An historical vindication of the divine right of tithes from scripture, reason, and the opinion and practice of Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in all ages : designed to supply the omissions, answer the objections, and rectife the mistakes of Mr. Selden's History of tithes / by Tho. Comber ...

CHAP. II. Of Tithes under the Law.

§. I. THe consideration of what hath been said con∣cerning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 patriarchs paying Tithes, makes it probable that the Jews (who then newly sprang from the Loyns of these Tithe-givers, and understood that their divinely inspired Ancestors had used thus to acknow∣ledge Gods bounty) would have payed Tithes in imitation of their Fore-fathers, if there had been no Law to enjoyn them so to do; for if the Patriarchs practice had such an influence upon the Gentile World (as shall be shewed in the next Chapter) it could not but have a greater effect upon their own Children and immediate Posterity: Yea, God himself seems to suppose this, because in Moses Law the first places that mention Tithes rather reckon them a known due, than enjoyn them to be paid. The Hebrew Text Ex∣od. xxii. 29. Thou shalt not delay to offer thy fulness or abun∣dance, is by the Vulgar rendred, Thou shalt not delay thy Tithes and First-fruits, and the Jewish Doctors expound it of Tithes(a), to which also the Christian Fathers do apply it. Now this Text evidently supposes they knew these to be due to God, so that the only thing to be done was to order them to pay them in due time and order. Again, when Moses is speaking of things Devoted to God already, so that they may not be alienated from him, nor redeemed with∣out adding a fifth part to the Value, Levit. xxvii. 27. he adds, ver. 30. All the Tithe of the Land, whether of the Seed of the Land, or of the Fruit of the Tree, is the Lords; intimating that Tithe was then to be reckoned a devoted thing and due to God, before any Law had yet enjoyned the pay∣ment; and some think Jacobs Vow had so included his posterity, as to make Tithe a devoted thing to them; in∣deed

God promised to give him the Land which he gave to his posterity, and therefore his Vow might probably e∣nough include not only what God gave him in his own person, but in his posterity also. However, 'tis certain that here Tithes are claimed as Gods due by a most ancient Custom, of which no beginning appears, saith Grotius on the place; for indeed they had from the beginning of the World been reckoned as Gods part, and this claim was made soon after the coming out of Egypt, and (as some do compute)(b) 28 years before the assignation of Tithe to the Levites, Numb. xviii. 28. yet there also God supposes his right to the Tenth part to have been well known, and saith, I have given the Children of Levi all the Tenth in Is∣rael: He assigns his right, but doth not command the pay∣ment in all that Chapter. And when the Ceremonial dire∣ctions (which were still later) were made, they rather pre∣scribe the way and manner of paying Tithes under that Dispensation than enjoyn the thing it self, which shews there is no reason to account the Tenth to be originally a Ceremonial Institution. 'Tis true, while that Law conti∣nued, both the ancient Tithe which was assigned to the Levites, and the other two Tithes, were all due by Gods express written Law, as all do confess; there being there∣fore no doubt of that, we will under this period consider, 1. What was the method and order of Jewish Tithing; 2. How long this Law for it was observed; 3. How far the Jews Law or practice may concern Christians.

First, For the Jewish manner of Tithing, Mr. S. saith, It was never fully taught by any Christian before his time, no not by the noble and learned Scaliger, though he undertook it in a single Treatise(c). Yet whoever shall compare that Treatise of Scaliger(d) with this Chapter of Mr. S. will find, he hath done little more than transcribe him, and when we have fully Examined his own performances, it is not impossible the Reader may think Mr. S. himself is one of those many of no small Name, who grosly slip in reckoning and dividing the kinds of their Tithes(e), as his own words are. We begin with First-fruits, which were of two sorts, Bicurim and The∣rumah:

the first called Bicurim Mr. S. saith were paid in Ears of Wheat, Barly, Figs, Grapes, Olives, Pomgranates and Dates, and of those seven only; and for this he cites three Texts, Exod. xxiii. 19. which mentions nothing of paying it in Ears; secondly Numb. xv. 20. which calls this very sort of First-fruits the Heave-offering of the Threshing floor; thirdly, Levit. xxiii. 10. where there is mention of an Omer, with which (R. Salomon observes) they measured this sort of First-fruit, implying it was threshed before it was paid: so that though the Bicurim were paid in Ears, these Texts do not prove it. Again, the Talmud saith, They set forth of First-fruits more the seven kinds(f), and 2 Chron. xxxi. 5. it is said expresly, they brought in the First-fruits of Corn, Wine, Oil and Hony, and of all the increase of the Field. Deut. xxvi. 2. 'tis called the first of all the fruit of the Earth, and Nehem. x. 35. the First-fruit of all fruits of all Trees, is added to the former particulars, so that he hath not accurately enough taught us out of what sorts the Bicurim were paid. Secondly, The Theru∣mah or Heave-offering, Deut. xviii. 4. was paid next to the Bicurim, and this he truly notes (out of Scaliger) ought to be a 40th, 50th, or a 60th part, and he that offered no more than the sixtieth part was said to have an evil Eye, a Phrase which S. Matthew (Chap. xx. 15.) had not out of the Talmud, but out of the Old Testament(g); but we need not fur∣ther enquire into the manner of paying these, because they were not Tithes, only it suffices to note that both these sorts of First-fruits were paid before the Tithing.

§. II. The Jewish Tithe Mr. S. divides into two sorts, as Scaliger had done before; but whereas Scaliger makes the Poor mans Tithe of the third year the same with the first Tithe, Mr. S. makes it the same with the second, or Tithe of Feasts; but it was truly a different kind from them both, and their Tithing is best divided into the first, second, and third Tithes. The first Tithe was taken out, after the First-fruits offered to the Priests, and paid to the Levites, but not always at Jerusalem (as Mr. S. mistakes) for Ab. Ezra saith, The Levites received their first Tithe in the Country(h). Nor

is this Tithe appointed to be brought to Jerusalem, Nehem. x. 37. but to be brought to the Levites, that they might have Tithes in all their Cities of Tillage; and since they took them in the Country, ver. 38. one of the Priests is ordered to be with the Levites when they took Tithes, and the Levites were to carry up the Tithe of this first Tithe to Jerusalem; so that R. Salomon on this place saith, The Levites take Tithes in all the Cities of Israel. R. Nachman also affirms, that the Country Levites had Tithes in the Country(i), and Calvin makes no doubt but the Levites in their several Coun∣tries did gather Tithes(k), and by this means, both the Country-man was freed from the vast charge of carrying this first and largest Tithe to Jerusalem, and the Levites eased of the charge of sending back the remainder to their Families at home in the Country, where they needed these Tithes most, for while their course was in the Temple, the second Tithe, and the Sacrifices, &c. maintained them plen∣tifully. As for that place Deut. xii. 5. where there is mention of carrying Tithes to Gods house; R. Salomon there tells us, it is meant of the second Tithe for Feasts. Out of this first or Levites Tithe Mr. S. rightly observes they paid the Tenth unto the Priests; but since all the Twenty-four courses of Priests had their share in these Tithes, it was not properly from this Payment of the Le∣vites to the Priests in general, that the Clergies paying Tenths to the Pope sprung; but from an erroneous conceit which Alex. of Hales, and also Lyra, Tostatus, &c. have en∣tertained out of Numb. xviii. 28. as if the Levites had paid the Tenth of their Tithes to the High Priest only, which false pretence served the Popes Avarice and helped to back out his claim; but it could not justifie it any more then that Tithe, which some of the Jewish Kings, and particu∣larly (they say) Solomon had of the people over and above the Levites Tithe(l) can justifie that Tenth which our Kings at this day receive of all their Clergy. But to return to the History, after the First Tithe was taken out, the remaining Nine parts were not yet accounted prophane (as Mr. S. mistakes) because the Second Tithe was yet to be

taken out, and carried up, either in kind, or in Mony (with a fifth part added) to be spent in Feasts at Jerusalem, and this is the Tithe spoken of Deut. xii. 5, & 6. and Chap. xiv. 23. and that which Josephus calls Tithe for Feasts(m), and of this there is no dispute, only let it be noted that the turning Tithe into Mony with a fifth part added, was not a peculiar property of this second Tithe, for the Scripture, and the Rabbins expresly say(n) that this priviledge belong∣ed to the first Tithe as well as the second.

§. III. The great difficulty is concerning the Third Tithe, which Mr. S. makes to be the same with the second Tithe, only what was spent at Feasts in Jerusalem two years, on the third year was spent on the poor in the Country, and that year no second Tithe was sent to Jerusalem at all: But I affirm this Third Tithe for the Poor was paid over and above the two former every third year, and therefore that year is called the year of Tithing(o), because there was a Tithe extraordinary paid then more than was paid in other years, as Moses Gerundensis expresly saith: Nor could this poor Mans Tithe have properly born the name of the Third Tithe, if the second had now ceased, yet by that name it is often called(p); but Josephus is very plain, who brings in Moses himself, saying, Besides the two Tithes which I have al∣ready commanded you to pay every year, one to the Levites, and the other to the holy Feasts; there is a third Tithe to be paid every third year, for the Poor, the Widow, and the Fatherless(q). Mr. S. indeed cites some Rabbins, who thought the second Tithe ceased every third year; but we have besides Gerun∣densis and Josephus, R. Hiskuni, and R. Bechai on our side, saying positively the third year is called the year of Tithing, because a new sort of Tithes above and beside the other(r), and Mr. S. is mistaken to call the private Comment of Rab. Sa∣lomon the common gloss of the Jews; yea R. Salomons fancy there about the year of One Tithe is rejected by Ab. Ezra, so that we have better Authority for our opinion. As for the Septuagint Translation, Deut. xxvi. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it makes very much for us, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the second superadded Tithe, for

the Levites Tithe may be fitly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tithe for Feasts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the poor mans Tithe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And though Mr. S. pag. 19. charge S. Chrysostom with gross ignorance in this matter, yet we affirm he explains there way of Tithing better than either Scaliger or Mr. S. for he says they gave Tithes and First-fruits, Second Tithes, and again other Tithes, and again other Thirtieth part(s); for here are reckoned up the Levites Tithes, the Bicurim, the Tithe of Feasts, and the Poor mans Tithe, beside the Therumah, which among the stricter Jews was a Thirtieth part; the enumeration (we see) is full, though being in a popular discourse the order be not exact, and Epiphanius (whom also Mr. S. taxes for ignorance) tells us the Pharisees gave Tithes and First-fruits, Thirtieth and Fiftieth parts, that is, their Therumah was a Thirtieth part, and their Bicurim a Fiftieth, as much more as the ordinary Jews paid. I shall add no more but S. Hierom, who lived nearer the times of Jewish Tithing than most of the Rabbins now extant, and conversed with divers Jews then, and he reckons the Poor mans Tithe a distinct Tithe from the Tithe of Feasts(t), which Opinion is confirmed by this considerable reason, That if no Tithe for Feasts had been paid the third year, then either Gods Service must have been neglected, or there would have been no provision for such as did attend it; and considering the next third year was the sixth upon which the seventh year followed, in which there was no Tithe at all paid of any kind, it would follow that there was no provision for the Levites at the Temple for two years together; wherefore we conclude, that the Poor mans Tithe paid the third year, was not instead of any other Tithe, but was paid over and beside the two former.

§. IV. We come now to consider the Computation which Mr. S. hath taken out of Scaliger, in which are these Errors; First, The Bicurim or first ripe Fruits, (which may be esti∣mated at the hundredth part at the least) these are wholly omitted. Secondly, So also is the Corner of the Field to be left unreaped every year(u), of which the Levite had a

share also(w), and this some say was the Sixtieth part(x), other reckon it to be the Fortieth(y). Thirdly, The The∣rumah was to be reckoned the Fiftieth part, which is the middle number between Sixty and Forty. Fourthly, He hath omitted the Poor mans Tithe every third year. Not to mention another First-fruit paid out of the Dough, spoken of both in Scripture and elsewhere(z), so that af∣ter all the pretended exactness of these two great Criticks, they both fall short of the true account which we will here subjoyn, to shew how much more the Jews paid to their Priesthood, than the Christians do now to theirs.

The account of an Ordinary year, of Jewish Tithing.

An intire Crop, supposed to yield Ephahs	6000
Sum total	6000
Deduct 1. The Corner unreaped a sixtieth part, viz.	100
2. The Bicurim and hundredth part, viz.	59
3. The Therumah, a fiftieth part, viz.	116
These deducted, rests to be Tithed	5725
Deduct. 1. The Levites Tithe	572
2. The Tithe for Feasts	515
The deduction for Tithe	1087
Which deducted out of 5725, remains only	4638
And out of that to be deducted every third year the Poor mans Tithe, beside the former	463
So that the third year the Husbandman had for his own use out of 6000 Ephahs, only	4175

By this account it is plain, that a Jew paid much above the fifth part in an Ordinary year, viz. 1362 Ephahs out of 6000; and much above a fourth part in the Third year,

that is, 1825 Ephahs out of 6000: Whereas a Christian would not pay out of this for Tithe more than 600.

§. V. For the Tithe of Cattle it is generally believed (as Mr. S. also says) that the Tenth was paid to the Levites, and the First-born paid to the Priests, or Mony to redeem it; but the Jewish Lawyers (out of whom Mr. S. pretends to take his measures) contradict this, and generally say that the Tithe of Cattle was neither paid to Priests or Le∣vites; but either the Cattel if clean, or the price if other∣wise, were to be offered at Jerusalem for Sacrifices and Peace-offerings(a), which though it be all one to the Country-man, who payed them fully however; yet I mention it, because it is a strange thing that one so very conversant in these Rabbins, as Mr. S. pretends to be, should miss so ob∣vious an Opinion: But it is not certain these Rabbins are always right in the accounts of Tithing, for they unani∣mously affirm (contrary to Mr. S. again) that no First-born of any unclean Beast was either to be paid or redeemed, except the firstling of an Asse, which was not to be re∣deemed with Mony, but with a Lamb(b); hence they ex∣pound Numb. xviii. 15. of the Asse alone, and that Levit. xxvii. 27. where unclean Beasts are mentioned, they explain of Beasts with blemish. But it seems to me the Scripture plainly confutes the Rabbins in this matter, Numb. xviii. 15. and Philo (in whose time Tithes were legally paid, and) who knew better than any of them, he saith, not only the First-born of Asses, but of Horses, Camels, and such like were to be redeemed(c), and this I judge to be the truer ac∣count.

§. VI, VII, VIII. The next thing properly to be enquired of here, is concerning Small Tithes (though Mr. S. have put it back into his 7^th Section) Our Saviour tells us the Pha∣risees tithed Mint, Annise, and Cummin, Math. xxiii. 23. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Luke xi. 40. all manner of Herbs, which Mr. S. says was never commended in Scripture, nor by their Canon Law requisite, p. 20. yet he grants the Rabbins expound the

word Increase, Deut. xxvi. 12. to signifie all fruits of the Earth that is for Mans meat(d), and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signifie (as he pretends) every Herb, but only the Herbs used for Mans meat(e), so that the Rabbins do grant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every Herb for meat is by Gods Law tithable, and the expressions of Holy Scripture are so general, viz. All the Tithe of the Land(f), all the Tenth in Israel(g), the Tithe of all thy in∣crease(h), that we may justly affirm they comprehend these small things also, only in regard the value of them was in∣considerable perhaps the Priests did not require, nor the ordinary Jews pay them, only the Pharisees who would strict∣ly keep the Law, these paid even these small Tithes exactly, and Mr. S. at last grants, that they were of the truer side, be∣cause Christ tithed this payment, and said, they ought not to omit it(i). After this account of the quantity and kinds of Tithes, the continuance of the Payment is next to be shew∣ed, for understanding whereof Mr. S. hath well noted the use which Scripture mentions, and the care of the Sanhe∣drin to enjoyn the payment under the second Temple; and I add, that Tobit is an example of just Tithing about that time, and the Pharisees in our Saviours age, S. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews(k), is a good evidence they were usually and duly paid after our Saviours Ascension, and Mr. S. hath a good proof of such payment in Nero's time out of Jose∣phus(l), who together with Philo are sufficient to assure us they were paid as long as their Temple stood, and till the City was destroyed, which is all we need enquire after, be∣cause this was as long as they were due to that Priest∣hood(m), and God hath now assigned them to another and a better Priesthood, as the Jews, against their Wills, seem to acknowledge, in that, since they are expelled out of their own land, they do not think they are obliged by the Law to pay Tithes(n); excepting only those who live in Aram or Syria (whatever Mr. S. pretend) or in any other place in, or near Judea, are thought to be obliged still, He that hath land in Syria (saith the Talmud) of his own must pay Tithes, and if he buy the fruits before tithing, he must answer the Tithe(o); yea, Maimonides reckons Syria a part of the

Land of Israel(p). But for other Jews dispersed, the more Religious of them do at this day instead of Tithes pay an Alms out of all gains, viz. Ten Crowns out of an hundred(q), which payment is a full Tenth part, and though it be far short of all the Mosaic Law requires, yet it answers the first or Le∣vites Tithe, and is the same Tithe which the Patriarchs of old and the Christians now do pay; that is, it is Tithe strip∣ped of all the Ceremonial appendixes added under the Law, intimating, that this Tithe ever was, and ever will be due even where the Ceremonial Law is not in force. And let it be here remembred, that this first or Levites Tithe was not tied to be paid at Jerusalem (as was proved before) and therefore the place which Mr. S. produces out of Eu∣sebius(r), which argues Tithes are ceased, because Jerusalem, the place where they should be paid, is destroyed, must be meant of Tithes paid after the Levitical manner, and pe∣culiarly of the second Tithe superinduced by that Law: for the Tenth part was paid before that Law, and ever will be due to that Priesthood to which God assigns them; and that Jews confession to Scaliger, that they have no lawful Priesthood left among them now, ought to convince the very Jews, that God hath now chosen another Priesthood, to whom his Tenth part is due.

§. IX. Mr. S. promised in his Preface, p. 2. that he would consider Antiquity, not barely to shew what hath been, but to give other Light to the practice and doubts of the present Age. But he hath not performed it in this Part, to supply which defect we will here add two Observations; First, that Christian Tithes are not demanded by virtue of the Le∣vitical Law, and yet, Secondly, many things may be learn∣ed from that Law to strengthen the claim of Christian Mi∣nisters to Tithes as now paid. For the First, It is plain we do not claim Tithes now by virtue of the Levitical Law, for then they should be paid in the quantities and kinds pre∣scribed in that Law, and with all the Ceremonies annext; but the Evangelical Tithes are no more but a just Tenth part paid before the Law, continued under it, and then

called the First or Levites Tithe; so that to Mr. S. question, Why not the second as well as the first(s), we reply, That this first Tithe was in being before the Law, and distinguished in the Law from all the rest, for it is called an Inheritance(t), on which phrase the Talmud saith, The Scripture likens the first Tithe to an Inheritance, because as an Inheritance ceas∣eth not, so this first Tithe ceaseth not(u), the other Tithes be∣ing superinduced by the Law, those only fell with it. And whereas Mr. S. further questions, How the payment of Tithes from the Laity to the Priests of the Gospel, succeeds to the pay∣ment from the Levites to the Sons of Aaron(w); it is answer∣ed, It doth not succeed that payment, but the Evangelical Tithes succeed to the payment from the Laity to the Le∣vites, out of which also the Priests had a share. These first and ancient Tithes were paid generally to the Ministring Clergy then; but what shares the Levites, and what the Priests should have, was ordered by God suitably to that dispensation, wherein the Levites who had most liesure were the gatherers of these Tithes, and had the biggest share, because the Priests were otherwise well provided for while Sacrificing was in use; but these Levites also were reckoned among (the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the Clergy, and are accounted Members of that Priesthood: so that the Levitical Priest∣hood had them by such a distribution as God saw fit to make, and therefore the best Authors make no scruple to say, that Tithes were then paid to the Priests. S. Paul him∣self saith, The Sons of Levi, which receive the Priesthood, have a commandment to take Tithes of the People according to the Law(x); where he must call the Levites, Priests, because the Priests, properly so called, took no Tithes of the Peo∣ple; and hence the Rabbins tell us, that the Priests are twenty four times called Levites in Scripture(y), and a∣gain the Levites are called Priests(z). Wherefore Hecataeus in Josephus saith, The Priests of the Jews, who receive the Tithe of all Increase are very numerous; and Josephus saith, Moses commanded the People to pay Tithe to the Levites and Priests(a). This Question therefore of Mr. S. was a meer knot in a Bulrush, and only designed to blunder, for the Priesthood

had these Tithes both then and now also; and as the Gos∣pel Priesthood succeeds the Levitical in the performance of Divine Service, so also in its right to Tithes, the different manner of distribution of them after they are paid, suited to the several dispensations, making no real difference in the Succession; but sure none but Mr. S. ever dreamed, that Evangelical Tithes succeeded the meer ceremonial division of them, and that part only which then was the Priests share, for this division began with the Law, and ended when that was abrogated. I am the larger upon this distinction between the First and original Tenth part, and the other additional Ceremonies or Manners of tithing superadded by Moses Law, because it fully reconciles Origen, S. Hierom, and those other Fathers who expresly say Tithes were not Ceremonial, nor abrogated, to Eusebius and Epiphanius, who are produced by Mr. S. to prove Tithes were Ceremonial; for Eusebius is plainly speaking of the second Tithe for Feasts paid at Jerusalem, which indeed is now ceased, and was purely Ceremonial, as was shewed before: and Epipha∣nius(b) is arguing against the Quarto decimani, or those who (though agreeing with the Christians in all other things) would needs keep Easter on the 14th day of the Month, as the Levitical Law prescribes, on pretence they should in∣cur the Curse of the Law, if they did not observe it at that time: against which he urges, That Moses in Deutero∣romy sets down all the Curses which concern not only the Passe∣over, but Circumcision, Tithing and Offerings; therefore if they would avoid one Curse, they fell into many, for they are found accursed there, who are not Circumcised, who do not Tithe, and do not offer at Jerusalem(c). That is, if once they main∣tained that Levitical Curse still in force, then they must not only keep the Paschal Feast at the Jewish time, but in the Jewish manner also, with a Lamb, &c. and not only observe one duty in the Ceremonial manner, but all others, viz. Circumsion, Tithing, and Offering at Jerusalem: but indeed that Curse is not in force, and so they are not bound to do any of those duties after the Ceremonial and Jewish man∣ner; it is not therefore the Thing it self about which Epi∣phanius

is discoursing, but the Ceremonial manner of doing it; for Epiphanius and they agreed, that a Paschal Feast was to be kept, but not at the Jewish time, nor in the Ceremonial manner; they agreed they were to offer, but not at Jerusalem, so also they agreed Tithes were to be paid, but the Father only argues, that they were not bound to it by that Levitical Curse, and consequently not to Tithe in the Ceremonial manner: and since he saith, they agreed with the Church in all things else but the time of keeping Easter, we shall shew the Church then did receive Tithes, and therefore there was no difference about that, nor doth Epiphanius at all reckon Tithes as paid to Gospel Ministers among things abrogated.

But, Secondly, though we do not claim Tithes by virtue of the Levitical Law, yet we learn many things from it which strengthen our right to Tithes now. First, This Law, and the practice upon it, declares Gods approbation of the Patriarchs choice of a Tenth part to be dedicated to his service, and testifies that his Ministers ought to be his Receivers; and the continuance of this payment during this Period, makes good the Clergies prescription against all others for near 2000 years together. Secondly, This provision for the Levitical Priesthood, was a pattern for Christ in providing for Gospel Ministers; for S. Paul tells us, As God the Father had appointed the Priests and Le∣vites should live of Tithes and Offerings, even so hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel(d); intimating that our Lord followed that pattern, so that as theirs was a fixed certain honourable mainte∣nance chiefly in the proportion of a Tenth, so was ours to be also; and though not the same in all the Ceremonial and superadded circumstances, yet it was to be like it in the main, which it could not be if their maintenance were cer∣tain and determined, and ours uncertain, arbitrary and pre∣carious; and thence also it would follow, that more care was taken of the old Priesthood than of the new, which serves to a better Covenant. Thirdly, This Law was also a Guide to the Primitive Christians, and taught them not to

give less than a Tenth to their Ministers, not by any direct obligatory power believed to be in this Law, but per vim ejus exemplarem (as the Schoolmen speak) by analogy and parity of reason: for if a meaner Priesthood had Tithes for its provision, surely a better Priesthood ought not to have less; hence the Fathers say, We that have a better hope ought chearfully to give rather more than less(e), and that we must at least come up to the Jewish bounty(f), and give as much as the Jews, who were young beginners in Religion, not less however than a Tenth part(g); for Christ expects our Righ∣teousness (even in point of bounty to his Service) should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, or else we shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven(h). And this is the true reason why the Ancients frequently cite the Precepts, Pro∣mises and Threatnings of the Old Testament concerning Tithes, and apply them to Christians; not (as Mr. S. often suggests) that they believe the Levitical Precepts obligatory directly to us, but that we are by parity of reason obliged not to give less; and if we be as bountiful as they were, we may expect the blessings promised to them, if not, we de∣serve to suffer severe punishments for our covetousness and impiety. Fourthly, We learn from the Levitical Law, that Christians received great ease by the coming of Christ even in this point also, though the full Tenth part be paid still, because Christ hath abrogated all that was brought in by the Ceremonial Law, and reduced us to the Original pro∣portion used among the Patriarchs, whereas the Jews paid some years thrice as much as we do. We are now free from the second and third Tithe, from the reserved Corner, the offering of First-fruits, redeeming our First-born of Man and Beast, and from many other payments to which they were bound; and yet they discharged all these dues freely (as Philo and S. Chrysostom tell us)(i), never repining or envying at the riches of their Clergy, who lived (on this maintenance of Gods own designing) almost in the state of Princes, so that if any now do murmur to give not half so much to a better Ministry, under which they have better Ordinances and more useful Means of Grace, they discover

a sordid Mind, and a great contempt of the holy Gospel. Finally, The Institution of a Tenth part coming from God at first, and being practiced by inspired and holy Patriarchs before the Law, being approved by God, established by the Law, and settled by a long prescription under the Jewish dispensation, and there being no declaration, that God in∣tended to repeal this proportion, this alone (if there were no more) is sufficient to oblige Christians to dedicate their Tithes for the maintenance of the Gospel Ministry, nor could they be excused from covetousness and disregard to Gods Service, if they should have given a less proportion.

Notes

• (a)

  R. R. ap Hottinger. Juris Hebraeor. Leg. 78. pag. 98.
• (b)

  Roberts Reven. of Gos∣pel Ministers, p. 11.
• (c)

  Seld. Re∣view, chap. 2. p. 452.
• (d)

  Extat. ap. Critic. sacr. Tom. 1. p. 1322.
• (e)

  Hist. Tithes, Chap. 2. §. 4. p. 17.
• (f)

  Talm. tract Bicurim, cap. 3. fol. 8.
• (g)

  Prov. xxii 9. & xxiii. 6.
• (h)

  Ab. Ezra in Deut. 14.27.
• (i)

  R. Nachman in Deut. xii.
• (k)

  Calvin. Com. in Deut. xiv.
• (l)

  Baal Hat∣zurim in Deut. xviii. 1. R. D. Kimki in 1 Sam. viii.
• (m)

  Joseph. Antiq. lib. 4. cap. 7. (not lib. 41. as in Mr. S.)
• Lev. xxvii. 30, 31.
• (n)

  Ab. Ezra, Abarbanel, Ly∣ra, & Calvin. in loc.
• (o)

  Deut. xxvi. 12.
• (p)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tobit. I. 7. Ab. Ezra in Deut. xiv. 28. Jun. & Tremel. ibid.
• (q)

  Joseph. An∣tiq. l. 4. c. 8.
• (r)

  R. Hiskun. in Deut. xiv. 28. R. Bechai. in Deut. xxvi. 12.
• (s)

  Chrysost. Ser. 103. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, T. 6. p. 897.
• (t)

  Hieron. in Ezek. xlv. Tom. 4. p. 1071.
• (u)

  Lev. xix. 9. Deut. xxiv. ver. 19, 20.
• (w)

  R. Sal. on Deut. xxiv. & Maimon. Com. in Mas. Therum. c. 1.
• (x)

  R. David de Pomis Lex. verb. Peah.
• (y)

  Baal Hat∣turim in Levit. xix.
• (z)

  Numb. xv. 20, 21. Philo de Sacrif. Cain & Abel p. 148. Aug. quest. in Numer. xviii.
• (a)

  R. Salom. in Lev. xxvii. 34. R. Bechai & Abarbanel, ibid. R. Salom. in Deut. xii. 6. R. Nachman in Numb. xv. 10. David de Po∣mis, verb. Cor∣ban. Maimonid. Massec. Beco∣roth, c. 9. fol. 35
• (b)

  R. Salom. in Exod. xiii. 13. & in cap. xxxiv. 19, 20. R. Bechai, ibid. Maimon. Mass. Becoroth, c. 1.
• (c)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Philo de Sacerd. praem. p. 831.
• (d)

  R. D. Kim∣chi in Mich. & R. Nachman in Exod. xxii.
• (e)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thophrastus, ita Rom. xiv. 2. & Olus, Latinis.
• (f)

  Lev. xxvii. 30.
• (g)

  Num. xviii. 21.
• (h)

  Deut. xxvi. 12.
• (i)

  Math. xxiii. 23.
• (k)

  Heb. vii. 9.
• (l)

  Joseph. Ant. l. 6. c. 20.
• (m)

  Suarez. de leg. l. 9. c. 19.
• (n)

  Maimon. ap. Hottinger Jur. Heb. p. 99. & alii RR. ibid. Leo Modena, cap. 12. p. 44.
• (o)

  Talm. tract. Megnaish, c. 5. & R. Sal. ibid.
• (p)

  Maim. tract. Dem. c. 6.
• (q)

  Selden out of ••irk. Ab. cap. 3. & notis ibid.
• (r)

  Euseb. De∣monstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 1. ap. Seld. p. 13.
• (s)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 456.
• (t)

  Num. xviii. 21, 26.
• (u)

  Talm. Rosh. Hashan. f. 1. c. 12.
• (w)

  Seld. Re∣view, p. 456.
• (x)

  Hebr. vii. 5.
• (y)

  R. Levi in Numb. xviii. R. D. Kimchi in 2 Chron. iv. 5.
• (z)

  Malach. iii. 3. In f••liis au∣tem ••evi sacer∣dotalem intelli∣ge dignitatem. Hieron. in loc. Tom. 5. p. 637.
• (a)

  Joseph. Ant. l. 4. c. 4.
• (b)

  See Seld. Review, p. 461.
• (c)

  Epiph. haeres. 50.
• (d)

  1 Cor. ix. 13, 14.
• (e)

  Irenaeus ad∣vers. haer. l. 4. cap. 34.
• (f)

  Hieron. in Mal. 3.
• (g)

  Chrysost. hom. 43. in 1 Cor.
• (h)

  Origen in Numb. hom. xii.
• (i)

  Philo de Sacerd. praem. ap. Seld. review p. 53. Chrysost. Serm. 103. Tom. 6. p. 897.