Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	oath_n	strife_n	swear_v	3,032	5	9.0688	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

lawfulness of oaths in all which the Apostle took God to witness his love to the Saints and labour in the work of his Ministry signifying that all understand how that he spoke the truth and did not lie and kept to his yea and nay according to Christs doctrine and did not swear at all I reply 1. Those Texts were not brought by me as a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men but to prove that some swearing in Gospel-times may be lawful sith the Apostle Paul a man moved by the holy spirit even in his holy writings and speeches did swear which is enough against R. H. and his complices who deny any swearing lawful in any case 2. I say that these speeches God is my witness I speak the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost behold before God I lie not God is my record are forms of swearing it being the definition of an oath which all Writers that I know of agree in that an oath is an appeal to or invocation of God as joint witness with us of the truth of our speeches and therefore in this I write nothing but what God will witness the truth of I speak truth before God without abusing the Apostles words in pleading for the lawfulness of some swearing and in this I dare stand to the arbitrement of sober honest-hearted intelligent men not fearing the censure of R. H. as if I were a Novice who have been a professor of Christianity above forty years and a Preacher of the Gospel above thirty and wish R. H. do not accuse me as lifted up with pride with the like spirit as it is said that Diogenes trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride there being not many branches of pride greater then this to take on him to judge the secrets of anothers heart and to foretel what he will do it being to behave himself as if he were God Sure they that know me and judge of me with a charitable mind they that have had experience of my adventures and losses for asserting truth will not believe R. H. in what he here suggests that I would do or say any thing for hire Who would thank R. H. if he would shew what hire I have taken which the words of Christ and his Apostle allow not Luke 10. 7. 1 Cor. 9. 7 10 11 13 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17 18. Gal. 6. 6. But if he think his tongue is his own that he may accuse and reproach at his pleasure I think it my duty to tell him that his practice is rayling and false accusing and that his tongue is set on fire of hell and that without repentance he shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. He proceeds in the same vein of reviling censuring and false accusing in his speech of my fifth Argument to which he makes no answer but this That to break Christs command is of no necessary use that I might as well have stated my Argument That to break Christs command is of benefit to humane society therefore to break Christs command is lawful c. and might thus have proved it that except we break Christs command we cannot preach for hire nor sue men at law for tithes nor live in pride ease and vanity nor keep our places of profit and benefits which is necessary for our society of Priests Ergo. But we whose eyes God hath opened do see that all his book tends to perswading of people to swear when Christ hath said Swear not at all and that which he would now swear for again would swear against for the same advantage and profits which he hath in his eye yea or he would perswade all men not to swear and bring scripture to prove it upon the same account so that what he doth in this kind is because of advantage for two years since he did not preach this doctrine nor write those arguments To which I reply The Lord rebuke thee there 's none of thy accusations of divinations here after thy rayling fashion brought by thee which thou canst prove by me and those that know me know it to be false which thou suggests concerning my seeking gain and suiting my actions thereto and changing my doctrin There is no doctrin in that book thou here opposest or the other of the insufficiency of light in each man which hath not been my constant doctrine What thou wouldst have imagined as if no swearing were of necessary use to humane society is contrary to all experience of governors of Kingdoms and Commonwealths and the Apostles words alledged by me Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife That which Samuel Fisher saith That what swearing was then allowed of as before a ruler it then was to end a strife among men who are yet in strife is now unlawful among his Saints who are redeemed out of strife and the rest of those fleshly works which it is one of Gal. 5. is a silly shift For 1. The Saints are men 2. Those of the old Testament were Saints and yet were to swear 3. If men not Saints may swear to end strife then it is not prohibited by Christ to them to swear in some cases and sith the precept of not swearing is not limited to Saints if others may swear in some cases notwithstanding that precept Saints may swear also 4. Saints are redeemed from other works of the flesh yet are not so redeemed but that they may have envyings wrath emulations However Quakers imagine themselves perfect yet the Scripture doth not say that the most eminent Saint is so redeemed out of strife but that he may be tempted to and guilty of some unlawfull strife while he is in the body 5. There was strife between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2. 11. the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. Who were termed Saints ver 2. 6. Quakers are guilty of strifes in opposing Preachers and reviling dissenters from them and therefore if it be necessary to end strifes of men that there be oaths it is also necessary to swear to end strifes with them Do not they seek to recover stollen goods due debts and if so oaths are necessary for them 7. Oftimes Saints are found so guilty of contentions among themselves that were not Magistrates impowred to compose them they would be endless and remediless The story of the libels brought to Constantine the great at the Nicene Council of one Bishop and Confessour against another and burnt by him shewes how ill it would fare with the best Saints if Magistracy did not quiet them Our own times have had too much experience of this 8. Saints live among men unholy to whom they owe duties of love and righteousness which cannot be done without testifying the truth in many cases wherein they differ to end their strife and therefore Saints are bound when the laws require oaths

not in the Indicative Mood as if it were God doth help me or will help me but ita me Deus adiuvet in the Imperative or Potential let God help me may God help me I pray or wish God may help me or not according as I speak truly or otherwise nor is the charge given by the giver of the oath to the witness by the help of God to speak truth but he requires him to speak truth as he expects help from God in other things as his salvation c. When the swearer speaketh the words it is his pawning his help he expects from God as a voucher that he speaks truth not an acknowledging he speaks truth by Gods helping him only in that act of speaking As for what he alledgeth out of Deut. 4. 26. and 30. 13. and 31. 28. to prove that all calling to witness is not swearing it is granted him I easily yield that men and inanimate things may be taken to witness without swearing as Gen. 31. 48. Josh 22. 34. But nevertheless calling God to witness that we speak truth or intend as we speak is swearing Even as though such rhetorical speeches as are used Isa 1. 2. Jer. 22. 29 c. are not prayers or invitations to hear yet the words of Solomon 1 Kin. 8. 28 30. are prayer so though it be not swearing which is used Deut. 30. 19. yet it is swearing which is used 2 Cor 1. 23. Another thing which Samuel Hodgkin affirms is That all promissory oaths are forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. Jam. 5. 12. he grants assertory oaths not forbidden because they were commanded in the old Testament Exod. 22. 11. but denies promissory oaths to be lawful because they are voluntary and the occasion of the precept was about voluntary oaths ver 33. and therefore they are wholly forbidden but not assertory Whence he infers that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy so far as they are promissory are forbidden Concerning this opinion I deny not but that there are learned men that conceive that promissory oaths of secular matters especially of small moment are forbidden because of the occasion ver 33. of the prohibition Mat. 5. 34. But if promissory oaths be forbidden universally then the promissory oaths to the Lord are forbidden and not only oaths of secular matters between man and man And if all promissory oaths be forbidden the swearing according to our common Law not excepted against by S. H. should be unlawful For thus usually is the witness sworn You shall make true answer to such questions as shall be demanded of you You shall speak the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth The Jury thus You shall well and truly trie and true deliverance make All which are requiring of a promise and so exacting a promissory oath But that promissory oaths are not universally forbidden I prove 1. From 1 Thes 5. 27. where the Apostle urgeth the Thessalonians thus I adjure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren That this passage contains urging by oath hath been proved before in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and in this Supplement in my Reply to Richard Hubberthorn and Samuel Fisher But this oath which he urgeth on them was promissory it being of a thing to be done by them to wit the reading of that Epistle to all the holy brethren Whence I argue That sort of oath by which Paul adjured bound or urged the Thessalonians was lawful else the Apostle would not have urged it or them by it But Paul adjured bound by or urged the Thessalonians by a promissory oath therefore a promissory oath is lawful in the new Testament That which Samuel Hodgkin saith That the Text speaks not a word of swearing is not true the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies I adjure or urge you by oath it is the same word that is used Mat. 26. 63. which Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 5. denies not to have been a charging Christ to swear by the living God saving that Mat. 26. 63. it is the compound Verb but 1 Thes 5. 27. the simple But saith Samuel Hodgkin were it not more reasonable to think that if the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge they would as soon have read this Epistle without swearing as to be sworn to read it for doubtless if they had not valued his charging them to read it they would not have valued his charging them to swear to read it I reply Whether the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge or no cannot be determined by us but this we know that adjuring or urging by oath being a stricter bond then urging to promise or requiring without an oath it may well be conceived that the Apostle had reason to charge them by oath and not barely to charge them without it 2. I urge that passage Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife of which Samuel Hodgkin p. 8. grants that it contains the end of oaths commanded and so cannot in reason deny that those oaths which are there meant having the end of swearing are lawful But that passage speaks of the end of promissory oaths for such was Gods oath of which the Apostle there speaks ver 14. 15 17. and therefore they have the end of swearing to take away strife or contradiction or doubt concerning mens intentions and purposes one to another and so are for a necessary use and consequently lawful 3. The Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. that there should be time no longer was of a thing future and therefore to be reduced to promissory oaths if the division of oaths into assertory and promissory be full it cannot be reduced to assertory oaths therefore it must be reduced to promissory and therefore promissory oaths are not wholly forbidden 4. That which the Psalmist makes a property of one that was to dwell in Gods holy hill Psal 15. was moral and so not unlawful as abrogated in the new Testament but when he saith a person making a promissory oath is not to change that is not to neglect to keep it though it be to his own hurt he allows a promissory oath as in some cases lawful 5. Add hereto that a promissory oath if unlawful is so either because it is swearing and then all swearing should be unlawful contrary to the grant concerning assertory oaths by Samuel Hodgkin if as promissory then all promises should be unlawful and so all civil contracts unlawful marriage covenants c. 6. If no promissory oaths be lawful to a Christian then a Christian Prince may not confirm a league with another Prince or State nor any Magistrates Officers of Justice take promissory oaths no Souldiers no Trustees Secretaries c. are to make promissory oaths of faithfulness which would expose all affairs of government and trust to such hazard and uncertainty as would take away as things and men are much of that security men have in their affairs and hasten the ruine of States That which Samuel Hodgkin saith that there is no command for promissory oaths is said without proof For the precepts Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. Jer. 4. 2. do include promissory oaths as well as assertory As there is no difference made in the Text so there is as much if not more likelihood that promissory oaths should be chiefly meant because the oaths of which we have examples in the old Testament are most of them promissory 'T is true Mat. 5. 33. speaks of promissory oaths but that the prohibition ver 34. is limited to promissory as forbidding them only and not assertory or forbidding promissory oaths universally so as to allow none of that sort is said without proof and there is this in the text to shew that it is meant not of those promissory oaths which are meant ver 33. to wit special vows to God but of other oaths whether promissory or assertory which are in our ordinary speech 1. That the forms of oaths by the heaven by the earth by Jerusalem by the head there expressed are not used in special vowes but in common speech of one man with another and most likely in customary light needless passionate swearing 2. The expression let your communication or speech notes their conference one with another 3. And so do the terms yea and nay which are used most fitly in colloquies or speeches wherein one answers another FINIS

their hearing and knowledge 11. It is heretical and detestable to hold That Princes being excommunicate by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subjects or any other 12. The Pope hath not power to absolve his Majesties subjects from their oath of allegiance or any part thereof When Cardinal Bellarmine disguised under the name of Matthaeus Tortus as his Chaplain took upon him to reply to King James his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance and would have it believed that by that Oath was intended the denying the Popes Ecclesiastical power which he claims and is with Papists an Article of their Faith Lancelot Andrews then Bishop of Chichester after of Ely and Winchester then very eminent for his learning and repute at Court answers him in his book intitled Tortura Torti in words in Latin which I have Englished thus Art thou well in thy wits who babblest these things That thou an Italian ignorant of our language shouldst understand the Oath that the Author who is skilled in the language as being his own native proper should not understand it Whence art thou to us a new interpreter of Laws yea whence art thou an interpreter of our Laws which thou didst not make It belongs verily to them to interpret to whom it belongs to make Laws yet I say not that only but this also Is there for this reason any mortal man that understands the intention of the Law and the Law-maker himself for the same person was author of the Law and of the book nor wast thou ignorant of this the Law-maker I say himself should not understand his intention concerning his Law Thou wilt never bring it to pass that he should be ignorant of that which he himself would to himself when he made the Law when he made the Oath He is best privy to his own intention But his intention was that he might be secure of the fidelity and constancy of his own subjects yea this was his only intention no other man knows this for the hearts of men he knows not only he who hath known the Law knows what he requires in his Law King James in his Catalogue of Tortus lies at the end of his premonition to all Christian Princes saith The Puritans do not decline the Oath of Supremacy but do daily take it neither ever refused it And the same Supremacy is defended by Calvin himself Instit lib. 4. cap. 20. Bishop Andrews in the book forenamed p. 110. The Puritans of their own accord take the Oath of Supremacy and have often professed and that in books published by themselves that this is a meer calumny that they abhor the Oath of Supremacy neither did they ever decline that Oath But if there were at any time any scraple in them it was about the term it was not about the thing The head of the Church sith it is said of Christ seemed to them a higher title then that it might be given to any mortal man so for a while they stuck at the giving that title now they stick not Concerning the thing it self concerning the Kingly authority they have always fully professed Quakers do inveigh against my book intitled A serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy because it defends the lawfulness of some swearing yet Samuel Fisher in his book intitled The Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies Exercit. 1. chap. 3. p. 48. saith I should God knows please my self much more to sit down in silence p. 61. I affirm here before God and all men and the humble petition of some called Anabaptists prisoners in Maidstone dated January 25. saith thus Yet God is our witness who is the searcher of all hearts we deny not this Oath because we would not yield due subjection and obedience unto thee and thy authority for this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and the dead we do without any deceit promise to live peaceably under thy Government and in case any thing should be by thee commanded in spiritual matters wherein we cannot obey we shall not then take up any carnal or temporal weapon against thee or thy authority but patiently suffer such punishment as shall be inflicted on us for our consciences But the using of these speeches God knowes I affirm before God God is our witness this we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and dead as an appeal to Gods contestation is plain swearing So that while these men and more of the same mind do speak against all swearing they indeed practice some swearing And those of Maidstone who offer an engagement taken before some Justice of the Peace in a solemn manner with calling God to witness of the truth of what they say do offer to swear or take an oath The lawfulness of which and particularly the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and my writing about the former I shall now endeavour to vindicate from the writings and sayings against them which have occurred to me Richard Hubberthorn having recited my first Argument for my first Proposition thus That is not wholly evil about the use of which some directions are given by God but God giveth directions about the use of swearing Jer. 4. 2. Ergo Answers By the same argument may it as well be proved that the Christians and believers in Christ may be circumcised offer incense burnt offerings and sacrifices because for the use of it God gave some directions and therefore it is lawful But as circumcision incense burnt offerings and sacrifices of the law is ended in Christ so is the oath which was among the Jews in him ended also to the believers and by him forbidden for as it was said in old time thou shalt swear and shalt perform thy oath to the Lord but Christ in the 5. of Mat. making mention of the Jews oath which God gave once direction for yet saith Swear not at all Here Christ puts an end not only to frivolous vain oaths but to the true oaths which the Jews was once commanded of God to swear for these oaths are they which Christs words hath relation to for he came to end the Jews worships and oaths who is the oath of God Christ the truth and righteousness of God saith Swear not at all which ends the Jewes which was to swear in truth and righteousness To which I reply Had not Samuel Fisher told me in the place forementioned that my book is answered by Richard Hubberthorn I should not have thought it worth while to reply to it there being in it so much defect of sense and reason as makes it inconsiderable But sith he mentions my book as scarce worth any further answer then that of Hubberthorn it seems he esteems it of some moment And therefore I say that 1. Richard Hubberthorn leaves out of the proof of my minor as in the third Commandment which is undoubtedly moral which words shew that I mean my major proposition of moral actions 2. He

supposeth that swearing allowed by God in the Old Testament which Christ corrects was not only frivolous and vain oaths but the true oaths which the Jews were commanded and Christ was to end who is Gods oath But he considers not that swearing was common to all Nations as Philistines Gen. 21. 31. 26. 28. Syrians Gen. 31. 53 c. Nor is Christ any where termed in Scripture Gods oath nor an oath made worship peculiar to the Jews nor a shadow or ceremony which might typifie Christ Now my major proposition being as the words shew I understood it thus expressed That action belonging to manners common to all Nations and not proper to the Jews about the use of which God giveth some directions is not wholly evil is firm and unshaken by the instances of R. H. which are not of moral but ceremonial Rites which ended in Christ but not so the moral commandment of which sort swearing is and so may be lawful 2. To my second Argument from Psal 63. 11. his answer is Only that David was in the old covenant of the law but Christ in the new Covenant bids Swear not at all Hereto I reply This answer presupposeth that an oath was appropriated to the Covenant of the law But this is false sith it was in other Nations besides Israelites customary to swear even before the law as the instances in Genesis and elsewhere shew As for his flings at hireling Priests and hypocrites I let them pass as being only reviling in general terms in which is commonly guile slander To the instances which I bring for the lawfulness of some swearing and urging to swear out of the Old Testament he saith all these were under the first Covenant and in that which Christ called the old time Mat. 5. and proves nothing that Christians in the new Covenant should swear To which I reply 1. Abraham Isaac Jacob Joseph were before the law and they took oaths of Nations which were not under the law 2. In moral things the commands and examples of the old Testament are rules to us still Mat. 7. 12. Rom. 13. 8 9. Ephes 6. 1 2. James 2. 8 10. 11. Nor doth he say any thing to the Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. but this that Christ saith Swear not all which doth not at all avoid the objection that the Angel knew Christs words do not forbid all swearing otherwise he would not have sworn at all But to the instances of Pauls adjuring and swearing he writes somewhat more To the allegation of 1 Thes 5. 27. where the word signifies I swear you by the Lord he saith 1. This is the long and thick mist of darkness which hath been long kept over the understandings of people that when the plain Scripture will not prove their ends and intents then they tell the people it is otherwise in the Greek or Hebrew I reply 1. It is no darkning of peoples understandings by latter translations to mend or to adde to former translations sith as in all other Writings and Arts Dies diem docet One day teacheth another latter Commentators and Interpreters without arrogancy refine former Nor doth this darken but inlighten mens understandings nor give any occasion to doubt of the faithfulness of former Translators but only shews the imperfection of their knowledge Nor is there any just cause why for this reason men should waver in their faith the main doctrines of faith and manners being by common consent expressed either in the same words or words of the same meaning and if any should deprave them the variety of Copies and translations would remedy it 2. Saith Hubberthorn Did not the Translator of the Bible understand Greek as well as John Tombes Answ Yes and as John Tombes understood it which he told his Reader that the Greek word was translated I charge you by the Lord or adjure you as it is in the margin 3. Saith he Or are we not to believe the Scripture as it spoaks till again it be translated by him Answ Yes no doubt and this place the rather because it is translated by him no otherwise then by the Translators only the word adjure which is made an English word out of the Latin is explained by I swear you by the Lord I urge or put an oath on you by the Lord or as Samuel Fisher saith it signifies I bind you by oath 4. Saith he It is I oblige or charge you in the presence of God c. I reply it is I charge or oblige you by oath or swearing not only in the presence of God but also by the Lord. 5. Saith he seeing John Tombes saith he swore them he might have declared in what manner they were sworn seeing Paul was at Athens when he wrote to Thessaloniea I reply He might understand how Paul at Athens could swear them at Thessalonica if he understood how Saul charged by oath or adjured or bound by oath the people and Jonathan his son though absent and ignorant 1 Sam. 14. 24 28 42. 6. Saith he John Tombes makes the like charge to be in 1 Tim. 6. 13. which according to the Greek he would make an oath but it is I injoin or command thee before God not putting an oath on them or causing them to swear And 2 Tim. 4. 1. not that he took him sworn or put an oath on him but did charge him I reply I said not they were the same but like charges yet differing 1. In that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. doth expresly include an oath or swearing which I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I command or injoin doth not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I witness before God 2 Tim. 4. 1. doth come near it 2. That 1 Thes 5. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the accusative case cannot be understood any otherwise then thus by the Lord which is a form of swearing more plain then that 2 Tim. 4. 1. though it be like it But Samuel Fisher saith nor doth John Tombes insisting on the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. adde a jor to his proof for howbeit it is ordinarily us'd to signifie to adjure or bind one by oath yet being as some suppose of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confine or as some of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bound or limit it originally signifies to bind limit confine oblige any way by word or promise as well as oath And J. T. confessing Pauls charge in that place and 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. to be alike therein confutes himself however For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used are no more then to engage before some witness God or man or solemnly to command or charge and not to swear one and cannot be taken so strictly as to adjure though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken in the moderate sense i. e. any way to oblige as well as in that rigid way of

and they are the only witnesses to give in evidence out of charity and justice to swear for ending of strife Richard Hubberthorn addes something against what I argue in proof of the fourth Proposition omitting any shew of answer to my sixth Argument for my first Proposition and passing over the second and third I alledged to prove this Proposition That the King is the only supreme Governor in all his Dominions the example and rule of Christ Mat. 22. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. Luke 2. 51. which he saith I bring to prove an oath of Supremacy to King Caesar which is not true it being brought to prove a supremacy over all persons not an oath of supremacy and so all his answer is impertinent The Argument stands good Christ himself did acknowledge subjection to Caesar and his parents therefore no Prelate is exempt from the Kings government Richard Hubberthorn addes John Tombes saith That Paul a Saint was subject to the judgement of Caesar and appealed to him then he acknowledged him supreme c. Ergo. Ans Paul was a prisoner for the word of God and testimony of Jesus and appealed to Caesar for justice because he was unjustly accused and had not done any thing worthy of bonds or of death therefore according to their law he ought to be set free but Paul did not call Caesar the Supreme Head of the Church and chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things for if Caesar had been the supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would but have needed little appealing unto for setting him at liberty but in such Arguments as Tombes hath used is manifest the ignorance of foolish men wherein their folly appeareth to all men as the Scripture saith 2 Tim. 3. 9. I reply 'T is true I alledged Pauls example Acts 25. 8 10. to prove the King Supreme Governor over all persons in his Dominions and Acts 23. 29. and 24. 5 6 8 10. and 25. 8 11 19 21. and 26. 2 3. to prove him Governor in all Causes or Chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things not to prove Caesar Supreme Head of the Church as R. H. misrepresents me Now he shews not any defect in my proof taken from matter of fact related in the Text but tels us If Caesar had been Supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would have needed little appealing which is to alter the conclusion and to say nothing to that point which was in question nor to answer the proof at all which all that know the rules of arguing know to be ridiculous and indeed very foolish Speeding no better in answering my Arguments R. H. proceeds to his wonted course of invectives against my person which I am necessitated to take notice of because they are impediments to many of receiving the truth I teach and do so fill people with prejudice that their ears are stopped from hearkning to the clearest demonstrations and they are carried away with the vain conceits of Quakers and other blind guides He tels me That my Ministry if received would beget men from their holy and harmless state into transgression of Christs command and from the tenderness of conscience into hardness of heart and saith When I say the Oath of Supremacy was imposed for excluding of the Popes jurisdiction c. if so why dost thou preach it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians who are redeemed from the Popes power and jurisdiction that I am a miserable comforter to tender consciences that my end is seen and therefore cannot deceive many that those holy persons who are tender of an oath ought to be my teachers who am far from righteousness or tenderness of conscience that it is a shame for me to be an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences who profess my self a Minister of Christ that it is manifest my Ministry is to bring people into condemnation in which he falsly accuseth me that I am an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences that I preath it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians because to free them from the snare which the Law of the Land brings them into by reason of their denying to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance I have endeavoured out of compassion to their souls to prove to them that such swearing may be lawful It is not I that impose the Oaths on them but the Law and the Officers that are to execute it nor did I preach it up to be imposed on tender consciences but after it was imposed on them by others and my Petition with others to his Majesty for the release thereof without the desired effect I did upon advise and importunity publish the writing about it to free them from mistakes who scrupled the thing there being then in appearance no other way for the liberty and help of many then imprisoned and more liable to imprisonment for their refusal to swear then by shewing them the lawfulness of that for denying of which they suffered and therefore they might without danger to their souls and much benefit to themselves in their outward estate take an expedite course for their peace Which charity that thinketh no evil that hopeth all things believeth all things 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. if there had been any in R. H. would not have construed to have been done to any evil end but out of love and mercy to men for their good and for the great advantage of them that are of the same judgement with me in point of baptism that it may not be imputed to them as their common tenent that they allow no Oaths no not in judicial proceedings which is interpreted as tending to the overthrow of all civil Government and so the persons counted intolerable which hath caused and is yet likely to cause great persecution to those that hold the truth about baptism In which thing I bless God I have not been so miserable a comforter but that I know my self of many and am told of more hundreds yea thousands who have had their liberty and their families saved from ruine by reason of the clearing of the point to them in that book and if some after their swearing have been disquieted in spirit because of their Oath it is not to be imputed to that book but their own weakness or such affrightments as R. H. and others do put upon them I refuse not to be taught by R. H. or any other but sure I am in this thing R. H. yields me no light to rectifie me but by his false accusations of me as far from righteousness as bringing men into condemnation by my Ministry c. gives me occasion to fear that he is led by an evil spirit so venomous a tongue discovering a malicious poisoned heart My answer to the grand objection from Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. James 5. 12. was that there must of necessity be some limitation of Christs speech as of the next speech ver 38

living and true God is called to witness Numb 30. 2. To which Samuel Hodgkin faith To this I answer That every sacred Oath by which God is called to witness to the truth of a thing or to the performance of a lawful thing is a bond whereby the soul is bound but every calling God to witness in lawful things is not an Oath As appears thus if a bare calling God to witness be swearing by God then calling the heaven and earth to witness is swearing by heaven and earth for then Moses had sworn by creatures Deut. 4. 26. I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day And so likewise God himself in Deut. 30. 19. I call heaven and earth to record against you chap. 31. 28. But it was ever unlawful to swear by creatures therefore I conclude that a bare calling to witness is not swearing I reply The conclusion is granted and yet the definition of Jeremiah Ives stands good who did not say that a bare calling to witness is swearing but calling God to witness to the speaking of that which is true And this to be an oath is granted by Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 16. when he saith That calling God to witness is not swearing but when we read of the servants of the Lord swearing in Scripture we find that it was not only a bare calling God to witness but they swear by God that they did speak the truth or that they would do such a thing Now swearing by God at least in assertory oaths can be no other then calling God to witness of the truth of that we speak and in promissory of the truth of our intention to perform what we say we will do That which Samuel Hodgkin saith Now to swear by the Lord is to say that they do speak the truth or will do such a thing by the Lord as much as if they should say that the Lord do help them in what they do or that they do it by his assistance And hence it comes to pass that it was unlawful for a man to swear by any creature because no creature can help him to speak the truth or perform what he promised and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not speak truth because they did as much as say that God did help them to speak a lie and so they blasphemed the name of God in the highest nature and doubtless those that made the oath we have in our common Law did understand no less and therefore they charge the witness By the help of God to speak the truth is a manifest mistake of the meaning of the phrase to swear by the Lord which it seems he understands to signifie not only that he that swears calls God to be a witness of the truth of what he saith in assertory oaths and of the truth of his intentions to perform what he saith in promissory oaths but also that he calls God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or God helping him to speak truth in assertory oaths and that his intention is to perform what he promiseth by Gods help or assistance So that according to this mans conceits it is no swearing unless the person swearing do call God to be witness not only of the truth of his words and intentions but also of his acknowledging of Gods help in speaking truth in assertory oaths and his expectation of Gods help to perform what he saith he will do in promissory which is a new and wild conceit New for none as far as I know ever vented it before but all Writers that I have met with have made the calling of God to witness the truth of our speech in assertory oaths and of our intentions to perform what we say in promissory without this addition of acknowledging that it is by Gods help we speak truth or of expectation of help from God to do what we promise to be swearing And it is a wild conceit For 1. It is frivolous to call God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or that he expects his help to do what he promiseth it being impertinent to the occasion and end of swearing the occasion of swearing being some uncertainty of the truth of his words and intentions and the end to take away that there is no question or controversie to be decided by whose help he speaks truth nor by whose help he expects to perform what he promiseth Every man knowes that what is spoken or done is by Gods help else it could not be but whether it be certainly true which he affirms and his intentions true and real to perform the consideration by whose help he speaks or expects to do what he promiseth is not at all required or minded by the exactor of the oath as belonging to the oath but the acknowledging that he speaks truth by Gods help is only a duty of thankfulness which is fittest to be done by the person swearing after the oath is taken and the expectation of help from God to perform what he promises is a duty of trust in God or dependance on him to be done after the swearing 2. If this were necessary to an oath then he were forsworn or unsworn that did not acknowledge that he spake truth by Gods help or did not depend on Gods help for performance of what he promised and all infidels hypocrites Saints that neglect their duty herein let their words or intentions be never so true and their performance never so punctual and exact should be perjured or unsworn That which he alledgeth for this conceit is frivolous For the unlawfulness of swearing by any creature is not because no creature can help him that swears to speak the truth or perform what he promised he that informs him of the truth may help the swearer to speak truth though he be a creature and he that will aid him with money c. may help him to perform what he promised but because God only is a witness of secret truths and sincerity of intentions and can only be his judge and avenger if he speak not truth and therefore more fully oaths are expressed in such forms as these God be my judge witness helper c. Nor is the reason why God takes it ill that men swear falsly by his name because it is as much as to say that God did help them to speak a lie for then in promissory oaths when they swearby God he should take it ill if they do not perform their promise because it is as much as to say that God helps them to neglect their promise which is a sense no swearer imagins his words bear nor any reprover of perjury did ever give as the reason of the iniquity of the breaker of his oath but because he by false swearing shews he either believes not or fears not Gods discovery or avenging of his deceit In the form of swearing in our common Law So help me God the words are