upon him that gives false evidence or speakes an untruth about any proceedings in judicature or otherwise called to bear evidence in any controversie if found out let them suffer as them that sweares falsely and as perjured and the case is one and here all scruples and contentions about swearing would end and there would not be the least obstruction in legal proceedings or in administration of justice and let me tell Doctor Smallwood and the rest of his Brethren that if they would move such a thing in Parliament peradventure it would be readily received from them and in so doing they would do as acceptable a piece of service and as well pleasing to God and would conduce as much to the peace and tranquility of the Nation as any thing that ever they will do in their age or hath been effected many ages and so all these heart-burnings contentions and evil surmisings and evil representing one another would cease and end and which if not effected nothing can be looked for but sad suffering and great oppression and persecution which will provoke the Lord to anger and ever did against all them that were the cause of it in ages past but I come to his second Argument Second Argument Some without any colour reason or possibility of proof will need have swearing a Ceremonial write but God ranks it with his fear and service therefore it must needs be moral and therefore what at all times as well under the Gospel as under the Law as well amongst the Gentiles as the Jewes tends to the glory of God that is not a Ceremonial Ordinance nor forbiden by Christ but such is swearing and therefore it cannot be thought to be prohibited Reply to this It hath been said and often asserted that all the ten words and Commandements were moral and perpetual as well under the Gospel as under the Law then I wonder what A. S. and divers others intends to do with the fourth Commandment if it be moral and perpetual and to be observed in the same manner and with the same service as then commanded and the same day and time then he and most of them who contend most for the morality of these ten Commandments are great transgressors and if he grant there was something Ceremonial in it and typical or figurative which then was the seventh day which was given for a signe of the Worlds rest from its labour and of keeping after it an everlasting Sabbath to the Lord by Mans cessation from his own works as God did from his Isai. 58. and the last Heb. 4. which Iewish observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath now though never so solemnly as then commanded will have no acceptation at all no more then he and he as much that is none at all that never so solemnly swears by the name of God in such ceremonious ways as the Iewes did of old or goes beyond the bare asseveration or testimony of truth with some attestation of Gods power and veracity which hath never been denyed which to do we do not only think but know it to be a superfluous Ceremony of Judaism not to say brat of Jewish extraction as A. S. doth now circumcised and cut off from Christians by Christ and what though God did Deutro 10. 20. rank it with his fear and service was there any service or worship in that Covenant that had not some signe and shadow in it and was Ceremonial and was to end in the substance was there not prayer and praysing and were not these service and worship and had these not the Ceremony of Incense and Sacrifice which then attended these Services but the substance was lifting up of the heart unto the Lord and making a melody in the heart and circumcision is now that of the heart Rom. 2. which was outward before the killing of a Lamb at the Passeover was an Ordinance in that Covenant the substance thereof is Christ the Passeover the other now under the Gospel would be no more then cutting of a Dogs neck these were all Ordinances of God to be observed and in their time and day and they that did according to the command of God tended to the glory of God in that first Covenant but in the second under the Gospel whosoever should observe them in the Figure Ceremony and shadow should much dishonour God and his Christ the substance and Christ would profit him nothing see that Ceremony of swearing the morality that only abides under the Gospel is testifying the known truth from the heart with some attestation of God to witnesse who is witness of all we do or say and that no more then confession or deniall by yea or nay which is no oath is that standing substance and the moral if A. S. will have it called so that remaines under the Gospel which answers that ceremonious way of swearing under the Law which is most evident by the Apostle Pauls rendring of that terme swearing as it was spoken in way of prophesie concerning its continuance then Isa. 45. 23. To me every tongue shall swear under that tearm confessing only under the Gospel Rom. 14. 11. Every knee shall bow every tongue shall confess to God confession under the Gospel is made equivolent with an oath under the Law but this rendring of it A. S. doth not like but would pervert Pauls words to have it confession but put to his own addition by oath so that his Argument is void swearing was binding in that ceremonious way which it was commanded under the Law but not under the Gospel nor among the Christians who are come to the substance and to confess and speak the truth in Christ to the glory of God acknowledging his power and omnisciency and his justice in discerning whether truth be spoken and in punishing them that speak falsely and his wisdome in discerning the secrets of all hearts and A S. might as well have said that offrings and oblations and sacrifice tends much to the glory of God under the Gospel as under the Law as swearing but saith he swearing is a part of Gods peculiar service that is incommunicable to any creature the like I say of the former offring and sacrifice and incense was incommunicable to any creature but was due unto God alone yet it doth not follow as well under the Gospel as under the Law for that were to set up the figure and deny the substance so this second Argument is insufficient and the third is somewhat related to it which I now come unto Thirdly This third Argument is that if Christs purpose be utterly to abolish all swearing as an illegitimate brat of Jewish extraction not to be admitted into the Christian Church then it must be either as it is repugnant to our duty to God or else to our neighbour for into that summary he hath contracted the whole Law Reply We must still distinguish that which was once a duty to be performed under the Law because commanded is
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
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
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
the subject matter where all swearing is forbidden as well as any because swear not at all by heaven earth c. Because there is not only no expression made any where after of any such exception or restriction but a fuller amplification of it by such particulars as is enumerated and are more particularly exclusive of all kinds of oaths and of all oaths of any kind not only of those that they used to wicked purposes but even those they solemnly used sometime to good purposes before the seed Christ was revealed and the Apostle James 5. 12. neither by heaven neither by earth neither by any other oath which is a re-inforcement and redoubling of the said universal prohibition whereas if Christ had intended any exception here he might as easily have exprest and would as assuredly as he did imediatly above in the cause of divorce by except in the cause of fornication and have so said swear not at all except it be solemn and sacred Oathes and by the Lord to good purposes in Courts where ye are call'd to swear before a Magistrate so James if he had intended as A. S. will needs in force yet without any ground a limitation and restriction above all things my brethren swear not neither by heaven neither by earth neither by any other oath except ye swear solemnly by God to good purposes in Courts or before Magistrates but as I said instead of excepting any exception he adds that which more strangthens and clears beyond all exception the universality of his prohibition and if all vain oaths by God were forbidden before and all swearing by Creatures so that there was no need either for Christ or James to speak of them again as A. S. says then this is still matter for the argument on our part that some oaths were prohibited by Christ and James which were not prohibited before and of which there was necessity for them to speak as there was indeed not only about those Oaths and other things which the Law before had prohibited but even of those things that it had allowed and indulged because of the hardness of their hearts so we say there was a necessity of Christ and James not only to mention those things again which the Law had spoken of before and disallowed which we have instanced before and is manifest in that Chap. 5. which the Pharisees had perverted and loosened by their false glosses and traditions but even those things which were permitted indulged and commanded under the Law and suffered to be because of the hardness of their hearts and strifes unbeliefes insecurities and therefore Christ teacheth and informeth his Disciples as it was in the beginning before those things entered and in this cause about oaths amongst the rest prohibites all swearing without limitation not only that which was once forbidden but even that which was once permitted and commanded and indulged and therefore it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self under the Law where in Numb 30. 2. Deut. 23. 21. But I say unto you swear not at all neither by heaven nor earth nor Jerusalem no thy head which is manifestly an exclusive prohibition of all oaths without exception or restriction or limitation and still will stand good not withstanding all A. S. and others opposing among his Disciples and true Christians in whose hearts he hath put it to speak the truth and confess in any cause wherein they are concerned to the glory of God the Father and to keep the commands of his Christ and to glory him by abiding in his Doctrine swear not at all And then A. S. concludes here the grand Objection falls of it self which is either all kinds of swearing is forbidden or else Christ notwithstanding his words but I say unto you forbad nothing which was forbidden before which is utterly improbable and the reason is saith he because God formerly had forbidden all false and vain oaths and all swearing by Creatures all which I grant to be true saith he but the Pharisees had taught the people otherwise by their wicked glosses that made the Commandement of small effect by their Tradition and the practise of that Nation was widely distant from the Commandement both which were necessarily to be reformed which our Saviour did in these words But I say unto you swear not at all Reply Who ever denyed but that the Pharisees were blind guides and that they laboured to make void the Law and made the commands of God of small effect by their Traditions or that the practise of that Nation was not widely distant from the Commandement and that they sware by false Gods sometime and vainly by the true God and took his Name in vain and sware also by Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem like as many do now all this we grant that they were out of the way both in oaths and other things also that Christ reproved in the fifth of Matthew and elsewhere which Christ reformed and reproved their Doctrine and manners I say again how is the grand Objection fallen by this that either all kind of swearing is forbidden here by Christ or else Christ forbad nothing which was not forbidden before which is utterly improbable saith A. S. but it is more probable then any thing that A. S. hath yet offered for if only by Heaven Earth Jerusalem Head Temple and Altar by that which Christ forbad that the Pharisees taught the people they might swear by these were forbidden before inclusive in false swearing or swearing by Creatures though not expressed or enumerated nominally yet included among the sinful and vain oaths under the Law and so were forbidden before and faith A. S. I grant that all vain oaths and perjury and all swearing by Creatures were formerly forbidden and if so as indeed they were what more did he forbid then was forbidden if the words must only be understood of those sinful and vain oaths by Creatures above mentioned that the Pharisees indulged the people in and taught as A. S. would only limit his prohibition and exception I shall leave to the Conscience of every enlightened man to judge and say that in these words it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear but pay thy vows unto the Lord but I say who am come to restore man again into that estate he fell from by transgression and to redeem him that believes out of strife and contention and Idolatry to have fellowship with the Father Swear not at all neither by heaven nor earth nor any other oath that as hath been said before here is a prohibition of all vain oaths and false oaths and perjury and all oaths by Creatures and all the vain traditions of Scribes and Pharisees about oaths and somewhat more even a prohibition of those Oaths to his Disciples which the Law allowed after sin had entered for which cause the Law was added and Oaths added but Christ ends it not by destroying it but by fulfilling it
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