Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	necessary_a	tradition_n	2,943	5	9.4978	5	false

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

Word to manifest Gods Will Thus the way of honouring God by Oblation of Sacrifice is believed to have been first revealed to Adam although the particular Command for it be not recorded The like we may believe also concerning this of Dedicating a Tenth part especially if we consider how it was propagated by Tradition among the Heathens of whose Practices we have any Histories to inform us The Tyrians gave the Tenth Part to their Gods And by their Example the Carthaginians a Colony of Tyrians sent their Tythes yearly to Hercules Tyrius and finding themselves unfortunate when they for a while had omitted it they restor'd the Tythes as before (d) Diodor. Sicul. Dydimus the Grammarian saith It was the custom of the Greeks to consecrate the Tenth of their Gains to the Gods And the Inhabitants of the Island Syphnus are remembred by Pausanias to have had their Mines swallowed up by the Sea upon their neglect of paying the Tythes to them as formerly to Apollo (e) Pausanias Histor Graec. For the Romans it is well known they vowed the Tenth of their Fruits to Hercules And Lucullus was believed to grow rich by his punctual payment of these Dues (f) Alexand. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. And that this was not done onely by them of extraordinary Devotion we learn from Plutarch who saith The careful Father of a Family divides his Years Profits into Ten parts Six to be spent on his Houshold Two to be laid up One for the Seed of the next Year and the Tenth is the Tribute of the Gods (g) Apud Episc Winton Theol. Determ And Paulus Diaconus speaks generally of all Heathens Of old they offered all the Tenth to their Gods And Alexander ab Alexandro The Tenth part of the Fruits were every where vowed to Hercules (h) Alex. ab Alexand. lib. 3. cap. 22. There are more Proofs of this kind in Sir Henry Spelman's larger Work of Tythes But these may suffice to shew that the most distant Nations did consent in giving this Tenth part to their Gods which therefore we must believe they had by Tradition from the first Patriarchs who received it by Revelation from God This is a sufficient account by what Authority Abraham might proceed in the choyce of the Tenth part And it is not necessary since the Scripture is silent I should determine whether Abraham was immediately directed to it or whether he learned it from Melchisedec who St. Paul saith Tythed Abraham or whether they did not both learn it from the first Patriarchs which is most likely it being sufficient that God hath Recorded it with approbation and afterwards Ratified it by following this Example Even as in the Case of putting an Adulteress to death Judah proceeds upon that as being a just Punishment And though we read of no Command before to enact it into a Law yet we believe Judah received that Law by Tradition from the Patriarchs who were taught it by God Gen. xxxviii 35. And we are the more confirmed this Law came from God at first because he approved it and writ it down afterwards Levit. xx 10. And when T. E. shews me a Command before Judah's time to put an Adulteress to death I may shew him a Command for Tythes before Abraham § 4. But our Quaker goes on pag. 278. Moses saith expresly he gave him Tythes he doth not say he paid him Tythes And the Apostle saith Abraham gave the Tenth Heb. vii 4. To give is one thing to pay another I answer To give and to pay is all one in this case or else the Apostle was overseen who not onely saith he gave the Tenth ver 4. but which T. E. concealed ver 9. Levi paid Tythes in Abraham the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intimating that Melchisedec Tythed him Nor will the Quakers critical distinction between to give and to pay hold in other cases for it is very proper to say we give a Man that which is his due I hope he will not accuse David of improper speaking when he saith Give unto the Lord the honour due unto his Name Psal xxxix 2. But however T. E. will grant Tythes were due to be paid under the Law and yet we read Hezekiah commanded the People to give the Priests their Portion c. 2 Chron. xxxi 4. So that the word give in Gen. xiv doth no more prove Tythes were not due to Melchisedec Jure Divino than the same in Chron. proves they were not due to the Levites Jure Divino Yet if the Quakers like this Criticism of T. E. I hope it will persuade them to give us our Tythes though they will not pay them § 5. His next Objection pag. 279. is If they were due to Melchisedec then Abraham must have paid him Tythes of all his Substance and not onely of the Spoils Hebr. vii 4. This was an extraordinary Occasion wherein Abraham having got a Victory by Gods Blessing did give to God the Tenth of all he had now gotten as in all probability he was wont ordinarily to do of all that he got by Gods ordinary Blessing onely this as more especially remarkable is recorded in this short History So that T. E's saying he doth not read in Genesis that Abraham paid his Tythes constantly is no Argument unless all that Abraham ordinarily did were recorded there And I may ask him where he reads there that Abraham did not pay them His Negative arguing is of no more force than it would be if he should say Those Ante-diluvian Patriarchs did nothing else while they lived but beget Sons and Daughters because no more is recorded of many of them Gen. v. T. E. therefore cannot prove Abraham did not pay Tythes ordinarily and I can make it appear very probable he did For first It is very probable Melchisedec was the same with Sem the Son of Noah so the ancient Hebrew Traditions said (i) Hieron ad Evagrium Epist 126. Quest Hebr. in Gen. and so Lyra Tostatus and others do prove Epiphanius indeed thought Sem must be dead before but he was led into this mistake by following the Chronology of the LXX And S. Hierom computing according to the Hebrew Account makes it appear that Sem did live 35 years after Abraham's death (k) Id. Epist ad Evagr. And concerning the Occasion of his coming to Salem there is a very notable Account in Saidas Batricides who yet makes Melchisedec not Sem himself but one of his Family and allied to Abraham's Ancestors viz. That Noah being about to die commanded his Son Sem to take Adam's Body which his Father Lamech had ordered him to bury in the middle of the Earth and to take with him Bread and Wine for his Journey and also to take Melchisedec the Son of Phaleg along with him and go to the place where that Body was to be buried which the Angel saith Noah will shew you and command Melchisedec that he shall place his Seat

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

done which hath been done a thousand times and that by the approbation of all Christian Laws And the Quaker in saying these things are ridiculous and unreasonable doth call all the Christian World Fools and pass his Censure upon Kings and Nobles Parliaments and Judges who have allowed such Grants to be just and reasonable and either made them or confirmed and approved them divers times It seems all these were a company of ridiculous and unreasonable Men or else T. E. is such an one himself and whether be the more likely let the Reader judge But it is no great wonder he should call all Men Fools whenas this blasphemous Argument flies in the face of God himself who even by the Quakers own confession in the Levitical Law did assume a Power to enjoyn all the Owners of Canaan to pay to the Priests the Tenth part of those Profits which did arise from their Sweat Pains Charge Care and that from one generation to another God did make over to his Priests these Tenths of the Profits of many Mens Sweat and Labour c. many hundred years before they were born Now this the Quaker saith is a ridiculous and unreasonable thing O bold Blasphemer If he saith the thing be ridiculous and unreasonable in it self then this Quaker chargeth God with Folly and Injustice who doth enjoyn it Nor can he be excused by saying God hath more power than Men for in evil foolish and unjust things God hath no power at all God cannot lie He cannot do any thing ridiculous or unjust And because God once made this Grant we dare be confident the Act is lawful and wise and just and that T. E. is a blasphemous Wretch to censure it by this wicked and silly way of reasoning which condemns Almighty God as much as it doth King Ehtelwolph I will not insist now upon the Atheistical denial of Providence which is couched in this Argument also for I shall shortly have occasion to shew how the Quaker supposes his Husbandman deserves all the Profits for his Labour and as if God contributed nothing he excludes him from any share of them when they are produced But this false and impious Argument is sufficiently exposed already to make any Man recant it that hath any spark of Grace or Understanding in him § 31. In the next place he affirms pag. 326. The Consideration on which Tythes were given is taken away for Ethelwolph gave them for the Health of his Soul and the Remission of his Sins which he believed might be obtained in that Church by the help of that Ministry to whom he gave his Tythes and the Mediation of those Saints in honour of whom he granted the Charter I have already proved That T. E. falsly supposes King Ethelwolph to have held all the Opinions of the present Church of Rome and particularly That he did not expect Pardon of his Sins by the Merits of his Good Works Alcuinus gives us the sense of the English Church in those days who saith He onely can deliver us from sin who came without sin and was made a Sacrifice for sin (a) Alcuin l. 4. in Joh. 8. The Saxons believed that Pardon was merited onely by Christ's Death onely they did esteem Good Works a good evidence of their Repentance and a Motive to God to accept them to that Pardon which was merited onely by Christ's Death which Opinion is much favoured by those Scriptures Prov. xvi 6. Dan. iv 27. Mat. iii. 8. Luke xi 41. and maintained by the most Orthodox Fathers For instance Lactantius no Papist for certain as living An. 310. saith Great is the reward of Mercy to which God hath promised the Remission of all sins (b) Lactant. Inst l. 6. And for obtaining this Remission by the help of that Ministry viz. the Saxon-Ministry to which he gave his Tythes no wise Man will deny but that there was a True Church in England in those days and if in that Church and by that Ministry no Pardon could be had from God then there was no Salvation to be had in this Nation at all in that Age no nor in any Nation in Christendom which is a strange Assertion As for the Saints we have shewed T. E. is mistaken in thinking they then did believe the Saints usurped Christs Office Ethelwolph honoured the Saints and so do we now but neither he nor we worship them or expect Pardon by them But we need not plead thus since T. E. falsly makes this a Consideration for which he gave Tythes Did that good King covenant with God or his Priests that they should give him Remission or else this Gift to be of no effect Was it inserted as a Condition or Proviso He hoped indeed Remission of Sins might follow through Christs Merits Gods Mercy and the Churches Prayers but he did not Indent with God for it And indeed the main Consideration was That the Clergy might pray for the whole Kingdom without the hinderances of Want and Worldly Care as the words of the Charter shew And this Consideration is not taken away but observed to this day Again If the King did fail of his Hope and could not finally get Remission in that Church which is a malicious Supposition this will not make his Charter void For if a Father in consideration of his affection to his Son and for his Provision settle part of his Estate on him being inwardly moved thereto by the hopes he will be dutiful the Sons undutifulness may disappoint the fathers hopes but doth not vacate his Settlement unless it were expressed and provided That the Deed should be void upon the Sons disobedience Finally If we suppose Ethelwolph as much a Papist as King Stephen mentioned by T. E. pag. 332. yet his Donations to Pious Uses must stand good even though the Opinion of Merit had been the Motive to him to make them or else T. E. revokes all the Charters and Donations made in those really Popish Times to never so good and pious Uses which all Men will confess is most absurd So that let us grant the Quaker all his own asking and still his malicious Conclusions will not follow § 32. I hope by this time the Reader will see how little truth is in that Saying pa. 327. If Tythes were ever due to any by vertue of this Gift it must be to the Popish Priests for to them they were given This we have shewed to be a gross mistake before § 17. and we will onely note That King Ethelwolph's Clergy agreed with the Protestant Church of England in more Points than with the modern corrupt Church of Rome And since the Donors gave them not to a Popish Clergy but to God and his true Ministers our Kings and Parliaments that took them away from the corrupt Clergy who were fallen into Popery and setled them on the true Protestant Ministry did observe therein the Intention of the Donors and did apply Tythes to the right use for which