doing of the whole will and counsel of God may easily know it And when we shall have sifted off that overgrown husk and chaff of words and left behind us all that heap of light grain that lies about it we shall see that what he urges immediately as in proof of his conclusion will not be forced to amount in worth to the weight of one grain of such Corn as is fit to go into the Garner Bish. Indeed the Bish. says p. 17. If the Quakers will admit such cautions and limitations as they do to other places in the interpreting of these Scriptures which they chiefly alledge to justifie their denial of all swearing whatever I shall not doabt to reconcile them to my sense of them Ans. Which is as much as to say if the Quakers will grant those Scriptures to have such limitations in them are an exceptive of that swearing I plead for against them for that is my sence thereof viz. that they forbid not all swearing but some onely then per Petitione in Principij by a begging the question and desiring them to grant that my wrong sence is right and their right sence wrong I have gun'd the Cause But for all his taking it of us before we give him the cause which is God's and not ours to give away we must tell the Bish. much what in his own words following that whether we ever yeild to his sence or no and whether he ever commend us for it or no we have such due regard to the Scriptures that we are willing as by a Rule of Christians actions in this cale of Oaths to stand to a tryal of it by the Scriptures but then those Scriptures which the Bish. beats so much about in a circumference of cautions and conceptions but scarce comes near as if he were afraid too critically to examine them or to enter within the bark or rind of the context to sind out Christ's true intent in the Texts themselves must be duly examined exactly weighed aptly reduced to that Standard of Truth which is the Scriptures themselves and not any mens false glosses on them in both Morals and Fiducials which Standard of Truth admits of no strife among those that stand and walk uprightly according to it and consequently of no Oaths in order to the ending of it In order to a true examination of them and a clear discovery how the Bish. falls short of the utmost of Christs purpose in them let them first be seriously read as they stand rightly enough translated for any thing the Bish puts in to the contrary The words of Christ Matth. 5. 33 34 35 36 37. are these Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths But I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is Gods Tbrone nor by Earth for it is his footstool neither by Ierusalem for it is the City of the great King neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou canst not make one hair white or black But let your communication be yea yea nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil And Jam. 5. thus But above all things my Brethren swear not neither by Heaven neither by Earth neither by any other Oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay lest ye fall into condemnation In these Texts the Quakers say All swevring is forbidden the Bishop says No but some Oaths onely in evidence of the first which is ours we say several things which the Bishop doth not deny but confess to as fully wel-nigh as we would desire him and some which we judg he neither will nor can deny First That the words are truly enough translated 2ly That the words are expresly as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Letter of them an absolute universal negative without any limitation dispensation or exception pag. 25. 3ly That at the first view they have a shrewd shew of our sense or to speak in no other then the Bishops own words pag. 20. both places seem at first sight point blank as some Commentators observe to forbid all manner of swearing among Christians both have emphatical or vehement words 4ly The first hath Christs authority reforming not onely the Pharisaick corruptions of the times but even the Mosaick indulgences in some things for the hardness of the Iews hearts 5ly That they are notable Texts which seem to stand as the Angel of the Lord against Balaam with a sword in their hand to stop the way of all swearing whatsoever 6ly They are agreed by all to be a divine and strict prohibition of that sin of swearing 7ly Places not so clear on the Bishop's part but like the Pillar of fire that gave Light to Israel as clear to the contrary as they are to us and cogent to our consciences they are as the same Pillar that was as a cloud to the Egyptians by the Bishop's own confession both dark and dubious All which grants of the Bishop were there no more at all to be said are of weight enough upon the bare reading thereof at random to cast the scales for the Quaker's-Cause against the Bishop how much more if all he says be pre cisely and strictly weighed in the ballance of the sanctuary and truly tried by the rule of right reason will it be found too light to serve his purpose against the Quakers 1. We say the Texts are truly enough translated as they are above transcribed nor doth the Bishop put in any exception against it Indeed H. Den with whom we have had very much to do already as to Matth. 5. makes an unjust exception against that true translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by at all but the ground of his exception being long since removed we have no more to do with him here then with the Bishop in that particular 2. As to Iam. 5. some except against that last clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not rightly translated nor Englished by lest ye fall into condemnation affirming the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie onely ipsissimam Iudicandi actionem the very act of judging or determining of a thing and not the punishment or execution of the sentence as to the suffering of it 2. That that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not alwayes ne lest but sometimes â—…isi i. e. except and so they would have the Apostles meaning to be thus Swear notby heaven earth nor by any other Oath c. except it be when ye come before a Iudgement-seat or except it be in order to the determination of a matter in some Court of Iudicature so making the words exclusive onely of swearing by creatures in ordinary discourse but not prohibitive of all swearing by the Name of God in cases of weight before Magistrates Which sence hath indeed a fairer shew in it of some allowance of solemn Oaths in
Iudicial proceedings and could it be cleared to be the Spirit 's meaning would serve the Bishop's turn though it is but of a learned Lay-man's starting that is of some present considerable sway in this City then all that the Bishop hath serv'd it by himself But this cannot possibly be the mind of the Apostle nor the true interpretation as it is not the true translation of the words for the divers Reasons hereunder ensuing 1. Howbeit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieâ—… that very action of judging of things in order to the passing of a verdict or sentence yet not exclusively but conclusively of the Iudgement Verdict and Sentence it self given or pass'd against one to such or such punishment yea also sometimes it is used as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the very execution of the sentence of condemnation pass'd against a man or his suffering of the punishment to which he is adjudged according to the said sentence so passing against him witness those places Ioh. 3 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And this is the condemnation that Light is come c. And Matth. 23. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly be understood so restrictively as to signifie no more than the single action of judging by way of Animadversion or debate upon a matter but also both the sentencing of a man to the suffering and the suffering of the vengeance of 〈◊〉 according to the sentence So here in Iames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not as that fore-named friend would have it unless or except ye come under the examination of a Court of Iudicature but as it 's rendered lest ye fall under Iudgment or into condemnation Again that they are rightly rendered as we read them is evident by that conjunction which is copulative of this sentence with those foregoing which if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieâ—… nisi unless or except it would have so much the more shew however of possibility to be translated that way but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which howbeit it may possibly perhaps in some cases but improperly ever be used as it is in Hower's â—…iads for the Verses sake in which cases Poets oft take liberty to lanch out from the native sence of the words for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nisi or except yet most properly and primarily as well as most commonly ordinarily usually and almost universally signies ne lest that for these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non are two conjunctions which when they are together in conjunction or composition do naturally sound forth as much as ne or ut non lest that ye fall or that ye may not fall into condemnation And we are not without such a palbable necessity as is not here found to depart from the prime proper genuine and native signification of any words into that which is improper and forraign Moreover whatever any Poet might do yet if we consult the sence wherein the Apostle throughout the New Testament uses these phrases we shall never find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so as to signifie nisi except but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used all along and never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express unless or except as Mat. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. unless or except your righteousness exceeds that of the Phariseâ—… 19. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. except for Fornication Iohn 3. 3 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. except a man be born from above Luk. 13. 3 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where-ever it is used is truly translated as here ne ut non lest lest that but never Englisht by unless or except as Matt. 7. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudge not lest ye be judged Will any knowing man read that thus viz. Judge not unless or except ye be judged So 1 Cor. 7. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency c. So Heb. 3. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Lest any of you be hardened c. Moreover that that clause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not in any wise an exception from the foregoing prohibition not to swear but rather a caution not to swear on pain of judgement or condemnation is yet more evident by the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cado prosternor incido c. signifies properly a falling into some kind of mischief or danger which attends the doing of some matter prohibited and not a coming as a Witness before a Court of Iudicature and 't is nonsensical to express such an appearance by a verb of such signification For what sence were it to say Never swear except you fall into alias incur the danger of a Iudgment-seat But it 's good sence to say lest ye fall under Iudgment or into condemnation In full and final evidence of this yet further that it 's a caution not to swear on pain of condemnation and not an exception from the command not to swear we have one place much like to this in phrase and sence viz. 1 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest being puft up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the Devil And ver 7. ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the De vil Again if it were to be rendered so except ye come before a Iudgement-seat it would argue it to be permitted as lawful to swear in all manners kinds and cases before specified in a Court but that cannot possibly be for then these two absurdities would follow 1. Whereas Iames sayes Swear not by Heaven nor by Earth nor by any other Oath except before a Court of Iudicature it would follow that in case men do come before a Court of Iudicatâ—…re then they may lawfully swear either by Heaven or by Earth or by any other Oath as well as by God alone which were most gross and absurd to imagine 2. Whereas Iames sayes Let your Yea be Yea and your Nay Nay and Gauden's interpretation of those clauses Let your yea be yea and your nay nay is this p. 32. viz. That they import that plainness and simplicity of Christians meaning and doing as may be consonant to their words in truth and honesty without fraud or falsity 'T would follow thus viz. use all simplicity and plainness and let your meaning and doing be consonant to your words except ye come before a Iudgement-seat and then ye need not let your yea be yea or your nay nay that is need not let your meaning be consonant to your words in truth and honesty without fraud or falslty which were an absurdity more
any Oath and in such an exclusive latitude aâ—… shuts out all swearing whatsoever even that which once was as well as that which never was lawful on pain and perit of falling into sin and condemnationâ—… â—… for these words But let your communication that is the whole of it not only private but publick be yea and nay do not only import that plainness and simplicity of Christians meaning and doing as may be consenant to their words in truth and honesty without fraud or falfity but also that forbearance and freedome of their speech from all Oaths by heaven earth or any other Oath whether of old forbidden or required and that appears undeniably to any by its being brought iâ—… in both Texts by this adsative particle But by the emphasis of which it stands opposed as an affirmative to its negative not onely to those words that are prohibitive of for swearing viz. Thou shalt not for swear thy self but to those sentences that are prohihitive of all Oaths viâ—… Swear not at all not by Heaven nor Earth nor any other Oath but let your communication be yea nay i. e. be without all Oaths for what 's more then that i. e. then solemn asseveration and negation is of evil which is as much as if he had said for whatsoever Oaths or swearings are us'd now as well as for swearing comes of evil Otherwise if the affirmative part be interpreted as standing in opposition to that part of the negative onely that prohibits for swearing it must be such Tautological non-sence as absit far be it from us to think Christ should ever speak Since then this must be the sence viz. of old'twas said Thou shalt not for swear thy self but let your yea be yea nay nay that is perform to God thy Oaths in truth and honesty without fraud but I who say more than was said of old say unto you Swear not at all but perform to God thy Oaths in truth and honesty without fraud which idem per idem whoever utters is found more in insano sensu than insano But the other way 't is sound sense viz. I say unto you swear not at all by any Oath but let your communication be yea and nay As then the affirmative part of Christ's words must be taken in such an universality and latitude of command as confines to bare solemn asseverations assertions or denials exclusively of swearing by Heaven Earth or any other Oath when he sayes But let your communication be yea yea nay nay So the negative part of his words swear not at all must be understood in such an universally exclusive latitude as admits of 〈◊〉 Oaths whatsoever among his Disciples 3. The adversative particle But which stands between those two prohibitions of Moses saying For swear not but perform to God thine Oaths and of Christ saying But I say unto you Swear not at all do little less than infallibly manifest it That Christ forbids all swearing as much as any and even such swearing as was not indulg'd to them by the Pharisees onely but by Moses and God himself who by his servant dispensed with them in and instituted even their swearing by God's own Name who never indulg'd conniv'd at nor dispensed with any of that Creature-swearing the Bishop talks of but threatned woes to it ever under the Law and by the Law Otherwise again if all Oaths be not forbidden by Christ as well as any wherein as to the point of swearing does he prescribe a righteousness and perfection above or beyond that of his servant Moses whom he was to exceed by which Moses God in the Law it self so universally forbad all other Oaths save solemn swearing by his own Name that there was no more swearing left for Christ to forbid his Disciples than what Moses had before forbidden to his own Disciples if he might not forbid all that swearing by God himself which the Law allowed of Besides the non-sence that he must be suppos'd to speak if he forbid not some swearing which of old was commanded appears in the particle But for thus it must run according to the Bishop's supposition Ye have heard of old from Moses in the Law ye must not for swear your selves But I who forbid more than Moses ever did say thus unto you Swear not at all by any of those Oaths which Moses forbad before me but onely by such as he allows you We say on this account as to swearing Christ indulges and dispenses with as much as Moses and God under the Gospel as much as God under the Law for neither God nor Moses in the Law howe're the Iews de facto us'd it ever de sure indulg'd allow'd or approved of any irregular prophane or Creature-swearing and God and Christ in the Gospel at that rate the Bish. reckons disallow no other The opposition then which lies intimated in that adversative particle But being not between for swearing and prophane swearing but between for swearing then and no swearing now shews Christ's intent to be to prohibit all swearing For 't is indeed as if he had said thus God under the Law commanded you to swear by his Name and when you had sworn by him in truth to perform the Oaths ye made by him whether to him or any other But I say now God allows you not to swear at all nor by Heaven Earth nor any other Oath no not those Oaths which ye did and might of old make unto the Lord your God in things lawful but no Oath by a creature did God count as an Oath made to him any more than he counted their solemn Fastings to be unto him 〈◊〉 â—… 5. provided ye perform'd it when ye had done 4. Christ doth instance in the use of swearing by the Name of God virtually though not formally whilst he instances in the use of snearing by Heaven Earth c. forasmuch as swearing by Heaven as Christ sayes Matth. 23. 22. is a swearing by the Throne of God and by him that sits thereon therefore swearing by God is implicitly if not expresly excluded And this the Bish. himself also confesses p. 30. viz. That even in those Oaths which were aâ—…tested onely by thâ—… naming of any câ—…eature as by Heaven Earth Jerusalem the head c. There was a tacit calling God to witness which if there be then according to the Bish. who sayes an Oath is no more than an attestation of God who is witness to all we say and do p. 38. swearing by the Name of God which was once allowed and required is here excluded and prohibited But however that the Bish may not have occasion to say we deal sophistically with him and not so sincerely and plainly aâ—… becomes the Truth we will confess with him that that was but a kind of prophane creature-swearing an irregular form of swearing by the Name of God the Iews iâ—…dulg'd themselves in which he also confesses with us is here forbidden seeing it was but a kind of
exceedingly gross than the former Seeing then they are an universal negative expresly exclusive of all swearing without limitation or exception what hinders why they may not punctually be taken in that plain way wherein they are exprest we see not But the Bish. who rather darkens than opens the clear counsel of God by words without knowledge enters his dissent and puts in his exception to the contrary here in such wise as others who are already confuted have done before for as Ier. Ives sayes those general terms Swear not at all admit of an exception sometimes universal Propositions are taken with restrictions so says the Bish. p. 13. many things in some Scriptures are expressed in universalities which are limited to the subject intended And p. 32 33. As for that absolute and universal Negative of not swearing at all noching is more clear and usual in Scripture than to confine the meaning of such generals to the particular subject and scope intended Negatives and affirmatives in Scripture are limited in the sence though seeming universal in the Letter or Words Ans. 1. What if it be so sometimes and in some places will it follow infallibly as it must do if the Bish. reach his end in reference to the Quakers which is undeniable demonstration in order to their infallible convinction that it is so ever so every where so here at this time or in this place Divines use to tell us that the literal sence of the words must not be departed from for a figurative or forreign without an evident necessity forcing thereunto but here is as little evident necessity of such a thing as there is of any swearing at all which the Bish. himself confessing that it is neither needed among true Christians nor to be heeded among false ones concludes the non-necessity or uselesness of altogether 2. Whereas he sayes nothing is more clear and usual in Scripture than to confine general terms to particular meanings that 's utterly untrue for if there be any as there are many Parables and Proverbs which wayes of Wisdom are all plain to him that understands though dark sayings to him that knows not the mystery of God's Kingdom and if some general Rules do admit of some exception some universal terms limited in their sence yet something is more clear and usual then that for it 's far more clear when things are intended literally as they are expressed for that 's a more cloudy and dark saying in which one thing is spoken and another intended 2. More usual also for the Spirit of God to mean plainly as he speaks and to intend as universally as he talks and not as some Divines whom we haue had to do with tell us that in terminis he offers salvation unto all but intends it onely to a few for then who can tell ordinarily what he means in any thing 3. If 't were never so usual elswhere yet it 's of all places the least likely to be so here in these two Texts in both which the Bishop out of Commentators observs that there seems at first sight to be such divine strict point-blank prohibition of all manner of swearing among Christians and that by Christ's own authority who calls his Discipels so strictly in the following words out of strifeâ—…t â—…t self the ending of which is the end of Oaths that he would have no resisting evil nor striving at Law in his Church 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. and consequently out of Oaths that were for the ending of strife under the Law where it stood and so out of over and above that Law of the servant Moses that induâ—…g'd and allowed both Oaths and strife into that Gospel of love which works no ill to the neighbour and so fulfills the Law is the most excellent way yea the price of the high call of God in Christ Iesus whose call is not to such uncleaness as evil hearts and manners dissimulations defraudings over-reacings thefts injuriousâ—…ess unrighteousness distrusts insecurities and janglings but unto holiness before him and peace one with another And lastly with such emphatical and vehement words as 't is also confessed as make the two Texts not onely to seem by the words to be universal in their sence nor onely to seem strict and point-blank against all swearing on pain of evil and condemnation nor onely to seem to stand as the Angel of the Lord against Balaam with a sword in their hand to stop the way of all swearing whatever and we have little reason to believe those two Texts to be such a pair of Apochryptal much less Hypocritical pieces as to seem to be what they are not or speak another matter than they intend but also in reallity are ex confesso both dark and dubious to the discourser himself that discourses for that unchristian course of Christians swearing All which considerations though many false Prophets who Balaam-like love the wages of unrighteousness more than either to bless or to be blessed with God's Israel as unconscionably as inconsiderately posâ—… on may possibly cause not onely the Civil Powers whom they â—…awn on to wax weary of them but also to force the poor spur gall'd people whom the said false Prophets so unmercifully ride like so many dull and dumb Asses to fall down at last under the burden of their spiritual Tyrannie and being smitten by them because they can go no farther for fear of the Angel of the Lord to open their mouths and with man's voice rebuke the madness of the Prophets 4. Though we own that sometimes general Rules and universal expressions admit of exceptions and limitations yet then those limitations exceptions and restrictions are either expressed or at least those manifestly and undeniably implyed in the same Text or in the same Testament where those general expressions are as is so abundantly shewed already in our Answers to others that for the avoiding of tedious repetitions of what remains still unanswered we shall say no more here in that particular But as to the universal prohibition in this Text Matt. 5. there is not onely no expression of any such exception nor yet in any other part of all the Scriptures of the New-Testament but rather in the same Text a fuller explication of the same universal expression by sundry of such particulars of it as are if any can so be as expressiveâ—… so far more forcibly and even utterly exclusive and exceptive of all sorts of swearing as sin and evil from the whole conversation and communication of Christians which such transactions as they may be conversant in in Courts of Iudicature are surely a part of as well as any other Swear not at all by Heaven Earth Ierusalem the Head c. but let your communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay what is more than these cometh of evil And 2. there is in the same Testament by the Apostle Iam. 5. a re-inforcement of the same universal prohibition of that sin of swearing in terms more universally and strictly
exclusive of all Oaths and then surely of Oaths by the Name of God as wel as ought else on pain of condemnation Swear not by Heaven Earth c. nor any other Oath but let your yea be yea your nay nay lest ye fall into condemnation 5. And because the Bish. sayes it 's agreed on all all hands that both places are a strict prohibition against the sin of Swearing but not against such swearing as is no sin taking it for granted before it be given him by us that there is now as under the Law there was some swearing which is no sin but an act of duty according to which conceit of his he states p. 20. a threefold Question about the interpretation scope and meaning of the two Texts 1. Whether all swearing be utterly forbidden because it is and ever was in its nature a sin against Morality Or 2. Whether all Swearing is therefore now a sin because thus forbidden by a positive Law of Christ under the Gospel 〈◊〉 3. Whether onely some sort of Swearing which is a sin is forbidden but not such swearing as is no sin but an act of veneration To all this we reply 1. That howbeit we affirm net all swearing is forbidden because it is and ever was in its nature a sin against Morality for swearing that now is sin was one of those Ceremoâ—…ialities of the Law which in their nature were not sin but duty for the time then being being as all legal rites were subservient to but not against the morality of the Gospel for the shadows were not against the substance nor the Ceremonials against the Morals and Fiducials nor of them so as to be de esse to them as Paul sayes the Law is not of Faith yet not against it For as Ministerial as the Law was to the Gospel then yet the Gospel may be and now is without it Yet 2dly We own not any swearing to be now a duty or act of Iustice as some swearing once was under the Law but affirm all swearing to be now a sin upon the second account viz. because thus forbidden by a positive Law of Christ under the Gospel who by his death ended the Iuâ—… or Right of that and many more Legal Rites and Rudiments so that however they may de facto be continued not more without the guilt and sin at least of superstition then pompous High-Priests Sacrificings and Circumcisings New Moons days meats drinks and other holinesses of the Law which though accessiry to the Gospel yet so little pertinent to it that whoso pleads the necessary practice and performance of them now among Christ's Disciples made Christ of so little effect to himself as that he shall profit them nothing So then even that sort of swearing which was not sin simpliciter and ex suâ natura in its nature under the Law as a thing against the Morality of the Gospel is now a sin upon the account of his universal prohibition of all swearing who was of Authority to put an end as he did also by his death unto the Law And as some things are prohibita quiâ—… mala as they speak forbidden because they are sin and evil in their very nature as envy hatred deceit injury unrighteousness being all not onely not of the Gospel Grace and Truth that came by Christ but eternally against the morality of it so some things are mala quia prohibita sin and evil because they are forbidden and of this sort are these ceremonies circumcisings sacrifices swearings and other Ordinances of the Law once commanded by Moses since ended and forbidden under Christ of an indifferent nature in themselves having so much good in them that they have no evil and so much evil that they 〈◊〉 no good but meerly according as they are respectively commanded by the Servant or prohibited by the Son in their respective Houses Now against that universal acceptation of the Texts as a general prohibition of all swearing seeing no exception can be found in all the Scripture the Bish. puts in three things by way of exception He presumes p. 36. those after-evidences in the Gospel as he calls them of Christ's verily verily and Paul's calling God to witness do sufficiently clear the limited meaning of our Saviour But his presumption in that particular to be vain is sufficiently proved â—…bove He urges also against the said universal acceptation by way of â—…xception the moral nature end and use of an Oath which saith he p. 36 God hath instituted without any repeal by Christ or his Apostles In disproof of which morality of the nature of an Oath we have said enough before as also how whatever Oaths God instituted of old by Moses the Servant who de novo gave out and so was said to gâ—…ve or institute sundry things that were before him and nâ—…t of him but of the Fathers as Circumcision 1 John 19. 22. Sabbath Sacrifice as well as Swearing those he ended in his Son and hath repealed both by him Matth. 5. and his Apostle Jam. 5. which Texts whether they be Repeals or not sub judice lis est is the main point in Question in evidence of which that they are we have said so much already for our Yea in confutation of what the Bish. hath brought for his Nay But whereas he urges by way of exception against the universal sence of the prohibition the occasion scope and end of Christ's and the Apostles words to which his own instance by way of explication of his meaning do best direct us as to what he forbids and enjoins We say those matters rightly weighed do all plead the Cause of the Quakers more than the Bishops and that is evidently manifest by sundry passages wherein the Bish. in his examination of the said matters most manifestly manages his own business against himself In order to the opening of the true occasion of Christ's words the Bish. siyes thus of the whole Sermon of which these words swear not at all c. are a part viz. Bish. Our Saviour gives many singular Precepts of more eminent diligence patience charity mortification self-denial sincerity conspicuity perseverance and perfection of obedience required now under the Gospel above what either the Letter of the Mosaick Law seem'd to exact or by the Pharisaical interpretations theâ—…ws â—…ws c. And p. 27 28. However by Divine indulgence and connivance they might seem to have some temporary Dispensation heretofore granted them yet now under the Evangelical strictness to which Christ came to restore or raise the Church they might not fancy to themselves any such liberty but were to keep themselves in thought look desire word and deed mark not onely to that sanctity and severity which was required by the Law but also most conform to the holy Will Attributes and Nature of God whom they ought to imitate as their heavenly Father in all sacred perfections which humane nature assisted by the light of the Gospel the grace of God's Spirit
and the visible example of Christ was capable to attain Ans. In which sayings let all men that are of any spiritual understanding see if the Bish. himself do not speak as one that interprets the words of Christ in that point of swearing as universally exclusive of all swearing even that which by Divine indulgence was conniv'd at under the Law as well as that prophane swearing which was then forbidden as wel as now whilst he says Christ requires greater perfection of patience love self-denial strictness sanctity severity than Moses Law even such perfection of obedience as conforms to God's holy Will and Nature to the Light of the Gospel the Grace of God's Spirit and the visible example of Christ to the measure of the stature of the fulness of whom the Saints are capable by the true Ministry to be built up Eph. 4. Whose example was not to strive Matth. 12. 1 Pet. 2. whose humane nature attain'd to a state beyond strife whose Light Spirit and Grace leads into the love that admits of doing no ill to the neighbour Whose Gospel calls so far out of strife the cause of Oaths that it requires not to be overcome with nor to resist evil but overcome it with good to love and do good to enemies when the Letter of the Law of Moses which the Bish. sayes the Gospel must exceed allowed to hate to be aveng'd on Enemies Aegyptians Amalekites to take an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth whose Gospel in othee points forbids and condemns rash anger lust after women polygamy divorce except for Fornication rendring evil for evil c. while the Letter no more than actual Murder Adultery indulging conniving at polygamy humorous divorces stripe for stripe wound for wound and in that point of swearing forbids and condemns not onely for swearing but all swearing while the Law allowed of indulg'd conniv'd at commanded and gave dispensation for the whole Law of Moses was given by the dispensation of Angels in the hand of that Mediator for a time to some swearing and such swearing even by God as was us'd in order to end strife where it was yet standing so be they perform'd their Oaths to God or one another that they made by him condemning no more than Creature-swearing as the Bish calls it as by Malcam as well as God by Heaven Earth c. and forswearing or not performing what Oaths by the Name of God they had made to God or to each other It 's most evident then by the Bishops confession here that Christ in every point condemns something which not onely the Pharisees by their false glosses and abusive loose interpretations of the Law allowed but what the Law it self even Divine indulgence dispensed with connived at and by Moses suffered i. e. commanded so to be because of the hardness of their hearts which as to the point of swearing was swearing by his Name alone if they must needs swear as a way to end the strife and envying which by reason of their distrusts and jealousies and the hardness of their hearts they were full of and fallen into Otherwise let the Bish. or any man living shew us wherein Christ commands a righteousness or perfection that exceeds that of the Law as it 's confest he does for the Law said Swear not by any creature but by God onely and for swear not and if the Gospel say no more but swear not by any Creature as Heaven Earth c. but by God onely and for swear not where 's that higher state of perfection that Love that excludes strife and consequently Oaths which are but to end strife where it is and that perfect conformity to Christ who neither strove nor sware and to his humane nature Light Spirit and Grace that leads up out of strife the occasion of Oaths All which high attainments the Bish. confesses Christ come to bring men up to under the Gospel Bish. But the Bi. hath yet one more strong string to his Bow as he judges which is indeed his ultimum refugium which if it fail all his tackling is loosned and his whole talk about the limitation of the universal Negative in those Texts must be take it self to its heels for any help it can hope to have from himself or any other and that is a strong conceit begotten in his mind from some few Authors testifying of a certain sort of vulgar familiar Oaths or forms of common swearing by whatever came next to their hands and tongues as by the Temply holy City their own and others heads hands lives and souls by heaven earth the light waving the attestation of God and swearing by his Name and putting the character of Divinity upon the creature and not only upon small and light occasions but even in things of concern as to that charity justice and equity which they owed to others of old in use among the Iews as among many Christians now which way of Creature-swearing they chose saith he because they sancied such Oaths being not with the solemn invocating of Gods Name were not binding upon their souls but such as they might play fast and loose with as their own interest or pleasure sway'd them as they could not do with Oaths made according to the laws command by Gods Name for those they thought binding â—… On this occasion saith the Bp. p. 29 30. and to reform these gross abuses Christ gives that command swear not at all that is not after those usual presumptuous unlawful forms by the names of Creatures of which he gives so many instances to express his meaning when he doth not instance in the lawful use of religious Oaths by the name of God telling them there was in those Oaths by any Creature Heaven Earth Jerusalem the Temple c. a tacit calling of God to witness since every creature depends on God and is in relation to him as Heaven is his Throne Earth his Footstool Ierusalem his City and lastly implying that however such Oaths were at to the manner unlawful yet they obliged if the matter of them were lawful so that they were not excus'd from perjury in not performing and p. 35. for these their new and customary forms of swearing it being the almost only swearing in fashion among them Christ blaming in them and aiming at gives such a prohibition of sweat not at all that is saith the Bish. p. 20. not by those Oaths in which you now make no scruple to swear and forswear not at all for matter and manner as ye have accustomed your selves to swear contrary or beyond what God allowed in his law Answ. In this place we confess the Bish. though he streins hard for it hath made as fair a flourish and spread as broad sails as in any part of all his book besides it yet all will not help to carry him on to the accomplishment of that work at first undertaken by him against the Quakers viz. the justification of the lawfulness of
resistance which Passive obedience all wise men own to be true obedience as well as Active Nor 4thly so as to rectifie our Iudgements which were once irregular when we made no Conscience thereof but return'd to their rectitude when we became so tender as to fear an Oath Nor 5thly so as to stop that which he is pleas'd not for want of mistake error and superstition to miscall the contagion of our error and superstition to others in this point for we are perswaded many will be convinced as well as some are already confirm'd against all swearing seeing how little the Bishops have to say and shew in confirmation of it Nor 6thly so as to the redeeming us from the penalties of the Law for they are now with full measure heaped up and running over even beyond the bounds of the Law it self executing and insticting upon several of us Nor 7thly and lastly so as to redeem us into safety and peace for howbeit we seem in the eyes of the unrighteous and of some Religious ones to be in danger of perishing in our troubles yet come what evil can come to us for our Consciences we â—…earkening still unto Christ dwell safely and are at quiet from the fear of evil being as the same Seed and sort of Saints before us also were 2 Cor 4. though Troubled on every side yet not distressed Perplexed yet not in despair Persecuted yet not forsaken Cast down yet not destroyed Dated and Dedicated in service to the Truth in the Month called July 1662. by Samuel Fisher imprisoned for Conscience by the space of about Fifteen Months of the two years last past First in the Counter 2dly In Newgate 3dly In the Gate-House 4thly In Old-Bridewell 5thly Now in Newgate again Where without the least Crime prov'd against him or so much as said to his charge he stands with many more so recorded in the very Calender discharged by the Kings late special favour notwithstanding which he is not released but retained FINIS ERRATA IN the first part in the Epistle p 5 l 30 for yet r. yea p 2 l 39 r. tentanda p. 8 l. 7. r. in it p. 9. l. 8. r was at least â—… 9. â—… 30. r. that he is p. 11. l. 37. p. 12. l 2. r. obstinacy p. 13. l. 4. r graviore p. 14. l. 12. for his r. their p. 16. l. 31. for 〈◊〉 r. declining p. 20. l. 27. r. ungue p. 21. l. 3. r to the Bishops p. 24 l. 3â—… r. to sweeten p. 32 l. 9 r. do p. 34 l. 4 r. redarguit p. 37 l. 9 r. what he hath p. â—… l. 29 r. Agitator p. 85 l. 21 r Dictatorem p. 89 l. 25 r. 〈◊〉 In the second part p. 4 l. 9 r presumed l 13 r. frivoulosity p. 9 l. 29 r. inventitious p. 13 l. 15 r. Christians p. 16 l. 3. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21 l. 19 for by in r. in by p. 21 l. 20 for in r. is p 25 l. 4 for we r. they p. 25 l. 7 for of r. of old p. 27 l. 38 r. is p 2 l. 14 â—… Diali p. 30 l. 20 for is all r. is in all p. 41 l. 33 â—… Petitionem p. 44 l. 39 r signifies p. 45 l 11 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 50 l. 13 r. yet not l 16 r. yet are so l. 18 r. makes l. r 9 r. him p. 55. l. 12 r. dispersation p. 56. l 23. r. as well as p. 62. l. 13. for wave r. use READER Find no fault with what faults thou find'st with th' Press Correct the greater thus the rest lack less * Though Iuditium paenale de jure nunquam excedit casum * Viz. Joseph Hall once Bishop of Exeter who allowed of Variety in outward Forms of Worship saying in pag. 58. of his Susurâ—…ium thus It is a great and iâ—…solent wrong in those who shall think to reduce all Dispositions and Forms of Devotion and Usages into their own since in all these there may be much Variety and all those different Fashions may receive a gratious acceptation in Heaven One thinks it best to hold himself to a set Form of Invocation another deems it far better to be 〈◊〉 to his Arbitrary and Un-premoditated Expressions c. and pag. 60. O God let my main care be to look to the Sincerity of my Soul and to the sure Ground of warrant for my Actions for other circumstantial Appertenances where thou art pleased to be liberal let not me be strait-handed And pag. 184. It is a true Word of the Apostle God is greater than our Conscience and surely none but he under that great God the Supream Power on Earth is the Conscience every man is a little World within himself and in this little world there is a Court of Judicature erected wherein next under God the Conscience sits as the Supream Judge from whom there is no appeal that passeth sentence upon all our Actions upon all our Intentions for our Persons absolving one condemning another for our Actions allowing one forbidding another if that condemn in vain shall all the World besides acquic us if that clear us the doom which the World passeth upon us is frivoulous and ineffectual I grant this Iudge is sometimes corrupted with the bribes of hope with the weak fears of loss with an undue respect of Persons with powerful Importunities with false Witnesses with forged Evidences to pass a wrong Sentence upon the Person or cause for which he shall be answerable to him that is higher than the Highest but yet this doom though reversible by the Tribunal of heaven is still obligatory here on Earth So as it 's my fault that my Conscience is misled but it 's not my fault to follow my Conscience * Witness the Kings Letter from Breda sent to the House of Pâ—…eres and read in the House May the 1st 1661. and ordered to be printed for the service of the House and satisfaction of the Kingdom and now to be seen in the 89. page of the Book of Collections of his Speeches whose Words are these viz. We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences that no Man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences in â—…pinions or in matters of Religion which do not disturb the Peace of the Kingdom and that we shall be ready to Consent to such an Act of Parliament as upon maâ—…ine deliberation shall be offered to us for the full granting of that Indulgence Also in the Kings Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affaires dated October the 20th 1660. it is said thiâ—… In a word we do again renew what we have formerly said in our Declaration from 〈◊〉 for the Liberty of tender Consciences No Man shall be disquiâ—…red or called in question for Differences of Opinion in matters of Religion which do not distrub the Peace of the Kingdom And if any have been disturbed in that kind since our arrival here it hath not proceeded