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	according_a	type_n	37	3	9.7763	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39999	Rectius instruendum, or, A review and examination of the doctrine presented by one assuming the name of ane [sic] informer in three dialogues with a certain doubter, upon the controverted points of episcopacy, the convenants against episcopacy and separation : wherein the unsoundnes, and (in manythinges) the inconsistency of the informers principles, arguments, and answers upon these points, the violence which he hath offred unto the Holy Scripture and to diverse authors ancient and modern, is demonstrat and made appear, and that truth which is after godlines owned by the true Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland asserted and vindicated.	Forrester, Thomas, 1635?-1706.	1684 (1684)	Wing F1597; ESTC R36468	441,276	728

the legal type thus Every Hiepriest taken from among men c. Yet if we shall consider that Hebr. 10. discoursing of the efficacie of Christs sacrifice in opposition to the legal he sayes in the 11 12. Ver. And every Priest simply not evrie High-priest standeth dayely ministering offering the Same sacrifices which can never take away sin but his man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins c. It will be evident that the inferiour priests were also Types of Christ. So that he should either have taken in the High priest into his argument or excluded together with him the inferiour priestes upon the same ground For majus minus non variant speciem rei If he say that he is not speaking of their Sacrifices but of their Government which was not typical Answ. Why might he not then have taken in the High-priest upon this ground since these are as well distinguishable in him as in the inferiour Priests So that he might have been excluded from having any thing to do with the Type in pointe of his government as well as they And for his single eminencie it drew along with it those degrees of inferiour priests and Levits in his principles which are mentionedso that if the one must evanish as a Type in the same manner must the other 3. It will much puzele this Informer to prove that the Highe priest in respect of his government was a Type of Christ Sure he will find this denyed by his fellow brother in the cause Tilen in his Parenes Cap. 2 in summo Sacerdote ceu pontifice non typi solum sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratio conspicua In the highpriest the type is not only conspicuous but the reason of order for he bore not a type or resemblance of Christ in resspect of the Kingely and judiciary power which Christ hath who otherwayes should haue had the dignitie both according to the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedeck that is both of a King and a priest Iunius a greater then he de Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 6. distinguishes these in the Highpriest in summo Sacerdote consideranda non solummodo ratio typi sed etiam ordinis politiae We must consider in the High priest not only the reason of the type but like wayes of order and policie c. then he addes the abovementioned reason So that in this argument and his way of pleading for prelacie upon the ground of the Jewish policies He will of necessity introduce a pope into the Christian Church Which will be convincingly clear If we shal in the 4t place consider that our Informer in this argument hauing set aside the High priest as onely typical tells us of another single Chief and High priest under him and tels us in answer to the premised objection that this method of the Jewish government with this Chief or high priest distinct from the typical priest is exemplarlie pointed out to Christians as Gods patterne for moddeling the gospel-Church government So that without all shaddow of evasion his argument pleads for a chief patriarch over the Christian Church as being a parte of the Jewish policie oblidging us and exemplarly commended to us for our imitation Moreover I would know what he would say If one should plead for retaining of all the judicial lawes of the Jewes upon his two grounds 1. As not being typical 2. As being Gods excellent means for order and union and commended exemplarly unto Christians to the same end what better patern for modelling our government and lawes then this patern Likewayes will he say that every peece of the Jewish antiquated pedagogie was properly typical And that we are bound to reteane as of a moral perpetual nature whatsoever thing in their policie was not such Surely there were many things depending upon the particular exigences and state of that people both as a Church under that old dispensation and as a Commonwealth regular in its civil Lawes immediatly by God which no found divines doe call Typical and yet doe hold that they oblidge no Church or state under the New Testament For a conclusion of this argument I shall tell this Informer that he grossly mistaks these Scripture expressions at least in the judgment of some learned anent the Chief Priests 2. King 19 2. c. When taking them to denot different ecclesiastick degrees among the priests in their spiritual function these chiefness to speak so or principality among the priests being meaned of a civil principality existent in that Tribe before the priesthood was therein established and that they were called Chief-priests or Elders of the priests did flow from this that this Trybe subject to the same Princes as at the first was afterward set apart for the priesthood for Aaron and his Soones were chosen to be priests Exod. 28. but the whole Tribe was not assumed unto the priesthood before Numb 1. Yet in the meane while the tribe of Levie Exod. 6. had the Heads of their families their Princes The Scripture then speaking of the tribe of Levie as a Tribe simply ascribes to it the same policie with the rest of the tribes Princes of the several families by the right of primogenitur Thus both priests and Levits had their chiefe men and presidents But as a Tribe separat to holy things it had its peculiar policie One was chief priest onely by Gods appointment at whose hand all the rest of the priests were 1 Chron. 24 24. And at the hands of the priests were the interior Levites in their several services David in distributing them in their several Temple offices did not set the Princes over them as such but onely having numbered them after the Heads of their families and by their lotts or Courses did assigne to them their service of the Temple upon Gods command by the mouth of Gad and Nathan the more to facilitat this Sacerdotal tribe their comeing unto and returneing from the Temple The Chief of the families then are not upon this ground Princes or Chief as to the Holy Ministerie for there was but one onely high priest all the rest as well the heads as the families themselves were at the hand of the highpriest in the Ministery of the House of the Lord 1 Chron. 24 19. Where the Chief or head in matters sacred had no more power then the wholl body So was it in the distribution of the Levits into their several classes by their Heads Chap. 23 27 that they might beat the hands of the Sons of Aaron in the Temple Ministery So that none of his citations doe amount to any proof of his fancied degrees and subordination among either the priests or Levits in their spiritual functions or any other waye then in their civil capacitie as a Tribe neither had the two high priests mentioned Luc. 3. The least warrand in Gods institution but this is acknowledged to be a corruption in their Government then creept in