Quakerisme the path-way to paganisme, or, A vieu of the Quakers religion being an examination of the theses and apologie of Robert Barclay, one of their number, published lately in Latine, to discover to the world, what that is, which they hold and owne for the only true Christian religion / by John Brown ...

CHAP. XXXI. Of Civil Honour.

1. BEside what belongeth properly to Civil Honour, of which we are now to speak, there are other two particulars, which he is pleased to speak some∣thing to, in his Vindication of his last Thesis, to wit, against Vanity & Prodiga∣lity in apparel, and against Comoedies and such Playes; concerning which, I minde to be no adversary unto him; only I must say, he must be very affront∣ed and shameless to suppose, let be to say, That all his Adversaries conten•• for these as lawful, and as no way contrary to Christian Religion; as he saith Pag. 334. for howbeit we love not to place too much of Religion in the outward garb; nor think, that people should affect to be singular therein, and too pharisaically make a proclamation of their being such or such persons, as if the outward vestment could make the man a Christian of such or such a magnitude; nor like we such clothes of distinction, as the Popish Orders have, knowing how much Superstitious vanity moveth thereunto, and worketh under it: Yet we as much hate and abhore that prodigious abuse, that so much aboundeth this day, and provoketh the Lord to anger, as he can. We know Christianity re∣quireth all Gravity, Sobriety, Modesty and Moderation; and howbeit distin∣ction of Qualities, Conditions, and Offices, will admit a distinction of ap∣parel, both for mater and fashion; Yet in all there ought to be gravity and mo∣desty studied and followed: we remember, as well, as he, and presse the fol∣lowing of that word of the Apostle Paul 1 Tim. 2:9, 10. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety, not with broidered haire, or pearls or costly aray: but (which becometh women professing godli∣ness) with good works. And of that of Peter 1 Pet. 3:3, 4. whose adorning let it not be that outward, of plaiting the haire, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of appa∣rel; but the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, the ornament of a meek and quiet Spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. Yet we dar not say, that it is sinful to wear any thing more, than what is simply necessary for covering of nakedness, and keeping from cold; knowing that there is an Or∣nament allowed, that suiteth with Gravity, Shamefastness and Sobriety, ac∣cording to the various conditions and qualities of Persons; though notwith∣standing we would have no offence given, in things indifferent; nor any just cause of stumbling, either to one or other; but do rather desire, that persons would keep within that measure, which their condition, and the custome of the place, would allow, than that their good should be evel spoken of, and Christianity fall under a reproach. And as to Ribbens, Laces, and the like, which, it seemeth, he inveigheth most against; though we could well desire, that they were utterly in disuse, where any ground of offence is given thereby; and willingly confess, that both as to these and several other things, there is too much Vanity, Lightness and Prodigality obvious and apparent; Yet we dar not simply condemne all the use of such things, as sinful, and repugnant to Chri∣stianity:

And we suppose, there may lurk as much real Pride, Vanity and Con∣ceite, under a garb outwardly modest, and free of those toyes; as sometimes will do under a garb accompanied with them. As for this Comoedies, he may know, that some, who are no Quakers, have said as much and more against them, than he hath done, or can do: And yet we dar not simply condemne the use of all lawful and sinless Recreations, the use whereof with Christian mode∣ration and sobriety, may be useful, if not necessary, to some bodies, & a mean to fit them for more noble service and work.

2. Having thus dispatched these things, and having now considered all the parts and pieces of the Quakers Profession, held forth by this their Advocat and Patron, in the forgoing Theses and their Vindication; we come now, in the last place, to speak to that, which I look upon, as their proper and peculiar characteristick; as that which really differenceth them from all other hereticks, schismaticks, or erroneous persons, that have appeared to this day, in the Chri∣stian world, so far as I can yet learne: Hither til I have met with nothing in all their Opinions, and Practices, which he is pleased here to lay before us, as owned by them, and defended by him (except their Quaking, which ground∣eth their denomination, and w••ich assimilateth them more unto the old heathe∣nish Consulters of the Devil, than to Christians) which hath not been asserted and maintained by others, who have been condemned, upon that account, by the Church of Christ, before the generation of Quakers were ever heard of, as I have showne all alongs. Only I must confess, that in this they are also singu∣lar, That before them, there was never a Seck heard of, that owne•• and main∣tained such a full and compleat body of errour and heresie, and gave forth such a perfect systeme of devilish doctrine, tending to the overthrow and destruction of all Christianity and true Divinity, and to the propagating and strengthening of the Kingdom of darkness, as the Seck of the Quakers hath done; whose maine intent, or the Devil's in them, seeme••h to have been to gather together, in one masse, all the errours and abominable opinions, formerly scattere•• up and down the Christian world, through all ages, and vented by several persons, raised up by Satan for that effect, which might contribute any thing to the utter extirpation of Christianity, and of all true Religion; so that, what the Devil could not effectuat by Arrians, Pelagians, Socinians, Papists, Arminians, A∣nabaptists, Familists, Enthusiasts, Antiscripturists, Muns••erians, David Georgi∣ans, Manichees, Antitrinitarians, Montanists, Donatists, Heracleonites, Asco∣thyptae, Messalians, Swenckfeldians, Carpocratians, Valentinians, Gnosimachians, Priscillianists, Marcionites, Tertullianists, Mareites, Quintinus, Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, and others not a few, he thinketh now to accomplish by these Miserable Quakers, who have gathered together in one cloud, what these severally, and in pieces, did vent and propagate, to darken the truth of God. But we are confident, that the Lord, who hath appeared against, and broken the scattered forces, shall, while rallyed and combined to∣gether in one, and in their fullest strength, beat them out of the fields, & con∣sume them with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy them with the bright∣ness of his coming.

3. Beside this wicked composition, which sufficiently discriminateth them from all, who have formerly troubled the Church of Christ; they must have something peculiar to themselves, which, as an open badge, must be owned and avowed by them; and this must also be such a Cognizance, as may dis∣cover them to all onlookers to be the men and women of such a profe••sion: And this consisteth in their denying of all outward civil honour and respect, & all significations thereof to any person whatsomever, not only their Equals but their Superiours, whether in higher or lower degree; for when they passe by any, how high so ever; or compear before any Judge or Magistrate, they will not so much, as signifie their respect, by uncovering of their head, as if they were all Turks▪ or brought up among them; or so many Heathenish Priests, who as Plutarch witnesseth, used never to take off their cap, which was the insigne of the Flamines, See Mr Durham on the Revel. Pag. 563. And when they are speaking to any, even to greatest Personages, not only they will not make use of any titles, or expressions importing reverence and respect, accord∣i••g to the common usage and custome; but they speak to such, in the very same dialect and manner, that the greatest useth, or can use, while talking with or speaking to the meanest of their inferiours: Hence is there Thou and Thee, instead of you and yee; Yea, which is also remarkable, in their answers, they use yea and nay: and will not say, yes and no: so Mr Grigge, the writer of the Quakers Iesus, informeth me, in his Epistle Prefixed to that book: And what can this import, but some characteristick Tessera, or note of distinction, whereby they may be discerned from all others whatsomever; and who can tell, if in such foolish niceties, there lye not some piece of outward homage, which they must pay to their Master, who will take little ere he want all; and will be as well pleased with a toy, if it be given in signe of homage, as with a greater mater? And it is remarkable, that the first and only person among Christians, that we can hear of using this mode, was the founder of the Jesuites, Loyala: but he did it but once, that we hear of, before a Governour, where he was chal∣lenged for a Spye, and yet it may be sufficient to make him also the Father, and founder of the new order of uncivil Quakers.

4. It may seem strange, that these Men, who owne no other Christ or Scripture, but the Light within, and take that for all, are thus against all good manners and civility, refuseing to salute persons, in the way; or to give the least civil signification of honour and respect to equals or superiours; when even among the wilde savage Indians, such moroseness and pedantick clownish∣ness would be abhorred, being taught some other thing by the natural Light within them? However, as upon the one hand, we may observe, the enmity, that Satan hath at Mankinde, is such, as maketh him hate all things, that looketh like humanity, for their sakes; and therefore will have these his de∣luded followers, weare no other character of cognizance, but such, as may make them openly appear as enemies to humanity and civility; so upon the other hand, we may observe the holy hand of a righteous God, in this, giv∣ing them up, to an unmanning of themselves, & to a denying of that, which, in their outward carriage and gesture, might difference them, not only from

the ruder and more clunish sort of mankinde, but even from beasts, who have renounced all Christianity, and every thing that looketh like serious Religion.

5, But as to the mater it self, we know, that honour is to be rendered to whom hon••ur is due, and fear to whom fear is due Rom. 13:7. that Elders are to be accounted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5:17. that we must honour all men 1 Pet. 2:17. and in honour preferre one another Rom. 12.10. We read that the vertuous woman's children arise up, and call her bl••ssed Prov. 31:28. We read that Sarah called Abraham, Lord 1 Pet. 3:6. It was given for a Law, that they should rise up before the h••ary head, and honour the face of the old man Levit 19:32. We read that even Solomon a King rose up to meet his mother, and bowed himself unto her 1 King. 2:19 the Angels called Sarah, Agars Mistress Gen. 16:9. the Disciples hath a Master, and the Servant a Lord Mat. 10:24. Paul said to the Gove••nour Festus, most noble Festus Act. 26:25. We read of some women stiled honourable Act 13:50. & 17:12. Iohn writteth to a Lady 2 Iohn 1. Moses said to the two Hebrews that strove against other, Sirs Act. 7:26. one said to Elisha, Alas Master 2 King. 6:5. Paul & Barnabas said to such, as were ready to sacrifice to them, Sirs Act. 14:15. The jaylour said to Paul & Silas, Sirs Act. 16:30. So did Paul to the mariners Act. 2••:10, 21, 25. Luk stiled Theophilus, most excellent Luk. 1:3. Shecaniah called Ezra, my Lord Ezra. 10:3. Christs sermon on the Mount teacheth us, not to salute our brethren only, as the Publicans did Mat. 5:47. We read that Abraham bowed to the children of Heth Gen. 23 7. Jacobs Sones to Ioseph Gen. 43:26, 28. David bowed to Saul 1 Sam. 24:8. Mephibosheth to David 2 Sam ••:8 So also Abigail 1 Sam. 25:23. Araunah 2 Sam. 24:20. and Nathan the Prophet 1 King. 1:23. the Shunamit fell down at the Prophets feet, and bowed herself to t••e ground. 2 King. 4:36. Abraham bowed to the three Angels, supposing them to be men, Gen. 18:2, 3. So did Lot Gen. 19:1, 2. Iacob bowed himself seven times before his brother Esau Gen 33: vers. 3. and stiled himself Esaw's servant vers. 5, 14. And Esau, Lord vers. 8, 13, 14, 15. Jacob's wives and his children also bowed vers. 6, 7. Ioseph bowed to Iacob Gen. 48:12. Ioab bowed to David 2 Sam. 14:22. and also Abso∣lom vers. 33. How oft read we of that title, O King, used by good folks? Dan. 2:29, 31. & 3:17, 18. & 4:22, 27, 31. & 5:18. Act. 26:13, 19. and of, my Lord O King 1 Sam. 26:17. 2 Sam. 14:9.22: & 16:4. & 19:26. 1 King. 1:13, 20, 24. & 20:4. 2 King. 6: vers. 12, 26. & 8.5. Moses did obeisance to his Father in Law Exod. 18▪ 7. Bathsheba to David 1 King. 1:16. Mary saluted Elizabeth Luk 1:40. Paul the Church Act. 18:22. the brethren at Ptolemais Act. 21:7 Iames and the Elders at Ierusalem Act 21:21. Christ commanded the seventy disciples to salute the house they came to Mat. 10:12. How often doth Paul desire such as he wrote unto, to salute others in his name? See Rom. 16:5 12.13. Phil. 4:21. Heb. 13: vers 24. and how oft doth he mention others as saluting them? Heb. 13:24. Tit. 3:15. Phil. 2:3. 1 Cor. 16:9. 2 Cor. 13:13. Phil. 4:22: Rom. 16:16, 23. Col. 4:10, 12. So doth Peter 1 Pet. 5:13. and Iohn 3 Ioh. 14. Here is enough to shew how groundless their rustick singularity is; and that there must be some∣thing else in this, then what they give out and pretend: I grant, it suiteth them well, who would have us renunce all Christianity, and turne Pagans, to drive

us, at the next step, to outstripe Pagans in incivility: but we know Religion is no enemie to Civility; nor Christianity to Courtesie; and that we should think on such things as are Honest, or Venerable, Pure, Lovely, and of good report Phil. 4:8.

6. We shall now come and see what this man can say in defence of their practice. He beginneth to speak hereof Pag. 336. And first speaketh to the mater of titles, telling us, That they expressly affirme, that it is not lawful for Christians, either to give or receive such titles of honour, as, Your holiness, majesty, excellency, Eminency, &c. Answ. But what if all this were granted? All this might be granted, and yet their practice no way justified; for though some titles of honour were not to be approven (as what Protestant will allow of that given to the Pope?) Yet it could not be hence inferred, that no titles were to be given: there may be a mid way betwixt two extremes. And though no titles were to be given to any, to testifie our respect to, and esteem for persons of eminency, whether as to Power and Authority, or as to gifts and partes; Yet this could make nothing for their blunt and rustick thou and thee. He addeth some Reasons, as. 1. These titles are no part of that obedience, which we owe to Magistrates; nor is any thing thereby added to that subjection, which consisteth in obedience to their law∣ful commands. Answ. Though it be no part of obedience, to use titles; Yet it may be a part of that Honour and Respect, which is due unto them. And the fift command sayes, honour thy Father and thy Mother; and certainly it is no signe of honour to Magistrates and great Personages, to speak to them, no other∣wayes then we would do to our footboyes, as the Quakers do. 2. Sayes he, We finde not such titles in the Scripture, either under the Law, or under the Gospel; but when Princes, or Nobles, & Kings were spoke to, this simple compellation was used O King; or with the addition of the name of the Person, as, King Agrippa. Answ. (1.) We have seen other titles of honour and respect, above; as My Lord O King, and this our Quakers will not give to the highest; nor doth this man, in all his Epistle dedicatory to the King, prefixed to his Apology, say so much, as once, O King, or my Lord O King; only he giveth him thee and thou, as he would give his owne servant. (2.) These compellations, according to the then custome▪ were the highest, and only given to Kings; and inferiour Per∣sons had their owne peculiar titles; and as no man did then scruple to give high persons, titles or stiles, due to their places, according to the received custome of the time and place; why should these scruple now; and not only refuse to give them such titles, as are now usual; but refuse to give them any at all; or to put any difference betwixt them, and the poorest beggar, that sitteth on the dung hill? This evinceth, that though they pretend want of Scrip∣ture warrant; Yet there is some other thing, which is the real cause.

7. His. 3. Reason is, This layeth a necessity on Christians to lie, in giving the titles of Grace, and Eminency, &c. to such as have nothing worthy of these, or answer∣ing them. Answ. Under favour of his Thouship, he mistaketh the ground of these titles, supposing that they are given because of personal corresponding enduements; while as they are only given, because of that Place and Power, which they, in the providence of God, are in possession of: But neither can

this pretext be a real ground of their practice; for they will not give any titles to their own brethren the Quakers, in whom they dar not deny, but Christ is, and liveth; Yea and the whole Trinity; which, when I think upon, I wonder they do not fall down and worshipe one another, seing they acknowledge that Christ, and the Trinity, is in every Quaker; But I remember what was said to be done to I. Naylor at Bristoll; it may be, they shall do so to one another, ere long, and would have done so, ere now, if fear had not hindered it: And what meaneth their gazeing one upon another a considerable time, when they first meet? This would look like some sort of worshipe: If not, it is like the rea∣son is, that (and thus can only their practice be reconciled with their principles) their God, and their Christ, and their Trinity, which they say is in every man, dormant; but living, (the light having gote room and enlargment) in the Quakers, is not the true and living God, but a God of their owne making and imagination: and this I beleeve to be true. His 4. Reason toucheth the Pope and his clergy: And there we reject both place and title. His 5. Reason is against the Title of majesty given to Kings, which he saith is especially and peculiarly given to God, in the Scriptures, and not to men: But he is here also mistaken, for though it be spoken of God 1 Chron. 29:11. Yet vers. 25. (which his Concordance might have pointed him to) it is said, that the Lord magnified Solomon, exceedingly, in the fight of all Israel, and bestowed upon him royal majesty: And Psal. 21:5. (another of the places cited by him) it is not given to God, but by God to the King: And Psal. 29:4. (another of his citations) it is attributed to the thunder: What meaneth this man, thus to cite Scriptures at randome, without once considering what he is doing? He addeth, that Proud Nebuchadnezzar took this title to himself, Dan. 4▪ 30. and was shortly therefore rebuked. Answ. Why did he not look also vers. 36. where excellent majesty was added unto him, after his restauration? And why did he not look to Dan. 5:18. where Daniel saith, that the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar a Kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour? And againe vers. 19. & for the majesty that he gave him, &c? His Concordance could have helped him here, to have corrected his owne mistake; but his light was asleep.

8. He addeth a 5. Reason Pag. 339. all these titles are to be rejected, because we are to seek the honour, which is from God, and not that which is from below. Answ. We are not pleading for ambitious seeking of honour from men, more then the praise of God; and upon this account the rejecting of Christ and the profession of his name, for fear of missing thereby the honour, applause and esteem of men: This is not it, we plead for; and this is it, which Christ condemned Ioh. 5:44. & 12:43. But we are pleading for giving honour to whom honour is due. What he speaketh of artes and wiles used to obtaine these honours, mak∣eth nothing to the purpose; for this is not the ground of their practice; else they should give honour to some: For it is hard to say, that all use such indirect courses, as he seemeth to be acquanted with. What he saith of honouring the just and holy ones, is against himself; for they will not honour one another, at least not in a way, that we can understand: If they honour one another inwardly, with∣out these outward significations; what know they but we do so to the poor,

who are righteous and holy. If he think, that we should, according to our principles, give titles of honour to the poor, who are godly; He is mistaken; for our principles are not, that these outward titles are given to any, upon the account of their personal enduements; but because of their Station, Place and Authority: Yet we say, that honour is to be given to all, and due and compe∣tent significations of respect to the poorest, that fear God, upon the account of the grace of God shineing in them.

9. He cometh next §. 4. Pag. 340. to speak against Complements: of which as I love not to be a practitioner, so I resolve to be no patrone, or advocat: and all that I shall say is, that, as I wish, the sinne in this practice were more con∣sidered and laid to heart, and this great evil amended; so I cannot approve the Quakers, in running to the other extreme; and, out of a pretence to shun vaine and idle complements, becoming brutishly rustick and clunish: But here P. 341. he coineth an answer unto that of Luks calling Theophilus, M••st excellent; and of Pauls calling Festus, most noble: saying, Seing Luk wrote that, an infallible Spirit acting him, we must not doubt, but that Theophilus deserved it. Answ, I shall be loath to ••oubt of it: but though we will not say, that this title was given to him by reason of his birth, or merites with the Emperour; nor yet will im∣prove it to the confirmation of that, there being no necessity: Yet we have ground enough from hence to reprove their affected Morosity, who will not give this title; or any like it, to any flesh breathing; no not to one of themselves, of whom they have the most singular opinion, upon the best ac∣count. Seeth he not now, what can hence be deduced against him? But what sayes he to Pauls practice? Festus, sayes he, was also truely noble, in that he would hear Paul in his owne cause, and gave not way to the Iew, fury against him. An∣swere, It was but a poor evidence of true nobility in him to hear Paul speak for himself, when the Lawes of the Romans bound him to it. And as to the Jewes fury, he gave as much way to it, as he might. Why did he else constraine Paul to appeal unto Caesar, which if he had not done, he might have bin a free man, in the judgment of King Agrippa Act. 26.32? what else importeth these words of Paul. Act. 25:11.—but if there be none of these things, whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them; (that is, the Jewes) I appeal unto Caesar. But once more, I wonder where was his true nobility, when he said Act. 26:24. and that with a loud voice, that all present might have heard him; Paul, thou art beside thy self, much learning doth make thee mad? This I am sure was a very sory evidence of true nobility: and yet upon the very back of that, Paul said, I am not mad, most noble Festus. Sure then this title was not given him upon the ac∣count of true nobility, as this Quaker supposeth; but upon the account of his Place and Authority, it being the title, that was ordinarily given to Felix, his predecessour; though we read not, in express tearms, that Paul used i••, yet it was used by others.

10. At length §. 3. he cometh to speak in the defence of their Thees & Thous; and very learnedly tels us, that we cannot use the plural number for the singular, in latine, every school boy knowing, that it is incongruous to say, vos Amas. Answ Yet every school boy knoweth, it is not incongruous to say, vos amatis: And why

may not the Verb be as well plural, as the Pronoun? If he say, that is not usual, when we are speaking of or to another single person: What will he say to this use, when we are speaking of ourselves? He hath not forgotten the old rule, At de me solo numerus dicetur uter vis. But be it so, that the latine will no way suffer this, other languages may; as for example, the Low dutch, where through the whole Bible, we shall not finde any other word, for thee and thou, then what signifieth properly yee and you. And what rule or ground, can he finde in latine, for their constant useing yea and nay, and never yes, and no? But let it be supposed, that few languages will countenance such an abuse, as to say yee and you, to one single man: What will that helpe the mater? must all lan∣guages follow the same rules? knoweth he not, that use is the master of lan∣guage? and that in our language, thee and thou, is never used, when one equal is speaking to another (except where it is the expression of most intimate friend∣shipe and affection, as betwixt man and wife) far less, when one is speaking to his Superiour? & knoweth he not, that in our usual manner of speaking, if we should say thou & thee to our equal, let be to our Superiour, it would either be construed to flow from the hieght of Pride and Contempt, or from Rage and Anger? And is it handsome for them to speak so disdainfully to all persons; and pretend conscience for it too? What a ridiculous whimsical folly is this? What he citeth out of Iames Howel, and Iohn Maresius, confuteth what he said just now; for they tell us, that even in latine, Vos, you, was used of one person; and though they say this change came through pride and flatery, it will say nothing, unless he can shew the like in our language; and though he should shew it, yet use being, as I said, master of words, his pedantick singularity will but savoure of Vanity and Pride: and for what he citeth out of Mr Godeau it is to no purpose, for he knowes, that whatever we do, while speaking to others, yet we use the singular number, while speaking to God, which may convince him, that language is not alwayes ruled by reason, but by use and custome. He tels us, They were necessitate to testifie against this, by speaking in the singular number to sin∣gular persons; because to speak otherwayes, came from pride; and so is joyned with a lie. Answ. How proveth he, that it came from pride, with us? Because it was so with the Latine? the consequence is not good (2.) Is every thing that cometh from pride joyned with a lie? (3.) Our Quakers will be both proud, and speak despicably of others, (as thou and thee evinceth) that they may testify against pride: I appeal to any, that knoweth our language, whether it sa∣voureth more of pride and worse, to use thou and thee to our & equals superiours, then to use you and yee. But I will not impute it to pride, in the Quakers, suppo∣sing that it cometh from a more stinking root, than either pride, or con∣tempt, though these may some time be admixed too; hence the Proverb, as proud as a Quaker.

11. Then he cometh to speak of salutations Pag. 343. §. 6. for they will salute no man; nor uncover their head, not only to their Equals, but neither will they do it unto their Superiours; nor give the least signe of respect, of honour, or of reverence, in their gesture and carriage, unto any whatsoever. And he saith, he cannot see what we can say in defence of our practice. But we have

shown above, what is our ground: and we have seen the same practised by other worthy persons, mentioned in Scripture. But to this he replieth, That these actions of the Patriarchs are no rule to us; nor is it sufficient, that these actions were not expresly reproved, for neither was Abraham reproved, for knowing Sarah's maide. Answ. Abrahams practice, in the mater of Hagar, was against a law; for the Lord created but one woman to Adam, though the residue of the Spirit was with him Mal. 2:14, 15. But Abrahams practice in civilly bowing unto the sons of Heth, was against no Law of the creation. (2.) When he and Lot both bowed unto the Angels, supposeing them to have been men, shall we think, that if that had been sinful, that the Angels would not have reproved them upon that account, as we finde the Angel did reprove Iohn, when he fell down and worshiped him, Revel. 19:10. & 22:9? As concerning, saith he, the fashions and customes of the Nations, it is an evil argument for the practice of Christians, who should follow a better rule. Answ. And so we do follow a better rule; and yet we may follow the Law of nations, which is mostly gathered from the practice of nations, in things not contrary to the Law of God; for even the Law of nations, in such things, is a part of the Law of God, being but some parti∣cular applications, or explications of the Law of Nature: And though no particular gesture, as a signe of respect and reverence, due to our Equals or Superiours, be universally received by all Nations, yet the Law of Nations, and their practice, may teach us, that by some one outward gesture or other, we ought to witness our respect, & declare that reverence, that we owe to others: Christianity is no enemy to humanity, and civility, whatever our morose and unmanerly Quakers dream.

12. But let us hear his arguments. 1. Sayes he, God alone is to be adored: But bowing of the body and knee and uncovering our head, are the only external signes of our adoration of God, 1 Cor. 11. Answ. What a silly thing is this? He may as well inferre, that a man must never bow his body to tye his shoes, nor un∣cover his head to have his haire cut; Can he not distinguish betwixt a stated act of worshipe, and other actions civil and natural? It is true, in a stated act of worship, the uncovering the head, or bowing of the body, were it but to a stock or stone, or any dead creature, or any thing beside God, would be Idolatry; but to construe so of every bowing of the knee, or uncovering of the head, in every other action whatsoever, is ridiculous folly: And it seem∣eth, these Quakers put no difference betwixt God and men; nor betwixt stated acts of worshipe, and other common actions. But he addeth, If we should apply ourselves to men, as to God, there should be no difference, in the outward signifi∣cation, but only in the Intention, whereby a door is opened unto the Papists worshiping of images. Answ. He seeth, we put the difference, in the nature and statedness of the action; and not in the bare intention; though that also be included in the nature of the action: And what door this openeth unto image-worshipe, he should have declared. He possibly thinketh, that it is our judgment, that if the worshiper do not intend to worshipe the image, it is no image-worshipe; This is his mistake: If the worshiper intend divine worshipe to God, in bow∣ing before an idol, we account him guilty of image-worshipe; for his inten∣tion

there declareth the action to be a stated act of worshipe; but we say not so of a craftsman bowing down to help or amend something in the image, for his intention showeth, that he is about no act of worshipe; ••or doth the nature of that action require it: If he could evince, that while we bow our bo∣dies or uncover our heads unto men, that we are intending thereby worshipe to God, his argument were good; but while there is no such intention, nor doth the action it self require it, being a stated civil action, and no more, his argument evinceth but his owne Folly and Ignorance.

13. His second argument is but the same; to wit, that men should not be adored: Which we willingly grant; for in adoration, there is a r••cognition & acknowledgment of the Absolute Power and Soveraignity of the person, whom we adore; and therefore this is due to God only: But civil honour, and reverence is another thing, being but an acknowledgment of excellency in men because of their place, and a testification of our respect towards them; and can import no ••ishonour unto God. He adduceth next the fact of Cornelius Act. 10. and of Iohn Revel. 19. & 22. But to no purpose; for Cornelius fell downe to wor∣shipe Peter vers. 25. And so did Iohn to the Angel Revel. 19:10. & 22:8. We plead not for worshiping of men; for worshipe is due to God only, because of his Supereminent and Transcendent Excellency; and requireth inward Love Faith and Hope, in & upon the object worshiped. He should prove, that these external significations of honour and respect, cannot be without, or do essen∣tially include, worshipe performed towards the Object; but this is impossi∣ble; for then if one bow his body to tye his shoes, or to lift up a pin, he shall be a worshiper of his shoes, and of a pin. He addeth, If it be said, that Iohn would adore the Angel with religious worshipe, it is not proved. Answ. Is it not proved, when the text sayeth, he fell down to worshipe? where finde we civil honour or respect called worshipe, in Scripture? He tels us next, that such as blame them, would also blame Mordecai. Answ. But hereby we see, that the Quakers think no otherwayes of all men, than Mordecai did of Haman, who was an Agagite, come of Agag, the King of the Amalekites, who were devoted to destruction by the Lord Exod. 17:14. Deut. 25:19. 1 Sam. 15:3. Againe, thinks he that it was meer civil honour and respect▪ that conscientious Mordecai refused to give to that wreatch? We are told, that the Persian Monarchs did arrogate to themselves divine honour, and h••nur of this kinde would that foolish Monarch have all his Subjects to performe unto Haman; for he set him above all the Princes, and gave a special commandment for bowing and reverenceing him, which had not been necessary, if it had be no other but that civil honour, which was pay∣ed to the other Princes. And suppose it had been but only civil honour; Yet Mordecai's case was singular, because he was a Jew, and the Jews were under a prohibition to do any homage unto these cursed Amalekites; and this, as it appeareth, was the ground of his refusal; for it is said Esth. 3:4.—for he had told them, that he was a Iew; thereby holding forth the ground and rea∣son of his refusal to obey the Kings command. One thing I would ask, what he thinketh of that honour & worshipe, that was given to Iames Naylor, as he rode into Bristol. Oct. 24.1656? We are not pleading for the like of that to any man

breathing: But I see Quakers will give divine worship to one another, though they will not allow to any others so much as civil honour.

14. This is all, that he saith to defend their rude practice: And I judge, as he saith, that it floweth not from their rustick breeding, for they have bin otherwayes educated; but from a more corrupt spring: And though he is pleas∣ed to call it Conscience; and that therefore they would rather choose to die, than do other wayes; we look upon it as a small evidence of tenderness of con∣science in them, even suppose it were a thing not lawful and warranted, seing they make so little bones of greater maters: We know, what Christ said Mat. 23:23. Wo unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint, & anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier maters of the Law, judgment, mercy & faith. We may know also, what power a deluded conscience may have, even in small matters. But I am apt to think, there is some other thing, that lyeth here at the bottome, when I consider what wide consciences these men have; and how directly and avowedly, they set themselves to cry downe all Reli∣gion, and to cashier all Christianity; and in a word, to bring us back to Pa∣ganisme, let them pretend what they will. God may discover this in due time.