Supplement to the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, Text

Supplement to the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy · Text

p. 1The words of King JAMES in his Apology for the Oath of ALLEGIANCE, p. 46, &c. in his anſwer to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter.

AS the Oath of Supremacy was deviſed for putting a difference between Papiſts, and them of our profeſſion: ſo was this Oath [of Allegiance] which Bellarmine would ſeem to impugn, ordained for making a difference between the civilly obedient Papiſts, and the perverſe diſciples of the Powdertreaſon. In King Henry the eighths time was the Oath of Supremacy firſt made: by him were Thomas Moor and Roffenſis put to death, partly for refuſing of it. From his time till now, have all the Princes of this Land, profeſſing this Religion, ſucceſſively in effect maintained the ſame: and in that Oath only is contained the Kings abſolute power to be judge over all perſons, as well Civil as Eccleſiaſtical; excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions: Whereas this laſt made Oath containeth no ſuch matter, only medling with the civil obedience of ſubjects to their Soveraign in meer temporal cauſes. And that the injuſtice as well as the errour of Bellarmine's groſs miſtaking in this point, may yet be more clearly diſcovered; I have alſo thought good to inſert here immediately after the Oath of Supremacy, the contrary concluſions to all the Points and Articles, whereof this other late Oath doth conſiſt: whereby it may appear, what unreaſonable and rebellious points he would drive my ſubjects unto, by refuſing the whole body of that Oath, as it is conceived. For he that ſhall refuſe to take this Oath, muſt of neceſſity hold all or ſome of theſe Propoſitions following.

p. 21. That I King James am not the lawful King of this Kingdom, and of all other my Dominions.

2. That the Pope by his own authority may depoſe me. If not by his own authority, yet by ſome other authority of the Church, or of the See of Rome. If not by ſome other authority of the Church and See of Rome, yet by other means with others help he may depoſe me.

3. That the Pope may diſpoſe of my Kingdoms and Dominions.

4. That the Pope may give authority to ſome forrein Prince to invade my Dominions.

5. That the Pope may diſcharge my ſubjects of their obedience and allegiance to me.

6. That the Pope may give licence to one or more of my ſubjects to bear arms againſt me.

7. That the Pope may give leave to my ſubjects to offer violence to my perſon, or to my Government, or to ſome of my ſubjects.

8. That if the Pope ſhall by ſentence excommunicate or depoſe me, my ſubjects are not to bear faith and allegiance to me.

9. If the Pope ſhall by ſentence excommunicate or depoſe me, my ſubjects are not bound to defend with all their power, my Perſon and Crown.

10. If the Pope ſhall give out any ſentence of excommunication or deprivation againſt me, my ſubjects by reaſon of that ſentence, are not bound to reveal all conſpiracies and treaſons againſt me, which ſhall come to their hearing and knowledge.

11. That it is not heretical and deteſtable to hold, that Princes being excommunicated by the Pope, may be either depoſed or killed by their ſubjects, or any other.

12. That the Pope hath power to abſolve my ſubjects from this Oath, or from ſome part thereof.

13. That this Oath is not adminiſtred to my ſubjects, by a full and lawful authority.

14. That this Oath is to be taken with equivocation, mental evaſion, or ſecret reſervation; and not with the heart and good will ſincerely, in the faith of a Chriſtian man.

Theſe are the true and natural branches of the body of this Oath.

In the book intitled [God and the King] imprinted at London, p. 31615. by King James his ſpecial priviledge and command, p. 27. is thus ſaid. The matter or main ſubject of this Oath, which is the principal thing whereof I conceive you deſire to have a more diſtinct and full underſtanding, may to this purpoſe be reſolved into theſe enſuing aſſertions.

1. Our Soveraign Lord King James, is the lawful King of this Kingdom, and of all other his Majeſties Dominions and Countries.

2. The Pope neither by his own authority, nor by any other authority of the Church, or of the See of Rome, nor by any other means, with any others help can depoſe his Majeſty.

3. The Pope cannot diſpoſe of any of his Majeſties Kingdoms and Dominions.

4. The Pope cannot give authority to any forraign Prince to invade his Dominions.

5. The Pope cannot diſcharge his ſubjects of their allegiance unto his majeſty.

6. The Pope cannot give licence to one or more of his ſubjects to bear arms againſt him.

7. The Pope cannot give leave to any of his ſubjects to offer violence unto his Royal perſon, or to his Government, or to any of his Majeſties ſubjects.

8. Although the Pope ſhall by ſentence excommunicate or depoſe his Majeſty, or abſolve his ſubjects from their obedience, notwithſtanding they are to bear faith and true allegiance unto his Majeſty.

9. If the Pope ſhall by ſentence excommunicate or depoſe his Majeſty; nevertheleſs his ſubjects are bound to defend his Perſon and Crown againſt all attempts and conſpiracies whatſoever.

10. If the Pope ſhall give out any ſentence of excommunication or deprivation againſt his Majeſty; notwithſtanding his ſubjects are bound to reveal all conſpiracies and treaſons againſt his Majeſty, which ſhall come to their hearing and knowledge.

11. It is heretical and deteſtable to hold, That Princes being excommunicate by the Pope, may be depoſed or murthered by their ſubjects, or any other.

12. The Pope hath not power to abſolve his Majeſties ſubjects from their oath of allegiance, or any part thereof.

When Cardinal Bellarmine diſguiſed under the name of Matthaeus Tortus, as his Chaplain took upon him to reply to King p. 4James his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, and would have it believed, that by that Oath was intended the denying the Popes Eccleſiaſtical power, which he claims, and is with Papiſts an Article of their Faith; Lancelot Andrews then Biſhop of Chichester, after of Ely and Wincheſter, then very eminent for his learning and repute at Court, anſwers him in his book intitled Tortura Torti, in words in Latin, which I have Engliſhed thus.

Art thou well in thy wits who babbleſt theſe things? That thou an Italian, ignorant of our language, ſhouldſt underſtand the Oath, that the Author who is skilled in the language, as being his own, native, proper, ſhould not underſtand it? Whence art thou to us a new interpreter of Laws? yea whence art thou an interpreter of our Laws, which thou didſt not make? It belongs verily to them to interpret to whom it belongs to make Laws; yet I ſay not that only, but this alſo. Is there for this reaſon any mortal man that underſtands the intention of the Law, and the Law-maker himſelf, (for the ſame perſon was author of the Law and of the book, nor waſt thou ignorant of this) the Law-maker (I ſay) himſelf, ſhould not underſtand his intention concerning his Law? Thou wilt never bring it to paſs, that he ſhould be ignorant of that which he himſelf would to himſelf, when he made the Law, when he made the Oath. He is beſt privy to his own intention. But his intention was that he might be ſecure of the fidelity and conſtancy of his own ſubjects, yea this was his only intention, no other man knows this, (for the hearts of men he knows not) only he who hath known the Law, knows what he requires in his Law.

King James in his Catalogue of Tortus lies, at the end of his premonition to all Chriſtian Princes, ſaith, The Puritans do not decline the Oath of Supremacy, but do daily take it, neither ever refuſed it. And the ſame Supremacy is defended by Calvin himſelf, Inſtit. lib. 4. cap. 20.

Biſhop Andrews in the book forenamed, p. 110. The Puritans of their own accord take the Oath of Supremacy, and have often profeſſed, and that in books publiſhed by themſelves, that this is a meer calumny, that they abhor the Oath of Supremacy, neither did they ever decline that Oath. But if there were at any time any ſcraple in them, it was about the term, it was not about the thing. The head of the Church ſith it is ſaid of Chriſt, ſeemed to them a higher title, then that it might be given to any mortal p. 5man: ſo for a while they ſtuck at the giving that title, now they ſtick not: Concerning the thing it ſelf, concerning the Kingly authority they have always fully profeſſed.

Quakers do inveigh againſt my book, intitled A ſerious conſideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, becauſe it defends the lawfulneſs of ſome ſwearing, yet Samuel Fiſher in his book, intitled The Ruſticks alarm to the Rabbies, Exercit. 1. chap. 3. p. 48. ſaith, I ſhould (God knows) pleaſe my ſelf much more to ſit down in ſilence. p. 61. I affirm here before God and all men; and the humble petition of ſome called Anabaptiſts, priſoners in Maidſtone, dated January 25. ſaith thus; Yet (God is our witneſs, who is the ſearcher of all hearts) we deny not this Oath, becauſe we would not yield due ſubjection and obedience unto thee and thy authority; for this we ſay, in the preſence of him that ſhall judge the quick and the dead, we do without any deceit, promiſe to live peaceably under thy Government, and in caſe any thing ſhould be by thee commanded in ſpiritual matters, wherein we cannot obey, we ſhall not then take up any carnal or temporal weapon againſt thee or thy authority, but patiently ſuffer ſuch puniſhment as ſhall be inflicted on us for our conſciences. But the uſing of theſe ſpeeches [God knowes, I affirm before God, God is our witneſs, this we ſay in the preſence of him that ſhall judge the quick and dead] as an appeal to Gods conteſtation, is plain ſwearing. So that while theſe men, and more of the ſame mind do ſpeak againſt all ſwearing, they indeed practice ſome ſwearing. And thoſe of Maidſtone, who offer an engagement taken before ſome Juſtice of the Peace in a ſolemn manner, with calling God to witneſs of the truth of what they ſay, do offer to ſwear or take an oath. The lawfulneſs of which, and particularly the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and my writing about the former, I ſhall now endeavour to vindicate from the writings and ſayings againſt them, which have occurred to me.

Richard Hubberthorn having recited my firſt Argument for my firſt Propoſition, thus, That is not wholly evil, about the uſe of which ſome directions are given by God; but God giveth directions about the uſe of ſwearing, Jer. 4. 2. Ergo: Anſwers, By the ſame argument may it as well be proved, that the Chriſtians and believers in Christ may be circumciſed, offer incenſe, burnt offerings and ſacrifices, becauſe for the uſe of it God gave ſome directions, and therefore it is lawful. But as circumciſion, incenſe, burnt offerings and ſacrifices of the law, is ended in Chriſt; ſo is the oath which was p. 6among the Jews, in him ended alſo to the believers, and by him forbidden: for as it was ſaid in old time thou ſhalt ſwear, and ſhalt perform thy oath to the Lord; but Chriſt in the 5. of Mat. making mention of the Jews oath which God gave once direction for, yet ſaith, Swear not at all. Here Chriſt puts an end, not only to frivolous & vain oaths, but to the true oaths, which the Jews was once commanded of God to ſwear, for theſe oaths are they which Chriſts words hath relation to, for he came to end the Jews worſhips and oaths, who is the oath of God. Chriſt the truth and righteouſneſs of God ſaith, Swear not at all, which ends the Jewes which was to ſwear in truth and righteouſneſs.

To which I reply, Had not Samuel Fiſher told me in the place forementioned, that my book is anſwered by Richard Hubberthorn, I ſhould not have thought it worth while to reply to it, there being in it ſo much defect of ſenſe and reaſon, as makes it inconſiderable: But ſith he mentions my book, as ſcarce worth any further anſwer then that of Hubberthorn, it ſeems he eſteems it of ſome moment. And therefore I ſay, that 1. Richard Hubberthorn leaves out of the proof of my minor [as in the third Commandment (which is undoubtedly moral)] which words ſhew that I mean my major propoſition of moral actions. 2. He 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 p. 7to 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 p. 8his 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 foreign, 1 Theſ. 5. 27. doth expreſly include an oath, or ſwearing, which I confeſs foreign I command or injoin doth not, yet foreign I witneſs before God, 2 Tim. 4. 1. doth come near it. 2. That 1 Theſ. 5. 27. foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign to confine, or (as ſome) of foreign 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 p. 9confutes himſelf however. For the words foreign and foreign 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 foreign 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 p. 10expreſſion, 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 foreign 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, foreign, 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 p. 11by 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 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, p. 12behold, 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 p. 13would 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 p. 14to 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, 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, 'Tis 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 p. 15Chief 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 p. 16about 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, 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 p. 17as 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, 'Tis 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 p. 18prophets 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 p. 19the 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 the actions of ſome of the members, yet by outward force a thing cannot be impoſed on the conſcience. For then only is a thing impoſed on the conſcience, when the conſcience is convinced, that he ought to do, or not to do it, which muſt be done by doctrine, or ſome other way inſinuating into the conſcience the neceſſity or lawfulneſs of doing or not doing a thing, which outward force cannot perform. 2. That it is a greater miſtake, That the King in the Oath of Supremacy, is acknowledged to have power to be a Lord over faith, or by outward force to impoſe any thing in the worſhip of God, on mens conſciences. This miſtake might have been rectified, if they had heeded the Oath, Proviſo, Admonition, 37th. Article prefixed before my book, and the explication of the 5th. and 6th. Propoſitions, which I gave conformably to the ſpeeches of learned approved men, by the Princes that have been and are, which I find not yet any perſons in authority have diſallowed; and yet I conceive by their words in the end of their petition, they were not ignorant thereof, ſith they cite the proviſo of the Statute 5. Eliz. and the admonition, which I preſume they found printed in my book. By which they might have underſtood, that Kings are acknowledged Governors in ſpiritual things, as well, and no otherwiſe as in temporal things. Now in temporal things they have not power to impoſe any thing on p. 20mens conſciences by outward force, not is the King a Lord over our faith in temporal things; ſo as that if he ſhould tell us we may marry our brothers wife, or command us to fight a duel for our honour, we may think we are bound in conſcience to do it, or that we may lawfully do it, much leſs that he is Lord over our faith in the things of God, ſo as to impoſe on our conſciences what we ſhall believe concerning God, Chriſt, the Covenant of grace, the doctrine of ſalvation, &c. or to form the worſhip of God by addition or diminution, otherwiſe then is appointed by Gods word, but as Dr. Rainold's Confer. with Hart, chap. 10. cites the words of Auguſtine, which I find in the ſeventh Tome of his works, in the third book againſt Creſconius the Grammarian, chap. 51. more fully then in the fiftieth Epiſtle, For in this kings, as it is commanded them by God, ſerved God as they are Kings, if in their Kingdom they command good things, and forbid evil things, not only which pertain to humane ſociety, but alſo which pertain to the Religion of God. And as they are not to govern in temporal things, but according to juſt Laws of the Commonwealth, ſo neither in the things of God, but according to the holy Laws of God; and although they have more authority in making and executing Laws in Civil things, then in Religious, yet in neither to make or execute Laws contrary to Gods Laws, nor to uſurp that prerogative which belongs to God to diſpenſe with his Laws, or to hinder the doing of a duty impoſed in the firſt or ſecond table of the Law, or to mould or urge doctrines of faith or worſhip, otherwiſe then God in Scripture declares or appoints; nor do we acknowledge by taking that Oath, that we owe them active obedience, if they urge us by Laws and Edicts thereto, in things reſerved to Gods prerogative, or ſuch as are contrary to his Laws in force, only we are to yield paſſive obedience by ſuffering, and not reſiſting the power and authority thus abuſed. Nor is there any thing in the words of Q. Elizabeths Admonition annexed to her injunctions, contrary to this explication. For the Queen doth not ſay, that She challenged by that Oath, ſuch a power as was challenged by her Father, King Henry the eighth, which was, to burn his ſubjects at the ſtake for their diſſenting from him in religious matters: But She ſaith, That nothing was, is, or ſhall be meant or intended by the ſame Oath, to have any other duty, allegiance, or bond required by the ſame Oath, then was acknowledged to be due to the moſt Noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eighth Her Majeſties Father, p. 21or King Edward the ſixth, Her Majeſties Brother. And again: For certainly her Majeſty neither doth, ne ever will challenge any other authority, then that was challenged, and lately uſed by the ſaid Noble Kings of famous memory, King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the ſixth, which is, and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, under God to have the ſoverainty and Rule over all manner of perſons, born within theſe Her Realms, Dominions and Countries, of what eſtate, either Eccleſiaſtical or temporal, ſoever they be, ſo as no other forrein power ſhall, or ought to have any ſuperiority over them. Now if She had challenged power to burn at a ſtake her ſubjects, for their diſſenting from King Henry the eighth in religious matters, then ſhe muſt challenge power to burn all his Proteſtant ſubjects at a ſtake, and therefore ſhe muſt be conceived to challenge only authority over all perſons to govern them according to juſt Laws, excluding forrein power. Whereto agree both the words of the 37th. Article, ſet down in my former book, and the word of King James in this, That in that Oath only is contained the Kings abſolute power to be Judge over all perſons, as well Civil as Eccleſiaſtical, excluding all forrein powers and Potentates, to be Judges within his Dominions. Nor is it true, That by King Henries practice appears, that Q. Elizabeth challenged power to burn diſſenters from King Henry in matters of Religion. For ſhe did not challenge all the power, which King Henry practiſed, for then ſhe ſhould have challenged a power to behead her mother, which he practiſed, and if the Queen her ſelf exerciſed the ſame authority (though it be not to be called authority or power truly, but an uſurpation or abuſe of power) in putting ſome to death for their conſcience in Religion, yet doubtleſs ſhe challenged no other power then what before had been or might be lawfully exerciſed or uſed, as the words are in the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 1. a little before the Oath of Supremacy, nor doth the Oath acknowledge the King Governor, or to have any other power or authority to be aſſiſted, defended or actively obeyed, then as it is lawful, and uſed or exerciſed lawfully, and therefore in anſwer to the three Arguments of the Petitioners, I ſay, 1. That by the acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy in ſpirituals, as a Magiſtrate neither is a man bound to change his Religion as the King doth, nor to forbear Gods worſhip which he forbids, nor to deny Chriſt, or worſhip other Gods becauſe he commands it.

It followes in the Maidſton priſoners Petition. And now, O p. 22King, that no man as he is a Christian, hath power to be a Lord over anothers faith, or by outward force to impoſe any thing in the worſhip of God, is as clear, 1. Becauſe the 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. p. 23Or 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 p. 24not 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, p. 25eſpecially 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 p. 26any 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, p. 27as 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, 3. is much leſs to the purpoſe, it being only a precept to Teachers and Elders of the Church, concerning the exerciſe of their Eccleſiaſtical function, nothing to the reſtraint of Princes from the exerciſe of their office, in things and cauſes ſpiritual. 4. The Apoſtles only perſwading, ſhewing the terrours of the Lord, ſhaking off the duſt of their feet, are ill alledged to exclude Princes from their power of governing all perſons in all cauſes. The Apoſtles and Elders did not bear the ſword as Princes do. It would be of very bad conſequence, if in caſe of reſiſtance they might do no more then the Apoſtles were to do in caſe their doctrine were received or oppoſed.

It is added by the Petitioners, thus. 3. It is very plain, that the Lord Jeſus himſelf in his parable of the tares and wheat, forbids any force to be exerciſed upon falſe worſhippers, as ſuch; for by the tares which he forbids the pulling up, Mat. 13. 29. cannot be intended the tranſgreſſors of the ſecond Table, ſuch as thieves, murderers, &c. becauſe all confeſs with one conſent, that the Magiſtrates authority reaches ſuch, but thoſe that Chriſt Jeſus would have remain amongſt his wheat, in the field of the world, are the children of the wicked one through Idolatry and will-worſhip; this will further appear, if the 28, 29, 30. ver. be compared with the 38, 39. of the p. 28ſame Chapter; and the reaſon the Lord Jeſus gives, why both tares and wheat muſt grow together, (O King, that it were engraven with the point of a diamond, and often laid before thee) is, leaſt in gathering up the tares, the wheat alſo be rooted up with them.

Anſw. Parables are a way of teaching, much uſed of old in the Eaſtern Countries, as appears by Jotham's parable, Judg. 9. Nathans parable, 2 Sam. 12. and they are narrations of things perhaps never done, yet related as if they had been ſo acted as they are told, that by the reſemblance, the thing intended may more eaſily inſinuate it ſelf into the minds of the perſons to be inſtructed by the parable. Now there are in ſuch parables, two parts, the one the deviſed ſtory, the other the intended doctrine to be learnt by it, which is ſometimes opened, as Mat. 13. which we term the application or explication, and ſometimes left to be gathered by the auditors, as Luke 14. 16, &c. Luke 15. 11, &c. and even Mat. 13. 31, 32, 33, 44, 45, 46. In the deviſed ſtory are many things inſerted, as lace in a garment, or carvings in a building, or pictures in a Map, which are only for comelineſs in the ſpeech, more handſome dreſs of the ſpeech, or filling it up, and yet are not doctrinal, nor argumentative, as from the parable, Luke 16. 23, 24, 25. it would be vain to teach men, that thoſe in hell may ſee thoſe in Abrahams boſome, and ſpeak one to another. And therefore it is a rule in Divinity, that ſuch ſymbolical expreſſions are not argumentative any further then their application, explication or ſcope, appears to be. Now the parable, Mat. 13. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. being diſtinctly opened by Chriſt, from ver. 36. to 44. it is unſafe to conclude any more from it, then Chriſt hath done in his explication. I know this paſſage, Mat. 13. 29, 30. hath been much urged for the toleration of men, corrupt in matters of faith and worſhip by the civil Magiſtrate, without civil penalties, ſpecially ſuch as are deſtructive of mens being. But, what ever be ſaid of the concluſion, this Text ſerves not to the purpoſe. For 1. It is no part of the application or explication, ver. 36. to ver. 44. and therefore is to be counted only a filling up of the deviſed ſtory, and therefore not doctrinal or argumentative. 2. There is no proof, That by the children of the wicked one, ver. 38. are meant only Idolaters and wil-worſhippers: Yea theſe reaſons ſeem to prove that others are meant, to wit, wicked men, who are tranſgreſſors of the ſecond Table of the Law, as well as the firſt. 1. That the children p. 29of the wicked one, are ver. 41. termed all ſcandals, or things that do offend, and them that do iniquity, or that which is not agreeable to Gods Law. 2. John 8. 44. 1 John 3. 10, 12. haters of their brethren, and murderers and liars, are termed children of the Devil, or wicked One, as well as Idolaters or will-worſhippers. 3. The children of the wicked One ſeem to be all ſorts of men, who are of Satans ſowing. 4. All thoſe who are not children of the Kingdome, but are to be caſt into a furnace of fire. Ver. 38. 42. are termed tares, and theſe are not only Idolaters, will-worſhippers, heretiques, but all other ſorts of ſinners, ſuch as are mentioned, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. and elſewhere. Nor are the reaſons valid, here produced to the contrary. For 1. It followes not thieves and murderers, and others, whom confeſſedly the authority of the Magiſtrate here reacheth, are not here meant, therefore not other tranſgreſſors of the ſecond Table, but Idolaters, will-worſhippers, heretiques. 2. Nor doth it follow, Chriſt would not have thieves, murderers, and other tranſgreſſors of the ſecond Table, remain among the wheat, but to be plucked up; therefore they are not here meant by the tares, but Idolaters and will-worſhippers, as if Chriſt would have all tranſgreſſors of the ſecond Table plucked up, none of the tranſgreſſors of the firſt, which is all one, as to ſay Chriſt would have all liars, covetous, unrighteous perſons, in any kind deſtroyed, not any Witch, Atheiſtical ſcoffer, Blaſphemer, Idolater, profane perſon. 3. It is not proved, that by the ſervants of the houſholder, are meant the civil Magiſtrate, why not the Angels termed reapers? ver. 39. Theſe Petitioners after make them the Apoſtles: will they have them to tolerate Idolaters in the Church? 4. Were it granted, that here were meant only Idolaters, will-worſhippers, heretiques, how is it proved that this is a precept to civil Magiſtrates. There is no ſuch precept in the application or explication of the parable, and therefore it ſeems to me not to note the duty of the civil Magiſtrate, but the event of Gods providence, that God would permit the cohabitation of the wicked in the world, with the juſt, as is alſo taught in the parable of the net, ver. 47, 48, 49, 50. Not that Magiſtrates or Miniſters ſhould permit them, and not by civil puniſhment or Eccleſiaſtical, remove them out of the Church, or the world. Laſtly it follows not, Magiſtrates may not deſtroy Idolaters, will-worſhippers, therefore they may not inflict any civil puniſhment, from the ſpecies to the genus, negatively, an argument concludes not.

p. 30Theſe Petitioners further tell us, How ſad it is to remember how in all ages ſince Chriſt, very ſtrange miſtakes have been on this account; the Lord of life himſelf was put to death for ſuppoſed blaſphemie and wickedneſs, and accuſed for being an enemy to Caeſar, Mat. 26. 65. John 19. 12. and this done unto him by a people that had the Law of God amongſt them, and were famous in the world for their earthly wiſdom and knowledge. Stephen was ſtoned, and James the Apoſtle killed with the ſword, ſuppoſed to be tares, or the children of the wicked One, when they were the pretious wheat of God, Acts 6. 13, 14. and 12. 2. The Chriſtians that ſuffered in the ten perſecutions, were they not accuſed of being peſtilent fellows, movers of ſedition, turners of the world upſide down, enemies to Caeſar, Acts 24. 5, 12. and 17. 6, 7. when the contrary was moſt true, and they will be found to be the faithful martyrs of Jeſus? So in latter times many of thoſe that have been put to death for hereſie and blaſphemy, are by this age acknowledged to be the Saints of God. O King, that our words might be acceptable to thee, conſider, that neither thy Self nor Counſellors, have the ſpirit of infallibility; if the Apoſtles that had an extraordinary ſpirit of diſcerning, muſt not pluck up the tares, leſt they root up the wheat alſo: how can any Prince on earth undertake a work ſo dangerous? It is poſsible, many of thoſe that are counted falſe worſhippers and hereticks, in this day, may (at the time when God ſhall judge the world in righteouſneſs) be ſervants of the moſt high God. Remember, we pray thee, that thoſe that lived in the days of the Lord Jeſus, accuſed their fathers for being guilty of the blood of the Prophets, ſaying, If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets, Mat. 23. 29, 30. yet themſelves killed the Lord of life. The Romiſh Church alſo ſaith, if we had lived in the days of the heathen Emperors, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Chriſtians, yet puts to death many as righteous as they were: and now many of thy ſubjects in this Nation, are ready to ſay, If we had lived in the days of Queen Mary, we would not have been guilty with our Fathers in the blood of thoſe good men that then ſuffered; yet ſuch a ſpirit of perſecution is now riſen up, as (if not reſtrained) will terminate in the blood of many good men, and ſo bring down the wrath of God upon this generation, and there will be no remedy.

Anſw I could eccho out all this after them, were not this alledged as a ground of their denial of the taking the Oath of the p. 31Kings Supremacy. It is a good wiſh that the King would deeply conſider and remember all this; ſome acts of his give cauſe to think he doth, and to hope he will remember it. I ſaid ſomewhat to the ſame effect in my Serious Conſideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, and ſuch things as have lately hapned, give ſtill cauſe to inculcate this, that his Majeſty, his Counſel, and Miniſters of juſtice, have need of very much circumſpection how they impriſon, and other ways puniſh men for their diſſent from that which is eſtabliſhed in matters of faith and worſhip, ſith this power of puniſhing for ſuppoſed hereſies, errours and ſchiſms, hath been ſo unhappily and unrighteouſly managed, as gives cauſe to fear, that it neither was, nor will, nor can be well uſed without deſtruction of many innocent perſons. God forbid I ſhould juſtifie any abuſe, or neglect according to my power and place, the ſeeking of reformation. Nevertheleſs all this amounts not to a ſufficient ground or reaſon, to deny the Kings Supremacy in ſpirituals, ſith the like abuſes happen in temporal things, and yet theſe Petitioners deny not the promiſe, yea and that indeed in words of ſwearing of obedience in temporal cauſes. We might make a Catalogue of Sauls, Davids, Solomons, and others oppreſſions in temporal things, ſhall we therefore deny their regal power in them? no, but acknowledge the power, and oppoſe the abuſe; yet not by arms, or other unpeaceable ways, but by Petitions to the Rulers, prayers to God, patient ſuffering, which are the weapons whereby Chriſtians conquer. For which reaſon, I except not againſt that which the Petitioners adde.

4. To inflict temporal puniſhmemts upon any of us thy ſubjects, for not conforming to thy decrees, that reſtrain us from the worſhip that we know to be of God; Is it not a breach of that royal law, that commands thee, that whatſoever ye would that men ſhould do to you, do you even ſo to them, for this is the law and the Prophets? Mat. 7. 12. And we would in all humility offer to thy conſideration, if thy ſoul were in our ſouls ſtead, wouldeſt thou be ſatisfied with the ſame meaſure, as is now dealt unto us, when neither the God of heaven, nor our own conſciences condemn us of any evil intended againſt thy perſon or authority? Nor can the greateſt of our enemies make any due proof of any combination or plotting with any upon the face of the earth, for the diſturbance of the publique peace: And this we can with boldneſs ſay, becauſe we know our own innocency. Yet cannot this be a ſufficient ground of denying the Kings Supremacy in ſpirituals; p. 32nor is the proof of that Supremacy enervated by what follows.

But whereas it is objected, that the Kings of Iſrael and Judah, under the old Teſtament, had power in ſpiritual cauſes, and did puniſh blaſphemy and Idolatry, which are crimes of the higheſt nature againſt God, we confeſs they had ſuch power, which was given to them in plain precepts, written in the law of Moſes; but the Goſpel that we live under, is another diſpenſation, in which the Lord Jeſus is the only Law-giver, who doth not (as Moſes) proceed againſt the tranſgreſſors of his precepts, by external force and power, to the deſtroying them in their bodies and eſtates in this life, but in long ſuffering waits on men, not willing they ſhould periſh, but rather that they ſhould repent and be ſaved, 2 Theſ. 1. 9. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Acts 17. 31. and when any continues in diſobedience to the Goſpel, his puniſhment is eternal in the world to come. The Apoſtle Paul testifies of himſelf, that he was a blaſphemer and pereſcuter, 1 Tim. 1. 20. And if the mind of God had been, that he ſhould have ſuffered death in that condition, how ſhould he have had repentance given him, and been ſuch a glorious instrument in the Church as he was? Furthermore it is too well known, that the Jews are the greateſt blaſphemers againſt our Lord Jeſus Christ, as are on the earth; yet it is not the mind of the Lord they ſhould be deſtroyed from the face of the earth, for how then ſhould the Scripture be fulfilled, wherein God hath promiſed to call them, and to make them the moſt glorious Nation of the world? Oh how can they be converted, if they be not permitted where the Goſpel is preached? We ſpeak not this in favour of any blaſphemy, for our ſouls abhor it; but becauſe we would have the lives of men as precious in thy eyes, O King, as they are in the eyes of the righteous and moſt holy God.

Anſw. It is true, that I alledged in my Serious Conſideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, the power of the Kings of Iſrael in ſpirituals, to prove the King to be Governor in ſpiritual cauſes; I did not, nor was it neceſſary I ſhould aſſert the ſame power every way, or the juſtice of proceeding now by the ſame Laws, which were in many things appropriate to the policy of that Nation, nor am I of opinion, that the judicial laws of Moſes, bind us any farther then their common equity, nor do I think it neceſſary we ſhould fetch our Laws from them, they being in many things fitted to the policy of that people, which is different from ours. Nor do I deny, that there is not the ſame reaſon of puniſhing ſome idolatry and blaſphemy of profeſſed Chriſtians, as p. 33was of puniſhing the idolatry and blaſphemy of the Iſraelites, in the worſhipping of the golden Calf, Baal, Aſhtaroth, Molech, there being ſuch ſpecial warnings given them before, ſuch great things done by God for them, as made their engagement greater, and their revolt to other gods, worſe, and more deteſtable then in other people; and if it be true which Dr. John Burges in his rejoinder to the reply to Biſhop Mortons defence of the three Ceremonies, that the Popiſh idolatry is not ſo bad as the Iſraelites, then there may be cauſe why that idolatry which the Papiſts uſe, ſhould not be puniſhed with death, though the worſhip of the golden Calf, Baal, Molech, and ſuch Idols were. And for ſome blaſphemies againſt Chriſt, as the Meſſiah or Son of God, and ſome errours or hereſies, which under the name of blaſphemies have been puniſhed with death, and perhaps by Laws in force are liable to the ſame puniſhments, I dare not ſay that they are equally evil, or to be puniſhed as the blaſphemy of the mungrel was, Lev. 24. 14, 15, 16. Nor do I take upon me to juſtifie thoſe Laws by which death is awarded to heretiques, nor to avow the ſentences that have been paſt againſt perſons, as heretiques, becauſe condemned by Canons of Councils. He that ſhould now enact a law to put men to death for breaking the Sabbath, becauſe God did ſo appoint it, Numb. 15. 35. in the caſe of him that gathered the ſticks on the Sabbath day; or ſhould make a law, that the father and mother of a ſtubborn ſon, ſhould bring him to the Elders of the City to be ſtoned to death, as it is Deut. 21. 18, 19, 20, 21. ſhould, as it is ſaid of Draco the Athenian, write his laws in blood. I deny not but that in the New Teſtament, puniſhments are put off to the laſt judgement, that Chriſt hath told us, Mark 3. 28. that all ſins ſhall be forgiven to the ſons of men, and blaſphemies wherewithſoever they ſhall blaſpheme, excepting that against the holy Ghoſt, that John 8. 7, 8, 9, 10. Chriſt (if that ſtory be genuine) would not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but rather furthered her eſcape from ſtoning, that the Goſpel we live under is another diſpenſation, as the Petitioners ſpeak, meaning, that it is not ſo ſevere and rigid a Covenant, as the Law was, that the Law was given by Moſes, but grace and truth came by Jeſus Christ, John 1. 17. And therefore I count them too ſevere beyond Chriſtian moderation, that inflict death, impriſonment, baniſhment for ſome errours termed hereſies, for non-conformity to ſome forms of worſhip, for ſome conceived blaſphemies: Some eminent Proteſtants p. 34have been cenſured as too cruel, even by men of great underſtanding for their ſeverity in theſe things. According to this determination, a prevention may be made of deſtroying ſuch a blaſphemer as Paul or the Jews, and yet the Kings Supremacy proved from the example of the Kings of Iſrael, even in ſpirituals, which may be exerciſed for publique peace, and common good, if good caution be uſed, without ſuch direful and cruel perſecutions as have been. A fathers power may be proved from the Law, Deut. 21. 18, 19, 20, 21. though that law ſtand not in force, and ſo may the Kings power in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical be proved, from the power of the Kings of Iſrael, though it be denied, that he is to puniſh Idolatry, blaſphemy, hereſie, as they did, or ſome would now have it once more ſay the Petitioners;

5. As it is no wayes lawful from the word of God, for Chriſtian Magiſtrates to deſtroy and root out the contrary minded in religious matters, (although Idolaters) ſo ſuch proceedings may many times prove inconſiſtent with the very being of nations; for ſuppoſe any Nation were wholly heatheniſh idolaters, and the word of God coming in amongſt them, ſhould convert the chief Magiſtrates, and twentieth part of the Nation more; muſt he with that twentieth part deſtroy all the other nineteen, if they will not be converted, but continue in their heatheniſh Idolatry? it cannot poſsibly be ſuppoſed warrantable.

Anſw. All this may be granted. The Spaniards practice in deſtroying the Americans, is condemned by Bartholomew de Caſa, a Spaniſh Biſhop, their practiſes in their bloody Inquiſition are abhorred by all ſober people, that are not made drunk with the wine of the whore of Babylons fornications; few men of good temper and wiſdome, do allow making war to propagate Religion: the zeal of Princes and Biſhops, in perſecuting Chriſtians, adjudged heretiques by them, is cenſured as madneſs by well compoſed men. In the multitude of people is the Kings honour: but in the want of people is the deſtruction of the Prince, Prov. 14. 28. Thou ſhalt not be joyned in burial, becauſe thou hast deſtroyed thy land, and ſlain thy people, Iſa. 14. 20. Doubtleſs a Prince ought to be tender of his ſubjects, as of his children, and yet he may correct them, and though he be not to deſtroy thoſe that remain infidel-idolaters, nor to force them to be Chriſtians, yet he may have a power to govern in things ſpiritual. And this if wiſely and uprightly managed, may be of great advantage to the Church of God, and is not to be p. 35denied becauſe he doth, much leſs becauſe he may, or we are jealous he will abuſe it. Thus much be ſaid in anſwer to thoſe Petitioners.

Afore the firſt ſheet of this Supplement was printed off, I met with a little piece, intituled, A caution to the ſons of Zion, by Samuel Hodgkin, in which he grants aſſertory oaths in judicial proceedings not to be forbidden by Chriſt, Mat. 5. 34. becauſe commanded in the law of Moſes, and overthrows the Quakers plea, that no ſwearing is lawful, yet denies any promiſſory oath lawful, and therefore in that reſpect oppoſeth the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and ſaith he is impriſoned for that reaſon. In that book, he firſt excepts againſt the definition Jeremiah Ives gave of a ſacred oath, that it is a bond by which a man binds his ſoul to the ſpeaking of that which is in it ſelf true, or the doing of that which is in it ſelf lawful, unto which the living and true God is called to witneſs, Numb. 30. 2. To which Samuel Hodgkin faith, To this I anſwer, That every ſacred Oath by which God is called to witneſs to the truth of a thing, or to the performance of a lawful thing, is a bond whereby the ſoul is bound, but every calling God to witneſs in lawful things, is not an Oath. As appears thus, if a bare calling God to witneſs, be ſwearing by God, then calling the heaven and earth to witneſs, is ſwearing by heaven and earth, for then Moſes had ſworn by creatures, Deut. 4. 26. I call heaven and earth to witneſs againſt you this day; And ſo likewiſe God himſelf, in Deut. 30. 19. I call heaven and earth to record against you, chap. 31. 28. But it was ever unlawful to ſwear by creatures, therefore I conclude, that a bare calling to witneſs; is not ſwearing.

I reply, The concluſion is granted, and yet the definition of Jeremiah Ives ſtands good, who did not ſay, that a bare calling to witneſs, is ſwearing, but calling God to witneſs to the ſpeaking of that which is true. And this to be an oath is granted by Samuel Hodgkin himſelf, p. 16. when he ſaith, That calling God to witneſs is not ſwearing; but when we read of the ſervants of the Lord ſwearing in Scripture, we find that it was not only a bare calling God to witneſs, but they ſwear by God, that they did ſpeak the truth, or that they would do ſuch a thing. Now ſwearing by God at leaſt in aſſertory oaths, can be no other then calling God to witneſs of the truth of that we ſpeak, and in promiſſory of the truth of our intention to perform what we ſay we will do. That which Samuel Hodgkin ſaith, Now to ſwear by the Lord, is to ſay that they do p. 36ſpeak the truth, or will do ſuch a thing by the Lord, as much as if they ſhould ſay, that the Lord do help them in what they do, or that they do it by his aſsiſtance: And hence it comes to paſs, that it was unlawful for a man to ſwear by any creature, becauſe no creature can help him to ſpeak the truth, or perform what he promiſed; and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not ſpeak truth, becauſe they did as much as ſay, that God did help them to ſpeak a lie, and ſo they blaſphemed the name of God in the higheſt nature; and doubtleſs, thoſe that made the oath we have in our common Law, did underſtand no leſs, and therefore they charge the witneſs, By the help of God to ſpeak the truth, is a manifeſt miſtake of the meaning of the phraſe [to ſwear by the Lord] which it ſeems he underſtands to ſignifie, not only that he that ſwears calls God to be a witneſs of the truth of what he ſaith in aſſertory oaths, and of the truth of his intentions to perform what he ſaith in promiſſory oaths, but alſo, that he calls God to witneſs, that he ſpeaks truth by his help, or God helping him to ſpeak truth in aſſertory oaths, and that his intention is to perform what he promiſeth, by Gods help or aſſiſtance. So that according to this mans conceits, it is no ſwearing, unleſs the perſon ſwearing do call God to be witneſs, not only of the truth of his words and intentions, but alſo of his acknowledging of Gods help in ſpeaking truth in aſſertory oaths, and his expectation of Gods help to perform what he ſaith he will do in promiſſory; which is a new and wild conceit. New, for none, as far as I know, ever vented it before; but all Writers that I have met with, have made the calling of God to witneſs the truth of our ſpeech in aſſertory oaths, and of our intentions to perform, what we ſay in promiſſory, without this addition of acknowledging, that it is by Gods help we ſpeak truth, or of expectation of help from God to do, what we promiſe, to be ſwearing. And it is a wild conceit. For 1. It is frivolous to call God to witneſs, that he ſpeaks truth by his help, or that he expects his help to do what he promiſeth, it being impertinent to the occaſion and end of ſwearing; the occaſion of ſwearing being ſome uncertainty of the truth of his words and intentions, and the end to take away that, there is no queſtion or controverſie to be decided by whoſe help he ſpeaks truth, nor by whoſe help he expects to perform what he promiſeth. Every man knowes, that what is ſpoken or done, is by Gods help, elſe it could not be; but whether it be certainly p. 37true which he affirms, and his intentions true and real to perform, the conſideration by whoſe help he ſpeaks, or expects to do what he promiſeth, is not at all required or minded by the exactor of the oath, as belonging to the oath, but the acknowledging that he ſpeaks truth by Gods help, is only a duty of thankfulneſs, which is fitteſt to be done by the perſon ſwearing after the oath is taken, and the expectation of help from God to perform what he promiſes, is a duty of truſt in God, or dependance on him to be done after the ſwearing. 2. If this were neceſſary to an oath, then he were forſworn or unſworn, that did not acknowledge, that he ſpake truth by Gods help, or did not depend on Gods help for performance of what he promiſed, and all infidels, hypocrites, Saints that neglect their duty herein, let their words or intentions be never ſo true, and their performance never ſo punctual and exact, ſhould be perjured or unſworn. That which he alledgeth for this conceit, is frivolous. For the unlawfulneſs of ſwearing by any creature, is not, becauſe no creature can help him that ſwears to ſpeak the truth, or perform what he promiſed; he that informs him of the truth, may help the ſwearer to ſpeak truth, though he be a creature, and he that will aid him with money, &c. may help him to perform what he promiſed; but becauſe God only is a witneſs of ſecret truths, and ſincerity of intentions, and can only be his judge and avenger if he ſpeak not truth, and therefore more fully oaths are expreſſed in ſuch forms as theſe, God be my judge, witneſs, helper, &c. Nor is the reaſon, why God takes it ill that men ſwear falſly by his name, becauſe it is as much as to ſay, that God did help them to ſpeak a lie, for then in promiſſory oaths when they ſwearby God, he ſhould take it ill if they do not perform their promiſe, becauſe it is as much as to ſay, that God helps them to neglect their promiſe; which is a ſenſe no ſwearer imagins his words bear, nor any reprover of perjury, did ever give as the reaſon of the iniquity of the breaker of his oath: but becauſe he by falſe ſwearing ſhews he either believes not, or fears not Gods diſcovery, or avenging of his deceit. In the form of ſwearing in our common Law, So help me God, the words are not in the Indicative Mood, as if it were God doth help me, or will help me, but ita me Deus adiuvet in the Imperative or Potential, let God help me, may God help me, I pray or wiſh God may help me, or not according as I ſpeak, truly or otherwiſe, nor is the charge given p. 38by the giver of the oath to the witneſs, by the help of God to ſpeak truth, but he requires him to ſpeak truth, as he expects help from God in other things, as his ſalvation, &c. When the ſwearer ſpeaketh the words, it is his pawning his help he expects from God, as a voucher that he ſpeaks truth; not an acknowledging he ſpeaks truth by Gods helping him only in that act of ſpeaking.

As for what he alledgeth out of Deut. 4. 26. and 30. 13. and 31. 28. to prove that all calling to witneſs is not ſwearing, it is granted him. I eaſily yield, that men and inanimate things may be taken to witneſs without ſwearing, as Gen. 31. 48. Joſh. 22. 34. But nevertheleſs calling God to witneſs that we ſpeak truth, or intend as we ſpeak is ſwearing: Even as though ſuch rhetorical ſpeeches as are uſed, Iſa. 1. 2. Jer. 22. 29, &c. are not prayers; or invitations to hear, yet the words of Solomon, 1 Kin. 8. 28, 30. are prayer, ſo though it be not ſwearing which is uſed, Deut. 30. 19. yet it is ſwearing which is uſed, 2 Cor, 1. 23.

Another thing which Samuel Hodgkin affirms, is, That all promiſſory oaths are forbidden by Chriſt, Mat. 5. 34. Jam. 5. 12. he grants aſſertory oaths not forbidden, becauſe they were commanded in the old Teſtament, Exod. 22. 11. but denies promiſſory oaths to be lawful, becauſe they are voluntary, and the occaſion of the precept was about voluntary oaths, ver. 33. and therefore they are wholly forbidden, but not aſſertory. Whence he infers, that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, ſo far as they are promiſſory are forbidden.

Concerning this opinion, I deny not, but that there are learned men that conceive, that promiſſory oaths of ſecular matters, eſpecially of ſmall moment, are forbidden, becauſe of the occaſion, ver. 33. of the prohibition, Mat. 5. 34. But if promiſſory oaths be forbidden univerſally, then the promiſſory oaths to the Lord are forbidden, and not only oaths of ſecular matters between man and man. And if all promiſſory oaths be forbidden, the ſwearing according to our common Law, not excepted againſt by S. H. ſhould be unlawful. For thus uſually is the witneſs ſworn, You ſhall make true anſwer to ſuch queſtions as ſhall be demanded of you: You ſhall ſpeak the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. The Jury thus, You ſhall well and truly trie, and true deliverance make; All which are requiring of a promiſe; and ſo exacting a promiſſory oath. But that promiſſory oaths are not univerſally forbidden, I p. 39prove, 1. From 1 Theſ. 5. 27. where the Apoſtle urgeth the Theſſalonians thus, I adjure you by the Lord, that this Epiſtle be read to all the holy brethren. That this paſſage contains urging by oath, hath been proved before in my Serious Conſideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy, and in this Supplement in my Reply to Richard Hubberthorn and Samuel Fiſher. But this oath which he urgeth on them, was promiſſory, it being of a thing to be done by them, to wit, the reading of that Epiſtle to all the holy brethren. Whence I argue, That ſort of oath by which Paul adjured, bound, or urged the Theſſalonians, was lawful, elſe the Apoſtle would not have urged it, or them by it. But Paul adjured, bound by, or urged the Theſſalonians by a promiſſory oath, therefore a promiſſory oath is lawful in the new Teſtament.

That which Samuel Hodgkin ſaith, That the Text ſpeaks not a word of ſwearing, is not true, the word foreign ſignifies I adjure, or urge you by oath, it is the ſame word that is uſed, Mat. 26. 63. which Samuel Hodgkin himſelf, p. 5. denies not to have been a charging Chriſt to ſwear by the living God, ſaving that Mat. 26. 63. it is the compound Verb, but 1 Theſ. 5. 27. the ſimple.

But ſaith Samuel Hodgkin, were it not more reaſonable to think, that if the Theſſalonians did value Pauls charge, they would as ſoon have read this Epiſtle without ſwearing, as to be ſworn to read it? for doubtleſs, if they had not valued his charging them to read it, they would not have valued his charging them to ſwear to read it.

I reply, Whether the Theſſalonians did value Pauls charge or no, cannot be determined by us, but this we know, that adjuring or urging by oath, being a ſtricter bond, then urging to promiſe, or requiring without an oath, it may well be conceived, that the Apoſtle had reaſon to charge them by oath, and not barely to charge them without it.

2. I urge that paſſage, Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation, is to men an end of all ſtrife, of which Samuel Hodgkin, p. 8. grants, that it contains the end of oaths commanded, and ſo cannot in reaſon deny, that thoſe oaths which are there meant, having the end of ſwearing are lawful. But that paſſage ſpeaks of the end of promiſſory oaths, (for ſuch was Gods oath, of which the Apoſtle there ſpeaks, ver. 14. 15, 17.) and therefore they have the end of ſwearing to take away ſtrife or contradiction, or doubt concerning mens intentions and purpoſes one to another, and ſo are for a neceſſary uſe, and conſequently, lawful.

p. 403. The Angels ſwearing, Rev. 10. 6. that there ſhould be time no longer, was of a thing future, and therefore to be reduced to promiſſory oaths, if the diviſion of oaths into aſſertory and promiſſory be full, it cannot be reduced to aſſertory oaths, therefore it muſt be reduced to promiſſory, and therefore promiſſory oaths are not wholly forbidden.

4. That which the Pſalmiſt makes a property of one that was to dwell in Gods holy hill, Pſal. 15. was moral, and ſo not unlawful, as abrogated in the new Teſtament, but when he ſaith, a perſon making a promiſſory oath is not to change, that is, not to neglect to keep it, though it be to his own hurt, he allows a promiſſory oath, as in ſome caſes lawful.

5. Add hereto, that a promiſſory oath if unlawful, is ſo, either becauſe it is ſwearing, and then all ſwearing ſhould be unlawful, contrary to the grant concerning aſſertory oaths, by Samuel Hodgkin, if as promiſſory, then all promiſes ſhould be unlawful, and ſo all civil contracts unlawful, marriage, covenants, &c.

6. If no promiſſory oaths be lawful to a Chriſtian, then a Chriſtian Prince may not confirm a league with another Prince or State, nor any Magiſtrates, Officers of Juſtice, take promiſſory oaths, no Souldiers, no Truſtees, Secretaries, &c. are to make promiſſory oaths of faithfulneſs, which would expoſe all affairs of government and truſt, to ſuch hazard and uncertainty, as would take away, as things and men are, much of that ſecurity men have in their affairs, and haſten the ruine of States.

That which Samuel Hodgkin ſaith, that there is no command for promiſsory oaths, is ſaid without proof. For the precepts, Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. Jer. 4. 2. do include promiſſory oaths, as well as aſſertory. As there is no difference made in the Text, ſo there is as much if not more likelihood, that promiſſory oaths ſhould be chiefly meant, becauſe the oaths of which we have examples in the old Teſtament, are moſt of them promiſſory.

'Tis true, Mat. 5. 33. ſpeaks of promiſſory oaths, but that the prohibition, ver. 34. is limited to promiſſory, as forbidding them only, and not aſſertory, or forbidding promiſſory oaths univerſally, ſo as to allow none of that ſort, is ſaid without proof, and there is this in the text to ſhew, that it is meant not of thoſe promiſſory oaths, which are meant, ver. 33. to wit, ſpecial vows to God; but of other oaths, whether promiſſory or aſſertory, which p. 41are in our ordinary ſpeech, 1. That the forms of oaths, by the heaven, by the earth, by Jeruſalem, by the head, there expreſſed, are not uſed in ſpecial vowes, but in common ſpeech of one man with another, and moſt likely in cuſtomary, light, needleſs, paſſionate ſwearing. 2. The expreſſion [let your communication or ſpeech] notes their conference one with another. 3. And ſo do the terms, yea and nay, which are uſed moſt fitly in colloquies or ſpeeches, wherein one anſwers another.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Tombes, Supplement to the Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy (1661)