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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of Cain to envy murther persecute and a great
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 Guy Faux with his dark-lanthorn or any other person whose Name begins with those Letters This therefore being no sure indication 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 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 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 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 sâ—… 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 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 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 acâ—…owledging 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 corrupt interest will intrude c. As also that
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 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 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. 'T is well if you can agree upon the 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 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 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 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 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 Liturgy was so constant to the Devotions of it that Mr. Fox tells us 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 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 * 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 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
wholly by the Spirit If he do believe him not Par. 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 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 as far as it is just and equal So that it is as if he had written TO THE LADY OF EMINENT DIGNITY 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 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 fâ—… 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 over-worn 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 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 Prayer saith St. Ambrose that thou may'st daily ask pardon for thine Offences 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
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 Par. 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 â—…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 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 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. Min. 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 't is 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 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 Par. 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 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 press We are perfect Travellers
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 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 't is evident they were not wholly driven out or consumed 'T is the Quakers therefore and not Ours that is the discouraging Doctrine For â—…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 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 Bodies the influence of the Clime and Season may hinder the performance of our Duties with an exact 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 oâ—… 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 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 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 as in the case of Circumcision p. 110. Min. 'T is 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 state of things For the Law of Nature that commands the end must also command the only means So that the use of an
E. reason well or have got the victory That an Oath duly circumstantiated is an Act of Natural Religion of a Religious nature in 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 And indeed they worshipped their Sword and so might well swear by it The Scythians hanging up a Sword are wont to sacrifice to it as to Mars Mars is the God of this people and instead of an Image they worship a Sword Thirdly One instance especially of so barbarous 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 that allowed it Iustice is saith T. E. a part of Natural Religion p. 117. yet among the Spartans it was commendable to steal And the old Spaniards account Robbery not only Lawful but Glorious To Worship the Supreme God is confestly the Main of Natural Religion yet the Chineses and Tartars 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 from thence that Swearing is no part of Natural Religion since the Generality 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 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 wâ—… 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 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
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 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 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 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 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. Min. 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 Arâ—…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 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 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 't is well worth our Notice what the Learned Hottinger observes viz. That the 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 Epenâ—…aeus tells us Com. ad 2 Tim. 3. In that Age to understand Greek was suspected and to have skill iâ—… Hebrew almost enough to make a Man accounted an Heretick In those times they could wrest Ecâ—… duo gladii and Deus fecit duo Luminaria to prove the Popâ—… 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 Master to him which might very well fit the Mouth of George Fox The better Grammarian thou art the worse Divine thou wilt