Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A65844
|
The case of the Quakers concerning oaths defended as evangelical in answer to a book, entituled, The case of the Quakers relating to oaths stated by J.S.
|
Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing W1899; ESTC R19753
|
38,726
|
52
|
And were not this most grosly to charge Paul with Transgression both of Law and Gospel Whereas in a Formal Oath as made amongst Men there is First Swearing by the Great God intended Secondly An Imprecation or Curse contained Thirdly Some Ceremony or Sign used besides the bare words of invocating or calling upon God or so help me God For that the same Invocation may as well be used without an Oath even in our praying for God's Help and Assistance The words So help me God or I call God to witness may be used without any Intent of Swearing as well as in an Oath in desiring his Help and simply as owning him for Witness to the Truth spoken in Christ which as such is not an Oath but when thus intended viz. So let me have or want the Help of God according as I speak the Truth or so let God be Witness or judge for or against me In this latter Sense is an Oath implying a Curse as Let God be Witness or Judge against me if I speak not the Truth but the bare words so God help me or God is my Witness or God knows I speak the Truth in Christ I Lye not cannot be a Swearing nor a Formal Oath without an Intention thereof or of an Imprecation or Execration implyed as of old some time an Oath of Cursing was used among the Jews and there are several Sorts of Oathes and several Wayes or Ceremonies expressing Formal Swearing as among the Heathen Laying the Hands upon the Altar and Swearing by the Gods Abraham's Servant putting his Hand under his Thigh the Angel Lifting up the Hand towards Heaven among the professed Christians a Laying the Hand upon a Bible and Kissing it or Swearing upon the four Evangelists according to the Pope's Imposition However we taking the last as the Magistrates general Sense of an Oath the Definition thereof is not so much the Matter in Controversie as the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Swearing among Christians His Instance that Jacob Swore by the Fear of his Father Isaac proves not that Laban's simply saying God is Witness makes up a formal Oath seeing he also said This Heap viz. of Stones is Witness between me and thee see Gen. 31. VVill any presume to say That he Swore by the Heap of Stones which was a Witness or a Memorial His accusing St. Paul notwithstanding Christ's prohibition that he did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath is both a gross Abuse of Paul and contradicts this man's confessing that he delivered the Truth with great Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power and that by Manifestation of the Truth he commended himself to every man's Conscience in the Sight of God 1 Cor. 2. 4 13. 2 Cor. 4. 2. Surely the Demonstration of the Spirit and Manifestation of the Truth was not Swearing to every man's Conscience for there was no need of Swearing where the Truth was so manifest among the Saints But to say that Paul did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath renders him both of very little Power Manifestation or Credit as a Minister of Christ among his Saints and Churches none of them excepted and them also to have as little Knowledge and Confidence of Paul and his Testimony Further He varies between saying God is Witness and mens calling him for a Record against their Soul where he brings Augustine for a Proof that Paul Swore in these words If so Augustine is not constant to himself nor with other Fathers particularly Basil. on Psal. 14. pag. 155. of his Works impr at Paris 1618. where he saith There are some Speeches which have the form of an Oath which are not Oathes but are Remedies for the Hearer as the Apostle to the Corinthians willing to shew his Love said Yea or by your Rejoycing c. for he was not disobedient to the Doctrine of the Gospel who was intrusted with the Gospel but he gave a small word in the Form of an Oath that their Rejoycing was most desirous to him he shewed by such a manner of Speech Thus far Basil though we know the Particle by is not alwayes a Note of Swearing In his second Argument he grants that Justice may be administred according to the Rule of the Gospel by the Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses Mat. 18. 16. but not of one without an Oath as taking in God to witness with him where there is but one Witness as in the Case instanced Exed 22. 10 11. However that Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses may decide a Controversie without an Oath and where there is but one faithful Witness God is Witness with him and for him therein and hath a Witness for him in men's Consciences And the Law-makers to whom we have applyed and not to such busie Opposers as this Agent against us have Power to make Provision for such a one as cannot for Conscience sake Swear that his Testimony may be taken instead of an Oath especially he being willing to undergo the same Penalty that is due to perjured Persons if he be found false in his Testimony as we have proposed however this Opposer takes little notice thereof And many in Authority have confessed our Proposition therein to be fair and sufficient and not at all tending to obstruct the Administration of Justice nor to patronize Injustice as is most falsly insinuated against us pag. 3. In his third Argument he asserts That the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament Prophets did commend Swearing by God as that which was to be the practice of his Elect Servants in the Christian-Church after his Rejection of the Jews and chusing the Gentiles Answ. We deny this Assumption that they did so commend Swearing as a Practice to continue in the Christian-Church among Jews and Gentiles For Christ and his Apostles Prohibition of Swearing at all either by Heaven or Earth or any other Oath was of an Universal Extent to both Jews and Gentiles that come to be of the Christian-Church both forbidding such Swearing as the Jews of old time used under the Law viz. by the Lord and the Apostate Jews and Gentiles Swearing by Idols or the Creatures or any Oath whatsoever He attempts to prove his Assumption from Isa. 56. 15. And ye shall leave your Name for a Curse to my Chosen that is saith he the people that I shall chuse from among the Gentiles shall use your Name in Execration when they have a mind to denounce a Curse c. And this he brings to prove Swearing a Practice to continue amongst God's Elect Servants in the Christian-Church And so he would perswade them not only to Swear contrary to Christ's Command but to use Execrations and to denounce a Curse when they have a mind as he supposes which is contrary to Christ and his Apostles Doctrine who taught the Elect to Bless those that Curse them and to Bless and Curse not for to Bless God and Curse man ought not to be In his fourth
c. as if they were only applicable to Oaths in Contracts or by any Creature or idly c. But he hath nothing against our Citations whereas what we have cited of William Swinderby extends farther then this man's Limitation As the 14th Article against him was that he should say That no man ought to Swear for any thing but simply without an Oath to Affirm or Deny and if he Swears he sins Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol. 614. It s true he answered to this That men should not Swear by any Creature by the Law of God but he further declares his Mind and Sense in his Appeal from the Bishop's Sentence to King Richard 2. and his Council in these words Whereas Christ's Law forbids Swearing the Pope's Law justifies Swearing and compels men thereto Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol 618. note that in the former he speaks with reference to God's Law in the latter to Christ's Law which no doubt was the Opinion of many more as appears by the Plow-man's Complaint which otherwise had not so been preserved and propagated as it was And it appears from that Doctrine received among the poor Christians in this Nation that neither the Pope nor the Prelate neither any other Ordinary can compel any man to Swear by any Creature of God or by the Bible-Book Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol 687. which Opinion among others their Persecutors sought to make them renounce and abjure By this it appears they opposed the Popes compelling men to swear upon the Bible Book wherein they also swear by the Lord. By his saying Those Martyrs that held that all Oaths that be made for any Contract or Bargain were Vnlawful However it was matter of Conscience to them that so held c. It appears then that they held something unlawful that was used of old time both before and under the Law contrary to J. S. p. 15. For both before and under the Law there were private Oaths and Swearing in some Contracts and Covenants between man and man as well as publick before Judges And if the Martyrs Testimony against the Pope's Compulsion reacht only private Oaths we ask Where did ever the Pope's Law compel Men to Swear in their private Bargains between man and man and why are men put upon Swearing in their Account for their Tyths more then in their private Contracts about them J. S. would seem cordially to concur with William Thorpe's Testimony as being only against Swearing by the Book by any Creature c. Whereas when William Thorpe was demanded to kneel down and touch the holy Gospel-Book and kiss it saying So help me God and this holy Doom he argues largely against it concluding thus Therefore to Swear upon a Book is to Swear by Creatures and this Swearing is ever unlawful adding further This Sentence witnesses Chrysostom plainly blaming them greatly that bring forth a Book to Swear upon charging Clarks that in no wise they constrain any Body to Swear whether they think a man to Swear True or False Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol. 701. See how plain it is that William Thorpe's words were against Swearing upon a Book by God or as help me God and against forceing any Body to Swear True or False so that the said William Thorpe did not only condemn the Papists common Swearing by our Lady and other Saints but also their Swearing upon a Book in this Form So help me God and this holy Doom see Act. Mon. fol. 701 702. Now what Chrysostom whom he alledgeth witnesseth in this Case against Swearing is very plain and positive from the Greek Copy unquestioned Tom. 1. Hom. 17. p. 217. passing that in his other Tom. Homil. 12. if questioned where he saith What therefore if some require an Oath and impose a Necessity of Swearing let the Fear of God be more powerful then all Necessity For if thou wilt alwayes object such Occasions thou wilt keep nothing of those things that are commanded What is more then Yea and Nay To Swear not to Forswear seeing none need to be taught that that is of Evil and not so much superfluous as contrary for that is superfluous which is added needlesly which certainly is an Oath if Evil how then was it commanded in the Law That is now Adultery which was then allowed Weakness required then for unless those things had gone before the other had not so easily been received Their Vertue is now shown Swearing was permitted heretofore by the Law lest men should worship Idols or swear by Idols it brought them to solid Meat What Evil then is it to swear much without doubt but now after so many Arguments of Power but not then We must study to do above the old Commandment Unless your Righteousness exceed c. Some come so far short of it that they refuse not only to Swear but even do Forswear If to Swear be Evil Perjury is great Evil. With much more to the same purpose his Assertions and Reasons being general extending to all swearing and goes on to exhort and deter men from sleighting the Command of Christ. Read the place at large Concerning Elizabeth Young who was brought to Examination in the Marian dayes before the Catholick Inquisitors of Heretical Pravity as they stiled themselves her refusing to Swear J. S. confines to these Reasons First Because she would not betray her Christian-Friends 2dly Because of the Needlesness to Swear whether she was a Man or a Woman she affirming her self to be a Woman that being determinable without an Oath by Search Whereas her Reason is more general then either of these two hinted For when Dr. Martin said to her Thou shalt be Racked Inch-meal thou Traitorly Whore and Heretick but thou shalt Swear before a Judge before thou go To this Eliz. Young answered Sr. I understand not what an Oath is and therefore I will take no such Oath upon me Dr. Martin said She refuseth to Swear upon the four Evangelists before a Judge for I my self and Mr. Hussey have had her before us four times but we cannot bring her to Swear Then said the Bishop Why wilt thou not Swear before a Judge c Eliz. My Lord I will not Swear that this Hand is mine No said the Bishop and why Eliz. Christ saith that whatsoever is more thâ—n Yea Yea and Nay Nay it cometh of Evil see the Relation more at large where it is quoted Observe that the Reason of her refusing to swear was more general then J. S. relates It was not only because she would not betray her Friends or because of the Unnecessariness of the Oath But because first She scrupled an Oath it self saying I understand not what an Oath is 2dly Because of Christ's saying Whatsoever is more then Yea Yea and Nay Nay it cometh of Evil. And 3dly It is plain she refused to Swear upon the four Evangelists and before a Judge to a thing that was True Therefore J. S. hath greatly abused this sincere Woman and Martyr in Restraining