our Lord saith Matth. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all And the same is repeated by the Apostle James c. 5. 12. From whence it appears all manner of Oaths are unlawful and they who say the contrary do live in opposition to the Gospel Min. You mince the Text by taking a piece of it only as your usual way is of which I hope to convince you in the process of this discourse in order whereunto I shall pitch upon this method following First I shall shew you that these words do not generally forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense you take them Secondly I shall endèavour to give you the true sense of the words and shew you what sort of swearing is there forbidden Par. It will very much contribute to my conviction if you do as you say Pray you therefore first prove to me that the words do not forbid all manner of Oaths in that large sense wherein we take them Min. I shall do it in this order First by proving it an act of Natural Religion towards God Secondly an act of necessary justice and charity towards men Thirdly that it is therefore a part of that moral and eternal Law which our Saviour professeth he came not to destroy but to fulfill And fourthly that we find it practised in the New Testament Par. I much desire to hear the first particular prov'd viz. that an Oath is an act of Religion Min. I prove it first by Reason Secondly by consent of Nations thus That whereby we glorifie God and adore his Attributes is an act of Religion but by an Oath rightly taken we glorifie God and adore his Attributes therefore such an Oath is an act of Religion The first part of the Argument is evident of it self for what else is Religion but to adore and glorifie God in the humble acknowledgment of his Attributes And that we do by an Oath reverently taken glorifie God is clear from the nature and definition of it for an Oath is a religious appeal unto God the searcher of all hearts as a witness of what we assert or promise and the avenger of perjury Now that by such a reverent appeal unto God we glorifie him appears in that we do therein make acknowledgment 1. Of God's existence and being for he that cometh to God must believe that he is c. Heb. 11. 6. and an Oath certainly is one sort of coming to God being an immediate appeal to him as Witness and Judge 2. Of his Omnipresence and Ubiquity that he is present in all places and at all times according to Psalm 139. Whither shall I go from thy presence c. How could we call upon him either as Witness of our sincerity or Judge of our hypocrisie if we did not believe him within hearing and therefore the not having God before our eys is in Scripture the description of the most profligated wretchless state of sin 3. Herein we acknowledge his Omniscience that he is in the Apostles stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the searcher of hearts that all things are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have then more immediately to do 4. His truth and veracity a Witness brought into the Court that cannot lie nor be impos'd upon as saith the Apostle Gal. 6. 7. Be not deceived God is not mocked 5. His providence and paternal care of the concerns of mankind taking the cause of the righteous into his own hand and helping them to right that suffer wrong 6. His superiority or rather supremacy over all things according to that of St. Paul Heb. 6. 16. For verily men swear by the greater Therefore in swearing by him we own him to be Supreme and most high 7. We herein acknowledge his vindictive justice as he is a Revenger of Perjury such an one as will by no means patronize iniquity fraud or guile Exod. 34. 7. and will both bring sin to light 1 Cor. 4. 5. and punish it Rom. 12. 19. So that I hope you see by this time that an Oath rightly circumstantiated and taken viz. in truth in judgment and in righteousness Jer. 4. 2. is a comprehensive part of Religion It being such a solemn acknowledgment where by we glorifie God's Existence Omnipresence Omniscience Truth Providence Superiority and revenging Justice How can you think it less then a duty fit to be commanded by God and to bear a part in the Moral Law as indeed we find it doth Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shalt serve him and swear by his Name And Jer. 4. 2. Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth in judgment and in righteousness Par. I had thought that an Oath had been so far from glorifying God that it had been the only prosanation of his Name Min. Then it would never at any time have been commanded Par. I confess this Discourse inclines me to some more consideration about it than hitherto I have entred into Min. Therefore to confirm you further I shall resume the method propos'd and prove that an Oath is an act of Religion out of the light of Nature and the consent of Nations as is evident to such as are conversant in ancient Authors Aristotle the great Philosopher saith An Oath is the most venerable thing that pertains to Religion Cicero the learned Oratour gives this account of an Oath An Oath is a religious affirmation and what you affirm or promise by taking God to witness ought to be kept that is such an Oath binds you to performance And elsewhere he hath these words Our Fore-fathers thought no tie more fast to bind mens faith than an Oath And therefore anciently Captains of War in listing their Souldiers did alwayes bind them to their fidelity with an Oath which Oath was had in so great reverence with them that they honoured it with a religious title calling it a Sacrament or religious Solemnity whereupon Seneca that excellent Moralist saith Religion that is that military Oath which they call'd a Sacrament is the chiefest bond of fidelity in the Militia Yea so great a reverence had they for an Oath that those that broke it were the infamiâ notati the only men of infamy and justly seiz'd upon by Divine vengeance The Heathens had so great a dread of the sin of perjury that they said It laid waste the whole stock and family root and branch And what other is this then what the Prophet Zachary hath said almost in the same words cap. 5. 1 2 3 4. concerning the flying roll That it should enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly and consume it with the timber and stones thereof So that herein you may take notice of the harmony and agreement between the light and the law of Nature with the positive and Moral Law of God given by Moses to mankind which was nothing but the Law of Nature renew'd and improv'd Par. How come you to alledge
their judging faculties so that good and evil are not only so because commanded and forbidden but because they are so in themselves and were for ever so Par. I thank you for this profitable digression I have caused you to make and shall now desire you to return to your old subject concerning which I have this scruple to propose unto you viz. that those instances wherein an Oath is acknowledged to have been lawful are taken out of the Ceremonial Law which is now repeal'd by the Gospel Min. If it were so as it is not yet their having been once lawful and commanded by God proves undeniably that they are not evil in their own nature for whatever things are so can at no time and upon no tearms be ever commanded or countenanc'd by God being eternally repugnant to his Will and holy Nature as hath been before shown to you But that an Oath is not a part of the Ceremonial Law is clear from what hath been said concerning the morality of it which proved it a part of natural Religion and Justice which are the things that distinguish the Moral from the Ceremonial Law This will further appear if you consider that the Ceremonial Law is a systeme only of types and shadows and of things to come that is of the Messiah and the blessings of the Gospel for whatever was purely Ceremonial was purely typical but the Law concerning an Oath was not a type of any thing to come but had its proper and perpetual usefulness therefore was no part of the Ceremonial Law If you say it was a type of any thing pertaining to the times of the Gospel shew what was its Antitype or thing represented by it but if you cannot find an Antitype for it in the Gospel you may then be satisfied that the command of swearing was no part of the Ceremonial Law The second Argument to confirm you that Oaths are not evil in themselves nor part of the Ceremonial Law is taken out of the Examples of the holy Patriarchs with whom an Oath was of authentick use and held sacred before the delivery of the Levitical Law I shall begin with Abraham the Father of the Faithful Gen. 21. 23 24 31. where Abraham and Abimelech made a Covenant and confirm'd it by Oath interchangeably and what is observable in that passage Abraham gave the very place where they swore to each other a name which was to be in perpetuam rei memoriam a memorial of that solemnity calling it Beersheba in English the well of the Oath Consult also that other instance in that holy man Gen. 24. 2 3 9. and it is not to be thought that Abraham would give his servant an Oath rashly nor exercise his authority to impose on his Conscience The same is also confirmed by the example of Isaac making a Covenant and swearing to Abimelech Gen. 26. 28 31. as also by the example of Jacob making a Covenant and swearing to his Uncle Laban by the fear of his Father Isaac Gen. 31. 53. An Oath therefore having been so sacred and authentick with those holy Fathers before the Law was given by Moses it follows that it was no part of the Levitical but of that Moral Law which as has been said our Saviour prosesseth he came not to destroy Par. Had the Quakers liv'd under the Old Law they would certainly have been convinc't by what you have said of its lawfulness and not only so but usefulness having been made an instrument of establishing such happy leagues and bands of amity but to us that live under the Gospel are not our circumstances alter'd with the dispensation and by the prohibitions already quoted Min. I say the Gospel dispensation does not repeal any Law that is Moral and of continued usefulness as hath been said and such is this of a lawful Oath for that Law whose reason and usefulness is perpetual and the same to us under the Gospel as it was to them under the Law is it self perpetual and therefore not repeal'd by any new dispensation So that unless you can tell me some use it was to them which it is not to us you can have no reason to believe it was any of those Laws which our Saviour came to abolish there being as much need of it to the ending of strife in this litigious age especially wherein the love of many is waxed cold as there could be in former times And that those words you so much insist on do not wholly forbid all Oaths is manifest by the instances we find upon record in the Scriptures of the New Testament which were written by that infallible Spirit whereby the holy Penmen were acted and which one would think should be sufficient to convince you that call so much for examples if you were not prejudic'd They are the examples of St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles and of the Angel Revel 10. 5 6. As for the first of these if you do seriously consider them you 'l sind that they are as manifest Oaths and express instances of swearing as those publick forms now in use in our Courts of Justice which you are so much offended at Par. Pray produce me these places for I think I should be much satisfied if you could convince me that St. Paul swore Min. 'T is hard to convince prejudic'd persons by the clearest truths that can be produc'd till they lay down their passions and be willing to be instructed but your humility gives me confidence that you are none of those Par. I hope I am not but am willing to be convinc'd by the truth and therefore I pray you proceed Min. The Instances are in Rom. 1. 9. For God is my witness whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of his Son that c. Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost 2 Cor. 1. 18. But as God is true c. and v. 23. Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul that c. 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lie not Gal. 1. 20. Now the things which I write unto you behold before God I lie not Read these with attention and you 'l find that in every one of these instances St. Paul makes a most solemn appeal to God as witness of what he affirms and judge of his sincerity and what other thing is an Oath for you 'l find as much of the nature of an Oath in them as in several forms recorded in the Old Testament for Oaths See Ezech. 14. 16 18. where God who can do nothing that is immoral or unbecoming his holiness swears in these words As I live c. here God swears by his life and is it not as much an Oath in St. Paul to swear by Gods truth 2 Cor. 1. 18. As God is true c. And those other Gen. 22. 16. By
the testimony of Heathen Authours to prove a Christian duty Min. Those testimonies do signifie the universal consent of mankind in this point and that it is ingrafted in our natural principles of Reason and Conscience and therefore is a part of that Law of Nature which our Lord came not to destroy but to fulfil and perfect and of which St. Paul speaks Rom. 2. 14. For when the Gentiles which have not the Law do by nature the things contain'd in the Law these having not the Law are a law unto themselves Thus having prov'd an Oath an act of Religion by Reason and consent of Nations confirm'd by Scripture in the reference it hath to the first Table I shall now proceed to shew you that it is an act of Justice and Charity in the respect it hath to the 2d Table Par. I pray go for ward in your undertaking Min. If you look into the holy Scriptures as well in the New as the Old Testament you 'l find that the primary designation and intendment of an Oath is for confirmation and the end of all strife as you may be inform'd from Heb. 6. 16. than which nothing can have a more moral consideration or have more immediate respect to Justice and Charity Now in order to the ending of strife and Law-suits about mens rights and properties you know that evidence is necessary without which no Court of Justice can proceed to the determining of Controversies Par. I understand the scope of your Argument But may not true and faithful Evidences be given without an Oath Min. If there were that truth in men that their bare testimony were infallible of sufficient credit then there were no need at all of an oath but seeing all men are lyars mankind is so generally leaven'd with hypocrisie and since fear or favour malice or interest sways with the far greater part of men it becomes highly needful that their evidences be demanded and given in such forms as are most binding to the Conscience which an Oath by all the world is acknowledg'd to be and therefore called by Diodorus Siculus The greatest bond of faith amongst men and by Dionysius Hal. The utmost assurance Beyond which saith Bishop Sanderson we have no further ways of scrutiny Par. But if men will be nought they may forswear themselves as well as lie and he that makes no conscience of a lie what conscience will he make of perjury Min. Conscience does not dread all sins alike some sins it can swallow down glibly others not without regret and in this case you must consider that an Oath is a much strongger bond to the conscience than a bare Testimony for such is the power of natural conscience even in the breasts of bad men that multitudes who fear not a lie yet do dread the solemnity of an Oath and the horrour of perjury Seeing therefore that the ends of justice and charity are so much served by the religious use of an Oath as hath formerly been prov'd would not the abolishing of it derogate from the honour of Christianity for while the Apostle saith An Oath for confirmation is the end of strife if you take away an Oath you take away that which by God is ordained to be the most effectual means of ending it and so make Christ not so much the Prince of Peace as Discord by making him the abolisher of that which was design'd to compose it Par. I should think your Discourse very reasonable and convincing did I not find in the Text I mentioned Matth. 5. 37. after Christ had said Let your communication be yea yea nay nay he adds for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil If all Oaths then be evil how dare you call them good or plead for the lawfulness of them Min. That you mistake the Text I shall give you account in its due time and place But that all Oaths are not evil in themselves you may be satisfied not only by what has already been said of their morality and usefulness but further by these following considerations 1. In that by your own confession they were once lawful therefore not morally evil 2. By the example of the holy Patriarchs before the Levitical law was given therefore not ceremonial 3. By the examples of St. Paul and the Angel after the Gospel was promulg'd therefore against no Gospel Precept I begin with the first By your own confession they were once lawful under the Old Testament and till you prove them repeal'd must be so still and therefore are not of themselves evil Par. But doth not all good and evil depend upon the Divine will and not upon the nature of the thing commanded So that things are good or evil for no other reasons but because they are commanded or forbidden Min. Should you indeed consult some of the Writers of this Age whose learning I doubt surmounts their piety you would find them of this opinion such as the Dutch Szydlovius who tells us that all that we account now wicked could by a Divine commandment immediately become good and I am sorry that we have instances nearer home even in our own Nation such as by their Writings have not a little contributed to the debauching of this present Age. But let me tell you that the reasons of good and evil are eternal and were eternally lodged in the Divine Nature For God is not a meer arbitrary wilful being his will is not a blind impetus but acts by the dictates of Divine Wisdom the disposition of his holy Nature and the rules of eternal Justice So that what has an intrinsick goodness in it was agreeable to the Divine Nature antecedently to all Divine Commands and whatsoever is evil in it self was eternally repugnant to his holy Nature Par. I am very sensible that this is a digression from our subject but my desire of further satisfaction in this particular prompts me to give you a further interruption Min. I say it is the most horrid contradiction to affirm that God can will any thing that is disagreeable to the eternal rectitude of his Nature as all sin is and I appeal to your own faculties whether love meekness truth justice purity c. be not more suitable to his holiness and commend themselves to us by their inward goodness more than hatred murther theft lying impurity and the like If we had not these characters of goodness impress'd upon our consciences we should loose a main argument for the Divinity of the Holy Bible and a false Religion would bid as fair for our belief as the true miracles themselves being not able to ingage my faith if the Doctrines to be confirm'd by them be not agreeable to my reason and natural conscience to which God himself makes his appeal Deut. 4. 5 7. The heathen world could never be brought to the embracement of the true Religion were there not besides the will of the Law-giver a natural congruity in it with
whatsoever shall be given you in that hour that speak you for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost Min. Take but the true sense of this Scripture and you can frame from thence no argument to your advantage Par. What is the sense of that Scripture Min. The words import no more than this That whereas the Disciples were to be brought before the Kings and Potentates of the Earth to vindicate the Doctrine of Christianity that they might be under no discouragements either from the presence of those before whom they were to appear or from a sense of the meanness of their own education he promises to supply all their defects miraculously and whereas they had extraordinary work to perform they might be assured of an extraordinary assistance from him but this reacheth not to an ordinary case Par. But I have heard some Speakers say before they begun their Discourses That they did not know what they had to say but as the Spirit gave them utterance that only would they speak and although they came without preparation yet spake notably Min. That which incited your attention if you had understood it should rather have frighted you away from the Sacrifice of a Fool for there is a company of wandering Fellows that have got into a road of babling and father their nonsensical stuff upon the good Spirit of God and no wonder they are never out while they speak whatsoever comes next on their tongues end But as to the Objection out of the Text you quoted you must not interpret it to overthrow other plain Scriptures and that plain advice which St. Paul gives to Timothy Till I come give attendance to reading exhortation and doctrine Meditate on these things Give thy self wholly unto them that thy profitting may appear unto all 1 Tim. 4. 13 15. and study to shew thy self a workman approved unto God a workman that needeth not be ashamed 2 Tim. 2. 15. And there is a great deal of equity for it as in the like case David of old told Araunah the Jebusite That he would not offer that to God which cost him nothing See Solomons advice Be not rash with thy mouth and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God for God is in Heaven and thou upon Earth therefore let thy words be few Eccles. 5. 2. Wherein we may take notice that the Spirit of God is so far from owning those extemporary exercises in his Worship that they are reproved by him 'T is not the nimbleness of the fancy quickness of invention readiness of elocution fluency of speech or a ready tongue that God is delighted with with these we work upon the imperfections of men and these are natural faculties with which the worst of men have been endowed such as Achitophel and Tertullus whilst holy Moses was naturally defective in his utterance Exod. 10. 14. The use of these faculties in the exercises of Religion without reverence truth and soberness cannot be pleasing unto God Par. But do you not remember what a Quaker in my hearing objected to you against Learning That Tongues are ceas'd Min. I remember it very well and you may remember the reply I made That Learning was so far from being opposed by that Scripture that it is a mighty argument for its justification I perceive the Quakers understand not the meaning of the word tongues which the Scripture saith are ceased for by them is only meant that the miraculous supplies in the gift of tongues and understanding all languages by inspiration given to the Apostles and primitive Christians be now ceased as we see they are the Gospel being sufficiently promulged and by these and all other Miracles proved to be Divine And yet there remains a necessity of interpreting and understanding these original tongues Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were written it being impossible that without the knowledge of them the Gospel should have been translated and communicated to us And we have great reason to be truly thankful that the Scriptures are translated into the Vulgar Languages but then we are beholden to the Learning of the Translators and if Learning was at first necessary for the translating of the Scriptures it is still as necessary for the interpreting of them And while I observe how the Quakers persecute the Clergy with the venom of their tongues and abhor their works for the ill will they bear unto their persons my wonder is that they should look into our English Bible it being translated by Clergy-men and with the help of that Learning which the Quakers so much despise and abhor So that Learning has a strong argument from the Text which you bring in prejudice of it For if the extraordinary gift of Tongues be ceased while there is still a necessity of understanding those Tongues for the translation of Scripture I pray by what way and means must We attain the knowledge of it but by the ordinary means of study industry or University education And do you not see that 't is Learning and learned Men that the good Providence of God hath made so highly instrumental in the service of his Church So therefore with Balaam those whom you had design'd to have curst you against your wills have blest and the argument by which you thought to have overthrown Learning proves an establishment of it and I thank you for reminding me of what I had like to have forgot Par. But now I pray you shew me what use there can be of Learning in unfolding difficult places in Scripture Min. The use of Learning will appear in three eminent instances 1. In giving a right distinction of the several senses of Scripture 2. In the right timing of the passages therein 3. In applying of Scripture seasonably and properly on each occasion Now as to the first you are to understand that there are several senses in which the Scripture-words and phrases are to be variously understood and interpreted as namely literal moral mystical and tropical Though these be hard words yet I hope to make them easie in the explication of them by Scripture-instances In the literal sense you understand Scripture according to the bare import of the words The Moral is when the sense goes higher than the words being back't by reason and the law of nature The Mystical sense is that which is still more hid and by the designment of the Holy Ghost looks further than either of the other I will now produce one Text which includes in it all these three senses it is in 1 Tim. 5. 18. the words are these Thou shalt not muzle the Ox that treadeth out the corn The literal sense is that every good man is merciful to his Beast and that the poor Creature toyling for us ought to have a maintenance from us The moral sense taken out of the principles of Equity and the Law of Nature by reasonable Consequence is That the labourer is worthy of his