Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	levi_n	134	3	11.4278	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11601	The quæstion of tythes reuised Arguments for the moralitie of tything, enlarged, and cleared. Obiections more fully, and distinctly answered .Mr. Seldens historie, so farre as mistakers haue made it argumentatiue against the moralitie, ouer-ly viewed. By William Sclater, D.D. and minister of Pitmister, in Somerset.	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.	1623 (1623)	STC 21842; ESTC S100049	49,451	100

Besides who knowes not their manifold aberrations in matters of no small moment as in that of the Chronologie in Genesis wherein so many haue in vaine laboured a reconcilement The obseruation out of their rendring must be confessed to be acute yet hath in it rather wittie diligence of obseruation then soliditie to build inference If any make quaestion of whether sort we dispute Tythes we meane of that Nature with those paide to Leuites which perhaps are therefore conuey'd to them in the terme of an e Num. 18. inheritance because the Lawgiuer would imply their perpetuitie and lineall descent from Ministery to Ministerie vnto all generations The why nots raised about other kindes will best be answered in discussing th'obiections Of these Tythes this is that we affirme That by the word of God they belong for euer to Ministers of holy things and therefore in these dayes to Ministers of the Gospel who alone haue now to doe with publique ministrations of the worship of God Our reasons are these The first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8 He whose descent is not counted from them receiued Tythes of Abraham and vers 8. Here men that die receiue Tythes but there he receiueth them of whom it s witnessed that he liueth Compare Gen. 14.20 The Argument which this Scripture affoords hath receiued much disaduantage by slender collection of many thus onely pressing it Tythes were paide to Priests before the Leuiticall law was giuen Therefore their payment is founded rather on Morall then Caeremoniall law To which answer is well giuen that by as good inference sacrificing of beasts may be prooued a moralitie sith it was also in vse before giuing of the Law by Moses That we may the better see the force of the Argument let vs a little consider the frame and summe of the text The Apostle by occasion of the peoples dulnesse hauing digressed from Cap. 5.11 to Cap. 6.20 returnes to his purpose that is to shew the excellencie of Christs Priesthood aboue that of Aaron by auouching him a Priest after the order of Melchisedec The conclusion is this Christs Priesthood is more excellent then that of Leui or Christ is a greater Priest then any after Aarons order The principall reason lyeth thus He that is a Priest after th' order of Melchisedec is a greater Priest then the Priests after Aaron But Christ is a Priest after th' order of Melchisedec Ergo c. The minor hath first his proofe 1. From a testimony of Dauid Cap. 5.20 2. From that absolute agreement betwixt Melchisedec and Christ the parts whereof are these 1. As Melchisedec was King and Priest of the most high God so Christ 2. As Melchisedec King of righteousnesse and Prince of peace so Christ 3. As Melchisedec his parents kinred beginning and end of life are not recorded so Christ as man without father as God without mother kinred beginning and end of life Therefore Christ is truly a Priest after th' order of Melchisedec verse 1 2 3. The Maior remaines to be prooued and that hath proofe from verse 4. to 11. the summe whereof is comprised in this principall Syllogisme If Melchisedec be greater then Leui then he that is a Priest after his order as Christ is is greater then Leui. But Melchisedec is greater then Leui Ergo c. Minor prooued Greater then Abraham greater then Leui Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo then Leui Minor prooued Hee to whom Abraham paide Tythes of whom he was blessed is greater then Abraham But to Melchisedec Abraham paide Tythes and Melchisedec blessed Abraham Ergo is greater then he verse 4 5 6 7. A second Argument proouing the greatnesse of this Priest aboue those of Aarons order is laide downe vers 8. A tyth-taker that is a Priest of whom it s testified that he liues is greater then a Tyth-taker that dies But the Priest after Melchisedec is a Tyth-taker of whom it s testified that he liues Leuites take Tythes and die Ergo the Priest after Melchisedec his order is greater then the Priests Leuiticall This is in my simple Logicke the disposition of the text As for illustrations or amplifications by prosyllogismes prolepses or otherwise I purposely omit them Now me thinkes the text thus naturally resolued there should need no farther deduction of th' Argument yet that the simplest may see what footing Tythes haue here thus I collect it The portion due to Christs Priesthood is due to Ministers of the Gospel Tythes are the portion due to Christs Priesthood Ergo. The Minor is thus proued The portion due to Melchisedec his Priesthood is due to Christs Priesthood Reas 1. for that Christ is Priest after that order 2. other things enunciated of Melchisedec are true of Christ eminently alwaies as it s eminently alwaies true of Christ that he is King of righteousnes Prince of peace eminently and alwaies true of Christ he is without parēts without beginning end of life that he blesseth Abraham all his seed c. All these are more properly verified of Christ then of Melchisedec his Type Why not then also this euer true of him He taketh Tythes May we not assume Tythes are the portion due to Melchisedec his Priesthood 1. Paide they were by Abraham to Melchisedec as due to his Priesthood 2. In the Apostles Logique a Priest and a receiuer of Tythes are aequipollents In steed of saying men that die are Priests he saith men that die receiue Tythes In steed of saying he that liues is a Priest he saith he that liues takes tythes as if in his iudgmēt Tythes and Priesthood were as inseparable as kingdome and tribute The Maior of the principall Syllogisme if any doubt of to wit whether the portion due to Christ be due to Ministers let him compare 1. Cor. 9.14 where is th'expresse ordinance of Christ that Ministers should liue of the Gospel 2. Who in likelihood should be his receiuers but those that are in his stead as is said of Ministers 2. Cor. 5.20 3. The same reason which the Lord assignes of Leui his sharing in things to himselfe reserued and sanctified is true of Ministers or else of none God is Leuites portion 1. Gods portion is Leuites portion because they were taken to Minister before him Why not then also Christs portion Ministers portion because they onely are assumed to Christ to Minister in the Gospel A reason for not Tything of so plaine deduction out of Scripture if any can bring mee he shall much sway mee to his sentence This Argument I remember once to haue propounded something otherwise to this purpose The portion due to the Priesthood after Melchisedec his order is due to Ministers of the Gospel But Tythes are that portion Ergo And thus propounding it I receiued these answers Obiect The proposition seemes vntrue except you can prooue your selues Priests after that order Answ Whereto I then answered that though we be no Priests after that order yet is there truth in the proposition sith

of th'Epistle to the Hebrewes as it is alone without reference to whom it was written and after what manner and obseruing how th' Apostle as in other things workes vpon the present opinions and state of the Iewish Church by that pia vafrities as some call it the Arguments for the right as Dr. Sclater hath resolued them into Logicall forme are such as he that answers them might answer the proofe of any Truth Doubtlesse he that herein answers Dr. Sclater answers more then all the rest of c. Answ Take wee it therefore with all references possibly imaginable and consider any circumstance probably competent to be considered yeeld also th' Apostle to vse if not that pia vafrities yet his prudence in working vpon the present opinions of the Iewes what I wonder may any these references or obseruings affoord to crosse th' Argument heere founded Particularize the references 1. He writes to Hebrewes become Christians 2. Confessedly infirme in iudgement touching abrogation of Leuiticall Law and adhaering too much to their first rudiments 3. opinioned as truth seemes that Ancient praecepts Mosaicall still bound the conscience after exhibiting of the Messiah What to our maine will all this affoord to nullifie or disable the Argument here grounded His pia vafrities if it be conceited after Erasmus his working vpon aduantage of their misconceits and errours of iudgement hath here I dare sweare neither vse nor footing For what is in all this passage misconceiued by those Christian Iewes whereout Paul should strayne his conclusion of Christs superioritie to Leuiticall Priests God r Heb. 7.21 sweares him a Priest after order of Melchisedec And s Vers 7. without controuersie the lesse is blessed of the greater t Vers 8. To speake as the thing is Leui was tythed in the loynes of Abraham sauour any these asseuerations of Pauls working on misconceites His prudence it was to ground his conclusions on Scriptures and Propositions thereof confessed by Iewes as true yet truely so confessed and of force to affoord him out of their reall truth and intention of the inspirer whatsoeuer inference he makes from them so was it our Sauiours out of Moses writings to conuince u M●● 22.31 32. Sadduces in th' Article of the resurrection yet was there truth in his ground and by vndeniable sequele issues his conclusion out of the praemisses extant in Moses When Paul at Athens alledgeth testimony of Aratus the Poet w Act. 17.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we acknowledge his prudence impleading them from their owne Authours yet dare not thinke him so impiously vafer as to lay for ground an erroneous conceit or so imprudent a disputer as to build his conclusion on a ground from whence the Argument had not apparent deduction I presume this curt answer affoords so learned and friendly an inquisitor large satisfaction Proceede wee therefore to the other Arguments I thought you see I thought I had ended and that the mouth of all Calumnie against this Argument had beene stopped when at last I am minded by a friend that the grand Syllogismes labour of two foule maladies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and begging of the Quaestion Yet cannot be euidenced any change of tearmes or so much as of affection of any tearme in the state neither is either proposition tendred without proofe to any mans credulitie nor without something prius and notius in se and vertuall enough to inferre the conclusion Faire answer expect to your exceptions howsoeuer carried with tartnesse more then is meete and eleuation no lesse sometime then mucteristicall This is the frame The Portion due to Christs Priesthood is due to Ministers of the Gospell Tythes are the Portion due to Christs Priesthood Ergo The Minor is thus prooued The Portion due to Melchisedechs Priesthood is due to Christs Priesthood Tythes are the Portion due to Melchisedechs Priesthood Ergo The Propositions you say are both Sophisticall because not propounded in fit tearmes to inferre the conclusion besides haue in them a begging of the quaestion presuming of that which in good Diuinitie is not to bee granted And th' assumptions are both false But why I wonder are the tearmes vnfit beeing two of them the same without aequiuocation wherein the conclusion is propounded and the medium another no whit homonymous and applicable both to praedicate and subiect Forsooth the true tearmes are these The Stipend or Wages due to Christs Priesthood is due to Ministers of the Gospel And The Stipend or Wages due to Melchisedechs Priesthood is due to Christs Priesthood Sounds Stipend with you nothing but base Wages Emendemus in Melius a Remigius in Psalmos hee was no Dunse that obserued there is emendatio in peius These tearmes are neyther truer nor true nor fitter nor fit for the quaestion Truth is fit for his purpose onely who meanes to leaue the purpose and to set vp a shadow for himselfe to fight with Could you could any thinke that in my tearme of Portion which is part of Temporalties allotted I should intend Wages such as is payde to Hirelings Maechanicall Artisans or men of like imployment or if you take my other tearme of Praemium or Recompence was it intended trow you a Wages aequiualent to the Worke I euer meant it an Honorarie allotted by God to be rendred from men in acknowledgement of the vertue excellencie worth of Christs Priesthood and his Ministers Worke who are imployed by him in the commemoration and application thereof vnto the people This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that tearme that other is vafra and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where now is my Petitio principij or what is that so abhorrent from the grant of good Diuinitie Forsooth I presume there is a set Stipend or Wages belonging to the Priesthood of Christ and Melchisedec Surely I neuer presumed it Wages said I euer in all my Sermon The terme is strange to me Marry this I presume and yet am not presumptuous That there is a set or fixed Honorarie belonging to the Priesthood of Christ and Melchisedec Will your Reasons force me to thinke otherwise then I sit downe Thus they are 1. Christ needes none 2. Hee requires none 3. None can be assigned him answerable to his Worke beeing a Worke of satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole World a Worke of infinite Merite And for Melchisedec and his Priesthood Sith 1. None due to Christ 2. Sith Scripture silent for any probabilitie of any such thing 3. Sith it affoords more then probabilitie to the contrarie because hee a King therefore 1. not needing it 2. therefore bound rather to giue to his Subiects and Familie then to take Wages from them Yea 3. It s euer counted base in a King to take Stipend or Wages of Forreiners or his owne Subiects Ergo Quorsum all this what needes so much adoe among friends Answ It s not Wages we enquire of but the Honorarie of the Priesthood And of it who dares auow there

therefore not of Iustice Answ Know you none but ciuill Iustice passing betwixt man and man Haue you forgotten that there is vniuersalis Iustitia binding to render Cuique quod suum est Not onely to Neighbour and Caesar but vnto God what belongs vnto him Is not Pietie a part of this Iustice Is it not exactest Iustice which bindes to render dutie to our God Why make you things fight that are coordinate or subalterne Ad. 3 And loose our Offices their Grace which are done by commandement Had not Abraham his t Gen. 22.2 command to offer Isaac or euer passed act from him by which hee receiued more grace or commendation from God then this of offering his sonne Isaac Gaue not this the u Vers 12.16 hent to that excellent commendation and ratifying of enlarged Blessing By this wonne he not the style of w Iam. 2.23 Gods friend the greatest encomium God euer gaue man Remember you not the vsuall Quaere whether muchnesse of obligation winne not grace to the performance or the resolution Vbi maior obligatio maior acceptatio because melior est obedientia quàm victimae I spare censure of your mis-applying Scriptures in this and other passages I wonder I sorrow at it But am vowed to keepe close to substance of Answere And was it not in Iacob an act of Iustice setting Ad. 4 apart consideration of his Vow No For hee makes Tythes the matter of his Vow which hee ought not to haue done if they had beene enioyned by any Law of God You will not say so of th' other part of his Vow as I suppose But meane you good earnest Thinke you it soothly true which Bellarmine saith Impium fuisset Iacobo vovere Decimas si absolutè fuisset obligatus eas soluere Is it your opinion That no Vow may passe on any matter whereto wee are obliged absolutely that is by peremptorie Praecept when vnder Nehemiah Princes Priests People made x Neh. 10. Couenant and entred into a Curse to walke in Gods Law giuen by Moses c. Suppose you they erred in the matter of their Vow were they not absolutely bound so to doe were they impious in so vowing when vnder Ieremie They y Ier. 34.8 13 14. couenant to manumit their seruants according to the Law mistake they the matter of a Vow were they impious in so obliging themselues Is it so impious to adde to the Bond of Praecept the Obligation of a Vow Laxè you say such Promises may be called Vowes properly not Vowes A Vow properly taken is of some caeremonious worke in the Old Testament of some externall and corporall exercise in the New which whosoeuer affirmes to be Morall duties doth himselfe more iniurie then he is aware of Answ Sir you minded mee in the ingresse of Sophistrie Truly truly I haue forgotten much of it and count that forgetfulnesse halfe as vertuous as the Athenians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet prettie well remember my Logique Rules amongst which this was wont to be one Authentique A negatione vnius speciei ad tollendum genus vniuersum non valet consequentia It s no man therefore no animal thinke you that good consequence It s no Vow of things left to our choise to doe or not to doe therefore no Vow at all suppose you that good consequence then farewell all Logique The Act of Vowing passeth as lawfully as properly on things commanded as on those left Arbitrarie What vse Vowes of inioyned duties haue you are not to learne and may see remembred by me in answer to that Argument of Bellarmine Giue vs now what differences you please of one and other sort of Vowes whiles religious promise may lawfully be made to God of performing what he commands the Argument will neuer proceede Tythes were vowed by Iacob therefore not commanded of God Thus I conceiue A Vow properly so called is a religious promise made vnto God is of two sorts according to diuersitie of the matter There is a Vow of things commanded and a Vow of things arbitrarie Both are properly Vowes howeuer differenced by substance or circumstance therefore proceedes no argument from negation of one species to remoouall of the vniuersall Ad. 5 Expresse Scripture you haue auouching Abrahams payment to haue beene without iniunction Heb. 7.5 6. Ans Expresse Scripture then lay I my hand vpon my mouth neuer more to open it to that assertion But are you sure Scripture speakes it and speakes it expressely When Paul said z Heb. 7.5 6 Leui had commandement to tythe his Brethren denyed hee Melchisedec had like warrant to tythe Abraham Say I beseech you in sober sadnesse say as Conscience dictates as the Text leades you Is this indeede made difference to prooue superioritie of Melchisedec to Leui that Leui tythed by Law Melchisedec without Law Where doth the Scripture expresse or but imply that yea doth it not imply the contrarie What intends the Apostle in comparing the tything of Leui with that of Melchisedec but apertly to proue Melchisedec superior to Leui euen in this honour of Tything or trow you this prooues a superioritie in Melchisedec to take without Law whereas Leui takes according to Law Say I pray whether is the baser Tenure that by Law or that by Curtesie and at Will I should thinke that at Will And if Leui tooke by Law Melchisedec but of Curtesie Leui sure had the preheminence Farre be it the Apostle should bring argument to ouerthrow his intention Truth is the comparison there entred lyes onely in the Subiects tythed not in the ground of Tything Leui tythes Brethren Melchisedec the Patriarch and chiefe Father of those Brethren is therefore more excellent then Leui inasmuch as the very Prince of their race is subiected to his Priesthood and bound to render the Honorarie thereof If you now shall aske what Paul meanes to mention the Commandement or Warrant giuen Leui to tythe his Brethren thus I should conceiue That whereas Tythes originally belonged to the Priesthood of Christ typed in Melchisedec a Law was necessarie to assigne them to Leui and to make him capable of that honour inasmuch as without this speciall Law Leui could neuer haue made clayme or title to that honour which firstly was setled on the Priesthood of another Order So that vpon the point the difference stands not in Tything by Law and without Law or better to expresse my selfe Law is not here opposed to no Law or iniunction to vltroneousnesse of Tything but rather this Law for Leui to originall right Melchisedec tything Abraham by Right or Law originall Leui his Brethren by Law speciall and graunt for the time To which end particular Law was requisite to inuest that Priesthood in the ius of Tything which before was setled as on the foundation in the Priesthood after another Order The second Argument hath ground Galat. 6.6 1. Tim. 5.17 Prou. 3.9 where wee reade thus Let him that is instructed make his instructer partaker of all his