A SUPPLEMENT TO THE Serious consideration of the Oath of the KINGS Supremacy Published October 1660. IN First Some consideration OF THE Oath of Allegiance Secondly Vindicating of the consideration of the Oaths of the Kings Supremacy and Allegiance from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher Samuel Hodgkin and some others against them in the points of swearing in some case and the matters of those Oaths By John Tombes B. D. Mat. 22. 21. Render therefore to Caesar the things tbat are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods LONDON Printed by Henry Hills living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock To the Christian Readers I Need not tell you again what may be seen in my Epistle to the Readers before my book of the serious consideration of the oath of the Kings Supremacy how I was induced to compose and publish it conceiving it to be a work of charity to others and a necessary duty to my self as circumstances then concurred I have found not a little fruit of my labor therein by satisfying many that I know and more as I am told whom I know not of the lawfulness of taking such oaths as are therein asserted and thereby preventing the ruine of themselves and families though I find by the opposition of some that it hath proved an offence to others insomuch that I was told that I had thereby given occasion of the alienation of many hundreds from me of whose peace and welfare I was and still am very tender Besides what exceptions have been made in private conference which I have in such conferences endeavoured to remove Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher and some others have in print opposed that writing Richard Hubberthorn intitles his writing Antichristianism reproved as if my book had contained Antichristianism which is a term that affrights many weak Christians and is therefore by those that craftily endeavour to uphold and further divisions put upon those actions doctrines and writings which they would scare less discerning souls from and so separate them from others and fasten them to their party though it be for the most part but a frivolous imputation and a gross calumny Antichristianism according to the Apostle John who only of all the holy Writers useth the term Antichrist being a greater matter then some errors or evil in some points of practice to wit a denial of the father and the son 1 John 2. 22 23. not confessing Jesus Christ come in the flesh 1 John 4. 3 4. 2 John 7. of which sort my defending the lawfulness of some swearing is not And to omit his nonsense in saying the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is justified against swearing meaning my doctrine of swearing where he saith that it is there proved according to the Scriptures that all my six Propositions for the lawfulness of swearing are both against Christ and his Apostles doctrine It must needs be false sith he hath not brought any Scriptures against the three last Propositions As for his Epistle to me that which he insinuates by his expostulations with me of dividing my self from mine own people of teaching people to swear first one way and then another of my being long a hiding my self under so many false covers is the foam and froth of his railing spirit of which he and others of the Quakers seem by their frequent venting reproaches unjust censurings and revilings to have gotten an habit and are more like Antichristianism then any of my doctrines who preach not up that which Christ and his Apostles deny but endeavour to clear their words from mistake Nor was my writing indigested as if God did not brook it though I confessed in respect of the composure of it there was want of such accurate digesting that is framing in respect of words method and matter as the thing required by reason of my shortness of time and yet there was no cause for Samuel Fisher to term it a toy as he doth in the margin of his Epistle to the Reader before his impetuous though impotent book intitled the Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies so terming Dr. Owen Mr. Danson Mr. Richard Baxter and my self I confess I had an intention and began to draw up a writing to that purpose to publish a fuller Treatise about swearing having in Catechetical Lectures somewhat largely handled the general nature of an Oath the several forms and rites of swearing the lawfulness of swearing the sorts of Oaths the rules obligation urging dispensation of Oaths But my late continual molestations imprisonment restraint from my Ministery in the place where I was seated thirty years before and the uncertainty of my dwelling have hindred me from prosecuting thereof and other works which I hoped to accomplish for publique good nor am I yet secured from the like molestation and uncertainties and therefore know not what I shall do or resolve to do therein Wherefore I have being requested thereto published this little Supplement whereby my aim is to benefit others though I find as I have always done the cleering of truth in this to have occasioned many hard censures of me and much injury to me which the Lord forgive Yet I hope I shall truly say with the Apostle 2 Cor. 12. 15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you though the more I love you the less I be loved As for those that find any benefit by my labors in this matter or any other I request them that they would return thanks to God for it and that all would in their prayers to God for me help me who am Their brother and servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES London March 6. 1660. The Oath of Obedience in the Act for discovery and repressing Popish Recusants 30. of Jac. c. 4. commonly called the Oath of ALLEGIANCE IAB doe truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King JAMES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the
lawfulness of oaths in all which the Apostle took God to witness his love to the Saints and labour in the work of his Ministry signifying that all understand how that he spoke the truth and did not lie and kept to his yea and nay according to Christs doctrine and did not swear at all I reply 1. Those Texts were not brought by me as a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men but to prove that some swearing in Gospel-times may be lawful sith the Apostle Paul a man moved by the holy spirit even in his holy writings and speeches did swear which is enough against R. H. and his complices who deny any swearing lawful in any case 2. I say that these speeches God is my witness I speak the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost behold before God I lie not God is my record are forms of swearing it being the definition of an oath which all Writers that I know of agree in that an oath is an appeal to or invocation of God as joint witness with us of the truth of our speeches and therefore in this I write nothing but what God will witness the truth of I speak truth before God without abusing the Apostles words in pleading for the lawfulness of some swearing and in this I dare stand to the arbitrement of sober honest-hearted intelligent men not fearing the censure of R. H. as if I were a Novice who have been a professor of Christianity above forty years and a Preacher of the Gospel above thirty and wish R. H. do not accuse me as lifted up with pride with the like spirit as it is said that Diogenes trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride there being not many branches of pride greater then this to take on him to judge the secrets of anothers heart and to foretel what he will do it being to behave himself as if he were God Sure they that know me and judge of me with a charitable mind they that have had experience of my adventures and losses for asserting truth will not believe R. H. in what he here suggests that I would do or say any thing for hire Who would thank R. H. if he would shew what hire I have taken which the words of Christ and his Apostle allow not Luke 10. 7. 1 Cor. 9. 7 10 11 13 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17 18. Gal. 6. 6. But if he think his tongue is his own that he may accuse and reproach at his pleasure I think it my duty to tell him that his practice is rayling and false accusing and that his tongue is set on fire of hell and that without repentance he shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. He proceeds in the same vein of reviling censuring and false accusing in his speech of my fifth Argument to which he makes no answer but this That to break Christs command is of no necessary use that I might as well have stated my Argument That to break Christs command is of benefit to humane society therefore to break Christs command is lawful c. and might thus have proved it that except we break Christs command we cannot preach for hire nor sue men at law for tithes nor live in pride ease and vanity nor keep our places of profit and benefits which is necessary for our society of Priests Ergo. But we whose eyes God hath opened do see that all his book tends to perswading of people to swear when Christ hath said Swear not at all and that which he would now swear for again would swear against for the same advantage and profits which he hath in his eye yea or he would perswade all men not to swear and bring scripture to prove it upon the same account so that what he doth in this kind is because of advantage for two years since he did not preach this doctrine nor write those arguments To which I reply The Lord rebuke thee there 's none of thy accusations of divinations here after thy rayling fashion brought by thee which thou canst prove by me and those that know me know it to be false which thou suggests concerning my seeking gain and suiting my actions thereto and changing my doctrin There is no doctrin in that book thou here opposest or the other of the insufficiency of light in each man which hath not been my constant doctrine What thou wouldst have imagined as if no swearing were of necessary use to humane society is contrary to all experience of governors of Kingdoms and Commonwealths and the Apostles words alledged by me Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife That which Samuel Fisher saith That what swearing was then allowed of as before a ruler it then was to end a strife among men who are yet in strife is now unlawful among his Saints who are redeemed out of strife and the rest of those fleshly works which it is one of Gal. 5. is a silly shift For 1. The Saints are men 2. Those of the old Testament were Saints and yet were to swear 3. If men not Saints may swear to end strife then it is not prohibited by Christ to them to swear in some cases and sith the precept of not swearing is not limited to Saints if others may swear in some cases notwithstanding that precept Saints may swear also 4. Saints are redeemed from other works of the flesh yet are not so redeemed but that they may have envyings wrath emulations However Quakers imagine themselves perfect yet the Scripture doth not say that the most eminent Saint is so redeemed out of strife but that he may be tempted to and guilty of some unlawfull strife while he is in the body 5. There was strife between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2. 11. the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. Who were termed Saints ver 2. 6. Quakers are guilty of strifes in opposing Preachers and reviling dissenters from them and therefore if it be necessary to end strifes of men that there be oaths it is also necessary to swear to end strifes with them Do not they seek to recover stollen goods due debts and if so oaths are necessary for them 7. Oftimes Saints are found so guilty of contentions among themselves that were not Magistrates impowred to compose them they would be endless and remediless The story of the libels brought to Constantine the great at the Nicene Council of one Bishop and Confessour against another and burnt by him shewes how ill it would fare with the best Saints if Magistracy did not quiet them Our own times have had too much experience of this 8. Saints live among men unholy to whom they owe duties of love and righteousness which cannot be done without testifying the truth in many cases wherein they differ to end their strife and therefore Saints are bound when the laws require oaths
39 40 41 42. and many more places which I then did not recite but shall now refer the Reader to some of them Mat. 5. 29 30. Mat. 6. 17 19. 25. 34. Mat. 7. 1. Mat. 10. 28. Mat. 23. 3 8 9. Luke 6. 30. John 6. 27. which with many more if they were understood without limitation would cross other Texts of holy Scripture and such truths as are undeniable and introduce such evils as are intolerable And that Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. is to be limited I proved it from the Angels and Pauls swearing and adjuring after that precept which shews they understood it with limitation and so are we to understand it and that it is to be limited as I there set down I proved from the words of the Text there and elsewhere Hereto R. H. speaketh thus Indeed it doth plainly appear that thou must of necessity either disprove Christs words or else deny thy own seeing they are contrary the one to the other so therefore thou saist that it was those oaths above mentioned that was forbidden by Christ and the Apostles and I shall shew it plainly that thou hast no necessity to limit Christs words to vain and prophane swearing but only that thou wouldst have thy words true and his false for Christs words in Mat. 5. do not intend such oaths for he speaks of the true oaths which was used among the Jews and such oaths as Christ told them they were to perform for it was not said in old time that they should perform vain light prophane unnecessary customary and passionate oaths but such as they were to perform betwixt the Lord and them and the solemn Vows and Covenants which they made in old time to their Kings and one to another the Christians now by the command of Christ was not to swear these oaths neither any oath true nor false To which I reply 'T is true Christ spake of true oaths to be performed to the Lord as the occasion of his precept did lead him to speak But it is true also that our Lord Christ forbids not such oaths universally nor as they were used in old time among the Jews and to their kings and one unto another but as the Pharisees and other teachers interpreted what was said to them of old time that what was said to them did bind no further then not to break their oaths but to perform them to the Lord otherwise they might swear as oft as they would and in what manner they pleased But this Christ denied and determines they might not swear frequently unnecessarily with such oaths as they used and conceits of the obligation of some and not others as the Text leads us to conceive and the reasons by me given prove the words are to be limited to which R. H. hath given no answer and therefore my answer and whole dispute stands good notwithstanding the opposition of R. H. and S. F. And for the insinuations of R. H. that this is preaching of the lawfulness of swearing or sinning against Christs command and that such teachers are given to change with every government and that they preach as the false prophets did for handfuls of barley and pieces of bread they are but a further continuation of his revilings it being no teaching against but expounding of Christs command nor have we changed our doctrine or principles with change of government but shewed subjection to the powers that be as Paul injoins Rom. 13. 1 2. Nor do we look at wages any otherwise then we are allowe nor conceive we are bound by any law of Christ or his Apostles to refuse or neglect more liberal maintenance be it by tithes or other pay assigned by law then that which is by meer alms or voluntary contribution which in most places is so scant that persons of worth are necessitated to live in a sordid manner or people are necessitated to take persons of little worth and thereby the Ministry is debased the people untaught or ill taught such ignorant and corrupt men as R. H. seems to be by his writing creep in among men and pervert them That which R. H. saith the Jews sware by the living God but the Apostates by the book insinuates as if such were apostates as swear thus and that they swear by the book and not by the living God But neither doth he prove that they who teach the lawfulness of some swearing are apostates from Christianity any more then holy Paul who hath left upon record in holy Scripture his oaths after he was an Apostle nor is this form of swearing So help me God and by the Contents of this book any other then swearing by the living God made known in that book and pawning our interest in his help according to the doctrine and promises in that book expressed by laying the hand on the book as formerly by coming before the altar 1 Kings 8. 31. 2 Chron. 6. 22. as a sign of our abandoning our interest in Gods help made known in that book if we speak not truth I find in an humble petition of some prisoners in Maidston dated January 25. that they cannot acknowledge any authority that God hath given the King in spiritual things or causes and they thus argue If thou hast any power to be a Lord over our faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on our consciences it is given unto thee as thou art a Magistrate or as thou art a Christian but thou hast no such power given unto thee of God as thou art a Magistrate appears 1. Because if Magistrates as such have such an authority then all Magistrates in all Nations have the same power In Turky I must be a Mahometan in Spain a Papist and for ever as the authority changes Religion I must do the same 2. Because the Apostles refused to be obedient to their rulers when they were commanded to forbear that which they judged part of the worship of God Acts 4. 19. Acts 5. 29. 3. All the Scriptures of the new Testament that injoyns obedience unto Magistrutes were written when the Romans had the Empire of the world whose Emperours were for the most part if not all heathenish idolaters for the first 300 years until Constantine 's time it therefore cannot be supposed that any of these Texts of Scripture that calls for obedience to Magistrates intends an obedience in matters of faith or worship for then the Christians that lived under those Emperours must needs have denied Christ and worshipped the Roman gods as some of the Emperours commanded Answ Though in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy there is that said which might have prevented this objection yet being willing to clear the truth more fully I say 1. That it is not rightly supposed That by outward force any thing in the worship of God may be imposed on mens consciences For though by outward force things may be imposed on the outward man and
supposeth that swearing allowed by God in the Old Testament which Christ corrects was not only frivolous and vain oaths but the true oaths which the Jews were commanded and Christ was to end who is Gods oath But he considers not that swearing was common to all Nations as Philistines Gen. 21. 31. 26. 28. Syrians Gen. 31. 53 c. Nor is Christ any where termed in Scripture Gods oath nor an oath made worship peculiar to the Jews nor a shadow or ceremony which might typifie Christ Now my major proposition being as the words shew I understood it thus expressed That action belonging to manners common to all Nations and not proper to the Jews about the use of which God giveth some directions is not wholly evil is firm and unshaken by the instances of R. H. which are not of moral but ceremonial Rites which ended in Christ but not so the moral commandment of which sort swearing is and so may be lawful 2. To my second Argument from Psal 63. 11. his answer is Only that David was in the old covenant of the law but Christ in the new Covenant bids Swear not at all Hereto I reply This answer presupposeth that an oath was appropriated to the Covenant of the law But this is false sith it was in other Nations besides Israelites customary to swear even before the law as the instances in Genesis and elsewhere shew As for his flings at hireling Priests and hypocrites I let them pass as being only reviling in general terms in which is commonly guile slander To the instances which I bring for the lawfulness of some swearing and urging to swear out of the Old Testament he saith all these were under the first Covenant and in that which Christ called the old time Mat. 5. and proves nothing that Christians in the new Covenant should swear To which I reply 1. Abraham Isaac Jacob Joseph were before the law and they took oaths of Nations which were not under the law 2. In moral things the commands and examples of the old Testament are rules to us still Mat. 7. 12. Rom. 13. 8 9. Ephes 6. 1 2. James 2. 8 10. 11. Nor doth he say any thing to the Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. but this that Christ saith Swear not all which doth not at all avoid the objection that the Angel knew Christs words do not forbid all swearing otherwise he would not have sworn at all But to the instances of Pauls adjuring and swearing he writes somewhat more To the allegation of 1 Thes 5. 27. where the word signifies I swear you by the Lord he saith 1. This is the long and thick mist of darkness which hath been long kept over the understandings of people that when the plain Scripture will not prove their ends and intents then they tell the people it is otherwise in the Greek or Hebrew I reply 1. It is no darkning of peoples understandings by latter translations to mend or to adde to former translations sith as in all other Writings and Arts Dies diem docet One day teacheth another latter Commentators and Interpreters without arrogancy refine former Nor doth this darken but inlighten mens understandings nor give any occasion to doubt of the faithfulness of former Translators but only shews the imperfection of their knowledge Nor is there any just cause why for this reason men should waver in their faith the main doctrines of faith and manners being by common consent expressed either in the same words or words of the same meaning and if any should deprave them the variety of Copies and translations would remedy it 2. Saith Hubberthorn Did not the Translator of the Bible understand Greek as well as John Tombes Answ Yes and as John Tombes understood it which he told his Reader that the Greek word was translated I charge you by the Lord or adjure you as it is in the margin 3. Saith he Or are we not to believe the Scripture as it spoaks till again it be translated by him Answ Yes no doubt and this place the rather because it is translated by him no otherwise then by the Translators only the word adjure which is made an English word out of the Latin is explained by I swear you by the Lord I urge or put an oath on you by the Lord or as Samuel Fisher saith it signifies I bind you by oath 4. Saith he It is I oblige or charge you in the presence of God c. I reply it is I charge or oblige you by oath or swearing not only in the presence of God but also by the Lord. 5. Saith he seeing John Tombes saith he swore them he might have declared in what manner they were sworn seeing Paul was at Athens when he wrote to Thessaloniea I reply He might understand how Paul at Athens could swear them at Thessalonica if he understood how Saul charged by oath or adjured or bound by oath the people and Jonathan his son though absent and ignorant 1 Sam. 14. 24 28 42. 6. Saith he John Tombes makes the like charge to be in 1 Tim. 6. 13. which according to the Greek he would make an oath but it is I injoin or command thee before God not putting an oath on them or causing them to swear And 2 Tim. 4. 1. not that he took him sworn or put an oath on him but did charge him I reply I said not they were the same but like charges yet differing 1. In that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. doth expresly include an oath or swearing which I confess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I command or injoin doth not yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I witness before God 2 Tim. 4. 1. doth come near it 2. That 1 Thes 5. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the accusative case cannot be understood any otherwise then thus by the Lord which is a form of swearing more plain then that 2 Tim. 4. 1. though it be like it But Samuel Fisher saith nor doth John Tombes insisting on the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5. 27. adde a jor to his proof for howbeit it is ordinarily us'd to signifie to adjure or bind one by oath yet being as some suppose of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to confine or as some of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a bound or limit it originally signifies to bind limit confine oblige any way by word or promise as well as oath And J. T. confessing Pauls charge in that place and 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. to be alike therein confutes himself however For the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used are no more then to engage before some witness God or man or solemnly to command or charge and not to swear one and cannot be taken so strictly as to adjure though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken in the moderate sense i. e. any way to oblige as well as in that rigid way of
swearing I reply That the rule of expounding or interpreting words is not the derivation of the word which often is very uncertain but the use which is Vis norma loquendi the force and rule of speaking and there being no instance given by him of any place where it is used in any author of obliging in his moderate sense without an oath and he confessing that it is ordinarily used to signifie to adjure or bind by oath and it being I charge or adjure by the Lord it can be taken in no other sence then swearing or binding by oath nor doth my alledging 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. as like charges abate any whit the force of my proof sith I do not call them the same or the one as express for charging by oath as the other In my fourth Argument I alledged 2 Cor. 1. 18 23. and 11. 31. and 12. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 31. to prove the use of swearing by Paul in Gospel-times To the first only Richard Hubberthorn saith thus Now those that minds this Scripture may see that Paul doth only justifie Christs words in keeping to yea and nay saying that with him it was not yea and nay for saith he ver 18. but as God is true our word towards you was not yea and nay And ver 19. for the son of God Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus was not yea and nay for all the promises of God in him are yea and in him Amen So that this Scripture is so far from bringing people to oaths and swearing that he labours to bring them all to yea and nay in all things and so to Christ the substance in whom all the promises of God are yea so that the Apostle might well use these words that as God was true c. so also were they true to their yea and nay the end of all oaths I reply 1. Richard Hubberthorn in all this his pretended answer doth not deny the expressions 2 Cor. 1. 18. As God is true 2 Cor. 1. 23. I call God for a record upon or against my soul 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lie not 2 Cor. 12. 19. we speak before God in Christ to be forms of swearing Surely the expression 2 Cor. 1. 23. I call God for record is so plain an appealing to Gods testimony which is the definition of an oath by attestation or contestation of God as true and upon or against my soul by pawning or wishing a curse to himself if he spake not true and so appealing to God not only as Tostis or Witness but also as Vindex the Avenger or Judge if he spake not true that I find few or no expressions of swearing more full then this and therefore do thence infer irrefragably that Paul did swear and consequently that he did not conceive Christ forbade all swearing and therefore it is but his conceit that the prescribing yea and nay Mat. 5. 37. was to put an end of all oaths 2. Whereas he saith That this Scripture labours to bring them to yea and nay in all things and that Paul doth only justifie Christs words in keeping to yea and nay it is so far from being true that if the expressions of yea and nay were meant of using those words without swearing as R. H. doth vainly imagin the Apostle would be so far from bringing them to yea and nay in all things and justifying Christs words in keeping to yea and nay that he should indeed do the contrary forasmuch as he saith Our word toward you was not yea and nay and the son of God Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us was not yea and nay I know the meaning of the speech Our word towards you was not yea and nay is not about the using of these terms yea and nay but of the constancy of his speech and actions as I express it in my Serious Consideration p. 16. But I only shew me silliness of Richard Hubberthorns talk sith what he alledgeth if understood as he seems to understand it would make against him But Samuel Fisher against my allegation of 1 Cor. 15. 31. saith thus And as for his saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a particle of swearing I say it is not necessarily so but oft of affirming only as quidem profecto truly verily c. And however where Paul uses it 1 Cor. 15. 31. he does not swear as J. T. divines he did for sith he and all confess none are to swear by any but God alone Pauls swearing there had it been an oath had been unlawful it being not by God but by his and the Corinthians rejoycing To which I reply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammarians make a particle of sweaning nor hath S. F. shewed any instance where having an Accusative Case after it as here it is a particle of affirming without swearing and until he do so it is necessarily here a particle of swearing Nor is it against the Confession That none are to swear by any but God only For in this oath he swears by God when he swears by his and the Corinthians rejoycing it being an oath by oppignoration pawning or execration in which God is appealed to as Judge or avenger as well as witness by pawning to him and wishing the forfeiture of his rejoycing or glorying in Christ Jesus if what he saith were not true as when we say On my salvation it is so as God help me c. which I hope to clear more fully if ever I finish and publish my fuller Treatise about swearing forementioned Hitherto Samuel Fisher's opposition hath confirmed my Arguments against himself I return to Richard Hubberthorn To my alledging to prove Paul ' s swearing Rom. 1. 9. 9. 1. Gal. 1. 20. Phil. 1. 8. Richard Hubberthorn thus saith Is this a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men hath not the man here lost the understanding of a man thus to compare and call this the Apostles oath when he takes God to witness that he prayes for the Saints continually is this an oath to testifie the truth of his writing against lies Indeed this we desire that John Tombs and the rest of the Priests in this Nation would write nothing but what God would witness unto the truth of and that they would speak truth and not lie then they would not thus abuse the Apostles words when as the Apostles intend no such thing in their words here asserted And whereas it is again said that the Apostle took an oath Phil. 1. 8. Now let all honest and sober hearted men consider whether the truth of God and the Apostles that speak it forth be not abused that from a Novice that is lifted up in pride and would do or say any thing for his hire should bring those Scriptures to plead for swearing and that
and they are the only witnesses to give in evidence out of charity and justice to swear for ending of strife Richard Hubberthorn addes something against what I argue in proof of the fourth Proposition omitting any shew of answer to my sixth Argument for my first Proposition and passing over the second and third I alledged to prove this Proposition That the King is the only supreme Governor in all his Dominions the example and rule of Christ Mat. 22. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. Luke 2. 51. which he saith I bring to prove an oath of Supremacy to King Caesar which is not true it being brought to prove a supremacy over all persons not an oath of supremacy and so all his answer is impertinent The Argument stands good Christ himself did acknowledge subjection to Caesar and his parents therefore no Prelate is exempt from the Kings government Richard Hubberthorn addes John Tombes saith That Paul a Saint was subject to the judgement of Caesar and appealed to him then he acknowledged him supreme c. Ergo. Ans Paul was a prisoner for the word of God and testimony of Jesus and appealed to Caesar for justice because he was unjustly accused and had not done any thing worthy of bonds or of death therefore according to their law he ought to be set free but Paul did not call Caesar the Supreme Head of the Church and chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things for if Caesar had been the supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would but have needed little appealing unto for setting him at liberty but in such Arguments as Tombes hath used is manifest the ignorance of foolish men wherein their folly appeareth to all men as the Scripture saith 2 Tim. 3. 9. I reply 'T is true I alledged Pauls example Acts 25. 8 10. to prove the King Supreme Governor over all persons in his Dominions and Acts 23. 29. and 24. 5 6 8 10. and 25. 8 11 19 21. and 26. 2 3. to prove him Governor in all Causes or Chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things not to prove Caesar Supreme Head of the Church as R. H. misrepresents me Now he shews not any defect in my proof taken from matter of fact related in the Text but tels us If Caesar had been Supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would have needed little appealing which is to alter the conclusion and to say nothing to that point which was in question nor to answer the proof at all which all that know the rules of arguing know to be ridiculous and indeed very foolish Speeding no better in answering my Arguments R. H. proceeds to his wonted course of invectives against my person which I am necessitated to take notice of because they are impediments to many of receiving the truth I teach and do so fill people with prejudice that their ears are stopped from hearkning to the clearest demonstrations and they are carried away with the vain conceits of Quakers and other blind guides He tels me That my Ministry if received would beget men from their holy and harmless state into transgression of Christs command and from the tenderness of conscience into hardness of heart and saith When I say the Oath of Supremacy was imposed for excluding of the Popes jurisdiction c. if so why dost thou preach it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians who are redeemed from the Popes power and jurisdiction that I am a miserable comforter to tender consciences that my end is seen and therefore cannot deceive many that those holy persons who are tender of an oath ought to be my teachers who am far from righteousness or tenderness of conscience that it is a shame for me to be an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences who profess my self a Minister of Christ that it is manifest my Ministry is to bring people into condemnation in which he falsly accuseth me that I am an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences that I preath it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians because to free them from the snare which the Law of the Land brings them into by reason of their denying to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance I have endeavoured out of compassion to their souls to prove to them that such swearing may be lawful It is not I that impose the Oaths on them but the Law and the Officers that are to execute it nor did I preach it up to be imposed on tender consciences but after it was imposed on them by others and my Petition with others to his Majesty for the release thereof without the desired effect I did upon advise and importunity publish the writing about it to free them from mistakes who scrupled the thing there being then in appearance no other way for the liberty and help of many then imprisoned and more liable to imprisonment for their refusal to swear then by shewing them the lawfulness of that for denying of which they suffered and therefore they might without danger to their souls and much benefit to themselves in their outward estate take an expedite course for their peace Which charity that thinketh no evil that hopeth all things believeth all things 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. if there had been any in R. H. would not have construed to have been done to any evil end but out of love and mercy to men for their good and for the great advantage of them that are of the same judgement with me in point of baptism that it may not be imputed to them as their common tenent that they allow no Oaths no not in judicial proceedings which is interpreted as tending to the overthrow of all civil Government and so the persons counted intolerable which hath caused and is yet likely to cause great persecution to those that hold the truth about baptism In which thing I bless God I have not been so miserable a comforter but that I know my self of many and am told of more hundreds yea thousands who have had their liberty and their families saved from ruine by reason of the clearing of the point to them in that book and if some after their swearing have been disquieted in spirit because of their Oath it is not to be imputed to that book but their own weakness or such affrightments as R. H. and others do put upon them I refuse not to be taught by R. H. or any other but sure I am in this thing R. H. yields me no light to rectifie me but by his false accusations of me as far from righteousness as bringing men into condemnation by my Ministry c. gives me occasion to fear that he is led by an evil spirit so venomous a tongue discovering a malicious poisoned heart My answer to the grand objection from Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. James 5. 12. was that there must of necessity be some limitation of Christs speech as of the next speech ver 38
Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples would never by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine for when the disciples of Christ supposing they might use violence as under the law would have commanded fire to come from heaven as Elias did to consume them that would not receive them Christ turned and rebuked saying ye know not what spirit ye are of for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives but to save them Answ To be Governor in things and causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical is ascribed to the King as King and not as a Christian for a Christian as a Christian hath not the Government of any others besides himself in any causes and he is Governor in Ecclesiastical causes as well as temporal But he is not governor in temporal things as a Christian but as a King although it is true that a Christian is better fitted to govern in both causes in that he is a Christian his Christianity by framing his spirit to wisedom justice clemency c. producing more aptitude to govern though not more authority and therefore were there not in this part of the Petition sundry mistakes by which those Petitioners incommodate and harm themselves and others and there seems to be some reflection on my book of the Serious consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy I should let this pass But for these reasons I shall a little examine what is said 1. The mistake is continued as if by acknowledging the King supreme Governor in spiritual things he had a power given him to be Lord over anothers faith which were indeed to ascribe that to the King which the Pope takes on him to determine what a Christian is to believe which Hart the Jesuite imagined was given to the King by that Oath but was rectified therein by Dr. John Rainold confer with Hart chap. 10. 2. If by imposing by outward force any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing on the conscience the same mistake is continued which I have before discovered But if by outward force imposing any thing in the worship of God be meant of imposing by civil penalties on the outward man something in Gods worship there is need of much caution to determine of their power Civil penalties are greater as death banishment mutilation imprisonment spoiling of estate liberty of trade c. Or less as some small diminution of priviledges office c. The things imposed on men may be either the commands or plain institutions of Christ or some things devised by men as Councils Fathers Prelates c. And these impositions may be either in circumstances of time place order which are undetermined by Christ or in such points of doctrine or worship as are of greater moment and determined by Christ The impositions may be such as are termed by the Apostle hay and stubble or such as overthrow the foundation which is laid which is Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 3. 11 12. such as are impositions tending to Idolatry Superstition Profaneness heresies of perdition blasphemy The imposition may be on Teachers or Learners stronger or weaker Christians to be subscribed to or taught or to be conformed to or professed and this to be done either by bare presence which infers no consent or by some act which shews consent It cannot be denied but that Kings by reason of their errour and rigour have very sadly miscarried in their impositions on Christian brethren in matters of faith and worship there having been many mistakes in the best Councils Fathers Prelates and learned men since the Apostles days who have seldome been so equal as to permit those they have been prejudiced against to debate freely and fully what they hold nor are they heard with that equanimity which were requisite And therefore Princes Parliaments Republiques have made many hard Laws and done innumerable unrighteous executions to shedding of much innocent blood and most heavy oppressions of men either guiltless or not deserving such severe penalties as they have indured I think Kings and Parliaments who see not much with their own eyes but are fain to use the judgements of Learned men and Prelates who are often partial through prejudice or interest or not studied in the points about which they advice do often stand in a very slippery place and that Law-makers and Officers of justice have need of very much circumspection and tenderness ere they make penal Laws in matter of Religion that they should not make heresie by the determinations of any Councils since the Apostles days nor urge subscriptions and conformity under civil penalties but in things plainly set down in holy Scripture that so much liberty to dissents and different usages should be given as may stand with peace Yet that Kings should use no civil penalties on men for any disorders or errours in any matters of saith or worship of God I am not yet convinced by any thing I have read much less by the Arguments of these Petitioners Not by the first For a King may do that which our Lord Christ in his state of humiliation would not do He would not divide an inheritance among brethren Luke 12. 13 14. and yet a king may do it For though Christ was King in right yet he refused at that time to take upon him or to execute the office of a King but took upon him the form of a servant Phil. 2. 7. And therefore a King on his throne is not debarred from doing that which Christ would not do in his debasement And yet even then the Lord Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple and overthrew the tables of the money-changers John 2. 15 16. Mat. 21. 12. I will not now dispute whether Christ did this jure zelotarum by the right that Zelots of the Law among the Jews claimed to themselves or jure Regio by the right of a King under which notion acclamation was made to him when he rode on an Ass into Jerusalem Luke 19. 38. after which he did expel the buyers and sellers out of the Temple ver 45. nor whether this be a good proof for Magistrates to intermeddle in matters of Religion as it hath been argued by Mr. Cobbet of New England It is sufficient for my present purpose that the alledging of Christs example by these Petitioners is so far from making against the Kings power in Ecclesiastical causes that it rather makes for it Nor is it against the Kings power in causes Ecclesiastical that the Lord Jesus himself nor his disciples never would by any outward force compel men to receive them or their doctrine For besides what is already said of Christs example there is a great difference to be made between professed infidels and disorderly Christians between planting of the Gospel at first and resorming Christians who have in shew received it there may be reason to do the latter by civil penalties though not the former though men are not to be
made Christians by civil penalties sith Religion is not to be inforced but perswaded yet being Christians they may be corrected by civil penalties As the Apostle Paul though he said what have I to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. yet did not exclude Ecclesiastical penalties on them that are within no more are they that are within freed from civil penalties in some things Ecclesiastical because they are within though perhaps they that are without are not to be compelled to come in And yet it is not proved that a King may not use some civil penalties especially denying of favours and priviledges to them that embrace not the faith or rather it is certain he ought so to put a difference between Christians and infidels godly Christians and profane loose ones that the former may have that encouragement and benefit which others have not according to Davids example Psal 101. which a King ought to follow As for the speech of Christ Luke 9. 54 55 56. it serves much less for the Petitioners purpose For 1. The reason of the disciples desire of calling fire from heaven was not their not receiving them or their doctrine as Christian but as Jews For the Samaritans did not receive Christ because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem ver 53. which shews that their not receiving him was out of the hatred they bare to him as a Jew and to the worship which was at Jerusalem according to what we read of the Samaritans Joh. 4. 9 20. 8. 48. And therefore this is not to the present purpose of Christs denying power to the Civil Magistrate to inflict civil penalties on the non-receivers of his doctrine 2. The fact of the Samaritans was far different from the fact of the Captains that came to take Elijah 2 Kings 1. chap. For they came to take Elijah to destroy him these only did not receive Christ those doubtless were worshippers of Baal and joyned with the King of Israel to uphold idolatry and to persecute the Prophets and Worshippers of the true God which made them more justly objects of wrath and Divine vengeance then the Samaritans were 3. That which the disciples would have had fall on the Samaritans was fire from heaven to destroy them which was too great a punishment for that neglect But this doth not prove that a lesser and proportionable penalty may not be inflicted on some disorderly Christians by a Civil Magistrate 4. The disciples were but private persons and were carried with a private and selfish spirit even the desire of private revenge and therefore Christ rebukes them as not minding with what spirit they were moved which hinders not but that a publique Magistrate ex zelo justitiae with a publique spirit out of zeal of justice may inflict some proportionable civil penalties on Christians who are his subjects for some offences in spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes But say the Petitioners 2. If any men under heaven have had any such power in the dayes of the Gospel the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times must needs have had it but this they disowned The Apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 1. 24. saith thus Not for that we have dominion over your faith but are helpers of your joy for by faith you stand yea the Lord Jesus when they strove for Domination forbids it saying ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great do exercise authority upon them but it shall not be so amongst you Mat. 20. 25 26. even so saith Peter speaking to the Elders Feed the flock of God which is amongst you taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind neither as being Lords over Gods heritage but being examples to the flock 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. And in truth the Apostles and disciples were not to use any external force to carry on their masters work but only by shewing the terrours of the Lord were to perswade men and in case of resistance to shake the dust from their feet as a witness against their opposers Answ 1. To have dominion over our faith that is to appoint authoritatively what we shall believe what not so as that if we believe not we sin against God and are liable to his wrath is peculiar to Christ the great Prophet of the Church Acts 3. 22 23. To the Apostles themselves Christ said Mat. 23. 10. Neither be ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Neither the Pope nor any Council of Bishops or Elders much less Kings and Parliaments who take not upon them to be teachers in the Church can prescribe to us our Creed or form of Worship of God any otherwise then Christ and his Apostles from him have delivered them to us Nor doth the Oath of Supremacy ascribe to them such power and authority but it hath been disclaimed as is before shewed Nevertheless Princes may require those under their Dominions to worship God in Christ according to the plain direction of the Scriptures of the new Testament and if they set up idols blaspheme the God of heaven c. may inflict civil punishment they may forbid and punish the teaching of some doctrines tending to the reproach of Religion destructive of Christianity of Civil Government provided they be very wary that they do not judge by any other then the plain declarations of the holy Scripture and not by the authority of any Councils or Fathers sith as it is in the 21. Article of the Church of England General Councils have erred and may erre in things pertaining to God and the punishment be so proportioned and qualified as may agree with justice equity prudence clemency and other vertues requisite in them that rule over others Nor 〈◊〉 that which is here alledged of validity to disprove it For 1. It is not rightly supposed that Princes have not in the days of the Gospel a power in matters of Religion which the Apostles and Elders in the Primitive times had not The contrary is proved in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of Supremacy in the confirmation of the 4th and 5th Propositions The Apostles and Elders as messengers of Christ and Pastors of the Church had their peculiar authority which Princes are not to usurp and Princes have their peculiar power and authority to which every soul is to be subject neither have dominion over our faith and however Popes claim it our Princes disclaim it 2. The Text Mat. 20. 25 26. is rightly urged by Protestants against the Popes usurpation as I shew in my Romanism discussed Art 7. Sect. 8. but not rightly urged against Christians being civil Magistrates nor against Princes being governors over all persons in their dominions in spiritual things That which is there forbidden is rule in the Apostles over one another after the manner of the Kings of the Nations 3. The Text 1 Pet. 5. 2