Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	aaron_n	according_a	true_a	12	3	4.2625	4	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

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