Quaker Heritage Press > Online Texts > Works of
Robert Barclay > Apology for the True
Christian Divinity > Proposition 15: Concerning Salutations and Recreations,
&c.
THE FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION
Concerning Salutations and Recreations, &c.
Seeing the chief end of all religion is to redeem men from the spirit and vain
conversation of this world, and to lead into inward communion with God, before whom if we fear
always, we are accounted happy, therefore all the vain customs and habits thereof, both in word
and deed, are to be rejected and forsaken by those who come to this fear;a such as taking off the hat to a man, the
bowings and cringings of the body, and such other salutations of that kind, with all the foolish and
superstitious formalities attending them, all which man has invented in his degenerate state to feed
his pride in the vain pomp and glory of this world, as also the unprofitable plays, frivolous
recreations, sportings and gamings which are invented to pass away the precious time, and divert
the mind from the witness of God in the heart, and from the living sense of his fear, and from that
evangelical spirit wherewith Christians ought to be leavened, and which leads into sobriety,
gravity, and godly fear, in which as we abide, the blessing of the Lord is felt to attend us in those
actions, which we are necessarily engaged, in order to the taking care for the sustenance of the
outward man.
§I. Having hitherto treated of the principles of religion,
both relating to doctrine and worship, I am now to speak of some practices, which have been the
product of this principle, in those witnesses whom God hath raised up in this day, to testify for his
Truth. It will not a little commend them (I suppose) in the judgment of sober and judicious men,
that, taking them generally (even by the confession of their adversaries), they are found to be free
of those abominations which abound among other professors, such as are swearing, drunkenness,
whoredom, riotousness, &c., and that generally the very coming among this people, doth
naturally work such a change, so that many vicious and profane persons have been known, by
coming to this Truth, to become sober and virtuous; and many light, vain, and wanton ones, to
become grave and serious, as our adversaries dare not deny,b yet, that they may not want something to detract
us for, cease not to accuse us for those things, which, when found among themselves, they highly
commend; thus our gravity they call sullenness; our seriousness, melancholy; our silence,
sottishness. Such as have been vicious and profane among them, but by coming to us have left off
those evils, lest they should commend the truth of our profession, they say, that whereas they
were profane before, they are now become worse, in being hypocritical and spiritually proud. If
any before dissolute and profane among them, by coming to the Truth with us, become frugal and
diligent, then they will charge them with covetousness. And if any eminent among them for
seriousness, piety, and discoveries of God, come unto us, then they will say, they were always
subject to melancholy and to enthusiasm, though before, when among them, it was esteemed
neither melancholy nor enthusiasm in an evil sense, but Christian gravity and Divine revelation.
Our boldness and Christian suffering, they call obstinacy and pertinacity, though half as much, if
among themselves, they would account Christian courage, and nobility. And though thus by their
envy they strive to read all, relating to us, backwards, counting these things vices in us, which in
themselves they would extol as virtues, yet hath the strength of Truth extorted this confession
often from them, that we are generally a pure and clean people as to the outward
conversation.
But this, they say, is but in policy to commend our heresy.
But such policy it is, say I, as Christ and his apostles made use of, and all good Christians
ought to do; yea so far hath Truth prevailed by the purity of its followers, that if one that is called
a Quaker, do but that, which is common among them, as to laugh and be wanton, speak at large,
and keep not his word punctually, or be overtaken with hastiness or anger, they presently say,
"O! this is against your profession!" As if indeed so to do were very consistent with
theirs, wherein, though they speak the Truth, yet they give away their cause. But if they can find
any, under our name, in any of those evils common among themselves (as who can imagine, but
among so many thousands there will be some chaff, since of twelve apostles one was found to be
a devil), O! how will they insult, and make more noise of the escape of one Quaker, than of an
hundred among themselves!
§II. But there are some singular
things, which most of all our adversaries plead for the lawfulness of, and allow themselves in, as
no ways inconsistent with the Christian religion, which we have found to be no ways lawful unto
us, and have been commanded of the Lord to lay them aside, though the doing thereof hath
occasioned no small sufferings and buffetings, and hath procured us much hatred and malice from
the world. And because the nature of these things is such, that they do upon the very sight
distinguish us, & make us known, so that we cannot hide ourselves from any without proving
unfaithful to our testimony: our trials and exercises have herethrough proved the more numerous
and difficult, as will after appear. These I have laboured briefly to comprehend in this
Proposition, but they may more largely be exhibited in these six following propositions:
1) That it is not lawful to give to men such flattering titles as, "Your
Holiness," "Your Majesty," "Your Eminency," "Your
Excellency," "Your Grace," "Your Lordship," "Your
Honor," &c., nor use those flattering words commonly called
"compliments."
2) That it is not lawful for Christians to kneel or prostrate themselves to any man, or to
bow the body, or to uncover the head to them.
3) That it is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel, as are of no use save
for ornament and vanity.
4) That it is not lawful to use games, sports, plays, nor, among other things, comedies
among Christians, under the notion of recreations, which do not agree with Christian silence,
gravity, and sobriety: for laughing, sporting, gaming, mocking, jesting, talking,1 &c., is not Christian liberty, nor
harmless mirth.
5) That it is not lawful for Christians to swear at all under the Gospel, not only not vainly,
and in their common discourse, which was also forbidden under the Mosaical law, but even not in
judgment before the magistrate.
6) That it is not lawful for Christians to resist evil, or to war or fight in any case.
Before I enter upon a particular disquisition of these things, I shall first premise some
general considerations, to prevent all mistakes, and next add some general
considerations, which equally respect all of them. I would not have any judge, that hereby we
intend to destroy the mutual relation, that either is betwixt prince and people, master and servants,
parents and children, nay not at all. We shall evidence that our principle in these things hath no
such tendency, and that these natural relations are rather better established than any ways hurt by
it. Next, let not any judge that from our opinion in these things any necessity of levelling will
follow, or that all men must have things in common. Our principle leaves every man to enjoy that
peaceably, which either his own industry or parents have purchased to him, only he is thereby
instructed to use it aright, both for his own good and that of his brethren, and all to the glory of
God: In which also his acts are to be voluntary and no ways constrained. And further, we say not
hereby that no man may use the creation more or less than another. For we know that, as it hath
pleased God to dispense it diversely, giving to some more, and some less, so they may use it
accordingly. The several conditions under which men are diversely stated, together with their
educations answering thereunto, do sufficiently show this: the servant is not the same way
educated as the master, nor the tenant as the landlord, nor the rich as the poor; nor the prince as
the peasant. Now though it be not lawful for any, however great abundance they may have or
whatever their education may be, to use that which is merely superfluous: yet seeing their
education has accustomed them thereunto, and their capacity enables them so to do without being
profuse or extravagant, they may use things better in their kind than such whose education hath
neither accustomed them to such things nor their capacity will reach to compass them. For it is
beyond question that whatever thing the creation affords is for the use of man, and the moderate
use of them is lawful, yet per accidens they may be unlawful to some and not to others.
As for instance, who by reason of his estate and education hath been used to eat flesh and drink
wine, and to be clothed with the finest wool, if his estate bear it, and he use it neither in
superfluity nor immoderately, he may do it, and perhaps, if he should apply himself to feed or be
clothed as are the peasants, it might prejudice the health of his body and nothing advance his soul.
But if a man whose estate and education had accustomed to both coarser
food and raiment, should stretch himself beyond what he had or were used to, to the manifest
prejudice of his family and children, no doubt it would be unlawful to him, even so to eat or be
clothed as another (in whom it is lawful, for that that other may as much mortified, and have
denied himself as much in coming down to that, which this aspires to, as he in willing to be like
him aspires beyond what he either is able or hath accustomed to do. The safe place then is for
such as have fulness to watch over themselves, that they use it moderately and rescind all
superfluities, being willing so far as they can to help the need of those to whom Providence hath
allotted a smaller allowance. Let the brother of high degree rejoice in that he is abased, and such
as God calls in a low degree to be content with their condition, not envying those brethren who
have greater abundance, knowing they have received abundance as to the inward man, which is
chiefly to be regarded. And therefore beware of such a temptation as to use their calling as an
engine to be richer, knowing they have this advantage beyond the rich and noble that are called,
that the Truth doth not any ways abase them, nay not in the esteem of the world, as it doth the
other, but that they are rather exalted thereby in that as to the inward and spiritual fellowship of
the saints they become the brethren and companions of the greatest and richest, and in this
respect, "let him of low degree rejoice that he is exalted" (James 1:9).
These things premised, I would seriously propose unto all such as mind in reality, to be
Christians indeed, and that in nature and not in name only, whether it were not
desirable, and would not greatly contribute to the commendation of Christianity and to the
increase of the life and virtue of Christ, if all superfluous titles of honor, profuseness and
prodigality in meat and apparel, excess of2
gaming, sporting and playing were laid aside and forborne? And whether such as lay them aside,
in so doing, walk not more like the disciples of Christ and his apostles, and are therein nearer their
example than such as use them? Whether the laying them aside would hinder any from being
good Christians, or if Christians might not be better without them than with them? Certainly the sober and serious among all sorts will say yea. Then surely such
as lay them aside, as reckoning them unsuitable for Christians, are not to be blamed but rather
commended for so doing: because that both in principle & practice they effectually advance
that which others acknowledge were desirable, but can never make effectual so long as they allow
the use of them as lawful. And God hath made it manifest in this age that by discovering the evil
of such things, and leading his witnesses out of them and to testify against them, he hath produced
effectually, in many, that mortification and abstraction from the love and cares of this world, who
daily are conversing in the world (but inwardly redeemed out of it) both in wedlock and in their
lawful employments, which was judged could only be obtained by such as were shut up in
cloisters and monasteries. Thus much in general.
§III. As to the first, we affirm positively; that it is not
lawful for Christians either to give or receive these titles of honor, as "Your
Holiness," "Your Majesty," "Your Excellency," "Your
Eminency," &c.
First, because these titles are no part of that obedience which is due to magistrates or
superiors, neither doth the giving them add to nor diminish from that subjection we owe to them,
which consists in obeying their just and lawful commands, not in titles and designations.
Secondly, we find not, that in the Scripture any such titles are used either under the Law
or the Gospel: but, that in the speaking to kings, princes, or nobles, they used only a simple
compellation, as "O King," and that without any further designation, save perhaps the
name of the person, as, "O King Agrippa," &c. Thirdly, it lays a necessity upon
Christians most frequently to lie; because the persons obtaining these titles, either by
election or hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them, deserving
them, or answering to them: as some, to whom it is said, "Your Excellency," having
nothing of excellency in them: and who is called "Your Grace," appears to be an
enemy to Grace: and he who is called, "Your Honor," is known to be base and
ignoble. I wonder what law of man, or what patent ought to oblige me to make a lie, in calling
good, evil; and evil, good? I wonder what law of man can secure me, in so
doing, from the just judgment of God, that will make me count "for every idle word";
and to lie, is something more! Surely Christians should be ashamed that such laws, manifestly
crossing the Law of God, should be found among them.
Obj. If it be said, We ought in charity to suppose that they have these virtues,
because the King has bestowed those titles upon them, or that they are descended of such as
deserved them:
Answ. I answer, Charity destroys not knowledge: I am not obliged by
charity either to believe or speak a lie. Now it is apparent, and cannot be denied by any, but that
those virtues are not in many of the persons expressed by the titles they bear, neither will they
allow to speak so to such in whom these virtues are, unless they be so dignified by outward
princes. So that such as are truly virtuous must not be styled by their virtues, because not
privileged by the princes of this world, and such as have them not must be so called, because they
have obtained a patent so to be; and all this is done by those who pretend to be his followers, that
commanded his disciples not to "call any man Master,"3 and told them such could not believe "as received honor one from
another, and sought not the honor which cometh from God only." This is so plain to such
as will indeed be Christians that it needs no consequence.
Fourthly, as to those titles of "Holiness," "Eminency" and
"Excellency," used among the Papists to the Pope and cardinals, &c., and
"Grace," "Lordship," and "Worship," used to the clergy
among the Protestants, it is a most blasphemous usurpation. For if they use
"Holiness" and "Grace," because these things ought to be in a pope or in
a bishop, how come they to usurp that peculiarly to themselves? Ought not holiness and grace to
be in every Christian? And so every Christian should say, "Your Holiness," and
"Your Grace" one to another. Next, how can they in reason claim any more titles
than were practised and received by the apostles and primitive Christians, whose successors they
pretend they are, and as whose successors (and no otherwise) themselves, I judge, will confess
any honor they seek is due to them? Now if they neither sought, received, nor admitted such
honor nor titles, how came these by them? If they say they did, let them
prove it if they can; we find no such thing in the Scripture. The Christians speak to the apostles
without any such denominations, neither saying, "If it please Your Grace,"
"Your Holiness," "Your Lordship," nor "Your Worship";
they are neither called "My Lord Peter," nor "My Lord Paul"; nor yet
"Master Peter" nor "Master Paul," nor "Doctor Peter" nor
"Doctor Paul"; but singly "Peter" and "Paul," and that not
only in the Scripture but for some hundreds of years after. So that this appears to be a manifest
fruit of the apostasy: for if these titles arise either from the office or worth of the persons, it will
not be denied but the apostles deserved them better than any now that call for them. But the case
is plain, the apostles had the holiness, the excellency, the grace, and because they were holy,
excellent and gracious, they neither used nor admitted of such titles; but these, having neither
holiness, excellency, nor grace, will needs be so called, to satisfy their ambitious and ostentive4 minds, which is a manifest token of
their hypocrisy.
Fifthly, as to that title of "Majesty," usually ascribed to princes, we do not find
it given to any such in the holy Scripture. But that it is specially and peculiarly ascribed unto
God, as 1 Chron. 29:11; Job 37:22; Ps. 21:5; 29:4; 45:3; 93:1; 96:6; and Isa. 2:10; 24:14; and
26:10; Heb. 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:16, and many more places. Hence saith Jude (v. 25), "To the only
wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty," &c., not to men. We find in Scripture
the proud King Nebuchadnezzar assuming this title to himself (Dan. 4:30), who at that time
received a sufficient reproof, by a sudden judgment, which came upon him. Therefore in all the
compellations used to princes in the Old Testament, it is not to be found, nor yet in the New.
Paul was very civil to Agrippa, yet he gives him no such title: neither was this title used among
Christians in the primitive times. Hence the Ecclesiastical History of the Reformation
of France,c relating the speech of the Lord Rochefort at the assembly of the Estate of France, held
under Charles the Ninth in the year 1560, saith, "that this harangue was well remarked, in
that he used not the word 'Majesty,' invented by flatterers of late years," and yet this author
minded not how his master Calvin used this flattering title to Francis the First, King of France, and
not only so, but calls him "most Christian King," in the Epistle to his
Institutions, though by his daily persecuting of the Reformers, it was apparent he was far
from being such, even in Calvin's own esteem. Surely the complying with such vain titles,
imposed and introduced by Antichrist, greatly tended to stain the Reformation and to render it
defective in many things.
Lastly, all these titles and styles of honor are to be rejected by Christians; because they are
to seek the honor that comes from above, and not the honor that is from below. But these honors
are not that honor that comes from above, but are from below. For we know well enough what
industry and what pains men are at to get these things, and what part it is that seeks after them, to
wit, the proud, insolent, haughty, aspiring mind. For judge, is it the meek and innocent Spirit of
Christ, that covets that honor? Is it that Spirit, that must be of no reputation in this world, that
has its conversation in heaven, that comes to have fellowship with the sons of God?d Is it that Spirit, I say, that loves that
honor, that seeks after that honor, that pleads for the upholding of that honor, that frets and rages
and fumes when it is denied that honor? Or is it not rather the lordly insulting spirit of Lucifer,
the prince of this world, he that of old affected and sought after this honor, and loved not to abide
in the submissive low place? And so all his children are possessed with the same ambitious proud
mind, seeking and coveting titles of honor, which indeed belong not to them. For let us examine,e who are they, that are honorable indeed?f Is it not the
righteous man? Is it not the holy man? Is it not the humble-hearted man? the meek-spirited man?
And are not such those that ought to be honored among Christians? Now, of these, may there not
be poor men? labourers? silly fishermen? And if so, how comes it that the titles of honor are not
bestowed upon such? But who are they that generally receive and look for this honor? Are they
not the rich ones? such as have abundance of the earth? as be like the rich glutton? such as are
proud and ambitious? such as are oppressors of the poor? such as swell with lust and vanity? and
all "superfluity of naughtiness"? who are the very abomination and plague of the
nations? are not these they that are accounted the honorable, that require and receive the titles of
honor, proud Hamans? Now whether is this the honor that comes from God or the honor from
below? Doth God honor such as daily dishonor him and disobey him? And if this be not the
honor that comes from God, but the honor of this world, which the children of this world give and
receive one from another, how can the children of God, such as are Christians indeed, give or
receive that honor among themselves, without coming under the reproof of Christ, who saith, that
such as do, cannot believe? But further, if we respect the cause that most frequently
procures to men these titles of honor, there is not one of a thousand that shall be found to be,
because of any Christian virtue. But rather for things to be discommended among Christians. As
by the favor of Princes procured by flattering, and often by worse means, yea the most frequent,
and accounted among men most honorable, is fighting, or some great martial exploit, which can
add nothing to a Christian's worth: since, sure it is, it were desirable there were no fightings
among Christians at all, and insofar as there are, it show they are not right Christians. And James
tells us that all fighting proceeds from the lusts, so that it were fitter for Christians by the sword of
God's Spirit to fight against their lusts, than by the prevalency of their lusts to destroy one
another. Whatever honor any might have attained of old, under the Law, this way, we find under
the Gospel Christians commended for suffering, not for fighting, neither did
any of Christ's disciples, save one, offer outward violence by the sword, in cutting off Malchus's
ear, for which he received no title of honor, but a just reproof. Finally, if we look either to the
nature of this honor, the cause of it, the way it is conveyed, the terms in which it is delivered, it
cannot be used by such as mind to be Christians in good earnest.
§IV. Now besides these general titles of honor, what
gross abuses are crept in among such as are called Christians, in the use of compliments,
wherein, not servants to masters or others, with respect to any such kind of relations,5 do say and write to one another, at
every turn, "Your humble servant," "Your most obedient servant,"
&c. Such wicked customs have, to the great prejudice of souls, accustomed Christians to lie,
and to use lying is now come to be accounted civility. O horrid apostasy! For it is notoriously
known, that the use of these compliments imports not any design of service, neither are any such
fools as to think so, for, if we should put them to it, that say so, they would not doubt to think we
abused them; and would let us know they gave us words in course, and no more. It is strange that
such as pretend to Scripture as their rule should not be ashamed to use such things; since Elihu,
that had not the Scriptures, would, by the Light within him, which these men think insufficient,
say (Job 32:21-22): "Let me not accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles
unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles, in so doing my Maker would soon take me
away." A certain ancient devout man, in the primitive time, subscribed himself, to a bishop,
"Your humble servant," wherein, I doubt not but he was more real than our usual
complimenters; and yet he was sharply reproved for it.g
But they usually object, to defend themselves, that Luke saith,
"Most Excellent Theophilus," and Paul, "Most Noble Festus."
I answer, since Luke wrote that by the dictates of the infallible Spirit of God, I think it will
not be doubted but Theophilus did deserve it, as being really endued with that virtue, in which
case we shall not condemn those, that do it by the same rule. But it is not proved that Luke gave
Theophilus this title as that which was inherent to him, either by his father, or by any patent
Theophilus had obtained from any of the princes of the earth, or that he would have given it him,
in case he had not been truly excellent; and without this be proved, which never can, there can
nothing hence be deduced against us. The like may be said of that of Paul to Festus, whom he
would not have called such, if he had not been truly noble; as indeed he was, in that he suffered
him to be heard in his own cause, and would not give way to the fury of the Jews against him; it
was not because of any outward title bestowed upon Festus, that he so called him, else he would
have given the same appellation to his predecessor Felix, who had the same office, but being a
covetous man, we find he gives him no such style.
§V. It will not be unfit in this place to say something
concerning the using of the singular number to one person; of this there is no
controversy in the Latin, for when we speak to one, we always use the pronoun tu, and he
that would do otherwise would break the rules of grammar. For what boy, learning his rudiments,
is ignorant that it is incongruous to say "vos amas," "vos legis,"
that is, "you lovest," "you readest," speaking to one? But the pride of
man, that hath corrupted many things, refuses also to use this simplicity of speaking in the vulgar
languages. For being puff'd up with a vain opinion of themselves, as if the singular number were
not sufficient to them, they will have others to speak to them in the plural. Hence Luther,
in his plays, reproves and mocks this manner of speaking, saying, "Magister, vos es
iratus." Which corruption Erasmus sufficiently refutes in his Colloquies.
Concerning which likewise James Howel, in his epistle to the nobility of England, before the
French and English Dictionary, takes notice, "that both in France and in other nations, the
word 'thou' was used in speaking to one, but, by success of time, when the
Roman commonwealth grew into an empire, the courtiers began to magnify the emperor (as being
furnished with power to confer dignities and offices), using the word 'you,' yea and deifying him
with more remarkable titles; concerning which matter we read in the epistles of Symmachus to the
Emperors Theodosius and Valentinianus, where he useth these forms of speaking: Vestra
Aeternitas, 'Your Eternity'; Vestrum Numen, 'Your Godhead'; Vestra
Serenitas, 'Your Serenity'; Vestra Clementia, 'Your Clemency.' So that the word 'you'
in the plural number, together with the other titles and compellations of honor, seem to have taken
their rise from monarchical government; which afterwards, by degrees, came to be derived to
private persons."
The same is witnessed by John Maresius, of the French Academy, in the preface of his
Clovis. "Let none wonder" (saith he) "that the word 'thou' is used in
this work to princes and princesses: for we use the same to God: and of old the same was used to
Alexanders, Caesars, queens and empresses. The use of the word 'you,' when one person is
spoken to, was only introduced by these base flatteries of men of latter ages, to whom it seemed
good to use the plural number to one person, that he may imagine himself alone to be equal to
many others in dignity and worth, from whence at last it came to persons of lower
quality."
To the same purpose speaketh also M. Godeau, in his preface to the New Testament
translation: "I had rather" (saith he) "faithfully keep to the express words of
Paul, than exactly follow the polished style of our tongue. Therefore I always use that form of
calling God in the singular number, not in the plural; and therefore I say rather 'thou' than 'you.' I
confess indeed, that the civility and custom of this world requires him to be honored after that
manner; but it is likewise on the contrary true, that the original tongue of the New Testament hath
nothing common with such manners and civility, so that not one of these many old versions we
have, doth observe it. Let not men believe, that we give not respect enough to God, in that we
call him by the word 'thou,' which is nevertheless far otherwise, for I seem to myself (may be by
the effect of custom) more to honor his Divine Majesty, in calling him after this manner, than if I
should call him after the manners of men who are so delicate in their forms
of speech."
See how clearly and evidently these men witness that this form of speaking, and these
profane titles, derive their origin from the base flattery of these last ages, and from the delicate
haughtiness of worldly men, who have invented these novelties, that thereby they might honor one
another under, I know not what pretence of civility and respect. From whence many of the
present Christians, so accounted, are become so perverse, in commending most wicked men, and
wicked customs, that the simplicity of the Gospel is wholly lost, so that the giving of men and
things their own names is not only worn out of custom, but the doing thereof is accounted absurd
and rude, by such kind of delicate parasites, who desire to ascribe to this flattery and abuse the
name of civility. Moreover, that this way of speaking proceeds from a high and proud mind,
hence appears, because that men usually use the singular number to beggars, and to their servants,
yea and in their prayers to God. Thus the superior will speak to his inferior, who yet will not bear
that the inferior so speak to him, as judging it a kind of reproach unto him. So hath the pride of
men placed God and the beggar in the same category. I think I need not use arguments to prove
to such as know congruous language, that we ought to use the singular number, speaking to one;
which is the common dialect of the whole Scripture, as also the most interpreters do translate it.
Seeing therefore it is manifest to us, that this form of speaking to men in the plural number, doth
proceed from pride, as well as that it is, in itself, a lie, we found a necessity upon us to testify
against this corruption, by using the singular equally unto all. And although no reason can
be given, why we should be persecuted upon this account, especially by Christians who profess to
follow the rule of Scripture, whose dialect this is, yet it would perhaps seem incredible if I should
relate how much we have suffered for this thing, and how these proud ones fume, fret, and gnash
their teeth, frequently beating and striking us, when we have spoken to them thus in the singular
number: whereby we are the more confirmed in our judgment, as seeing that this testimony of
Truth, which God hath given us to bear in all things, doth so vex the serpentine nature in the
children of darkness.
§VI. Secondly, Next unto this of
titles, the other part of honor used among Christians is the kneeling, bowing, and
uncovering of the head to one another. I know nothing our adversaries have to plead for
them in this matter, save some few instances of the Old Testament, and the custom of the
country.
The first are, such as Abraham's bowing himself to the children of Heth, and Lot to the
two angels, &c.
But the practice of these patriarchs, related as matter of fact, are not to be a rule to
Christians now; neither are we to imitate them in every practice which has not a particular reproof
added to it, for we find not Abraham reproved for taking Hagar, &c.; and indeed to say all
things were lawful for us which they practised would produce great inconveniences obvious
enough to all. And as to the customs of the nations, it's a very ill argument for a Christian's
practice. We should have a better rule to walk by, than the custom of the Gentiles; the apostles
desire us not to be "conformed to this world," &c.h We see how little they have to say for themselves in this matter. Let it
be observed, then, whether our reasons for laying aside these things be not considerable and
weighty enough to uphold us in so doing.
First, We say that God, who is the creator of man, and he to whom he oweth the
dedication both of soul and body, is over all to be worshipped and adored, and that not only by
the Spirit, but also with the prostration of body. Now kneeling, bowing, and uncovering of the
head is the alone outward signification of our adoration towards God & therefore it is not
lawful to give it unto man. He that kneeleth or prostrates himself to man, what doth he more to
God? He that boweth and uncovereth his head to the creature, what hath he reserved to the
Creator? Now the apostle shows us that the uncovering of the head is that which God requires of
us in our worshipping of him (1 Cor 11). But if we make our address to men in the same manner,
where lieth the difference? Not in the outward signification, but merely in the intention; which
opens a door for the Popish veneration of images, which hereby is necessarily excluded.
Secondly, men, being alike by creation (though their being stated
under their several relations requires from them mutual services, according to those respective
relations), owe not worship one to another, but all equally are to return it to God: because it is to
him and his Name alone that every knee must bow, and before whose throne the four and twenty
elders prostrate themselves. Therefore, for men to take this one from another is to rob God of his
glory: since all the duties of relations may be performed one to another without these kinds of
bowings, which therefore are no essential part of our duty to man, but to God: all men, by an
inward instinct, in all nations have been led to prostrate and bow themselves to God. And it is
plain, that this bowing to men took place from a slavish fear possessing some, which led them to
set up others as gods, when also an ambitious proud spirit got up in those others, to usurp the
place of God over their brethren.
Thirdly, We see that Peter refused it from Cornelius, saying, he was a man. Are then the
popes more, or more excellent, than Peter, who suffer men daily to fall down at their feet, and kiss
them? This reproof of Peter to Cornelius doth abundantly show that such manners were not to be
admitted among Christians. Yea, we see that the angel twice refused this kind of bowing from
John (Rev. 19:10, and 22:9) for this reason, "because I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy
brethren"; abundantly intimating that it is not lawful for fellow-servants thus to prostrate
themselves one to another (and in this respect all men are fellow-servants.)
Obj. If it be said, John intended here a religious worship, and not a civil:
Answ. I answer; that is to say, not to prove: neither can we suppose John at that
time of the day so ill-instructed as not to know it was unlawful to worship angels; only it should
seem, because of those great and mysterious things revealed to him by that angel, he was willing
to signify some more than ordinary testimony of respect, for which he was reproved. These
things being thus considered, it is remitted to the judgment of such as are desirous to be found
Christians indeed, whether we be worthy of blame for waiving it to men. Let those, then, that will
blame us, consider whether they might not as well accuse Mordecai of
incivility, who was no less singular than we in this matter. And forasmuch as they accuse us
herein of rudeness and pride, though the testimony of our consciences, in the sight of God, be a
sufficient guard against such calumnies, yet there are of us, known to be men of such education,
as forbear not these things for want of that they call good breeding, and we should be very void of
reason to purchase that pride at so dear a rate as many have done the exercise of their conscience
in this matter; many of us having been sorely beaten & buffeted, yea & several months
imprisoned, for no other reason, but because we could not so satisfy the proud unreasonable
humors of proud men, as to uncover our heads and bow our bodies. Nor doth our innocent
practice in standing still, though upright, not putting off our hats any more than our shoes, the one
being the covering of our heads, as well as the other of our feet, show so much rudeness as their
beating and knocking us, &c., because we cannot bow to them, contrary to our consciences.
Which certainly shows less meekness and humility upon their part, than it doth of rudeness or
pride upon ours. Now suppose it were our weakness, and we really under a mistake in this thing,
since it is not alleged to be the breach of any Christian precept are we not to be indulged, as the
apostle commanded should be done to such as scrupled to eat flesh? And do not persecuting us
and reviling us upon this account show them to be more like unto proud Haman than the disciples
or followers of the meek, self-denying Jesus? And this I can say boldly, in the sight of God, from
my own experience, and that of many thousands more, that however small or foolish this may
seem, yet we behoved to choose death rather than do it, and that for conscience sake: and that, in
its being so contrary to our natural spirits, there are many of us to whom the forsaking of these
bowings and ceremonies was as death itself. Which we could never have left if we could have
enjoyed our peace with God in the use of them, though it be far from us to judge all those to
whom God hath not shown the evil of them, under the like hazard, yet nevertheless, we doubt not,
but to such as would prove faithful witnesses to Christ's Divine Light in their consciences God
will also show the evil of these things.
§VII. The third thing to be treated of is the vanity and
superfluity of apparel, in which first two things are to be considered, the
condition of the person, and the country, he lives in. We shall not say, that all persons are to be
clothed alike, because it will perhaps neither suit their bodies, nor their estates. And if a man be
clothed soberly and without superfluity, though they may be finer, than that which his servant is
clothed with, we shall not blame him for it: the abstaining from superfluities, which his condition
and education have accustomed him to, may be, in him, a greater act of mortification than the
abstaining from finer clothes in the servant, who never was accustomed to them. As to the
country, what it naturally produces may be no vanity to the inhabitants to use, or what is
commonly imparted to them by way of exchange, seeing it is without doubt that the creation is for
the use of man. So where silk abounds, it may be worn, as well as wool; and were we in those
countries, or near unto them, where gold or silver were as common as iron or brass, the one might
be used as well as the other. The iniquity lies then here, First, when, from a lust of vanity, and a
desire to adorn themselves, men and women, not content with what their condition can bear, or
their country easily affords, do stretch to have things, that from their rarity, and the price that's
put upon them, seem to be precious, and so feed their lust the more, and this all sober men of all
sorts will readily grant to be evil.
Secondly, when men are not content to make a true use of the creation, whether the things
be fine or coarse, and do not satisfy themselves with what need & conveniency calls for, but
add thereunto things merely superfluous, such as is the use of ribbands and lace, and much more
of that kind of stuff, as painting the face, plaiting the hair, which are the fruits of the fallen, lustful
and corrupt nature, and not of the new creation, as all will acknowledge. And though sober men,
among all sorts, will say that it were better these things were not, yet will they not reckon them
unlawful, and therefore do admit the use of them among their church members. But we do
account them altogether unlawful, and unsuitable to Christians, and that for these reasons:
First, the use of clothes came originally from the fall; if man had not fallen, it appears he
would not have needed them. But this miserable state made them necessary, in two respects: 1)
to cover his nakedness, and 2) to keep him from the cold, which is both the
proper and principal use of them. Now, for man to delight himself in that which is the fruit of his
iniquity, and is the consequence of sin, can be no ways lawful for him; so to extend things beyond
their real use, or to superadd things wholly superfluous, is a manifest abuse of the creation, and
therefore not lawful to Christians.
Secondly, those that will needs so adorn themselves in the use of their clothes, as to beset
them with things having no real use or necessity, but merely for ornament's sake, do openly
declare that the end of it is either to please their lust (for which end these things are chiefly
invented and contrived) or otherwise to gratify a vain, proud and ostentatious mind; and it is
obvious these are their general ends in so doing. Yea, we see how easily men are puff'd up with
their garments, and how proud and vain they are, when adorned to their mind. Now, how far
these things are below a true Christian, and how unsuitable, it needs not great probation. Hereby,
those that love to be gaudy and superfluous in their clothes, show they concern themselves little
with mortification and self-denial, and that they mind to beautify their bodies more than their
souls, which proves they mind little upon mortality, and so certainly are more nominal than real
Christians.
Thirdly, the Scripture severely reproves such practices, both commending and
commanding the contrary, as Isa. 3. How severely doth the prophet reprove the daughters of
Israel for their tinkling ornaments, their cauls, and their round tiars, their chains and bracelets,
&c., and yet is it not strange to see Christians allow themselves in these things, from whom a
more strict and exemplary conversation is required? Christ desires us not to be anxious about our
clothing (Matt. 6:25), and to show the vanity of such as glory in the splendor of their clothing,
tells them, that even Solomon in all his glory was not to be compared to the lily of the field, which
today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven. But surely they make small reckoning of Christ's
words and doctrine, that are so curious in their clothing, and so industrious to deck themselves,
and so earnest to justify it, and so mad when they are reproved for it. The apostle Paul is very
positive in this respect (1 Tim. 2:8-10): "I will therefore in like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with
shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array: But
(which becometh women, professing godliness) with good works." To the same purpose
saith Peter (1 Pet. 3:3-4): "Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning, of plaiting
the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the
heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit,"
&c. Here, both the apostles do very positively and expressly assert two things: First, that the
adorning of Christian women (of whom it is particularly spoken, I judge, because this sex is most
naturally inclined to that vanity, and that it seems that Christian men in those days, deserved not in
this respect so much to be reproved) ought not to be outward, nor to consist in the apparel.
Secondly, that they ought not to use the plaiting of the hair, or ornaments, &c., which was at
that time the custom of the nations. But is it not strange, that such as make the Scripture their
rule, and pretend they are guided by it, should not only be so frequently and ordinarily in the use
of these things, which the Scripture so plainly condemns, but also should allow themselves in so
doing? For the apostles not only commend the forbearance of these things, as an attainment
commendable in Christians, but condemn the use of them as unlawful, and yet may it not seem
more strange, that in contradiction to the apostles' doctrine, as if they had resolved to slight their
testimony, they should condemn those that, out of conscience, apply themselves seriously to
follow it, as if, in so doing, they were singular, proud, or superstitious? This certainly betokens a
sad apostasy in those that will be accounted Christians, that they are so offended with those who
love to follow Christ and his apostles, in denying of, and departing from, the lying vanities of this
perishing world, and so doth much evidence their affinity with such as hate to be reproved, and
neither will enter themselves nor suffer those that would.
§VIII. Fourthly, let us consider the use of games,
sports, comedies and other such things, commonly and indifferently used by all the several
sorts of Christians under the notion of divertisement and recreation, and see
whether these things can consist with the seriousness, gravity, and godly
fear which the Gospel calls for: Let us but view and look over the notions of them that call
themselves Christians, whether Popish or Protestant, and see if generally there be any difference,
save in mere name and profession, from the heathen; doth not the same folly, the same
vanity, the same abuse of precious and irrevocable time abound? The same
gaming, sporting, playing, and from thence quarrelling, fighting, swearing, ranting, revelling?
Now how can these things be remedied so long as the preachers and professors and those who are
the leaders of the people do allow these things and account them not inconsistent with the
profession of Christianity? And it is strange to see that these things are tolerated everywhere, the
Inquisition lays no hold on them, neither at Rome nor in Spain, where in their masquerades all
manner of obscenity, folly, yea and atheism is generally practised in the face of the world, to the
great scandal of the Christian name: but if any man reprove them in these things and forsake their
superstitions and come seriously to serve God and worship him in the Spirit, he is made a prey,
and presently made liable to cruel sufferings. Doth this bear any proportion to Christianity? Do
these things look anything like the churches of the primitive Christians? Surely not at all. I shall
first cite some few Scripture testimonies, being very positive precepts to Christians, and then see
whether such as obey them can admit of these forementioned things. The apostle commands us,
that "whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we do it all to the glory of God."
But I judge none will be so impudent as to affirm that, in the use of these sports and games, God
is glorified. If any should so say, they would declare they neither knew God nor his glory: and
experience abundantly proves that in the practice of these things, men mind nothing less than the
glory of God, and nothing more than the satisfaction of their own carnal lusts, wills and appetites.
The apostle desires us (1 Cor. 7:29, 31): "Because the time is short, that they that buy
should be, as though they possessed not. And they that use this world, as not abusing it,"
&c. But how can they be found in the obedience of this precept, that plead for the use of
these games and sports? who, it seems, think the time so long, that they cannot find occasion enough to employ it, neither in taking care for their souls, nor yet in the
necessary care for their bodies, but invent these games and sports to pass it away, as if they
wanted other work to serve God, or be useful to the creation in. The apostle Peter desires us
"to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear" (1 Pet. 1:17). But will any say that
such as use dancing and comedies, carding, and dicing, do so much as mind this precept in the use
of these things? where there is nothing to be seen, but lightness and vanity, wantonness, and
obscenity, contrived to hinder men from fear, or being serious, and therefore no doubt calculated
for the service of the devil. There is no duty more frequently commanded, nor more incumbent
upon Christians, than the fear of the Lord, to stand in awe before him, to walk as in his presence,
but if such as use these games and sports will speak from their consciences, they can, I doubt not,
experimentally declare, that this fear is forgotten in their gaming; and if God by his Light secretly
touch them, or mind them of the vanity of their way, they strive to shut it out, and use their
gaming as an engine to put away from them that troublesome guest, and thus make merry over the
Just One, whom they have slain and crucified in themselves. But further, if Christ's reasoning be
to be heeded, who saith (Matt. 12:35-36) that "the good man out of the good treasure of
the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil
things"; and that of "every idle word we shall give an account in the day of
judgment," it may be easily gathered from what treasure these inventions come, and it may
be easily proved, that it is from the evil, and not the good. How many idle words do they
necessarily produce? Yea what are comedies but a studied complex of idle and lying words? Let
men that believe their souls are immortal, and that there will be a day of judgment in which these
words of Christ will be accomplished, answer me, how all these will make account in that great
and terrible day, of all these idle words, that are necessarily made use of, about dancing, gaming,
carding, and comedies acting? And yet, how is it, that by Christians not condemning these things,
but allowing of them, many that are accounted Christians take up their whole time in them, yea
make it their trade and employment, such as the dancing-masters and
comedians, &c., whose hellish conversations do sufficiently declare what master they serve,
and to what end these things contribute; and it cannot be denied, as being obviously manifest by
experience, that such as are masters of these trades, and are most delighted in them (if they be not
open atheists and profligates) are such, at best, as make religion, or the care of their souls, their
least business. Now, if these things were discountenanced by Christians, or inconsistent with their
profession, it would remove these things; for these wretches would be necessitated then to betake
themselves to some more honest livelihood, if they were not fed and upholden by these. And as
hereby a great scandal and stumbling-block would be removed from off the Christian name, so
also would that, in part, be taken out of the way, which provokes the Lord to withhold his
blessing, and by occasion of which things the minds of many remain chained in darkness, and
drowned in lust, sensuality, and worldly pleasures, without any sense of God's fear, or their own
souls' salvation. Many of those called Fathers of the Church, and other serious persons, have
signified their regret for these things, and their desires they might be remedied, of whom many
citations might be alleged, which for brevity's sake I have omitted.
§IX. Obj. But they object, that men's spirits
could not subsist, if they were always intent upon serious and spiritual matters, and that therefore
there is need of some divertisement to recreate the mind a little, whereby it, being refreshed, is
able, with greater vigor to apply itself to these things.
Answ. I answer, though all this were granted, it would no ways militate against
us, neither plead the use of these things, which we would have wholly laid aside. For that men
should be always in the same intentiveness of mind we do not plead, knowing how impossible it
is, so long as we are clothed with this tabernacle of clay. But this will not allow us at any time so
to recede from the memory of God and of our souls' chief concern, as not still to retain a certain
sense of his fear; which cannot be so much as rationally supposed to be in the use of these things
which we condemn. Now the necessary occasions, which all are involved into, in order to the
care and sustentation of the outward man, are a relaxation of the mind from the more serious
duties; and those are performed in the blessing, as the mind is so leavened
with the love of God and the sense of his presence, that even in doing these things, the soul
carrieth with it that divine influence and spiritual habit, whereby, though these acts, as of eating,
drinking, sleeping, working, be, upon the matter, one with what the wicked do, yet they are done
in another spirit, and in doing of them, we please the Lord, serve him, and answer our end in the
creation, and so feel, and are sensible of his blessing. Whereas the wicked and profane, being not
come to this place, are, in whatsoever they do, cursed; and their "ploughing, as well as
praying, is sin"! Now, if any will plead that for relaxation of mind, there may be a liberty
allowed beyond these things which are of absolute need to the sustenance of the outward man; I
shall not much contend against it, provided these things be not such as are wholly superfluous, or
in their proper nature and tendency lead the mind into lust, vanity, and wantonness, as being
chiefly contrived and framed for that end, or generally experienced to produce these effects, or
being the common engines of such as are so minded to feed one another therein, and to propagate
their wickedness, to the impoisoning of others; seeing there are other innocent divertisements,
which may sufficiently serve for relaxation to the mind, such as for friends to visit one another, to
hear or read history, to speak soberly of the present or past transactions, to follow after
gardening, to use geometrical and mathematical experiments, and such other things of this nature;
in all which things we are not so to forget God (in whom we both live and are moved, Acts 17:28)
as not to have always some secret reserve to him, and sense of his fear and presence, which also
frequently exerts itself in the midst of these things, by some short aspiration and breathings, and
that this may neither seem strange nor troublesome, I shall clear it by one manifest instance,
answerable to the experience of all men: it will not be denied but that men ought to be more in the
love of God, than of any other thing; for we ought to love God above all things. Now it is
plain that men that are taken with love, whether it be of a woman, or of any other thing, if it hath
taken a deep place in the heart, and possess the mind, it will be hard for the man, so in love, to
drive out of his mind the person or thing so loved, yea in his eating, drinking, and sleeping his mind will always have a tendency that way, and, in
business or recreations, however intent he be in it, there will but a very short time be permitted to
pass, but the mind will let some ejaculation forth towards its beloved. And, albeit such a one must
be conversant in those things that the care of this body and suchlike things call for, yet will he
avoid, as death itself, to do those things that may offend the party so beloved, or cross his design
in obtaining the thing so earnestly desired; though there may be some small use in them, the great
design which is chiefly in his eye, will so balance him, that he will easily look over & dispense
with such petty necessities, rather than endanger the loss of the greater by them. Now that men
ought to be thus in love with God and the life to come, none will deny, and the thing is apparent
from these Scriptures: Matt. 6:20, "But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven";
Col. 3:2, "Set your affection on things above," &c. And that this hath been the
experience and attainment of some, the Scripture also declares (Ps. 63:1; 84:2; 2 Cor. 5:14).
And again, that these games, sports, plays, dancing, comedies, &c., do naturally tend
to draw men from God's fear, to make them forget heaven, death, and judgment, to foster lust,
vanity, and wantonness, and therefore are most loved as well as used by such kind of persons,
experience abundantly shows; and the most serious and conscientious among all will scarcely
deny, which if it be so, the application is easy.
§X. Fifthly, the use of swearing is to be
considered, which is so frequently practised almost among all Christians, not only profane oaths
among the profane in their common discourses, whereby the most holy name of god is, in a
horrible manner, daily blasphemed, but also solemn oaths with those that have some show of
piety, whereof the most part do defend swearing before the magistrate, with so great zeal that not
only they are ready themselves to do it upon every occasion, but also stir up the magistrates to
persecute those, who, out of obedience to Christ their Lord and Master, judge it unlawful to
swear: upon which account not a few have suffered imprisonment, and the spoiling of their
goods.
But considering these clear words of our Saviour (Matt. 5:33-34),
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear
thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all,
neither by heaven," &c. "But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for
whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." As also the words of the apostle James
(5:12), "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the
earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay: lest ye fall into
condemnation." I say, considering these clear words, it is admirable how anyone that
professeth the Name of Christ can pronounce any oath with a quiet conscience; far less to
persecute other Christians, that dare not swear, because of their Master Christ his authority. For
did anyone purpose seriously, and in the most rigid manner, to forbid anything, comprehended
under any general, can they use a more full and general prohibition, and that without any
exception? I think not. For Christ, first, proposeth it to us negatively, "Swear not at all,
neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by thy head," &c. And
again, "Swear not by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath." Secondly, he
presseth it affirmatively, "But let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay: for
whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." And saith James, "Lest ye fall into
condemnation."
Which words both all and every one of them do make such a full prohibition, and so free
of all exception, that it is strange how men that boast the Scripture is the rule of their faith and life
can counterfeit any exception. Certainly reason ought to teach everyone that it is not lawful to
make void a general prohibition, coming from God, by such opposition, unless the exception be as
clearly and evidently expressed as the prohibition; neither is it enough to endeavor to confirm it by
consequences and probabilities, which are obscure and uncertain, and not sufficient to bring quiet
to the conscience. For if they say that there is therefore an exception and limitation in the words
because there are found exceptions in the other general prohibition of this fifth chapter, as in the
forbidding of divorcement, where Christ saith, "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away
his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit
adultery"; if, I say, they say this, they not only labour in vain but also fight against
themselves, because they can produce no exception of this general command of not swearing,
expressed by God to any under the New Covenant, after Christ gave this prohibition, so clear as
that which is made in the prohibition itself: moreover, if Christ would have excepted oaths made
before magistrates, certainly he had then expressed, adding, "except in judgment, before the
magistrate," or the like; as he did in that of divorcement, by these words, "saving for
the cause of fornication": which being so, it is not lawful for us to except or distinguish, or
(which is all one) make void this general prohibition of Christ; it would be far less agreeable to
Christian holiness to bring upon our heads the crimes of so many oaths which, by reason of this
corruption and exception, are so frequent among Christians.
Neither is it to be omitted, that without doubt, the most learned doctors of each sect
know, that these forementioned words were understood by the ancient Fathers of the first three
hundred years after Christ, to be a prohibition of all sorts of oaths: it is not then without reason,
that we wonder that the Popish doctors and priests bind themselves by an oath to interpret the
holy Scriptures according to the universal exposition of the holy Fathers; who notwithstanding
understood those controverted texts quite contrary to what these modern doctors do: and from
thence also doth clearly appear the vanity and foolish certainty (so to speak) of Popish traditions;
for if by the writings of the Fathers, so called, the faith of the church of those ages may be
demonstrated, it is clear they have departed from the faith of the church of the first three ages in
the point of swearing. Moreover, because not only Papists but also Lutherans and Calvinists and
some others do restrict the words of Christ and James, I think it needful to make manifest the vain
foundation upon which their presumption in this matter is built.
§XI. Obj. First, they object that Christ only
forbids these oaths that are made by creatures, and things created; and they prove it thence,
because he numbers some of these things.
Secondly, All rash and vain oaths in familiar discourses; because he
saith, "Let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay.
Answ. 1. To which I answer, First, that the Law did forbid all oaths made by the
creatures, as also all vain and rash oaths in our common discourses, commanding that men should
only swear by the Name of God, and that neither falsely, nor rashly, for that is to take his Name in
vain.
Answ. 2. Secondly, it is most evident that Christ forbids somewhat that was
permitted under the Law, to wit, to swear by the Name of God, because it was not lawful for any
man to swear but by God himself, and because he saith, "neither by heaven, because it is the
throne of God," therefore he excludes all other oaths, even those which are made by God;
for he saith (23:22), "he that shall swear by heaven sweareth by the throne of God and by
him that sitteth thereon," which is also to be understood of the rest.
Answ. 3. Lastly, that he might put the matter beyond all controversy, he adds
"neither by any other oath." Therefore, seeing to swear before the magistrate, by
God, is an oath, it is here without doubt forbidden.
Obj. Secondly, they object that by these words oaths by God's Name cannot be
forbidden, because the heavenly Father hath commanded them, for the Father and the Son are
one, which could not be, if the Son did forbid that which the Father commanded.
Answ. I answer, they are indeed one, and cannot contradict one another;
nevertheless the Father gave many things to the Jews, for a time, because of their infirmity under
the old Covenant, which had only a shadow of good things to come, not the very Substance of
things, until Christ should come, who was the Substance, and by whose coming all these things
vanished, to wit, sabbaths, circumcision, the paschal lamb, men used then sacrifices, who lived in
controversy with God, & one with another, which all are abrogated in the coming of the Son,
who is the Substance, Eternal Word, and essential oath and Amen, in whom "the promises
of God are Yea and Amen": who came that men might be redeemed out of strife, and might
make an end of controversy.
Obj. Thirdly, they object, But all oaths are not ceremonies, nor any part of the ceremonial Law.
Answ. I answer, Except it be shown to be an eternal, immutable, and moral
precept, it withstands not; neither are they of so old an origin as tithes and the offering of the first
fruits of the ground, which by Abel and Cain were offered, long before the ceremonial law, or the
use of oaths, which, whatever may be alleged against it, were no doubt ceremonies, and therefore
no doubt unlawful now to be practised.
Obj. Fourthly, they object that to swear by the Name of God is a moral precept of
continual duration; because it is marked with his essential and moral worship (Deut. 6:13, and
10:20), "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him alone: thou shalt cleave to him,
and swear by his Name."
Answ. I answer, this proves not that it is a moral and eternal precept; for Moses
adds that to all the precepts and ceremonies in several places: as Deut. 10:12-13, saying,
"And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy
God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul. To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command
thee this day?" And (14:23), the fear of the Lord is mentioned together with the tithes.
And so also Lev. 19:2-3,12, the Sabbaths and regard to parents are mentioned with swearing.
Obj. Fifthly, they object that solemn oaths, which God commanded, cannot be
here forbidden by Christ, for he saith that they come from evil: But these did not come from evil,
for God never commanded anything that was evil, or came from evil.
Answ. I answer, there are things which are good because commanded, and evil
because forbidden: other things are command, because good, and forbidden, because evil. As
circumcision and oaths, which were good, when and because they were commanded, and in no
other respect; and again, when and because prohibited under the Gospel, they are evil.
And in all these Jewish constitutions, however ceremonial, there was something of good,
to wit, in their season, as prefiguring some good: as by circumcision, the purifications, and other
things, the holiness of God was typified, and that the Israelites ought to be holy, as their God was
holy. In the like manner oaths under shadows and ceremonies signified the
verity of God, his faithfulness and certainty, and therefore that we ought in all things to speak and
witness the Truth. But the Witness of Truth was before all oaths, and remains when all oaths are
abolished; and this is the morality of all oaths, and so long as men abide therein, there is no
necessity of, nor place for oaths, as Polybius witnessed, who said, "The use of oaths in
judgment was rare among the ancients, but by the growing of perfidiousness, so grew also the use
of oaths." To which agreeth Grotius, saying, "An oath is only to be used as a
medicine, in case of necessity; a solemn oath is not used but to supply defect. The lightness of
men and their inconstancy begot diffidence, for which swearing was sought out as a
remedy." Basil the Great saith that "swearing is the effect of sin." And
Ambrose, that "Oaths are only a condescendency for defect." Chrysostom saith that
"an oath entered when evil grew, when men exercised their frauds, when all foundations
were overturned: that oaths took their beginning from the want of Truth." These and the
like are witnessed by many others with the forementioned authors. But what need of testimonies
where the evidence of things speaks itself? For who will force another to swear, of whom he is
certainly persuaded that he abhors to lie in his words? And again, as Chrysostom and others say,
"For what end wilt thou force him to swear, whom thou believest not that he will speak the
truth?"
§XII. That then, which was not from the beginning,
which was of no use in the beginning, which had not its beginning first from the will of God, but
from the work of the devil, occasioned from evil, to wit, from unfaithfulness, lying, deceit; and
which was at first only invented by man as a mutual remedy of this evil, in which they called upon
the names of their idols; yea that, which (as Jerome, Chrysostom, and others testify) was given to
the Israelites by God, as unto children, that they might abstain from the idolatrous oaths of the
heathen (Jer. 12:16), whatsoever is so, is far from being a moral and eternal precept; and lastly,
whatsoever by its profanation and abuse is polluted with sin, such as are abundantly the oaths of
these times, by so often swearing, and forswearing, far differs from any necessary and perpetual
duty of a Christian:
But oaths are so: Therefore, &c.
Obj. Sixthly, they object that God swore, therefore to swear is good.
Answ. I answer with Athanasius, "Seeing it is certain, it is proper in
swearing to swear by another, thence it appears, that God, to speak properly, did never swear, but
only improperly: whence speaking to men he is said to swear; because these things, which he
speaks, because of the certainty and immutability of his will, are to be esteemed for oaths.
Compare Psalm 110:4, where it is said, 'The Lord did swear, and it did not repent him,' &c.
'And I swore' (saith he) 'by myself': and this is not an oath, for he did not swear by another, which
is the property of an oath, but by himself. Therefore God swears not according to the manner of
men, neither can we be induced from thence to swear, but let us so do and say, and show
ourselves such by speaking and acting, that we need not with our hearers an oath, and let our
words of themselves have the testimony of Truth: for so we shall plainly imitate God."i
Obj. Seventhly, they object: Christ did swear, and we ought to imitate him.
Answ. I answer, that Christ did not swear; and albeit he had sworn, being yet
under the Law, this would no ways oblige us under the Gospel, as neither circumcision, or the
celebration of the paschal lamb. Concerning which Jerome saith, "All things agree not to
us, who are servants, that agreed unto our Lord," &c. "The Lord swore, as
Lord, whom no man did forbid to swear; but unto us, that are servants, it is not lawful to swear,
because we are forbidden by the law of our Lord. Yet, lest we should not suffer scandal by his
example, he hath not sworn, since he commanded us not to swear."j
Obj. Eighthly, they object, that Paul swore, and that often (Rom. 1:9, Phil. 1:8),
saying, "For God is my witness." 2 Cor. 11:10, "As the truth of Christ is in
me." 2 Cor. 1:23, "I call God for a record upon my soul." "I speak the
truth in Christ, I lie not" (Rom. 9:1). "Behold, before God I lie not" (Gal. 1:20), and so requires oaths of others. "I obtest6 you," saith he, "before God
and our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. 5:27, "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle
be read to all the brethren." But Paul would not have done so, if all manner of oaths had
been forbidden by Christ, whose apostle he was.
Answ. To all which I answer, First, that the using of such forms of speaking are
neither oaths, nor so esteemed by our adversaries: for when, upon occasion, in matters of great
moment we have said, "We speak the Truth in the fear of God, and before him, who is our
Witness, and the searcher of our hearts," adding such kind of serious attestations, which we
never refused in matters of consequence, nevertheless an oath hath moreover been required of us,
with the ceremony of putting our hands upon the book, the kissing of it, the lifting up of the hand
or fingers, together with this common form of imprecation, "So help me God"; or,
"So truly let the Lord God Almighty help me." Secondly, this contradicts the opinion
of our adversaries, because that Paul was neither before a magistrate, that was requiring an oath
of him, nor did he himself administer the office of a magistrate, as offering an oath to any other.
Thirdly, the question is not, what Paul or Peter did, but what their and our Master taught to be
done; and if Paul did swear (which we believe not), he had sinned against the command of Christ,
even according to their opinion, because he swore not before a magistrate, but in an epistle to his
brethren.
Obj. Ninthly, they object Isa. 65:16, where speaking of the evangelical times, he
saith, "That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of Truth, and
he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of Truth; because the former troubles are
forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For behold, I create new heavens and a new
earth." Therefore in these times we ought to swear by the name of the Lord.
Answ. I answer, It is ordinary for the prophets to express the greatest duties of
evangelical times in Mosaical terms, as appears, among others, from Jer. 31:38-40; Ezek. 36:25
and chap. 40; and Isa. 45:23: "I have sworn by myself, that unto me
every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." Where the righteousness of the New
Jerusalem, the purity of the Gospel with its spiritual worship, and the profession of the Name of
Christ, are expressed under forms of speaking used to old Jerusalem, under the washings of the
Law, under the names of ceremonies, the temple, services, sacrifices, oaths, &c. Yea that
which the prophet speaks here of swearing, the apostle Paul interprets it expressly of confession,
saying (Rom. 14:11): "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to
me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Which being rightly considered, none can be
ignorant, but these words, which the prophet writes under the Law, when the ceremonial oaths
were in use, to wit, "Every tongue shall swear," were by the apostle being under the
Gospel, when those oaths became abolished, expressed by "Every tongue shall
confess."
Obj. Tenthly, they object, But the apostle Paul approves oaths used among men,
when he writes (Heb. 6:16): "For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for
confirmation is to them an end of all strife." But there are as many contests, fallacies, and
diffidences at this time, as there ever were: therefore the necessity of oaths doth yet remain.
Answ. I answer, the apostle tells indeed in this place, what men at that time did,
who lived in controversies and incredulity, not what they ought to have done, nor what the saints
did, who were redeemed from strife and incredulity, and had come to Christ, the Truth and Amen
of God. Moreover, he only alludes to a certain custom usual among men, that he might express
the firmity of the divine promise, that he might excite in the saints so much the more confidence in
God, promising to them, not that he might instigate them to swear against the Law of God, or
confirm them in that: no not at all, for neither doth 1 Cor. 9:24 teach Christians the vain races,
whereby men oftentimes, even to the destruction of their bodies, are wearied to obtain a
corruptible prize. So neither doth Christ, who is the Prince of Peace, teach his disciples to fight,
albeit he takes notice (Luke 14:31), what it behoveth such kings to do, who are accustomed to
fight, as prudent warriors therein. Secondly, as to what pertains to contests,
perfidies, and diffidences among men, which our adversaries affirm to have grown to such a
height that swearing is at present as necessary as ever; that we deny not at all, for we see, and
daily experience teacheth us, that all manner of deceit and malice doth increase among worldly
men and false Christians, but not among true Christians: but, because men cannot trust one
another, and therefore require oaths one of another, it will not therefore follow that true
Christians ought to do so, whom Christ has brought to true faithfulness and honesty, as well
towards God as one towards another, and therefore has delivered them from contests, perfidies,
and consequently from oaths.
Obj. Eleventhly, they object, We grant that among true Christians, there is not
need of oaths, but by what means shall we infallibly know them? It will follow then, that oaths are
at present needful, and that it is lawful for Christians to swear, to wit, that such may be satisfied,
who will not acknowledge this and the other man to be a Christian.
Answ. I answer, It is no ways lawful for a Christian to swear, whom Christ has
called to his essential Truth, which was before all oaths, forbidding him to swear, and, on the
contrary, commanding him to speak the Truth in all things, to the honor of Christ, who called him;
that it may appear that the words of his disciples may be as truly believed, as the oaths of all the
worldly men. Neither is it lawful for them to be unfaithful in this, that they may please others, for
that they may avoid their hurt: for thus the primitive Christians for some ages remained faithful,
who being required to swear, did unanimously answer, "I am a Christian, I swear
not." What shall I say of the heathens, some of whom arrived to that degree? For
Diodorus Siculus, relates (lib. 16), that "the giving of the right hand was, among the
Persians, a sign of speaking the Truth"; and the Scythians, as Qu. Curtius relates, said, in
their conferences with Alexander the Great, "Think not that the Scythians confirm their
friendship by swearing, they swear by keeping their promises." StobÆus, in his third
sermon, tells that Solomon said, "A good man ought to be in that estimation, that he need
not an oath, because it is to be reputed a lessening of his honor if he be forced to swear."
Pythagoras, in his oration, among other things, hath this maxim, as that, which concerns the administration of the commonwealth: "Let no man
call God to witness by an oath, no not in judgment; but let every man so accustom himself to
speak, that he may become worthy to be trusted even without an oath." Basil the Great
commends Clinias an heathen, "that he had rather pay three talents, which are about three
thousand pounds, than swear." Socrates, as StobÆus relates (Serm. 14), had this
sentence, "the duty of good men requires, that they show to the world that their manners
and actions are more firm than oaths"; the same was the judgment of Isocrates. Plato also
stood against oaths in his judgments (De Leg. 12). Quintilianus takes notice, "that it
was of old a kind of infamy, if any was desired to swear; but to require an oath of a noble man,
was like an examining him by the hangman." Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Emperor of
Rome, saith, in his description of a good man, "Such is his integrity, that he needs not an
oath." So also some Jews did witness, as Grotius relates out of Maimonides, "It is
best for a man to abstain from all oaths." The Essenes, as Philo Judaeus relates, "did
esteem their words more firm than oaths; and oaths were esteemed among them as needless
things." And Philo himself, speaking of the third commandment, explains his mind thus,
viz., "It were better altogether not to swear, but to be accustomed always to speak the
Truth, that naked words might have the strength of an oath." And elsewhere he saith,
"It is more agreeable to natural reason, altogether to abstain from swearing; persuading,
that whatsoever a good man saith may be equivalent with an oath."
Who then needs further to doubt, but that since Christ would have his disciples attain the
highest pitch of perfection, he abrogated oaths, as a rudiment of infirmity, and in place thereof,
established the use of Truth? Who can now any more think, that the holy martyrs and ancient
Fathers of the first three hundred years, and many others since that time have so opposed
themselves to oaths, that they might only rebuke vain and rash oaths by the creatures, or heathen
idols, which were also prohibited under the Mosaical law; and not also swearing by the True God
in truth and righteousness, which was there commanded? as Polycarpus, Justin Martyr
(Apolog. 2), and many martyrs, as Eusebius relates. Tertullian, in his Apolog.,
cap. 32, ad Scap., cap. 1, of Idolatry (c. 11). Clement of
Alexandria, Strom., lib. 7. Origen, in Matt., Tract. 25. Cyprian,
lib. 3. Athanasius, in pass. & cruc., Domini Christi. Hilary, in
Matt. 5:34. Basil the Great, in Ps. 14. Gregory of Nyssa, in
Cant. Orat. 13. Gregory of Nazianzus, in dialog. contra juramenta.
Epiphanius, adversus hÆres., lib. 1. Ambrose, de Virg., lib. 3; Idem,
in Matt. 5. Chrysostom, in Genes. homil. 15; Idem, homil.,
in Act Apost. cap. 3. Jerome, Epistol., lib. part 3, Ep. 2.
Idem, in Zach., lib. 2, cap. 8. Idem, in Matt.,
lib. 1, cap. 5. Augustine, de serm. Dom. serm. 28. Cyril, in
Jer. 4. Theodoretus, in Deut. 6. Isidore of Pelusium, Ep. lib. 1,
Epist. 155. Chromatius, in Matt. 5. John of Damascus, lib. 3,
cap. 16. Cassiodorus, in Ps. 94. Isidore of Seville, cap. 31.
Antiochus, in Pandect. script. hom. 62. Bede, in Jac. 5. Haymo,
in Apoc. Ambrosius Ansbertius, in Apoc. Theophylact, in
Matt. 5. Paschasius Radbertus, in Matt. 5. Otho Brunsfelsius, in
Matt. 5. Druthmarus, in Matt. 5. Euthymius Eugubinus, Bibliotheca
vet. patr. in Matt. 5. Oecumenius, in Jac., c. 5., v. 12. Anselm,
in Matt. 5. Waldenses, Wycliffe, Erasmus, in Matt. 5., and
in Jac. 5. Who can read these places and doubt longer of their sense in this matter?
And who, believing that they were against all oaths, can bring so great an indignity to the Name of
Christ, as to seek to subject again his followers to so great an indignity? Is it not rather time that
all good men labour to remove this abuse and infamy from Christians.
Obj. Lastly, they object, This will bring in fraud and confusion, for impostors will
counterfeit probity, and under the benefit of this dispensation will be without fear of
punishment.
Answ. I answer, There are two things only, which oblige a man to speak the
Truth: First, Either the fear of God in his heart and love of Truth, for where this is there is no
need of oaths to speak the Truth. Or Secondly, the fear of punishment from the judge. Therefore
let there be the same or rather greater punishment appointed to those, who pretend so great truth
in words, and so great simplicity in heart, that they cannot lie, and so great reverence towards the
Law of Christ, that for conscience sake they deny to swear in any wise, if they fail, and so there
shall be the same good order, yea greater security against deceivers, as if
oaths were continued; and also, by that more severe punishment, to which these false dissemblers
shall be liable. Hence wicked men shall be more terrified, and good men delivered from all
oppression, both in their liberty and goods: for which cause, for their tender consciences, God
hath often a regard to magistrates and their state, as a thing most acceptable to him. But if any can
further doubt of this thing, to wit, if without confusion it can be practised in the commonwealth,
let him consider the state of the United Netherlands, and he shall see the good effect of it, for
there, because of the great number of merchants, more than in any other place, there is most
frequent occasion for this thing, and though the number of those that are of this mind be
considerable, to whom the States these hundred years have condescended, and yet daily
condescend, yet nevertheless there has nothing of prejudice followed thereupon to the
commonwealth, government, or good order, but rather great advantage to trade, and so to the
commonwealth.
§XlII. Sixthly, The last thing to be considered is
revenge and war, an evil as opposite and contrary to the Spirit and doctrine of
Christ as Light to darkness. For as is manifest by what is said, through contempt of Christ's law
the whole world is filled with various oaths, cursings, blasphemous profanations, and horrid
perjuries; so likewise through contempt of the same law the world is filled with violence,
oppression, murders, ravishing of women and virgins, spoilings, depredations, burnings,
vastations, and all manner of lasciviousness and cruelty; so that it is strange that men made after
the Image of God should have so much degenerated that they rather bear the image and nature of
roaring lions, tearing tigers, devouring wolves, and raging boars than of rational creatures endued
with reason: and is it not yet much more admirable that this horrid monster should find place and
be fomented among those men that profess themselves disciples of our peaceable Lord &
Master, Jesus Christ, who by excellency is called the Prince of Peace and hath expressly
prohibited his children all violence, and on the contrary commanded them that according to his
example they should follow patience, charity, forbearance, and other virtues worthy of a
Christian.
Hear then what this great Prophet saith, whom every soul is commanded to hear under the pain of being cut off (Matt. 5:38 to the end of
the chapter). For thus he saith: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him
twain. Give to him that asketh thee; and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy: But I say
unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. That ye may be the children of your
Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil, and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just, and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do
not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do you more than
others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in
heaven is perfect."
These words with a respect to revenge, as the former in the case of swearing, do forbid
some things which were formerly lawful to the Jews, considering their condition and dispensation,
and command unto such as will be the disciples of Christ, a more perfect, eminent, and full
signification of charity, as also patience and suffering, than was required of them in that time,
state, and dispensation by the Law of Moses. This is not only the judgment of most, if not all, the
ancient Fathers, so called, of the first three hundred years after Christ, but also of many others,
and in general of all those who have rightly understood and propagated the law of Christ
concerning swearing, as appears from Justin Martyr in Dialog. cum Tryph. ejusdemque
Apolog. 2. Item, ad Zenam. Tertull., de Corona Militis. It., Apolog.
cap. 21 & 37. It., lib. de Idolol. c. 17-19. It., ad Scapulam. cap. 1.
It., adversus Jud., cap. 7 and 9. It., adv. Gnost. 13. It., adv. Marc. c. 4.
It., lib. de patientia. c. 6.10. Orig. cont. Celsum, lib. 3,5,8. It., in Josuam,
hom. 12 cap. 9. It., in Matt. cap. 26. Tract. 36. Cyprian, Epist.
56. It., ad Cornel. Lactan. de just. lib. 5. c. 18: lib. 6,
c. 20. Ambr., in Luc. 22. Chrysostom, in Matt. 5, hom. 18. It.,
in Matt. 26, hom. 85. It., lib. 2. de sacerdotio. It., 1
Cor. 13. Chromatius, in Matt. 5. Jerome, ad. Ocean. It., lib. Epist.
p. 3. Tom. 1. Ep. 2. Athan., de Inc. Verb. Dei. Cyril Alex., lib. 11. in
Johan. cap. 25-26. Yea Augustine, although he vary much in this matter, notwithstanding in
these places he did condemn fighting: Epist. 158-160. It., ad. Judices,
Epist. 263. It., ad. Darium, & lib. 21. It., ad. Faustum., cap.
76, lib. 22, de Civit. ad. Marc. cap. 6, as Sylburgius relates. Euthym., in
Matt. 26. and among others of this last7
age Erasmus in Luc. cap. 3 and 22. Ludov. Vives, in Introd. ad. Sap. J. Ferus, lib.
4. Comment in Matt. 7. & Luc. 22.
From hence it appears that there is so great a connection betwixt these two precepts of
Christ, that, as they were uttered and commanded by him at one and the same time, so the same
way they were received by men of all ages, not only in the first promulgation, by the little number
of the disciples, but also after the Christians increased in the first three hundred years, even so also
in the apostasy the one was not left and rejected without the other, and now again in the
restitution and renewed preaching of the eternal Gospel, they are acknowledged as eternal and
unchangeable laws, properly belonging to the evangelical state and perfection thereof, from which
if any withdraw, he falls short of the perfection of a Christian man.
And truly the words are so clear in themselves, that in my judgment, they need no
illustration to explain their sense: for it is more easy to reconcile the greatest contradictions as
these laws of our Lord Jesus Christ with the wicked practices of wars, for they are plainly
inconsistent. Whoever can reconcile this, "Resist not evil," with "Resist
violence by force"; again, "Give also thy other cheek," with "strike
again"; also "Love thine enemies," with "spoil them, make a prey of them,
pursue them with fire and sword," or, "pray for those that persecute you, and those
that calumniate you," with "persecute them by fines, imprisonments, and death itself, and not only such, as do not persecute you, but
who heartily seek and desire your eternal and temporal welfare"; whoever, I say, can find a
means to reconcile these things may be supposed also to have found a way to reconcile God with
the devil, Christ with Antichrist, Light with darkness, and good with evil. But if this be
impossible, as indeed it is impossible, so will also the other be impossible, and men do but deceive
themselves and others while they boldly adventure to establish such absurd and impossible
things.
§XIV. Nevertheless because some, perhaps through
inadvertency, and by the force of custom and tradition, do transgress this command of Christ, I
shall briefly show how much war doth contradict this precept, and how much they are inconsistent
with one another, and consequently that war is no ways lawful to such as will be the disciples of
Christ. For
First, Christ commands that we should "love our enemies";k but war, on the contrary,
teacheth us to hate and destroy them.
Secondly the apostle saith that "we war not after the flesh," and that
"we fight not with flesh and blood."l But outward war is according to the flesh, and against flesh and blood,
for the shedding of the one and destroying of the other.
Thirdly, the apostle saith that "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual."name="t8">m 8 But the weapons of outward warfare are carnal, such as cannon,
muskets, spears, swords, &c., of which there is no mention in the armour described by
Paul.
Fourthly, because James testifies, that wars and strifes come from the lusts, which war in
the members of carnal men:n But
Christians, that is, those, that are truly saints, "have crucified the flesh, with its affections
and lusts."o Therefore they cannot
indulge them by waging war.
Fifthly, because the prophets Isaiah and Micah have expressly prophesied, that in the
mountain of the house of the Lord, Christ shall judge the nations, and then
"they shall beat their swords into ploughshares," &c.,p and the ancient Fathers of the first
three hundred years after Christ did affirm these prophecies to be fulfilled in the Christians of their
times, who were most averse from war, concerning which Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others
may be seen: which need not seem strange to any, since Philo Judaeus abundantly testifies of the
Essenes, that "there was none found among them, that would make instruments of
war." But how much more did Jesus come, that he might keep his followers from
fighting, and might bring them to patience and charity.
Sixthly, because the prophet foretold that there should "none hurt nor kill in all the
Holy Mountain" of the Lord:q But
outward war is appointed for killing and destroying.
Seventhly, because Christ said that "his Kingdom is not of this world," and
therefore that "his servants shall not fight:"r Therefore those that fight are not his disciples nor servants.
Eighthly, because he reproved Peter for the use of the sword, saying, "Put up again
thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword."s Concerning which Tertullian
speaks well (lib. de idol.), "How shall he fight in peace without a sword, which the
Lord did take away? For although soldiers came to John and received a form of observation, if
also the centurion believed afterwards, he disarmed every soldier in disarming of Peter."
Idem., de Coron. Mil. asketh, "shall it be lawful to use the sword, the Lord saying
that he that useth the sword shall perish by the sword?"
Ninthly, because the apostle admonisheth Christians, that they defend not themselves,
neither revenge by rendering evil for evil, but give place unto wrath, because vengeance is the
Lord's: "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. If thine enemy hunger,
feed him: if he thirst, give him drink":t
But war throughout teacheth and enjoineth the quite contrary.
Tenthly, because Christ calls his children to bear his cross,u not to crucify or kill others: to
patience not to revenge: to Truth and simplicity, not to fraudulent stratagems of war, or to play
the sycophant, which John himself forbids: to flee the glory of this world; not to acquire it by
warlike endeavours: Therefore war is altogether contrary unto the Law and Spirit of Christ.
§XV. Obj. But they object that it is lawful to
war, because Abraham did war before the giving of the Law, and the Israelites after the giving of
the Law.
Answ. I answer as before, 1. that Abraham offered sacrifices at that time, and
circumcised the males: which nevertheless are not lawful for us under the Gospel.
2. That neither defensive nor offensive war was lawful to the Israelites, of their own will,
or by their own counsel or conduct, but they were obliged at all times, if they would be
successful, first to inquire the oracle of God.
3. That their wars against the wicked nations were a figure of the inward war of the true
Christians against their spiritual enemies, in which we overcome the devil, the world, and the
flesh.
4. Something is expressly forbidden by Christ (Matt. 5:34), which was granted to the Jews
in their time, because of their hardness; and, on the contrary, we are commanded that singular
patience and exercise of love, which Moses commanded not to his disciples. From whence
Tertullian saith well against Marc., "Christ truly teacheth a new patience, even forbidding
the revenge of an injury, which was permitted by the Creator." And (lib. de patien.)
"The law finds more than it lost, by Christ's saying, Love your enemies." And in the
time of Clem. Alex. Christians were so far from wars, that he testified that they had no marks or
signs of violence among them, saying, "Neither are the faces of idols to be painted, to which
so much as to regard is forbidden: neither sword nor bow to them, that follow peace, nor cups to
them who are moderate and temperate," as Sylvius Disc. de Rev. Belg.
Obj. Secondly, they object that defence is of natural right, and that religion destroys not nature.
Answ. I answer, Be it so, but to obey God, and commend ourselves to him in faith
and patience, is not to destroy nature, but to exalt and perfect it; to wit, to elevate it from the
natural to the supernatural life, by Christ living therein and comforting it, that it may do all things
and be rendered more than conqueror.
Obj. Thirdly, they object that John did not abrogate or condemn war when the
soldiers came unto him.
Answ. I answer, What then? The question is not concerning John's doctrine, but
Christ's, whose disciples we are, not John's: for Christ and not John is that Prophet whom we
ought all to hear; and albeit that Christ said that "a greater than John the Baptist was not
among men born of women," yet he adds that "the least in the Kingdom of God is
greater than he."v But what was
John's answer, that we may see if it can justify the soldiers of this time? For if it be narrowly
minded, it will appear that what he proposeth to soldiers doth manifestly forbid them that
employment, for he commands them "not to do violence to any man, not to defraud any man,"9 but that they "be content
with their wages."w Consider then
what he dischargeth to soldiers, viz, not to use violence or deceit against any, which being
removed, let any tell how soldiers can war? For is not craft, violence, and injustice, three
properties of war, and the natural consequences of battles?
Obj. Fourthly, they object that Cornelius, and that centurion of whom there is
mention made,x were soldiers, and there is
no mention that they laid down their military employments.
Answ. I answer, Neither read we that they continued in them. But it is most
probable that, if they continued in the doctrine of Christ (and we read not any where of their
falling from the faith), that they did not continue in them; especially if we consider that two or
three ages afterwards Christians altogether rejected war, or at least a long while after that time, if
the emperor Marc. Aurel. Anton. be to be credited, who writes thus:
"I prayed to my country gods. But when I was neglected by them, and observed myself
pressed by the enemy, considering the fewness of my forces, I called to one, and entreated those
who with us are called Christians, and I found a great number of them: and I forced them with
threats: which ought not to have been; because afterwards I knew their strength and force;
therefore they betook themselves neither to the use of darts, nor trumpets, for they use not to do
so, for the cause and name of their God, which they bear in their consciences." And this
was done about an hundred and sixty years after Christ. To this add those words, which in Justin
Martyr the Christians answer, 
, that is, "We fight not with our
enemies"; and moreover the answer of Martin to Julian the Apostate, related by Sulpicius
Severus: "I am a soldier of Christ, therefore I cannot fight," which was three hundred
years after Christ. It is not therefore probable, that they continued in warlike employments. How
then is Vincent of Lérins and the Papists consistent with their maxim, "That, which
always, everywhere, and by all was received," &c.? And what becomes of the priests
with their oath, that they neither ought, nor will, interpret the Scripture but according to the
universal consent of the Fathers, so called? For it is as easy to obscure the sun at mid-day, as to
deny that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war.
And albeit this thing be so much known to all, yet it is as well known that almost all the
modern sects live in the neglect & contempt of this law of Christ, and likewise oppress
others, who in this agree not with them for conscience sake towards God, even as we have
suffered much in our country, because we neither could ourselves bear arms, nor send others in
our place, nor give our money for the buying of drums, standards, and other military attire: and
lastly, because we could not hold our doors, windows, and shops close, for conscience sake, upon
such days as fasts and prayers were appointed for to desire a blessing upon, and success for, the
arms of that Kingdom or Commonwealth (under which we live), neither give thanks for the
victories acquired by the effusion of much blood. By which forcing of the
conscience, they would have constrained our brethren living in divers kingdoms, at war together,
to have implored our God for contrary and contradictory things, and consequently impossible; for
it is impossible that two parties fighting together should both obtain the victory. And because we
cannot concur with them in this confusion, therefore we are subject to persecution. Yea and
others, who with us do witness that the use of arms is unlawful to Christians, do look asquint
upon us: but which of us two do most faithfully observe this testimony against arms? either they
who at certain times at the magistrate's order do close up their shops and houses, and meet in
their assembly, praying for the prosperity of their arms or giving thanks for some victory or other,
whereby they make themselves like to those that approve wars and fighting? Or we, which cannot
do these things, for the same cause of conscience, lest we should destroy, by our works, what we
establish in words, we shall leave to the judgment of all prudent men?
Obj. Fifthly, they object that Christ (Luke 22:36), speaking to his disciples,
commands them that he that then had not a sword, should sell his coat and buy a sword:
Therefore, say they, arms are lawful.
Answ. I answer, some indeed understand this of the outward sword, nevertheless
regarding only that occasion, otherwise judging that Christians are prohibited wars under the
Gospel: among which is Ambrose, who upon this place speaks thus: "O Lord! why
commandest thou me to buy a sword, who forbiddest me to smite with it? Why commandest thou
me to have it, whom thou prohibitest to draw it? Unless perhaps a defence be prepared, not a
necessary revenge, and that I may seem to have been able to revenge, but that I would not. For
the law forbids me to smite again: and therefore perhaps he said to Peter, offering two swords, 'It
is enough,' as if it had been lawful, until the Gospel time, that, in the Law, there might be a
learning of equity, but in the Gospel a perfection of goodness." Others judge Christ to have
spoken here mystically, and not according to the letter, as Origen upon Matt. 19. saying, "If
any looking to the letter, and not understanding the will of the words, shall sell his bodily garment,
and buy a sword, taking the words of Christ contrary to his will, he shall
perish. But concerning which sword he speaks is not proper here to mention." And truly
when we consider the answer of the disciples, "Master, behold, here are two swords,"
understanding it of outward swords; and again Christ's answer, "It is enough," it
seems that Christ would not that the rest, who had not swords (for they had only two swords),
should sell their coats, and buy an outward sword. Who can think that, matters standing thus, he
should have said two was enough? But however it is sufficient that the use of arms is
unlawful under the Gospel.
Obj. Sixthly, they object that the Scriptures and old Fathers, so called, did only
prohibit private revenge, not the use of arms for the defence of our country, body, wives, children,
and goods, when the magistrate commands it, seeing the magistrates ought to be obeyed:
Therefore albeit it be not lawful for private men to do it of themselves, nevertheless they are
bound to do it by the command of the magistrate.
Answ. I answer, If the magistrate be truly a Christian, or desires to be so, he
ought himself in the first place to obey the command of his Master, saying, "Love your
enemies," &c., and then he could not command us to kill them: but if he be not a true
Christian, then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ, to whom he ought also to obey:
for in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his laws, from the highest to the lowest, that
is, from the king to the beggar, and from Caesar to the clown. But (alas!) where shall we find
such an obedience? O deplorable fall! concerning which Ludov. Viv. writes well (lib. de con.
vit. Christ. sub. Turc.), by relation of Fredericus Sylvius, Disc. de Revol. Belg., p. 85:
"The Prince entered into the Church, not as a true and plain Christian: which had indeed
been most happy and desirable, but he brought in with him his nobility, his honors, his
ARMS, his ensigns, his triumphs, his haughtiness, his pride, his superciliousness;
that is, he came into the house of Christ accompanied with the devil, and which could no ways be
done, he would have joined two houses and two cities together, God's and the Devil's, which
could not more be done, than Rome and Constantinople, which are distant by so long a tract both
of sea and land. ('What communion, saith Paul, is there betwixt Christ and
Belial?') Their zeal cooled by degrees, their faith decreased, their whole piety degenerated,
instead whereof we make now use of shadows and images, and, as he saith, I would we could but
retain these!" Thus far Vives. But lastly, as to what relates to this thing, since nothing
seems more contrary to man's nature, and seeing, of all things, the defence of oneself seems most
tolerable, as it is most hard to men, so it is the most perfect part of the Christian religion, as that
wherein the denial of self and entire confidence in God doth most appear, and therefore Christ and
his apostles left us hereof a most perfect example. As to what relates to the present magistrates of
the Christian world, albeit we deny them not altogether the name of Christians, because of the
public profession they make of Christ's name, yet we may boldly affirm, that they are far from the
perfection of the Christian religion; because in the state in which they are (as in many places
before I have largely observed), they have not come to the pure dispensation of the Gospel, and
therefore, while they are in that condition, we shall not say that war, undertaken upon a just
occasion, is altogether unlawful to them. For even as circumcision and the other ceremonies were
for a season permitted to the Jews, not because they were either necessary, or of themselves, or
lawful at that time after the resurrection of Christ, but because that Spirit was not yet raised up in
them, whereby they could be delivered from such rudiments; so the present confessors of the
Christian name, who are yet in the mixture, and not in the patient suffering spirit, are not yet fitted
for this form of Christianity, and therefore cannot be undefending themselves, until they attain that
perfection: but for such, whom Christ has brought hither, it is not lawful to defend themselves by
arms, but they ought over all to trust to the Lord.
§XVI. But lastly, to conclude, If to give and receive
flattering titles, which are not used because of the virtues inherent in the persons, but are for the
most part bestowed by wicked men upon such as themselves; if to bow, scrape and cringe to one
another; if at every time to call one another humble servant, and that most frequently without any
design of real service, if this be the honor that comes from God, and not the honor that is from
below, then indeed our adversaries may be said to be believers, and we
condemned as proud and stubborn in denying all these things. But if with Mordecai to refuse to
bow to proud Haman,y and with Elihu not
to give flattering titles to men, lest we should be reproved of our Maker;z and if according to Peter's example
and the angel's advice, to bow only to God, and not to our fellow-servants; and if to call no man
Lord, nor Master, except under particular relations, according to Christ's command, I say, if these
things be not to be reproved, then are we not blameworthy in so doing.
If to be vain and gaudy in apparel, if to paint the face, and plait the hair; if to be clothed
with gold and silver and precious stones, and if to be filled with ribbands and lace, be to be
clothed in modest apparel; and if these be the ornaments of Christians, and if that be to be humble,
meek, and mortified, then are our adversaries good Christians indeed, and we proud, singular, and
conceited, in contenting ourselves with what need and conveniency calls for, and condemning
what is more as superfluous: but not otherwise.
If to use games, sports, plays; if to card, dice, and dance; if to sing, fiddle, and pipe; if to
use stage-plays and comedies, and to lie, counterfeit, and dissemble, be to fear always; and if that
be to do all things to the glory of God; and if that be to pass our sojourning here in fear; and if
that be to use this world, as if we did not use it; and if that be not to fashion ourselves according
to our former lusts; to be not conformable to the spirit and vain conversation of this world; then
are our adversaries, notwithstanding they use these things, and plead for them, very good, sober,
mortified, and self-denied Christians, and we justly to be blamed for judging them, but not
otherwise.
If the profanation of the Holy Name of God, if to exact oaths one from another upon
every light occasion; if to call God to witness in things of such a nature in which no earthly king
would think himself lawfully and honorably to be a witness, be the duties of a Christian man; I
shall confess, that our adversaries are excellent good Christians, & we wanting in our duty:
but if the contrary be true, of necessity our obedience to God in this thing
must be acceptable.
If to revenge ourselves, or to render injury, evil for evil, wound for wound, to take eye for
eye, tooth for tooth; if to fight for outward and perishing things, to go a warring one against
another, whom we never saw, nor with whom we never had any contest, nor anything to do,
being moreover altogether ignorant of the cause of the war, but only that the magistrates of the
nations foment quarrels one against another, the causes whereof are for the most part unknown to
the soldiers that fight, as well as upon whose side the right or wrong is; and yet to be so furious,
and rage one against another, to destroy and spoil all, that this or the other worship may be
received or abolished; If to do this, and much more of this kind, be to fulfil the law of Christ, then
are our adversaries indeed true Christians, and we miserable heretics, that suffer ourselves to be
spoiled, taken, imprisoned, banished, beaten, and evilly entreated, without any resistance, placing
our trust only in god, that he may defend us, and lead us by this way of the Cross unto his
Kingdom. But if it be otherways, we shall certainly receive the reward which the Lord hath
promised to those that cleave to him, and, in denying themselves, confide in him.
And, to sum up all, If to use all these things, and many more that might be instanced, be to
walk in the strait way that leads to Life, be to take up the Cross of Christ; be to die with him to
the lusts and perishing vanities of this world; and to arise with him in newness of Life; and sit
down with him in the heavenly places; Then our adversaries may be accounted such, and they
need not fear they are in the broad way that leads to destruction; and we are greatly mistaken that
have laid aside all these things for Christ's sake, to the crucifying of our own lusts, and to the
procuring to ourselves shame, reproach, hatred, and ill-will from the men of this world: not as if
by so doing we judged to merit heaven but as knowing they are contrary to the will of him who
redeems his children from the love of this world and its lusts, and leads them in the ways of Truth
and holiness in which they take delight to walk.
THE CONCLUSION
If in God's fear, candid reader, thou appli'st thyself to consider this system of religion here
delivered, with its consistency and harmony, as well in itself as with the Scriptures of Truth; I
doubt not but thou wilt say with me and many more, that this is the spiritual day of Christ's
appearance, wherein he is again revealing the ancient paths of Truth and righteousness. For thou
mayest observe here the Christian religion, in all its parts, truly established and vindicated, as it is
a living, inward, spiritual, pure, and substantial thing, and not a mere form, show, shadow, notion,
and opinion, as too many have hitherto held it, whose fruits declare they wanted that which they
bear the name of; and yet many of those are so in love with their empty forms and shadows, that
they cease not to calumniate us for commending and calling them to the Substance, as if we
therefore denied or neglected the true form and outward part of Christianity, which indeed is (as
God the searcher of hearts knows) a very great slander. Thus, because we have desired people
earnestly to feel after God near and in themselves, telling them that their notions of God, as he is
beyond the clouds, will little avail them if they do not feel him near: hence they have sought
maliciously to infer that we deny any God except that which is within us. Because we tell people
that it is the Light and the Law within, and not the letter without, that can truly tell them their
condition, and lead them out of all evil: hence they say we vilify the Scriptures and set up our own
imaginations above them. Because we tell them that it is not their talking or believing of Christ's
outward life, sufferings, death, and resurrection, no more than the Jews crying, "the Temple
of the Lord, the temple of the Lord," that will serve their turn, or justify them in the sight of
God, but that they must know Christ in them, whom they have crucified, to be raised, and to
justify them, and redeem them from their iniquities: hence they say, we deny the life, death, and
sufferings of Christ, justification by his blood, and remission of sins through him. Because we tell
them, while they are talking and determining about the resurrection, that they have more need to
know the Just One, whom they have slain, raised in themselves, and to be sure they are partakers of the first resurrection, and that if this be, they will be
the more capable to judge of the second: hence they say that we deny the resurrection of the
body. Because, when we hear them talk foolishly of heaven and hell, and the last judgment, we
exhort them to come out of that hellish condition they are in, and come down to the judgment of
Christ in their own hearts, and believe in the Light and follow it, that so they may come to sit in
the heavenly places that are in Christ Jesus, hence they maliciously say that we deny any heaven or
hell but that which is within us, and that we deny any general judgment: which slanders the Lord
knows are foully cast upon us whom God hath raised for this end, and gathered us, that by us he
might confound the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nought the understanding of the prudent,
and might, in and by his own Spirit and Power in a despised people (that no flesh might glory in
his presence), pull down that dead, dark, corrupt image, and mere shadow and shell of
Christianity, wherewith Antichrist hath deceived the nations, for which end he hath called us to be
a first-fruits of those that serve him, and worship him no more in the oldness of the letter, but in
the newness of the Spirit. And though we be few in number, in respect of others, and weak as to
outward strength, which we also altogether reject; and foolish, if compared with the wise ones of
this world, yet as God hath prospered us, notwithstanding much opposition, so will he yet do; that
neither the art, wisdom, nor violence of men or devils shall be able to quench that little spark that
hath appeared, but it shall grow to the consuming of whatsoever shall stand up to oppose it. The
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, yea he that hath risen in a small remnant shall arise and go on
by the same arm of power in his spiritual manifestation, until he hath conquered all his enemies,
until all the kingdoms of the earth become the Kingdom of Christ Jesus.
Unto him that hath begun this work, not among the rich or great ones, but among the poor
and small, and hath revealed it not to the wise and learned, but unto the poor, unto babes and
sucklings, even to him the Only-Wise and Omnipotent GOD be honor, glory, thanksgiving, and
renown, from henceforth and forever. Amen. Halelu-JAH.
Notes
a. Eph. 5:11; 1 Pet. 1:14; John 5:44; Jer. 10:3; Acts
10:26; Matt. 15:13; Col. 2:8.
b. After this manner the Papists used to disapprove
the sobriety of the Waldenses, of whom Reincrus, a Popish author, so writeth. "But this
sect of the Leonists hath a great show of truth; for that they live righteously, before men, and
believe all things well of God, and all the articles which are contained in the creed; only they
blaspheme and hate the church of Rome."
c. Eccles. Hist. Lib. 4, p. 445.
d. Phil. 3:20.
e. Jerome, in his Epistle to Celant, admonisheth her
that "she was to be preferred to none for her nobility, for the Christian religion admits not
of respect of persons, neither are men to be esteemed because of their outward condition, but
according to the disposition of the mind to be esteemed either noble or base; he that obeyeth not
sin is free, who is strong in virtue is noble." Let the Epistle of James be read.
f. 1 Sam. 2:30.
g. This history is reported by Casaubon in his book
of manners and customs, p. 169. "In this last age he is esteemed an uncivil man who will
not, either to his inferior or equal, subscribe himself servant. But Sulpicius Severus was
heretofore sharply reproved by Paulinus Bishop of Nola, because in his epistle he had subscribed
himself his 'servant,' saying, 'Beware thou subscribe not thyself his servant, who is thy brother, for
flattery is sinful, not a testimony of humility to give those honors to men which are only due to the
One Lord, Master and God.'"
h. Rom. 12:2.
i. Athan. in pass. & cruc, Domin.
j. Jer., lib. Ep. part. 3. tract. 1.
Ep. 2.
k. Matt. 5:43.
l. Eph. 6:12.
m. 2 Cor. 10:4.
n. Jas. 4:1.
o. Gal. 5:24.
p. Isa. 2:4; Micah 4:3.
q. Isa. 65:25.
r. John 18:36.
s. Matt. 26:52.
t. Rom. 12:20-21.
u. Mark 8:34.
v. Luke 7:28.
w. Luke 3:14.
x. Matt. 8:5.
y. Esth. 3:5.
z. Job 32:21-22.
Editor's Notes
1. Later editors insert "vain" before
"talking."
2. Later editors delete "excess of."
3. Later editors render this "not to be called of
men Master."
4. ostentive = ostentatious
5. Later editors insert "but others who have
no such relation."
6. obtest = to charge, earnestly entreat.
7. 1678 London edition omits
"last."
8. Later editors replace "spiritual" with
"mighty through God."
9. Later editors replace "not to defraud any
man" with "nor to accuse any falsely."