Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	flesh_n	likeness_n	sin_n	6,889	5	6.3561	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39312	Truth prevailing and detecting error, or, An answer to a book mis-called, A friendly conference between a minister and a parishioner of his, inclining to Quakerism, &c. by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1676 (1676)	Wing E630; ESTC R15648	157,165	374

be satisfied that the Command of swearing was no Part of the Ceremonial Law I by the contrary Reason infer that having found an Antitype for an Oath in the Gospel he and all his Parishioners and all others may be satisfied that the Command of Swearing was a Part of the Ceremonial Law and so an Oath not moral He goes on thus The second Argument to confirm you that Oaths are not evil in themselves nor Part of the Ceremonial Law is taken out ●f the Example of the holy Patriarchs with whom an Oath was of authentick Vse and held sacred before the Delivery of the Levitical Law page 67. Answ. Two things by this Argument he undertakes to prove one whereof is by none that I know of denyed it was warily done of him to begin with that namely that Oaths are not evil in themselves What makes him harp so upon this String He could not suspect that the Quakeos whom he writes against held Oaths to be evil in themselves for at his Entrance upon this Subject he himself observed out of R. H. that they allow Oaths to have been lawful page 52. yet no less then six times in his Discourse of Swearing he inculcates this that Oaths are not evil in themselves which looks as if he designed to perswade weak Heads they may do any thing that is not evil in it self The second thing he undertakes by this Argument to prove is That Oaths are no Part of the Ceremonial Law because they were of authentick Vse with the holy Patriarchs and by them held Sacred before the Delivery of the Levitical Law Answ. If Oaths are therefore no Part of the Ceremonial Law because they were of authentick use with the holy Patriarchs and by them held sacred before the Delivery of the Levitical Law Then by the same Reason no other thing is a Part of the Ceremonial Law which was of authentick use with the holy Patriarchs and by them held Sacred before the Delivery of the Levitical Law that is in short nothing that the Patriarchs did religiously observe before the Delivery of the Levitical Law was Ceremonial but Moral This I take to be the natural Consequence of his Argument and this I deny let him prove it if he can He may find if he pleaseth that Circumcision was of authentick Use with the holy Patriarchs and by them held sacred long before the Delivery of the Levitical Law and somewhat too before his first Instance of an Oath and yet I think he will not deny that Circumcision was a part of the ceremonial Law What then will he think of the Sacrificing of Beasts which was of Authentick Use with the holy Patriarchs and by them held sacred not only before the Delivery of the Levitical Law but even before the Flood will he say that Sacrificing was therefore no Part of the Ceremonial Law I hope he will be more considerate Another touch yet he hath at this in pag. 68. where he saith The Gospel Dispensation doth not repeal any Law that is Moral c. and such is this of a lawful Oath He assayes to prove it thus That Law whose Reason and Vsefulness is perpetual and the same to us under the Gospel as it was to them under the Law is it self perpetual and therefore not rep●aled by any new Dispensation Answ. To be satisfied whether or no the Reason of an Oath is perpetual we must again enquire out the Reason of an Oath and I will go no further at this time to fetch it then to my Adversary's own Words pag. 61 62. If there were that Truth in men that their ba●e Testimony were infallible and of sufficient Credit then there were no need at all of an O●th but seeing all men are Lyars and mankind is so generally leavened with Hypocrisie and since Fear or Favour Malice or Interest sw●ys with the far greater Part of men it becomes highly needful that their Evidence be demanded and given in such Forms as are most binding to the Cons●ience which an Oath by all the World is acknowledged to be Observe here the Reason he gives for the Needfulness of an Oath viz. ●ying Hypocrisie Fear Favour Malice Interest for were it not for these he confesseth there were no need at all of an Oath Let ●s now carry this Reason of his along with us to his Argument and see how well favouredly it will look there His Argument then will run thus The Gospel does not repeal any Law the Reason whereof is perpertual but the Reason of an Oath namely Lying Hypocrisie Malice c. is perpetual therefore the Gospel doth not repeal Oaths What else is this but to establish Lying Hypocrisie Malice c. and to perpetuate them for ever that while the World stands men must never cease from Oaths because while the World stands men must never cease from Lying Hyp●crisie Malice c. for if these be as he truly saith the Reason of Oaths take away these and the Reason of Oaths is taken away and then there can be no Reason for Swearing but these viz. Lying Hypocrisie Malice c. under the Gospel and from among true Christians are taken away at least none will deny that de jure of right they ought to be so therefore Oaths also under the Gospel and among true Christians are taken away at least of right ought to be so Besides In making Lying Hypocrisie Malice c. the Reason and Strife and Contention the Vsefulness of Oaths and then asserting the Reason and Usefulness of Oaths under the Gospel to be the same as it was under the Law he greatly undervalues and debases the Gospel rendring it as defective and insufficient to take away Lying Hypocrisie Malice Strife c. as was the Law Whereas the Apostle sayes expresly that What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the Flesh God sending his own Son in the Likeness of sinful Flesh and for Sin condemned Sin in the Flesh that the Righteousness of the Law which is beyond the Letter of it might be fulfilled in Vs who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit And to the Hebrews he sayes The Law made nothing perfect but the bringing in of a better Hope did But if there be as much need of Oaths now under the Gospel as there was then under the Law and that for this Reason because there is as much Lying Hypocrisie Malice and Strife now among Christians as there was then among the Iews which his words carry and his Argument it self implies else it is nothing to the purpose then hath not Christ who is Heir of all and to whom all Power in Heaven and Earth is given done more in this Respect for his Disciples then Moses who was but a Servant did for his Which to suppose would so highly derogate from the Honour of Christ that it were to● great an Impiety for any to admit who bears the Name of a Christian. In his Margent upon

which Oaths were allowed the Ordinances whereof were Carnal besides it chargeth an Incongruity upon the Apostle himself to suppose he meant by men's Swearing that the Saints did swear and that an Oath was to them an End of Strife much more to imagine he commanded or allowed it in them when he checkt the Corinthians so sharply for living in Strife and walking as men telling them plainly they were but carnal Nor let him or any think to take Advantage as some without cause or success have done from the Apostle's speaking in the present Tense Men do swear c. and an Oath is to them an End c. from thence inferring that he spake this of the Christian-state because he saith men do not did and an Oath is not was but consider that he writes to the Hebrews who were of the Iews amongst whom Oaths had been lawfully used And therefore he expresses himself to them in the same Tense upon other Occasions also which none can apply to the Gospel state although spoken in the Gospel-time So he sayes Every High Priest is ordained to offer c. This must needs be understood of the Iewish Priesthood which de jure was at an End and yet he does not say Every High Priest was ordained but in the present Tense is ordained c. So also speaking of the outward Tabernacle that was used in the time of the Law he sayes After the second Vail was the Tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all He could not intend this of the Believers in Christ that they did call this Tabernacle the Holiest of all for they knew a Holier then it and that it was at an end But he must here be understood to speak of the Iews to whom that Tabernacle belonged and not to the Christians in like manner when he sayes men do swear c. and an Oath is to them an End c. he must also be understood to speak of the Iews to whom Oaths were commanded not of the Christians to whom they were not commanded For there is no more Reason to apply his words in this Case to the Christians then there would be to apply his words in the other Cases here mention'd to the Christians which to do would be highly absurd false But he sayes If you take away an Oath you make Christ not so much the Prince of Peace as Discord by making him the Abolisher of that which was designed to compose it Answ. No such matter Christ hath a better Way of composing Discord then by Oaths Moses had that Way who was but a Servant and the Servant abides not in the House forever But Christ who is the Son hath a more excellent Way by establishing Truth and Righteousness in the Earth The Law in which the Oaths were was given by Moses but the Grace and the Truth came by Iesus Christ. And by this Grace and Truth Christ worketh out of the Hearts of them that receive it all that Lying Hypocrisie Fear Favour Malice Interest c. which this Priest makes to be the Needful Causes of an Oath pag. 62. And instead of Lying he brings in True-speaking instead of Hypocrisie he brings in Sincerity instead of that insnaring Fear he brings in the Fear of the Lord by which men depart from Evil instead of Favour he brings in Iustice instead of Malice he brings in Love instead of Interest he brings in Self-denyal instead of Vnrighteousness he brings in Righteousness and the Work of Righteousness is not Discord but Peace Thus he is made both the Lord our Righteousness and the Prince of Peace And thus by setting up Truth and Sincerity in the Heart he takes away the Ground of Oaths For the Priest confesses If there were that Truth in men that their bare Testimony were of sufficient Credit then there were no need at all of an Oath pag 61. Now though I will not invert the Charge upon my Adversary which without any Inj●stice to him I might do yet I will make bold to tell him that He shews but little Respect to Christ while he grounds the Need of an Oath upon Lying Hypocrisie and Malice yet would make CHRIST to continue the Vse of it in his Church He is now come to his third Proposition viz. That an Oath is a Part of that Moral and Eternal Law which our Saviour professeth he came not to destroy but to fulfil p. 56. And this he infers with a Therefore that is Because it is an Act of Natural Religion towards God and of necessary Justice and Charity towards men Therefore it is a part of that Moral and Eternal Law c. Answ. If nothing more should be said to this yet the two former Propositions on which he builds this being before overturned this in course must fall to the Ground Yet nevertheless that he may not think himself sleighted I will take notice what he says here also He b●stirs himself not a little to prove that which I never yet heard any deny namely that all Oaths are not Evil in themselves which he gravely infers from their having been once confessedly lawful p. 63. What else is this but to mis-spend his Time and bestow many a doughty Blow upon his own Shadow His Proposition required him to prove that some Oaths are Good in themselves and he comes so near it as to prove that all Oaths are not Evil in themselves What thinkst thou Reader has he not shewed his Ability Some things are forbidden because they are Evil and some things are Evil because they are forbidden An Oath we say is therefore Evil because forbidden That which made it lawful to the Iew was its being commanded that which makes it unlawful to the Christian is its being forbidden He has another far-fetch by which he would prove Oaths moral and that is because they are not Ceremonial But how does he prove they are not Ceremonial Thus They were used sayes he by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given therefore not Ceremonial pag 63. Answ. Indeed Was nothing then Ceremonial that was used by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given Surely he consulted his own Credit more in concealing his Name then in thus undertaking to prove Oaths a part of the moral and eternal Law because used by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given Can any thing be more naturally inferred then that he accounts whatsoever was used by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given to be a part of the moral and eternal Law And could he have found a more direct medium to discover his own Ignorance Was not Circumcision in the Flesh used by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given Will he thence conclude Circumcision to be a part of the moral and eternal Law Why then is he not Circumcised himself Were not Beasts sacrificed by the Patriarchs long before the Levitical Law was given Will he thence conclude that such Sacrifices are

made use of by the rest of the Apostles or Churches as an Argument for the lawfulness and Continuation of Circumcision or any other of the Jewish Rites So in the Testimonies of those holy Martyrs and Confessors of Jesus what was denied by some and witnessed against as Popish Superstitious and wicked ought not to be received and defended now as not Popish or Superstitious at least by such as pretend to reverence their testimonies because the same things were not denied by all for God is not limitable to Numbers of Witnesses but he raised up one to bear Testimony against one Corruption another against another Superstition some stormed one Part of Babylon some another b●● did not make their Batteries all in one Place Now that Tythes were denyed by many of those godly men Fox's Martyrology assures us in the Instances of Thorp Swinderby Bruce Wickliff c. Some of whom complained of the Abuse of Tythes in that they were then fixt and settled as a Payment whenas but a little before they were a voluntary free Gift disposeable at the Will and Pleasure of the Giver Others utterly denying and rejecting them as no way lawful at all nay Thorp saith expresly That those Priests that do take Tythes d●●y Christ to be come in the Flesh urging it as the Opinion of one of the Doctors and as he thinks of Ierome And Brute saith not only that no man is bound to pay Tythes in Gospel-times but that it is manifest and plain that neither by the Law of Moses nor by Christ's Law Christian People are bound to pay Tythes but by the Traditions of Men. Hence what Opinion these good men had of Tythes the Reader may judge but for any now to urge in Defence and Justification of Tythes that Cranmer Hooper Ridley and other Godly Martyrs received them what else is this but to oppose the Martyrs one to another and render them as clashing and warring amongst themselves yea and to endeavour by the Practices of some to invalidate and make the Testimony of others utterly void and of no Force which I am sure does ill become any Protestant to do and indeed I think none that were truly such would ever have attempted it But to go on From Divine Right which he only nibbles at but dares not trust his Cause upon as having no Place in holy Writ from whene he might derive it and from Donation or Voluntary Dedication of Tythes in former Ages which is here proved to be at best but Pop●sh he be takes himself to his last and surest ●e●uge Humane 〈◊〉 making Tythe to be b●t a Temporal Right in the same man●e● a 〈…〉 Tenure that other mens 〈◊〉 are 〈…〉 may introduce a Pl●● to 〈…〉 enjoy Tythes by the same Right and 〈…〉 Reason that any other man enjoye● 〈…〉 For when in page 135 〈◊〉 he is prest to sh●w 〈◊〉 a Precept where God hath commanded Tythes to be paid or an Example there the Apostles did receive them and this urged also from a Th●s●● of his own viz. That Precept or Example in holy Scripture must certainly be the Guide of all our Actions he to avoid the Force of it insinuates that he is no more obliged to 〈…〉 Precept or Example for his taking 〈…〉 then any other man 〈◊〉 for the enjoying of his Temporal Estate 〈◊〉 shew you the Mistak● saith he I thought he had not counted it a Mistake for men to take precept or Example in holy Scripture for the Guide of all their Actions You saith he chall●nge so many Acres of Ground c. Now to make you a good property in this Estate you must shew either some positive Scripture for your Right to hold the same or an Example from Christ or the Apostles that they had Free Holds c. To this the Parishioner replies I shall soon discover your Fallacy by telling you that I enjoy my Estate as a Temporal Right Answ. But that is not all I shall discover his Fallacy further by telling him not only that I enjoy my Estate as a Temporal Right but also that I claim it in a Natural and Civil Capacity without Relation to a Ministerial Function or Spiritual Office as a Man not as a Minister of Christ. But the Priest doth not claim Tythes in this Capacity He claims in a Spiritual Capacity although his Claim be false his Claim depends upon a Ministerial Function He claims not as a Man but as a Minister of Christ for such he pretends to be though he be not His claim therefore to Tythes and my claim to my temporal Estate differing in the very Ground and Nature of them that which will make good my claim to my Estate will not make good his claim to Tythes For my claim to my Estate being grounded upon a Natural or Temporal Consideration only a Temporal Right is sufficient to make it good But his Claim to Tythes being grounded upon a Spiritual Consideration as he pretends to be a Minister of Christ a Temporal Right is no way equal or suitable to his Claim So that he hath still need if he would still take Tythes and still be reputed a Minister of Christ to produce a Precept where God hath commanded Tythes to be paid under the Gospel or an Example where Christ or his Apostles did receive them Which if he cannot do he is justly to be reputed no Minister of Christ since they that are indeed his Ministers are able to shew both Precept and Example for the Maintenance which they receive But saith he page 137. If the Consideration of a Temporal right be sufficient to satisfie your Conscience in a Temporal Enjoyment by the same Reason I can hold my Tythes without any Wound to my Conscience Answ. How hard his Conscience is to be wounded especially in a Case so profitable to him as Tythes I will not undertake to lay Yet thus far I will that if his Co●science were not harder then it should be I am sure he could not satisfie it in taking Tythes That which gives Sati●fa●●ion to mine or any other man's Conscience in the Temporal Enjoyment of a Temporal Estate is the Consideration that he claims it only in a Natural and Civil Capacity as a man without any respect to a Spiritual Imployment and that in that Capacity he hath a Temporal Right unto it But i● the Case thus with the Priest Doth he claim Tythes purely in a Natural and Civil capacity as a man without any respect to a Spiritual Imployment or doth he claim them upon a Religious Score as a Minister of Christ though not one and in Consideration of a Ministerial Office or Spiritual Function which he pretends to execute If so how dares he then say that by the same Reason which satisfies other mens Consciences in the Enjoyment of their Temporal Estates he can hold Tythes without any Wound to his Conscience Certainly by confounding these so different Considerations of Natural and Spiritual Civil and Religious Capa●ities he hath