PROPOSITION XV.

[152]Seeing the chief End of all Religion is to redeem Men from the Spirit and vain Conversation 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 Customs and Habits thereof, both in Word and Deed, are to be rejected and forsaken by those who come to this Fear; such as taking off the Hat to a Man, the Bowings and Cringings of the Body, and such other Salutations of that Kind, with all the foolish and superstitious Formalities attending them; all which Man hath invented in his degenerate State, to feed his Pride in the vain Pomp and Glory of this World: As also the unprofitable Plays, frivolous Recreations, Sportings, and Gamings, which are invented to pass away the precious Time, and divert the Mind from the Witness of God in the Heart, and from the living Sense of his Fear, and from that evangelical Spirit wherewith Christians ought to be leavened, and which leads into Sobriety, Gravity, and godly Fear; in which as we abide, the Blessing of the Lord is felt to attend us in those Actions in which we are necessarily engaged, in order to the taking Care for the Sustenance of the outward Man.

But this, they say, is but in Policy to commend our Heresy.

But such Policy it is, say I, as Christ and his Apostles made use of, and all good Christians ought to do; yea, so far hath Truth prevailed by the Purity of its Followers, that if one that is called a Quaker do but that which is common among them, as to laugh and be wanton, speak at large, and keep not his Word punctually, or be overtaken with Hastiness or Anger, they presently say, O this is against your Profession! As if indeed so to do were very consistent with theirs; wherein though they speak the Truth, yet they give away their Cause. But if they can find any under our Name in any of those Evils common among themselves (as who can imagine but among so many Thousands there will be some Chaff, since of twelve Apostles one was found to be a Devil) O how will they insult, and make more Noise of the Escape of one Quaker, than of an hundred among themselves!

Flattering Titles.I. That it is not lawful to give to Men such flattering Titles, as Your Holiness, Your Majesty, Your Eminency, Your Excellency, Your Grace, Your Lordship, Your Honour, &c. nor use those flattering Words, commonly called [Compliments.]

Hat and Knee.II. That it is not lawful for Christians to kneel, or prostrate themselves to any Man, or to bow the Body, or to uncover the Head to them.

Apparel.III. That it is not lawful for Christians to use Superfluities in Apparel, as are of no Use, save for Ornament and Vanity.

Gaming.IV. That it is not lawful to use Games, Sports, Plays, nor among other Things Comedies among Christians, under the Notion of Recreations, which do not agree with Christian Silence, Gravity, and Sobriety: For Laughing, Sporting, Gaming, Mocking, Jesting, vain Talking, &c. is not Christian Liberty, nor harmless Mirth.

Swearing.V. That it is not lawful for Christians to swear at all under the Gospel, not only not vainly, and in their common Discourse, which was also forbidden under the Mosaical Law, but even not in Judgment before the Magistrate.

Fighting.VI. That it is not lawful for Christians to resist Evil, or to war or fight in any Case.

Degrees of Dignity and Precedency allowed.Before I enter upon a particular Disquisition of these Things, I shall first premise some general Considerations, to prevent all Mistakes; and next add some general Considerations, which equally respect all of them. I would not have any judge, That hereby we intend to destroy the mutual Relation that either is betwixt Prince and People, Master and Servants, Parents and Children; nay, not at all: We shall evidence, That our Principle in these Things hath no such Tendency, and that these natural Relations are rather better established, than any Ways hurt by it. Next, Let not any judge, That from our Opinion in these Things, any Necessity of levelling will follow, or that all Men must have Things in common. Our Principle leaves every Man to enjoy that peaceably, which either his own Industry, or his Parents, have purchased to him; only he is thereby instructed to use it aright, both for his own Good, and that of his Brethren; and all to the Glory of God: In which also his Acts are to be voluntary, and no Ways constrained. And further, we say not hereby, that no Man may use the Creation more or less than another: For we know, That as it hath pleased God to dispense it diversly, giving to some more, and some less, so they may use it accordingly. Education differs accordingly.The several Conditions, under which Men are diversly stated, together with their Educations answering thereunto, do sufficiently shew this: The Servant is not the same Way educated as the Master; nor the Tenant as the Landlord; nor the Rich as the Poor; nor the Prince as the Peasant. Now, though it be not lawful for any, however great Abundance they may have, or whatever their Education may be, to use that which is merely superfluous; yet seeing their Education has accustomed them thereunto, and their Capacity enables them so to do, without being profuse or extravagant, they may use Things better in their Kind, than such whose Education hath neither accustomed them to such Things, nor their Capacity will reach to compass them. The lawful or unlawful Use of the Creation.For it is beyond Question, That whatever Thing the Creation affords is for the Use of Man, and the moderate Use of them is lawful; yet, per accidens, they may be unlawful to some, and not to others. As for Instance, He that by Reason of his Estate and Education hath been used to eat Flesh and drink Wine, and to be clothed with the finest Wool, if his Estate will bear it, and he use it neither in Superfluity, nor immoderately, he may do it; and perhaps, if he should apply himself to feed, or be cloathed as are the Peasants, it might prejudice the Health of his Body, and nothing advance his Soul. But if a Man, whose Estate and Education had accustomed him to both coarser Food and Raiment, should stretch himself beyond what he had, or were used to, to the manifest Prejudice of his Family and Children, no Doubt it would be unlawful to him, even so to eat or be clothed as another, in whom it is lawful; for that the other may be as much mortified, and have denied himself as much in coming down to that, which this aspires to, as he, in willing to be like him, aspires beyond what he either is able, or hath accustomed to do. The safe Place then is, for such as have Fulness, to watch over themselves, that they use it moderately, and rescind all Superfluities; The Rich to help the Poor.being willing, as far as they can, to help the Need of those to whom Providence hath allotted a smaller Allowance. Let the Brother of high Degree rejoice, in that he is abased; and such as God calls in a low Degree, be content with their Condition, not envying those Brethren who have greater Abundance, knowing they have received Abundance, as to the inward Man; which is chiefly to be regarded. And therefore beware of such a Temptation, as to use their Calling as an Engine to be richer, knowing, they have this Advantage beyond the Rich and Noble that are called, that the Truth doth not any Ways abase them, nay, not in the Esteem of the World, as it doth the other; but that they are rather exalted thereby, in that as to the inward and spiritual Fellowship of the Saints, they become the Brethren and Companions of the greatest and richest; and in this Respect, Let him of low Degree rejoice that he is exalted.

These Things premised, I would seriously propose unto all such, as choose to be Christians indeed, and that in Nature, and not in Name only, whether it were not desirable, and would not greatly contribute to the Commendation of Christianity, and to the Increase of the Life and Virtue of Christ, if all superfluous Titles of Honour, Profuseness and Prodigality in Meat and Apparel, Gaming, Sporting and Playing, were laid aside and forborn? And whether such as lay them aside, in so doing, walk not more like the Disciples of Christ and his Apostles, and are therein nearer their Example, than such as use them? Whether the laying them aside would hinder any from being good Christians? Or if Christians might not be better without them, than with them? Certainly the Sober and Serious among all Sorts will say, Yea. Then surely such as lay them aside, as reckoning them unsuitable for Christians, are not to be blamed, but rather commended for so doing: Because that in Principle and Practice they effectually advance that, which others acknowledge were desirable, but can never make effectual, so long as they allow the Use of them as lawful. And God hath made it manifest in this Age, That by discovering the Evil of such Things, and leading his Witnesses out of them, and to testify against them, he hath produced effectually in many that Mortification and Abstraction from the Love and Cares of this World, who daily are conversing in the World (but inwardly redeemed out of it) both in Wedlock, and in their lawful Employments, which was judged could only be obtained by such as were shut up in Cloisters and Monasteries. Thus much in General.

Titles.First, Because these Titles are no Part of that Obedience which is due to Magistrates or Superiors; neither doth the giving them add to or diminish from that Subjection we owe to them, which consists in obeying their just and lawful Commands, not in Titles and Designations.

Under the Law and Gospel.Secondly, We find not that in the Scripture any such Titles are used, either under the Law or the Gospel: But that in the speaking to Kings, Princes, or Nobles, they used only a simple Compellation, as O King! and that without any further Designation, save perhaps the Name of the Person, as, O King Agrippa, &c.

Lying Titles.Thirdly, It lays a Necessity upon Christians most frequently to lie; because the Persons obtaining these Titles, either by Election or hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them deserving them, or answering to them: As some, to whom it is said, Your Excellency, having nothing of Excellency in them; and he who is called, Your Grace, appears to be an Enemy to Grace; and he who is called, Your Honour, is known to be base and ignoble. Patents do not oblige to a Lie.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 secure me, in so doing, from the just Judgment of God, that will make me account for every idle Word? And to lie is something more. Surely Christians should be ashamed that such Laws, manifestly crossing the Law of God, should be among them.

Object.If it be said, We ought in Charity to suppose that they have these Virtues, because the King has bestowed those Titles upon them, or that they are descended of such as deserved them;

Answ.I answer, Charity destroys not Knowledge: I am not obliged by Charity, either to believe or speak a Lie. Now it is apparent, and cannot be denied by any, but that those Virtues are not in many of the Persons expressed by the Titles they bear; neither will they allow to speak so to such, in whom these Virtues are, unless they be so dignified by outward Princes. So that such as are truly virtuous, must not be stiled by their Virtues, because not privileged by the Princes of this World; and such as have them not, must be so called, because they have obtained a Patent so to be: And all this is done by those, who pretend to be his Followers, that commanded his Disciples, Not to be called of Men, Master; and told them, Such could not believe, as received Honour one from another, and sought not the Honour which cometh from God only. This is so plain, to such as will indeed be Christians, that it needs no Consequence.

Your Holiness, Your Grace, &c.Fourthly, As to those Titles of Holiness, Eminency, and Excellency, used among the Papists to the Pope and Cardinals, &c. and Grace, Lordship, and Worship, used to the Clergy among the Protestants, it is a most blasphemous Usurpation. For if they use Holiness and Grace, because these Things ought to be in a Pope, or in a Bishop, how come they to usurp that peculiarly to themselves? Ought not Holiness and Grace to be in every Christian? And so every Christian should say, Your Holiness, and Your Grace, one to another. Next, how can they in Reason claim any more Titles, than were practised and received by the Apostles and Primitive Christians, whose Successors they pretend they are, and as whole Successors (and no otherwise) themselves, I judge, will confess any Honour they seek is due to them? Now if they neither sought, received, nor admitted such Honour nor Titles, how came these by them? If they say they did, let them prove it if they can: We find no such Thing in the Scripture. The Christians speak to the Apostles without any such Denomination, neither saying, If it please Your Grace, Your Holiness, Your Lordship, nor Your Worship; they are neither called, My Lord Peter, nor My Lord Paul; nor yet Master Peter, nor Master Paul; nor Doctor Peter, nor Doctor Paul; but singly Peter and Paul; and that not only in the Scripture, but for some hundreds of Years after: So that this appears to be a manifest Fruit of the Apostasy. For if these Titles arise either from the Office or Worth of the Persons, it will not be denied but the Apostles deserved them better than any now that call for them. But the Case is plain, The Apostles had the Holiness, the Excellency, the Grace; and because they were holy, excellent, and gracious, they neither used, nor admitted of such Titles:Hypocrites want Titles. But these having neither Holiness, Excellency, nor Grace, will needs be so called, to satisfy their ambitious and ostentatious Minds, which is a manifest Token of their Hypocrisy.

Fifthly, As to that Title of Majesty, usually ascribed to Princes, we do not find it given to any such in the Holy Scripture; but that it is specially and peculiarly ascribed unto God, as 1 Chron. xxix. 11. Job. xxxvii. 22. Psal. xxi. 5. and xxix. 4. and xlv. 3. and cxiii. 1. and xcvi. 6. Isa. ii. 10. and xxiv. 14. and xxvi. 10. Heb. i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 16. and many more Places. Hence saith Jude, Ver. 25. To the only wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, &c. not to Men. We find in Scripture the proud King Nebuchadnezzar assuming this Title to himself, Dan. iv. 30. who at that Time received a sufficient Reproof, by a sudden Judgment which came upon him. Therefore in all the Compellations used to Princes in the Old Testament, it is not to be found, nor yet in the New. Paul was very civil to Agrippa, yet he gives him no such Title: Neither was this Title used among Christians in the primitive Times. Eccles. Hist. L. 4. P. 445.Hence the Ecclesiastical History of the Reformation of France, relating the Speech of the Lord Rochefort, at the Assembly of the Estates of France, held under Charles the Ninth, in the Year 1560, saith, Your Majesty not used; how taken Notice of in 1560.That this Harangue was well remarked, in that he used not the Word [Majesty] invented by Flatterers of late Years. And yet this Author minded not how his Master Calvin used this flattering Title to Francis the First, King of France; and not only so, but calls him Most Christian King, in the Epistle to his Institutions; though by his daily persecuting of the Reformers, it was apparent, he was far from being such, even in Calvin’s own Esteem. Surely the Complying with such vain Titles, imposed and introduced by Antichrist, greatly tended to stain the Reformation, and to render it defective in many Things.

Lastly, All these Titles and Stiles of Honour are to be rejected by Christians, because they are to seek the Honour that comes from above, and not the Honour that is from below: But these Honours are not that Honour that comes from above, but are from below. For we know well enough what Industry, and what Pains Men are at to get these Things, and what Part it is that seeks after them, to wit, the proud, insolent, haughty, aspiring Mind. The proud Mind loves Titles.For judge, Is it the meek and innocent Spirit of Christ that covets that Honour? Is it that Spirit that must be of no Reputation in this World, that has its [154]Conversation in Heaven, that comes to have Fellowship with the Sons of God? Is it that Spirit, I say, that loves that Honour, that seeks after that Honour, that pleads for the Upholding of that Honour, that frets, and rages, and fumes, when it is denied that Honour? Lucifer’s Spirit.Or is it not rather the lordly insulting Spirit of Lucifer, the Prince of this World, he that of old affected and sought after this Honour, and loved not to abide in the submissive low Place? And so all his Children are possessed with the same ambitious proud Mind, seeking and covering Titles of Honour, which indeed belong not to them. For let us examine, [155]Who they are that are honourable indeed? [156]Is it not the righteous Man? Is it not the holy Man? Is it not the humble-hearted Man, the meek-spirited Man? And are not such those that ought to be honoured among Christians? Now of these, may there not be poor Men, Labourers, silly Fishermen? And if so, how comes it that the Titles of Honour are not bestowed upon such? But who are they that generally receive and look for this Honour? Are they not the rich Ones, such as have abundance of the Earth, as be like the rich Glutton, such as are proud and ambitious, such as are Oppressors of the Poor, such as swell with Lust and Vanity, and all Superfluity of Naughtiness, who are the very Abomination and Plague of the Nations? Are not these they that are accounted honourable, that require and receive the Titles of Honour, proud Hamans? Now whether is this the Honour that comes from God, or the Honour from below? Doth God honour such as daily dishonour him, and disobey him? And if this be not the Honour that comes from God, but the Honour of this World, which the Children of this World give and receive one from another; how can the Children of God, such as are Christians indeed, give or receive that Honour among themselves, without coming under the Reproof of Christ, who saith, That such as do cannot believe? But further, If we respect the Cause that most frequently procures to Men these Titles of Honour, there is not one of a Thousand that shall be found to be because of any Christian Virtue; but rather for Things to be discommended among Christians: As by the Favour of Princes, procured by flattering, and often by worse Means. Yea, the most frequent, and accounted among Men most honourable, is Fighting, or some great martial Exploit, which can add nothing to a Christian’s Worth: Since, sure it is, it were desirable there were no Fightings among Christians at all; and in so far as there are, it shews they are not right Christians. And James tells us, That Fighting proceeds from the Lusts. So that it were fitter for Christians, by the Sword of God’s Spirit, to fight against their Lusts, than by the Prevalency of their Lusts to destroy one another. Whatever Honour any might have attained of old under the Law this Way, we find under the Gospel Christians commended for Suffering, not for Fighting; neither did any of Christ’s Disciples, save one, offer outward Violence by the Sword, in cutting off Malchus’s Ear; for which he received no Title of Honour, but a just Reproof. Finally, if we look either to the Nature of this Honour, the Cause of it, the Way it is conveyed, the Terms in which it is delivered, it cannot be used by such as desire to be Christians in good Earnest.

But they usually object, to defend themselves, That Luke saith, Most Excellent Theophilus; and Paul, Most Noble Festus.

I answer, Since Luke wrote that by the Dictates of the Infallible Spirit of God, I think it will not be doubted but Theophilus did deserve it, as being really endued with that Virtue: In which Case we shall not condemn those that do it by the same Rule. But it is not proved that Luke gave Theophilus this Title, as that which was derived to him, either from his Father, or by any Patent Theophilus had obtained from any of the Princes of the Earth? or that he would have given it him, in Case he had not been truly excellent: And unless this be proved (which never can) there can nothing hence be deduced against us. Concerning the Title Paul gave to Festus.The like may be said of that of Paul to Festus, whom he would not have called such, if he had not been truly noble; as indeed he was, in that he suffered him to be heard in his own Cause, and would not give Way to the Fury of the Jews against him; it was not because of any outward Title bestowed upon Festus, that he so called him, else he would have given the same Appellation to his Predecessor Felix, who had the same Office; but being a covetous Man, we find he gives him no such Stile.

The same is witnessed by John Maresius, of the French Academy; in the Preface of his Clovis: “Let none wonder (saith he) that the Word [Thou] is used in this Work to Princes and Princesses; for we use the same to God: And of old the same was used to Alexanders, Cæsars, Queens and Empresses. The Use of the Word [You,] when one Person is spoken to, was only introduced by these base Flatteries of Men of latter Ages, to whom it seemed good to use the Plural Number to one Person, that he may imagine himself alone to be equal to many others in Dignity and Worth; from whence at last it came to Persons of lower Quality.”

To the same Purpose speaketh also M. Godeau, in his Preface to the New Testament Translation: “I had rather (saith he) faithfully keep to the express Words of Paul, than exactly follow the polished Stile of our Tongue; therefore I always use that Form of calling God in the Singular Number, not in the Plural; and therefore I say rather [Thou] than [You.] I confess indeed, That the Civility and Custom of this World requires him to be honoured after that Manner; but it is likewise on the contrary true, that the original Tongue of the New Testament hath nothing common with such Manners and Civility; so that not one of these many old Versions we have doth observe it. Let not Men believe, That we give not Respect enough to God, in that we call him by the Word [Thou] which is nevertheless far otherwise; The Word Thou, a greater Honour to One than You.for I seem to myself (may be by the Effect of Custom) more to honour his Divine Majesty, in calling him after this Manner, than if I should call him after the Manner of Men, who are so delicate in their Forms of Speech.”

See how clearly and evidently these Men witness, That this Form of Speaking, and these profane Titles, derive their Origin from the base Flattery of these last Ages, and from the delicate Haughtiness of worldly Men, who have invented these Novelties, that thereby they might honour one another, under I know not what Pretence of Civility and Respect. From whence many of the present Christians (so accounted) are become so perverse, in commending most wicked Men, and wicked Customs, that the Simplicity of the Gospel is wholly lost; so that the giving of Men and Things their own Names is not only worn out of Custom, but the doing thereof is accounted absurd and rude by such Kind of delicate Parasites, who desire to ascribe to this Flattery, and abuse the Name of Civility. Moreover, that this Way of speaking proceeds from an high and proud Mind, hence appears, because that Men commonly use the Singular Number to Beggars, and to their Servants; yea, and in their Prayers to God. Thus the Superior will speak to his Inferior, who yet will not bear that the Inferior so speak to him, as judging it a Kind of Reproach unto him. So hath the Pride of Men placed God and the Beggar in the same Category. I think I need not use Arguments to prove to such as know congruous Language, That we ought to use the Singular Number speaking to one; which is the common Dialect of the whole Scripture, as also the most Interpreters do translate it. Seeing therefore it is manifest to us, that this Form of speaking to Men in the Plural Number doth proceed from Pride, as well as that it is in itself a Lie, we found a Necessity upon us to testify against this Corruption, by using the Singular equally unto all. And although no Reason can be given why we should be persecuted upon this Account, especially by Christians, who profess to follow the Rule of Scripture, whose Dialect this is; Scripture Dialect the plain Language.yet it would perhaps seem incredible if I should relate how much we have suffered for this Thing, and how these proud Ones have fumed, fretted, and gnashed their Teeth, frequently beating and striking us, when we have spoken to them thus in the Singular Number: Whereby we are the more confirmed in our Judgment, as seeing that this Testimony of Truth, which God hath given us to bear in all Things, doth so vex the serpentine Nature in the Children of Darkness.

The first are, Such as Abraham’s bowing himself to the Children of Heth, and Lot to the two Angels, &c.

But the Practice of these Patriarchs, related as Matter of Fact, is not to be a Rule to Christians now; neither are we to imitate them in every Practice, which has not a particular Reproof added to it: For we find not Abraham reproved for taking Hagar, &c. And indeed to say all Things were lawful for us which they practised, would produce great Inconveniences obvious enough to all. The Custom of the Nations no Rule to Christians.And as to the Customs of the Nations, it is a very ill Argument for a Christian’s Practice: We should have a better Rule to walk by than the Custom of the Gentiles; the Apostles desire us not to be [158]conformed to this World, &c. We see how little they have to say for themselves in this Matter. Let it be observed then, Whether our Reasons for laying aside these Things be not considerable and weighty enough to uphold us in so doing.

First, We say, That God, who is the Creator of Man, and he to whom he oweth the Dedication both of Soul and Body, is over all to be worshipped and adored, and that not only by the Spirit, but also with the Prostration of Body. Now, Kneeling, Bowing, and Uncovering of the Head, is the alone outward Signification of our Adoration towards God, and therefore it is not lawful to give it unto Man. Bowing is adoring, and is only due to God.He that kneeleth, or prostrates himself to Man, what doth he more to God? He that boweth, and uncovereth his Head to the Creature, what hath he reserved to the Creator? Now the Apostle shews us, That the Uncovering of the Head is that which God requires of us in our worshipping of him, 1 Cor. xi. 14. But if we make our Address to Men in the same Manner, where lieth the Difference? Not in the outward Signification, but merely in the Intention; which opens a Door for the Popish Veneration of Images, which hereby is necessarily excluded.

Secondly, Men being alike by Creation (though their being stated under their several Relations requires from them mutual Services according to those respective Relations) owe not Worship one to another, but all equally are to return it to God: Because it is to him, and his Name alone, that every Knee must bow, and before whose Throne the four-and-twenty Elders prostrate themselves. Therefore for Men to take this one from another, is to rob God of his Glory: Since all the Duties of Relations may be performed one to another without these Kind of Bowings, which therefore are no essential Part of our Duty to Man, but to God. All Men, by an inward instinct, in all Nations have been led to prostrate and bow themselves to God. And it is plain that this Bowing to Men took Place from a slavish Fear possessing some, which led them to set up others as Gods; when also an ambitious proud Spirit got up in those others, to usurp the Place of God over their Brethren.

Thirdly, We see that Peter refused it from Cornelius, saying, He was a Man. Are then the Popes more, or more excellent than Peter, who suffer Men daily to fall down at their Feet, and kiss them? Peter and the Angel refused Bowing.This Reproof of Peter to Cornelius doth abundantly shew, that such Manners were not to be admitted among Christians. Yea, we see, that the Angel twice refused this Kind of Bowing from John, Rev. xix. 10. and xxii. 9. for this Reason, Because I am thy Fellow-servant, and of thy Brethren; abundantly intimating that it is not lawful for Fellow-servants thus to prostrate themselves one to another: And in this Respect all Men are Fellow-servants.

Object.If it be said, John intended here a Religious Worship, and not a Civil;

Answ.I answer, This is to say, not to prove: Neither can we suppose John, at that Time of the Day, so ill-instructed as not to know it was unlawful to worship Angels; only it should seem, because of those great and mysterious Things revealed to him by that Angel, he was willing to signify some more than ordinary Testimony of Respect, for which he was reproved. These Things being thus considered, it is remitted to the Judgment of such as are desirous to be found Christians indeed, whether we are worthy of Blame for waving it to Men. Let those then that will blame us consider whether they might not as well accuse Mordecai of Incivility, who was no less singular than we in this Matter. To forbear Bowing to Men is no Incivility, nor Pride, nor Rudeness.And forasmuch as they accuse us herein of Rudeness and Pride, though the Testimony of our Consciences in the Sight of God be a sufficient Guard against such Calumnies, yet there are of us known to be Men of such Education, as forbear not these Things for want of that they call good Breeding; and we should be very void of Reason, to purchase that Pride at so dear a Rate, as many have done the Exercise of their Conscience in this Matter; many of us having been sorely beaten and buffeted, yea, and several Months imprisoned, for no other Reason but because we could not so satisfy the proud unreasonable Humours of proud Men, as to uncover our Heads, and bow our Bodies. Nor doth our innocent Practice, in standing still, though upright, not putting off our Hats, any more than our Shoes, the one being the Covering of our Heads, as well as the other of our Feet, shew so much Rudeness, as their beating and knocking us, &c. because we cannot Bow to them, contrary to our Consciences: Which certainly shews less Meekness and Humility upon their Part, than it doth of Rudeness or Pride upon ours. Now suppose it were our Weakness, and we really under a Mistake in this Thing, since it is not alleged to be the Breach of any Christian Precept, are we not to be indulged, as the Apostle commanded should be done to such as scrupled to eat Flesh? And doth not persecuting and reviling us upon this Account shew them to be more like unto proud Haman, than the Disciples or Followers of the meek, self-denying Jesus? And this I can say boldly, in the Sight of God, from my own Experience, and that of many Thousands more, that however small or foolish this may seem, yet we behoved to choose Death rather than do it, and that for Conscience Sake: And that in its being so contrary to our natural Spirits, there are many of us, to whom the Forsaking of these Bowings and Ceremonies was as Death itself; which we could never have left, if we could have enjoyed our Peace with God in the Use of them. Though it be far from us to judge all those to whom God hath not shewn the Evil of them, under the like Hazard; yet nevertheless we doubt not but to such as would prove faithful Witnesses to Christ’s Divine Light in their Consciences, God will also shew the Evil of these Things.