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	priest_n	49	3	6.5289	4	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

ought not a man to chuse rather to suffer in his goods then in his person and expose them to buy his own peace as a man delivers his purse to a thief upon the way to save his life an honourable similitude your friends are wont to use to set forth the authority of those good Lawes under whose protection next to Gods you live Why neighbour upon this ground you have acted hitherto in paying and preaching as I am informed for the payment of them and is it not strange you should run over this foundation of your former practice not so much as speaking one word of it My neighbour stay a while and bethink your selfe what hath carried you off from your former peaceable principle resolution and practice Have you considered the Apostles rule That nothing be done through strife and vain-glory Let me put some thoughts into your mind It is not to be imagined that Jeroboam and his Successors were so unpolitick as to take away the Levites Tythes Priests he must have and they must have a maintenance why not that which was Gods own They paid the third yeers Tithe Act. 4.5 why not this too and which the people had been long accustomed to pay He had no reason unnecessarily to make provoking changes in matters of Religion and there is no mention of his or their doing any such thing Doubtless this bait to tempt the Lords Priests to stay and countenance the Schism and Idolatry would never be neglected Now did any Prophet forbid this payment or any of the Lords people scruple it In the Family of David instance in the long Apostacy under Manasses and Amon what wicked Kings and Priests were then yet none of Gods people were restrained from paying their Tythes In Christs time when the High-Priesthood was and for a long time had been bought and sold he that would give most undermining his fellow many of them heretical Sadduces besides yet is any relaxation of this duty even then nay are they not bound to it by Christs own bonds these ought ye Mat. 23.23 In the Apostles times not one word to forbid any the payment of Tythes to the Christ-forsaking and Christ-forsaken blaspheming persecuting Jewish Priests and Levites Tythes were paid under Heathens to the Priests of Idol-Temples by the then Lawes no one Apostle Father Martyr ever contradicting and yet they were zealous against complyance with Idols too He that shall but read Tertull. de Idololat will find strictness enough if not too much that way if Demetrius stood up so fiercely for his craft not directly opposed by the Apostles would not the Idol-Priests have stood up much more for their Tythes if the Apostle had raised questions about this thing among them Acts 19.17 1 Pet. 2.13 Nay Peters very ordinance will exact obedience active to all lawful commands passive to all unlawful ones and this among the rest when the World was turned Arrian Athanasius Basil c. never taught that Tythes were unlawful to be paid unto Teachers of Arrianism and at this day it is the constant resolution of all Protestant Divines to the quieting of scrupulous consciences that have asked advice from them often and often Rivets dissert in Gen. 14. That those Princes Lawes which command Tythes to be paid to Popish Massing Priests are to be submitted to by those of the Reformed Religion that live within the Dominions of such Princes The like is the resolution of all Popish Divines concerning their Catholicks that live under the Dominion of Protestant Princes as appeares by their general uncontradicted practice But we must be used so as no Ministers of holy things were ever used how bad soever who enjoyed the countenance of publick Authority nay not so well as a thief that takes a purse I put this case Tythes are no private mans propriety I speak of those paid to Ministers let the user of land divide his own from what is not his own and carry in what is his leaving what is not his upon the ground and then permit him that can bear it out in the Court of men whether he have a just right or no whether those Lawes are righteous or no to enter upon the land and carry it away I ask now what Law of God this Farmer sins against and whether he doe not his most apparent duty if the Takers title be not good the Leaver hath none at all and cannot remedy the badness of the Takers title he is not made a Judge to punish an Idolatrous Priest much lesse is he to mulct the Priest and take the fine to himself Pray think of this question you have overlooked you make too much haste Have you stood thus long upon this ground and doe you now relinquish it without being beaten off with the assault of so much as one slight Argument 2. Neither doe I finde any thing concerning the unlawfulness of a Tenth P. 21. supposing it freely paid and without compulsion I meet indeed with Christs nailing ceremonies to his Crosse and Tythe reckoned among the rest but you seem not to mean that Tythes are a ceremony as Tythes but as a forced maintenance Frequently you tell us of Tythe chang'd into a free gift a tenth into any proportion determined by the mind of the giver In one place indeed we have the proportion chang'd P. 15. but then it is from Levis to Melchisedechs and Jacobs from a tenth commanded to a tenth freely given and vowed at least if theirs be the example surely the tenth is not alone excluded But my good friend why this confusion you found the questions distinguished to your hands if Tythes be Ceremonies as Tythes P. 18. tell us plainly if as stinted summes and this is that which is abolished as sure as Christ is come in the flesh tell us so plainly too that we may deal with you upon certainties I see the main weight of your Book is against a maintenance stinted by the Magistrates Authority and I took notice of it among the Brownists at the Conference at Hedcorne and this is not done without great and deep advice They knew that to satisfie some mens clamours and other mens scruples consultations had been enter'd upon to alter the present way into some other supposed more commodious and free from contradictions If therefore they would fasten any thing to the Ministers disadvantage they must let goe the debate of Tythes as such and take better hold the Magistrate hath no power to injoyn any proportion at all that will doe it this Principle fits their turn it strikes home Agreeable to this was the killing Argument in the Remonstrance or Petition drawn up by them and intended to be presented either to the Protector or Parliament had they sped in their choice If they build again what they have destroyed they shall be found transgressors They had been and were a destroying our Ministry as Popish and Antichristian alas that we should be such eye-sores to them

wherein as such I may do nothing for Christ But leaving expostulations however most just let 's see upon what principles this power and duty stands To begin with the beginning we find Adam a King and Priest Melchizedech a King and a Priest the Priesthood annexed to the Primogeniture Hebr. 12.16 which made Esau a profane person in selling his birth-Right Regal and Sacerdotal power went together for many ages of the world All that while their Constitutions for the well ordering of Worship had the force of binding Laws if there were any such Constitutions as such there must be God then propagating his revealed truths through their hands by tradition not as now by Scripture I know him that he will Command Gen. 18.19 belongs to Abrahams Princely and Paternal power both in delivering down the Ordinances of Gods Worship as Laws to his Children and Servants And sure God did not joyn those two Offices in one person but that the Authority of the Prince might winne more awe from the then rude world then if meaner persons were employed in the Priestly Office Hitherto the whole power about holy things was in the Princes hand and this from the beginning a good Argument that with such Alterations as God was pleased to make at several times it is to continue to the end the Magistrate hath power in Gods holy things from the beginning it was so Matth. 19.8 Not but that the Offices were distinct though the person was the same and the Acts several and each deriving its functions immediately from God but being in one they joyned hands and mutually strengthned each other by their several Interests the Prince the Priest by all Actions of a Prince the Priest the Prince by all Actions of a Priest so it should be now they are in several hands and there is need both wayes we need not inquire which way most though it be easy to guesse So it was then and it is most unnatural to think it otherwise every Authority will do it utmost to preserve it self So they run in one Stream till they came to Moses then they divide and what is parted with at that division So much will be removed to other shoulders the rest abiding where it was the time and manner of doing this is found Lev. 8. where we find Moses the Magistrate executing the whole Priestly Office in the Consecration of Aaron and his Sons which Act was done by him as a Magistrate aswel as a Prophet for then the Magistrate devested himself of that power which had rested upon him from the beginning of the world till now and communicating to another Order the Government as to both duties growing now too heavy to rest in one hand through the multitude of those that were governed and the variety of Laws they were governed by and what is now parted with The exercise of the Priests function in all the duties of that place the intrinsecal power of that holy ministration but no more the extrinsecal power of ordering both the people and his Sons in matter of Worship commanding all to do their respective duties tithing encouraging c. Lev. 10.3 4 12 16. This Moses parted not with but exercised often afterwards as the Story represents it to us even quickly after the Consecration though he never offered up Sacrifices with his own hands more if any say these after-attempts of Moses ●ere meerly Prophetical and that the Princely power did not at all put forth it self in them he will say so gratis and without proof it appeares no more was devested the rest then was retained and when we see it put forth why should we doubt whither to referre it Moses Prophetical Spirit was not necessary to direct about what God had already revealed but about what was further to be received from God But this was a power anciently communicated long used yea in new injunctions from God the receiving and communicating them were Actions of the Office Prophetical but the binding people to the observance of them by a legal establishment is the Action of the Office Princely and its legislative power had by Moses indeed after a manner extraordinary but belonging to that power however Lawfully had and held of God And this difference is altogether the same in the Laws against Murder and Adultery Moses otherwise forbids them as a Prophet otherwise as a Prince and although my Neighbour unadvisedly limit civil Laws to things indifferent P. 11. yet I hope this upon second thoughts will not be stood upon And this reserved power of Moses does yet further appear a certain and perpetual branch of his Princely Government in that all succeeding Magistrates after him Judges and Kings had it and used it both those that were Prophetically inspired and those that were not the good ones to establish good things for the House of the Lord the evil ones to neglect Gods House and draw people to Idolatry the Priests never medling with this matter none but Jehoida appearing upon this Stage and he in a time of great distresse as by right his wife next of kindred to the crown the seed Royal being all destroyed in the Kings Minority as Guardian 2 Kin. 11.17 18. 2 Chro. 23.18 24.15 16. Tutor and Protector to the King in his Infant State yet even he for all his age Authority doing good in Israel both towards God and his House yea and towards the House of the King too yet the King grown up is under command even about the affaires of the Temple he was High Priest in hath matters put into his hands is called to account reproved 2 Kin. 12.4 7 8. and business otherwise ordered consents to all that 's done without any contradiction as in a thing belonging not to his office but to the Kings If this had been an encroachment no person so fit as Jehoiada no season so opportune as under a young King so highly obliged for his life and Crown to attempt the recovery of this power and restore it to its proper place he that had Authority and courage enough to keep in the Spirits of King Princes and People 2 Chro. 24.17 18. 2 Kin. 12.2 so strongly addicted to Idolatry all his dayes would not have likely failed in a meaner business that had belonged to his trust But this not the work of one King or two but of every one that was good no way disallowed in them by God but extoll'd and the best Reformers having this constant Character that they did that which was good in the sight of the Lord. And whereas there was but one of them that presumed to execute the Priests Office 2 Chro. 26.17 18. the Priests valiantly resisted him here they knew what was within the Kings Commission and what not seldom do men a whole rank Society of men Generation after Generation want courage to lay claim to and vindicate their just powers yea and God himself presently testifies his dislike