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	abolish_v	law_n	68	3	4.9096	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85049	A true relation of a dispute between Francis Fullwood minister of West-Alrington in the county of Devon, and one Thomas Salt-House, as 'tis said, of the county of Westmerland: before the congregation of them, called, Quakers; with some others that accidentally heard thereof: in the house of Henry Pollexsen, Esq; in the said parish of West-Alrington. On Tuesday the 24th day of October 1656. / Published by some that were present at the dispute; out of a single and sincere desire, that error may be shames, and the truth cleared. Together with an answer to James Godfries queries, by the said F.F.	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1656 (1656)	Wing F2520; Thomason E892_12; ESTC R206561	22,146	38

pray try him pay him no more Tithes henceforward he will preach without Full. However good people pray take notice that he giveth but the Devils counsell he perswades you to tempt me to sin and to leave off preaching especially considering you cannot thus try me but you must withhold what is my due by Law and so sin your selves Qua. Hast not thou covenanted to preach twice a day Full. What if I have It doth not follow that I preach meerly for that which I have covenanted for But indeed I have not so covenanted When I came unto this place I did neither covenant to my people what to do nor they with me what to give in which thing let my Congregation be my witness indeed my maintenance is given me by Law * And by the State not by my people Qua. But prove thy self no false Prophet prove thy self a lawfull Minister a true Prophet prove this if thou canst Full. This is somewhat unreasonable however I will follow you any whither Thus I prove it He is a true Prophet that preacheth true and sound Doctrine is he not what say you to this Qua. Yea he is Full. Then I am a true Prophet for I preach true and sound Doctrine charge me with false Doctrine if you can Qua. Thou takest Hire therefore thy Doctrine is false thou art a false Prophet Full. Alas man this is to find fault with my wages not with my work charge me with false Doctrine if you dare Qua. Thou takest Tithes thou hast acknowledged thy self a Hireling thou abidest not in the Doctrine of Christ c. Full. Come come Sir all the Company seeth you shift and flinch charge me with false Doctrine in some particular or acknowledge me a true Prophet according to your own Doctrine Qua. Do I flinch Full. Do you not pray observe either your Doctrine is the same with ours or else it differs from ours if your Doctrine be the same with ours why do you runne up and down thus and tell the people we are deceivers and false Prophets when as you acknowledge those that preach true Doctrine are true Prophets Again if your Doctrine do indeed differ from ours why are you thus ashamed to own it and bring it to t●yal Woman Do we call thee deceiver or false Prophet Full. Set down wherein your Doctrine differs from ours if you dare then I will venture to prove your Doctrine to be popery or worse Qua. Our Doctrine Popery Full. Good people pray observe me I say let them but own their own opinions as distinct from our Doctrine and I do here engage unto you to bring Popish Books with me at the next meeting which shall be when you your selves shall appoint and therein I will shew you those opinions to be popery which you shall own contrary to us Qua. What 's this Full. Sir I say it again I am here to undertake it accept of the challenge if you dare One of the Company Bellarmine holds that there is a God is that therefore popery the Papists may hold some truths Full. Pray observe I speak of such points as the reformed Churches differ from the Papists about now that 's Popery and not the things wherein we and they agree and now in those very things wherein the Papist differs from us you will be found to differ from us and joyn with popery dare you speak out One of the Company But is that a sure Rule that because the Papist differs from us in such a point therefore what they hold is errour Full. An excellent principle for popery to begin withall Though this happily may not rigidly hold in some small circumstantiall difference yet take heed of siding with Papists in the most Fundamentall points of difference betwixt us I am sure that is popery And again in such substantiall points you would be found differing with us and siding with Papists if you durst stand to the tryal Quak. But thy Doctrine is false thou takest Hire thou art a false Prophet a Hireling for thou takest Tithes Full. Tythes are lawfull though I do not take Tythes Mr P. You do take Tythes Full. No Sir under favour I never took Tythes since I came to this place Mr P. You take in liew of Tythes Full. I. do and that lawfully Quak. Prove that to take Tythes in the time of the Gospel is lawfull Full. Tythes are lawfull because not forbidden yea they seem to be incouraged by Christ himself in the Gospel ye Tythe Mint c. and ye do well therefore we do not ill to take them Mr Tripe But that was before the Law was abolished Full. When was the Law abolished Mr Har. All the Divines in the world acknowledge that the Law was abolished at Christs death yea I am mistaken if I have not heard you say so your self Full. However if this incouragement of Christ for Tythes be taken off it rests to be proved that the onely Law for Tythes was abolished in that Law which was abolished at Christs death Here the Quaker was at a stand and one of his Brethren was very earnest with him to make him turn to the seventh of the Hebrews which with much a do at length he did Qua. 'T is abolished Heb. 7. 12 For the Priesthood being changed the●e is made of necessity a change of the Law Full. This Law and Priesthood is the Levitical Law and Priesthood as vers 11. Now you must prove that Tythes was payable onely according to the Levitical Law and onely unto the Levitical Priesthood which I think is too hard a task I have two things wherewith to defend our taking of Tythes against this verse one of which I am sure will hold The first is That we claime not Tythes by the Law of God as it were commanded there but by the Law of the Land whereby we have as clear a title to our Tythes as that Gentleman hath to his estate 2. The second thing that I have to say is That you cannot prove by this Text that the onely Law for Tythes in the Word of God is abolished This very Chapter tels us that Tythes were paid by Abraham 430 years before this Law which was now abolished and that Christ whose descent is not reckoned from Levi is a Priesthood for ever after the order of Melchizedeck who received Tythes not by this Law and who now liveth vers 9. to receive Tythes still in Christ though those that receive Tythes in Aarons order and the Law by which they did so receive Tythes are both dead So that Tythes seemeth to be Christs wages then those that stand in Christs stead and do part of Christs work as we do why may they not claim part of Christs wages viz. Tythes But as before I ingeniously confess that I rather choose to make my claim thereto by the Law of the Land which is without that controversie wherein the Law of God commanding this is indeed involved Here also the Quaker had nothing to say