Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	priest_n	subordination_n	15	3	12.8850	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51155	An enquiry into the new opinions, chiefly propagated by the Presbyterians of Scotland together with some animadversions on a late book, entitled, A defence of The vindication of the kirk : in a letter to a friend at Edinburgh / by A.M., D.D.	Monro, Alexander, d. 1715?	1696 (1696)	Wing M2439; ESTC R7	25,403	65

very Solid and Demonstrative To this purpose they cite Act. 20. 17. 28. Philip. 1.1 1 Tim. 3. and several other places Whether a Bishop be of a Higher Order than a Presbyter does not now fall under our Enquiry nor is it in it self very material Sometimes they might be consider'd of the same Order with regard to the Priesthood common to either by which both Bishops and Presbyters were distinguish'd from the body of the People and other Subordinate Officers of the Church though at other times when Authority and Jurisdiction is nam'd the Bishop with regard to his Dignity and Power is always reckon'd above a Presbyter Here we are carefully to Observe that when the Inspir'd Writers Dichotomiz'd the Clergy into two Orders they but follow'd the Dialect and Example of the Jews who thus divided their Ministers also into Priests and Levites though the Highest Order was again Subdivided both by the Jews and the Christians when the Priests were consider'd with regard to that Subordination establish'd among themselves and without any regard to the Body of the People This is very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Jews as well as to the Idiom of the Hellenistical Tribes of the Apostolical Age The first confounded the name of the High Priest with that of a Priest without any other distinguishing Charcteristic or Discrimination For Proof of this see Levit. 1. 7 8. And the Sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the Altar and lay the wood in order upon the fire v. 8. And the Priests Aaron's Sons shall lay the parts the head and the fat in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the Altar Here we plainly find that in the first Establishment of the Mosaic Oeconomy in which the Patriarchal Subordination of Priests was still retain'd the High Priest is nam'd by the same appellative without any distinction of Order or Jurisdiction that the other Priests were nam'd by and the Title of a Priest was promiseuously apply'd without any distinction or marks of Eminence to the High Priest as well as to the Subordinate Yet it was never question'd but that there were extraordinary Privileges and Dignities reserv'd to the High Priest amongst the Jews though thus plac'd amongst the other Priests without any Nominal Distinction nor do we find the Title of High Priest ever affix'd to the particular name of Aaron or Eleazar in all the Pentateuch nor is the word High-Priest it self mention'd in the Books of Moses but either twice or thrice and that only with regard to the Administration of after days Yet this Homonomy of names could not be reasonably pleaded then against the Subordination of other Priests to Aaron nor against the Deference due to his Pontifical Character Was it then to be expected that the Apostles or Apostolical Men when they occasionally mention'd the Presbyters of the New Testament might not make use of the currant Language and Pharaseology of their own Country-men who divided their Clergy into Priests and Levites as if there were no more but two Orders even when the meanest of the Jews knew that the Dignity of the High Priest was very honourable and distinguish'd from all Subordinate Priests by all marks of Eminence and Authority It is true that in the Hagiographical and Prophetical Writings the High Priest is very frequently distinguish'd by his Proper and Special Character yet in the beginning of the Jewish Oeconomy neither Aaron nor Eleazar were called High-Priests when they are particularly nam'd and if in those days any had been so mad as to have infer'd from this confusio Nominum an Equality between all Priests he would certainly have been expos'd for the Offices themselves were sufficiently distinguish'd by those Special Ministries and Jurisdictions that were peculiarly appropriated to the one and deny'd to the other such as were visible to the observation of the meanest among the Jews We do not at all deny but that Bishops might be call'd Presbyters in the days of the Apostles and justly so too though they had other Presbyters under their Government and Inspection for the use of the Word Presbyter was another thing then than now if we consider it in its full Latitude and Extent With us it signifies such Priests as assist the Bishop in his Ecclesiastical Administrations and are accountable to him for their Performances And though all Presbyters are not Bishops yet all Bishops are Presbyters and to infer an Equality of Offices from the promiscuous Use of Names I think is neither good Logick nor good History We do not now Plead as some Ignorant People may pretend that there ought to be Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews but rather thus that the Hierarchy that obtain'd in the Patriarchal and Jewish Oeconomy was never abrogated in the New and though we meet with the same Dichotomies of the Clergy in the New Testament as are frequently seen in the Old we ought not to conclude from thence that there was an Equality among them of the Higher Order in that Division no more than there was a Parity amongst the Priests of the Old Testment for that same Highest Order or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was again divided into two viz. the Supream and Subordinate And not only they but the Jews also of the Apostolical Age divided their Clergy into two Classes when they spoke of them only as in Opposition to the People they made no other distinction amongst them than that of Priests and Levites But then again upon other Occasions they Subdivided the Priests into the Highest and Subordinate Order when they consider'd the Hierarchy in it self and distinguish'd every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Priesthood from one another of this we have clear Instances from Philo the Jew Was it not then reasonable that the Apostles should speak the Language of the Age in which they lived and that of their Predecessors Whether then the Clergy be divided into their several Classes by a Biparite or Triparite division both is very Agreeable to the Custom of the Jews If they compar'd the Priests amongst themselves and reckon'd up their Distinctions and Subordinations to one another then they were Divided by a Tipartite Division but if they spoke of them with regard to the People then the Bipartite Division was more Convenient so that the Community of Names was very observable when the Offices themselves were as truly Separated and Distinguished a they could be In like manner the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolical Age he that was Vested with a Prostasia was a much above the Subordinate Presbyters as the High-Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Subordinate Presbuyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests with whom nevertheless he was frequently Ranked without any Nominal Distinction or Discrimination Nay Salmasius himself grants that even when the pretended Equality