Arg. 1.

The first Argument (as it is stated by A. S. in his Reply to F. H. his Book intituled, Oaths no Gospel. Ordinance, &c.) is,

The Argument runs thus:

Answer.

And in the first place, I say, the Argument in this Case is not fairly stated.

Secondly, That there is a difference between the Law of God which was and is eternal, and so unchangeable, as the Will of God in itself is; and the Commands of God under the Law, which was given to the People of Israel for a time onely, and so were temporary, to wit, till the Seed came to whom the promise was made, Gal. 3 19. to be a Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith, Gal. 3.24. But after the saith was come, they were no longer (by Gods ordination) to be under the Schoolmaster, vers. 25. So that when Christ the Seed, to whom the promise was made, was come, &c had fulfilled all that was written concerning him in the Law, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, the Law of Commandments that was not of faith, Gal. 3.12. was to be taken out of the way, the end for which it was given being accomplished, according to the will of God. So that although God the Father commanded Swearing under the Law, till Christ the true and faithful Witness was made manifest in the flesh, and re­stored the true Witness-bearing, as it was in the beginning before Swearing was, unto his Disciples, whom he had chosen out of the World to be his Witnesses; and that Christ Jesus the Son of God [Page 19] in that Precept, Swear not at all, did forbid all Swearing to his Disciples; yet there neither was, nor is any mutability or change in the Will of God, nor contrariety in the Will of the Son, to the Will of his Father; for what the Son did command, it was accor­ding to the Will of, and what he received of his Father: Now that Swearing was commanded by the Law A. S. confesseth; And that an Oath and Swearing was to pass away, or to be taken out of the way when the true Witness and Witness-bearing (was made manifest) which was before any Oath or Swearing was, is before fully manifested: So that the Argument in this case truly stated, runs thus; That what God the Father did command to his People Israel only for a time, and for such an end; the time being fully come, and the end accomplished, the Command so given, is no longer of force, nor obligatory. And therefore, there is in this case, no con­trariety or mutability in the Will of the Father, nor contrariety in the Will of the Son of God, to the Will of his Father, in that Command, Swear not at all: That Command of God the Father, Deut. 6.13. which was temporary, being according to the Will of God, first taken out of the way, That the Command of Christ, Mat. 5.34. might be established for ever, according to Heb. 10.9. He taketh away the first, that he might establish the second. And the Prophesie, Psal. 108. Judah is my Law-giver. That so the servant, who was not by God's appointment to abide in the house for ever, might give place to the Son, who is to abide in the house for e­ver: And that God the Father did give several Commands only to be observed and to continue for a time without any mutability in his Will, is evident from the testimony of the Scriptures of Truth; As Gen. 22.2. where the Lord commanded Abram to take his only son Isaac and offer him for a burnt offering, &c. And in vers. 12. the Lord commanded him not to lay his hand upon the Child, neither do any thing unto him: And Mat. 2.13. Ioseph was commanded, to take the Babe, and his Mother, and flee into Egypt, and be there till (mark) I bring thee word, &c. And in vers. 19. When Herod was dead, he was commanded to take the Babe and his Mother, and go into the Land of Israel: And yet there was no change or contrariety in the Will of God, although there was se­veral and contrary Commands, the one, To flee into Egypt; and [Page 20] the other, To return into the Land of Israel: So likewise, Gal. 4.1, 2, &c. it's said, That the Heir, as long as he is a Child, differeth nothing from a Servant, though he be Lord of all; but is under Tutors and Governors, until the time appointed of the Father. By which it is evident, That though Israel according to the Will of God was to be under the Law, which was not of Faith, for a time as a ser­vant; yet it was never the Will of God their condition should alwayes be so, but only until the time appointed: which time being come, they were to be freed from that Law, that they might receive the adoption of sons: For although the Lord had forbidden Moses, and all others, to add any thing to, or diminish any thing from what was written in the Law; yet He had not limitted him­self but that he might add to, or take from what he had given in command and that without any mutability in his Will: And if the Father at sundry times did give forth several Commands, and that contrary one to another, without any mutability in his Will (in that sense which A.S. doth affirm) Then the Son, who doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; did not give forth that Com­mand, Swear not at all, contrary to, but in obedience to the Will of his Father: For although the words of the Commands, Mat. 5.34. and Deut. 6.13. in themselves are contrary, yet the Will of the Father, and the Son, was in perfect unity, without any con­trariety: But the contrariety is in that mind that is Carnal, and therefore neither is, nor can be subject to the Law of God, Rom. 8.7. which being in the Spirit, is Spiritual and Eternal, and not Moral.

So that such now whose minds are alienated from the Light and Life of God, are ignorant of the Righteousness of God, as the Jews formerly were, who had Moses read in their Synago­gues every Sabbath day (for where Moses is read, the vail is upon the heart to this day, 2 Cor. 3.15.) so that such do not see now, no more than the Jews did then, the end of that which is abo­lished: Nevertheless now as then, all whose minds are turned to the Lord, and believe in his Light that shines in their hearts for to give unto them the Knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and of the Law in the Spirit, written not in tables of stone, but in the heart; which Law was before the Law of Moses [Page 21] was written, or any vail was. They in the Light Eternal see the end of the Law, which was not of Faith; and the Law abolished, under which an Oath for confirmation was to be unto them that were under it, an end of all controversie and strife: And also in the Light that was before any Oath or Swearing was, they see and know the true and faithful Witness, Christ Jesus in them, from whom all true Witness-bearing is; and so the true Witness-bear­ing, as it was in the beginning, which no Vail, Shadow, or na­tural Light can discern, 1 Cor. 2.14. And thus all who do the Will of God by believing in him whom God hath sent, they come to know Christs Doctrine, Swear not at all, to be his that sent him, to be a Light to the Gentiles, and the Glory to his People Israel. And is it equal, O ye sons of men, That those whose eyes God hath opened, and unto whom God hath given the Light of Eternal Life, that they should be compelled to walk by the same guide, the blind are led by, in their witness-bearing? Would it not be a thing unreasonable, for to require him who hath his per­fect sight, when the Sun shines to shew him his way, to require him to have a man take him by the hand and lead him on his way, as the natural blind are led? Hath not the Lord in all Ages put a difference betwixt them that feared his Name, and trembled at his Word, and those that feared him not, but walked after the stub­bornness of their own hearts, and after their own inventions? And if the Lord hath so done, and so doth, ought not all those who are his Ministers upon Earth, to do the like?

But A.S. further saith, That Oaths are commanded by the Mo­ral Law, and that the Ten Commandments are the summary of it: And doth grant, That Oaths are no Gospel Ordinance. And also saith, That our Saviour came not to destroy, but fulfil the Moral Law; And therefore Swearing, being enjoyned by the Moral Law, must be now of as much force as ever it was. He also affirmeth, That Christ did not abolish the Iudicial and Ceremonial Law, once commanded by God; because the one was peculiarly given to the Iews, and so concerns us not at all: And the other was temporary, expiring at Christ's Death, &c.

Answ. The words, Law, Covenant, and Testament, are gene­ral and comprehensive words; every of them including or com­prehending [Page 22] in themselves, all the Words, Sentences, Gifts, Or­dinances, or Precepts, that was required, and commanded the People of Israel by the Lord at that time; And therefore ought not to be limited by man, or distinguished into Morals, Judici­als, and Ceremonials, as thereby to lessen the Authority of one, to set up another above it, after the Rudiments of the World, and not after Christ; who saith, He that shall break one of the least of the Commands, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 5.19. And it's written, Deut. 27, 26. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3.10. And Christ came not only to fulfil, this or that part of the Law, but the whole Law; yea, every iote and title, that then was written, Mat. 5.18. Neither is he said to be the end of this or that part (whether by men called Moral, Judicial, or Ceremonial; for the Spirit of the Lord hath made no such distinctions of the Law) but of the Law in gene­ral, yea all that was written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him, Luke 24.44. And as the Law was fulfilled, it was to pass away, or to be taken out of the way, the end being accomplished for which it was given: And being abolished, Eph. 2.15. abrogated and disanulled, Heb. 8.13. and taken away, or out of the way, Heb. 10.9. Col. 2.14. 2 Cor. 3.7, 11. The Law or Power of the endless Life, the Law of the Spi­rit and of Faith; which is not Moral, but Spiritual and Eternal, the new Covenant or Testament which is unchangeable, the Righ­teousness of God (without the Law in the letter) was and is ma­nifested in the heart, to do thereafter, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, Rom. 3.21. Ier. 31.33. Heb. 8.10. accor­ding to the Promise of God; That so the blessing of Abram might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that they together with the Jews, to whom the Law in the letter was peculiarly gi­ven, might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith, Gal. 3.14. Rom. 4.16.

And whereas A. S. faith, That Christ did not abolish the Iudicial and Ceremonial Law, once commanded by God, because the one was peculiarly given to the Iews; and the other was temporary, expiring at Christs Death.

Answ. If Christ did not abolish the Judicial nor Ceremonial Law, as they are called and distinguished by A. S. Then it must needs follow, and be granted; That Christ did abolish, abrogate, disanul, take away, or out of the way, the Law which A. S. calls Moral; or else Christ abolished no Law at all: But it is evident from the plain testimony of the Scriptures of Truth before menti­oned, Eph. 2.15. Heb. 8.13. & 10.9. Col. 2.14. 2 Cor. 3.7, 11. That Jesus Christ did abolish, abrogate, disannul, take away, or out of the way, the Law of Commandments contained in the Law written, the old or first Covenant or Testament, the hand­writing of Ordinances, the Ministration of Death written with letters, and engraven in stones; And therefore, If Christ (as A. S. hath affirmed) did not abolish the Judicial and Ceremoni­al Laws; Then, as is before said, it must of necessity follow and be concluded, That Christ Jesus did abolish, abrogate, disannul, take away, or out of the way that Law which A. S. calls Moral: For the Scriptures testimony in the places before mentioned; are either true or false. To say they are false, is blasphemy; because they were written by Divine Inspiration, and the infallible gui­dance of the Spirit of Truth: And therefore being true; Then that Law (which A. S. calls Moral, of which he also affirmeth an Oath and Swearing to be a part, or required by) was by Christ abolished, abrogated, disannulled, taken away or out out of the way: And the Law by which Swearing was commanded being abolished, All Oaths and Swearing commanded or required by that Law, must of necessity be abolished with the Law. Now these things being so, All the Arguments and Distinctions, with all the Conclusions and clouds of Witnesses that A. S. hath laid down, made and brought in, to prove the lawfulness of some Swearing now under the Gospel, from the Authority of the Mo­ral Law, as he calls it, are made void, and are become of none effect. And therefore A. S. is worthy of blame, in affirming so confidently, That if Swearing be enjoyned by the Moral Law, it must be of as much force now as ever: And it may be of concern to A. S. before he begin his History of Oaths, that he find out some other Law of God, than that he call Moral, to ground the lawfulness of Oaths upon, lest he build upon a sandy Foundation; [Page 24] and so labour in vain; For himself acknowledgeth (in pag. 303. of his Reply to F.H.) it was a certain truth, That Christ gave no new Command in matters of Oaths, nor in any other, more than what was formerly enjoyned in the Moral Law. And besides, in his Epistle to the Reader, he saith, That no Orthodox man had e­ver said, That Oaths were ever any Gospel Ordinance, (or to that effect) but on the contrary their Tenent is, That they are com­manded in the Moral Law; which Law being abolished (as be­fore is proved) by Christ, and no other Law of God being found that requires Swearing under the Gospel; but on the contrary, a positive Law of Christ given to his Disciples, Not to swear at all; It cannot be of any service to the Lord, or his People, to write such a History: But rather to exhort People to mind the fear of the Lord, and to have a regard to all his Commands, which being in the Spirit, that helps the infirm, are not grievous; and to walk in the Light of the Lord, that they may have no occasion of stum­bling at the Command of Christ, Swear not at all. For as it were a sin, to deny obedience to any Ordinance or Command of God in its time; even so it is a sin also, for any to use or practise any Command of God as a part of his worship & service, for any o­ther end, or longer time, that it was given for, or ordained by God. Which Errour, Christians have justly condemned in the Jews, for holding up for Ordinances and Commands of God (Circumcision, Passeover, Temple, the seventh Day Sabbath, and many other things required and commanded by God in the Law, or first Testament, as Oaths and Swearing was under the first Te­stament commanded the Jews) after that Christ Jesus was ascen­ded to his Father, and had sent the Spirit of Truth to lead his Dis­ciples into all Truth; which Truth being the substance of all Oaths, Shadows, Types, Figures, and Signs, that were under the Law, which had but a shadow of the good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. Which when David in the Light of the Lord, had manifested to him (he being a Prophet) in which Light he saw Light, even the Law, whereof the Lord had said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2.7. He then said (having seen the end of that which was to be abolished) that in burnt Offerings and Sacrifices the Lord took no delight, neither had pleasure [Page 25] therein; Sacrifice and Offerings, thou wouldest not, but a body hast ordained me; in Offerings and Sin Offerings thou hast no pleasure, Heb. 10.5, 6. So that although such as do not the Will of God, do not see the end of that which is abolished, neither know Christs Doctrine; yet all who do believe in him, whom God hath sent a Light into the World, they know the Doctrine of Christ, Swear not at all, to be of God, and according to godliness, Iob. 7.16, 17.

But to proceed to A. S. his second Argument, which runs thus;

Arg. 2.

Answ. God is not now, nor ever was glorified in an especial manner by his Creatures, but as they did and do obey his Com­mands, and so do the thing he requireth of them: As it's written, Obedience is better than Sacrifice, and to do the will of God is better than the fat of Rams. And although it be granted that some Swea­ring under the Law did tend to the glory of God, as done in obe­dience to his requiring; yet it doth not follow that now under the Gospel, any swearing doth tend in an especial manner to the glory of God; because the Law in or by which it was commanded, as be­fore is proved, is abolished; and swearing now forbidden by Christ, Mat. 5.34. to all his Disciples. And again, as hath been before proved, Swearing was never any essential part of the worship of God in Spirit and Truth, because it was not any part of the Law Eternal, neither in the beginning with God, nor originally of him; as the true witness-bearing was. And therefore swearing under the Gospel, not being required, but forbidden by Christ, without whom no man can glorifie God, doth not tend in an espe­cial manner to the glory of God, as the true witness-bearing doth; so that this Argument, and the conclusion thereupon made, is of no force, to prove any swearing to tend in an especial manner [Page 26] to the glory of God: But to do truth, confess the truth, and to speak the truth in witness-bearing, or in our communications, doth not only tend to the glory of God, but also to the benefit of our Neighbour; and is therefore acceptable unto God, and pro­fitable unto Men.

And so I proceed to the third Argument, which is this,

Arg. 3.

Answ. This Argument is framed much like the question put to Christ, concerning the man that was blind from his birth; Who did sin, this man or his Parents, that he was born blind? To which question, Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his Pa­rents; but that the work of God might be made manifest. So I may say, What if Christ forbad swearing, neither because it was re­pugnant to our duty to God, nor to our Neighbour; but that the Work, Power, and Will of God might be made manifest in and by Christ, and to make known unto his Disciples, That all power in Heaven and Earth was committed unto him, Mat. 28.18. And that as he had power to take away, He had also power to give, alter, and change Laws, the Government being laid upon his shoulders, Isa. 9.6. to whom also all Judgment was committed. But for further Answer, I say, whatever is acted by man as an essential part of the worship and service of God, which the Lord doth not require, is repugnant to our duty to God, and so hath the Lord testified in all ages, as appears Gen. 4.5. Isa. 58. Ier. 14.11, 12, 13. Isa. 1.10, &c. Mat. 15.8, 9. But swearing under the Gospel, the Lord hath not required, but forbidden, as before is proved: There­fore it is repugnant to our duty to God (whom we are to obey, and our superiours in him, and for him) and being repugnant to our duty to God, it cannot be truly advantagious to our Neigh­bours, [Page 27] whom we are to love as our selves. Again, there is nothing of advantage can accrue to our Neighbour by swearing, which true witness-bearing doth not fully supply where it is received: Nay, there is much more surety to our Neighbour by true witness-bear­ing (than by swearing) because a true witness will not lye.

The fourth Argument is thus formed:

Arg. 4.

Answ. That Christ intended what he said, I hope no Christi­an will deny: And that those words, Swear not at all, were spoken by Christ, and are in themselves a prohibition of all swearing whatsoever, is evident: And that they were spoken by Christ (not by way of compliance with what had been said before to them of old time) but in the contrary thereof, is apparent by the words; But I say unto you, Swear not at all: Which words, if they signifie nothing but what was before said, Then should they not only be to no purpose, but hurtful, by making the case of swearing more dark and questionable than it was before under the Law: which for any man to affirm, were a great injury to Christ Jesus, the Wisdom of God; And therefore Christ having spoken all those words, But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c. And that in the contrary of what was said before, as the word but, (and the words) not at all, do import: It is manifest that Christ did in that command, Swear not at all, forbid somewhat that was not for­bidden by the Law: And consequently, all swearing whatsoever, whether by the Lord, or by the Creatures; And that Christ added neither by Heaven, the Earth, Jerusalem, the Head, they being the chiefest of the visible Creatures, all the other creatures being the lesser or inferiour are included, the greater comprehending the less; so that the words following, and precedent, are all signifi­cant and useful: For being the words of Christ, not any of them are to be rejected; but all and every word established: And there­fore it were more beseeming Christians, to give all diligence to observe the Law, and Command of Christ; then to invent and frame Arguments against his words, which are in themselves plain, and have no ambiguity in them; and being so according to the [Page 28] rule, when in words there is no ambiguity, there no Exposition is to be made against the words expressed: For in doubtful speech we utter not a doubtful sence, but only that which we mean; Therefore, he which speaketh one thing, and meaneth another, neither doth he utter that which the word signifieth, because he meaneth not so, neither that which he meaneth, because he spea­keth it not: Which for any man to affirm of the words of Christ, Swear not at all, were, as before is said, a great injury to Christ, the Wisdom of God, and to the Spirit of Truth, from which the Scrip­tures of Truth were given forth. All which words of Christ be­ing in themselves prohibitions of Swearing, and no exceptions (as the words of Christ in the case of Divorcement were, where it's said, Except for the cause of Fornication) do the more confirm and illustrate the extent of the Command. And being the words of Christ, the Wisdom of God, they are neither vain nor imperti­nent, No more than those words in the fourth Commandment, In it thou shalt do no manner of work, nor thy Son, &c. All which were included in those general words before-going, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy: Or the enumerating all those words written in the Tables of Stone, which were all briefly compre­hended in those few words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart; 'And thy Neighbour as thy self. And yet the Wisdom of God, which is wiser than men, knowing whereof we, as men, have need, spoke all those words in the Law. And where the Law-giver hath made no exception, he to whom the Law is given ought not. And so I conclude, That the Law of Christ, Swear not at all, is perfect, and a full prohibition of all swearing unto his Dis­ciples; and being perfect, no man ought to add any thing there­unto, or diminish any thing from it. And so I proceed to the fifth Argument.

Arg. 5.

Answ. The thing in Dispute is not, Whether Christ did ever forbid any thing that was not of it self evil? But, whether Christ [Page 29] hath forbidden all Swearing? Which that Christ hath forbidden all swearing, his own words (which are the interpreters of the heart) do prove. And one single testimony of the Scriptures of Truth, is of more strength than a thousand surmises, or meer hu­mane witnesses. And therefore Swearing being forbidden by Christ, Mat. 5.34. it is the duty of Christians to apply themselves to yield obedience to his Command, and not to frame Arguments to evade the same, or to ask a Reason wherefore he so did: And yet we read, That God commanded Circumcision and Sacrifices, which in themselves are not evil, and yet forbidden in the New Covenant: And we also read, That God forbad Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; which Tree and its Fruit of themselves, were not intrinsically evil. And the use of se­veral other Creatures, under the Law, was forbidden the People of Israel. And what God the Father did forbid, it was by his Word; And Christ, the Word and Power of God, he forbid his Disciples to go into the way of the Gentiles, and not to enter in­to any of the Cities of the Samaritans, Mat. 10.5. And he charged his Disciples they should tell the Vision to no man, until, &c. Mat. 17. 9. And that they should call no man Master upon the Earth, Mat. 23. 9. None of which of themselves were intrinsically evil. But that which concerns us as Christians, and so under the Law of Christ, is not so much to enquire, whether or no, such a thing be good in or of it self; But whether or no it be good for us to pra­ctice, yea or nay? For, as said the Apostle, What is not of Faith is Sin: And therefore, that is good for Christians to do, which the Lord requires of them. But to proceed to the sixth Argument; the force whereof is this:

Arg. 6.

Answ. That the Apostle Paul did know the mind of Christ, in that Precept, Swear not at all, is believed: But that he acted con­trary [Page 30] contrary thereto, when he said, God is my witness, or called God to witness, is denied: For as he knew Christ had forbidden all swea­ring, he also knew that Christ was the true and faithful Witness, the first and the last, and came to restore the true witness-bearing as at the first (which was and is the Righteousness of the Law of Oaths:) And the Apostle being an able Minister of the Spirit, not of the Letter, he was come to see the End of that which was abolished, and preached the everlasting Gospel, the word of Faith, which was and is the Word of Truth, the Author of true witness-bearing, which was before any Oath or Swearing was. And so as Christ, his Lord and Master had done before, when he said unto Pilate, For this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the Truth, Joh. 18.37. He in obedience to his Lord and Master, did bear witness to, and of the Truth: And in witness-bearing did (as the Servants of the Lord do) call God to witness, or appeal to the witness of God in men, concer­ning the truth of what he declared, without observing any set forms of words: And as Sarai had done before, when she said unto A­bram, The Lord judge betwixt thee and me; yet did not swear at all.

But A. S. saith, That calling God to witness, is a formal Oath [...] because there is an attestation of the Name of God.

Answ. That the Name of God was used in witness-bearing, be­fore any Oath or Swearing was, doth appear Gen. 3.3. where Eve before the Fall, in witness-bearing, used the Name of God, when she said, God hath said, Ye shall not eat, &c. yet did not swear at all. And Sarai after the Fall did use an attestation of the Name of God in witness-bearing, when she said unto Abram, The Lord judge be­twixt thee and me, Gen. 16.5. and yet Sarai did not swear at all in so doing. And therefore the calling of God to witness, or say­ing, God is my witness, &c. without adding of somewhat more, is neither Oath nor Swearing. For if such attestations; or mentio­ning the Name of God, without somewhat more, were swearing, then it would follow, That People did swear oftentimes in their Prayers; As when they use that expression, Oh God the Father of Heaven, &c. O God make haste to help us, Amen, Amen, &c. which for any to affirm, were a great injury to the People. Again, If a bare attestation of the Name of God, by what terms soever ex­pressed, were an Oath and Swearing, without adding of some what [Page 31] more, Then would the Magistrates in Judicial proceedings in cases where an Oath and Swearing is by the Law required, receive such Attestations of the Name of God, without denying them for Oaths and Swearing. But such Attestations, or the like, without adding somewhat more, is denied by the Magistrates in Judi­cial proceedings, &c. Therefore they are no formal or legal Oaths without addition of somewhat more; which somewhat more, being more than yea and nay, cometh of evil. For it must be con­fessed (and it is the chiefest ground, or cause, that is alleadged for the lawfulness of some swearing under the Gospel, that it is ne­cessary for the ending of Controversies and Strife in Judicial pro­ceedings, &c.) That if an Oath or Swearing were lawful in any case whatsoever, it must be in Judicial proceedings, &c. And I do not find in the Scriptures of Truth, That any Oath was lawful, but in such proceedings, or the like emergent occasions: All vain, and prosane Oaths being forbidden by the Law: And as the lawful use of Oaths under the Law, was in legal or judicial pro­ceedings; so the definition or determination of what was a legal Oath or Swearing, and what was neither Oath nor Swearing, was by the Law, and the Ministers of it, and not by private or parti­cular men: For at this day, there are several kinds or forms of Oaths required by the National Laws; And yet the bare Attesta­tion of the Name of God, without addition of somewhat more, is not answerable to any of them, neither doth fully answer the requiring of the Law, as the daily practise of the Law in the Courts of Judicature doth manifest, which practice doth declare what a legal Oath is in the judgment of the National Laws: And for illegal Oaths, A. S. I hope will not contend. By which Laws also it doth appear, That the Law doth put a difference betwixt an Oath or Swearing, and Witness-bearing; and doth not con­found them together, as many men do. As for instance in one particular, When a Party, or a Witness doth appear to answer a Libel, or to give Evidence in the Ecclesiastical Courts; upon his Appearance in the Court, he is required to take his Oath; and then the Book being held, the Party having laid his hand there­upon; some words being spoken to him by the Judge of the Court, and after the Party having kissed the Book, then is the Party said to be Sworn, or to have taken his Oath. And being so Sworn, he [Page 32] is admonished to give in his Answer, or his Evidence, as the Case is, at or before such a time; so that the Evidence after given in­to the Court, is the Witness-bearing (and not the Oath): which Evidence, or Answer (as the Case requires) if he neglect or re­fuse to give, he is proceeded against for refusing to give his Evi­dence, or Answer: And not as one that refuseth to Swear or take an Oath, he having Sworn or taken his Oath before; which Evi­dence, if given, is the Witness-bearing, and not the Oath. For if he refuse to swear, he is proceeded against for refusing to swear, although he offer to give his Evidence without swearing. So that the Evidence is the witness-bearing, and not the Oath; By which it doth appear, That an Oath is in, and of it self, a distinct thing from Witness-bearing (which was before any Oaths was) and is but a Bond or Tye for true Witness-bearing, and not the substance: For when the Evidence is given, if what is Evidenced be false, the Oath taken before or after, doth not make it true; And if it be truth that is Evidenced, the refusing to take or add an Oath, or give a Token, Sign, or Pledge, doth not detract any thing from it. By which it may appear to the unprejudiced in mind, That the laying aside of an Oath and Swearing (which was added for a time under the Law in witness-bearing, because men had trans­gressed or gone from the Truth of God, which was in the begin­ning, before any Oath was) in witness-bearing, is not to destroy true witness-bearing, but the reducing it to its primitive purity, as it was in the beginning. So that the true Witness, Christ Jesus, being made manifest, all that believe in him and receive him, to them he gives power to become the Sons of God; and by his Spirit (which is Truth, and leads into all Truth) he enableth them, to do the Truth, confess the Truth, and speak the Truth from the heart unto their Neighbour, or before a Magistrate in witness-bearing; as it's written, A good man, out of the good trea­sure in his heart, he bringeth forth good things. So that our Neigh­bour, if he receive our Testimony, being Truth, he is not damni­fied by us; although we may not Swear at all, or give him any outward sign, or pledge, which cannot add any thing in Truth to the Truth which we are willing and free to bear Witness of, and unto, upon any just occasion; Neither can the Magistrate be more assured of the Truth of what is Evidenced, by an Oath, than by a [Page 33] bare Affirmation: For as the one, so the other may be true or false: Again, I say, That not only our Neighbour is not preju­diced by us (because we may not add any sign, token, or pledge, to the Truth which we bear witness of and to) but he is by true witness-bearing more advantaged, than he is or can be by Swearing (when the Evidence born is not true) which neither is, nor ever was of the essence of true witness-bearing; Because true witness-bearing was before any Oath or Swearing was: For there may be and hath been many times Oaths and Swearing in Judicial Pro­ceedings, when the Evidence given upon such Oaths have not been true, but false; and so men thereby have and do suffer pre­judice. But when and where true witness is born and received, although an Oath be denied, or not given; yet hereby men are ad­vantaged and receive benefit, and no prejudice at all; for where a true Testimony is born, there none ever did or can thereby re­ceive loss. Again, Christ Jesus being come to restore and esta­blish everlasting Righteousness in the new Covenant that is fault­less, and so unchangable; And Oaths and Searing not being faultless, and so changeable; not being from everlasting, but added for a time, because of transgression, as is before said: It was ex­pedient that all Swearing, with those things under the first Cove­nant, should be taken away, that were things in themselves chang­able, and might be shaken; to the end, that true witness-bearing which could not be shaken, might be established in the House of God for ever. So that although, where Moses or the Old Testa­ment is read, an Oath and Swearing, as a Vail, remains to this day undone away; yet nevertheless, all whose hearts and minds are turned to the Lord, in the Light that was before any Avail or Oath was, they see and witness the End of that which is aboli­shed: for, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, 2 Cor. 3. And therefore the Apostle Paul (having seen and wit­nessed the removing of those things which might be shaken, and knowing that when that which was perfect was come, that which was but in part was to be done away) he in witness-bearing said, God is my witness, I speak the Truth in Christ, I lye not, &c. without adding any outward token, sign, or pledge; or observing any form of words at all: So that as he himself said, He became as without [Page 34] Law, to them that were without Law, 1 Cor. 9.21. yet was he sub­ject to the Law of Christ, and did not Swear at all. And as he did not himself swear, so neither did he teach swearing to be lawful by way of Doctrine to the Hebrews, when he said, That an Oath is among them for an end of all strife and controversie, Heb. 6.18. which words he spoke, not by way of Doctrine, as a thing to be practised by them as Christians; but by way of repeating, what formerly had been used amongst the Jews, under the first Covenant, and so that he might shew unto them being Jews, how that by Christ, the first Testament was taken away, or out of the way: and the second established upon better promises: For as he said of Swearing, he also said of the Priesthood, That every High Priest is (not was) ordained to offer, &c. Heb. 8 3. And that after the second Vail, was the Tabernacle, which is (not was) called the Holiest of all, Heb. 9.3. And when Moses had spoken every Precept to the People according to the Law, he took the blood of Calves, saying, This is (not was) the blood of the Testament which God hath appointed to you, Heb. 9.19, 20. All which his sayings do plainly shew, That what he had in those particulars mentioned, was by way of re­peating what had been in use under the first Covenant; and not by way of Doctrine, what they were to practise then as Christians. But I proceed to the seventh Argument, which as A. S. saith in brief runs thus;

Arg. 7.

Answ. What is impossible with man, is possible with God; and that Christ did fulfil (not destroy) the Law, is confessed: And having fulfilled the Law, the end for which it was for a time [Page 35] given, was accomplished; which being accomplished according to the Will of God, was abolished, abrogated, disannulled, and taken away by Christ, as before is fully proved. Now, as said the Apostle, Rom. 7.3, 4. The Woman which is in subjection to her Hus­band, is bound by his Law to him as long as he liveth; but if her Hus­band be dead, she is delivered from his Law: So then, if while the man liveth she take another Husband, she shall be called an Adultress; but if the man be dead, she is free from the Law, so that she is no A­dultress though she take another Husband. Wherefore, my Brethren, ye also are become dead by the Body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God. What words more plain to prove, That Christians in Christ Jesus, are freed from the Law of the carnal Commandment, that they may serve God in newness of the Spi­rit, and not in the oldness of the letter, Heb. 7.10. Rom. 7.6. And though it be true that Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; yet that doth no more prove A. S's Conclusion inferred thereupon, viz. Therefore Christ did not forbid all swearing, because some swearing was commanded in the Law; Then it doth, where a man is ingaged by his Bond to pay so much money upon such a day; and the man upon that day doth make payment of the mo­ney according to his Bond; That the man in so doing doth de­stroy his Boud, or that it is after Obligatory to him, when he hath fulfilled it. For although the People of Israel, to whom the Law was given by God, could not be freed therefrom until it was ful­filled; yet notwithstanding when it was fulfilled, it was by the Ordination of God to pass away, and the People freed from it, as before is proved. So that when Christ Jesus had fulfilled the Law (not for himself) but for them that were under it, He Re­deemed them that were under the Law, and so delivered them from the Law, Rom. 7.6. Gal. 4.5. that they, together with the Gentiles, that never were under the Law of the first Covenant, might receive in Christ the adoption of sons. Again, That the Law was perfect (al­though it were denied that any swearing was enjoyn'd in the third Commandment) is witnessed, yea every word of God is perfect; because in the Law was fully contained so much of the Will and mind of God, as he was pleased to make known at that time unto [Page 36] his People Israel, and as he did require obedience unto, from them▪ (secret things belongs unto God, and things revealed to us and our Children) no man being capable of knowing the whole Will and Mind of God. And yet, what man doth know of the Mind of God, by the manifestation of his Spirit, is perfect; because every measure of the Will of God, as every Word of God, is perfect: And the Law of God being perfect, therefore nothing is by man to be added thereto, or taken therefrom. Insomuch, as when the Israelitish Womans Son blasphemed the Name of God, and cursed; and there being at that time no positive punishment appointed by God in that case; he was put in hold, until the Lord himself shew­ed unto Moses what punishment was to be inflicted upon him, Levit. 24.11, 12, 13. So that Moses, who was a Prophet, did not take upon him to give any extensive interpretation to the Law (which being Penal to the transgressors, was not to be supplied by man, by way of implication or intendment) neither to say of it, That the Law before given by God was imperfect, because the whole Mind of God was not therein revealed, concerning all things that after might fall out by reason of Man's wickedness: Neither had the Lord, as A. S. would infer, limited himself to what before was written, but that he might and did, as he himself thought good, further add to what before was written, or take away from the same (and that without any mutability in his Will) al­though he had forbidden Moses so to do. And besides, the Name of God was, and may be used with reverence and godly fear, many other wayes than by Swearing; And therefore this Argument fails in proof with the other. But to proceed to the eight Argument, viz.

Arg. 8.

Answ. That man should require a reason wherefore the Lord doth forbid or command him to do, or not to do such a thing: or that God should give unto man a reason for what he doth, Iob. 9. 12. Rom. 9.20. is more than right reason doth require: But that man should obey what God commandeth him without asking a reason wherefore, is reasonable and according to right reason. It [Page 37] being the Lord hath made us, and not we our selves. And it be­ing asserted by A. S. That Christ never did any thing without reason. And proved, that Christ did say unto his Disciples, Mat. 5.34. Swear not at all. Therefore it ought to be granted, That Christ in forbidding all Swearing, did it not without reason: For if Christ Jesus in that Command did not forbid all Swearing whatso­ever, Then it would follow, That men under the Gospel might have liberty not only to swear by the Creatures; but also if they should swear by the Name of God, and not perform, they should go unpunished; because where there is no Law, there is no transgres­sion. For the Law in which an Oath in some cases was command­ed; and forswearing, vain and prophane swearing by God and the Creatures, forbidden; being abolished and taken away by Christ, as before is proved: Unless Christ Jesus had forbidden all swea­ring whatsoever, by a Command that changeth not, men would have thought themselves at liberty, not only to Swear by the true God, and not perform; but also to Swear by the Creatures, and that without any sin. And indeed it may justly be feared, That such pleading as hath of late been by some, for the lawfulness of some swearing, and such interpretations of Christs words as have been made, thereby to prove some swearing lawful, and that from those words of Christ, Mat. 5.34, &c. hath encouraged some men in these dayes to such a height of swearing, as they are now come: And therefore Christ Jesus, the Wisdom of God, in giving forth that Command as a prohibition of all swearing, did it not without reason: And what is before said, may be a good reason wherefore Christ added those words, Neither by Heaven, &c. after he had said, Swear not at all. And so the words follow­ing, are neither vain nor impertinent. For under the Law they were to Swear by the Name of the Lord, and not by the Crea­tures: And by the Law they were required to perform their Oaths unto the Lord, which they swore by his Name, lest they should forswear themselves; which Christ having before repeated in substance, By way of opposition of, and not in compliance with, said, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, &c. So that the words truly considered, are thus in effect; But I say unto you, Swear not at all by the Name of the Lord, as heretofore [Page 38] under the Law you were commanded; neither by Heaven, &c. accor­ding to the erronious Doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees. For if Christ had not intended absolutely to forbid all manner of Swearing; Then he by that Command, Swear not at all, had made the case of Swearing more doubtful and questionable than it was before; which to affirm, were a great injury to Christ, the Wisdom of God, whom God sent into the World, to give sight to the blind, and to guide their feet into the way of peace. Again, Christ Jesus being the Mediator of the new Covenant, which perfecteth for ever those that are sanctified, (which being given upon better promises than the first Covenant which made nothing perfect) was unchangable. It was therefore according to right reason, That the first Covenant, with all those things under it, that were changable and so might be shaken (as being things that were not in the beginning with God, as an Oath and Swearing was not in the beginning with God, neither originally of him, and therefore might be shaken) should be abolished and taken out of the way; To the end, that nothing that was changable, or in which there was a remembrance again of sin, might remain in the new Covenant which is unchangable. And so when that which was perfect was come; then that which was in part was abolished, 1 Cor. 13.10. For Christ being come, the true and faithful Wit­ness, the first and the last, Rev. 1. he restored, or the true witness-bearing was restored in him, to all that believe, which is perfect; which being so, it was according to right reason, that an Oath and Swearing, which was but in part, should be done away; fo [...] true witness-bearing, though without an Oath, never did preju­dice to any, as Oaths and Swearing have done, when the witness born before or after, hath been false, as daily experience doth te­stifie. And what if some now, as heretofore, believe not the Command of Christ, shall their unbelief make the Faith of God of none effect? God forbid. For seeing that true saying is asmuch or more than swearing; and that Christ hath said, That for every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Iudgment: And that the Lyar, as well as the false Swearer, shall he shut out of the King­dom of God: Therefore every one that feareth the Lord (for thereafter as a man feareth, is Gods displeasure) is as much bound [Page 39] by his Word, as by an Oath: and there being no more security to the Magistrate by an Oath, than by true saying, or witness-bear­ing, neither benefit to our Neighbour: Therefore, if the same outward punishment were inflicted upon the Liar, as false Swear­er, the difference in a short time would not be great; because experience doth evidence, That he that makes no conscience of his words, will not matter to Swear falsly for Conscience sake to God. And it may be believed, That one reason why strife doth so much in these dayes abound amongst men (notwithstanding that Oaths and Swearing abound) is, because that the true witness-bearing, as it was before swearing was, is not received in Judicial proceedings for want of an Oath and Swearing. Again, To say That Christ did forbid all Swearing, because his Father would have it so; is a better reason than any A. S. hath produced to the contrary. But to proceed to A. S. his ninth Argument, viz.

Arg. 9.

Answ. The question in dispute is not, Whether Christ the Me­diator of the new Covenant, did give any new Moral Command; But, Whether he forbad all Swearing to his Disciples? which that he did, his own words, Mat. 5.34. Swear not at all, do prove. As for the word Moral, it is a word of Art, invented by the wisdom which is from below, which is not subject to the Law of God: For it's evident, That the Penmen of the Scriptures, did never make use of that word Moral, when they writ and declared the Testimony of God. And therefore the Apostles Caveat in such things is useful, Col. 2.8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Phi­losophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For the Law of the new Cove­nant in Christ Jesus is Spiritual and Eternal (not Moral) and ac­cording to the Promise of God, Ier. 31.33. Heb. 8.10. the com­mands thereof are by the Lord according to his Promise, put in­to the mind, and written in the heart of man; written not with Ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God; not in tables of stone, [Page 40] but in fleshy tables of the heart, 2 Cor. 3.3. And therefore is called, the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus, Rom. 8.2. and the Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. (and not Moral) by way of excellency above the Law of the letter, as the Scriptures do declare, 2 Cor. 3. And Christ said unto his Disciples, If ye love me, keep my Com­mandments, Joh. 14.15. And when he commanded them to go and teach all Nations, &c. They were to teach them to observe (not the Law of Moses) but all things whatsoever he had Commanded them, Mat. 28.19, 20. And in Iob. 14.26. He told them, The Comfor­ter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father would send in his Name, he should teach them all things, and bring all things to their remem­brance, whatsoever he had said unto them. And Ioh. 16.12, 13. Christ told them, He had yet many things to say unto them, but they could not then bear them: Howbeit, when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth, &c. So that Christ did not send them to the Law called Moral (for to be their guide) written in tables of stone; but promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide them in­to all Truth, and to shew them things to come. So that although Chri­stians do, and are to practise and observe many of those things which were commanded in the Law, as being originally of God, of which the Law had a shadow, but not the substance, Heb. 10.1. yet they do not observe them, because they find them to have been Commanded in the Law of Moses, but as they are Commands of Christ in the new Covenant, written in the heart, and put into the mind by the Spirit of the Lord, that quickneth and giveth Life and power to do thereafter, Heb. 8.10, Rom. 10.8. For now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed both by the Law and the Prophets; Even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe, Rom. 3.21, 22. But the Law is not of Faith, neither ever was a­ny Oath or Swearing of the Law of Faith, as true witness-bearing was and is: So that by the works of the Law which is not of Faith, no man is or can be Justified; but by Faith without the deeds of the Law, a man is Justified according to Rom. 3.28 & 3.20. And now those things which were commanded in the Law, which were Eternal, as the Love of God, &c. was Eternal (not Moral) of which the Law engraven in stone had a shadow, although they [Page 41] continue under the Gospel; yet as was said, They are not the works of the Law which made nothing perfect; but the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5.22, 23. and therefore are perfect; as Love, Joy, Peace, long-Suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance; against such there is no Law: But against Swear­ing there is a Law, as before is proved. So that which was im­possible to the Law, in regard of the weakness of the flesh to do, God sending his Son for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit, the law and power of an endless life. For, as before is said, Swearing was never any part of the Law E­ternal or of Faith, therefore the taking of it away was no addi­tion to, or substraction from the Law Eternal, or of Faith. And although the Lord had limitted Moses, and in him all others from adding unto, and taking from what was then written in the Law; yet he had not limited himself to what he had then given in com­mand to Israel (not to the Gentiles) and but for a time, until the Seed should come, Gal. 3.19. and so was temporary. And it being acknowledged by A.S. that Oaths are no Gospel Ordinance; and before proved that Christ did abolish, abrogate, disannul, and take away the Law; yea, that Law which A.S. calls Moral, in which, [...]s he saith, Oaths are commanded. Therefore A. S. is blame­worthy in asserting Swearing as an everlasting Statute to be obser­ved by all that obey the Lord and his Christ; and in so doing he is found in the steps of those in the Apostles dayes, who taught, That it was needful to Circumcise such as believed in Christ, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses; insomuch as the Apostles and Elders came together to confides of the matter; and after consideration had, declared, That it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to them, to lay upon them, which from among the Gentiles were turned to God, no greater burden than those ne­cessary things, viz. That they should abstain from meats offered to I­dols, and from blood, from things strangled, and from Fornication. But I proceed to A. S. his tenth Argument, or Reason, as he calls it; which was,

Arg 10.

Answ. That it was some years after that Christ said to his Dis­ciples, Swear not at all: That the High Priest did use that expressi­on, unto Christ, I adjure thee, &c. is believed: But that Christ Jesus (the true and faithful witness, who came into the World to bear witness of the Truth, and to establish the true witness-bear­ing, as it was before swearing was) when he said unto the High Priest, Thou hast said; did in so saying Swear or Answer upon Oath, is denied: Neither hath A.S. proved that Christ did swear, otherwise then by his, and other mens conjectures and concei­vings: All of which being Swearers, are not in this case compe­tent Witnesses. And that he saith, That the High Priest adjured Christ, and Christ answering, Thou hast said (without more say­ing) did Swear by the Living God, not expressed indeed by him, but by the High Priest. Answ. But how doth A. S. know that Christ before his Answer to the High Priest, did not deny swearing or to swear, (for its written Ioh. 21.25. That there were many things which Iesus did, which if they should be written every one, &c.) And therefore to conclude, because it is not mentioned by the Apostle, that Christ did not deny to swear, therefore Christ did swear: This is to [...]esk a surmise to warrant swearing, when Christ had before commanded his Disciples, Not to swear at all. For, if to answer by way of affirming or denying that which is asked by a Magistrate, were an Oath and Swearing, because the Magistrate doth require the Party to Swear, without addition of somewhat more: Than surely many have suffered in these late years, as refusers to take an Oath and to Swear, when they did Swear. But my belief is, That the Magistrates by whom such have been f [...]oned [Page 43] and imprisoned, or otherwise censured for refusing to Swear or take an Oath; and better know what a legal Oath is than A. S. doth in this particular, are of another judgment or opinion than A. S. is; or else it may be hoped, that none hereafter shall suffer upon that account of refusing to Swear, when they are wil­ling to Answer, and do Answer to such questions as they shall be asked or examined of by the Court, or particular Magistrate. And therefore A. S.'s Conclosion is denied, failing in the proof of his premisses. But to proceed to his eleventh Arguments or Rea­son, viz.

Arg. 11.

Answ. The Law of Christ is Penal to the transgressors of it, Heb. 1.2, 3. & 12.25. and therefore doth not admit of any supply to be made by man, who is and ought to observe the Command without exception of persons, and not to frame Arguments a­gainst it; and the Lord hath forbidden man to add any thing, or diminish from what is written. For the Law of God, and of Christ, being perfect; therefore nothing ought to be added to it. Therefore to admit of any Exposition of the Scripture, whereby to make them contradictory one to another, or any Text of Scrip­ture contradictory in it self, were a great evil: And therefore all commodious Interpretations (as they are called) of that Text, Mat. 5.34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; &c. inducing the lawfulness of Swearing in some cases, is denied, as being con­tradictory to what is written: For if such Expositions were re­ceived for Truths, Then would an able Oratour with his School-Distinctions, and Syllogisms, make the same thing seem either likely, or unlikely, according to his fancy. And in the end, do as the Scribes and Pharisees did, make void the Law of God with their Traditions and subtil Distinctions: but we have not so lear­ned [Page 44] of Christ, who are taught of him, the Truth as it is in him, unto which nothing is to be added, nor any thing taken therefrom. And where it is said by A.S. That that Exposition of that Scripture, Swear not at all, that renders it a total prohibition of Swearing, does put an inconsistency betwixt the Old Testament and the New. I Answer and do say, It doth no more so, than those Texts which A.S. and others of his judgment do own, for the change of the Seventh-day Sabbath, unto the First day of the Week; nor thus the Apostle did, 1 Cor. 7.19. where he said, Circumcision is nothing: and Gal. 5.2. If any man be circumcised, Christ Iesus shall profit him nothing: nor then Christ Jesus himself did, Mat. 5-43, 44. when he said, It hath been said of old time, thou shalt love thy Neighbour, and hate thine Enemy: But I say unto you, Love your Enemies, bless them that curse you. Besides several other Texts of Scriptures that might be mentioned in the New Testament to that purpose: So that although there hath been diversities of Dispensations, and diversities of Administrations and Commands, as there are diver­sities of Gifts and Operations, yet the same Spirit, and the same Lord, Law-giver, Judge, and King; who at sundry times, and i [...] divers manners, spoke in the old time to our Fathers by the Pro­phets, and hath spoken to us in these last dayes by his Son, a [...] Commanded that all should hear him, and honour him, to whom he hath committed all Judgment, who saith, Swear not at all: [...] that, if Times and Dispensations were rightly discerned and di­stinguished, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do agree, for there is no contrariety in the Spirit that gave them forth; but the contrariety is in that mind that is carnal, and therefore is not subject to the Law of Christ, according to Rom. 8, 7. But all who mind the things of the Spirit, they do the Will of God, and so knows Christs Doctrine to be his that sent him, when he said, Swear not at all. And that there was a time when God was purely worshipped, and truly served, before any Oath was; And that there was a time when Israel was commanded to fear the Lord, and serve him, and swear by his Name; by which it is evident, That swearing was no essential part of the Worship of God in Spirit and Truth, and therefore was but temporary: And that there was a time when Israel was to seek the place which the Lord should chase, to put his Name there, viz. Ierusalem; and [Page 45] thither they were to come, and bring their burnt Offerings, Deut. 12.5, 6, 7. Ioh. 4.20. And there was and is a time, that neither in the Mountain, nor yet at Ierusalem, they should worship the Father, Ioh. 4.21. And there was a time, that the condition of the Heir should not differ from a Servant, &c. And there was an appointed time when he should be Lord of all, and receive the adoption of a Son, Gal. 4.1. to 6. But the Well is deep, and whilst People have or at the least make use of nothing to draw the Water with, but what they have and receive from man, by man, and of man, they will receive little refreshment or satisfaction in these things before­mentioned. Nevertheless, when they in their hearts shall turn to the Lord, the Vail shall be done away; for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Light, and it is the Light that God hath commanded to shine in mens hearts, for to give unto them the knowledge of the things that are of his Spirit, which the Natural man understands not, nor can the Wisdom which is from below find out. And now I come to A.S. his twelfth Argument, or last Reason, which was and is;

Arg. 12.

Answ. It is written, Thou shalt not follow a Multitude to do evil. And also, That when King Herod heard that the Holy Child Iesus was born, he was troubled and all Ierusalem with him; and gathering toge­ther all the Chief Priests and Scribes of the People, he asked of them, Where Christ should be born? And they said at Bethlem, &c. Mat. 2.1, &c. And yet the Chief Priests and Elders of the People, were so wicked, that they assembled together, and consulted how they might take Iesus by subtilty and kill him, Mat. 26.3, 4. concerning whom the Apostle, Acts 3.17. bore witness, That they did what they did unto him ignorantly, because they knew him not; and therefore exhorted them to repentance. So that it may be possible, That all those in Christendom, mentioned by A. S. to own swearing, as men might in this case of swearing be ignorant (the time of igno­rance being winked at) And therefore this Reason given by A.S. to prove that Christ did not forbid all swearing, when he had said, Swear not at all; is neither sound nor satisfactory, especially the [Page 26] Scriptures following well considered, Ioh. 5.34, 36. & 8.43. Mat. 11.25. to which many others might be added: And yet my belief is, That the Lord in no Age hath left himself without witness con­cerning the truth and extent of the Command of Christ aforesaid, although born by Babes and poor Fishermen, or other persons un­learned in the many languages; and therefore little esteemed of the world (though highly esteemed of God) but by the world ha­ted, and their testimony rejected as erronious: And yet greater was he that was in them, than he that was in the World, and so they had the greater witness: for if the witness of men be great, the witness of God is greater, which every one that believeth hath in himself, 1 Ioh. 5.9, 10. And he that keepeth the commands of Christ, he dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him, according to 1 Ioh. 3.23, 24. And I also believe concerning many of them who have affirmed as their judgment, the lawfulness of some swearing under the Gospel, That if they had lived in these our dayes, wherein the Lord God out of the riches of his Love, and the abundance of his Light, which he hath commanded to shine out of darkness (after the long night of Apostacy) in the hearts of the heirs of his Righteousness, for to give unto them the knowledge of his Glory, and of the true witness-bearing in the face of Jesus Christ, as it was before any Oath or Swearing was; that they would have come to have seen, and also to have acknowledged (as many in these dayes (blessed be the Name of the Lord for his unspeakable gift) have done their mistakes in the case of swearing, and by confessing their sins, and acknowledging their mistakes, have given glory to the Lord, and conformed their judgments & practises to the command of Christ, Swear not at all: And with Solomon have born their testimony, That in making many Books there is no end; and in reading of them, much wearisomness to the flesh; And that the end of all, is to learn to fear the Lord and keep his Commandments, which is the whole duty of man, Eccles. 12.12, 13. And now having born my testimo­ny for the Lord concerning Oaths and Swearing, according to that in my Conscience, and the Scriptures of Truth; and that not in a way of opposing the Son of God against his Father, nor the Scrip­tures of the New Testament against the Old, nor by making any Text of Scripture contradictory in it self: But in and by such a way as they are established in unity one with another; Neither [Page 47] with a contending or opposing spirit, against any Law or Ordi­nance of man, that ought to be submitted unto for the Lords sake; But in the spirit of love and meekness, for the clearing my Con­science, before the Lord and his People, in yielding a Reason wherefore I, and some others may not take any Oath or Swear at all; although we should be required thereunto by a lawful Magi­strate, I have peace; causing rather in this case to fall into the hands of men, and by submission unto their punishment (which hitherto, blessed be God, I and some others have found, not ac­cording to the rigour of the Law, but with some moderation) thereby testifying my practice to be according to my judgment, a­gainst all resistance of the powers which God hath set over me; and that not for fear of wrath, but for Conscience sake to God, who is able not only to destroy my body, but to cast both soul and body into Hell fire: Assuredly beleeving, that whilest I have a respect unto all the Commands of Christ Jesus, I shall never be ashamed. And if in this matter concerning Swearing, any should yet re­main otherwise minded, and seem to be contentious about words and forms; I say, we have no such custome in the Churches of Christ. For, where glory is given to God on high, there is peace on Earth, and good will to all men on Earth below; And all who wait in the Light of God, as it shineth in their hearts, [...] in due time shall have the same Truth revealed unto them, [...]which I have herein born my Testimony; And I, and others, [...]o walk in that whereunto we, through the Grace of God are come, That so we may not be ashamed of our Testimony for the Lord, though born through much suffering.