Secondly If we grant that any one should exhort to evil life then he speaks not from Moses's Chair nor out of the Law And this I hope the Quaker will grant an eternal Document that All that an evil Pastor commands us from God's Law and by virtue of his Office we ought to do This was our Saviour's sense in that text and mine in quoting it Par. There is one thing which I must not forget He tells his Reader in these words Our Godly Martyrs by his leave held not this Document to be eternal as Smithfield can amply witness ibid. Min. This is a passage I must not brook that he should be so arrogant to call them Their Martyrs as if the Martyrs were Quakers and it were the Quakers Cause for which they suffer'd The Crow must not adorn himself with the Peacocks feathers nor the Quaker challenge a property where he has none at all In honour therefore to the memory of these pious Souls I shall God willing undertake to vindicate their reputation from so foul so false an intimation and shew 1. How far they were from being any thing like the Quakers or in the least inclinable to them 2. That they did not oppose Christ's words as Ellwrod here doth but held this Document to be eternal First I hope to make it evident that They were as contrary to the erroneous and nonsensical tenents of the Quakers as to those of the Papists by whose cruel hands they were murther'd And this disparity will appear both in their Doctrines and Manners Mr. Fox tells us that Mr. Rogers Protomartyr in Queen Mary's bloody Persecution speaking of the Ministry declared that the similitude between Them and the Apostles was not in the singular gifts of God as doing miracles c. but They were like them in Doctrine c. Now he being Vicar of St. Sepulchre Prebendary of St. Pauls and Divinity-Reader there could not be admitted into the said Preferments but by taking Oaths and subscribing to several Ecclesiastical Constitutions And must He be put into the Calendar of the Quakers Martyrs Par. 'T is well if you can agree upon the Persons For T. E. speaks of the Martyrs in general and not here of any in particular Min. You say well But what if I pitch upon Cranmer Ridley Latimer Hooper Philpot Bradford and Taylor Par. These T. E. will own to be Godly men and worthy Martyrs p. 305. Min. Good Par. What makes you smile Min. Cranmer was Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Ridley Bishop of London Latimer Bishop of Worcester Hooper Bishop of Glocester Philpot Arch-Deacon of Winchester Bradford Prebendary of Pauls and Dr. Taylor Parson of Hadley And would it not make any man smile to hear this man call those Reverend Prelats c. the Quakers Martyrs who were such constant Defenders of the Protestant Religion and of the Doctrin of the Church of England both by their Sermons their Pens and their Lives However take this by the way that in calling them Godly he justifies their Practices and in calling them Martyrs he owns the Cause for which they suffer'd and so by consequence makes the whole design of his Book a Contradiction to himself here So that he has brought himself into this miserable Dilemma and necessity either to reject these Godly Martyrs or to recant his book For further instance These Martyrs who were so learned so well skilled in the Fathers and so excellently grounded in the Principles of Faith and Holiness that they confirmed them with the Sacrifice of their Lives These very men were so far from concluding all Oaths unlawful that as they could not be admitted into their Offices and Places but by taking Oaths so likewise did they administer Oaths to the subordinate Clergy and Ecclesiastical Officers according as the Laws did then oblige them These were Dispencers of both the Sacraments were Receivers of Tithes They never scrupled to give Civil Titles to men nor to say You to a single person as is evident from all their Conferences and Disputations They wore Gowns and were in all such things as the present Clergy Yea that very Form of Confession in our service-Book against which Ellwood writes a whole Chapter was composed by some of these whom he calls their Godly Martyrs Par. I see already that he had better never have mention'd these Godly Martyrs Min. He knows what reputation they have among all Protestants and therefore he would Gull the common people with this plausible Cheat by endeavoring to perswade them that these Martyrs were Patrons of their Cause Therefore think it not tedious if I give you a further account of their Principles and Practices Cranmer one of the Compilers of our Liturgy was so far from abandoning the two blessed Sacraments that he calls them the Seals of God's promises and gifts and also of that holy fellowship which we have with Christ and all his members Ridley another of the Compilers of our Li Liturgy was so constant to the Devotions of it that Mr. Fox tells us he constantly used the common-Prayer in his own house both Morning and Evening And that he being told out of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine that Communion of Sacraments do's not defile a man but consent of Deeds acknowledged it to be well spoken if well understood which was meant saith he of them which suppose they are defiled if any secret vice be either in the Ministers or in them which communicate with them Baptism says he is given to Children the Lords Supper is and ought to be given to them that are waxen And he tells us that he wished the Bishop of Winchester to be stiff in the defence of the Sacraments against the detestable errors of Anabaptists And that you may see his judgment of the Continuation of the Lord's Supper he says * Do this c. Luke 22. 19. was not a Commandment for a time but to persevere to the world's end Hooper in his Exposition on the 3d. Commandment tells us that to Swear or take an Oath before a Lawful Iudge is the work also of this Commandment and setteth forth God's Glory for as Paul saith All controversies are ended by the virtue of an Oath So have we examples in Paul Rom. 9. And in the same Exposition he not only owns the Holy Sacraments as he rightly styles them but he expressly calls them both Vows and Oaths and further tells us that therein we Swear and promise to live after God's Will and pleasure Pray Consult the Preface to his Exposition on the Ten Commandments and you will find how contrary his Doscourse is to the Quakers notion of Perfection Do you not remember what character T. E. gives of Philpot Par. Yes He tells us He was a Godly and Learned Martyr p. 275. Min. Truly Ellwood is so far in the right for a Godly and Learned man he was But then let us see how He and the Quakers agree in their notions and principles of Religion
Government of his Church is partly visible and partly invisible His invisible Government of the Souls of men being that which he exerciseth by his Grace and holy Spirit is his own immediate work because he only is the Searcher of hearts His outward Government of his Church is that which he excerciseth by subordinate Ministers and Pastors who not seeing mens hearts can act only according to that outward Polity which he has settled in his Church and consequently the Bishops in admitting Ministers can and are obliged only to act by prudential rules of Probation following the Apostolical directions in 2 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. according to the best of their knowledg and conscience Now if any so ordain'd prove Hypocrites as they may after the severest inspection Yet are they regularly received and duly ordained and therefore true Ministers according to Christ's own Institution the Church having herein done her utmost and all that God requires in this outward Administration And the Gospel preached by them being not theirs but God's and his blessing upon his own Ordinance are sufficient to convert and save the souls of men tho' these while they preach to others may themselves become Castaways To say that upon our admission we must have letters of Induction from the Bishop is a gross mistake For letters of Induction are given by the Arch-Deacon and the intent of them is not to certify our Ordination but only to give us possession of our Benefices Par. But he speaks cautiously and adds as I think they term them ibid. Min. He is faln very flat on a sudden Is his confidence come to I think Here he either dissembles his ignorance or not If he dissemble let his design be what it will for which he do's it who is the hypocrite then If he do not dissemble but is truly as ignorant as he seems to be how is such a man qualified to censure the constitution of a Church Par. Now then the question he says naturally arises Why would the Bishop admit such hypocrites into such sacred Offices ibid. Min. The answer as naturally follows in his own words Why He knew them not to be such ibid. Which is indeed an answer unanswerable Par. But then alas may the people well say we are now in worse case then before for how shall we be assured they are not most of them such Here they are all at a loss ibid. Min. Why should not such Ministers whose lives are free from scandal be thought sincere good men rather than Hypocrites seeing Charity as himself confesses p. 23. useth to think the best Thefore you may discover here an unchristian artifice and wheedle of this Quaker's to bring the People into a prophane contempt of their Pastors and to make them suspect the most Pious Clergy-man for an Hypocrite Neither are the people at a loss tho' the Minister were an Hypocrite while as hath been ptoved the efficacy of God's word depends upon his own blessing c. and not upon the Minister's merit By this Argument of his the Church of God ever was and will be at a loss unless the sincerity of her Teachers were made known by Revelation Therefore are not the Quakers themselves all at a loss For what assurance have they of the sincerity of any of their Speakers who may have drifts and designs much different from what they pretend to It 's well known that Jesuits have personated Quakers and have been Speakers in their Meetings Dr. Good * tells us that it 's upon record at Bristol that two Franciscans gave notice of the coming of Quakerism into that City and that himself heard a Popish Priest brag that he had been a Speaker in their meetings Now who is at a loss here Not that the Emissaries of Rome care more for the Quakers than other Sectaries among whom they trade and lurk but by this wicked craft they carry on their business which is to undermine the Protestant Religion and this excellently constituted Church the grand object of their Envy by throwing a bone of Division and raising Enemies in the bowels of her well knowing that an Army is more effectually destroyed by a Mutiny among themselves than by the fiercer assaults of a foreign Enemy So indeed do's Religion suffer more by separation and Divisions among the Professors of it than by the opposition of the very Infidels I pray God this may be seriously consider'd by all good men to avoid all schismatical meetings and by the Quakers themselves to be at length convinc'd whose journey-men they are Par. Next he blames you for saying that by fruits Math 7. 16. is not meant the outward Conversation of false Prophets but the ill consequences of their Doctrines p. 16. 17. Min. It 's true I both said it and prov'd it And why takes he no notice of any of my Arguments which I suppose he would not have pass'd by had he known how to have answer'd them Did I not prove my assertion from the deceits of Hypocrisy and the outward sanctity of some Hereticks whom I mentioned and the Sheeps clothing the guise of innocency mention'd in the text it self Look into my book again and judg whether Ellwood have dealt ingennously with me I shall only add thus much that as an ill life makes an ill man so 't is false Doctrine that makes a false Prophet And that as the outward shew of holiness did not argue those old hereticks true Prophets so neither did the ill life of Iudas prove him a false Apostle Hence it follows that by mens outward Carriage we cannot distinguish between a false Prophet and a true And as for the 21 22 and 23 verses which he cites to prove the contrary it 's very evident that they relate to the final condemnation of false Prophets at the last day by Christ and not to their discovery here by us Par. If those wise and great learned men who admit these scandalous Preachers cannot by the ill consequences of their Doctrines discover those corrupt interests for which they do intrude themselves how alas should the ignorant vulgar do it p. 17. Min. You have started here a piece of elaborate nonsence 'T is indeed an hard task which he puts upon the Bishops and 't is confest it would have required all the wisdom and learning they have to discover the corrupt interests of Intruders by the consequences of their Doctrines before their Admission that is to say before they preach any Doctrine at all What grave conclusions would this shufler make by this preposterous form of putting Consequents before Antecedents Cart before th' Horse But for the prevention of their preaching false Doctrine after their Ordination all security that may be is taken of them by their subscriptions to sound and orthodox Articles of Religion according to which they are bound to preach and there are Laws also to restrain them Par. Seeing T. E. taxes the Constitution of your Government in relation to your Admission into
not consider what they were rather than from whom they came To these questions they will then be as speechless as he in the Gospel that was found without his Wedding Garment And it will not be Thomas Ellwood that will then be able to open their mouths Par. You have said enough to convince me both of the weakness and naughtiness of this Plea which he has taught the people and by which they encourage themselves to sleight their Teachers and their Doctrine for the least failing they find in them Min. This will neither justify the impiety of these men nor the Separation of such as have already left the Church on that pretence of the Teacher's not following his own directions which is as absurd and preposterous saith St. Augustin As if a Traveller should think he must go back again or leave the way because he saw the Mil-stone with its inscription shewing him the way but not moving in it at all it self But there are too many that rejoyce at the faults of Ministers where they find them and invent and impute them where they find them not that they may have a pretence for their Separation To which purpose rightly saith St. Augustin in the same place Men seek not so much with Charity whom they may Commend in order to their Imitation as with ill will whom they may Carp at in order to their own Deception Some cannot find out Good men being ill themselves and others fear to find such because they would still be evil Par. The true Ministers were always Examples of Goodness he says but too many of these Ministers are Examples of evil p. 24 Min. Has not the Quaker forgot himself here For too many is an implicit acknowledgment that many are not Examples of evil and therefore after all his Exclamations may be Good men Par. When you cannot clear them of your own Profession says he you fall upon the Quakers whom if you can render as bad as your own you think you have done something c. p. 24 25. Min. I never endeavour'd to clear those of mine own Profession that are faulty but the Innocent and to justify the Profession it self from unjust Cavils I ever thought it a method as Ungentile as Improper to defend Truth by Personal Reflections A Zealous Turk and a prophane Christian makes me think no better of Mahometanism nor worse of Christianity But seeing the Quakers themselves have been the first Aggressors in this way of arguing and do place so much of their strength therein it was proper for me only in general terms not naming any particular persons and indeed I was engaged to confnte it by letting them see how much it reflects upon their own Faction and makes all such objections void However that the world may know it was no groundless intimation of mine being thus put upon 't I desire Sir Iames Whitlock's case as it was lately managed in Chancery and two Books the one call'd The Quakers Spritual Court the other The Spirit of the Hat written by a Quaker may be examined By this time I hope I have removed your scruples occasion'd by the Quaker's first Chapter which in his Preface he tells his Reader is Offensive As great a truth as ever he spake For I have sufficiently proved it so to be that is offensive to God to Truth and all Good men But let us now proceed to the examination of his second Chapter CHAP. II. Of saying You to a single person Par. IN his second Chapter T. E. says you seem offended with their using the wrd Thou to a single person Min. I only vindicate the use of You to a single person yet must I tell him that to take up a word or phrase tho' lawful in it self in contradiction to an innocent custom and in an affected singularity as a mark of distinction from their Neighbours this is justly offensive And to make it a necessary duty to say Thou to a single person and a sin to say You when God has neither commanded the one nor forbidden the other this is adding to the Word of God and is rank Superstition and Pharisaism in enslaving the Conscience and placing Religion in pitifull niceties Superstition being an impiety which represents God so light or so froward as to be either pleased or angry with things indifferent and of no moment Par. But T. E. says that they lay not the stress of their Religion upon words p. 27. Min. A good hearing Then may a good man without any violence to Religion say as well You as Thou to a single person But if he spoke as he thought why do they and he contend so much about a word and divide the Church and separate themselves from it for a thing they dare lay no stress of Religion upon So that he has in those words done little credit to his Cause and his whole Party in making them all Schismaticks Yet can we think that he has here truly represented his own Party or clear'd them of Superstition while we observe their strict and demure use of words and phrases to the enslaving of their own Consciences As if to say I thank you for your kindness or the like were not as good sense and as lawful as to say I receive thy love Or to say Such a one is dead were not as pleasing to God as to say He is out of the body Or to say I cannot consent to such a thing were not as proper and as Religious as to say I am not free which is a phrase they have very ready to oppose good Laws and good Counsel And if you mark the Quakers you cannot but observe that in the affected use of their distinguishing phrases tones and gestures they really esteem themselves more religious than their Neighbours whilst indeed if they understood it they are the less Religious by how they are the more superstitious and schismatical But I believe that in many of them much of this proceeds from want of knowledge who now I hope will by one of their own Teachers be at length convinc'd of their great errour in laying so much stress of Religion upon words and phrases Par. You must be cautious how you reflect upon the Quakers for the use of their phrases seeing many of them are taken out of the holy Scriptures Min. Though the holy Scriptures ought to be remembred and frequently used in our Converse for our mutual instruction Yet I would not have you so ignorant and superstitious as to think that God in revealing his will there design'd that our duty should consist in the continual use of those very forms of speech but in a due regard to those truths and Commands contained in them As for the style of the Scriptures you are to understand that it was ever accommodated to the particular dialect of that people to whom they were written and therefore varied accordingly as we find it does in the different proprieties of the Hebrew Tongue in
Lectures one instance may suffice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And verily by Iove and the Gods one Creature were enough to make a modest and grateful man sensible of a Providence Par. But T. E. says Plato is more positive Away saith he with an Oath altogether ibid. Min. Plato is a large Author and if T. E. had told us whereabouts he said so we might have considered the occasion and truth of this saying Indeed hetorbids the using the Names of their Gods lightly or without a necessary occasion But what makes this against solemn Swearing upon a due occasion by the True God And if he say any where Away with an Oath altogether he must not be understood otherwise than of Common swearing for these reasons First He was three times listed a Souldier in the Athenian Wars among whom it was the Custom to bind their Souldiers with an Oath at their entrance into the Service Secondly we find him frequently swearing by Iove and by God whenever he is earnestly pressing any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being as familiar in his Apol. pro Socrate Critone Phaedoâ—…e c. as Verily verily in the Gospel of which I will engage to give 100 examples Thirdly He advises that a Law might be made that no Iudge should execute his Office unless he was sworn And though he thinks it inconvenient to administer Oaths in some Cases and to some peculiar persons that are presum'd to have great tâ—…mptations to Perjure themselves yet you may â—…nd that he allows Oaths as to Judges so to several other persons if you consult his 12th Fock of Laws Let it be lawful says he for Strangers that cannot agree among themselves to take and administer Oaths if they please as it is the Custom of these times So that it Plato any where forbid serious Oaths he is strangely inconsistent with himself Par. Menander T. E. says is little less positive So avoid evil swearing as not to swear in things just and true ibid. Min. The Greek is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But neither this nor T. E's English do at all oppose solemn Swearing in necessary Cases for it is vain and common swearing to all truths in discourse that brings men to such a custom that by degrees they learn to swear any thing true or false and therefore to escape this evil Custom we should resolve to avoid all swearing to what we ordinarily say And this same Menander to make men careful of solemn Oaths when they did take them saith When thou swearest falsly think not to conceal it from the Gods apud Stobaeum Par. But T. E. says Plutarch tells them It was unlawful for Jupiter ' s Priests to swear ibid. Min. I suppose he means that it was their priviledge to be exempted from an Oath For they who write upon that matter do tell us so viz. that it was the peculiar priviledge of the Flamen Dialis to be excepted which plainly implies that other sorts of Men were obliged to the taking of Oaths Nay not so much as the Pontifex Max. wax excepted and if the Flamen Dialis was to be chosen to any peculiar office he was to swear by Proxy By the Law of England a Nobleman is not obliged to give evidence upon Oath Do's this argue that the Law looks upon an Oath as evil Nay Noblemen themselves are not exempted in all Cases for they cannot take upon them the execution of a Will without taking an Oath In an old Council held at Berkhamstead Anno 700. cap. 17. It is ordained that the word of a King and Bishop without an Oath shall be irrefragable Will T. E. hence argue that an Oath was not then accounted an Act of Religion in this Nation He himself seems to reckon the wearing of Black in mourning for the dead among the religious actions of the Heathens pag. 117. and yet that also was forbid to Iupiter's Priests So that you may see how glad the Quakers are to take hold of any twig to save a linking cause but it will not do Par. He tells us further that Fimicus said to Lollianus Neither take an Oath nor require one p. 115. Min. I suppose here 's some mistake and that he means some other person for I never heard or read of such a man as Fimicus and therefore am not so well prepared to answer the objection But himself having stated Oath indefinitely may relate to an Oath in Converse as well as to such as are tender'd upon a serious and solemn occasion Par. His last instance is out of Polybius who says In the better and simpler Ages of the World Oaths were seldom used in Iudicature but after that perfidy and lying encreased the use of Oaths encreased ibid. Min. If Oaths were seldom used in Judicature do's it necessarily follow that they were never used in Judicature Polybius writ his History 200 years before Christ's time So that we must look to the very beginning of the Roman State whose History he writes for these better and simpler Ages Let us go back as far as Numa Successor to Romulus which was the best and simplest Age of that State He says Livy Had endued the Breasts of all with that Piety that fidelity and an Oath without the fear of Laws and punishment did rule the whole City In those Ages there were fewer Men and fewer Causes and therefore fewer Oaths but neither Polybius nor any other can say truly that in any Age they were wholly useless And indeed this Quotation is so far from being to the Quaker's business that it is directly against him it proving that Oaths were then Used though but seldom Par. Yet T. E. bids his Reader judge by these instances whether the more virtuous and honest sort of Heathens did esteem an Oath to be an Act of Natural Religion that is whether they accounted it of a Religious nature in it self ibid. Min. Where do's any of those Instances deny it The strictest of them and the most positive cannot with any reason be interpreted to signifie any more than either a Dehortation from that falslhood which was the occasion of them or a Caution against evil swearing that is against false irreverent and needless Oaths Is this to consute my Assertion Let us try in a parallel Case Excommunication is an Act of Religion Now if I should bring many who say it must not be used Lightly and some who forbid to use it at all inslight manner many who say a Good man needs not to be excommunicated and some with Polybius who tell us that in the best and simplest Ages of the Church it was seldom used but when Heresies and impieties encreased the use of Excommunication encreased also Doth this prove Excommunication to be no Act of Christian Religion All this is true and yet all Christians continue the use of it and the Quakers have something like it pag. 26. Let any Man judge if T.
Original 'T is the conceit of this Teaching that hath made many of the Quakers despise the Scriptures What need have such says one of them of Scripture-teaching without them when they have received the same Spirit within them Another whom I could name said to a Credible Person That it had been better for him had he never read the Bible Par. But you affirmed the Scriptures were a Perfect Rule this sticks in his teeth And whereas you proved it by 2. Tim. 3. 17. He confesses the Scriptures to be profitable but hopes the Priest will not say Every thing that is profitable is a perfect and sufficient rule p. 247. Min. It 's well if My Gentleman put not on a false Vizard for this is the foundation-Principle of all Popery to deny that the Scripture is a perfect Rule And under this sconce all their other Errours do take Sanctuary wherefore the Papists call the Scripture a Leaden Rule a dead Iudge merum putamen sine nuelâ—…o a meer Nut-shell without a Kernel That the Fathers are clear in this point as well against the Papists as their Frieud Ellwood may be seen in the Confeâ—…nce P. 105. which he passes by That the Scripture is a sufficient Rule the Apostle proves sufficiently 2. Tim. 3. 15 16 17. Do's not St. Paul say there that they are able to make us wise unto Salvation through Faith Which they could not do were there not a Rule in order to that Salvation For the main use of a Rule is to direct us in the way we should go in The Apostle proceeds to enumerate the several particulars wherein the Scriptures may by us be profitably made use of They are profitable says he for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction Which contain all the intents and purposes of a Rule To shew that the Scripture hath all the Perfection that a Rule can have the Apostle adds that the man of God may be perfect thorowly furnished unto all good Works Let this Quaker therefore beware how he digs up Foundations especially considering how many places there are which make the Law of the Lord Perfect c. Which for brevity sake I must omit I expected that T. E. in this Chapter of Learning would have shewed us his greatest skill and accuracy but I find my self deceived his pages being filled only with pitisul shifts and evasions Lest therefore I should weary you I must desire you to pass to the next and last Chapter of his Book especially considering there is a Tract now in press called Christianity No Enthusiasm which answers all his pretensions to immediate Teaching Par. I shall only then desire you to take notice that he concludes this Chapter with the Testimonies of Tindall Iewel Bradford Philpot and Bullinger all which argue a Necessity of the Spirit in order to the interpreting of Scripture Min. I have seriously consider'd their words and do find that they either speak of the practicable knowledge of the Scriptures which is ouly to be had from the Grace of the Spirit or else of the Ordinary teaching of Gods Spirit in the use of means But where do's he find that any of these relyed on immediate Inspiration or disputed against the use of Humane Learning in Divinity Or do you think that the Quaker observed His decorum in giving Philpot the Reverend Title of a Learned Martyr in this Chapter against Learning p. 275 But to shew that T. E. has abused the Learned and Pious Philpot And that I maintain No notion of Learning different form Him Let us hear his own words I confess saith he that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God and I acknowledge that God appointeth an Ordinary means for men to came unto knowledge now and not miraculously as He hath done in times past yet we that be taught by Men must take heed that we learn nothing but that which was taught in the Primitive Church by Revelation Par. One thing I wonder at viz. That T. E. should not say Bishop Iewel he having been Bishop of Salisbury as well as Bishop Gauden and Bishop Taylor but barely styles him Iohn Iewel a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion p. 273. Min. You will the less wonder if you consider that the design of Ellwoods Book is to blind and delude the ignorant Common people for he can hardly fancy that men whose Reason has been improved by Consideration and education can be imposed upon by so many apparent fallacies Now should He have called him Bishop Iewel then would the most Vulgar have made this Remark viz. that a man may be a Bishop and yet a zealous defender of the Protestant Religion But if T. E's design be to prove that Gods people cannot be without the assistance of His Holy Spirit he needed not to have gone to Bishop Iewel Arch-Deacon Philpot and the rest He might have brought as plain Proofs and with more Authority from the Book of Common prayer from the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England And if I say any thing to the contrary I will submit to the severest puninshment for so high a Cirme Par. I should give you no further Trouble upon this point but for one odd passage which I had like to have forgot He says The Faith which They have received is the same with that of the Primitive Christians p. 245. Min. Then let me give you a Testimony or two of their Opinion in this matter Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 5. c. 9. tells us of one Pantaenus who lived in the Second Century that He was a famous Learned man and Moderator in the School of Alexandria And that of Old disputation and exercise in Holy Scripture did flourish among them being instituted by such men as excelled in Eloquence The same Eusebius informs us that Origen perswaded to the Study of Liberal Sciences affirming them advantagious to the knowledge of Holy Scriptures being of an opinion that the exercise of Philosophical Discipline was very necessary and profitable It was an unhappy Project of Iulian the Apâ—…state to extirpate Christianity by destroying All Schools of Literature and Education for by this means saith he if we suffer them We are beaten with our own Weapons And the Christians complained of this as a very great grievance Which shews that they both used Learning and highly valued it also Saint Augustine allows the knowledg of Philosophy and other Heathen Learning to be useful in order to the expounding of Scripture and compares it to the Israelites spoiling of the Egyptâ—…ians to adorn the Tabernacle And saith that Saint Cyprian Lactantius Victorinus Optatus and Hilarius were rarely furnished with these spoils Saint Hierome was brought up in Learning from his Youth And before he set upon explaining the Scripture he Learned the Hebrew Tongue long after he was a man And hehighly commended the Mother of Rusticus who was designed for the Ministry that she brought him up
in All kind of Learning And he advises Ministers that they be long in Learning what they are to teach unto others I could produce infinite Testimonies to shew How Learning was encouraged by the Ancient Christians And for this kind of Inspiration which Ellwood talks of it was never pretended from the time of the Heretick Montanus till St. Francis pretended to this point of Quakerism and other Fanatical Popish Fryars and Monks the Modern Enemies of all ingenuous Education So that I hope the Quakers Champion has been so far from putting you out of Conceit with Learning that he hath raised your esteem and opinion of it CHAP. IX Of Tithes PAR. T. E. begins his Chapter of Tithes with railing and saith that he is got to the Priests Dalilah the very darling and minion of the Clergy p. 277. Min. But rather if the Quaker please Tithes are that which an English man calls Property and I hope will be ever esteemed so for all his Billinsgate Rethorick But to wave thir for I dare not encounter my Adversary in scolding I must remind you that the first thing which you proposed to me upon this Subject was an Argument of Edward Burroughs in his plea to the King and Council who said it was a denying of Christ to uphold any part of the first Priesthood that gave and received Tithes c. to which I answered that if by the first Priesthood be meant that of Aarons than had he presented to the King and Council a Notorious falsity in affirming it to be the first there being a Priest before him to whom Levi himself paid his Tithes Heb. 7 9. Or if by the first Priesthood he meant that of Melchizedeck's the falsity was no less Notorious in saying that Priesthood is ended which Christ exerciseth for ever Heb. 7 17. Par. This indeed I told you was a great scruple to me and your answer was no less satisfactory and I expected that T. E. here would have shew'd his art but I found my self deceived for he hath left Burroughs in the lurch and given the World an occasion to look upon him as a meer Cheat and Impostor Min. It s strange that he should pass by so considerable a passage and the very first thing insisted on but you will wonder indeed when I tell you that if a certain letter may be credited subscribed by Isaac Pennington Edward Burroughs was an occasion of his convincement He should have said seducement Of all Quakers one would have thought E. B. should not have been deserted Is it not strange that T. E. who abounds with Sophisms and Fallacies should not have one leâ—…t him at such a pinch as this when the credit and reputation of His Patriarch Burroughs was so emiâ—…tly concern'd I pray God he may lay it to heart and that in order to his own eternal good that this Burroughs who was the unhappy Instrument of his Apostacy from the Protestant Religion establisht in the Church of England had not that Inspiration which we have been discoursing of and of which the Quakers so vainly boast Par. I see one thing very plainly that where T. E. has not the wit to answer any of your Arguments he has however the cunning to pass them by For He has skipt over four pages and the first thing that he enquires into is whether Tithes were due to Melchisedeck that which should make them due says He must be a command p. 277. Min. You know that Abraham built an Altar to the Lord His God who appeared to him Now according to T. E. that was a superfluous service not a due to God because we do not read that any where He had commanded it Par. I suppose that T. E. is sensible that Melchizedeck was a Type of Christ and that if Tithes were due to the Type they are No less due to the Antitype wherefore he produces three Arguments to prove that Tithes were not his due First Because Moses says expresly that he gave him Tithes And that the Apostle useth the same Phrase Now to give imports one thing to pay another p. 278. Min. That the Phrase imports no such things will appear when we observe the very same in other Scriptures As for example My son saith Ioshua Give glory to God do's this imply that Glory is not God Almighties due any further than Man is pleased to give it to him Secondly The Apostle who gives the best account of the Phrase has it in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Tithed Abraham Now since T. E. pretends to understand Greek and this passage being in my Book How came he to pass it by this I am perswaded had he not found it true it would not have escaped his lash wherefore do I suspect that here He offers an Argument directly against his own knowledge and Conscience Par. His second reason is this Had Tithes been due to Melchizedeck then must Abraham have paid Melchizedeck Tithes of all his substance p. 279. Min. We know nothing to the contrary but that he did so and I can affirm the one as well as He deny the other Par. But the main is behind We do not read says He that He gave him Tithes of his own Estate but that which he gave him the Tenth of was the Spoils ibid. Min. This was answered in the Conference also It not being material out of what he paid His Tithes but whatever they were Abraham paid them as a Tithe and Melchizedek received them as a Priest But seeing he insists so much upon this I shall add That the Spoils were in strictness his own Estate having obtained them with the hazard of his Life in a just and righteous War But if it were not so that they were not his than will an eternal infamy ly upon the Father of the Faithful and the Priest of the most High God in disposing and receiving of that which in right belonged to other Men. Par. But Thirdly says T. E. which seems to me a meer trifle the occasion c. seems altogether accidental ibid. Min. That is accidentally Abraham metwith an occasion opportunity to discharge His duty As meer an accidental passage as the Quaker would have this to be yet the Apostle draws a solid Argument from thence and whoever reads the 7th Chapter to the Hebrews will find that the Apostles design there is to prove the Priesthood of Melchizedeck's above that of Levi's from a threefold Argument First He received Tithes of Abraham or he Tithed him v. 6. Secondly He blessed him and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better v. 7. Thirdly The Apostle proves it the greater and the more blessed Priesthood from the duration of it For thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Mechizedeck v. 17. Now if the account that Ellwood hath given of these two great Men be true then has the Apostle quite lost his Argument therefore let us compare T. E's Discourse