one shepherd and one fold for them both and no longer and they were never given to the Gentiles to observe and therefore for ought I can perceive many would have the Gentile Christians who never were under the Law neither the Ordinances of the first Covenant neither ever given to them yet they would compell the Christians to live as do the Jewes and to observe their Ordinances and therefore are greatly to be blamed Gal 2. 13 14. Therefore we do not look upon any swearing to be now a duty under the Gospel among true Christians truly such as some swearing was once under the Law but affirme all swearing to be now a sin because forbidden by the positive law of Christ under the Gospel who by his death ended the right of that and many more legal rites and Rudiments which who so doth observe now as Christians doth it not without sin and guilt and superstition and therefore S. Fisher that faithful servant of God who suffred in bonds til death for his Testimony even in this particular saith well That that sort of swearing which was not sin simpliciter in its nature under the Law is now a sin upon the account of Christs universal prohibition of all swearing who was of authority to put to an end as he did by his death unto the Law And therefore that sort of service and worship which stood in outward observations which was a duty because commanded under the Law and no sin in their own nature neither were evil in themselves nor in any respect conducing thereto as they were observed but had some signal good in them once and yet who observes them now as service of God makes Christ of so little effect to himself as that he profits him nothing at all I hope A. S. will not deny but these things are forbidden in the new Testament which sometime were not evil in their own nature but now are evil when the Substance is come in whom they all end and therefore S. F. his argument is not vain but of force And yet let A. S. know that there were many things observed and done not only by the Jewes but by them that believed in Christ and thought well of him while he was present with them and yet did not see to the end of these things which were shadows and signes and good as once commanded and had no evil in them but were good as commanded and for the end for which they were ordain'd which afterwards in the more full growth and knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity they came more to be seen thorough and that was felt in which they all ended and though Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to observe the Ordinances commanded in that Covenant to fulfill that which was written of him Psal. 40. 6. In the volume of the Book it is written I am come to do thy will O God And further he said himself It behoveth us to fulfill all Righteousness and that which was commanded but this was before he was offred up and was as a midle dispensation betwixt the ending of the Law and publishing of the Gospel yet howbeit Christ knew it and did speak of it at some time that those things that had been sometime commanded Deut. 12. 5. and was good as they stood related to the end wherefore they were commanded instance the Worship at Jerusalem and the service there and the place where God had promis'd to place his name yet Christ said as foreknowing the end of all the aforesaid Worship which appertained to that Covenant and therfore he said to the Woman Joh. 4. 23. but the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth for the Father seekes such to worship him and 24. vers God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth 2 Cor. 3. 17. From hence it is clearly evident for this was before he was offred up that then was the time that neither at Jerusalem nor in the Mountain of Samaria it shall be only said they worship the Father though at Jerusalem was the place Deut. 1. 1 2 5. of worship formerly and the Jewes held it then and the worship was that which was commanded to wit Sacrifices and Offrings and many other legal Services which belonged to them to perform according to the command of God and if swearing or oathes was any part of the service of God as in that Covenant as we with A. S. doth grant Deutr. 10. 20. You shall fear the Lord and serve him and swear by his name then I say that swearing amongst the rest of the worship is included but saith Christ neither at Jerusalem nor this Mountain but they that worship shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth so that the time was then but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled that both the place and the worship and service that belonged to the place they should no more worship the Father with and in but in the spirit and in the truth and this may be in answer to that which A. S. makes a great adoe with in his Book how that Christ said swear not at all it was before his death and therefore they that argue saith he that swearing was prohibited only and ended in Christs death cannot plead that all Oathes was prohibited but that command of Christ Mat. 5. because he spake this in his life time I say so did he this Jo. 20. 21 22 23. And he may as well argue that Christ destroyed the place of worship at Jerusalem and the Worship also and came not to fulfill it as he saith he did and why but because he spoke this before he was crucified and so did he swear not at all and why may not A. S. conclude with us that this is a commodious place to interpret and explain Christs meaning in those words in the 5th Mat. 23 and 24. and so the words may truly be understood thus yee have heard that it hath been said of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oathes Exod. 20. 7. and Deutr. 5. 11. but the hour cometh and now is when I say unto you that say more then the Law hath said swear not at all neither by Heaven nor by the Earth but let your yea be yea and your nay nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil and yet whatever may or can be said A. S. will need conclude that all swearing is not forbiden and why because it hath been the practise of holy Men and also an Angel this Argument is of little force so was it the practise of holy Men to offer Sacrifice and burn Incense and as for the swearing of the Angel Dan. 12. and Revel 10. 6. to prove the lawfulness of some swearing these hath been answered over and over and over again though A. S. will take no notice
yet notwithstanding many did still hold up these things which the Law commanded though they believed well of Christ yea and after his suffring and Resurerection and that a long time though that the Apostles told them the substance was come and that there was no more Offring for sin nor Oblations neither legal observations to be minded any more yet still many observed them and doubtless as to that formal swearing that was among the Jewes and that vain swearing too many did continue in it afterward notwithstanding Christs command but then not submitting made not his command void in it self and there is no necessity to make such an absurd interpretation as that he permitted them to swear for a year or two by Heaven and Earth and then at his passion to swear no more for after he gave forth the command there was no permission and yet afterward as I said the Apostles declared against the shadows and preached up the substance and as A. S. confesseth the types ceased of themselves but let him know that there was a time of dying to them and they ceased not all at once to them that had observed the Law neither was the Mysteries revealed all at once but as they grew in faith and knowledge for the Righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith and though the legal observations were observed in Christs time so were they after by many but by right ended in the substance and when he was come though many did not see it till afterward But I come to his 11th Argument Eleventh Argument no exposition of the text or any other is to be admitted that puts inconsistancy betwixt the Old Testament and the New seeing both are inspired by the same God who is incapable of falshood or alteration where upon if we be not so atheistical as to deny the varasity or immutability of the most high Tit. 1. 2. it must be granted that his word is of eternal truth Jam. 1. 17. his promises yea and amen his precepts more unalterable then the Lawes of the Medes and Persians nor did our Saviour come to destroy but to fulfill the Law thereupon he enjoynes obedience to the commands of the Pharisees as sitting in Moses chair Mat. 23. 2 3. from all which it is apparent that the Old Testament is so far from being contradicted that it is fully confirmed in the new therefore I may well draw this conclusion that these words swear not at all ought not to be interpreted as to render all svvearing unlawful Deut. 6. 13. psal 63. 11. not without promise of reward Jer. 12. 16. and it was prophesied before by Isaiah that Christians under the Gospel should swear Isaiah 19. 18. and 4. and 23. and I look upon it as a piece of Manichisme and extremely derogatory both to the Scripture and God himself therefore what moral duty one man was commended in the Law another should be condemned in the new Reply 'T is true no exposition of this text or any other is to be admitted that puts such a difference betwixt the old and new Testaments in matter of substance but shall agree with Austin the Law is the Gospel vailed and the Gospel is the Law revailed and what was prophesied and typefied in the first is fulfilled in the latter but what shall be thought of them that holds up the types and figures of the first as though they were not fulfilled or as though the promise were not come and he made manifest in whom all shadowes end and though God be unchangable in himself and incapable of falsehood or alteration and I know none who denies the varasity of his word or the immutability of the most high yet notwithstanding I cannot set up the changable Priesthood and Covenant and the Ordinances belonging thereunto against the unchangable and everlasting Priesthood and Covenant and as hath been said before as though that all the precepts therein were so unalterable as that of necessity they must needs continue as obligatory to generations I might truss up together many Scriptures and thwack them one on the back of another which belongs to the Jews and the first Covenant most properly till the Seed Christ was revealed and offred up and I might bring in Scripture to prove that many things was commanded by the immutable God and by him who is uncapable of alteration and multiply many words as A. S. doth to little purpose and say what was written in the Old Testament was by the inspiration of God and that his precepts is no more alterable then the Lawes of the Medes and Persians and therefore they must needs still be observed by all Christians to the worlds end or else conclude they that do not are atheistical and denies Gods varasity and makes the Law of God void and what would all this in arguing prove nothing at all the Jewes will confess as much and plead as hard as A. S. can who yet have not believed in him of whom the Prophets prophesied neither hath received him who is the substance of what Moses and the Prophets bore witness and in whom the Law is fulfilled and the Promises made good and confirmed with and in whom all the shadows ends and the vaile done away and all the worship and precepts belonging thereunto who hath manifested and revealed the Father in all that believe who is the new and living way whose worship is not now in the Letter nor in the shadows nor types nor in any outward observations but in spirit and truth is he worshipped for he seeketh such to worship him for the great promise of reward was to as ever was to swearing yet when they resisted him whom the Father had sent all their observances though never so strict did not avail but their Circumcision became Vncircumcision and their worship and service became prophaneness when they dispised the substance by whom grace and truth came to all the children of promise and we grant with A. S. that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and to end both sin and transgression and the Law which was added because of it and to bring in everlasting Righteousness and it to rule in the hearts of all that believe and against such there is no Law and though Christ enjoyned the Disciples Mat 23. to observe what the Scribes and Pharisees bad them who sat in Moses Chair and read the Law and performed those services in part commanded that was the time before he was offered up and the Ministration of that Covenant was not fully ended yet I hope A. S. with us will grant that they were not to heed them or to obey them in their vain Traditions and false glosses and interpretations and evil manners which he cryed wo against Mat. 23. 13 14. neither after his Resurrection did he enjoyne them to hear the Pharisees neither to observe the Legal Ordinances of the first Priesthood but they declared against them and their practice which continued in
out that command Swear not at all The reasons the very strength of them I have laid down as A. S. hath published them without varying from his own words the Answer thou may peruse and read without prejudice and weigh with the measure of Gods Spirit in thy self for unto that I appeal which is a more certain thing then Councils or Nations or Consent of multiâ—udes who hath the name of Christian and walks not in his Doctrine neither lives his life nor doth the things he saith I am shut up in a corner and have not that advantage that some opposers have of others labours as to bring Authors of divers Ages that denied to Swear though not only some there were but many but alas they are condemned already by A. S. and others for Phanaticks and Heteradox and so their sayings will seem of less force but however I have not much striven neither shall to fetch things from far in the Apostacy but rest in that which makes all things evident even the spirit of God in thy own heart and the Scriptures of Truth which was spoken by the Spirit which are so clear unto many that there needs not multitude of words to demonstrate this truth of the prohibition of all Oaths among true Christians but I shall not detain thee from the matter it self and the Lord give thee an understanding F H. Oathes no Gospel Ordinance but prohibited by Christ. THere being a Book lately published by A. Smalwood D. D. as I understand Doctor of Divinity first preached in a Sermon at Carlile I suppose before the Judges at the Assizes then holden the 17 th day of August 1664. since which I perceive many Additions by reasons and paraphrases are added thereunto and printed at York In which Discourse he hath vindicated the lawfulness of Swearing under the Gospel and hath gone about to prove it by many reasons and Authors how that Christ upon that subject Mat. 5. 34. Swear not at all did not intend an absolute universal prohibition of all manner of swearing under the Gospel which Book of his I have perused with an upright heart and an impartial eye seriously to the end I might own that which is good in it not as one being glued to an opinion or judgment but what as carries demonstration of truth with it upon my conscience and in my heart it being a principle well known and believed amongst us to have our consciences void of offence towards God and towards Man and seeing my self and many more are great sufferers at this day upon this very account which I look upon being truly and conscientiously grounded upon the Doctrine of Christ and consonant to the Primitive Christians and seeing so large things have been written by other hands in asserting the truth of what we have believed which yet stands as a witness unto the Doctrine of Christ notwithstanding all opposition and gain-saying that it hath had by many hands I could have been wholly silent and have refered all that have been said to the judgment of the Lord and to that of God in every Mans conscience but that I perceive A. Smalwood hath rendred that People which I own in judgment and practise to be in error and hath greatly gain-sayed and villified all such as ever did or do deny Swearing upon never so conscientious account as erroneous and as only sprung from the Pelagian Heresie and Manacheus and I know not who and have rendred all with reproach and disdain as Phanaticks who discent from him with disdainful and reproachful names to represent us as odious as may be to the Magistrate and at such a time as this when tender and conscientious people who fear the Lord in their hearts and desires to live and be at peace and seeks it with all Men are sufferers and great sufferers too upon this very account whereby many are stired up to more persecution and wrath against us and besides this Discourse it seemes is cryed up as the most exquisite that ever was or can be and as unanswerable and that we who deny to swear would abolish all judicable proceedings and make them nothing this Discourse is printed as A. S. in his 12. page sayes to induce us to forsake so irrational an opinion and to convince us of our error and it seemes he himself besides many other exspects it must effect some great matter Reply I say all these things being considered was a strong inducement to me to write something in reply thereunto though in very deed I love not contention neither strife about words but seeing it is the Doctrine of Christ and that which hath been and is stedfastly believed by divers faithful Professors and sufferers both formerly and now however by A. Smalwood accounted and reproached by that disdainful name of Phanaticks a word lately invented in the Pit of Darkness where many of those and the like reproaches come from I was engaged in my heart to hear my testimony against this said Book and for the truth of Christs Doctrine not out of obstinacy and wilfulness but in duty as by conscience to God and his truth which is dearer to me then my outward liberty or all I have to loose for it which I and many more at this day choose rather to suffer then to be found violating the commands of Christ or deny that which I have stedfastly believed being perswaded thereunto by the spirit of the Lord and evidence of the Scripture of truth The subject A. Smalwood hath taken to treat upon and in the end to gain-say and pervert are no less then Christs own Doctrine Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all who would have believed or thought that one who accounts himself a Doctor a Divine and a Minister of Christ should choose Christs own words to plead against Christ and them that do abide in his Doctrine or that ever any should go about to prove swearing lawful from these words in Gospel times or that swearing is not forbiden but what would not this Man encounter with or what would not he oppose if he have but the power of this World on his side it is a small thing to gain-say what we say and pervert our words and make them seem erroneous and to make our intentions one thing and our words another when he is so bold as to make Christs Doctrine his express words Swear not at all and his intentions contrary to his words what do we judg of a Man that speaks one thing and intends another it's fearful to think what conclusions some will make to carry on their intended designes but me thinks A. S. might have been more considerate then to have taken Christs own Doctrine and words to oppose Christs intention or to be so bold as to assert the intention of Christ was otherwise then his words import but rather have chosen some other subject but what matter makes many of subjects for with a consequence or two and a little
latitude and morality thereof did require or for which it was given His sixth Argument is That either these words Swear not at all must be interpreted as not to forbid any oath though taken upon just occasion or else Paul never knew the meaning of this text or else contrary to his knowledge and that upon good deliberation he acted against it and that in these very writings wherein we all believe that he was infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost for his Oaths saith A. S. are upon record 1 Thes. 2. 5. God is witness see Rom. 1. 9. Now to call God to witness is the very substance of an oath saith A. S. and as Austin tells him and he says he hath not read of any of a contrary opinion except some Phanaticks which if they would yield to as much as Paul saith God is witness of the truth of their assertions it might be wished out of condescention to their weakness that they might be dispensed withal if the Law would give leave as to the external formality of an Oath Ans. What A. S. will call a just â—ccasion I know not it appears to me he would have a large compasse and a larger then the most contenders against Christs Doctrine that we have met with or what he will account a just occasion I know not though otherwise he seem to condemn sometimes needless and vain oaths in ordinary communication though I know some without reflection upon A. S. who uses them too too frequently and are not only members but Pastours so called of the Church of England and though he seems in his Discourse here and there to be against customary and vain oaths yet for all that what he calls a just occasion upon some ground some calls it a needful occasion when they are called before a Magistrate and some when any business is in controversie betwixt man and man calls it a just occasion where sometimes I have seen a Curate administer that which he called an oath upon a Book what ground he had I suspect either from Commandement or example of Primitive Ministers is certain he had none but it may be A. S. will conclude it was upon a just occasion but what compass he will have for his just occasion is doubtful seeing he hath put no termination or end to it but for ought I can perceive would leave liberty for every man to exact an oath upon another when he would and call it a just occasion and account it a point of duty in the other to obey even in ordinary communication And as for St. Paul we deny thy Argument as that he never knew the meaning of this Text of Christs prohibition secondly that in his Writings he acted contrary to his knowledge and upon set deliberation for though God was his witness whom he served with his Spirit in the Gospel of his Son that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my Prayers Also that which A. S. calls an oath 1 Thes. 2. 5. For neither at any time used we flattering words as ye know for a cloak of covetousness God is witness Though we know and infallibly believe with A. S. that he was infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost when he published the Gospel of Christ among the Gentiles and wrote both unto the Jewes and to the Gentiles who believed that his calling God to witness was not any oath neither was there any necessity or just occasion whatever A. S. may call just occasion we cannot for he hath left such a great compass for himself to turn in though here and there he seem to disallow of customary oaths and frequent oaths yet notwithstanding his Discourse rather tends to an allowance of swearing frequently and unnecessarily for we reckon it to be a piece of ordinary communication for a Christian Minister to write a Letter of admonition or exhortation or an Epistle unto the believing hearers and that there is no necessity of Oaths in such a discourse for what ever A. S. sayes this would make the Apostle guilty of frequent and unnecessary and common swearing which we are far from believing for asmuch as they that did believe through the word of life declared by the spirit of God in him neither through his Epistles written being assisted by the Holy Ghost they were not like to believe him for swearing if he had sworn but saith A. S. if his words had really been believed which he spoke and wrote what occasion would there have been for him to have written so to the Romans Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ I lie not The Apostle knew what occasion he had to speak these words and the occasion was this that the Jewes sought to be justified by the Righteousness of the Law and by the works thereof and would need look upon themselves as the Children of God because they were of the stock of Abraham according to the flesh but the Apostle knew and also gave them to understand that the Children of the promise was counted for the Seed and again for they are not all Israel which are of Israel Rom. 9. 6 7 8. And thus he spake truth unto them as it was revealed by Christ whom the Father had revealed in him and why might he not say I speak the truth in Christ seeing that Christ was in him and he in him I lie not my Conscience also bears me witness in the Holy Ghost he might also as well say that Paul swore by his Conscience seeing that he took it for a witness away away with such perverting and straining of the Scripture beyond and beside the mind of the Holy Ghost for God is witness and I say the truth in Christ they are no more then ardent and zealous or fervent expressions as the spirit of God at several times did stir up in his heart both to speak and write for the end that they unto whom he spoke or wrote might believe and therefore we conclude not as A. S. would needs have it that the Apostle spoke these fervent words unnecessarily for we know and see his end and purpose was good and therefore he spoke with fervency and with boldness the spirit of the Lord bearing witness in his conscience that he spoke the truth which we are far from believing is either juration or abjuration and for ought can be perceived by A. S. disdainful spirit all that doth dissent from him in his opinion he calls Phanaticks and Paul shall hardly go free nor divers of the ancient Fathers as Orgen Chrysostome Jerome Theophilact and others who denyed not only swearing in private conversation but to swear at all but now these must be called Phanaticks who dissent from all Men but themselves by A. S. and such as he who sails with wind and tide and exalteth and applaudeth that which hath praise amongst men and hath not the praise of God and so the last of all he makes this conclusion that so help me God is the most
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