Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	tithe_n	338	4	9.6518	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11600	The ministers portion· By William Sclater. Batchelar of Diuinity and minister of the word of God at Pitmister in Somerset	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.	1612 (1612)	STC 21841; ESTC S116822	29,708	56

then other humane ordinances 2 Others due by Gods law in as much as the church whose authoritie with them is divine hath enioined their payment So generally Papists 3 A third sort thus due by Gods lawe in respect of their consecration to God either by receaued custome and consent of Churches or by donation of princes or legacie of testatours In which opinion I must needes professe my selfe to haue beene long and never to my knowledge of other til of late being to deliver my iudgment to my people J more purposely set my selfe to see what the truth was And during that mistake I thus thought that they could not without sacrilege be alienated from their general end my reasons were these 1 That J had found Salomon averring it to bee a q Pro. 20.25 curse to devoure holy things and had seene the curse exemplified on many 2. That ordinance of the Lord J held morall perpetuall r Levit. 27 18 19. Nothing separate from common vse no not of those which man had separated might be againe vnhallowed no nor redeemed 3. That saying of the Apostle much swaied with me Å¿ Gal. 3.15 If it bee but a mans testament no man abrogats it .i. no man ought to abrogate it And so much the more for that being once an auditour of that iudicious divine Mr Perkins whose memory is blessed J heard him moue the doubt whether things given to superstitious vses suppose to maintaine malmonging might be alienated And thus assoile to my remeÌ„brance That from the particular intention wherein through ignorance they erred alienation might be but froÌ„ the generall ende maintenance of Godes worship they might not be aliened Thus then vpon these grounds my conclusion is still the same though my media bee other and something more peremptory Now because it is a labour long and needlesse to discusse every of the former differences for the saying is true verum est index sui obliqui J will first propound the conclusion with the explanation 2. Proceed to confirmation And lastly annex solution of Arguments such as J haue met withall having any shew of ground from the word of God to overthrowe the conclusion The Conclusion in few words is this Tithes are the portion at least part of that portion by Gods word allotted to Ministers for their service in the gospell By Tithes vnderstande the tenth part of all the hearers increase t Pro. 3 9. particulars may be read Levit. 27.30 alibi In a word to vse the distinction of Canonists whither they be personall of industry negotiation c. or prediall as of grounds c. or mixt as of cattell the tenthes of the whole encrease not those of Cumin Anise excepted u Mat. 23.23 fal within compasse of our subiect 1 Of Tithes amongst Iews we may finde fowre sorts distinguished by their ends 1. some which for distinction sake we may call stipendary assigned to Levits for recompence of their service Numb 18.24 2 A second sort which wee may call sacrificatory Tithes for sacrifice Some cal them Decimas secuÌ„daneas some Decimas decimarum a tithe of the Levits Tithes to be given to Aaron as an heaue offring vnto the Lord. Numb 18.28 3 A third kinde you may stile Convivales banquetting or feasting tithes appointed for solemne feastes at their generall assemblies to Ierusalem Deut. 14.22 23. 4 The last sort may be tearmed Eleemosynariae Some call them decimas pauperum a tithe which for reliefe of the poore widdowes strangers c. were every thirde yeare to be set out of their goods ever and aboue the other annuall tithes Deut. 24.29 This distinction of tithes I thought good to mentioÌ„ out of the Leviticall law though this I professe not to claime our tithes by the mandate given in lawe Leviticall Now our question is only of those tithes which we called stipendary the rest being two sortes of them apparently ceremonious the third as plainly a iudicial ordinance And of those tithes stipendary this is that we affirme that by the word of God they belong for ever to Ministers of holy things and therefore in these daies to Ministers of the gospell who alone haue now to do with publike ministrations of the worship of God Our reasons are these first grounded on Heb. 7.6.8 He whose descent is not couÌ„ted from them receaved tithes of Abraham and ver 8. here men that die receiue tithes but there he receaveth them of whom it is witnessed that hee liveth Compare Gen. 14.20 The argument which this scripture affordeth hath received much disadvantage by slender collection of many thus only pressing it Tithes were paid to Priests before the Levitical law was given therefore their paiment is fouÌ„ded rather on morall then ceremoniall law To which answere is well given that by as good inference sacrificing of beasts may be proved a morality sith it also was in vse before giving of the law by Moses That we may the better see the force of the Argument here given let vs a little consider the frame and summe of the text The Apostle by occasion of the peoples dulnes having digressed from cap. 5.11 to cap. 6.20 returnes now to his purpose namely to shew the excellencie of Christs priesthood aboue that of Aaron by avouching him a Priest after th' order of Melchisedec The conclusion is this Christs priesthood is more excellent theÌ„ that of Levi or Christ is a greater Priest then any after Aarons order The reason principall lyeth thus He that is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec is a greater Priest then the Priests after Aaron But Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec Ergo c. The minor hath first his proofe 1. from a testimony of David cap. 5.20 2. froÌ„ that absolute agreement betwixt Melchisedec Christ the partes whereof are these 1. as Melchisedec was king and Priest of the most high God so Christ 2. as Melchisedec king of righteousnes and prince of peace so Christ 3. as Melchisedec his parents kindred beginning and end of life are not recorded so Christ as man with out father as God without mother kindred beginning or end of life Therefore Christ is truely a Priest after the order of Melchisedec ver 1.2.3 The maior remaines to be proved and that hath his proofe from ver 4. to 11. the summe whereof is comprised in this principall syllogisme If Melchisedec be greater then Levi then he that is a Priest after his order as Christ is is greater theÌ„ Levi. But Melchisedec is greater then Levi. Ergo c. minor proved greater then Abraham greater then Levi. Melchisedec is greater then Abraham Ergo then Levi. minor proved he to whom Abraham paid tithes of whom he was blessed is greater then Abraham But to Melchisedec Abraham paid tithes Melchisedec blessed Abraham Ergo is greater then hee ver 4.5.6.7 A second argument proving the greatnesse of this Priest aboue those of Aarons order is laid down

ver 8. A tithe taker .i. Priest of whom it s testified that he liues is greater theÌ„ a tithe taker that dyeth But the Priest after Milchisedec is a tithe taker of whom it s testified that he liveth Levits take tithes and die Ergo the Priest after Melchisedec his order is greater then the Priests Leviticall This is in my simple Logique the disposition of the text As for illustrations or amplifications by prosyllogismes prolepses or otherwise I purposely omit them Now me thinks the text thus naturally resolved there needs no farther deduction of the Argument yet that the simplest may see what footing tithes haue here thus I collect it The portion due to Christs priesthood is due to Ministers of the gospell but tithes are the portion due to Christs priesthood Ergo. The minor is thus proved The portion due to Melchisedec his priesthood is due to Christs priesthood reason 1. for that Christs Priesthood and Melchisedecs are the same or Christ is a Priest after that order 2. other things enunciated of Melchisedec are true of Christ eminently and alwaies as it s eminently and alwaies true of Christ that he is king of righteousnes and prince of peace eminently and alwaies true of Christ he is without pareÌ„ts without beginning and end of life that he blesseth Abraham and al his seed c. All these are more properly verified of Christ then of Melchisedec his type Why not then also this ever true of him he taketh tithes Now I assume But tithes are the portioÌ„ due to Melchisedec his priesthood yea ever due to that Priesthood For 1 they were paid by AbrahaÌ„ to Melchisedec 2. in the Apostles Logicke a Priest and receiver of tithes are equipollents In steed of saying men that die are Priests he saith men that die receiue tithes in steed of saying hee that liues is a Priest he saith he that liues takes tithes as if in his iudgement tithes and priesthood were as inseparable as kingdome and tribute Now 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 the expresse ordinance of Christ that Ministers should liue of the Gospell 2. who in likelihood should bee his receavers but these that are in his stead as it s said of Ministers 2 Cor. 5.20 3. Besides the same reason which the Lord assignes of Levi his sharing in things to him selfe reserved and sanctified is true of Ministers or else of none x Deut. 10 8.9 God is Levits portion .i. Gods portion is Levits portion because they were taken to Minister before him Why not then also Christs portion Ministers portion because they only are assumed to Christ to minister in the Gospell A reasoÌ„ for not tithing of so plain deduction out of Scripture if any can bring mee hee shall much sway me to his sentence This argument I remember once to haue propounded something otherwise to this purpose The portion due to Priesthood after Melchisedec his order is due to Ministers of the Gospell But tithes are that portion Ergo. And thus propounding it I receaue these answers the proposition seemes vntrue except you can proue your selues Priests after that order Resp Wherto I thus answered that though we be no Priests after that or let yet is there truth in the proposition sith Christ the high Priest of our profession to whome originally they belong hath ordained vs to liue of his portion A second answer was by limitation the portion due by law to that Priesthood is due to Ministers But with that limitation the assumption is false Abrahams payment being an act rather voluntary then by any iniunction from God But contra that that act of Abraham was no act in this sense voluntary but rather an act of necessary and inioined duty is evident me thinkes by these reasons 1. For that gifts voluntary proceeding from bountie or liberalitie imply a superioritie or excellency in the giuer aboue the receaver For y Act. 20.35 its a more blessed thing in that kind to giue then to receaue But Abrahams paiment of tithes was testimony of his inferiority Againe the phrase it selfe z Heb. 7.4.6 implies as much Melchisedec tithed Abraham ver 6. a phrase that looseth all his emphasis if no iniunction had subiected Abraham to a necessitie of being tithed 3. What mean they wheÌ„ they say of Abrahams tithing that it was done without law would they be vnderstood of Abrahams fact onely or of tithing at large as it was in vse before the lawe written Now sure I wonder how first a Gen 14.20 Abraham and then after him b Gen. 28.22 Iacob should fall vpon a tenth rather then a sixt or twelfth part if there were nothing prescribed in their times for tithing 2. How proue they but probably that it was without iniunction of law If this be the reason for that we finde no mention of any law to that end given by as good reason may they say of sacrifices and sundry other actions religious that they were arbitrary sith we finde no expresse mandate given of them in those times But thus mee thinkes wee may better reason from their practise to an iniunction these facts of theirs were approved of God therefore not done without iniunction from him And of this argument and cleering thereof thus farre The second argument hath his ground Galat. 6.6 1. Tim 5.17 Prov. 3.9 where we read thus Let him that is instructed make his instructer partaker of all his goods elders that rule well are worthie of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine And honour God with thy substance and with the chiefe of all thine increase Out of which Scriptures thus we reason If there bee a portion to be set out vnto God and his Ministers out of all and every the temporall goods of every one instructed and no certaine portion to bee found in scriptures but tithes then are tithes the portion allotted by Gods word to Ministers for their service But there is a portion to be set out vnto God and his Ministers out of the temporall goods of every one instructed and no other certaintie mentioned in scripture but tithes Ergo tithes are the portion allotted by Gods word to Ministers for their service The consequence of the proposition depends vpon this ground that some certaintie is by scripture allotted vnto Ministers for their service Hereof if any demand proofe let him consider these First for that the Lord allotted a certaintie vnto first borne and Levits thinke we it probable hee would leaue Ministers of the Gospell at randome to a competencie indeterminate 2. Jn other cases this argument goes current The Lord prescribes for the old Tabernacle all things necessarie even to the Besome and Ashpan not a pin in the Tabernacle but what hath his prescript from God Now surely of this we may say it s not a pin

Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Text snippets containing the quad