Fox also called many Women on his Spirit of Discerning Witche s and Sorceresses of which no proof could be found for such things was he beaten by many in the Streets No wonder Having cautioned you against this Book I proceed concerning VVilliam Pen that he was a false Prophet hath been proved and more proof we have of his not being Inspired and Infallible that he shufled in the last Persecution is well known A Quaker who valued him told me that when a Constable came to him in the Meeting to lay hold on him and said I doubt Sir you have been the Speaker which was true Mr. Pen pointed to one afar of who had also spoken That is he Whilst the Constable went to him Mr. Pen ran away out at a Back Door This Quaker said He could hardly believe his own Ears or Eyes and could not Sleep quietly several Nights after that such a pretious Speaker as Friend William was would so speak and do Contrary Doctrins have been delivered from one and the same Infallible Spirit In one Book against the Conformist he says Tell the Church c. The Church was not to be Judge of matters of Conscience In another Book for his own Courts against the Separate Quakers he says It was For the late Liberty granted them by Authority it is now declared Scripture is an exact Rule of Faith and Obedience And now the external Form of an Oath with us is abated them they swallow down such Words in the Presence of God c. which have from the Spirit been denyed to be lawful especially about Meum and Tuum I cannot believe the story Mr. Pen tells of his Father that he should say to him on his Death Bed Son if you continue in your plain simple way of Living you will put an end to all Preachers to the end of the World Is it likely so brave and worthy a Gentleman as his Father was should thus express himself for my part I cannot believe on Mr. Pen 's Testimony however if it be true I shall only say this The Father was such a Prophet as is the Son I now leave him and go to one of their greatest Men tho least censured by us Robert Barclay the Scotish-man his Theol. vere Christ Apol. in this Book is false History unfound Divinity course Latine In his Preface to King Charles II. he thus says of the Quakers Non in Angulos aut obscura loca irrepentes aut semet abscondentes sicut omnes alii professores Dissentientes fecerunt In nullis privati Conventiculis aut Secretis locis c. That they bore their Testimony always openly and none but they that by this were they known to be the People of God c. The last time I here appeared a Bristol Friend was brought forth to Testifie against me before all the People That Bristol Friends never left their Publick Meetings When I asked him in the Presence of God whether he was not one of them 〈◊〉 leâ—â— the Meeting a long time The Man was in great distress between Credit and Conscience at last confest he had left it Months together And slunk away out of this place that when I turn'd from the People to speak to him again he was gon Barclay tells that King That the Quakers were true to him in his Adversities and he did appeal to the King's Conscience concerning their Innocency Now if King Charles thought them so he should appeal to his Ignorance not Conscience For we here all know Fox and others call'd often on Oliver Cromwel to strengthen his Forces against the Kings Return And in the name of the Lord justified what was done to the Family and the Malignants and said C. Love was acted by a bad Spirit to seek to bring him in And revil'd the Presbyterians as Apostates for attempting it Now Oh how faithful they were always to him and how Generations to come would tell what great things God had done for him In the Book he says of all Persecutions Proveniunt a Spiritu Cain et verirati contraria Well then in Pensylvania Cain would have slain G. Keith their Brother Abel Tho this Barclay be accounted by some among us better than others among them it may be a mistake He calls our Praying and Preaching abominable Idolatry He was indeed Subtit in making that Book in declining some greater Controversies between us and them and insisting on the Fall Justification by Works Perfection and other things where Popish Socinians and other Authors had stockt him with Arguments Some perhaps may wonder I have said nothing all this while of George Whitehead The true reason is I take him to be such a Fool that he is not worth Observation I heard him once Expound in Bristol Meeting Solomon's Fool not only to be a Holy but Sinless man too as I have Printed I hope others are convinced so now that have read his late Antidote to that prodigious piece of Sense called The Snake in the Grass To all the many Charges that Author brings out of their Peters how they had flattered Oliver Cromwel contrary to what they had said to King Charles and all in the name of the Lord. He only says in short This Charge is foul and false How false and not attempt to disprove one of his Evidences No doubt he knew all to be true Again he tells us how others applyed themselves to Oliver Did they say I do it in the name of the Lord pretending to a Spirit of Infallibility and Inspiration No He says also The Act of Indemnity forbids mentioning those things True by way of Reviling but not in a way of Disputation Was not that Act in Force when Pen and others twitted the Dissenters with Garments roll'd in Blood I therefore concern not my self about so weak an Adversary and declare I never will For that Quaker who Prophesied London should be Burnt within two Days when it was so it is enough to prove him not a Prophet sent of God seeing in the midst of the Flames he so often Propesied to the People The Fire should end here and then there where he would stop and the Fire should proceed no further but the Fire raged still Well it is sufficient for me to know Friends never believed their own Prophets nor regarded them therefore I pray them excuse us that we in this thing follow their Example What follows from all that I have said Historically after another hath spoken Doctrinally 1. That these Men were not true Prophets nor sent by the God of truth Are there any here so weak that I need say to them Then were they false Prophets and sent by the Devil the Father of Lyes 2. That great was their madness that tho so vile boasted of Perfection George Fox said he was Equal with God as perfect as Christ c. 3. That they were miserably deluded who almost Adored such Men Glory be to thee George Fox Holy One I close all with a great and
Secondly Nay stop Friend said the Judge keep the other Eleven to thy self that one is sufficient I think of this sometimes when writing Did I ever Question worthy Sir whether ever God made or impos'd Forms of Psalms that you tell me were used in the Temple No sure I thought Singing and Praying had been distinct Duties Else some distinguish where is no difference God made these Forms under the Law and reinforced them in the New Testament without his Institution the thing had been an Abomination as would have been once Circumcision and the Passover and now Baptism and the Lords Supper without this You urge 2 Cron. 29.30 I Answer we doubt not but the Church may require what God hath Commanded for it is there said All was done by the Commandment of the King from the Mouth of the Lord Chap. 31.25 The Writer of the Lamentations was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore what Jeremy did he did from God As what the Apostles did they did from Christ who in his 40 Days Conversing with them after his Resurrection taught them the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that is the Government of the Church Jeremiah required the People to use Scripture The Lamentations Therefore what I know not who may make Prayers and broken ones too for them who have a readiness to express themselves to God as occasion is I will not say the Argument taken from the Lamentations look's like a lamentable Argument it is not Grave enough in it self and therefore not fit to be written to so Grave a Man For 1 Bar. 14.15 I am so much a Protestant and so little a Papist that I slight it We can no more know the Mind of God by the Practise of the Jews than the Mind of Christ by the Practise of the Papist or some others who would take it ill to be named with them God's mind is my enquiry not their practise Forms of Prayer came from Babylon say you you shall have it say I. The reading Apocraphal Books in Churches Hooker in his Eccles. Pol. could hardly forbear Censureing it I think it was one of the most Devilish designs Satan ever had to clap those Books at the end of the Old Testament to ridicule the whole To say nothing of the Book of Tobit or Esdras which Bellarmin would hardly undertake to plead for I stick not to say of the admired Book of Wisdom said by some to be so much like Inspir'd Writings That the Author was a grand R who tells us of Solomon's Prayer to God that he might Govern according to the Example of David his Father Must the Writings of Philo a Jew written after the Jews were unchurched an unbelieveing lying Prophet be read with Canonical Scripture and as Lessons Let us bring in George Fox's Journal next I could say much of the Book Bar. you cite were it convenient You urge Dan. 3. Ergo What Men must pray not read and that according to the Ability God gives would be a better Consequence than what it is brought for 136 Psalm you urge I say It was a Psalm and for your Te Deum keep us this day without Sin had need be well qualified to keep Men from Quakerist Dotages about a Sinless State 2 Cron. 5.3 Proves not it was the same Psalm If it were it proves nothing to our Argument much less 7 Chap. 3. Did David never say but in that Psalm For he is good and his mercy endureth for ever 20 Chap. 21. The Argument is ejusdem farinae so Ezra 3.11 Your Opinion is only asserted by a common Saying not proved If it were no more would follow but this that the same Psalm may be often sung which no Man denies Numb 10.35 compared by you with 163 Psalm 8. Induceth me to think they used not the same Words but some and the other place proves it 2 Cron. 6.41 The use of a Sentence or two upon extraordinary occasions appointed by God will not prove the use of Set Solemn many Prayers in all Publick Administrations appointed by Men. The Jews never had a Liturgy the Book of Psalms was hardly ever pleaded in this Argument by the Old Famous Advocates for the Church of England but by some late and less judicious Writers I remember I have heard that Bishop Andrews was about to Print in Oxon a Liturgy of the Jews to prove they had one under the Law but it was stopt from going to the Press being proved to be made by them since their Apostacy Of all Men under Heaven none care to go to the present Jews for a Pattern of Worship unless such as love indecency and disorder instead of the contrary so much talkt of What you write of Schism 1 wonder at what Church invite and call you me to Is not the present Church Scismatical according to some Men But I will not harp on that String Will you stand to Mr. Hales's Determination of Schism of whose Opinion I am And therefore believe the now called but falsly so Church of England is a notorious Schismatical one from the Old one in Doctrine Discipline and Manners They are alike in imposing unnecessary things suspiciously evil if not really so which Paul would not do on them he knew could not comply Schism doth not signifie primarily by Paul any Separation from a Church but Heats and Uselesness in it for the Corinthians did not erect Altar against Altar Saith Paul That there be no schism in the body but that the members take care one of another That Minister who Preacheth not in season and out of season is a Schismatick while Preaching against Schism Members of a Church that are not forward for acts of Piety and Charity are Schismaticks Alienation of Affection was condemned by Paul What you mean by plainly and positively a Sin I am not sure What if it be so by Consequence What if I have a doubtful Conscience about it Must I be Damned to obey the Church In short The Apostles Rule is this Let us judge one another no more bear with the infirmities of the weak Despise not him that eateth not Rom 14. No Church on Earth can take me off this Rule whatever Church command◠me otherwise commands me contrary to the Law of Christ by Paul and whom I must obey judge you With you no Kneeling no Sacrament no Cross no Baptism The the Salvation of Infants without Baptism be foolishly I confess questioned Yet run a risk rather than part with a Ceremony Good God what madness doth Superstition bring Men to If the most Religious Man in the Parish cannot kneel he must go without the Lords-Supper all his Days and be Excommunicated and Imprisoned too How shall I Curse whom God hath Blessed Could even a wicked Balaam say as bad as he was These wicked wicked Proceedings against Brethren prove your Church Schismatical or Schism maker with a vengeance Not to name what Ames in his Fresh Suit Gelaspee in his English Popish Ceremonies say with
it cannot be done better than by Mr. W. and there I refer the Reader being not willing Actum agere But to this great Objection I remember when I first read Mr. Pemble of Grace that great Man and found him tainted quoad hoc and that he smartly replied to many Objections that lay before him I expected an Answer to one which I saw he thought not of if he had thought of it had he been of that Opinion I demand therefore Did not God once love the Apostate Angels whom now he hates when they once loved him with a Complacential Love and praised him with Joy and Delight before his Throne Who can say These were not some of the Angels that sang and shouted for Joy when God laid the Foundation of the Earth How strange would it be to deny their Complacential Love to God to follow Gods complacential Love to them Did God hate them when they Lov'd him Speak out if you think so Well Doth not God hate them now since their Apostacy and will he not do so for ever Now if God could Love Angels and then hate them and not be changed because they be so then can he hate unconverted Men and afterward Love them and not be a changeable God but they are changed Men. Love in affectu or effectu I meddle not with in God onely Love I grant and you cannot deny is not predicated Univocally of God and us as if it were a thing of the same Nature No it is not so much Nor yet 2. Is it spoken of God and us equivocally It is not so little As if only one Name for two distinct things quite different But 3. Analogically some resemblance there is between our Complacential Love and Gods God speaks to us after our manner as Nurses to Children This being the result of free thoughts in then Reading and never meeting with it from any Man and finding many pleas'd with it I have desir'd a reply from some Crispians Say they 1. It may be those Apostate Angels stood not long not so long as Man Apage nugas A Thousand Years and an hour is all one in this Case 2. It may be those Angels were Sinners as soon as Creatures That cannot be 1. They could not be said to have left their first Station if they had no first Station antecedent to that of Sin and Misery They could not be said to fall if they had not once stood They fell from the Love of God actively and passively consider'd their Love to God or Gods Love to them Heaven had never been the place of their Make but Hell a fitter one if this black Notion were true They were no sooner Creatures then Sinners For large Discourses about Imminent Acts I care not It was ever Accounted by Divines no small Error in Thomas Aquinas That if he met with any Axiom or Proposition in Aâ—istotle especially his Ethicks against any Doctrine or Dogma of his he would as gravely reply to it as if he had met with any Text from Scripture I care not for Philosophical Essays about these matters Is it not enough and often exprest in Holy Writ That God hateth all the workers of Iniquity It is evident all unconverted Men be workers of Iniquity therefore the Conclusion is good God hateth them all Doth God hate them and yet complacentially Love them too Doth not God and the Devil divide the whole World Are not all unconverted Men call'd every where in Scripture the Children of the Devil I profess I am ashamed to attempt to prove it Were they My Masters never of the Devils Kingdom but always of Christ Who are said to be Translated from the Kingdom of Satan to the Kingdom of Christ Pray Sirs Awake Be not so drowsy any longer Open your Eyes Rub them well Look upon your Bibles once again You may see many of your Notions as wild as that of your Master That Christ when he suffer'd had the Filthiness of our Sin upon him and so it continued till he sweat it out and could not see the Face of God till after he Rose from the Dead Where was he in the mean while 1. Was he in Hell to suffer there as Bishop Latimer thonght in one of his honest homespun Sermons before King Edward Not to triumph there neither as others say 2. Was he not with the Thief in Paradise as he assur'd him Did he not there see the face of God What mad stuff is this I hope you will not think as I once heard a Great Dr. of Divinity say in his Pulpit Christ â—ent with the Thief to Heaven to welcome him there and went down to Hell after I Pray Sirs Tell the Drunkards and Covetuous Men That they shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and of Christ Not that God Loves them with a Complacential Love if they be Elect whilst unholy I know it is true Jacob have I loved Rom. 13.9 And I will not say he might be sanctified from the Womb If so yet this iâ— spoken on a Reason common to all the Elect How With the Love of Benevolence not Complacency till Conversion Laugh on at this distinction I will make it good if occasion be If King William now saw a most deformed Woman Deformity it self of the worst body temper and morals in the World Her Face and Hands and all full of running sores Her Tongue full of Blasphemies against God and Him she cursed both and spit at the Name of all that waâ— august and sacred Suppose King William knew that God would or he could after some Years make her the most comely the most wise the most Pious Woman upon Earth and so the best Wife and he intended when this change was made to make her his Queen Could King William Love this Woman with a Complacential Love when he saw saw her sores dropping their filth wherever she went and Cursing him every word she spake What fearful frightful words to some Ears are the words Repentance Duty Obedience to the Gospel Good Works c. They must be fed with Sugar-Plumbs who had need of other Diet. They must have Cordials that are not sick nor faint but rather want working purging stuff How weakly talked Saltmarsh of Free Grace Mr. Baxter said truly He was fitter to learn a Catechism than trouble the World about his Notions Was not this a Golden Rule to be laid down to Doubting Persons O poor Christian believe till you do believe And when the Question was of God's Work within a Man he would answer to God's Work without a Man Christ hath ropented saith he and believed for thee c. Will not the Howling of the followers of that Man of Ignorance and Confidence that hath lately troubled the World yet convince His Doctrine and Morals are talkt of every where God testifies from Heaven against this untoward Generation I saw several Letters lately from Worthy Congregational Divines and People to some here in London who greatly bewail these Abominations
impertinences in Divinity and Philosophy as if they were infallible Dictatours Nay one shall assert perfection another deny Original Sin Another the Resurrection Another assert the Salvation of Damned Souls and Devils which hath tyr'd out the patience of the most Patient Ministers and made private Men doubt all Religion Not only particular Ministers but the function it self shall be jib'd at and that before their Faces by Anti-ministerial Men who admire themselves when others despise them To go on When I heard the most judicious Congregational Divines cry out of imprudence of two of their Brethren as Favourers of this Man and his Doctrine Some justifying him another censuring I was prevail'd to go to the Meeting and as I desired my Friends before not to smile which is a Rule to me if at a Quakers Meeting or any Worship We sate with all imaginable Reverence when the Gentleman ascends the Pulpit and sate down with stretch Arms as if it had been my Lord of Canterbury his Grace we heard the Prayer and this Zealous Crispian Would-be brings the Controversy even there That when God gave Man a perfect Righteousness of her own he threw it away and such a Cross Creature was he that when God had provided a perfect Righteousness in another he would have Righteousness of his own When Praying for Mr. Mathers then Sick as if his Patron he gave God thanks for Raising him up and well it was so when he threatned to take away the Champion of the Cause After most impudent and uncharitable words The Text was Named John 11.21 Which compare with 20.23 24 25 c. Were they not intended Murtherers Sirs we would see Jesus We. Who Whether Greeks or Gentiles he would not say Sir Philip And here we were told a Lubberly Lecture of manners We should go directly to our Friends c. And now a Doctrine Doct. That it is naturally Written in the Heart of every Man to desire a Mediatour to come to Christ They should not have askt Philip but gone directly to Christ O rare discoveries Now let the Calvinist and Methodist look to themselves Some must bring Humility to Christ that is their Mediatour They must come humble Now we are all knockt down All was Comdemn'd The whole culpable and that all was done out of Curiosity and their Request not gratified as far as we read yet this Observation was laid down Doct. That is the Duty of every Man to desire to see Jesus the Saviour Not the Lawgiver or Commander for he was no such He gave no Commands if he had he had added to the Yoke there were Commands enough before And then an Anathema was thrown out Confusion be their reward that say it c. All Qualifications were Condemned And now we are told Abraham was an ungodly Man long after he was call'd and believers after long such were advised to plead the promise with God Lord thou hast promis'd to justify the ungodly I came to thee as an ungodly Man justify thou me An ungodly Believer is Linen-Drapers Divinity After our New Gospeller had Condemn'd all Qualifications Behold he is Metamorphis'd into a Legalist upon a sudden He tells us That whoever comes to Christ without being sensible of his Sin and Misery should come in Vain What mean these Men by Coming to Christ Christ Calls are Matth. 9.28 Them that labour and are heavy Laden Not with Ceremonies as some say but sin and sorrow to come to him His word shall stand They shall look on him whom they have Peirced and Mourn Zach. 2.7 In its primary intention respects the Conversion of the Jew which Joseph Mead and others believe will be in the like way as Paul was Converted by a Voice from Heaven and therefore can only be Accommodated here Dare you say There is no way to Mourning but here I affirm a Man may repent aright from Subjects of Sin Hell Judgment to come c. And this will I undertake and other things if any reply to this make it more necessary then as yet I can see it is More stuff there was in that speaking not Preaching which I have forgotten or care not to mention I have taken care to consult another Minister then with me who once intended to Print the Sermon with Notes but some considerations diverted him I have not willingly err'd in sense nor words He can testify the same One Notion comes on a Sudden We must not rely on the doctrine benefits merits of Christ but his Person I hope no Man will expect I should disparage my self to Confute his absurdities They that cannot or will not see them discover what they are Might not the Doctrine be Doct. It is the Duty of every Man to desire to Murther Jesus Oh Folly I had heard before the madness of the Man against all others That before a great Gentlewoman this was said as is fam'd and believ'd That the Anabaptist dipt Women to feel them in the Water c. Which none but a Dammy Boy I thought would have said The aforemention'd Minister with others heard him once before on this Text Acts 9.26 And they were all afraid of him not believing he was a Disciple And this Doctrine was laid down Doct. That it is a difficult thing for true believers to believe others are so When every Child knows the Circumstances Well Simon Magus was brought for an instance of a Preacher who had humane Learning but not the Call of the Spirit When no humane Learning had he but Magical Diabolical Tricks and who never was a Preacher To say If he was not one he would have been one is a poor Defence Well Paul had the Call of the Spirit without humane Learning Why Name I what every Ignoramous can confute except one Must Women be call'd wicked Women for talking much of trouble for sin and fears and a Story told God indeed convinced me that I was a great Sinner but I was never troubled for it I desired by a kind Letter This mans Abetters so accounted to meet me and some Congregational Ministers justly offended with these things to give us a fair Meeting amicably to debate matters That they would give us their Reasons for his being a Preacher and hear ours against it believing Here is a second Davis entring on the Stage worse every way then the first but it was not granted In another work I did I row'd against Wind and Tyde now with both being earnestly desired by many to undertake this work Congregational Men as well as others who proposed fairly for its Encouragement Yet I care not to use words of that Nature some Wise and Good Men do That such a one is a Preacher of the Devils making That had they been there they would have pull'd him out of the Pulpit That they sweat to hear a Repetition of his Folly So great is the ignorance that Reigns in this City That if a Man Preach and say any thing of God Christ free Grace and Heaven
one that doth Kneel If not as I believe you will tell me I am sure others have then you lay greater stress upon the Posture then we do You teach it as a Doctrine abstracted from humane Laws we reach it injoyn'd only as a Law of Men and so alterable by Men and to oblige no otherwise You say of the Jews Institution of Baptism that they find in it and that it was an Abomination Now Sir I beseech you if it had been so was it not at least highly probable that Christ would some where or other have reprov'd it Would not some mark of Gods displeasure have been exprest against it But 2. Would God have honour'd it so greatly as to have complyed with it to have Countenanced it so far as to send John to Baptize Would Christ himself have submitted to it to be Baptis'd himself Would he have instituted Baptism as the initiating Form of his Church for any to be establisht in it But on the other hand if the Jewish Church appointed Baptism and joyn'd it to Circumcision upon the admission of Prosylites as we do the Cross not as a Sacrament appointed but as the Institution of the Church only and that this was not adding to the Law of God or found fault with by God I think you will find no institution of our Church but what you must excuse by the same Rule And if Christ shew'd the necessity and obligation that laid on all to submit to the Institutions of the Church to say That it became him to fulfil all Righteousness speaking of the Baptism which he was to receive it will teach us a greater Veneration for the Authority of the Church then is commonly thought of Would he have called Baptism Righteousness if in its first institution it had been Sin and an Abomination There are several other Particulars in the Paper I should have spoke to but these come up to the point in hand And the hurry I am in at present made me mislay your Paper and now hardly gives me time to run this over in haste When this point is once settled between us I will go with you afterwards to what other you think fit and according to my Ability deal upon the Square with you The Non-conformist I Will now according to my promise in my last to you and your desire in your last to me which just now came to my hand prove your Ceremonies and Injunctions unlawful or forbidden in Scripture and therefore Non conformity to them is no Schism But I think it convenient first to remove some mistakes of yours I find in your Reply I think contrary to you Men may be guilty of adding to Gods Law tho not as Gods Law else a Multitude of Pharisaical Men of Old were not guilty here Nor their Brethren the Papist in most of their Ceremonies Condemned as superstitious and unlawful in that excellent Book of sound Doctrine The Book of Homilies what Christ says Teaching for Dostrine the Commandments of Men Isaiah says to this effect For I cannot turn to the Place The Fear of me is taught by the Precepts of Men. I know it is commonly pleaded the Pharisees made their Ceremonies a part of their Oral Tradition as the unwritten Commands of God by Moses But as far as I can find this tho so often said is said without Proof I think vast is the difference between not doing a necessary Lawful Action thro tenderness of Conscience and the doing an unlawful one thro mistake The eating of some Meats with Paul was declared Lawful tho some thought it otherwise that they were unlawful yet he censures them not chargeth others not to despise them Commands that they be born with Rom. 14. So to the Corinthians well were it if this were remembred and practised by some Men were these adders to the Word of God But if any did on a mistake of a thing forbidden as Circumcision observing some sort of Days c. he says not so of them but the contrary they were Faults I am afraid of you So that our Noncompliance is not so much an adding as your injoyning in your Service neither are we so culpable in our non-observing your Ceremonies if lawful as your imposing and observing them if sinful All things lawful are not expedient much less necessary I meant No Cross no Publick Baptism no Kneeling no Publick Sacrament and doubted not you must have so understood tho you seem not to do so For that Private Baptism you mention when a Child is like to dye I ever thought it an unlawful thing the some of ours as well as yours too often practise it It seems to me a Bloody Sacrifice and such Ministers to forget what God says I will have mercy and not sacrifice This Custom I doubt not hath been the Death of many Children some have been dying others quite dead whilst Baptizing Oh! such in my Opinion make an Idol of Baptism The Jews in a case of necessity went 40 Years without Circumcision in the Wilderness That Custom appears also to me as bad of giving the Lords Supper to some sick Men. Did you never hear of some dying others dead with the Bread in their Mouths O horrid Prophaning of so great and sacred an Ordinance of Christ But what if Parents think the Cross unlawful and the Children live or dye in Infancy without it What if Men cannot be convinc'd but that Kneeling is unlawful and an abominable Symbolizing with Popish Idolaters Must these go without the Lords Supper all their Days tho never fo Pious Humble and Inquisitive Must they go without Baptism I am unwilling to repeat excellent passages out of famous Davenant de Frat Communione perhaps you may remember them Some Nonconformists do give the Sacrament to them that desire to kneel they that do not refuse it because they think it to be a Sin and the Receiver cannot say they take it to be a Duty If all be true which I have reason to doubt about the Jews admiting Prosylites by Baptism as well as Circumcision it will not follow it is justified because Christ condemned it not for Christ never condemned the Superstitous Lives of the Essense Speculative or Practical which Josephus and others speak of at large No not so much as name them which hath given occasion to some foolishly I think to question whither ever there was such a Sect. Neither doth it appear to me Christ appointed Baptism from the Jewish Custom if taking it for granted such there was but from the aptness of the Sign to the thing signified What then was the Baptism of John thus from men not from heaven Christ calls Gods Ordinances not Mans Righteousness 3. Mat. Now Sir I come to say more to your great Question whether your Ceremonies or Worship be forbidden in Scripture or our Nonconformity free from Schism Some things are forbidden in Scripture more particularly some more generally some by good consequence others more directly Stand fast saith Paul
you for your freedom and do not despise your Arguments which tho a common practise is no fair one I know not but that some Ceremonious Scots and English Men too now must be notorious Schismaticks on your Principles as well as mine Your Servant I hate vain Inventions but thy Law do I love says David Postscript IN the Administration of the two Great Ordinances no place is left for the Ministers Gifts not in Prayer to God and which is worse if worse can be not in Instructions to the People O Blessed Apostle when thou didst enumerate Ministerial Gifts to the Church of Corinth thou didst forget the Gift of Reading and the Church of England Give these Men a Common Prayer Book in one Hand and a Book of Homilies in the other they have enough This is done not only in Publick Churches but Private Houses Did the Jews read Prayers in the time of Christ The Pharisees Practice shews their Custom You cannot think they knew that unmanly as well as unscriptural word I Pray who reads Prayers to Day What Ancients did you attempt to Name that did this In what Countrey did they live Did they read Prayers in their Antilucana that Pliny telleth Trajan of I grant as you say your Prayers are moving Prayers for it is a hard matter to sit still and hear them and the most serious commonly leave them It seems to me a poor Plea for any one to say for such a Worship only it is lawful What if only the Lords Prayer was us'd in a Parish at the Lords Supper would you continue there and say it is lawful c. And not go to another place where done much better Are some few words enough of Plague Pestilence and Famine c I remember I have read when London Bridge was on Fire the Priest Pardon me Sir it was the Name Laud gave and blotted out the word Minister brought the Common Prayer Book and Read For all Women labouring with Child for all sick Persons and young Children c. An Old Woman cryed out Good Lord what is all this to London Bridge c. Do you call that a Prayer where a few words are read to God in a large History or spoken to Men when we Pray with our Hats on and a Cup in our hand at Home at Feasts in Coffee-Houses when we speak of the King Church or our Friends Using commonly in a conceived Prayer the same words for the King or Parliament c. Make it not a Form Is it â—â—â—â—ful or would it not be Phantastical to have Crowns on your Heads and Palms in your Hands as well as white Robes on your Backs You know how John saw Christ Rev. 1. What if you wore such a Girdle would it not be Phantastical Schism you now tell me was the Point you did Pursue I am sure you did not so at first I cannot Answer your thoughts but words Would you not Baptise Infants 〈◊〉 only the Adult if your Church so requir'd and say There is no plain positive Command to the contrary A doubtfull Conscience was much with Paul Is this sense Nothing can excuse our running in Schism but the imposing of what is plainly and positively a Sin Would it be Schism then as you call it Conformist THere are several Passages which do well deserve to be animadverted upon but I pass all to pursue our main point till that be settled and then we will proceed as you see cause For as to the Reason use and advantage of our Liturgy Ceremonies c. It is not time to come to that till we have first consider'd whether the imposing these be a sufficient cause for Schism because if it be not all the inconveniences improprieties which you objected were they granted will not excuse your separation from the Church or make your separation not to be a Schism In order to this I first set down the Power as I conceive the Church hath not Viz. To appoint means of Grace and by this I cut off most of the Popish Ceremonies 2. That the Church hath Power to appoint Ceremonies or Rights of an inferior order to this This you seem to deny and build upon the Command of not adding to or diminishing from the Law of God But to add to the Law of God is to add something as the Law of God which is not For if I add some Ceremony or Circumstance unless I pretend that it is the Law of God or a part of it it is no addition to the Law Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men this is an addition to Gods Law when I teach the Commandments of Men as Doctrines that is as Laws of God but to teach the Commandments of Men only as the Commandments of Men this is not teaching them as Doctrines and so no addition to the Law of God Thus for Example when we teach the use of a Surplice only as a Commandment of Men we add not to the Law But if you forbid a Surplice as a thing unlawful tho commanded by humane Laws then you teach this as a Doctrine and so you not we add to the Law of God For forbidding is as much a Law of God as injoyning Now then there are but too things to make our Ceremonies or Rights unlawful and consequently which can justify a separation on their Account 1. If they are forbidden in Scripture 2. If we teach them as Doctrines and Laws of God and seeing neither of these are the Case I see no third thing that can justify a separation upon this Account Let us keep close to this point till we have ended it Let us settle to our selves some Rule by which we must govern our selves in this important enquiry Now give me leave to take notice of some Passages in your Paper which relate to these For the other I pass by as I said at first You say that with us no Kneeling no Sacrament No Cross no Baptism Nay tho the Salvation of Infants dying without it be question'd yet run a Risque here rather than go without the Cross Good God say you What madness doth superstition lead Men to Now might I not justly return this Exclamation What will prejudice c. Make Men believe For in the Office of private Baptism which is particularly appointed for Children that are in danger of Death the Cross is not used And whoever useth it in private Baptism transgresseth the Rubrick and the Common Prayer which is a Demonstration that our Church doth not think the Cross necessary in Baptism or to be a part of it Yet you bring this as an Argument that she did think it necessary and so necessary as to Risque a Child dying without Baptism rather then go without the Cross As great a mistake is That of No Kneeling no Sacrament Every day it is given to Sick Persons without Kneeling and where there is any reasonable excuse it will not be exacted But let me ask you will you give it in your Church to