one shepherd and one fold for them both and no longer and they were never given to the Gentiles to observe and therefore for ought I can perceive many would have the Gentile Christians who never were under the Law neither the Ordinances of the first Covenant neither ever given to them yet they would compell the Christians to live as do the Jewes and to observe their Ordinances and therefore are greatly to be blamed Gal 2. 13 14. Therefore we do not look upon any swearing to be now a duty under the Gospel among true Christians truly such as some swearing was once under the Law but affirme all swearing to be now a sin because forbidden by the positive law of Christ under the Gospel who by his death ended the right of that and many more legal rites and Rudiments which who so doth observe now as Christians doth it not without sin and guilt and superstition and therefore S. Fisher that faithful servant of God who suffred in bonds til death for his Testimony even in this particular saith well That that sort of swearing which was not sin simpliciter in its nature under the Law is now a sin upon the account of Christs universal prohibition of all swearing who was of authority to put to an end as he did by his death unto the Law And therefore that sort of service and worship which stood in outward observations which was a duty because commanded under the Law and no sin in their own nature neither were evil in themselves nor in any respect conducing thereto as they were observed but had some signal good in them once and yet who observes them now as service of God makes Christ of so little effect to himself as that he profits him nothing at all I hope A. S. will not deny but these things are forbidden in the new Testament which sometime were not evil in their own nature but now are evil when the Substance is come in whom they all end and therefore S. F. his argument is not vain but of force And yet let A. S. know that there were many things observed and done not only by the Jewes but by them that believed in Christ and thought well of him while he was present with them and yet did not see to the end of these things which were shadows and signes and good as once commanded and had no evil in them but were good as commanded and for the end for which they were ordain'd which afterwards in the more full growth and knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity they came more to be seen thorough and that was felt in which they all ended and though Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to observe the Ordinances commanded in that Covenant to fulfill that which was written of him Psal. 40. 6. In the volume of the Book it is written I am come to do thy will O God And further he said himself It behoveth us to fulfill all Righteousness and that which was commanded but this was before he was offred up and was as a midle dispensation betwixt the ending of the Law and publishing of the Gospel yet howbeit Christ knew it and did speak of it at some time that those things that had been sometime commanded Deut. 12. 5. and was good as they stood related to the end wherefore they were commanded instance the Worship at Jerusalem and the service there and the place where God had promis'd to place his name yet Christ said as foreknowing the end of all the aforesaid Worship which appertained to that Covenant and therfore he said to the Woman Joh. 4. 23. but the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth for the Father seekes such to worship him and 24. vers God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth 2 Cor. 3. 17. From hence it is clearly evident for this was before he was offred up that then was the time that neither at Jerusalem nor in the Mountain of Samaria it shall be only said they worship the Father though at Jerusalem was the place Deut. 1. 1 2 5. of worship formerly and the Jewes held it then and the worship was that which was commanded to wit Sacrifices and Offrings and many other legal Services which belonged to them to perform according to the command of God and if swearing or oathes was any part of the service of God as in that Covenant as we with A. S. doth grant Deutr. 10. 20. You shall fear the Lord and serve him and swear by his name then I say that swearing amongst the rest of the worship is included but saith Christ neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth so that the time was then but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled that both the place and the worship and service that belonged to the place they should no more worship the Father with and in but in the spirit and in the truth and this may be in answer to that which A. S. makes a great adoe with in his Book how that Christ said swear not at all it was before his death and therefore they that argue saith he that swearing was prohibited only and ended in Christs death cannot plead that all Oathes was prohibited but that command of Christ Mat. 5. because he spake this in his life time I say so did he this Jo. 20. 21 22 23. And he may as well argue that Christ destroyed the place of worship at Jerusalem and the Worship also and came not to fulfill it as he saith he did and why but because he spoke this before he was crucified and so did he swear not at all and why may not A. S. conclude with us that this is a commodious place to interpret and explain Christs meaning in those words in the 5th Mat. 23 and 24. and so the words may truly be understood thus yee have heard that it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oathes Exod. 20. 7. and Deutr. 5. 11. but the hour cometh and now is when I say unto you that say more then the Law hath said swear not at all neither by Heaven nor by the Earth but let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil and yet whatever may or can be said A. S. will need conclude that all swearing is not forbiden and why because it hath been the practise of holy Men and also an Angel this Argument is of little force so was it the practise of holy Men to offer Sacrifice and burn Incense and as for the swearing of the Angel Dan. 12. and Revel 10. 6. to prove the lawfulness of some swearing these hath been answered over and over and over again though A. S. will take no notice
latitude and morality thereof did require or for which it was given His sixth Argument is That either these words Swear not at all must be interpreted as not to forbid any oath though taken upon just occasion or else Paul never knew the meaning of this text or else contrary to his knowledge and that upon good deliberation he acted against it and that in these very writings wherein we all believe that he was infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost for his Oaths saith A. S. are upon record 1 Thes. 2. 5. God is witness see Rom. 1. 9. Now to call God to witness is the very substance of an oath saith A. S. and as Austin tells him and he says he hath not read of any of a contrary opinion except some Phanaticks which if they would yield to as much as Paul saith God is witness of the truth of their assertions it might be wished out of condescention to their weakness that they might be dispensed withal if the Law would give leave as to the external formality of an Oath Ans. What A. S. will call a just â—ccasion I know not it appears to me he would have a large compasse and a larger then the most contenders against Christs Doctrine that we have met with or what he will account a just occasion I know not though otherwise he seem to condemn sometimes needless and vain oaths in ordinary communication though I know some without reflection upon A. S. who uses them too too frequently and are not only members but Pastours so called of the Church of England and though he seems in his Discourse here and there to be against customary and vain oaths yet for all that what he calls a just occasion upon some ground some calls it a needful occasion when they are called before a Magistrate and some when any business is in controversie betwixt man and man calls it a just occasion where sometimes I have seen a Curate administer that which he called an oath upon a Book what ground he had I suspect either from Commandement or example of Primitive Ministers is certain he had none but it may be A. S. will conclude it was upon a just occasion but what compass he will have for his just occasion is doubtful seeing he hath put no termination or end to it but for ought I can perceive would leave liberty for every man to exact an oath upon another when he would and call it a just occasion and account it a point of duty in the other to obey even in ordinary communication And as for St. Paul we deny thy Argument as that he never knew the meaning of this Text of Christs prohibition secondly that in his Writings he acted contrary to his knowledge and upon set deliberation for though God was his witness whom he served with his Spirit in the Gospel of his Son that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my Prayers Also that which A. S. calls an oath 1 Thes. 2. 5. For neither at any time used we flattering words as ye know for a cloak of covetousness God is witness Though we know and infallibly believe with A. S. that he was infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost when he published the Gospel of Christ among the Gentiles and wrote both unto the Jewes and to the Gentiles who believed that his calling God to witness was not any oath neither was there any necessity or just occasion whatever A. S. may call just occasion we cannot for he hath left such a great compass for himself to turn in though here and there he seem to disallow of customary oaths and frequent oaths yet notwithstanding his Discourse rather tends to an allowance of swearing frequently and unnecessarily for we reckon it to be a piece of ordinary communication for a Christian Minister to write a Letter of admonition or exhortation or an Epistle unto the believing hearers and that there is no necessity of Oaths in such a discourse for what ever A. S. sayes this would make the Apostle guilty of frequent and unnecessary and common swearing which we are far from believing for asmuch as they that did believe through the word of life declared by the spirit of God in him neither through his Epistles written being assisted by the Holy Ghost they were not like to believe him for swearing if he had sworn but saith A. S. if his words had really been believed which he spoke and wrote what occasion would there have been for him to have written so to the Romans Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ I lie not The Apostle knew what occasion he had to speak these words and the occasion was this that the Jewes sought to be justified by the Righteousness of the Law and by the works thereof and would need look upon themselves as the Children of God because they were of the stock of Abraham according to the flesh but the Apostle knew and also gave them to understand that the Children of the promise was counted for the Seed and again for they are not all Israel which are of Israel Rom. 9. 6 7 8. And thus he spake truth unto them as it was revealed by Christ whom the Father had revealed in him and why might he not say I speak the truth in Christ seeing that Christ was in him and he in him I lie not my Conscience also bears me witness in the Holy Ghost he might also as well say that Paul swore by his Conscience seeing that he took it for a witness away away with such perverting and straining of the Scripture beyond and beside the mind of the Holy Ghost for God is witness and I say the truth in Christ they are no more then ardent and zealous or fervent expressions as the spirit of God at several times did stir up in his heart both to speak and write for the end that they unto whom he spoke or wrote might believe and therefore we conclude not as A. S. would needs have it that the Apostle spoke these fervent words unnecessarily for we know and see his end and purpose was good and therefore he spoke with fervency and with boldness the spirit of the Lord bearing witness in his conscience that he spoke the truth which we are far from believing is either juration or abjuration and for ought can be perceived by A. S. disdainful spirit all that doth dissent from him in his opinion he calls Phanaticks and Paul shall hardly go free nor divers of the ancient Fathers as Orgen Chrysostome Jerome Theophilact and others who denyed not only swearing in private conversation but to swear at all but now these must be called Phanaticks who dissent from all Men but themselves by A. S. and such as he who sails with wind and tide and exalteth and applaudeth that which hath praise amongst men and hath not the praise of God and so the last of all he makes this conclusion that so help me God is the most
Oaths no Gospel Ordinance But prohibited by CHRIST Being in ANSWER TO A. SMALLWOOD D. D. TO HIS Book lately published being a Sermon Preached at Carlile 1664. wherein he hath laboured to prove Swearing lawful among Christians his Reasons and Arguments are weighed and answered and the Doctrine of Christ Vindicated against the Conceptions and Interpretations of Men who would make it void By a Sufferer for Christ and his Doctrine F. H. Because of Oaths the Land mourneth Jer. 33. 10 11 12 c. By Swearing and lying and killing and stealing and committing Adultry they break out and blood toucheth blood therefore shall the Land mourn and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish Hosea 4. 2 3. Printed in the Year 1666. To the Reader READER TRuth never had that advantage nor countenance from the men of this world though wise in their generation since sin entered into it to have the approbation of the World neither of the powers and Potentates thereof for it alwaies hated the truth because it bore witness against the World and the deeds and works thereof which are evil for Wisdom is only justified of her Children and Truth is justified of her Children neither indeed doth it need any other Patron to shelter it self under but the God of all Truth from whence it proceeds neither shall I seek a shelter neither run to any mountain or hill for safety or protection nor to the mighty of the Earth as many of latter dayes have done to Patronize their Labours and to make them the more acceptable and to be the sooner and more readily received But seeing the Apostle saith Not many wise not many rich not many noble are chosen but he hath chosen the weak and poor and despised of the world who are rich in Faith and good works who are heirs of the promise and of the world to come I chuse only to be approved to the witness of Christs light in every mans Conscience and to the measure of his holy Spirit which he hath placed in every man to that only I desire to be either approved or by it reproved for wholly unto the judgment of that in every Conscience I appeal and do commend this ensuing Discourse in the sight of God and the Answer unto Smalwood's Book who hath sought to make void Christs command for to obey the command of men as is manifest in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Gentlemen of Cumberland For it seems by his Epistle they put him on work to Preach and Print this Sermon whether upon this subject or not I shall not determine but however he sayes he hath obeyed their commands though he hath laboured as much as in him lies to make the command of Christ void and the Apostles Doctrine by his Arguments which he hath raised to prove Christs Doctrine one thing and his intention another and so would blind the minds of people only to establish the Doctrines of men and the Traditions of men in the Apostacy and hath put divers Constructions upon the plain words of the Scripture and interpretation to prove his false Assertion that he laid down at the first that Christ did not forbid all swearing I say I could have willingly have been silent rather then to be found over and over again contending with every new opposer of those old truths that have been believ'd and received long before the Apostacy entered in which hath been answer'd by that People I own in judgment and conversation long ago to let pass those disadvantages we have adventered upon our low persecuted imprisoned and in a manner condemned condition so that we may exspect our words how true soever yet they are not like to gain much credit against such an eminent man as Doctor Smallwood Again considering how we expose our selves to the lash and severity of a sharp law which some men in their blind zeal are far more ridged and severe in their Prosecution of it then I am apt to believe the supream enactors of it were in their intentions when they did inact it all which notwithstanding are no discouragement unto me for as much as the internal and eternal truth of our God which we have known received and believed is very precious in our eyes yea far more then either life or liberty and estate which some have forfeited and lost upon Truths account or any external treasure or outward enjoyment whatsoever so that considering how the truth lies at stake we cannot be silent least thereby we should appear to some mens apprehensions as to be satisfied with what the Doctor hath said and own his Arguments Reasons that he hath laid down for possitive truth I could do no less then to show our dislike of his Doctrine and to manifest the weakness of his Arguments about this particular of Swearing at all under the Gospel though he hath strained very hard to prove his Assertion that Oaths may lawfully he taken by Christians in some cases notwithstanding Christs prohibition and command to the contrary but of how little effect or force his Reasons are thou wilt see in the ensuing Discourse although his Book be looked upon by some to be sufficient force to convince all gain-sayers and although he say he hath had divers Papers and Books of Dissenters who are of a contrary judgment where he found any Reason offered against what he hath laid down for Doctrine he hath answered though indeed he hath over-riden the most weighty matters in them and hath said little but that hath been said before by other opposers of Christs Doctrine though its very like the Doctor will count this but a loose Discourse as he hath done others of very great weight yea indeed of more weight and reason in them then any thing he hath exhibited yet to the contrary and so count it not worth taking notice of but though he do not it is not of much moment for that end only I have writ to bear my testimony for Christs Doctrine against all the false and feigned interpretations of men being that which I have stedfastly believed and is of that force and weight upon many Consciences and so evident by the Spirit of Christ that they can receive nothing of mans faln reason and conceptions which are variable and changable to answer or weigh down the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and Primitive Christians who walked in the order of the Gospel and obeyed the Commands of Christ before the Apostacy entered in and the power was lost and the life and Spirit of Christ erred from and mingled the Ordinances of the first and second Covenant together and the injunctions of men among them for Doctrine and then compelled all to receive it all this long time of Antichrists reign and the false Church visibility wherein she hath sitten as a Queen upon the Waters which are the Nations Kindreds Tongues and People which A. S. brings as a great argument to prove Swearing in use among Christians since Christ gave
was added after hardness of heart and sin and unbelief entered into the World but Christ who was made under the Law and fulfilled the Law put an end to the transgression sin unbelief variance and strife in whom all the promises of God are fulfilled he is the Righteousness of God and who are true Christians indeed are come out of unbelief variance and transgression and doth see and know Christ to be the end of the Law for Righteousness to them that believe who exhorted to do the truth confess the truth and speak the truth who said Swear not at all by Heaven and which after more shall be said God willing to the Text it self And so A. Smallwood his reason is made void and his impossibility made possible that God gave forth a command and permitted the Iews to swear in that Covenant and Ministration and yet Christ in the new Covenant countermands it as in the Text being the Minister of a better Covenant which stood upon better promises who leads to the beginning and is the restorer of all Mankind that do believe and yet the Father and the Son are one in will wisdom and power And though A. S. and others cannot understand or else hath no mind in that Latitude as generally prohibitive of all swearing because he says God did require it no less then he did his own Worship and service in the Moral Law these nice distinctions of Moral Judicial and Ceremonial hath confounded Peoples understandings though it is still acknowledged they did vow and did swear in the first Covenant under the Law but whether he or any other making swearing moral judicial or ceremonial is not much matter seeing that Christ the Righteousness is the summe and substance of all and the end of the Law for Righteousness to them that do believe in him is life and Righteousness enjoyed for the Law was given by Moses but the Grace the Truth cometh by Jesus Christ who is the summe of all types and shadowes and therefore the Apostle said We are circumcised in him and baptised in him and we do look upon an Oath under the Law to have some type and figure in it notwithstanding A. S. say it was none and that Christ is improperly called the Oath of God no more improper then he is a Vine a Door a Way a Shepherd for all the Promises are fulfilled in Him and are yea and amen And as for the morality of it so far as it is Moral and perpetual to all under the Gospel is in confession of truth and bearing witness thereunto as before the Lord or in his presence and speaking the truth when there is necessity as when any mans person or Estate or any part thereof is in danger and this we have ever owned and do own and have and are ready to testifie the truth before the Lord or in his presence as concerning any matter which concernes the Glory of God or the good of our Neighbour without being pinched or bound up to a certain form of words imposed upon us but according as necessity requires so amply and largely as our words may give knowledge and understanding and light in any matter which is to be desired but this hath been denyed and hath not been received by this unbelieving generation who seeks rather to establish the Traditions and Customes of Men rather then the Evangelical Doctrine of the Gospel And though Doctor Smallwood will needs have it viz. swearing neither to be ceremonial nor judicial but for any proof he brings for ought I see it may be either as well as that he calls moral for sure I am that Oathes was used in judicial proceedings and Ceremonies were used in the worship of God and his service then and by Commandement and the service of God and his worship I hope he will say is moral yet so as under the Law it was not without ceremony and it is concluded by the most learned that there was some ceremony or figure or signe in that Covenant in all the worship and some shadowes of good things to come then if swearing was any part of the worship of God as the most do grant and assert and I think A. S. will hardly deny then I argue it had some Ceremony or shadow in it but oh this A. S. cannot away with in this point of swearing but it must needs be all moral for fear he should waken his matter that he hath taken in hand to war against Christs command but it is evident that swearing was used in judicial proceedings as is manifest Deutr. 19. 5. about killing of a Man accedentally and the 11. verse about murther and the 14. verse about Land-markes and in the 21. life for life eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand and foot for foot about all these things and many more and in the 16. verse about a false witness were to be decided and tryed by witnesses before the Judges and judgment was to be given according to the several commands about the aforesaid different transgressions all which Statutes belonged to their judicial proceedings as this about swearing and as is manifest in this Chapter and all of these commands seemes to have as much morality in them as swearing hath in the judgment of many unto whose judgment I leave what I say to be weighed by the spirit of God in them Thirdly The Law sayed many things by way of precept and commission at least permission from God which would be irregularities grosly reproveable in Mens manners in moral matters conversations civil transactions and communications should they be used among them who profess the Gospel the Law said an eye for an eye tooth for tooth hand for hand foot for foot the Gospel saith avenge not your selves resist not evil suffer wrong put up forgive forbear The Law said thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy But A. S. will look upon this as an addition or false interpretation to the Law it may be but how ever certain it is that under the Law they made war the Jewes with Amaleck with Moab with Ammon and the Canaanites and the Aegiptians might be spoyled but the Gospel said only love your enemies if he be hungry feed him if he be thirsty give him to drink and for any thing I can see the aforesaid commands were as morall and had as much morality in them as swearing what ever A. S. say or can say In the 7th Section A. S. sayes if any argue that Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Lawes once commanded by God he sayes he denyes that assertion for we were never under the Judicial Law it being solely given to the Jewes for the regulating their Common-wealth in the Land of Canaan Deutro 4. 14. and they were never obligatory to us that are no Jewes nor never dwelt in Canaan and as for the Ceremonial it was meerly temporary and ceased at our Saviours death and was not abrogated but observed by
not required as a duty under the Gospel and the strength of most of A. S. his Arguments and the rest who contend for swearing under the Gospel are grounded upon the Mosaical Law though this of oathes he will needs have to be moral it may be he would contend as much for the morality of Tithes and Oblations if it had been the subject of his discourse as for oathes and them to be jure divino under the Gospel for many such we have met with and he might bring the same Arguments for Tithes and Oblations they are not repugnant unto God but brings glory to his name because hereby his Ministers under the Gospel are maintained and are enabled thereby to preach the Gospel for the conversion of soules which addes much to the glory of God and therefore cannot or are not to be prohibited but these only belonged to the Levitical Priesthood and continued only to the time of Reformation viz. to the bringing in of a better hope and a better Covenant which stood upon better promises for the Priesthood being changed there is also of necessity a change of the Law Hebr. 6. 12. by which Tithes was a duty and they robbed God that detained them Mâ—l 3. 8. But this being ended and fulfilled in Christ the everlasting high Priest who by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified he bid not his Disciples require Tithes as a due or duty belonging to God under the Gospel but freely you have received freely give and what House soever yee enter into that is worthy there abide and eat such things as is set before you for the Workman is worthy of his meat and this was far more Evangelical and conduced more to the honour of God then Tithes and the Apostles lived more by faith upon God who provided for them who was employed in his service so that I argue what was once a duty under the Law that was to be performed unto God is not always a duty among Christians for though Oathes were commanded unto the Jewes in that time of Infancy and as being weak and it was permitted them as Jerome saith upon the 5th Mat. vers 37. to swear by the name of God to keep them from Idolatry seeing all other Nations were given to Idolatry and swear by false Gods as Chemosh Ashterah and Baal he knew their aptness to be led aside with the customes of other Nations and therefore they were to acknowledge him alone who was the living God and no other and to testifie truth by his Name as a thing certain and sure and therefore one of their oathes was as the Lord lives and this among the rest was one of the precepts of the Law which was added because of transgression to swear by his name which needed not have been added if sin and transgression and unbelief had not entered in mark this and this Law of oathes pertained to that part which was in the transgression and variance and strife and that led to worship Idols and this continued while that nature was standing but Christ was revealed and given to finish sin and transgression and unbelief and to do away that part that lusted after Idols and that led into variance and he leads out of the occasion of evil and from that which was the cause of the addition of the Law unto everlasting righteousness again which was in the begining before sin entred and they that come to believe in him are not under the Law but under grace moreover the Apostle saith Rom. 7. 14. The Law hath power over a Man so long as be liveth even as a Wife is bound by the Law of her Husband so long as he liveth and no longer so as long as Man liveth in sin unbelief transgression discord variance and strife and Idolatry the Law hath power over him to correct and reprove him and judge him and was to be a limit unto that nature but Christ leades out of the occasion of all these for which the Law was added to do the truth and speak the truth and ceaseth strife for which the Law was added Again the Law was added as a cure and a remedy to defide Controversies and ill distempers that was entred into the hearts of Men in the unbelief and that is one reason which Doctor Gauden gives why solemn swearing should and ought to be in judicial proceedings among Christians to take away Jealousies distrusts dissimulations frauds unsatisfactions and insecurities and quotes Grotius that swearing is necessary not absolutely and morally or preceptively but by way of consequence and remedy as to the state of the Jewes we shall not nor have not denyed it but as to the state of Christians who are truly such we say that the cause is taken away and the effect follows all jealousies distrusts dissimulations and strifes and insecurities and so the remedies to wit Oaths ceaseth and the necessity of them and that was one main thing why Oaths were permitted to end strife and strife is a work of the flesh and variance and discord and it is inconsistent with true love to our Neighbour to hold that which answers the strife and that part for love fulfills the Law works no ill to the Neighbour ends strife and so puts swearing the means to end strife and the remedy out of place and date But A. S. goes on and tells us that Oaths advisedly and reverently taken upon necessary occasions are so far from displeasing God or hurting our Neighbour that on the contrary they are acceptable to the one and advantagious to the other for by them Princes are secured of their Subjects Allegiance and Generals of their Souldiers fidelity Leagues confirmed betwixt Nations every Man 's just right maintained offenders discovered and duly punished and Controversies and Suits desided and these are such great and good ends that men cannot be in any degree of security or happiness without them Reply To this I answer that notwithstanding all the great and good ends and the necessity of Oaths which A. S. conceives that Men cannot subsist in any degree of security without yet we see by experience notwithstanding all the reverent taking and all the solemn taking and the necessity that is put upon Oaths yet they have never answered the end purposed for where perfidiousness and unbelief and distrust and jealousies and strifes are which is no where so much as among those that plead for swearing yet Oaths doth not nor hath not bound them when they had a mind to be loos'd sees that to stand to such obligations will not be for their profit or present safety many instances might be given what security had the Pope when all the Nobility and Clergie in England were bound to maintain his Supremacy by Oaths and no doubt but they swore reverently and it was judged both by the then Church and State to be binding and yet notwithstanding all the Obligation all was broken and the Popes Supremacy denyed in the time
of it though I perceive he hath read the Arguments that have been used as Answers to these things though he will not seem to take notice nor to reply to confute the Arguments but rather minds his own and to assert what may seem to make for his purpose as to the matter he hath taken in hand but as for good Mens swearing and the Angels swearing if their example would justifie the lawfulness of swearing yet they could not be any president to us who are under the Gospel of the Son that is greater then the Angels by the dispensation of whom the Law for Oathes Tithes Offrings Oblations and other legal Rites and Rudiments was given which Son also all the Angels of God are bid to worship for the Apostle saith Hebr. 2. 5. For unto the Angels hath he not put into subjection the World to come but that is committed unto the Son under whose ministration and subjection we are who said Let your yea be yea and your nay nay and speak the truth and do the truth and bear witness to the truth who said Learn of me and these things we have learned of him unto whom all power is committed for he is counted Hebr. 3. 3. more worthy of glory then Moses though Moses was faithful in his House as a Servant but Christ as a Son which is that great Prophet that Moses prophesied of which all is to hearken unto with whom the Father is well pleased being made so much better then the Angels Hebr. 1. 4. as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name then they vers 5. for unto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Son this day I have begotten thee vers 6. Again when he bringeth the first begotten into the World he saith let all the Angels of God worship him of the Angels he saith he makes them ministring spirits and a flame of fire but unto the Son he saith thy Throne oh God is for ever and ever the Scepter of righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdome for if the words spoken by Angels was stedfast and every transgression received a just recompence of reward how shall they escape Hebr. 2. 3. who do not only neglect the command of Christ but labours to pervert through their strength of their own reason the ministration of the Son who is the summe and substance of all shadowy and typical ministrations and therefore A. S. and all concerned look to it who would introduce Judaism and the Mosaical observations upon the neck of Christs Disciples and as Lawes in his Kingdom and whether would not this prefer the servant before the Son yea or nay and his ministration before the ministration of the Sons though the one is not against the other but the one pointing at the other and in the latter the first is fulfilled the truth declared the truth spoken the truth lived in and the truth confessed in every matter wherein any Christian is concerned which is the summe and the matter which all oaths in their highest and greatest ordination could or can effect In the 4â— th page of his Book he saith our Saviour saith Amen Amen 24. time in John's Gospel which he saith St. Ambrose will needs have to amount unto an Oath and he cites Apoc. 3. These things saith the Amen compares it with Isa. 65. 16. where he concludes that Amen seems either to be a name or an epethite of God and this he says is the opinion of our Church in the Homily against swearing that our Saviour did swear divers times and further says it cannot be denyed that God himself swore Psalm 110. 4. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent and so concludes that Christ forbid not all swearing Unto this Bp. Gauden though he straines and scrues very hard as A. S. doth to make all things to bend to their inclination will needs have â—men or verily verily to be an Oath Doctor Gauden in his citation of Capellos out of Rabby Johnas says In veritate forma jurandi apud Judeos but he concludes doubtfully and says it is only the next degree unto an oath but A. S. thinks he hath put it out of doubt with his reason and his Authors that verily verily is an oath which if it were true this would only prove swearing lawful in Sermons and not in Controversies which is the great good end he so much pleads for and if this were true would serve his turn The Magistrates exacting Oathes he seems to prove out of the Mosaical Law and the Priests swearing lawfully out of Pauls Epistles and Christs Sermons but this his covering is too short and is but trifling in the weighty things of God not distinguishing betwixt the first Covenant and the second and the Ordinances thereof for the first he hath no adversary viz. that they did swear though never exacted under penalties the second we conclude to be no oath viz. Amen Amen or verily verily which is no more then truly truly I say unto ye and if this be an oath why hath it not and why is it not accepted as such for we have said more then this and can do in truth which we look upon to be far from amounting to an oath and yet it would never be received as such which argues plainly that what S. F. and R. H. hath said though A. S. quarel with it that surely the Magistrates in England doth not believe the Priests Doctrine for if they did why are so many sentenced to perpetual imprisonment with confiscation of all Lands and Goods to the ruinating of many poor Wives and Children which A. S. knows little of and for ought I know such a discourse as this may add affliction to their bonds and misery to their sufferings and yet these have never been received as if we say verily verily or truly truly or God is our witness or we speak the truth in Gods presence yet notwithstanding this would never give satisfaction to any Magistrate in any Judicature that ever we knew or heard of in England and though he tell us of I. Pennington how that he gave satisfaction and that it found acceptance with the Court and also to the King We are not ignorant of what I. P. hath written which is wholsome just and good and sound and condescendingly as a Christian man could do as about the premisses to pacifie and satisfie all whom it concerned that they might not proceed in such a rigorous manner against the truly conscientious and so in letting them know what we could do and what we could not do yet notwithstanding what ever any might seem to own as sufficient in private we never found it in publick or in any case of concernment but rather they knew before hand what would ensnare us have set the snare and run us into it but notwithstanding all this that A. S. will have to be oaths as God is witness and I speak the truth in Christ and verily verily it
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
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
that depart from this great iniquity are become a prey I say it had been more time for A. S. to have used his utmost endeavours this way rather then to have opposed Christ's Doctrine and added affliction to the bonds of conscientious sufferers who dare neither swear nor lie But not to digress A. S. he would make the Fathers as he doth with Christ and the Apostles he would make all dance after his Pipe and make them all of his mind and construe and interpret all their words to his end though never intended and therefore he says they were not cautelous enough and so doth with them as he doth with Christ he makes their words one thing and their intentions another though saith he Origen in his 25. Tract upon Math. says that Christ did forbid all swearing yet he himself swears in his Book against Celsus for he said God is witness of my conscience and Athanatius though he declaimed against swearing yet in his Apology to Constantious he swears again and again and why he wrote as the Apostle did the Lord is witness and Christ is witness and these must needs be oaths and voluntary oaths it 's not probable that they should use voluntary oaths when they declaimed against all Oaths and therefore Origen saith It behoves not a man who lives according to the Gospel to swear at all And Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath Likewise Chrysostome who was Bishop of Constantinople in Commendations of whom much is said in the Ecclesiastical Histories Acts and Monuments vol. 21. fol. 70. too blames them greatly who brings forth a Book to swear upon charging the Clerks that in no wise they constraine any body to swear whether they think a man swear true or false saying it 's a sin to swear well So that not only swearing upon a Book was reprehended but even all swearing such as A. S. calls lawful Theophilact upon the place in controversie Learn hence that under the Law it was no evil for men to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as Circumcision and in some what ever is Jewdeical to omit Wickliffe John Hus and Jerome of Prague who were faithful Men and righteous in their Generation which the Reformed Churches is beholding to for their Testimony in other weighty things against the Church of Rome though A. S. will not own them in this but rather takes part with them who burned his Bones 41. years after his decease and burnt his Books and these Articles condemned by the Council of Constance who also burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague who maintained his Articles that all Oaths be made for any contract or evil bargain betwixt man and man be unlawful under the Gospel and Walter Bevite whose testimony with many others was that as the perfection of the Old Testament was not to forswear themselves so the perfection of Christ was not to swear at all because they are so commanded of Christ whose commandement in no case must be broken the Testimony of many worthy Men and godly sufferers at this time is suitable to many of the Fathers before mentioned But this A. S. calls error who said so the Church of Rome and the Council of Constance with whom A. S. joynes rather then the sufferers of Christ and they who hold it an error not to swear at all and yet no error to break it when they have a mind and dispense with it as the Papists doth to this very day And these Fathers of the Church doubtless were the best of Men in that declining age and were neither dunces nor devils but understood by the signification of Gods spirit in them the Doctrine of Christ and that which was consentaneous thereunto was witnessed by divers in after ages before mentioned which A. S. would condemn as Hereticks and why the Church of Rome had called them so and them that sat at the sterne who always called themselves Orthodox and others Heterodox that did not sing to the same tune in swearing and every thing else when they had once got up into a pompious lordly dominion over Mens faith but what doth this prove nothing at all and what doth this prove which A. S. inserts in his Marginal notes that the Ministers who are inferiour in Hungary and Transilvania swear Canonical obedience to their Bishops or the Church of England or the Confessions of Helvetia Basil or others whom he calls reformed what of all this what doth this prove from the Scripture of truth or as to the convincement of them who hold it unlawful to swear under the Gospel because Christ hath prohibited it by his Doctrine what is all that A. S. hath said in his Arguments to dissenters satisfaction who know hundreds of things wherein as much as they fall out and fight even to blood with each other about their fancied formalities they all agree in against the light and power of godliness and against the very appearance of the Image of him in his holiness who is the substantial truth it self we say what is all this to some that dissents from A. S. his judgment and others he calls reformed whose faith stands higher then the wisdom and thoughts of Men who cannot consent so as to lead their faith and reason captive after them to try this or any other truth seeing it is the gift of God and the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding though the Church of Rome and you agree in this though you damne one another in other matters what is this to us it shewes only they erred from the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and you in this and many other things are not separated from them and thy conclusion which thou accords with is false that though God in the Old Testament commanded it yet it doth not follow that Christ in the new did not forbid it neither that Christ and his Apostles practised it who were under another Covenant and for ought can be perceived by A. S. by that he calls voluntary swearing which he hath no ground for though in other places he seem to condemn vain swearing and customary oaths yet in this he looks not like himself but seems to tollerate a kind of oaths we find no mention made of in the New Testament and yet we shall not conclude as A. S. says that all were so ignorant as not to understand Christ's mind nor so wicked as to teach the quite contrary to his mind for it is manifest many have been of the mind of Christ in former ages and latter though we shall never strive to bring in all the world or the heathen or Nations that became as waters after the publication of the Gospel nor that Rable which he calls the Christian world which hath wondered after the Beast Rev. 13. 4. and yet there hath been still some Testimony borne through ages unto the Doctrine of Christ and Christs Doctrine stands in force and in that latitude that he intended