SACRILEGE SACREDLY HANDLED.  
That is, According to Scripture only.  
Divided into two parts: 

1. For the Law.  
2. For the Gospel.    
AN APPENDIX ALSO ADDED; ANswering some Objections moved, namely, against this Treatise: and some others, I find in IOS. SCALIGERS Diatribe, and JOH. SELDENS' History of Tithes.  
FOR THE USE OF ALL CHURCHES IN general: but more especially for those of North-Britaine.  DEUTER. 33.11. Bless, O LORD [Levies] substance, and accept the works of his hand: Smite thorough the Loins of them that rise against him, and them that hate him, that they rise not again. Nec partis studiis agimur, sed sumpsimus arma. Sacrilegis ●●●●ca viri●.  

TO THE MOST NOBLE, AND TRULY SACRED Prince; Defender of Christ's Faith, and Nourish-father of his Church, JAMES, by his grace, of great Britain, France, and Ireland, King.  
SEE, (gracious Sovereign) See, how many and great reasons, both from the Argument, and the Author, do draw this Treatise to your Sacred hands. From the Argument: A Sacred, and high subject; requireth a Sacred and sound judgement: The Churches Sacred patrimony; a Kingly, Sacred patrociny: And Sacrilege, a proud and insolent sin; a Sacred and powerful sceptre to suppress it. All which, are only, and most eminent, in your most Sacred Majesty, SKILL, WILL, and POWER.  
From the Author: This seemeth to require a Sacred penman too: True. And though I be not of the Tribe of Levi, yet I hope of the tents of Sem, how Simple soever. Yea, behold what interest I have also in our Sacred David: Even devoted to his service, by my parents, before I was; Thereafter, named in, and after his majesties own name, before himself could know it; yet after knowledge, confirmed: And in his H. Court, almost ever since, both nursed, and schooled. And so is our David, the King of my birth; the Master of my service; the father of my name; framer of my nature; and the Gamaliel of my education; at whose feet (no, at whose elbow, and from whose mouth) I confess I have sucked the best of whatsoever may be thought good in me: his just right therefore, and my chiefest glory.  
Becometh it not well then (SIR), where the Sovereign proveth a Solomon; his Courtiers prove Nehemiahs', (though sparingly here compared?) When He, is Pater Ecclesiae, and Episcopus aulae, by authority proclaiming, and by practice provoking unto virtue; they, to shun both ignorance and silence? Truly, it goeth never better, then when the Church Courteth it, and the Court Churcheth it: for Moses and Aaron were brothers.  
But to our purpose (SIR). When I consider, how God hath made you, not only our Prince, but even our princely Patriarch, our JACOB; delivering you from so many Esaves, as he did Jacob, bringing you home again after your marriage, as he did Jacob; and also, settling you in your Canaan, more, than he did to jacob: and again, seeing your Majesty performs jacob's vows to God, viz. Defending his faith; building his houses; but chief this, Of all that thou shalt give me, I will give the tenth unto thee, I had been too to unworthily by your Majesty named Jacob, if I should not, with my sword in the one hand, and pen in the other, both Court it, and Church it; that is, build up, with our Royal JACOB, the breaches of jerusalem.  
But the breach (SIR) is great; not only in Lime and Stone, but in the lively Stones of God's work, the levites themselves. Their Tithes are abstracted; themselves distracted; and so, the Gospel contracted and confined, 
2. Thes. 3.1.  that it Runneth not, as it should. Your Commons pay Tithes; your Levites lack Tithes; your Lords and Laics have been bathed in blood about Tithes. Your poor labourers, may say with the true Israelites, 
Deut. 26.13.  I have brought the hallowed thing out of mine house: but they cannot say on, And I have also given it unto the Levites. Why? Because there cometh a kind of Pirate Ships, with Acts of Parliament in their flags, and carry all away.  
Your SKILL knoweth this (SIR) best of any; your WILL wisheth it were mended; and God hath given you POWER to perform it. All three are promised in your BASILICON DORON to your Son; 
Lib. 2.  and according to that promise, are all three, in some measure, begun already by yourself, in annulling in a part, that Vile Act of 
* Whereby Tithes were annexed to the Crown.  Annexation. Vile, your Masty hath most truly termed it: for it hath made Vile your Levites, and so, the Word vile in their mouths. Your Majesty hath annulled it, so far as concerneth Bishops; Let it, and all the rest also fall, as concern the Levites. Since you have settled your Aaron's, in their jerusalems'; 
Neh. 10.37.  Let not their brethren beg (as they do) in the cities of their travels: they are all of one Priesthood; all of one Prince You have annulled Annexations; Reverse 
* By which Tithes are erected in Temporal Lordships, to the Subject.  Erections. Your Bishops can inform SKILL; your Commons all attend, and call upon your WILL; and of all Estates, enough ready to second your POWER.  
I grant, your Majesty hath to do with many achan's: but what are they to the rest of Jsrael having God and Moses on their side? Let them appear at the doors of their tents, and show Quo iure. Achan stole his; and theirs, will be found little better: A Parliament (say they): but this treatise, (by God's grace) shall prove, that long before there was either King or Parliament in Jsrael, Tithes were taken up for God's perpetual worship; and so can never come under the power of Prince or Parliament further, than by their Laws, to enforce the payment of them according to God's Law: So all is but stealth, or robbery: for, Nemo potest plus juris in alium transfer, quàm ipse habet: The Parliament then, never having power to dispose of them, The possessors must be in malà fide. A Parliament maimed of the chiefest member, in a Kings younger age, hath forfeited Christ; and may not another Parliament perfect in all the members, in a King's full and perfect age, rectified by knowledge, again restore Christ? In that Parliament Levi, the chiefest member, (and whom only, the cause concerned) was not called; so, God was unconsulted; Christ his Son, forfeited; his Church spoiled; the King cozened; the Commons oppressed; was not this a vile Act? One Parliament more than (SIR) for Christ's sake: it may be, some will parley for Christ. Levi will plead for himself; he will show the Law; he dare now say, Nolumus.  
Much more might be said (SIR); though nothing more than your Majesty knoweth. It sufficeth me, a poor (yet a trusty) Soldier, once to have cried, Courage, to his King and Captain, in the day of danger: and I beseech God, that as many may admire your Majesty for working it, as shall envy me for writing it. But all must rest upon your Highness more ripe and Royal resolutions; wherein, and in all the courses of your Long-wished life, I shall ever pray for all such happiness, as best becometh  
Your most sacred Majesties most Loyal Subject, faithful servant, obedient Disciple, dutiful Godson: JAMES SEMPIL.   

TO THE USE OF THE READER.  
Twenty twelve months are near spent (good Reader) since I had studied this Lesson, whereof I do here now render thee an account: a Lesson, I say, not a Lecture, and so but to be read by entreaty, received as without authority, and censured freely: for all are welcome that come well.  
Two things would I advise thee touching it: The causes moving me to it, and the course I hold in it. The chief cause was, his majesties both example and authority, (as I have said to himself) who, the more Kingdoms God giveth him, the more careful he is to see the Kingdom of heaven replenish them: and so, directing sometimes Commissioners of all sorts and Callings, for surveying Christ's Sanctuary in his Kingdom of Scotland, I was for one. Amongst many things reformable, we found one almost incurable: Sacrilege had sealed up Ignorance in many places: Levi was fled to his Land, 
Nehem. 13.  because he lacked his portion.  
Some, that had at first joined themselves to our Reformation (more for rapine sake, as appeareth, than Religion) both Atheists, Papists, and some (in show) Protestants, (a Sacrilegious trinity) as they pulled down the Churches, so peeled they the Church-rents: laying this ground, The one shall never be built, and the other ever beg. The Atheist, because he hath No Religion, he must have All the Tithes. The Papist, disliking the present Religion, thinketh in Conscience he may take Tithes in Custodiam. And the Third, renounceth Ignorantia est matter pietatis; but yet protesteth, that Paupertas be nutrix Religionis, both blind and beggarly rudiments: No scant of such Protestants.  
As my soul may see joy, I sorrowed for this, being far from all hope of gain, for I am no Levite, and free of all malice, for I have no private enemy (and I could wish, no friend) in the business. But when I saw their Sacrilege so confirmed, as they could pick out more texts for a peck of Tithes, than (perhaps) for a point of salvation: and again, seeing the Prince so perplexed to see his Churches planted: I was glad to go to School for my own direction, finding never better grounds, than I received from our Divine David's own mouth, viz. The Church had ever an inheritance (entitled Tithes) before, under, and after the Law: whereupon may stand a goodly building. And this for my Motives.  
Touching the course then, I hold in it: I draw the general word (Sacrilege) to the only point of Maintenance, and Maintenance again, to that only, which Scripture calleth Inheritance, viz. Tithes. The point then to be confirmed is, Tithes inheritance, are due to the Ministry of the Gospel, by the Law of God. Many doubt of this, as I both hear and read: but more deliver their judgements, then confirm it by good arguments; for in such case, Custom is no Law, and Law is not human, but dependeth only on God: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And for this cause, do I not scum the Fathers, or Antiquities, further than I find them play upon the text, pro, or contra. Then, as I require not my reasons to be received with the reverence of a Father: so I pray thee (good Reader) reject them not, as the raveries of a child: for the one is neither author of lies, nor the other of Truth. The Philosopher taught us better, To conceit truly of all things, according as they are▪ for they are not what they are, because such is our conceit of them. In Divine testimonies then, we are to consider, Quis dixit, and Quid dictum, and so to acquiesce: keeping always that noble Boerean custom, of Scrutamini Scripturas: not fide implicitâ, to believe all, because such a **** aid so. In human testimonies, we are only to weigh Quid, and quo jure dictum, not Quis: for no simple truth resteth upon this.  
According to three ages foresaid, do I treat of the question: before, and under the Law, in the first part: under the Gospel in the second. Objections are brought for earch Period, as I have read or heard them, but most part nameless, for I seek to clear the Truth, not to be the Whetstone of Contradiction: some objections, from my own private debating with myself: all which, I have set down here, fearing other men might stumble at the same: for the Spirit of doubting, is an earthly guest, and common: the Spirit of true resolution, from above only, Truth being but One, and Error infinite. If all doubts than be not here peculiarly answered, yet the grounds well held, will answer all. The Town of Abe in Phocis, was preserved by Philip Macedo, when he had destroyed all the rest, because the people of that Town were free of Sacrilege. Now, if that Philip were to take a survey of our Towns, boroughs, and Abbeys: how many Abbees would he find? What would he leave undestroyed?  
The cause of men's carel snesse of this sin now, I take to be, that Time and Custom, hath given it such authority, that it is neither feared, nor admired: where under the Law, and Poedagogie of the jews, it was most-times, as presently punished, as children whipped at school: Vzza struck dead, Vzzia leper; and Achan with his whole race, stoned, or destroyed for Sacrilege. We take all (as the proverb is) To the long day: but then shall there neither be place for Restitution, nor Sacrifice for purgation. Foresee (good Reader) and farewell.   

ANDREAE MELVINI IN AUTHOREM ET ARGVmentum Epigrammata.  

QVestio quae argutos exercuit usque Sophistas,  
Imperiale diu, & Pontificale forum;  
Disputat hanc acer sollerti Semplius arte,  
Hunc nodum & soluit: non secat ense, ferox  
Rex nodum ut Phrygium Macedo. Quanto hic magis illo  
Pellaeo Scotus vindice victor ovat?   
In Sacrilegium, & Sacrilegos: Eiusdem.  

QVod natura, quod Ars, quod Naturae auctor, & Artis,  
Rerum auctori uno dedicat ore Sacrans,  
Auri hoc sacra fames scelerato intercipit ausu,  
Dum dirum expatrat, Sacrilegumque nefas.  
Haud legum metus, aut Regum reverentia tangit  
Devota immani pectora avaritiae.  
Temnitis humanum ius, & mortale tribunal?  
Divinum en summo ius movet arma foro.  
En, judex sublime locat sub nube tribunal:  
Aliger in flamma vindice tortor adest.  
Vobis Sacrilegis obstructum est limen Olympi,  
Tartarei & Ditis ianua aperta patet.   
Eiusdem.  

EST fluctus Decumanus; & est owm Decumanum:  
Et porta in castris quae Decumana fuit.  
Sic rerum Natura parens, sic aemula rerum  
Naturae Ars, opifex sic utriusque Deus,  
In Decumis ponens quae maxima, Maximo & illas  
Dignas se Decumas segregat ipse sibi.  
Quod sibi secrevit numen, quod vendicat uni,  
Deberi, haud reddi hoc qui velit, ater homo est.    

S. S. SONNET. Of Sin, and Sacrilege.  

ALL Sin seems sweet; all Sacrilege is Sin,  
And of all Sins seems Sacrilege most sweet.  
As serving for all lusts, cloth, drink, and meat,  
And seldom ends where once it doth begin.   

Stolen goods seem sweetest: and what greater stealth,  
Then cozen Christ by colour of a Law?  
And all his Levites livings to withdraw;  
Curse to the Kirk, wrack to the Commonwealth.   

The faithful child, he fears his Father's rod;  
He says, He swears, he shall not do't again.  
But these pernicious persons, and profane,  
They fear not, though they feel the plagues of God.   

Poor Sacrilegious souls; Repent, Amend.  
And prove not achan's in your latter end.    

DAV: DICKSONI, In Sacram hanc Sacrilegij confutationem.  

QVo decimas cumules? ad opes! & opes? ad honores.  
Quo tibi opes & honor? quo mihi vita petis?  
Ah nescis, nec scire cupis, quibus ista parentur  
Res, decus, & vere vita beata, modis.  
Qui se posse putat spolijs ditescere Diuûm,  
Desipit; & rem augens, dissipat ipse suam.  

jacob. c. 5. v. 2.  Aerugo, en, nummos; vestes tinca; horrea vermes,  
Consumunt; solus non tamen ista vides.  
Decidet, iniustas per opes, qui captat honores;  
Nam pennas Aquilae miscuit ipse suis.  
Sint tibi opes; sit honos: miserum tamen esse necesse est,  
Sejani infaustum quisquis equum retinet.  

Malac. c. 3. v. 10.  Ergo ut & haec, atque his maiora, tibique, tuisque,  
Perpetuo constent; redde Deo decimas.   
EIUSDEM.  

CReditus Antaeus ferro inviolabilis olim est,  
Dum Tellus vitam, quam dederat reparat.  
Cautior Alcides, vim fati ut perspicit, ulnis  
Tollit humo caesum, & Pendulus, ecce perit.  
Sacrilegam simili fato qua sacra profanat  
Harpriam, peperit subdola avaritia.  
Saepe hominum haec telis cecidit, iam saepe revixit  
Matris ope, & vacua est tandem hominum pharetra:  
Sed Tu, tela Dei torques, super astraque rap●as  
Matre procul (Macte,) haec qua pereat ratio est.    

Aliud.  

FAtere tandem, victus es  
Quicuunque captus illice  
Odore lucri, splendido   

Sacra temeravisti dolo.  
Fatere furtum candide,  
Quod arte, lege, vi, minis  
Tectum volebas hactenus:   

Nec amplius praetexe Ius.  
Huc usque iura ludere,  
Et fraud Ius propellere,  
Et lege Legem scindere,   

Tibi licebat in foro.  
Sed justus orbis arbiter,  
Tandem reclusit ius suum,  
Et Sacra, iure vendicat   

Sacro; quis audet hiscere?    

Faults escaped.  
PAge 41. line vlt. for Word, read World, p. 62. l. 10. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 64. l. 1. for new, r. mere. p. 69. mark l. vlt. for Tithing, r. Priesthood. p. 76. l. 20. r. at a Priesthood. p. 90. mark l. vlt. for Vernus, r. Vernas. p. 98. l. 17. r. May not Levies hired servants labour Levies lands?  
In the Appendix.  
PAge 11. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 13. l. 23: for how, r. howsoever. p. 15. l. 7. r. such as are first. p. 16. l 19 for presently, r. presented. p. 27. l. vlt. for leaving, r. levying: and for enjoining, r. enjoying. p. 28. l. 8. for either, r. rather. p. 38. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and also l. 15.   

SACRILEGE SACREDLY HANDled, according to only Scripture. First, For the Law.  

THE FIRST PART.  

CHAP. I. The Etymology, and subject of Sacrilege. Sacrilege here specially meant of Tithes. Church maintenance divided, defined.  
SACRILEGE, is from Sacra, and Legere; §. I Legere here, is to Gather, 
Etymology of Sacrilege.  and not to Read holy things: for lack of reading, or at least of understanding, increaseth this Gathering. And though a holy gathering both may and must be, having God for the head-gatherer; his Ministry as his Officers, for gathering his holy people to his heavenly folds; his Patrimony to be gathered by them, as the life of their labours: yet our Christian world so overfloweth with heaps of unholy and godless gatherers, that Sacrilege now, signifieth nothing but filthy profanation of holy things.  
To know this sin well then, we must first know, what are the sacred and holy things, wherein he hath his being.  
§. TWO Things, or Creatures sacred, are either by Creation or Separation. 
Subject of Sacrilege.  By Creation, heavenly, Angels: earthly, Man, to his own Image. By Separation holy, are such of all his earthly creatures, as are separated from profane or common use to God's service.  
Things separat to this holy use, are generally five. First, A form of worsh p to be done, answering How, or What. Secondly, Time, When. Thirdly, Place, Where. Fourthly, Person, Who. And last, Maintenance for his calling Of all these five is Sacrilege committed, whensoever any point is withholden from the use it is ordained for.  
§. III But to come to that point whereof we mind to treat, it signifieth only, 
Sacrilege of Tithes.  withholding of Maintenance, the thiefe-exercise of men of our age, chief where the light is greatest, and the Person greatest. Any Religion will rob their Gods; but a Sacrilegious Protestant surpasseth all: So that no man now, in show more religious, than some who in substance be most Sacrilegious, (that is) Sac-religi●us; for that Religion feedeth best their soul, that filleth best their sack: A greedy kind of Gospelers, Pharisaically proud of their profession, 
Luke 18.12.  all save one thing: The Pharisie vaunted that he gave Tithes of all he had: they will not (if they can) give the Tithes of any thing they have. The Gospel should be preached purely, therefore the Preachers live Poorly: Alms for Maintenance.  
§. IIII But Scripture giveth a twofold Maintenance: from God immediately; 
Maintenance divided.  or from man's Liberality: from God, either Perpetual, or Temporal Maintenance.  
§. V Perpetual, whereby God from all beginning till the end of the world, 
Maintenance defined. Num. 18. 20.2i.  provided for the whole ministery of his worship in general; and called ever in Scripture, God's inheritance, viz. the first Tithing,  
Temporal, whereby God provided in special for such a service, such an Officer, and such a period of time: So were the portions of the Sacrifices, etc. a part of Levies Maintenance for his ceremonial service.  
Maintenance flowing from Man, is, when (Gods inheritance being first set apart) He separateth any thing from the common use to the Lord of all that he hath. 
Levit. 27.28.   
Of these two sorts of Maintenance maketh Sacrilege his chief muster: which in proper speech, in place of Sacrilegium, Holy gathering, should have said, 
Rom. 2.22.  Sacri-furtum, holy theft: or Sacri-raptum, holy robbery. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this for his Etymology: followeth his nature and Definition.   

CHAP. II. Sacrilege defined, divided: Some objections answered.  
SAcrilege (by Scripture defined) is, 
a Levit. 5.15. & 22.14.  A taking away §. I of things consecrated unto the Lord. 
Sacrilege Defined. Divided.   
It is done either of 
b Ibid.  Ignorance or knowledge.  
If by Ignorance, it craved by the Law, both Restitution and Purgation.  
For Restitution, 
c Levit. 5.16.  He shall restore that wherein he hath offended, in taking away of the holy thing: and put the fift part more thereto, and give it unto the Priest.  
For Purgation, He shall bring for his trespass offering unto the Lord, a Ram without blemish, etc. and so the Priest shall make an atonement for him.  
If it be done of Knowledge; that which is taken, and all that the taker hath, must be for the Lord as a sacrifice, for Restitution: and he with his whole family stoned, 
Ios. 7. Act. 5.3. Prou. 20.25.  and burnt for a Purgation. So was done to Achan, not much unlike to Ananias and Saphira. Yea, It is a destruction for a man to devour that which is sanctified.  
Then from this our Definition, we speak now of Maintenance, Inheritance, Tithes: thus, 

§. TWO All taking away of things consecrated to the Lord, is Sacrilege.  
All Tithes, Inheritance, are consecrated to the Lord.  
Ergo, All taking away of Tithes is Sacrilege.    
Object. 1 This Assumption no man will flatly deny, yet many distinguish it: astricting this consecration of Tithes to the Lord, only to the time of the Law: because only there, are Tithes by precept due to the Levites, and their Priesthood; and that Priesthood now wholly abrogated, and so Tithes no more to be paid.  

Respon.  Alas, here now they err, not knowing the Scriptures; §. III for while they imagine Tithes and the Law to be Twins of one Time, 
Ceremonies, in what things.  they have not read the Scripture (as shall be 
a Cap. 6. add fin. & cap. 7.  proved.) And whereas they reckon Tithes amongst the Ceremonies of the Law, here they understand not what they have read. For all the Ceremonies of Moses' Law were so ordained, as they did prefigure something to be done 
b Gal. 4.4.  till the fullness of time was come. 
c Heb. 9.10.23.  And stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal rites, until the time of reformation. And were similitudes of heavenly things. All these (we confess) were truly Legal Ceremonies, leading to Christ by a 
d Heb. 7.16.28.  carnal commandment; and abolished in his Priesthood by an eternal oath: But now, as all these ceremonies looked only to Christ, and lived only till he came: so on the other part, Every thing that looked, or led us to Christ, was not so ceremonial, nor yet by Christ abrogated: No, for this would shut up both the Moral and judicial Laws, yea the very Decalogue itself, under the Ceremonial Law. But to give some other instance herein; Melchisedec looked to Christ; yea, typed Christ as a Priest; 
Heb. 7.3.  yet Melchisedec continueth a Priest for ever. So, if a thing may be typical; and yet neither Legal nor Ceremonial; much more things that were never Typical, as Tithes. Then we ask, What did Tithes prefigure in Christ? What carnal rite were they, expecting reformation? What similitude of heavenly things? In what place abolished? And by what things supplied? If no man answer, we still say they have read, but understand not. 
Cap 4. lib 6. p. 94. Edit. 89.  Fenner in his Theolog. most curiously noteth the signification, of all Legal things unto Christ, but in Tithes, although he offereth a signification (as in other things) yet hath he found none. Object. 2  
Yet some one seemeth both to have read and understood out of the same places, Heb. 9.10. That seeing 

Meats and drinks were Levitical and Ceremonial.  
Tithes were Levitical meats and drinks.  
Ergo, Tithes were Ceremonial.    
Neither were all meats and drinks Ceremonial, 
Respon.  but only such as had a Ceremonial institution: neither §. IV were all Levies Tithes meat and drink, 
All Tithes are not meat.  for many things were tithed which might not be eaten, and were given him as a maintenance for all his necessities: 
Num. 18.21.  And Jerome translateth the same place, In usus & necessaria eorum separavi.  
Neither were such Tithes as were their meat and drink, such holy meats as the Apostle speaketh of, 
Tithes, though meat, yet not Ceremonial.  which were (as is said) similitudes of holy things, arising from sacrifices and Legal oblations, all abrogate by Christ Holy meats were astricted o only holy persons: 
Levit. 10.13. & 22.6. & 8.31  No stranger, nor hired servants in a Levites house might eat of them: And to holy times and places: but Tithes once paid to Levy, 
Mark 2 26.  might out of his hospitality, be eaten by all persons, at all times, and in all places of the Kingdom. But I pray, if Tithes had been so holy meat then, why should profane mouths devour them so now?  
§. V Yet some do read, and say they understand, that if Object. 3 astriction to holy and Ceremonial persons or places, maketh a thing truly Legal and Ceremonial: then Tithes can no longer escape: Why? Because they were astricted to the Temple, a holy ceremonial place, and to Levi, a holy ceremonial person. For the place they prove thus, 
Deut. 12 6.17.  Ye shall bring thither your  offerings and your Tithes: And again, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the Tithe of thy corn, etc. But thou shalt eat it b●fore the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose. And lastly, 
Mal. 3.10.  Bring all the Tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house. Those texts prove plainly, Tithes must be brought to the Temple: the Temple it was a ceremonial place: Levi a ceremonial Priest, both by Christ abrogated: Ergo, Tithes also ceremonial.  

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

CHAP. III. Four sorts of Tithes, and each discerned from another by Scripture. Objections answered.  
TITHES in Scripture are first twofold, paid by §. I Israel, and paid by Levi. By Israel, 
Analysis of all the Tithes in the Script. to discern Tithes.  paid either to Levi alone, or to other uses, wherein Levi was also a partner.  
To Levi alone, were paid Tithes, inheritance, yearly.  
To other uses, Tithes were paid, yearly, or each third year.  
Yearly, to the holy Feasts.  
Each third year, for the poor, etc. of all these was Levi a partaker.  
Tithes paid by Levi, were Decimae Decimarum, Tenth of Tithes.  
Now this word (Tithes) being commonly taken by most men for Levies inheritance, whatsoever they read (by accident) of the other Tithes in Scripture, they apply it (far amiss) to Tithes inheritance, and so carry all away, Parsonage, Vicarage, Altarage: But to clear all by Scripture.  
The first three sorts of Tithes paid by Israel, are orderly §. TWO set down in Deut. 14. beginning at vers. 22. 
The first sort of Tithes.  Thou shalt give the Tithe of all the increase of thy seed that cometh forth of the field, year by year.] He addeth to whom and how, Num. 18.21. To Levi, and, for inheritance. And Leuit. 27.30.31. he is special of what, All the Tithe of the Land, of the seed of the ground, of the fruits of the trees, of bullock and sheep, and of all that goeth under the rod.]  
Hear now are those ordinary, yearly Tithes: the Natural, 
Ante Legem, sub Lege, & post Legem.  Legal, and evangelical maintenance of God's worship: and are set down here by Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ever in the first room, and only privileged with that high title, The Lord's inheritance.  
§. III To discern them lively from the rest, remember these general notes as they occur in Scripture with Tithes. 
Three notes whereby to discern Tithes.  First, Of all.] Secondly, Year by year.] Thirdly, All places and persons.] All those shalt thou ever find to agree with (and only with) Tithes inheritance: the restrictions import ever some Ceremony, as in their particular collation shall plainly appear.  
Solution. To the argument then, Tithes must be brought to the Temple, Ergo, Ceremonial: It is clear, that Tithes inheritance (as in the first sort) were never all tied to the Temple, nor jerusalem: because all the Levites were not tied to jerusalem, but lived abroad many of them for reading of the Law unto the people every Sabbath day in their Synagogues, 
Act. 15.21.  and so must have had their sustenance where they served.  
That they stayed not all still at jerusalem, is cleared by their turns according to their lots, 1. Chron. 24.5. etc. And All the Levites of the holy City were 284. and the residue of Israel, 
Neh. 11.18.20.  of the Priests, and of the Levites, dwelled in the Cities of judah, every one in his inheritance.] Now, that they drew their sustenance in the places of their service, it is also clear, 
Neh. 10.37.38.  That the Levites might have their Tithes in all the Cities of our travel, etc. But the examination of the second sort will clear this more.  
§. IV The second sort of Tithes followeth in the next verse, 
The second sort of Tithes Vers. 23. & Deut. 12.6.17.11. etc. Vers. 24.  And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God (in the place where he shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there) the Tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, etc. And if this way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it, because the place is far from thee, etc. 
Vers. 25.  Then shalt thou make it in money, and bind up the money in thy hand, and go unto the place, etc. 
Vers. 26.  And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy heart desireth, whether it be ox, or sheep, etc. And the Levite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake, etc. 
Vers. 27.   
These Tithes cannot be Inheritance, seeing they agree only with one of our three general notes proper thereto, viz. Yearly. They are not of All, but of only Corn, Wine, and Oil, as vers. 23.] They are not for All places, but only at jerusalem, vers. 24.25.] And this exchange of them into money, vers. 24. for the longness of the journey, and difficulty of carriage, proveth clearly, that Tithes inheritance being of All things, could not be first carried to jerusalem, and thence back again, to be divided among the dispersed Levites.  

a Lyra on Deut. 12.6.17.  Lyra and 
b junius in Analysi sua contra quam priu● cum Tremellio  others would confound these two verses, and make both but one tithing. But mark how the text itself distinguisheth them, vers. 22. Thou shalt give of All: Hear, the Giver is the Israelites, the Taker than must be the Levites.] Vers. 23. Thou shalt eat, meaning the Israelites, as of before: So Giving, Taking, and Eating, cannot meet In eadem personâ. And Num. 18.21. Tithes are called Haereditas vestra, meaning the only Levites: therefore the Israelites cannot be commanded here, to eat them. And beside Scripture, we oppose to Lyra, josephus saying, 
Amiq. lib. 4. pag. 91. A. D.  Let the tenth part of the fruits (besides them that are due to the Priests and Levites) which you are accustomed to sell in y ur markets (being reduced into ready money) be spent in sacrifices and banquets in the sacred City.] And, Besides the two tenths which I commanded you yearly to pay (the one to the Levites, and the other for your Festivals) you shall for every third year annex a third, to be distributed amongst the poor, to women, widows and orphans. 
Cap. 1.7.8.9. ] Again, Tobit, another jew also, payeth them all three, as three distinct Tithings: here therefore old Lyra begat a young error.  
§. V That place then of Malachi, Bring ye all the Tithes into the Storehouse, 
Genera singulorum, non singula generum.  This universal note, All, must be All such Tithes as the Law appointed to be brought up of each sort, not the whole Tithes of all sorts. This limitation of, All, is so agreeable to precepts of Logic, and so frequent in practice of Scripture, as it needeth no proof.  

2. Chro. 31.11.  Malachies' Storehouse then, and Ezekias Chambers, were both one: the Chambers were built for the great heaps of Tithes, the heaps were for the Feasts, the Feasts for the Lords worship. 
Deut. 16.16.  And if this course had not been held, seeing all the males, poor and rich, must have been thrice a year at jerusalem, they had rather fasted then feasted. Now the remainder of those heaps, were for those that either stayed still at jerusalem, or as came out of their Cities to worship at jerusalem, as Deut. 18.6. who all this time were not to live of the sale of their own patrimonies abroad, 
Deut. 18.7.8.  but had a portion with their brethren staying at jerusalem, and served as they did, keeping each, one, both the Family he was of, and charge they were appointed unto; as a Gershonite to a Gershonite, and so forth: the distribution of those Tithes, was by chosen men to that purpose, appointed in that same place, 
2. Chron. 31.12. etc.  of the Levites themselves.  
§. VI The third sort of Tithes in vers. 28. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the Tithes of thine increase the same year, 
Third sort of Tithes.  and lay it up within thy gates. Then the Levite shall come, 
Deut 14. Amos 4.4.  (still the Levite) because he hath no part, nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, and shall eat and be filled.  
Now, seeing all inheritance is Yearly, and these Tithes but each third year, they cannot be God's inheritance. Whatsoever Ceremony may be in the time, (tertio anno) yet the perpetual equity of those Tithes (ratione finis & usus) holdeth still. For as Lyra allegeth them to have been instituted, for preservation of the poor, from eating in necessity the meats of the Gentiles Idols. So have the Apostles by divers precepts provided for the poor, but chief for those of the household of Faith: 
Gal. 6.10. 1. Cor. 16.1.  and late Writers hold this to answer those Tithes for the poor. This was called afterward by Moses, 
Deut. 26.12.  The year of Tithing: because this third year increased one Tithing above the other two. And such were Tithes paid by the Israelites, followeth now.  
The fourth sort of Tithes, paid by Levi, the Tithe-taker, §. VII to Aaron, and his successors, High-Priests: 
The fourth sort of Tithes. Num. 18.26, 28.  When ye shall take of the children of Israel the Tithes, which I have given you of them for your inheritance, then shall ye t●ke an Heaveoffering of the same for the Lord, the tenth part of the Tithe.  
Behold here, Tithe-takers become Tithe-payers, and so these Tithes cannot be the Lord's inheritance, being defective in two of the general notes agreeing to God's inheritance, viz. Person and Place: in Person, 
Verse 28.  because they are paid by the Ordinary Officiar of receiving Inheritance, Levi, to the only Highpriest. In Place; 
Nehem. 10. ●8.  And the Levites shall bring up the tenth part of the Tithes, unto the house of our God, unto the Chambers of the treasure-house. Now if all Tithes were brought up to jerusalem, to what end should he here command to bring up the tenth of them again? All this is ceremonial.  
But mark yet, Then it shall be counted unto the Levites, as the increase of the corne-floore, or as the increase of the winepress.  
Then Tithes inheritance, can no way be Ceremonial, for here they are to the Levites, even as the Land was to the other Tribes: And Levi giveth offerings, (viz. as first fruits, 
Num. 18.11.12.13.27.29. & Exod. 22.29.  and so doth Jerome translate this place, Primitias) out of his Tithes, as if they were his very Barns, his Winepress, even as the other Tribes did of their Barns, and Winepresses. Their offerings were all Ceremonial, their Inheritances, not.  
§. VIII Object. If they object, The Policy and possessions of the whole Tribes were but Temporal, and ended at Christ, Ergo, So must Levies Inheritance.  
Sol. We answer, both ended on their parts, but neither on Gods: God hath yet the same general interest in Canaan, that he had from the beginning, for Domini est terra, & plenitudo eius: And the same peculiar interest, in his own patrimony separated to his own service.  
If they yet reply, The other Tribes were only Temporal, but Levi both Temporal and Ceremonial, Ergo, So were Tithes his Inheritance.  
Hear a piece of sacrilegious Sophistry, to conclude from His Priesthood, to God's Patrimony. They are not of one nature, nor both the sons of one father. His Priesthood bred only by the Law: This Patrimony, long before both Levi and the Law. His Priesthood, bringeth with it only Aetatem; but this inheritance, Aeternitatem. That sort of Priesthood was Levies only, this sort of Patrimony was his also, but not only his. And so, in the division of the Land, God said not, This shall be Levies inheritance: 
Num. 18.20.22.24.  but, I am his inheritance. And, I have given, not, I will give Levi all the Tithes. They were but Levies, secundariô; they were, and are the Lords primò.  
Having settled the Tenth of Tithes in Aaron, he subjoineth §. IX vers. 31. And ye shall eat it in all places, etc. This, IT, cannot be the tenths of Tithes, as some guess; but it must be Tithes Inheritance: For first, 
otho.  the Hebrew Pronoune is Masculine, and must be Relative to Prouentu● area, in the former verse, which (in the remainder) was Tithes inheritance, as the learned may perceive.  
Secondly, Ye shall eat, is spoken here to the Levites: but what reason had they, to eat the Priests portions, which themselves were to pay them? Thirdly, In all places, cannot agree with things once tied to Aaron, and jerusalem; unless we dream they carried them back again to all the places of their residence, thorough the Country. The true meaning than is this: As the other Tribes must first give God his Tithes, before they might use their nine parts: so must Levi give to Aaron his Tithe before he put hand to Tithes his Inheritance: And this done, Tithes Inheritance were accounted unto Levi, as the increase of their own Barns and Winepresses, though they had none; and so they might eat them in all the places of their travels.  
Thus have we brought these confounded matters to a method, and sent each Tithe to his own place. But wonder it is to see the strange subtlety of Sacrilege seated once in the hearts of men, how they can allege those texts, Bring all the Tithes to God's house, to conclude this, Bring no more Tithes to the Lords house: for doubtless, if it were not more for love of the Tithes, than the Text, this Theology should never be so frequent.   

CHAP. IV. Tithes not Ceremonial of their nature. How to discern a Moral offering from a Ceremonial. Tithes a Moral offering.  
§. I THe Text we see is full of Tithes, and Tithes full of tentation to hungrie-zealed men: 
Sacri, Sacra fames.  so that we shall sooner solve their Syllogisms, then dissolve their Sacrilege. From the Institution of Tithes to Levi, they reason two ways: First, from their Nature: Secondly, from their End. From their Nature, thus, 

All offerings of the children of Israel under the Law, were Ceremonial.  
Tithes (even Inheritance) were offered by Israel under the Law.  
Ergo, Tithes Inheritance were Ceremonial.   And consequently, cannot be due to the Gospel. The Proposition they take. The Assumption they prove thus, For the Tithes of the Children of Israel, 
Num. 18.24.  which they shall offer, as an Offering (some read, Heaveoffering) unto the Lord, I have given the Levites for an Inheritance.  

Tithes by nature, not Ceremonial.  We confess the Assumption truly read: But because of the diversity of Translations, we must look unto the Original word, and distinguish it in the Proposition. Two Hebrew words, Rum, and Nuph, are used by Moses in divers sorts of offerings: the first signifying to Heave, or lift up: the second, to Wave, or shake to and fro. Sometimes these words retain their simple and common signification, though the subject be sacred: sometimes they import a mere Levitical Ceremony, tending and ending in Christ. For example, Exod. 14.16. Lift thou up thy rod, etc. Deut. 8.14. Lest thy heart be lifted up, etc. Here is the first word without any Ceremony. For the second word, Exod. 20.25. In building the Altar, a thing, 
Deut. 27.5.  both Sacred and Ceremonial, he forbiddeth to lift up or shake a Mason's tool or instrument for hewing of it: Hear was no Ceremonial end in Lifting, but only God would have these Altars during the time of their peregrination, so built, as they might be easily overthrown, and not serve for the superstition of others after their departure.] Exod. 35.21. etc. Are both words used, 
How to discern the Ceremony.  and in very Offerings, and yet import no Ceremony. For although the Tabernacle once built, was a most Ceremonial Type, yet the people's offering according as they had, man and woman, gold or silver, silk or linen, as materials to build it withal: here was no ceremonial offering perfected and abolished by Christ: For why may not every Christian Moses, for building houses to God's worship, command their people, Lift up, or offer of their substance to that use?  
Their Ceremonial signification floweth never from §. TWO the nature and propriety of the words, but because the whole circumstances of the Text show the matter to be Ceremonial. For example, Exod 29.23. etc. both words are mixed for the lifting up, and shaking to and fro, 
Levit. 7.34.  of the right shoulder, and the breast of the Peace-offering. Hear concur, a Priest, an Altar, an Offering or Sacrifice, all which were merely and only Levitical Ceremonies: yea, Shaking, and Heaving, have there, their own peculiar signification in Christ, as all Divines acknowledge. But what if these words do not import this Levitical Ceremony, 
Num. 8.5. etc.,  even in Levitical and Ceremonial Offerings? The Levites were offered to the Lord in place of the first borne, by purification, expiation, shaving, washing, sacrificing at the door of the Tabernacle, by the hand of the Priest, and so the Levites are in the translations called, a Shake-offering unto the Lord: Hear are all things most Ceremonial, save only Shaking. For neither read we, nor is it probable, that so many thousand men could be really shaken to and fro, ad quatuor plagas mundi, as was done with the right shoulder and breast of the Ram aforesaid. And if any man will draw Analogy from that Ceremonial shaking, to the shaking and dispersing of the Levites thorough the four corners of the Kingdom; then as the word is so, but Metaphorical, the matter is also Moral: for Levies successors under the Gospel are so scattered and shaken.  
§. III Of all these we gather a twofold offering, a Ceremonial, 
Moral offerings.  and a Moral. The Ceremonial, peculiar to the Levitical Law, and performed ever by a Levitical Priest: full of rites, as Altar, Fire, Offering, Heaving, Shaking, or some such signifying Ceremony, as is said. The Moral offering also two fold, either to God only and immediately, or by mediation. Only to God we offer out Prayers and praises, 
Hos. 14.2. Heb. 13.15.  The calves or fruits of our lips. By Mediation we offer to others, either for God's sake, or for God's service. 
Act. 10.4.  For his sake, Thy alms is come up into a remembrance before God: 
Philip. 4 18. Act. 24.17.  A sacrifice pleasant and acceptable to God. Alms and offerings. To others for God's service, even those Tithes, God's Inheritance, for all his officers, offered long before that Ceremonial Law, continued so by that Law, and why not also after that Law? No carnal Priest, Place, or rite here: for Levi did not offer Tithes here to God in name of Israel, (as was the nature of Ceremonial offerings) but received Tithes in name of God, as Inheritance, from Israel. All Ceremonial offerings must be done at the only door of the Tabernacle: But Israel offered these Tithes in all the Cities of their travels, as we have proved. All Ceremonial offerings were due to the Only Priests: 
Num. 18.8. etc.  but Tithes are also due, (and as some think only) to the inferior Levites. Offering then of Tithes here, is no other, than Abraham's giving to Melchisedec, and jaacobs' vowing to give Tithes. They are called an offering, because they should be freely offered, not craved, as the custom is to this day even where Seculars are Tithers, who are called unto, cried upon, yet will scarcely take them, having a resolution, as they rob the Lord, so to ruin the labourer.  
Thus we see, Offering, of it own nature, 
How Tithes are to be offered.  is a word for God's worship in all ages. To offer Tithes then, is to give them in such form, as God requireth in all gifts, viz. Speedily, as Exod. 22.29. With gladness, Ecclesiastic. 35.9. Not grudgingly, or of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver. 2. Cor. 9.7. Without murmuring. Deut. 26.14. And finally, In liberty of the spirit, and liberality of the heart, as was abraham's giving of Tithes to Melchisedec. Gen. 14.20.  
To make Tithes then a true Shake-offering, shake off the sacrilegious use of them, and so lift up thy heart a pure Heaveoffering to the Lord, saying with the true Israelite, Deut. 26.13. I have put the hallowed things out of mine house, and given it to the Levite, etc. Lest the Lord one day shake both thy stock and thy Tithe, thy body and thy soul.   

CHAP. V Tithes not Ceremonial in their End: Two points of Levies service, and three degrees of Levites: for all which, and to all which, Tithes were given in Inheritance. Sacrifices not properly Inheritance. The ●ge under the Law concluded, and more ancient rights preduced.  
§. I THe nature of Tithes being freed from Ceremony, their End is now quarreled, thus:  
Whatsoever was ordained for the service of the Tabernacle, must [as the Tabernacle itself] Bee Ceremonial.  
Tithes (Inheritance) were given Levi for that service.  
Ergo.  
The very text is their Assumption, Num 18.21. Now God help Levies successors, that is, such as be of the ministery now a days: for by this dealing, hath Levi been a hundredth fold in better case under the Law, than they be under the Gospel. O Rich Aaron, Type for a time! And poor Melchisedec, Priest for ever! A great pity, poverty should be perpetual. No remedy then, but up must the Tabernacle, or down must the Tithes. For as to the preaching of that heavenly Tabernacle, Christ: 
Tithes not Ceremonial.  it must go for Gra-mercy. Yet to say somewhat, lest we lose all, to the parts of this their Ceremonial Syllogism, [for little, or no substance in it:] Both Proposition and Assumption lack this word (Only) to conclude the question aright. For to be tied to the Tabernacle: and not (Only) to it, will not make a thing Ceremonial. For so shall we make the Decalogue itself Ceremonial: for it was also tied to be read in that Tabernacle by Levi. Ceremonial then, must be, Only with, or Only, for the Tabernacle. And if they say, Tithes Inheritance are Only for it: then both Proposition and Assumption are false, for two reasons:  
I. The only Ceremonial service of the Tabernacle §. TWO comprehended not Levies whole function. 
Two points of Levies service.   
II. Tithes were given to the whole Tribe for their whole function. Their service and function stood in two points, according to that Prophecy of Moses, 
Deut. 33.10.  They shall teach jaacob thy judgement, and Israel thy Law: 
2. Chron. 17.7.8.9.  They shall put incense before thy face, and the  offering upon thine Altar. The first point we see is a scattered service, according to a former Prophecy of Levies own Father, I will divide them (viz. Levites) in jaacob, 
Gen. 49.7.  and scatter them in Israel, to wit, for teaching the people God's Law, not tied (Only) to that Tabernacle: 
Act. 15.21. etc. 2. Chro. 11.14.  For Moses in old time hath in every City them that preach him, etc. This point is General, Moral, and so, Perpetual: derived from the first Adam, and by course prorogued to the second coming of the second Adam. The second point of their function, To put incense, etc. A service indeed Ceremonial, because tied to the Tabernacle Only, beginning and ending with Levi. Then, Moral scattered services, crave ever a like Maintenance; and Ceremonial tied service, the like also: and during the Law, one Officer, Levi, discharging both the Moral and Ceremonial services, did eat of both sorts of Maintenance. And this for proof of the first point: The Only Tabernacle was not Levies whole function.  
The second point, That Tithes were given them for §. III their whole function, not for one part: and also, to the whole Tribe, and not one part thereof, and chief (if there be any odds) to that scattered part and Moral service, it is proved by the same text brought against us: as shall best appear by a true Analysis of that whole Chap.  

Num. 18. Three degrees of Levites.  The Tribe of Levi being distinguished by order of Office, in Highpriest, Priest, and inferior Levites: he setteth down in this Chapter the Office of all, and the Maintenance for all. Their offices (mixedly) from verse 1. till 8. from 8. till 20. their maintenance common to the Priests, but not to inferior Levites, Nehem. 10.37. From 20. till 25. he setteth down their common maintenance viz. Tithes Inheritance proper to the whole Tribe: now because the Levites were restrained from the portions of the Priests; 
Upon Deut. 12.6.17.  Lyra (and others) conclude, that Tithes here, are only for the inferior Levites, exempting the Priests. But the text is ill taken up so; for from the beginning till ver. 20. he treateth only of the Priests Ceremonial service touching Sacrificing, and of the Ceremonial maintenance, which ariseth from the sacrifices, and offerings; in which, Inferior Levites had small handling, and so as small a portion. But from 20. he setteth down their Inheritance, by the only name of Tithes. This for Lyras guessing, 
Anti 3. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. & vita joseph. fol. 534 I. in the English translation.  to whom we oppose josephus, both a jew, and a Levite, yea of the Priests; plainly allotting Tithes both to Priest and Levites. So to ascribe God's inheritance to the least officers only, hath no better warrant than Deliria Lyrae.  
§. IV But to climb the tree of Knowledge, by the own true branches, 
Tithes due to the whole Tribe. Num. 18.20.21  hear what the Scripture saith. Abraham gave Tithes first to Melchisedec, even a great Priest, before the Law. And under the Law, the Lord said to Aaron, Thou shalt have none Inheritance in their Land, I am thy Inheritance. And, I have given all the tenth of Israel for an Inheritance, to the children of Levi. Shall not Aaron the Highpriest, and the children of Levi comprehend the whole Tribe? Further, seeing the Priests here are debarred all civil Inheritance as well as the Levites, why should they not live of the Ecclesiastic, as well as Levi? Again, 
Neh. 10.37.38.  Nehemiah with the people made a covenant, to give the Tithes of their Land unto the Levites in all the Cities of their travel; And a Priest, the son of Aaron, shallbe with the Levites when the Levites take Tithes. Some think this Priest, the son of Aaron, was but an overseer of Levies Tithing, that by their portion he might know the true proportion of Decimae Decimarum, which the Levites were to take up to jerusalem, and give to his Father Aaron. I rather hold, (with some others) that the Priests here, were partners with the Levites in Tithes Inheritance: And that this Priest was not one single person, (for how could one man oversee all the Levites, Tithing at one time, in all the corners of the Country?) but a Priest in each place, lifting for his brethren Priests, as the Levites for theirs, in the Cities of their residence: for they were mixed and dwelled together. But if the Priests had no part in these Tithes, tell us whereupon they lived all that time of the year they remained at home out of jerusalem? They were divided in four and twenty Classes; each Class served in his turn but for a Sabbath; so each Class came but twice a year: so it seemeth they lived abroad some eight and forty weeks, and no part of oblations or sacrifices might be transported, nor eaten out of jerusalem. judicent doctiores.  
But here they object, 
Ios. 13.14.  The sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel, are the Inheritance of the Tribe of Levi, as he said unto §. V him. So this word, Inheritance, 
Sacrifices not properly Inheritance.  maketh no more for perpetual Tithing, then for perpetual Sacrificing. For this, Tremellius wisely noteth, this speech to be both synecdochical, in putting Sacrifices, for all sorts of Offerings (whereof Tithes was one): And metonymical, in putting Things consumed by fire, for things reserved from fire. Again, seeing these things were only eaten by the Priests and their Families, and only at jerusalem, as all Scripture testifieth; it is most clear, that Sacrifices were not Inheritance for the whole Tribe. 
And 18. 7.  But josua explaineth all this in the last of this same Chapter, For the Lord God of Israel is their Inheritance, as he said unto them. Mark these last words, as he said unto them: This he said only in Num. 18. and there, only Tithes are the Lords Inheritance, and that for the whole Tribe, as is said. The very like Synecdoche, is in that speech of gisting the Tithes, for their service, in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, where Tithes were as due, (if not more) for their scattered service. But seeing the principal service of the Law was Typical and Ceremonial, Moses had reason to talk in Typical and Ceremonial terms, as by Tabernacle, to comprehend their whole service; and that very justly, seeing all their service was discharged in, but not only in, the Tabernacle. This Synecdoche is frequent to this word, Tabernacle of the Congregation: for it being properly, but that place where the Priests served, yet is it extended to Sanctum Sanctorum, where Aaron's rod was, as in the Chapter proceeding, vers. 4.7. compared with Hebr. 9.4. and Leuit. 10.9. and Numb. 1.49. etc.  
§. VI But how is Levi said to have no Inheritance amongst their brethren, 
How Levi is said to have no inheritance.  seeing both of their labours, and from their hands, they receive their Tithes; and so, seem more to be mixed among the Tribes, than any one Tribe with another? First, I think, because they had no such portion of the Land as they: secondly, for the different prerogative of their portions and tenors; The Israelites holding by a common and civil Law; the Levites, by a peculiar and divine: Tithes were the Lords, and resigned by him, to Levi; the Lord, and Levi, both must first be paid, before Israel can lawfully enjoy his: So is Levi both the first, and the freest tenant: and such as held of Levi, were always thought to have the better tenors; though now, all things go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with him, that is, upside down.  
Neither was this tenth given to Levi, 
Levi not the tenth part of Israel.  because he was the tenth part of Israel, as others dream. For the Tribes were twelve; and of all was Levi the least, by great odds. But if men may so much altum sapere; favour that curiosity, that favoureth the verity: for one might derive it better from a correspondency to the ten Commandments, a chief part of their charge; as who should say, teach ten to all, and take a tenth of all: so both are perpetual, and proportional.  
Levi then, being neither the twelfth, thirteenth, nor §. VII scarce sixtieth part of the people, it is clear, 
Num. 1.46. compared with 3.39. the people were 603550. the Levites but 22000. beside the odds of age reckoned.  that that was not the cause of giving him the tenth: for then, the sixtieth part should have been but his. A pitiful wonder it is, to see such learned men allege such reasons. But what then was the true reason of this donation? Observe it.  
Thousands of years before the Law, are Tithes given to the Lord between Abraham and Melchisedec; 
Gen. 14.20. and 28.22.  then vowed by jaacob. Hereupon, more than an hundrens years after, God intimateth to his people, 
Levit. 27.30.  That all the tithes of that Land were his; his already; his long before; not made his now. What needed all this, if God had only respected the general provision for a tenth, twelfth or thirteenth Tribe? Might not Canaan have been divided in ten, twelve, or thirteen parts, to the lesser Tribe, the smaller portion, as God appointed, Num. 26.54.? And might not Tithes also have been delayed till that time? But this thirteenth portion must be in the Lord after another manner, than the Land of Canaan was the Lords. What? more care of Levi, then of all the Tribes? Then of juda, whereof Christ himself came? Yet observe.  
§. VIII God giveth Levi first a calling, before he giveth him a condition: 
The Calling should bring on the Condition.  Numb. 1.49.50. (for Aaron and his sons were taken up as Priests, Exod. 28.) Even so is Levi, made the Lords more peculiarly than the other Tribes: All this while hath Levi no portion: the first news he heareth, is, he shall have no portion among his Brethren; only, I am his portion, saith the Lord, Num. 18.20. and in the next verse, I have given the sons of Levi all the tenth, etc. Then he subjoineth what moved him so to do, For his service in the Tabernacle of the Congregation: and therefore Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren, Deut. 10.8.9. So we see the only Calling brought on the condition.  

Neh. 7.94.  This rule was ever kept under the Law: he that could not prove his pedigree to the Priesthood, he was debarred holy maintenance. It should go so under the Gospel too: He that cannot give evidence of an inward calling, (his evangelical pedigree) should not be permitted, propter beneficium ambire officium. That this was the true cause, and right course in Levies maintenance, it is evident by this, that he who committed Sacrilege, offended God Primariò, against the first Table: he that rob any other Tribe, offended but in the second Table; he spoilt not God: he was but, a thief the other, a sacrilegious thief. Shall we clear it also by the Gospel? Rom. 2.21. etc. Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou which preachest, A man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest, a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Hear we see in these three points, he opposeth one and the same sin, under one and the same names: but then, Thou that abhorrest Idols, committest thou Sacrilege? What a strange change is in this opposition here, of Idolatry to Sacrilege? Paul proveth Sacrilege to be Idolatry thus, All covetousness is Idolatry, Col. 3.5. Ephes. 5.5.  
Whereupon we justly infer this, Ergo, 
All Sacrilege is Idolatry.  Sacrilege being a coveting of Gods own goods, must be most Idolatrous.  
So have we sufficiently proved, that, Tithes in no respect are Ceremonial: and that Tithes and the Law were not twins of one time, as we proved from Leuit. 27. But say they, Levitic. smelleth also of the Law: for this see Chap. 9 Secondly, we show, before either Law was given, or Levi gotten, Tithes were Gods by contract from jacob, Levies father. To this they reply, This was a Vow, and Vows also smell of the Law: Whereof also Chap. 8.9. Thirdly, Tithes were first of all the Lords, by most lawful, and powerful possession, passed between Abraham, and that Priest of the most high God Melchisedec: Of whom (with the Apostle) we have many things to say, which are hard to be uttered, because men be dull of hearing: and that by reason, they be too quick in Tithing. And this for production of God's rights, we go now to examine the pieces. And first, that which was first, viz. Our Possession.   

CHAP. VI Tithes at first given Really, and Royally, never matched with Laics. Some Objections answered.  
§. I OUR first right than is, our Possession: It goeth thus, 
Gen. 14.18.  And Melchisedec King of Salem, brought forthbread and wine: and he was a Priest of the most high God: And he blessed (Abraham) saying, Blessed art thou, Abraham, of the most high God, Possessor of Heaven and Earth: and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And Abraham gave him Tithe of all. Hear is a naked-like History to contain so great Mysteries: relative to nothing before it, foretelling nothing to follow it. It may be that Moses saw no more in it, than he set down: but Interpretations are of God. 
Gen. 40.8. Luke 7.28. Lib. 2. cap. 4.  And The least in the Kingdom of God, is greater than john Baptist: whereof afterwards. Howsoever, 
Patent, and Possession all in one.  yet here have we our most ancient, and authentic Patent, and Possession of our Inheritance, Simul, & semel, actione unicâ. Mark therefore the dignity of the Action, both in Substance, and Circumstances, and of that which floweth from it. For all is Real, all is Royal.  
Time Royal, in two respects, First, Because it was many hundred years before the law: A time of freedom, when as no precept did press any party to it. Secondly, The particular time of the action is described by Royal circumstances, vers. 17. viz. after that faithful Abraham redeemed faithful Lot, by the ruin of four Kings.  
Place Royal, vers. 17. For our Charter is dated in the Valley of Shaveth, which is the King's dale.  

Rom. 4.13.  Parties Royal, Melchisedec a King, and Abraham heir of the world: Melchisedec, a Priest of the most high God: 
All p●sse on Royal points.  and Abraham, Patriarch of all the Faithful.  
Witness Royal. The King of Sodom. vers. 21.  
Recorder, or Clerk Royal, viz. Moses, Governor of all God's people: revived by a Royal Prophet David, Psal. 110.4. and re-established in the most Royal days of the Gospel, Hebr. 7.1. etc.  
May we not justly say here then, that Heaven and Earth entered a league? When as the true Melchisedec, Possessor of Heaven and Earth, first King of justice, than King of Peace, blessed Abraham, and all his seed, the heirs of the world. When shall this bargain have an end? On whose part shall it fail? So long as Earth is inhabited, and by Abraham's offspring manured; so long must God have his Inheritance Tithes.  
Two Lessons here not to be neglected in the order §. TWO of this History: Melchisedec, 
justice, Peace, Religion and Tithing.  goeth before King of Salem, that is, justice and Righteousness go before Peace, and both go before Tithes, that is, without Peace, no settled Religion. Then, Peace is the daughter of justice, and Religion the Garland of Peace. Wheresoever then the Just God procureth us Peace, we ought to settle Religion (in all points) peaceably. And where the Power and Peace is greatest, there should Religion be purest, not Poorest For Religion once rend, Peace is violated: and Peace violated, breaketh the rod of justice.  
This course began here Abraham, our Patriarch and pattern, with Melchisedec, so soon as by God's justice he was made peaceable from those Kings his enemies: he heareth Melchisedec, God's Messenger, reverently: he rendereth him his due, Tithes, thankfully: which two points, paint out to us generally, the substance of all Religion. This before the Law.  
This course kept Moses at God's command, giving a Law, that when they should by God's justice, become peaceable in Canaan, they should then have Religion peaceable; only one worship of one God: and pay to his Officiars his inheritance, Tithes. And this course followed all the good Kings under the Law. So we would know, why this course may not also hold after the Law? For here have we the Cornerstone of all our building, viz. That how soon a Priest is named, so soon are Tithes named for his maintenance. So Tithes and Priesthood in general (not Legal Priesthood) are twins of one time. They are of Nature, Reciprocate: (that is) the one cannot be without the other: whereupon these two things will follow: 
Tithes and Seculars never matched.  First, That no marriage can be, between any Secular person and Tithes. Secondly, That so long as God hath Officiars of his worship on Earth; so long must Tithes be their Inheritance.  
§. III Object. Against all this is objected, That before this History of Melchisedec, (our first right) the world was some two thousand years old: and all this while was God worshipped; yet all this while not a word of Tithes: And why may not the last age of the world, worship God without Tithes, as well as the first? And so Tithes be only the Lords Inheritance during the Law, that first, and only, named them so?  
Sol. Resp. First, here is a double question. One concerning Tithes, another concerning their title, Inheritance. A general answer for both; all things beginning together, 
The Decalogue came with the Law, but must not end with it See part. 2. cap. 7. ad fin.  are not bound to end together: and touching the Law, it holdeth but in things Ceremonial, for Quod Morale est. Mortal non est, read lib. 2. cap. 7.  
Secondly, concerning Tithes, we must mark two things: First, As they are the goods of men generally. Secondly, The precise number in quoto, as they are a Tenth of their goods. And so, these first two thousand years, though the quota pars, 
Tithes, for the first two thousand years.  was not (nominatim) defined; yet Res ipsa, were to the same end employed; and so God still worshipped. Otherwise we may also conclude against all the other four general points of Divine service: viz. God was not for two thousand years worshipped, because, no Priest named, no times affixed: no place designed: and no special form prescribed: and so by a like consequence, we may live after the Law, without all these, as before it. But we say, all five were then re ipsa, though more confused according to the time. The first-born then discharged the Priest's office: and the best of all their goods served them for Tithes. 
Gen. 18.19.  So Cain and Abel (the Church being then as in her cradle) were taught by Tradition, before Law, 
Lib. 2. cap. 7. ad fin.  or by the Law of Nature, that whatsoever the Earth yielded unto them, a part (yea a chief part thereof) was due to the Lords peculiar worship. And so each of them brought out unto the Lord, according to his labours. Their Labours even at first, went as large as did Church maintenance under the Law, out of all the fruits of the ground, from cain's tillage: And of all the bestial of the field, from Abel's pasturage. Now, he who can discern in these two brothers, the Priest from the Laic, may as easily sequestrate their portions. Moral and Ceremonial here, went all in a manner, confusedly. Tithes than are (in quoto) precisely named, as soon as the Officiar (on whom they ever depend) is precisely named: and both, long before the Law. And so for Tithes.  
Now touching this title, (How Tithes may be held §. IV Gods Inheritance) during the first two thousand years, 
Have Inheritance.  seeing the Law only calleth them so? To this we answer, It followeth not, A thing is not that which it is, because it is not named as it is. As to say, Abraham was no Priest, because he is not called by the name of Priest: for whosoever sacrificed as first borne, were Priests. It is usual in Scripture, sometimes to name things peculiarly, before they be indeed so: as, the wandering Tabernacle▪ and the Stone which jacob erected as a pillar, 
Gen. 28.20.21.22. 1. Sam. 1.7.9.  were both named House of God; but were not so, till Solomon built there the Temple. And sometime again, things are in effect that, which they bear no name of, till long after: as Melchisedec here, was a Priest of an Order; but yet not named of an Order till David rose: and also Tithes, or that which supplied their room, were not called (Inheritance) till the own fit time. Yet that same right, which God had from all beginning in men's goods, was ever in effect God's Inheritance. And as the Mysteries of salvation began to be more cleared (as here, where God presented to Abraham a Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) so he maketh Abraham to offer his goods also Orderly, calling them at first, Tithes. And again, at such times as the Land was to be divided, and justice had begotten perfect Peace; and that the name of Inheritance could be of use, and all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; then (I say) did God claim his Inheritance; 
Levit. 27.30.  declaring, that those goods brought out at first, by Cain and Abel confusedly; and those Tithes, offered by Abraham distinctly, were both his Inheritance. Mark that he but declareth Tithes to be his Inheritance, without any precept: for the Law made them only Inheritance to Levi, 
Num. 18.20. etc.  not to God: and unless we draw Gods right from the first beginnings (as is said) we shall never find them the Lords by any other Scripture. And this for Tithes, both in matter and title.   

CHAP. VII. The word [Inheritance] maketh Tithes due to all ages. Levite, Priest, Minister, words for all ages. God hath a double inheritance. The dignity of the Church Ministry of old.  
Having found God's Inheritance to have begun §. I with the beginning in effect; and before the Law four hundred years, by name of Tithes; 
Inheritance, what.  and the Law to have prorogued them so, till Christ's days, four thousand years: How shall this Inheritance lose his virtue in Christ? It seemeth here, that if we but understood our natural mother tongue, we might easily know our heavenly Fathers will. For Inheritance hath ever this prerogative, That it can never be taken from the lawful Lord, but either by consent of the owner, or by Violence. Tithes taken back by Violence (as are all now adays) may reap achan's reward, when God pleaseth. As for Gods consent hereto; we will gladly expect, either their proof, or our repossession.  
Inheritance, again, is either Personae, or Officij. If Personal, than it goeth jure Patris ad Filium If Official (that is) gifted by the supreme Lord to any office or service, than it is Ius praedecessoris in successores. Tithes are Inheritance both ways; Personal, as they are the Lords Inheritance, primò, propriè and perpetuò. Official, as they are Levies for the Lord, that is, as they are by the Lord annexed in Inheritance to the Ministry of his worship: which worship, though it alter in forms, yet never in substance, or Moral part thereof: and therefore, the Moral maintenance must ever be one for all.  
Now if they object, that Tithes being gifted to Levi, in Official Inheritance, can stand no longer than Levi, & he no longer than the Law. We answer, Tithes were at an Office and Priesthood long before him: and Levi, as it signifieth the Office, and not the Persons, noteth all Ministers, in all degrees, and all ages. So under the Law, all the Levites made up but one Priesthood, though all Levites were not properly Priests: 
2. Cor. 3.7.  and the Apostle comparing the Law with the Gospel, calleth both a Ministration, and both their Officers, Ministers, and the Moral service in both, 
Act. 15.21. Matth. 10.7.  Preaching.  
But to derive the name of both Levite and Priest by §. TWO plainer warrant, to the Ministry of the Gospel, Esay prophesying directly of the days of the Evangelist, 
Levit, Priest, Minister, are for all ages.  how God would work amidst the Gentiles, by the Ministry of the jews, (others than Levites) And they shall bring all your brethren (that is, 
Esay 66.20. etc.  the adopted Gentiles) for an Offering to the Lord, out of all Nations etc. And I will take of them for Priests and Levites, saith the Lord. The special performance of this was, when Paul was separated Apostle for the Gentiles, and therefore he speaketh plainly of himself, both as a Minister, and as a Priest, and by Consequent a Levite. 
Rom. 15.16.  That I should be the Minister of jesus Christ, towards the Gentiles, Ministering the Gospel of God, that the (Offering up) of the Gentiles might be acceptable. So these are Words for all Worlds, and all worships, Levite, Priest, Minister: Ever such Priesthood, such Law. And Levi at first, Nomen proprium, of one single man, the son of jaacob: then, of a whole Tribe for distinction with the rest. In the end, (that Tribe being separated to God's service) Levi becometh Officij nota: and so common to all ages: and therefore may justly admit one common maintenance, as their Inheritance. And in this respect, the Gospel succeed to the Law, as the Law to Melchisedec, and Melchisedec to the Priests of the confused age before him. This were enough for our whole cause to defend it, if we were in Possessorio, but seeing we do but plead for it, we must keep nothing back.  
Inheritance pertaining to God in Scripture is twofold: §. III His people, whom he created to his own Image: 
God hath a double Inheritance. Deut. 4.20. Heb. 1.2.  His Tithes, which he separated to his own service. Now in Scripture language, Inheritance hath a prerogative here, above the Civili custom: for the Son inherits jointly with the Father. And so as the Father created, the Son redeemed his Inheritance: yea, Him God made heir of all things, and by him also made the worlds. To come to Tithes then, what wonder that being inheritance to the Father, they be also the Sons? Or shall we yet once more kill the Heir, when the Father sendeth him in his Vineyard? But what if no sooner the Fathers than the Sons? Shall he yet for all this lose his Birthright? He is coeternal with the Father. The Father never received Tithes but by his Officiars, as first of all by Melchisedec. Then I ask, whether were Tithes, Inheritance to Melchisedec, or not? If not, then had God no inheritance before the Law, But the Law gave none to God, but only to Levi, and so God hath none at all, 
Num. 18, 20, 2●  unless we derive it from In principio. And again, to ascribe Tithes as Inheritance to Levi a perishing Priesthood, and make them no Inheritance to an Eternal Priesthood, is beside all reason. And to say, Tithes may be Inheritance to Melchisedec so long as he lived, even as to Levi: Then I ask, when ended Melchisedec? 
Heb. 7.3.  He had neither beginning nor end of days, but is likened to the Son of God, and continueth a Priest for ever: Ergo, He must Tithe forever. And the same Melchisedec, in the same that he was the Father's Priest, was also the Son's Type. The Consequences are all good, but a fit time shall bring further strength, lib. 2.  
§. IV This for Tithes Inheritance in the person of our Royal Priest Melchisedec, 

Dignity of the Church Ministry of old.  
Vita joseph, ad initium.   Royal (I say) in regard of the great odds between that, and this our age now: For of old (as writeth josephus,) The true mark of Nobility was, to derive a man's pedigree from the Priesthood: so joseph was a Gentleman, because ex sanguine Sacerdotali. And in our own time, the only best Tenure, and Holding of Possessions, was to hold of the Church: But now all to the contrary. For Rome hath frustrate her Ministry of Matrimony, and we (at home) ours, of their Patrimony. She can bring forth no wel-begotten children; and we, but few well beneficed Churchmen. No joseph's in her; and all jobs with us: And in stead to hold of the Church, we hold all from the Church. Both much amiss.  
But we return to our Possession of Melchisedec, in which men may yet justly ask us, what proof we give of these two? 
Heb. 7.14.  That Melchisedec was of an Order, and that Order, Everlasting: for no such matter in Moses History. 
Psal. 110.4.  Take both then from David's Prophecy. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent. Thou art a Priest for Ever, after the order of Melchisedec. And here we have more, That another must rise from that same order, as far above Melchisedec, as he was above Abraham: who therefore must perform all things of Melchisedec more at full; both Blessing and Tithing, as Priest; feeding and Defending as King. But because this Prophecy is an obscure Commentary of Moses' History, we refer both to their due Interpretation, where plainer Scripture shall chain all together, and that in the World's last age. This for our first writ.   

CHAP. VIII. God's second right to Tithes from jacobs' Vow. Vows not all Legal. Tithes in Quoto due by his Vow.  
SUCH than is our Possession in this reencounter §. I between Melchisedec and Abraham: where all things passed upon such a reciprocal readiness and ripeness, (as ruled both by one Spirit) both in rendering and receiving: that men would rather think, they practised points by custom, or performed duties of Law, than any matter thus emergent de novo. Abraham received reverently the Lords Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Abraham, returned thankfully to him the Lords Inheritance, Tithes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Abraham saw the Lord's Day.  
Our second writ was, our Contract and Indenture, passed between God and jacob. jacob saw as much (if not more) as Abraham, (for the Mystery of Salvation increased always) and so he returned more than did Abraham. 
jacobs' Vision  Behold there stood a Ladder upon the Earth, and the top of it reached up to heaven, and lo, 
Gen. 28.12. etc.  the Angels of God went up and down by it. And behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, and the God of Isaac, the Land whereon thou sleepest will I give thee and thy seed, etc. Whereupon jacob vowed a Vow, saying, 
jacobs' Vow. Vers. 20.  If God will be with me, etc. Then shall the Lord be my God. And this stone which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God's house: 
Vers. 21. Vers. 22.  And of all that thou shalt give me, will I give the Tenth unto thee: Not to his son Levi. Mark this, jacob vowed Tithes for him, and his whole Seed, to God, (and in Abraham was Levi Tithed, saith Paul, Hebr. 7.) and God gave them to Levi. Now this Ladder was Christ, as all confess, even that via veritas, and vita. Hear jacob goeth a point beyond Abraham, To build houses to God.  
§. TWO But because this beareth the name of a Vow, men would turn all over to the Law. 
Vows not all Legal.  We answer, All Vows are not ever of that Law, but even of Moral duties also, as Esai. 19.21. And this Vow now in hand, concerneth all ages, both under the Law, and after, in all the points of it. But to answer briefliest and best, out of this same text: I ask, might not jacob as well vow for ever, Tithes to God; as, that God should be his God? Further, God giveth jacob special approbation of all the points of this Vow, chap. 31.13. I am the God of Bethel, for the first point.) Where thou annointedst the pillar, for the second, of God's house.) And for the thi●d, Where thou madest a Vow vn●o me, viz. to pay Tithes▪) So as jacobs' Vision was true, his Vow was lawful; and these doubts be but idle dreams of Sacrilegious slumbers. To our purpose then.  

Whom jacobs' Vision concerned, his Vow concerned.  
But his Vision concerneth all his posterity.  
Ergo, So doth his Vow.   
§. III The equity of the Proposition is this: That as God dealt with jacob in graces, 
jacobs' Vow bindeth his seed.  so he should meet God in gratefulness. The Assumption is many ways clear in the Text, but chiefly here: And in thee, and thy seed, shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed: a promise as proper to the seed of jacobs' Faith, as of his flesh; a mystery merely evangelical, All the Families of the Earth, jew and Gentile. A promise of blessing as ample, and as far reaching, as that first promise of the seed of the Woman, Gen. 3.15. immediately after the fall of Adam. All then, that think to rise by faith from that fall, or claim life by climbing this Ladder of jacobs' Vision, must be tied to jacobs' Vow. This Vision than is heritable: the Vow heritable; and therefore so long as any one point of the Vision is to be performed, so long shall Tithes be God's Inheritance, viz. till Christ's second coming.  
Hear than is this Vow, the very grandchild of Abraham's Possession to Melchisedec; an action heretably descended, (for doubtless Isaac failed in nothing.) Hear also, have we a longer journey for jacob, and his seed, then from Beershebah to Haran, and so back again: yea, a longer then from Egypt to Earthly Canaan. Our true Canaan, the end of our journey, is, the Kingdom of Heaven: jacobs' journeys are types of our afflictions, by which we must go, and come thither, as said Paul. 
Act. 14.22.  And because our journey is dangerous, long, and wearisome, therefore is our Ladder (Christ) sent down to the Earth, by, and upon which, we must walk, climb, and be drawn to that God above it. The Angels go beside up and down to draw, and conduct us. God himself above ready to receive us; great Moderator of the whole matter. O high, and heavenly.  
Hear some Hebrew writers include a mystery of the §. IV holy Trinity: but howsoever, 
jacobs' Vow applied to his Vision.  this whole action between God and jacob, keepeth a Trinall Harmony. God calleth himself, first, the God of Abraham: secondly, the God of Isaac: thirdly, the God of jacob. Three things he promiseth, first, To give him the Land he slept on: secondly, To multiply his seed as the dust of the earth: thirdly, In that seed to bless all the Families of the earth. jacob meeteth these three by a three-pointed Vow: First, That, the Lord shall be his God: here is a general foundation of Religion for all his seed, and for all ages. Secondly, He settleth the Circumstances, Place; That pillar should be God's house; a general ground also for all ages; for that typical Temple, and jewish Synagogues under the Law, and for our Churches. Thirdly, He annexeth Tithes, God's Inheritance, to his worship and Religion. Now, seeing all men will admit the first two points to be perpetual, and bind jacobs' posterity, to worship God, and to build houses thereto; how shall they be exempted from the third point, in giving the maintenance?  
§. V They say, that this Vow doth but bind us to a maintenance in general, 
Tithes in quoto, are not of the Law.  but not the same in quoto. I answer, Such Analogical equity's hold even from the most Ceremonial things of the Law, to the Gospel: But such things as are neither Ceremonial, nor clearly institute ad tempus, or arbitrium, bind the things themselves upon us: and we have showed, that neither Type, Ceremony, nor temporal condition fell upon Tithes: That they were not only, nor first Legal. Indeed, if the only Law, and first the Law, had designed quot ●mpartem, this dispute had been more doubtful: But seeing this Melchisedec, that most evangelical Priest, gave us the quote, seeing jacob before the Law, as in a perpetual Law, Vowed the quote: We see the Law is but a confirmer, and Levi but an observer of that, which was long before freely doted, and for ever devoted to God's service. The Law gave but the same quote, to a Priest of another Order, for his time: and shall that first, that evangelical, that Everlasting Priesthood, now revived again, come with dish in hand, and say, Quod vultis mihi dare? And this for our Trinall harmony in jacobs' Vision and Vow.  
Now are some men much solicit, both here, and in the former point of Melchisedecs' Possession; What form of Tithing it was? Of what goods? Yearly or no?  
As for Melchisedec, the second part of this Treatise shall clear him. As to jacobs' Vow, (which here we will end) §. VI to whom, or how he paid it. We say, 
God's promises, and jacobs' performances alike.  Such was jacobs' Vow, as was his Vision; and such were the performances on his part, as were the performances of Gods promises made to him. Now God performed not all the points of that Vision to jacob in his own person (because not in that nature promised): So jacob performed not all his Vow in his own person, for the like reason. God performed to jacob himself, the best part of that Vision, viz. the heavenly Canaan: and jacob returneth in his own person, the best part of his Vow, viz. The Lord was ever his God. So his only seed enjoyed the Earthly Canaan: and therefore his only seed paid Tithes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thence is it clearly proved, 
Who are jacobs' Seed.  That jacobs' Vow concerned, as much (if not more) his seed, as himself. And if they will yet a strict his seed, to his only flesh under the Law, because after this, jacob was called Israel; 
Gen. 32.28.  and the Israelites as jaacobs' seed, performed all: Let them remember first, that the heavenly Canaan, was the principal end of jacobs' journey, and so his Vow must stand, till his seed go thither. Secondly, Seed, here, is more of his Faith, then of his flesh: for all the Families of the Earth, which here are blessed in jacobs' seed, were not all of jacobs' flesh, 
Rom. 9.6.  but even japhets' seed coming home to the tents of Sem; The Gentiles called: therefore, all subject by jacobs' Vow to Tithing. Such as refuse, let them renounce both the ends of jacobs' Ladder, Heaven and Earth, and go to their own habitation. And this for our Indenture.   

CHAP. IX. The Edict of Tithes, (though in Leviticus, yet) proved to be no part of the Levitical Law: and so Tithes in all points (as the Lord's Inheritance) exempted from the Law.  
§. I NExt cometh our last Writ, our Edict, and that very orderly: For God being possessed in Tithes by Abraham; contracted by jacob, (good beginnings, for a promise only of the Land which must pay all) Now, after some four hundred years peregrination, for their faiths trial, by the fiery afflictions of Egypt's furnace, God intimateth unto them this public Edict: 
Levit. 27.30.  Also all the Tithes of the Land, both of the seed of the ground, and of the fruit of the trees, IS, (not shall be) the Lords. 
All in Leviticus, not Legal, or Ceremonial.  Though this be in Leviticus, yet is it not of the Levitical Law, because it containeth no Precept, and therefore no Law: yea it is a plain exception from that Levitical Law: For Moses' treating here of the nature of Legal Vows, and of what things the people might Vow, he telleth them, Tithes were already the Lords, long ago, and therefore they might Vow none of their Tithes. For to what end? jacob vowed them already, yet was not his Vow Legal or Ceremonial (as is said) but Moral, as was his vowing, God should be his God. Further, Vows of the Law, here are voluntary, at man's option, to do, or not to do, Tithes not so. And as this place of Leviticus, is but an Edict of God's right, so is it no right for Levi, for Levies right came not till Num. 18. In which also, he keepeth ever the same method: first telling them, Tithes are the Lords, vers. 20. and then, giving them to Levi, vers. 21.  
§. TWO And though, vers. 26. he useth the like phrase of the first borne, as he doth here of Tithes, forbidding to vow any such, for it is the Lords: yet that same (IS) is relative to a preceding precept, Exod. 13.2. Sanctify unto me all the first borne, etc. But no such Law for the ground of God's Inheritance, but evangelical Liberty, and liberality proceeding from the instinct of God in man, or tradition to, and from the first man: because,  fides, ita fidei opera, ex auditu. But the very Ethnics, as Paul saith, not having the Law, by nature did the things of the Law: So they doted Tithes to their Gods. And thus far for our Possession, Indenture, and Edict, proving clearly, Tithes to be the Lords before the Law; with such evident conclusions, drawn from the perpetual equity thereof, teaching Tithes must also reach after that Law: as also the title, that God had from the beginning, in all men's goods, containing the two first ages. Followeth the last age of the word.    

SACRILEGE FOR THE GOSPEL. THE SECOND PART.  

CHAP. I. Christ, and his Apostles concerning Tithes. They did abrogate all Ceremonial things.  
GOD thus having from all beginning §. I an heritable title to all men's goods, and that by Nature's light, 
Transitio.  (as is said) not Moses Law, two thousand years: And this his right by nature also defined, even (In quoto) to be a tenth part, four hundred years before the Law: And these same, both Right and Quota, by Commandment and Law, continued till Christ came, some two thousand years. Now are we to examine, the World's last age, under the World's only Bliss, Christ: whether he hath yet any right in our goods, or not: and if a right, whether the same in quoto, or not? The first, will no man deny: 
1. Cor. 9.13.14  The last, maketh most men ado. The Apostle cleareth the first, That the one Minister must live of the Gospel, as the other did by the Law. But whether he did intend the same (quota) in saying, 
Galath. 6.6.  Make him partaker of all thy goods, Hoc opus, hic labourest.  
§. TWO Levi then being the last receiver, and (so long as he lasted) Lord of a large Inheritance, 
Levi died not without heirs.  Tithes: Our question is, How Levi died without heirs? Or what did Christ, the Son, in putting Levi from his office of typing him, whereby his Father's Inheritance might not descend to the succeeding Officiars that Preach him? And why these Beggarly rudiments, 
Galath. 4.9.  and that perishing Priesthood of the Law, had so rich a Patrimony; and the glorious and rich Revelations of the Gospel, so beggarly a Ministry? For if Christ (who changed both Priesthood and Law) had likewise changed maintenance, this had been well. 
Heb. 7.11.12.  But since he hath placed Priesthood for Priesthood, and Law for Law, why hath he not also put Maintenance for Maintenance. First then of Christ himself, then of his Apostles: and that either by Deed, or Word.  

Part. 1. cap. 1. ad init.  Christ's Do in this his Spiritual Patrimony by Separation, was even like that of his Kingdom on Earth. For although he was a righteous King by carnal descent, and King of Righteousness by divine Essence, yet was he poorer than the Foxes of the field, 
Matth. 8.20. Act. 20.35.  or the birds of the air. So was it ever with him, Melius dare, quàm accipere, both ways. Besides, it was not the chief Lords part to take up his own Inheritance, but his Officiars, to whom also he gave them, as Inheritance. So did the only Ministry of both the former ages take Tithes, Melchisedec, and Levi. That Christ did nothing against them, it is clear: for if they had signified any Ceremony to be perfected in him, he had (doubtless) by some one action, answered it, as he did the smallest of all Ceremonies: which being once showed, Tithes are ended. This for his Deeds.  
His sayings are twice recorded: First, 
Matth. 23.25.  Woe be unto you Scribes and pharisees, for ye Tithe Mint, and anise, and §. III Cumine, and leave the weightier matters of the Law, 
Christ's sayings touching Tithes.  judgement, Mercy, and Fidelity. Hear he would seem against Tithes; but go on: These aught ye to have done, viz. judgement, Mercy, and Fidelity: and not to have left the other, viz. Tithing. Now if we should infer upon this, That so long as judgement, Mercy, and Fidelity are in use, so long must Tithes be: They will answer, That at this time, Moses' Law was good, until Consummatum est; therefore we leave this to the Apostles. Christ's second saying was; That comparison between the Publican, and the Pharisie vaunting of himself, I fast twice a week: 
Luke 18 12.  I give Tithe of all that ever I possess, and yet Christ preferreth the Publican; wherein he condemneth not the Pharisie for his paying Tithes, nor fasting; but for his vain boasting, of his own works. These are all we have of Christ.  
Of all those, Sacrilegious Tithers take great advantage. §. IV For seeing Christ (say they) changed both Priesthood and Law, filling their rooms, and hath neglected Patrimony, it is evident he hath abolished it. No, they still err, not knowing the Scriptures. For it is most true, That seeing he hath not brought in a new, he hath not abrogated the old: for to change, and to abolish, are both one, as they are relative to Moses' Law: So that whatsoever Christ changed, he abolished; putting always somewhat in place of it, as carnal things in Spiritual; Ceremonial, in Substantial; and perishing types, in Eternal Verities. Now, one word in all the Gospel, either plain text, or Consequence, against Tithes Inheritance? If nothing against it, then saith Tertullian, Quod non notat Scriptura, negat. But they reply here, Christ said nothing for them in the Gospel. Ergo, Negat, quia non notat. It followeth not thus, unless they say, No Scripture speaketh for them: and then they say false, and therefore better said, Lex semel lata, non deleta, semper obligat. Enough then for us, God at first taught it, The Law ordained it, The Gospel never gainsaid it. For we must not expect Christ as a new Legislator of all our Moral duties: No, He came to perfect and abolish the Ceremonial Law, 
Rom. 8.1.4.  to fulfil, and make us able to answer in him, the Moral Law.  
§. V Against all those five points of God's worship, Christ or his Apostles have spoken, 

All Ceremonial things abrogate by Christ, or his Apostles.  
john 4.21. Mark 2.28. and Mat. 12.8. Col. 2.16, 17.   in so far as they were Ceremonial. Against Place Ceremonial, Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor at jerusalem worship the Father. Against Time, The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath. So his Apostles changed it. And Let no man condemn you, etc. In respect of an holy day, etc. Or of the Sabbaths.  

Heb. 7.11.  Against Ceremonial Person, If perfection had been by the Priesthood of the Levites, what needed another Priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec? And, we see Christ choosed Paul, and many other Disciples and Apostles, not of the Tribe of Levi.  
Against Worship, in manner and matter, Christ's once Sacrifice defaced all theirs: 
Heb. 13.20.  Heb. 10. And, we have an Altar, whereof they have no authority to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle.  
Against the ceremonial maintenance of those ceremonial services, 
Colos. 2.16. and Heb. 13.9, 10.  Let no man therefore condemn you in meat and drink, etc. which are but a shadow of things to come: But the body is in Christ: A precept for all sorts of men. So Levi, in regard of those restrictions, a Ceremonial Priest, though he eat also of God's Inheritance, because he meddled also with God's Moral service in teaching his Law abroad; he could not make the Inheritance Ceremonial, 
2 Chro. 17.7, 8, 9  nor defraud Melchisedec of his due. Only that which began with Levi, ended with Levi.  
And that all those foresaid five points had ever in §. VI them, both a Moral and Ceremonial respect, 

Order and Time of the points of God's Worship.  
Gen. 1.26, 27, etc. Gen. 3.15.   the Ceremonial Law taking chief hold of the latter; and so the Moral was ever the former, and remaineth still, it is clear thus:  
First, Worship, consisting before the fall, in a perfect obedience 〈◊〉 God: And after the fall, in those evangelical promises of our Redemption, which with their performances, now in Christ, are both but one, both moral and perpetual, before the Law. The Typical worship, 
Gen. 4.3. Gen. 2.8, 16, 17 Gen. 4.3. Gen. 18.16, 17, etc.  both before and after the fall, came last. For doubtless, Adam, as God taught him, taught his sons, before they sacrificed, Which in process of time came to pass. Also under the Law, the first point in our Legal Priest's commission was Moral, To teach jacob thy judgements, etc. and then cometh the Ceremonial, 
Deut 33.10.  To put the  offering upon thine Altar. And now, Christ the body of all, taught long before he came to his sacrifice. And last, after him have we Teaching, without any sacrifice carnal, by the Pope's favour.  
Time, first Moral in a Sabbath, but thence were derived §. VII by the Law, 
Gen. 2.3. Levit. 25.  those Ceremonial Sabbathes of each seventh year, and the great jubilee of fifty. And so the Moral yet remaineth a Sabbath, though not the same Individual day from the Creation.  
Place. at first, every where, Moral; as appeareth by the Altars erected by Noah and Abraham, in all their travels. Place began to be Typical, when Abraham's Altar, and the offering up of Isaac, 
Gen. 13.3. 2. Chron. 3.1.  jacobs' Pillar, and Ornans Threshing▪ floor, salomon's Temple, were all in one place, on the Mount Moriah. So had the jews at first in each City's Synagogues, and we our Churches now, at liberty, as at first.  
Person, first, in each Family, the first borne, or Foris-familiat in their own houses: Quisque, Episcopus domus suae. They became Ceremonial, when first, Moses and Aaron Levites: 
Exod. 4 1●, and 28.1.41. Num. 1.47.50. and 3.6, 7.  secondly, Levi resumed wholly by the Law. Now again, we end as they began, jew and Gentile alike. And so maintenance in like manner, as hath been at length touched before, ever following the person and his condition.  

All must stand as Christ left them. Galath. 4.9.  Note then: First, That from the beginning all those five points came only of God. Secondly, All five at Christ's coming, put off their Legal garments, their beggarly habit of bondage, and took on the habit of evangelical liberty in Melchisedec. Therefore, as Christ left us them, we must still keep them, 

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

CHAP. II. Paul in the general of Maintenance. Why he spared his power in the special.  
THus did Christ then, and thus he spoke. We §. I come next to his Apostles. Their doings must needs also to have been mean; for their beginnings were yet but mean: 
Matth. 10.25.  and It is enough for the Disciple to be as his Master is, at one time chief. Melchisedec was not as yet settled in Salem: that is, Righteousness, 
Lib. cap. 6.  or justice, had not yet wrought Peace, and so Peace, not graced by Religion: and unsettled Religion, could yield no settled Maintenance. This piece of comfort Christ left them, Preach in every City: 
Ib. quo supra.  For the workman is worthy of his meat.  
Their Say, are either in the General of Maintenance; or in the special of Tithes: (yet once again Tithes, and even in the Gospel). 
Inf. cap. 4.   
In the General, Paul is very much, and in many places: Many flourishes both from Logic and Rhetoric: and on each flower almost, a swarm of Sacrilegious Wasps turning matter of honey in Venom, 
2. Pet. 3.16.  perverting them to their own destruction. Thus,  
I have (saith Paul) coveted no man's silver, nor gold, 

Act, 20.33, 34, 35.  
Paul in the general of Maintenance.   nor apparel.  
Yea, ye know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that are with me.  
I have showed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought to Support the weak; and to remember the words of the Lord jesus, how that he said. It is a blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.  
Object. Now, if neither Gold, nor Silver, nor apparel, nor food, but work for all: and all Preachers must strive to be Paul's, rather give then take; how then shall they take so huge a thing, as Tithes? No, but worse than all this; for if some men may, 
1. Cor. 4.11.  all Preachers shall be Paul's, to have for alms, Both hunger and thirst: for clothes, Nakedness: for Charity, Buffets; and for harboury, No certain dwelling place; all this good cheer had Paul.  
§. TWO Sol. 
Augustine.  But here would that old Fathers saying do well, Distingue tempora, & concordabis Scripturas. The truth is, that when, or where, we have the Church as Paul had it, 
Why Paul spared his power. 2. Thes. 3.8.9.  that is, under Peregrination and Persecution; then must the Preachers be Pilgrims, and Patients: and yet, Woe be unto them unless they Preach. So Paul took bread of no man for nought: Why? Not (saith he) but that we had authority. Why then? But, because we would not be chargeable to any of you. But why would he not charge, where he had authority to charge? 
1. Cor. 9 12.  Nevertheless, we have not used this power, but suffer all things, That we should not hinder the Gospel of Christ.  

When Paul's example is to be followed.  Now take heed, for if taking of that which was Paul's due, would have hindered the Gospel; doubtless, our men will rather renounce the Gospel, then render the Tithes. Ergo, Paul's example were yet best, To forbear Tithes. For answer, When we are in Paul's days (as is said) we must use Paul's deeds. A man may seek his due on a wrong day. Paul was now but to plant the Gospel, and that, both to jew and Gentile, whose goods were already taken up for holy uses, the one for obedience of Moses Law, the other to their Idols. Now if Paul should have begun his reformation with Da mihi Decimas, he had made a planting indeed, but with the top downward. But the Messiah being once well rooted in their hearts, who doubteth, but then, both jew and Gentile, as true Israelites, the seed of jacob, would perform their Father's Vow, to these new Priests and Levites of gladtidings; specially, seeing they were to give nothing De novo, neither yet so much as of before, but only a part of that to a right use, which of before they gave to a wrong? And if not so, do ye think that Paul in a established Church-policy, and peaceable State, would have neglected this authority, which here in so dangerous a time he dare insinuate unto them? No, in such case Paul found Canticum novum, and could tell them, 
1. Cor. 9.1. etc.  He was an Apostle. He was free. He was a soldier, and therefore must have wages: a Shepherd, and must eat of the milk: A planter of Vines, and must eat of the fruit: full of allegories. And when all was done, alleged for him the Law, comparing his ministery with Levi, and for conclusion, Let him that is taught in the Word, 
Gal. 6.6.  make him that teacheth him, partaker; Whereof? Of all his goods. How sib is this to Tithes? How like to that precept, 
Deut. 14.  And the Levite that is within thy gates shalt thou not forsake? Paul then did but forbear, not forbid the power. His time was not yet come. But to answer Paul by Paul, where should Paul lodge, if Timothy were not hospital? 1. Tim. 3.2. They must be content of food and raiment, 6.8. yet they must make others also well to fair. Tithes then, are the fruits for Christ settled. The Magistrates in Paul's time were not Christians; 
2. Chron. 31.  on whose power (even under the Law) depended much the inbringing of Tithes Neither were Tithes given Levi, strait with his service, neither yet with the Law of Tithes. The Law came, Numb. 18. before they were come to Canaan long: but Tithes came not till the whole Land was divided, and enjoyed in peace, they not so much as entered the Land more than 50. years after all this. See Tremel. Arg. on Num. & josua.   

CHAP. III. Paul's General Doctrine, 1. Cor. 9 objected against Tithes: but proved for Tithes.  
§. I MAINTENANCE thus in the General concluded, even with consent; the Question still remaineth of the Quota; what the special must be? Paul (say they) never meant Tithes: Why? Because he is still only in general doctrine, drawing conclusions from equity's, 
1. Cor. 9  and examples: where, in Ten words, he might more easily have taken up Tithes, if he had found it good: Again, the matter and ground holdeth ever; A Maintenance must be. But the number most times includeth a Ceremony; so now any other proportion as 9.8. etc. may be now appointed as well as a Tenth part.  
We answer, The special of Tithes was from their beginning good, till very near Paul's Conversion; and therefore all his dispute must either end in Tithes, or some other special. If in Tithes, than was it enough for him, to refer us to the former generals of Scripture, whose special assumptions are so many times mentioned. But if he had meant any alteration, than was he bound to a plainness: 
Act. 20, 27,  seeing he saith, I have kept back nothing, but have showed you all the counsels of God. And to prove his meaning must be Tithes, let us ponder a little these his positions, till we come to plainer language.  
He hath here a double dispute with his Corinthians, one from equity of Civil examples. The other, from authority of former Scripture.  
From Civil, vers. 7. in three points: one from Warfaring, 
1. Cor. 9.7.  two from Husbandry: all to one general end. Thus shortly.  

No man goeth to war without wages: Plants a Vine §. TWO without eating of the fruit: Feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk.  
We fight for you, we plant you, we feed you.  
Ergo, Ye must furnish us, Wages, Fruit, and Milk.   
This Syllogism will bring us to a double certainty, A Simili, first, of Masters: secondly, of Means.  
Of Masters, who is great Captain of the Wars: and who great Husband of the Labours. Whereupon dependeth, who are Soldiers, and who labourers: and so, who are true debtor, who Creditors.  
The great Captain, is he who sendeth out his Soldiers: §. III the King, not they whom by arms he defendeth. 
Maintenance dependeth on the Master. Luke 14.31.  The great Husband, he who setteth his servants a work, not the Vines, laboured: The great Shephead, not the Sheep fed. This for the Masters.  
For Means, What, and Whom to crave: What, for no soldier entereth himself waged, till he first know his wages. Whom, that is, either Immediate, or Mediate. Immediate, the great Captain, and King that wageth him. Mediate, when the soldier is cast over upon the King's people, or Inheritance fought for: And so in Husbandry, as Christ expoundeth his own parable of the Housholder, Matth. 20.  
To apply all then to our matter. Our great Captain is God, Christ, only: and so our Great Husband. The Soldiers and Labourers, (not all Christians, for these be his Inheritance fought for) are his ministery, as here Paul saith. So I fight not as one that beateth the air. 
Vers. 26.  The battle is continual, the labours endless, therefore the wages must be perpetual: not as Civil wars and Wages, that have ends and vicissitudes: for this Sacred Soldier must never leave his calling, Put hand to the plough, 
Luke 9.62.  and look back again.  
The Immediate debtor of the wages, is God the great Captain: and therefore when he called Levi, he said, I am (Immediately) thine Inheritance. 
Num. 18.20.  The Mediate Debtor, is God's Inheritance fought for, his people: And therefore God said, 
Vers. 21.  I have given Levi the Tenth of all Israel for his Inheritance. So these arguments of Paul from civil similitudes, smell either of Tithes, or of nothing.  
Followeth Paul's dispute from authority of Scripture. Say I those things according to man? 
1. Cor. 8.9.  Sayeth not the Law the §. IV same also? Hear are his Positions twofold, one General, 
The Law applied by Paul to the Gospel. Deut. 25.4.  another Special. The General is, It is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not mussel the mouth of the Ox, that treadeth out the corn. Followeth his application, Doth God take care for Oxen? 
1. Cor. 9.10.  ●ither saith he it not (altogether) for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, it is written.  
Behold here, Paul saith, this general precept of the Law was written altogether for him and his brethren. Therefore, whatsoever portion of God's Inheritance was derived to Levi. being still in God, must be still for Paul and his fellow-levites, labourers of the word: or shall we think, Paul alleged the Law to conclude neither, Idem nor Eiusmodi? No: Levi made no bargain with Israel; he had not his calling of them, and therefore not his condition by then; and seeing now no man, Prince or people, can call the Ministry, no man must measure their Maintenance: It is a mere clipping of God's wings.  

1. Cor. 9.12, 13.14.  Now come to Paul's Specials, Do ye not know that they §. V that perform the holy things, eat of the holy thing (or things of the Temple? 
The people in this case are never the masters: Ergo, They ought never to modify the servants means. ) And they which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar? Followeth Paul's application. So also hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. Then yet he spareth, But I have used none of these things Now I ask, If Paul had not spared, but pressed these Laws, what particular use could he make of them? Sacrifices he could not claim: Ergo, Tithes, or nothing. But let us mark first here the force of his comparison: then, the Phrase and Emphasis of his words. The comparison must have this form, 

As Levi lived by the Law, so must our Ministry by the Gospel.  
Levi lived of holy things by the Law.  
Ergo, Our Ministry must live of holy things by the Gospel.    
His phrase of speech, first in his Proposition, then in his Application. In the Proposition he setteth down two sorts of holy means, a Moral, and a Ceremonial, described from the divers sorts of the services for which they were due. The Moral, by Ministering the holy things; a word for all ages, and all places: and this he coupleth with words for Means of the like nature, viz. To eat of the things of the Temple. Now (OF) is a Note of Inheritance: and he coupleth here, holy things to the Temple, as Tithes were, Numb 18. with the Tabernacle, because these places were then the chiefest where both services were done, though not the sole places: as we have said at large. Lib. 1. cap. 5.  
The Ceremonial service Paul painteth out in their own terms, Wait at the Altar, and Partaker with the Altar: Now, Waiting, and, With, are notes of expiring, as is the Altar. And to say, that Paul here, by both these members, meaneth only the Ceremonial Maintenance, were a double absurdity: First, A Tautologick description of one thing. Secondly, A neglect of the chiefest point he speaketh of, Inheritance. Ministering then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Word and Sacraments, is only proper to the Gospel: 
1. Cor. 9.1. & Rom. 15.16.  Are ye not (saith Paul) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my work in the Lord? And therefore only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Inheritance is his due: 
Heb. 13.10.  not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wait at the Altar, for we have an Altar, whereof they have no authority to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle.  
§. VI Paul's next phrase comes in his Application, So also the Lord hath ordained; in the preterite time, we only ask here, where, when was this ordinance given? Paul giveth no precept here, but only intimateth the Lords alike ordinance for both Law and Gospel: one and the same Lord gave it; at first to Melchisedec, a Priest for ever, he gave it; To Levi for the Law he gave it; from Levi to Melchisedec again he giveth it. Then 

As Levi lived by the Law, must we live (saith Paul) by the Gospel.  
Levi lived by a certainty of holy things by the Law.  
Ergo, So must we by the Gospel have certainty.    

Holy things must be certain.  Things nameless, are nothing: and voluntary alms, uncertain, they cannot be Inheritance to the Lord, and his Levites: Give God therefore his Tenth, or give him a less number, and a greater matter: and above ten, is no simple perfect number.  
Paul then is wrong quarreled for his unplainenesse: He speaketh like his Master, when john sent to know if it was he or no; 
Matth. 11.2, 3.  Tell john (saith he) what things ye have heard & seen: So while they ask Paul, Dost thou mean Tithes, or no? He answereth, They that ministered in the holy things, lived ever of the holy things; and so must we live of the Gospel. Such as are Christ's or Paul's, may easily discern their affirmative meaning. But we shall hear better news anon, and even from Paul: 
Cap. seq.  Only remember, that Paul had nothing to do here to speak in the Quoto of the Maintenance; but only to justify, that he and Barnabas might live unlabouring, as well as other Apostles.  
Now remaineth their second assault from the Ceremony §. VII of the number; and so any other number of new to be appointed. We answer two ways. First, Give us any other instance, in any of these five general points of God's worship, where the matter and number are of different natures? It was Moral (you say) to give Maintenance, but Ceremonial in that it was a Tenth. But let us try them briefly.  
Person, the Levites, were all Ceremonial, and so were their numbers, Classes, Courses, all temporal or ceremonial. 
Numbers not always Ceremonial.   
Time, The Sabbath, or seventh day, Moral yet, even quoad numerum: But the Sabbaths thence derived of seven years and the jubilee, Ceremonial and gone: with their Novilunes, and so forth.  
Forms of worship: as pares of beasts, or fowls, for sacrifices; Ten parts of measures of fine flower, and such like, Ceremonial and gone.  
Place, Where it was sole and unique, Ceremonial and gone.  
Maintenance, Tenths for Feasts, Ceremonial and gone, both number and matter. Tithes Inheritance, Moral in both. Not one instance we see to the contrary.  
Secondly, say that the Quota were yet in balance; what would we do? Is not whole mankind here divided? All are either Levites or Israelites: All must take or give. Who then shall be judge? The parties cannot: for who shall make all of one mind? So many kingdoms, so many different conceits: as many Provinces, as many different proportions. Refer it to the Churchmen, they may prove covetous: To the people, they may be avaricious: yea say further, that God had left his portion without proportion; could man proportion it better for his own behoof? Ten is the last simple, full, and perfect number, and so the smallest proportion in simple numbers, as is said. So we see, we shall sooner divide Totum, then decide Quotum. But God only hath judged, and that by his only Word; and his Word, only Tithes for Inheritance. And this for Paul's Doctrine and meaning in general; Followeth his special of Tithes.   

CHAP. FOUR Moses' History, and David's Prophecy of Melchisedec, applied by the Apostle to Christ. How, and how far Types are to be matched with their Verities, by the example of Melchisedec and Aaron with Christ.  
§. I BUT shall we have no more in all the new Testament for Tithes, but only Allegories, Examples, and Circumlocutions? Truly it needed not, seeing they are sufficiently grounded already. Yet one Author (whose writs, some men could wish to be as Non ens, as himself is nameless) beginneth once more to talk, and even of Tithes: and not to talk only; but Melchisedec, Abraham, Moses, are to him, even as this day. Many suspect Paul, and it is not impossible: But howsoever; his title is, To the Hebrews. But our Sacrilegious Segniours may justly deny themselves, to be Hebreans: for the word, Sacrilege, is seldom (or never) read in Hebrew. Yet Paul found out a fit Greek word for it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Rom. 2.22. Act. 19.37.  to spoil or rob holy things. But what is all this? They will deny themselves to be Grecians too, and, I fear, to be Christians, before they yield: they understand not Paul, he wrote not to them.  
Hear now begin our matters of Melchisedec, hard to be uttered, of that everlasting Priesthood in his Order, by Moses nakedly propounded; by David but obscurely expounded: here are all repeated, and to our own days applied, by this new joseph interpreting all. He therefore that hath ears, let him hear.  

HISTORY. Gen. 14.18.  
ANd Melchisedec King of Salem broughtforth bread and wine: and he was a Priest of the most high God.  
Therefore he blessed him, saying; Blessed art thou Abraham of the most high God, possessor of heaven & earth.  
And blessed be the most high God, which delivered thine enemies into thine hand: and (Abraham) gave him Tithes of all.   

PROPHECY. Psal. 110.4.  
The Lord swore, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever, after the Order of Melchisedec.   

INTERPRETATION AND Application.  
FOr this Melchisedec was King of Salem, Priest of the most high God: 
Heb. 7.1,  who met Abraham, as he returned from the slaughter of the Kings, and blessed him  
To whom also Abraham gave the Tithe of all things, who first is by interpretation, King of Righteousness; after that also King of Salem, that is, King of Peace.  
Without Father, without Mother, without kindred, and hath neither beginning of his days, neither end of life: but is likened to the Son of God, and continueth a Priest for ever.  
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the Patriarch Abraham gave the Tithe of the spoils.   
For verily they which are the children of Levi, which receive the office of Priesthood have a commandment to take, according to the Law, Tithes of the people, that is, of their brethren, though they came out of the loins of Abraham.  
But he whose kindred is not counted among them, received Tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.  
And without all contradiction, The less is blessed of the greater.  
And here, men that die receive Tithes, but there, he, of whom it is witnessed, That he liveth.  
And to say as the thing is, Levi also which receiveth Tithes, paid Tithes in Abraham.  
For he was yet in the Loins of his Father, when Melchisedec met him.  
§. TWO Now because this is our last reencounter in this conflict, 
Paul, in the special of Tithes.  & the last passage of all Scripture touching Tithes, yea our A and ● reviving as by a circular course, our never dying Melchis. in our eternal Verity, Christ: wherein almost each word may go for an argument; we must therefore pierce a little more deeply in it, by help of the same Spirit, that proposeth it unto us: and that so briefly as may be.  
First then of his End: next of his form of arguing in this Chapter.  
The chief End of this Epistle being, to prove Christ our all-sufficient Saviour, King, Prophet and Priest, figured by the Law, whose Ceremonies must therefore cease, he handleth in this Chapter his Priesthood only.  
His course in arguing goeth from the Types to their Verities, in a most perfect comparison, both in simili and diss●mili.  
The Types are twofold: the one moral & perpetual; Melchisedec: The other ceremonial and temporal, Levi.  
Their natures are, either simple in themselves, or in Relation to their Verities.  
Their Simple nature is, that the Moral Type is noted here with no Ceremonial action: (for no such thing had he in him) and the Ceremonial Type, with nothing Moral, as he is compared here to Christ in simili: For though he also Tithed, (a Moral action) yet it holdeth here but in dissimili.  
Their Relative nature with their Verities, is of two §. III considerations; one, from the matter of their actions: 
Types how to be matched with their Verities.  another, from the manner, or their Orders.  
In matter, they hold both thus: Whatsoever the Types did (as Types) the Verity must do, or answer, being rightly matched: as, Aaron sacrificed; Ergo, so must Christ: Aaron sacrificed with blood; Ergo, so must Christ: But not, Aaron sacrificed Bullocks; Ergo, so must Christ. Our Golden rule in this, is to go no further than Scripture clearly leadeth us; and not, from silence of the Apostles, or privative speeches to impose a positive sacrifice of the Mass upon Christ.  
In manner, or Order, they hold not so: 
Aaron's and Melchisedecs' Orders.  for whatsoever Christ did, answering to Aaron, yet that same did Christ, after Melchisedecs' Manner and Order, not Aaron's. So, that [ONCE] recorded only of Melchisedecs' actions, signifieth in Christ, EVER, and OFTEN to be done: and that OFTEN of Aaron's actions, signifieth in Christ, ONCE only; yet that same ONCE, ALL-sufficient, in Melchisedecs' Order: For, Perfection, and Imperfection, Perpetuity and perishing, are the Essential differences of their Orders. So Christ in Melchisedecs' Order, perfected both Orders: an heavenly difference, and worthy to be observed, 
Hebr. 7.8, 9, & 10. chap.  being fully cleared by the Apostle, opposing that two thousand years yearly offering of Aaron, to that One, and all-sufficient of CHRIST'S: And that ONCE blessing of Melchisedec, of Abraham, to that Ever blessing of CHRIST, of Abraham and his posterity. Our conclusions then go thus, through this Epistle, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Melchisedec, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ: and from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aaron, to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ, for these are the Apostles own notes. Again, hundrethes of Aaron's, with thousands of his associates, thousands of years, and millions of redoubled actions, bind but only Christ, and Christ, only once: they bind not the Ministry of the Gospel, belonging to Christ's Priesthood. But Melchisedecs one only blessing, designing his Priesthood, bindeth Christ ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all his Ministry ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. May we not hereupon infer then, that if Melchisedecs' service bind our Ministry, his maintenance must also be due to them? We see then, that Unity or Plurality, is not ever requisite to pass alike between Types and Verities, either in Person or action: for One (as is said) may argue thousands, and thousands, but One: otherwise we shall rove to Rome-ward.  
§. IV Of these grounds then, will it follow, that whatsoever the Apostle useth as a Medium, to draw on any conclusion from these Types to their Verities, it must be (even as the Types) either a Moral or a Ceremonial thing: and the conclusion must follow the nature of the Medium: for Aaron's sacrifice, being Ceremonial, cannot bind a Moral Conclusion on Christ or his Ministry: and consequently, Tithing being used here, as a Medium of a Moral and perpetual Conclusion, must itself be also Moral and perpetual: as by a true Analysis of our Apostles purpose in the texts cited, shall plainly appear.   

CHAP. V This Analysis proveth Christ's Priesthood more excellent than Levies. His proofs are, from the prerogative of Person, Blessing, and Tithing.  
THe Apostle will prove in those first eleven verses, §. I Melchisedecs' Order of Priesthood, (whereof Christ was the only High Priest, and perfection) to be far above, and better than the Order of Aaron and Levi: and so in itself only all-sufficient.  
He setteth down first his Priesthood, till the fourth verse, than the Collation.  
His Priesthood in two points, Function and Order. 
Melchisedecs' endless Priesthood.   
His Function, vers. 1. He was a Priest, and blessed Abraham. He was also accepted and acknowledged as a Priest vers. 2. Because Abraham gave him Tithes of all. These two points are the sum and perfection of peaceably settled Priesthood. For Blessing after this sort here, (being Real, and exhibitive) is the End and perfection of all Priesthood and Priestly Office: (for that Legal form of blessing under Levi, Num. 6.23. is but as a prayer for Blessing, as we yet use to this day, and had no Ceremony it.) And again, to give Tithes (as did Abraham here) is the most proper testification of our due obedience to Christ's Ministers, the very fruits of our faith: And this for his Function.  
Next vers. 3. cometh his Order, Dignity and Excellency §. TWO thereof, Without Father, Mother, Kindred, Beginning, Ending, like the Son of God, Remaineth a Priest for ever. Those strange notes must be applied and understood, as well of the Priesthood, as the Person, and more of Christ the Verity, than his Type distinguished from him, so that here is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle. 
cap. 5.11. compared with 11.8.13.14 24.  For if we look to the persons, it is sure Melchisedec as such a man only, was both borne, and died, but not as he is proposed for such a Priest, or type: yea Christ the true Melchisedec, was borne, and died; Christus Sacerdos mortuus est: But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum.  

Aaron's perishing Priesthood.  The general Apodosis to this on Aaron's part, goeth thus: Aaron and Levi, had Father and Mother, not only of their flesh; but latelier, even of their very Priesthood and calling: they had beginning and ending, even in all things wherein they typed Christ: imperfect therefore, and cannot be likened to the Son of God, as is Melchisedec.  
His Priesthood then consisteth in Blessing and Tithing: and his perfection, in perpetuity of both: thou canst not disjoin them. Then we descend by the same degrees, thus; Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remaineth a Priest for ever: like the Son of God, without ending, Beginning, Kindred, Mother, or Father. And of all these points was Christ the only perfection: Ergo, He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ, must appoint a perpetual Tithing for Christ: as we shall hear more at large. And this for his Priesthood: followeth their collation.  

Heb. 7.4.  Consider now how great this man was etc. Here Paul entereth §. III the very lists of this conflict, proving our Melchisedecs Priesthood more perfect than Levies, using for all his middeses, only Blessing and Tithing. The arguments are drawn from the circumstances, viz, The persons Blessed, and Tithed: the form of the Blessing and Tithing: the time of Blessing and Tithing.  
In Person, he reasoneth first from Abraham▪ then from Levi himself. From Abraham thus, 

Whosoever is greater than Abraham, 
Melchisedec greater than Abraham.  is greater than Levi.  
Melchisedec is greater than Abraham:  
Ergo, Greater then Levi.    
The Proposition he proveth thus, vers. 4. Abraham was a Patriarch; Levi but a child, the fourth from this Patriarch. And vers. 6. Abraham had the promises: Levi, (as all the faithful) enjoyed the promises only in the faith of Abraham. So Abraham is greater than Levi.  
He proveth his Assumption. That Melchisedec was greater than Abraham thus, 

He who Blesseth and Titheth, is greater than he who is Blessed and Tithed.  
Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham.  
Ergo, Melchisedec is greater than Abraham.    
The Proposition is the very 7. ver. of Paul in the text cited. The Assumption is proved by Moses' History: and here vers. 3.4.6. And this for Abraham's person: followeth from Levies person: wherein let the Reader note that all Paul's proofs are only from Tithing, thus, 
Greater then Levi.  

He that tithed Levi is greater than Levi,  
Melchisedec tithed Levi.  
Ergo, Greater then Levi.    
This Assumption he proveth vers 10, thus, 

All that were in Abraham's loins when Melchisedec met him, were tithed in Abraham.  
Levi was in Abraham's loins then.  
Ergo, Levi was tithed in Abraham: and so by Melchisedec.    
§. IV Now mark, that although this last Syllogism, lanceth only against Levi, 
All Abraham's seed Tithed in him. Ios. cap 7.  because Paul here had only to do with Levi as a Priest; Yet the force of the Proposition fetcheth in all Abraham's Seed: Seed, I say, not only Legal, but also evangelical; not only of his flesh, but also of his faith. This for Melchisedecs' Tithing of Abraham. The Antithesis on Levies part goeth thus, Levi Tithed but his brethren: Melchisedec Tithed Abraham, Father both of Levi, and all his brethren; Brethren (as is said) both by flesh and faith; Ergo, All still subject to Melchisedecs' Tithing: And such as see not this, are too big in flesh, too beggarly in faith. Followeth the Circumstance in the Form of their Tithing.  
This point hath this Antithesis.  LEVI. 
Vers. 5. They which are the children of Levi.  
Which receive the office of Priesthood.  
Have a commandment to take according to the Law.  
Tithes of the people, that is, of their brethren.  
Though they came out of the Loins of Abraham.  MELCHISEDEC. 
Ver. 6. HE whose kindred is not counted amongst them.  
Vers. 3. Whose Priesthood is 16. after the power of Endless life.  
Gen. 14. Had offered to him freely, and long before that Law.  
Tithes by the Patriarch, of both Levi and his brethren.  
In whose loins all his seed was both blessed and Tithed.  
The chief note here is, that Melchisedecs' form of Tithing before the Law must be greater than Levies Tithing by the Law: and so, Melchisedec a greater Priest then Levi. For this action between Abraham and Melchisedec, proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power, working in both, this ready and religious reverence: or rather, that God even taught Abraham, (who said, he would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to do, and concerned Abraham). For (said God) I know Abraham, 
Gen. 18.17.19.  that he will command his sons and household, that they keep the way of the Lord, etc. And this offer of Abraham's, was not in his free option: for as Abraham, vers. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He gave freely: so is it said, v. 6. that Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He tithed Abraham, as having authority. They strove in performing all duties, and we in perverting. This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Form; followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing.   

CHAP. VI Melchisedecs' Priesthood more excellent than Aaron's, because he is a perpetual Priest. And this perpetuity, is proved, by only Tithing.  
TIME, being an argument whereupon dependeth §. I the chief conclusion, 
Melchisedec a perpetual Priest.  of both the Apostles cause, and our question; we will look more narrowly into it. For were a Priest never so great, and his blessing never so good, what availeth it, if it ●●anish? The only Triumph of Melchisedec over Levi, is his Eternity in all his endless Priesthood. Then if the Apostle prove his Priesthood perpetual, he winneth his cause: and in proving hereof, seeing he useth here no other Medium, but a perpetual Tithing, he settleth our question. And thus it goeth.  
A Perpetual Priesthood, is better than a Temporal.  
Melchisedecs' is Perpetual, Levies was Temporal.  
Melchisedecs' therefore better than Levies.  
To prove the Assumption, he reasoneth thus, vers. 8. for Melchisedec.  

He that taketh Tithes and liveth, is a Perpetual Priest.  
Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liveth.  
Ergo, Melchisedec is a Perpetual Priest.   
The Proposition is true, for life ever affirmed maketh the Person endless, and Tithing ever following life, maketh a Priesthood endless.  

No Priesthood without a Tithing.  §. TWO The Assumption both for Melchisedecs' perpetuity, and Levies temporality, is the eighth verse itself, thus, And here, (that is, under the Law) dying men receive Tithes, (viz. Levites) Levi died daily, one succeeded daily in the Priesthood to another; and in end, they died from their Office: But there, He (that is, Melchisedec) of whom it is witnessed, that he liveth. Melchisedec neither subject to vicissitude, admitteth companion, nor ever maketh an end. In sum then, a Priest, a Tithing: How long a Priest, so long a Tithing: Melchisedec is for ever a Priest, Ergo, Must ever have a Tithing.  
And this for the Analysis of these former Scriptures, and all that we have of Tithes in the new Testament, and in conscience it is enough, if men had conscience enough to consider it. But we will yet more amply apply all those things to our present purpose.  

Abraham and Melchisedec both types.  § III All this action we see between Melchisedec and Abraham, is on both sides Typical. Melchisedec Typed Christ, the head and Master, and (as a Priest of God) all the ministery belonging to Christ's Priesthood. Abraham Typed all the posterity, the seed of his faith, as well as the seed of his flesh.  
They be both Types of things perpetual: Melchisedec, of Christ's Ever blessing of Abraham and all his seed. Abraham, of perpetual tithing, for Christ in his ministery, for himself, and all his seed. The one giveth Blessing that taketh Tithes: The other taketh Blessing that giveth Tithes: Giving and Taking then, are on both sides, mutual and reciproque, both in Types and Verities: Otherwise, there should be no correspondence between Christ's perpetual Graces derived to us in Abraham, unless we be also bound to our perpetual thankfulness in Abraham. And if Abraham can convey the promises of Christ's blessing to us: much more may he bind his own practice, answering it, upon us. These grounds then, give us a double argument, to prove Abraham's practice, a sufficient promise, and obligatory of his posterity: the first is, from the person taker, Melchisedec: the other, from the giver, Abraham.  
From the taker, thus, 
Vers. 8.  Melchisedec taketh Tithes of whom it is witnessed, that he liveth. Now this (witnessing) properly §. IV is only true of Christ: The Word indeed, maketh Melchisedec Type, live for ever, but our Melchisedec Christ, after his rising, appeared to his disciples divers times, eat and drank with them, and in end said, 
Luke 24.48. Act. 2.32. & 3.15.  Now ye are witnesses of these things. So he rose, and reigneth a Priest for ever, and therefore is, He, that taketh Tithes, and is witnessed to live.  
May I not justly say then? (I will, and before God, I §. V dare:) that the Spirit of God hath of purpose here, 
Tithing the only proof of perpetual Tithing.  for proof of this perpetual Priesthood, drawn his conclusion from Tithing, rather than Blessing, (though both will conclude a like:) because all men gape greedily for the blessing, but be very sparing of Tithing. No man will deny Christ to be a perpetual blessing Priest: but like nothing of his perpetual Tithing. And yet the Apostle saith not of Melchisedec, He blesseth and liveth, (though it be most true,) but, He taketh Tithes and liveth: By Blessing he proveth his majority, vers. 7. but by Tithing, he proveth his perpetuity vers. 8. And yet, both Tithing would prove the majority; and Blessing the perpetuity, if Paul had pleased. Is not this done then of purpose? Then if Blessing must hold, being neglected in this conclusion: how shall Tithing, conclusionis ipsum medium, be rejected? If both were away, then were he not Eternal Priest, but Eternal man only: for nothing can argue Eternity of Priest hood, but some Eternal Priestly action: Now all the actions recorded of Melchisedecs' Priesthood, are only Blessing and Tithing, the former, the Essence: the later, the maintenance of his Priesthood: and of these two, Blessing discarded, and by only Tithing is concluded the perpetual Priesthood of Melchisedec: Is not this done of purpose? And if, Tithing and Blessing, be not both of one nature in Time, the Type cannot be perfectly Eternal. And if we shall search the Apostle to the very marrow, we shall find no other use of this Proposition, Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liveth: and whether thou prove Tithing from living, or Living from Tithing, all is one: and one thou must choose, for the Apostles words must not be idle. So long then as Levi lived, he Tithed, Ergo, so long as Melchisedec liveth, he Titheth: But Melchisedec liveth for ever, Ergo, must Tithe for ever. That Tithing and Living, must die and live together, is clear, by the Verbs used by the Apostle, in both the types, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the levites, in the present time (notwithstanding they were dead and gone) therefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supplied in praesenti, to Melchisedec, seeing he presently liveth. These Propositions than are all reciprocke, Melchisedec Blesseth and liveth: Ergo, He liveth and Blesseth. Again, Melchisedec Titheth and liveth. Ergo, He liveth and Titheth.  
Levi lost his Tithes, because he died, (not so much in §. VI Person) as from his Priesthood: 
Why Levi lost Tithes.  Death then in Levi must be applied to the same thing, whereunto Life was applied in Melchisedec: else, the Antithesis were not Ad idem: Priesthood then, in both, is Subiectum, of life and death, an endless Priesthood, a dying Priesthood. For Melchisedecs' reentry was not at the death of every single Levitical Priest, but at the final death of the whole Priesthood: The change of Law, and the change of Priesthood. Levi then, the Priest is dead, and died with Christ, but not the Person of Levi: for doubtless many thousands of the Tribe of Levi, lived long after Christ, and perhaps do to this day, as the other Tribes, though without certain note of distinction: and although they could be distinguished, yet could they not challenge their former Priesthood: Their Priesthood therefore is dead, not their Persons. Indeed the daily dying of the High-Priests, one after another, is the Apostles chief proof of the imperfection of their Priesthood, even while it was good by God's Law: 
Vers. 23.  they were many in one Priesthood, because death suffered them not to stay. He remaineth for ever, and therefore hath an endless Priesthood.  
Neither lost Levi his Priesthood (as some guess) as §. VII out of God's justice, for his wicked abusing of it, 
Why Levi lost his Priest hood.  when as both Priest and Priesthood became Mercenary, (as the Macabees, and josephus History bear record) and therefore the Law changed, and the Priesthood translated justly from Levi to judah: No, it was the course and counsel of God, yea his revealed decree from all beginning, for the salvation of mankind, that these Priesthoods should be subject to these Periods; so that Levi, had he lived never so lawfully or legally, yet must he have left the place to his Master, Melchisedec: though his sins had not deserved it, his soul had desired it. And Levi learning this, may yet be admitted to Melchisedecs' Priesthood, wait on the Altar, challenge his Maintenance, not vi Leviticâ, but virtute evangelica; he must either accept the Office, or pay the fees. Sweet and heavenly mysteries, to such as be of humble and sanctified hearts.  
Levi then is dead, and no man denieth it; Melchisedec is risen, and some men believe it: but that he rose to take Tithes, most men laugh at it. We will assay therefore first, after Levi, and from Melchisedec, to draw them upon Christ: secondly, to derive them from him, to his ministery.  
§. VIII Paul having in the first ten verses compared Melchisedec with Aaron, 
The Type applied by Paul to Christ, Anagogice.  both as Christ's Types: He proveth, verse 11. the weakness of Aaron's Priesthood, because it was needful that there should rise, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Aaron, both in Person, Tribe and Order: But from Melchisedec, in Person only, not Order. Then vers. 13. cometh on the main Conclusion by an Anagogical application, binding these prerogatives of Melchisedec considered in the simple nature of a Type, by a relative force on the Verity Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For he of whom these things are spoken, etc. I think, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be sufficiently expressed, by [Of whom] for this is true English for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as chap. 5.11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of whom we have much to say. All then that is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of Melchisedec, is here by the Apostle inferred and transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to, unto, and upon Christ. The construction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here with the Accusative case, signifieth motum, removing, or conveyance from one point to another: So was Melchisedec but Christ's Attorney here, to take seizing of his Patrimony; and so must it not remain still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but return 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All these prerogatival Prepositions end ever in Christ, as first, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For whom, and by whom all things were, Heb. 2.10. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In whom, and to whom, all must rest, and be referred, Colos. 1.16, 17. Thirdly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom, all things of Melchisedec were spoken, Heb. 5.11. And lastly, here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on whom, all rights, titles and possessions prefigured by his Type, must be transferred for ever. Then we reason thus from Paul's grounds, 

Whatsoever is spoken here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Melchisedec, typically; is transferred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto Christ, his verity.  
Tithing is spoken of Melchisedec typically.  
Ergo, Tithes must be transferred unto Christ, his verity.    
Let any Christian show wherein this doctrine faileth. §. IX  
But here they say, there is much made of nothing: 
Tithes, why touched hereby Paul.  The Apostle intended not here to prove Tithes due; but to settle Christ's Priesthood as perpetual. And so say I to. Doubtless he never doubted that Tithes were due, (neither doubted they, with whom he had to do); therefore he taketh it, with them, pro confesso, and useth it as his only Medium, to resolve their doubt, of the perpetuity of Christ's Priesthood, He taketh Tithes, he liveth. Ergo, An eternal Priest. Levi was but a dying Tithing Priest. All things recorded of our Melchisedec are still truly affirmed in praesenti: He Blesseth, he Titheth, he liveth, his sacrifice endureth for ever. Of Levi, not one of all now true: And when he even lived, all were not in all respects true: for he daily died in Person, and in end died quite from his office, therefore in both imperfect. His actions were daily redoubled; and where ever repetition must be, there can be no perfection, Our Melchisedec, had never a fellow, made never a default, therefore all-sufficient. This for drawing of Tithes upon Christ.  
§. X Now in deriving them from him, we meet with a Cavil; 
How Christ is said to take Tithes.  we laid for a ground chap. 4. That whatsoever the Type did, that must the verity also do: Ergo, Seeing Melchisedec took Tithes, Christ must take Tithes: But Christ never Tithed, etc. For answer, Christ taketh Tithes now, even as his Father took them before him, viz. by their Officers. What was Essential in the Priesthood of Mechisedec, that Christ performeth ever really, viz. Blessing. But Tithing, is only a propriety, (not of the Essence) of Priesthood; and so bindeth not the verity in his own person: for a workman is not defined by his wages. So in this point, the Law of all similitudes must have place, nullum simile, in omni, simile. And seeing Christ taketh alms, being given to the poor: may he not take his own Patrimony by his own Officers, whom he hath made his Ministers, his Ambassadors, putting the word of reconciliation in their mouths: 
2, Cor. 5.19.20  and so his Inheritance in their hands? Thus far for the APostles arguments from the person taker, Melchisedec: Followeth from the giver, Abraham.   

CHAP. VII. Perpetual Tithing proved also by Abraham's deed; A comparison between Melchisedec, Levi, and our Ministry. The Conclusion of the lawfulness of Tithes.  
MELCHISEDEC then Taketh Tithes and liveth. §. I But a living taker, must also have a living giver. 
Abraham bindeth us to Tithes.  Therefore the Apostle telleth us here, That Abraham with his whole seed, must be the Aequivalent giver, lasting as long as Melchisedecs' Priesthood; and so, Abraham giveth Tithes and liveth.  
That all Abraham's posterity make up the person of the Giver, it is thus cleared, And to say as the thing is, 
Hebr. 7.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Levi also which receiveth Tithes, was Tithed in Abraham. Then if Levi was Tithed, I hope, the other eleven Tribes, his brethren scaped not free. But let us hear; why was Levi Tithed? Because he was yet in the loins of his Father (Abraham) when Melchisedec met him. Then, all that dare call Abraham, Father, (even as well that issued out of the loins of his flesh, as that are entered in the fellowship of his Faith) are all here in Abraham Tithed. Flesh bringeth in the whole Tribes: for they issued out of his very loins, as did Levi: Faith, includeth all the Families of the Earth, as Abraham's seed; whereby the poorest Lazarus leapeth to Abraham's bosom. And, that Faith, hath no less force here, than Flesh, it is clear by the fourth and sixth verses, Abraham the Patriarch was Tithed, who had the Promises. Then if he be a Father of our Faith; let him be also the Father of our thankfulness: If we be Blessed in him; let us also be Tithed in him: else our faith is but dead; and he is not our Father.  
But what if the seed of his Faith, be more bound §. TWO then the seed of his only Flesh? 
Rom. 9.7, 8. Seed of Faith more bound to Tithes, than Seed of Flesh.  Saith not Paul, All are not Israel, that are of Israel: neither are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham, etc. that is, they which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God: But the children of the Promise are counted for the Seed. Then seeing Melchisedec blessed Abraham our Father, who had the Promises, Hebr. 7.6. If we will pass for sons of the same Promises in him; we must be bound in him ever to return our thankfulness to the Ministers of these glad tidings: and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bindeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. III Some men say, that Abraham's giving of Tithes to Melchisedec, 
Abraham's Tithing was more than once.  this one time, did not bind the posterity, but rather redeem them from further Tithing. I answer, than his posterity could not have been Tithed under the Law. To this they reply, a special law brought on that Tithing for Levi; and came not by virtue of Abraham's deed: I yet answer, (as often before) the only Priesthood brought Tithes to Levi, because they were a Priesthood long before him; but a Priesthood so far different from his, as Levi without a special law could not challenge Tithes as his due. Besides, that matter between Melchisedec and Abraham was in those days so shut up from man's understanding, as no man could fetch any conclusion from it: for till Paul applied all here, it was doubtful to the Ancients, whether Abraham gave Tithes to Melchisedec, or Melchisedec to him: So, perishing Levi could not serve himself heir to perpetual Melchisedec, and therefore the Law was needful for that age. But now, seeing the Apostle hath so perfectly cleared these clouds unto us, that Levi Titheth and dieth, Melchisedec Titheth and liveth, what needeth us a new Law? It would but stain the prerogative of our Priesthood, and antiquity of our title. So if Abraham had by this one Tithing, delivered his posterity from further Tithing: neither had God drawn a Law of Tithing upon them, neither had Paul revived Tithes to the evangel  
But say it had been but one Tithing for all: then must §. IV it be also but one blessing of Abraham for all: and then, 
Tithing ever answereth Blessing.  where are we? Let us not lose glad tidings, for glad Tithings. Lyra saith prettily,  omnes in lumbis Adae peccaverunt, ita omnes in lumbis Abrahae decimati sunt. Blessing and Tithing are by Moses coupled to the Priesthood, and by Paul, Tithing once more, than blessing, and that in the very point of perpetuity: Then, Quos Deus coniunxit homo non separet.  
Further, if that Once, in Melchisedec argue not (as is said) perpetuity, then dying Levi, shall resemble more a perpetual Priest, then living Melchisedec, which is quite contrary to the Apostles mind: for Levi Tithed near two thousand years: and who will not think two thousand years liker Eternity, than one hour? Therefore, Once, is Endless life: and Often, 
Heb. 7.16, 25.  is carnal commandment, as the Apostle termeth them. And so Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liveth.  
The Apostle had for him to urge this argument §. V more against Levi, than the other Tribes, 
Levi bound to pay Tithes to Melchisedec.  because Levi was a Priest, and therefore the Tithe taker, and so might seem exempted from paying Tithes to any: whereas the other Tribes in their own persons paid Tithes to Levi as a Priest, even as Abraham did to Melchisedec the Priest: But Paul telleth them, that this Tithing must be meant of Melchisedec, which even Levi himself must pay, but could not, during the Law of his own Priesthood: therefore we may justly hold Levi as Melchisedecs' deputy, till the days of correction. For to say as it is, 
Hebr. 9.10.  even Levi was an Officer of Christ's, his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pointing out his coming: so no Tithing whatsoever, but one way or other, it hath a relation, and his perfection, In, and to Christ; and so Melch. still liveth and taketh Tithes: 
Rebuffas de Decimis.  as one noteth prettily, Decimae erant ante Legem, sub consilio; In lege sub praecepto; post legem, in libertate Spiritus. So living Tithing goeth ever with Melchisedec; and dying Tithing with Levi: but in all, Tithes ever God's Inheritance. So soon then as Levi lost his Priesthood, he lost also his title in Tithes, and became tied to pay Tithes to Melchisedec, as his brethren Tribes, and as both jew and Gentile, embracing the evangel  
§. VI Consider then the course that Paul hath kept in the matter of Maintenance: 
Summa of Paul's doctrine touching Maintenance.  he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, and so, all his general Epistles were written to them, save this one to the Hebrews. The Gentiles never embracing Levies Priesthood, could not be bound to Levies Tithing, they knew it not: Therefore Paul having instructed them, in the Rudiments of Christian Religion, teacheth them their duty touching Maintenance in general, and yet alleged the generals of the Law, as we heard from 1. Cor. 9 and to the Galath. 6.6. Let him that is taught in the Word, make him that teacheth him, partaker of all his goods: A precept as heavy, as to have said, Give him a Tenth of all thy goods. And though Paul here did not settle the Medium, 
Sup. cap. 3. ad fin.  nor name the Quote, yet Nature teacheth (as is said) that it must be at the option of neither party; and what better means for a midst, then to have our recourse to that course which God himself kept in proportioning that portion for his service both before and under the Law? But here, writing to the Hebrews, very jews indeed, who were fully instructed in all the points of Moses' Law, and stuck too much to it, he useth Tithing, as a chief argument to confirm them in the Alsufficiencie and Eternity of Christ's Priesthood, applying that most mystical and hid history (even from them then) of Melchisedec and Abraham's Blessing and Tithing, unto Christ the Verity: It was even Christ our true, Melchisedec, of whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these things were spoken: He Blesseth, he Titheth, he liveth: a fit and timely argument for the jews, who were already well acquainted with the Medium of his Conclusion; But for the Gentiles, unfit and untimely: unfit, because it had been (as we speak) to prove obscurumper obscurius: untimely, because Tithes were ever (as is said) a most orderly Inheritance, never able to be exacted, but where both Church and Civil Policy, are peaceably settled in God's obedience: and yet in Paul's own days, where Tithes could not have place, the proportion for the maintenance of the Gospel, went a great deal higher, for every true Christian sold what he had, brought it to the Apostles feet, and all was made common, a sore Tithing: yet this lacked not Sacrilege, 
Act. 4.32. & 5.1.  as we see in Ananias and Saphira, who kept back a part of theirs: but they paid well for it. This was indeed, to make the Preachers partakers of all their goods: But I hope any man yet will rather agree to a Tithing, then to this, or rather to nothing, let Melchisedec, Mo●ses, Paul and God himself, say what they list.  
Neither did Paul write this to these Hebrews, as expecting, §. VII or exacting a present Tithing of them; 
Paul's meaning to the Hebr.  for that time was not come (as is said); they were poor new converted Christians, even those for whom Paul had gathered that collection, in Achaia, Asia, and Rom●: Paul only (as is said) would draw them from Levi to Christ, and that in the power and prerogative of Melchisedec in all things belonging to Levies Priesthood, specially, Blessing and Tithing. They knew Tithes were due, but not due to Christ: this Paul teacheth them. Let every Christian balance these arguments, in the scales of an upright conscience, fixed, and settled on the word of God; and accordingly, dispose of his affections.  
§. VIII Behold then lastly, how fitly all things are matched in those types, 
Comparison of Melchisedec, Aaron, and Christ.  and their verity, Christ! Grace is joined to Eternity; and Law & Bondage brought to an end. Melchisedec, Christ's first, freest, and most perfect Priestly type, and kingly too, met Abraham freely without law, and before Law; and as a King, fed him; as a Priest, blessed him: all in freedom. Abraham again, (in whose loins, we were all then both fed and blessed) like a thankful soul, met also freely the free graces of God in Melchisedec, likewise before Law. And so Christ our true Melchisedec, not commanded, little expected, least of all deserved, freely meeteth Abraham and all his seed, ever feeding & blessing to salvation, and therefore must all we, the seed of Abraham's flesh and faith, return to him, 
2, Cor 5.19.20  and to those, in whom he hath put the ministery of reconciliation, Tithes freely, not as Legally coacted. And this for Grace and Eternity.  
Now, between Melchisedec and Christ, intervened another solemn and great high Priest also, Aaron: But how? quite after an other order and manner: long after both Melchisedec and Abraham: all in bonds, called, commanded: his very sacrifices brought by force to the Altar: nothing freely. And so Abraham's posterity ga●e him the like meeting, Tithes by force of law: Bondage, and bonds on both sides.  
Grace then beginneth, and Grace endeth. 
The Law coupled Melchisedec to Christ.  The Law goeth between, as a bond, coupling Grace to Grace, Melchisedec to Christ. And so Melchisedec as God's Priest, and Christ's type, with the ministery of Christ's Gospel, make up both but one point, in the Office-worke of our salvation: Even as, an Evening and a Morning, 
Gen. 1.5.  made up but one day in the Creation. Christ was but as in dawning then: he shineth now. In Melchisedec he put the Word of benediction, in his ministery he hath put the Word of Reconciliation. Melchisedec typed Everlasting promises in Christ: his Ministry preach everlasting performances in Christ. Now, glad promises, and glad tidings of their performances, are but one: and therefore their maintenance justly one, Tithes Inheritance.  
Levi, a link of the same chain also; a Priest of the same work in effect: though different in form: a Remembrancer, for supporting the weakness of those days, intervening between the promises and the performances, typing, and foretelling by numbers of rites, & thousands of times, Christ's coming in their carnal sacrifices, till they pointed him out, as by a fingerly demonstration: whom our ministery now Preach in a heavenly contemplation. The doors of Faith in those days were much, their Eyes, Hic est: and so trust●es Thomas, must first put his finger in his side, and then believe. The doors of faith in our true Melchisedecs' days, are most, our ears, by hearing: and so, even Abraham believed, hic erit, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness: And he saw the day of the Lord, and rejoiced: But we, Hic fuit, and therefore, Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe. So the general end of all, is one: and the general Inheritance for all, still one. Levi was under the Law, as a tenant at will, removable: Melchisedec, & Christ's Ministry, as Freeholders: Oaken-tenants. Diversity of Orders made not diversity of Inheritance. Tithes and Priesthood came and go together; not Tithes, and Levies Priesthood: and therefore must not end, till all Priesthood end; for Melchisedec yet liveth a Priest, and taketh Tithes.  

See part. 1. c. 6.  To that question then made, part. 1 cap. 6. Why the last §. IX age of the world may not serve God without Tithes, as the first two thousand years did? 
Orders once settled, must never be left.  The answer is evident: We must never fall back from Order to Confusion, nor from Substance to Ceremonies. This were to go back again from Canaan, to the Flesh-pots of Egypt: from Heaven to Hel. Why may we not serve God without the Tables of the Law, as they did two thousand years? They had the Image of that Law by nature, and partly (doubtless) by Tradition: so were they, both by Law of Nature and Tradition, prepared to a Tithing, as fell out between Melchisedec and Abraham. The first age was a time of confusion, the people had no rest, 
Deut. 12.8. etc.  and so small order; but being once past jordan, they must not do as of before.  
Now are we passed all the Bondages in Christ, and must not go back again to the Boundages of the world. Otherwise, we invert the whole method both of Creation and Redemption. Creation began from darkness to light: Evening and Morning made a day: Redemption, from falling to rising: from beggarly rudiments of the Law, to the rich revelations of the Gospel, from perishing types to eternal Verities. And the Gospel again, in itself still growing, 
Heb. 5.13.14.  from milk for babes, to strong meat for men of age. We must ever grow, never decrease. Therefore Christ, the first Author of Grace, and perfection of all grace, hath not cast all again in the Chaos of Confusion.  
Then seeing Nature at first freely doted; 
The right of Tithes concluded.  Grace ensuing distinctly defined; jacob instructed in grace, solemnly vowed; Law succeeding, strictly commanded; the Gospel reviving, hath by reasons venued; the Primitive Churches, by practice restored Tithes for God's worship: Let us ever hold, that Tithes are only the true Inheritance of the Church, flowing immediately from God, to his ministery in all ages: as we defined them, part. 1. cap. 1.  
The sum then of all the proof from the Circumstance of time, is, 

Whatsoever is due to an eternal Priest, is perpetual by due.  
Tithes were, and are due, to Melchisedec, an Eternal Priest.  
Ergo, Tithes are perpetually due.    
And by Consequent, this Priest being the Highpriest of the Gospel, Tithes are due to the Gospel.   

CHAP. VIII. The time of Melchisedecs' first Tithing. Four doubts in his posterities Tithing. To whom, from whom, whereof, and for what uses Tithes are to be taken, and employed. And if Princes may Tithe. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what.  
TITHES thus settled as the Churches true Inheritance: §. I these doubts rest to be resolved. 
How long Melchisedec Tithed.  First in Melchisedec, and Abraham our Fundators: Secondly, in their succeeding posterity. In Melchisedec, touching the time and continuing of his Tithing: and of what things he got Tithes. Once he got, sure it is: and this Once, in all his actions we have found ever obligatory of the posterity, typed in Mechisedec and Abraham. It continued not, because we read never that Abraham, or any of his, met any more with Melchisedec; and so hereafter, Abraham never met with so good a Priest as himself. Hear then was but a Nuncupation, a foundation of Priesthood and Maintenance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: All things began to be Orderly with Melchisedec: But to be of Melchisedecs' peculiar Order (viz. Eternal) this ceased on earth, from this time, till the law in his order, both came, and ceased; and Christ the perfection of this Order and all Orders, came. So, of Melchisedecs' Order we have but two Persons; Melchisedec, Type and Priest: Christ, Verity, and Highpriest. Again, it could not lasts for Tithes (as is said) require necessarily, settled Religion. Abraham was here a stranger among Infidels. He gave Tithes as he found the Priest; let us do the like. So here, Grace prepared the way to the Law, by God's good order, because Grace must deliver us from the Law by the same Order. Now, whereof Melchisedec got Tithes, because it concerneth also the Posterity, we will there answer it. And this for the doubts in our Fundators.  
§. TWO In the Posterity we have those questions to answer anent Tithing, 
To whom Tithes due.  To what persons given? From what persons taken? Of what things taken? And for was uses? In all which, having once found the Person giver, viz. God, we shall easily find the rest: for he giveth for all respects. And, That only God gave Tithes; It is clear first, in that action of Melchisedec and Abraham; whose doings though they passed in the prerogative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without either recorded law, or like example; yet no man will deny, but that their calling was powerful in the Spirit; and so far above Law, as this one action was a Law for ever. Again, God having here given. Tithes to his Eternal Priest; under the Law he also giveth them to his Temporal Priests and Ministers. So we have here two lessons. First, Tithes are pendicles of Priests, not of Princes. For though Melchisedec and Christ were both Princes and Priests, yet are Tithes only annexed to their Priesthood, Heb. 7.  
But to be plainer, and neither wrong Prince nor Priest, §. III It is one question to say, 
How Princes may Tithe.  Whether may Kings take a Tenth for their necessities? Another, Whether Kings may take Tithes, God's Inheritance, Decimam Sacram, from his Church or no?  
For the first, they will allege, 1. Sam. 8.15. And we see Princes daily lift (lawfully) subsidies of all proportions, 10. 15. for maintenance of their estate: yea our bodies, our lives, are liable hereto also. But wonder it is, that some learned should allege this place of Samuel, 
Pareus in Heb. 7.  as a surrender of God's right in Tithes, unto kings after Levi; seeing Samuel speaketh here only of the Kings of the jews, such as lived jointly with Levi under the Law, 
Perkins in jude.  who neither did, nor durst touch Levies Tithes. King's then may Tithe: but God must Tithe. Never religious King thought otherwise: nor, never King had further authority: for if any, then doubtless, under the Law: But there, Hezekiah our best & rarest example, setteth down a pattern for all his posterity. He commandeth his people to pay Tithes to Levi, according to the Law, 
2. Chron. 3●.  he maketh no new Law: he questioneth with the Priests and Levites anent the heaps: he causeth build chambers for the heaps: but putteth never his hand in the heaps; he leaveth that to the distribution of the Levites for whom they were ordained: For our Patro-Latrons were not then hatched. Neither mean I, but that a Prince's need may be such, that Levi in duty may and must yield him a portion, as the Priest gave David the Show bread: 
1. ●am. 21.6. and Mat. 12.4.  but let it come by Levi, for avoiding of Sacrilege. But why our Scottish Levites can so little help their David, 
Cap. vlt.  a Prince of so rare both Reformation, and Religion, shall be quickly known.  
§. IV Our second lesson floweth from the former. The Positive Law of Princes is not the fundamental ground (as many think) tying Tithes to the Church. 
Kings, no fundators of Tithes.  No, doubtless Gods Law led our forbears, Christian Kings, and Churches, so to do. For at first, Tithes were either Moral or Ceremonial. If Moral, Then all Kings are but Hezekiahs', commanding to pay them according to the Law. But if Ceremonial, than it is no less superstition now to restore them: than it was Sacrilege then to refuse them. For nothing that typed Christ as a Ceremony, may be revived after Christ in his Church.  
The persons owners then in both Melchisedec and Levi, were only ecclesiastics, Priests and Levites: all those to whose charge the Ministration of God's worship was in any sort committed, filii Prophetarum. Whereof it must follow, that all and only the Ministry of the Gospel must live by Tithes. By Ministry, I mean not, only the Preacher of the Word, but also all and whatsoever inferior Officers, having warrant for their special callings in the Church, else we have not both Priests and Levites, 
2. King. 2.3.5. & 4.38 42. & 6.1.  as Esay prophesied of the days of the Gospel. And this of Esay must signify Priests by Church-calling, 
Cap. 66.21.1.2 9  Ministers: not generally as Peter termeth all Christians, a Royal Priesthood.  
§. V Now, whereas some hold that our Preachers may not answer the Priests, 
Our Preachers answer to the Priests  but only the inferior Levites, I see no warrant for it. For if it be for their different Sacrifices from ours: the name will never import the service out of the own period of time: but still such Priest, such Sacrifice: otherwise it should bind a carnal Sacrifice on Melchisedec the Type. We answer those Priests then, Genere, not Specie. Again, the inferior Levites, were by Calling as Ceremonial, as Priests: And our Preachers labour in Word and Sacraments, resemble more the Priests services, then that of the Levites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Paul of the Priests, 
1. Cor. 9.13.  very competent to our Ministry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Rom. 15.16.  And the Gospel hath also the own inferior officers, who may better answer to the inferiors of the Law. Then, All of Church-Calling, must live by the Church-Kitchin.  
Away then with those Laic Bishops, Parsons, Priors, §. VI Patrons, etc. Such Patroni, are Latrones. 
Patro-Latrons.  But if the Church-Inheritance must go by the presentation of Laics, then let Lordships go by the presentation of Levites. So shall we have on both sides, a perfect Hurlyburly-government, till each have his due. Tithes are the Church's Inheritance flowing from God: Then, in general, no man can present them: and in particular, Hezekias (as is said) left the distribution to Levi himself. God's end, and Man's, are here quite contrary. God gave Levi a Maintenance from himself, and free of man's option, to be lifted before man should meddle with any thing, to no other end, 
Hebr. 13.17.  but (as Hezekiah said) That they might be encouraged in the Law of the Lord, not to please the Laird or my Lord. That he should not stumble at such a huge-stone, as, How shall I live? That they may d●e it with joy, and not with grief. 
Deut. 33.9.  He must misknow Father and Mother, Brothers, his own child, when God's cause is in hand, as he did, Exod. 32.27, 28. 
Philip. 3.8.  He must count all things dung for Christ's sake. But man's end is, to asseruile the Gospel to his vile appetites. And what greater argument, to make a man speak, as they please? Then to be able to make him to eat as they please. It is a sore sub ferula; when Levies portion was not given, every one fled to his Land, Nehem. 13.10. And this maketh now many a poor Levite (yet weaker than poor) engage the Gospel for his dinner. And this pride against God's Inheritance, maketh many a Gut-Gospeller, sell his own inheritance to buy Tithes, and in end is turned out of both. And this for the persons owners of Tithes.  
§. VII The Persons payers: Abraham in paying Tithes to Melchisedec, 
What persons must pay Tithes.  was a type of all his seed, of his flesh, and of his Faith: then no flesh can scape. The Law commanded all Israel to give Levi Tithes: and Levi himself escaped not Melchisedec. All, for whom Levi served in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, paid to Levi. Therefore all to whom Christ is preached, pay Tithes to Christ's ministery. There is but one dichotomy here of the whole world, either an Israelite, or a Levite. An Ecclesiastic or a Laic; saving our Mungerall Gospelers (as is said): the next head shall make this more clear.  
§. VIII Of what things Tithes are to be paid now: Abraham gave of ALL, 
What things to be Tithed.  Gen. 14.] jacob, Gen. 28. vowed to give of all that God gave him. The Law, in the time of the dividing of the Land, setteth down chiefly, that which cometh by, and of the Land, viz. Tillage and Pasturage: and these Tithes are now commonly called Praediales Decimae. 
Decimae praediales.  But jacobs' Vow, and Abraham's practice teach us, that (All) includeth as well, all trades, as all persons: for every man is not a labourer of ground, a Cain, a keeper of cattle, an Abel. The jewish Repub. went no further for that time; But the Author to the Hebrews, chap. 7. vers. 2. giveth first, Of all, and vers. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which most men interpret Spoils. Where, I wonder why some learned quarrel it as improper: 
Deut. 20.1, 2, 3.  seeing one point of Levies office was to encourage in time of war: And seeing of the battles and of the Spoils, 
1. Chro. 26.27.  they did dedicated to maintain the house of the Lord. Seeing God is by special name, The Lord of Hosts. And seeing the Ministry of the Gospel, yet serveth much at war, where huge armies have no calling but the wars: shall all be exempted from Tithes? No, every man as he gaineth, he giveth proportionably, and these are called Decimae Personales: 
Decimae Personales.  and such in effect were all Abraham's Tithes: for his, came after a battle, not after Tillage or cattle. And this personal Tithing is cleared by the Apostle, saying, Let him that is instructed in the Word, (this will bring in every soul having goods, and receiving instruction) etc. And if not so, the one half, if not the best half of the world, shall go free, for all men's goods stand not in Tillage or Pasturage: All than must either pay, or be paid for: for servants, children, and such like, come not in count, but householders and Foris samiliats, as Deut. 26.13.  
But God hath laid a course of such perpetual equity and equality in all points, and for all persons, that nothing can go wrong, if we go not from it. All persons must pay, therefore no emulation for exception of persons: All things, as their increase is, must pay, so God's service shall lack nothing necessary. Once a year pay: so no man is prevented, nor precipitate: for the years revolution, giveth a recreation to all, and whatsoever Trades.  
And albeit Abraham said to the King of Sodom, that §. IX he would take nothing that was his: yet God's part, was neither his, nor his: Neither had Abraham, so much to give of his own for the time, as of these Kings and Lots goods, whom he delivered, and of these others Kings goods, 
Gen. 14.  whom he overcame, as the History beareth. Now if he gave Tithes for their goods, it must be Spoil: for all came to Abraham, jure belli: And if Spoils, than battles and wars are obliged to Tithing: If wars and soldiers, what trade can escape. And though we say, Spoils, it excludeth not abraham's own estate, even by the text: for first, Genesis hath, Of all: secondly, Heb 7.2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of all things. So, if Abraham had, he gave: But vers. 4. Paul addeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of purpose (as it seemeth to me) to oblige war as well as peace, to this most solemn Nuncupation of Tithes, to the Eternal Priesthood of Melchisedec.  
§. X On the King of Sodoms' words to Abraham, Give me the persons, 
Sodom a thankful soldier.  and take the goods to thyself: We have two things to mark; first, it seemeth, the King of Sodom had no ill meaning, to grudge at Abraham's giving Tithes to Melchisedec, as most men understand him: for he had no reason, seeing Abraham had restored to him, all his people and goods, yea, even himself to himself. Chrysostome seemeth to take the place better, applying it to the thankfulness in the King of Sodom, who seeing God work for him, by Abraham's hand, what himself could not do; and seeing Melchisedec, the Priest of abraham's God, seal up this victory in so powerful, and solemn manner: the King then said to Abraham, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. If we should say here, 
Ambrose making 318. Vernus of Abraham, types of these 318. Bishops of the Council of Nice, stretcheth the text much further.  That the King of Sodom might serve as a type of the Gentiles, called to the Faith of Abraham, who were never of abraham's flesh; it were no great absurdity: for Sodom here, being but Lot's neighbour by dwelling, is made Lot's brother in blessing: he enjoyed fully the temporal blessing of the present victory; he heard effectually the future blessings of Eternal felicity sealed up in Abraham and all his posterity, Flesh and Faith; and so, even for Sodom himself, when he should take him to the tents of Sem: And should this man, who had lost all, both souls and substance, and again got all, grudge for a Tithing, seeing even then Gentiles themselves gave Tithes to their own Idols? No, It agreeth better with the nature of this eternal and heavenly mystery, that such Gentiles as by Lot's society, were brougnt within the compass of God's blessing, should also be enroled in the book of thankfulness for Melchisedecs' Tithing. Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may well be interpreted, Spoils.  
Secondly, we mark, that this speech of the King of §. XI Sodoms' came after the Tithing, and so, of a good mind: 
Sodom thankful to Abraham.  for after Melchisedec had received God's part, the King biddeth Abraham take the rest of the goods To himself; whereby he seemeth to acknowledge, Tithes in such cases due; and to acquit Abraham's losses, by a true liberality, for his present delivery. Courtesy bound Abraham to refuse the King's goods; but Conscience commanded him to give God his own goods: and so, they both acknowledged their common victory of their common purse; and the best of this purse, was Spoils, Ergo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may yet be Spoils.  
But it is not much used to signify Spoils, 
XII Object. Sol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what.  & properly it is but The tops of the heaps:] What of all this? May not these heaps be sometimes Spoils, purchased as well by battles and wars abroad, as possessed by peace in barns at home? And Steph. saith first, Capitur pro primitijs manubiarum quae Dijs offeruntur: and proveth it by divers authorities. Again, Primitiae victoriae, id est, manubiarum ex victoria reportatarum: And was not Abraham here after victory? Again, At vero D. Paulus, aut quisquis est auctor Epist. ad Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non pro manubiarum primitijs, sed pro ipsis manubijs usurpavit. If this sense seem strange, the Author is strong: and this is no sole example of Paul's using of words in a new sense, (though never without a new reason) as for example, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by all for, to come: yet Paul, Act. 20.29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after my departure. 
Casaub.  The Father's long after Paul, framed many words to a new sense, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Eucharisty itself: by Dionosius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Council of Nice: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Church, to the only Clergy, and Church of late, from the flock, to the only Pastors, all which Scripture never knew: And might not Paul in the power of another spirit, use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Spoils, in so fit a time, as after a battle, and in so far a reach, as to fetch in for ever, every soul to pay Tithes to the everlasting Priesthood of Melchisedec?  
§. XIII Now, to what uses are Tithes given? This must also depend (with the rest) upon God the giver. 
Tithes for what uses.  First Melchisedec got them (as is said) as Priest only. Many would tie them to many common works, as building of Churches, Streets, and Hospitals: But look to the Law, there is no such condition in the gift to Levi: it went only, for his service in the Tabernacle, not for building the Tabernacle. moneys due to the Priest, were exempted from repairing of God's house. King's ever builded and repaired Churches, 
2. King. 12.16. 2 Chro 24 5. & 34.9. 2 King. 22 4.  of their own goods and the people's: and the Levites keepers of the doors, gathered by the King's command, moneys for these works, of all their brethren. As for the poor, the Law appointed for them a special Tithing each third year: 
1. Cor. 16.1.2.  and the Apostle, an ordinary collection each week, besides a daily care of them recommended to all Christians. Of all this is cleared, that the Church Patrimony, was not tied to these uses: howsoever I do confess, a thousand times better so employed, then as most part of Tithes be now adays. So Tithes may be, (not must be) so employed.   

CHAP. IX. Why Tithes seem too much for our ministery, and how to mend it. Comparison between the Romish Church and ours: Christ and the King both cozened.  
But thus shall the Tithes, fair exceed the proportion §. I of the ministery: True, 
Why Tithes too much for our ministery.  chief here in Scotland. But the conformity hereof must not grow from imparing Gods rents: but increasing his servants, which in most places are too few. Parishes so many miles in compass: One Church only, if any: alike Preachers, 
1. Chron. 23.1, 2, 3.  this is all. Any wonder here the Tithes be too much, where the men be so few? It was not so in Israel, where eight and thirty thousand Levites above thirty years old, served the Ministrrie of the Law: and the Ministry of the Gospel, in as large (though not so fertile) a country with us, not to mount to four thousand in all. What if every large peopled Parish had two Churches? Each Church, two Preachers? With Deacons, Porters, musicans, and all such like inferior Officers, as the Church-seruices require? And all live by Church-rents? Should not God be better served? Souls better nourished? And the people no more burdened?  
§. TWO But say, That for all this, Tithes yet would be too much: what then? Levi should be but richer: then let him be the more liberal, the more hospital. Let him support Prince and Country: Church and poor, as hath been done heretofore. O! But, Ecclesia peperit divitias, & filia devorovit matrem. True, in Popery, where having not only Tithes most Legally exacted, but a great number of old legal offerings, and new additions, they become so, Secular Princes. But in the purity of the Gospel, 
1. Pet. 5.3.  where Decimare, not Dominari, is permitted, there is no such danger.  

Comparison between the Romish Church and ours.  §. III But yet in Popery, Priests are chaste, no wives, no children: you have both; whereby that overplus that may arise of the rents, and be employed for the public service, is converted to the use of their children only.  
Respons: chaste they are not: Wives they have not: and children they want not. We grant we have wives: so had Levi: and yet, to have a wife, was no Ceremony with him: though Popery hath abolished it, and taketh other men's wives in place of it. As to our children, they differ only, that theirs are bastards, ours Lawful. And I have often seen Romish bastards, better in bonis, than any of the other sort. And though our children be (as seldom) provided for, yet doth not this endanger our Church for wealth: for our children succeed to it jure patris, not Predecessoris: possessione, not professione, not as a Pope to a Pope: a Cardinal to a Carnal. And if it be lawful to have wives, then more need is there of mantenance.  
Yet again, to avoid all partiality in these points, I confess, first, That there may be (in some respect) too much wiving in a Church ministery: specially where the patrimony is so much impaired, Matrimony might be better spared: And seeing Lords & Lairds, have measured Levies maintenance so, as will scarce prove meat to his own mouth, the less his burden were, the greater were his liberty in his calling: But the difference between the Pope and us is, that Nature conformed to God's Law, leadeth us: Man's Law, abridging Gods, enforceth them. If we enacted affirmatively, that all Ministers must marry: as the Pope doth his Negative, That none shall marry: I think it were aeque peccatum utrinque Levi was bound to marry: for, his only loins could breed a Legal ministery: but now, jew and Gentil are a like sib to the Gospel: the only spirit begetteth a Minister.  
Secondly, I confess, That there is no greater Sacrilege, §. IV then when Levi himself playeth the Limmer, 
Levi Sacrilegious, is worst of all.  that is, when a Bishop, or a Minister, enhanceth all Bishoprics, Abbacies, Priories, whatsoever is deuouted to Levies Inheritance, appropriating things due to the seed of their calling, to the seed of their carcase: to their only sons, what is due to their successors. If our Church have any such, the Lord turn himself all in Eye, to find them out, and all in fire to purge them out: achan's, achan's.  
But let us hear Bellarmine sound his bells: This Law §. V of Tithes cannot be Moral: 
Bellarmine's bells against Tithes.  because it did not oblige ever from the beginning.  
Ans. Obliging from the beginning, is no sure note of things Moral and Perpetual: for then the jewish individual Sabbath must have been Moral, for it was at the very beginning, but continued not till the end. Again, Incest, did not at the beginning so strictly oblige as now, shall we therefore hold it for no Moral precept? or alterable now? Moral then is, whatsoever beginning at any time before Christ, remaineth also after Christ: Otherwise the Decalogue shall not be Moral: 
Rom. 7.7.  and if we flee to the Law of Nature, we have proved Tithes also by the Law of Nature.  
Another bell of Bellarmine's: As the Law said, Levi must have all the Tithes in Israel: So said it, Levi must have no Inheritance in Israel: And so the negative, must be Moral as well as the Affirmative; but we see many Ministers borne to Inheritance, and purchasing Inheritance, neither due nor descending to the ministery. Ergo.  
This is a two edged sword: one against the Pope, whose chair maketh him as great a Prince as any in Israel: Let Baal plead for himself. 
judg. 6.32.  Another edge, against our ministery, who though they bring no other Inheritance to the ministery, than the Gospel giveth; yet they provide for their children, which Levy did not. I answer, first, for the children: Levi did not provide for them, because he needed not; for God had provided already sufficiently for him and all his. 
How Levi may have Inheritance.  In general, I answer, If this Levitical Law had been our first ground for Tithes, as it is but a branch of that general, whereby both they and we claim Tithes, than Bellarmine had had some colour of his conjunction of the Negative, and Affirmative, as of one nature. And yet by his leave, That Negative was peculiar to that only Tribe, in the division of that Land: but the Affirmative of Tithes, flowing from our first Pattern and Patron, Melchisedec, was common to all Nations, as was his Priesthood. For no Nation (save this) was enjoined to divide themselves in twelve or thirteen distinct Tribes, and so to divide the Land among them, and kept themselves still distinguished one from another: and no people (save this) had one only Tribe, reserved wholly and only to the Ministry: Therefore the Affirmative must be Moral, The Negative, Temporal.  
I confess, the Equity of this Negative teacheth clearly, §. VI That the Sacred and Civil calling; the Word, 
Sacred and civil callings distinct.  and the World; Priest and Prince, should ever remain distinct; which two the Pope confoundeth, and all such as do join sacred and secular public callings in one person. Yea, I say further, though a man be borne to secular Lordships and Offices; and thereafter called to the ministery, yet must he live as having no inheritance; that is, he must abandon all that public and civil calling in his own person, as Negotium huius seculi, discharging that by others, and so derive it to his lawful posterity of his flesh, himself standing fast by Christ's plough: he must not blow with the Word, and harrow with the World.  
The Law than is not the patent of our possession. §. VII Melchisedec is our Pattern; Melchisedec is our Patron; Melchisedec gave our Patent, Melchisedec took our possession. The law (as is said) served the own time: It coupled Melchisedec to Christ. Great was the difference, between the Law and the Gospel, both touching Calling and Maintenance. The Law, tied all, and only Levi to the Calling: and so were his children, both successors to his Office, and heirs of his Tithes. In the Gospel, the Spirit only directeth all. In the Law, only Israel God's people: only Levi, God's Priest; and as they had an external calling, so he gave them a carnal Maintenance, bound to their blood; for the Priesthood went by pedigree, Neh. 7.64. But the Gospel, touching descent personal, in all circumstances is free, calling (after the manner of Melchisedec) Internally: and so giveth the maintenance to the Sent, not to the Descent. No man's seed astricted; none debarred: jew and Gentile. The patrimony and parentage, meet never under Melchisedec; and therefore Levies Laws, are for Levies self only. For seeing our flesh hath no part with Levi, it were hard to debar us that ordinary natural care, which God alloweth all parents over their children. The moderation here must be (as is said) Ne implicent se negotijs huius seculi; 
2. Tim. 2.4.  not to hunt with Esau, forgetting their calling. Before both Law and Melchisedec, the first borne had both the best portion, and were also Priests, by practice: then if a man now, borne to secular possessions, having both wife & children (which both hath been, and may be under the Gospel, but never could be under the Law) be called to the ministery; must this man either renounce his means or his ministery? May not Levies Lands, and keep Levies cattle? This were a beggarly rudiment indeed. A man then may enjoy his means, and the Church censure his moderation.  
§. VIII The moderators in all such cases must be only Churchmen; who must give to every man his portion according to his need. 
Num. 26. ●4. & 33.54. 2. Chron. 31. Neh. 13.13.  So did God in the division of Canaan, give that Tribe most, which needed most. So were Tithes by Levi taken, and by Levi distributed according to their courses. To command the people to pay Tithes; was Opus Regum: but to divide them, Vix Regium. Equity then, not Equality must lead the balance: for many circumstances, may make one of the same calling, more or less chargeable than another. The extremities to be avoided, are Hunger and Surfeit. Want killeth the Prophet, and Riches makes his grace's roost.  
But to speak at home now: Say that our Levites §. IX should fast, (as too many of them do): Shall our people fair the better? No, for if Levi charge not, laics overcharge. A shame of shames! Our Pulpits preach Christ: Our Parliaments forfeit Christ: and our poor Commons peeled, under colour of paying to Christ. The trick of it was, 
Christ and the King both cozened.  That Tithes were upon the sudden found unfit for the Church, but very fit for the King, (for the time as young as our Reformation): All must be annexed to him. So was he, (but not long) both King and Priest, a new Melchisedec: He Tithed once, (if once) but never more. For as they scorned Christ, they scoffed the King, conveying strait from his one hand, what they put in his other. So they found the King Minor; they made the Churchmen Minor: and shut them both up in the Order of Fratres minimi. Now the Tithes being gone, we must have (for the fashion) Lords of the Plot, Lords Modefears, booked stipends, but nothing like God's book: God's book gave Levi substance for shadows: our Lords give Levi shadows for substance. God commanded such, 
Levit. 27.31.  as would redeem their Tithes from Levi, to add a fifth part more above the Priest's valuation: Our Lords give Levi a fifth part of his own Tithes, according to their valuation. Abraham gave Tithes of all the Spoils; and we make Spoil of all the Tithes. And these forty years bypassed have not sufficed to tell us Quotum, quantum, nor quomodo, Christ's ministery may be maintained, Tithes being abstracted. A confusion, arising only from rejecting God's conclusion: and so much the more confirmed, that their travels are still turned upon Tithes. Tithes they will not give, yet out of Tithes they must give what they list give. So we have, pro Sacri-lege, Sacrilege legittimated.  

2. Chron. 31.  And now, our Hezekiah, whose age and knowledge inform him unto reformation of those their errors; while his Highness beginneth to question with his Levites touching their heaps, (or rather hopes of heaps) and would willingly remove these Tobiah'ss from the Church-chambers. Alas, he findeth Achan the best part of Israel: 
Nehem. 13.4.  many jerosylites, few true Israelites: Robbers, not Restorers of Levies portion. 
Rom. 2.22.  Hear O Heavens! and hearken O Earth! 
Esai. 1 2. jer. 5.9.29. 2. Chro. 24.22.  Shall I not visit them for these things, saith the Lord? Or shall not my soul be avenged on such a Nation as this? Doubtless: The Lord look upon it, and require it. Amen.    〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

AN APPENDIX ADDED OF NEW, ANSWERING SOME OBJECTIONS moved, namely, against this Treatise: and some others I find in later Writers: as that noble learned SCALIGERS Diatribe de Decimis: and Mr. JOHN SELDENS' History of Tithes.  
THIS Appendix (Dear Reader) ariseth from two Reasons. First, divers doubts moved by a Religious and learned Gentleman unto myself, after h●e had long ago perused this Treatise. Secondly, from some other doubts which I have read in that Noble and learned SCALIGERS Diatribe de Decimis: and in Mr. JOHN SELDENS' History of Tithes, published this present year. Of both which I was bound to take notice for love of the Truth, and all that love it: holding still for my End, Edification; and Charity, as my way to it: for he that walks not so, he may well speak Truth, but not Truly.  
The first were sent me in these words, as followeth.  
Sir I have perused your Sacril goe, wherein I reverence great Learning, judgement, quickness and dexterity: such, as I know not, if any shall come after, to handle that subject better: so that I marvel not, that *** became superstitious touching it. Yet for my better satisfaction, and to quicken your quickness yet further, I have observed some things to be recommended to your consideration and resolution, as doubts to me: chiefly in the second part, which many ways imports the first as relative to it.  

CHAP. I.  

§. II. In the second part.  

Galath. 4.9.  WHy (say you) had these Beggarly Rudiments, and that perishing Priesthood of the Law, so rich a Patrimony, and the glorious and rich Revelations of the Gospel, so beggarly a Ministry?]  
Object. Because their riches and forms are very divers, if not flat contrary: as consisting the one in show, the other in substance: the one altogether spiritual, the other much earthly. And Beggarly is spoken by the Apostle in another sense, for they were that way not poor.  
Answ. I take Beggarly just as you do, with the Apostle there: but on the part of the Gospel, I take it for Poverty. But what reason can be drawn from their rich showing Rudiments, and rich assured maintenance, to make the substance of the Gospel be shut up in uncertainty of sufficient maintenance? Again, their rich Rudiments (that is, Typical glories) had the own rich and like maintenance too: but their Patrimony (in this Treatise being only Tithes Inheritance) was also rich and certain, and more due to them, for their scattered services abroad in their Synagogues, than their Ceremonial and Typical Temple-rites, as we have proved, Part. 1. cap. 5. §. 2. and 3. Should the Gospel also be frustrate of this? So as it can neither tell what, nor whom to crave.  
As for example: Some Parishes with us, do yield for Parsonage Tithes some fifty chalders of victual, which we may value at five hundred pound sterling. Such a Lord or Laird) forsooth) must be Parson by virtue of that Vile Act of Annexation (as his Majesty termeth it. 
Basilicon Doron. ) So Tithes are still made Inheritance, but by God's Law, to Levites; by Man's, to Lord and Laics. But what, and whom now shall the Lords Parson, the Levite, crave? Surely the Lord-Parson will (perhaps) give the Lord's Parson a tenth part of the Lords Tithes, and this he assigneth him to be levied of such a tenth part of his flock, as they may agree upon: and so, the less benefit, the more credit; for he makes the poor Parson, half an Highpriest; and gives him in am of Decimam, Decimarum Deciman. And as his Lordship divideth with him the profits, so doth he proportionally, his Flock: for he receiveth this tenth part, but from the tenth part of his flock; whereas by Paul's doctrine, 
1. Cor. 9 Galath. 6.  the Parson is to eat of the milk of his whole flock: And, He who is Catechised must make him who Catechiseth partaker of all his goods: So such as pay their Tithes to their Pastor, hold themselves more properly his Flock, than such as pay him none: and yet all pay to the full. Is not this a Beggarly Ministry, both in means and manners? If then we will have Tithes, why not as the Lord ordained them? They will say by Positive and Nationall Laws. But such laws a● first gave them to holy Church, till this Vile Act came. If we will have no Tithes, then what shall be the Medium, and whom shall we crave? or, who hath power to settle it?   

§. III.  
CHrist neither did, nor said any thing against Tithes, as in that Tithing of the Pharisie, of all he had, etc.]  
Object. Neither was it a fault then, but the Ordinance of God: neither is it a fault now, though not therefore a Necessity.  
Answ. If once it was God's Ordinance, it must still be so, till it be by a good warrant removed. Yea, would not even the whole Ceremonial Law be yet in force, if it were not by God himself removed?   

§. iv  
IT is most true, That seeing Christ hath not brought in a new Maintenance, he hath not abrogated the old.]  
Object. To make this argument good, it behoveth to be understood of the same office; in the same people, places, and all cases concurring.  
Answ. It holdeth as well in the Genus as the Species: for so long as there is a Priesthood upon earth, so long must it have a Maintenance: Ergo, either the ol●, or a new. And that old Maintenance was no otherwise Levies, but as Levi was a Priest; and at a Priesthood long before him: Ergo, seeing that same first Priesthood liveth yet after Levi, why should it lose the old Maintenance? So I say in this case, Christ did not only, not abrogate; but could not so much as change the Maintenance, because his will to the contrary, was figured, in, and by his Type Melchisedec. For though Christ changed the Priesthood, yet he changed not the Maintenance: Why? Because he but changed that only Priesthood of the Law: and Tithes were the Maintenance of Melchisedees' Priesthood before the Law; which Priesthood Christ here perfecteth, not as he perfected and fulfilled the Law, by abrogating a great many things of it; but, by restoring this Priesthood to his full perfection: and so, would change nothing, but confirm all things, belonging to it at first: and were not Tithes, one? Was Abraham so idle in gifting; jacob so superstitious in vowing; Paul so officious in applying Tithing, Dying, Living, differently in Melchisedec and the Law, as we may yet wipe Tithing quite out of our Text?   

Ibidem.  
NOw, one word in all the Gosp l, either plain text, or Consequence, against Tithes Inheritance: if nothing against it. Then saith Tertul. Quod non notat Scriptura, negat. And to reply, Non notat evangelium decimas dandas, ergo negat. It followeth not, seeing, some Scripture noteth them: and so, Lex semel lata, non deleta, semper obligat.]  
Object. True, quibus lata, & quomodo.  
Answ And quibus here, must be Sacerdotibus; not Leviticis solis, but omnibus. For by the Law of Tithes here, we meant their general extent, beginning from Melchisedec downward, which we draw even from the Gospel also, as Cap. 4. following.   

§. VII.  
ANd so the Moral (Time) yet remaineth, A Sabbath, though not the same Individual day from the Creation.]  
Object. And why may we not also have still a Maintenance, though not the same means, and quotum.  
Answ. If ye admit of my ground, the same quotum kept in the Sabbath, will bind the same quotum in maintenance. Still a seventh day, though not the same seventh: so still a tenth, though not a Legal, judaical, or Levitical tenth. And we know the Apostles changed the Sabbath, but not the Maintenance?    

In CHAP. II.  

§. II.  
PAul forbore Tithes, because he would not be chargeable, 1. Corinth. 9.12. and that because he would not hinder the Gospel]  
Object. How is that proved to be the cause?  
Answ. It is the very Text itself.  
Object. And though he would not be chargeable, but dispensed rather with his right, yet should he not have declared what was his right? As he dispensed to take any wages, but laboured with his own hands; yet he spared not to tell them, The labourer is worthy of his wages. Ergo, Though he dispensed with Tithes, yet he might have told them that Tithes were his due.  
Answ. First, consider, that Paul here is not teaching of purpose, the point of Church-maintenance, nor never did, but only stuck to the first foundation in Melchisedec, as Hebr. 7. But here, he only disputeth this, that He and Barnabas had as much interest in the matter of Maintenance, as other Apostles; for which, he only presseth the general analogies of the Levitical Law. But in all this Treatise, I grow by degrees, which would be well observed. Again, Wages, import no quote, till they be defined: and Numb. 18.31. the Tithes we stand for, are called the Wages of the Levites. Then, a reason why you admit the word Wages, and refuse the quote Tithes, being both in both Testaments. But for example; say, That a Preacher should call to all, or some one of his flock for Wages, Maintenance: Were he not fully answered with quota pars is yours, if he could not answer it? Then l●t him yet urge Paul's best general, Give me a part of all your goods: Still he is answered with quota pars? And in satisfaction of Paul's general, he may tender unto him a general part of All, and yet scarce prove one good meal; so the poor Levite may have a long Lent, with many fasting nights, and Paul literally (though not liberally) answered. The poor Levite thus loseth Totum, for lacking his quotum. To have recourse here to quotes by Stipulation for a sufficient Maintenance: first I answer, where saith Paul so? yea, where saith any Scripture so? Secondly, You must as well respect quo modo, as quotum: there is even a mystery in the Modus. So, though you give double, and not AS God appointed, you mar all. The mystery is this, That as the means were made sufficient, so the manner was most sweet, in that mutual relation of Giving and Taking on both sides. He, must teach all, and each: baptize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: catechize all, and each: Gal. 6.6. He must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Watch and give account for their souls, Heb. 13.17. Comfort and pray for all, and each, jam. 5.14. So, They again, must give him, all, and each of them a part of their goods: and no one judas bear the bag for all. Each household must say, I have brought the Hallowed things out of my house; and I have given it to the Levites: not to a Lord, to give the Levites. This hath God squared to Tithes: This could never be so perfectly practised on both sides, under the Law, as now, under the Gospel. This can no wit supply, much less surpass.    

In CHAP. III.  

§. I.  
THe special of Tithes was from the beginning good till very near Paul's Conversion▪ and therefore all his (general) dispute must end in Tithes, or some other special.]  
Object. Why a Special? there is no necessity in the world for it.  
Answ. If Paul took from us a special Maintenance; must he not give special for special? must he leave us a Black-patent never to be filled? Wages that cannot be counted, cannot be craved.   

Ibidem.  
IF Paul had meant any alteration, than was he bound to a plainness: seeing he saith, I have kept back nothing, but have showed you all the counsel of God.]  
Object. Then should he have spoken plainly of Tithes, where he speaks of Maintenance: but this he doth not: Ergo, he meant not Tithes.  
Answ. The Counsel of God here is to be understood, only of things de novo: not that Paul was to repeat plainly the whole Counsel of God, already revealed, and of Nature, Moral. But remember still, Paul's plainness is yet a coming, Chap. 4. part. 2.    

In CHAP. V.  

§. iv  
MEchisedec tithed Abraham, Father both of Levi, and all his brethren: Brethren (as is said) both by flesh and faith: Ergo, All still subject to Melchisedecs' Tithing. And such as see not this, are too big in flesh, too beggarly in faith.]  
Object. Quick: But is it also ? It is but the Priesthoods that are there compared, Melchisedecs with Levies: Christ's with it of the Law. For Levi in this is not the Type of Christ.  
Answ. But these Priesthoods are compared in the points of Blessing and Tithing, peculiar to only Priests. And it Levi (in this) as you say, was no Type of Christ; then Tithes in Levi were not Typical: if not Typical, not Ceremonial: Ergo, ever Moral: (for their judicials, meddled not with it.) But the truth is, Melchisedec and Levi were both in all their doings here recorded, very Types of Christ; but of divers Orders, that is, Natures. And, the Endless Order of Melchisedec, in Blessing and Tithing, is by Paul transferred on Christ, as is there proved.    

In CHAP. VI Against the Title.  
Perpetuity of Melchisedecs' Priesthood, proved by only Tithing.]  
Object. Not: But Greatness proved by Tithing and Blessing, verse. 4. and 7. and Perpetuity in vers. 3. Without father, without mother, and as the syriac, Whose neither father nor mother are written in the Genealogies, etc.  
Answ. And, is not Tithing in vers. 8. joined with Time, in their Dying and Living.   

CHAP. VI  

§. II. Against the second Syllogism.  
HE that taketh Tithes and liveth, is a perpetual Priest. Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liveth. Ergo, etc.]  
Object. The Argument seemeth not so, but thus: He that liveth is greater than he that dieth. Thus in effect, Both Priests, Melchisedec and Aaron, but who greatest? He that liveth, He that took, He that blessed. Both Priests, is taken pro confesso, or proved by David's testimony; not by taking of Tithes.  
Answ. Seeing our point here is of only Time, and that you yield, He that liveth is the greater Priest than he that is dead, giving the prerogative to the time present: Why place you the prerogative of Tithing and Blessing upon the preterite time again? For in bonis, praesentiae quaeque semper optima: So God calleth himself, I am, still; though he both was, and shall be. Even so, though it be true, that Melchisedec decimavit, Tithed, Blessed in the preterite, yet that momentary praeterite in that one only Tithing, can have no prerogative, over Aaron's Present, and two thousand years standing: and how shall he be a greater Priest that took, than he that Taketh? seeing you make him that liveth greater than he that dieth? these cannot both hold. Neither can you imagine how to make him a Priest for ever, by this text, unless he perform for ever, such points as are in this text recorded proper to his Priesthood: and these are only Blessing and Tithing. To divide these, I think verily it goeth against all the course of these texts. But I still submit myself, and more of this afterwards. And albeit David's Prophecy proved him a Priest yet Paul here proveth even the performance of that Prophecy, from two proprieties of all Priesthood, Blessing and Tithing; competent to no Calling, but Priesthood, and so, Reciproke with all Priesthood, else, how should we more have applied that Prophecy, than Moses' History, Gen. 14. if Paul had been silent?    

CHAP. VI  

§. III.  
ABraham typed all his posterity; the seed of his faith, as well as the seed of his flesh.]  
Object. True: in matter of justifying; not in this. In this he but representeth his son Levi by the flesh, with whom only the comparison is institute.  
Answ. Even in both. The text saith, vers. 4. Abraham the Patriarch gave him a tenth: and verse 6. He Tithed Abraham, and Blessed him, having the Promises: and vers. 9 He Tithed also Levi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tithe-taker, not as having the Promises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Not that I mean, Levi belonged no way to the Promise; God forbidden, but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are here the proper correlates, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Then let us weave all these passages in one web of truth. The Woafe goes thus disjoined, in Tithing the Patriarch; and Blessing him that had the Promises: but the perfect web must be thus, Melchisedec both Tithed and Blessed, the Patriarch having the Promises. In the second verse, He first Blessed, then Tithed: for that is the right Order, first to give them Spiritual food, before you exact their Carnal. A sore check to such Sacrilegious, both Levites, as do not, and laics as cannot, give the milk of the Word, and yet will devour the milk of God's Church, appointed to that end.  
In the fourth verse, Tithing cometh, without (naming) Blessing. And vers. 6. Tithing goeth before Blessing. Verse 8. Tithing again, alone: and also vers. 9 Then (say I) what more reason is there here to separate Tithing from the Patriarch and the Promises, then to separate Blessing, seeing all three are so syllogistically woven and interlaced?  
Or shall we divide Abraham's Patriarchship from his Promises, and bind the first to his Flesh, the second to his seed by Faith? But Paul telleth us plainly, That God made Abraham a Father of many Nations: 
Rom. 4.  and in the verse preceding, That the Promise might be firm to his whole seed, not only the seed of the Law, but also to oh seed of Faith. Then seeing his Fathership reacheth even to all Nations; we know, the Nations came not all of Abraham's flesh. Ergo, They must leap with Lazarus in his bosom, by Faith. Ergo, Both Flesh and Faith; Law and Gospel; Levite and Laicke; Peace and Wars, were here Blessed and Tithed in their Father Abraham, by that Priest for ever, Melchisedec. If then, we be justified with Paul by Faith, in the word and work Blessing; why not also, with james, by works, as witnesses, in the word Tithing?  
But to clear his Fathership better to whom it belongeth. Neither are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham, etc. 
Rom. 9.7.  That is, they which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise, are counted for the seed. Hear is Abraham's Fathership tied only to his Faith in the Promise, and divided from his flesh. But here (say you) he representeth but Levi his son by the flesh, with whom (Only) the comparison is instituted] First (as is said) not only flesh: for then, the only Flesh had here been blessed in Abraham: and so Melchisedec, not a Perpetual, but a Carnal type of Christ. Secondly, Though it had been only the Flesh, yet not only Levi: for the reason of Levies being Tithed here, is as true of all the Tribes, as of Levi: for all were alike in Abraham's loins, as Levi: and if we frame not the Proposition general, thus, All that were then in Abraham's loins, were tithed in Abraham; Levi can no more come under the Assumption than the rest. The cause then, why Levi only here is specified, was, that his case was harder to include, being Tithe-taker, than his brethren, payers: and to subject him, being a Priest, to the Priesthood of Melchisedec: as at length is noted. Cap 7. §. 5. As to the comparisons, remember there be two; one of Melch. with Levi, & this standeth wholly in dissimilibus, and so all removed from Christ, the Verity of them both: the other, of Melchisedec and Christ both of one Order, and so, all things spoken of Melchisedec in the fift eleven verse. are transferred to Christ, vers. 13.14. etc. and more than an illustrating comparison, it is a demonstrative conclusion, à Typo ad Veritatem; then which, no Scripture yieldeth more frequent or forcible.    

CHAP. VI  

§. V  
THe Verbs used in both the Types: as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present time, of Levi, notwithstanding they were dead and gone. etc.]  
Object. Not yet Levi dead and gone: for in the Apostles days divers Priests were still among the jews.  
Answ. How I understand this, is sufficiently set down, Cap. 6. §. 6. Dead and gone they were even then in Law, though not yet buried; as all the rest of their Ceremonies. And if Paul had not held them then for dead, He had not written this Epistle, thrusting out Levi in this whole seventh Chapter, and reviving the Priesthood of Melchisedec, and Chap. 8.13. proclaiming both Priesthood and Tabernacle to be finished, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In that he saith a new (Testament) he hath abrogate the old: now that which is disannulled and waxed old, is ready to vanish away.   

Ibidem S. V.  
THerefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed in praesenti, to Melchisedec.]  
Object. Wherefore must it? No necessity in Grammar will crave it. And the reason you subioyne, seemeth not of consequence, to wit (Seeing he presently liveth) since Tithing now 〈◊〉 not the point the Apost. urgeth, but being greater. Also, the verb which the Apostle himself subjoineth, is not a present, but a preterite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which testifieth clearly, if he had expressed the verb which falleth to be repeated to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he had expressed it in the same preterite time, and not in the present. Whereof this also may be a witness, that vers. 9 in one and the same clause speaking of Levies Tithing, he useth the present participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and speaking of Melchisedec, he useth the foresaid preterite, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as though he would say, He (Levi) that now taketh Tithes, was then Tithed by Melchisedec.  
Answ. This argument is but Grammatical, and so, but probable: the Conclusion must rest upon the point of Divinity. And Si quae non prosint singula; juncta invent. Yet my Grammer-grippe was thus grounded, that in one and the same enuntiation, Grammarians usually put all in the same Case, Number, and Times: and seeing here, vers. 8. Paul hath two words (and so all) in the present time of Melchisedec, I held it good Grammar, that those that were subaudite, in the same verse, should be of the same times too: specially seeing the truth holdeth alike in both. In sum, thus: Aaron dying, Blesseth, Titheth: Melchisedec Living Blesseth, Titheth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then, Hear, is not referred to the day of Paul's writing this, but, to the Law and time of it: and so the preterite verbs had marred nothing in Aaron, if it had pleased the Apostle to use them; nor yet the present verbs applied to Melchisedec.  
Where you say the Apostles self subjoineth preterite verbs; that is, but in the 6. and 9 vers. in the former, proving Melchisedec a greater Priest than Levi, because he Blessed and Tithed a greater person than did Levi: and in the latter verse to prove, that even Levi himself was then Tithed by Melchisedec. But here vers. 8. where his greatness is only proved from Perpetuity in Dying Tithing, and Living Tithing, here (I say) Paul useth only verbs of the present time; for perpetual things must be ever present. So Paul was Grammatical enough in both. Now, to his Theology.  
Albeit those preterite verbs, were only proper for Melchisedec the Type, who only once Tithed Abraham; yet, seeing these verbs de praesenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are only perfectly true of Christ the Verity; they must (I say) bind Tithing in praesenti upon Christ. If not so, I would feign see clearly out of this 8. vers. how Melchisedec hath any prerogative above Levi in these notes Dying and Living, joined with Tithing: for if we do bind all these things upon the only Type, than we lose the Verity, Christ: and as for the Types, Levi (as is said) Tithing two thousand years, surpasseth that Melchisedecs' one days Tithing in the prerogative of time. Further, in virtue of Christ the Verity, though not yet then in the flesh, yet may he be said even then in Melchisedec his Type and Attorney, to have Tithed Abraham; and by his Type Levi, to Tithe under the Law; as now, when he is gone up to the Father, to Tithe under the Gospel (as is said) Chap. 6. §. 10. So Tithing and Blessing are ever in Christ de praesenti, how the particular practices in his Types pass de praeterito. And so is he in all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And David's Prophecy proveth all these true, even of his Priesthood. For the preterite, He hath sworn. For the Future, And will not repent. And f●r the present, Thou art a Priest for ever, after the Order of Melchisedec. So Christ before his Incarnation, was, now is, and ever shall be, a Priest: and therefore, all accessory to that Priesthood, (though not Eiusdem Ordinis, & Ordinationis) must Bless and Tithe: even as did the Inferior Levites, who were not properly Sacerdotes, yet ex Sacerdotio Levitico.  
But vers. 13. (as is said in the Treatise) cleareth all. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I pray, how will you exclu e Tithing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seeing it is relative of all these things urged in the whole preceding verses? I confess, there be different degrees of the points compared; and Blessing, is above Tithing, but the one must not thrust out the other, Hac oportet facere, & illa non omittere: yea, Tithing is the very Handmaid of Blessing: for none may Bless as God's Minister, but he may also Tithe for his Maintenance. So, though Tithing had been out here, it had come in! therefore seeing it is in, and (in the proof of time) only it in, I pray put it not out.    

In CHAP. VIII.  

§. I.  
ONce Melchisedec got Tithes: and this Once is obligatory of the posterity.]  
Object. It was not so much as obligatory in these same persons to do the like; how then can it be obligatory of the posterity? Abraham is not obliged here, to pay any more Tithes at any time after; why then his posterity, to pay, ever and yearly?  
Answ. Because (as is there said) Melchisedec and Abraham are Types here of things ever to be performed under the Gospel specially. And things daily to be done, have in their Types but one representation; and yet that Once, is Ever, in their Verities: So we noted, that all things of this nature, are ever true in praesenti, in Christ; He liveth, Blesseth, Intercedeth, Titheth, etc. But such typical actions as must be daily repeated in the Types, and so, by one only action of the Verity, wiped away: there, plurality in the Types, argueth singularity in the Verity: and so, are ever true in the Types (for their time) in praesenti: but in the Verity, only perpetual in praeterito. As Aaron daily sacrificed, not, Christ daily sacrificeth: and so forth in the like. The diligent digesting of what is there written, would (I think) answer all such doubts.    

In CHAP. VIII.  

§. II.  
WHose doings, though they passed in the Prerogative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without Law or like example: yet no man will deny, that this one action, was a Law for ever.  
Object. Yea, who will not deny that it can be a Law, for ever? Seeing it is without Law; how can it pass as a Law? Seeing, without example, how pass for example?  
Answ. Nothing can be said to pass for a Law, and example, but what is without preceding Law and example. And no examples pass for Laws, but such are first, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authors. Secondly, In things imitable by the posterity. Of both these was this meeting of Melchisedec and Abraham, and all the actions recorded between them.  
Object. You subioyne this for the reason, Because their action was powerful in the spirit; and so, far above Law.] But I say, how above Law? By, or beside Law, I grant: and therefore, not a Law.  
Answ. My words are, So far above Law, as this one action proved a Law for ever.] As indeed, all things of the Promise, have the prerogative above things of the only Law: And the Law was even founded upon this action, not this on the Law. And tho, the Law had never come, yet this action had obliged all the se●d of Abraham, to this maintenance for God's Ministry. God must ever even from Melchisedec this Type, have a Visible Blessing and Tithing ministery: and Abraham must ever have a seed, God's Church, to be Blessed and Tithed.   

Ibidem. §. iv  
Tithes, either Moral or Ceremonial]  
Object. Why? is there not a Third member of the division omitted? To wit, Civil, peculiar to that people. Neither did Princes accept it, of Necessity, but followed it by Imitation.  
Answ. There be indeed three sorts of jewish Laws. But that Third, meddleth not with the Priesthood: And seeing both the Moral and Ceremonial take hold of Tithes, I therefore justly divided Tithes between them. And if the judicial Law, had also had a third and Civil Tithing, yet, the very title of my book, tieth me only to a Sacred subject, which no Civil tithing can be. As for Princes, If Tithes be Moral, who dare abrogate them? and if Ceremonial, who dare Imitate them? Ergo, Princes worthily, were imitators ex Necessitate, not Arbitrio, of God's Ordinances.   

Ibidem. §. VI  
Object. Now these whom ye call Patro-latrons, (that is) laye-Patrons: If they intromet not with Tithes, but Present men to trial, why should ye so account of them? It seemeth themselves have given the Tithes, reserving the power of Presentation: why should the Condition be separate from the benefit.  
Answ. Remember, I did not undertake to dispute this question from human practice, but from Divine precept. And so, I still say, God, and not they, gave us Tithes for maintenance of his ministery, and so their Patronage is of the by: I pray you, give any example or Law for this in Scripture. If you but imitate Scripture, yet keep the general course of Scripture in disposing the means for God's Ministry. God, before the Law had first an extraordinary Ministry for his own special worship in the first borne of the Families Again before the Law, they were presently orderly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Melchisedec: He was God's Priest, He took God's portion, Tithes. Thirdly under the Law, God also reserved the Calling resumed the same Maintenance, and presented, himself the Person, Levi: all which being established, the Person only, brought on the Calling, and the calling the maintenance. Hear God was in all, both Pattern, and Patron. But now the case is altered, for the Lay-Lord Patron, must have a hand both in his Calling & Maintenance. In his Calling, because (howsoever he have before this, a general investiture▪ as apt (at least) to Preach,) yet this Lord, hath power to design him Pastor of such a peculiar flock and Parish, unless the Clergy pronounce him uncapable of the Ministry wholly. Yet who knoweth not, but many reasons may debar a Minister some Parishes, though not from all? all gifts not fitting all places. In Maintenance, he giveth him the Tenth of tenths (as said is sup. pag. 3.) And whereas many times the Patron proveth Popish, he provideth us just such Preachers; either such as can do nothing though they would, or play the Bon-compaion, if they could. Who hath not seen this? ut as for your If they intromet not with Tithes, I would feign know such (full) Lay-Patrons: sure, it is not, or else, they cannot.   

Ibidem. §. VII.  
ABraham, in paying Tithes to Melchisedec, was a type of all his seed: of his flesh, and of his faith.]  
Object. The type is not so institute here, nor so explicate; therefore how can it be so extended?  
Answ. Is not this a mutual typical action (as there is proved) between Melchisedec and Abraham? Is he not propounded as Type of his posterity, vers. 4. under the name of Tithing even a Patriarch? Is he not expl ca e for such a Type in vers. 9, where Levi is brought in from Abraham's loins; Do not the Promises in Abraham make all Nations his sons? Therefore it is no further extended, than Paul intended. Paul calleth neither Melchisedec nor Abraham by name of Type; yet he proveth both to imbring and bind other persons after coming to the performance of things by them then represented; Ergo re apse, types.   

Ibidem. §. VIII.  
THings paying Tithes, Tithes are either Praediales, or Personales.]  
Object. Where are these found?  
Answ They be as vocabula artis, now common to all writers: but their foundation is from Scripture precept, practice, and Analogy. But more afterwards.  
Object. Then these Tithes here paid, being all of Spoils, to Melchisedec, can prove no Tithes but of spoils: and so not praediales.  
Answ. Because this doubt is more amply urged by M. Selden, we refer it to the own place.    

In CHAP. VIII.  

§. XIII.  
WHere many would tie Tithes to common works, as building of Churches, Streets, Hospitals: No such condition in the gift to Levi: For, for the poor was appointed a several Tithing every third year, under the Law: and the Apostles ordinance of weekly collection, etc. cleareth that. Yet Tithes might be, though not, must be, so employed.]  
Object. This seemeth a contradiction: to be ordained for the Ministry; and may be otherwise employed: for that were, to employ them otherwise then God hath ordained.  
Answ. You see, I spoke that but comparatè, better so employed then as they are now. And if they should be so employed, let it come by Levi, not man's Law: For being once his, he may, (nay in equity he must) support King and Country, and all charitable works.    

In CHAP. IX.  

§. I.  
WIth Porters, musicans, etc.]  
Object. Shall these than be Churchmen? or are musicans counted among Paul's officers? or if not counted, shall they have Tithes Inhiritance?  
Answ. They may be all very well Churchmen. And as to musicans or Porters, 
De Minist. Eccles. gradi. c.  I distinguish with Saravia, There is Minister evangelii, and Minister Ecclesiae: the first, be only such as Paul pointeth out, Ephes. 4.11. having power of public ministration of the Word and Sacraments. The second, may comprehend all such as in all ages may be found necessary for the well being of the Church, and things concerning it; whereof Paul for his time numbereth Deacons, Widows, and the like. Now, that musicans are so far necessary, we have Christ's example in singing Psalms publicly after the Supper: we have the perpetual practice of all Christian Churches ever since, except where no fingers can be had. The like of Porters, necessary in Nature itself: also Beadels, and the like. Is it not as meet then, that Levies portion (being sufficient) maintain such as must attend and assist him; as to give Laics the Tithes, and overcharge the Church with a new provision for both Levi and his substitute servants? May not musicans be so far a Seed for singing Psalms in the Church, as other schools are held Semina religionis, and as Divinity Colleges, be held Semina ministers; such as were Filii Prophetarum, under the Law? 2. King. 2.3, 5. But all these I noted, not to give a church-polity of mine own, but to show, how Levies portion, though fully levied by him, had vents enough to disperse itself; being well used. And though it be in some sense, and of some Churches truly said, Ecclesia peperit divitias & filià devoravit matrem; yet I see no reason why Laics should devour both Matrem and Filiam.  
And so much (Reader) for satisfaction to those doubts moved by this religious gentleman: whose pains argue his sincerity; and his fair dealing, his charity: God grant all men the same spirit, that aspire to clear the truth.  
Next cometh the second part of our Appendix, arising from doubts I meet with in that Noble and Learned Scaligers Diatribe de Decimis; next, in M. joh. Seldens' History of Tithes.    

SCALIGER and SELDEN, jointly.  
THat learned Noble, Scaliger, doth far otherwise divide Tithes, and also apply them then I have done part 1. Cap. 3. §. 1. The same doth Mr. Selden also. But in their particular applications, the one again as far differeth from the other; and I from both.  
Let no man think I do glory, in differing from these men. no, I only (for the Readers use, and ease) in simplicity yield my reasons, why I now think, as at first I wrote.  
We all agree then in the general of a dichotomy; but not all from the same grounds. I mike two Tithes, one paid by Israel, an other by Levi: induced by the divers Natures of the paiers, ever so divided in Scripture; to wit, the whole Eleven Tribes under the name of Israel, as payers; and the only levites as Receivers, for my first member: and Levi, the Receiver in the first, as paier in the second. They divide them only, in a first and second Tithing, as Scaliger allegeth, Tithes (saith he) are only considered, 
In Diatriba. pa. 69. lin. 4. edit Paris. M. DC.X.M. Selden cap. 2 §. 1. ad sin.  as they are paid by the labourers, not by the levites.] But seeing himself (and all) find this other Tithe paid by Levi, clear by Scripture; and seeing his own Titie goeth De decimis in Lege Dei, why must they be only considered in the Labourer? and not rather in their l●rgest extent as God's Law layeth them open Otherwise, his Title, yea, his whole Diatriba, should have said, De decimis a solo colono pendendis, and not generally, In lege Dei; seeing himself hath found one Decima in Lege Dei, quam non pendebant coloni. Therefore the ground of my first Dithotomie, is good in Scripture. This for the general.  
In particular, they both, bind up my fourfold Tithing, in two: but not both after one manner: Scaliger, will have my third Tithe, for the poor, to be all one with the first, for the levites. And Selden, will have it all one with the second, for the Feasts. But as I have herein Selden against Scaliger, so (I hope) Scripture against both. First then with Scaliger, who thus deduceth the matter.  

Scal. pag 63. lin. 13.  The first fruits, (saith he) and offerings being paid, and given to the Priests out of the whole bulk of their increase, then of that which remained, was given the Tenth to the levites. Num. 18.21.25.26.27.28. This was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tob. 1.7. Of which tenth the levites gave a tenth to the Priests.]  
This is indeed the first Tithe which only, is called Inheritance, and acknowledged, for the first by all But it seemeth to me, there hath b●n much (I dare not say, mistaking in so great a man, but at least) misprinting in this Edition after his death, when I consider his places brought for proof hereof, both from Canonical Scripture, and Apoc●ryphe. From Canonical, having quoted Num. 18.21. (which truly setteth down the first a●d only these first Tithes inheritance;) he joineth with it, verse 25.26.27.28. Which, are merely for institution of Decima decimarum, paid again by Levi out of that first Tenth, to Aaron. The simplest eyes will discern this by the Text. From Apocryphe, he quoteth Tob. 1.7. speaking only of Tithes paid by himself to the sons of Aaron. Now all these go directly against Scaligers own grounds, who will have all Tithes (and therefore, this first Tithe most of all) only considered, as they are paid by the Laity or Labourers, to the inferior Levites only: whereas tenths of Tithes were not paid by the Laics, but by Levites to Aaron: and also these first Tithes in Tob. to the Priests; 
Seld. cap. 1. §. 2. lin. 6.  Whereas both Scaliger and Selden will not have the Priests to receive any Tithes immediately from the Laics. Compare (Reader) consider, and then conclude.  
Next, pag. 64. lin. 7. Scaliger saith, Hactenùs detraximus primùm Therumam maiorem de corpore fructuum, deinde de residuo decimam secundam: Therumam quidem Sacerdotibus, decimam vero Levitis.]  
Now this Decimam secundam, should have been Primam, otherwise, it is both against Scripture, and Scaligers own account too: for in the very next line he calleth them, (and rightly) Theruma magna, and Decima prima. And Decima secunda is immediately set down in his next words, De illis (to wit, that remained after the first Tithe) rursus altera decima deducebatur, quam vocabant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tob. 1.7. de qua, Deut. 14.22▪ 23. Levit. 27.30, 31, 32, 33. Hanc (secundam) decimam cum prima confundunt multi, etc. And so distinguisheth (truly) between the first and second Tithe, so that there must be some mistaking, or (as I think) misprinting here. And yet, his places quoted here for Decima secunda, from Deut and Leuit. are not proper for the purpose: for that 22. vers. of Deut. is understood of the first Tithe Inheritance for the Levites only; and the 23. vers. of the second Tithe for the Feasts; as the 28. vers. of the third Tithes for the poor: So this only Chap. of Deut. of all the Scripture, hath only gathered in one, the whole three sorts of Tithes paid by Israel, to whatsoever ends or uses: only Decima decimarum paid by Levi, being here omitted, and supplied in only one place, Num. 18.25. etc. all this is cleared in our first Part, Chap. 3. §. 1, 2, 3.  
As to Leuit. 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 goeth harsh to a strict this verse to the o●ly second Tithe, as Scaliger here bringeth it. For all Tithes, both the first, and the tenth of Tithes, were also holy unto the Lord, and comprehended in this verse. As for the next verse, touching the Redemption of Tithes, by adding the fifth pa●t, which Scalig●r and Selden, 
Scal pag. 65. lin. 3.  from the Rabbins, apply only to the redemption of this second Tithe for the Feasts: yet (I say) it must not limit that (All the Tithes) in the former vers. to only this second Tithe. 
Seld. ca 2. § 11  And where Mr. Selden out of jarchi applieth this Redemption to all those second Tithes, which are commanded to be exchanged in money for the longness of the journey, Deut. 14 I see no such either coherence, or analogy from Scripture, nor in the best Interpreters. And seeing we must in many things renounce the Rabbin, so here, if their alleged practices, be not clear in th● Precept, they must be of the By. For in such cases, Non exemplis, sed legibus vivendum: human practice, must not encroach upon Divine Precept, but conform itself to it.  

Scal. pag. 65. 2 medio.  Aga ne, Primam enim decimam] That the First Tithe (saith Scal:) was accustomed to be brought up by the labourers to jerusalem, to the chambers of the Temple, we have a clear place. 2. Chro. 31 5, 6, 11, 12.] And at the end of the page, he citeth again, Tob 1.7. to prove it.] But (as we at first said in our Treatise) this is both without precept, and impossible: yea, dissonant from Scaliger himself, as before is noted. For albeit divers sorts came by command to jerusalem, as the second Tithe, and Decimae decimarum, yet it is hard to tie all, of all sorts, to the Temple, out of this place, 2. Chron. Again, why shall this place be restrained to the only first Tithe; seeing in the verses following till the 20. Aaron, Priests, and the Levites, are made alike partakers of those heaps of Tithes laid up in these chambers? Whereas Scaliger and Selden affirm, that Priests had no Tithes from the labourers; but only a tenth of the Tithe from the Levites. And if this first Tithe was (as they hold) only due to inferior Levites, why yet must they be carried (All) to jerusalem, seeing the tenth man of these Levites, abode not at jerusalem? but came and returned by their courses. And seeing Scaliger affirmeth, pag. 64. lin. 1. That the Levites might dispose of their Tithe, in all places (even) without jerusalem; and therein differed from the second Tithe, that must be carried, and eaten at jerusalem; Why (say I) must this first Tithe be also carried to jerusalem?  
Now as for that other place, Tob. 1.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the sons of Levi, as Scaliger reads it, pag. 66.67.] First, It is yet very hard, to astrict it, to the inferior Levites only; seeing all Priests were also Levies sons. Neither is ever (that I know) Sons of Levi; Tribe of Levi, or The Levites, restrained in Scripture, to the only Inferior Levites: without limitation of some circumstances clear by the Text. The most general grounds we shall examine, till others bring better. First, it is the custom of Scripture, to entitle alike, all the children of the twelve patriarchs to their Fathers. And touching Levi in particular, Num. 1.47. etc. Levites, and Tribe of Levi, comprehend all: But cap. 3.6. The Tribe of Levi, is only meant of the Inferior Levites: because Aaron and his sons were taken up for the Priest's office before, Exod. 28.3. and here, the Levites are given (vers. 9) to Aaron and his sons, who were also Levites: here is a clear limiting circumstance. The like, Num. 8. and 18.2.6. But Num. 26.57. The number of the Levites extendeth to Priests and all: vers. 58. Families of Levi, to Priests and all, to Aaron himself. But as to Tob. 1. (which is by Scaliger brought, to prove the first Tithe to be carried to jerusalem) I can find neither 
* Vatabl. Francos: Basil: Compl. Steph. ex Pagnino: old Latini: English trans. All, read. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Greek nor Latin, old or new Translation, that readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, save only the Roman Greek: all the rest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and of the two Hebrews, one readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but both condemned by all, so not to be trusted. And if, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than not to only Inferior Levites; for Aaron's sons were all Priests.  
But if by [Levites] they understand only the Inferiors to be the Leaviers, admitting also the Priests to be interessed in Tithes Inheritance with them; I move no dispute: for as they were Inferior, so, both in Calling and Maintenance, they meddled with inferior services: which also gave occasion for choosing of Deacons under the Gospel. Act. 6.3. But if Seldens' meaning be, 
M. Seld. c. 2. §. 2. & Ren. pag. 454. ad init.  wholly to frustrate the Priests of any portion in Tithes Inh ritance; Then, consider what was said of this, part. 7. cap. 5. §. 2. adding, from Nehem. 11. how they brought by lot but one man of ten to dwell at jerusalem, the nine parts living always abroad in their Cities: Seeing then, only the tenth man stayed at jerusalem, and that Tithes were their Inheritance, why should this Inheritance be all carried up, and so nine parts again down, (like Post-wages) according as they came and went by their courses.  
Levite then, Num 18. from vers. 20, to 25. having no clear limitation nor distinction in the text, must include the whole Tribe, in their gift to Tithes. Vers. 20. He first debarreth Aaron's Inheritance with Israel: vers. 21, and 24. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Causals, as all translate For, For (saith he) I have given the children of Levi (even Aaron, and all) another Inheritance, All the tenth of Israel. Therefore, seeing one and the same reason debarred all (by express name here) from that Civil inheritance; the same reason (that is, this Sacred inheritance) must be alike, one, and the same, to all. And (I pray you) mark the course and coherence of these texts; Thou Aaron shalt have no (Civil) Inheritance in Isra●l, verse 20. For, verse 21. I have given the children of Levi, all the tenth of Israel What was this to Aaron, that He must want his Inheritance, because the only inferior Levites had got an Inheritance, unless Aaron go as a child of Levi, in that reason? And joseph is plain, That Tithes were given for Levites, 
Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 4. C. Engl. & in Vita Ios.  and Priest, and Tribe, Neither took I Tithes that were due to me as Priest, from such as brought me them. If men apply these to decimarum decimae, first, joseph was not now at jerusalem, whither these Tithes must been brought. Secondly, joseph was no Highpriest. Thirdly, I never read those Tithes under one single name, but still, tenths of Tithes. Otherwise, the Priests had no Tithes Inheritance at all in Israel. For their Decimarum decimae were not Tithes of Israel, but of Levi; and Levi in these accounts, is no more an Israelite. Indeed, the Materia prima of both, is one, to wit, the Tenth of Israel given to Levi, whereof they again gave the other tenth; but in Person, Place, and End, they wholly differ: and in these only differences standeth the true definition, of what is M ral or Ceremonial; Perpetual or Temporal in them. Then the text giveth us those two Syllogisms: first, 

All Tithes inheritance, are paid by Israel to Levi. ver. 21.24  
Tenth of Tithes are not paid by Israel to Levi (but by Levy to Aaron. 26.)  
Ergo, Tenth of Tithes are not Tithes-inheritance.    
Again, 

The children of Levi, had this inheritance given them:  
All Priest, were the children of Levi.  
Ergo, All Priests had this Inheritance given them. And for confirmation, Deut. 18.1.    
The Priests of the levites, and all the Tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel, but shall eat of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and his inheritance. And Ezech: 44, 28. The Priesthood is their Inheritance. And josu: 13.14. Only to the Tribe of Levi, gave he no inheritance. Ergo, as the whole Tribe was frustrate, so the whole Tribe was supplied by this new inheritance, Tithes. But if we distinguish not according to other Scriptures, those Offerings, from the proper Inheritance, we shall confound all: for many oblations might the Priests and their males only, eat of, and no inferior Leuit: some, might not remain uneaten till to morrow; but all, tied to the Temple only, and jerusalem. So such Priests (to wit, nine for one) as lived dispersed, could not live by those oblations: So those oblations, were not their inheritance. They must have no inheritance with, or among Israel (saith the text:) yet must they live mixed with, and among Israel; therefore their proper Inheritance must run dispersed with and among Israel; and not confined to so small a part of Israel, as only jerusalem. But saith not Paul plainly, Heb. 7. The sons of Levi receiving the Priesthood, have a command, to Tithe the people? Is not here the command of Tithing directly given to the sons Priests, and to take from the people. Ergo, Tithes are inheritance to Priests as well as Levites. And yet Master Selden, Review, pa: 454. in it would prove from this same place of Paul, that Priests were not partners in these first Tithes.  
But what if this decima decimarum were not properly & primò due to the Priests, as Mr. Selden seemeth to avouch; but to the high Priest. The text bids directly, give it to Aaron the high Priest. Numb: 18.26▪ 28. The beginning of the Chap: from ver. 8. to 20. he joineth ever Aaron's sons with himself, as partners of all the oblations of the other Tribes: but in this offering of decima decimarum▪ we read, no such copartnership: not that I doubt but the sons of Aaron, this Ceremony being performed, might thereafter partake in, and by him, of this offering; but the reason and Analogy of this, (in my judgement) is, That as all the Tribes having Barn & winepress, must pay first, that first tithe inheritance to the tribe of Levi, before they durst put hand in their nine parts remaining; so, the Tribe of Levi, must out of his inheritance give a tenth also, answering his Barns and Winepresses: But to exempt all Priests from this, were first, to exempt the best, (though not the greatest) part of that Tribe●, from acknowledging God by an Offering, as did the rest. Secondly, It giveth Levi a prerogative above all the rest of the Tribes, void both of precept and reason.  
The Earth is the Lords, & the fullness thereof: So the possessors of it, acknowledge God by giving their Tithes; Tithes, are yet a degree more holy to the Lord, being made the general Inheritance of his Ministers, and levites: but, Their Tenths again, holiest of all▪ proceeding from an holy Person the Tribe of Levi; out of Holy Barns and winepresses, the Tithes; to holiest persons, the High-priests; at only holy Place, the Temple. Now, if it be asked, how Aaron shall pass here, who is still the Receiver? I answer, Vltra Summum, Nihil; And as Aaron had that transcendent power, only he to offer that yearly expiatory sacrifice for Prince, people and himself too: so, by the same power, might he, receive in name of God, the offerings of all subordinat to him; and for them and himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fulfil and perfect all those points in his own person. And so, albeit the other Priests (all those points being duly performed) might eat and partake of this Offering, in the prerogative of Priesthood and Sonship of Aaron, yet, prima instantiâ, and in mounting the scale of this precept, they are but Offerers, not Receivers.  
You see (Reader) how loath we are to lose our interest in Tithes even from the Law: but remember still, the law is neither our whole, nor sole ground. Then let me ask, Who gave Tithes to Melchis dec? Abraham What calling was he o● here? Secular or Ecclesiastic? M. Selden saith, Both Abraham and jacob, must be Priests also, when they paid Tithes,] True: He was; but not in the propriety of this action; 
M. Selden cap. 1 §. 2. ad sin.  but only as considered apart: just like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Categories, that in climbing, are but Species, and coming down, Genera: yet not so full as so neither; this example fitteth better the subord nate Priests of the Law, all of one Order, of one Nature: But Abraham and Melchisedec were never of one Order of Priesthood: so, though Abraham in one respect a Priest, paid Tithes; yet here, as Priest, he paid none. At this time, he was not so much as a Priest in privilegiis primogeniturae, b●ing the tenth in Linea recta from Sem, (now Melchisedec:) and so he paid a tenth as a mere secular sprig of Sems' root. For in this Priesthood by Primogeniture, was neither Order, Ordination, n●r Subordination, Abraham then here went for a Secular, a Prince, a Patriarch: having the Promises, Blessed, and Tithed; but not Blessing or Tithing. Next I ask, whether this solemn and most ancient action between Melchisedec and Abraham, should direct the after coming Law in the like generals; or if that perishing Law should rectify this everstanding action? doubtless, we say, the former. Then, seeing even this Priest of God, took Tithes even of Abraham the Father, and in his loins, of all his seed; why shall the Priests under the Law be debarred from Tithes coming from Seculares? Here then, we have the Priest, the first proprietar. The Levites therefore under the Law, were but as the priests servants in leaving; not the sole owners, in enjoining. And so much for the first sort of Tithes, whether they went all to jerusalem, as Scal. affirmeth; or were due to only inferior Levites as I take M. Selden to say.  
Of the second sort of Tithes, for the Feasts, we have no question with Scaliger, therefore we follow him to the third sort.  
Scal. Seguitur apud Tobiam.] It followeth in Tob. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I gave the 3. tithe, to whom it was meet.] He calleth it a third, which is either to be called. Of the third year. For (saith he) it cannot be called a Third which is one with the First, 
Scal. pag. 67. post med: & 68 add med: ] and again. pa: 68 So, (saith Scal:) This tithe in the 1, 2, 4. and 5. years, was called prima decima; but in years 3. and 6. was called The poors Tithes, etc. For in the 7. year was no labouring, and so, no Tithing.]  
I answer, Why not both a Third tithe; and of the Third year. The Scripture giveth us the year; and why should Scal: cite Toby for proof of his first and second Tithes, and disclaim him in his third Tithes, all in one verse? Again, what proof bringeth he to make the first and second tithe both one, in the third and sixth years, and to divide them again in the first, second and fifth years? For seeing Scal: will have them (as they are Levites portion) the first, third, and fifth years, all carried up to jerusalem; how lived the poor than all these years? And seeing he will have them for the poor these other two years, (here M. Selden pleadeth for me.) How should the Levites and Priests have their live-lode of these two years? And I hold this for a ground, that so long as the end remaineth, 
M. Sel: cap: 2. § 3. p. 14.  so long remain the means devoted to that end: But Levies service, being the end, for which these first Tithes were devoted, admitteth no intermission, but is yearly the same: Ergo, so must his means be yearly the same. If it be replied, that Levi is the first enroled even in these five and six years with the poor.  
I answer first, Levies means is here strangely abridged, by encroaching of Strangers, Fatherless and Widows; where he was at first one and all, now is he but the first partner; and yet must he abate no point of his service: whereas God ever supplied all such wants, as in that sabbatical cessation of labouring the land, the sixth year yielded three years increase; but no such matter for this fourth and sixth year: the partners, but not the portion is increased. So Levi may abound strangely in the one but beg strongly in the other; for all the beggars are thrust upon him. Secondly, Was not Levi also enroled for a partner in the Festival Tithes? yet will not Scaliger for this, frustrate him of the first Tithes: And yet junius will, making first and second, one. So have we of three Tithings, a threefold confusion, from three learned Authors: junius the first and second, one. Scaliger the first and third, one. Selden the second and third, one. Which maketh me rather simply cleave to the words of the Text, then thrust in commentaries for the overthrow of it; or practise against precept.  
And observe, there is never danger in distinguishing these points▪ but ever in confounding. For if we distinguish not that Text, we shall confound all three: At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth, all the Tithe of thine increase of the same year, 
Deut. 14.28  and lay it within thy gates. If we give this word All his largest extent; then we must confound all, in All: all three must be but one, which all men deny. Therefore we must still distinguish; and if so, than those three verses, Deut: 14.22.23. and 28. speak of three divers Tithings, seeing of Tithings. Which josephus most clearly distinguisheth, 
The English translation readeth all, making it, a third Tithe, each year.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. One, to the Levites, another to the Feasts, yearly: a third joined to these each third year. Is not this a fair witness for our foresaid Text? And against joseph and Tobit, Selden bringeth but Targum and Talmud; Maior uter?  
Another Text; Deut: 26.12. When thou hast made an end of Tithing all the Tithes of thine increase, the third year, (which is) the year of Tithing, etc. Why should this third year, be termed The year of Tithing in the Text, (since no year was without a Tithing safe the sabbatical) unless a new accrue of Tithes came this year above the rest; as most, and best interpreters, with joseph and Tobit, do hold? And seeing it bringeth a new End, for Fatherless, Widows, Strangers, and all Poor, why not also, a new Tithing? There is neither reason nor Analogy, to call it The year of Tithing, because two Tithes in other years distinguish dare now confounded: much less, because three new partners are thrust on one man's portion; Laics on Levies. I confess I could never yet give a reason why, this poor man's Tithe was cast upon a third year, seeing they were at all times to be sustained: but for the distinct natures of the Tithes themselves, I think verily a simple eye may discern it.   

Mr. SELDEN.  
THus much for justifying in general, a Third Tithe each third year against Scaliger and M. Selden: and that the first and third are not one, with Selden against Scaliger Now, that the second and third are not one, as Selden would have them. So with that reverence I own to both, and respect, all own to the Truth: I will simply set down my reasons, and humbly submit my judgement, etc.  
But, seeing M. Selden, both by his Title (The History of Tithes) and by his Preface fully disclaimeth, 
Page 1.  it to be written to prove that Tithes are not do by the Law of God, etc. I have no reason to suspect, much less to account him as an adversary of my Position: The most is, he may doubt (and so do many of great note) but he, who ingenuously doubteth, may (when God pleaseth) find resolution.  
But seeing he often adviseth all that shall write De jure divino, to be well advised, I am, among others, hereto generally invited: 
Review pag 452. cap. 2.  and it may be, specially, (though tacitly) too. For (saith he) Hitherto could I never see any Christian that hath fully taught what was considerable in the general payment of Tithes among the jews. The Noble and most learned Ios. Scaliger, did not every way accurately enough teach it, although in a simgle Treatise he purposely undertook it. How sufficiently among us, others do, that slothfully and ignorantly (without his help) while yet their end is to write of Tithes, talk of a third Tithe here, and a fourth Tithe, and indeed they know not what Tithe.]  
Whom M. Selden here meaneth, I know not: I confess, my papers have been long pilgrims in both Kingdoms: and that, as the matter is from Scripture, so, that Method is only mine own, borrowed of none, but the better if it be true. So, it be●ame me well, by this Appendix, even to take counsel of M. Selden, and tender up the reasons of my opinion; which I have hitherto done jointly to him with Scaliger, so far as they handle one point. But whereas he taxeth all of Ignorance that have not used Scaligers help; himself letteth us see, in the third Tithe, that if we had all used Scaligers help, we had been all still in Ignorance: and it was most true. So we had all need, one to help another, and all call for God's help, for clearing the Sacred mysteries of his own Word.  
Now we are to hear M. Seldens' opinion in disposing of this third Tithe. The Talmud affirms (saith he. 
Cap. 2. §. 3. ad finem. ) That in the third year, after the first Tithe, they paid the third, the poor man's Tithe; the second ceased, or was not paid; or the poor man's Tithe, was in stead of the second Tithe.] I answer, as of before, Tob: and joseph. said the contrary.  
Selden. Neither can that in Tobit, 
Ibid pag. 15. init.  touching the payment of the second Tithe every year, be otherwise well understood, then for Every of the two years, unless that text be wholly contrary to the known practice of the jews Canons.]  
Whether Ios. and Tob understood the truth of practice is one question: but that they both speak plainly my way, is no question.  
Selden. So then every third year, 
Page 15.  the Levites at the Temple miss their second Tithe for their Feasts and Lovedayes; the same being charitably and by divine ordinance, spent at home in the gates of the husbandmen.]  
Surely, I cannot well construe this Section, in course of true Divinity; For, if M. Selden mean, that the Feasts were yearly kept, and the Levites yearly went up and waited, and yet wanted their wages; surely it goeth harsh: Both serve and starve at once? For they could not have them at jerusalem, seeing the text (and we all) agreeth to lay this Tithe up within the husbandman's gates: and the Feasts might only be kept at jerusalem. But if he mean, that the feasts ceased also each third year, and so Levi stayed abroad attending his portion with the poor from the husbandman; this were worse: for sure it is, These holy Feasts being appointed by God, for parts of his own worship, and by so many several precepts yearly to be performed, Ter quotannis, and by all the males of Israel at jerusalem, and being p efigurative of Christ, admitted no intermission of time, nor change of Place: Ergo, not of Maintenance.  

Ibid.  Selden. Neither doth the second and this poor man's Tithe differ in substance, but only in circumstance.  
But these Circumstances are the Formal substance itself, as we said before. But go on to the proofs.  

Ibid.  Selden. The division of both, is exactly the same; and the persons appointed for the eating, are upon the matter so too.  
What is here meant by Division, I know n●t: but sure, the Persons shall be found different: as followeth.  

Ibid.  Sel en. For 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.]  
But the second Ti●he for Feasts, touching Person, The Husbandman is commanded to eat; He and his household again to eat; sell, and buy, and eat. Deut. 14.23.26. And the Levite thou shalt not forsake: But the third Tithe, the Husbandman is not named to eat; but to lay it up, for the Levite Stranger, etc. vers. 28 and cap. 26. the Husbandman is commanded to give that Tithe to the Levite, etc. So the Persons much differ in both Tithes.  

Ibid.  Selden. The Place, where the bestowing was, makes their difference.]  
And is not that enough? seeing the one must be carried to jerusalem; the other must not; but laid up at home: So neither Place nor Person one. But the End is the most powerful distinction, the one for God's Holy Feasts and Ceremonial worship; the other only ad Charitatis officia, for the poor: and the Levite, in all, still one.  
Selden. This is fully confirmed to me by the Septuagints translation of Deut. 26.12. thus, When thou hast ended the tith●ng of all the fruit of thy ground, in the third year; The second Tithe thou shalt give to the Levite, and the Stranger, etc. where plainly, you see, the Poor man's Tithe is expressly called, The second Tithe, which justifieth our Division.]  
And yet, may not Tobit (half a Bible-booke) as well, yea better justify my division, agreeing with all the Hebrew texts that we have; as the Septuagints, a contrary, who are held but translators even of Tobit? Go the credit by Antiquity, it is Tobits; if by personal dignity, Tobits: by Scripture Analogy, Tobits; by Natural reason, Tobits. And what reason to call this third Tithe, The poor man's Tithe, as all do, seeing Levi is the first it is allotted unto; yea, which Scaliger will have all one with Levies first Tithe?  
Selden. Doubtless, they there in stead of Shenah hamaigsher, 
Ibid. pag. 16.  that is, The year of Tithing (as the text is) found in their Hebrew copies, shenith hamaigsher, which they took for the second Tithe; knowing that in truth that place meant no other.]  
But how sha●l we know this, that their Hebrew copies did bear the words so? we have none of them now. And were their authority neu●r so great, shall we rely rather upon their unknown copies, than the Authentic received text?  
Selden. divers passages in their Translations are upon such differences; and they oftentimes give thence, 
Ibid  a kind of Commentary, as well as a Translation.]  
So are they in many places both different and defective; And if they knew so well (as you allege) the true meaning of that place of Deut. as they would eue● rectify so, that text; why did they not also either conform Tobits text to it in reading, or reconcile them by Commenting? Is not this of Deut: the only place which distinctly points out these three Tithes? Yet the Septuagint. make the 23. vers. but as an Exegesis of the former verse; and so turns both a Feasting, and turns the Levites to fasting. Shall this go for good coin too? or for a Shekle of the Sanctuary?  

Ibid.  Selden. Neither is it ill context, that shenith of the feminine gender should be joined to Ma●●sher of the masculine: It is not without frequent example in holy writ.]  
This frequency should have been showed by some few: specially in the very word in q estion, Maigsher, which is so frequent in Scripture, and yet (I hope) never so mixed. No doubt, but all Languages have their own Anomalies, but by confusion of a gender, to confound two Tithings, such context destroys the text.  
And so much concerning our Division of Tithes, differing from Scaliger and Selden, under the Law. Followeth concerning the Gospel, with Selden only.    

THE HISTORY OF TITHES WRITTEN BY MASTER JOH. SELDEN.  

CHAP. I.  
IN this matter of Tithes, M. Selden, intending no more than an History, to relate (as it were) all things, but judge nothing, as Chap. 7. pag, 174. hath so painfully and learnedly performed it, as I who can add nothing to it, will detract nothing in, or from it.  
Mean while, I must crave pardon, in following his History (so far only as Scripture carrieth him) to dive a little deeper in the true Mystery and End of things: lest the common and careless Reader (by the naked name of History) might conceive there were no more in it, but hody mihi, cras tibi. For though M. Selden hath given us veram Historiam as he found it recorded; yet, haec ipsa Historia non est vera: but leaveth dangerous insinuations, and prejudicial impressions in Ius divinum: and therefore, as He said justly in his Title-page, 
— Sumpsimus arma  
Consilijs inimica tuis, Ignavia, fallax.  
I may as truly say here— Sumpsimis arma  
Consiliis inimica tuis, Historia, fallax: but in rem non personam.   
IT was well therefore observed by Learned Antiquity, that in Scripture texts for most part, four things may be, or must be, considered.  
First, History, that is, a simple narration of what is done.  
Secondly, Artiologie, that is, The Reason why such things, were so, and so done.  
Thirdly, Allegory, that is, When one thing is picked out to point at another, by some mystical signification: as are Types of their Verities.  
Fourthly, Anagogie, that is, a forcible Conclusion, transferring all things represented by the Type, in, and upon the prefigured Verity: which last, (as Prophecies and Revelations) are never perfectly perceived, till they be fully performed.  
All these four points foresaid, are most considerable in the matter of our question, specially in Melchisedec and Abraham's practice, and jacobs' Vow, before the Law: and in David's prophecy, and Paul's application, after the Law. The only naked and simple History is in Genes. 14. IT, and all the other three, are fully in Hebr. 7. There beginneth he w th' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For, this Melchisedec, etc. he was even likened to the Son of God, vers. 3. and remaineth a Priest for ever. Hear then, the Cause of this meeting of Melchisedec with Abraham, was, To point and paint out the Eternal Priesthood of Christ: the Allegory of his names and offices, he explaineth in the first three verses. His Anagogie and Conclusion he hath vers. 13. as we have at length observed. The like may be applied to Aaron, and all Types, keeping ever true Scripture limits in all. To our purpose then.  
Abraham, 
M. Selden cap. 1. §. 1.  gave Melchisedec Tithe of all etc. but what that All was, is not clearly agreed upon: it is taken to be, Of all that he had, as the ordinary Gloss of Solomon jarchi there interprets, and so expressly are the Syriaque and Arabic translations of the new Testament where this is spoken of. But it is hard to conceive it of any other, All that he had, then All the substance, or All the Spoils that he had by that expedition. So did josephus, & the Targum understand it, etc.]  
Here we find two different opinions. The first, that no tithe of Spoils are here meant. To this we have answered, par. 2. chap. 8. § 1. The other is, That M. Selden here will have nothing Tithed but Spoils, both are too restraining. As for the Authorities here alleged for both opinions, two for each, I hold the first two brought by M. Selden, for All he had, as good as the other two, for All only Spoils. We go on.  

M. Selden. Ibid.  And, to free it from all doubt, (saith he) The holy Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, first using the text of Genesis in those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Tithe of all, after a f●we words interposed, explains it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Tithe of the Spoils; as if he had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Tithe of all the Spoils.]  
But why must either those two be joined, or the one abridge the extent of the other? Paul here, expl●ineth all things, but restraineth nothing. That they cannot be joined, ●is clear: For Paul's first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath not only a few words interposed, (two whole verses;) but is also divided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a d fferent preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the former whereof, is a plain enlarging of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who should say, Behold how great this Melchisedec was, to whom Abraham the Patriarch gave a Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even of the Spoils. So Spoils, was specially brought in, in this last, which might have seemed doubtful in the generality of the first. But that other preposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot admit a coniunctive reading of both, for that were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is still more d●iunctiue: and to ●core out both Co●iunction and Preposition thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, It were but a Caption a Divisis ad Coniuncta: scoring out All in Genesis; All in jacobs' Vow; and All under the Law, by coupling All here, (making leap-year of so many li●es) to only Spoils: a sore Spoil indeed: a mere Sacrilege: So Paul riseth still from degree to degree: first, He gave him a Tithe Of All: second, even of the Spoils: third, Melchisedec Tithed the Patriarch, that had the Promises, fourth, He Titheth and liveth, fifth, He Tithed even Levi the Tith-taker. Of all which, nothing must be lost, nothing confounded. Not then, A Tithe of All, and a Tithe of the Spoils. but A Tithe of All, yea even of the Spoils.  
For all Types, and of all, chiefly this, must have ever the largest extent of sense that Nature or Analogy can afford them. They be fundamental things, and so, must bear all that can be truly built upon them. This Meeting then between Melchisedec and Abraham, being a mutual Type of all things that might concern Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it must be extended, to whatsoever might be afterwards intended, both for Blessing and tithing proper to all Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Law, and Gospel: all Times, all Persons, all Things, for all Ends, as at length before. To Tithe only Spoils, then with M. Sel: here, were to cut off the whole grounds of the after coming Law for praedial Tithes. And to Tithe no Spoils with others, were to cut off this very Text, & that of Paul's, 
Gal. 6.6.  enjoining him that is catechized, to communicate all his goods with him that Catechiseth him: for many are catechized that have neither Tillage nor Pastorage. All Predial Tithes, are in a sort, Personal: they discharge even the Persons labourers: but all Personal Tithes cannot be held predial. Yet both are here in the Prerogative of this Type.  
Then, If Abraham had, sure he gave; else, He, was not Tithed; if not Tithed, not Blessed. But he had nothing, save what he brought back, saith Targum: This is doubtful; yet let it pass. All the question now remaineth but de modo habendi. It came by War, yet His it was, and His most lawfully: then Abraham as he met with Melchisedec, Had; it was now, His: Ergo, Abraham gave of His own. Corns, cattle, Trades and all Trash, did answer all, both predial and Personal Tithes that ever could fall forth hereafter: They were the true Typical increase of all Barns, and all Winepresses; of all Peace, and Warre-trades: else our Type is nought, and but a naked, (yea, a very idle) History. And such as could draw those three hundred and eighteen of Abraham's household servants, to Type these three hundred and eighteen Bishops of the first Council of Nice would never have refused this extent to this Type, 
Ambrose.  in tam lucida utriusque Testamenti. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now, that this mixed Tithing, predial and Personal, was in use even under the Law, it seemeth clear in that of the Pharisee, Luk: 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I give thee Tithe of all whatsoever I possess. Will any man say, that this one, or all Pharisees, were labourers or Pasturers? or astrict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to only Tillage and Pastorage? Did not jacob Vow, to give God a Tenth, of all that God gave him: Then, this Vow binding his posterity, we must either say, God giveth us nothing but predial things, which is falls: or we must pay of Personal things, as he gives us them. It goeth sure as properly for all Trades, as all Ploughman. And every soul (having) is bound to say with this Pharisee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It holdeth both in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Law did build must have for foundation, Abraham's practice, and jacobs' Vow.  
To astrict this Typical Tithing then, to only Wars here, and only Spoils were to give the Blessing also to Wars and Spoils only: and so to make only David, and not Solomon, the seed of Abraham the Patriarch here Blessed and Tithed, turning that Royal word, Beatipacifici, in Beati polemici. But the current of our Text (as we first observed) is quite contrary. The Tither here, was first King of Righteousness; then King of Peace. In a word, of War and Peace, and so, Tithed Abraham after a War, in Peace. So, though all came as ex praeda; yet did they answer, praedia. Whether we march a Warfare in our Conquering Word, Dieu et mon droict; If God maintain Our Right, he must not lose His own right: or be we settled in Salem, with Beati pacifici, we must be also, Decimati pacifici. Melchisedec must Bless and Tithe Abraham and all his seed; the King and all his subjects: no exception.  

M. Selden chap. 1. §. 2.  The next passage of Tithes is in jacobs' Vow, etc. as in Gen: 28.22. This Vow (saith josephus) jacob performed upon his return 20. years after. Into whose hands he gave his Tithes, appears not. But the chiefest Priest of that time was his father Isaac, etc.]  
How far even this History of jacobs' Vow, is to be enlarged, a●d couched under his grandfather Abraham's example we have noted at la●ge, part: 1. chap: 8. § 3. But whether he performed any point of Tithing as josephus saith, or to whom, I dispute not. Sure, Tithing was but one branch of three, in that Vow, and all three, neither were fully and personally by jacob performed; nor intended that in him they should end. Good, Reader, remember them from the former places, for avoiding repetition. I see no necessity of exacting any precise performance either of Abraham's practice, or jacobs' Vow, before the settling of their posterity in Canaan, and the coming of Christ. And as for Priests, 
Ad Philadelp:  there was never any after Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till the Law came; and so, what hope of Tithes paid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? all these were but (as Caluin well termeth them) Nuncupations of Tithes.  
Sem then, as Sem, cannot be Melchisedec. They may be one, (as I hold they were) in person, but not in Type. Sem had father and mother; end and beginning: and so Fathered Christ. Melchisedec was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so Figured Christ. Of the propriety of his Order, there was only himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and Christ the only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which only is true Scripture language So Sem could beget (and did) divers Primogenit Priests, but Melchisedec no more Melchisedecs. And in this respect I care not though Ignatius hold Melchisedec for a Virgin, 
Ad Philadelp.  though Sem was not; and yet both, one Person.  
But for such as will abolish Tithes, as merely Popish, they must first prove Melchisedec a Pope. For Tithes are older than Peter.   

In CHAP. II.  
THat Tithing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every Herb, 
M. Selden cap. 1. §. 7.  which is spoken of in the Gospel (and observed by the Scribes and Pharisees) was never commanded in Scripture, nor by their Canon Law requisite, according to the opinion of their Doctors, who restraineth the payment of Tithes to thy increase, spoken of by Moses, and comprehend not Herbs under that name. They deliver indeed that by Tradition from their Fathers, all things growing out of the earth, and fit for man's meat, are Titheable, etc. But it seemeth (saith Selden well) that for this payment of Herbs, the Pharisees were of the truer side, from Luke and Matthew allowed by Christ.  
Here now is proved our Historia fallax, by M. Seldens' own consent: Therefore, Out of M. Seldens' just observation here, against Talmud would I ask leave to affirm, that the proofs from Talmud in others points of Tithing alleged by him, or Scaliger, are not to go for sure grounds, seeing himself hath found them so erroneus in this: And that it is no sure course of arguing the true intent of Precept, by the sinistrous extent of Practice. For although we had not here Christ's latter approbation of that Tithing, against the records of Rabbins, yet the very Precepts themselves being well pondered, will include all such Herbs, and much more.  
For even that place, Deut: 26.12. Thine increase; Who taught the Talmudists, that increase here, must signify only Man's meat? Why should not Tithing be extended in this Text, to all Increasing? And Leuit: 27.30. All the Tithe of the Earth, of the seed of the Earth, of the fruit of the Tree, is holy unto the Lord] Is there not much seed of the Earth, that is not man's meat? Seed here, is not only what by our Sowing cometh; but also whatsoever, by Gods firsts Blessing of all Creatures, bringing forth the kind. History of all times confirmeth this, for Hay, Hemp, Oats, Mines, Quarries, and the like, have been subject to Tithing, as Selden hath observed; yea, even his Ruticilia, Ruta caesa. Chap: 1. § 1 et chap: 4. §. 2. And true Analogy warranteth History; For the Tribe of Levi was to be supplied in every their necessity, out of all that the Earth yielded the other Tribes for their necessities. This made jerom interpret that of Num: 18. In usus et necessaria eorum separavi. All the Tithe of the Earth again, may well enough include all Trade-encrease, even where no Seede-encrease is: The Earth, beareth All: both us; and for us. So, whatsoever the Earth bringeth us by way of Increase yearly: of that, we own a yearly portion to God, out of a tenth proportion. And in this sense may we say. Vbi Nummus nummum gignit: nummus nummum soluet, as Selden hath well observed in the State of Venice, where no predial Tithes are; and therefore, 
Selicha. 7. §. 3. pag. 164. Chap. 7. §. 3.  Personal due.  
Now come we to M. Seldens' History, of the Opinions touching the Right of Tithes; the third Article of his title; handle in his seventh Chapter § 3, etc. and concerneth most our purpose.  
The chief question (says Selden) among the Divines, comes to this, Whether, by God's immediate Moral Law, the evangelical Priesthood have a right to Tithes, as to their Inheritance in equal degree, as the Lay man hath to his Nine?  
If ever Tithes were due by God's immediate Moral Law, they must be ever so, this is sure. Then our recourse must still be, in examining, by what Law, Tithes were at first due. All Priesthood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had ever Tithes; Before Law by Practice, Tradition, Instinct of God's Spirit: Under Law, by written Law, agreeable to the former practice. Whether both those were Moral, judicial, or Ceremonial, we shall hear anon. And so, what ever prerogative those Laws gave the Priesthood above the Laity, the same still remaineth. The Tenth was ever first to be paid; else the nine parts were not the lay-man's. 
Ibid.   
Or if (says Selden) they have Tithes only as by human Positive Law, and so given them for their spiritual labours, that is, in brief, Whether by original distributive justice, or by commutative, they are payable?]  
How Kingdoms are by their own Laws Positive, seetled in Tithes, is one thing; and how they should be another thing: And their so great differences among themselves, argueth infallibly, that they have varied from the true foundation. As to justice Distributive and Commutative, they hold alike also from the beginning, even in Levi under the Law: all had the tenths for their Spiritual labour, distributed unto them; and so hath the Gospel now. As for that Title, human Positive Law, we must have a good ground to prove, how Divine Positive Law, which only doted Tithes to Levi, did resign them under the power of human Positive Law for the Gospel. Here be strange odds.  

Ibid.  But the first opinion was (says Selden) That the Tenth considered, quoad quotam partem, etc. is due only by Law Positive and Ecclesiastical; but quoad substantiam suam, or Cleri sustentationem, etc. it is due by the Divine Moral Law. And to the purpose of this distinction, they interpret the Levitical commandments of Tithes quoad substantiam, and quoad quotam. The quota being but a judicial, or (as some will) a Ceremonial Law, etc.]  
And what a strange Distinguo is this, to divide the Tenth, and quota? as if both were not one, The strongest Mathematical imaginary abstraction cannot separate them. Maintenance indeed generally (and so is their meaning) may be free of a quota; but a Tenth cannot. But who taught them that Maintenance was Moral Divine; and the quota, but Positive and Ecclesiastical? Find they any such tricks in the two Testaments? What Positive Law gave Tithes to Melchisedec?  

M. Seld ib. pag. 157. ad finem.  Because (forsooth) the Maintenance (say they) of the ministery in General, is Moral, or Natural, there being (according to consideration of it see far) the very Character of it written in the Tables of men's hearts; that is, that Spiritual labourers are to be rewarded with temporal bounty, as every labourer is worthy of his hire. But quoad quotum, it is but a judicial or Ceremonial Law, etc.]  
Hear have we, three Laws to ponder, and to couch our Tithes under some one of them. Tithes to be Ceremonial, is but a Ceremony; and as soon done as spoken: no man ever durst offer a proof for it. To be judicial, they cannot, First, because, that practice of Abraham, and Vow of jacob, can never be brought within the compass of the jewish judicial Law: no, I say further, within no Law, merely, or only, jewish. Consider it well.  
Yea, Tithes Legally enacted, (as I do think) cannot be properly judicial: For their judicial Laws (properly so called, and without mixture) did concern chief their Civil Commonwealth, and so, all the Tribes alike. But the Law of Tithes, went in favours of only Levi: a Law proper and peculiar to the Priesthood, before, and then to: to (All Priesthood) melchisedechical and aaronical: evangelical and Legal. Now how can either Melchisedec or Aaron come under the judicial Law? It is more than I have yet observed, if the judicial Law gave any order for the Priesthood: yea, the Change of the Priesthood, made a change of the Law, Heb. 7.12. Melchisedec changed both Priesthood and Law: not from what it was at first in that Typical action between Melchisedec and Abraham; but from what it was under the Law: the other he renewed and revived. The Law than followeth the Priesthood; and therefore the judicials, are no judges of things Sacerdotal and Sacred. Such Priesthood then, such Law. A Temporal and Ceremonial Priesthood, Temporal and Ceremonial Laws pro rata: such was the Priesthood and Law Levitical; in many things merely Ceremonial; and so gone for ever; in all things Temporal; and so, in some things, revived, renewed, and restored in that first perpetual and evangelical Priesthood of Melchisedec. Aeterna aeternis aptanda, is a received Maxim.  
Ceremonial then, and judicial are gone. There rests but Moral: and so, if the enumeration of the three Laws be sufficient, and the remotion of the two, true; it followeth, Tithes must be Moral But to Moralize yet a little more with them, What shall this Moral be? some will have it all one with Natural, that Character in our hearts: as if the Decalogue were but a second edition of this Moral or Natural Law. We may safely, yet we need not, yield to all this. For take him in his true Etymon, and Moral will be, but, whatsoever concerneth Manners. Now every particular point of good Manners hath not a perfect Character printed in our (fallen) hearts: Else, what say we to Polygamy, so long of old tolerated; so much yet and in so many parts held for no sin? What say we to Paul's Concupiscence which he says he had not known, but by the Law, Rom. 7.7. Then, Moral and Natural are not wholly one. And was it not a very Moral and Mannerly duty from Abraham to Christ, to pay Tithes for the maintenance of God's ministery? How then, it came to be not Moral or unmannerly with Christ, let Schoolmen, Canonists, Civilians, Common-Lawyers, Et quot quot Sacri sacra fame laborant, give good reason for it, and I am satisfied.  
Moral then, in that tripartite division of Laws, is much better ascribed, to whatsoever thing is brought under a perpetual Law of God, never after to be abrogated, although the perfect Character of it be not imprinted in our corrupt Nature. Let us say then of Tithes, We had not known them, but by the Law, as Paul said of Concupiscence; yet let them have the like continuance as that of Concupiscence; else, give us a Legal limit of the Law of Tithes from Scripture. But if Law should fail; what say you to Melchisedecs' Priesthood; and Abraham's practice; David's Prophecy; and Paul's application? all these were of Grace, and the Promises; not of the Law. Thus far for Moral.  
Now let us consider of this Character by Nature in our hearts, they talk so much of. It is Natural (say they) that the labourer have his wages; the ministery a Maintenance: but the quota is not of Nature, but Positive Law; Ergo, An eleventh, ninth, or less, or more part may be assigned, as well as a Tenth. I answer, It is most true, that Nature is most lively instructed with the Generals of all things; and the more she draweth ad Individua, the more erroneous she proveth. And touching this point of Commutative justice, it is so Natural, that the very beasts, yea savage beasts, have acknowledged it, by true Retribution. But is it not also a Character of our Nature, to draw all Wages, to their quota? or is there any doing in Nature, till this be done? Then, where Nature so bendeth, and cannot bind of itself, whatsoever may, or hath power to settle Nature in these particulars, must be for ever the only stay of Nature; and Nature never trusted to itself afterwards, more than at first. To the point then.  
All Wages are due by a Wager to a Waged: Wagers and Waged here, are either God, with his Creatures; or his Creatures among themselves. Creatures in this case, have no power over the quota, but ex mutuo pacto: and so, Nature can never define it, for all, and ever: but must vary after all Circumstances. But between God and his Creatures (as our question now standeth) God only hath power of all: Who shall serve; How they shall serve; For what they shall serve: The quota, is first Gods, Leuit. 27. who dare refuse it? Not Abraham, not Israel, not Abraham's seed. Then God giveth this quota, to his ministery, Melchisedec, Levi: who dare except? These be the true Positive Laws, enlightening and rectifying our dark and crooked Nature, to which we must ever either cleave, or show where our Nature hath prevailed against them: and how we have brought the Creator under mutuum pactum with his Creatures. No, he Wageth whom he will, for his Wineyard: He giveth the Penny, the quota, for his wages: he that came first to work, excepted but proudly and idly against him that came last: A penny for all: a Tenth for all; It is not at our option. Though France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the whole world, make any other Positive Laws, they make but so many Lawless Positions. Such Histories, cast but human mists, over Divine Mysteries, if we trust too much to them.  
Again, although by Order of Nature (as Schools speak) the General of Wages goeth before the quota; yet in Scripture Method, and point of Time there, you shall find the very quota as soon, if not sooner, than Maintenance in general. Our first is still, that of Abraham, Tithe of all; here is the only quota. Our second is, jacobs' Vow, Tithe of all; again the very quota. Our third is, the succeeding Laws, all the Tithe of the Land is the Lords, Leuit. 27.30. Again, I have given Levi all the Tenth in Israel, for his Inheritance. Is there any thing here, but the quota? first the quota? and still the quota?  
But this quota (say those Clerks as Selden relates it) being but a judicial Law, 
M. Seld. ib. pag. 158.  proceedeth now in the Gospel by Ecclesiastic Doctrine, and only per vim exemplarem, or by imitation of the jewish state, ordered by the Almighty; and not per vim obligativam, or any continuing force of it under the Gospel. And that the Church was not bound to this part, but freely might as well have ordained the payment of a Ninth, or Eleventh, according to various opportunity.]  
First, we have said, (and I hope, proved) already, That the Law of Tithes was no judicial Law. Secondly, tho●e Divines do us great wrong, that take no notice of Tithes, but as they go out by that Law; peculiar to the jewish state; excluding both that most excellent, perpetua l, and evangelical Type of Tithing, in Melchisedec and Abraham, revived, and confirmed by Paul now to the Gospel; and also, that ever-binding Verb of jacob, for Tithes Of All; both which, were the grounds of the Law, but branches of no written Law, if not of Nature, Moral, divine instinct, and Tradition from a Principio.  
Our Vis Exemplaris then, should be derived from our own peculiar Examples. A Priesthood and Tithing before that Law; The very self-same Priesthood under the Gospel after the Law: and yet they will thrust out Tithing as only jewish, though the Priesthood belong also to the Gospel, and Gentiles. But say, we had no more, but that Vis Exemplaris from the judicials of Moses: whence, I pray you derive you your Exemplar virtue, of taking Tithes, and then giving them back to the laity, by Impropriations, Annexations, Erections, Compositions, Assignations, Infeodations, Patronages, and all that hodge-podge of Hell's hatching. Did ever the judicial Laws of the jews give you any such Vis Exemplaris? They gave Tithes to the Lords Levites; but you, to Lords, laics; ●ye for shame. Indeed it is Vis vix Exemplaris, a Violence without any Example.  
And that Scripture examples in such cases, do bind us, is clear by all Scripture. The Acts of the Apostles, are all, but Examples; yet all, bind the Church in things incitable and ordinary. Christ, in washing his Disciples feet, said, He left them an example. Yea, Paul speaking of things to be avoided by us, saith, those things were written for Examples to forebeares and admonitions to us, 1. Cor. 10. But to speak home, In things ever and ordinarily done in God's service before Law; ever under Law; and ever to be done till the end of the World; as is Maintenance for God's Ministry; what shall bind us, but the continual Practices and Precepts recorded for our use in the Book of God? Shall the Church then (as they speak) without either example, or Law, wander in the wilderness of her own wantonness: and because God from all beginning hath ordained a Tenth for himself, and his ministery, She, She (forsooth) will give him, a Ninth (but no fear of this) or Eleventh, or what She liketh. What a proud insolence is this?  
But alas! When we shall ask those Doctors, what they call their Church here, that may so at her fancy dispose of the quota for God's Ministers; how pitifully shall they be plunged in the puddle of their new Positions? For if we speak in precise Scripture Language, Church is often taken for the Flocks considered apart from their Pastors; but never for their Pastors apart from them. If they make this their Church, than they give the only people the power of appointing the quota, being the party obliged to pay. Now this is against the very Character of Nature they talk so much of. If by Church, they vnd rstand the Clergy, the ministery, (as usually is now done) This were to give the only Labourer power to prescribe his own Wages, against the Character of Nature too. If they join both parties for the Church; than it must go ex mutuo Pacto: But this Pactum sends God a packing, who is the only Master Wager, Master of the Waged, and Wag s too; who taketh first to himself the Wages, and th' n by the Calling, conferreth them on his own Ministry. So, to conclude, He that will defraud God of his Tithing; frustrate let him be of God's Blessing.  
As for that second opinion in Divinity, 
M. Selden chap. 7. §. 4.  from the Schoolmen, That Tithes were mere Alms, etc. related by M. Selden; I think verily, such Schoole-divines merit no better Alms, then to be turned for ever in Fratres Mendicantes, who having so far strayed from true Divinity, as they have even lost the common Principles with Brutish naturality, which (as hath been said) will even use a kind of Commutative justice, and retribution. Though they quite the quota of Tithes; yet why cast they off that Character of Nature, and Maxim of Scripture, The Work man is worthy of his Wages? Then, if God's Wages, No Schoole-Almes: and if Alms, no Wages.  

M. Selden cha. 7. §. ver.  The third Opinion (saith Selden,) is of those, who agree with the Canonists, that the right of the quota of Tithes, is immediately from the Moral or Divine Natural Law; some impudently urging a commandment given to Adam; others of them providently restraining all their Arguments to such grounds for the conclusion, as many may be had out of Abraham's example, referred to the application of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but others also not circumspectly, taking in the Levitical Commandments of Tithes, for their most sufficient authority.  
Here have we three grounds alleged Historically, for proof of Tithes to be Divine, or Moral. I begin with the last, and so, upward, because I mind to speak most of the first, as M. Selden doth. Touching the Levitical Law, I knew never any (writing directly of this subject) that set their greatest force from Levi: at , not I. Touching the second ground, from Abraham's example, (add also, jacobs' Vow:) applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews,) wherein indeed standeth our main force and which, both in our Treatise, and this Appendix we have urged (Simply, as God hath furnished) I am sorry M. Selden did not as amply Historify the reasons drawn from it, as he hath done for the first ground, being but weak: and that he gave not also his own verdict of it, (which I hope had been with the Verity) as he hath done against the first ground thus.  

M. Selden Ibid.  For the first kind (saith he) that talk of Adam; I think indeed, that in the time of this light of learning, none have durst venture their credits upon such fancies. Yet, that it was some opinion that had at least in pretence many authors in the Church of England in the blinder time of our Ancestors; I thence collect, for that in a penitential made for direction of Priests in auricular Confession, and written (as my Copy is) about Henry the the sixth, the priests examination and advise upon the point of Tithing, is thus expressed.  
Hast thou truly done thy Tithings and Offerings to God and holy church? Thou shalt understand that at the beginning of the world, when there was but O O man, that is to say, ADAM, God charged him that he should truly of all manner of things give God the tenth part, and bade him that he should teach his children to do the same manner, and so forth all men unto the world's end. And for as much as there was that time no man to receive it of him in the name of holy Church, and God would not that they should have but nine parts, Therefore he commanded him that of every thing, the Tithe part should be burnt. I find that afterward Adam had two sons, Cain and Abel, Abel Tithed truly and of the best, Cain Tithed falsely and of the worst: at last the false Tither Cain slough Abel his brother. For he blamed him and said that he Tithed evil, wherefore our Lord God accursed Cain, and all the earth in his work. So ye may see, that false Tithing was the cause of the first manslaughter that ever was, and it was the cause that God cursed the earth. It is literally transcribed as I find it.]  
This for that penitential. But whereas historical equity required, that the allegations for both parts of the question de iure, should have been, equally related; The alleging of so weak grounds as this, 
Chap: 10. pa. 273.  and that Tale of Austen the first Bishop of Cant●rbury, in Conjuring at a Mass of two dead persons for the none payment of Tithes, made the Clergy, and many favourers of Ius Divinum, suspect M. Seldens' judgement therein. Whatsoever reason's moved him to silence in the stronger arguments, himself best knoweth: but what he of himself e ingeniously protesteth herein, I charitably believe: and have therefore more boldly added to his History, my opinion de iure, both which being mixed, I hope, shall both satisfy him, and settle others in the truth.  
But to say some thing for this Penitential, if it find but a favourable construction, the matter in the main (touching Tithes) being a Truth, though it be not in each point Demonstrable, yet in many, it is very Probable: and so neither wholly lie Impudent nor blindness. To trod Tithes then up as near as may be, even to Adam, from the Law: Consider first, Tithes are given Levi by precept, Numb: 18.21. God gave them, as His, of before; for in the twenty verse he said, I am his inheritance. How then find we them in God? Leuit: 27.30. All the Tithe of the earth, etc. I S, (not shall be) the Lords. IS, importeth yet a former Title: And we find long before. Tithes of All, Vowed by jacob. This was no Legal Vow, that is, pendens ex arbitrio, but Moral, as he even then Vowed, God should be his God, than jacob must yet derive it from a former Moral ground: This found jacob of three Generations standing, in his Grandfather Abraham's payment to Melchisedec. See how near we creep to Adam? We are like janus already, on both sides of the world, before and after the flood, if Sem was Melchisedec, as Selaens self seems to hold. But how came Abraham by this? Either (sure) by a present instinct and Revelation with Melchisedec; or either, by Education and Tradition from God and his forebears: For as in the destruction of Sodom, God said, 
Gen. 18.17.19.  Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? etc. For I know him that he will command his sons and his household after him, that they keep the way of the Lord, etc. Now, seeing God here, (in this present action, against that same Sodom whose King Abraham had of late delivered, and paid Tithes on the point of his victory,) professeth that he taught Abraham how to behave himself, and how to instruct others, in matters of God's service; What Impudence, or Blindness is it, to ascribe also that Tithing after that victory, to proceed from God's instruction, and Fatherly Education from Family to Family? And if God taught Abraham, so far now come in the world; shall we think, he neglected to teach his immediate son, Adam? Or that Cain and Abel brought forth In process of time their sacrifices, as by a present Revelation, and not either, by a preceding Instruction? doubtless, that same Process of time, argueth evidently a Training and Education in God's worship: Fides ex auditu, ever Ordinarily.  
Neither was this Penitential, the first, nor only warrant, ascribing this to that time. 
M. Selden cap. 1. §. 3.  For M. Selden had observed even from Tertullian, that cain's Offering was not regarded, because, quod Offerebat, non rectè dividebat. The Text giveth us a sure warrant, that cain's offering was wrong: but whither in quoto, or modo, or both, we have freedom of Conjecture. I would think, he erred in all. He was a stiffnecked Iewe, in his manners: a Niggard-hearted jew, in his portion. And seeing even his Septuagints (whom else where he so much urgeth in this question) read that of Gen: 4.7. in that same sense of not dividing aright the quantity; let us either trust them so far here; or not be tied to them hereafter in other Scriptures.  
Things then being so, I had rather partake of this Penitentials (alleged) Impudence, and Blindness in urging a Truth for the Church; then of such Divines, Impudent, and Imprudent boldness in purging the Church of Tithes, without either Law, or example of Scripture.  
And so much for M. Seldens' Historical relation of the Divines opinion touching Ius divinum in Tithes. The next thing I find considerable, & concerning my grounds is a Counsel he giveth, by way of two questions, in his Reu. his 1. question thus.  
Now, me thinks (saith he) He that argueth for Tithes from the Mosaical Laws of Tithing, had need more specially, 
M. Selden Review: pa: 455. lin. vlt:  than any I have yet seen hath near done, examine which of the two kinds are due in the evangelical Priesthood. Why not the second as well as the first?]  
If by First, and Second, he means (as I take it) the first Tithes due for Levi his maintenance; & the second Tithe due for the Feasts, according to his own division: then the reason is clear why the first must be due, the second not, to the Gospel. The First Tithe, not from only virtue of Mosaical Law, (as often hath been said) but taking it in with better company we may well make up this Syllogism.  

Whatsoever was given as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Levitical Priesthood must be also the maintenance of the evangelical Priesthood.  
But Tithes were given as maintenance of both the Melchisedecian and Levitical Priesthood.  
Ergo. Tithes must be also the maintenance of the evangelical Priesthood.   
The assumption is clear for Melchisedec. Gen. 14. and Heb. 7. and by the whole course of the Law, for Levi. The Proposition is strongly connected, because, the Melchisedecian Priesthood directly includeth the evangelical. Otherwise, we overthrow the whole Type and Verity both: We turn all to a naked History of Gen. 14. We bely David's Prophecy, Psal. 113. We disclaim Paul's aetiology, Allegory, and Anagogical application of all, to Christ, Heb: 7.  
But that that second tithe, cannot now have place, is clear, because Principio, Obiecto, Fine, that is, in all respects, they were merely Ceremonial: having for End, these typical Feasts abolished by Christ: for Place, only the Temple at jerusalem. For Persons, the jewish householders were the chief eaters. All these, are not only mortua, but even mortifera for our times.  

M. Selden. Ibid.  His second question is. And further to consider also, how the payment of Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds the payment from the Levites to the sons of Aaron.]  
To this, I have (I hope) proved. That Tithes are given for Inheritance, to the whole Tribe of Levi, as well Priests, as Inferior Levites; and so, though the Inferiors might be, the servile receivers & leaviers, yet the whole Priesthood was partner in the main: so, the jewish Laity, paid their Tithes even to the Levitical Priesthood. As for the point of Succession in this, First, the Levites paid only decimam decimarum, the Tenth of Tithes, to Aaron, not to Aaron's sons, (as we have proved.) Now this Tithe was merely Ceremonial, being first an Heave Offering; 2. tied only to the Highpriest in Person: and 3. to jerusalem for Place. Ergo, not due now. Secondly, no proper Succession of the Gospel to the Law: only tempore; neither in Person astricted to a Tribe, not in the same nature or Order of Priesthood: the true Succession is Melchisedec to Melchisedec, where all things past, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Promise, not, 
Rom. 4.13.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Of the law: & so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bringeth in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The intervening Law, was but as a drop, (yet of Divine water too) in the bottom of a basin, appointed for a time to distinguish, to divide, nay, rather to draw on, and join two streams of approaching Grace, the Promises, and their Performances: which meeting, this drop was quite swallowed up by their fullness; what it had of the first Fountain, common with those two Streams, Natural, or Moral; that was still retained, being only graced with new evangelical garments: What it had in the property of a Partition wall, Rites, and Ceremonies, all evanished, as Mercury from the fire. So Tithes, Inheritance being of the first Fountain, common, Moral, to all these waterworks of God's worship, and therefore mixed with that Drop of the Law, could never be dried up, but recover so much greater strength by the meeting, of those two Streams, as the Performances, surpass the Promises: and the Gospel, the Law.  
But (says Selden) these considerations can only be, 
M. Selden. Ibid.  where the knowledge of Fact proceeds. For without distinction of these several Tithes, any argument drawn from them, may soon be found a gross fallacy, that may both deceive him which maketh it, and those whom he teacheth. Let the ingenuous Reader think of it.]  
Of this position, would I feign have a better reason than I can perceive for our question: for who will think that the truth of Divine precept must rely upon knowledge of Fact? specially when the Fact must be trusted to Fabulous authors, in many things. Indeed, when the Fact is recorded in the Tables of the Precept, there may a man argue reciprocally a Causis ad effecta; and contra: But to bring in Talmud, Targum, 
M. Selden, Review. p. 55  and Gemara, to teach us, from what they say was done, what should been done by the Law, it is, (in my judgement) quite out of square. For first, I may justly doubt if their relation be true, because we all have found them in some, erroneous: viz: in Tithing Herbs, as aforesaid: and in confounding the Lords frequent Precepts of keeping so many holy Feasts yearly; and thrice a year; in a Leape-yeere each third year; and so making the Tithes for Feasts; not paieable each third year. Certainly, if I believe those men in any thing it shallbe more for reverence of the Text, than their Tales.  
Secondly, though their relation of the Fact were true in their times; yet might it be much degenerate from the former ages. 
Buxtorfus, de opere ●almudico.  For the eldest of them wrote (as some hold) but at the Captivity of Babylon: and there writes (as we have them) but collected, and received hundreds of year since Christ.  
Thirdly, Facts truly recorded, do not always argue Laws truly executed: Else the two High-Priests at Christ's time, must be good in Law, because true in Fact; and not condemned by any reproach in Scripture, other then tacitly in the meaning of the Law at first given. It is true, the not distinguishing of one Tithe from another, hath made men confound all, and take the Moral for the Ceremonial. But whence, I pray, shall we draw our true distinction? from the Text, or Talmud? Whether shall the Text tell Talmud, what Tithes were to be paid; or Talmud tell us, what Tithes the Text should have enjoined? So Tithes are by Scripture most clearly distinguished; and by Talmud merely confounded.  
Thus far (Reader) have I, for thee, trod the paths of Mr. Seldens' History of Tithes, adding my own Simple judgement De jure: Both may stand together, in regard of my plain Positions from Scripture, for the one; and his own Protestations, that he meant nothing to the contrary, in his History. Yea, I ascribe it to God's special providence, that He, and I, should at one time, as twins from one belly, both come forth together: and that I, who (as I take it) was by conception, the Esau, and elder brother in this business, yet, in our birth, should prove a jacob, catching his History (as it were) by the heel; lest the incurious Reader (as is said) by too hot hunting the wild History, might defraud jacob, that is, the Promises, and Gospel, of their due Primogeniture in the Right of Tithes.  
My last advice than is, That howsoever Historical variety may delight thine ear; yet let only Scripture-Verity lead thine heart, and direct thy Conscience to the Conclusion in things pertaining to God: to whose Blessing I do recommend these my Labours, for thy Edification. Amen.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.