Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	good_a	let_v	word_n	1,912	5	4.0521	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39304	The foundation of tythes shaken and the four principal posts (of divine institution, primitive practice, voluntary donations, & positive laws) on which the nameless author of the book, called, The right of tythes asserted and proved, hath set his pretended right to tythes, removed, in a reply to the said book / by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1678 (1678)	Wing E622; ESTC R20505	321,752	532

S●xth or a Twelfth a Fifth or a Fifteenth part as a Tenth according as their ability would permit or the occasion should require And if it were in the Donors choi●e what part to give that leaves no place for a Divine Right to Tythes Thus then we see this first of his plain places and positive Laws is so far from affording a positive proof that Tythes were to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers that it doth not so much as fairly intimate it But to help out the matter he adds pag. 64. That the blessed Iesus who ordained this did incline the hearts of pious Christians to dedicate Tythes and other Oblations made in gratitude for the Gospel This I shall have occasion to take further notice of when I shall come anon to examine his Dedications Donations and Charters In this place let it susfice that what he takes for granted I deny and expect proof of The World is not ignorant what heaps of Oblations and Dedications have been made under pretence of gratitude for the Gospel by many whose hearts the Blessed Jesus did never incline thereto I come now to his second plain place or positive Law as he calls it which he thus brings in Le●t any should say This Text supposes something will be given but doth not enjoyn the Christians to give ●e have another Law directed to the People containing both their duty and the Ministers Right Ga● 6. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things His former Text he sayes supposes something will be given and this en●oyns something shall be given but neither one nor ●other expresses what part What proof then can either of these places afford that Tythes or the tenth part was to be the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers and that our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers whenas neither of these places mention Tythes or any certain quantity He that is taught in the word is to Communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things That he doth as really though not so largely who giveth but an hundredth part as he that giveth a tenth And on the other hand if he that is to be the receiver may take the liberty of fixing the quantity he may if he please make it a third part or a half as well as a tenth We see then no certain Conclusion can be drawn from these Texts as to the proportion or quantity of Maintenance that being left wholly free and at the disposal of the Giver Consequently Tythes which are a certain quantity cannot be proved by these Scriptures to be established by our Lord Iesus and his Apostles for the Maintenance of the Gospel Ministers Thus these two plain places and positive Laws as the Priest calls them are plain and positive enough against him and his Brethren to prove that they ought not to exact Maintenance from those that deny their Ministry but will not prove what he would have viz. Tythes for the Gospel Maintenance either positively or by fair intimation To back his insufficient proofs he ru●s over again his overworn Stories of the Antiquity of the tenth part how it was made known by God to be his part by Revelation and learn'd by the Heathens by Primitive Tradition and much more of the same Rank In all which his Conclusions are no more forcible then that in all reason it ought to be that part and there is no reason to 〈◊〉 but that this is the share or portion of Gospel Ministers pag. 66. But this being so groundless and having been so often Answered I think it not worth my while to stay upon but proceed to an Objection he makes pag. 67. There is sayes he but one Objection against this viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part If there were no other Objection but this yet this is such an one as he can never be able to remove A grand Objection indeed st●ongely inforced against himself by the Maxim urged by himself pag. 62. Non expressa non nocent Those things which are not exprest do not hurt This shuts out all his Conjectures and Suppositions and restrains him closely to what is exprest But seeing by his own confession pag. 67. Tythes are not exprest not mentioned in the New-Testament to be the Gospel-Maintenance how rash and over-confident was he in the entrance of his 11th Section to assert pag. 61 That our Lord Jesus and his Apostles have sufficiently established Tythes for the Maintenance of the Gospel-Ministers and that they may be proved also out of the New-Testament to be due jure divino Will he undertake to prove that out of the New-Testament which he confesses is not mentioned in the New-Testament and yet at the same time tell us Non expressa non nocent What man of reason modesty or name would not be ashamed of this But besides this which he hath brought there are other Objections against Tythes being the Maintenance of Gospel-Ministers namely That Tythes or a tenth part is a Ceremony Mode or Circumstance of Maintenance and as such was a part of the Ceremonial Law which being abrogated by Christ was not fit to be received amongst Christians That a Maintenance by Tythes or any other certain fixed and determinate quantity is not agreeable with the Nature of the Gospel which as it self is free so ought the Maintenance also to be this being one of the Believers Priviledges under the Gospel The Law was a State of Bondage the Gospel is a State of Liberty The Law represented the condition of Servants the Gospel that of Sons The Law treated those that were under it as Children in Nonage under Tutors and Governours the Gospel treats them that receive it as men arr●ved to an adult age Besides under the Gospel Tythes are not an equal way of Maintenance in respect either of the Giver or of the Receiver or of the Service Many other Objections might also be urged against Tythes being a Gospel-Maintenance but these may serve to convince the Priest that he was too hasty in concluding there is but this one Objection which he has brought But leaving these at least at present let us see how he attempts to remove that one Objection which himself has urged viz. That Tythes are not mentioned in the Gospel or Epistles to be the very part To this sayes he I reply There are very good Reasons why Tythes are not mentioned in the New-Testament by name His first reason is To avoid all occasion of scandal to the Jews whose Priests were then in Possession of them There is no weight at all in this reason for we see that in that very Epistle which was written to the Hebrew● or Iews themselves the Apostle tells them expresly and argues it forcibly and undeniably that the Iewish Priest-hood and the Law by which they took Tythes together with that Covenant

Marr●age These were the same sort of Guests mentioned by Luke who were in the Highways and Hedges and yet we see this great King did not command or impower his Servants to use any other Compulsion to them than an Invitation As many as ye shall find ●id 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Marriage Thu● that place in Luke being aptly explained by this in Matthew it appears that those words Compel them to come in import no more than Bid or Invite them to the Marriage Besides if we look further into the Parable we shall find that when the King taking a view of his Guests saw one there which had not on a wedding Garment and asked him Friend how camest thou in hither not having on a Wedding Garment The man was speechless and the King commanded his Servants to bind that man Hand and Foot and cast him into utter Darkness Which plainly proves he was not brought in against his Will he was not driven in by force nor dragged in by Head and Shoulders for if he had he had then had a fair Plea to make a ready Answer to return to the Question How camest thou in hither c I was driven in by stripes I was drawn in by force I was brought in against my will might he have said Had it been so he needed not have been speechless as it seems he was And how again could it have stood with the divine justice of that great King to sentence a man to be bound and cast into utter Darkness for coming in thither without a Wedding Garment if the man had been brought in by force against his own mind and that too by his Command But it is manifest that no such forcible violent penal Compulsion as the Priest aims at was commanded or intended by our Saviour in this Parable and consequently that the word compel in this place Luke 14. 23. is misunderstood at least misapplied by the Priest and his Yes surely is surely false But he urges the Judgment of Augustine That to compel Men to that which is good is very lawful and an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls yea a duty of Christian-Princes c. pag. 235. Is it so How chanced it then that they who being invited to the Supper came not were not ●ompelled to come Doth the Priest think the Ma●te● of the House who made the Invitation did not know what Charity was necessary to th●ir Souls or was ignorant of the duty of a Christian Prince Would he have omitted an Act of such necessary Charity had it indeed been Charity or neglected a duty had it been a duty But let us examin this Position and see if there be any thing of truth or reason i● it The Position is That to compel men to that which is good is very lawful and an Act of n●cessary Charity to their Souls yea a duty of Christian Princes First who shall judge whether the thing to be compelled to is good or no They that are to be compelled or he that is to compel If they that are to be compelled may judge it is not likely that they should judge that good which they must be compelled to for if they judged it good they would not need to be compelled to it If he that is to compel must judge then whatsoever he shall judge to be good be it never so bad that must bear the name of Good and all must be compelled to receive it Secondly concerning Christian Princes the like dissatisfaction may arise Possibly they who are compelled to that as Good which they believe is not good may question whether they are Christian Princes that so compel On the other hand what Prince is there throughout that part of the World which is called Christendom that is not ready on all Occasions to assert himself a Christian Prince Now therefo●e if every one that holds himself a Christian Prince not only lawfully may but also both in point of duty and as an Act of necessary Charity to the Souls of others ought to compel men to that which he judges good what hinders then but he whose Ancestors received from Rome the Title of Most Christian King and who professeth himself a Son of the Church of Rome lawfully may yea must according to this Position both as his own duty and as an Act of necessary Charity to their Souls compel all Protestants in his Dominions to the Romish Religion which he judges good Thus Reader thou seest the horrid Consequence of this false and Antichristian Position But this is the old Argument of the Papists long since exploded and detested by men of Reason and Ingenuity though sometimes as now made use of at a pinch of need to countenance a corrupt and selfish Interest But he shews him●●lf a right Romanist He hath not only the Popish Argument for Persecution but the Popish Cloak also to cover himself withal It is not says he pag. 236. the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked S●hism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess. 5. 14. and labour to convince them by Arguments yea at length they use the Censures of the Church and finally as the last remedy complain to the secular Magistrate c. What did Bonner more or the worst of Popish Bishops They did not use to Burn me● themselves but they got a Law made that such as they declared Hereticks should be Burnt and then they sentenced those for Hereticks that would not bow to them and their Inventions and prayed the Magistrates to burn them What odds in all this between the Popish Priests and these save only that these are not yet come to Popish Fire and Fagot as himself well observes pag. 237 But besides this is it all true that the Priest says here Do they descend by these steps to their Church-Censures and secular Complaint Do they admonish Do they warn Do they ever attempt to convince by Arguments Whom of a thousand is lie able to name for an Instance of such procedure yet he says This is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. ●0 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punishing his outward man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. 5. 5. S. Paul indeed did admonish often did warn frequently did labour to convince by Arguments and that earnestly but I never read before that he complained to the secular Mag●●●rate or so much as threatned so to do I am sure the Scriptures he hath quoted will not justifie this Assertion But if S. Paul did not complain to the secular Magistrate then this which the Priests confesses they do is more than S. Paul did and the Priest in saying it is no more is found in a downright Falshood But to proceed I said in Answer to the former Priest If Christ gave no Authority to his Apostles to compel any to hear them to be sure

well of Cattel as of Fruits be rightly offered to their several Churches by Rich and Poor according to the saying of the Lord by the Prophet Bring ye all the Tythes into the Store-House c. For as God hath given us all so of all he requireth Tythe of the Profits of the Field and all Provisions of Bee's and Honey Lambs c. And he that payes not Tythes of all these is a Thief to God himself pag. 88. His observation on this is That they all declare Tythes to be due jure divino But whence fetcht they their Opin●on of the Divine Right of Tythes Do they not deduce it from the Words of the Prophet and ground their Decree thereupon And had not those Words of the Prophet a direct reference to the C●remonial Law And is not the Ceremonial Law ended and abrogated by Christ And do not these Priests disown any claim from it Friendly Co●ference pag. 133. Right of Tythes pag. 4● What trifling then is it thus to Argue Besides there is great ground to sus●ect the credit of his quotation Selden Nothing the falshood which some c●mmit who out of Iuo attributed an express Canon for the payment of first Fruits and Tenths to the provincial Synod of Sivil and giving the words of that Canon little different from these quoted by the Priest sayes The old Manuscript Copy of Iuo hath it ex concili● Spanensi and the Printed Book ex concilio Hispalensi Then sticking a little at the word Spanensi he adds Whatever he meant by it clearly the whole Canon is of much later time the first words of it also being nothing but the Syllables of one of Charlemains Laws that was not made till 780. years from Christ. He observes also that Gratian warily abstained from using these Canons and a little after concludes positively That among the known and certain Monuments of Truth till about the end 800 years no Law Pontificial of or Synodal saving that of Mascon Determins or Commands any thing concerning Tenths although very many are which speaking purposely and largely of Church Revenues Oblations and such like could not have been silent of them if that quantity had been then established for a certain duty He then shews that the Canonists and others in later Ages compiling their Decrees have made those words by which the Offerings of the Christians were expressed to serve as if they had expresly named Tythes in which Observation he seems to take this very Priest by the Nose and concludes thus He that reads those old Canons only as they are so applied in late Authority to Tythes might perhaps soon think that at first they were made specially and by name for them The matters sayes he is plainly otherwise What was ordained in them about Tythes is out of them in later times Tythes Oblatio ●s being then supposed of equal right expresly extended also to Tythes And to this purpose he cites Frier 〈◊〉 in Prolegom ad To●● 1. Con●il thus Licet forsan fals● t●li sint Pontifici vel cert● tali Co●cilio per scriptorum inc●rian ad scripti i. e. Although perhaps speaking of such Canons they are falsly ascribed to such a Pope or to such a Council by the carelesness of Writers Thus far Selden Hist. Tythe● c. 5. § 5. And in his sixth Section of the same Chapter mentioning again the Decree of Masoon which was but Provincial he sayes No Canon as yet was received in the Church generally as a binding Law for payment of any certain quantity which not only appears sayes he in that we find none such now remaining but also is confirmed by the Testimony of a great and learned French Bishop in whose Province also Mascon was that could not be ignorant of the received Law of his time He lived and wrote very near the end of this four Hundred Years I think sayes he in the very beginning of the next which according to S●lden's division must be the Year 900. And in a Treatise abou● the dispensation of Church Revenues expresly denyes that befo●e his time any Synod or general Doctrine of the Church had determined or ordained any thing touching the quantity that should be given either for Maintenance or building of Churches He gives the Testimony of this Bishop in his own words thus Ja● vero de donandis rebus etordinandis Ecclesijs nihil unquam in Synodis constitutum est nihil a Sanctis Patribus publice praedicatum Nulla enim compulit necessitas fervente ubique religiosa devotione et amore illustrandi Ecclesias ultro ●estruante c. i. e. But now concerning endowing ●nd ordaining Churches there has never been any thing decreed in Synods nor publickly preached by the holy Fathers For there has not been any necessity for that religious Devotion being every where warm and the desire of adorning Churches burning of its own accord And then adds This Author is Agobard Bishop of Lyons very learned and of great judgment and had not so confidently denyed what you see he doth if any Decree Canon or Council generally received had before his time commanded the payment or offering of any certain part And to confirm the Truth of this Bishop's Testimony herein he adds that Neither in the Codex Eccl●si●●niverculis or the Codex Ecclesi● Romane or Africane Fulgentius Ferrandus Cresconius or Isidore's Collection all which in those elder Ages were as parts of the Body of the Canon Law is once any mention of the name of Tenths Thus far Selden By which it may appear that Tythes had not so early a settlement in the Church as the Priest would perswade his Reader The Priest seems now to have done for the present with Councils and betakes himself to the Laws of Kings and Emperors To which before I pass I desire the Reader to take notice to what a nothing his great talk of Councils is come and that after all his great Brags he hath produced but one Council that expresly names Tythes and that but a Provincial one neithe● and falling so much short of that Antiquity that Antient Date the Beginning and earliest dayes of Christianity which he so frequently and vauntingly repeats that it was not much less then 600. yea●● after Christ before it was made and then too in probability little regarded § 8. Now let us observe the Laws he offers made by Kings and Emperours concerning Tythes The first he instances is of Constantine the Great Who he sayes pag. 89. being settled in his Empire in the Lands under his Dominion out of every City gave a certain Tribute to be distributed among the Church and Clergy of the Provinces and confirmed this Donation to stand forever If this be true yet what relation hath this to Tythes If Constantine gave a Tribute out of every City doth it thence follow that that Tribute was Tythes or the Tenth part of the Revenue of those Cities Or if that should be supposed would the Priest thence infer that the Country