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
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
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
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
that is any oath taken by other creatures for so must they be understood unless we interpret his words to make them contradict Gods and set the servant in a manifest oppositon to his Master Reply We who are of a contrary judgment to A. S. do still urge the universality of the Text Mat. 5. 33 34 c. and we shall not break off the sentence of Christ in the midle swear not at all c. but shall render it as it is neither was it ever intended otherwise but for brevities sake because the innumeration of Heaven and Earth c. are only inclusive in the prohibition and we shall speak on and what Christ hath joyned we shall not separate but read the words as they are Yee have heard it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oaths but I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is Gods Throne neither by the Earth it 's his Foot-stoole neither by Jerusalem for it 's 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 nay nay whatsoever is more then those cometh of evil James 5. 12. But above all things my Bretheren swear not neither by Heaven neither by Earth neither by any other Oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay least you fall into condemnation In which two Texts we say in the affirmative all manner of swearing is forbiden for the truth of which many reasons have been and may be given First Because all manner of swearing is here expresly instanced in these two disjunctive clauses which are expresly conclusive and consequently because spoken by way of prohibiton exclusive exceptive of all swearing that can be thought on swear not swear not at all sayes the Texts yea that none may imagine as A. S. would make Men do that this general Rule admits of any exception but all know the prohibition is so strickt as to allow of no permission in the point to swear by any thing but God he addes neither by Heaven neither by Earth neither by Jerusalem neither by thy head and these are only more ample expressions of that prohibition and are not exclusive or disjunctive from the prohibition but conclusive of the prohibition of all swearing whatever But least any should think he forbids only and no more then extravagant Oaths of such as swear by Creatures as Earth Jerusalem the head and such like when as whosoever swore lawfully under the Law was to swear by none but God himself but that there be no root at all for any reasoning for swearing against the flat prohibition of it James 5. he concludes and shuts up all in these universal tearmes and excludes all Oaths and all possible pretence of plea at all also for any swearing adding neither by any other oath what words more plain words can be uttered or can be more expresly exclusive both of all kinds or sorts of swearing and of all sorts of particular Oaths of every kind and by Heaven and by Earth and Jerusalem are so far from signifying that those Oaths by Creatures are only the Oaths that Christ prohibits that they are but only innumerations and amplifications of the former part of the prohibition swear not at all which we grant were spoken to reprove the Pharisees and the Jews practise about their vain swearing And why must those words of James 5. needs be understood with restriction above all things swear not neither by Heaven neither by Earth c. why St. Austin scruples at the first words Quare ante omnia Jurare est quam furari c. quà m adulterare c. quà m hominem accidere it cannot be that swearing is worse and forswearing then adultery theft murther we do not say it is but if it be not or that be not the reason why he says above all things swear not because swearing is a sin above all sins can no other reason then that be rendered yes yet we shall agree with Austin and A. S. too if their judgment be one thus far that it was not sin to swear the truth when called unto it under the Law why then above all things swear not not that swearing is so great an offence as Murther or Adultery but least we contract a habit thereof and then possibly by rash Oaths we should offend God which is no more saith he then in especial manner forbearswearing and any other Oath saith A. S. must be restrained in a limited sense for there is not meant any Oath whatever but such as the Apostle speaks of by Heaven by Earth c. though there be some truth in what is said yet it s too short to answer the Apostles end and scope and the reason falls short that is rendered but the man reason is they were Jewes unto whom he wrote the twelve Tribes scattered whom we deny not but were run into that custome of vain swearing by Creatures as Heaven Earth Jerusalem head and Temple c. but that is not all though we grant it is some reason but they being Jews who might under the Law swear serious or solemn Oaths and were not so fully informed of the end of the Law in Christ under which among them some Oaths were lawful they were apt to think they did as well in swearing so now as they did before so though Adultery and Murther may be as bad and worse then Swearing yet the Law being so expresly against them which yet in its time allowed some kind of swearing in some Cases it was more hard to bring them of from some Ceremonious services of the Law that were once lawful as is evident long after Christs ascention the Apostles had much to do with them about the Rites of the Law as Circumcision and times and dayes and new Moones c. then from such sins as were known and hated by them and held accursed by the very letter of the Law and therefore he says above all things my bretheren swear not that they might not only take hold of all vain swearing and swearing by Creatures that was ever unlawful but if that they might know that now to be unlawful which in former times was accounted lawful for them And so its ordinary to say to Men above all things take heed of that to which they have been long accustomed and with which through heedlesness of the unlawfulness of the thing they are apt most easily to be overtaken Again It is by Solomon who spoke by the eternal wisedome of God and in it to fear an Oath is made the character of a righteous Man that sacrificeth acceptably to God to swear at all is more the character of a wicked and uncleave sinner Eccles. 9. 1. 2. for how he it Men shall once return and discern the happiness of him that serves God from his woe who serves him
art thou Peter or art thou John that was with Jesus of Gallilee and Peter and John had answered I am Peter and I am John that was with him what will A. S. conclude now that Peter and John hath sworn away with such perverting and straining and screwing of the Scriptures from their genuine sence only to uphold that which was added because of transgression now when sin and transgression is finished the end of Christs coming is witnessed to uphold that which Christ came to end to wit sin and also an oath which was added because of sin and unbelief and the hardness of their hearts only to remain till that part was done away and untill the time of Reformation Heb. 9. 10. to wit the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness and it cannot be reasonably concluded that because Christ answered the high Priest thou hast said that therefore he took notice of commanding to swear or at least approving of his adjuration knowing that he was about an evil work and doing the work of the Devil which must needs be judged that Christ did neither approve of nor consent unto what ever A. S. may say or think but only in his own authority spoke the truth and made a good confession as he did before Pontius Pilate to the glory of the Father who had sent him whose will he came to do And Luke 22. 70. Art thou then the Son of God and he said unto them ye say that I am and Pilate was as much a Magistrate as the high Priest and he asked art thou the King of the Jewes and he answered him and said thou sayest it And Herod was as much a Magistrate as either Pilate or the high Priest and he questioned with him in many words but Christ answered nothing so that he did not so much take notice of their questions or examining or charging or adjuring as A. S. would seem to make of it but according to the wisdom and power of God which was in him spoke and answered in his own authority without taking so much notice of them as he would infer he knowing what they were going about though they had the name and bore the title of Magistrates yet were out of the power of God in the persecuting nature which is the ground and foundation of all authority which is of God but A. S. says Marke 14. 62. relates plainly that Christ answered I am but yet neither Marke Luke nor John takes so much notice of the high Priests adjuring or makes so much for A. S. his Argument as he would have them Marke saith only Mar. 14. 61. the high Priest asked him and said unto him art thâ—u Christ the son of the blessed he doth not say I adjure thee or I charge thee to swear unto us as A. S. would have it but thought Mat. 26. 63. say I adjure thee to tell us whether thou be Christ the Son of God is not much material for A. S. hath made more matter about it then is to any great or good purpose but I say he was as much bound to answer Pilate or Herod as the high Priest and as much directly to one as to another we see his answers was not all alike but I would not have A. S. nor my self neither sit as Judges over Christs answers and squeeze and serue them beyond or contrary to Christs intention for the summe of the matter is this thou hast said I am and thou sayest I am King and is Christs answers to the high Priest and Pilate and nothing to Herod and A. S. might as reasonably have concluded that the high Priest rent his Cloaths and cryed blasphemy not so much at thou hast said or I am as of this the next words nevertheless I say unto you ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the Clouds of Heaven for then the next words are then the high Priest rent his Cloaths and cryed blasphemy and then A. S. goes on it was enough that Christ denyed not to swear and the summe of all or the most that he can make when he hath twined about with many Circumstances to prove that he did swear or consented to Caiaphas adjuring and answered his adjuring this is all I am and thou hast said and therefore what either may be or can be said A. S. hath concluded Christ did swear and yet Sect. the 27. he tells us that the essence of swearing is in calling God to witness and how or where did Christ call God to witness then this overturns his own argument seeing we do not read that Christ sayed any more in his answer then as is aforesaid I am and thou hast said and he says to alledge that Christ sware not because he laid not his hand upon a Book or kissed or lifted up his hand is but to trifle yet he says that ceremony is ancient as Chrysostome tells him that it 's above 1250. years since if it be but to trifle why are so many conscientious people in bonds this day in England under a Premunirey for these trifles a very shame to Christianity for where any or all of these have been denyed though they have answered the truth and the whole truth and as much as A. S. calls an oath yet this hath been counted insufficient and we know Justinian the Emperour ordain'd the ceremony that Men should swear by the Gospel or Book and lay their hands thereon and kiss or the like and though it be so many years since it was ordained as A. S. says this adds nothing to the warrantableness thereof but custome is proof enough to such a Ceremonious age as this when formalities ceremonies jestures and postures are more regarded then the power of God and godliness and we say such a ceremony about swearing are not without the appearance of evil for the Bible is a Creature made up of many Creatures and laying the hand and kissing and adoreing it in such manner is I know-looked upon by many to be swearing by it and so the most takes it and this were unlawful and therefore better to be whollyavoided then so many suffer because they cannot do it besides as I said the evil appearance of it for it is not any Gospel institution but an innovation since the Apostacy entred in and if God had ever judged any necessity thereof or that it had rendred an oath more solemn the Law would have said something of it and it was never a practice among the Primitive Christians and therefore a vain humane tradition crept in since which ought to be avoided and though A. S. say to reply that Christ swore not though Caiaphas adjured him is vain for an examinate is to answer both in matter and forme according to what is proposed I say its A. S. his vain supposition and presumption without ground so to judge that Christ swore I say sometime he held his peace that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
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