Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

example.' Which, by the way, looks like an excufe for doing it, and as if in other cafes he did not allow it. But pray take the pains to read his annotations upon Chrift's paffion, and you will find, first, that he denies all fwearing; and upon our grounds. • The evangelical fentence,' fays he, of the Lord, is, "Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay." Thus far we, who are in Christ, may confirm our words with affeverations, but come no nearer to an oath.'

To this he himself objects the common opinion, That God fwore; He anfwers it, That God did not, properly and formally, fwear, nor could not; ⚫ for the nature of an oath is to fwear by that which is greater and better than one's felf, Heb. vi. 16. But, if any thing,' fays he, this must be faid, his word is an oath to man for verity, because of his faithfulness and truth.' And he will not have the apoftle to have sworn, nor the most celebrated fathers of and before his time. So that we return it upon you, that if at any time they used thofe expreffions of the apostle, it was in church matters, and because they did not think it an oath. And if you will please to turn to Justin Martyr's Second Apology, pag. 63, you will find he is of the fame mind; We should fpeak, but not fwear, the truth;' and vouches Chrift's authority, Matt. v. for it. Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 7. and Tertullian's contemporary, Cyprian, Hilary, Greg, Nyffen, Cæfarius, Epiphanius, Ambrofe, and Chryfoftom above all the reft, ftiled the golden Doctor or Father, out of whofe discourse, upon this fubject, we obferve thefe five things:

1. That oaths are not lawful under the gospel,'

2.

The reafon of it, that their evangelical verity ⚫ is the Christian, and a better, fecurity."

3. That the rife of an oath is infidelity and dif‹ trust, which are from evil, and that is below a Chriftian ftate; for he that dare not fwear, which once < was permitted, dare not lie, which never was per'mitted; and therefore his yea is yea, and his nay, nay.

[ocr errors]

4. That

[ocr errors]

4.

That fwearing was a condefcenfion to a weak and low ftate of the world, to divert people from fwearing by falfe gods, which was the evil custom of thofe times; as if God fhould fay, "I will fuffer you to fwear, if you will fwear by me, that am the "true God, and not by their falfe gods:" And that ⚫ from hence came his command to fwear by him, not for the fake of fwearing, but to avoid idolatry.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

5. That this principle is the only means of rooting all evil fwearing out of the world.' Take the cure for this moft pernicious and epidemical distemper, in the words of Bafil the Great.

[ocr errors]

nus.

The remedy confifteth in a twofold admonition: firft, not to fwear at all: fecondly, to fupprefs the form of oaths.' I will clofe with what the inftitutions fay, that go under the name of Clemens RomaOur Master hath commanded that we should < not fwear, no, not by the true God; but that our word fhould be more credible than an oath. This Clemens was very ancient, you know, fince the apoftle Paul mentions him, and that to him fome of the ancients afcribe the epiftle to the Hebrews.

We hope, after you have confidered the authorities that fupport this doctrine, you will be fo charitable at leaft to allow that we are neither filly, nor enthufiafts, for afferting it. This comprehending your answers and exceptions to the queries upon this fubject (for against a command fo plainly proved, they must fall of courfe) we are under no obligation to confider them; and yet they fhall not pass our notice, though it were but to let you fee how little they deferve

it.

The first query is, If Chrift's coming did not fuperfede oaths, fince it was to end fin, the occafion of oaths?' The fecond, If man, improving the means given him to answer that end, may not ob tain it? I put them together, because you give the fame answer to both, which is negative; and for the fame reason, viz. Because Chrift did not come to end fin and your reafon for that is, That if

• Chrift

[ocr errors]

< Chrift intended to have ended fin by his coming, it • had been ended, which is not fo, and therefore it was not the end of his coming.' This oppofes as plain a text as is in the bible, 1 John iii. 5, 6. " And ye know he was manifeft to take away our fins. "Whosoever abideth in him finneth not; whofoever " is born of God doth not commit fin." The angel thus declared the end of his coming, Mat. i. 21. Christ commands perfection, ch. v. 48. "Be ye per"fect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The heavenly leaven was given to leaven the whole lump, chap. xiii. 33. The apoftle defired, "That the Chrif"tians of his time might be fanctified throughout in "body, foul and fpirit;" which leaves out no part of man, nor no part of any part unfanctified, 1 Thef v. 23. and exhorteth them to "prefs forward to the "mark," which was a perfect man, even "to the "measure of the fulness of Chrift." Phil. iii. 14, 15. Eph. iv. 13. In which paffages the end of Chrift's coming, and the work and bleffing of the gofpel, was to end fin, both as to the guilt and nature of it; and to fanctify and regenerate the foul, Read Phil. i. 1o. 1 Cor. vi. II. Tit. iii. 5. Heb. ii. 11.

2. Your reafon is both weak and dangerous: for if all comes to pass that Chrift intends, then he intended not the converfion of Jerufalem, notwithstanding he lamented it fo, because it came not to pafs. Again, If Chrift intended to take away the guilt and power of fin, it should accordingly be taken away: but in whole nations of believers, how very few can fay it, or can you fay it of? Nor know you but that there are fome that walk " blamelefly" now, as well as then. Your ignorance is no argument to the contrary: a principle may be true, for all mens practices; and God's end for good to man, though man may fruftrate it to himself.

111. 2.

3. The fcriptures you urge are against you, Jam. Here we will join iffue with you, this chapter being a strong proof of our point; yea, this very verfe: for it fuppofes a perfect man, which you deny;

and

and by the fimilies of a bridle and an helm, it fhews how a man can come to be fo. But, fay you, in the name of the apostle, "In many things we offend all :" yet confider, pray, that the apoftle included himself no more there, than verfe 9, where fpeaking of the tongue, he also faith, "therewith blefs we God, and "therewith curfe we men." You cannot therefore think, I hope, that the apoftle was a curfer; but it was a way of speaking to fetch in the guilty, and the better to reach them, by perfonating them, or involving himself among them.

Hear again the fame apoftle, in this very chapter, verf. 11, 12. "Doth a fountain fend forth at the fame place fweet water and bitter? Can the fig-tree, my "brethren, bear olives?" Yes,' fay the Athenians; No,' fay the Quakers. Pray who keeps closest to the text? Hear him farther, verf. 17. and chap. i. 27. he tells you the nature and end of their religion. In few words, bumanity and purity, bowels and boliness ; they are the pure religion and undefiled in God's fight, in his account; not creeds, but practice; not profeffion, though of true words, but experience and good living. And, without offence, had you been of this religion, you would have been lefs exceptious at us and ours. Your next fcripture is as unhappily chofen as the former, 1 John i. 8. "If we fay we have "no fin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not << in us." Now if you please but to read the verse foregoing and following, perhaps you will fee it is not to your purpose.

[ocr errors]

"If we walk in the light as (God) is in the light, "we have fellowship one with another, and the blood "of Jefus Chrift his Son cleanfeth us from all fin." Now follows your text, "If we fay we have no fin," (that is, no fin to be cleanfed from, no need of Chrift to take away our fins) "we deceive ourfelves, and the "truth is not in us.". Obferve now what follows, we defire you; "If we confefs our fins, he is faithful "and juft to forgive us our fins, and to cleanfe us "from all unrighteousness;" which comprehends both

the

[ocr errors]

the guilt and nature of fin. And that we have not mifinterpreted your text, the next and last verse proves our fenfe genuine; "If we fay that we have not finned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in "us" That is, If we fay we have not finned, and fo • have no need of a propitiation for fins paft, or to be • cleanfed from the fin that is prefent, we make God a liar, that fays we are finners, and therefore fent us ⚫ his Son to redeem us from fin.' But now we will fuppofe your answers good to the two queries; pray what does that leffen the validity of not fwearing at all? Though men are not in all things perfect, may they not tell truth, and be believed, without the force and strain of an oath? Muft all men be liars that are not finlefs? Look about you, Athenians: if this be not the cafe," Swear not at all," is both good doctrine and practicable, for all that you have said to the contrary.

Your answer to the third query, If there be a plainer precept than this of fwear not at all,' is a jeft at us, but it turns in earnest upon yourselves. Show us,' fay you, a more pofitive command than that," He that hath two coats, let him impart to "him that has none;"-which if we followed in winter time,' you fay, we fhould look worfe than we do.' But we tell you it is to be followed, both winter and fummer, by all that will follow Chrift; and however ill they look for it here to fcoffers, Christ will look very well upon them for it another day. But you think you pinch us, by urging the text upon us literally; which, alas! is your mistake: for so that we do not swear, we answer that precept, though by other words than yea and nay; and if we give of our abundance to them that want, we answer this, though not exactly in a literal fenfe: and now, you fee, your jeft upon the looks of the Quakers, makes you look no better than you should do. And thus much for your first paper; what remains being but heads infifted upon in your following Mercuries, where I shall

find

« EdellinenJatka »