Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	spirit_n	word_n	write_a	2,319	5	11.0747	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

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