Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	write_a	write_v	year_n	113	3	4.7506	4	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

4. The number of the Seven Sacraments was not defined till Peter Lombard's dayes Anno 1140 (m) Cassand de Sacram. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not received for a point of Faith till the Lateran Council above 1200 years after Christ (n) Scotus in 4. Sent. dist 11. q. 3. Purgatory it self was but a private Opinion and affirmed onely by some An. 1146 (o) Otto Frising l. 8. Chr. c. 26. And Indulgences can be no older (p) Polyd. Virgil. l. 8. cap. 8. Fish Roffens contra Luther Ar. 18. Yea their Application to Souls in Purgatory was first brought in by Boniface VIII (q) Agrip. de Vanit Scien c. 61. The Half Communion began but a little before the Council of Constance and was never decreed till then (r) Gregor de Valent. de Legit. usu Eucha c. 10. An. 1415. Yea the putting the Apocrypha into the Canon of Scripture and divers other Points were never decreed till the Council of Trent about 110 years ago And if it were not to avoid prolixity I could make it evident That the Pope's Vniversal Supremacy and Infallibility Justification by the merit of Good works Auricular Confession Formal Invocation of Saints and other corruptions of the modern Papists were not determined as Articles of Faith no not in Rome it self in Ethelwolph's time and then how can he be called a Papist supposing he had agreed with the then Roman Church in all points But I must not lanch out into this Ocean wherefore I will content my self to reply to the Quaker's Instances 1. For those pag. 301. the Quaker lays not much stress upon them and there are some of them allowed by the best Protestants and all Men that understand Antiquity know those Decretal Epistles to be forged which first attributed these Constitutions to those early Popes Proceed we therefore to his more material Instances And first concerning Deposing of Kings T. E. saith Pope Zachary I. took upon him to depose King Chilperic and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance This is a Forgery invented by the Champions of the Pope's Supremacy but denied by the French who do assure us That the deposing of King Chilperic was done by Pepin himself by the consent of the whole Kingdom of France before any notice was given to the Pope about it who did not pretend to any such Authority over the French King nor is he allowed it at this day but only approved of the deed after it was done and advised to put him into a Monastery (ſ) Centur. Magdeburg and the ancient Historians words thus describing this matter may be seen in Widrington Apol. pro jure Princip And to let T. E. see how unlikely this feigned Deposition of Chilperic by the Pope's Authority is I will set down the Reply of Hinc-marus Arch Bishop of Rhemes to Pope Adrian the Second who had written to him to Excommunicate the King of France Anno 870. which was less than deposing There was never saith Hinc marus any such precept before sent from Rome to any of my Predecessors And going on he tells the Pope That the French assembled in Council did desire his Holiness according to the Example of his Predecessors to meddle with Ecclesiastical matters which belonged to him and not with the Common-wealth which was the Kings part to dispose of And let him not say they command us Franks to serve him that we will not serve for his Predecessors did never put this yoke upon our Predecessors neither can we endure it (t) Hincmar ap L. Boch Decret Ecc. Gal. l. 2. Tit. 2. p. 317. I cite this the more largely because our Ethelwolph married the Daughter of this very King of France whom the Pope could not so much as Excommunicate much less Depose and no doubt Ethelwolph was as free from the Pope's Authority in this matter as the King of France his Father-in-law Secondly There is as little truth in Gregory the Third's Deposing of Leo Isaurus about Images which Deposition Onuphrius a judicious Historian calls a meer Fable (u) Onuphr in Vit. Greg. VII Indeed no Bishop did ever depose a King or Emperour till Hildebrand's time An. 1074. which is confirmed by the best Historians of that Age (x) Chron. Hirsaug Otto Frising l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 Godfr Viter part 17. Trithemius c. Let Onuphrius speak for all Gregory the Seventh did first of all the Popes of Rome despising the Imperial Authority and power not only Excommunicate but presume to deprive the Emperour of his Kingdom and Empire a thing never heard of in the World before (y) Onuphr Vit. Gregor VII And Sigebertus Chr. An. 1088. calls it A Novelty and a Heresie Yea the whole Church of Liege in their Epistle to Paschal II. tell him to his face That no Pope before this Gregory did ever use the Temporal Sword (z) Epist Leodens Eccles ad Paschal 2. So that this piece of Popery was not crept into any part of the Christian Church much less into England when Tythes were given to the Church nor was the Pope's Supremacy or Infallibility owned here in those dayes as I will undertake to prove against this Quaker and the Jesuits whose part he takes in this matter So that I will only note That if T. E. referre the first Original of Tythes to Ethelwolph's Donation in this Kingdom then he should have produced an Example of the Pope's power to depose the Kings of England which if he can shew to have then been a Doctrine received here it will make somewhat to his purpose but these forreign Instances if they were as true as they are false do not prove the Saxons were Papists in this point Secondly The Quaker Instances in the Worship of Images and upon presumption that our Saxon-Ancestors worshipped them he frequently call them Idolaters which is another manifest slander For though the Saxons had some few Images and Pictures for ornament and memory yet they did not worship them in this Age nor long after and though the second Council of Nice did attempt to establish Image-worship we may see in Dr. Stillingfleet's last Book of the Idolatry of the Roman Church That the greatest part of the Christian World rejected that Council and detested the practice thereof yea that Council was almost by all so much contemned that it was scarce counted worth the Reading by him that translated it (a) Anastas Bibliothec. Praef. ad 7. Synod But to shew what was the opinion of the Saxons and Gallican Churches generally agreeing in their opinions where the most famous Tythe-givers of this Age lived let it be noted that Sir Henry Spelman proves That the Saxons from Augustin's time had Images only for ornament memory reverence and example but not for worship (b) Concil tom 1. not ad Concil Lond. An. 712. And about 60 years before K. Ethelwolph's Donation we read a full Account of the English Churches opinion about Images Anno 792.