Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism
15. In the next place, he thinks he will prove that this Ordinance is not a lasting ordinance §. 6, Pag. 300. &c. Passing what is but a repetition, let us hear his arguments. Matthew and Mark, says he, expresseth this, as done while they were eating: And this was usual among the Jews, as Paulus Riccius observeth, for at their eating of the passover, the master of the family took bread, and brake it, and did distribute it, and so did he with wine: So Christ, who would fulfil all righteousness, and would observe the Jewish feasts, used this ceremony, for his disciples only, and took occasion thereby to raise up their minds to higher things. Answ. (1.) To this last we have spoken before; and why did not Christ take occasion to give this Christian document before this time, while they were eating? (2.) It is true, Christ instituted this Supper before they rose from table, and what then? (3.) As for what is reported of the Jewish practice, not only by this Paulus Riccius, but by several others▪ I doubt, if all that is said shall demonstrate, that the Jews had this custom before Christ's days; seeing the eldest of the Jewish writers, out of whom they have it, wrote not till a considerable time after the Temple was brunt: And what credit is to be given to what they wrote, when their purpose and design was to deface and annul Christianity, let sober men judge. (4.) Sure I am, there was no divine command for this practice, at the eating of the Paschal Lamb; and how our Quaker can say, that Christ would do this, because he would fulfil all righteousness. I know not; seeing righteousness stands in obeying the command of God. (5.) Though Christ did observe the feasts, prescribed to the Jews by the Lord; Yet he would not observe their sinful additions and traditions: No; he condemned these Mat. 15. (6.) That which we are to look to, is Christ's practice, and we are sure, that that should oblige us more, then the Jewish practice could oblige Christ. (7.) We not only have Christ's practice, but a command, mentioned by Luk, do this in remembrance of me. This evinceth no more, saith he but that seeing that was to be the last occasion of his ea • ing with them, he would have them, while they were eating, look to him, that by commemoration of that occasion, by his passions and death, they should be stirred up to follow him more diligently. Ans. Need we cite Scriptures against these men, who have such a dexterity, to elude all with non sense? Whether should we believe this man's fiction, or the commentary of the Spirit of God by Paul 1 Cor. 11:24, 25. where we have these words twice repeated, and an application unto them beside verse. 26. showing that word of commandment • did not concern the Apostles only, but the Church in all ages? If th • y had never been to do that again, how could they obey that command? Doth not common sense and common language confute this vanity? And why would Christ have mentioned this Command, both w • en he gave the bread, and when he gave the cup, as Paul showeth us, if this had been all? What is that to say, by commemoration of that occasion, by his passions and death, &c. ? Nothing but non-sense.
16. He mentioneth next that passage of Christ's washing his disciples feet John. 13▪ 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15. And because that is not looked upon as binding, which yet was done (says he) with greater solemnity, and more precisely prescribed, then this of the Supper, he inferreth, that neither should, this be accounted obliging : and upon this one instance, he expatiateth Pag. 302. & 30 • . But we Answer. (1.) Though it were true (as it is not) that Christ had instituted this ceremony to be observed, as he did the Supper; the Churches neglect of the one, will not warrand him and his followers to despise both: But. (2.) The difference betwixt the two is clear and manifest. This of washing was an usual practice in those • ote Countries, where men walked bare footed, using only sandals; and a common piece of humanity and service, whereby love to strangers was declared Luk. 7:44. 1 Tim. 5:10. And Christ, being Master and Lord, would condescend unto the performing of this inferior piece of service, usually practiced by servants and the inferior sort of persons, that he might both testify his great love to his disciples, and also impress deeply on their soul, the moral duty of Humility, Condescension, Mutual service; and, by his own example, root out more effectually that Pride, and Emulation, that was working in their hearts: and so this practice, in the very nature of the thing, did preach-out this moral duty: But the mater of the Supper was a new Institution, having a mystical signification, depending merely upon the Institution, and was chiefly to be a Sign and Seal of, and a Mean to exhibit to the followers of the Institution, and conscientious observers of Christ's Appointments, Spiritual benefits, even Christ, & all his blessings. Hence Christ said of the Bread, in the sacramental Institution, this is my body, which is broken for you ; and of the Cup, this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many : But in this action of washing; there is no such thing apparent. And further, Christ presseth here no formal repetition, or reiteration of this practice, as a mystical Institution; for then he would have urged a full conformity in all points, and so have told, that one among them, & the highest, represent • ng their Lord and Master, should do as he had done, wash the feet of the rest; but instead of this, and to show, that this was but a natural expressive signification of a moral duty, incumbent on all, to each other, he saith verse. 14. If I then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. And for this end to enforce this moral command on all, he set before them his own example verse. 15. and his own example, with this mightily influenceing ingredient and circumstance, that he who was their Lord and Master, had done so; and therefore they • hold much more do so verse 16.- the servant is not greater than his Lord, &c. I might add, that there is nothing apparent, in the practice of the Apostles, and of the primitive Church, giving any ground to think, that this was looked upon, as a significant rite or symbol, having a mystical representation, and signification: but the moral duty, pressed hereby, was both frequently urged by the Apostles, and practiced by the primitive Christians: but as to the Supper, we find matters far otherwise▪ an Institution punctually followed and frequently reiterated. Act. 2:42. & 20:7, And the abuses, that had creeped-in, in the observation, rectified; and the right manner of celebrating it largely pressed, and enforced with strong arguments, and all this founded on an Institution 1 Cor. 11:23. &c. And hence our Quaker, if he will, may see what difference there is betwixt the two; and clear grounds, why the perpetuity of the one is asserted, and not of the other.
17. He urgeth §. 7. Pag. 304. our not observing of all the circumstances, as not celebrating it at night, while supping. Which can make nothing for his rejecting of the whole Institution: Suppose this were an error in us, will that justify his profane pleading against the whole Ordinance? But he must know, that every occasional circumstance of an Institution ha • h not a fixed place and use in the Institution; though other circumstances▪ which are parts of the Institution have a fixed place and use therein; and of these, not of those must that command, do this in remembrance of me, take place: Hence we find the alteration and change, both as to the place, and as to the number, and as to the supping at that time, (which were all but occasional circumstances) practiced and urged, Christ did celebrate this first supper in an upper room, with his few disciples; but the Apostle speaketh of the meeting of the whole Church, Act. 20: verse. 7. 1 Cor. 11: verse. 18, 33. and that in a public place of meeting 1 Cor. 11: verse. 11, 20. So Christ used his ordinary supper at this time: And it is l • ke the Corinthians would do this also in imitation: but we see the Apostle discharge this 1 Cor. 11: verse. 21, 22. and shame them from it: but as to such circumstances (if they may be so called) which have a fixed place in this Ordinance, and are parts thereof, the Apostle is very tender and careful of these, repeating and urging the whole of the Institution, 1 Cor. 11:23, 24, 25. But he thinketh, that the whole may be as well called occasional and accidental, being the practiseing of a Jewish ceremony. In which he is mistaken, as we have shown. And he thinketh the wine, being the native product of that country, 〈◊〉 as but accidental. But knows he not, that water was also the pro • uct of that Country; and yet Christ made choice of wine: And what though other ordinary drink and bread were made use of, where wine and wheat bread could not be had? He inquireth again, how these word do this, can import, that officers should break, bless the brea • and distribute it, and that other people should only take and eat ? But his question is like many of the Quakers questions, very impertinent and foolish; for as Christ was there acting the part of a Master and Officer; & the disciples, were as Church members; so do this pointeth out the several respective duties of both: knoweth he not that the Ministers of Christ are Stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4:1? And thinks he, that it is e • ery private Members part to bless the cup, and the bread, and to break it? Paul hinteth some other thing 1 Cor. 10:17. compared with verse. 21. The dust which he raiseth about the manner, whether sitting, standing or kneeling, As being matter of debate, hath been sufficiently spoken to by others; & he knoweth the main exception, against kneeling, was not taken from it is being different from Christ's manner, which yet was sufficient: All this giveth no ground for his profane rejecting of the whole Ordinance; but rather is a witness against him.
18. He tells us Pag. 306. that the breaking of bread mentioned. Act 2:42. was not meaned of this Sacrament, but of their private repasts, because this is understood verse. 46. But he adverteth not; for verse. 42. their public actions as a Church are recorded, they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and followshipe, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, which are all Church and Public actions: but verse. 46. the breaking of bread, was in their private converse, for they did it at home, and with gladness and singleness of heart; which point out their mutual heartsome converse, with love and frugality: And if the breaking of bread ver. 42. were nothing but this ver. 46. what necessity was there for the repetition? and why doth not Luk add the same explication of breaking of bread verse 42. which he addeth verse 46. saying, did eat their meat with gladness &c ? And to say, that the breaking of bread. Act 2:42. is the same with the tables mentioned Act. 6:2. is a mere groundless fancy; like many of the Quakers bold notions.
19. He speaketh next Pag 307. to Act. 20▪ 7. And will have that but a private meal too, because of what is said verse. 11. Little considering the words, or the series of the discourse. The first day of the week, our Christian Sabbath, the disciples, in their whole number and company, came together to break bread, not to feast sure in a private house, (where conveniency for such a multitude, was not to be expected, and to which no small preparation and labor was requisite,) but to celebrate this Sacrament, which looked more like a work suteing the day, than such a private feast, as he imagineth: And it was such a feast, as required Paul's preaching: shall we think, that Paul did eat none at their private meals, all the seven days he was there? Yet we hear no word of his preaching at any other feast. And as for that verse. 11. it was not a supper; for it was long past supper time, it was after midnight, that he did eat then; but it was a little refreshment for himself, after his long preaching: And it is not, said verse. 11. that the disciples did all eat, as they came all together to break bread verse. 7. but only that Paul did it, when he therefore was come up again and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long time, even till break of day &c. So that this eating was for himself, both to refresh him after his long speaking, from the time that the disciples came together, until midnight; and also to strengthen him for speaking till break of day, and for his journey then.
20. He cometh next to examine 1 Cor. 11. Pag. 308. And tells us that Paul verse. 20 says. When ye come together-this is not to eat the Lord's supper, simply; and not, that was not to eat aright, and that because they were ready superstitiously to extend it beyond its true use. Ans. Of their superstition, we hear not; but rather of their defect in duties of Religion, as to this: And here the thing for which they are reprehended, is their coming in distinct separated troops, making schisms; & this he says was not a coming together to celebrate this feast, as one body; And more particularly verse. 31. he reprehendeth their abuse, in eating thus disorderly, & not waiting upon other, which in end he enjoineth verse. 33. what maketh all this to prove this to have been a private repast only? was it ever the fashion of the Christians to hold their private feasts, and no feast else, in their public Churches? We know these Corinthians had adjoined to the solemn feast, their private feasts, or love feasts, but the Apostle doth plainly discharge that practice, saying verse. 22. what, have ye not houses to eat and drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, &c. He would have no feast there held, but what belonged to the worship of God, and was a Gospel Institution; and therefore, in rectifying of all their abuses, he reduceth them to the first Institution, not barely narrating a mater of fact, as our Quaker fancieth; but relating an Institution, which he had delivered unto them, and had received of the Lord for that end. And if our Quaker were not willingly blind, he might see a command here; and all the rest of the following verses confirming it: But Institutions are no commands with him; nor have divine commands any power over him; for he is not under God's Law, but under the light. Was Paul's delivering to them what he had received, nothing, but a simple narration of a mater of fact? What profane babbling is this? But, says he, when he repeateth Christ's command, he wordeth it so, as that it is no command verse. 25, 26. but a conditional thing, as oft as ye drink it, &c. Ans. Then Paul relateth not faithfully, but maketh a false narration: But our Quakers scruple not at loading the Apostle with reproaches, yea & the Spirit of God speaking in him! What force, I wonder, hath these words as ye eat and drink, to enfringe the command, and make the proposition only conditional? by these words the Apostle lets us see, that Christ did not enjoin, how oft this Supper should be gone about, but the command to do it in remembrance of Christ standeth, and is thrice repeated by Paul, for the verse. 22. may be read imperatively; where also we see, that there is a command of keeping up this ordinance, until Christ's second coming. His talking, that this is to be understood of Christ's inward spiritual coming, is but a quakeristick notion; as if any spiritual coming of Christ to his people here, would obliterat and delete the remembrance and commemoration of Christ's death; and beside, it would suppose, that there was not a good Christian in all this Church, nor one to whom Christ was come spiritually; or he must show us, where these are excepted here, and exempted from this command. But says he, they were weak, and Paul bore with them. Ans. Yet being weak, they might be babes in Christ I Cor. 3:1. and so have Christ arisen in them: but if all were void of grace, how could Paul call them sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1:2. and thank God, for the grace of God, which was given them by Jesus Christ verse. 4. and say, that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in them verse. 6. why said he, that the Spirit of God dwelt in them, 1 Cor. 3:6. and that in Christ Jesus, he had begotten them through the Gospel, 1 Cor. 4:15? These & many such passages, which we find in this Epistle, say that there were at least some, and not a few, real believers among them, and so such to whom Christ was come inwardly and spiritually, who, for all this, were to wait for Christ's second coming, 1 Cor. 1.7, 8. and, in hopes of that, to use this Sacrament. Yet to confirm this, he says, that bread and wine, are among the things, that are on the earth, which such as are risen with Christ should not set their affections upon, Col. 3:1, 2. Which I do not wonder at; but think strange rather, that he did not reckon it among those members, which are upon the earth, and which we are to mortify, Col. 3:5. to wit, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence and covetousness : Yet it may be, he will do so the next time. As for his Syriac version (which we regard not as authentic) if he will look upon it as authentic he may consider what it says, Act. 2:42. And, if he hath rightly translated the words here, on verse 17. thus, what I am about to command you, I say not as praising you, for ye are not advanced, but descended unto that, which is less. I see not what they can make for him; will this prove, that the Apostle saw a necessity to teach them, not external things and elements, but unnecessary and uncommanded things; as our Quaker must say? Nor is there the least show of any countenance, from that version on verse. 20. given to this man's inference. When therefore you meet together (saith the version, as he translateth it) you do not, as is just, in the day of our Lord, eat and drink. And his inference is, that to meet for eating bread and drinking wine was not the work of that day of the Lord. While as the Version speaketh of their corrupt manner. But he would needs let us know, that he hath seen these Versions, with their interpretations, in the Biblia Polyglotta ; though he could make on other use of them, than to show how dexterously he could pervert them, as well as the authentic Original.
21. When he can gain nothing here, he must try another foord; and therefore Pag. 313. he tells us, that other precepts, far more positive, are laid aside: as that Act. 15:29. And knoweth he not, that that was a part of the ceremonial Law, the observation of which was thought necessary at that time, for avoiding the scandal of the Jews: And the force of this canon was soon taken away by Paul, in his Epistles to the Corinthians and Colossians : was the Lord's Supper, a ceremonial command? Where read we of it, in all the Law of Moses? And was it ever a brogated by the Apostles, or Antiquated, either directly, or by consequence? When, I pray, or where? And then he citeth that James 5:14. of anointing the sick with oil. And when he replieth to himself, that it was a consequent of the gift of miracles, which is now ceased, he sweetly acquiesceth: O • lie he adviseth us to lay aside the ceremony of Imposition of hands, seeing the giving of the holy Ghost is ceased; Not considering, that we use it not, as it was used for the conveyance of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost; but as it was used for conveyance of the ministerial Power and Authority; and this use continueth, and so may the outward Ceremony of laying on of hands.
22. To make all sure, he will adduce some Scriptures, proving that such outward, and external rites, are no necessary parts of the new Covenant dispensation. And to this end citeth first Rom. 14:17. But the meat and drink, which the Apostle there speaketh of, is the same he was speaking of from the beginning of the Chapter, and that (as most suppose) was meats, which had been prohibited by the Law of Moses, which some weak Christians thought yet to have been in force, as to these things; and therefore thought some meat was unclean: see verse. 14. Will this make anything against the observation of the Institution of Christ? Will he bring in Christ's Supper, as meat prohibited under the Law? Then he will make Christ a transgressor, He citeth next Col. 2:1 • , 20. Which is so plainly against him, that I think he hath done violence to the light within him, while he cited it; for he must bring Christ's Supper either under the traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world; for of these the Apostle speaketh, as we see verse. 8, 22. will he say, that the Lord's Supper cometh in among the shadows of himself, as yet to come, while as he was already come? But he addeth a reason, that must enforce all Pag. 311. to wit, that then the Gospel shall not be distinguished from the Law, nor preferred. Which is but a Socinian argument, formerly spoken to. There is no yoke, nor typicalness, nor typical representation of things to come, under the Kingdom of the Me • sias, in the Supper of the Lord; but a commemoration of what is past, and a sealing and confirming to believers, their right and interest in Christ, & all his benefits. What followeth to §. 10. hath been spoke to, and obviated already: He is wearisome in his repetitions; and we must not weary the Reader with repetitions too.
23. If nothing will do, then he must ask, what authority Ministers have to administrate this Sacrament Pag. 312. §. 10. and so recalleth the debate concerning our call to the Ministry, to which enough was said above Chap. XVII. And, because he would end as he began, he must touch again upon the various opinions about, and practices in this Sacrament, of old, and of late Pag. 313. which only argueth the restlessness of his malice against this Ordinance, & how fain he would have it cashiered; but all in vain, it will abide in force, and be preserved in use, till Christ come again, nill he, will he, and all his party.
24. In end, after our Quaker hath fought until he can stand no longer, and findeth himself weak, & unable to fight anymore, he cometh to something like a parlie, and would accord unto some accommodation; for he saith §. 11. finally, if any today, out of true tenderness of conscience toward God, would perform these ceremonies, after that way and method, in which the primitive Christians did it, I would not doubt to affirm, that to such it might be indulged for a time : But, if what he saith be true, to wit, that there is no command for this Ordinance; that i • is a legal Rite, a shadow of good things to come, whereof the body is Christ, that it is repugnant to the nature of the new covenant dispensation &c. I shall be bold to say, that no man can, out of tenderness of conscience to God, after any method or manner, go about it; and that no man should be more indulged therein, than in practiseing of circumcision. What he addeth, is but a little bundle of his groundless whimsies, without truth, sense, or consistency. We haste to what followeth.
CHAP. XXVIII. Of Liberty of Conscience.
1. AS Thieves and Robbers, who love to live on spoil and rapine, desire earnestly, there were no Law, nor Judge to reach them in their wicked works; So our Quakers, conscious, as it would seem, to themselves, of the evil of their ways and practices; and knowing full well, how they are looked upon by all, as pests, and most noxious persons, both to Church and Commonwealth, to Religion and Civility; and that therefore, they cannot be tolerated, or suffered to enjoy a license to follow forth their wicked designs, to ruin all Christianity, destroy all Churches, in their very Being, as well as in their Order and Government; introduce Paganism, to the reproach of Christianity, and to overturn the very foundations of Religion and Piety: Our Quakers, I say, who are wise enough for evil, and sagacious enough to contrive their own security, thought it best for their own saiftie, to add this to the rest of their errors, That Magistrates have no lawful power over them; and so join with Libertines, Arminians and Anabaptists, and with the Donatists of old▪ and Raimundus Lullius, and with the old Fraticelli, (who from their perfection inferred, that they were not subject to any human ordinances, either of Church or State) in pleading for a liberty of Conscience, as it is called, but in truth, a lawless license to destroy all Religion, all Piety, and all the precious Concerns of Jesus Christ, and of the souls of men. Blackwood, in his Storming of Antichrist Pag. 23. would add some limitations or restrictions, saying Evil works committed against the light of Nature and Reason, as the setting up of Mahomet, or any other God, beside the Creator of heaven and earth; Atheism, when any man shall boldly affirm, there is no God; Polytheism, when men affirm many G • ds; Blas • hemy; murder: these and such like the Magistrate, whether Heathen or Christian, is to be a terror unto. 2. These evils, which are against the light of Nations; there is no Nation in the world but in it the Magistrate will punish those, that speak against the God, that they profess, and against that which they think is Scripture; So if any rail against Christ, or deny the Scriptures to be his word, or no rule for us, & so unsetle our faith; this, as I take it, may be punished by the Magistrate ▪ But our Quaker, I know, will not stand to this: He will rather say with Williams Bloody Tenet, in the Preface Pag. 2. it is the will and command of God, that since the coming of his Son, the Lord Jesus, a permissi • n of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or Antichristian consciences, and worships, be granted to all men, in all Nations and Countries : For his Thesis is general, taking in all opinions about Worship and Religion. And he grants to the Magistrate only liberty to judge in maters touching the life and goods of others; or what is hurtful to human society, and commerce: But probably not of Quakers ; for they are perfect and so cannot do wrong. And though this be a very narrow restriction, yet I cannot see, how he can yield to this, without destroying the main ground he standeth upon; for Conscience may be pretended for the one, as well as for the other; and an erroneous conscience way teach • ome to Sacrifice their children to Molo • h, and to cut off their nieghbou • s head, as a revelation taught the Anabaptist in Helvetia, to cut off his brothers head; and others at Munster, to do many villainies.
2. Seeing our Quaker declineth a full dispute, upon this head, telling us, that many have writ • en largely and earnedly upon it; upon this same account, I think myself releaved from any large prosecution of this Theme ; and that I need do no more, but examine, what he saith for his license, and against our Arguments, such of them, as he is pleased to take any notice of. Any who desire to have a full discussion of this question, may peruse Mr Rutherfoords free dispute against pretended liberty of Conscience, Mr Edwards, Prin, and Others, who have fully handled that debate. The truth which we own is summarily set down in our Confession of Faith Chap. 20. §. 2, & 4. God alone is Lord of the Conscience, (I am. 4:12. Rom. 14:4.) and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his word, or beside it, in maters of faith or worship (Act 4: v. 19. & 5.29 1 Cor. 7. v. 25. Mat. 23:8, 9, 10. 2 Cor. 1:24. Mat. 15:9.) So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of C • nscience (Col. 2:20, 22, 23. Gal. 1:10. & 2:4, 5. Psal. 5:1.) and the requireing of an implicit faith, and an abs • lute and blind obedience, is, to destroy liberty of Conscience, and reason also (Rom. 10:17. & 14:23. Esa. 8:20. Act. 1 • :11. John. 4:28. Hos. 5:11. Revel. 13:12, 16; 17. Ier. 8 9.) And because the Powers, which God hath ordained, and the liberty, which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; They, who upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful Power, or the lawful exercises of it, whether it be Civil or Ecclesiastical, resist the Ordinance of God (Mat. 10: verse. 25. 1 Pet. 2: verse. 13, 14, 16. Rom 13:1,—8. & 13.17.) And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of Nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith Worship or Conversation, or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous Opinions or Practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the ext • rnal peace and order, which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the Censures of the Church, (Rom. 1:32. with 1 Cor. 5:2, 3, 11, 13. 2 John. 10:11. 2 Thes. 3: v. 14. & Tim 6:3, 4 & Tit. 1:10, 11, 13. & 3:10. with Mat. 18:15, 16, 17. 1 Tim. 1: verse. 19, 20, 21. Revel. 5:9 & 2:2, 14, 15.) And by the power of the civil Magistrate (Deut. 13:6, to 12▪ Rom. 13.3, 4. with 2 John. v. 10, • 1. Ezra 7:23, 25.26, 27, 28. Revel. 17:12, 16, 17, Neh. 13:15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30 2 King. 23:5, 6, 9, 20, 21. 2 Chron. 34:31. & 15:12, 13, 16. Dan. 3:29. 1 Tim: 2:2. Isaiah. 49: v. 2. Zech. 13:23.
3. Our Quaker premitteth some things for clearing of the question; and first he tells us, that by Conscience, as he said before, he understandeth that persuasion of soul, which ariseth from the Intellect, with the truth or falsehood of a thing. An • w. (1.) How this description can agree to a scrupulous, or to a doubting Conscience, I see not; for neither of these have attained to any persuasion; though I know, a blinded conscience, or an erroneous conscience, can have a sort of persuasion. (2.) Before, to wit Pag. 89. he told us, that some of the Quakers did fitly compare the Conscience unto a lantern, and the light of Christ to a candle burning in it: And compareing this with what is here said; we may see, that in the Quakers judgment, the light of Christ, whereof they talk so much, is nothing but the light of the understanding, for it is this light of the understanding, that causeth the persuasion, which he calleth Conscience here; and it is that which shineth in the dark lantern of conscience, as they speak there. But (3.) How can Conscience be compared to a lantern, seeing a lantern is a dark thing, having no light in itself, only it hath an aptitude to transmit the light, that shineth in it; but Conscience is a lump of light▪ and is either an act of the practical understanding, as some; or rather, as others, a power of the practical understanding, & is not a distinct faculty from the understanding, but the very understanding judging of and giving sentence upon the man's State, Ways and Actions? And the very name Conscience importeth a knowing power and faculty, con -scientia or co-knowledge : to it belongeth the Synteresis, the intellectual storehouse and magazine of truths, the Register of common notions left in us by nature, whether as to things concerning God, or as to things, concerning Ourselves and our Nieghbour, in respect of which, the conscience is said to be a Law, or Light : and this belike, is all the Light of Christ, which our Quakers understand: And the judgment of Conscience being discursive, to it belongeth also, the knowledge of all the man's actions; in which respect it is called a Book or Witness, or an Indi • ement, as it bringeth forth these actions to light, and compareth them with the Law. To it also belongeth the judgment or sentence, passed upon the actions, as conform or disconforme to the Law of God. (4.) Conscience then cannot properly be called a persuasion ; for this resulteth from the clear apprehensions, dictates, witnessing and judgment of the Conscience; and so is but a consequent of Conscience acting, & that not of every conscience either; as not of a doub • ing, nor of a scrupling conscience; but of a clear and sound conscience ; or of a deluded one.
4. What saith he further? which (to wit, the thing presented by the intellect) th • ugh it be false and evil in itself, yet as long as the man is persuaded, (to wit, that it is true and • ood) he should sin, if he did contrary to that persuasion; for saith the Apostle, whatever is not of faith is sin, and he that doubteth is damned if he eat: And Ames saith a conscience erring tieth &c Answ. It is true, whatever the Conscience dictateth or enjoineth, it doth it, in the name and authority of God, whose Deputy and vicegerent it is; yet it is but an underjudge, and is not the supreme Law, but regula regulata ; so that though its dictates, even when erroneous and contrary to the Law of God, do so bind, as that the man who doth contrary, cannot but sin; for though upon the ma • er he doth nothing contrary to the Law of God; yet formally and interpretatively he transgresseth that, which is represented to him by Conscience, as the Law of God, and he knoweth no better, but it is in very deed the Law of God, which he transgresseth; Yet for all this, the erroneous conscience layeth on no formal obligation; as the same D. Ames telleth us; for it cannot oblige us to do that, which is a transgression of the Law of God, our supreme Lawgiver. It is true, which the Apostle saith Rom. 14. last, that whatever is not of faith is sin &c. because when we do anything, not knowing certainly but in so doing we sin against God, we shake off the awe and f • ar of God, and have not a sufficient abhorrence at sin.
5. He proposeth the question thus; Whether the Civil Magistrate hath power to compel men against their conscience, in maters of Religion: And if they will not obey, to punish them, in their goods, liberty and lives. And he holdeth the negative. I Answer. This is a most perverse stateing of the question: For (1.) He distinguisheth not the Elicite and Imperat acts of the Conscience, but confoundeth them: As if the Magistrates power were said equally to reach both; whereas we do not say, that the Magistrate can compel men, as to the inward liberty of the soul and conscience: that is, to Thi • k, Judge, Understand and Conclude in their minds, as he will; as if he could force and compel any to Believe and Assent unto this, or that opinion, in the matters of God: We say no such thing: the Conscience, as to these inward acts, is far beyond the reach of his Sword: But the question is concerning Outward and Imperated acts, such as, Speaking, Preaching, Writing, Printing, Open Profession, and Perswading of others, which are visible and audible, dishonorable to God, and noxious to men; to wit, Whether the Magistrate may punish such by the Sword, who, in maters of Religion, Teach, Speak and Printe blasphemies against God, doctrines overturning Religion, perverting souls, &c. And other things of that nature, that men can pretend conscience for; or not? If he hold the Negative here, as he must, if he speak to the point, we shall consider his arguments. (2.) Upon the other hand; Though the Magistrate cannot enforce a Religion upon men: Yet he may force them to the use of public means, whereby they may be brought to the knowledge and conviction of the truth; As to hear sound Instruction, and Information, and to attend the means, whereby light is usually conveyed into the soul: and this is no force upon conscience, but a putting of people to duty. (3.) So then, the question is not, whether the sword be a means of conversion of men to the true faith? nor whether, heathens are to be compelled by the magistrates sword, to embrace the truth? Nor yet, whether the Inward Opinions of the mind can be punished by the Magistrate. But the only question lieth here? Whether the Magistrate can by his power punish and restrain Open Idolaters, & false Worshipers, false Teachers, Perverters of the right ways of the Lord, Seducers of souls, Corrupters or Deniers of the true worship of God, open Blasphemers of God and his ways, declared and open Atheists, who deny there is a God, & the like; whose doctrine eateth like a canker 2 Tim. 2:17. and who Apostatize from the truth received & professed, and teach rebellion against God; though they pretend conscience in all this, and say their conscience dictateth such things unto them, and commandeth them, in the name of the Lord, to do such things, and teach such doctrine; or not?
6. He will not extend this liberty of conscience, unto practices, that are hurtful unto our Neighbor, or unto human society, as Libertines do; but only to those things, which are immediately betwixt Men and God; or men and men of the same persuasion. Ans. But (1.) • roaching of errors is noxious to our neighbor, eating as doth a canker 2 Tim. 2:17. subverting the hearers 2 Tim. 2:14. subverting whole houses Tit. 1:11. subverting souls Act. 15:24. it is a work of the flesh Gal. 5: verse. 20. (2.) Broaching and propagating of superstition and idolatry, cannot but be noxious both to our neighbor and to human society, in that it ushereth-in, and tendeth to the bringing-on of the wrath and judgments of God, by which he punisheth such courses: And therefore evil must be put away from the Society, Deut. 13:5. & 17:7. Levite. 20: verse. 2, 3, 4, 5. (3.) Let us take these hurtful things, to be m • aned of transgressions against the second table of the Law, I would know, why the Magistrate can more punish for these, than for violations of the first table? He is a keeper, in his place, and according to his power, of both tables of the Law: and so can punish open transgressions of both: But the may • e ground of my question is; How the Quaker can yield this, and not the other; seeing Conscience may be pretended in the one, as well as in the other; And the Conscience can be misinformed, and when misinformed can bind, as well in the one, as in the other? Either then his ground, which he layeth down; to wit, that an erroneous conscience bindeth so, as the man • ar • ot act contrary to its dictates, is not good and sufficient, in this mater; or by • his his concession, he yields the cause, and undermineth his own Assertion. (4.) What meaneth he by that, betwixt men and men of the same persuasion ? Do all maters of question, and debate betwixt men of the same persuasion, belong otherwise to conscience, than maters of debate betwixt men of contrary perswa •• ons? May the Magistrate medole with no mater of debate or question, even about civil maters, that is betwixt men not of the same persuasion? Then they must not meddle with the Quakers, if they wrong the persons and goo • s of any of another persuasion: This is enough to expose all true Christians to the fury and malice of the Quakers : whence we see his Concession is not for nothing.
7. But he explaineth himself better, in the following words, saying, to wit, to meet together, and worship God that way, which they judge will be most acceptable to him; but not to urge their neighbors, save by persuasion, and reason, and other means, which Christ and his Ap •• tles used, as of preaching and instructing: and not at all, under pretext of conscience, to do anything against the moral and perpetual statutes, which all Christians commonly acknowledge. Ans. But (1.) Then the Magistrate may not hinder persons to meet together to worship a stock or a stone; Yea or to offer up their children to Moloch ; to sacrif • ce beasts, crocodiles, birds, &c. to Jupiter, Mars, Vulcan, or to prostitute their wives and daughters, or commit sodomie, in honor of Venus, as Heathens have done, because their Consciences judge, that this way of worship is most acceptable to God. (2.) To urge Neighbors by persuasion to embrace Error, and to follow Idolatry, Superstition, and false ways of Worship, is a most noxious and hurtful thing, destroying their souls, subverting their faith, and exposeing them to the wrath and indignation of God; and so of far worse consequence, than the wronging them in their Names, Goods and Bodies: and therefore requireth much more the Magistrates sword of justice, to punish such noxious & soul ruining Teachers. (3.) Still the doubt remaineth, why the pretext of conscience cannot ward off the Magistrates sword, in matters of the second table of the Law, as well as in matters of the first; seeing conscience is God's deputy, and only subject to him, in the one, as well as in the other? (4.) Moral and perpetual statu • es comprehend, I suppose, the commands of the first table, as well as the commands of the second table; and it is no matter, whether all Christians commonly acknowledge them, or not; for God's moral Laws borrow no force or strength from our acknowledging and receiving of them: And thus we see, this poor man destroyeth what he would be at. And when he condemneth, in the following words, the Anabaptists at Munster, he confirmeth w • at we say; for they pretended conscience: and though, as he saith, their deeds rather flowed from pride and avarice, than purity and conscience; Yet that helpeth not the mater, for it is as apparent, that the actions of our Quakers cannot flow from Purity and Conscience, unless we understand a develish deluded conscience, which hath no affinity with Purity, whatever they pretend.
8. He tells us next Pag. 316. that all the liberty, which he pleadeth for, is but that, which the Primitive Christians required of the Heathen Emperors. Ans. But he should first prove, that the truth they prof • ss is consonant to the truth, which the Primitive C • ristians owned: We say not, that Magistrates, whether Heathen or Christian, should persecute the truth, or hinder by Laws or violence the Professors of truth, to meet and worship God, in t • e way by him appointed. If his way be the way of truth, he should not plead for toleration▪ for toleratio semper est mali : And if he can manifest it to be the way of truth, I shall willingly grant, that Magistrates should not only not trouble, or tolerat him, but should countenance and encourage him: But we have heard enough already, to demonstrate how dissonant, that, which they maintain, is to Scripture truth, and to primitive truth; and so, we see no ground, whereupon they can plead, for the same liberty, which the Primitive Christians did desire, and plead for? especially considering, how they have Apostatized from the truth once by themselves professed; and having renunced their bapt • sme, and the faith once delivered to the Saints, would seduce all others to the same abomination.
9. He says next, he would not have men, as men, and members of the Common wealth molested, in their temporals or privileges, for their inward persuasion. Answer, And I say the same: but public meetings to the dishonor of God, and scorn of Christianity; And acts of preaching, and seduceing, by creeping into houses, and loading captive silly women, laden with sins, and led away with diverse lusts, is not a mere inward persuasion: Yet he grants, that in the Church of God, there should be censures exercised upon such as fall into error, 〈◊〉 well as upon such, as fall into sin, and after admonition, if they remain pertinacious, they should be cut off by the Sword of the Spirit, but not by the Sword of the Magistrate. Answer, (1.) Yet, I hope, he will grant, that this falling into error must be something more, then an inward persuasion; even that, which can be witnessed, and whereof the person can be convicted, and for which he can be admonished. (2.) We say not, that Church-officers can punish by a temporal sword; and so we assent to that of Chrysost. which he citeth, dogmataimpia, quae ab haereticis profecta sunt, arguere & anathematizare oportet, hominibus autem parcendum est, & pro salute eorum orandum. Nor do we say, that every error should be punished by cutting off with the temporal sword; nor that all erroneous persons should be forthwith spoiled of their civil privileges. There are degrees of Errors, and degrees of Punishments; so are there various kinds of erroneous persons; some Simple and deluded, through ignorance; others, Crafty and active in spreading their corrupt seed; Some may be easily, after Information, convinced of their mistake: Others are Pertinacious, and Imperswadible. (3.) What means he by cutting off with the sword of the Spirit ? Understandeth he Church excommunication? Or cutting off by an Inspiration, or by the light within? But he owneth no Church beside their own; And in their own, they have no set and fixed officers, by whom such a sentence should be given out. And I wonder, what that error would be, for which they would draw forth this sword of the Spirit; it would be, I judge, pure orthodoxy. (4.) But I desire, in his next, that he would clear to me, how this shall not be a forceing of conscience, in things immediately betwixt God and man, and between men of the same persuasion? (as he spoke above,) we accept howeve • of this concession, and shall make our own use of it afterward, as he shall hear.
10. This being all, which he had to say, for clearing of the question, he cometh §. 2. to tell us, that he will prove, That man hath not authority over the conscience, by virtue of any power or dominion, which he hath in the government of the world. And unless by Conscience here, he mean the outward and imperated acts, which are properly the actions of the man, that come in the open view of the world, he doth nothing but mock his Reader, and publish his own ignorance: And the same we say to his argument, which is this, That man's conscience is the seat and throne of God. And moreover this Argument will plead as effectually for freedom from Church censures, as from Civil punishments; for the Church or his Light within, can no more invade God's Throne and Jurisdiction, than the Magistrate. But his after-expressions intimate that his meaning is of outward actions; for he proceedeth very confusedly, in his probation, and saith that the magistrate is not capable to judge in these maters : Little adverting, that this will take away their power even in civil things; for, as to many such, they have not always all the fitness requisite to judge, but must take help: And the same may be said of his Church; and how shall they then draw forth the Sword of the Spirit? But all this is nothing to our present question; for he will not yield this power even to such magistrates, as are able to judge in these maters; or if he will, he must not plead for Liberty of Conscience.
11. His second argument is Pag. 317. This power is contrary to the nature of the Gospel. But why so? Because Christ said, his Kingdom was not of this world. Answer, Yet Christ nor his Apostles never used this argument, in their defences, which, I think they would have done, if this were so. Again, What thinks he of that which Christ did John. 2:15, 16, 17. This consequence is water weak, for we are not pleading, as his following words suppose, for the Magistrates power, in propagating the Gospel by fire and sword; but for suppressing of what is destructive to the Kingdom of Christ, and is dishonorable to God: And knoweth he not, that in Christ's Kingdom, Righteousness betwixt man and man, in things civil, is required? Knoweth he not, that the Gospel teacheth us to live soberly and righteously, as well as holy Tit. 2:12. Will he therefore say, that Magistrates have not power to punish Injustice and wicked Unrighteousness, or what is contrary to sobriety? No: for he hath granted this already: What can his argument then conclude? His saying, That when Christ sent forth his disciples, he said not to them go kill, scourge, imprison &c. Is but a demonstration of his ignorance of the question. Do we say, that M • nisters should do any such thing? He citeth Luk. 9:55. but most impertinently; for it toucheth not the question, as he himself hath stated it: that act of the Samaritans, was not a mater of conscience betwixt God & man immediately; but an act of incivility and inhumanity: He may better hence infer, that Magistrates may not punish uncivil, inhumane and indiscreet persons: The quarrel here was not false doctrine, nor perverting, of souls: Nor do we plead, that ministers should use fire and sword; Yea if this prove anything, it will prove, that Ministers may not Anathematize (which yet himself granted out of Chrysostom, as we heard) false teachers; for that looks liker to a praying for fire, or some extraordinary plague out of heaven; than what we plead for. He runneth wild, when he hence inferreth, that far less may men now raise fire upon the earth, to destroy them, who believe in Christ : for though this be true, it saith nothing for them, who are men of the same metal with the Samaritans, as to hatred of and enmity against Jesus of Nazareth : For in him they do not believe, but in a Christ within them. He is as wild, when he addeth, That if it was not lawful for the Apostles, to compel others to be of their judgment, far less is it lawful for men, who confess themselves fallible to kill all, who will not be of their judgment in Religion, in all points : For difference of judgment, in the maters of Religion, was not the ground of the Apostles quarrel against Samaria : Nor do we speak of killing all, that are not of our judgment, in all points, in maters of Religion: this was the judgment and practice of their Forefathers, the Fanatic Enthusiasts of Munster ; not ours; as his own conscience, or light within him, if it be not blind and dead both, may tell him. At the same rate of impertinency, he goeth on, and says, Christ did not by outward force, compel others to believe in him : And citeth Zech. 4:6. & 2 Cor. 10:4. & Psal. 110 3. For we are not here speaking of the way of propagating the Gospel; but of defending the truth from violent and crafty foxes, who would spoil the vines, yea and destroy the whole vineyaird. Though we cannot with cudgeling change a fox into a lamb; yet we may by force keep him from devouring the lambes: And the Church desireth to use no other weapons, than such as are spiritual, and appointed by Christ himself. The man talketh, he knoweth not what.
12. He ci • eth Pag. 319. the parable of the tares, Mat. 13. Little adverting how hereby he contradicteth himself; for he granted, that erroneous persons might be cast out by the Church, or he spoke Parables to us; and is not that contrary to this Parable, as he would now interpret it? He granted also, that Magistrates might punish Murderers, and the like: And are not they also children of the Devil, the seed of Satan, that offend, do iniquity, and shall be cast into the furnace of fire &c? What will he now say? Must these all be let alone until the day of judgment? He needeth not tell us, that heretics are here included, for he must prove, that none else are included, no Murderers, no Robbers, no Whoremon • ers &c. But the truth is, the parable is against such, who would think to have a Church here on earth so pure, that there should be no hypocrites in it, and are so severe in their rules and examinations, that while they think to hold out and cast out all hypocrites, they hold out and cast out some of the good wheat; from whom all hypocrites can hardly be discerned; though this Quaker tell us, that he that hath a spiritual judgment can discern hypocrites, as well as heretics; wherein we will not believe his bare word, if he mean all hypocrites; I know, the servants here saw and discerned some tares: but we find not that they saw all; nor such as could not be plucked up without hazard to the good wheat; as there are some tares, that can hardly be discerned from the good wheat, as Scultetus showeth us, in his observations on the place. He is no less impertinent, when he addeth, that some Magistrates have condemned that for heresy, which was not : for it is as true, that false judgment hath been given in civil maters, and innocent men have been condemned: and yet he dar not say, that Magistrates may not meddle in these maters.
14. Then §. 3. Pag. 319. He cometh to speak to our Arguments, and he citeth but three in all: the first is Deut. 13:1. &c. where the false Prophet, & dreamer of dreams, who would draw them away to serve other God's, is commandded to be put to death. (To which he should have added Deut 17:2.—7. Levite. 23:16, 23, & 20:2, 3, 4, 27. Exod. 22: v. 18. Deut. 18: verse. 20, 22.) The moral equrty of which laws bind us Christians, the ground being the same, the sin being an open denial of the one God, contrary to the first command moral; and a drawing of people away both from the fear & from the love of God Deut. 13:2, 4. & a seduceing of them to turn away from God; which is called an evil, that should be put away from the midst of them verse. 5. & an evil that all should fear verse. 11, 13. lest the anger of the Lord were kindled against all, verse. 17. These, I say, being moral grounds, and the law founded thereon, we cannot think▪ but the law is also obliging. Now what says he to this? He thinks, that it is no more a rule to us, than the Jews their borrowing of gold & silver from the Egyptians; or then their invadeing of Canaan, can warrand Christians now to invade the land of their neighbors, and kill all. Ans. (1.) What will this say to instances, before the Jewish law was erected as Job. 31:26, 27, 28. and of others that were not under that law, as Ezra. 7:36. (2.) By this one dash, he maketh the whole judicial law, as to its moral equity, quite useless; And so may hence cast all arguments, proving that Magistrates may punish whoredom, theft, murder &c. (3.) There is a difference betwixt a transient fact once commanded, and a standing law made to continue▪ the transient act had its peculiar reason, that perished with that occasion; but the law is founded upon, & backed with moral & lasting reasons. (4.) By this means the law made against such as gave their seed to Molech Levite. 20:2, 3, 4. should be null, as also the laws against blasphemy Levite. 24:10.-14, 16. & witches Exod. 22:18. Levite. 20:27. & the like. (5.) Nay, upon this ground, he may reject all the law moral, which was given to the Jews; for these moral commands were given to them, as well as the other: And if he make no difference, all must go together, & so the whole Old. Test. must be laid by, as an almanack now out of date, as said the old Simoniani and the Manichees, and of late the Antinomians and Anabaptists : and if he shall grant a difference betwixt these commands, let him show the difference, and see if it will not plead for us; for we plead not from the Law, simply as a Law given to the Jews, but as a Law founded on moral equity, of perpetual use, and necessity for the same ends, for which it was given unto them; and not upon the account of anything typical, or proper and peculiar unto them. I say not, that all these precepts oblige, unless they be rescinded under the Gospel; and so I need take no notice of his reply; I know, upon the ceasing of that polity, their whole judicial Law, in so far as concerned that Polity, ceased; but not what was founded upon moral equity, and was common to other Nations. Nor is that which he urgeth from verse. 9. of any weight; for the mater was to be brought before the judges; only the brother, the Father, or husband, as witnesses, in this horried crime, were, according to the usual manner, to lay their hands upon the guilty condemned persons, and to cast the first stone at them; not that they were to judge them, and execute them themselves, for verse. 8. thou shall not pit • , nor spare, neither shalt thou conceal him, saith, that they were to delate him, and give him up as a malefactor, that he might die publicly; that so all Israel might hear and fear, and do no mo • e any such wickedness, verse. 11. And further, though a circumstance of the Law, enjoined upon some peculiar account, may cease, the Substance of the Law may abide.
14. He speaketh next to Rom. 13. and granting that heresy is an evil deed, yet he thinks, the place will not prove anything; for, he says, hypocrisy is an evil; and yet he cannot punish it. Nor do we say, that he can punish even heresy, that is in the heart, and is not breaking forth, to the infecting of others. But says he, If maters of doctrine were here understood, what absurdities would hence follow, seeing the tyrant Nero is here understood, who could not understand these questions; and this will justify him in persecuting the Christians, for he acted according to his knowledge. Ans. (1.) And are there not many questions, in moral things, as our Quaker calleth all civil maters, that are hard and difficile for every Magistrate? Shall he therefore be no Magistrate, having power to judge in any particular, who cannot understand all the intrigus of every question and controversy? See Deut. 17:12. If this argument hold, many commands must be laid by, as that given to every Master of a family, 2 John. 10. and these. 1 Cor. 5:11. Rom. 16:17, 18. and the like; for every person is not sufficiently qualified in these maters. (2.) Though Nero be here included; Yet he alone is not here understood; and so though he, being an heathen, was not qualified to judge heretics in Christianity, Christian Magistrates being qualified may judge, and should judge such evil doers. Magistrates, as such, have power to judge evil doers, some Magistrates in particular cannot judge of some particular evil doers; Yet others, who can, may and ought: Fathers, as Fathers, are to teach and instruct their children, Gen. 18:18, 19. Exod. 12:26, 27. Ephes. 6:4. 2 Tim. 3:14, 15. Prov. 4:3, 4, 5. Yet heathen Fathers cannot teach Gospel doctrine; shall therefore Christian Fathers be exeemed from this duty? It followeth not. (3.) Hence no ground to justify Nero in persecuting the truth, no more then for an ignorant Magistrate to kill an innocent man, as guilty of murder, because he so judged, through want of understanding.
15. He adduceth next Gal. 5:12. And tells us, that it proveth no more, than that such should be cut off from the Church by excommunication. Ans. I shall urge it no further; as also that Revel. 2:20. When it is said, that heresy is reckoned among the works of the flesh, Gal. 5:19. He tells us Pag. 321. that Magistrates may not punish all the works of the flesh, as hypocrisy, anger, envy, hatred. And we grant this; Yet heresy is a work of the flesh, that is open and apparent, & can be proven by witnesses and evidences: but these latent evils cannot; as neither can heresy, that is latent in the heart; but then it cannot be called properly heresy, But he saith, that heresy falleth not under the Magistrates authority, as long as it breaketh not forth to the hurt of human society, but only abideth within these duties of doctrine and worship, that stand immediately betwixt God and men. Yet if these duties of doctrine and worship, wherein this heresy consisteth, appear openly (and how opinions lying in the heart can be called doctrines and worship, I see not) they tend to the hurt of human society, as being of an infecting nature, and a God-provoking evil; and so being tolerated or connived at, become the evil and guilt of the whole society, before God; and render all obnoxious to his wrath, who are not, in their places and stations, seeking to root it out.
16. Passing all the rest of our Arguments, he cometh Pag. 322. §. 4. to tell us, that this compulsion of conscience is contrary to sound reason, and to the Law of Nature. And in this he beateth the air: for we speak not of such a compulsion▪ as he imagineth: We know, as well as he, that the intellect cannot be forced: but we are speaking of outward actions, and words spoken by the tongue, which can be suppressed; and which, if not suppressed, are noxious and hurtful. We know the Ma • istrates sword cannot convert; yet it can drive away ravenous Wolves, and punish evil deeds. We know, the civil Sword cannot make sincere Professors; Yet it can keep persons from blaspheming God and his Truth. If to make Laws for preserving of Religion, were against the Law of Nature, how came it, that Heathens that had no other light did make such Laws, as Historians witness, such as Plutarch, Livy, Justin, Diogenes Laertius, Caelius Diodorus Siculus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and others, Seneca de Benefic. Lib. 3. C. 6. is express for this, saying, Violatarum religionum aliubi atque aliubi diversa poena est; sed ubique aliqua. And all this way of argueing will take away the Church censures, which yet he hath granted; for they cannot truly convert, but rather make hypocrites: and then let this man answer all his own Arguments. He inferreth Pag. 323. this absurdity, That Christ was deficient in not using Legions of Angels, to defend his Church : But how this will follow upon our Assertion, I desire him to show: He ma • with more color say, that if God hath given power to Magistrates to punish civil crimes, he should be deficient to human society, in not making all Magistrates wise as Angels, to understand the mystery of all questions. But it becometh us to adore, and not call God to our bar. The next absurdity, which he mentioneth, hath been spoke to already; for our doctrine giveth no countenance to persecution for righteousness sake: and he might hence as well argue, that Magistrates might not punish murderers, because hereby they teach Murderers to pursue them, when they have power in their hand. Nor doth our doctrine give ground to say, that as heathens persecuted Christians with fire and Sword, Christians, when they have power should deal so with heathens: So that all that which he saith Pag. 323, & 324. is to no purpose. Because men in power abuse their authority to suppress truth; it will never follow, that Magistrates should not use their power to suppress wickedness and Error, that eateth as doth a Canker. So an heretical Church may excommunicate an Orthodox person; yet he himself will not hence infer, that an orthodox Church may not cast out of their fellowshipe an heretical person, as we saw above
17. The sayings of some Fathers. which he adduceth Pag. 325. & 3 • 6. are to no purpose; for we willingly grant, that Christianity is not to be propagated by Fire and Sword; and that ministers ought not to use violence: And none of these Fathers say, that Christian Professors should not be punished by Christian Magistrates, when they openly practice false worship, and seduce others by error and heresy, openly vented and preached. And what they wrote was against the persecution, that heathens exercised against Christians, or what the wicked Arians used against the orthodox. And though Augustine spoke sometimes after this manner; yet he retracted it Retract Lib. 2. C. 5. and declared, that Donatists were to be punished by the Magistrate. And our Quaker might as well infer, that because a Magistrate cannot make persons abstain from theft, murder and other wickedneses, in a Christian manner, but at most hypocritically, th • refore he cannot, he may not punish murderers, thieves and the like. What he citeth out of Luther Pag. 327. will make as much against his own concession, vi • . that Churches may exclude erroneous persons; as against us. What he saith of Calvin's procuring the death of that blasphemer Servetus, is sufficiently answered by Calvin an • Beza. We regard not his repeating again Pag ▪ 328. and saying, that our practice justifieth Papists ; for it is of • en answered already; nor yet his saying, that we are more Mahomet's then Christ's Disciples, & are not the followers of the Apostles doctrine 1 Thes. 5:21. Phil. 3:15. because it is utterly goundless; and he hath forgetten, that this taketh away his own concession, as to Church-power; for these sayings Phil. 3:15 & 1 Thes. 5:21. will as much condemn that, as our Assertion; but in truth neither, as one with half an eye may see: but our Quaker hath put out both his eyes.
18. What he talketh afterward §. 6. Pag. 328.329. &c. of their wonderful patience, in endureing wrongs for their profession; is but an open declaration of their Pertinacy; And no proof of their being Martyrs; for it is not the suffering, but the cause, that maketh a Martyr. Heathens and Pagans can endure as much for their Idolatry and Devil worship: Shall we hence infer, that their way is the truth? Yet I must confess, the carriage of the Quakers in this, may shame Christians, who rather than suffer less, then they will undergo, will shamefully deny the truth: but I know, Suffering for the name of Christ is the gift of God, as well as Faith, and in some respects, a gift above it Phil. 1:29. for unto you it is given, in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake. I only take notice of what he saith Pag. 331. to wit, That it is now twenty five years, since they were a distinct and separated people: I doubt it be so long, since he adjoined himself unto them: And if he speak of the whole generation of Quakers, we see by his confession, that they are not an old Seck; and that if they be only Christians, Christianity is but of yesterday, and a new upstart opinion, never heard of in the world before: Yet I • ear that another Quaker wrote An. 1659. and then said, it is now about seven Yeers since the Lord raised us up, in the North of England, and opened our mouths, in this his Spirit. See the mystery of the whore, Epist. but if we reckon back from the Yeer 1676. wherein this Quakers Apology cometh forth, the Quakers, in his account, appeared first, as a congregated people in the Yeer 1651. that is, fifteen Yeers later, then the other account: But it may be he will say, that as that English Quaker speaketh of the first rise of the Quakers, in the North of England ; so he speaketh only of the first rise of the Quakers, in the North of Scotland ; and I shall not contend about this, only observing, according to the old Proverb, all evil cometh out of the North. I see however their seck is not very old, and so hath less affinity with true Christianity, then they suppose; for I am sure Christianity is older, then the eldest of their seck; and their Seck is but New Paganism, or New Paganish Antichristianism.
CHAP. XXIX. Of Wars.
1. WE are now advanced unto his last Thesis, in vindication whereof, he handleth several distinct things, which we must speak to severally, and shall begin with what he speaketh to, in the last place, because of its affinity with what was last spoke to, concerning the power of the Magistrate, He, as we heard, denied power to the Magistrate, to punish heretics and seducers; and though there he granted, that the Magistrate had power to judge in civil maters, and to punish such as wronged their Neighbors, in life or goods, or did anything hurtful unto human society; yet here he condemneth all war joining with Anabaptists and Socinians of late; and with the Marcionites and Tertullianists of old. And thus, as their doctrine and principles tend to destroy Christianity, as hath been abundantly shown; so in this, they would destroy all Commonwealths; and in a manner, destroy the very office and use of Magistracy: and whether their intent in this may be, to obtain the fuller freedom and liberty to rage over all, according to their own mind, I leave to themselves to judge; this however is not our, that though the Anabaptists cried out likewise against Magistrates, who are Christians, their using the power of the sword, as incompatible with Christianity; yet no persons did more cruelly and barbarously use the power of the sword, then they, when they gote it once into their own hands. I do not find this man, with Anabaptists, denying, that Christians may be Magistrates; but both with them and with Socinians, he would take from them the use of the sword, which they are to bear, and that not in vain, but to execute wrath upon him, that doth evil Rom. 13:4. And though he speak particularly against War, yet when he addeth no limitations or restrictions, but opposeth himself to all kind of Warr, without any difference, he taketh away, in effect, the power of the sword, as his arguments will clear; and when the sword is taken from the Magistrate, the Magistrate is made no Magistrate; and thus Magistracy is destroyed: But it may be he meaneth, with Socinians, that Magistrates may not shed blood, how ever they may punish malefactors; See Socin. Epist. 6. ad Val. Smalcium, and this will be acceptable doctrine to Murderers, Paricides Sodomites, &c. but I would suppose, the Sword importeth blood.
2. I shall willingly grant, that in nothing more, than in war, is the fruits of man's rebellion against the Lord to be seen, men appearing against other, as so many ravenous Beasts, Wolves, Tigers and Lions, tearing, devouring and destroying one another, when they know little wherefore: I shall also grant, that it were a most desirable sight to see that Prophecy, Isaiah. 11:6, 7, 8, 9. fulfilled; and all the Professoures at least of the name of Christ, living together as brethren; But while maters thus stand, as they do this day, in the world, to deny the lawfulness of war, even in self defense; so that a travailer may not defend himself from robbers, nor Merchants from Pirates, nor a Magistrate defend his land and subjects, from the invasion of Turks and Pagans; I think, is so far from being a medium to prevent the effusion of blood, and to procure peace and tranquility; that, on the contrary, it should prove the strongest encouragement imaginable unto bloody Enemies, to prosecute their bloody designs, and shed the blood of innocents, like water; for there is no such encouragement as this is, to know and be assured of no resistence, for such birds of prey, as delight in Rapine and Violence: Yet this bloody design, (for I can call it no other thing, let men cover it over with what pretexts they will) seemeth to me suitable enough to the genius and doctrine of these Quakers ; who, so far as I can discern, drive at nothing else, then the reduceing of us to Paganism: And by this means of disarming all Christians, by persuading them, that it is not lawful to defend themselves by arms, against invadeing Pagans, give all Christendom up as a fit prey unto the lusts of Turcks or Pagans, who may come, when they please, to cut, at freedom, all their throats, that will not with them burn incense, and sacrifice their children to the Devil. The Quakers seem very mild and meek, and more ready to suffer, than to do wrongs; but let wise men judge, whither this their doctrine tendeth, and what enemies they make themselves hereby unto all Christian societies; They speak here only of Christians, as if Christians might not have the privilege of beasts, to defend themselves against unjust violence. But say they anything of Pagans • No: Pagans must wear the sword, & may offend, if they please; but Christians may not defend themselves; for they themsel • es are nearer of kin to Pagans, than to Christians, as I have cleared all along.
3. But let us see, what he alledgeth for this. He citeth Mat. 5:38. to the end; And with Socinians tells us, that Christ is here enjoining a more perfect and excellent way of manifesting love, patience and suffering, than was required of the Jews by the Law of Moses. But this, his one and only ground, is abundantly disproved by our orthodox Divines, writing against the Socinians ; and the text itself maketh it manifest, that Christ is here only vindicating the Law, from the corrupt glosses of the Pharisees, and Jewish doctors; and therefore, in the very beginning of his vindication, tells the Jews, that they should not expect that of him, which they had of their own doctors, viz. that he should also destroy the Law: for he was not come for that end, but to fulfil the Law verse. 17. and to maintain it by his doctrine; and therefore threateneth heavy judgments against such, as would teach men to break the Law verse. 19. And as to the part of Christ's discourse, which he here pitcheth upon; we need do no more, but show, that there is no new precept here. It consisteth of two particulars, first concerning not retaliating, and the next about loving our enemies : As to the first, Socinus himself granteth, that Christ here looketh to the false interpretation of the Law of Moses, whereby some took the meaning of the Law to be, that private persons might, in their private revenge, retaliate, whereas Moses's Law was given to Magistrates, as is clear Exod. 21:22, 24, 25. Levite. 24:19, 20. Deut. 19:18, 19, 20. And against this private revenge, and retaliation, Christ speaketh: and also against this did the Law of Moses speak Deut. 32:35. comp. with Rom. 12:19. Levite. 19:18, 19. See also Gen. 49:5, 6, 7. Prov. 20: ver. 22. & 24:29. Ier. 51:36. Ezech. 25:12. So that Christ's meaning is, that private persons should be ready rather to receive more wrongs, then to revenge themselves, for wrongs received: And Socinus himself assenteth to this: It is true Socinus thinketh, that Christ here doth prohibit Christians to seek a redress of their wrongs by the help of Magistrates: (which afterward he contradicteth) I know not if our Quaker will say so too, seeing in the end of his foregoing Thesis, he would have the Law exerced, and right done to everyone, without respect of Persons, in the mater of injuries done to persons, in their goods and lives: And sure, the words of the Apostle Rom. 13. are express enou • h for this. However we see, there is nothing here binding up the hands of Christians from necessary self defense by Arms & Wars; for nothing is here required but what was required of old, notwithstanding whereof, wars were lawful, as cannot be denied. The same we say, as to the second particular; where Socinus also granteth, that Christ is not here directly correcting Moses's Law: Yet he saith, that Moses's Law by Neigh • our understood only a Jew, and that hatred of enemies, that is, such as were strangers, did natively flow there from: In both which his ignorance of the Law and the Prophets appeareth: For there is nothing appearing, that can justly restrick the word neighbor, to the Jews only; else it must be so also restricted in the very moral Law, in the decalogue, as Command 9. & 10. which yet Paul extendeth to others Rom. 13:8, 9, 10. Gal. 5:12, 13. And that under the Old Testam. there was a Law for loving and doing good to enemies, is clear Exod. 23:4, 5. Prov. 25:22. Thus it also appeareth, that this particular can make nothing against the lawfulness of Wars; seeing Wars were lawful under the Law, when this same command of loving enemies had place: The inconsistency then, that this man conceiveth, betwixt these explications of the Law, or renewed Laws by Christ, and lawfulness of self defense, and war for this end, is in his own imagination: And for as confident as he is hereof, Pag. 364. his ground faileth him.
4. But he thinketh to prove this inconsistency. Pag. 364. &c. §. 14. thus. 1. Christ commandeth us to love our enemies; and this is contrary to war. Ans. (1.) The Jews were under a command to love their enemies, and yet they might lawfully defend themselves by War. (2.) We are under a command to love ourselves, Families and Relations, and therefore under a command to defend their and our own lives from unjust violence; yea others also, that are not so related to us, Prov. 24:11, 12. If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain: If thou sayest, behold we knew it not, doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? And he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? And shall not he render to every man according to his work ? (3.) We are not to love our enemies more then our other neighbors; And the Law saith, that we should love our Neighbor, as ourselves; and therefore we are not to love our Neighbor more then ourselves: Nor with that degree of affection▪ that we are to love Ourselves: And therefore, we are bound to defend ourselves from the unjust violence of Enemies or Neighbors. (4.) Yea love can consist with repelling unjust violence with violence; for thereby our enemies are restrained from bringing the guilt of more innocent blood upon themselves, and from doing more mischief and wrong: Binding of an enraged man's hands from committing murder, is consistant with love; so is wageing war against an invading bloody tyrant, who can no other ways be restrained, or hindered. (5.) Love to enemies may appear, in seeking, by all means, fair and possible, to satisfy even their unjust desires, to provent a war, and in a readiness to lay hold on all lawful and safe occasions of making peace. (6.) Love to enemies can consist with war, when in wageing of the defensive war, a private desire of revenge doth not principle, nor animate to the war; but conscience to the command of God, enjoining us, even by the Law of nature, to defend our Life, Relations, Neighbors and Country, from unjust and bloody invaders. (7.) The whole scope of the place is to press his followers, to lay aside all private self revenge, and to be so far therefrom, as to follow with all toakens of love, kindness and respect, even such as were handling them as enemies, hating them, persecuting them, dispitefully using them, by praying for them, blessing them, &c. But there is no ground to suppose, that our Lord's intent was to dissolve the Law of Nature, and to loose Magistrates, Parents, and all Persons, from its obligation; so as a man might not defend himself from an implacable blood-thirsty murderer and robber; nor a Master of a family might not defend his Wife and Children together with his own life, from the unjust invasion of night robbers and murderers; nor a Magistrate might not defend his Subjects and Kingdom from bloody cut-throats; to which the Law of Nature, engraven deeply in the heart of every rational man, doth perpetually oblige.
5. Next says he, The Apostle saith, that we wrestle not against flesh and blood; but in wars, we do so. Ans The Apostle showeth indeed Ephes. 6: verse. 11, 12. what necessity there is for us, to put on the whole armor of God, which is spiritual armor, seeing it is not men only (though wicked men also,) but Devils, both within men, and without men, that we must fight against: Will he hence infer, that we have no adversaries here in the world, or that we are not to defend ourselves against their unjust malice and cruelty? He may better infer, that we have not an evil heart of unbelief to wrestle against: But how impertinent this reason is, children may see. 3. Says he. The Apostle saith 2 Cor. 10:4. that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. Ans. True, when we are to cast down imaginations, and every high thing, that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God; and bringing into captivety every thought to the obedience of Christ, verse. 5. But when we have to do with cut-throats, coming with guns, swords granads, stinck-pots, picks, &c. to kill and murder us, we must have, I suppose, suitable weapons 4. Says he, James says, that wars and fightings come from our lusts, that war in our members, I am. 4:1. Answ. But James saith not, that necessary self-defense cometh from lusts. And might not all this be said of the Jew • s? 5. Says he, It is foretold by Isaiah Ch. 2:4. and M • ch. Ch 4:3. that they shall beat their swords into plow shares, &c. Answ. Let us pray for the fulfilling of this; and for the day, when upon all the glory, there shall be a defense, Isaiah. 4:5. And when the Beast shall be taken, and the false Prophet, that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them, that had received the mark of the Beast, & them that worshiped his image; & both cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone; & the remnant shall be slain with the sword of him, that sa • e upon the horse, &c. Revel. 19:20, 21. And when the armies of Gog & Magog shall be destroyed Revel. 20:8, 9, 10.6. Says he, The Prophet says Isaiah 65:25. they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. Ans. Let us pray for the fulfilling of this also. 7. Says he, Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, John. 18:36. Answ. True, and therefore there needeth not be carnal weapons to carry on his spiritual interest: Yet while we are in the world, and surrounded with Wolves and Lions of this world, who would destroy us, and drive us out of the world, we may defend ourselves, according to that Law, which hath been in force, since the foundation of the world. 8. Says he, Christ said to Peter, put up thy sword, &c. Ans. Yet at another time, he said to all his discipses, sell your coat and buy a sword : But what says this against wars, managed by Magistrates, in the defense of their Kingdoms, Subjects and Liberties? Would this Quaker have all the Subjects answering their King, when environed with enemies seeking to dethrone him, and crying for their help, with this, Christ would not have Peter draw a sword in his Masters defense, and therefore, no more must we draw our swords in your and our own defense? These look not like loyal and faithful Subjects to their Superiors. 9. He citeth that Rom. 12:19. Answ. And the place answereth itself, speaking against private revenge, and a taking of God's prerogative from him, in avenging ourselves; but it speaketh nothing against innocent, necessary self-defense. See verse. 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peacably with all men. He requireth not this, when it is impossible, and we have done as much as lieth in us, and all in vain, The robber will cut our throat, if we resist not, purse, & clothes and all we have, will not satisfy him, must we hold up our throat when we can help ourselvs? The Apostle giveth no command for this. Lastly he says, Christ calleth his to bear their cross, to patience, to simplicity. Answ. • t is no small cross, to have such ill Neighbors, as necessitate us to the labor and patience of watching, and keeping our walls and borders, night and day, when we should be sitting under our vine & Fig tree in peace and quietness, serving the Lord, in truth & singleness. These are all his reasons: and how childish and frivolous they are, let everyone judge.
6. He cometh next Pag. 366. &c. §, 15. to answer some of our Arguments, and first to that taken from the practice of Abraham before the Law, and of the people of Israel under the law, he saith four things. 1. That they also circumcised, which is not now lawful. Answ. Circumcision was a Ceremonial Law, & no precept of the Law of Nature; as necessary sinless self defense is; which was practiced by all Nations; but the Lord did not prescribe anything in the Ceremonial Law, which was the common practice of all nations; yea the Ceremonial Laws were to discriminate them from all nations. He saith 2. That the Israelites might not make war neither offensive, nor defensive, of their own will, nor by their own counsel or conduct, but were to consult the Oracle of God. Answ. (1.) I do not say, that war should now be undertaken without consulting of God, and his Oracles; his word, I mean, and standing Law, whereby we may understand his mind, as well, as if we had the Vrim and Thummim to go to. (2.) I find not that in all cases, the Israelites did consult the Oracle of God, in their undertaking a war, but only in difficult cases: When they heard, that the two tribes and half had built an Altar by Jordan, the whole Congregation gathered themselves together at Shiloh to go up to war against them; but of their consulting the Oracle of God, we read not Josh. 22:12. So also in that war undertaken against the tribe of Benjamin Judge. 20. only they asked counsel, who should go up first verse. 18. though after a defate they changed the question verse. 23, 26, &c. He saith 3. Their wars against the nations were figures of the inward war of Christians, against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. Answ. (1.) This is said, but not proved. (2.) What saith this to the wars among themselves; or betwixt Judah and Israel? This was said by Saltmarsh the Familist, before now. He saith 4. Something is prohibited by Christ Mat. 5:26. which was permitted to the Jews, because of their rudeness. Answ. The contrary is manifest, as appeareth from what is said: It is but a groundless notion of Socinians, to say, that Christ there giveth any new precepts; while as he, who came not to dissolve or weaken the Law, in the least, did only vindicate the lasting moral Law from corrupt glosses, and interpretations; as is manifest.
7. To a second Argument, to wit, That defense is of the Law of nature, which Religion doth not destroy: he Answereth, Be it so; yet by obedience to commend ourselves to God, in faith and patience, is not to destroy nature, but to perfect it. Answer, But the argument is not taken from the corrupt nature of man, which grace changeth; but from the standing Law of Nature, which is God's perpetually obliging Law, and is not weakened, or altered by the Gospel, whatever alteration grace maketh in us. To a 3 Argum. taken from John Baptists not disproving of wars, in the Soldiers, that came unto him, to ask him what they should do? Luk. 3:14. He answereth What then? The question is not of John's, but of Christ's doctrine, John was not that Prophet, yet John did prohibit them, what is proper to Soldiers, to wit, violence and deceit, without which there is no war. Answ. (1.) Though John was not that Prophet, yet he was his fore-runner, and preached Repentance; and would have taught Repentance from warring, if it had been unlawful. (2.) Even Christ himself, when he spoke with the friends of the Centurion, at whose faith he marvelled, saving he had not found so great faith, no, not in Israel Luk. 7:9. Yet doth not say to them, that the Centurion should war no more: And Mat. 22. He bids render unto Caesar the things, that are Caesar's, among which things was tribute, wherewith the Soldiers were paid; but if war had simply been unlawful, Christ would not have permitted this for that end. (3.) He fo • ba • them to use violence or deceit towards friends, to use any rapine &c. and for a remedy prescribeth to them, to be satisfied with their wages; whereby it is manifest, that he meaneth not their actions against enemies; for if they were not to fight against enemies, why were they to receive wages? The Roman Laws, though they allowed, Soldiers to take prey from enemies; yet did not permit the least injury to friends, nor suffer the taking so much as a chicken or e • ge: See what Beza on the place citeth to this purpose. He may consult Calvin also on the place, who expressly saith, it is a frivolous cavil, to think that John here prescribeth to rude persons, what is not consistent with Christian perfection; seeing his work was to fit them perfectly for his Master, and that they load the Gospel with a sacrilegious calumny, that would thus set it in opposition to all human command; as if Christ would destroy what his Father had ordained; and without the sword, Laws die, and justice hath no efficacy; nor can the Magistrate without soldiers maintain peace.
8. To our Arg. taken from that Centurion mentioned Mat. 8:5▪ and him of whom we read Act. 10. He might have added another instance Act. 13:12. He answereth we do not read, that they did continue in that office. Answ. But our Argument is not taken from their not laying down that office; but from Christ and his Apostles their not enjoining them so to do; or not showing, that it was repugnant unto their Christian state. As for what h • cireth out of Marcus Aurelius and others, is sufficiently confuted by the Legio fulminatrix, which consisted of Christians, and did serve in the wars. To that Luk. 22:36.— and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. He tells us, that Ambrose thought that this was only for that occasion: and that Origen interpreteth the words mystically : And himself addeth that Christ by his answer, saying, that two was enough would not have the rest selling their garments to buy swords: but however, says he, the use of Arms is unlawful under the Gospel. Answ. Then the Quakers conclusion must be good, whatever the Scripture say to the contrary: But the Disciples saying they had two swords of metal; and Christ saying, it was enough without the least hint of their being in a mistake, is enough to prove, that there is no allegory here▪ Nor have we warrand to suppose, that this was only for that occasion, as if Christ after would have none of his followers thinking it lawful to fight for their civil Magistrates and Masters, against their enemies, be the cause never so just.
9. To that which we say, to wit, That though the Scripture prohibiteth private revenge; Yet it doth not prohibit Subjects, under the command and conduct of their Magistrate, to fight in defense of their Lands, Lives, Wives, Children and Goods, he answereth. That if the Magistrate be a Christian, he himself should love his enemies, and so not command his Subjects to fight; but if he be not a true Christian, the Subjects should obey Christ. Answ. We have shown above, that lawful war • es are not inconsistent with this duty, which was required under the Law, as well as under the Gospel. He addeth Pag. 370. As concerning the present Magistrates, who are in the world, though by reason of the public profession, they make of the name of Christ, we do not deny them the title of Christians; Yet we may confidently say, that they are far from the perfection of the Christian religion; and while they are in that state, we grant that war is lawful for them, upon just causes; as the use of circumci • ion and Jewish ceremonies was permitted for a time, not as being either necessary, or yet lawful, in themselves, aft • r Christ's resurrection; but because as yet that Spirit was not risen in them, whereby they were to be delivered from these rudiments. Answ. (1.) He taketh that here for granted which is denied, and which he will never be able to prove, to wit, that warring was a part of the ceremonial Law; or a Law peculiarly given to the Jews. And why doth he not once tell us, where and when this Law was first made, and where we shall find it among the ceremonies? (2.) If it were granted to have been a ceremonial Law, how can he now say, that it is lawful, in any case, to any person, whether Christian or not Christian? Is it lawful now to use circumcision, or the passover, and other such ceremonies? Will he say, that Christians, who are not become Quakers, or are not come to that pitch of perfection in Christianity, which he supposeth the Quakers are come unto, may now lawfully offer beasts and sacrifices; Yea and observe the whole ceremonial Law? What doctrine is this? We must not wonder to hear this of them, who are utter enemies to the Gospel; and so care not what be done, that may tend to the abolition thereof. (3.) We hear not that the use of circumcision was ever permitted to the Gentiles, though in a lower degree of perfection. (4.) Circumcision was for a time permitted even to the highest advanced Jews; for Paul, after the Spirit was arisen in him, did circumcise Timothy.
10. This is all he saith upon this head; for he toucheth not others of our main arguments; such as that Rom. 13. where the Apostle tells us, that higher powers are of God, to be a terror to evil works ; and have a sword for this end ; and are the Ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath, upon such as do evil: and ordereth that tribute and custom be paid to them, as to God's Ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. They must then have power to suppress Injustice and Iniquity, and to ward it off; and so to defend their Subjects from Injustice, and Oppression: But this they cannot do, but by the sword, which they must use against all Oppressors, whether within, or without the Kingdom, that would wrong and enjure their Subjects, who other ways shall not be in case to lead a quiet and peaceable life under them, in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2:2. whence we might also adduce another argument. Further, though he seemeth to grant the office of Magistracy to be lawful; Yet his arguments will as well prove that unlawful, as the use of Arms: and Anabaptists will alleige, that Magistracy itself was a Jewish ceremony; and that with as great probability, as he can alleige war to have been ceremonial: And as he granteth it lawful, for such as are not Christians to make war; so will they grant it lawful for such to be Magistrates; but not for Christians. Yea Socinus himself, though he will not have it lawful for private persons, to war; Yet he granteth it lawful for Kings, Princes and Magistrates, without any impeachment of their Christianity: and why it should be lawful to these, and not also to those, I see not: And it seemeth he would have the Magistrates warring without soldiers, which how they can well do, I know not.
11. By what this Quaker granteth to such Magistrates, as are not yet Christians, after his mode, he must needs say, that it is not in itself unjust and iniquous, for Magistrates to defend, with the sword, Justice and Peace; for if it were unjust and iniquous in itself, it should be lawful to none: And if it be just and right in itself, why should it be unlawful to Christians? The Gospel destroyeth not what is just and right, it taketh not away Magistracy, nor that which is necessary to Magistracy, and without which Magistracy cannot subsist, nor Magistrates execute their office. Will any man say, that it is more just and equitable, that Magistrates leave their Subjects as a prey to the lust of every oppressing, plundering, robbing and killing enemy, then with arms to withstand and resist these oppressing and murthering adversaries? And if not, were it not a great act of injustice to his own Subjects, thus to expose them to the cruel & bloody sword of invaders? And must Christianity countenance injustice, and warrand that, which the very light of Nature teacheth heathens to abhor? Shall Christians be worse than infidels? 1 Tim. 5:8. Then it is saifer to live under Pagan Magistrates, than 〈◊〉 Christian Magistrates? Would he have us running away to Pagan Places, for t • is end?
12. What will this Quaker say to the Prophecies in the Revelation, concerning the wars, that have been and are to be waged against the Turk, and against Antichrist ; when God shall give them, that before shed the blood of Saints, and of the Prophets, blood to drink, for they are worthy; whereupon thanksgiving was to be rendered, saying. Thou art righteous O Lord, which art, and wast, and shall be, because thou hast judged thus. And, even so Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments, Revel. 16:5, 7. If wars be utterly unlawful under the New Test. how shall that be fulfilled, which we have Revel. 18. concerning the total and final ruin of mystical Babylon? Why is it there said to God's own people verse. 6, 7, 8. reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled, fill to her double: how much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her—she shall be utterly burnt with fire, for strong is the Lord God, who judgeth her ? And how shall that be accomplished Revel. 17:16. And the Ten horns, which thou sawest upon the Beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire? And how shall these songs be sung, which we have Revel. 19:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7? And how shall he, who is called faithful and true, and in righteousness doth judge and make war, and is clothed with a vesture dipt in blood, and hath on his vesture, and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lord's, make a Supper of the flesh of Kings, of Captains, of mighty men, of horsemen, &c. unto all the fowls, Revel. 19:11. to the end? But it seemeth our Quaker hath no will, that any evil should befall that Whore, and her Seat. and therefore would prevent her destruction, so far, as he can, by soweing this doctrine; that Christians, in no case, must make war. But we believe, our King shall find armies to follow him, when he taketh the fields, and cometh, to tread the winepress of the fiercness and wrath of Almighty God, whatever Quakers say.
13. We will therefore close this point, with the words of our Confession of faith Chap. 23: §. 1, 2. God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil Magistrates, to be under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: And to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them, that are good, and for the punihment of evil doers (Rom. 13: verse. 1, 2, 3, 4. 1 Pet. 2: verse. 13, 14.) It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a Magistrate, when called thereto (Prov. 8: verse. 15, 16. Rom. 13: verse. 1, 2, 4.) In the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice and peace, according to the wholesome Laws of each Commonwealth (Psal. 2: verse. 10, 11, 12. 1 Tim. 2: verse. 2. Psal. 82: verse. 3, 4. 2 Sam. 23: verse. 3. 1 Pet. 2: verse. 13.) so for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. Luk. 3: verse. 14. Rom. 13:4. Mat. 8:9, 10. Act. 10:1, 2. Revel. 17:11, 16.)
CHAP. XXX. Of Lawful Oaths.
2. OUr Quakers, that they may quite destroy all Politie and Government, • oyn in with Anabaptists, & Familists of N. England of late, and the Esseans, Manichees and Pelagians of old, in denying it to be lawful to swear before a judge, when called thereunto, in maters of moment. I willingly grant, that all Profane, rash, and godless oaths, used too ordinarily in common discourse, are wholly unlawful, and a manifest breach of the third command; & such a sin, as provoketh the Jealousy of the Lord of hosts, who is holy, and will not hold them guiltless who take his name in vain. I shall also willingly grant, that such reverence should be had unto the holy name of God, that in maters of lesser moment, and maters, wherein the verity may be possibly found out, without an oath, none should be urged to take an oath; nor an oath received from persons, who willingly offer it, in such triffles, & without necessity. But as to this question, let us view, what our Confess. saith Ch. 22: §. 1, 2, 3, 4. A lawful oath is a part of Religious worship (Deut. 10▪ 20.) wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth, or falsehood of what he asserteth (Exod. 20:7. Levite 19:12. 2 Cor. 1:23. 2 Chron. 6:22, 23.) The name of God only, is that by which men ought to swear; and therein it is to be used, with all holy fear and reverence (Deut. 6:13.) Therefore to swear vainly, or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name; or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred (Exod. 20:7. Ior. 5 • . Mat. 5:34, 37. I am. 5:12.) Yet, as in maters of weight and moment, an oath is warranded by the word of God, under the New Test. as well as under the old (Heb. 6:16. 2 Cor. 1:23. Esa. 65:16) So a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority, in such maters, ought to be taken (1 King. 8:31 Neh. 13:25. Ezra. 10:5.)— Yet it is a sin, to refuse an oath, touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority (Numb. 5: verse. 19, 20. Neh. 5: verse. 12. Exod. 22: verse. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
2. The only ground of his contrary opinion, is Christ's words Mat. 5:34—37 and I am. 5:12. which he so understandeth, as simply prohibiting all Oaths whatsomever, wherein he is worse than the Socinians, for they say, that Christ added this unto the Law, that we should not swear rashly and vainly; nor make promissory Oaths concerning things future. But the Quaker will go a greater length, and say that Oaths imposed by Magistrates, in things weighty and necessary, are here also prohibited: Yet he walketh upon the Socinians ground; and supposeth, that Christ is here amending and correcting the Law, or adding to it; and so giving new Laws: For if Christ only be interpreting the Law, (as we say) and it be certain, that the Oaths, we maintain, were warrantably used under the Law; Christ's Words must not be so largely taken, as he would. But a right consideration of Christ's Words, together with his scope, will make all clear. Christ being here interpreting▪ explaining and vindicating the Law, and so correcting and reprehending the false, lax and erroneous glosses, which the Pharisees, and the jewish Doctors, had corrupted the Law withal; he cometh in these verses to vindicate the third command, which these loose Casuists (whom he meaneth, when he saith verse. 33. ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time ) had so interpreted, as if nothing had been thereby prohibited, but only forswearing, that is, not to perform, what was vowed and sworn to be done, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord, thine Oaths : And thence gave way to rash, idle, vain, and inconsiderat Oaths, yea and to swearing by other things, than by the true and living God▪ To correct which corruption and abuse, Christ rightly interprets the Law, as prohibiteing all such swearing by any creature at all, saying verse. 34. But I say unto you, swear not at all. But how is this not at all to be taken? The following words clear, Neither by heaven—nor by the earth—neither by Jerusalem—neither by thine head. And then addeth, to correct their rash and profane Oaths in common discourse verse. 37. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay. Whereby he showeth, what should be our ordinary assertions, or negations, in our ordinary discourse; and what way we should take to guard against rash and unnecessary Oaths; to wit, that we should use uprightness and sincerity in our dealings, and speeches, that so no more may be required, then asserting or denying, or at most doubling of our assertions, or denials? And then addeth, for whatsoever is more then these, cometh of evil, that is, whatsoever is superfluous, or redundant and not necessary, (as all vain, and needless Oaths, and asseverations are) is sinful, and of the Devil. So that there is nothing here, in the least, giving ground to reject all Oaths, as sinful; but only such, as are by Creatures, or are needless and superfluous, in our ordinary communication. And to this same purpose doth James speak Chap. 5:12. saying, But above all things, my brethren, swear not; how that is to be understood, he explaineth in the following words, Neither by the heaven, neither by the eart • , neither by any other Oath, which is the same with what Christ said; and to prevent this sin of rash and profane swearing, he addeth, as Christ did, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay : And to confirm all, addeth lest ye fall into condemnation, looking to the threatening annexed to the third command; and thereby giving us to understand, that he is but explaining that command, and enjoining no new thing, but what was there enjoined; for James is very much, in his Epistle, in pressing the Law, and obedience to it, which he calleth the perfect Law James 1: verse. 25. and Royal Law James 2: verse. 8. But now if he should have urged anything, in these moral duties, but what was commanded in the Law, he should have condemned the Royal Law, as imperfect.
3. The mater being thus clear and manifest, we need not regard his telli • g us, that we ought to feign no exceptions ; for we fain none; but interpret the words, according to the clear and obvious scope; which he with the Sociniant must inverte, before he make his assertion so much as probable. Nor do we, as the Reader may see, here make use of consequences (which yet are allowable, and himself, as we saw above, went about to confirm some of his notions, yea a special part of their Solemn Worship, by consequences from Scripture) or probabilities, as he alleigeth, which are obscure and uncertain ; but walk upon fixed and certain grounds; which may fully quiet the consciences of such, as stand in awe of the word: and I cannot but wonder, how he, who denieth the word, to be the rule of faith, and practice, can thus press the words, contrary to the scope and intendment of the Spirit of the Lord, and stand so stiffly to the express words; yea and, for anything I see, ground their judgment and practice, wholly and alone, upon these words: but, as we heard above, though the light within them be their supreme and only Rule, they can alleige the Scriptures, and pervert them too, against us.
4. He cometh next Pag. 354. §. 11. to reply to our grounds. We say, that Christ forbiddeth all Oaths by creatures, and all vain and rash Oaths: To which he replieth, That the Law did forbid these Oaths; but Christ forbiddeth here something that was free under the Law: to wit, to swear by the Name of God; and so dischargeth even such Oaths, as were made by the Name of God Mat. 23:22. And he addeth, by any other oath. Answ. That the Law doth forbid both swearing by the Creatures, and also rash and unnecessary swearing by the Name of God, is true; but the Law did not prohibit, but enjoin swearing in some cases, before Magistrates, as we see Exod. 22:7,—11. Num. 5:19, 21. (2.) That Christ correcteth or amendeth the Law, or dischargeth anything, which was lawful by the moral Law of God; is but a Socinian dream, without any ground, or warrand, as is apparent, through that whole Sermon, and from the very first words of this part thereof verse. 17, 18. Think not, that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but fulfil: for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one-title, shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. But sure, if Christ had added to the law, or taken away from it, he had in so far destroyed it, and made it an imperfect law, and had taken away from it many Jotes and Titles, contrary to his own express profession and declaration. (3.) The place Mat. 23:16—23. doth clearly explain this; for there, their unlawful ways of swearing are reproved; and they discovered to be fools, in alleiging such grounds, as they did, for their profane licentious swearing, and satisfying themselves with such pretexts; but not one word declareing it unlawful in all cases, to swear by the Name of God. (4.) These words by any other Oath, are to be explained by what went before; and so to be understood of any other such like Oath, as he had instanced in; otherwise Christ's discourse shall be incoherent.
5. To that, which is said, That swearing by the Name of God, was commanded by the Father, and so cannot be now contradicted by the Son, who is one with the Father, he saith, That the father appointed many ceremonial Laws which were shadows of good things to come, whereof Christ was the substance. Answer, This is very true; but nothing to the purpose; for he shall never prove that swearing by the Name of God was a ceremonial thing, being a part of natural Worship, taught by the Law of Nature Gen. 21: ver. 23. Josh. 2: verse. 12. 2 Chron. 36:21. and is several times put for the whole moral Worship Isaiah. 19: v. 18. & 45:23. Psal. 63:11. And where, I pray, and when, was this ceremonial precept (if it be such) first given? But this one thing is enough to confute this dream (not to mentione, that we cannot understand, whereof it can be a shadow, or type: nor how then, as we shall hear, it was used, when types were abrogated) to wit, that Christ did not so early begin to cry down and to annul the force and power of the ceremonial Law; but being made under the Law (ceremonial, as well as moral) was observant thereof in all points, to his dying day: for in the very night wherein he was betrayed, he observed the feast of the Passover; and he came to full • il all righteousness: How shall we then imagine, that in his very first Sermon, he should abrogate the Ceremonial Law, and that in moe points then one, if our Quaker be to be believed? For he will have the mater of Wars a ceremony too; and will affirm, that Christ abrogated that ceremony also, in the last words of this Chapter, as we heard?
6. He moveth this Argum. in the next place Pag. 355. That Oaths cannot be a part of the ceremonial Law, because they were in use before the promulgation of the law: An Argument, wherein I see little strength; yet I think it concerneth him to tell us, when this ceremonial law was first given, and to whom? What answereth he? It must be shown, saith he, that it is an eternal and immutable precept▪ Answ. And what needeth more for this, then to show, that it is a part of worship performed unto God, which the law of Nature hath taught all nations, and which hath no affinity with what is typical and figurative, having a manifestly moral import; for it is a solemn acknowledgment of God's All-seeing eye, of his Truth and Veracity, of his Righteousness and Justice, and of his Power and Might: for therein he is called to witness a secret and hidden truth, and the swearer doth profess, that God is acquainted with the secrets of all things, and with the Intentions of the heart: Therein we acknowledge, that God abhorreth lying and dissimulation, and will be a swift witness against false swearers; and in justice will be avenged of such, as mock him, in calling the God of truth to bear witness to an untruth, and show his power in punishing and pursueing such: all which being engraven on the heart of Man by nature, and being laid, as the ground of this practice among all Nations, and having nothing ceremonial in it, evince this duty to be moral, and the commands enjoining it, perpetually obliging. He tells us, that Abel and Cain did offer the tithes of their fruit, and the first fruits of their land. But I read not this in Scripture: I find it said Gen. 4:3, 4. that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, and Abel of the firsilings of his flock, but no more: no word of Tithes, nor of First fruits.
7. He moveth another Objection, after his own mind; as if we said, that Swearing by the name of God is a moral duty, because it is mentioned with God's essential and moral worship: But what he meaneth by essential worship, I know not; nor know I, who useth that term. This argument I shall thus urge: If swearing by the name of God be not only urged, together with other acts of moral worship; but also as a comprehensive part of moral worship, and as further exegitical and explicative of other parts of moral worship mentioned; then it must be a part of moral worship: But the former is true. Therefore, &c. The Major, I suppose, needeth no proof. The Minor is clear Deut. 6: verse. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name: And Deut. 10:20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy good, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. In both which places, we see, it is not only attended before and after with precepts purely moral; nor only joined in the same verse, with duties purely moral; but, as the other duties, mentioned in the same verse, are truly comprehensive of that moral obedience that is due to God; so is this, and each one of these commands contribute to explicate the other; so that all are but various expressions of that one duty, of owneing the true God, for their only God, conform to the first commandment. Add to these passages Ier. 3:4. where it is pressed as a comprehensive duty of all moral obedience, as being the manifest declaration of their true Repentance and Turning unto God, and of their putting away all abominations out of God's sight, verse. 1. If thou will return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me; and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove: And thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, &c. So Ier. 12: verse. 14. to the end, where the Lord is offering salvation to the Nations about, upon condition, that they will perform this comprehensive duty, and shall learn to swear by my name, saith the Lord, the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people; but if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up, and destroy that nation. Add Psal. 63:11. The King shall rejoice in God, and everyone that sweareth by him shall glory. Let the Quaker now see, if his answers will suite this argument, thus proposed.
8. Another of our Arguments he mentioneth, in the fifth place, which is this, as I shall form it: If that which Christ forbiddeth, be of the Devil, then he forbiddeth not the swearing by the name of God: But the former is true, from the words of the text, for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil, verse. 37. or of that evil one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of that evil one, who is exercised in all wickedness. See Beza on the place. The Consequence of the Major is clear; for swearing by the name of God, was once commanded of God; but God never commanded that, which did flow from the Devil: Nor can it be said, with any face of reason, that any of the ceremonial Laws, were of that evil one, or cometh of evil. How then can this man say, that this which Christ saith, cometh of evil, was a ceremonial Law, enjoined by God? What replieth he? Some things, saith he, are good because commanded, and evil because forbidden, and some things are commanded because good, and forbidden because evil: Thus cerem • nials are good, as long as commanded, and evil when forbidden under the Gospel, Ans. (1.) But to me, there is nothing good morally, but what is commanded, and as commanded; and no duty of man can be said to be commanded because morally good, 'antecedent to the command of the great Law-giver, whose good will and pleasure is the ground of all morality among men. (2.) Though the observation of prohibited ceremonies, be evil under the Gospel; Yet we cannot say, that they are or ever were of that evil One, or come of evil. Here he tells us Pag. 356. That oaths did prefigure God's truth and fidelity. Ans. That which is prefigured, is something to come; then it seemeth God under the Law, was not true and faithful; for these attributes were but prefigured to exist in the days of the Gospel: Is not this Blasphemy? He would do well to retract this, other ways his error is worse, then he is a war of. He giveth us another morality of oaths, viz. Testification of truth, which was before all oaths, and will abide, when all oaths are away. Answ. This is indeed the proper end and use of oaths, to testify to truth: But what he meaneth, when he saith, it is its morality, I must wait till he explain himself. As long says he, as men abide true, there is no necessity of oaths : and for this he citeth some words of Polybius and Grotius and others. But what then? This would rather plead for the necessary continuance of oaths, because men are not true enough: And knoweth he not, that good civil Laws may be occasioned by evil manners? Knoweth he not, that by reason of the fall, many things became moral natural, secondarily, that were not primarily natural? And why may not oaths come in among these? He giveth us an Argument, thus, That which was not from the beginning, nor had any use in the beginning, that had not its rise from the will of God, but from the work of the Devil, being caused of evil. viz. of infidelity, lies and deceit, and was chiefly invented by men, as a remedy of this evil, in which they did invocate the names of their idols, and which was granted to the Israelites as children, that they might abstain from the heathens Oaths Ier. 12:16. is no moral and eternal command. But such a thing is an Oath. Answ. This is, I confess, a very ill favored argument: For the assumption is pregnant with blasphemy, and that upon his own grounds; for he said before, that this swearing by the Name of God was a ceremonial command of God: Now is it not blasphemy to say, that any of the ceremonial Laws of God had not their rise from the will of God; but from the work of the Devil? Is it truth to say, that any of God's commands, especially such, as belong to the Gospel, as all ceremonies do, are chiefly invented by men? Faith in Jesus Christ was not from the beginning, nor was of any use in the beginning, and was occasioned only by the fall; is it true therefore, that i • had not its rise from the will of God, but from the work of the Devil, and was chiefly invented by man? (2.) If swearing be such a thing, it must be intrinsically evil: how cometh it then, that we hear sometimes of God's swearing? What, would God do that, or anything like that, which had its rise from the Devil? (3.) Many things became moral, yea natural, after the fall, which were not necessary from the beginning; these are called moral natural secondarily; and yet had their rise from the will of God; and not from the work of the Devil, as covering our nakedness, which this man will grant, unless he be an Adamit too. (4.) Infidelity, lies and deceit, among men after the fall, might be an occasion of a law, and the law be good, necessary and immutable for all that, and be no invention of man, but the command of the great God. (5.) It is not proved • , that the Lord commanded the Israelites to swear by his name, because they were children, far less, to bring them off the using of Heathens Oaths; the place Ier. 12:16. evinceth the contrary, viz. That God would have the heathens learning to swear by the Name of the true God.
9. A Sixt Argument of ours, he proposeth Pag. 357. thus, God hath sworn, therefore to swear is good: And indeed this doth manifestly evince, that to swear is not intrinsically evil, nor floweth not from the work of the Devil; nor was principally invented by Man: and the Scripture bringeth God frequently in swearing Gen. 50:24. Exod. 13:5, 11. & 33:1. Numb. 14.16, 23, 30. & 32:10, 11. Deut. 1:8. & 8:35. Josh. 5:6. Psal. 95:11. & 110:4. Heb. 6:17. & 7:21, 22. For answer he tells us out of Athanasius, That God cannot swear properly, because he sweareth not by another, but by himself. Answ. And this is very true; But yet the Scripture saying that he sweareth, and expressing his Counsels and determinations, as confirmed by an Oath, to assure us of the Truth and Immutability thereof, confirmeth what we say, to wit, that it is not simply unlawful, and to be condemned. God cannot properly Repent, and yet he is said to Repent, and this hath a moral instruction to us. God hath not properly bowels of pity and commiseration, and yet what is spoken of the moving of his bowels, showeth that our pity and commiseration is not simply sinful, but good and lawful in some cases. A Seventh Argum. is this, Christ did swear. Out of what Author, he hath this, I know not: of Christ's swearing I read not; but of that earnest asseveration Verily Verily, I read often: And if our Quaker will so strickly interpret these words of Christ, whatsoever is more then these, to wit, then yea and nay, cometh of evil, as he doth; he must also condemn these asseverations; for they are more, then yea and no? And that same asseveration may be construed for an Oath, if we consider Heb. 6.13, 14, But he answereth, That though Christ did swear, yet it will not follow. that we may; because he was under the Law, w • under the Gospel. Answ. (1) It is not proven, that this belongeth to, or is any part of the Ceremonial Law. (2.) Christ did abrogate that Ceremonial Law, as our Quaker thinketh, in that sermon of his upon the mount; and if it was then abrogate, it could not oblige him thereafer. (3.) This agreeth not with Jerome's answer, which he addeth, but rather contradicteth it; for Jerome draweth his answer from his being Lord, and under no Law.
10. An Eight Argument we use, which is better founded, and that is taken from the practice of the Apostle Paul, who several times, in weighty maters, and at necessary occasions, did use solemn Oaths and Attestations Rom. 1: v. 9. God is my witness. & 9:1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness, in the holy Ghost. 2 Cor. 1:23. moreover I call God for a record on my soul. & 11:10. as the truth of Christ is in me. Gal. 1:20. Now the things, which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Phil. 1:8. for God is my record. 1 Thes. 2:10. ye are witnesses & God also : To all which he answereth three things 1 That these are not Oaths, & that they refused not to give such Attestations themselves; but were urged to give more, (sais he) an Oath with the ceremony of laying the hand upon, or kissing the book, of lifting up the hand or the fingers, and adding this form, so help me God. Answ. To these agreeth the definition of an Oath; to wit, a solemn callin • of God to witness, and to judge according to the truth or falsehood of what is said. And whereas he saith, that they would not refuse this, but oft used such; but would not add the outward ceremony required; he showeth, how easily they can strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, as the Scribes and Pharisees did Mat. 23: v. 24. As if Abraham's servant would have sworn willingly by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, but would have scrupled at the putting of his hand under Abraham's thigh Gen. 24:2, 3. who seeth not what a childish vanity this is? Yet I will not plead for any ceremony, that may justly give offense. But (2.) Must he not grant, that even this much is more then yea and nay, and consequently cometh of evil? Was this much from the beginning? Was it of any use, in the beginning? Was it not caused of the evil of infidelity &c? And was it not therefore the work of the Devil? and was it not invented of men, for a cure of infidelity and deceit? How then can he defend it according to his own principles? It seemeth the Quakers may do, what we may not. He answereth 2. That this contradicteth our opinion; for Paul was not here swearing before a Magistrate. Answ. Nor do we adduce this instance to prove that; but only to prove, that all swearing under the New Testam. is not unlawful: will he say, that Christ Mat. 5. speaketh only of Oaths taken before Magistrates? Or that such only were a part of the Ceremonial Law? He must then restrick these words of Christ and of James, swear not at all, to Oaths imposed by Magistrates, contrary to his own fore-mentioned glosses. What difference is there betwixt our solemn calling God to witness to a particular, of our own accord, when necessity and the urgency of the matter presseth to it, and doing this at the command or desire of the Magistrate, for ending of a controversy? I should think, that if I may do it, of my own accord, I may much more do it, when called thereto by a Magistrate. But his 3. Answer will cut the knot, The question is not, what Paul or Peter did, but what their and our Lord taught, saith he. Answer, Then Paul must be a transgressor, and that oftener then once or twice: But I suppose, in writing of his Epistles, he was acted immediately by the Spirit of God: and I shall not readily think, that the Spirit would have acted him so frequently to have transgressed Christ's express command, swear not at all, if our Quakers exposition be genuine. Augustine, Lib. de mendacio ad Consentium Chap. 15. learneth from this practice of Paul, how to interpret Christ's Words, Iuravit. ipse Apostolus, in Epistolis suis, & sic ostendit quomodo accipiendum esset, quod dictum est, dico vobis, non jurate omvino—sed quia praecepti violati reum Paulum, praesertim in Epistolis conscriptis, atque editis ad spiritualem vitam, salutemque populorum, nofas est dicere. Intelligendum est illud, quod positum est, omnino, ad hoc positum, ut quantum in te est, nox affects, non ames, non quasi pro bono cum aliqua delectation appetas jusjurandum.
11. To that Prophecy of the days of the New Test. Isaiah 65:16.— he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of truth ; he answereth, That it was usual with the Prophets, to express the great duties of the Gospel times, in Mosaic terms as Ier. 31:38, 39, 40. Ezech. 36:25. & 40. Esa. 45:23. And what the Prophet here speaketh of swearing, Paul interpreteth it of confessing, Rom. 14:11. Answ. That the Prophets use this way, I confess: But see no ground for this from Ier. 31:38. &c. where the Prophet is foretelling the rebuilding of I • rusalem, which was accomplished in the days of Nehemiah. And that Ezech. 36:25. is but a poor ground: Nor doth that place Isaiah 45:23. give any countenance unto this, though the Apostle Rom. 14:11. useth another word for swearing, which is but exegitical thereof, and the same upon the mater. The only doubt remaineth, whether swearing was properly ceremonial, or not; which the Apostles frequent practice, mentioned in the preceeding argument, and other arguments mentioned and to be mentioned, evince not to have been ceremonial: And there is more ground to make the bowing of the knee ceremonial, then swearing by the name of the Lord.
12. In the tenth place he mentioneth that argument, taken from Heb. 6:16. For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife : he answereth Pag. 359. That Paul only showeth, what men, in those days of controversy, were wont to do; but not what they should have done; nor what the Saints did. Answ. This being a practice, not of any one age, or people, but of all ages and people; whereby a principal end of swearing, to wit, the ending of a controversy, and the right manner of going about it, to wit, in swearing by the greater, is held forth; and this being brought-in hereas an argument from the less to the more; as if the Apostle had said, if we believe a man, who by nature is a liar, when he sweareth, and confirmeth what he saith by attesting God; how much more ought we to believe God, who is truth itself, when he sweareth by himself, having no greater to swear by, showeth the lawfulness and usefulness of this practice: So that if this had been or were, in itself, a thing • imply evil, the Apostles argument would want its due force; and cause men question, if ever G • d did or would swear; it being such a sinful and an abominable thing, • roceeding from the Devil: And so the whole argument and conclusion of the Apostle should be annulled, and the main pillar of our assurance and hope s • aken. And though this differeth from these instances, 1 Cor. 9: ver ▪ 24. and Luk. 14: verse 31. which he adduceth to invalidate this; Yet neither can he prove, that these are simply sinful and unlawful, in all cases.
13. As for the argument he proposeth next, I own it not; and so am less concerned in his answer: Only I would know, what he meaneth by that expression, a Christian, whom God hath called unto his essential verity, may no way swear ? What meaneth he by this essential verity ? And was not Paul called thereunto, whatever it be? How came it then, that he did swear some way? Were not the holy men of old called unto this essential verity? how came it then, that they did also swear? Such as Abraham Gen. 21:24. Jacob. Gen 31:53. Joseph. Gen: 47:35. Moses Josh. 14:9. David 1 Sam. 20:3. & 24:22 Jonathan 1 Sam. 20:16. Elijah. 1 King. 17:1. Gedaliah. 2 King. 25:24. Asa. 2 Chron. 15:14. Obadiah. 1 King. 18:10. & Elisha. 2 King 2:6? Are not Angels called unto this essential verity? How came it then that they did swear Dan. 12:17. Revel. 10:5, 6? He citeth some passages of some heathens Pag. 360. who would not swear: And what can this prove? And what will Pythagoras prohibition evince? Or Socrates his requireing that men's words should be firmer than oaths? Or Plato's appearing against it? These and the like may be good arguments for him, whose Religion is but Paganish; but have no force with us? though I grant, these and the like may shame Christians, who regard even oaths so little. He hath Pag. 361. a number of bare citations of places of some Fathers and Others, without giving us their words; any, who hath these books, may peruse them, and see what they say: All that I shall say is this. Though it be true, that many of the Fathers, did in this assent to Pelagius ; yet the more common opinion was, that Christians might in some cases lawfully swear, which they grounded upon the practice of Paul : See Vossius Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. par. 2. Antith. 1. Pag. 513. &c. And let the Reader peruse the citations he hath there adduced, and he will see, that some of this Quakers citations, and Authors, are against himself; such, as Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, Polycarp, and others. The primitive Christians would not swear, it is true, neither by the Genius, nor by the fortune of the Emperious: See Tertul. Apol. Cap. 31. and from this some might gather, that they would not swear at all: which was certainly a mistake. And we read, that the Primitive Christians did swear to be faithful to the Emperor, as Vossius showeth out of Vegetius lib 2. Cap. 5. & Arnobius lib. 4. see also Dio in M. Antonino; Tertul. de Cor. mil. c. 1. Eusebii histor. lib, 5. c. 5. He showeth also how they used to swear by the Eucharist, out of Eusebii Histor. lib. 6. Chap. 35, The last argument, which he mentioneth, is not worth the naming, and so I leave it.
14. For a Conclusion to this, let us take notice, that Augustine was only laboring to keep oft unnecessary oaths; and would have one and other shuning what they could the giving of oaths: But would not simply condemn the taking or giving of oaths, in weighty maters, even under the Gospel: And therefore speaking upon that sermon of Christ, on the mount; and having mentioned the expressions of Paul, formerly spoken of, he addeth. Ita intelligitur, praecepisse Deum, ne Iuretur; ne quisquam sicut bonum, appetat jusjurandum, & assiduitate jurandi, ad perjurium per consuetudinem delabatur. Quapropter qui intelligit, non in bonis, sed necessariis jurationem habendam; refrenet se quantum potest, ut non eâ u • atur, nisi necessitate; cum videt, pigros esse homines ad credendum, quod ets utile est credere, nisi juratione firmetur.
CHAP. XXXI. Of Civil Honor.
1. BEside what belongeth properly to Civil Honor, of which we are now to speak, there are other two particulars, which he is pleased to speak something to, in his Vindication of his last Thesis, to wit, against Vanity & Prodigality in apparel, and against Comoedies and such Plays ; concerning which, I mind to be no adversary unto him; only I must say, he must be very affronted and shameless to suppose, let be to say, That all his Adversaries conten • for these as lawful, and as no way contrary to Christian Religion; as he saith Pag. 334. for howbeit we love not to place too much of Religion in the outward garb; nor think, that people should affect to be singular therein, and too pharisaically make a proclamation of their being such or such persons, as if the outward vestment could make the man a Christian of such or such a magnitude; nor like we such clothes of distinction, as the Popish Orders have, knowing how much Superstitious vanity moveth thereunto, and worketh under it: Yet we as much hate and abhor that prodigious abuse, that so much aboundeth this day, and provoketh the Lord to anger, as he can. We know Christianity requireth all Gravity, Sobriety, Modesty and Moderation; and howbeit distinction of Qualities, Conditions, and Offices, will admit a distinction of apparel, both for mater and fashion; Yet in all there ought to be gravity and modesty studied and followed: we remember, as well, as he, and press the following of that word of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 2:9, 10. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or pearls or costly array: but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. And of that of Peter 1 Pet. 3:3, 4. whose adorning let it not be that outward, of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, the ornament of a meek and quiet Spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Yet we dar not say, that it is sinful to wear anything more, than what is simply necessary for covering of nakedness, and keeping from cold; knowing that there is an Ornament allowed, that suiteth with Gravity, Shamefastness and Sobriety, according to the various conditions and qualities of Persons; though notwithstanding we would have no offense given, in things indifferent; nor any just cause of stumbling, either to one or other; but do rather desire, that persons would keep within that measure, which their condition, and the custom of the place, would allow, than that their good should be evel spoken of, and Christianity fall under a reproach. And as to Ribbens, Laces, and the like, which, it seemeth, he inveigheth most against; though we could well desire, that they were utterly in disuse, where any ground of offense is given thereby; and willingly confess, that both as to these and several other things, there is too much Vanity, Lightness and Prodigality obvious and apparent; Yet we dar not simply condemn all the use of such things, as sinful, and repugnant to Christianity: And we suppose, there may lurk as much real Pride, Vanity and Conceite, under a garb outwardly modest, and free of those toys; as sometimes will do under a garb accompanied with them. As for this Comoedies, he may know, that some, who are no Quakers, have said as much and more against them, than he hath done, or can do: And yet we dar not simply condemn the use of all lawful and sinless Recreations, the use whereof with Christian moderation and sobriety, may be useful, if not necessary, to some bodies, & a mean to fit them for more noble service and work.
2. Having thus dispatched these things, and having now considered all the parts and pieces of the Quakers Profession, held forth by this their Advocate and Patron, in the forgoing Theses and their Vindication; we come now, in the last place, to speak to that, which I look upon, as their proper and peculiar characteristick; as that which really differenceth them from all other heretics, schismatics, or erroneous persons, that have appeared to this day, in the Christian world, so far as I can yet learn: Hither til I have met with nothing in all their Opinions, and Practices, which he is pleased here to lay before us, as owned by them, and defended by him (except their Quaking, which groundeth their denomination, and w • ich assimilateth them more unto the old heathenish Consulters of the Devil, than to Christians) which hath not been asserted and maintained by others, who have been condemned, upon that account, by the Church of Christ, before the generation of Quakers were ever heard of, as I have shown all along. Only I must confess, that in this they are also singular, That before them, there was never a Seck heard of, that own • and maintained such a full and complete body of error and heresy, and gave forth such a perfect system of devilish doctrine, tending to the overthrow and destruction of all Christianity and true Divinity, and to the propagating and strengthening of the Kingdom of darkness, as the Seck of the Quakers hath done; whose main intent, or the Devil's in them, seem • h to have been to gather together, in one mass, all the errors and abominable opinions, formerly scattere • up and down the Christian world, through all ages, and vented by several persons, raised up by Satan for that effect, which might contribute anything to the utter extirpation of Christianity, and of all true Religion; so that, what the Devil could not effectuat by Arians, Pelagians, Socinians, Papists, Arminians, Anabaptists, Familists, Enthusiasts, Antiscripturists, Muns • erians, David Georgians, Manichees, Antitrinitarians, Montanists, Donatists, Heracleonites, Ascothyptae, Messalians, Swenckfeldians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Gnosimachians, Priscillianists, Marcionites, Tertullianists, Mareites, Quintinus, Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, and others not a few, he thinketh now to accomplish by these Miserable Quakers, who have gathered together in one cloud, what these severally, and in pieces, did vent and propagate, to darken the truth of God. But we are confident, that the Lord, who hath appeared against, and broken the scattered forces, shall, while rallyed and combined together in one, and in their fullest strength, beat them out of the fields, & consume them with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy them with the brightness of his coming.
3. Beside this wicked composition, which sufficiently discriminateth them from all, who have formerly troubled the Church of Christ; they must have something peculiar to themselves, which, as an open badge, must be owned and avowed by them; and this must also be such a Cognizance, as may discover them to all onlookers to be the men and women of such a proof • sion: And this consisteth in their denying of all outward civil honor and respect, & all significations thereof to any person whatsomever, not only their Equals but their Superiors, whether in higher or lower degree; for when they pass by any, how high so ever; or compear before any Judge or Magistrate, they will not so much, as signify their respect, by uncovering of their head, as if they were all Turks ▪ or brought up among them; or so many Heathenish Priests, who as Plutarch witnesseth, used never to take off their cap, which was the insigne of the Flamines, See Mr Durham on the Revel. Pag. 563. And when they are speaking to any, even to greatest Personages, not only they will not make use of any titles, or expressions importing reverence and respect, accordi • g to the common usage and custom; but they speak to such, in the very same dialect and manner, that the greatest useth, or can use, while talking with or speaking to the meanest of their inferiors: Hence is there Thou and Thee, instead of you and ye ; Yea, which is also remarkable, in their answers, they use yea and nay : and will not say, yes and no : so Mr Grigge, the writer of the Quakers Jesus, informeth me, in his Epistle Prefixed to that book: And what can this import, but some characteristick Tessera, or note of distinction, whereby they may be discerned from all others whatsomever; and who can tell, if in such foolish niceties, there lie not some piece of outward homage, which they must pay to their Master, who will take little ere he want all; and will be as well pleased with a toy, if it be given in sign of homage, as with a greater mater? And it is remarkable, that the first and only person among Christians, that we can hear of using this mode, was the founder of the Jesuits, Loyala : but he did it but once, that we hear of, before a Governor, where he was challenged for a Spye, and yet it may be sufficient to make him also the Father, and founder of the new order of uncivil Quakers.
4. It may seem strange, that these Men, who own no other Christ or Scripture, but the Light within, and take that for all, are thus against all good manners and civility, refusing to salute persons, in the way; or to give the least civil signification of honor and respect to equals or superiors; when even among the wild savage Indians, such moroseness and pedantic clownishness would be abhorred, being taught some other thing by the natural Light within them? However, as upon the one hand, we may observe, the enmity, that Satan hath at Mankind, is such, as maketh him hate all things, that looketh like humanity, for their sakes; and therefore will have these his deluded followers, wear no other character of cognizance, but such, as may make them openly appear as enemies to humanity and civility; so upon the other hand, we may observe the holy hand of a righteous God, in this, giving them up, to an unmanning of themselves, & to a denying of that, which, in their outward carriage and gesture, might difference them, not only from the ruder and more clunish sort of mankind, but even from beasts, who have renounced all Christianity, and everything that looketh like serious Religion.
5, But as to the mater itself, we know, that honor is to be rendered to whom hon • ur is due, and fear to whom fear is due Rom. 13:7. that Elders are to be accounted worthy of double honor 1 Tim. 5:17. that we must honor all men 1 Pet. 2:17. and in honor prefer one another Rom. 12.10. We read that the virtuous woman's children arise up, and call her bl • ssed Prov. 31:28. We read that Sarah called Abraham, Lord 1 Pet. 3:6. It was given for a Law, that they should rise up before the h • ary head, and honor the face of the old man Levite 19:32. We read that even Solomon a King rose up to meet his mother, and bowed himself unto her 1 King. 2:19 the Angels called Sarah, Agars Mistress Gen. 16:9. the Disciples hath a Master, and the Servant a Lord Mat. 10:24. Paul said to the Gove • nour Festus, most noble Festus Act. 26:25. We read of some women styled honorable Act 13:50. & 17:12. John writeth to a Lady 2 John 1. Moses said to the two Hebrews that strove against other, Sirs Act. 7:26. one said to Elisha, Alas Master 2 King. 6:5. Paul & Barnabas said to such, as were ready to sacrifice to them, Sirs Act. 14:15. The jaylour said to Paul & Silas, Sirs Act. 16:30. So did Paul to the mariners Act. 2 • :10, 21, 25. Luk styled Theophilus, most excellent Luk. 1:3. Shecaniah called Ezra, my Lord Ezra. 10:3. Christ's sermon on the Mount teacheth us, not to salute our brethren only, as the Publicans did Mat. 5:47. We read that Abraham bowed to the children of Heth Gen. 23 7. Jacob's Sones to Joseph Gen. 43:26, 28. David bowed to Saul 1 Sam. 24:8. Mephibosheth to David 2 Sam • :8 So also Abigail 1 Sam. 25:23. Araunah 2 Sam. 24:20. and Nathan the Prophet 1 King. 1:23. the Shunamit fell down at the Prophets feet, and bowed herself to t • e ground. 2 King. 4:36. Abraham bowed to the three Angels, supposing them to be men, Gen. 18:2, 3. So did Lot Gen. 19:1, 2. Jacob bowed himself seven times before his brother Esau Gen 33: verse. 3. and styled himself Esau's servant verse. 5, 14. And Esau, Lord verse. 8, 13, 14, 15. Jacob's wives and his children also bowed verse. 6, 7. Joseph bowed to Jacob Gen. 48:12. Joab bowed to David 2 Sam. 14:22. and also Absalom verse. 33. How oft read we of that title, O King, used by good folks? Dan. 2:29, 31. & 3:17, 18. & 4:22, 27, 31. & 5:18. Act. 26:13, 19. and of, my Lord O King 1 Sam. 26:17. 2 Sam. 14:9.22: & 16:4. & 19:26. 1 King. 1:13, 20, 24. & 20:4. 2 King. 6: verse. 12, 26. & 8.5. Moses did obeisance to his Father in Law Exod. 18▪ 7. Bathsheba to David 1 King. 1:16. Mary saluted Elizabeth Luk 1:40. Paul the Church Act. 18:22. the brethren at Ptolemais Act. 21:7 James and the Elders at Jerusalem Act 21:21. Christ commanded the seventy disciples to salute the house they came to Mat. 10:12. How often doth Paul desire such as he wrote unto, to salute others in his name? See Rom. 16:5 12.13. Phil. 4:21. Heb. 13: verse 24. and how oft doth he mention others as saluting them? Heb. 13:24. Tit. 3:15. Phil. 2:3. 1 Cor. 16:9. 2 Cor. 13:13. Phil. 4:22: Rom. 16:16, 23. Col. 4:10, 12. So doth Peter 1 Pet. 5:13. and John 3 John. 14. Here is enough to show how groundless their rustic singularity is; and that there must be something else in this, then what they give out and pretend: I grant, it suiteth them well, who would have us renunce all Christianity, and turn Pagans, to drive us, at the next step, to outstripe Pagans in incivility: but we know Religion is no enemy to Civility; nor Christianity to Courtesie; and that we should think on such things as are Honest, or Venerable, Pure, Lovely, and of good report Phil. 4:8.
6. We shall now come and see what this man can say in defense of their practice. He beginneth to speak hereof Pag. 336. And first speaketh to the mater of titles, telling us, That they expressly affirm, that it is not lawful for Christians, either to give or receive such titles of honor, as, Your holiness, majesty, excellency, Eminency, &c. Answ. But what if all this were granted? All this might be granted, and yet their practice no way justified; for though some titles of honor were not to be approven (as what Protestant will allow of that given to the Pope?) Yet it could not be hence inferred, that no titles were to be given: there may be a mid way betwixt two extremes. And though no titles were to be given to any, to testify our respect to, and esteem for persons of eminency, whether as to Power and Authority, or as to gifts and partes; Yet this could make nothing for their blunt and rustic thou and thee. He addeth some Reasons, as. 1. These titles are no part of that obedience, which we owe to Magistrates; nor is anything thereby added to that subjection, which consisteth in obedience to their lawful commands. Answ. Though it be no part of obedience, to use titles; Yet it may be a part of that Honor and Respect, which is due unto them. And the fifth command says, honor thy Father and thy Mother ; and certainly it is no sign of honor to Magistrates and great Personages, to speak to them, no other ways then we would do to our footboyes, as the Quakers do. 2. Says he, We find not such titles in the Scripture, either under the Law, or under the Gospel; but when Princes, or Nobles, & Kings were spoke to, this simple compellation was used O King; or with the addition of the name of the Person, as, King Agrippa. Answ. (1.) We have seen other titles of honor and respect, above; as My Lord O King, and this our Quakers will not give to the highest; nor doth this man, in all his Epistle dedicatory to the King, prefixed to his Apology, say so much, as once, O King, or my Lord O King; only he giveth him thee and thou, as he would give his own servant. (2.) These compellations, according to the then custom▪ were the highest, and only given to Kings; and inferior Persons had their own peculiar titles; and as no man did then scruple to give high persons, titles or stiles, due to their places, according to the received custom of the time and place; why should these scruple now; and not only refuse to give them such titles, as are now usual; but refuse to give them any at all; or to put any difference betwixt them, and the poorest beggar, that sitteth on the dung hill? This evinceth, that though they pretend want of Scripture warrant; Yet there is some other thing, which is the real cause.
7. His. 3. Reason is, This layeth a necessity on Christians to lie, in giving the titles of Grace, and Eminency, &c. to such as have nothing worthy of these, or answering them. Answ. Under favor of his Thouship, he mistaketh the ground of these titles, supposing that they are given because of personal corresponding enduements; while as they are only given, because of that Place and Power, which they, in the providence of God, are in possession of: But neither can this pretext be a real ground of their practice; for they will not give any titles to their own brethren the Quakers, in whom they dar not deny, but Christ is, and liveth; Yea and the whole Trinity; which, when I think upon, I wonder they do not fall down and worship one another, seeing they acknowledge that Christ, and the Trinity, is in every Quaker; But I remember what was said to be done to I. Naylor at Bristol ; it may be, they shall do so to one another, ere long, and would have done so, ere now, if fear had not hindered it: And what meaneth their gazeing one upon another a considerable time, when they first meet? This would look like some sort of worship: If not, it is like the reason is, that (and thus can only their practice be reconciled with their principles) their God, and their Christ, and their Trinity, which they say is in every man, dormant; but living, (the light having gote room and enlargement) in the Quakers, is not the true and living God, but a God of their own making and imagination: and this I believe to be true. His 4. Reason toucheth the Pope and his clergy: And there we reject both place and title. His 5. Reason is against the Title of majesty given to Kings, which he saith is especially and peculiarly given to God, in the Scriptures, and not to men: But he is here also mistaken, for though it be spoken of God 1 Chron. 29:11. Yet verse. 25. (which his Concordance might have pointed him to) it is said, that the Lord magnified Solomon, exceedingly, in the fight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him royal majesty : And Psal. 21:5. (another of the places cited by him) it is not given to God, but by God to the King: And Psal. 29:4. (another of his citations) it is attributed to the thunder: What meaneth this man, thus to cite Scriptures at random, without once considering what he is doing? He addeth, that Proud Nebuchadnezzar took this title to himself, Dan. 4▪ 30. and was shortly therefore rebuked. Answ. Why did he not look also verse. 36. where excellent majesty was added unto him, after his restauration? And why did he not look to Dan. 5:18. where Daniel saith, that the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar a Kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honor ? And again verse. 19. & for the majesty that he gave him, &c? His Concordance could have helped him here, to have corrected his own mistake; but his light was asleep.
8. He addeth a 5. Reason Pag. 339. all these titles are to be rejected, because we are to seek the honor, which is from God, and not that which is from below. Answ. We are not pleading for ambitious seeking of honor from men, more then the praise of God; and upon this account the rejecting of Christ and the profession of his name, for fear of missing thereby the honor, applause and esteem of men: This is not it, we plead for; and this is it, which Christ condemned John. 5:44. & 12:43. But we are pleading for giving honor to whom honor is due. What he speaketh of arts and wiles used to obtain these honors, maketh nothing to the purpose; for this is not the ground of their practice; else they should give honor to some: For it is hard to say, that all use such indirect courses, as he seemeth to be acquainted with. What he saith of honoring the just and holy ones, is against himself; for they will not honor one another, at least not in a way, that we can understand: If they honor one another inwardly, without these outward significations; what know they but we do so to the poor, who are righteous and holy. If he think, that we should, according to our principles, give titles of honor to the poor, who are godly; He is mistaken; for our principles are not, that these outward titles are given to any, upon the account of their personal enduements; but because of their Station, Place and Authority: Yet we say, that honor is to be given to all, and due and competent significations of respect to the poorest, that fear God, upon the account of the grace of God shining in them.
9. He cometh next §. 4. Pag. 340. to speak against Complements: of which as I love not to be a practitioner, so I resolve to be no patron, or advocate: and all that I shall say is, that, as I wish, the sin in this practice were more considered and laid to heart, and this great evil amended; so I cannot approve the Quakers, in running to the other extreme; and, out of a pretence to shun vain and idle complements, becoming brutishly rustic and clunish: But here P. 341. he coineth an answer unto that of Luks calling Theophilus, M • st excellent ; and of Paul's calling Festus, most noble : saying, Seeing Luk wrote that, an infallible Spirit acting him, we must not doubt, but that Theophilus deserved it. Answ, I shall be loath to • oubt of it: but though we will not say, that this title was given to him by reason of his birth, or merits with the Emperor; nor yet will improve it to the confirmation of that, there being no necessity: Yet we have ground enough from hence to reprove their affected Morosity, who will not give this title; or any like it, to any flesh breathing; no not to one of themselves, of whom they have the most singular opinion, upon the best account. Seeth he not now, what can hence be deduced against him? But what says he to Paul's practice? Festus, says he, was also truly noble, in that he would hear Paul in his own cause, and gave not way to the Jew, fury against him. Answer, It was but a poor evidence of true nobility in him to hear Paul speak for himself, when the Laws of the Romans bound him to it. And as to the Jews fury, he gave as much way to it, as he might. Why did he else contstrain Paul to appeal unto Caesar, which if he had not done, he might have been a free man, in the judgment of King Agrippa Act. 26.32? what else importeth these words of Paul. Act. 25:11.— but if there be none of these things, whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them; (that is, the Jews) I appeal unto Caesar. But once more, I wonder where was his true nobility, when he said Act. 26:24. and that with a loud voice, that all present might have heard him; Paul, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad ? This I am sure was a very sory evidence of true nobility: and yet upon the very back of that, Paul said, I am not mad, most noble Festus. Sure then this title was not given him upon the account of true nobility, as this Quaker supposeth; but upon the account of his Place and Authority, it being the title, that was ordinarily given to Felix, his predecessor; though we read not, in express terms, that Paul used i • , yet it was used by others.
10. At length §. 3. he cometh to speak in the defense of their Thees & Thous ; and very learnedly tells us, that we cannot use the plural number for the singular, in latin, every school boy knowing, that it is incongruous to say, vos Amas. Answ Yet every school boy knoweth, it is not incongruous to say, vos amatis : And why may not the Verb be as well plural, as the Pronoun? If he say, that is not usual, when we are speaking of or to another single person: What will he say to this use, when we are speaking of ourselves? He hath not forgotten the old rule, At de me solo numerus dicetur uter vis. But be it so, that the latin will no way suffer this, other languages may; as for example, the Low dutch, where through the whole Bible, we shall not find any other word, for thee and thou, then what signifieth properly ye and you. And what rule or ground, can he find in latin, for their constant using yea and nay, and never yes, and no ? But let it be supposed, that few languages will countenance such an abuse, as to say ye and you, to one single man: What will that help the mater? must all languages follow the same rules? knoweth he not, that use is the master of language? and that in our language, thee and thou, is never used, when one equal is speaking to another (except where it is the expression of most intimate friendshipe and affection, as betwixt man and wife) far less, when one is speaking to his Superior? & knoweth he not, that in our usual manner of speaking, if we should say thou & thee to our equal, let be to our Superior, it would either be construed to flow from the hieght of Pride and Contempt, or from Rage and Anger? And is it handsome for them to speak so disdainfully to all persons; and pretend conscience for it too? What a ridiculous whimsical folly is this? What he citeth out of James Howel, and John Maresius, confuteth what he said just now; for they tell us, that even in latin, Vos, you, was used of one person; and though they say this change came through pride and flatery, it will say nothing, unless he can show the like in our language; and though he should show it, yet use being, as I said, master of words, his pedantic singularity will but savoure of Vanity and Pride: and for what he citeth out of Mr Godeau it is to no purpose, for he knows, that whatever we do, while speaking to others, yet we use the singular number, while speaking to God, which may convince him, that language is not always ruled by reason, but by use and custom. He tells us, They were necessitate to testify against this, by speaking in the singular number to singular persons; because to speak other ways, came from pride; and so is joined with a lie. Answ. How proveth he, that it came from pride, with us? Because it was so with the Latin? the consequence is not good (2.) Is everything that cometh from pride joined with a lie? (3.) Our Quakers will be both proud, and speak despicably of others, (as thou and thee evinceth) that they may testify against pride: I appeal to any, that knoweth our language, whether it savoreth more of pride and worse, to use thou and thee to our & equals superiors, then to use you and ye. But I will not impute it to pride, in the Quakers, supposing that it cometh from a more stinking root, than either pride, or contempt, though these may some time be admixed too; hence the Proverb, as proud as a Quaker.
11. Then he cometh to speak of salutations Pag. 343. §. 6. for they will salute no man; nor uncover their head, not only to their Equals, but neither will they do it unto their Superiors; nor give the least sign of respect, of honor, or of reverence, in their gesture and carriage, unto any whatsoever. And he saith, he cannot see what we can say in defense of our practice. But we have shown above, what is our ground: and we have seen the same practiced by other worthy persons, mentioned in Scripture. But to this he replieth, That these actions of the Patriarchs are no rule to us; nor is it sufficient, that these actions were not expressly reproved, for neither was Abraham reproved, for knowing Sarah's maid. Answ. Abraham's practice, in the mater of Hagar, was against a law; for the Lord created but one woman to Adam, though the residue of the Spirit was with him Mal. 2:14, 15. But Abraham's practice in civilly bowing unto the sons of Heth, was against no Law of the creation. (2.) When he and Lot both bowed unto the Angels, supposeing them to have been men, shall we think, that if that had been sinful, that the Angels would not have reproved them upon that account, as we find the Angel did reprove John, when he fell down and worshiped him, Revel. 19:10. & 22:9? As concerning, saith he, the fashions and customs of the Nations, it is an evil argument for the practice of Christians, who should follow a better rule. Answ. And so we do follow a better rule; and yet we may follow the Law of nations, which is mostly gathered from the practice of nations, in things not contrary to the Law of God; for even the Law of nations, in such things, is a part of the Law of God, being but some particular applications, or explications of the Law of Nature: And though no particular gesture, as a sign of respect and reverence, due to our Equals or Superiors, be universally received by all Nations, yet the Law of Nations, and their practice, may teach us, that by someone outward gesture or other, we ought to witness our respect, & declare that reverence, that we owe to others: Christianity is no enemy to humanity, and civility, whatever our morose and unmanerly Quakers dream.
12. But let us hear his arguments. 1. Says he, God alone is to be adored: But bowing of the body and knee and uncovering our head, are the only external signs of our adoration of God, 1 Cor. 11. Answ. What a silly thing is this? He may as well infer, that a man must never bow his body to tie his shoes, nor uncover his head to have his hair cut; Can he not distinguish betwixt a stated act of worship, and other actions civil and natural? It is true, in a stated act of worship, the uncovering the head, or bowing of the body, were it but to a stock or stone, or any dead creature, or anything beside God, would be Idolatry; but to construe so of every bowing of the knee, or uncovering of the head, in every other action whatsoever, is ridiculous folly: And it seemeth, these Quakers put no difference betwixt God and men; nor betwixt stated acts of worship, and other common actions. But he addeth, If we should apply ourselves to men, as to God, there should be no difference, in the outward signification, but only in the Intention, whereby a door is opened unto the Papists worshiping of images. Answ. He seeth, we put the difference, in the nature and statedness of the action; and not in the bare intention; though that also be included in the nature of the action: And what door this openeth unto image-worship, he should have declared. He possibly thinketh, that it is our judgment, that if the worshiper do not intend to worship the image, it is no image-worship; This is his mistake: If the worshiper intend divine worship to God, in bowing before an idol, we account him guilty of image-worship; for his intention there declareth the action to be a stated act of worship; but we say not so of a craftsman bowing down to help or amend something in the image, for his intention showeth, that he is about no act of worship; • or doth the nature of that action require it: If he could evince, that while we bow our bodies or uncover our heads unto men, that we are intending thereby worship to God, his argument were good; but while there is no such intention, nor doth the action itself require it, being a stated civil action, and no more, his argument evinceth but his own Folly and Ignorance.
13. His second argument is but the same; to wit, that men should not be adored : Which we willingly grant; for in adoration, there is a r • cognition & acknowledgment of the Absolute Power and Sovereignty of the person, whom we adore; and therefore this is due to God only: But civil honor, and reverence is another thing, being but an acknowledgment of excellency in men because of their place, and a testification of our respect towards them; and can import no • ishonour unto God. He adduceth next the fact of Cornelius Act. 10. and of John Revel. 19. & 22. But to no purpose; for Cornelius fell down to worship Peter verse. 25. And so did John to the Angel Revel. 19:10. & 22:8. We plead not for worshiping of men; for worship is due to God only, because of his Supereminent and Transcendent Excellency; and requireth inward Love Faith and Hope, in & upon the object worshiped. He should prove, that these external significations of honor and respect, cannot be without, or do essentially include, worship performed towards the Object; but this is impossible; for then if one bow his body to tie his shoes, or to lift up a pin, he shall be a worshiper of his shoes, and of a pin. He addeth, If it be said, that John would adore the Angel with religious worship, it is not proved. Answ. Is it not proved, when the text saith, he fell down to worship ? where find we civil honor or respect called worship, in Scripture? He tells us next, that such as blame them, would also blame Mordecai. Answ. But hereby we see, that the Quakers think no other ways of all men, than Mordecai did of Haman, who was an Agagite, come of Agag, the King of the Amalekites, who were devoted to destruction by the Lord Exod. 17:14. Deut. 25:19. 1 Sam. 15:3. Again, thinks he that it was mere civil honor and respect▪ that conscientious Mordecai refused to give to that wreatch? We are told, that the Persian Monarchs did arrogate to themselves divine honor, and h • nur of this kind would that foolish Monarch have all his Subjects to perform unto Haman ; for he set him above all the Princes, and gave a special commandment for bowing and reverenceing him, which had not been necessary, if it had be no other but that civil honor, which was paid to the other Princes. And suppose it had been but only civil honor; Yet Mordecai's case was singular, because he was a Jew, and the Jews were under a prohibition to do any homage unto these cursed Amalekites ; and this, as it appeareth, was the ground of his refusal; for it is said Esth. 3:4.— for he had told them, that he was a Jew ; thereby holding forth the ground and reason of his refusal to obey the Kings command. One thing I would ask, what he thinketh of that honor & worship, that was given to James Naylor, as he rode into Bristol. Oct. 24.1656? We are not pleading for the like of that to any man breathing: But I see Quakers will give divine worship to one another, though they will not allow to any others so much as civil honor.
14. This is all, that he saith to defend their rude practice: And I judge, as he saith, that it floweth not from their rustic breeding, for they have been other ways educated; but from a more corrupt spring: And though he is pleased to call it Conscience; and that therefore they would rather choose to die, than do other ways; we look upon it as a small evidence of tenderness of conscience in them, even suppose it were a thing not lawful and warranted, seeing they make so little bones of greater maters: We know, what Christ said Mat. 23:23. Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint, & anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier maters of the Law, judgment, mercy & faith. We may know also, what power a deluded conscience may have, even in small matters. But I am apt to think, there is some other thing, that lieth here at the bottom, when I consider what wide consciences these men have; and how directly and avowedly, they set themselves to cry down all Religion, and to cashier all Christianity; and in a word, to bring us back to Paganism, let them pretend what they will. God may discover this in due time.
CHAP. XXXII. A View of the Conclusion.
1. HAving thus examined all the Principles of the Quakers ; (if this Man hath given us a full sheme of their opinions) and though it be the fullest, that any of them have yet given, so far as I know? Yet there may be something latent, which is to come out in due time. And having considered all, that he hath said, in his large Apology, for their defense; I thought good not to let his conclusion pass without some due examination. Thus then he beginneth to bespeak his Candide Reader. If in the fear of God thou consider this System of Religion, delivered in these papers, together with its consistency and harmony, either as it standeth in itself, or with the holy Scripture of truth; I doubt not but thou wilt say, with me & many others, that this is the spiritual day of the manifestation of Christ, in which he revealeth again his ancient paths of truth and justice. Answ. We have here a System, I confess, not of Religion, but of Pure Paganism; And a more complete System of abomination, and contradiction to the truth of God, revealed in the holy Scriptures, I doubt was ever brought forth by any Instrument, that ever Satan employed to darken the truth of God. And whatever consistence may be in it, (though we have found also some inconsistencies) unto itself; Yet I am sure, there is nothing in the whole, and in every part thereof, but manifest and palpable inconsistency with, and opposition to the Scriptures of truth. And that this is so far, as to them, from being a spiritual day of the manifestation of Christ, that it is a day of the dreadfulest delusion of Satan, and of darkness, caused by the Prince of darkness, that ever was heard of in the Christian world, there being nothing, but a new broaching of all (few excepted) the old Pathes of error, heresy, and abomination: for verification of which, I shall only refer the Reader, in whom is the least grain of the true fear of God 〈◊〉 , and faith to the Revelation of the mind of God, in the Scriptures, to what is said above.
2. He goeth on and tells us, that here his Reader may observe Christian Religion exhibited and vindicated, in all its parts, in so far, as it is lively, inward, spiritual, pure and substantial, and not a mere form, shadow, notion and opinion, as many hitherto have held, whose fruits declare, that they wanted the inward power of that, whereof they bore the name, who yet adhere so to their forms and shadows, that they cease not to calumniat us, as if because we comm • nd unto them the substance, & call them thereunto, we did deny or neglect the true form and outward part of Christianity, which God the searcher of hearts knoweth to be a horride lie. Answ. The wise King, or rather the Spirit of God by him Prov. 18:17. telleth us, that he that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his nieghbour cometh and searcheth him. If this cause be referred to this Quakers decision, we know what will be the sentence; but light discovereth darkness. And if any Reader, be he who he will, who knoweth, what true Christian Religion meaneth, shall find the same, in the Quakers doctrine, and in this man's defense thereof, I am deceived: Nay, if he shall not find more direct, plain, down-right opposition and contradiction to the whole of true Christian Religion, in their tenets, thus explained and maintained, than in the writings of the most notorious, and branded heretics, that ever had a being, since Christianity was heard of, I am far mistaken: Nay, I am sure, he shall find nothing, but an hotch-potch and mixture of almost all Errors, Heresies, damnable Opinions, and Heterodoxies, that have troubled the Church of Christ from the beginning, together with something, that smelleth more of Devilrie, than of humanity, let be of Religion; I mean not here, their pedantry, and silly unmanlike, & rustic carriage; but what is by this man expressed, concerning their more solemn worship, beside their quaking, shivering, or foaming, like persons possessed of the Devil, or under the bodily distemper of an Epilepsy. It is true, they talk of something Lively, Inward, Spiritual, Pure and Substantial; but when we have searched after it, following this man's thread of explication, we have found it nothing but a light within every man, and in many things agreeing with the light which is in Devils, and yet this is their all; their God; their Father; Son and holy Ghost; their Christ; their Grace; their Spirit; their Scripture; their Supreme Leader, Rule, Teacher and judge; their Jesus, the only Savior; their Gospel; their only way to the Father; their Justification; their Sanctification; their Adoption, their Perfection, their Supreme Caler; the God which they consult and worship: the Word in the beginning, that made all things; and what not? And truly this being their all, no wonder they be enemies to all outward Ordinances, and account these mere shadows, notions and forms. They talk of fruits, and we shall willingly confess, to our shame, that our carriage is not so Christian, as it ought to be: but what their carriage is else, then may be among Pagans, we are yet to learn. He saith, we calumniate them, when we say, they are against all the ordinances of Christ (for what he meaneth else, by the true form and outward part of Christianity, I know not) and I would fain know, what ordinance of Christ it is, which they own? Have we not heard enough of him against the Ministry, Preaching, Prayer, Singing, Baptism the Lord's Supper, &c? And hear we not what others say? Parnel in his Shield of truth Pag. 17. said (as it is cited by Mr Faldo (whose Book is but lately come to my hand) 2 Part. Pag. 11. of his book) And here is the difference of the Ministers of the world, and the Ministers of Christ—the one of the letter, the other of the Spirit—for they are mere deceivers and witches, bewitch people from the truth, holding forth the shadow for the substance. As for the Church, so speaketh Isaac Pennington, in his Questions P. 49. Q. What is the fold of the sheep? Answ. The wisdom life and power of the Father, even the same that is the shepherd. Obj. Is not the Church the fold ? A. This in the Church, or the Church in this, is the fold, but not out of this. As for prayer or thanksgiving at meat, hear James Naylor, Love to the lost P. 57. But where the pure is not (viz. the light) all things are defiled, when they are not sanctified by the word and prayer, and therefore are to be received in fear, and therein remembering his death till he come, (and so this is all their Lord's Supper too) who is the word and Prayer. And Pag. 13. He casts all Prayer, that is not by immediate inspiration, saying, But as every creature is moved by the Spirit of the living God, who is that Spirit, who will be served with his own alone, not with anything in man, which is come in since the fall; so the imaginations, thinkings and conceivings are shut out. And Smith Cat. P. 100. So must all come to the S • irit of God, by the Spirit to be ordered, and cease from their own words; and from their own time, and learn to be silent till the Spirit give them utterance. And P. 107. So the same wisdom may deny the prescribed way, as being formal, and may invent something instead of it, in a higher mystery of iniquity; and though they may not speak in such formal words composed yet in the same wisdom their words are formal, they can set their own time to begin and end and when they will, they can utter words; & when they will they can be silent and this is the unclean part, which offereth to God, which he doth not accept. Found we not his Mans doctrine ab • ve consonant hereunto? As for Baptism Parnel Pag. 11. else us. They own the Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, with the holy Ghost, and with fire; but they deny all other. And P. 12. and now I see the other (that is water Baptism as they ordinarily call it out of scorn) to be formal imitation▪ and the invention • f Man, and so a mere delusion. Smith Prim. P. 39. and Higgins warning P. 5 say we have this, and the Lord's Supper both from the Pope Nay, James Naylor, Love to the lost P. 52. giveth us one word for all; for this I say (saith he) that the Father hath given his Son for a leader and guide to all ages, and into, and out of all forms at his will. and in his way and time, in every generation. And therefore it is, that all who know his will herein, cannot endure that any visible thing should be set up to limit his leadings in Spirit. And C Atkinson said, I deny that God did ever. or will ever reveal himself by any of these things, thou callest the means of grace. And G. Fox in his Gr • at Mystery P. 16. And we say, he, (Christ) hath triumphed over Ordinances, and blotted them out, and they are not to be touched; and the saints have Christ in them, who is the end of outward forms, and thou art deceived, who thinks to find the living among the dead. And after all this, and much more of the like kind, we must be accounted slanderers, for saying that they deny the external part of Christianity? Nay not only so, but we must be horride liars; and the searcher of hearts must be attested hereunto This is but an inconsiderable thing with them, who account all, that our Preachers say from the word of the Lord, nothing but lies, and satanical delusions, because it is not from the immediate teaching of the Spirit, and them but Professors of the Devil, upon this account: See Fox's Great Mystery P. 5. and 62.
3. Yet more, Hence is it (saith he,) that because we exhort people to return and feel God within themselves, saying unto them, that if they feel not God near them, the notions, which they have of God as he is in the heaven, above the clouds, will not much profit them; they maliciously endeavor to infer, that we say, that God doth not exist without us. Answ. Thinks he, that we have no other Notion of God, but as of one, that is up in the heavens above the clouds? Supposeth he, that we deny him to be everywhere present? But if they believe, there is a God in deed and in truth, why talk they so much of a measure of God, in every man? Is the true God such a devisible thing? Why do they make the soul of man a part or particle of God? What mean they by the Vehicle of God? Do these and the like expressions smell of orthodoxy in this matter? The true God that is revealed to us, in the Scriptures, is a God, that is one in essence, and three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost: do they believe this? Furthermore if they believe really a God without them, why do they ascribe to something within them, that which is peculiar unto God? Doth not the morning Watch Pag. 5.6, 7. assert the light within every man, to be that word, which John speaks of John 1:1? See Fox the younger P. 50, 53, 54. Is that a savoury expression, which E. B True faith, hath, when he saith, every man hath that which is one in union, and like the Spirit of Christ, even as good as the Spirit of Christ, according to its measure. Was that orthodox, which Ed. Burroughs said, the morning before he died (see F. H. Testimony) Now my soul and Spirit is centred in its own being with God, and this form of person must return from whence it was taken. Another, hath these expressions (See Mr Faldo, as above P. 124.) Again thou makes a great pudder, that any one should witness, he is equal with God. Answ. A Catechism of the Assembly of the Priests—in which they have laid down—that the holy Ghost, and Son is equal in power & glory with the Father; yet if any come but to witness the Son revealed in him, or come to witness the holy Ghost in them, as they gave out the Scriptures, or witness the mind of Christ, and witness that equal with the Father, they cry out, horrid blasphemy. Hear what another saith, Now consider what a condition these called Ministers are in They say, that which is a Spiritual Substance is not infinite in itself, but a creature; that which came out from the Creator, and is in the hand of the Creator, which brings it up, and to the Creator again, that is infinite in itself, which the hand goes against him, that does evil, in which hand the soul, which is immortal and infinite, which hand is infinite, which brings it up to God is infinite. Though little good sense can be made of this, yet blasphemy enough is legible therein. And G. Fox saith, Is not the soul without beginning, come from God? It is not horride blasphemy to say, the soul is a part of God, for it came out of him, and that which came out of him is of him. Fisher, in his Velata quaedam revelata Pag. 13, calleth that, whereby man became a living soul, and a soul, that did partake something of God's own life, a living principle of the divine nature. And P. 17. He calleth the Spirit of man, the immortal and incorruptible seed of God, even something of the living word, which is said to be made flesh. Pennington Q. 27. calleth that which is in the saints, that which the Lord from heaven begetteth of his own image and likeness, of his own NB.) substance, of his own Spirit and pure life Decla • : against Popery, queree 2. Whether do you wait and believe—to have the same mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who thought it no robbery to be equal with God—yet he was no Pharisee, though of the Pharisees judged a blasphemer, and as be is so are we ▪ Is not this plain enough?
4. Hence also is it (says he further) that because we say, that the inward light and Law, and not the outward letter is that, which can truly discover to them their state, and bring them out of all evil; they say, that we vilify the Scriptures, and honor our own imaginations, more then them. Answ. We would rather say, upon this account, that they vilify the Spirit of God, then the Scriptures; for hereby these expressions, it is manifest, that they ascribe that unto the light within, which only the Spirit of God, and of Christ can do, viz. truly and effectually, (which may be imported by his revera ) discover the state of a sinner to him, and bring him out of all evil. This last we do not ascribe unto the Scriptures. But as to their vilifying of the Scriptures, we have heard enough above from this man's own mouth, and some others, whose words we cited. Mr Faldo in his book against the Quakers, part. 1. Ch. 3-12. helpeth me to much more. Let us cull out of a great heap a few instances. (1.) Do not all the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the word of God ? Do they not say, that it is blasphemy to say the letter is the word of God, and it is the Devil that contends for the Scriptures to be the word of God? And what can more be spoken to the disparagement of the Scriptures, than to deny them to be his word or the signification of his mind, who spoke them; and did indite them by his Spirit, immediately inspiring the Prophets and Apostles, and other holy men of God, in the writing of them? Is not this directly to devest them of all that Authority, which they have from God▪ as his Law? Is not this to render them contemptible, when they are denied to be that, which only maketh them have weight with consciences? (2.) Do not the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be the rule of faith and manners; and the judge of Controversies, in the maters of Religion? We remember what himself aid above. Hear Parnel, in his shield of the truth p. 10. And he also that saith, the letter is the rule and guide of the people of God, is without, feeding upon the husk, and is ignorant of the true light, which was before the letter was. Hear Smith Prim. p. 10 And if thou lookest upon the Scripture to be for a rule and for trying, thou givest that unto them, which belongs unto Christ. And is not this enough to disparage the Scriptures, to deny that chief use and end of them, for which they were given? If any should say of the Laws of any Land, and of the acts of Parliament, that they are not a rule to the Subjects, would not that be accounted a disparagement done to the Laws? Were not the Scripture • s given as a revelation of the mind of God, concerning our faith▪ and concerning our walk? How can any th • n d • ny these ends, and not disparage and vilify the Scriptures? (3) Do not the Quakers speak more highly of their own writings, than they do of the Scriptures? The Scrip • ures with them, are but the letter, which killeth; Paper, ink and writing; the old and dead letter; Part of it words of the Devil, and of wicked men▪ Precepts and traditions of men; they have no light in them; they sheir not our faces; an earthly root, a shadow; and dangerous to feed on, &c. But their o • n writings, are the voice of the Son of God, by which the dead are raised; a shield of the truth; spoken in the freshness and quick sense of life; written from the Lord; a Spiritual glass opened; light rise out of darkness: and by revelation of Jesus Christ; and by the Spirit of the living God. See for this Mr Faldo ubi supra pa • . 40. &c. Can men devise a way more effectual to effronte the Scriptures? 4) Do they not prefer the light within them un • o the Scriptures▪ See Smith • s Catech, p. 2. Q. doth God manifest himself within Man? Answ. Yes, and man cannot know him by any other way, but by the manifestation of himself in his light within him. See the Scorned Quakers account p. 20. Christ by his light within shows you in a g • ass your own faces, which the Scriptures cannot do. Parnel p. 10. And by the same light do we discern, and testify against him, to be in darkness and blindness, and is a deceiver, who putteth the letter for the light; and so draweth people's minds from the light within them, to the light without them, seeking the living among the dead. John Story, in his short discovery. p. 2. saith, and although the holy Scripture without, and the Saints practices are lights in the world; Yet far be it from all true Christian men so to idolize them, as to set them in esteem above the light, which is sufficient to guide, or to esteem them equal with the light and Spirit of Christ within. And Smith. Prim. p. 12. tells, us, that Christ the light within alone searches the heart, & not the Scriptures. Martin Mason in his loving invitation. p. 4. 'It is not your flying to the Scriptures, that can save you from the fire of his wrath,—nor overcome the least corruption for you; no verily, nothing then but a Christ within you—come thou then, O come with boldness to God's faithful witness within you. Fisher where above p. 7. saith, such were the Scribes, who were ever scraping in the Scriptures to find God and his life; Yet never knew him at any time, nor saw his shape, because they heard not his voice, nor heeded not his word within themselves. Are not these sufficient to evidence to all the world, how the Quakers vilify the Scriptures of truth? (5.) Do they not dissuade all, in their writings, (as the cited passages evidence) from reading or studying the Scriptures, or from expecting any light or comfort from them? Though Christ in express terms commanded to search the Scriptures. Yet they persuade to the contrary: And is not this a clear proof of their undervalueing of the Scriptures? (6.) Whereunto else tendeth that expression of Fisher's in his Velata quaedam revelato p. 4. Ye have Moses & the Prophets within you, but to disparage and vilify the Scriptures? See also Parnel p. 11. For the Scripture is within, and was read within, before it was read without ? (7.) Is it not a manifest vilifying of Scripture, to say that there is no light in it: Yet so faith, The lip of truth opened p. 7. That light is in the Scriptures, prove that or tell me, what one Scripture hath light in it ? (8.) Do not they say, that wha • is held forth in the Scriptures, is not bindeing to us? Naylor, love to the lost p. 16. for all the Saints have their commands in the Spirit; but yours is in the letter: and so another ministration. We have mentioned more above Chap. IV. to this purpose: and is not this sufficient to declare the Scriptures null in their esteem? (9.) What else doth that of John Story in his discovery savor of? And I. A. further saith, let light without be guide to light within. Reply, if by this exhortation I. A. means that light without should try true light within, which shines in the hearts of the Saints; then I must needs say, it is a very absurd and foolish exhortation: and being spoken upon a divine account, it is full of idolatry and evil. (10.) Do not the fore cited passages fully clear, that in the Quakers judgment, we can • ot come, by the Scriptures, to the knowledge of God, or of Christ, or of ourselves? And is not that sufficient to disparage the Scriptures? (11.) Wh • n Christ himself made use of the Scriptures to repel the temptations of Satan Mat. 4. Can we think the Quakers ha • e any high esteem for the Scriptures, who declare them utterly useless, as to this, as Martin Mason doth in his Loving Invitation. p. 11? (12.) Can they value the Scriptures aright, who desire the Lord, that he would stripe us of all our knowledge of the Scripture, and say, that they only make us wise to oppose truth, and so bring us into a state of condemnation, wrath and misery, beyond the heathen? See Pennington's quaest. p. 12. See also W. Pen's Spirit of truth p. 23. (13.) Do they not undervalue the Scriptures, who still set them in opposition to the Spirit? And is not this the common language of the Quakers ? (14) If the Quakers have an high opinion of the Scriptures, what meaneth all these expressions, in the Morning watch Pap. 22.23. of them, and of the doctrines received from them, viz Traditions of men, earthly root, darkness and confusion, Nebuchadnezzar's image, Putrefaction and corruption, rotten and deceitful, all out of the li • e and power of God, Apostasy, the whores cup, the mark of the Beast, Babylon the Mother of harlots▪ Bastards brought forth of flesh and • lood, the birth that persecutes the son and heir, Babylon's brats and children, graven images, &c. These sure, are no expressions of great estimation. (15.) What shall we think of what the same Author saith p. 45. So amongst the words you find, how the Saints in some things walked, and what they practiced, and then you strive to make something to yourselves, and to observe it, and do it, as near as yo • can; and here you are found transgressors of the Law of God, who saith, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything: Now what difference is there in the ground betwixt you and the Pope ? Hath this man the same esteem of the Scriptures, that Paul had, when he said Rom. 15:4. For whatsoever things were w • itten afore time, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope? (16.) Do we not all know, how reproachfully the Papists speak of the Scriptures? And do not Quakers and they go one way here? Let any look Mr Faldo's parallel, in the end of Chap. 12. of his book Pag. 131. &c. and judge. If this be not enough to discover what enemies to, and undervaluers of the Scriptures the Quakers are, I know not if we can get anymore out of hell. See what is said above Chap. IV. §. 2. & 4. & 12.
5. What saith he more? H • nce moreover, because we say, that their clatterings, and outward faith of an external life, passion and death of Christ, will no more justify them in the sight of God, then the Jews crying the Temple of the Lord, &c. but that they must acknowledge a Christ within themselves, whom they have crucified, to be risen and justifying and redeeming them from all iniquity; they say, we deny the li • e, suffering and death of Christ, and justification by his blood, and remission of sins through him. Answ. What meaneth he by that ill favored word, clatterings, garritiunculae? It hath no sound in lat • ne, and no good sound in Eng • ish, in this mater. And what meaneth he by an external faith? And what mean • h he by an external faith of an external life and death of Christ? These expressions are very quakerish, that is, unsavory salt of non-sense. But when he layeth all the weight of justification and redemption, on a thing, which they call Christ within every man, formerly crucified, but now risen; is not that as much as if they denied all that Christ did for our Redemption, and Justification an Pardon, through his righteousness and blood? What this man hath said of these things, we have seen and examined; and because he would fame wipe off this Aspersion from his fraternity, let us see what they say in this mater: Mr Faldo will help us to some others, then we have seen and mentioned formerly. (1.) What meaneth that expression of Ed • Burrughs, Tru • pe • &c. • . 17. All that are called Presbyterians and Independents, with their seeding upon the report of a thing dead many hundred years ago. And that of Farnworth, what righteousness Christ performed without me was not my justification, neither was I saved by it. Is not this a plain denial of justification through C • rist and h • s righteousness? Pennington quaestions p. 2 • . is clear enough. Can (saith he) outward blood clause the conscience? Can outward water wash the soul clean? Parnel's Shield of truth p. 30. And this we witness, who through the Lamb our Savior do reign above the world, death, hell and the Devil: But none can witness this, whose eye is outward▪ looking at a Redeemer a far off. Morning watch p. 21. And conclude to themselves a belief in Christ, and apply his promises, what he did for them in the body, that suffered without the gates of Jerusalem; and by his death and offering all things is accomplished for them, and no sin shall be imputed to them though they live in it (that is, are not Quakers▪) and through his Mediation and Intercession for them, as • e is at the right hand of God at a distance from them▪ they bele • ve▪ that they have access to God, and are accepted of him, and yet they neither know God, nor Christ, nor the place, where they sa • he sits at the right hand of God; and being in their mind persuaded that Christ hath satisfied, and hath reconciled them to God, though they be yet in their sins (that is, not, Quakers. ) This evidenceth what account they make of a Christ without, and of his Righteousness. (2. What doth their common taking of a Spiritual body & blood, which Christ had, & which came down from heaven, mean? Do they mean by the blood of Christ, the blood that came from that man, that died a