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	account_n	priesthood_n	47	3	10.3381	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

in All kind of Learning And he advises Ministers that they be long in Learning what they are to teach unto others I could produce infinite Testimonies to shew How Learning was encouraged by the Ancient Christians And for this kind of Inspiration which Ellwood talks of it was never pretended from the time of the Heretick Montanus till St. Francis pretended to this point of Quakerism and other Fanatical Popish Fryars and Monks the Modern Enemies of all ingenuous Education So that I hope the Quakers Champion has been so far from putting you out of Conceit with Learning that he hath raised your esteem and opinion of it CHAP. IX Of Tithes PAR. T. E. begins his Chapter of Tithes with railing and saith that he is got to the Priests Dalilah the very darling and minion of the Clergy p. 277. Min. But rather if the Quaker please Tithes are that which an English man calls Property and I hope will be ever esteemed so for all his Billinsgate Rethorick But to wave thir for I dare not encounter my Adversary in scolding I must remind you that the first thing which you proposed to me upon this Subject was an Argument of Edward Burroughs in his plea to the King and Council who said it was a denying of Christ to uphold any part of the first Priesthood that gave and received Tithes c. to which I answered that if by the first Priesthood be meant that of Aarons than had he presented to the King and Council a Notorious falsity in affirming it to be the first there being a Priest before him to whom Levi himself paid his Tithes Heb. 7 9. Or if by the first Priesthood he meant that of Melchizedeck's the falsity was no less Notorious in saying that Priesthood is ended which Christ exerciseth for ever Heb. 7 17. Par. This indeed I told you was a great scruple to me and your answer was no less satisfactory and I expected that T. E. here would have shew'd his art but I found my self deceived for he hath left Burroughs in the lurch and given the World an occasion to look upon him as a meer Cheat and Impostor Min. It s strange that he should pass by so considerable a passage and the very first thing insisted on but you will wonder indeed when I tell you that if a certain letter may be credited subscribed by Isaac Pennington Edward Burroughs was an occasion of his convincement He should have said seducement Of all Quakers one would have thought E. B. should not have been deserted Is it not strange that T. E. who abounds with Sophisms and Fallacies should not have one le●…t him at such a pinch as this when the credit and reputation of His Patriarch Burroughs was so emi●…tly concern'd I pray God he may lay it to heart and that in order to his own eternal good that this Burroughs who was the unhappy Instrument of his Apostacy from the Protestant Religion establisht in the Church of England had not that Inspiration which we have been discoursing of and of which the Quakers so vainly boast Par. I see one thing very plainly that where T. E. has not the wit to answer any of your Arguments he has however the cunning to pass them by For He has skipt over four pages and the first thing that he enquires into is whether Tithes were due to Melchisedeck that which should make them due says He must be a command p. 277. Min. You know that Abraham built an Altar to the Lord His God who appeared to him Now according to T. E. that was a superfluous service not a due to God because we do not read that any where He had commanded it Par. I suppose that T. E. is sensible that Melchizedeck was a Type of Christ and that if Tithes were due to the Type they are No less due to the Antitype wherefore he produces three Arguments to prove that Tithes were not his due First Because Moses says expresly that he gave him Tithes And that the Apostle useth the same Phrase Now to give imports one thing to pay another p. 278. Min. That the Phrase imports no such things will appear when we observe the very same in other Scriptures As for example My son saith Ioshua Give glory to God do's this imply that Glory is not God Almighties due any further than Man is pleased to give it to him Secondly The Apostle who gives the best account of the Phrase has it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Tithed Abraham Now since T. E. pretends to understand Greek and this passage being in my Book How came he to pass it by this I am perswaded had he not found it true it would not have escaped his lash wherefore do I suspect that here He offers an Argument directly against his own knowledge and Conscience Par. His second reason is this Had Tithes been due to Melchizedeck then must Abraham have paid Melchizedeck Tithes of all his substance p. 279. Min. We know nothing to the contrary but that he did so and I can affirm the one as well as He deny the other Par. But the main is behind We do not read says He that He gave him Tithes of his own Estate but that which he gave him the Tenth of was the Spoils ibid. Min. This was answered in the Conference also It not being material out of what he paid His Tithes but whatever they were Abraham paid them as a Tithe and Melchizedek received them as a Priest But seeing he insists so much upon this I shall add That the Spoils were in strictness his own Estate having obtained them with the hazard of his Life in a just and righteous War But if it were not so that they were not his than will an eternal infamy ly upon the Father of the Faithful and the Priest of the most High God in disposing and receiving of that which in right belonged to other Men. Par. But Thirdly says T. E. which seems to me a meer trifle the occasion c. seems altogether accidental ibid. Min. That is accidentally Abraham metwith an occasion opportunity to discharge His duty As meer an accidental passage as the Quaker would have this to be yet the Apostle draws a solid Argument from thence and whoever reads the 7th Chapter to the Hebrews will find that the Apostles design there is to prove the Priesthood of Melchizedeck's above that of Levi's from a threefold Argument First He received Tithes of Abraham or he Tithed him v. 6. Secondly He blessed him and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better v. 7. Thirdly The Apostle proves it the greater and the more blessed Priesthood from the duration of it For thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Mechizedeck v. 17. Now if the account that Ellwood hath given of these two great Men be true then has the Apostle quite lost his Argument therefore let us compare T. E's Discourse

and the Apostles together Is Melchizedeck's Priesthood greater or better than that of Aarons because Abraham gave him Tithes that cannot be For Tithes were none of his due neither did Abraham pay them duly Nor was there in those days any publick worship wherein He could perform any outward Priestly Office As if Melchizedeck was a meer Cypher bore the Name of a Priest but did not the Work and Office of a Priest It 's true Abraham gave him Tithes but he did not pay him Tithes And when all is done it was but an accidental business and will not bear an Argument With what dint of Argument might a Jew upon Ellwoods Principles implead Christianity it self What Melchizedecks Priesthood above Aarons because Abraham gave him Tithes that 's false even from Christian Principles Did not Iesus himself say that it was more blessed to give than to receive Abraham was the giver Melchizedeck was but the receiver wherefore the Priesthood in Abrahams loins was the greater Priesthood the more blessed Priesthood So that if we pursue the Quakers Argument to the far end with Tithes it overturns not only the Epistle to the Hebrews but indeed the very foundation of Christianity Par. You have given me very good satisfaction as to your Ministry in your reply to T. E's first Chapter I shall therefore pass by His Canting expressions that you are made Priest after the Law of a carnal Commandment which I suppose related to the bloody Sacrifices under the Levitical Law But then whereas you asserted that maintenance in general to the Ministers of the Gospel is just rea sonable and establisht by a Divine Authority He quite contrary to my expectation grants it p 284. Min. Maintenance it seems then is due Now I would know what could possibly have been set out for that maintenancce less obnoxious to exception than Tithes are Par. Nothing that I know of but Men of Corahs temper would have quarrelled with it But as for those Scriptures from which you urged this Maintenance The Apostles intent He saith is not to set out what the Maintenance is as who they are from whom it is to be received Namely such as receive their Ministry ibid. Min. I answer First Nothing can be more plain than that the Apostles drift in these Scriptures is to oblige the People to set forth a maintenance for their Ministers and those instances of the Ox treading out the Corn c. shew the equity and reasonableness thereof Secondly The question being whether the Ministers of the Gospel ought to be provided for out of mens Estate for their work and labour in their Ministry This I perceive is fairly yielded But then did T. E. consider How this very thing has been opposed all along by his own party and how miserably they have abused that Text freely have ye received freely give However we may fairly inferr from his own words that they who are fed by us taught by us planted c. ought not to withhold our maintenances from us But then Thirdly The next Question will be this Whether those who withdraw themselves from the publick Ordinances are for that reason excusable in withdrawing our maintenances If this be so T. E. has found out a right expedient to make all indifferent Men turn either Atheists or Schismaticks in point of interest But then I must desire their Friend Ellwood to take notice that if they be not fed taught and planted by us the fault is in themselves and for which we ought not to suffer Fourthly The Fallacy and Cheat lies here that the Quaker do's not distinguish between the first Donors of Tithes and the present payers of Tithes who are considered in the Rent or Purchase for the Tithes they pay which I made plain to you at our first Conference and shall I hope make more plain before we part Par. He is got into a fit of railing again an says though Christ deny them yet if Man will grant them it will serve your turn as well p. 287. Min. Where I wonder do's Christ deny them Had the Quaker proved this He had most effectually done his Work But He is so far from proving this false Assertion that when I am challenging the Quakers for about four pages together to prove Tithes a sin that is to say the transgression of any Law Humane or Divine T. E. is not so hardy as to make any manner of reply though he could not but know that it was the most considerable passage that I had Par. You may be sure T. E. was wise enough to pass by those passages For I suppose He knew neither how to answer your Argument nor vindicate the Reputation of his own Party whom you had render'd both ridiculous and dishonest in the application of that Text The Priests bear Rule by their Means to Tithes or other Estates when i related to the Prophets who prophesied ●…falsly and by their Means or by reason thereof the Priests than usurped an Authority Now it seems the Quakers in their gross Ignorance took Means there for Estates c. and T. E. not knowing how to excuse this puts it into the Catologue of Minute passages Min. I would now know of T. E. wherein consists immediate teaching Had I nothing to object against the Quakers but this very passage comparing it with the Notion of Inspiration its sufficient to prove them very Cheats and to draw any serious Man from their ways making a plain discovery what that Spirit is by which they are guided and directed and that this Text has been so abused see that Tract before mentioned to you called some of the Quakers Principles put forth by Isaac Pennington and the second Quaker there has this passage But to return to his Gospel maintainance which He says is expresly set down by Christ eat such things as are set before you eat and drink such things as they give p. 276. According to this Rule Tithes are a Gospel-maintenance which have been expresly set before us expresly given us And if Tithes were not Melchizedeck's due before such time as Abraham gave him them yet when they wete so given him they were without all dispute which will sufficiently make good our Title to Tithes could we lay no other claim unto them wherefore it was that I said before that if they were not due by a Divine appointment yet are they now due by a voluntary dedication of them Par. It 's from those words that He infers that though Christ deny them and Men give them it will serve your turn Min. Could a more malicious and uncharitable interpretation be put upon my words Ananias and Saphira without any positive appointment dedicated the Money which they raised upon the sale of their Est●…e to the use of the Church Might not Ellwood have replied upon St. Peter and the rest Though Christ deny that Money yet if Ananias and Saphira give it it will serve your turn Par. Now T. E. takes notice