A Strange forreign Name , come from Rome or Constantinople , as the illiterate Quaker may think ( he for whom he pretends to have taken such Pains ) who being better acquainted with Scripture-Language , and seeing his whole Endeavours through his Book employed in Opposing the Command of Christ , and adjuring men to break it by Swearing , thinks it might have been far more truly , properly & pertinently ANTICHRIST's EXORCIST , as one likely to have such an Office in that Synagogue , as the highest Preferment he has been capable to attain . And the rather because after the innate Principle thereof he takes upon him immediately after the mention of his weak Endeavours in Doctrine , to ad●ure the Magistrate to severe Discipline , only short of killing the Quakers ; they that delivered the Martyrs to be burned , used as mild Expressions . But whether they will obey the Doctrine or no , they must not know their dogmatical Doctor further then by his Mystical Name , for fear ( it seems ) to have that laid ( which he casts upon us ) where it is due , which he calls Calumnies , Reproaches , Railings , Invectives , against which he sayes there is no Fence for the most unspotted Innocence , and such may he think there is not against his , who hiding himself throws them at us , and bespatters us for our dissenting from his Opinions , which ( in ours ) rather deserves the Epithetes he bestows . But what Reason has he to fear , seeing in all our Treatise he cannot find it done to any Name there , though many dissenting from us at very great Distances ; but that we rather there shew our selves willing to own the Truth in all , where we can find it in any measure , passing by the other ; yea , even in some that have given as severe and uncharitable a Character of us , as he has , which , for that Cause he revives and returns upon us , being offended that any should mention any Truth , that we might agree with them in , and own , accounting that a Detraction from their Reputation , to whose Person he confesses we have not spoken any thing derogatory ( neither to any in our whole Treatise of Oaths ) And his Words , namely , Bp. Gauden's , he does not deny , neither the purport of them ; only he is offended they are to our Purpose : As he is also at Robert Sanderson's , afterward Bishop , whereto he is not ashamed to say , There is not a Syllable thereof in that Page , viz. 141. printed 1670 in the 5th Lecture , De Obligatione Juramenti . Let any that understands Latine but look the Page towards the Beginning , and see if there be not Twenty Eight Syllables , a whole Sentence , an entire Proposition betwixt two full Points , viz. Non opus fuit ista novo interdicto prohibere quae ex se erant semper illicita . There was not need by a New Interdiction to prohibit those things , which of themselves were alwayes unlawful . Because he cannot mis-interpret this Man a● he does Jerome , he takes another course , a shameful one , to tell a gross Lye , in denying there are any such words , taking Advantage belike of the supposed Perfunctoriness , Credulity or Ignorance of his Readers , thinking they would take all on his Word , without Examination , which is great In ustice . Else he durst not affirm what he does of Chrysostom ; for if any look into the Places cited by us , he may evidently see the contrary ; and a Man that durst shew his Face , not brazen , durst not for very Shame say as he does , That his Saying , at least , where there is no Necessity , does therefore allow it , and authorize it ; contrary to all the rest he writes . These Three are all ( with Jerome ) he medles with in his Preface , which is all we hear of after so long Expectation , and so return this in short ; which is enough for a Dogmatical we know not who .

But as for Jerom's Translation and Interpretation that he makes , he has shewed himself as bad a moral Man as divine ; for he leaves out of him [ But the Truth of the Gospel receives not an Oath , seeing every faithful Word is for an Oath ] He might with as good Reason leave out of Christ's Speech , But I say unto you , Swear not at all : in the mean time charging us with leaving out that which even the Unlearned may read in our Book , all but [ us ] which is not Jerom's , but his ; and yet is not ashamed to tell them , He shall for their Benefit translate it Word for Word : And if so , how is it that he never charges us with leaving out [ us ] a principal Word that determins for him , unless it were taken indifinitely , as [ We ] before for Men , as sometimes by Paul and James , the Apostles : and why charges he us not with adding all that restrictive part aforesaid , which is to be read in ours , and not his ? Can it be expected , that the Man that charges us with leaving out that which in plain English is there to be seen , with our Observation on it , would be so favourable , as to pass by our leaving out that principal Word for him , and adding the principal part for us too of the whole Comment in ENGLISH , if it were not in the LATINE . The Quaker is not so unlearned as not to perceive these things ; and to know and discern the Voice of the true Shepherd from the Stranger , and him that hides himsel● , and thinks he may say any thing , and not be aspersed , as he sayes , that is , charged with his lyes and deceit . Can he account him a true Shepherd that flees and hides himself from those he accounts the Woolves Prey , and be so rash and careless ( to say the least ) in the Work he sayes he undertakes for their Benefit and Recovery , as to examine and compare things no better , and then be so bitter against them for his own Negligence , as to set the Magistrate at work ? Hath not the Quaker learned so much as to know , that such a one careth not for the Sheep , and therefore is a Hireling ? He can find no Benefit in receiving by an implicit Faith , as of old , a Latin Comment from a Priest's Mouth , that distinguishes nothing between the Commands of the Law and the Gospel by his Interpretation , which he has cause to suspect , as aforesaid . And also that after Tythes , he will come for Offerings and Sacrifices too : And if they will not give the Priest raw Flesh , he will take it by force before he burn the Fat : And can he believe that he Translates it for his Benefit , that like the Rhemists leaves Victims and Daemons untranslated , that he may come to him for a new Interpretation , and yet knows not where , nor what is his Name , unless it be St. Jerom , so not only Christening but Sainting himself . For instead of confirming his Interpretation , or explaining it out of other places of the same Father ( as one would think by his appeal he would have done ) he askes the Question , Doth St. Jerom say any such thing ? And answers himself , I absolutely deny it , without further proof , but his own forged Interpretation , and dogmatical Assertion , the Authority of this new spurious Jerome . For as for the ancient Father Jerome , the Illiterate Quaker need but turn back the Leaf in our Treatise of Oaths , and there he may find , that in one of his Epistles , he writes , that We must not blaspheme , and say , the Lord forbad us , what he did himself : And sayes , That we that are Servants must not think to do as the Lord did ; which this man dare not say was Swearing falsly or vainly : For that were to blaspheme with a witness . But yet he saith , to take off that Objection , After the Lord forbad us to Swear , neither did he ever Swear himself : May not therefore the Illiterate Quaker from this place justly suspect , that he has put [ us ] not in ours , into his Translation , which makes the Father contradict himself , whom he has a better belief in , then his false Son . And may not the Illiterate Quaker justly suspect his [ if ] and his [ should ] which he finds not in ours to be of the same Progeny ? Seeing it thrusts out a whole Sentence ( to make his sence ) which he finds in ours , for none of which passages he taxes ours ; which certainly he would have done , if we had given him that Advantage , he may think , he finds him not so favourable : Neither doth he find him disapproving our Translating [ by God ] which he without any instance opposes with his Translating [ against God ] for as for ours there may be an Instance in the same place , for there [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is rendered by Pagninus and Arias Montanus [ in Jerusolyma ] by our Translators [ by Jerusalem ] not [ against Jerusalem ] answerable to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that his learned Brethren of the Ministry ( as he owns them ) may take notice how learnedly this their Brother has come to their Assistance against us ; let them consider that by his Forgery he has not only made the learned Father break his own Head by Contradiction , and other learned Fathers his Contemporaries , as Hilary , Chromatius , &c. who with others agree with him , saying , Observe that Christ here not only Reproves the Jews Superstition of old , but also Forbids his to Swear . ( And to them we appeal for Jerom , as well as to himself : But also , he makes him also desperately to break ( his Contemporary also ) Priscian the Grammarian's Head . And we do not read , he bare him such ill-will , shewing himself as bad Garmmarian as Moral or Divine : For besides the [ quasi . as ] of similitude , coupling [ parvulis ] to [ Judaeis ] understood ; he forges another [ quasi , as if ] of simulation to serve to [ fuerat ] the indicative , and thinks he has got a great advantage ( tanquam fecerit ipse aliquid ) that he has got [ fuerat ] instead of fuit : Which , alas ! is none at all , for fuerat makes more for us , then fuit . He sayes , it 's not [ fuit ] and say we , it 's not [ fuisset ] oh , but , sayes he , it 's [ fuerat ] quasi non norimus , that [ quasi ] of Simulation [ as if ] requires a Subjunctive , and not an Indicative . Let any Boy look in his Grammar , and prove this learned Translator for the Illiterate Quaker , and for his [ quasi parvulis ] he will write him therein [ Haereticus majusculis ] as his properest name : And to make this pass , he forges a distinction after [ hoc ] to make it accusative [ this ] and out of it another [ hoc ] a Nominative [ it . ] And so with this great literate man , these little Notes of sence [ but 's , not 's , ifs and and 's ] are but as Nonsence and Metaphyfical Notions , as Insignificant Nothings , to be multiplyed or substracted at pleasure . This shews he has learned these and the other Arts he speaks of very notably , or the art of Grammar very sorrily . What would this Man have done , if he had lived at that time , and had the Translating of Matthews's Book , or had had the handling of Jerom's Works before Erasmus ; he would have been a notable Artist in the Expurgatory Office : And as if he had learned it there , and were to Practice it among Protestants ; he shews what he would do , ( if it were feizable and permitted ) by Bishop Sanderson ; for he would not leave one Syllable un-obliturated , that made against him or his Party . But the Lord's Mercy has rescued these our Times and Places from any ones expectation of any such attempt . We say not Bishop Gauden and Bishop Sanderson are against Swearing at all ; but we say , what we cite out of them is truly cited : whose words one would have thought , he would have made it his business , not to deny , and oppose with several Reasons , as if they had been Forged by us : But to have defended , and shewn to what purpose they had been , if not to ours , if he could ; and so to have shewn his Art .

But we say , That Jerom and Chrysostom and those learned Fathers , with several others are against it ; as they that will make tryal , will be able to judge , if they do it without Prejudice ; and to that we refer it , against all his Slanders , Forgings and Wrestings , which are not worth answering , they are so gross . What are of any moment in his Arguments are answered already to others , only this at present to what is cited by him out of Bishop Sanderson , saying , Swearing is not Ceremonial , and must continue , because Controversies must : We deny that Strife and Controversie must endure ; especially such Controversies for the ending of which Oaths were permitted , they must fail , and Charity never fail . Controversie is not of an everlasting Nature , as Love that is moral , is , upon this ground Swearing must fail . And so is not Moral but Ceremonial ; as may be shewed by the definition of a Ceremony from two Bishops , J. Wilkins , and W. Floyd , in the real Character . For there Ceremony is defined a solemn Circumstance , which is an external mode , wherewith things are accompanyed and done : Now without this the controversie failes betwixt us ; for abate us the solemn Circumstance wherewith it is accompanyed & done , the thing , confessing Truth , speaking in the fear of God , we do not refuse . The Circumstances denominates and determins it Swearing . For the number Seven , as the word [ sheba ] signifies , is a Circumstance used by the Ancients about it , as appears , Gen. 21. the first place we find the word in : And so is jicrethu berith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they made a Covenant , the same with Ferire Faedus used by the Heathen . The Substance of the old Swearing , which the Apostle calls Confessing , Rom. 14.11 . we deny not . It is the Ceremony , Circumstance and Solemnity you contend with us for , which is Swearing , if Judicial it binds not .

Yet this Man is not ashamed to expostulate , WHATSOEVER IS COMMANDED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT , IS IT NOT COMMANDED IN THE NEW ; making no Distinction of Judicial , Ceremonial and Moral , and making it heinous to affirm the contrary . Who knoweth what he would be at ?