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	power_n	66	3	4.5901	4	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

Ancestor who charged the Lands therewith which if he had dislik't he might have let them alone So the People pay us our Tithes but than it 's no thanks to them nor burden neither seeing they must have paid them or what is as valuable to some body else Par. You call'd Tithes a Freehold this Nettles him extremely because that proves them a distinct property But he desires you to shew those Laws to produce those Statutes that have Tithes a Freehold to the Clergy p. 331. Min. Who ever before this Quaker required a Statute to prove a Freehold I thought the Representives of Freeholders with the concurrence of the King and Peers had made those Statutes which he calls on me to produce I pray who elect the Parliament Men that serve for the County Par. The Freeholders Min. And did you never see Clergymens Votes enter'd at one of those Elections Par. Yes many a time Min. That very thing proves them Freeholders So that you see T. E. is no better a Lawyer than a Divine For he should have gone to the Common Law and not to the Statute Law to prove a Freehold Par. I find however that He has consulted some Statutes for the payment of Tithes and discovers a Fundamental error in them Namely that Tithes should be due to God and Holy Church now the reason of the Law says He being taken away the Law it self must cease p. 335. Min. The Reason of the Law will prove a fundamental truth For Tithes are due to God and Holy Church either by a Divine Right or at least by a solemn dedication of them Par. But this scurvy word property vexes him For He says nothing less will serve your turn p. 336. Min. No nothing less will serve my turn Par. But then he enquires where it s vested in whom saith He doth it lie is it in the Person of the Priest no such matter For a Man may be a Priest in Orders and yet have no power to demand Tithes c. So that the property if there were any would lie in the Office ibid. Min. What Office do's He mean by Office Par. He propounds the Question himself And what is the Office ibid. Min. But how do's He resolve it Par. Thus It was to be sure a Popish Office when Tithes were first paid to it in this Nation ib. Min. Is this an Answer to a Question What was then that Popish Office Par. That He do's not tell us but I suppose He means the Office of a Priest For He saith the Priest hath nothing to do with Tithes until by Presentation Institution and Induction he is invested with Office ibid. Min. Wonderful Learned Nonsense Yet I must tell him that neither Presentation nor Institution nor Induction nor these altogether invest a Man with the Office of Priest In short he confounds himself by distinguishing between the Person and the Office as he calls it and because this property does not belong to either of them apart therefore he concludes there is no property at all whereas the property belongs to the Person as qualified by Holy Orders and put into actual possession by Institution and Induction Par. He thinks he has a clever Argument to prove you have no property in Tithes For He says to manifest the emptiness of your plea you have no property until the Owner by setting it out for you hath made you one p. 337. Min. Suppose a Landlord sets a Farm for 10 l. per an Has He not a property to such a Sum though not to any particular Coin till such time as he hath received it So we have a property to a tenth though not to such a particular Sheaf until such time as it is Tithed and set out for us Par. There is one argument more which He seems wonderfully fond of with which He fills up many of his pages viz. that you have the Tithe of the Husbandmans labour toil sweat care charge diligence nay in one place He thinks you lay claim to his understanding p. 325. Min. Whoever reaps the Tithe of T. E's Understanding will not find himself much enriched by it And I must tell the Quaker that if Lands could bring forth without labour toil charge c. and Tenants pay no more than they do the argument would look with more shew of reason but as the case stands it s a perfect fallacy There wanted not those who suggested such stuff as this to the people in the days of the Prophet Malachi as if they were squeezed and impoverished by the payment of their Tithes wherefore God calls on them to try whether they should be losers by it Bringye saith He all the Tithes into the store-house that there may be meat in my house and prove me now herewith if I will not open the windows of Heaven and pour ye out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it So certainly those that pay their Tithes in a conscientious regard to God as consecrated to his Worship and Service may be sure to be no losers and that God will open the windows of Heaven and give a blessing to their labour toil care diligence will bless their crops and their cattels when in the mean time all sacrilegious Robbers do trouble their own Houses are Enemies to themselves and Families depriving themselves of Gods blessing which only maketh rich being not unlike to the Eagle in the Fable who stole a Coal from the Altar and carrying it to her Nest set therewith both her Young and Nest on fire Tithes have been long settled in the Nation and the Church's right to them being antecedent to any Proprietors of Land who bought their Estates liable to such an Incumbrance and consequently had a proportionable deduction in the purchase-Money and so no injury to them and if so why should they grumble at the payment of that which was never reckoned to them in the purchase Par. Yes says T. E. they purchased all that was not excepted out of the purchase p. 344. Min. But Tithes were excepted out of the purchase For every body knows that they were excepted by the Law of the Nation and therefore it would have been impertinent to have excepted them in the the Body of the Purchase-Deed But it any Lands are to be sold which are exempted from the payment of Tithes than to be sure the Purchaser shall hear of that in both his Ears and for such a convenience must pay to a Farthing A Friend of mine was lately concern'd in the purchase of a little Meadow-close the strict Tithe of which was computed at 5s per an but the Parson was bound up by a Modus or Composition of 2d per an payable at Candlemas Possibly you will say my Friend had a convenience here that he paid but 2d instead of hay worth 5s by the year but then I must tell you that it s no convenience at all for his exemption from the Tithes in kind to my