a lyer pag. 17â— Since upon that account whosoever swears by the name of God swears in vain and to no purpose whether he be a true man or one deceitful his word amounting to as much as his oath And why A. S. mentions the third Commandment to prove swearing lawful under the Gospel except for the morality of it which he looks upon Christ came not to destroy and doth he look that every letter and syllable of all the ten Commandments is so moral in all respects unchangable and uncaple of any annihilation by Christs coming he much forgets himself for all these things contained in the first Table are not so moral or perpetual without some ceremoniality and subjection to alteration by Christs coming as he imagines if he had but remembred the fourth Commandment the next unto it Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day which then was the very 7th day of the week which God had sanctified was but a type and sign and shadow and figure and a ceremony of the 7th day of the worlds rest from its labour and of the everlasting Sabbath as I said before Heb. 4. and I might as well argue if the 7th day of the week was commanded in the fourth Commandment then the 7th day is not prohibited neither by commandment example or practice of Christ the Apostles or Primitive Christians and I might add this as a reason because Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and further I might add the 7th day was enjoyned in the 4th Commandment and they used to call it as moral as the third and therefore it ought to be so under the Gospel or else the Law written in ' lables of stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection and what would all my arguing prove even as much as A. S. his arguing the continuation and necessity of oaths from the third Commandment and that is nothing at all and the Law of God needs not A. S. nor any vindication it is perfect and endures for ever Psal. 19. 7. and the Ceremonies land types and shadows that were joyned with and unto the substance of the Law doth neither add nor detract from its perfection but it is the same in its self for ever and though we cannot own swearing in that ceremonious way as the Jewes did use it till the seed came unto whom the Law and the Prophets bore witness yet we do not make void the third Commandment we take not his name in vain but reverence it and speakes well of it and sanctifies it in our hearts and as the Apostle said Do we make void the law through the preaching of Faith God forbid So do we make void the law or the perfection of it by speaking the truth and bearing witness to the truth though as I said we cannot own those typical ceremonious way of swearing as it was in the first Covenant nay it is established and the third Commandment is established for he that speaks the truth and bears witness in and from the truth honours Gods name and reverences it forasmuch as he is called the God of truth and as we have said being lawfully called before a Magistrate to bear testimony in any thing wherein the glory of God or our Neighbour is concerned or the decision of Controversie seeing that true testimony is a medium that concernes as much to that purpose now as swearing did under the Law therefore we have still been and are ready to answer all these necessary ends and as well and this is as good and expedient to be put in practice amongst Christians as interposition of Oaths enjoyned by God in the first Covenant and far more Evangelical and therefore shall conclude with that of Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath His eighth Argument is That Christ did never any things without some ground of reason but no reason can be shewed why all manner of swearing should be forbidden in a due manner and upon a just and necessary occasion and therefore we may well believe that such swearing was neither here or any where else forbidden Reply We shall not much dissent or disagree about terms with A. S. that Christ did never any thing without some ground or reason but yet we must deny his Conclusion that no reason can be given why all manner of swearing should be forbidden first of all there was a time since man had a being in this Creation when he was in the image of God and stood in the Covenant of God when there was no Oath neither any necessity thereof Man being endued with power from God which was placed in him so that he was in a capacity to fulfill obey and serve and believe his Maker without an Oath for unbelief or sin had not yet entred and this was before the fall Gen. 1. 26 27. Secondly Christ the unspeakable gift of God who is the Mediator of the everlasting Covenant yea the Covenant it self who is given for a leader to the People and who is made a Propitiation for sin and transgression to end both sin transgression and unbelief which was the cause of the addition of the Law who leads to the beginning again all that truly do believe and are worthy to be called true Christians or by the name of Christ to have union with God again in that life power truth righteousness and wisdom in which the Image of God truly consists which was before sin and transgression and before the Law which was added because of it which was commanded four hundred and thirty years after the Promise was made Gal. 3. 17. Thirdly After sin was entred and death by sin an unbelieving part got up in all the Sons of Adam so that they could not believe God nor his Promises and yet such was his love unto Mankind considering the state into which they were plunged for confirmation of his Word unto man he swore by himself this was the Lords condescention unto their low and unbelieving estate all that time and no way exemplary for Christians truly such who are come into the Faith and to the truth it self who do believe that all the Promises are fulfilled in Christ yea and amen who is the author of Faith and of eternal Salvation to them that believe Heb. 9. 12. who prohibited that by his command Mat. 5. 23. which sometimes was permitted yea and commanded yea and added because of transgression and for which the law and the command for Oaths was only added which he did not destroy because he leads from under the power of that which the Law came against which is just and good and holy and the seed fulfills it and hath unity with it and with him who is the Judge and Law-giver and Saviour of all that do believe in him from sin and transgression Fourthly At that time when the Law was given forth at Mount Sina Exod. 19. 20. generally all the Nations were given to Idolatry and to serve and worship strange
certain expression of an oath which forme of words that though he count them certain we find not either under the Law or under the Gospel and I look upon it more as a piece of flattery in A. S. because this is the forme and the custome which is now called swearing which is in use in this Nation and its strange to us that they will reckon this so great a piece of peculiar service which is incommunicable to any Creature but only to God when as indeed we never find it written or commanded either among the Jews or commended or used amongst all the writings of Christ and the Apostles that hath relation to Christianity Indeed I remember that I have read that in the days when the Popes Authority was in full power here in England how that the Chancellour then of England said to one of John Wickliffs followers being brought before him in Examination he said unto him Lay thy hand upon the Book thou Heretick and swear so help me God and holy doom An old superstitious Popish forme I look upon it to be and hath no consistance with an Oath in its true matter and forme under the law when it was commanded and for ought I see A. S. will rather take part with the Church of Rome and her members who persecuted rather then Wickliffe that famous Reformer who had his Bones taken up and burned 41. years after his Decease and his Books and these Articles condemned by the Council of Constance who also burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague for holding John Wickliffs Opinions which was that all Oaths under the Gospel be unlawful I say A. S. might have been more modest then with the Council of Constance condemn them for error seeing they were the only people in their age and time that opposed and suffered for opposing the Church of Rome in the Apostacy seeing that they are faine to own them if they look for any Reformation before Luther to be their witnesses against the Church of Rome which I have heard many Protestants say that they were on their part against the Church of Rome and though A. S. tells us of a generation of people quos non persuadabis etiam si persuaveris who as they will not be perswaded so they will not be councelled who will have nothing else to be the formality of an Oath but by God but this he says only of his own head except he knew some people that we know not of for we say to swear the Lord liveth as an oath and again as the Lord lives is an oath or by the Lord that lives for ever and ever is an oath and yet we must needs deny that Paul swore in the 1 Cor. 15. 1. when he said by your rejoycing I die daily And we never said A. S. mistook himself in saying that by as the only mark and character of an oath and if Austin said upon these words of Paul as A. S. tells us per vestram gloriam juratio est upon Pauls words I suspect his judgment and therefore shall not so much regard it But A. S. seems not to be at unity in his book with himself notwithstanding all his raveling out where he seems in his 41. page to dislike of Nicholas Fullers judgment viz. that there is no oath where God is not interposed and yet in the 56. page he saith that the substance of an oath consists in the attestation of God and in the 89. page he saith that Christ answering to the high Priest I am and thou hast said is an oath And in the 91. page it was enough that Christ denyed not to swear and from this he imagines that he did swear and when we enquire what the oath was it amounts but to this thou hast said I am and where was the attestation of God here named or mentioned or spoken on by Christ was his words any more then his own Doctrine which he taught before Let your yea be yea and your nay nay when the high Priest said art thou the King of the Jewes he answered I am and is this any more then yea though not in the same syllables and Mat. 26. 63. I adjure thee to tell us whether thou art the son of God or not and he answered thou hast said And is this any more then yea or I am or it is truth But indeed if one should traduce A. S. in his discourse and of his definition of an Oath it is so uncertain one shall hardly know what to pitch upon to be his judgment sometime it is this and sometime it iâ— that and sometime it is neither this nor that sometime he says it is an oath where God is interposed one while an oath consists in the attestation of God another while it consists in saying truly truly and sometimes I call God to witness is an oath and sometimes thou hast said is an oath sometime because God is named in a sentence therefore he concludes it must be an oath otherwhiles when he is not named it must be an oath and thus he twines up and down leaving people in the dark and leading them after his imaginations And I shall conclude the Answer to this reason and neither impute ignorance nor wickedness to the great Apostle nor conclude that Christs words as he saith doubtless the Apostle did must be understood in a limited sence and limited only to Creatures and not to all swearing and why so but because the Apostle said God is witness and I speak the truth in Christ which is no contradiction of Christs prohibition swear not at all His seventh Argument is this If some swearing be enjoyned in the third Commandment then all swearing is not forbidden by Christ in these words Swear not at all because he came not to destroy the Law but some swearing is their enjoyned or else the Law written by the finger of God in Tables of Stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection and therefore in this negative precept the affirmative must needs be included thou shalt reverence the Name of the Lord and swear by it whensoever it is not vain but necessary which is required by a lawful Magistrate for the glory of God and for maintaining of peace punishing offenders and ending of Controversies and all these are necessary ends but not attainable at least not so well by any expedient yet put in practice as by interposition of oaths so it cannot reasonably be believed that Christ would forbid them being of such important use Reply The substance of this is answered before but however A. S. how he can make this third Commandment Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain to prove the continuation of swearing under the Gospel among Christians we do not see If Bishop Gaudens words be true as they are who says A true Christians oath is needless his word being as firme as it page 41. and an evil mans oath is worthy of no more credit then
the place before cited Numb 30. 2. is the place Christ alludes to you have heard it said thou shalt not forswear thy selfe so saith the Law in forty places but performe unto the Lord thine Oathes But I say unto you swear not at all no not by any oath at all note the opposition in the particle but which is between the old lawful legal swearing and no swearing at all not between no swearing and such prophane swearing as was unlawfull under the Law the whole summe is this the Law said break no oaths but I say take none for if Christ intend no more in these phrases swear not at all not by any oath then thus swear not vainly prophanely ordinary or by Creatures in your communication forswear not your selves what forbids he more then the Law forbad for Heaven and Earth Jerusalem A. S. says Christ reckons among sinful oaths and these are Creatures and swearing by Creatures was forbidden by the Law I grant quoth A. S. then this reason stands still good he either forbad all oaths or he forbad no more then the Law forbad and though it be granted that the Jewes swore by the Creatures as the Temple Altar Jerusalem and therefore Christ prohibits them and reproves them for these things and likewise all swearing whatsoever what doth A. S. gain by this for it 's evident in divers passages of his Sermon in the 5th Chap. of Mat. that he teaches a righteousness which exceeds that of the Law as I have shewed before which he came to fulfill and not to destroy by taking away the ceremony of Swearing and establishing the substance in its stead which is speaking the truth as in the sight of God in uprightness of heart yea we say again what saith he more to his Disciples else then the Scribes and Pharisees to theirs they said swear not falsly prophanely but by God only swear not falsly For Bishop Gauden cites for his Author Drusius among the Jewes all thing in Judicials were confirmed by the Religion of an oath wherein the name of God was interposed therefore Christ says more unto his Disciples in express terms swear no oath at all otherwise how would their Righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees which except it did they could in no case enter into the Kingdom of God the perfection and Righteousness of the Law therefore in this point of Swearing was not forswearing the perfection and Righteousness of the Gospel in the same is not swearing at all so though the Gospel be not against the Law yet the Gospel exceeds the Law in every point the Law said kill not the Gospel be not angry the Law commit not adultery the Gospel look not on a woman lust not so in all the prohibitions of Christ the Commandements of Christ went beyond the Law also in this of swearing yet it did not if now there be any swearing at all among Christians and Disciples of Christ yet we shall also with A. S. agree that Christ not only forbad all swearing even that commanded by the Law sometime lawful but he also forbids and reproves and condemnes swearing by Creatures and vain swearing in all communication and their perverting of the Law and too much loosing it by traditions and making it void by their false glosses and counts them blind guides which said to swear by the Temple by the Altar by Heaven was nothing he pronounced a woe against them and concluded they were bound to keep those oaths though they ought not to have sworn them for as much as he that swears by the lesser swears also by the greater as he that swears by Heaven swears by the throne of God and him that sits thereon Mat. 23. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. We confess with A. S. this was but a sinful prophane creature swearing an irregular forme of swearing by the name of God the Jewes indulged themselves in but what doth A. S. gain by this it's evident enough that solemn oaths by God himself as those familiar oaths by Creatures in which they tacitely sware by God are forbidden by Christ but I say unto you sware not at all But A. S. tells us as Grotius tells him out of Philo Judeos that the Pharisees taught them to performe what ever they had promised swearing by God they under a spacious pretence that they would not take God's name in vain upon sleight occasions fell to swear by Creatures which the Pharisees did not disallow to cheat people withal which they themselves neither thought obligatory nor meant to keep The name Elohim and Jehovah they might possibly scruple at but that name Adonai they oft as superstitiously repeat in their much babling as they superstitiously decline mentioning of the other but that in serious cases of concerne of justice and equity and in judicature in matter of debate or ending of controversies that they should wave and forbear swearing by the name of God when their Scriptures was so express for it and that they should chuse that way of swearing there is no reason at all to believe it seeing Drusius says among the Jewes all things in judicature were confirmed by oath wherein the name of God was interposed as above mentioned 2ly That they should wave swearing by the name of God in matters of concernment which they all believed were binding and should swear by Creatures in order to the giving satisfaction to one another and security of each other and by such oaths as they judged not to be obligatory and never meant to keep them seeing A. S. says it was in pretence of reverence to God they swear not by God but by Creatures to cheat and never meant to keep they knowing this that he that so sware by Creatures meant not to keep but to cheat and not performe such oaths were not very probably used in Judicature among them neither in serious cases for such oaths instead of giving satisfaction and putting an end unto jealousies and distrusts would have sure created them more then before for as much as he that so swears believes himself not to be bound thereby then if he had not sworn at all and he unto whom he swears also knows the same that such oaths as A. S. tells on that they did swear is not binding neither can any more credit be given to them then to a lyar because in this sort of swearing there was no security it is not probable I say that they should chuse this in Judicature or any serious case of Controversie And if it be that Swearing that Christ only prohibits by Heaven Earth and Creatures which the Pharisees indulged them in wherein as to the point of swearing does he prescribe a Righteousness and perfection above or beyond Moses his servant whom he was to exceed for God by Moses in the Law it self had universally forbidden all other oaths either in general terms or sometime more particularly but still all false oaths vain oaths and oaths by Creatures are included save
it notwithstanding A. S. his Reasons and Arguments and many more as to forbid all oaths in the second Covenant to his Disciples truly such in these words swear not at all Many instances might be brought of particular Bishops might be instanced as Otha Bishop of Bambergences in Germany and Bosilius of Chalcedon who refused to swear and though A. S. cannot trace it beyond Pelagius or Manacheus yet we know that both Christ and the Apostles confirmes it and also the Essarus among the Jewes did refuse to swear at all even in Judicature for Josephus a Jew saith of them whatsoever they say is as firme as an oath and to swear among them was counted a thing superfluous Likewise St. Basil commends Chinas a famous Greek that he suffered a fine of three Talents rather then he would save it by swearing to the loss of his honour and shall Christians truly such with whom truth abideth and in whom it dwelleth come short of that exactness that was among some of the Jewes and the best and the virtuousest of them called Heathen shall not this kind of Christianity which is professed in this day who is in unbelief frauds infirmities contentions be condemned by these shall not this circumcision become uncircumcision and shall not they that fear to swear and deny all oaths be set above this whose yea is yea and nay nay in all their communication according unto Christs Doctrine shall not this inherit the promise and is not this more Gospel like to say speak testifie and do the truth rather then to go back to Judaism or into contention strife emulation and distrusts that the Swearers are in falsly reputed Christians and yet abides not in his Doctrine But having done with A. S. his negative part I come to his affirmative part which is no other then hath been answered over and over again yet he thinks he hath said more in clearing of it then others hath said that Christ only forbad swearing by Creatures and that indeed is the sum of his affirmative discourse and the Pharisees interpretation And he brings the judgments of divers Expositers upon this text first promisary oaths are here principally forbidden 2ly others think that Christ only here forbad such oaths as then was used in common discourse 3ly others say that prophane false and rash and vain Oaths are generally here prohibited 4ly many understand that by these words of Christ all swearing by Creatures is forbidden but not that by God himself and last of all A. S. gives his thoughts which are as follows That Christ did not forbid what the Law had commanded but only the Pharesaical corrupt glosses thereon and the irreligious practices of the misinformed Jewes and cites Origen and Chrysostome who says upon this place they were accustomed to swear by Heaven and by Creatures and further A. S. says the Pharisees taught them to affirme what ever they had promised swearing by God they under a spacious pretention that they would not take God's name in vain upon a sleight occasion fell to swear by Creatures which Grotius showes out Philo Judeos which the Pharisees did not disallow the easier thereby to delude such credulous people as believed those oaths which themselves neither thought obligatory nor meant to keep and it 's certain the Scribes and Pharisees taught the people that to swear by several Creatures as by the Temple and Altar was not binding Christ reproves them as blind guides upon that account Mat. 23. 16. and further they taught it was perjury indeed to break an Oath if a man had sworn by God but not if he had only sworn by Creatures In exposition of which Christ forbids all swearing by Creatures and teaches contrary to the Jewes Rabbies that such oaths ought not to be taken yet being taken are binding in respect of Creatures relation to the Creator and Christ reckons them among sinful oaths and teacheth them to use only bare affirmations or denials in their communication and this is the very summe of his judgment and the words of Christ is only to be limited to this sense and no further this is not to swear at all by Creatures in their mutual converse and communications and this he hath repeated over and over in his Book and this is the furtherest latitude that he will allow unto Christ's prohibition swear not at all and this interpretation before mentioned he looks upon to be the genuine meaning thereof and is the judgment of Doctor Gauden also who hath contended as hard for some swearing as A. S. hath and I perceive that A. S. hath read the answer to Bishop Gauden published by that precious servant of the Lord Samuel Fisher who finished his Life in bonds for the Gospel truth against all swearing whose answer stands firme and his demonstrative arguments of force and is yet unanswered though A. S. hath a little here and there carped at and hath bitten at the hâ—el but hath not made void at all his answer which will live as a living testimony in generations to come as consonant unto Christ's Doctrine wherein he prohibites all oaths under the Gospel Reply Though there be some truth in the different Authors which is alledged and also in A S. his words that swearing by Creatures as heaven and earth Jerusalem and vain oaths is forbidden and customary oaths and the corrupt glosses of the Pharisees and the false interpretations yet all this comes short of Christ's mind and of the true genuine sense of the words and the scope of Christ's Sermon as is manifest in the Chapter and in his Testament and all he hath said will not help him to carry on that work he hath undertaken viz. the Justification of any or the lawfulness of any swearing or the defence of that limited sense he would put upon the universal terms in the 2. texts wherein Christ and the Apostle forbids all swearing And though A. S. often tells us Christ did not forbid what the Law had commanded neither gave any new possitive Law before his death he sure hath forgot himself much what will become of the two great Ordinances still upheld as Baptisme and breaking of Bread and whether was this a new Institution of Christ or was it an Institution in the Law and if it was an Institution of Christ as the Church of England doth hold and not of the Law nor of Moses as indeed it was not then A. S. his argument is fallen to the ground that he gave no new commandment neither instituted any new ordinance and then what is become of these two great Mysteries as they have been called but he hath ravelled out and spun out his threed so long that he often runs off his legs and though A. S. do often urge that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and therefore hath said falsly that Christ sware before the High Priest after he had given forth this Commandment swear not at all which if it had been true
it had been no more president for Christians then eating the Passeover and though he sometimes urge that such oaths as were commanded under the Law are not forbidden by that text Mat. 5. 38. because it was spoken sometime before his death and the Ministration of the first Covenant was not ended till his death and therefore he concludes that all oaths would not be forbidden by Christ in this text for saith he Christ did not forbid what the Law commanded but though this prohibition was given out before his death yet with reference to the Gospel times after his death It is evident by the texts before it and behind it viz. of divorce and of deportment towards injurious ones and enemies so in this of oaths Christ prohibites and condemnes not only those gross abuses of those things that they had a dispensation for under the Law and that by divine indulgency which abuses crept in by the Pharisaical false glosses too much loosing the meaning of Gods Law by Moses by their depraved examples or popular customes but Christ condemned and prohibited those very things which in regard of the hardness of their hearts distrust and wicked cruelties God himself in that very Letter of the Law indulged them in and gave them both a dispensation and a precept for in the Law for the Law said of old time before the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees came in some things so as it was not said from the beginning when Man was in innocency and was mercyful as his Heavenly Father was mercyful and the Law said Deut. 24. 12. whosoever shall put away his wife let him give her a bill of divorcement and then she may go and be another mans wife but I say who so putting away his wife causeth her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery Mat. 5. 32. So that not only the corrupt glosses and irregular practices of the misinformed Jewes is forbidden but even that which the Law not only permitted and allowed and dispensed with but commanded is forbidden and another thing injoyned and in cause of injury as he hath done so shall it be done unto him ye have heard it hath been said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth this was the Law Exo. 21. 44. Levit. 24. 20. Dent. 19. 20. and this was commanded But Christ saith I say unto you that ye resist not evil whosoever shall smite thee on the one cheek turn the other also and if a man sue thee at law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also and whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twain Mat. 5. 39 40 41. So here is not only a further thing but even another thing commanded by Christ. Further the Law said Exod. 20. 14. thou shalt not commit adultery but Christ the wisdom of God saith Mat. 5. 28. whosoever looketh upon a Woman and lusteth after her hath committed adultery with her in his heart again yee have heard that it hath been said that thou love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy though A. S. say that is not found in the Law but a corrupt gloss of the Pharisees I say that is found which amounts to as much as hath been shewed for the Jewes that was of the Law might and did spoyle their enemies the Gentiles and Canaanites Egiptians and Amalekites and had a command so to doe kill them root them out and yet to help his enemies Oxe or Asse under a burthen if he were belonging to a Jew that personally hated him and not an Amalekite one of the cursed race but this is a ridle to many But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you Mat. 5. 44. and the Apostle exhorted give no offence to Jew or Greek so that his Doctrine went beyond the Law put up pass by forgive forbeat again you have heard it hath been said of old time where Exod. 20. 7. Deut. 5. 11. Numb 30. 2. Mat. 5. 33. thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oathes but I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is Gods Throne nor by the Earth for it is his Foot-stoole neither by Jerusalem for it is the City of the great King neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou cannot make one hair white or black but let your communication be yea yea and nay nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil It s most evident that Christ prohibits somewhat more here then was forbiden under the Law yea what ever Oathes were lawful under the Law therefore it must be all swearing at all or else none at all either all such swearing as was used lawfully and allowed as a Type for a time in the Law Oathes made lawfully and acceptably to God or else nothing more at all then what was forbiden in the Law for all false swearing and forswearing and all swearing by Creatures or breaking of solemn Oathes made as unto God was forbiden in and by the Law therefore swearing it self is forbiden or nothing but saith A. S. the grand objection falls of it self which is either all kind of swearing is forbiden or else Christ forbids nothing which was not forbiden before which is utterly improbable saith he and he grants that God had formerly prohibited all false and vain Oaths and all swearing by Creatures saith he which I grant to be true then how is the grand objection fallen for is not Heaven Earth Jerusalem the head Creatures and this is the most that A. S. and divers others affirms that it is only Oaths by Creatures such as before mentioned that Christ only prohibits and vain Oaths and swearing by Creatures A. S. sayes Christ reckons among sinful Oaths then if so as they are indeed had not the Law forbiden this before in general tearms wherein all Creatures are included therefore the reason stands still in force and the objection that either Christ forbad all swearing or else he forbids nothing but what the Law had forbiden before It s manifest it stands still in force for Christ forbad even those Oathes the Law required and all vain swearing and swearing by Creatures and all swearing whatsoever Mat. 5. Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old time not of late by the Scribes and Pharisees only puting their false glosses on the Law as A S intimates Pareus and others in his Annotations and hence conjectures that by them of old time is only meant the Scribes and Pharisees and not Moses and the Law and of old time must be meant a good while ago or not very long as Commentators understand it less then twenty years and thus he twists and twines to make the true sense of Christs words void its evident by them of old time is Moses time