A vindication of the Friendly conference, between a minister and a parishioner of his inclining unto Quakerism, &c. from the exceptions of Thomas Ellwood, in his pretended answer to the said conference / by the same author.

CHAP. III. Of Titles and Civil Respects.

Par.

IN T. E's. third Chapter of Titles and Civil Respects, he briskly charges you with dealing injuriously and dishonestly with the Quakers, and moreover adds, that we have befool'd our selves. p. 31, 32, 33.

Min.

This Quaker is a right Conformist to the humour of his Party, and a true Practicant here of this Uncivil tenent of theirs, against Civil Respects. His first work is to render me suspected and ridiculous, that mens ill opinions of me may give advantage to his feeble reaso∣nings: But I am willing to put my self upon my Trial; How do's he make good his charge?

Par.

Whereas I told you in the Conference, That possibly I had been faulty in suffering my Servant to call me Master; He accuses you for inferring; that the Quakers have brought this tenent of theirs [against the civil Title of Master, founded on Mat. 23. 10.] to this strange result, that a child must honour his Father, but not call him Father; that a Servant must obey his Master, but not call him Master; which tenent (he says) is your own, not theirs, as their writings & practi∣ces sufficiently evidence. p. 32.

Min.

I made not the interence from your words immediately, but from the Quakers way of alledging that Text, utterly beside the scope

and intention of it; For the words just before my interence were these, In the same notion that we are forbidden to call [Master,] we are like∣wise forbidden to call [Father.] And seeing that that Text and the next before it forbid∣ding to call Father and Master, concern not temporal but such spiritual Titles only, as im∣ply a Mastership and Dominion over the Con∣science; it follows, that while the Quakers extend the Text from Spiritual to Temporal Titles (as they have done all along) they make even that of a Natural Father to be equally for∣bidden by it, that being but a temporal Title no more than any other. So that the practice of those Quakers, who receive of their Children the Title of Father, evidently contradicts the result of the Quakers Tenent against Civil Titles, as it is founded on the said Text.

And whereas he tells his Reader, that this is contrary to their universal practice, and a foppe∣ry fasten'd on them. p. 42. You shall hear what one Iohn Toldervy says as to this point, having been desirous to draw Coll. Webb (his Master) to Quakerism; he, after his return from his errors, gives this following relation, I took him by the arm and bad him sit down William Web, not bowing, not pulling off the hat, not Master, for then I denyed that Title to him, though rela∣ted to him a Servant, as afterwards I denyed all Relations, from the words of one, He that liveth in the Light will see no difference. Which shews that it was not his private opinion only.

Par.

His other instance of dishonesty, where∣with he chargeth you, is this; that in our dis∣course

we should fasten on the Quakers the ab∣surdity of applying that place in Luk. 10. 4. [Salute no man by the way] to themselves in a literal sense: ibid.

Min.

Surely he will not deny that it has been a known custom among the Quakers, to pass by their Neighbours unsaluted. Besides 'tis well known, that when we used to bid them Good morrow, Good speed and the like; they frequent∣ly reproved such salutations in the words of this Text. Might not the Quaker with equal modesty deny, that ever his Brethren used to Quake and Foam, as deny a thing so generally known as this is? Have the Quakers forgot, that Iames Naylor (before whom they sung their blasphemous Hosanna's) thus applied this Text; That he did so, appears by a Book called The Perfect Pharisee, subscribed by Five Ministers of Newcastle.

Now if some, or many of the Quakers be laughed out of this absurdity, must my honesty be taxed, because they vary from themselves and one another? But would it not (think you) have been more honest in him and ingenious to have said, Truly it was our former practice so to apply that Text, but since we saw the folly and weakness of it, and that Spirit we trusted to did deceive us, we have left it off. I pray God they may henceforth learn to suspect that delusive Spirit which they have trusted so long, and leave off the rest of their errors, not only for the ri∣diculousness of them, but for Conscience sake.

But here I must desire the Quakers to take no∣tice that Salutation (which is an outward and

civil respect) is by this Quaker implicitly granted to be lawful and commendable; while he insinuates the denying it to be an absurdity, p. 32. and while he passes by the Reasons and † Quotations I gave to prove it. Therefore he has done very ill, while his Conscience con∣vinc'd him of the duty of Civil Respects, to write so rudely against them, as he has done in this Chapter: But now let me hear wherein we have befool'd our selves.

Par.

Because I professed my sincere and cor∣dial respects to you at our first meeting; He thinks that by my objecting against civil re∣spects afterwards, I contradicted my self, and that the decorum was ill observed there; Was this (says he) a fit person to represent the whole body of the Quakers, and dispute against re∣specting persons? Nay do's it not look like a de∣sign laid to mis-state our Principles and misrepre∣sent us to the world? p. 33.

Min.

Indeed he seems here wonderfully transported with his own conceit: But that he may not hurt himself with too much mirth, let us consider the Case: Pray, what were the re∣spects you professed unto me? Answer for your self.

Par.

My inward respects: And therefore I called them sincere and cordial.

Min.

Were those the respects which after∣wards you objected against?

Par.

No; I was not such a Brute, for in∣ward respects are nothing but Love, which is the fulfilling of the Law; But it was outward Re∣spects and Titles only I then scrupled at.

Min.

I believe you: For any man of com∣mon sense may easily see this distinction in the Conference; For in my reply, I told you that I accepted the expressions of your af∣fection.

If your Controversie had been against the same respects which before you had so hearti∣ly professed, this indeed had been some inde∣corum; but seeing it was against a different thing, I doubt the Quaker has brought the in∣decorum upon himself, and in the result a great deal of shame too, both on himself and his whole party; for while he inveighs thus a∣gainst all respects, without distinction, and against your unfitness to represent the body of the Quakers upon this very account: From hence it plainly follows, that to represent the Quakers bearing any sincere and cordial re∣spects to their Neighbours is a grand Indecorum, a design laid to mistake their Principles, a mis∣representing them, yea the whole body of them to the World. So that I see, a man had need be cautious, how he represents a Quaker, either as good natur'd, kind, or affectionate; For if he do, beware he meets not with my fate, to be call'd a fool for his pains.

Par.

I doubt it's the Quaker that has here besool'd himself; Yet do not you take notice of that Heavenly expression of his after it? But our confidence is in the Lord our God, whose truth we are engaged to defend. ibid.

Min.

Here you have more of his Canting, that old art of deceiving, which has ensnared so many weak people, and brought true Re∣ligion

into suspition and contempt: Is it not strange that after so injurious and ridiculous a passage, he should have the impudence to pre∣tend confidence in the Lord, &c. and go to him to patronize his folly and dishonesty? I men∣tion not this to discourage any true seriousness among Christians (I wish there were more of it) but to convince you, that all is not Gold that glisters.

Par.

I must confess I have been apt to be car∣ried away with fine words and pretences, but could never suspect so much deceit and delu∣sion in them as you have discover'd to me: But I hope this will be a fair warning to me to take heed hereafter whom I trust.

But as for that exposition you gave me of Saint Iames chap. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4. as not accusing civil respects, but such only as violated justice in their publick consistories, he dislikes as not being the Apostles drift. p. 34.

Min.

First observe here that T. E. overcome by truth hath wittingly pass'd by Acts 10. 34. [God is no respecter of persons] as nothing to his purpose, though all along objected by the Quakers against Civil Respects; And he says nothing against the account I gave you of the words: I wish the Quakers by these and other instances may at length discover that Spirit of error, they have been so long led by to pervert the Scriptures.

Now as for that exposition I gave you from Dr. Hammond of that passage in Saint Iames, it is sufficiently defensible against the Cavils of this confident Quaker: I need not now trouble

you nor my self with a recital of all the reasons he gives for that interpretation, but refer you to the Annotations themselves: Only I shall ad two or three instances more of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Assembly, in the Text, being used for a Court of Judicature, 1. Mac. 7. 12. Hist. Susan. v. 41. Luk 12. 11. when they bring you unto Synagougues, and unto Magistrates and Powers, &c. Acts 22. 19.—they know that I imprisoned, and beat in every Synagogue them that believed on thee. Moreover in the follow∣ing verses the Apostle interprets his own mean∣ing, and chiefly v. 4. where 'tis clear, that by respecting of persons he means only corrup∣tion and partiality in Judgment; Are ye not (says he) partial in your selves, and become judges of evil thoughts? This is agreeable to the Law Lev. 19. 15. Deut. 1. 17. Thou shalt not have respect of persons in judgment; And it is to the Law that Saint Iames refers expresly v. 9. but if ye have respect to persons, ye com∣mit sin, and are convinced of the Law as trans∣gressors; making this no new prohibition, but only a recital of an old one. If then civil re∣spects were not forbidden by any precedent Law, neither are they forbidden here: But by the Law they are so far from being forbidden, that they are enjoyn'd as a duty, and practised by the best of men; of which I gave you seve∣ral instances in the Conference, which T. E. un∣fairly passes by. Take these over and above, Lev. 19. 32. Lam. 4. 16. Deut. 28. 50. 2 Kings 3. 14. But what reasons do's T. E. give of h•…•…s dislike of that exposition I gave of Iam. 2. 1, 2, 3, 4?

Par.

Because the Epistle of Saint Iames was written to the dispersed believing Jews, thereupon he bids his. Reader consider what con∣sistories or Courts of Iudicature those poor scat∣ter'd believers could then have. p. 35.

Min.

That they had such places in the Gen∣tile Cities may be confirmed from Epiphanius and Ensebius; And there were Jews at this time in all the eminent Cities of the Roman Empire, who had Officers and Judges of their own, and by the † Rescripts of Augustus, they were allowed to use their own Laws and Customs; all which priviledges they retained till their Rebellion against the Romans, but afterwards they were restored by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius.

Par.

But were not those the unbelieving Jews?

Min.

Let it be consider'd that the Primi∣tive Christians were by the Romans long e∣steemed a sect of the Jews, and so they had a share in all the priviledges of that People; Nor were the forreign Jews so malicious against the Christians, as those in and about Ierusalem, Acts 13. 15. and 28. 17, 31. So that the be∣lieving Jews might have justice administred in those Courts belonging to their Nation, or else might have private Consistories among them∣selves, which we may believe they would ra∣ther chuse, because St. Paul had forbid them to go to Law before the Unbelievers, and advi∣sed them to end their questions among them∣selves, 1 Cor. 6. 1, 2, 3. So that it is the Qua∣krs old disease of ignorance which makes him

wonder, how they should have any Courts of Iudicature in their dispersion.

Par.

To that Law you mention'd of both parties sitting or standing to avoid partiality, &c. T. E. answers, Whence had they it? If given them by God, we should have found it among those Laws which they received from him; If it was not from God, but an invention and tradition of their own, it's altogether improbable that the Apostle of Iesus Christ would have reference thereunto. p. 36.

Min.

What thinks he of the Feasts of Purim, and that other of Dedication, which our Sa∣viour countenanc'd by his presence Iob. 10.? These were no institutions immediately recei∣ved from God, but of the Jews own ma∣king. Pliny tells us of a vain Painter, who being to draw a Goddess, made it exactly like his own Mistress; such is the fansie of this Quaker, who being about to describe Jesus and his Apostles, thinks they are altogether such as himself; and since their practice is unknown to him, he fancies They were as much for innovation and novelty as himself: And hence it is that he is for throwing away all Laws and Traditions. Christ and his Apostles were not so; They were not for throwing a∣way any Traditions, that promoted either pie∣ty or morality; and none but one of T. E.'s. capacity will question it. Our Lord would not suffer a Vessel to be carried through the Temple (to teach us Reverence to the place of God's Worship) which was an Antient Tra∣dition,

and is recorded in the Talmud. So likewise Saint Paul orders the Christians to receive their meat with thanksgiving; which Custom has been religiously observed by the Ancient Christians. † Which I note the rather, because the Quakers so brutishly neglect this piece of universal Religion. Again this very Apostle Iames, ch. 4. 15. commands the Chri∣stians to say, If the Lord will, we will do this or that: which is known to be a Tradition of the old Rabbins, recorded also by Ben. Syra. Why then may not St. Iames as probably re∣late to this Custom, which is founded upon so much equity, and which is but an instance of that Divine precept, Deut. 1. 17. in the Rabbinical way of illustration?

This seditious passage of his would set Christianity at odds with all the Civil sanctions in the world, and make it indeed inconsistent with all Government, because every Ma∣gistrate do's not receive his Laws immediately from God.

Par.

If this Law (says he) was but a sanction of their own, the Iews were so supersti∣tiously zealous for the Traditions of their Fore∣fathers, that it's no way likely that they would so positively violate a Law of their making. Ibid. And he goes on to tell us, that this was a thing they were seldom guilty of, for they too often pre∣ferred their own Traditions even to the Law of God. p. 37.

Min.

What his fideles Iudaei, his poor scat∣ter'd believers, who, as he had just immediate∣ly before said, were then coming off not only from

the Traditions of their Elders, but even from the whole Iewish polity? I assure you he wrongs them as much as he contradicts himself.

Par.

You told me that if St. Iames had for∣bidden Civil respects, he had contradicted what our Lord plainly alloweth in Luk. 14. 8, 9, 10. when thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room, lest a more ho∣nourable man than thou be bidden of him, &c. Now for the understanding this Scripture, T. E. tells us, that it must be considered in what time, and to whom those words were spoken. For the time, it was under the Law, before the one Offe∣ring was actually offer'd up. That was an Out∣ward state, the People of God was then an Out∣ward National People, their Religion and Wor∣ship was much outward and shadowy, their Wars were outward, their Ornaments were outward, their Honours and Respects to one another were out∣ward. And in this State many things were indulg∣ed to the Iews, many things permitted & connived at, partly because of the hardness of their Hearts, and partly by reason of their Weakness. But this State was to last but till the Time of Reformation; and when the Time of Reformation was fully come, these things grew out of use, &c. p. 37, 38.

Min.

Was Christ's time then no time of Re∣formation? What though the Levitical Priest∣hood, it's Rites and Sacrifices, being Types of the Sacrifice of Christ, were to continue till they were fulfilled in their Antitype, and then to expire of themselves; though that D•…•…spensation was in this respect reformed af∣ter;

Do's this prove that whatsoever in refe∣rence to the Moral Law, or to good manners, he found less perfect, he might not, or did not in his own person reform before his Offering up? Do's this prove that Christ was no Re∣former? What though the Reformation was not so general till the more plentiful effusion of the Spirit, do's this prove it was not actually begun, and set on foot, before Christ's death, both by his Doctrine, and visible effects of it, upon both Jews and Gentiles Mark 1. 15. Mat. 11. 5. and 8. 10, 13. and 15. 28? Were all Christ's Sermons, the calling of the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventy Disciples, and sending them forth to Preach, His healing of Mens Bodies and Souls together, Was all this no method of Reformation? He disproved the corrupt Traditions of the Elders, whereby they made void the Commandments of God, He reformed the imperfection of Moses's Law in the case of Divorces, and reduced Marriage to its Primitive institution, Mat. 19. Denounced eight Woes together against the Scribes and Pharisees, He asserted and cleared the Moral Law (in his Sermon on the Mount) from the false Glosses the Jewish Doctors had put upon it; and advanced the Law of Nature (whereof the Moral, Law is the transcript) to the highest pitch; And was not all this suffi∣cient to make Christ a Reformer? He is our sole Lawgiver; and what the Apostles taught after his offering up, was his own Law, which himself had deliver'd before his death, and which the Spirit was promised to bring into

their remembrance. If therefore Civil Respects were so vain and evil a Custom as T. E. makes them. p. 41. is it likely that so severe a Reformer should not only Connive at them, but expresly allow them, as he does Luke 14. 10? As Ellwood implicitly grants he did, not denying it, but using an absurd and an odd circuit of words to shuffle it off. Though therefore the Phari∣sees ambition and affectation of the chief Seats was rebuked by our Saviour; yet it is evident the distinction of persons and places, and such good manners as are founded thereon, were none of those things which he disliked, or de∣sign'd ever to remove. What though the State of the Church in the time of the Law was in a great measure Outward, and the Le∣gal Ceremonies of the Levitical Priesthood up∣on Christ's death expired? What though a more inward and Spiritual Worship was en∣joyn'd under the Gospel, and the Spirit of God to that end poured out more plentifully than ever? Did this prove that to Christians all out∣ward things are vanisht, and such things as no way belonged to that Priesthood? Are their Bodies vanisht too? What then will become of that injunction, Glarific God in your Body—1 Cor. 6. 20. Are we now devested of all out∣ward capacities and concernments? Untill he can prove this, he must allow Christians such out∣ward Customs and usages, as are agreeable to this present State; such (among the rest) are Civil Respects, being sutable to that di∣stinction, which Providence and the State of this World have made of persons and places,

in the various relations which we find in all Civil Societies: He that is an enemy to this distinction, is an enemy to all Government, which cannot subsist without it; for we must distinguish between Rulers and Subjects, Go∣vernors and Governed, both in Common Wealths and private Families. What madness then is it to think, that Christ meant to take a∣way Civil Respects and good Manners, things that are so necessary to uphold this distinction & essential to it, as the due acknowledgment and proper expressions of it? Therefore he abolish'd not those decentCustoms of them, which are up∣on Record in the Old Testament, or any where else; But all quotations out of the Old Testament to this purpose must needs be still in force.

Par.

You have thus far given me very good satisfaction in this point; & if you have any thing further to add to it, I pray go on to clear it, not only to me, but to all others who do igno∣rantly scruple it, as I have done.

Min.

The great duty of a Christian is Uni∣versal Friendship, but as Friendship is amicitia parium a•…•…t imparium, of Equals or Unequals; So the signification of that Friendship requires different expressions; since the state of the World, and the constitution of Societies ne∣cessarily infers a distribution of persons into se∣veral ranks higher and lower; the foundations of which distribution are these following,

First, difference of Age calls for different behaviour, Lev. 19. 32. Thou shalt rise before the hoary head, and honour the face of the Old man. The face of the Old man here is the gavity of his

person: So that respect to mens persons is not always evil, but oft times a duty. See also 1 Tim. 5. 1. Intrea•…•…an old man as a Father.

Secondly, Difference of sex, 1 Cor. 11. 3, 4, 5. And the Ordinance of Marriage makes Man the head of the Wife, and requires expressions of sub∣jection from the Woman to the Man, as T. E. himself acknowledges in the example of Sarah obeying Abraham, and calling him Lord.

Thirdly, All domestick and civil relations, implying superiority and inferiority, as not only Husband and Wife, but Parents and Children, Masters and Servants, all which T. E. acknow∣ledges: Why not then between Magistrates and Subjects? seeing Magistrates are Fathers of their Country, and every Ruler is properly a Master; for Christ himself calls Nicodemus a Master of Israel, Iob. 3. 10.

Fourthly, Different occupations and employ∣ments, some being honourable and others mean, make one rankof menhigher than another. Exod. 11. 5. Iud. 16. 21. Acts 17. 5. where you have mention of the baser sort.

Fifthly, By reason of the necessity of publick Offices for civil Governmenment, some men must needs be publick, some private persons; Publick Persons must have an eminency above private; And Kings in Scripture are lookt upon as Sacred; and the Jewish Rulers and Judges fre∣quently styled Gods, Exod. 22. 28. Ps. 82. 6. Io. 10. 34. which is a much higher Title of respect, than any we give in our addresses to them; therefore it was boldly done of T. E. to quarrel at the Title of M•…•…st Sacred Majesty, and Dread Sovereign, as he

do's p. 46. seeing all these are essential to the Title of King, which the Quakers own, and are willing to give him. Pray read these places, Ps. 21. 5. 1 Chr. 29. 25. Dan. 4. 36, 37.

Sixthly, Nearness to, or distance from such as are Eminent Persons, thus they that are near the Kings Person gain an eminence by it. Est. 1. 14. Ier. 52. 25. And so the Civil Law looketh upon men as more eminent, as they are nearer the Em∣peror: And we do find abundance of these rec∣kon'd up in Scripture, Dan. 3. 27. and many other places. And the Scripture speaks of different Ranks of Nobility, and freely gives them their usual titles without any scruple. Thus we read of Princes, Gen. 17. 20. and 2 Sam. 19. 6, &c. of Dukes, Exod. 15. 15. Ios. 13. 21. Gen. 36. 15, &c. of Lords Dan. 5. 1, 9. Ezr. 8. 25. Neh. 7. 5. And in the New Testament, Mark 6. 2 1. where 'tis said, that Herod made a Supper to his Lords, &c. Note here, that St. Mark writes not like a Quaker; He do's not say, He made a Supper to his Lords, as they call them; Nor like Ellwood, who is so demure, that forsooth he dare not name Titles and Civil Respects with∣out this same reserve [as they are called. †

Seventhly, By civil vertues and great exploits Men justly gain an Eminency and Renown, and become famous. See Ruth 4. 11, 14. Num. 16. 2. and 1. 16. 1 Chron. 5. 24. and 12. 30. Ezek. 23. 23.

Eighthly, When persons have larger privi∣ledges and immunities granted to them in the Commonwealth, they gain an eminency by them: thus Noblemen are constituted by that the Lawyers call Dominium Nobilium, whereby they have jus praecedentiae, a right

of precedency; and Locus potior decernendi; and other things of like nature; Therefore they have Ornaments allotted to them, which they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Titles to adorn them, whih are no other than certain marks of their civil valuation. For it is past dispute, that as some Men are of much more value to the publick than others (viz. Able Command∣ers, Iudges, &c.) So publick Governors have power to determine the rates both of Men and Things, and to signifie the value they set upon one Man above another by giving him a higher place and a title.

Ninthly, These priviledges being propagated to posterity and made hereditary (for Patrum conditionem liberi sequuntur, as the Law speaks) make different Families in respect of superiority and inferiority; These advancements descending to their Children, being encourage∣ments to civil vertues, and great actions; And 'tis hard to conceive how these things can be otherwise in this World, without † danger to that order which is necessary to the subsistence of each civil Society.

These things and the like must necessarily di∣stinguish persons into several ranks and classes, as Servius Tullius distributed the Roman Citi∣zens; and this the Scripture freely acknow∣ledges, for we read also of Nobles Exod. 24. 11. Ier. 27. 20. and the Sons of Nobles Eccl. 10. 17. The Title of Honourable Isa. 3. 3, 5. Mar. 15. 43. Acts 13. 50. and 17. 12. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by which the Scriptures express

men of worth, was used by the Greeks as a Title to salute a Gentleman.

For seeing there are different ranks of Men downwards from the King to the Peasant, there∣fore as you see it is agreeable to holy Scripture; so all sober men will acknowledge it is agreea∣ble to Reason also, to give to each rank such distinct Titles as are proper to express that difference.

And with what reverence and outward civil respects the Primitive Christians behaved them∣selves to their Governors, may be seen in Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. And what is any where said, that true piety is the Fountain of Honour or the like, is meant in a Religious sense, and con∣cerns the inward man, and is not at all intend∣ed to exclude those civil distinctions among men, in reference to their outward capacities; To suppose otherwise were very ridiculous.

Par.

The case is still clearer to me, and you have made T. E's. way of reasoning appear suffi∣ciently absur'd.

Min.

I shall make it more apparent before I have done, by giving you a List both of his Ab∣surdities. and Self-contradictions contained in this one Paragraph we are now upon.

First Absurdity, in implying that Christ's death put an end to his Moral documents, this of Luk. 14. 10. being one.

2 Absur. that all Political Government is now at an end, and God's People must be now no more an outward National people.

3 Absur. In making the use of the Sword unlawful, now in the time of Reformation, in

contradiction to Rom. 13. 4. where 'tis said that the Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain, here∣by condemning two good Centurions, him in Mat. 8. 9, 10. and Cornelius Acts 10. 1, 2. who was after Christ's death. By this Rule neither forreign invasions, nor intestine Rebel∣lions must be opposed, nor prevented by any outward means; But we have no reason to trust the Quaker here, seeing divers of his Bre∣thren bore Arms and Offices in the late Army, yet at the same time professed Quakerism, and I can name the persons, were there occasion for it.

4 Absur. In going about to prove outward things connived at by Christ, and indulged to the Jews for the hardness of their hearts, by that very Text in Mat. 19. 8. which is an ex∣press and plain instance of his forbidding and reforming those arbitrary divorces which Mo∣ses suffer'd.

5 Absur. in saying in such general terms that the State of the Church in Christ's time was Outward, and Worship Outward, and in that notion afterwards to vanish; as if after Christ's death, the Church were not to re∣tain any Outward State, or Outward Worship; And consequently that all vocal Prayers, all gestures of Devotion, all Outward Ordinan∣ces, yea the very notion and being of the visi∣ble Church must vanish together.

6 Absur. in making no difference at all be∣tween the State of the Church under Christ's time, and under Moses's contrary to these Scrip∣tures, Heb. 1. 1. and 2. 1, 2, 3. and 3. 1,—7.

making the Doctrine of Christ no Gos∣pel.

Ellwood's self-contradictions in this passage are these,

1 Contrad. His putting Outward Respects among those things, which he says were in∣dulged by our Saviour, to continue till the Reformation, and yet venturing to contradict himself in the exposition he gives of Mat. 23. 10. wherein he affirms that civil titles are there forbidden.

2 Contrad. His saying, Outward honour went off after the death of Christ, in contra∣diction to his own acknowledgment of the E∣pithet (as he will have it) of Most Noble, given by St. Paul to Festus, who being a Heathen had no Christian vertue to qualifie him for it, according to the Quakers principles.

3 Contrad. His putting Outward respects among other things, that were to cease at the time of Reformation, in contradiction to what himself had implicitly yielded concerning the lawfulness of salutation p. 32. which is an out∣ward civil respect.

Par.

But T. E. has another distinction, and bids his Readers consider to whom this in Luk. 14. 10. was spoken; They were Pharisees, of whom (T. E. says) there were several ranks and degrees, there were chief Pharisees, and infe∣riour Pharisees; and they took place one of ano∣ther, &c. Nay there were seven ranks among them, as Goodwin tells us, &c. p. 40.

Min.

The Quaker is out again; Where did he ever read of inferiour Pharisees? Indeed in

ver. 1. it's said one of the chief Pharisees, but in the Greek 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and signifies one of the Sanhedrim, as appears from Luk. 24. 20. Io. 3. 1. Acts 3. 17. For though Goodwin tells him that there were seven ranks among the Pharisees, he do's not tell him, that they took place of one another by virtue of higher or lower ranks; for there was no such matter, one Rank looking on themselves to be as good as another: Hence the learned Scultetus saith Pharisaeorum septem non classes aut ordines, sed genera fuisse liquet. And we may note by the way, that they who go about to explain Scripture upon pretence of their having the Spirit, do (if they want the ordinary means, viz. Learning sanctified by the Spirit) soon baffle themselves, and demonstrate they have no true Spirit in them.

Par.

But what was that to his Disciples (says he?) He puts them in mind of their Equality. p. 41.

Min.

Was there ever so gross an absurdity? As if the Saviour of the World, who came to Disciple all mankind, should allow that to one sort of Men, and prohibit the same thing to a∣nother. But to let that pass: Did ever Christ establish such an equality, as to take away all superiority and subordination? How comes then the Quakers to allow that of Master and Servant p. 43. Christians indeed are in refe∣rence to Almighty God all Equals, as to the capacity to Salvation, Gal. 3. 28. But I must ask your Leveller here, what is this to their Civil Capacity? which cannot be put off, while we are in these bodies.

Par.

But he concludes his Comment on Luk. 14. 10. thus, The words of the Apostle James may be understood a general prohibition of that vain Custom of respecting persons upon any occa∣sion whatsoever. ibid.

Min.

I shewed you before how this Quaker contradicts himself; Now I shall shew how the Quakers contradict one another: In a cer∣tain pamphlet called a Treatise of Oaths, sub∣scribed by thirteen Quakers, in the name of the rest, and dedicated to the King and Par∣liament, you will find this expression, We do with all due RESPECTS present you with our Reasons, p. 3. Now do's St. Iames give a general prohibition against all Respects, both in∣ward and outward, none excepted? Why then do the Quakers contradict their own Te∣nent? For according to T. E. the most sincere and cordial respects are unlawful, and contrary to the Quakers Principles (as you have heard) and 'tis a vain and evil Custom (as he says here) to give them upon any occasion whatsoever. Why do's he rail against me and tax my honesty? Why did he not rather tell his Brethren, that they did not observe their Decorum? and that They were not a fit Company to represent the Bo∣dy of the Quakers? Yea, do's not this passage look like a design laid to mistake their Princi∣ples? Why do's not T. E. tell them as much? yet he finds no fault with his Brethren for that which he condemns in Us; And therefore is deeply guilty of that partial respect, which both the Scripture and right Reason do every where condemn.

Par.

I cannot imagine what should hold the Quakers unsatisfied in this matter, unless it be this weak scruple, that they may respect men but not the persons of men.

Min.

Is not respecting men and the persons of men all one? Can you make a difference be∣tween a man and his person? Do the Quakers understand, what the word they are contending for signifies? Do's it import any more, than honour, favour and kindness? To honour a man is to respect him; to favour a man is to respect him; to be kind to a man is to shew re∣spects to him; Are these sins?

As Respecting persons relates to partiality, either in dispensing of the Gospel, or the distri∣bution of justice, so far it is a great sin; But as it relates to honour, civility, humanity, and kindness; it's in that case so far from being a sin, so far from being prohibited, that it is ex∣presly enjoyn'd and commanded us, Lev. 19. 32. And it was reputed a sin in Israel, that they re∣spected not the persons of the Priests, and favou∣red not the Elders, Lam. 4. 16. So that we are to respect persons in one sense, as we are not to respect them in another.

Par.

To your Exposition on Mat. 23. 10. T. E. I observe, agrees so far, as to say, As little learning as you are willing to allow the Quakers, they are not ignorant that Christ did condemn the use of the word Father, as it implied an implicit faith in them to whom it was given; And also the word Master, as it denoted the chief, or head of a sect and party. p. 43.

Min.

I would have you to observe also, how the Quaker is come down from the conceit of his Revelations so far, as at last to yield that Learning may be made use of to the understand∣ing the true sense of Scripture; which Con∣cession has taken away the force of his Eighth Chapter.

Par.

But he tells us, that in that Text Christ condemned also the use of those Titles [Father and Master] in every sense, where there is not a true relation, that is (as he explains it) by Na∣ture or Law, which he calls a direct untruth. ibid.

Min.

As much learning as the Quaker thinks he has, it has failed him here; seeing this sense which he has added, is neither agreeable to the occasion and scope of that Text, nor is consistent with other places of Scripture, wherein you will find Titles without either of these sorts of Relation: I mention'd some in the Conference, which he unhandsomly passes by, as those of St. Stephen and St. Peter, giving even their Persecutors the Title of Fathers, Acts 7. 2. and 22. 1. and of our Blessed Saviour, who gave the Title of Friend to the Traitor Iudas, Mat. 26. 50. Now which of these were due either by Nature or Law? Did our Saviour contrary to his Nature speak an un∣truth? Or did he not rather in this passage intimate to us, that a Title of Civility is no untruth to whomsoever it is given, though to an enemy?

One thing let me ask you concerning St. Paul, Whether think you, was he a Married Man, or no?

Par.

No, the contrary appears from 1 Cor. 7. 7.

Min.

How comes Ellwood then (who ac∣knowledges no Title due but by Nature or Law) to tell us, that he exhorted his Son Ti∣mothy and his Son Titus thus and thus p. 24? So that T. E. has either spoil'd St. Paul's Re∣putation, or his own Comment.

Par.

But St. Paul's piety was above such a reflexion: He was their Father in a holy sense, in a spiritual relation, having begotten them through the truth.

Min.

You are in the right: but then this is no thanks to our Quaker, who has excluded this of St. Paul's out of the Catalogue of his lawful Titles.

I will ask you another question concerning David, who brought in and used Musical In∣struments in the service of God; who, I pray, was his Father?

Par.

Why? who, but Iesse?

Min.

Yes, I shall find another Father for him in Scripture; which sure T. E. never dreamt of, viz. Old Iubal, for he is said to be the Father of all that handle the Harp or Or∣gan: Gen. 4. 21. Now how do's this Title hold by Nature or Law? Could all the Musi∣cians in the World be Iubal's natural Sons?

I must ask you one question more; What relation was there between Abraham (the FATHER of the faithful) and the rich Glutton, that he should cry, Father Abraham, Luk. 16. 24? Where was there any such relation, as Ellwood talks of?

Par.

I know that after death there can be no relation by Nature or Law: But why do you fetch an instance from Hell?

Min.

If that will not serve, I will fetch you one from Heaven: Abraham replied, Son re∣member, &c. v. 25.

Par.

That was a Parable.

Min.

Suppose it were; Did Christ use to de∣liver Parables in such terms, as were opposit to his own Commands?

Par.

But is it not an untruth to call them Masters, and our selves their Servants, who in strictness cannot challenge that relati∣on?

Min.

Is it an untruth to profess a Duty? Are we not commanded to be subject to one a∣nother, 1 Pet. 5. 5. In honour preferring one ano∣ther, Rom. 12. 10. And that each esteem other better than himself, Phil. 2. 3?

Par.

But T. E. thinks, many do not intend to do any service for those they call Masters, and so 'tis flattery.

Min.

Let the flattery be laid aside, not the innocent phrase, which expresses a Christian duty, viz. That we be ready to serve one ano∣ther in all Offices of Civility: By Love (saith the Apostle) serve one another; which a Supe∣riour may do to an Inferiour.

Par.

But Titles (says he) without relation we disown and reject, as being indeed Titles of flattery, which we dare no more make use of, than that good man who said of old, Job. 31. 21, 22. Let me not, I pray you, accept any mans person, nei∣ther let me give flattering Titles unto man. p. 44.

Min.

I suppose he brings not this quotation out of the Old Testament to disprove all Ti∣tles, because he acknowledges that they were then allowed and used, outward honour having not then passed off. And it's evident the good man in Iob 31. speaks not against all, but flat∣tering Titles only.

Par.

You told me that St. Luke dedicating his Gospel to Theophilus salutes him with the Title of Most Excellent; And though Festus was a Heathen, yet St. Paul addresses himself to him with the Title of Most Noble. These (says T. E.) are not Titles, but Epithets. p. 45.

Min.

They are Epithets of Honour, and what are those but Titles? A Term of Honour is a Title, in what part of speech soever it is exprest: What do's the Quaker think of [Right Worshipful, and Right Honourable?] Do's not every body know these to be Titles? and yet these are as much Epithets, as this of [Most Noble, or Most Excellent.] And then what has this wise Quaker gotten by this subtle distinction?

Par,

Be it Title, be it Epithet; I observe T. E. is not well pleased with it; for he says, that the same Luke did afterwards, and to the same Theophilus, dedicate his Treatise of the Acts of the Apostles without any either Title or Epithet at all, but barely [O Theophilus;] and yet this was written after the other, in his riper years, and when he had made a further progress in the Christian Religion; And none, I hope, will think so good a man went from better to worse. ibid.

Min.

You will find in p. 245. of his Book, how nettled he is, that I affirmed that the Qua∣kers faith is as uncertain as their Teachers fan∣sie, and that poor deluded Souls do receive falshood, railing, non-sense, and blasphemy, as if they came from the Spirit of God, &c. I hope you see that I have already convicted this Quaker of falshood, railing, and non-sense: Now I shall charge him with Blasphemy also; For St. Luke was inspired with the Holy Ghost when he writ his Gospel; And suppose he might at other times be guilty of an idle or an evil word, and afterwards grow wiser and bet∣ter; Yet the Holy Ghost could not, being infi∣nitly perfect: So that in truth it's not St. Luke but the Holy Ghost, who is implicitly accused by this Quaker, at least of weakness and non∣proficiency, when he gave that Title, or Epi∣thet to Theophilus. St. Basil says, it's a great blasphemy to affirm that there is one idle word in the Holy Scriptures I pray God, my Anta∣gonist may repent this rashness.

Par.

As for Paul's address to Festus, calling him Most Noble; he tells us that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] might have been rendred most excellent. p. 46.

Min.

I grant it, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies both; So that it was as much as if he had said, If it please your Excellency.

Par.

He says that St. Paul had reason to use it to him, for in Iustice and Courteous de∣portment he excelled all other Magistrates that Paul had been brought before. ibid.

Min.

Do's he commend him for Courteous deportment? that's Civil Respects (as they a•…•…e

called.) But he was so far from being either Civil or Iust to St. Paul, that (to please the Jews) he sought to deliver him to them, by endeavour∣ing to perswade him to go up to Ierusalem to be judged among them, by their Laws, to the end he might fall by their Witness and Verdict. Acts 25. 9, 10, 11. But let us consider when, and upon what occasion he gave him this super∣lative Title.

Par.

That is mention'd, Acts 26. 24. It was in reply to Festus saying with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thy self, Much Learning has made thee mad.

Min.

I pray, do you remember, what an∣swer a Quaker lately gave to one, who urged this example of St. Paul for Civil Titles?

Par.

Yes, he said, Perhaps Noble was his Christian Name: But why do you remind me of this?

Min.

To let you see that Ellwood's evasion is no less ridiculous; For he might as well have said (as his Brother Quaker did) that Noble is the Christian Name of an Heathen, as that St. Paul gave this Epithet to Festus for his justice and courtesie, when he call'd him Mad man. However you may hence infer, that call but this Quaker Mad man, tell him that he is be∣sides himself, and then for the courtesie, per∣haps for the justice thereof (even in his own sentence) you will merit the Epithet of Most Excellent.

Par.

You told me that Paul and Barnabas said Sirs, &c. Acts 14. 15. The place, T. E.

says, is misrenderd'; It ought to be Men, &c. p. 47.

Min.

The Greek word is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which (as he says) Beza did rightly translate, viri. Now let me tell our Critick, that the Greeks ever distinguished between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which only signifies the humane nature in common, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which denotes manliness and courage. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Multi quidem Homines, pau∣ci viri. Homo ab humo, denoting mortality; vir a viribus, denoting prowess and courage; according to that excellent saying of Seneca, Non sentire mala non est Hominis, Non ferre non est Viri. This may suffice to justisie our Translators.

But though it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here, yet we find that Mary saluted him whom she took for the Gardiner, Ioh. 20. 15. by the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Beza's Latine Domine, in English Sir or Master. The like did the devout Jaylor to Paul and Barnabas, Acts 16. 30. Yet did neither Christ, nor the Apostles, reprove them for it, being the usual civility of that Age.

But suppose my Argument had mist the mark it aim'd at (which it has not;) yet it cannot be denied to have hit another, namely, a vindication of human Learning, even from my Antagonist's own practice, who by the help thereof appeals from the Translation to the Original: I hope he will not say that he did it wholly by the Spirit; If he do, believe him not.

Par.

I shall not be so ready hereafter to be∣lieve pretences, as I have been; But to your other instance of Saint Iohn writing to the Elect Lady, &c. T. E. answers, Who she was, and in what relation John stood to her, or how far her temporal power might extend, do's not appear. ibid.

Min.

He is in the right, The relation he stood to her in do's not appear; therefore a Title may be given, where there is not even so much as an appearance of any rela∣tion.

Par.

Lady (he says) signifies no more than Mistress or Dame. ibid.

Min.

Mistress, Dame and Lady are all exprest by the Latin word Domina, and by the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; though in common u∣sage they be distinguisht: But suppose it no more than Mistress or Dame, the Quaker will gain little by the plot; For Saint Iohn was her guide and Instructer, and surely that great Apostle stood in no relation of servitude to her, and had no temporal Office under her; If so, then you may collect from hence, that (according to this Quaker) its lawful (without the appearance of such relation he talks of) to call a Woman Mistress, but not a Man Master.

Par.

I pray you, seeing T. E. trades so much in Beza, Has he no note upon this place?

Min.

Yes, having translated it Domina, he adds thisingenuous Note; For ne ither do's the Christian Religion reject such lawful Titles,

as far as it is just and equal; So that it is as if he had written TO THE LADY OF EMINENT DIGNITY

Par.

St. Iohn writing to Gaius (T. E. says) He do's not call him Rabbi or Mr. Gaius, but simply says, The Elder to the well beloved Gaius. ibid.

Min.

I never heard that Gaius was one of the Rabbies, or a Person of Quality above the Common people: If so, no wonder, St. Iohn gave him no Title.

Par.

But he concludes his remarks upon St. Iohn thus: If therefore the Priest will have it that John gave the Title of Lady in Com∣plement only, let him prove it. ibid.

Min.

By his good leave, the Priest neither writ, nor thought any such thing: The Priest believes that St. Iohn gave the Title in truth and sincerity, as answerable to her Quality. But is this ingenuous of the Quaker from a sup∣position of his own making, to put me upon proving what I never affirmed?

Par.

You said, Sarah was commended not only for obeying Abraham, but calling him Lord: To this he answers, Abraham had a Lordship or Power over her, as he was her Hus∣band; here was Government and subjection, for Lord or Master (which imports the same) was a relative title to it. p. 48.

Min.

If he means, the Husband hath such a Despotick power over his Wife, as to make her stand in the same relation to him with his Servants, This will not be granted; for the subjection of the Wife is of a more inge∣nuous

sort. Indeed the Jewish Doctors af∣firmed Men to have a real Lordship over their Concubines, because they took them without the solemnity of Law; as our Quakers do their Women, who yet are still in worse cir∣cumstances; for thereby their children are in∣capable of inheriting their Fathers Estates, and themselves of having any advantage by Dower or Alimony. Let this suffice for a Caveat to Women, how they adventure on Quakers.

As f•…•… his reflexions upon the Government and Polity of our Church, with which he con∣cludes his Chapter of Civil Respects; I shall in his own terms tell you, that it is an old and over∣worn objection, long since baffled and confuted by the Learned pens of the incomparable Mr. Hooker and Bishop Sanderson; and of late by the Author of the Friendly Debates, and by Mr. Falkner in a good Book call'd Libertas Ecclesiastica; to which I shall refer you for satis∣faction.

Now I shall leave it to the consideration of all sober men, Whether of these two is more Christian, To add a Title to a Name, or an Adjunct, A Title to express our Civility and Charity, or an Adjunct to express malice, re∣venge, and bitterness?

Notes

• See the Foot out of the snare p. 17.
• p. 31, 32.
• †

  Mat. 10. 12. Rom. 16. Phil. 4. 2•…•…. 1 Cor. 16. 19. 2 Cor. 13 13. Conf. p. 27.
• p. 3.
• Seld. de Jur. Nat. & Gent. j•…•…xta Heb. lib. 4. cap. 9.
• Epiph. haer. 30. Ebion. Canar. lib. 1. Tom. 2.
• Euseb. Ecc. Hist. Lib. 5. cap. 16. ibid. Sam. Veti•…•…'s variae Lect. lib. 2 c. 10. p. 146. And Dio. cap. 37.
• †

  Joseph. Antiq. lib. 16. c. 6.
• Mark 11. 16.
• Tract. Mass. Je∣vamot. c. 1. 1 Tim. 4. 4, 5.
• †

  Nec Ci∣bi suman∣tur nisi Oratione praemisiâ, nec •…•…ece∣datur à mensâ ni∣si refera∣tur Crea∣tori gra∣tia. Hie∣ron. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch. & Tert. Apolog. cap 39. Which a∣rose first from a Iewish Tradition. Talm. tract Be∣rach. cap. 1, &c.
• ‖ See Drus. Quaesl. Heb. l. 3.
• Jo•…•…. 14. 26.
• Accord∣ing to those Scriptures T. E. quotes, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Rom. 2 28, 29. Joh. 4. 21, 22, 23, &c.
• Job 32. 4.
• †

  See Title of his third Chapter.]
• †

  Nulla Univer∣sitas po∣test sub∣sistere, nisi eam Ordo ser∣vet & su∣stinear. Bodin. de Re pub. l. 3.
• Ex Tal∣mud Ex∣ercit E∣vang. lib. 1. cap. 24.
• Rom. 12. 21.
• Gal. 5. 13.
• Hexa∣mer. Hom. 9.
• Herod in Po∣lymn.
• Sen. de Consul.
• Si Nomen non oc∣currit, Dominos saluta∣mus. Sen.
• 2 Joh. v. 1.
• Neque enim ab ejusmodi honestis Titulis Christia∣na Reli∣gio ab∣horret, quatenus quidem justum ac fas est. Perinde est igitur ac si scriptum esset, Eximiae ac prae∣stanti dig∣nitate Dominae.