to feed us without our industry with Manna and Quails as he did his Church in the Wilderness or by the Ravens as he did Elisha or to make the small provisions we have to abound by an inexhaustible increase as he did the Widows barrel of meal and cruse of Oyl and in the Gospel the five loaves and two fishes though he could soon introduce the Golden Age to make it a perpetual Spring and to cause the earth to bring forth all her fruits and teem her riches to us of her own accord though God could quickly do all this and more though he could translate us instantly and carry us up into a better habitation though he could perfect us out of hand and the next minute wrap us into the third Heaven and rest us in Paradise though this be in his power yet we see it is not in his will It is not his pleasure thus to dispense his favours nor to pour out his blessings all at once For though the Divine power and Goodness too be both of them infinite yet do not engage God though an Almighty Father in doing good to act like natural Agents both alwayes and all he can For the acts of his Power and Goodness are determin'd by his infinite Wisdome And he dispenseth his gifts according as there is necessity and occasion for them That the Spirit helpeth us to understand old truths already revealed in Scripture we confess and pray for his assistance therein but to pretend to such miraculous inspirations as the Apostles once had or to new revelations beyond what was discover'd to them is a horrible cheat set up at first by St. Francis and St. Bridget and some other Fanatical Friers and Nuns of the Romish Church whose steps the Quakers do now follow but the delusion and falshood of such pretences will appear if you consider 1. How highly these new revelations disparage the Holy Scripture which if it be true and may be believed declares it self to be a perfect and sufficient rule in order to salvation 2 Tim. 3. 17. and accurseth all that shall preach any other Doctrine Gal. 1. 8 9. and in the close of that holy Book a woe is denounced to all that should add any thing to it or take any thing from it So that they who would make new additions by daily inspirations make God himself a lyar in commending that to us for a perfect rule which needs continual additions and the preaching of Christ and his Apostles at this rate must be thought imperfect and that Word which should try the Spirits must submit to every new revelation Nor do the Papists more dishonour Gods Word by making their Traditions of equal value to it than the Quakers by esteeming their new revelations to be as much from the Spirit of God 2. Consider how contrary these new revelations are to Gods constant method in regard they came naked without any miracles to attest them for when did God ever send any new Doctrine into the World and did not also give the Preachers thereof a power of working miracles to confirm that it was from him Moses had this power when he was to set up the Law Jesus when he was to preach the Gospel to the Jews the Apostles when they were to convert the Gentiles But as St. Austin notes when once the World did believe this power ceased which was only given that they might believe Now if God had sent the Quakers with any new revelations how comes it to pass he hath given them no power of doing miracles or why do any believe them whenas God doth not bear witness to them as in other cases he alwayes did shall we take their own words for it or esteem their new Doctrines not confirmed with any Divine Powers as highly as we do the Holy Gospel witnessed by many thousand miracles this were to make our selves as foolish as those who dote upon them and to encourage every Cheat to impose his fancies on us as Divine Revelations who hath the confidence to say he is inspired 3. New Revelations do manifestly contradict the Faith of the primitive Christians and holy Fathers who called the Scriptures the truest rule of Doctrine the ancient measure of Faith the Divine Standard the Repository of all things necessary either to Faith or Manners they esteemed it great impudence to affirm any thing without their Authority or to expect any truths beyond what was written they desired not to be believed unless they proved their assertions by Scripture Did they not in every Councel examin all Doctrines and Opinions by the written Word of God and condemn those for Hereticks who invented new fancies not agreeing to it And when the Gnosticks Montanists and Messalians pretended to Prophecy Raptures and Inspiration they were censur'd as Impostors and Deceivers By all which it appears that if the Quakers had held forth their new Revelations in those pure and zealous dayes they had also been solemnly convicted and denounced Hereticks and why should we embrace that for a truth in these last and worst of times which the best Ages of the Church did reject as a notorious falshood 4. And yet this new Doctrine of new Revelations is not more false than it is mischievous to those who do believe it for hereby their faith is uncertain as their Teachers fancy and poor deluded souls do receive falshood and railing non-sense and blasphemy as if they came from the Spirit of God They despise the ancient and pure certain and fixed principles of Christianity received from Jesus and his Apostles sealed with the blood of Martyrs and retained by all good Christians and admire the discourse of a bold and empty man above them all they take upon them to appoint new wayes of worship and reject the old even the very Sacraments which Jesus himself instituted they neglect Learning themselves contemn it in others and would bring the World into an Egyptian darkness if others were of their mind and all this and much more they do for a thing that never was nor never will be proved for a dream a meer fancy and a miserable mistake which none can believe till they have first bid adieu to all sense and reason So that in meer pity to those mis-guided souls who follow this false and fantaltick light I cannot but make this digression to convince them that they adore a lie for Divine Revelation to the great hazard of their eternal damnation Par. But do you deny all Revelations Min. I own those Revelations which are upon Râ—…cord in the Holy Bible which is the Word of God wherein he hath revealed his Will to the Church but no other Revelations do I hearken after Par. But the Quakers tell us the Bible is a dead Letter but the Word of God is quick and powerful so is not the Bible Min. By such like sottish wayes of Reasoning I conceive the Speakers among them
but a small time of use because it could not give life none living under it but Adam all hopes of Salvation ever after depending upon the grace of the second Covenant which is the only plank after Shipwrack Par. But do we not read in Heb. 8. of an old Covenant which was to be done away and a new Covenant to succeed in the room of it Was not the old Covenant the Covenant of works and did not Abraham Moses and David live under it Min. That Abraham Moses and David lived under the old Covenant there mentioned I readily grant but that that was a Covenant of works I utterly deny which that you may apprehend you must know that the Covenant of grace though one and the same in substance from the first promulging of it to Adam unto the end of the World yet is according to the several forms or modes of its administration distinguished into Old which was to be abolished and New which was never to be antiquated In the times of the Old Testament the Covenant of Grace was administred by Promises Prophesies Sacrifices c. foresignifying Christ to come which for that time were sufficient to build up those who then lived in faith in the promised Messiah by whom they had remission of sins and eternal Salvation Under the Gospel when Christ the substance was come those Types and Ceremonies were abolished and the Ordinances in which this Covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the Administration of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper So that the words Old and New are not applicable to the Covenant as to the substance of it but only to its various dispensation Now that the Covenant in Old Testament times was a Covenant of Grace the same in substance with that under which we live in Gospel times I prove thus That Covenant which teacheth Christ by whom eternal Salvation may be attained and which offereth pardon of sin and acceptance to favour upon repentance must needs be a Covenant of Grace but the Covenant delivered in the Old Testament as well as that in the New is such a Covenant as appears from these Scriptures John 5. 46 47. Luke 24. 25 26 27. with 44 45 46. John 1. 45. John 8. 56. Acts 26. 22 23. Deut. 4. 30 31. Exod. 34. 6 7. 2 Chron. 7. 14. and many other places Par. I thank you for the information you have given me in the nature of the two Covenants for I did think as many of the Quakers do that all that lived in the time of the Old Testament were under the Covenant of Works An I have heard some urge it as it seems Hubberthorn here doth to bring down the credit and authority of Old Testament Scriptures and Preachers but I perceive mine and their great mistake herein I would have you now return to the Query about Oaths and let us suppose Hubberthorn by first Covenant to understand the legal dispensation of the Covenant of Grace under which he saith Oaths were lawful Min. Indeed Hubberthorn yields they were then lawful and yet he brings in his proofs as if they were as unlawful then as now Par. What are those proofs Min. In the beginning of his Book against Mr. Tombs you will find Hos. 4. 3. For Oaths the Land mourns and Zach. 5. 3. Every one that sweareth shalâ—… be cut off these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do you gather from thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 horrid abuse the Quakers put upon the Scriptures and the Spirit of God by which they were writ Par. How do you make it appear that they abuse the Scriptures Min. Doth it not appear very plainly when they confess that in the time of the Law Oaths were lawful yet do bring in Hosea and Zachary who lived in the time of the Law speaking against that usage which themselves confess was then lawful If Hosea and Zachary were true Prophets how can we think they contradict the truth If they were false Prophets why do the Quakers use their testimony Par. It may be Hosea and Zachary did not mean the unlawfulness of Oaths then but only prophesied of their unlawfulness in the times of the Gospel Min. That you make use of a pitiful shift will be very evident if you consider that there was then a heavy calamity threatned and hanging over the Land the Prophet gives the cause thereof to be for Oaths and if Oaths were then lawful must the people be cut off for doing what was just and lawful or is it reasonable to think the people should suffer for a sin to be committed afterwards Par. Do you suppose that Oaths were unlawful during the continuance of the Law Min. I suppose no such thing my design being only to shew that fallacious way of arguing which the Quakers use and that this Hubberthorn so much esteemed by them is trap't in his own net and confuted by himself while he confesses Oaths to be lawful during the continuance of the Law and yet contradicts himself again by bringing texts out of the Law to prove them otherwise and thus you see he brings in the Old Testament contradicting it self also which in Deut. 6. 13. commands it as a duty as also in other places Jer. 4. 2. I pray you judge of these things Par. You have highly and I think not untruly charged the Quakers in the use of these Texts of the Prophets for I cannot but acknowledge it an absurdity to alledge the Scripture against it self but I pray you discover the true meaning of them and what swearing the people were there threatned for Min. If you mind the scope of the Prophet Hosea and the sins which swearing is there joyned withal in the first verse of the Chapter you will discern that the cause why the Land mourned was not for taking Oaths for those are already proved and confessed to be then lawful but for taking them against Truth and Mercy with malicious or injurious designs But their bringing in Zachary's words to disprove the lawfulness of swearing discovers a most dishonest principle in the Quakers because they cannot but know that the Prophets words are wrested by them for the fourth verse expresly interprets swearing for which the people are threatned to be cut off to be false-swearing only Therefore consult both at large Zach. 5. 3 4. This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it I will bring it forth saith the Lord of Hosts and it shall enter into the house of the thief and into the house of him that sweareth falsly by my Name Par. But what do you say to an Oath now under the dispensation of the Gospel Min. I say the Gospel has no where abolished the lawful use of it Par. You will fall under John Tombs his charge of Antichristianism for
our Lord saith Matth. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all And the same is repeated by the Apostle James c. 5. 12. From whence it appears all manner of Oaths are unlawful and they who say the contrary do live in opposition to the Gospel Min. You mince the Text by taking a piece of it only as your usual way is of which I hope to convince you in the process of this discourse in order whereunto I shall pitch upon this method following First I shall shew you that these words do not generally forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense you take them Secondly I shall endèavour to give you the true sense of the words and shew you what sort of swearing is there forbidden Par. It will very much contribute to my conviction if you do as you say Pray you therefore first prove to me that the words do not forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense wherein we take them Min. I shall do it in this order First by proving it an act of Natural Religion towards God Secondly an act of necessary justice and charity towards men Thirdly that it is therefore a part of that moral and eternal Law which our Saviour professeth he came not to destroy but to fulfill And fourthly that we find it practised in the New Testament Par. I much desire to hear the first particular prov'd viz. that an Oath is an act of Religion Min. I prove it first by Reason Secondly by consent of Nations thus That whereby we glorifie God and adore his Attributes is an act of Religion but by an Oath rightly taken we glorifie God and adore his Attributes therefore such an Oath is an act of Religion The first part of the Argument is evident of it self for what else is Religion but to adore and glorifie God in the humble acknowledgment of his Attributes And that we do by an Oath reverently taken glorifie God is clear from the nature and definition of it for an Oath is a religious appeal unto God the searcher of all hearts as a witness of what we assert or promise and the avenger of perjury Now that by such a reverent appeal unto God we glorifie him appears in that we do therein make acknowledgment 1. Of God's existence and being for he that cometh to God must believe that he is c. Heb. 11. 6. and an Oath certainly is one sort of coming to God being an immediate appeal to him as Witness and Judge 2. Of his Omnipresence and Ubiquity that he is present in all places and at all times according to Psalm 139. Whither shall I go from thy presence c. How could we call upon him either as Witness of our sincerity or Judge of our hypocrisie if we did not believe him within hearing and therefore the not having God before our eys is in Scripture the description of the most profligated wretchless state of sin 3. Herein we acknowledge his Omniscience that he is in the Apostles stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the searcher of hearts that all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have then more immediately to do 4. His truth and veracity a Witness brought into the Court that cannot lie nor be impos'd upon as saith the Apostle Gal. 6. 7. Be not deceived God is not mocked 5. His providence and paternal care of the concerns of mankind taking the cause of the righteous into his own hand and helping them to right that suffer wrong 6. His superiority or rather supremacy over all things according to that of St. Paul Heb. 6. 16. For verily men swear by the greater Therefore in swearing by him we own him to be Supreme and most high 7. We herein acknowledge his vindictive justice as he is a Revenger of Perjury such an one as will by no means patronize iniquity fraud or guile Exod. 34. 7. and will both bring sin to light 1 Cor. 4. 5. and punish it Rom. 12. 19. So that I hope you see by this time that an Oath rightly circumstantiated and taken viz. in truth in judgment and in righteousness Jer. 4. 2. is a comprehensive part of Religion It being such a solemn acknowledgment where by we glorifie God's Existence Omnipresence Omniscience Truth Providence Superiority and revenging Justice How can you think it less then a duty fit to be commanded by God and to bear a part in the Moral Law as indeed we find it doth Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shalt serve him and swear by his Name And Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth in judgment and in righteousness Par. I had thought that an Oath had been so far from glorifying God that it had been the only prosanation of his Name Min. Then it would never at any time have been commanded Par. I confess this Discourse inclines me to some more consideration about it than hitherto I have entred into Min. Therefore to confirm you further I shall resume the method propos'd and prove that an Oath is an act of Religion out of the light of Nature and the consent of Nations as is evident to such as are conversant in ancient Authors Aristotle the great Philosopher saith An Oath is the most venerable thing that pertains to Religion Cicero the learned Oratour gives this account of an Oath An Oath is a religious affirmation and what you affirm or promise by taking God to witness ought to be kept that is such an Oath binds you to performance And elsewhere he hath these words Our Fore-fathers thought no tie more fast to bind mens faith than an Oath And therefore anciently Captains of War in listing their Souldiers did alwayes bind them to their fidelity with an Oath which Oath was had in so great reverence with them that they honoured it with a religious title calling it a Sacrament or religious Solemnity whereupon Seneca that excellent Moralist saith Religion that is that military Oath which they call'd a Sacrament is the chiefest bond of fidelity in the Militia Yea so great a reverence had they for an Oath that those that broke it were the infamiâ notati the only men of infamy and justly seiz'd upon by Divine vengeance The Heathens had so great a dread of the sin of perjury that they said It laid waste the whole stock and family root and branch And what other is this then what the Prophet Zachary hath said almost in the same words cap. 5. 1 2 3 4. concerning the flying roll That it should enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly and consume it with the timber and stones thereof So that herein you may take notice of the harmony and agreement between the light and the law of Nature with the positive and Moral Law of God given by Moses to mankind which was nothing but the Law of Nature renew'd and improv'd Par. How come you to alledge
5. 12. Min. Seeing our Saviour in that gracious Law of his has forbid nothing that is morally good nothing that is either indifferent or expedient 1 Cor. 6. 12. it must needs follow that an Oath is no further forbidden than as it is evil that is when it prophanes the Name of God Deut. 19. 12. and 28. 58. or doth any way dishonour him which an Oath doth when it is false irreverent or needless In these instances an Oath being so dishonourable to the Divine Majesty is absolutely forbidden namely all swearing by the creature or by any thing propos'd to our vain fancy that being to make an Idol of the creature and to set it up for a God as also all swearing by the express name of God in mens ordinary communication which is for the most part so full of passion and vain transportation as to expose men to the frequent abuse of Gods Name and the danger of perjury And therefore I must inform you that our blessed Saviour took the occasion of this prohibition from the gross errors both of Jew and Gentile about this point and from the wicked customs of common swearing and prophaneness which by those errors were encouraged I will therefore shew you first what those evil customs were and then give you the sense of the words as they lye in the Text and are accommodated to the healing of those corruptions in doctrine and practise The erroneous glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Jewish Doctors taught that while they abstained from the mention of Gods Name it was lawful to swear by the Creature as oft as they pleas'd and that such swearing though falsly was no perjury See Mattb. 23. 16 18 21. There you will find that they made nothing of swearing by the Temple the Altar or by Heaven supposing it did not bind the Conscience Secondly that it was lawful at any time to swear by Gods Name so that they swore nothing but truth and performed their Oaths unto the Lord. And these opinions it seems the Jewes thought consistent enough with that part of the Law cited by our Saviour Matth. 5. 33. You have heard that it hath been said by them or rather to them of old time Thou shalt not forswear thy self And according to those corrupt Doctrines they acted without fear or measure by that wretched custom of common swearing To the confuting of which Doctrines he accommodates his answer in the verses following Against the first of them viz. swearing by the Creature he opposes that prohibition in the 34 35 36 verses But I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven c. Against the latter viz. swearing by the Name of God in our ordinary converse he gives this precept v. 37. Let your communication be yea yea c. Par. But does not our Saviour say there Swear not at all and so do's he not generally forbid all Oaths whatsoever Min. To ease you in this scruple let me tell you what advice I heard a famous Judge give to a Jury You must not said he determine by bits and parcels of what you have heard attested but you are to consider your whole evidence and accordingly bring in your verdict So let me tell you that to give the true account of any Scripture you are not to imitate the Quakers who determine upon such bits and scraps as they steal out of the Word of God by which means they make one part of the Scripture contradict another and so expose themselves to the greatest errours imaginable but to find out the true sense of any Scripture you must determine according to the whole evidence by comparing the parts of it together with each other and by considering the scope of the Text from the whole so compared and considered to gather the true meaning of it And so here in this place you are not to take these words single by themselves for you see they stand not alone and are not a whole sentence by themselves but are immediately conjoyned in a continued discourse with other words which do restrain and limit them So that when he sayes Swear not at all he adds neither by heaven c. nor by the earth c. so as the prohibition is limited to those things the Jewes were wont to swear by in order to the reforming of that evil custome amongst them and therefore to each of those Oaths which he forbids he adds a reason to convince them of their errour He bids them not swear at all by Heaven because it is Gods throne c. as if he had said The Pharisees teach you that swearing by heaven by earth by Jerusalem by your head by the Temple by the Altar c. Matth. 23. are no real binding Oaths and that therefore to swear by them falsly is no perjury But I say unto you swear not by heaven for it is Gods throne and therefore includes him that sits on it so that he that shall swear by heaven sweareth by the throne of God and him that sitteth thereon Matth. 23. 22. and therefore his Oath is as really binding both to the sin and punishment if he forswear as if he had sworn expresly by the Name of God Neither swear by the earth for it is his footstool and therefore agreeable to the other argument he that sweareth by the earth sweareth by it and him that setteth his foot upon it Neither shalt thou swear by Jerusalem for it is the City of the great King he therefore that sweareth by Jerusalem sweareth by it and him that inhabiteth in it And this is the same our Saviour saith Matth. 23. 21. Whoso shall swear by the Temple sweareth by it and by him that dwells therein Again he saith here Neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou canst not make one hair white or black that is it is not in thy power to engage or pawn it for the truth of any thing thou affirmest for thou didst not make it neither canst thou so much as change the colour of one hair therefore he that swears by his head swears by it and him to whom he owes his head his life and safety So that whensoever you swear by any Creature you do by interpretation swear by the Maker of it Which when you swear falsly by the Creature involves you in the guilt of perjury before God and of the breach of that Law which saith Thou shalt not forswear thy self for in every Oath whatsoever a man swears by it is God which is call'd upon either expresly or implicitly Par. But while our Saviour saith Swear not at all neither by heaven c. and then immediately addeth these words Let your communication be yea yea nay nay have not these last words a relation to the other So that his meaning should be Do not bind or urge any thing you shall say by any forms or further inforcements than by these terms of asseveration yea yea nay nay This is that I took