Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	aaron_n	acknowledge_v	call_v	29	3	3.2883	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55293	Moses and Aaron, or, The ministers right and the magistrates duty vindicated from the exceptions made against both by Richard Kingsnoth, in a late book of his entitled, The true tything of the Gospel-ministers / by Daniel Pointel ...	Pointel, Daniel, d. 1674.	1657 (1657)	Wing P2741; ESTC R4455	113,893	137

too as to that or any other Religious use not appointed by Christ himself It were a strange thing to see fleshly sacrifices offered up religiously men to put the world off with they doe it to other uses and ends then for which it was done in the Law it remaines onely that yielding the consequent of the supposition we demand a proof of the so But here we press them too far it may be and it is possible must serve our turnes And this is all we can have from those that plead onely against the Divine Right and from them that plead against the lawfulness of Tithes too Strange A Law of Gods is produced between us confessed only the perpetuity of that Law is denied yet no evidence at all given to prove the temporary nature of it He that sayes a known Law of Gods was in the nature of it temporary had need not onely affirm it possible but prove it certain I take it to be evident they have nothing to say here because where they have been often called upon to speak and ought by such deep bonds of necessitie yet they say nothing I adde concerning those learned men that deny no more then the Divine Right That if this payment to Melchisedech may be truly and properly a branch of the Ceremonial Law it may be an unlawful payment also and if it be certain it was so it is certainly unlawful also Another man may see the congruity of this answer to their own stating of the question but truly I cannot So then we proclame a Law found out they deny it not we proclame again we finde nothing in the Law why it should not be perpetual they say not they doe onely it is possible that they may we proclame again Attempt it shew it but they are silent Ye we will not leave them we will try what we can say to the Negative ex abundanti that payment of Tithes to Melchisedech was not by the force of a Law ceremonial First Melchisedech was a Priest of another Order and not a Ceremonial Priest else he should not be higher then Levi nor for ever nor should our Lord have been called a Priest after this Ord●● rather then after the Order of Aaron And the service for which Melchisedech received Tithes was not any work of Sacrifice but for his work of Benediction as it is manifest in the Text and acknowledged by the famous Capel Gen. 14.19 20. in Thesibus Salmur though I know not what to make of his Parenthesis following quanquam nec ratio ista excludenda It is an high presumption to say positively that Melchisedech offer'd any Sacrifice at all when Scripture sayes nothing of it To be sure as he is brought in and so he is a type of Christ and so he took Tithes he offered none The Papists will never finde out a Sacrifice in the Bread and Wine as busily as they hunt for it a resemblance to our Eucharist the Fathers indeed have found out but not a Sacrifice And in this place we know Scripture silence is argumentative Melchisedech being a Type not as he did or was at other times but as he is storied to have been and to have done then and to this his Tithing doth belong and to nothing else Adde that we finde nothing Ceremonial in Melchisedechs Priesthood to be verified a mystery by some other thing in Christ not in his name King of righteousnesse King of peace not in his Genealogie without Father and without Mother not in the end mentioned of his life and office not in the work of his Priestly office all these were verified in Christ in the Letter and 't is wonderful that Tithing alone should be verified in Christ by a mystery which mysterie I think is not yet expounded by any that we may know what it is much less proved and made good If any shall say that the ceremonialness of Tithes as paid to Melchisedech consists not in their respective consideration as paid to such a Priesthood but in the absolute proper nature o● them This at the first sight is utterly improbable that a Priesthood not Ceremonial should be maintained by a maintenance essentially and in it selfe ceremonial But let that pass if a Ceremony be defined A carnal Rite in Religion appointed by God to shadow out Christ or some spiritual grace in Christ till it expire with the death of Christ I think it will pose the wit of man to shew Tithes such a ceremony for either this ceremony must be found out in the Tenth or in the Law determining any set proportion whatsoever If men say the Tenth as Tenth is that which is essentially ceremonial it should be shewn by what Scripture it is appointed by God so to be that the meer Tenth abstracted from either Priesthood should be in it self designed to a ceremonial use 2. What ceremonial use it could have being common to Levi with Melchisedech to whom it could not have that use and whatever is Essentially Ceremonial hath alwayes a Ceremonial use 3. How a Tenth could be more carnal then a 9th or a 11th Hebr. 7.8 4. What there is in Christ which this Ceremony signifies 5. What burdensomnesse there is in a tenth to Christians more then in a ninth or even then a twentieth except that it is the bigger summe 6. What other determinate proportion is shut up in its room as it fared with other Ceremonies Say we then the tenth as a maintenance by Law determined is the Ceremony Then I ask 1. What one tittle in Scripture to prove this 2. How should this be more a ceremony then other stints by name of time for worship 3. What answers this supposed Ceremony not a free-will offering taken to come in the room of a stinted summe for that 's not the body which answeres this shadow Spiritual sacrifices come in the room of fleshly ones but they are not the body of them no more can it be here some other body must be found out for them and what is that 4. Why a Law for maintenance should not be Ceremonious but a Law for this or that should Gal 6.6 1 Tim. 5.17 1 Cor. 16.2 Luc. 12.33 5. Why Paul may determine it to something out of all mens goods that are taught in the word without a Ceremony but may not limit the how much under danger of a Ceremony 6. Why the double honour designed should not be a Ceremony but the expresse determination of the how much should 7. What Ceremony there is in the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what ever he hath thriv him and whether that were not a determinate Law why sell that you have A determinate command be not equally a Ceremony as what we speak of Why more Ceremonious to say give a ninth with eleventh c. then sell all and as it seems give all for they might aswel keep it in land as put it out to use or trade with it He that can give a