commanded Swearing the Son surely hath not forbidden it The Argument runs thus Whatever the Father hath commanded that the Son hath not forbidden But the Father hath commanded Swearing Deut. 6.13 Therefore the Son hath not forbidden it Answer And in the first place I say the Argument in this Case is not fairly stated Secondly That there is a difference between the Law of God which was and is eternal and so unchangeable as the Will of God in itself is and the Commands of God under the Law which was given to the People of Israel for a time onely and so were temporary to wit till the Seed came to whom the promise was made Gal. 3 19. to be a Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ that they might be justified by faith Gal. 3.24 But after the saith was come they were no longer by Gods ordination to be under the Schoolmaster vers 25. So that when Christ the Seed to whom the promise was made was come c had fulfilled all that was written concerning him in the Law in the Prophets and in the Psalms the Law of Commandments that was not of faith Gal. 3.12 was to be taken out of the way the end for which it was given being accomplished according to the will of God So that although God the Father commanded Swearing under the Law till Christ the true and faithful Witness was made manifest in the flesh and restored the true Witness-bearing as it was in the beginning before Swearing was unto his Disciples whom he had chosen out of the World to be his Witnesses and that Christ Jesus the Son of God in that Precept Swear not at all did forbid all Swearing to his Disciples yet there neither was nor is any mutability or change in the Will of God nor contrariety in the Will of the Son to the Will of his Father for what the Son did command it was according to the Will of and what he received of his Father Now that Swearing was commanded by the Law A. S. confesseth And that an Oath and Swearing was to pass away or to be taken out of the way when the true Witness and Witness-bearing was made manifest which was before any Oath or Swearing was is before fully manifested So that the Argument in this case truly stated runs thus That what God the Father did command to his People Israel only for a time and for such an end the time being fully come and the end accomplished the Command so given is no longer of force nor obligatory And therefore there is in this case no contrariety or mutability in the Will of the Father nor contrariety in the Will of the Son of God to the Will of his Father in that Command Swear not at all That Command of God the Father Deut. 6.13 which was temporary being according to the Will of God first taken out of the way That the Command of Christ Mat. 5.34 might be established for ever according to Heb. 10.9 He taketh away the first that he might establish the second And the Prophesie Psal. 108. Judah is my Law-giver That so the servant who was not by God's appointment to abide in the house for ever might give place to the Son who is to abide in the house for ever And that God the Father did give several Commands only to be observed and to continue for a time without any mutability in his Will is evident from the testimony of the Scriptures of Truth As Gen. 22.2 where the Lord commanded Abram to take his only son Isaac and offer him for a burnt offering c. And in vers 12. the Lord commanded him not to lay his hand upon the Child neither do any thing unto him And Mat. 2.13 Ioseph was commanded to take the Babe and his Mother and flee into Egypt and be there till mark I bring thee word c. And in vers 19. When Herod was dead he was commanded to take the Babe and his Mother and go into the Land of Israel And yet there was no change or contrariety in the Will of God although there was several and contrary Commands the one To flee into Egypt and the other To return into the Land of Israel So likewise Gal. 4.1 2 c. it 's said That the Heir as long as he is a Child differeth nothing from a Servant though he be Lord of all but is under Tutors and Governors until the time appointed of the Father By which it is evident That though Israel according to the Will of God was to be under the Law which was not of Faith for a time as a servant yet it was never the Will of God their condition should alwayes be so but only until the time appointed which time being come they were to be freed from that Law that they might receive the adoption of sons For although the Lord had forbidden Moses and all others to add any thing to or diminish any thing from what was written in the Law yet He had not limitted himself but that he might add to or take from what he had given in command and that without any mutability in his Will And if the Father at sundry times did give forth several Commands and that contrary one to another without any mutability in his Will in that sense which A.S. doth affirm Then the Son who doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do did not give forth that Command Swear not at all contrary to but in obedience to the Will of his Father For although the words of the Commands Mat. 5.34 and Deut. 6.13 in themselves are contrary yet the Will of the Father and the Son was in perfect unity without any contrariety But the contrariety is in that mind that is Carnal and therefore neither is nor can be subject to the Law of God Rom. 8.7 which being in the Spirit is Spiritual and Eternal and not Moral So that such now whose minds are alienated from the Light and Life of God are ignorant of the Righteousness of God as the Jews formerly were who had Moses read in their Synagogues every Sabbath day for where Moses is read the vail is upon the heart to this day 2 Cor. 3.15 so that such do not see now no more than the Jews did then the end of that which is abolished Nevertheless now as then all whose minds are turned to the Lord and believe in his Light that shines in their hearts for to give unto them the Knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ and of the Law in the Spirit written not in tables of stone but in the heart which Law was before the Law of Moses was written or any vail was They in the Light Eternal see the end of the Law which was not of Faith and the Law abolished under which an Oath for confirmation was to be unto them that were under it an end of all controversie and strife And also in the Light that was before any Oath or Swearing was they see and know
and came to restore the true witness-bearing as at the first which was and is the Righteousness of the Law of Oaths And the Apostle being an able Minister of the Spirit not of the Letter he was come to see the End of that which was abolished and preached the everlasting Gospel the word of Faith which was and is the Word of Truth the Author of true witness-bearing which was before any Oath or Swearing was And so as Christ his Lord and Master had done before when he said unto Pilate For this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness unto the Truth Joh. 18.37 He in obedience to his Lord and Master did bear witness to and of the Truth And in witness-bearing did as the Servants of the Lord do call God to witness or appeal to the witness of God in men concerning the truth of what he declared without observing any set forms of words And as Sarai had done before when she said unto Abram The Lord judge betwixt thee and me yet did not swear at all But A. S. saith That calling God to witness is a formal Oathâ— because there is an attestation of the Name of God Answ. That the Name of God was used in witness-bearing before any Oath or Swearing was doth appear Gen. 3.3 where Eve before the Fall in witness-bearing used the Name of God when she said God hath said Ye shall not eat c. yet did not swear at all And Sarai after the Fall did use an attestation of the Name of God in witness-bearing when she said unto Abram The Lord judge betwixt thee and me Gen. 16.5 and yet Sarai did not swear at all in so doing And therefore the calling of God to witness or saying God is my witness c. without adding of somewhat more is neither Oath nor Swearing For if such attestations or mentioning the Name of God without somewhat more were swearing then it would follow That People did swear oftentimes in their Prayers As when they use that expression Oh God the Father of Heaven c. O God make haste to help us Amen Amen c. which for any to affirm were a great injury to the People Again If a bare attestation of the Name of God by what terms soever expressed were an Oath and Swearing without adding of some what more Then would the Magistrates in Judicial proceedings in cases where an Oath and Swearing is by the Law required receive such Attestations of the Name of God without denying them for Oaths and Swearing But such Attestations or the like without adding somewhat more is denied by the Magistrates in Judicial proceedings c. Therefore they are no formal or legal Oaths without addition of somewhat more which somewhat more being more than yea and nay cometh of evil For it must be confessed and it is the chiefest ground or cause that is alleadged for the lawfulness of some swearing under the Gospel that it is necessary for the ending of Controversies and Strife in Judicial proceedings c. That if an Oath or Swearing were lawful in any case whatsoever it must be in Judicial proceedings c. And I do not find in the Scriptures of Truth That any Oath was lawful but in such proceedings or the like emergent occasions All vain and prosane Oaths being forbidden by the Law And as the lawful use of Oaths under the Law was in legal or judicial proceedings so the definition or determination of what was a legal Oath or Swearing and what was neither Oath nor Swearing was by the Law and the Ministers of it and not by private or particular men For at this day there are several kinds or forms of Oaths required by the National Laws And yet the bare Attestation of the Name of God without addition of somewhat more is not answerable to any of them neither doth fully answer the requiring of the Law as the daily practise of the Law in the Courts of Judicature doth manifest which practice doth declare what a legal Oath is in the judgment of the National Laws And for illegal Oaths A. S. I hope will not contend By which Laws also it doth appear That the Law doth put a difference betwixt an Oath or Swearing and Witness-bearing and doth not confound them together as many men do As for instance in one particular When a Party or a Witness doth appear to answer a Libel or to give Evidence in the Ecclesiastical Courts upon his Appearance in the Court he is required to take his Oath and then the Book being held the Party having laid his hand thereupon some words being spoken to him by the Judge of the Court and after the Party having kissed the Book then is the Party said to be Sworn or to have taken his Oath And being so Sworn he is admonished to give in his Answer or his Evidence as the Case is at or before such a time so that the Evidence after given into the Court is the Witness-bearing and not the Oath which Evidence or Answer as the Case requires if he neglect or refuse to give he is proceeded against for refusing to give his Evidence or Answer And not as one that refuseth to Swear or take an Oath he having Sworn or taken his Oath before which Evidence if given is the Witness-bearing and not the Oath For if he refuse to swear he is proceeded against for refusing to swear although he offer to give his Evidence without swearing So that the Evidence is the witness-bearing and not the Oath By which it doth appear That an Oath is in and of it self a distinct thing from Witness-bearing which was before any Oaths was and is but a Bond or Tye for true Witness-bearing and not the substance For when the Evidence is given if what is Evidenced be false the Oath taken before or after doth not make it true And if it be truth that is Evidenced the refusing to take or add an Oath or give a Token Sign or Pledge doth not detract any thing from it By which it may appear to the unprejudiced in mind That the laying aside of an Oath and Swearing which was added for a time under the Law in witness-bearing because men had transgressed or gone from the Truth of God which was in the beginning before any Oath was in witness-bearing is not to destroy true witness-bearing but the reducing it to its primitive purity as it was in the beginning So that the true Witness Christ Jesus being made manifest all that believe in him and receive him to them he gives power to become the Sons of God and by his Spirit which is Truth and leads into all Truth he enableth them to do the Truth confess the Truth and speak the Truth from the heart unto their Neighbour or before a Magistrate in witness-bearing as it 's written A good man out of the good treasure in his heart he bringeth forth good things So that our Neighbour
if he receive our Testimony being Truth he is not damnified by us although we may not Swear at all or give him any outward sign or pledge which cannot add any thing in Truth to the Truth which we are willing and free to bear Witness of and unto upon any just occasion Neither can the Magistrate be more assured of the Truth of what is Evidenced by an Oath than by a bare Affirmation For as the one so the other may be true or false Again I say That not only our Neighbour is not prejudiced by us because we may not add any sign token or pledge to the Truth which we bear witness of and to but he is by true witness-bearing more advantaged than he is or can be by Swearing when the Evidence born is not true which neither is nor ever was of the essence of true witness-bearing Because true witness-bearing was before any Oath or Swearing was For there may be and hath been many times Oaths and Swearing in Judicial Proceedings when the Evidence given upon such Oaths have not been true but false and so men thereby have and do suffer prejudice But when and where true witness is born and received although an Oath be denied or not given yet hereby men are advantaged and receive benefit and no prejudice at all for where a true Testimony is born there none ever did or can thereby receive loss Again Christ Jesus being come to restore and establish everlasting Righteousness in the new Covenant that is faultless and so unchangable And Oaths and Searing not being faultless and so changeable not being from everlasting but added for a time because of transgression as is before said It was expedient that all Swearing with those things under the first Covenant should be taken away that were things in themselves changable and might be shaken to the end that true witness-bearing which could not be shaken might be established in the House of God for ever So that although where Moses or the Old Testament is read an Oath and Swearing as a Vail remains to this day undone away yet nevertheless all whose hearts and minds are turned to the Lord in the Light that was before any Avail or Oath was they see and witness the End of that which is abolished for where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom 2 Cor. 3. And therefore the Apostle Paul having seen and witnessed the removing of those things which might be shaken and knowing that when that which was perfect was come that which was but in part was to be done away he in witness-bearing said God is my witness I speak the Truth in Christ I lye not c. without adding any outward token sign or pledge or observing any form of words at all So that as he himself said He became as without Law to them that were without Law 1 Cor. 9.21 yet was he subject to the Law of Christ and did not Swear at all And as he did not himself swear so neither did he teach swearing to be lawful by way of Doctrine to the Hebrews when he said That an Oath is among them for an end of all strife and controversie Heb. 6.18 which words he spoke not by way of Doctrine as a thing to be practised by them as Christians but by way of repeating what formerly had been used amongst the Jews under the first Covenant and so that he might shew unto them being Jews how that by Christ the first Testament was taken away or out of the way and the second established upon better promises For as he said of Swearing he also said of the Priesthood That every High Priest is not was ordained to offer c. Heb. 8 3. And that after the second Vail was the Tabernacle which is not was called the Holiest of all Heb. 9.3 And when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law he took the blood of Calves saying This is not was the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed to you Heb. 9.19 20. All which his sayings do plainly shew That what he had in those particulars mentioned was by way of repeating what had been in use under the first Covenant and not by way of Doctrine what they were to practise then as Christians But I proceed to the seventh Argument which as A. S. saith in brief runs thus Arg. 7. Some Swearing is enjoyned in the third Commandment every Precept prohibitive of vice being necessarily so to be expounded as implying the contrary duty or else it is impossible to free the Decalogue from imperfection And consequently Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain implies Thou shalt take the Name of God that is Thou shalt Swear when there is a just occasion And therefore Christ who came not to destroy the Law did not forbid all Swearing Answ. What is impossible with man is possible with God and that Christ did fulfil not destroy the Law is confessed And having fulfilled the Law the end for which it was for a time given was accomplished which being accomplished according to the Will of God was abolished abrogated disannulled and taken away by Christ as before is fully proved Now as said the Apostle Rom. 7.3 4. The Woman which is in subjection to her Husband is bound by his Law to him as long as he liveth but if her Husband be dead she is delivered from his Law So then if while the man liveth she take another Husband she shall be called an Adultress but if the man be dead she is free from the Law so that she is no Adultress though she take another Husband Wherefore my Brethren ye also are become dead by the Body of Christ that ye should be married to another even to him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit to God What words more plain to prove That Christians in Christ Jesus are freed from the Law of the carnal Commandment that they may serve God in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter Heb. 7.10 Rom. 7.6 And though it be true that Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it yet that doth no more prove A. S's Conclusion inferred thereupon viz. Therefore Christ did not forbid all swearing because some swearing was commanded in the Law Then it doth where a man is ingaged by his Bond to pay so much money upon such a day and the man upon that day doth make payment of the money according to his Bond That the man in so doing doth destroy his Boud or that it is after Obligatory to him when he hath fulfilled it For although the People of Israel to whom the Law was given by God could not be freed therefrom until it was fulfilled yet notwithstanding when it was fulfilled it was by the Ordination of God to pass away and the People freed from it as before is proved So that when Christ Jesus had fulfilled the Law not for himself
fully supply where it is received Nay there is much more surety to our Neighbour by true witness-bearing than by swearing because a true witness will not lye The fourth Argument is thus formed Arg. 4. That interpretation of our Saviours words Swear not at all which renders the following words vain and impertinent is false c. Answ. That Christ intended what he said I hope no Christian will deny And that those words Swear not at all were spoken by Christ and are in themselves a prohibition of all swearing whatsoever is evident And that they were spoken by Christ not by way of compliance with what had been said before to them of old time but in the contrary thereof is apparent by the words But I say unto you Swear not at all Which words if they signifie nothing but what was before said Then should they not only be to no purpose but hurtful by making the case of swearing more dark and questionable than it was before under the Law which for any man to affirm were a great injury to Christ Jesus the Wisdom of God And therefore Christ having spoken all those words But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. And that in the contrary of what was said before as the word but and the words not at all do import It is manifest that Christ did in that command Swear not at all forbid somewhat that was not forbidden by the Law And consequently all swearing whatsoever whether by the Lord or by the Creatures And that Christ added neither by Heaven the Earth Jerusalem the Head they being the chiefest of the visible Creatures all the other creatures being the lesser or inferiour are included the greater comprehending the less so that the words following and precedent are all significant and useful For being the words of Christ not any of them are to be rejected but all and every word established And therefore it were more beseeming Christians to give all diligence to observe the Law and Command of Christ then to invent and frame Arguments against his words which are in themselves plain and have no ambiguity in them and being so according to the rule when in words there is no ambiguity there no Exposition is to be made against the words expressed For in doubtful speech we utter not a doubtful sence but only that which we mean Therefore he which speaketh one thing and meaneth another neither doth he utter that which the word signifieth because he meaneth not so neither that which he meaneth because he speaketh it not Which for any man to affirm of the words of Christ Swear not at all were as before is said a great injury to Christ the Wisdom of God and to the Spirit of Truth from which the Scriptures of Truth were given forth All which words of Christ being in themselves prohibitions of Swearing and no exceptions as the words of Christ in the case of Divorcement were where it 's said Except for the cause of Fornication do the more confirm and illustrate the extent of the Command And being the words of Christ the Wisdom of God they are neither vain nor impertinent No more than those words in the fourth Commandment In it thou shalt do no manner of work nor thy Son c. All which were included in those general words before-going Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy Or the enumerating all those words written in the Tables of Stone which were all briefly comprehended in those few words Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart ' And thy Neighbour as thy self And yet the Wisdom of God which is wiser than men knowing whereof we as men have need spoke all those words in the Law And where the Law-giver hath made no exception he to whom the Law is given ought not And so I conclude That the Law of Christ Swear not at all is perfect and a full prohibition of all swearing unto his Disciples and being perfect no man ought to add any thing thereunto or diminish any thing from it And so I proceed to the fifth Argument Arg. 5. Nothing that of it self is not intrinsically evil is forbidden by Christ and that is proved by induction But Swearing is not of it self intrinsically evil And therefore Christ did not forbid it Answ. The thing in Dispute is not Whether Christ did ever forbid any thing that was not of it self evil But whether Christ hath forbidden all Swearing Which that Christ hath forbidden all swearing his own words which are the interpreters of the heart do prove And one single testimony of the Scriptures of Truth is of more strength than a thousand surmises or meer humane witnesses And therefore Swearing being forbidden by Christ Mat. 5.34 it is the duty of Christians to apply themselves to yield obedience to his Command and not to frame Arguments to evade the same or to ask a Reason wherefore he so did And yet we read That God commanded Circumcision and Sacrifices which in themselves are not evil and yet forbidden in the New Covenant And we also read That God forbad Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which Tree and its Fruit of themselves were not intrinsically evil And the use of several other Creatures under the Law was forbidden the People of Israel And what God the Father did forbid it was by his Word And Christ the Word and Power of God he forbid his Disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles and not to enter into any of the Cities of the Samaritans Mat. 10.5 And he charged his Disciples they should tell the Vision to no man until c. Mat. 17. 9. And that they should call no man Master upon the Earth Mat. 23. 9. None of which of themselves were intrinsically evil But that which concerns us as Christians and so under the Law of Christ is not so much to enquire whether or no such a thing be good in or of it self But whether or no it be good for us to practice yea or nay For as said the Apostle What is not of Faith is Sin And therefore that is good for Christians to do which the Lord requires of them But to proceed to the sixth Argument the force whereof is this Arg. 6. Either Christ forbad not the taking of an Oath upon just occasion or else St. Paul though assisted by the Holy Ghost understood not the Text. Or If he understood it he acted against it and that not rashly but upon deliberation Because in his Epistle he calls God to witness which is a formal Oath Answ. That the Apostle Paul did know the mind of Christ in that Precept Swear not at all is believed But that he acted contrary contrary thereto when he said God is my witness or called God to witness is denied For as he knew Christ had forbidden all swearing he also knew that Christ was the true and faithful Witness the first and the last