I hope these scandalous Ministers will prove but few when compared with such as truly thirst after the honour of God in a faithful discharge of their duty Here you may have a full view of the Quaker's honesty Par. But says he however the Priests have fed the People it is evident the People have fed the Priests well for they are grown fat and wanton c. p. 3. Min. But while such a number of the Priests are so slenderly provided for And while the People are so wanton as to kick at their Lawful Pastors it may be easily inferr'd who is the better fed of the two Par. Next he comes to enquire into the causes why the People are not profited under your Ministry We read says he of some in former times who did not profit the People at all and the reason thereof is also given c. In the 23d of Jeremiah vers 30. the Lord by the Prophet saith Therefore behold I am against the Prophets that steal my Word every one from his Neighbour Behold I am against the Prophets saith the Lord that use their Tongues and say He saith Behold I am against them that prophesie false dreams saith the Lord and do tell them and cause my People to err by their lyes and by their lightness yet I sent them not nor commanded them therefore they shall not profit this People at all saith the Lord v. 32. Here the very Ground and Reason why that Ministry did not profit nay why it was rendred uncapable of profiting the People at all is most plainly given by God himself viz. He sent them not nor commanded them p. 4. Min. That this Scripture does not reach his purpose will be evident if we consider 1. That this non-proficiency of some of the People do's not inferr that we are not sent seeing it may proceed from other causes In the careless hearers of Ieremiah it proceeded not from any corruption in his Doctrine which was Divine nor of his Life which was Holy but from the hardness of the Peoples hearts in that they would not bearken In the hearers of the false Prophets it proceeded from their dreams lyes and lightness which they taught and to which the People trusted 2. That this Scripture is ignorantly and injuriously applied to the present Ministry appears in that those false Prophets perswaded the People and that to the ruine of that Nation that Jerusalem should not be destroyed that they should neither see Sword nor Famine Which was an Errand upon which God never sent them Besides they were a company of Fanatick Enthusiasts who cheated the People by false pretences to extraordinary inspirations I have dreamed I have dreamed was their canting note Not to profit the People then is in the true sense of this Scripture not to secure them from the Captivity and Calamities hanging over that Nation Now let us examine how truly this Scripture is applied to the present Ministry Do We come with any new Errand to the World or pretend to extraordinary inspirations to confirm it as those did Or do We Preach peace to impenitent sinners No the contrary is well known So the words do rebound upon the Quakers themselves while in their strange doctrines and misconstructions of Holy Scripture they are guilty of the same fault with those lying Prophets in saying The Lord saith when he hath not said and in their presumptuous pretences to Revelation to confirm it as also in opposing the true Ministers of God as those Fanaticks opposed Ieremiah Par. But he denies your Ministry when he saith Hath God sent thene or do they send one another That they are Ministers of Mans making common experience shews page 6. Min. I answer The Ministry in general is distinguisht into Ordinary and extraordinary Thus it was under the Law and under the Gospel too Of old the Priesthood belonged to the head of every Family challenged by a right of primogeniture But when the House of Israel multiplied into many Families it pleased God for the more advantageous settlement of his Church and the better Government thereof to devolve the Priesthood upon Aaron and to call him to the same in an extraordinary manner by a Commission from Heaven to Moses for his Consecration and to settle that Priesthood successively upon his Posterity without any further need of an extraordinary Call to the Priests of succeeding Generations Such too was the Evangelical Ministry For Aaron's Priesthood being antiquated The Apostles were called to their Function in an extraordinary manner even by Christ himself and by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost were accordingly qualified for the discharge of it Yet even in the Apostles days this Extraordinary Call ceased For Timothy and Titus were Ordain'd by imposition of hands and were commanded so to Ordain others by which means the Ministry was by the Divine Ordinance to descend to all Ages in an orderly succession though not in one Family as Aaron's did These things thus premised do determine our present case as followeth He that is sent according to the order appointed by God in Holy Scripture though by the Ministry of men is not a Minister of man's making but of God's But both the Priests of the Law and the Priests of the Gospel though consecrated and Ordained by the Ministry of Men were sent according to the order appointed by God Therefore they were not Ministers of Man's making but of God's and by him truly call'd and sent Were Timothy and Titus Ministers only of Man's making because they were ordain'd by imposition of hands And if many of the people did not profit by their Ministry as many of the Cretian's did not by Titus's was the fault think you in their not being sent Par. No sure Min. Do you suppose T. E. himself could be ignorant of a truth so obvious Par. Methinks he should not Min. What then should he mean by saying We send one another and by that common experience which he says shews that we are Ministers of Man's making Par. What can he mean by it but your going to the Bishop for Orders as common experience shews you do Min. Truly his words stand very fair for this meaning and therefore not only you but doubtless his whole Fraternity and many others do so take it and through ignorance may be corrupted by it and made to believe We are not sent by God because ordained by the Ministry of Men. Par. Indeed I cannot deny but this passage brought me under some scruples till you gave me this satisfaction Min. If T. E. could not be ignorant in so plain a Case what can be his design here Whatever a Man pretends to mean by any of his expressions yet to set them down in such terms as will impose upon vulgar Readers and engage them in error can surely be no upright dealing Par. No how should it But if says he speaking still of the Ministers of England they ministred by the
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.
Suppose it had what is it the worse for that but how do's he prove it Par. From Symmachus his Epistles to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian wherein his Style unto them is Vestra aeternitas ibid. Min. had those Epistles been written to Iulius Caesar the first Roman Emperor there had been some tolerable sense in his inference But is it not strange that this instance of vestra yâ—…ur in the Epistles to Theodosius and Valentinian should make the Custom seem to have its rise with the Roman Empire when these Epistles were not written till near four hundred years after the Empire was begun Has not our Wise Quaker here shot very wide of the mark Besides those Epistles by his own confession were written to two Persons Theodosius and Valentinian And that they were written to them both together appears in St. Ambrose's answer to them With what sense then could he say Thou or Thine to two together So that T. E. brings an instance here to prove noâ—…hing but himself ridiculous for I thought he had disapproved only our saying You to one not our saying You to two unless he could twist them both into one He says that by a Figure I make one Man two p. 46. Now let me ask By what Figure he makes two Men one But had he made search he might have found that it was customary to use one number for another long before the Empire began The Ishmaelitish Princes usually spake of themselves in the plural number Nay among the Romans themselves this Custom was of a much ancienter date than their Empire For Terence who lived 100 years before it began has this expression Profecto nescio quid absente nobis turbatum est domi that is Truly I know not what disturbance there has been at home in our absence Phoedria speaks there of himself in the plural number This was used by Cicero very frequently both in his Orations Epistles and his Books of Offices as I could give variety of instances if it were doubted by any Now Cicero dyed when the Empire was scarce begun Par. But he complains of hard usage and says how often have many been abused and beaten for this harmless word c. ibid. Min. I know not what usage they have met withal for their incivility and rudeness to Authority and for the contempt of Laws But that any have been beaten for the use of the word Thou is what I never heard of However I observe that Ellwood all along makes it his business and study to promote schism and mischief by exasperating his Party and heightning their prejudices against us and the truth by all the idle calumnies he can invent Par. But he goes on What Spirit is that which thus rageth Is it the humble meek gentle Spirit of Iesus or the haughty proud exalted Spirit of Lucifer ibid. Min. What Spirit think you is that which is so far from being inoffensive as the Christian Spirit is that it disturbs and disquiets Neighbourhoods and Societies in matters purely indifferent and wherein the stress of Religion do's not lye I acknowledge that the Spirit of Jesus is an humble and obliging Spirit and should be most truly glad to see the Quakers conform to it For our Blessed Lord complyed with all the innocent Customs of the People among whom he lived Did they stand in the Synagogues when the Scriptures were read Christ did so too Did they sit when they Preached He did the same Did they eat Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb Christ did so too though God never commanded it Did the Jews observe the Feast of Dedication a Feast of their own institution Christ did so too Did they lye upon Beds when they ate the Passover tho' by the Original institution it was to be eaten standing Christ conforms to the Custom and did so too Nay he accommodated the two great Sacraments of his Church to their Customs And that Prayer which he taught his Disciples was for the most part of it compiled out of the Jewish Liturgies So that we have all the reason to conclude that if he had lived among us He would have suited himself to the present innocent Customs both in speech and behaviour For he used both the Jewish Language and their Phrases He used both the Hebraisms and Hellenisms of those times He deliver'd his Parables in positive Assertions a thing more exceptionable than You to a single person So unwilling was he to quarrel with innocent Customs or to make innovations where necessity did not compel him All which shew that the Son of God was far from a Spirit of crossness and contradiction and from all Principles of schism and faction Par. You must give me leave here to put in a question of my own If Christ taught sitting and instituted one of his Sacraments sitting why do not you imitate our Saviour's posture in the performance of those services Min. You must know that sitting when he taught and when he instituted and administred the Holy Eucharist was not one and the same posture for when he taught he sat in a Chair as the Jewish Doctors used to do but his posture at the Sacrament was leaning or lying along on one side In which posture though he being the Lord himself did in his state of Humiliation eat his Last Supper with his Disciples and gave them the freedom to do the like yet that being contrary to our National Custom and Christ being now Glorified this posture of leaning or lying along would be very irreverent among us in the celebration of that B. Sacrament the great Pledge of his Love and Memorial of his Death But one thing I will take the boldness to affirm That we conform more to our Saviour's example in doing as we do then if we performed those Services in Christs own posture Par. This is strange Min. It will not be so strange to you if you well weigh and consider this truth That Conformity to our Saviour consists not in doing the same Natural Actions which he did but in following the same Moral Rule by which he did those Actions Now his Rule was to conform to all present Constitutions and Customs in themselves indifferent And this in order to the promoting of Love and Peace The Rule of Charity was his constant and general Rule in all his Actions Particularly in this last instance our Saviour did not institute a posture but only express a compliance with a Jewish Custom He therefore that for peace and love conforms to all present lawful Customs and Constitutions though far different from the same natural Actions our Saviour did most truly conforms both to the example and the meek and gentle Spirit of Jesus Par. You may remember that when I produced this Argument from the Quakers viz. That God Thou'd Adam and Adam Thou'd God you stopt my mouth by asking whether the Discourse was in English And by saying that if the Translators had put You
the case of Divorces and reduced Marriage to its Primitive institution Mat. 19. Denounced eight Woes together against the Scribes and Pharisees He asserted and cleared the Moral Law in his Sermon on the Mount from the false Glosses the Jewish Doctors had put upon it and advanced the Law of Nature whereof the Moral Law is the transcript to the highest pitch And was not all this sufficient to make Christ a Reformer He is our sole Lawgiver and what the Apostles taught after his offering up was his own Law which himself had deliver'd before his death and which the Spirit was promised to bring into their remembrance If therefore Civil Respects were so vain and evil a Custom as T. E. makes them p. 41. is it likely that so severe a Reformer should not only Connive at them but expresly allow them as he does Luke 14. 10 As Ellwood implicitly grants he did not denying it but using an absurd and an odd circuit of words to shuffle it off Though therefore the Pharisees ambition and affectation of the chief Seats was rebuked by our Saviour yet it is evident the distinction of persons and places and such good manners as are founded thereon were none of those things which he disliked or design'd ever to remove What though the State of the Church in the time of the Law was in a great measure Outward and the Legal Ceremonies of the Levitical Priesthood upon Christ's death expired What though a more inward and Spiritual Worship was enjoyn'd under the Gospel and the Spirit of God to that end poured out more plentifully than ever Did this prove that to Christians all outward things are vanisht and such things as no way belonged to that Priesthood Are their Bodies vanisht too What then will become of that injunction Glarific God in your Body 1 Cor. 6. 20. Are we now devested of all outward capacities and concernments Untill he can prove this he must allow Christians such outward Customs and usages as are agreeable to this present State such among the rest are Civil Respects being sutable to that distinction which Providence and the State of this World have made of persons and places in the various relations which we find in all Civil Societies He that is an enemy to this distinction is an enemy to all Government which cannot subsist without it for we must distinguish between Rulers and Subjects Governors and Governed both in Common Wealths and private Families What madness then is it to think that Christ meant to take away Civil Respects and good Manners things that are so necessary to uphold this distinction essential to it as the due acknowledgment and proper expressions of it Therefore he abolish'd not those decentCustoms of them which are upon Record in the Old Testament or any where else But all quotations out of the Old Testament to this purpose must needs be still in force Par. You have thus far given me very good satisfaction in this point if you have any thing further to add to it I pray go on to clear it not only to me but to all others who do ignorantly scruple it as I have done Min. The great duty of a Christian is Universal Friendship but as Friendship is amicitia parium aâ—…t imparium of Equals or Unequals So the signification of that Friendship requires different expressions since the state of the World and the constitution of Societies necessarily infers a distribution of persons into several ranks higher and lower the foundations of which distribution are these following First difference of Age calls for different behaviour Lev. 19. 32. Thou shalt rise before the hoary head and honour the face of the Old man The face of the Old man here is the gavity of his person So that respect to mens persons is not always evil but oft times a duty See also 1 Tim. 5. 1. Intreaâ—…an old man as a Father Secondly Difference of sex 1 Cor. 11. 3 4 5. And the Ordinance of Marriage makes Man the head of the Wife and requires expressions of subjection from the Woman to the Man as T. E. himself acknowledges in the example of Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him Lord. Thirdly All domestick and civil relations implying superiority and inferiority as not only Husband and Wife but Parents and Children Masters and Servants all which T. E. acknowledges Why not then between Magistrates and Subjects seeing Magistrates are Fathers of their Country and every Ruler is properly a Master for Christ himself calls Nicodemus a Master of Israel Iob. 3. 10. Fourthly Different occupations and employments some being honourable and others mean make one rankof menhigher than another Exod. 11. 5. Iud. 16. 21. Acts 17. 5. where you have mention of the baser sort Fifthly By reason of the necessity of publick Offices for civil Governmenment some men must needs be publick some private persons Publick Persons must have an eminency above private And Kings in Scripture are lookt upon as Sacred and the Jewish Rulers and Judges frequently styled Gods Exod. 22. 28. Ps. 82. 6. Io. 10. 34. which is a much higher Title of respect than any we give in our addresses to them therefore it was boldly done of T. E. to quarrel at the Title of Mâ—…st Sacred Majesty and Dread Sovereign as he do's p. 46. seeing all these are essential to the Title of King which the Quakers own and are willing to give him Pray read these places Ps. 21. 5. 1 Chr. 29. 25. Dan. 4. 36 37. Sixthly Nearness to or distance from such as are Eminent Persons thus they that are near the Kings Person gain an eminence by it Est. 1. 14. Ier. 52. 25. And so the Civil Law looketh upon men as more eminent as they are nearer the Emperor And we do find abundance of these reckon'd up in Scripture Dan. 3. 27. and many other places And the Scripture speaks of different Ranks of Nobility and freely gives them their usual titles without any scruple Thus we read of Princes Gen. 17. 20. and 2 Sam. 19. 6 c. of Dukes Exod. 15. 15. Ios. 13. 21. Gen. 36. 15 c. of Lords Dan. 5. 1 9. Ezr. 8. 25. Neh. 7. 5. And in the New Testament Mark 6. 2 1. where 't is said that Herod made a Supper to his Lords c. Note here that St. Mark writes not like a Quaker He do's not say He made a Supper to his Lords as they call them Nor like Ellwood who is so demure that forsooth he dare not name Titles and Civil Respects without this same reserve as they are called Seventhly By civil vertues and great exploits Men justly gain an Eminency and Renown and become famous See Ruth 4. 11 14. Num. 16. 2. and 1. 16. 1 Chron. 5. 24. and 12. 30. Ezek. 23. 23. Eighthly When persons have larger priviledges and immunities granted to them in the Commonwealth they gain an eminency by them thus Noblemen are constituted by that the Lawyers call
Dominium Nobilium whereby they have jus praecedentiae a right of precedency and Locus potior decernendi and other things of like nature Therefore they have Ornaments allotted to them which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Titles to adorn them whih are no other than certain marks of their civil valuation For it is past dispute that as some Men are of much more value to the publick than others viz. Able Commanders Iudges c. So publick Governors have power to determine the rates both of Men and Things and to signifie the value they set upon one Man above another by giving him a higher place and a title Ninthly These priviledges being propagated to posterity and made hereditary for Patrum conditionem liberi sequuntur as the Law speaks make different Families in respect of superiority and inferiority These advancements descending to their Children being encouragements to civil vertues and great actions And 't is hard to conceive how these things can be otherwise in this World without danger to that order which is necessary to the subsistence of each civil Society These things and the like must necessarily distinguish persons into several ranks and classes as Servius Tullius distributed the Roman Citizens and this the Scripture freely acknowledges for we read also of Nobles Exod. 24. 11. Ier. 27. 20. and the Sons of Nobles Eccl. 10. 17. The Title of Honourable Isa. 3. 3 5. Mar. 15. 43. Acts 13. 50. and 17. 12. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Scriptures express men of worth was used by the Greeks as a Title to salute a Gentleman For seeing there are different ranks of Men downwards from the King to the Peasant therefore as you see it is agreeable to holy Scripture so all sober men will acknowledge it is agreeable to Reason also to give to each rank such distinct Titles as are proper to express that difference And with what reverence and outward civil respects the Primitive Christians behaved themselves to their Governors may be seen in Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. And what is any where said that true piety is the Fountain of Honour or the like is meant in a Religious sense and concerns the inward man and is not at all intended to exclude those civil distinctions among men in reference to their outward capacities To suppose otherwise were very ridiculous Par. The case is still clearer to me and you have made T. E's way of reasoning appear sufficiently absur'd Min. I shall make it more apparent before I have done by giving you a List both of his Absurdities and Self-contradictions contained in this one Paragraph we are now upon First Absurdity in implying that Christ's death put an end to his Moral documents this of Luk. 14. 10. being one 2 Absur that all Political Government is now at an end and God's People must be now no more an outward National people 3 Absur In making the use of the Sword unlawful now in the time of Reformation in contradiction to Rom. 13. 4. where 't is said that the Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain hereby condemning two good Centurions him in Mat. 8. 9 10. and Cornelius Acts 10. 1 2. who was after Christ's death By this Rule neither forreign invasions nor intestine Rebellions must be opposed nor prevented by any outward means But we have no reason to trust the Quaker here seeing divers of his Brethren bore Arms and Offices in the late Army yet at the same time professed Quakerism and I can name the persons were there occasion for it 4 Absur In going about to prove outward things connived at by Christ and indulged to the Jews for the hardness of their hearts by that very Text in Mat. 19. 8. which is an express and plain instance of his forbidding and reforming those arbitrary divorces which Moses suffer'd 5 Absur in saying in such general terms that the State of the Church in Christ's time was Outward and Worship Outward and in that notion afterwards to vanish as if after Christ's death the Church were not to retain any Outward State or Outward Worship And consequently that all vocal Prayers all gestures of Devotion all Outward Ordinances yea the very notion and being of the visible Church must vanish together 6 Absur in making no difference at all between the State of the Church under Christ's time and under Moses's contrary to these Scriptures Heb. 1. 1. and 2. 1 2 3. and 3. 1 7. making the Doctrine of Christ no Gospel Ellwood's self-contradictions in this passage are these 1 Contrad His putting Outward Respects among those things which he says were indulged by our Saviour to continue till the Reformation and yet venturing to contradict himself in the exposition he gives of Mat. 23. 10. wherein he affirms that civil titles are there forbidden 2 Contrad His saying Outward honour went off after the death of Christ in contradiction to his own acknowledgment of the Epithet as he will have it of Most Noble given by St. Paul to Festus who being a Heathen had no Christian vertue to qualifie him for it according to the Quakers principles 3 Contrad His putting Outward respects among other things that were to cease at the time of Reformation in contradiction to what himself had implicitly yielded concerning the lawfulness of salutation p. 32. which is an outward civil respect Par. But T. E. has another distinction and bids his Readers consider to whom this in Luk. 14. 10. was spoken They were Pharisees of whom T. E. says there were several ranks and degrees there were chief Pharisees and inferiour Pharisees and they took place one of another c. Nay there were seven ranks among them as Goodwin tells us c. p. 40. Min. The Quaker is out again Where did he ever read of inferiour Pharisees Indeed in ver 1. it 's said one of the chief Pharisees but in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies one of the Sanhedrim as appears from Luk. 24. 20. Io. 3. 1. Acts 3. 17. For though Goodwin tells him that there were seven ranks among the Pharisees he do's not tell him that they took place of one another by virtue of higher or lower ranks for there was no such matter one Rank looking on themselves to be as good as another Hence the learned Scultetus saith Pharisaeorum septem non classes aut ordines sed genera fuisse liquet And we may note by the way that they who go about to explain Scripture upon pretence of their having the Spirit do if they want the ordinary means viz. Learning sanctified by the Spirit soon baffle themselves and demonstrate they have no true Spirit in them Par. But what was that to his Disciples says he He puts them in mind of their Equality p. 41. Min. Was there ever so gross an absurdity As if the Saviour of the World who came to Disciple all mankind should allow that to one sort of Men and prohibit the same thing
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
desert Ut qui non reddit agendo reddat patiendo but the occasion is Evil doing As for the usefulness of an Oath when T. E. hath found out as good and great a Security as this is we will then debate whether Oaths may be laid aside At present he saith Lying Hypocrisie c. are taken away at least de jure of right it ought to be so p. 153. But then T. E. must stay till his de jure be turned into de facto The Quaker de jure ought not to lye and wilfully to mistake and abuse my words but de facto he has done it Would God all things were as they ought to be for if we were what we are not we might omit some things now not to be spared as I told you before Par. T. E. has now followed you to your fourth Propâ—…sition wherein by the Examples of St. Paul and an Angel who swore in the New Testament you undertook to prove that All Oaths are not forbidden by Christ. And here I wonder at him that he falls not upon all the instances you gave of St. Paul's swearing as in this Case I think he ought to have done Min. 'T is no wonder to me to find this Quaker omitting any material passage in my Book But as to those instances I gave you they are the truest and plainest way of interpreting Christ's meaning for if St. Paul swore in those writings which were dictated by the Holy Ghost it 's plain demonstration that all Oaths are not forbidden For the Apostle saith St. Augustine doubtless knew the Command of our Lord and yet be swore And I hope all men will believe that St. Paul and the Holy Ghost are safer interpreters of the sense of our Saviour than T. E. and his Spirit Now it 's so plain that St. Paul did swear that St. Augustine saith They are not to be heard who fansie these are not Oaths which the Apostle used Now let us examine why the Apostle's words God is my Witness c. Rom. 1. 9. should not pass for an Oath Par. To say barely and simply God is my Witness is not an Oath saith T. E. For then God must swear by Men when he saith Isa. 43. 10. Ye are my Witnesses c. Moses by Heaven and Earth and St. Paul by the High Priest when they say They are Witnesses yea the Quaker by John and James if he say They are his Witnesses p. 155 156 157. Min. I grant first That every appeal to God is not an Oath To appeal to God as a righteous Judge against the injustice and cruelty of men without relation to his attesting and judging of a Proposition is no swearing by Him Secondly That the citation of Witness is no swearing And Thirdly That in some Cases men do not swear when they affirm or say that God is a Witness thus much I can grant the Quaker For when I comfort my self against false accusations of men I may say God is a Witness to my innocency and yet not be said to swear by Him or when I say God is a Witness of Mens secret wickedness I do not swear by Him But then Divines and Lawyers agree that to take God to Witness and to appeal to God as the Iudge of the truth of what we say and the avenger of the untruth is swearing In which respect this passage of St. Paul's is accounted an Oath which he thought necessary as being the greatest assurance he could give the Romans of his charity and zeal for them God is my Witness c. that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers wherefore St. Augustine saith what signifies by God but God is Witness and what means God is Witness but by God Serm. 28. de verb. Apost To c. To call God to Witness is to swear saith the same St. Augustine and so Chrysostom so all the School-men so our Modern Divines so both Jews and Heathens define an Oath But do's it at all follow that because it is no swearing to Call a Creature to Witness therefore it 's none to call the Creator to Witness To Petition God is Divine Worship is it therefore Divine Worship to Petition the King No let the Quaker know It 's Essential to an Oath to Call somewhat to Witness that we believe to be a God Par. Now T. F. comes to your next instance Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ I lye not my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost To this He answers To speak the truth in Christ is not an Oath c. p. 157. If Paul should have sworn as oft as he spake the Truth in Christ he would have been a very Common swearer p. 158. Min. It 's very true that every time we speak the Truth in Christ we do not swear but as the phrase stands here it can be accounted nothing else but an Oath Which will be more evident to this great Critick and Judge in Translations if he observe that in Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he knows may justly be Translated by Christ for he is not ignorant I hope that in St. Mat. 5. 34 35 36. where we read By Heaven by Earth by thy Head Per Caelum per Terram per Caput tuum as Beza has it which are plain swearing yet there the Original is the same Preposition as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Eph. 4. 17. where we read And testifie in the Lord Beza hath Obtestor per Dominum the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I am sure there are very many instances in Scripture where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated by and where it is used in swearing So that if we read it I say the truth by Christ c. as we may do then it will admit of no dispute I shall only add that this I say the truth in Christ I lye not was appointed by an Old English Council †to be the Priests and Deacons form of swearing before the Altar As to the second part of the Sentence St. Paul swears not by his Conscience which was not his God but only professeth the agreement of this Protestation to the sense of his Soul and to the testimony of the Holy Ghost with which he was inspired unless we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Holy Ghost and make it another Oath viz. by the Holy Spirit Par. Though T. E. did not consult his Greek Testament in this instance yet in your next he did For whereas you propounded 2 Cor. 1. 18 but as God is true c. to this he replies The particle as is not in the Greek but put in by the Translator ibid. Min. What then Who knows not that the Jews did always leave out As in their Oaths and yet always it was to be understood I suppose T. E. will grant As the Lord liveth to be an Oath yet As is never in the Original
Original 'T is the conceit of this Teaching that hath made many of the Quakers despise the Scriptures What need have such says one of them of Scripture-teaching without them when they have received the same Spirit within them Another whom I could name said to a Credible Person That it had been better for him had he never read the Bible Par. But you affirmed the Scriptures were a Perfect Rule this sticks in his teeth And whereas you proved it by 2. Tim. 3. 17. He confesses the Scriptures to be profitable but hopes the Priest will not say Every thing that is profitable is a perfect and sufficient rule p. 247. Min. It 's well if My Gentleman put not on a false Vizard for this is the foundation-Principle of all Popery to deny that the Scripture is a perfect Rule And under this sconce all their other Errours do take Sanctuary wherefore the Papists call the Scripture a Leaden Rule a dead Iudge merum putamen sine nuelâ—…o a meer Nut-shell without a Kernel That the Fathers are clear in this point as well against the Papists as their Frieud Ellwood may be seen in the Confeâ—…nce P. 105. which he passes by That the Scripture is a sufficient Rule the Apostle proves sufficiently 2. Tim. 3. 15 16 17. Do's not St. Paul say there that they are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith Which they could not do were there not a Rule in order to that Salvation For the main use of a Rule is to direct us in the way we should go in The Apostle proceeds to enumerate the several particulars wherein the Scriptures may by us be profitably made use of They are profitable says he for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction Which contain all the intents and purposes of a Rule To shew that the Scripture hath all the Perfection that a Rule can have the Apostle adds that the man of God may be perfect thorowly furnished unto all good Works Let this Quaker therefore beware how he digs up Foundations especially considering how many places there are which make the Law of the Lord Perfect c. Which for brevity sake I must omit I expected that T. E. in this Chapter of Learning would have shewed us his greatest skill and accuracy but I find my self deceived his pages being filled only with pitisul shifts and evasions Lest therefore I should weary you I must desire you to pass to the next and last Chapter of his Book especially considering there is a Tract now in press called Christianity No Enthusiasm which answers all his pretensions to immediate Teaching Par. I shall only then desire you to take notice that he concludes this Chapter with the Testimonies of Tindall Iewel Bradford Philpot and Bullinger all which argue a Necessity of the Spirit in order to the interpreting of Scripture Min. I have seriously consider'd their words and do find that they either speak of the practicable knowledge of the Scriptures which is ouly to be had from the Grace of the Spirit or else of the Ordinary teaching of Gods Spirit in the use of means But where do's he find that any of these relyed on immediate Inspiration or disputed against the use of Humane Learning in Divinity Or do you think that the Quaker observed His decorum in giving Philpot the Reverend Title of a Learned Martyr in this Chapter against Learning p. 275 But to shew that T. E. has abused the Learned and Pious Philpot And that I maintain No notion of Learning different form Him Let us hear his own words I confess saith he that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God and I acknowledge that God appointeth an Ordinary means for men to came unto knowledge now and not miraculously as He hath done in times past yet we that be taught by Men must take heed that we learn nothing but that which was taught in the Primitive Church by Revelation Par. One thing I wonder at viz. That T. E. should not say Bishop Iewel he having been Bishop of Salisbury as well as Bishop Gauden and Bishop Taylor but barely styles him Iohn Iewel a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion p. 273. Min. You will the less wonder if you consider that the design of Ellwoods Book is to blind and delude the ignorant Common people for he can hardly fancy that men whose Reason has been improved by Consideration and education can be imposed upon by so many apparent fallacies Now should He have called him Bishop Iewel then would the most Vulgar have made this Remark viz. that a man may be a Bishop and yet a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion But if T. E's design be to prove that Gods people cannot be without the assistance of His Holy Spirit he needed not to have gone to Bishop Iewel Arch-Deacon Philpot and the rest He might have brought as plain Proofs and with more Authority from the Book of Common prayer from the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England And if I say any thing to the contrary I will submit to the severest puninshment for so high a Cirme Par. I should give you no further Trouble upon this point but for one odd passage which I had like to have forgot He says The Faith which They have received is the same with that of the Primitive Christians p. 245. Min. Then let me give you a Testimony or two of their Opinion in this matter Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 5. c. 9. tells us of one Pantaenus who lived in the Second Century that He was a famous Learned man and Moderator in the School of Alexandria And that of Old disputation and exercise in Holy Scripture did flourish among them being instituted by such men as excelled in Eloquence The same Eusebius informs us that Origen perswaded to the Study of Liberal Sciences affirming them advantagious to the knowledge of Holy Scriptures being of an opinion that the exercise of Philosophical Discipline was very necessary and profitable It was an unhappy Project of Iulian the Apâ—…state to extirpate Christianity by destroying All Schools of Literature and Education for by this means saith he if we suffer them We are beaten with our own Weapons And the Christians complained of this as a very great grievance Which shews that they both used Learning and highly valued it also Saint Augustine allows the knowledg of Philosophy and other Heathen Learning to be useful in order to the expounding of Scripture and compares it to the Israelites spoiling of the Egyptâ—…ians to adorn the Tabernacle And saith that Saint Cyprian Lactantius Victorinus Optatus and Hilarius were rarely furnished with these spoils Saint Hierome was brought up in Learning from his Youth And before he set upon explaining the Scripture he Learned the Hebrew Tongue long after he was a man And hehighly commended the Mother of Rusticus who was designed for the Ministry that she brought him up