Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	great_a	priesthood_n	13	3	9.6834	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11886	Sacrilege sacredly handled That is, according to Scripture onely. Diuided into two parts: 1. For the law. 2. For the Gospell. An appendix also added; answering some obiections mooued, namely, against this treatise: and some others, I finde in Ios. Scaligers Diatribe, and Ioh. Seldens Historie of tithes. For the vse of all churches in generall: but more especially for those of North-Britaine.	Sempill, James, Sir, 1566-1625.	1619 (1619)	STC 22186; ESTC S117106	109,059	172

of the Priesthood as the Person and more of Christ the Verity then his Type distinguished from him so that heere is a new Antonomasie of Melchisedec for Christ cleared fully by the Apostle cap. 5.11 compared with 11.8.13.14 24. For if we looke to the persons it is sure Melchisedec as such a man onely was both borne and dyed but not as he is proposed for such a Priest or type yea Christ the true Melchisedec was borne and dyed Christus Sacerdos mortuus est But Christi Sacerdotium ne in ipsi morte mortuum Aarons perishing Priesthood The generall Apodosis to this on Aarons part goeth thus Aaron and Leui had Father and Mother not onely of their flesh but latelier even of their very Priest-hood and calling they had beginning and ending even in all things wherein they typed Christ imperfect therefore and cannot be likened to the Sonne of God as is Melchisedec His Priest-hood then consisteth in Blessing and Tithing and his perfection in perpetuitie of both thou canst not disioyne them Then we descend by the same degrees thus Melchisedec in Blessing and Tithing remaineth a Priest for euer like the Sonne of God without ending Beginning Kindred Mother or Father And of all these poynts was Christ the onely perfection Ergo He who expecteth perpertuall Blessing from Christ must appoynt a perpetuall Tithing for Christ as we shall heare more at large And this for his Priest-hood followeth their collation Heb. 7.4 Consider now how great this man was c. Here Paul entereth § III the very lists of this conflict prouing our Melchisedecs Priest-hood more perfect then Leuies vsing for all his middeses onely Blessing and Tithing The arguments are drawne from the circumstances viz The persons Blessed and Tithed the forme of the Blessing and Tithing the time of Blessing and Tithing In Person he reasoneth first from Abraham then from Leui himselfe From Abraham thus Whosoeuer is greater then Abraham Melchisedec greater then Abraham is greater then Leui. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo Greater then Leui. The Proposition he proueth thus vers 4. Abraham was a Patriarch Leui but a childe the fourth from this Patriarch And vers 6. Abraham had the promises Leui as all the faithfull enioyed the promises onely in the faith of Abraham So Abraham is greater then Leui. He proueth his Assumption That Melchisedec was greater then Abraham thus He who Blesseth and Titheth is greater then he who is Blessed and Tithed Melchisedec Blessed and Tithed Abraham Ergo Melchisedec is greater then Abraham The Proposition is the very 7. ver of Paul in the text cited The Assumption is proued by Moyses Historie and here vers 3.4.6 And this for Abrahams person followeth from Leuies person wherein let the Reader note that all Pauls proofes are onely from Tithing thus Greater then Leui. He that tithed Leui is greater then Leui Melchisedec tithed Leui. Ergo Greater then Leui. This Assumption he proueth vers 10 thus All that were in Abrahams loynes when Melchisedec met him were tithed in Abraham Leui was in Abrahams loynes then Ergo Leui was tithed in Abraham and so by Melchisedec § IV Now marke that although this last Syllogisme launceth onely against Leui All Abrahams seede Tithed in him Ios cap 7. because Paul heere had onely to doe with Leui as a Priest Yet the force of the Proposition fetcheth in all Abrahams Seede Seede I say not onely Legal but also Euangelical not onely of his flesh but also of his faith This for Melchisedecs Tithing of Abraham The Antithesis on Leuies part goeth thus Leui Tithed but his brethren Melchisedec Tithed Abraham Father both of Leui and all his brethren Brethren as is said both by flesh and faith Ergo All still subiect to Melchisedecs Tithing And such as see not this are too bigge in flesh too beggerly in faith Followeth the Circumstance in the Forme of their Tithing This point hath this Antithesis LEVI Vers 5. They which are the children of Leui. Which receiue the office of Priest-hood Haue a commaundement to take according to the Law Tithes of the people that is of their brethren Though they came out of the Loynes of Abraham MELCHISEDEC Ver. 6. HE whose kindred is not counted amongst them Vers 3. Whose Priest-hood is 16. after the power of Endlesse life Gen. 14. Had offered to him freely and long before that Law Tithes by the Patriarch of both Leui and his brethren In whose loynes all his seed was both blessed and Tithed The chiefe note heere is that Melchisedecs forme of Tithing before the Law must be greater then Leuies Tithing by the Law and so Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui. For this action betweene Abraham and Melchisedec proceeded either from a secret instinct of that Supreme power working in both this ready and religious reuerence or rather that God euen taught Abraham who said hee would hide nothing from Abraham that he was to doe and concerned Abraham For said God I know Abraham Gen. 18.17.19 that hee will command his sonnes and houshold that they keepe the way of the Lord c. And this offer of Abrahams was not in his free option for as Abraham vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue freely so is it said v. 6. that Melchisedec 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He tithed Abraham as hauing authoritie They stroue in performing all duties and we in peruerting This for the two first Circumstances of Person and Forme followeth the Circumstance of Time in their Tithing CHAP. VI. Melchisedecs Priest-hood more excellent then Aarons because he is a perpetuall Priest And this perpetuitie is proued by onely Tithing TIME being an argument whereupon dependeth § I the cheefe conclusion Melchisedec a perpetuall Priest of both the Apostles cause and our question we will looke more narrowly into it For were a Priest neuer so great and his blessing neuer so good what auaileth it if it ●●anish The onely Triumph of Melchisedec ouer Leui is his Eternitie in all his endlesse Priest-hood Then if the Apostle proue his Priesthood perpetuall he winneth his cause and in prouing hereof seeing hee vseth heere no other Medium but a perpetuall Tithing he setleth our question And thus it goeth A Perpetuall Priest-hood is better then a Temporall Melchisedecs is Perpetuall Leuies was Temporall Melchisedecs therefore better then Leuies To proue the Assumption he reasoneth thus vers 8. for Melchisedec Hee that taketh Tithes and liueth is a Perpetuall Priest Melchisedec taketh Tithes and liueth Ergo Melchisedec is a Perpetuall Priest The Proposition is true for life euer affirmed maketh the Person endlesse and Tithing euer following life maketh a Priest-hood endlesse No Priest-hood without a Tithing § II The Assumption both for Melchisedecs perpetuitie and Leuies temporalitie is the eighth verse it selfe thus And heere that is vnder the Law dying men receiue Tithes viz. Leuites Leui died daily one succeeded daily in the Priest-hood to another and in end they

the flesh with whom Onely the comparison is instituted First as is said not onely flesh for then the onely Flesh had heere been blessed in Abraham and so Melchisedec not a Perpetuall but a Carnall type of Christ Secondly Though it had beene onely the Flesh yet not onely Leui for the reason of Leuies being Tithed heere is as true of all the Tribes as of Leui for all were alike in Abrahams loynes as Leui and if we frame not the Proposition generall thus All that were then in Abrahams loynes were tithed in Abraham Leui can no more come vnder the Assumption then the rest The cause then why Leui onely heere is specified was that his case was harder to include being Tithe-taker then his brethren payers and to subiect him being a Priest to the Priest-hood of Melchisedec as at length is noted Cap 7. § 5. As to the comparisons remēber there be two one of Melch. with Leui this standeth wholly in dissimilibus and so all remoued 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 eleuen vers are transferred to Christ vers 13.14 c. and more then an illustrating comparison it is a demonstratiue conclusion à Typo ad Veritatem then which no Scripture yeeldeth more frequent or forcible CHAP. VI. §. V. THe Verbes vsed in both the Types as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present time of Leui notwithstanding they were dead and gone c. Obiect Not yet Leui dead and gone for in the Apostles dayes diuers Priests were still among the Iewes Answ How I vnderstand this is sufficiently set downe Cap. 6. § 6. Dead and gone they were euen 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 Leui in this whole seuenth Chapter and reuiuing the Priest-hood of Melchisedec and Chap. 8.13 proclaiming both Priest-hood and Tabernacle to be finished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In that he saith a new Testament he hath abrogate the olde now that which is disanulled and waxed old is ready to vanish away Ibidem S. V. THerefore must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed in praesenti to Melchisedec Obiect Wherefore must it No nec●ssitie in Grammer will craue it And the reason you subioyne seemeth not of consequence to wit Seeing hee presently liueth since Tithing now 〈◊〉 not the point the Apost vrgeth but being greater Also the verb which the Apostle himselfe subioyneth is not a present but a preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which testifieth clearely if he had expressed the verbe which falleth to be repeated to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had expressed it in the same preterit time and not in the present Whereof this also may be a witnesse that vers 9. in one and the same clause speaking of Leuies Tithing he vseth the present participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and speaking of Melchisedec he vseth the foresaid preterit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as though he would say Hee Leui that now taketh Tithes was then Tithed by Melchisedec Answ This argument is but Grammaticall and so but probable the Conclusion must rest vpon the point of Diuinitie And Si quae non prosint singula iuncta inuent Yet my Grammer-grippe was thus grounded that in one and the same enuntiation Grammarians vsually put all in the same Case Number and Times and seeing heere vers 8. Paul hath two words and so all in the present time of Melchisedec I held it good Grammer 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 summe thus Aaron dying Blesseth Titheth Melchisedec Liuing Blesseth Titheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then Heere is not referred to the day of Pauls writing this but to the Law and time of it and so the preterit verbs had marred nothing in Aaron if it had pleased the Apost●e to vse them nor yet the present verbes applied to Melchisedec Where you say the Apostles selfe subioyneth preterit verbs that is but in the 6. and 9. vers in the former prouing Melchisedec a greater Priest then Leui because he Blessed and Tithed a greater person then did Leui and in the latter verse to proue that euen Leui himselfe was then Tithed by Melchisedec But heere vers 8. where his greatnesse is onely proued from Perpetuitie in Dying Tithing and Liuing Tithing heere I say Paul vseth onely verbes of the present time for perpetuall things must be euer present So Paul was Grammaticall enough in both Now to his Theologie Albeit those preterit verbes were onely proper for Melchisedec the Type who onely once Tithed Abraham yet seeing these verbes de praesenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are onely perfectly true of Christ the Veritie they must I say binde Tithing in praesenti vpon Christ If not so I would faine see clearely out of this 8. vers how Melchisedec hath any prerogatiue aboue Leui in these notes Dying and Liuing ioyned with Tithing for if we doe binde all these things vpon the onely Type then wee lose the Veritie Christ and as for the Types Leui as is said Tithing two thousand yeeres surpasseth that Melchisedecs one dayes Tithing in the prerogatiue of time Further in v●rtue of Christ the Verity though not yet then in the flesh yet may he be said euen then in Melchisedec his Type and Atturney to haue Tithed Abraham and by his Type Leui to Tithe vnder the Law as now when he is gone vp to the Father to Tithe vnder the Gospell as is said Chap. 6. § 10. So Tithing and Blessing are euer in Christ de praesenti how the particular practises in his Types passe de praeterito And so is hee in all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Dauids Prophecie proueth all these true euen of his Priesthood For the preterit Hee hath sworne For the Future And will not repent And f●r the present Thou art a Priest for euer after the Order of Melchisedec So Christ before his Incarnation was now is and euer shall be a Priest and therefore all accessorie to that Priesthood though not Eiusdem Ordinis Ordinationis must Blesse and Tithe euen as did the Inferiour Leuites who were not properly Sacerdotes yet ex Sacerdotio Leuitico But vers 13. as is said in the Treatise cleareth all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I pray how will you exclu e Tithing from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeing it is relatiue of all these things vrged in the whole preceding verses I confesse there be different degrees of the points compared and Blessing is aboue Tithing but the one must not thrust out the other Hac oportet facere illa non omittere yea Tithing is the very Hand-maid of Blessing for none may Blesse as Gods Minister but hee may also Tithe for

found in their Hebrew copies shenith hamaigsher which they tooke 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 beare the words so we haue none of them now And were their authoritie neu●r so great shall we rely rather vpon their vnknowne copies then the Authenticke receiued text Selden Diuers passages in their Translations are vpon such differences and they oftentimes giue thence Ibid a kinde of Commentarie as well as a Translation So are they in many places both different and defectiu● And if they knew so well as you alledge the true meaning of that place of Deut. as they would eue● rectifie so that text why did they not also either conforme Tobits text to it in reading or reconcile them by Commenting Is not this of Deut the onely 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 turnes both a Feasting and turnes the Leuites to fasting Shall this goe for good coyne too or for a Shekle of the Sanctuarie Ibid. Selden Neither is it ill context that shenith of the foeminine gender should be ioyned to Ma●●sher of the masculine It is not without frequent example in holy writ This frequencie should haue been shewed by some few specially in the very word in q estion Maigsher which is so frequent in Scripture and yet I hope neuer so mixed No doubt but all Languages haue their owne Anomalies but by confusion of a gender to confound two Tithings such context destroyes the text And so much concerning our Diuision of Tithes differing from Scaliger and Selden vnder the Law Followeth concerning the Gospell with Selden onely THE HISTORIE OF TITHES WRITTEN BY MASTER IOH. SELDEN CHAP. I. IN this matter of Tithes M. Selden intending no more then an Historie to relate as it were all things but iudge nothing as Chap. 7. pag 174. hath so painfully and learnedly performed it as I who can adde nothing to it will detract nothing in or from it Meane while I must craue pardon in following his History so farre onely as Scripture carrieth him to diue a little deeper in the true Mystery and End of things lest the common and carelesse Reader by the naked name of History might conceiue there were no more in it but Hodie mihi cras tibi For though M. Selden hath giuen vs veram Historiam as he found it recorded yet haec ipsa Historia non est vera but leaueth dangerous insinuations and preiudicial impressions in Ius diuinum and therefore as Hee said iustly in his Title-page Sumpsimus arma Consilijs inimica tuis Ignauia fallax I may as truely say heere Sumpsimis arma Consiliis inimica tuis Historia fallax but in rem non personam IT was well therefore obserued by Learned Antiquitie that in Scripture texts for most part foure 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 Allegorie that is When one thing is pickt out to point at another by some mysticall signification as are Types of their Verities Fourthly Anagogie that is a forcible Conclusion transferring all things represented by the Type in and vpon the prefigured Veritie which last as Prophecies and Reuelations are neuer perfectly perceiued till they be fully performed All these foure points foresaid are most considerable in the matter of our question specially in Melchisedec and Abrahams practise and Iacobs Vow before the Law and in Dauids prophecie and Pauls application after the Law The onely naked and simple Historie is in Genes 14. IT and all the other three are fully in Hebr. 7. There beginneth he w th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For this Melchisedec c. he was euen likened to the Son of God vers 3. and remaineth a Priest for euer Heere then the Cause of this meeting of Melchisedec with Abraham was To point and paint out the Eternall Priest-hood of Christ the Allegorie of his names and offices he explaineth in the first three verses His Anagogie and Conclusion hee hath vers 13. as wee haue at length obserued The like may be applied to Aaron and all Types keeping euer true Scripture limits in all To our purpose then Abraham M. Selden cap. 1. §. 1. gaue Melchisedec Tithe of all c. but what that All was is not cleerely agreed vpon it is taken to be Of all that he had as the ordinary Glosse of Salomon Iarchi there interprets and so expresly are the Syriaque and Arabique translations of the new Testament where this is spoken of But it is hard to conceiue it of any other All that he had then All the substance or All the Spoiles that he had by that expedition So did Iosephus the Targum vnderstand it c. Here wee finde two different opinions The first that no Tith of Spoiles are here meant To this wee haue answered par 2. chap. 8. § 1. The other is That M. Selden here will haue nothing Tithed but Spoiles both are too restraining As for the Authorities here alleadged for both opinions two for each I hold the first two brought by M. Selden for All hee had as good as the other two for All onely Spoiles We goe on M. Selden Ibid. And to free it from all doubt saith he The holy Author of the Epistle to the Hebrewes first vsing the text of Genesis in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Tithe of all after a f●we words interposed explaines it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Tithe of the Spoiles as if he had saide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Tithe of all the Spoiles But why must either those two be ioyned or the one abbridge the extent of the other Paul here expl●ineth all things but restraineth nothing That they cannot be ioyned ●is cleare For Pauls first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath not onely a few words interposed two whole verses but is also diuided from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a coniunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a d fferent preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the former whereof is a plaine enlarging of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as who should say Behold how great this Melchisedec was to whom Abraham the Patriarch gaue a Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen of the Spoiles So Spoiles was specially brought in in this last which might haue seemed doubtful in the generalitie of the first But that other preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot admit a coniunctiue 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 Diuisis ad Coniuncta ●co●ing out All in Genesis All in Iacobs Vowe and All vnder the Lawe by coupling All