Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	apostle_n	epistle_n	write_v	1,746	5	6.0427	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77137	A defence and justification of ministers maintence by tythes. And of infant-baptism, humane learning, and the sword of the magistrate; which some Anabaptists falsely call four sandy pillars, and popish foundations of our ministry and churches. In which tythes are proved to be due by divine right to the ministers of the gospel. All common objections answered, and divers cases of conscience humbly proposed: with a light to clear them. / In a reply to a paper sent by some Anabaptists to Immanuel Bourne, late pastor of the church in Asheover in the county of Derby: now preacher to the congregation at Waltham in the county of Leicester. With a short answer to Anthony Peirson's great case of tythes, &c.	Bourne, Immanuel, 1590-1672.	1659 (1659)	Wing B3851; Thomason E1907_1	92,679	184

Ages but this was still a time when the Church was subject to persecution and dangers and many poor and so a necessity to live in Societies as the people of God did in those dayes a full answer you have in my Justification of Tythes to belong to Christ and his Ministers Hom. 23. ad Epist 1. a Cor. ● in cap. 16 Ambros Tom. 5. Serm. in Ascenti Domini by Divine right and yet all places were not in like condition even in those times Now Sir you proceed forward and bring in Hierom and Chrysostome who you say did press payment of Tythes and Ambrose Bishop of Millan about the year 400 after Christ pressed the payment of Tythes Anthony Peirson's case And page 5. Augustine say you in Sermon de tempore in Tom. 10. This is the just custome of the Lord that if thou dost not give the Tenth to him thou shall be called to the Tenth thy self And after Decimae ex debito requiruntur tythes are required as due debt you add Leo Severine and Gregory Mr. Bourn's answer Thus you have now alledged divers Antients who do not only declare for payment of tythes but for payment of them by Divine right or as a duty Gregory's judgement was that the tenth of all was to be given to God as many others and truly any man that rightly considers the Histories of the Church and what is written by the Antients may see clearly that howsoever in the beginning and dangerous times tythes were not pressed for weighty Reasons as I have shewed in my Defence page 44 yet so soon as ever the Church came to a settlement and they were more free from persecution tythes were preached and pressed and payed as a duty not as alms or liberal devotions as you would make men believe Anthony Peirson's case Again page 6. he affirms that from the opinions of these and other antient Fathers who took their ground as he thinks from the Law tythes were brought into the Church but not received as a general Doctrine that Tythes ought to be payed till about 800 years after Christ Mr. Bourn's answer First how know you that these antient Fathers took their ground out of the Law that Tythes ought to be pay'd as if it had been the Levitical Law only why might they not take their ground long before that Law even from that payment of Tythes by Abraham to Melchizedeck the Priest of the most high God and from Jacobs Vow and what Christ spake and his Apostles writ in the Gospel and Epistles especially that to the Hebrews chap. 7. I am sure some of the Fathers do alledge arguments from divers of these See my Book pag. 59 60 61 62 c. and so it might be from a light to the conscience that Tythes are Gods part and Christs right for maintenance of his worship and service hence might press the payment of them For what you say that the Doctrine was not received till the 800 year certain it doth not appear but the contrary for many Writers before that time did assert the payment of Tythes and that as a due yea by Divine right as I have declared in my Defence of Tythes read my Book with Doctor Slater and Doctor Tilseley his Animadversions on Mr. Seldens History and others Anthony Peirson's case In his 7. page and following he endeavours to prove That Tythes belonged to the Poor above 800 900 1000 years after Christ and that the Clergy was not to use them as their own and people had more willing mind to give them for the poor than the Priests but after in the year 1274. there was a Law that people should not give them at their pleasures but to the Church this by Pope Gregory Mr. Bourn's answer I answer that before that time there were amongst the people divers things out of order it was some reason till Ministers of the Gospel were setled people should have more liberty to pay their Tythes where they pleased but yet they were paid and due to be paid long before that time and that Law was good by whomsoever it was made That Tythes should be payed to the Church where Ministers were setled to preach the Gospel or to be pay'd to them for their labour in the Word and Doctrine which was most agreeable to the Divine Institution Peirson's Case Now page 8 9. c. Peirson brings History to witness payment of Tythes I shall not trouble the Reader saith he with a relation of Joseph of Arimathea coming into Brittain sent by Phillip the Apostle in the Reign of Arviragus as History reports he about the year 600 of Augustine the Monk who came and preached the Gospel in this Land and when they had brought a great part of the Nation to the Faith they began to preach up the old Romish Doctrine that Tythes ought to be paid c. Mr. Bourn's answer For answer I desire the Reader to observe he relates indeed the story of Joseph Arimathea coming into Brittain to preach the Gospel but he leaveth out the History of that gift of Gleab lands in those dayes at Glassenbury for the maintenance of them that preached the Gospel yet he confesseth that when the people were converted to the Faith then they pressed the payment of Tythes this saith he about 600 years after Christ and yet he saith they began to preach the old Romish Doctrine that Tythes ought to be pay'd I would ask first how old the doctrine of payment of Tythes was at Rome 600 years after Christ if it was an old doctrine within 600 years after Christ certain then it was in or near the Primitive times as indeed it was in some places long before the Pope or the universal Bishop of Rome was born for Origen speaks of the payment of Tythes who lived near the Primitive times about 200 after Christ as I have shewed in my Justification of Tythes read page 59 60. Secondly I demand why old Romish Doctrine for Hierom was not Bishop of Rome and yet he approveth of Tythes and Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Alexandria and divers in other places in those times writ of Tythes as due to be paid and due by divine Right but he would fain make Tythes Romish that he might make them odious though they were thought by the Lord the best way to maintain his servants for his worship and service and indeed are Gods right and Christs right for the maintenance of his Ministers to the end of the world Anthony Peirson's case Anthony Peirson goeth on page 9. c. As concerning Laws saith he for Tythes in the year 786. of a King of Merceland and Elswolph King of Northumberland made Decrees that those two Kingdoms should pay Tythes And Ethelwolf King of the West Saxons in the year 855. made a Law that the Tythe of all his own Land should be given to God and he tells us out of the History that at that time the Nation being under heavy pressure by

not as a free gift from him but as Gods Right and an owning of him to be Gods High Priest and Tythes Gods reserved part as I have proved at large in my History of Tythes and upon this account Jacob vowed to pay Tythes not as a will worship odious to God Col. 2.22 and spoken against by the Spirit of God in that holy Apostle Anthony Peirson's Case Again in the same Page he tells us That besides the Tythes the First-fruits also were given to the Priests but yet he would insinuate that they were but as the Owner pleased and at the devotion of the Owner for which he quoteth in the margin Deut. 18.4 and Ezek. 45.13 Mr. Bourn's Answer For answer if the Reader consult those places of Scripture he shall find Deut. 18.3 4. this shall be the Priests due from the people both for Offerings and First-fruits and if due then not at the peoples devotion as Peirson would infer because a direct quantity is not expressed if the First-fruits were a duty then not an arbitrary devotion And here I pray you consider what Doctrines we are like to have of his collection when he endeavours to draw a false Doctrine from the first Scripture he names and to lay this as a Foundation to build his opinion That Tythes and Ministers maintenance are but Devotions arbitrary to be given or not given at mens pleasure as it God had no right in them which is the drift of his History And if you read that other Text Ezek. 45.13 the direct part what shall be offered is expressed and what ground is there then of gathering a Doctrine hence of arbitrary devotion as if no command from God but at mens pleasure as he would have Tythes to be the Lord open his eyes to see his Error I pass over what he hath said little to this purpose Anthony Pierson's Case Page 3. He proceeds A view of the Doctrines Decrees and practises of Tything from the Insancy of the Christian Church to this day And in this view he tells us that when Christ was preached the Apostles and Ministers of Jesus Christ did not go about to establish the Law by which Tythes were given in the former Priesthood but preached freely and did not require any setled Maintenance but lived of the Free Offerings and Contributions of Saints Hierom. in vita Mar. Philo Judaeus for which he alledgeth Scriptures Acts 11.29 1 Cor. 16.2 and that Christians lived together in societies for which he alledgeth other testimony Mr. Bourn's answer For answer I grant this to be so in those Primitive times as Acts 4.31 c. when they had all things common then the Apostles and Ministers of Christ had their part yea when men sold their Lands and brought their money into the common Treasury of the Church they laid it down at the Apostles feet Read my Book p. 55. then was no need to desire Tythes or any setled maintenance they having no certain dwelling-places But I have answered this at full in my Defence of Tythes to which I desire the Reader to look back where he may find full satisfaction this community of Goods in those times of necessity and danger doth nothing hinder but that when better times came and Churches were setled the Duty of Tythes might be required and paid as it was in after ages as I have evidently manifested and this as a due by Divine Right to the Ministers of Christ Anthony Peirson's Case pag. 4.5 And all those humane testimonies he brings of Tertullian in Apologet cap. 39. the practise of the Church according to St. Paul's direction 1 Cor. 16.2 And Eus bius that this custome continued till the great Persecution under Maximinian and Dioclesian Eus●bius lib. 4. c. 22. as appears by divers as Origen that Lands were given to the Church c. and used in common Ministers had but their maintenance with the people not by Tythes Mr. Bourn's Answer I grant that in those times of persecution it was the best way for Ministers to live and for the Church they having many poor to maintain of the common treasury Justification of Tythes p. 55 56. but this will nothing disprove the Divine right of Tythes to be paid to Gods Ministers as it was when times of persecution were ended as I have proved at large in my Justification of Tythes Anthony Peirson's Case For that he saith page 3. They preached the Gospel freely Mr. Bourn's Answer I answer for that direction of Christ Mat. 10.7 8. Freely you have received freely give this relates to that power of working miracles of healing the Sick cleansing the Leapers raising the Dead for these freely you have received freely give But for preaching of the Gospel Christ when he sent his Apostles he giveth them no provision yea wisheth them to take none but to receive and expect their maintenance from their hands to whom they brought the Gospel and this out of Christ his part which was in their hands for we must not think that Christ would have his Labourers paid out of other mens estates but out of his own and out of that they must be payed for saith he The Labourer is worthy of his meat Mat. 10.8 9 10. and worthy of his reward Luke 10.7 c. and this to be paid out of Christs own reserved part not out of other mens goods as if Christ had said fear not provisions for the people to whom I send you to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God they have my goods in their hand viz. the Tenth of every encrease or else the price of the redemption of it and I will rule their hearts to pay You my Labourers out of my part in their hands for your labour in my work This not as a free benevolence but as a duty due to me and to you Luke 10.7 for it is my Ordinance that those that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel 1 Cor. 9.14 as afterward the Apostle Paul did witness so that this preaching doth nothing hinder the Divine right of Tythes as in my Defence to which I refer the Reader I have declared at large Our Friend Anthony Peirson brings in divers more humane testimonies to the same purpose to prove as he would have it no right of Tythes nor setled maintenance to be given as a due for the Ministers of the Gospel but to live of the benevolence and charity of the peole together with the poor Anthony Peirsons case For this he brings Origen Homily upon Gen. and Urban Bishop of Rome Anno about 227 after Christ Cyprian Bishop of Carthage Prosper and others about 250 years after Christ in which times it seemeth that Lands were given to the Church for maintenance of poor Saints as well as the Ministers and Ministers were thus maintained not by Tythes Mr. Bourn's answer If I grant this as I may yet this hinders not that Tythes were Gods right in all

of these those duties are not required to be admitted Infant-members of the Church But when they grow up in the knowledge and faith of Christ then a declaration of their faith and repentance is necessary before they be admitted to the Lords Supper that great and distinguishing Ordinance of Christ in which there is a sweet communion of members with Christ their Head 1 Cor. 10 16 17. My Book pr. 1646. Mr. Marshall pr. 1646. M. Blake pr. 1653. Mr. B●xter print 1656. and one with another I refer you further to my own Book recited before and to the labours of so many Learned and Godly men who have writ of this Subject to godly and learned Mr. Marsha his Sermon for proof of Infant-Baptism learned and laborious Mr. Blak●'s Treatise of Birth Priviledge and Covenant Holinesse of Believers in answer to Mr. Tombes Learned and laborious Mr. B●xer's ●lain-Scripture-Proof for Infant-Baptism ●r Cook 's Font Uncovered And the Reformed Churches in their Harmony of Confessions and Profession of pure and holy Faith in all the Kingdoms Nations and Provinces of Europe Allowed by publick Authority and Imprinted by Tho. Thomas Printer to the University of Cambridge 1586 now about 72 years since The Anabaptists Doctrine denying Infant-Baptism is condemned and Infant-Baptism is approved as lawful in the Churches of Christ Thus the Churches of Helvetia we condemn say they the Anabaptists who deny that young Infants born of faithful Parents are to be baptized for according to the Gospel theirs is the Kingdom of God and they are written in the Covenant of God and why should not the sign be given to them Thus the Church Reformed in Bohemia confesseth they baptize their children And the Reformed Church in Bel●ia Commending Baptism they conclude Therefore here we do detest the errour of the Anabaptists who are not content with one only Baptism and that once received but do also condemn the Baptism of Infants yea of those that be born of faithful Parents Thus the Reformed Churches in France The English Confession The Reformed Church in Saxony We baptize Infants because Christ saith Suffer little children to come to me for to such pertaineth the Kingdom of God And Origen writeth upon the sixth to the Romans that the Church received the custom of Baptizing Infants from the Apostles and say they Many things are written and published in our Churches by which the Anabaptists are refuted I let pass the Confession of the Reformed Churches of Wittenberge and others of the same Judgment By which it is evident that the Opinion of the Anabaptists then springing out was condemned in all the Reformed Churches now above threescore and ten years ago And these are but a spawn of that horrid sect which did work mischief in Germany and have been long since condemned by the Churches of Christ And whatsoever is written to the contrary either by your chief Teachers or by other your miserable ignorant and scribling later Pamphlets it is already answered or replyed unto by such Reverend Learned and Godly men before mentined and others of our Judgment and that with sufficient Scripture-proof and full evidences from the voice of the Spirit of God speaking in the holy Scriptures far better than your false and non following consequences you have brought against Infant Church-membership and Baptism although you find fault with us for consequences Read your best Teachers and see if you can find one proof or shew of proof against Infant-membership of Believers children or their Baptism without a Consequence or Illustration This is the proof of your writers against it by consequences Read Mr. Tombes Mr. Haggar Mr. Gosnold and the rest And if you use consequences against Infant-Baptism and consequences which will not follow why may not we use consequences to prove the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptism Pr. by J. S. 1657. Read your late friend Mr Gosnold as honest and learned as any of you his discourse of the Baptism of water and of the Spirit read his first Chapter to prove a Truth That water-Baptism is to continue he proveth by a consequence That which was once commanded by Jesus Christ and never repealed by him is still in force and to continue but water Baptism was once commanded by Christ and never repealed by him therefore it is still in force and to continue Thus I may argue against you for Infant-Baptism That which was once commanded by Christ and never repealed by him is still in force and to continue But an outward sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith and priviledge of Church membership was once commanded by Christ and appointed for Believers and their infant-children Gen. 17.7 viz. circumcision to Abraham Isaac at eight daies old and never repealed by Christ Therefore a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith and priviledge of Church-membership is still to continue to Believers and their children And if children must have the same sign with their Parents then what but Baptism but you cast off our consequences though you make bold with them your selves I urged this argument twelve years since therefore I leave it off Again read John Gosnold his second Chapter where he labours to prove the manner of Baptizing that it was by dipping the whole body in water his seeming proof is by consequence 1. From mens testimony And 2. From the nature of the word signifying to dip though the word doth not only signifie to dip and no Scripture saith that they did dip the whole body in water And if they had yet a circumstance in Baptism may as lawfully be changed as the time of celebration of the Lords Supper was changed which was a circumstance Read his third Chapter in which if he could he would prove the subjects of Baptism to be grown persons fitly qualified and not Infants His seeming proofs are by consequences and false consequences too like those it seems you borrowed of him requiring those qualifications for Baptism all which are only requisite in men and women of ripe years not of Infant-children of Believers to admit them to an Infant-membership in the Church And what are his arguments and answers in his Book but consequences not one place of Scripture as clear as the Sun at noon-day as you boasted in your answer And if both use consequences and agree in the use of these wherfore is there such bitterness of spirit because we cannot agree in Opinion Wherefore are you so violent to deny us to be Ministers of Christ to affirm us to be Ministers of Antichrist and our maintenance Antichristian as if you would destroy us and our Calling out of the Nation If you have such liberty to live ●uietly in the Land wherefore do you think us unworthy of it The Lord heal our breaches and unite our spirits in Christian love if it be his blessed will A DEFENCE OF Humane Learning I Come now to another sandy Pillar and Popish Foundation as you term it Third sandy pillar The

Tongues at Babels building Gen. 11. we lost those Original Languages of Hebrew and Greek in which it pleased the holy Ghost the holy Scriptures should be written for our Learning Rom. 15.4 that we through patience comfort of them might have hope And although God did miraculously bestow the gift of Tongues to the Apostles and others in the Primitive times as we read Acts 2.4 yet that gift is not now obtained without mens teaching and much labour and industry And had it not been for humane learning how could you have had the Holy Bible translated into the English Tongue or how could you spell or read or write English or have gotten any measure of that knowledge you pretend to have I will easily grant that if you had been trained up in the Universities and had as much Learning Divine and Humane and as much Grace and natural parts and gifts of God as Gods faithful Ministers have you might preach as well as we and as lawfully too if you had as lawful a Call and Ordination to the ministerial Office and therefore whatsoever high thoughts you have of your selves you are but meer intruders and furtherers of the Kingdom of antichrist of errours Mat. 13.25 in stead of Truths which such Teachers do sow as the envious man did tares amongst the good wheat of Christ The Lord open your eyes to see your presumptuous sin if it be his will Thus I have said sufficient for Reply to your third sandy Pillar and Popish foundation of Humane Learning which may much rather be charged upon your selves as favourers of antichrist The Triumph of Learning by R. B. B. D. Fellow of Trin. Col. in Cam. 1653. Mr. Hall Pulpit guarded the 3 Edition and many Popish errours broached amongst you by divers of your Society But if you would see more to convince you of your erroneous opinion of Humane Learning and your unlawful practise of preaching at unfit times and unfit places to oppose and withdraw from the godly Sermons of Gods faithful Ministers Read those Books of the Advancement and Triumph of Learning over Ignorance and Truth over Falshood written by Mr. Boreman and others And the Pulpit guarded written by Learned Mr. Hall occasioned by a dispute with a Nayler a Baker a Plow-wright and a Weaver publick Preachers nibled at but yet not answered nor can be to justifie your practices whatsoever you or any of your company pretend to the contrary A DEFENCE of the Sword of the Magistrate Anabapt Answer Fourth sandy Pillar and Popish Foundation I Am now at last come to your last Sandy Pillar and Popish Foundation which so much troubleth you and causeth you to separate from our Reformed and Reforming Congregations and this is you say The Sword of the Magistrate which say you the Priests have in all generations run unto Take that away and then you tell us we would be in danger to starve amongst those we call Christians Mr. Bourns Reply For Reply I cannot but wonder you should dare to speak against the Magistrates sword since you enjoy such Liberty of Conscience and such Protection under it I had thought Tertullus Oration before Felix might rather have befitted you Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietnesse Acts 24.2 3. and that very worthy deeds are done unto this Nation by thy Providence we accept it alwaies and in all places most noble Felix with all thankefulnesse much more living under Christian Magistrates A Christian Parliament and Christian Judges and Justices such as have been and are so tender over and for truly tender Consciences and of peaceable spirits though of different Judgements in their Worship of God through Christ Jesus according to the Scriptures Can you justly desire more than you have except you would have all in your own power and if so then we have cause by your expressions of your minds to fear it would be very much against the Godly-faithful Ministers in England and their established Maintenance both by the Laws of God and the Nation as we hinted before But I believe I may guess at your meaning you are not offended at the Magistrates Sword as it is a defence unto you and your peace but as the Magistrates blessed be God for it by their Power defend Us and Our Maintenance by Tythes according to the Law and present Government established and why I pray you may not we have protection by the Magistrates Sword as well as You Is this a Peaceable and Christian behaviour to desire and be well-pleased with Liberty of Conscience and quietness for your selves and to desire and endeavour the same may be denied unto us yea to have us denied our setled maintenance by Tythes and We and our maintenance to be banished the Common-wealth as Antichristian Is this according to our Saviours rule Mat. 7.12 to do as you would be done unto certainly no this rather discovers a spirit of Antichrist a persecuting spirit rather than a spirit of love and peace such as becometh Saints But let me reason the case a little with you Is not the office and calling of a Magistrate an Ordinance of God Rom. 13.1 2 3 4. read Rom. 13. and consider it well Let every soul ●e subject to the higher Powers for there is no power ●ut of God and the Powers that be are ordained of God and he that resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation for Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evill VVilt thou then not be afraid of the Power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same for he is the Minister of God to thee for good but if thou do that which is evill be afraid for he beareth not the Sword in vain for he is the Minister of God a Revenger to execute vengeance upon him that doth evill wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake But your conscience is against the faithful Ministers of God in England and their maintenance by Tythes and therefore You cannot be subject and what if Yours be an erroneous deluded deceived conscience do You not then sin in refusing to give obedience to the Christian Magistrate and good Laws of the Nation which require the payment of Tythes certainly you will confess you do if there be christianity or conscience or ingenuity in you but if you do not can you well say why should any Minister appeal unto or make use of the Magistrates Sword to compel you to do your duties are you not free and have Liberty of Conscience I answer if it were demanded would you not have liberty not only from Tythes but from Taxes also if it were in your power You will answer as these thirty Congregations the Faith of which you sent me do in the Postscript of that Book That you do own a Magistratical Power for the governing this our