Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	ceremonial_a	law_n	moral_a	2,752	5	9.7768	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78612	A pretended voice from heaven, proved to bee the voice of man, and not of God. Or, An answer to a treatise, called A voice from heaven, written by Mr. Gualter Postlethwait, an unordained preacher, taking upon him to exercise the pastoral charge, in a congregation at Lewis in Sussex. Wherein, his weakness, in undertaking to prove all protestant churches to bee antichristian, and to bee separated from, as no true churches of Christ, is discovered; and the sinfulness of such a separation evinced. Together with, a brief answer inserted, to the arguments for popular ordination, brought by the answerers of Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, in their book called The preacher sent. By Ezekiel Charke, M.A. and rector of Waldron in Sussex. Imprimatur, Edmond Calamy.	Charke, Ezekiel.	1658 (1658)	Wing C2069; Thomason E959_5; ESTC R207673	108,343	141

maintenance May not Mr. P's Successor in his Church have such a maintenance as hee hath a maintenance like his and yet the same kind of maintenance But if Mr. P's Logick were as good as it is bad yet he hath no footing in the Text for his arguing hee plainly misunderstands it For the context compared with the text evinceth that the Apostles aim and scope is not to compare the maintenances as to their peculiar kind but to prove that maintenance is due to Gospel Ministers for their work as well as it was to legal Ministers for theirs A maintenance these had whereby they did live and had a subsistence suitable to their condition as Ministers of holy things and a maintenance thus sufficient whereby they may live as Gospel Ministers he argues those ought to have by the Lords Ordinance He that ordained that Legal Ministers should have a sufficient and honourable maintenance hath also yea and therein ordained that Gospel Ministers should have such a maintenance Gods Ordinance in this respect reacheth the one as well as the other and is accordingly applied by the Apostle to all Ministers of holy things as one in this thing vers 10. For our sakes no doubt this is written that is for the sakes of all Ministers of holy things God would have them subsist by a sufficient and honourable maintenance Thus this plain text is plainly nothing to his purpose But he hath more than one string to his bow Next comes an Argument that he thinks will doe the deed The summe of it is this Tythes are paid neither by the light of Nature nor by a Moral command for the instances of Abrahams and Jacobs paying Tythes will not evidence so much for Circumcision was of the Fathers and yet obliged to keep the whole Law and Sacrifices were as old as Cain and Abel yet part of the Ceremonial Law Again no gospel-Gospel-Law is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law but the institution of our Saviour for maintenance explained Gal. 6.6 will not stand with Tythes Therefore they are paid by a Ceremonial precept and belong to the Ceremonial Law which to practise is to digge Christ out of his Grave and a character of Antichrist Strange confidence this to build so peremptorily so deep so censuring a conclusion on such slenderly-proved premises Two Reasons he hath here why Tythes are not paid by a Moral command which pretend to overthrow two of those whereby they that are for the Divine right of them assert that they depend upon a Moral command 1 The instances of Abraham and Jacob will not serve the turn for it And why I pray We know the Priesthood to which Abraham paid was not Ceremonial and no Scripture tells us his payment was a branch of the Ceremonial Law The portion due to Melchisedecks Priesthood is due to the Priesthood of Christ it being after the order of his and so to Gospel Ministers as Christs servants If therefore Abraham in duty paid Tythes before the Law to Melchisedecks Priesthood are they not now to be paid to the Priesthood of Christ and received by his Ministers No saith Mr. P. for Circumcision and Sacrifices were before the Law and yet did belong to the Ceremonial Law and are abolished What a wonderful confutation is this For besides that hee saith nothing to what is commonly alledged concerning Melchisedecks Priesthood when that instance is urged doth it follow that because Circumcision and Sacrifices that were before and under the Law are abolished that therefore Tythes that were so are abolished also certainly by no Logick but Mr. P's For the two former we have express Scriptures declaring that they are abolished but not so for the latter It is not every thing that was appointed before the Law and continued under the Law and was not explicitely recommanded by the Gospel that is abolished for so the Sabbath it self should be abolished but what the declared will of God hath abolished Therefore Mr. P. hath but confirmed the opposite argument Abraham paid Tythes by command Mr. P. denies it not That command is not expresly and explicitely repealed as are those for Circumcision and Sacrifices Mr. P. doth not shew or say that it is What hinders then but that it should be looked upon as a Moral and perpetually binding command It must be his second Reason if any thing for his first says it is not in me 2 The Assumption says he is manifest because no Law appointed in the Gospel is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law of God But the institution of our Saviour explained Gal. 6.6 will not stand with Tythes these are out of the seed of the land the first fruit of the trees and the herd or flock The Gospel-maintenance is raised out of all good things that the person taught hath Tythes were paid the first tenth to the Levites and they paid the tenth of the tenth to the Priests c. This Reason is Mr. Hookers and saving the reverence due to so worthy a man may justly bee said to have no cogency at all in it Tythes may very well consist with Christs institution for Ministers maintenance as explained Gal. 6.6 For 1 Suppose this expression of the Apostle in all good things bee as comprehensive as Mr. Hooker would have it Yet it appears not but that under the Law Tythes were so paid No places in the Law of Moses that mention Predial Tythes do restrain the payment to them excluding personal Tythes The Law mentions the chief and comprehends under them the rest as may appear by considering that neither grass nor hony nor wax nor several other things that might bee mentioned are referrible to any of the mentioned expressions being neither of the seed of the Land nor the fruit of Trees nor of the herd or flock which yet no man doubts I suppose but were tithed Therefore Mr. Hooker could not on sufficient ground say that the Tythes under the law were not of all good things even in his sense Nay there is as express a place to prove that Tythes under the Law were paid of all good things as this Gal. 6. is for the communicating maintenance out of them under the Gospel which is Luke 18.12 I give Tythes saies the Pharisee of all that I possesse Is not all that I possess as fully expressive as all good things 2 May not Gal. 6. mean suitably to the Law In all good things that is in all things communicable and whereof a portion was to bee communicated to Ministers under the Law If it must bee understood in a limitted sense as who can doubt but it must in relation to many particulars where shall wee have a rule to limit it and bound it but the practice under the Law 3 What ever becomes of the Tythe under the Law wee are sure wee can match this expression in Gal. 6. with those whereby Abraham's and Jacob's paying of Tythes before the Law which is firstly to bee heeded in this businesse is

set forth Of Abraham it is said Gen. 14.20 Hee gave him Tithes of ALL spoiles and all Heb. 7.4 And saies Jacob Gen. 28.22 Of ALL that thou shalt give mee I will surely give the tenth unto thee Where lies the Reason now why the Institution of Christ for Ministers maintenance should not stand with Tythes That requireth men should communicate to Ministers in all good things and herein it is answerable to the Law of Tythes for Abraham before the Law gave tythes to Melchisedeck of all and Jacob Tythes to God of all and persons under the Law as appears by that of the Pharisee gave tithes of all that they possessed and these cannot but bee deemed to have acted therein according to Gods Ordinance As for the other branch of this second reason that the first tenth was under the Law to the Levite c. it speaks nothing at all for the inconsistency of Tythes with Christs institution For that order and distinction is acknowledged on all hands to have been Ceremonial and adventitious to the nature of the maintenance Wee must strip the Ordinance of the Sabbath it self of morality if wee will have no appointment moral that was attended under the Law with something Ceremonial Thus it may clearly appear to the considerate Reader that as yet Mr. P. hath not made his assumption manifest but rather his weaknesse neither of his Reasons holding good And therefore consequently his flourishing conclusion makes but a vainshew Hee hath no way proved that Tythes are paid by a Ceremonial Precept and belong to the Ceremonial Law And withall hee hath avoided or omitted one great part of his task under such an attempt n. to prove that and shew how Tythes 1 were a shadow of Christ or grace to come by Christ here in the Law for them nature of them proportion in them 2 Analogically represented heavenly things which are porperties that enter into the definition of Legal Levitical ceremonies from Scripture and which I am assured Mr. P. will never bee able to make out concerning Tithes But yet poor man hee seems to think hee hath done such wonders in confuting Tithes that now if any dare refuse to let them go yet they will not have hee thinks the face to take them as and under the notion of Tythes And therefore follows Neither will it avail for any to say that they take them not as Tythes for the Corinthians could not bee so excused as to their eating things sacrificed to Idols c. Certainly there is no cause to fear from any thing that hee hath said that men that have duely considered the thing should betake themselves to that refuge or to think they should judge the case of eating things offered to Idols in the Idols Temple and the taking of Tythes alike Alas what unequal yoaking of things is here Nay but Tithes are Popish and were sacrificed to Idols either directly or interpretatively by Papists Not Popish sure in their institution nor since Christ owned at first as the Ministers maintenance by Papists or to promote directly or indirectly Popery or Idolatry Mr. P's reading should have taught him better Tythes are far Elder than Popery even in the Christian Church And however Papists have abused either Tythes or Temples there ariseth hence no more necessity to forsake them now that those abuses are renounced and expelled than there did to Israel to abolish their Tythes or Temple because they were used during the prevalency of Idolatry in that nation to maintain it But withall I must minde Mr. P. that as to the Divine right of Tythes the Papists shake hands with him for they generally disown it and dispute against it Now wee are reminded of his injunctions hitherto with a caution Away I say with all appurtenances of a Parish Church p. 82 Let us not desire the silver and gold of the Idol lest wee bee snared and become an abomination like it and accursed like it Mr. P. doth well to comprehend himself and those that are with him in his admonition to avoid that which hee deems to be a curse But he would do better since his judgement is thus if he did more labour to reform at home what he doth so highly declaim against in others One lately of his Church though hee weakly renounced his Ordination yet to his end would not quit his Tythes Others of the members of his Church are Parish-Preachers and receivers of Tythes May it not now be queried upon Mr. P's principles whether his Church bee come out of Babylon when such brats of Babylon as hee accounts Parish-Ministers and receivers of Tythes to bee are the main Pillars of it and are suffered in it though they live in a practice directly contrary to their Pastors Doctrin Or is it Antichristian in all others to receive Tythes but not in the Members of Mr. P's Society But Reader is it not more strange than this and matter of wonder that Mr. POST LETHWAIT himself who doth so highly inveigh against Tythes shovld defile his fingers with the silver and gold of the IDOL that accursed thing in his judgement and give an acquittance for Tythes by the name of TITHES under his own hand and that Since hee hath appeared in print in his Pamphlet against Tythes I can assure thee it is not more strange than true Judge now what heed is to bee given to his declamations against us who take tithes which wee judge wee may lawfully receive whenas hee can allow himself to take them who professedly condemns them and accounts them Antichristian I shall presume to give Mr. P. some advice hereupon and so close this Section 1 I beseech him to make sure of an actual particular repentance from that sin against his judgement 2 I wish him to study controverted points more throughly before hee adventure to determine of them so peremptorily 3 I intreat him to consider that if his judgement bee still the same concerning Tythes hee should labour speedily to his power to restore that Tythe-money hee hath heretofore received If it bee Babylonish Gold an accursed thing gain unjustly gotten why should it abide in his Tabernacle to consume both it and him This hee was minded of by a Parish-Minister who breaks bread with him who told him that by the Principles of his book hee was bound to make restitution of the Tythes he had at any time received to the utmost of his estate I hear his evasion is hee would make restitution if he knew to whom But doth not hee know that when the right owners of goods unlawfully gotten cannot bee discovered the Poor are the Heirs Luke 19.8 Herewith Mr. P. will do well to think upon that of Austin Non aufertur peccatum nisi restituat rab latum SECT IX Concerning the Commissioners for approbation of publick Preachers TAke heed that you set not up Episcopacy again p. 84 85. Saints are affraid what the Commissioners for the trial of Ministers will come to at last At first