out that command Swear not at all The reasons the very strength of them I have laid down as A. S. hath published them without varying from his own words the Answer thou may peruse and read without prejudice and weigh with the measure of Gods Spirit in thy self for unto that I appeal which is a more certain thing then Councils or Nations or Consent of multiâ—udes who hath the name of Christian and walks not in his Doctrine neither lives his life nor doth the things he saith I am shut up in a corner and have not that advantage that some opposers have of others labours as to bring Authors of divers Ages that denied to Swear though not only some there were but many but alas they are condemned already by A. S. and others for Phanaticks and Heteradox and so their sayings will seem of less force but however I have not much striven neither shall to fetch things from far in the Apostacy but rest in that which makes all things evident even the spirit of God in thy own heart and the Scriptures of Truth which was spoken by the Spirit which are so clear unto many that there needs not multitude of words to demonstrate this truth of the prohibition of all Oaths among true Christians but I shall not detain thee from the matter it self and the Lord give thee an understanding F H. Oathes no Gospel Ordinance but prohibited by Christ. THere being a Book lately published by A. Smalwood D. D. as I understand Doctor of Divinity first preached in a Sermon at Carlile I suppose before the Judges at the Assizes then holden the 17 th day of August 1664. since which I perceive many Additions by reasons and paraphrases are added thereunto and printed at York In which Discourse he hath vindicated the lawfulness of Swearing under the Gospel and hath gone about to prove it by many reasons and Authors how that Christ upon that subject Mat. 5. 34. Swear not at all did not intend an absolute universal prohibition of all manner of swearing under the Gospel which Book of his I have perused with an upright heart and an impartial eye seriously to the end I might own that which is good in it not as one being glued to an opinion or judgment but what as carries demonstration of truth with it upon my conscience and in my heart it being a principle well known and believed amongst us to have our consciences void of offence towards God and towards Man and seeing my self and many more are great sufferers at this day upon this very account which I look upon being truly and conscientiously grounded upon the Doctrine of Christ and consonant to the Primitive Christians and seeing so large things have been written by other hands in asserting the truth of what we have believed which yet stands as a witness unto the Doctrine of Christ notwithstanding all opposition and gain-saying that it hath had by many hands I could have been wholly silent and have refered all that have been said to the judgment of the Lord and to that of God in every Mans conscience but that I perceive A. Smalwood hath rendred that People which I own in judgment and practise to be in error and hath greatly gain-sayed and villified all such as ever did or do deny Swearing upon never so conscientious account as erroneous and as only sprung from the Pelagian Heresie and Manacheus and I know not who and have rendred all with reproach and disdain as Phanaticks who discent from him with disdainful and reproachful names to represent us as odious as may be to the Magistrate and at such a time as this when tender and conscientious people who fear the Lord in their hearts and desires to live and be at peace and seeks it with all Men are sufferers and great sufferers too upon this very account whereby many are stired up to more persecution and wrath against us and besides this Discourse it seemes is cryed up as the most exquisite that ever was or can be and as unanswerable and that we who deny to swear would abolish all judicable proceedings and make them nothing this Discourse is printed as A. S. in his 12. page sayes to induce us to forsake so irrational an opinion and to convince us of our error and it seemes he himself besides many other exspects it must effect some great matter Reply I say all these things being considered was a strong inducement to me to write something in reply thereunto though in very deed I love not contention neither strife about words but seeing it is the Doctrine of Christ and that which hath been and is stedfastly believed by divers faithful Professors and sufferers both formerly and now however by A. Smalwood accounted and reproached by that disdainful name of Phanaticks a word lately invented in the Pit of Darkness where many of those and the like reproaches come from I was engaged in my heart to hear my testimony against this said Book and for the truth of Christs Doctrine not out of obstinacy and wilfulness but in duty as by conscience to God and his truth which is dearer to me then my outward liberty or all I have to loose for it which I and many more at this day choose rather to suffer then to be found violating the commands of Christ or deny that which I have stedfastly believed being perswaded thereunto by the spirit of the Lord and evidence of the Scripture of truth The subject A. Smalwood hath taken to treat upon and in the end to gain-say and pervert are no less then Christs own Doctrine Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all who would have believed or thought that one who accounts himself a Doctor a Divine and a Minister of Christ should choose Christs own words to plead against Christ and them that do abide in his Doctrine or that ever any should go about to prove swearing lawful from these words in Gospel times or that swearing is not forbiden but what would not this Man encounter with or what would not he oppose if he have but the power of this World on his side it is a small thing to gain-say what we say and pervert our words and make them seem erroneous and to make our intentions one thing and our words another when he is so bold as to make Christs Doctrine his express words Swear not at all and his intentions contrary to his words what do we judg of a Man that speaks one thing and intends another it's fearful to think what conclusions some will make to carry on their intended designes but me thinks A. S. might have been more considerate then to have taken Christs own Doctrine and words to oppose Christs intention or to be so bold as to assert the intention of Christ was otherwise then his words import but rather have chosen some other subject but what matter makes many of subjects for with a consequence or two and a little
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
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
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
will not serve for he says the Law will not allow of it for inferiour Magistrates are sworn he says to act according to Law and the Law prescribes in what manner and with what formality Oaths shall be taken and therefore the Magistrates are not at liberty to accept thereof because they are tyed up to the Rules of the Law as I said before seeing that Oaths are a matter of great concernment unto many it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have told the Magistrates that these things in testimony which were ready to be given had been sufficient and that they should not so much have stood upon the formality seeing that which answered the substance of the Law was not denyed though we except against the formality which is now used and hath no example or president in the Scriptures of truth as they are used and therefore let A. S. tell the Rulers that the rules of the Law in this case is too strict and the penalty exceeds the transgression far as for a man for not holding up his hand or laying it upon a Bible and kissing it and saying after a Clark or a Cryer I swear and the like needless Ceremonies which are not without at least a shew of evil in them yet for not doing and observing these formalities though those things which A. S. and others calls swearing we have condescended unto yet it 's reckoned as insufficient though themselves say it is an oath yet it is not called so nor accounted so except the aforesaid needless trifles be observed and is not this a hard thing and far from equity justice and reason that a man should be exposed to so great a penalty as Confiscation of lands and goods and perpetual imprisonment for want of observing of these trifling groundless needless Ceremonies and formalities which is not at all beseeming Christians and whether the Law had not need to be rectified in this case which exposeth so many to so great suffring which we in conscience doth except against as well as Oaths and seeth that the penalty far exceeds the crime if it were any but we look upon it to be none at all but rather a duty incumbant upon Christians to keep to yea and nay or that which amounts to it in all their communications both publick and private and not to swear at all but to abide in Christs Doctrine and walk after the Primitive Christians example to testifie the truth and not to swear And as for Amen Amen verily verily is no more then truly truly and is no more then an ardent and a fervent speech from the heart of him that speaketh wherein he would be believed or it is truth from which and in which he speaks and as for comparing Amen with the 65. of Isa. and 16. where he is called the God of Truth this proves nothing at all he is called the God of Truth in opposition to false Gods which were lies and in opposition to the Heathenish Gods which were not true Gods which had eyes and saw not c. and could not save he might as well say when wisdom holiness righteousness or immortality is named or mentioned that therefore it is an Oath as when truth is spoken for these are as much epethites of God as truly or truth and though your Church in a Homily against swearing do say that Christ did often swear because he said Verily we judge you have concluded upon too slender a ground And as for Psal. 110. The Lord hath sworn and will not repent It is not denyed though the Lord swore once yea more then once by himself this was in condescention to the state of Man in weakness and unbelief and as to the state of the Jewes Gal. 3. 19. before the seed was revealed which was the substance of all figures and Gods example of swearing is no example for us now to imitate and was in no wise a confirming of that old legal Ceremony of Oaths as a practice legitimate to his Saints for ever as A. S. would make us believe it was for his Oath viz. Gods ended in Christ in whom all the promises confirmed by oath were yea and in him Amen was also to end all strife between him and men and to put an end to all strife and Oaths also that are among Men to end strife Ambrose saith upon that 110. Psal. Let him then swear who cannot repent of his Oaths a little after the same Ambrose saith Do not imitate him in swearing whom you cannot imitate in performing and indeed the principal sollution he gives is not to swear at all And Theophilus upon the place in Controversie whom A. S. says was not caâ—telous enough as it seems among the rest of the Fathers that A. S. sets as judge of he saith learn hence that under the Law it was not evil for one to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as is Circumcision and in some what ever is Judaical for it became a Child to suck but not a man So that it appears he amongst the rest of the Fathers did not only declare against Oaths in general or private communication but also distinguishes betwixt the first Covenant and the second and the Ordinances thereof and though the holy Ghost bear witness that both Angels and Men yea and good Men and the Creator himself in that first Covenant did swear so that A. S. concludes that it is not morally evil of its own nature In the first we shall not much quarel nor dispute as under the Law but that which was obliging then as by command is not always obliging but Christ the end of the Law for Righteousness said Let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more under the Gospel then amounts to this comes of evil therefore there is no necessity to put any other sence of Christs words then his universal prohibition of all swearing as under the Gospel seeing that speaking the truth confessing the truth declaring the truth and nothing but the truth in any matter wherein any Christian is concerned either in respect of God or a mans neighbour this answers the very substance of the Law and the very end and purpose thereof as ever an Oath did among the Jewes in the first institution for asmuch as speaking the truth acknowledgeth Gods Omnisciency and presence and power and wisdom secondly it doth any office to any neighbour as in bearing witness to any truth and again to find out any transgressour or transgression and this is done may be done and ought to be done by all true Christians and therefore no necessity of that formal Ceremonious way of swearing as under the Law neither is there any necessity for seeking any other sence of Christs words and the Apostles words Swear not at all by Heaven or Earth or any other seeing all the main ends and good ends and good purposes is answered in the full which the Law in the full
certain expression of an oath which forme of words that though he count them certain we find not either under the Law or under the Gospel and I look upon it more as a piece of flattery in A. S. because this is the forme and the custome which is now called swearing which is in use in this Nation and its strange to us that they will reckon this so great a piece of peculiar service which is incommunicable to any Creature but only to God when as indeed we never find it written or commanded either among the Jews or commended or used amongst all the writings of Christ and the Apostles that hath relation to Christianity Indeed I remember that I have read that in the days when the Popes Authority was in full power here in England how that the Chancellour then of England said to one of John Wickliffs followers being brought before him in Examination he said unto him Lay thy hand upon the Book thou Heretick and swear so help me God and holy doom An old superstitious Popish forme I look upon it to be and hath no consistance with an Oath in its true matter and forme under the law when it was commanded and for ought I see A. S. will rather take part with the Church of Rome and her members who persecuted rather then Wickliffe that famous Reformer who had his Bones taken up and burned 41. years after his Decease and his Books and these Articles condemned by the Council of Constance who also burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague for holding John Wickliffs Opinions which was that all Oaths under the Gospel be unlawful I say A. S. might have been more modest then with the Council of Constance condemn them for error seeing they were the only people in their age and time that opposed and suffered for opposing the Church of Rome in the Apostacy seeing that they are faine to own them if they look for any Reformation before Luther to be their witnesses against the Church of Rome which I have heard many Protestants say that they were on their part against the Church of Rome and though A. S. tells us of a generation of people quos non persuadabis etiam si persuaveris who as they will not be perswaded so they will not be councelled who will have nothing else to be the formality of an Oath but by God but this he says only of his own head except he knew some people that we know not of for we say to swear the Lord liveth as an oath and again as the Lord lives is an oath or by the Lord that lives for ever and ever is an oath and yet we must needs deny that Paul swore in the 1 Cor. 15. 1. when he said by your rejoycing I die daily And we never said A. S. mistook himself in saying that by as the only mark and character of an oath and if Austin said upon these words of Paul as A. S. tells us per vestram gloriam juratio est upon Pauls words I suspect his judgment and therefore shall not so much regard it But A. S. seems not to be at unity in his book with himself notwithstanding all his raveling out where he seems in his 41. page to dislike of Nicholas Fullers judgment viz. that there is no oath where God is not interposed and yet in the 56. page he saith that the substance of an oath consists in the attestation of God and in the 89. page he saith that Christ answering to the high Priest I am and thou hast said is an oath And in the 91. page it was enough that Christ denyed not to swear and from this he imagines that he did swear and when we enquire what the oath was it amounts but to this thou hast said I am and where was the attestation of God here named or mentioned or spoken on by Christ was his words any more then his own Doctrine which he taught before Let your yea be yea and your nay nay when the high Priest said art thou the King of the Jewes he answered I am and is this any more then yea though not in the same syllables and Mat. 26. 63. I adjure thee to tell us whether thou art the son of God or not and he answered thou hast said And is this any more then yea or I am or it is truth But indeed if one should traduce A. S. in his discourse and of his definition of an Oath it is so uncertain one shall hardly know what to pitch upon to be his judgment sometime it is this and sometime it iâ— that and sometime it is neither this nor that sometime he says it is an oath where God is interposed one while an oath consists in the attestation of God another while it consists in saying truly truly and sometimes I call God to witness is an oath and sometimes thou hast said is an oath sometime because God is named in a sentence therefore he concludes it must be an oath otherwhiles when he is not named it must be an oath and thus he twines up and down leaving people in the dark and leading them after his imaginations And I shall conclude the Answer to this reason and neither impute ignorance nor wickedness to the great Apostle nor conclude that Christs words as he saith doubtless the Apostle did must be understood in a limited sence and limited only to Creatures and not to all swearing and why so but because the Apostle said God is witness and I speak the truth in Christ which is no contradiction of Christs prohibition swear not at all His seventh Argument is this If some swearing be enjoyned in the third Commandment then all swearing is not forbidden by Christ in these words Swear not at all because he came not to destroy the Law but some swearing is their enjoyned or else the Law written by the finger of God in Tables of Stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection and therefore in this negative precept the affirmative must needs be included thou shalt reverence the Name of the Lord and swear by it whensoever it is not vain but necessary which is required by a lawful Magistrate for the glory of God and for maintaining of peace punishing offenders and ending of Controversies and all these are necessary ends but not attainable at least not so well by any expedient yet put in practice as by interposition of oaths so it cannot reasonably be believed that Christ would forbid them being of such important use Reply The substance of this is answered before but however A. S. how he can make this third Commandment Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain to prove the continuation of swearing under the Gospel among Christians we do not see If Bishop Gaudens words be true as they are who says A true Christians oath is needless his word being as firme as it page 41. and an evil mans oath is worthy of no more credit then
another thing that Christ saith ver 44. But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you c. But it is manifest that in the second Covenant under the Gospel that a more Evangelical and exact obedience then was exprest in the Letter of the Law which so far as it was typical was only a temporary dispensation for as I said before the Letter of the Law of Moses permitted to be avenged on enemies Aegiptians Amalckites c. And I hope that A. S. will not conclude that they killed them in love to them and they might be avenged and take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth whose Gospel in other points which the Law had not said forbids and condemnes rash anger lust after women polligum divorce except for Fornication and yet it was indulged and connived at as under the Law yet the Lord saith by the Prophet Malachy Mal. 2. 16. He hateth putting away while the Letter condemned no more but actual murder and adultery indulging and conniving Polligume and divorce And though under the Law stripe for stripe wound for wound was permitted but under the Gospel resist not evil avenge not forbear forgive for the whole Law of Moses was given by the dispensation of Angels in the hand of that Mediator for a time and so some swearing and such swearing as even by God was used in order to end strife where it was yet standing yet Christ the Mediator of a better Covenant in whose hand the Law is now unto all Christians he forbad not only that which the Law allowed and indulged connived at and commanded in divers things as is manifest in this fifth of Mathew where he prohibits all swearing so that it is evident that Christ doth not only reprove the false glosses and the abusive loose interpretations of the Law which they allowed but even divine indulgence dispensed with and connived at in the things before mentioned because of the hardness of their hearts And let A. S. or any man living shew us wherein Christ requires a righteousness or perfection that exceeds that of the Law for the Law said swear not by any Creature but only by God and forswear not and if Christ said no more but swear not by any Creature as Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem where is that higher state of perfection and that righteousness which exceeds that of the Law and of the Scribes and Pharisees And though A. S. will not grant that he ordained a new Law in matter of the 6. 7. Commandments no more will he grant of the fourth which I suppose A. S. doth not keep as it was commanded under the Law where ever he will have his dispensation I know not so to conclude in answer to this he did more then reprove the erroneous tenets and vicious manners of the Jewes and their false interpretations and glosses which they had given upon the Law but he doth disallow also something which the law had allowed before as is proved before and that he disallowed something yea divers things which the Law had allowed and connived and indulged as divers Polligume killing enemies or in seeking revenge upon them that had done ill unto us which the law allowed as an act of justice Deut. 19. 21. Eye for eye tooth for tooth but this Christ exhorted unto Overcome evil with good avenge not resist not do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you Likewise the Law Deut. 42. 1 2. When a man takes a wife and it comes to pass she finds no favour in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her then let him write her a bill of Divorcement and send her out of his house and when she is departed out of his house she may go and be another mans wife But Christ saith Mat. 5. 32. who shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery which is a clear prohibition of that which the Law allowed and what A. S. will call this whether a new moral command or promulgation of a new Law I know not but it is evident enough that some things were prohibited by Christ which the law commanded or at least allowed and therefore we conclude from the 23. and 24. Verses of the 5th of Mathew that Christ did prohibite all vain swearing and unlawful swearing which was disallowed before under the Law but even all swearing which was commanded or at least permitted under the Law for the reasons and ends given before and this will stand as truth notwithstanding A. S. his Argument His tenth Argument is That if the high Priest charged Christ to swear and he without exception answered upon oath and that some years after he had said Swear not at all from hence follows that when the Magistrate imposeth an oath the person charged to swear may lawfully answer upon oath as Christ did notwithstanding his prohibition of swear not at all Reply First that was a time when the administration of the first Covenant was not fully ended for Christ was not yet offred up and so the high Priest as being a Jew might from the Commandement or permission of the Law as being one that sat in Moses chair might require Christ to speak upon oath as persumeing he had authority so to do being he looked upon it as a work of God and what though it was some years after Christ had said Swear not at all what doth A. S. infer from this Christ knew that the high Priest and Pharisees were about the work of their Father the devil and though the high Priest did say I adjure which A. S. tells us is I command thee to swear to us Christ answered in his own authority and in the power and wisdom of the Father and if he had answered as taking notice of the high Priests adjuring who was about to crucifie the Just which was not the work of God neither was jurations or oaths ever intended to be instrumental in the Devils work then I argue that if Christ had answered to his adjureing knowing the end was to ensnare him the Son of God then Christ had consented unto his evil work which were blasphemy to think or speak and therefore as it was prophesied of him he was led as a Lamb to the slaughter sometimes he opened not his mouth the other sometimes he did in the authority and power of the Father which was with him and in him and though the high Priest charged Christ by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be Christ the Son of the Living God Mat. 26. 36 37. Jesus answered thou hast said and what is this the oath that Christ sware A. S. tells us before that an oath was an attestation of God to the truth of what was said but now the words thou hast said barely of themselves without any attestation of God is an oath if the high Priest had said
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
it notwithstanding A. S. his Reasons and Arguments and many more as to forbid all oaths in the second Covenant to his Disciples truly such in these words swear not at all Many instances might be brought of particular Bishops might be instanced as Otha Bishop of Bambergences in Germany and Bosilius of Chalcedon who refused to swear and though A. S. cannot trace it beyond Pelagius or Manacheus yet we know that both Christ and the Apostles confirmes it and also the Essarus among the Jewes did refuse to swear at all even in Judicature for Josephus a Jew saith of them whatsoever they say is as firme as an oath and to swear among them was counted a thing superfluous Likewise St. Basil commends Chinas a famous Greek that he suffered a fine of three Talents rather then he would save it by swearing to the loss of his honour and shall Christians truly such with whom truth abideth and in whom it dwelleth come short of that exactness that was among some of the Jewes and the best and the virtuousest of them called Heathen shall not this kind of Christianity which is professed in this day who is in unbelief frauds infirmities contentions be condemned by these shall not this circumcision become uncircumcision and shall not they that fear to swear and deny all oaths be set above this whose yea is yea and nay nay in all their communication according unto Christs Doctrine shall not this inherit the promise and is not this more Gospel like to say speak testifie and do the truth rather then to go back to Judaism or into contention strife emulation and distrusts that the Swearers are in falsly reputed Christians and yet abides not in his Doctrine But having done with A. S. his negative part I come to his affirmative part which is no other then hath been answered over and over again yet he thinks he hath said more in clearing of it then others hath said that Christ only forbad swearing by Creatures and that indeed is the sum of his affirmative discourse and the Pharisees interpretation And he brings the judgments of divers Expositers upon this text first promisary oaths are here principally forbidden 2ly others think that Christ only here forbad such oaths as then was used in common discourse 3ly others say that prophane false and rash and vain Oaths are generally here prohibited 4ly many understand that by these words of Christ all swearing by Creatures is forbidden but not that by God himself and last of all A. S. gives his thoughts which are as follows That Christ did not forbid what the Law had commanded but only the Pharesaical corrupt glosses thereon and the irreligious practices of the misinformed Jewes and cites Origen and Chrysostome who says upon this place they were accustomed to swear by Heaven and by Creatures and further A. S. says the Pharisees taught them to affirme what ever they had promised swearing by God they under a spacious pretention that they would not take God's name in vain upon a sleight occasion fell to swear by Creatures which Grotius showes out Philo Judeos which the Pharisees did not disallow the easier thereby to delude such credulous people as believed those oaths which themselves neither thought obligatory nor meant to keep and it 's certain the Scribes and Pharisees taught the people that to swear by several Creatures as by the Temple and Altar was not binding Christ reproves them as blind guides upon that account Mat. 23. 16. and further they taught it was perjury indeed to break an Oath if a man had sworn by God but not if he had only sworn by Creatures In exposition of which Christ forbids all swearing by Creatures and teaches contrary to the Jewes Rabbies that such oaths ought not to be taken yet being taken are binding in respect of Creatures relation to the Creator and Christ reckons them among sinful oaths and teacheth them to use only bare affirmations or denials in their communication and this is the very summe of his judgment and the words of Christ is only to be limited to this sense and no further this is not to swear at all by Creatures in their mutual converse and communications and this he hath repeated over and over in his Book and this is the furtherest latitude that he will allow unto Christ's prohibition swear not at all and this interpretation before mentioned he looks upon to be the genuine meaning thereof and is the judgment of Doctor Gauden also who hath contended as hard for some swearing as A. S. hath and I perceive that A. S. hath read the answer to Bishop Gauden published by that precious servant of the Lord Samuel Fisher who finished his Life in bonds for the Gospel truth against all swearing whose answer stands firme and his demonstrative arguments of force and is yet unanswered though A. S. hath a little here and there carped at and hath bitten at the hâ—el but hath not made void at all his answer which will live as a living testimony in generations to come as consonant unto Christ's Doctrine wherein he prohibites all oaths under the Gospel Reply Though there be some truth in the different Authors which is alledged and also in A S. his words that swearing by Creatures as heaven and earth Jerusalem and vain oaths is forbidden and customary oaths and the corrupt glosses of the Pharisees and the false interpretations yet all this comes short of Christ's mind and of the true genuine sense of the words and the scope of Christ's Sermon as is manifest in the Chapter and in his Testament and all he hath said will not help him to carry on that work he hath undertaken viz. the Justification of any or the lawfulness of any swearing or the defence of that limited sense he would put upon the universal terms in the 2. texts wherein Christ and the Apostle forbids all swearing And though A. S. often tells us Christ did not forbid what the Law had commanded neither gave any new possitive Law before his death he sure hath forgot himself much what will become of the two great Ordinances still upheld as Baptisme and breaking of Bread and whether was this a new Institution of Christ or was it an Institution in the Law and if it was an Institution of Christ as the Church of England doth hold and not of the Law nor of Moses as indeed it was not then A. S. his argument is fallen to the ground that he gave no new commandment neither instituted any new ordinance and then what is become of these two great Mysteries as they have been called but he hath ravelled out and spun out his threed so long that he often runs off his legs and though A. S. do often urge that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and therefore hath said falsly that Christ sware before the High Priest after he had given forth this Commandment swear not at all which if it had been true
and hath set up that which is more Evangelical truth it self in which there is no shadow of change and it is binding upon the souls of all true Christians and that by which they are bound one to another and every word promise or testimony that go out of their hearts and mouths they by it are bound to keep least they fall into condemnation but their yea is yea and nay is nay and whatsoever is more then this cometh of evil and therefore they do not cannot nor dare not go beyond this or that which doth but amount to as much and there needs no more among true Christians Now as to them who are in the contention and strife and unbelief and oathes works of the flesh as variance discord whom the Law hath power over and is against as long as they live in such estate it s granted that the Law was added because of these transgressions and is against such and how far swearing can be binding among evil contentious unconscionable Men that make no conscience of any thing who cannot believe one another nor give credit to one another without swearing experience hath manifested whether they judge one another to be believed better by swearing then without swearing that 's little to us neither shall we meddle in contentious matters nor have to do with striving Men as little as possible but rather suffer wrong then wrong our consciences by swearing which we are perswaded by Christ we ought not to right our selves as hitherto we have done and have peace blessed be God in our hearts however we could rejoice and be glad to see all Men be at peace and agree and it s our desire to live in that love and we shall seek it with Men and to be at peace as much as in us lyes even in that love that works no evil nor thinks no evil but believeth all things and beareth all things and so carries beyond strife and oaths but if they will not be without Oathes in Courts and Judicatures we are cleer in the matter if they exact upon us and do as they have done to the undoing ruining of many in this World we must be content knowing it better to suffer wrong then do it and shall acquiesce and rest in the will of God till he plead our cause and open the hearts of Men to see through the Clouds of error and ignorance that is over their consciences Yet how ever this I must needs say this frequent common prophane swearing that hath exalted its Horn more of late years is one of the crying sins of England that Gods anger is against and will draw down his judgment and kindle the indignation which hangs over this Nation not only because of those that command Men to swear contrary to Christs command and that for to establish cruelty and injustice but also that swore falsly and vainly and that against their knowledge for their own profit and the disadvantages of others to accomplish their wicked malicious and revengeful designes against the innocent who dare not swear at all and thereby are made a pray to the teeth of Wolves and to the wills of corrupt Men who take occasion as it were to plow long Furrowes upon the backs of the poor and needy for which things sake the wrath of God will be poured out upon the head of the wicked and the Nation shall be on heaps and the wise Men shall be turned backwards and their Table shall be a snare and the curse shall be upon the rebellious and they shall fall and be broken and rise no more and this may justly befall this Nation because of Oaths and because of Oppression And oh much pittied Nation it may be said of thee truly as the Prophet Hosea 4. 2 3. Because of swearing and lying and killing and stealing and whoring they break out and blood toucheth blood therefore shall the Land mourn and every one that dwells therein shall be cut off Oh what sad times do we behold nothing but extreames of evil are presented to our eyes and eares some do little but swear ordinarily commonly and vainly in all kind of communication and conversation not only in their usual outer sourses in Courts with Judges and Magistrates but in their hoâ—ly discourses also with other Men in Cities Townes Princes and great Mens Courts and places Vniversities Colledges almost all Houses at least all Talvernes and Ale-houses and in the open Streets and Assemblies almost every where are full of dreadful Oathes and Mens discourses interwoven with execrable and direful Oaths even as it were daring God to confound them and damn them and such like and though there be divers Laws against swearing vainly and forswearing yet these are not looked at but how should we exspect that they should look at the execution of the Laws of Men which are good who heeds not the Law of God and are so buzzed now a days with over-executing those intangling Laws that are extant for Oaths and forswearing to intrap and insnare poor innocent men who dare not swear at all but keep the Commands of Christ so that there is no leisure lost to look after those most wholsome and profitable Laws of both God and the King which are against vain Oaths and forswearing which the Land abounds with the like hath not been in any age which is a sad presage of the Judgment of God to be at hand And last of all A. S. he says hath done and he fears it 's more and time to have done with the Exposition of those words and so comes to application and so he speaks to all in general who at that time or any other may be legally called to take their oaths which you have heard vindicated to be lawfull notwithstanding the seeming opposition of these words Swear not at all but those must be understood of necessary Oaths and your Righteousness is to exceed the Scribes and Pharisees but they condemned perjury in the verse immediately before mytext and your warrant for swearing is in Jer. 4. 2. which thence appears not only lawful but in some cases necessary Reply It 's more then time indeed to have done to pervert Christ's plain Doctrine with his imaginary Exposition and what he counts legally called seeing Christ prohibited it is not of much force neither will A. S. Vindication stand against the real opposition of Christs words Swear not at all but his seeming Vindication will in the day of the Lord when the secrets of all hearts shall be manifest by Jesus Christ when the book of Conscience shall be opened will be found to be in real opposition unto Christ and his reward will be according to his workes who hath by his work strengthen'd the hand of evil doers and persecutors to the adding affliction to affliction upon the Righteous and if the words must be understood of necessary Oaths then there is none necessary among Christs true Disciples who commanded let your yea be yea or
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
Christ notwithstanding these words Swear not at all had never forbidden swearing as altogether unlawful 'T is true some of the Fathers in their Homilies to the People inveighed much against swearing as though it had been altogether unlawful but it was only against Customary Oaths Chrysostome in his Homily to the People of Antioch preached so much against Swearing that the People was offended he told them he would never leave that Sermon till they would leave that prophane custome of Swearing but the Fathers were less cautelous but with great vehemency enveigh'd against common swearing in ordinary discourse but not at all intending to take away necessary Oaths but Origen in his first Book against Colsus God is witness of my Conscience and Athanatius yet vehemently declaimed against prophane swearing yet in his Apology to the Emperour Constantius he sware again and again the Lord is witness and his Christ is witness All which clearly shews they did not disallow the voluntary taking an oath much less in Judical proceedings and the Reformed Churches and the Church of England and the whole Catholick Church in all times and places approved this Doctrine that all swearing is not unlawful so that it follows that the Church in all Ages was so ignorant as not to understand Christs meaning or so wicked as to teach and practise quite contrary or else Christ never meant to forbid all kind of swearing to assert the former were to profess all that went before either dunces or devils Reply What ever A. S. conclude and think he hath not such a consent among Christians as he makes a great flourish of it 's manifest by what hath been said Christ prohibited it amongst his Disciples Swear not at all and likewise James the Apostle agrees in the same Doctrine and the rest of the Apostles also all the Primitive Christians were esteemed so strict exact cautious of their asserting or promising that there was no need of an Oath among them they kept up the sanctity credit of their profession yea among unbelievers that it was security enough in all cases to say Christianus sum I am a Christian as Justin Martyr asserts and if they were urged any further to any oath for matter or manner they repeated this as the only satisfaction they could give there needed no more then the veracity of their bare record and thus much Bishop Gauden confesseth and also in the 36. page of his Book he says the ground or foundation for swearing now is the wickedness and unbelief of men but Christians truly such are brought out of evil and wickedness unbelief and distrust and there is no necessity among them either publick or private to swear at all Polibus observes in the better and simpler ages of the World Oaths were seldome used in Judicatures but after unbelief and lying increased Oaths increased as a only remedy to cure and restrain those evils but let it not be said that those are Christians that names Christs name and departs not from iniquity and since the perilous times came on that the Apostles spoke that Men would not abide sound Doctrine but be lovers of themselves that should have a forme of godliness and deny the power thereof such went out of the truth and went into the world and the world went after them and the false Church began to rise to dignity and have the name of Christian though she consented not to the wholsome Doctrine of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ swear not at all but perverted this as she hath done many other Doctrines and beguiled the Kings of the Earth and held out her golden cup of Fornication and made Emperours Kings and Princes drunk with her Fornication Rev. 17. 18. Councils Bishops and People are in their Judgments and by tradition one age after another have holden that lawful which Christ did not prohibit but what doth all this prove for it 's manifest that most of the ancient Fathers of the Church as Origen Chrysostome Theophilact Hillary Athanasius Jerome Theodoret Laurentius and others in their Sermons and Homilies to the People vehemently and frequently enveighed against all swearing without any Limitation without any reserve amongst Christians swearing as to private Conversation yet they did not disallow the voluntary taking an oath much less in Judicature he says but those are but terms of his own shufling in and what he speaks only of his own head by mingling his own words with theirs for his own ends for there is no such distinction made by them as he makes as lawful swearing and prophane swearing and voluntary swearing and swearing in Judicature and it 's to be desired that A. S. had but produced their testimonies and have cited only their own words without adding to them that they would have made much against him for it 's plain their judgment and witness was against all swearing what ever But A. S. tell us Chrysostome in his Homily to the People of Antioch preached so much against that prophane custome of swearing that the People were offended and he told them that he would never leave that Sermon till they did leave swearing It were to be desired that more in this age who pretends to be Christian Ministers would follow his example for the like I believe hath not been in any age Oh what customary vain rash prophane ungodly oaths in their acceptation take Gods holy Name upon every trivial occasion in vain in their mouths and daily inventing new oaths and execrations even daring God to confound them and damn them yea it grieves my heart to think and the spirit of the Lord in me to consider what sounded in my ears not long since which I mention with detestation and abhorrency that some when they had sworn even all the customary oaths and all the new invented oaths did profer 10. shill. to any that could invent ten new oaths even glorying in sin and making a mock at it and indeed it is fearful to hear how without any reverence unto God or dread of his Majesty oaths these late years are broke out like a land-flood over all the banks and no where so much to be found nor no where so common as among them that reckons themselves conformable men loyal and members of the Church of England which is one crying sin that draws down the judgment of God upon this Land and what credit can be given to such Men in Judicature shall we not say as St. Austin says It disposes men to false swearing and gross perjury nor can indeed much credit be given any more then to a Lyar to any man that swears never so solemnly and in Judicature who is a common swearer But instead of beating down that for which the Land mournes Jer. 23. 10. many are even propagators of it and pleaders for it and glories in it and it s become almost the only mark of a conformable man Oh what a sad time are we fallen into and what a sad state that they