[...]

Novemb. 20. 1677.

IMPRIMATUR,

Guil: Iane.

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.

Job 21. 34.

—In your Answers there remaineth falshood.

LONDON, Printed by Sam. Royoroft, for R. Clavel, at the Peacock at the West end of St. Pauls. 1678.

The EPISTLE to the People called QUAKERS, from the Author.

I Suppose that many of you are ac­quainted with a little Book, called A Friendly Conference, between a Minister and a Parishioner of his in­clining unto Quakerism; However you esteem of the Arguments, yet I hope that some of you have the charity to believe, that no by end, no indirect purpose whatsoever, induc't me to the publication of it. No, the searcher of all hearts bears me witness, that I was mov'd to the undertaking from the truest Principle of charity and kindness, to discover to you your miserable mistakes, the Sanay bottome upon which your Tenents are founded, and the real danger your poor Souls are in, by your obsti­nate persisting in so desperate a schism.

Though (Blessed be God) this Book has had its wished effect upon some, yet others have loaded it with all the calumnies they well could invent, misrepresenting both its design, & argument; And more openly one Thomas Ell­wood in a late virulent Pamphlet, Nick-Na­med Truth prevailing and detecting Error—, venting therein not only his spleen against me, but against the whole Constitution and Go­vernment of the Church of England, as it is now happily establisht by the Supreme Autho­rity [Page] of this Nation. In Communion of which Church our Pious Ancestors both liv'd and dy'd, and your selves too were both born and baptized.

When I found such an immodest and fanta­stick Title, I began to suspect, what after­wards was confirmed to me, (viz.) that He had placed the empty Name of Truth Ram­pant in the Title page, but nothing of the thing in the Book it self.

Had I not understood, with what mighty ap­plause my Adversaries Book was received a­mong you, I had not given my self the trouble of this Vindication, but answer'd him in si­lence, as in all probability I shall do, for the time to come.

I had drawn my Vindication much larger than now I present it to the World (being ve­ry unwilling to allow My Antagonist any one Paragraph in his whole Book) which I found had swelled the Volume too big; wherefore I delayed the publication hereof in order to con­traction, fearing otherwise that my Book would be too large for the Busie to read, and too dear for the Poor to buy.

This Book had sooner seen the light, had not some of my Sheets as they were sent to the Press, unfortunately miscarried: And though it come somewhat late, yet I hope not unseaso­nabby or less welcome to you.

[Page] You will find me often complaining of the Dishonesty of my Adversary in mis-stating My Book in many places of it; and also of his dis­ingenuity in pretending to answer it, when in truth He has passed by the most material passa­ges of it. If therefore you would impartially judge between us, then compare the Books to­gether, and you will easily discern whether He has done me right. Next compare his Book with this reply, then do you judge, whether or no I have done him right.

I had been much larger upon the Subjects of Inspiration and Tithes, Had not T. E. been taken particularly to task by two other Pens, which you will find me mentioning afterwards.

You will find that I generally make use of T. E's own Authors, but how honestly He has represented them, as some others of your own party, from whom he has taken them, will ap­pear in its place.

I know not what opinion you may have of me, but if I know my own Soul, it is your Eternal interest and welfare, that I have been aiming at, as well in this, as my former undertaking; that I may shew you, how ridiculous and Non­sensical your Tenents are; and if I sometimes search into your Wounds till they smart, it's more that I may be faithful to you, than any ways for to please my self.

You will find that sometimes I mention the [Page] sayings and actions of some Quakers, yet con­ceal their Names, which I do for this only reason, that I may shew not my unkindness to your Persons, but Opinions.

I wish you would seriously consider, with what woful mediums and artifices your Lead­ers divert you from the truth, and hoodwink you in your errors. For when any has attempt­ed your Conversion, then must they be traduc't with Slanders, and Calumnies: As such an one is, or was a Presbyterian, or an Army-Chaplain, &c.—Thus do they accommodate them­selves to the passions, and uncharitable humours of Men, and take Sanctuary in Dunghils and Puddles: as if they thought your Religion bet­ter defended by Dirt than Arguments: accord­ingly T. E. threatens me with an Adjunct dolus latet in generalibus. in case I set not my Name to my next: But what he means, I know not, having (I thank God) no particular guilt, that in the least makes me concern'd at it. I am sensible that I have Infirmities as well as other Men, yet I can modestly say, that I do not in­dulge my self in any thing which I know to be ill. But I wonder why the publishing of my Name must excuse me? And seeing he knows me so well (as he makes his Reader believe) why has he not the Charity, and Christianity, to inform me what this Adjunct is, that I may amend it?

[Page] But let him publish his Adjunct when he pleases, My Comfort is, that neither He, nor his Master, can go any further than God is pleas'd to suffer them: only let me advise T. E. (for his credits sake) not to take his Adjunct upon Trust, as (it seems) He did his Ancient Authors, lest He come off with as muchshame in the one, as he has done in the other.

How much better had He been imploy'd, had he gone about to have heal'd, and not (as He do's) to widen our unhappy breaches? nay ra­ther than you shall want an Argument for Schism, he will make suspicion a ground there­of: I must confess he puts in where I have great ground to suspect—But then there is diffe­rence between ground to believe, and ground to suspect; for be the ground never so great, it's still but in order to a suspicion.

One thing I do assure you, that I have not said that thing in this following Tract, which I thought not the very truth, (so far as my judg­ment did guide me.) With this integrity I have proceeded, and can with the greater hopes ex­pect God's blessing on my labours.

Had I thought my Name would have been any satisfaction to you, you should have had it before, however you must not wonder, that you want it now, being so rudely threatned to it.

God open your Eyes, is my Prayer to Heaven for you —

Yours—

The Contents.

  • THE Introduction page 1
  • Chap. 1. Of the present Ministry of England, and the cause why some People are not profited by it, inquired into p. 6
  • Chap. 2. Of saying [You] to a single person p. 59
  • Chap. 3. Of Titles and Civil Respects p. 78
  • Chap. 4. Of Confession p. 111
  • Chap. 5. Of Perfection p. 120
  • Chap. 6. Of Swearing p. 160
  • Chap. 7. Of Taking Texts p. 264
  • Chap. 8. Of Humane Learning, and Divine Inspiration and Revelation p. 268
  • Chap. 9. Of Tithes p. 293
  • The Conclusion p. 331

A VINDICATION OF THE Friendly Conference, &c. From the Exceptions of THOMAS ELLWOOD.
The Introduction.

MInister.

Neighbour, I am glad to see you: I hope you have well digested our late Conference about the erro­neous Tenents of the Quakers, and continue as well satisfied, as you seem'd to be at our last parting.

Parishioner.

I cannot deny the satisfaction, I then receiv'd; Only I have been a little amu­sed, since the publishing of it, by an Answer to it, lately extant under the name of Thomas Ellwood.

Min.

I hope you remember the Caution I gave you, Not to conclude every thing unanswera­ble, which you cannot answer your self: your e­ducation and employment not qualifying you for finding out the fallacies of every Sophister.

Par.

I have not forgot your Counsel; there­fore am I come on purpose to consult you in several passages of that Book.

Min.

I have perused it my self, and find no­thing in it fit to be made an occasion of scruple; [Page 2] as I doubt not but (with the Divine Assistance) to make clear to you, before we part.

Par.

Seeing you did not Print your Name with your Book, T. E. conceives that omission disingenuous (not to say dishonest) and asks, if you were afraid or ashamed openly to avouch it? Preface.

Min.

The concealing of my Name imports no such thing, seeing there are other causes which may make it proper.

Par.

But you write your self a lover of truth; therefore, since truth seeks no corners, what should induce you to conceal your Name? ibid.

Min.

Though truth seeks no corners, yet may truth notwithstanding have a Friend in a corner. But will it sollow, That because I conceal my Name (for reasons best known to my self,) I con­ceal the truth even then, when I publish it to the world? or that I am not a lover of it? or that my Book is not the truth? No sure: But it's this Quaker that conceals and darkens the Truth by deceitfully jumbling things thus together without distinction; as if there were no difference between an Author and his Book, between Truth and a lover of it, and all this, merely to cast a mist before you.

Par.

Indeed I do the more wonder at him, be­cause he confesses that men are not strictly tyed in all cases to affix their names to whatever they write. ib.

Min.

And well you may, for here he contra­dicts himself, and has made his Objection as ridiculous as it was fallacious; for if they be lo­vers of the Truth, then are they tyed (by his Rule) in all cases to affix their Names.

Par.

But he tells his Reader, that in matters [Page 3] of controversy (especially where one Man shall charge another) the Opponent in point of honesty, is obliged to give his Name, as a Caution and Se­curity to make good his charge.

Min.

It's not the Author's Name, but rea­son and truth, wherein consists the worth and credit of a Book: These secure all men from suffering injury from the Contents thereof. If truth be spoken, who is slander'd? The guilty know they are not, therefore need not the Au­thor's Name for Caution: And for my part, I have laid no charge to any party, but what I am ready to make good, when need shall require; and until I fail of that, no Man can accuse me of dishonesty.

But there are two things which I shall offer to your consideration: First, Whether a bare Name be a sufficient caution and security? Se­condly, Whether he has not involv'd the Au­thor to the Hebrews, and his own party in this accusation of dishonesty, being guilty of the same Omission? As for the first, what if the Name of Thomas Ellwood be fictitious? Or suppose it be the true Name of mine Adversary; still with­out the mention of his habitation, to direct me where to find him, it looks like an illusion, and a designed piece of mockery, while his Person lurks and skulks as much as my Name, yea and more; for it seems he could be readily inform'd both of it and the place of mine Abode. But for that malicious Charge which in divers places of his Book he brings not only against the Cler­gy, but the whole Constitution of the present Government, being most notoriously false (as [Page 4] will be made evident) and the place of his abode not being affixed with his Name, where then is our Caution and Security?

Par.

But to your other particular; How can the Author to the Hebrews be included in this charge?

Min.

Because a great part of his Epistle is controversial; and further he taxes some par­ticularly with the enormous crime of Schism, and Separation from the publick Assemblies of Christians; Heb. 10. 25. Not forsaking the as­sembling of our selves together, as the manner of some is; Then he shews in the next verse the great mischief of the sin of Separation, as bordering upon, and bringing them into the danger of final Apostasie, or the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there remains no more Sa­crifice, v. 26. Is not here a dreadful charge, though no Author's name for caution? and yet his ho­nesty was never questioned.

Par.

Did the Epistle to the Hebrews come T. E. him­self seems not igno­rant of this; and therefore (as must in reason he sup­pos'd) calls him the Au­thor to the He­brews. p. 96. C. 104. into the World without the Name of its Au­thor?

Min.

Yes, it did: For it was long dispu­ted among the Ancients who he was; Some affirming St. Luke to be the Author, some Bar­nabas, others Clemens Romanus: At last, it being (for good reason) concluded that it was St. Paul, His Name was affixed to the Title of it.

But whoever was the Author, happy was he in this, that Ellwood lived not in his days, for had he found out the concealed Author, who and what he was, his name, place, &c. by a pa­rity [Page 5] of reason (a phrase of his) and according to his impertinent and malitious threats against me, did he not put his Name to his next, after so fair a warning, he must not have thought much, if Ellwood should have given the World his Name, with such an Adjunct, as so unmanly a deal­ing did deserve.

Par.

But to let that pass, what Quakers do you charge with this Omission?

Min.

In a certain Book entituled [Some Printed in the Year 1671. Principles of the elect People of God, in scorn called Quakers] I find several points under­taken by several of them; Some of them indeed subscribe their Names, but most of them do not; And I observe, and so may you by consult­ing the Book, that some of those who have not affix'd their Names, bring the most railing accusation against us, and particularly the second of them, who charges us with going in the way p. 6. of Cain, to envy, murther, persecute, and a great deal more of such like slanderous and a­bominable stuff: Now where must we find out the writer of it? The third Quaker and o­thers are not wanting in this railing Divini­ty, which it seems, is a Principle of the Qua­kers.

Par.

I remember the Book very well, and do wonder, you mention the third Quaker in it, when he has set the first Letters of his Name, and subscribed himself G. F.

Min.

G. F? Who's that? It may be ano­ther Whom he com­pares me to in his Preface. Guy Faux with his dark-lanthorn, or any other person whose Name begins with those Letters. This therefore being no sure in­dication [Page 6] of the Writer, makes nothing for the Caution and security required.

So that if these Quakers be innocent, then Ell­wood is an accuser of his Brethren; And it will concern you to observe also, that for all the confidence the Quakers have in that Spirit by which their Teachers speak and write, here must needs be some mistake, yea dishonesty, ei­ther in these writers of theirs, who omit to sub­scribe their Names to such virulent Treatises, and consequently in that Spirit by whose insti­gation they publish'd them, or else in Ellwood and his Spirit▪ that accuses all such of dishonesty who do so; Here then you may see, that there are contradictions and delusions among the Quakers and the Leaders of them.

Par.

Truly this is so reasonable an Adver­tisement that I cannot object against it, and shall therefore seriously consider of it.

Min.

Having now given you an account as well of the Logick, as Ingenuity of my Adver­sary, from his Preface, Let us examine the Book it self.

CHAP. I. Of the present Ministry, and the cause of some People's not profiting under it inquir'd into.

PAR.

T. E. tells his Reader, that you lay the foundation of your discourse upon that Que­stion [Page 7] which I told you was propounded by a Qua­ker in one of their meetings, Whether any among them could affirm, that he had received any spiri­tual advantage by his long frequenting the Stee­ple-houses? And whereas in your Answer you affirmed, that the Ministry is not to be judged from the effects it has upon careless and indis­posed hearers;

Min.
What then?
Par.

The Question (says he) is not concern­ing careless and indisposed hearers, but in gene­ral terms, Whether any among them impartially consulting his own Conscience, could affirm that he had received any spiritual advantage by his long frequenting the Steeple-houses? So that drawing it from any to careless and indisposed hearers only, you rather avoid the Question, than answer it. pag. 2.

Min.

Those non-proficients, who have for­saken our Assemblies, had they not been care­less and indisposed hearers of us, they had bet­ter profited by us; This therefore is a true Cha­racter of them, and reaches all those to whom the Question was propounded, being such as had left their lawful Pastors, and forsaken the Orthodox Faith, and Church, where­in they were Baptized and brought up; Or o­ther giddy persons resorting to them to gratify their itching Ears. My reply then being as comprehensive as the Question, how was it avoided, when it was fully answer­ed?

Par.

This however is observable (says he) that we have an implicit acknowledgment of [Page 8] the Peoples not profiting under the present Mini­stry.

Min.

Does he suppose then that my words take all the People into the charge of non-profi­ciency?

Par.

He seems so to do in saying, that you acknowledge that the people are not profited, as also by his way of connecting it to his following discourse.

Min.

Your observation is very reasonable, in that he brings both this and the next passage which he cites out of my Book, under the same acknowledgment, and cry's out that I have given up my cause, p. 4. But do you not re­member what was before charged upon these very words, as if they were so scant and parti­cular as to avoid the Question? and is this same clause now made so large by him, as to include all the People? This puts me in mind of the fa­mous Thief Procrustes, who used his Captives with so much cruelty, that what Stature soever any of them were of, they must be fitted to the length of his Bed; If they were too short, then they must be rack'd; if too long then must so much of their Legs be chopt off, to fit them to it. Thus must a clause of mine be one while shortned; otherwhile lengthen'd, ac­cording to the torture he hath design'd it: Yea this Quaker seems to be more cruel than ever Procrustes was said to be, while he practises both kinds of tyranny upon one and the same Limb.

Par.

But to proye this acknowledgment of yours, he says that it is more freely confest by [Page 9] you afterwards in these words, Alas, it's our hearts grief that our People should come into the Church, as Beasts into Noah's Ark, &c. p. 3.

Min.

This is a sophistical and usual trick of his, to stretch out an indefinite proposition to a General, making me to accuse all the People, when I did no such thing, but expresly explain'd my s [...] and affirmed that, If you and others have not profited, I can instance in those that have, &c. Conf. pag. 7.

Par.

What do you mean by an Indefinite Proposition?

Min.

It is such as in the terms of it expresses neither a particular, nor a general, but may mean either [all] or [some] as the sense is determin'd by what goes before or follows af­ter. And this of mine being thus plainly de­termin'd by that which follows in my Discourse, and by the whole tenor of it, I have just cause to complain of the injustice of this Quaker in judging me, before he hears me out, forgetting what the Wise man saith, Prov. 18. 13. He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.

Moreover this way of construing words and sentences will necessarily impose a false and blasphemous sense upon many texts of Scrip­ture. Gal. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 3. 3. and 6. 8. Take this instance. He came unto his own, and his own received him not, John 1. 11.

Now according to T. E. this is an implicit acknowledgment that Christ had not a Peo­ple among the Iews to receive him, whereas the contrary is manifest: The meaning of it [Page 10] then must be, that some or most of them did not receive him. So that you see the Quaker makes a fine tool of an Indefinite to work with­all, purposely leaving out the restrictive term [some,] slily to engage inconsiderate Readers to understand it of all. By this piece of craft he would make them believe that I accuse all Ministers too as scandalous, in that idle passage of his, The Priest himself pleads guilty, ac [...]ow­ledging p. 15. the scandalous lives of Ministers. Where he sets down Ministers indefinitely; but according to his construction you may see he would have it understood of all; or else, what means that ridiculous insultation of his, babe­mus confitentem reum? although my words ex­presly restrain the sense by a note of particula­rity, where I say not all, but some Men for a Conf. p. 11. & p. 12. corrupt interest will intrude, &c. As also that 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, [Page 11] 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, Jer. 6. 7. 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. Ch. 28. 15. 2. That this Scripture is ignorantly [Page 12] and injuriously applied to the present Ministry, appears in that those false Prophets perswaded the People (and that to the ruine of that Na­tion Chap. 14▪ 13.) that Jerusalem should not be destroyed, that they should neither see Sword nor Famine. Chap. 23. 17. 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 v. 25. 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 [Page 13] 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 Tit. 1. 5. 2 Tim. 2. 2 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 [Page 14] Holy Scripture (though by the Ministry of men) is not a Minister of man's making but of God's: Lev. 8. 2. 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 Tit. 1. 10, 11, 12. 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.

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 command of God, they would do it as of the ability which God giveth; but this Divine Ability they rely not on, nor indeed ex­pect; but School-learning, and humane Abili­ty acquired by study and much reading, these they trust to, these they depend on, &c. p. 7.

Min.

Whether this impudent charge against a whole Order of Reverend Divines be more foul or false, is beyond my skill to determine; while so great a number of them have by their humility and devotion made the contrary ap­parent. I am sure he can charge no such thing upon the Doctrine of our Church. Where do's he find any such self-confidence taught or encouraged in our Articles and Homilies, or practised in our publick and solemn Forms of Devotion? No where, I am sure, but the quite contrary, 'Tis the healthful Spirit of God's grace that we daily pray Com­mon Pray­er-Book. Pr. for the Clergy. See the Collects sor the 5. Sund. af­ter Epiph. for the 5. Sun. after Easter. & for the 1, 9, and 19. Sund. af­ter Trin. &c. for. And these are as great assurance, as men (whose lives are not openly scandalous) can give one another of the integrity of their hearts. This Quaker [Page 16] therefore accuses us of a Crime visible to God only; and thereby strikes at his Prerogative, who alone is the searcher of hearts. But if there be any of the Clergy guilty of too great a mea­sure of Confidence in their own Abilities; yet as this is best known to God, and hard for us to judge; so you are also to consider, that, af­ter they are Lawfully Ordained, it is not some personal faults of theirs, that can make void their Ministry, much less justifie the accusation this Reviler brings against the whole Ministry of the Church.

And as for human Learning (which, he says, we trust to;) Is not he himself a Pretender to it in his Book, and equally lyable to the same censure? But more of this in its proper place.

Par.

But he tells us of another great reason, why the People are not profited, viz. the disagreeable­ness of the present Ministry to Divine Institution, p. 9. which Institution, he tells us in the fore­going page, is generally urged to be the words of Christ to his Apostles, Mat. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, &c.

Min.

It concern'd the credit of his party to leave out the later clause in that Commission, instituting the holy Ordinance of Baptism; for had he not so done, he would have faln foul upon his Brethren, who most impiously reject it, contrary to the Universal practice of the Church in all Ages, since its first Instituti­on. But wherein do's our Ministry disagree with the Divine Institution?

Par.

Before the Apostles were to go forth to [Page 17] teach, they were to receive the Promise of the Father; and to tarry in the City of Ierusalem, till they were endued with Power from on high p. 8.

Min.

That this Promise related to the ex­traordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost, is ve­ry manifest from the visible effects of that effu­sion, which were miraculous, and did not con­tinue in the Church, but are actually ceased long ago; and therefore cannot (without pre­sumption) be expected in these latter Ages of the Church, by virtue of this, or any other promise in holy Scripture. But if the Quakers expect the Spirit in that manner as the Apo­stles had it, then according to the condition of that Promise, why go they not to the City of Ierusalem to receive it? (in the mean time we shall be happily rid of them.) However if they lay claim to the whole Promise, why do they not make it evident, as the Apostles did, that they are endued with Power from on high, by working miracles, healing all diseases, rai­sing the dead and the like? When do these new Lights speak with new Tongues? for ac­cording to Ellwood, similar causes should have similar effects. But for as much as the contra­ry is evident, that the Quakers are not endu­ed with this Power, with what confidence can they lay claim to this Promise?

Par.

You told me that the strong grown Christi­an measures the goodness of the Ministry from its tendency to Conscentious obedience, that is, the performance of all duty in its latitude, both to God, to man and to our selves, Now if the per­formance [Page 18] of all duty to God, to man and our selves be the tendency of a good Ministry; how can that Ministry be good, which denies that all duty to God, to man and our selves can be performed in this life? p. 10.

Min.

The words immediately subjoyn'd do show, that by [latitude] there, I meant not the Perfection of an unsinning State, but the U­niversality of our Obedience to God and Man together with our selves (as it there follows) that is; a sincere respect to all the Command­ments of God, which Zacharias and Eliza­beth were commended for, Luk. 1. 6. Though Zacharias' his imperfection was plainly disco­ver'd in ver. 20, 22. Where you may read, he was struck dumb for his unbeleif: but more of this subject when we come to his Chapter of Perfection.

Par.

But he tells us, the poople may plainly see the reason of their not-profiting under your Mi­nistry, because it designs to seat the Religion even of the grown Christian in the rational Powers, p. 12.

Min.

The rational Powers are the Under­standing and the Will (as any smatterer in ordi­learning could inform him;) For these are they which distinguish a man from a beast: And Religion being the most Rational thing, where can it be more properly seated than in the rational Powers? That Religion which is not seated there, is but a zeal without know­ledg, such as seduced the Iews to reject Christ and the Samaritans to worship they knew not what. So that Ellwood's Religion (it seems by his own confession) hath no seat in his un­derstanding. [Page 19] Here he has discover'd the true ground of the Fanaticism of himself and his party, and has shew'd in this frantick passage of his, that whoever will be a right Quaker must in the concerns of Religion lay aside his Understanding, Reason, Wits and Judgment.

Rational Arguments are the proper Mediums by which the word of God works upon our Wills and Affections. Therefore saith God by his Prophet Isa. 1. 18. come let us Reason to­gether; and the Apostle prays Phil. 1. 13. that the Philippians love may abound more and more in all Iudgment; and Christ saith Ioh. 17. 3. this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

Par.

But take his reason, The people of God (says he) in Ages past had their Religion seated in their hearts; and this he proves from the good Ground in the Parable of the sower, which by our Saviour is delared to be Them, which Luke 8. 15. (not in a wise and knowing head, not in the ra­tional powers, as you speak, but) in an honest and good heart having heard the word keep it. ibid.

Min.

The Quaker here has brought an in­stance directly against himself: For by [honest heart] in that Parable is not meant the Passions and sensible Consolations, which is plain from vers. 13. where 'tis said, some received the word with Ioy, and wanting root in time of temptation fell away. Therefore the Heart being there distinguisht from the lower Faculties, must con­sequently be meant of the Higher, that is, the [Page 20] rational Powers, acted by mature Deliberati­on, constant resolution and sincere endeavours. Through the ignorance of this, both good men and bad have oft mistaken their Condition and estate towards God, good men being sometimes discourag'd for the want of these Consolations, and bad men by the strange raptures of these fanciful joys commonly encouraging them­selves with a false conceit of being in the Truth and a good estate; and therefore may be truly resembled to Isaiah's hungry man, who dream­eth he eateth, but he awaketh and his soul is empty. Isa. 29. 8. which place do I never read, but it puts me in mind of the Quakers, as a true Emblem of them.

Par.

But he tells us, that the Prophet David speaking of the Righteous, saith, that the Law of his God is in his Heart. p. 13.

Min.

Where said I any thing to import the contrary? But then do's not the same David Ps. 119. 34. 1 King. 3. 9 say, give me understanding, and I shall keep thy Law? And did not Solomon beg of God a wise and understanding heart? When the Scriptures speak of the heart with a relation to Religion, they mean the Spirit, the inward man, the rational Soul; and therefore are far from set­ting it in opposition to the rational Powers, which are the faculties of it, and in which the very nature of the reasonable soul consists. Men of understanding, in Iob, 34. 10. are in the He­brew tongue (and accordingly noted in the margin) Viri cor­dati. Men of heart: Mercerus upon the place gives this reason, Quia cor [...] [...] [...]. M [...]c. because the heart is the seat of wisdom. In Prov. 6. 32. He lacketh under­standing, [Page 21] is in some Readings, C [...]et vel d [...]ficit co. d [...]. He lacketh Heart. You know the decree against Nebuchadnezzar. Dan. 4. 16. Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given to him: Now do you suppose it was the real heart of an Ox, or Ass, or of any other brute, that was given to him? No; heart there signified his rational Powers, the use of which he was to be deprived of. And this is evident from ver. 34. And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lift up mine eyes to Heaven, and mine understanding return'd to me

I wish the Quaker be true at heart himself; for I can hardly believe him such an Iguar [...], as here he makes himself; And 'tis well, if his de­sign be not the advancing some other interest than that of Quakerism; And I wish those mi­serable deluded people, whose true good only (as the Searcher of all hearts knows) engaged me in this Controversy, may seriously consider of it.

Par.

His next cause, why the people are not profited by your Ministry, is the evil lives of Ministers. p. 14.

Min.

Here most injuriously and craftily do's he pass by, what he might have found in my book sufficient to convince (if not him, yet) any sober man. Where I assert, that the efficacy of the Divine Ordinances depends not on the worthiness of the Minister; Friendly Conference, p. 14, but upon the Power of God, p. 15. that is, upon his blessing and grace, that the excellency of the Power (as the Apostle hath it) may be of God, and not of us. And why did he pass by that note I made of St. Paul's rejoycing, that Christ was [Page 22] preacht, tho' it were from a principle of strife and envy? And if no benefit could come to the people by such mens doctrines, what ground had the Apostle to rejoyce? Seeing mens re­spective duties to God and their Neighbours are taught them from the Pulpit, why takes he not notice of that unanswerable Appeal I make to their Consciences in these words? Wil you tell the great Iudg at the Grat day, that your non proficiency was occasioned by the scanda­lous life of your Minister? Or will an impudent upbraiding your Minister with his faults excuse you in the neglect of your duty? Conference p. 16. Now judg whether ever this Quaker design'd a sober and honest Answer to my book, as in the fear of God, when not only here, but all along, he passes by what is most considerable, and wherein the strength of my Argument lies. At this rate he might easily answer any book what­soever.

Par.

I observe that he speaks of Ministers (as you say) Indefinitly; and therefore can­not tell whether he means All, or some; for he do's not explain himself, as you used to do.

Min.

Then may you take notice of a Jesu­ [...]tical trick of this Quaker's (frequently used by him) to play fast and loose, in such shifting and ambiguous terms. If he mean that some Mi­nisters only are scandalous; why had he not the honesty to express it, to free the innocent? But then I suppose, he foresaw that his Argu­ment would have been hiss'd at as ridiculous and impertinent, in accusing the Ministry it self, and denying its efficacy meerly for the Perso­nal [Page 23] failings of some Ministers, as if Iu­das's faults had made void the doctrine both of himself and his fellow Apostles: On the o­ther side, if to avoid this absurdity he pur­posely orders his discourse, that ignorant peo­ple may believe All Ministers are scandalous, this is after the rate of his modesty, and that which (blessed be God) the world knows to be a foul and malicious slander.

Par.

You told me that in a settled national Ministry, consisting of great numbers in holy Orders, it cannot be expected, but that some men for a corrupt interest will intrude them­selves into those sacred Offices; which is not to be charged upon their Function, seeing there was a Iudas among the chosen Twelve: From hence T. E. infers that you palliate and extenuate the crime. p. 15.

Min.

Whose crime? that of the scandalous Ministers? Will any man endued with com­mon sence say that the import of that passage was to palliate or cloak their Crimes, when it contains a relation of so great a Crime as that of Intruding for a corrupt interest into sacred Offices? No; Any one (that is not blind) may see that there I am doing quite another thing, that is, excusing the Church and Government from the blame of such an inconveniency, as in­deed is unavoidable.

Par.

But he wonders that you should say these scandalous Ministers should intrude them­selves; seeing all men that know any thing of them, know that according to the Constitution of your Government, none can intrude themselves [Page 24] into the Ministry, but must be admitted and have letters of Induction from the Bishop, p. 16.

Min.

That there is due care taken to pre­vent scandalous men from intruding into the Ministry, is as freely confest by me, as it is tru­ly intimated by this Quaker (to the honour of our Church) tho' against his will; yet as the Church may unavoidably and unblama­bly receive some into her outward visible Com­munion, who afterwards may prove Apostates; So may she, when all is done, as unavoidably admit some men into holy Orders, who may afterwards prove Hypocrites. For whereas Christ's Government of his Church is partly visible and partly invisible; His invisible Go­vernment of the Souls of men, being that which he exerciseth by his Grace and holy Spirit, is his own immediate work, because he only is the Searcher of hearts. His outward Govern­ment of his Church is that which he excercis­eth by subordinate Ministers and Pastors; who, not seeing mens hearts, can act only according to that outward Polity which he has settled in his Church; and consequently the Bishops in admitting Ministers can and are obliged on­ly to act by prudential rules of Probation, fol­lowing the Apostolical directions in 2 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. according to the best of their know­ledg and conscience. Now if any so ordain'd prove Hypocrites (as they may after the seve­rest inspection;) Yet are they regularly recei­ved, and duly ordained, and therefore true Mi­nisters according to Christ's own Institution; the Church having herein done her utmost, and [Page 25] all that God requires in this outward Admi­nistration: And the Gospel preached by them, being not theirs, but God's, and his blessing upon his own Ordinance, are sufficient to con­vert and save the souls of men; tho' these, while they preach to others, may themselves become Castaways. 1 Cor. 9. 27.

To say that upon our admission we must have letters of Induction from the Bishop, is a gross mistake; For letters of Induction are given by the Arch-Deacon; and the intent of them is not to certify our Ordination, but only to give us possession of our Benefices.

Par.

But he speaks cautiously, and adds [as I think they term them.] ibid.

Min.

He is faln very flat on a sudden. Is his confidence come to I think? Here he ei­ther dissembles his ignorance, or not; If he dissemble, (let his design be what it will, for which he do's it;) who is the hypocrite then? If he do not dissemble, but is truly as ignorant as he seems to be; how is such a man qualified to censure the constitution of a Church?

Par.

Now then the question (he says) natu­rally arises, Why would the Bishop admit such hypocrites into such sacred Offices? ibid.

Min.

The answer as naturally follows (in his own words;) Why? He knew them not to be such, ibid. Which is indeed an answer unan­swerable.

Par.

But then, alas! may the people well say, we are now in worse case then before; for how shall we be assured, they are not most of them such? Here they are all at a loss. ibid.

Why should not such Ministers (whose lives are free from scandal) be thought sincere good men, rather than Hypocrites, seeing Charity (as himself confesses p. 23.) useth to think the best? Thefore you may discover here an unchristian artifice and wheedle of this Qua­ker's, to bring the People into a prophane con­tempt of their Pastors, and to make them sus­pect the most Pious Clergy-man for an Hypo­crite.

Neither are the people at a loss, tho' the Mi­nister were an Hypocrite; while (as hath been ptoved) the efficacy of God's word depends upon his own blessing, &c. and not upon the Minister's merit.

By this Argument of his the Church of God ever was and will be at a loss, unless the sincerity of her Teachers were made known by Revelation: Therefore are not the Quakers themselves all at a loss? For what assurance have they of the sincerity of any of their Speak­ers, who may have drifts and designs much different from what they pretend to? It's well known that Jesuits have personated Quakers, and have been Speakers in their Meetings. Dr. Good * Dr. Good's Dialog. p. 9. 8.tells us that it's upon record at Bristol, that two Franciscans gave notice of the coming of Quakerism into that City; and that him­self heard a Popish Priest brag, that he had been a Speaker in their meetings. Now who is at a loss here? Not that the Emissaries of Rome care more for the Quakers, than other Sectaries, among whom they trade and lurk; but by this wicked craft, they carry on their [Page 27] business, which is to undermine the Protestant Religion, and this excellently constituted Church (the grand object of their Envy,) by throwing a bone of Division, and raising Ene­mies in the bowels of her; well knowing that an Army is more effectually destroyed by a Mu­tiny among themselves, than by the fiercer assaults of a foreign Enemy. So indeed do's Religion suffer more by separation and Divi­sions among the Professors of it, than by the opposition of the very Infidels. I pray God this may be seriously consider'd by all good men, to avoid all schismatical meetings; and by the Quakers themselves, to be at length con­vinc'd, whose journey-men they are.

Par.

Next he blames you for saying, that by fruits Math, 7. 16. is not meant the out­ward Conversation of false Prophets, but the ill consequences of their Doctrines, p. 16. 17.

Min.

It's true, I both said it, and prov'd it: And why takes he no notice of any of my Arguments, which I suppose, he would not have pass'd by, had he known how to have answer'd them? Did I not prove my assertion from the deceits of Hypocrisy, and the out­ward sanctity of some Hereticks, whom I men­tioned, and the Sheeps clothing (the guise of innocency) mention'd in the text it self? Look into my book again, and judg whether Ellwood have dealt ingennously with me. I shall only add thus much, that as an ill life makes an ill man; so 'tis false Doctrine that makes a false Prophet: And that as the outward shew of holiness did not argue those old hereticks true [Page 28] Prophets; so neither did the ill life of Iudas prove him a false Apostle. Hence it follows, that by mens outward Carriage we cannot distinguish between a false Prophet and a true. And as for the 21, 22 and 23 verses, which he cites to prove the contrary, it's very evident that they relate to the final condemnation of false Prophets at the last day by Christ; and not to their discovery here by us.

Par.

If those wise and great learned men, who admit these scandalous Preachers, cannot by the ill consequences of their Doctrines discover those corrupt interests for which they do intrude them­selves, how alas! should the ignorant vulgar do it? p. 17.

Min.

You have started here a piece of ela­borate nonsence. 'Tis indeed an hard task which he puts upon the Bishops, and 'tis con­fest it would have required all the wisdom and learning they have, to discover the cor­rupt interests of Intruders by the consequences of their Doctrines before their Admission, that is to say, before they preach any Doctrine at all.

What grave conclusions would this shufler make by this preposterous form of putting Con­sequents before Antecedents, Cart before th' Horse! But for the prevention of their preach­ing false Doctrine after their Ordination, all security that may be is taken of them by their subscriptions to sound and orthodox Articles of Religion, according to which they are bound to preach; and there are Laws also to restrain them.

Seeing T. E. taxes the Constitution of your Government, in relation to your Admissi­on into the Ministry, I should be glad to under­stand the form and manner of it.

Min.

To satisfy you, that all care imagi­nable is taken by the wisdom and piety of our Church, to prevent the admission of scanda­lous Persons into holy orders, and to promote the honour and ends of our sacred Function, You are to understand, First, that there are certain times appointed for Fasting and Prayer, to invoke God, to guide the Bishops and Pastors Collect for Ember week. of his Flock, faithfully and wisely to make choice of fit persons to serve in the sacred Ministry of his Church; and this is according to the primitive Practice Acts 13. 3. Then due care is order'd See the Preface before the Offices for Ordinati­on. to be taken for the examination of the Abili­ties of such persons as come to be ordain'd. Then Certificates and Testimonials must be produced concerning their Life and Conversa­tion. When they are presented to the Bishop for Ordination, he in most solemn manner charges the Arch-Deacon to take heed, whom he presents &c. And if the people have any thing to object against any of them, they are re­quired to come forth in the name of God, and to shew what the Crime or Impediment is. That they may not miss opportu­nity to do it; there are (as is well known) four set Sundays in the year appoint­ed for Ordinati­on. After Prayers, and the reading of such Scriptures as are chosen for the occasion, the Bishop in a solemn speech publickly exhorts them in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, to have in remem­brance into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an office and charge they are called, that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stew­ards [Page 30] of the Lord, &c. Then he bids them have it printed in their remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to their charge, that is, the sheep of Christ which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. And if the Church or any member thereof take any hurt, &c. by their negligence, he reminds them of the great­ness See the form for Ordinati­on of Priests. of the fault, and the horrible punishment, which will ensue. And that they may be exci­ted to the greater care and diligence, they are put in mind not only of the end and excellency, but of the difficulty also of their Office, as well to shew themselves dutiful and thankful unto that Lord who hath placed them in so high a dignity, as also to beware that neither they themselves offend, nor be occasion that others offend. Next he tells them, they cannot have a mind and will thereto of themselves, for that Will and Here judg with what ho­nesty T. E. char­ges the Ministry of Eng land with de­nying the Divine Ability. Abili­ty is given of God alone, and therefore that they ought and have need to pray earnestly for his holy Spirit. And be their Learning never so great, and their Testimonials never so credible; yet are they not to be ordain'd, till they have gi­ven engagement, in the presence of God and the Congregation, for the faithful exercise of their duty and Function, by solemn promises, and positive answers to several See both offices for ordering Deacons & Priests. Questions pro­pounded to them by the Bishop: First, Whe­ther they trust, that they are inwardly moved by the holy Ghost, to take upon them that Office to serve God for the promoting his Glory, and the edifying of his Church? to which each of them answers, I trust so. Then he enquires of them, Whether they unfeignedly beleive, that the holy [Page 31] Scriptures contain all Doctrines necessary to sal­vation? And (for the time to come) Whether they are determin'd to teach nothing as necessary to salvation, but what they shall be perswaded may be proved from thence? Whether they will be faithful always to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, &c. Whether they will be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange Doctrines contrary to God's word; and use both publick and private Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whole within their Cures, &c. Whether they will be diligent in prayers and reading the holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledg of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh? Whether they will be dili­gent to frame and fashion themselves and families according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make themselves wholsome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ? Whether they will main­tain and set forward, as much as in them lies, quietness, peace and love among all Christian people, &c. And lastly, Whether they will o­bey the Godly admonitions of their Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, to whom is committed the charge and Government over them? To all these they answer and promise, They will so do, the Lord being their helper.

Then are they by Prayer and Imposition of hands, according to the Apostolical rule and practice, ordained into their respective Functi­ons.

Now judg what reason this bold man had to [Page 32] besplatter so wise and pious a Constitution; and by Consequence to affront the King and Parlia­ment, who have so conscientiously establisht it by Law. But let me advise you to read the Office it self, where you will be still more ful­ly informed.

Par.

I have given you great attention, and I must freely confess (from what you have al­ready told me) that this form of your ordination is a most solemn, serious and pious service, far beyond what I ever knew or imagin'd of it; And now I begin to blame my self, for taking things so much upon trust, and for believing every tale that others have told me, as if this Church were an enemy to the power of God­liness: For not weighing things impartially, I became very much prejudic'd against it; and when I heard others rail, I learnt by their ex­ample to do so too.

Min.

Therefore, I hope, hereafter you will be more just to examine things before you cen­sure them; And for this end I have been so express in particulars, lest you should neglect to read, and still go on (as many do) to speak evil of those things which you *Iude 10.know not. Here you may note, how unjust and disingenuous our Adversaries are, who designedly conceal the excellency of our Constitution, while they exasperate ignorant people against it. And I hope hereafter you will beware of them.

Par.

Your counsel is very reasonable; only I am thinking it will be said, that the faults of scandalous Ministers are the more aggravated by their walking contrary to such principles and engagements.

The Sin of these men will lie at their own doors. I am not justifying any such; but or Mother the Church of England, from whom, you see, they learn no such thing. And though there be some bad, (as there ever were, and will be in the purest Churches, after the greatest care is taken,) yet does it detract no­thing at all from the honour of those other of the Clergy, who give all faithful diligence to live up to their excellent Principles, and to Act according to their Promises and Engage­ments.

Par.

Whereas you affirmed to me, that they who make the Efficacy of the divine Ordinances to depend on the Worthiness of the Persons con­cerned Fr. Conf. p. 14. in them, are worse than the Papists, and cnotrary to the Antient Fathers: The Reason, T. E. tells us, is obvious, the Papists and you jump together, and as with one voice endeavour to subject the people to the Clergy, how corrupt how scandalous soever. p. 17.

Min.

Then may you see, how dishonestly this Quaker shuffles in words of his own, to pervert mine; the drift of my discourse being there to subject the people to the divine Ordi­nances. But why do's he pass by the antient Fathers, who were no Papists, and yet gene­rally St. Aug. de doctr. Christi­ana l. 4. c 27. And de Serm. Dom in Mo [...]te l. 2. c. 37. And Con­tra Epi­stol. Par­men. l. 2. & else­where St. Chrysost. by Theo­phyl. on Mat. 23. 2. held the abovesaid Doctrines, and yet by the very Arguments which this Quaker op­poses? For our part, we expect no other sub­jection from the people, but what God him­self has for their own good been pleased to command, and make their duty.

So far as his objection concerns scandalons [Page 34] Ministers, I shall have further occasion to speak of it hereafter. But if this be all the Quakers have to say against Obedience due to their lawful Pastors; how will this justify their Disobedience to, and separation from the good as well as bad?

Par.

He continues the discourse, and la­ments the condition of the people in these words, Alas poor people! miserably enthrall'd to their own servants, whom good or bad they must keep, &c. p. 18. And he makes this note in the margin, Minister a servant.

Min.

If one would believe the Quaker here, he's full of pity to the people; but I am sure he's much more full of mistakes, (and Chari­ty must be mightily stretch'd to excuse them from being wilful.) you are therefore to con­sider, that there is a twofold notion of Service: There is a service of Subjection, and there's a Service of Love and Friendship. To the first the Apostle has reference, in that Exhortation Col. 3. 22. Servants, obey in all things your Masters, &c. To the second, he refers, in that other Exhortation Gal. 5. 13.—by love serve one another. In this latter notion of it, viz. in Acts of kindness, we are ready with St. Paul to preach our selves the peoples servants for Iesus's sake; For in this sence, that is, in the offices of Love, a Superior may not inpro­perly be said to serve his Inferior, as that great Apostle shewd himself ready to do.

In the first notion, it implies Dominion and Authority in those whom we serve, and a Pow­er to command and controul; and consequently [Page 35] requires subjection and Obedience in him that They are Ministers of God, Ministers of Christ, not of the people. SeeMede's Disc. on 1 Cor. 4. 1. serveth. And in this notion also a Minister is a servant, but then 'tis to him whose Minister he is: A Minister of State is a servant, but it is to the Prince that employs him; So a Mi­nister of Religion is a servant, yet not to the People, but to God whose Embassador he is. The Apostles were Ministers, and did the peo­ple think them their servants? The Church is compared to an Army; and are the Leaders and Officers in an Army, Servants to the com­mon Soldiers? Ministers are by their Office to direct and rebuke; and if they were servants to the people, would it become them so to do? Angels are Ministring Spirits, and are by God appointed to serve the necessities of the Church; This do's not suppose that they are our servants, to be controuled by us.

But the Quakers methinks should be more modest than to expect from the Clergy a ser­vice of Subjection to the people, While (if the Author of the spirit of the Hat may be trusted) Fox and others of them arrogating to them­selves the Ministerial Function and Power, do crush the tender ones; as he terms it, p. 12.

However you see the Arts, T. E. and such as he, make use of to encourage the people to contemn their lawful Teachers; and in the mean time, as scrupulous as the Quakers are to call any man Master, you see how they take upon them to be really so themselves. Do's not this piece of Ambition directly oppose the plain doctrine of holy Scripture, which says concerning the relation of Ministers to the peo­ple, [Page 36] that They are over them in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. and so commands them to esteem them very highly. v. 13. And again, that They have the rule over them Heb. 13. 17. and com­mands them to obey them, and submit them­selves, &c. And calls them elswhere 2 Tim. 2. 11. Teach­ers, Fathers and Pastors? But the Quakers it Eph. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 4. 15 seems, are for inverting this Doctrine, and ma­king the Hearer and learner a Master over his Teacher, a Son over the Father, and the Flock over their Shepherd.

Now therefore to retort his own words, p. 29. What I pray do's this bespeak, but pride and arrogance? And as a little before, Is it the humble, meek, gentle Spirit of Iesus? or the haughty proud exalted Spirit of Lucifer?

Here you see the ill Consequences of his Doctrine; And by applying the rule of our Saviour, you may know, who he is by his fruits, that is to say, a false Prophet.

Par.

Though I have great ground to suspect a man for a Fornicator, though I know him to be Covetous, though I fear he is an Idolater, &c. must I notwithstanding (says he) acknowledg this man to be a Minister of Christ, and have recourse to him for teaching, &c. God forbid. p. 19.

Min.

This Quaker, lest he should not have enough against the Clergy positively to accuse them of, judges it needful here to supply that defect with fears and suspitions. Though both the Proverb and right Reason affirm, that Suspition is no proof; yet observe here, that even Fears and suspitions are by this Quaker made war­rantable grounds, both for Censure and separa­tion. [Page 37] But I pray, consider, what confusions and distractions this principle tends to, how ready an Expedient it is to pick a hole in the Coat of the best man living, to incense the vul­gar, and justify any villainous enterprize. What jealousies will not malice and Prejudice suggest, of the Holiest man on earth? The suggestion of fears and jealousies was the first artifice, that was used to foment the late Rebellion, and to hasten those fatal effects of it both in Church and State, which this Nation since has felt. The same Trade, you see, is still driven on by this Incendiary and his Fellows, in order to the same Effects, from which God deliver this Church and Nation.

Par.

You told me, that the Scribes and Ma [...]. 23. 2. Pharisees were got into Moses's Chair, &c. Here first (says he) it may be worth our noting, that the Scribes and Pharisees were got into Moses's Chair, not into Aaron's: Now Moses was the Civil Magistrate, the Iudg or Ruler; But Aaron was more properly the Priest, p. 19.

Min.

For the right understanding of this text, We must consider What Moses's Chair imports; and Who the Scribes and Pharisees were. Moses was not only a Civil Magistrate, but a Prophet, and type of Christ Deut. 18. 15. And we are to cosider him here, not as a Ma­gistrate, but as a Prophet. Him the Iews ever esteemed, as cheif of their Doctors. They call Io [...]. 9 23, 29. him Master, to this day; and glory not a little in his Discipleship: And indeed the Scriptures Deut. 18. 15. and 34. 10. Num. 12. 6, 7, 8. do artribute to him a higher mode of Prophecy than ordinary. Now the great and principal [Page 38] work of a Prophet, was to teach and instruct the people: This is evident from the Scripture; 2 Pet. 2. 1. False Prophets and false Teachers do there explain one another. And Prophe­sying is put for Expounding and teaching the will of God, 1 Cor. 13. 2. and 14. 1, 3. And he that expoundeth and declareth another's mind and meaning is called his Prophet, Exod. 7. 1, 4, 16: And Christ's great work in the ex­ercise of his Prophetical Office, was to teach the people and to reveal his Father's will. We may therefore safely conclude, that Moses's Chair, is the Chair of Doctrine; For it was the custom of those times for Teachers to sit, while they taught; as several of the Iewish Doctors, and also the antient Commentaries under St. Ambrose's name on 1 Cor. 14. 29, 30. do inform us. In conformity to this Cus­tom Christ himself taught sitting; and the an­tient Philosophers did the same, as Grotius noteth upon the place, where he quoteth Se­neca calling them Cathedrarii, that is, Chair­men.

That Moses's Chair is thus to be taken, will further appear from the Persons sitting in it. Christ's discourse is not concerning Iudges and Magistrates, but Teachers, as appears from ver. 4. where we read, They bound heavy bur­thens &c. that is expounded the Law with in­tolerable strictness by adding their Traditions to it; see Acts 15. 10, 28. and accordingly the Iews called a thing forbidden by the Do­ctors Ligatum, viz. a thing bound; and a See ver. 9, [...]0, &c. thing permitted Solutum or loosed. Christ [Page 39] mentions none, but Scribes and Pharisees, ex­cluding Sadducees, who yet were members of their Sanhedrins, as well as the other. And if he had spoken concerning their Sanhe­drins, the Priests would no doubt, have been mention'd especially the high Priest, who was a Chief member of them in our Saviour's time. Now that the Scribes here mention'd did suc­ceed the Prophets in their office and Employ­ment, is clear from the Scripture. Behold (says our Saviour) I send you Prophets, Wise-men and Scribes, Mat. 23. 34. Where the one do's expound the other. In 1 Cor. 1. 20. Wise-men and Scribes are conjoyn'd; For such as were educated in the Learning and wisdom of the Law, and professed it, were called Scribes. Ezra is called a Scribe, ch. 7. 12. to which sense Christ alludeth Mat. 13. 52. In antient times many were educated in Schools and Col­ledges to be Prophets; But when the gift of Prophesy ceased among that people, then they remained Scribes only; accordingly Maimonides says, that the Reason why Baruch was so dis­contented, was because he had spent so much time under Jeremiah, to obtain the gift of Pro­phesy, yet was constrain'd to go without it: So that he was called Baruch the Scribe only. Wherefore the true notion of Scribes is this, They were Students, Learned men, and Teach­ers * [...] Luk 5. 17. of the Law to the People, as the Pro­phets were of old, but without the gift of Pro­phecy; Succeeding them in their Office, but not in their extraordinary Mission and Supernatu­ral Endowments: Hence our Lord says, that they sate in Moses's seat.

[Page 38] [...][Page 39] [...]

[Page 40] As for the word [Pharisees,] that denoteth their Sect, and way of Religion only, most of the Scribes being of that sect as is probable, be­cause it was so much in vogue with the peo­ple.—From this Scripture thus explain'd it will follow.

1. That Persons without an Extraordinary mission, and Supernatural Endowments, may be true Successors of them that had both, as the Scribes were of the ancient Prophets.

2. That men may be God's Officers, though they have not that Immediate mission from him; For if the Scribes were not God's Officers, they did not sit in Moses's Chair, in Christ's sence; This is so obvious, that even Heathen Magistrates are called God's Ministers, Rom. 13. 4.

3. That whatever Such as have the Office and Authority to Teach, (tho' bad men) do teach, by vir­tue of their Office. jure Cathedrae, (as Grotius expresses it) keeping themselves within the Sphere of their Authority, They ought to be obeyed in.

Par.

You said that our Saviour hath given By an e­ternal do­cument I mean a standing rule in the Church. the people an Eternal Document, when such Teachers as live not answerably to their Do­ctrine fall to their share. An eternal Document! What's that? p. 20.

Min.

I told you in our Saviour's own words, Whatsoever they bad them to observe, that to ob­serve and do, but not to do after their works. Mat. 23. 3.

Par.

Nay hold there (says he) we have had too much of that already; England hath not yet forgot, since the Scribes and Pharisees of Rome sa [...]e in the Chair here, &c. ibid

Had it been a Turk, Iew, or profest Atheist, that had accosted me with this reply, I should have receiv'd it without any surprize at all; But seeing this Quaker pretends to Christianity, is it not strange that He should fall foul upon Christ himself? Had it been a Document of mine own framing (though ne­ver so reasonable;) I should not have won­der'd to see him exercise his Sophistry upon i t: But it being a Document of our blessed Lord's, and deliver'd in no other but his own express words, and in his own sense; Methinks the Ho­nour and Authority of the Author should have deterr'd him from this Confidence, and per­swaded him to have been more sparing.

How would the barbarous Iews have hugg'd themselves, and how much innocency would they have pleaded, if in the days of Christ, they had been furnisht with this Qua­ker's Argument? For had it been broacht then, much louder had the Crucifige's rung in Pilat's ears. Might not they have argued at Ellwood's rate, Hast not thou commanded us to observe and do, whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid us? We are now set on by them; 'Tis they that bid us Crucify thee; Then from thy self we have an authority to execute this command of theirs.

So that I must answer my Antagonist in Isaiah's Dialect, 2 Kings 19. 22. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted thine eyes on high? even against the Holy one of Israel.

Par.

I must confess that the Consequences [Page 42] from this gloss are very odious; therefore, I pray, give me now the true sense of the text.

Min.

I cannot do it better than in the words of St. Chrysostom an Author, whom this Quaker pretends to have a very good opi­nion of, and whose Authority he misquotes a­gainst me with so much triumph. p. 120, and 188. Let us here him therefore descanting upon this Document by Theophilact, The Lord speaketh of those, who fit in Moses's Chair, that is, of those who teach what is in the Law; those Theoph. in loc. The like expositi­on we read in St. Aug. de doct. Chr. l. 4. therefore who teach the Divine Law we ought to hear, tho they do it not themselves: Further he objects, (as Ellwood here) But must we do all things they say, tho they be evil things? We answer, says he, First that he that teacheth will hardly be so audacious as ever to exhort to things directly evil. Secondly, If we grant that any one should exhort to evil life, then he speaks not from Moses's Chair, nor out of the Law. And this I hope the Quaker will grant an eternal Document, that All that an evil Pastor com­mands us from God's Law (and by virtue of his Office,) we ought to do; This was our Saviour's sense in that text, and mine in quo­ting it.

Par.

There is one thing which I must not forget; He tells his Reader in these words, Our Godly Martyrs (by his leave) held not this Document to be eternal, as Smithfield can amply witness. ibid.

Min.

This is a passage I must not brook, that he should be so arrogant to call them Their Martyrs, as if the Martyrs were Quakers, and [Page 43] it were the Quakers Cause for which they suf­fer'd, The Crow must not adorn himself with the Peacocks feathers; nor the Quaker chal­lenge a property where he has none at all. In honour therefore to the memory of these pious Souls, I shall (God willing) undertake to vin­dicate their reputation from so foul, so false an intimation; and shew,

1. How far they were from being any thing like the Quakers, or in the least inclinable to them.

2. That they did not oppose Christ's words (as Ellwrod here doth;) but held this Docu­ment to be eternal.

First I hope to make it evident, that They were as contrary to the erroneous and nonsensi­cal tenents of the Quakers, as to those of the Papists, by whose cruel hands they were mur­ther'd. And this disparity will appear both in their Doctrines and Manners.

Mr. Fox tells us, that Mr. Rogers, Proto­martyr in Queen Mary's bloody Persecution, Martyro­logy vol. 3. p. 129. speaking of the Ministry, declared, that the similitude between Them and the Apostles, was not in the singular gifts of God, as doing mi­racles, &c. but They were like them in Doctrine, &c. Now he being Vicar of St. Sepulchre, Prebendary of St. Pauls, and Divinity-Reader there, could not be admitted into the said Pre­ferments, but by taking Oaths and subscribing to several Ecclesiastical Constitutions. And must He be put into the Calendar of the Qua­kers Martyrs?

Par.

'Tis well if you can agree upon the [Page 44] Persons; For T. E. speaks of the Martyrs in general, and not here of any in particular.

Min.

You say well: But what if I pitch up­on Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Philpot, Bradford and Taylor?

Par.

These T. E. will own to be Godly men, and worthy Martyrs. p. 305.

Min.
Good.
Par.
What makes you smile?
Min.

Cranmer was Arch-Bishop of Canter­bury, Ridley Bishop of London, Latimer Bishop of Worcester, Hooper Bishop of Glocester, Phil­pot Arch-Deacon of Winchester, Bradford Pre­bendary of Pauls, and Dr. Taylor Parson of Hadley: And would it not make any man smile to hear this man call those Reverend Prelats, &c. the Quakers Martyrs, who were such constant Defenders of the Protestant Religion, and of the Doctrin of the Church of England, both by their Sermons, their Pens, and their Lives? However take this by the way, that in calling them Godly, he justifies their Practi­ces; and in calling them Martyrs, he owns the Cause for which they suffer'd; The cause makes the Martyr. and so by consequence makes the whole design of his Book a Contradiction to himself here. So that he has brought himself into this miserable Dilemma and necessity, either to reject these Godly Mar­tyrs, or to recant his book.

For further instance, These Martyrs, who were so learned, so well skilled in the Fathers, and so excellently grounded in the Principles of Faith and Holiness, that they confirmed them with the Sacrifice of their Lives, These very [Page 45] men were so far from concluding all Oaths un­lawful, that as they could not be admitted into their Offices and Places, but by taking Oaths; so likewise did they administer Oaths to the subordinate Clergy, and Ecclesiastical Officers, according as the Laws, did then oblige them. These were Dispencers of both the Sacraments, were Receivers of Tithes; They never scrupled to give Civil Titles to men, nor to say [You] to a single person, as is evident from all their Conferences and Disputations; They wore Foxes Martyrol vol. 3 p. 493, 503, 667. &c. Gowns, and were in all such things as the present Clergy. Yea that very Form of Con­fession (in our service-Book,) against which Ellwood writes a whole Chapter, was compo­sed by some of these, whom he calls their God­ly Martyrs.

Par.

I see already, that he had better never have mention'd these Godly Martyrs.

Min.

He knows, what reputation they have among all Protestants, and therefore he would Gull the common people with this plausible Cheat, by endeavoring to perswade them, that these Martyrs were Patrons of their Cause. Therefore think it not tedious, if I give you a further account of their Principles and Practi­ces.

Cranmer one of the Compilers of our Litur­gy, ibid p. 48. was so far from abandoning the two bles­sed Sacraments, that he calls them the Seals of God's promises and gifts; and also of that holy fellowship, which we have with Christ and all his members.

Ridley another of the Compilers of our Li- [Page 46] Liturgy, was so constant to the Devotions of it, that Mr. Fox tells us, Marty­rol. vol. 3. p. 432. he constantly used the common-Prayer in his own house both Mor­ning and Evening. And that he, being told out of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, that Com­munion of Sacraments do's not defile a man, but consent of Deeds, acknowledged it to be well spoken if well understood; which was meant (saith he) of them, which suppose they are defi­led, ibid p. 434. if any secret vice be either in the Ministers or in them which communicate with them. Bap­tism (says he) is given to Children; the Lords Supper is, and ought to be given to them that are waxen. And he tells us, that he wished the Bishop of Winchester, to be stiff in the defence of the Sacraments, against the detestable errors of Anabaptists. And (that you may see his judg­ment of the Continuation of the Lord's Supper) he says *ibid p. 489. ibid p. 491. [Do this, &c. Luke 22. 19.] was not a Commandment for a time, but to perse­vere to the world's end.

Hooper in his Exposition on the 3d. Com­mandment tells us, that to Swear or take an Oath before a Lawful Iudge is the work also: of this Commandment, and setteth forth God's Glo­ry: for as Paul saith, All controversies are en­ded by the virtue of an Oath, So have we exam­ples in Paul Rom. 9. And in the same Expo­sition, he not only owns the Holy Sacraments (as he rightly styles them,) but he expressly calls them both Vows and Oaths; and further tells us that therein we Swear and promise to live after God's Will and pleasure. Pray, Con­sult the Preface to his Exposition on the Ten [Page 47] Commandments, and you will find how con­trary his Doscourse is to the Quakers notion of Perfection.

Do you not remember what character T. E. gives of Philpot?

Par.

Yes; He tells us, He was a Godly and Learned Martyr p. 275.

Min.

Truly Ellwood is so far in the right, for a Godly and Learned man he was. But then let us see how He and the Quakers agree in their notions and principles of Religion; and what property the Quakers have in this Excel­lent Martyr. Bonner taunting him as an Ana­baptist, and as one that denyed the Lawfulness of Swearing before a Judge, he replyed thus, Martyrol vol. 3. p. 561. My Lord, I am no Anabaptist, I think it LAW­FVLL TO SWEAR before a Competent Iudge. He being accused by the said Bonner, before one of the Sheriffs of London, that he denyed Baptism to be necessary to them that were born of Christian Parents; and that he denyed Fasting and Prayer, &c. smartly answer'd to this ibid. slander, Is not your Lordship ashamed to say be­fore this Worshipfull Gentleman, that I main­tain these abominable Blasphemies which you have rehearsed? So that you see to deny the Ordinance of Baptism (as the Quakers do) in the judgment of the Learned Philpot is an abo­minable Blasphemy. And in vindication of In­fant ibid. p. 606. Baptism He has writ a very learned Tract never to be Answer'd. And concerning the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; At a Conference with several of the Nobility, he said thus, I do protest to your Honours, that I [Page 48] think as reverently of the Sacrament, as a Chris­tian man ought to do; and that I acknowledg the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ ibid p. 556. ministred after Christ's Institution, to be one of the greatest Treasures and comforts that he left us in the earth. And being required by the Arch-Bishop Martyrol v. 3. p. 576 of York to give a definition of the Church, he gave it thus, It is a Congregation of people dispersed thorow the world, agreeing to­gether in the word of God, using the Sacra­ments and all other things according to the same. So then those that deny the use of the holy Sa­craments (and consequently the Quakers, who do so) are, according to this Pious Martyr, no members of the Church of Christ.

Bradford (whom Ellwood styles an Eminent Martyr, p. 275.) in a Conference with the Arch-Bishop of York and the Bishop of Chi­chester, would not by both their entreaties be ibid p. 295. moved to sit in their presence; neither would he be perswaded to put on his Cap, till they overcame him by their great importunity. The ibid p. 298. same Bradford chargeth the Papists with Sacri­lege in robbing the Laity of Christ's Cup in the Sacrament. Now if he were living, of how great Sacrilege would he accuse the Quakers, who not only take away the Cup, but utterly deny both the Sacraments? And herein are the Quakers far worse than the Papists. Again as to his Judgment of an Oath; In a certain ibid p. 284. Conference he says thus, I was thrice Sworn in Cambridg, when I was admitted Master of Arts, when I was admitted Fellow of Pembrook Hall, and when I was there, the Visiters came thither [Page 49] and Sware the University; Again I was Sworn, when I enter'd into the Ministry, when I had a Prebend given me, and I was Sworn to serve the King a little before his Death. Tush! Herod's Oaths (quoth the Chancellor Steph▪ Gardiner.) a man should make no Conscience at. But, My Lord, (said Bradford) these were no Herod's Oaths, no Unlaw­ful Oaths, but OATHS ACCORDING TO GOD's WORD, as you your self have well affirmed in your book De verâ obedientiâ. Do but compare his Letters Recorded by Fox, with Ellwood's Chapter of Confession, and see whe­ther Light and Darkness can be more contrary.

Taylor speaking of the Common Prayer-Book, gives this character of it, There was (says he) set forth by the innocent King Edward, the whole Church-Service, with great deliberation and the advice of the best learned men in the Realm, and Authorized by the whole Parlia­ment, and receiv'd and publish'd gladly by the whole Realm, which book was never reformed but Martyrol vol. 3. p. 171. once, and yet by that one reformation it was so fully perfected, according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf, that no Chri­stian Conscience could be offended with anything therein contained, I mean of that book reformed. And the Common Prayer-Book was the last Present he made to his Wife; and that which ibid p. 175. he used also during his inprisonment. This may satisfy you, that this Godly Martyr was no ibid p. 172. Quaker. Of an Oath you may see his opini­on, where he saith, The Oath against the Supre­macy of the Bishop of Rome was a LAWFULL OATH, and so was the Oath made by us all [Page 50] touching the King's or Queen's Preheminence.

Par.

I perceive after all this, that all those excellent men, whom he acknowledges Godly Martyrs, were of the Church of England.

Min.

Did you ever doubt it? Surely it was never questioned, till this Quaker invaded our Right in them.

Par.

But how do you prove your other Par­ticular, that they held the afore-mention'd Document to be eternal?

Min.

First you shall hear, what Latimer saith, As long as they minister the word of God or his Sacraments, or any thing that God hath Ordained to the Salvation of Mankind, where­with God hath promised to be present, to work with biid p. 478. the Ministration of the same to the end of the world, They be to be heard, to be obeyed, to be honoured for God's Ordinance sake, which is Effectual and Fruitful, whatsoever the Minister is, though he be a Devil, &c. And he cites Ori­gen and Chrysostom as of the same opinion.

Hear also what the Learned Philpot saith to this Point. He being engaged in a Disputati­on with the Arch-Bishop of York, and being asked [what the opinion of the Donatists was?] replyed, That they were a certain sect of men, affirming among other Heresies, that the Dignity of the Sacraments depended on the Worthiness of ibid p 576. the Minister, so that if the Minister was Good, the Sacraments which be Ministred were avail­able, or else not. Here you may infer, that this tenent of Ellwood's in the opinion of this holy Martyr is no less than Heresy: And you may know too from whence both he and his Bre­thren [Page 51] had it, even from the long since exploded Donatists. At another Disputation with the Bishop of Worcester and others, He told the Bishop that he knew Rome. To this the Bi­shop answer'd, that he was sorry that he had been there; for he supposed, the wickedness which he saw there made him do, as he did. Philpot replyed No, My Lord, I do not do, as I do for that cause; for I am taught otherwise by the Gospel, not altogether to refuse the Minister for his evil living, so that he bring sound Doctrine ibid p. 546. out of God's Book.

Par.

I wonder, why you take no notice of Tindall, whom T. E. calls a faithful Martyr p. 275.

Min.

I shall give you two or three instances, whereby you may understand, his Principels were far from Quakerism. In a supplication to the King and Estates, he exhorts the Lords Temporal, that they would fall before the King's Grace, and would humbly desire his Majesty to suffer it to be tryed, who of right ought to succeed, &c. And that all the Lords Temporal be Martyrol. vol. 2. p. 368. SWORN thereto, &c. Next I find this Con­fession of his, We be all Sinners an hundred times greater than all that we suffer. And in one of his Letters he gives advice, that the ibid. Scripture may be in the Mother-Tongue, and LEARNING set up in the UNIVERSITIES.

That these Martyrs aforemention'd were ibid p. 369. Godly men, T. E. himself confesses. From which confession of his you may reasonably make this Inference, That men may be Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Prebendaries and Par­sons; may encourage University-Education; [Page 52] sons may live and die Conformable to the Doct rine and Discipline of the Church of England; may Administer both the Sacraments; may hold it Robbery and Sacrilege to deprive the People of [but] a part of the Lord's Supper; may de­fend infant-Baptism; take Oaths; daily con­fess themselves to be miserable Sinners; may say [You] to a single Person; give and re­ceive Titles of Honour; may take Tithes; and (agreeably to Christ's Doctrine) affirm it un­lawful for any man to divide the External Uni­ty of the Church by separating from that parti­cular Congregation, whereof he is a member, for the faults or ill life of the Preacher; And yet, even in Ellwood's judgment, be GODLY Men. Now if these were Godly Martyrs, why must we be accounted Ungodly, for retaining the same Doctrins and Constitutions? I heartily wish the Quakers would be of the same Religion these good men were of; for then they would be of our Religion too; and then (but not before) I should acknowledg them Their Martyrs.

Par.

Whereas you told me, that a man is to look at the water, not at the Conduit through which it is conveyed. Conf. p. 15. To this he answers, But if a man see the Conduit besmea­red with mire and dirt, will he choose (or is it reasonable he should be tyed) to drink the water that issues therefrom, &c? p. 21.

Min.

The outside of the Conduit may be defiled, and yet the pipes and water in them may be clean. Man's evil actions do not hinder his speaking well, nor doth the wickedness of the Sower infect the seed; as was determin'd [Page 53] in an old British Council under Saint Patrick. Splem. T. 1. p. 56.

Par.

To your instance of Iudas he says; he was bad enough, but will you say, that after he had transgressed and faln, he should (if he had lived) have continued in the Ministry? p. 22.

Min.

This is an idle query, far remote from our present business, started on purpose to a­void the question, which was not to enquire, whether Iudas should have continued in his Apostleship after his horrid treason, (had not the divine Vengeance pursued him to death?) but the question was, whether Iudas was a Good man or Bad, during the exercise of his Apostolical Function, before that Treason was committed? That he was both an Apostle and a Bad man, is Acts. 1. 17, 18. Io [...]. 6. 7. and 13. 18. certain, and pag. 21, 22. confest by my Adversary. Therefore 'tis clear enough (what I before asserted) that an Ill man may notwith­standing be a true Minister of the Gospel. Here you may see, that I am not pleading the Cause of Iudas, or any like him; For I wish such were ejected: But till this be fairly done by just Authority, we may not allow the peo­ple to separate from them, seeing our Saviour never caused his Disciples to separate from Iu­das, tho' he knew him and declared him to be a Devil. Ioh. 6. 70, 71. Now that the people are not tied and fetter'd (according to T. E's. expression) to Ministers incorrigibly ill, but may have remedy by a Judicial way of Pro­ceeding, appears from the 26. Article of this Church; And to my knowledg, some accor­dingly have been Ejected from their Offices and Benefices.

As for Nicholas the Deacon (whom you mention'd) his Office was to serve tables, to take care of the widows, &c. he was chosen to be Overseer of the poor, &c. however it appears not, that he was a publick Preacher. ibid.

Min.

If I rightly understand this Quaker, the Offices of a Deacon and an overseer of the poor are according to him one and the same. Then probably his next work will be to quar­rel with our Magistrates, or rather with the Laws of the Land, that the Overseers of the poor are not ordained into their Function by Prayer and Imposition of hands, as the Dea­cons were Acts. 6. 6. But why might not he be a Preacher as well as his Collegue St. Stephen?

However this I must ask, If the Quakers plead, that his Deaconship did not qualify him for a publick Preacher, How dare they (men and women, every one at their pleasure) take upon them to preach, being neither Priests nor Deacons? Do's not this contradict and make void their pretence of the Spirit's Mo­ving them?

And whereas T. E. says, that neither the Scriptures nor Eusebius say He continued his Deaconship after his Defection; I answer, nei­ther do they say he was cast out of his Deacon­ship, which was my Adversarie's part to have proved: but he saw that be could not make that out; whereupon he says, that it appears not he was a publick Preaocher, concerning which I have said what is sufficient already.

But whatever the Preacher is, the people are [Page 55] accountable for all the instructions they hear, concerning their respective duties both to God and man. How will Ellwood deny this?

Par.

Ay but, (says he) might his Parishio­ner well have replyed, Those discourses made lit­tle impression upon me, when I consider'd from whom they came &c. p. 23.

Min.

Ay Indeed? Is this the Quaker's Di­vinity, to say this would have been well reply­ed, That the Sermons of his duty to God and man made little impression upon him? No pretence, I am sure, can justify this Reply; But it's too apparent, the contrary Command of our blessed Saviour lately explained to you, has made little impression upon this Quaker, where­by the people are straitly enjoyn'd not to dis­obey their Teachers (tho' Scribes and Phari­sees) nor to plead their ill life to excuse their own disobedience, (as this Quaker here en­courages the people to do, having (to this end no doubt) aforehand corrupted that text, as you have heard;) but in quite opposit terms, Whatsoever they bid them concerning their said duty to God and man, that to observe and do, tho' not after their works. This Quaker in the mean time forgot that heavy sentence of our Saviour's, Mat. 5. 19. Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, excluded from the Privi­ledges of it.

I am confident, he cannot think, this Plea, which he teaches the people, will hold good at the last Day; For while Goodness is Goodness, [Page 56] and Truth is Truth, whoever speaks it; God will then demand an account of it from all that heard it. And whatever prophane men, and promoters of Satan's Kingdom may talk and vent at this distance from that Day, Yet they will then find Ellwood's Plea insufficient to an­swer these Questions, If you Discerned the acti­ons of your Teacher to be EVIL, why then did you not avoid them? His Example did not com­pel you to be Bad: And if you Discerned his Instructions to be GOOD, why then did you not follow them? Why did you not consider what they were, rather than from whom they came? To these questions they will then be as speech­less, Mat. 22. 12. as he in the Gospel, that was found with­out his Wedding Garment; And it will not be Thomas Ellwood, that will then be able to o­pen their mouths.

Par.

You have said enough to convince me both of the weakness and naughtiness of this Plea, which he has taught the people, and by which they encourage themselves to sleight their Teachers and their Doctrine for the least failing they find in them.

Min.

This will neither justify the impiety of these men, nor the Separation of such as have already left the Church, on that pretence of the Teacher's not following his own directions, which is as absurd and preposterous, saith St. Augustin, Hom. 50. As if a Traveller should think, he must go back again, or leave the way, because he saw the Mil-stone with its inscription shewing him the way, but not moving in it at all it self.

But there are too many that rejoyce at the [Page 57] faults of Ministers, where they find them; and invent and impute them, where they find them not; that they may have a pretence for their Separation. To which purpose rightly saith St. Augustin in the same place, Men seek not so much with Charity whom they may Commend, in order to their Imitation; as with ill will whom they may Carp at, in order to their [own] Deception: Some cannot find out Good men, be­ing ill themselves; and others fear to find such, because they would still be evil.

Par.

The true Ministers were always Exam­ples of Goodness, (he says) but too many of these Ministers are Examples of evil. p. 24

Min.

Has not the Quaker forgot himself here? For [too many] is an implicit acknow­ledgment, that many are not Examples of evil, and therefore after all his Exclamations may be Good men.

Par.

When you cannot clear them of your own Profession, (says he) you fall upon the Quakers, whom if you can render as bad as your own, you think you have done something, &c. p. 24, 25.

Min.

I never endeavour'd to clear those of mine own Profession that are faulty, but the Innocent, and to justify the Profession it self from unjust Cavils. I ever thought it a me­thod as Ungentile, as Improper, to defend Truth by Personal Reflections. A Zealous Turk and a prophane Christian makes me think no better of Mahometanism, nor worse of Christi­anity. But seeing the Quakers themselves have been the first Aggressors in this way of ar­guing, and do place so much of their strength [Page 58] therein; it was proper for me, (only in gene­ral terms not naming any particular persons) and indeed I was engaged to confnte it, by let­ting them see, how much it reflects upon their own Faction, and makes all such objections void. However, that the world may know it was no groundless intimation of mine, being thus put upon't, I desire Sir Iames Whitlock's case, as it was lately managed in Chancery, and two Books, the one call'd [The Quakers Spritual Court;] the other [The Spirit of the Hat] written by a Quaker, may be exami­ned.

By this time, I hope, I have removed your scruples occasion'd by the Quaker's first Chap­ter, which in his Preface he tells his Reader, is Offensive. As great a truth as ever he spake; For I have sufficiently proved it so to be, that is, offensive to God, to Truth, and all Good men. But let us now proceed to the exami­nation of his second Chapter.

CHAP. II. Of saying [You] to a single person.

Par.

IN his second Chapter T. E. says, you seem offended with their using the wrd [Thou] to a single person.

Min.

I only vindicate the use of [You] to a single person; yet must I tell him, that to take up a word or phrase (tho' lawful in it self) in contradiction to an innocent custom, and in an affected singularity as a mark of dis­tinction from their Neighbours, this is justly offensive: And to make it a necessary duty to say [Thou] to a single person, and a sin to say [You;] when God has neither comman­ded the one, nor forbidden the other, this is adding to the Word of God, and is rank Super­stition and Pharisaism, in enslaving the Consci­ence, and placing Religion in pitifull niceties; Superstition being an impiety, which represents God so light, or so froward, as to be either plea­sed, or angry with things indifferent, and of no moment. Supersti­tio est im­pietas, quâ Deum ita levem, aut iracundum quis cogi­tat, ut re­bus nihili placari e­um putet, iisdemve ad iram Commovt­ri. Mori Enchir. Eth l. 2.

Par.

But T. E. says, that they lay not the stress of their Religion upon words. p. 27.

Min.

A good hearing; Then may a good man, without any violence to Religion, say as well [You,] as [Thou] to a single person. But if he spoke as he thought, why do they and he contend so much about a word, and divide the Church, and separate themselves [Page 60] from it for a thing they dare lay no stress of Re­ligion upon? So that he has in those words done little credit to his Cause, and his whole Party, in making them all Schismaticks.

Yet can we think, that he has here truly re­presented his own Party, or clear'd them of Superstition, while we observe their strict and demure use of words and phrases to the ensla­ving of their own Consciences? As if to say, [I thank you for your kindness] or the like, were not as good sense and as lawful, as to say, [I receive thy love;] Or to say [Such a one is dead] were not as pleasing to God, as to say [He is out of the body;] Or to say, [I cannot consent to such a thing] were not as proper, and as Re­ligious, as to say [I am not free,] which is a phrase they have very ready to oppose good Laws and good Counsel.

And if you mark the Quakers, you cannot but observe, that in the affected use of their di­stinguishing phrases, tones and gestures, they really esteem themselves more religious than their Neighbours, whilst indeed (if they under­stood it) they are the less Religious, by how they are the more superstitious and schismati­cal.

But I believe, that in many of them much of this proceeds from want of knowledge, who now (I hope) will by one of their own Teachers be at length convinc'd of their great errour in laying so much stress of Religion upon words and phrases.

Par.

You must be cautious how you reflect upon the Quakers for the use of their phrases, [Page 61] seeing many of them are taken out of the holy Scriptures.

Min.

Though the holy Scriptures ought to be remembred and frequently used in our Con­verse, for our mutual instruction; Yet I would not have you so ignorant and superstitious, as to think that God in revealing his will there, de­sign'd that our duty should consist in the conti­nual use of those very forms of speech, but in a due regard to those truths and Commands con­tained in them.

As for the style of the Scriptures, you are to understand, that it was ever accommodated to the particular dialect of that people to whom they were written, and therefore varied accor­dingly; as we find it does in the different pro­prieties of the Hebrew Tongue in the old Testa­ment, and of the Greek in the new: And if this had not been observed by the Apostles in their Preaching, how could they have been understood by men of so many different Lan­guages, as we find they spake to Acts 2. seeing every language has its peculiar phrases and pro­prieties of speech?

Therefore God's complying with those na­tional customs of speech then, is a rule to us to do the like now; Otherwise a man would be a Barbarian to those he converses with.

Now the word of God is never so much a­bused, as when the phrases of it are plausibly used, while the sense of it is p [...]rverted and ap­plyed to evil purposes, to maintain schism, fac­tion and the like; and this we call Canting; an Instance hereof we have in Corah and his [Page 62] company, who even in an Act of Rebellion could cry; The Congregation is holy, and the Lord Numb. 16. 3. is among them; their sin being much aggrava­ted, by their gainsaying Authority in holy lan­guage.

Par.

Yet, says he, we know there is a form of words, and we desire to keep to it. ibid.

Min.

Here is one instance (among many in his book) of this Quaker's Canting, in his demure and impertinent bringing in a Scripture phrase, nothing at all belonging to the subject in hand, but quite to another matter. How­ever one thing I like well, that sound words in the opinion of a Quaker may be contained in a form. But if he allude to that form of sound words, which St. Paul gave to Timothy; That, you must know, was no such thing as a Gang 2 Tim. 1. 13. of phrases, but a Creed or short Summary of Christian Religion, by the use of which he might be enabled to withstand the opposition of Dr. Ham­mond in Ioc. growing heresies. And therefore to bring in this to the subject in hand, to make the sense of these words to imply a Grammar or Dictionary to direct the Conscience in the use of words and phrases (as his brethren no doubt do under­stand him) is a thing which sure He, upon more serious thoughts, will be unwilling to defend, and therefore he had done faithfully to have interpreted his meaning.

If by sound words he mean an entire and plain Confession of Faith, or a summary of those things that are necessary to be believed unto Salvation, I know no such thing subscribed by the body of them; for that would fix them to [Page 63] something, when indeed they are yet fix'd to nothing. This miserable defect is far remote from the uprightness and ingenuity of the Apostles, in giving their Hearers an account of their Fundamental Principles in a [...]. short Form, to let men see to the bottom of their Religion.

Tis true indeed, some Quakers have preten­ded to set down in their books the heads of their belief. But then, 1. No man knows whether the rest will subscribe to them, while they have been so different from one another even in Fundamental Points. 2. That croud of Scripture texts which they quote, has been generally so erroneously misinterpreted and misapplied by them, that even where they write little else but Scripture words, we have reason to suspect their meaning. Therefore when you were so inclined to Quakerism, would you have turn'd to you knew not what? to a dangerous Religion you cannot see to the bottom of? What kind of Religion is this of the Quakers, whereof their Leaders either can not, or dare not give any entire and intelligible ac­count? Do not these Teachers use this as a piece of Craft to reserve to themselves a liberty to preach what Doctrine, yea what heresy they please? I pray God draw their Followers out of their snares, and grant all unstable peo­ple Grace and Discretion to keep off from them and their meetings.

As for that which we and the Universal Church of Christ embrace under the name of the Apostles Creed, as the Mark and Badge of a Christian, the Quakers tenents are such as [Page 64] give us little reason to think they will own it; while some have held one Heresy, some a­nother; Some have denied the Holy Trinity, Some have pretended Equality with God: One of the Heads of 'em pretended to be the Messiah; Another of their cheif men affirmed himself to be the Judge of the world, and to see mens hearts; and has been by some of his Party call'd the Son of God: Others have affirmed, that Christ in the flesh, and all he did and suffer'd was but a Figure, and nothing but an exam­ple; See per­fect Pha­risee. Others, if not most of them, think they have no need of outward Teaching, by reading, and hearing the Holy Scriptures read and ap­plied; And that the Holy Scriptures are not the word of God; That there is no mediate Call to the Ministry, &c. so far are they dege­nerate from the Christian Faith. See per­fect Pha­risee. Now what fault finds T. E. with us for saying [You] to a single Person?

Par.

I do not see that he blames you for put­ting the singular and plural number together, as unlawful in it self; but for the pride and flat­tery, which, he says, first put Inferiors upon paying a Plural respect to the single Person of every Su­perior, and Superiors upon receiving and at last requiring it. ibid. and which are still cheri­shed thereby. p. 28, 29.

Min.

As for the pride and flattery he speaks of, you must consider, that the best actions are liable to such imputations; Even Almes-deeds, Fasting and Prayer in the Pharisees proceeded from vain-glory; But then did their pride lessen the value of those good Actions in others, who [Page 65] constantly perform'd them? or make Alms-deeds, Fasting and Prayer unlawful? And is it unlawful for an honest Man to use an innocent expression of respect, because ill Men may a­buse it to pride and flattery? I hope he will not say that those, whom he owns for Godly Mar­tyrs, used it from such evil principles.

But whether, think you, is there more pride in our useing it as a testimony of respect, or their sawcy denying it to Superiors, even to the King himself, in an affectation of singularity, and in opposition to a lawful custom?

Par.

Truly I know not how to clear them, but T. E. tells us, that in the best times, and with the best Men [Thou] and [Thee] were inoffen­sive language. ibid.

Min.

It was custom that made them so: But what were those times and Men which he calls the best?

Par.

Those under the Common-wealth of Rome, before it was turn'd into an Empire. p. 28.

Min.

What? those the best times, and best men, in the very height of Paganism and Idola­try? Did our Common-wealths-man here re­member, that Christ was born and lived under the Roman Empire, and paid obedience to it? Or did he consider that afterwards many of the Emperors themselves proved zealous Patrons of Christianity? yet did neither alter their Dia­lect, nor the imperial Government, as incon­sistent with the Christian Religion.

Par.

I doubt he was a little inconsiderate here; but he says that [You] to a single person [Page 66] (with other Titles, &c.) seems to have its rise with the Roman Empire. ibid.

Min.

Suppose it had, what is it the worse for that? but how do's he prove it?

Par.

From Symmachus his Epistles to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, wherein his Style unto them is Vestra aeternitas. ibid.

Min.

had those Epistles been written to Iu­lius Caesar the first Roman Emperor, there had been some tolerable sense in his inference; But is it not strange, that this instance of [vestra, y [...]ur] in the Epistles to Theodosius and Valenti­nian should make the Custom seem to have its rise with the Roman Empire, when these E­pistles were not written till near four hundred years after the Empire was begun? Has not our Wise Quaker here shot very wide of the mark?

Besides, those Epistles, by his own confession, were written to two Persons, Theodosius and Va­lentinian: And that they were written to them both together, appears in St. Ambrose's answer to them; With what sense then could he say [Thou] or [Thine] to two together? So that T. E. brings an instance here to prove no [...]hing, but himself ridiculous; for I thought he had disapproved only our saying [You] to one, not our saying [You] to two, unless he could twist them both into one: He says, that by a Figure I make one Man two. p. 46. Now let me ask, By what Figure he makes two Men one?

But had he made search, he might have found, that it was customary to use one num­ber for another long before the Empire began. [Page 67] The Ishmaelitish Princes usually spake of them­selves in the plural number. Haec est con­suetudo linguae Ismaeliti­cae, ut Re­ges de se loquan­tur nume­ro plura­li. Aben. Ezra. Nay among the Romans themselves, this Custom was of a much ancienter date than their Empire: For Terence, who lived 100 years before it began, has this expression, Profecto nescio quid absente nobis turbatum est domi, E [...]nuch. Act 4. sc. 3. that is, Truly I know not what disturbance there has been at home in our absence: Phoedria speaks there of himself in the plural number: This was used by Cicero very frequently both in his Orations, Epistles and his Books of Offices, as I could give variety of instances, if it were doubted by any: See Wal­kers Parti­cles p. 46 [...]. Now Cicero dyed, when the Empire was scarce begun.

Par.

But he complains of hard usage; and says, how often have many been abused and beaten for this harmless word, &c. ibid.

Min.

I know not what usage they have met withal for their incivility and rudeness to Au­thority, and for the contempt of Laws; But that any have been beaten for the use of the word [Thou] is what I never heard of: However I observe, that Ellwood all along makes it his business and study, to promote schism and mischief, by exasperating his Party, and heightning their prejudices against us and the truth, by all the idle calumnies he can invent.

Par.

But he goes on; What Spirit is that which thus rageth? Is it the humble, meek gentle Spirit of Iesus, or the haughty, proud, exalted Spirit of Lucifer? ibid.

Min.

What Spirit (think you) is that, which is so far from being inoffensive (as the Chri­stian Spirit is) that it disturbs and disquiets [Page 68] Neighbourhoods and Societies in matters pure­ly indifferent, and wherein the stress of Religion do's not lye?

I acknowledge that the Spirit of Jesus is an humble and obliging Spirit, and should be most truly glad to see the Quakers conform to it. For our Blessed Lord complyed with all the inno­cent Customs of the People among whom he lived. Did they stand in the Synagogues when the Scriptures were read? Christ did so too: Did they sit when they Preached? He did the same: Did they eat Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb? Christ did so too; though God never commanded it: Did the Jews observe the Feast of Dedication, a Feast of their own institution? Christ did so too: Did they lye upon Beds when they ate the Passover? (tho' by the Original institution it was to be eaten standing) Christ conforms to the Custom, and did so too: Nay he accommodated the two great Sacraments of his Church to their Customs; And that Prayer which he taught his Disciples, was for the most part of it compiled out of the Jewish Liturgies. So that we have all the reason to conclude, that if he had lived among us, He would have suited himself to the present inno­cent Customs both in speech and behaviour: For he used both the Jewish Language and their Phrases; He used both the Hebraisms and Hellenisms of those times. He deliver'd his Whereof there are great numbers in their Talmud. Parables in positive Assertions; a thing more exceptionable than [You] to a single person. So unwilling was he to quarrel with innocent Customs, or to make innovations, where ne­cessity [Page 69] did not compel him. All which shew that the Son of God was far from a Spirit of crossness and contradiction, and from all Prin­ciples of schism and faction.

Par.

You must give me leave here to put in a question of my own; If Christ taught sitting, and instituted one of his Sacraments sitting, why do not you imitate our Saviour's posture in the performance of those services?

Min.

You must know that sitting when he taught, and when he instituted and administred the Holy Eucharist, was not one and the same posture; for when he taught he L [...]k. 5. [...]. Joh. 8. 2. [...]. sat in a Chair, as the Jewish Doctors used to do; but his po­sture at the Sacrament was Mat. 26. 20. [...]. leaning or lying along on one side; In which posture, though he being the Lord himself, did in his state of Humiliation, eat his Last Supper with his Disciples, and gave them the freedom to do the like; yet that being contrary to our National Custom, and Christ be­ing now Glorified, this posture of leaning or ly­ing along would be very irreverent among us, in the celebration of that B. Sacrament, the great Pledge of his Love, and Memorial of his Death.

But one thing I will take the boldness to af­firm, That we conform more to our Saviour's example in doing as we do, then if we perform­ed those Services in Christs own posture.

Par.
This is strange!
Min.

It will not be so strange to you, if you well weigh and consider this truth; That Conformity to our Saviour consists not in do­ing the same Natural Actions which he did, but in following the same Moral Rule, by which he [Page 70] did those Actions: Now his Rule was to con­form to all present Constitutions and Customs in themselves indifferent; And this in order to the promoting of Love and Peace: The Rule of Charity was his constant and general Rule in all his Actions; Particularly in this last instance, our Saviour did not institute a posture, but only express a compliance with a Jewish Custom: He therefore that for peace and love conforms to all present lawful Customs and Constitutions (though far different from the same natural Actions our Saviour did) most truly conforms both to the example, and the meek and gentle Spirit of Jesus.

Par.

You may remember, that when I pro­duced this Argument from the Quakers, viz. That God Thou'd Adam, and Adam Thou'd God; you stopt my mouth by asking, whether the Discourse was in English? And by saying that if the Translators had put [You] instead of [Thou;] this shadow of an Objection had disappear'd. He says it should have been [not appeared;] but this remark I pass by as inconsi­derable, and nothing against your Cause: On­ly he has this to say against the answer you gave me, that the Hebrew is not defective of Numbers, but hath the singular and the plural as distinct as the English; If therefore the Transla­tors had used [You] for [Thou] instead of one objection there would have been two. p. 30.

Min.

He needed not to have so gravely told us, that the Hebrew is not defective of num­bers; for who knoweth not, that no Language can be without them? But by this Rabbi's good [Page 71] leave, neither is the Hebrew defective of Fi­gures, especially one common both to Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, called Enallage Numeri; by which is justified the use of the Plural Num­ber, when the signification is singular; See Dr. Ham. on Mat. 27. 44. of which I could produce abundance of instances out of the Holy Scriptures; Take these few; Iud. 12. 7. He was buried in one of the Cities of Iudah: The Hebrew text in the Latin version is rendred word for word Sepultus Civitatibus, &c. buried in the Cities. So Gen. 3. 8. They hid themselves among the Trees, &c. according to the Hebrew it should be [Tree] in the sin­gular number; hereupon Menochius notes, Ar­bor ponitur pro [Arbores] per Enallagen Nume­ri. Josh. 24. 19. He is an Holy God, &c. See Bux­torf's Thes. Gram. linguae sacrae. p. 423, 434, 455. Where [Holy] (in the Original) is in the plural, and [God] in the singular number; for it is not unusual for Adjectives and Verbs in the Hebrew to be joyn'd with Substantives in the plural number.

Pray consult Iob 18. 2. where you will find Bildad speaking thus to Iob, How long will it be ere YOU make an end of words? And Daniel speaks thus (Dan. 2. 36.) This is the Dream and WE will tell the interpretation thereof: So that you see in these instances (long enough before the Roman Empire I wot) that both a good man was spoken to, and a good man spake of himself in the plural number: Holy Daniel of himself says [We;] and up­right Iob receives the Title [You] when he was far from being an object of flattery, and Bildad a miserable comforter driving on a quite con­trary [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] extreme. Nay God Almighty speaks of himself in the plural number. As Gen. 1. 26. Let US make man, and in OUR Image; And so Gen. 3. 12. and 11. 7. Isa 6. 8. And the first time that God is named in Scripture, he is, in the Original, exprest in the plural number, Gen. 1. 2.

Par.

Those instances in Iob and Daniel I never observ'd before, and must confess they are very convincing: But as to Gen. 1. 26, &c. I have often heard that the plural num­ber there represents the three persons in the Blessed Trinity.

Min.

This is an answer that perhaps Ellwood will not thank you for, because the Quakers (at least many of them) deny the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity; to such a pitch of Blasphe­my and Herefie are they already arrived: However these Scriptures will bring the Qua­kers into this Dilemma; Either to acknow­ledge the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, or else to confess, from the example of God him­self, that it's neither unlawful nor improper, to speak of a single person in the plural number: If so, then is it as lawful to speak to a single person in the same number; for if God say [WE] and [US] of himself, it would not have been improper to say [YOU] to him, seeing one is but the Relative of the other. Therefore though we should suppose [You] to be only plural, this way of useing it would be sufficiently justified by the instances already given: yet after all this, you are to consider, that while [Thou] is singular, [Ye] plural, Custom [Page 73] (the only Law-giver in these Cases) has so far prevail'd, that [You] is become either singu­lar or plural, as some Pronouns Buxtorf. p. 21. are in the Hebrew. Therefore the Translators might (if they had pleas'd) have warrantably used it instead of [Thou.]

Par.

But T. E. likes not that your discourse should lean so much upon Custom.

Min.

of this I said sufficiently in the Confe­rence; but let me ask you further; Is there any one general rule of speech appointed by God? Or is it arbitrary, in the choice of men in each particular Society?

Par.

I never heard that any one Dialect was ever commanded by God; for if so, he would not have divided it, as we read he did Gen. 11. Therefore I suppose it is arbitrary according to the consent of each Society.

Min.

Custom then being the expression of that consent, must be the standard of speech in every Society. And in this Case the World will subscribe to the determination of Horace. Hor. de Art. Poet.

Multa renascentur quae jam cecidere, cadent (que)
Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, si volet usus;
Quem penes arbitrium est, & jus & norma loquen-
(di.
Much phrase that now is dead, shall be reviv'd,
And much shall dye, that now is nobly liv'd,
If Custom please; at whose disposing will
The power, and rule of speaking resteth still.

Words may be compared to Coin, which is worth just so much as it goes for. Yea, they may by Custom be turn'd into a quite contrary [Page 74] signification to that which formerly they had. As for Example; Tyrannus a Tyrant formerly signified the best, now the worst of Princes. Magus did in ancient times signifie a wise man, now a Magitian. And though [Kn [...]ve] de­notes now a dishonest person, yet it did former­ly signifie no more than a Servant.

Ellwood confesses that he lived in the Country when he wrote his Book: Now if Custom do's not alter words, and is not the rule of speech; Why should he take it ill, if I say he was a Villan Villa­nus qui in villa ha­bitar. Spelman's Gloss. p. 557.? seeing the word, till custom fixt an evil signification to it, meant no more than an inhahitant of the Country, or one that dwelt in a Village.

And if the Apostle plead Custom in the use of Garments and habits, in being cover'd in the Assemblies, or uncover'd: Surely it's as good a plea in the use of words and phrases. Now whereas Controversies about indifferent things can never be determin'd by any reason drawn from the nature of them; and the peace of the Church notwithstanding requires their determi­nation one way or other; the Apostle in the Controversie aforesaid betakes himself to Cu­stom as his last Refuge, ver. 16. If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such CUSTOM, neither the Churches of God: The reason is be cause men may dispute about indifferent things to the Worlds end, and yet be no nearer peace Private persons therefore in things of this na­ture, must be over-ruled by the Custom of the Church.

There's one thing that I wonder at in him, that he should say, You confess that in Re­ligious Offices [Thou] is the fittest word to be used. ibid.

Min.

I suppose he has taken this upon trust, as he has done his Authors: For you may re­member T. E. did well to name no page, as conscious of the misquota­tion. that my words were these, It's only in Civil matters that we say [You] to a single person; but in Religious Offices, we say [Thou] to the greatest Personages upon earth Conf. p. 18.: Yet from this very passage, has this Quaker the confi­dence to infer, that if it be high enough for God and Spiritual affairs, I see not how it should be too low for Man and Temporal affairs. p. 30. Did I either say, or did my words imply, that it was too low for man, when I said that in Religious Offices we use it to the greatest Perso­nages upon earth? Is this an honest way of an­swering Books, by making a false quotation, in order to a false inference? As for the different use of it in Temporal and Spiritual affairs, that is a thing in it self wholly indifferent, as I gave you sufficient account in the Conference, which he no where denies, but takes it for granted, and therefore is the more schismatical in con­tending.

Par.

But he leaves it at last to the considera­tion of every uuprejudic't Reader whether that Dialect which God is pleased to accept, that wherein he has been pleased to deliver himself, that which all the Holy Prophets, our Blessed Sa­viour, his Apostles, and all good men in the best times, is not fitter for a Christian' now to use, than that which depends only upon a Custom [Page 76] sprung up out of the putrefaction of corrupi times? p. 31.

Min.

By these last words of his, he has spoiled Quakerism, which we may impeach as sprung up out of the putrefaction of corrupter times, than those-he mentions: In the midst of wars and figtings (as a Quaker confesses Spirit of the Hat. p. 3.) when the Throne was usurped, when Religion and Property were invaded in the heat of our civil broils and distractions, up starts the Quaker.

As for the dialect he contends for; you must know, that God did not accept of it for its own goodness as better than any other, but so that he would have accepted another as well as it; And when himself and the best men used it, they did it in compliance to the Customs of speech at that time. Yet the Dialect at some times varied (as has been proved) and yet was no less accepted of by God; To shew, that he design'd not to bind the Conscience to any par­ticular form of speech.

But will he not (think you) allow the Pri­mitive Christians to be as good men, as the Heathen Romans before their Empire? Of those ancient Christians, who lived under the Empire (at which time Ellwood confesses [You] to a single person was used) Iustin Martyr, who lived in the time of Antonius the Empe­ror, gives this account; The Christians (says be) are not distinguished from others by their Country, speech nor any peculiar Customs: They inhabit not Cities appropriate to them alone, nor do they use a DIALECT differing from other [Page 77] men, nor is their manner of living unlike to other men; They follow the CUSTOMS of their Coun­try in Clothes, Dyet and other things, Just. Mart. Epis. ad Diogen. p. 446, 497. &c. This shews that the Primitive Christians were no­thing like our Quakers, in the singularity of Garb, Tone, Phrases and Behaviour, wherein they affect to be unlike other men, even in the most innocent Customs. I wish they would imitate these Primitive Christians, and follow that good old rule, vivere moribus antiquis, loqui verbis praesentibus, To live after the an­cient manners, but to speak after the present Dialect.

CHAP. III. Of Titles and Civil Respects.

Par.

IN T. E's. third Chapter of Titles and Civil Respects, he briskly charges you with dealing injuriously and dishonestly with the Quakers, and moreover adds, that we have befool'd our selves. p. 31, 32, 33.

Min.

This Quaker is a right Conformist to the humour of his Party, and a true Practicant here of this Uncivil tenent of theirs, against Civil Respects. His first work is to render me suspected and ridiculous, that mens ill opinions of me may give advantage to his feeble reaso­nings: But I am willing to put my self upon my Trial; How do's he make good his charge?

Par.

Whereas I told you in the Conference, That possibly I had been faulty in suffering my Servant to call me Master; He accuses you for inferring; that the Quakers have brought this tenent of theirs [against the civil Title of Master, founded on Mat. 23. 10.] to this strange result, that a child must honour his Father, but not call him Father; that a Servant must obey his Master, but not call him Master; which tenent (he says) is your own, not theirs, as their writings & practi­ces sufficiently evidence. p. 32.

Min.

I made not the interence from your words immediately, but from the Quakers way of alledging that Text, utterly beside the scope [Page 79] and intention of it; For the words just before my interence were these, In the same notion that we are forbidden to call [Master,] we are like­wise forbidden to call [Father.] And seeing that that Text and the next before it forbid­ding to call Father and Master, concern not temporal but such spiritual Titles only, as im­ply a Mastership and Dominion over the Con­science; it follows, that while the Quakers extend the Text from Spiritual to Temporal Titles (as they have done all along) they make even that of a Natural Father to be equally for­bidden by it, that being but a temporal Title no more than any other. So that the practice of those Quakers, who receive of their Children the Title of Father, evidently contradicts the result of the Quakers Tenent against Civil Titles, as it is founded on the said Text.

And whereas he tells his Reader, that this is contrary to their universal practice, and a foppe­ry fasten'd on them. p. 42. You shall hear what See the Foot out of the snare p. 17. one Iohn Toldervy says as to this point, having been desirous to draw Coll. Webb (his Master) to Quakerism; he, after his return from his errors, gives this following relation, I took him by the arm and bad him sit down William Web, not bowing, not pulling off the hat, not Master, for then I denyed that Title to him, though rela­ted to him a Servant, as afterwards I denyed all Relations, from the words of one, He that liveth in the Light will see no difference. Which shews that it was not his private opinion only.

Par.

His other instance of dishonesty, where­with he chargeth you, is this; that in our dis­course [Page 80] we should fasten on the Quakers the ab­surdity of applying that place in Luk. 10. 4. [Salute no man by the way] to themselves in a literal sense: ibid.

Min.

Surely he will not deny that it has been a known custom among the Quakers, to pass by their Neighbours unsaluted. Besides 'tis well known, that when we used to bid them Good morrow, Good speed and the like; they frequent­ly reproved such salutations in the words of this Text. Might not the Quaker with equal modesty deny, that ever his Brethren used to Quake and Foam, as deny a thing so generally known as this is? Have the Quakers forgot, that Iames Naylor (before whom they sung their blasphemous Hosanna's) thus applied this Text; That he did so, appears by a p. 31, 32. Book called The Perfect Pharisee, subscribed by Five Ministers of Newcastle.

Now if some, or many of the Quakers be laughed out of this absurdity, must my honesty be taxed, because they vary from themselves and one another? But would it not (think you) have been more honest in him and ingenious to have said, Truly it was our former practice so to apply that Text, but since we saw the folly and weakness of it, and that Spirit we trusted to did deceive us, we have left it off. I pray God they may henceforth learn to suspect that delusive Spirit which they have trusted so long, and leave off the rest of their errors, not only for the ri­diculousness of them, but for Conscience sake.

But here I must desire the Quakers to take no­tice that Salutation (which is an outward and [Page 81] civil respect) is by this Quaker implicitly granted to be lawful and commendable; while he insinuates the denying it to be an absurdity, p. 32. and while he passes by the Reasons and Mat. 10. 12. Rom. 16. Phil. 4. 2 [...]. 1 Cor. 16. 19. 2 Cor. 13 13. Conf. p. 27. Quotations I gave to prove it. Therefore he has done very ill, while his Conscience con­vinc'd him of the duty of Civil Respects, to write so rudely against them, as he has done in this Chapter: But now let me hear wherein we have befool'd our selves.

Par.

Because I professed my sincere and cor­dial respects to you at our first meeting; He thinks that by my objecting against civil re­spects afterwards, I contradicted my self, and that the decorum was ill observed there; Was this (says he) a fit person to represent the whole body of the Quakers, and dispute against re­specting persons? Nay do's it not look like a de­sign laid to mis-state our Principles and misrepre­sent us to the world? p. 33.

Min.

Indeed he seems here wonderfully transported with his own conceit: But that he may not hurt himself with too much mirth, let us consider the Case: Pray, what were the re­spects you professed unto me? Answer for your self.

Par.

My inward respects: And therefore I called them sincere and cordial.

Min.

Were those the respects which after­wards you objected against?

Par.

No; I was not such a Brute, for in­ward respects are nothing but Love, which is the fulfilling of the Law; But it was outward Re­spects and Titles only I then scrupled at.

I believe you: For any man of com­mon sense may easily see this distinction in the Conference; For in my reply, I told you p. 3. that I accepted the expressions of your af­fection.

If your Controversie had been against the same respects which before you had so hearti­ly professed, this indeed had been some inde­corum; but seeing it was against a different thing, I doubt the Quaker has brought the in­decorum upon himself, and in the result a great deal of shame too, both on himself and his whole party; for while he inveighs thus a­gainst all respects, without distinction, and against your unfitness to represent the body of the Quakers upon this very account: From hence it plainly follows, that to represent the Quakers bearing any sincere and cordial re­spects to their Neighbours is a grand Indecorum, a design laid to mistake their Principles, a mis­representing them, yea the whole body of them to the World. So that I see, a man had need be cautious, how he represents a Quaker, either as good natur'd, kind, or affectionate; For if he do, beware he meets not with my fate, to be call'd a fool for his pains.

Par.

I doubt it's the Quaker that has here besool'd himself; Yet do not you take notice of that Heavenly expression of his after it? But our confidence is in the Lord our God, whose truth we are engaged to defend. ibid.

Min.

Here you have more of his Canting, that old art of deceiving, which has ensnared so many weak people, and brought true Re­ligion [Page 83] into suspition and contempt: Is it not strange that after so injurious and ridiculous a passage, he should have the impudence to pre­tend confidence in the Lord, &c. and go to him to patronize his folly and dishonesty? I men­tion not this to discourage any true seriousness among Christians (I wish there were more of it) but to convince you, that all is not Gold that glisters.

Par.

I must confess I have been apt to be car­ried away with fine words and pretences, but could never suspect so much deceit and delu­sion in them as you have discover'd to me: But I hope this will be a fair warning to me to take heed hereafter whom I trust.

But as for that exposition you gave me of Saint Iames chap. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. as not accusing civil respects, but such only as violated justice in their publick consistories, he dislikes as not being the Apostles drift. p. 34.

Min.

First observe here that T. E. overcome by truth hath wittingly pass'd by Acts 10. 34. [God is no respecter of persons] as nothing to his purpose, though all along objected by the Quakers against Civil Respects; And he says nothing against the account I gave you of the words: I wish the Quakers by these and other instances may at length discover that Spirit of error, they have been so long led by to pervert the Scriptures.

Now as for that exposition I gave you from Dr. Hammond of that passage in Saint Iames, it is sufficiently defensible against the Cavils of this confident Quaker: I need not now trouble [Page 84] you nor my self with a recital of all the reasons he gives for that interpretation, but refer you to the Annotations themselves: Only I shall ad two or three instances more of the word [...] Assembly, in the Text, being used for a Court of Judicature, 1. Mac. 7. 12. Hist. Seld. de Jur. Nat. & Gent. j [...]xta Heb. lib. 4. cap. 9. Susan. v. 41. Luk 12. 11. when they bring you unto Synagougues, and unto Magistrates and Powers, &c. Acts 22. 19.—they know that I imprisoned, and beat in every Synagogue them that believed on thee. Moreover in the follow­ing verses the Apostle interprets his own mean­ing, and chiefly v. 4. where 'tis clear, that by respecting of persons he means only corrup­tion and partiality in Judgment; Are ye not (says he) partial in your selves, and become judges of evil thoughts? This is agreeable to the Law Lev. 19. 15. Deut. 1. 17. Thou shalt not have respect of persons in judgment; And it is to the Law that Saint Iames refers expresly v. 9. but if ye have respect to persons, ye com­mit sin, and are convinced of the Law as trans­gressors; making this no new prohibition, but only a recital of an old one. If then civil re­spects were not forbidden by any precedent Law, neither are they forbidden here: But by the Law they are so far from being forbidden, that they are enjoyn'd as a duty, and practised by the best of men; of which I gave you seve­ral instances in the Conference, which T. E. un­fairly passes by. Take these over and above, Lev. 19. 32. Lam. 4. 16. Deut. 28. 50. 2 Kings 3. 14. But what reasons do's T. E. give of h [...]s dislike of that exposition I gave of Iam. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4?

Because the Epistle of Saint Iames was written to the dispersed believing Jews, thereupon he bids his. Reader consider what con­sistories or Courts of Iudicature those poor scat­ter'd believers could then have. p. 35.

Min.

That they had such places in the Gen­tile Cities may be confirmed from Epiph. haer. 30. Ebion. Canar. lib. 1. Tom. 2. Epiphanius and Euseb. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 5. cap. 16. ibid. Sam. Veti [...]'s variae Lect. lib. 2 c. 10. p. 146. And Dio. cap. 37. Ensebius; And there were Jews at this time in all the eminent Cities of the Roman Empire, who had Officers and Judges of their own, and by the Joseph. Antiq. lib. 16. c. 6. Rescripts of Augustus, they were allowed to use their own Laws and Customs; all which priviledges they retained till their Rebellion against the Romans, but afterwards they were restored by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius.

Par.

But were not those the unbelieving Jews?

Min.

Let it be consider'd that the Primi­tive Christians were by the Romans long e­steemed a sect of the Jews, and so they had a share in all the priviledges of that People; Nor were the forreign Jews so malicious against the Christians, as those in and about Ierusalem, Acts 13. 15. and 28. 17, 31. So that the be­lieving Jews might have justice administred in those Courts belonging to their Nation, or else might have private Consistories among them­selves, which we may believe they would ra­ther chuse, because St. Paul had forbid them to go to Law before the Unbelievers, and advi­sed them to end their questions among them­selves, 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2, 3. So that it is the Qua­krs old disease of ignorance which makes him [Page 86] wonder, how they should have any Courts of Iudicature in their dispersion.

Par.

To that Law you mention'd of both parties sitting or standing to avoid partiality, &c. T. E. answers, Whence had they it? If given them by God, we should have found it among those Laws which they received from him; If it was not from God, but an invention and tradition of their own, it's altogether improbable that the Apostle of Iesus Christ would have reference thereunto. p. 36.

Min.

What thinks he of the Feasts of Purim, and that other of Dedication, which our Sa­viour countenanc'd by his presence Iob. 10.? These were no institutions immediately recei­ved from God, but of the Jews own ma­king. Pliny tells us of a vain Painter, who being to draw a Goddess, made it exactly like his own Mistress; such is the fansie of this Quaker, who being about to describe Jesus and his Apostles, thinks they are altogether such as himself; and since their practice is unknown to him, he fancies They were as much for innovation and novelty as himself: And hence it is that he is for throwing away all Laws and Traditions. Christ and his Apostles were not so; They were not for throwing a­way any Traditions, that promoted either pie­ty or morality; and none but one of T. E.'s. capacity will question it. Our Lord would Mark 11. 16. not suffer a Vessel to be carried through the Temple (to teach us Reverence to the place of God's Worship) which was an Antient Tra­dition, [Page 87] and is recorded in the Talmud. Tract. Mass. Je­vamot. c. 1. 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5. So likewise Saint Paul orders the Christians to receive their meat with thanksgiving; which Custom has been religiously observed by the Ancient Christians. Nec Ci­bi suman­tur nisi Oratione praemisiâ, nec [...]ece­datur à mensâ ni­si refera­tur Crea­tori gra­tia. Hie­ron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. & Tert. Apolog. cap 39. Which a­rose first from a Iewish Tradition. Talm. tract Be­rach. cap. 1, &c. Which I note the rather, because the Quakers so brutishly neglect this piece of universal Religion. Again this very Apostle Iames, ch. 4. 15. commands the Chri­stians to say, If the Lord will, we will do this or that: which is known to be a Tradition of the old Rabbins, recorded also by Ben. Syra. Why then may not St. Iames as probably re­late to this Custom, which is founded upon so much equity, and which is but an instance of that Divine precept, Deut. 1. 17. in the Rabbinical way of illustration?

This seditious passage of his would set Christianity at odds with all the Civil sanctions in the world, and make it indeed inconsistent with all Government, because every Ma­gistrate do's not receive his Laws immediately from God.

Par.

If this Law (says he) was but a sanction of their own, the Iews were so supersti­tiously zealous for the Traditions of their Fore­fathers, that it's no way likely that they would so positively violate a Law of their making. Ibid. And he goes on to tell us, that this was a thing See Drus. Quaesl. Heb. l. 3. they were seldom guilty of, for they too often pre­ferred their own Traditions even to the Law of God. p. 37.

Min.

What his fideles Iudaei, his poor scat­ter'd believers, who, as he had just immediate­ly before said, were then coming off not only from [Page 88] the Traditions of their Elders, but even from the whole Iewish polity? I assure you he wrongs them as much as he contradicts himself.

Par.

You told me that if St. Iames had for­bidden Civil respects, he had contradicted what our Lord plainly alloweth in Luk. 14. 8, 9, 10. when thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room, lest a more ho­nourable man than thou be bidden of him, &c. Now for the understanding this Scripture, T. E. tells us, that it must be considered in what time, and to whom those words were spoken. For the time, it was under the Law, before the one Offe­ring was actually offer'd up. That was an Out­ward state, the People of God was then an Out­ward National People, their Religion and Wor­ship was much outward and shadowy, their Wars were outward, their Ornaments were outward, their Honours and Respects to one another were out­ward. And in this State many things were indulg­ed to the Iews, many things permitted & connived at, partly because of the hardness of their Hearts, and partly by reason of their Weakness. But this State was to last but till the Time of Reformation; and when the Time of Reformation was fully come, these things grew out of use, &c. p. 37, 38.

Min.

Was Christ's time then no time of Re­formation? What though the Levitical Priest­hood, it's Rites and Sacrifices, being Types of the Sacrifice of Christ, were to continue till they were fulfilled in their Antitype, and then to expire of themselves; though that D [...]spensation was in this respect reformed af­ter; [Page 89] Do's this prove that whatsoever in refe­rence to the Moral Law, or to good manners, he found less perfect, he might not, or did not in his own person reform before his Offering up? Do's this prove that Christ was no Re­former? What though the Reformation was not so general till the more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, do's this prove it was not actually begun, and set on foot, before Christ's death, both by his Doctrine, and visible effects of it, upon both Jews and Gentiles Mark 1. 15. Mat. 11. 5. and 8. 10, 13. and 15. 28? Were all Christ's Sermons, the calling of the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Disciples, and sending them forth to Preach, His healing of Mens Bodies and Souls together, Was all this no method of Reformation? He disproved the corrupt Traditions of the Elders, whereby they made void the Commandments of God, He reformed the imperfection of Moses's Law in the case of Divorces, and reduced Marriage to its Primitive institution, Mat. 19. Denounced eight Woes together against the Scribes and Pharisees, He asserted and cleared the Moral Law (in his Sermon on the Mount) from the false Glosses the Jewish Doctors had put upon it; and advanced the Law of Nature (whereof the Moral, Law is the transcript) to the highest pitch; And was not all this suffi­cient to make Christ a Reformer? He is our sole Lawgiver; and what the Apostles taught after his offering up, was his own Law, which himself had deliver'd before his death, and which the Spirit was promised to bring into Jo [...]. 14. 26. [Page 90] their remembrance. If therefore Civil Respects were so vain and evil a Custom as T. E. makes them. p. 41. is it likely that so severe a Reformer should not only Connive at them, but expresly allow them, as he does Luke 14. 10? As Ellwood implicitly grants he did, not denying it, but using an absurd and an odd circuit of words to shuffle it off. Though therefore the Phari­sees ambition and affectation of the chief Seats was rebuked by our Saviour; yet it is evident the distinction of persons and places, and such good manners as are founded thereon, were none of those things which he disliked, or de­sign'd ever to remove. What though the State of the Church in the time of the Law was in a great measure Outward, and the Le­gal Ceremonies of the Levitical Priesthood up­on Christ's death expired? What though a more inward and Spiritual Worship Accord­ing to those Scriptures T. E. quotes, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Rom. 2 28, 29. Joh. 4. 21, 22, 23, &c. was en­joyn'd under the Gospel, and the Spirit of God to that end poured out more plentifully than ever? Did this prove that to Christians all out­ward things are vanisht, and such things as no way belonged to that Priesthood? Are their Bodies vanisht too? What then will become of that injunction, Glarific God in your Body—1 Cor. 6. 20. Are we now devested of all out­ward capacities and concernments? Untill he can prove this, he must allow Christians such out­ward Customs and usages, as are agreeable to this present State; such (among the rest) are Civil Respects, being sutable to that di­stinction, which Providence and the State of this World have made of persons and places, [Page 91] in the various relations which we find in all Civil Societies: He that is an enemy to this distinction, is an enemy to all Government, which cannot subsist without it; for we must distinguish between Rulers and Subjects, Go­vernors and Governed, both in Common Wealths and private Families. What madness then is it to think, that Christ meant to take a­way Civil Respects and good Manners, things that are so necessary to uphold this distinction & essential to it, as the due acknowledgment and proper expressions of it? Therefore he abolish'd not those decentCustoms of them, which are up­on Record in the Old Testament, or any where else; But all quotations out of the Old Testament to this purpose must needs be still in force.

Par.

You have thus far given me very good satisfaction in this point; & if you have any thing further to add to it, I pray go on to clear it, not only to me, but to all others who do igno­rantly scruple it, as I have done.

Min.

The great duty of a Christian is Uni­versal Friendship, but as Friendship is amicitia parium a [...]t imparium, of Equals or Unequals; So the signification of that Friendship requires different expressions; since the state of the World, and the constitution of Societies ne­cessarily infers a distribution of persons into se­veral ranks higher and lower; the foundations of which distribution are these following,

First, difference of Age calls for different behaviour, Lev. 19. 32. Thou shalt rise before the hoary head, and honour the face of the Old man. The face of the Old man here is the gavity of his [Page 92] person: So that respect to mens persons is not Job 32. 4. always evil, but oft times a duty. See also 1 Tim. 5. 1. Intrea [...]an old man as a Father.

Secondly, Difference of sex, 1 Cor. 11. 3, 4, 5. And the Ordinance of Marriage makes Man the head of the Wife, and requires expressions of sub­jection from the Woman to the Man, as T. E. himself acknowledges in the example of Sarah obeying Abraham, and calling him Lord.

Thirdly, All domestick and civil relations, implying superiority and inferiority, as not only Husband and Wife, but Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, all which T. E. acknow­ledges: Why not then between Magistrates and Subjects? seeing Magistrates are Fathers of their Country, and every Ruler is properly a Master; for Christ himself calls Nicodemus a Master of Israel, Iob. 3. 10.

Fourthly, Different occupations and employ­ments, some being honourable and others mean, make one rankof menhigher than another. Exod. 11. 5. Iud. 16. 21. Acts 17. 5. where you have mention of the baser sort.

Fifthly, By reason of the necessity of publick Offices for civil Governmenment, some men must needs be publick, some private persons; Publick Persons must have an eminency above private; And Kings in Scripture are lookt upon as Sacred; and the Jewish Rulers and Judges fre­quently styled Gods, Exod. 22. 28. Ps. 82. 6. Io. 10. 34. which is a much higher Title of respect, than any we give in our addresses to them; therefore it was boldly done of T. E. to quarrel at the Title of M [...]st Sacred Majesty, and Dread Sovereign, as he [Page 93] do's p. 46. seeing all these are essential to the Title of King, which the Quakers own, and are willing to give him. Pray read these places, Ps. 21. 5. 1 Chr. 29. 25. Dan. 4. 36, 37.

Sixthly, Nearness to, or distance from such as are Eminent Persons, thus they that are near the Kings Person gain an eminence by it. Est. 1. 14. Ier. 52. 25. And so the Civil Law looketh upon men as more eminent, as they are nearer the Em­peror: And we do find abundance of these rec­kon'd up in Scripture, Dan. 3. 27. and many other places. And the Scripture speaks of different Ranks of Nobility, and freely gives them their usual titles without any scruple. Thus we read of Princes, Gen. 17. 20. and 2 Sam. 19. 6, &c. of Dukes, Exod. 15. 15. Ios. 13. 21. Gen. 36. 15, &c. of Lords Dan. 5. 1, 9. Ezr. 8. 25. Neh. 7. 5. And in the New Testament, Mark 6. 2 1. where 'tis said, that Herod made a Supper to his Lords, &c. Note here, that St. Mark writes not like a Quaker; He do's not say, He made a Supper to his Lords, as they call them; Nor like Ellwood, who is so demure, that forsooth he dare not name Titles and Civil Respects with­out this same reserve [as they are called. See Title of his third Chapter.]

Seventhly, By civil vertues and great exploits Men justly gain an Eminency and Renown, and become famous. See Ruth 4. 11, 14. Num. 16. 2. and 1. 16. 1 Chron. 5. 24. and 12. 30. Ezek. 23. 23.

Eighthly, When persons have larger privi­ledges and immunities granted to them in the Commonwealth, they gain an eminency by them: thus Noblemen are constituted by that the Lawyers call Dominium Nobilium, whereby they have jus praecedentiae, a right [Page 94] of precedency; and Locus potior decernendi; and other things of like nature; Therefore they have Ornaments allotted to them, which they call [...], and Titles to adorn them, whih are no other than certain marks of their civil valuation. For it is past dispute, that as some Men are of much more value to the publick than others (viz. Able Command­ers, Iudges, &c.) So publick Governors have power to determine the rates both of Men and Things, and to signifie the value they set upon one Man above another by giving him a higher place and a title.

Ninthly, These priviledges being propagated to posterity and made hereditary (for Patrum conditionem liberi sequuntur, as the Law speaks) make different Families in respect of superiority and inferiority; These advancements descending to their Children, being encourage­ments to civil vertues, and great actions; And 'tis hard to conceive how these things can be otherwise in this World, without Nulla Univer­sitas po­test sub­sistere, nisi eam Ordo ser­vet & su­stinear. Bodin. de Re pub. l. 3. danger to that order which is necessary to the subsistence of each civil Society.

These things and the like must necessarily di­stinguish persons into several ranks and classes, as Servius Tullius distributed the Roman Citi­zens; and this the Scripture freely acknow­ledges, for we read also of Nobles Exod. 24. 11. Ier. 27. 20. and the Sons of Nobles Eccl. 10. 17. The Title of Honourable Isa. 3. 3, 5. Mar. 15. 43. Acts 13. 50. and 17. 12. The word [...], by which the Scriptures express [Page 95] men of worth, was used by the Greeks as a Title to salute a Gentleman.

For seeing there are different ranks of Men downwards from the King to the Peasant, there­fore as you see it is agreeable to holy Scripture; so all sober men will acknowledge it is agreea­ble to Reason also, to give to each rank such distinct Titles as are proper to express that difference.

And with what reverence and outward civil respects the Primitive Christians behaved them­selves to their Governors, may be seen in Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. And what is any where said, that true piety is the Fountain of Honour or the like, is meant in a Religious sense, and con­cerns the inward man, and is not at all intend­ed to exclude those civil distinctions among men, in reference to their outward capacities; To suppose otherwise were very ridiculous.

Par.

The case is still clearer to me, and you have made T. E's. way of reasoning appear suffi­ciently absur'd.

Min.

I shall make it more apparent before I have done, by giving you a List both of his Ab­surdities. and Self-contradictions contained in this one Paragraph we are now upon.

First Absurdity, in implying that Christ's death put an end to his Moral documents, this of Luk. 14. 10. being one.

2 Absur. that all Political Government is now at an end, and God's People must be now no more an outward National people.

3 Absur. In making the use of the Sword unlawful, now in the time of Reformation, in [Page 96] contradiction to Rom. 13. 4. where 'tis said that the Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain, here­by condemning two good Centurions, him in Mat. 8. 9, 10. and Cornelius Acts 10. 1, 2. who was after Christ's death. By this Rule neither forreign invasions, nor intestine Rebel­lions must be opposed, nor prevented by any outward means; But we have no reason to trust the Quaker here, seeing divers of his Bre­thren bore Arms and Offices in the late Army, yet at the same time professed Quakerism, and I can name the persons, were there occasion for it.

4 Absur. In going about to prove outward things connived at by Christ, and indulged to the Jews for the hardness of their hearts, by that very Text in Mat. 19. 8. which is an ex­press and plain instance of his forbidding and reforming those arbitrary divorces which Mo­ses suffer'd.

5 Absur. in saying in such general terms that the State of the Church in Christ's time was Outward, and Worship Outward, and in that notion afterwards to vanish; as if after Christ's death, the Church were not to re­tain any Outward State, or Outward Worship; And consequently that all vocal Prayers, all gestures of Devotion, all Outward Ordinan­ces, yea the very notion and being of the visi­ble Church must vanish together.

6 Absur. in making no difference at all be­tween the State of the Church under Christ's time, and under Moses's contrary to these Scrip­tures, Heb. 1. 1. and 2. 1, 2, 3. and 3. 1,—7. [Page 97] making the Doctrine of Christ no Gos­pel.

Ellwood's self-contradictions in this passage are these,

1 Contrad. His putting Outward Respects among those things, which he says were in­dulged by our Saviour, to continue till the Reformation, and yet venturing to contradict himself in the exposition he gives of Mat. 23. 10. wherein he affirms that civil titles are there forbidden.

2 Contrad. His saying, Outward honour went off after the death of Christ, in contra­diction to his own acknowledgment of the E­pithet (as he will have it) of Most Noble, given by St. Paul to Festus, who being a Heathen had no Christian vertue to qualifie him for it, according to the Quakers principles.

3 Contrad. His putting Outward respects among other things, that were to cease at the time of Reformation, in contradiction to what himself had implicitly yielded concerning the lawfulness of salutation p. 32. which is an out­ward civil respect.

Par.

But T. E. has another distinction, and bids his Readers consider to whom this in Luk. 14. 10. was spoken; They were Pharisees, of whom (T. E. says) there were several ranks and degrees, there were chief Pharisees, and infe­riour Pharisees; and they took place one of ano­ther, &c. Nay there were seven ranks among them, as Goodwin tells us, &c. p. 40.

Min.

The Quaker is out again; Where did he ever read of inferiour Pharisees? Indeed in [Page 98] ver. 1. it's said one of the chief Pharisees, but in the Greek 'tis [...], and signifies one of the Sanhedrim, as appears from Luk. 24. 20. Io. 3. 1. Acts 3. 17. For though Goodwin tells him that there were seven ranks among the Pharisees, he do's not tell him, that they took place of one another by virtue of higher or lower ranks; for there was no such matter, one Rank looking on themselves to be as good as another: Hence the learned Scultetus saith Pharisaeorum septem non classes aut ordines, sed genera fuisse liquet. And we may note by Ex Tal­mud Ex­ercit E­vang. lib. 1. cap. 24. the way, that they who go about to explain Scripture upon pretence of their having the Spirit, do (if they want the ordinary means, viz. Learning sanctified by the Spirit) soon baffle themselves, and demonstrate they have no true Spirit in them.

Par.

But what was that to his Disciples (says he?) He puts them in mind of their Equality. p. 41.

Min.

Was there ever so gross an absurdity? As if the Saviour of the World, who came to Disciple all mankind, should allow that to one sort of Men, and prohibit the same thing to a­nother. But to let that pass: Did ever Christ establish such an equality, as to take away all superiority and subordination? How comes then the Quakers to allow that of Master and Servant p. 43. Christians indeed are in refe­rence to Almighty God all Equals, as to the capacity to Salvation, Gal. 3. 28. But I must ask your Leveller here, what is this to their Civil Capacity? which cannot be put off, while we are in these bodies.

But he concludes his Comment on Luk. 14. 10. thus, The words of the Apostle James may be understood a general prohibition of that vain Custom of respecting persons upon any occa­sion whatsoever. ibid.

Min.

I shewed you before how this Quaker contradicts himself; Now I shall shew how the Quakers contradict one another: In a cer­tain pamphlet called a Treatise of Oaths, sub­scribed by thirteen Quakers, in the name of the rest, and dedicated to the King and Par­liament, you will find this expression, We do with all due RESPECTS present you with our Reasons, p. 3. Now do's St. Iames give a general prohibition against all Respects, both in­ward and outward, none excepted? Why then do the Quakers contradict their own Te­nent? For according to T. E. the most sincere and cordial respects are unlawful, and contrary to the Quakers Principles (as you have heard) and 'tis a vain and evil Custom (as he says here) to give them upon any occasion whatsoever. Why do's he rail against me and tax my honesty? Why did he not rather tell his Brethren, that they did not observe their Decorum? and that They were not a fit Company to represent the Bo­dy of the Quakers? Yea, do's not this passage look like a design laid to mistake their Princi­ples? Why do's not T. E. tell them as much? yet he finds no fault with his Brethren for that which he condemns in Us; And therefore is deeply guilty of that partial respect, which both the Scripture and right Reason do every where condemn.

I cannot imagine what should hold the Quakers unsatisfied in this matter, unless it be this weak scruple, that they may respect men but not the persons of men.

Min.

Is not respecting men and the persons of men all one? Can you make a difference be­tween a man and his person? Do the Quakers understand, what the word they are contending for signifies? Do's it import any more, than honour, favour and kindness? To honour a man is to respect him; to favour a man is to respect him; to be kind to a man is to shew re­spects to him; Are these sins?

As Respecting persons relates to partiality, either in dispensing of the Gospel, or the distri­bution of justice, so far it is a great sin; But as it relates to honour, civility, humanity, and kindness; it's in that case so far from being a sin, so far from being prohibited, that it is ex­presly enjoyn'd and commanded us, Lev. 19. 32. And it was reputed a sin in Israel, that they re­spected not the persons of the Priests, and favou­red not the Elders, Lam. 4. 16. So that we are to respect persons in one sense, as we are not to respect them in another.

Par.

To your Exposition on Mat. 23. 10. T. E. I observe, agrees so far, as to say, As little learning as you are willing to allow the Quakers, they are not ignorant that Christ did condemn the use of the word Father, as it implied an implicit faith in them to whom it was given; And also the word Master, as it denoted the chief, or head of a sect and party. p. 43.

I would have you to observe also, how the Quaker is come down from the conceit of his Revelations so far, as at last to yield that Learning may be made use of to the understand­ing the true sense of Scripture; which Con­cession has taken away the force of his Eighth Chapter.

Par.

But he tells us, that in that Text Christ condemned also the use of those Titles [Father and Master] in every sense, where there is not a true relation, that is (as he explains it) by Na­ture or Law, which he calls a direct untruth. ibid.

Min.

As much learning as the Quaker thinks he has, it has failed him here; seeing this sense which he has added, is neither agreeable to the occasion and scope of that Text, nor is consistent with other places of Scripture, wherein you will find Titles without either of these sorts of Relation: I mention'd some in the Conference, which he unhandsomly passes by, as those of St. Stephen and St. Peter, giving even their Persecutors the Title of Fathers, Acts 7. 2. and 22. 1. and of our Blessed Saviour, who gave the Title of Friend to the Traitor Iudas, Mat. 26. 50. Now which of these were due either by Nature or Law? Did our Saviour contrary to his Nature speak an un­truth? Or did he not rather in this passage intimate to us, that a Title of Civility is no Rom. 12. 21. untruth to whomsoever it is given, though to an enemy?

One thing let me ask you concerning St. Paul, Whether think you, was he a Married Man, or no?

No, the contrary appears from 1 Cor. 7. 7.

Min.

How comes Ellwood then (who ac­knowledges no Title due but by Nature or Law) to tell us, that he exhorted his Son Ti­mothy and his Son Titus thus and thus p. 24? So that T. E. has either spoil'd St. Paul's Re­putation, or his own Comment.

Par.

But St. Paul's piety was above such a reflexion: He was their Father in a holy sense, in a spiritual relation, having begotten them through the truth.

Min.

You are in the right: but then this is no thanks to our Quaker, who has excluded this of St. Paul's out of the Catalogue of his lawful Titles.

I will ask you another question concerning David, who brought in and used Musical In­struments in the service of God; who, I pray, was his Father?

Par.
Why? who, but Iesse?
Min.

Yes, I shall find another Father for him in Scripture; which sure T. E. never dreamt of, viz. Old Iubal, for he is said to be the Father of all that handle the Harp or Or­gan: Gen. 4. 21. Now how do's this Title hold by Nature or Law? Could all the Musi­cians in the World be Iubal's natural Sons?

I must ask you one question more; What relation was there between Abraham (the FATHER of the faithful) and the rich Glutton, that he should cry, Father Abraham, Luk. 16. 24? Where was there any such relation, as Ellwood talks of?

I know that after death there can be no relation by Nature or Law: But why do you fetch an instance from Hell?

Min.

If that will not serve, I will fetch you one from Heaven: Abraham replied, Son re­member, &c. v. 25.

Par.
That was a Parable.
Min.

Suppose it were; Did Christ use to de­liver Parables in such terms, as were opposit to his own Commands?

Par.

But is it not an untruth to call them Masters, and our selves their Servants, who in strictness cannot challenge that relati­on?

Min.

Is it an untruth to profess a Duty? Are we not commanded to be subject to one a­nother, 1 Pet. 5. 5. In honour preferring one ano­ther, Rom. 12. 10. And that each esteem other better than himself, Phil. 2. 3?

Par.

But T. E. thinks, many do not intend to do any service for those they call Masters, and so 'tis flattery.

Min.

Let the flattery be laid aside, not the innocent phrase, which expresses a Christian duty, viz. That we be ready to serve one ano­ther in all Offices of Civility: By Love (saith Gal. 5. 13. the Apostle) serve one another; which a Supe­riour may do to an Inferiour.

Par.

But Titles (says he) without relation we disown and reject, as being indeed Titles of flattery, which we dare no more make use of, than that good man who said of old, Job. 31. 21, 22. Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, nei­ther let me give flattering Titles unto man. p. 44.

I suppose he brings not this quotation out of the Old Testament to disprove all Ti­tles, because he acknowledges that they were then allowed and used, outward honour having not then passed off. And it's evident the good man in Iob 31. speaks not against all, but flat­tering Titles only.

Par.

You told me that St. Luke dedicating his Gospel to Theophilus salutes him with the Title of Most Excellent; And though Festus was a Heathen, yet St. Paul addresses himself to him with the Title of Most Noble. These (says T. E.) are not Titles, but Epithets. p. 45.

Min.

They are Epithets of Honour, and what are those but Titles? A Term of Honour is a Title, in what part of speech soever it is exprest: What do's the Quaker think of [Right Worshipful, and Right Honourable?] Do's not every body know these to be Titles? and yet these are as much Epithets, as this of [Most Noble, or Most Excellent.] And then what has this wise Quaker gotten by this subtle distinction?

Par,

Be it Title, be it Epithet; I observe T. E. is not well pleased with it; for he says, that the same Luke did afterwards, and to the same Theophilus, dedicate his Treatise of the Acts of the Apostles without any either Title or Epithet at all, but barely [O Theophilus;] and yet this was written after the other, in his riper years, and when he had made a further progress in the Christian Religion; And none, I hope, will think so good a man went from better to worse. ibid.

You will find in p. 245. of his Book, how nettled he is, that I affirmed that the Qua­kers faith is as uncertain as their Teachers fan­sie, and that poor deluded Souls do receive falshood, railing, non-sense, and blasphemy, as if they came from the Spirit of God, &c. I hope you see that I have already convicted this Quaker of falshood, railing, and non-sense: Now I shall charge him with Blasphemy also; For St. Luke was inspired with the Holy Ghost when he writ his Gospel; And suppose he might at other times be guilty of an idle or an evil word, and afterwards grow wiser and bet­ter; Yet the Holy Ghost could not, being infi­nitly perfect: So that in truth it's not St. Luke but the Holy Ghost, who is implicitly accused by this Quaker, at least of weakness and non­proficiency, when he gave that Title, or Epi­thet to Theophilus. St. Basil says, it's a great blasphemy to affirm that there is one idle word in the Holy Scriptures Hexa­mer. Hom. 9. I pray God, my Anta­gonist may repent this rashness.

Par.

As for Paul's address to Festus, calling him Most Noble; he tells us that [ [...]] might have been rendred most excellent. p. 46.

Min.

I grant it, for [...] signifies both; So that it was as much as if he had said, If it please your Excellency.

Par.

He says that St. Paul had reason to use it to him, for in Iustice and Courteous de­portment he excelled all other Magistrates that Paul had been brought before. ibid.

Min.

Do's he commend him for Courteous deportment? that's Civil Respects (as they a [...]e [Page 106] called.) But he was so far from being either Civil or Iust to St. Paul, that (to please the Jews) he sought to deliver him to them, by endeavour­ing to perswade him to go up to Ierusalem to be judged among them, by their Laws, to the end he might fall by their Witness and Verdict. Acts 25. 9, 10, 11. But let us consider when, and upon what occasion he gave him this super­lative Title.

Par.

That is mention'd, Acts 26. 24. It was in reply to Festus saying with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thy self, Much Learning has made thee mad.

Min.

I pray, do you remember, what an­swer a Quaker lately gave to one, who urged this example of St. Paul for Civil Titles?

Par.

Yes, he said, Perhaps Noble was his Christian Name: But why do you remind me of this?

Min.

To let you see that Ellwood's evasion is no less ridiculous; For he might as well have said (as his Brother Quaker did) that Noble is the Christian Name of an Heathen, as that St. Paul gave this Epithet to Festus for his justice and courtesie, when he call'd him Mad man. However you may hence infer, that call but this Quaker Mad man, tell him that he is be­sides himself, and then for the courtesie, per­haps for the justice thereof (even in his own sentence) you will merit the Epithet of Most Excellent.

Par.

You told me that Paul and Barnabas said Sirs, &c. Acts 14. 15. The place, T. E. [Page 107] says, is misrenderd'; It ought to be Men, &c. p. 47.

Min.

The Greek word is not [...], but [...], which (as he says) Beza did rightly translate, viri. Now let me tell our Critick, that the Greeks ever distinguished between [...], which only signifies the humane nature in common, and [...] which denotes manliness and courage. [...], Multi quidem Homines, pau­ci viri. Herod in Po­lymn. Homo ab humo, denoting mortality; vir a viribus, denoting prowess and courage; according to that excellent saying of Seneca, Non sentire mala non est Hominis, Non ferre Sen. de Consul. non est Viri. This may suffice to justisie our Translators.

But though it be [...] here, yet we find that Mary saluted him whom she took for the Gardiner, Ioh. 20. 15. by the title of [...], in Beza's Latine Domine, in English Sir or Master. The like did the devout Jaylor to Paul and Si Nomen non oc­currit, Dominos saluta­mus. Sen. Barnabas, Acts 16. 30. Yet did neither Christ, nor the Apostles, reprove them for it, being the usual civility of that Age.

But suppose my Argument had mist the mark it aim'd at (which it has not;) yet it cannot be denied to have hit another, namely, a vindication of human Learning, even from my Antagonist's own practice, who by the help thereof appeals from the Translation to the Original: I hope he will not say that he did it wholly by the Spirit; If he do, believe him not.

I shall not be so ready hereafter to be­lieve pretences, as I have been; But to your other instance of Saint Iohn writing to the Elect Lady, &c. T. E. answers, Who 2 Joh. v. 1. she was, and in what relation John stood to her, or how far her temporal power might extend, do's not appear. ibid.

Min.

He is in the right, The relation he stood to her in do's not appear; therefore a Title may be given, where there is not even so much as an appearance of any rela­tion.

Par.

Lady (he says) signifies no more than Mistress or Dame. ibid.

Min.

Mistress, Dame and Lady are all exprest by the Latin word Domina, and by the Greek word [...]; though in common u­sage they be distinguisht: But suppose it no more than Mistress or Dame, the Quaker will gain little by the plot; For Saint Iohn was her guide and Instructer, and surely that great Apostle stood in no relation of servitude to her, and had no temporal Office under her; If so, then you may collect from hence, that (according to this Quaker) its lawful (without the appearance of such relation he talks of) to call a Woman Mistress, but not a Man Master.

Par.

I pray you, seeing T. E. trades so much in Beza, Has he no note upon this place?

Min.

Yes, having translated it Domina, he adds thisingenuous Note; For ne ither do's the Christian Religion reject such lawful Titles, [Page 109] as far as it is just and equal; So that it is as if he had written TO THE LADY OF EMINENT DIGNITY Neque enim ab ejusmodi honestis Titulis Christia­na Reli­gio ab­horret, quatenus quidem justum ac fas est. Perinde est igitur ac si scriptum esset, Eximiae ac prae­stanti dig­nitate Dominae.

Par.

St. Iohn writing to Gaius (T. E. says) He do's not call him Rabbi or Mr. Gaius, but simply says, The Elder to the well beloved Gaius. ibid.

Min.

I never heard that Gaius was one of the Rabbies, or a Person of Quality above the Common people: If so, no wonder, St. Iohn gave him no Title.

Par.

But he concludes his remarks upon St. Iohn thus: If therefore the Priest will have it that John gave the Title of Lady in Com­plement only, let him prove it. ibid.

Min.

By his good leave, the Priest neither writ, nor thought any such thing: The Priest believes that St. Iohn gave the Title in truth and sincerity, as answerable to her Quality. But is this ingenuous of the Quaker from a sup­position of his own making, to put me upon proving what I never affirmed?

Par.

You said, Sarah was commended not only for obeying Abraham, but calling him Lord: To this he answers, Abraham had a Lordship or Power over her, as he was her Hus­band; here was Government and subjection, for Lord or Master (which imports the same) was a relative title to it. p. 48.

Min.

If he means, the Husband hath such a Despotick power over his Wife, as to make her stand in the same relation to him with his Servants, This will not be granted; for the subjection of the Wife is of a more inge­nuous [Page 110] sort. Indeed the Jewish Doctors af­firmed Men to have a real Lordship over their Concubines, because they took them without the solemnity of Law; as our Quakers do their Women, who yet are still in worse cir­cumstances; for thereby their children are in­capable of inheriting their Fathers Estates, and themselves of having any advantage by Dower or Alimony. Let this suffice for a Caveat to Women, how they adventure on Quakers.

As f [...] his reflexions upon the Government and Polity of our Church, with which he con­cludes his Chapter of Civil Respects; I shall in his own terms tell you, that it is an old and over­worn objection, long since baffled and confuted by the Learned pens of the incomparable Mr. Hooker and Bishop Sanderson; and of late by the Author of the Friendly Debates, and by Mr. Falkner in a good Book call'd Libertas Ecclesiastica; to which I shall refer you for satis­faction.

Now I shall leave it to the consideration of all sober men, Whether of these two is more Christian, To add a Title to a Name, or an Adjunct, A Title to express our Civility and Charity, or an Adjunct to express malice, re­venge, and bitterness?

CHAP. IV. Of Confession.

PAR.

T. E. tells his Readers, that from contending for empty Titles, you come to Confession of sin; and that (in his own opinion) not without reason, because you defend such vain, flattering and untrue words as (he says) Titles are. p, 50.

Min.

I doubt not but the unprejudic'd Reader, who has observ'd how this Quaker has proved himself truly guilty of that whereof he unjustly accuses me, will judge it more reaso­nable for him, than me, to come to Confession, if his pride would suffer him; but he is so far from it, that he writes against it, as if he were one that needed no repentance.

Par.

Yet he owns it the duty of every humble Penitent to confess his sins. p. 51.

Min.

Either then T. E. is no humble peni­tent, or neglects his duty.

Par.

But (he says) the question is, whether a constant course of Confession be a duty? ibid.

Min.

No good man ever made a question of it; Indeed those Hereticks, the Pelagians and Donatists did: And you shall hear what answer they had from the Holy Fathers of the Church; Confess always (saith St. Augustine) for thou hast always matter to confess. Aug. in Ps. 99. He is taught that he sins daily, who is commanded to pray daily for the remission of his sins, saith St. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer, who lived 250 years af­ter Christ. Therefore thou must daily say this [Page 112] Prayer (saith St. Ambrose) that thou may'st daily ask pardon for thine Offences? Ambr. de Sa­cram. lib. 6. c. 5. See also Tertul. de Orat. 132. & Au­gust. de Temp. Se [...]m. 126.

And that the publick Prayers of the Primi­tive Christians had always a Form of Confession in them, is what all the Ancient Liturgies do manifest. This is according to the practice of the Servants of God in all Ages. David was far from the temper of a Quaker, who pro­fesses that he will declare his iniquity, and be sorry for his sin. Ps. 38. 18. And confesses that his sins are more in number than the hairs of his head. Ps. 40. 15.

The lower a Christian is in his own thoughts, the higher he is in God's favour. Let then this Perking Pharisee tell God, that he is not as other men are, and that he has no sin to confess, unless he belie himself; God grant, I may fol­low the example of the humble and penitent Publican in my Prayers to God, to be merciful to me a sinner.

Par.

But T. E. says, a constant course of con­fession implies a constant course of Sinning. ibid.

Min.

I answer, 1. Confession of sins past implies no such thing: Some Authors report, that St. Peter rose betimes every Morning to weep for the denial of his Master. 2. A con­stant general confession of our being sinners im­plies no wilful course of sin, but the quite con­trary in them that do it sincerely, viz. a con­stant sight and sense of it, a constant sorrow for it, a constant desire, and endeavour to reform it. This we deny not, that such Confession implies daily need of Mercy; but then this is [Page 113] no more, than what becomes the best of men, while even such do find themselves not yet de­liver'd from all infirmity. Bradford, whom the Quaker himself acknowledges an Eminent Mar­tyr, used in his confession to say, Thou art Hea­ven, and I am Hell. We are sure the Quakers have the disease of sin, as well as others, but alas! not the same hope of Cure, because they will not see the need they have of a Physi­tian. Mat. 9. 12.

Par.

Now the question is, Whether it be our Duty from day to day, &c. to confess that we are still guilty of those sins, which by God's Grace we have forsaken, and which God hath forgiven us? ibid.

Min.

'Tis our Duty, no question, to con­fess our sins, after we are perswaded that we have forsaken them, and have obtained the par­don of them.

Confession is a general Duty commanded in Scripture, without limitation: Do's not Da­vid confess his sins, Psal. 51? Which (as ap­pears by the Title of the Psalm) was after that Nathan had already assured him from the mouth of God, that his sin was pardoned; Elsewhere he confesses and begs the pardon of 2 Sam. 12. 13. his sins long since committed and reformed, viz. the sins of his youth; Psal. 25. 7. Re­member not the sins of my youth. Now let the Quaker speak out, and say in his Style to Da­vid, This confession of thine is an untruth which I am sure is no Man's duty.

Par.

Some among the Corinthians before their Conversion had been Fornicaters, Idola­ters, [Page 114] Adulterers, &c. Paul says to those Corin­thians, Ye are washed, &c. Had it been the Du­ty of these Corinthians, after they were thus washed to have said, we are such still? We are Fornicators still, &c. This would have been the way to have made them lyars still. p. 52.

Min.

What a pitiful piece of Sophistry is this? Might they not for all that have said in reference to the time past, that they had sinned by Fornication, by Idolatry, &c. Have par­doned sinners no reason to grieve, and accuse themselves any longer, than till they think, they have gained their pardon? Yes surely, they have a new occasion, a greater reason than they had before, a higher instance of the goodness of God, to engage them to renew their repen­tance, than they had at first to lead them to it; while they sadly consider, how good a God they offended, a God so Good, as upon their Re­formation to forgive them.

But then let Ellwood shew, where the Church of England makes any publick Confession in the Present tense? They run in the Praeter-per­fect tense; as, We have erred and strayed, &c. We have offended, &c. and in the publick they are always General. Now where is the untruth? May not the most perfect Man in the World say all this?

Par.

But you still call your selves miserable sinners.

Min.

That he and all may see, it is our judgment only thus to confess, I shall here (in Ellwood's own form p. 115. produce a very authentick Witness, Basil Sirnamed the Great; Who advi­sing [Page 115] to Confession of sin hath these expressions, Though thou knowest no wicked thing by thy self, thou oughtest to say thus; I truly, O Lord, am not Constir. Exercit. worthy to speak to thee, because I am a grievous sinner; for there is none free from sin but God alone.

We are all in the construction of the Law Miserable sinners; and should be found so, if God should Arraign us at his Tribunal, and try us by the rigour of it: David has told us as much, Psal. 103. 2. Enter not into Iudg­ment with thy Servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no Man living be justified, The least ob­liquity from, or falling short of the absolute per­fection of the Divine Law being enough to ren­der us Sinners, and to make matter of Con­fession.

He that has but once offended may ever af­ter justly deserve the name of Sinner: A rege­nerate Man is conscious of having committed sins, though he be not guilty of the present Do­minion of any; The fact done cannot be un­done. A Heathen could say, Ne non pecca­ram, Mors quoque non faciat Ovid.

But after all this I must ask our confident Quaker, 1. How he is infallibly certain, he has obtain'd to an absolute unsinning state of Perfection? For he must grant that he ought to confess, and ask pardon, till he be infallibly cer­tain of his being pure from all sin, and with­out all spot and blemish, as pure as Adam be­fore he fell, as the Angels in Heaven, and the Spirits of just men made perfect; for he must grant that he ought to confess and ask forgive­ness [Page 116] of all, even the least Moral weaknesses, and all defects of Obedience, whereby he falls short in the smallest degree of the absolute perfection of the Law, until he is thus sure his perfor­mances are without all defect, and himself without all infirmity. And is T. E. indeed sure he is so? and do's he know the hour and minute when he first arrived to this state, and might take confidence to conclude of his abso­lute perfection? But if neither we nor he himself be sure of this, or of the possibility of it, I think 'tis very safe for us to continue the Con­fession of sin, yea and for him too, lest per­haps he should be mistaken, and in some small degree be yet imperfect. For as there is lit­tle danger of his displeasing God by any excess of humility in the continuance of such con­fession, though he were really arrived to such a perfection; so on the other side in the Case of our State towards God, there being a great deal of danger in our mistaking, I think it is good for him to consider of it, and for us to go on in our course of Confession till we be sure.

2. I must also ask him, how he infallibly knows, that all his sins are for ever pardon'd? for I suppose he will grant that he ought to con­fess and to ask forgiveness, till he be sure of a pardon.

Par.

He will say, he knows they are for­given, because he hath forsaken them.

Min.

That indeed is the best ground of hope (if he have it;) but not such as to make Fear or Confession needless: For seeing First, ac­cording [Page 117] to his own assertion p. 68. the state of the best and most perfect Men here is not immuta­ble, but that they may fall from it: Secondly, seeing perseverance to the end is a necessary condition of final pardon, and salvation; it will follow, that though T. E. were perfect, yet it were not at all improper for him to con­fess, and ask forgiveness of his former sins, be­cause (according to his own Principles) he is not sure, but he may fall into sin again, which may cause his pardon to be revoked: And as there is no danger of displeasing God (as is said before) in any excess of humility in these Confessions; so the practice of this humility, and the fight and sense of our former sins is a very expedient, and indeed a necessary means to preserve us from falling into sin again. For this is that (saith St. Bernard) which makes it necessary for us to be solicitous with fear and trembling, and always humbling our selves un­der the Mighty hand of God, since though we can know in part what we are, yet it is utterly im­possible Serm 1. in Sep­tuages. for us to know, what we shall be. Fi­nally then, since our sin is certain, our pardon conditional, our Enemies vigilant, and we frail; whatever Ellwood thinks of himself, We think, we ought to call and esteem our selves Miserable sinners, till God upon our perseverance hath sealed our absolute pardon.

Par.

Is there but one Lesson (says T. F.) for all degrees? p. 53.

Min.

Yes, there are several Lessons for se­veral States of Men, but this Lesson suits them all. This Confession, like those of the Primi­tive [Page 118] Church being design'd for the publick (where are Men of all degrees, Children, young men and Fathers) is made in such general terms, that all may joyn in it: The particu­lars we leave to every Mans Conscience, and to his Closet to supply: But since we all agree in this, to live together in a miserable, sinful World; and we all have sinned, and (as T. E. acknowledges) we all may sin; therefore it is not unreasonable, we should all agree to con­fess that we are miserable sinners: If this will not suffice; Let Ellwood use his captious que­stion to St. Paul, O Paul, dost thou say thou art the chief of sinners? thou wast so at thy first coming into this School; What? No proficiency, no improvement? No going forward? After thou hast spent thy Age in this School, if we measure thee by thine own Confession, thou art not one step nearer thy Iourneys end; no whit better, than when thou camest first in, and therefore worse. p. 53.

Par.

But to conclude this Subject, T. E. tels us, It is not the duty of any Man, to propose to himself a constant and common Course of Con­fession, because whosoever do's so, must first pro­pose to himself a constant and common course of sinning. p. 54.

Min.

That which is lawful and fit to be u­sed (as I have proved Confession to be, till we have persevered, and be absolutely perfect without all infirmity) is lawful to be propo­sed to Mens practice; and may be so, without any proposing to our selves a common course of sinning, because the proposal of this course of Confession most properly proceeds from a con­contrary [Page 119] cause, viz. from the consideration of our infirmity and mutability, from humility, a pious fear Rom. 11. 20., prudence and sense of duty. There­fore the Quaker's Pride and Scoffing shall not make us out of love with the Medicine, that God hath provided for us. It may shame us (says Tertullian Tert. de poenit.) that we sin again, but to repent when we have sinned should not shame us. We have another kind of Judge than Ellwood, who sees our hearts, and will account with him for his malicious censure of our Penitence, and of the devout and Orthodox Constitutions of our Church: So that my Adversary has taken much pains here to prove himself not only weak but wicked. And truly I am apt to believe, that in this abuse of Piety, and so necessary a Du­ty, as Confession is, T. E. is too much a Socinian to please all, even of his own party, or any Man that is considerate; And I wish the Quakers would at last open their eyes, to see by what se­ducers they are led, that at length they may withdraw from them, and make choice of more upright, more orthodox, and safer Guides.

CHAP V. Of Perfection.

Par.

WHAT Ground T. E. has lost in his Four first Chapters will surely be regained in his Fifth of Perfection, a Doctrine which (he says) has not met with opposition from the hands of most sorts of Men, since the time it was first Preacht in this later Age of the World. p. 54.

Min.

If the oldest things in Religion be best; then the newest must needs be the worst: But if it will not make the Quaker too proud, I will tell him, that his Doctrine of Perfection is of greater Antiquity then he is willing to allow it; For it was Preacht before the latter Age of the World: And if it please him to look again into Goodwin's Antiquities, and particularly in­to that instance he gives me of the seven sorts of Pharisees, he will find that one sort of them were called quid debeo facere & faciam illud, from their boasting of a perfect power to keep the Law; And that Author thinks, that the young man mention'd Luk. 18. 21. was of this Order: So that Elwood might have learnt, that the Pha­risees were Quakers in this Point, yet Hypo­crites in Christ's account: And upon a further search into this Controversie, I find this Doctrine much ancienter than I thought, when we first discourst it; For the Gnostick Hereticks, and particularly that herd of them called the Valen­tinians, [Page 121] did exalt themselves, calling them­selves Perfect, saith Epiphanius. After them the Epiph. haer. 31. Anno. 193. Novatians call'd themselves Cathari, i. e. Pure. But those who call themselves pure (saith the same Epiph.) are confuted by their own words; for whosoever doth call himself Pure, doth perfectly condemn himself, that he is Impure. Next af­ter Haeres. 59 Anno 440. them the Pelagian Hereticks held, that a Man may be without sin: Which the Holy Augustine confutes by many of the same Argu­ments, which this Quaker derides me for using. Epist. 89. And Celestinus the Pelagian used such false Me­diums, as his Friend Ellwood has stoln from him to justifie this Doctrine: and this may be seen in that Book which he writ against him. Aug. de perfec. Instit. E­dit. E­ [...]asin. Tom. 7.

Now will this bold Quaker tell these Ortho­dox Fathers, who opposed this notion of Per­fection, that some through ignorance mistook it, others through interest reviled and gainsayed it, as foreseeing it destructive to their Trade and profit, &c? As he tells his Reader, p. 55.

Par.

I perceive then this Doctrine of Per­fection was condemned for Here [...]ie by the Ho­ly Fathers of the Church: But did not the Quakers first broach this Opinion in these later Ages?

Min.

Quakerism it self cannot plead the pre­scription of One Age. But this Doctrine was Preacht by the Popish Fryars as a Foundation for their Merits and Works of supererogation: The wild Anabaptists about 140 years ago pre­tended also to Perfection: And it's the Soci­nian Doctrine, that we may perfectly fulfil the [Page 122] Law of God. But all Orthodox Protestants ever opposed these Men, as much as I do the Quakers herein; who may go and boast, that they have the Pharisees, the old Hereticks, the wild Anabaptists, and the Socinians on their side in this matter; whilst we (by Gods Grace) do, and will hold the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church.

Par.

You have said enough to make me a­ware of this Quaker; who wonders that you should own Perfection, and yet deny it to be an unsinning State: Therefore he asks, What kind of notion you have got of Perfection, who would be perfect, yet a sinner? ibid.

Min.

Seeing I believe, you sincerely desire to be inform'd; and withal T. E. (as you can­not but observe) is so unconstant to his own as­sertions, and confused in his notions of Per­fection; and the right fixing the notion of things being necessary in order to the clear pro­ceeding in affirming, or denying any thing con­cerning them; I will digress a little to state the Case, and that in three particulars: By which many of my Adversarie's objections will fall without taking any further notice of them. We shall therefore consider,

1. What is meant by Perfection; and what is to be granted or denyed concerning it.

2. Whether the best of Men can attain such a Perfection, as that they need not, or ought not to acknowledge themselves sinners and Of­fenders?

3. What is the result, tendency and conse­quent of asserting, or denying such a Perfection.

I shall be very glad to have a just account of these particulars.

Min.

I begin with the first. It's very evi­dent that Perfection or being Perfect, is taken in different senses in Holy Scripture, sometimes in a Positive sense, and sometimes in a Compara­tive.

A positive Perfection is that, which includes such a compleatness, wherein nothing is wanting or deficient to the answering and coming up to those measures, by which it is to be judged and examined. Now the measures by which the Perfection of Men must be judged of, are of two sorts,

First, The Capacity of our Nature taken in its best and sinless estate, and the holy and per­fect Law of God, to which it is in every re­spect exactly conformable; And hence the first sense of Perfection is, when a Man is in a state of enjoying as great good and satisfaction, and as high purity and freedom from all stain of e­vil, as either the Nature of Man can arrive un­to, or as the perfect Law of God do's require. This was our state in Paradise, and will be in Heaven; This is the Perfection spoken of 1 Cor. 13. 10. and probably Eph. 4. 13. Heb. 12. 23. and elsewhere.

The second Measure by which a Man's Per­fection is to be judged of, is the capacity of our Nature since the [...]all, and the terms which the Gospel Covenant prescribeth, and the Mer­cy of God accepteth: Hence the second sense of Perfection is, when a Man lives as holily as ever he can in this frail estate; sincerely striving [Page 124] to do all Christian duties, and to avoid all sin; and supplying his failings by Faith and Repen­tance; So that God accepts him upon the terms of the Gospel as perfectly righteous, in and through Christ: This may be call'd Evan­gelical Perfection; and is spoken of Heb. 10. 14. and 13. 21. Iam. 3. 2. And this is oft exprest by the Perfect heart; And in this sense [Per­fect] is opposed to [Wicked] Iob. 9. 22. and is explain'd by being upright. Psal. 37. 37. And this may be consistent with some fail­ings.

That there are two measures of Perfection, appears by that instance I gave you of St. Paul; who acknowledges himself Perfect according to one measure, and yet not perfect according to another, Phil. 3. 12, and 15. compared. So according to this second measure, and God's gracious acceptance, Asa's heart is said to have been perfect all his days, 1 King. 15. 14. yet came he far short of a sinless perfection; For the high places were not taken away, ibid. And he was sinfully passionate against Hanani, 2 Chron. 16. 10. Who did but his Office in reproving him for relying on the King of Syria, ver. 7 And being lame on his feet sought not to the Lord, but to the Physicians, ver. 12. Now let Ellwood, ask, what Notion the Holy Ghost has of Per­fection, who records Asa both perfect and a sinner? Therefore upon the account of this se­cond sense of Perfection, the Hebrew word for perfect is by our Translators often render'd upright, and made use of to express the necessa­ry qualification for obtaining God's favour, [Page 125] Psal. 15. 2. compared with ver. 1, 5. and Psal. 18. 23. Elsewhere it is exprest by a heart that is sound in God's Statutes; and made to be a ground of sure hope and confidence in God's mercy. Psal. 119. 80. Yea, the Hebrew word signifying perfection is translated sincerity, Ios. 24. 14. which T. E. seems to deny, p. 72. This for the Positive sense of Perfection.

The next sense of Perfection is Comparative, by which is meant such a Perfection, as is not ex­actly compleat in it self in respect to the first and highest Measures, but only more compleat than some other, to which it is compared; And this applied to our case, consists in outdoing the lower sorts of Christians, and coming up to the higher measures and degrees of knowledge and practice; and in this sense Perfection is taken, Heb. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 11. 6.

Now to apply this threefold distinction of Perfection: The attaining a comparative per­fection is not only desirable, and useful, but possi­ble; nay 'tis actually arrived to by some, though not by all, who notwithstanding may be true Christians.

The attaining an Evangelical perfection is not only possible, but also absolutely necessary to all true Christians.

But an absolute Perfection in the first sense (a­bout which the dispute lies) though it be the Crown we aim at, yet is not attain'd by any in this life: which is my next particular, of which I shall now give you an account.

Par.

As you propounded it before, it was this, Whether the best of Men can in this World at­tain [Page 126] to such a perfection as they need not, or ought not to acknowledge themselves sinners and Offen­ders?

Min.

To which query I reply by laying down these propositions.

First, That there being two Measures, by which we may judge of our Perfection, Name­ly, the perfect and exact Law of God, and the Terms of the Gospel Covenant; the first of these is the Rule of our Duty; the second is the condition of our acceptance, which are not one and the same under the Gospel: The Covenant of Grace as a Covenant requires not the first sort of perfection in order to our ac­ceptance (though the Law do's still call for it;) For if it did, Salvation were impossible for us in our faln and frail estate: Yet still the Gospel is a dispensation of purity as well as grace, nor is it the design thereof to cancel our Obligation to obedience, but rather to advance it; and there­fore it rejects not any Moral duty, nor allows any thing that is Morally evil; For as it cannot be, that any thing Good or Evil should cease to be so under the Gospel; So it is unsuitable to the design of that Doctrine that establisheth God's Kingdom, to discharge Man from the obedience which he owes as a Creature. Whence it follows,

Secondly, That all, even the least evil is a sin, because the transgression of a Law, as well as the grosser Acts of sin; All evil thoughts, irregular desires, and disorderly passions, and also the omission of the due exercise of good thoughts and desires, as well as of good words [Page 127] and actions, are breaches of God's Holy Law now, incur His displeasure, deserve His wrath, and need His pardon: for Man's present ina­bility to keep the Law in the rigour of it, do's by no means excuse him of his duty to keep the whole Law; because his weakness is the effect of his own sin and fall, and he is accountable for it.

Thirdly, The Perfection of Practice in a­voiding all evil, and performing every Duty, which God requires, ought to be endeavour'd after: yet such an Absolute sinless Perfection in the whole course of our lives is not attain'd in this life, nor was it ever actually attain'd by any meer Man since the fall; which though I formerly proved to you in the Conference, yet will I now take more pains with you to confirm it.

Perfection is opposed to Moral imperfection, and signifies a state and condition absolutely sinless in rigour of Law, such as comes up to the first Measure, and our primitive Capacity before we Fell: Thus the word ought to be taken in this Controversie; And now I shall tell you how far we dispute against it, and this I shall do both Negatively and Affirmatively. First, We do not deny it to be desirable, for it is the matter of our highest aims and hopes; Nor (Secondly) As wholly and for ever im­possible to us, for we believe we shall attain it, when we reach the Heavenly Mansions; Nor (Thirdly) As impossible for God to effect now in our present State, who can do every thing which implyeth not a contradiction; Nor [Page 128] (Fourthly) Do we discard sincere endeavours after it; For we constantly maintain; That sincere endeavour to perfect Holiness, and to live without all manner of sin, is the Condi­tion of Salvation: For what Divine ever af­firmed it lawful to allow our selves in any sin? That therefore we Assert is as followeth;

We maintain (First) That the absolute per­fection here explained, is not the condition of Salvation; seeing even Babes in Christ (who are far remote from it) may be saved. (Second­ly) We maintain, that it is not the ordinary condition of Christians, but is to be reckoned (though not among the [...], things sim­ply impossible, if God were pleas'd to use His power, yet) among the [...], things that do not actually come to pass in this World, which they that please may call Morally im­possible, that is, so difficult that Men will not actually arrive to it in this lower State, wherein it hath pleased God to set us: And the Grounds of our Assertion are these.

First, The many expressions of the Saints of God in Scripture, who testifie of themselves, that they were not absolutely sinless in rigour of Law; and the constant experience of the People of God, since the Scripture times. Secondly, The inconsistency of such perfection with the present weakness of Man's Nature, and the many deplorable circumstances, which are the consequents of his Fall. Thirdly, The end of Gospel Institutions, which are plainly design'd for an Imperfect State, and of no use, if it were otherwise, in the foremention'd explained [Page 129] sense. Fourthly, Abundance of Scriptures com­manding 2 Pet. 3. 18. 1 Thess. 4. 1, &c. us to grow in Grace; therefore we can never be past growing in this life: We must abound more and more. These and many o­thers suppose plainly, that we come not to our [...], to our ultimate perfection in this life. Fifthly, Those Scriptunes which shew the dan­ger of standing upon terms with God, and the misery we are in, if God should deal with us in rigour of Law: Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no Man living be justified, Psal. 143. 2. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand? Psal. 130. 3, &c. Sixthly, Those Scriptures which shew our need of Mercy at death and judgment: The Lord grant unto him, that he may find Mercy of the Lord in that Day. 2 Tim. 1. 18, &c. Seventhly, We may confirm it, with re­spect to the times of the Old Testament, from Lev. 16. 6. and Heb. 9. 7. where Aaron (the Saint of the Lord Ps. 106. 16.) with his Successors is en­joyned yearly to offer a Sin-offering, as well for himself, as for the errors of the people; Which shews plainly, that the Saints in the Old time had not attain'd to an unsinning perfection. And with respect to the New Testament, the same is proved by the description of the Gospel Righ­teousness consisting in having sin pardon'd. Rom. 3. 6, 7, 8. Eph. 1. 7. 1 Ioh. 1. 8, 9. So that after all this,

Fourthly, We ought not to be discouraged as to our final estate; because this unsinning Per­fection is not the terms of our acceptance with God, nor will the want of it cause our [Page 130] final rejection: For to assert this, would make void the Covenant of Grace, which admits repentance, proposeth forgiveness, and accepts sincerity; because though it be (as I said) the design of the Gospel to prohibit all sin, and to allow none; yet if through infirmity a Man fall, it provides a Remedy, 1 Ioh. 2. 1. And upon performance of the conditions of our accep­tance, secures Salvation.

Par.

I see not why Men should require more, than God is pleas'd to accept, and we in a capacity to perform: So that you need en­large no further in the proof of these; Only let me understand, What is the result, tendency, and consequent of denying the Quakers absolute unsinning State, and asserting the Evangelical Perfection; which was your Third particu­lar.

Min.

We deny the Quakers absolute Per­fection, not only as unattainable, and incon­sistent with the condition of faln Man, but as it is apt to deceive some Men into a Groundless pride, to make them neglect the means of re­mission, despise the mercy of the Death of Je­sus Christ, and rely on their own Merits; as it confounds the Covenant of Works and Grace, and as it stands as that two-edged sword, Gen. 3. 24. keeping the way of the Tree of life, and making them despair of ever attaining ever­lasting Glory, when they once find themselves deceived. But then there are no ill Conse­quents (as is falsly pretended) by our denying this absolute unsinning righteousness, or per­fection.

[Page 131] First, 'Tis no discouragement to Christian care and diligence, and the most vigorous en­deavours, that any Christian can use; while he attains at present an Evangelical Perfection, and peace and reconciliation with God, and the fa­vour to be owned as his child, and an heir of Glory, and of that State of absolute Perfection in Heaven, yea and of a greater degree of Glo­ry, according to his growth in Grace here.

Secondly, It's no Doctrine of looseness, or encouragement to sin; since that Grace, which tenders remission of sin to the sincere and peni­tent, will never accept the slothful and careless: And it's sufficiently proved, that the Gospel gives no allowance to sin, but promiseth greater rewards to greater degrees of Piety.

Lastly, The asserting this Evangelical Per­fection hath many good consequents: For it directs to the performance of many con­siderable Duties, which else would have no foundation; as the seeking of God's pardoning Mercy, and acknowledging that we deserve from Him much worse than we receive, a re­course to the Merits of Christ, and applying them to our selves in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the practice of Confession and Godly Contrition, with the exercises of Mor­tification, the duty of Humility and many other, which will have no place in Ellwood's unsinning State.

These are our Reasons (and it's left to you and the World, whether they be weighty or no;) why we deny one kind of Perfection, and assert another.

I must confess with all thankfulness, that the account you have given me of Per­fection is clear to me in all its senses, whereby I do not only apprehend the true State of the Case, but do perceive, the Quakers are in love with the Name [Perfection,] but never well consider'd what it meant: And I hope, when they see, how fully you hold an Evangelical perfection, and the reasons why you deny an absolute [...]nsinning Perfection, they will submit to your sense thereof.

Min.

But that T. E's. fallacies may not hin­der a wished compliance; pray, do you men­tion, what in your opinion are the most consi­derable of his reflexions on our last discourse.

Par.

The grand text, which the Quakers u­sed to produce in favour of their notion of perfection, is that in Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect▪ Which place, you told me, St. Luke render'd, Be ye therefore Merciful, as your Fa­ther Luke 6. 36. Conf. p. 31. also is Merciful. And from the Context you told me, that our Lord there aims only from God Almightie's example to press Charity and Mer­cy to the highest degree, &c. To this T. E. re­plies, Did he consider what he writ? or how he should be able to maintain it? He is got so high at the first step, that the Quakers had need help him down again. The highest degree of Charity and Mercy is applicable only to God Almighty, &c. p. 56.

Min.

I hope you take notice, that here's not one word in vindication of his Brethren. Is it not a wonder, that his Answer was not, Here the [Page 133] Priest deals dishonestly with us? And that the Quakers never applied that text to such a sense? But you see he leaves the Argument, and makes it his business to play the Jack Pudding by telling his Reader, that I am got so high at first step, that the Quakers had need help me down again. But by his good leave I shall need no such favour from them, being without their help able to vindicate my own expression; therefore I would desire T. E. to consider, that the word [Highest] is to be limited by the persons we are speaking of: As Eccl. 5. 8. He that is higher than the Highest regardeth, &c. Highest there signifies the Highest among Men: So Christ presseth Charity and Mercy to the Highest degree they can be acted among Men: And is this vying perfection with the Creator? He only set them the Divine Charity for a Pat­tern, which is the Highest Charity in it self; and prest them to come as near it, as their Na­ture was capable of, by exercising it in the highest kind, namely, by forgiving Enemies, and in imitation of the Highest Example. St. Luke call'd Theophilus Most Excellent; will the Quaker say, he had set him so high, as to make him excel God, or at least to be Equal with him? Or was he got so high, as to stand in need of the Quakers to help him down?

Par,

I fear, this was rather a wilful than ig­norant mistake of your Adversarie's: And do very much wonder, that having learnt from you the distinction of Equality and Simi­litude, he should tax you with the neglect of it, ibid.

I shall here enquire how a dear Friend of his understood this distinction; I mean George Fox, who blasphemously affirmed that he was equal with God; as it was attested by the Oaths of credible Witnesses at Lancaster Assizes: see the foremention'd Book call'd The Perfect Pharisee, p. 3. Where 'tis also proved, that Iames Naylor with no less blasphemy said, that he was as Holy, just, and good, as God him­self. Thus the Quakers talked of old, though now Ellwood has learnt (from the Book he op­poses) this Distinction, and says, They desire their Charity and Mercy may be real, true, sin­cere, of the same nature, kind, quality with God's; but expect it not in the same degree, &c. ibid. But this is far short of their former boast­ings: And therefore they who are so incon­sistent with themselves, must not complain that their Principles are mis-stated while they have no fixed Principles, nor standing Rule of Faith: For every Body knows that the Quakers are not now what they were formerly; Nor do they know themselves what they will be the next year: The Wise man saith, A fool changeth as the Moon, Ecclus 6. 11. So that I cannot but think of the witty Apologie of Cleobulus, How the Moon came and desired her Mother to make Causin. parab. hist. l. 2. c. 14. her a Coat fit for her; to which she replied, Alas! how can I do it? for thou art sometimes full and round, sometimes small and horned, a­gain only half full, &c. This is my task in this Dispute; while T. E. hath set up a Notion of Perfection, so different from the usual opinion of his Brethren.

Indeed the Proverb is, They never chose well, that change so often; yet if T. E. bring the Quakers nearer to Truth, I would not have you discourage him: And I fancy he has yield­ed much of his Cause in the definition he gives of Perfection; Which (he says) is to aim at, and press after a State of being in this life de­liver'd from sin, and by the mighty Power of God preserved from the act, commission, and guilt of sin; this, he says, is that they mean by Perfection, p. 57.

Min.

Not heeding the Tautologies of this description, we will come to the definition it self: where I must desire you to take notice, that after all his boasting of an unsinning State, p. 55. though he blames me for interpreting Perfection in several places of Scripture to mean no more than sincerity, p. 70. here he defines it to be only the aiming at and pressing after such a State. Now consider, I pray, that he that is aiming, has not hit the Mark as yet; he that is pressing after such a State, has not yet attain'd to it; This is not that absolute Perfection, which the Quakers used to pretend to: And St. Paul concluded that he was not already Perfect, be­cause he had not already attained, and was but pressing towards the Mark, Phil. 3. 12, 13, 14. Perfectum est cui nihil deest: He that is strictly Arist. Phys lib. 3. perfect, wants nothing; but he that is aiming and pressing after, would have something that he wants.

Finally, Ellwood has brought his Perfection to signifie no more, than sincere Endeavours to be free from Sin; and thus much we yield and [Page 136] press. We are perfect Travellers (as saith St. Augustine) not perfect possessors; and our Per­fection is capable of increase: For no Man is perfect (saith St. Bernard) who desires not to be Bern. Epist. still more perfect, &c. But if this be all the Qua­kers Perfection, they are but like their Neigh­bours; and is it not unreasonable, that T. E. should dispute against his own definition? I wish he and his Brethren would stand to this sense of perfection; for then we should be a­greed as to this point: but I fear from what follows, the Quaker thinks that he had over­shot himself; and his Brethren perhaps will charge him to have betrayed their Cause.

Par.

I doubt as much; for p. 59. he infers not only a possibility of living without sin, but in the next page he is expresly for an unsinning State, affirming that the commands for it are plainly produced: Now indeed one would think, if God command us to be perfectly free from all sin, there might be some, who in this life are truly so; because he commands no impossi­bility.

Min.

This is an usual fallacy with T. E. e­specially in p. 96, 97. to argue from the Precept to the Performance; and falsly to sup­pose, that some Men are actually and absolutely perfect; because we are commanded to endea­vour and press after our being so: But St. Au­gustin's Answer to Celestinus the Pelagian on the same occasion, will suffice to shew the sophistry of this pretence; Those exhortations, by which we are commanded to be Perfect, do not so much shew what we Are, as what we Ought to be. [Page 137] The Law indeed still demands Perfect Obe­dience, though we are utterly unable to per­form it; and this most righteously, because it is not God, but our selves who are the causes of our own inability; It is the effect of our own sin; and therefore both our Obedience to the whole Law, and all our primitive Righ­teousness, which we had before the Fall, are by the Law justly required of us. But then the Gospel Covenant in Jesus Christ, who has sa­tisfied the rigour of the Law for us, requires no such thing, as necessary to Salvation, of us; though it requires our utmost endeavours after it; as has been said.

Par.

I produced the instances of Noah, Ioh, and David, who had actually attained this State of Perfection; But in regard you proved, that as to matter of fact they were all guilty of sin; I was satisfied that their Perfection could not mean an unsinning State, or a State of free­dom from all sin: But T. E. is not so perswa­ded, but replies, that to blemish Noah's Perfection you object, that he was drunk and uncovered in his Tent; And that he walked with God before this, and after this also; and while he was in his sin, he did not walk with God, &c. p. 61.

Min.

I suppose your design was to find out the Truth, as his is to cavil, and darken it; Therefore he will speak absurdly rather than say nothing. If it was ill done in me to m [...]n­tion the failings of Noah, Iob, and David (as he suggests;) Do's not he also blasphemously accuse the Holy Ghost for recording it? How­ever this I am sure of, that this instance shews [Page 138] Noah's Perfection to be such, that he needed pardon, and that his life was not all of a piece, not free from all stain of sin; And the Qua­ker's rare discovery amounts to no more than this; Noah was perfect, while he did not sin, that is, while he was perfect, he was perfect: wonderful!

Par.

I would have you answer this more fully; for I perceive he is not a little pleased with this Device, but relies much upon it; And for Iob, he conceives that it cannot be fairly infer'd, that he was not deliver'd and kept from sin in the precedent and subsequent parts of his life, p. 64. And of David he says, that he was not a Man after God's own heart, &c. while he was guilty of sin; and that when he was after God's own heart, he was free from it, p. 69. And he grows mighty big, and thinks, if it be possible to attain the State of Perfection, it is not impossible to retain it; for the same Divine Power that brings a Man to it, is equally able to preserve him in it; and if it he possible for a Man to be preserved in this State an Hour, it is not impossible to be preserved a Day; if a Day, a Year; if a Year, an Age, p. 68.

Min.

The notion this Quaker has got of Perfection will amount to no more than this, that a Man may be perfect at Morning, fall at Noon, and be Perfect again at Night. This perfect Man of his mindeth me of Mercury in Homer; Who was born in the Morning, invented Musick at Noon, and stole Apollo's Oxen at Night. I thought perfection had been a State and Condition absolutely sinless, and incon­sistent [Page 139] with Relapses into sin. I'm sure, I may more justly argue thus; The Saints have sin­ned Once, and therefore may sin Twice, and consequently Many times; They have the same Enemies without, and propensities with­in: And for all T. E.'s fallacious Argument, 'tis not so probable, that a Good man shall abstain from sin a whole Year, as it is, he shall abstain from sin one Day, much less an Hour; because the mind cannot be so long fixt and in­tent to avoid the innumerable occasions of Fall­ing: I can keep awake one Night, but not many; not therefore a Week, or a Year, or an Age: yet by Ellwood's Argument, we may stand in a Posture for ever.

Par.

But cannot God's mighty Power keep us as well as Age, as an Hour from sin?

Min.

We are not disputing what God can do, but what he sees fit to do, and what he actually doth: Let him prove de facto, that God useth His irresistible Power in this Case; and that actually He hath so preserved any Man. I doubt the Quaker must be forced here to leave the Scriptures, and go to the Popish Legend, to prove that Bonaventure never committed any sin in his whole life; which story has as little of Truth in it, as Ellwood's Argument has of solid Reason. Finally, if T. E. can go no higher than to prove, The Saints are perfect, only while they do not sin; And that the Divine power can preserve them from sin for an Age together; All this may be said of Sinners, who yet are no more perfect, then is his Dis­course.

But T. E. says, If in this life freedom from sin be not attainable, when and where is it? As Death leaves, Iudgment finds, p. 91.

Min.

'Tis true, as death leaves, Judgment will find us, as to the general State of Regene­racy or Unregeneracy; but this is far from be­ing true concerning all perfections or imper­fections of Body or Soul, and many other things relating to the State of the whole Man: The Body, which dying is Gorruptible, will not be such when raised again; The Assaults of Satan, and Allurements from various objects, both men and things in the World, after depar­ture hence, have no place. He that to the time of death lived by Faith with respect to things above, will then have a more present sight of another World, and the State of Happiness, and of the Glorious Majesty of God, and our Sa­viour: Nor will his State then be (as here it is unto death) subject to weariness and dul­ness, and such imperfections, whereby he is here oft indisposed for constant vigorous actions, and such compleat perfection of ho­liness, as by his Original strength Man was able to exercise before his fall, and which therefore in the strictness of the Divine Law is still required of him, and the least defect where­of is therefore sinful, and hath need of that Pardon purchased for us by Jesus Christ. Now, as to that State of absolute Perfection without Spot, and that Prize of the High Calling which true Christians press after, and hope as­suredly to arrive to hereafter, there is a great [Page 141] Accession in order hereunto, when the person, whose heart was truly Upright, becomes freed from all the imperfections and infirmities of this Low estate, and out of the reach of all temptations and assaults of Enemies, and all allurements to evil; and where he is affected with the fullest sense of the highest Good, which are the most powerful motives to determine his Actions; and his Soul (and in the Resurrection his Body also) shall be fitted and strengthen'd to the most constant and vigorous actions of compleat Perfection, and act under the higher supplies of Influence from God, together with the Advantage of the Heavenly Society of God, Angels, and Saints, in that State where God will fulfil all Promises which relate to Happiness. And when perfection in knowledge and Incorruption, and the most excellent State of, Soul and Body, both with respect to their Actions, Capacities of enjoying perfection of State, and the being immediately possessed of the Highest Good, are none of them fully en­joyed in this life; what pretence can reasona­bly be made against the then entring into the most absolute Perfection of Purity?

Par.

Your instance of Iob's confessing that he had sinned, T. E. says, speaks of the time past not present, p. 62.

Min.

He might in this Confession mean some sin or sins newly committed (either in thought or word, through weakness in this present State of Imperfection;) And this would re­quire the Praeter-perfect tense, as well as sins committed long since. But one thing here I [Page 142] would have you to take notice of, That accord­ing to Ellwood's own sense which he gives of this passage, Here is Iob a perfect man (one therefore whose sins were all pardon'd and for­saken, yet) confessing his sins; yea and in the next verse begging the pardon of them too, in these words, Why dost thou not pardon my trans­gression, Job 7. 21. and take away mine iniquity? I hope therefore T. E. will no more declaim so much against Confession of sins though past and for­saken. But that Iob was then a sinner, when he spake those words, T. E. may be sufficiently convinced by that confession of his own mouth, which relates too to the time present, Chap. 9. 20. If I say, I am perfect, my own mouth shall prove me perverse.

Par.
This is very plain.
Min.

Therefore I have not stained Iob's Perfection, as T. E. vainly charges me; but only recite what the Holy Scriptures have recorded of Him.

Par.

But against your instance of that saying of Iob's, Behold I am vile, Iob 40. 4. T. E. quotes Authors to prove the word [vile] there not properly to signifie wicked, but only mean, small, and of little account, ibid.

Min.

But in this place the word is used with respect to sin, as by the circumstances of the place it is manifest; it being said in answer to the Expostulation of the Almighty, in whose dreadful presence Iob sees, and confesses him­self Vile and Base by reason of his sinfulness: Hence, Iob 42. 6. I repent, and abhor my self, &c. What should he repent of, if he had no sin? [Page 143] And for what did he abhor himself, but for his sin? And doubtless, when Iob had the Divine Purity before his eyes, nothing made him think himself so vile and mean, as his sins.

Par.

But, says the text, in all this Job sinned not, p. 66.

Min.

In that particular carriage, in All this, he sinned not, that is, he cursed not God; he charged not God foolishly: But do's the Text say, that he had never sinned? or that he had no sin in him? But I pray you mark, that here he wholly passes by the account I gave you in the Conference, of the word [Perfect] not al­ways meaning an absolute unsinning State, but frequently no more than sincerity, as you have it sometimes in the Margin of the larger Bibles, Gen. 17. 6. Deut. 18. 13. This was very unfairly and disingenuously done of him.

You have more reason to believe the Saints Confessions of their own State, than this Quaker's incoherent Arguments; And what can be more full than Holy David's confession of his being actually a sinner, and liable to commit more? Psal. 19. 12. Who can tell how oft he offendeth? O cleanse thou me from my secret faults. See Psal. 38. 18. and 51. 1, 2, 5, 9. and 130. 3, 4. We know but in part, saith St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13. 9. If our knowledge be imperfect, our other Graces bear a proportion to it, and are imper­fect likewise. What can be more plain than that saying of St. Paul? Not as though I had al­ready attained, either were already perfect, Phil. 3. 12? And therefore when he says, ver. 15. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, &c. it [Page 144] must needs refer to some lower degree of Per­fection, and not to an absolute unsinning Per­fection: Otherwise the Apostle cannot be freed from a contradiction in saying He was perfect, yet he was not perfect. For sometimes the same word (even in all Languages) has divers sig­nifications; And I could herein give many in­stances in the Holy Scriptures; take one for all; [...] signifies liberality, 1 Cor. 16. 3. And yet in ver. 23. of the same Chapter it signifies Grace. However this cannot be denyed, as being evi­dent in express words, that St. Paul confesses himself not to be already Perfect: It is clear then, that St. Paul was not Perfect; And if not He; what Holyer Man will T. E. find for an example of Perfection, than St. Paul was; who in a vision was rapt up into the third Heaven? Is T. E. the Man think you? But this plain Confession of St. Paul T. E. very unfairly here lets slip, and says nothing to it; very unkindly endeavouring to shut (not his own only, but) all mens eyes to the plain and open Truth, and attempting to shift off the matter by meer eva­sions.

Par.

But he has one shift left; that by Re­surrection of the dead, ver. 11. is not meant the Last and General; which he endeavours to prove by two reasons (1.) Because the Apostle would not seem so dubious of obtaining that. (2.) He would not have told them that he had not attained That while he was alive, which could not be attained, till he was dead: this is the sum of his reasons, p. 71.

I must therefore ask this bold Inter­preter; What Resurrection is then meant?

Par.

He answers, The First Resurrection, mention'd, Rev. 20. 6. which the Apostle refers to, Col. 3. 1. If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, p. 72.

Min.

The First Resurrection is the raising up a Sinner from the Death of Sin to Newness of life; and this is Conversion. Has not there­fore the Quaker mended the matter well? Was St. Paul, so long after his Conversion (which we read of Acts 9.) dubious, whether he should attain Conversion? After so great profi­ciency in Holiness; yea after that he had (ac­cording to T. E.) attain'd to Absolute Per­fection; Would He tell them, he had not yet attained the First Resurrection? How effectually does T. E's. self-contradictions baffle his new­coin'd sense? But I would desire him to consi­der, that the Resurrection of the Dead is often taken for the better part, that is for the Resur­rection to life, as Luk, 20. 35, 36. they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that World, and the Resurrection from the dead—are equal unto the Angels, &c. And thus it signifies in this 11 ver. He laboured, if by any means he might attain to that better part of the General Resur­rction, Namely, the endless life of Glory: Now is it any absurdity for St. Paul to press after this? or to tell them, that he had not yet attained the full measure of his Perfection, and the end of his Hope, but was only in the Race, &c? Theophylact also notes, that it is not the or­dinary word for Resurrection, but [...], [Page 146] which St. Paul here useth (saith he) to signi­fie his lifting up to meet the Lord in the Air, which is only the portion of Blessed Souls: We conclude therefore that [Perfect] in ver. 12. must signifie the absolute unsinning State of Perfection, which the Saints shall have in the next World; this St. Paul had not attained here in this World; Hence it necessarily fol­lows, that [Perfect] in ver. 15. must mean some lower degree of Perfection.

Par.

Now you have made me sufficiently sensible, that it is the Quaker, and not the Priest, who was as well out in his notion of the Resurrection, as in that of Perfection. Now he comes to examine your interpretation of 1 Ioh. 5. 18. whosoever is born of God sinneth not, that is (say you) lives not in a wilful course and trade of sin, though not wholly without sin. And whereas you affirmed, that otherwise St. Iohn would contradict other plain texts of Scripture, viz. 1 King. 8. 46. Eccles. 7. 20. Prov. 20. 9, &c. T. E. to avoid the force hereof, hath this notable device; The words of the Apostle (says he) are not con­tradictory to these; The one speaks of Man in a Natural State, the other of Man as begot and born of God, p. 73.

Min.

But those texts speak of All men in general, Spiritual as well as Natural, other­wise there would be no sense in them: for in­stance, while he interprets 1 Kin. 8. 46. [there is [...]to Man that sinneth not;] to signifie only a Man in his Natural State, as he is a Child of wrath; He mak [...]s the sense run thus, There is no [Page 147] Child of wrath but sinneth; or There is no sin­ner that sinneth not: thus he makes the Scrip­tures as ridiculous as his own Canting: I hope a Spiritual Man is a Man still; & therefore from the testimony of this Scripture, Such an one sinneth.

As for Prov. 20. 9. Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? you may note, that he makes the latter part of this verse to be only a repetition, as having no other sense than that same, which he has given of the former part: These words, [Who can say—I am pure from my sin?] must signifie nothing, if they oppose T. E's. assertion. And that threatning in Ezek. 18. 24. against a Righteous man committing iniquity (he says) implies there was a time, when he did not com­mit iniquity; but do's not consider, that by committing iniquity there is meant his falling into gross sins, as appears by the words imme­diately added, And doth according to all the abo­minateons that the wicked man doth: this implies indeed that there was a time, when the righteous Man did not commit gross sins, but not that there was a time when he lived without all infirmities & moral imperfections. And as for Iob 9. 20. [If I justifie my self, my own mouth shall condemn me; If I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.] This he would evade by an im­pertinent discourse of self-justification; while the Translators meant no more than (in the sense of the Original) If I say I am just, or (as Olimpiodorus expounds it) If I dare to say, I am righteous, &c. and the latter partof the verse is express enough, If I say I am perfect, [Page 148] &c. If Iob was perfect, as the Quaker pleads, what reason can be given, why he should deny it, and disclaim the Grace of God in him? why might he not say, he was so? But do you not take notice, that he has passed by the plainest pl [...]ce of all, viz. Eccl. 7. 20. [there is not a just Man upon Earth, that doth good & sinneth not?] I hope he will not say here, that by a Iust man is meant a Natural man, or a Child of wrath, &c.

Par.

I am very much satisfied with these Scripture-proofs; yet must I not pass by his note on Iam. 3. 2. [In many things we offend All.] This (says T. E.) do's not prove, that the Apostle himself was an offender, any more than that other saying of his concerning the Tongue, ver. 9. [therewith bless we God, and therewith curse we men,] can prove that the Apostle himself was a Curser, p. 76.

Min.

This is very strange! doth [All] in the former place signifie Nothing? Doth St. Iames say, We All curse? but he says, We offend All; to include himself, and exclude so false a Gloss; which is thus noted in an An­cient Council, wherein St. Augustine was pre­sent; In many things we offend all—And why is [All] added, but that this place may Corc [...]l. Milevi­tan. Can. 7. agree with Psal. 143. 2. In Thy sight shall no Man living be justified, &c? Which Council also shews us, that the Pelagians (not T. E.) were the first Authors of this exposition.

Par.

But I assure you, that T. E. is not a little proud of it; For he brings it over again, to e­vade the exposition of that Scripture we have been discoursing of; If we say that we have no sin, &c. Its evident (says he) that the Apostles, [Page 149] in condescention to those to whom they writ, did many times include themselves, as in the condi­tion of others, &c. p. 77.

Min.

Ellwood [...]ollows the Pelagian Here­ticks in this also, who thus of old expounded this place: Whence the Holy Fathers of the a­foresaid Conc. Milevit. Can. 6. Milevitan Council, having produced this of 1 Ioh. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin, &c. add—Whosoever thinks this place is so to be taken, as if it were spoken out of Humility, and not in truth; Let him be accursed. To which curse you see T. E. has entitled himself. Moreo­ver if the Apostles do say [We] sometimes in condescension, yet it follows not that they al­ways use it in that sense; In 1 Ioh. 1. 3. says St. Iohn, That which we have seen, &c. and Chap. 2. 1. We have an Advocate, &c. Surely He do's not mean here to exclude himself. Why there­fore must [We] be necessarily so taken here? there is but one reason for it; it is because o­therwise it would contradict T. E's wild opi­nion, to which all Scripture▪ must vail and stoop.

But, O ye people called Quakers, take heed of this exposition, for it will utterly overthrow your Arguments against saying [You] to a single Person; since the Apostles might as well change the Numbers, and say [You] for [Thou,] as change the Persons, and say [Ye] for [We:] yea I perswade my self, that if you should hear men say [We,] when they meant [Ye;] you would accuse it as a greater untruth, than to say [You,] when they meant [Thou:] And your Champion Ellwood loses more on one side, than he gains on the other; for while he would [Page 150] prove the Apostles no Offenders, he proves them no Quakers; while he would shew they were Perfect, he makes them (according to your strict way of reproving others) to be manifest Lyars, in saying [We,] while they mean [Ye.] Thus while he defends one point, he confutes him­self in another; Ea enim mendaciorum natura est, Lact. Inst. l. 5. cap. 2. ut cohaerere non possint.

By all this is manifest that 1 Ioh. 5. 18. means not an absolute Perfection; which further ap­pears, and that most evidently in this, that this is asserted of all that are Born of God; Now Babes in Christ are born of God; But I hope, T. E. will not say, that Babes in Christ are ab­solutely Perfect; for he that is so, and has o­vergrown all imperfections, certainly is past a Babe.

Par.

Yet I see T. E. is so taken with his o­pinion of Perfection, that he resolves to pull down all that seems to oppose it: And because our Lord taught his Disciples to pray, forgive us our Trespasses; he throws away the whole Prayer saying, That it doth not appear, that it was intended to be a standing Rule for them to pray by as long as they lived, p. 81.

Min.

Here E [...]wood outstrips Pelagius, who had the same Quarrel at praying for forgive­ness; yet he durst not say, that it was not used by the Apostles, or unfit for strong Christians, only he said, The Saints need not say it for themselves, but for others who were sinners: Yet for this he was accursed by the aforesaid [...]an. 6. Council of Milevis. Sure I am, that our Lord taught his Disciples this Prayer in that Sermon, [Page 151] which contains the most perfect Doctrines of Christianity, Mat. 5. 20. And when they had arrived to greater proficiency, he renews his injunction to them to use this Prayer, Luk. 11. And no doubt, the Apostles used it themselves, as well as taught it to the Church, where it was used all along, in all publick Offices; whence it was called the Daily Prayer by St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, and St. Augustine: Y [...]a the Ancients taught the most perfect Christians Constir. Apost. l. 7. c. 25. A [...]g. [...]om. 42. to use it three times a Day. As for the Qua­kers pretences, that the s [...]t being come on them, this Prayer would be usel [...]ss, because the Spirit would teach them what to pray f [...]r; which he would prove out of Ioh. 16. 13, 24. p. 82 I pray read those places, and you will [...], that as there is not one word thereof reaching them what to pray for, so there is no ground for us to build such pretences upon. And that so much mistaken place, Rom. 8. 26. (objected by him) Our not knowing what to pray for as we ought, Is (says St. Chrysostom, and the context confirms it, which there are treating of Afflictions, and our need of patience, ver. 25. immediately before, and ver. 28. immediate­ly after this passage) that in our afflictions we should never wait with patience, ver. 25. if the Spirit did not help our inf [...]rmities to bear up un­der them; but we should immediately pray to be delivered (as St. Paul did, 2 Cor. 12. 8, 9.) though it were not best for us; and indeed we often ask amiss, and know not what to pray for as we ought, especially when we consult the flesh. Therefore the Holy Spirit here is [Page 152] asserted as only an Internal Intercessor (for ex­ternally to intercede for us is Christ's Office) and that not by dictating words, but by stir­ring up in us holy desires, and by giving us a sense of our wants, and patience with faith, submission, and devotion. In this consists the Spirit of Prayer, and is not only consistent with, but assisted by a Form of Prayer, and of fit ex­pressions: And what is all this to the rendring the Lord's Prayer, or any publick or private Forms of Prayer useless? or to countenance ex­tempore Prayers in God's publick and ordinary Worship? or mens fathering the impertinences and disorders of such effusions upon the Spirit of God? yet Oh! what strange Castles in the Ayr do's this Quaker, and other Separatists attempt to build upon this mistaken pas­sage?

Par.

But what is the reason, T. E. charges you with mis-stating the Case in declaiming a­gainst the Impossibility of sinning? p. 83.

Min.

This he do's very abusively as here, so in other places, pag. 85, 95. but let him know, 'tis no mis-stating the Case at all; because all that I have said there is concerned in it, while all is too little to oppose the presumptions of many Quakers, and all such Perfectionists, as look up­on themselves, as out of danger.

Par.

I perceive, he makes it his business, to represent your denying Perfection in his sense, to be a discouraging men from striving against sin and Satan, which is the main thing he urges, p. 83, 84, 99.

We say indeed, that our victory over these Enemies shall not be so compleat, as ne­ver to be disadvantaged by them any more in this World: This whole life is a warfare; This World is a wrestling place, and our Enemy is in the Field (as my Adversary confesses;) And we tell Men, that while the Battel endures, the conquest is not absolutely compleated; for if it were, what need were there of more fight­ing? the warfare then were ended: This whole life is a Race, 1 Cor. 9. 24. And while we are running, we are not yet at the Goal. To tell men of their being absolute Conquerors, while our Adversaries are in Arms, is to make them secure, before they are safe: No Man can boast, till he put his Armour off, 1 Kings 20. 11. And 'tis the Evening that Crowns the Day. Yet we teach, that if Christians be watchful, and use God's Grace aright, they shall not be mor­tally wounded in the Battel, but gain ground of the Enemy more and more, and get the upper hand in this life: The House of Saul in them (as I may so speak) shall grow weaker and weaker, and the House of David shall grow stronger and stronger; and they shall be absolute Conquerors at the last.

We do not deny, but that Christians may and must get a comfortable conquest over their Cor­ruptions, and proceed forwards towards a total overthrow: And this is encouragement sufficient, that (if they be faithful) they shall daily be on the winning and prevailing hand: as men in wrestling with the distempers of their Bodies, are not discouraged, if they know, [Page 154] they may daily get ground of them, and arrive at a comfortable State of health, though they know, they can never arrive at the most per­fect State of health in this life. A Scholar is not discouraged in his Studies, though be knows he can never be free from all ignorance; yet be­cause he may make a very great progress in Learning, and daily be on the improving hand, he seeketh as much learning as he can attain with a comfortable vigour and industry: A Christian may much more comfortably pur­sue Perfection, because he is assured he shall one day compass it, that is, in Heaven; There it is, where we shall find our selves s [...]ved to the uttermost, according to Heb. 7. 25 which is absurdly applied by the Quaker, p. 96. to this present State. So that we may comfortably labour after such acquests and perfections, as are not attainable here below, because our grow­ing endeavours here shall be rewarded with those perfections hereafter; Witness the Apo­stles, who pressed forward towards the Mark, and to attain the Resurrection of the dead, &c. And who seeketh not to grow to a State of Man­hood in Divine knowledge, though that which is perfect cometh not in our present State here, where we know but in part, 1 Cor. 13. 9, &c? Moreover it is themost pressing encouragement, that can be exprest, to Christians, in this life to their Duty, and assault their Spiritual E­nemies with all their might, and in that vi­gour to abound more and more, when they are told, that they shall not only receive the Prize, an Incorruptible Crown of Glory, but [Page 155] also an higher degree of Glory, according to the higher degrees of their increasing vi [...]tues, and their growing valour, and holy [...]ortitude in this life, 1 Cor. 15. 41.

Par.

But it is in God's Power to free men wholly from sin here; And to say, that a Man cannot be perfectly cured of sin in this life, is to reflect upon the Ability of the Physician: at this rate T. E. argues, p. 86.

Min.

We do not question God's Power, but His Will in this matter; because we do not find any promise for us to expect, that He should make use of his Omnipotence to this purpose. Hear what Tertullian answers to an old Heretick, who made this very objection; verily nothing is difficult to God; but if we shall so abruptly apply this Maxime to all our own presumptions, we may feign what we will of the Terr. adv. Prax. Cap. 10. Almighty, as if he had done it, because he can do it. God is the Physician of our Bodies, as well as of our Souls; And yet it do's not re­flect upon His Ability at all, that we are troubled with many Bodily Diseases; Only it shews, that we are not to enjoy our perfect health and happiness here on Earth; thus our Saviour cured no diseased Bodies to an Immortal State, exempt from all bodily infirmity, in that they dyed after notwithstanding.

Par.

I confess you never pleaded, that the Enemy should overcome, as T. E. falsly suggests, p. 88, 89. But he reflects upon your saying I have a false and treacherous heart, p. 90. and makes it an absurdity to suppose by that say­ing, that a Regenerate man hath such an heart, p. 91.

Solomon saith Prov. 28. 26. He that trusteth in his own heart, is a fool: Now that which is not to be trusted, hath a least some degrees of falshood remainning in it. Solomon says elsewhere, Keep thy heart with all dili­gence; And our Lord bids us, Watch and pray, Prov. 4. 23. Mat. 26. 41. &c. Now surely that which has need of so much keeping, and watching, is not to be trusted without it; otherwise it would not need it. From this disease we shall not be wholly free, till in Body and Soul we become immortal, saith St. Augustine. And all orthodox Chri­stians In Psal. 19. did ever hold the Flesh and its inclina­tions (though in some degrees mortified) to remain even in regenerate men: Every Man has Flesh in him opposed to the Spirit, to keep him in exercise in this State of Trial, as is evident, not only by Gal. 5. 17. but by the experience of all truly humble Christians; who will ab­hor all presumptuous boastings, while they find, that though the Spirit be willing, yet the flesh is weak; though the Spirit be sincere, yet the flesh is treacherous; because (saith the Apostle) these are contrary the one to the other. And the fleshly part in Man is in the Holy Scripture fre­quently called the Heart; so that T. E. had no reason to fall so rigidly upon this passage in the Conference.

Par.

I will only mind you of one conclusion, which he draws from Rom. 8. 1. [There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, &c.] If there be no condemnation to them (says he) there is no sin committed by them; for wheresoever there is sin, there is also condem­nation, p. 97.

A strange Conclusion indeed! which if true, would damn T. E. and all mankind: This is Socinianism in the highest degree. What? No redemption? no pardon for Penitents? Has Christ's death done no good to the avoiding of Condemnation? then wo be to all the World. But T. E. has found a better way to Heaven, (viz.) by being so perfectly free from sin, that God cannot justly condemn him: And hence in this whole Chapter he avoids all mention of Christ's Merits, and Satisfaction, and of Re­mission of sins, &c. Laying the foundation of his Title to Heaven, upon a perfect freedom from sin in this life, p. 92. The Popish Doctrine of Merits is short of this, which takes in Christ's Merits to their own, as giving value to them: but T. E. being in a greater degreee ignorant of God's Righteousness, goes about to establish his own, Rom. 10. 3. But let him know (if this be his opinion) that a possibility of not sinning will not serve his turn, but an actual and total free­dom from it; If he commit but the least sin, he must be condemned according to his own Position. For wheresoever there is sin (says he) there is also condemnation. God grant that he may not be dealt with according to the mea­sures of his own Principles, but that he may rather see his error to his Conversion, than feel the sad effect of it to his Condemna­tion.

The rest of his discourse on this subject is spent in artifices, to render me, and my Doctrine odious: but upon the Principles I have already laid down (in the stating of this Case of Per­fection) [Page 158] they will appear neither to need, nor deserve an Answer.

Par.

But there is one thing, which must not be omitted: T. E. thinks you, and others, who set your selves in opposition to this truly Gospel Doctrine of being perfectly deliver'd and preserved from sin, to be as the Evil Spies, who discouraged the heart of the Children of Israel, that they should not go into the Land which the Lord had given them, &c. p. 98, 99.

Min.

The Quaker has brought this compa­rison to his Disadvantage; Did the Good Spies Ioshuah and Caleb ever tell the Children of Israel (as T. E. do's the Quakers) that they should get such a perfect victory over those Canaanites, as that no remainders of them should be left to disturb and vex them any more? No such thing; but the Scriptures tell them the contrary, just as we do to Christians con­cerning their Spiritual Enemies; See Deut. 7. 22.—thou mayst not consume them at once; and in matter of fact 'tis evident they were not whol­ly driven out, or consumed. 'Tis the Quakers therefore, and not Ours, that is the discouraging Doctrine; For [...]f a perfect freedom from all sins and infirmities here, be taught as the ne­cessary condition of obtaining Heaven hereafter; then all humble Souls sincerely thirsting after Righteousness, standing upon their constant watch, and yet finding imperfections, wants and infirmities in themselves, will (if they believe this Doctrine) be driven into inevita­ble despair. There are sins of Omission, as well as of Commission; How many accidents [Page 159] may hinder us from performing our Devo­tions with that vigour, intentness, and ex­actness, as the purity and sublimity of the Precepts do require? The very Constitu­tions of our Sunt & quaedam non hu­manae sim­pliciter naturae, sed huic & nunc ine­vitabilia, ob Corpo­ris con­cretio­nem in a­nimam transeun­tem, aut adultam consue­tudinem, &c. Grot. de jore belli. l. 2. c. 20. Bodies, the influence of the Clime and Season, may hinder the perfor­mance of our Duties with an exact Bonum non nisi ex integro, malum ex qualibet parte. per­fection. And therefore we flee to God for Mercy in the performance of our best Ser­vices; See Nehem. 13. 14, 22. So that they do most effectually keep Men from coming to Heaven, who build this fools Paradise of imaginary unsinning Perfection for them to dwell in on Earth; wherein they grow so proud, and conceited, that they sit down on this side Iordan, and fansie they have no need of Ioshua to conduct them into the true Land of Promise; In effect they deny the Gospel, despise the death of Christ, rely on their own Perfection, and (I fear) tumble into Hell, while they vainly dream of Heaven.

CHAP. VI. Of Swearing.

Par.

NOW we are come to T. E's. Chap­ter of Swearing, which is so very long, that it consists of no less than 104. pages, therefore I shall only propound to you the most material passages in it.

He begins with a reflexion on that short digression, which you made upon the two Covenants, and very gravely tells us, that you tread in an unbeaten Path, p. 101.

Min.

Had he been acquainted with Authors, and not taken things upon trust, he would not have accused the account I gave off the two Covenants as a peculiar Notion o [...] my own, when the same has been asserted by the greatest Clerks in Christendom: I could fill a Page with Citations of such Authors (if it were needful) as concurr in the same Notion: I shall only name two (viz.) Dr. Ham­mond in his Practical Catechism, and the ex­cellent Author of the Whole Duty of Man, in the Preface of that same Treatise: which when T. E. hath consulted, he will be be satisfied, that I have trodden in no unbeaten Path: But seeing T. E. will have it my own Notion, and there being so much matter before us upon this Subject of Oaths, which in the Conference was primarily intended, I will pass on to that, and examine my Adversaries Ob­jections [Page 161] and extravagances on this Sub­ject.

Par.

He would gladly clear R. Hubberthorn from that impertinence and dishonesty, where with you charged him; in acknowledging Oaths lawful in the times of the Old Testa­ment: yet alledging Hos. 4. 3. Zech. 5. 3. (Texts out of the Old Testament) to prove them unlawful now; which (he says) you call his proofs, though he do not so himself, and hints, as if they were only set in the Title-page of the Book, p. 106.

Min.

However they were at first in the Ti­tle-page, See Hub­berthorn's Works Printed together. I found them in the Book it self. And if they be not Proofs, what are they then? So here is an implicit acknowledgment of a Quaker's bringing Scripture to prove nothing.

Par.

He thinks you mistake the Case; for they are not (says he) brought against that which was then lawful, but against that which was then unlawful, namely, the wrong use and a­buse of Oaths, ibid.

Min.

Wonderful ingenuity! I thought the question had not been, Whether perjury, but whether any Oaths were lawful? Now to what end is a quotation brought, but to prove the Subject in hand? In a word then, I desire the Quakers to take notice, that these Scriptures (viz. Hos. 4. 3. Zech. 5. 3.) do not reprove all Oaths as unlawful.

Par.

You told me, that an Oath is an Act of Natural Religion; but he tells us, that all acts of Religion are not acts of Natural Religion, [Page 162] as in the case of Circumcision, p. 110.

Min.

'Tis very true, that all such acts of Religion, as owe their original to a Positive Command, and have no reason in the na­ture of the thing to put mankind upon the ob­servation of them, as in the case of Circumcision, these are not acts of Natural Religion; for T. E. may read the definition of Natural Reli­gion in Bishop Wilkins's Discourse upon that Subject, pag. 39. That is Natural Religion, which Men might know, and should be obliged unto by the meer Principles of Reason improved by consideration and experience, without the help of Revelation. Now an Oath came in­to use among men from the meer Principles of Reason improved by consideration, without the help of Revelation. So that if an Oath be an Act of Religion, it must be an act or part of Natural Religion. For the first that ever required an Oath was Abimelech a Gen­tile, Gen. 21. 23. He required Abraham to swear; And Abraham said, I will swear, ver. 24. Yet we read not, that either Abimelech's requiring, or Abraham's consenting to it, was by any positive command from God: So that T. E. must grant, that Men were led to bind their Covenants by a solemn calling of God to wit­ness, and that by the light of Nature, of which more anon. But when I say, an Oath is an act or part of Natural Religion, I do not insist, that it is by Natural Religion commanded pri­marily, simply and per se towards God; but sub­ordinately, implicitly and by consequence, as a necessary medium for the publick good in this [Page 163] state of things: For the Law of Nature, that commands the end, must also command the only means; So that the use of an Oath is commanded by the Law of Nature ex hypothesi, or from a supposition that it is necessary for the publick good; just in the same sense, that Ma­gistrates are commanded by the same Law to make Penal Laws against Vice: But if we were perfectly innocent, neither the one nor the other would be commanded. You may remember I told you in the Conference, that if there were that truth in men that their bare testimony were infallible, and of sufficient cre­dit, Conf. p. 61. then there were no need at all of an Oath. So that we are commanded by the Law of Na­ture to use Oaths only upon just and necessary occasions. And thus I assert (what I did be­fore in the Conference) that an Oath (rightly taken) that is (as every honest man will un­derstand me, and as I interpreted my self) duly circumstantiated, and taken in truth, in judgment and in righteousness, is an Act of Na­tural Jer. 4. 2. Religion, and understood plainly by the light of Nature to comprehend a great deal of Religion in it, as having God for the imme­diate object of that appeal, which therein is made to Him, and by which so many of the Divine Attributes are acknowledged and glo­rified, as I shew'd you in the Conference. And an Oath being such, and so needful to the ends of justice and charity, it remains (as I said) that it is not made unlawful by the Doctrine of Christ, who has prohibited nothing, that hath so much of Morality and goodness in it.

But T. E. (lest he should not be under­stood) hath put in a Marginal Note in order to the explaining what Natural Religion means, viz. The word Natural hath divers acceptations, for there is Pure Nature, Corrupt Nature, and the Divine Nature, ibid.

Min.

These may be the senses of the word [Nature;] but would any but a Natural have brought in these to expound Natural Religion? Let us apply it thereto, and then there is Pure Natural Religion, Corrupt Natural Religion, and Divine Natural Religion: Rare distinctions! Besides, how comes the Divine Nature to be a sense of the word [Natural?] Is Natural ever used for the Divine Nature? or are the Saints, who are partakers of it, any where called Natural men? One would suspect T. E. was not in his right mind, when he put down this lamentable Note.

Par.

T. E. tells us, you enumerate many at­tributes of God, which are acknowledged by an Oath; to which (he says) no other answer need be given, than that the Divine Attributes are acknowledged by speaking the truth without an Oath, p. 112.

Min.

Having mudded the Waters by his Captious-exceptions, he thinks to escape un­discern'd, and to put off the whole force of my reasoning, Conf. p. 57, 58. with this fallacious and sleight reply, but we must not part so.

What though a Man may believe the Attri­butes of God in his heart, while he speaks the truth, yet do's he so openly, and so solemnly acknowledge them, as he that immediately [Page 165] calls God to witness by an Oath? Speaking truth is not so particularly directed unto God; but an Oath rightly taken, or duly circumstan­tiated is so direct an application to God, and we do so particularly ascribe a Divinity to that we swear by, that Lactantius affirms, Socrates his swearing by a Goose and a Dog was an ac­knowledgment of those Creatures being his Gods. And Tertullian plainly gives this Lact. de sal. sap. cap. 20. reason, why the Primitive Christians would not swear by the Genius of the Emperor, lest they should thereby own them to be Gods. And hence Authors generally make solemn Oaths Apolog. cap. 32. to be Acts of Religion, and One sort of the worship of God. So Sanderson, De ju­ram. prae­sec. 1. §. 2 Pareus, In Rom. 9. 1. Cbemnitius, Loci com. de Lege Dei. &c. But none can say thus of speaking bare truth; and therefore the diffe­rence is very great; that being an Act of Mo­ral vertue, but this an Act of the incommuni­cable Worship of God; that being directed to a Man, this to the true and Living God.

Par.

But T. E. has a way to avoid this by telling us, that God is more Glorified by having redeemed a People from perfidiousness, treachery, and falshood, &c. who can now speak truth every man with his neighbour. ibid.

Min.

Though the price of our Redemption be of infinite value; yet if men improve not the Grace, which was purchased for them, this fault (which is in them, and not in Christ's Redemption) will spoil the Quaker's Argu­ment. Are all Men, are all Quakers them­selves purged from hypocrisie, &c.? If they [Page 166] be not, T. E. has said nothing to purpose against the use of solemn and Legal Oaths.

Par.

He tells us now, that from Reason you are come to Consent of Nations, your second Me­dium to prove swearing an Act of Religion; and here he bids his Reader observe, that you have wholly let go your hold of Natural Religion, ibid.

Min.

You may remember, my words were these (which I suppose he durst not cite for fear of exposing himself) I shall resume the Method propos'd, and prove, that an Oath is an Act of Religion, out of the Light of Nature and Consent of Nations, &c. And is not that, which Conf. p. 59. Omni au­tem in re consensus omnium gentium lex natu­rae putan­da est. Cic. Tusc. qu. lib. 1. [...]. Heraclitus See Gro­tius de jure bel. and pa. l. 1. c. 1. p. 12. can be proved an Act of Religion out of the light of Nature, and by the Consent of Na­tions, an Act of Natural Religion? what bet­ter way, nay, what other way to prove it? Is this letting go my hold of Natural Religion, when I prove it by an instance of Religion e­vident in the Light of Nature with special precept or institution? What mark will T. E. assign us to distinguish it from an Act of Posi­tive Religion, according to his own distinction, p. 110.? So that you see here how unfairly he deals with me, which surely he would ne­ver have done, had he thought, that the Books would ever have been compared toge­ther.

Par.

As to those instances, which you gave of Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca, affirming an Oath an Act of Religion out of the light of Nature; He carps only at your Quotation in Seneca, who says, that Religion is the chief [Page 167] Bond of fidelity in the Militia; where he ob­serves that Seneca do's not say, that an Oath is the chief bond, but Religion; and that you would perswade your Readers, that by [Reli­gion is meant an Oath, p. 113.

Min.

Had T. E. read the place in Seneca, surely he would not so grossly have abused himself; The whole Sentence is this, Even as the first bond of fidelity in the Militia is Reli­gion, and the love of the Ensigns, and the wic­kedness of running away, and then afterwards other things are easily required and commanded to those who are bound by an Oath: Nothing Ser. p. 369. plainer, than that he calls that Oath, with which Souldiers are bound, Religion; And so do many other Authors. If T. E. have none but Rider by him in the Country, or his Capaci­ty extend no higher; let him look [Religio] there, and he will find these words, viz. Cic. in Flacoum, Religioni suae consulere, i. e. fidei & Sacramento militari. And I think it makes much to my purpose, that the Romans did not call an Oath barely Religious, but Religion it self, as I could prove by more instances, were there occasion for it.

Par.

Well, he is resolved to attack all your instances together, and accordingly charges you with saying, those testimonies do signifie the universal Consent of Mankind in this Point. Do they so? (says he) What, three men (one Greek, and two Romans) to represent all Na­tions, and signifie the Universal Consent of Man­kind! &c. ibid.

He cannot be ignorant, that my words were not applied only to those three mens testimonies, but were a reply to your general question, Why I alledged the testimonies of Hea­then Authors to prove a Christian duty? I an­swer'd you, that those testimonies do signifie the universal Consent of Mankind, &c. That is, the Testimonies of Heathen Authors in general. Wherefore I said [Those] not [These,] as Conf. p. 60. he most falsly and injuriously cites my words, when he has got a little further off, pag. 116. As if I had meant the testimony of these three alone, when I plainly spake of all those testi­monies, which might be produced from Hea­then Authors, of which these three were the most eminent and plain; And since other Proofs and Examples are so numerous, I thought these might suffice, otherwise I could have cited three hundred as well as three; but indeed this is the first time a Man was e­ver required to bring in an induction of all Authors in the World to prove the consent of all mankind. I could fill a whole Volume with the religious manner of the Gentiles taking Oaths, being in solemn Cases accompa­nied with Sacrifices and devoting themselves to the justice of their Deities, if they did of­fend Liv. l. 1. and l. 21.. And so the Samnites and Arcadians custom was to take their Oaths in the midst of their Divine Worship A [...]ex. ab Al. lib. 5. c. 10.. At Rome a Magistrate could not enjoy his place longer than five days without taking an Oath, as Livy witnesses. Among the Athenians the Iudges took an Oath to judge according to Law, and so did they [Page 169] in Aegypt, as Alex. ab Alex. tells us, lib. 3. cap. 5. But if Names delight my Adversary, let him read for brevity sake that Author lib. 5. cap. 10. who shews all Nations used to swear by what they accounted their Gods and esteemed most sacred, where he reckons up the old Grecians, Athenians, Thebeans, yea (which will stumble T. E.) the Scythians, the Massagetes, Cappadocians, Persians, Aegyptians, Ethiopians, Armenians, Africans, Indians, &c. all agreeing to Take Oaths; only diffe­ring as much in what they swore by, as they did in their opinions of their Gods; all a­greeing in this, that an Oath was a Religious Act, and only to be appropriate to the most Sacred thing, and that which they did most highly venerate. Surely T. E. is not a Stran­ger to that famous Story of Marcus Attilius Regulus, who took an Oath of the Carthagi­nians (whose Captive he was) that, if they would give him his liberty to return to Rome, he would either send them the contracted Sum for his Ransome, or deliver up himself in­to their hands again; and because he could not effect the former, he did the latter, which cost him his life. And do's not 1 Kings 18. 10. sufficiently prove my Assertion? where good Obadiah speaks thus to Elijah, As the Lord thy God liveth, there is No Nation or Kingdom, whither my Lord hath not sent to seek thee: and when they said, He is not there, he took an OATH of the Kingdom and Nation, that they found thee not,

But T. E. tells his Reader, that to she [...] the rashness of your inconsiderate assertion, he will give you some instances to the contrary. The first (says he) shall be of Solon, one of the Sages of Greece: A good man should have that re­pute, as not to need an Oath: It is a diminution of his credit to be put to swear, p. 114.

Min.

Solon's saying, as it is recorded by Diogenes Laert. (the best preserver of these Antiquities) has no more than [...] In vit. sol. p. 40. [...], that is, Account Honesty surer than an Oath; And how do's this prove an Oath to be no Act of Religion? Samuel saith, Obedience is better than Sacrifice; 1 Sam. 15. 22. but will▪ T. E. bring that to prove, Sacrifice was [...] Act of Religion in Samuel's time? And that Solon did not dislike Oaths, is plain from what Plutarch reports in his Life, That when he had given Laws to the Athenians, He caused the Senate and all the People to come into the Market-place, and bind themselves by an OATH Vit. Solo­ [...]is. to observe them.

Par.

I see T. E. has lost one of the seven Wise men of Greece at the very first reincounter▪ but to him he adds Sosiades (another of those seven Wise men;) whose saying was, Abstain from an Oath, ibid

Min.

Had he told us where to have found that saying, that the occasions and circum­stances of itmight have been consider'd, he might have expected a fuller answer than now can be given: Why may not this relate only to vain swearing? But this I must tell him, that no [Page 171] such man as Sosiades was ever reckon'd among the seven Wise men of Greece. Had but T. E. consulted his Friend Rider, he would have in­formed him, that Solon, Thales, Periander, Cleobulus, Chilon, Bias and Pittacus were the seven Wise men of Greece; but mentions no such Man as Sosiades: However if he was a Wise man of Greece, he was the Eighth, and Tho. Ellwood deserves to be reckon'd the Ninth for the discovery.

Par.

His next instance is in Cherillus, whose saying was, No Oath ought to be used, neither a just one, nor an unjust one, ibid.

Min.

To this I answer, if Cherillus thought all Oaths bad in themselves, how comes he to account some Oaths just? and if the saying be taken in the Quaker's sense, it is contradiction in its very terms: So that this Quaker's Au­thor will come off as poorly as another Che­rillus, who (as Rider tells us) ‘presented Alexander the Great with a Poem, that had only seven good verses in it, the rest be­ing stark naught; whereupon the Prince or­der'd, he should have seven Pieces of Gold for the good Verses, and a buffet for every bad Verse:’ If T. E. were so served, that is, if he were to have a piece of Gold for eve­ry good Section of his Book, and a Buffet for every bad one, I perswade my self he would find, that he had purchas'd his Gold at a very dear rate.

Par.

Next he Quotes the saying of Epicte­tus, Refuse an Oath, if possible, altogether; if not, by things obvious, ibid.

This is a Quotation little to his pur­pose, it being evident, that he speaks not of solemn Oaths, especially in Judicature, where it was never the custom to require Oaths by things obvious, but always by the Name of the Gods; And to confirm that Epictetus was not against Oaths on a serious occasion, Arrianus his Auditor, who writ this Enchiridion, and Simplic. proaem. Com­ment. also larger Discourses from Epictetus's own mouth, brings in the Philosopher solemnly swearing in his Lectures; one instance may suffice, [...], &c. And verily by Iove and the Gods one Creature were enough to make a modest and grateful man sensi­ble Lib. 1. cap. 16. of a Providence.

Par.

But T. E. says, Plato is more positive, A­way (saith he) with an Oath altogether, ibid.

Min.

Plato is a large Author, and if T. E. had told us whereabouts he said so, we might have considered the occasion and truth of this saying: Indeed hetorbids the using the Names of their Gods lightly [...] plato de legibus lib. 11. p. 917. or without a necessary occasion: But what makes this against solemn Swearing (upon a due occasion) by the True God? And if he say any where, Away with an Oath altogether, he must not be understood o­therwise than of Common swearing, for these reasons. First, He was three times listed a Souldier in the Athenian Wars, among whom it was the Custom to bind their Souldiers with an Oath at their entrance into the Service. Diog. Laer. vit. p. 191. collarcum A­lex. ab Al. l. 1. cap. 20. in fine. Secondly, we find him frequently swearing by Iove, and by God, whenever he is earnestly pressing any thing. [...], [Page 173] & [...], being as familiar in his Apol. pro Socrate, Critone, Phaedo [...]e, &c. as Verily, verily in the Gospel, of which I will engage to give 100 examples. Thirdly, He advises, that a Law might be made, that no Iudge should exe­cute his Office, unless he was sworn. [...] De legib. lib. 12. p. 948. And though he thinks it inconvenient to administer Oaths in some Cases, and to some peculiar persons that are presum'd to have great t [...]mptations to Perjure themselves; yet you may [...]nd that he allows Oaths (as to Judges, so) to several other persons, if you consult his 12th Fock of Laws. Let it be lawful (says he) for Stran­gers that cannot agree among themselves, to take, and administer Oaths, if they please, as it is the Custom of these times. [...]. Id. ibid. p. 949. So that it Plato any where forbid serious Oaths, he is strangely in­consistent with himself.

Par.

Menander (T. E. says) is little less po­sitive, So avoid evil swearing, as not to swear in things just and true, ibid.

Min.

The Greek is this [...]. But neither this, nor T. E's English do at all oppose solemn Swearing in necessary Cases; for it is vain and common swearing to all truths in discourse, that brings men to such a custom, that by degrees they learn to swear any thing true or false; and therefore to escape this evil Custom, we should resolve to avoid all swearing to what we ordinarily [Page 174] say: And this same Menander, to make men careful of solemn Oaths when they did take them, saith, When thou swearest falsly, think not to conceal it from the Gods. apud Stobaeum.

Par.

But T. E. says, Plutarch tells them, It was unlawful for Jupiter's Priests to swear. ibid.

Min.

I suppose he means, that it was their priviledge to be exempted from an Oath; For they who write upon that matter do tell us so (viz.) that it was the peculiar priviledge of the Flamen Dialis to be excepted; which plainly implies, that other sorts of Men were obliged to the taking of Oaths; Nay not so much as the Pon­tifex Max. wax excepted; and if the Flamen Dia­lis was to be chosen to any peculiar office, he was to swear by Proxy. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 5. cap. 10.

By the Law of England a Nobleman is not obliged to give evidence upon Oath: Do's this argue, that the Law looks upon an Oath as evil? Nay Noblemen themselves are not exempted in all Cases; for they cannot take upon them the execution of a Will without taking an Oath. Stat. 21. H. 8. 15. In an old Council held at Berkhamstead Anno 700. cap. 17. It is ordained, that the word of a King and Bishop (without an Oath) shall be irrefragable: Will T. E. hence argue, that an Oath was not then accounted an Act of Religion in this Nation? He himself seems to reckon the wearing of Black in mourning for the dead among the religious actions of the Heathens, pag. 117. and yet that also was forbid to Iupiter's Priests. Aul. Gell. lib. 10. cap. 15. So that you may see, how glad the Quakers are to take hold of any twig to save a linking cause; but it will not do.

He tells us further, that Fimicus said to Lol­lianus, Neither take an Oath, nor require one, p. 115.

Min.

I suppose here's some mistake, and that he means some other person; for I never heard or read of such a man as Fimicus; and therefore am not so well prepared to answer the objecti­on. But himself having stated [Oath] indefi­nitely, may relate to an Oath in Converse, as well as to such as are tender'd upon a serious and so­lemn occasion.

Par.

His last instance is out of Polybius, who says, In the better and simpler Ages of the World Oaths were seldom used in Iudicature; but after that perfidy and lying encreased, the use of Oaths encreased, ibid.

Min.

If Oaths were seldom used in Judica­ture, do's it necessarily follow that they were never used in Judicature? Polybius writ his Hi­story 200 years before Christ's time; So that we must look to the very beginning of the Roman State (whose History he writes) for these bet­ter and simpler Ages; Let us go back as far as Numa, Successor to Romulus (which was the best and simplest Age of that State:) He (says Li­vy) Had endued the Breasts of all with that Pie­ty, that fidelity and an Oath without the fear of Laws and punishment did rule the whole City Ea pic­tate om­nium pectora imbuerat, ut Fides ac Jusjurandum, propulso legum ac paenarum meru, civitatem regerent. Liv. hist. lib. 1. Dec. 1. In those Ages there were fewer Men and fewer Causes, and therefore fewer Oaths: but neither Polybius nor any other can say truly, that in any Age they were wholly useless. And indeed this [Page 176] Quotation is so far from being to the Quaker's business, that it is directly against him, it pro­ving that Oaths were then Used, though but seldom.

Par.

Yet T. E. bids his Reader judge by these instances, whether the more virtuous and honest sort of Heathens did esteem an Oath to be an Act of Natural Religion (that is) whether they ac­counted it of a Religious nature in it self. ibid.

Min.

Where do's any of those Instances de­ny it? The strictest of them and the most po­sitive cannot with any reason be interpreted to signifie any more than either a Dehortation from that falslhood which was the occasion of them, or a Caution against evil swearing, that is, against false, irreverent, and needless Oaths. Is this to consute my Assertion? Let us try in a parallel Case: Excommunication is an Act of Religion; Now if I should bring many who say, it must not be used Lightly, and some who forbid to use it at all inslight manner, many who say, a Good man needs not to be excommuni­cated, and some, with Polybius, who tell us, that in the best and simplest Ages of the Church it was seldom used, but when Heresies and im­pieties encreased, the use of Excommunication encreased also: Doth this prove Excommuni­cation to be no Act of Christian Religion? All this is true, and yet all Christians continue the use of it, and the Quakers have something like it, pag. 26. Let any Man judge, if T. E. reason well, or have got the victory.

That an Oath (duly circumstantiated) is an Act of Natural Religion, & of a Religious nature in [Page 177] it self, I proved before, in that it glorifies God in the acknowledgment of His Attributes: For to make any action of a Religious nature, it's sufficient that the Attributes of God are Glori­fied in the thing that is done, notwithstanding the occasion of the Action be but rare and acci­dental; and though it be no prescribed way of the constant Worship of God, but secondary and occasional in the designation of it; yet it is real, when thus occasioned and performed with reve­rence to the Divine NAME.

Par.

From instances of Particular Persons, he gives one of a Nation in general, namely the Scythians, whose Embassadors treating with A­lexander the Great, thus deliver themselves, Think not that the Scythians confirm their Amity by Oaths; They swear by keeping their Word: That it▪ is the security of the Greeks, who Seal Deeds and call upon their Gods. We are bound by our very promise. p. 115, 116.

Min.

This is one of the fairest Quotations I see in his Book; and to this I have much to an­swer. First, This very saying declares, that it was (however) the custom of the Greeks to seal Deeds, & to swear by calling on their Gods; yea that swearing is a Calling upon God, which overthrows all his Greek Authorities before produced. Secondly, The Embassadors say not, they never swore; only they confirmed not their Amity [or Leagues] by Oaths. In other Cases the Scythians did swear by their King's Throne, by the Wind, or their Sword. Alex. ab Al. lib. 5. c. 10. And in­deed they worshipped their Sword, and so might well swear by it. The Scythians hang­ing [Page 178] up a Sword are wont to sacrifice to it as to Mars Clem. Alex. protrept.. Mars is the God of this people, and instead of an Image they worship a Sword Solinus de Scy­this.. Thirdly, One in­stance (especially of so barbarous [...] Chrvsost. in Oratio­ne, Chri­stum De­um esse. a Nation as the Scythians, who were without Towns or Houses) do's not overthrow a Law of Nature; nor do's the exception of some few rude people make a thing to be no Act of Religion, which the more knowing and more General Part of Mankind observe as such. I hope T. E. will not deny that Incest is against the Law of Na­ture, yet there were some whole Nations Persae. Medi, In­di, & Ae­thiopes­cum ma­trib [...]s & aviis, cum filiabus & neptibus copulantur. Hieron. in Jo­vin. lib. 2. that allowed it. Iustice is (saith T. E.) a part of Natural Religion, p. 117. yet among the Spar­tans it was commendable to steal Plutarch in vit. Lycurgi.. And the old Spaniards account Robbery not only Lawful, but Glorious Plut. in vit. Ma­ [...]ii.. To Worship the Supreme God is con­festly the Main of Natural Religion, yet the Chi­neses Semedo hist. Chin. p. 18. and Tartars Jo. Plano Carpini­lib. hist. de Tartar. cap. 3. were sunk so much below the principles of Natural Light, that they gave no worship at all to Him, whom they ac­counted so. So that if it were true (as it is not) that the Scythians did never swear, it will not at all follow [...] Andron. Rbodius. from thence, that Swearing is no part of Natural Religion; since the Gene­rality [Page 179] of Mankind has used it as such. And now after so many discoveries of Ellwood's Untruths and Sophistries, I may justly retort his own question here upon himself, Might he not have come off with less shame, if he had used more modesty? p. 116.

Par.

That Oaths were used among the Hea­then, and by many of them reputed Religious, T. E. at length denies not; but this (says he) do's not prove, that Oaths were Acts of Natural Religion, ibid. And tells us, It is evident, that the Heathen borrowed many Ceremonies from their Neighbours the Iews, p. 117.

Min.

You have been shewed that the first Oath that is mention'd, was tender'd by Abi­melech (an Heathen) to Abraham, and ac­cepted of and taken by him, before any posi­tive Law was given about it. So that to these things I answer (First) All real acts of Reli­gion used by the Heathen, must be Acts of Na­tural Religion, because they were under no Po­sitive Commands. Rom. 2. 14. (Secondly) Though All, that some particular Persons or people among the Heathen did account Reli­gious actions, were not really so; yet that which is so, not only in the suffrage of the most sober Heathen, and such an universal Consent of Na­tions, as I have proved, but also was used as an Act of Religion, by invocation of God as Wit­ness, not only by Abimelech, but by the Holy Patriarchs, before (I say) any Positive Law was given about it, must needs be an Act of Natural Religion, as being dictated by nothing else, but the Universal Law of Nature. This [Page 180] is so plain, that I hope, T. E. himself will be so ingenuous, as to consider of it.

But I have now a great complaint to make against him, That whereas (you may remem­ber) I gave you the Definition of an Oath, and told you, it was a religious appeal unto God, the seareher of all hearts, as a Witness of what w [...] Conf. p. 57. assert or promise, and the Avenger of Perjury; T. E. wholly passes this by; it being indeed for His interest so to do; while he well consider'd, How absurd it would have been for him to have denied, either that a Religious Appeal to God is an Act of Religion, or that (being granted to be so even in the Nature and Defini­tion of it) it is an Act of Natural Religion: So that the passing this by is plainly yielding the Cause.

Another thing I complain of as a grand O­mission is, that all this while he has given us no definition of his own, nor any such express description of an Oath, as to make us under­stand what he means by it: This is an Omission very injurious to Peace; for as he may state the Case, we may be as much against Oaths (in his sense) as himself.

Par.

I have often thought of this, yet (though I cannot excuse T. E's. passing by your defini­tion) if you mind, he has given one himself, though he do's not call it so; For he says An Oath is but the mode or manner of speaking truth, p. 118.

Min.

A false Oath is an Oath; but a false Oath (sure) is not a mode of speaking Truth: I suppose then he means, an Oath is a man­ner [Page 181] of asserting any thing, whether true or false.

Par.

And he tells us further, that The man­ner of performing this has been various; some­times by a bare affirmation; sometimes by an ad­ditional asseveration; sometimes by calling God verbally to witness; sometimes by an Imprecation on the Party himself; sometimes by putting the Hand under the Thigh; sometimes by lifting it up to Heaven; sometimes by laying it upon the Breast; sometimes by laying it upon the Altar; sometimes by laying it upon a Book; sometimes by Kissing the Book, &c. p. 118, 119.

Min.

Did ever Man tye unequal things toge­ther at this rate? Calling God to Witness, this is an Oath in the true nature and formal reason of it, and has an Imprecation either expresly ad­ded to it, or implied in it: but all the rest that follow, are neither various ways or modes of speaking Truth, nor essential to an Oath; but only modes, [or Signs rather] of Calling God to witness; and variable arbitrary Ceremonies of expressing an Oath. But the Oath it self, you must understand, is (in reference to Truth) the Confirmation of it, Heb. 6. 16. not a mode, nor ceremony of speaking it. As a vow is a Confirmation of virginity, and neither a Cere­mony nor a mode thereof. But among all these which he has given us as modes or ways of ex­pressing Truth, he has not shewed us, which of all these is an Oath.

Par.

He tells us, an Oath is made up out of them, p. 119.

He cannot mean, that it is made up of them all conjunct: For the first of these, viz. a bare single Affirmation, being single excludes all the rest; The second, viz. an Additional Asseveraton, stops there and goes no further; And those various Ceremonies of putting the Hand under the Thigh, lifting it up to Heaven, and the rest, cannot be supposed to have ever been used together in the same Oath; there­fore an Oath cannot be made up of all these con­junct: If so, then it can be but made up of some of them; but T. E. has not told us which of them he meant; neither what mode of speaking Truth an Oath is, nor of what modes it is made up.

Par.

But T. E. has one scruple which trou­bles him often, to which I pray, answer once for al [...]. Consider (says he) now, I pray, What act of Natural Religion is that, which, the more tru­ly Ex malis moribus bonae nas cuntur leges. Christian men become, the less need they have of it. And here he thinks he has Bishop Gauden of his side▪ Who lays the necessity of Oaths upon mens evil manners. Yea, he says▪ You confess Conf. p. 61. as much yourself: Which (as he thinks) plain­ly shews, that an Oath is not an Act▪ of Natural Religion, p. 120, 121.

Min.

That evil manners make Oaths more necessary, I did and still do consess; but all T. E's. inferences from thence rely on this false and rotten foundation; That no acts of Natural Religion can be founded upon mens evil manners. Repentance is an act of Natural Religion; yet the more truly Christian men become, and the more free from sin, the less need they have of it: [Page 183] But here in this passage of T. E's. we must di­stinguish between him that needs an Oath, and him that takes it; for the Holiest man may need a bad mans Oath to assure his testimony, &c. Ellwood confesses that Iustice is an Act of Natu­ral Religion (p. 118▪) and one part of it is called Distributive, which in all its Penal Acts depends wholly upon the ill manners of Men, as much as Oaths. The like may be said of Mercy, as to that part of it which forgives in­juries, &c. And yet the more truly Christian men become, the less need there would be of ei­ther of these. Yea St. Paul says concerning the Law, that it is not made for a righteous man, 1 Tim. 1. 9. [...], says De­monax in Lucian: And Constantius the Empe­ror, If it were possible all men could be Philoso­phers, there would be no need of Compulsion by Laws; for that which now they forbear out of Fear, they would then hate out of Iudgment Orat▪ pro The­mist. And much more I might cite to this purpose; but shall I therefore argue from hence, that Justice and Mercy, &c. are no moral virtues? Or that Oaths, like many other good Moral Acts, and Acts of Natural Religion, some in their own Nature, some in their immediate ends, are nothing else but Remedies against e­vil; Especially seeing T. E. himself (p. 118.) calls both these, viz. doing Iustice, and shew­ing Mercy Moral and eternal Precepts? Why then should he here exclude a duly circumstan­tiated Oath, which in its primary designation is an Act of Justice, as I told you in the Confe­rence?

But your second Proposition, That an Oath is an Act of necessary justice and charity to­wards men, and that in order to the ending of strife by Evidence, T. E. answers, that Evidence is necessary, but not an Oath; for Evidence may be given by a plain affirmation, &c. And that an Oath is therefore superfluous, p. 122.

Min.

I answer, that a bare Affirmation in­deed is an Evidence, but not so well assured: And he wilfully passes by the Answer I gave you to this in the Conference, which methinks might satisfie a Reasonable man, viz. That Conscience do's not dread all sins alike, &c. and that multitudes who fear not a Lye, yet do dread the solemnity of an Oath▪ and the horrour of Per­jury. Conf▪ p. 62. In opposing this he opposeth himself, for he seems to grant it pag. 119. However he opposeth common sense; for all men are more apt to believe those that are upon their Oaths, than if they were not.

Par.

But he says, that you must either deny, that there is in any man that truth, which may make his bare testimony of sufficient credit; or yield, that there are some men, from whom there is no need at all of an Oath, p. 124.

Min.

His consequence is not good; I grant there are some men, whose reputation may give great credit to their bare testimony: But in a case, where my life, credit, or estate is at stake, such an one (seeing he is not infallible) must not take it ill, that I require the utmost assurance that may be had, viz. his Oath; for I see his fact, Fronti nulla fi­der. but not his heart. By what certain mark shall we knowmens Integrity? And though [Page 185] some men may be satisfied concerning this or that mans veracity; yet others, who may be concern'd in his Testimony, may not be so: And if some men be believed in publick Evidence without an Oath; others, who are privy to their own Integrity, may censure this as partiality, if their Evidences be not so taken also; However ill disposed men will readily make it occasion of censure and Contention. And though I say not, All Oaths are infallible; yet this I say, that they are the highest and best security we can have in this World; and higher assurances we must not expect.

Par.

He abuses you also for saying in the Pro­phet Darid's words Psal. 116. All men are Ly­ars. p. 124. And tells us, that David indeed in his great Affliction let such an expression drop; but he quickly recalled himself, and confest it was spo­ken in haste: [Haste] I perceive he takes for rash­ness, and therefore says, You catcht up the word at a venture, ibid.

Min.

He has done so, I am sure; and has ac­cused me here as rashly as he fancies David ac­cused all Mankind. David said it in his haste, that is, when Saul was in pursuit of him, in fugâ in his flight, saith Gejerus, and Dr. Hammond on the place: When he was in haste, that is, hotly pursued by his Enemies, he then sound there Ego dixi inter fu­giendum. Chald. Paraphr. was no Truth in man; and therefore must rely on God, and not on the Arm of flesh. But sup­pose David had been guilty of this imperfection, and had spoken in haste according to Ellwood's sense; Was St. Paul in haste too, when he said, Let God be true, but every man a Lyar, Rom. 3. 4? [Page 186] The meaning whereof is, Every man is fallible; Yea the best man may depart from his Integri­ty, as T. E. himself confesses. p. 68.

Par.

But T. E. says, If Felons cannot be held without Fetters, must True men therefore wear Shackles? p. 125.

Min.

Till honest men (occasionally suspected) be known to be such, they are laid in the same I­rons with Felons; and since Honest men live a­mong Knaves in this World, and sometimes Knaves do appear in the dress of Honest men, there it is prudent to use the same Bonds, Seals, Witnesses, Oaths, &c. to oblige the one, as we use to bind the other. But if T. E. can inform us of any certain visible Mark, whereby we may be sure such a Man is Honest, and will not de­ceive us, by my Consent we will take his bare word; but the World never knew such a Mark as yet. All men are not actually lyars, but all Men may lye sometimes; and we cannot tell when they will do so, and when not: So that we will lay the strongest obligations upon them we can, in weighty Cases; and then we have done our part. I know that the strongest Bond and best Security may fail, but he that takes the best and most likely, acts with most prudence and safety. To conclude, it were happy, if there were no sickness; but so long as we either are sick, or are in a possibility of being sick, Re­medies are and will be good: and so Oaths are and will be Good and needful, so long as any Men can, or any men do deceive; and so long, till we know by evident Tokens those that can­not deceive us from those that can; which Art [Page 187] as yet we are so far from having learned, that we are generally Cheated by those we put most confidence in.

Par.

If Hypocrisie and Wickedness (saith T. E.) be reasons of demanding an Oath, does not he, that in conformity thereunto takes an Oath, acknow­ledge himself to be Hypocritical and Wicked? p. 126.

Min.

I answer, that supposing these were the reasons, it only follows, that those that demand an Oath look upon him as fallacious (for ought they know:) but the Juror does no more ac­knowledge himself to be an Hypocrite, than he, that Seals a Bond for the performance of such and such Covenants and Conditions, do's by that acknowledge himself a Knave. When an Honest man therefore Seals, or Swears, &c. it is (First) Because it is legally demanded of him; and (Secondly) Because it is both ne­cessary and just in order to the satisfaction of the Parties demanding it. He hereby only acknow­ledges he lives in an Evil world, and so must be dealt with, as one that may be an Evil man; but he does not acknowledge that he really is one.

Par.

But Evil men (says he) will not make any more Conscience of false Swearing, than of false speaking. p. 127. And for this he cites Bi­shop Gauden, ibid.

Min.

As for Bishop Gauden, he speaks of those who have got a custom of Swearing, which is another case. But for the Quakers objection, that Men leavened with hypocrisie & swayed with malice and Interest are not to be trusted, when [Page 188] they do Swear: I answer, that Experience shews, that Evil men will say much more, than they dare swear to ina Court of Judicature; Many dread Swearing, that do not stick at Lying. But if we grant that some are so wicked, that they will both lye and forswear; what then? 'tis to no purpose to require an Oath of them, says the Quaker: I answer, yes; for why should a mans wickedness priviledge him from the du­ties of Society? this is the way to encourage more to be wicked: We know a Knave's Bond is little better than his his Word, and yet we take his Bond as the best assurance we can have. If we had a Mad-man, who would be likely to break all the Cords we have to tye him with, shall we let him run loose? Nonne debui facere quod possum, si non potui totum quod vo­lui Aug. Hieron. Epis. 28.? We will bind an Evil man with an Oath (that Bond of the Soul, Num. 30. 2.) hoping that partly for fear of Hell and the Curse due to Perjury from God, and partly from dread of the outward Penalty from Men (as T. E. notes) he will not forswear himself: If he do, let him look to it; we have done our best to be safe; And it is not in this Case alone, but in all o­thers, There's no fence against them, who fear nei­ther God nor Man.

Par.

But T. E. thinks his Argument safe un­der the Testimonies of the Ancients; and first brings in Chrysostom saying, He that doth not stick at Lying, will not fear Swearing, p. 128.

Min.

If St. Chrysostom's words must be ta­ken in T. E's. sense, they make Oaths as insigni­ficant [Page 189] during the Law, as in the times of the Gospel; that reason being as good then, as now. And though I might urge, that the Learned have doubted, Whether the Homi­lies he Quotes were St. Chrysostom's or no; yet I shall take it as granted, and reply fur­ther.

First, That it is true of Common discourse, where rash Oaths spoken without any solemni­ty, do as easily fall from Common Swearers, as Lyes from Common Lyars; But in Judicial Oaths Experience shews, that Men have a great­er dread upon them: And that this whole Discourse is to be understood only of Common Swearing, viz. to shew that a Man is not one whit more to be Credited in his Discourse for the Oaths he mingles with it, I thus prove. (First) These are Homilies, which were Po­pular Sermons; and were not directed to the Magistrates, who had the power of giving and requiring Oaths. (Secondly) In all the ge­nuine Homiles of St. Chrysostom about Swear­ing, He plainly speaks only of private mens Swearing among themselves, which he calls [...] superfluous Oaths. Hom. 5. ad pop. Antioch: And there tells the people, he would not give over Preaching against it, till they had left this evil Custom of Common Swearing; And advises the Masters and Mistresses of such Ser­vants as swore in their Families, to make them go Supperless to Bed. (Thirdly) In all proba­bility St. Chrysostom would not dare (being a Patriarch of Constantinople) in the Imperial City to inveigh against the Oaths then used in [Page 190] the Emperors Judicatories; or if he had, his many and bitter Enemies (who laid other fri­volous things to his Charge) would surely have deeply accused him for this, which yet is never mentioned: So that this can be meant of none but private Oaths in Communica­tion.

Secondly. If T. E. apply it to publick Oaths, he shall see the weakness of such arguing by a familiar instance: Suppose T. E. be to lend 100 l. of some Orphans under his Care, Will he not expect and require a Bond? I believe, He will; and I ask Why? The Man is either one that fears God and is Honest, and then his Word is good without a Bond; or he does not fear God and is a Knave, and then his Bond is of little value: Would T. E. or any wise Man with such plausi­ble Arguments be wheehled out of a prudent care of the best security he could get? I speak not this to derogate from the Fathers; but in their Popular Discourses (tis sufficiently known) their Arguments are rather Rhetorical than Logical, and must not always be used as Au­thority in Dispute; but as to this Quotation, it is applied by T. E. to a purpose contrary to the Author's meaning, and that makes it dege­nerate into a meer fallacy. But of St. Chrysostom more hereafter.

Par.

Next T. E. brings in Isidorus Pelusiota writing thus, Obey His voice, that forbiddeth to Swear at all. p. 129. He brings in also Eras­mus, the Scythians, Antipho and Sophocles also out of Stobaeus, p. 130.

Isidore of Pelusium imitates his Master St. Chrysostom, and is also to be interpreted of private Oaths, which inredulous Men rrequire of one another in ordinary Communication, and take familiarly, which no doubt are great sins: And that he means it not of Magistrates requi­ring publick Oaths is plain, because that was always Lawful before Christs time; and (what­ever T. E's. opinion be) Isidore affirmeth, That the Son of God did not add any new Doctrine o­ver and above what was in the Law and the Pro­phets. Lib. 1. Ep. 107. ad Tim. Lector. But to teach publick Oaths to be un­lawful, had been a new Doctrine, never heard of before: Christ therefore and Isidore only do forbid private and needless and common Swearing, which were forbidden in the Law and the Prophets, had they not been ill in­terpreted by the Pharisees.

To his lesser Authorities I reply, That not one of those he cites were against solemn Swear­ing, and therefore they (saying much the same, that the two preceding Fathers had done) do confirm us in the belief, the Fathers spoke of or­dinary Swearing; for these do so.

First, Erasmus his opinion may be known from the very place cited by Ellwood, viz. his Comment on Iam. 5. 12. Where after he has inveighed against those that Swear by God in light or trivial matters, and those that Swear after the Jewish Custom by Heaven, by the Earth, &c. He immediately adds the words quoted by this Quaker, Whosoever dare be bold to lye without Swearing, he dares do the same, when he Sweareth, if he list. What kind of [Page 192] Swearing is here meant, the very words immedi­ately before this Sentence sufficiently evidence. But if it be not plain enough, let T. E. con­sult Erasmus's Annotations on Mat. 5. 37. where are words to this effect, I suppose that Christ did only mean, that the Perfect [or grown Christians] (for of these he speaks) ought not at all to Swear upon the account of Those things, which make the Common people great Swearers: Otherwise (saith he) in a Cause of Opinor Christum simplici­ter sen­sisse, per­fectis (nam de his loqui­tur) Om­nino non esse ju­randum pro rebus hisce pro quibus vulgus dejerat. Alioqui in causa fidei aut Pietatis etiam Christus & Apostoli jurant. Eras. Annot. in Mat. 5. 37. Faith, or Piety, even Christ himself and the Apostles SWEAR. And again, Ma­ny hard questions might be easily solved, if we understand that Christ did not simply [or abso­lutely] forbid these, but only forb [...]d them to be used in that common manner, people were wont then to use them in. Hac autem ratione multarum questionum nodi dissolvi poterunt, si intelligamus Christum non simpliciter haec vetuisse, sed veruisse eo more fieri, quo vulgato more hominum fiebant. Sic vetuit irasci, sic vetuit salutare quenquam in viâ, sic ve­tuit ditescere, sic vtuit resistere malo, sic vetuit appellari Magistros, sic vetuit vocare Patrem in terr [...]s. id. ibid. If T. E. read on, he may see Erasmus's opinion in more things than this, wherein he will find Him, as much as any, op­posite to the Quakers Tenents.

Secondly, That the Scythians did Swear also in some Cases, I have proved before.

Thirdly, Antipho (in the same place of Sto­baeus) inveighs against those who will not be­lieve a serious Oath, saying, When any despises a Man Swearing, that never was convict of False-Swearing, [Page 193] he seems to me to despise the Gods, and to have formerly been guilty of perjury him­self.

Fourthly, Sophocles (in Stobaeus also) saith, The Mind is made more cautious by the apposition. of an Oath; for th [...]n a Man must take heed of two things, lest he injure his Neighbour, and offend against the Gods. If the Quaker read the other Sentences in Stobaeus, he must needs see these, which plainly shew that they were not against Serious Oaths: And therefore though they say, The Oaths of wicked men are of little value; yet they never meant to exempt wicked men from publick Swearing on great occasions. Yet I will tell T. E. one thing, now I think of it, The Civil and Canon Law, I am sure (and I think our Common Law) which all allow publick Swearing, knowing that the O [...]th of an ill Man is of little weight, do give the Parties liberty to except against a notorious wicked Man, so that he shall not be allowed to Swear or give Evi­dence. L. quo­niam c. de festib. Vid. Heersback Christian. Jurispr. in g. Praecept. p. 261. & Decret. Gregor. l. 2. Tit. 25. cap. 1. And thus T. E's Argument every way falls to the ground.

Par.

Now he comes to tell us, that the abo­lishing of an Oath would not derogate; Nay, he adds, the continuing of Oaths doth derogate from the Honour of Christianity, &c For it (says he) mounts far above all other Religions, and leads them that sincerely embrace it, to a Per­fection beyond what ever was attainable in any of them, yet in them Oaths were attainable, &c. [Page 194] And he brings in Bishop Gauden saying, The Primitive Christians did so keep up the sanctity and credit of their Profession among Unbelievers, that it was security enough in all Cases to say, Christianus sum, I am a Christian. If any urged them further to any Oath, for matter, or man­ner, or authority unlawful, they repeated this, as the only satisfaction they could give, &c. p. 131, 132.

Min.

To these I answer, First, That T. E. minces my Argument, which was this, Seeing therefore that the ends of Iustice and Charity are so much served by the Religious use of an Oath; would not the abolishing of it derogate from the honour of Christianity? for while the Apostle saith, An Oath for confirmation is the end of all strife; if you take away an Oath, you take away that which was ordained by God to be the most effectual means of ending it, and so make Christ not so much the Prince of Peace, as Discord, by making him the abolisher of that which was design'd to compose it Conf. p. 62, 63.. Now had the Quaker found my Argument really faulty, why did he not strike at the foundation of it? which is this, An Oath for confirmation is an end of strife: by which omission he has ren­der'd his other reasonings impertinent and vain. I grant it would be for the honour of Christianity, to take away the need of an Oath; but to make a Law against it, while the necessity continues, this is not for its ho­nour.

2. Though Oaths were attainable under Judaism and Heathenism, it does not fol­low, [Page 195] that they are Useless now. Iustice in pu­nishing, and Government by Laws and Ma­gistrates were attainable too, the Jews and Heathens being thus kept in order; but must We therefore throw these away?

3. Would All sincerely embrace Christiani­ty, I know with T. E. that it would make them upright, just and true, so that they durst not speak a falshood, and so there would be no need of an Oath. But if T. E. let Oaths a­lone till this come to pass, I promise him, I will not then dispute for them. If men were what they are not, than might we spare, what now we cannot be without.

4. As to Bishop Gauden's words, I see no Argument producible thence against us; For the Bishop does not say, that the Primi­tive Christians refused to take Any Oath what­ever [indefinitely] (for then he need have gone no further;) but only such an Oath, as for mat­ter, or manner, or Authority was unlawful. And which of Us does plead for such an Oath? But to give you further satisfaction in this point, I shall hereafter prove, what the Bi­shop speaks of the Primitive Christians, viz. that they did not refuse any Oaths, but such as were unlawful upon some of these accounts; but did swear by Gods Name, as we do, in necessary Cases.

Par.

But still T. E. replies, How great a de­rogation is this from the Honour of Christia­nity? p. 133.

Min.

So he may argue, are Rods and Axes, Prisons and Fines, Houses of Correction, and [Page 196] places of Execution; tis very sad that Chri­stianity hath not set its followers above the need of these things; but he will scarce per­swade our Governours to throw away these Instruments of Government, which help to keep the seditious in some awe. A man may lament it, that these things should be neces­sary; but since they are so, they must be re­tained. I remember Seneca cries out in a Rhe­torical strain, O how base a Confession is this from Mankind, of their publick fraud and vil­lany, that our Seals shall be of more credit than our Souls Oturpem humani generis fraudis ac requi­tiae pub­licae confessionem, Annulis nosiris plus quàm animis credi­tur! Sen. de benef. l. 3. c. 15.! yet Seneca never intended that Bonds, and Sealing of Deeds should be taken out of the World, considering what men were.

And truly if Oaths were taken away, and other like Securities at T. E's. Motion, we should soon find such a flood of Cheating and Lying break in upon us, as would derogate ten times more from the Honour of Christianity, than solemn swearing doth; which indeed does not dishonour it at all, though the oc­casion of its being used in Publick Courts is some disgrace. But though the occasion be Evil, yet Swearing is Good; and would be of use in Dedicating our selves to God, Psal. 119. 106. and in Consecrating our voluntary Oblations, Numb. 30. 2. and in other Cases, though the use of them in Judicature should [Page 197] cease; for we can offer nothing more acceptable to God than a just Oath Nihil Deo gra­tin [...] [...] possu­ [...] quam jure [...]. Aug. in Ps. 19., saith St. Augustine; And when Christians take Oaths with all due Reverence, & are careful not to satisfie or break them for the whole World, I think they honour their Profession, and do not disgrace it, whether in Judgment or on other grand occasions.

Par.

But T. E. wonders, that from the A­postle's words, Heb. 6▪ 16. [An Oath for Con­firmation is to them an end of all strife] you should conclude, that an Oath [is] [...]ined by God to be the most effectual means of compe­sing it, whereas you should rather have said [was] ordained, if you had intended to deal fairly. p. 134.

Min.

Is he angry then that I quote Scrip­ture aright? Had the Apostle said that an Oath for confirmation [Was] an end of strife, than had I indeed ddeal [...] unfairly. But if the Holy Ghost [...]speak in the Present tense (as may reasonably be concluded He does, because [ [...] Swear] in the same verse is of this tense) let not the Quaker blame me for speak­ing here so too.

Par.

But he has another rare Criticism, St. Paul do's not say [WE] swear, but [MEN] swear, nor [to Us] an End—but [to Them] an End, so that he speaks of Men under the Law, and Men in a carnal state, p. 135.

Min.

If T. E. had looked back to ver. 13. and read the Antecedent which lies there, he would have seen the impertinence of his long Criticism; the words are these, [For whe [...] God made the promise to Abraham, because HE [Page 198] could swear by no Greater, He sware by Him­self:] and then ver. 14. 15. the Apostle repeat­ing the Promise and the certainty of it adds, v. 16. [For MEN verily swear by the greater, and an Oath for Confirmation is to THEM an end, &c.] Here the Antithesis lies; not be­tween Saints and Carnal Men, nor between Christians and Iews, Them and Us; But be­tween God and Men, between Him and Them; the sense being, God did act in this Oath more humano, He confirmed it by an Oath, as Men use to do, only with this difference, that God could not swear by any Greater than himself, whereas Men always do swear by a Greater: yet the event is the same; for God's Oath by Himself put the promise out of all question, even as Mens swearing by a Great­er, to confirm what they say, is to Them an end of all strife.

Par.

But T. E. infers from 1 [...]or. 3. 3. that the Apostle in this place does not by [Men] in­tend Saints, true Believers, the New Testa­ment Church; but such as were under the old dispensation. Nor are you or any else to take advantage from the Apostle's speaking in the Present tense (Men [do] swear, &c. and an Oath [is] to them, &c.) from thence infer­ring that he spake this of the Christian State: Be­cause on other occasions he expresses himself in the same tense, as in Heb. 8. 3. and 9. 3. p. 136, 137.

Min.

To the first I answer, it does not fol­low from 1 Cor. 3. 3 [...].. that [Men] here in Heb. 6. 16. should exclude those of the Chri­stian [Page 199] Church, unless T. E. could prove, that [Men] in other places of Scripture did al­ways signifie Carnal and bad Men only. What do's he think of that saying of our Lords, Luke 12. 35, 36. Let your loins be girded a­bout, and you Lights burning; And ye your selves like unto MEN * [...]. that wait for their Lord, &c.? What means 1 Cor. 16. 13. Quit you like men? I am sure our Translators do take [MEN] in a quite contrary sense to T. E. sometimes; For in 1 Cor. 14. 20. the Greek is [...] [be ye perfect,] vet they read [be ye MEN,] taking [MEN] for Perfect mer.

To the second I answer, That his shifts to evade the force of the particle [is] in the pre­sent Tense (which he pretends St. Paul uses in this Epistle for things that had been among the Iews, but are not applicable to the Chri­stian State) are very wretched. The Apo­stle said truly, there is a High Priest, and is a Holiest of all; for at that time there were both in being, and he could not speak truly in any other Tense: but do's it follow from thence, that always, when he useth [Is,] it is of things only applicable to the Jewish State? In this Chap. ver. 20. He saith, Christ [is] enter'd into the Heavens; and Chap. 4. 12. For the word of God [is] quick, &c. and Chap. 11. 1. Faith [is] the substance, &c. What non-sense and Blasphemy would it make [...]to say here, [Is] only was applicable to the Jewish State, when these things were true then, and will be so to the end of the World, to Jews and Christians all alike? And when this was the plain and [Page 200] common sense, what reason has T. E. to make [Is] stand for [was,] but only that he may im­pose his own absurd Notions on the Holy Scrip­ture? As he does again, p. 139. Where he impudently puts his false opinion into the middle of a Text of Scripture meerly to force it to his own sense, The Law (in which Oaths were, says he) was given by Moses, but the Grace and the Truth came by Iesus Christ, Joh. 1. 17. Whereas the Gospel and the Law do not oppose each other in this matter, us I shall prove immediately: But tis plain he mak [...]s no scruple of abusing Scripture; for in the same place, reading some exhortations in the Gospel to Truth, Sincerity, Love, &c. from these precepts he infers, that Men (he means Quakers, I suppose) now are really endued with all these vertues: though 'tis a plain fal­lacy to argue from what we ought to be, to what we are; yet this is a common way the Quakers have of profaning Holy Scripture, to take Christ's Precepts and turn them into Af­firmations, applying them as Encomiums to their own mis-led Party; being herein like the Iews, who delighted much in hanging the Precepts of the Law in Phylacteries about them for ornament and ostentation, but took no care to live up to them in their Conversa­tions: See the Quaker in this posture, p. 147, 148.

Par.

Now (says T. E.) you are come to your Third Proposition, viz. That an Oath is a part of that Moral and Eternal Law, which our Saviour professeth, he came not to destroy, but to fulfil [...]. Conf. p. [...].. p. 149.

This is a cunning and malicious un­truth, for though he be come to it, I am not yet come so far; for the last words objected by the Quaker were out of p 63. But the Figure [3] in the Margin of my Book noting the third Proposition is placed, p. 68. Yet to co­lour over the Matter, he begins with the last words of these four pages, and first sets upon the Conclusion, p. 68. and then runs back pre­sently to the beginning, p. 63. But I perceive his Treachery, viz. he would make his Read­er believe, that All I say to prove Oaths not e­vil in themselves, is said to prove them part of the Moral and Eternal Law; But I desire you and others to observe, that I am yet upon the proof of my second Proposition, That Oaths are a piece of Necessary Iustice and Charity; only foreseeing that some would object, that Oaths are evil in themselves, and so could not be Necessary: I first prove they are not evil in them­selves. Secondly, in page Conf. 66. I go on to answer a second objection, viz. That Oaths are part of the Ceremonial Law, and so could be no parts of Iustice and Charity: Which having disproved as a Transition to my third Proposi­tion, p. 68. I make that Inference (the way being now Clear, and Oaths proved necessary­ry Parts of Justice and Charity, as also nei­ther Evil in themselves, nor Ceremonial) Therefore they are parts of the Moral Law, the next thing to be proved: This is the very truth; and now where is T. E's sincerity? where is his honesty, so apparently to prevaricate?

But here he makes himself much sport, that you should bestirr your self not a little to prove that, which (he says) he never yet heard any deny, Namely, that all Oaths are not Evil in themselves, which you gravely inferr from their having been once confessedly Lawful. What else is this, but to mis-spend your Time, and be­stow many a doughty blow upon your own shadow? p. 141.

Min.

T. E. could not be better pleas'd with my expressions, than I am with this answer. So that I shall reply upon him with his own words, Did he consider what he writ? If He thinks that † pag. 56. All Oaths are not Evil in themselves; let him give an account, why he produced the testimo­ny of Heathens against them, nay the Testimo­ny of a whole Nation, as he pretends. He will not say, that the Heathens had any Revelation to forbid all Oaths: So that they could not be e­vil in their sense, but as they were evil in them­selves. Why do's T. E. commend their zeal for refusing all Oaths, seeing they could not be evil to Them? Did not he mis-spend his Time in producing these testimonies? Has not he lost here his Argument to save his Jest? and made one part of his Book inconsistent with ano­ther?

But further to prove Oaths Moral, I shall desire to know of the Quakers, whether they account the third Commandment Moral.

Par.

I think none of them will be so absurd as to deny it.

Min.

Than an Oath is Moral; for [Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in [Page 203] vain] is (according to both the Ancient and Mo­dern Divines) Thou shalt not forswear thy self. The Syriac version hath it, Ne jures per Nomen Domini Dei tui cum mendacio, Thou shalt not lye, when thou swearest by the Lord thy God. Now it's a known Rule, that every Negative supposeth an Affirmative: If we are commanded not to swear falsly, it implies that we may swear truly upon a just occasion. Wherefore saith St. Augustine, No body can speak falsly, who speaks not at all; so he that do's not swear, cannot for­swear. Falsum loqui non potest, qui non lo­quitur; sic pejerare non po­test, qui non jurat. Aug. in Serm. Dom. in Mont. lib. 1. p. 1123. So that if the Quakers make All swear­ing vain, they will make the third Command­ment insignificant.

Par.

If [taking the Name of God in vain] be no more than [thou shalt not forswear thy self;] Will not tho [...]e who take the Name of God lightly, wantonly, and irreverently into their mouths, be encouraged by this exposition?

Min.

When we come to give an account of Scripture, we must do it as it is; and must not by consequences of our own make our selves wiser than God: yet I must tell you, though [to take the Name of God in vain] be only an He­brew phrase to forswear; yet is there here no en­couragement Juramen­tum va­num est, quando quis jurat non ne­cessaria de causa; falsum quando pejerat. for wicked men to use God's Name lightly and irreverently; for every time they so do, they are guilty of the vice of swear­ing, and so are included in the breach of this Commandment.

Par.

But T. E. tells us, Some things are forbidden, because they are Evil; and some things are Evil, because they are forbidden, ibid.

[Some things are forbidden because they are Evil] implies that All things that are Evil are not forbidden, this is so false and irreligious a Principle, that it needs no other consutation than the very naming of it: And [some things are Evil, because forbidden:] here he should have given an instance, where any thing is so, im­m-diutely and directly. It was so of old, I confess, during the continuance of the Ceremo­nial Law; but he should have instanced where 'tis so now in the times of the Gospel.

Par.

You have another far-fetch (s [...]ys T. E.) by which you would prove Oaths Moral, and that is, because they are not Ceremonial. And to prove that they are not Ceremonial, you say, They were used by the Patriarchs before the Levitical Law was given. Whereupon T. E. asks, Was nothing then Ceremonial, that was used by the Pa­triarchs before the Levitical Law given? p. 142. And this question pleases him so well that he is at it again, p. 150.

Min.

To both these places I answer, When the Quakers say, Oaths are Ceremonial, they mean, they are a part of Moses his Law, and T. E. plainly says, p. 134, they were appointed to them under the Law; & Hubberthorn accounts them Le­vitical Ceremonies; so that I may justly disprove their being Ceremonial in this sense, because they were used by the Patriarchs 400 years before the Levitical Ceremonies were given. So that T. E's. inference is not so natural as he dreams it is, when he says, can any thing be more na­turally inferr'd, than that I account whatsoever was used by the Patriarchs, before the Levitical [Page 205] Law was given, to be a part of the moral and e­ternal Law, p. 142.

Par.

Was not (says he) Circumcision in the Flesh used before the Levitical Law was given? ibid. Were not Beasts sacrifiecd long before the Levitical Law was given? will you thence con­clude that Circumcision, and these Sacrifices are parts of the moral and eternal Law?

Min.

I answer, Neither were they properly Levitical Ceremonies; for first, Circumcision (saith Christ) is not of Moses, but of the Fathers, Ioh. 7. 22. And though it be not Moral, yet there is a great difference between that and Oaths: Circumcision hath no reason in it self, why it should be observed, nor could the Light of Nature ever have taught it Men, without a Positive institution, which is recorded, Gen. 17. But Oaths have a reason in their own nature, and the Light of Nature led men to use them long before any Law was given about them: T. E. confesses, the Patriarchs used them; let him shew what Command they had for so do­ing (as is evident in the Case of Circumcision) and then Oaths and Circumcision may fall toge­ther; but this is impossible, Therefore though Cir­cumcision be Ceremonial, Oaths are not so.

Secondly, As to Sacrifices, they are believed by all Divines to have had a Positive institu­tion, viz. as to the offering things slain; some think God taught this to Adam, others to Noah; and no Man will say that Sacrifices are Levitical Ceremonies: I grant that Sacrificing slain Beasts being Typical of Christ was Ceremo­nial; But Sacrifice as it is the oblation of some­thing [Page 206] to God in acknowledgment of His being Lord of all the World, is a part of Natural Re­ligion as well as Oaths; Mortification, Rom. 12. 1. Alms Heb. 13. 16. and Praise ver. 15. are called Sacrifices in Gospel Times, and are Eternal Duties; And the Fathers hold, that under the Gospel the Kind is altered, but there are Christian Sacrifices still; as I could largely prove were there any need for it. Wherefore an Oath doth not agree with Sacrifices, as they were instituted, and as they pointed to Christ's Death; but as they are an acknowledgment of God's Sovereignty and Bounty, so they are a part of Natural Religion, and no Ceremonies, and of the same nature and duration with an Oath, both being Moral: And indeed Oaths were never instituted, but supposed; and▪ where they are spoken of in the Law or Prophets, are only restrained to due circumstances, and set a­mong Moral Duties, Deut. 6. 13. Isa. 45. 3. Ier. 4. 2.

Par.

Thus you have made way for your third Proposition; but T. E. will quarrel still at his old rate: And whereas your first Argument to prove Oaths not Ceremonial was, because they were not Typical; this knowing man bids you prove that all the Ceremonies of Moses Law were Types, and tell him what they were Types of, sporting himself about Aaron's Breeches, and the places Anointed in a Priest's Consecration: p. 145.

Min.

If he had more knowledge, he would shew less Mirth; For St. Paul affirms that which he doubts of, Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 1. and Iustin [Page 207] Martyr, Origen and St. Ambrose of Old, with many Modern Authors of great Note, have ve­ry Learnedly shewed the Antitypes in the Gos­pel for every Type and Ceremony of the Law; And are These fit to be the objects of T. E's scorn and laughter? Even by Aaron's Breeches was typified that Modesty, which those ought to shew who meddle with Holy Things. This Moral thereof T. E. is (methinks) as far from practising, as he is from understanding: Again, Exod. 29. 20. The blood was put on the Tip of the Priests Ear, to shew, they should be ready to hear the Commands of God; on the Thumb, to shew they should lift up holy Hand in God's service; and on the Toe, to note an holy Con­versation in the Ministers of the Gospel.

Par.

T. E. may now, if he please, laugh at his own folly: but the next attempt of his is to find out an Antitype for an Oath, which must typifie something, though other things do not; For he says, This Truth-speaking, this True Wit­ness-bearing, this pure Language under the Gos­pel, is the Antitype of an Oath, p. 148.

Min.

A Pure invention of the Quakers! As if all that sware, before Christ brought in Truth, were perjured. Just now an Oath was a Mode of Truth, and now 'tis a Type of Truth; Can any thing be a Mode and a Type of the same thing? Alms is a Mode of shewing mercy, but sure is no Type of shewing mercy; Trying Ma­lefactors before a Judge is a Mode of doing Justice, but no Type of doing justice. Indeed an Oath is the calling God to Witness to a Truth spoken, as Prayer is the Calling on Him [Page 208] to supply our wants; Now how strange would it be to say, Prayer is a Type of the supply of our wants without Prayer? yet it is as absurd to say, an Oath is a Type of Truth-speaking with­out an Oath; Besides, thus Type and Anti­type would have always gone together, or else it was false swearing; And was Christ the An­titype actually slain with every Sacrifice that was a Type of him? Surely his Cause is bad, when he is put upon such absurd shifts as these to defend it.

Par.

But T. E. comes now to your third Pro­position indeed, viz. That the reason and use­fulness of an Oath being perpetual, it must be an Eternal duty, and so not repealed in the Gospel. To this he has nothing to reply more than what relies on his old baffled suppositions, viz. That Lying and Hypocrisie cannot be the ground or reason of what is Eternally good, p. 151, 152.

Min.

I never affirmed they were the Rea­sons, but the Occasions they may be; The Rea­sons of an Oath ought rather to be said to be, God's Omniscience, and His being the supream Judge of the World, a Lover of Truth, and Avenger of all Perjury and Lying; for the Be­lief of this makes men require an Oath (in matters of moment, wherein Prudence directs them to the greatest security that may possibly be had) and causeth those who take it to fear to prosane it: As the reason of Justice in pu­nishing is, that every man may have his desert, Ut qui non reddit agendo, reddat patiendo; but the occasion is Evil doing. As for the useful­ness [Page 209] of an Oath, when T. E. hath found out as good, and great a Security as this is, we will then debate, whether Oaths may be laid aside. At present he saith Lying, Hypocrisie &c. are ta­ken away, at least (de jure of right) it ought to be so, p. 153. But then T. E. must stay till his [de jure] be turned into [de facto:] The Quaker de jure ought not to lye and wilfully to mistake and abuse my words, but de facto he has done it. Would God, all things were as they ought to be; for if we were what we are not, we might omit some things now not to be spared, as I told you before.

Par.

T. E. has now followed you to your fourth Prop [...]sition, wherein by the Examples of St. Paul and an Angel who swore in the New Testament, you undertook to prove, that All Oaths are not forbidden by Christ. And here I wonder at him, that he falls not upon all the instances you gave of St. Paul's swearing, as in this Case (I think) he ought to have done.

Min.

'Tis no wonder to me to find this Quaker omitting any material passage in my Book: But as to those instances I gave you, they are the truest and plainest way of interpreting Christ's meaning: for if St. Paul swore in those writings which were dictated by the Holy Ghost, it's plain demonstration, that all Oaths are not forbidden. For the Apostle (saith St. Augustine) doubtless knew the Command of our Lord, and yet be swore Aug. in Galat.. And I hope all men will believe that St. Paul and the Holy Ghost are safer inter­preters of the sense of our Saviour than T. E. [Page 210] and his Spirit. Now it's so plain that St. Paul did swear, that St. Augustine saith, They are not to be heard, who fansie these are not Oaths which the Apostle used ib. ibid..

Now let us examine, why the Apostle's words [God is my Witness, &c. Rom. 1. 9.] should not pass for an Oath.

Par.

To say barely and simply God is my Wit­ness, is not an Oath (saith T. E.) For then God must swear by Men, when he saith (Isa. 43. 10.) Ye are my Witnesses, &c. Moses by Heaven and Earth, and St. Paul by the High Priest, when they say, They are Witnesses; yea the Quaker by John and James if he say, They are his Witnesses. p. 155, 156, 157.

Min.

I grant first, That every appeal to God is not an Oath; To appeal to God as a righ­teous Judge against the injustice and cruelty of men, without relation to his attesting and judg­ing of a Proposition, is no swearing by Him. Secondly, That the citation of Witness is no swearing. And Thirdly, That in some Cases men do not swear, when they affirm or say, that God is a Witness; thus much I can grant the Quaker: For when I comfort my self against false accusations of men, I may say, God is a Witness to my innocency, and yet not be said to swear by Him; or when I say, God is a Wit­ness of Mens secret wickedness, I do not swear by Him: But then Divines and Lawyers agree, that to take God to Witness, and to appeal to God as the Iudge of the truth of what we say, and the avenger of the untruth, is swearing. In which respect this passage of St. Paul's is ac­counted [Page 211] an Oath; which he thought necessary, as being the greatest assurance he could give the Romans of his charity and zeal for them; God is my Witness, &c. that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers Rom. 1. 9. Juret, qui adhibet Deum testem. Aug. de Serm. Dom. in Mont. l. 2. p. [...] 124. and in Psal. 109., wherefore St. Augustine saith, what signifies [by God] but [God is Witness?] and what means [God is Witness,] but [by God] Serm. 28. de verb. Apost. To, &c. To call God to Wit­ness is to swear, saith the same St. Augustine; and so Chrysostom Chryl. H [...]mi. 11 Act. 9.; so all the School-men, so our Modern Divines, so both Jews and Hea­thens define an Oath. But do's it at all follow, that because it is no swearing to Call a Crea­ture to Witness, therefore it's none to call the Creator to Witness See p. 160.? To Petition God is Divine Worship, is it therefore Divine Worship to Petition the King? No, let the Quaker know, It's Essential to an Oath, to Call somewhat to Witness, that we believe to be a God.

Par.

Now T. F. comes to your next in­stance [Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lye not, my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost.] To this He answers, To speak the truth in Christ is not an Oath, &c. p. 157. If Paul should have sworn as oft as he spake the Truth in Christ, he would have been a very Common swearer, p. 158.

Min.

It's very true, that every time we speak the Truth in Christ we do not swear; but as the phrase stands here, it can be ac­counted nothing else but an Oath; Which will be more evident to this great Critick and [Page 212] Judge in Translations, if he observe, that in Greek it is [ [...]] which he knows may justly be Translated [by Christ;] for he is not ignorant, I hope, that in St. Mat. 5. 34, 35, 36. where we read—By Heaven—by Earth—by thy Head—(Per Caelum—per Terram—per Caput tuum, as Beza has it) which are plain swear­ing: yet there the Original is the same Prepo­sition as here— [...] And Eph. 4. 17. where we read [And testifie in the Lord,] Beza hath Obtestor per Dominum, the Greek being [...], and I am sure there are very ma­ny instances in Scripture, where [ [...]] is transla­ted [by] and where it is used in swearing; So that if we read it [I say the truth by Christ, &c.] as we may do; then it will admit of no dispute. I shall only add, that this [I say the truth in Christ, I lye not] was appointed by an Old English Council † to be the Priests and Deacons form of swearing before the Al­tar. Concil. Berkham­sted. cap. 18. Spelm. Anno. 700.

As to the second part of the Sentence, St. Paul swears not by his Conscience, which was not his God, but only professeth the agreement of this Protestation to the sense of his Soul, and to the testimony of the Holy Ghost, with which he was inspired, unless we translate [ [...]] by the Holy Ghost, and make it another Oath, viz. by the Holy Spirit.

Par.

Though T. E. did not consult his Greek Testament in this instance, yet in your next he did; For whereas you propounded 2 Cor. 1. 18, [but as God is true, &c.] to this he re­plies, [Page 213] The particle [as] is not in the Greek, but put in by the Translator, ibid.

Min.

What then? Who knows not that the Jews did always leave out [As] in their Oaths? and yet always it was to be understood; I suppose T. E. will grant [As the Lord liveth] to be an Oath, yet [As] is never in the Ori­ginal, but always put in by the Translator, as he may understand by [as] being printed in a smaller Letter, Iud. 8. 19. and 1 Sam. 20. 3. 2 Sam. 15. 21. 2 Kings 3. 14, &c. And whereas T. E. would have us read it in Tomson's Trasla­tion, [Yea God is faithful,] He must know that if he leave out [As] it will be an Oath still; For Ier. 5. 2. Though they say, the Lord liveth, surely they swear falsly: where the Prophet saith, they did swear, who only said, The Lord liveth without [As.] Surely it's as much an Oath in this instance of St. Paul to say [God is Faithful,] as in the other to say [the Lord liveth;] All the difference is, they whom Ieremy mentions swore falsly, but St. Paul truly. And indeed it is but an He­braism to leave [as] out, for it must be un­derstood, or else it is not a full sense.

Par.

I observe that T. E. finds himself pincht by this instance, for he allows the words of St. Paul to be a solemn asseveration, ibid.

Min.

A solemn Asseveration here is a Reli­gious asseveration, which makes it amount to an Oath: However I thought the Quakers had allowed of no Asseverations beyond [Yea] and [Nay,] but accounted them as bad as Oaths: So that this evasion will help him but a little.

[Page 214] But do you not observe how close he crouds together the remaining instances? And though St. Paul solemnly appeals to the Omniscience of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ as a Witness, who knew he did not lye, 2 Cor. 11. 31. This is no Oath with T. E; No nor that 2 Cor. 1. 23. where he plainly Calls God to Witness, and (knowing it to be true) offers up his Soul to suffer by God's Justice, if it were not as he said, This is no swearing with T. E. neither; but he only says it, but cannot prove it; So that till he can prove these are no Oaths, I shall take it for grant­ed.

But I gave you one instance Gal. 1. 20. [Be­hold before God I lye not,] which is so plain an Oath, that the Quaker (according to his own expression) was not hardy enough to ven­ture on it, nor so much as to mention it in his Book. Now if St. Paul did swear, though but once, when he writ by the Holy Ghost (though it was not in his riper years, when he had made a further progress in the Christian Reli­gion See T. E. 4 5. 46.) it must necessarily follow, that All swearing is not forbidden by Christ under the Gospel.

Par.

Now T. E. comes to produce some Probabilities, that the Apostle did not swear.

Min.

Probabilities are not good Arguments against matters of Fact; But pray, let us hear what they are.

Par.

First he thinks it absurd, that the Apo­stle upon no greater occasion than recounting to the Corinthians the manner of his escape out [Page 215] of Damascus through a Window into a Basket, should take a solemn Oath by God, that he did not 2 Cor. 11. lye, p. 160.

Min.

Certainly he is not so stupid, as to think as he writes here; For nothing can be more plain, than that the Oath I mentioned in the 31 verse, relates to the precedent passages in the Chapter. There were false Apostles at Corinth, who had brought the Apostle's Cre­dit so low among them, that he is forced to commend himself, ver. 5, 6. and to shew that he was not inferiour to those false Apostles, ei­ther in any Legal Prerogative, or in the Ser­vice of Christ, or in any kind of suffering for his Ministry; So that here was sufficient occa­sion to require the solemnity of an Oath, to give the greater assurance to the Corinthians of his Commission for Apostleship, which they then call'd into question, and required him to prove that he had received it from Christ, 2 Cor. 13. 3. And in Galatia too, some of these deceivers had wrought the like evil perswasions in the people. He saw some there Gal 1. 7. who did not believe, saith St. Augustine Serm. 30. de verb. Apest. And the Apostle knowing their salvation depended upon their believing his Doctrine and Com­mission, uses the solemnity of Oaths to Con­vince them; being compelled thereto by their Unbelief, and by his Desire to preserve them from Apostacy and Damnation; And sure this was a sufficient occasion.

Par.

He supposes you have given him ad­vantage, by saying, That the Pharisees taught, that it was lawful to swear at any time by God's [Page 216] Name, so that they swore nothing but truth, &c. which you acknowledge Christ prohibited. And further he says, Bishop Gauden makes the Lawful Call of Authority, one of the due cir­cumstances which are necessary in a Lawful Oath, and that your self should say, The Use and Law­fulness of swearing, which remains, is, when a Man is called by lawful Authority to declare his Conscience, in order to the ending of any Con­troversie, wherein his evidence may be concerned. Now then (says he) let us consider, If Paul had sworn, who called him to it? Who required it of him? Nay, what lawful Authority had the Corinthians over him to require an Oath of him? &c. p. 160, 161.

Min.

As to the First, it will not advantage his Cause at all, unless he could prove that I ever said, that St. Paul swore either by the Creatures, or by God in ordinary converse. For the sum of what I said was, that swearing by the Creatures, though faslly, and by God at any time in ordinary Converse, if but truly, was allowed by the Pharisees: and that against the first of them, viz. swearing by the Creature, See Fr. Conf. p. 77, 78. Christ opposeth that prohibition, Mat. 5. 34 35, 36. But I say unto you swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c. Against the later, viz. swearing by the Name of God in our ordinary converse, he gives this precept, ver. 37. Let your Communi­cation be yea yea, nay nay, &c.

Secondly, If Bishop Gauden makes the law­ful Call of Authority one of the due Circum­stances, which are necessary in a lawful Oath; it do's not follow, that he allows no other cir­cumstances. Nor

[Page 217] Thirdly, Do I any where in all my Book say, there is no other use of an Oath, but in Iudica­tories, as he here suggests cunningly, making two Propositions of one, and so perverting the sense of my words, which were these, viz. the use and lawfulness of swearing remains (i. e.) continues; Or more plainly, Oaths continue lawful, though not in Common Converse, yet) when I am called by lawful Authority to See Fr. Conf. p. 84. declare my Conscience in order to the ending of any Controversie, wherein my evidence may be concern'd. If I had said, the use and lawful­ness of swearing, which remains, is when, &c. as he quotes it; then indeed he had had some shew of reason to imply here, and expresly to say, p. 164. that the only Lawful Use that I give of swearing now under the Gospel is in Judicatories, &c. But seeing no such inference can be deduced from them as they are set down in the Conference, Where is T. E's sincerity? Where is his honesty thus to pervert my words? Is this the way to prove himself an adherent to Christianity, which he tells us, p. 131. hath made it's Adherents so upright, just and true, that they dare not speak a falshood, though others dare swear it? I confess indeed that the Main Use of an Oath is in Judicato­ries, but not the only use; for we may swear in a very weighty Case, when we cannot other­wise be believed, and when it will be very pre­judicial to them that hear us, if they do not believe; So St. Augustine of his own practice, When I see I am not believed▪ without an Oath, and that it is very inexpedient to him that be­lieves [Page 218] me not, weighing this reason, and taking good consideration, I say with great Reverence [Before God] or [God is Witness] or [Christ knows it to be so in my Soul. Aug. de verb. A­post. Ser. 30.] Oaths are use­ful likewise in Dedicating our selves to God, &c. (as I told you before.) And for my part I shall subscribe to the Opinion of Bishop Hooper (whom Ellwood himself calls a Godly Martyr) That the two blessed Sacraments (as you have heard See p. 46.) are both Vows and Oaths, being therefore called Sacraments; That on God's part they are Seals, but on our part Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity.

Now then let the Quaker consider, how im­pertinent his Queries of St. Paul are, p. 161. Who called him to it? Who required it of him? &c. That the Apostle had sufficient occasions to swear, I have shewed you before; Nor can the Quaker prove from any thing I have said, that I confine All Lawful swearing to Judica­tories.

Par.

But he says, If in these instances Paul had sworn, he had not sworn judicially and le­gally, but in his ordinary Communication, which kind of swearing is acknowledged to be forbidden by Christ, p. 164.

Min.

T. E. is out again; Is writing Epistles ordinary Communication? It was in his Wri­ting that St. Paul swore, and not in his Ordi­nary Writing neither, but in that which the Holy Ghost dictated. And St. Augustine notes, the Apostle might better weigh his ex­pressions when he was Writing, than if he had been speaking. Tis true, St. Paul swore out of [Page 219] a Court of Iudicature, but not without a great Necessity. And I think it's a good Argument, that he would have been much more ready to have done so in a Court of Judicature, if there had been occasion, and he legally call'd to it. Certainly he would have scrupled no more in taking an Oath than in tendering one, as we find he did, 1 Thes. 5. 27. I charge you by the Lord, Where the Greek is [...], that is (as in the Margine) I adjure, or I swear you.

Par.

Whereas you told me, that in every one of these instances St. Paul makes a most solemn appeal to God as Witness of what he affirms, and judge of his sincerity; he answers, If to ap­peal to God, be to swear by God, then by the same reason to appeal to Man, or any other thing (in the same tense) is to swear by that Man or thing, that is so appealed to, p. 163.

Min.

Every Appeal to God (as I granted before) is not indeed an Oath; but then sure­ly, When we Appeal to God in a most solemn manner as Witness of what we affirm, and Iudge of our sincerity (as St. Paul I told you in these instances did) it cannot be interpreted less than an Oath. If this be not swearing, I See Fr. Conf. p. 70, 71. know not what it is; And indeed I wonder why the Quakers inveigh against us here in England for swearing, when according to Ell­wood's Principles (if St. Paul swore not) there is no such thing among us.

As for his old fallacy, that [to appeal to God is not an Oath, because to appeal to Man, or any other thing is not to swear by that Man [Page 220] or thing] it hath been sufficiently baffled al­ready, and is as much non-sense as to say,‘It is not blasphemy to say God is Mortal, be­cause it is not blasphemy to say, a Man or a Horse is mortal.

Par.

But because you said, those mentioned Forms used by St. Paul, were as positive Oaths, as any other used in the Bible, here he takes ad­vantage of your calling an Oath a Form, and seems to wonder that you will not have it there­fore a Ceremony, ibid.

Min.

Here's another fallacy; Do I in any part of my Book make [form] the genus of an Oath? or suppose I had; Are all forms Ceremonies? The Apostle recommends to Ti­mothy a Form of sound words (of which you have had an account) that is, sound Doctrine; Will therefore this Quaker accuse the Apostle of calling the Christian Doctrine but a Ceremo­ny? He himself saith, p. 118. there is Iustice and the manner of doing Iustice, there is Mer­cy and the way of shewing Mercy, there is Truth and the manner of speaking Truth. So say I, there is an Oath, and there is the way and man­ner or form (which is all one) of expressing an Oath; Of these forms I produced several both out of the Old and New Testament. Now I may as justly accuse T. E. of making Iustice and Mercy to be but Ceremonies, as he accuse me in this passage of making an Oath to be no more.

Par.

Reason will not help the Quaker, and now he flies to Authority to prove that St. Paul did not swear, which he introduces [Page 221] with this formality, But that he and all may see, it is not our judgment only that Paul did not swear, I here produce two very Authentick Witnesses to clear Paul from swearing. The first is Basil, sirnamed the great, who himself refused to swear at the Council of Chalcedon.—

Min.

I must interrupt you a little, and tell you, that though I do acknowledge St. Basil a very great and good Man; yet I must not pre­fer his single suffrage, before the determina­tion of a General Council, especially that of Chalcedon consisting of 630. Bishops. It seems the Council required an Oath, and Basil (he says) refused it; Now whether He or the Council was greater, or more Authentick, let any man of sense judge. But what if I tell you that the Quaker or his Spirit has wrong'd St. Basil, and that this relation is false?

Par.
Surely it cannot.
Min.

If he refused to swear at the Council of Chalcedon, it was Ellwood that Conjur'd him up; For Basil sirnamed the Great was above threescore and ten years in his Grave, before that Council sate▪ He dying in the Reign of Valens the Emperor about the year of Christ 378, and that Council called in the year 451. This is affirmed not only by Helvicus, See his Chrone­logy. but Baronius and several others: But if this will not satisfie T. E. he may consult his Friend Rider, who says as much almost as this in his Dictionary.

Par.

I know not what to say to this, and can the less excuse him, because I suppose, he pretends to write by the dictates of the Spi­rit [Page 222] —But to let this pass; St. Basil's words, as they are cited here by T. E. to prove, that Paul did not swear, are these, There are some speeches which have the Forms of Oaths, and yet are no Oaths at all, but rather Remedies to perswade. He instances in Joseph and the Apostle Paul, of which last he saith, The A­postle willing to shew his love to the Corinthians said, By the Glorying of you which I have in Christ Iesus our Lord, &c. 1 Cor. 15. 31. p. 165.

Min.

In the first place I must desire you to take notice, that in St. Basil's opinion, there is an Oath, and the Form of an Oath. Se­condly, observe, that this is none of the in­stances which I gave of St. Paul's swearing, and so doth not oppose the Examples I brought: yet here must I tell you, that St. Au­gustin (who was as Authentick a Witness, and as glorious a Light as ever shone in the Church of Christ since the Apostles days) not only says, this very phrase is an Oath, but proves it too (which is more than St. Basil doth) by the Greek particle [Nn] here used, which (saith he) every one knows is the common par­ticle of swearing among the Greeks; [...], ubi dixerit Graecus, jurat. Aug. verb. Apost. Ser. 28, 30. Nay Erasmus (whom T. E. quotes against Lawful Oaths, p. 130.) produceth St. Augustin's opinion (as well as I do) to prove this an Oath; And immediately adds, There's no reason why we should wrangle, and deny that the Apostle swore here, seeing that elsewhere, NOT IN A FEW PLACES [Page 223] HE PLAINLY SWEARS. Citat hunc lo­cum & Augusti­nus Epist 89. Rur­sum co­piosius Serm. de verb. Apost. 28. ostendens hoc loco jurasse Paulum, idq (que) lique­te ex Graecis exemplaribus. Nec est quod tergiversemur, & negemus Apostolum jurasle, quum alibi non paucis locis palam juret. Erasm. Annot. in 1 Cor. 15. 31. Thirdly, T. E. confesses (and that truly) that St. Basil in the same place affirmeth Ioseph's words, By the Life of Pharaoh, were no Oath; yet in this, I suppose, the very Quakers are hardly of his mind. But more of St. Basil hereaster.

Par.

The other Witness is Gregory Nazian­zen, in his Dialogue against swearing, thus. B. But Paul also swore, as they say. A. Who said so? O what a vain ja [...]gler was he that said it! quoth he; [God is my Witness,] and [God knoweth,] Those words are not an Oath, but a certain Asseveration, &c. ibid.

Min.

Observe here the fraudulent dealing of this Quaker; for whereas the Title of Na­zien's Poem here cited, is [...] Iamb. 20. p. 224. A Dialogue against Common or frequent swearers, the Quaker cun­ningly changes it into—against swearing—as if it were against All Oaths in general; But what saith this Dialogue? Why, the Per­son with whom he discourseth, saith; B. They say (that is the Common swearers of those times) that Paul swore. A. asks. who said so? [...], he was a trifler, or it was but a trifle; that is, Their Authority was not very valuable. But to the Matter.

[Page 224] I reply, Gregory Nazianzen do's not disap­prove of all Oaths in this piece of Poetry, but he is arguing against Common Swearing; And whereas these Common Swearers alledged the Examples of God and St. Paul, both taking Oaths, Nazianzen denies, that God did ever swear (which I doubt T. E. cannot fully agree with him in) and then denies, that St. Paul did swear.

Now it being so plain, that God did swear (as also in my opinion, that St. Paul did swear) I cannot reconcile Nazianzen to Reason, if he mean absolutely; and therefore his sense must be, that God and St. Paul never swore as these Common Swearers do, and that it was [...] a trifle to alledge their Examples, considering they never swore at all, as Customary Swear­ers do: Let any Man read the whole Dialogue, and he will be convinced, this is the design of it. But I shall more fully prove, that Nazian­zen is not of the Quakers side, when we speak to p. 286. where T. E. quotes him again.

Par.

Next he comes to your last instanc [...] of the Angel swearing, Rev. 10. 5, 6. And seeing he cannot deny the Fact, he catches at your expression, that we need not fear to imitate any thing that is done in Heaven, &c. for (says he) this was not done in Heaven, but on Earth, p. 166.

Min.

I did dot say, that the Angel was in Heaven, when he swore; and the Quaker must know, that by [Heaven] 'tis an usual Trope to understand the inhabitants of Heaven, as in that of the Lords Prayer (which I there [Page 225] cited) [Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Hea­ven] we mean—by men, as it is by Angels; So that my meaning plainly is, We need not fear to imitate any thing done by those of Hea­ven: Now this Angel came from Heaven, vers. 1. and was a good Angel of Heaven; where­soever He stood therefore makes nothing to our purpose, it being sufficient that a good Angel did it. And in St. Ambrose's S. Ambr. in loc. Opinion, This Angel was Christ himself; wherefore an Oath cannot be suppos'd unlawful, having even in Gospel Times so notable a President of one who did actually swear.

Par.

But T. E. says, We must not imitate the Angels in all things, for one of them offer'd In­cense, which is abolished by Christ, as the concur­rent judgement (he says) and practice of all Par­ties confirms. p. 167.

Min.

If all the Christians in the World were divided into three parts, two of them do use Incense (in their worship) at this day: I do not mention this to justifie the practice, but to shew with what confidence the Quaker prattles, as if it were the concurrent judgment of all Parties. Besides, there is a vast diffe­rence between Types and Ceremonies, which cease of themselves, when the substance is come, and such things as are under a positive prohibition; Circumcision, abstaining from blood, and things strangled, were Ceremonies, yet were they connived at, in the early times of Christianity: But had they been under a positive prohibition, it had been a damnable sin afterwards to have allowed them in any [Page 226] case: So the using of Incense in Divine Service is Ceremonious, but had it been as expresly forbidden, as the Quakers pretend all swear­ing is, the Angel had fallen into sin, (and con­sequently from his State) by using it. So that the Quakers instance here comes infinitely short of the case.

However I shall add, that the Apocalypse, or Book of Revelation is mystical, one part whereof describeth the things of Christianity allusively to Moses's Tabernacle, and Solomon's Temple; on this account the offering of In­cense is there introduced, to signifie that which it is a symbol of; but the Angel's Oath is no symbol of any thing, therefore not only allowable but useful in Gospel times.

Par.

You said, that if there were that truth in men, that their bare testimony were of sufficient credit, then there were no need at all of an Oath, and yet (says he) would you fetch an instance from Heaven of swearing? If there were not truth enough among men, do you think there is not truth enough in Angels neither, to make their bare testimony of sufficient Credit? p. 176.

Min.

God and the Angel did swear meer­ly in condescension to the weaknesses and infirmities of men, to give us the highest assurance either of God Almighty's Mercy, or Justice; therefore whensoever they sware, it was wholly upon our account.

Par.

T. E. tells us, that he would go di­rectily to the two Texts in Matthew and James, but for a passage or two which lie in his way: The first is, that you should say, that every [Page 227] Oath implies an Execration, that is, a cursing or betaking ones self to the Devil (as Rider ex­pounds the word) which makes an Oath more unsuitable to the nature of the Gospel, &c. p. 169.

Min.

If an Execration be not implied in e­very Oath, then is the Oath it self excuseable, the fault will only lye at my door, for making such an assertion: But if every Oath do's re­ally imply an Execration, and the true notion of an Execration is a cursing or betaking ones Soul to the Devil; then an Oath was as unsuit­able to the Law, as it can be to the Gospel: so that the Quaker's Argument will fall every way to the ground.

Neither do's Rider say, it is a Cursing and a Betaking—but Cursing or Betaking—For there are Execrations which are a betaking our selves to the Justice of God, in case we falsifie: And such are the Execrations imply­ed in the Oaths we take.

Now that such Execrations are understood in every Oath, was the Opinion of Plutarch, and the incomparably Learned, and no less Judicious Bishop Sanderson, whom before I quoted. St. Augustine is of this judgement also; For (says he) what we mention in swear­ing, we bind it over to God, namely to suffer if we falsifie Aug. de Verb. A­post. Ser. 130.. And the same is affirmed by Cor­nelius à Lapide on Rom. 14. 11. by Fuller in Miscel. lib. 2. cap. 2. by Grotius de Iure Belli, and many more.

If need were I could quote several forms of Heathen Oaths, and of Christian Oaths out of [Page 228] our own Historians, where the Execration hath been exprest, Ita me Diespiter ejiciat ut ego hunc lapidem, in his beloved Polybius;—But I need not instance in a thing so generally known as this is.

Par.

But whereas you added, that Execra­tion is implied and understood even in those Ellipti­cal forms of swearing used by God himself; this (he says) he cannot brook that you should thus charge God with using an Execration (that is, wish­ing a curse upon himself) which how great a blas­phemy it is against God, will appear, if we consider that it tends to make the most high God acknowledge some other Being superiour to himself; for he who execrates (or wisheth a curse upon) himself, doth thereby own a power above himself, which is able to bring, or execute that curse upon him. ibid.

Min.

I hope you are sensible that the noti­on he has of [Execration] is utterly false, that indeed no such thing is implied by it, as to betake ones Soul to the Devil; so that it is no wonder to see the Quaker throwing down the Iack Straw which himself hath made.

Had he consulted Bishop Sanderson, he would have found sufficient reasons given by him for this Assertion: However I must tell T. E. that God in swearing (as in some other things) follows the manner of men, and his Oaths are Elliptical in the Hebrew tongue, as well as mens, in which something must be un­derstood to make up the sense, and that which is so understood, is an Execration. Of this we have a plain example in Psal. 95. 11. So I sware in my wrath [If] they shall enter into my rest; [Page 229] (for so it is in the Hebrew, as both you and T. E. may be informed from the marg.) [If] what then? somewhat must necessarily be un­derstood: Let Vatablus here teach the Quaker how to fill up the sense: If (says he) is a par­ticle Vatab. in loc. of swearing among the Hebrews, and they understand [let this or that happen to me.]

The Children of Israel (you know) had grie­ved God forty years in the wilderness; had in the highest affront to His Majesty set up a filthy Idol, most ingratefully murmured a­gainst him, and brought up an evil report on that good Land whither he was carrying them, wherefore He sware in his wrath that [if] any of them entered into his rest (that is, possessed the Land of Canaan, except Ioshua and Caleb) &c. Now in the [If] here consists the El­lipsis, and the sense must be made out by our supposition, which will run after this manner: If they enter into my Rest, if ever they have any thing to do in the Land of Canaan, then let that Calf they made be thought their God, and have the honour of bringing them out of the Land of Egypt: I have sworn they shall never enter my Rest, which if they ever do, let me be account­ed a lyar, and for ever forfeit the honour of my Veracity. Here's now the Execration: And does the High God in this acknowledge some other Being superiour to himself? &c. Now I would know what evil this can be to God, who (it's true) can incurr no evil, because he can­not falsifie? Suppose a True Man, that knows the thing he speaks to be right, should (sor the confirmation of them who doubt) say, If I be [Page 230] a lyar, let me suffer as a lyar? Here's an Execra­tion: Now what Christian precept doth it op­pose? or which way is it unsuitable to the na­ture and purity of the Gospel?

St. Paul did execrate himself conditionally, Rom. 9. 3. I could wish my self (says he) were accursed from Christ, for my Brethren, my Kins­men according to the flesh, &c.

So that T. E. needed not to have made so many black inferences from my words, un­less he intended to give thereby a clearer and fuller demonstration of his own imperti­nencies, and wrangling disposition.

But to retort his own words with some lit­tle variation. By this you may see what horrid absurdities that wisdom which descendeth not from above, but is earthly and sensual, runs (not the Learned Rabbies but) the unlearned Qua­kers into.

Par.

The other passage of yours which lies in his way, is this; you said, that the laying on of the hand, and kissing of the Book, were no es­sential parts of an Oath, but only decent and comely Ceremonies. p. 170.

Min.

As for laying on of the hand, kissing the Book, &c. however they may be service­able to affect the mind with so solemn and se­rious a business; yet indeed are they but so ma­ny circumstances, and concern not at all the na­ture of an Oath. For if to appeal to God as witness of our hearts and actions, is not an Oath, (as T. E. tells us) surely then to lay the hand on the Book, and kiss it, cannot pass for Pag. 156, and 163. [...] swearing, even in the Quakers own account.

He wishes here that the Magistrates in all Counties would read this, and reflect upon those many great Fines, and sore Imprisonments inflicted by some of them, upon many of the Qua­kers, even to the loss of life, for not complying with those things which are by you asserted to be no es­sential parts of an Oath, but bare Ceremonies. ibid.

Min.

Do the Quakers then suffer for such things as are meerly indifferent? who do they think will thank 'em for it another day? or will it not be said to them at the great day, Who required this at your hands? It's the Cause which makes a Martyr: And it's not barely suffering Fines, Imprisonments, or Death it self that God accepts, for there are suffer­ers of all Opinions: Filthy Mahomet has not See Tur­kish Hist. p. 284. Mat. 5. 10. wanted those that have died for him. Christ (it's true) saith, Blessed are they which are per­secuted, but then he adds, for Righteousness sake. And though I give my Body to be burned and have not Charity, it profiteth me nothing, 1 Cor. 13. 3.

Kissing then and laying the hand upon the Book, being by all sides accounted no essential parts of an Oath: My wonder then is, what the Quaker here aims at, unless it be to prove his own Party cross and peevish, who it seems do obstinately suffer for that, wherein our Sa­viour's prohibition is no ways concerned.

Par.

However he hopes that the Magistrates for the future will be induced to exercise more moderation and gentleness, and not to expose their honest Neighbours to so great sufferings for [Page 232] meer Ceremonies, when the summe and substance is effectually answered by their speaking the plain and naked Truth in the presence of God. Ibid.

Min.

We can speak no where, but in the presence of God: what security is this to the Magistrate? every lyar speaks in the presence of God: For where can he flee from his presence? Psal. 139.

Par.

I suppose T. E.'s meaning is, That if the Magistrates will dispense with their kissing of the Book, &c. they will assure them, that what they speak is the plain and naked truth, as they are in the presence of God.

Min.

This either is his meaning, or else he plainly equivocates; wherefore let us take the Quaker in the best sense, and suppose that he equivocates not, yet here must I tell him, that speaking thus in the presence of God is the summe and substance of an Oath. This reminds me of a passage which happen'd some few years ago: The King and Council order, That all persons in any Military Imployment should be obliged to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, otherwise to quit the Service. An ignorant Souldier (who was a Papist, as the story goes) consults his Confessor whether he might take the Oaths? who told him, that he might take the Oath of Allegiance, but not that of Supremacy: But it seems this Souldier understood him quite wrong, and when he came to swear, took the Oath of Su­premacy, but absolutely refused the Oath of Allegiance, for which he was casheir'd. No less ignorant are the Quakers, who it seems [Page 233] do not really scruple the summe and substance of an Oath, but at the form and manner of taking it. To speak thus in the presence of God, i. e. to appeal to him as a witness of their sincerity, is what (it seems) they dare yield unto: but to lay their hands on the Book and kiss it, (though T. E. calls it a meer Ceremo­ny) yet is it so enormous, that they will ra­ther suffer Fines, Imprisonments (nay what not) than they will do it: Now how ridicu­lous this is, let all of even common sense and reason judge and determine. However if the Magistrates will be content to take the Quakers Oaths, without kissing of the Book, I am willing that they have my suffrage (if it might signifie any thing) for a dispensa­tion.

Par.

At length T. E. is come to those two no­table Texts, Mat. 5. 34. Swear not at all; and Jam. 5. 12. above all things my Brethren swear not: These (says he) stand like two immove­able Rocks, against which all the contenders for swearing have hitherto been sp [...]t: These two Bi­shop Gawden confesseth to be not able Texts, which seem to stand as the Angel of the Lord against Balaam, &c. p. 170, 171.

Min.

If big swelling words be true Argu­ments, I must then acknowledge my Book baffl'd to all intents and purposes: But I must desire the Quaker to take notice (as fiercely as he lays about him) that Bishop Gawden doth not say that these Texts do really stand, &c. but seem to stand—that is, not to knowing and considerative men, but to such as T. E. [Page 234] who takes a Bush for a Bear; which makes me recall a saying which I heard from the mouth of that Reverend and Pious Prelate: Alas (said he) our Dissenters may be truly compared to boggling horses, which start and boggle at that which will do them no harm at all.—

But now that he has got to those Texts, let me enquire of you, whether you have com­pared the account I gave you of them, with T. E's reflections together?

Par.

I have so, and do find that he has not dealt fairly with you; for whereas you compared Mat. 5. 34. with Titus 3. 2. shewing that the words would not admit a general in­terpretation, but must be limited to a par­ticular sense; he takes no manner of notice thereof: yet because you said, That our Lord must not be supposed to have forbidden all manner of Oaths, because of St. Paul's and the Angel's swearing; This he conceives is sufficiently dis­proved and enervated already. p. 172.

Min.

I hope you sufficiently see that this is a meer Bravado; and also, that not only here but all along, the most considerable pas­sages of my Book are omitted. Now I desire to know where he undertook to disprove that the Angel swore? He pretends indeed in the place where he is treating about it, to excuse the action, as if it were done in conformity to the Law, because another Angel used a Cen­sor: But how come our Saviour's words to be a general prohibition? If so, the Angels had been included, and consequently (as I before noted) had fall'n from their state, had they [Page 235] transgressed it. So that you may see, with what pitiful shifts the Quaker goes about to evade the Truth, and will persist in his Er­ror, though indeed an Angel stand in his way.

Par.

But T. E. saith, that you meanly beg a concession that an Oath is morally good, &c. Ibid.

Min.

I begg'd no such thing, but proved it from the nature and end of an Oath; as I have done even now from the Third Com­mandment.

Par.

Why then did you make way to hook it in, under the notion of indifferency, as T. E. tells us? whereupon he triumphs not a little, and says, You come down a pace, who from call­ing it an act of Natural Religion, a part of the Moral and Eternal Law, are come already to talk of its being indifferent. p. 172, 173.

Min.

He abuses my words and their appa­rent sense: This I said, That our Saviour in the Sermon on the Mount, forbad nothing that is morally good, nothing that is either indifferent or expedient, &c. My true meaning was, (and my words express as much) that our Saviour is so far from forbidding any thing that is Moral, that he forbids nothing that is Indif­ferent or Expedient.

Par.

Yet herein (he says) you may see your self at a loss too, if you observe that our Saviour in the same Sermon forbad the use of a Trumpet in giving alms. Ibid.

Min.

Commend me to this for a spruce Notion indeed! Christ here (saith Grotius) speaks Metaphorically, and by this we are for­bidden [Page 236] to make proclamation when we bestow our alms: So that it is not a Trumpet which Christ forbids, but vain-glory and ostenta­tion under that Metaphor: And if vain-glory and ostentation be indifferent, I shall confess T. E's Argument to be good, otherwise a per­fect fallacy.

Par.

But (he says) that in taking it for granted that an Oath is expedient, you again beg the Question. Ibid.

Min.

Was not its expediency sufficiently proved even by your Confession? That it had Fr. Conf. p. 68. been made an Instrument of establishing such hap­py Leagues and bands of Amity, and that Con­tention and Strife were ended by it? If this be begging the question, I know not what beg­ging the question is.

Par.

However you said that Christ's words must be taken with a limitation, as not forbidding all but some Oaths only. T. E. will allow of no such limitation. Ibid.

Min.

Why not a limitation in swearing as in other things? Christ in this Chapter for­bids not all anger, but anger without a cause, vers. 22. Not every looking on a Woman, but looking on a Woman to lust after her, vers. 28. Not all divorce, but divorce for every cause, vers. 32. And so doubtless not all kind of swearing, as may be fully proved from the very Text which plainly contains these two exceptions.

First, That we must not swear at all by the Creatures, for so the words run, Swear not at all neither by heaven nor by earth, &c. there's [Page 237] no full stop after [swear not at all] they are but half the sentence, and the Quakers do unmannerly interrupt Christ here in the mid­dle of his Speech, and will not hear him out, nor take his words together, the whole sen­tence being, Swear not at all by Heaven, &c. Now what work may be made with any Scri­pture if we thus break it off in the middle? Have I any power to say any thing, saith Ba­laam? Numb. 22. 38. thus may we prove him dumb. There are some standing here, which shall not taste of death, saith Christ—stop there, and you may Mat. 16. 28. prove them immortal.

Besides, if that part of the sentence [swear not at all] be full sense, and forbid all Oaths whatsoever, what need was there of adding any particular exceptions, seeing they were provided against in that one general? As if the Law should say, Thou shalt not kill any man at all; What need were there to say, not a Merchant, not a Farmer, not a Judge, not a Priest, not a Quaker, &c? This would be a meer tautologie, of which I hope the Quaker will not accuse our blessed Saviour. Wherefore many of the Ancients did ex­pound this to a prohibition from swearing by Creatures, and particularly St. Hierom on the place, which I doubt will not please T. E. very well.

A second limitation is taken from the next words, But let your communication be yea yea, nay nay; which is the Positive precept, as the former is the Negative, and is the re­medy of the evil custom of swearing in com­munication, [Page 238] which shews that our Lord is both forbidding and prescribing matters rela­ting to our ordinary converse, it being strange­ly incoherent to say, Swear not, no not in judg­ment, &c. but let your ordinary discourse be yea and nay.

I shewed you before, that Titus 3. 2. [speak evil of no man] was as general a prohibition Confer. p. 74. as this, yet could not bear a general interpre­tation; but this the Quaker passes by: how­ever I will give you another like Text, in Lev. 18. 6. an Israelite there is commanded, Not to approach to any that is near of kin to him. Yet was that restrained to such degrees of Con­sanguinity and Affinity, as are afterwards men­tioned, and to such as bear the same Analogy, as Iunius and Tremelius note upon the place. Why then may not our Saviour's words be re­strained to what follows after, according to that plain account which I have given you?

Par.

But you said, that Our Saviour is not here repealing the Law of Moses, but the false Glosses, which the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon it: this he calls a fond conceit. p. 174.

Min.

As fond a conceit as he takes it to be, I must tell him, that the famous St. Augustine was guilty of it, and so were most of the Learned Doctors of the Church.

Par.

But I desire to be satisfied, whether any of T. E's Authors were not guilty with you of this fond conceit?

Min.

Yes, I do assure you, the famous Origen, whom himself cites p. 185. is of the Orig. cont. Cels. l. 7. same Opinion; and so likewise St. Hierome [Page 239] on the place says no less; yea, and St. Chry­sostome also affirms, that this swearing by Creatures, was a corruption brought in by the Pharisees, being absolutely forbidden by the Law of Moses, where he commands to swear only by the Name of God.

But then I must tell you, that Beza whom he so often quotes, is guilty of this fond con­ceit. Omnino [...], (i. e.) per ullam rem Creatam, ut apparet ex proxime sequentibus, quas Christus damnat, formulis: Ex quibus liquet, indirectas jurandi spe­cies, non ipsum jusjurandum legitimè conceptum, [...]eprehendi, ac pro­inde [...]niversalem particulam à nonnullis temere hoc loco [...]rgeri. Beza Annot. in loc.

Now I would know why T. E. would use the Authority of such men, that with me are guilty of so fond a conceit, as he fancies this to be? hereafter sure he will be wiser.

Par.

But he thinks he can oppose all this from Bishop Gawden, whom he calls an Earthen Pitcher, He (it seems) saith, our Saviour gives many singular Lessons or Precepts of more emi­nent Diligence, Patience, Charity, Mortifica­tion, Self-denial, Sincerity, Conspicuity, Perseve­rance and Perfection of Obedience required now under the Gospel, above what either the letter of the Mosaical Law seemed to exact, or by the Pharisaical Interpretations were taught to the Iews. p. 175.

Min.

Methinks it does very ill become this Quaker, to call Bishop Gawden by that contemptuous name of Earthen Pitcher. For (if I be not very much mistaken) there's scarce one sip of Learning with which he flou­rishes [Page 240] this Chapter, which he has not drunk out of this Pitcher. The Jewish Doctors say, If we drink out of a pit, we must not throw dirt into it afterwards; which this Quaker hath done against all rules of gratitude and manners.

However let me tell you, that I see nothing in Bishop Gawden's Assertion which I cannot subscribe to, yet hold to my own.

Par.

He labours in this place to prove, that Christ did forbid more than was forbidden by Moses, even solemn swearing; therefore the Text is not to be restrained to the Pharisees Glosses; and so (he saith) he doth in other instances. pag. 175, 176, &c.

Min.

Because he forbad more than Moses, does it follow, that he contradicted Moses? and then will he not contradict himself, when he saith, He came not to destroy the Law? v. 17.

But the question is, whether such a Law be taken away? the answer is, that more is required by Christ than Moses: Is refining and elevating a Law, an abolishing and repealing of it?

The Ceremonial Law pointed at Christ, and decipher'd all his Offices, and the Evangelical purity, which upon the offering up of Christ, gave place to its antitype of its own accord, without any further need of an express repeal.

But the Moral Law is improved and advan­ced; which having been obscured by the Pha­risees Glosses, and traditional Expositions, it was no superfluous and needless thing (as T. E. suggests) for our blessed Saviour to clear and vindicate it.

You said enough before to make it very reasonable, that Christ did not herein forbid All Oaths whatsoever. Yet T. E. spends two or three pages to prove from the particle [But] here in the Text, that our Saviour excludes all manner of swearing, p. 177, 178, 179.

Min.

Not only the Particle [But,] but the whole Sentence is to be interpreted by what goes before and follows after. Had our Sa­viour said [But I say unto you swear not at all,] and there stop't; And if [Them] in the Text be only applicable to Moses (as T. E. would have it, p. 179. forgetting in the mean while his second Chapter;) Then the Particle [But] had been of more force. But whereas our Sa­viour mentions swearing by Creatures, and in Communication, immediately after [swear not at all;] T. E's arguing here from the Particle [But] is idle and impertinent; And 'tis plain, the Quakers interpretation of this Text (and not the Priests) will render the words of our Sa­viour Christ superfluous and vain.

Par.

Now let us examine T. E's notes upon the words of St. Iames, Chap. 5. 12. [But a­bove all things my Brethren, swear not.] Here he grants that the Apostle did forbid only such Oaths as our Saviour had forbidden, p. 181.

Min.

Having shewed you that our Saviour forbids not All Oaths whatsoever, this Text of St. Iames must needs fall short of the Qua­ker's purpose. By the by, it will be worth your noting, that he writ to the Jews (who had been strangely accustom'd to swear by the Creatures, and in their Communication) to [Page 242] be the more careful and watchful over their words.

But I cannot but wonder that T. E. should say, that Christ forbad Oaths (which are con­fessedly lawful during the Law;) when him­self has told us, that the time when our Saviour lived was under the Law, and that in this state many things were indulged to the Iews, p. 37, 38. If so; surely Christ in the time of the Law would not contradict the Law. And there­fore if St. Iames (as T. E. acknowledges) for­bad Oaths no further than Christ forbad them, this Sophister by his own distinction has quite spoiled his Argument.

Par.

But I observe that T. E. stands much upon the first and last words of the Text [But above all things, &c.] And says, That he might be sure to leave no Oath unforbidden, he closes up his Sentence with these comprehensive words, Neither by any other Oath, p. 182.

Min.

As to the first part [But above all things,] Let St. Augustine be the Expositor, Why above all things? (says he) Is to swear, worse than to steal, or to commit Adultery, &c?—these are evil in themselves, so is not swear­ing, This T. E. him­self grants, p. 141, &c. † Aug. in ver. Ap. Serm. 30. Why then must we avoid Oaths above all? Not that they are worse than any other sin, but because we most easily slip into them, having gotten a Custom of them†. So that these words [above all] strike at that irreverence towards the Majesty of God, which indeliberate swear­ing (as that in common talk) makes men continually liable unto. The Apostle then is speaking here of customary Oaths, not of solemn and judicial.

[Page 243] As to the other Clause [Nor by any other Oath,] I said enough in the Conference to prove it referred to the Head, to Ierusalem, and o­ther such like Oaths, which Christ had parti­cularly mention'd; But the Quaker has past over my Arguments, having had little or no­thing to object against them. But I now add, that in all Examples of a General Rule, the Greater instances should be named particularly, and the Lesser comprehended in a General Phrase; whereas if the Quaker's Exposition be right, the lesser Oaths [by Creatures] are named particularly, and the Greater [by God's Name, used in Judicatories] are at the most but hinted at under a General Phrase of—[any other Oath;] which is against the Rules of Speech, and very absurd. [Swear not by lesser Oaths, by Heaven nor by Earth, nor by any other Oath, i. e. not by God's Name in Iudgment:] this is the Quaker's interpretation.

And indeed 'tis very odd, that Christ and his Apostles (if they intended to prohibit All swearing by God's Name) should never give one plain word about it, when as they do men­tion Oaths by Creatures, which are not so ma­ [...]erial. To conclude, St. Iames must be li­mited to Communication as well as Christ, as is plain from the very words; And so St. Au­gustine and Antiquity did expound him, whose practice (being the next enquiry) will be an excellent Commentary on both these Scrip­tures; For if any of those Primitive Fathers did practise, or allow solemn swearing, they did not surely think that it was forbidden by Christ, or by St. Iames.

But before we come to enquire what thoughts the Ancient Fathers had of Oaths, I must know what you will answer to this ob­jection, If Men would use themselves to speak Truth, would not this be enough to give Credit to what they say in all Cases? If their yea be yea, and their nay nay, that is, if their Promise be Performance, and their words be Truth; will not this answer all ends in Humane Society? Then farewell all swearing? p. 183, 184.

Min.

Might not all this have been said a­gainst Oaths before and in the time of the Law? Might not Abraham's Servant thus have an­swered his Master requiring an Oath of him, when he sent him to fetch a Wife for his Son Isaac? Might not he have said, Have I been * Gen. 24. so long in thy Pious Family? Hast thou thought M [...] worthy to rule over all that thou hast, ver. 2. And now darest not trust me in this matter, without an Oath? Wilt thou make no distinction between the virtuous and the vitious, the True Man and the False, the sincere and Hypocrite, the Good and the Bad? Wilt Thou (who hast given us so many instructions Gen. 18. 19. to fidelity) enjoyn a sincere and upright Man to wear the Badge of Hypocrisie, an Oath? Thus Abraham's Servant might have argued with his Master at T. E's rate, p. 126. But he was better instructed, than to make this a Plea for Disobedience. And do's not T. E's way of arguing blasphemously charge God with folly, who not only used swearing himself, but in necessary Cases enjoyn'd it to be used by Men? Thus (to give you one in­stance) in Exod. 22. 10, 11. God enjoyns that [Page 245] If a Man deliver unto his Neighbour an Ass, or an Ox, or a Sheep, or any Beast to keep, and it dye or be hurt, or driven away, no Man seeing it; Then shall an OATH of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his Neighbours Goods; and the Own­er of it shall accept thereof, &c. Might not the Quaker at his wild rate have said, This was a needless injunction; seeing that in the 20th Chapter a little before this, God had deli­ver'd the Decalogue or Ten Commandments, whereby he had sufficiently provided against All Lying, Hypocrisie, &c? So that if we pursue T. E's Argument to the end, it will charge not only the Holy Men of Old, but God him­self (you see) with impertinency and folly. This however I will confess, that to speak the Truth is Security enough, but then an Oath is still necessary (in some Cases) to assure us (as much as is possible) that it is the Truth they speak; For we cannot see into Mens Hearts, and therefore hereby we provide against the worst.

Par.

Now let us hear whether Antiquity be of your side; For T. E. would have us believe the contrary: And accordingly tells us that Polycarpus (who lived in the time of the Apo­stles) being required by the Magistrate to swear by the fortune of Caesar, refused, giving this only Reason, I am a Christian, and was there­fore burned to death, p. 185.

Min.

Polycarp refused not simply to swear, but to swear by the Fortune of Caesar; And who goes about to justifie an Oath, taken by a Hea­then [Page 246] Goddess, for such was Fortune reputed a­mong the Romans? Sed te nos faci­mus for­tuna D [...] ­am, Cae­ló (que) lo­camus. Juven. Sat. 10.

But upon what account the Oath by the For­tune or Genius of Caesar was refused, as not consistent with Christianity, we learn from O­rigen (which will serve to answer what the Quaker says of him, p. 186.) We swear not (says he) by the Fortnne of the Emperor: For whether fortune be only what happens, we swear not by that which is not at all, as if it were God, lest we should place the power of an Oath upon such things which ought not to be: Or whether the Genius or Daemon of the Roman Emperor be that which is called his Fortune, even so we had rather dye than swear by a wicked and perfidious Devil. Orig. cont. Cel. l. 8. Edit. Cant. p. 421. Hear also Tertullian as to this point? But we also do take an Oath, but not by the Ge­nii of the Caesars. And then goes on, Do ye not know, that Genii are called Devils? Devils we are wont to Adjure, that we may drive them out of Men; not to swear by them, that we should conferr on them the Honour of Divinity. Tert. Apol. cap. 32. One thing I wonder at, that the Quaker did not leave out [by the fortune of Caesar.]

Par.
That would not have been honest.
Mir.

Yet I must tell you, that he has left out as considerable a passage in this story. For Eusebius, in the Book and Chapter which the Quaker quotes, writes, that the Proconsul urged and said, Swear, and I will let thee go, blaspheme and defie Christ. Lib. 4. [...]. 15. So that Polycarp was Burned to death, not barely for refusing to take an Oath, but such an Oath, as indeed was a Renunciation of Christianity.

If T. E. get no more by his other in­stances, than he has got by this of Polycarp, he had better have let them alone. However his next is of Basilides. Basilides (a Roman Souldier) who led Pontamiena to execution, and by her constant Martyrdom was turned to Christ) being required to swear, refused it utterly, &c. for which he lost his Head. ibid.

Min.

To this I answer that in all probability, the Oath tender'd to Him, was the very same that Polycarp and the Christians in that Age refused to take; Whereupon the Centuriators tell us, that He refused to swear [More Eth­nico] in the Heathen manner, by the Pagan Gods. Cent. Magd [...] ­burg. Cent. 3. c. 6. To make this appear more probable, let us consider (First) the sense of the Church concerning an Oath, when Basilides suffer'd; Which we may learn from Tertullian before­mention'd, who wrote his Apology in the time of the persecution of Severus, in which perse­cution Pontamiena suffer'd Martyrdom; and from Origen, by whom she was instructed in the Principles of Christianity; and from Cle­mens Alexandrinus, who was Catechist in Alex­andria, when Basilides made his Profession there, as is noted by Eusebius. Eus. l. 6. c. 4, 5. Now Clemens speaks sharply against swearing in many places, as Paed. lib. 3. c. 11. Strom. lib. 5, &c. and de­scribing his [Understanding Pious Christian] he saith, He is no swearer in what he affirms or denies, but will add, [I speak the truth:] Yet he saith, [...], &c. He that useth an OATH Piously, is not addicted to swear, and [Page 248] is rarely brought to the use of an Oath. Where 'tis plain, that in the opinion of Clemens, a pious Christian may use an Oath, and that where he speaks against swearing, he means irreverent, needless, and customary swearing, or swearing by the Heathen Gods. (Secondly,) Let us con­sider what opinion Eusebius (the Relater of this passage) had himself of an Oath. And here I must needs say, that he speaks as large­ly against swearing as any other Ancient Wri­ter; yet he declareth that wonderful Vision which appeared in the Heavens to Constantiue the Great, to be of undoubted certainty, be­cause he himself heard it related by Constan­tine, who confirmed what he spoke by his OATH Eus. de vit. Con­stant. lib. 1. cap. 22. Whereby it appears that both Eusebius, and that Pious Emperor doubted not, but a weigh­ty occasion would require and allow the so­lemn use of Oaths. Now is it likely, that Eu­sebius would record Basilides a Martyr, for ob­stinately refusing that thing, which himself counted lawful? But suppose the Case were as my Adversary relates it; yet Basilides being but a new Convert to Christianity, and conse­quently not well knowing in the Controversies therein; Of what validity is such an One's Au­thority?

Par.

You have made it appear already, what kind of Oaths Origen was chiefly against; yet T. E. will have him to be against All whatsoe­ver; And brings him in saying, that Christ did manifestly forbid to swear at All, p. 186.

Min.

Though the Quaker tells us not whence this passage is taken, yet we may note [Page 249] it is taken out of those Homilies on St. Matthew, which bear Origen's Name, but are much doubted of by Erasmus; So that 'tis a Question whether this be Origen, or some Impostor: But suppose it be Origen; He (First) in those un­doubted Books against Celsus, maintains, That God the Father did not by the Gospel of Iesus bring in Any Commands contrary to the Law of Moses; Orig. in Cels. l. 7. And so he could not think, Christ pro­hibited solemn swearing contrary to Moses (as T. E. affirms.) Secondly, 'Tis plain Origen meant, that Christ had forbid to swear at all on slight occasions, because he himself on a weighty occasion do's swear: God is Witness unto, or upon my Conscience, is his Oath; contra Celsum lib. 1. So that if such expressions of the Fathers as T. E. quotes, be not taken with a limitation to some kind of Oaths in Communication, &c. we must unworthily fancy that they contradicted themselves as well in words as in deeds.

Par.

Now he is come again to Basil sirnamed the Great, who saith, In the Law the Lord seemeth to allow an Oath to a perfect man, which in the Gospel is altogether forbidden, &c. ibid.

Min.

This Phrase [the Lord seemeth to al­low an Oath in the Law] do's plainly import, that an Oath was not really Lawful then: Now do's the Quaker imagine that St. Basil did think an Oath was but seemingly allowable during the Law? This will render him more igno­rant than the Quakers are themselves, who confess an Oath really allowable then. So that [Page 250] if we make sense of St. Basil's words, His meaning must needs be this; Oaths in Converse are seemingly allowed by the Law (though not really so;) In the Gospel they are not seem­ingly, but plainly forbidden. And that Ba­sil meant Oaths in Communication, we may be sure from those Ecclesiastical Canons he made: Of which the 10th Canon is, That He who had sworn with due Circumstances, should not be forced to retract his Oath. And the 29th Canon saith, They who use to swear they will do evil things, ought to be cured by all means, by teaching them (First) Not to swear Lightly, (Secondly,) Not to persist in their evil purposes: Whence the famous Balsamon in his Notes on these Canons concludes, that St. Basil was not against lawful Oaths. Beve­reg. Pan­dect. Tom. 2. Canon. S [...] Basil: ad Amphi­loc.

Par.

Next▪ he brings in his other Authentick Witness Gregory Nazianzen, Who in his Dia­logue (framed between A. and B.) against swearing, discourses thus. B. What if I use an Oath unwillingly, but to free me from dan­ger? A. Let another allow thee that. B. What if we be drawn by Necessity to give an Oath? A. Why didst thou not rather dye? for surely thou shouldst rather dye than do it. And that he speaketh here of All Oaths, even the most solemn, T. E. bids us observe what he says a little before. B. But what wilt thou say to me of the Old Co­venant? surely it doth not prohibit an Oath, but requires a true one. A. No wonder, at that time only it was prescribed in the Law concern­ing Murder; but now it is not Lawful, for any Cause, so much as to smite or beat, &c. p. 186, [Page 251] 187. This is so considerable a passage, that not only T. E. but thirteen of the Grand Quakers (in the Book before-mention'd call'd a Treatise of Oaths) do mention it as a great Argument, p. 64. to shew that the Practice of Antiquity is clearly against you.

Min.

You may observe here, that T. E. do's falslly and dishonestly again Call this Tract of Nazianzen's a Dialogue against swearing, when the Title is, A Dialogue against Common swear­ers; And a little after, where Nazianzen saith, [...] i. e. Then it was forbidden to murder, but now even to strike; T. E. to make Gregory speak like a Quaker, turns the last words, but now it is not lawful, for any Cause, so much as to smite or beat. Where he puts in one half of the Sentence out of his own head; and it would make one think (who saw not the Cheat) that Nazianzen thought it unlawful for a Father or School-master to whip a Child for his faults, or for a Magistrate to punish a Malefactor by stripes.—But to come to the Matter; I will make it appear that Gregory Nazianzen believed the Lawfulness of Oaths upon weighty occasions (First) From his own words in this very Dialogue against Common Swearers. And (Secondly) from his own Practice.

In his Dialogue He hath these words. For­bear to multiply Oaths, especially commonly, and great Oaths, and on every occasion:—And a little after, Swear not to all things, nor always, that is, Playing, Eating, when thou [Page 252] art crossed, or when thou art blessed—&c. B. When then, and on what occasion do you allow us to Swear? A. When there is a necessity. B. Very well! But when will you call it a ne­cessity? when I may free a good man? A. Yes. B. Or when I may deliver my self from a base Opera Greg. Naz. Vol. 2. Iamb. 20, p. 224. Edit. Paris. aspersion? A. And then it is lawful.

Par.

I see already that Gregory (that Au­thentick Witness, as T. E. calls him) is against the Quakers, and not against You in this matter; and yet what the Quakers cite out of him re­lates to false and unlawful Oaths to free our selves from danger, which the Holy Father will not allow, nor You (I believe) neither. It seems he positively declares Swearing in cases of necessity to be lawful; But can you prove that he ever swore himself?

Min.

That may easily be proved from one of his own Poems, which is Entituled [ [...], i. e. OATHS or PRO­MISES BY OATH, Ibid. Carmen 17. p, 92.] wherein he solemnly Swears by by his Saviour to avoid such and such Sins, and to perform such and such Duties of Christianity. The Poem begins thus.

[...],
[...], &c.
I've Sworn by th' Word, who is my God most Great,
et. Joh. 1. 1.
The Beginning from th' Beginning, &c.

And a little after,

[...], &c.
I've Sworn that I will never entertain
Dishonourable thoughts of God, &c.

Then the Holy Man goes on.

[...],
[...].
IF I, complying with bad times, Deny
The Unity of th' Glorious Trinity.

Here you may observe he follows the He­brew form of Swearing, as he do's all along, till he comes almost to the end of his Poem; The Particle ['E [...], i. e. If] being used by him a­bove twelve times; And after all comes the EXECRATION (whereby T. E. may learn that his Authentick Witness did not think that This makes an Oath more unsuitable to the Na­ture of the Gospel. p. 169.)

[...]
[...].
Let Others then Christ's Mercy soon obtain;
But let My Labours fruitless be and vain.

I told you before that, an Oath may lawfully be used in the Dedicating our selves to God; here you see Gregory useth it to that purpose, as it [Page 254] were crying out to all (says Billius Billius Annot. on the Poem.) that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. il. 1. Be ye followers of me, as I am of Christ. For I have SWORN (that I may speak in the words of the Psalmist Psal. 119. 106.) and am stedfastly purposed to keep the Righteous Iudgments of Christ. Now what do you think of the Qua­ker and his friends? You see Nazianzen is point­blank Contrary to their pretences.

Par.

I cannot tell what to think; Well may the poor ignorant people be deluded by them, little imagining there can be so much Deceit under such serious pretences & demure Countenances: But if this be their way of ma­naging their Cause; and their Principles be such, as are not to be defended but by such wofull tricks as these; Then farewell Quakerism,

Min.

What I have said of Gregory Nazianzen may serve also to clear St. Basil further in this point; for such was the intimacy and corre­spondence between these two, that Gregory tells us in the funeral Oration he made for St. Basil, that they were but as one Soul in two Bo­dies. Naz. Orat. 32. Now if St. Basil did so concur in all things with Nazianzen, is it possible, that the one should differ from the other in a Point, which (in the opinion of Hubberthorn) is no less than Antichristianism?

Par.

I see his Quotations thus far have done his Cause more hurt than good: But what do you say to the testimony of Epiphanius, that we must not Swear, no, not by the Lord him­self, nor by any other Oath, for it is an evil thing to Swear at all. p. 188?

The Quaker (and those other Thir­teen, from whom he has this passage) did very cunningly in not mentioning the Occasion of that discourse, which would have spoil'd the Argument. Epiphanius is writing against one Elxai a Judaizing Heretick, who commanded his followers to Swear by Creatures, (viz.) Salt, Water, Earth, Bread, &c. Now E­piphanius saith: This Heretick is condemned by the Law and the Gospel both, since the Lord saith both in the Law and in the Gospel, Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me, & thou shalt not swear by any other Name, and Swear not neither by Heaven, nor by Earth, nor any other Oath, but let your Communication be yea yea, nay nay, for what is more than this is of the Evil one: And I suppose the Lord spoke of this before, (be­cause there were like to be some who would say, we might Swear by other names) first, that we might not Swear neither by the Lord himself (that is in Communication) nor secondly, by any other Oath (on any occasion whatsoever) for it is (not as T. E. translates it, an evil thing to Swear at all, but) of the evil one to swear. These are the words, and this the sense of E­piphanius, and if you will compare them with T. E's Citation, you will see how he alters the words, and adds as he sees occasion: But when all is done, the occasion being to confute an Heretick swearing by Creatures, and the words of Epiphanius no more than the words of Scrip­ture, which we have proved must be taken with Limitation, it follows they are nothing to T. E's purpose.

Chrysostom is again produced by him, who says: It is not lawful to Swear, neither in a just, nor unjust thing, &c. ibid.

Min.

The places, which T. E. cites, are out of those popular Discourses that bear St. Chrysostom's Name, but are suspected to be none of his by very learned men; yet suppose they were genuine, you have had already a suf­ficient answer given you to all T. E's pretences from hence. See p. 189. I shall now further add, that St. Chrysostom's discourse being directed to pri­vate persons, must therefore be limited to private unnecessary Oaths, for had his discourse been against the Oaths used in the Imperial Courts, The Emperour doubtless would have called him to an account for his Doctrine, which he was so far from doing, that he advanced him to the See of Constantinople.

But we may more clearly perceive his mean­ing by comparing all passages together. He tels us, how exceeding customary the Sin of Swearing was in his time; that the people used to take the Gos­pel to Swear by, & to put one another to Swear at the Holy Altar; and declares, that the like ex­cess of Swearing was not to be found in any other City, as in that of Antioch, where he then li­ved: * Ad pop. Antioc. Hom. 5. & 16. Hom. de juram.And therefore for the beating down this profane and irreligious practice, he speaks so zealously and vehemently against Swearing, and expresses himself in such large and general terms, that they who do not weigh one pas­sage with another, may think that Oaths were universally disallowed by him: But to put it out of all dispute, that this was not the sense of [Page 257] that Father, we find him of an Opinion, that it was the Son of God who Swore by himself to Abra­ham: Hom. 11. ad Heb. And that he made use of the same Oath in the Gospel, when he said, Amen A­men; and expounding the words Heb. 6. 16. Rev. 3. 14. of the A­postle, he saith: By an Oath is determined the dispute of all matters of Contention, and that not of this, or of that, but of All.

Par.

Did our Saviour swear, when he said Amen Amen, or Verily Verily? If He did, whom did he swear by?

Min.

He swore by himself. However, whether it be really so or no, yet it was so in the opinion of St. Chrysostom (as I have told you) and of several other Fathers, which shews that they were far from thinking All Oaths forbidden by Christ, while they held He allowed them by his own Example.

And indeed what can be more plain, than that our Saviour swore in Judgment as much as any Persons among the Jews in his time were wont to do? For in their Courts the Parties did not speak the words of the Oath, but the Magistrate did Adjure them by the Living God to tell truly; And then the answer they made to this adjuring, was accounted an Answer upon Oath, and they were reputed to have sworn, and to be obliged by the name of the Living God to speak the Truth. Now the High-Priest according to this Custome, saith to our Saviour Mat 26. 63. I adjure thee [...] [or (as in some translations) I cause thee to swear] by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God. Our Lord being [Page 258] thus Adjured or taken sworn, Answers ver. 64. Thou hast said, or (as St. Mark more plainly Chap. 14. 62.) I am &c. Which Con­fession he made according to the Rules of Court then; and accordingly they proceed to sentence him for blasphemy, as they impious­ly accounted this his Testimony concerning himself. See Grotius on Mat. 26. 63. And if the Quakers themselves were to Swear in Our Courts, they shall never be required to Name the Name of God; for the Magistrate (or his substitute) names the Oath, and the Parties Sworn stand silent, only shew­ing their Consent by Kissing the Book; Yet the Answer they make to such Questions as the Judge then puts to them, are Called their Oaths, and they said to Swear the things. Now sure Christ would have Reproved the High-Priest for Adjuring Him, and giving Him an Oath, rather than have Answered, if it had been Unlawful; And I hope T. E. and his Brethren will Venter to do what our Blessed Lord hath done before them; nor will they think, He broke his own Laws.

Par.

Now T. E. crowds in a company of Quotations together, as that of Iustin Martyr, Christians ought not to Swear at all; Then Chrysostoms and Origens sayings against Oaths (but of these two you have given me a satis­factory account before;) Next that of Lactan­tius: A Good man will not swear falsly, lest he mock God; nay he will not so much as swear at all, lest at one time or other he fall, even by Custome into Perjury. Last of all That of Hierom, The truth of the Gospel doth not admit an Oath. p. 190.

As for Iustin Martyr, His words are falsly cited by T. E. for he is speaking of Christ's Laws and saith: Concerning not swear­ing at all, and always speaking truth, he thus commands, Swear not at all &c. This is not what the Quaker alledges, That Christians ought not to swear at all; nor doth it sound to T. E's sence, but relates to speaking truth in Communication without an Oath; Yea in the same Apology, he saith: The Christians need not die for Christ, if they would dissemble, for we might (says he) do that which the Proverb saith, I swear with my Tongue, but my Heart was not made to Swear: So that it seems Christianity would allow them to Swear, but not to Equivocate in Swearing.

As for Lactantius, His words do plainly relate to common and Customary Swearing, as appears by that Reason he gives, viz.—lest at one time or other he fall, even by Custom, into perjury.

Lastly, that of Hieroms must be meant of flight Oaths or Oaths by Creatures; for St. Hie­rom himself swears on Great Occasion, God is my Witness to my Conscience: Ad Pau­lin. Ep. 153. et Ad Eust [...]ch. Epi [...]. 22. And He re­lates, that he being in a Vision was dragged to Christs Tribunal, and scourged for too much de­light in Tully; nor (saith he) was I dismissed, till I promised upon OATH to amend Ad Eu­stoch. Ep. 22. And to shew that he was wholly Contrary to T. E. and his Brethren, He plainly saith, Consider that our Saviour hath not here forbidden to Swear by God, but by Heaven, by Earth, by Ierusalem, and by thy Head. Com­ment. in Mat. 5.

From the Ancients T. E. comes down to Bishop Taylor, who says, Our Blessed Lord would not have his Disciples to swear at all (not in publick Iudicature) if the Necessity of the world would permit him to be obeyed. If Chri­stians will live according to the Religion, the word of a Christian were a sufficient Instrument to give Testimony, &c. p. 191.

Min.

As for this Citation, you see the Doctor himself here confesses, the Necessities of the world will not permit the precept to be obeyed in that sense. Should I say, It were a happy thing, if men were never cold, hungry, or sick; for then there would be no need of fire, food, and physick: Will T. E. bring this saying of mine to prove, That I am (as cases stand) against the use of these? Yet thus he abuses the good Bishop; who Took divers Oaths himself, and Required them from others by Virtue of his office. And in his Exposition of the Third Commandment, The Second du­ty is To invocate Gods Name directly, or by con­sequence in all solemn Adjurations, and pub­lick Oaths. Holy Dying Chap. 4. §. 8. p. 164.

By this time, I hope, I have satisfied you, that to Refuse All manner of Swearing is a New Doctrine, and contrary to the Primitive Christian Faith; Yet to confirm this Truth, I shall give T. E. a few more undeniable Evi­dences in this matter.

Clemens of Alexandria, who (was Elder than any of T. E's pretended Authorities, and) lived Anno Christi 192, saith clearly, A Chri­stian ought not to Swear to his affirmations, but [Page 261] to profess he speaks Truth, and to live So that he may be believed—but there where Iudg­ment requires it, He doth Rightly Swear to the Truth: Stromat. 7. Which is more direct to our purpose than all the Quakers put together are to his.

To him add the old Author of the Apostolick Constitutions (which some say, was this Cle­mens) It is said, Swear not at all; but if you shall swear, take heed it be a just Oath. Lib. 7. c. 4.

Tertullian follows, who shewing why the Christians would not Swear by the Emperours Genius adds—But WE DO SWEAR (though not by the Genius of the Emperours, yet) by their Safety (he means, by God the Author of their safety) which is more excellent than all the Genii in the World. Apolog▪ Cap. 32. The Practice of O­rigen and Hierom you have had before.

St. Athanasius saith, Christ forbid to swear at all; Athan. in Passion. et Crucem Dom. yet that he did not thereby mean to exclude solemn and necessary Oaths, we may learn from his Apology to the Emperour Con­stantius (to whom the Arrians had falsly ac­cused him;) where he often clears himself by Oaths, saying God is Witness, and Christ is Wit­ness; & in another place, We speak this before God, for WE CHRISTIANS have this Oath; where he plainly calls that an Oath, and an Oath used by Christians.

St. Ambrose allows an Oath, where we can be certain of the truth of what we swear. In Psal. 118. Serm. 14. Let T. E. see his Comment on Heb, 6. where he tells us, that Christ swore in the Gospel, when he said Amen Amen, [or verily verily] I say un­to [Page 262] you. And upon the 16 verse he has these words, If we must believe for the future the Oaths of Men, of whom the Prophet saith, All Men are Lyars, How much more ought we to believe the Oath of God, who is Truth, and can neither be deceived nor deceive? T. E. may now abuse this Holy Man, and say, I do not believe all Men are Lyars, whatever He may be; and I would gladly hear in what sense he will own himself to be a Lyar. This Man has been over hasty [with David,] and has catcht up the word at a venture; let us see whether he (who is so much for Confession) will as fairly confess his Error, p. 124, 125. I am sure these imper­tinent words of T. E's might as justly have been said against this Ancient Father as against Me.—But to let this pass;

The third General Council of Ephesus im­posed an Oath upon Nestorius and Victor; And so (saith T. E. p. 165.) did the 4th General Council upon some body, whose Name was Basil. And are not all these Fathers, and two General Councils, Competent Witnesses of the practice of the Primitive Church, and their sense of our Saviours words?

But further, it is attested by Dio in the Life of Antonius, and appears from Tertullian, that the Christians did Take an Oath, when they were Listed Souldiers under the Heathen Em­perors; And their form of swearing was By the Safety of Caesar, &c. And this was in the best and earliest days of Christianity; but af­terwards when the Emperours became Chri­stian, the Souldiers Oath was enlarged, but [Page 263] never taken away; For Vegetius records the form which the Christian Souldiers used to take to Christian Emperours. They swear by God, by Christ, and by the Holy Ghost †, &c. Veget. instit. rei mili­tar. And what Christians ever scrupled this? Who ever reproved the Emperors for requiring or the Souldiers for taking this Oath? And not only in the Camp, but also all proceedings in Iudicature were managed by the use of Oaths, as I could prove at large, if it were not too te­dious, or in the least doubted by Men of Learn­ing and Understanding.

Thus I hope you see with what sophistry T. E. has managed what he produces as Argu­ments, and with how great disingenuity he hath Cited his Authors, who are so far from being of his opinion in this Point, that they are evidently against him, and (to use his own Phrase, p. 175.) have laid him flat. Now therefore let us pass to his next Chapter.

CHAP. VII. Of Taking Texts, &c.

Par.

COncerning the Question of taking Texts, it's marvellous to Me, that it should become a Question, seeing there is no ap­pearance of Reason to doubt either its Lawful­ness or Expediency.

Min.

As little as there is; and though at our first Conference this was but an Occasional Transition; yet T. E. thinks it of such mo­ment, as to make it the main Subject (you see) of a whole Chapter. And indeed if the question be stated, we shall find very little work upon this Subject.

Par.
Pray then do you state the Case.
Min.

To take a Text then, and to compose a Sermon thereon, is to pitch upon some por­tion of Scripture, to expound the same, and from thence to raise such observations, and remarks, as (in the Preacher's judgment) tend most to the instruction and edification of the people.

So that the Question will be this; Whether thus to pitch upon a portion of Scripture, to explain and to recommend the knowledge and practice thereof to the people, be displea­sing to the Majesty of Heaven? If it be, Then are the Quakers in the right, and we truly are faulty: But if it be not (there being the Breach of no Law to make it a sin;) Then you and [Page 265] others may take notice, that it's not God's Cause and Quarrel, that this Quaker is defend­ing, but the contradicting and turbulent Spi­rit of his own Party.

Par.

You told me, that St. Peter in Acts 2. and St. Paul in Acts 13. took Texts, &c. To this T. E. replies, that if you and your Brethren have no better warrant for singling out a Text, and composing your Sermons out of it, than these Scriptures afford, your practice will appear to be very weakly grounded, p. 196, 197.

Min.

The Quaker (I perceive) opposes the Lawfulness of taking a Text, &c. because not warranted by an express Command from Scripture; which has been the sottish mistake of these later Ages, as if Nothing ought to be done without a Scripture-command; These Men would do well to explain their great Principle, what they mean by Scripture-war­rant, and to answer the Learned Discourses of Mr. Hooker upon this Subject, which none of our Sectaries hitherto have been so hardy as to undertake.

As to the present practice of Preaching upon Texts, I have shewed the expediency of it al­ready, produced Scripture Examples (and could produce more, if there were occasion;) And now I shall produce Church Presidents; Though indeed none of these are necessary in a Matter left to the Conduct of Prudence; and (I hope) you remember that the main of my Answer to this Scruple was this, that the A­postles and We act under different Circumstances, they might sometimes speak by the sole Autho­rity [Page 266] of infallible inspiration; We take Texts to Fr. Conf. p. 86. shew that we have no other doctrine to deliver, but what is taken out of the written word of God, &c. this was the chief thing he should have replied to; yet he do's by this, as by the weightiest Passages in the Conference, Answers it by si­lence.

Par.

Pray produce your Church Presi­dents.

Min.

I shall instance in Basil the Great; He took Texts and Preached upon them, as may be seen in those Homilies on the 15th Psalm, quoted by this Quaker against me. The same practice appears by the more Ancient Homi­les of Origen (another of his Authors) on Levi­ticus, Numbers and St. Matthew; And most plainly by St. Augustine in his Sermons on the words of our Lord and the Apostle; where that Holy Father singles out a verse or two, out of the Epistle or Gospel appointed for that Sun­day, and Preaches on them. And if T. E. please to read his 30th Sermon De verb. Apost., he will find that he takes for his Text the words of St. Iames, Above all things, my Brethren swear not. Where he may learn (besides That Texts were used in those early times) how different his judgment is from the Primitive Fathers, in the point of swearing, &c. Since St. Augustin's time, Examples are infinite for the taking of Texts, though not prescribed by any Canon of the Church; For though All of us pitch upon a Subject, yet do we not always name a Text, as appears by the Church Homilies, which are so many orderly Discourses upon cer­tain Points.

As for your instance of our Saviour's Preaching on a Text, Luk. 14. 17. He denies not the Fact, but says, it was in the time of the Law, and suitable to that Ministration, p. 200.

Min.

By this shuffle, he will make all the examples, which our Saviour set before us in his Holy Life, to be no presidents for our imi­tation; Or as if it were Lawful to expound Texts of Scripture under the Law, but not under the Gospel; Or as if to expound Texts under the Law, were peculiar to that Ministration.

Par.

But T. E. has another charge against the Priests, that they take Texts to get Money by, &c. p. 204.

Min.

A virtuous Man may Marry a Woman with a good Portion, and yet be farr from making Money the End of his Marriage: But I shall pass by this, for the same reason I did before, when I met with it in Hubberthorn, Be­cause it is Railing, not Arguing.

I shall only now desire you, and all sober Men to judge, whether a Methodical, order­ly and regular Discourse, be not more profita­ble for the people, than a loose rambling overall points without any method, coherence, or visible scope, according to the wild practice of the Qua­kers.

This may suffice to vindicate our Taking Texts, since it was practised by Christ and His Apostles, Used by the Primitive Fathers, and is the Custom of this Church, being also found to be the safest way to prevent wandering from [Page 268] the Scripture Rule, the easiest to be understood and remembred, and the way now used throughout all Christendom, except in the Quakers Confused Assemblies; Where there is No Order, and therefore 'tis no wonder that Their Preachments are immethodical, ro­ving, and as hard to be Understood, as they are to be remembred.

CHAP. VIII. Of Humane Learning, Divine Inspi­ration and Revelation.

Par.

IN the beginning of T. E's Discourse of Humane Learning, He mainly insists on these three things. First, he brings a Charge against You in making it Necessary to the inter­preting of Scripture. Secondly, Whereas you charged Hubberthorn for saying, Peter was un­learned, when he opened the Scriptures; T. E. tells us, that the Scripture says it expresly, Acts 4. 13. And (Thirdly) to your Query, Whe­ther there was not difference between Peter the Fisher-man, and Peter the Disciple? He saith, there was, When He was a Fisher-man, he was carnally minded; but afterwards, being a Dis­ciple, he became spiritually minded, &c. p. 205, 206.

To these I shall give a distinct An­swer, and in as few words as the matter will bear. And I must tell you that T. E. hath here egregiously falsified my words, falsified the Scripture, and abused both St. Peter and himself.

First, I say he hath falsified my words in saying, I make Humane Learning necessa­ry, &c. [Humane] is a word of his own shuffling in, and never so much as named in the page he quotes, nor in all my Dis­course to you upon that Subject. I know that St. Peter was a true Interpreter of Scripture; and that he had not his Learn­ing by Humane means, but by inspirati­on.

Secondly, He hath falsified the Scripture in affirming, that it says expresly, that St. Peter was unlearned, &c. Which is an express untruth. For he may as well say, that the Scriptures ex­presly say, that our Saviour was a Wine-bibber, &c. Indeed the Scripture tells us in the place he quotes, that the High-priest and others per­ceived that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant Men, &c. But was all Gospel which They either said or perceived? Were all the per­ceptions and opinions of the Jewish Council ex­press Truths? This is to make the Scripture own whatsoever it relates of wicked and mista­ken Men.

[Page 270] Thirdly, T. E. has abused St. Peter in saying, He was carnally minded; This being a calum­ny which He cannot prove; For doubtless St. Peter was a Good Man, when he was a Fisher­man.

Par.

But methinks his greatest oversight is this; that He having endeavour'd from Acts 4. to prove St. Peter and St. Iohn two express Igno­ramus's, he should so soon contradict himself, and tell us, that our Saviour before his Ascension opened their Understandings (which was an im­mediate Luk. 24. 45. and inward Operation of his Spirit and Power upon them) that they might understand the Scriptures. p. 207.

Min.

You may see, what shifts an ill Cause brings a Man into. It seems he opened their Understandings before his Ascension, and yet they were unlearned and ignorant after his Ascen­sion, as if they had Lost and not Gain'd by it.

And he is not too in his Notion of the open­ing of their understandings, which he calls an immediate operation of his Spirit and Power: For that it was not; Our Saviour opened their Understandings by his convincing Arguments, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, ver. 46. And if Christ had then inspired them with that immediate and inward Opera­tion of his Spirit and Power; How comes he in the 49th verse to command them to tarry in the City of Jerusalem till they were endued with Bow­er from on high; intimating that as yet they had not received it?

After a great many repetitions of the word [Humane] which was never put in by you; He brings a heavy Charge against you, That you make Humane Learning all in all; and Not a word of the Spirit of God, p. 211.

Min.

This is a notorious Calumny: and if it were as he says; Why do's he so often cite the 103. page of the Conference, where I say, The Spirit helpeth us to understand old Truths already Revealed in Scripture; and that We pray for his Assistance therein? Indeed I did not so often mention the Spirit in that Discourse, because it was not the Matter of our debate, being denyed by neither side; But Learning is that which the Quakers de­ny, and that which I am now defending; And to oblige the Quaker, I will now put in the word [Humane,] since Tongues are cea­sed; Which yet is farr from excluding the Spirit of God; Should I say, that Plowing and Sowing are necessary to procure Corn, I do not thereby deny God's Blessing to be necessa­ry; For indeed Both are necessary, They as na­tural means, This as a Divine efficacy to make them prosper. Even so, I say, humane Learn­ing is necessary in these Ages for the right in­terpreting of Scripture; But then this Asser­tion is far from denying the Assistance of the Spirit, which sanctifies our Learning. So that this is a malicious conclusion he draws from my words.

Par.

But he thinks that you have contradi­cted your self in asserting the necessity of Learn­ing to the interpreting of Scriptures (i. e. the [Page 272] hard places in the Scriptures, for your pre­ceding words shew that to be your meaning;) When as you afterwards affirm, That the ne­cessary points of Religion are not hard to be un­derstood; And he is so pleas'd with this, that for fear the Reader should not take notice of it, he repeats it over and over, as p. 212, 215, 234, 268.

Min.

I find He is so tickled with this inven­tion, that when he has nothing to say, He fills up his pages with a repetition of this seem­ing Contradiction.

But I must tell the Quaker, that he deals here most injuriously with me; For these two places of mine, were not spoken upon one and the same occasion, nor do they belong to the same Subject; For in the 90th page of my Book, I am speaking of Preaching and Interpreting Scripture to others; In p. 92. I am discour­sing of private Christians understanding so much of Scripture, as is necessary to their own Sal­vation: which they may attain without hu­mane Learning, otherwise none but the Learned can be saved. Now the Quaker disingenuously wrests all my Discourse to Preaching, p. 213, 214.

But let us see what consequence there is in his Arguments; an Unlearned Man may know what is necessary to his own Salvation, there­fore He may be a Preacher unto others. Rare arguing! Is every Man, that can write his own hand-writing, fit to be a Writing-master? Or every Souldier, that can handle his Arms, fit to be a General? Or every Clown, that can draw [Page 273] a Bill or Bond, fit to be a Counsellor or a Judge? A little knowledge with an honest Heart and good Life may do a Mans own bu­siness; but surely it requires more to be an in­terpreter of Scripture, to Preach, to defend the Faith against Hereticks, to instruct, ex­hort, comfort and and reprove in due season. Methinks T. E. might have been more inge­nuous, than to sport himself with his own im­postures, and so falsly to represent the passages of my Book, having done by it, as Dionyfius did by Apollo's Statue, Whose Silver Mantle he took off, and then clad it with his own Course Cloth, and when he had so done, laughed it to scorn.

Par.

I observe that T. E. goes on at this rate, picking up three passages spoken on dif­ferent occasions, to raise this observation, that Learning is only necessary to the understanding of those things which are least necessary, p. 215.

Min.

Suppose it did follow from my words, that it is a Minister's Duty to Apply things that are plain, and make them more plain; this is no inconsiderable employment. St. Peter thought it his duty to be a Monitor, and to put the Churches in remembrance of things they knew, 2 Pet. 1. 12. And it requires Skill and Learning to manage even the plainest things to the best advantage of the people.

And though I said the Difficult places of Scripture were least necessary, I did not say they were unnecessary (which would have been blasphemy to assert;) For there is not that [Page 274] Place, but the understanding of it may be use­ful, nay necessary too, when such as T. E. pervert them, to the overthrowing of the Faith of some. 2 Tim▪ 2. 18.

Par.

Now he tells us, that he passes on to your second observation (on 2 Pet. 3. 16.) not finding any thing further in your first that is re­markable, save that in p. 94. you again acknow­ledge, that those passages in Scripture that are of the greatest Concern, are written in such a plain and familiar style, that the weakest and most illi­terate, or unlearned, &c. shall not be able to ex­cuse the neglect of them, &c. p. 216.

Min.

It's T. E's old subtilties to call what he cannot answer Minute and less material pas­sages, Preface to his Book. and here he says he do's not find any thing further that is remarkable, when indeed he hath left unanswered the most remarkable passage of all, even that in page 91. of my Book; My Argument there was this, If St. Paul's Epistles were hard then, in those days of primitive light and purity, and extraordinary inspiration, and even to those that were acquaint­ed with the Original Languages, wherein they were written, and with the peculiar Proverbs and proprieties of them; If they were hard then to those who well understood the rites and customs of the people, to whom they were particularly written; and who might be easily informed of the particular occasion, and by that means of the true scope of them: How much more difficult must they needs be to us at this distance, &c. This had been worth the Quaker's pains to have an­swered, and ours to dispute about. So that I [Page 275] have no reason to take any further notice of him, when thus he skips over the main of my Arguments. But neither you nor any other can remain unsatisfied of the Necessity of hu­mane Learning, if you will peruse a Treatise Printed Anno Dom. 1663. on that Subject, written by Mr. Reyner of Lincoln.

Par.

But methinks he yields the Cause, For he tells us, that it is not their manner to deride Learning, or any way to undervalue it, which in its place is good and serviceable, p. 217.

Min.

I doubt His Party will scarce thank him for this Concession, who for many years made it a great part of their Religion to de­cry it. One (whose Name is not affixt to his works) saith, that the Original of Tongues was in the days of Nimrod that Heretick. Princi­ples of the Qua­kers, p. 51. Though I must tell that Learned Antiquary, that Nimrod was rather an Atheist than Heretick. But I pray, wherein then is Learning good and serviceable?

In Natural, Civil, or Humane Affairs, p. 218.

Min.

If so, why do's he make use of it him­self in a Controversie of Religion? And why do's he pretend so much to esteem that Learning, which the Translators of the Scripture made use of in that Work? p. 264.

Par.

T. E. has one objection against humane Learning, &c. Which to me seems very con­siderable, and to have more in it, than the whole Chapter besides. If (says he) want of Hu­mane Learning were the Cause why the Scrip­tures are wrested, How comes it to pass, that they are wrested by those that have Humane Learning? p. 219.

Seeing you look upon this objection as considerable, you shall have the fuller Answer to it.

Let us look back into former Ages, and we shall find that No Heretick was famous for Learning in the two first Centuries. Monta­nus was for Inspiration, as are the Quakers, and as horrible a Wrester of the Scriptures as they are, Calling himself the Paraclet or Com­forter that was for to come. Manes was a Per­sian slave, void of all ingenuous literature and education, and He broached the Manechaean Heresie. Ar [...]ius was a Man of plausible elo­quence, but of no great Learning. And I would have T. E. shew us any one of the He­reticks, that did come near to the profound Learning which was in those Glorious Lights of the Church, Iustin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cle­mens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, Basil, Nazi­anzen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Ambrose, Au­gustine, Eusebius, Theodoret, &c. These Ho­ly Fathers were some of them admirably skill'd in Languages, all of them in Histories, Laws, Rites and Customs, yea in most of the Liberal Sciences, all which they got by Education: And he must be a Stranger to primitive times, who knows not, how God made use of the Learning and Eloquence of these Orthodox Fa­thers, to confound Heresies, is they did arise up in the World. It the Hereticks with their lit­tle learning did wrest some places of Scripture, these Hero's did rectifie such abused places, by which they both baffled their Adversaries, and confirmed the Truth; So that the Heretick [Page 277] got as little by those attempts, as Ellwood has by this Allegation; Which gives us but an opportunity to set an higher value upon Learn­ing, seeing God has been pleased to use it as a means to secure His Holy Word in times of old:—but to go on;

We may observe, that when by the furious inundation of the barbarous Nations into the Roman Empire, Learning fell into decay and when Arts and Sciences were discouraged and neglected, at the same time all manner of Cor­ruptions crept into the Church; and as igno­rance encreased, Errors multiplied; So that most of the present evil opinions of the Church of Rome, had their original in those Unlearn­ed Ages, from about 700 years [...] Christ, till about [...] after; About the Midnight of which darkness, there was scarce any Learning left in the World; It is wonderful (saith Sa­bellions) what a General oblivion of Arts had seized on Mens minds. Ennead 9. lib. 1. These were the un­happy times, which bred and nursed up Invo­cation of Saints, Worship of Images, Purga­tory, with all the Fanatical Visions and Revela­tions, Miracles, &c. Then began Shrines, Pil­grimages, Reliques, Purchasing of Pardons, and the Popes attempts for an Universal Monar­chy: To serve which ends, Scripture was wrested; Fathers, Councils, and Records cor­rupted and forged; while the World was a sleep, and for want of Learning discerned not the Cheat, which is now so gross and palpable. And 'tis well worth our Notice what the Learned Hottinger observes (viz.) That the [Page 278] Canon of the Council of Vienna; Anno 1312. Commanding the study of the Oriental Lan­guages in Europe, was the happy dawning of the blessed Reformation; For while ignorance overspread the World, the Pope carried the Bell away, and had it generally at his Devotion. And Canus confesseth that their Doctors for 300 years together, understood neither Greek nor He­brew; And Lelius Tifernus Anno 1470. had much ado to get leave to read Greek in the U­niversity of Paris; for as Epen [...]aeus tells us (Com. ad 2 Tim. 3.) In that Age to under­stand Greek was suspected, and to have skill i [...] Hebrew almost enough to make a Man account­ed an Heretick: In those times they could wrest [Ec [...] duo gladii Luke 22. 38.] and [Deus fecit duo Luminaria Gen. 1. [...]6.] to prove the Pop [...] above the Emperour. But as soon as God restored Learn­ing, the Reformation immediately followed; Which the wisest Papists foresaw: Hence Pla­tina relates, that Pope Paul the second (who lived about forty years before Luther) was wont to Call all that studied humane Learning, He­reticks, frequently admonishing the Romans not to bring up their Children in Learning; Hence that famous saying of Ludovicus Vives his Vives de Causis lib. 2. Master to him (which might very well fit the Mouth of George Fox) The better Grammarian thou art, the worse Divine thou wilt make. And he that considers what opposition was made a­gainst Reuchlin, Erasmus, and other Restorers of Learning, by the illiterate Monks of that Age, will discern, that the Popish Church did strive as much to hinder the setting up of [Page 279] Learning, as the Quakers strive to pull it down: And its well if T. E. and the Grandees of his Party (for all their big words against them) be not carrying on a Design for that People, who hold Ignorance the Mother of Devotion.

Par.

But T. E. will have the Cardinals, Ie­suites and Popish Priests in latter times to be Learned men. p. 219.

Min.

Some of them I confess were so, but it was the Excellent Learning of the Protestant Divines which forced them to it; as we may gather from Andreas Vesselius Hebrew-profes­sor at Lovain in the time of Pope Paul the 5th, who hath these words, We wonder at the He­reticks skill in Tongues, and all Learning, and they deride our Contempt of these things; Let us wash off this blot, and joyn to Philosophy the knowledge of Tongues. De rat. Stud. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 19. Yet (blessed be God) the Learning of the Protestant Churches hath ever outvyed Them; In so much that of late the Popish Champions could never wrest one single place of Scripture, which hath not been rescued from their false Glosses by the Learn­ing of the Protestant Divines assisted by God's Spirit. But what Lamentable abuses might have been put upon Scripture, and what easy Victories would they have had, had all Prote­stants been as illiterate as the Quakers are?

By all this it appears, that Learning hath been the means, by which God hath Vindicated His Word from Wresting; And that Ignorant persons have been the greatest Wresters of it: Of which if more Proof be requisite, let us look back to the unlearned Anabaptists of Ger­many [Page 278] [...] [Page 279] [...] [Page 280] (in the last Century) the Progenitors of our Quakers Thomas Muntzor, Iohn of Leyden, Knipperdolling, &c. with Heiman the Cobler, Theodore the Butcher, who attempted to set up Christs Kingdom by a bloody Rebellion, and Abusing of Scripture: Yea this is confirmed to us by the Miseries of this Church in our late unhappy times; when any Mechanick took up­upon him to preach, and expound Scripture so long, till they put more Thorns about our Saviours Doctrine, than the Iews ever did about His Head; And divided this poor Nati­on into innumerable Sects and parties, under which it groaneth; And broached as wild Errours, as ever were heard before. So that St. Peter did truly observe, that Unlearned men do wrest the Scriptures.

Perhaps T. E. may pick up some men of Learning, who out of base ends, peeks, and prejudices have wrested the Scripture: but this is so far from proving Learning Unnecessary, that it shews it to be the more Needful; for if Theeves wear Swords for to rob and kill, ought not Honest men so much the rather wear them in their own defence.?

Par.

You have satisfied me abundantly, so that we shall find little more upon this point worth the taking notice of: Only T. E. has found out a way to make Tongues unnecessary, for illiterate men may speak by interpreters p. 221. Yet afterwards he tells us, that Tongues were given to the Apostles, to enable them so to express themselves in every Nations proper Dia­lect, that they might understand what was spo­ken to them. p. 223.

It seems then, They were requisite, and They were not requisite; They were requi­site to enable them to Preach intelligibly to all Nations; And yet not requisite, seeing this might have been done by an Interpreter. The fallacy then, which he pretends to be in My Ar­gument, will manifestly appear to be in his own.

Besides, What a ridiculous Method is this, which he prescribes of an Interpreter? For if the Preacher understand not the Language of that people whom he is to instruct, the Inter­preter must, who is to know two Tongues at least, that he may interpret one by the other; And since Interpretation of Tongues 1. Cor. 14. was a Mi­raculous Gift in those days, as well as Speak­ing with Tongues, the Quakers way is not easi­er at all, it being indifferent, whether the Miracle be wrought by the Preacher or by the Interpreter:

Now if Skill in Tongues be Learning, then were the Apostles Learned in that point; Theirs came by Miracle, Ours by Gods Blessing upon our Study and Endeavours; And though we come diversly by it, yet the Skill is the same: And though T. E. seems to separate the Gifts of Tongues from the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, p. 222. Yet we know, They both came to­gether; Neither can we be so absurd, as to fancy, the Spirit gave the Apostles words without Sense, or that he taught them like Parrots to talk without understanding.

Now because this Knowledg, and Skill to ex­press it, is not in this age given to any man [Page 282] without means, namely, Reading and Study; Therefore it is that we press a necessity of Learning in the Ministers of the Gospel.

If it be enquired now, of what use Tongues were to the Apostles, I shall grant that they were given to them (who had knowledge with­out Study) to enable them to speak properly to all Nations in their own Dialect. Now though Tongues be not necessary to us for this purpose, yet are they necessary for other pur­poses (viz.) To enable us to compare the O­riginal with the several Oriental Versions, to fit us for the reading of Ancient Historians, Expositors, and other Authors of such Scien­ces as are useful handmaids to Divinity, Which are generally written in Greek and Latine, without the knowledge of which Tongues we cannot know the signification and proprieties of words, the sense of phrases, the variety of Customs, the History of times, the exposi­tion of the Holy Fathers, the practice of the Primitive Church, the frauds of Hereticks, &c. The Apostles needed the Tongues to express themselves, having notions by inspi­ration: We need them as well to inform us in the Notions of things, as properly, pertinent­ly and Methodically to express our selves, even in our own Country (this will serve to an­swer another of his objections.) And so Tongues were and are Necessary for the Apo­stles and for us, for those times and these times; And None wholly illiterate either then were, or now are fit to preach the Gospel.

Par.

You told me, there was great reason [Page 283] why illiterate men were at first chosen, &c. T. E. says, The Reason holds good still. p. 225.

Min.

Are We and They then in the same circumstances? Surely different Times re­quire different Dispensations. But here I must ask, Why the Comparison between Gods rain­ing down Manna in the Wilderness, and the ceasing thereof when that People was settled in See Fr. Conf. p. 100. the Land of Canaan, with the extraordinary and ordinary State of the Church, was omit­ted by this Quaker? But I must confess, he has provided himself a brave Salvo to call any thing a Minute passage, which he knows not how to answer.

Par.

Though he takes no notice of the Com­parison, yet he do's of the Inference; for he thinks, You are to blame for inferring from thence a Necessity of Humane Learning in Ordi­nary times. p. 226.

Min.

A more senseless remark cannot be made; Unless Humane Learning had been an ex­traordinary thing, and acquired only in an extraordinary manner.

Par,

However he saith that Teaching of the Spirit had no dependency upon Tongues; it was before them, and was to continue after them ibid.

Min.

This is false, for they were given both at one time: But if he mean, that the Or­dinary teaching of the Spirit was to continue after them, I say as much: But then his not distinguishing between the Ordinary and Extra­ordinary teaching of the Spirit, has here run him into some gross Absurdities for two or three pages together.

[Page 284] First he supposes All Christian Believers to 1. Absurd. be the Apostles successors, as if there were no difference between the Preacher and the Hear­er, between Priest and People, when the A­postles selected their successors from out of the company of Ordinary Christians: And the Distinction has been ever kept up in all Ages since.

Secondly, The Quaker pleads alike for all Believers, as if they had All the inward and 2. Absurd. immediate Teaching p. 229. and takes those places 1 Iohn. 2. 20, 27. Ye know all things—and need not that any man teach you &c. without Limitation. Hence it follows, that the Apostles taught in vain; And so not only Mini­sters pains are in vain, but the Quakers own Preachments; for if All were & are immediately taught, what need was or is there of any of these?

Thirdly, The Quaker seems to fancy, that if the Spirit be not with Believers in this imme­diate 3. Absurd. Manner, He is not with them at all. p. 230. and that Christ hath left His people comfortless; as if the people in Canaan, where they plowed and sowed, were not fed by Gods Providence, as well as in the Wilderness. We know that it is the Spirit, that blesseth our Learning, and to as useful purposes (conside­ring our Circumstances) as if we had that Immediate Teaching, which the Quakers do but dream of.

Par.

He would make his Reader believe, that you are of opinion, that the Apostles re­ceived the knowledge of the Gospel by Tongues. p. 231.

He wrongs me infinitely, I put in Miracles and the rest. Immediate knowledge and Tongues are by me usually reckoned toge­ther, because the Apostles received them to­gether; and they were Miraculous effects of the Spirit, both temporary and extraordinary, and both fitted to that Season; And Immediate Teaching is as little to be expected now, as the Gift of Tongues, which was not so Miraculous as immediate teaching; it being a greater won­der, that ignorant men should be acquainted with All Heavenly Truthes, as speak All Earth­ly Languages.

Methinks, when Quakers talk of this Imme­diate Teaching, it's as some do of the Philoso­phers Stone; for while they boast of it, they should shew us One man that Actually hath it. And for all their pretences, we see some of them do not depend upon it, but make use of Humane Means, and do read and study, and when they falsly quote an Author, can pretend they were in the Countrey, &c. And we all know, that the Quakers being generally devoid of Learning, their discourses, and writings are fuller of tautologies, soloecisms, confusion and darkness, than any other sort of people what­soever; Whereas if they had the Immediate teaching as the Apostles had, their Notions would be clear, their discourses Methodical and Argumentative, as those of the Apostles were. And wee see they are so far from it, that even T. E. a pretender to Learning as well as to this inspiration, is often detected of gross ignorance, impertinence, and self-contra­diction, [Page 286] in this little Tract. All the Know­ledge therefore, that we expect now, must be attain'd only by Gods blessing upon our due use of Means. 'Tis certain, that the best Quaker of them all, did he not read, study, converse &c. would be as ignorant as a Barbarous Indi­an; and till they can give us an example to the contrary, this pretence of theirs must pass for an absolute imposture.

Par.

But T. E. thinks, that He has catch't you in a contradiction, because you say, that Necessary Truths are already Revealed in Scrip­ture; yet you confess that you want the Assist­ance of the Spirit to help you to understand them p. 236.

Min.

He forgets that here He do's contra­dict Himself; Before, I made humane Learn­ing All in all, now (it seems) I make the or­dinary assistance of the Spirit Necessary.—But to the point; If it be a contradiction to pray for the assistance of the Spirit, for the understanding of what is Revealed, Then is His Worship guilty of the same contradiction; for he tells us p. 237, 238. that the Doctrines con­tained in the Holy Scriptures cannot be compre­hended or understood by the Wit and Wisdom of man (in his highest Natural attainments) but only and alone by the Openings and Discove­ries of that holy Spirit, by which they were at first Revealed. So that I must retort his own words *p. 236., If it cannot be understood, it's not Revealed but Vailed. My wonder is, that this Quaker quarrels not with the last book in Scripture; seeing it's the hardest to be un­derstood, [Page 287] yet called The Revelation of Iesus Rev 1. 1▪ Christ. And I must tell the Quaker, that whatsoever is made publick is revealed, whe­ther every body understand it or no.

Par.

As for▪ New Revelations, he thinks it is a phrase of your own, not used by them. p. 237.

Min.

'Tis well known, that I am not the inventer of it; And though T. E. disowns the phrase, yet you see he defends the thing; and if we must not call them New Revelations, we must then call them New Impostures.

Have not divers Quakers stript themselves stark naked, and said the Spirit bid them de­liver such and such a Message in that posture? Must not then this be a New Revelation in their own sense?

I shall be glad to hear that all Quakers were really become (as their Champion Ellwood pretends they are) of another mind; It would be very well, would they at last renounce all revelations, which are not contained in the Scripture, and search out the sense▪ of what is already Revealed, which they may do with the ordinary assistance of Gods Spirit, and His blessing on the use of means, so far as is needful to their own Salvation.

Thus far I shall agree with T. E. that Out­ward means without the Spirit of God will not make us savingly to understand the Scrip­tures, Provided that he will add, that the Spirit will not help those, who neglect to use the means, so far as their condition and capa­city do extend unto.

[Page 288] Now as for those that expect New Revela­tions, or immediate Teaching (that is a Teaching without means) such do render the Scriptures useless altogether: For he that hath immedi­ately the same Truthes from the same fountain, from whenee the Scriptures do flow, will not value the Scriptures at all; for who will value a Copy, that hath the Original? 'Tis the con­ceit of this Teaching, that hath made many of the Quakers despise the Scriptures; What need have such (says one of them) of Scrip­ture-teaching without them, when they have re­ceived the same Spirit within them? G. Bate­mans An­to Mr. Legard p. 21. Another, whom I could name, said to a Credible Person, That it had been better for him, had he never read the Bible.

Par.

But you affirmed the Scriptures were a Perfect Rule; this sticks in his teeth: And whereas you proved it by 2. Tim. 3. 17. He confesses the Scriptures to be profitable, but hopes the Priest will not say, Every thing that is profitable, is a perfect and sufficient rule. p. 247.

Min.

It's well, if My Gentleman put not on a false Vizard, for this is the foundation-Prin­ciple of all Popery, to deny that the Scripture is a perfect Rule; And under this sconce all their other Errours do take Sanctuary; where­fore the Papists call the Scripture a Leaden Rule, a dead Iudge, merum putamen sine nuel [...]o, a meer Nut-shell without a Kernel. That the Fathers are clear in this point, as well against the Papists as their Frieud Ellwood, may be seen in the Confe [...]nce P. 105. which he passes by.

[Page 289] That the Scripture is a sufficient Rule, the Apostle proves sufficiently 2. Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. Do's not St. Paul say there, that they are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith? Which they could not do, were there not a Rule in order to that Salvation: For the main use of a Rule is to direct us in the way we should go in.

The Apostle proceeds to enumerate the se­veral particulars, wherein the Scriptures may by us be profitably made use of; They are profitable (says he) for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction, Which contain all the intents and purposes of a Rule.

To shew that the Scripture hath all the Per­fection that a Rule can have, the Apostle adds, that the man of God may be perfect, thorowly furnished unto all good Works. Let this Quaker therefore beware how he digs up Foundations; especially considering, how many places there are which make the Law of the Lord Perfect, &c. Which for brevity sake, I must o­mit.

I expected that T. E. in this Chapter of Learning would have shewed us his greatest skill and accuracy, but I find my self deceived his pages being filled only with pitisul shifts and evasions; Lest therefore I should weary you, I must desire you to pass to the next and last Chapter of his Book; especially consider­ing, there is a Tract now in press called [Christianity No Enthusiasm] which answers all his pretensions to immediate Teaching.

I shall only then desire you to take no­tice, that he concludes this Chapter with the Testimonies of Tindall, Iewel, Bradford, Philpot and Bullinger, all which argue a Neces­sity of the Spirit in order to the interpreting of Scripture.

Min.

I have seriously consider'd their words, and do find that they either speak of the practi­cable See Jewels Treatise of the H. Scrip­tures p. 36 and the First part of his de­fence, &c. p. 62 63, 65. knowledge of the Scriptures, which is ouly to be had from the Grace of the Spirit, or else of the Ordinary teaching of Gods Spirit in the use of means.

But where do's he find that any of these re­lyed on immediate Inspiration, or disputed against the use of Humane Learning in Divini­ty? Or do you think that the Quaker obser­ved His decorum in giving Philpot the Reverend Title of a [Learned Martyr] in this Chapter against Learning. p. 275? But to shew that T. E. has abused the Learned and Pious Philpot; And that I maintain No notion of Learning different form Him; Let us hear his own words, I confess (saith he) that Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and I acknowledge that God appointeth an Ordi­nary means for men to came unto knowledge now, and not miraculously, as He hath done in times past; yet we that be taught by Men, must take Fox [...] Marty­rol. Vol. 3 p. 376. heed that we learn nothing, but that which was taught in the Primitive Church by Revelati­on.

Par.

One thing I wonder at (viz.) That T. E. should not say [Bishop Iewel] (he ha­ving been Bishop of Salisbury) as well as [Page 291] [Bishop Gauden] and [Bishop Taylor;] but barely styles him Iohn Iewel a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion. p. 273.

Min.

You will the less wonder, if you con­sider that the design of Ellwoods Book is to blind and delude the ignorant Common people (for he can hardly fancy, that men, whose Rea­son has been improved by Consideration and education, can be imposed upon by so many ap­parent fallacies.) Now should He have called him Bishop Iewel, then would the most Vulgar have made this Remark (viz.) that a man may be a Bishop, and yet a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion.

But if T. E's design be to prove, that Gods people cannot be without the assistance of His Ho­ly Spirit, he needed not to have gone to Bishop Iewel, Arch-Deacon Philpot and the rest; He might have brought as plain Proofs, and with more Authority from the Book of Common prayer, from the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. And if I say any thing to the contrary, I will submit to the severest puninshment for so high a Cirme.

Par.

I should give you no further Trouble upon this point, but for one odd passage which I had like to have forgot. He says, The Faith which They have received, is the same with that of the Primitive Christians. p. 245.

Min.

Then let me give you a Testimony or two of their Opinion in this matter.

Eusebius (in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 5. c. 9. tells us of one Pantaenus (who lived in the Second Century) that He was a famous Learn­ed [Page 292] man, and Moderator in the School of Alexan­dria; And that of Old disputation and exercise in Holy Scripture did flourish among them, being instituted by such men as excelled in Elo­quence.

The same Eusebius informs us, that Origen perswaded to the Study of Liberal Sciences, af­firming them advantagious to the knowledge of Holy Scriptures, being of an opinion, that the exercise of Philosophical Discipline was very ne­cessary and profitable.

It was an unhappy Project of Iulian the A­p [...]state to extirpate Christianity by destroying All Schools of Literature and Education; for by this means (saith he) if we suffer them, We are beaten with our own Weapons Propri­is pe [...]nis config [...] m [...] ex [...]st is enim li b [...]s ar­ma capi­nnt; &c. Theo­dor. l. 3. c. 8. And the Christians complained of this as a very great grievance; Which shews, that they both used Learning and highly valued it also.

Saint Augustine allows the knowledg of Phi­losophy and other Heathen Learning to be use­ful in order to the expounding of Scripture, and compares it to the Israelites spoiling of, the Egypt [...]ians to adorn the Tabernacle Hist. Trip [...]rt. lib. 6. c. 17.; And saith that Saint Cyprian, Lactantius, Victori­nus, Optatus and Hilarius were rarely furnished with these spoils De doct. Chr. lib. 2. c. 40..

Saint Hierome was brought up in Learning from his Youth: And before he set upon ex­plaining the Scripture, he Learned the Hebrew Tongue Hieron. Ep. 4. (long after he was a man;) And he­highly commended the Mother of Rusticus (who was designed for the Ministry) that she brought him up in All kind of Learning ibid.. And [Page 293] he advises Ministers, that they be long in Learn­ing what they are to teach unto others [...]ee Ep. 8. p. 76..

I could produce infinite Testimonies to shew How Learning was encouraged by the Ancient Christians; And for this kind of Inspiration which Ellwood talks of, it was never pretended, from the time of the Heretick Montanus, till St. Francis pretended to this point of Quaker­ism, and other Fanatical Popish Fryars, and Monks, the Modern Enemies of all ingenu­ous Education.

So that I hope the Quakers Champion has been so far from putting you out of Conceit with Learning, that he hath raised your esteem and opinion of it.

CHAP. IX. Of Tithes.

PAR.

T. E. begins his Chapter of Tithes with railing, and saith, that he is got to the Priests Dalilah, the very darling and minion of the Clergy, p. 277.

Min.

But rather (if the Quaker please) Tithes are that which an English man calls Property, and I hope will be ever esteemed so, for all his Billinsgate Rethorick: But to wave thir (for I dare not encounter my Adversary in scolding) I must remind you, that the first thing which you proposed to me upon this Sub­ject, was an Argument of Edward Burroughs [Page 294] in his plea to the King and Council, who said it was a denying of Christ to uphold any part of the first Priesthood, that gave and received Tithes, &c. to which I answered, that if by the first Priesthood be meant that of Aarons, than had he presented to the King and Council a Notorious falsity in affirming it to be the first, there being a Priest before him, to whom Levi himself paid his Tithes, Heb. 7, 9. Or if by the first Priesthood he meant that of Melchizedeck's, the falsity was no less Notorious in saying, that Conf. p. 132, 133. Priesthood is ended, which Christ exerciseth for e­ver, Heb. 7, 17.

Par.

This indeed I told you was a great scruple to me, and your answer was no less sa­tisfactory: and I expected that T. E. here would have shew'd his art, but I found my self deceived; for he hath left Burroughs in the lurch, and given the World an occasion to look upon him as a meer Cheat and Impostor.

Min.

Its strange that he should pass by so considerable a passage, and the very first thing insisted on; but you will wonder indeed, when I tell you (that if a certain letter may be cre­dited, subscribed by Isaac Pennington) Ed­ward Burroughs was an occasion of his con­vincement (He should have said seducement.) Of all Quakers, one would have thought E. B. should not have been deserted: Is it not strange that T. E. who abounds with Sophisms and Fallacies, should not have one le [...]t him at such a pinch as this, when the credit and reputa­tion of His Patriarch Burroughs was so emi­ [...]tly concern'd? I pray God he may lay it [Page 295] to heart, and that in order to his own eternal good, that this Burroughs, who was the unhappy Instrument of his Apostacy from the Protestant Religion establisht in the Church of England, had not that Inspiration which we have been discoursing of, and of which the Qua­kers so vainly boast.

Par.

I see one thing very plainly, that where T. E. has not the wit to answer any of your Ar­guments, he has however the cunning to pass them by: For He has skipt over four pages, and the first thing that he enquires into is, whether Tithes were due to Melchisedeck, that which should make them due (says He) must be a command, p. 277.

Min.

You know that Abraham built an Al­tar to the Lord His God who appeared to him: Gen. 12. 7. Now according to T. E. that was a superfluous service, not a due to God, because we do not read that any where He had commanded it.

Par.

I suppose that T. E. is sensible that Melchizedeck was a Type of Christ, and that if Tithes were due to the Type, they are No less due to the Antitype; wherefore he pro­duces three Arguments to prove that Tithes were not his due: First, Because Moses says expresly, that he gave him Tithes: And that the Apostle useth the same Phrase: Now to give imports one thing; to pay another, p. 278.

Min.

That the Phrase imports no such things will appear, when we observe the very same in other Scriptures: As for example, My son (saith Ioshua) [Give] glory to God, do's Jos. 7. 19 this imply that [Glory] is not God Almigh­ties [Page 296] due, any further than Man is pleased to give it to him? (Secondly) The Apostle, who gives the best account of the Phrase, has it in these words, [...] He Tithed Abraham. Now since T. E. pretends to understand Greek, and this passage being in my Book, How came he to pass it by? this I am perswaded, had he not found it true, it would not have escaped his lash; wherefore do I suspect, that here He offers an Argu­ment directly against his own knowledge and Conscience.

Par.

His second reason is this, Had Tithes been due to Melchizedeck, then must Abraham have paid Melchizedeck Tithes of all his sub­stance, p. 279.

Min.

We know nothing to the contrary, but that he did so; and I can affirm the one, as well as He deny the other.

Par.

But the main is behind: We do not read (says He) that He gave him Tithes of his own Estate; but that which he gave him the Tenth of was the Spoils, ibid.

Min.

This was answered in the Conference also: It not being material out of what he paid His Tithes, but whatever they were, Abraham paid them as a Tithe, and Melchizedek recei­ved p. 135. them as a Priest.

But seeing he insists so much upon this, I shall add, That the Spoils were in strictness his own Estate, having obtained them with the hazard of his Life, in a just and righteous War. But if it were not so, that they were not his, than will an eternal infamy ly up­on [Page 297] the Father of the Faithful, and the Priest of the most High God, in disposing and receiving of that which (in right) belonged to other Men.

Par.

But (Thirdly) (says T. E.) which seems to me a meer trifle, the occasion, &c. seems altogether accidental, ibid.

Min.

That is, accidentally Abraham metwith an occasion & opportunity to discharge His duty.

As meer an accidental passage, as the Qua­ker would have this to be, yet the Apostle draws a solid Argument from thence; and whoever reads the 7th Chapter to the He­brews will find, that the Apostles design there is to prove the Priesthood of Melchizedeck's a­bove that of Levi's, from a threefold Argu­ment. (First) He received Tithes of Abra­ham, or he Tithed him, v. 6. (Secondly) He blessed him, and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better, v. 7. (Thirdly) The Apostle proves it the greater and the more blessed Priesthood from the duration of it: For thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Mechizedeck, v. 17.

Now if the account that Ellwood hath gi­ven of these two great Men be true, then has the Apostle quite lost his Argument; therefore let us compare T. E's Discourse, and the A­postles together.

Is Melchizedeck's Priesthood greater or better than that of Aarons, because Abraham gave him Tithes? that cannot be: For Tithes were none of his due, neither did Abraham pay them duly, Nor was there in those days any pub­lick worship, wherein He could perform any out­ward [Page 298] Priestly Office (As if Melchizedeck was a meer Cypher, bore the Name of a Priest, but did not the Work and Office of a Priest.) It's true Abraham gave him Tithes, but he did not pay him Tithes: And when all is done, it was but an accidental business, and will not bear an Argument. With what dint of Argument might a Jew (upon Ellwoods Principles) im­plead Christianity it self? What, Melchizedecks Priesthood above Aarons, because Abraham gave him Tithes? that's false even from Christian Principles: Did not Iesus himself say, that it Acts 20. 35. was more blessed to give than to receive? Abra­ham was the giver, Melchizedeck was but the receiver; wherefore the Priesthood in Abrahams loins was the greater Priesthood, the more blessed Priesthood. So that if we pursue the Qua­kers Argument to the far end, with Tithes it overturns not only the Epistle to the Hebrews, but indeed the very foundation of Christianity.

Par.

You have given me very good satis­faction, as to your Ministry, in your reply to T. E's first Chapter; I shall therefore pass by His Canting expressions, that you are made Priest after the Law of a carnal Commandment, which I suppose, related to the bloody Sacri­fices under the Levitical Law: But then whereas you asserted, that maintenance in ge­neral to the Ministers of the Gospel is just, rea sonable, and establisht by a Divine Authority; He quite contrary to my expectation grants it p 284.

Min.

Maintenance it seems then is due: Now I would know, what could possibly have been set out for that maintenancce less obnoxious to exception than Tithes are.

Nothing that I know of, but Men of Corahs temper would have quarrelled with it. But as for those Scriptures from which you urged this Maintenance, The Apostles intent 1 Cor. 9. Gal. 6. 6. (He saith) is not to set out what the Mainte­nance is, as who they are, from whom it is to be received, Namely, such as receive their Ministry. ibid.

Min.

I answer (First) Nothing can be more plain, than that the Apostles drift in these Scriptures is, to oblige the People to set forth a maintenance for their Ministers, and those instances of the Ox treading out the Corn, &c. shew the equity and reasonableness thereof. (Secondly) The question being whether the Ministers of the Gospel ought to be provided for out of mens Estate, for their work and labour in their Ministry; This I perceive is fairly yielded: But then did T. E. consider, How this very thing has been opposed all along by his own party, and how miserably they have abused that Text, freely have ye received, freely give? However we may fairly inferr from his own words, that they who are fed by us, taught by us, planted, &c. ought not to withhold our maintenances from us. But then (Thirdly) The next Question will be this; Whether those who withdraw them­selves from the publick Ordinances, are for that reason excusable in withdrawing our maintenances? If this be so, T. E. has found out a right expedient, to make all indiffe­rent Men turn either Atheists, or Schisma­ticks in point of interest. But then I must [Page 300] desire their Friend Ellwood to take notice, that if they be not fed, taught, and plant­ed by us, the fault is in themselves, and for which we ought not to suffer. (Fourthly) The Fallacy and Cheat lies here, that the Quaker do's not distinguish between the first Donors of Tithes, and the present pay­ers of Tithes, who are considered in the Rent or Purchase for the Tithes they pay, which I made plain to you at our first Conference, and shall (I hope) make more plain before we part.

Par.

He is got into a fit of railing again, an says, though Christ deny them, yet if Man will grant them, it will serve your turn as well, p. 287.

Min.

Where (I wonder) do's Christ de­ny them? Had the Quaker proved this, He had most effectually done his Work: But He is so far from proving this false Asser­tion, that when I am challenging the Qua­kers for about four pages together, to prove Tithes a sin, that is to say, the transgressi­on of any Law, Humane or Divine, T. E. is not so hardy, as to make any manner of p. 151, &c. reply; though he could not but know, that it was the most considerable passage that I had.

Par.

You may be sure T. E. was wise enough to pass by those passages: For I suppose He knew neither how to answer your Argument, nor vindicate the Reputa­tion of his own Party, whom you had render'd both ridiculous and dishonest, in the application of that Text, The Priests Jer. 5. 31. bear Rule by their Means, to Tithes or [Page 301] other Estates, when i related to the Pro­phets who prophesied [...]falsly, and by their [Means] or by reason thereof, the Priests than usurped an Authority: Now it seems the Quakers in their gross Ignorance took [Means] there for Estates, &c. and T. E. not knowing how to excuse this, puts it into the Catologue of Minute passages.

Min.

I would now know of T. E. where­in consists immediate teaching. Had I no­thing to object against the Quakers but this very passage, comparing it with the Notion of Inspiration, its sufficient to prove them very Cheats, and to draw any serious Man from their ways, making a plain dis­covery what that Spirit is, by which they are guided and directed; and that this Text has been so abused, see that Tract (before mentioned to you) called some of the Quakers Principles, put forth by Isaac Pennington, and the second Quaker there has this passage.

But to return to his Gospel maintainance, which (He says) is expresly set down by Christ, eat such things as are set before you; eat and drink such things as they give, p. 276. According to this Rule Tithes are a Gospel-maintenance, which have been ex­presly set before us, expresly given us. And if Tithes were not Melchizedeck's due be­fore such time as Abraham gave him them; yet when they wete so given him, they were without all dispute, which will sufficiently make good our Title to Tithes (could we lay no other claim unto them) [Page 302] wherefore it was that I said before, that if they were not due by a Divine appointment, yet are they now due by a voluntary dedication of them.

Par.

It's from those words that He infers, that though Christ deny them, and Men give them, it will serve your turn.

Min.

Could a more malicious and un­charitable interpretation be put upon my words? Ananias and Saphira (without any positive appointment) dedicated the Money, which they raised upon the sale of their Est [...]e, to the use of the Church: Might not Ellwood have replied upon St. Peter, and the rest, Though Christ deny that Money, yet if Ana­nias and Saphira give it, it will serve your turn?

Par.

Now T. E. takes notice of my query, how the dedication of Tithes appeared; and saith the Answer, O! you need not scruple the point, ibid.

Min.

The Interjection [O] is put in by himself, as before, p. 32. to put more Emphasis upon my words, than ever was intended by me, and to make more room for his scurrility, as if the strength of my Argu­ment depended upon that single passage: but let us pass by his Immoralities to his Arguments.

Par.

He saith you ground your claim upon the famous Charter of King Ethelwolf. p. 288.

Min.

This is false, The Church was pos­sessed of Tithes long before his days: but it was the solemn dedication of them (where­by all Disputes concerning them was ta­ken away) that I grounded upon that Charter.

But What concerns King Ethelwolfs Char­ter, &c. you'l find answered in another [Page 303] Book intituled The Right Of Tithes, &c. which is a fuller answer to all the main passages of this Chapter, than I could conveniently make, without swelling this reply much bigger than I am willing to publish it.

Par.

I shall then only propound his chief objections. T. E. spends some Pages to prove most gross corruptions in that Charter.

Min.

Some Corruptions there might be, even as there was in Asa's Reign, who tho He suffered the High places to remain, yet nevertheless His heart was perfect with 1. Kings 15. 14. the Lord all his days. So there might be some great defects in Ethelwolfs Charter: Yet having no Idolatrous design, but an honest zeal, that those whom he esteemed Mini­sters of Christ might be provided for. And what can be more uncharitable than to make a damnable Idolater of him, for doing something, tho it were in an ill manner, through invincible ignorance.

Magna Charta, or the grand Charter of England, runs thus. Henricus Dei gratia Rex Angliae &c. Archiepiscopis, Ducibus &c. Sciatis quod Nos intuitu Dei, & pro salute animae meae, & animarum Anteces­sorum, & successorum Nostrorum &c. That is, He grants this Charter upon this seem­ing pretence, that it was for the good of his Soul, and for the Souls of His Ance­stors and successors. Now shall we argue that this was Idolatry, and therefore Mag­na Charta was ipso facto voyd? And that the English Subjects ought to quit all the [Page 304] Priviledges that they claim by it?

Now suppose the obliquity as great as T. E. pretends in Ethelwolfs Charter, yet the dedication of the Tithes being to God, no blemish therein can alter their property.

Par.

To prove this you instanc't in the case of the Censers, which the 250 men offer'd, which because offer'd to God, you proved from Numb. 16. and 37. they were not to be alienated to Common use: But to this He answers, that there was a par­ticular reason why the Censers were to be kept. Yet tho they were thus taken up, they were not permitted to be used, or imploy­ed in that service, to and for which they were dedicated, but being wrought out into broad Plates, the property of them was al­tered, before they were allowed to be used. p. 296.

Min.

Here I must tell my Adversary (in his own Dialect) that He treads light, as if he meant to shew us a pair of heels. If the question were, why they were made broad Plates; Then we should find an an­swer. v. 40. to be a memorial to the Chil­dren of Israel, that no stranger which is not of the Seed of Abraham, come near to of­fer Incense before the Lord, &c. But this is not the question, I ask why they were hallowed: Here's the point, which is plainly resolved ver. 38. for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed.

But was there ever a more gross absurdity than to say their property was altered, because allowed as to their use, by being wrought out [Page 305] into broad Plates? A Noble man turns a Man­sion-House into Tenements, or into an Ex­change, is not His property to that house the same which it was before?

Par.

But He tells us that Tithes, and other such like Oblations are alienable, and in this Nation have been legally alienated to common uses p. 298.

Min.

I confess that Henry the Eighth did alienate them: And so did He also establish the Six bloody Articles, to shew himself as ill a friend to Protestants as to Tithes: But is not this a wise Argument, to prove that Sacriledge may de jure be committed, because de facto it hath been committed?

Seeing the Quaker talks so big against Idola­try, I must bespeak him in St. Pauls Language: Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sa­ledge? Rom. 2.

But T. E. (forsooth) to culver with the Impropriators, thinks to engage them all a­gainst me; as if I put them into the same pre­dicament with the First alienators, which is a gross mistake: And (God knows) I covet no­thing from them, but do truly pity the circum­stances that they are in, as I do all other men, who are enriched with the spoils of the Church.

However if all things were as He argues; Sa­criledge would be as much a Virtue as a Vice, and Ananias and Saphira may be put into the Calender of the Quakers Martyrs, who do justify that thing for which they suffer'd. And now that I maintain Ananias and Saphira, I wish T. E. would read Mr. Medes 37th Dis­course, [Page 306] which fully states both their sin and pu­nishment; and then I hope He will blush, for being ingaged in so bad a cause.

Par.

To Prove that Tithes were not Po­pish, You produced Protestant Martyrs that received them: You instanc'd in Cranmer, Rid­ley, Hooper, Bradford and Taylor. These (He con­fesses) were Godly men and worthy Martyrs; but He thinks they had not so clear a sight into all the abominations and superstitions of Rome, be­cause they lived but in the day-break of the Refor­mation; and that there were divers things which they took no notice of, that are plainly condemn­ed, &c. this is the sum of p. 305, 306, 307.

Min.

It seems then a man may be Godly, may be a worthy Martyr, may enter into a Crown of life, as He tells us these did; yet in this life come short of perfection: for it seems these Martyrs were so far from being perfect, that they took no notice of divers things plainly con­demned, and left the Reformation it self imper­fect. Compare this with his Chapter of per­fection, and see what consistency there is be­tween them. Besides they lived a good while after the Reformation was begun by Martin Lu­ther. Neither was there any thing of Moment fit to be reformed, which they left unreformed; being wonderfully endowed with Piety, Wis­dom and Learning for the work they had to per­form: Neither wanted they courage nor op­portunity to do it. However the Quaker should have told us, what those many things Dolus la­tet in ge neralibus. are, which were allowed by them, and since plain­ly condemned by others. I suppose by these [others] [Page 307] He means such as himself, or other factious and schismatick Spirits, who love to oppose any thing which hath the stamp of Authority upon it; who would be always altering and re­forming, till they bring all to confusion & ruine.

Par.

But to come even with you; as you pro­duced Martyrs that took Tithes, He instanceth in other Martyrs that denied them, namely Wicklif, Swinderby, Brute and Thorp, and produ­ces Fox's Martyrol. 57 for his authority. p. 308.

Min.

Then let us search Fox for two things, first whether these did deny Tithes; but espe­cially whether they were all Martyrs, to paral­lel the Martyrs which I named, because He saith I oppose the Martyrs one to another. p. 309.

As for Wicklif, I do believe indeed that He Martyr. 2. vol. p. 602, 603 denied the jus divinum of Tithes, but then He held them in the nature of Alms. Nay He was so far from denying Tithes altogether, that He was a receiver of them, being Parson of Litter­worth. I believe He looked upon Tithes as due only upon civil sanctions: and the Quaker re­presents me of the same opinion, and very idly tells his Reader, that Tithes were wont to be claimed as of Divine right; but that I am not hardy enough to venture my cause upon that Title p. 277. Therefore He is the more ridiculous in bringing so improper a testimony against me.

But suppose he had altogether denied T [...]th [...]s, yet was he no Martyr: For Fox tells us that Mart. 1. vol. p. 583 He quietly departed this Life at Litte [...]worth. Indeed by order of the Synod of Constance His bones were buried 41 years a [...]ter his Death▪ [...]d Fox has drawn an E [...]figies of the manner of it; p. 605. [Page 308] But for my part, I ever took a Martyr to be one that Seals his Testimony of the truth with his blood.—

Par.

I believe T. E. has the same notion of a Martyr: For He saith the blessed Martyrs Seald their Testimony with their blood. p 306.

Min.

I pray then what blood was left in Wicklifs bones, after they had been buried 41 years?

Par.
But what do's Fox say of Swinderby?
Min.

He tells us, that He was articled a­gainst for affirming that Tithes purely be alms, & in case that Curates be evil men, the same may be lawfully confer'd to other men. But withall that 1. vol. p. 607. He retracted this before theBishop of Lincoln, & sets down the very words of this retractation. But for his being a Martyr, Fox saith, whether He dyed in Prison, or whether He escaped their ibid. hands, or was burned, there is no certain relation made. And for Brute, I confess that He also was against the jus Divinum of Tithes: but then He was not against Tithes as due by the positive laws of men; for he said, by the tradi­tions of men Christian people are bound to pay p. 620. p. 633. p. 653. p. 654. p. 669. p. 708. them. And He too made a submission before the Bishop of Hereford: Neither was he a Martyr; For Fox saith, what end he had I find it not re­gistred:

Thorp too was against Tithes, as claimed by Levitical precepts, &c. but then as Alms he was not against them, if Fox may be credi­ted, who is so far from recording him a Mar­tyr, that He saith expresly, His end was un­certain.

[Page 309] Now I hope you see, what juggling here is, and how unfaithfully and dishonestly He Cites his Authors, when those Men are no more against Tithes, than, as He pretends, I am my self: And whereas He saith I oppose the Martyrs one against another, You see that never a Man of these was a Martyr.

But to the point in hand, I must tell you Sir Edwin Sandys s Survey. sect. 39. that (if my Author fail me not) in I­taly (if not all of it, yet in that part where the Pope is Sovereign) the People pay no Tithes at all. To this I shall add ano­ther remark of Sir Thomas Herberts, that in the Isle of Socotora, where the Pope was never own'd and received, even there (says He *Her­berts Tra­vels into Africa and Asi [...], p. 31.) the Christians have a Patriarch of their own, whom they Reverence, and other of the Clergy to whom they duly pay Tithes, their Feasts and Fasts like ours, &c. They use the Cross in Baptism, and the other Sacra­ment in both kinds.

Par.

But to go on (says T. E.) from Divine right, youbetake your self to your last & surest refuge, making Tithes but a temporal right, p. 309, 310.

Min.

I am sure he goes on to falsifie; for I said no such thing: To say they are a temporal right is one thing, to say they are but a temporal right is another. All that I aim'd at (as my words do testifie) is that we have the same Title to our Tithes, that other Men have to their E­states; enjoying them by a National consent in positive and establish'd Laws.

Par.

Yet he has a way to evade this, by tell­ing us, that he claims his Estate in a natural [Page 310] and civil capacity, without relation to a Ministe­rial Function, p 311.

Min.

This will pass for an Argument, when He can prove that the Ministers of the Gospel ought to be reputed Outlaws, and what is set apart for such, ought to be exposed to the rapine of every Sacrilegious Ruffian.

And if humane Laws be a good plea for o­ther Men, I do not know why they should be a bad plea for us, and this may serve to answer several of his pages, where he beats the Air with a repetition of a company of vain and empty words.

Par.

After you had at large proved, that the continuation of Tithes in the Church is no sin, because restrained by no Law, Humane or Di­vine; and though T. E. durst not there encoun­ter you, yet he pays you off for concludingthus, If the Quakers can prove from the Laws of God or right reason, that it is not lawful for every one to do what he will with his own, and conse­quently that he may not settle Tithes Lands, or Moneys upon the Clergy; then they do something to the purpose, &c. Well then (says He) that I may do something to the purpose, I will prove both from the Laws of God and right reason, that its not Lawful for every one to do what he will with his own: He may not imploy it to an evil use, &c. Hemay not make an Idol of them, its not lawful to lay out his Money in Beads, Crosses, Crucifixes, and so He goes on. p. 320, 221.

Min.

Our Quaker is very true to his Me­thod, to leave his Argument (which here was to prove the settlement of Tithes upon the [Page 311] Church to be a sin) to catch at, or play upon a Word or Phrase, to exercise upon it his abusive wit and sophistry. I perswade my self that e­very honest Reader doth take my words to sig­nifie no more than this; that where I have a free Estate, I have a power to keep or alienate it: Wherefore says St. Peter to Ananias, Whilst Acts 5. 4. it remained was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?

This however I cannot but take notice of, that if the Quaker can but spit his malice a­gainst me, he cares not, though it fly in our Sa­viours own Face, whose very words I used, and to whose plain sense I referred, when I men­tioned them to you: See Mat. 20, 15. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine Eye evil because I am good? But it seems Ellwood can tell our Saviour another story, and will prove from the Laws of God and right rea­son, that it is not Lawful for every Man to do what he will with his own, &c.

Par.

But I pass by this profanation, He sup­poses, that if Ethelwolf had an ample power of disposing what he pleased, or that the People had by consent joyned with him in the Donation, every Man according to the interest that he had; yet nei­ther could He, nor they grant more than belonged to themselves, p. 323.

Min.
Suppose I grant it, what then?
Par.

To make a grant of the tenth part for e­ver is (in his understanding) utterly repugnant to reason, p. 324.

Min.

Is it reasonable wholly to pass an E­state from them and their Heirs for ever, and [Page 312] yet repugnant to reason to grant but a part of that Estate for ever?

Par,

He has a way to evade this too: For he saith, that it must be considered that by the Pro­fits of the Land is not understood the natural only, but the artificial product thereof; not what the Earth of her own accord, without the help of Man brings forth; but what by the painful la­bour, toil, care, sweat, and great charge of the di­ligent and industrious Husbandman is digged, and as it were torn out of her Bowels. ibid.

Min.

I will propound you a Case: Suppose you were seized in Fee-simple of an Estate va­luable at 100 l. per an. Might you not out of that Estate charge 10 l. per an. for ever, to such and such uses?

Par.
This I fancy T. E. himself will not question.
Min.

Then must I tell him, that 10 l. per an is not the natural product of the Land, not what the Earth of her own accord brings forth: but must be fetch't from the Indies; and must be procur'd by the labour, toil, care, and charge of the diligent and industrious Husbandman, &c. Now I must ask, why it should be thought more unreasonable for the Husbandman to pay such things as the Ground it self brings forth, than to pay such a sum of Money, which must be brought from the remotest parts of the World?

Par.

Believe me, I am not able to answer you: But (says T. E.) if Ethelwolf's conside­ration be taken away (which it seems was for the health of his Soul) why should the charge continue? p. 326.

Min.

You have the parallel Case of Magna [Page 313] Charta already, by which the English Subjects do differ from the Subjects of France; which by this reason ought as well to be void as Ethel­wolf's Charter?

But then what is all this to the present pay­ers of Tithes? If the Clergy must not gain by the Charter, why must the Laity have the advantage of it, who have a valuable conside­ration for what they pay?

But let us seriously consider of the Case: If the Clergy must not have the revenue they are in possession of, who must? Will T. E. find out the Heirs of Ethelwolf, and of that People who joyned with him in the Donation? But suppose he cannot, or suppose the Case worse than He states it, that Tithes had been set out for the worship of the Devil, and the original proprie­tors, nor any claiming under them in being: what is fit to be done in such a Case as this?

Par.

In such a Case the supreme Authority of a Nation ought to proceed to a reformation, and change them from a bad use to a good.

Min.

Had the Original of Tithes been never so ill, yet we see that our Laws have so reform­ed the Church, that they are notnow used to any such Idolatrous ends and purposes. Were not those Censers that we have been discoursing of, though Consecrated by wicked Men in so rebel­lious a manner, wrought out into broad Plates for Gods own Altar?

Surely the Quaker fancies, that whatsoever has been abused to Idolatry, &c. cannot be re­formed to a pious use afterwards: If so, then must Tithes rot in the Fields, and no Body med­dle with them. Suppose the whole Turkish [Page 314] Empire (through Gods mercy) should be Con­verted to Christianity: May not the Mufti him­self, p. 21. and those whom T. E. calls Emaums, together with all the Mosks and Revenues now belonging to them, be reconsecrated to Christianity? Is Idolatry of that contami­nating nature, that no reformation can purge it? how then came Aaron to Officiate in the Priests Office, after he had made the Molten Calf, and said, These be thy Gods which brought Exod. 32. 4. thee out of the Land of Egypt?

Par.

But if Tithes (saith T. E.) were a suitable maintenance, the Clergy now does nothing for the People which can deserve so great a compensation, p. 329.

Min.

That is, If his Worship may be Judge. But what I wonder do the Impropriators for the People, which deserve so great a compensa­tion? Besides, it's all one to the People, whether they pay Tithes or no. As I shall shew you anon.

Par.

You said that our only work is to ex­plain the written word of God, & to apply the same. From these words he concludes, that what you do for the People, is not suitable to the reward of Tithes, p. 329, 330.

Min.

Do's not this Quaker (think you) in­struct the People very graciously? As if Tithes were of more real value to them, than the word of God explained and applied?

But I must not let the abuse pass, which he hath put upon me in this Quotation. He so states my words, as his Reader must understand him, that I make explaining and applying the word of God, the sole and the only work of a Minister.

[Page 315] In the place He quotes I am treating of In­fallible inspiration, together with those extra­ordinary gifts which the Apostles had, and that they are now ceased: and that we take Texts to shew, that we have no other Doctrine to deliver, but what is taken out of the written word of God, then I said, our only work is to explain and ap­ply the same: [only work] related to the parti­cular which I was there discoursing of, and not to the general Office of a Minister. Here you may see how unconscionably the Quaker states my words, contrary to their plain sense & meaning.

Par.

I perceive he would flatter the People into a conceit, that you receive the Tithes from their kindness and courtesie.

Min.

Indeed the People do pay us our Tithes, but they do not give them; to pay is one thing, to give another.

Should I tell T. E. that a certain Gentleman pays me a Rent-charge out of his Estate, who reading this Quakers Book, may tell me that I do nothing for him, which deserves so great a compensation; And though I owe the party all the civility and kindness imaginable, suitable to his real worth and quality; yet should I tell him, that I have no obligation at all to him, upon the account of the Rent-charge he pays me, for it was none of his benefaction, but the kindness of an 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.

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.

No, nothing less will serve my turn.
Par.

But then he enquires, where its 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 [Page 318] (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, its 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 [Page 319] 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 Da deci­mas & in hoc di­tescas. A Jewish Proverb. 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 [Page 320] 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 its no convenience at all, for his exemption from the Tithes in kind (to my knowledge) cost him 5l. extraordinary in the purchase.

This is not a particular, but the general case of all England: For in matters of contract and bargain the common rule is, tanti volet, quan­ti vendidi potest, every thing is valued, for what it may be sold; and where men meet with conveniencies, they are made to pay for them; and where they meet incumbrances, there they do call for proportionable Deductions: And the Landlords case descends to the Tenant, who pays more or less, according to the Nature and Quality of the thing He holds.

Par.

But T. E. says, that it is questionable, whether a Tenant pays less Rent in consideration of Tithes. p. 345.

Min.

Suppose then two Farms of equal va­lue in themselves. One pays Tithes, the o­ther pays none, and both these belong to one man: Now is any man so senseless as to que­stion, wether the Landlord does not value the Farm as highly which pays Tithes, as the other [Page 321] which is exempted? T. E. may lead the Quakers by the Nose (as He saith I do my Parishioners) and perswade them that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, and that two and three make not five, as thus to dispute against demonstration, and question that which every body knows to be unquestionable.

Par.

However He'l undertake to demonstrate, that the abatement, which he is supposed to have in his Rent, is not proportionable or answerable to the value of the Tithes he pays. ibid.

Min.

I perceive the Quaker begins to sneak, an abatement it seems there is, but not such an abatement as is proportionated to the Tithes: But let us hear his demonstration.

Par.

Suppose (says He) a Landlord lets a Farm for 90 l. a year, which if it were Tithe-free would yield an 100 l. The Tenant to pay his Rent, defray all Charges, &c. must raise three times as much as his Rent comes to, which will make 270 l. the tenth part of which is 27 l. So that if the Tenant should have 10 l. abated in his Rent because of Tithes, than do's he pay 17 l. more than is allowed in his Rent, p. 345, 346.

Min.

Cals He this demonstration, when He has so stated the Case, that no certain estimate can be made of the Tithes of such a Farm? A Farm of that value consisting in Tillage may be worth (as He says) 27 l. per an. or a Farm of that value consisting in Pasturage may not yield seven shillings a Year to the Parson, for it may be eaten with Horses, and then T. E. tells us, that very little, if any thing at all, is recove­rable for Tithe, p. 340. Now is it likely that a [Page 322] Landlord would take ten pounds for that which is worth 27 pounds, or above 10 l. in consideration of a Tithe, when the Tenant pays not above seven shillings, or nothing at all? and indeed the one is as probable as the other. But to pass by his Case so fallaciously stated: I will ive him a real Case.

There is one, whom I could name, that sent to my self to purchase the interest which He had in a certain Prebendal Lease, to which there belonged a Farm, rented at 30l. per an. I made choice of two Neighbours to view the particu­lars of that Farm, and to inform me, whether in their Judgment the Occupant had such a Tack, as he might be able by his labour, toil, charge, &c. to maintain his Family, and pay me my Rent: The Method they took to satis­fy me herein, was to know what rates other men in the same Village paid for their Farms, which being computed and compared together, they found, that this Farm was not worth a­bove the annual Rent of 25l. according to the Rates that other men paid for the Grounds they held of the like nature. This was ob­jected to the Seller, who returned this answer, that it was a mistake that this Farmer paid more than his Neighbours: true it was, that he paid more Rent, but then he had a recompence for it, being discharged from Tithes, which priviledge the other Neighbours had not, who accordingly had an abatement in their Rents. So that one Neighbour was no better than another: He that paid Tithes had less Rent to pay, and He that had no Tithes to pay was no better, seeing He [Page 323] paid the value of them in his Rent. And had I gone on with the purchase, I had received no benefit by that exemption, which I must have bought. And I do perswade my selfe there are thousands of the like cases to be found.

But suppose a Quaker enjoy a Farm of 90l. per an. Rent, and the Landlord abate 10l. a year in consideration of Tithes. Or be it que­stionable whether He abate any thing upon that consideration. I'l tell you what is not question­able, that the Quaker will pay nothing, and will pay this neither to the Landlord nor Priest, and so the one of them shall be sure to be Cozen'd by him.

Now if a Quaker which Farms 90l. per an. should say, Its true Landlord, I should have paid thee 100l. but that thou deducts me ten pounds upon the Consideration of Tithes: truly Tithes I dare not pay, but for the ten pounds I have brought it to thy self, &c. But I would have T. E. to name me one Quaker that ever did thus, then I shall have a better opinion of his Morals, than I have of many of that Fraternity.

Par.

However T. E. thinks that there is a great deal of difference between a Landlord and a Priest in their dealing: The Landlord doth not take, or desire the whole encrease and profit that is made upon his Farm. ibid.

Min.

Nor the Priest.

Par.

T. E. saith the Landlords take no more for the Rent of his Land, than it is supposed the Tenant may make double so much to himself. But when the Merciless Priest comes &c. like the Sabeans and Chaldeans, He falls on, [Page 324] and sweeps all away together. p. 347.

Min.

Is not this a modest Quaker think you? If the Landlord do allow a part upon the account of Charges: Tithes are part of that Charge which it seems is allowed by the Landlord, and therefore no loss to the Tenant.

How compassionate doth he make the Land­lord? (would to God they were all truly so) and how cruel and merciless doth he represent the Priests? Now to shew that this is down­right malice and envy, Let it be consider'd, that the greatest part of the Tithes of England (to the great dishonour and sin of our Nation, may it be said) are impropriate, and that the greatest Landlords in the Nation have gotten a­way the Tithes from the Church. Now as kind as he makes them, do they use the People better than the merciless Priests? do they say in T. E's Language to the People: Neighbours though I claim the tenth part, yet seeing you have been at the pains and charge to get it for me, I'l deal pag. 347. no worse with you, than I do with my other Te­nants, take one part, and leave you two: so di­vide the Tithes into three parts, I'l be content with one of them, and do you keep the other two for the pains and charge you have been at in pro­curing it. Now is it usual with Impropriators thus to bespeak the People? If not, then must He account for those soul slanders, which He hath wickedly cast upon the Clergy: As if they were merciless and cruel; Nay they only so. From my heart do I pray to God to bring him to a sense, and to forgive him so great a wick­edness.

I remember you acquainted me that the King has a great Revenue out of the Tithes; namely, the First-fruits and Tenths, which you are disabled to discharge, if your Tithes be withdrawn: so that the Quakers are in this point as well Enemies to the King as the Cler­gy; and consequently to the Government it self, which is supported by it. Now I do not find that T. E. answers the Argument, but catches at a Phrase, that you should call the First-fruits and Tenths one of the fairest Flowers belonging to the Crown. Herein (He says) you are like the Crow, which is said to think her own Bird white, though others see it to be black. And that no Flower can be fair in an English Crown, which was taken out of a Popes Mitre, p. 355.

Min.

Was there ever so dull a comparison? Do's he call the First-fruits and Tenths my Crow? if (forsooth) they must be a Crow, is it mine or the Kings? And though it be plain that my words related not to the Kings Prero­gative, but Revenue; Yet seeig the Quaker will have it so, I shall tell you, that its very true that this Flower stuck once in the Triple Crown, but then it was stole from the English Diadem.

I confess the Pope did challenge the Supre­macy over the Church and Clergy. The first­fruits and Tenths, was a Homage, whereby the Clergy did own and acknowledge that Supre­macy: The Kings of England did themselves that right, as to take the Supremacy to them­selves, and the First-fruits and Tenths as an ac­knowledgment thereof.

[Page 326] That you may understand what is included in the Supremacy, I shall acquaint you with a Case. It was disputed in the Popish Schools, Whether a Clergy man could be guilty of Trea­son against a Temporal Prince? and resolved in the Negative, because Treason supposes a re­lation between a Sovereign and a Subject: And a Clergyman being Subject to the Pope only, therefore could he not be guilty of Treason against a Temporal Prince.

Now you see I hope what was included in the Popes claim to Supremacy, and upon what account the First-fruits and Tenths are now paid, which if the King should part with­all, even in Ellwoods sense; He would part with the fairest Flower belonging to His Crown.

Par.

The Quakers used to call Ministers Hirelings for receiving their allotted mainte­nances. And therefore in their usual way of railing, used to charge you with selling God's word to the People. To this you said, that they may as well say the Iudges sells Iustice, because they have an honourable allowance from the Exchequer: He thinks the Parallel will not hold; you pretend to be Ministers of Christ, whereas they pretend no higher, than to be Mini­sters of State, p. 356.

Min.

I thought that every Magistrate had been a Minister of God: St. Paul had ill luck, that he had not our inspired Ellwood to correct him, when he said, He is the Minister of God to thee for good, &c, and beareth not the Sword in vain. Rom. 13, 1. 4.

[Page 327] We are Ministers of God, Magistrates are Ministers of Justice, and consequently Mi­nisters of God too: They are dispensers of Justice, we of the word of God; may not then they with equal reason be said to sell Justice, because they receive their maintenances, as we to sell the word of God, because we receive our maintenaners? Is not the Analogy the same? Thus you see with what pitiful shifts the Quaker eludes the truth, and deludes his ignorant Party.

Par.

You have made me sufficiently sensible of T. E's many tricks and fallacies, I shall peruse that Discourse (however) you referr me to, where I perceive this Chapter of Tithes is handled at large: So that I shall give you no further disturbance about this Subject: Now let me mind you, that whereas the Quakers (to make Magistrates as useless as Ministers) used to declaim against going to Law upon any occasion whatsoever, T. E. in contradiction to his Brethren says, In civil Cases it is no injustice for a Man to recover his due by Law, 361.

Min.

Has the Quakers received some new dispensation from Heaven? If not, how comes it to be lawful to go to Law now in civil Cases, when twenty years ago the same thing was denied by them as unlawful? The Spi­rit then by which the Quakers pretend to be inspired, either differs from it self, or is not the same Spirit which the Quakers so late­ly pretended to.

[Page 328] Is not this enough to make you abandon for ever all thoughts of Quakerism, when you find their Religion is not fixt, when we know not where to to have them, nor how long to keep them in one mind?

One of them told me very lately, that I accused the Quakers falsly in saying that they neglect to crave a blessing upon their Meat, which is now frequently practis'd among them. I am glad to hear of any Reformation among them, and would to god they would leave off the rest of their fooleries: but if this be their minds now, formerly they talked at another rate: what (said they) we crave a Blessing when we go to meat? that's stinting the Spirit to a Meal, to a Breakfast, a Dinner, or a Supper. That is, must the Spirit just come, when the Stomach comes? And if the Quakers say Grace now at Meals; yet herein do they take away the Reason of their Dumb Meetings. This is to shew you what a shifting People they are, and how unconstant they are to their own Asser­tions: but to the case in hand:

It seems then T. E. will allow it now lawful to go to Law in civil Cases (how unlawful soe­ver it was before) and I suppose He was wary enough in asserting this; because He cannot but be Conscious, that going to Law is a thing frequently practis'd by the Quakers. But then here I must desire them to take notice, that as dishonourable as they say Oaths are to Christianity, yet they will make their Appeals to Sessions and Assizes, bring Acti­ons, &c. though they know there can be [Page 329] no proceedings in any Court, but that both Witnesses and Juries must give their Evidences and Verdicts upon Oath. If then it be tru­ly so, why will they be any occasion to bring a disgrace and reproach upon Christiani­ty?

Notwithstanding the Quakers talk so loud­ly against Oaths, many of them (to have the benefit of Wills and Administrations) have taken Oaths, as I am able to make out. An Attorney of great account and practise, told me lately, that two Quakers (Clients of his) took their Oaths in an Answer to an Exchequer Bill, and very formally too, put off their Hats, and kiss'd the Book. The late Bi­shop of Lincoln, being either as Plaintiff or Defendant, concern'd in a Chancery Suit, a Quaker at a Commission, came very formally to swear against him: One of the Commissio­ners (from whom I had the account) ask't him, How it came to pass that he being a Quaker would swear? He told him, Thou knowest that among Huntsmen it was never thought amiss to kill a Fox or Badger, by any means; such being allowed no fair play, &c. leaving it to him­self to make the application.

You see then that it's lawful to go to Law in civil Cases, to ingage others to swear, and sometimes to swear themselves: As it interest and envy ought to take place, though contrary to the Principles and Ho­nour of Christianity.

[Page 330] God knows I mention none of these things out of any envious Principle, but to discover to the Quakers the danger that they are in: From which Good God de­liver them for His blessed Names sake.

Amen.

The Conclusion.

Par.

IN the conclusion of T. E's Book, ha­ving first falsly told His Reader, that He had given a particular Answer to the most material passages in yours: He gives you a warning from writing any more against the Quakers, for if you do, you may expect him on your Bones again; For He saith, that He no way doubts, but that the Lord will ena­ble him, or some of his Servants to vindicate his truth, p. 363.

Min.

God no doubt will take care of his truth, but if He enable T. E. to write, we may be confident that it will be a Recantation of what he hath already writ. However let not him think that his idle Threats will discourage me in duty of doing good.

Par.

His main Business here, is to present His Reader with a collection of some of your Phrases, which He calls Virulent Expressions, and which He saith your Academical Education hath bestowed upon you. p. 364.

Min.

Whether my Expressions were Viru­lent or no: This I am sure, here's a foul and impudent Slander, in charging my Academi­cal Education therewith: but wherein do's this Virulency appear?

Par.

His first Instance is this, the Spirit of Quakerism and the Delusions of it. ibid.

Min.

This mind's me of an old Woman who corrected Her Maid for swearing, because [Page 332] She call'd a Hen a Jade: Is not the Quaker think you, sadly put to't, when (for want of matter) He falls upon such innocent ex­pressions as these? I must confess I could not forbear smiling, when I found not only a Fanatical Iesuit, for a woful bitter ex­pression, but the whim in the pate put into his Catologue: Pray do you remember upon what account it was spoken?

Par.

Yes: For to vindicate Scripture from the idle fancies of some: You supposed a Man troubled with a Vertigo in his Head, should say he was confident the Earth turned round, you askt, whether it was the Earth or the Distem­per in the Brain that occasioned that misap­prehension; so (said you) every Fanatick will tell you that he has the Scripture on his side, in behalf of his opinions, where is the fault? in the Scripture? or in the Whim in his Pate? Conf. p. 95, 96.

Min.

You see then, how that expression concern'd all Fanaticks in general: and is it not very pleasant, that (to prove me viru­lent) He should take [Fanatick] to himself and Party?

Par.

You said the Quakers were Cheats and Impastors, ibid.

Min.

Its true I said it, but not before I first plainly proved it. You know the Qua­kers pretend to immediate Teaching, and that they speak and write by the infallible dictates of the Spirit of God: if so, then must all their works be as authentick, and of equal Authority with the Scriptures them­selves. [Page 333] Now having discovered their gross ignorance in the interpretation and applica­cation of that saying of Ieremiah, The Priests hear rule by their means, How could I be true to the Souls of Men in saying less? Had T. E. clear'd his Brethren from the imposture, He had effectually convicted me of virulency: But he is so farr from clearing them in this point (though their credit lay at stake) that he sneaks off without taking any notice of it, as was observed before.

Should I forwarn a Traveller from coming in such place, and tell him that the Peo­ple there are Thieves and Robbers, if they were honest Men, or I know nothing to the contrary, my fault would be very heinous; But if I knew them to be such, it would be a breach of Justice and Charity to hide it from the Traveller. Alas, what I said of the Quakers were not bitter expressions, but so many sad and serious truths, and spoken out of a Principle of the truest charity and kind­ness, to prevent their running headlong into eternal ruine and destruction.

But if no such expressions can proceed but from a malevolent, crusty, waspish, and viru­lent Principle, then let me ask my Friend Ellwood, whether there is not such a People in the World, who use to call Ministers Dumb dogs, Hirelings, Serpents, Baals Priests, and what not? If he will be pleased to consult the works of His weighty Friend Hubberthorn, He may there collect a large. Catalogue in­deed of expressions, truly virulent and bitter: [Page 334] Or let me tell him of another, whose memory (I suppose) is much dearer to him, I mean Ed. Burroughs, who in his Works hath these expressions, Reprobate, Child of darkness, a Stranger to the Life, in the Sorcery and Witch­craft, Dragon, Diviner, and many more such p. 29. 32. like.

He that had seen no more of T. E's Book than the Conclusion, would (at the first blush) take him for such a gentle, sweet, and humble Quaker, that one would imagine that the Royal Society had been trying some Experi­ment upon him, and that they had taken out the very Splene out of his Side: If this be so in truth, Those Gentlemen must excuse me, if I tell them in plain terms, that they have proved themselves no good Artists, in that they have left the main matter behind: There­fore I shall give you some of his expressions, and do you judge whether they be Virulent, or no: The Author of that book, partly through Ignorance, but principally through Envy: in the first page of his Preface. Ay but might the Parishioner have said, He told me that I must not be covetous, yet of all my acquaintance I know none more Covetous than He: He told me I must not be drunk, yet have I seen him so often: He told me I must live chastly, yet He himself was incontinent, and so he goes on, p. 23. The whole Book shews him big with envie, p. 25. Bishop Gauden was as hold, and no less blind than himself, p, 171. His envie and evil nature p. 210. My greedy Adversary, p. 286. This Priest like a saucy and unthankful Son, p. 279. [Page 335] And when the merciless Priest comes, p. 347. To omit divers others, in this very conclusion, This Mans malevolent Tongue. So that I shall not imitate him in concluding with a saying of Cornelius Tacitus's, but with a much better Author, namely, St. Paul in Rom. 2. 2. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self, for thou that judgest dost the same things.

FINIS.

ERRATA.

PAge 4. Line 20. read controversial, p. 18. l. 19. r. people, ibid. l. 24. r. ordinary, p. 27. l. 30. r. ingenuously, p. 32. l. 1. r. bespatter, p. 33. l. 3. for or r. our. p. 47. l. 2. r. discourse, p. 52. l. 1. dele sons. p. 56. l. 32. r. Mile-stone, p. 59. l. 3. r. word, p. 60, l. 24 after how add much, p. 75. l. 33. after times add did express themselves by, p. 76. l. 7. r. fightings, p. 80. l. 24. r. ingenuous, p. 82. l. 20. r. mis-sta [...]e, p. 107. l. 10. r. [...], p. 114. l. 31. after is add not, p. 120. l. 4. dele not, p. 129. l. 7. r. Scrip­tures, p. 134. l. 25. r. Ecclus. 27. 11. p. 140. l. 11. r. Corruptible, p. 147. l. 21. r. abominations, p. 150. marg. r. cap 3. p. 160. l. 3. for 104. r. 94. ibid. l. 22. d. [...]e, p. 166. marg. r. [...], ibid. for and r. et, p. 167. marg. r. Sen. Ep. 96, p. 170. l. 11. r. [...], p. 173. marg. r. [...]. ibid. r. [...], p. 183. l. 15. r. [...], p. 184. l. 1. after But add to. p. 188. l. 12. d. his, p. 192. l. 22. after [...]efore add p. 169, 177. p. 193. marg. r. in 9. Pr [...]cept. p. 197. l. 4. for satisfy. r. falsify, p. 199. l. 6. for you r. your, p. 204. l. 19. after Law add [...], p. 207. l. 14. r. hands, p. 211. l. 9. d. To &c. p. 212. r. [...], p. 219. l. 18. r. sense, p. 223. l. 25. r. [...], p. 224. l. 30. r. not, p. 225. l. 33. after Ceremonious add but, p. 227. l. 12. r. a Curse, p. 238. l. 28. r. Ancient. p. 250. l. 17. after Oaths add i. e. against solemn Oaths taken with due circumstan­ces, p. 251. l. 8. r. falsly, ibid. l. 12. r. [...], p. 252 l. 11. for yet r. tha [...], ibid. l. 20. r. [...], ibid. l. 22. d. by, ibid. l. 25. r. [...]. p. 259. l. 23. r. slight. p. 265. l. 28. and p. 266. l. 8. r. Precedents, p. 275. l. 21. before In r. Par. p. 277. l. 16. r. from about the year of Christ 700, till about the year 1400.;—p. 286. l. 4. r. 'Tis certain, that the best Quaker of them all, had he n [...]t read, studied, conversed, &c. would have been as ignorant as—

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.