A SOBER ANSWER To an angry EPISTLE, Directed to all the publick Teachers in this Nation, and prefixed to a Book, called (By an ANTIPHRASIS) Chriſts Innocency pleaded againſt the Cry of the Chief Prieſts. Written in haſt By THOMAS SPEED, once a publick Teacher himſelf, and ſince revolted from that Calling to Merchandize, and of late grown a Merchant of Soules, trading ſubtilly for the QUAKERS in Briſtoll. WHEREIN The Jeſuiticall Equivocations and ſubtle Inſinuations, whereby he endeavours ſecretly to infuſe the whole Venome of Quaking Doctrines, into undiſcerning Readers, are diſcovered; a Catalogue of the true and genuine Doctrines of the Quakers is preſented, and certaine Queſtions depending between us and them, candidly diſputed, By Chriſtopher Fowler & Simon Ford, Miniſters of the Goſpel in Reding,
LONDON, Printed for Samuel Gellibrand, at the Ball in Pauls Church Yard, 1656.
THe Author of the Paper we herein deale withall, having by his Apoſtacy to the damnable Doctrines of the Quakers, and written Apologie for them in the ſaid Paper, endangered divers of our Towne, and the parts adjacent, where he was formerly in ſome eſteem; and withall in the ſame Paper, formed into the modell of an Epiſtle directed to them, inſolently challenged all the Publick Teachers of this Nation; and particularly us, who now appeare againſt him, by ſending two of the Pamphlets to us by name; we dared not betray the Truth and Glory of our Lord Jeſus, nor the precious Soules of the People, by neglecting to publiſh a timely Antidote againſt the Poyſon of ſuch a ſubtill and inſinuating peice, as your Honour, if you will vouch-ſafe to look on it, and compare it with this Anſwer, will eaſily diſcerne it to be. We perceive the deſigne of the Author, is by falſe ſuggeſtions to reproach the Miniſtry, and by Jeſuiticall Equivocation, to ſweeten the Doctrines of the Quakers to the Publick Magiſtrates. And upon that account, we thought it meete to preſent this our neceſſary vindication of that, and diſcovery of theſe, to ſome Perſon in Authority, of Honour and Conſcience; that under ſuch a ſhelter, we might gaine it a more facile admiſſion to others, of thoſe unto whom we are neceſſitated to appeale. And becauſe we can aſſuredly ſuite that Character to your ſelf; and withall are perſwaded, that by reaſon of your equability of carriage to diſſenters in late times, our Adverſary himſelf cannot reaſonably quarrell at us, for our choyce of a Patron; and laſtly becauſe we have both of us in ſome meaſure (but one of us more largely, by divers years experience) known you a cardial friend to a Godly Miniſtry, and the Doctrine which is according to Godlyneſſe; we therefore humbly put it into your Honours hands. Sir, as to the Cauſe we maintaine, we need not any Creatures Patronage, nor dare we ſubmit it to any Creatures Umpirage; for we are aſſured it (mainly) concernes ſuch foundations of Religion, as deeply ingage the honour of our Lord Jeſus, and therefore we are aſſured, he will not ſuffer them to be moved; and ſuch as will ſtand, when all Perſons and Doctrines ſhall be judged finally, and everlaſtingly according to the purport of them. But as to our candour and integrity in the managery thereof, and the proportion of ſatisfaction which we give therein, we are contented to ſtand to your Arbitration, wherein however we may fare, yet it ſhall ſuffice us, that our Conſciences tell us, that we have done our endeavour to defend the Truth, and that with meekneſſe and moderation, beyond our Antagoniſts deſerts, or the merits of his cauſe; and our experience tells us, that you will not diſdain to accept from us this ſmall Teſtimony, that we are very much,
NOT many daies ſince, we received each of us a Book as from you, by the hands of a Friend of yours, living in this Town, Intituled Chriſts Innocency pleaded, &c. which although it be particularly directed to a Godly and able Miniſter of the Neighbourhood, yet it ſeems you thought fit to diſperſe it into theſe parts, as well as over the reſt of the Nation, in Print, to confirm thoſe that are already gained to your belief, and reduce others either to an entertainment2 of, or moderation to, the principles thereof. And we muſt confeſſe, that you have acted the laſt part of this deſigne with a great deale of Artifice, not without (as we conceive) a concurrent aime of your own, to ſhew how much credit your wit could give to an evill cauſe, and how (if not amiable, yet) tolerable, you could render an ugly face, by a decent dreſſe.
For our parts, we are ſorry you can find no better exerciſe for your parts, then the maintaining of abſurd Paradoxes in Civility, and blaſphemous Hereſies in Religion; for ſo we dare call the Doctrines you undertake to ſhelter under the wing of your Patronage; and make no queſtion but that Judge, who, we are aſſured, will one day make that written Law, which you refuſe to own as the rule of your lives, the ground of his proceedings upon you, and all others that live within the ſound of it, after death, will then call them ſo too, when all the rhetoricall vailes you put upon them, will be pulled off, and you be found, except you repent, one of thoſe that dawbe a rotten Sepulcher with untempered Morter, and cover Violence with aMal. 2. 16. Garment of ſubtle and Jeſuiticall equivocation.
And indeed, that which makes us the more compaſſionate towards your ſelf in this ſad deluſion you are under, is the repute which you have had (till of late daies) for ſoundneſſe and Orthodoxy in Doctrinals, and ſome kind of moderation, beyond others of your Brethren in ſeparation, towards thoſe you ſeparated from: And this, becauſe we feare that the influence of your Apoſtacy may occaſion the ruine of many others, whoſe former eſteem of your perſon endangers them to follow you blindfold into your Errors.
This, we aſſure you, is not the leaſt cauſe (together with the preſervation of thoſe of our own charges from the infection likely to be ſpread among them by your name, and the reducement of thoſe of them who may (we feare) call you Father, in other reſpects, as well as the relation of Affinity) which induceth us to put Pen to paper in this Quarrell. Not that we intend hereby to take the Cudgels out of the hand of that Reverend man who is more neerly concerned, and better able to manage them then our ſelves; for (as to that concernes his Papers ſo brokenly quoted by you) we believe his own publication3 of the entire Copies (which you think fit to conceale, not without ſome ground of ſuſpicion, that you were rather willing to pick out what you could beſt ſport your ſelf, and your credulous Reader withall, then to give a ſolid anſwer to his Arguments as they come from his hand) with ſuch animadverſions, as he is ſufficiently able to make to the diſingenuities of your reply, will abundantly vindicate him, and the Truth. Onely, we cannot but acquaint you, that you have miſtaken the mark very much in the arrowes of bitter words, which your diſcourſe levels with too much virulency againſt that holy man. Had you dealt with one of thoſe ſorry things in black, whoſe Doctrine and life are ſcandals to the Goſpell; and blemiſhes to their holy Profeſſion, you might have promiſed your ſelfe an eaſie beliefe from the Readers of your Book, to whatſoever load of reproches, you ſhould have laid upon him: but the man you deale withall, is ſo well known for Piety, Meekneſſe, Humility, Heavenly-mindedneſſe, tenderneſſe of conſcience, and all other Miniſteriall Qualifications, that you may as well perſwade them the Snow is black, as faſten thoſe reproches upon him with any hope of gaining credit to your ſelf, or your book, except amongſt thoſe who are either totally ſtrangers to him, or given up to ſo potent a prejudice againſt all that beare the name of Miniſters, that they can eaſily admit into their Creed, whatſoever evill can be ſaid of them. But to more ſober Readers, and eſpecially thoſe of the parts where he lives, you might be eaſily convinced (had you any principles left to bottome a conviction upon) that the unjuſt imputations you every where beſpatter him withall, will render you ſuſpected, in all the reſt of your book, for the falſehood detected in them. And we muſt tel you withal, that we cannot prevail wth our reaſons or conſciences to perſwade themſelves that you have that infallible Spirit, which you pretend to dictate to you; ſeeing we know you to be ſo groſsly miſtaken in the cenſures you ſpend upon him, and divers of his fellow-labourers. Nor can we judge that language inſpired by the holy ſpirit of God, when we conſider, that there is no Gall in that Dove, & that thoſe holy men of God who wrote as they were moved by the H. Ghoſt, tell us, that Saints muſt put away all clamour and bitterneſſe; and evill ſpeaking,Epheſ. 4. 31.4 and wrath: That the wiſdome that is from above is gentle;Ja. 3. 17. Ja. 1. 16. and that if any man bridle not his tongue, his religion is vain.
And laſtly, that if you be not a better Maſter of Language then Michal the Arch-angel, or we deſerve worſe uſage then the Devill himſelf; the light in which the Apoſtle Jude ſpake, will tell you (but that you think him too low a Scholar to inſtruct you, that have gotten through the Schoole, wherein he was a Diſciple) that it ill becomes you to bring againſt your Antagoniſts a railing accuſation. But if that convince not youIude 9. and your brethren of the incivility and irreligion of your tongues and pens in this way, we ſhall refer you from Michaels Diſpute to Enochs Propheſie, wherein you will find, that hard ſpeeches will beare an Indictment at the laſt Aſſiſe, as well asVerſ. 14. hard blowes: And in the mean time, we hope God will heare our prayers, and free us from the mercy of your Hands, who find what cruelty there is in the tender mercies of yourProv. 12. 10. Tongues
Mean while, in hope that a ſoft anſwer will turn away wrath,Pro. 15. 1. and that we may ſet you a fairer Copy to write after, when you next put pen to paper, we ſhall endeavour by Gods aſſiſtance,Pro. 26. 4, 5. to anſwer ſo much of your papers, as concernes us in common with other Miniſters, without anſwering your paſſions.
And Sir, upon our firſt view of your Pamphlet, we cannotSect. 1. but tell you, that if your Title-page were calculated for the Meridian of your Book, you miſtook your ſelf extreamly: ForTituli remedia, pixides venena. (to let paſſe the Title it ſelf, wherein you abuſe the glorious name of Chriſts Innocency, to patronize your own guilt) we cannot but wonder how Seneca (an Heathen) comes to be ſo great in your eſteem, that you that will not allow us to quote Hierome, Auguſtine, Calvin, or Luther, yet think your BookEpiſtle p. D. credited by the wreſted Teſtimony of a Pagan Philoſopher prefixed thereunto. Sect. 2.
But to let that paſſe, and proceed to your Epiſtle, which only becauſe you direct it to the whole body of the Miniſtery, we ſuppoſe our ſelves concerned in. The reſt of your Book, becauſe we are aſſured from your Adverſary that he will ſpeedily take it in hand; we ſuppoſe you will give us leave to be ſo ingenuous as to leave to his able Pen, without interpreting it any wiſe5 to proceed from any conſciouſneſſe of our own weakneſſe, that we meddle not with it.
And here in the firſt place, we con you many thanks for the charitable advice you begin withall, and aſſure you, that the more we think of the day and houre, which in your entrance you mind us of, and that account we muſt hereafter therein give to the righteous Judge of Heaven and Earth, the more are we excited to the conſciencious diſcharge of that office, which (however you revile) we are ſufficiently aſſured he will own at that day to be held by commiſſion from him: and the more are we encouraged againſt all that evill entertainment, which (for the diſcharge thereof) we meet withall, from men of corrupt minds,2. Tim. 3. 8. reprobate as concerning the Faith. And we hope, we ſhall take warning (even from an Adverſary) to walk worthy of our high and holy calling, and not wear our Livery to the diſgrace of our Maſter. But we are jealous, that whatever uſe we may make of your counſell, you intend it to far another purpoſe; to wit, rather as a ſlye way of caſting reproach upon us, by inſinuating that we ſtand in need of being ſo adviſed, then out of any intention to do us good by that advice. [I wiſh you were] (in your language) is no other, then [I proclaime your are not:]Sect. 3. And although you tell us immediatly after, that you will not undertakeEpiſtle, pag. 2. raſhly to judge us, or accuſe us to the world (from which crime of raſh judgment you think your ſelf ſufficiently ſecured by comparing our works with our rule, the Scriptures) and then proceed (as you think cum privilegio) to miſapply Scriptures, to ſlander us, yet we muſt retort upon you that which you give in way of advice to us, that the hower is coming, when all coverings ſhall be removed, and the vailes pluckt off fromEp. p. 1. all faces; and then we doubt not but you will be found, not only a raſh, but a falſe accuſer, and that to the world (in Print) notwithſtanding that colour and covering which you hide it withall.
For do you believe in earneſt, that thoſe Prophets of whomSect. 4. Micah ſpeaks, that teach for hire, and divine for money, or thoſeMic. 3, 11. Mar. 23. 5, 6, 7. whom our Saviour notes, for doing their works to be ſeen of men, for ſtanding to pray in the Synagogues and the corners of the ſtreets for loving the uppermoſt roomes at Feaſts, &c. are characters6 ſuiting the men of your indignation, whom you endeavour to degrade from the eſteem they have, as Miniſters of Chriſt, by ſuch intimations as theſe? You pretend to ſomething of Scholarſhip and reaſon, and cannot but know, except your new light have quite put out the old, that the Prieſts and Prophets that Micah ſpeaks of were ſuch, as made their hire the end of their teaching and propheſying, and accordingly accommodated their Doctrines to the corrupt humours of thoſe, from whom they expected their reward; a thing which a fixed maintenance, by Tithes, or otherwiſe by Law eſtabliſhed, ſecures our Miniſters from the tentation of.
It is you, and your brethren that would make us ſuch as you ſlander us to be, by reducing us to voluntary contributions, which would be quickly detained from us, as often as we ſhould dare to differ from the opinions, or reprove the Vices of our Neighbours.
And who are you, Sir, that judge our hearts, when you tellSect. 5. us, what we aime at, and ſet up as our end in teaching, which you do more then once, and twice in your Epiſtle, and Book? How long have you been ſeated in the Throne of the moſt high God, and made a Judge of the ſecrets of mens hearts, that you tell us that we preach for hire, and do our works to be ſeen of men, and that we love the upper-moſt roomes, &c. As for ſtanding to pray in the Synagogues, if you conſult the place whence you pretend to draw that parallell between the Phariſees and us, you will find that the action is not condemned, but the end, to be ſeen of men; they neglecting in the mean time to pray in theirMat. 6. 5. Cloſets, where man could not take notice of their devotion. And ſo this charge (except you will ſay, with ſome of your companions, that you know the heart) comes under the ſameG. Fox ſee the perfect Phariſee, p. 49. and 4. condemnation of ſlander with the reſt.
The corners of the ſtreets, if they be uſed by any perſons in theſe daies, for religious uſes, we know not who herein reſemble the Phariſees, more then thoſe of your own Fraternity (and Siſterhood too) who, though they meddle little with prayer, (it is to be ſeared) any where, yet chooſe the ſtreets, and Market-places to vent their pretended Declarations from God.
7Your next Paragraph endeavours to faſten upon us the imputationSect. 6. of Perſecuters, and upon your ſelves the character of Chriſtian ſufferers. To which, we ſhall ſay only thus much in this place, That we adore that gracious Providence which keeps us out of the reach of your malice; otherwiſe we are aſſured we ſhould not be long without that perſecution which you make the badge of true Miniſters, for better Doctrines and practiſes, then thoſe, which ſome of yours ſuffer for.
In the mean while, we have our ſhares ſufficiently in the perſecution of your tongues, and hands, as far as you can, by impoveriſhing us, and our Families, by detaining our juſt and legall ſubſiſtence, diſturbing us in the exerciſe of our publick worſhip, &c. which we ſuffer conſtantly from thoſe of your fellowſhip and communion. What further needs to be ſpoken to this head, as it concernes your uſage from us, will be taken up in its due place, and more largely debated with you hereafterSee Sect. 9, 10.
That we are not the Miniſters of Chriſt, becauſe we indentSect. 7. for our maintenance, where we ſit down in a charge, and that we ſue for the tenth of their increaſe, thoſe that owne us not for their Paſtors, is the ſumme of your charge. To the firſt branch whereof, we can, divers of us, reject it as a meer ſlander: many Miniſters in this Nation living upon as free a contributionmaintenance, as any of your ſelves, but in a more orderly way; Their people contribute to thoſe Paſtors that reſide among them, and not to wandering Preachers, whoſe faces they ſeldome ſee, and from whoſe ſtanding converſe with, or inſpection over them they can receive no benefit. And others of us maintain many Lectures, either ſimply, or joyntly, for which we receive as little, as the Quakers themſelves would wiſh. And as for thoſe that either indent for maintenance, or enter upon the maintenance already ſetled by Law; we are ſure they are not blame-worthy, for that, to gain the repute of Miniſters, they do not prove themſeles worſe then Infidells, in not providing for themſelves and their Families, which the Apoſtles light makes a badge of one that hath denied the faith (the proper1 Tim. 5. 8. character of ſome of yours, who wander up and down to the manifeſt and apparent ruine of themſelves, and thoſe that8 they are bound to provide for.) Nor are we at all ſtartled at the practiſe of the Apoſtles under an extraordinary command, ſo confeſſed (in effect) by your ſelves in your own practiſe, (for why elſe do you not travell about to declare without Purſes, or Shooes on your feet, or Staves in your hands, commands immediatly ſubjoyning to that of giving freely what they hadMat. 10. 8, 9, 10. freely received, in the ſame place of Scripture) and appearing to be ſuch; if we compare Luke 22. 36. where Chriſt in another exigency of time allowes them to make that proviſion for themſelves, which in the former command he forbad them. For we are ſufficiently aſſured, that the Apoſtles themſelves were maintained by the Church in which they laboured, excepting only the Apoſtle Paul, and his companion Barnabas, and that onlyAct. 20. 34 See 2 Cor. 11. 7. v. 9. and 2 Theſ. 3. 8, 9. at Epheſus, Corinth, and Theſſalonica, where (little to their credit too, if we mark the tart reflexions of the Apoſtle upon their ſordidneſſe) they wrought with their hands, for ſpeciall reaſons aſſigned in the Texts themſelves; yet withall the ſaid Apoſtle aſſerts it as an Ordinance of God (and that founded upon reaſon, and Scripture too) that they that preach the Gospel ſhould live by the Goſpel; and withall affirmeth his owne and his brethrens power to have claimed the ſame from them, which they received from other Churches. We forbeare tranſcribing Texts, you may find this and more, 2 Theſ. 3. 9. and 1 Cor. 9 from verſe 6. to the end of the 14. which Scripture we obſerve in moſt of the Pamphlets publiſhed by the Adverſaries of Miniſters maintenance, is paſſed over with deep ſilence; and ſo expect it will be by you and your brotherhood, or anſwered by (the common refuge of Hereticks) the decrying of interpretations, and inferences upon Scripture. When you further urge the ſame Apoſtles practiſe, againſt coveting other mens ſilver and gold, or apparell; We have nothing to object againſt you, provided that you will not call requiring that which is legally our own, a coveting that which is anothers: Surely no man holds the nine parts, by firmer Law in theſe Nations, then the Miniſter claimes his tenth by: And how can it then be more covetous in a Miniſter to ſue for that which is his by Law, then in others to detain it from him without Law? ſo that we feare the coveting other mens ſilver and gold will lye at yours and9 your brethrens doores, and you will never be able to ſweep it away.
The claiming a maintenance from thoſe without, and exacting it of thoſe that never heare us, which you further object againſt us, as a diſparagement to our Miniſteriall calling, comes under theSee Sect. 18, 19, 20, &c. conſideration of maintenance in the way of Tithes, which we refer to its proper place, where it falls in your diſcourſe.
That ſome who beare the name of Miniſters (and ſuchSect. 8. as we no leſſe diſown, then your ſelfe) live in darkneſſe, ſwearing, &c. (the declaiming againſt whom is the ſubſtance of your next Paragraph, and your fifth proof againſt our Calling;) we confeſſe and bewaile, and did the anger that dwels in you and your brethren extend to none but thoſe, who may juſtly come under that charge, we ſhould vvillingly joyne with you in the proſecution of them; and do it where any ſuch come within our reach. Yea vve further muſt profeſſe, vve ſhould be very glad, that ſome men in power among us, who are very favourable to your party, vvere as zealous againſt them as vve. We muſt freely declare that thoſe that are indeed ſuch, have been ſheltred (upon proſecution) under the vvings of ſome ſuch among us, & we verily believe it is in their hearts to vviſh us all ſuch, that they might have ſome colour to ſtrike off the neck of the vvhole Miniſtry at a blow.
But vve muſt tell you (whilſt vve are not all ſuch, and now fewer ſuch then formerly) that it is an injurious procedure in you, to reflect diſparagement upon a vvhole Profeſſion, for the fault of ſome that againſt their vvills joyne themſelves to them: Should all the ſwearing, drunken, and otherwiſe diſorderly companions, that frequent the Quakers Aſſemblies, be reckoned among them, and all be judged by ſome, you vvould think it hard uſage. We hope you vvill be contented to buy by the ſame Buſhell you ſell withall.
But you are fain to come off from this charge as too groſs to be generally laid upon the whole Miniſtry, with [are there not a great ſort of you ſuch?] and [are your hands all cleane from this filth?] only you come in vvith an after-charge againſt the reſt in another Quaere, Viz. Among thoſe of you that have eſcaped that open pollution of drunkenneſſe with Wine, are you not10 yet intoxicated with wrath, and rage againſt the innocent. And you proceed, enquiring, Whether in the Priſons and Dungeons of England, Jeſus Chriſt doth not as truly lye bound by our inſtigation and procurement (to wit, in thoſe deare Servants of his the Quakers, who account it no robbery to be at leaſt equall with their Maſter) as he did by the procurement of Saul in Damaſcus? And yet further, Whether if any poore Jeremiah came from the Lord to beare witneſſe againſt our abominations (to vvit, in thoſe abominable practiſes of inſtructing the people againſt the deluſions of the times, vvhich is the greateſt Antidote againſt that Plague of Error and Hereſie, that is diſperſed over all the Nation; and vvorſhiping God according to the rule of his bleſſed vvord, and the light of our own conſciences) Whether there be wanting among us a Lordly Pastor, who (in caſe the Magiſtrate be ſo honeſt, (to wit, through cowardize, or luke-warmneſſe) as to refuſe) will not with his owne hands put his feet in the Stocks? To vvhich vve ſay, vve know none of our Profeſſion that take ſo much upon them, if you do, you may do vvell to diſcover them; and vve ſhould be vvell contented for their paines, to ſee them ſet there a while themſelves, till they learn to do their owne buſineſſe. And then you catechize, us further in our rule (as with ſcorne enough you often cal the Scriptures, for which we muſt reckon with you at large anon.) Whether ever the true Prophets of the Lord did perſecute or impriſon any that were differing from them in matters of Religion? And Whether they be in Chriſts eſteem Shepheards, or Wolves, who worry the Sheep inſtead of feeding them, & c? After vvhich you ſpend a great deale of rhetorick in anticipating the Judgment of Chriſt at the laſt day, as if you vvere already beſpoken to be Clerk of the Arraignments againſt that Aſſiſe: In anſwer vvhereunto vve ſay no more but this; Judge not, that yee be not judged: And vve make no queſtion, that if no better evidence be brought againſt us at that day, then any you yet offer, to prove thoſe high Criminations; that our Not-guilty vvill be as good a plea (though vvithout a diſtinction) as your charge of Guilty vvill be an Indictment vvithout a proof.
But ſuppoſing vve vvere (indeed) the Perſecuters, theSect. 10Worriers, the Impriſoners, of thoſe men of your right hand,11 provided, we were legally commiſſioned thereunto (which we hope we ſhall never deſire for our ſelves, nor allow in others of our Function) yet why all diſtinctions ſhould be a plea ſo inconſiſtent with the Juſtice of that Court (as you intimate to us it will be) we know not. Nay, we have a little light from (our low rule) the Scripture, that perſwades us thereP. 4, 5. may be ſome uſe of them then. For in that ſhort deſcription of the laſt Judgment, whence you draw out a Copy of our Arraignment, not without ſome aggravating expoſtulations (viz. Mat. 25 41, 42. &c) we find the Judge diſtinguiſhing upon the Bench, to conclude the Offenders within the reach of the Law; For the wicked there indicted are brought in pleading their Not guilty, as to the neglect of relieving and viſiting Chriſt in his own perſon. To take off which plea, and cleare the equity of his condemnatory ſentence; he diſtinguiſheth between himſelfe in his perſon, and himſelf in his little ones, or Members; and granting their plea as to the former, rejects it as to the later. Now, ſurely we cannot believe that the Judge of the whole World will not at that great and ſolemn day, give us the latitude he takes to himſelf. If he diſtinguiſh upon the Law, he will allow us to diſtinguiſh upon the Indictment. We know not if we be indicted for worrying the Sheep; why we may not plead the Scripture diſtinction between Sheep indeed, and Wolves in Sheeps clothing; and if we can indeed prove that we worry no other, but diſguiſed Wolves (upon which proof indeed we are contented to lay the whole ſtreſſe of our preſent, and (we hope) future juſtification in this whole matter now in debate between us) we cannot but expect the ſame diſcharge at the Bar, which we ſhould not doubt from humane equity, in caſe, being indicted for aſſaulting and beating a true Subject upon Salisbury plaines, we could make it appeare, that we beat only a Theef, and that upon our own neceſſary defence: So that indeed, all that outragious cry which you afterward make againſt the poore Presbyters for juſtifying the Scribes andP. 5. Phariſees, and the Lordly Biſhops in former times (who, you perſwade your ſelf) had the ſame diſtinction to plead, for crucifying the Lord of Glory, and his precious Saints, and perſecuting the Puritanes, &c. to wit, that they uſed them thus under12 the notion of blaſphemous Hereticks and Deceivers) falls to the ground, if we can prove thoſe whom we are charged to perſecute, ſuch as we take them to be. And this we doubt not to make good againſt you, and your brethren in the way of Quaking, in the proceſſe of this our book, and then ſhall leave the whole matter to our Lord, and yours, to judge between us at the great day of his appearing. But then you will allow usSect. 11(we hope) not to ſuffer you to phraſe your own Indictment, as you do very dextrouſly and artificially, in favour of your ſelf and your Generation, in the following Section of your Epiſtle; wherein you make your ſelf, and your Reader pretty ſport, by drawing up a ridiculous charge againſt your ſelves, and then ſet our names to it, as if we had made ſo great a cry (as you mention) for ſo little wooll, and had no matters of greater moment to exhibit againſt you, then thoſe which you will confeſſe againſt your ſelves. And yet we muſt tell you, that you were not very well adviſed (if you meant wholly to clear your ſelves from thoſe imputations) to confeſſe ſo much as you do in many paſſages of your Book, which we ſhall deale with anon. Mean while we dare not let you alone to couſen the World into a good eſteem of your opinions by your ambiguous expreſſions, and therefore we muſt crave your patience, if we come after you, and ſift you, that by being firſt in your owne cauſe,Pro. 18. 17. you may not ſeem uprighter then indeed you are.
Firſt, you take it ill to be charged as Blasphemers, forSect. 12affirming, that Chriſt is the light that enlighteneth every one that cometh into the world, and that he that followeth that light (yourJo. 8. 2. Text (by the way) ſaith, He that followeth me, and the words [that light] are your interpretation and meaning, which (were we as peeviſh as thoſe of your way) we might reject) ſhall not walk in darkneſſe, but ſhall have the light of life; adding further, that that light is ſufficient to teach them and guide them to the Father: and thence ask for a cloſe, What need then of our teachings?
We hope (ſeeing you ſtand upon your purgation) you will give us leave to ask you a few queſtions upon this Article.
1. Q. What light is that with which Chriſt enlightens every man? It is Chriſt himſelf (we would ſay, if you would give us13 leave for diſtinction ſake) perſonally, or is it a light infuſed in him? If ſo,
2. Q. It is the light of bare reaſon in a reaſonable Soule, or is it the diſcovery of himſelfe by ſupernaturall revelation?
3. Q. Whether the meer light of reaſon be ſufficient to lead all men, Heathens and all, to the Father ſavingly; or onely (as the place partially quoted in your next Article hath it) to that which may be known of him, by the things that are made, that they may be without excuſe? or
4. Q. Whether if any meer Pagan live up to the naturall light of his own reaſon or conſcience, God be bound to beſtow upon him that farther light, which is ſufficient to bring him to ſalvation?
Q 5. If Chriſt be (in your ſence) the light of every one that comes into the World; why is it that Judas ſaith Jo. 14. 23. Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifeſt thy ſelf to us, and not to the World?
And when you have anſwered (plainly and without equivocations) to theſe quaeres; poſſibly you may retort your cloſing Quaere upon your ſelves: What need then of our teachings, as well as the Prieſts?
You would faine make us believe (in your next Article) Sect. 13that you ſay no more in the caſe of the Heathens light, then the Apoſtle doth, Rom. 1. 19. 20. which is (as you render it) That that which may be known of God is manifeſt in their conſciences (where again, though we contradict it not, yet we obſerve you can interpret, and give your meanings upon Scripture, though in us it be adding to the Scripture; for the Text ſaith no more but in them, or (as in your Margin) to them. (God having, ſay you farther, revealed it to them) [ſhewed] ſaith the Text, [revealed] is your meaning, becauſe it makes more for your own turn; ſo that they not having a Law without them (interpretation again) they are a Law to themſelves, &c. Rom. 2. 14, 15.
Now you would inſinuate, that you hold forth no more then the Scripture doth therein: Which whether you do or no, will appeare by your plaine and ingenuous anſwer to the former Quaeres. Mean while, we deſire you to take notice. 1 That14 the words in the Text [That which may be known of God] implies, that there is ſomething of God which may not be known to Heathens, as ſuch; which is the way of being reconciled to him, and juſtified in his ſight, through Chriſt Jeſus, and other like Goſpel diſcoveries of him, neceſſary to ſalvation. (2.) That the knowledge they have of him, is by the Apoſtle affirmed to be a light without them, as well as within them, for God ſhewes it to them by the things that are made. (3.) That if the Heathens (as you ſay) have only a Law within them, and none without them, we are little beholding to your principles, that would reduce us to the condition of Heathens, by ſetting up a light within us to the excluſion of a light without us. As alſo, (4.) That Quakers and Heathens may ſhake hands, ſeeing both of them live by the ſame Law, and the ſame light too.
You further inſinuate (Artile 3.) that in the DoctrineSect. 14. of perfection here below; you are falſely accuſed by us for blaſpheming: Whereas you ſay no more then our Saviour himſelf commands, when he bids us be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect; which commands, you ſay, is not given inMat. 5. 48. mockery, or requires an impoſſibility. You add, that the ſame Chriſt spake truth, when he bore witneſſe of Nathaniel, that he was an Iſraelite in whom was no guile: and that Paul did notIo. 1. 47. deſigne an impoſſibility when he laboured to preſent men perfect in Chriſt Jeſus. And you would ſuggeſt that you affirm no more:Col. 1. 28. We anſwer, whether this be all you your ſelf hold of perfection, or no, we will not judge. But we ſhall ſhew you anon, that thoſe of your perſwaſion are not altogether ſo modeſt. It is well if your ſelf be ſo, when you will pleaſe to ſpeak out, which we ſcarce believe you will do, in a charge againſt your ſelf of your own drawing up. But we hope, you will allow us to ask you a few queſtions upon this Article alſo, ſeeing you ſtand upon your juſtification.
Q. 1. To what purpoſe is all this? Did any of your pretended Accuſers ever accuſe our Saviour Chriſt, for mockery or commanding impoſſibilities, in this command of perfection? or for falſehood in his commendation of Nathaniel? or the Apoſtle Paul for deſigning an impoſſibility.
152. Qu. Whether the perfection commanded by Chriſt, or that which is commended in Nathaniel, or aimed at by Paul, be a perfection of degrees, and that as high as that of God himſelf; or a perfection of kind, truth, or ſincerity? Say not that we coine diſtinctions of perfection out of our own braine. Doth not the Scripture call Job a perfect man, Job 1. 1. and yet chap. 3. gives us a ſad inſtance of his imperfections, and Job himſelf renounceth perfection in himſelf, chap. 9. 20, 21. Doth not the Apoſtle Paul himſelf, in one chapter, affirms and deny himſelf to be perfect, Phil. 3. 12. 15. And therefore (ſeeing, as we hope, you will not allow any contradictions in Scripture) there a neceſſity to diſtinguiſh of different ſences, wherein they affirme and deny. And if we diſtinguiſh amiſſe, we wiſh you, or your companions would do it better. Nay, we ſuppoſe both theſe ſorts of perfection neceſſarily held forth in the Scriptures of your own quotation. For the command of our Saviour ſaies not, Be yee as perfect as your Father which is in Heaven, but Be yee perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. [Perfect as] doth not imply more then a perfection of the ſame kind, which perfection we profeſſe, a perfection conſiſting in truth and ſincerity of holineſſe, the perfection of Nathaniel [as perfect] denotes a perfection of degrees, which (in the compariſon with an infinitely holy God) we deny to be attainable by any Creature, or to be aſſerted concerning any Creature, without higheſt blaſphemy. But a perfection of degrees ſuitable to the capacity of finite Creatures, we hope for in Heaven; and a perfection of degrees ſuitable to the capacity of mortall creatures, we preſſe towards your ſelves, and endeavour with Paul, to preſent all our hearers unto Jeſus Chriſt in the ſame at the laſt day.
4. About your forth Article concerning rejecting all meaningsSect. 15. and interpretations of Scripture, we ſhall take a more convenient time to reckon with you in a diſtinct Queſtion ſubjoyned hereunto. Only we make bold to ask you here alſo.
Qu. Whether [to interpret Chriſts and the Apoſtles ſayings] be not injuriouſly reflected upon by you as a deniall that they meant as they spake? and whether a man may not mean as he ſpeaks, and yet not to be underſtood without interpretation?16 we are ſo charitable to think that divers of the Familiſts and Quakers mean as they speak, and yet we cannot underſtand their meaning by their ſpeaking, in divers odd phraſes uſed by them, without interpretation; would you would give us a Lexicon of them.
5. Your fifth Article, we ſhall ſpeak more largely to inSect 16. this place. You ſay, that you and your Complices aſſert, that Chriſt did not ſpeak one thing and intend another, when he commanded men not to ſweare at all, but to let their yea, be yea, and nay, nay: Whereas we that are (ſcornfully enough) by you called Orthodox, do both ſweare our ſelves, and teach others ſo to do. And you add the reaſon (as good a one as you pleaſe to allow us) becauſe otherwiſe we might happily go without our maintenance, for want of ſwearers in Courts of Juſtice, againſt thoſe Hereticks that refuſe to pay us Tythes. And in your Margin (to give us a touch of your learning, that we may take it for an act of ſelf-deniall in your after-declared contempt thereof, and not an act of envious declaiming againſt the Grapes you cannot reach) you quote the Originall in that prohibition,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with this note, That it is a prohibition ſo univerſall, that it admitteth of no exception. Upon which Article we firſt obſerve two things.
1. That it was very warily done of the Founders of the Quaking Religion, who are by many judicious men ſuppoſed to be Papiſts, to inſert an Article in their new Creed, to excuſe them from being diſcovered, by refuſing the Oath of Abjuration, which they may (under the ſhelter of your Principles) do, and yet paſſe undiſcovered. Secondly we quaere,
We obſerve ſecondly, that the Quakers refuſing to ſweare according to the Ceremony now required in England, of kiſſing the Bible, and ſwearing by the contents of that Book, is ſuitable to their Doctrine; that the Scriptures are not our rule, and (by conſequence that God will not judge us according to the contents of the Bible; ſo that to call God to witneſſe according to the contents of that book, according to which they conceive he will not judge, were abſurd. It may be if a new forme of an Oath, ſuch as by the light within them, were required, they might be perſwaded to ſweare.
17Qu. 1. Whether our Saviour Chriſt ſpake or intended any thing which might claſh with the expreſſe command of God elſewhere? And if not, then ſurely Chriſts words in this place muſt not be taken ſo unlimitedly as you ſay, ſeeing we find a command Deut. 5. 13. Thou ſhalt feare the Lord thy God, and ſweare by his name. So alſo Deut. 10. 20.
Qu. 2. Whether our Saviour Chriſt forbid any part of Gods morall Worſhip, or no? If not, then we are aſſured he forbidsSee Jer. 4. 2. & Iſ. 45. 23. which peculiarly concerneth us, as referring to Goſpel times, and is therefore quoted by the Apoſtle, Rom. 14. 21. with ſuch a variation of the phraſe ſwearing, into confeſſing, as plainly proves, that to ſweare by God is ſometimes a neceſſary part of our confeſſion and acknowledgment of him. not ſwearing without any exception. For we find it frequently made a part of Gods morall Worſhip to ſweare by his name, and it is alſo joyned in the mentioned Scriptures with fearing and ſerving God.
Qu. 3. Whether our Saviour Chriſt cut off by this command any neceſſary meanes of deciding controverſies between man and man, or confirming truth in matters of teſtimony? If ſo, ſurely he would thereby have rendred his Doctrine juſtly obnoxious, as being deſtructive to humane ſociety: If not, we are certain he forbids not all ſwearing without exception: for the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes tells us that an Oath of confirmation is an end of all ſtrife, Heb. 6. 16.
Q. 4. Whether the Author in his former Article, ſetting forth God as a Pattern of perfection to us, doth not therein allow us in ſome Caſes to ſweare? ſeeing we are told, Heb. 6. 17. that God himſelf allowes himſelf to ſweare for thoſe ends, for which an Oath is legally uſed by men, viz. for confirmation of his word.
Q. 5. Whether without ſwearing upon the call of a Magiſtrate, all mens eſtates be not as liable to prejudice, as the maintenance of the Miniſtry? And whether cheating companions will not be as prone to take the ſame advantage againſt other men, in caſe there was no judiciall Oathes required, as it ſeems (by the Authors confeſſion) Hereticks would againſt poor Miniſters? except we muſt take it for granted, that every mans18 yea, yea, and nay, nay, is as a ſufficient ſecurity in this caſe of teſtifying the Truth judicially, as a ſolemn Oath.
Q. 6. Whether Abraham did well or ill, to require an Oath of his Servant, Gen. 24. 3. Jacob of Joſeph, 50. 5. Nehemiah of the Jewes, Neh. 13 25. Or (if you evade theſe examples, as being before Chriſt) whether the Apoſtle Paul did well or ill to ſweare, Gal. 1. 20. &c.
In a word, this Doctrine of the unlawfulneſſe of ſwearing inSect. 14any caſe, is a fragment of the old Germane Anabaptiſts, a Generation of men againſt whom the Magiſtrates ſaw ſufficient cauſe to diſpute with the Sword of Juſtice, for being publick enemies to humane Society: and it concernes you to take heed that the Magiſtracy of England may never have the like provocation to follow their example againſt their genuine iſſue, the Quakers, and other Sectaries among us.
But (leaſt you ſhould ſeem juſtly to charge us with ſwearing our ſelves, and teaching others to do ſo, contrary to the command of Chriſt) we muſt, in the cloſe, let you know how we ſweare, and allow others to do ſo; and what ſwearing we forbeare our ſelves, and preach downe among them, in obedience to Chriſts command: We muſt tell you, that being lawfully called to witneſſe to truth upon Oath, before a Magiſtrate, we ſhall not our ſelves refuſe to ſweare, that is (according to the forme required in Law) to call God to witneſſe that we lye not: But in our communication, or ordinary diſcourſe, we deſire, both we and our hearers, may keep to our yea, yea, and nay, nay, as Chriſt commands, and not to ſweare at all, becauſe we dare not take, or allow others to take the name of God in vaine. And this we ſuppoſe to be all that our Saviour intends in that Prohibition, that in our communication we ſhould not ſweare at all. If any one be not convinced hereof by what we have ſaid, let him reconcile our Saviours Prohibition, to the precepts and examples before pleaded ſome other way, and
— Phyllida ſolus habeto,
He ſhall gaine the cauſe in this point.
Your following three Articles, viz. 6. 7, 8. are all concerningSect. 18Tythes and forced maintenance, wherein the ſumme and upſhot of all, ſhewes your charity to the poore Miniſtery, that you19 would faine have them reduced to the condition of the unjuſt Steward, that is, either to work, or beg. For working, we ſuppoſe (in ſuch a Generation, as God hath now eaſt us into) we ſhall not want) whileſt beſides the ordinary attendance upon our charges, which the Apoſtle Paul accounted a work, and a great one too, 1 Theſ. 5. 13. Eph. 4. 12. and ſuch as none will be too forward to intrude into, that ſufficiently underſtands the weight of it, 2 Cor. 2. 16. The work of a Builder, a Sower,1 Cor. 3. 10. Mar. 4. 13 : 1 Cor. 3. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 6. Jo. 21. 26. Heb. 13. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 P. 40. a Planter, an Huſbandman, a Shepheard, a Watohman, a Souldier:) We are called upon to anſwer every idle rayling Paper, that you, and your companions ſend us. But (ſeeing you account this no work) it ſeemes you would have us worke with our hands, or beg: An hard Law, for men that have been bred in a way of humane Learning, which elſewhere, you ſeem to allow ſome uſe in the World, it may ſerve to tile the houſe, you confeſſe, and in that place you are content it ſhall ſtand. But ſurely ſhould this Law of yours take place [that thoſe that have been bred to ſtudy, muſt have no ſubſiſtence but by handy work, or begging] I feare the next Generation would yeild few Tiles to keep the houſe in repaire, ſo that it would quickly drop through, and you, as well as others, would not be able to lye dry in it: For who will give his Children ingenuous Education at the Schooles of Learning, and ſet them there to ſpend the flower of their youth in acquiring humane literature; when the higheſt preferment they could expect after ten or twenty yeares Study, would be either to work, or beg? would not, every one conclude it better to ſet their Sons to ſome Trade or other, in their youth, that ſo at the end of ſeven yeares they might be able to get a livelyhood at their fingers ends, or turne them a begging in their Childhood, rather then maintain them twice ſeven yeares at Schoole, and Univerſity, to come thence to be preferred to a certain beggary, as being the only lot of the two, like to befall them, who are utterly to learne to work, having never been bred thereunto?
But the meaſure you mete unto us, is harder yet: You that will have us work, or beg, will not allow us to carry ſo much as a Purſe to put our Wages in, when we have earned it, nor a Scrip to put our Almes in, when we have begged it; but to20 live as the Sparrowes do, that digeſt one meales meat in ſeeking where to get another. I ſuppoſe, ſhould God call us to that condition either by an extraordinary command, as Chriſt did hisLu. 10. 7. Apoſtles in the place you quote, or by an extraordinary providence (as we ſuſpect in caſe you can compaſſe your fifth Monarchy, it would befall us) we ſhould not want faith to truſt him, who feeds the Sparrowes, and clothes the Lillies; whether in a way of working, as we are able, or asking the charity of others, when diſabled: We have learned a diſtich of learned and honeſt Muſculus, which he made when the fury of the Germane Anabaptiſts (your Predeceſſors) turned him out of his Pulpit, and maintenance, and enforced him to weave and dig for a ſubſiſtence for himſelf and his Family.
Which for the ſake of your Brethren, who (whatſoever you are) are no great friends to Latine, we ſhall engliſh.
But we queſtion yet further, whether you, that would requireSect. 19us to follow preciſely the Apoſtolicall example in that Chapter, will not yet go further then this, in your rigorous exactions. Suppoſe we ſhould work without a Purſe, and beg without a Scrip at your command, what ſecurity will you give us, that you will not make us work, and beg barefoot too. For if your Text concern us, we cannot ſee how we may be allowed Shooes to our feet, more then Purſes and Scrips; and then poſſibly we might pleaſe you better, ſeeing we ſhould be more like your good friends, the Franciſcan Friers, who are the only men that we have heard of, ſince our Saviour ſent out the Apoſtles upon that extraordinary errand, who have thought themſelves concerned to walk by that rule: Wherefore if you muſt have Miniſters of that character, you are moſt likely to fit your ſelves among them.
21For our parts, we bleſſe God that yet provides better for us, and whileſt he continues to do ſo, we ſhall not think a profeſſion of voluntary Monkiſh poverty, our duty to undertake, ſeeing we dare not take Gods Gifts, and throw them back into his face, by contemning the gracious allowance of his providence.
As for the way of our ſubſiſtence by Tythes and forced maintenance,Sect. 20you will needs make it unlawfull as being (you ſay) a Leviticall Ordinance, and (as you add in your Book, whereP. 13. you againe ſerve in this Crambo) appointed as an inheritance to the Prieſts and Levites for their ſervice in the Tabernacle and Temple: and thereupon you proceed to ask theſe Quaeries in your Book.
And this indeed is the ſumme of all that you ſay to this point; (for as to forcing the payment of maintenance by Law, it will ſtand or fall with the maintenance it ſelfe:) Concerning this we ſhall have a little debate with you.
And firſt, we deſire you to underſtand, that Tithes were paid before ever the Leviticall Prieſthood was appointed. Surely Abrahams Victory over the Kings, and Jacobs Vow were before the Leviticall Ordinances were ſet up, many hundreds of yeares.
If you object (what we frequently meet withal from the men of your principles) that theſe were voluntary Acts in thoſe Patriarchs. However we obſerve it was lawfull to give and receive them then; and it lies on you to prove when it became unlawfull.
But further, we demand by what light they walked in ſo doing? was it by a Light without them, ſome traditionall rule received from their godly Anceſtors? If ſo, then it was a voluntary obedience to a Law; Tradition being their Law: If by a light within them, ſome immediate motion from God ſo to do; then we22 ſay; that by the ſame inward light, were thoſe Kings and Princes, and other Proprietors of Lands that gave Tythes in this Nation, long before Popery began, moved to dedicate the Tithes of their Lands to God for ever. And ſo we receive them by the ſame Title with thoſe to whom they were then paid, excepting the conſideration of Melchizedeck as he was a Type of Chriſt, which yet confirmes our Title, as you ſhall ſee anon.
And moreover we muſt tell you, that the very reaſon which God gives for his making that allowance to Levie's Poſterity afterwards, is the Title that he had to them precedent to Levi's, whence the Levites themſelves were firſt to offer them to theNumb. 18. 24, 25, &c. Lord, and then they were to enjoy them as from God; and therefore Mal. 3 8. 9. when the people through covetouſneſſe then withdrew them, as now ſome do, God himſelf enters an Indictment againſt them: Yee have robbed me, ſaith he, in Tithes and Offerings; not Levi, but Me: So that they were Gods by a peculiar claime and Title, and the Levites held them from him, not from the people; and therefore they were to bring them into a Store-houſe in the Temple; as Mede a learnedMede on Act. 5. 34. Antiquary well obſerves, and gives the reaſon from Philo the Jew, to wit, that he might thereby take away all occaſion from the people, of upbraiding the Prieſts, as if they were maintained at their charge, God firſt claiming them, and then demiſing them to the Prieſts, their maintenance became (as Philo ſaies) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, A Gift that reflected no ſhame upon the receivers, who thereby became Gods Eleemoſynaries, or Almeſ-men, not the Peoples.
But it may be you will ſay, that the firſt claime which GodSect. 21made to Tythes, was then, when he gave them to Levi, and ſo they were not more anciently Gods, then the other Leviticall Offerings. So that God claiming them then firſt, that he might beſtow them on the Jewiſh Prieſts, they are ſince the aboliſhing of that Adminiſtration no more due then Sacrifices.
For anſwer whereunto, we refer you to Mr. Ainſworth, a man very well verſed in Jewiſh Antiquities (and one that ſhould beAnſw. on Gen. 14. 19. more eſteemed by you being a friend to ſeparation) who tells you expreſly, that Abrahams and Jacobs payment of Tythes was but according to their duty; as a ſigne of Tribute and Homage23 to God, as Soveraign Lord and King. And Abraham particularly in his payment of Tythes to Melchizedek, walked by the equity of that rule, which the Apoſtle afterwards left on record, in expreſſe termes, Rom. 15. 27. That it was but meet, that he being made partaker of Melchizedeks spirituall things, ſhould miniſter to him in carnall things. And he further gives us ſome light to conclude that this Cuſtome of Tythe-paying, was by nature implanted in the hearts of men, or at leaſt derived by Tradition from the Patriarchs. Becauſe even the Heathens (who you ſay, have the light of Chriſt in them) paid Tythes to their Gods, which practiſe ſurely they did not take up of the Jewes (they did not love them ſo well) but from ſome higher Originall. He quotes the Athenians from Diog. Laertius, and the ancient Latines, from Pomponius Loetus, and Macrobius, for inſtances.
Sir, we had not ſuffered our Pens to expatiate into this fieldSect. 22of humane Learning, but that we deale with you, who profeſſe an allowance of it in its place; and we ſuppoſe it is not out of place, in the ſearch of Antiquities, eſpecially when the queſtion is concerning the Origine, or beginning of Tythes, which you ſay (at leaſt as commanded) is in the Leviticall Prieſthood, we, before it.
But we do not lay the weight of our diſpute in this particularSect. 23upon this foundation. We ſhall debate the queſtion with you a little more cloſely, from your own Chapter which you appeal to in this caſe, viz. Heb. 7. And becauſe the ſtrength of all the Quaeries thence lies in v. 12. which aſſerts a neceſſary change of the Law, upon the change of the Prieſthood from the order of Aaron, to that of Melchizedek; we deſire you firſt to conſider, that it is not neceſſary to be granted, that by the Law there ſaid to be changed muſt be meant the Law of Tythes, but the Law of Prieſthood; that Law, that ſet up Levi's Poſterity for Prieſts, which Law differs from that of Tythes very much. However, that Scripture vvill not ſtead you vvithout interpretation, and that you renounce.
But to gratifie you, vve vvill ſuppoſe your meaning and interpretation,Sect. 24for once (though that be more favour then you vvill ſhevv us:) and upon your ovvn ſuppoſition, try one Argument24 with you, and that is this.
If the abolition of the Law of Tithes depend upon the abolition of the Prieſthood, to which they were due; then (vve hope you vvill allow us that) if the Prieſthood to which Tithes were once due (and that before the Leviticall Prieſthood) be not aboliſhed, the Law of Tithes to that Prieſthood is not aboliſhed.
But we ſhall prove that the Prieſthood to which Tithes were once due, and that long before the Leviticall Prieſthood was in being, is not aboliſhed, vvhich if vve do, vve hope vve may be allowed to conclude
Therefore there is no aboliſhment of the Law of Tithes, but it is ſtill in force.
That the Prieſthood to vvhich Tithes vvere originally due is not aboliſhed, vve prove thus from the ſame Chapter.
The Prieſthood to which Tithes were (before the Leviticall Prieſthood) due, was the Melchizedekian Prieſthood. But the Melchizedekian Prieſthood, or Prieſthood after the order of Melchizedek is not aboliſhed, For it is Chriſts Prieſthood, Heb. 16, 17, verſes. Therefore the Prieſthood to which Tithes were originally due, is not aboliſhed.
All that we ſuppoſe herein is to be proved, is, that Tithes were due to Melchizedeks order of Prieſthood, and ſo ſtill remaineSect. 25due to Chriſt, vvho is a Prieſt for ever after that order.
Now for proofe of this, vve refer you higher in the ſame Chapter, viz. to v. 4. and thence down to the 10. And vve deſire you to conſider vvith us theſe three reaſons from the Text, to prove that Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedek as a due.
1. You pretend to skill in the Originall Tongue, and therefore you vvill not be offended if vve argue from it, as you do more then once, or twice. Abraham (in the Apoſtles phraſe)〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 9〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 6. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 5. is ſaid to be Tithed by Melchizedek, and Melchizedek to tithe him, v. 6. 9. vvhich is the very ſame vvord Originally, vvith that vvhich is vſed in the Sons of Levi's tithing of the people by commandment, v. 5. Now if the word as applied to the Levites, ſignifie to require Tithes, as it doth, it ſeems unlikely it was uſed vvith relation to Melchizedek, to denote a receiving of Tithes by way of gratuity only.
252. We deſire you to conſider the ſcope of the Apoſtle in that place, vvhich is to advance Melchizedeks Priesthood, as an Order ſuperiour to Levi's. This the Apoſtle proves, becauſe Levi himſelf in Abrahams loynes paid Tithes to Melchizedek. v. 9. Now had Melchizedek received Tithes from Levi, in Abrahams loynes, as of courteſie only, and not of debt; it would have been a poore argument to prove Melchizedek a greater Prieſt, vvhich vvill as vvell prove a Beggar a greater man then a Prince, becauſe the Beggar receives from him, it may be, a ſumm of money out of his courteſie.
3. We deſire you to conſider that Abraham paid the Tithe to Melchizedek, with relation to his bleſſing of him, which was an act of his Prieſtly Office, and ſhewed Melchizedek to be Abrahams, and ſo Levi's ſuperiour, v. 6, 7. So that Melchizedek as a Prieſt, received tithes of Abraham, and Chriſt in Melchizedek, received them from both Abraham and Levi: which (poſſibly) may be the reaſon, why God reſerved (even under the Law) the tenth of the Tithes, as an acknowledgment or high rent to Chriſt, the Prieſt, after the order of Melchizedek, to ſhew that Levi held them of him. Numb. 18. 26, 27, 28. which tenth therefore was to be given to Aaron the high Prieſt, who was a Type of Chriſt.
Poſſibly you may (according to the garb of your Generation) Sect. 26reject theſe things as our dark reaſonings. But ſeeing your owne Aſſertions and Quaeres lead us hereunto, we hope you will take them into your conſideration; at leaſt; ſo far as to ſhew us the darkneſſe of them. In a word, you may here gather our Anſwer to your three Quaeres before mentioned, viz. to the
Firſt; That we grant an end of the Leviticall Prieſthood in Chriſt.
To the ſecond, That in upholding Tithes, we uphold not that which was to have an end in Chriſt. Tithes being no neceſſary appendant to that Prieſthood, but Chriſts.
To the third, That we receive not Tithes upon that account, but as Miniſters of Chriſt, live upon Chriſts portion; which, till our former arguments be anſwered, we ſuppoſe Tithes to be: and therefore are not by receiving them obliged to Leviticall26 ſervice, but Gospell-adminiſtrations.
Theſe things we have a little enlarged upon, to let you knowSect. 27that we are not altogether ſo deſtitute of Scripture-warrant for receiving, yea, requiring Tythes, even in kind, as you (inſultingly enough) inſinuate us to be: Whether theſe arguments conclude the divine right of Tythes, or no, deſerves the conſideration of abler men, then you, or we, to vvhom vve humbly ſubmit our conceptions herein. However, ſuppoſing the Law of Tythes be as you ſay, Leviticall, and meerly ſo, in its originall and riſe; yet how you will prove that Law repealed, ſo that it becomes unlawfull for any Proprietor of Land ſince that adminiſtration ceaſed, to ſet apart the ſame proportion of the incomes and profits thereof, for the maintenance of a Goſpell Miniſtry, vve know not; vve are ſure the Apoſtle Paul did not think the maintenance of the Leviticall Prieſthood ſo Jewiſh as you do, vvhen he makes it one of the grounds of that Goſpel-ordinance for Miniſters maintenance, 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. Do you not know, that they which Miniſter about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? &c. Even ſo hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel ſhould live of the Goſpell; and that is neither by working, nor begging.
But then ſay you, this maintenance ſhould not be compulſive,Sect. 28to be recovered by Law, eſpecially from the poore and needy, &c. For the true Prophets and Ministers of Chriſt mentioned in Scripture, did not ſo live on forced ſubſtance, but ate and drank what the people gave.
We anſwer (1.) That any of us ſhould force maintenance from the poore and needy by Law, we confeſſe it in matter of fact, blameworthy, becauſe in caſes of indigency, and neceſſity, it is every mans duty to relax and remit a juſt debt; but in matter of right, no mans legall Title falls, becauſe of any ſuch inability. So that you muſt firſt prove, that Miniſters have no legall right to their Tenth, and then to force it from any, were ſinfull; till which, vve ſhall conceive it in it ſelf as lawfull for a Miniſter to ſue for his Tenth, as for another man to put in ſuit a juſt Bond.
2. That the Miniſters of Chriſt mentioned in Scripture, did not thus, was, becauſe they had not the ſame legall right, backed27 with the power of a Chriſtian Magiſtrate: or, becauſe they were inforced to forbeare that claime among ſorbid people, who loved their Purſes better then the Goſpell, 1 Cor. 9. 12. and truly ſome of us, to ſweeten perverſe Opinioniſts, are faine to remit much of our legall due to thoſe that are able to pay well enough.
3. What you call forcing by Law, if you mean it of the Law of man, you condemne not us, but the publike Juſtice. If you mean it of the Law of God, you had beſt ask the Apoſtle Paul, what he meanes in the ſame verſe, by uſing, or not uſing a power of claiming maintenance from the people. If others be partakers, ſaith he, of this power, Viz. Of requiring maintenance for teaching, are not we rather? nevertheleſſe, we have not uſed this power. And when he tells the Theſſalonians, That he might have been burthenſome to them, as the Apoſtles of Chriſt, 1 Theſ. 2. 6.
As for your other objection againſt us, that vve do not truſtSect. 29Gods providence, but indent for a maintenance. We anſwer, That we do not underſtand, how dependance upon divine providence comes to be inconſiſtent with uſing humane. You will think it an hard caſe, if all the poore in the Country ſhould come about you, and require you to lend your Eſtate among them, hoping for nothing againe (which is as plaine ScriptureLuke 5. 34, 35. as that you urge us vvithall in this caſe) and if you ſhould deny them ſo unreaſonable a requeſt, they ſhould tell you you are no Chriſtian, becauſe you do not truſt Gods providence; we doubt in ſuch a caſe, you would take ſhelter under ſome diſtinctions or other, as ill as you like them in the men of your ſcorne and wrath, the poore Miniſters.
In the ninth Article, you excuſe your bold cenſures of ourSect. 30hearts, in calling us Hypocrites, upon ſome pretended reaſons, as your ſelfe calls them, and vve for our parts believe them no other.
In the firſt reaſon, you juſtifie the charge vvith a meer ſlander, Viz. That vve preach againſt pride, and yet live in it, and covetouſneſſe, and yet are greedy of filthy lucre, &c. Thoſe that do ſo, vve diſowne, and thoſe that do not ſo (as thouſands in this Nations do not) you belye.
28Secondly, You ſay, vve are Hypocrites, becauſe we often tell people, we ſhould have proceeded further if time had not prevented us, when as indeed we have no more to ſay. How many Miniſters have told you, they have been drawn ſo dry, that you thus charge us? It may be you did ſo vvhen you vvere a Preacher, ſo you meaſure other mens Corne by your owne Buſhell.
Your third reaſon is, becauſe in our prayers before Sermon, we frequently beg that he would put words into our mouthes, and teach us what to ſay, where as even then we have our Sermon-notes either in our Pockets, or our Bibles, or the platforme of our diſcourſe prepared in our heads.
As for our Sermon-notes, thoſe of us that uſe them, are faine to do ſo many times, when they vvould not, becauſe they have to do with ſuch a captious Generation as yours, vvho vvould make no conſcience of making them ſay, vvhat they do not, by miſ-reports, had they not their owne papers to juſtifie themſelves. And yet vve know not why vve may not vvrite Notes, as vvell as you write Books; vve ſuppoſe that poſterity is no leſſe beholden to ſome Miniſters Notes, then to yours.
But your quarrell is not againſt Sermon-notes only, but againſt all premeditated diſcourſe. Indeed thoſe that can give themſelues liberty to talk. at the rate that your companions do, need not meditate much for vvhat they ſay; A man may ſafely ſay that heares you, that you are not guilty of premeditated diſcourſes. But vve for our parts conceive Meditation a very Miniſteriall exerciſe, elſe Paul would not have required it from Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 15. Immediatly after his charge, v. 13. to give attendance to exhortation, doctrine, he ſubjoynes, meditate on theſe things. It ſeemes the Apoſtle and you are of ſeverall minds in this particular, as well as in point of Miniſters maintenance.
But we wonder (whatſoever may be ſaid againſt thoſe that have, and uſe written-notes) how this reaſon of yours militates againſt thoſe that have only the platforme of their diſcourſe prepared in their heads, that they muſt needs be judged Hypocrites for praying to God to put words into their mouthes. May not a man that pre-meditates his matter, ſometimes be at a loſſe for words? And may he not pray, that God would furniſh him29 with expreſſions, who finds himſelf ſo, without hypocriſie?
And as for thoſe that uſe Sermon-notes, might not they expreſſe themſelves more aptly ſometimes then they write? And why then may they not pray, that God would ſupply them with apter language, upon the ſervice they are called unto, then they have prepared of themſelves? We believe there are no godly Miniſters, but find this aſſiſtance frequently, God directing their tongues to conſiderable alterations, and enlargements beyond what they have before them, and bringing many things to their memories, concerning which they had no actuall pre-meditation.
Your tenth Article brings in an Indictment of Felony againſtSect. 31poore Miniſters, for quoting of the Fathers and Expoſiters of the Scripture; and this you think will juſtifie you againſt an action of ſlander, for calling us Theeves and Robbers. But we deſire you to conſider,
Q. 1. Whether Auguſtine, and Hierome, and Calvin, and Luther, be more unlawfull to be quoted by us, then Seneca, an Heathen Philoſopher, by you.
Q. 2. Whether our Saviour Chriſt quoting Moſes and the Prophets, Peter quoting Paul, and Jude, Enoch, yea Paul himſelf quoting Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, HeathenAct. 17. 28 1 Cor. 15. 33. Tit. 1. 12. Poets, do not as much fall under your charge of Thievery, as we, for quoting thoſe you mention?
Q. 3. Whether a man may not receive that from the Lord, which he gathers from the writings of other men? Surely you ſuppoſe the Readers that can find leaſure enough, to look over your Pamphlet, will receive ſome light thereby. If not, why do you publiſh it? If ſo, is that light from God, or from your ſelfe, or from the Devill? We ſuppoſe you will not ſay, you write either your owne Dreames, or Satanicall ſuggeſtions. And if you ſay, from the Lord, then we hope the Lord may as well ſpeak to us, by Auſtine, Hierome, Calvin, or Luther, as by you to your Proſelites.
Q. 4. Whether we may not as well quote the words of theſe men, and yet ſay, hearken to the word of the Lord, as you receive your principles, railings, evaſions, modes, and practiſes, from George Fox, and James Naylor? and yet cry the word of the Lord to your Proſelites?
30Q. 5. Whether you be not your ſelves under the ſame condemnation, who ſuperſcribe your Quaeres (which you ſend us now and then) from the spirit of the Lord, and call them the word of the Lord to us, when we can produce the printed Books of others of your Fraternity, whence they are moſt of them ſtollen word for word. ††T. C. his Quaeres to one of us, borrowed to a Title out of a Book directed to all that would know the way to the Kingdom, Excepting falſe engliſh. Sect. 32
To your eleventh Article, wherein you juſtifie your confidence, in adviſing us to preach no more to the people, then the Lord hath spoken to us, and then we our ſelves witneſſe the life and power of in our ſelves. We ſay, that tis true, your are noted for confidence enough, and none more then your female Declarers, who for ſuch a ſcolding religion, as yours is, are very well furniſhed with a Billingſgate confidence. Concerning whom (by the way) we will be bold to examine you upon a few Interrogatories.
Q. 1. Whether the Spirit of God ever did act any perſons with a boldneſſe and confidence, that breaks the Lawes of Nature, and Civility?
Q. 2. Whether your Propheteſſes that come to declare in publick Aſſemblies, and ſome of them ſometimes naked,**As at Whitehall not long ſince, and elſewhere. Jer. 3. 3. do not break the Lawes of Nature, and civility.
Q. 3. Whether ſuch immodeſt practiſes, be not too great evidences againſt many of them, that they are ſo far from Religion, that they have much corrupted the principles of common honeſty? And whether ſuch brazen-faced impudency in ſuch, be not in the language of Scripture, an Whores forehead?
Q. 4. Whether Pauls light or yours be better, who ſaith, Let the woman learne in ſilence with all ſubjection. But I ſuffer not a woman to teach, nor to uſurp authority over the man, but to be in ſilence, 1 Tim. 3. 11. 12. Whereas you allow your women to teach in our Aſſemblies, and your owne, and in the very Streets and Market-places, and to uſurp Authority over us, who take our ſelves to be men, charging us to ſpeak no more in the name of the Lord, &c.
And what confidence emboldens the reſt of you to come into our Aſſemblies, and againſt the wills of the Officers, to deliver your rayling charges there, to the diſturbance of whole Congregations, your ſelves beſt know. Only this we deſire to know of you,
31Q. 1. Whether Chriſt, or his Apoſtles ever practiſed the like liberty, in the Synagogues of the Jewes, without leave firſt obtained from the Rulers? We find not that our Saviour Chriſt at Nazareth, opened his mouth to ſpeak to the people in the Synagogue till the Miniſter delivered him the Book, in token of the liberty granted him to teach there, Luke 4 17. 20. And we find the Apoſtle Paul, and his companion Barnabas at Antioch, ſate down and were ſilent, till the Rulers of the Synagogue ſent unto them and gave them liberty, Act. 13. 14, 15. And yet ſuppoſing they did; their miraculous gifts were a ſufficient demonſtration that they had an higher authority. We ſee no ſuch in any of you.
Q. 2. Whether you be not herein ſo confident, as to offer violence to that very Article of the Government by which you yourſelves claime liberty; in diſturbing thoſe, who (as profeſſing faith in God by Jeſus Chriſt) are worſhiping him according to their Conſciences?
Q. 3. Whether it be not an apparant deſigne of Satan, to imploy ſuch confident men and women, to make ſuch diſturbances at ſuch a time, when people ſhould go home and meditate upon what they have heard, to hinder and divert them.
But you think that you have warrant for all this confidence,Sect. 33becauſe you only adviſe us to preach no more to the people then the Lord hath ſpoken to us, &c. Which advice of yours, were it delivered in a ſober, private, Chriſtian way, we hope we ſhould take well at your hands, and do aſſure you, that we will (to our utmoſt ability) practiſe accordingly. But we doubt, that ſo much will not ſatisfie, except we renounce what God ſpeaks to us in the written word, and hearken for Gods voice in unwritten revelations. In which ſenſe, we muſt profeſſe, we think it were great boldneſſe indeed in you, to require us not to preach more then God hath ſpoken to us: Seeing you undertake to forbid what God requires, and our Saviour Chriſt and his Apoſtles accordingly practiſed. The Apoſtle to Timothy tells him and us, that, the Scriptures are given by inſpiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, &c. To what purpoſe is the Scripture avouched to be profitable for Doctrine, if we may raiſe no Doctrines from it? for reproof, correction, and inſtruction,32 if we may not lay it as the ground of all theſe, 2 Tim. 3. 16. And in the ſame Epiſtle chap. 2. 2. he commands Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men, who ſhall be able to teach others alſo. Had your quaking Generation been on foot then, would they not have had the confidence to charge Timothy to ſpeak nothing to the people but what he had heard from God immediatly? and thoſe that received Pauls Doctrine at the ſecond hand, from Timothy much more? But whether the Apoſtle Paul, or you be to be obeyed, let ſober men judge.
Sure we are that our Saviour Chriſt himſelf took for his Text, what the Lord had many years before ſpoken to the Prophet Iſaiah, Luke 4. 17. 18. And for the Apoſtles and Apoſtolicall men, we find them preaching thoſe things which they learned from the Scriptures: Apollos, Act. 18. 28. ſhewed by the Scriptures, that Jeſus was the Chriſt. And when the great queſtion concerning Circumciſion, and the Moſaicall obſervances, was ſtarted among the Apoſtles and Elders, Act. 15. James quotes the word of the Lord to Amos, v. 16, 17. in that Aſſembly. And the Apoſtle Paul, Act 26. before Agrippa and Feſtus profeſſeth, He in all his Doctrine, witneſſed, ſaying none other things, then thoſe which the Prophets and Moſes did ſay; So that he preached the word that was ſpoken to Moſes and the Prophets, and yet none that we read of, charged him to ceaſe from preaching more then God had immediatly ſpoken to him. And we hope, we may ſafely diſobey your councels or commands herein, under the protection of ſuch great examples.
As for the other part of your advice to us, that we preach no more then we our ſelves witneſſe the life and power of, within ourSect. 34ſelves: We would hope you mean Orthodoxly in it; to wit, that we practiſe what we preach; wch if it be all you intend herein, we aſſure you we do, and we hope ſhall be enabled by grace to do ſo more and more. But when we look upon the papers of others of your brethren, we doubt you mean, we muſt not preach any thing of the Hiſtories and Propheſies of the ScriptureSee faith full diſcovery of myſticall Antichriſt, pag. in their literall ſenſe, but only the experiences of the Allegoricall ſenſes their teachers faſten upon them, within our ſelves. A brief Scheme of which Allegoricall experiences, we33 find in two Quakers diſcourſes, related at large by John Toldervy,Foot out of the ſnare, p. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, &c. out of which, that it may be known, what the Quakers your brethren would have us witneſſe in our ſelves, and then preach; we ſhall draw a ſhort Catechiſme, as faithfully, as according to our underſtanding we can.
Q. 1. What is the word? P. 5.
Anſw. Life, or the ſubſtance whence the Scriptures are ſpoken.
Q. 2. What are the Scriptures?
A. A declaration from the word of life.
Q. 3. What is this ſubſtance the word of life?
A. The meaſure of God manifeſted in man; the Gift of the holy Spirit manifeſted in fleſh, made known in all.
Q. 4 What is the Garden of Eden? P. 1. 1
A. The World.
Q 5. What are the Trees of this Garden?
A. All living beings.
Q. 6. Why ſo?
A. Becauſe they have their being of God by ſomewhat of himſelfe that proceedeth out of the earth, God the life.
Q. 7. Where is Paradiſe?
A. In man.
Q. 8. How did man fall?
A. By hearkning to the weaker.
Q. 9. What is that weaker?
A. The fleſhly mind.
Q. 10. Did not the Woman tempt him?
A. Woman is that ſillieſt and weakeſt part.
Q. 11. What was Adam?
A. The earthly nature in man.
Q. 12. What is the Redeemer of man?
A. The light by which he is given to ſee ſin, and enabled by it, if obeyed, to be redeemed from ſin.
Q. 13. Where is this Redeemer?
A. In every particular man.
Q 14. Is not that perſon the Son of God that died at Jeruſalem, this Redeemer?
A. No.
34Theſe and the like are the Doctrines which in the ſenſe of ſome of your companions we muſt witneſſe the life and power of in our ſelves, i. e. Theſe Allegoricall experiences of the myſtery of Scripture, as they call it, before we preach to others. Whether you be of this mind or no, we know not. But we fear you deale as partially and ſubtilly in drawing up this Article, as you do in many of the reſt, to hide the groſeneſſe of your Doctrines from the people. What followes in this Article is a conſequence fancied by you, that would follow, if we ſhould herein follow your advice; Viz, That either conſtant ſilence or rare preaching would be found in our Congregations, &c. And we think ſo too, if we have hit upon your meaning in that advice: For we have no warrant to expect immediate revelations at all, much leſſe conſtantly; and leſſe warrant to allegorize Scripture into ſuch odd and wretched conceits, and then preach them to the people.
If your meaning be as you ſpeak, and as at firſt ſight weSect. 35were willing in charity to ſuppoſe, we believe your Congregations, would (ſhould your teachers be tyed up to the ſame Law) be in as deep ſilence as any of ours We cannot ſuppoſe that the Lord, or experience ſpeaks to moſt of you, thoſe mad doctrines of which we have given you a taſt before, and ſhall give you more anon. And we know, that there are of you that preach down pride, and yet are proud, moſt inſolently proud, moſt phariſaically proud, if Chriſt deſcribe pride aright, Luke 18. 9. There are that preach down perſecution, and yet are to their power the moſt malicious Perſecuters of all that are not as themſelves; divers of you that preach down idleneſſe, and tell poore Miniſters, that if they will not worke, they muſt not eat; yet themſelves walk up and down the Land, and like lazy Lurdens, or Drones, eat the fat, and drink the ſweet at the charges of their deluded Entertainers, till (as we have had upon credible information, a ſad example lately not far from this place) they eat their Wives and Families out of doores: So that if you preach no more then you witneſſe the life and power of in your ſelves, we ſhould heare fewer declamations againſt the pride, and tythes, and perſecution of the Miniſtry, and then what would your praters do for matter to entertaine their Hearers withall?
35Your twelfth Article ſets up (plaine enough) the revelationSect. 36of the Spirit, in oppoſition to all humane ſtudies, but eſpecially to thoſe which are uſed in our Ʋniverſities. We for our parts, judge they may very well go hand in hand. We do not find but that learning and grace together, make the beſt Preachers. We do not ſay, that learning alone is ſufficient to diſcover the mind of God; but yet we believe that (if his mind be to be underſtood by his words) the underſtanding of his words, may be ſome help to the underſtanding of his mind. And ſurely, ſome parts of his mind are not to be underſtood without the help of that Learning which we call humane learning, either infuſed, or acquired. He that can underſtand Pauls Epiſtles without Logick, divers parts of Ezekiell, and the Revelation without Mathematicks; divers peices in Moſes and Job without naturall Philoſophy; Iſaiah, or the Pſalmes, without Rhetorick, &c. we will believe is indeed inſpir'd by God. But we conſider your Generation allow no diſcovery of the mind of God by Scriptures, and therefore it is no wonder if you will not allow any uſe of learning to draw that thence, which you will not believe was ever there.
But whereas you appeale to the practiſe of Paul and Peter,Sect. 37as evidence againſt the uſefulneſſe of Ʋniverſity-learning in this way. We know (for one of them) Paul he was bred at the feet of Gamaliel, and made good uſe afterwards of the great learning he got there, not only in his Epiſtles, which indeed exhibite the marrow of polite learning, as well as Divinity; but alſo in his diſcourſes ſometimes, as in that of his before Agrippa and Feſtus, which provoked Feſtus to cry out, that much Learning made him mad, Act. 26. 24. And therefore we ſuppoſe, we ſhall find him at leaſt indifferent in this buſineſſe.
And as for the Apoſtle Peter, we gather this Teſtimony from him to the uſefulneſſe of Learning, that in the very reading of Pauls Epiſtles, and other Scriptures, it may keep a man from2 Pet. 3. 16 wreſting them to deſtruction, which many that want it he tells us, too often do.
We diſparage not the revelation of the Spirit, we acknowledgeSect. 38that all the learning of the world will not bring ſaving truth effectually home to the underſtanding and conſciences of36 men; nay carnall reaſon back'd with learning will diſpute the light of the moſt glorious Doctrinall Truthes of the Goſpel, out of mens judgments (as is ſeen daily in the myſteries of the Perſon, natures, Incarnation, ſatisfaction, righteouſneſſe, merit, of Chriſt without us: which firſt heathen Philoſophers, & Gnoſticks, and after them the Arians, Socinians, and Papiſts, and laſt of all, by the weapons borrowed from ſome, or all of them, the Familiſts, and their off-ſpring the Juſuited Quakers, or Jeſuites, and Franciſcans under the diſguiſe of Quakers, have endeavoured to diſpute, & rail out of the World) and the moſt glorious practicall Truths of the Goſpel out of mens Conſciences, as appeares daily in thoſe, whoſe learning Satan makes uſe of to defend and patronize their luſts: So that there needs another kind of learning to ſettle theſe Truths ſavingly in the minds and hearts of men, which the Scripture calls the revelation and demonſtration of the Spirit. But yet we muſt own Learning ſanctified by the Spirit of God, as a precious help and furtherance to the underſtanding of the Letter of the Scripture, confuting Hereticall wreſtings of them, and convincing gain-ſayers. And we wonder, whence all theſe that diſpute againſt Learning from the Scriptures, received thoſe Scriptures whence they diſpute, but from the help of humane Learning. Surely thoſe holy men who brought down the Scriptures to our capacities, by tranſlating them into our Mother Tongue, were not immediatly taught the knowledge of the Originall Tongues, by the revelation of the Spirit; but learnt it in Schooles and Ʋniverſities, and moſt of the truths of the Goſpel which have been preſerved to us, from the violent hands of Heathen Philoſophers, and Hereticks, have been very much (as to means) preſerved by the diſputes of learned men. Julian the Apoſtate knew well enough that Schools of Learning were no ſmall props of Chriſtian Religion, and therefore when he had deſigned a totall abolition of Chriſtianity out of the world, he attempted it by two wayes, which your Generation unhappily follow him in, ſuppreſſing Schooles of literature among Chriſtians, and taking away Miniſters maintenance.
And whereas you ſay, that the Apoſtles and Miniſters ofSect. 39Chriſt in Scripture did not ſerve an Apprentiſhip in any Ʋniverſity37 to learne the Trade of preaching (as you ſcornfully call it) we anſwer they needed it not, for they then received that by immediate inſpiration, which ſince that time we know no perſon, Quaker, or other, ever attained in that way; they became Linguiſts, and Diſputants, per ſaltum, which others ſince are faine to grow unto by degrees. If you ſay the ſame Spirit dwels in you, we ſay, look you to that as to the ſanctifying and ſaving graces of that Spirit, for he that hath not the Spirit thus, is none of Chriſts, Rom. 8. 9 But as to gifts of Tongues, and other parts of learning, which were then by that Spirit, beſtowed in an inſtant on the firſt Planters of the Church, we want an inſtance of any of you, that can ſay ſo much of himſelf. If you know any, let us heare from you in the next, who it is, and if he be able to make it out to us, we will believe him.
You ſay further, that they preached but the Gospel whichSect. 40Chriſt by his Spirit revealed in them, and you quote two places of Scripture which ſpeak of revelation indeed, but not ſuch as is excluſive to humane learning, which is your drift. Indeed, in the firſt Paul ſaith, that God revealed thoſe things which eye had not ſeen, &c. to him by his holy Spirit. And in the other1 Cor. 2: 10. Gal. 1. 16. he ſaith, that God revealed his Son in him; but it is not proved, that in the laſt of thoſe places the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Doctrine, much leſſe the holy Doctrine of the Goſpell that Paul preached, as if his humane learning contributed nothing to that; but only of thoſe inward operations that Paul experienced; and therefore he ſhewes the effect of the revelation, that it took him off from conſulting with fleſh and blood, which we before acknowledge as well as you.
In the former of them, the Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſuch a revelation of the Goſpel, as ſavingly enabled him to receive it, feelingly to preach it, as appeareth; by v. 14. where he oppoſeth the knowledge of a naturall man, which is by meer learning, to that of a spirituall man, which is by revelation, yet not excluding learning. For by the way, you may obſerve that he doth not oppoſe a spirituall man, and a learned man [Paul himſelf was ſpirituall and learned too] but a spirituall man, and a naturall, or unregenerate man, who hath nothing but naturall faculties, and humane learning to improve them.
38And (as to your aſſertion it ſelfe) that they preached onelySect. 41that Gospel, which Chriſt by his ſpirit rovealed in them; if you mean thus, that they preached nothing but what was immediatly revealed from the Spirit without any externall help, the plaine Scripture will give you the lye. For how often did Chriſt inſtruct them, during his bodily preſence among them? And how did he expound the Scriptures to them, going through all the Bookes then penned, even from Moſes to Malachi, immediatly before his Aſſention? Luke. 24. 27. So that whatever may be ſaid of Paul, who was called and enabled to his Apoſtleſhip in a ſingular way, untrodden by any of the reſt, we are ſure, all the reſt were taught, otherwiſe then by the immediate revelation of the Spirit only.
But we doubt yet another Snake in the Graſſe of this faireSect. 42expreſſion [which Chriſt by his Spirit revealed in them] and ſuſpect it beares ſome analogy with that in your former Article, of preaching no more then we witneſſe the life and power of in our ſelves; and which you call afterwards, witneſſing the condition of the Saints, whoſe words we preach, of which anon. The beſt ſenſe therefore, which comparing your words with each other, and all with the language of your other Brethren, we can pick out of your expreſſions here, is, that you ſuppoſe, they preached no more, then what by ſpirituall experience the Spirit revealed in their hearts: Which if it be that you herein intend, we deſire you to conſider whether the Apoſtles did experience in themſelves the Hiſtories of the old Teſtament, which yet they preached, and whether they did experience in themſelves the reſurrection of the body, the generall judgment, and eternall damnation which they preached? Whether John experienced the Propheſies of the Revelation in himſelf, or no; as ſome ofFoot out of the ſnare, p. 6. 13. you cant, that the witneſſes are ſlaine in us, and muſt be raiſed to life in us, and Babylon in us, &c.
And of this ſtamp, we doubt, is that uncouth and odd expreſſion of witneſſing the Saints conditions (which is one of theSect. 43phraſes we told you before, that we conceive needs interpretation) though poſſibly you ſpeak what you mean, yet we know not what you mean by what you ſpeak) eſpecially if we compare thoſe papers which we often receive from your Diſciples39 in theſe parts, with what you here ſay.
But we will take you in the beſt ſenſe, and ſo to witneſſe, we ſuppoſe in your ſenſe, is, to feele by inward experience the Saints conditions, whoſe words we preach. And without this qualification (in your judgment) we muſt paſſe for Miniſters of the Letter only. We doubt you underſtand not, what a Miniſter of the Letter meanes. We are ſure, by a Miniſter of the Letter, the Apoſtle meanes not ſuch an one as expounds and applies the written Word, but either one that preached up the Jewiſh ceremonies according to the Letter, which were the vaile that hid the Goſpell, inſtead of Chriſt the ſubſtance of them; or elſe, that preached the duties of the Law for justification, and ſo your generation are the Miniſters of the Letter, who preach up a righteouſneſſe of workes, under the notion of Chriſt in us, to the decrying and blaſpheming of the righteouſneſſe of Faith, in Chriſts perſon without us. And you your ſelfe ſpeake ſcornefully enough of it, though covertly, p. 55. of your Book, as of a righteouſneſſe beyond the Stars, and a far off from us; ſo that we feare your heart is the ſame with them, though you be more wary in your expreſſions.
In a word, if we miſtake you, you muſt impute it to your darkneſſe, and ambiguity of expreſſion, which you affect in this Epiſtle, that you may (like a Carp) by running your head in the mud of uncouth and ambiguous language, avoid the Net of a juſt diſcovery and confutation: and to your undertaking, which being the juſtification of the people called Quakers, we are neceſſitated to interpret you by what we know of them.
To your thirteenth Article, concerning the unprofitableneſſeSect. 44of talking and profeſſing Chriſt in Orthodox notions, except we witneſſe (we will ſuppoſe you underſtand, find, and feele by experience) the life of Chriſt in us: We would hope you mean as you ſay, and no more; and if ſo, we mean and ſay as you do, that it will not availe us or our hearers to talk of Chriſts dying for us, and our being juſtified by his righteouſneſſe, except we receive a ſpirit of holineſſe from him, and be taught by the grace that appeareth to us, to deny all ungodlineſſe, and worldly luſts, and to live ſoberly, righteouſly and godly in this preſent world. But weTim. 2. 12. muſt tell you, that we do not make our mortification of ſin, or reſurrection40 to newneſſe of life; or any of the fruits growing upon thoſe roots (though we could be as holy as ever any Saint was upon earth) any part of our righteouſneſſe in the preſence of God, but in matter of juſtification, we renounce them all as abominable and filthy rags, droſſe and dung to the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith, and deſire to be found in him alone, whoIſa. 64. 6. Phil. 3. 8, 9. Jer. 23. 5. Gal. 2. 16. is the Lord our righteouſneſſe. We ſay with the Apoſtle, Knowing that a man is not juſtified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, even we have beleived in Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt, and not by the workes of the Law. Whether you be of this judgment or no, we deſire to know more fully in your next. Thoſe of your generation are not, as we ſhall ſhew anon, from their own papers, which ſpeak out, what we ſee you have a mind to conceale.
In your fourteenth Article, you confeſſe that you both publiſhSect. 45and practiſe, an unmannerly diſreſpect of all perſons, in which (becauſe you ſcruple ſwearing) we would (as well as we may) credit you without an Oath. And that you publiſh and practiſe it as truth, we will beleive. But Omne ſimile non eſt idem, as you may very well know. Many of your quaking doctrines (as you colour them) are very like truth. But we have in part ſhewn they are not what they ſhew for, and ſhall do more ere vve have done vvith you: Mean while vve will a little diſpute it vvith you; Whether Religion deſtroy civility and good manners? For our parts, vve humbly conceive, that the fifth Commandement is not yet repealed, that commands us to honour our Fathers and Mothers. And Solomon vve ſuppoſe walked by that Law vvhen he bowed to his Mother, 1 King. 2. 29. Nor do vve dare condemne the bowing of Abraham before the Sons of Heth, Gen. 23. 7. 12. Nor do vve think that curſed Canaanites are more capable of civill honour and reſpect, then civill Magiſtrates. And how far the examples of Luke, dedicating his Book to the moſt excellent Theophilus, Lu. 1. 3. Pauls Titles of [King Agrippa and moſt Noble Feſtus] andAct. 26. 7. 25. 1 Pet. 3. 6. Sarahs calling Abraham Lord (practiſed in the old, and commended in the new Teſtament) vvill juſtifie the practiſe of thoſe vvho beſtow Titles upon men according to their quality, from that reſpecting of perſons vvhich the Apoſtle James condemnes, itJam. 5. 1.41 may be your own ſecond thoughts will better inform you. Surely, the Apoſtle James doth not deny the diſtinction of Magiſtrates, and others in their Seates and Benches. We do not find the Apoſtles when they were called before Magiſtrates, juſtle with them for their Chaires and Cuſhions, or ſet themſelves down cheek by joule with them upon the Bench. Nor was1 King. 2. 19. Solomon to be charged with respecting perſons, for calling for a Chair for his Mother Bathſheba, and not for all others as well that came to preſent Petitions to him. For a cloſe, we are perſwaded; that this levelling humour never laſted longer in any perſon, then till he himſelf got into the Chair of Magiſtracy: We know no Prince in Europe that ever King'd it with that ſtate as John of Leyden did, when he acted his part at Munſter, and yet he and his Generation were as much againſt reſpecting of perſons a while before, as any of our Quakers at this day.
In a word, we are no friends to that great diſtance which meer wealth makes in the eſteem of the world between man and man, eſpecially between godly poore, and ungodly rich men. And we hope we can ſay in the ſincerity of our hearts, that we know no godly poor man whom we would not, and do not prefer in our eſteems and reſpects, as we have opportunity to ſhew it, before any wealthy men, that are not ſo. But where the goodneſs is equall in both, we ſuppoſe the modeſty of the inferiour will not ſuffer him to be agrieved, if his Superiour in any ſort ſit above him, or go before him; nor do we think it any token of humility (which is one of the moſt eminent graces in true Saints) for ſuch an one to juſtle for the wall with another, to whom in common courteſie and civility, founded upon the Law of God, Nature, and Nations it is more due.
We ſhall not diſpute againſt you the conſequences of thisSect. 46your Doctrine, if it ſhould take place as they touch our ſelves. Let it follow (as you ſay) that we ſhall hereby be ſtripped of the Titles of Doctors, or Divines; we perſwade our ſelves (as well-pleaſing, as you think they are to us) we have learned of our Maſter to be contented to be made of no reputation, & if God think fit to abaſe us among thoſe with whom we have to do,42 that vve ſhould receive as little reſpect from others, as vve do from you; vve are able through grace, to contemne thoſe poore things as dirt and dung: And if inſtead of Doctors and Divines, vve meet vvith the Titles of Serpent, Cain, Eſau, Satan, yea, Belzebub himſelf (which are the honourable Titles your Generation in their great civility, or Chriſtianity afford us.) In a word, ſhould men call us Dolts inſtead of Doctors, and Devils inſtead of Divines, we hope we can ſay without vanity, vve ſhould eſteem it our Crown, ſo the name of Chriſt might be exalted by the fall of our own. The Titles that men give us, vve hope ſome of us can ſay, vve procured without ambition and receive vvithout pride, and can lay down vvithout diſcontent.
But vve vvonder however, how the name of Doctor, or TeacherSect. 47ſhould come to be ſo Apocryphall vvith you, vvho know it vvas a name of Office in the Primitive times, Eph. 4. 11. And vvhy your brethren ſhould quarrell ſo unmercifully againſt the name Maſter, or Sir, vvhen they might know how often it is given and taken by the Apoſtles of Chriſt, who, ſurely, knew their Maſters mind in that prohibition better then they, and why (if Titles be thus unlawfull) do your ſelf give the Sirs, to your Readers, and Sir to your Antagoniſt, which is all as much as Maſter? Nay, vvhy your Son ſhould call you Father, any more then our Hearers call us Maſters,, ſeeing one Text prohibits Both, vve cannot imagine: And vve know not vvhether it vvas upon this account, that a Son of yours lately told one of us, that he diſowned you.
But (to let this paſſe, and ſhut up this Article in a word) We ſuppoſe your other conſequence of this Doctrine vvhich youSect. 48mention; to vvit, the ſtripping the Magiſtrate of his Titles of honourable, and worſhipfull, ſhewes ſome vvorſe blood then that that boyles in your Veines againſt the poore Miniſters. We doubt that you that vvould ſtrip them of their Titles, have no great (or it may be too great) mind to their Offices. For ſurely, there is leſſe expreſſe Authority in the new Teſtament for Chriſtian Magiſtracy it ſelfe, then for the Titles beſtowed upon them? What ſecurity then vvill you give them that you vvill not quarrell with their Robes and Maces, and afterwards with43 their Offices as vvell as vvith their Titles. We read of moſt excellent Theophilus, and moſt noble Feſtus, Titles as high as honourable and worſhipfull applyed to men in Magiſtracy. But of Chriſtian Magiſtrates, not a vvord of Precept or practiſe; vvould you dared ſpeak out! vvhy do you nibble at Titles? tell us plainly, you ayme at the thing it ſelf, moſt think you do.
And now vve are arrived to the laſt of your Articles, vvherein you take ſome pleaſure to ſhew how you can criticize on the vvords Thee and Thou, vvhich you vvould faine juſtifie to be the only proper tearmes to any ſingle perſon A doughty undertaking! and very fit for your learning to mannage: We ſhould ſcarce think it vvorth the vvhile to diſpute ſuch a trifle vvith you, but only to let you know, how unfit you are to diſpute down Ʋniverſities, that mannage a Grammaticall Queſtion ſo childiſhly: Should a Schoole Boy of ten years old be bid tranſlate, How do you Sir into Latine, vvould he not render it Quomodo vales tu? It ſeems your new Grammer vvould correct him vvith a Quomodo valetis vos? A learned peice of Pedantry! Are you ſo ſilly as not to know that Tranſlators reſpect the uſage of words in the Tongues they make uſe of: If the Tranſlators of Hebrew or Greek, had rendred〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉or〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by you, as well as thou, to a ſingle perſon, might they not have done as well to an Engliſh eare, ſeeing both words are uſed indifferently by Engliſh men? you ſhould not be ignorant of the old Rule, Loquendum ut vulgus. And Horace (if you have read him) tells you, that tis uſe (Quem penes arbitrium eſt, & vis, & norma loquendi. ) that words are to be regulated by.
But why then do we not (ſay you) uſe the word you to theSect. 50great God as well as to men? We anſwer, it is not neceſſary we ſhould give you any anſwer hereunto, but that you have received already. Words are proper, or improper, as uſe makes them. And yet we conceive we well vary the phraſe to God upon this account, becauſe in our prayers we addreſſe our ſelves to God in the Unity of his nature, and therefore vve uſe a word that is not capable of importing plurality, as you is. [And vvhereas you add laſtly, that the rich think it proper to ſaySect.