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
Logick they will seem to turn things any way and go about to prove darkness is light and light is darkness and what as in them lyes make it so to appear if they take a matter in hand and therefore the Apostle exhorted to beware of Phylosophy and vain deceit for by this Men have been cuning and crafty and lie in wait to deceive the Innocent and harmless and to lead them out of the way In the fourth page he saith he will clear his intention and that there are two sorts of Men that do violence to this Text the one winds it up too too high a note as though Christ had forbidden all Swearing whatsoever And in the tenth page he saith this error is masked under a fair colour of a more then ordinary piety but tends to overthrow all Judicatures and takes away the decision of all emergent suites and controversies and were it granted saith A. Smallwood we should be necessitated if not to disown the Magistrates authority yet to disobey their loyal command as having a countermand from Christ Swear not at all and the other sort of men are such who in despight of this text do commonly rashly prophanely and falsely swear Answ. Who doth the greater violence to this Scripture whether A. S. who in his Doctrine he hath raised from these words to be the foundation of his Discourse who makes Christs plain and express words one thing and his intentions another I leave to all unbyassed spirits to judge off or they that say Christ intended what he spoke and spoke what he intended I say let all see and consider where the violence lies and in whom and whether he doth not wind it up by that not or contrary to it to use his own words otherwise then Christ intends it as after will be made more evidently to appear and we say it s not error but truth to believe Christs words who are truth more then A. S. his conjectural supposition neither do we believe it to be error masked but truth revealed and Christ spoke and declared it that we might beleive it and obey it And we believe that A. S. and many more hath put a mask and a vail upon Christs words and would hoodwink all and lead them blindfold after their imaginations and crooked pathes winding and turning this way and that way that leads into darkness and trouble and confusion from the path of life And what doth Christs command viz. Swear not at all doth it overthrow all Justice and Judicatories It is not the seat of Judgment established in Righteousness and truth and they that sit in Judgment ought they not to give sentence and Judgment in Righteousness and truth and as the causes are represented unto them and brought before them and may not every truth be confirmed out of the mouth of two or three Witnesses and all emergent suits and controversies ended according to the best evidence after diligent inquisition and judgment given accordingly and that without the needless and cumbersome formality of an Oath which is sometime this and sometime that and changable when as every true confession and testimony is equivâ—lent thereunto in the presence of the God of all truth and who ever denyed this And there is no necessity so to judge that he that fears to swear and take an Oath yet refuseth not to gâ—ve true testimony about any matter whether it do concern the Lord or his Neighbour that therefore he denies the Magistrates authority or yet disobeyes their legal commands so that though all Swearing should be denyed yet that which answers the cause in hand is not denyed true testimony and therefore the Magistrates authority and their lawful commands may well stand and be obeyed and right done unto every man and command stand also these are but the secret smitings and suggestions of A. Smallwood to render them odious to the Magistrates and all people who dissent from him in judgment And indeed such like Discourses and instigations from such like mouths and pens as his is who is accounted learned and eminent hath not a little added afflictions unto our bonds and they have made wide the wound and hath made the breach seem greater then it is and the matter more grievous then there hath been any cause for I desire they may consider of it and repent And in 13. page from this Text Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you Swear not at all he layes down this Proposition or Doctrine viz. Our Saviour did not intend by these words Swear not at all an absolute universal and limited prohibition of all manner of swearing and goes on to prove it by divers Reasons The first he gives is That the Father and the Son are one in nature power wisdom immutability and eternity and one in will and wisdom therefore they cannot give forth contrary commands but God the Father hath commanded Swearing in these words Thou shalt fear the Lord and swear by his Name and serve him Deut. 6. 13. And therefore it is not possible that God the Son should forbid it Answ. Though the Father and the Son be one in nature power and wisdom and immutability and will as in themselves and alters not but keeps Covenant from age to age and from generation to generation there is no contrarity in them yet there are diversities of gifts but the same spirit and there are differences of administrations but the same Lord. It is granted that after sin entred into the World and death by sin and diffidence and unbelief variance and strife and many transgressions for which the Law was added and because of which the Law was added and the command given forth unto the Jewes to swear by the Name of God as Jerome saith upon the 5. of Mat. 3. 37. It was permitted the Jewes under the Law as being tender and infants and to keep them from Idolatry which the rest of the Nations did run into they might swear by the Name of God not that it was rightful so to do but that it was better to swear by the Lord then by false Gods or devils but the great Evangelical sincerity and truth admits not of an Oath Secondly For the ending of strife and variance being in the unbelief which was the occasion of the adding of the Law and the cause of the command given forth Deut. 6. 13. with divers more words specified by Moses and the Prophets And though Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to destroy that which the Law was against and which it took hold upon and to finish sin and transgression and bring in everlasting Righteousness and to restore to the beginning and we say according as we have believed and received of the Lord and have a cloud of Witnesses both them that are gone before and of them that yet remain alive As Christ said of Divorcement It was not so from the beginning so we say Oaths was not from the beginning but
was added after hardness of heart and sin and unbelief entered into the World but Christ who was made under the Law and fulfilled the Law put an end to the transgression sin unbelief variance and strife in whom all the promises of God are fulfilled he is the Righteousness of God and who are true Christians indeed are come out of unbelief variance and transgression and doth see and know Christ to be the end of the Law for Righteousness to them that believe who exhorted to do the truth confess the truth and speak the truth who said Swear not at all by Heaven and which after more shall be said God willing to the Text it self And so A. Smallwood his reason is made void and his impossibility made possible that God gave forth a command and permitted the Iews to swear in that Covenant and Ministration and yet Christ in the new Covenant countermands it as in the Text being the Minister of a better Covenant which stood upon better promises who leads to the beginning and is the restorer of all Mankind that do believe and yet the Father and the Son are one in will wisdom and power And though A. S. and others cannot understand or else hath no mind in that Latitude as generally prohibitive of all swearing because he says God did require it no less then he did his own Worship and service in the Moral Law these nice distinctions of Moral Judicial and Ceremonial hath confounded Peoples understandings though it is still acknowledged they did vow and did swear in the first Covenant under the Law but whether he or any other making swearing moral judicial or ceremonial is not much matter seeing that Christ the Righteousness is the summe and substance of all and the end of the Law for Righteousness to them that do believe in him is life and Righteousness enjoyed for the Law was given by Moses but the Grace the Truth cometh by Jesus Christ who is the summe of all types and shadowes and therefore the Apostle said We are circumcised in him and baptised in him and we do look upon an Oath under the Law to have some type and figure in it notwithstanding A. S. say it was none and that Christ is improperly called the Oath of God no more improper then he is a Vine a Door a Way a Shepherd for all the Promises are fulfilled in Him and are yea and amen And as for the morality of it so far as it is Moral and perpetual to all under the Gospel is in confession of truth and bearing witness thereunto as before the Lord or in his presence and speaking the truth when there is necessity as when any mans person or Estate or any part thereof is in danger and this we have ever owned and do own and have and are ready to testifie the truth before the Lord or in his presence as concerning any matter which concernes the Glory of God or the good of our Neighbour without being pinched or bound up to a certain form of words imposed upon us but according as necessity requires so amply and largely as our words may give knowledge and understanding and light in any matter which is to be desired but this hath been denyed and hath not been received by this unbelieving generation who seeks rather to establish the Traditions and Customes of Men rather then the Evangelical Doctrine of the Gospel And though Doctor Smallwood will needs have it viz. swearing neither to be ceremonial nor judicial but for any proof he brings for ought I see it may be either as well as that he calls moral for sure I am that Oathes was used in judicial proceedings and Ceremonies were used in the worship of God and his service then and by Commandement and the service of God and his worship I hope he will say is moral yet so as under the Law it was not without ceremony and it is concluded by the most learned that there was some ceremony or figure or signe in that Covenant in all the worship and some shadowes of good things to come then if swearing was any part of the worship of God as the most do grant and assert and I think A. S. will hardly deny then I argue it had some Ceremony or shadow in it but oh this A. S. cannot away with in this point of swearing but it must needs be all moral for fear he should waken his matter that he hath taken in hand to war against Christs command but it is evident that swearing was used in judicial proceedings as is manifest Deutr. 19. 5. about killing of a Man accedentally and the 11. verse about murther and the 14. verse about Land-markes and in the 21. life for life eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand and foot for foot about all these things and many more and in the 16. verse about a false witness were to be decided and tryed by witnesses before the Judges and judgment was to be given according to the several commands about the aforesaid different transgressions all which Statutes belonged to their judicial proceedings as this about swearing and as is manifest in this Chapter and all of these commands seemes to have as much morality in them as swearing hath in the judgment of many unto whose judgment I leave what I say to be weighed by the spirit of God in them Thirdly The Law sayed many things by way of precept and commission at least permission from God which would be irregularities grosly reproveable in Mens manners in moral matters conversations civil transactions and communications should they be used among them who profess the Gospel the Law said an eye for an eye tooth for tooth hand for hand foot for foot the Gospel saith avenge not your selves resist not evil suffer wrong put up forgive forbear The Law said thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy But A. S. will look upon this as an addition or false interpretation to the Law it may be but how ever certain it is that under the Law they made war the Jewes with Amaleck with Moab with Ammon and the Canaanites and the Aegiptians might be spoyled but the Gospel said only love your enemies if he be hungry feed him if he be thirsty give him to drink and for any thing I can see the aforesaid commands were as morall and had as much morality in them as swearing what ever A. S. say or can say In the 7th Section A. S. sayes if any argue that Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes once commanded by God he sayes he denyes that assertion for we were never under the Judicial Law it being solely given to the Jewes for the regulating their Common-wealth in the Land of Canaan Deutro 4. 14. and they were never obligatory to us that are no Jewes nor never dwelt in Canaan and as for the Ceremonial it was meerly temporary and ceased at our Saviours death and was not abrogated but observed by
not required as a duty under the Gospel and the strength of most of A. S. his Arguments and the rest who contend for swearing under the Gospel are grounded upon the Mosaical Law though this of oathes he will needs have to be moral it may be he would contend as much for the morality of Tithes and Oblations if it had been the subject of his discourse as for oathes and them to be jure divino under the Gospel for many such we have met with and he might bring the same Arguments for Tithes and Oblations they are not repugnant unto God but brings glory to his name because hereby his Ministers under the Gospel are maintained and are enabled thereby to preach the Gospel for the conversion of soules which addes much to the glory of God and therefore cannot or are not to be prohibited but these only belonged to the Levitical Priesthood and continued only to the time of Reformation viz. to the bringing in of a better hope and a better Covenant which stood upon better promises for the Priesthood being changed there is also of necessity a change of the Law Hebr. 6. 12. by which Tithes was a duty and they robbed God that detained them Mâ—l 3. 8. But this being ended and fulfilled in Christ the everlasting high Priest who by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified he bid not his Disciples require Tithes as a due or duty belonging to God under the Gospel but freely you have received freely give and what House soever yee enter into that is worthy there abide and eat such things as is set before you for the Workman is worthy of his meat and this was far more Evangelical and conduced more to the honour of God then Tithes and the Apostles lived more by faith upon God who provided for them who was employed in his service so that I argue what was once a duty under the Law that was to be performed unto God is not always a duty among Christians for though Oathes were commanded unto the Jewes in that time of Infancy and as being weak and it was permitted them as Jerome saith upon the 5th Mat. vers 37. to swear by the name of God to keep them from Idolatry seeing all other Nations were given to Idolatry and swear by false Gods as Chemosh Ashterah and Baal he knew their aptness to be led aside with the customes of other Nations and therefore they were to acknowledge him alone who was the living God and no other and to testifie truth by his Name as a thing certain and sure and therefore one of their oathes was as the Lord lives and this among the rest was one of the precepts of the Law which was added because of transgression to swear by his name which needed not have been added if sin and transgression and unbelief had not entered in mark this and this Law of oathes pertained to that part which was in the transgression and variance and strife and that led to worship Idols and this continued while that nature was standing but Christ was revealed and given to finish sin and transgression and unbelief and to do away that part that lusted after Idols and that led into variance and he leads out of the occasion of evil and from that which was the cause of the addition of the Law unto everlasting righteousness again which was in the begining before sin entred and they that come to believe in him are not under the Law but under grace moreover the Apostle saith Rom. 7. 14. The Law hath power over a Man so long as be liveth even as a Wife is bound by the Law of her Husband so long as he liveth and no longer so as long as Man liveth in sin unbelief transgression discord variance and strife and Idolatry the Law hath power over him to correct and reprove him and judge him and was to be a limit unto that nature but Christ leades out of the occasion of all these for which the Law was added to do the truth and speak the truth and ceaseth strife for which the Law was added Again the Law was added as a cure and a remedy to defide Controversies and ill distempers that was entred into the hearts of Men in the unbelief and that is one reason which Doctor Gauden gives why solemn swearing should and ought to be in judicial proceedings among Christians to take away Jealousies distrusts dissimulations frauds unsatisfactions and insecurities and quotes Grotius that swearing is necessary not absolutely and morally or preceptively but by way of consequence and remedy as to the state of the Jewes we shall not nor have not denyed it but as to the state of Christians who are truly such we say that the cause is taken away and the effect follows all jealousies distrusts dissimulations and strifes and insecurities and so the remedies to wit Oaths ceaseth and the necessity of them and that was one main thing why Oaths were permitted to end strife and strife is a work of the flesh and variance and discord and it is inconsistent with true love to our Neighbour to hold that which answers the strife and that part for love fulfills the Law works no ill to the Neighbour ends strife and so puts swearing the means to end strife and the remedy out of place and date But A. S. goes on and tells us that Oaths advisedly and reverently taken upon necessary occasions are so far from displeasing God or hurting our Neighbour that on the contrary they are acceptable to the one and advantagious to the other for by them Princes are secured of their Subjects Allegiance and Generals of their Souldiers fidelity Leagues confirmed betwixt Nations every Man 's just right maintained offenders discovered and duly punished and Controversies and Suits desided and these are such great and good ends that men cannot be in any degree of security or happiness without them Reply To this I answer that notwithstanding all the great and good ends and the necessity of Oaths which A. S. conceives that Men cannot subsist in any degree of security without yet we see by experience notwithstanding all the reverent taking and all the solemn taking and the necessity that is put upon Oaths yet they have never answered the end purposed for where perfidiousness and unbelief and distrust and jealousies and strifes are which is no where so much as among those that plead for swearing yet Oaths doth not nor hath not bound them when they had a mind to be loos'd sees that to stand to such obligations will not be for their profit or present safety many instances might be given what security had the Pope when all the Nobility and Clergie in England were bound to maintain his Supremacy by Oaths and no doubt but they swore reverently and it was judged both by the then Church and State to be binding and yet notwithstanding all the Obligation all was broken and the Popes Supremacy denyed in the time
will not serve for he says the Law will not allow of it for inferiour Magistrates are sworn he says to act according to Law and the Law prescribes in what manner and with what formality Oaths shall be taken and therefore the Magistrates are not at liberty to accept thereof because they are tyed up to the Rules of the Law as I said before seeing that Oaths are a matter of great concernment unto many it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have told the Magistrates that these things in testimony which were ready to be given had been sufficient and that they should not so much have stood upon the formality seeing that which answered the substance of the Law was not denyed though we except against the formality which is now used and hath no example or president in the Scriptures of truth as they are used and therefore let A. S. tell the Rulers that the rules of the Law in this case is too strict and the penalty exceeds the transgression far as for a man for not holding up his hand or laying it upon a Bible and kissing it and saying after a Clark or a Cryer I swear and the like needless Ceremonies which are not without at least a shew of evil in them yet for not doing and observing these formalities though those things which A. S. and others calls swearing we have condescended unto yet it 's reckoned as insufficient though themselves say it is an oath yet it is not called so nor accounted so except the aforesaid needless trifles be observed and is not this a hard thing and far from equity justice and reason that a man should be exposed to so great a penalty as Confiscation of lands and goods and perpetual imprisonment for want of observing of these trifling groundless needless Ceremonies and formalities which is not at all beseeming Christians and whether the Law had not need to be rectified in this case which exposeth so many to so great suffring which we in conscience doth except against as well as Oaths and seeth that the penalty far exceeds the crime if it were any but we look upon it to be none at all but rather a duty incumbant upon Christians to keep to yea and nay or that which amounts to it in all their communications both publick and private and not to swear at all but to abide in Christs Doctrine and walk after the Primitive Christians example to testifie the truth and not to swear And as for Amen Amen verily verily is no more then truly truly and is no more then an ardent and a fervent speech from the heart of him that speaketh wherein he would be believed or it is truth from which and in which he speaks and as for comparing Amen with the 65. of Isa. and 16. where he is called the God of Truth this proves nothing at all he is called the God of Truth in opposition to false Gods which were lies and in opposition to the Heathenish Gods which were not true Gods which had eyes and saw not c. and could not save he might as well say when wisdom holiness righteousness or immortality is named or mentioned that therefore it is an Oath as when truth is spoken for these are as much epethites of God as truly or truth and though your Church in a Homily against swearing do say that Christ did often swear because he said Verily we judge you have concluded upon too slender a ground And as for Psal. 110. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent It is not denyed though the Lord swore once yea more then once by himself this was in condescention to the state of Man in weakness and unbelief and as to the state of the Jewes Gal. 3. 19. before the seed was revealed which was the substance of all figures and Gods example of swearing is no example for us now to imitate and was in no wise a confirming of that old legal Ceremony of Oaths as a practice legitimate to his Saints for ever as A. S. would make us believe it was for his Oath viz. Gods ended in Christ in whom all the promises confirmed by oath were yea and in him Amen was also to end all strife between him and men and to put an end to all strife and Oaths also that are among Men to end strife Ambrose saith upon that 110. Psal. Let him then swear who cannot repent of his Oaths a little after the same Ambrose saith Do not imitate him in swearing whom you cannot imitate in performing and indeed the principal sollution he gives is not to swear at all And Theophilus upon the place in Controversie whom A. S. says was not caâ—telous enough as it seems among the rest of the Fathers that A. S. sets as judge of he saith learn hence that under the Law it was not evil for one to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as is Circumcision and in some what ever is Judaical for it became a Child to suck but not a man So that it appears he amongst the rest of the Fathers did not only declare against Oaths in general or private communication but also distinguishes betwixt the first Covenant and the second and the Ordinances thereof and though the holy Ghost bear witness that both Angels and Men yea and good Men and the Creator himself in that first Covenant did swear so that A. S. concludes that it is not morally evil of its own nature In the first we shall not much quarel nor dispute as under the Law but that which was obliging then as by command is not always obliging but Christ the end of the Law for Righteousness said Let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more under the Gospel then amounts to this comes of evil therefore there is no necessity to put any other sence of Christs words then his universal prohibition of all swearing as under the Gospel seeing that speaking the truth confessing the truth declaring the truth and nothing but the truth in any matter wherein any Christian is concerned either in respect of God or a mans neighbour this answers the very substance of the Law and the very end and purpose thereof as ever an Oath did among the Jewes in the first institution for asmuch as speaking the truth acknowledgeth Gods Omnisciency and presence and power and wisdom secondly it doth any office to any neighbour as in bearing witness to any truth and again to find out any transgressour or transgression and this is done may be done and ought to be done by all true Christians and therefore no necessity of that formal Ceremonious way of swearing as under the Law neither is there any necessity for seeking any other sence of Christs words and the Apostles words Swear not at all by Heaven or Earth or any other seeing all the main ends and good ends and good purposes is answered in the full which the Law in the full
yet notwithstanding many did still hold up these things which the Law commanded though they believed well of Christ yea and after his suffring and Resurerection and that a long time though that the Apostles told them the substance was come and that there was no more Offring for sin nor Oblations neither legal observations to be minded any more yet still many observed them and doubtless as to that formal swearing that was among the Jewes and that vain swearing too many did continue in it afterward notwithstanding Christs command but then not submitting made not his command void in it self and there is no necessity to make such an absurd interpretation as that he permitted them to swear for a year or two by Heaven and Earth and then at his passion to swear no more for after he gave forth the command there was no permission and yet afterward as I said the Apostles declared against the shadows and preached up the substance and as A. S. confesseth the types ceased of themselves but let him know that there was a time of dying to them and they ceased not all at once to them that had observed the Law neither was the Mysteries revealed all at once but as they grew in faith and knowledge for the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith and though the legal observations were observed in Christs time so were they after by many but by right ended in the substance and when he was come though many did not see it till afterward But I come to his 11th Argument Eleventh Argument no exposition of the text or any other is to be admitted that puts inconsistancy betwixt the Old Testament and the New seeing both are inspired by the same God who is incapable of falshood or alteration where upon if we be not so atheistical as to deny the varasity or immutability of the most high Tit. 1. 2. it must be granted that his word is of eternal truth Jam. 1. 17. his promises yea and amen his precepts more unalterable then the Lawes of the Medes and Persians nor did our Saviour come to destroy but to fulfill the Law thereupon he enjoynes obedience to the commands of the Pharisees as sitting in Moses chair Mat. 23. 2 3. from all which it is apparent that the Old Testament is so far from being contradicted that it is fully confirmed in the new therefore I may well draw this conclusion that these words swear not at all ought not to be interpreted as to render all svvearing unlawful Deut. 6. 13. psal 63. 11. not without promise of reward Jer. 12. 16. and it was prophesied before by Isaiah that Christians under the Gospel should swear Isaiah 19. 18. and 4. and 23. and I look upon it as a piece of Manichisme and extremely derogatory both to the Scripture and God himself therefore what moral duty one man was commended in the Law another should be condemned in the new Reply 'T is true no exposition of this text or any other is to be admitted that puts such a difference betwixt the old and new Testaments in matter of substance but shall agree with Austin the Law is the Gospel vailed and the Gospel is the Law revailed and what was prophesied and typefied in the first is fulfilled in the latter but what shall be thought of them that holds up the types and figures of the first as though they were not fulfilled or as though the promise were not come and he made manifest in whom all shadowes end and though God be unchangable in himself and incapable of falsehood or alteration and I know none who denies the varasity of his word or the immutability of the most high yet notwithstanding I cannot set up the changable Priesthood and Covenant and the Ordinances belonging thereunto against the unchangable and everlasting Priesthood and Covenant and as hath been said before as though that all the precepts therein were so unalterable as that of necessity they must needs continue as obligatory to generations I might truss up together many Scriptures and thwack them one on the back of another which belongs to the Jews and the first Covenant most properly till the Seed Christ was revealed and offred up and I might bring in Scripture to prove that many things was commanded by the immutable God and by him who is uncapable of alteration and multiply many words as A. S. doth to little purpose and say what was written in the Old Testament was by the inspiration of God and that his precepts is no more alterable then the Lawes of the Medes and Persians and therefore they must needs still be observed by all Christians to the worlds end or else conclude they that do not are atheistical and denies Gods varasity and makes the Law of God void and what would all this in arguing prove nothing at all the Jewes will confess as much and plead as hard as A. S. can who yet have not believed in him of whom the Prophets prophesied neither hath received him who is the substance of what Moses and the Prophets bore witness and in whom the Law is fulfilled and the Promises made good and confirmed with and in whom all the shadows ends and the vaile done away and all the worship and precepts belonging thereunto who hath manifested and revealed the Father in all that believe who is the new and living way whose worship is not now in the Letter nor in the shadows nor types nor in any outward observations but in spirit and truth is he worshipped for he seeketh such to worship him for the great promise of reward was to as ever was to swearing yet when they resisted him whom the Father had sent all their observances though never so strict did not avail but their Circumcision became Vncircumcision and their worship and service became prophaneness when they dispised the substance by whom grace and truth came to all the children of promise and we grant with A. S. that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to end both sin and transgression and the Law which was added because of it and to bring in everlasting Righteousness and it to rule in the hearts of all that believe and against such there is no Law and though Christ enjoyned the Disciples Mat 23. to observe what the Scribes and Pharisees bad them who sat in Moses Chair and read the Law and performed those services in part commanded that was the time before he was offered up and the Ministration of that Covenant was not fully ended yet I hope A. S. with us will grant that they were not to heed them or to obey them in their vain Traditions and false glosses and interpretations and evil manners which he cryed wo against Mat. 23. 13 14. neither after his Resurrection did he enjoyne them to hear the Pharisees neither to observe the Legal Ordinances of the first Priesthood but they declared against them and their practice which continued in
the observation of those things which did not make perfect as pertaining to the Conscience Heb. 8. 9. Heb. 9. 9. and for all these texts he alledges out of the Old Testament Mat. 6. 13. Psal. 63. 11. Jer. 12. 16. unto these it hath been answered that this proves nothing that Christians under the second Covenant should swear as they did in the first for these Precepts were only to keep them from Idolatry for Jer. 12. 16. If you will diligently learn the ways of my people to swear by my name the Lord liveth as they taught my people to swear by Baal then shall they be builded in the midst of the people And the 6. of Deut. 13 14. is to the same effect You shall fear the Lord and serve him and swear by my name And Verse the 14. Ye shall not go after other Gods All these only prove that the Nations went after other Gods and sware by them and served them and Israel too prone to follow their manners did so also and therefore he gave them these Precepts to serve him and fear him and acknowledge him to keep them from Idolatry as hath been said in the state of their Minority and weakness and that before the seed was revealed and that which A. S. calls a prophesie by Isa. 19. 18. of Christians swearing under the Gospel it s no such thing but a prophesie of Aegipt his joyning to the Jewes and owning their worship and their God and acknowledge him and do sacrifice and oblation yea and vow a vow unto the Lord and performe it ver 21. Which clearly hath relation to the Law and the Worship of the Jewes and not to the Gospel so that A. S. might have as well said it was a promise how Christians under the Gospel should offer sacrifice and oblations as under the Law as well as swear But the Doctor hath traversed many paths which are crooked winding and turning to gather something together and hath fetched it farre to prove swearing under the Gospel but all his proofe falls short of his matter by much And that of Isaiah the 5. 23. is a prophesie of Israels return out of the Captivity of Babylon in the days of Cyrus whom the Lord called his anoynted and shepherd Isa. 44. 28. 45. who made a Decree for all Israel to go out of Assyria to Jerusalem and build their City and their Temple and Worship their God according as he had commanded as may be seen at large in the Book of Ezra and Nebemiah and this was fulfilled then when they builded the City and the Temple in those days long before Christ was manifest in the flesh and then did Israel return and every knee did bow and every tongue did swear by the Lord which before the Captivity had not bowed nor served nor acknowledged his Name but Idols which provoked the Lord and therefore gave he them into the hand of the Babylonians for seventy years till they were humbled and then brought them back according to Jeremiah Isaiah Haggai and Zachariah's Prophesies for this was fulfilled then is spoken by Isaiah in this Prophesie Isaiah 5. ver 23 24 25. without contradiction to Christs command and his command entrencheth not upon this prophesie neither doth this make the Gospel thwart the Law beyond all terms of reconciliation as A. S. vainly suggests in his margent for this prophesie was fulfilled long before Christ gave forth this command swear not at all Moreover if this prophesie have any relation to the state of the Christian Church as A. S. supposes upon what ground I know not saving his own affirmation then we shall consider and see how it is fulfilled under the Gospel and what the Gospel allowes of in this particular the Apostle Paul a Minister of the Gospel not of the Letter as he saith himself which some interprets to be the Law citeth this prophesie of Isa. 45. 23. compare it with Rom. the 14. ve 11. for it is written where in Isaiah before cited As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow unto me and every tongue shall confess to God and in Philippians the 2. v. 10 11. that at the Name of Jesus whom the Father hath sent whom all is to obey unto whom all power is given in Heaven and Earth the Apostle citing again the very words of the Prophet says unto him viz. Jesus every knee shall bow and ver the 11. and that every tongue shall confess to the glory of God the Father so that it cannot be reasonably thought or judged that if God had required swearing by his name among Christians as among the Jewes that the Apostle thus should alter the words as to put confessing instead of swearing seeing he says he used always plainness of speech for this had not been plainness and we have better reason to believe the Apostle unto whom the Gospel was committed whom the son was revealed in who declared the whole Council of God and yet never either commanded or exhorted any to swear or reproved them for not swearing by the name of God as the Jewes did in all his writings that are extant I say we have better ground to believe him and his rendering of the words of the Prophet to be according to the mind of Christ where he puts in confession to the Christians which before was swearing to the Jewes as being acquainted with the command of Christ Mat. 5. 23. Swear not at all and what ever A. S. look upon it as to be Heresie and derogatory both to the Scriptures and God himself it is not much matter of Man's judgment he might as well accuse Christ and the Apostle the one forbidding to swear and the other for deminishing from the Scripture and altering the Prophets words and though it seems strange to A. S. yet it is not to us that some Men was commanded in the Old Testament for observing some things yea many things which is condemned in the New and yet God is not dishonoured neither the Scripture broken if we see the end of every command and the time for which it served and the service for which it served as this about Oaths hath been sufficiently declared before to keep the Jewes from Idolatry to end strife among them where it was but among true Christians indeed strife is ended and peace is come and they seek it with all Men and that is done away for which the Law was added to wit sin and transgression diffidence and unbelief and strife and no necessity of them among them and all the morality that doth remain is confession or saying or testimony in true words in any matter is that which is equivolent with an oath and is that which is the most conforme to Christ and the Apostles Doctrine under the Gospel but I come to his last Argument Twelfth and last Argument The consent of the Christian world the practice of Emperours Kings Princes Councils Bishops and people of all sorts confirme this truth that
and hath set up that which is more Evangelical truth it self in which there is no shadow of change and it is binding upon the souls of all true Christians and that by which they are bound one to another and every word promise or testimony that go out of their hearts and mouths they by it are bound to keep least they fall into condemnation but their yea is yea and nay is nay and whatsoever is more then this cometh of evil and therefore they do not cannot nor dare not go beyond this or that which doth but amount to as much and there needs no more among true Christians Now as to them who are in the contention and strife and unbelief and oathes works of the flesh as variance discord whom the Law hath power over and is against as long as they live in such estate it s granted that the Law was added because of these transgressions and is against such and how far swearing can be binding among evil contentious unconscionable Men that make no conscience of any thing who cannot believe one another nor give credit to one another without swearing experience hath manifested whether they judge one another to be believed better by swearing then without swearing that 's little to us neither shall we meddle in contentious matters nor have to do with striving Men as little as possible but rather suffer wrong then wrong our consciences by swearing which we are perswaded by Christ we ought not to right our selves as hitherto we have done and have peace blessed be God in our hearts however we could rejoice and be glad to see all Men be at peace and agree and it s our desire to live in that love and we shall seek it with Men and to be at peace as much as in us lyes even in that love that works no evil nor thinks no evil but believeth all things and beareth all things and so carries beyond strife and oaths but if they will not be without Oathes in Courts and Judicatures we are cleer in the matter if they exact upon us and do as they have done to the undoing ruining of many in this World we must be content knowing it better to suffer wrong then do it and shall acquiesce and rest in the will of God till he plead our cause and open the hearts of Men to see through the Clouds of error and ignorance that is over their consciences Yet how ever this I must needs say this frequent common prophane swearing that hath exalted its Horn more of late years is one of the crying sins of England that Gods anger is against and will draw down his judgment and kindle the indignation which hangs over this Nation not only because of those that command Men to swear contrary to Christs command and that for to establish cruelty and injustice but also that swore falsly and vainly and that against their knowledge for their own profit and the disadvantages of others to accomplish their wicked malicious and revengeful designes against the innocent who dare not swear at all and thereby are made a pray to the teeth of Wolves and to the wills of corrupt Men who take occasion as it were to plow long Furrowes upon the backs of the poor and needy for which things sake the wrath of God will be poured out upon the head of the wicked and the Nation shall be on heaps and the wise Men shall be turned backwards and their Table shall be a snare and the curse shall be upon the rebellious and they shall fall and be broken and rise no more and this may justly befall this Nation because of Oaths and because of Oppression And oh much pittied Nation it may be said of thee truly as the Prophet Hosea 4. 2 3. Because of swearing and lying and killing and stealing and whoring they break out and blood toucheth blood therefore shall the Land mourn and every one that dwells therein shall be cut off Oh what sad times do we behold nothing but extreames of evil are presented to our eyes and eares some do little but swear ordinarily commonly and vainly in all kind of communication and conversation not only in their usual outer sourses in Courts with Judges and Magistrates but in their hoâ—ly discourses also with other Men in Cities Townes Princes and great Mens Courts and places Vniversities Colledges almost all Houses at least all Talvernes and Ale-houses and in the open Streets and Assemblies almost every where are full of dreadful Oathes and Mens discourses interwoven with execrable and direful Oaths even as it were daring God to confound them and damn them and such like and though there be divers Laws against swearing vainly and forswearing yet these are not looked at but how should we exspect that they should look at the execution of the Laws of Men which are good who heeds not the Law of God and are so buzzed now a days with over-executing those intangling Laws that are extant for Oaths and forswearing to intrap and insnare poor innocent men who dare not swear at all but keep the Commands of Christ so that there is no leisure lost to look after those most wholsome and profitable Laws of both God and the King which are against vain Oaths and forswearing which the Land abounds with the like hath not been in any age which is a sad presage of the Judgment of God to be at hand And last of all A. S. he says hath done and he fears it 's more and time to have done with the Exposition of those words and so comes to application and so he speaks to all in general who at that time or any other may be legally called to take their oaths which you have heard vindicated to be lawfull notwithstanding the seeming opposition of these words Swear not at all but those must be understood of necessary Oaths and your Righteousness is to exceed the Scribes and Pharisees but they condemned perjury in the verse immediately before mytext and your warrant for swearing is in Jer. 4. 2. which thence appears not only lawful but in some cases necessary Reply It 's more then time indeed to have done to pervert Christ's plain Doctrine with his imaginary Exposition and what he counts legally called seeing Christ prohibited it is not of much force neither will A. S. Vindication stand against the real opposition of Christs words Swear not at all but his seeming Vindication will in the day of the Lord when the secrets of all hearts shall be manifest by Jesus Christ when the book of Conscience shall be opened will be found to be in real opposition unto Christ and his reward will be according to his workes who hath by his work strengthen'd the hand of evil doers and persecutors to the adding affliction to affliction upon the Righteous and if the words must be understood of necessary Oaths then there is none necessary among Christs true Disciples who commanded let your yea be yea or
him in his life neither can it properly be said to be repealed Reply Though I do not argue that Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws once commanded nor abrogated them yet Bishop Gauden doth who attain'd if not to a degree of knowledge and learning yet to a degree of promotion above A. S. in his Book which he wrote for the information of the Quakers about swearing he saith in his own words Christ came to fulfill the Moral Law however he came in a way of fulfilling to abrogate the Ceremonial yea and the Politick Lawes too belonging to the Jewes policy in Church and State and herein is the Bishop and the Doctor at odds the Bishop said he abrogated the Ceremonial Law and Judicial Law too belonging to the Iewes Policy and State But Doctor Smallwood says he denies his Assertion for says he We were never under the Judicial Law and what was never imposed need not be abolished So then what remains for me to say but this If Swearing was any part of the Iudicial Law or did belong to their Political Estate as it is the judgment of many but it is evident that swearing was used by the witness before Iudges in Israel in those days to try out their matters according to commandment given of God as is evident from 19. Deut. in the whole Chapter and divers other places then by this argument A. S. hath made he hath overthrown himself for he saith we are no Iewes nor in Canaan and so never imposed and what was never imposed need no abolishing and it is as I have said manifest that Oaths had relation to judicial proceedings and to the service of God too in that Covenant which was shadowy and consisted much in outward signes and figures but the substance is Christ. So then instead of proving swearing under the Gospel lawful he hath by his argument proved it never injoyned unto the Gentiles neither indeed was it either ever commanded or commended unto the Gentiles who believed or they reproved for not observing it that ever we read of by Christ or his Apostles or Ministers in the first and purest times of Christianity for to Jacob he gave his Law and to Israel his Statutes to every Nation he did not so no not to Moab Ammon nor the Canaanites neither the Gentiles and though he seem to plead hard for swearing under the Gospel yet he falls short in his proof except he took his own reasons and arguments which divers of them are but imaginary in the foundation of his discourse he hath taken such great compass as there is not an universal unlimited prohibition of all manner of Swearing but what this manner of swaring is it is very uncertain somtimes he makes it this and sometimes that sometimes he saith it is no Oath though in the form thereof there be not I swear or God be not named or by God doth not always signifie an Oath and other where he seems to affirm it to be an Oath but when an impartial eye hath sounded and tryed to the bottom what this swearing is that brings so much glory to God and so much good to our Neighbour that he so vehemently contends for that ought to be observed as well as Gods fear and service it is but their own traditions and inventions for that under the Law will not serve as the Lord lives or that he calls swearing under the Gospel will not serve the Lord is witness or I speak the truth in Christ or this is truth in the presence of God or the like none of these will serve But though he and the Rulers do say they are Oaths yet when at any time we have proffered willingly to declare the truth in this or that particular cause or to make as ample confession in demonstration for clearing any cause in debate that hath either conduced to the glory of God or the good and profit of any particular Man in the Nation among whom we converse and not without some attestation of God or of his wisdom power and presence yet it would never yet he received but reckoned as insufficient though both the Rulers of this age and A. S. have sayed it it might be that in private it might but in Judicature never was received though I do believe the most doth believe we dare not lie in ordinary communication much less in Judicature yet we have been set aside as objects of wrath as deluded erronious factious seditious contemners of Law obstructors of legal proceedings except we would lay our hand upon a Bible and kiss it and say I swear and by the Contents of the Book and so help me God or else fined imprisoned for term of life our Lands and Goods confiscated and we sentenced to be banished our Wives and Children ruinated Husband and Wife parted Children and Parents separated and such monsters of Christians have we to deal withal in this age and how many brought into this sad condition in England as little A. S. knows as cares But for ought I know that he and such as he in such publick discourses as this of his hath blown the sparks and hath kindled a flame in the Rulers and incensed them and stirred them up to severity and harshness against them who fear the Lord and doth maintain peace with all Men as much as in them lyeth and keeps their Consciences void of offence towards God which makes us to chuse rather all this hardship then to offend the Lord who serve and fear his Name and reverence it more then they who seem to honour it and pretends Gods honour thorow their swearing But to make amends for this A. S. he saith the Magistrates must act by the Law and that enjoynes such a forme of swearing and they cannot allow it Unto that I answer it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have exhorted the Magistrates if the Law had been answered in the substance not to be so severe in the forme and also to have told them where any Law was made contrary to the Law of God either in matter or forme The Consciences of believers could not yield obedience thereunto when it was repugnant unto the Law of God and not according to the forme thereof and in such cases to be wary and he and the rest of the Clergy to have advised with the Rulers and Law-makers and to have informed them from whom they receive such great incomes and revenues for the preservation and peace of all Men that they need not stand so much upon the forme seeing that so many conscientious people questioned it so that there needed not such tying up to forme under such great and heavy penalties as banishment confiscation and perpetual imprisonment but have informed them so that the truth might have been found out and no judicial proceedings hindered which I am sure may be without any swearing true testimony never being denyed when required by any Magistrate and let bua a penalty be
Reformed Chuâ—ches and were the most ancient and true Protestants if any Reformation be looked at beyond Luther they professed it no way lawful for a Christian to swear and the said Bishop Vsher de Succes Chap. 6. doth esteem that place of the 5th of Mat. Swear not at all and that of 5th James to be a sufficient plea for them against the Papists and he pleads their cause and this made Renerius and Jansenius so much envy the Waldenses two Romanists who said amongst all the Sects which are or have been there is not any more pernicious to the Church meaning the Church of Rome then the Waldenses and that for three Reasons first their Antiquity secondly because of their Universality thirdly in that they did maintain and hold it no way lawful for a Christian to swear on any occasion But it may be that A. S. will tell us that these and other were condemned in some general or Provincial Council for Heresie and if he do it is no great matter since most of these have erred especially since all Nations have drunk of the VVhores cup of Fornication and have erred from the faith and have lost the power and then contend for a forme and bind all to receive it upon some comination or malediction or other or else they were Hereticks And why who said so the Church hath so decreed and if these Canons and such like must be binding A. S. will hardly escape their censure if he continue in the profession of the faith he is in though he and they seem to agree in this particular about swearing But I come to his fifth Argument Fifth Argument Christ never forbad any thing but what was intrinsecally evil as may be proved by induction he forbids anger abusive language he forbids lust and divorce and swearing by Creatures and therefore what ever he forbad was evil and that in it self and not meerly as forbidden but swearing in general is not for that hath not only been the practice of holy Men but of Angels Dan. 12. 7. Revel 10. 6. Reply Was it evil in it self under the Law if a man smote out anothers eye or tooth or cut off his hand or his foot or give one a would in any part of the body Deut. 21. 24. Levit. 1. 24. 20. Deut. 19. 11. was it evil in it self for the Judges in those days to give sentence that he that had struck out his Neighbours eye or struck out his tooth or cut off his hand to pronounce and give the same judgment unto the offender that he should be so done withal was this eternally evil or intrinsecally evil for the party so wronged to seek remedy or was it not an act of justice equal and good not only because enjoyned and commanded but in it self just and was it or is it an act in it self intrinsecally evil if a man sued a man wrongfully at the Law and takes a mans coat or garment away to seek to defend himself and preserve his coat or cloak if not A. S. his argument is of no moment for even in the same Chapter where envy and murther and divorce saving for fornication and abusive language and all swearing is forbidden so is that forbidden which is not intrinsecally evil by Christ Mat. 5. 39 40. But I say unto you that you resist not evil and whosoever shall smite the one cheek turn him the other also and if a man sue thee at the Law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also and whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twayn And it is in the new Testament I hope written Avenge not your selves And was it evil in it self or morally evil to keep the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath or only good because commanded or was it lawful to fight with Amalecks Edomites Aegiptians and Canaanites because Israel was only commanded or because they were real enemies to God in their hearts or as Samuel Fisher said well in answer to Doctor Gauden which A. S. quarels with that Circumcision Sacrifices and Offerings Passeover and New Moons Fasts and Swearing was not evil in themselves but because forbidden and though A. S. give such a great Challenge to S. F. to produce one instance that any thing was prohibited by Christ but what was intrinsecally evil or else his argument is in vain I say the aforementioned thing prove it that something was forbidden that was not evil eternally and intrinsecally but because prohibited and again in the same Chapter ver 44. But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you though under the Law they did fight and might fight with the aforesaid enemies the Canaanites and Gentiles but now I say put up forgive love your enemies Peter put up thy Sword he that takes hold on it shall perish by it avenge not go not to Law one with another 1 Cor. 6. 7. Suffer forbear forgive if thy brother sin against thee seventy times 7. times And though A. S. say that nothing was forbidden by Christ or in all the new Testament but what was in it self evil or in some respect conducing thereunto methinks he hath given too bold a Challenge what will he say to all the former things mentioned and what evil had Circumcision in it or the Passeover or Sacrificing or New Moons and the Sabbath days or what tendency had they to evil but rather were good for the end they were ordained to be signes and types and figures of holy things to come like as swearing was among the rest what ever A. S. say or argue and yet when the substance of the good things was come to them that had believed and received him who was the summe of all the Apostle said Gal. 5. 2 3. If you be Circumcised Christ profits you nothing after he was offered up And Gal. 4. 9 10 1. You observe new Moons and holy days and Sabbaths And these things that were once as really good as ever swearing was considering the end wherefore they were enjoyned and these things was never evil in themselves yet the Apostle reckoned them beggarly Rudiments and told them they had begun in the Spirit and now sought to be made perfect through the flesh and so stood in doubt of them that his labour had been in vain and therefore if A. S. or any other will needs uphold swearing because commanded to the Jewes before the seed Christ was revealed I say he is Gal. 5. 34. a debter to the whole Law and is as much bound to keep it in all other points as this or else he is a transgressour and is one of those that would be laying yoaks upon the Disciples necks unto whom they were never intended for if the Ceremonies and Rites and outward observations which properly did belong to the Jewish Church and state to observe till the fulness of time when the partition wall should be broken down and the Jewes and Gentiles should be one and
one shepherd and one fold for them both and no longer and they were never given to the Gentiles to observe and therefore for ought I can perceive many would have the Gentile Christians who never were under the Law neither the Ordinances of the first Covenant neither ever given to them yet they would compell the Christians to live as do the Jewes and to observe their Ordinances and therefore are greatly to be blamed Gal 2. 13 14. Therefore we do not look upon any swearing to be now a duty under the Gospel among true Christians truly such as some swearing was once under the Law but affirme all swearing to be now a sin because forbidden by the positive law of Christ under the Gospel who by his death ended the right of that and many more legal rites and Rudiments which who so doth observe now as Christians doth it not without sin and guilt and superstition and therefore S. Fisher that faithful servant of God who suffred in bonds til death for his Testimony even in this particular saith well That that sort of swearing which was not sin simpliciter in its nature under the Law is now a sin upon the account of Christs universal prohibition of all swearing who was of authority to put to an end as he did by his death unto the Law And therefore that sort of service and worship which stood in outward observations which was a duty because commanded under the Law and no sin in their own nature neither were evil in themselves nor in any respect conducing thereto as they were observed but had some signal good in them once and yet who observes them now as service of God makes Christ of so little effect to himself as that he profits him nothing at all I hope A. S. will not deny but these things are forbidden in the new Testament which sometime were not evil in their own nature but now are evil when the Substance is come in whom they all end and therefore S. F. his argument is not vain but of force And yet let A. S. know that there were many things observed and done not only by the Jewes but by them that believed in Christ and thought well of him while he was present with them and yet did not see to the end of these things which were shadows and signes and good as once commanded and had no evil in them but were good as commanded and for the end for which they were ordain'd which afterwards in the more full growth and knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity they came more to be seen thorough and that was felt in which they all ended and though Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to observe the Ordinances commanded in that Covenant to fulfill that which was written of him Psal. 40. 6. In the volume of the Book it is written I am come to do thy will O God And further he said himself It behoveth us to fulfill all Righteousness and that which was commanded but this was before he was offred up and was as a midle dispensation betwixt the ending of the Law and publishing of the Gospel yet howbeit Christ knew it and did speak of it at some time that those things that had been sometime commanded Deut. 12. 5. and was good as they stood related to the end wherefore they were commanded instance the Worship at Jerusalem and the service there and the place where God had promis'd to place his name yet Christ said as foreknowing the end of all the aforesaid Worship which appertained to that Covenant and therfore he said to the Woman Joh. 4. 23. but the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth for the Father seekes such to worship him and 24. vers God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth 2 Cor. 3. 17. From hence it is clearly evident for this was before he was offred up that then was the time that neither at Jerusalem nor in the Mountain of Samaria it shall be only said they worship the Father though at Jerusalem was the place Deut. 1. 1 2 5. of worship formerly and the Jewes held it then and the worship was that which was commanded to wit Sacrifices and Offrings and many other legal Services which belonged to them to perform according to the command of God and if swearing or oathes was any part of the service of God as in that Covenant as we with A. S. doth grant Deutr. 10. 20. You shall fear the Lord and serve him and swear by his name then I say that swearing amongst the rest of the worship is included but saith Christ neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth so that the time was then but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled that both the place and the worship and service that belonged to the place they should no more worship the Father with and in but in the spirit and in the truth and this may be in answer to that which A. S. makes a great adoe with in his Book how that Christ said swear not at all it was before his death and therefore they that argue saith he that swearing was prohibited only and ended in Christs death cannot plead that all Oathes was prohibited but that command of Christ Mat. 5. because he spake this in his life time I say so did he this Jo. 20. 21 22 23. And he may as well argue that Christ destroyed the place of worship at Jerusalem and the Worship also and came not to fulfill it as he saith he did and why but because he spoke this before he was crucified and so did he swear not at all and why may not A. S. conclude with us that this is a commodious place to interpret and explain Christs meaning in those words in the 5th Mat. 23 and 24. and so the words may truly be understood thus yee have heard that it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oathes Exod. 20. 7. and Deutr. 5. 11. but the hour cometh and now is when I say unto you that say more then the Law hath said swear not at all neither by Heaven nor by the Earth but let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil and yet whatever may or can be said A. S. will need conclude that all swearing is not forbiden and why because it hath been the practise of holy Men and also an Angel this Argument is of little force so was it the practise of holy Men to offer Sacrifice and burn Incense and as for the swearing of the Angel Dan. 12. and Revel 10. 6. to prove the lawfulness of some swearing these hath been answered over and over and over again though A. S. will take no notice
of it though I perceive he hath read the Arguments that have been used as Answers to these things though he will not seem to take notice nor to reply to confute the Arguments but rather minds his own and to assert what may seem to make for his purpose as to the matter he hath taken in hand but as for good Mens swearing and the Angels swearing if their example would justifie the lawfulness of swearing yet they could not be any president to us who are under the Gospel of the Son that is greater then the Angels by the dispensation of whom the Law for Oathes Tithes Offrings Oblations and other legal Rites and Rudiments was given which Son also all the Angels of God are bid to worship for the Apostle saith Hebr. 2. 5. For unto the Angels hath he not put into subjection the World to come but that is committed unto the Son under whose ministration and subjection we are who said Let your yea be yea and your nay nay and speak the truth and do the truth and bear witness to the truth who said Learn of me and these things we have learned of him unto whom all power is committed for he is counted Hebr. 3. 3. more worthy of glory then Moses though Moses was faithful in his House as a Servant but Christ as a Son which is that great Prophet that Moses prophesied of which all is to hearken unto with whom the Father is well pleased being made so much better then the Angels Hebr. 1. 4. as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name then they vers 5. for unto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee vers 6. Again when he bringeth the first begotten into the World he saith let all the Angels of God worship him of the Angels he saith he makes them ministring spirits and a flame of fire but unto the Son he saith thy Throne oh God is for ever and ever the Scepter of righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdome for if the words spoken by Angels was stedfast and every transgression received a just recompence of reward how shall they escape Hebr. 2. 3. who do not only neglect the command of Christ but labours to pervert through their strength of their own reason the ministration of the Son who is the summe and substance of all shadowy and typical ministrations and therefore A. S. and all concerned look to it who would introduce Judaism and the Mosaical observations upon the neck of Christs Disciples and as Lawes in his Kingdom and whether would not this prefer the servant before the Son yea or nay and his ministration before the ministration of the Sons though the one is not against the other but the one pointing at the other and in the latter the first is fulfilled the truth declared the truth spoken the truth lived in and the truth confessed in every matter wherein any Christian is concerned which is the summe and the matter which all oaths in their highest and greatest ordination could or can effect In the 4â— th page of his Book he saith our Saviour saith Amen Amen 24. time in John's Gospel which he saith St. Ambrose will needs have to amount unto an Oath and he cites Apoc. 3. These things saith the Amen compares it with Isa. 65. 16. where he concludes that Amen seems either to be a name or an epethite of God and this he says is the opinion of our Church in the Homily against swearing that our Saviour did swear divers times and further says it cannot be denyed that God himself swore Psalm 110. 4. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent and so concludes that Christ forbid not all swearing Unto this Bp. Gauden though he straines and scrues very hard as A. S. doth to make all things to bend to their inclination will needs have â—men or verily verily to be an Oath Doctor Gauden in his citation of Capellos out of Rabby Johnas says In veritate forma jurandi apud Judeos but he concludes doubtfully and says it is only the next degree unto an oath but A. S. thinks he hath put it out of doubt with his reason and his Authors that verily verily is an oath which if it were true this would only prove swearing lawful in Sermons and not in Controversies which is the great good end he so much pleads for and if this were true would serve his turn The Magistrates exacting Oathes he seems to prove out of the Mosaical Law and the Priests swearing lawfully out of Pauls Epistles and Christs Sermons but this his covering is too short and is but trifling in the weighty things of God not distinguishing betwixt the first Covenant and the second and the Ordinances thereof for the first he hath no adversary viz. that they did swear though never exacted under penalties the second we conclude to be no oath viz. Amen Amen or verily verily which is no more then truly truly I say unto ye and if this be an oath why hath it not and why is it not accepted as such for we have said more then this and can do in truth which we look upon to be far from amounting to an oath and yet it would never be received as such which argues plainly that what S. F. and R. H. hath said though A. S. quarel with it that surely the Magistrates in England doth not believe the Priests Doctrine for if they did why are so many sentenced to perpetual imprisonment with confiscation of all Lands and Goods to the ruinating of many poor Wives and Children which A. S. knows little of and for ought I know such a discourse as this may add affliction to their bonds and misery to their sufferings and yet these have never been received as if we say verily verily or truly truly or God is our witness or we speak the truth in Gods presence yet notwithstanding this would never give satisfaction to any Magistrate in any Judicature that ever we knew or heard of in England and though he tell us of I. Pennington how that he gave satisfaction and that it found acceptance with the Court and also to the King We are not ignorant of what I. P. hath written which is wholsome just and good and sound and condescendingly as a Christian man could do as about the premisses to pacifie and satisfie all whom it concerned that they might not proceed in such a rigorous manner against the truly conscientious and so in letting them know what we could do and what we could not do yet notwithstanding what ever any might seem to own as sufficient in private we never found it in publick or in any case of concernment but rather they knew before hand what would ensnare us have set the snare and run us into it but notwithstanding all this that A. S. will have to be oaths as God is witness and I speak the truth in Christ and verily verily it
another thing that Christ saith ver 44. But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you c. But it is manifest that in the second Covenant under the Gospel that a more Evangelical and exact obedience then was exprest in the Letter of the Law which so far as it was typical was only a temporary dispensation for as I said before the Letter of the Law of Moses permitted to be avenged on enemies Aegiptians Amalckites c. And I hope that A. S. will not conclude that they killed them in love to them and they might be avenged and take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth whose Gospel in other points which the Law had not said forbids and condemnes rash anger lust after women polligum divorce except for Fornication and yet it was indulged and connived at as under the Law yet the Lord saith by the Prophet Malachy Mal. 2. 16. He hateth putting away while the Letter condemned no more but actual murder and adultery indulging and conniving Polligume and divorce And though under the Law stripe for stripe wound for wound was permitted but under the Gospel resist not evil avenge not forbear forgive for the whole Law of Moses was given by the dispensation of Angels in the hand of that Mediator for a time and so some swearing and such swearing as even by God was used in order to end strife where it was yet standing yet Christ the Mediator of a better Covenant in whose hand the Law is now unto all Christians he forbad not only that which the Law allowed and indulged connived at and commanded in divers things as is manifest in this fifth of Mathew where he prohibits all swearing so that it is evident that Christ doth not only reprove the false glosses and the abusive loose interpretations of the Law which they allowed but even divine indulgence dispensed with and connived at in the things before mentioned because of the hardness of their hearts And let A. S. or any man living shew us wherein Christ requires a righteousness or perfection that exceeds that of the Law for the Law said swear not by any Creature but only by God and forswear not and if Christ said no more but swear not by any Creature as Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem where is that higher state of perfection and that righteousness which exceeds that of the Law and of the Scribes and Pharisees And though A. S. will not grant that he ordained a new Law in matter of the 6. 7. Commandments no more will he grant of the fourth which I suppose A. S. doth not keep as it was commanded under the Law where ever he will have his dispensation I know not so to conclude in answer to this he did more then reprove the erroneous tenets and vicious manners of the Jewes and their false interpretations and glosses which they had given upon the Law but he doth disallow also something which the law had allowed before as is proved before and that he disallowed something yea divers things which the Law had allowed and connived and indulged as divers Polligume killing enemies or in seeking revenge upon them that had done ill unto us which the law allowed as an act of justice Deut. 19. 21. Eye for eye tooth for tooth but this Christ exhorted unto Overcome evil with good avenge not resist not do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you Likewise the Law Deut. 42. 1 2. When a man takes a wife and it comes to pass she finds no favour in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her then let him write her a bill of Divorcement and send her out of his house and when she is departed out of his house she may go and be another mans wife But Christ saith Mat. 5. 32. who shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery which is a clear prohibition of that which the Law allowed and what A. S. will call this whether a new moral command or promulgation of a new Law I know not but it is evident enough that some things were prohibited by Christ which the law commanded or at least allowed and therefore we conclude from the 23. and 24. Verses of the 5th of Mathew that Christ did prohibite all vain swearing and unlawful swearing which was disallowed before under the Law but even all swearing which was commanded or at least permitted under the Law for the reasons and ends given before and this will stand as truth notwithstanding A. S. his Argument His tenth Argument is That if the high Priest charged Christ to swear and he without exception answered upon oath and that some years after he had said Swear not at all from hence follows that when the Magistrate imposeth an oath the person charged to swear may lawfully answer upon oath as Christ did notwithstanding his prohibition of swear not at all Reply First that was a time when the administration of the first Covenant was not fully ended for Christ was not yet offred up and so the high Priest as being a Jew might from the Commandement or permission of the Law as being one that sat in Moses chair might require Christ to speak upon oath as persumeing he had authority so to do being he looked upon it as a work of God and what though it was some years after Christ had said Swear not at all what doth A. S. infer from this Christ knew that the high Priest and Pharisees were about the work of their Father the devil and though the high Priest did say I adjure which A. S. tells us is I command thee to swear to us Christ answered in his own authority and in the power and wisdom of the Father and if he had answered as taking notice of the high Priests adjuring who was about to crucifie the Just which was not the work of God neither was jurations or oaths ever intended to be instrumental in the Devils work then I argue that if Christ had answered to his adjureing knowing the end was to ensnare him the Son of God then Christ had consented unto his evil work which were blasphemy to think or speak and therefore as it was prophesied of him he was led as a Lamb to the slaughter sometimes he opened not his mouth the other sometimes he did in the authority and power of the Father which was with him and in him and though the high Priest charged Christ by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be Christ the Son of the Living God Mat. 26. 36 37. Jesus answered thou hast said and what is this the oath that Christ sware A. S. tells us before that an oath was an attestation of God to the truth of what was said but now the words thou hast said barely of themselves without any attestation of God is an oath if the high Priest had said
the Prophet of him before that he should be as a Lamb dumb before the shearer as sometime he was both to the chief Priests and Elders to Pilote to Herod which was all in some authority and sometime he answered them in the wisdom of God and sometime he spoke and bore witness to that and prophesied unto them which was not at all either as to the matter or forme of the high Priests adjureing for the very next words but thou hast said nevertheless I say unto you hereafter shall you see the son of man sitting on the right hand of the power and coming in the clouds of Heaven Mat. 26. 64. and therefore this showes A. S. his argument to be frivilous and vain and Marke saith the chief Priests accused him of many things Marke 15. 3. but he answered nothing either to their accusations or took notice of the high Priests adjuring to answer him in matter and forme as A. S. would have it neither did he look upon himself so oblig'd but answered sometime and spoke the truth always when he spoke and that which always displeased and dissatisfied the Jewes when he answered and for ought can be perceived by his arguing that every Examinate is to answer directly to every matter and forme to any that pretends power to administer an oath or to adjure he goes about to establish the Popes inquisition and create matter as sometime they did here in England in the heighth of the Popes domination forged matter out of their own wicked hearts to ensnare the Lambs of Christ and then to require them to swear that they might destroy them and accuse them out of their own mouths even as the high Priest sought to destroy Christ and to ensnare him which methinks A. S. hath sayed too much in vindication of his adjuring and will needs have Christ to be of his mind and at last concludes that Christ swore but it s but upon his own presumption and supposition and is more then ever he is able to make evident from what is written And A. S. tells us over and over again Swearing was a part of Gods Worship wherein Gods wisdom power and justice is acknowledged and then incommunicable to any Creature or false God as is answered before so was Circumcision then and the Oblations and Burnt Sacrifice and Offrings and new Moons to be performed only to the Lord and was peculiarly to be performed unto God and not communicable to any Creature and we say and prove Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. that these was a part of the service and worship of God and which as we shall grant that an oath under the Law was commanded as well as these services or in his own terms an oath was equally commanded with his service as is proved above In this he hath no adversary but what doth this prove in respect of his argument which makes it more then equally commanded for he will yield that these services were but temporary but swearing is perpetual and so he hath given it a priority above the rest his argument all along hath been chiefly drawn from the Moseick Law that it was joyned equally with fear and service under the Law and so hath striven without an adversary but now it must needs be above the service of God then and yet from the same command he would only prove it for he hath no better strength nor ground and we may as well alledge as he doth and say consequently to this sort of service that was commanded by the Lord as well as swearing for God hath joyned them together in the text above said obligeth equality at all times as well under the Gospel as under the Law yet then A. S. would call this absurd it it be so as it is indeed then we may as well conclude the other absurd because one is standing as well as the other and binding as well as the other by the vertue of this command although he tells us that an oath in its substance hath not any type at all so we say for the substance is Christ the oath of God in whom all the promises and oaths are fulfilled and this is its substance but as under the Law it was a type of the substance and not the substance it self and that Circumcision the Passeover and the legal Offrings under the Law had as much goodness in them as Oaths had what ever A. S. say and served to as good ends and purposes in that Ministration as they were ordained and conduced as much to the glory of God and were subservient to but not against the morality of the Gospel for the shadows were not against the substance nor the Ceremonials against the Morals though the Apostle says the Law is not of faith yet not against it for as ministerial as the Ordinances of the Law was to the Gospel then yet the Gospel may be and now is without it But to conclude this Argoment A. S. were it so indeed that oaths were ceremonial then it follows that Christ in this text did not forbid them for he didnot forbid the Ceremonial Law but observed it all his life eating the Passeover with his Disciples the night before his death unless some would interpret his words I command you that you do not swear yet I am content for a year or two you may swear by Heaven or Earth as you have been accustomed but after my Crucifixion and Resurrection swear no more and there let these that disallow swearing as a part of the Ceremonial Law argue no more the unlawfulness of swearing from these words swear not at all Reply Though Christ did observe the Ordinances of the Law as being that Ministration appointed by God untill the time of Reformation and the bringing in of a better hope Heb. 9. It became him to fulfill all Righteousness so was he Cireumcised and eat the Passeover and was Baptized washed the Disciples feet which were not enjoyned by the Law though not against it and that Ministration not fully ended though he see it must end and spoke of a further thing and of the time then and also it should be ministred more afterward after his Resurrection Joh. 4. 20 21 22 23. the time cometh and now is neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship the Father shall worship him in spirit and truth so that he prophesied of the end of all those things and of the cessation of them which were sometime commanded respecting both the place and the worship and to them that did believe the Disciples unto whom it was given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God then was the time to them it was come even then before Christ suffred and therefore A. S. his consequence is not true that Christ did not forbid all swearing from this text and though he had both prophesied of a clearer Ministration and laid down in Doctrine a more Evangelical precept then the Law yea and more strict obedience
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
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
not yet he is one event to the righteous and the wicked to the good and to the clean and to the unclean to him that sacrificeth and him that sacrificeth not as is the good so is the sinner as he that sweareth so be that fears an oath and so as above all things swear not is to be taken not only of those oaths which were ever unlawful by heaven and earth but even of those that sometime were lawful under the Law in the type which now when the substance the oath of God is come and the Covenant of Light given to all Nations Isa. 5. 5. Luk. 1. 72 73. who ends all not only vain oaths but all oaths and is the substance of all even to the subsequent neither by any other oath is not only to be taken of such oaths neither by heaven neither by earth which were ever unlawful but even of those sometime lawful even all swearing and all oaths and the servant is not in opposition to his Master but knew the mind of his master Christ and therefore taught like Doctrine and the same but what ever Christ or James had said A. S. would make them if he could to mean as he means to set their plain express words against their mind But so much hath been said by many others who fear the Lord and an oath too and so many demonstrative and weighty things have been offered to the Consciences and publick view of all which A. S. I perceive hath seen some of them though he come not so much as near as to answer them but only asserts his own being a work it seems he was put upon by others to plead for swearing so that something he must say on that behalf and draw that way and to make all things look towards that end and to concur together to justifie them and the lawfulness of oaths under the Gospel and their work who persecutes the servants of Christ for abiding in his Doctrine who speaks the truth and dare not lie nor swear at all I say I shall be the more brief because I know many things is extant by others and of weight which hath not yet been answered nor is by A. S. though here and there a little in his Annotations he carps sometime upon small ground although he hath asserted nothing but that which hath been answered over and over again But I draw on to his last refuge and plea his answer to both the Texts Conjunction That these Propositions says A. S. how universally soever exprest ought not in equity to be extended beyond the intention of the Apostles but be limited according to the subject matter swear not at all says Christ neither by heaven nor by earth c. that is I universally forbid you all those oaths which you were wont to use frequently to wicked purposes and further he says all vain and false oaths by God even by the acknowledgement of the Pharisees were sufficiently forbidden before so there was no need either for Christ or James to speak of them again other places of Scripture must of necessity be thus interpreted 1 Cor. 10. 23. Matthew 15. Luke 2. 1. Mat. 12. Luke 8. 47. how universally soever exposed must be restrained according to the mind of the speaker and so must these words swear not at all Reply It 's freely granted that these two Texts ought not to be extended beyond the intention of the speakers but be limited according to the subject matter as for general terms and universal prohibitions admitting of exception they do so we grant now and then they do and of restrictions but when they do these exceptions and restrictions are usually in one place or other of the same Testament where they are made or at least most manifestly amplified by him that gave out these general prohibitions so are most of these generals and restrictions that A. S. hath instanced 1 Cor. 10. 23. all things are lawful for me to eat that which was sold at the shambles was lawful but that which was sacrificed to Idols v. 12. there he mentions the restriction himself and so Luke 1. 3. It seemed good to me also having perfect understanding of all things from the very first the subject matter whereof he writes the things are exprest and the exceptions in the 2. Chapter and in Mat. 12. 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto Men but the blasphemy against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiven there in the same Verse Christ makes the exception and restriction and Exodus 20. 10. Thou shalt do no manner of work it s abundantly expressed else where in the Law where the Priests service on every Sabbath are appointed them and the exception of dressing what every one was to eat and was expressed and the exception of doing good and of works of mercy in saving the life of Man or beast was to take place ever against the Typical Sabbath I will have mercy and not sacrifice and that of Luke 8. 47. and the Woman that was healed by touching the border of Christs garment she declared unto him before all the people what saith A. S. before all the people of the World or before all the people of the Land no there is none so ignorant as to understand it for Mark. 5. 21. manifest the exception before all the people only that were with him nigh unto the Sea when he returned from the Country of the Gadarens or before all the people of his own City that came out to meet him Mat. 9. 3. Mat. 8. 34. many more I might add to what A. S. hath instanced that Christ uttered many truths in general terms which must admit of exception Luk. 13. 10. all the sinners Christ spoke to about him in the general terms ye shall perish but this was not without exception of such as should repent but that exception was not without expression viz. except ye repent again he said unto his hearers ye cannot enter the Kingdom of God that was not without exceptions nor these exceptions without expressions viz. except ye be converted yea in the verses immediately before this universal prohibition swear not at all Mat. 5. 30 31. Christ says 't was said of old if any put away his wife let him give her a bill of divorce but I say whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery But this admits of an exception and that exception is thus exprest viz. saving for the cause of Fornication but though all this be granted even these and many more universal terms admits of exceptions and restriction yet we cannot grant that these two texts admits of any such exceptions of restrictions as A. S. would interpret them My reason is this because in this general term and universal prohibition swear not at all it cannot in equity be taken and limited in that sense which A. S. puts upon it not with that restriction for that sense would make it short of
Gods as Baal Ashtaroth Chemosh Rimphan many others as the Gods of Samaria which was said to be according to the number of their Cities and their Idols were called the sin of Samaria Amos saith They swear by the sin of Samaria that did say the God O Dan lives and the manner of Barsheba lives even they shall fall and never rise again Amos 7. 14. Which was no other then the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel which they feared worshipped and swore by therefore God having chosen a peculiar people to himself to worship and serve him and honour him who should not walk after the manner of the rest of the Nations who knew not God he commanded them to serve him and worship him and swear by his Name as Jerome saith well to keep them from Idolatry and that they should not swear by the Gods of the Heathen as the rest of the Nations did round about yet still this must be considered that this was the state of the minority of the Jewish Church wherein God gave them Ordinances suitable to their state but it doth not follow neither can it be reasonably concluded that these Ordinances were to be perpetually binding unto all future generations especially when Christ the seed unto whom all the Promises are in whom the Law is fulfilled and in whom the former ministrations ends that his Disciples and true Christians should always be bound to those things once commanded especially seeing Christ their Master in whom the Father is well pleased hath prohibited this about swearing and also did prophesie of the time to come after his Resurrection and his scension that those visible things which were as a Ministration for a time should end as to the outward exercise and typical and figurative appearance of them and that all these things should be revealed within by the Spirit and felt in the power of God in all that did believe when the Holy Ghost should be poured forth and the Promise of the Father be made manifest Fifthly Now considering that the name of God is believed in and he is confessed unto and his Christ and that there is not that Idolatry especially outward as there was in the Nations before and after the flood especially in that which is called Christendom though we dare not conclude that all are Israel that are of Israel or that all are Christians that have the name yet generally I say the name of God and his Christ is acknowledged and worshipped and not Idols and false Gods therefore there is not the necessity of swearing by the name of God as there was at the time of the giving forth of the Law but especially among them that the Father will reckon as truly his subjects and disciples of Christ who are partakers of his divine nature here is not that necessity among them for they through the Law being dead to it it hath no more power over them and therefore no reason that they should be kept as under Tutors and Governours seeing that the age and ages is come which the Apostle spoke of Eph. 2. 7. wherein Christ is revealed the hope of glory and whom he makes free are free indeed Joh. 8. 32 36. Sixthly and lastly The command of Oaths was given for the ending of strife and controversies among Men Heb. 6. which hath relation to the Law and to the state of the Jewes and their Political proceedings the Apostle brings but that in as an instance or an example and it is but A. S. his groundless supposition that it seems it was used in the Apostles time the Apostle speaking of an oath only as among men and not of Saints who as concerning strife the occasion of swearing and consequently concerning swearing should not walk as men 1 Cor. 2. 1 2 3. but A. S. should consider this as every one ought that when men that hath been once in strife and contention and variance come once into Christ and to be in him New Creatures Christians to walk no more as carnal not as men but as men of God and as spiritual and as true Saints and Christians they come both out of strife and swearing which was added to endstrife and what ever A. S. may conclude we say these and divers more are great and weighty Reasons wherefore Christ did prohibit all swearing and puts it out of use and date and no necessity of it as among true Christians seeing that every true saying or testimony is equivolent with an oath His ninth Argument is That either these words swear not at all must not be extended to a total prohibition of swearing or else Christ thereby gave a new moral command but Christ gave no new moral command for that had been contrary to Gods express will thou shalt not add unto the word which I command besides he ordained no new law in the matter of the 6th and 7th Commandments and shall we think that he who vindicated the other Commandments from the leud depravations of men hath abrogated this only as though it had not been framed by the same wisdom and acted by the same God and further Christs opposition is only against the Pharaseical misinterpretations of the Law and if only so then Christ did not forbid such Oaths as was lawfully before enjoyned Reply What ever A. S. call a new moral command sure I am he commanded that which was more exact then the Law so that Doctor Gauden himself says that Christ gave many singular precepts of more eminent diligence patience charity moritification self-denial sincerity and the perfection of obedience required now under the Gospel is above what ever the Letter of the Moseical Law seemed to exact or by the Pharaseical interpretation were taught by the Jewes c. in which he speaks the truth it was said in the 21. of Exod. and 42. of Levit. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but in Mat. 5. 39. Christ commanded that which the Law had not spoken of and not only a further thing but another thing but I say unto you that ye resist not ill but whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also ver 40 41. And if a man shall sue thee at law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also where said the Law this And whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twain where did ever the Law of Moses command this and though the Law said Levit. 19. Thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine enemy which he saith was but a Pharaseical innovation which if it be I query of A. S. where in the Law it is written love thine enemy and as was said before whether did not Israel fight with their enemies and kill them and destroy them and whether they had not a command so to do yea or nay as in Deut 2. 24. chap. 3. 3. Numb 21. 23 24 25. Josh. 10. 19. 23. And whether this be not