BEing desired by Collonel Lamplugh then High She­riffe of Cumberland to Preach the Assize Sermon at Carlisle August 17th. 1664. I made choice of St. Mat. 5. 34. for my Text; from whence I inferred, That our Saviour did not in­tend by those words, Swear not at all, an absolute univer­sall and unlimited prohibiti­on of all manner of swearing; which I proved by severall Arguments: whereto having added some other, I was con­tent they should be Printed, in hope that they might (by [Page 2] Gods blessing) become in­strumentall to confirme the wavering, and convert the er­ronious. This it seems fell in­to the hands of one F. H. a person to me utterly unknown, who being of a contrary per­swasion, has thereto returned a Reply, which whether it be satisfactory, or no, I refer to the Readers Judgement.

2 My first Argument was, That the Father, and the Son are one and the same God, immu­table in Nature and Will (for mutability would argue im­perfection) and consequently cannot issue forth contrary com­mands, for that would evidence a contrariety, or mutability in [Page 3] heir will: And the Father ha­ving commanded Swearing, the Son surely has not forbidden it. The Argument in forme runs [...]hus, What ever the Father hath commanded, that the Son hath not forbidden: But the Fa­ther hath commanded Swearing, Deut. 6. 13. therefore the Son hath not forbidden it. The Mi­nor, that the Father command­ed Swearing, is granted by F. [...]. [...]. 6. H. and all other of his opini­on that I have seen. The Ma­jor, That what ever the Father hath commanded, the Son hath not forbidden, is proved thus: If the Father, and the Son, be one individuall Essence, and im­mutable in Will, then whatever [Page] [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] the Father hath commanded that the Son hath not forbidden But the Father, and the Son ar [...] one individuall Essence, and i [...] ­mutable in Will: Therefore, what ever the Father hath com­manded, that the Son hath not forbidden. Neither of these Propositions is deniable, nor denied by F. H. The first is cleare by the light of Reason: for none, without change of minde, can command and for­bid the same thing. The o­ther F. H. grants, and yet con­trary to the everlasting and unchangeable Law of Rea­son ( Ex veris nil nisi verum) denies the conclusion, and notwithstanding, in a dis­course [Page 5] of foure leaves long, gives three Answers to this Argument.

First, he saies, There are di­versities [...] of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5. of administrations, but the same Lord: that is, One and the same God hath bestowed se­verall gists, and severall offi­ces upon severall persons. He might as well have told us, that, In Niniveh old Tobit dwelt; Or (if he would use Scripture words) That God created Heaven and Earth, and said, That had been an An­swer. It was not well to make the simple Reader (who perhaps out of an Opinion [Page 6] that he will say nothing b [...] the Truth, may give credit [...] his words) believe that th [...] was an Answer, which is n [...] ­thing to the purpose. Nor [...] that pertinent which he a [...] ­ledges out of St. Hierome, tha [...] it was permitted to the Iew [...] under the Law to Swear by th [...] name of God, not that it w [...] rightfull so to doe, &c. For ther [...] is a vast difference betwix [...] Permission, and Command, because what ever is Commande [...] is Permitted, and more; bu [...] what ever is Permitted, is no [...] Commanded. Now F. H. grants that Swearing was not onel [...] permitted, but commanded Reade then according to hi [...] [Page 7] sense: It was commanded under the Law to Swear by the name of God, not that it was rightfull so to doe, &c. and the Proposition would savour of blasphemy▪ imply­ing, That God commanded what was not rightfull to do. Besides this (though it makes against Swearing by Creatures) the Father in the same place saying, Hic salvator non per Deum jurare prohibuit, sed per Coelum, &c. is wholly imper­tinent to the proposed Argu­ment, and thereupon I leave it, and follow to the next Answer, which is, that

4 Secondly, As Christ said of Divorcement, It was not so from [Page 8] the beginning: so we may say, Oathes were not from the begin­ning, but were added after hard­ness of heart, and sin, and unbe­liefe entred into the world: but Christ put an end to the trans­gression, sin, unbeliefe, variance, and strife, who said, Swear not at all, &c. And so A. S ^•. rea­son is made void, and his im­possibility made possible, that God gave forth a command to Swear,—and yet Christ in the New Covenant countermands it,—and yet the Father and the Son are all one in Will, &c. To this I reply, and first, Grant that in the time of Innocen­cy there was no use, nor need of Oaths. (adly.) That Christ [Page 9] came to put an end to sin, and strife, and to that purpose gave holy Precepts of all ver­tue, Peace, and Charity; and yet notwithstanding we must confess (unless we should dis­believe our own eyes) that wickedness, and variance too much abound in the world; even F. H. himselfe hath here entred into a causeless, and unjust contention. Nor is there hope it should be other­wise, untill all our under­standings be fully illumina­ted, and our wills perfectly rectified, which will not be in this life. (3 ^dly.) Neither do I, nor any other that I know deny, that our blessed Savi­our [Page 10] spoke these words, Swear not at all. The Question is not of the Authority, but the meaning, and importance of them. But (4 ^thly.) Notwith­standing these concessions, I must needs say, that this dis­course of F. Hs. is wholly ex­trinsicall to the matter, be­cause from thence it can nei­ther be inferred that the Fa­ther and the Son are not one and the same God; nor that God is mutable; nor that he never commanded Swearing, one of which must necessari­ly be averred, or els the force of the Argument is unavoid­able. For, if Gods minde were once that people should [Page 11] Swear (as appears by his com­manding it) and that minde never alter (for if it do, God is mutable, contrary to that of the Prophet, 1 Sam. 15. 29.) then his minde is still that people should Swear; I meane when there is necessary occa­sion, for otherwise his minde is altered. And if his minde be still that people should Swear, then cannot Christs minde be that people should not Swear, unless God and Christ be contrary minded, and then they are not the same God. And if Christs minde cannot be that the people shall not Swear, then his minde is that the people [Page 12] shall Swear, and then he nei­ther did, nor does, nor will forbid them to Swear: for otherwise he should forbid what he would have done. This is so evident a Truth, that no multitudes of confu­sed words can obscure it. And therefore it is a vain flourish of F. H. when he saies A. Ss. Reason is made voyd, and his im­possibility possible, because God commanded Swearing, & Christ countermanded it, & yet the Fa­ther and the Son are one in Will, which words are impossible to be true, in regard they are contradictory one to another. For it cannot be (what ever F. H. or any other man say [Page 13] to the contrary) that the Fa­ther and the Son should be one in will, if the one forbids what the other commands.

5 To prevent an Objection, I had mentioned the severall sorts of Laws, to wit, Morall, Judiciall, and Ceremoniall, and accounted Swearing in a right manner to be a duty of the Morall Law. To this F. H. sayes, That these nice distincti­ons have confounded peoples un­derstandings. That's as true, as that many Windows in a room makes it dark. For the use of distinctions, is to clear an ambiguous word, that it may appear in which of the various acceptions it is taken. [Page 14] Such an one is Law, which de­notes either those reasonable duties, to the observance whereof God has obliged all people, at all times, and in that Notion it is called, The Morall Law; or those exter­nall Rites which God imposed upon the Jews, onely to be by them observed untill the death of the Messias; and in that sense it is termed, The Ceremoniall Law: Or lastly, those Politicall Statutes which were designed by God for the Government of the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Canaan, which were not bind­ing to other Nations, and are known by the name of the [Page 15] Judiciall Law. So then Law signifying three things, it is necessary to avoyd confusion, and mistakes, to have three words whereby they may be expressed, which serves not to confound, but clear mens un­derstandings.

6 But whether Swearing be made Morall, Judiciall, or Cere­monial, is not much matter (saith F. H.) seeing that Christ is the end of the Law, &c. which Assertions, is both repugnant to the Truth, and to his own Tenet. For though the sha­dows ceased at the appearing of the sustance (as the Levi­ticall Sacrifices were useless after Christs death, which was [Page 16] by them typified) yet as to the Morall Law, our Saviour came not to destroy, but to fulfill it, St. Mat. 5. 17. And it makes clearly against F. H. For if Swearing be enjoyned by the Morall Law, it must be of as much force now, as ever it was, it being easier for hea­ven and earth to pass, then one title of the Law to fail, St. Luke 16. 17. which must needs be understood of the Moral Law, seeing the Judiciall and Cere­moniall are both failed.

7 I had said in the Sermon, Sect. 28. That Christ is improper­ly called, The Oath of God. To that F. H. answers (out of its place) That it is no more im­proper, [Page 17] then that he is a Vine, a Door, a Way, a Shepheard, which is to grant what I as­serted: For I think F. H. will not say, that Christ is proper­ly a Vine, a Door, or a Way, though in the Gospel he be called so. But it is far more in­tolerable to call him an Oath, as he is never stiled. And it is far fetched to say, Christ is a Covenant, because God made a Covenant with man groun­ded on Christs merits and death. And further yet, to say he is an Oath, because God confirmed that Covenant by Oath; the contrary would better follow from those pre­mises. For in exact speaking, [Page 18] the ground or motive of [...] Covenant is not a Covenant i [...] selfe: nor an Oath to make good a Covenant, is not a Covenant. And therefore Christ is neither Covenant, nor Oath. As to the Marginall proofe, Is. 55. 3. the words are, I will make an everlasting Covenant with you, which cannot be un­derstood of Christ: For God could not say, I will make an everlasting Christ with you for Christ was begotten, not made.

8 F. H. addes, That for any proofe Dr. Sm brings, Swear­ing may be either Ceremoniall, or Judiciall, as well as Morall. Yet that very point was proved in the second Argument and [Page 19] F. H. cannot be ignorant of it, because he has laboured (though in vain) to answer it.

9 He goes on, and sayes, That Oaths were used in Judiciall proceedings; that Ceremonies were used in the worship of God; and that he hopes (he may be sure of it) that A. S. will say the worship of God is Morall, and that the most doe grant, and be thinks A. S. will hardly de­ny, (assuredly he will not) that Swearing was a part of the wor­ship of God. All these are granted; and one would sur­mise they made for Swearing, not against it. From thence he argueth, That it had some Ceremony or Shadow in it. [Page 20] answer, That the consequence is false: For though much of the divine worship in the Le­viticall Law was wrapped up in Ceremonies, yet all was not. Mentall Prayer, such as Han­nah's, was a service of God, yet had no externall Rite, or shadow necessarily annexed thereto. But I shall be libe­rall, and grant the Conclusion. Perhaps Swearing (especially solemne) had some Ceremo­ny not in it, but with it; as lifting up the hand: Yet from thence it follows not that Swearing it selfe is a Ceremo­ny. No body is without ma­ny Accidents inhering there­in. Is a body therefore an Ac­cident? [Page 21] There is no man that is not of some colour, White, Red, Brown, or some other: can it thereupon be inferred, that every man, or any one man is a colour? For F. H ^s. proofes ( p. 8.) that Swearing was used in Judiciall proceed­ings, he might have spared them. For I willingly grant the Truth thereof, though he seem to be contrary minded, pag. 4.

10 At length F. H. comes to a third answer (having good ground to suspect that neither of the former would serve) and that is, The Law said ma­ny things by way of Precept, at least permission from God, which [Page 22] would be irregularities grossely reproveable under the Gospel, &c. I need not pursue his Instan­ces, unless Swearing had been one; for I grant the Proposi­tion to be true, if meant of the Ceremoniall Law: but it is false if it be meant of the Morall. And this can no way be applyed as an answer to the Argument. For it neither de­nies the Identity of the Fa­ther and the Son: nor showes that the Son forbad what the Father commanded. And for the instances, F. H. repeats them again and again, and so I shall meet with them after­wards.

11 F. H. takes notice that in [Page 23] the seventh Sect. I said, That Christ abolished not the Judi­ciall and Ceremoniall Law once commanded by God, because the one was peculiarly given to the Jews, and so not at all concerning us: and the other was temporary, expiring at Christs death. To this he re­plyes, That he argues not against it, yet BP. Gauden does (whom A. S. willingly acknowledges his superiour, no less in know­ledge, Learning, and Elo­quence, than in promotion) whose words are, That Christ came in the way of fulfilling, to abrogate the Ceremoniall Law: the meaning of which sen­tence is (not that Christ for­bad [Page 24] the Ceremoniall Law for­merly commanded by the Fa­ther by any contrary precept in his life, which was the thing that A. S. denied, but) that our Saviour by dying put an end thereto, it being there­upon to expire, which is A. Ss. own Judgement, having ex­pressely said as much in a mar­ginall note to the 8th. Section of his Sermon. So by F. Hs. good leave, the Bp. and the D ^r. are in perfect unity, and not at all at odds betwixt themselves.

12 But sayes F. H. If Swearing be a part of the Judiciall Law, then A. S. has overthrowne himselfe, because he acknow­ledges, [Page 25] that the Judiciall Law is not obligatory to us. I grant the consequence (though it be wide fromthe dispute be­twixt us, which is, whether our Saviours words, Swear not at all be prohibitive of all Swearing) but deny that Swearing is a part of the Ju­diciall Law. This F. H. proves, because it is the judgement of many. But who those many be, he tells not. It is not A. Ss. Judgement (and that F. H. knowes) for he has proved Swearing to be Morall in his second Argument. Nor is it F. Hs. Judgement, for he holds it to be Ceremoniall, p. 7. and therefore in his own Judge­ment [Page 26] this no Argument; yet he endeavours to enforce it by this Reason, That Swearing was used by the witnesses be­fore Judges in Israel. This he would have granted here, be­cause it seems to make for him: but p 4 ^t•. he professes the contrary in his marginall note, whereby he gives great occasion to suspect that he seeks not Truth so much, (which is alwayes consonant to it selfe) as the defence of his Cause by any means whatso­ever But this I pass by, and will not deny that witnesses spoke upon Oath, whence it does not follow, that Oaths are not Morall. For in Suites [Page 27] and Tryals by our English Laws (which are answerable to the Judiciall amongst the Jews) Oaths are enjoyned, and taken, which yet there­upon doe not cease to be Morall. The vanity of this Argument that relyes upon the Judgement of many ap­pears by the like. If Christ were a meer man, and not God (as has been the Judge­ment of many) then is Chri­stian Religion false. I hope F. H. would abhor the con­clusion no less than our selves, and thereby he may discerne the weakness of his premisses.

13 F. H. finds great fault with A. S. That he defines not cer­tainly [Page 28] what Swearing is. And p. 34. he falls upon the same subject again, saying, That if one should traduce A. S. in his discourse (A. S. thinks that here and elsewhere he is tra­duced sufficiently) and his defi­nition of an Oath, its so uncertain, one shall hardly know what to pitch upon to be his judgiment; sometimes it is this, and some­times it is that, and sometimes it is neither this, nor that. I grant that this were a fault, had it been true. But A. S. said expressely in his Sermon Sect. 16. That to call God to Witness is the very substance of an Oath, producing St. Austin, who sayes, Jurat qui adhibe [...] [Page 29] testem Deum: and again, Hocest jurare Deum testari: and in his margine cites above 30. Authors concurring in Judge­ment with him. And again, he sayes in a marginall note in the 17. Section, The substance of an Oath consists in the attesta­tion of God, by what tearmes soever it be exprest. So this charge was causeless. How­ever, what F. H. blamed in another, he should not have been guilty of himselfe, but somewhere have layd down (had he not rested in my de­finition) what that Swearing is which he so much strives a­gainst. And if he, or any other think fit to Reply, I [Page 30] shall desire (if they consent not to what I by an unani­mous consent of Writers of all sorts, call Swearing) they would tell us what they mean by an Oath.

14 F. H. goes on in a queru­lous discourse, That their At­testations of God have not been received as such by the Magi­strates. So before him had R. Hubberthorne, and Sam: Fisher done, to whom I fully an­swered in a large Marginall Note to the 16. Section of my Sermon, which therefore (un­less he had enforced it with some further Reason) needed not have been repeated here, especially seeing F. H. took [Page 31] notice that it was answered, which appears, because he re­plyes to it, That it had been a more necessary discourse for A. S. to have exhorted the Magistrates if the Law had been answered in the substance, not to be so se­vere in the forme, &c. Indeed I did as much as F. H requires without his prompting, when I spoke to the Reverend Judges in these words ( Sect. 16.) Would they (meaning the Quakers) yield the sub­stance, and with St. Paul, call God to witness of the Truth of their Assertions, it were to be wished out of condescention to their weakness, that they might be dispensed withall (if the Law [Page 32] would give leave) as to the ex­ternall formalities of an Oath. Thus much I spoke in Pub­lique in their behalfe, and lit­tle expected▪ to have been re­proached, as one that thereby incensed the Rulers to a severity against them, whereas it was one of my prime ends to re­ctifie their Judgements by cleare and undeniable Rea­sons, so that by due obedi­ence, they might avoyd all Legall punishment. But if was not necessary to have gone on as F. H. dictates, and to have told them, That where any Law was made contrary to the Law of God, either in matter, or forme, (as ours is not) the Conscience [Page 33] could not yield obedience thereto. For that had been idle and impertinent, unless I had sup­posed our Law in this matter had been some way repug­nant to Gods, which is utter­ly untrue. His next conceit, That our Clergy receives from the Law-makers great incomes and revenues for the preserva­tion and peace of all men, I pass by as a vain dreame of F. Hs. they receiving no such matter either from the Law-makers, or any other, either for that, or any other purpose. For his new platforme of Legall pro­ceedings, when His Majesty in Parliament shall please to settle it, I shall chearfully [Page 34] yield obedience thereto, and should be glad if any expedien [...] could be found out withou [...] prejudice to the Truth, where by these unhappy difference [...] might be composed, and they freed from incurring those pe­nalties whereof they so sadly complain. To conclude, I would have F. H. and the Readers that are of his per­swasion to take notice, That though I have attended his wandring Motions through this last leafe; yet his dis­course therein has been whol­ly impertinent to my Argu­ment, though it goe under the Notion of an answer thereto. At this rate, he might [Page 35] have written a Volume as big as Speed's Chronicle, and called it an answer to the first Argu­ment. But I proceed to the second,

15 Which runs thus, What­soever at all times, as well un­der the Gospel, as under the Law, tends in an especiall manner to the glory of God, that is neither a Ceremoniall Ordinance, nor forbidden by Christ. But some Swearing at all times as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, [...]ends in an especiall manner to the glory of God. And therefore all Swearing is nei­ [...]her a Ceremoniall Ordinance, [...]or forbidden by Christ. He [Page 36] that would answer to this Argument, must either say, that some of the old Ceremo­niall. Ordinances are to be continued under the Gospel, tending no less now to Gods. Glory, then they did before; or that Christ forbad some what that tended in an espe­ciall manner to his Fathers Glory; and then he had not sought (as he professes, St. John 18.) but hindred the Glory of him that sent him; or els he must say, that Swear­ing is not now such an ac­knowledgment of Gods Wise­dome, Power, and Justice, as formerly it was. Each of which is so very absurd, and [Page 37] irrationall, that F. H. does wisely forbeare to mention any of them: yet somewhat must be said, or els it cannot be thought that he has an­swered the Argument. Where­upon rather then say nothing, he falls into an extravagant discourse against the Morality of the Ten Commandements, and wonders what A. S intends to doe with the fourth. A. S. may more justly wonder that F. H. will so abuse his Reader with such impertinencies, no more to the purpose, then if he should tell him, That Corne grows now where Troy Towne stood. But he having found such a passage in that seurri­lous [Page 38] Pamphlet of his Br. F [...] shers against Bp. Ganden thin [...] it would doe well to fill [...] room here, and els where, an [...] so falls upon it severall time hereaster. But to satisfie F. H. (if it be possible) I judge th [...] Ten Commandements to b [...] all Morall: and yet I grant that the fourth has in i [...] some what Ceremoniall; t [...] wit, the particular designati­on of the seventh day, which not with standing does not de­rogate from the Morality of the Precept. And that he may not think this strange, he may take notice, That the Creed comprehends all necessary points of pure beliefe. And [Page 39] yet that Summary (as short as it is) contains some what that is not of absolute neces­sity to salvation, to wit, the Name of that Judge by whose Sentence our blessed Saviour was condemned to death. So the Decalogne is an abridge­ment of the whole Moral Law, & yet besides, containes somewhat in it that is not Morall, but Ceremoniall. I see no inconvenience in all this; nor (if there were) can divine how thence my Argument may be answered.

16 But F H. goes on, and tells us, There was no Service or Worship in that Covenant that had not some Signe or Shadow [Page 40] in it, instancing in Prayer and Praysing, whereto were an­nexed, Incense, and Sacrifices. Be it so, That Morall Duties were then attended with Ce­remoniall Rites; does it from thence follow, that either then they were not, or now are not Morall Duties? Are not we now as much obliged to Pray, and Prayse God, as the Jews formerly were, though the Sacrifices, those Ceremoniall lypes of Christs Death, are necessarily disused? Such externall Rites are not of the substance of Gods Ser­vice, though sometime an­nexed thereto. They as Acci­dents may either be present, [Page 41] or absent without the destru­ction of the Subject whereto they adhere which is not therefore to be termed a Ce­remony, because some Cere­monies were joyned to it; as the duty of Thanksgiving be­came not a Ceremony, be­cause it was accompanied with Sacrifices. So upon sup­posall that Oaths for the greater solemnity thereof were usually taken with some externall significative forma­lities, that they might be the more revered, and fix a deep­er impression upon his Con­science that Sweares, they are not thereupon to be called Ceremonies, without all which [Page 42] their substance does entire­ly remaine, no more than Praysing of God is now to be termed a Ceremony, because Leviticall Sacrifices were once subjoyned thereto.

17 F. H. sayes, That Confession under the Gospel is brought in, in place of Swearing under the Law, which he endeavours to prove, because that of the Prophet Isay 45. 23. Every tongue shall Sweare, is rendred by the Apostle, Rom. 14. 11. Every tongue shall confess to God. This I had observed be­fore in mine Annotation to the 9 ^th. Section of the Sermon. But I would pervert (sayes F. H.) Pauls words, to have them mean [Page 43] confession by Oath: but to my Reason that induced me to that Opinion, he replies not, which is, (besides that the Greek word is some where in that sense) that the Prophets Hebrew word is generally ac­knowledged to signifie Swear­ing, which several hundreds of years before the Apostles time (and therefore not by the Apostle himselfe) was transla­ted into Greek, which St. Paul finding, makes use thereof verbatim, thereby by his Au­thority, approving the Truth of that Translation. But (a Comment perhaps, or an Ex­plication, but) a true Tran­slation it could not be, unless [Page 44] the very sense of the Origi­nal were justly rendred with­out either enlargement, or restriction.

18 A. S. (quoth F. H.) might as well have said, That Offe­rings, and Oblations, and Sacri­fice, tends as much to the glory of God under the Gospel, as under the Law, as Swearing. But that is an idle dictate, and no way to be made good. From this Proposition, gross inconveni­ences follow: none from mine. For it follows from this, That the Ceremonial Law is as much obligatory to us, as the Moral: That St. Paul must not be of credit with us, Gal. 5. 2. That men had as good be Jews, as [Page 45] Christians: That it is not ne­nessary to believe Christs In­carnation, Passion, Resurre­ction, or Ascension. All these follow from this, That Sacri­fices tend as much to Gods glory under the Gospel, as under the Law; none of which can be said of Swearing. And there­fore F. Hs. parallell was very inconsiderate, which he pre­sently retracts, confessing in express words, That it does not follow as well under the Law, as under the Gospel, and gives a good reason for it; For that (saith he) were to set up the Figure, and deny the Substance: which notwithstanding, he magisterially concludes (ac­cording [Page 46] to his wonted manner, that is, yielding the premisses, and denying the conclusion) that this se­cond Argument [...] sufficient, though he have said nothing materiall in answer thereto.

19 The third Argument runs thus, If Christ forbad Swear­ing, then it was either be­cause it was repugnant to our duty to God, or repugnant to our duty to our Neighbour. But some Swearing is neither repugnant to our duty to God (whose glory in sundry particulars it advances) nor repugnant to our duty to our Neighbour, to whom thereby much advantage may accrue [Page 47] in severall respects. And there­fore Christ forbad not all Swearing. He that would an­swer this Argument, must ei­ther say, That Christ prohi­bited some what that was nei­ther repugnant to our duty either to God, or Man: or els that all Swearing is con­trary to one of these duties. For granting these, he must of necessity grant the Con­clusion. But F. H. will doe neither (indeed he cannot) yet resolves to Reply, l [...]st his friends should think he had answered nothing. And his Reply is, That which was o [...]e a duty to be performed under the Law because commanded, is not [Page 48] required as a duty under the Gospel. This I grant, many Ceremoniall Offices being to be observed, when command­ed. But it is neither prejudi­ciall to the Truth, nor any whit advantageous to his pre­tensions. And then he falls in­to a wild extravagance, and sayes, It may be A. S. would con­tend as much for the Morality of Tythes, (which he might with great security doe, were it pertinent, notwithstanding F. Hs. opposition;) and then he belabours this shadow, and takes some pains to confute what A. S. had not said And this may perhaps induce some credulous Reader of his own [Page 49] perswasion to surmise, that all this time he is answering the Argument. At length he retreats from this impertinent digression, and acknowledges, That Oaths were commanded to the Jews, but it was to keep them from Idolatry: and sayes, That as the Lord lives, was an Oath, and bids us marke, That the Law of Oaths needed not have been added, had not sin entred in. Well, we marke all this, and find nothing therein against the Morality of Swearing, or to show that Oaths are re­pugnant to our duty, either to God, or our Neighbour, which onely had been perti­nent. Tis true, that Oaths [Page 50] had been useless, had ma [...] continued in Innocency. B [...] so had the whole Decalog [...] been too (mans whole du [...] being then ingraven in h [...] heart) which thereupon w [...] not promulgated till after t [...] Fall. But how then▪ Will [...] thence conclude, that no [...] of the commands are Morall▪ He may doe it upon the sam [...] grounds that he layes again [...] Swearing, viz. The uselesne [...] thereof in the state of Innocency, which if they be insufficient for the one, the [...] are also for the other.

20 A. S. in pursuance of hi [...] Argument, That Swearing w [...] not repugnant to our duty to ou [...] [Page 51] Neighbour, recounts many ad­vantages that accrue to men thereby; As Princes are sêcu­red of their Subjects Allegiance; Generalls of their Souldiers fi­delity; Leagues betwixt Nati­ons confirmed; private Mens Rights maintained; Offenders discovered, and punished; and Controversies, and Suits decided. And it cannot be denied, that Swearing is a good Medium, yea the best we have to the attainment of these ends, though sometimes through the wickedness of evill men, it may, and sometimes does faile thereof. And this is that which F. H. thinks fit to Reply to those alledged Advantages [Page 52] of Oaths, that many hav [...] taken, and broken them though I hope many mo [...] have kept them. This is a [...] much as to say, that such [...] Medicine (the best that i [...] known against such a disease [...] that has cured hundreds, i [...] useless, because twenty, b [...] reason of some other complicated infirmity have take [...] it without success. I gran [...] there is no such great necessity of Oaths amongst suc [...] men as will not lye (though sometimes they may not be altogether useless in respect of them, as is evidenced in the 22 ^th. Section of the Ser­mon) but then Magistrates [Page 53] have no infallible marke to [...]iscerne (especially amongst strangers) who are such con­sciencious men, and who not. F. H. must not think that the meer profession of being a Quaker is a certain note, and never failing evidence of sin­cerity. Nor was it enough (as [...]e pretends) in the Primitive times to say Christianus sum. Christianity was had in no such honour amongst Heathen Magistrates. Many of them indeed refused to Sweare, be­cause they were Christians: but that was by Devills, or Idols whereto the Ethniques attributed Divine Honour. Otherwise to Sweare upon [Page 54] just occasion, they refuse [...] not, as appears, that man [...] thousands of them were Souldiers in those dayes, whic [...] they could not have bee [...] had they not taken (as the [...] was accustomed) the Sacramentum militare, the Oath [...] Observance and Fidelity. Bu [...] F. H. objects, (and indeed, i [...] most of his Replies he ma [...] be allowed to have somewha [...] of Objection, but nothing [...] Answer) That what ever [...] super-added to Gods command [...] will worship, and renders th [...] other imperfect. I answer, Tha [...] we adde nothing essentiall to the command. The very es­sence of an Oath consists i [...] [Page 55] calling God to witness. The [...]ormalities usually annexed [...]n Judicatory proceedings are [...]ot of the substance of an Oath, but onely conduce to the solemnity thereof, and were ordained probably to create in the Swearer a greater Reverence of God, and a deeper sense of the sin of Per­jury.

21 The fourth Argument may be put into this forme, That Interpretation of our Savi­ours words, Swear not at all, which renders the following words vain, and impertinent, is false. (And that must either be granted, or we must con­fess that some of our Savi­ours [Page 56] Sentences were vain, and impertinent, which were an high degree of blasphemy. But that Interpretation which expounds our Saviour [...] words Swear not at all, to be prohibi­tive of all Swearing, render [...] the following words vain and impertinent. And therefore it is false. To this F. H. re­plies, That Christ knew better what he intended then A. S. (which notwithstanding, A. S. may possibly know better than F. H.) who would make his words one thing, and his in­tention another. He should have said (for that had been true) who by a diligent investiga­tion what the purport of the [Page 57] words might be, laboured to discover what Christ intended thereby. F. H. adds, That it is evident by the preceding Doctrine, and by that which fol­lows after the Text, that Christ prohibits all Swearing. This dictate being too hard for him to prove, he puts off to another place, like a bad debter that will pay, but at another time. Then he seems to be offended with those that dispute about the plain words of Scripture, though as plaine as they be, he cannot make sense of them, if meant as he would have them. Then he sayes, That Swear not at all by Heaven or Earth, is a generall Negative [Page 58] of all Oaths. He must have ei­ther a very high conceit of his own, or a very mean esteeme of other mens Abilities, if he hope to-perswade them, that there a [...]e more Creatures to Swear by than these two. Did not the Jews Swear by the Temple, Altar, & many other things? And are there not amongst our selves too many that doe the same? And if these two comprehend all others, why did Christ im­mediately mention two more, Jerusalem, and the head? He saies again, and again, That by Heaven, and Earth, and Je­rusalem, are more ample, and more large (he should have [Page 59] said, more strait and narrow) expressions, which he immedi­ately confutes, saying, That these, and much more, were in the generall Negative, Swear not at all. For surely, a generall that comprehends many hun­dred instances, is much more large and ample, than foure particulars therein contained. So that it is utterly, and evi­dently false, that Christ in­tended the enumeration of these few instances to be an amplification of his former pro­hibition, which indeed was an Explication of his meaning, shewing what kind of Oaths he forbad, to wit, such as were taken by Heaven, and Earth, [Page 60] and the like Creatures. And by this it appears, that F. Hs. selfe-contradicting Answer, is no way satisfactory.

22 But to make the Truth ap­peare beyond all contradicti­on, I shall somewhat more fully inforce this Argument, and shew that the meaning which F. H and those of his perswasion doe give of these words, Swear not at all, agrees neither with what went be­fore, nor with what followed after. For according to F. Hs. exposition, these words, Swear not at all, import, that you are never to Swear upon any oc­casion; either by God, or any Creature. And he, and those [Page 61] of his Opinion say, that they (in this sense) are very agree­able to the preceding words, ve. 33. It hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not for­swear thy self, but shalt performe unto the Lord thine Oaths. But I say unto you, (who as F. H. tells us, saith more than the Law hath said) Swear not at all. But this exposition of the Coherence, upon which they much rely, cannot stand; be­cause from thence many ab­surdities would follow, to wit, That Christ forbad, what God commanded; That the Law should be imperfect, as needing emendation; That Christ made void some part [Page 62] of the Law, contrary to his own express profession, ver. 17. That the Gospel is not consonant, but repugnant to the Law, &c. These and the like inconveniencies doe e­vince that Interpretation of the words (from whence all these follow) to be false. And therefore some other is to be found out to cleare our pas­sage, that we be not split up­on these Rocks. And that is, That these words, But I say unto you, stand not in opposi­tion to the Law, but to the Pharisaical depravation there­of, and the peoples wicked, and corrupt practices. The Law had enjoyned onely [Page 63] Swearing by God, and no other. But the People did usually Sweare by Creatures, as by the Temple, Altar, the Gold of the Temple, and the gift upon the Altar, all which were ex­pressely mentioned by our Sa­viour, St. Mat. 23. And the Pharisees approved thereof, and Taught, That some of these were obligatory, and bound the Swearer, (as the two latter) and some not, as the two former. Of which sort were (it seems) these Oaths here mentioned, to wit, By Heaven, Earth, Jeru­salem, and the Head. Whence these two irreligious Propo­sitions arise. First, That Crea­ture. [Page 64] Swearing is lawfull. And then, That all Oaths doe not ob-Lige to performance, where as all Promises even without Oaths are binding. The ground wher­of was, that such as had Sworne by Heaven, Earth, &c. though they broke their Oath, yet they were not thereupon guilty of Perjury, or the breach of the third Comman­dement, because they had not Sworne by God. Which gross mis-interpretation of the Law, tending so much to the patronage of vice, and lewd practices, very well deserved our Saviours reprehension, especially in this place, where he was Teaching the exact [Page 56] importance of the Comman­dements which he came not to destroy (or alter) but to establish in their full force and true meaning. Reade then ac­cording to this Exposition the 33 ^th. ver. The Pharisees have taught, that it is lawfull to Swear by Creatures, as Heaven, Earth, &c. and that those Oaths when taken doe not binde to performance, so that men though they doe not what they Sweare to doe, be­come not thereby liable ei­ther to Perjury, or the breach of the Divine Law. But saies Christ ver. 34. on the contra­ry, I say unto you, (in regard those courses are so repug­nant [Page 66] to Christian Truth and Sincerity) Swear not at all, neither by heaven, nor by earth, &c. that is, by those Creature [...] which men doe, or may abuse to the dishonour of God, the wrong of their Neighbour, and the great scandall of Re­ligion. You see how aptly ou [...] Saviours words are set in op­position to the false Doctrine of the Pharisees, and what just cause he had to forbid what they permitted, and how impertinent it had been to the premisses to have pro­hibited Swearing by God, which Oath was much revered, and (for ought appears) never abused by the Jews.

23 [Page 67]Nor are the words, Swear not at all, (as F. H. understands them) less incoherent with what follows. For the blessed Son of God forbidding to Swear by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, and the Head, sub­joynes to each of them a Reason, which Reasons do all particularly relate to those particular Creatures whereby he forbids his followers to Swear, but no way tend to an universall prohibition of all Swearing. Let any man to whom God has given a Medi­ocrity of understanding reade the words in F. Hs. sense, and judge. You shall never Swear by God, or any other Oath, [Page 68] because Heaven is his Throne, and the Earth his Footstoole, and Jerusalem is his City; or because men cannot make one haire white, or black. Pray what tolerable sense can any one pick out of this dis­course? Or how can these Reasons be pertinent to a ge­nerall, and absolute forbid­ding of all Oaths? But on the contrary, understanding the words in opposition to the Doctrine of the Pharisees, and the practice of the people, for­bidding Oaths by Creatures, and yet asserting the obligingness of them when taken, the co­herence will be clear, and the Reason convincing. For the [Page 69] better understanding where­of, it may be considered, that one may Swear by Creatures either Ʋltimately, or Mediate­ly: Ʋltimately, when he in­vokes a Creature as a searcher of the heart, and a soveraigne punisher of deceit: And this is flat Idolatry, by ascribing to a created being, what is pe­culiar to God. Mediately, when the Oath does ultimately re­late to, and is terminated in God, though a Creature onely be nominated; as when one Swears by Heaven, mean­ing by God that made, or sits in Heaven: And in this sense it is not possible to Swear by any thing finite, that has not a [Page 70] Relation to a Creator. In this sense the holy Jesus was wil­ling to understand these Oaths, giving thereby reputa­tion to that Rule in Divinity, That, when any mans words ad­mit of a double meaning, whereof the one is extreamly bad; we ought in Charity to interpret them in the better sense, unless some circumstance doth undeni­ably [...]vince the contrary. Thus did Christ, and yet that bet­ter sense was too bad to be permitted. The Pharisees al­lowed Swearing by heaven, &c. yet taught, that such Oaths put no Obligation upon the Swearer, as is plain by that passage, St. Mat. 23. 16, 17, [Page 71] 18, 19. whereupon those vain, and irreligious Oaths were multiplied, and a gate opened for crafty Cheaters to impose upon the credulity of the simple, and well-meaning vul­gar. In opposition to which deluding Doctrine and couse­ning practices, our Saviour prohibits all such abused Oaths, and gives this Reason thereof, That the Pharisees were mistaken in saying, that such Oaths were not bind­ing, because God was not ex­pressely therein named, be­cause even those, by Heaven, Earth, &c. have a consequen­tiall attestation of God in respect of the necessary de­pendance [Page 72] of all Creatures up­on their Creator. Which is more clearly expressed, S ^t. Mat. 23. 20, 21, 22. Hence appears the ground of Christs prohi­bition, and the true, and full meaning of the Sentence, Swear not at all, neither by Hea­ven, for it is Gods Throne, &c. which in F. Hs. way seems to me altogether inexplicable.

24 I omit that this negative command, not to Swear at all, either by Heaven, Earth, Jeru­salem, or the Head, can by no Art be extended to forbid Oaths duely taken by God, and consequently not all manner of Swearing. You may sooner draw water out of a [Page 73] flint, or pumice, than that conclusion from these premis­ses, which by F. H ^s good leave are so far from being more ample expressions, that they are indeed restrictive limitations of that precept, which other­wise might have been perhaps reputed generall. Which were it so to be understood, as F. H. would have it, there could be no rationall account of the particular Enumeration of these foure particulars, Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, and the Head. No wonder there­fore, if he in the attempt of such an impossibility labours in vain, and falls into contra­dictions. He saies, These and [Page 74] much more were included in the Negative, and yet they are more large expressions than it; which is no more true, than that the thing contained, is wider than what contains it: Or that foure Creatures are moe than all in the world besides. In to such straits he pittisully plun­ges himselfe, whilest he strives to defend such a Paradox as he perhaps is ashamed to for­sake, by an ingenuous ac­knowledgement of his errour, and striking saile to an un­doubted Truth, and yet un­able to maintain, being there­by enforced, not onely to op­pose against so demonstrable a verity, but also to fight [Page 75] against Reason, and common Understanding.

25 That the late Learned Pri­mate of Ireland, Arch-Bishop Ʋsher was of Christs minde, I shall easily believe. But of F. H.s. Opinion he was not, unless he be much wronged in that book that goes under his name, entituled, The summe and substance of Christian Reli­gion, wherein amongst the speciall abuses of an Oath, he sets down in the first place, The refusing of all Oaths as un­lawfull, which saves he) is the errour of the Anabaptists, to whom therefore in that par­ticular, he is like to prove no great Patron. But (sayes F. [Page 76] H.) he pleaded the Cause of the Waldenses, who were the most ancient, and true Protestants, if any Reformation be looked at beyond Luther. They professed it no way lawfull for a Christian to Swear; and the said Bishop Usher, de Success. cap. 6. doth esteeme that place of the 5th. of Mat. Swear not at all; and that of the 5th. of James to be a sufficient plea for them against the Papists, and he pleads their Cause. I was very confident that the Reverend Primate was much abused; but not having the book, I could not answer particularly thereto, not thinking fit to oppose my conjectures (how proba­ble [Page 77] soever) against F. Hs. po­sitive assertion. Where upon I used all endeavours to pro­cure a sight of that book, but could not retrive it, either in the publique Shops, or pri­vate Libraries in the North; till at length my Reverend, and Learned friend Dr. Sam­waies afforded me a sight thereof. Whereby I perceive, that the Primates Plea for them, was not to defend such Opinions as they are charged with; but to show that they were wronged, and falsely slandered with the mainte­nance of such errours. For (saies he) Sanders and Parsons produce certain absurd Here­sies, [Page 78] (amongst which one is, That all Swearing is unlawfull, whence I collect, That the deniall of all Oaths, is in the Primates Judgement, an ab­surd Hic verò à Sande­ro, Coccio, Parsonio, &c. oc­curritur: utcunque Walaen­s [...]s, cum nost ro­rum tem­porum Pro e­stantibus in non­nullis dogmati­bus consenferint, in pluribus tamen ab iisdem dissensisse: ideoque ad eandem Ecclesiam utrosque pertinere non posse. Quod ut probent, ex Guidone, &c. Sanderus & Co [...]cius [...] ex G [...]br: Prateolo, & Bernardo Lutzenburgo, Rob: Parsonius absurdas quasdam Haereses producunt, quas à Waldensibus mordicus desensas persuadere nobis volunt. Quarum accusationum vanitas ut magis elu­cescat, &c. De Christ: Ecclesiarum Successione, & Statu. cap. 6. Sect. 19. Heresie) which they would perswade us were tooth and naile defended by the Wal­denses. And then he proceeds to show the vanity of that Accusation of their Ad­versaries. And the very point he instances in, is that of Swearing.

Their third Errour and He­resie Terrius Error, & Haeresis est, quod jurare in judicio. sive extra judicium pro qua­cunque causâ, & in quo­cunque casu, est illicitum, & mor­tale pec­catum: & statim ta­men ad­dit. Quartus Error, & Haeresis est, quod dejeraro in judicio coram [...]udicibus de diceri­dâ veritate, & revelandis complicibus suis in hac Sect [...], non est illic [...]tum, nec peccatum, imò licitum atque Sanctum. Ibid. (say their Accusers) is, that they hold, That to Swear either Judicially, or extrajudicially in any cause, or upon any occasion, is un­lawfull, and a mortall sin. And their fourth Errour and Heresie is, That forswearing themselves before Judges at the Bar, concerning the speaking of the Truth, and discovering the complices of their Sect, is neither unlawfull, nor sin, but a lawfull and holy Act. These Opinions doe thwart each other; and therefore my [Page 80] Lord Primate had reason to conceive, that the Accusati­on that charged both these repugnant Tenents upon the same Persons was false, and malitious. So his defence of them is not, that they did well in denying to Swear (as F. H. pretends, and which onely indeed had been to his purpose) but that the Papists did ill in burdening them falsely with errour that they did not hold. But not to con­ceale what might be surmi­sed, to give (the least) ad­vantage to F. Hs. allegation, the Arch-Bishop cites an old Vetus Au­tho [...] Ger­manus qui de Waldensium doctrinâ, & moribus scripsit hujus erroris occasionem suisse dicet frequenriam jurandi, & assiduita­tem pro levibus causis, & quia incidunt in perjuria: additque lepidam similitudinem, haere [...]c [...]s qui nunquam jura [...], similes esse D [...]abolo, qui nu q [...]am legitur jurasse. At qui à Christo dedicerunt. Esto Ser­mo ve­ster, Eti­am, etiam. Non non; quod autem supra haec, redundat à malo illo est, Ma [...]. 5, 37. Papistus apud quos ino [...]vit frequ [...]ntia ju­rands, & assiduitas pro levibus c [...]usis, multo similiores malo huic Daemoni judic [...]bunt qu [...]m Wa [...]de se▪ qui (at ex Relatione inquisitoris Pont [...]fi ti [...].) dicere [...]an­tum consuev [...]runt, Est, est, Non non, &c. Ibid § 21. German Author, who writing of the Doctrine, and man­ners [Page 81] of the Waldenses, saies, That the occasion of that Errour of theirs was, mens common and customary Swearing about tri­fles: adding, That such Here­tiques as allow of no wearing, may be resembled to the Devill, who is never read to have taken an Oath. Which Sarcasme he retorts, saying, That those Per­sons who have learned from [Page 82] Christ, that their communication should be yea, yea; nay, nay, be­cause whatsoever is more than these commeth of that evill one, Mat. 5. 37. (not a word out of either Apostle of Swear not at all, as F. H. feignes) will judge that such Papists as have got an habit of frequent Swearing upon triviall occasi­on [...], are much more like the De­vill then the Waldenses, who (as appears by the Relation of the Romish Inquisitors) were accustomed to say onely, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Which as it is a reproofe of custo­mary Swearers (whom all pi­ous men disallow;) so it is no Plea for those that deny [Page 83] Swearing upon just occasion (that is, when ever the glory of God, or the benefit of our Neighbours require it) which Opinion the Primate is so far from countenancing, that he excepts it not from being one of those absurd Errors, which he conceives was wrongfully imputed to the Waldenses. And therefore F. H. did not well to labour to support his tottering Te­net by such unjust means, and to abuse a Person of such eminent worth, and Learn­ing, by making him an Ad­vocate for an Opinion that he detested, as (at least) an absurd Error. If F. H. took [Page 84] it upon trust (as I am chari­tably apt to believe he did from the words or writings o [...] some whom he reputes hi [...] friends, it may be a warning to him how he trusts them another time. Yet (though he did it ignorantly) he is no [...] excusable to deceive his Rea­ders, and wrong the memory of so famous a Bishop, by im­posing upon him so gross [...] slander, which (the book be­ing scarcely to be had) few men can have opportunity to discover. Truth desires not the patrociny of falshood, no [...] ought to be defended by lyes.

26 How F. H. comes to know what the two Romanists Re­nerius, [Page 85] and Jansenius said, is somewhat strange; He, I pre­sume (and it appears suffici­ently by his Language) not being able to Reade their books. And it gives some co­lour to what was not long agoe much suspected, that the Romanists were at first the In­venters, and still continue the supporters of Quakerisme. What these men say, as I know not, so it is little ma­teriall, F. H. not being wil­ling (I suppose) to stand to their determination of the Controversie. The Reasons produced are sufficiently fri­volous. The Antiquity of the Waldenses is not conside­rable, [Page 86] their Name being un­heard of in the world, till above 1100. years after Christ. Their Universality was shut up within the limits of a few Dioceses about To­lous. And their Opinion against the lawfulness of Swearing was not so terrible a Monster as that those two Champions should be afraid to encounter it.

27 It may be (sayes F. H.) that A. S. will tell us that these were condemned in some Generall, or Provinciall Council for Heresie, and if he doe, it is no great mat­ter, since most of these have er­red. How rash is F. H. to con­demne of Error most of the [Page 87] Generall, and Provinciall Councills, which I assure my selfe he has never read. It would be a difficult matter for an abler man than he to prove, that ever any one Ge­nerall Council, truely so cal­led, hath erred in matter of Faith. However, a Generall Council (though not free from all possibility of errour) is the highest, and most Au­thoritative Judicature for matters of Religion in the World, and therefore should not have been so slighted by F. H. though I cannot con­demne him of Imprudence in waving all Judgements but his own; for unless he stand upon [Page 88] that guard, he will certainly be worsted.

28 The fifth Argument in forme is this, Nothing that is not of it selfe, and intrinsecally evill, is forbidden by Christ. (And that is proved by Induction.) But Swearing is not of it selfe, and intrin-secally evill; for the best Creatures, An­gells, and holy Men, the Pa­triarchs, and Apostles, yea Christ himselfe, and God al­so, did Swear upon occasion. And therefore Christ did not forbid it. With this Argu­ment F. H. seems to be much troubled: For he spends a­bout five whole leaves in his attempt to answer it. And he [Page 89] begins with asking Questi­ons: Whereto I answer, That it was not evill for a Jew un­der the Law (as an executi­oner of Justice) to smite out an Eye, or Tooth, or cut off Hand, or Foot, or Wound. Nor was it evill to give Sen­tences to that purpose, be­cause it was so appointed in the Judiciall Law, Ex. 21. 24. Lev. 24. 19, 20. Deut. 19. 21. Nor was it, nor is it evill for a man to seek the defence of his Rights by just means. Yet from all these Concessions, A. Ss. Argument cannot be answered. For that of our Saviour, S. Mat. 5. 39, 40. was spoken to his Disciples, and [Page 90] the people (St. Luke 6. 20. & 7. 1.) but the Law, Eye for Eye, Deut. 19. 21. was given to the Magistrates, Sect. 18. and the execution thereof not permitted to the people, but by the Magistrates con­sent, Deut. 19. 18. unless (as some think) in capital crimes. If it be objected, that then our Saviours words are not opposed to the Law, as it seems they should by these words, But I say unto you, I grant that to be true. For they indeed stand in opposi­tion, not to Moses's Law, but to the peoples depraved cu­stome allowed by the Phari­sees, who being irritated by [Page 91] some injury, were often such carvers of their own satisfa­ction, that they cut out so large retaliations, that at length their adversaries were no less wronged, then they had formerly been injured by them, which was an occasion to make their quarrells, and enmity perpetuall. Where­upon the holy Jesus thought fit to prohibit that practice, arising not so much out of the love of Justice, as out of ma­lice towards them by whom they had been grieved. Here then is not any thing forbid­den that was commanded before, or what in it selfe was good or lawfull; but what [Page 92] was evill in it selfe, and for­merly so acknowledged, as malice, and desire of revenge. So the whole purport of Christs words was, That men should neither wish any mis­chief, nor out of any heat of anger, or rage, contrive, or act any harme to those Per­sons who before had done somewhat to their prejudice. Which notwithstanding, it was lawful to bring offenders before the Magisirates, that they might be corrected, and thereby learn to amend their lives, and abstaine for the fu­ture from the like injuries, or that others by their punish­ment, might learn to beware, [Page 93] and not run into such exorbi­tances; or that they (the wronged parties) and others, might afterwards live in greater security, without vio­lence, or oppression; or (if the grievances were of that Nature) to recover their own, or receive a just compensation. Selfe defence then, and pre­servation in a moderate way, is not disallowed; but such a resistance of Will onely, as arises out of hatred, or de­sire of revenge. So the Learn­ed Dr. Hammond, a Star of the first magnitude in our English Horizen expounds [...] (the word here Tran­slated resist) by vicem refer­re, [Page 94] return not one wrong for another. And so the sense will be perfectly that of the Apostle, Rom. 12. 17. Recom­pence to no man evill for evill. So all manner of Resistance is not here forbidden, for he that pleads for his own inno­cency in a moderate, peace­able, and legall way against the calumniations of an Ad­versary (which Christ him­selfe did, being wrongfully accused) is not to be blamed: nor he that for the manifesta­tion of his Innocency, or De­fence of his Rights, appeales to the Sentence of the Magi­strates. Onely that Resistance is culpable, and here con­demned, [Page 95] that is either un­justly, or by undue meanes undertaken, or prosecuted with malice, or revengefull desires, which are contrary to Charity.

29 The following passage of turning the cheeke to the smiter, is not to be understood lite­rally. For Christ himselfe being smitten, did not so. And S ^t. Paul, being struck, answe­red sharpely, Acts 23. 2, 3. He excused himselfe indeed af­terwards, but not in respect of the acrimony of the Lan­guage, but in regard of the Person to whom he spoke. Nay, our Saviour was so far from the literall observation [Page 96] of these words, that he grave­ly reproved the Officer that had smote him, as he was making his defence, S. Joh. 18. 22, 23. So what he comman­ded here, he did not observe himselfe. else where (the words in both places being of the same Originall) [...], and [...], and consequently did never intend to oblige his Disciples to a literall per­formance of this Precept, but to a great measure of meek­ness, Patience, and Humility, though perhaps some rude people would thereupon be encouraged to overpress them with moe, or greater injuries. The like may be said to the [Page 97] following passage concerning Law Suits, which are not sim­ply, or of themselves evill, but accidentally through quarrelsomeness, covetous­ness, or some other undue cir­cumstances, may be evill. Rather we ought to suffer wrong, than to break the Rules of Charity, remem­bring that of S [...]. Paul, Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible as much as lyeth in you, live peaceably with all men.

30 F. H. tells us, That it is written in the New Testament, Avenge not your selves. This I willingly grant, but cannot guess what he would inferr from thence. Then he falls [Page 98] again upon asking Questions. Whereto I answer, That to keep the seventh day Sab­bath, was not Morally evill▪ That it was lawfull for the Jews to fight with the Ama­lekites, Canaanites, &c. That Circumcision, Sacrifices, Offe­rings, &c. were not evill in themselves. And yet all these answers doe nothing invali­date what I said, to wit, that Christ forbad nothing, but what was intrinsecally evill F. H. sayes further, That these (meaning the Leviticall Or­dinances) were once as really good, as ever Swearing was. But this dictate is not true, and was already confuted in [Page 99] the Sermon it selfe, Sect. 28. and therefore should not have been brought in again without some proofe. Be­sides, it is impertinent, for F. H. knows, that in the Ser­mon it was asserted, That the Ceremonialls ceased of them­selves at our Saviours death, but were not abrogated, but ob­served by him in his life. From that he falls to object, instead of answering, and sayes, If A. S. will needs uphold Swear­ing because commanded to the Jews (that is as a part of the Judiciall or Ceremonial Law, for nothing els was comman­ded to the Jews more than to other Nations, the Morall [Page 100] Law extending to all) befor [...] Christ, he is a debtour to t [...] whole Law, Gal. 5. 3, 4. Th [...] is as much as to say, Though [...] cannot answer the Argumen [...] proposed, yet I can bring i [...] another which A. S. neve [...] proposed, nor any man e [...] that understood what he said and that I can, and doe thu [...] answer. And it is tru [...] that F. H. cannot answer th [...] Argument proposed, unle [...] the bare denial of the Conclusion will doe it; or that wha [...] ever he sayes must be take [...] for Truth upon his word. [...] proved that all Swearing wa [...] not forbidden by Christ, because some Swearing was lawfull, [Page 101] (it being used by holy men in both Testaments, An­gels, and God himselfe) and Christ never forbad what was lawfull. Whereto F. H. re­plies, We doe not look upon any Swearing to be now a duty, (his looking, or rather not look­ing must it seems be prefer­red before my Reason) but affirme all Swearing to be now a sin, (is not this to deny the conclusion?) because forbidden by the positive Law of Christ under the Gospel, (he begs the Question, and without Rea­son takes for granted, what I [...]y Reason had disproved) who by his death ended the right [...]f that. These words doe en­terferr, [Page] [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102] and are not reconcileable together. For, if Chris [...] for bad Swearing by a positiv [...] Law, then he ended not th [...] right thereof by his death▪ And if he ended the righ [...] thereof by his death, then h [...] did not forbid it by a positiv [...] Law in his life. All the me [...] in the w [...]rld cannot mak [...] this Sentence of F. Hs. eithe [...] true, or consonant to it selfe▪ And he might have learne [...] as much out of the 29. Sect▪ of the Sermon. But to mak [...] it pass more currantly (at le [...] in the fist member) he bring [...] in the [...]estimony of Sam: Fi­sher. Ridiculous! A man to b [...] a witness in his own cause [Page 103] or a Quaker sayes, That he is in the right, therefore he is in the right. And although F. H. calls that S. Fs. Argu­ment, and sayes, It is of force, which was indeed but a meer dictate; yet I thinke other men will not be of his mind. For that would equalize these people to God in respect of Veracity, if all their words were proofes not to be deny­ed. But by ill luck F. H. ha­ving cited with applause S. Fs. words, 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 universall prohibition of all Swearing; im­mediately [Page 104] contradicts it, say­ing, That Christ by his death put an end to the Law. For if Christ forbad it in his life, how did he put an end to it at his death? So then F. H. and S. F. are irreconcileably at odds; and if S. F. said well (as F. H. sayes he did) then F. H. did ill, when in the same breath he contra­dicted it. The wit of man cannot attone those repug­nant Assertions. Nor does F. Hs. subtile invention of a middle dispensation unty the knot, because there is no in­ [...]mediate time betwixt life and death. Our Saviour kept [...] over the very Night [Page 105] he was betrayed, and dyed the next day, with whom the Ceremoniall Law expired. I demand then, whether had it been lawfull to have Sworne that night, or no? If it had, then it was not forbidden by these words of our Saviour, Swear not at all, (for they were spoken before, and surely it had not been lawfull to have acted contrary to Christs pre­cept) and consequently A Ss. Doctrine in his Sermon was true. But if it had not been lawfull, as formerly prohibi­ted, then F. H is wrong, who sayes, Christ put an end to it at his death. For he could not then put an end to that [Page 106] which was ended before. So it is most certain, that either S. F. or F. H. are false Teach­ers, they dating the unlaw­fulness of Swearing upon dif­ferent accounts, and from se­verall times. And for that conceit that Christs words Swear not at all, were Prophe­ticall (which it may be F. H. aymes at by his middle dispen­sation, and his discourse of Christs foreknowledge) as it yields the Question in grant­ing, that Oaths were not thereby at present forbidden, so it was refuted in the Ser­mon Sect. 29. whereto no re­ply has been made. But here F. H. offers at a proofe (which [Page 107] he seldome attempts, and therefore it is fit he should now be regarded) from S ^t. John 4. 23. where the Sama­ritan Woman perceiving Jesus to be a Prophet verse 19. de­sires to be resolved whether the Jews, or they, were in the right, touching the place of Gods externall worship then legally performed by Sacrifi­ces, and Offerings, verse 20. He in his Answer tells her, That that debate shall pre­sently take end by the abo­lition of these extrinsecallrites, whereto a more Divine and Spirituall worship should succeed, For the houre com­meth, and now is, when the true [Page 108] worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit, and in Truth, ver. 22. Where upon F. H. inferrs, That the time was then, but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled, (in timating, that what is now, may come more perfectly afterwards) and so applyes it as a commodious place to interpret and explaine Christs meaning in that prohi­bition, Swear not at all. But [...] answer to this, First, That these words as he under­stands them, are not appli­cable to his purpose. And se­condly, That he does not un­derstand the place aright First, The words in his sense are not applicable to that o [...] [Page 109] Swear not at all. For though some what may be now in inchoation, which shall after arrive at a greater measure of perfection (as an Embryo in the wombe) yet Christs com­mands were not of that Na­ture, but were perfect as soon as delivered, and to be ex­actly observed; nor could possibly acquire any greater perfection, or become more obligatory afterwards. Se­condly, He does not rightly understand the meaning of these words, The houre com­meth, and now is; the purport whereof is not that one, and the same thing is both pre­sent, and future; but that [Page 110] what he there speaks of, was then neer approaching, and should not be long delayed. For in Scripture the praesens is sometimes put for Paulo post futurum, as may appear by severall places. As our Sa­viour, St. Mat. 26. 28. speak­ing of the Sacramentall Wine, sayes, This is my blood which is shed, where is, doe: not import, that it was al­ready shed, or then in shed­ding; but that is was to be shed the next day. So S ^t. Paul 1 Cor. 11. 24. reciting Christs words at the Institution of the holy Eucharist expresses them thus, Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for [Page 111] you, where no man will say, that the word is, implies that Christs Rody was then broken (though it be of the present Tense) but that it was soon after to be broken. So here, The houre commeth, and now is, imports no more, than that Nūv sig­nificat tempus d [...] pro [...]imo immiuens: quasi di­cat eru, imò jam Jam erit, Grotius in loc. the time is at hand And thus both the Fathers, as S [...]. Chry­sostome, and Theophilact, and the moderne Commentators interpret the words; whereby it is clear, that F. H. mistakes the meaning of the place, and that his subtle device makes nothing at all to his advantage.

31 As for F. H ^s. many in­stances, to show that some­what [Page 112] was commanded by the Ceremoniall Law, which ought not now to be observed, he need not wonder what may be said thereto. For I have already granted them, and shall not think that concessi­on does any way prejudice mine assertion, That Christ forbad nothing, but what was evill. For which I appeale to the judgement of any man that is able to distinguish be­twixt Expiration, and Prohi­bition, which was plainely taught in the Sermon Sect. 8. In this sense Christ forbad not, but used the Ceremoni­all Law all his life; at whose death not withstanding it ex­pired, [Page 113] the shadows vanishing, when the substance was exhi­bited. So it is now antiquated, not by any prohibition, (for who could forbid what God had appointed?) but by im­pletion, the death of the Son of God being prae [...]ipyfied, and adumbrated by the Legall observances which are now become unlawfull, not in themselves, but as implying a deniall of Christs Passion, and an expectation of a future Messias, or another Saviour.

32 F. H. proceeds, and tells his Reader, What ever may, or can be said, A. S. will needs con­clude, that all Swearing is not forbidden. And why? Because [Page 114] it hath been the practice of holy men, and also an Angel. This Argument is of little force, &c. and yet he spends five pages in confuting it, and sayes, It has been answered over and over, and over againe, though A. S. will not take notice of it. Indeed A S. is resolved to take no notice of it, for he owns not the Argument. His Argument was, Christ never forbad any thing that was not evill. But Swearing is not evill, because God, and An­gels, Christ, and St. Paul used it, and therefore Christ for­bad it not. F. H. attempted to refute the Major, or first proposition, but his instances [Page 115] by ill fortune not reaching home, and so (it seems) per­ceiving himselfe too weak to answer that Argument, he craftily substitutes another in stead thereof, and frames it thus, Swearing was the pra­ctice of holy men, and an Angel, and therefore all Swearing is not forbidden. And then he falls with might and main upon this figment of his own in­vention, whilst the simple, and unattentive Reader may think, that he is all this time confuting my Argument, which he doth not in the least touch, much less oppose. Whereupon I doe not hold my selfe at all obliged to [Page 116] trace his steps in this wilde and impertinent extravagan­cy.

33 F. H. denies not, but that good men, and Angels swore, but grants, That the Lord Swore once, yea more than once, and tells us upon what consi­deration it was, which con­cessions are fully sufficient to prove, that Swearing is not of its own nature evill, which is as much as I desire, and as much as will make mine Ar­gument unanswerable. And therefore 'tis not at all mate­riall to my purpose, whether Amen be an Oath, or not, which our Church (as S [...]. Am­brose also thought) asserts; [Page 117] though F. H. judges it to be concluded upon too slender a ground; or whether our Sa­viour swore, or not, (which were it true, sayes F. H. would onely prove Swearing lawfull in Sermons as though that were not sufficient for the confirmation of mine Ar­gument) for the acknow­ledgment that God, and An­gels swore, sufficiently evi­dences Oaths to be lawfull; and therefore I shall not de­bate the point with F. H. but for quietness sake, suffer the Opinion of F. H. to prepon­derate (if the Reader think fit) the Authority of the Church.

34 [Page 118]And upon the same ac­count I pretermit his strange conceit, I hat it seems to him that I prove the Magistrate [...] exacting Oaths out of the Mosaicall Law; as also his knowledge in Is: Pennington's writings, which nevertheless is possible not so great, but some of his private Letters may escape his notice; and how ever what I alledged, I can show under his hand, that subscribes himselfe I P.) and his reiterated complaint, that their calling God to witness (which we grant to be an Oath) is not accepted by the Magistrates, (which I answer­ed in the Annotation to the [Page 119] 16th. Sect. of the Sermon, and again here, Sect. 14.) where to he had it seems no­thing to reply, but is pleased to talk the same thing over and over again, and his cita­tion of Authors whose Testi­monies are not at all repugnant to what A. S. had said: and his roving discourse of holding up the hand, or laying it on a Bible, or kissing a Book▪ or say­ing after a Cryer, I Swear, which never man that I know did: or finally, that pretty device, which he termes, a more necessary discourse, which he would suggest to A. S. to induce him to perswade the Magistrates to forswear them­selves; [Page 120] all these I pass by, a [...] wholly impertinent to the matter in hand, and hasten to consider his Answer to the sixth Argument.

35 Wherein he seems to be perplexed more than [...]ver, and much troubled in find­ing matter to fill up two leaves of answer; and there­fore falls upon many digressi­ons. The force of the Argu­ment is this, Either Christ forbad not taking an Oath upon a just occasion; or else S. Paul (though assisted by the holy Ghost) understood not the Text; or if he under­stood it, he acted against it, and that not rashly, but upon [Page 121] deliberation, because in his Epistles, he calls God to witness, which is a formall Oath. To this, after a diversion what a just occasion is (and that I call a just occasion of an Oath, when thereby some necessary may be effected, which other­wise probably could not be done) and a crimination of my discourse as tending to an allowance of frequent, and unnecessary Swearing (not­withstanding his contrary ac­knowledgement, That I seem to condemne sometimes needless and vain Oaths in ordinary com­munication) he grants that the Apostle knew his Masters meaning, and that in his wri­tings [Page 122] he acted not contrar [...] to his knowledge, and also that he calls God to witness and soone would think he would yield the conclusion: but to avoyd that, he unex­pectedly denies, That calling God to witness is Swearing, not­withstanding that cloud of witnesses I produced, that de­fined it in that sense. Tis hard to deale with men that deny definitions. But if that be not an Oath, I would gladly know what in F. Hs. Judge­ment (or those of his perswa­sion) an Oath is, and by what discriminating Character it may be known, when a man Swears, and when not, which [Page 123] till it be done, all dispute is rendred useless, or fallacious, as must needs happen if men doe not agree what it is concerning which they dis­pute. For not performing of which, I am taxed by F. H. though I thought I had done it sufficiently in the 16. and 17. Sections of the Sermon. And I am clearly of Opinion, that an Oath consists in the attestation of God implyed, or expressed by some means or other, that alwayes, and nothing els being essentiall there to. Nor can I call to mind that ever I read, or heard any to another sense. And therefore F. H. when he [Page 124] denied that, should have given us a better, at lest ano­ther, which yet he has not done, and so is really become guilty of what he causelessely imputed to me. And there­fore I cannot but fear, that F. H. did not onely wrong me, and the Truth, but his own Conscience also, when he writ this Sentence, In the 89. pag. he saith, That Christ answering to the High Priest, I am, and thou hast said, is an Oath. Look that page in the Sermon, and it will appeare, there are no such words, nor any to that purpose. And with the like, or rather the same blot he asperses me [Page 125] again, and the same 34. page, where he sayes, That I am so uncertain in my definition of an Oath, that one shall hardly know what to pitch upon to be my Judgement; sometime it is this, and sometime it is that, and sometime it is neither this nor that. A Christian ought not to take the liberty to swerve from the Truth for his own Advantage, or for making good his own Tenent. And I challenge F. H. as he would gain the reputation of a man that speaks Truth, to show where in that Sermon, I pro­fessed that an Oath was ei­ther this, or that, or indeed any thing, save onely some kind [Page 126] of attestation of God, which I have professed so plainly, and so often in sundry places, (as in the 45. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 56. 57. 93. Sections) not onely as mine own, but the universall Judgement of all men, and Ages, that I won­der with what face any man can tell the world, that I flu­ctuate up and down, and can­not tell what Swearing is, but make it sometimes this, and sometimes that, and some­times neither this nor that, whereas I have been alwayes constant to the same defini­tion of an Oath, though not alwayes exprest in the same words. For I never said (as F. [Page 127] H. abuses me) That it consisted in saying truely, truely; but I said, that Amen, Amen, is an Oath in the Judgement of St. Ambrose, G. Biel, and Chem­nitius. To make which Opi­nion agree with my former definition of Swearing, I brought in Mr. N. Fullers ob­jection against it, That there is no Oath wherein God is not in­terposed, (which I doe not dislike, as F. H. mistakes) but fully consent to as mine own sense (as F. H. in the very same page seems to acknowledge) and answered it, that when the word Amen, Amen, is used there, it may be an Oath, though N. Fullers Reason be [Page 128] granted, because God is in­terposed there, Amen, being a Name, or Epithite of God. Thus F. H. falls into absurd mistakes, whilst he will needs undertake to confute what he does not understand.

36 But F. H. pretends to some Reason why S ^t. Paul did not Swear, though the judicious Hugo Grotius say, Non potuit jurari expressius. For (sayes he pag. 31.) what ever A. S sayes, this would make the Apostle guilty of frequent, unnecessary, and common Swearing. But this is very unadvisedly, and irre­verently spoken. For unless all the men that ever defined what Swearing was be mista­ken [Page 129] (I challenge F. H. to pro­duce one contrary instance) and all the world be deceived in the Notion thereof, the calling God to witness is an Oath. And if so, S ^t. Paul Swore; and if that be true, I know not how to excuse F. H. rash Language from blas­phemy. But put the case that all Ages have erred in their Notion of Swearing, and one­ly F. H. and those of his Opi­nion be in the right, that these expressions of the Apo­stle be not Oaths; What are they then? Why, they are ar­dent and zealous, or fervent expressions, &c. but the Apo­stle (as F. H. goes on) spoke not [Page 130] these fervent words unnecessari­ly. Had they been Oaths, they had been unnecessary; but being onely servent speeches, they are not. Smells not this ranckly of partiality? I shall now to conclude take no no­tice of his causeless reproach­es, or his extra vagant excur­sions, to what the Lord Chan­cellor said to one of Wieliffs followers, or that the Coun­cil of Constance burned Wicliffs books and bones: also John Hus, and Hierom of Prague; or looking for Protestants be­fore Luther. These matters being so widely distant from S ^t. Pauls Swearing, I pass by, and hasten to see how he an­swers [Page 131] the seventh Argument.

37 Which in briefe runs thus. Some Swearing is enjoyned in the third Command, every precept prohibitive of vice being necessarily so to be ex­pounded, as implying the contrary duty. For els it is impossible to free the Deca­logue from imperfection. And consequently, Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, implyes, Thou shalt take the Name of God (that is, Thou shalt Swear) where there is just occasion. And therefore Christ who came not to destroy the Law, did not forbid all Swear­ing. To this F. H. replyes, That the substance of this is an­swered [Page 132] before. If so, (which I cannot finde) he might the more easily answer it againe. Secondly, he sayes, That how A. S. can make the third Com­mandement to prove the conti­nuation of Swearing under the Cospel among Christians, he does not see? By this Concession it appears, that he lept over the style before he came at it, and answered the Argument be­sore he understood it. Third­ly, Instead of further answer to the proposed Argument, he brings an Objection against Swearing out of Bp. Gauden. Whereto I return this dilemma, Either he believes the Bishop, or he believes him not. If he be­lieve [Page 133] him, he must yield the Question. For the Bishop was of Opinion, (and writ a Tra­ctate to that purpose) that some Swearing is now lawfull for Christians. If he believe him not, why should he im­pose his Authority to be be­lieved by us? Nor is it Argu­mentum ad hominem, as they call it, unless we were obli­ged to defend what ever that Bishop said. The Truth is, that that late eloquent Bishop of Exeter did merit well of the Church of England; but (as his Genius led him) was more prone to make use of the palme of Rhetorique, than of the fist of Logique, [Page 134] and was willing by endearing expressions, and all possible condescentions to gaine the affections of his Adversaries, (which Method, some great and good persons have fol­lowed; but, through the un­tractable disposition of those they dealt with, not often with good success) for which civility, he had a very unhan­some returne given him by the scur [...]ilous and petulant Pen of S. Fisher. Lastly, this Objection needed not to have been repeated here to no purpose, it being at large, and satisfactorily answered in the 22th. Sect. of the Ser­mon; against which, though [Page 135] F. H. has neither offered any Reply, nor can with any show of Reason refute what there is said, yet dissembling that it was already fully answered, he reiterates the same Obje­ction as unanswerable, when he had nothing els to talk of, that the weak people of his persuasion might surmise that he said somewhat (though indeed nothing to the pur­pose) and was not altogether confuted. But F. H. has yet a further Reply, and that is, That I stand upon the Morality of the third Command, I much forget my selfe. And his Rea­son is, because all things con­teined in the first Table, are not [Page 136] Morall. And then he instan­ces in the confessed Ceremo­niality of somewhat in the fourth Command, to wit, in the designation of the se­venth day; and professes, we used to call it (that is, the fourth) as Morall as the third, which if he meane of every particular therein specified, is a gross, and notorious un­truth. But let him not mi­stake himselfe in thinking to escape so. For either the third Command which is no more dut this, Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain) is Morall, or it is not. If it be, then Christ has neither for­bidden it, nor ought that is [Page 137] consequent therein; and so my Argument holds good, notwithstanding his preten­ded Answers. But if it be not Morall, but Ceremoniall, (Ceremonies being now anti­quated in the time of the Gospel) then we may now law­fully, and without sin, take the Name of God in vain, which is impious to assert. From which F. H. (to give him his due) is so far different in opi­nion, that he expressely saies, That he does not make void the third Commandement, and by consequence acknowledges the validity of my Reason, that our Saviour did not for­bid all Oaths, and implicitly [Page 138] destroys what formerly he had built, and grants his own Tenet to be false.

38 But F. H. sayes, He cannot own Swearing in that Ceremoni­ous way as the Iews did use it. It would perhaps puzzle him to tell us of any one Cere­mony that was by the Jews inseparably annexed to the taking of an Oath. How ever the Question now betwixt us is not, whether any Ceremonies an­nexed by the Jews to Swear­ing be lawfull, or unlawfull; but whether Swearing it selfe be so, or no. And his saying, That he cannot own it in the [Page 139] Jewish Ceremonious way might put one in hope, that he meant not to refuse it, if tendred simply after the manner of Christians.

39 The eighth Argument was, That Christ never did any thing without Reason. But there was no Reason why he should ab­solutely forbid Swearing; and therefore he did not so for­bid it. To this F. H. replies, (granting that our Saviour did never any thing without Reason) That he denyes the Conclusion. Indeed he has all this time hitherto done so: but here he means better than he speaks. For he produces six [Page 140] Reasons why Christ should forbid all manner of Swear­ing. To recite them, is to re­fute them. They are these: The first is, There was a time before the fall, when there was no Oath, nor any necessity there­of, for unbeliefe, or sin, had not yet entred. And therefore Christ had Reason to forbid Oaths when sin and unbelief were entred into the world, and consequently, when there was a great use, if not a ne­cessity of them. Is not this a rationall consequence?

40 His second Reason is this, Christ is the Mediator of the everlasting Covenant, yea the [Page 141] Covenant it selfe, (if so, he is the Mediator of himselfe) and is made a propitiation for sin, and transgression, to end both sin, transgression, and unbeliefe, and therefore Christ forbad Swearing, which is not useful where there is neither sin, transgression, nor unbeliefe. I grant that Christ came to abolish sin, which were it ef­fected, there would be no need of Oaths. But let F. H. himselfe be judge, whether sin does not still abound in the world. If it doe not, he has no cause for his tragicall complaint of the sad times, and how they that depart from Pag. 5. great iniquity are become a prey, [Page 142] &c. and then surely he him­selfe sins in laying such cause­less aspersions upon the Ma­gistrates, and the Laws, in speaking evill of the Rulers of the people, and in bearing false witness against his Neighbour. If it doe, then there is no Reason why Oaths should be prohibited, they being very instrumentall to the discove­ry and punishment of wick­edness. So this Reason is not for F. H. but against him.

41 His third is, That after sin was entred, and death by sin—such was Gods love to mankind, that for confirmation of his Word, he swore by himselfe, which was not exemplary for [Page 143] Christians truely such. What then? this undoubtedly proves that some Swearing is good, for God swore, and yet he never did any thing but what was good. But Gods Swearing (be it exemplary to Christians, or no) is no Rea­son why Christ should forbid men to Swear, who thereby might rather be warranted thereto. Our Saviour wrought Miracles; these acts are not exemplary to us: and yet, that was no Reason why he should forbid his Apostles, and such as he had endowed with that supernatural power to work them. But this is not all: For F. H. addes, That our [Page 144] Saviour prohibited that, Mat. 5. 34. which sometimes was commanded, and yet be did not destroy the Law, and command for Oaths. If this be true, then God once commanded Swear­ing (and that command was added (sayes F. H.) because of transgression) and that Rea­son, viz. Transgression, still con­tinues, and Christ did not abrogate that Law, (and therefore it still continues in force) and yet did enact ano­ther flatly repugnant there­to. God commanded Swear­ing, Christ disanulls not that command; yet prohibits by his Law all Swearing. So we have two Laws (according to [Page 145] F. H.) both in force, whereof one is diametrically contrary to the other, to both whereof Obedience is impossible, in respect that if we performe the one, we must of necessity violate the other, which is such a Doctrine, as to me seems worse than Manicheisme. For I should easilyer believe there were two several Gods, one repugnant to the other, than that the Father, and the Son, to wit, one and the same God should thwart himselfe by promulgating contrary Laws. Whereupon I cannot imagine that the wit of man could invent any Reason more forcible why Christ [Page 146] should not forbid Swearin [...] than this which F. H. prod [...] ­ces as a reason why he shoul [...] forbid it, that is, because h [...] Father formerly had com­manded it.

42 The fourth Reason is this At that time when the Law w [...] given forth at Mount Sinai, ge­nerally all Nations were give [...] to Idolatry. That I doe not de­ny, which is some favour to F. H For his proof thereof i [...] as weak, as unnecessary, which is, That J [...]roboam 500. years after erected two Golden Calves for the Israelites to worship: and that irreligious practice continued in the time of Amos the Prophet, [Page 147] which was almost 200. years [...]fter, as appears Amos 8. 14. [...]nd therefore the people of [...]he whole world were gene­ [...]ally Idolaters many hundred years before. A weak intel­ [...]ect may discerne what a non sequitur this is. Well, but I have granted the thing, that the Nations were addicted to Idolatry. And what then? Therefore (sayes he) God com­manded (marke that word) [...]his peculiar people to Swear by his Name to keep them from Ido­latry, and that they should not Swear by the Gods of the Hea­then. I hope then Swearing was good, for God never com­manded any thing that was [Page 148] evill for a good end. And think that F. H. dares not b [...] wilfully guilty of so horr [...] blasphemy, as to say, He did, a [...] though he were so impoten [...] as not to be able to effect hi [...] good purposes, without the assistance of wicked means N [...] man, I hope, is so Atheisti­call, as to fix that upon God, for which just damnation is al­lotted to men, Rom. 3. 8. Be­sides, one might much more justly argue, that Swearing by false Gods was unlawfull; and therefore God to rectifie that abuse, commanded them what was lawfull, to Swea [...] by his Name (which was the undoubted Reason of that [Page 149] praecept, in the observance whereof they should not sin; from whence it follows, that some Swearing by God is not sinfull) than that God desi­rous to withdraw them from the great sin of Swearing by Heathen Gods, should give them leave to practice a les­ser sin (but a sin still, if all Swearing be of it selfe unlaw­full) to swear by his Name, whereas he might better have prohibited all Swearing, and consequently, made the people avoid all sin. Which as it had been far more suta­ble to the goodness of God, so it would have been matter of little, or no more difficul­ty [Page 150] to the people. For a common Swearer that added t [...] every sentence, By Baal th [...] is true, might as easily get [...] contrary habit to speak without an Oath, as to forge [...] Baal, and say instead thereof, By the name of the Lord thi [...] is true. But I conceive that this frequent and customary Swearing was never permit­ted, being flatly against the the third Commandement. And therefore that Swearing that was commanded, was onely when there was some just and weighty occasion to take an Oath, which was to be not inconsiderately, but advisedly done. And then [Page 151] sure the Name of the Lord might with as much facility be used, as that of Baal. But admit, not grant, that God commanded Swearing for that end meerly: What fol­lows? It is to be considered, (sayes F. H.) that this was the state of minority of the Jewish Church, wherein God gave them Ordinances sutable to their state; but it does not follow, that these Ordinances were to be perpetu­ally binding—especially seeing Christ has prohibited this about Swearing, and Prophesied, that Types and Figures should cease. Which is a most pittifull beg­ging of the Question; I have alwayes denyed that Oaths [Page 152] are Typicall, and he without any proof but his own bare assertion, takes it as granted, that they are, and uses that as an Argument, that now they are unlawfull. So the Question betwixt us is, Whe­ther Christ forbad all Swear­ing, or no, and he holding the affirmative, sayes, That Gods command for Swearing was temporary, (which is false) and that appears, be­cause Christ prohibits Swear­ing: So that upon the result of all, one of F. Hs. great and weighty Reasons (as himselfe termes them P. 39.) Why Christ forbad all Swearing, is in­deed this, because he forbad [Page 153] all Swearing. Were it not out of great compassion to weak, and seduced Christians, I could not have forced my selfe to write all this (which some perhaps will judge loss of time) in refutation of such irrationall Tenets.

43 The summe of the fifth Reason is, That seeing God com­manded Swearing meerly for the prevention of Idolatry (which fancy was refuted in the last Sect.) and that there is not now that Idolatry in Christendome that was in the world before, and after the Flood; therefore Christ had Reason to forbid all Swear­ing. The weakness of this illation is very discernable. [Page 154] For supposing at present (not granting) that God upon that sole motive commanded Swearing, it follows, that where the Reason of that command still remains, there the command it selfe is still in force. But there are some Christians that at this time either border upon, or live with Heathen Idolaters (as those that dwell amongst the Indians) who therefore by vertue of that command may lawfully Sweare. Secondly, There are that hold, that there is gross Idolatry com­mitted in the most parts of Christendome (if not in all) to this very day, and I suspect [Page 155] that F. H. may be of that Opinion, and then it is law­full to Swear by the Name of God, in a māner al Christendom over, because it is more tole­rable to Swear by God than by the Masse. But (3dly.) the vanity of this Argument does more fully appear, that (whatsoever may be said now of the conversion of the world from Paganisme, yet) at that time when our Savi­our is pretended to have pro­hibited Oathes, the world was in the very same conditi­on, as concerning Idolatry, that it was in, when the Law was delivered upon Mount Sinai, all Nations besides the [Page 156] Jews, being then no less guil­ty of worshipping Heathen Deities, than they were be­fore. And therefore if God for preventing that wicked­ness did once cōmand Swear­ing (as F. H confesses) then Christ upon the same account had Reason not to counter­mand it. So unhappy is F. H. in his Argumentations, that the very same motive which he brings in as a Reason why Christ should prohibit Swear­ing, is an Argument for it, being the onely ground (as he saves) upon which God formerly did enjoyne it. And therefore upon suppesall that there is now no feare of Ido­latry [Page 157] amongst us, and there­upon no necessity of Swear­ing by God; yet it was not so in our Saviours dayes, when the Jews were on every side environed with Heathens, who thereupon should not (and therefore doubtless did not) prohibit Swearing, when there remained the very same cause for it, for which God before had commanded it. If F. H. then would expound the meaning of Christs words according to his own Princi­ples, he should interpret them. The time will come, when Idolatrous Worship shall cease, and the Gentile World become Christian, till that time you [Page 158] may as God has appointed, Swear by his Name, but then all Oathes, even that by the Name of God will become vain, and unnecessary, and from thenceforth I charge you not to Swear at all. But F. H. is not Alchimist enough to extract that sence out of Christs prohibition.

44 The last Reason he thus expresses, The command of Oathes was given for the ending of strife, and controversies a­mong men H [...]b. 6. But men in Christ, new Creatures, Christians ought to walk no more as carnall, nor as men, but as men of God, and as spirituall, and as true Saints and Christians, to come [Page 159] both out of strife, and Swearing. It is most certain Truth, that one main end of Swearing is the Decision of suites, and differences amongst men, whereto it is a very usefull medium. But strife, and con­tentions were in the world in Christs own time, and ever since, and still remain, if not encrease, not witstanding the praecept of our Saviour, and the endeavours of Christian Ministers to the contrary. Now it were very unreasona­ble, that so long as they con­tinue in so great an height, the means of composing them should be taken away. And therefore this is so far from [Page 160] being a Reason why Christ should prohibit Oaths, that it is a great Reason why he should neither then, nor yet forbid them, there being the same (if not greater) necessi­ty of them now, as has been in all Ages. It is true, that all men ought (as they are taught) to avoid the works of the flesh, hatred, variance, emu­lation, wrath, strife, &c. But it is as true (and that too ap­parent) that men doe not what they ought. Nay, can there be any certain, or infal­lible assurance to others that any one man in particular does alwayes, and ever will walk as he ought? Is it not [Page 161] evident, that there are many failings even amongst those that pretend they have arri­ved at the highest perfection of Christianicy? Has not F. H. himselfe (who I doubt not is sufficiently perswaded that he is in Christ, and become a new creature) raised a cause­less strife, when he saw a Scri­pture truth so fully consonant to the clear light of divine Reason published to the world meerly (for other Argument he can produce none against it) because it was contrary to the Opinion that he, & his fellows had imbibed? Did not another Pretious servant of the Lord (as F. H. stiles [Page 162] him) Write a Pamphlet fraught with scurrilous in­vectives, and bitter raylings against a Reverend Bishop, (who had largely expressed much affection, and compassi­on towards them of that per­swasion) as though he had been ambitious to have been listed amongst them that are not afraid to speak evill of Dig­nities; or would have had the Kingdome take notice, that he was set downe in the seat of the scornefull: tantaene animis caelestibus irae? Nay, cannot all men that have either con­versed with, or read the dis­courses of those men tha [...] pretend they are come out o [...] [Page 163] strifc, witness, that they are so contentious in defence of their own Tenents (though most apparently repugnant to the clearest beames of di­vine light) that they will ra­ther speak non sense, than no­thing at all, and produce rea­sonless Reasons (nay Reasons th warting themselves) rather than once denyed? This one Tract of F. Hs. were there no other (as there are too ma­ny) is too great an evidence Assertion. Stri [...]e then there is, and variances there be, and so are like to be a­mongst people of all professi­ons. I confess these things [Page 164] ought not to be, but yet they are visibly conspicuous. And can any judge it fit then, that where a disease is epidemical, the best expedients for the cure thereof should not be practised, but forbidden, and disallowed? But, sayes F. H. every true saying, or testimony, is equivalent with an Oath. It is so, for Oaths are required in Judicature, to oblige wit­ness [...]s to speak Truth. Bu [...] what then? F. H. will possi­bly affirme that he will speak Truth, but he will not Swear it. But then, how shall the Magistrates, or others con­cerned, be assured that he speaks Truth, when he refu­ses [Page 165] to confirme it by Oath? Because he is a Nathanael in whom is no guile. But that is altogether as hard to be known, as the other. For as many have, so any one may pretend to as great a measure of sincerity as he can doe, and yet possibly may, notwith­standing the most zealous profession of integrity, be an hypocrite, or Atheist Where­upon all civilized Nations, even people of themselves, have ever approved of, and practiced necessary Swearing. And thus I have examined all F. Hs. pretended Reasons why our Saviour should pro­hibit all Oaths, and can true­ly [Page 166] say, (and doubt not but every understanding Reader will be of my mind) that I have therein found somwhat against, but not the least co­lour for the maintenance of so strange, and paradoxicall an Opinion. From my very soule I pitty the strong delu­si [...]n of these weak sedu­c [...]d persons, and heartily wish that mine endeavours might be instrumentall to reduce them from their errors; to which end, I have devoted this Refutation of that has (as much as in him is) la­boured to uphold their tot­tering Babel and confirme his credulous brethren in that [Page 167] deception whereinto such as he have mislead them. It would be matter of great joy to me to step the cur [...]ent of this Schisme, reduce these wanderers into the way, de­fend the Truth, prevent Apo­stacy, and defection from Re­ligion, and reconcile disagree­ing Judgements.

45 In the ninth Argument I said, and proved, That our Saviour gave no new Morall Command, and consequently did not prohibit that Swear­ing, that long before had been Commanded by God. F. H. in his Reply denies mine Assertion, but saies no­thing to the proofes, where­upon [Page 861] mine Argument stands as at first untouched, and in its full strength. But to co­lour over his tergiversation, and induce the unwary rea­der to believe that he had an­swered all, when indeed he had answered nothing, he falls to his wonted method of arguing against the Con­clusion. And he first assaults it with the Authority of Bp. Gauden, who saies [...]hat our Sa­viour gave many singular pre­cepts of more eminent diligence, patience, charity, &c. above what ever the Letter of the Mosaick Law seemed to exast, (mark that expression seemed to exact, which F. H. as though [Page 169] he were sensible that seeming to exact, is not really to exact, puts in a different character) or by the Pharisaicall interpre­tations were taught to the Jews. To this Sentence I shall with­out scruple very readily sub­scribe. For the Law as ex­pounded by the Pharisees seemed not to exact what re­ally it did (because in regard of its confessed perfection it must needs contain the whole duty of Man; for otherwise it had not been perfect) where­upon our Saviour, in that seeming Opposition against it, in these words so often by him used, St. Mat. 5. sets not himselfe against the Law, in [Page 170] the true and full intent thereof as delivered by God, but as corrupted, or depraved by the Pharisaicall Glosses; or (which is all one) he op­poses not the Divine Law, which was exactly perfect, nor alters, nor adds, nor de­tracts therefrom, but disal­lows those sinister Interpre­tations which the Jewish Do­ctors had put upon it. And to this I yield my full assent, and am in perfect Accordance with that Reverend Bishop. And I could wish that F. H. were so to with this worthy person whom he so often cites.

46 From thence F. H. pro­ceeds, [Page 171] but finding little to say, yet resolving to swell his answer into a book, repeats what he had formerly layd down in his pretended Re­ply to the fifth Argument, concerning Evangelical com­mands of loving enemies, of turning the cheek to the smi­ter, and of giving thy cloake to him that sues for thy coat, &c. to all which I have re­turned answer in the due place, Sest. 29. 30 and shall not so far imitate F. H. as to recite what already has been delivered, which I hope will satisfie even F. H. himselfe, who I suppose will grant that of the cheek to be a Figura­tive [Page 172] expression, not a literall command. And however it is not peculiar to the Gospel, there being a Phrase sutable thereto in the Old Testa­ment, Isa. 50. 6. And for go­ing to Law, I presume F. H. will not disallow it, nor con­demne all them that use it, as breakers of the Law of Christ. I am sure of this (and can justifie it) that some of his perswasion are both Plain­tiffs, and Defendants, when occasion serves: nay further, that some of them have con­sulted with Lawyers, and make use of all subtleties that could be invented to hinder the proceedings, and [Page 173] defeat the Legall Pleas of such men as commenced suit against them, for what they themselves knew that the Plaintiffs by the Law of the Land, ought to have had, and what they themselves ought to have payd.

47 But F. H. askes, where in the Law it is Written, Love thine enemy, which Christ commanded? I answer, That though it be not enjoyned in the Old Testament in express words; yet (which is tanta­mount) indeed it is, Prov. 24. 17. & 25. 21. which is con­firmed by Davids expression, Psal. 7. 4, 5. and example, 1 Sam. 26. 8, 9. where Saul [Page 174] is expressly called Davids enemy, whom notwithstand­ing he secured from all harme, and danger, which was an un­deniable evidence of the love and Respect he had for him. But F. H. goes on in his ca­techising vain, and asks again, Whether did not Israel fight with their enemies, and kill them? and whether they had not a command so to do? I answer that they did, and were war­ranted thereto by Gods com­mand. This makes way for another Question, Whether this be not another thing that Christ saith, But I say unto you, love your enemies &c. I grant this is another thing, but not [Page 175] contrary to the former. For that was spoken to publick persons; this to private. It was lawfull, to use military Actions against their, and Gods enemies. But it was not then, nor at any time lawfull for private persons to hate one another. Hence Casuists conclude that warr is lawfull, but not duells: and that if a private Soldier kill his parti­cular enemy in warr, out of malice, or revenge, whom o­therwise he would not have killed, it is murder. Yet all this will not infer that our Saviour gave any new com­mand, or added any thing to the Morall Law, but onely [Page 176] vindicated it from the Jewish depravations.

48 F. H. names Polygamy twice for sureness, but brings not any Text to show that it was either commanded, or per­mitted in the Law, nor can doe. And therefore there can­not so much as any repug­nancy with any colour of Reason be pretended betwixt the Law, and the Gospel in that respect. So what Christ said to reduce Matrimony to its primary Institution, disal­lowed indeed the lewd cu­stomes of the Jews; but not the Legall Sanctions, whereof there was not one made in favour of Polygamy.

49 [Page 177]But that objection of F. H. which is of greatest weight, is the seeming Antilogy be­twixt the Law, Deut. 24. 1. &c. and what our blessed Sa­viour said, St. Mat. 5. 32. ( & 19. 3. &c.) which (saies F. H.) is a cleare prohibition of that which the Law allowed. But the terminations of short­sighted men are often rash, and unadvised. Indeed it is impossible to resolve what ei­ther harmony, or dissonancy there is betwixt those Texts, untill we understand what is the full importance of them, wherein Expositors doe so much vary, that it is evidence enough, that there is no small [Page 178] difficulty in them. The Jew [...] who had best reason to know their own municipall Laws▪ were much divided amongst themselves about the inter­pretation of this; and there were great disputes amongst their Doctors concerning this matter, not long before our Saviours Incarnation. The Opinion of Rabbi Sammai (or Sameas) and his Schollen was, That no divorce was lawfull, but where the Hus­band has found some unclean­ness in the Wife, which yet (say some) they interpreted to a great latitude, indeed to any mode, or gesture that might occasion suspition of [Page 179] Incontinency, as by keeping company with riotous men, washing with men in pub­lique bathes, or going with brests naked, &c. But Rabbi Hillel, and his followers, ex­pounded the Text disjun­ctively, Seldens Ux [...] br. ca [...]. 13. 18. that one might put away his Wife, not onely for matter of uncleanness, but also if she found no favour in his eyes; that is, if he took any distaste at her, were the oc­casion never so slight, as if she had over-rosted his meat, &c. But R. Aquiba went fur­ther yet, (and the more li­berty they afforded, the bet­tes they pleased that libidi­nous people) and permitted [Page 180] divorce at the Husbands plea­sure, if he had cast his affecti­on upon some other younger, fairer, or richer, or whom he judged more fit for his occa­sions, or more sutable to his humour. These debates gave occasion to the Pharisees to aske Christs Resolution tem­pting him, not out of a de­sire to learne the Truth, but to bring him into danger, dis­grace, or hatred with the people. For (as Origen, S ^t. Hie­rome, S ^t. Chryostome, and Theo­phylact say on S ^t. Mat. 19.) had he approved of divorses for every cause, he had crossed his former Doctrine delivered on the Mount, (S ^t. Mat 5. 52.) [Page 181] and seemed to have patroni­zed the libidinous demeanor of the leudest people; and had he disallowed thereof, he might have been reputed (as they objected against him) an opposer of Moses, and a violator of the Law, that God by him had promulga­ted to that Nation. And how­ever, what so ere his determi­nation of the Question had been, he could not possibly have avoyded the opposition of those Schooles, whose sen­tence he had condemned: Nor are the debates fewer, nor the Opinions of the Fa­thers and Doctors of the Christian Church concerning [Page 182] the true meaning, and full importance of that Judicial Sanction, and of our Saviours Doctrine concerning divorces less various, than were those of the Rabbies, though they generally agree in this, That there is no enantiology, or repugnance betwixt the one, and the other. Whereby I perceive, that F. H. has not concerned himselfe in Read­ing the Expositions upon th [...]se Texts, nor weighed the Reasons, and Grounds of of those learned Authors, whose consentient Authors, whose consentient Judge­ments are Opi­nion. Otherwise he would not (I suppose) at first sight [Page 183] have so rashly concluded, That what Christ said, was a cleare prohibition of that which the. Law allowed; which there­fore I may deny upon better grounds, and more Authori­ty than he asserts it.

50 But because these words S ^t. Mat. 5. 32. But I say unto you, may seem to infer an op­position to what went before, whereby a less attentive Rea­der may fall into F. H ^s. delu­sion, the concurrent suffrages of both ancient, and moderne Hierome, Ghrysa­siome. Au­st [...]n, Theo­phylact. Par [...]us in St. Ma [...]. Jun [...]i [...], Scharpii, Sym, ho­nia. writers doe teach me, that that expression is opposed not to the Mosaicall Law, but to the doctrine of the Jewish Rabbies, and the lascivious [Page 184] practices of the seduced peo­ple, who were taught, That it was lawfull upon any pre­tended occasion, or indeed at their meer pleasure to turne away their wives, so they gave them a Bill of Divorce­ment. Now that was not the sense of the Law (which did not so much allow of, as sup­pose Divorces) [...], non [...], as Junius words it) but this, That no man should be permitted to turne away his wife, unless he gave her a Writing of Divorce­ment. Whereto Christs words are not contrary at all, but very consistent therewith, as is evident to him that seri­ously [Page 185] considers the 31. & 32. v.

51 And this were enough to manifest to all indifferent persons, how grossly F. H. is mistaken, when he sayes, That it is evident enough that some things were prohibited by Christ which the Law commanded, or at least allowed; which is a no less weak, than bold dictate, what ever the intention of that Leviticall Precept was. But to give F. H. and those of his perswasion all possible satisfaction, that they may finde Reason to revoke their erronious Tenent, I shall adde, ex superabundanti, that some very learned persons have thought, that that of Deut. [Page 186] 24. 1. was rather a pruden­tiall Ordinance, than a Di­vine Command. Non dixit (sayes S ^t. Hierome) propter duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis Deus, sed Moyses, ut juxta Apostolum consilium sit hominis non imperium Dei; that it was rather an humane Advice, than an Injunction of God. And of that minde is Pascha­sius Ratbertus in his ninth book on S ^t. Matthew. And before him Lib. 8. in 6 [...]. Luke. S ^t. Ambrose, Moy­ses permisit, non Deus jussit: 'Twas Moses's permission, not Gods injunction. But because I cannot my selfe subscribe to that Opinion, having reason to believe, that the Judiciall, [Page 187] and Ceremoniall Laws were of Divine Institution, no less than the Morall, I shall adde for F. Hs. further, and (I hope) full satisfaction as to the sense of that command: First, That Tertullian the most ancient of the Latine Fathers (to omit others) renders [...] (which our English reades, some unclean­ness; the Geveva Translation, some filthiness; the Septua­gint, [...]; and the Vulgar Latine, aliquam faedi­tatem) impudicum negotium, some unchastity, which seems very probable, because [...] is that very word that is so often used in the [Page 188] 18. of Leviticus, for naked­ness; which is there put for carnall copulation, the word signifying, the secret parts, as Exod. 20. 26. & 28. 42. & Hos. 2. 9. and so it is Eng­lished, Isa. 3. 17. and meta­phorically any immodest acti­ons, and in that sense rendred shame, Nahum 3. 5. and parti­cularly Whoredom, Ezek. 23. 29. And it may be further noted, that this expression [...] is but twice found in the Old Testament, (as diligent Textuaries have observed) to wit, here, and Deut. 23. 14. where it is rendred by the Septuagint, [...], and in Eng­lish, [Page 189] an unclean thing. And that Text is expounded by Mai­monides in his More Nevochim Part, 3. cap. 41. to be a dehortation from for­nication. All which laid to­gether make Tertullians opi­nion very probable, that the Sense of that Leviticall Edict, Deut. 24. 1. is onely this, that when a wife defiles the nuptiall bed, the Husband justly offended therewith, may put her from him by a bill of divorce, which is so far from being repugnant, that it is perfectly consonant to that Evangelicall Rule, S ^t ▪ Mat. 19. 9. And so that Father might well, and rati­onally Lib. 4. cap. 34. conclude, Adversus [Page 190] marcionem. Jam non contrarium Moysi docet, That Christ taught nothing contrary to Moses. I grant there may be some Ob­jections raised against this Interpretation. For Adultery by the Mosaicall Law was a capitall offence, Lev. 20. 10. Deut. 22. 22. And therefore in that case, what need was there of divorce, when death, not separation, was the pu­nishment due to the offen­der? This, though urged by some of great Learning, and Judgement, inferrs no necessi­ty of what it is produced for. For it may be considered, that a Husband was not ob­liged to prosecute his offend­ing [Page 191] Wife with putting the utmost severity of the Law in execution against her, as appears by the instance of Joseph, who seems in that re­spect to be commended, St. Mat. 1. 19. Again, an Adul­teress could not alwayes le­gally be put to death. For perhaps the Husband alone might surprize the Wife in the very Act, and could not be a witness in his own be­halfe; or perhaps some other might doe the like, whose single Testimony notwith­handing, could not be repu­ted sufficient to take away life, as it is clear, Deut. 19. 15. or possibly the Husband [Page 192] might through the concur­rence of many probabilities think himselfe assured of the perpetration of that crime, which yet he could not make out to the Judgement of others. If any reply, That that Nation had meanes of discovery whether a Bride had not been devirginated before Marriage, Deut. 22. 17. and whether, or no, she had not been too prodigall of her honour afterwards, Numb. 5. 27. it may be said to the for­mer, That the Learned Mr. Ux. Ebr. lib. 3. cap. 1. Selden tells us out of Jewish Authors, that may be thought to have understood their own Laws better than others, that [Page 193] Law concerned not any woman that was at the time of her congress with her Hus­band younger then twelve yeares, and one day; or elder than twelve years, and six Moneths; nor to her whom her Husband before espousals had enticed to lewdness, and defloured, ( Exod. 22. 16.) or ravished by force, Deut 22. 28, 29. nor to her that was not originally an Israelitess, nor to her that had not fifty shekells assigned her for her dowry before Marriage; nor to her that had been vitiated before the Espousalls, but onely to her that had been devirginated betwixt the [Page 194] contract, and the consumma­tion of Matrimony. Which many limitations may well be thought to have restrained that Law into so narrow a compass, that it cannot easi­ly be imagined to have facili­tated the proceedings of the other by bringing the offen­der to capitall punishment. And further, that famous Antiquary sayes, The Husband Ejusdum libri, c. 2. had his choice to impleade his Wife for the loss of her Virgi­nity; either Criminally, or Ju­dicially, to cut off, or diminish her Dower. And as to the other, the tryall of the Wo­mans innocency by drinking the water prescribed, Numb. [Page 195] 5. 24. which might seem to render all divorces useless; there were severall things necessarily pre-required be­fore the jealous Husband could bring her to that Test. For when he suspected her to be too familiar with any Per­son, then he was to admonish her before witness, that she should not be shut up with that man in some private place; for of that admoniti­on he was to make proofe in presence of the Magistrate, before his Plea could be al­lowed. Again, the suspected party was not to be a boy of nine years old, or under, for in respect of such, there could [Page 196] be no just ground for his jea­lousie. And further, he was to prove by credible Testimo­ny that she was found in pri­vate with that Person of whom he had fore-warned her. Besides, if he either re­tracted his prosecution, as he might if he pleased, or had carnall knowledge of her af­ter her being in private with the suspected party, she was freed from undergoing that tryall; as likewise she was that was Married to an Her­maphrodite, or to a blinde man, or to a minor, or was a minor her selfe, or if she were lame of her feet, or wanted a hand, or were dumbe, or [Page 197] deafe, or were onely contra­cted, not Married; or if she had been carnally known by her Husband before Marri­age, or if her Husband were as culpable as her selfe; as Paschasius Ratbertus in Mat 5. sayes, Nihil iniquius quam for­nicationis causâ uxorem abjieere, & seipsum ab eodem vitio, non custodire. For in all these ca­ses, she was excused from those bitter waters of exe­cration. And besides all this, it was in the womans power absolutely to decline that tryall, before the Priest had blotted out the curses he had written with the bitter Wa­ter which she was to drinke; [Page 198] but so, (as also in some of the recited cases) that she was forth with to be dismissed without Dower, which is an Argument, that notwithstanding this Law of Zelotypy, there was great Reason that divorces should be allowed in case of Adultery. Lastly, This Legall Triall of Women began to be disused in the Age foregoing the finall destruction of Jeru­salem, in respect of the fre­quent Adulteries of Married men; by Reason whereof, God as he had fore-threatned them by his Prophet ( Hos. 4. 14.) would no longer have his Name (used in that Rite) to be prophaned, nor conti­nue [Page 199] his miraculous discovery and punishment of their whorish consorts. Thus much I have collected out of that Writings of that great Schol­lar that was so singularly eminent in the knowledge of Antiquities, which may serve Lib. 3. 13, 14, 15. as an Answer to the Objecti­ons, and clear Tertullians Opi­nion from improbability.

52 Secondly, the Fathers of the Church (as was said al­ready) however they inter­preted these Texts, did not­withstanding unanimously a­gree in this, That there was no reall opposition, as to this particular, betwixt the Law, and the Gospel. [Page 200] For which Truth, see the marginall citations with St Chry­sostome in St. Matth. 5. [...]. Erat hoc veteri in lege mandatum, ut qui propriam quacunque de causâ odisset uxorem, non tam prohiberetur ejicere, in quc illius locum alteram du­cere, quod certe non simplicites ficri Lex jusserat, &c. Idem etiam in St. Mat. 19. [...]. [...]. ostendens—quod ea quae ab ipso sunt dicta de non repudiandâ uxore non mod [...] repugnant, verum etiam valde cum Mose conveniunt, ( Ariano interprete) Idemque ibidem [...]. Si op­positus veteri Testamento fuisset (se: Christus) non de­certasset cert [...] pro Mose. & St. Hieronymus in locum. Moses libellum repudii dari jusserit—non dissidium con­cedens, sed auferen [...] homicidium. Sic etiam St. Augusti­nus de sermone Domini in monte. l. 1. Non qui praece­pit dari libellum repudii, hoc praecepit ut uxor dimittatur. [...]t Author Operis imperfecti in St. Matthew 19. Si ma­lum est quare praecepit? si bonum est, quare destruis. Denique Theophylact: in St. Matthew 5. [...]. Non solvit Mosaica, sed integri [...]ati suae restitui [...]. Idemque in St. Matthew 10. [...]. Non contrarid Deo Moses constituit. which I would not trouble [Page 201] the English Reader. But espe­cially the Author of the im­perfect work, (which some­times went under the Name of S ^t. Chrysostome, and is still bound up with his works,) upon this place doth argue to this purpose. Either the Mosaicall Law was bad, or good. If bad, why was it com­manded (it may be added that upon that supposition it could not come from God the Author of all good) or by whom? If good, why then should Christ forbid it, who came to destroy sin, and pro­pagate Truth, Piety, and Ver­tue? F. H. will have much adoe to cleare himselfe from [Page 202] the push, and escape the hornes of this dilemma. And though it will be easie for him to elude the Authority, yet he will not find it so easy to evade from the Reason.

53 Thirdly the Cohaerence be­twixt Christ and Moses in this particular may be very sufficiently deduced from Scripture, for Moses to avoid clancular separations (which might have occasioned much turpitude) ordained that when an Husband had cause to put away his Wife, he should give her a bill of di­vorcement, and Christ saies there is no just cause of di­vorse save onely Fornication. [Page 203] No humane wit or subtility can make one of these thwart the other, but they are per­fectly consistent together. A­gain our Saviour sought to reforme those Matrimoniall abuses (so common in his time) by reducing Marriage to its primary institution, St. Mat. 19. 4, 5, 6. And that he must necessarily do, his will being the same with God the Fathers. To which purpose St. Hierome (in locum) speaks well, Nunquid potest Deus sibi esse contrarius, ut aliud ante jus­serit, & sententiam suam novo frangat imperio? non ita senti­endum est: Can God be so contrariant to himselfe, that [Page 204] when he has once command­ed somewhat, he should cross that decree with some new Edict? tis not to be imagi­ned. So then, Gods will (as expounded by Christ, that best knew it) being against divorces, it is much improba­ble that Moses should allow of them, save (as the holy Jesus did) in case of Adulte­ry. For he was faithfull in all his house, (Heb. 3. 5.) as a ser­vant, and therefore would not oppose his Master. This Epiphanius teaches us, saying. That what Moses Writ, was not [...] Epi [...]h Haer. 33. in [...]tol. sect 9. without the will of God; but [Page 205] he gave them Laws by the im­pulse, and inspiration of the holy Ghost. And this he illustrates out of St. Matthew (19. 5.) where what Adam uttered Gen. 2. 24. is said to be spo­ken by God, because though the words were Adam's, yet the will was Gods; and so in like manner, though Moses promulgated the Law, yet he had learned it from the di­ctamen, and appointment of God. And the contrary asser­tion he refutes in that place as hereticall, being the Te­nent of one Ptolomy, an im­prover of the impious Do­ctrines of the old Gnostiques. And there is much Reason [Page 206] for the declared Judgment of that ancient Father, it being very unlikely (as the learned Grotius well argues, in locum) that Moses, who by his own Authority would determine nothing about a temporall inheritance, but brought the cause of Zelophehads Daugh­ter before the Lord, Num. 27. 5. would make a Law in a matter of much higher con­cerne, before he had consul­ted with God, and knowne his pleasure therein. Nor is it probable that Moses when he repeated the divine Ordinan­ces ( Deut. 5. 1. & 6. 1.) would insert amongst them any thing of his own head, [Page 207] or what was not stamped with Supreme Authority. And therefore we may well conclude, That there is no opposition betwixt God, and Moses; or betwixt Moses, and Christ, especially in respect that the Prophet Malachy ma­ny Ages before Christ (2. 16.) declared expressly, that di­vorces were displeasing to God, and therefore doubtless never allowed by him, not­withstanding the contrary practises of the Jews, and the idle determinations of their Rabby, which here Christ re­formes, S. Mat. 5. 32. opposing his But I say unto you, not against the Law, but the [Page 208] wicked depravations thereof, which very place of the Pro­phet F. H. cites against him­selfe ( pag. 41.) and yet it seems had not so much either understanding to conceive, or ingenuity to confess, how fully it invalidated his Obje­ction.

54 Fourthly, I willingly omit the Expositions of moderne Commentators that assert the full and perfect Accor­dance of Christ, and Moses; because that were a work both laborious, and unneces­sary, and in lieu thereof shall declare what I conceive pro­bable to be the just impor­tance of that Leviticall Law [Page 209] (yet without derogation to Tertullians Judgement) from whence it will be cleare, that there is no repugnancy be­twixt it, and the words of our Saviour, that F. H. thought fit to oppose thereto.

55 It is granted by all, That the Law allowed of divorces for matter of uncleanness found in the Wife, though she was not legally enabled to repudiate her Husband under any pretence. And of that turpi [...]ude the man was appointed Judge, whom it most concerned, and who had the best meanes to discerne the behaviour of his consort, whose uncleanness he might [Page 210] possibly discover, though per­haps he could not alwayes make proofe thereof by two witnesses, as the Law requi­red in that case; so that there might oftentimes be a just cause of separation (even ac­cording to our Saviours Do­ctrine) when yet there could not be any Legall evidence thereof produced. Upon which ground, I conceive, God ordained the Husband to be sole Judge in that mat­ter, and enabled him to put away his Wife, by giving her a bill of Divorcement suffici­ently attested, not requiring the reason of his so doing to be therein specified; partly [Page 211] perhaps in favour of the wife, whom the man peradventure might be unwilling to dis­grace publickly (though she had deserved it) in regard of their former affection, or their common children; and part­ly it may be in respect he could not legally evince her of that crime known onely to himselfe: or if he could, yet he might be desirous that the severity of the Law should not be executed a­gainst her; which was the case of good Joseph, and the St. Mat. [...]. 19. where the word [...] which [...] transl [...] just, is expounded by the learned Grotius in locum, to sig­nifie a gentle, kind, moderate person. that would no [...] in­flict the rigor of the Laws upon offenders, because utmost severity has oftentimes no small tincture of injustice. For it might have been that the holy Mary might have been forcibly violated, where she could not have called any to her rescue, or assistance, and thereupon was to have been acquitted (could proofe have been made thereof) by the express letter of the Law, Deut. 22. 26. And [...], a charitable and well-natured man, is apt [...]o conjecture the best of what is doubtfull: whereto Joseph might rather be enclined by the vertuous, and unblameable demeanor of his Spouse. Whereupon he resolved in equity not to call her into publique question to detaine her Dowry, as he might have done by the Authority of the Iudges (to whom in that case it was necessary to have made his address) being loth to turne informer against one of whom he had good thoughts (which office is not very gratefull to men of mild dispositions) and who (though he had no small ground to suspect her of inconrinency, yet) for ought he knew, might be innocent of any wilfull crime. And yet being [...], that is (as the learned Mr. Selden expounds it in his Ux. Ebr. l. 3. c. 23.) rituum patriorum observantior, very observant of his Country Laws, thought it not fit, nor congruous to the dignity of a just person to retaine her for his wife, whom he probably suspected (though he knew not by whom, or by what accident it had happened) to have been formerly defi [...]ed by u [...]bast embra [...]s. blessed Virgin, no man being [Page 212] obliged to accuse all that of­fend. And it may seem that the divine Providence thought fit to place the supreme Judi­cature [Page 213] in these Matrimoniall cases in the Husband, the ra­ther out of intuition to the [...], the hardness of the hearts, that is, the fierce, and untractable disposition of the Jews, many of whom per­haps would have been so im­patient of so great an injury, that rather than to live with an Adultress (which they might know so, though they could not prove it by such Testimonies as the Law Numb. 35. 31. Deut. 1 [...] 6. & 19. 15. Heb. [...]0, 28. re­quired in capitall offences) they would revenge that wrong with a greater, and bereave that leud woman of her life, which had been too prodigall of her honour. To prevent [Page 214] which mischiefe, God was pleased, not as the Pharises would have had it, to com­mand, St. Ma [...]. 19. 7, 8. (which expression Christ corrects) but to permit divor­ces (as our blessed Saviour al­so did) in case of Adultery, to which onely I conceive that Law, Deut. 24. 1. in the na­tive and primary sense there­of was particularly restrain­ed, and make no doubt but that God was highly offended with the Jewish frequent di­vorces upon sleight occasions, as is expressed, Mal. 2. 16. St. Mat. 19. 4. being injurious to the wives, ( verse 14.) and contrary to his own primitive Institution of Marriage. By all which [Page 215] it is cleare, that it was not the Law (but the abuse thereof those so common re­pudiations upon every cause, any pretence) that our Savi­our opposed. The Law in­deed authorised the husband to be Judge, and unaccounta­ble for the dismission of his wife, provided he gave her a bill of divorce, unless he would either prosecute her criminally to take away her life; or civilly, if he had a minde to put her away, and reteine to himselfe either the whole, or part of her dower; neither of which he could do by his own Anthority, but by the power of the Magistrate, [Page 216] before whom he was to bring proofe of her crime. And this was sutable to the Divine Ordinance, which for the transgression of the Woman, and her seduction of Adam, appointed her to be in subje­stion Gen. 3. 16. to her Husband, which some of them have professed to be the greatest curse that ever was layd upon that Sex. Nor was it so much as the Laws of the ancient Gaules, and other Nations gave to Husbands, who (as Grotius sayes) had power of Life, and Death over their Wives. Yet I grant that this power of Jewish Hu [...]bands was very great, they being constituted [Page 217] Soveraigne Judges as to Di­vorce, which Authority they might make use of without proofe (which was often im­possible) or allegation of any crime. Which Politicall Law, as it was just (if rightly ob­served) so it was (as the pra­ctise of that people manife­sted) very unjust when abu­sed; but had a necessary rise in respect of the ferocity of that Nation to prevent great­er mischiefes, as before was said. But this was without the least intention, that they to whom such an absolute pow­er was entrusted should abuse it, who therein sinned no less, than if a Supreme Magi­strate, [Page 218] who for the management of affaires is by Law responsi­ble to none (and some such there must necessarily be in every Kingdom, and Com­mon-wealth) should contrary to his knowledge, of set pur­pose give wrong Judgement in a weighty matter. This would doubtless be unjust, (though irreversible by the Laws of that Nation) and much displeasing to God, and so no less were the Jewish causeless divorces. Against which vitious practices, Christ opposed his But I say unto you, and not against that Ju­diciall Ordinance. For he came not as an earthly Prince [Page 219] to interpose his Authority in civill affairs, or to promul­gate, alter, or abrogate any politicall Constitutions (for his Kingdom was not of this Iohn 18. 30. World) but to decry sin, and teach his Disciples how to demeane themselves in the performance of their Morall duties. I have dwelt the lon­ger on this point to make it evident to all impartiall Judgements, that there is not the least discrepancy betwixt the Mosaicall Law, and our Saviours Doctrine.

56 To what F. H requires, That A. S. or any man living should show him wherein Christ requires a righteousness, or per­fection [Page 220] that exceeds that of the Law; if he forbad nothing (as to the matter of Oathes) which was not forbidden be­fore, (which Objection he so much likes, that he touches upon it in ten severall pages.) I answer, That one of my Principles is with the Royall Psalmist, to acknowledge the Ps. 19. 7. perfection of the Law Moral. And me thinks F. H. should know that it is so, it being asserted plainly in the 20th. Sestion of the Sermon, as the ground of the seventh Rea­son. And so it may well be, for David either spoke what was true, or what was salfe, when he declared the Law to [Page 221] be perfect. To say he spoke false is blasphemy, because he writ by Divine Inspiration, and the infallible guidance of the Spirit of Truth. And if he spoke truth, then the Law being perfect, there can be no Additions be made thereto by Christs, or any other; for whatsoever is added to that which is already perfect, must needs be superfluous. F. H. brings in simple proofes when he builds his Tenet on blas­phemy, and when he consi­ders this, he may please to excuse us, and require no more, that A. S. Or any man living should show him that, that can never be found. I guess [Page 222] the root of his mistake is, that saying of our Saviour, That none shall enter into the Ma [...]. 5. 20 Kingdom of Heaven unless his righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. It seems he surmises them to have been exact observers of the Law, (and so reputes their Righteousness, and that pre­scribed in the Law to be the very same) when as they were the greatest depravers thereof, and (as tis recorded in the Gospel) transgressed the Mat. 15. 3 commandement of God by their Traditions Tis tedious to re­peat the same things over and over, and yet unless I so doe, F. H. will not take notice [Page 223] that our Saviour opposed not his Evangelicall Praecepts (which were nothing else than just explications of, no Additions to the Law) to the command of God in the Old Testament; but to the Pharisaical corruptions there­of. I should therefore desire, that neither F. H. nor any of his perswasion would hence­forth buz into the ears of cre­dulous, and well meaning people such vain, and absurd dictates; but on the contrary consider seriously with them­selves in the feare of God, whether that be not a pitti­full cause that stands in need to be supported by blasphe­my, [Page 224] and cannot otherwise subsist, than by setting God the Son in opposition against M t. 5. 17 God the Father; and the New Testament against the Old: whereas Christ in that very Chapter gives his Audi­tors a sufficient caveat against that errour, bidding them not to think, that he was come to destroy the Law, or the Pro­phets.

57 The tenth Reason was, That the bigh Priest charged our Saviour to Swear, and he accordingly answered upon Oath; and that some years after he had said Swear not at all: from whence it follows, That the lawfull Magistrate [Page 225] may impose Oaths, and the people upon whom they are imposed, may and ought by Christs example to answer upon Oath, notwithstanding the seeming prohibition, Swear not at all. F. H. is much perplexed with this discourse, and in answer there to spends above three whole leaves. And first, he grants, that the administration of the first Covenant not being fully ended, because Christ was not as then offered up, the high Priest might require Christ to speake upon Oath. Fisher in his Antitote goes surther ( page 15.) and sayes, That Christ being under the Padagogy of the [Page 226] Law as the Jews were, might use some such Swearing as was used under the Law, &c. Thus far 'tis well. One would think that such means as the Jewish Magistrates might lawfully use for the discove­ry of Truth, might also be lawfully used by Christians for the same end: and what obedience our Saviour him­selfe did yield to the Rulers of his Nation, should not by any of us Christians be de­nied to ours. But F. H. thinks I perceive, that though the high Priest might have requi­red Christ to speak upon Oath, yet indeed he did not For in a Marginall note bor­rowed [Page 227] from S. F.) he sayes, That adjure does often signifie to charge, or oblige by bare pro­mise, and as well as by Oath. For which he produces, Acts 19. 13. F. H. did not well to take such dictates upon trust, and write what he did not uuderstand, and so being deceived himselfe, to become instrumentall to the decepti­on of others. But S. F. did much worse, that being a Scholar did abuse the igno­rant and credulous vulgar by a specious pretence of Ex­pounding Antidote Pag. 19. the original words. Adjure indeed is used in our English Translation, both in Mat. 26. 63. and in Acts 19. [Page 228] 13. which (together with too much confidence of S. F ^s. fi­delity) might occasion F. Hs. errour. But the Greek words are not the same, nor alwayes used in the same sense. And therefore there is no credit to be given to S. Fs. contrary assertion, as appears by what may be found in the Sermon Sect. 24. whereof F. H. vouch­safes not to take any notice.

58 But F. H. objects, That the high Priest and Pharisees were about a wicked worke, (he means, I think, that they were contriving our Saviours death.) Be it so. What then? Then (saies he) had Christ answered to that adjuring he [Page 229] had consented to their wick­ed work, which to speak, is Blasphemy. And yet we know St. Matthew speakes it, and I trow that he therein did not blaspheme. So this objection fights against Scri­pture it selfe. Besides, had he barely without an Oath (as F. H. would have it) made that answer he did, had it not been the same as to their wicked designe? His confessi­on that he was the Son of God, was that which they desired, and laboured to ex­tort from him, that they might have matter to proceed against him. And had it not been all one to them whether [Page 230] they had gotten their desire by the intervention of an Oath, or without it? True it is, they were unsuccessfull in the latter, for Christ by si­lence eluded their Questions, and would not betray his own Innocency to their ma­lice, till the high Priest put him upon his Oath, which in duty to the Magistrate he could not refuse, but ac­knowledging his power, and that by divine institution, John 19. 11. (not answering as F. H. conceits without ground, & often repeats & reiterates in his own authority) confessed the Truth, giving thereby an Example to all Christians, [Page 231] how to demean themselves in the like exigent. His much silence therefore is argumen­tative that he would not have Cooperated to their bloody designe, had he not thereto been enforced by Oath, from which he could not evade without derogat­ing from that Authority, which his Heavenly Father had placed in the person of the High Priest. Which ex­emplary demeanor might have taught F. H. to have been more judicious, or at least, more cautelous than to have Printed that anarchicall sentence, that though they (meaning Herod, Pilate, and [Page 232] the high Priest) had the name and bare the title of Magistrates, yet they were out of the power of God (in the persecuting Na­ture) which is the ground and foundation of all authority which is of God. Which treasonable, and rebellious principle is repugnant to the practice, & Doctrine of the holy Jesus (who owned the authority of these, however wicked Magistrates, as divinely em­poured) and destructive of Government, opening a gap to all Seditions, as often as any factious person whether Just­ly, or unjustly, take occasion to asperse their Superiors.

59 But F. H. will prove that [Page 233] Christ did not Swear, and that out of A. S [...]. own words, who had said, Se [...] Sect 17. & Sect. 27. That the sub­stance of an Oath consists in the attestation of God, by what termes soever it be exprest, and that the essence of Swearing, is in calling God to witn [...]ss But Jesus answered onely, Thou hast said; which was neither attestation of God, nor cal­ling him to witness. Had this Argument been uttered in Ʋtopia, or in some Country so barbarous (if there be any such) as admits of no Judici­all proceedings, it might have passed with some colour of Reason. But it is strange, that F. H. durst adventure to [Page 234] publish it in England, where the ordinary forme is, That the Person that is to Admini­ster an Oath, tells the parties that are to be Sworne, You shall speake the Truth, and the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, &c. So help you God, whereto they assenting by some visible token, as kissing the Book, &c. what ever they then affirme, or deny is upon Oath, though not one of them say, I Swear, or By God, or I call God to witness that this is true. All which expressions are needless, as implyed in the Adjurors proceding words, So help you God, which is a se­rious Invocation of God the [Page 235] searcher of hearts, and pro­tector of Truth. And there­fore [...] Christ Swore, though he spoke onely, Thou hast said, &c. or I am. And the Oath he Swore, was, by the livi [...]g God, not exprest indeed by himselfe, but by the high Priest, who adjured, or took him Sworne. And F H might have been so ingenuous, as not to have fastned such an uncou [...]h Paradox upon A S. as that the words (Thou hast said▪ barely of themselves, without any attestation of God, is an Oath▪ which A. S never thought, or imagined. N [...]r was tnere any cause for his zealous exclamation against [Page 236] such perverting, straining, and screwing of the Scriptures from genuine sense, &c. But (sayes F. H.) neither Marke, Luke, nor John take notice of the high Priests adjuring. What then? S ^t. Matthew does, and that's enough. For S ^t. Matthew ei­ther writ what was true, or what was false. To say he writ false, is blasphemy. And if he writ what was true, the no mention thereof in the other Evangelists, cannot make that Truth become false. And therefore F. Hs. illation, though Matthew say, (I adjure thee to tell us whether thou be Christ the Son of God) is not much materiall, to speake [Page 237] in the softest Language, is very indiscreet, and unbecom­ming a Christian. For sure­ly every sentence suggested by the holy Ghost, is very much materiall. Indeed, it is neither materiall, nor true, that F. H. addes, That Christ was as much bound to answer Pilate, or Herod, as the high Priest. For though they were all Magistrates, yet onely the last examined him upon Oath. And 'tis as little materiall whether the high Priest tore his clothes at the words, Thou hast said, or not till the end of the sentence about which I affirmed nothing, nor will contend. [Page 238] 60 A. S. had said, that it was enough that Christ denied not to Swear, Se [...]on Sect. 2 [...]. which assuredly had it been un­lawfull, he would have done, that the people there present might not have been deluded. This had been sufficient to have prevented F. Hs. re­fuge, That Christ did not an­swer as adjured, but in his own Authority. For upon supposi­tion that it had been unlaw­full to answer upon Oath, Christs (who before was si­lent) upon the Priests Adju­ration, returning answer to the demand without any ap­parent disallowance thereof, must needs have been an ap­pearance of evill. And there­fore [Page 239] F. H. should not have made use of that evasion, so derogatory to the sincerity, and goodness of the Son of God, or vindicated it from this Objection, and not onely named it, (as though that had been enough to have re­futed it) and so let it pass.

61 A. S. had said, That to al­ledge that Christ Swore not, be­cause he layd not his hand on a Book, is to trifle, because the Essence of Swearing, ( viz.) calling God to witness con­sists not therin. That (though of 1250. years standing) and such like, are but extrinse­call, not essentiall to an Oath. They may be without it, and [Page 240] it may be without them. So our Church appoints Matri­mony to be celebrated with a Ring, which notwithstand­ing she reputes not essentiall thereto, nor voides any Mar­riage, because it was solem­nized without it. From the former words F. H. inferrs, That these Ceremonial Adjuncts of Swearing are trifles; And then askes me (who never sent, or occasioned any of them to be sent to Prison, though in respect of some of them, I have had too much cause,) Why are so many con­scientious people in bonds this day in England, under a pre­munire for these trifles? Sure­ly [Page 241] F. H. does here trifle egre­giously. And for these Acts of laying the hand on a book, or kissing it, they are onely externall significations, that the party Sworne, acknow­ledges himselfe obliged by the then recited Oath: but no part thereof, Which per­haps (as F. H. sayes) would notwithstanding not be received without them, in respect that those that refuse them may well be suspected not to account them­selves bound by Oath, when they refuse to use such indifferent Actions, as long custome has an­nexed to the taking of an Oath; not that thereby any weight is added thereto, but that [Page 242] they are tokens, and tacit De­clarations, that the Party Sworne does own the Oath, and confess the great Obliga­tion that thereby is put upon him. For I know not one single person in the world (and I suppose F. H. cannot produce any) that sayes, or ever did say, That these bare Acts are Swearing, (though commonly annexed thereto in Courts of Judicature) or that an Oath cannot be with­out any, or all of them, (for otherwise there could be no rash Swearing in ordinary dis­course) or that our Saviour when he said, Swear not at all, &c. had any intention to [Page 243] prohibit these Ceremonies, which were not then by any practised. And this may suf­fice to refell that cavell, that many conceive these forma­lities to be Swea [...]ing by Crea­tures, which F▪ H. truely sayes, was unlawfu [...]. For were it so (as I believe it is not) the mistaking Opinion of some weak, or conceited men that wrongfully thought an innocent action to be unlaw­full, did not ipso facto render it unlawfull: otherwise we could never be assured that any thing were lawfull, be­cause for ought we could pos­sibly know, some or other might have a prejudice a­gainst [Page 244] it. But F. H. argues further, That it (whether he means Swearing, or Kissing the Book, is no great matter, but I think he intends the latter) were better to be whole­ly avoyded, then so many men suffer, because they cannot doe it. I answer, They may doe it, if they please, for Id pos­sumus quod jure possumus: Can­not any man lay his Hand on a book set before him? Or cannot he doe that justly, which no Law either of God, or man forbids? But it is not any Gospel Institution. What then? No Law of God either enjoynes, or prohibits it. Therefore it is a thing of it [Page 245] selfe indifferent, and may be done, and indeed must be done, if a lawfull Superiour command it. I would aske F. H. if nothing be lawfull but what is expressly ap­pointed in the Gospel? If so, then he may not weare nine­teen buttons on his doublet, for that I take it he finds not in the Gospel. Again, if no­thing were lawfull, which were not a Gospel Institution, then a Prince could enact no Laws, nor make any Orders (how beneficiall soever he found them for the Com­mon-wealth) if God had not already Instituted them in the Gospel. By this strange [Page 246] Principle, all Legislative pow­er of temporall Monarche [...] is abolished, and men may disobey any humane Laws (which they are un willing to observe) under that coloura­ble pretence of Religion (but indeed the source of Anar­chicall confusions) that they are not Divine Ordinances. And then farewe [...]l to that Apostolicall Rule, [...] St. Pet. 2. 13 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords s [...]ke

62 A. S. [...]ad said, That an ex­aminat Sermon Sect. 26. is to answer the Magi­strates both in matter and forme, aecording to what is proposed to him; to show, that Christ be­ing [Page 247] upon Oath was obliged to answer the High Priest. F. H. replyes, That is A. S ^s. vain supposition (though nothing was supposed) and repeats the words thus, Every exami­nate is to answer directly to eve­ry matter and forme, to any that pretends power to administer an Oath: as though a Magistrate had no reall, but onely a pre­tended power. F. H. is still the same, consonant to him­selfe. You know who said, That out of the abundance of the Mat. 12. 24. heart the mouth speaketh. But I hope so well of those per­sons so well of those per­sons that are of his perswasi­on, that I dare make them Judges, whether here he de­means [Page 248] himselfe ingenuously, or no, who presently after the misrecitall of my words▪ inferrs, That I am going about to stablish the Popes Inquisiti­on, &c. as though there were no differences betwixt that, and the moderate Govern­ment of England.

63 To refute their evasion that say, That Swearing was a part of the Ceremoniall Law, I alledged those Texts of Deut. 6. 13. & 10. 20. (as I had before upon the like Serm. Sect. 28. occasion, Sect. 9.) where it is conjoyned with the feare, and s [...]rvice of God, which cer­tainly are Moral. F H replyes, That I tell him this over and [Page 249] over again: (I hope Tautolo­gy in his Judgement is no sin) and goes on in a confu­sed discourse to show, that Sacrifices and Offerings were Gods Service, not distingui­shing betwixt the Morall, and Ceremoniall Law, (Oaths be­ing duties of the former, and above those of the latter, whereat he seems to wonder, and would gladly therein find a contradiction) nor re­garding what was there said of Swearing, That it conduceth now as much to the honour of God, as ever it did, which cannot be said of the Leviti­call Observances. And for what he sayes, or seems to [Page 250] say, that Christs Swear not at all, was both a Prophecy, and a Praecept; he had expressed his thoughts more largely before in his Reply to the fifth Reason (but to the same purpose altogether) which is already fully an­swered in the thirtieth Sect.

64 The eleventh Reason was, That no exposition of this Text, or any other, was to be admitted, that put an in­consistency betwixt the Old Testament, and the new. But that exposition, Swear not at all, that renders it a totall prohibition of Swearing, does so; for it makes it contradict severall Texts in the Old [Page 251] Testament, & therefore it is not to be admitted. F. H. grants the former propositi­on, and sayes, It is true. And the other he does not deny, nor can he: For whereas the Old Testament sayes, Thou shalt not Swear; if the New said, Thou shalt not Swear, there were doubtless an inconsi­stency betwixt them, which no multiplicity of words can reconcile. But F. H. is re­solved to say somewhat, that it may be thought by weak persons that he had answered all that was, or could be ob­jected, and so spends sours whole pages in very confused language, without a period, for [Page 252] sixty, or seventy lines, leaving his Readers to guess at his meaning, which I take to be, that an Oath was a point of the Ceremoniall, not Morall Law, which is contrary to the Opinion of his Brother John Wigon, who in his Paper directed from Lancaster Castle to the Reverend Judge Twis­den, places it amongst the Judicialls (which as F. H. con­fesses pag. 9. is the Judge­ment of many) and was con­futed in the Sermon Sect. 9. and 28. yet at length, he kindly grants with A. S. That Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it, and to end both sin, transgression, and the [Page 253] Law, (marke that, he came not to destroy the Law, but to end it) and to bring in everlasting righ­teousness, &c. This is a new and unheard of method, to end the Law, to introduce Righteousness. But the Texts alledged, Deut. 6. 13. Ps. 62. 11. and Jer. 12. 16. prove not that Christians under the se­cond Covenant, should Swear as they did in the first, for these precepts were onely to keep them from Idolatry: Whether that be true, or no, is not perti­nent to the Reason proposed. A. S. did not argue, that men might Swear, because the Law enjoyned it, (though if he had, it might have passed, [Page 254] for ought F. H. sayes against it; for if these percepts served to keep the Jews from Idolatry, they may have the same use still, especially amongst such Christians as border upon, or are mingled with Heathen) but that these Texts make it appear, that Swearing was once commanded in the time of the Law, and therefore not forbidden now; which is assuredly true, unless there be an inconsistence betwixt the Doctrines of the Old and New Testaments, which F. H. as well as A. S. denies. But desiring it seems to expati­ate, he falls upon a marginall note that cites the Prophet [Page 255] Isay, foretelling that Christi­ans should Swear under the Gospel, for which there be two Texts quoted, Isay 19. 18. & 45. 23. To the former whereof F. H. sayes, That it is a prediction of the Aegypti­ans, owning the Jewish Religi­on, which he would prove from the words, Sacrifices and Oblations. But when that hap­pened, it would be hard for him to tell. I am sure the Fathers, and moderne Expo­sitors, both Romish, and Re­formed, interpret the place of the Christian Religion pro­fessed in Aegypt: And some of them tell us how, and when it was accomplished. [Page 256] And Theodoret sayes, That those Sacrifices and Oblations praesignified the Christian Li­turgy, that spirituall oblati­on. However, were it as F. H. would have it, that were no answer to the Argument in hand. The like may be said to that other Text, Isay 45. 23. of which Saint Hierome Iurat ut—omnis per illum juret lin­gua mor­talium, in quo per­spicuè significa­tur populus Christianus, Moris est enim Ecclesiastici Chri­sto genu flectere, H. in locum. sayes, That therein the Christians were clearly fore­told, giving a Reason of that Interpretation. And [...]—Eorum quae furura expectantur per Christum virtutem praesignisicat.—And a little after, [...]. Q [...]id est igitur quod annunciatum est? Salus & con­conversio omuium ubique Gencium, &c. And somewhat at after. Si legitimè jurare velint, ejus solvis mentionem faciunt— Cyrillus [Page 257] Alexandrinus is of the same Opinion, and saies, This place is Propheticall of those things that were expected to be accomplished by Christ, and particularises the Salva­tion, and Conversion of all Nations, who when they Clem: Alex: [...] Corum. would Swear in a right man­ner, make mention of his Name onely. And [...], Quod ex parte jam vocatis Gentibus accidisse videmus [...] efficietur autem penites in consum [...]atione seculi‡ Proco [...] ­in locum. So Iyra in locum, Ista nune sunt adimple [...], quod per orbem cessavit idolatria, Rom. 14. 11. Pro [...]opi­us sayes, That Prophesie is in part fulfilled (not by the return of the Israelites out of Captivity, as F. H. would have it, but) by the calling [Page 258] of the Gentiles, and shall be wholly made good (as to a generall subjection to the dominion of Christ) at the end of the World. And though perhaps F. H. may re­pute himself wiser than these Fathers, and so give small credit to their Expositions; yet me thinks he should give way to Saint Paul, who ex­pounds this place, not of the Reduction of the Jews by Cyrus, but of the day of Judgement. This is some ground beyond mine own af­firmation, that this Prophesie has relation to the state of the Christian Church, where­with if F. H. be not yet con­vinced, [Page 259] I propose to his consideration the testimonies of his brethren, Is. Pennington, (who sayes in this particular case, That the Prophets fore­told of things under the Gospel in Law-Phrases:) and Morgan Watkins, whose words are, The Prophet. Isaiah spake of Swearing, and as we judge, hath relation to the Gospel times, Isa. 65. 16. But for this also F. H. has provided an answer, and that is, That the Apostle has altered the Prophets word Swearing, and instead there­of has put Confession, which he conceives to be argumen­tative, That God required not Swearing by his Name among [Page 260] Christians, as formerly he had done among the Jews. One might have thought that thin had been prevented by a Marginall Note annexed to the ninth Section of the Ser­mon. The Truth is, that the Apostle S ^t. Paul did not alter the words, but took them as he found them rendred by the seventy Interpreters (which in an evidence of the Authen­ticalness of that Translati­on) without the alteration of one syllable, as is yet to be seen in that rare Alexandrian Manuscript presented to His late Majesty, and in Procopi­us his Copy that he made use of. Now if this be a true [Page 261] Translation of the Hebrew Originall, as it must needs be, (because S ^t. Paul has given it authority, by transcribing it) then [...] which is al­wayes rendred to Swear) and [...], which the Apo­stle (as did the Septuagint before him) uses, must ne­cessarily be of the same im­portance. For the more con­firmation whereof, those that please may have recourse to that Annotation, which might have been a caution to F. H. either to have forborne this answer, or els to have added some Reason thereto, to have invalidated this Re­ply, whereof he was fore­warned. [Page 262] And this you may imagine he would have done, had he had any. But if he could have done this, and ful­ly have satisfied those Pro­pheticall expressions, this ele­venth Reason had notwith­standing remained in full force, even by F. Hs. owne confession. For he grants, that God in the Law commanded Swearing, and gives a Reason why he did so, to wit, To keep the people from Idolatry, pag. 51. and yet he sayes (which is the main scope of his book) That Christ forbad all Swear­ing, as much as any, pag. 68. Now if in the Old Testa­ment some Swearing was [Page 263] condemned, and in the New all Swearing was sorbidden, (both which F. H. averrs) it is evident that there is an in­consistency betwixt the one and the other, which is the force of this Reason which F. H. grants, though he pre­tend to refute it. For the close of which Argument, A. S. laies down these words, I cannot but look upon it as a perfect piece of Manicheisme, and extremely derogatory both to Scripture, and God himselfe, that for what Morall duty one man was commended in the Old Testament, another for the same should be condemned in the New. Whereto F. H. replyes, [Page 264] That it is not matter of Man [...] Judgement; he might as well accuse Christ, and the Apostle, (as himselfe, and the Manichees, for that must be his meaning, if he will make his Proposition intelligible) the one for forbidding to Swear, and the other for diminishing from Scripture, and altering the Pro­phets words, which neither of them ever did. Which sen­tence (implying that Heretiques, and sinfull wretches, ought to be as free from cen­sure, as our Saviour, and Saint Paul) whether it be more bold, or blasphemous, I leave to the judicious and Christian Reader to determine.

65 [Page 265]The twelfth Reason was, the generall practice of Chri­stendom through all Ages since Christ, who could not all be so ignorant, as to mis­understand the meaning of these words, Swear not at all; or so wicked, as not onely rashly, but advisedly to act against them. For answer to this, F. H. plows with Bp. Gau­den's heifer, and brings in sun­dry instances that seem (but indeed no more than seem) to make for the unlawfulness of all Swearing: to examine all which, would require a longer time than I can at pre­sent spare from my more im­portant occasions; and when it [Page 266] were done, F. H. might puffe it away with scorne, as he does the practice of Transma­rine Nations with, What doth this prove from the Scripture of Truth? Whereby I perceive, that this Reason, though ne­ver so clearly made good, would have but a weake in­fluence upon F. H. (which calls the Christian World a Rabble) or those of his per­swasion. Yet for the satisfacti­on of more judicious, and so­ber persons, I could wish that some of those many (to whom God has given more leasure, and greater Ability) would please to undertake the History of Oaths, (which [Page 267] was once in my thoughts, though I now cannot pro­mise it) to shew the practice thereof throughout the Ages of Christianity; which I doubt not would be very sa­tisfactory to all them that are of moderate, and intelli­gent Judgements.

66 From thence F. H. makes a transition to the affirmative part, which (sayes he) has been answered over and over again. If so, his Province is easier. 'Twere no great la­bour (had he nothing to adde of his owne) to transcribe what has been so often writ­ten by others. Another great advantage he has against A. S. that [Page 268] he can discerne his thoughts, and tell others what they are, which he does in these termes: He (that is A. S.) thinks he hath said more in clearing of it, then others have said. If that be so, and A. S. be not mistaken in his thoughts, then either F. H. is deceived in saying these things were so often answer­ed, or some other have as omniscient, and heart-search­ing faculties as F. H. who could redouble their Answers to thoughts before they were spoken. But to proceed, A. Ss. Opinion was, and is that our Saviours, But I say unto you, Swear not at all, was not [Page 269] opposed to the Law, but one­to the Pharisaicall corrupt Glosses thereon, and the irreli­gious practices of the mis-in­formed Jews. And for both these, he conceives there are undeniable grounds of Rea­son, and Religion. The for­mer part, that Christs com­mand, Swear not at all, cannot be set in opposition to the Law of God, was proved in the Sermon by twelve Argu­ments, whereto no satisfacto­ry answer can possibly be gi­ven, the contrary Tenent be­ing destructive to the Princi­ples of Religion, and alto­gether inconsistent with the following words, whereof [Page 270] (upon that supposall) no to­lerable sense can be made, which thereupon has been justly disowned, not onely by all Nationall Churches at present throughout the world, but also by the Ca­tholique Church of all Ages, which is a shrewd presumpti­on against a novell Opinion. And for the other part, That this injunction of our Savi­ours was intended to reforme the Pharisees erronious Do­ctrine, and the wicked practi­ces of the people, there is much Reason to believe. For can we imagine that he, that was the wisedom of the Father, would not rather Preach [Page 271] what was needfull, than what was needless? Or that he that came into the world to beare witness to the Truth, would not be forward upon all occasions to refute dam­nable Errors, and reprove those grievous sinnes which lead so many thousand soules into perdition, for whose sal­vation he came to shed his dearest blood? I desire that F. H. or any other of his opi­nion, would set himselfe as in the presence of God, and consider seriously whether it be not very improbable, that the Son of God, without any motive, or inducement that we can conceive, would for­bid [Page 272] that Swearing which his heavenly Father had com­manded then, when it was as usefull, and innocent, as ever it had been? Is it not much more like, that he should ra­ther forbid that sin of Swear­ing by Creatures to deceit­full purposes, then so ordina­ry amongst the Jews, than that harmeless thing, (that as Answer to Bishop Gauden, Part 2. pag. 50. S. Fisher confesses) had not been evill, had not he prohi­bited it? Can it enter into any mans thoughts to be­lieve, that when our Saviour interpreted the Decalogue to the primary and genuine sense thereof, that was at first by God intended, and repre­hended [Page 273] the abuses, either in Doctrine, or Manners acted against it, that he should take no notice of that customary, and fraudulent Swearing that was so frequent amongst them? Would he that in­veighed against all other vi­ces, have connived at that villany? You dare not say, that he was so ignorant as not to know it, that either then, or not long after, was noted throughout the Roman Empire; nor that he was so cowardly, as not to dare to rebuke a vice that was grown to so great a height: doubt­less had he not reformed so gross an abuse, his Doctrine [Page 274] in that particular had been so far from perfection, that it had not exceeded that of the Scribes and Pharisees. If it be said, That the Law forbad ordi­nary Swearing; I confess it, and yet the people commonly practised it to bad purposes, and the Pharisees allowed that practise; so that though there was no need of a new Law, yet there was a necessi­ty of a rigorous re inforce­ment of the old, both in re­gard of the erronious Do­ctrines of the one, and the debauched Manners of the other. And both these were evidenced in the Sermon, Sect. 39. where it was proved [Page 275] by the irrefragable Testimo­nies, and consentient suffra­ges of Origen, St. Hierome, St. Chrysostome, and Christian Druthmar, (to whom might be added St. Hilary, Theophy­lect, &c.) that the Jews had a base custome of Swearing in their ordinary discourse. And was not that nationall sin fit to be decried? And were not those Preachers justly liable to reprehension, who perceiving the people where they had their resi­dence much addicted to lust, or theft, would yet never in­veigh against those crimes, because God himselfe had formerly enacted, Thou shalt [Page 276] not commit Adultery. Thou shalt not Steale. St. Chrysostome wa [...] of another mind, That resol­ved to Preach against Swear­ing, till he saw a Reformation thereof amongst the people. And shall we surmise that our Sa­viours zeale was inferiour to his; or that he would not as powerfully reprove that Vice whereof the Jews were as guilty, as the Grecians could be, because God had forbid­den it before by a Law which was little observed? And was not this (when in his Ser­mon he took occasion to speak of Swearing) a fit time for the reproofe of that epi­demick sin? And can we sus­pect [Page 277] him so careless, or neg­lectfull, as to omit such an opportunity, and never to re­sume any other occasion (for ought we can finde in all the Gospel) to tell his vulgar Auditors here, that com­mand had been mis interpre­ted, and how notoriously they were guilty of the vio­lation of the Divine Law by their idle, and ordinary Oaths? Or can we conceit, That his Eternall Wisedome would in order to the reformation of this abuse prohibit Swearing by the Name of God (where­of there might be good use, and which was not bad of its own nature, as once comman­ded, [Page 278] and whereof there was no great need, the Nation be­ing generally very respective thereof, as they were taught) and not rather those Oath [...] which were so common in their mouths, as though this heavenly Physition would have layd a plaister to cure a sore heele, when the disease had been at the heart? This could not be the method of an unerring Goodness (nor are his words reconcileable to this sense, but the contra­ry) to forbid the Jews rash Swearing by God, (which they are not reported to have been guilty of) and not to have reproved them for false [Page 279] Swearing by Creatures, which was their constant practice, especially in regard they were incouraged thereto by their Doctors, who as they had certainly taught them to make good what ever they had Sworne to performe by God, S ^t. Mat. 5. 33. so also had dispensed with some per­formances, wherto they were engaged by some Creature Oath, which they accounted unobliging. For it is certain, (which also was observed in Sect. 39. the Sermon) that some of these Oaths, as Swearing by the Gold of the Temple, or by the gift upon the Altar, they judged to be binding: but on [Page 280] the contrary, such Oaths as were taken by the Temple, or by the Altar, or by Heaven, they taught not to be obligatory, as is clearly attested by an Authority more than hu­mane, St. Mat. 23. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Upon which ground, the people ha­bituated to Swearing, made choice usually of those Oaths (especially such as were most subtile, and knavish amongst them) which were reputed in the Divinity of the Pharisai­call Casuists not obliging, that they afterwards might be at liberty, as occasion served, or their interest swaid them, ei­ther to breake, or observe [Page 281] them, which was no less vio­lation of the eighth Command, than of the third. For he that once had imbibed that per­swasion, though he had sworn to his Neighbour, or to a Stranger by Heaven a hundred times to pay him so much money, or doe him such a fa­vour, did not at all esteeme himselfe bound to perfor­mance, if that tended to his disadvantage. Whereby a door was opened, not onely to frequent perjuries, but al­so to Cheating of all sorts. And now let all the World judge, whether it were not more necessary to abolish those irreligious practises, [Page 282] (which tended so highly to the dishonour of God, and the injury of men) than to take away the Lawfull use of Oaths in Judicature, which God himselfe once approved, and (if he have not changed his mind) still allows, and is yet very subservient to many good purposes. And let any man tell me, whether the re­proofe of these gross abuses against the third, and eighth Command (which were so fre­quent amongst the Jews, that the Heathens took especiall notice thereof, as may appear by that skoffing Epigram of Martiall) were not matter fit for the reprehension of the [Page 283] holy Jesus, which (if any where) here he performed, as before was sufficiently mani­fested, Sect. 22. 23.

67 This exposition of that Precept, Swear not at all, layd down compendiously in the Sermon, Sect. 39. removes all difficulties, and is so cleare to them that impartially consi­der it, that they may safely conclude, that such (whoever they be) that oppose it (to what so ere spirituall illumi­nations they pretend) pene­trate not to the depth of the sense, but rest in the outward superficies, and discerne lit­tle of the Truth, but less of the goodness of that precept. [Page 284] But this notwithstanding F. H. (whether he really believe his own groundless paradox, as relying upon the infallibi­lity of his own, and his fel­lows judgements, or that he was loth to retract an errour, which though it be truely honourable, might appeare in the repute of the world dis­advantagious to his party, God knows) set himselfe against this rationall inter­pretation of that Command with all the force he was able. And first, because he could not confute what I said, he sets downe what I said not, and then confute [...] it. One of my Principles i [...] [Page 285] that of the Psalmist, That the Law of God is perfect, Psal. 19. 7. (the contrary whereof is F. Hs. greatest ground, wherein he all along opposes the Prophet David, and that holy spirit where with he was inspired, no less then he does A. S.) in order whereto I said, (as Isidoras Pelusiota had Sect. 23. li. Ep. 107. said before me) That Christ gave no new Morall Command. In stead of which words, F. H. misreports me, telling the Reader that I said, That Christ P. 62. gave not any new positive Law before his death. And then he insults, saving, He sure has for­gotten himselfe much; what will become of the two great Ordi­nances [Page 286] still upheld, Baptisme, and breaking of Bread? I hope F. H. said this out of meet ignorance, not discerning the difference betwixt the Moral, and a positive Law. Yet it is a little suspicious, that F. H. did not answer thus in its due place, but comes on with a back reckoning long after, when the Reader may in pro­bability have forgotten what I said so long before. The Truth is, I did never either say, or think, as F. H. here misalledges my words. I bless God, I set not downe one sentence in my Sermon, which I had not well weighed, and considered of, and knew to [Page 287] be true. And I was neither ignorant, nor forgetfull that the Sacraments are positive Or­dinances, but they be no parts of the Moral Law: and there­fore this Objection is weake, and childish, and by F. Hs. good leave, A. Ss. Argument is not yet fallen to the ground. And here I have a good oc­casion to aske F. H. a Que­stion, if it may not offend him. And that is, Whether indeed he takes Baptisme, and the Lords Supper to be positive Institutions of Christ or no? If they be not, Why does he Ob­ject them against me, as though they were? If they be, why does not he, and his Sect observe [Page 288] them? Then he falls back, to repeat what he said before, That Christ Swore not before the high Priest, (& by this Method he might make a Book as big as Fox's Martyrs) or if he had, it had been no more president for Christians, than eating the Pass­over. But sure if Christ swore, it was not a sin to swear, and then his Disciples, or any o­ther upon the like occasion might have sworne; and if so, then their Mr. had not abso­lutely forbidden it before, when he said Swear not at all, Pag. 62 which prohibition was given out before his death (sayes F. H.) with reference to the Gospel Serm. § 29. times after his death, which [Page 289] conceit was refuted. And then he falls back to Divor­ces, (which I have answered § 49. &c.) and to retaliation of injuries, (answered § 26. &c.) which he had already foure or five times mentioned, so much is he in love with Battologies—Sub il­lis montibus (inquit) erant, & erant sub montibus illis. One new matter he brings in, and that is, That the Law forbad Adultery: but Christ, Lusting, which is more. But did not the Law say, Thou shalt not Covet? Twas from thence that St. Paul learned Lust to be a sin, Rom. 7. 7. where is then the Superaddition which the Gospel makes to it? All this [Page 290] Repetition served to intro­duce his new Tenet of the unlawfulness of Oaths with more state, and greater so­lemnity, whereto as if no­thing could be replyed, he concludes magisterially, Its most evident that Christ prohi­bits somewhat more here, then was forbidden under the Law; yea, what ever Oaths were law­full [...]. [...]. [...]4. under the Law, therefore it must be all Swearing at all, or els none at all, which is but a vain flourish of idle words which have no Truth in them.

68 And here F. H. leaps over to the 44. Sect. of the Ser­mon concerning the fall of the grand Objection, and dilates [Page 291] thereon; but because he re­sumes it in its proper place, I shall remit mine Answer thi­ther. But I must not omit, that whereas I had for clear­ing the Truth interpreted these words, them of old time, not of Moses, and the Pro­phets; but of the Scribes and Pharisees, and had alledged to that purpose severall con­sentient Commentators, and proved it out of this very Chapter, the fifth of Saint Matthew, by the coherence of the 20. and 21 verses; as also by the use of the word [...], (which we English, them of old time) which does not alwayes signifie any great Antiquity, [Page 292] as is evident by that expressi­on [...], which i [...] Translated, a good while agoe, which S ^t. Peter uses, speaking of Gods making choice of him to Preach to the Gentiles ( Acts 15. 7.) which Interpreters think with Reason could not be above twenty years be­fore, and had also refuted the Reasons alledged to the con­trary, in an Annotation to the 23. Sect. of the Sermon; F. H. takes notice indeed hereof, and yet is pleased ra­ther to joyne with the Jesu­ites, and Socinians (those that deny Christs Godhead) in opposition to the Moral Law, than to yield to the Truth. [Page 293] But what answer does he make to all this? Onely this, Thus he (that is A. S.) twists and twines to make the true sense of Christs words void, its evident by them of old time, is Moses time, &c. It seems his bare word must pass for a confutation of all Reasons what ever can be alledged. It is easie for such a Pythago­rus with his ipse dixit, its evi­dent, to answer whole books before he understand them.

69 To the explication of my Text layd downe in the 39. Section of my Sermon (and more largely discoursed on here 66. Sect.) F. H. not be­ing it seems satisfied there­with, [Page 294] (and perhaps he is re­solved that his dissatisfaction shall be perpetuall) objects many things; And first he Pag. 66. sayes, That there is no Reason at all to believe, that the Jews in Judicature should forbeare Swearing by the Name of God, when their Scripture was so ex­press for it, and should chuse that way of Swearing (by crea­tures) and cites the Autho­rity of Drusius for his Opini­on, who sayes, That among the Jews, all things in Judicature were confirmed by Oath, where­in the Name of God was inter­posed. This Argument he bor­rowed of S. Fisher, and both of them were beholden to [Page 295] Bishop Gauden for it. And to speak the Truth, I hold it ra­tionall, and assent to it, and shall not need to give it any other answer than this, That it is impertinent. For when our Saviour said, Swear not at all, he spoke not against Oaths in generall, nor particularly of Oaths taken before Magi­strates (and therefore did not condemne them) for the due manner of Swearing by God was there (I grant) obser­ved; but of rash, and frau­dulent Oaths by Creatures in bargaining, or other private communication betwixt one man, and another. So this shaft was shot quite besides [Page 296] the mark; for what conse­quence is this, The Jews in cases of Judgement before their Magistrates never swore but by God, therefore they never swore by Creatures, as Heaven, Earth, &c. in their private talke?

70 Secondly, Another Arrow does F. H. borrow out of S. Fs. Quiver, and that is, That it is unlikely that the Jews should so customarily make use of those unobliging Oaths, which would have been so far from putting an end to Mens jealou­sies, distrusts, unsatisfactions, and insecurities, that the very tender of such had been suspiti­ous, and argumentative that the [Page 297] party so Swearing, had an in­tention to cheat. But to this I answer, That no Topique is of less force than that of conjecturall probabilities. Tis well enough known, that an able Orator can make the same thing seem either like­ly or unlikely. Nor can an hundred guesses of this na­ture counterballance the te­stimony of one single credi­ble witness. Such a thing is very unlikely to happen; yet it may chance so to sall out, such a matter is very like to take effect, yet it is not certain. Of both kinds many instances may be produced. But what I asserted of the [Page 298] Jews, both Swearing, and fraudulency, is attested by Authors of indubitable credit, and therefore cannot be con­futed by failable surmises. Neither is there so much pro­bability of the falshood of my Tenet (setting aside the unquestionable Authority for the proof and assurance there­of) as there is for the Truth of it. For who knows not, that in every place there are some more subtile, some more simple, some cheaters, some cheatees, (as our Comedian Phrases it) and that these by sinister Arts, Oaths, preten­ces of Piety, and many cun­ning practices may easily im­pose [Page 299] upon the other, or upon strangers, that suspect not him to be a Wolfe, whom they find in Sheeps clothing? I confess it is very improba­ble, that such as knew, and considered the invalidity of those Oaths, unless they were very credulous, should suffer themselves to be often delu­ded thereby. I neither say, nor think that: my Tenet stands well enough without it. There might be too many that made it their endeavours to beguile those they dealt withall, by fallacious Oaths, or promises of ambiguous sense, though the more wary, and cautelous people were [Page 300] not alwayes over-reached.

71 Next F. H. tells us, That if Christ onely prohibited those Oaths which the Pharisees in­dulged to the people, wherein as to the point of Swearing did he prescribe a righteousness beyond Moses (he should rather have said, above God) for God by Moses in the Law it selfe had universally forbidden all other Oaths, (to wit, all false, vain, and Creature Oaths) save onely that by his own Name. And so Christ either forbad that, or nothing that was not forbidden before. To which I say, That if F. H. will re­peat the same thing forty times over, I cannot help it. [Page 301] The ground of all his mi­stakes is, that Popish Opini­on, that the Law was imper­fect. That Paradox (direct­ly contrary to King Davids assertion) he will needs sup­pose as an undeniable Princi­ple, whatsoever David, or any other can say against it? Yet I would demand of him (if indeed it be so as he sayes, That God made the Law imperfect) did he doe it igno­rantly, or knowingly? To say he did it ignorantly, is blasphemy; for if he be ig­norant, he is not Omniscient, and consequently, not God. And if he did knowingly, ei­ther he could not make it [Page 302] better, or he would not. To say he could not, is as bad as the former, for that takes a­way his Omnipotency, and then he were not God (to whom nothing is impossible, S ^t. Luke 1. 37.) nor Almighty, and then the first Article in the Creed, and many Texts in Scripture, are altogether untrue. To say he would not, is worse (if worse can be) for that derogates from his good­ness, and from the Truth of his Word, who questionless made his Edicts, as he did his works of Creation, Very good. 'Tis strange that F. H. cannot be content to contradict me, but he must also fight against [Page 303] God. Upon these grounds I shall not doubt to profess it as a certain Truth, that Christ gave no new Command in the matters of Oaths (nor in any other) more than what was formerly enjoyned in the Morall Law, though F. H. does conceive that to be a great obsurdity, and vainly raises, the most of his Obje­ctions upon that bottome.

72 As weak also is that which F. H. addes out of S. F. That the Particle (But) being not between forswearing, and pro­phane Swearing; but between forswearing then, and no Swear­ing now, shewes Christs intent to be to prohibit all Swearing. [Page 304] For this is a meer begging of the question, and has no force at all in it, the opposition not being as he surmises, betwixt forswearing, and no Swearing; but betwixt forswearing by God, and no Swearing by Creatures. And where he addes, That no Oath by a Creature did God count as an Oath made to him, he is fallen into the errour of the Jews, who for that very Reason thought not such Oaths obligatory; which con­ceit Christ refells, St. Mat. 23. 20, 21, 22. And neither S. F. nor F. H. needed have gone further than the very sentence that immediately follow the words, Swear not [Page 305] at all, to have discovered the falshood of that Opinion, had either of them understood them. This I suppose is one of those firme and demonstra­tive Arguments of force of S. F ^s. which (yet unanswered) will live as a living testimony in generations to come, (as F. H. has it:) To each of which, because I did not mispend so much time as to returne a particular Answer in some marginall Annotation to the Sermon, F. H. taxes me; whereas, had they been (as he reputes them) unanswera­ble, he might the rather have been pleased to excuse me, for not attempting an impos­sibility. [Page 306] Indeed in all those many I pretermitted, I could finde nothing worth either my Refutation, or the Rea­ders notice. Nor had I trou­bled my selfe at all with this, and severall others, had not F. H. (to small purpose, as I think) inserted them into his Pamphlet. Of which sort is that which immediately fol­lows, That Christs own expressi­ons in the affirmative part, [but let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay] shew his mean­ing in the negative to be a pro­hibition of all Swearing, as well as any. For these expressions (which are to be restrained to ordinary discourse betwixt [Page 307] man and man, as appears by the word communication) are exclusive of all Creature-Oaths; but especially of those that were abused to fraudulent intentions. And that is all that there is meant: for rash, and idle Swearing by the Name of God was forbidden before in the third Command, and so being not used by the peo­ple, needed not be prohibi­ted again by Christ, (who did nothing in vain) because he could have added thereto no more than Divine Authority, and that it had already, whereby it then stood in full force, and so shall doe untill [Page 308] the ending of the World.

73 But here F. H. demands, If our communication, and conver­sation P. 68. 69. should be without Swear­ing, and our mutuall converse one with another among Men, should be without Oathes, is not this exclusive of Swearing in Courts, and before Magistrates, where Men have their Commu­nication, and their mutuall con­verse with each other as ordina­rily, and commonly as elswhere? I answer, that there is a great difference betwixt ordinary communication, and examina­tion of people in Courts. And that is generally knowne. For no examinate can properly say, I have been conversing, [Page 309] or talking with the Judge; but I have been examined by him, or given in my answer to the Court. And again Swear­ing is called ordinary, not in regard of Places where, but of Persons by whom Oaths are taken, which though commonly done in Courts, yet thousands of people are not once, many but once, and few are often called thi­ther upon that account in all their lives. And can these be truely termed ordinary Swea­rers? F. H. may muse hereat, P. 69. (and so may others, as often as they please;) but I confess I can here discerne no cause of wonder. That which seems [Page 310] to be the alledged Reason thereof, That no proofe can be brought under the Gospel for them (that is I suppose for the lawfulness of them) is of no weight. For it is proofe enough, that any thing is lawfull, to make it out that it is not against Law, either of God, or Man; of which sort this Swearing in a Court before Magistrates is. For it is enjoyned by the Laws of men, and pract [...]ced through­out the Christian world, and not forbidden by Christ whose Kingdome was not terrene, S ^t. John 18. 36. and who came not to altar, or abolish the Polities or Juris­dictios [Page 311] of Empires or Com­mon-wealths; but, by F. H ^s. favour, submitted himselfe to the high Priests examination, and answered to his Adjura­tion. Yet one passage here of F. H ^s. I cannot but observe, which is either impertinent, or els razes his whole fabrick, and quite overthrows his own Doctrine, and what so ere he had said before. That is, Christ Instituted divers Pag. 69. things among his Disciples which were not in the Law, and yet not against it. Now either Christs pretended prohibiti­on of Swearing is one of them, or it is not. If it be not, then this dictate is im­pertiment, [Page 312] and non-sensicall: if it be, then it is not against the Law, and consequently forbids not what God in the Law commanded, that is, Swearing by his Name, Deut. 10. 20. And that, if it be not forbidden, is still Lawfull. And all this by F. Hs. con­cession granted (if it be true) necessarily proves the whole book to be vain (to say no worse) that seeks to over­throw a Truth. Yet this does not hinder, but he is resolved to conclude Magisterially, That all the instances which A. Pag. 69. S. and other opposers have brought of the Apostles, and Christs Swearing, are but shrouds [Page 313] and shelters they make for them­selves. And with this trium­phant Epiphonema he might have concluded, had he not been willing to have exprest some proofe thereof (where­in whether his Charity, or unequalled knowledge be greater, let the Reader de­termine) by giving a Reason of what he had said in these words, Because they have a minde (marke that, he knows Pag. 69. the minds of men whom he never saw) to obey the com­mands of men, rather than Christs Doctrine (which he never taught) for avoiding of persecution and suffering. But how he comes to the inter­pretations [Page 314] of the Text.

74 The first whereof is, Saint Mat. 5. 34. whereto I said, That they that from thence argue, that all Oaths are un­lawful, break off the sentence in the middle, and stop be­fore they come to these words, Neither by Heaven, &c. But that F. H. sayes, he will not doe, and is as good as his word, repeating that Text wholly; and the other also of St. James 5. 12. In which two (sayes he) all manner of Swearing is forbidden, for the Truth of which, many Reasons have been, and may be given. First (but forgets so far, that Pag. 70. he never addes 2d. 3d. or [Page 315] any other) because all manner of Swearing is here expressly instanced in; which is so gross an untruth, that it is strange he should not discerne it. For all the instances are of Swear­ing by Creatures (which I de­ny not to be unlawfull) not one of Swearing by God, which alone had been to F. Hs. purpose. And this he him­selfe ( if he himselfe put in the following passage) not obscure­ly grants, That none may ima­gine (as A. S. would make men Pag. [...]. doe) that this generall Rule ad­mits of any exception; but all know the prohibition is so strict as to allow of no permission in the point, to Swear by any thing [Page 316] but God; he addes, neither by Heaven, &c. Does he not ve­ry clearly except Oaths by God out of Christs prohibiti­on? I can make no other sense of it, nor I believe F. H. him­selfe. And if he means as he speaks, that our Saviour for­bad all Oaths but those by God, he and I without any difficulty shall forth-with be reconciled. This is certaine, he must either retract that sentence, or such of his per­swasion as understand it, will be dissatisfied therewith, and suspect that he has thereby betrai'd their Cause, notwith­standing what immediately he adjoynes, that those addi­tions, [Page 317] Neither by Heaven, &c. are more ample expressions, and conclusive of the prohibition of all Swearing what ever. Which to reconcile with sense, tran­scends mine abilities. For Swear not at all, might indeed (were nothing subjoyned thereto) be thought prohi­bitive of all Oaths. But Swear not at all (or thou shalt never Swear) by Heaven, Earth, Je­rusalem, or thy Head, as it may in a strict literall sense be re­strained onely to these foure Creatures; so in the utmost latitude of interpretation, it cannot be stretched farther, then to extend it from these foure Creatures expressed (by [Page 318] that Topique à pari) to all others of the like na­ture: so if the Heaven be not fit to be Sworne by then nei­ther (by the parity of Rea­son) is a Jewel, or a Metall. And if not the Head (as Christ taught) then à pari, or à fortiori, not the Hand. And this is an exposition of the widest extension that I can conceive, which yet is far from the comprehension of God, by whom alone we ac­count it lawfull to Swear. For none can say, that though it be unreasonable to Swear by a Creature, that it is nei­ther omniscient, nor Almigh­ty; it is therefore unmeet to [Page 319] Swear by the Creators, that is of infinite both Knowledge, and Power.

75 It appears that F. H. is not like to make good his Para­dox out of this Text; yet if he can effect it by the assi­stance of S ^t. James, 'tis Rea­son we give place to so great an Authority. And that he attempts; For (sayes he) he concludes and shuts up all in universall termes, and excludes all Oaths, and all possible pre­tence of plea at all for any Swearing; adding, neither by any other Oath What words Pag. [...]1. more plain can be uttered, or can be more expr [...]ssly exclusive both of all kinds, or sorts of Swear­ing, [Page 320] and of all sorts of particu­lar Oaths of every kind? A. S. foresaw this Objection, and had considered seriously ther­of, and (what ever appea­rance it may have of a gene­rall prohibition of all Oaths, even such as once were com­manded to any that shall not compare it with the other Texts of holy Scripture) clearly discerned, that it could not be understood in that latitude, as F. H. would have it, as utterly exclusive of Swearing by God, when there is necessary occasion for that Oath. For otherwise St. James had contradicted the Morall Law in a matter that [Page 321] tends highly to Gods glory, and is not repugnant to our duty, either to God, or man, nor intrinsecally, or in it selfe evill; and had thwarted the practice of St. Paul, and Christ himselfe, & that without any possibility of producing any Reason for so doing, besides his own will. Which Argu­ments, with many others al­ledged in the Sermon against the like Interpretation of our Saviours words, enforce a necessity of expounding what S ^t. James writ to some other meaning than that which inferrs such gross ab­surdities. It is a generall, and most certaine Rule, That no [Page 322] Text of Scripture (and conse­quently not this) ought to be so interpreted, as that it con­tradict another, or be contrary to the Analogy of Faith. Wher­upon A. S. not willing to rely on his own Judgement in a matter of such difficulty, con­sulted amongst others that most judicious Father S ^t. Au­stin, who found so much in­tricacy in this Text, that (as he ingeniously acknowledges to his Auditors in De ver­bis Apo­stoli, Ser. 48. his Ser­mon upon it) he purposely declined, and often av [...]vded medling therewith, till at length by Divine suggestion, (as he conceived, and pub­liquely expressed) he was [Page 323] moved thereto. No doubt therefore he had seriously perpended with himself what the due importance thereof might be. And his exposition is, (whereto A. S. freely assen­ted, as having nothing ratio­nally to object against it, finding it fully consonant to the Principles of Religion, and other places of Scripture) that these words, above all things, imply not, that Swear­ing is the greatest of sins, or indeed (rightly used) any sin at all; but that the custome thereof is very dangerous, as introductive▪ of Perjury, in regard that he that Swears often, is in the high way to [Page 324] for-swear himselfe. And this caveat S ^t. James gave the Jews, that generally had got an habit of rash Swearing, and therefore were more prone to that, then they were perhaps to Vices of an higher Nature. Upon which ground he charges them above all things (that is, in a most espe­ciall manner) to take heed thereto, and with more care avoid that, whereto they were so much addicted, be­cause (as that Father sayes) That, Major consuetudo majo­rem intentionem flagitat; a lon­ger, and more fixed custome requires a more intense care, and diligent endeavour to [Page 325] root it out. And this he la­bours to imprint in his Audi­tors minds, upon the sole ac­count of the feare of com­mitting Perjury. For he plain­ly professes, That to Swear truely (where there is a ne­cessity of so doing) is no sin: sutable to which Doctrine he acknowledges his own pra­ctice was; and that when some did not believe his bare word (which was expedient for them to believe) in that necessity with deliberate ad­vice, and awfull reverence, he called God to witness (which in his Judgement is an Oath, for so in that Ser­mon he declares it) of the 28 [Page 326] Truth of what he had utte­red. And though he grants, that these his Oaths came of evill, yet that evill was not his sin, but the incredulity of the person he conversed with. For (sayes he) when Christ or­dered our Communication to be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay; he gave this Reason, That whatsoever is more than these, commeth of evill; but he did not say, Si quis amplius facit, malus est, that whosoever said more than so, was thereupon to be con­demned of sin, or become an evill man.

76 This Exposition of so Learned, and Wise a Person (whom the Christian world [Page 327] so deservedly reverences) I cheerfully embraced, as ra­tionall, and unperplexed, and no way liable to those diffi­culties, which in the contra­ry Opinion are no less una­voidable, than unanswera­ble. But F. H. (though he grants that Swearing is not so great an offen [...]e as Murder, or Adultery, and also that the Jews were much addicted to rash, and customary Swearing by Creatures, yet) is not sa­tisfied therewith, because sayes he) it does not answer the Apostles end and scope, that is, it reaches not to what he would have it, as not being totally exclusive of all Oaths, [Page 328] which he groundlessly surmi­ses to be the meaning of St. James; but is rather inclina­ble to follow S. Fishers novell device, which is, That the Antidot [...] pag. 71. Jews were not (as then enformed of the ending of the Law in Christ (under which among them some Oaths were lawfull) and therefore they were apt to think they did as well in Swearing then, as they did be­fore. So though Adultery, and Murder may be as bad, and worse then Swearing; yet the Law being so express against them, (which yet in its time allowed some kind of Swearing) it was more hard to bring them off from some Ceremonious Services of [Page 329] the Law that were once lawfull, then from such sins as were known, and hated by them, and held accursed by the very letter of the Law; and so he sayes, Above all things take heed of Swearing, that they might know that now to be unlawfull, which in former times was accounted as lawfull for them. This sub­tile discourse of S. Fishers is very plausible to those that have imbibed his Opinion, or have a favour for it. But there is this prejudice against it, (though to those that had never read any thing of this subject, it may appear very probable) that it is his own meer conceit, without the [Page 330] concurrence of any former Expositors, or ground in Hi­story, and onely built upon a begging of the Question. And besides (which is far more considerable, and over-bal­lances all possible conjectures) it is encountred with the fore-named objections, which neither S. F. could, nor F. H. nor any man living can ever answer. And yet further, the very Text it selfe is inconsi­stent with S. Fishers exposi­tion. For the Oaths which S ^t. James expressly condemns are Swearing by Heaven, and by Earth. But these Oaths were never accounted Law­full, as Swearing by God was, [Page 331] but were forbidden in the Law, as S. F. and F. H. grant, and often urge as an Argu­ment to prove, That Christ forbad more than the Law had done. And therefore no man in his right wits can say; that the Jews had gotten a habit of Swearing (which was indulged to them by the Law) and thereupon were not easily brought off it, and that in respect thereof, Saint James said, Above all things, Swear not; unless they had onely Sworne by God, for no other Oath was allowed in the Law. But that none charges upon them, and it is certain they were not guilty [Page 332] thereof. For then S ^t. James's dehortation here had been vain, and idle. For what rea­son can any alledge, why he should say to them, Above all things, my brethren, Swear not, neither by Heaven, neither by Earth, when they Swore nei­ther by Heaven, nor by Earth; but (if we may believe S. F. and F. H.) by God, as the Law allowed them? What a fear­full wresting of Scripture is this, when such a meaning is forcibly put upon the words, as they are not capable of? These men it seems make no Conscience of making Saint James speake non-sense, so that thereby he may be sup­posed [Page 333] by ignorant people to countenance that Opinion, that right, or wrong they are resolved to maintain. But it may be F. H. will say, that he urges onely the following words [ Neither, &c.] which he judges prohibitive of all Swearing, [ Neither by any o­ther Oath] If so, let him ac­knowledge the vanity of that Interpretation of this Text (as to any word therein ex­pressed) which he has bor­rowed of S. F. (and which perhaps was one of those de­monstrative Arguments which Pag. 61. (he saies) I had not answered) and then I shall goe along with him to consider what [Page 334] the importance of these words, Neither by any other Oath may be, which may best be discerned by the occasion that induced the Apostle so passionately, and with so much zeale to forbid Swear­ing.

77 What our Saviours motive was to prohibit Swearing, S ^t. Mat. 5. 34. &c. was decla­red in the Sermon * I thought [...] § 39. sufficiently, to those that would not shut their eyes a­gainst the light of Truth, and is more largely insisted on in the 66th. Sect. of this dis­course. In short, it was the vitious practice of the peo­ple, that being taught by the [Page 335] Pharisees, for which they are reprehended, S ^t. Mat. 23. 16. &c. that some Creature-Oaths were not binding, made a bad use of that ill doctrine, and accustomed thē selves to Swear by these (as they deemed them unobli­ging) Oaths (whereof wit­nesses beyond acception are already produced) and that on purpose to over-reach those simple soules, whose credulity betrayed them to their Treachery. And I doubt not but that S ^t. James had the very same inducement. For he saw the sin nothing abated▪ for we can make it good, that it was noted by the Romans as a [Page 336] peculiar Vice of that Nation many years after S ^t. James his death) but the Precept of his Lord altogether neglected, which he thought fit (as Reason was) to re-in­force (which might well be the cause of his vehemency against that crime, which in an high manner tended to the dishonour of God, the breach of Christs command, the scandall of Religion, and the publique disgrace of the Nation) almost in the very same words which the Son of God had used before, which makes it more evident, that he had reference to what Christ had said, and conse­quent. [Page 337] that he spoke upon the very same occasion, and intended to forbid no other Swearing than that, which Christ had disallowed before, which was onely those cheat­ing Oaths, not that (which they themselves reverenced, and cautelously abstained from) by the Name of God. And here I challenge F. H. or any concerned therein, to produce any authenticall Au­thor that ever objected a­gainst their frequent taking of Gods Name in vain, which that they might the better forbeare, (which they did as some have observed, even to superstition) the Pharisees in­dulged [Page 338] unto them the liberty of Swearing by Creatures. Nor can it be thought that S ^t. James, whom though I call an Apostle (as St. Paul, Gal. 1. 19. and many of the Ancients did before me) yet was none of the twelve, but onely Bishop of Jerusalem, should take so much upon him, as contrary to the Law of God, and the known pra­ctice of Christ, and S ^t. Paul, (to omit other Reasons) to prohibit that Oath which his Lord had not forbidden, or that he intended by this ex­pression, Neither by any other Oath, to disallow any other kind of Swearing then what [Page 339] his Master had formerly re­proved, or the Jews notori­ously abused; Christianity doubtless is Christs Law, not S ^t. James's, who therefore must not be supposed to adde to, detract from, or alter ought of what his Lord had appointed. His undoubted sense thereof in this place is this, and no more; My bre­thren, you know what our common Saviour said as touching Oaths, and how strictly he forbad you the use of them, which the Pharisees permitted you, to wit, Swear­ing by Creatures, and upon what account, which com­mand of his you have hither­to [Page 340] too much neglected, if not purposely for base ends diso­beyed. And therefore I be­seech you that henceforth you would be so carefully re­spective of your duty, and so religiously observant of that his sacred Precept, that you never hereafter Swear by Hea­ven, or Earth, or any other of those Creature-Oaths which you have hither to used to de­ceitfull purposes. So that any other Oath, is not absolutely any other whatsoever, but any other of the like Nature as Heaven and Earth, any other that the Jews were wont to abuse, of which sort that by God was not. And this may [Page 341] stop their mouthes, that say, that St. James's Proposition is a universall negative, and therefore exclusive of all manner of Oaths whatsoe­ver, and so it is no more law­full to Swear by God, than by Heaven. For it is not ge­nerall, nor prohibitive of Swearing by the Name of God. For the Apostle neither did, nor durst forbid what God had commanded, and what Christ had not forbid­den. For the former would have rendred him Atheisti­call; the other Anti-Christi­an. If therefore our blessed Saviour did not abrogate Swearing by God, which him­selfe [Page 342] upon occasion used (as I have shewed before that he did not, nor could, unless he had set himselfe in opposition to his Heavenly Father) then it is certain also, that St. James did not, unless any dare say, that his Doctrine crossed Christs, which could they prove, they would turne this Epistle out of d [...]res, and not suffer it to remain any longer in the Catalogue of Canoni­call Books. For it were blas­phemous to assert, That Saint James, assisted in his Writing by the Spirit of God, as is now generally believed) should dis­allow what our Lord himselfe had approved. Whereupon it [Page 343] is necessary to assert, That he went no further in this matter, then he had Christ for his pat­terne. But further, (if we would make him speak sense) it must be confessed, that he did not forbid here all Crea­ture Oaths, and namely those which the Pharisees Taught to be obliging, of which kind were these, By the Gold of the Temple, or by the gift upon the Altar, St. Mat. 23. 16, 18. if that be true, (which F. H. affirmes, and I deny not) that they were all forbidden before, and not used by the people. And how can we conceive, that they used these Oaths to their [Page 344] fraudulent purposes any more, than that by God, when these, according to the Doctrine of their Rabbies, were as obligatory as that? And if they used not them, but onely such as they might safely break without Perjury, ( such as by heaven, earth, &c.) why should S ^t. James so zea­lously prohibit them above all things, unless he took them for greater crimes than Mur­der, or Adultery, which both S. F. and F. H. grant they are not? Let then any impartiall Reader consider, what in tol­lerable non-sense these men impose upon the Apostle (or rather upon the holy Ghost, [Page 345] whose Penman he was) for the upholding of their own credits amongst those well­meaning people they have de­luded, and for the mainte­nance of that fond Paradox they have thus long asserted, and are now ashamed to re­cant. For according to them, this must be the Paraphrase of his words, My brethren, I pray you above all things for­beare Swearing, I say above all things, not that it is a greater sin then any other, but that you have gotten such a custome thereof. I therefore intreat you earnestly not to Swear any more (as you usually did) by Heaven, Earth, or any other Oath that is by [Page 346] God, or the Gold of the Temple, or the gift upon the Altar, by which Oaths you have seldome, or never Sworne. Modest Hea­thens would blush to put such non-sensicall foppery in­to the mouthes of any of their Philosophers. The just importance of S ^t. James's sen­tence is onely this, One thing I am to give you an especiall ca­veat of, and that is, that hence­forth you permit not your selves that common custome of Swear­ing by Heaven, or any other Oath which you account not ob­ligatory, which can never be used to any good purpose: but that in stead thereof, you be care­full for the future, that your per­for. [Page 347] be answerable to your words, that you be not justly condemned by God and Men, for your falshood and cousinage. This interpretation of the Apo­stles words (being liable to no inconveniencies, or obje­ctions that I can foresee) will be, I am confident, in the Judgement of all knowing, and impartiall men, much preferrable before the other, which is encountered with insuperable difficulties. And I wish that F. H. and those of his perswasion, would think themselves to be but men, and therefore such as may be possibly deceived; and then, take what I say into serious [Page 348] consideration, which if they would doe, I doubt not but God would open their understandings, that they might discerne the bright beames of this apparent Truth, from which there is nothing that can so much hinder them, as prejudice, and a presumption of their own perfection.

78 The next passage is taken out of S. F ^s. Antidote, and is it may be, one of those weighty things offered to the Con­science Pag 73. & publique view, which A. S. had seen (as F. H. sayes) but came not so much as neer to answer. Indeed A. S. had seen it, and thought it unworthy [Page 349] of any answer, hoping that no Reader could be so simple as to be deceived by so silly a Sophisme. And I confess. that had not F. H. inserted it into his discourse, it might for me have remained till domesday, without any Animadversion upon it. And though I should not have wondred to finde such pittiful stuffe in F. H ^s. Pamphlet; yet I thinke it strange, that such an acute person (as S. F. showes him­selfe else where) should think fit to build upon so weake a foundation. It must be a cause desperately ruinous, that requires to be supported by such a bulrush. The Argu­ment [Page 350] is drawne from Ecclesi­astes 9. 2. wherein (sayes F. H. to Swear at all is made the Character of the wicked. Here the Reader is desired to con­sider, that this Book is in the Old Testament, and Penned by King Solomon, in whose time, to Swear by the Name of God (which Oath alone we assert to be lawfull) was not onely permitted, (and therefore lawfull) but com­manded, and therefore upon occasion necessary. And S. F. F. H. and all the rest of that fraternity have, and do con­fess as much, slighting all such Arguments as are managed against them out of the Old [Page 351] Testament, as impertinent for the proofe of Swearing, which they grant was lawfull untill Christ forbad it Where­upon it follows, that if K. So­lomon (as S. F. argues) made all Swearing to be the character of the wicked, then he made the observance of Gods Laws (one of which was Swearing) to be the marke of a wicked person, which so wise a Prince could not possibly do. For if it be the token of wicked men to keep Gods commands, then to break them must be the token of the righteous. Did ever man that made any conscience of speaking Truth argue in such a manner? One [Page 352] may suspect, that S. F. was sensible of the folly, or false­hood of this Argument, for before he produces it, he pro­mises a defence thereof, and seeks to ward off that blow that threatned it, saying, That in that book the spirituali­ties, and moralities of the ever­lasting Gospel, and not the cere­monialities of the Law are pointed out; whereas to go no further than that very verse by him cited, there is in it mention made of clean, and unclean, and sacrifices, which I take it (and hope that F. H. will not say, that herein I am mistaken) are expressions of the Law, and not of the [Page 353] everlasting Gospel. And though F. H. doe taxe me here this third time, That having seen some of their books, I have not answered many weighty mat­ters, (such perhaps as this last) which put into the bal­lance of Judgement, will be found as light as vanity it selfe, I should expect that of his courtesie he would pardon me in not having wilfully wasted those unreturning houres, which might be spent to better purpose, who upon second thoughts may possi­bly find Reason to thanke me that I have not mentioned them, and also to excuse me in passing over the rest of this [Page 354] Paragraph stuffed after his wonted manner with bold, and groundless dictates, which are no other, than so many beggings of the question, whilest he stoutly asserts, but not at all endeavours to prove his opinion. Yet, that his fa­vourable Reader may be ou [...] of love with his opponent, and the Truth too for hi [...] sake, he tells him, That wh [...] ever Christ, or James had said Pag. 73. A. S. would make them, if h [...] could, to meane as he meanes (that's hard for him to know) to set their plaine express word against their mind, (that's apparantly untrue:) But he ha [...] asserted nothing but that whi [...] [Page 355] hath been answered over and over again. If that be so, F. H. has bad luck, that when it comes to the point can an­swer nothing.

79 To both these Texts I had answered in the Sermon, That Serm. § 43. these propositions how univer­sally soever exprest, ought not in equity to be extended beyond the intention of the Speakers, but to be limited according to the subject matter. And there I instanced in many other Sen­tences of holy Scripture, that of necessity were to be ex­pounded to a restrained sense, and could not be un­derstood in the full latitude [...]hat the words imported, and [Page 356] therefore these two Texts may, and ought to be interpreted to such a limited sense, as that they may not be inconsistent with other parts of holy Writ, nor disso­nant to the Analogy of faith. Here F. H. freely grants, That these two Texts ought not to b [...] extended beyond the intention o [...] the [...]peakers, but to be limited according to the subject matter in regard universall prohibiti­ons, now and then admit of ex­cep [...]ions: But tells us (out o [...] S. Fs. Antidote again, 'Tis [...] happy thing to have a friend at a pinch) That these restrictions are usually in one place [...] other of the same Testament [Page 357] where they are either expressed, or at least manifestly implyed by him that gave out these generall termes, or prohibitions: and so (quoth F. H.) are most (it seems not all) of these where­in A. S. has instanced. Well A. S. is willing to gratifie him in whatsoever may not pre­judice Truth, and will not de­ny, but that S. F•. observati­on is often found to be true. Yet I must needs say also, that it failes sometimes. And then it is not certain, but it may faile here. And that it sometimes failes, is certaine by the produced instances, to two whereof F. H. could not possibly apply his Rule; and [Page] [Page 356] [...] [Page 357] [...] [Page 358] therefore does wisely not to attempt it. The first of them is, that of S ^t. Marke 1. 5. whereof he can finde no li­mitation in all the New Te­stament. And there the ob­servation failes. The other is that of S ^t. Luke 2. 1. which he names indeed (I know not to what end, unless he would have the Reader think, that to name it, were to answer it) and so in silence passes it by. So here he is at a loss again, and can get no reliefe in all the New Testament: Whereupon we may con­clude, that this Rule, (which 'tis like S. F. invented as a shift to serve his turne at that [Page 359] time; and yet was so modest as not to profess it universal­ly, but usually true, intima­ting that it failed and then) sometimes holds, and some­times failes, and so is altoge­ther useless as to the decision of our difference, though col­lation of Scriptures cannot be denied to be a fit expedi­ent for the interpretation thereof. Now then, as it might well be thought un­reasonable, to say that all the sick, blind, lame, decrepit, and bedrid people of that Nation went to heare the Baptist Preach, though the express words of the Evan­gelist be, There went out unto [Page 360] him all the Land of Judea, (there being no Text produ­cible to restraine the univer­sality of that unlimited pro­position) in regard it is so re­pugnant to Reason; so it were no less inconcludent to say, that Christ forbad all Swearing whatsoever, by say­ing, Swear not at all, because that Tenet is repugnant to many Reasons, and those di­vine, and such as are fetched from Scripture. It is therefore sound Reason bottom'd on Scripture (taking into consi­deration the context, scope, and intention of the Author) that will be our best guide in the discovery of the true [Page 361] sense, and full importance of any difficult sentence. And that in this case, is altogether for the lawfulness of some Swearing, for the which (and the understanding of these Texts out of S ^t. Matthew, and S ^t. James accordingly) there be many Reasons producible, and none for the contrary, as the observant Reader cannot but discerne, if he please to give himselfe so much trou­ble, as to compare the Pamph­lets of S. F. or F. H. with what I have now written.

80 Yet notwithstanding F. H. could reply nothing to two of mine instances, he has added moe out of S. Fs. An­tidote, [Page 362] to let us see how well he is versed therein (for other end I cannot discerne, unless it be to swell his book) and to them he has answers pro­vided, which is as though he should say, Though I cannot an­swer A. S ^s. Objections, yet I can object somewhat els more then he has done, and thereto I can answer. However, he cannot grant that these two Texts (of S ^t. Matthew, and S [...]. James) admit of any exceptions, or re­strictions, Pag. 7 [...]. as A. S. would inter­pret them. His Reason is, be­cause this universall prohibiti­on, Swear not at all, cannot in equity be taken, and limited in that sense, nor with that restri­ction, [Page 363] which A. S. puts upon it, (though A. S. proved, that it ought to be so limited by twelve unanswered Rea­sons) for that sense would make it short of the subject matter, where all Swearing is forbidden as well as any. This Reason takes for proofe the matter in question. The doubt is, whether all Swearing was forbidden by Christ, or no? A. S. is for the negative, shewing by twelve Argu­ments, that that command was to be understood in a li­mited sense. No (quoth F. H.) that it is not, for then, all Swearing would not be for­bidden, as though that were [Page 364] to be granted an absurdity, which A. S. had proved to be Truth, or as though all limita­tions were not restrictive. A more vain, and childish dis­course I think cannot be in­vented. St. Luke sayes, That Cap. 21. there went out a Decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the World should be taxed. I proved in the Sermon, that that Text § 43. was not to be expounded simply of all the World; but onely of that part of the World that was as then under his Do­minion. And no man in his wits can think otherwise. For who would say, or imagine, That Augustus, a wise Prince would send his commands to [Page 365] those that were not his Sub­jects, and therefore would not obey him? Or to what end should he number them, over whom he had no Autho­rity? Or why should he send his Decrees for taxing all the Inhabitants of those places that were not inhabited? And such then, and still are many Islands in the World. Or how could he send to America, and those vast Regi­ons therein contained, which were utterly unknowne to him, and all his people, and not discovered till many ages after? And yet they were then in the world, as well as they are now. This Argu­ment, [Page 366] though it be not Scri­pture, or of Divine Authori­ty, is notwithstanding suffi­cient (and F. H. denies it not) without any Text of the New Testament to corro­borate it (which is a proofe sufficient, that S. Fs. fore­mentioned Rule, that if uni­versall Propositions are to be limited, those restrictions are to be found in the same Te­stament, is not universally true) to interpret the word World onely of the Roman Empire. But suppose some man should pretend to be of a contrary opinion, and say, as F. H. does here, The gene­rall terme World cannot in equi­ty [Page 367] be limited in that sense, which A. S. puts upon it, for that would make it short of the subject mat­ter, because the World is ex­pressly named, and not any part of the World, were not that answer ridiculous, where the matter in debate is taken for proofe? And is not F. Hs. reasoning directly parallell thereto?

81 But an other Reason F. H. addes out of his old friend S. Fs. Antidote (whereto he is so much beholden) and that is, because there is not onely no restriction expressed, but a fuller amplification added by an enumeration of such particulars as are exclusive of all kind of [Page 368] Oaths: And beside, had Christ intended any exception here (as he easily might so) he would have exprest it, as he did imme­diately above in the case of di­vorce. To the former, I refer it to the Judgement of all the world, whether the enume­ration of foure particulars (for there are no moe reci­ted) be an amplification of a generall Prohibition, or no? For example, Thou shalt ne­ver Swear at all upon any oc­casion, either by God, or any thing els: Thus Christ meant, if we may credit F. H. And if that be true, we must needs yield it to be an universall prohibition of all Oaths. But [Page 369] did he make a fuller amplifica­tion thereof, when he said, Thou shalt never Swear, either by Heaven, or by Earth, or by Jerusalem, or by thy Head? I say, and so must all men that would speak sense, that this is so far from being an ampli­fication of those generall termes, Swear not at all, that it is a plain and express re­striction thereof. F. H. had more prudently holden his peace, than by pointing to a pretended amplification, where none was, have occa­sioned me to take notice of a limitation. As to the other, I onely reply, that it had been vain for our Saviour, when he [Page 370] forbad all fraudulent Swear­ing by Creatures, which was common amongst the Jews, to have excepted Swearing by God, who is no Creature, and by whom they did not use to Swear fraudulently. A piece of sense much like to this: There is never a Col­ledge in Cambridge infected, except A. Bs. house which belongs to a private man, and is no Colledge; or we have not an University in England besides Cambridge, and Oxford, except Edenburgh which is in Scotland. And whereas F. H. grounding upon S. Fs. words sayes, That Christ addes that which strengthens beyond all ex­ception [Page 371] the universality of his probibition—and after men­tioning our Saviours words, But I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, nor Earth, nor Jerusalem, nor thy Head, he tells us, That is ma­nifestly an exclusive prohibition of all Oaths, without exception, or restriction, or limitation. If he speake what he really thinks, I doe much pitty his stupidity, but wonder at his boldness, that dares so confi­dently avouch what (at best) he does not understand, and what indeed will certainly appear to any person of com­mon apprehension notorious­ly false. For, is the forbid­ding [Page 372] to Swear at all by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, or th [...] Head, manifestly an exclusi [...] prohibition of all Oaths; the [...] he that Swears by his Hand Foot, Temple, &c. Swears no [...] at all, for my Hand is neithe [...] the Heaven, nor the Earth nor Jerusalem, nor my Head▪ And further it would follow that besides these foure, there were no other objects (Creatures, or Creator) in the world to Swear by. Hence may all men perceive that wha [...] he professes to be manifestly true, is manifestly false.

82 I had said in the Sermon▪ That vain, and false Oaths by § 43. God, even by the acknowledgement [Page 373] of the Pharisees them­selves were sufficiently forbid­den before, and so there was no need either for Christ, or Saint James to speak of them, or for­bid them again. This Conces­sion (sayes F. H.) is still mat­ter of Argument on our part, that some Oaths were prohibi­ted Pap. 76. by Christ and James, which were not prohibited before, and of which there was necessity for them to speak. I grant that there was necessity for them to speak what they did speak, for I dare not think that they spoke any thing unnecessari­y; and yet I cannot grant, that either the Law was im-perfect, or that they, to sup­ply [Page 374] the defects thereof, gave other Morall Precepts, than what formerly had been deli­vered. But the necessity of their Prohibitions of Swear­ing did arise not out of any defect of the Law, as though what they forbad had not been forbidden before; but out of the peoples non-ob­servance, and sinfull neglect of what had been comman­ded, being much addicted to Swear rashly, and falsly (not by God, and therefore there was no need to re-inforce the disuse of that Oath but) by Creatures, as Heaven, Earth, &c. so that in respect of that sinfull custome, both the holy [Page 375] Jesus, and his Apostle James, judged it expedient to forbid severely such Creature-swear­ing; and so this makes no­thing at all to F. H ^s. advan­tage.

83 But I had said in the Ser­mon, Here the grand Objection Sect 44. falls of it selfe, which is, Either all kind of Swearing is here forbidden; or els Christ, not­withstanding his words, But I say unto you, forbad nothing which was not forbidden before, which is utterly improbable. This was the objection which here in its place F. H. as for­merly he had prolixly done, pag 64. (the answer whereto, to avoid idle repetitions, I deferred [Page 376] till now) seeks to support that it fall not. By the way, let me tell the Reader, that these words of mine, Which is utterly improbable, (relating to that, that our Saviour should forbid nothing) are part of the Objection; my words indeed, but not layd down as mine own Opinion, but in the person of the Ob­jectors; one of whose maine Principles it is, that this our Lords expression, But I say unto you, was set in opposition not onely to the Pharisaicall mis-interpretations, but even to the Law in selfe. Where­upon▪ I guess, that F. H. did look upon these Words, [Page 377] [ which is utterly improbable] as my Concession, (a matter which I never thought) by his Printing i [...] in a diverse character. To prevent which strange mistake in others (for I have all along professed the contrary, and here set it down, with the Objection, to give it as much force as could be) I thought good to de­clare thus much; for had I granted that, the Objection I confess had stood in its full force. I added further in my Sermon the Reason of the Objection, (that I might lend it all possible strength, and so might not be accused of partiality) which was, That [Page 378] God had formerly prohibited all false, and vain Oaths, and all Swearing by Creatures. And that indeed I really granted, and gave a briefe, but satisfa­ctory answer, That the Phari­sees had taught the people other­wise, and that under a religious pretence of a greater reverence to Gods Name, whereby the practice of that misled Nati­on, became widely distant from the Commandment. Both which being necessary to be reformed, were reproved by these words of our Saviour, But I say unto you, Swear not at all, which were not spoken in any opposition to Gods Law, but to the false and wicked glosses [Page 379] of those blinde Guides, and the lewd deportment of the people▪ Whereto F. H. answers to this effect, That if Creature-Oaths were (as A. S. grants) formerly forbidden by God, and if Heaven, Earth, &c. be Creatures, and if Christ for­bad nought els, then the Ob­jection stands unanswerable. For either Christ did prohibit those Oaths which the Law allowed, or els he forbad none but what the Law had forbidden already. The Ob­jection, and Answer he re­peats Pag. 77. again in many words, much to the same purpose, to which I have no tentation to reply, because they are ground­ed [Page 380] upon a false supposition borrowed from the Papists, (which I have alwayes deni­ed, and neither F. H. S. F. nor any other of them at all proved) that is, That Christ forbad more than what was forbidden in the Law, which he never did. Onely I cannot but take notice of a passage (and I shall doe no more than take notice of it) and that is, That F. H. will rather fall out with himselfe, than agree with A. S. For whereas I had proposed their maine Obje­ction in these words, Either all kind of Swearing is here for­bidden, or els Christ forbad no­thing which was not forbidden [Page 381] before, which is utterly impro­bable, (which words I spoke, as objecting, not asserting mine owne Opinion, being that it is so far from impro­bability, that it is a certaine Truth, that our Saviour for­bad nothing, which God for­merly had not disallowed.) Nay (sayes F. H.) but it is more probable than any thing A. S. has yet offered: Where he either speaks he knows not what; or els he fully com­plies with me against him­selfe, and so has a hand in the subversion of this maine, and grand Objection of his own party.

48 I shall not trace him (and [Page 382] 'its a favour I doe not) where he ceases to be Argumenta­tive, and in querulous Lan­guage casts scandalous impu­tations upon the Govern­ment (which in private I shall make appeare to him, or any of his friends) least he take a new occasion to asperse me, (as he has often in his Pam­phlet causelessly done) that I have added affliction to their Pag. 7. bonds, and made their wound wider, whereas my purpose was quite the contrary, to enforme, and convert them (if possible) to the Truth, that conforming thereto, and renouncing their Errors (for which I yet pray, and hope [Page 383] that God in mercy at length will heare me) they might be freed from all mulcts, and penalties, whereto otherwise by the Laws of the Nation they are subjected. And though for this my Christian intent, F. H. has all along traduced my good meaning, though I must confess not with that scurrility, where­with S. F. has bespattered the Reverend Bishop Gauden, yet with undeserved, and un­civill reproaches (as envi­ously labouring that none of his friends should receive that benefit by me, which himselfe refused) yet that bad requitall of my good affections [Page 384] towards them (many of whom I take to be very well meaning, though pitti­fully sedueed persons) has not diverted me from taking this second pains to unde­ceive them, and bring them, through Gods blessing, into the Truth again, from which the most of them have blind­ly, but, I think, not wilfully erred. And I shall think any labour well bestowed, if thereby one lost sheep may be brought back into Christs fold, the Church of God.

85 For E. Hs. in vectives against vain, and frequent Swearing, and perjuries, I am sorry that there is so just a ground for [Page 385] them, and doe as much ab­horre them, as he, or any other, and would use all just endeavours for the abolish­ment of so reigning a vice: but, I dare not doe ill, that good may come thereof; nor sor the suppression of these two com­mon impieties, raise, or coun­tenance a Schisme, pervert our Saviours meaning, or teach a doctrine which my Conscience, enlightned by Gods Word, and Divine Reason testifies to be false, that all Oaths whatsoever are absolutely unlawfull.

86 To my conclusion, Sest 45. where I said, Now I have done, and I feare it is more then time [Page 386] to have done with the exposition of these words: he replies, Its Pag. 80, more then time indeed to have done, to pervert Christs plaine Doctrine with his imaginary exposition. These are, it seems, the flowers, and figures of F. Hs. Rhetorique, which whe­ther he make use of for want of better Arguments; or whether thereby he seek to beget in the Reader a dis­affection to my Person, or an aversness to the Truth by me asserted (which may proba­bly tend to the advantage of his Cause) I shall not deter­mine, but leave it to the im­partiall peruser of what we both have written (whose in­terest [Page 387] it is neither to have regard to him, or me, but to the saving Truth of God, to judge whether I have perver­ted, or confirmed Christs Do­ctrine, or whether mine expe­sitions be solid, or (as he is pleased to terme them) ima­ginary. But I cannot omit to take notice of his next pas­sage, wherein he exceeds­himselfe in boldness, taking upon him to be a Prophet, telling the World with that confidence, as though he had received a Revelation from Heaven, That A. Ss. seeming Vindication (meaning my Ser­mon) will in the day of the Lord, when the secrets of all [Page 388] hearts shall be manifest by Iesus Christ, when the book of Con­science shall be opened, be found to be in reall opposition unto Christ, and his reward will be according to his works, who hath by his work strengthned the hand of evill doers, and perse­cutors, to the adding affliction to affliction upon the Righteous—Thus F. H. with à paulò ma­jora canamus, in an higher straine than ordinary; but be not afraid who ever you are that cast your eyes upon these pages; but see what a true Prophet, or rather what the Lord by him spoke con­cerning such Prophets, Jer. 14. 14. I would gladly have [Page 389] F. H. to tell us how he comes to know, what he sayes shall be. I dare say, God never told him so, for he never speaks contrary to his writ­ten Word. And I am sure he never found it in Scripture, for it is not there, the current thereof running in a contrary streame. Whence then had he it? from his own imagina­tion, or from the suggestion of the enemy of Truth? Can either of these entitle him to the Spirit of Prophesie, or warrant such an Usurpation upon his Prerogative to whom all Judgement is com­mitted? I wonder that he was not afraid of that minatory [Page 390] prohibition, St. Mat. 7. 1. 2▪ I doubt not but the wisest o [...] his friends, and all such as are owners of moderation, and truely feare God, will be ashamed of this presumption, and at least in this particular desert their Teacher. And I verely believe that what he ignorantly, or insolently says, will be found in reall opposition unto Christ (when once his cloudy cavills are dispersed, and the Truth shines in its own lustre) will be clearely discovered to be perfectly conformable to the minde of God. As to the dreadfull, and condemnatory sentence pronounced against A. S. [Page 391] which must be according to his works, (that is, strengthning the hand of evill doers, and per­secutors, to the adding affiiction to affliction upon the Righteous, which doubtless is a very damnable worke.) I should desire to be resolved in this Question, whether F. H. knew what he said was true, or he did not know it? If he did not know it for Truth him­selfe, he should not have told others. If he did, I wonder how he came to be informed of so misterious a secret. Has he perused the Stoique Ta­bles of necessity, and therein discerned the unalterable fate that must inevitably fall [Page 392] upon A. S? Or has he been admitted Privy Counsellour to Heaven? Or is he that Lambe mentioned in the Apocalyps, that onely is worthy to open the Rev. [...]. 1. Seals, and unclaspe the book of Eternity, that is holden in his right hand that sits on the Throne? Or what spectacles has he gotten, to reade the dim, and unknown characters of destiny? Was the Preaching of that Sermon the sin against the holy Ghost, and so un­pardonable, that by no Re­penrance, or retractation of errour it could be expiated? Or is A. S. a Person incapable of information, or F. Hs. Pamphlet so weak, and dull, [Page 393] as not to hold out the light of so plaine a Truth, as he would have it, to those that have the eyes of their atten­tion open to receive it? Or if so, cannot God Almighty reveale his Truth to such as are in errour, nay even to A. S. if it be his good pleasure? Till F. H. have answered these Questions, A. S. will look upon this his no less un­grounded, than uncharitable censure, as a saucy in trusion, or an insolent Usurpation up­on the Divine Prerogatives, and as a bug-bear to affright his deceived friends, that they may not dare to consi­der seriously, what so damned [Page 394] and accursed creature as A. S. holds forth unto them, but rely on what he has taught them, though the contrary Truth be never so apparent, least they fall also into the like condemnation.

87 F. H. seems to be in a great jealousie that his friends will forsake him, if once they come to the know­ledge of the Truth (which now, by Gods blessing, may easily be discerned by all those that are impartiall seekers of it, and are endued with so much humility, as to submit their own fancies to Gods Word) and therefore if he cannot terrifie them [Page 395] like Children from the search thereof by his skare-crow threatnings, he is resolved at length (for he will leave no indirect means unattempted) to cheat them prettily, and put an handsome trick upon them, and this is it. If (sayes he) the Righteousness of Christs disciples be to exceed the righte­ousness of the Scribes and Pha­risees, Pag. 81. and they condemned perjury, and all false Swearing by God, and the Law condemned all false Oaths, and vain Oaths, and Oaths by Creatures, as A. S. hath granted; then the righte­ousness of the Disciples is to be an other, then the righteousness of the Law, &c. He should [Page 396] have said, the Righteousness of the Pharisees (not of the Law) and then he had argu­ed well, but that would not have made for his purpose; and therefore he slyly leaves out the word Pharisees, (that he should have used) and substitutes in stead thereof the word Law, that ought not by the Rules of reaso­ning to have been inserted, being altogether imperti­nent to the Argument. I think there be few so weaksighted, as not to look through so simple a fallacy. To help the meanest Judge­ment, put the word Gospel in stead of the word Law, the [Page 397] proposition will be as true, and the consequence will ap­peare (as it is) notoriously false. Reade it then thus. If the righteousness of Christs Disciples be to exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and they con­demned perjury, and all false Swearing by God, and the Gospel condemned all false Oaths, and vain Oaths, and Oaths by Creatures, as F. H. grants, then the righteous­ness of the Disciples is tobe an other than the righteousness of the Gospel. Now what wil, or can F. H. say to this? Is this manner of reasoning good, or is it not good? If it be not [Page 398] good, why did F. H. use it to delude his friends? If it be good, then the Gospel as well as the Law is evacuated, and holy men are to seek for some other righteousness be­yond that of the Gospel, or els they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, as our Saviour has expresly de­clared concerning that of the Scribes and Pharisees, St. Mat. 5. 20. which was the ground of F. Hs. Argument.

88 Which I perceive, he en­tended for an answer to what I had said in mine Applica­tion, wherein I told mine Au­ditors, Sorm, Scct 45. That though I had vindicated Oaths to be law­full, [Page 399] yet that was to be un­derstood onely of necessary, and just Oaths, and so dehor­ted them from perjury, be­cause they would fall be­low the Righteousness of Scribes, and Pharisees (who forbad the people to Swear falsly by God) which unless they exceeded, they could not enter into the Kingdom of Hea­ven. This passage being so innocent, and in a matter not controverted, could not I thought merit the censure of any man whatsoever. But so quarrelsome is F. H. that he will needs confute that, wherein both he, and I agree; and so unhappy am I, that I can­not [Page 400] escape his ferula, even when I speak to his sense, as here, from my dehortation Pag. [...]1. from false Swearing, he will rather than be silent, argue impertinently against all Swearing.

89 To restrain common, and needless Swearing (against which vice F. H. himselfe pas­sionately d [...]claims) I disal­lowed all Oaths, but such as were necessary, and just: To which he replyes, That there is none necessary amongst Christs true Disciples, and the Righte­ous. By which titles ( Christs true Disciples) he meanes, I suppose, some of his own per­swasion; but whether all of [Page 401] them, and whether of any other professions, I cannot tell: 'twere well he would resolve us. And I know as little, whether he hold that the Apostles, and Evangelists were of that number. For it seems, he does not think fit to be their voucher, general­ly calling them by their names, Marke, Luke, John, Peter, James, not vouchsafe­ing them the honour of Saints, which is usually affor­ded them. But whosoever he meanes by his Righteous, or Christs true Disciples, amongst whom no Oaths are necessa­ry, he has failed in one parti­cular (which renders his [Page 402] speech insignificant) and that is, That he has layd down no characteristicall marke, or note of discrimination, wher­by the Magistrate, or any other, may infallibly distin­guish these righteous men from hypocrites. And till that be done, I know not what use may be made of F. Hs. doctrine, That Oaths are unnecessary amongst Christs true Disciples, which I fully would consent to, provided we had any certain meanes whereby we might assuredly discerne who are such, & who are not. Let F. H. then consider here­of, and tell us no more, That true Christians may well be cre­dited [Page 403] upon their bare affirmati­on, (for thereof I doe not at all doubt, nor I thinke any man els that knows what it is to be a Christian, and so such discourses are idle, and useless;) but if he would make his advice practicable, he must by some meanes so descipher those sons of Truth, whose immunity, and exem­ption from Swearing he so much desires, that hypocrites may not enjoy equall privi­ledges with the other, for that would tend to the sub­version of Truth and Justice.

90 I proceeded, to give my Hearers a Caveat against Swearing by Creatures in [Page 404] their ordinary communicati­on, and informed them, that when there was a necessity of Swearing, no other Oath was lawfull, but that, by the living God: And that I did out of Jer. 4. 2. adding in a Paren­thesis, after these words of that Text, And thou shalt Swear, no more but this, here is your warrant for Swearing, which thence appears to be not onely lawfull, but in some cases necessary, because commanded. To this F. H. replyes, That this is pittifull proofe, and war­rant for Christians to Swear un­der the Gospel. But he might have had that ingenuity to have considered, that I had [Page 405] then done with the Argu­mentative part, and had al­ready proved the lawfulness of just Oaths, and vindicated the due use of them amongst Christians by many Argu­ments, where to I know, that neither he hath, nor any other can give any satisfacto­ry answer. And to such per­sons as had been prepared thereby to believe the Truth, this Text was warrant e­nough, notwithstanding any thing that he can object against it: though I confess it may seem (as he calls it) a pittifull proofe, as not alone enough to convince them that have imbibed such un­couth [Page 346] fancies as these, That the Morall Law of God is imperfect: That God the Son forbad what had been commanded by God the Fa­ther: That Swearing is a part of the Ceremonial Law, and consequently continued in force till Christs death, (till when it was lawfull) and then it was abolished; and yet notwithstanding, it was forbidden by Christ be­fore his death; after which, it was utterly unlawfull; so that it was both lawfull, and unlawfull at one and the same time. Such pittifull paradoxes F. H. commends to his friends, who he had ra­ther [Page 407] (it seems) should sacri­fice to these idols of his own imagination, than that they forsaking such portentous opinions, should imbrace the Truth. I beseech God in his good time to open both his eyes, and theirs.

91 And here I come to F. Hs. conclusion, wherein I shall fully close with him, and re­ferr (as he does) all that both he, and I have said to the Judgement of the Lord, and to the consideration of in­telligent, and conscientious Readers, whom I desire to deposit all prejudice, favour, and disfavour to either cause, or party, and to have perso­nall [Page 408] respects either to F. H. or to my selfe. For assured­ly, it will not be either of our interests at the last day, to have by our Tongues, or Pens, lead away numbers of those people into errour, for whom our deare Saviour was content to shed his most pre­tious blood. And therefore I earnestly request you, who­soever shall happen to cast your eyes upon these Papers, that you Reade them with deep consideration, and com­pare impartially what is layd downe on both sides. It con­cernes you more, both in re­gard of the comfort of a good Conscience in this life, [Page 409] and of everlasting happiness in the life to come, to finde out the Truth, than to be parties either of the one side, or the other. Wherefore I would not that you should believe me any further, ei­ther in regard of my former loyall, and constant adhe­rence to my Principles, or in respect of wisedome, or hu­mane Learning, (which I grant to be meane) than you shall finde the evidence of Reason, and Truth to guide you. Believe not any thing because I say it, but because it is true; neither, I beseech you, reject any thing which I say, either out of disaffection [Page 410] to my Person, or out of pre­judice to the Cause I main­taine, or out of your respect to the supposed worth, or ho­liness of any that are contra­ry minded, or out of any worldly end whatsoever, un­till you have duely weighed it, and found it erronious. On the contrary, let not your good opinion of S. F. F. H. or any other, either in respect of their knowledge, zeale, good meaning, sufferings, or any other like consideration, beget in you this conceit, that they are more than men; and if they be not, they may be mistaken: and therefore swallow not unadvisedly [Page 411] what ever they say, untill you finde it to be true, and then in the name of God em­brace it: but if you discover it to be false, as you love your soules, renounce it. And though you have formerly believed, and professed it; yet be not ashamed to retract an errour. 'Tis the greatest victory to conquer our selves, and the greatest glory to submit to Truth. And let me tell you seriously, as in the presence of God, that knows my heart, that I have studied this point many years, not ayming (I bless the Divine goodness) at any other end, but the finding out, and [Page 412] clearing the Truth, and have, I doubt not, found it (having had more advantages there to than some others) by Gods gratious assistance, and this is it that I here declare unto you. Be serious then I pray in the perusall of this Treatise, till you fully understand it; and if through the blessing of the most High, you discerne herein the Truth, be neither averse, nor ashamed to ac­knowledge it, not for my sake, but your own. Seek for it diligently, and in sim­plicity of heart, that you may finde it, and thereby rest to your soules, which the Lord in mercy vouchsafe to grant.

92 [Page 413]And yet F. H. has not done: For (he sayes) he can­not but minde the Reader, that A. S. has had certaine books of the dissenters, in which are weighty things about this parti­cular of Swearing, which he hath not answered at all, as to their Arguments, onely carped here and there at a word, which is not of great moment: adding, That though it was not possible to answer all things in so shore a discourse as a Sermon; yet he might have done it in his Addi­tionalls, or Annotations. F. H. may be suspected to surmise, that his Readers are very ob­livious, that need be so often reminded of the same mat­ter, [Page 414] This is the fourth time that he hath harped upon this string, besides a good large hint that he gave there­of in his Epistle to the Rea­der. In answer whereto, I grant that I have read over all these Tracts by him here mentioned, and some others besides, as James Picton's just Plea against Swearing, and Supplementum sublatum, by Rich: Hubberthorne and Sam: Fisher, in answer to Mr. Tombes about Swearing: and some Papers in Writing of John Wigans, delivered to Judge Twisden, 1664. and another Anonymous Manuscript, and one of George Bishops of Bri­stol, [Page 415] and a short one of Peter Hardcastle's besides many pri­vate Letters from severall persons. So diligent have I been to enforme my selfe of what ever could be said for the maintenance of that Tenent, that I might not through rashness, or igno­rance, wrong either them, or the Truth. And here I must seriously profess, that what ever I found that in my Judgement deserved an an­swer, or might in the least move any rationall man to dissent from, or doubt of the Truth of what I had delive­red in my Sermon, I replyed to it in some marginall An­notation. [Page 416] But F. H. is of a differing Judgement, and therefore whatsoever he has since produced out of them in his book, I have here an­swered; and besides, for the most part showed him, how weak those Arguments were, that he supposed were weigh­ty, and of great moment. But this I look upon, but as a co­lour to varnish over a ruinous cause, that in case I should take the pains to answer his book; yet his credulous friends should be kept up in a fooles paradice, as thinking there were other weighty matters, whereto I had not replyed, and so all refutation [Page 417] would be vain, or impossible. For though I had replyed fully to F. H. yet possibly there might be somewhat in some other Writer which I had not observed. You may perceive herein some subtile dealing; but I referr it to the Judgement of any of his fa­vourers, whether F. H. may in reason be thought to have left out any materiall passage that might assist his Cause, which he could finde in these books, when he has borrow­ed so much out of S. Fs. wri­tings (and that often when he does not so much as men­tion his name) which has bin found little advantagious to

And here H. F. brings his [...]. Army into view, and presents us with a Muster-roll of his forces: The first whereof is the Answer to Bishop Gauden, by that faithfull servant of God (as he termes him) Sam: Fi­sher, (he might have called him another Paul, for they both reviled the High Priest, but with this difference, that the Apostle did it by mistake, but the other upon designe.) And the next is his Antidote. The third is Isaac Pennington's book, whereof he gives us a Summary of severall heads, all which (he sayes) A. S. hath passed over, and hath not answe­red, which proposition might [Page 419] be well retorted. For I could truely say, all which F. H. hath passed over (as not much conducing to his purpose) and hath not urged: and why should A. S▪ answer what was not objected? Then follows John Crooks book the Title whereof is not (as he has it) The Case of Swearing at all dis­cussed; But Sixteen Reasons, &c. why diverse true Christi­ans called Quakers refuse to Swear at all. Thus he puts his friends upon a vain enquiry, and perhaps he would never have them to find it, because then they would alwayes be in expectation of further sa­tisfaction (as he puts them [Page 420] in hope) if (as he sayes, and may well suspect) they be un­satisfied in what hath been said already. For these things A. S. hath not answered. Indeed A. S. did neither answer them in his Sermon, nor in this vin­dication of it. Not in his Ser­mon, for why should he there digress to impertinencies? Not here, because F. H. al­ledged nothing out of them, nor 'its like could. For, can we imagine that he would so far betray his Cause, as not to mention in defence of it, those great and weighty things, which (as he tells us) are wor­thy of the serious consideration of all? Or can we think that [Page 421] he would weed his Authors, and onely make use of such flight Arguments out of them, as might easily be re­ [...]uted, and leave untouched those solid Reasons that would have been satisfactory to his friends; and then, to make his Reader amends, send him in quest after a mis-na­med book, that is no where to be found? Indeed I have some reasons to suspect, that F. H. himselfe did never see John Crooks sheet of paper, for it is no more. In his next, I desire he would deale inge­niously, and tell us whether he have seen it, or no; and if he have not, how he comes to [Page 422] know that it contains such weighty matters. John Crook himselfe is much more mo­dest; for in a Paper which I have under his own hand, concerning his sixteen Rea­sons, he sayes, That some of them tend to prove the unlaw­fulness of all Swearing, as espe­cially the first and fifteenth, (both which are grounded upon the Text, S ^t. Mat. 5. 34. which I have here fully dis­cussed) Some, more particularly relating to the Oath of Allegi­ance: And others tending not al­together so much to prove the unlawfulness, as the uselessness of Oaths, &c. which being ve­ry true, (though not answe­rable [Page 423] to what the Title Page held out) let F. H. or any of his friends judge upon second thoughts, whether I had any reason to answer things so extrinsecall to my purpose, which was not to discourse of the usefulness, but of the law­fulness of just Oaths in gene­rall, without any reflection upon that of Allegiance in par­ticular. But besides, F. Hs. prophetique spirit here failes him. For indeed, I have an­swered those Tracts of Isaa [...] Pennington, and John Crook, and sent those answers to the parties themselves in writing, (not thinking them tanti, as to trouble the World with [Page 424] them; though if F. H. in ear­nest desire them, I am in a capacity to serve him) which occasioned interchange of some Papers betwixt us. Mor­gan Watkins brings up the rear; and F. H. sayes nothing of answering him; and that was wisely done: For I am of opinion, that he found no­thing therein that deserved an answer.

94 In his last Paragraph, F. H. (as in severall other places) does that really, for which he so often aspe [...]ses A. S. cause­lessly; mine intention was (as I publiquely declared in my Sermon) and still is in Wri­ting [...]ct. 3. this discourse, not to cast [Page 425] any odium upon the dissen­ters, or adde affliction to their bonds, (as F. H. phrases it) but to induce them to relinquish an irrationall opinion, and there­by escape those penalties that are Legally imposable upon non­conformists, whereby the Church would be freed in part from that Schisme that so miserably distracts it, and themselves enjoy those im­munities, which are the inhe­ritance of good, and obedi­ent Subjects. Nor am I con­scious to my selfe of any thing that might occasion that suspition of me in F. H. though he has often urged it against me; I know not why, [Page 426] unless it be to get in his par­ty, a disaffection to my Per­son, and thereby an abhor­rence of my Doctrine. For rationally to refute an error, and modestly to disswade se­duced persons from such mis­perswasions, as would draw upon them both guilt, and punishment, is one of the best services can be done them, and that (especially where it is accompanied with civility of deportment, and offices of humanity towards them) as it cannot in Reason, so in charity it ought not to be mis-interpreted, as a designe to incite those that are in Authority to a further seve­rity [Page 427] against them. God knows that I sincerely wish their conversion, not their destru­ction. I have not tasted so lightly of the bitter cup of persecution for Conscience sake, that it can be any delight to me that F. H. or any other, should drinke thereof upon that account. They think it hard to suffer for not Swear­ing, when the Law enjoynes it. But I could tell them who suffered for not Swearing, (and that I trow was harder) when the Law disallowed it. But for F. H. he does more then enough (as though he were the greatest enemy to his brethren) to irritate his [Page 428] Superiours against them by frequent reproches of the Ci­vill Magistrate, and calum­nious imputations upon the Church of England. But I shall neither recite the words, nor quote the places, least that prove the occasion of a new complaint, unless F. H. (or some in his behalfe) put me upon it, for their satisfa­ction, or mine own vindica­tion. If the ordinary Reader cannot discover the passages that look with so malevolent an aspect upon the Govern­ment, he has my leave to dye in ignorance. F. Hs contrary temper is not so lovely as to make me imitate it, or tempt [Page 429] me to recrimination. And for his frequent insinuations of my being a time-server, an opposer of Christs plaine words, a deceiver of the sim­ple, one that stirs up the Ma­gistrates to the persecution of the godly, and I know not what, I impute them either to his passion, and discontent, or els to his crafty seeking by these petty artifices, to create in his friends a bad opinion of me, that they may reape no benefit by my labors; I beseech the Lord that these things may never be layd to his charge. For my selfe, I thanke God, I harbour no hatred in mine heart against [Page 430] him, or any other. I never projected the ruine, or hurt of any of them; but onely endeavoured to manifest to them, and the world, what I know assuredly, and what no rationall man upon serious deliberation, and perusall of what is written on both sides can deny to be Truth. And if in order thereto, I have showed the vanity, or uncon­cludingness of F. Hs. Argu­ments, without any asperity of Language; I hope he, and all others will excuse me, in regard I could not but show the weakness, and fallacious­ness of his answer (who had openly professed himselfe a [Page 431] champion for errour, and so vigorously endeavoured the maintenance thereof) unless I should have wilfully betrai­ed that Truth, the Patrociny whereof I had undertaken. For if I would reply, I was necessitated to follow whe­ther F. H. led [...] me. Neither can any one be justly offend­ed, that I contend as earnest­ly for the right, as F. H. does against it. For this does not onely tend to rectifie their judgements that have been seduced by the subtilities, and specious pretensions of Religion, (amongst whom I account F. H. to be one, of whom I am not so ill con­ceited, [Page 432] as to think that he writes against his Consci­ence; but rather judge him to be deceived by relying too much upon S. Fs. Judge­ment) but also to free the Church from Schisme, the Nation from Faction, and themselves from penalties, which they incurre through disobedience. I really pitty F. H. and those of his frater­nity, and am perswaded that many of them are people conscientious, and of upright intentions; and therefore I would endeavour to the ut­most to undeceive them, who have been cheated into their misperswasions by Wolves in [Page 433] Sheeps cloathing, to which unhappy misadventure, the loose lives of some, and the unsound doctrines of many that called themselves Ministers, during the time of our late confusions, in all proba­bility did not a little contri­bute: which may be a ground for our Christian commisera­tion towards these deluded soules, and an inducement for us not onely to compassi­onate their abused weakness; but also to labour by all good means to recall them into the right way, who have not strayed from it out of any new fangled giddiness; but have rather been frighted out [Page 434] of it by others miscarriages; or allured from it by the subtile suggestions of those cunning imposters, that taking the ad­vantage of our distractions, and making use of the de­bauchery, and prophaneness of the licentious multitude on the one side; and the un­justifiable, and contrariant positions of some that were then accounted the most zealous Preachers on the other, struck them as it were betwixt Winde and Water, over powred their wel mean­ing simplicity, and under the plausible colour of a more strict Piety, and sincere Reli­gion, prevailed with them to [Page 435] forsake the Church, and se­verall of those Catholique, and Apostolicall Doctrines therein professed. For whose reduction (through the bles­sing of God) I have under­taken this Taske; and pro­fess, that I have not here Written any thing, of the Truth whereof I am not ful­ly perswaded, though mind­full of humane frailty, I doe wholly submit it to the Judgement of the Church. In order whereto, I desire F. H. and those of his perswa­sion, to think of themselves, (what he expresses of Eng­land) Pag. 84. that being no more than men, it is possible they [Page 436] may have been mistaken: and therefore that they would be pleased without prejudice, or partiality, to examine what is here layd down, and sub­mit their opinions to the evi­dence of Truth, whensoever they doe, or can discover it. To which end, I shall be al­wayes willing to contribute my best assistance to any of them, whether by way of Ex­plication of what perhaps may seem dubious, or less intelli­gible: Or by way of Applica­tion more clearly to reinforce any Argument, or refell any Objection which possibly may be better affected by private conference, than by these [Page 437] publique dissertations, which not many peradventure will regard; and sewer (I doubt) weigh seriously (as they should, and must, if they meane to profit by them) in the ballance of Judgement. The Lord grant them humi­lity, that none of them may be Wiser in his own conceit, then P [...]o. 26. 16. seven men that can render a rea­son, and open the eyes of their understanding, that they may discerne their errors, and re-tract them. And as for me, God forbid, that I should sin 1 Sam▪ 12. 23. against the Lord in ceasing to pray for them: But as I have now Taught them, The good, and the right way; so by the [Page 438] assistauce of the Divine Grace, I shall continue my devout sup­plications to the Almighty, (as our Church directs us) that it may please him to bring in­to the way of Truth all such as have erred, and are decei­ved. And so I end with that Prayer in the end of the Le­tany, That God would grant us in this World knowledge of his Truth; and in the world to come life everlasting.