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	according_a	institute_v	81	3	10.6671	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40102	A vindication of the Friendly conference, between a minister and a parishioner of his inclining unto Quakerism, &c. from the exceptions of Thomas Ellwood, in his pretended answer to the said conference / by the same author.	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.; Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1678 (1678)	Wing F1729; ESTC R20275	188,159	354

I hope these scandalous Ministers will prove but few when compared with such as truly thirst after the honour of God in a faithful discharge of their duty Here you may have a full view of the Quaker's honesty Par. But says he however the Priests have fed the People it is evident the People have fed the Priests well for they are grown fat and wanton c. p. 3. Min. But while such a number of the Priests are so slenderly provided for And while the People are so wanton as to kick at their Lawful Pastors it may be easily inferr'd who is the better fed of the two Par. Next he comes to enquire into the causes why the People are not profited under your Ministry We read says he of some in former times who did not profit the People at all and the reason thereof is also given c. In the 23d of Jeremiah vers 30. the Lord by the Prophet saith Therefore behold I am against the Prophets that steal my Word every one from his Neighbour Behold I am against the Prophets saith the Lord that use their Tongues and say He saith Behold I am against them that prophesie false dreams saith the Lord and do tell them and cause my People to err by their lyes and by their lightness yet I sent them not nor commanded them therefore they shall not profit this People at all saith the Lord v. 32. Here the very Ground and Reason why that Ministry did not profit nay why it was rendred uncapable of profiting the People at all is most plainly given by God himself viz. He sent them not nor commanded them p. 4. Min. That this Scripture does not reach his purpose will be evident if we consider 1. That this non-proficiency of some of the People do's not inferr that we are not sent seeing it may proceed from other causes In the careless hearers of Ieremiah it proceeded not from any corruption in his Doctrine which was Divine nor of his Life which was Holy but from the hardness of the Peoples hearts in that they would not bearken In the hearers of the false Prophets it proceeded from their dreams lyes and lightness which they taught and to which the People trusted 2. That this Scripture is ignorantly and injuriously applied to the present Ministry appears in that those false Prophets perswaded the People and that to the ruine of that Nation that Jerusalem should not be destroyed that they should neither see Sword nor Famine Which was an Errand upon which God never sent them Besides they were a company of Fanatick Enthusiasts who cheated the People by false pretences to extraordinary inspirations I have dreamed I have dreamed was their canting note Not to profit the People then is in the true sense of this Scripture not to secure them from the Captivity and Calamities hanging over that Nation Now let us examine how truly this Scripture is applied to the present Ministry Do We come with any new Errand to the World or pretend to extraordinary inspirations to confirm it as those did Or do We Preach peace to impenitent sinners No the contrary is well known So the words do rebound upon the Quakers themselves while in their strange doctrines and misconstructions of Holy Scripture they are guilty of the same fault with those lying Prophets in saying The Lord saith when he hath not said and in their presumptuous pretences to Revelation to confirm it as also in opposing the true Ministers of God as those Fanaticks opposed Ieremiah Par. But he denies your Ministry when he saith Hath God sent thene or do they send one another That they are Ministers of Mans making common experience shews page 6. Min. I answer The Ministry in general is distinguisht into Ordinary and extraordinary Thus it was under the Law and under the Gospel too Of old the Priesthood belonged to the head of every Family challenged by a right of primogeniture But when the House of Israel multiplied into many Families it pleased God for the more advantageous settlement of his Church and the better Government thereof to devolve the Priesthood upon Aaron and to call him to the same in an extraordinary manner by a Commission from Heaven to Moses for his Consecration and to settle that Priesthood successively upon his Posterity without any further need of an extraordinary Call to the Priests of succeeding Generations Such too was the Evangelical Ministry For Aaron's Priesthood being antiquated The Apostles were called to their Function in an extraordinary manner even by Christ himself and by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost were accordingly qualified for the discharge of it Yet even in the Apostles days this Extraordinary Call ceased For Timothy and Titus were Ordain'd by imposition of hands and were commanded so to Ordain others by which means the Ministry was by the Divine Ordinance to descend to all Ages in an orderly succession though not in one Family as Aaron's did These things thus premised do determine our present case as followeth He that is sent according to the order appointed by God in Holy Scripture though by the Ministry of men is not a Minister of man's making but of God's But both the Priests of the Law and the Priests of the Gospel though consecrated and Ordained by the Ministry of Men were sent according to the order appointed by God Therefore they were not Ministers of Man's making but of God's and by him truly call'd and sent Were Timothy and Titus Ministers only of Man's making because they were ordain'd by imposition of hands And if many of the people did not profit by their Ministry as many of the Cretian's did not by Titus's was the fault think you in their not being sent Par. No sure Min. Do you suppose T. E. himself could be ignorant of a truth so obvious Par. Methinks he should not Min. What then should he mean by saying We send one another and by that common experience which he says shews that we are Ministers of Man's making Par. What can he mean by it but your going to the Bishop for Orders as common experience shews you do Min. Truly his words stand very fair for this meaning and therefore not only you but doubtless his whole Fraternity and many others do so take it and through ignorance may be corrupted by it and made to believe We are not sent by God because ordained by the Ministry of Men. Par. Indeed I cannot deny but this passage brought me under some scruples till you gave me this satisfaction Min. If T. E. could not be ignorant in so plain a Case what can be his design here Whatever a Man pretends to mean by any of his expressions yet to set them down in such terms as will impose upon vulgar Readers and engage them in error can surely be no upright dealing Par. No how should it But if says he speaking still of the Ministers of England they ministred by the

Suppose it had what is it the worse for that but how do's he prove it Par. From Symmachus his Epistles to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian wherein his Style unto them is Vestra aeternitas ibid. Min. had those Epistles been written to Iulius Caesar the first Roman Emperor there had been some tolerable sense in his inference But is it not strange that this instance of vestra y●…ur in the Epistles to Theodosius and Valentinian should make the Custom seem to have its rise with the Roman Empire when these Epistles were not written till near four hundred years after the Empire was begun Has not our Wise Quaker here shot very wide of the mark Besides those Epistles by his own confession were written to two Persons Theodosius and Valentinian And that they were written to them both together appears in St. Ambrose's answer to them With what sense then could he say Thou or Thine to two together So that T. E. brings an instance here to prove no●…hing but himself ridiculous for I thought he had disapproved only our saying You to one not our saying You to two unless he could twist them both into one He says that by a Figure I make one Man two p. 46. Now let me ask By what Figure he makes two Men one But had he made search he might have found that it was customary to use one number for another long before the Empire began The Ishmaelitish Princes usually spake of themselves in the plural number Nay among the Romans themselves this Custom was of a much ancienter date than their Empire For Terence who lived 100 years before it began has this expression Profecto nescio quid absente nobis turbatum est domi that is Truly I know not what disturbance there has been at home in our absence Phoedria speaks there of himself in the plural number This was used by Cicero very frequently both in his Orations Epistles and his Books of Offices as I could give variety of instances if it were doubted by any Now Cicero dyed when the Empire was scarce begun Par. But he complains of hard usage and says how often have many been abused and beaten for this harmless word c. ibid. Min. I know not what usage they have met withal for their incivility and rudeness to Authority and for the contempt of Laws But that any have been beaten for the use of the word Thou is what I never heard of However I observe that Ellwood all along makes it his business and study to promote schism and mischief by exasperating his Party and heightning their prejudices against us and the truth by all the idle calumnies he can invent Par. But he goes on What Spirit is that which thus rageth Is it the humble meek gentle Spirit of Iesus or the haughty proud exalted Spirit of Lucifer ibid. Min. What Spirit think you is that which is so far from being inoffensive as the Christian Spirit is that it disturbs and disquiets Neighbourhoods and Societies in matters purely indifferent and wherein the stress of Religion do's not lye I acknowledge that the Spirit of Jesus is an humble and obliging Spirit and should be most truly glad to see the Quakers conform to it For our Blessed Lord complyed with all the innocent Customs of the People among whom he lived Did they stand in the Synagogues when the Scriptures were read Christ did so too Did they sit when they Preached He did the same Did they eat Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb Christ did so too though God never commanded it Did the Jews observe the Feast of Dedication a Feast of their own institution Christ did so too Did they lye upon Beds when they ate the Passover tho' by the Original institution it was to be eaten standing Christ conforms to the Custom and did so too Nay he accommodated the two great Sacraments of his Church to their Customs And that Prayer which he taught his Disciples was for the most part of it compiled out of the Jewish Liturgies So that we have all the reason to conclude that if he had lived among us He would have suited himself to the present innocent Customs both in speech and behaviour For he used both the Jewish Language and their Phrases He used both the Hebraisms and Hellenisms of those times He deliver'd his Parables in positive Assertions a thing more exceptionable than You to a single person So unwilling was he to quarrel with innocent Customs or to make innovations where necessity did not compel him All which shew that the Son of God was far from a Spirit of crossness and contradiction and from all Principles of schism and faction Par. You must give me leave here to put in a question of my own If Christ taught sitting and instituted one of his Sacraments sitting why do not you imitate our Saviour's posture in the performance of those services Min. You must know that sitting when he taught and when he instituted and administred the Holy Eucharist was not one and the same posture for when he taught he sat in a Chair as the Jewish Doctors used to do but his posture at the Sacrament was leaning or lying along on one side In which posture though he being the Lord himself did in his state of Humiliation eat his Last Supper with his Disciples and gave them the freedom to do the like yet that being contrary to our National Custom and Christ being now Glorified this posture of leaning or lying along would be very irreverent among us in the celebration of that B. Sacrament the great Pledge of his Love and Memorial of his Death But one thing I will take the boldness to affirm That we conform more to our Saviour's example in doing as we do then if we performed those Services in Christs own posture Par. This is strange Min. It will not be so strange to you if you well weigh and consider this truth That Conformity to our Saviour consists not in doing the same Natural Actions which he did but in following the same Moral Rule by which he did those Actions Now his Rule was to conform to all present Constitutions and Customs in themselves indifferent And this in order to the promoting of Love and Peace The Rule of Charity was his constant and general Rule in all his Actions Particularly in this last instance our Saviour did not institute a posture but only express a compliance with a Jewish Custom He therefore that for peace and love conforms to all present lawful Customs and Constitutions though far different from the same natural Actions our Saviour did most truly conforms both to the example and the meek and gentle Spirit of Jesus Par. You may remember that when I produced this Argument from the Quakers viz. That God Thou'd Adam and Adam Thou'd God you stopt my mouth by asking whether the Discourse was in English And by saying that if the Translators had put You