much to God's honour and to the glory of his Name by the acknowledgment or confession of his Truth Knowledge Justice and Almighty Power all these four Attributes we acknowledge to be in him when in taking of an Oath we call upon him to be out witness and Judge What can the Treatist answer to this how can he vindicate himself from the guilt of notorious falsity and forgery by averring that the Bishop asserted that Christ by his prohibitive Precept exceeded the Prohibition of the Law or Third Commandment by commanding us not only not to Swear vainly or falsly but not to use an Oath in any case whatsoever Does not that godly Prelate in his Tenth Section of his Seventh Praelection lay this down for an undeniable conclusion Juramenti usus est licitus and proves an Oath to be lawful as by divers weighty Reasons drawn from the use of it in the Old and New Testament for that the * Rom. 1.9 Gal. 1.20 Gen. 14.22.26.31.31.53 Apostle Saint Paul and holy Patriarchs did use it and all Controversies were appointed by Moses to be terminated or ended by it Exod. 2.11 so also from the Conditions to be observed in Swearing prescribed by the Prophets as in that fourth Chapter of Jerem. vers 2. which I have formerly cited and illustrated after all which he challenges any man to give just Reason why under the Old Testament it should be lawful for holy men to Swear and not for the Faithful under the New seeing this act of Swearing did not appertain to the Ceremonial Law which was abrogated by Christ as is evident by the end of it which is of perpetual use and that is the confirmation of the Truth and ending all litigious Disputes and strifes about it And will not any prudent man conclude from all this that an Oath to its own and proper nature is not an evil thing but lawful and good when much hurt and many disturbances which may happen in the transaction of humane affairs may by it be prevented This is attested by Saint Paul Heb. 6.16 An Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife i. e. where there is no end of contradicting there an Oath is expedient when the Plaintiff affirms and the Defendant stifly denies when there is no other way of finding out the Truth one part of the contradiction being confirmed by the interposition of an Oath the other part ceases and so the strife is terminated Can we imagine then that the God of peace unity and concord our Lord Christ would wholly forbid Swearing or the use of an Oath at any time or in any case by means whereof oft-times as litigious suits and strifes at Law are ended so Faith and Justice the two most firm bonds and ligaments of humane Society are preserved for he that lies under a solemn Oath dares not be unfaithful or unjust I am sure our Saviour never did forbid it but only the light rash and vain use of an Oath in our ordinary and common discourse this he did and so our most judicious * Praelect 7. Sect. 11. ad finem Bishop expounds those words of our Saviour Matth. 5.34 and the same repeated by Saint James Chap. 5.12 which are the Quakers or Anabaptists only Asylum to which they flie for Sanctuary when they are urged to take an Oath by the Magistrate but I hope they will be effectually beaten or driven from their Asylum when their shallow and dark understandings are better enlightned and they being convinc'd shall acknowledge in their hearts though they will hardly confess it with their tongues that the whole weight of their rotten Position hangs upon a weak and slender thread even one word Omninò at all which is by them misinterpreted A good construction whereof is that expression of one Eusebius a Gentile Philosopher in * Serm. 37. Stobaeus Many sayes he there exhort men to Swear the Truth but my exhortation to them is Ut ne quidem omnino facilè jurent That they Swear not at all easily he means familiarly without great necessity which is the principal or prime meaning of our Saviours Prohibition Swear not at all I should here have given a stop to my flying Pen and taken both it and my wearied hand on from this Paper had not my Zeal inflamed with indignation spurred me on to a just vindication of the honour of another holy and more ancient Father most renowned as the former was in his generation which was 422. years after Christ for his holy life and stupendious knowledge in Divine and Humane Learning I mean St. Jerom Pag. 11. whom the Impostor or Treatist challenges as a Patron of his Opinion saying though most falsly That he makes this the reason why God indulged the Jews in the use of Swearing That they were but in the state of Infancy and that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods I was amazed when I read this so will the judicious Readers be astonished at the boldness and madness I may add Falsity and Folly of the Treatist inciting the Gloss of St. Jerom upon that Text Matth. 5.34 it being so clearly and wholly against him The Father's Gloss is this which for the benefit of an illiterate Quaker I shall translate word for word into English Hanc per elementa jurandi pessimam consuetudinem semper habuere Iudaei c. This most ungodly custome of Swearing by the Elements was ever in use amongst the Jews for which they are oft condemned by the month of the Prophets He that sweareth either worshippeth or loves him by whom he sweareth We are commanded in the Law to Swear by none but by the Lord our God The Jews swearing by the Angels by the City of Jerusalem by the Temple and by the Elements gave that honour and worship to the Creatures and carnal things which was only due to God But * Let the Author of the Treatife and his Brethren consider this consider that our Saviour does not forbid us to Swear by God but by Heaven and Earth by Hierusalem and by the Head Et hoc quasi parvulis fuerat lege concessum and this subaud he forbids as if it had been permitted to the Jews as to little Ones even as they offer'd Victims unto God that they might not sacrifice the same unto Idols so they should be permitted to Swear in Deum against God not that they should do well in so doing but that it was better to exhibit that honour to God viz. by Swearing by his Temple c. than to Daemons From the later part of this Comment beginning at Et hoc quasi parvulis c. altogether misconstrued by him the Treatift though most absurdly inferrs that God indulged in the opinion of St Jerom the Jews in the use of Swearing they being then in the state of Infancy that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods For St. Jerom or to vindicate him I appeal to St. Jerom Doth he say
and combine with him in his opinions though they be repugnant to the truth in the holy Scriptures Such is the narrow and short-breath'd Charity of the Anti-Jurists whose Opinion or false conceit of the unlawfulness and sinfulness of all Judicial and State Oaths is both unchristian as being uncharitable in that as it hinders them from doing good to their Friends and Neighbours so if it were embrac'd by all as it never will it would impede in Courts of Judicature the due administration of Justice it is likewise destructive and very dangerous in regard that the Safety Peace and Tranquillity of the King and Kingdom cannot without Oaths I mean those of Supremacy and Allegiance be secured against the Traiterous plottings and mischievous designs of domestick and intestine enemies Popish Recusants and others Antipapists in the points of some fundamental Doctrines but Co-papists as being Adversaries of the Churches Discipline The contrary opinion of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the forenamed Publick Oaths is agreeable to the word of God ratified by the continued Customes of this and all other Nations both Ecclesiastical Civil or Common and approved of by the best of Christians in all ages by the consonant unanimous Judgements of the ancient Fathers and modern Writers of the Reformed Churches together with the most eminent Divines in ours it is also confirmed by the Harmony of their Confessions both Lutherans and Calvinists by all Canonists and Casuists all of them in a just severity condemning the use of False idle and profane Oaths assert the Authority of lawful Magistrates which the Treatist and his Abettors proudly deny to require and impose religious Oaths and declare that it is the duty of Subjects to take them as it becomes Christians with due reverence to the Majesty of God and fitting obedience to the commands of Superiour and Inferiour Magistrates who are intrusted with their power from God and are to use it to his glory and the welfare of the Church and Common-Wealth This bright Cloud of Witnesses to the Truth I cannot say that I oppose to the 200 and 7. Authorities mustered up in a Catalogue plac'd in the front of the Quaker's Treatise for * As Chrysost Augustine Ierome Athanasius c. most of them onely inveigh without any limitation or reserve against mens easie ordinary course of Swearing in private conversation yet holding it lawful both to give and take an Oath in great and weighty concerns for a ratification of Truth and establishing of Justice As for some others of them cited in his Catalogue they were tainted with the Heresies of the Samosatenians Pelagians Massilians and the Euchites and of their disciples or followers in their opinion against Swearing at all the Albigenses and Anabaptists to whom we may add the Menists in the Netherlands mentioned by the Treatist p. 157. for this reason they are not to be held for competent Judges in the case neither are their authorities to be admitted so are the Arguments drawn from the sayings and practises of a few godly Martyrs to be rejected to wit of Basilides and Polycarpus who only refused Oaths propounded to them which were in the matter and form of them sinful as to swear by the Fortune of Caesar which Polycarpus denied or by the Genius of the Emperor which Basilides and Speratus refused Pondere rationis haud Authorum numero est mensuranda veritas as is to be seen in Eusebius I do therefore conclude and repeat what I premised in my Preface that the Treatist's 207 Authorities are to little or no purpose rather against than for him and his Co-Anti-Jurists Nay I add and say put case he had produc'd a thousand move Authorities against all kind of Swearing Tert. li. Praescrip cont Haer To this saying Tert. lâ—t me add thiâ— of S. Ambrose Nolo nobis credatur recitetur Scriptura I would retort to them all with that saying of Tertullian Non expersonis fidem sed ex fide personas metiamur we must not measure the Truth by the persons of Men as to say it is true because such a Learned man said it but in so because the Word of God does maintain it and those persons though never so holy in outward appearance are not to be commended or imitated who out of a scrupulous nice erroneous conscience shall refuse to do that which the same word alloweth so is Judicial Swearing Therefore the poor deceived Quakers whose ignorance I pitty are in a dangerous error being Affirmatively superstitious in counting that a duty which is not and Negatively in abstaining from that as sin which is no sin i. e. from all kind of Swearing Psal 53.5 As presumptuous confidences where there is no Divine permission so erroneous fears where no fear ought to be are very dangerous and cast a snare upon the Conscience I have one thing more and that material to propose to the Treatist that is whether he was compos mentis Pag. 3. and not transported by a whim of Phansie when he was bold to make a Proposal in the Preface of his Pamphlet dedicated to the King and Parliament that the Quakers Yea and Nay which is the mark in their mouths whereby they are known and distinguished from others may stand for an Oath they being willing if they should ever be convinced of a Lye by promising what they performed not or asserting an untruth to sustain the same Penalty that is usually inflicted on Perjury What was all this but to desire that the old Forms of State and Judicial Oaths should be altered and turned into New I 'le instance onely in the Oath of Allegiance which involves in the body of it that other of Supremacy in the propounding of which to W. P. or to any or his Brethren the Magistrate must if the others request be granted act the part of a Catechist in these terms Dost thou W. P. acknowledge the Kings Highness to be the onely Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countreys in all Causes and over all persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil and do you promise that you will bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and defend Him to the utmost of your power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever against his Crown and Dignity and do your best endeavour to declare and make known to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which you shall know or hear to be made against him To all these interrogations the supposed honest W. P. will say Yea and if I break my promise let the Penalty of Perjury be inflicted on me I pray what is all this but Canting cunningness and craft lies at the bottom of it What is the punishment of a Perjured person It is to lose his cars in a Pillory and not to be admitted for a witness in any Court of Justice c. Now consider how favourable a motion the good man has made
Swear by the Name of God to the prohibitive command of our Saviour let me premise this for an undeniable Maxime or Thesis That the Precepts of the Gospel are not repugnant Praecepta Evangelii non contrariantur praeceptis legis Aug. or contrary to the Commands of the Law This Position is defended and proved at large by S. Augustine in his Nineteenth Book against Faustus the Heretick Cap. 16. What the Law commands the Gospel does not forbid and what the one forbids the other does not allow but both meet together in a sweet consent and harmony of Truth and as it were kiss and embrace each other so that the Gospel in a manner bespeaks the Law in the words of that Parasitical Servant in the Comedie to his Master Quod ais aio quod negas nego what you command I commend what you condemn I disallow and there is no surer or better way of expounding the Law than by the Gospel and of the Gospel than by the Law according to that known saying of Irenaeus l. 4. c. 63. Secundùm Scripturas expositio legitima est sine periculo It is the safest course and method for the ending of Disputes to expound Scripture by Scripture one Text by another if there be a seeming difference in the former from the later Now I must put this Question to a dissenting Quaker to any one of the People so called Dost thou imagine or darest thou say that Moses and the Prophets borrowed not their Light of Revelation or Doctrine from Christ the everlasting Sun of Righteousness who likewise being the Eternal Word of God Mal. 4.2 spake to them by his Spirit and dictated to them what we find in their Writings as Rules of our Faith and Manners I presume thou wilt not say it and unless thou wilt assert that they were not true Stars but only slimie Meleors coloured with shews and pretences of Truth and that their Doctrine is false unless thou assert this which is an horrid and hainous crime even blasphemy but to think and I know thou wilt not then thou must set thy Seal to this undeniable Truth that in some cases it is not unlawful or sinful to use an Oath according to that of the Prophet Jeremiah in his Exhortation to revolted Israel Thou shalt swear Ierem. 4. ◠The Lord liveth in Truth in Judgement and in Righteousness i. e. When thou makest or takest an Oath Iudicio caret juramentum incautum veritate juramentum mendax Iustitia juramentum iniquum illicitum Aquin. thou shalt swear by the Eternal Lord of Life who is a discerner of the mind and heart to whom are clearly known the inward motions of it who will likewise severely punish us if we be false in our sayings and unjust in our doings This profession we make when we invocate him in taking of an Oath being called to it by the Magistrate and hereby God's name is sanctified it being an extraordinary part of God's worship but with this proviso That the three forenamed Cautions or Circumstances mentioned before by the Prophet do attend it They that thus Swear by Gods Name shall be commended Psal 63.12 i.e. They that swear in weighty matters when they are urged to it either for the confirmation of the Truth or to maintain their suspected Innocency and oblige themselves by an Oath before a Magistrate to do that which is righteous just honest and good such men sin not neither offend against our Saviour's or S. James his Prohibition Swear not chap. 5.12 by which is condemned and forbid only rash and inconsiderate false and dishonest Swearing approved not of by the Laws of men and condemned by the Word of God by which the contrary is commended Isa 65.16 He that Sweareth in the earth shall Swear by the God of Truth To my former Position and Question proposed to a Scrupulous Quaker or rather Anabaptist I shall add another Quaere which I desire him to consider it is this Whether Christ's Assertion and Testimony of Himself be not true Matth. 5.17 I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it I cannot expect if I should talk with him but that he would say in his proper Language Yea. This being granted as he dares not deny it then I would reply and tell him That if Christ came not to destroy the Law then he forbade not what the Law commands and if he came to fulfil it then he must acknowledge that Christ did that for which he came into the World for his coming was not in vain or fruitless and that He in whom dwelleth the fulness of tine Godhead Gal. 2.9 i.e. who is perfect God and man in one person and in whom there is a fulness of Wisdom and all heavenly Grace fulfilled the Law two manner of ways Aquin. 12.101 Q. 2. Art opere ore by his Works and Words or Divine Doctrine First by his Works or Deeds in that to leave us an Example of a meek heart and sound obedience he submitted himself to the Ceremonial Law being circumcis'd the Eighth day c. So likewise to satisfie the rigour of God's Justice he fully performed the Moral by his Active obedience doing what the Lord required of us to be done thereby to bring us to Heaven and by his Passive suffering for our Sins to redeem us from the pains and torments of Hell Verum legis sensum exptimendo Secondly he fulfilled the Law by his heavenly Doctrine this he did by explaining the full scope the intent or meaning of the Law as in those two Cases of Murder and Adultery Praecepta legis ordinando ut tutiùs observaretur quod lex vetuer at Aquin Matth. 5.21 27. and by prescribing Rules for the better observing of the Laws Affirmative and Negative commands Thus because the Law forbids all kinds of Perjury Thou shalt not Swear by my Name falsly Lev. 6.5 that this Prohibition might be the better kept and observed and men secured from the danger of so great a sin in regard that men accustomed to Swearing account Perjury but a light and frivolous thing Christ therefore in his Sermon upon the Mount gave to his Auditors or Disciples a safe and wholsom admonition Swear not at all i.e. never nisi in causâ necessitatis as the Learned Zanchy upon that Text except in cases of Necessity Vbi gloria Domini vindicanda … t fratris aedifcatio promovenda when and where the glory of God is to be vindicated by a bold defence of the Truth opposed and when our neighbours welfare may thereby be promoted and either our own credit or reputation preserved St. Chrysostome himself who was a rigid enemy to Swearing i.e. to vain and idle Oaths in mutual and private Conference and in whose mistaken and wrested Sayings the Pen-man of the Treatise against Oaths does much * The Author has stuff'd two and twenty Pages in his Treatise with Citations out of that most Eloquent Father which
him and they likewise obliged themselves by a reciprocal Oath to be True and Faithful to him with this close So help me God hereby invocating God to be a Witness and Judge of what they had sworn and desiring no help or mercy from him if they should ever rebell against their King Dares the Treatist or his Fellow-Quakers say that they sinned or broke Christ's command by doing it I presume they dare not nay they cannot without being guilty of a lye and to say that it is a sin to invocate or call upon God is no less than blasphemy From hence I infer that their general Thesis to wit That it is not lawful to Swear in any case is absurd false and ridiculous So it is likewise of a dangerous Consequence as tending to the subversion of Order the destruction of good Manners which they want in States Polities and Common-wealths together with the stopping of legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature as hath been proved and before Justices of the Peace In the foresaid publick Courts of Justice there is a most necessary use of an Assertory Oath to find out the Truth as to particular facts or actions of a Promissory Oath there is not so much need or use in them This is necessary in Publick and Private matters which are called by the Lawyers Extrajudicial the use of it in these is to contain Subjects in their Loyalty and Fidelity to their King for this end were framed the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance the first in the beginning of the Raign of Queen Elizabeth the last in the third of King James It is likewise morally necessary to confirm Leagues and Covenants contracted between Princes Common-wealths To the keeping of the Laws and Statutes and consequently the honour order and peace of Colledges and Societies To the binding of all publick Officers to an honest and faithful discharge of their duties To ratifie private bargains between Buyers and Sellers when it is required by any one of them who suspects the others Truth and Honesty in his dealings but in this latter case I could wish that Oaths might be forborn and rather other means used with less hazzard to Conscience such are Pawns and Witnesses Bonds and Handwritings To the former Wish I shall add another That all profane and blaspheming Rabsheka's would in this one thing imitate the so called Quakers and for which they cannot but be commended who have so great a fear of an Oath as they pretend that out of a timorous jealousie of Swearing amiss they will not Swear at all by them the other may learn to have a just abhorrence of the sin of easie trivial familiar inconsiderate and vain Swearing which brings a curse upon a man Iurandi facilitate in perjurium labimur Aug. and his family and disposeth men to that horrid Sin a sin of the first magnitude that is Perjury or false Swearing of which a Lye most abominable to God is the Ingredient besides the affront irreverence and dishonour done to God by calling upon him to witness an untruth I have a third Option it is my hearty with and desire that the Treatist and his Confederates would enter their names in the School of Wisdom Eccies 7.16 and learn of Solomon this wholesom lesson of moderation Be not righteous overmuch neither make thy self overwise why shouldst thou destroy thy self This Precept is of a great extent and latitude Mercerus but the learned Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in Paris impales and confines it within the compass of these three Words Ne sis justus nimium Be not over-righteous i.e. Be not Severe Leges moderandas docet nec severius exigendas .. ibid. be not Superstitious be not Perverse First Be not Severe so it concerns the Judge exhorting him by a mild interpretation to mitigate the rigour or the Laws and not tourge and press the bare letter of them against Offenders that break them either out of weakness or ignorance Secondly Be not Superstitious so it reaches the Romanists Iusti nimium sunt i. e videri volunt qui in suis operibus Iustificationem collocant Idem and condemns their works of Supererrogation their going on Pilgrimage their tedious and long journeys to visit the shrines of Saints whom they worship also their self-castigations their whipping scourging of themselves conceiving vainly that these acts are meritorious and fancying that they shall be justified and saved by their works Thirdly Be not Perverse this founds an alarm to the Separatists the rigid Antidisciplinarians whom this long Name well befits having continued a long time for many years in their opinions for which they have neither God's Word nor right reason for their Defendants and from whom there is little or no hope that they will be reclaimed so long as they are guided by their obstinate wills which they palliate with the specious abused name of Conscience Their Sons begot by them and their Scholars the poor Quakers first learned of them the Trade of Separatism and are in this of the same Temper with them stiffned in perverseness Of this opinion is S Ambrose l 2. Apol. pro Davide with others of the Fathers Iude 19. Exod 22.11 Solomon who died a Convert and repented of his vanities bespeaks them both though he be dead by his lively precept O vain men Be not overmuch righteous neither in doing that which the Laws of the Church forbid agreeable to the word Do not separate neither in not doing what God allows in his Word Do not refuse to take an Oath when there is a great need of it and when it is required of thee by the Magistrate who is the Kings Deputy Heb. 13.17 as he is God's vicegerent who commands you to obey them that have the rule over you in things lawful and so you obey them in the Lord both in respect of the Commander and the things Commanded To that exquisite gloss of Mercerus I cannot omit to subjoyn another of the great Scripturist Deodatus once Professor of Geneva upon the forecited Text of Ecclesiastes which in my opinion comes home to an obstinate Quaker or any other Dissenter his numerical words are these Be not bent too much upon a thing which in thy opinion is just without yielding any way either in Charity or wise integrity to the opinion of others to the necessity of times and humane frailty Surely this holy man would have told an Anti-jurist if he had discoursed with him that he was overmuch righteous by his refusing to swear at all and maintaining it to be sinful in others to swear in any case when the suspicions jealousies frauds and falsities of men require an Oath or make it necessary in Judicial proceedings The same Commentator who had an extraordinary gift from God as his name imports in expounding the Sacred word says thus in his Comment upon Mat. 5.34 The Text which is mis-interpreted by the Anabaptists Seeing that an Oath is a means
and an help to Truth and to proof appointed by God and oftentimes very necessary we must restrain this command of Christ to wit Swear not at all to voluntary Oaths not required by them who have Authority vain frivolous and vicious Oaths seeing those things which are set down here have relation onely to such Be not righteous overmuch perverse Separatist for why shouldst thou destroy thy self i.e. as Tremelius upon the Text By thy pride and arrogancy run headlong into destruction Col 1.18 Eph. 4.15 by undergoing the penalties of the Laws here and endangering the salvation of thy soul hereafter Separation from the Church his mystical Body is a dividing from Christ the Head In the last place and for a close of all I do earnestly desire the Heads and Abettors of the Quaking party to afford me so much Charity as to believe that I had no other design in undertaking the Refutation of their Treatise put into my hands by a most religious knowing person but onely their Conviction and Conversion For when I had read what is the sixth of eleven things which they desire to be considered viz. Pag. 155 156 157. That their Refusal to Swear in all cases is a matter of Faith and whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin I pitied their mistake as to the former part of their Position and conceived it my duty with others of the Clergy to undeceive them poor mistaken souls by demonstrating that as it is usual with God to send men as the Apostle speaks strong delusions to believe a lye 2 Thes 10.11 because they received not the love of the Truth that they might be saved so They believe that to be true which is apparently false and that it is a sin to do what they though falsly believe ought not to be done i. e. To Swear by the Name of God although it may be for God's glory in the vindication of the Truth or to promote a Neighbours good My next design was which is every mans duty to prevent the Contagion which might spread amongst the poor people from their * 2 Tim. 2.17 Their word will eat as doth a Canker Gangreen-Opinion for whilst they profess Conscience for their disobedience alledg Scripture though misconstrued for their Conscience and colour all with an appearance of outward Sanctity in their lives not usually tainted with debauchery and drunnkeness it may be justly feared that the Populacy if not fortified by pregnant demonstrations of Truth against their spreading errours and Opinions will cry up their Piety they appearing for a great part of them morally Just and civilly Innocent as were some of the refined Heathens and by degrees joyn with them in their Confederacy against the Laws of the Kingdoms and the Churche's Constitutions there being sown in the hearts of the people the seeds of Rebellion Faction and Sedition which are oft-times sad effects of Conventicles or private Meetings called by alearned Greek Father from the sad experience he found of them Denns of Thieves or Robbers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan for that the Meeting-Masters steal the hearts of Subjects from their King and Governors of Wives from their Husbands and of these from their Wives of Children from their Parents of Servants from their Masters for there can be no true love or affection where there is a difference of Opinion and Practice whilst two or three of a Family go to Conventicles and the rest to open Churches to joyn with Gods Saints and Servants in the publick Service of God as it is enjoyned by the fourth Commandment He likewise terms them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Receptacles of evil Spirits such as filled and possessed the hearts of Judas and Simon Magus and may possess the hearts of many of the Leaders and Teachers in them For a Coronis or superpondium of all hath been writ in the defence of the Legality of a Judicial and in some cases of a private Oath I desire the Treatist once more to consider what he hath said Pag. 27. of his Treatise Take away lying and there remains no more ground for Swearing He should have said there will be no ground for Perjury For suppose a man never told a Lye yet if an Oath should be required of him by the Magistrate to vindicate his own or anothers suspected Honesty and Truth he would have a good ground for his Swearing in this Case he being commanded to do it so that the Treatist's Proposal is vain as it is likewise of a thing that is impossible 1 Cor. 11 19. For as there must be Heresies i. e. they cannot be hindred so there will be as long as the world lasts lying or false-speaking with dissimulation amongst men Ergo by the Quakers own concession there will be a necessity of Swearing Thus I may retort and say the Anti-Jurist is as the Giant Goliah was wounded with his own weapon 1 Sam. 17.51 refuted by his own Argument But I shall not out of my tender pity and regard to his Soul and to the deluded Souls of his Disciples leave him gasping and bleeding under his wound but as I formerly praised him and them for their pretended awful reverence to Gods holy Name so as it becomes a merciful Soul-Physician as the good Samaritan did to the wounded Traveller Luke 10. I shall pour the oyl of my prayers into his wound beseeching God the Father of mercyes so to open his and the eye of their understandings as he did the eyes of Balaam and the door of their hearts as he did open Lydia's that they may laying aside all prejudice attend to those saving Truths which have been delivered in this Anti-Treatise Num. 21.31 Act. 16.14 and being convinced of their errors submit with a due and humble obedience according to the will of God to the wholsom Laws of the Realm and to the Churches laudable constitutions that so they and we may meet now together in love unity and concord and hereafter in the great Congregation of Heaven above into which none shall be admitted but only those who are the true and lively members of Christ their Head who are animated quickned and guided by his good Spirit the spirit of love and unity which rests not in the breast of a perverse malicious Schismatick and the spirit of Truth where with the soul of a proud obstinate Heretick who maintains and propagates opinions repugnant to the word of God is not enlightned From that Venom of Schism and this Pest of Heresie Lord preserve and defend thy Church And so sanctifie the Hearts and govern the Tongues of all profane Swearers that being aw'd by a trembling fear of those dreadful Judgments which have in all ages fallen upon such miscreants they may with thankful lips and by the holiness of their lives advance thy glory and publish thy praises O let thy mercy be glorified in their Conversion and not thy Justice magnified in their Confusion This I humbly beg in the behalf of them and all Dissenters from the Orthodox Professors of thy Truth and sound Religion for thy mercies sake and alone merits of thy beloved Son our Lord and only Saviour Christ Jesus Amen FINIS
are nothing to his purpose for S. Chrysostome condemn◠not all kinde of Swearing triumph he in his Fifth Homily Ad pop Antioch does clearly admit of or allow an Oath to be taken in a case of Necessity as is evident by these words cited in English p. 72. of the treatise Moreover this I say That in the mean time we may cut off Superfluous Oaths those I mean which are made rashly amongst Friends and Servants without any Necessity c. Hence I inferr having great and weighty Reasons which hereafter I shall produce and that florid golden mouth Father's warrant for my Assertion Necessitas tollit ferias Prov. Heb. That as Necessity as we say commonly has no Law so to take an Oath when a man is necessitated or compelled to take it is not superfluous vain or sinful and no violation of Christ's Precept or of Moses his Law I mean the Third Commandment Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain For if every Negative Precept does include which no man will deny the contrary to it which is the Affirmative we may then inferre and say with Moses who spake from God Thou shalt fear the Lord thy Deut. 6.13 God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name not vainly or to no purpose but to justifie the Truth or to give to thy Neighbour who requires it an assurance of thy integrity or sincerity of thy promise and in other cases which are warranted by an inevitable Necessity Thus if any one should accuse thee of perfidiousness or slander as having with the black tooth of Calumny wounded his reputation or defrauded him of his goods If thou to purge thy self from this foul aspersion shalt deny the fact by a simple and bare protestation of thy innocency and he still suspecting thee to the contrary shall require an Oath of thee to confirm his belief of what thou deniest in such a case to vindicate thy credit and to work out of his mind that injurious suspicion thou mayest use a solemn Attestation by invocating or calling God to witness the Truth of thy Assertion And that in such or the like case to settle in another a perswasion of our Integrity an Oath between private persons is no sin we have the examples of God's Saints in the holy Scriptures to warrant it Gen. 21.23 24. as that of Abraham who being urged to it by Abimelech King of Gerar did Swear unto him that he would not deal falsly with him c. The like promissory Oath passed between Jacob and Laban Gen. 31.53 and from Boaz to Ruth Chap. 3.13 Let me annex to these Examples the testimony of Saint Augustine Aug. l. 10. de Serm Dom c. 30. When Christ sayes he enjoyned us to use in our common discourse by way of Affirmation and Negation Yea Yea Nay Nay He said not that whatsoever is more than this is evil or sin but proceeds from evil i.e. from some bad principle from the evil of infirmity in him who requires an Oath and that is his incredulity suspecting the Truth of the others Narration or Report or his want of Charity entertaining in his breast a bad opinion of his Brother and perhaps undeservedly Tu enim non malè facis qui benè uteris juratione c. For thou doest not ill who usest an Oath well i. e. to a good end that thou mayest beget in another a firm belief of the Truth and of thy sincerity He rather doeth ill whose diffidence or distrust enforces thee to use an Oath his sin shall not be imputed to thee For the farther ratification of my former Position concerning an Oath 's legality in case of an undeniable and inevitable Necessity I shall propound one Quaere more to W. P. the Quakers Oracle or Antesignanus of the Anabaptists it is this Suppose a knot of Thieves should assault thee in thy journey and having by force and violence robbed thee of thy money should urge thee to Swear that thou wilt not betray nor prosecute them by raising the Country to a pursuit of them in the mean time affrighting thee with execrable dreadful Oaths that unless thou secure them by a solemn Oath they will kill thee tell me W.P. wouldst thou in this case rather lose thy life than Swear to which by blasphemous threats they urge thee I verily believe that as thou hast a plentiful Estate thou wouldst not easily part with it and thy life at once by fondly bogling at an innocent Oath This perswasion I have of thee because as thou professest thy self with the rest of thy Gang to be men of Truth and transcendent Sanctity so I conceive that thou hast not wholly forfeited thy Reason but by that sparkling Light which still remains in it thou being cast into these streights wil'st consider First that it thou refusest to Swear thou shalt run upon the rock of a dangerous guilt which is the breach of the Sixth Commandment by which the use of all lawful means for the preservation of our lives is commanded and if we may preserve them and will not by such means we are self-murderers Now Swearing is not absolutely forbid neither by Christ nor his Apostles Secondly Thou surely wouldst consider that by thy refusing to Swear thou shouldst be the occasion or rather the partial cause of the loss of thy Brother's Soul a Thief by the bond of Nature is thy Brother he being made guilty of Murther by shedding thy blood which might be kept in thy veins by thy taking of that harmless Oath the which being once taken must be religiously kept for that he that is robbed is bound to be silent and not to betray a Thief having Sworn not to do it so the late most Pious and Learned Bishop of Norwich determines the Case Cas Consc Resol Dec. 1. c. 8. and annexes this saying to his determination to deterre all men from Perjury or breaking their Oaths When once we have interessed God in any business it is dangerous not to be punctual in the performance With him concurres in the same opinion the profound Doctor Sanderson in his Fifth Lecture and Seventeenth Section Lib. de juram obligat where he disputes the case against Baldwin once Professor of Divinity at Wittenberg and having answered his three Arguments alledged to the contrary concludes That as it is not unlawful for one to Swear to a Thief supposing that if he did not he should certainly be murder'd so there lies a necessity upon him of keeping that Oath not to discover him to the Magistrate Si licuit jurare licebit juramentum observare they are his very words pag. 132. So are not those cited out of his 141. page by the falsifying Penner of the Treatise I must therefore be bold to tell that conceited man of Truth that he is guilty of Forgery I might rather say in plainer and more express terms of a Lye to which the Thirteen Abettors of the Treatise
with Errour and brought forth by the Midwifry of an unruly malepert Tongue and nursed up by the help of a virulent Pen. But what hath that holy Bishop that righteous man whom none can read but with amazement or admiration both for the floridness of his Style and Chrysostome-like Tongue together with his profundity of Reason and great variety of Learning as is evident by his Printed Works especially his Ecclesiae Anglicanae Suspiria what hath he done or said that they should challenge or own him for their Patron I 'le tell you first what he hath said of Them and then what they quote out of Him In his Discourse concerning Publick Oaths Pag. 4. First he says of Them That they have a canting or Chymical Divinity which bubbles forth many specious Notions fine fancies short-liv'd Conceptions floating a little in an airy and empty brain but not enduring the firm touch or breath of any serious Judgement And Pag. 7. I profess there appears to me so nothing of an excellent or Extraordinary Spirit in them that there is much of Silliness and not well-catechis'd Ignorance set off with a great Confidence Again They generally seem a busie petulant and pragmatick sort of people measuring themselves by themselves 2 Cor. 10.12 admiring each other even in their ridiculous Affectations and Falsities a kind of Dreamers Iud. 8. 2 Pet. 3.13 at once deceiving and being deceived doting and glorying in their rude and contemptuous carriage towards all men that do not either favour or flatter them in their rusticity and petulancy which hath in it a great seed of Pride and Ambition And in his Suspir Anglic. pag. 73. He terms them The meanest and short-spirited men who in religious differences and in the matter of Ceremonies do affect to appear most cruelly Zealous and uncharitably pertinacious This is the Character he gives of them But what sayes the Treatist of him Nothing I confess derogatory to his person but he quotes or cites only a remarkable saying of his which makes much against the Anti-Jurists it is this Pag. 154. The evil of mens hearts and manners the jealousies and distrusts the dissimulations and frauds of many Christians their uncharitableness unsatisfactions and insecurities are such and so great Diseases as make the application of Solemn Oaths and Judicial Swearing necessary by way of Consequence and Remedy What replyes the Quaker to this His answer is That there is no need of these applications to him or his Fraternity and why Because forsooth Pag. 155 Christ who is the Restorer of Breaches and builder of Waste-places has redeemed them into Truth-speaking which takes away the Occasion of an Oath and such as are the true humble and faithful followers of this Worthy need no Oath to compel them into Truth to whom it 's natural My good Friend I thought it had been a work of Gods Grace being freed by it from fraud and falseness and consequently from Swearing which took occasion by it to enter into the World To all which he subjoyns this solemn Protestation in the name of his Friends as he calls them i. e. his fellow Quakers Ibid. Now we profess our selves in the fear of Almighty God to be such as have thus learned Jesus Christ and for the Reverence and holy Love we bear to his righteous Command we cannot take an Oath in any case In answer to this Profession I must First tell the Professour that there is no such command of Christ he never forbade us to Swear in any case this hath been sufficiently illustrated and proved Secondly he must give me leave to be his Instructor and Teacher and make him understand that his former Profession is a Formal Oath as having the Form or Essence of an Oath in it which consists in a Confession of God and his Almighty Power as this implies an Invocation of God to be a Witness and Judge of what we speak or affirm and I am assured that it is an Untruth what is affirmed by him viz. That Christ taught us Not to Swear in any case So then the tantamount or sum of their Profession is this In the presence of God whom we confess and acknowledge to be Almighty and accordingly fear him because he is able and will destroy us if we profess a Lye What is this but a Form of Swearing even as Saint Paul did when he made a Profession of his Sincerity saying Before God I Lye not Gal. 1.20 So the Quaker by an implicite calling upon God to be a Witness of what he sayes viz. That he has learned of Christ not to Swear at all does indeed Swear Thus a Blasphemer being once rebuked for his Swearing Swore that he would Swear no more Tit. 3.2 and that too which is false for he has not been so taught of Christ therefore he calls God to witness an Untruth and what is this but false Swearing which another would cloath with an harder though proper term But as I desire to be gentle shewing all meekness to all men as Saint Paul exhorts so parcè loquor I forbear to name it as fearing that I should by mentioning that at which my heart trembles put the poor mistaken man into a new fit of Quaking He protested that he could not Swear and did it in protesting It seems the man of great Reading and pretended Knowledge was ignorant of the material parts of a Formal Oath so was not another grand Professor of Quakerisme in Ireland one E. C. who is yet living sparing his Name I shall faithfully relate what was lately reported to me of him a professed Vsurer and Factour for some Merchants here in London The story of him is this There was a Bill not long since put into the Chancery there against him in a Money business to which he was commanded to give in his Answer upon Oath the which he refused and after some delayes addressed himself to a worthy person Dr. W. one of the Masters of the foresaid Court proffering him Twenty Pieces in Gold if he would exempt him from Swearing and admit of his Yea and Nay to his Answer and all Interrogatories that should be proposed unto him the Doctor as it became him sent him away with a sharp reprehension for his boldness and wicked attempt to corrupt him Upon this he was more bold in petitioning the Lord Deputy that his Yea c. might be admitted but was likewise with a severe check dismissed unsatisfied at last when he perceived To this Instance some of his party may reply that he was forced Swear against his mind upon necessity but we say that no honest man will against his conscience Swear a falsity that unless he made Oath to his Answer he should be non-suited he dispens'd with his tender Conscience and took it after which there came in such strong evidences against him that he was found guilty of Perjury and cast in the Suit between him and the Plaintiff By