remaineth their second assault from the Cere­monie §. VII of the number; and so any other number of new to be appointed. Wee answere two wayes. First, Giue vs any other instance, in any of these fiue generall points of Gods worship, where the matter and number are of different natures? It was Moral (you say) to giue Main­tenance, but Ceremonial in that it was a Tenth. But let vs trie them briefly.

Person, the Leuites, were all Ceremoniall, and so were their nūbers, Classes, Courses, all temporal or ceremoniall. Numbers not alwayes Ce­remoniall.

Time, The Sabbath, or seuenth day, Moral yet, euen quoad numerum: But the Sabbaths thence deriued of seuen yeeres and the Iubile, Ceremonial and gone: with their Nouilunes, and so forth.

Formes of worship: as pares of beasts, or fowles, for sacrifices; Ten parts of measures of fine flower, and such like, Ceremonial and gone.

Place, Where it was sole and vnique, Ceremoniall and gone.

Maintenance, Tenths for Feasts, Ceremonial and gone, both number and matter. Tithes Inheritance, Moral in both. Not one instance we see to the contrary.

Secondly, say that the Quota were yet in ballance; what would we doe? Is not whole mankinde heere diuided? All are either Leuites or Israelites: All must take or giue. Who then shall bee Iudge? The parties cannot: for who shall make all of one minde? So many [Page 58] kingdomes, so many different conceits: as many Pro­uinces, as many different proportions. Referre it to the Church-men, they may proue couetous: To the peo­ple, they may be auaritious: yea say further, that God had left his portion without proportion; could man proportion it better for his owne behoofe? Ten is the last simple, full, and perfect number, and so the smallest proportion in simple numbers, as is said. So we see, we shall sooner diuide Totum, then decide Quotum. But God only hath iudged, and that by his only Word; and his Word, onely Tithes for Inheritance. And this for Pauls Doctrine and meaning in general; Followeth his speci­all of Tithes.

CHAP. IIII. Moyses Historie, and Dauids Prophecie of Melchisedec, applied by the Apostle to Christ. How, and how farre Types are to be matched with their Verities, by the example of Mel­chisedec and Aaron with Christ.

§. I BVT shall we haue no more in all the new Testa­ment for Tithes, but onely Allegories, Examples, and Circumlocutions? Truely it needed not, see­ing they are sufficiently grounded alreadie. Yet one Au­thor (whose writs, some men could wish to bee as Non ens, as himselfe is namelesse) beginneth once more to talke, and euen of Tithes: and not to talke onely; but Melchisedec, Abraham, Moyses, are to him, euen as this day. Many suspect Paul, and it is not impossible: But howso­euer; his title is, To the Hebrewes. But our Sacrilegious Segniours may iustly deny themselues, to be Hebreans: for the word, Sacrilege, is seldome (or neuer) read in He­brew. [Page 59] Yet Paul found out a fit Greek word for it, [...], Rom. 2.22. Act. 19.37. to spoile or robbe holy things. But what is all this? They will deny themselues to be Grecians too, and, I feare, to be Christians, before they yeeld: they vnderstand not Paul, he wrote not to them.

Heere now begin our matters of Melchisedec, hard to be vttered, of that euerlasting Priest-hood in his Order, by Moyses nakedly propounded; by Dauid but obscure­ly expounded: heere are all repeated, and to our owne dayes applied, by this new Ioseph interpreting all. Hee therefore that hath eares, let him heare.

For verily they which are the children of Leui, which 5 receiue the office of Priest-hood haue a commandement to take, according to the Law, Tithes of the people, that is, of their brethren, though they came out of the loynes of A­braham.

6 But he whose kindred is not counted among them, receiued Tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7 And without all contradiction, The lesse is blessed of the greater.

8 And heere, men that dye receiue Tithes, but there, hee, of whom it is witnessed, That he liueth.

9 And to say as the thing is, Leui also which receiueth Tithes, payed Tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the Loynes of his Father, when Melchise­dec met him.

§. II Now because this is our last re-encounter in this con­flict, Paul, in the speciall of Tithes. & the last passage of all Scripture touching Tithes, yea our A and [...] reuiuing as by a circular course, our ne­uer dying Melchis. in our eternal Verity, Christ: where­in almost each word may goe for an argument; we must therefore pierce a little more deeply in it, by helpe of the same Spirit, that proposeth it vnto vs: and that so briefe­ly as may be.

First then of his End: next of his forme of arguing in this Chapter.

The chiefe End of this Epistle being, to proue Christ our al-sufficient Sauiour, King, Prophet and Priest, figu­red by the Law, whose Ceremonies must therfore cease, he handleth in this Chapter his Priest-hood only.

His course in arguing goeth from the Types to their Verities, in a most perfect comparison, both in simili and diss [...]mili.

The Types are two-fold: the one moral & perpetuall; Melchisedec: The other ceremonial and temporall, Leui.

Their natures are, either simple in themselues, or in Relation to their Verities.

Their Simple nature is, that the Morall Type is noted heere with no Ceremoniall action: (for no such thing [Page 61] had he in him) and the Ceremoniall Type, with nothing Morall, as he is compared heere to Christ in simili: For though he also Tithed, (a Morall action) yet it holdeth heere but in dissimili.

Their Relatiue nature with their Verities, is of two §. III considerations; one, from the matter of their actions: Types how to be matched with their Verities. another, from the manner, or their Orders.

In matter, they hold both thus: Whatsoeuer the Types did (as Types) the Verity must doe, or answere, being rightly matched: as, Aaron sacrificed; Ergo, so must Christ: Aaron sacrificed with blood; Ergo, so must Christ: But not, Aaron sacrificed Bullocks; Ergo, so must Christ. Our Golden rule in this, is to goe no further then Scrip­ture clearely leadeth vs; and not, from silence of the A­postles, or priuatiue speeches to impose a positiue sacri­fice of the Masse vpon Christ.

In manner, or Order, they hold not so: Aarons and Melchise­decs Orders. for whatsoe­uer Christ did, answering to Aaron, yet that same did Christ, after Melchisedecs Manner and Order, not Aa­rons. So, that [ONCE] recorded only of Melchisedecs actions, signifieth in Christ, EVER, and OFTEN to bee done: and that OFTEN of Aarons actions, sig­nifieth in Christ, ONCE onely; yet that same ONCE, ALL-sufficient, in Melchisedecs Order: For, Perfecti­on, and Imperfection, Perpetuitie and perishing, are the Essentiall differences of their Orders. So Christ in Melchisedecs Order, perfected both Orders: an heauen­ly difference, and worthy to bee obserued, Hebr. 7.8, 9, & 10. chap. being ful­ly cleared by the Apostle, opposing that two thou­sand yeeres yeerely offering of Aaron, to that One, and Al-sufficient of CHRISTS: And that ONCE blessing of Melchisedec, of Abraham, to that Euer bles­sing of CHRIST, of Abraham and his posteritie. [Page 62] Our conclusions then go thus, through this Epistle, from [...] in Melchisedec, to [...] in Christ: and from [...] in Aaron, to [...] in Christ, for these are the Apostles owne notes. Againe, hundrethes of Aarons, with thou­sands of his associates, thousands of yeeres, and millions of redoubled actions, binde but only Christ, and Christ, onely once: they binde not the Ministery of the Gos­pell, belonging to Christs Priest-hood. But Melchisedecs one onely blessing, designing his Priest-hood, bindeth Christ euer [...], and all his Ministery euer [...]. May we not hereupon inferre then, that if Melchi­sedecs seruice binde our Ministery, his maintenance must also be due to them? We see then, that Vnity or Plura­litie, is not euer requisite to passe alike betweene Types and Verities, either in Person or action: for One (as is said) may argue thousands, and thousands, but One: o­therwise we shal roue to Rome-ward.

§. IV Of these grounds then, will it follow, that whatsoe­uer the Apostle vseth as a Medium, to draw on any con­clusion from these Types to their Verities, it must bee (euen as the Types) either a Morall or a Cere­moniall thing: and the conclusion must follow the na­ture of the Medium: for Aarons sacrifice, being Ceremo­niall, cannot bind a Morall Conclusion on Christ or his Ministery: and consequently, Tithing being vsed here, as a Medium of a Morall and perpetuall Conclusion, must it selfe be also Moral and perpetuall: as by a true A­nalysis of our Apostles purpose in the texts cited, shall plainly appeare.

CHAP. V. This Analysis proueth Christs Priest-hood more excellent then Leuies. His proofes are, from the prerogatiue of Person, Blessing, and Tithing.

THe Apostle will proue in those first eleuen ver­ses, §. I Melchisedecs Order of Priest-hood, (whereof Christ was the onely High Priest, and perfecti­on) to be farre aboue, and better then the Order of Aa­ron and Leui: and so in it selfe onely al-sufficient.

He setteth downe first his Priest-hood, till the fourth verse, then the Collation.

His Priesthood in two points, Function and Order. Melchise­decs endlesse Priesthood.

His Function, vers. 1. He was a Priest, and blessed Abra­ham. He was also accepted and acknowledged as a Priest vers. 2. Because Abraham gaue him Tithes of all. These two points are the summe and perfection of peaceably setled Priest-hood. For Blessing after this sort heere, (being Real, and exhibitiue) is the End and perfection of all Priest-hood and Priestly Office: (for that Legall forme of blessing vnder Leui, Num. 6.23. is but as a prayer for Blessing, as we yet vse to this day, and had no Ceremo­nie it.) And againe, to giue Tithes (as did Abraham heere) is the most proper testification of our due obedi­ence to Christs Ministers, the very fruits of our faith: And this for his Function.

Next vers. 3. commeth his Order, Dignitie and Excel­lency §. II thereof, Without Father, Mother, Kindred, Beginning, Ending, like the Sonne of God, Remaineth a Priest for euer. Those strange notes must be applied and vnderstood, as well of the Priesthood, as the Person, and more of Christ the Verity, then his Type distinguished from him, so [Page 64] that heere is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle. cap. 5.11. com­pared with 11.8.13.14 24. For if we looke to the persons, it is sure Melchisedec as such a man onely, was both borne, and dyed, but not as he is proposed for such a Priest, or type: yea Christ the true Melchise­dec, was borne, and dyed; Christus Sacerdos mortuus est: But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum.

Aarons peri­shing Priest­hood.The generall Apodosis to this on Aarons part, goeth thus: Aaron and Leui, had Father and Mother, not onely of their flesh; but latelier, even of their very Priest-hood and calling: they had beginning and ending, even in all things wherein they typed Christ: imperfect therefore, and cannot be likened to the Sonne of God, as is Mel­chisedec.

His Priest-hood then consisteth in Blessing and Ti­thing: and his perfection, in perpetuitie of both: thou canst not disioyne them. Then we descend by the same degrees, thus; Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remai­neth a Priest for euer: like the Sonne of God, without ending, Beginning, Kindred, Mother, or Father. And of all these poynts was Christ the onely perfection: Ergo, He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ, must appoynt a perpetuall Tithing for Christ: as we shall heare more at large. And this for his Priest-hood: followeth their collation.

Heb. 7.4. Consider now how great this man was &c. Here Paul en­tereth §. III the very lists of this conflict, prouing our Melchi­sedecs Priest-hood more perfect then Leuies, vsing for all his middeses, onely Blessing and Tithing. The arguments are drawne from the circumstances, viz, The persons Blessed, and Tithed: the forme of the Blessing and Ti­thing: the time of Blessing and Tithing.

In Person, he reasoneth first from Abraham▪ then from [Page 65] Leui himselfe. From Abraham thus,

• Whosoeuer is greater then Abraham,
  Melchisedec greater then Abraham.
  is greater then Leui.
• Melchisedec is greater then Abraham:
• Ergo, Greater then Leui.

The Proposition he proueth thus, vers. 4. Abraham was a Patriarch; Leui but a childe, the fourth from this Patriarch. And vers. 6. Abraham had the promises: Leui, (as all the faithfull) enioyed the promises onely in the faith of Abraham. So Abraham is greater then Leui.

He proueth his Assumption. That Melchisedec was greater then Abraham thus,

• He who Blesseth and Titheth, is greater then he who is Blessed and Tithed.
• Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham.
• Ergo, Melchisedec is greater then Abraham.

The Proposition is the very 7. ver. of Paul in the text cited. The Assumption is proued by Moyses Historie: and here vers. 3.4.6. And this for Abrahams person: fol­loweth from Leuies person: wherein let the Reader note that all Pauls proofes are onely from Tithing, thus, Greater then Leui.

• He that tithed Leui is greater then Leui,
• Melchisedec tithed Leui.
• Ergo, Greater then Leui.

This Assumption he proueth vers 10, thus,

• All that were in Abrahams loynes when Melchise­dec met him, were tithed in Abraham.
• Leui was in Abrahams loynes then.
• Ergo, Leui was tithed in Abraham: and so by Melchisedec.

§. IV Now marke, that although this last Syllogisme, laun­ceth onely against Leui, All Abra­hams seede Tithed in him. Ios. cap 7. because Paul heere had onely to doe with Leui as a Priest; Yet the force of the Proposi­tion fetcheth in all Abrahams Seede: Seede, I say, not one­ly Legal, but also Euangelical; not onely of his flesh, but also of his faith. This for Melchisedecs Tithing of Abraham. The Antithesis on Leuies part goeth thus, Le­ui Tithed but his brethren: Melchisedec Tithed Abra­ham, Father both of Leui, and all his brethren; Brethren (as is said) both by flesh and faith; Ergo, All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing: And such as see not this, are too bigge in flesh, too beggerly in faith. Followeth the Circumstance in the Forme of their Tithing.

This point hath this Antithesis.

The chiefe note heere is, that Melchisedecs forme of Tithing before the Law must be greater then Leuies Ti­thing by the Law: and so, Melchisedec a greater Priest [Page 67] then Leui. For this action betweene Abraham and Mel­chisedec, proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power, working in both, this ready and religi­ous reuerence: or rather, that God euen taught Abra­ham, (who said, hee would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to doe, and concerned Abraham). For (said God) I know Abraham, Gen. 18.17.19. that hee will command his sonnes and houshold, that they keepe the way of the Lord, &c. And this offer of Abrahams, was not in his free option: for as Abraham, vers. 3. [...], He gaue freely: so is it said, v. 6. that Melchisedec [...], He tithed Abraham, as hauing authoritie. They stroue in performing all duties, and we in peruerting. This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Forme; followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing.

CHAP. VI. Melchisedecs Priest-hood more excellent then Aarons, because he is a perpetuall Priest. And this perpetuitie, is pro­ued, by onely Tithing.

TIME, being an argument whereupon dependeth §. I the cheefe conclusion, Melchisedec a perpetuall Priest. of both the Apostles cause, and our question; we will looke more nar­rowly into it. For were a Priest neuer so great, and his blessing neuer so good, what auaileth it, if it [...]anish? The onely Triumph of Melchisedec ouer Leui, is his Eter­nitie in all his endlesse Priest-hood. Then if the Apostle proue his Priesthood perpetuall, he winneth his cause: and in prouing hereof, seeing hee vseth heere no other Medium, but a perpetuall Tithing, he setleth our questi­on. And thus it goeth.

A Perpetuall Priest-hood, is better then a Temporall.

Melchisedecs is Perpetuall, Leuies was Temporall.

Melchisedecs therefore better then Leuies.

To proue the Assumption, he reasoneth thus, vers. 8. for Melchisedec.

• Hee that taketh Tithes and liueth, is a Perpetuall Priest.
• Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth.
• Ergo, Melchisedec is a Perpetuall Priest.

The Proposition is true, for life euer affirmed maketh the Person endlesse, and Tithing euer following life, ma­keth a Priest-hood endlesse.

No Priest-hood without a Tithing. §. II The Assumption both for Melchisedecs perpetuitie, and Leuies temporalitie, is the eighth verse it selfe, thus, And heere, (that is, vnder the Law) dying men receiue Tithes, (viz. Leuites) Leui died daily, one succeeded dai­ly in the Priest-hood to another; and in end, they dyed from their Office: But there, He (that is, Melchisedec) of whom it is witnessed, that hee liueth. Melchisedec neither subiect to vicissitude, admitteth companion, nor euer maketh an end. In summe then, a Priest, a Tithing: How long a Priest, so long a Tithing: Melchisedec is for euer a Priest, Ergo, Must euer haue a Tithing.

And this for the Analysis of these former Scriptures, and all that we haue of Tithes in the new Testament, and in conscience it is enough, if men had conscience enough to consider it. But wee will yet more amplie apply all those things to our present purpose.

Abraham and Melchi­sedec both types. § III All this action wee see betweene Melchisedec and Abraham, is on both sides Typicall. Melchisedec Ty­ped Christ, the head and Master, and (as a Priest of God) all the Ministerie belonging to Christs Priest-hood. A­braham [Page 69] Typed all the posteritie, the seed of his faith, as well as the seed of his flesh.

They be both Types of things perpetual: Melchisedec, of Christs Euer blessing of Abraham and all his seed. A­braham, of perpetual Tything, for Christ in his Ministe­rie, for himselfe, and all his seede. The one giueth Bles­sing that taketh Tithes: The other taketh Blessing that gi­ueth Tithes: Giuing and Taking then, are on both sides, mutuall and reciprock, both in Types and Verities: O­therwise, there should be no correspondence betweene Christs perpetuall Graces deriued to vs in Abraham, vn­lesse we be also bound to our perpetual thankfulnesse in Abraham. And if Abraham can conuey the promises of Christs blessing to vs: much more may he bind his own practise, answering it, vpon vs. These grounds then, giue vs a double argument, to proue Abrahams practise, a suf­ficient promise, and obligatory of his posteritie: the first is, from the person taker, Melchisedec: the other, from the giuer, Abraham.

From the taker, thus, Vers. 8. Melchisedec taketh Tithes of whom it is witnessed, that he liueth. Now this (witnessing) pro­perly §. IV is onely true of Christ: The Word indeed, maketh Melchisedec Type, liue for euer, but our Melchisedec Christ, after his rising, appeared to his disciples diuers times, eate and dranke with them, and in end said, Luke 24.48. Act. 2.32. & 3.15. Now yee are witnesses of these things. So he rose, and reigneth a Priest for euer, and therefore is, He, that taketh Tithes, and is witnessed to liue.

May I not iustly say then? (I will, and before God, I §. V dare:) that the Spirit of God hath of purpose heere, Tithing the onely proofe of perpetuall Tithing. for proofe of this perpetuall Priest-hood, drawne his conclusion from Tithing, rather then Blessing, (though both will conclude a like:) because all men gape gree­dily [Page 70] for the blessing, but be very sparing of Tithing. No man will deny Christ to be a perpetuall blessing Priest: but like nothing of his perpetuall Tithing. And yet the Apostle saith not of Melchisedec, He blesseth and liueth, (though it be most true,) but, He taketh Tithes and liueth: By Blessing he proueth his Maiority, vers. 7. but by Tithing, he proueth his perpetuity vers. 8. And yet, both Tithing would proue the Maiority; and Blessing the per­petuity, if Paul had pleased. Is not this done then of pur­pose? Then if Blessing must hold, being neglected in this conclusion: how shall Tithing, conclusionis ipsum me­dium, be reiected? If both were away, then were he not Eternall Priest, but Eternal man onely: for nothing can argue Eternitie of Priest hood, but some Eternal Priest­ly action: Now all the actions recorded of Melchisedecs Priest-hood, are onely Blessing and Tithing, the former, the Essence: the later, the maintenance of his Priest-hood: and of these two, Blessing decarded, and by one­ly Tithing is concluded the perpetual Priest-hood of Melchisedec: Is not this done of purpose? And if, Ti­thing and Blessing, be not both of one nature in Time, the Type cannot be perfectly Eternall. And if we shall search the Apostle to the very marrow, we shall find no other vse of this Proposition, Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth: and whether thou proue Tithing from liuing, or Liuing from Tithing, all is one: and one thou must choose, for the Apostles words must not be idle. So long then as Leui liued, he Tithed, Ergo, so long as Melchisedec liueth, he Titheth: But Melchisedec liueth for euer, Ergo, must Tithe for euer. That Tithing and Liuing, must dye and liue together, is cleare, by the Verbs vsed by the A­postle, in both the types, as [...] of the Leuits, in the present time (notwithstanding they were dead and [Page 71] gone) therefore must [...] be supplied in praesenti, to Melchisedec, seeing he presently liueth. These Propo­sitions then are all reciprocke, Melchisedec Blesseth and liueth: Ergo, He Liueth and Blesseth. Againe, Melchi­sedec Titheth and Liueth. Ergo, Hee Liueth and Ti­theth.

Leui lost his Tithes, because he died, (not so much in §. VI Person) as from his Priest-hood: Why Leui lost Tithes. Death then in Leui must be applied to the same thing, whereunto Life was applied in Melchisedec: else, the Antithesis were not Ad idem: Priest-hood then, in both, is Subiectum, of life and death, an endlesse Priest-hood, a dying Priest-hood. For Melchisedecs re-entrie was not at the death of euery sin­gle Leuitical Priest, but at the finall death of the whole Priest-hood: The change of Law, and the change of Priest-hood. Leui then, the Priest is dead, and dyed with Christ, but not the Person of Leui: for doubtlesse many thousands of the Tribe of Leui, liued long after Christ, and perhaps do to this day, as the other Tribes, though without certaine note of distinction: and al­though they could be distinguished, yet could they not challenge their former Priest-hood: Their Priest-hood therefore is dead, not their Persons. Indeede the daily dying of the High-Priests, one after another, is the Apo­stles chiefe proofe of the imperfection of their Priest-hood, euen while it was good by Gods Law: Vers. 23. they were many in one Priest-hood, because death suffered them not to stay. He remaineth for euer, and therefore hath an endlesse Priest-hood.

Neither lost Leui his Priest-hood (as some guesse) as §. VII out of Gods Iustice, for his wicked abusing of it, Why Leui lost his Priest hood. when as both Priest and Priest-hood became Mercenary, (as the Macabees, and Iosephus History beare record) and [Page 72] therefore the Law changed, and the Priest-hood transla­ted iustly from Leui to Iudah: No, it was the course and counsell of God, yea his reuealed decree from all begin­ning, for the saluation of mankinde, that these Priest-hoods should be subiect to these Periods; so that Leui, had hee liued neuer so lawfully or legally, yet must hee haue left the place to his Master, Melchisedec: though his sinnes had not deserued it, his soule had desired it. And Leui learning this, may yet be admitted to Melchisedecs Priest-hood, waite on the Altar, challenge his Mainte­nance, not vi Leuiticâ, but virtute Euangelica; hee must either accept the Office, or pay the fees. Sweete and heauenly mysteries, to such as bee of humble and sancti­fied hearts.

Leui then is dead, and no man denieth it; Melchisedec is risen, and some men beleeue it: but that hee rose to take Tithes, most men laugh at it. We will assay there­fore first, after Leui, and from Melchisedec, to draw them vpon Christ: secondly, to deriue them from him, to his Ministerie.

§. VIII Paul hauing in the first ten verses compared Melchise­dec with Aaron, The Type ap­plied by Paul to Christ, Anagogice. both as Christs Types: He proueth, vers 11. the weaknesse of Aarons Priest-hood, because it was needfull that there should rise, [...] from Aa­ron, both in Person, Tribe and Order: But from Melchi­sedec, in Person onely, not Order. Then vers. 13. com­meth on the maine Conclusion by an Anagogicall ap­plication, binding these prerogatiues of Melchisedec considered in the simple nature of a Type, by a relatiue force on the Verity Christ. [...], For hee of whom these things are spoken, &c. I thinke, [...], cannot be sufficiently expressed, by [Of whom] for this is true English for [...], as chap. 5.11. [...], [Page 73] Of whom we haue much to say. All then that is said [...] Of Melchisedec, is heere by the Apostle inferred and trans­ferred [...], to, vnto, and vpon Christ. The construction of [...] here with the Accusatiue case, signifieth motum, re­mouing, or conueyance from one point to another: So was Melchisedec but Christs Atturney heere, to take sea­sing of his Patrimony; and so must it not remaine still [...], but returne [...]. All these prerogatiual Prepositions end euer in Christ, as first, [...], and [...] For whom, and by whom all things were, Heb. 2.10. Se­condly, [...], and [...], In whom, and to whom, all must rest, and be referred, Colos. 1.16, 17. Thirdly, [...] of whom, all things of Melchisedec were spoken, Heb. 5.11. And lastly, heere [...], on whom, all rights, titles and posses­sions prefigured by his Type, must bee transferred for euer. Then we reason thus from Pauls grounds,

• Whatsouer is spoken heere, [...], of Melchisedec, typi­cally; is transferred [...], vnto Christ, his ve­ritie.
• Tithing is spoken of Melchisedec typically.
• Ergo, Tithes must be transferred vnto Christ, his verity.

Let any Christian shew wherein this doctrine faileth. §. IX

But heere they say, there is much made of nothing: Tithes, why touched hereby Paul. The Apostle intended not heere to prooue Tithes due; but to settle Christs Priest-hood as perpetual. And so say I to. Doubtlesse he neuer doubted that Tithes were due, (neither doubted they, with whom he had to do); therefore he taketh it, with them, pro confesso, and vseth it as his onely Medium, to resolue their doubt, of the perpetuitie of Christs Priesthood, Hee taketh Tithes, hee liueth. Ergo, An eternall Priest. Leui was but a dying Tithing Priest. All things recorded of our Melchisedec [Page 74] are still truely affirmed in praesenti: Hee Blesseth, hee Titheth, hee liueth, his sacrifice endureth for euer. Of Leui, not one of all now true: And when he euen liued, all were not in all respects true: for he daily dyed in Per­son, and in end died quite from his office, therefore in both imperfect. His actions were daily redoubled; and where euer repetition must be, there can be no perfecti­on, Our Melchisedec, had neuer a fellow, made neuer a default, therefore Al-sufficient. This for drawing of Tithes vpon Christ.

§. X Now in deriuing them from him, we meete with a Cauil; How Christ is said to take Tithes. we layd for a ground chap. 4. That whatsoeuer the Type did, that must the veritie also doe: Ergo, See­ing Melchisedec tooke Tithes, Christ must take Tithes: But Christ neuer Tithed, &c. For answer, Christ taketh Tithes now, even as his Father tooke them before him, viz. by their Officers. What was Essential in the Priest-hood of Mechisedec, that Christ performeth euer really, viz. Blessing. But Tithing, is onely a proprietie, (not of the Essence) of Priest-hood; and so bindeth not the ve­ritie in his owne person: for a workeman is not defined by his wages. So in this point, the Law of al similitudes must haue place, nullum simile, in omni, simile. And seeing Christ taketh almes, being giuen to the poore: may he not take his owne Patrimonie by his owne Officers, whom he hath made his Ministers, his Ambassadors, putting the word of reconciliation in their mouthes: 2, Cor. 5.19.20 and so his Inheritance in their hands? Thus farre for the APo­stles arguments from the person taker, Melchisedec: Fol­loweth from the giuer, Abraham.

CHAP. VII. Perpetuall Tithing prooued also by Abrahams deede; A comparison betweene Melchisedec, Leui, and our Ministery. The Conclusion of the lawfulnesse of Tithes.

MELCHISEDEC then Taketh Tithes and Liueth. §. I But a liuing taker, must also haue a liuing giuer. Abraham bindeth vs to Tithes. Therefore the Apostle telleth vs heere, That Abraham with his whole seede, must be the Aequiualent giuer, lasting as long as Melchisedecs Priest-hood; and so, Abraham giueth Tithes and liueth.

That all Abrahams posteritie make vp the person of the Giuer, it is thus cleared, And to say as the thing is, Hebr. 7.9. [...]. Leui also which receiueth Tithes, was Tithed in Abraham. Then if Leui was Tithed, I hope, the other eleuen Tribes, his brethren scaped not free. But let vs heare; why was Le­ui Tithed? Because he was yet in the loynes of his Father (Abraham) when Melchisedec met him. Then, all that dare call Abraham, Father, (euen as well that issued out of the loynes of his flesh, as that are entered in the fel­lowship of his Faith) are all heere in Abraham Tithed. Flesh bringeth in the whole Tribes: for they issued out of his very loynes, as did Leui: Faith, includeth all the Families of the Earth, as Abrahams seede; whereby the poorest Lazarus leapeth to Abrahams bosome. And, that Faith, hath no lesse force heere, then Flesh, it is cleare by the fourth and sixt verses, Abraham the Patriarch was Tithed, who had the Promises. Then if he be a Father of our Faith; let him be also the Father of our thankfulnes: If we be Blessed in him; let vs also be Tithed in him: else our faith is but dead; and he is not our Father.

But what if the seede of his Faith, be more bound §. II [Page 76] then the seed of his onely Flesh? Rom. 9.7, 8. Seed of Faith more bound to Tithes, then Seede of Flesh. Saith not Paul, All are not Israel, that are of Israel: neither are they all children, because they are the seede of Abraham, &c. that is, they which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God: But the children of the Promise are counted for the Seede. Then seeing Melchisedec blessed Abraham our Father, who had the Promises, Hebr. 7.6. If we will passe for sonnes of the same Promises in him; we must be bound in him euer to returne our thankefulnesse to the Mi­nisters of these glad tidings: and so [...] bindeth [...].

§. III Some men say, that Abrahams giuing of Tithes to Melchisedec, Abrahams Tithing was more then once. this one time, did not binde the posteritie, but rather redeeme them from further Tithing. I an­swere, then his posteritie could not haue beene Tithed vnder the Law. To this they reply, a special law brought on that Tithing for Leui; and came not by vertue of A­brahams deede: I yet answere, (as often before) the on­ly Priest-hood brought Tithes to Leui, because they were a Priest-hood long before him; but a Priest-hood so farre different from his, as Leui without a special law could not challenge Tithes as his due. Besides, that mat­ter between Melchisedec and Abraham was in those daies so shut vp from mans vnderstanding, as no man could fetch any conclusion from it: for till Paul applied all heere, it was doubtful to the Ancients, whether Abra­ham gaue Tithes to Melchisedec, or Melchisedec to him: So, perishing Leui could not serue himselfe heire to per­petual Melchisedec, and therefore the Law was needfull for that age. But now, seeing the Apostle hath so per­fectly cleared these clouds vnto vs, that Leui Titheth and dieth, Melchisedec Titheth and liueth, what nee­deth vs a new Law? It would but staine the preroga­tiue [Page 77] of our Priest-hood, and antiquitie of our title. So if Abraham had by this one Tithing, deliuered his posteri­tie from further Tithing: neither had God drawne a Law of Tithing vpon them, neither had Paul reuiued Tithes to the Euangel.

But say it had been but one Tithing for all: then must §. IV it be also but one blessing of Abraham for all: and then, Tithing euer answereth Blessing. where are we? Let vs not lose glad tydings, for glad Ti­things. Lyra saith prettily, Vt omnes in lumbis Adae pecca­uerunt, ita omnes in lumbis Abrahae decimati sunt. Blessing and Tithing are by Moyses coupled to the Priest-hood, and by Paul, Tithing once more, then blessing, and that in the very point of perpetuitie: Then, Quos Deus con­iunxit homo non separet.

Further, if that Once, in Melchisedec argue not (as is said) perpetuitie, then dying Leui, shall resemble more a perpetuall Priest, then liuing Melchisedec, which is quite contrary to the Apostles minde: for Leui Tithed neere two thousand yeeres: and who will not thinke two thousand yeeres liker Eternitie, then one houre? Therefore, Once, is Endlesse life: and Often, Heb. 7.16, 25. is carnal com­mandement, as the Apostle termeth them. And so Mel­chisedec taketh Tithes and liueth.

The Apostle had for him to vrge this argument §. V more against Leui, then the other Tribes, Leui bound to pay Tithes to Melchise­dec. because Leui was a Priest, and therefore the Tithe taker, and so might seeme exempted from paying Tithes to any: whereas the other Tribes in their owne persons payed Tithes to Leui as a Priest, euen as Abraham did to Mel­chisedec the Priest: But Paul telleth them, that this Ti­thing must bee meant of Melchisedec, which euen Leui himselfe must pay, but could not, during the Law of his owne Priest-hood: therefore vvee may iustly [Page 78] hold Leui as Melchisedecs deputie, till the dayes of corre­ction. For to say as it is, Hebr. 9.10. euen Leui was an Officer of Christs, his [...], pointing out his comming: so no Tithing whatsoeuer, but one way or other, it hath a rela­tion, and his perfection, In, and to Christ; and so Melch. stil liueth and taketh Tithes: Rebuffas de Decimis. as one noteth prettily, Decimae erant ante Legem, sub consilio; In lege sub praecepto; post legem, in libertate Spiritus. So liuing Tithing goeth euer with Melchisedec; and dying Tithing with Leui: but in all, Tithes euer Gods Inheritance. So soone then as Leui lost his Priest-hood, he lost also his title in Tithes, and became tied to pay Tithes to Melchisedec, as his bre­thren Tribes, and as both Iew and Gentile, embracing the Euangel.

§. VI Consider then the course that Paul hath kept in the matter of Maintenance: Summa of Pauls do­ctrine tou­ching Main­tenance. he was the Apostle of the Gen­tiles, and so, al his general Epistles were written to them, saue this one to the Hebrewes. The Gentiles neuer em­bracing Leuies Priest-hood, could not be bound to Le­uies Tithing, they knew it not: Therefore Paul hauing instructed them, in the Rudiments of Christian Religi­on, teacheth them their duetie touching Maintenance in general, and yet alledged the generals of the Law, as we heard from 1. Cor. 9. and to the Galath. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the Word, make him that teacheth him, partaker of all his goods: A precept as heauie, as to haue said, Giue him a Tenth of all thy goods. And though Paul heere did not settle the Medium, Sup. cap. 3. ad fin. nor name the Quote, yet Na­ture teacheth (as is said) that it must be at the option of neither partie; and what better meanes for a midst, then to haue our recourse to that course which God himselfe kept in proportioning that portion for his ser­uice both before and vnder the Law? But heere, writing [Page 79] to the Hebrewes, very Iewes indeed, who were fully in­structed in all the points of Moyses Law, and stucke too much to it, hee vseth Tithing, as a chiefe argument to confirme them in the Al-sufficiencie and Eternitie of Christs Priest-hood, applying that most mysticall and hidde historie (euen from them then) of Melchisedec and Abrahams Blessing and Tithing, vnto Christ the Ve­ritie: It was euen Christ our true, Melchisedec, of whom [...], these things were spoken: He Blesseth, hee Titheth, hee liueth: a fit and timely argument for the Iewes, who were alreadie well acquainted with the Me­dium of his Conclusion; But for the Gentiles, vnfit and vn­timely: vnfit, because it had bin (as we speake) to proue obscurumper obscurius: vntimely, because Tithes were euer (as is said) a most orderly Inheritance, neuer a­ble to be exacted, but where both Church and Ciuill Policie, are peaceably setled in Gods obedience: and yet in Pauls owne dayes, where Tithes could not haue place, the proportion for the maintenance of the Gospel, went a great deale higher, for euery true Christian sold what he had, brought it to the Apostles feet, and all was made common, a sore Tithing: yet this lacked not Sacrilege, Act. 4.32. & 5.1. as we see in Ananias and Saphira, who kept backe a part of theirs: but they payed well for it. This was indeed, to make the Preachers partakers of all their goods: But I hope any man yet will rather agree to a Tithing, then to this, or rather to nothing, let Melchisedec, Mo [...]ses, Paul and God himselfe, say what they list.

Neither did Paul write this to these Hebrewes, as ex­pecting, §. VII or exacting a present Tithing of them; Pauls mea­ning to the Hebr. for that time was not come (as is said); they were poore new conuerted Christians, euen those for whom Paul had gathered that collection, in Achaia, Asia, and Rom [...]: Paul [Page 80] onely (as is said) would draw them from Leui to Christ, and that in the power and prerogatiue of Melchisedec in all things belonging to Leuies Priest-hood, specially, Blessing and Tithing. They knew Tithes were due, but not due to Christ: this Paul teacheth them. Let euery Christian ballance these arguments, in the scales of an vpright conscience, fixed, and setled on the word of God; and accordingly, dispose of his affections.

§. VIII Behold then lastly, how fitly all things are matched in those types, Comparison of Melchise­dec, Aaron, and Christ. and their veritie, Christ! Grace is ioyned to Eternitie; and Law & Bondage brought to an end. Mel­chisedec, Christs first, freest, and most perfect Priestly type, and kingly too, met Abraham freely without law, and before Law; and as a King, fed him; as a Priest, bles­sed him: all in freedome. Abraham againe, (in whose loynes, we were all then both fedde and blessed) like a thankefull soule, met also freely the free graces of God in Melchisedec, likewise before Law. And so Christ our true Melchisedec, not commanded, litle expected, least of all deserued, freely meeteth Abraham and all his seede, e­ver feeding & blessing to saluation, and therefore must all we, the seede of Abrahams flesh and faith, returne to him, 2, Cor 5.19.20 and to those, in whom he hath put the Ministerie of reconciliation, Tithes freely, not as Legally coacted. And this for Grace and Eternitie.

Now, betweene Melchisedec and Christ, interuened another solemne and great high Priest also, Aaron: But how? quite after an other order and manner: long af­ter both Melchisedec and Abraham: all in bonds, called, commanded: his very sacrifices brought by force to the Altar: nothing freely. And so Abrahams posteritie ga [...]e him the like meeting, Tithes by force of law: Bondage, and bonds on both sides.

Grace then beginneth, and Grace endeth. The Law coupled Mel­chisedec to Christ. The Law goeth betweene, as a bond, coupling Grace to Grace, Melchisedec to Christ. And so Melchisedec as Gods Priest, and Christs type, with the Ministerie of Christs Gospel, make vp both but one poynt, in the Office-worke of our saluation: Euen as, an Euening and a Morning, Gen. 1.5. made vp but one day in the Creation. Christ was but as in dawning then: he shineth now. In Melchisedec he put the Word of benediction, in his Ministerie he hath put the Word of Reconciliation. Melchisedec typed Euerla­sting promises in Christ: his Ministry preach euerlasting performances in Christ. Now, glad promises, and glad tydings of their performances, are but one: and there­fore their maintenance iustly one, Tithes Inheritance.

Leui, a linke of the same chaine also; a Priest of the same worke in effect: though different in forme: a Re­membrancer, for supporting the weaknes of those dayes, interuening betweene the promises and the performan­ces, typing, and foretelling by numbers of rites, & thou­sands of times, Christs comming in their carnal sacrifi­ces, till they poynted him out, as by a fingerly demon­stration: whom our Ministerie now Preach in a heauenly contemplation. The dores of Faith in those dayes were much, their Eyes, Hic est: and so trust [...]es Thomas, must first put his finger in his side, and then beleeue. The dores of faith in our true Melchisedecs dayes, are most, our eares, by hearing: and so, euen Abraham beleeued, hic erit, and it was imputed to him for Righteousnesse: And he sawe the day of the Lord, and reioyced: But wee, Hic fuit, and therefore, Blessed are they that haue not seene, and yet beleeue. So the generall end of all, is one: and the generall Inheritance for all, still one. Le­ui was vnder the Law, as a tenent at will, remoueable: [Page 82] Melchisedec, & Christs Ministery, as Freeholders: Oaken-tenants. Diuersitie of Orders made not diuersitie of In­heritance. Tithes and Priest-hood came and goe toge­ther; not Tithes, and Leuies Priest-hood: and therefore must not end, till all Priest-hood end; for Melchisedec yet liueth a Priest, and taketh Tithes.

See part. 1. c. 6.To that question then made, part. 1 cap. 6. Why the last §. IX age of the world may not serue God without Tithes, as the first two thousand yeeres did? Order once setled, must neuer be left. The answere is eui­dent: We must neuer fall backe from Order to Confu­sion, nor from Substance to Ceremonies. This were to go backe againe from Canaan, to the Flesh-pots of Ae­gypt: from Heauen to Hel. Why may we not serue God without the Tables of the Law, as they did two thou­sand yeeres? They had the Image of that Law by na­ture, and partly (doubtlesse) by Tradition: so were they, both by Law of Nature and Tradition, prepared to a Tithing, as fell out betweene Melchisedec and Abraham. The first age was a time of confusion, the people had no rest, Deut. 12.8. &c. and so small order; but being once past Iordan, they must not doe as of before.

Now are we past all the Bondages in Christ, and must not go back againe to the Bound-Ages of the world. O­therwise, we inuert the whole method both of Creation and Redemption. Creation began from darkenesse to light: Euening and Morning made a day: Redemption, from falling to rising: from beggerly rudiments of the Law, to the rich reuelations of the Gospel, from perish­ing types to eternall Verities. And the Gospel againe, in it selfe still growing, Heb. 5.13.14. from milke for babes, to strong meat for men of age. We must euer grow, neuer decrease. There­fore Christ, the first Author of Grace, and perfection of all grace, hath not cast all againe in the Chaos of Con­fusion.

Then seeing Nature at first freely doted; The right of Tithes con­cluded. Grace ensu­ing distinctly defined; Iacob instructed in grace, solemne­ly vowed; Law succeeding, strictly commaunded; the Gospel reuiuing, hath by reasons [...]enued; the Primitiue Churches, by practise restored Tithes for Gods worship: Let vs euer hold, that Tithes are onely the true Inheri­tance of the Church, flowing immediatly from God, to his Ministerie in all ages: as wee defined them, part. 1. cap. 1.

The summe then of all the proofe from the Circum­stance of time, is,

• Whatsoeuer is due to an eternall Priest, is perpetuall by due.
• Tithes were, and are due, to Melchisedec, an Eternall Priest.
• Ergo, Tithes are perpetually due.

And by Consequent, this Priest being the High-Priest of the Gospell, Tithes are due to the Gospell.

CHAP. VIII. The time of Melchisedecs first Tithing. Foure doubts in his posterities Tithing. To whom, from whom, whereof, and for what vses Tithes are to be taken, and imployed. And if Princes may Tithe. [...], what.

TITHES thus setled as the Churches true Inhe­ritance: §. I these doubts rest to be resolued. How long Melchisedec Tithed. First in Melchisedec, and Abraham our Fundators: Se­condly, in their succeeding posteritie. In Melchisedec, touching the time and continuing of his Tithing: and of what things he got Tithes. Once hee got, sure it is: [Page 84] and this Once, in all his actions we haue found euer ob­ligatorie of the posteritie, typed in Mechisedec and Abra­ham. It continued not, because we reade neuer that A­braham, or any of his, met any more with Melchisedec; and so hereafter, Abraham neuer met with so good a Priest as himselfe. Heere then was but a Nuncupation, a Fundation of Priest-hood and Maintenance [...]: All things began to be Orderly with Melchisedec: But to be of Melchisedecs peculiar Order ( viz. Eternal) this cea­sed on earth, from this time, til the law in his order, both came, and ceased; and Christ the perfection of this Or­der and all Orders, came. So, of Melchisedecs Order we haue but two Persons; Melchisedec, Type and Priest: Christ, Verity, and High-Priest. Againe, it could not lasts for Tithes (as is said) require necessarily, setled Re­ligion. Abraham was heere a stranger among Infidels. He gaue Tithes as hee found the Priest; let vs doe the like. So heere, Grace prepared the way to the Law, by Gods good order, because Grace must deliuer vs frō the Law by the same Order. Now, whereof Melchisedec got Tithes, because it concerneth also the Posteritie, we will there answer it. And this for the doubts in our Fūdators.

§. II In the Posteritie we haue those questions to answere anent Tithing, To whom Tithes due. To what persons giuen? From what per­sons taken? Of what things taken? And for was vses? In all which, hauing once found the Person giuer, viz. God, we shal easily finde the rest: for he giueth for al re­spects. And, That onely God gaue Tithes; It is cleere first, in that action of Melchisedec and Abraham; whose doings though they passed in the prerogatiue of [...] and [...], without either recorded law, or like exam­ple; yet no man will deny, but that their calling was powerfull in the Spirit; and so far aboue Law, as this one [Page 85] action was a Law for euer. Againe, God hauing heere giuen. Tithes to his Eternall Priest; vnder the Law hee also giueth them to his Temporal Priests and Ministers. So we haue heere two lessons. First, Tithes are pendi­cles of Priests, not of Princes. For though Melchisedec and Christ were both Princes and Priests, yet are Tithes onely annexed to their Priest-hood, Heb. 7.

But to be plainer, and neither wrong Prince nor Priest, §. III It is one question to say, How Princes may Tithe. Whether may Kings take a Tenth for their necessities? Another, Whether Kings may take Tithes, Gods Inheritance, Decimam Sacram, from his Church or no?

For the first, they will alledge, 1. Sam. 8.15. And we see Princes daily lift (lawfully) subsidies of all proportions, 10. 15. for maintenance of their estate: yea our bodies, our liues, are liable hereto also. But wonder it is, that some learned should alledge this place of Samuel, Pareus in Heb. 7. as a surrender of Gods right in Tithes, vnto kings after Leui; seeing Samuel speaketh heere onely of the Kings of the Iewes, such as liued ioyntly with Leui vnder the Law, Perkins in Iude. who neither did, nor durst touch Leuies Tithes. Kings then may Tithe: but God must Tithe. Neuer religious King thought otherwise: nor, neuer King had further authority: for if any, then doubtlesse, vnder the Law: But there, Hezekiah our best & rarest example, setteth downe a patterne for all his posteritie. Hee commandeth his people to pay Tithes to Leui, according to the Law, 2. Chron. 3 [...]. hee maketh no new Law: hee questioneth with the Priests and Leuites anent the heapes: he causeth build cham­bers for the heapes: but putteth neuer his hand in the heapes; he leaueth that to the distribution of the Leuites for whom they were ordained: For our Patro-Latrons were not then hatched. Neither meane I, but that a [Page 86] Princes need may bee such, that Leui in dutie may and must yeeld him a portion, as the Priest gaue Dauid the Shew bread: 1. [...]am. 21.6. and Mat. 12.4. but let it come by Leui, for auoiding of Sa­crilege. But why our Scottish Leuites can so little helpe their Dauid, Cap. vlt. a Prince of so rare both Reformation, and Religion, shall be quickly knowne.

§. IV Our second lesson floweth from the former. The Po­sitiue Law of Princes is not the fundamentall ground (as many thinke) tying Tithes to the Church. Kings, no fundators of Tithes. No, doubt­lesse Gods Law led our forbeares, Christian Kings, and Churches, so to doe. For at first, Tithes were either Mo­rall or Ceremoniall. If Morall, Then all Kings are but Hezekiahs, commanding to pay them according to the Law. But if Ceremoniall, then it is no lesse superstition now to restore them: then it was Sacrilege then to refuse them. For nothing that typed Christ as a Ceremonie, may be reuiued after Christ in his Church.

The persons owners then in both Melchisedec and Leui, were onely Ecclesiasticks, Priests and Leuites: all those to whose charge the Ministration of Gods wor­shippe was in any sort committed, Filij Prophetarum. Whereof it must follow, that all and onely the Ministrie of the Gospel must liue by Tithes. By Ministery, I meane not, onely the Preacher of the Word, but also all and whatsoeuer inferiour Officers, hauing warrant for their special callings in the Church, else wee haue not both Priests and Leuites, 2. King. 2.3.5. & 4.38 42. & 6.1. as Esay prophecied of the dayes of the Gospel. And this of Esay must signifie Priests by Church-calling, Cap. 66.21.1.2 9. Ministers: not generally as Peter ter­meth all Christians, a Royall Priest-hood.

§. V Now, whereas some hold that our Preachers may not answere the Priests, Our Prea­chers answer to the Priests but onely the inferiour Leuites, I see no warrant for it. For if it be for their different Sa­crifices [Page 87] from ours: the name will neuer import the ser­uice out of the owne period of time: but still such Priest, such Sacrifice: otherwise it should bind a carnall Sacri­fice on Melchisedec the Type. We answere those Priests then, Genere, not Specie. Againe, the inferior Leuites, were by Calling as Ceremonial, as Priests: And our Preachers labour in Word and Sacraments, resemble more the Priests seruices, then that of the Leuites [...], saith Paul of the Priests, 1. Cor. 9.13. very competent to our Ministery [...]. Rom. 15.16. And the Gospel hath al­so the owne inferiour officers, who may better answere to the inferiours of the Law. Then, All of Church-Cal­ling, must liue by the Church-Kitchin.

Away then with those Laick Bishops, Parsons, Priors, §. VI Patrons, &c. Such Patroni, are Latrones. Patro-La­trons. But if the Church-Inheritance must go by the presentation of La­icks, then let Lordships goe by the presentation of Le­uites. So shall we haue on both sides, a perfect Hurly­burly-gouernment, till each haue his due. Tithes are the Churches Inheritance flowing from God: Then, in generall, no man can present them: and in particular, Hezekias (as is said) left the distribution to Leui himselfe. Gods end, and Mans, are heere quite contrary. God gaue Leui a Maintenance from himself, and free of mans option, to be lifted before man should meddle with any thing, to no other end, Hebr. 13.17. but (as Hezekiah said) That they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord, not to please the Laird or my Lord. That he should not stumble at such a huge-stone, as, How shall I liue? That they may d [...]e it with ioy, and not with greefe. Deut. 33.9. Hee must misknow Father and Mother, Brothers, his owne childe, when Gods cause is in hand, as he did, Exod. 32.27, 28. Philip. 3.8. He must count all things dung for Christs sake. But mans end is, to as­seruile [Page 88] the Gospell to his vile appetites. And what greater argument, to make a man speake, as they please? Then to be able to make him to eate as they please. It is a sore sub ferula; when Leuies portion was not giuen, euery one fled to his Land, Nehem. 13.10. And this ma­keth now many a poore Leuite (yet weaker then poore) engage the Gospel for his dinner. And this pride against Gods Inheritance, maketh many a Gut-Gospeller, sell his owne inheritance to buy Tithes, and in end is tur­ned out of both. And this for the persons owners of Tithes.

§. VII The Persons payers: Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec, What persons must pay Tithes. was a type of all his seed, of his flesh, and of his Faith: then no flesh can scape. The Law comman­ded all Israel to giue Leui Tithes: and Leui himselfe esca­ped not Melchisedec. All, for whom Leui serued in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, payed to Leui. There­fore all to whom Christ is preached, pay Tithes to Christs Ministerie. There is but one Dichotomie heere of the whole world, either an Israelite, or a Leuite. An Ec­clesiastick or a Laick; sauing our Mungerall Gospellers (as is said): the next head shall make this more cleare.

§. VIII Of what things Tithes are to be payed now: Abraham gaue of ALL, What things to be Tithed. Gen. 14.] Iacob, Gen. 28. vowed to giue of all that God gaue him. The Law, in the time of the di­uiding of the Land, setteth downe chiefely, that which commeth by, and of the Land, viz. Tillage and Pastu­rage: and these Tithes are now commonly called Prae­diales Decimae. Decimae prae­diales. But Iacobs Vow, and Abrahams practise teach vs, that (All) includeth as well, all trades, as all persons: for euery man is not a labourer of ground, a Cain, a keeper of cattell, an Abel. The Iewish Repub. went no further for that time; But the Author to the [Page 81] Hebrewes, chap. 7. vers. 2. giueth first, Of all, and vers. 4. [...]; which most men interpret Spoiles. Where, I wonder why some learned quarrell it as improper: Deut. 20.1, 2, 3. see­ing one point of Leuies office was to encourage in time of warre: And seeing of the battels and of the Spoiles, 1. Chro. 26.27. they did dedicate to maintaine the house of the Lord. Seeing God is by special name, The Lord of Hostes. And seeing the Ministery of the Gospell, yet serueth much at warre, where huge armies haue no calling but the warres: shall all bee exempted from Tithes? No, euery man as hee gaineth, he giueth proportionably, and these are called Decimae Personales: Decimae Per­sonales. and such in effect were all Abrahams Tithes: for his, came after a battell, not after Tillage or Cattell. And this personall Tithing is cleared by the A­postle, saying, Let him that is instructed in the Word, (this wil bring in euery soule hauing goods, and receiuing in­struction) &c. And if not so, the one halfe, if not the best halfe of the world, shall go free, for all mens goods stand not in Tillage or Pasturage: All then must either pay, or be payed for: for seruants, children, and such like, come not in count, but housholders and Foris samiliats, as Deut. 26.13.

But God hath laid a course of such perpetuall equity and equalitie in all points, and for all persons, that no­thing can go wrong, if we go not from it. Al persons must pay, therefore no emulation for exception of persons: All things, as their encrease is, must pay, so Gods ser­uice shall lacke nothing necessary. Once a yeere pay: so no man is preuented, nor precipitate: for the yeeres re­uolution, giueth a recreation to all, and whatsoeuer Trades.

And albeit Abraham said to the King of Sodom, that §. IX he would take nothing that was his: yet Gods part, was [Page 90] neither his, nor his: Neither had Abraham, so much to giue of his owne for the time, as of these Kings and Lots goods, whom hee deliuered, and of these others Kings goods, Gen. 14. whom hee ouercame, as the Hi­storie beareth. Now if hee gaue Tithes for their goods, it must bee Spoyle: for all came to Abraham, Iure belli: And if Spoiles, then battels and warres are ob­liged to Tithing: If warres and souldiers, what trade can escape. And though we say, Spoiles, it excludeth not Abrahams owne estate, euen by the text: for first, Genesis hath, Of all: secondly, Heb 7.2. [...], Of all things. So, if Abraham had, he gaue: But vers. 4. Paul addeth, [...], of purpose (as it seemeth to me) to oblige warre as well as peace, to this most solemne Nuncupati­on of Tithes, to the Eternall Priest-hood of Melchi­sedec.

§. X On the King of Sodoms words to Abraham, Giue mee the persons, Sodome a thankefull souldier. and take the goods to thy selfe: Wee haue two things to marke; first, it seemeth, the King of Sodome had no ill meaning, to grudge at Abrahams giuing Tithes to Melchisedec, as most men vnderstand him: for he had no reason, seeing Abraham had restored to him, all his people and goods, yea, euen himselfe to himselfe. Chry­sostome seemeth to take the place better, applying it to the thankfulnesse in the King of Sodome, who seeing God worke for him, by Abrahams hand, what himselfe could not doe; and seeing Melchisedec, the Priest of A­brahams God, seale vp this victory in so powerfull, and so­lemne manner: the King then said to Abraham, Giue mee the persons, and take the goods to thy selfe. If we should say heere, Ambrose making 318. Vernus of A­braham, types of these 318. Bishops of the Coun­cell of Nice, stretcheth the text much further. That the King of Sodome might serue as a type of the Gentiles, called to the Faith of Abraham, who were neuer of Abrahams flesh; it were no great absurdi­tie: [Page 91] for Sodome heere, being but Lots neighbour by dwelling, is made Lots brother in blessing: hee enioyed fully the temporal blessing of the present victorie; hee heard effectually the future blessings of Eternal felicitie sealed vp in Abraham and all his posteritie, Flesh and Faith; and so, euen for Sodom himselfe, when he should take him to the tents of Sem: And should this man, who had lost all, both soules and substance, and againe got all, grudge for a Tithing, seeing euen then Gentiles them­selues gaue Tithes to their owne Idols? No, It agreeth better with the nature of this eternall and heauenly my­stery, that such Gentiles as by Lots society, were brougnt within the compasse of Gods blessing, should also be en­rolled in the booke of thankfulnesse for Melchisedecs Ti­thing. Therefore [...], may well bee interpreted, Spoiles.

Secondly, we marke, that this speech of the King of §. XI Sodoms came after the Tithing, and so, of a good mind: Sodom thankfull to Abra­ham. for after Melchisedec had receiued Gods part, the King biddeth Abraham take the rest of the goods To himselfe; whereby he seemeth to acknowledge, Tithes in such ca­ses due; and to acquite Abrahams losses, by a true libera­litie, for his present deliuerie. Courtesie bound Abra­ham to refuse the Kings goods; but Conscience com­manded him to giue God his owne goods: and so, they both acknowledged their common victory of their com­mon purse; and the best of this purse, was Spoiles, Ergo, [...] may yet be Spoi [...]es.

But it is not much vsed to signifie Spoiles, XII Obiect. Sol. [...], what. & properly it is but The toppes of the heapes:] What of all this? May not these heapes be sometimes Spoiles, purchased as wel by battels and warres abroad, as possessed by peace in barnes at home? And Steph. saith first, Capitur pro primi­tijs [Page 92] manubiarum quae Dijs offeruntur: and proueth it by diuers authorities. Againe, Primitiae victoriae, id est, ma­nubiarum ex victoria reportatarum: And was not Abra­ham heere after victorie? Againe, At vero D. Paulus, aut quisquis est auctor Epist. ad Heb. [...], non pro manubia­rum primitijs, sed pro ipsis manubijs vsurpauit. If this sense seeme strange, the Author is strong: and this is no sole example of Pauls vsing of words in a new sense, (though neuer without a new reason) as for example, [...] is takē by all for, to come: yet Paul, Act. 20.29. [...], after my departure. Casaub. The Fathers long after Paul, framed many words to a new sense, as [...] for the Eucharisty it selfe: by Dionosius: [...] for [...] by the Councell of Nice: [...] from the Church, to the only Clergie, and Church of late, from the flocke, to the one­ly Pastors, all which Scripture neuer knew: And might not Paul in the power of another spirit, vse [...] to signifie Spoiles, in so fit a time, as after a battell, and in so farre a reach, as to fetch in for euer, euery soule to pay Tithes to the euerlasting Priest-hood of Melchi­sedec?

§. XIII Now, to what vses are Tithes giuen? This must also depend (with the rest) vpon God the giuer. Tithes for what vses. First Mel­chisedec got them (as is said) as Priest only. Many would tye them to many common works, as building of Chur­ches, Streets, and Hospitals: But look to the Law, there is no such condition in the gift to Leui: it went onely, for his seruice in the Tabernacle, not for building the Tabernacle. Monies due to the Priest, were exempted from repairing of Gods house. Kings euer builded and repaired Churches, 2. King. 12.16. 2 Chro 24 5. & 34.9. 2 King. 22 4. of their owne goods and the peo­ples: and the Leuites keepers of the dores, gathered by the Kings command, monyes for these workes, of all [Page 93] their brethren. As for the poore, the Law appointed for them a special Tithing each third yeere: 1. Cor. 16.1.2. and the A­postle, an ordinary collection each weeke, besides a dai­ly care of them recommended to all Christians. Of all this is cleared, that the Church Patrimony, was not tied to these vses: howsoeuer I doe confesse, a thousand times better so imployed, then as most part of Tithes be now adayes. So Tithes may bee, (not must bee) so imployed.

CHAP. IX. Why Tithes seeme too much for our Ministerie, and how to mend it. Comparison betweene the Romish Church and ours: Christ and the King both cosoned.

BVt thus shall the Tithes, faire exceed the propor­tion §. I of the Ministerie: True, Why Tithes too much for our Ministe­rie. chiefly heere in Scot­land. But the conformitie hereof must not grow from imparing Gods rents: but encreasing his seruants, which in most places are too few. Parishes so many miles in compasse: One Church only, if any: alike Preachers, 1. Chron. 23.1, 2, 3. this is all. Any wonder heere the Tithes bee too much, where the men be so few? It was not so in Israel, where eight and thirtie thousand Leuites aboue thirtie yeeres old, serued the Ministrrie of the Law: and the Ministry of the Gospell, in as large (though not so fertile) a coun­try with vs, not to mount to foure thousand in all. What if euery large peopled Parish had two Churches? Each Church, two Preachers? With Deacons, Porters, Mu­sitians, and all such like inferior Officers, as the Church-seruices require? And all liue by Church-rents? Should [Page 94] not God bee better serued? Soules better nourished? And the people no more burthened?

§. II But say, That for all this, Tithes yet would bee too much: what then? Leui should be but richer: then let him be the more liberall, the more hospitall. Let him support Prince and Countrey: Church and poore, as hath been done heretofore. O! But, Ecclesia peperit di­uitias, & filia deuorouit matrem. True, in Popery, where hauing not onely Tithes most Legally exacted, but a great number of old legall offrings, and new additions, they become so, Secular Princes. But in the puritie of the Gospel, 1. Pet. 5.3. where Decimare, not Dominari, is permitted, there is no such danger.

Comparison betweene the Romish Church and ours. §. III But yet in Poperie, Priests are chast, no wiues, no chil­dren: you haue both; whereby that overplus that may arise of the rents, and be employed for the publike ser­uice, is conuerted to the vse of their children onely.

Respons: Chast they are not: Wiues they haue not: and children they want not. We graunt we haue wiues: so had Leui: and yet, to haue a wife, was no Ceremonie with him: though Popery hath abolished it, and taketh other mens wiues in place of it. As to our children, they differ onely, that theirs are bastards, ours Lawfull. And I haue often seene Romish bastards, better in bonis, then any of the other sort. And though our children be (as seldome) prouided for, yet doth not this endaunger our Church for wealth: for our children succeede to it Iure patris, not Predecessoris: possessione, not professione, not as a Pope to a Pope: a Cardinal to a Carnal. And if it be lawfull to haue wiues, then more neede is there of man­tenance.

Yet againe, to avoyde all partialitie in these poynts, I confesse, first, That there may be (in some respect) too [Page 95] much wiuing in a Church Ministerie: specially where the patrimony is so much impared, Matrimonie might be better spared: And seeing Lords & Lairds, haue mea­sured Leuies maintenance so, as will scarse proue meate to his owne mouth, the lesse his burthen were, the greater were his libertie in his calling: But the difference be­tweene the Pope and vs is, that Nature conformed to Gods Law, leadeth vs: Mans Law, abridging Gods, en­forceth them. If we enacted affirmatiuely, that all Mini­sters must marry: as the Pope doth his Negatiue, That none shal marry: I think it were aeque peccatū vtrin (que) Le­ui was bound to marry: for, his only loines could breed a Legal Ministerie: but now, Iew and Gentil are a like sib to the Gospell: the onely spirit begetteth a Minister.

Secondly, I confesse, That there is no greater Sacri­lege, §. IV then when Leui himselfe playeth the Limmer, Leui Sacri­legious, is worst of all. that is, when a Bishop, or a Minister, inhaunceth all Bishop­ricks, Abbacies, Priories, whatsoeuer is deuouted to Leuies Inheritance, appropriating things due to the seed of their calling, to the seed of their carkas: to their one­ly sonnes, what is due to their successors. If our Church haue any such, the Lord turne himselfe all in Eye, to find them out, and all in fire to purge them out: Achans, A­chans.

But let vs heare Bellarmine sound his bels: This Law §. V of Tithes cannot bee Morall: Bellarmines belles against Tithes. because it did not oblige euer from the beginning.

Ans. Obliging from the beginning, is no sure note of things Morall and Perpetuall: for then the Iewish indi­uidual Sabbath must haue beene Moral, for it was at the very beginning, but continued not till the end. Againe, Incest, did not at the beginning so strictly oblige as now, shall we therefore hold it for no Morall precept? or al­terable [Page 96] now? Morall then is, whatsoeuer beginning at any time before Christ, remaineth also after Christ: O­therwise the Decalogue shall not be Morall: Rom. 7.7. and if we flee to the Law of Nature, we haue proued Tithes also by the Law of Nature.

Another bell of Bellarmines: As the Law said, Leui must haue all the Tithes in Israel: So said it, Leui must haue no Inheritance in Israel: And so the negatiue, must be Morall as well as the Affirmatiue; but wee see many Ministers borne to Inheritance, and purchasing Inheri­tance, neither due nor descending to the Ministerie. Ergo.

This is a two edged sword: one against the Pope, whose chaire maketh him as great a Prince as any in Is­rael: Let Baal plead for himselfe. Iudg. 6.32. Another edge, against our Ministerie, who though they bring no other Inhe­ritance to the Ministerie, then the Gospel giueth; yet they prouide for their children, which Leuie did not. I answere, first, for the children: Leui did not prouide for them, because hee needed not; for God had prouided alreadie sufficiently for him and all his. How Leui may haue Inheritance. In generall, I answere, If this Leuiticall Law had bin our first ground for Tithes, as it is but a branch of that generall, where­by both they and we claime Tithes, then Bellarmine had had some colour of his coniunction of the Negatiue, and Affirmatiue, as of one nature. And yet by his leaue, That Negatiue was peculiar to that onely Tribe, in the diuision of that Land: but the Affirmatiue of Tithes, flowing from our first Patterne and Patron, Melchisedec, was common to all Nations, as was his Priest-hood. For no Nation (saue this) was enioyned to diuide them­selues in twelue or thirteene distinct Tribes, and so to di­uide the Land among them, and kept themselues still [Page 97] distinguished one from another: and no people (saue this) had one onely Tribe, reserued wholly and onely to the Ministery: Therefore the Affirmatiue must bee Mo­rall, The Negatiue, Temporall.

I confesse, the Equitie of this Negatiue teacheth clear­ly, §. VI That the Sacred and Ciuill calling; the Word, Sacred and ciuil callings distinct. and the World; Priest and Prince, should euer remaine di­stinct; which two the Pope confoundeth, and all such as doe ioyne sacred and secular publike callings in one person. Yea, I say further, though a man bee borne to secular Lordships and Offices; and thereafter called to the Ministerie, yet must hee liue as hauing no inheri­tance; that is, he must abandon all that publike and ci­uill calling in his owne person, as Negotium huius seculi, discharging that by others, and so deriue it to his law­full posterity of his flesh, himself standing fast by Christs plough: he must not plow with the Word, and harrow with the World.

The Law then is not the patent of our possession. §. VII Melchisedec is our Patterne; Melchisedec is our Patrone; Melchisedec gaue our Patent, Melchisedec tooke our pos­session. The law (as is said) serued the owne time: It coupled Melchisedec to Christ. Great was the difference, betweene the Law and the Gospell, both touching Cal­ling and Maintenance. The Law, tyed all, and onely Le­ui to the Calling: and so were his children, both succes­sors to his Office, and heires of his Tithes. In the Gos­pel, the Spirit onely directeth all. In the Law, onely Is­rael Gods people: onely Leui, Gods Priest; and as they had an externall calling, so he gaue them a carnal Main­tenance, bound to their blood; for the Priest-hood went by pedegree, Neh. 7.64. But the Gospel, touching des­cent personal, in all circumstances is free, calling (after [Page 98] the manner of Melchisedec) Internally: and so giueth the maintenance to the Sent, not to the Discent. No mans seede astricted; none debarred: Iew and Gentile. The patrimony and parentage, meete neuer vnder Melchi­sedec; and therefore Leuies Lawes, are for Leuies selfe onely. For seeing our flesh hath no part with Leui, it were hard to debar vs that ordinary natural care, which God alloweth all parents ouer their children. The mo­deration heere must be (as is said) Ne implicent se negotijs huius seculi; 2. Tim. 2.4. not to hunt with Esau, forgetting their cal­ling. Before both Law and Melchisedec, the first borne had both the best portion, and were also Priests, by pra­ctise: then if a man now, borne to secular possessions, hauing both wife & children (which both hath bin, and may be vnder the Gospel, but neuer could bee vnder the Law) be called to the Ministerie; must this man either renounce his meanes or his Ministerie? May not Leuies Lands, and keepe Leuies cattell? This were a beggerly rudiment indeed. A man then may enioy his meanes, and the Church censure his moderation.

§. VIII The Moderatours in all such cases must bee onely Church-men; who must giue to euery man his portion according to his neede. Num. 26. [...]4. & 33.54. 2. Chron. 31. Neh. 13.13. So did God in the diuision of Canaan, giue that Tribe most, which needed most. So were Tithes by Leui taken, and by Leui distributed ac­cording to their courses. To command the people to pay Tithes; was Opus Regum: but to diuide them, Vix Regium. Equitie then, not Equalitie must leade the bal­lance: for many circumstances, may make one of the same calling, more or lesse chargeable then another. The extremities to bee auoided, are Hunger and Surfet. Want killeth the Prophet, and Riches makes his graces roust.

But to speake at home now: Say that our Leuites §. IX should fast, (as too many of them doe): Shall our peo­ple faire the better? No, for if Leui charge not, Laickes ouercharge. A shame of shames! Our Pulpits preach Christ: Our Parliaments forfeit Christ: and our poore Commons pilled, vnder colour of paying to Christ. The tricke of it was, Christ and the King both cosened. That Tithes were vpon the sudden found vnfit for the Church, but very fit for the King, (for the time as yong as our Reformation): All must be annexed to him. So was he, (but not long) both King and Priest, a new Melchisedec: He Tithed once, (if once) but neuer more. For as they scorned Christ, they scof­fed the King, conueying straight from his one hand, what they put in his other. So they found the King Mi­nor; they made the Church-men Minor: and shutte them both vp in the Order of Fratres minimi. Now the Tithes being gone, we must haue (for the fashion) Lords of the Plot, Lords Modefears, booked stipends, but no­thing like Gods booke: Gods book gaue Leui substance for shaddowes: our Lords giue Leui shaddowes for sub­stance. God commanded such, Leuit. 27.31. as would redeeme their Tithes from Leui, to adde a fifth part more aboue the Priests valuation: Our Lords giue Leui a fifth part of his owne Tithes, according to their valuation. Abraham gaue Tithes of all the Spoiles; and we make Spoile of all the Tithes. And these fortie yeeres by-past haue not sufficed to tell vs Quotum, quantum, nor quomodo, Christs Ministerie may be maintained, Tithes being abstracted. A confusion, arising onely from reiecting Gods conclu­sion: and so much the more confirmed, that their tra­uels are still turned vpon Tithes. Tithes they will not giue, yet out of Tithes they must giue what they list giue. So we haue, pro Sacri-lege, Sacrilege legittimated.

2. Chron. 31.And now, our Hezekiah, whose age and knowledge informe him vnto reformation of those their errors; while his Highnesse beginneth to question with his Le­uites touching their heapes, (or rather hopes of heapes) and would willingly remoue these Tobiahs from the Church-chambers. Alas, he findeth Achan the best part of Israel: Nehem. 13.4. many Ierosylites, few true Israelites: Robbers, not Restorers of Leuies portion. Rom. 2.22. Heare O Heauens! and hearken O Earth! Esai. 1 2. Ier. 5.9.29. 2. Chro. 24.22. Shall I not visite them for these things, saith the Lord? Or shall not my soule be auenged on such a Nation as this? Doubtlesse: The Lord looke vpon it, and require it. Amen.