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 pâ—…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 company who even in an Act of Rebellion could cry The Congregation is holy and the Lord 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 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 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 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 T is 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 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 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 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 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 with other Titles c. seems to have its rise with the Roman Empire ibid. Min.
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 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 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 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 con-contrary cause viz. from the consideration of our infirmity and mutability from humility a pious fear 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 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 did exalt themselves calling themselves Perfect saith Epiphanius After them the 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 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 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 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 Hereâ—…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 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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-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 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 he used also during his inprisonment This may satisfy you that this Godly Martyr was no 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
not consider what they were rather than from whom they came To these questions they will then be as speechless 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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 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 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 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. It s 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 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 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 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. 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
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
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-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
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
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 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 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 Par. 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 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 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 to be Acts of Religion and One sort of the worship of God So Sanderson Pareus Cbemnitius 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 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 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 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 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
And when this was the plain and 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 t is plain he makâ—…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 't is 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 p. 149. Min. 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 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 Par. 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 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 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 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 thoâ—…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 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. Min. 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 't is so now in the times of the Gospel Par. You have another far-fetch sâ—…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
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 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 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 of Damascus through a Window into a Basket should take a solemn Oath by God that he did not 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 who did not believe saith St. Augustine 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 spâ—…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. 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 S t. 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 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
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 Goddess for such was Fortune reputed among the Romans 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 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 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. 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 Par. 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 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 before-mention'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 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 is rarely brought to the use of an Oath Where 't is 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 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 it is taken out of those Homilies on St. Matthew which bear Origen's Name but are much doubted of by Erasmus So that 't is 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 And so he could not think Christ prohibited solemn swearing contrary to Moses as T. E. affirms Secondly 'T is 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
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