Confutation of the Quakers, Section 12
SECT. XII. The Quakers are enemies to Civility and good manners.
THere is ſcarſe any Nation under the whole Heavens (even the Savage Indians not excepted) but they have been taught by the light in them, to give ſome civil honour and reſpect to their ſuperiours, and to ſhew outward tokens of love and courteſie to their equals. Had therefore the Quakers minded the light within them (as they pretend to do) they would not have affected ſo moroſe and clowniſh a demeanor, as to deny civility and humanity toward men: Much leſſe had they conſulted with the light of the Scriptures, where ſo many excellent precepts and examples are recorded, teaching us the ſame. It is the commendation of the holy Scriptures, that they are abſolutely ſufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and inſtruction in righteouſneſſe, that we may be furniſhed unto every good work; and therefore as they teach us duties of Religion and Piety towards God, ſo do they inſtruct us in duties of righteouſneſſe and civil behaviour towards men. I need not prove this charge againſt the Quakers that they are enemies againſt civility and good manners, their daily practiſe doth evidence it, they deny to give any titles of reſpect to men, though never ſo deſerving; they expreſſe no civil honour by any outward geſtures; uſe not common ſalutations, yea, they condemne ſuch as do theſe things; I ſhall therefore ſhew how contrary they walk herein to the precepts and preſidents we find in the holy Scriptures, and vindicate ſome Scriptures that they perverſly wreſt to make for them.
Concerning ſaluting of men, we have Chriſts expreſſe command for it to his diſciples Matth. 10.12. and when ye come into an houſe, ſalute it; and leſt any ſhould take this for a duty only to neere friends and acquaintance, we may ſee how Chriſt, Mat. 5.47. teaches it to be a duty to others; Chriſtians ſhould excell others, ſhould love their enemies and ſalute them alſo, or elſe what do they more then the Publicans? Rom. 16. Paul ſpends the whole Chapter almoſt in ſalutations to the Saints, which he would not have done if it had been ſo unlawful as the Quakers would make it, Luke 1.40. we have Mary ſaluting Elizabeth. See alſo Act. 18.22. and c. 21.7, 19
But that place is objected, Luke 10.4. Carry neither purſe, nor ſcrip, nor ſhooes, and ſalute no man by the way.
Anſw. If this place be compared with 2 Kings 4.29. it will appear Chriſt intends no more, but to excite them to ſpeed and celerity in that preſent work they went about, and not to uſe ſuch ſalutations as might hinder or ſtay them in their buſineſſe, for in the next verſe, when they are come to the place where they ſhould remaine, he bids them ſalute there; Beſides, if this command ſhould be ridgidly urged to bind us now, it would make it unlawful to wear ſhooes or purſe, &c. And further, how can it then be reconciled with the Scriptures before named, which do not one croſſe the other concerning our giving civil honour to men? ſee that command, Rom. 12.10. In honour preferring one another, the Apoſtle would not have us uncivil and barbarous, but to give due acknowledgment and teſtification to the worth and goodneſs of others, 1 Pet. 2.17. Honour all men, Rom. 13.7. Render to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute, honour to whom honour. So alſo Exod. 20.12. 1 Tim. 5.17. and the Scriptures ſtile many perſons honourable, 2 King. 5.1. Act. 13.50. & 17.12. ſome of them being Heathens and unbelievers.
But they would have theſe Scriptures to ſpeak of inward honour of the heart, not of external honour, by giving titles to them, or bowing to them, &c.
Even theſe outward teſtifications of honour are implied there, and we have many Scriptures expreſly commending or commanding the ſame to us.
For giving titles of honour to men, as calling them Lord, Maſter, Sir, Lady, &c. we have many Scriptures approving thereof, 1 Pet. 3.6. Sarah is commended by the Apoſtle for calling Abraham Lord, Gen. 16.9. The Angel calls Sarah, Agars Miſtreſſe, Matth. 10.24. ſaith Chriſt, The Diſciple is not above his Maſter, nor the ſervant above his Lord. Theſe titles are not only to be given by ſervants to their Maſters, but by Scholars or Diſciples to their teachers; as Chriſt ſhewes. Yea, it may be given to them by others who are not in ſubjection to them; as the Prophet to Eliſha, 2 Kings 6.5. and the ſecond Epiſtle of Joh. 1. the Apoſtle calls her to whom he writes, Lady, Acts 7.26. Moſes ſaid to the two men that ſtrove, Sirs, why do ye wrong to one another? Acts 14. Paul and Barnabas ſaid to them that were ready to ſacrifice to them, Sirs, why do you thoſe things? So Paul to the Marriners, Act. 27 10, 21, 25. See Act. 16.31. which title ſignifies as much as Lord or Maſter, 1 Cor. 3.10. Paul is called a Maſter-builder, Eccleſ. 12.11. Church-Officers or Teachers are called Maſters of the Aſſemblies. Beſides the title Lord or Maſter it not only uſed, but we have Epithites of further honour given to ſome perſons, as Moſt Noble, Moſt Excellent, &c. Luke 1.3. Acts 26.25. How vain is it then for theſe people to cavill againſt the uſe of theſe titles of honour, ſeeing the Scriptures do warrant the ſame?
Object. But againſt all theſe Scriptures they bring that one; Matth. 23.10. Be not ye called Maſters, as if it would overthrow all theſe titles of honour. To which I anſwer.
(1.) It doth not prohibit us from giving titles of honour to others, though it ſhould reſtraine us from ſeeking them for our ſelves.
(2.) But it would be obſerved in what reſpect Chriſt prohibits being called Maſter there, (he forbids alſo to be called father, verſe 9.) this is ſpoken in oppoſition to that vaine affectation of ſuch titles amongſt the Phariſees, the Phariſees did covet to be Sect-Maſters, and to have abundance of Diſciples following them, upon whom they uſed to impoſe their traditions as unqueſtionable verities; and their Diſciples uſed to call them Rabbi, or Maſter, glorying in being their followers; and each ſect would ſo contend for the glory of their foreign or Captaines (for ſo the word ſignifies as well as maſter) that they would quarrel, and ſometimes kill each other in ſuch conteſts. Now theſe Rabbi's maſters, or captaines were abſolute Lords over their faith, (which is prohibited, 1 Pet. 5.8.) and they queſtioned nothing they received from them, even as ſuch as follow the Quakers now receive all they ſpeak as unqueſtionable truths, becauſe they pretend to be infallible, and therefore they are more guilty of this crime of affecting Maſterſhip then any amongſt us. Who ſeeth not then how perverſly this Scripture is wreſted, when it is urged to oppoſe giving titles of honour to men, how they make it to contradict thoſe Scriptures before named? Whereas the ſcope of it is but to prohibit proud affecting of that title, and ſeeking to Lord it over mens faith.
Concerning our giving civil honour and reſpect to men by outward geſtures of the body, as riſing up, or ſtanding before our ſuperiours, uncovering the head, or bowing, &c. We have alſo many Scriptures to warrant theſe things. For riſing up, there is an expreſſe command, Lev. 19.32. Thou ſhalt riſe up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, &c. It is ſo fooliſh a cavil which was once made againſt this place, by J. L. that it deſerves no confutation, when I urged this Scripture to him, he ſaid Chriſt Jeſus was the ancient of dayes, &c. was there ever more horrible perverting of Scripture then by theſe men? This is like that expoſition he gave to me lately of that place where women are forbidden to ſpeak in the Church; ſaying, it was the weaker part of man or fleſh, that was called the woman, and was to keep ſilence. We have enough of ſuch traſh from theſe men. For ſtanding up before ſuperiours, refraining ſpeech, bowing of the body, ſee Job 29.8, 9, 10. Gen. 23.7. Abraham ſtood up and bowed himſelf to the people of the Land, even to the children of Heth. Jacob bowed to Eſau ſeven times, Gen. 33.3. Joſeph unto Jacob, Gen. 48.12. David bowed to Saul, and ſaid, My Lord the King, 1 Sam 24.8. and Nathan the Prophet bowed to him 1 Kings 1.23. As for the ſingle example of Mordecai refuſing to bow to Haman (which thoſe men urge ſo ſtifly, when as all other examples nothing move them) there was a ſpecial reaſon for that; for, according to the cuſtome of Perſia, the bowing there uſed, was reputed to favour of divine worſhip,*Juſtin. Hiſt. Lib. 6. Relates how Canon Athen refuſed to bow to King Artaxcrxes after the Perſian manner upon the ſame account. and therefore the good man could not yield to it; now as this is uſed amongſt us, its but a civil thing; Beſides, Haman probably was an Amalekite of the family of Agag, and ſo being of an accurſed ſeed, appointed to deſtruction; civil honour was not due to him, God had put a perpetual enmity betwixt the Iſraelites and Amalekites, Deut. 25.17, 18, 19.
For putting off the Hat, theſe men triumph over us, and ſay, where do we finde any example in the Scriptures for that?
Anſw. 1. Neither can they ſhew us in Scripture where ever hats were worne, therefore its not likely we ſhould read of putting them off; as for that place in Dan. 3.21. where mention is made of the three children being caſt into the fire, with their coats, hoſen, hats; the word there tranſlated hats, ſignifies any kind of covering or garment, it coming from foreign to cloath or cover, and therefore in the Margin of your books the Tranſlatours render it turbants (which were the garments worne upon their heads in thoſe Eaſterne Countreys, for they weare no hats) but becauſe ſuch a word as that is not known amongſt the vulgar, they retain in the text the word hats, (which we weare on our heads,) and not turbants. Secondly, though we find not in Scripture examples of putting off the hat (becauſe hats were not worne) yet we find other teſtifications of honour and reſpect given to ſuperiours, according to the cuſtome of each Countrey, as ſtanding up, bowing the knee, or the body, which are approved in Scripture, as before was ſhewed; how ridiculous is it then to make it unlawfull to put off the hat, when thoſe other actions be approved and lawfull?
But there are ſome other Scriptures which the Quakers often urge againſt the giving or receiving honour of men, which muſt be anſwered as that, John 5.44. How can ye believe which receive honour one of another; and ſeek not the honour that cometh from God onelyonly? To which I anſwer, Chriſt doth not here condemne all giving or receiving honour one of another (for in other places it is commanded and commended, as was ſhewed before, Rom. 12.10. 1 Pet. 2.17, &c.) but he forbids loving the praiſe and honour of men more then the praiſe of God, which was the ſinne of thoſe people, John 12.43. and this kept them from believing; they knew if they believed in him, they ſhould be reviled, caſt out of the Synagogues, and loſe the honour they had amongſt men; ſuch an honour as this we are far from pleading for, and had rather be trampled upon by men (as we have been formerly by the Prelates, and now are by the Quakers) then loſe the praiſe of God; but what is this to the denying ſuch civil honour to men, as theſe Scriptures before named require?
There is another place that thoſe people do much pervert, to make for them, which is, James 2.9. If ye have reſpect to perſons, ye commit ſinne. To which I reply.
1. There is indeed a reſpecting of perſons which is ſinfull; as when in judgement men reſpect perſons, not regarding the equity of the cauſe, but becauſe ſuch a man is rich, potent, or honourable, ſentence is paſſed on his ſide, and the poor man oppreſſed in judgement; this is forbidden, Deut. 1.17. Thou ſhalt not respect perſons in judgement, but ſhalt heare the ſmall as well as the great. See alſo Levit. 19.15. So likewiſe out of the caſe of judgment, there may be a ſinfull reſpecting of perſons, as when private perſons ſhall highly eſteeme, love, and honour perſons that be rich and great in the world, though vitious and ungodly, and ſhall contemne the precious Saints, when poore and low in the world, this is ſinfull reſpecting of perſons. I might adde alſo reſpecting of perſons in election to Magiſtracy, and in religious matters, for this is alſo ſinfull; and the Apoſtle James doth condemne reſpecting of perſons onelyonly in ſome of theſe caſes here named.
2. But then there is a lawfull reſpecting of perſons, which is ſo far from being a ſinne, that it is a duty to do it; namely, when we acknowledge the dignity and excellency of others, and by ſome outward ſigne teſtifie the ſame; this was proved by thoſe precepts and examples before named, and many more might be added if it were needfull: Thus the Prophet Eliſha, 2 Kings 3. is ſaid to regard or reſpect the preſence of Jehoſhaphat King of Judah; Nay, God himſelfe is ſaid to be a reſpecter of perſons, Gen. 4.4, 5. The Lord had reſpect to Abel, but unto Cain he had not reſpect; and Gen. 19.21. the like is ſaid of Lot; many other places might be given, but enough is ſaid for the clearing up of this duty.
Now, from all this it appeares, that as the Quakers are fallen from Chriſtianity, in that they deny the true Chriſt, and the (Chriſtian faith:) So they are fallen from humanity, in thus denying all good manners; and wherein can they come nearer to bruit beaſts, then in caſting off humanity and civil demeanour? Though they would cover over ſuch actions with the guilded ſhew of humility, yet doth it directly tend to overthrow all government and authority amongſt men; for, take away outward honour and reſpect from ſuperiours, and what government can ſubſiſt long amongſt men? Thus having ſhewed the Quakers to be ſo far degenerate, that they are no Chriſtians, nor ſcarſly men; Its time for me to put an end to my diſcourſe concerning them, and to trouble my ſelf, nor the reader further with them.