broad, by which we are to understand, as (0) Beza Notes, To all the Faithful Jews of whatfoever Tribe they are, difperfed throughout the whole World: Or as (p) Dr. Hammond fays, To the Jewish Chriftians that are difperfed • among the Nations out of Judea into divers • Cities.

2. THE Place mentioned, viz. (g)Your Affembly, by which must be understood the Meeting-Places of those difperfed Jewish Chriftians, where they affembled for Worship; nor can it poffibly denote any Court of Judicature, which in the Condition those Chriftians were they could not poffibly hold, nor had they Power of legally determining Controverfies among Men.

3. THAT the Apoftle, in the fame Chapter, when he mentions the Judgment Seats, ver. 6. uses a quite (r) different Word.

4. THAT he makes Faithfulness the fole ground of Refpect, and therefore prefers the poor, whom he defcribes, v. 5, as rich in Faith and Heirs of the Kingdom, before the rich, whom he mentions in ver. 6. as oppressing the Chriftians, and drawing them before the Judgment Seats.

.

But it is both lawful and neceffary, Says our Opponent, for the good Order and Go<vernment of the World, to give the ufual Titles, and outward Expreffions of civil Refpect to Men, according to their several Ranks and Degrees in the World, and to keep up thefe Diftinctions

(0) Fidelibus omnibus Judæis, cujuscunque Tribus fint, per Orbem Terrarum difperfis. Annot, in Locum. (p)Para phrafe iu Locum, (4) την συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν. (r) κριτήρια.

Diftinctions among Men.' In this we fhall not differ with him, if he will but leave out the Word Ufual, for we are no Levellers, but very free to keep up the Diftinctions of Offices and Stations among Men in the World, and to ufe Words proper to denote fuch Diftinctions; but there are fome Expreffions and Titles, which, tho' ufual, we may have a juft and reasonable Exception to, fuch as (b) R. Barclay fays, Lay a Neceffity upon Chriftians moft frequently to lie, because the Perfons obtaining them, either by Election, or Hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them, deferving them, or anfwering to them. As fome to whom it is faid, Your Excellency, having nothing of Excellency in them; and who is called • Your Grace, appear to be an Enemy to Grace; and he who is called Your Honour, is known to be Bafe and Ignoble. I wonder what Law of Man, or what Patent ought to oblige me to make a lie, in calling Good Evil, and Evil good? I wonder what Law of Man can fecure me in fo doing, from the juft Judgment of God, that will make me count for every idle Word? And to lie is fomething more. Surely Chriftians fhould be ashamed that fuch Laws manifeftly croffing the Law of God fhould be amongst them." Nor do the Texts our Adversary cites, p. 166. in the leaft tend to fhew, that fuch Titles are to be given to Perfons in whom the Virtues thereby denoted are not,

BUT our Adverfary would fupply his lack of Argument with Reflection, And tho', fays he, the Quakers are againft giving the ufual Expreffions of civil Honour and Refpect to others; yet they are not against receiving them from others, but like well enough to be Mafter'd and Miftrefs'd by other People."

THE Quakers never difliked the Title of Mafter or Miftrefs, as given by Servants, to thofe who are really their Masters, or Mistresses, for in that true Senfe they both willingly give and receive thefe Titles. 'Tis the abuse of them among Perfons under no fuch Relation that they find fault with, and from which they would have all Men to refrain. But if others will not, can they help it? Muft not they receive or hear the Words that others give or fpeak to them? For though themselves refrain from fuch abuse, yet they do not defire other Men fhould do fo out of a meer Hypocritical Compliance to them, before they are convinced in their own Confciences that 'tis their Duty.

He proceeds to tell us, that the Text Matt. xxiii. 1o. Be not ye called Mafters, for one is your Mafter even Chrift, is meant of being abfolute Mafters of the Faith and Confciences of Men.' If fo, that Word Master is mifapplied when 'tis us'd by way of Religious Diftinction among Men. Whether the Letters M. A. in our Adverfary's Title Page import fuch a Distinction, we leave to him to determine; not doubting, but that if he perceive them prohibited by Chrift, he will leave them out in his next Edition.

His next Query is, Is not taking off the Hat to a Man, and bowing and cringing of the Body, vain Cuftoms, which Man has invented to feed his Pride, and therefore to be rejected by fuch as fear God, as Mordecai refufed to bow to Hamon. Eft. iii. 2?

For this he cites R. B's Apol. p. 512, 513.

Now R. B's Words are these, Seeing the chief End of all Religion is to redeem Men

from

་

< from the Spirit and vain Converfation of this • World, and to lead into inward Communion with God, before whom if we fear always, we are accounted happy; therefore all the vain • Cuftoms and Habits thereof, both in Word and Deed are to be rejected and forfaken by thofe, who come to this fear; fuch as taking off the Hat to a Man, the bowing and cringing of the Body, and fuch other Salutations of that kind, with all the foolish and fuperftitious Formalities attending them, all which Man has invented in his degenerate State, to feed his Pride in the vain Pomp and Glory of this World.' If then it be true, which R. B. afferts, and which our Opponent does not attempt to confute, that Man has invented all thofe Things in his degenerate State, to feed his Pride in the vain Pomp and Glory of this World; it muft needs follow, that they are forbidden by the Law of God. The Inftance of Mordecai is not in the place of R. B's Apol. referr'd to; however, it fufficiently fhews, that Mordecai was not of our Adverfarie's Opinion, fince he refused to bow to a wicked Man, tho plac'd in an outward CharaEter of great Eminence.

THE Vicar, p. 136, uses this Retortion, And the Bowing of the Body, as a mark of Refpect, tho' it is a pofture that looks liker Idolatry, and more abject in its Nature than the Hat, is what the Quakers now generally allow of, and practife themselves, tho' contrary to their formerly avowed Principles and Practice.'

HAD his Acquaintance with the Quakers been general, he would never have made fuch a general Affertion concerning them. Nor would he have afpers'd the generality with the Practices of fome

Q 3

particular

particular Perfons among them. Had he faid, fome of the Quakers now practice Bowing of the Body, as a mark of Refpect, tho' the generality difallow of it, he had fpoken the Truth, if he knew it to be fo: tho' even then it had been very unjuft to infer, that the Quakers in general contradict their formerly avowed Principles and Pra

Etice.

He adds, And tho' they will not put off their Hat to their Superiours, not to the King himfelf; yet they will make their own Servants, ftand bare before them in their Houses and Shops, and their Children to fit bare their • Schools.'

6

THE injuftice of this Reflection was long fince exposed by Dr. Philips, in the following Paffage,

.

It is none of our method to require a Ceremonious taking off the Hat from our Apprentices, &c. as a token of that Refpect which we cannot give to others, let our Adver'faries flyly infinuate what they can to the Contrary. We do not abfolutely prohibit the taking off the Hat without a Limitation; for we approve of a Religious and of an Advantagious taking off the Hat, and are daily in the Practice of it. 'Tis only a Ceremonious taking off the Hat that we confcientioutly fcruple; we call that a Religious taking off the Hat, when it is done in Adoration to God in our publick Meetings, or when we vocally defire. his Bleffing on thofe Creatures, which he is gracioufly pleafed to afford us for our Food.

WE ftile that an advantagious taking off the Hat, when it is done on Account of fome Be