There are some speeches which have the Forms of Oaths and yet are no Oaths at all but rather Remedies to perswade He instances in Joseph and the Apostle Paul of which last he saith The Apostle willing to shew his love to the Corinthians said By the Glorying of you which I have in Christ Iesus our Lord c. 1 Cor. 15. 31. p. 165. Min. In the first place I must desire you to take notice that in St. Basil's opinion there is an Oath and the Form of an Oath Secondly observe that this is none of the instances which I gave of St. Paul's swearing and so doth not oppose the Examples I brought yet here must I tell you that St. Augustin who was as Authentick a Witness and as glorious a Light as ever shone in the Church of Christ since the Apostles days not only says this very phrase is an Oath but proves it too which is more than St. Basil doth by the Greek particle Nn here used which saith he every one knows is the common particle of swearing among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi dixerit Graecus jurat Nay Erasmus whom T. E. quotes against Lawful Oaths p. 130. produceth St. Augustin's opinion as well as I do to prove this an Oath And immediately adds There 's no reason why we should wrangle and deny that the Apostle swore here seeing that elsewhere NOT IN A FEW PLACES HE PLAINLY SWEARS Thirdly T. E. confesses and that truly that St. Basil in the same place affirmeth Ioseph's words By the Life of Pharaoh were no Oath yet in this I suppose the very Quakers are hardly of his mind But more of St. Basil hereaster Par. The other Witness is Gregory Nazianzen in his Dialogue against swearing thus B. But Paul also swore as they say A. Who said so O what a vain jaâ—…gler was he that said it quoth he God is my Witness and God knoweth Those words are not an Oath but a certain Asseveration c. ibid. Min. Observe here the fraudulent dealing of this Quaker for whereas the Title of Nazien's Poem here cited is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iamb 20. p. 224. A Dialogue against Common or frequent swearers the Quaker cunningly changes it into against swearing as if it were against All Oaths in general But what saith this Dialogue Why the Person with whom he discourseth saith B. They say that is the Common swearers of those times that Paul swore A. asks who said so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was a trifler or it was but a trifle that is Their Authority was not very valuable But to the Matter I reply Gregory Nazianzen do's not disapprove of all Oaths in this piece of Poetry but he is arguing against Common Swearing And whereas these Common Swearers alledged the Examples of God and St. Paul both taking Oaths Nazianzen denies that God did ever swear which I doubt T. E. cannot fully agree with him in and then denies that St. Paul did swear Now it being so plain that God did swear as also in my opinion that St. Paul did swear I cannot reconcile Nazianzen to Reason if he mean absolutely and therefore his sense must be that God and St. Paul never swore as these Common Swearers do and that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a trifle to alledge their Examples considering they never swore at all as Customary Swearers do Let any Man read the whole Dialogue and he will be convinced this is the design of it But I shall more fully prove that Nazianzen is not of the Quakers side when we speak to p. 286. where T. E. quotes him again Par. Next he comes to your last instancâ—… of the Angel swearing Rev. 10. 5 6. And seeing he cannot deny the Fact he catches at your expression that we need not fear to imitate any thing that is done in Heaven c. for says he this was not done in Heaven but on Earth p. 166. Min. I did dot say that the Angel was in Heaven when he swore and the Quaker must know that by Heaven 't is an usual Trope to understand the inhabitants of Heaven as in that of the Lords Prayer which I there cited Thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven we mean by men as it is by Angels So that my meaning plainly is We need not fear to imitate any thing done by those of Heaven Now this Angel came from Heaven vers 1. and was a good Angel of Heaven wheresoever He stood therefore makes nothing to our purpose it being sufficient that a good Angel did it And in S t. Ambrose's Opinion This Angel was Christ himself wherefore an Oath cannot be suppos'd unlawful having even in Gospel Times so notable a President of one who did actually swear Par. But T. E. says We must not imitate the Angels in all things for one of them offer'd Incense which is abolished by Christ as the concurrent judgement he says and practice of all Parties confirms p. 167. Min. If all the Christians in the World were divided into three parts two of them do use Incense in their worship at this day I do not mention this to justifie the practice but to shew with what confidence the Quaker prattles as if it were the concurrent judgment of all Parties Besides there is a vast difference between Types and Ceremonies which cease of themselves when the substance is come and such things as are under a positive prohibition Circumcision abstaining from blood and things strangled were Ceremonies yet were they connived at in the early times of Christianity But had they been under a positive prohibition it had been a damnable sin afterwards to have allowed them in any case So the using of Incense in Divine Service is Ceremonious but had it been as expresly forbidden as the Quakers pretend all swearing is the Angel had fallen into sin and consequently from his State by using it So that the Quakers instance here comes infinitely short of the case However I shall add that the Apocalypse or Book of Revelation is mystical one part whereof describeth the things of Christianity allusively to Moses's Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple on this account the offering of Incense is there introduced to signifie that which it is a symbol of but the Angel's Oath is no symbol of any thing therefore not only allowable but useful in Gospel times Par. You said that if there were that truth in men that their bare testimony were of sufficient credit then there were no need at all of an Oath and yet says he would you fetch an instance from Heaven of swearing If there were not truth enough among men do you think there is not truth enough in Angels neither to make their bare testimony of sufficient Credit p. 176. Min. God and the Angel did swear meerly in condescension to the weaknesses and infirmities of men to give us the highest assurance either of God Almighty's Mercy or Justice therefore whensoever they sware it was
no foundation as the seeking of God's pardoning Mercy and acknowledging that we deserve from Him much worse than we receive a recourse to the Merits of Christ and applying them to our selves in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the practice of Confession and Godly Contrition with the exercises of Mortification the duty of Humility and many other which will have no place in Ellwood's unsinning State These are our Reasons and it 's left to you and the World whether they be weighty or no why we deny one kind of Perfection and assert another Par. I must confess with all thankfulness that the account you have given me of Perfection is clear to me in all its senses whereby I do not only apprehend the true State of the Case but do perceive the Quakers are in love with the Name Perfection but never well consider'd what it meant And I hope when they see how fully you hold an Evangelical perfection and the reasons why you deny an absolute â—…nsinning Perfection they will submit to your sense thereof Min. But that T. E's fallacies may not hinder a wished compliance pray do you mention what in your opinion are the most considerable of his reflexions on our last discourse Par. The grand text which the Quakers used to produce in favour of their notion of perfection is that in Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect Which place you told me St. Luke render'd Be ye therefore Merciful as your Father also is Merciful And from the Context you told me that our Lord there aims only from God Almightie's example to press Charity and Mercy to the highest degree c. To this T. E. replies Did he consider what he writ or how he should be able to maintain it He is got so high at the first step that the Quakers had need help him down again The highest degree of Charity and Mercy is applicable only to God Almighty c. p. 56. Min. I hope you take notice that here 's not one word in vindication of his Brethren Is it not a wonder that his Answer was not Here the Priest deals dishonestly with us And that the Quakers never applied that text to such a sense But you see he leaves the Argument and makes it his business to play the Jack Pudding by telling his Reader that I am got so high at first step that the Quakers had need help me down again But by his good leave I shall need no such favour from them being without their help able to vindicate my own expression therefore I would desire T. E. to consider that the word Highest is to be limited by the persons we are speaking of As Eccl. 5. 8. He that is higher than the Highest regardeth c. Highest there signifies the Highest among Men So Christ presseth Charity and Mercy to the Highest degree they can be acted among Men And is this vying perfection with the Creator He only set them the Divine Charity for a Pattern which is the Highest Charity in it self and prest them to come as near it as their Nature was capable of by exercising it in the highest kind namely by forgiving Enemies and in imitation of the Highest Example St. Luke call'd Theophilus Most Excellent will the Quaker say he had set him so high as to make him excel God or at least to be Equal with him Or was he got so high as to stand in need of the Quakers to help him down Par I fear this was rather a wilful than ignorant mistake of your Adversarie's And do very much wonder that having learnt from you the distinction of Equality and Similitude he should tax you with the neglect of it ibid. Min. I shall here enquire how a dear Friend of his understood this distinction I mean George Fox who blasphemously affirmed that he was equal with God as it was attested by the Oaths of credible Witnesses at Lancaster Assizes see the foremention'd Book call'd The Perfect Pharisee p. 3. Where 't is also proved that Iames Naylor with no less blasphemy said that he was as Holy just and good as God himself Thus the Quakers talked of old though now Ellwood has learnt from the Book he opposes this Distinction and says They desire their Charity and Mercy may be real true sincere of the same nature kind quality with God's but expect it not in the same degree c. ibid. But this is far short of their former boastings And therefore they who are so inconsistent with themselves must not complain that their Principles are mis-stated while they have no fixed Principles nor standing Rule of Faith For every Body knows that the Quakers are not now what they were formerly Nor do they know themselves what they will be the next year The Wise man saith A fool changeth as the Moon Ecclus 6. 11. So that I cannot but think of the witty Apologie of Cleobulus How the Moon came and desired her Mother to make her a Coat fit for her to which she replied Alas how can I do it for thou art sometimes full and round sometimes small and horned again only half full c. This is my task in this Dispute while T. E. hath set up a Notion of Perfection so different from the usual opinion of his Brethren Par. Indeed the Proverb is They never chose well that change so often yet if T. E. bring the Quakers nearer to Truth I would not have you discourage him And I fancy he has yielded much of his Cause in the definition he gives of Perfection Which he says is to aim at and press after a State of being in this life deliver'd from sin and by the mighty Power of God preserved from the act commission and guilt of sin this he says is that they mean by Perfection p. 57. Min. Not heeding the Tautologies of this description we will come to the definition it self where I must desire you to take notice that after all his boasting of an unsinning State p. 55. though he blames me for interpreting Perfection in several places of Scripture to mean no more than sincerity p. 70. here he defines it to be only the aiming at and pressing after such a State Now consider I pray that he that is aiming has not hit the Mark as yet he that is pressing after such a State has not yet attain'd to it This is not that absolute Perfection which the Quakers used to pretend to And St. Paul concluded that he was not already Perfect because he had not already attained and was but pressing towards the Mark Phil. 3. 12 13 14. Perfectum est cui nihil deest He that is strictly perfect wants nothing but he that is aiming and pressing after would have something that he wants Finally Ellwood has brought his Perfection to signifie no more than sincere Endeavours to be free from Sin and thus much we yield and press We are perfect Travellers
the other in a Point which in the opinion of Hubberthorn is no less than Antichristianism Par. I see his Quotations thus far have done his Cause more hurt than good But what do you say to the testimony of Epiphanius that we must not Swear no not by the Lord himself nor by any other Oath for it is an evil thing to Swear at all p. 188 Min. The Quaker and those other Thirteen from whom he has this passage did very cunningly in not mentioning the Occasion of that discourse which would have spoil'd the Argument Epiphanius is writing against one Elxai a Judaizing Heretick who commanded his followers to Swear by Creatures viz. Salt Water Earth Bread c. Now Epiphanius saith This Heretick is condemned by the Law and the Gospel both since the Lord saith both in the Law and in the Gospel Thou shalt have no other Gods but Me thou shalt not swear by any other Name and Swear not neither by Heaven nor by Earth nor any other Oath but let your Communication be yea yea nay nay for what is more than this is of the Evil one And I suppose the Lord spoke of this before because there were like to be some who would say we might Swear by other names first that we might not Swear neither by the Lord himself that is in Communication nor secondly by any other Oath on any occasion whatsoever for it is not as T. E. translates it an evil thing to Swear at all but of the evil one to swear These are the words and this the sense of Epiphanius and if you will compare them with T. E's Citation you will see how he alters the words and adds as he sees occasion But when all is done the occasion being to confute an Heretick swearing by Creatures and the words of Epiphanius no more than the words of Scripture which we have proved must be taken with Limitation it follows they are nothing to T. E's purpose Par. Chrysostom is again produced by him who says It is not lawful to Swear neither in a just nor unjust thing c. ibid. Min. The places which T. E. cites are out of those popular Discourses that bear St. Chrysostom's Name but are suspected to be none of his by very learned men yet suppose they were genuine you have had already a sufficient answer given you to all T. E's pretences from hence I shall now further add that St. Chrysostom's discourse being directed to private persons must therefore be limited to private unnecessary Oaths for had his discourse been against the Oaths used in the Imperial Courts The Emperour doubtless would have called him to an account for his Doctrine which he was so far from doing that he advanced him to the See of Constantinople But we may more clearly perceive his meaning by comparing all passages together He tels us how exceeding customary the Sin of Swearing was in his time that the people used to take the Gospel to Swear by to put one another to Swear at the Holy Altar and declares that the like excess of Swearing was not to be found in any other City as in that of Antioch where he then lived * And therefore for the beating down this profane and irreligious practice he speaks so zealously and vehemently against Swearing and expresses himself in such large and general terms that they who do not weigh one passage with another may think that Oaths were universally disallowed by him But to put it out of all dispute that this was not the sense of that Father we find him of an Opinion that it was the Son of God who Swore by himself to Abraham And that he made use of the same Oath in the Gospel when he said Amen Amen and expounding the words of the Apostle he saith By an Oath is determined the dispute of all matters of Contention and that not of this or of that but of All. Par. Did our Saviour swear when he said Amen Amen or Verily Verily If He did whom did he swear by Min. He swore by himself However whether it be really so or no yet it was so in the opinion of St. Chrysostom as I have told you and of several other Fathers which shews that they were far from thinking All Oaths forbidden by Christ while they held He allowed them by his own Example And indeed what can be more plain than that our Saviour swore in Judgment as much as any Persons among the Jews in his time were wont to do For in their Courts the Parties did not speak the words of the Oath but the Magistrate did Adjure them by the Living God to tell truly And then the answer they made to this adjuring was accounted an Answer upon Oath and they were reputed to have sworn and to be obliged by the name of the Living God to speak the Truth Now the High-Priest according to this Custome saith to our Saviour Mat 26. 63. I adjure thee or as in some translations I cause thee to swear by the Living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God Our Lord being thus Adjured or taken sworn Answers ver 64. Thou hast said or as St. Mark more plainly Chap. 14. 62. I am c. Which Confession he made according to the Rules of Court then and accordingly they proceed to sentence him for blasphemy as they impiously accounted this his Testimony concerning himself And if the Quakers themselves were to Swear in Our Courts they shall never be required to Name the Name of God for the Magistrate or his substitute names the Oath and the Parties Sworn stand silent only shewing their Consent by Kissing the Book Yet the Answer they make to such Questions as the Judge then puts to them are Called their Oaths and they said to Swear the things Now sure Christ would have Reproved the High-Priest for Adjuring Him and giving Him an Oath rather than have Answered if it had been Unlawful And I hope T. E. and his Brethren will Venter to do what our Blessed Lord hath done before them nor will they think He broke his own Laws Par. Now T. E. crowds in a company of Quotations together as that of Iustin Martyr Christians ought not to Swear at all Then Chrysostoms and Origens sayings against Oaths but of these two you have given me a satisfactory account before Next that of Lactantius A Good man will not swear falsly lest he mock God nay he will not so much as swear at all lest at one time or other he fall even by Custome into Perjury Last of all That of Hierom The truth of the Gospel doth not admit an Oath p. 190. Min. As for Iustin Martyr His words are falsly cited by T. E. for he is speaking of Christ's Laws and saith Concerning not swearing at all and always speaking truth he thus commands Swear not at all c. This is not what the Quaker alledges That Christians ought not to
swear at all nor doth it sound to T. E's sence but relates to speaking truth in Communication without an Oath Yea in the same Apology he saith The Christians need not die for Christ if they would dissemble for we might says he do that which the Proverb saith I swear with my Tongue but my Heart was not made to Swear So that it seems Christianity would allow them to Swear but not to Equivocate in Swearing As for Lactantius His words do plainly relate to common and Customary Swearing as appears by that Reason he gives viz. lest at one time or other he fall even by Custom into perjury Lastly that of Hieroms must be meant of flight Oaths or Oaths by Creatures for St. Hierom himself swears on Great Occasion God is my Witness to my Conscience And He relates that he being in a Vision was dragged to Christs Tribunal and scourged for too much delight in Tully nor saith he was I dismissed till I promised upon OATH to amend And to shew that he was wholly Contrary to T. E. and his Brethren He plainly saith Consider that our Saviour hath not here forbidden to Swear by God but by Heaven by Earth by Ierusalem and by thy Head Par. From the Ancients T. E. comes down to Bishop Taylor who says Our Blessed Lord would not have his Disciples to swear at all not in publick Iudicature if the Necessity of the world would permit him to be obeyed If Christians will live according to the Religion the word of a Christian were a sufficient Instrument to give Testimony c. p. 191. Min. As for this Citation you see the Doctor himself here confesses the Necessities of the world will not permit the precept to be obeyed in that sense Should I say It were a happy thing if men were never cold hungry or sick for then there would be no need of fire food and physick Will T. E. bring this saying of mine to prove That I am as cases stand against the use of these Yet thus he abuses the good Bishop who Took divers Oaths himself and Required them from others by Virtue of his office And in his Exposition of the Third Commandment The Second duty is To invocate Gods Name directly or by consequence in all solemn Adjurations and publick Oaths By this time I hope I have satisfied you that to Refuse All manner of Swearing is a New Doctrine and contrary to the Primitive Christian Faith Yet to confirm this Truth I shall give T. E. a few more undeniable Evidences in this matter Clemens of Alexandria who was Elder than any of T. E's pretended Authorities and lived Anno Christi 192 saith clearly A Christian ought not to Swear to his affirmations but to profess he speaks Truth and to live So that he may be believed but there where Iudgment requires it He doth Rightly Swear to the Truth Which is more direct to our purpose than all the Quakers put together are to his To him add the old Author of the Apostolick Constitutions which some say was this Clemens It is said Swear not at all but if you shall swear take heed it be a just Oath Tertullian follows who shewing why the Christians would not Swear by the Emperours Genius adds But WE DO SWEAR though not by the Genius of the Emperours yet by their Safety he means by God the Author of their safety which is more excellent than all the Genii in the World The Practice of Origen and Hierom you have had before St. Athanasius saith Christ forbid to swear at all yet that he did not thereby mean to exclude solemn and necessary Oaths we may learn from his Apology to the Emperour Constantius to whom the Arrians had falsly accused him where he often clears himself by Oaths saying God is Witness and Christ is Witness in another place We speak this before God for WE CHRISTIANS have this Oath where he plainly calls that an Oath and an Oath used by Christians St. Ambrose allows an Oath where we can be certain of the truth of what we swear Let T. E. see his Comment on Heb 6. where he tells us that Christ swore in the Gospel when he said Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto you And upon the 16 verse he has these words If we must believe for the future the Oaths of Men of whom the Prophet saith All Men are Lyars How much more ought we to believe the Oath of God who is Truth and can neither be deceived nor deceive T. E. may now abuse this Holy Man and say I do not believe all Men are Lyars whatever He may be and I would gladly hear in what sense he will own himself to be a Lyar. This Man has been over hasty with David and has catcht up the word at a venture let us see whether he who is so much for Confession will as fairly confess his Error p. 124 125. I am sure these impertinent words of T. E's might as justly have been said against this Ancient Father as against Me. But to let this pass The third General Council of Ephesus imposed an Oath upon Nestorius and Victor And so saith T. E. p. 165. did the 4th General Council upon some body whose Name was Basil. And are not all these Fathers and two General Councils Competent Witnesses of the practice of the Primitive Church and their sense of our Saviours words But further it is attested by Dio in the Life of Antonius and appears from Tertullian that the Christians did Take an Oath when they were Listed Souldiers under the Heathen Emperors And their form of swearing was By the Safety of Caesar c. And this was in the best and earliest days of Christianity but afterwards when the Emperours became Christian the Souldiers Oath was enlarged but never taken away For Vegetius records the form which the Christian Souldiers used to take to Christian Emperours They swear by God by Christ and by the Holy Ghost †c. And what Christians ever scrupled this Who ever reproved the Emperors for requiring or the Souldiers for taking this Oath And not only in the Camp but also all proceedings in Iudicature were managed by the use of Oaths as I could prove at large if it were not too tedious or in the least doubted by Men of Learning and Understanding Thus I hope you see with what sophistry T. E. has managed what he produces as Arguments and with how great disingenuity he hath Cited his Authors who are so far from being of his opinion in this Point that they are evidently against him and to use his own Phrase p. 175. have laid him flat Now therefore let us pass to his next Chapter CHAP. VII Of Taking Texts c. Par. COncerning the Question of taking Texts it 's marvellous to Me that it should become a Question seeing there is no appearance of Reason to doubt either its Lawfulness or Expediency Min. As little as