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
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
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
the subject matter where all swearing is forbidden as well as any because swear not at all by heaven earth c. Because there is not only no expression made any where after of any such exception or restriction but a fuller amplification of it by such particulars as is enumerated and are more particularly exclusive of all kinds of oaths and of all oaths of any kind not only of those that they used to wicked purposes but even those they solemnly used sometime to good purposes before the seed Christ was revealed and the Apostle James 5. 12. neither by heaven neither by earth neither by any other oath which is a re-inforcement and redoubling of the said universal prohibition whereas if Christ had intended any exception here he might as easily have exprest and would as assuredly as he did imediatly above in the cause of divorce by except in the cause of fornication and have so said swear not at all except it be solemn and sacred Oathes and by the Lord to good purposes in Courts where ye are call'd to swear before a Magistrate so James if he had intended as A. S. will needs in force yet without any ground a limitation and restriction above all things my brethren swear not neither by heaven neither by earth neither by any other oath except ye swear solemnly by God to good purposes in Courts or before Magistrates but as I said instead of excepting any exception he adds that which more strangthens and clears beyond all exception the universality of his prohibition and if all vain oaths by God were forbidden before and all swearing by Creatures so that there was no need either for Christ or James to speak of them again as A. S. says then this is still matter for the argument on our part that some oaths were prohibited by Christ and James which were not prohibited before and of which there was necessity for them to speak as there was indeed not only about those Oaths and other things which the Law before had prohibited but even of those things that it had allowed and indulged because of the hardness of their hearts so we say there was a necessity of Christ and James not only to mention those things again which the Law had spoken of before and disallowed which we have instanced before and is manifest in that Chap. 5. which the Pharisees had perverted and loosened by their false glosses and traditions but even those things which were permitted indulged and commanded under the Law and suffered to be because of the hardness of their hearts and strifes unbeliefes insecurities and therefore Christ teacheth and informeth his Disciples as it was in the beginning before those things entered and in this cause about oaths amongst the rest prohibites all swearing without limitation not only that which was once forbidden but even that which was once permitted and commanded and indulged and therefore it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self under the Law where in Numb 30. 2. Deut. 23. 21. But I say unto you swear not at all neither by heaven nor earth nor Jerusalem no thy head which is manifestly an exclusive prohibition of all oaths without exception or restriction or limitation and still will stand good not withstanding all A. S. and others opposing among his Disciples and true Christians in whose hearts he hath put it to speak the truth and confess in any cause wherein they are concerned to the glory of God the Father and to keep the commands of his Christ and to glory him by abiding in his Doctrine swear not at all And then A. S. concludes here the grand Objection falls of it self which is either all kinds of swearing is forbidden or else Christ notwithstanding his words but I say unto you forbad nothing which was forbidden before which is utterly improbable and the reason is saith he because God formerly had forbidden all false and vain oaths and all swearing by Creatures all which I grant to be true saith he but the Pharisees had taught the people otherwise by their wicked glosses that made the Commandement of small effect by their Tradition and the practise of that Nation was widely distant from the Commandement both which were necessarily to be reformed which our Saviour did in these words But I say unto you swear not at all Reply Who ever denyed but that the Pharisees were blind guides and that they laboured to make void the Law and made the commands of God of small effect by their Traditions or that the practise of that Nation was not widely distant from the Commandement and that they sware by false Gods sometime and vainly by the true God and took his Name in vain and sware also by Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem like as many do now all this we grant that they were out of the way both in oaths and other things also that Christ reproved in the fifth of Matthew and elsewhere which Christ reformed and reproved their Doctrine and manners I say again how is the grand Objection fallen by this that either all kind of swearing is forbidden here by Christ or else Christ forbad nothing which was not forbidden before which is utterly improbable saith A. S. but it is more probable then any thing that A. S. hath yet offered for if only by Heaven Earth Jerusalem Head Temple and Altar by that which Christ forbad that the Pharisees taught the people they might swear by these were forbidden before inclusive in false swearing or swearing by Creatures though not expressed or enumerated nominally yet included among the sinful and vain oaths under the Law and so were forbidden before and faith A. S. I grant that all vain oaths and perjury and all swearing by Creatures were formerly forbidden and if so as indeed they were what more did he forbid then was forbidden if the words must only be understood of those sinful and vain oaths by Creatures above mentioned that the Pharisees indulged the people in and taught as A. S. would only limit his prohibition and exception I shall leave to the Conscience of every enlightened man to judge and say that in these words it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear but pay thy vows unto the Lord but I say who am come to restore man again into that estate he fell from by transgression and to redeem him that believes out of strife and contention and Idolatry to have fellowship with the Father Swear not at all neither by heaven nor earth nor any other oath that as hath been said before here is a prohibition of all vain oaths and false oaths and perjury and all oaths by Creatures and all the vain traditions of Scribes and Pharisees about oaths and somewhat more even a prohibition of those Oaths to his Disciples which the Law allowed after sin had entered for which cause the Law was added and Oaths added but Christ ends it not by destroying it but by fulfilling it
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
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
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
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
him in his life neither can it properly be said to be repealed Reply Though I do not argue that Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws once commanded nor abrogated them yet Bishop Gauden doth who attain'd if not to a degree of knowledge and learning yet to a degree of promotion above A. S. in his Book which he wrote for the information of the Quakers about swearing he saith in his own words Christ came to fulfill the Moral Law however he came in a way of fulfilling to abrogate the Ceremonial yea and the Politick Lawes too belonging to the Jewes policy in Church and State and herein is the Bishop and the Doctor at odds the Bishop said he abrogated the Ceremonial Law and Judicial Law too belonging to the Iewes Policy and State But Doctor Smallwood says he denies his Assertion for says he We were never under the Judicial Law and what was never imposed need not be abolished So then what remains for me to say but this If Swearing was any part of the Iudicial Law or did belong to their Political Estate as it is the judgment of many but it is evident that swearing was used by the witness before Iudges in Israel in those days to try out their matters according to commandment given of God as is evident from 19. Deut. in the whole Chapter and divers other places then by this argument A. S. hath made he hath overthrown himself for he saith we are no Iewes nor in Canaan and so never imposed and what was never imposed need no abolishing and it is as I have said manifest that Oaths had relation to judicial proceedings and to the service of God too in that Covenant which was shadowy and consisted much in outward signes and figures but the substance is Christ. So then instead of proving swearing under the Gospel lawful he hath by his argument proved it never injoyned unto the Gentiles neither indeed was it either ever commanded or commended unto the Gentiles who believed or they reproved for not observing it that ever we read of by Christ or his Apostles or Ministers in the first and purest times of Christianity for to Jacob he gave his Law and to Israel his Statutes to every Nation he did not so no not to Moab Ammon nor the Canaanites neither the Gentiles and though he seem to plead hard for swearing under the Gospel yet he falls short in his proof except he took his own reasons and arguments which divers of them are but imaginary in the foundation of his discourse he hath taken such great compass as there is not an universal unlimited prohibition of all manner of Swearing but what this manner of swaring is it is very uncertain somtimes he makes it this and sometimes that sometimes he saith it is no Oath though in the form thereof there be not I swear or God be not named or by God doth not always signifie an Oath and other where he seems to affirm it to be an Oath but when an impartial eye hath sounded and tryed to the bottom what this swearing is that brings so much glory to God and so much good to our Neighbour that he so vehemently contends for that ought to be observed as well as Gods fear and service it is but their own traditions and inventions for that under the Law will not serve as the Lord lives or that he calls swearing under the Gospel will not serve the Lord is witness or I speak the truth in Christ or this is truth in the presence of God or the like none of these will serve But though he and the Rulers do say they are Oaths yet when at any time we have proffered willingly to declare the truth in this or that particular cause or to make as ample confession in demonstration for clearing any cause in debate that hath either conduced to the glory of God or the good and profit of any particular Man in the Nation among whom we converse and not without some attestation of God or of his wisdom power and presence yet it would never yet he received but reckoned as insufficient though both the Rulers of this age and A. S. have sayed it it might be that in private it might but in Judicature never was received though I do believe the most doth believe we dare not lie in ordinary communication much less in Judicature yet we have been set aside as objects of wrath as deluded erronious factious seditious contemners of Law obstructors of legal proceedings except we would lay our hand upon a Bible and kiss it and say I swear and by the Contents of the Book and so help me God or else fined imprisoned for term of life our Lands and Goods confiscated and we sentenced to be banished our Wives and Children ruinated Husband and Wife parted Children and Parents separated and such monsters of Christians have we to deal withal in this age and how many brought into this sad condition in England as little A. S. knows as cares But for ought I know that he and such as he in such publick discourses as this of his hath blown the sparks and hath kindled a flame in the Rulers and incensed them and stirred them up to severity and harshness against them who fear the Lord and doth maintain peace with all Men as much as in them lyeth and keeps their Consciences void of offence towards God which makes us to chuse rather all this hardship then to offend the Lord who serve and fear his Name and reverence it more then they who seem to honour it and pretends Gods honour thorow their swearing But to make amends for this A. S. he saith the Magistrates must act by the Law and that enjoynes such a forme of swearing and they cannot allow it Unto that I answer it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have exhorted the Magistrates if the Law had been answered in the substance not to be so severe in the forme and also to have told them where any Law was made contrary to the Law of God either in matter or forme The Consciences of believers could not yield obedience thereunto when it was repugnant unto the Law of God and not according to the forme thereof and in such cases to be wary and he and the rest of the Clergy to have advised with the Rulers and Law-makers and to have informed them from whom they receive such great incomes and revenues for the preservation and peace of all Men that they need not stand so much upon the forme seeing that so many conscientious people questioned it so that there needed not such tying up to forme under such great and heavy penalties as banishment confiscation and perpetual imprisonment but have informed them so that the truth might have been found out and no judicial proceedings hindered which I am sure may be without any swearing true testimony never being denyed when required by any Magistrate and let bua a penalty be
upon him that gives false evidence or speakes an untruth about any proceedings in judicature or otherwise called to bear evidence in any controversie if found out let them suffer as them that sweares falsely and as perjured and the case is one and here all scruples and contentions about swearing would end and there would not be the least obstruction in legal proceedings or in administration of justice and let me tell Doctor Smallwood and the rest of his Brethren that if they would move such a thing in Parliament peradventure it would be readily received from them and in so doing they would do as acceptable a piece of service and as well pleasing to God and would conduce as much to the peace and tranquility of the Nation as any thing that ever they will do in their age or hath been effected many ages and so all these heart-burnings contentions and evil surmisings and evil representing one another would cease and end and which if not effected nothing can be looked for but sad suffering and great oppression and persecution which will provoke the Lord to anger and ever did against all them that were the cause of it in ages past but I come to his second Argument Second Argument Some without any colour reason or possibility of proof will need have swearing a Ceremonial write but God ranks it with his fear and service therefore it must needs be moral and therefore what at all times as well under the Gospel as under the Law as well amongst the Gentiles as the Jewes tends to the glory of God that is not a Ceremonial Ordinance nor forbiden by Christ but such is swearing and therefore it cannot be thought to be prohibited Reply to this It hath been said and often asserted that all the ten words and Commandements were moral and perpetual as well under the Gospel as under the Law then I wonder what A. S. and divers others intends to do with the fourth Commandment if it be moral and perpetual and to be observed in the same manner and with the same service as then commanded and the same day and time then he and most of them who contend most for the morality of these ten Commandments are great transgressors and if he grant there was something Ceremonial in it and typical or figurative which then was the seventh day which was given for a signe of the Worlds rest from its labour and of keeping after it an everlasting Sabbath to the Lord by Mans cessation from his own works as God did from his Isai. 58. and the last Heb. 4. which Iewish observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath now though never so solemnly as then commanded will have no acceptation at all no more then he and he as much that is none at all that never so solemnly swears by the name of God in such ceremonious ways as the Iewes did of old or goes beyond the bare asseveration or testimony of truth with some attestation of Gods power and veracity which hath never been denyed which to do we do not only think but know it to be a superfluous Ceremony of Judaism not to say brat of Jewish extraction as A. S. doth now circumcised and cut off from Christians by Christ and what though God did Deutro 10. 20. rank it with his fear and service was there any service or worship in that Covenant that had not some signe and shadow in it and was Ceremonial and was to end in the substance was there not prayer and praysing and were not these service and worship and had these not the Ceremony of Incense and Sacrifice which then attended these Services but the substance was lifting up of the heart unto the Lord and making a melody in the heart and circumcision is now that of the heart Rom. 2. which was outward before the killing of a Lamb at the Passeover was an Ordinance in that Covenant the substance thereof is Christ the Passeover the other now under the Gospel would be no more then cutting of a Dogs neck these were all Ordinances of God to be observed and in their time and day and they that did according to the command of God tended to the glory of God in that first Covenant but in the second under the Gospel whosoever should observe them in the Figure Ceremony and shadow should much dishonour God and his Christ the substance and Christ would profit him nothing see that Ceremony of swearing the morality that only abides under the Gospel is testifying the known truth from the heart with some attestation of God to witnesse who is witness of all we do or say and that no more then confession or deniall by yea or nay which is no oath is that standing substance and the moral if A. S. will have it called so that remaines under the Gospel which answers that ceremonious way of swearing under the Law which is most evident by the Apostle Pauls rendring of that terme swearing as it was spoken in way of prophesie concerning its continuance then Isa. 45. 23. To me every tongue shall swear under that tearm confessing only under the Gospel Rom. 14. 11. Every knee shall bow every tongue shall confess to God confession under the Gospel is made equivolent with an oath under the Law but this rendring of it A. S. doth not like but would pervert Pauls words to have it confession but put to his own addition by oath so that his Argument is void swearing was binding in that ceremonious way which it was commanded under the Law but not under the Gospel nor among the Christians who are come to the substance and to confess and speak the truth in Christ to the glory of God acknowledging his power and omnisciency and his justice in discerning whether truth be spoken and in punishing them that speak falsely and his wisdome in discerning the secrets of all hearts and A S. might as well have said that offrings and oblations and sacrifice tends much to the glory of God under the Gospel as under the Law as swearing but saith he swearing is a part of Gods peculiar service that is incommunicable to any creature the like I say of the former offring and sacrifice and incense was incommunicable to any creature but was due unto God alone yet it doth not follow as well under the Gospel as under the Law for that were to set up the figure and deny the substance so this second Argument is insufficient and the third is somewhat related to it which I now come unto Thirdly This third Argument is that if Christs purpose be utterly to abolish all swearing as an illegitimate brat of Jewish extraction not to be admitted into the Christian Church then it must be either as it is repugnant to our duty to God or else to our neighbour for into that summary he hath contracted the whole Law Reply We must still distinguish that which was once a duty to be performed under the Law because commanded is
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 Hen. 8. and Edward 6th in their time all swore against the Popes Supremacy either in Church or State and how much security was the Nation in when Queen Mary came to the Crown though the Nobles and the Bishops and Prelates did all swear against the Supremacy yet behold it was brought in again and confirmed by Oath again and yet in the days of Elizabeth renounced again and of latter days what Oaths have been exacted first by one and then by another and one party contrary to another though every party fancyed a security for the time but it proved of no more effect neither were they in any degree more secure then if there had been none at all for indeed that frequent swearing hath made men being got into a custome of it that it is become a light thing unto them though otherwise they look upon themselves as bound Generals how have they turn'd one way and another way and Souldiers the like so that one may conclude indeed that Oaths are made no more of but even to stand in force while that bears up head and is exalted that to please the present time and power they seem to be devoutly obliged to it but if it come under any eclipse or demunition then they reckon themselves no longer obliged so that indeed their Oaths are becom'd of little or no force at all and for Controversies we see they begin many and is the cause of much dissention and discord but ends few for why may not all these foresaid States and conditions be secured and as well and the good and great ends accomplished that A. S. pleads for by true evidence of every one concerned in any of the foresaid relations by declaring and confessing the truth and speaking it unto Men as necessity requires without oath yea and all the foresaid states have as much security and subsist as well if not better then by all this swearing which more properly belonged to the Judaism then to Christians and there is no such necessity of them among Christians if any at all who dare not swear for fear of offending Christ or denying his Doctrine and yet will not lie but speak the truth and indeed it is the custome of swearing that have been used in the Nations since the Apostacy entered in that is more looked upon then any thing else more then any legality necessity or security under the Gospel seeing in the Primitive times truly so called it was enough to say Christianus sum and that sort of swearing that is imposed now hath no other ground but custome which Jer. 10. 3. is accounted to be vain neither hath it so much as an inch of ground from the Scripture and therefore doth not bring so much glory to God as A. S. tells on because whatsoever is added or superadded to whatever God commanded as to matter or forme is but Will-worship at the best and a making whatsoever was said or commanded or practised before imperfect and no way sufficient but more of this shall be said after if the Lord permit Fourth Argument Had Christ intended universally to forbid all kind of Oaths in the words Swear not at all then those amplifications neither by Heaven nor by Earth neither by Jerusalem neither by the head had been useless as being generally included in the general prohibition but had he meant that no oath should be used upon any occasion the subsequent words are so far from giving light to the preceeding that they much obscure them but had he said no more then swear not at all it might have been said he disallowed all oaths but he descending to this or that creature may rationally imply that his purpose was only to forbid such swearing and not that which was formerly enjoyed and his conclusion is only creature swearing or swearing by Creatures is that he would have forbidden Answ. Christ knew better what he intended then A. S. who would make his words one thing and his intention another it is evident by the preceeding Doctrine and by that which follows after the Text that Christ prohibits all swearing which shall be further spoken on when the second part of the discourse is spoken of some stumble ignorantly and some wilfully would pervert and turn aside from that which they have no mind to receive and would hold up that which they assert true or false that makes all this disputing and reasoning about the plain words of Scripture Christs words But I say unto you Swear not at all by heaven or earth is a general Negative of all Oaths even of those which before were used in the time of Moses and by Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem are more ample expressions of Christ to make the Scribes and Pharisees understand his mind of his dislike of these Oaths by Creatures that they frequently used and though these and much more were included in the general Negative Swear not at all yet they are not to be excluded as superfluous neither do they obscure the former Swear not at all but gives more light to the former to any but them that fees with A. S. his eyes for by Heaven by Earth by Jerusalem are more ample expressions of his mind and a further explication of the former Swear not at all and though they seem to A. S. to obscure and darken Christs words if he did intend all Oaths yet they that see with another eye then he doth is that they are only more large expressions thereby to make the Pharisees understand who were in the unbelief and dull of hearing that he did not only forbid what the Law had forbid before but even those Oaths that they frequently used under those terms and forms which the Law had not spoken of in those words as Heaven Earth Jerusalem head and foot and therefore he enumerates them as an amplification of his former prohibition and so they are to be joyned and we shall not stop as A. S. says some doth at the words swear not at all but shall joyne that which Christ hath joyned viz. Heaven Earth and Jerusalem and to be enumerated only and joyned to the former negative and spoken as to their capacities in those ful and large terms that they might understand his mind that he prohibited not only by Heaven and Earth and Jerusalem but even any other Oath which the Law had commanded or the Jewes permitted to swear before and though A. S. would have it limited only to swearing by Creatures which indeed were forbidden under the Law but Christ who taught a more Evangelical and exact obedience then the Law he said It hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self But I say unto you who saith more then the Law hath said Swear not at all but let your yea be yea and nay nay for whatsoever is mere cometh of evil And of this mind was BP Vsher late of Armaugh who pleaded the cause of the Wâ—ldenses or Leonists whose names are famous amongst the
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
a lyer pag. 17â— Since upon that account whosoever swears by the name of God swears in vain and to no purpose whether he be a true man or one deceitful his word amounting to as much as his oath And why A. S. mentions the third Commandment to prove swearing lawful under the Gospel except for the morality of it which he looks upon Christ came not to destroy and doth he look that every letter and syllable of all the ten Commandments is so moral in all respects unchangable and uncaple of any annihilation by Christs coming he much forgets himself for all these things contained in the first Table are not so moral or perpetual without some ceremoniality and subjection to alteration by Christs coming as he imagines if he had but remembred the fourth Commandment the next unto it Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day which then was the very 7th day of the week which God had sanctified was but a type and sign and shadow and figure and a ceremony of the 7th day of the worlds rest from its labour and of the everlasting Sabbath as I said before Heb. 4. and I might as well argue if the 7th day of the week was commanded in the fourth Commandment then the 7th day is not prohibited neither by commandment example or practice of Christ the Apostles or Primitive Christians and I might add this as a reason because Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and further I might add the 7th day was enjoyned in the 4th Commandment and they used to call it as moral as the third and therefore it ought to be so under the Gospel or else the Law written in ' lables of stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection and what would all my arguing prove even as much as A. S. his arguing the continuation and necessity of oaths from the third Commandment and that is nothing at all and the Law of God needs not A. S. nor any vindication it is perfect and endures for ever Psal. 19. 7. and the Ceremonies land types and shadows that were joyned with and unto the substance of the Law doth neither add nor detract from its perfection but it is the same in its self for ever and though we cannot own swearing in that ceremonious way as the Jewes did use it till the seed came unto whom the Law and the Prophets bore witness yet we do not make void the third Commandment we take not his name in vain but reverence it and speakes well of it and sanctifies it in our hearts and as the Apostle said Do we make void the law through the preaching of Faith God forbid So do we make void the law or the perfection of it by speaking the truth and bearing witness to the truth though as I said we cannot own those typical ceremonious way of swearing as it was in the first Covenant nay it is established and the third Commandment is established for he that speaks the truth and bears witness in and from the truth honours Gods name and reverences it forasmuch as he is called the God of truth and as we have said being lawfully called before a Magistrate to bear testimony in any thing wherein the glory of God or our Neighbour is concerned or the decision of Controversie seeing that true testimony is a medium that concernes as much to that purpose now as swearing did under the Law therefore we have still been and are ready to answer all these necessary ends and as well and this is as good and expedient to be put in practice amongst Christians as interposition of Oaths enjoyned by God in the first Covenant and far more Evangelical and therefore shall conclude with that of Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath His eighth Argument is That Christ did never any things without some ground of reason but no reason can be shewed why all manner of swearing should be forbidden in a due manner and upon a just and necessary occasion and therefore we may well believe that such swearing was neither here or any where else forbidden Reply We shall not much dissent or disagree about terms with A. S. that Christ did never any thing without some ground or reason but yet we must deny his Conclusion that no reason can be given why all manner of swearing should be forbidden first of all there was a time since man had a being in this Creation when he was in the image of God and stood in the Covenant of God when there was no Oath neither any necessity thereof Man being endued with power from God which was placed in him so that he was in a capacity to fulfill obey and serve and believe his Maker without an Oath for unbelief or sin had not yet entred and this was before the fall Gen. 1. 26 27. Secondly Christ the unspeakable gift of God who is the Mediator of the everlasting Covenant yea the Covenant it self who is given for a leader to the People and who is made a Propitiation for sin and transgression to end both sin transgression and unbelief which was the cause of the addition of the Law who leads to the beginning again all that truly do believe and are worthy to be called true Christians or by the name of Christ to have union with God again in that life power truth righteousness and wisdom in which the Image of God truly consists which was before sin and transgression and before the Law which was added because of it which was commanded four hundred and thirty years after the Promise was made Gal. 3. 17. Thirdly After sin was entred and death by sin an unbelieving part got up in all the Sons of Adam so that they could not believe God nor his Promises and yet such was his love unto Mankind considering the state into which they were plunged for confirmation of his Word unto man he swore by himself this was the Lords condescention unto their low and unbelieving estate all that time and no way exemplary for Christians truly such who are come into the Faith and to the truth it self who do believe that all the Promises are fulfilled in Christ yea and amen who is the author of Faith and of eternal Salvation to them that believe Heb. 9. 12. who prohibited that by his command Mat. 5. 23. which sometimes was permitted yea and commanded yea and added because of transgression and for which the law and the command for Oaths was only added which he did not destroy because he leads from under the power of that which the Law came against which is just and good and holy and the seed fulfills it and hath unity with it and with him who is the Judge and Law-giver and Saviour of all that do believe in him from sin and transgression Fourthly At that time when the Law was given forth at Mount Sina Exod. 19. 20. generally all the Nations were given to Idolatry and to serve and worship strange
Gods as Baal Ashtaroth Chemosh Rimphan many others as the Gods of Samaria which was said to be according to the number of their Cities and their Idols were called the sin of Samaria Amos saith They swear by the sin of Samaria that did say the God O Dan lives and the manner of Barsheba lives even they shall fall and never rise again Amos 7. 14. Which was no other then the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel which they feared worshipped and swore by therefore God having chosen a peculiar people to himself to worship and serve him and honour him who should not walk after the manner of the rest of the Nations who knew not God he commanded them to serve him and worship him and swear by his Name as Jerome saith well to keep them from Idolatry and that they should not swear by the Gods of the Heathen as the rest of the Nations did round about yet still this must be considered that this was the state of the minority of the Jewish Church wherein God gave them Ordinances suitable to their state but it doth not follow neither can it be reasonably concluded that these Ordinances were to be perpetually binding unto all future generations especially when Christ the seed unto whom all the Promises are in whom the Law is fulfilled and in whom the former ministrations ends that his Disciples and true Christians should always be bound to those things once commanded especially seeing Christ their Master in whom the Father is well pleased hath prohibited this about swearing and also did prophesie of the time to come after his Resurrection and his scension that those visible things which were as a Ministration for a time should end as to the outward exercise and typical and figurative appearance of them and that all these things should be revealed within by the Spirit and felt in the power of God in all that did believe when the Holy Ghost should be poured forth and the Promise of the Father be made manifest Fifthly Now considering that the name of God is believed in and he is confessed unto and his Christ and that there is not that Idolatry especially outward as there was in the Nations before and after the flood especially in that which is called Christendom though we dare not conclude that all are Israel that are of Israel or that all are Christians that have the name yet generally I say the name of God and his Christ is acknowledged and worshipped and not Idols and false Gods therefore there is not the necessity of swearing by the name of God as there was at the time of the giving forth of the Law but especially among them that the Father will reckon as truly his subjects and disciples of Christ who are partakers of his divine nature here is not that necessity among them for they through the Law being dead to it it hath no more power over them and therefore no reason that they should be kept as under Tutors and Governours seeing that the age and ages is come which the Apostle spoke of Eph. 2. 7. wherein Christ is revealed the hope of glory and whom he makes free are free indeed Joh. 8. 32 36. Sixthly and lastly The command of Oaths was given for the ending of strife and controversies among Men Heb. 6. which hath relation to the Law and to the state of the Jewes and their Political proceedings the Apostle brings but that in as an instance or an example and it is but A. S. his groundless supposition that it seems it was used in the Apostles time the Apostle speaking of an oath only as among men and not of Saints who as concerning strife the occasion of swearing and consequently concerning swearing should not walk as men 1 Cor. 2. 1 2 3. but A. S. should consider this as every one ought that when men that hath been once in strife and contention and variance come once into Christ and to be in him New Creatures Christians to walk no more as carnal not as men but as men of God and as spiritual and as true Saints and Christians they come both out of strife and swearing which was added to endstrife and what ever A. S. may conclude we say these and divers more are great and weighty Reasons wherefore Christ did prohibit all swearing and puts it out of use and date and no necessity of it as among true Christians seeing that every true saying or testimony is equivolent with an oath His ninth Argument is That either these words swear not at all must not be extended to a total prohibition of swearing or else Christ thereby gave a new moral command but Christ gave no new moral command for that had been contrary to Gods express will thou shalt not add unto the word which I command besides he ordained no new law in the matter of the 6th and 7th Commandments and shall we think that he who vindicated the other Commandments from the leud depravations of men hath abrogated this only as though it had not been framed by the same wisdom and acted by the same God and further Christs opposition is only against the Pharaseical misinterpretations of the Law and if only so then Christ did not forbid such Oaths as was lawfully before enjoyned Reply What ever A. S. call a new moral command sure I am he commanded that which was more exact then the Law so that Doctor Gauden himself says that Christ gave many singular precepts of more eminent diligence patience charity moritification self-denial sincerity and the perfection of obedience required now under the Gospel is above what ever the Letter of the Moseical Law seemed to exact or by the Pharaseical interpretation were taught by the Jewes c. in which he speaks the truth it was said in the 21. of Exod. and 42. of Levit. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but in Mat. 5. 39. Christ commanded that which the Law had not spoken of and not only a further thing but another thing but I say unto you that ye resist not ill but whoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also ver 40 41. And if a man shall sue thee at law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also where said the Law this And whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twain where did ever the Law of Moses command this and though the Law said Levit. 19. Thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine enemy which he saith was but a Pharaseical innovation which if it be I query of A. S. where in the Law it is written love thine enemy and as was said before whether did not Israel fight with their enemies and kill them and destroy them and whether they had not a command so to do yea or nay as in Deut 2. 24. chap. 3. 3. Numb 21. 23 24 25. Josh. 10. 19. 23. And whether this be not
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
art thou Peter or art thou John that was with Jesus of Gallilee and Peter and John had answered I am Peter and I am John that was with him what will A. S. conclude now that Peter and John hath sworn away with such perverting and straining and screwing of the Scriptures from their genuine sence only to uphold that which was added because of transgression now when sin and transgression is finished the end of Christs coming is witnessed to uphold that which Christ came to end to wit sin and also an oath which was added because of sin and unbelief and the hardness of their hearts only to remain till that part was done away and untill the time of Reformation Heb. 9. 10. to wit the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness and it cannot be reasonably concluded that because Christ answered the high Priest thou hast said that therefore he took notice of commanding to swear or at least approving of his adjuration knowing that he was about an evil work and doing the work of the Devil which must needs be judged that Christ did neither approve of nor consent unto what ever A. S. may say or think but only in his own authority spoke the truth and made a good confession as he did before Pontius Pilate to the glory of the Father who had sent him whose will he came to do And Luke 22. 70. Art thou then the Son of God and he said unto them ye say that I am and Pilate was as much a Magistrate as the high Priest and he asked art thou the King of the Jewes and he answered him and said thou sayest it And Herod was as much a Magistrate as either Pilate or the high Priest and he questioned with him in many words but Christ answered nothing so that he did not so much take notice of their questions or examining or charging or adjuring as A. S. would seem to make of it but according to the wisdom and power of God which was in him spoke and answered in his own authority without taking so much notice of them as he would infer he knowing what they were going about though they had the name and bore the title of Magistrates yet were out of the power of God in the persecuting nature which is the ground and foundation of all authority which is of God but A. S. says Marke 14. 62. relates plainly that Christ answered I am but yet neither Marke Luke nor John takes so much notice of the high Priests adjuring or makes so much for A. S. his Argument as he would have them Marke saith only Mar. 14. 61. the high Priest asked him and said unto him art thâ—u Christ the son of the blessed he doth not say I adjure thee or I charge thee to swear unto us as A. S. would have it but thought Mat. 26. 63. say I adjure thee to tell us whether thou be Christ the Son of God is not much material for A. S. hath made more matter about it then is to any great or good purpose but I say he was as much bound to answer Pilate or Herod as the high Priest and as much directly to one as to another we see his answers was not all alike but I would not have A. S. nor my self neither sit as Judges over Christs answers and squeeze and serue them beyond or contrary to Christs intention for the summe of the matter is this thou hast said I am and thou sayest I am King and is Christs answers to the high Priest and Pilate and nothing to Herod and A. S. might as reasonably have concluded that the high Priest rent his Cloaths and cryed blasphemy not so much at thou hast said or I am as of this the next words nevertheless I say unto you ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the Clouds of Heaven for then the next words are then the high Priest rent his Cloaths and cryed blasphemy and then A. S. goes on it was enough that Christ denyed not to swear and the summe of all or the most that he can make when he hath twined about with many Circumstances to prove that he did swear or consented to Caiaphas adjuring and answered his adjuring this is all I am and thou hast said and therefore what either may be or can be said A. S. hath concluded Christ did swear and yet Sect. the 27. he tells us that the essence of swearing is in calling God to witness and how or where did Christ call God to witness then this overturns his own argument seeing we do not read that Christ sayed any more in his answer then as is aforesaid I am and thou hast said and he says to alledge that Christ sware not because he laid not his hand upon a Book or kissed or lifted up his hand is but to trifle yet he says that ceremony is ancient as Chrysostome tells him that it 's above 1250. years since if it be but to trifle why are so many conscientious people in bonds this day in England under a Premunirey for these trifles a very shame to Christianity for where any or all of these have been denyed though they have answered the truth and the whole truth and as much as A. S. calls an oath yet this hath been counted insufficient and we know Justinian the Emperour ordain'd the ceremony that Men should swear by the Gospel or Book and lay their hands thereon and kiss or the like and though it be so many years since it was ordained as A. S. says this adds nothing to the warrantableness thereof but custome is proof enough to such a Ceremonious age as this when formalities ceremonies jestures and postures are more regarded then the power of God and godliness and we say such a ceremony about swearing are not without the appearance of evil for the Bible is a Creature made up of many Creatures and laying the hand and kissing and adoreing it in such manner is I know-looked upon by many to be swearing by it and so the most takes it and this were unlawful and therefore better to be whollyavoided then so many suffer because they cannot do it besides as I said the evil appearance of it for it is not any Gospel institution but an innovation since the Apostacy entred in and if God had ever judged any necessity thereof or that it had rendred an oath more solemn the Law would have said something of it and it was never a practice among the Primitive Christians and therefore a vain humane tradition crept in since which ought to be avoided and though A. S. say to reply that Christ swore not though Caiaphas adjured him is vain for an examinate is to answer both in matter and forme according to what is proposed I say its A. S. his vain supposition and presumption without ground so to judge that Christ swore I say sometime he held his peace that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the Prophet of him before that he should be as a Lamb dumb before the shearer as sometime he was both to the chief Priests and Elders to Pilote to Herod which was all in some authority and sometime he answered them in the wisdom of God and sometime he spoke and bore witness to that and prophesied unto them which was not at all either as to the matter or forme of the high Priests adjureing for the very next words but thou hast said nevertheless I say unto you hereafter shall you see the son of man sitting on the right hand of the power and coming in the clouds of Heaven Mat. 26. 64. and therefore this showes A. S. his argument to be frivilous and vain and Marke saith the chief Priests accused him of many things Marke 15. 3. but he answered nothing either to their accusations or took notice of the high Priests adjuring to answer him in matter and forme as A. S. would have it neither did he look upon himself so oblig'd but answered sometime and spoke the truth always when he spoke and that which always displeased and dissatisfied the Jewes when he answered and for ought can be perceived by his arguing that every Examinate is to answer directly to every matter and forme to any that pretends power to administer an oath or to adjure he goes about to establish the Popes inquisition and create matter as sometime they did here in England in the heighth of the Popes domination forged matter out of their own wicked hearts to ensnare the Lambs of Christ and then to require them to swear that they might destroy them and accuse them out of their own mouths even as the high Priest sought to destroy Christ and to ensnare him which methinks A. S. hath sayed too much in vindication of his adjuring and will needs have Christ to be of his mind and at last concludes that Christ swore but it s but upon his own presumption and supposition and is more then ever he is able to make evident from what is written And A. S. tells us over and over again Swearing was a part of Gods Worship wherein Gods wisdom power and justice is acknowledged and then incommunicable to any Creature or false God as is answered before so was Circumcision then and the Oblations and Burnt Sacrifice and Offrings and new Moons to be performed only to the Lord and was peculiarly to be performed unto God and not communicable to any Creature and we say and prove Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. that these was a part of the service and worship of God and which as we shall grant that an oath under the Law was commanded as well as these services or in his own terms an oath was equally commanded with his service as is proved above In this he hath no adversary but what doth this prove in respect of his argument which makes it more then equally commanded for he will yield that these services were but temporary but swearing is perpetual and so he hath given it a priority above the rest his argument all along hath been chiefly drawn from the Moseick Law that it was joyned equally with fear and service under the Law and so hath striven without an adversary but now it must needs be above the service of God then and yet from the same command he would only prove it for he hath no better strength nor ground and we may as well alledge as he doth and say consequently to this sort of service that was commanded by the Lord as well as swearing for God hath joyned them together in the text above said obligeth equality at all times as well under the Gospel as under the Law yet then A. S. would call this absurd it it be so as it is indeed then we may as well conclude the other absurd because one is standing as well as the other and binding as well as the other by the vertue of this command although he tells us that an oath in its substance hath not any type at all so we say for the substance is Christ the oath of God in whom all the promises and oaths are fulfilled and this is its substance but as under the Law it was a type of the substance and not the substance it self and that Circumcision the Passeover and the legal Offrings under the Law had as much goodness in them as Oaths had what ever A. S. say and served to as good ends and purposes in that Ministration as they were ordained and conduced as much to the glory of God and were subservient to but not against the morality of the Gospel for the shadows were not against the substance nor the Ceremonials against the Morals though the Apostle says the Law is not of faith yet not against it for as ministerial as the Ordinances of the Law was to the Gospel then yet the Gospel may be and now is without it But to conclude this Argoment A. S. were it so indeed that oaths were ceremonial then it follows that Christ in this text did not forbid them for he didnot forbid the Ceremonial Law but observed it all his life eating the Passeover with his Disciples the night before his death unless some would interpret his words I command you that you do not swear yet I am content for a year or two you may swear by Heaven or Earth as you have been accustomed but after my Crucifixion and Resurrection swear no more and there let these that disallow swearing as a part of the Ceremonial Law argue no more the unlawfulness of swearing from these words swear not at all Reply Though Christ did observe the Ordinances of the Law as being that Ministration appointed by God untill the time of Reformation and the bringing in of a better hope Heb. 9. It became him to fulfill all Righteousness so was he Cireumcised and eat the Passeover and was Baptized washed the Disciples feet which were not enjoyned by the Law though not against it and that Ministration not fully ended though he see it must end and spoke of a further thing and of the time then and also it should be ministred more afterward after his Resurrection Joh. 4. 20 21 22 23. the time cometh and now is neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship the Father shall worship him in spirit and truth so that he prophesied of the end of all those things and of the cessation of them which were sometime commanded respecting both the place and the worship and to them that did believe the Disciples unto whom it was given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God then was the time to them it was come even then before Christ suffred and therefore A. S. his consequence is not true that Christ did not forbid all swearing from this text and though he had both prophesied of a clearer Ministration and laid down in Doctrine a more Evangelical precept then the Law yea and more strict obedience
the place before cited Numb 30. 2. is the place Christ alludes to you have heard it said thou shalt not forswear thy selfe so saith the Law in forty places but performe unto the Lord thine Oathes But I say unto you swear not at all no not by any oath at all note the opposition in the particle but which is between the old lawful legal swearing and no swearing at all not between no swearing and such prophane swearing as was unlawfull under the Law the whole summe is this the Law said break no oaths but I say take none for if Christ intend no more in these phrases swear not at all not by any oath then thus swear not vainly prophanely ordinary or by Creatures in your communication forswear not your selves what forbids he more then the Law forbad for Heaven and Earth Jerusalem A. S. says Christ reckons among sinful oaths and these are Creatures and swearing by Creatures was forbidden by the Law I grant quoth A. S. then this reason stands still good he either forbad all oaths or he forbad no more then the Law forbad and though it be granted that the Jewes swore by the Creatures as the Temple Altar Jerusalem and therefore Christ prohibits them and reproves them for these things and likewise all swearing whatsoever what doth A. S. gain by this for it 's evident in divers passages of his Sermon in the 5th Chap. of Mat. that he teaches a righteousness which exceeds that of the Law as I have shewed before which he came to fulfill and not to destroy by taking away the ceremony of Swearing and establishing the substance in its stead which is speaking the truth as in the sight of God in uprightness of heart yea we say again what saith he more to his Disciples else then the Scribes and Pharisees to theirs they said swear not falsly prophanely but by God only swear not falsly For Bishop Gauden cites for his Author Drusius among the Jewes all thing in Judicials were confirmed by the Religion of an oath wherein the name of God was interposed therefore Christ says more unto his Disciples in express terms swear no oath at all otherwise how would their Righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees which except it did they could in no case enter into the Kingdom of God the perfection and Righteousness of the Law therefore in this point of Swearing was not forswearing the perfection and Righteousness of the Gospel in the same is not swearing at all so though the Gospel be not against the Law yet the Gospel exceeds the Law in every point the Law said kill not the Gospel be not angry the Law commit not adultery the Gospel look not on a woman lust not so in all the prohibitions of Christ the Commandements of Christ went beyond the Law also in this of swearing yet it did not if now there be any swearing at all among Christians and Disciples of Christ yet we shall also with A. S. agree that Christ not only forbad all swearing even that commanded by the Law sometime lawful but he also forbids and reproves and condemnes swearing by Creatures and vain swearing in all communication and their perverting of the Law and too much loosing it by traditions and making it void by their false glosses and counts them blind guides which said to swear by the Temple by the Altar by Heaven was nothing he pronounced a woe against them and concluded they were bound to keep those oaths though they ought not to have sworn them for as much as he that swears by the lesser swears also by the greater as he that swears by Heaven swears by the throne of God and him that sits thereon Mat. 23. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. We confess with A. S. this was but a sinful prophane creature swearing an irregular forme of swearing by the name of God the Jewes indulged themselves in but what doth A. S. gain by this it's evident enough that solemn oaths by God himself as those familiar oaths by Creatures in which they tacitely sware by God are forbidden by Christ but I say unto you sware not at all But A. S. tells us as Grotius tells him out of Philo Judeos that the Pharisees taught them to performe what ever they had promised swearing by God they under a spacious pretence that they would not take God's name in vain upon sleight occasions fell to swear by Creatures which the Pharisees did not disallow to cheat people withal which they themselves neither thought obligatory nor meant to keep The name Elohim and Jehovah they might possibly scruple at but that name Adonai they oft as superstitiously repeat in their much babling as they superstitiously decline mentioning of the other but that in serious cases of concerne of justice and equity and in judicature in matter of debate or ending of controversies that they should wave and forbear swearing by the name of God when their Scriptures was so express for it and that they should chuse that way of swearing there is no reason at all to believe it seeing Drusius says among the Jewes all things in judicature were confirmed by oath wherein the name of God was interposed as above mentioned 2ly That they should wave swearing by the name of God in matters of concernment which they all believed were binding and should swear by Creatures in order to the giving satisfaction to one another and security of each other and by such oaths as they judged not to be obligatory and never meant to keep them seeing A. S. says it was in pretence of reverence to God they swear not by God but by Creatures to cheat and never meant to keep they knowing this that he that so sware by Creatures meant not to keep but to cheat and not performe such oaths were not very probably used in Judicature among them neither in serious cases for such oaths instead of giving satisfaction and putting an end unto jealousies and distrusts would have sure created them more then before for as much as he that so swears believes himself not to be bound thereby then if he had not sworn at all and he unto whom he swears also knows the same that such oaths as A. S. tells on that they did swear is not binding neither can any more credit be given to them then to a lyar because in this sort of swearing there was no security it is not probable I say that they should chuse this in Judicature or any serious case of Controversie And if it be that Swearing that Christ only prohibits by Heaven Earth and Creatures which the Pharisees indulged them in wherein as to the point of swearing does he prescribe a Righteousness and perfection above or beyond Moses his servant whom he was to exceed for God by Moses in the Law it self had universally forbidden all other oaths either in general terms or sometime more particularly but still all false oaths vain oaths and oaths by Creatures are included save
that is any oath taken by other creatures for so must they be understood unless we interpret his words to make them contradict Gods and set the servant in a manifest oppositon to his Master Reply We who are of a contrary judgment to A. S. do still urge the universality of the Text Mat. 5. 33 34 c. and we shall not break off the sentence of Christ in the midle swear not at all c. but shall render it as it is neither was it ever intended otherwise but for brevities sake because the innumeration of Heaven and Earth c. are only inclusive in the prohibition and we shall speak on and what Christ hath joyned we shall not separate but read the words as they are Yee have heard it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oaths but I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is Gods Throne neither by the Earth it 's his Foot-stoole neither by Jerusalem for it 's the City of the great King neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou cannot make one hair white or black But let your communication be yea yea nay nay whatsoever is more then those cometh of evil James 5. 12. But above all things my Bretheren swear not neither by Heaven neither by Earth neither by any other Oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay least you fall into condemnation In which two Texts we say in the affirmative all manner of swearing is forbiden for the truth of which many reasons have been and may be given First Because all manner of swearing is here expresly instanced in these two disjunctive clauses which are expresly conclusive and consequently because spoken by way of prohibiton exclusive exceptive of all swearing that can be thought on swear not swear not at all sayes the Texts yea that none may imagine as A. S. would make Men do that this general Rule admits of any exception but all know the prohibition is so strickt as to allow of no permission in the point to swear by any thing but God he addes neither by Heaven neither by Earth neither by Jerusalem neither by thy head and these are only more ample expressions of that prohibition and are not exclusive or disjunctive from the prohibition but conclusive of the prohibition of all swearing whatever But least any should think he forbids only and no more then extravagant Oaths of such as swear by Creatures as Earth Jerusalem the head and such like when as whosoever swore lawfully under the Law was to swear by none but God himself but that there be no root at all for any reasoning for swearing against the flat prohibition of it James 5. he concludes and shuts up all in these universal tearmes and excludes all Oaths and all possible pretence of plea at all also for any swearing adding neither by any other oath what words more plain words can be uttered or can be more expresly exclusive both of all kinds or sorts of swearing and of all sorts of particular Oaths of every kind and by Heaven and by Earth and Jerusalem are so far from signifying that those Oaths by Creatures are only the Oaths that Christ prohibits that they are but only innumerations and amplifications of the former part of the prohibition swear not at all which we grant were spoken to reprove the Pharisees and the Jews practise about their vain swearing And why must those words of James 5. needs be understood with restriction above all things swear not neither by Heaven neither by Earth c. why St. Austin scruples at the first words Quare ante omnia Jurare est quam furari c. quà m adulterare c. quà m hominem accidere it cannot be that swearing is worse and forswearing then adultery theft murther we do not say it is but if it be not or that be not the reason why he says above all things swear not because swearing is a sin above all sins can no other reason then that be rendered yes yet we shall agree with Austin and A. S. too if their judgment be one thus far that it was not sin to swear the truth when called unto it under the Law why then above all things swear not not that swearing is so great an offence as Murther or Adultery but least we contract a habit thereof and then possibly by rash Oaths we should offend God which is no more saith he then in especial manner forbearswearing and any other Oath saith A. S. must be restrained in a limited sense for there is not meant any Oath whatever but such as the Apostle speaks of by Heaven by Earth c. though there be some truth in what is said yet it s too short to answer the Apostles end and scope and the reason falls short that is rendered but the man reason is they were Jewes unto whom he wrote the twelve Tribes scattered whom we deny not but were run into that custome of vain swearing by Creatures as Heaven Earth Jerusalem head and Temple c. but that is not all though we grant it is some reason but they being Jews who might under the Law swear serious or solemn Oaths and were not so fully informed of the end of the Law in Christ under which among them some Oaths were lawful they were apt to think they did as well in swearing so now as they did before so though Adultery and Murther may be as bad and worse then Swearing yet the Law being so expresly against them which yet in its time allowed some kind of swearing in some Cases it was more hard to bring them of from some Ceremonious services of the Law that were once lawful as is evident long after Christs ascention the Apostles had much to do with them about the Rites of the Law as Circumcision and times and dayes and new Moones c. then from such sins as were known and hated by them and held accursed by the very letter of the Law and therefore he says above all things my bretheren swear not that they might not only take hold of all vain swearing and swearing by Creatures that was ever unlawful but if that they might know that now to be unlawful which in former times was accounted lawful for them And so its ordinary to say to Men above all things take heed of that to which they have been long accustomed and with which through heedlesness of the unlawfulness of the thing they are apt most easily to be overtaken Again It is by Solomon who spoke by the eternal wisedome of God and in it to fear an Oath is made the character of a righteous Man that sacrificeth acceptably to God to swear at all is more the character of a wicked and uncleave sinner Eccles. 9. 1. 2. for how he it Men shall once return and discern the happiness of him that serves God from his woe who serves him
not yet he is one event to the righteous and the wicked to the good and to the clean and to the unclean to him that sacrificeth and him that sacrificeth not as is the good so is the sinner as he that sweareth so be that fears an oath and so as above all things swear not is to be taken not only of those oaths which were ever unlawful by heaven and earth but even of those that sometime were lawful under the Law in the type which now when the substance the oath of God is come and the Covenant of Light given to all Nations Isa. 5. 5. Luk. 1. 72 73. who ends all not only vain oaths but all oaths and is the substance of all even to the subsequent neither by any other oath is not only to be taken of such oaths neither by heaven neither by earth which were ever unlawful but even of those sometime lawful even all swearing and all oaths and the servant is not in opposition to his Master but knew the mind of his master Christ and therefore taught like Doctrine and the same but what ever Christ or James had said A. S. would make them if he could to mean as he means to set their plain express words against their mind But so much hath been said by many others who fear the Lord and an oath too and so many demonstrative and weighty things have been offered to the Consciences and publick view of all which A. S. I perceive hath seen some of them though he come not so much as near as to answer them but only asserts his own being a work it seems he was put upon by others to plead for swearing so that something he must say on that behalf and draw that way and to make all things look towards that end and to concur together to justifie them and the lawfulness of oaths under the Gospel and their work who persecutes the servants of Christ for abiding in his Doctrine who speaks the truth and dare not lie nor swear at all I say I shall be the more brief because I know many things is extant by others and of weight which hath not yet been answered nor is by A. S. though here and there a little in his Annotations he carps sometime upon small ground although he hath asserted nothing but that which hath been answered over and over again But I draw on to his last refuge and plea his answer to both the Texts Conjunction That these Propositions says A. S. how universally soever exprest ought not in equity to be extended beyond the intention of the Apostles but be limited according to the subject matter swear not at all says Christ neither by heaven nor by earth c. that is I universally forbid you all those oaths which you were wont to use frequently to wicked purposes and further he says all vain and false oaths by God even by the acknowledgement of the Pharisees were sufficiently forbidden before so there was no need either for Christ or James to speak of them again other places of Scripture must of necessity be thus interpreted 1 Cor. 10. 23. Matthew 15. Luke 2. 1. Mat. 12. Luke 8. 47. how universally soever exposed must be restrained according to the mind of the speaker and so must these words swear not at all Reply It 's freely granted that these two Texts ought not to be extended beyond the intention of the speakers but be limited according to the subject matter as for general terms and universal prohibitions admitting of exception they do so we grant now and then they do and of restrictions but when they do these exceptions and restrictions are usually in one place or other of the same Testament where they are made or at least most manifestly amplified by him that gave out these general prohibitions so are most of these generals and restrictions that A. S. hath instanced 1 Cor. 10. 23. all things are lawful for me to eat that which was sold at the shambles was lawful but that which was sacrificed to Idols v. 12. there he mentions the restriction himself and so Luke 1. 3. It seemed good to me also having perfect understanding of all things from the very first the subject matter whereof he writes the things are exprest and the exceptions in the 2. Chapter and in Mat. 12. 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto Men but the blasphemy against the holy Ghost shall not be forgiven there in the same Verse Christ makes the exception and restriction and Exodus 20. 10. Thou shalt do no manner of work it s abundantly expressed else where in the Law where the Priests service on every Sabbath are appointed them and the exception of dressing what every one was to eat and was expressed and the exception of doing good and of works of mercy in saving the life of Man or beast was to take place ever against the Typical Sabbath I will have mercy and not sacrifice and that of Luke 8. 47. and the Woman that was healed by touching the border of Christs garment she declared unto him before all the people what saith A. S. before all the people of the World or before all the people of the Land no there is none so ignorant as to understand it for Mark. 5. 21. manifest the exception before all the people only that were with him nigh unto the Sea when he returned from the Country of the Gadarens or before all the people of his own City that came out to meet him Mat. 9. 3. Mat. 8. 34. many more I might add to what A. S. hath instanced that Christ uttered many truths in general terms which must admit of exception Luk. 13. 10. all the sinners Christ spoke to about him in the general terms ye shall perish but this was not without exception of such as should repent but that exception was not without expression viz. except ye repent again he said unto his hearers ye cannot enter the Kingdom of God that was not without exceptions nor these exceptions without expressions viz. except ye be converted yea in the verses immediately before this universal prohibition swear not at all Mat. 5. 30 31. Christ says 't was said of old if any put away his wife let him give her a bill of divorce but I say whosoever shall put away his wife causeth her to commit adultery But this admits of an exception and that exception is thus exprest viz. saving for the cause of Fornication but though all this be granted even these and many more universal terms admits of exceptions and restriction yet we cannot grant that these two texts admits of any such exceptions of restrictions as A. S. would interpret them My reason is this because in this general term and universal prohibition swear not at all it cannot in equity be taken and limited in that sense which A. S. puts upon it not with that restriction for that sense would make it short of
your nay nay for whatsoever is more comes of evil and whether the Scribes and Pharisees condemned a perjury or not we are sure the Law did which Christs words hath reference to It hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self and if the Righteousness of Christs Disciples be to exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and they condemned perjury and all false swearing by God and the Law condemned all false oaths and vain oaths and Oathes by Creatures as A. S. hath granted then the Righteousness of the Disciples is to be another then the Righteousness of the Law which condemned all perjury and vain Oaths then what is it but not to swear at all any Oath but speak the truth and confess it to the glory of God in yea and nay and this is that which exceeds the Scribes and Pharisees and is only lawful and necessary under the Gospel and as for Jer. 4. 2. this is pittiful proofe and warrant for Christians to swear under the Gospel for that was only spoken to Israel or Juda who were under the first Covenant and yet were revolted from the ordinances thereof and were back-sliders as is to be seen Jer. 3. 22. and hath not reference to the second Covenant But I shall come towards an end as well as A. S. and conclude and refer all what both he and I hath said to the judgment of the Lord and the measure of Gods holy Spirit in all Mens Consciences to be received or denyed by that as he and his witness bears evidence so shall the matter stand eternally Yet I cannot but mind the Reader though A. S. hath had as appeares certain Books of the Dissenters in which are weighty things about this particular of swearing which he hath not answered at all as to their Arguments only carped here and there at a word which is not of great moment but though he may plead some reason that it was not possible to answer all things in so short a Discourse as a Sermon wherein he was limited as to time yet since he had I perceive by his Annotations time enough to have answered them having their Books extant by him but hath not in the most weighty Considerations therefore I refer the Reader to them for his further satisfaction viz. to the Answer of Bishop Gauden by that faithful Servant of God Sam Fisher where this point is largely discussed likewise his Antedote against Swearing in Answer to Henry Den and Jeremiah Ives likewise a Book published by Isaac Pennington Titled The great Question concerning the Lawfulness or unlawfulness of Swearing under the Gospel stated and considered of wherein are weighty things declared in short 1st what an Oath is 2d the ground and occasion of an Oath 3d. the causes wherein an Oath was to be used 4ly the end of an Oath 5ly the suitableness of its nature to the end aimed at by it 6ly the persons to whom the use of an Oath was proper and lawful Wherein also is clearly showen the state of man kind from the Creation comprised in four heads or particulars First The State of Innocency when there was no Oath Secondly An estate of Captivity wherein an Oath was proper and lawful Thirdly The estate of shadowy Redemption wherein it was lawful also Fourthly An estate of true and perfect Redemption wherein it s neither needful nor lawful seeing it s prohibited by Christ all which A. S. hath passed over and hath not answered Likewise a Book published by John Crook Titled The Case of Swearing at all discussed with and several objections answered These things A. S. hath not answered I only instance them for the Readers further satisfaction if unsatisfied in what hath been said already all which great and weighty things are worthy of the serious consideration of all Likewise a Book Titled Swearing denyed in the new Covenant by Morgan Watkins When all that hath been said is duly considered and weighed in the Righteous ballance of Gods holy Spirit they will not think it strange that some denies to swear at all but rather wonder that such a vaile of darkness should be so long over the minds and hearts of them that believe not notwithstanding so clear evidence from Christ and his Apostles or the example of the Primitive Christians or holy Martyrs who spoke the truth but denyed to swear at all but that custome and tradition is often more minded then the very truth it self Oh that the Rulers of this Nation would once consider and weigh what they are doing and how many and great the suffering of a conscientious people that fears the Lord in their hearts are who dare not disobey the commands of Christ least they fall into condemnation and come under the rebuke of the Lord in their hearts who hath power alone to kill and to make alive but rather chuseth to suffer the loss of all and undergo the manifold sufferings that some malicious Spirits causeth to be inflicted upon them when indeed there is no cause at all while prophane persons swears and forswears and takes Gods holy Name in vain and makes little conscience of any thing but sometime for and sometime against whatsoever seems countenanced or discountenanced by the Magistrates so that neither the King nor Kingdom is in any more security notwithstanding all such swearing how solemn soever they seem in swearing neither any more credit to be given in Judicature then there is to be given to him that is a common Swearer in his private occasions or common communication and oh how doth the Land abound in this in so much that he that is not a curser or a swearer is looked upon as a Phanaticke or some disobedient person or unconformable man which ought especially to be eyed for a dangerous person Oh that the Heads and Rulers of the People would but consider how near the Judgment of God is and how ready to break forth upon the Nation and not without cause even great evils are begun Pestilence and Sword already threatned and Gods arrows flying abroad to wound and to destroy them that continue in hardness of heart and rebellion against God and will not suffer him to rule and reign in the Consciences and Kingdoms of Men but vain men would set up their Thresh-hold with his and not only so but against his and great is the wickedness and the sins of this Nation upon many accounts which the Lord will bring a scourge upon especially that greivous sin of Persecution that Cain-like way which the Generations hath chosen to add as they ignorantly suppose unto their Church and so builds up their Zion with cruelty and their Church by iniquity Oh this is loathsome in the sight of God had Zimri peace who slew his Master had Israel peace when she slew the Prophets had the Jewes peace when they had Crucified Christ had the Romans peace when they persecuted the first Christians had Cain peace when he had slain his brother If nay let not England expect peace when they are persecuting them that are members of Christs Church so that this grievous sin if England had no more were enough to bring the dreadful Judgment of God upon the whole Land and undoubtedly will if not repented of but now it must not be counted so and why because there are some Statutes and Lawes which they obey not and so it 's for disobedience consider did not all the former pretend one Law or other did not all that ever suffered even the best of men and the best of Christians suffer as disobedient and as offenders against some Law or other and as evil doers in the account of them that inflicted punishments upon them if so as it is certain they did may not England be deceived while that they are thinking they do God and the King service to root out and destroy some under the notion of Heresie and some under the notion of disobedience and factious may they not be persecuting Christ in his members or destroying the peaceable members of their Native Country the Lord open all their eyes and do away the darkness and the vaile of ignorance that is over many hearts that they may turn to the Lord and submit unto his eternal and unchangable power that so they may escape the day of the Lord which is at hand and the Judgment of God that is ready to break forth as an overflowing scourge to cut off and sweep away in his displeasure even all them that would not have Christ to rule in their hearts neither have his Lawes fulfilled nor obeyed which he writeth in the hearts of all true Believers unto whom all must bow and be subject because the Father hath committed all power into his hand and his glory he will not give to another no to none but him whom he hath given for a Convenant of Light and life to be King Law-giver Saviour and Judge of his People and to be the head of the body his Church whom he redeemes out of the world to himself to glorifie him who is the only Potentate and King of Immortal Glory God blessed for ever and ever Amen THE END Faults Escaped the Press PAge 8. line 3. for waken read weaken p. 41. l 9. for Polligume r. Polygamie l. 14. for Polligume r. Polygamie p. 42. l. 6. for Polligume r. Polygamie p. 42 l. 37. for persuming r. presuming p 45. l. 30. for Jestures r. Gestures p. 50. l. 4. for revailed r. revealed p. 55. l. 27. for are r. erre p. 57. l. 38. for evil r. civill l. 39 for beuite r. brute p. 59. l. 32. for Essarus r. Esseans p. 63. l. 1. for putting r. putteth * Without an oath as under the Law in divers Causes where no Oath is mentioned but Wâ—tnâ—sses Deut. 19. 15. * Deut. 19. 6. In case of life death no Oath was used we read of * For he is called Gods Covenant Isa. 55. 3 and GOD'S Covenant is his oath which he sware Luk. 1. 72 73. * Deutrono 19. 16. Exod. 20. 10. * Adjure doth often sign sie to charge or oblige by bare promise as well as Oath for if the phrase I adjure thee by God be a command to swear by God then this would make Acts 19. 13 13. abusurd when the Exorcists did adjure the evil spirit in the name of Jesus not to swear but to come out or depart out of the man
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