A SOBER REPLY TO A Serious Enquiry. OR, An ANSWER to a Reformed QVAKER, in Vindication of Himself, Mr. G. Keith and others, for their Conformity to the Church of England, against what I have written on that Subject. By Trepidantium Malleus. LONDON, Printed, and sold by A. Baldwin, and John Marshal. 1700. A SOBER REPLY to a SERIOUS ENQUIRY. YESTERDAY, when I removed my Habitation from London to Mortloch, the Serious Enquiry came to my hand. I grew weary of a City of Contention, and never intended to write more about their Controversies, but apply myself to a large delectable Habitation nigh the King's Park by Richmond, in some of the best Air in the World, hoping to cure as many distempered Bodies, as I had distempered Minds in that now forsaken City. Horace highly commends a Country Life: Beatus ille qui procul negotiis. prisca gens mortalium— Sir Kenelm Digby, after he had in lively colours described the Excellency of a Country, and in apt ones the Vanity of a Court Life itself, as well as a City one, says at last, And if Contentment be a Stranger then, I'll ne'er seek it, but in Heaven, again. These with many others, make a Country Life an Emblem of the Golden Age. But my hopes of a Life free from Controversy, were nipped in the bud by this Oppugner of me: For Silence in me might look like Victory in him, and a betraying of my Righteous Cause. Had Mr. Lesly, whom I greatly honour, or Mr. Keith, whom most men now as greatly despise, no better Advocate for their now common Cause, or no fit Censurer of me, than one who never vindicates them or himself from one of my Arguments against Conformity, but is not ashamed to say, p. 3. It might be endless to answer some of your grand Objections? Ay, Sir, say you so! Is this all? And instead of answering one of my Arguments, you offer about 60 Queries and Particulars, most of them ridiculous and impertinent. If I am, as you say you have heard, and found in my Books, a man of that ability— that I can answer Queries and Doubts of Conscience, I have something else to do than to answer all your Queries, but will single out such as are material. You say, Great were my pains to convince you when Quakers— That you now bear testimony to G. Keith 's found Doctrive (A Quakerish Phrase and Cant.) It is a Query among some of you, Whether Mr, Lesly hath fully answered my Arguments against Conformity in our printed Epistles? Let Mr. Keith essay it, if he thinks he can: So My first Friendly Epistle to him against Episcopacy. Why must I be plagued with old stolen Objections, and my Replies taken no notice of: An intolerable Practice among some men, or men of no depth. Now to your chief reasons why you turn not Independents, offered by way of Query: But I must contract. 1. They paganize, and make Antichristian all the Churches of Christ in the World, except themselves. This Charge is so foul and false, as I have proved in my Apology for them, that I hope in you it came from Ignorance, I fear from Malice: perhaps from both. Cotton in his Keys, Jer. Burroughs in his Irenicum, Du Maulin in his Plea for Congregational Churches, and all I have read of, abhorred such black Notions. Do they make Anabaptists Pagans, who, are often said to have too great Affinity with them? Call they not Presbyterians their Brethren? Read the London Union. Du Maulin, that Great Good Man, in his Moral Reflections, singles out Bp Hall often as one of the greatest Saints on Earth. I confess some of them are as mad upon some of their Notions, as Mr. Lesly, Mr. Keith, and yourself, on the Diusne Right of Episcopacy. I am sorry a man of worth and sense, though not of temper, was— so weak in his Plea, for Congregational Churches, to lay down four Arguments to prove the House of Stone was not the Church of God: As, Christ died for the Church, but he died not for the House of Stone. Ergo, etc. What is more common than a Metonimy of the Continent for the thing contained? as, I drink off such a Cup or Glass, eat up such a Dish, for the Drinks and Meats in them. 2. The second is false: for the Independents own the Church-Membership of Infants, and so their Baptism; inseparable Truths. 3. About living by the Gospel, etc. What Independent denied it, or the Lawfulness of Tithes? What Penry did in the days of Q. Elizabeth, or some Brownist, they are not to be answerable for. In Oliver's days this was no Controversy. 4. You say, They set up Preachers that have no knowledge of the Tongues. What they only? Where they make one, some Bishops have made two, and Good Bp Crofts justifies it, Naked Truth. But these things I have considered in my Apology. 5. To the fifth I say, That not only they, but the Anabaptists, now own and practise Ordination by laying on of Hands. Read some of their Confessions. 6. What Independents gather Churches from York to London, I know not. No doubt they have gotten some Knaves, as you some good Men. But you have forty to one. 8. You say, they expect New Modifications. Have not yours often changed Doctrine and Discipline? Organs, Bowings, etc. See the abominable Worship at Paul's. Your Changes are for the worse, Popish ones. What Changes they make are for the better, Protestant ones. 10. To the tenth Query Mr. Hales thinks the Power of the Keys nothing but declarative, and so no more belongs to Ministers than private Christians. Popish Absolutions, and and yours have been so ill managed, that most of yours are sick of them now. Why in a time of Death only are men absolved? 12. If they think our Reformers worshipped God in a wrong way, Do not you think so of some Reformed Churches, France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland of old, and now? Do not Tome of you unchurch them, and Mr. Lesly unchristian them. See his Black Book of Episcopacy. Did ever any Independent writ in such bloody Characters? And yet this man is your Oracle, and you all plough with his Heifer. They who were our Reformers were not our Apostles. Mr. L. would be, I fear, if occasion were, as very an Incendiary as Hugh Peter, that mad Independent. Keep to such as he, and go on, as one of yours did on his Execution. Here is the last and best Edition Of Hugh, the Author of Sedition. He that shall say, will surely miss, That Hugh now Independent is. To call Jacobite Quakers Honest Loyal ones, as Mr. L. doth, is to be abhorred by all true Englishmen. No more of this: Pudet dicere & piget tacere. Rebellion is now called Loyalty. To your Reasons why you turned not Presbyterians, by way of Query. Whether Christ did not bid his Disciples to say, Our Father— Whether they did not say, Our Father— Whether it be not evil to expunge Our Father— are made three Questions; though I put them, and so might he, into one. 1. The Assembly of Divines recommended the use of it, and some do it to this day, Mr. Shower, and others. 2. Yet secondly, I must confess not only I think there is no command here, but that it is not convenient to use it. See my Answer to W. C. a Churchman his Trepidantium malleus intrepidanter malleatus, in favour of G. Whitehead and the Quakers, against me, Mr. Keath, and Mr. Lesly too. And I add, That though our Bible, I think, is not only well, but laudably translated; yet on much and long consideration and enquiry, I do aver, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not truly nor tolerably translated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no more daily than weekly, or monthly. And I boldly assert, That Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, is a foul Translation, though used by Papists and Protestants. If it be asked, how must it be read? I answer, it is no easy Question. Superessential, supersubstantial Bread are not proper, not being understood by the Vulgar; though Mr. Pool mentions them. He was a famous Nonconformist, by the way, of whose Synopsis D. Barlow said, Opus esset, non unius viri, sed totius saeculi, si tu non suscepsses. I think, Tremellius gave the fairest stroke: Panen nostrum necessarium da nobis hodie, Give us this day our necessary Bread. I humbly offer this to the consideration of such Dissenters as use this Form. As for the Clergy, their Ears are bored at the Prelate's Doors, that they are sworn to serve them for ever: They dare not alter it; but must keep to their old Mumpsimus, notwithstanding my new Sumpsimus, for fear of being excommunicated, and sent as a Token to the Devil for this offence. For my part, one reason among others why I use it not, is the great Superstition of some men; so for this reason I sometimes put on my Hat in hearing, and will justify this, if occasion be. You ask us, Sir, whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not a different word from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Yes, Sir, as Ensiis and Gladius, but not a different thing. And are indeed Bishops called Presbyters because once so? Would it be proper to call my Lord Mayor Mr. Alderman, because once so? or a King Prince of Wales, because so before. Bishop is a name of Office, Presbyter of Duty, say you. Learnedly distinguished, say I. The naming of Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, and Jerom's Authority, are all of a piece, as I have proved long since. Whether K. James or Bp B. said first, No Bishop, no King, is no matter, being confuted in Scotland. Aeirus his damnable Doctrine against the Trinity, etc. made him a Heretic, not denying Episcopacy, else Jerom had been one, the Reformed Churches-abroad had been heretical. What madness is this! The Canons of the Apostles, and Ignatius his Epistles, are justly questioned, whether legitimate or spurious, by Protestants of all sorts: Yet if Ignatius his Epistles were , a Bishop was but a Bishop of one Church, one Altar— In after Ages the difference was not of Order, but of Degree. Show a new Ordination or Consecration. Did St James make a Liturgy or Common Prayer-Book, or One for him? The Lord's Prayer and Creed, p. 3. and 4. you prove every word by Scripture at large. Do we deny it? Was ever such mad work made till now! The Query about sudden Death, All Women labouring with Child, etc. is foreign to our business. Are you and G. Keith on immediate Inspiration still, that you say, That the Petition in the Form of Marriage, that they might live as Isaac and Rebecca (not as Abraham and Sarah, for he had a Hagar too; not as Jacob and Rachael, for he had a Leah too) was from Inspiration from the Holy Ghost, not human Invention. Was Cristmas, Man, known of old— There is Praying by the Spirit as to Gifts as well as Grace. You commend him that called the Common Prayer-Book, Optimmm Breviarium, the worst name I think he could ever give it. What is it, the best Mass-Book? Agreed. One being asked how they could say of K. C. II. our most Religions King? He said, It is the most Religious King we have, we have not a better. So say I, it is the best Breviary we have, we have not a better. The last Propositions in the third and last-part are common to all, they can have no place here. Now, Reader, if thou hast read my Snake caught, thou canst not think this a Reply. I am ready to prove, 1. That it is more scandalous for Ministers to read other men's Prayers to God, than read other men's Sermons to the People. 2. That the Church of the Jews, though laden with Ceremonies (every one of Divine Appointment) had no Liturgies in this its Infancy; and therefore worse is it now. 3. That a Diocesan Bishop is not a Creature of God's making, and can no more take upon him the sole Power of Ordination, than of Baptising or giving the Lord's Supper. To say nothing of their lazy vain Lives. 4. That to swear Canonical Obedience to such, to read Writs of Excommunication against the best of men for Toys or Trifles, or swear Churchwardens, if occasion be, to Articles none do keep, or can keep, etc. is double-died Iniquity, bigbellied Wickedness. 5. That for these and other reason's Separation from the Church of England is no Sin, but a Duty. I wish your Mr. L. and our Mr. A. might meet together; or Mr. K. and myself. To Mr. KEITH. SIR, THE Air at Mortlock being good for Distempers in the Head as well as Body (and therefore Lodgings are for a time here taken up by many Londoners) I offer you the best Room in my House till you are cured. Is it fair to employ or help or countenance such a Bigot of yours as C. I. only that it might be said, I was answered, though it matters not how? You are Sir, if ever man was, what the Poet says, Et tantum constans in levitate sua Ovid. Some of C. I. his Queries are as little to the Controversy, as theirs who query of you, 1. Whether you did not say, You could better bear Death than Poverty, and so conformed, because your Turners-Hall Hearers and Mathematical Scholars dropped away, and you saw you could not be the Head of a new Party. 2. Whether before your Ordination you did not discourse according as your Company was about Conformity or Non-comformity. Or if I should now ask. 3. Whether the Apostles wore a black Gown, etc. What would you say of any of us? at least that we were Impertinents: Aut illud quod dicere nolo. Juven. Be not angry, Sir, if I tell you, to answer such as he is but the work of one Afternoon, without any Book by me but the censured Paper. Many years have I been from my Study, and to be plain in my present Circumstances care for none. Farewell Mr. Changeable, and yet Mr. Infallible, I intent to answer every thing against me, but not against other men. I have been at great cost and Pains, let others be so, if occasion be. Farewell London, Farewell Controversies. FINIS.