Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	history_n	time_n	year_n	3,198	5	4.9573	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34082	The right of tythes asserted & proved, from divine institution, primitive practice, voluntary donations, and positive laws with a just vindication of that sacred maintenance from the cavils of Thomas Elwood, in his pretended answer to the friendly conference.	Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.	1677 (1677)	Wing C5488; ESTC R39378	85,062	252

suppose you thought things a little too high for the Quakers capacity and therefore you wisely chose to insist upon plain matters of fact as more apt to instruct and convince this kind of Men. Yet since T. E. provokes the Priests to the taking up this Argument again I hope to demonstrate That they need not be ashamed of the Weapon nor afraid of this daring Adversary § 3. To make out the Divine Right of Tythes there are three Periods to be considered 1. Before the Law 2. Vnder the Law 3. The Times of the Gospel Concerning the first Period Before the Law you said very little in your Conference as not designing to manage this Argument onely I perceive you had mentioned That the Divine Right of Tythes was derived from Melchisedec not from Levi. Which Passage being single and not guarded with any Proofs or Reasons this sculking Adversary falls upon very fiercely fancying if he can run down this one Sentence which stood naked he shall then confute the Divine Right of Tythes Here thinks the Quaker is an open place he is driving at the Humane Right and I find no Arguments to grieve me in my opposing the Divine Right I will therefore triumph over this little occasional touch and then proclaim I have confuted the Jus Divinum and upon that Supposition I shall more easily find out an Answer to his Arguments de Jure Humano by asserting That all his Humane Laws rely on a false Foundation But if T. E. had been a noble Enemy he should first have disproved the Jus Humanum which was the Argument you managed and not from a transient Speech have boasted he had disproved clearly the Divine Right of Tythes which he is so far from being able to confute that his first words do declare he doth not understand the Question For this Quaker thus begins It is then inquirable Whether or no Tythes were ever due to Melchisedec That which should make them due must be a Command but we do not find any Command in Scripture that they should be paid to Melchisedec The Assertors of the Divine Right of Tythes do not make them originally due either to Melchisedec or Levi but to God himself whose Right to them is founded primarily upon the Law of Nature antecedent to any positive Constitution For since the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof Psal xxiv 1. and that all we enjoy is derived from his Bounty and Blessing Natural Reason teacheth us to give God some part of his Gifts back again as a token of our gratitude which is but the giving him of his own 1 Chron. xxix 14. And this Natural Law we have transcribed into the Scripture Honour the Lord with thy substance Prov. iii. 9. which Rule obligeth Christians as well as Jews Some part of our Substance being therefore due to God and Abraham and Jacob before any positive Law having by their Examples declared that the Tenth was that Part there was a claim made of this Tenth part as being originally due to God long before All the Tythe of the land is the Lords Levit. xxvii 30. And the first time they are mentioned Exod. xxii 29. they are not directly enjoyned but supposed due and forbid to be with-held And hence those who paid not this Homage and Service are said not to rob the Priests but to rob God Mal. iii. 8. And when our Saviour saith we must give unto God the things that are Gods S. Hierom reckons Tythes among the things which are Gods (a) Hieron in Mat. 22. The Lord saith S. Augustin claimeth the Tenth to himself permitting to us all the rest (b) August de Tempore serm 219. The like say many others even Plutarch a Heathen calls the Tenth part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Tribute But now though God have a right to the Tenth part of our Substance yet he cannot be his own Receiver for he needs not our Goods himself Psal xvi 2. So that we are to inquire who must be Gods Receiver and for that even Reason will teach us That what is due to the Master ought to be paid to his next and immediate Servants that is to his Priests And Abraham in paying his Tythes which were Gods part unto Melchisedec the Priest of the most High God did confirm this Dictate of Reason That the Priests should be Gods Receivers and God himself gave more full proof of it in the Mosaical Law when he made so plain an Assignation of Tythes to those who were his Ministers then Behold I have given the Children of Levi all the Tenth in Israel Numb xviii 21. Yea the Light of Nature taught the Gentiles to bestow that upon their Priests which they had vowed to their Gods And Origen gives us the Christians sense of this matter That is said to be offered to God saith he which is given to his Priests (c) Orig. Hom. 11. in Num. We see then how Abraham might know that part of his Substance was due to God and that Melchisedec was to be the Receiver thereof without any express written Rule to direct him And inde●d T. E. is very impertinent in inquiring What Command there is in Scripture to Abraham to pay his Tythes to Melchisedec For there was not any Scripture at all in Abraham's time nor was he directed as we are by a written Word but by the Light of Nature by the Tradition of the preceding Patriarchs by Inspiration of the Spirit and sometimes by special Revelation Moses indeed did write a brief History of those Times 400 years after but since he comprises the space of 2300 years in one Book of Genesis it cannot be expected he should set down all Particulars nor in all the Actions of the Patriarchs shew what Reason they had for or how they were directed in such an Action We know from the Light of Nature that part of our Substance is due to God and we gather from the Act of Abraham an inspired Patriarch that the Tenth is that part and the Priest the Receiver thereof Yet if any would be satisfied how Abraham came to know that the Tenth part and no other was that which should be given to God I answer That in all reason we ought to believe it was at first revealed by Almighty God to him or to some of the first Patriarchs who were directed by the Divine Spirit to pitch upon this Part which the Patriarchs are recorded to have fixed upon For if it had been a meer Humane Invention it is unlikely God should have imitated them in chusing the same Part And by this after-Act the Divine Majesty did approve that Number and declare the Patriarchs were at first guided by his Spirit in the choyce thereof And if the Quakers now that there is a Written Rule pretend to be guided by the Spirit of God at least in their Solemn Actions how much more ought we to believe that the holy Patriarchs were so guided before there was any Written

For Charles the Great of France saith the Historian sent the Constitutions of a Synod which he had received from Constantinople into Britain in which alas were many inconvenient things and contrary to the Catholick Faith especially that Images ought to be worshipped which is altogether accursed by the Church of God against which Alcuinus writ an Epistle wonderfully proved by the Authority of Divine Scripture which in the name of our Princes and Bishops he carried with the Constitutions back to the King of France (c) Hoveden Annal. p. 232 Sim. Dunel Col. 111. Math. West An. 793. And upon this a Synod was called at Frankfort wherein by the Gallican English and German Churches the worship of Images was condemned and a Book written in the Name of Charles the Great against the second Council of Nice (d) Vid. Eiginharti Annal An. 794. and that this opinion continued long after may be seen in Dr. Stillingfleet pag. 832. who instances in Famous Authors that in the name of the Gallican Church opposed all Image-worship such as Jonas Aurelianensis Anno 842. and Agobardus Bishop of Lyens An. 850. Hincmarus Bishop of Rhemes An. 880. c. And that the English remained free from this Idolatry a long time after is shewed by Sir Roger Twysden (e) Histor Vindic. c. 9. p. 184. Thirdly He instances in Miracles and Intercession of Saints taxing Bede with these points of Popery and the Saxons of his time I reply That if the beliefe of Miracles make Men Papists then T. E. and his Quakers are all Papists for they believe they are immediately taught which is a stranger and greater Miracle than any they can find in all Bede's History Again It is not unlikely but some extraordinary Miracles might be wrought at the first Conversion of the Saxons the more easily to convince that rugged People and the want of Humane Learning in that Age might occasion the credulous reception of more than was true and yet we must not condemn them presently for Papists they might be credulous and apt to be imposed upon but that was their infirmity and amounts but to Superstition not to Popery I add That in Eusebius and other old Church-Histories there are many Miracles recorded which yet doth not prove either the Authors relating them or the People believing them to be Papists As for Intercession of Saints if he mean that the Saxons prayed to the Saints as their Intercessors with God he doth egregiously wrong them for the old Saxon Psalters in which are their Private Devotions have no mention of any Saints at all as is attested by Spelman and Twysden who had perused several Originals and Bishop Vsher affirms the like of a Prayer Book which he had seen as old as K. Athelstan's time An. 940. Nor were the Saints Names added in their Litanies with Ora pro nobis till about the time of K. Canutus almost 200 years after K. Ethelwolph's time So that neither in this matter were our Tythe-givers Idolaters nor Papists neither There is but one thing more wherein the present Church of Rome is charged with Idolatry and that is in Adoring the Host or Body of Christ which they say is transubstantiate in the Sacrament but neither in this were the Saxons guilty for they did not believe Transubstantiation no not in King Edgar's dayes An. 975. as appears by the Saxon Paschal Homily which Aelfricus then translated into Saxon being appointed to be publickly read There is saith he much difference between the Body of Christ which suffered for us and that which is consecrated in the Eucharist that was born of the Virgins flesh but his Spiritual Body which we call the Host is composed of many grains without blood or bones or any member or any Soul This Mystery is a pledge and sigure but the Body of Christ is Truth it self (f) Homil● Pasch Sax. And another Discourse of his to a Saxon Bishop of those Times saith The Host is the Body of Christ not corporally but spiritually (g) B. Ushe● de Success 〈◊〉 Eccles c. 〈◊〉 §. 21. Which proves they were of the same opinion with Protestants in this main point and could be no Idolaters at all I could give more Instances to prove that the Saxons were like the Protestants in the most fundamental matters but two Instances more shall suffice at present 1. As to the merit of Good works The Lord teacheth us saith V. Bede that no Man is sufficiently able to save himself either by his own Free-will or his own merits (h) Bed in Psal 31. And by the Righteousness of his deeds shall no Man be saved but only by the Righteousness of Faith (i) Id. in Psal 77. By the mercy of God in the Name of our Saviour and not by our merits we obtain Life saith Alcuinus An. 800. (k) In Psal 142. And long after even in Anselm's time this was the opinion of the Church of England as we have proved before so that in this point the Quakers with their Perfection are more Popish than the Saxons were I shall conclude with the Canon of Scripture which the Saxons kept entire as we have it rejecting the Apocrypha from being of Divine Authority even as the present Protestants Church doth see of old Beda (l) Comm in Apoc. c. 4. Alcuinus (m) Advers Elipantum Gislebertus Westmonast (n) Alterc inter Synag Eccl. c. 1. An. 1090. and since that Johannes Sarisburiensis (o) Ep. 172. An. 1180. and Guliel Occam (p) Dial. part 3. tract 1. l. 3. c. 16. An. 1330. to name no more Finally then if T. E. have either shame or grace let him repent of this foul slander which he hath as falsly as maliciously cast upon our Fore-Fathers the pious Saxons who were more Orthodox in some Points than Rome it self then was and differred from the present Papists in all the most material Articles of Faith being nearer in opinion to the Protestant Church of England And although they were in some lesser matter inclining to Superstition yet they were very devout according to their knowledge and may shame the present Age who do not so many good things though they have more Understanding But if T. E. will not recant I shall leave it to the Reader to judge of his Ignorance and Impudence in saying Tythes were given by Papists and Idolaters to Idolaters for Idolatrous uses and in supposing the Church so much corrupted with Popery then that their very Donations were not fit to stand good or be enjoyed no not by a Protestant Ministry § 22. To manifest that the Donation of Tythes is not Popery we have already proved they were given to the Church before Popery came in and now we shall shew they were allowed received and confirmed after Popery was turned out and that as you noted in the Conference even by those who were Martyrs for the Protestant Faith Cranmer Hooper Ridley Latimer Taylor and

and Schismaticks saith S. Augustine (r) August 50 Epist ad Bonif. Com. to Bonifacius where he observes the Donatists used this very Objection which our Quakers now use and he learnedly proves That Gentiles were first to be invited in but when the Church is setled whatever straying Sheep wilfully leave the Fold these are to be compelled by Laws and moderate Penalties to return into the Fold alledging 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 and a means which had brought many to see their Errors and repent Let T. E. read and answer the excellent Arguments in that Epistle if he can And withal let him observe it is not the Priests compel them but the Laws of the Land The Priests indeed see them in desperate Heresies and most wicked Schism and in pity to their Souls admonish them warn them 1 Thess v. 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 to try if any thing will bring them to a better mind knowing that sometimes the rod and reproof give wisdom And this is no more than S. Paul threatned 2 Cor. x. 6. and acted also in delivering the incestuous Corinthian to Satan punshing his outward Man for the health of his Soul 1 Cor. v. 5. 'T is no more than a careful Father doth to his refractory Son Let not them therefore saith S. Augustine who being in Heresie and Schism are compelled to come in reprove us that they are compelled but consider whither we would compel them (ſ) August Epist 50. ut supra to Unity and Peace to a right Faith and to submission to their Governours to the Service of God and the Salvation of their Souls Nor doth our State use any Capital Punishments any Spanish Cruelties or Popish Fire and Faggot toward them but by moderate Penalties labours to reduce them which is no more than the first Christian Emperours did to reduce the Hereticks of those days by Fines Imprisonment banishing them out of eminent Cities burning their Books and prohibiting their Assemblies but still preserving their Lives in hopes of their Repentance And when our Magistrates imitate Holy Constantine and Theodosius herein the Quakers most unjustly call it Persecution § 50. He adds pag. 359. Christ gave us no power to demand a Maintenance from those who do not receive us Nor do we demand of the Quakers to give us one single Penny more than what was given to us and setled on us many hundred years ago we onely ask our own we onely ask that which the Quaker did not take of his Landlord that which was or ought to have been abated in his Rent If a Tenant be to pay an Annuity to a Lord as Free-Rent or to an Hospital or other Person will his saying he doth not receive him or them excuse him from paying the Money Our Lord JESVS owns us for his Ministers and the Laws of the Land own us and declare we are the Persons to whom this Estate belongs and what have the Quakers to do to dispute our Title any more than they do their Lords Title to his Estate The Papists pay us Tythes here in England and we should pay them if we lived in France If the State assign Tythes to a wrong Order of Men it is their fault But I am sure Tythes are not the Country-mans he may not keep them but must pay them as the Laws direct and is innocent in so doing Our Right to Tythes depends not at all upon Mens being willing or unwilling to come and hear us and the Quaker is sadly mistaken to think we come to sell them our Sermons or that Tythes are a Price which is the Quakers own to give The folly of all these Pretences was shewed before § 51. As for Going to Law for Tythes you have fully proved it lawful in the Conference and the Quaker answers not one of your Arguments so that till he reply to that I will onely note That it is much against our will that we are forced to sue for our just Dues and where a Legal Right is demanded the Sin lies at the Defendents door who will maintain an unjust Cause and force the Plaintiff to use this uneasie and ungrateful Method If it would not be too tedious I could shew him Examples of Primitive Gospel-Ministers upon the Churches Settlement requiring Justice of the Emperours against the Sacrilegious Invaders of the Sacred Revenue but it is time enough to produce Examples when he hath answered your Reasons already produced § 52. His Conclusion pag. 363. admonisheth me that 't is time for me to conclude also when I have made a Remark or two upon his pleasant Epilogue which I dare say would afford you as it did me the just occasion for a smile to observe what rare effects the happy conjunction of Ignorance and Folly have produced in your Adversary You said That the Quakers were quite different from the Primitive Christians which he thinks to avoid by calling it an old overworn Objection And truly as an Objection it is as old as the Quakers first appearance in the World but the Answer to it will be an unheard of Novelty And indeed the Quakers may be ashamed to let the Objection grow old and over-worn before they have either confessed the Truth or made some satisfactory Reply thereunto But the merriest passage is that T.E. who knows nothing of Ecclesiastical History and Antiquity and is a perfect Stranger to the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Christians having scarce heard of the Names of the most Eminent Fathers as he hath abundantly manifested in this Book that he should challenge the poor ignorant Priests and attempt to threaten you into silence by daring you to dispute on this Question Risum teneatis Amici Doubtless if T. E. without going down to the Philistins of Rome should of a sudden become able to dispute well about the Doctrine and Discipline and Rights of the Primitive Church it would be the most famous Instance of immediately inspired Teaching that this Age ever saw And if he can prove that these Ancient Christians had no distinct Order of Men to Officiate in Divine things no Sacrament of the Lords Supper no Baptism with Water no Catechizing no Oblations at the Altar no separate Places for Worship and Set Forms for Sacred Administrations no Festival and Fasting Days no Kneeling at Prayers no singing of Praises nor answering of Amen c. he hath some rare Revelations sure about those Times and is able to confute S. Ignatius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Origen and the rest of those Eldest Fathers in Matters done in their own time A very grand Undertaking which none would have boasted of but T. E. and none but an undiscerning Quaker can be persuaded it is possible to be