Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	aaron_n	compare_v	priesthood_n	20	3	10.4404	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63903	Boaz and Ruth a disquisition upon Deut. 25, 5, concerning the brothers propagating the name and memory of his elder brother deceased : in which the antiquity, reason, and circumstances of that law are explained, the mistakes and impositions of the Jewish rabbins, in this and other matters detected ... / by John Turner ...	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1685 (1685)	Wing T3303; ESTC R10986	186,035	472

Priesthood which consisted in sprinkling of the blood and making an atonement for the Souls either of themselves or others belonged only to the Priests properly and strictly so called this being the most sacred and essential Character of the Priesthood and therefore was not common to all the Levites who were dispersed through the whole Land and had in a greater latitude the charge of the holy things but was peculiar to the Sons of Aaron who had always their constant residence at Jerusalem and were bound to give their daily attendance upon the Altar so that the Priesthood of Jeroboam being not barely a Levitical but a more strict and sacrificial Priesthood such as was peculiar to the Sons of Aaron by the Law of Moses and the only places of Sacrifice set up by Jeroboam being the two Altars erected at Dan and Bethel it follows plainly from the nature of his Priesthood compared with the places where it could only be exercised that these two were the only places where his Priests resided An Eleventh consideration by which the distinction of the Mosaic Priesthood from that of Jeroboam will appear may be taken from the different solemnity of their respective consecration to the Priestly Office as it is described Levit. 8. and 2 Chron. 13. in the words of Abijah so often appealed to A Twelfth argument shall be taken from the difference of the Feasts which were observed by the one Priesthood and the other for Jeroboam to make the greater distinction and the wider breach between the two nations of Israel and Judah had altered the time of the solemn Feasts that the people might not be tempted to go up to Jerusalem and do sacrifice at the same solemn and stated times when those of Benjamin and Judah repaired thither 1 Kings 12. 32. And Jeroboam ordained a Feast in the Eighth Month on the fifteenth day of the Month like unto the Feast that is in Judah it was like the Feast in Judah but it was not in the same Month in which that Feast was kept for it follows v. 33. so he offered upon the Altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the Eighth Month even in the Month which he had devised of his own heart and ordained a Feast which had not been ordained before at that time unto the Children of Israel and he offered upon the Altar and burnt incense If you ask me what Feast in Judah that was which was resembled by this I Answer it was the Feast of the Passover and the reason I give of my opinion is this Epiphanius in his Haeresies mentions among the Samaritans a Sect called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sebuaei who had their name from sheba which signifies Seven because they observed the Passover in the Seventh Month that is in Tisri whereas by the Law of Moses it was to be observed in Abib or Nisan that is in the first Month and their name put into Greek is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have elsewhere observed against Joseph Scaliger Now Seven and Eight in these cases are the same as Grotius hath observed before me and therefore Josephus saith of the Passover somtimes that it was a Feast of Seven and sometimes of Eight Days continuance in the first account excluding that day in which the Passover was killed which did not belong to the Feast of the Passover properly so called and in the latter including it And so here if you take in the Terminus à quo which is the Month before Nisan then Tisri is the Eighth Month but if you consider the Months only inclusivè beginning at Nisan or Abib then it is the Seventh which is a plain way of reconciling this seeming disagreement betwixt Epiphanius and the writer of the Book of Kings And to shew still more plainly that both writers are to be understood of the same Feasts it is to be considered that the Samaritanes received their Religion from the Israelitish Priests which were sent among them to instruct them as appears by the Seventeenth Chapter of the Second Book of Kings where the story of Salmanesers deportation is related and these Priests were subjects of that Kingdom and Priests of that Order and Institution of which Jeroboam was the Founder so that I think there can be no doubt that the same Feast is understood by Epiphanius with that which is mentioned in the Book of Kings but Epiphanius his Feast is expresly said to have been the Passover therefore it follows that in the Book of Kings we are also to expound and interpret it of the same and as Epiphanius explains the sacred story so on the other hand the inspired Writer returns Epiphanius his kindness back again by giving authority and credit to his relation And if we consider that Epiphanius did not understand Hebrew which it is easie to prove that he did not and I think I have done it in some other papers the name it self does sufficiently vouch the credibility of the story since its signification is so well accommodated to the practice of the sect it self which he describes I do therefore disown and recant those reasons which I have given of the Samaritan practice as to this particular in the papers I have mentioned which being already finished from the press though not yet published cannot be recalled since it appears so plainly that it is wholly owing to the perverse institution of Jeroboam which was devised by him on set purpose to make the breach wider and the enmity more irreconcileable betwixt the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah And it is further to be noted that he did not only institute a new Feast or which is the same thing an old Feast at a new time but also that he did sacrifice in his own person by that means invading the Priestly Office a sin so grievous in the sight of God that for this very thing for offering sacrifice of himself before Samuel came into the camp the Kingdom was rent from Saul and his posterity and Azariah or Vzziah only for burning Incense upon the Altar of Incense though in all other respects a very good and a very pious King was smitten with the Leprosie all his life-time after But in the thirteenth and last place it appears beyond all possibility all colour of contradiction that the Priests of Jeroboam were not dispersed in the Levitical Cities all over the Land of Israel as the Levites themselves were but only in Dan and Bethel from the express words of the text it self 1 Kings 12. 32. And he placed in Bethel the Priests of the high places which he had made and there being the same sacredness of Dan as of Bethel the same kind of Priests belonging to them both and the same sacrifices and ceremonies to be performed at both places there is no question but it is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them both that Dan as well

too especially where they grow Customary and habitual in us because these are so many willful tendencies to a dissolution and they are so much the more inexcusable because they are usually more deliberate then most of the instances of self-homicide are and are committed when we have or might have had a free use and exercise of our reason Eighteenthly If self-homicide be so Unlawful as it hath been represented how much more impious and guilty must it needs be to imbrue our Hands in the Blood of our Neighbour whose person is certainly less at our disposal then our own and with whom unless it be in our own just and necessary defence we have nothing more to do then only to help and assist him what we can I shall conclude this business with saying what I am sure is true that no affection of Novelty or love of Paradox drew me into a discourse of this Subject in the following Treatise but that I insensibly light upon it before I was aware and that I should be very sorry if any thing that I have said upon that occasion should give offence to any wise or good Man though I hope in this review of that whole matter which I have endeavoured carefully to consider I have made some amends for what is amiss in the body of the Book if any man shall happen to be displeased at it The other thing which I have in my mind and which I find my self obliged to Recant is concerning the Year of Numa which I was very confident I had discovered but I have made a new discovery since that and that is that I know nothing of it and I conceive at this distance of time it is impossible to be explained however upon the whole matter I hope you will not repent the perusal of this Book nor I that I have written it Farewell THE PRINCIPAL HEADS OF THE Ensuing Treatise OF the great Antiquity of the usage in the Text and of the cause wherein it was warrantably dispensed with From Page 1. to Page 60. Of the reasons upon which it was Originally founded From p. 60. to 79. Two mistakes of Mr. Selden and the Rabbins whom he follows From p. 79. to 83. That the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was in consequence and pursuance of that Law of Moses whereby the Brother was obliged to raise up Seed to the deceased Brother against Mr. Selden and the Rabbins From p. 83. to 119. Two other mistakes of Mr. Selden and his Rabbins discovered From p. 120. to 124. Of the signification of the word First-born in this controversie From p. 124. to 138. Two objections against what was asserted under the last head concerning the signification of the word First-born proposed and answered From p. 138. to 147. Another Argument to prove that by the First-born the Daughter or Female was not understood in the Law of Moses and in what case a Woman was to inherit From p. 147. to 149 The Heiress obliged to Marry to some of the kindred and to the next of kin if he pleased p. 150 151. The Law of the Leviratus to be understood only of Brethren by the Fathers side and in this Mr. Selden and his Rabbins are in the right From p. 151. to 158. An Answer to an objection against the last position that this Law concerned only the Paternal consanguinity From p. 158. to 161. Two objections remaining against what hath been said the first an Argument of Mr. Seldens to prove that the Marriage of Boaz and Ruth was not in consequence and by vertue of the Leviratical Law which is largly answered From p. 161. to 183. Of the true time when this Custom came to be Antiqu●ted viz. at the division of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah of the nature of Jeroboams Priesthood and of the frequent revolutions that happened in the Kingdom of Israel after its division from that of Judah by reason of its Military Government and for want of a regular and subordinate Clergy From p. 183. to 237. That the Jews did not abstain from any thing meerly because the Zabii or any other nation round about them practised it and that this was no reason of any of their negative Precepts Proved largely against Dr. Cudworth and the Jewish Rabbins whom he follows From p. 237. to 292. Of the practice of Usury among the Jews and other nations and that the Romans borrowed most if not all their usages concerning it out of the East together with an explanation of many things in the Roman and Assyrian or Eastern Antiquities hitherto unknown which is concluded with two observations the First concerning the reason of Tithes being paid to the Priesthood the other concerning the Lawfulness of a moderate Usury in all but such polities as the Jewish was From p. 292. to 27. The whole is concluded with an answer to a second objection against the Paternal consanguity being only concerned in the matter of the Leviratus which is taken from the Account of our Saviours Genealogy as it is or seems to be differently Related by the two Evangelists St. Mathew and St. Luke BOAZ and RVTH Deuteronomy 25. ver 5. If Brethren dwell together and one of them dye and have no Child the Wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger her Husbands Brother shall go in unto her and take her to him to Wife and perform the duty of an Husbands Brother unto her c. THE reason of which is expressed in the next verse viz. That the name of the Brother might not perish For which cause it was that the first Child begotten in such Wedlock was not accounted the offspring of his or her natural Parent but of him whose person he did in this case sustain that is of his Brother or near Kinsman V. 6. And it shall be that the first born which she beareth shall succeed in-the name of his Brother which is dead that his name be not put out of Israel Which in the instance of a near Kinsman tho not of an immediate Brother was afterwards the case of Ruth and Boaz from whose Loins in a few generations K. David and in the fullness of time the Messias himself the Son of David was descended Which Custom tho it was afterwards as we see confirmed by an express Law of God yet it was in it self much ancienter than the delivery of the Law by Moses as is evident from the story of Er Onan and Shelah the Sons of Judah all of them successively married to Tamar for the reason already mentioned as is very plainly intimated I may say expresly asserted Gen. 38. v. 9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his and it came to pass when he went in unto his Brothers Wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For which fact of his it is said in the next verse And the thing which he did displeased the Lord wherefore he slew him also as he had done his Brother Er for some other wickedness which