AN ANSWER TO THE JEWISH PART OF Mr SELDEN'S HISTORY OF TITHES.  
By STEPHEN NETTLES, B. of Divinity.  PROV. 3.9, & 10. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10.  
9 Honour the Lord with thy riches, and with the first fruits of all thine increase.  
10. So shall thy barns be filled with abundance, and thy presses shall burst with new wine.   seal of the University of Oxford 
AC: OX  
AT OXFORD, Printed by JOHN LICHFIELD, & WILLIAM TURNER, Printers to the famous University. 1625.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL DOCTOR PRIDEAUX, Rector of Exeter College, His majesty's Professor in Divinity, and Vicechancellor of the University of Oxford.  
Reverend and worthy Sir,  
THE combination of zeal and learning wherewith God hath honoured You, the love You bear to the Hebrew studies, and the cause handled in this little tract, together with the manifold favours You have pleased to vouchsafe me (being as yet unknown unto You) have been the Allectives to this small remembrance; whereby coveting to show my thankfulness, I first offer unto you the first fruits of these my poor endeavours. And albeit coming now to write in this manner, after the diverse treatises of tithes already extant, I know it is but little that can either be performed, or expected from me in this subject: yet as the jews in gathering their fruits in Harvest, beside their oblations and tithes, had also their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 19.9. Deut. 24.19, 20. i the corner of the field, the gleaning, and the forgotten sheaf, which were assigned to the use and benefit of the poor: so in some respect may I judge these scattered, slender, and poor Collections to be much of the like nature; and therefore desiring to cast my mite into the treasury of the Church, I present them unto You; in hope that as You have already afforded them Your favourable Construction, so You will please also to assist them, so fare as truth requires, with your willing and able protection. And thus beseeching the Almighty to bless You and Your worthy labours to his glory, and the good of the Church, I take my leave, and rest  
Your Worships in all Christian duty to be commanded STEPHEN NETTLES. Lexden, May 4. 1625.   

THE PREFACE.  
WHereas diverse Treatises have been published heretofore in way of answer to the Book entitled The History of Tithes; it may be, after this long silence, it will now seem strange, and be thought a work altogether unseasonable and superfluous, either to write or speak any more of that subject. Notwithstanding because the Historian himself and many others, led rather with affection, than judgement, do still much magnify among the rest, the jewish part of that History, (as though some hidden matters of importance were involued therein) I hope it shall not be offensive to any, (sith this passage as yet hath not been scanned) if I as another witness in the same cause, endeavour only to bring in some evidence not yet explained, that may help to unfold & clear sundry doubts and questions in this kind. For albeit the Author of the History in the preface thereof, offering it to the trial of the most censorious examination, with a challenge against all opponents in his poëticall phrase; Si falsa est, accingere contra, etc. doth thereby insinuate that he hath written nothing but infallible truth: And though also the authority of the jewish Writers against the divine right of the Church in Tithes, be alleged with much confidence and ostentation, and received also with great applause, and more than ordinary approbation: yet let praejudice and partiality with other sinister respects be laid aside, and I make no doubt but there will appear as much defect and error, even in this part of the History, as in any other whatsoever; and that the writings of the jews, though we depend not on them (because in many things they are vain and fabulous) yet take them as they are, being truly related, will afford more grounds of proof for the divine right of Tithes, than either hath as yet from them, or can be showed against it. I did wish & expect that a more able workman would have undertaken this task; and therefore these papers of mine, which long since have been viewed and censured, were neither at the first intended, nor after hastened to the Press. But seeing in all this time I hear of no other discourse of this nature, either performed or promised, I have at length yielded to the desire and persuasion of such as might command me to publish this; the rather, because not long after the first appearing of the History, I did in a public Sermon take exception against divers parts thereof, which being distasteful to some hearers, I thought it did concern me for better satisfaction, aswell to the Eye as to the Ear, to justify with my pen, what I avouched in the Pulpit; and the same, together with other observations, to present to open view: the intendment whereof aiming at nothing else but manifestation and confirmation of truth, I am not careful, neither do I think it needful, for this attempt to make any long apology. Having therefore thus much praemised in way of preface, I now pass forward unto our purpose.   

AN ANSWER TO THE JEWISH PART OF Mr SELDEN his History of Tithes.  

SECT. 1.  
THere are two things for which this History being duly examined doth discover itself worthy to be taxed: The first is the wresting of holy Scriptures against their true sense: The other, the boasting of jewish Rabbins without any soundness or show of reason: for the Author (as it seemeth) bearing no good affection either to Priest, or payment of Tithes, when he would draw a text of Scripture to his purpose, he doth usually garnish and set it forth with the expositions of the jews, and that in general terms, as though he had them all at his finger's ends, and all of them were on his side, when as notwithstanding it will appear that sometimes none rightly understood, sometimes instead of all, only one is cited; as on that Text, Levit. 27.30. Also all the tithe of the land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord. The History saith, cap. 2. pag. 13. The jews apply this Scripture to the second Tithe. The jews are here propounded in general, yet there is none quoted but Salomoh jarchi. 
Cap. 2. pag. 16.  So on Deut. 26.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith this place of the year of tithing is interpreted by the common gloss of the jews, by the year of one Tithe, &c: and yet none is cited but Salomoh jarchi; notwithstanding when Salomoh jarchi speaks any thing that may seem to make for the divine right of tithing, than his testimony is curtoled & contradicted, as is plain in the very beginning of the History, Gen. 14.20. And Abraham gave him tithe of all, that is (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that he had, as the ordinary gloss of Salomoh jarchi there interprets. But here he leaves out these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. because he was the Priest, the whole sentence being thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is; And Abraham gave him tithe of all that he had, because he was the Priest; which later clause contains a reason why Abraham paid the Tithes to Melchisedek, namely because he was the Priest, implying thereby both a right in Melchisedek to receive them, and a duty in Abraham to pay them; and so saith R. Bechai on that text: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. According to the opinion of our Ancestors he was a Priest indeed, and therefore Abraham gave him the Tithe. This is also further confirmed by the like testimony of Ramban, Deut. 14.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And he was the Priest of the most high God. To show that Abraham would not give the Tithe to the Priest of strange gods, but because he knew him that he was the Priest of the most high God, therefore he gave him the tithe, for the honour of God. And hereby was signified to Abraham, that there should be the house of God, and thither his posterity should bring the tithe & the therumahs or oblations, and that there they bless the Lord.  
Of what credit this Ramban is, Mercer on Genesis, in the beginning, pag. 3. tells us in these words. R. Mose Ben Nachman, quem Ramban per Nun in fine appellant, qui & Moses Gerundensis, cum alius R. Mose been Maimon, qui Rambam per Man in fine vocatur, sit; qui R. Moses Aegyptius dicitur; uterque vir insignis. etsi Iudaei ut & caeteri sint cum iudicio legendi. Now this Testimony of Ramban implies in it these things,  
1 That Abraham was to pay tithe to some one Priest or other.  
2 That not only the Priests of the true God, but also the Priests of strange gods among the Gentiles, did in those times receive Tithes.  
3 That Abraham paid the Tithes to the honour of God.  
4 That this payment was a precedent and type of the future payment of his posterity.  
5 That the payment of Tithes was annexed to the place of God's worship.  
Aben Ezra on this Text, and also on Gen. 28. ver. 22. writes in a manner to the same effect: and on Gen. 35.1. he saith of jacob: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
i. And in Bethel he performed his vow and gave the Tithe of his substance for the honour of God to him that was in that generation for to receive it; That is, to the Priest; for in the Apostles language, Heb. 7. a Priest and a receiver of Tithes are aequipollents. Instead of saying, Men that die are Priests, he saith, Men that die receive Tithes. Instead of saying, He that life's is a Priest, he saith, He that life's takes tithes: as if in his judgement Tithes and Priesthood were inseparable: And therefore the Emphasis of the phrase he useth, Heb. 7.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that Melchisedek tithed Abraham, shows both that he had authority to take Tithes, and seems also to subject Abraham to a necessity of being tithed, which is the same that jarchi means in the testimony before cited; saying that Abraham paid him tithe of all that he had, because he was the Priest. I have the rather insisted upon this, that the Historian hath left out and excluded the Priest from receiving Tithes, because it seems he doth it of set purpose; for otherwise to what end doth he set down those words in the beginning (And gave him tithe of all) in that uncertain manner, not following any translation, but leaving it doubtful who should here be the giver? or for what cause doth he tell us afterward. That were it not for the holy exposition in that Epistle to the Hebrews the relation in Genesis might as well be understood that on the other side, Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor had given to Abraham the tenth part of his estate, the text indeed being both in the Hebrew and Septuagints so, that no name immediately preceding the mention of the gift, it sufficiently thence appears not who was the giver. etc.  
This supposition is somewhat strange, to which I may answer both for the thing supposed, and the consequent thereof, that if it were 〈◊〉 ●●lse, we might with him conceive it to be true; 〈…〉 Apostle doth assure us that it is false; to what end therefore is it related? for though he go about to justify this assertion in his Review, pag. 450. by the authority of Fathers, & acknowledge no fault at all to be in it: yet how can this satisfy? is it not a fault to call in question, or make a doubt of that which the holy Scripture hath put out of doubt? is it not a fault to oppose the imagination of man's brain against the determination of God's truth?  
As for the testimony of S. Hierome, writing not his own, but the jews opinion, and other Fathers here alleged, it hath already been sufficiently answered by others, and therefore both in this and many things else, my labour as it hath been prevented, so it may very well be spared, for I come but to glean after others reaping. Neither will I here recite the expositions of the jews against this conceit, who generally understand the Text according to the true interpretation thereof in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But suppose for argument sake that the holy Apostle had not fully cleared this truth; yet that which the Historian would hereupon infer, will not follow, viz: That Melchisedek as a bounteous Ancestor, had given to Abraham the tenth part of his estate, or as a portion to one of his posterity, (as he speaks in his Review) but that he gave the tenth or tithe to Abraham, as a duty still belonging to the Priest; for in that sense do those jews take it, which were the first authors of this fancy, that Melchisedek paid tithe to Abraham, for they writ, that the Priesthood was translated from Melchisedek to Abraham, because that Melchisedek used a preposterous order in his blessing, in that he first blessed Abraham, and after blessed God, as it were preferring the servant before the Master: as R. Bechai and Chaskuni and others relate on Gen. 14.20. And to this they apply that in Psal. 110.4. Thou art a Priest for ever. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, because of the word that Melchisedek did speak, as Rabbi Chimki there interprets it, and jarchi concerning Abraham, which also they have from the Talmud in Massech. Nedarim cap. 3. fol. 32. But this is not generally received: for Aben-Ezra on Gen. 14: rejects it, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Melchisedek spoke as was fitting, and did well in that he blessed Abraham; first because he voluntarily offered himself to save those that were led captive; and afterward he said: and blessed be God that did help him, and gave his enemies into his hand: & therefore he interprets those words in the Psalm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. according to the order or custom: or else saith that the letter Caph is here wanting; i. Thou art a Priest for ever.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. because thou art as Melchisedek was; & of him it is written, Gen. 14.18. & he was a Priest of the most high God: which agrees with the Syriac translation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. after the similitude of Melchisedek: as also with the Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the order of Melchisedek: and in the Arabic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like Melchisedek.  
So then howsoever some interpreters may differ, and make needless scruples & doubts in their glosses on the Text, yet take it which way you will, this one thing appears to be the general consent of the jews, that the Tithes still followed the Priesthood.  
If any say, the Priesthood is now abolished, and therefore also the Tithes; the answer is easy & common, that this is true for the levitical Priesthood, & the levitical payment of Tithe. But the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, is not abolished, nor the Tithes to the same belonging, as the Apostle shows, Heb. 7.8. And here men that die receive tithes. but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed, that he liveth.  
Besides, the jews themselves acknowledge, that he which is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, hath right to take Tithes, as Melchisedek did: for so are the express words of Aben-Ezra on Psal. 110.4. The Lord swore, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Thou art a Priest. Every Priest is a Minister: and so it is said, 2 Samuel. 8.18. and the sons of David were Priests, that is, to serve the Lord: And behold the meaning is, that Israel shall fight, and thou shalt take the tithe, as Melchisedek took it of Abraham.  
I am not ignorant that the jews diversely expounding this Psalm, son of Abraham, soon of David, son of Messiah, teach that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken not only for a Priest, but also for a Prince. But Aben-Ezra here contradicts this; for though, as he confesseth Esay 43.28. the Priests are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the Rulers or Princes of the Sanctuary; yet he denyeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth anywhere signify a Prince, as on Gen. 14.18. and 41.45, etc. And very plainly on that Text, Esay 61.6. But ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord, and men shall say unto you, the ministers of our God. He thus writeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I have heretofore affirmed, that every Priest is always taken for a Minister, as here it is witnessed, the Priests the Ministers of our God. And so doth he in this text interpret the word Priest, & not Prince, & saith; that this Priest shall take tithe as Melchisedek did: Now the reason why the jews thus constantly challenge the Tithe as due to the Priest, is; for that they hold the Tithe to be God's part, and allotted by him unto the Priest, so doth Ramban expressly teach on Gen. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Abraham would not take to himself so much as a thread or shoo-latchet, but he did separate God's part to give it to the Priest. And so Esay 5.8, Woe unto them that join house to house, etc. jarchi saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Ye rob God of his part in tithes. So also he expounds that of Malach. 3.8. The tithes and offerings whereof ye spoil the Priests & Levites. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the spoiling of me. And in the Talmud Baba Kamah, cap. 7. fol. 69. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the tenth or tithe is god's riches: which agrees with that text of Levit. 27.30. All the tithe of the land, etc. is the Lord's, it is holy to the Lord. Nay the jews go further in this kind, and teach that the Tithe is so the Lords, as that a man hath no right to the nine parts, till he hath given God the tenth, as R. Bechai testifieth on Deut. 14.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The tithe of thy corn and of thy wine. If thou pay the tithe▪ it is thy corn; if not, it is my corn. If thou pay the tithe, it is thy wine; if not, it is my wine: for it is said Hose. 2.9. Therefore I will return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof.  
That God chose the tenth for his part, Aben-Ezra on Deut. 14. takes upon him to render a reason for it, which he draweth from the perfection of number, ten in simple numbers being the highest we can arise unto, without iteration of numbers under it, being as he terms it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The beginning of the second Combination, and the end of the first, whereupon all other numbers do depend. But I will not stand upon such nice argumentations, the certainty of the truth & the equity thereof being otherwise cleared. Abarbinell on Levit. 27.30. teacheth, that the tenth part is consecrate to God in regard of his providence and blessing of the fruits of the earth. And to this purpose R. Bechai on Deut. 14.22. writes thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Thou shalt give the tithe of all the increase, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. It is the fashion of the world, if a man have ground, he puts it out to halves, or for a third or fourth part, but it is not so with the Almighty; for he casseth the winds, raiseth the Clouds, sends down rain, disperseth the dew, makes fat the fruits of the Earth, and yet requires but one part of ten; therefore Moses admonisheth Israel diligently to pay the Tithe.  
And hence it was, that even before the Law, they held the payment of Tithes not to be a voluntary oblation, but a necessary duty, and work of justice and righteousness; and therefore Ramban on Gen. 14. saith, that the King of Sodom did entreat Abraham to give him the persons. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. after he saw the bounty of his heart, and his righteousness, in that he gave the tithe. By these and such like speeches, together with their reason's , the jews ordinarily declare the Tithe to be God's part, and to be paid to the Priest by a perpetual right. And the force of these reasons stands good, not only for the time under the Law, but also for the time both before and after the Law; for Malach. 3.6. God changeth not, neither is his arm shortened, or his goodness to his creatures in blessing the fruits of the Earth diminished. In this therefore the jews speak no otherwise concerning Tithes, than the ancient Fathers of the Church and Councils have spoken in former times: Among the rest  
Concilium Lateranense primum, cap. 54. saith thus: Cùm non sit in homine quod semen serenti respondeat, quoniam iuxta verbum Apostoli, 1 Cor. 3.7. Neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus: ipsum quidem de mortificato semine plurimum fructum afferente, nimis avarè in decimis quidam defrandare nituntur, etc. And again in the same place; Cùm autem in signum universalis dominij quasi quodam titulo speciali sibi dominus decimas reservaverit; nos etc. thereupon they decree there, ut decimae ante tributa solvantur. So also Concil. Tribur. cap. 13. speaks in right of Tithes. Quid si diceret dominus, nempe meus es homo, mea est terra quam colis, mea semina quae spargis, etc. and in the end gives these reasons for the payment of them: Decimae offerendae sunt à populo, ut hàc ratione Deus placatus, largiùs praestet quae necessaria sunt, & ut ministri Ecclesiae exinde relevati, liberiores fiant ad spiritualis officij expletionem, etc. And this selfsame reason is used by R. Chaskin on Numb. 18.20.  
But I return again to the History, where we may observe, that as the testimony of jarchi was before mangled and maimed, by leaving out a principal part of it; so in the next words his meaning is restrained and perverted; for whereas jarchi writes, that Abraham gave Melchisedek tithe of all that he had, because he was the Priest; Here now the Historian saith; But it is hard to conceive it of any other, all that he had, than all the substance, or all the spoils that he had by that expedition. And yet on the other side more hard and harsh is the conceit of those, that to spoil the Church of Tithes, do teach, that Abraham paid nothing else but only tithe of spoils. It is the advice of Solomon, Prov. 20.18. Establish the thoughts by counsel, and by counsel make war. And it is not to be thought that the Patriarch Abraham wanted this wisdom, or that he would undertake a business of such consequence and importance in any rash or unadvised manner, but with provident care & due praeparation. For Luke 14.31. What King going to make war against another King, sitteth not down first, and taketh counsel whether he be able, etc. Nay R. Levi Ben Gershon in his Collections from judg. 3. doth propound Abraham for a pattern and an example of wariness and policy in this kind; teaching that as it is meet to make war by counsel, so much more when his enemies are too strong for him, as Abraham did when he went to battle against the four Kings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he divided himself against them by night, that they might not perceive him. He therefore that was thus careful and circumspect in his actions, and able also to pursue the enemy with 318 persons, trained up in his own house, did no doubt in like sort furnish them every way, & took with him sufficient & necessary provision for that war, which either was all spent before Melchisedek met him, or else why should he not pay tithes of that, being his own goods, aswell as of the spoils, unless he had tithed them before, when as the Text saith, he gave him tithe of all, especially considering his answer to the King of Sodom, ver. 23. and his practice in the burial of Sarah, Gen. 23.13. together with the like practice of David in the 2. of Sam. 24.24.  
That his provision was so slender, that all was spent before he met Melchisedek, it is not likely; for it appears by the circumstances of the Text, that Abraham very speedily prevailed, and considering the distance of place betwixt Hebron in the land of judah, and Damascus out of the land, he obtained the victory (as the jews writ) in an extraordinary and miraculous manner: so saith Ramban on Gen. 14.15. And therefore ver. 20. Melchisedek said unto him; Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. Again, having speedily vanquished the enemies, he needed not waste much of his own substance; for he was now otherwise provided, having to sustain his soldiers with the spoils that he had taken, and so he did as it is the Text ver. 24. save only that which the young men had eaten. And this practice upon like occasion was usual, as Aben-Ezra signifies on Numb. 31.32. And the booty being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was six hundred thousand, and seventy thousand, and five thousand sheep. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the rest of the prey besides that which they had eaten: for therefore it is called the rest, saith he. Abraham then being furnished with the spoils, might here well spare his own goods: for certainly in this case the equity of the Apostles rule stands in force: Who goeth a warfare any time at his own cost? 1 Cor. 9.7. And therefore the Targum attributed to jonathan Ben Vziel, if it be of any credit, he gave him tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that he brought bach again, may comprehend all that Abraham brought back again, aswell of his own goods, as of the spoils. And the Targum of Onkelus doth restrain nothing, but speaks full as large as the Text, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And he gave him a tenth part of all. But let us go on with they History.  
And to free it from doubt, the holy Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews first using the Text of Genesis in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tithe of all, after a few words interposed, explains it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tithe of the spoils, as if he had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tithe of all the spoils.  
This manner of expounding the Text, cannot stand; for besides the unfit connection, or rather convulsion of two several texts, to make a new sense against the intendment of the Apostle, and judgement of all interpreters, his conclusion is not sound: for Abraham did not pay the tithe of all the spoils; but only of his own part of the spoils: The young men had eaten part of them, before Abraham came to Melchisedek, as I lately mentioned. And if Abraham paid tithe of all the spoils, than he paid of that which was not his own, which to do were injustice; for Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, which were confederate with him, Gen. 14.13. and went with him to war, had also their share and part in the spoils. ver. 24.  
And hence it is that jarchi on this text, touching the parting of the spoil, saith; that David learned of Abraham, when he said 1 Sam. 30.24. As his part is that goeth down to battle, so shall his part be that tarryeth by the stuff, they shall part alike. And therefore it is further said in that place as he well observeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And it was so from that day and before. And he made it a statute and an ordinance; but it is not said from that day forward, because it was already made a statute in the days of Abraham. Therefore it is t we that Abraham paid tithe of all, & also of the spoils, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of all the spoils; but generally as jarchi saith it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all things that he had.  
Some are so fare from thinking that Abraham paid tithe of all the spoils, as that on the contrary they hold, that he paid no tithe of the spoils at all, because he said to the King of Sodom, that he would not take so much as a thread or shoo-latchet of all that was his. But Ramban answers this, in the testimony before cited, where he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. Abraham would not take to himself so much as a shoo-latchet, but he did separate God's part, to give it to the Priest. But it will be said, by what right did Abraham give the tenth as God's part out of other men's goods? To this R. Abuhab makes answer, explaining the exposition of Ramban in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. It may seem at the first view, that Abraham's intent and will was to take all the substance to himself; and this is that which the Scripture testifieth, that he gave the tithe, even as a man gives the tithe of his goods. And so it is said, the King of Sodom came forth to meet him, that is to say, in respect of his substance; & when he saw that he did not give it him, nor consent thereto, he entreated him, saying, give me the persons. But our rabbin is not clear or resolute in his exposition; for behold Abraham said, I will not take of all that is thine so much as a thread or shoo-latchet, etc. for so according to this exposition he should pay tithe of that which was not his own; to this therefore our rabbin saith, that certainly by right it was his, but by reason of his great kindness and exceeding bounty, he would not take any thing, for Abraham trusted in his God, that he would give him substance, and riches, and honour, and therefore would take nothing from him, lest he should say that he made Abraham rich.  
The drift therefore of this answer is in effect to show that Abraham gave tithe of the spoils, and yet of his own goods, for that the spoils were his own gotten in just war, and given without any wrong to the King of Sodom; and whereas Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre retained to themselves their part of the spoils, it shows that Abraham's giving of his part, was of his own voluntary courtesy, and not of any necessity. By this therefore that hath been alleged, it is evident, according to the opinion of the jews, that Abraham dayde tithe of the spoils, yet they do not teach, that he paid tithe only of the spoils, but the contrary; for R. Chaskuni saith on Gen. 14: That the bread and wine which Melchisedek brought forth, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, such things as were not tithed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To the end that Abraham might set apart the tithe thereof. Therefore in his judgement something else was then tithed beside spoils: on those words in Gen. 25, 27. and Esau was a cunning hunter, jarchi hath this gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He was cunning to deceive and beguile his father with his words, ask him, father how do they tithe salt? how do they tithe straw or chaff, that his father might think that he did accurately study the commandments of the Law. R. Bechai doth also relate this on the same Text. Now these & such like glosses, though in themselves idle and fabulous, yet they make this one thing plain, that in those times they held tithes due to be paid, and that they were also paid of other things besides spoils. Aben-Ezra on Gen. 28.22. expounds the words of jacob, of all that thou shalt give me will I give the tenth to thee. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. of all the goods that thou shalt give me will I give the tenth to thee. And why may we not likewise think that his grandfather Abraham paid tithe also of all the goods that God did give him? either now at this meeting of Melchisedek, or else at other times: when as the Apostle makes the tithing here to countervail the tithing in the Law? Some say here of jacob, as R. Bechai on Numb. 18. notes from Pirke R. Eliezer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. he gave also the tenth of his sons as holy to the Lord: which beginning with Benjamin, and so numbering them backward, they take to be Levi, even as in tirhing their sheep, that which goeth last into the Coat, comes first out; and so saith Abarbinel on Levit. 27.30. But this is rejected by Aben-Ezra on Gen. 28.22. saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That Levi should be the tenth, it is a figurative exposition, and not according to the letter; for it is not in the Law, that a man should give the tenth of his sons, but the tenth of bullocks, and of sheep, and of increase. Where he takes this for granted, that such tithes were to be paid by the patriarchs before the Law, as were usually paid afterward in the time of the Law, otherwise his reason were nothing. In like manner may we say that Abraham paid not only the tenth of spoils, for it is not in the Law that a man should give only the tenth of spoils, but the tenth of bullocks, and of sheep, and of increase. Again the same rabbin on Levit. 27. making mention of Abraham's tithing, and Iacob's tithing; which relation to the manner of tithing under the Law, gives us to understand, that in his conceit both for the things tithed, as also for the yearly payment of them, the order and practice was alike.  
But what should I speak of the Rabbins? doth not the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Hebrews, comparing Abraham's paying of tithe with the payment to Levi under the Law, imply that the payment was alike in both? for when he saith, Heb. 7.9. Levi also which receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. Shall we imagine that Levi received tithes of divers things according to the Law, but paid tithes in Abraham only of the spoils? Or that Melchisedek Priest of the most high God, to whom the jews say Tithes were paid, because he was the Priest, was confined and stinted perpetually to take tithe of nothing else but only spoils? How will that agree with the scope of the Apostle in that place, who to prove the excellency of Melchisedek's Priesthood, among other reasons draweth one principal argument, amplified with divers circumstances à iure decimandi, from the right of tithing. His right therefore in tithing must no way be less, but rather greater than Levi's was; which being proved only by the practice of Abraham's tithing; the Apostle doubtless doth here intent, that such Tithes at the least as Levi received, such also he paid in Abraham. But Levi did not receive Tithes only of the spoils; therefore he did not pay Tithes only of the spoils. Nay I add further, that Levi did not receive any Tithe of the spoils, or any part of the spoils at all; for so the jews teach from these Texts of Scripture, Deut. 18.1. The Priests of the Levites, & all the Tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel; that is, saith jarchi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They shall have no part in the spoil, nor inheritance in the land. Likewise Numb. 18.20. And the Lord said unto Aaron, thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: where again is the same gloss of jarchi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They shall have no part even in the spoil. And this is also confirmed by Ramban, and by R. Bechai on the same Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Doctors teach. In their land thou shalt have no inheritance at the time of the division of the land, & thou shalt have no part among them in the spoil. I am thy part or portion, thou shalt feed at my Table. And whereas Numb. 31.28.29. a tribute was taken of the prey, one of five hundred from the soldier's part, and one of fifty from the peoples, which was given to Eleazar and to the Levites; Ramban in way of explanation, answereth that doubt in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. This tribute was offered, because the spoil came by the executing of God's vengeance upon a land that was not theirs, Numb. 25.17. but in the land of Sihon and Og, they gave not to the Priests and Levites any thing thereof, for they were admonished to the contrary, where it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Thou shalt have no part among them, no not in the spoil. And R. Bechai doth likewise confirm this writing on the same Text. How then can Abraham's paying of Tithe be compared with that of the Law, if Abraham paid nothing but tithe of spoils, and in the Law they paid no tithe of spoils at all? Or to what end is it said; Levi that received tithes, paid tithes in Abraham, except he paid in Abraham some such tithes as he did receive? and if so, than something else beside spoils, for Levi received no tithe of spoils, if we may believe the jews.  
Again, when the Apostle saith, ver. 8. Here men that die receive tithes, but here he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed, that he liveth: he speaks in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being in the same manner without change of number applied to Melchisedek, may seem to include more than only tithe of spoils; for making mention of them in ver. 4. he doth not speak in the plural number, but only in the singular, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But how shall the Priesthood of Melchisedek be proved greater than Levi's in regard of the right of tithing, if Melchisedek receive tithe but once, and of one person, and that only of spoils, & that also by courtesy, when as Levi received them often, and of many persons, & of all things prescribed in the Law, & that by divine authority; for ver. 5. they had a commandment to take Tithes. Surely this will not argue a superiority, but rather an inferiority in Melchisedek's Priesthood in regard of tithing, which is contrary to the drift of the Apostle. Therefore I rather think whereas it is said in Heb. 7.2. first that Abraham gave tithe of all things, and after gave also the tithe of the spoils, ver. 4. That the Apostle here infolds an other argument to prove the greatness of Melchisedek's Priesthood above the levitical, because Abraham did not only pay to Melchisedek tithe of all things aswell as they did in the Law to Levi, but also gave the tithe of the spoils, which the jews say was not given in the Law. And some inducement for this may be gathered from the words of the Text itself; for in the first place it is said in the Greek, ver. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he divided the tithe; and after ver. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he gave even of the spoils; and so answerable to these are the Syriaque words, first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. he divided; then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gave: as though his latter had been more free, & more than was in use in the levitical Law, for no doubt but the Apostle (brought up at Gamaliel's feet) was well acquainted with the manner & practice of the jews in the payment of their Tithes.  
But howsoever they teach, that no Tithe or part of spoils was given to Levi, yet Aben-Ezra on Psal. 110.4. in the testimony before cited, doth plainly show, that the Tithe of spoils is to be given to him that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek; for of him he saith, Israel shall fight, and thou shalt receive the tithe as Melchisedek did of Abraham. Now the Tithe taken after the fight of a battle, what is it else but the Tithe of spoils, except by a Synecdoche we understand by fight; not only the action of soldiers in time of war, but also the exercise of other Arts and vocations in time of peace. To conclude therefore, the Apostle proveth Melchisedek to be greater than Levi from the right of tithing, not only in regard of the persons that paid tithe unto him, to wit, Abraham & Levi, & the continuance of the payment, he receiving them of whom it is witnessed, that he liveth; but also in respect of the things themselves, whereof tithes were paid, that is, of all things; yea even of the spoils, under which both personal and praedial Tithes may be comprehended,  
The Syriaque & Arabic translations of the New Testament agree with this. And the testimonies alleged for Abraham's tithing of spoils, do none of them show that he paid tithe only of the spoils, but that he did pay the tithe of spoils, which we do not deny. And if the tithe of spoils was God's part, as the jews themselves do teach, in Abraham's tithing; then much more the Tithe of other goods, which in many things are obtained, not by the labour & industry of man, but only by the gracious providence & blessing of God. All this while I have moved no quaestion (as some do) about the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifies the chief parts or top of the heap; but I take it as it is here translated, spoils; neither will I contend about the Syriaque translation, which hath Tithes and first fruits. And yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered first fruits, Heb. 7.4. is of a more large extent; for in Heb. 7.3, it is expounded the beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Having neither beginning of days. And in Luke 15.22. the chief or best, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Bring forth the best robe: which may well accord with the vulgar Latin in rhiss, place; Decimas dedit de praecipuis. But for the Arabic word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rest rain it here, as the Historian doth, to signify Alms, must needs be a penurious & unproper exposition, the same being expressed in the best Arabic Lexicons by the Latin words augmentum, incrementum, thesaurus, corbona, perfectura, perfectus, but never cleemosyna. There is indeed an other word somewhat like this, springing from the same root, which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteousness, which also sometimes by a Synecdoche signifieth Alms, as being parts of righteousness. And so in Math 6.4. the Arabic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming from the Hebrew is translated alms, as also the Hebrew term itself is sometimes used, as Bechai shows on Deut. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that gives alms to the poor, gives alms to the Lord. But the proper word which the Arabiques use for Alms, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressed in Math. 6.1.2. etc. and is derived from the Hebrew Radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 misereri, whereas the other comes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mundare, vel mundum esse. But neither of these words are found in this Text, but the other that is not expressed by the same Characters, which if in a borrowed signification it be at any time either in the Alcoran, or elsewhere taken for Alms, yet it is altogether unproper and unfit to use any such exposition in this place, as it is unfit that a gift which is presented to a Prince, should be called by the name of Alms. For how can we think that Melchisedek the King of Salem, and Priest of the most high God was a receiver of Alms, but rather a giver, it being a more blessed thing to give, then to receive: Acts 20.35. And so much the Text itself, Gen. 14. together with the expositions of the jews doth import; where it is said that Melchisedek brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham's wearied soldiers. There jarchi thus glosseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So they use to do to them that returned weary from the war.  
Wherefore to shut up this point, one thing we may note by the way, that if the Arabic translation here alleged, may stand for sufficient authority, whereas the Historian makes it doubtful who should be the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, styling him in ambiguous and general terms, The holy Author, but naming none: The Arabic puts this quaestion out of doubt; for it doth not only in the Title and inscription thereof call it the Epistle of St Paul, but doth express it to be in number the fourteenth of his Epistles, as it is styled in the beginning thereof. And so also doth the Syriaque Translation without any scruple ascribe it plainly to St Paul.   

SECT. 2.  
THe next passage of Tithes is in Iacob's vow, Gen. 28.22. This stone which I have set up as a pillar shall be God's house, and all that thou shalt give me, I will tithe, and give the tenth to thee. This vow, if we read the beginning of it in ver. 20. seems to be uttered conditionally, if God will be with me, and keep me in this journey, etc. But R. Bechai, and also Ramban do otherwise expound it, and say expressly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it is no condition, as jarchi would have it; for jacob did not doubt of God's promises which he made unto him, ver. 15. But saith Ramban, the Scripture speaks in this manner concerning things to come, as Gen. 28.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not forsake thee until I have performed that that I have promised thee. and so Numb. 36.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not if, but when the jubily cometh. And Pagnine showeth that the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not always to be taken as a note of a condition, and interpreted, si, if; but saith he, sunt qui ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reducant, quia pro verò & certè sumitur interdum, & est particula certò aliquid statuens. And David Chimki gives examples for this in radice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Numb. 1.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, certainly the Lord will make a new thing. So Prov. 3.34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Surely he scorneth the scorners, as the last translation hath it. And in the same sense the word is used in job 22.20. etc. and elsewhere. Whereas therefore Abulensis and others argue, that Tithes belong not to the Law of nature, or moral Law, because things moral are not to be vowed with condition but absolutely, the ground of that objection is clean taken away by this interpretation of the Text. For the jews teach that the vow of jacob was not a conditional, but an absolute vow. It follows in the History Which, josephus says, upon his return being after 20 years, he performed, offering the tithe of all his substance, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tithe of all that he had gotten. josephus doth not only say this, but also jarchi on Gen. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So he did at his return when he said unto him Arise, go to Bethel, Gen. 35.1. And Aben-Ezra likewise on the same cap. 35.1. confirms this saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. In Bethel he performed his vow, and gave the tithe of his substance to the honour of God. But that this was done after 20 years, neither doth josephus, or any other jew affirm. And if the computation of the years of the life of jacob, set down by jarchi on Gen. 28. be true, it was above 20, yea above 30 years before he performed this vow; for he continued twenty years with Laban; as appears Gen. 31.38. and 14 years (saith jarchi) according to the opinion of their Doctors, he lived privately in the house of Heber, after he had received the blessing, and before he went to Laban. And this they maintain especially to make up the full sum of 130 years of Iacob's age, when he came before Pharaoh, Gen. 47.9. Mercer also on Gen. 26.34. makes mention of this; but it being a matter of small moment, I let it pass, and look again to the History.  
Into whose hands he gave the tithes, appears not; but the chiefest Priest of that time was his father Isaac: for before Aaron, the jews said the Priesthood was wholly annexed to the firstborn of families, which agrees well with the sanctifying of the firstborn commanded in Egypt, Exod. 13.  
It is evident by the testimony of Ramban on Gen. 26.5. that the patriarchs were liberal in giving their Tithes to the Priests of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. as to Shem and Heber and their disciples, as he there saith. And among the Disciples of Shem & Heber they account jacob for one. And therefore on those words, Gen. 25.27. jacob was a plain man, and dwelled intents, jarchi here glosseth, and Bechai and others. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the tent of Shem, and the tent of Heber. And on Gen. 37.3. Israel loved joseph more than all his sons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he begat him in his old age. The Targum of Onkelus expresseth it thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. for he was a wise and understanding child; interpreting the words of the excellency of his apprehension and capacity; for otherwise he begat also Benjamin in his old age after joseph; and hence it is that the jews say here as jarchi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That jacob committed to joseph whatsoever himself had learned of Shem and Heber: and as Ramban saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He delivered to him the wisdom and mysteries of the Law, and found him wise and capable of them▪ as though he had been of ripe age. But now Shem and Heber being dead, as appears by computation of time, to whom jacob gave his Tithe; or whether Isaac were the chiefest Priest of that time, it is altogether uncertain. Aben-Ezra on Gen. 35.1. saith, that jacob gave his Tithe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. to him that was in that generation fit to receive it, but who that should be, he leaves doubtful. Mercer on ver. 15. saith, Dederit autem ipsi Heber aut eius filijs, vel potius consecrârit in usus sacros, etc. But the Historian saith,  
As Abraham gave Tithes to Shem, being the eldest ancestor of the house; so it may be thought that jacob paid his vow into the hands of Isaac, the chief of the family then living, as a firstborn, and a Priest also. I deny not but this may be thought so, but I cannot conceive how it can be certainly thought or taken for a truth: for all hold ●hat jacob at his return performed his vow at Bethel, a great while before he came to his father Isaac at Hebron, Gen. 35.27. so josephus, Aben Ezra, jarchi, & Ramban agree. Again after the performance of his vow, many things happened to him by the way before he came to his father, as namely the death of Deborah, the birth of Benjamin, the death of Rachel, the sin of Reuben; and therefore on ver. 22. jarchi saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All these things happened to him whilst as yet he was not come to Isaac at Hebron: Neither is there any likelihood that Isaac should meet jacob at Bethel, & there receive his Tithes; for Isaac was old and blind, Gen. 27.1. & Esau gaped for his death, ver. 41. before Iacob's first departure from him to go to Laban. And hence it is that the jews speaking of the death of Deborah, Rebecca's nurse, and the mourning for her, say that it had relation to Rebecca herself, for whom jacob especially mourned, and that therefore the place was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oak of mourning and lamentation; but say they, as Ramban relates it, there is no mention made of her death, because she was buried privately, without that funeral solemnity that others had; for jacob was not there, and Esau hated her, and would not come thither, and Isaac he was blind, and went not out of doors. Now if Isaac because of blindness could not go out to the burial of his wife, much less could he go to meet his son jacob at Bethel, to take of him the Tithes. Where then, or how can it be thought that jacob paid his vow into the hands of his father Isaac? And for that he saith.  
Before Aaron the jews say the Priesthood was wholly annexed to the firstborn of families, which agrees well with the sanctifying of the firstborn commanded in Egypt. True it is that the jews in diverse places affirm that the Priesthood followed the birthright, until such time as they sinned in worshipping this golden calf; but after that, the Priesthood, say they, was given to Levi, because among the rest only the Tribe of Levi was free from that transgression, which they gather, though weakly, from these words, Exod. 32.26. where Moses said, Who pertaineth to the Lord? let him come down to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves unto him. And this they also record on diverse Texts, as jarchi showeth on Deut. 8.16. Exod. 32.26. Deut. 10.9. Malach. 2.6. And Chimki on 1 Kings 12, 31. But Ramban writing on Numb. 16. touching the rebellion of Corah, seems to be of another mind in this point, for these are his words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Now all this that I have spoken concerning the first borne, is according to the tradition of our Doctors, which say that the service belonged to the firstborn; but according to the literal exposition, at the first all Israel were fit for the service of the sacrifices: for so was always the custom in the high places of particular or private persons; but Aaron was chosen for the service of the Tabernacle and Sanctuary, and against this election did Corah contend, and would have restored the service to all Israel; for (saith he) all the congregation is holy every one of them, as Numb. 16.3.  
Again this that Ramban writes concerning the Priesthood, is confirmed by the like testimony of R. Bechai on Exod. 12.1. pag. 79. grounded upon the tradition of their Doctors. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. whilst that Aaron was not chosen, all Israel were fit for the Priesthood; after that Aaron was chosen, all Israel were excepted. Therefore by these authorities of the jews, that cannot be altogether true, which is affirmed here, that before Aaron, the Priesthood was wholly annexed to the firstborn of families. Neither doth this agree so well with the sanctifying of the firstborn, commanded in Egypt, Exod. 13.2. for the sanctifying there commanded, was not only of the firstborn of man, but of beast, and that in respect of the death of the firstborn in Egypt, both of man & beast, Exod. 12.29. Again it appears not in this relation to what firstborn the Priesthood did belong; whether to the firstborn of the father or mother, or both: for this distinction is to be observed, as R. Bechai writes on Exod. 13.2. & 11.5. with reference to Psal. 78.51. the one being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of strength: the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that first openeth the womb▪ Reuben was first borne to jacob, but joseph to Rachel; & after Reubens' sin, the birthright was given to joseph, the Kingdom to judah, but the Priesthood to Levi, as Bechai speaks on Gen. 49.3. and 28.21. But now the sanctifying of the firstborn commanded in Egypt is expressly restrained to the firstborn of the mother; the first that openeth the womb, as being best known, saith Bechai, and having special relation to the sanctified firstborn of the blessed virgin, the expectation & glory of all firstborn, Luke 2.7. Moreover the name of firstborn in Scripture is not only properly, but also figuratively taken, and so it is said, Exod. 4.22. Israel is my son, even my first borne: which is thus expounded in the Talmud Massech, cap. 2. fol. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Giving a reason of the love wherewith he loved them, he saith: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And so in jer. 31.9. Ephraim is my firstborn. Chimki there gives the same interpretation, and so doth the Targum of jonathan in that place: Sometime the name of firstborn is ascribed to men in Scripture in regard of dignity and honour, Psal. 89.27. also I will make him my firstborn higher than the Kings of the earth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls him firstborn (saith Chimki) because the firstborn hath dignity over the other sons; which was that privilege of birthright, as R. Bechai thinks, that Esau sold to jacob, Gen. 25.31. And so the patriarchs and Fathers of the ancient Church, are in respect of honour termed the Congregation of the firstborn, Heb. 12.23. And further on Exod. 13.2. R. Bechai saith, that whereas the Lord smote all the first borne in the land of Egypt, Exod. 12.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it is extended to the eldest in the family, if no firstborn were there, for he is also called a first borne. And in this sense the patriarchs and heads of families, whether firstborn or not, might be accounted instead of Priests in their generation, and were also Prophets and Kings, as Chimki showeth on Psal. 105.15. Touch not mine anointed, etc. But properly Priests they were not; for no man takes this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron, Heb. 5.4. and we find but two orders of Priesthood in Scripture; the one after Melchisedek, the other after Aaron. The Priesthood of Aaron was not yet instituted, & none but only Christ is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek; and to this purpose in the Talmud in Massech Nedarim, cap. 3. fol. 32. they writ thus concerning Melchisedek Priest of the most high God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. he was a Priest, but his seed no Priest. To conclude therefore it is lest altogether uncertain in this passage of the history, either what order of Priesthood it was that belonged to the firstborn, or what manner of firstborn it was to which the Priesthood was annexed. And yet he proceeds further in this kind, saying: And Noah, Abraham, and job, and the like, are accounted by this right, Priests of that time. For proof of this, Origen lib. 1. in job, is cited in the margin. But Origen doth not there say, that these were Priests by that right of primogeniture, but thus: Erant nihilominus etiam eâ tempestate sacerdotes, necdum adhuc à lege ordinati, sed naturali sapientiâ hoc requirente ac perficiente, ita sacerdotio functus est Noah, &c: and again speaking there of Iob's sacrificing for his sons & daughters, he doth not thence infer that he was a Priest, but proves out of job 12.19. that there were Priests in his time, and then concludes doubtfully thus: Sive ergo memorati sacerdotes, sive ipse per seipsum Iob offerebat hostias pro illis secundùm numerum illorum. But the jews they do not teach that job was a Priest, but that he was a judge; for so Aben-Ezra in the conclusion of his Commentary on job, at the end of the book directly expresseth, proving it from cap. 22. ver. 9 of that book compared with cap. 29.13.14.15.16. his words are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. His companions said unto him, thou hast sent widows away empty: And this is a sign that he was a judge, and therefore he answers, I was a father to the poor, and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. Furthermore to prove Iacob's Priesthood gained by the sale of the birthright from Esau, the Historian saith, that Express mention is of his exercising this holy function in sacrifices during his father's life, and for this allegeth Gen. 31.54. But he hath mistaken and misapplyed this Text, if his own author Rabbi jarchi may be believed; for jarchi doth not think that jacob did here offer a sacrifice, neither doth he interpret the Text in that sense, but saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That he slew cattles to make a feast for his brethren and friends that came with Laban. And so often the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify aswel mactare, as sacrificare; to slay, as to sacrifice. Neither could he with a good conscience invite them to his sacrifice, that were out of the covenant, being (as they were) of another religion, as that judicious Divine Mr Perkins answers our adversaries, alleging and interpreting this Text against their arguments for the sacrifice of the Mass, in his Reformed Catholic.  
Again, all those that offered sacrifices were not Priests, as appears by Samuel, 1 Sam. 7.9. For R. Levi Ben Gershom writing on that Text, saith plainly; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Samuel was no Priest: and so S. Austin retract. lib. 2. cap. 43. & Chimki here showeth that josuah did sacrifice in Gilgal, josuah 8.30. and Eliah in Carmel, 1 Kings 18. and so did Balaam, Numb. 23. jarchi speaks of this, and R. Bechai on Numb. 18.7. and Deut. 2.8. who saith, that before the Tabernacle was set up, the high places were permitted, & every man that would, offered sacrifice on the top of his house, but after the erecting of the Tabernacle, they were prohibited so long as the host continued in the wilderness, as in Levit. 17.3. ●. Afterward when they passed over jordan for the space of 14 years, whilst they were employed in subduing and dividing the land, the use of the high places was then lawful, which being appointed by the direction of a Prophet, a stranger that was no Priest, might offer sacrifice in them. But when they come to jerusalem, the inheritance mentioned, Deut. 12.9. then were they no longer lawful. Therefore the Kings of judah are blamed, when they destroyed not the high places. And touching the sacrifices of the Patriarches, one thing here may be remembered, which in the first Tome of Counsels, in the second Epistle of Anacletus, is recorded in these words; Initium sacerdotij Aaron fuit, licet Melchisedec prior obtulerit sacrificium, & post eum Abraham, Isaae, & jacob, sed hi spontanea voluntate, non sacerdotali autoritate ista fecerunt. Which showeth, that in the judgement of the ancients, though the patriarchs did offer sacrifice; yet that was no sufficient argument to prove them to be Priests. And if Cain and Abel were therefore both of them to be accounted Priests, because both of them did offer sacrifice, than was not the Priesthood before Aaron, wholly annexed to the firstborn of families; for Abel was no firstborn, and yet the sacrifice of Abel was accepted, and not the sacrifice of Cain. But our author hath not yet done with this Treatise of the Priesthood, he presseth it further, saying, Whence observe by the way, that both Abraham and jacob, according to the right of that time, must be Priests also, when they paid these tithes.  
I marvel what he intends to make of this observation, it may be would hence conclude that Priests should therefore pay tithes now aswell as other men, or else none to be paid at all. I answer therefore to this, observe also by the way, that first here is very slender evidence, brought either to prove that there was any such right of Priesthood, as he speaks of at that time, or that Abraham and jacob were Priests by th' t right (as hath already been showed;) for as for Abraham, though he saith that he was a firstborn, but proves it not; and saith also that the form of offering his son Isaac justifies him to be a Priest; Yet the jews account him a Priest in the offering of his son, no otherwise then as I shown before by that fiction of theirs in translating the Priesthood from Melchisedek to Abraham, and so R. Chaskuni testifieth on Gen. 22.2. and offer him there for a  offering, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He said in the presence of the Lord of the world, can there be a sacrifice without a Priest? to which he answered, I have appointed thee already to be a Priest, as it is said, the Lord swore, and will not repent, etc. Psal. 110. And for Iacob's Priesthood, Baal Haturim on Gen. 28. writes thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To put on garments is twice in the Masoreth here, viz: Gen. 28.20. and in Levit. 21.10. which teacheth that jacob was the high Priest, as it is in Bereshith Rabbah. The blessed Almighty said to Michael, Thou hast made jacob my high Priest to have a blemish, Levit. 21.18. for he halts upon his thigh, as sure as thou livest, thou must be fain to be the high Priest above in his room: this is it that he saith; & will give me bread to eat, and  to put on, that he will confirm to me the Priesthood which I have bought of Esau.  
These words though strange in the literal sense, yet may be in some sort admitted in a figurative and spiritual application; for jacob and all the Priests on earth were lame, and had all of them some one blemish or other to stain them; and therefote Heb. 7.27. The high Priests of the Law were daily to offer up sacrifice, first for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people. But our Michael that fights against the Dragon, Rev. 12.7. Dan. 12.1. Our high Priest which is most perfect is above, and makes intercession for us: for such an high Priest it became us to have, which is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the Heavens, Heb. 7.26. But gtant that Abraham and jacob were after a sort Priests, as our author would have them, at that time when they paid their Tithes, and so also in that respect types of Christ that was in their loins, and is the true high Priest, and the firstborn of every creature, Coloss. 1.15. Yet in the action itself of paying tithes, they did nor represent Christ, but the Church and people of God that pay Tithes to Christ, represented in Melchisedek. And this is noted by Bucanus de peccato, quaest. 19 Cùm Levi dicatur decimatus in Abraham, quia fuit in lumbis Abrahae, Heb. 7.9. quomodò non etiam Christus in Adam peccasse dicitur? Resp. Quia non est communi more ratione seminali de semine viri natus, sed de spiritu sancto conceptus, ideo à peccato originali, eiusque reatu liber, & exemptus extitit: Sicut nec in Abrahae lumbis decimatus fuit, sed in Melchisedechi persona repraesentatus, ut aeternus sacerdos non decimas dans, sed accipiens. Christ did not pay Tithes in the loins of Abraham, as Levi did, but was represented in the person of Melchisedek as an eternal Priest, not giving, but receiving Tithes. Therefore in this relation betwixt Priest and people, Christ in the person of Melchisedek stands for the Priest, and Abraham for the people. And to this purpose S. Augustine on john 3. writes thus: Abraham, Isaac, & jacob, tres patres, & populus unus: tres patres in quibus figurabatur populus. And after, In populo Iudaeorum figuratus est populus Christianorum. And therefore say the jews; Abraham was first called Abram pater Syriae: and after the promise, Abraham pater multarum gentium, as jarchi writes on Gen. 17. and Bechai on Deut. 26. fol. 30. And in the Talmud in Massech Beracoth cap. 1. fol. 13. he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. father of all the world, both jews and Gentiles that believe. Therefore Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedek, was herein a Type and pattern to all his posterity: for Ramban on Gen. 36.43. saith expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The actions of the patriarchs, and the accidents that happened to them had relation to their seed. And the same author and Bechai also on Gen. 12. do exemplify this in diverse particulars. And on Gen. 14. they make the four Kings there named to signify the four Monarches of the world. And speaking there also of Abraham's tithing, he confirms this saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. And this was a sign to Abraham, that there should be the house of God, and thither his seed should bring the tithes, & there they should bless the Lord. Which is in like manner verified in the example of jacob, that vowed Tithes, whereof saith Mercer on Gen. 28.22. Et hoc tam pro se quàm pro posteris suis vovet. He vowed not only for himself, but for his posterity. Agreeing herein with R Bechai, and Chaskuni, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Iacob's vow was a pattern for future generations. No other express mention is of Tithes before Moses his time, unless with the jews you dream that the levitical Law was written before the Creation. And yet by his leave the jews allege another text before Moses time; from whence they teach, that as Abraham and jacob, so also Isaac payeth tithes, Gen. 26.12. Afterward Isaac sowed in that land, and found in the same year an hundreth measures, or an hundreth fold by estimation. Whereupon saith jarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Doctors say that this measuring was for the Tithes. And Ramban likewise on the same place confirms it, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They writ concerning the hundreth measures, that the measuring thereof was for the Tithes: and there he addeth further; That the patriarchs were liberal in giving their Tithes to the Priests of the Lord, as to Shem and Heber, and their Disciples. If any think this collection of theirs, hath not sufficient ground or warrant from the Text, though this be granted, yet hereby appears that the tradition of their ancestors and their opinion concurres in this, that all the patriarchs in their time, did duly pay their tithes to the Priests. Again, the book of job is supposed to have been written before Moses time; and the jews in the Talmud in Baba Bathra, cap. 1. fol. 15. among other opinions, say that job lived in the time of jacob: Aben-Ezra and jarchi on job 1. say, he descended of the sons of Nachor, Abraham's brother; and so saith Chaskuni on Gen. 25. Origen in the beginning of his Commentary on job saith, that Moses was the Interpreter of the book of job, out of Syriac into Hebrew; and the jews in effect say as much; as R. Levi Ben Gershon in his preface to the book of job: and Aben-Ezra on job 2. And generally by most he is held to be more ancient than Moses. Now the jews interpret diverse sentences in his book, to be understood of Tithes, job 31.38. If my land cry against me, or the furrows thereof complain together. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. that I have not brought out my Tithes, as was meet, saith jarchi. So job 24.19. Drought & heat consume the snow waters. The Chalde Paraphrase explains it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because they have neglected the setting forth of the Tithe in the appointed time thereof, in the heat of summer, therefore the waters of the rain and snow are restrained fromt them. And so they expound this text in the Talmud Massech Shabath, cap. 2. fol. 32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Through the sin of omission of oblations & tithes, the heavens are shut up, and restrained from sending down dew and rain; and men run about to seek their food, and find it not: as it is said job 24.19. Drought and heat, etc. But on the contrary if they duly pay their Tithes, they are blessed, as in Malachi 3. Bring all the Tithes, etc. And thus far the Talmud.  
By this therefore it is apparent in the judgement of these Writers, that it was no rare thing, but common and usual both among jews and Gentiles to pay Tithes, & that also before Moses time. As for the dream of the jews, that the levitical Law was written before the Creation, David Chimki saith it is a dream to them that know not the true interpretation of it, which he explaineth on Esai 22.11. saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. Our Doctors say that seven things were created before the world was created, and they are these; Paradise, and the Law, and the righteous, and Israel, and the Throne of Glory, and jerusalem, and Messiah the son of David. But the meaning of this tradition is not (saith he) as the common sort of learners understand it, but that they were in potentia to be created, or in intention before the world was created, because these things are the perfection or end of the creation of the world. And jarchi here saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Before he created the World, jerusalem and the Sanctuary came into his thought. And Mercer on Gen. 1. takes it in the same sense, saying. Save in part Rabbi Eliezer Hagadol. 1. Magni qui magnae est apud illos autoritatis parte 3, afferunt septem ante orbem conditum creata, 1. meo iudicio quae in ment divina essent ab aeterno; nam ante mundi exordium alioqui creatum nihil esse potuit propriè loquendo. Inter ea Messiam commemorant.  
Moses Ben Maimon in Pirke Avoth, cap. 6. fol. 12. speaks to this point. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Law is one of God's possessions, Prov. 8.22. The Lord hath possessed me in the beginning of his way, because the creation thereof was before the World; for when it came into his thought to create the World, he said it shall be established by reason of the Law. And R. Bechai writes also of this on Deut. 34. fol. 243. Therefore by the Law written before the Creation, they mean, written in the Tables of God's divine knowledge, and of his eternal purpose and decree. Aben-Ezrah on Esai. 41.13. fear not, I will help thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The preterperfect tense is put here for the future, and the reason is, because all decrees that are to come, are with God accounted as if they were. And again because time past, and time to come, are only in respect of the Creatures, and not in respect of the Creator, who is actus purus. And hence it is that R. Bechai on Levit. 12. page 141. saith, that man was the first of God's Creatures in intention, but the last in creation. But I will not spend too many words about a dream, and yet a man would think that a grand Rabbi, who so earnestly urgeth the authority of these Writers against us in other places, should know the true meaning of his own masters, and acquaint us aswell with their interpretations, as with their dreams. But grant that the jews, and these that are their followers, do oftentimes tell us many dreams, yet this one thing they teach plainly without dreaming, that though the Law was not written before Moses time, yet the patriarchs knew the Law, and kept it, and taught it their Children also before Moses time, as Ramban declareth on Gen. 26.5. and Bechai on Gen. 48.22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. It seems to me according to the judgement of our Doctors, that our father Abraham learned the whole Law by the holy Spirit, & exercised himself therein, and also taught it his children. And so he speaks in the same place of jacob, not much dissonant from that which Calvin writes concerning his vow of worshipping God, and paying Tithes, saying; Non quod suo arbitrio Deum coluerit, nam directio spiritus vice legis scriptae fuit. And therefore hence it may be thought that the Patriarches paid tithes either by the knowledge of the Law according to the will of God, or else by the direction of the spirit of God, which was instead of a Law unto them.   

SECT. 3.  
TOuching Cain and Abel's sacrifice, mentioned in the passage following, and the diverse expositions of that text, Gen. 4, 7. The writings of the jews, if it were needful, might afford matter enough of discourse, which I will but point at.  
Moses Ben Maimon in More Hanebucim writes, that the end for which sacrifices were commanded, did tend especially to the rooting out of Idolatry; for whereas the Gentiles worshipped beasts, as the Chaldeans and Egyptians bullocks and sheep, with reference to the Celestial Signs, Aries, and Taurus, etc. therefore (saith he) God commanded these to be slain in sacrifice. And because the Sign Aries is in his chiefest strength in the month Nisan, (which takes part of our March, and part of April) therefore as Ramban notes on Exod. 12. in the Passeover they were enjoined to kill a Lamb, and to cat it, to show that the Israelites came not out of Egypt by the power of the Sign, but by the decree of the highest, and that the Egyptians God was not able to help them when he was in his greatest force. But Ramban and Bechai both of them on Levit. 1.2. confute this opinion of Maimon concerning sacrifices, affirming that before there was either Chaldean or Egyptian, sacrifices were offered; as by Cain, and Abel, and Noah, and also by Adam at the first, as Chimki relates on Psal. 69.31. This shall please the Lord better than a young bullock that hath horns and hooves: That is, (say the jews) better than the Bullock that Adam offered, that had horns before hooves, as it is in Massech Cholin, cap. 3. fol. 60. In which respect Ramban on Gen. 22.9. observeth that where it is written, Abraham builded an Altar there. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is expressed with the article notificative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Altar, meaning that he pointed at the Altar whereon Adam, and Cain, and Abel, and Noah did sacrifice. And therefore they said, that in the sacrifices there is contained a hidden and secret mystery, hidden indeed to them that have the veil upon their hearts, 2 Cor. 3.15: but revealed to us. For all sacrifices had relation to Christ. And the Commandment of sacrificing was given to the Fathers; first that it might be the common exercise of piety, whilst they did profess themselves to be God's people, and that all things that they had, they received from him. And 2ly that they might be admonished, that they stood in need of some expiation to reconcile them to God. The sacrifice of expiation is fully accomplished and ended in Christ. The other which is the sacrifice of thanksgiving, doth still continue. And the jews themselves confess this, as Ramban on Levit. 23. and Chimki on Ier, 33.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All sacrifices shall cease, but the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving shall never cease. But I will speak no more of sacrifice, lest I digress too fare from Tithes. Only thus much the learned have observe from the sacrifice of Cain & Abel, that they acknowledged hereby that God from the beginning had a right in every man's goods. And this right afterward by the practice of the patriarchs was declared to be Tithes.   

SECT. 4.  
THe next Section contains nothing but a relation of fables and fopperies. For as for Cabalistique and doting curiosities, or identity of numbers in several words, as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first fruits and Tithes, or such like; for my part I list not spend time or paper in the recital of them, we need not seek such proofs for the right of Tithes, the evidence of Scripture is sufficient. And if any be delighted with the reading of these toys, Salomoh jarchi in diverse of his Commentaries, and Baal Haturim upon the Pentateuch, can quickly furnish him with store of such stuff.  
But because the Author of the History among other things doth here again make mention of Abraham his success, with his company of 318, together with Arithmetical and nice speculations taken from thence, even among Christians, as Clemens Alexan. Stromat. 5. Let him give me leave by the way to put him in mind, that he needed not for this matter to have gone any further than his own R. jarchi so often recited by him, who I am sure touching this number of 318, hath left upon record as vain and frivolous a fancy as any the History speaks of; for he saith, that none went with Abraham to war against the four Kings, but only Eliezer, and why? because forsooth the letters contained in his name amount to the number of 318 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though all the rest of Abraham's soldiers had been nothing else but mere cyphares. But R. Bechai calls this conceit a riddle; and Aben-Ezra on the same Text, viz. Gen. 14. condemns it. saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The number of the letters of Eliezer is but a figura-true gloss, for the Scripture speaks not by any such Arithmetical respect, for so whosoever will, may turn any names either to good or bad, but the word is to be taken according to the literal sense. Notwithstanding if we leave the conceit of number; and consider the true signification of the name, we may refer it to a better use: for Eliezer signifieth the help of God. And therefore Moses called one of his sons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eliezer, for the God of my Fathers was my help (saith he) and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh, Exod. 18.4. In like manner Abraham also might call his servant Eliezer, for the God of Abraham was his help, & delivered him from the sword of his enemies. And therefore Melchisedek in this respect praised God, and said; Blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.  

CAP. 2.  

Exod. 23.19. Levit 23.10. Numb. 15.20.  THe yearly increase being either fruits of the ground or cattles: In the Law of fruits of the ground, first the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in ears of wheat and Barley, figs, grapes, olives, pomegranates and dates. And of these seven only the first fruits 
o In Talmud in Seder Heraim Massechet● Biccurim, atque inde rece●tio es erum jurisperiti.  were paid in what quantity the owner would.  
Touching first fruits, the History here doth avouch three things: 

1 That the first of the forwardest were offered to the Priest in ears of wheat and barley, figs, grapes, olives, pomegranates, and dates.  
2 That of these seven only the first fruits were paid.  
3 That they were paid in what quantity the owner would.    
But of these three assertions there is not one of them sufficiently proved, and as I take it, being examined by holy Scripture, not one of them true. For first that the first fruits were offered in ears of wheat and barley, etc. The places of Scripture quoted in the margin do not show it, that which cometh nearest, is Levit. 23.10. When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and reap the harvest thereof, than ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest unto the Priest. The word here translated sheaf, is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which jarchi taketh to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the tenth part of an Ephah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they did measure it with an Omer, Exod. 16.18. and ver. 36. the Omer is the tenth part of the Ephah: which Aben-Ezra on Levit. 5. saith was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i One man's meat for one day, as Exod. 16.18. But this Text doth not prove that the first fruits were offered in ears of wheat and barley, etc. but an Omer, that is, a sheaf, or the tenth part of an Ephah. And hence it is that Baal Haturim on Exod. 16.36. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Omer is annexed to the chapter of Manna, to signify that they should eat Manna until they had offered the Omer: that is, after they came into the land, and did reap the harvest thereof. Again Exod. 34.22. Thou shalt also observe the feast of weeks in the time of the first fruits of wheat harvest. jarchi expounds the Text thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The first fruits of wheat harvest, in which thou art to bring two loaves of wheat; first fruits, that is, the first meat offering that comes of new wheat to the Sanctuary, for the meat-offering of the Omer that is brought in the Passeover that is of barley, as in Levit. 23.10. & 17. and so Bechai. And Aben-Ezrah on Nehem. 10.35. doth second this: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And to bring the first fruits of our land, as an Omer and two loaves. By these authorities it appears that in the feast of the Passeover they offered an Omer or sheaf of the first fruits of barley; and in the feast of Pentecost they presented for the first fruits of their wheat-haruest, two loaves of fine flower of wheat baken with leaven: But all this while no mention here of first-fruits in ears of wheat and barley, etc. As for that Text Levit. 2.14. where there is mention of ears of corn dried by the fire, Aben-Ezra showeth there that it is meant of a freewill offering, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That which is due is the first of the first fruits, Exod. 34.26: not the first fruits in general, and if a man bring a meat offering of the first fruits, he shall bring it as a freewill offering. And the text imports as much, for it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you offer a meat-offering, etc. Consider now what is taught in these testimonies before alleged, and then with one labour we may easily descry the falsehood of two of the forenamed assertions; for here we see that an Omer or tenth part of an Ephah was offered for first fruits of barley, and two loaves of fine flower, for the first fruits of wheat. And therefore the first fruits thereof were not paid in ears of barley or ears of wheat, etc. according to Scripture. Again an Omer of barley, and two loaves of wheat, determine in these particulars a set quantity of first fruits. And therefore the first fruits were not paid in what quantity the owner would. Beside (as our Historian doth afterward relate from Scaliger) that not Moses, but the jews prescribed what should be the quantity of the therumah or heave offering; so it seemeth also by their writings, that they appointed what should be the determinate quantity of the first fruits, as may be gathered by the gloss of Baal Haturim on Deut. 26.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The letters of the word translated basket, contain in number 60, to signify that of first fruits they should pay a sixtieth part. And herein he agrees with R. Simeon on Massech Bicurim, cap. 3. fol. 85. Again the same author on Numb. 15.21. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The verse begins with Man, and ends with Man, to show that a gift of a good eye is a fourtieth part. For the Hebrew letter Man in number stands for forty. I go not about to justify these Cabalistical collections from the Text, but only by them to show that the jews had among them a set quantity for their first fruits, aswell as for their Therumahs, as these glosses do import, flat against the History.  
Now as before we have declared for wheat and barley, that the first fruits of them was not paid in ears of wheat and barley; so for the other things specified in the history, figs, grapes, olives, pomegranates▪ and dates, we do not read in the Scripture, that the first fruits of these are prescribed or expressed in particular; but the fruits of corn, wine, and oil, Deut. 18.4. And so 2 Chronic. 31.5. The children of Israel brought abundance of first fruits of corn, wine, and oil, etc. And Ramban on Deut. 14. as also on Exod. 22. teacheth concerning grapes & olives, that the tithe of them was not due by the Law until such time as they yielded wine & oil; and so likewise may we conjecture for the first fruits of them. Or if the first fruits were paid both of grapes and olives, (as the History saith) and of wine and oil too (as the Scripture showeth) than the first fruits were not paid only of those seven things which are before described. And this is the last of those three assertions; against which I took exception. It was indeed propounded in the second place, but blame me not though I bind not myself too strictly to order, in following a confused History, that hath in it as little truth, as order. The two former points I have passed over briefly: But this that he saith; That of these seven only, wheat, barley, figs, etc. the first fruits were paid, it requires a little larger explication. All the proof that is brought for it, is quoted in the margin, viz: Talmud in Seder Heraim, Massechetb Biccurim, atque inde recentiores eorum iurisperiti. It is an easier task for a man to quote the Talmud, then to read or understand it; and easier to read and understand it, then to justify or defend it. And therefore as the Historian himself in his preface pag. 3. speaking of the divine right of Tithes, saith well, that the holy Text must be the sole trial of it; so say we likewise concerning first fruits; that what is spoken of them, not the jewish Talmud, but the holy Text must be the trial of it; for as the jews themselves teach, the Talmud is but the exposition of the Text, so saith Aben-Ezra on Exod. 19.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. and proposed to them. That is the Law by tradition which is the exposition of the Law in writing. Therefore here we desire to know quid scriptum est? what Text of Scripture he hath for his warrant, Scripture he showeth none, either because he would not, or else could not find any to serve his turn. Notwithstanding for better satisfaction to the Reader herein, I must confess that the jewish Commentators upon the Scripture, as jarchi on Exod. 23.19. & 34.26. And on Deut. 26.2. Aben-Ezra on Nehem. ●0. and Chimki on 2 Chron. 31. do all of them allege a place of Scripture on which this their assertion is grounded, and that is, Deut. 8.8. A land of wheat and barley, and of vineyards, and figge-trees, and pomegranates, a land of oil olive, and honey. Here are seven kinds of fruits, for which the land of Canaan is commended, and of which only the jews say the first fruits were paid. If any object that Dates are here wanting, which were reckoned in the former number; for this we must know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated honey, the jews in this place interpret Dates; as jarchi showeth on Exod. 34.26. and Deut. 26.2. and 2 Chron. 31. And Chimki to make this more plain on 2 Chron. 31.5. saith, that by honey here they understand Dates, and adds this reason, because (saith he) they brought neither first fruits nor oblations of honey, having reference (as it may seem) to that in Levit. 2.11. All the meat offerings which ye shall offer unto the Lord. shall be made without leaven, for ye shall neither burn leaven, nor honey in any offering of the Lord made by fire. Not leaven; nor honey, saith Baal Haturim on this text, because evil concupiscence is resembled to these, seeming at the first to be sweet as honey, and after sour as leaven. And Ramban here concurring with Moses Ben Maimon in Moreh Hanebucim, saith it was a custom among Idolaters to offer all their meat offerings with leaven, and to mix honey in all their sacrifices; and therefore they are forbidden to be offered to God, as on the contrary, salt was required, because by them it was loathed: and so saith he; The pillar which was allowed in the days of the patriarchs, because afterwards it was abused by idolaters, therefore God hated it: as Deut. 16.22. David de Pomis in his Dictionary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ramban on Levit. 23.17: writ that in as much as sacrifices were offered to obtain the favour of God, and appease his wrath; therefore they did not bring them of such things that were only sour, as leaven, which had relation to judgement, nor of things which were altogether sweet, as honey, signifying mercy, but of a mixed quality, as it is said in the Creation of the world, that he mixed mercy and judgement together, and created it.  
But against this which by Chimki and the rest is here alleged, it is to be considered, that though the text saith, Levit. 2.11. Ye shall neither burn leaven, nor honey in any offering of the Lord made by fire; Yet in the next verse it follows: In the oblation of the first fruits ye shall offer them: and so it is plain, Levit. 23.17. and Chimki himself on Amos 4.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemns the Idolaters not for offering a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, but for burning it upon the altar against the Law Furthermore the text before rehearsed, viz: Deut. 8.8. and the intendment thereof being principally to amplify and set forth the Commendation of the Land for the fruitfulness of the same; there is no reason why we should restrain the signification, or alter the proper sense of the words, but rather give every word his largest extent, and then can not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies honey, be limited or restrained to signify Dates, especially when the jews themselves under this word, comprehend the fatness and sweetness of all kind of fruits; so saith jarchi on Levit. 2.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All sweetness of fruit is called honey. To the same purpose also speaks Ramban on Exod. 3.8. Ralbag on job. 20.17. Chimki on Psal. 81.16. and Deut. 32.13. And Aben Ezra on Numb. 16.13.14. and Bechai on Deut. 6.24. And so also by the like reason, honey in this Text may better be extended to all other sweet and pleasant fruits, then be contracted and stinted only to Dates. And yet Aben-Ezra on Levit. 2.11. reporteth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That many of them say, the exposition of Debash is Dates, and so everywhere a land flowing with milk and honey▪ and they have (saith he) a resemblance of a reason for it in the book of Ezra. Whereby as I take it, he means the book of Chronicles which were gathered by Ezra, as the jews write, after their return from Babylon. And in 2 Chron. 31.5. they interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not honey, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dates. So Chimki and jarchi note on that Text. And our last translation interpreting the word in the Text, honey, writes in the margin, dates. But though it were to be so understood in this place, yet there is no probability or show of reason why it should be thus expounded in that Text, Deut. 8. or where it is found in many other Texts beside. We may aswell believe that to be true which Baal Haturim writes of their pomegranates, as this that they affirm of Dates; for he on Numb. 13.34. compared with Esai 40.22. saith, that one of the Giants of the sons of Anak having eaten a pomegranate, did cast away the pill thereof, and afterward all the twelve spies that were sent to search the land, went into it to sit there and shade themselves from the heat of the Sun. And to make this good, that the room might seem big enough, and the men little enough, R. jarchi seconds him with the like gloss on that text, ver. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. So we were in their sight, we heard them say one to another, there are pismires in the Vineyards like men: that is, the spies heard the Giants say so concerning them.  
These and such like are the expositions and glosses of some of those grand Rabbis, on whose testimony the History of Tithes is principally grounded. But now suppose that Dates were to be understood in that text, as the jews would have it, doth it therefore follow, because seven kinds of fruits are there named; that only of those seven and no more, the first fruits should be paid? so they teach also by the like warrant, that there are just seven habitations, or seven several vaults of hell; must we therefore needs believe it to be true? Chimki relates this on 2 Sam. 18.33. & 19.4. where David mourning for the death of Absolom ingeminates those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my son, my son, eight times; with seven of them he raised him up (saith he) out of the seven vaults or mansions of Hell, and with the eight he brought him into Paradise. jarchi also mentions this on Esai 20.23. and Baal Haturim on Deut. 15.8. from Massecheth Sutah, cap. 1. fol, 10. and Kimchi on 2 Kings 23.10. But before I leave this point, there is yet one other thing to be considered; for what if more than seven kind of fruits be sound to be contained in the foresaid text, shall not the Law of first fruits take hold of them? R. Bechai on this text. Deut. 8.8. fol. 209.2. & fol. 212.1. saith expressly, that the land is here commended for ten things, adding three to the former seven; for saith he, Rye, oats, and spelt, or bear corn, are comprehended under wheat and barley, which are named as the principal; and no reason to the contrary, but that of these they were to pay first fruits aswell as of the other, & therefore they were not paid only of seven kinds. It is written 2 Chron. 31.5. The children of Israel brought abundance of first fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field. Now under Corn the jews contain five several specie's; so saith Chimki in Miclol in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Ramban on Deut. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Corn in the holy tongue signifies five known kinds; which are the same that Bechai expresseth before, & therefore being under this word comprehended, no question but of these the first fruits are also here required. Again, the jews themselves understanding this text to be spoken of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits properly, as Chimki here expounds it, when as in their former Catalogue of seven, among the rest they say, that the first fruits were paid of grapes, and olives, (as I mentioned before) and here the Text saith, that they were paid of wine and oil, (which in propriety of speech are none of the seven before specified) we can not choose, but must needs conclude, that the first fruits were paid of more commodities then only seven. Nay the Text is very direct, that they brought first fruits of all the increase of the field, ver. 5. And to this agrees the general current of the Scripture, Deut. 26.2. Then shalt thou take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, and bring it: and so Nehemiah. 10.35. & ver. 37. And to bring the first fruits of our land, and the first of all the fruits of all trees, etc. year by year into the house of the Lord.  
The only reason that I can meet with, why the jews presented but these seven kinds for first fruits is related by R. Bechai on Deut. 26. to be, because they held these to be the most choice and useful for the nourishment of man, which being admitted to be true, yet this doth not suffice to exclude the rest which are in Scripture comprehended as well as these. So also they teach, that that part of Canaan which was the inheritance of the five Nations mentioned in Scripture, Exod. 13.5. namely the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite, the jebusite, because it was a land that flowed with milk and honey, therefore they paid the first fruits only from thence: but the land of the other two Nations, the Perezites, and the Gergesites, was not subject to the payment of first fruits, because it was not a land that flowed with milk and honey; so Ramban notes on Deut. 18.1. And in Massecheth Bicurim, cap. 1. to the same purpose R. josi saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They use not to bring first fruits from beyond jordan, because it was not a land that flowed with milk and honey. But against this, Moses Ben Maimon in his Commentary on that place, saith; that though it were not a land that flowed with milk and honey, yet saith he, the Lord gave it unto us, so that we may truly say, Deut. 26.10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which thou hast given me: and therefore he there declares herein his own judgement, and concludes contrary to the opinion of R. josi.  
Last of all for the seven kinds of first fruits so often mentioned, the Doctors likewise differ in the Talmud Massech Bicurim, cap. 3. fol. 86. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. R. Simeon the son of Nanas, saith, they set forth the first fruits of more than seven kinds; which opinion without all doubt is most consonant to the rules & precepts of the Scripture; for whereas God gave unto Aaron, and his sons, the first ripe fruits of all that was in their land, Numb. 18.13. what reason is there that they should be deprived of their right, & have the first fruits but only of seven kinds? But it may be, though the Scripture favour not this conceit, yet the Historian thinks it sufficient that it is so related in the Talmud. I confess some things in the Talmud may truly be reported to have been done: but this doth not prove that the Talmud doth therefore rightly teach what should be done; and again, as that worthy Knight Sr james Sempill hath answered, Though the relation of the fact were true for practise in their times, yet might it much degenerate from the former ages.  
But how shall we certainly know what was done, or what was the jewish manner & custom in payment of the first fruits, for herein the History fails us, except we can learn it by the bare marginal mentioning of the Talmud. Therefore to make this more plain, I have thought good here to translate as near as I can verbatim, that which R. Bechai delivers concerning first fruits, in his Commentary on Deut. 26. which for the most part he hath transcribed from the Talmud, and set down in manner following.  
When they brought up the first fruits to jerusalem, the men of the cities near adjoining, assembled altogether. that they should not solitarily go up alone, as it is said, In the multitude of the people is the honour of the King, Prov: 14.28. And they lodged in the street of the city, and went not into houses because of the tabernacles of pollution: And in the morning the guide or governor said; Arise, let us go up to Zion to the Lord our God. And a Bullock for a peace-offering went before them, having his horns covered with gold and an olive garland upon his head. Also a flute, an instrument of music sounded before them, Esai 30.29: until they came near to jerusalem, and they went forward all the way reading Psal. 122. I was glad when they said unto me, we will go unto the house of the Lord. Notwithstanding they did not continue their progress all the day, but only at two set times in the day. When they approached near to jerusalem, they sent messengers before them to give notice to the Citicens' of jerusalem, and they the mean while set forth and beautified their first fruits. Afterward the Prince and the Rulers, the chief Priests and the Treasurers came forth from jerusalem to meet them, according to the number of them that came up, so proportionably was the number of them that went out to meet them: If there were many that came up, many went out; if few, than few. And as they entered all of them into the gates of jerusalem, they began to read Psal. 122.2. Our feet shall stand in thy gatcs O jerusalem. And all the Tradesmen of jerusalem stood up before them, and saluted them, saying; Brethren, men of such or such a place, ye are welcome. So they walked in the midst of jerusalem, and the instrument still sounded before them, till they came to the hill of the House. When they came to the hill of the House, every man bore his basket upon his shoulder, and said Psal. 150. Praise the Lord, praise God in his Sanctuary, &c: until those words, Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord, Halleluiah. Thus they continued till they came to the Court. When they came to the Court, the Levites sang that Psalmee, I will magnify thee O Lord, for thou hast exalted me, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me. Psal. 30.  
They add also in the Talmud, that the rich men brought their first fruits in baskets of silver & gold, that is (saith Maimon) covered with silver & gold; and the poor in baskets made of willow rods, and both the baskets and the first fruits were given to the Priests, as it is said, Deut. 26.4. Then the Priest shall take the basket out of thine hand.  
Now besides the former seven kinds of first fruits before rehearsed, the jews further teach, that there are seven other things requisite in the offering of first fruits, for which they seem to have more probable ground from the Scripture, and they are these; 

1 The bringing of them up to the place appointed.  
2 The vessel wherein they were brought.  
3 The reading of the Text.  
4 An offering or oblation.  
5 Their rejoicing in singing.  
6 The shaking of them to and fro.  
7 Their lodging in jerusalem.    
1 The bringing of them up to the place appointed, for it was necessary that they should bring them up to the House of the Sanctuary, as it is written Deut. 26.2. And thou shalt go to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, etc.  
2 The Vessel as it is said ver. 2. And thou shalt put it in a basket. It is also a precept of special choice to bring every kind in a basket by itself, but if they brought them in one basket, they were to be careful that they should not confusedly be mixed together, but barley in the lowest place, and wheat upon that, and dates about that, and pomegranates above them, and figs above them all, and something was to be put between every species, to sever them one from another, as leaves, or such like. And outwardly they compassed the figs with bunches of grapes. They brought likewise in their hands turtle doves, and young pigeons; for it is said, and thou shalt rejoice in every good thing, ver. 11. and for this rejoicing, flesh was requisite. They hanged also on the sides of their baskets turtle doves, and young pigeons, to set forth & adorn their first fruits: Those that were on their baskets they offered for  sacrifice, and those that were in their hands they gave to the Priests of that ward, together with the first fruits, which they divided among themselves as other holy things.  
3 The reading, as it is said, ver. 5. And thou shalt answer and say, etc. that is, he read the Text from those words, ver. 5. A Syrian was my father, etc. until those ver. 10. And now lo, I have brought the first fruits of the land which thou O Lord hast given me. And this answering was praise and thanksgiving, with lifting up of voice, and that in the holy tongue, as it is written Deut. 31.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. this song shall answer them: and so it is here ver. 5. thou shalt answer and say Deut 26.5.  
4 The oblation was a peace-offering.  
5 A song was required, for it is said; And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing, ver. 11. and for this, singing was necessary, as it is Psal. 33.3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Sing cheerfully with a loud voice: for so the Levites did read with singing, when they brought ihe first fruits after that they came into the Court.  
6 The shaking of them to and fro, as it is written Deut. 26.10. & Numb. 14.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God, when as the Priest put his hand under the hand of the owners, & shaked it, and this is that is said ver. 4. Then the Priest shall take the basket out of thine hand, that is to say, to shake it to and fro.  
7 Lodging, that albeit he brought his first fruits, and offered his peace-offrings, and performed all his duty that day, yet it was not lawful for him to departed the same day out of jerusalem, but that he should lodge there, as it is said, Deut. 16.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thou shalt return on the morrow, and go unto thy Tents. And so they teach, all returning whereby thou returnest from the Sanctuary, after thou art come thither, shall not be but on the morrow. Thus fare R. Bechai touching the manner of the jews in paying their first fruits, as is described in their Talmud.  
And among other questions touching first fruits, he adds further, that it is disputed among them, whether a stranger were to pay them, or not; some say he might not, because he could not use the words of the protestation, Deut, 26.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am come into the Country which the Lord swore unto our fathers to give us. But the more general and common opinion was, that he might both bring the first fruits, and likewise use the protestation, because Abraham is reputed also the father of strangers, as it is said Gen. 17.5. I have made thee a father of many Nations. And it may be (saith he) that this is pointed at in the text, where it is said, ver. 11. thou and the Levite, and the stranger that is among you.  
Lastly for the end of the oblation of first fruits, he affirmeth that it tended to the honour of God, the dignity of the Priest, and the great benefit of Israel. 1 The honour of God, in that they came to make prayer and supplication before him in that great and holy Temple for the multiplying of his benefits, and acknowledging that all blessings proceeded only from him. 2 The dignity of the Priest, in that the Israelite wearied and turmoiled himself all the way to feed him with the first of his fruits, and most choice of them. 3. The great benefit of Israel, in that by the due observation of this precept, the fruits were increased, & the food of the world blessed. And so much for first fruits.   

CAP. 3.  
NExt, the Therumah or heave offering, or first fruits of Corn, Wine, Oil, Flecce, and the like, were also given to the Priests. Deut. 18.4. I do not well understand in what sense these words, the therumah or heave offering, or first fruits, can properly be spoken in this place; for hereby he seems to confound the first fruits & the therumahs, as if they were all one, which according to the tradition and history of the jews, are manifestly distinguished, as appears in the several Tractates or Massecheths' in the Talmud both of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heave offerings. And the place quoted in the margin, viz: Deut. 18.4. speaks directly of first fruits, and not therumahs or heave offerings, howsoever some of the jews do otherwise expound it. For the first fruits were either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numb. 18.12.13. and the word used there in Deut. 18.4. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies first fruits; yea the first of the first fruits.  
But it being not determined by Moses of what quantity this heave offering should be, the jews anciently assessest it to be enough at the fiftieth part, 
Sal. jarchi add dict. locum caeteri Jurisp. & D. Hieronymus ad ●…zech. cap. 45 & Cassianus collat. 21. cap. 3.  but so that no necessity was that every one should pay so much, he that paid a sixtieth part was discharged, and many of the better devotion offered a fortieth. The fiftieth part they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. that is, an indifferent or competent therumah or heave offering, which they named also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the great heave offering. The fourtieth they style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, a Therumah of a fair eye, 
Hanc loquendi formulam babes apud D. Matthaeum cap. 20.15.  or liberally given. And the sixtieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, a Therumah of an ill eye, or a niggards gift.  
If he mean that only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the indifferent heave offering, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great heave offering, as his words seem to import, then doth he much mistake his Rabbins; for neither doth Scaliger, whose steps he followeth, nor the jews, so understand it; but whether it be an indifferent therumah or heave offering, or a therumah of a fair eye, or a therumah of an ill eye, it is still called therumah gedolah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great heave-offering, to make a difference between it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the heave offering of the Tithe, or decimae decimarum, which were given to Aaron the high Priest. R. Chaskuni on Deut. 18. shows the reason why it is called the great heave offering, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. The first heave offering is called the great heave offering, because it is great in quantity, above the quantity of the first Tithe, and the heave offering of the Tithe, forasmuch as that after it is offered, being a fiftieth part, they were to take the forty nine parts that remain, and make thereof fifty again, that they might thence have five parts for the first Tithe, etc. Further howsoever some style the fourtieth part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Therumah of a fair eye, or liberally given; yet in the Talmud in Massech Termoth, cap. 4. fol. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They of the College of Shamai hold, that a thirtieth part is the Therumah of a good eye: and R. Bechai on Deut. 26.15. hath this notation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i two of an hundred. The note in the margin, hanc loquendi formulam habes apud D. Matthaeum, cap. 20.15. seems to insinuate, that St Matthew borrowed this form of speech from the jewish Rabbins, but it is an idle conceit to think so; for it is a phrase more ancient and usual in the holy Scripture, as Prov. 22.9. he that hath a good eye, he shall be blessed: and Prov. 23.6. Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye: and so Deut. 15.9. etc. These set quantities of the Therumah gedolah for the fourtieth, fiftieth, sixtieth part, Baal Haturim gathers cabalistically from the words in Exod. 25.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That they take an offering for me of every man whose heart giveth it freely, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated (for me) ariseth in number to forty, signifying that the gift of a good eye is a fourtieth part. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ariseth to fifty; that is, an indifferent offering of a fiftieth part, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. of every man. The two first letters of the words arise to 60, that is, the gift of an evil eye is a sixtieth part. And yet this Text is not understood of the Therumah gedolah, or great heave offering, which was taken of the fruits of the earth, and given to the Priests; but of the voluntary gifts or offerings for the making of the Tabernacle. Whereby it may be thought that they held the same proportion, not only in this, but also in other Therumahs, for there were diverr sorts of them, as Bechai on Exod. 25.1. & 30.11. and also Ramban on Deut. 12.6. doth intimate, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. For whatsoever a man doth offer up unto the Lord of all that he hath, either for sacrifices, or for repairing of the Temple, (as it is said Exod. 25. that they receive an offering for me) or for the Priests the ministers of the Lord, all these are called Therumahs, according as it is written of the tribute, Numb. 31.28.29. And shalt give it to Eleazar the high Priest as an heave offering to the Lord, and it shall be absolutely common or free in his hand. It follows in the History,  
But you may observe too, that this which they called a niggards gift, was not beneath the quantity of the Therumah appointed in Ezech. 45.13.11. where the words are, This is the Therumah that ye shall offer, the sixth part of an Ephah of an Omer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an Ephah of an Omer of barley. It is the same as if he had said, ye shall offer a Therumah of the sixtieth part, of every Omer, for an Ephah, being the same measure with a bath, (that is near our common bushel) was the tenth part of an Omer, therefore the sixth part of an Ephah the sixtieth of an Omer.  
This text of Ezechiel, quoted by jarchi on Numb. 18.4. and here alleged by the Historian, is unfitly applied to prove the quantity of the Therumah gedolah, as David Chimki here evidently declareth with very sufficient reasons, which are by him thus expressed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. I wonder at jarchi his exposition, for since that the Therumah by the Law hath no quantity, but one grain or corn of wheat, frees the whole heap, to what end should Ezechiel come to teach the Therumah of an evil eye, or. niggards gift? he should have taught rather the indifferent Therumah, which is a fiftieth part: And again, why doth he mention the wheat and barley above by themselves, and the oil above by itself for a tenth part, he should have said, corn, wine, and oil; as it is written in the Law, When as therefore the Ephah is the same measure with the Bath, and the sixth part of an Ephah of an Omer of wheat and barley is offered, and not the sixth, but a tenth part of a Bath of oil, ' as it is ver. 14: it followeth that the Therumah of oil was not so much as a sixtieth part, but was only an hundreth part of an Omer or Cor, differing from the quantities of the Therumah . And therefore Chimki concludes, that this Text is not meant of the Therumah gedolah, or great heave offering of the fruits given to the Priest, but of the heave offering which they should offer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the dedication of the House or Temple, that should be afterward in time to come, and not of the first or second Temple.  
Now that which is understood only of practice for time to come, can not be a praecedent or warrant for the practice of times past; and therefore this Text makes nothing to the purpose for which it is alleged. It is true that there are many things very difficult and hard to be understood in this Prophecy of Ezechiel, and especially in those Chapters that are written of the Temple, as St Hierome observeth on cap. 45. and the jews themselves confess that there are many things here expressed which they conceive not, but say that Eliah when he comes shall expound them, as R. Chimki notes on Ezech. 40.13. & 42.5. & 45.18. Yet in this the best Interpreters, both jews and Christians, do all agree, that the things here spoken of, can not be applied to the time either of the first or second Temple; but to the time of the Messiah, and the House that he should build, and so teacheth St Hierom on Ezech 40. and Chimki on Ezech. 43.11, etc. But I return to recall that which was before affirmed in the History in these terms:  
For an Ephah being the same measure with a Bath, that is, near our common Bushel, was the tenth part of an Omer; therefore the sixth part of an Ephah, the sixtieth of an Omer.  
Here it must be remembered by the way, that there is some difference betwixt the Ephah and the Bath; for the Ephah is a measure only of things that are dry, as wheat, & barley, etc. and the Bath of things that are liquid and moist, as oil, and the like; so Chimki showeth on Ezech. 45.11. and jarchi, and so doth St Hierom on the same Text, where he also notes how the Septuagint Translation in expressing these measures, differs from the Hebrew Text; and it is likewise to be noted, that whereas here an Ephah is said to be the tenth part of an Omer, and in Exod. 16.36. an Omer the tenth part of an Ephah, though they sound alike, yet they are differing measures, & differing words also, for Omer in one place begins with the Hebrew letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ain, and in the other with the Hebrew letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cheth. Furthermore that Ephah should in measure (as the Historian saith) be near our common Bushel, it is a matter somewhat questionable.  
St Hierom on Ezech. 45.1. saith, that an Ephah is tres modij, which is usually taken to be three bushels; for these are there his words: Decima pars Cori in his quae modio mensurantur, appellatur Ephah, i. tres modij, & decima pars Cori in speciebus liquidis vocatur batus, sive vadus, ut eiusdem mensurae sit Ephah & Batus. But how the true measure of the Ephah was accounted among the jews, we may easily conjecture by that which Salomoh jarchi speaks concerning this on Exod. 29.40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. A tenth part of fine flower, that is, the tenth part of an Ephah; 43 eggs and the fift part of an egg. And this he explains more at large on Exod. 16.36. The Omer is the tenth part of the Ephah: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Ephah contains three Seahs', a Seah contains six Cabins, a Cab four Lugimes. a log six eggs, so that the tenth part of an Ephah is found to be three & forty eggs and the fift part of an egg, and this was the quantity for the cake and for the meat offering. R. Bechai agrees herein with jarchi, and so doth David Chimki in his Miclol the second part, in radicibus, where he expresseth the several quantity of these measures agreeable to this relation. He therefore that can tell how many eggs will fill a Bushel, may hence quickly be resolved, how near the jewish Ephah comes to the English Bushel. I have done with the Therumahs, I come now to the Tithes; for in this order they succeed in the History, where it is said,  
After the Therumah offered to the Priests (every kind being given in season) out of the rest were taken the Tithes, which are best divided into the first and second Tithe.  
Concerning this division whether it be the best or no, after the due scanning of it, let others judge: the mean while we may here take notice, that as the Historian makes but two sorts of Tithes, so on the other side there are some that make three, and some four, taken from Deut. 14. and Numb. 18.  
1 The first is the Levites Tithe, or Tithe inheritance, Deut. 14.22. and Numb. 18.21.  
2 The second is the Tithe for feasts, which were to be eaten yearly at Jerusalem, as in Deut. 14.23.  
3 The third the Tithe of the third year for the poor, Deut. 14.28.29.  
4 The fourth the tenth part of the Tithe, or the Lords heave offering, which the Levites were to give to Aaron the high Priest, Numb. 18.26.28. But the jews usually confound this last with the first Tithe, calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the heave offering of the Tithe: And for this cause where it is said Deut. 14.24. The Tithes of the children of Israel, which they shall offer as an offering to the Lord, etc. Salomoh jarchi saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture calleth it an offering, until he separate from it the oblations or offerings of the Tithe: that is, decimas decimarum, the Tenth of the Tithe, for until that was given to the Priest, the Levites had no power to dispose of their own Tithes. And hereby jarchi answers an objection of those that from this place would conclude the Tithes to be a mere ceremonial offering, in as much as he showeth that they are called an offering only in regard of the Tithe, or the offering that was taken out of them for the high Priest.  
Now for these several sorts of Tithes before reckoned, as the jews confound the first and fourth, so other Writers in the rest do the like, some making the first and second to be one and the same; some the first and the third, one. Which last opinion the Author of the History, maintaineth in the Sections following, and saith, that the two first years after the sabbatical, the second Tithe was paid at jerusalem, and in the third year it ceased: but after the first Tithe paid, they paid that year the poor man's Tithe instead of the second, as jarchi speaks on Deut. 26.12. And Ben Maimon in Misuah Torah part. 3. de decima secunda, cap. 1.  
But for proof of this assertion, first of all he brings no testimony from the holy Scriptures: 2ly he hath not (as is pretended) the general consent of the jews; for besides the authority of Tobit cap. 1. ver. 7 josephus Archaeol. 4.7. alleged by himself: Tremelius also, and junius on Deut. 14.28. do call this poor man's tithe, the third tithe. And so likewise Aben Ezra that was not ignorant of the jewish practice in tithing, doth in the same place term this poor man's tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third tithe; and saith further: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And he shall not bring forth this year the second tithe, and some say he shall bring forth all those three tithes: which indeed is most probable, though he leave it altogether uncertain and doubtful.  
But among other things here alleged, I marvel why the Septuagints translation on Deut. 26.12. is so fare pressed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Where to prove that the poor man's Tithe is expressly called the second Tithe, this Translation is so much insisisted upon, as the original Text itself is called in question, for here saith the Author, Doubtless they there instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shenath hamaigsher, that is, the year of tithing (as the Text is) found in their Hebrew Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shenith hamaigsher, which they take for the second Tithe, knowing that in truth that place meant no other.  
Doubtless I can conceive of this to be nothing else but a mere fiction, and such a one that neither jew nor Christian ought once to admit against the holy Scriptures: For first hereby as he makes the Septuagints Translation more authentical than the Hebrew Text, implying therewithal that the same hath been corrupted and changed, (and yet no corruption ever once noted before in this place) so also that which he surmiseth is against reason, for the second doth always presuppose a first; but how shall it be thought that the Scripture should here in express terms mention a second Tithe, when as it doth no where expressly mention a first? for though the ground of these distinctions be in Scripture, viz: Tithes for the Priest, Tithes for the Levite, Tithes for the feasts, and Tithes for the poor; yet by these terms of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first Tithe, and second Tithe; or which shall be the first, or which the second; there neither is, nor ever was any such matter in Scripture: These indeed are notions devised by the Rabbins for distinction sake, but shall we therefore bring them into the Text, and make Text of them? whether shall the Rabbins follow the Text, or the Text follow the Rabbins? Surely this is nothing else but to make new Scripture, and when that is done, because the foresaid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not agree in gender, (the word being no where so construed) therefore also to make, as he doth in that place, a new Grammar, that the new Scripture may have good construction. And yet after all this, consider it who will, no Scripture, no Masoreth, no Targum, no Grammar, no Rabbin, no reason, either doth or can justify it.  
And for the Septuagint Translation, why may we not interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alteram or posteriorem decimam, an other Tithe, or the later Tithe, as well as decimam secundam, the second tithe; the word being often elsewhere used in that sense, as the Greek Lexicons teach, res aliqua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicitur quae ei postponitur: and again, Quum verò dicitur temporis ratione, exponitur etiam posterior, veletiam iteratus, ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so may it be taken also in this place: Or if it be interpreted the second tithe, must it needs be the second in the same order and manner as he would have it? as though the Septuagints that were so ancient, intended hereby to establish this new devise, invented only by Rabbins of later times. Do not the best expositions disagree, in setting down precisely the number and order of the Tithes? St Hierome on Ezech. 45. reckons up four sorts of tithes, and makes that first which the people paid to the Levites, and that the second which the Levites thence paid to the Priests, of which he saith, Et haec est quae appellatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein he differs from the Rabbins, and all their followers, and yet knew better than they what Scripture taught concerning first or second tithes.  
But it is not enough for our Historian thus to corrupt the text, to fortify his own fancies, but he goes on, and dallies yet further with this Scripture, saying,  
This place of the year of Tithing, 
Sal. jarchi add dict. loc. Deut.  is interpreted by the common gloss of the jews, by the year of one Tithe, as if the Text had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the year of one Tithe, or of paying only one Tithe.  
First instead of the common gloss of the jews, he cities only in the margin the proper gloss of Sal. jarchi, against whom I oppose Aben Ezra, who doth not interpret the year of tithing by the year of one tithe, or of paying only one tithe, but thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The year of tithing, that is, the poor man's tithe, meaning the year of paying the poor man's tithe, which was not paid in other years; and this is answerable to that he said before, that some held that all the three tithes were this year brought forth, and therefore most probably it is termed the year of tithing, because a new accrue of tithes came this year above the rest; and so Bechai on Deut. 26.12. R Chaskuni on Deut. 14.28. hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt bring forth all the tithes: i. It concerns thee to bring forth the first tithe, the second tithe, the poor man's tithe; setting down the three distinct tithes by three distinct and several names. And therefore that cannot be true which the Historian teacheth, that the second tithe, and the poor man's tithe are substantially the same, and fitly go under one name; for that which was given instead of the second tithe, cannot properly be said to be the same: But, say the jews (as he noteth) in the third & sixth years, the poor man's tithe was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of the second tithe; and therefore can no more fitly be said to be the same, than john may be said to be Peter, because he sits in the same chair wherein Peter sat yesterday. Furthermore jarchi and Bechai on Deut. 14.28. and Deut. 26.12. speak to this effect: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. If a man delay or put off the payment of his Tithes the first and second year after the sabbatical, then of necessity, he must bring them forth of his house the third year. So that in this case, all the three tithes by jarchi his confession, being brought forth this third year, they must needs be accounted three several kinds of Tithes; and therefore the poor man's tithe was not always paid instead of the second tithe, nor one and the same in substance with the second tithe. And a main difference is noted betwixt them in the Talmud in Seder Teharoth Massech jadim cap. 4, fol. 157. Where the expositor attributes these words to R. Eliezer. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The second tithe is holy, but the poor man's tithe common or profane: For the one might only be eaten at jerusalem, but the other in any place; the one belonged to the householder, the other to the poor. And though regularly they teach, that the poor man's tithe was paid only the third and sixth years, yet in the place beforenamed, they deliver it as a tradition of Moses from Sinai, that Babel, Egypt, Ammon, and Moab, paid the poor man's tithe in the seventh year, and Ramban in his preface to Seder Heraim, saith as much of the second tithe, that the same was also paid in these places the seventh year.  
I would be loath to stand too long upon this point, and yet I think it not amiss to consider in what manner he goes about to prove it from the text before cited: First he takes the Septuagint translation for a full and perfect confirmation of his opinion, that the poor man's tithe is one and the same with the second tithe, and therefore to make that good, he saith; Doubtless they read in their Hebrew Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second tithe, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the year of tithing. Afterward he allegeth again the same Text, with the interpretation of the jews, and then makes an other reading of it, and supposeth in effect that they did not read as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second tithe; but with alteration & addition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The year of one tithe: thus making text to be text, or no text, as please himself; and yet (which is more strange) he concludes, that this exposition of jarchi and the jews, in substance exactly agrees also with the meaning of the Septuagint.  
But I pray you mark this substantial and exact agreement. The Septuagint interprets the text to be understood only of one tithe. jarchi interprets it not only of one, but of two Tithes. The Septuagint in his conceit, understands there only the second Tithe: jarchi not the second, but the first Tithe, and the poor man's Tithe properly. Again, the Septuagint gives the second Tithe, so named, jointly to the Levite, stranger, fatherless, & widow.  
And this testimony of jarchi is by him iterated & repeated three times at least for failing. First on Deut. 26.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And hast given to the Levite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That which belongs to him, namely the first Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, this is the poor man's Tithe. So likewise on ver. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And I have given it to the Levites, that is, the first Tithe, and to the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This is the poor man's Tithe. And so it is also expounded in the Talmud Maigshar Sheni, cap. 5. fol. 71. And in like manner on Deut. 14.29. jarchi thus expoundeth the Text:  
Then the Levite shall come, and shall take the first Tithe; and the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow the poor man's Tithe, still making two distinct & several Tithe: still making two distinct and several Tithes, where the Author of the History makes but one, and yet he cities this rabbin, as yielding testimony for him, whereof that which he affirms, is most direct against him. I have not done yet with the testimonies of jarchi; for if we mark them well, they will serve beside the former slips, to discover the falsehood of three other conclusions delivered in this Section, which as yet I have not touched:  
1 The first is, that the Levites at the Temple had an interest and share in the second Tithes for their feasts and love days. pag. 15.  
2ly That the Levites in the Country were entertained with this poor man's Tithe, or Tithe of the third year. ibid.  
3ly That the first Tithe was paid to the Levites at jerusalem. pag. 13.  
As the Historian doth show neither Scripture, nor reason, nor Rabbins for the proof of these assertions, so on the other side the only authority of jarchi in the places before cited, is sufficient to disprove them all: For jarchi seems to be confident in this, that the Levites still held themselves to the first tithe, and could not claim any thing due to them, either in the second Tithe at jerusalem, or in the poor man's Tithe in the Country. For although in the former Text, the Levites, stranger, fatherless, & widow are jointly named together, yet he doth distinguish them in taking the tithes; and therefore he confines the Levite to the first tithe, and the stranger, fatherless, and widow, to the poor man's tithe. And this is likewise confirmed by other jews, writing on the same text, as R. Chaskuni on Deut. 14.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He showeth here that the first Tithe was for the Levite, and the second to be eaten by the householder at jerusalem: And in the 3d year the Levite had the first tithe, and the stranger, fatherless, and widow, the poor man's tithe. R. Bechai saith as much, showing that the first tithe was only assigned to the Levite, and not the second a poor man's tithe. Whereas therefore the Historian saith, that  
Every third year the Levites at the Temple missed their second tithe for their feasts and love days, the same being charitably and by divine ordinance spent at home in the gates of the husbandman:  
This is nothing else but a fallacy, let him first prove, that the Levites at the Temple had a right to the second tithe for feasts, and then show how they lost it, for otherwise how can they be said to miss or lose that which they never had. I deny not but the Levites might be invited by the husbandman to the feasts that were made of the second tithe; and to that purpose also St jerom speaks on Ezech. 45. but this doth not argue, that therefore the Levites had a right therein: neither was the same that is the second tithe, charitably, and by divine ordinance spent at home in the gates of the husbandman, as the History here teacheth; That the tithe for the feasts, which the jews call the second Tithe, should yearly be eaten at jerusalem; the Scripture showeth it to be enjoined by divine ordinance: But that this tithe should cease the third year, and the poor man's Tithe be paid instead of it, or the same be spent at home in the gates of the husbandman; it is a mere jewish dream, and no divine ordinance, neither can it be verified by any divine evidence: Again the words that he useth afterward to this purpose, are of no validity; for saith he,  
As the Levites ministering in their course at the Temple, were to have part in the feasts made of the second, so were the Levites, and the poor in the country entertained with this of the third year.  
As the one is true, so I grant is the other: but as yet no proof appears either for the one, or the other, but the contrary. For jarchi on Deut. 14.29. & also on other texts of Scripture before cited, agreeing herein with the rest of the jews, teacheth expressly, that in the third year the Levite took the first tithe; and stranger, fatherless, and widow, the poor man's tithe, excluding him from having any part with them in their tithe. Neither needed Levi to beg for a part among the poor, being always sufficiently furnished and maintained with his own portion; for though the jews some of them hold, that in the 3d and 6t years, there was a cessation of the second tithe for feasts, yet they all absolutely determine in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah, cap. 1. fol. 12. that the first tithe, or Levites tithe never ceased; both because it is said in Deut. 14.29. The Levite shall come and take his tithe, as jarchi explains it, and also because the first tithe is their inheritance, Numb. 18.26 And therefore, say they, as an inheritance ceaseth not, so also the first tithe ceaseth not, or hath no end. And though regularly in the seventh year there was no payment of tithes, because no gathering in of fruits, yet a compensation and supply thereof was made in the sixth year, by the blessing and large increase of the sruits for three years, and so by consequent, the large increase of the tithes, Levit. 25.21.  
3 Now for the third assertion, that the first tithe was paid to the Levites of jerusalem, and so the first tithe of the third year:  
Do but consider the text with the exposition of jarchi, and then judge of the truth of it. Deut. 14.28. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithes of thine increase of the same year, and lay it up within thy gates, ver. 29. Then the Levite shall come, and shall take the first tithe, saith jarchi. If the Levite shall come and take the first tithe of those that were laid up within the gates in the Country, then war not the first tithe always brought up and paid to the Levites at jerusalem. But jarchi here affirms the first, therefore the second will follow. Again for that other text, Deut. 26.12. It is evident that it speaks of the tithe that was to be given to the Levite, stranger, fatherless, and widow that were within the gates in the Country, and here they were to eat it, as is manifest in the Text. Now jarchi saith here, that the Levite took the first Tithe, and the fatherless, stranger, etc. the poor man's Tithe. The Historian therefore forgets himself when he saith that jarchi  
So expounds it, that he takes the mention of the Levites there, to design out the first tithe of that third year paid at jerusalem.  
For the Text speaks not of the Levites at jerusalem, but of the Levites within the gates in the Country, where they did both receive and eat their Tithes, for they were not confined only to jerusalem to eat there, but it was lawful for them to eat their Tithe in all places, Numb. 18.31. And for further confirmation of this point, that the Levites took the first Tithe in the Country, and not only at jerusalem I will add to these testimonies of jarchi, the testimony also of Aben-Ezra on Deut. 14.27. And the Levite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It seems that he speaks of the first Tithe, for having before made mention of the second Tithe, he saith, thou mayst not think that thou shalt scape free with the second Tithe alone. And the meaning of that he saith, which is within thy gates, is because he must give the first tithe to him, that is, to the Levite within his gates, and he may not say, it shall remain with me, or I will bring it to another Levite, or I have given it already. By which it appereth, that the first Tithe was given to the Levites within the gates, or as it is in the Targum, the Levites in the Cities or Towns abroad in the Country: And a pregnant place for this is that of Nehem: 10.37 that the Levites might have the Tithes in all the Cities of our travel: jarchi expounds it thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Which take their Tithes in all the Cities of Israel. So on Gen. 49.7. I will divide them in jacob, & scatter them in Israel: jarchi here to touching the dispersion of Levi, hath this gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tribe of Levi he made to have recourse to the Garners or Barns for oblations and Tithes, appointing him his dispersion in way of honour. And it seems with reason, that where they performed their service, there also they should receive their wages. But saith Aben Ezra and R. Chaskuni on Deut. 18.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He makes mention of the Levites, because they also teach the Law in the gates: as it is testified in the 2d book of Chron. 17.8, 9 And they taught in judah, & had the book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went about through all the cities of judah, & taught the people. On which words jarchi saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. For it appertains to the Priests and Levites to teach and instruct, as it is written in Deut. 24.8. and do according to all that the Priests the Levites shall teach you: and agreeable to this is that we read in Act. 15.21. and in 2 Chron. 31.4. to give a part to the Priests and Levites, that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord.  
But it will be objected that it is said Deut. 12.5.6. ye shall bring thither your  offerings and your sacrifices, and your Tithes. To which, the exposition of jarchi on that place may afford an answer, for he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your tithes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of Cattles, and the second tithe to be eaten within the wall at jerusalem. And not to be meant of the first Tithe, as also R. Abuhab there explains it. Again concerning that text, 2 Chron. 31.5.6.11.12. It doth not prove that the first tithe was usually brought up to jerusalem, for that which is here expressed was an extraordinary practice at that time by the Commandment of King Ezechiah, (as Chimki showeth) And then they did so exceed in bringing up all sorts of Tithes and oblations, as that they brought also the Tithes of the fruits of trees & herbs, that were not due by the Law (as Chimki here declareth) according to the tradition of their ancients, and their exposition of the Law, and on ver. 6. he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That even of the holy things which they did consecrate, they brought of them the Tithes, albeit they were altogether free from tithing. And as at this time there was an extraordinary quantity of Tithes brought in, so Chimki on ver. 10. doth note that there was an extraordinary concourse and multitude of Priests and Levites assembled together from all places, insomuch that on ver. 17. he saith, they were appointed to serve before their usual time, that they might be made acquainted with the manner of divine worship, for now they had forgot all through the long omiss on of the service of God's House in the days of the wicked Kings. And therefore the Levites are taken here from 20 years old, whereas according to the Law, Numb. 4.23.30. they were appointed from 30 years and above, to the service of bearing of burdens; & from 25 years to the service of the Tabernacle, as Aben Ezra and Ramban teach on Numb. 8.24. All which serveth to show that the tithing here was extraordinary, and therefore this no clear place (as is pretended) to prove that the first Tithe was ordinarily paid to the Levites at jerusalem. In the Talmud in Massech Bicurim cap. 2. fol. 84. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. There are some things incident to tithe and first fruits, which are not incident to the Therumahs: for the Tithe and first fruits, were to be brought up to the place of God's worship, etc. But this Moses Ben Maimon in that place, and jarchi, interpret of the second Tithe, as he did before on Deut. 12. signifying thereby that it was not usual to bring up the first Tithe to jerusalem: If happily the Priests and Levites that ministered in their courses at jerusalem, did in the time of their service receive there their Tithes, as some of the jews in their writings seem to avouch; yet they that ministered abroad, and taught in the gates and cities in the country, out of all doubt received and spent their Tithes also in the Country. Ramban on Deut. 12.6. doth discuss this point at large: David Chimki also toucheth it on Malach. 3.10. and jarchi on Nehem. 10.37. & 12.44. the portions of the Law for the Priests and Levites. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Priests took that which was fitting for them, and the Levites that which was fitting or meet for them, whilst they stood and ministered there before the Lord with praises and thanksgiuings. But as for those Levites that served in the gates and cities abroad in the Country, Ramban on Deut. 12. the place before named, is very direct and plain, that they did receive and spend their Tithes in the Country, & that in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And the Levite that is within thy gates shall eat there within thy gates, that which is meet for him, according as it is said concerning them, Numb. 8.31. and ye shall eat it in all places. And agreeable to this is the judgement of Calvin on Deut. 14. where he disputes the question, An consentaneum fuerit decimas uno in loco solui, and gives his reasons, & concludes thus, Dubium igitur mihi non est, quin Levitae in suis quique regionibus decimas collegerint. There is yet one other Text which may seem to cross this that hath been said, and that is Malach. 3.10. bring all the tithes into the store-house. I must confess the jews generally here under tithes, do among the rest understand and include the first Tithe: But this (say they) was the decree or constitution of Ezra, (whom they also with St Hierome, take to be Malachi himself) that the Tithes here spoken of, should be brought up to the storehouse. And therefore in the Talmud in Massecheth Maccoth. cap. 3. fol. 23. Rabbi joshuah Ben Levi makes mention of this, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Three things they did in the lower house on earth, to which they gave consent in the upper-house in Heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, the convocation or celebration in Esther, the giving of salutation in the Name of jehovah, and the bringing up of the Tithe. The celebration in Esther, as it is written Esther 9.27. The jews also ordained and promised for them, and for their seed, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They ordained or confirmed above, what they promised or undertook below.  
2 The giving of Salutation, Ruth 2.4. And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord be with you: and judg. 6.12. The Angel said to Gideon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord be with thee thou valiant man.  
3 The bringing in of the Tithe, as it is written Malach. 3.10. Bring all the tithes into the store-house, etc. Where by the store-house they understand the Chambers of the House of God, prepared by Ezra for the receiving of the fruits and tithes, as in Nehem. 10.37.38.  
And in Massecheth jebamoth, cap. ●. fol. 86. they said that Ezra the Scribe did punish the Levites, because they came not up with him from Babel to jerusalem, Ezra 8.15. And therefore he commanded to bring all the Tithes into the Chambers of the House of God; and so the Priests and Levites were made equal in the first Tithe, for which they allege Nehem. 10.38. And the Priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites when the Levites take tithes. And in like manner as the Commentator there notes, Ezechiah did prepare chambers to bring in thither all the Tithes that those Levites which had worshipped Idols, should not be partakers of them 2 Chron. 31.11. Ezech. 44.10. Moses Ben Maimon in his explanation of Massech. Megnashar Sheni, cap. 5. fol. 72. towards the end, makes mention of this punishment of the Levites inflicted by Ezra, and saith, that jochanan the high Priest did abrogate the use of the Confession, commanded in the payment of Tithes, Deut. 26.13. etc. I have brought the hallowed thing out of mine house, etc. because at that time they could not truly say those words, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me; for God had commanded them to give the first Tithe unto the Levites, and they then gave it only to the Priests, and that as he there speaks, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. By the decree of the counsel or consistory of Ezrah, because that when he came up, the Levites came not up with him (as I said before) Ezrah, 8.15. And therefore he punished them, commanding that the Tithes should not be given to them, but to the Priests. And this matter is recorded in diverse other places of the Talmud, as in jebanoth cap. 2. fol. 86. Cethuboth cap 2. fol.. 26. And also in Massech Cholin, cap. 10. fol. 131. where diverse questions and doubts are moved concerning this punishment of the Levites, and whether at this time only the Priests, or else both Priests and Levites took the first Tithe; for though the Levites might for a while be suspended from their right of tithing, or have their portion therein somewhat diminished, yet that they were not altogether deprived of it, but still had a part in the first Tithe, they argue from that which is written in Nehem. 13.10.11.12. Notwithstanding whatsoever other differences there are among them, yet herein they all agree, that at this time the Priests had a right and interest in the first Tithe, which plainly overthroweth an other position, boldly delivered by our Historian, and that also without any proof, when he saith pag. 13. that  
The Priests received no tithes of the husbandmen, only the Levites received tithes from them, and paid their tithe to the Priests. And so also in his Review, pag. 454.  
If we may give credit to that which the great Doctors of the jews have delivered in the Talmud, & their later Comments, which the Historian elsewhere saith, are testimonies beyond exception for the practice or Historical part, than it is most certain, by the common opinion of them all, that the Priests did receive Tithes, yea the first Tithe which was paid by the husbandman; but all the question is, whether the inferior Levites did at this time receive any, or no: for the reason why jochanan the high Priest did not permit the confession of the payment of Tithe, prescribed Deut. 26.13. was (say they) because all was then given to the Priests, and none to the Levites, whereas indeed in the general grant of the tenth to the children of Levi for an inheritance for their service which they serve in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, Numb. 18.21. the whole Tribe, both Priests and Levites are included. And therefore setting aside this conceit of the Levites punishment by Ezra, as having no sufficient ground in Scripture. They yield an other reason why the first Tithe belongs unto the Priests, to wit, because the Priests are comprehended under the name of Levites, to whom the grant was made; for saith Aben Ezra on Levit. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Every Priest is a Levite, but every Levite is not a Priest. And hence it is, that in Massecheth jebanoth cap. 9, fol. 86. joshuah Ben Levi mentioning that text Numb. 18.26. Speak also unto the Levites, etc. doth under the name of Levites understand also Priests, and saith there that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. In four and twenty places the Priests are called Levites; and one of them is Ezech. 44.15. But the Priests of the Levites, the sons of Zadok, etc. this is again repeated in Massech Becoroth, cap. 1. fol. 4. And David Chimki also speaks of it in his Commentary on 2 Chron. 5.4, And in Massech Cholin, cap. 10. fol. 131. The expositor in that Tractate, doth express it fully, and apply it thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Forasmuch as in four and twenty places, the Priests are called Levites, therefore though in the first Tithe the Levites are nominated, yet the Priests are therein also contained. Moreover in Massech Chethuboth, cap. 2. fol. 26. R. Simeon Ben Eliezer writes expressly for the first Tithe. that the Priest had a right in it, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. As the Therumah or heave-offering is the possession of the Priesthood, so also the first Tithe is the possession of the Priesthood. Those words in Gen. 49.7. I will divide them in jacob, & scatter them in Israel, are spoken of the whole tribe of Levi & jarchi here saith, that their scattering was for the receiving of the Tithes, as also for the teaching of the people, Deut. 33 10. And in Deut. 33.11. bless O Lord this substance, &c the blessing hath reference to the whole Tribe, both Priests and Levites, and there Aben Ezra takes his substance to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first fruits and Tithes, and so also doth R. Bechai. Again Deut. 18.1. The Priests and the Levites, and all the Tribe of Levi, etc. jarchi interprets his inheritance to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i oblations and tithes; and the Text speaks plainly of the whole Tribe of Levi, and therefore the whole Tribe is interessed in the Tithe; and not only the inferior Levites. R. Bechai, and the Targum in this place agree with jarchi in the same interpretation.  
Besides, it appears by practice, that the Priests received Tithes as well as the Levites, so much doth Chimki intimate on Malach. 3.10. And it is clear in Tobit 1.7. The first tenth part I gave to the Priests the sons of Aaron which ministered in jerusalem. Which well agreeth with the testimony of josephus, Antiquit. lib. 4. cap. 4. where he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He commanded the people to pay the tenth of their yearly increase unto the Levites and the Priests. And this is plainly confirmed & taught by the Apostle, Heb. 7.5. For verily they which are the children of Levi, which receive the office of the Priesthood, have a commandment to take according to the Law tithes of the people, etc. Which Text by Lyra (who was skilful in the ancient affairs of the jews) is explained thus: Levitae generaliter recipiebant decimas à reliquo populo; Inter Levitas autem illi qui erant maiores illius tribus, videlicet sacerdotes summi filij Aaron, non solùm accipiebant decimam cum Levitis à populo, sed etiam de parte Levitarum recipiebant quae vocabatur decima decimae, Numb. 18. And therefore by all this it is very evident, that the Priests received Tithes of the people, and not only the inferior Levites, as the History teacheth.    

SECT. 5.  
AFter the Historians discourse concerning the division of Tithes among the jews, he propounds an example borrowed from Scaliger, whereby the order of the payment of the first fruits and heave offerings, and the first tithe, and the second tithe, may better appear; and then having summed up his account, he concludes that the husbandman yearly thus paid more than a sixth part of his increase; beside first fruits, almost a fift. But here notwithstanding these which are rehearsed, there are some other things left out, which should also by right be taken into the reckoning; for beside the first fruits and Therumahs, and first and second tithe, there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 19.9. & Deut. 24.19.20. the corner of the field, the gleaning, & the forgotten sheaf, which were taken out of the fruits of the husbandman: and though they were exempted from tithing, yet not only the poor, but also the Levites had a share in them; for so saith jarchi on Deut. 14.27. And the Levite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake, for he hath neither part nor inheritance with thee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. They shall have no part with thee, except gleaning, that which is forgotten, and the corner of the field; & that which is common; for he also hath a part with thee in these, as well as thou, and they are not subject to tithing. Moses Ben Maimon doth likewise confirm this in his Commentary on Massech Therumoth, cap. 1. fol. 48. David de pomis in his Dictionary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where he briefly showeth the order of tithing among the jews, doth there particularly express these things in the first place: & concerning the standing corn which was to be left at the end or corner of the field; which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (whereof there is a special Massecheth or Tractate in the Talmud) he saith that it hath no quantity prescribed in the Law, but according to the appointment of their Doctor's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sixtieth part was required. But Baal Haturim on Levit. 19.9. saith, that they were to leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fourtieth part. And in Massech Peah cap. 1. fol. 2. they say it was to be given proportionably according to the number of the poor, and the quantity of the field. To these we may also add the 24. gifts of the Priesthood, omitted in this History; but often mentioned by the jews, as we shall after hear; which being considered and valued together with the rest, that which the husbandman paid out of his fruits, will amount to a greater fumme than what the History speaks of.  
And if it was not thought too much to give all this beside Tithes in the time of the Law, why shall it be thought too much to give only Tithes in the time of the Gospel? unless we think it fitting that the spiritual sons of the Church should live in all plenty, and the spiritual Fathers go a begging: not considering what the Apostle saith Galat. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the word, make him that taught him, partaker of all his goods.  
And that we may yet further see in what manner the Priests in the Law were partakers of the people's goods, I will here relate one thing more, that R. Bechai hath on Numb. 18.14. in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Our Doctors of happy memory, in their discourses propound an example of a certain woman that had a sheep, which when she went to shear, the Priest came to her, that she should give him the first of the fleece, Deut. 18.4. And when she brought forth the firstborn the Priest took that, Numb. 18.15. Now she seeing the case stand thus, killed it: then came the Priest, and took the gifts, Deut. 18.3. Afterward she said, this flesh shall be a thing separate from the common use, than he took all, Numb. 18.14.  
In the beginning of this second Chapter of the History, the Author in his dichotomy saith, that the yearly increase is either fruits of the ground, or cattles: I have already spoken so much as I intended of the first, and should now come to the other; but before I enter upon that, considering that among other texts of holy Scripture, wrested & misinterpreted in this treatise, we meet here with a cross exposition of that text, Levit. 27.30. cited in pag. 13. of this Chapter: I think it not amiss in a word or two to try the soundness of it; the rather because this Scripture hath usually been alleged by judicious and learned Divines, as a principal ground for the establishing of the divine right in tithes. But the Historian intending here (as it seems) to deprive us of the benefit of this text, and the true sense thereof, doth therefore slyly bring it in by way of a Parenthesis, and says that the jews apply it to the second Tithe, which Tithe was merely levitical, & is finished, and so by consequent he doth insinuate, that all have erred who have otherwise interpreted or understood this text: and therefore no hope here any longer of any hold or warrant for the Tithes we challenge: But for answer to this, though the jews be oftentimes idle and ridiculous in their interpretations, and being enemies to Christianity, give us cause to trust them no further than we see them; yet to let these exceptions pass, first I avouch, that the chiefest and best learned of the jews, do not expound this text to be meant of the second tithe; and because the jews in general are here named, and yet none but one only is cited, therefore that the truth may the better appear, I will oppose one of greater authority against him; Aben Ezra a jew, (often heretofore mentioned) and one of special credit among them, and therefore usually styled with an epithet, Aben Ezra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aben Ezra the wise man, he is plain of an other opinion touching this Text; his words are these on Levit. 27.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that hath an heart to understand the secret of the world, shall also know the secret of the firstborn, and the tenth: And behold Abraham gave tithe, and foe also our father jacob, and I will further reveal part of the mystery when I speak of the second tithe, by the help of him that is first, or one, and hath no second.  
1 By which words it is evident first that he speaking of Abraham and jacobs' tithing, taketh such Tithes to be meant here as Abraham & jacob paid before the Law.  
2ly Whereas he saith, he will reveal part of the mystery, when he comes to speak of the second Tithe, he doth manifestly acknowledge, that this place is not meant of the second Tithe; & therefore when he comes to the proper place thereof in his Commentary upon Deut. 14.23. he doth there perform that which he did here promise. His mystical reason there expressed, is taken from the perfection of number, which I have touched before, and the drift of his speech tendeth to signify in effect, that as God is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last; so the beginning and the end, the prime and the perfection, the first and the tenth must be consecrate to him. And in this respect Philo judaeus saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. de congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia. pag. 342. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is some nearness (as it were) and affinity between God and the tenth. And to like purpose writes Abarbinel on this Text of Leviticus. But I let pass these curious speculations and subtleties about number, ne fortè cùm de numero multum loquamur, mensuram & pondus negligere iudicemur: as St Austin speaks in the like case, the civet. Dei lib. 11. cap. 31. neither do I intent to dispute the question, but only to free the Text from false interpretation, and therefore I have here produced this Rabbins Testimony, a jew against a jew, a better against a worse▪  
I might likewise here allege the authority of Lyra and others, that in this agree with Aben Ezra, and among the rest Abarbinel is very plain, that both first and second Tithe is comprehended in this Text, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of the corn of the ground, that is, the first tithe, and the second tithe: and he adds also a reason, to show that these are holy to the Lord, as arising from his providence. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and his blessing of the increase of the earth, which hath reference aswell to the first, as to the second tithe.  
But I come now to hear the adverse party, and to consider briefly the form and reason of his testimony, Levit. 27.30. All the Tithe of the land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees is the Lords, it is holy to the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture speaks of the second Tithe, saith Salomoh jarchi in this place. It is the sentence & rule of Hilary, (observed by that Reverend Father of the Church, whose learned labour for the clearing of the truth in the question of tithes, hath now long been extant) That he who readeth Scripture as he ought, must not bring a sense to the words, but fetch the sense from the words, and not compel the Scripture to speak as he in prejudice conceiveth. But R. jarchi goes directly against this rule; for he having a prejudicial conceit that this Text must be interpreted of the second Tithe, he therefore restrains all the particulars therein contained, to his own purpose. And because in Deut. 14.23. the place of the second Tithe, it is said, Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the Tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, & of thine oil: therefore from thence he expounds these in Levit. 27.30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Of the seed of the ground, that is, corn; of the fruit of the trees, that is, wine and oil. As though there were no seed of the ground but corn, and no fruit of the trees but wine and oil; what is this else but contrary to the former rule, to bring a sense to the words, and not to take a sense from the words? Again, to restrain this Text only to the second Tithe, is without any sufficient warrant, considering that not only the second, but also the first tithe is the Lords, and holy to the Lord, as Abarbinel here saith, because it proceeds from his blessing of the earth as a reserved portion to himself. That it is the Lords, appeareth Numb. 18 21. For behold I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance; He gives that here which in a peculiar manner was his own to give. And therefore well saith Calvin touching this on Levit. 27.30. His verbis ostendit Deus se decimas Levitis assignando, proprio iure cedere, quae sunt quasi regale vectigal, atque ita querimonias omnes compescit, quia alioqui obstrepere poterant aliae tribus ultra modum se gravari. And that the first tithe is the Lords, jarchi himself evidently showeth on Malach. 3.8. Wherein have we spoiled thee? In tithes and offerings: where saith jarchi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The tithes and offerings which ye take from the Priests and Levites, that is the spoiling of me. Which words are meant not of the second, but of the first tithe, which only belonged to the Priests & Levites, and in defrauding them hereof, God himself is said to be spoilt. And so in Esay 5.8. Woe to them that join house to house, etc. jarchi hath the like saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Ye rob God of his part in tithes. Beside, as the first tithe is the Lords, so also it is holy to the Lord, Deut. 26.13. I have brought the hallowed thing out of my house, and also have given it to the Levites, etc. The Targum here saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I have brought the holy Tithe out of my house, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And also have given it to the Levites, that is, the first Tithe (saith jarchi) & so he doth here interpret the words in ver. 12. of the Levites Tithe, or first Tithe. And this is likewise confirmed by Aben Ezra on Numb. 18.29: and again by jarchi on Nehem. 12.47. And they gave the holy things unto the Levites; which jarchi thus expoundeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And they gave the Tithe to the Levites: whereby he implieth, that the first Tithe, or Levites Tithe, is holy. And to conclude, if that be true which the Historian saith; of the increase of their cattles, one Tithe only was paid, and that to the Levites; than it followeth that the first tithe, or Levites tithe, is holy to the Lord; for it is said Levit. 27.32. Every tithe of Bullock, and of Sheep of all that goeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. If then the first tithe be the Lords, and holy to the Lord, why shall it be excluded out of this text? And if this verse be understood of the first tithe, as the History teacheth, why shall not also the verses immediately going before, be understood in like manner of the first tithe? To this that hath been said, one thing more may be added, that whereas jarchi touching the redeeming of the tithe, by adding the first part thereto, as in Leuit. 27.31. saith, that this redeeming was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it may be free to be eaten in every place. First the adding of the first part is not prescribed at all in that text, which they make to be the ground of the second tithe, viz: Deut. 14.23. Neither was the second tithe to be eaten in all places, for that was proper only to the first tithe, as Deut. 18.31. In regard whereof Ramban confutes jarchi his exposition of those words in Deut. 26.4. nor given aught thereof for the dead, etc. to be meant of the second tithe, & therefore hath this gloss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. To make a coffin and winding sheet for the dead. Ramban here shows that this exposition is not sound, for saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. It is declared in the Scripture, that they might not profane the second tithe out of jerusalem, but only, if the way were too fare, it was to be made in money, and that money to be laid out at jerusalem for some thing fit to be eaten there, ox and sheep, etc. Deut. 14 26. and therefore not to make a coffin or winding sheet for the dead: and so much doth Chimki also note on Esay 62.9.  
But for this redeeming of the Tithe, by adding the fift part thereto, I take that to be agreeable to the truth, which the judicious interpreter Caluin touching this point, hath delivered on Levit. 27, 30. in these words,  
Quòd verò ubi pecunia redimuntur decimae, quintam partem aestimationi vult superaddi, non eò tendit, ut Levitae ex alieno damno lucrum faciant, sed quia astutè aliquam utilitatem captabant agrorum domini, frumentum in pecuniam mutando, fraudibus occurritur, ne quid ex captiosâ permutatione Levitis decedat. Eadem ratione animalia iubet qualiacunque erunt decimari, nec pecuniâ redimi patitur, quoniam si libera fuisset electio, nullum unquam animal pingue aut vegetum venisset ad Levitas. Ergo hâc lege remedium avaritiae & sordibus fuit adhibitum.  
Where we see also that Calvin doth manifestly interpret this Text of the first Tithe, or Levites tithe, as the most or best interpreters do, so that here we have both jews and Christians against the foresaid History. Wherefore though we lose the Tithes, yet let us not lose the Text, let us not lose the Truth; for if this dealing with Scripture may currently pass, Abraham paid Tithe of all; that is, only of the spoils: All the Tithe of the land is the Lords; that is, only the second Tithe: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the year of tithing, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Tithe, or the year of paying only one Tithe: I say, if this course may be allowed, as Tithes are made no Tithes by wicked customs and prescriptions, so Scripture shall be made no Scripture by corrupt glosses, and false expositions: and yet these matters are set forth with such a goodly outward show, as though forsooth they might admit no contradiction; for thus saith the Author,  
Many of no small name grossly slip in reckoning and dividing these kinds of their Tithes, but this here delivered, is from the holy Text, and the jewish Lawyers. What we receive rightly deduced from the Text we willingly embrace, but as for the jewi h Lawyers they jar among themselves, they trust not one another, and therefore we have no reason to trust them, or depend upon their testimony; but to follow the Apostles rule, 1 Thessal. 5.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Try all things, and keep that which is good. But because we stand so much upon the jewish Lawyers, I would fain know how they and the Christian Lawyer can be reconciled in that which is delivered in the next Section concerning Cattles, which is the second part of his division, and is thus expressed.   

SECT. 6.  
OF their  the firstborn were the 
a Exod. 13.2.  Lords, paid to the Priest, of clean beasts in kind; of unclean in money, with a fift part added Of the increase of them one Tithe only was paid, & that to the Levites: Every Tithe of Bullocke, and of sheep of all that goeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord, saith holy 
b Levit. 27.26. & 32  Writ.  
Thence at the tithing they used to shut the Lambs (for example) in a sheep-coat, where the straightness of the door might permit but one at once to come out: Then opening the door, either gently to hunt them out, or by placing the Ewes bleating near them without, so to cause them run forth one by one, while a servant standing at the door with a rod coloured with ochre, solemnly told to the tenth, which with his rod he marked, so they understand going under the rod.  
That so marked, what ever it were, male, or female, worst, or best, was the Tithe, and might not be changed.  
First here to omit what maybe objected touching the firstborn of clean beasts from Deut. 14.23: whereas he saith, that the first of those that were unclean were paid to the Priest in money, with a fift part added, though he pretend Text of Scripture, and stand much upon the jewish Lawyers; yet I take it, this cannot be justified either by any text of Scripture, or by any jewish Lawyer: First, for Scripture it is plain, that the first foal of the Ass, which was an unclean beast, was not to be paid to the Priest in money, but was to be redeemed with a Lamb, Exod. 13.13. & 34.20. Again the jews teach, that no firstborn of any unclean beast was paid at all, but only of the Ass: Even Salomoh jarchi his own man avoucheth this in his Commentary upon the Texts before cited, Exod. 13.13. & 34.20. And every firstborn of an Ass thou shalt redeem with a Lamb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The first of the Ass, but not the first of any other unclean beast. To this also agreeth Aben Ezra and Chaskuni writing on the same Texts, and so doth Abarbinel on Levit. 27.27.  
Rabbi joseph Karo in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. tractate of the firstling of the ass, hath these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. The firstborn of the unclean beast was in use in all places, and at all times, but it was not in use save only of Asses, which were to be redeemed with a Lamb. R. Bechai on Exod. 13.13. testifieth the same thing, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. And every first foal of an Ass, only the Ass, and not the first of horses or camels. And the reason hereof (saith he) as their Doctors teach, is, because the Egyptians are compared to Asses, as it is said Ezech. 23. 2●. Whose flesh is as the flesh of Asses. And again, because the Israelites brought up many Asses with them loaden with gold and silver, and the Treasures of Egypt. And therefore it is commanded that the first of the Ass should be redeemed, and not of other beasts, because the slaying of the firstborn, was the firstborn of the Egyptians.  
R. Moses Ben Maimon in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth, i. the Treatise of the firstborn, confirms this there, in his exposition of the Mishuaioth cap. 1. saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is said to Aaron: And the firstborn of the unclean beast shalt thou redeem; he meaneth the firstborn of the Ass, because he took not the first of any unclean beast, but only the Ass. Where we see that Maimon expounds that place, concerning the unclean beast, Numb. 18.15. to be understood only of the ass. And as for that we read in Levit. 27.27. which is spoken of the dedication of  beasts, it is not meant of the firstborn, for that was the Lords already, as ver. 26. But of such beasts as were unclean, and had blemishes, & were unfit for sacrifice, and therefore were given as a vow or dedication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the repairing of the Temple, and not paid as a duty to the Priest, as the firstborn was; for so doth jarchi and Ramban, and other jews expound that Text.  
Where then, or how shall it be proved that the firstborn of unclean beasts were paid to the Priest in money, with a fift part added? In the next words he saith,  
Of the increase of them (that is) of their cattles, one Tithe only was paid, and that to the Levites.  
Here I will not in his own Phrase proclaim that a man of no small name doth grossly slip; but I dare boldly say in plain English, that he hath delivered in these words a gross falsehood according to the doctrine and practice of the jews, which he takes upon him to relate: For they do not teach that only one Tithe of their cattles was paid, or that it was paid either unto the Levites, or Priests at all; but contrary, That it was of the nature of the peace offerings, and to be eaten by the owners themselues at jerusalem.  
And for proof hereof, before I go any further, I appeal first to his own witness, Salomoh jarchi upon this very Text cited by himself, viz. Levit. 27.32. And every Tithe of Bullocke and of sheep of all that goeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord. Which jarchi thus interpreteth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Shall be holy to offer the blood and combustible parts thereof upon the altar, and the flesh shall be eaten by the owners: for behold it is not reckoned among the gifts of the Priesthood, neither do we find that it should be given to the Priests.  
It seems strange that the Historian should so confidently allege the testimony of this rabbin against us in ver. 30. of this Chap, applying that Text to be meant only of the second Tithe; and here on this ver. 32. the next but one after, either not to read him, or not to understand him, or not to respect him, when as he writes so direct against this History And yet I will spare to impute this to ignorance or lazines, or impudent boldness, or the like; though he spare not without cause to lay load on others in this kind, not remembering that of the Poêt. Iliad. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But be it what it what it will, sure I am that beside jarchi his Testimony in this place, with whom R. Bechai and Abarbinel on the same Text concur in a manner word for word, both he and other Rabbins on diverse texts of Scripture; and also in the Talmud do plainly show against this History, that the Tithe of beasts is a distinct and several Tithe by itself, differing from the Priests and Levites Tithe, Deut. 12.6. Ye shall bring thither your  offerings, and your sacrifices, and your Tithes. Where jarchi expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Tithes, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of beasts, and the second Tithe to be eaten within the wall at jerusalem. And Rabbi Abuhab commenting upon jarchi in the same place, saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. jarchi speaks this, because that if he should interpret it, of the first Tithe, he was to give that unto the Levite. Where he makes a manifest difference betwixt the Levites Tithe, and the Tithe of beasts; and and so doth Ramban on the same Text at large: likewise on Amos 4.4. Come to bethel, and transgress to Gilgal, and multiply transgressions, and bring your sacrifices in the morning, and your Tithes after three years. It is in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And your Tithes after three days. The jews therefore give a double exposition of these words, either that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify years, as sometimes it is taken in Scripture, as Levit. 25.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within a year may he redeem it: and so this Text of Amos hath reference to that in Deut. 14.28. At the end of three year th' u shalt bring forth all the Tithes, etc. Or else it is taken in his proper signification for days; and in this sense they understand here by Tithes, the Tithe of beasts, which Idolaters did offer contrary to the Law; for so are jarchi his words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Law saith concerning the less holy things, Levit. 7.18. & 19.6.7. It shall be eaten the day ye offer it, or on the morrow, but idolaters say, after three days eat the Tithe of your cattles, or else the idolatrous Priests teach them so; as he further showeth in this place, etc. In like manner David Chimki on the same Text, accordeth with jarchi in this interpretation, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. After three days your Tithes: i. The Tithe of beasts, which is of the less holy things; and the Law saith concerning the less holy things; It shall be eaten the day ye offer it, or on the morrow: but they eat it after three days.  
For the better clearing of these testimonies, we must here note by the way, that the jews make two sorts of holy things, the one they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most holy: the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the less holy. jarchi grounds this distinction on Levit. 21.22. The bread of his God, even of the most holy, and of the holy shall he eat. The same distinction is commonly used by other Rabbins, as Aben Ezra on Numb. 18.9. And by Ramban on Levit. 19.5. and Baal Haturim on Deut. 12.11. & so also in the Talmud as in Massecheth Gnorlah, cap. 2. fol. 81. and Chiduschin cap. 2. fol. 52. etc. The most holy things were such as only the Priests were to eat of, as jarchi showeth on Numb. 18.10. and so Aben Ezra on Deut. 12.27. The less holy the people also might eat, as Aben Ezra signifies on Levit. 7.15. and Deut. 12.27. and jarchi on Levit. 10, 14. Among the first sort of these holy things they number the meat offering, the trespass offering, the sin offering, the firstborn, the shoulder, the breast, etc. as appears by Aben Ezra on Numb. 18.9. and Deut. 12.27. Among the second they reckon the peace-offerings, Levit. 7.15. So doth Aben Ezra on this Text: and Ramban likewise testifieth the same thing on Levit. 19.5. And when ye shall offer a peace-offering unto the Lord, ye shall offer it freely: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He speaks this of the peace-offrings which were the less holy things, and were to be eaten by the owners themselves, etc. And to this second sort of holy things, the jews likewise do refer the Tithe of Cattles, as is evident by jarchi and Chimki, and others in the places before cited. And Ramban further confirms it on Numb. 5.10. And every man's hallowed things shall be his, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture draws all holy things, & gives them to the Priests, & doth not reserve of them but only the offering of thanksgiving, & the peace-offrings, & the Passeover, & the tithe of beasts, & the 2d Tithe, & the planting of the 4th year, that they should belong to the owners. David de pomis in his dictionary in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 showing the diverse kinds of sacrifices among the jews, doth in all things agree with us, in this that hath been said concerning the Tithe of beasts, and so doth Moses Ben Maimon in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth, cap. 9 fol. 25. Mishneh in Megnashar Seni cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. We have heretofore oftentimes mentioned that for the Tithe of beasts they offer the fat and the blood thereof, and the owners do eat it in jerusalem: that is, do eat the flesh thereof, as jarchi before expressed: Now the reason why the jews do after this manner conceive and teach concerding this Tithe, is related both by R. Bechai, and also by jarchi on Levit. 27.33. to be, because (say they) it is not reckoned among the 24 gifts of the Priesthood (for that is the number that they make of them) according as I find them set down both by R. Bechai, and R. Chaskoni on Numb. 18. in this order. So jarchi on Gen. 29.34. and in the Talmud in Massech Cholin 133. fol. 2 pag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The twenty four gifts of the Priesthood were given to the Priests, twelve in jerusalem, and twelve in the borders. The twelve that were given in jerusalem are these, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offerings of the Congregation, the skins of the holy things, the show bread, the two loaves, the Omer or sheaf, the remainder of the meat offerings, the residue of the log, or pint of oil, for the leper, the oblation of the thanksgiving, the oblation of the peace offering, the oblation of the Ram of the Nazarite. And these following are the twelve that were given in the borders. The great heave offering, the heave offering or oblation of the tithe, the cake, the first fruits, the first of the fleece, the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, the first borne of man, the first borne of the clean beast, the firstling of the ass, the dedications or vows, the field of possession, the robbery of the stranger, Levit. 6.5. Numb. 5.7.8. These are the four and twenty gifts that belonged to the Priesthood.  
And among these there is no mention of the firstborn of any unclean beast, but only the Ass, and no mention at all of the tithe of cattles. What soundness there is in this their doctrine and interpretation of Scriptures, I leave that to others, but what their opinion is touching the point here propounded, their writings (as hath been showed) do sufficiently declare. And therefore by all this it is very manifest, that our Historian hath set down a false relation of the Tithe of cattles, as it was in use among the jews.  
And whereas he goeth on in his History for the manner of tithing their cattles, and tells us a tale of the straitness of a door for Lambs to go through, & the Ewes bleating near them without, and a servant standing with a rod coloured with ochre to mark the tenth, etc. Albeit happily some such custom might at some times be observed in certain places among the jews of later ages, & that not only for Lambs, but a so for calves, as jarchi there notes: yet to make the Text Levit. 27.32. to be the ground and warrant of this practice; or that Moses intended hereby to teach them that particular manner of marking the tenth, I think it carries but small show of probability; for though the Historian say, So they understand going under the rod: Yet certain it is, that the chiefest and best learned of the jews do not so understand it. Aben Ezra expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under the rod, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The shepherd or herdsman's rod; which was not a rod coloured with ochre, but such a one as David in Psal. 23.4. alludes unto, where comparing God to a shepherd, and himself to a sheep, he saith ver. 4. thy rod & thy staff they comfort me. On which words Chimki hath this gloss; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. For the shepherd feeds his sheep with the rod which he hath in his hand, and leans upon it when he standeth. And it seems also that he numbered his sheep with it, as Chimki on jer. 33.13. and Baal Haturim on Numb. 1.2. doth intimate. And this is more fully explained in Ezech 20.37. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, &c: The same phrase is here used with that in Levit. 27.32. as Chimki doth observe, interpreting the words of the Text in this manner: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. I will cause you to pass under the rod, according as it is said, of all that goeth under the rod, Levit 27. that is to say, as he that telletth his sheep holds a rod in his hand, & telleth them one by one, & the tenth brings out for the Tithe, so will I number you, & the sinner shall perish, etc. Where it is evident that R. Chimki explains that Text of Levit. by this of Ezech. & this also by that, but makes no mention of any such rod coloured with ochre, as the History speaks of, either there to mark beasts, or here to mark men; neither doth the Text imply any such consequence. And indeed in the Talmud in Massecheth Becoroth cap. 9 where this is first spoken of, the jews do not teach, that they did mark the tenth with a rod coloured with ochre, but they numbered not only their sheep, but also other cattles with a rod one by one till they came to the tenth, and the tenth that came forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they marked with a red colour; for so doth Maimon in that place, and David de pomis in his Dictionary expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. a known name of a red colour: yet so that this was no such constant custom, but that it might be & was also changed. And therefore in some cases (as there they do declare) they did neither tell or mark the tenth in this manner, but took indifferently as might be, ten out of an hundred, and tithed also by guess and conjecture, and therefore there they writ thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Tithe of beasts is annexed to the Tithe of corn, whereas therefore the tithe of corn is taken by guess and conjecture, so also the tithe of beasts is taken by guess and conjecture. Now what this guess & conjecture is, they do also there explain in the Commentary upon the Talmud in these terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Whereas the Tithe of corn is one part of ten, so also the Tithe of beasts is one often, without going under the rod, but only that ten are before him, and he takes one of them: More may be alleged from the same pla e to this purpose, but it being a point of small moment, this which hath been said already, may be sufficient. It may be the favourers of tbis History will esteem these to be but slight objections, propounded only by a polyanthean predicant against the learned and peremptory conclusions of a grand polymathist and predominant Philologer: And yet as sleight as they are, they cut in pieces the one half of his jewish History. For his Dichotomy is, that the yearly increase is either fruits of the ground, or ca tell, having done with the fruits of the ground so far forth as Scaliger gave him direction, he comes in the next place to tithe of cattles; & here Scaliger leaves him; and therefore he writes at random on his own head, contrary to the writings of all the jews; and for the usual manner of the tithing of their cattles he tells us scarce a word of truth. And yet forsooth in his Preface pag. 6. he professeth that to supply the want of a full and faithful collection of the historical part, was the end and purpose why this was composed, which might remain as a furnished armoury for such as inquire about this Ecclesiastical revenue.  
See now what a faithful collection, and what a furnished armoury he hath here left us. If any object, that this practice of the jews in tithing their cattles, may be questioned as not agreeable to precept and rules of Scripture; for this I answer, that so the greatest part of this History may in that regard justly be suspected. But the question is not now what is agreeable or disagreeable to Scriptu e; but what was in truth the practice and manner of the jewish tithing; for that is it the Historian undertakes to teach us: and if ye ask, where shall this be found, or how shall it appear? he tells us in his Review, pag. 453. that what the jewish Lawyers and Doctors in the Talmud and later Comments have delivered, are testimonies beyond exception for the practice or historical part;: And if they be so, than I am sure the jewish Lawyers do herein put the Christian Lawyer to his geofayle beyond all exception; for they manifestly cross and contradict this that he hath taught us, as hath been before demonstrated. Notwithstanding if we leave the jewish Writers, and follow the rule of the holy Scriptures, I take it to be an undoubted truth, that the Tithe of cattles was to be paid to the Levite, which though it be not plain in that Text which is quoted, Levit. 27.32. yet add rhereunto Numb. 18.21. and then it is fully cleared, But consider yet a little further what our Author hath delivered in this 5 Section of his 2. Chap. concerning cattles and the firstborn thereof, and the manner of tithing them, together with the rod to mark them, and then judge if he hath not here brought his own Rabbi jarchi with a rod to jerk himself; for here is a Tithe that jarchi and the rest of the jews do show the Historian hath foully mistaken, and it is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first or second Tithe. And therefore that division of his which he makes the ground of his discourse, and labours so much to justify, though he account it to be the best, will in conclusion prove stark naught; for this Tithe of cattles can not be reduced either to the first or second Tithe: not the first, for that was given to the Levites, and was by the jews esteemed to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for common use or profane, as Ramban saith on Deut. 14. and might be eaten in any place, Numb. 18.31. But this (say the jews) was not given either to Priest or Levite, but was always accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy, and might be eaten nowhere but at jerusalem, as hath been proved before, both by jarchi and Bechai on Levit. 27. and other of the jews.  
Again, it is not the second Tithe, for that was Deut. 14.23: the Tithe of corn, wine and oil, and not the Tithe of beasts, that also might be changed into money if the way were long, and the place of God's worship far off, Deut. 14.24.25. But the Tithe of beasts might not be changed, Levit. 27.33. And if they bought cattles, ox, or sheep, with the money to be eaten at jerusalem, Deut. 14.26. yet that was not the tenth, nor to be accounted the Tithe of the cattles, but still the second Tithe; and therefore the jews do ordinarily distinguish them in their writings, calling the one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the tithe of beasts; and the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second tithe. So that if there were no other exception to be taken against his best division, but only this, this were sufficient to prove it naught, and therefore also by consequent a great part of his jewish treatise that stands upon this rotten foundation, can not be found.  
But if this will not serve the turn to discover the weakness of the History, beside the former Tithe mistaken, there is yet an other Tithe among the jews, that the compiler of the History hath neve so much as once spoken of, and it comes not within the compass of his division of first and second tithe, neither was it for the Priest or Levite, or for the feasts, or for the poor, but of an other quality differing from these, & that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the king's Tithe. Baal Haturim on Deut. ●8. 1. speaking of the cohaerence betwixt this and the precedent Chap. that treateth of the King, hath there these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Priests of the Levites shall have no part, etc. this Chapter is annexed to the Chapter of the king, because the king he is anointed by the high Priest, and he prefers the king in the first place, because he is greater than the other, etc. And again whereas the Priest & Levite do take Tithe, so also shall the king, he shall take the tenth of your sheep, as 1. Samuel 8.17. Whether this manner of collection be warrantable from the Text, or not, I stand not to examine; it sufficeth to show here by this authority, what was the judgement of the jews touching the king's tithe, viz: that he might take a tenth as well as the Priest or Levite, but yet could not take the Priest's or Leuite's Tithe, for the right of the one in taking Tithes, did not abridge the right of the other: And rhis point is judiciously ohserued by that worthy religious Knight Sr james Sempill, in his Book of Sacrilege for the Gospel, chap. 8. sect. 3. And so much also is employed in this testimony, & in other writings of the jews, answerable hereunto. For albeit Calvin on Numb. 18, 20. doth say, vetustissimum fuisse morem, ut reges decimarent colligitur ex 1 Sam. 8.15. that it is collected from the 1 Samuel 8. that it was a most ancient custom that kings should take Tithe; yet whether that Scripture doth describe a just king or a tyrant, the jews teach, that the tithe there spoken of, is not the Levites Tithe, but an other Tithe after the Levites Tithe; for so are the express words of Chimki on that Text, 1 Samuel 8.15. & he will take the tenth of your seed, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He shall take the tithe of the fields & vineyards, or of the fruits after the tithe of the Levites: It is true indeed that there is a controversy among the Rabbins (as Chimki here notes) concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius regni, the right of the kingdom in the things here mentioned: Rabbi judah saith, that this Text is written only to terrify them, and discourage them from their enterprise in choosing a king: and so is Ralbag his opinion in that place. Rabbi josi saith, that whatsoever is spoken in this chapter of the king, the king hath power and right therein, and so say others also, as appears in the Talmud Sanhedrim cap. 2. fol. 20. where they discuss this matter at large. And hence it is that they expound the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver. 11. translated the manner of the king, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ius, the right of the king, or the king's due, according as the same word is used in Deut. 18.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the Priest's duty from the people: and the Child Paraphrase of jonathan accords with it: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the king's Law. And as touching that in ver. 14. He will take your fields and your vineyards, &c: Chimki further there declareth, that their Doctors teach, that he might not take the fields and vineyards themselves, but the fruits, if his servants stood in need of them, when they went to war. And the reason hereof is, (saith he) because it is not said, he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best olive-yards to himself, but he will give them to his servants, that is, to his warriors that are with him; for otherwise all are his servants. Not that he might take to himself the body of the fields and vineyards; for if so, then Ahab might have taken Naboth's vineyard by the right of the kingdom, and jesebel had not needed to have used all those lewd practices, and the shedding of innocent blood. Thus fare Chimki in this place.  
And writing again of the same subject, 1 Kings 21. he confirms his former exposition, and adds an other reason, why the text is to be understood, not of the fields themselves▪ but of the fruits, saying; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And an other reason is for that he saith; Your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards; but doth not say, your houses, to signify that he speaks of the fruits, and not of the body or substance of the ground. But as for the tithe, according to the opinion of their Doctors, his words are evident on 1 Samuel 8.14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. But the tithe of increase, and of the fruits, and of the sheep, that is his due at all times, whensoever he pleaseth; for even Solomon the king of Israel took it. So that by these authorities it is apparent, the jews held, that the King had a right to take tithe, and that this was different from the Priests and Levites tithe, which point our Historian hath altogether concealed; and yet here is a more ancient and better right of tithing ascribed to the King, then that which he records, pag. 13. to be derived from the Pope.  
Wherefore considering the manifold defects, and falsehood of this History, me thinks, these speeches might very well have been spared, whereby he pretends, that no Christian before himself, ever taught what was considerable in the general payment of tithe among the jews, no not Scaliger though he undertook it, and others without his help, slothfully and ignorantly talk of a third tithe, and a fourth tithe, and indeed they know not what tithe, etc.  
What needed all this, except he had either manifestly confuted those that have heretofore written of this argument, (which he can never do) or had made a better division, or Treatise of tithes, than they, which as yet he hath not done, seeing that in this History first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the poor man's tithe, which Aben Ezra, and others on Deut. 14. call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third tithe, is absurdly confounded with the second, the tithe of Cattles, contrary to the tradition of the jews grossly mistaken, and the King's tithe either slothfully, or ignorantly omitted. Insomuch that the great Doctors of the jews, and their later Comments, (which he saith are testimonies beyond exception for the practice or Historical part) being truly examined, do plainly testify against him, that what he hath written of their manner of tithing, hath been rightly heretofore termed Historia fallax, a false and imperfect History. Indeed I must confess, that whether we respect the beginning, middle, or end of the book, (besides what he owes to Scaliger) it is for two things very considerable;  
The first is assentation in pleasing the multitude that are loath to pay tithes: 2 The other is ostentation in pleasing himself with his own praise: In both which respects, this work is so sufficiently performed, as that, I think, there needs nothing more to be added; or if there be, I make no doubt but it shall be answered.  
This short Treatise touching the tithe of cattles among the jews, having some years passed been perused by diverse Readers, was at length returned again into my hands, together with a censure thereof, written by an uncertain author, which though it nothing favour this Work, but rather hindered the publishing of it, which at that time was by some expected; yet because it may give some light for the better manifestation of the truth, I have thought good to insert it in this place. The tenor thereof is this.  

There be two main points in controversy between the Author and Mr Selden.  
1 WHether the firstborn of other unclean cattles, aswell as of Asses, were not to be redeemed by paying a Lamb unto the Priest?  
It is true, the Scripture nameth only the ass, Exod. 13.13. & 34.20. because those were most common in that country: but I take it, that uncler that one he comprehendeth by a Synecdoche all other beasts unclean for sacrifice; whereunto I am led both by the tenth commandment, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his ox, nor his ass; where under the ass, all other of that kind are comprehended; and by that which is written in Numb. 18.15. The firstborn of the unclean beast thou shalt redeem▪ which is general, and not, as some Hebrew Writers do, to be restrained to the ass only. Also Levit. 27.27. doth strongly confirm it, if it be of any unclean beast, he shall redeem it, and give the fift part more thereunto; which to be meant of the firstborn, the verse going before doth evince, howsoever jarchi and Ramban, and other jews expound that text.  
2 Whether the tithe were to be paid to the Levite of the increase of cattles.  
That tithe was to be paid of cattles to the Levite, the next seemeth plain, Levit. 27.32. of bullocks, and of sheep, the tenth shallbe holy to the Lord. Where those words, holy to the Lord, are not to be taken as the Rabbins would have it, of wholly to offer upon the altar, but holy in regard they were the Lord's portion, and by him bestowed upon the Levites, as is apparent by the 30th verse before.  
But touching that which is spoken of passing under the rod, I agree with the author, who well compareth these two texts, Levit. 27.32. and Ezech. 20.37. And the marking with a red oaker I hold to be but a rabbinical conceit.  
So as if the question be in these two points of the right of tithing, according to the rules and precepts of the Scripture, I hold the truth to be with Mr Selden: but if of the exposition of the Rabbins, it seemeth to be against him.  
Touching the King's tithe, which Mr Selden is taxed for not speaking of it, he may (as I think) be well excused; because howsoever you will judge of that kind of tithe, it was nothing pertinent to his purpose, who writeth only of Tithes due to the Church.  
In his Review pag. 456. he doth admonish those that argue for Tithes from the Mosaical Laws of tithing, to examine which of the two kinds are due, why not the second aswell as the first. And to consider how the payment of the Tithes, from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the payment from the Levites, to the sons of Aaron: and I think also, if something had not hindered, he would also have added, and how the payment of the tithe of cattles to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the none-payment of them to the Priests of the Law; but (saith he) these considerations can only be, where knowledge of fact precedes; belike than his knowledge of fact here failed him, and therefore he also failed us: and yet for all this, we give no more credit to the jews herein, than we do to his History: for though their writings manifest unto us this knowledge of fact, yet can they not prove this fact to be according to knowledge, or agreeable to truth and evidence of Scripture.  
1 For first, that the tithe of cattles should be holy, to be offered upon the altar as a peace-offering, and not to be given to the Priest in such sort as the jewish Rabbins teach, there is no text of Scripture to warrant it; neither do they allege any but only this of Levit. 27.32. which some of themselves confess, as Ramban on Deut. 14. that it doth not prescribe either to whom the tithe should be paid, or in what manner it should be employed; but only declareth, that it is holy to the Lord. Now then to appoint a sacrifice, or any thing to be done in the worship of God, of which, sacrifices were a part, without the will and Word of God, what is it else but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will-worship, so often condemned in Scripture. And whereas it was not lawful for any man, either to change or redeem the tithe of his cattles, how could it be lawful for him to eat it, as they did the peace-offerings, without special commandment from God, neither could all the flesh thereof be eaten by the owners, as the jews seem to affirm; for Deut. 18.3. the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw of every sacrifice, was due to the Priest (say the jews) as a reward of Phinees his zeal: the shoulder in respect of his hand, as it is said Numb. 25.7. he took a spear in his hand: the cheek with the tongue therein included in regard of his prayer, Psal. 106.30. then stood up Phinees, and prayed. The maw, with reference to that action of his, Numb. 25.8. he thrust them both thorough, to wit, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly; or as Aben Ezra hath it: the shoulder for his kill of the heave-offerings, the cheeks and the tongue for his blessing, and the maw for his searching of the suspect vice. Or as Ramban 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because these are the first, or chief and principal members, and therefore were given for the honour of the Almighty unto his Ministers.  
2 Furthermore, whereas in the wilderness, all beasts that were eaten, were offered for peace-offerings, Levit. 17. Ramban in the exposition of that Text, Deut. 12.20. saith; When the Lord your God shall enlarge your border, and ye shall not all abide about the tabernacle, as ye do at this day in the wilderness; then shall common flesh be permitted unto you▪ for it is impossible that ye should all go from places far distant, unto the place that God shall choose; and that ye should offer for peace-offrings whatsoever ye should eat.  
In like manner also may I say in this case, that it is impossible, at leastwyse improbable, that besides the multitude of other sacrifices, every tithe of bullock, and of sheep, and other cattles, should all from the furthest parts, yea from all the parts of Ganaan, be brought up to jerusalem, and be offered and eaten there by the husbandmen, as the Rabbins teach; especially when as the Lord himself, to prevent this and the like trouble and inconveniency, hath appointed for the second tithe, Deut. 14.25. that if the way were too long for them, and the place of God's worship far off, they might change it into money, and therewith buy things to be eaten at jerusalem, which was not granted for the tithe of cattles; for the Law commands, that that should not be changed.  
3 Again, the jews teach from Levit. 17.4. that whilst the Israelites were in the wilderness, (at which time also this precept was given concerning the tithe) all flesh was holy, and that they were neither to kill or eat any beast, but such as were offered for peace-offrings, till such time as they came into Canaan, where they had more liberty granted, Deut. 12.20. Why then should the Tithe at that time particularly be said to be holy to the Lord, in respect of sacrifice; when as other beasts, if not all, were in this regard holy, aswell as the tenth, unless some further matter were signified thereby.  
4 Moreover it is said concerning the tithe of cattles, Levit. 27.35. he shall not look if it be good, or bad, neither shall he change it. In the same sense as it is also said, ver. 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, nor a bad for a good; for why (saith Bechai on this place) the Law pointing at man's corruption, if it should permit him to change a good one for a bad one, he would in time also give a bad one instead of a good one, and say that it is a good one; and therefore (saith he) to prevent this fraud, the Law doth punish him, and saith, that if he change beast for beast, then both this and that which was changed for it shall be holy: and in this sense doth Calvin also understand this Text.  
Now this that is spoken of a good or bad one, jarchi doth interpret to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Such a beast as is either perfect, or hath a blemish. And certainly such a beast as hath a blemish, because it could not be changed, might happen to be the tenth, for so the Text presupposeth. But no beast having a blemish, might be offered for a peace-offering, Levit. 3. and so much also doth jarchi on this Text acknowledge. Therefore in this case it is plain, that the tenth of cattles could not be offered upon the Altar.  
I demand then, how was it to be disposed of? for here for this the jews are at strife among themselves. R. Bechai speaking to this point, of such beasts as were unfit for sacrifice, saith; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All such as these go not into the Coat to be tithed, because they are not fit for sacrifice. But this will not agree with the Text, that presupposeth the tenth beast may be good, or may be bad, that is, have a blemish, and so unfit for sacrifice. jarchi he saith thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That if it had a blemish it might not be offered, but was to be eaten according to the Law of the tithe. But what Law, or what tithe doth the rabbin here mean? not the tithe of the beast; for the Law was in their conceit, that that should be offered upon the Altar. Nor the second Tithe, for the Text itself is against it; for that might be changed, and turned into money, to be bestowed at jerusalem, if the journey were long, but the Tithe of beasts might not be changed. Neither can it be meant of the poor man's Tithe, for that was only the Tithe of the third year, and to be eaten in the gates in the Country, and not at jerusalem. It remains therefore that it was to be eaten according to the Law of the first Tithe, which was the Levites Tithe, and without any offering, might be eaten in any place, Numb. 18.31. and in this sense I have agreed with the rabbin. And questionless Aben-Ezra in his interpretation of the Text, is on our side against the common opinion of the jews; for whereas some of them interpret the 30 verse of the second tithe, which was to be eaten by the householder at jerusalem: and the 32 verse of the Tithe of beasts to be offered for a peace-offering, he here intends no such matter, but saith plainly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And behold he shall give the firstborn, and the tenth in cattles, and the seed of the ground which is the increase, the first fruits, and the tithe. And so also speaking of Iacob's vow, Gen. 28.22: saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. It is not in the Law, that a man should give the tithe of his sons, but the tithe of bullocks, and of sheep, and increase. In which places, he mentioning the Tithe of Cattles with the fruits of the earth, and confounding them here together, doth plainly imply, that he takes them to be holy all alike, and in the same manner to be given and disposed of. For when he saith, he shall give the firstborn and the tenth in Cattles, and seed of the ground, etc. to whom think we, in his judgement shall he give the tenth, but to the Priest, who also had the firstborn, and the first fruits here mentioned; for if we should expound the Text, as some of the jews do of the second Tithe, that was not given to any, but the owner took it himself, and did eat it at jerusalem, as he did also the Tithe of cattles after the offering of the blood, and combustible parts thereof. Again, the same Author writing upon this Text of Levit. saith further, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. i. And behold Abraham gave tithe, and also jacob our father, etc. To what end should he use these words, applying them to this Text, except he thought that such Tithes were here meant, as Abraham and jacob paid before the Law, and that they were also to be paid in such manner, as they formerly paid them, which was in those times to the Priest, as is plain in Abraham, Gen. 13. for he gave Melchisedek tithe of all, say the jews, because he was the Priest; so the gloss of jarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he was the Priest, as the gloss of the jews hath it; and so in this place of Levit. here is a declaration of God's right in tithes, that they are holy to him, and afterward in Numb. 18. he showeth, that he gives them generally to the Levites, under which name of Levites, the Priests are also comprehended. For we have formerly showed, that every Priest is a Levite, though every Levite be not a Priest.   

The Answer to the Censure.  
THe two main points in controversy between the Author and Mr Selden, are not rightly propounded for,  
I. The question is not whether the firstborn of other unclean cattles as well as of asses, were not to be redeemed by paying a Lamb unto the Priest; for Mr Selden in his History makes no mention at all of the Ass; but the question is, whether the firstborn of unclean beasts were paid to the Priest in money, with a fift part added: for this affirmatively is M. Selden's position, set down without any proof, against which the Author thus reasoneth.  
1 The firstborn of the Ass, which was an unclean beast, was not to be paid to the Priest in money, but was to be redeemed with a Lamb. Exod 15.13. & 34.20.  
2 The jews teach, that no firstborn of any unclean beast was paid at all, but only of the Ass, which is evidently proved by their testimonies at large:  
Whereas therefore the Moderator here between Mr Selden and the Author, holdeth, that under the name of the Ass are comprehended by a Synecdoche all other beasts, unclean for sacrifice, giving his reasons to confirm it; admit without any further examination, that this were true, it nothing helps Mr Selden, but more strongly opposeth his assertion: for if not only the firstborn of the Ass was to be redeemed with a Lamb, but also the first of all other unclean beasts, than was not the firstborn of unclean beasts paid to the Priest in money with a fift part added.  
II. The other question likewise is not so, as it is here by the Moderator expressed. viz. whether tithe were to be paid to the Levite of the increase of Cattles, But whether it were paid unto him in the jewish manner of tithing, not what is required in regard of precept, but what was performed in regard of practice: for this is that which the Historian professeth to teach by the very title of his book; calling it, the History of tithes, that is, the practice of payment of them. And so in this second chap. his inscription is in the beginning; How among the jews, tithes were paid, or thought due. Now it is evidently proved by such writings of the jews (as he himself saith) are testimonies beyond exception, for the practice or Historical part, that their practice for the tithing of Cattles, is contrary to that which he hath delivered.  
If it be said, that the expositions of the jews, and their practice here is not agreeable to Scripture, as the Moderator seems to determine; To this I answer; that the same thing likewise may be said of diverse other points taught in his History, and urged from the authority of the jews, concerning first fruits, Therumahs, and tithes, which cannot be justified by Scripture, as I have before declared.  
If therefore now, leaving his former hold, he will disclaim and forsake his Rabbins (for they here forsake him) and cleave only to the Scripture for the right of tithing, omitting the jewish practice▪ then I make no doubt but we shall quickly shake hands: for though the tithe of Cattles was not paid to the Levite according to the practice of the jews, yet I hold with the Moderator that it ought to be paid unto him, according to the precepts of the Scripture, and yet that text of Scripture, Levit. 27 32. which they allege, doth not prove it, neither is it apparent by the 30 verse, which Mr Selden for an other purpose in his History, pag. 13. following Scaliger and some of the jews, doth apply only to the second tithe, contrary to the judgement of this Moderator, and contrary also to the true meaning of the Scripture, as hath been showed already. True it is, that in that text of Levit. 27. there is expressed a declaration of God's right in tithes, and that the tithes are his reserved portion; but the donation of them to the Levits, is elsewhere confirmed, as in Numb. 18.21. For behold I have given the Children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, etc. from whence I conclude, that if all the tenth were given to Levi, than no doubt but the tenth of their Cattles, as well as any other: and whatsoever the jews writ to the contrary, it is but frivolous; for albeit the tithe of Cattles (as they argue) be not expressly named in the number of the 24 gifts belonging to the Priesthood, (which also may be avouched of many other particulars) yet without any exception, it is plainly comprehended under the general grant of the tithes to Levi, which to any reasonable judgement, is sufficient.  
Touching the King's tithe, if it were so that Mr Selden did only write of tithes due to the Church; he might well enough be excused, for not speaking of it; but the second tithe, whereof he discourseth at large, and likewise the poor man's tithe, are not properly such tithes as are due to the Church, but rather to the Commonwealth, for they belonged to the householder, and to the poor.  
Again, whereas in his History pag. 13. He speaks of tithes in this kingdom paid to the Crown; it had not been much out of his way to have pointed at such tithes as in the Kingdom of the jews were paid also to the Crown.  
And lastly, where he boasteth in his Review, pag. 452. and saith, Hitherto could I never see any Christian that hath fully taught what was considerable in the general payment of tithes among the jews &c: since he would have us to expect more from him in this kind than any other Christian before him, we are not much to be blamed for putting him in mind of omitting the King's tithe, for that is also comprehended under the general payment of tithes among the jews.  
I proceed now to the 7: Section, wherein to omit other passages, that is left somewhat obscure and defective that is written of those kind of goods which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereof (saith the Author) a special Massecheth or Treatise is in the Talmud in the Seder Zeraim. David de pomis doth interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fructus de quibus an sint datae decimae ignoratur, Such fruit as is unknown whether the tithe were taken thereof or no. But Moses Ben Maimon in his Commentary on Massecheth demai cap. 1. gives a larger exposition of it, saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That which is doubtful and uncertain whether they have brought forth from the same, the gifts that belong to God or no. Where under the word, gifts are comprehended diverse other things beside tithes. And although the Historian saith, that no first tithe or poor man's tithe was paid of any such things; yet the jews teach, that they did usually give these things to the poor for their relief and sustenance▪ as Baal Haturim doth signify on Deut. 15.8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And shalt lend him sufficient for his need which he hath, the beginning of the words contain Demai, that is, such goods as is unknown whether the gifts due unto God, and tithes, were paid thereof or no; to intimate that they did use to feed the poor with these things. And this is again more fully expressed by Moses Ben Maimon in his Preface to Seder Zeraim fol. 3. where he shows the reason of the order of the Treatises in Seder Zeraim, and saith, that in treating of the seed of the ground, they begin with Massecheth Peah, i. the Treatise of the corner of the field, after Massecheth Beracoth, the Treatise of blessings, because what gifts soever a man was bound to give of the seed of the ground, they were not due till after they were reaped in harvest: but the standing corn was due for the corner of the field whilst yet it was upon the ground, and therefore they began first to speak of that: and in the next place saith he, after Massecheth Peah, follows Massecheth Demai.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because the poor have a right therein, even as they have in the corner of the field, and so they say they feed the poor with Demai. i uncertain, whether tithed or untithed fruits.  
What other things are contained in this Section, and likewise in the rest, which I have willingly omitted, I refer the reader for further satisfaction therein, to the answer of M. Montague confining myself as near as I can in this task, only to the writings and monuments of the jews, and so I pass to the next Section.    

SECT. 7.  
7 THat tithing of 
a Luke 11.42.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every herb which is spoken of in the Gospel, and observed by the Scribes and Pharises, was never commanded in Scripture, nor by their Canon-law requisite, according to the opinion of their Doctors, who restrain the payment of tithes to that 
b Deut. 26.12.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, thy increase spoken of by Moses; and comprehend not herbs under that name.  
To say that the tithing of every herb which is spoken of in the Gospel, &c: was never commanded in Scripture, is an assertion somewhat too bold, and peremptory, considering that the rules in Scripture touching payment of Tithe, are delivered in such general terms, as do comprehend both herbs, and many other particulars under them, as Levit. 27.30. Numb. 18. 2 Chron. 31.5. etc. And as for the jews Canon law, it is neither Canon, nor law to us, except it agree with the Canon of the Scripture: neither are we to depend upon the opinion of their Doctors, which in many things is most uncertain; for it is well known, their Doctors oftentimes differ in opinion. But how shall we be assured that they restrain the payment of tithes to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 increase, and where doth it appear, or by what reason, that they do not comprehend herbs under that name? For all this there is no evidence brought in, but only his bare word, and we have no cause to trust him on his word, because we have found him faulty already in other passages of this History. In the beginning of his second Chap. he gives this word increase, a large extent, containing therein both fruits of the ground, and Cattles: But here it is restrained, and must not comprehend herbs; but wherefore not herbs, or what else it doth comprehend, we are yet to seek. David Chimki in his Miclol, tells us, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 increase, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. A name that comprehendeth all fruit that is for meat; and if so, why not herbs? And it is called tebuah (saith he) because it is of the year ensuing, for that of the year past is called Abur. And Ramban on Exod, 22.29. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The fruit of the field, and of the vineyard is called tebuah, because they bring it into the houses, being derived from a word that signifies to bring or carry in. R. Bechai on Deut. 8.8. saith, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contains these five kinds, wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, or beare-corne, as hath been mentioned before. But R. Chaskuni on Deut. 14.22. speaks more largely, and saith, that here also merchandise is comprehended as liable to tithing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
And so the Commentor upon the Talmud Tagnanith, cap. 1. fol. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 makes it to contain Usury and Merchandise, and every thing whereby a man gaineth. Which cometh little or nothing short of the practice of the Pharisee, when he said Luke 18.12. I pay tithe of all that I possess.  
But how can we be resolved, that the jews restrain the payment of tithe only to tebuah in that sense which he intendeth; when as in their writings they usually make mention of the tithing of Mammon, which generally signifies all kind of goods, or riches whatsoever. And therefore Abuhab speaking of Abraham's tithing, Gen. 14.20. saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That he gave tithe as a man titheth his Mammon or his goods. And so saith Aben Ezra concerning Iacob's vow, I will give the tenth to thee: Gen. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Of all the Mammon or goods that thou shalt give me. And so the same author on Gen. 35.1. saith of him, that he performed his vow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and paid the tithe of his substance or goods. And therefore that which is noted by the Historian in his Review, pag. 455. That at this day, Qui religiosiores sunt iuter judaeos loco decimarum eleemosynam pendunt. De omnibus lucris decem aureos de centum, centum de mille: though he call it alms, as he did also (before) Abraham's payment to Melchisedek, in the Syriak translation, yet ten out of an hundred, and an hundred out of a thousand, is in nature a true kind of tithing, and keeps the just proportion therein required, and agrees also with their rules and expositions formerly delivered. But let us see what follows in the History.  
They deliver indeed that by tradition from their fathers, all things growing out of the earth, and fit for man's meat, are titheable, 
c Ramban part. 3. tract. de Termoth cap. 2. & Mikotsi in precept. 145.  which their Lawyers thus regularly express. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, every thing that is kept as man's meat, and hath his growth from the earth, must pay the heave-offering, and likewise tithe.  
Where they make such herbs as are man's meat, tithable, but all such as are not man's meat they discharge of tithes.  
These later words are not consonant to that which is taught in the jewish History, and the rule here expressed in Hebrew Characters, for which he citeth Ramban and Mikotsi, is perverted, and plainly differs from that which is delivered in the Talmud. For in the beginning of Massech. Meaishroth, i. the Treatise of the Tithes, where this is recorded, it is not said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing that is kept as man's meat, etc. but thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Whatsoever is fit for meat, and that which is kept, and hath his growth from the earth, must pay tithe; and meat here being mentioned in general, though some expositors do restrain it, contains not only man's meat, but also meat for Cattles: as jarchi shows in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Siliqua in Massech: Meaishroth cap. 2. And the Commentor upon Maimon speaks of diverse kinds of grain that were tithed, which ordinarily were accounted meat for cattles, albeit in time of dearth they were used also for man's meat: as vetches or tares, and such like.  
Again, that which is kept, comprehends something else beside meat, as is evidently declared in the 3. Chap. of this Massech: fol. 63. where it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Orygan, hyssop, and sweet margerom, which are in the court or garner, if they be kept, are subject to tithing: and yet these are not properly man's meat: and Ramban in his Commentary in this place saith; it is the manner of these herbs to grow in gardens, and other places without any sowing of them, and (saith he) here it is said, if they be kept, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, in a place purposely appointed for the keeping of them, they are liable to tithing: and how much doth this differ from the tithing of mint and anise, and other herbs observed by the Scribes and Pharises, and yet we see the tithe of these things are required by their Canon Law, and not repugnant to the opinion of their Doctors. But it is further added in the words following.  
And out of that rule also they except whatsoever was gleaned either out of 
b Levit. 19 9 & 10.  ears of corn, or grapes, or had out of the corners of the field left in Harvest.  
He means that these are also free from tithing, where one thing more must be reckoned among the rest, that is here omitted, and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth such fruit as is common: It is mentioned with the rest in the Commentaries on the Text, and also in the Talmud, as in Massech: Termoth, cap. 1, fol. 48: and jarchi hereby understands the fruit of such trees as grow in deserts and woods, which are not in the possession of any one man, as are small nuts, and such like, of which jarchi and Ramban discourse in their Commentaries on Massech. Demai cap. 1. And the reason why these are not tithed, is not expressed by our Historian. But jarchi on Deut. 14.2. saith, it is because the Levite hath a share in these, as well as others have; and therefore (saith he) they are not subject to tithing; which is likewise confirmed by Moses Ben Maimon in Termoth cap. 1. fol. 48.  
But it seems (saith the History) that for this payment of herbs, the Pharises were of the truer side. Our Saviour likes well their payment, and expressly says, they ought not omit it, which admonition of his was to them, while yet the Mosaical Law's mere not all expired by the Consummatum est.  
Albeit this History makes a difference betwixt the jewish Lawyers and the Pharises, as if they were of two several sides, for the matter and manner of tithing, yet no such difference appears in the due scanning of them: for doth not the tithing of Hyssop and sweet Marierom before mentioned, and the like to these prescribed in the Talmud, reach as far as the Pharises practise in tithing of Mint and anise, and other herbs; notwithstanding let the Talmudists and Pharises agree or disagree as they will, the admonition of our Saviour, though somewhat too slightly here alleged, doth fully decide the controversy: for he approving and iustifing the Pharises payment, doth herein teach us how to judge aright, without any further question.  
And though this admonition was given while yet the Mosaical Laws were not all expired by the Consummatum est, yet after those Laws were expired it is not to be supposed that then all tithes ceased, or were to be consumed by the Consummatum est; for it is evident that the payment of tithes hath been duly observed in the Church of God both before and also after the Mosaical Laws.  
8 After the second temple destroyed, and dispersion of the jews, their Law of first fruits, Therumahs, and tithes with them ceased: for their Doctors determine that regularly no inhabitants but of the land of Israel were to pay any although also among them be a wise exception for the lands of Sevaor, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, because the first is near their land of Israel, and many Israelits went thither and dwelled there, and the other three are round adjoining to their land of Israel.  
Whatsoever was ceremonial and typical in the levitical Law, we acknowledge that it was abrogated by our Saviour Christ, not after, but before the destruction of the second Temple, and before the dispersion of the jews: But yet the jews themselves do not hold that their Law of first fruits, Therumahs, & tithes, with them ceased, but only that the practice of the payment of these, according to the Law, ceased; because they were dispersed & wanted means, having not wherewithal to pay them; for otherwise they generally maintain their law to be perpetual & unchangeable; so doth Chimki plead against the Christians of his time, as appears by his objections & answers to this purpose, set down at the end of his come. on the Psal. & on Mal. 3.4. his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Hence ye see that the Law shall never be changed, but as it was given to Moses, so shall it remain for ever, And so much also saith R. Bechai on Levit 27. fol. 161. And though the second Temple was destroyed, yet, without doubt, as the Historian himself noteth out of Galatinus in his Review pag. 455. Most of them have long since expected a third Temple, otherwise why were they so careful to have their laws and special cases of first fruits and tithing so copiously delivered, in five whole Massecheth, of their Talmud or body of their civil and Canon Law; which was many years after the destruction of the second Temple made for the direction of the dispersed of their Nation? and so they expound those Chapters in Ezech. literally of a third Temple that they expect; although they are forced to confess, and that according to the letter, that there shall be an alteration in diverse particulars, differing from that which was before in the Law, as jarchi declareth on Ezech. 41.5. first touching the Chambers of the Temple: again Chimki on Ezech 41.22. notes an alteration in respect of the altar of wood, which is there called a table. and on Ezech. 25. & 4.18. & 22. he saith, there shall be an alteration or innovation in the order of sacrifices, and on Ezech. 44.17. he observeth a change in the Priest's garments; and in the feasts Ezech, 45.25. and diverse other things there expressed. And yet notwithstanding all this, they are constant in opinion that the Law of Moses shall still continue without any change thereof: and therefore though the practice for payment of first fruits, Therumahs and tithes with them ceased, yet the law of these ceased not, but in their judgement is still of force, even as it was also before the payment of these was in use. For the Law was given to Moses in mount Sinai: but their Doctors teach that they were not bound to pay the Therumahs and the tithes, until they did possess and inhabit the land, which was long after, as Ramban testifieth on Numb. 15.  
But they deliver, that who so of them took the profits of land amongst the Cutheans or Samaritans their old enemies (or elsewhere in Aram; and so it seems by consequent in any other land, saving which they except) was not to pay any: touching which point many special cases are put by 
a In jad. Chazeka tract. de therum●h T. 1. & Mikotsi in precept. 133.  Rabbi Ben Maimon.  
This is clean contrary to that which they teach in the Talmud: for Aram is Syria, whence it is that the jews say, that Abraham was first called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Pater Syriae; and after the promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pater multarum gentium, as jarchi notes on Gen. 17. Now of Syria they say plainly in Massech: Megnaishroth, cap. 5. fol. 64. that, he that hath land there of his own, must pay tithe of that land: or if he buy the fruits there of an other man's land, before the time of tithing, he must likewise answer the tithe, but not after: & so do Maimon & jarchi in their Commentaries there explain the rules, directly against that which is here delivered.  
The Historian therefore (as it seems) perceiving this error, in his Review pag. 455. goes about to amend his bill, and to distinguish, and say; That of them that take the profits of land among the Samaritans, or in Aram, that is, Syria, must be understood of a jew dwelling among them, and tilling the land there; for regularly if the fruits of lands in Syria were taken by a jew, residing still in his own Country, he was to pay tithe of them. Massech: Demai cap. 6. & Meashar Perek 5.5.  
But how doth he prove that this must be understood of a jew dwelling among them, and tilling the land there? for no such distinction, limitation, or exception appears in the Talmud, or in the Commentaries thereof. And if a jew dwelling in his own Country, and possessing land in Syria, was to pay the tithe of that land, why should he not also pay the tithe thereof, if he himself dwelled upon the same land, considering that both the person, and also the place here specified, are both subject to the Law of tithing by the rules and precepts of the jews? The History tells us a little before, that the Israelites dwelling in Senaar, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, were to pay tithes there: Senaar, that is, Babylon so called, saith Rabbi Saadiah, on Dan. 1.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because they that perished in the deluge, were cast down thither. And Moab hath his denomination, quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the father, saith Aben-Ezra, and Bechai on Gen. 19.37. because these two, Moab and Ammon, came by the incest of their father. Now if the Israelites dwelling in these lands, were to pay tithes, why not also in Syria, which had more affinity with Canaan, and the Laws thereof, than the rest had? for as Maimon teacheth in his explication of Massech: Demai, cap. 6. fol. 18, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syria which was subdued by David, was reputed as the land of Israel, in respect of diverse laws to which it was subject. And among other, they relate in Sedar Teharoth, Massech: jadim cap, 4. fol. 157. that the seventh year, the year of rest, commanded Levit. 25.1. and Deut. 15.1. was not observed but only in Canaan and Syria, for so are the words of the Commentor there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
In which year though no tithes were payable by the Law, yet in this place they deliver it as a tradition of Moses from Sinai, that Babel, Egypt, Ammon, and Moab, which were out of the Holy Land, did pay the poor man's tithe in the seventh year. And Moses Ben Maimon in his Preface to Sedar Zeraim, saith also, that Ammon and Moab by the like tradition, paid likewise the second tithe in the seventh year; for these are there his words, fol. 2. pag. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Therefore here the poor man's tithe, was not given instead of the second tithe, nor one and the same with the second tithe, as the Historian hath before taught us: for here they were given as two several kinds of tithes in one and the same year, as the traditions here testify. But of this I have spoken enough already▪ and therefore I pass it over, and proceed again in the History.  
At this day by their Law they pay none, those that live in their land of Israel for want of their Priesthood and Temple, those that live dispersed in other Countries both for that reason, as also for the other, which restrain the payment of them to Canaan, and herein they all agree.  
True it is, that the levitical Priesthood and Temple is abolished by the spiritual and everlasting Priesthood of Christ, who is a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedek; Though therefore at this day by their Law they pay no tithes, yet they themselves acknowledge (as hath been showed before) that he which is a Priest after the order of Melchisedek, must take tithes as Melchisedek did; for so saith Aben Ezra on Psal. 110. And these are the Tithes that we plead for, as continuing still due to be paid.  
Further where he saith, that they restrain the payment of them to Canaan, that cannot be understood, but only of the Leviticall payment, and yet the exceptions formerly alleged of Egypt, Ammon, Moab, Syria, and the like, do cross this. Besides, I have before declared by the authority and testimony of the jews, that tithes were paid in the time of job in the land of Us, which was no part of Canaan.  
But the great joseph Scaliger says, He asked some of them, whether if they might again build their Temple (as after the Captivity they did) their Laws of sacrifices, first fruits, and tithes, would be then revived; and their answer was, that to build it again, were to no purpose, because they had no lawful Priesthood there, being not one of them that can prove himself a Levite, though many pretend to be so, and some bear also the office of a kind of Priesthood amongst them.  
The answer of these jews to Scaliger, cannot well accord with that which their Doctors teach: for it is evident by their writings, as hath before been proved, that they expect the building of a third Temple, and the reviving of their Laws; for though they have no lawful Priesthood, not one of them being able to prove himself a Levite; yet they teach, that they expect the coming of Eliah, and that he at his coming will reduce every one to his own Tribe, as Chimki showeth on Ezech. 47.23. In these terms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Hereafter when Israel comes out of captivity, the Tribes shall be known, although they are now mixed together, and know not any man his own Tribe; Eliah shall come, and by distinguishing of families, shall refer every man to his own Tribe. And of the coming of Eliah, on Levit. 26.42. Then will I remember my covenant with jacob, jarchi hath this gloss. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. jacob in five places is written full, and Elihu in five places defective, wanting the letter Vau: for jacob took a letter from Eliah's name, for a pawn or pledge, that he should come and publish the redemption of his sons. And this, john the Baptist hath already performed, who was that Eliah that was to come, Math. 11.14. Luke 1.17. Mark 9.13.  
But now for the building again of the Temple, and that future state of happiness which the jews dream of, there are many different opinions among themselves; Elias in Thisbi writes, that some of them by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world to come, understand the world of souls which begins presently after death: and some thereby, the time and days of the Messiah, and some after the general resurrection of the dead. Moses Ben Maimon, in his commentary on Sanhedrin cap. 18. fol. ●0. speaks of this, more at large on these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All Israel have a part in the world to come: where he relates 5 several opinions, most of them much like the late treatise of the Calling of the jews, dreaming especially of an earthly happiness, & temporal kingdom in this world: But in the end after the recital of them he rejects them all, and saith: That as the blind man cannot judge of colours, nor the deaf of sounds, nor fishes know the element of fire, because their living is in the water which is the contrary: so the joy of the spiritual world is not known in this corporal world, in respect of the excellency, whereof the Prophet David saith, Psal. 31.19. O how great is thy goodness which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee! And so say the Doctors. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i In the world to come there is neither eating, nor drinking, nor washing, nor ointing &c: But the righteous sit with their Crowns on their heads, and are sustained by the brightness of the divine presence; & so in effect, he concludes there against the former opinions, that the true blessedness of the world to come consists in beatifica visione Dei. And likewise for the building of the Temple, which they often speak of, some of their own writings show, that it must not be a material, but a spiritual Temple; so much doth R. Bechai intimate on Gen. 28.17. which place he applies to the three Temples: The third whereof he would have to be signified in these words, And this is the gate of heaven; where he saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And therefore here he mentions heaven, because it shall be the work of heaven, and not the building of man, as the former were; in which he makes mention of a place, and house. Moses also points at this in the blessing of Benjamin, as the jews writ on Deut, 33.12: and on jer. 7.4. The same thing likewise is observed by Bechai, on Exod 27.20. That they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light that the Lamps may always burn, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear saith Bechai, The first house stood 4 hundred and ten years, & the 2 four hundred and twenty, according to the number contained in the Word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beaten, to signify that the two first Sanctuaries should be beaten down & destroyed: But the 3d house which comes not under number, because the time thereof is not limited, is signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; For the light, to which they apply that in Esa 60, 1. Arise, shine, for thy light is come: and Psal. 27.1. The Lord is my light and my salvation, and Psal, 118.27. The Lord is mighty and hath given us light. In which texts they understand a promise made of the return of the divine presence to the third house, which was wanting in the second, for so the jews teach, that five things were wanting in the second Temple, that were in the first, viz: The Ark, the Vrim and Thummim, fire from heaven, the divine presence, and the spirit of prophecy, as jarchi and Chimki show on Hagg. 1.8. and so it is recorded in the Talmud, in Massech. joma cap. 1. fol. 21. But this defect is supplied in the 3 house: and because (saith Bechai) there is no time limited for the standing of it, it being to continue for ever, therefore it is said (that the lamps may always burn) to signify, that the excellency thereof shall last for ever, and the light thereof shall never cease.  
Whatsoever therefore these jews answered Scaliger, touching the building of the Temple; it appears by the writings of their chiefest Doctors, that their third Temple must not be an earthly mass, or material building of timber or stone, but a spiritual, heavenly, and everlasting Temple.  
That which follows in the History, touching the high-Priesthood of the jews, when they lived here in England, is taken out of the records of Richard the first and King john, which testify a grant thereof, made and confirmed by letters patents; jacobo judao de Londonijs presbytero judaeorum etc. But this being not at this time within the compass of my walk, I meddle not with it; yet by occasion it puts me in mind that in the Bombergi Bible on Gen. 18. there is mention of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Rabbi Moses of London, who is cited there as a Commentor on the text, which also shows that they lived here in former times; but when this was, or by what means they had their maintenance when they lived here, that is not so evident: I easily think with the Historian, that they received neither Therumahs nor first fruits, nor tithes, as not belonging to them; for it was not requisite that tithes here should be paid Presbyteris judaeorum: It sufficeth if without respect either of jews or jewish fables, they be paid in due manner as they ought Presbyteris Christianorum.  
Hitherto following this Historian, we have been travailing in the land of Canaan, and are now upon the sudden brought into England, for multitude & variety of blessings, a second Canaan, where I think it good to rest, without any further rangeing; for as touching the news that he relates about the payment of tithes in foreign countries, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, & the like, it skills not much whether it be true or false, for it concerns us especially in this case to inquire not factum, but ius, not what was done, but what ought to be done, & yet even in this kind they that have traced the History in those parts, have therein discovered diverse wanderings and aberrations: But for my part I had rather stay where I am, and take things as they are reported, then go so far to make trial: only for a farewell looking back again to the places where we have been, a word or two also of the jewish part of his Review, and so an end.  
In his Review p. 450. he remembreth two adjuncts that belong to the story of Abraham's tithing, that is, who Melchisedek was, and where the place of his Kingdom of Salem was.  
For the first he is generally reputed to be Shem by the common consent of the jews: but whether Shem or japheth were the eldest son of Noah, to whom the Priesthood should belong, that is not so easily determined. For whereas he saith, that the Rabbins and diverse other of the learned, will have it, that japheth was the elder brother, and for this writeth in the margin, Eam esse Rabbinorum sententiam not at D. Chimki. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet the same Chimki on 1. Chro. 1. contrariam sententiam tenet, saying that japheth was greater in dignity, but younger in years. But Aben-Ezra on Gen. 10.21. applies the same speech to Shem: and jarchi there saith, that it is not known whether Shem or japheth were the elder. R. Chaskuni on Gen. 9.25. saith, that japheth was the eldest, I'm the second, and Shem the third. But in the Talmud Sanhedrin cap. 8. fol. 69. with reference to Gen. 5.32. they say these words: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Shem was a year elder than Cham, and I'm a year elder than japheth, so Shem is found to be two years elder than japheth. For this therefore the jews agree not among themselves, and it being a question more intricate & disputable, then pertinent or profitable, I pass it over, and come to the other adjunct concerning the place.  
For the place of his Kingdom, Salem, it is taken (saith the Author) by St Hierom (as he learned from some jews) and from him by St Ambrose, Eucherius, Primasius, and others, that this Salem is that which seated on this side of jordan, is some 80 miles distant from the plain of Mamre, where Abraham lived and retains its name in the Story of john's 
b joh 3 23.  baptism. That St. Hierom learned this from the jews how can it be thought credible? for they generally hold that by Salem here is meant jerusalem, where Abraham gave the tithes; and so saith the Targum plainly both on Gen. 14. & also on Psal. 76.2. where David Chimki writes thus.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Hear Chimki from Midras' Tillim, relates a conceit of the jews touching this place, expressing it in such manner as if two Godfathers did strive for the name of it, Shem called it Salem, Abraham, jereh, Gen. 22.14. Therefore to end the strife, and please both parties, God caused it to be called neither simply Salem as Shem did; nor jereh as Abraham; but compound of both in one word jerusalem. jereh signifies vision; & Salem, peace; for in the true jerusalem there is true vision, and true peace. And that this place was first called Salem, and afterward jerusalem, josephus plainly testifieth antiq. 1.11. saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They called Salem afterward jerusalem. It is also called in Gen. 22.2. Moriah, as the jews teach, where Solomon after built the Temple, 2. Chron. 3.1. Therefore saith Baal Haturim. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That the land of Moriah by identity of number is the same with jerusalem. In josuah 18.28. & 15.63. it is called jebusi: as also in judg. 19.10. & 1.21. And in Ezech. 48.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Lord is there. Rab. Levi Ben Gershom and Chimki, on josuah 10.1. writ, that all the Kings of jerusalem both in the time of Melchisedek, and in the days of josuah, were called by the name either of Melchisedek, or Adonisedek Kings, or Lords of righteousness, as the name of the Kings of Egypt was Pharaoh: and they are so called, saith Chimki, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because of jerusalem which is the place of righteousness. And saith Ramban on Gen. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This place doth justify or make righteous the inhabitants thereof, as it said Esai. 1.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Righteousness lodged in it, 2. Pet. 3.13. compared with jer. 23.6. & 33.16. And here (say the jews) was the place where Abraham paid his tithes: whereby it appears that the tithes were paid both to the Priests of God before the Law, and also were annexed to the place of God's worship, as Aben-Ezra showeth on Gen. 28, 22. writing thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. This shall be the house of God, the place appointed for my prayer, and to bring thither the tithes of all the goods that thou shalt give me. In like manner Ramban both on Gen. 14. and also on this text doth assign the tithes to the place of God's worship, thus expounding the text: &c: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. When I return to my father's house I will serve the only true God in the chosen land, in the place of this stone which shall be to me the house of God, and thither will I bring the tithe. Again the same Author writing on Gen. 31.13. doth in like words further confirm this, that the tithes were to be brought to the house of God, the place appointed for his worship. And thus much briefly for the two adjuncts of person and place before mentioned.  
There is yet on grand quaere, as it seems, in the opinion of the Historian, which in his Review Pag. 455. he moves in this manner. Now, me thinks, he that argues for tithes from the Mosaical Laws of tithing had need more especially than any I have yet seen hath never done, examine which of the two kinds are due in the Evangelicall Priesthood, why not the second as well as the first.  
To this I answer, first that we challenge not tithes principally by virtue of the Mosaical Laws of tithing, neither do I think that he hath seen any purposely arguing for tithes, that doth fetch his chiefest reasons thence; But as the learned have taught who have handled this subject, we claim them thus; As due to God by reservation, from the beginning, as following Christ's Priesthood, as the only certainty mentioned in Scripture, as also consecrated to God by consent of Churches, and Edicts of Princes; as agreeing with the use and practise of the Church in all times. But as for the Mosaical Laws and mandate of God concerning Levi, we make it not the ground of our title to tithes. And where he would have us examine which of the two kinds are due in the Evangelicall Priesthood, why not the second as well as the first; This hath been fully answered by them that have written of this argument, and have made a more perfect division of tithes, than this of first and second: but because (as it seems) the jews are in more credit with him than others, he may for this point have also satisfaction from them: In the Talmud Rosh Hashanah cap. 1. fol. 12. on that text Deut. 14.26. which I have given you for your inheritance; they writ thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The Scripture joineth the first tithe to inheritance, to show that as an inheritance ceaseth not, or hath no end, so the first tithe ceaseth not, or hath no end; and this is there twice repeated in the same page, which can by no means agree with the second tithe, for that ceased. Therefore the first tithe or tithe inheritance, which was sometimes assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle, is now due in the Evangelicall Priesthood.  
But he would have us consider also how the payment of tithes from the Laity, to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the payment from the Levites, to the sons of Aaron: But these considerations can only be, where the knowledge of fact praeceedes: for without exact distinction of their several tithes, any argument drawn from them, may soon be found a gross fallacy, that may both deceive him which makes it, and those whom he teaches: Let the ingenuous Reader think of it. And let the ingenuous Reader also think of this, that he which grounds a disputation or an History upon false principles, must needs deceive himself, and those whom he teaches, and make up his conclusion with gross fallacies: for as the Philosopher saith well, Physic: li. 1. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; One absurdity being granted, others will follow. But he hath here forgotten the jewish proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. upbraid not thy companion with the blemish that is in thyself:  
Turpe est Doctori cùm culpa redarguit ipsum. And indeed to speak plain, what is it else but a mere fallacy, by way of insinuation, to teach that the payment of tithes from the Laity, to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the payment from the Levites to the sons of Aaron. Is there not herein a manifest disparity betwixt the Levites and the Laity? The Laity were always to pay tithes, & by no right to receive them; but the Levites were always to receive them: For albeit out of the tithes that they did receive, they were to pay a tenth to Aaron the high Priest, in acknowledgement of superiority: yet this payment was merely ceremonial, and therefore it is called as jarchi notes on Num. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. The oblation or heave offering of the tithe, tied only to the high Priest in person, and to jerusalem for place: But the payment of the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel, is not ceremonial. Again there is no proper succession of the Gospel to the Law, in regard of Priesthood, for the Priesthood of the Gospel is directly included in the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which was before the Priesthood of Aaron: & therefore St. Hierom in his questions on Gen. calls the one, the Priesthood of the uncircumcised Church, and the other, the Priest hood of the circumcised Synagogue. And whereas Melchisedek being uncircumcised, blessed Abraham, that after was circumcised, and in him Levi and Aaron, of whom came the priesthood; therefore he concludes thus; Ex quo colligi vult Sacerdotium habentis praeputium benedixisse circumciso Sacerdotio Synagogae: And so by consequent in this respect, he makes the Evangelicall Priesthood not to succeed but to be before the Legal. It is further also to be considered, that the whole Tribe of Levi is interessed in the tithe and not only the inferior Levites, as hath before been proved; for though they are divided, as Ramban notes on Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Into two families, the Sacerdotal office apart by itself, and the levitical apart by itself, yet it is but one Tribe, and one Prince over them, and that was Aaron. And to this whole Tribe were the tithes given, and therefore St. Hierom on Malach. 3. under the name of Levi comprehends the whole Priesthood, saying, In filijs Levi, totam intellige Sacerdotalem dignitatem. Therefore the whole Priesthood was partaker of the tithe, and not only the inferior Levites, though they might sometimes be the servile receivers of them, as the Gibeonites also in regard of their office were subject to the Levites, who are therefore called Nethinim 1. Chron. 9.2. as Aben-Ezra and jarchi show on Ezra. 2.43. Because they were assigned to servile offices in the Temple, and given to the use and service of the Levites.  
Last of all we have formerly proved in this Treatise that the first tithe or Levites tithe, was given to the sons of Aaron, that is, to the Priests, and namely in the time of Ezra, and that by the general consent and testimony of the jews, neither was that constitution ever after reversed.  
I demand then to whom the Levites did pay their decimas decimarum, when as the first tithe itself out of the which they were taken, was then given immediately to the Priests? We read indeed Num. 18.28. that the Levites were commanded to give the tenth of their tithe, the Lords heave offering to Aaron the Priest. But concerning the sense and meaning of this text, the jews dispute and differ in the Talmud Sanhedrin, cap. 11. fol. 90. Rabbi jochanan argues from hence the certainty of the resurrection, and because Aaron did not live to enter into the land of Israel, and receive the heave offering, therefore (saith he) this teacheth, that he shall live hereafter, and receive it after the resurrection. Rabbi Ishmael, he saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i The heave offering was given to Aaron to signify, that as he was partaker, so also his sons were partakers of it, after him; Now the sons of Aaron were high Priests as well as Priests. Therefore where it is added;  
But these considerations can only be, where the knowledge of fact precedes:  
What certain knowledge of fact herein hath he showed us, or how can there be any such certainty found among the jews, when as the greatest of their Doctors differ in judgement for the exposition of this text, which is the ground of the fact here mentioned; some of them appropriating the heave offering of the tithe personally to Aaron himself, some to his sons successors, in the high Priesthood, and some to the inferior Priests. Therefore in these matters, we have from them much variety, but little certainty; yet still more proof for the divine right of tithes, than either hath, or can be showed to the contrary: For since the jews teach us, (as hath been declared) that the tithe is God's part, allotted and paid ever to the Priest, and that the Patriarches Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and the rest paid tithes before the Law, and that they were also paid in the time of job, and that the Priest after the order of Melchisedek hath right to take tithes, and that the first tithe or tithe inheritance must never cease; By these and such like conclusions, I take it, they afford more arguments for confirmation of the divine right of tithes, than either hath as yet from them, or can be showed against it.  
The last of his Hebrew sentences, wherein also I will join with him, and conclude, is set down toward the end of the 2d chap. of his Review; that is;  
That among their Aphorisms both divine and moral, they tell us, that as the Masoreth is the defence of the Law, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meighsheroth seag Leaighsher, that is, tithes paid, are the defence of riches; for which he quoteth in the margin Pirke Auoth cap. 3.  
And in the same place, such an other sentence presently follows, which if this Author had well observed, I persuade myself, his History had never come to light, and that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. silence is the hedge or defence of wisdom. But it is well yet, that now in the end not consonant to his former discourse, he acknowledgeth this that is spoken of tithes, to be a divine and moral Aphorism: and surely not only this, but also many other such like moral and divine Aphorisms, are uttered by the jews, both in their Comments on the holy text, and also in the Talmud, which promise a blessing to them that duly pay their tithes, and a curse to those that do withhold them.  
That worthy learned Divine Master Hooker in his fift book of Ecclesiastical policy fol: 428. alleging this, that the jews were accustomed to name their tithes, the hedge of their riches, hath there a further observation saying, that an hedge doth only fence and preserve that which is contained, whereas their tithes and offerings did more, because they procured increase of the heap, out of which they were taken; And for this he citeth Malach. 3. Bring ye all the tithes into the store-house, that there may be meat in my house, (deal truly, defraud not God of his due but bring all,) and prove if I will not open unto you the windows of heaven, and pour down upon you an unmesurable blessing. On which words Rabbi Bechai writing on Deut. 26. saith: Although it be unlawful to prove or tempt the Lord; for a man must not say I will perform such a commandment, to the end I may prosper in riches, for it is written Deut. 6.16. ye shall not tempt the Lord your God &c: yet saith he here, and the jews also in Massech Tagnanith cap. 1. fol. 9 There is an exception for payment of tithes and works of mercy in this text of Malach. 3. and that other Proverb. 3.9. Honour the Lord with thy substance &c, where jarchi and Ralbag understand it to be spoken of tithes, and Bechai also works of charity to the poor; and for proof of a blessing to the performance of these precepts, Ralbag applieth that in 2. Chron. 31.10. Since the people began to bring the offering into the house of the Lord, we have eaten, and have been satisfied, and there is left in abundance, for the Lord hath blessed his people, and this abundance that is left: so on Deut 14.22. they writ thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Pay tithes that thou mayst be rich, pay tithes that thou come not to poverty. This is recorded by Ramban, and Bechai, and others, and in diverse places in the Talmud, as Massech Sabuth cap. 16. fol. 119. Tagnanith cap. 1. fol. 9 on Num. 5.10. jarchi thus glosseth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The man that gives to the Priest the gifts that are fit for him, he shall have riches in abundance: and so it is in Massech Beracoth, fol. 63. And Baal Haturim on Deut. 12.19. Take heed thou forsake not the Levite: he joins to that ver. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. When God shall enlarge thy border, and to signify that a man's gift doth enlarge him, Prov. 18.16. Meaning a gift to the Priest. Deut. 16.4. And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy maid, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within thy gates. Here saith jarchi, and Bechai on Gen. 37.1. The Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i four that belong to me, answerable to four that belong to thee: Thy son, thy daughter, thy man, thy maid's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou comfort those that are mine, I will comfort those that are thine. Deut. 26.11. And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given thee. To this is annexed (saith Baal Haturim) when thou hast made an end of tithing, ver. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. For by reason of the due payment of tithes, thou shalt rejoice in every good thing, according as they say, pay tithes that thou may'st prosper. And to this purpose the same Author on Levit. 4.14. & jarchi on Numb. 5.12. have other speeches borrowed from the Talmud, Massech: Beracoth, cap. 9 fol. 63. all which tend to show, that a blessing belongs to those that duly pay their tithes.  
But it will be said, what is all this to us? these things were spoken to the jews, and of their times. Ans. Yes, they pertain to us also, for God is no changeling: as they show us how he would bless his own people, if they did maintain his Priests and Levites as he appointed; so seeing God respecteth his Ministers now no less then in those times, they do also signify, that he will bless us too, if we do maintain them as he hath appointed, the one is a service and sacrifice no less acceptable unto him, than the other, as our Apostle also showeth most excellently in Philip. 4.10.11. and 18.19, etc. Again on the other side, many are the punishments recorded by the jews, which follow the contempt & neglect of payment of tithes. Therefore saith jarchi on Numb. 5.10, &c: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that detains the tithe, so that it is not given in the due season thereof, in the end his land shall yield him but the tithe of that it used to yield, agreeable with that sentence of St Austin De tempore, sermo 219. Si tu decimam non dederis, tu ad decimam revoceris. And to this effect they have an History related by the Commentor on the Talmud in Massech: Tagnanith, cap. 1. fol. 9 and also by R. Bechai on Deut. 14. Of a certain rich man that had land, which yearly bore him a thousand measures of corn, whereof he duly paid an hundred for the tithe: At his death he gives this land to his son, with a charge to do the like in tithing, as he had done before him, which he did the first year after his father's death, for the land brought forth a thousand measures, as before, and he gave an hundreth thereof for the tithe. But the second year he having an evil eye, began to think with himself, that the tithe was a great matter, and therefore he forbade the laying out of it. The next year after, the increase of that field was much diminished, and it afforded but an hundred measures in all, in regard whereof he was exceedingly grieved and discontented: His neighbours therefore hearing of this, came unto him, clothed in white raiment, to make merry with him, and to comfort him, to whom he said, It seems to me that you solace yourselves, and rejoice at my loss. But they answered him, should we be grieved for thee, that hast brought all this evil upon thyself? Wherefore then didst thou not set forth thy tithe duly as thou shouldst have done? Consider how that when the land came first into thy hand; thou wast the husbandman, or master and owner thereof, and God Almighty the Priest; for the Tithe was his part to dispose of: But now forasmuch as thou hast not set forth his part unto him, God he is become the householder, and owner of the ground, and thou the Priest; for thy field doth not yield as it yielded before, a thousand measures, but he hath set apart for thee an hundreth measures. And this is that which is written, Numb. 5.10. And every man's hallowed things shall be his; that is to say, when he divideth not as he ought, he shall have nothing himself, but the holy things that is, the tithe. And for this cause our wisemen affirm, he that witholdes his tithe, in the end it will come to pass, that he himself shall have nothing but the tithe: as it is written Esai 5.10. For ten acres of vines shall yield one bath, and the seed of an Homer shall yield an Ephah: that is the tithe: For an Ephah is the tenth part of an Homer, as R. Chimki and jarchi declare on this text. And thus fare also the Commentor on the Talmud. Again Esai 5.8. Woe unto them that join house to house, & lay field to field, till there be no place that ye may be placed by yourselves in the midst of the earth: jarchi his gloss here is this: &c: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As though they thought that neither God hath any part in the land, nor the poor; his part in the tithes they spoil, and rob the poor of their land, that they alone may dwell therein. And after he shows the punishment hereof, That by reason of famine, their houses and land shall be left desolate, as in ver. 9 Likewise Amos 4.6. And therefore have I given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and scarceness of bread in all your places. Chimki here writes thus: As ye have deprived my house of offerings and tithes, so have I deprived you of bread and flesh in all your cities and places where you dwell. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 requiting like for like. And hence it is also that in Massecheth Sabath cap. 2. fol. 32. they say, that through omission of paying Tithes, the heavens are restrained from sending down dew and rain in due season, to which they apply that in job 24.19. And jarchi writing on Deut. 14.21.22. compared with 2 King. 19.26. makes this the cause, that the corn is blasted before it be grown up: and Bechai, that the foreign enemy doth invade an dspoyle the land, &c: And though the jews paid not their Tithe in the fields, but only after the fruits were carried into their barns; as it is said Deut. 26.13. I have brought the hallowed thing out of mine house, &c: Yet Aben-Ezra and Chaskuni there teach, that it was a profanation & contempt, to dispose of any part thereof till the tithe was paid. And Maimon on Massec: Demai, c. 1. fol. 11. saith, that he that doth so, is guilty of death by the hand of heaven. In Exod. 13.13. and 34.20. where it is said concerning the firstborn of the Ass, if thou redeem him not, thou shalt break his neck. Salomoh jarchi hath this conclusion: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He that spoils the Priest's goods, his own goods also shall be spoilt.) The inference stands thus; If the owner will not redeem his Ass, by paying the Priest a lamb, than the Priest shall lose the lamb, which is his due, & then also the owner shall lose his Ass, which is more; for it is said he shall break his neck.  
In like manner the Countryman sometimes argues in an humour, and says, rather than I'll pay so much tithe, my ground shall lie fallow, or I'll spend in Law ten times the worth of it: If this be done, than the Priest must needs come short of the tithe, which is his due, and then also the Countryman shall come short of the fruits and profits which are more: So that referring this case to that of the firstborn of an Ass, we may conclude with jarchi, He that spoils the Priest's goods, doth also spoil his own goods. But the Scripture saith, Deut. 25.4. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And again Deut. 22.10. Thou shalt not plough with an Ox and an Ass, the clean, and unclean, together. For why, saith Baul Haturim on that place, when the Ass looks upon the Ox, and sees him chew the cud, he frets and repines at him, (as many do at the Priest's maintenance,) because he thinks that he always feeds, when he doth but only chew the cud. Malach. 3.8. Will a man spoil his goods; yet have ye spoiled me; but ye say, wherein have we spoilt thee; In tithes and offerings ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have spoilt me, even this whole nation.  
Hear (saith jarchi) The tithes and offerings whereof ye spoil the Priests & Levites, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That is the spoiling of me. And Chimki on those words, This whole nation, saith: It seemeth that for other transgressions before named, they were not all equal in them, but for the matter of tithes and offerings they were all alike culpable, and therefore he saith (this whole nation.) Whereby it appears, that sacrilege is a general and bewitching sin, a fact of evil conscience, and of perilous and pernicious consequence. It robs God, it robs man, the living, the dead, them that are yet unborn. The living, pastor and People, the Pastor of his portion, the People of the food of their souls; The dead, patrons, founders, and benefactors, of their honour and honourable memories, who have in their times over and be the tithes, out of the bounty and zeal of their hearts, given many great and rich endowments to the Church, and dedicated them to sacred uses; yea they rob them that are yet unborn, to wit posterity and succeeding ages, which have a right in these things; Nam dicata religioni iuris divini sunt non humani. But what speak I of posterity, which as yet are not come? or of the dead which are now gone? and can do neither good, nor hurt; for a living dog is better than a dead Lion: yet as josephs' brethren, when their father was dead, came unto him, and entreated him first, in their father's name, & after said unto him, Gen. 50.17. We pray thee forgive the trespass of the servants of thy father's God, meaning (as jarchi notes) that if he would not forgive them for their father's sake, who was now dead, yet he should consider that his father's God lived for ever, and they were his servants, and therefore to be respected: so though our forefathers, honourable founders, and benefactors are dead, and we forget them, yet the God of our father's still lives, able to right his own, & his servants wrongs. Solomon saith, Prov. 20.25. It is a snare for a man to devour that which is sanctified, and after the vows to inquire. On which words that worthy Knight Sr Henry Spelman in his book de non temerandis Ecclesijs, very well observes, that a snare hath three properties 1. to catch suddenly 2. to hold surely, & 3 to destroy certainly, as he shows in the example of Vzzah, Vzziah, 2, Chron. 26.19. jeroboam, 1. Kings 13.4. Corah, & others. R. Levi Ben Gershom on josuah, 7. speaking of the sin of Achan, who is also called Achar 1. Chron. 2.7. because he troubled Israel, teacheth this lesson; That in every congregation assembled together, one ought to hinder another from sinning against God: for sometimes a whole company is punished for the sin of one private person, for Achan (saith he) transgressed in the accursed thing, and wrath came upon the whole congregation; And for this cause the law commands Levit. 19.17. Thou shalt plainly rebuke thy neighbour, and suffer him not to sin.  
In 2 Samuel 1.9. Saul being in distress when he desired the Amalekite to slay him, saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Anguish is come upon me. Thereby Chimki understandeth the horror and punishment of his sin, for murdering the Priests of Nob, 1 Samuel 22.18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That did wear the broidered coat, Exod. 18.4. And in this sense also R. Bechai, takes it on Levit. 14. fol. 143. And hence it is that the jews feign, that for his fact done to Amalek when he spared Agag and the best sheep, &c: 1. Samuel. 15.9. A voice sounded from heaven and said unto him, be not thou just overmuch. Eccles. 7.16. so for this of Nob the city of the Priests which he smote with the edge of the sword, both child and suckling 1. Samuel 22.19. it was said likewise, be not thou wicked overmuch, Eccles: 7.17. If it be overmuch wickedness, occidere Presbyteros, to slay the Lords Priests, as Saul did here, and Dioclesian in his time, Niceph. lib. 7. cap. 3. Then much more occidere Presbyterium, to slay the Priesthood, by taking away the maintenance, as julian did. Theod. Lib. 3. cap. 6. & Niceph. Lib. 10. cap. 5. And in this sin of Saul, Doeg also that was the instrument, was ensnared, and therefore the jews observe here, 1 Samuel. 22.18. that for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his name is written by contraction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a fish; for he was taken in the net as a fish; for when the Sergeants that were commanded, would not move their hand to fall upon the Priests of the Lord, than the King said to Doeg, turn thou and fall upon the Priests, as who should say, thou hast accused them, do thou slay them: so doth Chimki paraphrase on this place. Rabbi Saadiah Geon on Dan. 5.1. saith of Baltashar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That his name signifieth a searcher of treasure; for he profaned the treasure and holy vessels of the Sanctuary; and to him and to his company, Chimki applies that in jer. 51.39. I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord Where, saith he, other drunkards sleep in their drunkenness and after wake again; but these that made themselves merry in drinking and carowzing in the vessels of the Sanctuary, they slept a perpetual sleep, and never waked any more: for they died in the midst of their drunkenness, as it is written Dan. 5.30. The same night was Baltashar the King of the Chaldeans slain.  
It is reported in the Talmud Massech: joma, cap. 7. fol. 69. that Alexander the great being solicited & persuaded by the Samaritans to spoil the Temple of jerusalem, when he came thither, and saw Simeon the high Priest, who being clothed with the Priests garments, came forth to meet him, he presently lighted down from his chariot, and prostrating himself to the earth, embraced him with all humble and submissive reverence, and being demanded the reason, he answered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The similitude of this man's form gets the victory before me in the time of my war: that is, as R. Bechai expounds it on Exod. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That it was an Angel that appeared unto him in the likeness of the Priest. Whereby it came to pass, that Alexander desisting from his purpose, did not only favour the jews, and spare their Temple, but also gave the Samaritans their enemies into their hands, whom they with diverse kinds of torments did put to death, and made a festival day for a remembrance, that they which sought the ruin and destruction of God's house, were themselves brought to utter desolation.  
How detestable the sin of sacrilege is, it will the better appear, if together with the punishment we consider the manifold pernicious consequents thereof, as namely, the decay of learning, the ruin of Religion, and stopping the mouth of the Gospel, the bane of hospitality, the desolation of the poor, the dilapidation of Churches, the contempt of the ministry of the Church, and neglect of all goodness, &c: For if the honos be taken away, the onus will soon fall to the ground, if the oil be withdrawn, the lamp of the Sanctuary will soon be quenched. And as the jews writ in their moral and dtuine Aphorisms, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there be no meal there is no law; no law, no law, no meal: as it is in Pirke Auoth cap. 3. ol. 8. and Baal Haturim on Deut. 32.1. At such time as the Tabernacle was built, though men were so liberal in their voluntary contribution, that Moses was fain to stay them, Exod. 36.6. Yet as Baal Haturim notes, he gave especial commandment to bring oil for the light, that the lamps might always burn, Exod. 27.20. & Levit. 24.2. because (saith he) this was a daily and continual charge, and required a common purse. And whereas men's affections are mutable, and oftentimes their devotion soon cold, therefore also the portion of the Priests and Levites was not left to the will of the people, but God himself by his Law provided for them. And when the people failed in this duty, God's Vice-gerents here on earth stirred them up to obedience; whence it was that good Ezechiah, 2 Chron. 31.4. commanded the people that dwelled in jerusalem to give a part to the Priests and Levites, that they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord; that is, saith jarchi on this place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with more alacrity, that whilst their maintenance was duly provided for them, they might cheerfully, without distraction, labour in the Law of God; for the Law (saith he) was given to those that did eat Manna, and next unto them are they that do eat the Therumah: that is, as Baal Haturim expresseth it, and R. Bechai on Exod. 16.16. & 25.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that establisheth the law, God Almighty provides him his food without toil, as those that did eat Manna. R, Chaskuni also speaks to this purpose on Num. 18.20. I might be copious in this kind, but I hasten to an end. It is written Prov. 28.24. He that robbeth his father and mother, and saith, it is no transgression, is the companion of a man that destroyeth. The jews as jarchi here, and Ramban on Levit. 19.32. from Talmud Sanhedrim, cap. 11. fol. 102: do expound this text thus: He that robs God his father, & the Church his mother, is the companion of jeroboam the son of Nebat; that made Israel to sin. For as jeroboam made of the basest of the people to be the Priests, 1 Kings 12.31. & 13.33. So these by taking away the tithes and revenues of the Church would make the Priests to be the basest of the people. And as jeroboam by those means, saith R. Levi Ben Gersham on that text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Did draw the hearts of the common people, in that he freed them from the ordinary payment of tithes to the Levites etc. So also the sacrilegious Politicians of our age, may happily by the like practice, win favour with the people, as jeroboam did. But cursed is that policy that fights against piety? for what saith the Scripture; 1. Kings. 13.34. This thing turned to sin unto the house of jeroboam, even to root it out and destroy it from the face of the earth. But on the other side, those that have been gracious patrons & benefactors, nursing fathers, and nursing mothers of the Church, careful of religion and the maintenance thereof, God hath ever multiplied his blessings upon them and their posterity, as it is evident in diverse of the good Kings of Israel: among others, to instance only in one, it is the observation of the jews concerning David, that when he had sinned in numbering the people, God said to the prophet, Go and tell David, 2. Samuel. 24.12. & 1. Chron. 21.10. giving him no other title but only David, as Chimki here notes: But when he had a purpose in his heart to build an house for the Lord, than he said, go and tell my servant David, 2. Samuel. 7.5. & 1. Chro. 17.4. showing what account he makes of such, and how acceptable they are to him, when they seek his glory and his Churches good. And for this cause though David intending to build an house for the Lord, could not effect it, yet as jarchi shows on 1. Chron. 17.10. God accepting his endeavour for the deed itself, did therefore bless him and his seed after him, and built up his house for ever, according to the promise Psal. 99.4.36. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, & as a faithful witness in heaven. This in type was first performed in the flourishing Kingdom of Solomon the son of David, of whom saith jarchi on 1. Chron. 29.23. As the moon is at the full in the fifteenth day of the month, so was David's throne in Solomon, that was the fifteenth generation from Abraham, but after was diminished and obscured like the moon unto the days of Zedechiah whose light was made darkness, who had his eyes put out, and was after brought to Babel, 2 Kings 25.7. But in truth this was fully verified in the eternal Kingdom of Christ the true son of David, who also in the days of his flesh, following and exceeding the example of David, testified his fervent love and zeal to the house and Temple of God: when he was twelve years old, he was found in the Temple in the midst of the Doctors, both hearing them and ask them questions. Luk. 2.46. He taught daily in the Temple Luk. 19.47. He cast out those that bought and sold in the Temple, and said to them, It is written, my house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thiefs. Math. 21.12.13. Esa. 56.7. jer. 7.11. And for the tithes he said, these things ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Luk. 11.42. Math. 23.23.  
And lastly teaching us our duty to God, and Caesar, hath commended unto us that sacred admonition. Mark. 12.17. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are Gods. Agreeable to which precept of our Saviour, the jews also, (that I may end as I began) have a sentence among their divine and moral Aphorisms, which is thus expressed in Pirke Aboth cap. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Give unto him of that which is his, for both thou & all that thou hast are his: So it is said by David; for all things come of thee, and of thine own hand have we given thee, Chron. 29.14. For who hath first given to him, saith St. Paul, Rom. 11.35. And therefore with praise and thanksgiving to God the Author and giver of all blessings, let us here conclude, and shut up all with the words of the Apostle, Rom. 11.36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For of him, & through him, and for him are all things, to him be glory for ever. Amen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉    

Let the absence of the Author from the Press, and the difficulty of the character of the written Copy, excuse these faults to the courteous Reader, which are thus to be corrected.  
PAge 8. line 10, for son 3, read some 3. p. 9 l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 11. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 93. l 20. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 17. l. 19 for dayde, r. paid. p. 19 l. 15. for which, r. with. p. 24. l. 21. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 27. l. 23. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 27. l. 28, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 31. l. 20. for Deut. 8.16. r. Numb. 8.16. p. 33. l. 19 for Massech. cap. 2. r. Massech, Shabath cap 2. p. 36. l. 28. for Deut. 2.8. r. Deut. 12.8. p. 41. l. 30. for payeth, r. paid. p. 43. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 45: l. 5. for Aben Ezrah, r. Aben Ezra. p. 46. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 52. l. 16. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 55. l. 10. for Heraim, r. Zeraim. p. 73. for above, r. alone. p. 77. l. 21. for the tithe, r. the tenth of the tithe. p. 84. l. 30. for whereof, r. whereas. p. 92. l. 19 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 96. l. 5. for Ezrah 8, r. Ezra 8. p. 96. l. 9 for jebamoth cap. 2. r. jebamoth cap. 9 p. 77. l. 27. omittuntur haec verba; and some the second and third tithe one: Sequitur, which last opinion. Et haec omittuntur p. 84. l. 8: jarchi gives not jointly the second tithe to the Levite stranger, &c: but expressly and severally the first tithe to the Levite, and the poor man's tithe to the stranger, fatherless, and widow: Sequitur And this testimony, &c: p. 98. l. 12. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 102. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 102. l. 14. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 102. l. 14. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 102. l. 15. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 105. l. 29. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 107. l. 14. for quae, r. quia. p. 107, l. 30. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 108. l. 31. for the first part, r. the fift part. p. 109. l. 4. for first part, r. fift part. p. 113. l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 113. l. 11. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 120. l. 6. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 120. l. 8. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 122. l. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 125. l. 7. for Geofayle, r. jeofayle. p. 133. l. 1. for wholly, r. holy. p. 135. l. 12. for vice, r. wife, Numb. 5.12. p. 144. l. 15. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 140. l. 9 The Answer to the censure should immediately follow the censure in page 133. line 20. p. 148. l. 30. for Syriac, r. Arabic. p. 150. l. 2. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 151. l. 6 for Termoth, r. Therumoth. p. 159. l. 25. for cap. 18. fol. 90. r. cap. 10. fol. 17. p. 164. l. 1. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. in radic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 166. l. 22. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 167. l. 5. for never, r. near. p. 170. l. 7. for Gen. 17. r. Numb. 17. p. 174. l. 20. for Deut. 16.4. r. Deut. 16.14. p. 179. l. 31. for Goods, r. Gods. p. 182. l. 7. for Exod. 18.4. r. Exod. 28.4.