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	priest_n	priesthood_n	5,059	5	11.0586	5	true

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

Christ the high Priest of our profession to whom 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 th'assumption is false Abrahams payment being an act rather voluntarie then by any iniunction from God Answ But that that act of Abraham was no act in this sense voluntarie but rather of necessarie and inioyned dutie is euident me thinkes by these reasons 1. For that gifts voluntarie proceeding from bountie and liberalitie imply a superioritie or excellencie in the giuer aboue the receiuer For f Act. 20.35 its a more blessed thing in that kinde to giue then to receiue But Abrahams payment of Tythes was testimonie of his inferiority 2. Againe the phrase it selfe implies as much Melchisedec Tythed Abraham ver 6. a phrase that looseth all his Emphasis if no iniunction had subiected Abraham to a necessitie of beeing tythed 3. What meane they when they say of Abrahams tything it was done without law would they be vnderstood of Abrahams fact onely or of tything at large as it was in vse before the Law written Now sure I wonder how first Abraham and then after him Iacob should fall vpon a tenth rather then vpon a sixt or twelfth part if there were nothing prescribed in their times for tything 2. How prooue 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 giuen by as good reason may they say of sacrifices and sundry other actions religious that they were arbitrarie sith we finde no expresse mandate giuen of them in those times But thus me thinks we may better reasō from their practise to an iniunction these facts of theirs were approoued of God therefore not done without iniunction from him Thus farre I suppose this Argument cleared Volumes of new cauills are behinde which makes mee thinke it hangs much in the teeth of opposites Obiect Thus is my Cauiller Yeeld for a while Tythes due to the Priesthood of Melchisedec will it thence follow they are due to Christ Answ We shall tell you anone when we haue learnt your meaning What is your meaning by thus yeelding them due to the Priesthood of Melchisedec meane you the Priesthood after that order Then it followes that they are due to Christs Priesthood for his is Priesthood g Heb. 6.20 after th' order of Melchisedec Perhaps that 's not the meaning but you suppose them due to Melchisedec ratione sacerdotij non talis sacerdotij or ratione Typica Answ Choose whether you list If ratione sacerdotij then to Christ also for in him is sacerdotium And if this bee the formall reason of Tythes obiect quia and quâ sacerdos then they are euer due to Christ because that reason is perpetuall in him Hee is a Priest for euer If catione Typicâ then you demand must all things be verified of the truth that of the Type and that according to the letter then all that belonged to Aaron or Sampson must be true of Christ Ans All and euery thing belonging to the Type as a Type must be verified of the Anti-type with this distinction either litterally or mistically not all litterally nor all mystically what is not litterally must bee mystically what is not mystically must be litterally And that you may see similitudes of heauenly things and Earthly their Types hold some after the letter Reade what is said of the high Priest of Iewes as he was Type of Christ h Heb. 9.7 He enters into the holy of holies not without bloud As he into the holy of holies so Christ into heauen that verification is mysticall As i Vers 23 24. he not without bloud So Christ not without bloud That is literall Melchisedec brought in as Christ type in the story without father and mother Is not this eminently true of Christ after the letter Melchisedec without beginning or end of dayes this also litterally verified Though then all things true of the Type materialiter sumpto are not necessarily true of the Antitype yet as many as belong to the type formaliter taken as a Type must with that distinction be true of th' Antitype And what is intended to be verified mystically must so be verified in the truth what is meant to be literally accomplished in the Antitype must so be fulfilled The quaestions then are two 1. Whether in taking Tythes Melchisedec was Type of Christ 2. Whether that part of the Type be verified litterally or mistically by th'Apostles doctrine That in taking Tythes of Abraham Melchisedec typed out Christ heare Mr. Iunius in Gen. cap. 14. Ad intelligentiam illius Typi accommodationem eius duo maximè obseruanda Nempè tum in ijs quae dicuntur a Mose tum vero in ijs quae reticentur constitui Typum In ijs quae dicuntur vt cum dicitur Malchitzedec id est Rex iustitiae Rex Salem id est pacis Sacerdos Dei Altissimi benedixisse Abrahamo et decimas accepisse In quibus omnibus Typus Christi expressus obseruandus est c. What needes Testimony when the Text affirmes the Tything of Leui by Melchisedec in Abraham prooues authentically th'inferioritie of Leuiticall to Christs Priesthood That it is not mystically but litterally to bee fulfilled in Christs Priesthood who can denie for where is the mysticall Analogie betwixt this Act of Melchisedec Typical and Christ as in his beeing King of Salem and Melchisedec verified this must be of Christ either litterally or mystically not mystically Ergo litterally And see if the text say not so much k Heb. 7.8 He takes Tythes that liues euer Who is that Melchisedec as the Type Christ as the Truth Eminently its true of Christ after the letter he liues euer And he liues euer with this Epithete to bee a taker of Tythes Obiect Nay you say The Spirit hath made answer for you against such wrestling because hee hath omitted to describe Melchisedec or Christ to be a Tyth-taker Leui indeede hath that Emphaticall Title to be a Tyth-taker Melchisedec hath no more but He. Answ No more but He. Is that the matter but its that Hee to whom what is said of Leui must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyed else 1. the sentence gapes and 2. Paul failes in his comparison There that is in Leuiticall Priesthood men that dye take Tythes here he of whom it s testified that he liues must not that He haue takes Tythes applyed vnto him as vers 21. These Priests are made without an oath But this with an oath What was this with an oath but made Priest Obiect Melchisedec tooke once followes it that Christ must take euer Apage Answ That but once you will neuer prooue And 2. May not one Act transient being Typicall signifie a perpetuall act in Christ as well as the manie Entrings of th' high Priest into