Imprimatur,  
Joh. Garthwait, Reverendissimo in Christo Patri, ac Dom. Dom Richardo Archiepis. Eboracensi, à Sacris Domesticis. Datum, Episcopo-Thorpae, Aug. 5. 1667.   

A REPLY To a Pamphlet called, Oaths not Gospel-Ordinance, etc.  
Wherein a Sermon Preached at Carlisle, Aug. 17. 1664. with all the Arguments therein produced (to prove that our Saviour did not forbidden all Swearing) is fully Vindicated, the Text of St. Mat. 5 34 and St. James 5. 12. are plainly interpreted, the Truth undeniably manifested, and the Objections to the contrary. what ever could be sound in the Writings of Francis howgil, Sam: Fisher, or any other Quaker satisfactorily answered.  
By Alan Smalwood, D. D.  Prov. 12. 19 
The lip of Truth shall be established for ever: but a lying Tongue is but for a moment.  
York, Printed by Stephen Bulkley, and are to be sold by Francis Mawbarne, 1667.   

To the Honourable Sir JAMES PENNYMAN Knight and Baronet, one of his Majesty's Deputy Lieutenants for the North-Riding of the County of York, and Justice of Peace in the said Riding, and in the County Palatine of Duresme.  
Sir,  
THis Dedication is not to acquaint the World either with your firm adhesion to the Church of England, or your utter abhorrence, and detestation of Sects; for those are sufficiently known: nor to provoke you to a greater severity against Sectaries, for that is contrary to my main design, which is, by God's blessing, so to rectify their judgements, and reduce them to such a measure of Conformity, that no rigour of Law can reach them: nor to contribute the lest Glory to your Name, whereto no Addition can be affixed by the mean endeavours of so and obscure a person; but indeed (which expression has so little of Courtship, that it cannot probably pass for a Compliment) to please myself, who am not more ambitious of any worldly honour, than to be justly accounted grateful to those Persons, who have merited of me beyond all possibility of compensation: In the Catalogue of whom, not to place You, and many others, (some dead, some alive) of that Loyal Family, whereof you are chief, would be a crime inexpiable in the Judgement of all those that have known you, and their continued (not to say continual) benefactions to, Sir,  
Your humble Servant, A. SMALWOOD.   

To the Reader.  
THe God of Heaven and Earth, the searcher of all hearts knows, That my design in writing and Publishing this Discourse was, and is for the fuller discovery, and clearing the truth, and the conversion of those seduced Christians that are in Error. I bless God, I can truly say with the Apostle, That my hearts desire, and Prayer 
Rom. 10. 1.  for them is, that they may be saved: And in order thereto, may come to the knowledge of the truth. 
1 Tim. 2. 4.  Nay, such affection I have for them, and so really I wish their good, that I would willingly use my best endeavour to undeceive them, that they may enjoy the Liberties of other Subjects, and be secured from the danger and penalties of the Law. ●at what I have holden forth with the right hand, some have thought fit to receive with the left. Of which number, one F. H. (who is to me so mere a stranger, that so far as I know, we have never seen one another's face) is one, who in a pretended confutation of a Sermon Preached by me August 17. 1664. at Carlisle, out of a mistaken zeal to his own cause, contrary to mine intention, and than— expressed profession, tells the world in Print, That I, and such as I, have by such Public Discourses as that of mine, blown the sparks, and kindled a flame in the Rulers, and incensed them, and stirred them up to severity and harshness against them who fear the Lord, etc. (pag. 11.) And jest the Reader should fail to take notice thereof, he speaks to the same purpose in divers other places of his book. But this wight perhaps fall out accidentally, and beyond his purpose: And therefore his words (pag. 5.) are more fully expressive, that his meaning was, that my very end in Preaching and Printing that Sermon, was to stir up persecution against them. I had said to this purpose in my Sermon Sect. 2. That were it granted, that Christ had forbidden all Swearing, We should be necessitated to disobey the Magistrates Legal commands. The Reason is, because we must obey God rather than man, and consequently not act by an human precept what is prohibited by a divine. And the truth of that proposition is evident, and undeniable: For that is a Legal command, which is a command according to Law: So the Magistrates imposing an Oath in many Cases is a Legal command; yet were it not to be obeyed, had our Saviour countermanded all Swearing. So what I said is demonstratively true; and yet F. H. avers the contrary, and says (pag. 4.) That there is no necessity to indge, that he that fears (he should have said vesuses, or else he speaks nothing to the purpose) to Swear— does therefore disobey the Magistrates Legal command: which Assertion is false, and contradictive of itself. The Magistrate Legally (that is by Law) commands F. H. to Swear; F. H. will not, does not: F. H. there disobeys the Magistrates Legal commands, Yet these (says he, pag 5.) are but the secret smitings and suggestions of A. S. to tender them odious to the Magistrates, and all people, who descent from him in judgement. Is not this a strange man, that will take upon him to judge of, and discover the thoughts of another man's heart, as though he knew them better than himself▪ But this is a subtlety, which tends visibly to begit in his brethrens a dissafection to me, as though what I said to reclaim them, sprung rather out of hatred to their Persons, than love to their souls; which false conceit once rooted in them, may created in them a prejudice against what ever they find in my Writings, by which, in that case, they are like to receive no advantage; either out of neglect to read them, or in reading them with neglect.  
Another like Artifice F. H. makes 
§ 2.  great use of, and that is, to make people believe that I am a , and such an one as makes no conscience of what I say or do, provided it tends to mine own advantage, and so there need no great regard be had either to what I Preach, or Print. To which purpose he speaks in the first page of his Epistle in these words; A. S. hath sought to make void Christ's command, for to obey the command of men. And in the third page of his book, he breaks out into this expostulation▪ What would not this man encounter with? or what would not he oppose, if he have but the power of this world on his side? And again (pag. 32) he speaks of A. S. and such as he, who sail with Wind and Tide, and exalt and applaud that which hath praise amongst men, and hath not the praise of God. On the contrary, he styles himself in his Frontispiece, A sufferer for Christ, and his Doctrine; and those of his own party, the Righteous (pag. 8●.) which may probably induce those seduced persons of his opinion to adhere the more constantly to him, and disrespect what ever can be said by such as are of a contrary Judgement, because they are not only erroneous, but ungodly persons, that make no conscience what they either Speak, or Act. But to prevent the misunderstanding of well-meaning people, let me for a little speak foolishly (as the Apostle words it) in mine own vindication. When the prevailing party had subdued that part of the Nation where I than lived, the Covenant, an unlawful Oath (as I ever held it) was tendered to me; and when it was perceived that I had no mind to swallow that Pill, I was urged (not without intimations of favour) to give it to my Parishioners. Which proposals when I had refused, I was upon that account deprived of an Annual Pension (without the lest compensation to this day) which I had from the than most pious Prince, since glorious Martyr King Charles the first, which had it been continued to this present would have amounted to above 2000 Marks. I do not know that any Quake● for refusing to Swear, suffered so considerable a loss in his Estate; the truth whereof (if need were) would be attested by hundreds of people yet living, it being a matter well known throughout Cleveland in Yorkshire, where I than inhabited: I bless God, by whose only Grace I was enabled, rather to Suffer, than do Evil. Now this may charitably be thought to have begot in me a compassionate affection towards others (and that indeed set me upon this work) but it were hard to brand me now, as one that in his old Age, for worldly and base ends, would run himself, and endeavour to carry other innocent persons headlong to Hell. I should have thought, that one that pretends so much to Conscience as F. H. should never have cast such groundless aspersions upon an unknown stranger; I beseech God it may never be laid to his charge. Only I desire the Reader to consider seriously what it is F. H. would not say to advance his Cause.  
With a like engine he labours to undermine my repute, saying, I am one of a disdainful spirit, (pag. 32.) and that all that dissent from me in opinion, I call fanatics, and Paul shall hardly go free, nor divers of the ancient Fathers. And in his Epistle to the Reader, and in his Book (pag. 2.) he again and again harps upon this string. As far as I remember I used the word but twic● in all, once (Sect. 2.) where I mentioned a Sect of fanatics in France five hundred years' ag●e. And I am sure that neither St. Paul, nor any of the Fathers were amongst them. And I suspect that F. H. had scarcely ever heard of them, had he not found them in my Book; and therefore I should think he should not much concern himself therein. In the other place, (Sect. 16.) I confess I meant of the Quakers, and there indeed I intended them so little ill, that I was pleading in their behalf to the Judges for a dispensation. You see how I am requited (not much unlike S. Fishers dealing with Bishop Gauden) and how some return me hatred for my good william. I used the word as being of the largest sense, as comprehensive of Anabaptists (who refuse all swearing) as well as Quakery. Nor did I suspect that it would have been offensive to them, for I heard one of them call some of other Sects fanatics. And I guessed that that Appellation would not have been unacceptable to those of that Judgement, some of whom at jest have pretended to inspirations, prophetical infusions, and extraordinary measures of the Spirit beyond others, which is the very genuine meaning of the word. And therefore I desire all who are concerned, not to suffer themselves to be abused by F. Hs. malignant Rhetoric, as though I had desired to cast any aspersion upon them, or intended them any harm, at that very instant, when I was making a serious intercession for their impunity, I did endeavour to be inoffensive in all mine expressions. But I see that no Care is armour of proof against those who are minded to pick quarrels.  
But his most subtle stratagem is, to tender me a person of Antichristian Principles, that chooses Christ's own words to pled against him (p. 2.) making his words one thing, and his intention another (p. 18.) to this purpose he speaks in seven or eight several places. But this is a mere calumny, and a groundless slander. And it was not well, that in the heat of his mistaken zeal he did forget the ninth Commandment. If the defence of Truth were his aim, he must confess that it is prejudiced by such Artifices. I thank God, so blasphemous a conceit never entered into my mind. What our Saviour's words were there is no question. All men grant that he said, Swear not all, etc. but to found out the true, and full importance of these words by the context, and divin● Reason was my design; and he cannot show that in the lest I have failed therein, though he would prepossess his Reader with all prejudice against me imaginable.  
But put the case all this were so, and that A. S. were the veriest Atheist, and the most corrupt, and selfe-ended creature in the world; yet the wise Reader will easily descry that all this is wholly extrinsecall, and impertinent to the question in hand, which is not whether F. H. or A. S. be the wiser or honester man; but whether of them does more truly expound the words of Christ. What is false aught not to be received, because it is the Opinion of a deluded, or mistaken Saint; nor is Truth to be rejected, because an hypocrite, or a great sinner professes it. It had not been safe to have disbelieved the holy Jesus, because the Devils proclaimed him to be the Son of God. There is no greater sign of a weak Cause, than by such petty Arts as F. H. makes use of, to tender the Adversaries odious, that the matter itself (the people being forestalled by prejudice) may never come to an indifferent hearing.  
But that which does F. H. the most service, and whereof the most part of his book consists, is, That when he cannot satisfy the Argument propounded, he falls into tedious discourses, filling up many Pages with incongruous, and unintelligible Sentences, which he calls Answers, that the weak, or unwary Reader that looks no further than to the multitude of his words, may think that he has fully answered what in few words had been objected against his Tenet. If this be done out of weakness (as I am very apt to believe) he is indeed to be pitied for his ignorance, but justly to be blamed for his presumption, that he would take upon him to Writ he knew not what, and answer what he does not understand, and thereby (being blind himself) to lead others into the ditch. I do much pity his ignorance, conceiving him to be one that means well, and strongly conceited that he is in the Truth, as having pinned his faith upon S. Fisher's sleeve, and receiving his dictates as oracles, and undervaluing all those (as S. Fs. mode was) that are of contrary Judgements. And this I do the more, in regard that I fear his mistakes, and delusions have since been strengthened by some that he has mistaken for his brethrens (Devils may appear in the resemblance of Angels of Light) who have suggested to him somewhat that he has made use of out of Authors that have Written in the Learned Languages, which a mere English Scholar could by no industry have reached. And by his stile it is evident enough that he is not more, for it is so full of incongruities, as plainly shows, that he understands not his Accidence; and if so, how should he come to understand what Greeke and Latin Authors untranslated have Written? For his citations of Origen, and other Fathers, happily he may be beholden to Bishop Gauden, or S. Fisher out of him; but how he should know what the Romanists (as he quotes them, pag. 20.) Renerius, (I suppose it should be Rainerius, for I never heard of the name Renerius) and Jansenius said of the Waldenses (whose books I think are not to be had in the North of England, and scarcely read, or ever seen by any Divine there) I can hardly imagine, unless he had ploughed with their heifer.  
To his repeated Objection that I have overriden the most weighty matters in the Books and Papers of Dissenters, I have fully answered in the back end of this Book, whereto I remit the Reader for satisfaction. And for matters of lesle moment (although they seemingly tend to the justification of Error) I shall pass them by, as though I had not noted them, such as this that he names, his Pamphlet Oaths no Gospel Ordinance, as though any Orthodox man had ever said they were: Whereas on the contrary our Tenet is, That they are commanded in the Moral Law.  
If any demand why this Discourse was so long before it came forth? I answer, That I was not fully resolved of Publishing it at the first, because some judicious friends advised the contrary, whose Opinion I could not deny to be rational, in regard that not one of mine Arguments were satisfactorily answered in F. Hs. Pamphlet. Besides, soon after that came to my hands, I heard there was another Confutation of my Sermon in Manuscript, whereof a worthy Friend sent me the first lease transcribed, whereby I conceive, that if the Body be answerable to the Head, it will prove not at all more valuable than this of F. Hs. But the opinion of those of that party either was, or at jest was pretended to be, That F. Hs. Treatise was weak, and not altogether satisfactory; but that this other was a full answer to what ever I had said, and that out of that consideration, they had a great desire to have it Printed. In expectation whereof, I have waited now a full year, but all in vain. This seemed somewhat strange to me, because they might as easily have procured an impression of that, as F. H. had done of his. which at length occasioned this conjecture, That so long as I sat still, this brave answer would never come to light; for than if any one had objected to them my Sermon; they would presently have said, That F. H. had confuted it. But had I replied to him, this other would forthwith have been Printed, and F. Hs. piece would by themselves have been decried, and this applauded. Thus I thought with myself, which guess, whether it hit upon the full Truth, or not, is not much material. But in this time whilst I remained in suspense, F. Hs. book has been dispersed into all parts, (and as some of themselves say, beyond the limits) of this Nation; which is an Argument, that they do not so much undervalue it, as was to me pretended. Nor is it like that they think that this lurking Manuscript could have done them more service, than what F. H had Published, for than there is no Question, but it in place of that other had gone this Pilgrimage, which could have done their Errand better. But of that I can by no enquiry inform myself further: but on the contrary F. Hs. Answer is much cried up; Whereupon I was induced to manifest the defects thereof, and to show to men of mean capacities, that upon his grounds, he is neither able to make any tolerable sense of our Saviour's words, nor answer any one of my 12. Arguments, but that his whole discourse is nothing else than a mere delusion of the Reader; whereas in the way I go, all difficulties are surmounted, all F. Hs. Objections Vanish, and every thing will appear plain and rational to any that will take the pains to Read this ensuing Vindication with an impartial Eye. This motive had weighed down the scale, had it not been encountered with a contrary, which was, that such a discourse to those that were already confirmed in the Truth, it was unnecessary; and to those that are grounded in a contrary persuasion 〈◊〉 would be useless, in regard that few of them would in likelibood read it, and though they did, they were so prepossessed against it, that it was not probable to make any deep impression upon them. But than again I considered, that it might possibly be matter of some Advantage to the former sort, either in explaining some Scripture-texts more clearly, or in confirming their grounds with greater evidence of Reason than formerly perhaps had been made out to them. And for others, why might not some weak and unresolved Consciences hence receive satisfaction? Nay, why might not some, that read it only to carp, and Cavil at, be (through God's blessing) unwillingly convinced by so clear and undeniable discoveries of the Truth? There have been some examples of that kind in former times. How ever though I was not sure of any happy success, I thought I did but my duty, in bearing witness to the Truth, leaving the event to God's gracious disposal; for thereby if I could not (as I desired) benefit others, yet at jest like a vigilant watchman, I should deliver mine own soul. But whilst I was now and than meditating of these matters, providence so ordered, that one of F. Hs. persuasion came to me, and told me in a very civili manner, That if I could (as I had pretended) answer F. Hs. Book, I might do well to do it for public satisfaction. I replied, That I was joth to put myself to so much trouble, unless there were hopes that at l●st some of of his Opinion would seriously, and with all indifferency compare F. Hs. Book with what I should oppose thereto, and submit their Tenants to Truth on what side soever they could discover it. He professed that he was desirous of satisfaction in this doubt, and promised, that himself (telling me likewise, that he was much assured, that several others were of the same inclination) would with his utmost care and sincerity endeavour to procure it. I believed that he spoke the dictates of his Conscience. Whereupon I forthwith put on a resolution to contribute what I could to the effecting of so just a desire: for I should think no pains too great, could I thereby be instrumental to convert one sinner from the error of his way, and thereby save a soul from death, St. James 5. 20. In order thereto, I humbly beseech our heavenly Father, that it may please him to bless mine endeavours, and to bring it to the way of Truth all such as have ●●red, and are deceived. Thus you have the Reason, both why this piece is now at length exposed to the public view, and why it was Published no sooner, which was not any difficulty in answering F. H. as you may easily perceive by perusal of his Pamphlet, wherein there was nothing of intricacy, but the unintelligibleness of his stile.  
And now I beg of you, who ever are concerned in this Controversy, as you are lovers of Truth, and desirous to have your Consciences rightly informed, to read this Treatise with impartiality. Consider not so much who speaks (F. H. or myself) as what is spoken. Regard not the maintaining of any Sect, or Opinion, so far as to side with it against the Doctrine of Christ. Weigh the Reasons on both sides in the balance of equal judgement; and above all things deposit Pride and prejudice. For so long as you are parties, you cannot be indifferent Arbitrators. No man aught to be Judge in his own cause, how knowing, or enlightened so ever you conceive yourselves to be, think that you are but men, and consequently, that you are in possibility to be deceived. If you find (which by no help of Spectacles I could ever discover) or of yourselves can discern any one convincing Argument for the confirmation of F. Hs. Tenet, I shall gladly become your Proselyte. But if there be no such discoverable, nor any more than this, It must needs be so, because Christ meant so, (for of his Words what he said, there is no controversy) and Christ meant so, because S. F. and F. H. say he meant so (though that interpretation of his words be inconsistent with the Context, other Scriptures, and Reason;) than I must most earnestly beseech you not to labour to uphold the dictates of men for Doctrines of the Gospel. Think it no disgrace to turn to Truth, but a great shame to continued obstinate in such an Error as is indefensible. 'tis a glorious victory to conquer one's self, and a mighty honour to submit to a manifest verity. St. Austin won to himself not lesle repute in the world by the Retractation of his mistakes, than by any other of his most solid Tractates. Read than this little Discourse, but read it so consideratively, as you may receive benefit, not harm thereby. For if you read it not, it is apparent that you are so 〈…〉 love with your own Opinion, that you purposely neglect the Apostles advice, Prove all things (1 Thes. 5. 21.) jest you should holdfast that which is good. And if you ●oade it so, as wilfully to shut your eyes against the shining beams of Truth, and oppose it, because you have long supported an Error, know that this little Book will one day rise up in Judgement against you, and you shall have a place amongst them that Love darkness rather than light, which God of his infinite mercy prevent. Read than, and examine what you find with all equability of mind, and be not so tenaciously addicted to either party (for what is it to you whether F. H. or myself get the better) as not to embrace the Truth by whomsoever it be made out to you. Peruse seriously, and consider indifferently what is said on both sides; and the Lord give you a right understanding in all things.   

BEing desired by Colonel Lamplugh than High Sheriff 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 intent by those words, Swear not at all, an absolute universal and unlimited prohibition of all manner of swearing; which I proved by several Arguments: whereto having added some other, I was content they should be Printed, in hope that they might (by God's blessing) become instrumental to confirm the wavering, and convert the erroneous. This it seems fallen into the hands of one F. H. a person to me utterly unknown, who being of a contrary persuasion, has thereto returned a Reply, which whether it be satisfactory, or not, I refer to the Readers Judgement.  
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 heir will: And the Father having commanded Swearing, the Son surely has not forbidden it. The Argument in form 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 individual Essence, and immutable in Will, than whatever the Father hath commanded that the Son hath not forbidden But the Father, and the Son ar● one individual Essence, and immutable 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 clear by the light of Reason: for none, without change of mind, can command and forbidden 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 of four leaves long, gives three Answers to this Argument.  
First, he says, 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 several gists, and several offices upon several persons. He might as well have told us, that, In Niniveh old Tobit dwelled; 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 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 alleges 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● rightful so to do, etc. For ther● is a vast difference betwixt 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 Read than according to hi● sense: It was commanded under the Law to Swear by the name of God, not that it was rightful so to do, etc. and the Proposition would savour of blasphemy▪ implying, That God commanded what was not rightful 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, etc. is wholly impertinent to the proposed Argument, and thereupon I leave it, and follow to the next Answer, which is, that  
Secondly, As Christ said of Divorcement, It was not so from the beginning: so we may say, Oaths were not from the beginning, but were added after hardness of heart, and sin, and unbelief entered into the world: but Christ put an end to the transgression, sin, unbelief, variance, and strife, who said, Swear not at all, etc. And so A. S ●. reason is made voided, 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, etc. To this I reply, and first, Grant that in the time of Innocency there was no use, nor need of Oaths. (adly.) That Christ came to put an end to sin, and strife, and to that purpose gave holy Precepts of all virtue, 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. himself hath here entered into a causeless, and unjust contention. Nor is there hope it should be otherwise, until all our understandings be fully illuminated, and our wills perfectly rectified, which will not be in this life. (3dly.) Neither do I, nor any other that I know deny, that our blessed Saviour spoke these words, Swear not at all. The Question is not of the Authority, but the meaning, and importance of them. But (4thly.) Notwithstanding these concessions, I must needs say, that this discourse of F. Hs. is wholly extrinsical 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 else the force of the Argument is unavoidable. For, if God's mind were once that people should Swear (as appears by his commanding it) and that mind never altar (for if it do, God is mutable, contrary to that of the Prophet, 1 Sam. 15. 29.) than his mind is still that people should Swear; I mean when there is necessary occasion, for otherwise his mind is altered. And if his mind be still that people should Swear, than cannot Christ's mind be that people should not Swear, unless God and Christ be contrary minded, and than they are not the same God. And if Christ's mind cannot be that the people shall not Swear, than his mind is that the people shall Swear, and than he neither did, nor does, nor will forbidden them to Swear: for otherwise he should forbidden 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 says A. Ss. Reason is made void, 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 to the contrary) that the Father and the Son should be one in will, if the one forbids what the other commands.  
To prevent an Objection, I had mentioned the several sorts of Laws, to wit, Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial, and accounted Swearing in a right manner to be a duty of the Moral Law. To this F. H. says, That these nice distinctions have confounded people's 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. 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 Moral Law; or those external Rites which God imposed upon the Jews, only to be by them observed until the death of the Messiah; and in that sense it is termed, The Ceremonial Law: Or lastly, those Political 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 Judicial Law. So than Law signifying three things, it is necessary to avoid confusion, and mistakes, to have three words whereby they may be expressed, which serves not to confounded, but clear men's understandings.  
But whether Swearing be made Moral, Judicial, or Ceremonial, is not much matter (saith F. H.) seeing that Christ is the end of the Law, etc. 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 levitical Sacrifices were useless after Christ's death, which was by them typified) yet as to the Moral Law, our Saviour came not to destroy, but to fulfil it, St. Mat. 5. 17. And it makes clearly against F. H. For if Swearing be enjoined by the Moral Law, it must be of as much force now, as ever it was, it being easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one title of the Law to fail, St. Luke 16. 17. which must needs be understood of the Moral Law, seeing the Judicial and Ceremonial are both failed.  
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 not more improper, than that he is a Vine, a Door, a Way, a Shepherd, 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 styled. And it is far fetched to say, Christ is a Covenant, because God made a Covenant with man grounded on Christ's 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, the ground or motive of 〈◊〉 Covenant is not a Covenant i● self: nor an Oath to make good a Covenant, is not a Covenant. And therefore Christ is neither Covenant, nor Oath. As to the Marginal proof, 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.  
F. H. adds, That for any proof Dr. Sm brings, Swearing may be either Ceremonial, or Judicial, as well as Moral. Yet that very point was proved in the second Argument and F. H. cannot be ignorant of it, because he has laboured (though in vain) to answer it.  
He goes on, and says, That Oaths were used in Judicial proceed; 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 Moral, and that the most do 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. answer, That the consequence is false: For though much of the divine worship in the levitical Law was wrapped up in Ceremonies, yet all was not. Mental Prayer, such as Hannah's, was a service of God, yet had no external Rite, or shadow necessarily annexed thereto. But I shall be liberal, and grant the Conclusion. Perhaps Swearing (especially solemn) had some Ceremony not in it, but with it; as lifting up the hand: Yet from thence it follows not that Swearing itself is a Ceremony. No body is without many Accidents inhering therein. Is a body therefore an Accident? There is no man that is not of some colour, White, Read, Brown, or some other: can it thereupon be inferred, that every man, or any one man is a colour? For F. Hs. proofs (p. 8.) that Swearing was used in Judicial proceed, he might have spared them. For I willingly grant the Truth thereof, though he seem to be contrary minded, pag. 4.  
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 lest permission from God, which would be irregularities grossly reprovable under the Gospel, etc. I need not pursue his Instances, unless Swearing had been one; for I grant the Proposition to be true, if meant of the Ceremonial Law: but it is false if it be meant of the Moral. And this can no way be applied as an answer to the Argument. For it neither denies the Identity of the Father and the Son: nor shows that the Son forbade what the Father commanded. And for the instances, F. H. repeats them again and again, and so I shall meet with them afterwards.  
F. H. takes notice that in the seventh Sect. I said, That Christ abolished not the Judicial and Ceremonial 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 Christ's death. To this he replies, That he argues not against it, yet BP. Gauden does (whom A. S. willingly acknowledges his superior, not lesle in knowledge, Learning, and Eloquence, than in promotion) whose words are, That Christ came in the way of fulfilling, to abrogate the Ceremonial Law: the meaning of which sentence is (not that Christ forbade the Ceremonial 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 expressly said as much in a marginal note to the 8th. Section of his Sermon. So by F. Hs. good leave, the Bp. and the Dr. are in perfect unity, and not at all at odds betwixt themselves.  
But says F. H. If Swearing be a part of the Judicial Law, than A. S. has overthrown himself, because he acknowledges, that the Judicial Law is not obligatory to us. I grant the consequence (though it be wide fromthe dispute betwixt us, which is, whether our Saviour's words, Swear not at all be prohibitive of all Swearing) but deny that Swearing is a part of the Judicial 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. knows) for he has proved Swearing to be Moral in his second Argument. Nor is it F. Hs. Judgement, for he holds it to be Ceremonial, p. 7. and therefore in his own Judgement 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 marginal note, whereby he gives great occasion to suspect that he seeks not Truth so much, (which is always consonant to itself) 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 Moral. For in Suits and Trials by our English Laws (which are answerable to the Judicial amongst the Jews) Oaths are enjoined, and taken, which yet thereupon do not cease to be Moral. The vanity of this Argument that relies upon the Judgement of many appears by the like. If Christ were a mere man, and not God (as has been the Judgement of many) than is Christian Religion false. I hope F. H. would abhor the conclusion not lesle than ourselves, and thereby he may discern the weakness of his premises.  
F. H. finds great fault with A. S. That he defines not certainly 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, it's 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 expressly in his Sermon Sect. 16. That to call God to Witness is the very substance of an Oath, producing St. Austin, who says, Jurat qui adhibe● testem Deum: and again, Hocest jurare Deum testari: and in his margin citys above 30. Author's concurring in Judgement with him. And again, he says in a marginal note in the 17. Section, The substance of an Oath consists in the attestation of God, by what terms soever it be expressed. So this charge was causeless. However, what F. H. blamed in another, he should not have been guilty of himself, but somewhere have laid 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 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.  
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 Marginal 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 notice that it was answered, which appears, because he replies 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 form, etc. 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 condescension to their weakness, that they might be dispensed withal (if the Law would give leave) as to the external formalities of an Oath. Thus much I spoke in Public in their behalf, 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 rectify their Judgements by clear and undeniable Reasons, so that by due obedience, they might avoid all Legal 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 form, (as ours is not) the Conscience 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 Lawmakers great incomes and revenues for the preservation and peace of all men, I pass by as a vain dream of F. Hs. they receiving no such matter either from the Lawmakers, or any other, either for that, or any other purpose. For his new platform of Legal proceed, when His Majesty in Parliament shall please to settle it, I shall cheerfully yield obedience thereto, and should be glad if any expedient could be found out without 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 persuasion to take notice, That though I have attended his wand'ring Motions through this last leaf; yet his discourse therein has been wholly impertinent to my Argument, though it go under the Notion of an answer thereto. At this rate, he might 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,  
Which runs thus, Whatsoever at all times, as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, tends in an especial manner to the glory of God, that is neither a Ceremonial Ordinance, nor forbidden by Christ. But some Swearing at all times as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, ●ends in an especial manner to the glory of God. And therefore all Swearing is nei●her a Ceremonial Ordinance, ●or forbidden by Christ He that would answer to this Argument, must either say, that some of the old Ceremonial. Ordinances are to be continued under the Gospel, tending no lesle now to Gods. Glory, than they did before; or that Christ forbade some what that tended in an especial manner to his Father's Glory; and than he had not sought (as he professes, St. John 18.) but hindered the Glory of him that sent him; or else he must say, that Swearing is not now such an acknowledgement of God's Wisdom, Power, and Justice, as formerly it was. Each of which is so very absurd, and irrational, that F. H. does wisely forbear to mention any of them: yet somewhat must be said, or else it cannot be thought that he has answered the Argument. Whereupon rather than say nothing, he falls into an extravagant discourse against the Morality of the Ten Commandments, and wonders what A. S intends to do with the fourth. A. S. may more justly wonder that F. H. will so abuse his Reader with such impertinencies, not more to the purpose, than if he should tell him, That Corn grows now where Troy Town stood. But he having found such a passage in that seurrilous Pamphlet of his Br. Fisher's against Bp. Ganden thin● it would do well to fill 〈◊〉 room here, and else where, an● so falls upon it several time hereaster. But to satisfy F. H. (if it be possible) I judge th● Ten Commandments to b● all Moral: and yet I grant that the fourth has in i● some what Ceremonial; 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 belief. And 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, contains somewhat in it that is not Moral, but Ceremonial. I see no inconvenience in all this; nor (if there were) can divine how thence my Argument may be answered.  
But F H. goes on, and tells us, There was no Service or Worship in that Covenant that had not some Sign or Shadow in it, instancing in Prayer and Praising, whereto were annexed, Incense, and Sacrifices. Be it so, That Moral Duties were than attended with Ceremonial Rites; does it from thence follow, that either than they were not, or now are not Moral Duties? Are not we now as much obliged to Pray, and Praise God, as the Jews formerly were, though the Sacrifices, those Ceremonial lips of Christ's Death, are necessarily disused? Such external Rites are not of the substance of God's Service, though sometime annexed thereto. They as Accidents may either be present, or absent without the destruction of the Subject whereto they adhere which is not therefore to be termed a Ceremony, because some Ceremonies were joined to it; as the duty of Thanksgiving became not a Ceremony, because it was accompanied with Sacrifices. So upon supposal that Oaths for the greater solemnity thereof were usually taken with some external significative formalities, that they might be the more revered, and fix a deeper impression upon his Conscience that Swears, they are not thereupon to be called Ceremonies, without all which their substance does entirely remain, not more than Praising of God is now to be termed a Ceremony, because levitical Sacrifices were once subjoined thereto.  
F. H. says, 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 Swear, is rendered by the Apostle, Rom. 14. 11. Every tongue shall confess to God. This I had observed before in mine Annotation to the 9th. Section of the Sermon. But I would pervert (says F. H.) Paul's words, to have them mean 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 Prophet's Hebrew word is generally acknowledged to signify Swearing, which several hundreds of years before the Apostles time (and therefore not by the Apostle himself) 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 the very sense of the Original were justly rendered without either enlargement, or restriction.  
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 Christians: That it is not necessary to believe Christ's Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, or Ascension. All these follow from this, That Sacrifices tend as much to God's glory under the Gospel, as under the Law; none of which can be said of Swearing. And therefore F. Hs. parallel 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 to his wont manner, that is, yielding the premises, and denying the conclusion) that this second Argument 〈…〉 sufficient, though he have said nothing material in answer thereto.  
The third Argument runs thus, If Christ forbade Swearing, than 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 in several respects. And therefore Christ forbade 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 else that all Swearing is contrary to one of these duties. For granting these, he must of necessity grant the Conclusion. But F. H. will do 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 required as a duty under the Gospel. This I grant, many Ceremonial Offices being to be observed, when commanded. But it is neither prejudicial to the Truth, nor any whit advantageous to his pretensions. And than he falls into a wild extravagance, and says, It may be A. S. would contend as much for the Morality of Tithes, (which he might with great security do, were it pertinent, notwithstanding F. Hs. opposition;) and than 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 persuasion 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 says, That as the Lord lives, was an Oath, and bids us mark, That the Law of Oaths needed not have been added, had not sin entered in. Well, we mark all this, and found nothing therein against the Morality of Swearing, or to show that Oaths are repugnant to our duty, either to God, or our Neighbour, which only had been pertinent. 'tis true, that Oaths had been useless, had ma● continued in Innocency. B● so had the whole Decalog● been too (man's whole du● being than engraven in h● heart) which thereupon w● not promulgated till after t● Fall. But how than▪ Will 〈◊〉 thence conclude, that no● of the commands are Moral▪ He may do it upon the sam● grounds that he lays against Swearing, viz. The uselesne● thereof in the state of Innocency, which if they be insufficient for the one, the● are also for the other.  
A. S. in pursuance of hi● Argument, That Swearing w● not repugnant to our duty to ou● Neighbour, recounts many advantages that accrue to men thereby; As Princes are sêcured of their Subjects Allegiance; Generals of their Soldier's 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 evil men, it may, and sometimes does fail thereof. And this is that which F. H. thinks fit to Reply to those alleged Advantages 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 lie (though sometimes they may not be altogether useless in respect of them, as is evidenced in the 22th. Section of the Sermon) but than Magistrates have no infallible mark to discern (especially amongst strangers) who are such conscientious men, and who not. F. H. must not think that the mere 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 Swear, because they were Christians: but that was by Devils, or Idols whereto the Ethniques attributed Divine Honour. Otherwise to Swear upon just occasion, they refuse● not, as appears, that man● thousands of them were Soldiers in those days, 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 somewhat of Objection, but nothing 〈◊〉 Answer) That what ever 〈◊〉 superadded to Gods command 〈◊〉 will worship, and renders th● other imperfect. I answer, Tha● we add nothing essential to the command. The very essence of an Oath consists i● calling God to witness. The formalities usually annexed ●n Judicatory proceed are ●ot of the substance of an Oath, but only conduce to the solemnity thereof, and were ordained probably to created in the Swearer a greater Reverence of God, and a deeper sense of the sin of Perjury.  
The fourth Argument may be put into this form, That Interpretation of our Saviour's 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 Saviour's Sentences were vain, and impertinent, which were an high degree of blasphemy. But that Interpretation which expounds our Saviour's words Swear not at all, to be prohibitive of all Swearing, renders the following words vain and impertinent. And therefore it is false. To this F. H. replies, That Christ knew better what he intended than 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 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 of to another place, like a bad debtor that will pay, but at another time. Than he seems to be offended with those that dispute about the plain words of Scripture, though as plain as they be, he cannot make sense of them, if meant as he would have them. Than he says, That Swear not at all by Heaven or Earth, is a general Negative of all Oaths. He must have either a very high conceit of his own, or a very mean esteem of other men's Abilities, if he hope toperswade 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 ourselves too many that do the same? And if these two comprehend all others, why did Christ immediately mention two more, Jerusalem, and the head? He says again, and again, That by Heaven, and Earth, and Jerusalem, are more ample, and more large (he should have said, more straight and narrow) expressions, which he immediately confutes, saying, That these, and much more, were in the general Negative, Swear not at all. For surely, a general that comprehends many hundred instances, is much more large and ample, than four 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, showing what kind of Oaths he forbade, to wit, such as were taken by Heaven, and Earth, and the like Creatures. And by this it appears, that F. Hs. selfe-contradicting Answer, is no way satisfactory.  
But to make the Truth appear beyond all contradiction, I shall somewhat more fully enforce this Argument, and show that the meaning which F. H and those of his persuasion do 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 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 thyself, but shalt perform 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 forbade, what God commanded; That the Law should be imperfect, as needing emendation; That Christ made voided some part of the Law, contrary to his own express profession, ver. 17. That the Gospel is not consonant, but repugnant to the Law, etc. These and the like inconveniences do evince that Interpretation of the words (from whence all these follow) to be false. And therefore some other is to be found out to clear 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 people's wicked, and corrupt practices. The Law had enjoined only Swearing by God, and no other. But the People did usually Swear by Creatures, as by the Temple, Altar, the Gold of the Temple, and the gift upon the Altar, all which were expressly 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. Swearing is lawful. And than, That all Oaths do not ob-Lige to performance, where as all Promises even without Oaths are binding. The ground whereof was, that such as had Sworn by Heaven, Earth, etc. though they broke their Oath, yet they were not thereupon guilty of Perjury, or the breach of the third Commandment, because they had not Sworn by God. Which gross misinterpretation of the Law, tending so much to the patronage of vice, and lewd practices, very well deserved our Saviour's reprehension, especially in this place, where he was Teaching the exact importance of the Commandments which he came not to destroy (or altar) but to establish in their full force and true meaning. Read than according to this Exposition the 33th. ver. The Pharisees have taught, that it is lawful to Swear by Creatures, as Heaven, Earth, etc. and that those Oaths when taken do not bind to performance, so that men though they do not what they Swear to do, become not thereby liable either to Perjury, or the breach of the Divine Law. But says Christ ver. 34. on the contrary, I say unto you, (in regard those courses are so repugnant to Christian Truth and Sincerity) Swear not at all, neither by heaven, nor by earth, etc. that is, by those Creature● which men do, or may abuse to the dishonour of God, the wrong of their Neighbour, and the great scandal of Religion. You see how aptly ou● Saviour's words are set in opposition to the false Doctrine of the Pharisees, and what just cause he had to forbidden what they permitted, and how impertinent it had been to the premises to have prohibited Swearing by God, which Oath was much revered, and (for aught appears) never abused by the Jews.  
Nor are the words, Swear not at all, (as F. H. understands them) lesle incoherent with what follows. For the blessed Son of God forbidding to Swear by Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, and the Head, subjoins 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 universal prohibition of all Swearing. Let any man to whom God has given a Mediocrity of understanding read the words in F. Hs. sense, and judge. You shall never Swear by God, or any other Oath, because Heaven is his Throne, and the Earth his Footstool, and Jerusalem is his City; or because men cannot make one hair white, or black. Pray what tolerable sense can any one pick out of this discourse? Or how can these Reasons be pertinent to a general, 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 better understanding whereof, it may be considered, that one may Swear by Creatures either ultimately, or Mediately: ultimately, when he invokes a Creature as a searcher of the heart, and a sovereign 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 only 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 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 man's words admit of a double meaning, whereof the one is extremely bad; we aught in Charity to interpret them in the better sense, unless some circumstance doth undeniably evince the contrary. Thus did Christ, and yet that better sense was too bad to be permitted. The Pharisees allowed Swearing by heaven, etc. yet taught, that such Oaths put no Obligation upon the Swearer, as is plain by that passage, St. Mat. 23. 16, 17, 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 cozening 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 expressly therein named, because even those, by Heaven, Earth, etc. have a consequential attestation of God in respect of the necessary dependence of all Creatures upon their Creator. Which is more clearly expressed, St. Mat. 23. 20, 21, 22. Hence appears the ground of Christ's prohibition, and the true, and full meaning of the Sentence, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, for it is God's Throne, etc. which in F. Hs. way seems to me altogether inexplicable.  
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 forbidden Oaths duly taken by God, and consequently not all manner of Swearing. You may sooner draw water out of a flint, or pumice, than that conclusion from these premises, 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 general. Which were it so to be understood, as F. H. would have it, there could be no rational account of the particular Enumeration of these four particulars, Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, and the Head. Not wonder therefore, if he in the attempt of such an impossibility labours in vain, and falls into contradictions. He says, These and much more were included in the Negative, and yet they are more large expressions than it; which is not more true, than that the thing contained, is wider than what contains it: Or that four Creatures are moe than all in the world besides. In to such straits he pittisully plunges himself, whilst he strives to defend such a Paradox as he perhaps is ashamed to forsake, by an ingenuous acknowledgement of his error, and striking sail to an undoubted Truth, and yet unable to maintain, being thereby enforced, not only to oppose against so demonstrable a verity, but also to fight against Reason, and common Understanding.  
That the late Learned Primate of Ireland, Archbishop Usher was of Christ's mind, I shall easily believe. But of F. Hs. Opinion he was not, unless he be much wronged in that book that goes under his name, entitled, The sum and substance of Christian Religion, wherein amongst the special abuses of an Oath, he sets down in the first place, The refusing of all Oaths as unlawful, which saves he) is the error of the Anabaptists, to whom therefore in that particular, he is like to prove no great Patron. But (says F. 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 lawful for a Christian to Swear; and the said Bishop Usher, de Success. cap. 6. doth esteem 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 soever) against F. Hs. positive assertion. Where upon I used all endeavours to procure a sight of that book, but could not retrieve it, either in the public 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 errors. For (says he) Sanders and Parsons produce certain absurd Heresies, (amongst which one is, That all Swearing is unlawful, whence I collect, That the denial of all Oaths, is in the Primates Judgement, an absurd 
Hic verò à Sandero, Coccio, Parsonio, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. De Christ: Ecclesiarum Successione, & Statu. cap. 6. Sect. 19  Heresy) which they would persuade us were tooth and nail defended by the Waldenses. And than 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 Error and Heresy 
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 Sects, 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 unlawful, and a mortal sin. And their fourth Error and Heresy is, That forswearing themselves before Judges at the Bar, concerning the speaking of the Truth, and discovering the complices of their Sect, is neither unlawful, nor sin, but a lawful and holy Act. These Opinions do thwart each other; and therefore my Lord Primate had reason to conceive, that the Accusation that charged both these repugnant Tenants upon the same Persons was false, and malicious. So his defence of them is not, that they did well in denying to Swear (as F. H. pretends, and which only indeed had been to his purpose) but that the Papists did ill in burdening them falsely with error that they did not hold. But not to conceal what might be surmised, to give (the least) advantage to F. Hs. allegation, the Archbishop citys an old 
Vetus Author 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, heretics 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, etc. Ibid § 21.  Germane Author, who writing of the Doctrine, and manners of the Waldenses, says, That the occasion of that Error of theirs was, men's common and customary Swearing about trifles: adding, That such Heretics as allow of no wearing, may be resembled to the Devil, who is never read to have taken an Oath. Which Sarcasme he retorts, saying, That those Persons who have learned from Christ, that their communication should be yea, yea; nay, nay, because whatsoever is more than these cometh of that evil one, Mat. 5. 37. (not a word out of either Apostle of Swear not at all, as F. H. feigns) will judge that such Papists as have got an habit of frequent Swearing upon trivial occasions, are much more like the Devil than the Waldenses, who (as appears by the Relation of the Romish Inquisitors) were accustomed to say only, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Which as it is a reproof of customary Swearers (whom all pious men disallow;) so it is no Plea for those that deny 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 lest) an absurd Error. If F. H. took 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 falsehood, no● aught to be defended by lies.  
How F. H. comes to know what the two Romanists Renerius, and Jansenius said, is somewhat strange; He, I presume (and it appears sufficiently by his Language) not being able to Read their books. And it gives some colour to what was not long ago much suspected, that the Romanists were at first the Inventors, and still continued the supporters of Quakerism. What these men say, as I know not, so it is little material, F. H. not being willing (I suppose) to stand to their determination of the Controversy. The Reasons produced are sufficiently frivolous. The Antiquity of the Waldenses is not considerable, 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.  
It may be (says F. H.) that A. S. will tell us that these were condemned in some General, or Provincial Council for Heresy, and if he do, it is no great matter, since most of these have erred. How rash is F. H. to condemn of Error most of the General, and Provincial Councils, which I assure myself he has never read. It would be a difficult matter for an abler man than he to prove, that ever any one General Council, truly so called, hath erred in matter of Faith. However, a General Council (though not free from all possibility of error) 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 condemn him of Imprudence in waving all Judgements but his own; for unless he stand upon that guard, he will certainly be worsted.  
The fifth Argument in form is this, Nothing that is not of itself, and intrinsically evil, is forbidden by Christ. (And that is proved by Induction.) But Swearing is not of itself, and intrinsically evil; for the best Creatures, Angels, and holy Men, the Patriarches, and Apostles, yea Christ himself, and God also, did Swear upon occasion. And therefore Christ did not forbidden 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 gins with ask Questions: Whereto I answer, That it was not evil for a Jew under the Law (as an executioner of Justice) to smite out an Eye, or Tooth, or cut of Hand, or Foot, or Wound. Nor was it evil to give Sentences to that purpose, because it was so appointed in the Judicial Law, Ex. 21. 24. Leu. 24. 19, 20. Deut. 19 21. Nor was it, nor is it evil 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 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 Magistrate's consent, Deut. 19 18. unless (as some think) in capital crimes. If it be objected, that than our Saviour's 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' Law, but to the people's depraved custom allowed by the Pharisees, who being irritated by some injury, were often such carvers of their own satisfaction, that they cut out so large retaliations, that at length their adversaries were no lesle wronged, than they had formerly been injured by them, which was an occasion to make their quarrels, and enmity perpetual. 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 than is not any thing forbidden that was commanded before, or what in itself was good or lawful; but what was evil in itself, and formerly so acknowledged, as malice, and desire of revenge. So the whole purport of Christ's words was, That men should neither wish any mischief, nor out of any heat of anger, or rage, contrive, or act any harm 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 abstain for the future from the like injuries, or that others by their punishment, might learn to beware, 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. Self defence than, and preservation in a moderate way, is not disallowed; but such a resistance of Will only, 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 refer, return not one wrong for another. And so the sense will be perfectly that of the Apostle, Rom. 12. 17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. So all manner of Resistance is not here forbidden, for he that pleads for his own innocency in a moderate, peaceable, and legal way against the calumniations of an Adversary (which Christ himself did, being wrongfully accused) is not to be blamed: nor he that for the manifestation of his Innocency, or Defence of his Rights, appeals to the Sentence of the Magistrates. Only that Resistance is culpable, and here condemned, that is either unjustly, or by undue means undertaken, or prosecuted with malice, or revengeful desires, which are contrary to Charity.  
The following passage of turning the cheek to the smiter, is not to be understood literally. For Christ himself being smitten, did not so. And St. Paul, being struck, answered sharply, Acts 23. 2, 3. He excused himself 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 literal observation 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 himself. else where (the words in both places being of the same Original) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently did never intent to oblige his Disciples to a literal 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 more, or greater injuries. The like may be said to the following passage concerning Law Suits, which are not simply, or of themselves evil, but accidentally through quarrelsomeness, covetousness, or some other undue circumstances, may be evil. Rather we aught to suffer wrong, than to break the Rules of Charity, remembering that of S●. Paul, Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.  
F. H. tells us, That it is written in the New Testament, Avenge not yourselves. This I willingly grant, but cannot guests what he would infer from thence. Than he falls again upon ask Questions. Whereto I answer, That to keep the seventh day Sabbath, was not Morally evil▪ That it was lawful for the Jews to fight with the Amalekites, Canaanites, etc. That Circumcision, Sacrifices, Offerings, etc. were not evil in themselves. And yet all these answers do nothing invalidate what I said, to wit, that Christ forbade nothing, but what was intrinsically evil F. H. says further, That these (meaning the levitical Ordinances) were once as really good, as ever Swearing was. But this dictate is not true, and was already confuted in the Sermon itself, Sect. 28. and therefore should not have been brought in again without some proof. Besides, it is impertinent, for F. H. knows, that in the Sermon it was asserted, That the ceremonials ceased of themselves at our Saviour's death, but were not abrogated, but observed by him in his life. From that he falls to object, instead of answering, and says, If A. S. will needs uphold Swearing because commanded to the Jews (that is as a part of the Judicial or Ceremonial Law, for nothing else was commanded to the Jews more than to other Nations, the Moral Law extending to all) befor● Christ, he is a debtor to t●● whole Law, Gal. 5. 3, 4. Th●● is as much as to say, Though 〈◊〉 cannot answer the Argument 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 do thu● answer. And it is tru● that F. H. cannot answer th● Argument proposed, unle● the bore denial of the Conclusion will do it; or that wha● ever he says must be take● for Truth upon his word. 〈◊〉 proved that all Swearing wa● not forbidden by Christ, because some Swearing was lawful, (it being used by holy men in both Testaments, Angels, and God himself) and Christ never forbade what was lawful. Whereto F. H. replies, We do 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 affirm 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 do enterferr, and are not reconcileable together. For, if Chris● for bad Swearing by a positive Law, than he ended not th● right thereof by his death▪ And if he ended the righ● thereof by his death, than h● did not forbidden it by a positive Law in his life. All the me● in the w●rld cannot mak● this Sentence of F. Hs. either true, or consonant to itself▪ And he might have learne● as much out of the 29. Sect▪ of the Sermon. But to mak● it pass more currently (at le●● in the fist member) he brings in the testimony of Sam: Fisher. Ridiculous! A man to b● a witness in his own cause or a Quaker says, That he is in the right, therefore he is in the right. And although F. H. calls that S. Fs. Argument, and says, It is of force, which was indeed but a mere dictate; yet I think other men will not be of his mind. For that would equalise these people to God in respect of Veracity, if all their words were proofs not to be denied. 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 Christ's universal prohibition of all Swearing; immediately contradicts it, saying, That Christ by his death put an end to the Law. For if Christ forbade it in his life, how did he put an end to it at his death? So than F. H. and S. F. are irreconcilably at odds; and if S. F. said well (as F. H. says he did) than F. H. did ill, when in the same breath he contradicted it. The wit of man cannot atone those repugnant Assertions. Nor does F. Hs. subtle invention of a middle dispensation untie the knot, because there is no in●●●mediate time betwixt life and death. Our Saviour kept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the very Night he was betrayed, and died the next day, with whom the Ceremonial Law expired. I demand than, whether had it been lawful to have Sworn that night, or no? If it had, than 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 lawful to have acted contrary to Christ's precept) and consequently A Ss. Doctrine in his Sermon was true. But if it had not been lawful, as formerly prohibited, than F. H is wrong, who says, Christ put an end to it at his death. For he could not than put an end to that 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 several times. And for that conceit that Christ's words Swear not at all, were Prophetical (which it may be F. H. aims at by his middle dispensation, and his discourse of Christ's 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 proof (which he seldom attempts, and therefore it is fit he should now be regarded) from St. 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 God's external worship than 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 Spiritual worship should succeed, For the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit, and in Truth, ver. 22. Where upon F. H. infers, That the time was than, but came on more afterwards to be fulfilled, (in timating, that what is now, may come more perfectly afterwards) and so applies it as a commodious place to interpret and explain Christ's 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● 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 womb) yet Christ's 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 hour cometh, and now is; the purport whereof is not that one, and the same thing is both present, and future; but that what he there speaks of, was than near approaching, and should not be long delayed. For in Scripture the praesens is sometimes put for Paulo post futurum, as may appear by several places. As our Saviour, St. Mat. 26. 28. speaking of the Sacramental Wine, says, This is my blood which is shed, where is, do: not import, that it was already shed, or than in shedding; but that is was to be shed the next day. So St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. 24. reciting Christ's words at the Institution of the holy Eucharist expresses them thus, Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you, where no man will say, that the word is, implies that Christ's Rody was than broken (though it be of the present Tense) but that it was soon after to be broken. So here, The hour cometh, and now is, imports no more, than that 
Nunv significat tempus d● pro●imo immivens: quasi dicat eru, imò jam Jam erit, Grotius in loc  the time is at hand And thus both the Fathers, as S●. chrysostom, and Theophilact, and the modern 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.  
As for F. Hs. many instances, to show that somewhat was commanded by the Ceremonial Law, which aught 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 forbade nothing, but what was evil. For which I appeal to the judgement of any man that is able to distinguish betwixt Expiration, and Prohibition, which was plainly taught in the Sermon Sect. 8. In this sense Christ forbade not, but used the Ceremonial Law all his life; at whose death not withstanding it expired, the shadows vanishing, when the substance was exhibited. So it is now antiquated, not by any prohibition, (for who could forbidden what God had appointed?) but by impletion, the death of the Son of God being prae●ipyfied, and adumbrated by the Legal observances which are now become unlawful, not in themselves, but as implying a denial of Christ's Passion, and an expectation of a future Messiah, or another Saviour.  
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 it hath been the practice of holy men, and also an Angel. This Argument is of little force, etc. and yet he spends five pages in confuting it, and says, It has been answered over and over, and over again, 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 forbade any thing that was not evil. But Swearing is not evil, because God, and Angels, Christ, and St. Paul used it, and therefore Christ forbade it not. F. H. attempted to refute the Major, or first proposition, but his instances by ill fortune not reaching home, and so (it seems) perceiving himself 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 than 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 lest touch, much lesle oppose. Whereupon I do not hold myself at all obliged to trace his steps in this wild and impertinent extravagancy.  
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 evil, which is as much as I desire, and as much as will make mine Argument unanswerable. And therefore 'tis not at all material to my purpose, whether Amen be an Oath, or not, which our Church (as S●. Ambrose also thought) asserts; though F. H. judges it to be concluded upon too slender a ground; or whether our Saviour swore, or not, (which were it true, says F. H. would only prove Swearing lawful in Sermons as though that were not sufficient for the confirmation of mine Argument) for the acknowledgement that God, and Angels swore, sufficiently evidences Oaths to be lawful; 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.  
And upon the same account I pretermit his strange conceit, I hat it seems to him that I prove the Magistrate's exacting Oaths out of the Mosaical 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 alleged, I can show under his hand, that subscribes himself 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 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 Crier, I Swear, which never man that I know did: or finally, that pretty device, which he terms, a more necessary discourse, which he would suggest to A. S. to induce him to persuade the Magistrates to forswear themselves; all these I pass by, a● wholly impertinent to the matter in hand, and hasten to consider his Answer to the sixth Argument.  
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 forbade 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 deliberation, because in his Epistles, he calls God to witness, which is a formal 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 condemn sometimes needless and vain Oaths in ordinary communication) he grants that the Apostle knew his Master's meaning, and that in his writings he acted not contrary to his knowledge, and also that he calls God to witness and soon would think he would yield the conclusion: but to avoid 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 deal 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 persuasion) an Oath is, and by what discriminating Character it may be known, when a man Swears, and when not, which till it be done, all dispute is rendered useless, or fallacious, as must needs hap if men do not agreed 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 employed, or expressed by some means or other, that always, and nothing else being essential there to. Nor can I call to mind that ever I read, or heard any to another sense. And therefore F. H. when he 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 only 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 appear, there are no such words, nor any to that purpose. And with the like, or rather the same blot he asperses me again, and the same 34. page, where he says, 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 aught 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 only some kind 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 only as mine own, but the universal 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 always constant to the same definition of an Oath, though not always expressed in the same words. For I never said (as F. H. abuses me) That it consisted in saying truly, truly; but I said, that Amen, Amen, is an Oath in the Judgement of St. Ambrose, G. Biel, and Chemnitius. To make which Opinion agreed with my former definition of Swearing, I brought in Mr. N. Fuller's objection against it, That there is no Oath wherein God is not interposed, (which I do 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. Fuller's Reason be granted, because God is interposed there, Amen, being a Name, or Epithet of God. Thus F. H. falls into absurd mistakes, whilst he will needs undertake to confute what he does not understand.  
But F. H. pretends to some Reason why St. Paul did not Swear, though the judicious Hugo Grotius say, Non potuit jurari expressius. For (says he pag. 31.) what ever A. S says, 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 (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, St. 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 only F. H. and those of his Opinion be in the right, that these expressions of the Apostle be not Oaths; What are they than? Why, they are ardent and zealous, or fervent expressions, etc. but the Apostle (as F. H. goes on) spoke not these fervent words unnecessarily. Had they been Oaths, they had been unnecessary; but being only servant speeches, they are not. Smells not this rankly 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 St. Paul's Swearing, I pass by, and hasten to see how he answers the seventh Argument.  
Which in brief runs thus. Some Swearing is enjoined in the third Command, every precept prohibitive of vice being necessarily so to be expounded, as implying the contrary duty. For else it is impossible to free the Decalogue from imperfection. And consequently, Thou shalt not take the Name of God in vain, implies, 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 forbidden all Swearing. To this F. H. replies, That the substance of this is answered before. If so, (which I cannot find) he might the more easily answer it again. Secondly, he says, That how A. S. can make the third Commandment to prove the continuation of Swearing under the Cospel among Christians, he does not see? By this Concession it appears, that he leapt over the style before he came at it, and answered the Argument before 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 him, he must yield the Question. For the Bishop was of Opinion, (and writ a Tractate to that purpose) that some Swearing is now lawful 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 prove to make use of the palm of Rhetoric, than of the fist of Logic, and was willing by endearing expressions, and all possible condescensions to gain 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 unhandsome return given him by the scurrilous 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 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 else 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 myself. And his Reason is, because all things contained in the first Table, are not Moral. And than 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 Moral as the third, which if he mean of every particular therein specified, is a gross, and notorious untruth. But let him not mistake himself 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 Moral, or it is not. If it be, than Christ has neither forbidden it, nor aught that is consequent therein; and so my Argument holds good, notwithstanding his pretended Answers. But if it be not Moral, but Ceremonial, (Ceremonies being now antiquated in the time of the Gospel) than 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 expressly says, That he does not make voided the third Commandment, and by consequence acknowledges the validity of my Reason, that our Saviour did not forbidden all Oaths, and implicitly destroys what formerly he had built, and grants his own Tenet to be false.  
But F. H. says, He cannot own Swearing in that Ceremonious way as the jews 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 lawful, or unlawful; but whether Swearing itself be so, or no. And his saying, That he cannot own it in the Jewish Ceremonious way might put one in hope, that he meant not to refuse it, if tendered simply after the manner of Christians.  
The eighth Argument was, That Christ never did any thing without Reason. But there was no Reason why he should absolutely forbidden Swearing; and therefore he did not so forbidden it. To this F. H. replies, (granting that our Saviour did never any thing without Reason) That he denies the Conclusion. Indeed he has all this time hitherto done so: but here he means better than he speaks. For he produces six Reasons why Christ should forbidden 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 unbelief, or sin, had not yet entered. And therefore Christ had Reason to forbidden Oaths when sin and unbelief were entered into the world, and consequently, when there was a great use, if not a necessity of them. Is not this a rational consequence?  
His second Reason is this, Christ is the Mediator of the everlasting Covenant, yea the Covenant itself, (if so, he is the Mediator of himself) and is made a propitiation for sin, and transgression, to end both sin, transgression, and unbelief, and therefore Christ forbade Swearing, which is not useful where there is neither sin, transgression, nor unbelief. I grant that Christ came to abolish sin, which were it effected, there would be no need of Oaths. But let F. H. himself be judge, whether sin does not still abound in the world. If it do not, he has no cause for his tragical complaint of the sad times, and how they that departed from 
Pag. 5.  great iniquity are become a prey, etc. and than surely he himself sins in laying such causeless aspersions upon the Magistrates, and the Laws, in speaking evil of the Rulers of the people, and in bearing false witness against his Neighbour. If it do, than there is no Reason why Oaths should be prohibited, they being very instrumental to the discovery and punishment of wickedness. So this Reason is not for F. H. but against him.  
His third is, That after sin was entered, and death by sin— such was God's love to mankind, that for confirmation of his Word, he swore by himself, which was not exemplary for Christians truly such. What than? 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 not) is no Reason why Christ should forbidden 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 forbidden his Apostles, and such as he had endowed with that supernatural power to work them. But this is not all: For F. H. adds, That our 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, than God once commanded Swearing (and that command was added (says 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 F. H.) both in force, whereof one is diametrically contrary to the other, to both whereof Obedience is impossible, in respect that if we perform 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 himself by promulgating contrary Laws. Whereupon I cannot imagine that the wit of man could invent any Reason more forcible why Christ should not forbidden Swearing than this which F. H. prod●ces as a reason why he shoul● forbidden it, that is, because h● Father formerly had commanded it.  
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 do 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, which was almost 200. years ●fter, as appears Amos 8. 14. ●nd therefore the people of ●he whole world were generally Idolaters many hundred years before. A weak intellect may discern what a non sequitur this is. Well, but I have granted the thing, that the Nations were addicted to Idolatry. And what than? Therefore (says he) God commanded (mark 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 than Swearing was good, for God never commanded any thing that was evil 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 impotent as not to be able to effect hi● good purposes, without the assistance of wicked means N● man, I hope, is so Atheistical, 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 unlawful; and therefore God to rectify that abuse, commanded them what was lawful, to Swea● by his Name (which was the undoubted Reason of that precept, in the observance whereof they should not sin; from whence it follows, that some Swearing by God is not sinful) than that God desirous to withdraw them from the great sin of Swearing by Heathen Gods, should give them leave to practise a lesser sin (but a sin still, if all Swearing be of itself unlawful) 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 suitable to the goodness of God, so it would have been matter of little, or no more difficulty 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 Commandment. And therefore that Swearing that was commanded, was only when there was some just and weighty occasion to take an Oath, which was to be not inconsiderately, but advisedly done. And than 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 merely: What follows? It is to be considered, (says F. H.) that this was the state of minority of the Jewish Church, wherein God gave them Ordinances suitable 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 pitiful begging of the Question; I have always denied that Oaths are Typical, and he without any proof but his own bore assertion, takes it as granted, that they are, and uses that as an Argument, that now they are unlawful. So the Question betwixt us is, Whether Christ forbade all Swearing, or not, and he holding the affirmative, says, 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 himself terms them P. 39) Why Christ forbade all Swearing, is indeed this, because he forbade all Swearing. Were it not out of great compassion to weak, and seduced Christians, I could not have forced myself to writ all this (which some perhaps will judge loss of time) in refutation of such irrational Tenets.  
The sum of the fifth Reason is, That seeing God commanded Swearing merely for the prevention of Idolatry (which fancy was refuted in the last Sect.) and that there is not now that Idolatry in Christendom that was in the world before, and after the Flood; therefore Christ had Reason to forbidden all Swearing. The weakness of this illation is very discernible. 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 itself is still in force. But there are some Christians that at this time either border upon, or live with Heathen Idolaters (as those that devil amongst the Indians) who therefore by virtue of that command may lawfully Swear. Secondly, There are that hold, that there is gross Idolatry committed in the most parts of Christendom (if not in all) to this very day, and I suspect that F. H. may be of that Opinion, and than it is lawful to Swear by the Name of God, in a manner all Christendom over, because it is more tolerable to Swear by God than by the Mass. But (3dly.) the vanity of this Argument does more fully appear, that (whatsoever may be said now of the conversion of the world from Paganism, yet) at that time when our Saviour is pretended to have prohibited Oaths, 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 Jews, being than not lesle guilty of worshipping Heathen Deities, than they were before. And therefore if God for preventing that wickedness did once command Swearing (as F. H confesses) than 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 only ground (as he saves) upon which God formerly did enjoin it. And therefore upon suppesall that there is now no fear of Idolatry amongst us, and thereupon no necessity of Swearing by God; yet it was not so in our Saviour's days, 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. than would expound the meaning of Christ's words according to his own Principles, he should interpret them. The time will come, when Idolatrous Worship shall cease, and the Gentle World become Christian, till that time you may as God has appointed, Swear by his Name, but than all Oaths, 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 Alchemist enough to extract that sense out of Christ's prohibition.  
The last Reason he thus expresses, The command of Oaths was given for the ending of strife, and controversies among men H●b. 6. But men in Christ, new Creatures, Christians aught to walk not more as carnal, nor as men, but as men of God, and as spiritual, and as true Saints and Christians, to come both out of strife, and Swearing. It is most certain Truth, that one main end of Swearing is the Decision of suits, and differences amongst men, whereto it is a very useful medium. But strife, and contentions were in the world in Christ's own time, and ever since, and still remain, if not increase, not witstanding the precept of our Saviour, and the endeavours of Christian Ministers to the contrary. Now it were very unreasonable, that so long as they continued in so great an height, the means of composing them should be taken away. And therefore this is so far from being a Reason why Christ should prohibit Oaths, that it is a great Reason why he should neither than, nor yet forbidden them, there being the same (if not greater) necessity of them now, as has been in all Ages. It is true, that all men aught (as they are taught) to avoid the works of the flesh, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, etc. But it is as true (and that too apparent) that men do not what they aught. Nay, can there be any certain, or infallible assurance to others that any one man in particular does always, and ever will walk as he aught? Is it not evident, that there are many failings even amongst those that pretend they have arrived at the highest perfection of Christianicy? Has not F. H. himself (who I doubt not is sufficiently persuaded 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 merely (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 Precious servant of the Lord (as F. H. styles him) Writ 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 persuasion) as though he had been ambitious to have been listed amongst them that are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities; or would have had the Kingdom take notice, that he was set down in the seat of the scornful: 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● strifc, witness, that they are so contentious in defence of their own Tenants (though most apparently repugnant to the clearest beams 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 denied? This one Tract of F. Hs. were there no other (as there are too many) is too great an evidence Assertion. Stri●e than there is, and variances there be, and so are like to be amongst people of all professions. I confess these things aught not to be, but yet they are visibly conspicuous. And can any judge it fit than, that where a disease is epidemical, the best expedients for the cure thereof should not be practised, but forbidden, and disallowed? But, says F. H. every true saying, or testimony, is equivalent with an Oath. It is so, for Oaths are required in Judicature, to oblige witness to speak Truth. Bu● what than? F. H. will possibly affirm that he will speak Truth, but he will not Swear it. But than, how shall the Magistrates, or others concerned, be assured that he speaks Truth, when he refuses to confirm 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 do, and yet possibly may, notwithstanding the most zealous profession of integrity, be an hypocrite, or Atheist Whereupon all civilised Nations, even people of themselves, have ever approved of, and practised necessary Swearing. And thus I have examined all F. Hs. pretended Reasons why our Saviour should prohibit all Oaths, and can truly say, (and doubt not but every understanding Reader will be of my mind) that I have therein found somewhat against, but not the lest colour for the maintenance of so strange, and paradoxical an Opinion. From my very soul I pity the strong delusion of these weak seduced persons, and hearty wish that mine endeavours might be instrumental 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 confirm his credulous brethrens in that deception whereinto such as he have misled them. It would be matter of great joy to me to step the current of this Schism, reduce these wanderers into the way, defend the Truth, prevent Apostasy, and defection from Religion, and reconcile disagreeing Judgements.  
In the ninth Argument I said, and proved, That our Saviour gave no new Moral 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 says nothing to the proofs, whereupon 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 wont method of arguing against the Conclusion. And he first assaults it with the Authority of Bp. Gauden, who says ●hat our Saviour gave many singular precepts of more eminent diligence, patience, charity, etc. above what ever the Letter of the Mosaic Law seemed to exast, (mark that expression seemed to exact, which F. H. as though he were sensible that seeming to exact, is not really to exact, puts in a different character) or by the Pharisaical 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 himself against the Law, in the true and full intent thereof as delivered by God, but as corrupted, or depraved by the Pharisaical Glosses; or (which is all one) he opposes not the Divine Law, which was exactly perfect, nor altars, 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 citys.  
From thence F. H. proceeds, but finding little to say, yet resolving to swell his answer into a book, repeats what he had formerly laid 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 cloak to him that sues for thy coat, etc. 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 satisfy even F. H. himself, who I suppose will grant that of the cheek to be a Figurative expression, not a literal command. And however it is not peculiar to the Gospel, there being a Phrase suitable thereto in the Old Testament, Isa. 50. 6. And for going to Law, I presume F. H. will not disallow it, nor condemn all them that use it, as breakers of the Law of Christ. I am sure of this (and can justify it) that some of his persuasion 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 proceed, and defeat the Legal Pleas of such men as commenced suit against them, for what they themselves knew that the Plaintiffs by the Law of the Land, aught to have had, and what they themselves aught to have paid.  
But F. H. asks, where in the Law it is Written, Love thine enemy, which Christ commanded? I answer, That though it be not enjoined in the Old Testament in express words; yet (which is tantamount) indeed it is, Prov. 24. 17. & 25. 21. which is confirmed by David's expression, Psal. 7. 4, 5. and example, 1 Sam. 26. 8, 9 where Saul is expressly called David's enemy, whom notwithstanding he secured from all harm, 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 God's command. This makes way for another Question, Whether this be not another thing that Christ saith, But I say unto you, love your enemies etc. I grant this is another thing, but not contrary to the former. For that was spoken to public persons; this to private. It was lawful, to use military Actions against their, and Gods enemies. But it was not than, nor at any time lawful for private persons to hate one another. Hence Casuists conclude that war is lawful, but not duels: and that if a private Soldier kill his particular enemy in war, 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 Moral Law, but only vindicated it from the Jewish depravations.  
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 do. 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 customs of the Jews; but not the Legal Sanctions, whereof there was not one made in favour of Polygamy.  
But that objection of F. H. which is of greatest weight, is the seeming Antilogy betwixt the Law, Deut. 24. 1. etc. and what our blessed Saviour said, St. Mat. 5. 32. (& 19 3. etc.) which (says F. H.) is a clear prohibition of that which the Law allowed. But the terminations of  men are often rash, and unadvised. Indeed it is impossible to resolve what either harmony, or dissonancy there is betwixt those Texts, until we understand what is the full importance of them, wherein Expositors do so much vary, that it is evidence enough, that there is no small difficulty in them. The Jews who had best reason to know their own municipal 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 Saviour's Incarnation. The Opinion of Rabbi Sammai (or Sameas) and his Schollen was, That no divorce was lawful, 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 suspicion of Incontinency, as by keeping company with riotous men, washing with men in public baths, or going with breasts naked, etc. But Rabbi Hillel, and his followers, expounded the Text disjunctively, 
Seldens Ux ● br. ca●. 13. 18.  that one might put away his Wife, not only 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 overroasted his meat, etc. But R. Aquiba went further yet, (and the more liberty they afforded, the bets they pleased that libidinous people) and permitted divorce at the Husband's 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 suitable to his humour. These debates gave occasion to the Pharisees to ask Christ's Resolution tempting him, not out of a desire to learn the Truth, but to bring him into danger, disgrace, or hatred with the people. For (as Origen, St. Hierome, St. Chryostome, and Theophylact say on St. Mat. 19) had he approved of divorses for every cause, he had crossed his former Doctrine delivered on the Mount, (St. Mat 5. 52.) and seemed to have patronised the libidinous demeanour of the lewdest 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 avoided the opposition of those Schools, whose sentence he had condemned: Nor are the debates lesser, nor the Opinions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Christian Church concerning the true meaning, and full importance of that Judicial Sanction, and of our Saviour's Doctrine concerning divorces lesle various, than were those of the Rabbis, though they generally agreed in this, That there is no enantiology, or repugnance betwixt the one, and the other. Whereby I perceive, that F. H. has not concerned himself 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 have so rashly concluded, That what Christ said, was a clear prohibition of that which the. Law allowed; which therefore I may deny upon better grounds, and more Authority than he asserts it.  
But because these words St. Mat. 5. 32. But I say unto you, may seem to infer an opposition to what went before, whereby a lesle attentive Reader may fall into F. Hs. delusion, the concurrent suffrages of both ancient, and modern 
* Hierome, Ghrysasiome. Aust●n, Theophylact. Par●us in St. Ma●. Jun●i 〈◊〉, Scharpii, Sym, honia.  writers do teach me, that that expression is opposed not to the Mosaical Law, but to the doctrine of the Jewish Rabbis, and the lascivious practices of the seduced people, who were taught, That it was lawful upon any pretended occasion, or indeed at their mere pleasure to turn 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 turn away his wife, unless he gave her a Writing of Divorcement. Whereto Christ's words are not contrary at all, but very consistent therewith, as is evident to him that seriously considers the 31. & 32. v.  
And this were enough to manifest to all indifferent persons, how grossly F. H. is mistaken, when he says, That it is evident enough that some things were prohibited by Christ which the Law commanded, or at lest allowed; which is a not lesle weak, than bold dictate, what ever the intention of that levitical Precept was. But to give F. H. and those of his persuasion all possible satisfaction, that they may find Reason to revoke their erroneous Tenent, I shall add, ex superabundanti, that some very learned persons have thought, that that of Deut. 24. 1. was rather a prudential Ordinance, than a Divine Command. Non dixit (says St. Hierome) propter duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis Deus, sed Moses, ut juxta Apostolum consilium sit hominis non imperium Dei; that it was rather an human Advice, than an Injunction of God. And of that mind is Paschasius Ratbertus in his ninth book on St. Matthew. And before him 
* Lib. 8. in 6●. Luke.  St. Ambrose, Moses permisit, non Deus jussit: 'Twas Moses' permission, not God's injunction. But because I cannot myself subscribe to that Opinion, having reason to believe, that the Judicial, and Ceremonial Laws were of Divine Institution, not lesle than the Moral, I shall add for F. Hs. further, and (I hope) full satisfaction as to the sense of that command: First, That Tertullian the most ancient of the Latin Fathers (to omit others) renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which our English reads, some uncleanness; the Geveva Translation, some filthiness; the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the Vulgar Latin, aliquam faeditatem) impudicum negotium, some unchastity, which seems very probable, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is that very word that is so often used in the 18. of Leviticus, for nakedness; which is there put for carnal 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 rendered 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 rendered by the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in English, 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 Tertullia's opinion very probable, that the Sense of that levitical Edict, Deut. 24. 1. is only this, that when a wife defiles the nuptial 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, St▪ Mat. 19 9 And so that Father might well, and rationally 
Lib. 4. cap. 34.  conclude, Adversus 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 Mosaical Law was a capital offence, Leu. 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, infers no necessity of what it is produced for. For it may be considered, that a Husband was not obliged to prosecute his offending 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 always legally be put to death. For perhaps the Husband alone might surprise the Wife in the very Act, and could not be a witness in his own behalf; or perhaps some other might do 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 might through the concurrence of many probabilities think himself 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 means of discovery whether a Bride had not been devirginated before Marriage, Deut. 22. 17. and whether, or not, she had not been too prodigal 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 Law concerned not any woman that was at the time of her congress with her Husband younger than twelve years, and one day; or elder than twelve years, and six Months; nor to her whom her Husband before espousals had enticed to lewdness, and deflowered, (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 shekels assigned her for her dowry before Marriage; nor to her that had been vitiated before the Espousalls, but only to her that had been devirginated betwixt the 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 proceed of the other by bringing the offender to capital punishment. And further, that famous Antiquary says, The Husband 
Ejusdum libri, c. 2.  had his choice to implead his Wife for the loss of her Virginity; either Criminally, or Judicially, to cut of, or diminish her Dower. And as to the other, the trial of the Woman's innocency by drinking the water prescribed, Numb. 5. 24. which might seem to tender all divorces useless; there were several 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, than 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 proof 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 be no just ground for his jealousy. And further, he was to prove by credible Testimony that she was found in private with that Person of whom he had forewarned her. Besides, if he either retracted his prosecution, as he might if he pleased, or had carnal knowledge of her after her being in private with the suspected party, she was freed from undergoing that trial; as likewise she was that was Married to an Hermaphrodite, or to a blind man, or to a minor, or was a minor herself, or if she were lame of her feet, or wanted a hand, or were dumb, or deaf, or were only contracted, not Married; or if she had been carnally known by her Husband before Marriage, or if her Husband were as culpable as herself; as Paschasius Ratbertus in Mat 5. says, 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 woman's power absolutely to decline that trial, before the Priest had blotted out the curses he had written with the bitter Water which she was to drink; 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 Legal Trial of Women began to be disused in the Age foregoing the final 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 not longer have his Name (used in that Rite) to be profaned, nor continued his miraculous discovery and punishment of their whorish consorts. Thus much I have collected out of that Writings of that great Scholar 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 Tertullia's Opinion from improbability.  
Secondly, the Fathers of the Church (as was said already) however they interpreted these Texts, did notwithstanding unanimously agreed in this, That there was no real opposition, as to this particular, betwixt the Law, and the Gospel. For which Truth, see the marginal citations with 
St chrysostom 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, etc. 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 interpret) 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 the English Reader. But especially the Author of the imperfect work, (which sometimes went under the Name of St. chrysostom, and is still bound up with his works,) upon this place doth argue to this purpose. Either the Mosaical 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 than should Christ forbidden it, who came to destroy sin, and propagate Truth, Piety, and Virtue? F. H. will have much ado to clear himself from the push, and escape the horns of this dilemma. And though it will be easy for him to elude the Authority, yet he will not found it so easy to evade from the Reason.  
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 says there is no just cause of divorce save only Fornication. Not human wit or subtlety can make one of these thwart the other, but they are perfectly consistent together. Again our Saviour sought to reform those Matrimonial 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 himself, that when he has once commanded somewhat, he should cross that decree with some new Edict? 'tis not to be imagined. So than, 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 faithful 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 stol. sect 9  without the will of God; but 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 heretical, being the Tenent of one Ptolemy, an improver of the impious Doctrines of the old Gnostics. And there is much Reason for the declared Judgement 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 temporal inheritance, but brought the cause of Zelophehads Daughter before the Lord, Num. 27. 5. would make a Law in a matter of much higher concern, before he had consulted with God, and known 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, 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 practices of the Jews, and the idle determinations of their Rabbi, which here Christ reforms, S. Mat. 5. 32. opposing his But I say unto you, not against the Law, but the wicked depravations thereof, which very place of the Prophet F. H. citys against himself (pag. 41.) and yet it seems had not so much either understanding to conceive, or ingenuity to confess, how fully it invalidated his Objection.  
Fourthly, I willingly omit the Expositions of modern 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 levitical Law (yet without derogation to Tertullia's Judgement) from whence it will be clear, that there is no repugnancy betwixt it, and the words of our Saviour, that F. H. thought fit to oppose thereto.  
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 turpitude the man was appointed Judge, whom it most concerned, and who had the best means to discern the behaviour of his consort, whose uncleanness he might possibly discover, though perhaps he could not always make proof 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 Saviour's Doctrine) when yet there could not be any Legal 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 perhaps in favour of the wife, whom the man peradventure might be unwilling to disgrace publicly (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 only to himself: 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 signify a gentle, kind, moderate person. that would no● inflict the rigour 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 proof 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 doubtful: whereto Joseph might rather be inclined by the virtuous, and unblameable demeanour of his Spouse. Whereupon he resolved in equity not to call her into public question to detain her Dowry, as he might have done by the Authority of the judges (to whom in that case it was necessary to have made his address) being loath to turn informer against one of whom he had good thoughts (which office is not very grateful to men of mild dispositions) and who (though he had no small ground to suspect her of inconrinency, yet) for aught he knew, might be innocent of any wilful 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 retain 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 embraces.  blessed Virgin, no man being obliged to accuse all that offend. And it may seem that the divine Providence thought fit to place the supreme Judicature in these Matrimonial 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 capital offences) they would revenge that wrong with a greater, and bereave that lewd woman of her life, which had been too prodigal of her honour. To prevent which mischief, 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 only 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 it is clear, 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 mind to put her away, and retain to himself either the whole, or part of her dower; neither of which he could do by his own Authority, but by the power of the Magistrate, before whom he was to bring proof of her crime. And this was suitable to the Divine Ordinance, which for the transgression of the Woman, and her seduction of Adam, appointed her to be in subjection 
Gen. 3. 16.  to her Husband, which some of them have professed to be the greatest curse that ever was laid upon that Sex. Nor was it so much as the Laws of the ancient Gauls, and other Nations gave to Husbands, who (as Grotius says) 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 Sovereign Judges as to Divorce, which Authority they might make use of without proof (which was often impossible) or allegation of any crime. Which Political Law, as it was just (if rightly observed) so it was (as the practice of that people manifested) very unjust when abused; but had a necessary rise in respect of the ferocity of that Nation to prevent greater mischiefs, as before was said. But this was without the lest intention, that they to whom such an absolute power was entrusted should abuse it, who therein sinned no lesle, than if a Supreme Magistrate, who for the management of affairs is by Law responsible to none (and some such there must necessarily be in every Kingdom, and Commonwealth) 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 not lesle were the Jewish causeless divorces. Against which vicious practices, Christ opposed his But I say unto you, and not against that Judicial Ordinance. For he came not as an earthly Prince to interpose his Authority in civil affairs, or to promulgate, altar, or abrogate any political Constitutions (for his Kingdom was not of this 
john 18. 30.  World) but to decry sin, and teach his Disciples how to demean themselves in the performance of their Moral duties. I have dwelled the longer on this point to make it evident to all impartial Judgements, that there is not the lest discrepancy betwixt the Mosaical Law, and our Saviour's Doctrine.  
To what F. H requires, That A. S. or any man living should show him wherein Christ requires a righteousness, or perfection that exceeds that of the Law; if he forbade nothing (as to the matter of Oaths) which was not forbidden before, (which Objection he so much likes, that he touches upon it in ten several pages.) I answer, That one of my Principles is with the Royal 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 self, when he declared the Law to 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, than the Law being perfect, there can be no Additions be made thereto by Christ's, or any other; for whatsoever is added to that which is already perfect, must needs be superfluous. F. H. brings in simple proofs when he builds his Tenet on blasphemy, and when he considers this, he may please to excuse us, and require not more, that A. S. Or any man living should show him that, that can never be found. I guests 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  commandment of God by their Traditions 'tis tedious to repeat the same things over and over, and yet unless I so do, F. H. will not take notice that our Saviour opposed not his Evangelicall Precepts (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 persuasion would henceforth buzz into the ears of credulous, and well meaning people such vain, and absurd dictates; but on the contrary consider seriously with themselves in the fear of God, whether that be not a pitiful cause that stands in need to be supported by blasphemy, 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 error, bidding them not to think, that he was come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets.  
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 lawful Magistrate may impose Oaths, and the people upon whom they are imposed, may and aught by Christ's 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 than offered up, the high Priest might require Christ to speak upon Oath. Fisher in his Antitote goes surther (page 15.) and says, That Christ being under the Padagogy of the Law as the Jews were, might use some such Swearing as was used under the Law, etc. 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 himself 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 Marginal note borrowed from S. F.) he says, That adjure does often signify to charge, or oblige by bore 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 writ what he did not vuderstand, and so being deceived himself, to become instrumental 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 13. which (together with too much confidence of S. Fs. fidelity) might occasion F. Hs. error. But the Greek words are not the same, nor always 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.  
But F. H. objects, That the high Priest and Pharisees were about a wicked work, (he means, I think, that they were contriving our Saviour's death.) Be it so. What than? Than (says he) had Christ answered to that adjuring he had consented to their wicked work, which to speak, is Blasphemy. And yet we know St. Matthew speaks it, and I trow that he therein did not blaspheme. So this objection fights against Scripture itself. 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 design? 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 they had gotten their desire by the intervention of an Oath, or without it? True it is, they were unsuccessful 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, how to demean themselves in the like exigent. His much silence therefore is argumentative that he would not have Cooperated to their bloody design, 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 demeanour might have taught F. H. to have been more judicious, or at lest, more cautelous than to have Printed that anarchical sentence, that though they (meaning Herod, Pilate, and the high Priest) had the name and bore 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.  
But F. H. will prove that 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 terms soever it be expressed, and that the essence of Swearing, is in calling God to witness But Jesus answered only, Thou hast said; which was neither attestation of God, nor calling him to witness. Had this Argument been uttered in Utopia, or in some Country so barbarous (if there be any such) as admits of no Judicial proceed, it might have passed with some colour of Reason. But it is strange, that F. H. dared adventure to publish it in England, where the ordinary form is, That the Person that is to Administer an Oath, tells the parties that are to be Sworn, You shall speak the Truth, and the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, etc. So help you God, whereto they assenting by some visible token, as kissing the Book, etc. what ever they than affirm, 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 employed in the Adjurors proceeding words, So help you God, which is a serious Invocation of God the searcher of hearts, and protector of Truth. And therefore 
〈◊〉  Christ Swore, though he spoke only, Thou hast said, etc. or I am. And the Oath he Swore, was, by the living God, not expressed indeed by himself, but by the high Priest, who adjured, or took him Sworn. And F H might have been so ingenuous, as not to have fastened such an uncouth 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 such perverting, straining, and screwing of the Scriptures from genuine sense, etc. But (says F. H.) neither Mark, Luke, nor John take notice of the high Priests adjuring. What than? St. Matthew does, and that's enough. For St. 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 material, to speak in the softest Language, is very indiscreet, and unbecoming a Christian. For surely every sentence suggested by the holy Ghost, is very much material. Indeed, it is neither material, nor true, that F. H. adds, That Christ was as much bound to answer Pilate, or Herod, as the high Priest. For though they were all Magistrates, yet only the last examined him upon Oath. And 'tis as little material whether the high Priest tore his clotheses at the words, Thou hast said, or not till the end of the sentence about which I affirmed nothing, nor will contend. A. S. had said, that it was enough that Christ denied not to Swear, 
Se●●on Sect. 2●.  which assuredly had it been unlawful, 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 unlawful to answer upon Oath, Christ's (who before was silent) upon the Priest's Adjuration, returning answer to the demand without any apparent disallowance thereof, must needs have been an appearance of evil. And therefore 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 only named it, (as though that had been enough to have refuted it) and so let it pass.  
A. S. had said, That to allege that Christ Swore not, because he laid not his hand on a Book, is to trifle, because the Essence of Swearing, (viz.) calling God to witness consists not therein. That (though of 1250. years standing) and such like, are but extrinsecall, not essential to an Oath. They may be without it, and it may be without them. So our Church appoints Matrimony to be celebrated with a Ring, which notwithstanding she reputes not essential thereto, nor voids any Marriage, because it was solemnised without it. From the former words F. H. infers, That these Ceremonial Adjuncts of Swearing are trifles; And than asks 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 praemunire for these trifles? Surely F. H. does here trifle egregiously. And for these Acts of laying the hand on a book, or kissing it, they are only external significations, that the party Sworn, acknowledges himself obliged by the than recited Oath: but no part thereof, Which perhaps (as F. H. says) would notwithstanding not be received without them, in respect that those that refuse them may well be suspected not to accounted themselves bound by Oath, when they refuse to use such indifferent Actions, as long custom has annexed to the taking of an Oath; not that thereby any weight is added thereto, but that they are tokens, and tacit Declarations, that the Party Sworn 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 says, or ever did say, That these bore 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, etc. had any intention to prohibit these Ceremonies, which were not than by any practised. And this may suffice to refel that cavil, that many conceive these formalities to be Swea●ing by Creatures, which F▪ H. truly says, was unlawful. 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 unlawful, did not ipso facto tender it unlawful: otherwise we could never be assured that any thing were lawful, because for aught we could possibly know, some or other might have a prejudice against 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 wholly avoided, than so many men suffer, because they cannot do it. I answer, They may do 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 do that justly, which no Law either of God, or man forbids? But it is not any Gospel Institution. What than? No Law of God either enjoins, or prohibits it. Therefore it is a thing of it self indifferent, and may be done, and indeed must be done, if a lawful Superior command it. I would ask F. H. if nothing be lawful but what is expressly appointed in the Gospel? If so, than he may not wear nineteen buttons on his doublet, for that I take it he finds not in the Gospel. Again, if nothing were lawful, which were not a Gospel Institution, than a Prince could enact no Laws, nor make any Orders (how beneficial soever he found them for the Commonwealth) if God had not already Instituted them in the Gospel. By this strange Principle, all Legislative power of temporal Monarches is abolished, and men may disobey any human Laws (which they are un willing to observe) under that colourable pretence of Religion (but indeed the source of anarchical confusions) that they are not Divine Ordinances. And than farewell to that Apostolical Rule, ● St. Pet. 2. 13 Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords s●ke  
A. S. ●ad said, That an examinat 
Sermon Sect. 26.  is to answer the Magistrates both in matter and form, aecording to what is proposed to him; to show, that Christ being upon Oath was obliged to answer the High Priest. F. H. replies, That is A. Ss. vain supposition (though nothing was supposed) and repeats the words thus, Every examinate is to answer directly to every matter and form, to any that pretends power to administer an Oath: as though a Magistrate had no real, but only a pretended power. F. H. is still the same, consonant to himself. 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 persuasion, that I dare make them Judges, whether here he demeans himself ingenuously, or not, who presently after the misrecital of my words▪ infers, That I am going about to establish the Pope's Inquisition, etc. as though there were no differences betwixt that, and the moderate Government of England.  
To refute their evasion that say, That Swearing was a part of the Ceremonial Law, I alleged those Texts of Deut. 6. 13. & 10. 20. (as I had before upon the like 
Serm. Sect. 28.  occasion, Sect. 9) where it is conjoined with the fear, and service of God, which certainly are Moral. F H replies, That I tell him this over and 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 God's Service, not distinguishing betwixt the Moral, and Ceremonial Law, (Oaths being duties of the former, and above those of the latter, whereat he seems to wonder, and would gladly therein found 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 levitical Observances. And for what he says, or seems to say, that Christ's Swear not at all, was both a Prophecy, and a Precept; 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.  
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 total prohibition of Swearing, does so; for it makes it contradict several Texts in the Old Testament, & therefore it is not to be admitted. F. H. grants the former proposition, and says, It is true. And the other he does not deny, nor can he: For whereas the Old Testament says, 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 sixty, or seventy lines, leaving his Readers to guests at his meaning, which I take to be, that an Oath was a point of the Ceremonial, not Moral 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 fulfil it, and to end both sin, transgression, and the Law, (mark that, he came not to destroy the Law, but to end it) and to bring in everlasting righteousness, etc. This is a new and unheard of method, to end the Law, to introduce Righteousness. But the Texts alleged, 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 only to keep them from Idolatry: Whether that be true, or not, is not pertinent to the Reason proposed. A. S. did not argue, that men might Swear, because the Law enjoined it, (though if he had, it might have passed, for aught F. H. says 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 marginal note that citys the Prophet 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. says, That it is a prediction of the Egyptians, 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 modern Expositors, both Romish, and Reform, interpret the place of the Christian Religion professed in Egypt: And some of them tell us how, and when it was accomplished. And Theodoret says, That those Sacrifices and Oblations praesignified the Christian Liturgy, that spiritual 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 
† jurat ut— omnis per illum juret lingua mortalium, in quo perspicuè significatur populus Christianus, Moris est enim Ecclesiastici Christo genu flectere, H. in locum.  says, 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, etc. And somewhat at after. Si legitimè jurare velint, ejus solvis mentionem faciunt—  Cyrillus Alexandrinus is of the same Opinion, and says, This place is Prophetical 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 only. And 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quod ex parte jam vocatis Gentibus accidisse videmus ● efficietur autem penites in consum●atione seculi ‡ Proco●in locum. So jyra in locum, Ista nune sunt adimple●●, quod per orbem cessavit idolatria, Rom. 14. 11.  Pro●opius says, That Prophecy is in part fulfilled (not by the return of the Israelites out of Captivity, as F. H. would have it, but) by the calling of the Gentiles, and shall be wholly made good (as to a general 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 Prophecy has relation to the state of the Christian Church, wherewith if F. H. be not yet convinced, I propose to his consideration the testimonies of his brethrens, Is. Pennington, (who says 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 spoke 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 Prophet's word Swearing, and instead thereof has put Confession, which he conceives to be argumentative, That God required not Swearing by his Name among Christians, as formerly he had done among the Jews. One might have thought that thin had been prevented by a Marginal Note annexed to the ninth Section of the Sermon. The Truth is, that the Apostle St. Paul did not altar the words, but took them as he found them rendered 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 Translation of the Hebrew Original, as it must needs be, (because St. Paul has given it authority, by transcribing it) than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is always rendered 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 forborn this answer, or else to have added some Reason thereto, to have invalidated this Reply, whereof he was forewarned. 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 Prophetical expressions, this eleventh Reason had notwithstanding remained in full force, even by F. Hs. own 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 says (which is the main scope of his book) That Christ forbade all Swearing, as much as any, pag. 68 Now if in the Old Testament some Swearing was 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. lays down these words, I cannot but look upon it as a perfect piece of Manicheisme, and extremely derogatory both to Scripture, and God himself, that for what Moral duty one man was commended in the Old Testament, another for the same should be condemned in the New. Whereto F. H. replies, That it is not matter of Man● Judgement; he might as well accuse Christ, and the Apostle, (as himself, 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 Prophet's words, which neither of them ever did. Which sentence (implying that Heretics, and sinful wretches, aught 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.  
The twelfth Reason was, the general 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 only rashly, but advisedly to act against them. For answer to this, F. H. blows with Bp. Gauden's heifer, and brings in sundry instances that seem (but indeed not 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 were done, F. H. might puff it away with scorn, 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 weak influence upon F. H. (which calls the Christian World a Rabble) or those of his persuasion. Yet for the satisfaction of more judicious, and sober persons, I could wish that some of those many (to whom God has given more leisure, and greater Ability) would please to undertake the History of Oaths, (which was once in my thoughts, though I now cannot promise' it) to show 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.  
From thence F. H. makes a transition to the affirmative part, which (says he) has been answered over and over again. If so, his Province is easier. 'Twere no great labour (had he nothing to add of his own) to transcribe what has been so often written by others. Another great advantage he has against A. S. that he can discern his thoughts, and tell others what they are, which he does in these terms: He (that is A. S.) thinks he hath said more in clearing of it, than others have said. If that be so, and A. S. be not mistaken in his thoughts, than 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 Saviour's, But I say unto you, Swear not at all, was not opposed to the Law, but oneto the Pharisaical corrupt Glosses thereon, and the irreligious practices of the misinformed Jews. And for both these, he conceives there are undeniable grounds of Reason, and Religion. The former part, that Christ's 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 (upon that supposal) not tolerable sense can be made, which thereupon has been justly disowned, not only by all Nationall Churches at present throughout the world, but also by the Catholic Church of all Ages, which is a shrewd presumption against a novel Opinion. And for the other part, That this injunction of our Saviour's was intended to reform the Pharisees erroneous Doctrine, and the wicked practices of the people, there is much Reason to believe. For can we imagine that he, that was the wisdom of the Father, would not rather Preach what was needful, than what was needless? Or that he that came into the world to bear witness to the Truth, would not be forward upon all occasions to refute damnable Errors, and reprove those grievous sins which lead so many thousand souls 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 himself 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 forbidden that Swearing which his heavenly Father had commanded than, when it was as useful, and innocent, as ever it had been? Is it not much more like, that he should rather forbidden that sin of Swearing by Creatures to deceitful purposes, than so ordinary amongst the Jews, than that harmless thing, (that as 
† Answer to Bishop Gauden, Part 2. pag. 50.  S. Fisher confesses) had not been evil, had not he prohibited it? Can it enter into any man's 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 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 villainy? You dare not say, that he was so ignorant as not to know it, that either than, 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 reform so gross an abuse, his Doctrine 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 forbade ordinary Swearing; I confess it, and yet the people commonly practised it to bad purposes, and the Pharisees allowed that practice; so that though there was no need of a new Law, yet there was a necessity of a rigorous re enforcement of the old, both in regard of the erroneous 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 by the irrefragable Testimonies, and consentient suffrages of Origen, St. Hierome, St. chrysostom, and Christian Druthmar, (to whom might be added St. Hilary, Theophylect, etc.) that the Jews had a base custom of Swearing in their ordinary discourse. And was not that national 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 himself had formerly enacted, Thou shalt not commit Adultery. Thou shalt not Steal. St. chrysostom 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 Saviour's zeal was inferior 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 reproof of that epidemic sin? And can we suspect him so careless, or neglectful, as to omit such an opportunity, and never to resume any other occasion (for aught we can find in all the Gospel) to tell his vulgar Auditors here, that command had been misinterpreted, 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 Eternal Wisdom 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, and whereof there was no great need, the Nation being generally very respective thereof, as they were taught) and not rather those Oaths which were so common in their mouths, as though this heavenly Physician would have laid a plaster to cure a sore heel, 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 forbidden the Jews rash Swearing by God, (which they are not reported to have been guilty of) and not to have reproved them for false Swearing by Creatures, which was their constant practice, especially in regard they were encouraged thereto by their Doctors, who as they had certainly taught them to make good what ever they had Sworn to perform by God, St. Mat. 5. 33. so also had dispensed with some performances, whereto 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 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 human, 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 subtle, and knavish amongst them) which were reputed in the Divinity of the Pharisaical Casuists not obliging, that they afterwards might be at liberty, as occasion served, or their interest swayed them, either to break, or observe them, which was no lesle violation of the eighth Command, than of the third. For he that once had imbibed that persuasion, though he had sworn to his Neighbour, or to a Stranger by Heaven a hundred times to pay him so much money, or do him such a favour, did not at all esteem himself bound to performance, if that tended to his disadvantage. Whereby a door was opened, not only 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 practices, (which tended so highly to the dishonour of God, and the injury of men) than to take away the Lawful use of Oaths in Judicature, which God himself 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 reproof of these gross abuses against the third, and eighth Command (which were so frequent amongst the Jews, that the Heathens took especial notice thereof, as may appear by that skoffing Epigram of Marshal) were not matter fit for the reprehension of the holy Jesus, which (if any where) here he performed, as before was sufficiently manifested, Sect. 22. 23.  
This exposition of that Precept, Swear not at all, laid down compendiously in the Sermon, Sect. 39 removes all difficulties, and is so clear to them that impartially consider it, that they may safely conclude, that such (whoever they be) that oppose it (to what so ere spiritual illuminations they pretend) penetrate not to the depth of the sense, but rest in the outward superficies, and discern little of the Truth, but lesle of the goodness of that precept. 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 loath to retract an error, which though it be truly honourable, might appear in the repute of the world disadvantageous to his party, God knows) set himself against this rational interpretation of that Command with all the force he was able. And first, because he could not confute what I said, he sets down what I said not, and than confute● it. One of my Principles i● 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, not lesle than he does A. S.) in order whereto I said, (as Isidoras' Pelusiota had 
Sect. 23. lively Ep. 107.  said before me) That Christ gave no new Moral 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 than he insults, saving, He sure has forgotten himself much; what will become of the two great Ordinances still upheld, Baptism, 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 down one sentence in my Sermon, which I had not well weighed, and considered of, and knew to be true. And I was neither ignorant, nor forgetful that the Sacraments are positive Ordinances, but they be no parts of the Moral Law: and therefore this Objection is weak, 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 ask F. H. a Question, if it may not offend him. And that is, Whether indeed he takes Baptism, and the Lords Supper to be positive Institutions of Christ or not? 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 them? Than 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 precedent for Christians, than eating the Passover. But sure if Christ swore, it was not a sin to swear, and than his Disciples, or any other upon the like occasion might have sworn; and if so, than 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 (says F. H.) with reference to the Gospel 
Serm. § 29.  times after his death, which conceit was refuted. And than he falls back to Divorces, (which I have answered 
* § 49. etc. ) and to retaliation of injuries, (answered 
* § 26. etc. ) which he had already four 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 forbade 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 than the Superaddition which the Gospel makes to it? All this Repetition served to introduce his new Tenet of the unlawfulness of Oaths with more state, and greater solemnity, whereto as if nothing could be replied, he concludes magisterially, It's most evident that Christ prohibits somewhat more here, than was forbidden under the Law; yea, what ever Oaths were lawful 
●. ●. ●4.  under the Law, therefore it must be all Swearing at all, or else none at all, which is but a vain flourish of idle words which have no Truth in them.  
And here F. H. leaps over to the 44. Sect. of the Sermon concerning the fall of the grand Objection, and dilates 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 alleged to that purpose several 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 always signify any great Antiquity, as is evident by that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which i● Translated, a good while ago, which St. 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 alleged 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 join with the Jesuits, and Socinians (those that deny Christ's Godhead) in opposition to the Moral Law, than to yield to the Truth. But what answer does he make to all this? Only this, Thus he (that is A. S.) twists and twines to make the true sense of Christ's words voided, its evident by them of old time, is Moses time, etc. It seems his bore word must pass for a confutation of all Reasons what ever can be alleged. It is easy for such a Pythagorus with his ipse dixit, its evident, to answer whole books before he understand them.  
To the explication of my Text laid down in the 39 Section of my Sermon (and more largely discoursed on here 66. Sect.) F. H. not being it seems satisfied therewith, (and perhaps he is resolved that his dissatisfaction shall be perpetual) objects many things; And first he 
Pag. 66.  says, That there is no Reason at all to believe, that the Jews in Judicature should forbear Swearing by the Name of God, when their Scripture was so express for it, and should choose that way of Swearing (by creatures) and citys the Authority of Drusius for his Opinion, who says, 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 Bishop Gauden for it. And to speak the Truth, I hold it rational, 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 general, nor particularly of Oaths taken before Magistrates (and therefore did not condemn 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 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, etc. in their private talk?  
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 men's jealousies, distrusts, unsatisfactions, and insecurities, that the very tender of such had been suspicious, and argumentative that the party so Swearing, had an intention to cheat. But to this I answer, That no Topique is of lesle force than that of conjectural 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 counterbalance the testimony of one single credible witness. Such a thing is very unlikely to hap; yet it may chance so to fall 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 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 falsehood 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 subtle, 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 upon the other, or upon strangers, that suspect not him to be a Wolf, whom they found in Sheep's 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 withal, by fallacious Oaths, or promises of ambiguous sense, though the more wary, and cautelous people were not always overreached.  
Next F. H. tells us, That if Christ only 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 itself had universally forbidden all other Oaths, (to wit, all false, vain, and Creature Oaths) save only that by his own Name. And so Christ either forbade 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. The ground of all his mistakes is, that Popish Opinion, that the Law was imperfect. That Paradox (directly contrary to King David's 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 says, That God made the Law imperfect) did he do 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 better, or he would not. To say he could not, is as bad as the former, for that takes away his Omnipotency, and than he were not God (to whom nothing is impossible, St. Luke 1. 37.) nor Almighty, and than 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 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 enjoined in the Moral Law, though F. H. does conceive that to be a great obsurdity, and vainly raises, the most of his Objections upon that bottom.  
As weak also is that which F. H. adds out of S. F. That the Particle (But) being not between forswearing, and profane Swearing; but between forswearing than, and no Swearing now, shows Christ's intent to be to prohibit all Swearing. For this is a mere 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 adds, That no Oath by a Creature did God count as an Oath made to him, he is fallen into the error 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 at all, to have discovered the falsehood of that Opinion, had either of them understood them. This I suppose is one of those firm and demonstrative Arguments of force of S. Fs. 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 misspend so much time as to return a particular Answer in some marginal 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. Indeed in all those many I pretermitted, I could find nothing worth either my Refutation, or the Readers notice. Nor had I troubled myself at all with this, and several 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 Christ's own expressions in the affirmative part, [but let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay] show 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 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 than stood in full force, and so shall do until the ending of the World.  
But here F. H. demands, If our communication, and conversation 
P. 68 69.  should be without Swearing, and our mutual converse one with another among Men, should be without Oaths, is not this exclusive of Swearing in Courts, and before Magistrates, where Men have their Communication, and their mutual converse with each other as ordinarily, and commonly as elsewhere? I answer, that there is a great difference betwixt ordinary communication, and examination of people in Courts. And that is generally known. For no examinate can properly say, I have been conversing, 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 truly 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 discern no cause of wonder. That which seems to be the alleged Reason thereof, That no proof can be brought under the Gospel for them (that is I suppose for the lawfulness of them) is of no weight. For it is proof enough, that any thing is lawful, 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 enjoined by the Laws of men, and practised throughout the Christian world, and not forbidden by Christ whose Kingdom was not terrene, St. John 18. 36. and who came not to altar, or abolish the Polities or Jurisdictios of Empires or Commonwealths; but, by F. Hs. favour, submitted himself to the high Priests examination, and answered to his Adjuration. Yet one passage here of F. Hs. I cannot but observe, which is either impertinent, or else razes his whole fabric, 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 Christ's pretended prohibition of Swearing is one of them, or it is not. If it be not, than this dictate is impertiment, and non-sensicall: if it be, than 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 Lawful. And all this by F. Hs. concession granted (if it be true) necessarily proves the whole book to be vain (to say not worse) that seeks to overthrew 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 Christ's Swearing, are but shrouds and shelters they make for themselves. And with this triumphant Epiphonema he might have concluded, had he not been willing to have expressed some proof 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 mind (mark that, he knows 
Pag. 69.  the minds of men whom he never saw) to obey the commands of men, rather than Christ's Doctrine (which he never taught) for avoiding of persecution and suffering. But how he comes to the interpretations of the Text.  
The first whereof is, Saint Mat. 5. 34. whereto I said, That they that from thence argue, that all Oaths are unlawful, break of the sentence in the middle, and stop before they come to these words, Neither by Heaven, etc. But that F. H. says, he will not do, and is as good as his word, repeating that Text wholly; and the other also of St. James 5. 12. In which two (says 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 adds 2d. 3d. or 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 discern it. For all the instances are of Swearing by Creatures (which I deny not to be unlawful) not one of Swearing by God, which alone had been to F. Hs. purpose. And this he himself (if he himself put in the following passage) not obscurely grants, That none may imagine (as A. S. would make men 
Pag. ●●.  do) that this general 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 but God; he adds, neither by Heaven, etc. Does he not very clearly except Oaths by God out of Christ's prohibition? I can make no other sense of it, nor I believe F. H. himself. And if he means as he speaks, that our Saviour forbade all Oaths but those by God, he and I without any difficulty shall forthwith be reconciled. This is certain, he must either retract that sentence, or such of his persuasion as understand it, will be dissatisfied therewith, and suspect that he has thereby betrayed their Cause, notwithstanding what immediately he adjoins, that those additions, Neither by Heaven, etc. 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 subjoined 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 literal sense be restrained only to these four Creatures; so in the utmost latitude of interpretation, it cannot be stretched farther, than to extend it from these four Creatures expressed (by that Topique à pari) to all others of the like nature: so if the Heaven be not fit to be Sworn by than neither (by the parity of Reason) is a Jewel, or a Metal. And if not the Head (as Christ taught) than 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 accounted it lawful 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 Swear by the Creators, that is of infinite both Knowledge, and Power.  
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 St. James, 'tis Reason we give place to so great an Authority. And that he attempts; For (says he) he concludes and shuts up all in universal terms, 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 expressly exclusive both of all kinds, or sorts of Swearing, and of all sorts of particular Oaths of every kind? A. S. foresaw this Objection, and had considered seriously thereof, and (what ever appearance it may have of a general 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 Moral Law in a matter that tends highly to God's glory, and is not repugnant to our duty, either to God, or man, nor intrinsically, or in itself evil; and had thwarted the practice of St. Paul, and Christ himself, & that without any possibility of producing any Reason for so doing, besides his own william. Which Arguments, with many others alleged in the Sermon against the like Interpretation of our Saviour's words, enforce a necessity of expounding what St. James writ to some other meaning than that which infers such gross absurdities. It is a general, and most certain Rule, That no Text of Scripture (and consequently not this) aught to be so interpreted, as that it contradict another, or be contrary to the Analogy of Faith. Whereupon A. S. not willing to rely on his own Judgement in a matter of such difficulty, consulted amongst others that most judicious Father St. 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 meddling therewith, till at length by Divine suggestion, (as he conceived, and publicly expressed) he was moved thereto. No doubt therefore he had seriously prepended 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 custom thereof is very dangerous, as introductive▪ of Perjury, in regard that he that Swears often, is in the high way to for-swear himself. And this caveat St. James gave the Jews, that generally had got an habit of rash Swearing, and therefore were more prove to that, than they were perhaps to Vices of an higher Nature. Upon which ground he charges them above all things (that is, in a most especial manner) to take heed thereto, and with more care avoid that, whereto they were so much addicted, because (as that Father says) That, Mayor consuetudo majorem intentionem flagitat; a longer, and more fixed custom requires a more intense care, and diligent endeavour to root it out. And this he labours to imprint in his Auditors minds, upon the sole account of the fear of committing Perjury. For he plainly professes, That to Swear truly (where there is a necessity of so doing) is no sin: suitable to which Doctrine he acknowledges his own practice was; and that when some did not believe his bore word (which was expedient for them to believe) in that necessity with deliberate advice, and awful reverence, he called God to witness (which in his Judgement is an Oath, for so in that Sermon he declares it) of the Truth of what he had uttered. And though he grants, that these his Oaths came of evil, yet that evil was not his sin, but the incredulity of the person he conversed with. For (says he) when Christ ordered our Communication to be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay; he gave this Reason, That whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil; 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 evil man.  
This Exposition of so Learned, and Wise a Person (whom the Christian world so deservedly reuerences) I cheerfully embraced, as rational, and unperplexed, and no way liable to those difficulties, which in the contrary Opinion are not lesle 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 says 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, which he groundlessly surmises to be the meaning of St. James; but is rather inclinable to follow S. Fishers novel device, which is, That the 
Antidote pag. 71.  Jews were not (as than informed of the ending of the Law in Christ (under which among them some Oaths were lawful) and therefore they were apt to think they did as well in Swearing than, as they did before. So though Adultery, and Murder may be as bad, and worse than 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 of from some Ceremonious Services of the Law that were once lawful, than from such sins as were known, and hated by them, and held accursed by the very letter of the Law; and so he says, Above all things take heed of Swearing, that they might know that now to be unlawful, which in former times was accounted as lawful for them. This subtle 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 mere conceit, without the concurrence of any former Expositors, or ground in History, and only built upon a begging of the Question. And besides (which is far more considerable, and over-ballances all possible conjectures) it is encountered with the forenamed objections, which neither S. F. could, nor F. H. nor any man living can ever answer. And yet further, the very Text itself is inconsistent with S. Fisher's exposition. For the Oaths which St. James expressly condemns are Swearing by Heaven, and by Earth. But these Oaths were never accounted Lawful, as Swearing by God was, but were forbidden in the Law, as S. F. and F. H. grant, and often urge as an Argument to prove, That Christ forbade 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 of it, and that in respect thereof, Saint James said, Above all things, Swear not; unless they had only Sworn 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 thereof. For than St. James' dehortation here had been vain, and idle. For what reason can any allege, why he should say to them, Above all things, my brethrens, 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 fearful 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 speak nonsense, so that thereby he may be supposed 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 only the following words [Neither, etc.] 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 says) I had not answered) and than I shall go along with him to consider what 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 zeal to forbidden Swearing.  
What our Saviour's motive was to prohibit Swearing, St. Mat. 5. 34. etc. 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 vicious practice of the people, that being taught by the Pharisees, for which they are reprehended, St. Mat. 23. 16. etc. that some Creature-Oaths were not binding, made a bad use of that ill doctrine, and accustomed themselves to Swear by these (as they deemed them unobliging) Oaths (whereof witnesses beyond acception are already produced) and that on purpose to overreach those simple souls, whose credulity betrayed them to their Treachery. And I doubt not but that St. 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 peculiar Vice of that Nation many years after St. James his death) but the Precept of his Lord altogether neglected, which he thought fit (as Reason was) to reinforce (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 Christ's command, the scandal of Religion, and the public 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. that he spoke upon the very same occasion, and intended to forbidden no other Swearing than that, which Christ had disallowed before, which was only 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 authentical Author that ever objected against their frequent taking of God's Name in vain, which that they might the better forbear, (which they did as some have observed, even to superstition) the Pharisees indulged unto them the liberty of Swearing by Creatures. Nor can it be thought that St. 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 only Bishop of Jerusalem, should take so much upon him, as contrary to the Law of God, and the known practice of Christ, and St. 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 than what his Master had formerly reproved, or the Jews notoriously abused; Christianity doubtless is Christ's Law, not St. James', who therefore must not be supposed to add to, detract from, or altar aught of what his Lord had appointed. His undoubted sense thereof in this place is this, and no more; My brethrens, you know what our common Saviour said as touching Oaths, and how strictly he forbade 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 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 deceitful 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 want to abuse, of which sort that by God was not. And this may stop their mouths, that say, that St. James' Proposition is a universal negative, and therefore exclusive of all manner of Oaths whatsoever, and so it is not more lawful to Swear by God, than by Heaven. For it is not general, nor prohibitive of Swearing by the Name of God. For the Apostle neither did, nor durst forbidden what God had commanded, and what Christ had not forbidden. For the former would have rendered him Atheistical; the other Antichristian. If therefore our blessed Saviour did not abrogate Swearing by God, which himself upon occasion used (as I have showed before that he did not, nor could, unless he had set himself in opposition to his Heavenly Father) than it is certain also, that St. James did not, unless any dare say, that his Doctrine crossed Christ's, which could they prove, they would turn this Epistle out of d●res, and not suffer it to remain any longer in the Catalogue of Canonical 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 himself had approved. Whereupon it is necessary to assert, That he went not further in this matter, than he had Christ for his pattern. But further, (if we would make him speak sense) it must be confessed, that he did not forbidden 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. affirms, 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 fraudulent purposes any more, than that by God, when these, according to the Doctrine of their Rabbis, were as obligatory as that? And if they used not them, but only such as they might safely break without Perjury, (such as by heaven, earth, etc.) why should St. 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 than any impartial Reader consider, what in tolerable nonsense these men impose upon the Apostle (or rather upon the holy Ghost, whose Penman he was) for the upholding of their own credits amongst those well-meaning 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 brethrens, I pray you above all things forbear Swearing, I say above all things, not that it is a greater sin than any other, but that you have gotten such a custom thereof. I therefore entreat you earnestly not to Swear any more (as you usually did) by Heaven, Earth, or any other Oath that is by God, or the Gold of the Temple, or the gift upon the Altar, by which Oaths you have seldom, or never Sworn. Modest Heathens would blush to put such non-sensicall foppery into the mouths of any of their Philosophers. The just importance of St. James' sentence is only this, One thing I am to give you an especial caveat of, and that is, that henceforth you permit not yourselves that common custom of Swearing by Heaven, or any other Oath which you accounted not obligatory, which can never be used to any good purpose: but that in stead thereof, you be careful for the future, that your perfor. be answerable to your words, that you be not justly condemned by God and Men, for your falsehood and cousinage. This interpretation of the Apostles words (being liable to no inconveniences, or objections that I can foresee) will be, I am confident, in the Judgement of all knowing, and impartial men, much preferable before the other, which is encountered with insuperable difficulties. And I wish that F. H. and those of his persuasion, would think themselves to be but men, and therefore such as may be possibly deceived; and than, take what I say into serious consideration, which if they would do, I doubt not but God would open their understandings, that they might discern the bright beams of this apparent Truth, from which there is nothing that can so much hinder them, as prejudice, and a presumption of their own perfection.  
The next passage is taken out of S. Fs. Antidote, and is it may be, one of those weighty things offered to the Conscience 
Pag 73.  & public view, which A. S. had seen (as F. H. says) but came not so much as near to answer. Indeed A. S. had seen it, and thought it unworthy of any answer, hoping that no Reader could be so simple as to be deceived by so silly a Sophism. And I confess. that had not F. H. inserted it into his discourse, it might for me have remained till doomsday, without any Animadversion upon it. And though I should not have wondered to find such pitiful stuff in F. Hs. Pamphlet; yet I think it strange, that such an acute person (as S. F. shows himself else where) should think fit to build upon so weak a foundation. It must be a cause desperately ruinous, that requires to be supported by such a bulrush. The Argument is drawn from Ecclesiastes 9 2. wherein (says 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 lawful) was not only permitted, (and therefore lawful) 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 Testament, as impertinent for the proof of Swearing, which they grant was lawful until Christ forbade it Whereupon it follows, that if K. Solomon (as S. F. argues) made all Swearing to be the character of the wicked, than he made the observance of God's Laws (one of which was Swearing) to be the mark of a wicked person, which so wise a Prince could not possibly do. For if it be the token of wicked men to keep God's commands, than 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 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 of that blow that threatened 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 not 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 everlasting Gospel. And though F. H. do tax 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 balance of Judgement, will be found as light as vanity itself, I should expect that of his courtesy he would pardon me in not having wilfully wasted those unreturning hours, which might be spent to better purpose, who upon second thoughts may possibly found Reason to thank me that I have not mentioned them, and also to excuse me in passing over the rest of this Paragraph stuffed after his wont manner with bold, and groundless dictates, which are no other, than so many beggings of the question, whilst 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 mean as he means (that's hard for him to know) to set their plain express word against their mind, (that's apparently untrue:) But he ha● asserted nothing but that whi●● 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.  
To both these Texts I had answered in the Sermon, That 
Serm. § 43.  these propositions how universally soever expressed, aught 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 therefore these two Texts may, and aught 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 aught not to b● extended beyond the intention o● the ●peakers, but to be limited according to the subject matter in regard universal prohibitions, now and than admit of exceptions: 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 where they are either expressed, or at lest manifestly employed by him that gave out these general terms, 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 gratify 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 fails sometimes. And than it is not certain, but it may fail here. And that it sometimes fails, is certain by the produced instances, to two whereof F. H. could not possibly apply his Rule; and therefore does wisely not to attempt it. The first of them is, that of St. Mark 1. 5. whereof he can find no limitation in all the New Testament. And there the observation fails. The other is that of St. 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 relief in all the New Testament: Whereupon we may conclude, that this Rule, (which 'tis like S. F. invented as a shift to serve his turn at that time; and yet was so modest as not to profess it universally, but usually true, intimating that it failed and than) sometimes holds, and sometimes fails, 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 than, as it might well be thought unreasonable, to say that all the sick, blind, lame, decrepit, and bedrid people of that Nation went to hear the Baptist Preach, though the express words of the Evangelist be, There went out unto him all the Land of Judea, (there being no Text producible to restrain the universality of that unlimited proposition) in regard it is so repugnant to Reason; so it were not lesle inconcludent to say, that Christ forbade 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 bottomed 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 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 St. Matthew, and St. James accordingly) there be many Reason's producible, and none for the contrary, as the observant Reader cannot but discern, if he please to give himself so much trouble, as to compare the Pamphlets of S. F. or F. H. with what I have now written.  
Yet notwithstanding F. H. could reply nothing to two of mine instances, he has added more out of S. Fs. Antidote, to let us see how well he is versed therein (for other end I cannot discern, 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. Ss. Objections, yet I can object somewhat else more than he has done, and thereto I can answer. However, he cannot grant that these two Texts (of St. Matthew, and S●. James) admit of any exceptions, or restrictions, 
Pag. 7●.  as A. S. would interpret them. His Reason is, because this universal prohibition, Swear not at all, cannot in equity be taken, and limited in that sense, nor with that restriction, which A. S. puts upon it, (though A. S. proved, that it aught 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 proof the matter in question. The doubt is, whether all Swearing was forbidden by Christ, or no? A. S. is for the negative, showing by twelve Arguments, that that command was to be understood in a limited sense. Not (quoth F. H.) that it is not, for than, all Swearing would not be forbidden, as though that were 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 says, 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 only of that part of the World that was as than under his Dominion. And no man in his wits can think otherwise. For who would say, or imagine, That Augustus, a wise Prince would sand his commands to 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 sand his Decrees for taxing all the Inhabitants of those places that were not inhabited? And such than, and still are many Islands in the World. Or how could he sand to America, and those vast Regions therein contained, which were utterly unknown to him, and all his people, and not discovered till many ages after? And yet they were than in the world, as well as they are now. This Argument, 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 corroborated it (which is a proof sufficient, that S. Fs. forementioned Rule, that if universal Propositions are to be limited, those restrictions are to be found in the same Testament, is not universally true) to interpret the word World only of the Roman Empire. But suppose some man should pretend to be of a contrary opinion, and say, as F. H. does here, The general term World cannot in equity 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 proof? And is not F. Hs. reasoning directly parallel thereto?  
But an other Reason F. H. adds out of his old friend S. Fs. Antidote (whereto he is so much beholden) and that is, because there is not only not restriction expressed, but a fuller amplification added by an enumeration of such particulars as are exclusive of all kind of Oaths: And beside, had Christ intended any exception here (as he easily might so) he would have expressed 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 four particulars (for there are not moe recited) be an amplification of a general Prohibition, or no? For example, Thou shalt never Swear at all upon any occasion, either by God, or any thing else: Thus Christ meant, if we may credit F. H. And if that be true, we must needs yield it to be an universal prohibition of all Oaths. But 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 general terms, 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 only reply, that it had been vain for our Saviour, when he forbade 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 College in Cambridge infected, except A. Bs. house which belongs to a private man, and is no College; or we have not an University in England besides Cambridge, and Oxford, except Edinburgh which is in Scotland. And whereas F. H. grounding upon S. Fs. words says, That Christ adds that which strengthens beyond all exception the universality of his probibition— and after mentioning our Saviour's 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 speak what he really thinks, I do much pity 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 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, etc. Swears no● at all, for my Hand is neither the Heaven, nor the Earth nor Jerusalem, nor my Head▪ And further it would follow that besides these four, 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.  
I had said in the Sermon▪ That vain, and false Oaths by 
§ 43.  God, even by the acknowledgement 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 forbidden them again. This Concession (says 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 the defects thereof, gave other Moral 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 forbade had not been forbidden before; but out of the people's nonobservance, and sinful neglect of what had been commanded, being much addicted to Swear rashly, and falsely (not by God, and therefore there was no need to reinforce the disuse of that Oath but) by Creatures, as Heaven, Earth, etc. so that in respect of that sinful custom, both the holy Jesus, and his Apostle James, judged it expedient to forbidden severely such Creature-swearing; and so this makes nothing at all to F. Hs. advantage.  
But I had said in the Sermon, Here the grand Objection 
Sect 44.  falls of itself, which is, Either all kind of Swearing is here forbidden; or else Christ, notwithstanding his words, But I say unto you, forbade 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 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 forbidden nothing) are part of the Objection; my words indeed, but not laid down as mine own Opinion, but in the person of the Objectors; one of whose main Principles it is, that this our Lords expression, But I say unto you, was set in opposition not only to the Pharisaical misinterpretations, but even to the Law in self. Whereupon▪ I guests, that F. H. did look upon these Words, [which is utterly improbable] as my Concession, (a matter which I never thought) by his Printing i● in a divers 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 God had formerly prohibited all false, and vain Oaths, and all Swearing by Creatures. And that indeed I really granted, and gave a brief, but satisfactory answer, That the Pharisees had taught the people otherwise, and that under a religious pretence of a greater reverence to God's Name, whereby the practice of that misled Nation, became widely distant from the Commandment. Both which being necessary to be reform, 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 God's Law, but to the false and wicked glosses of those blind 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, etc. be Creatures, and if Christ forbade naught else, than the Objection stands unanswerable. For either Christ did prohibit those Oaths which the Law allowed, or else he forbade 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 upon a false supposition borrowed from the Papists, (which I have always denied, and neither F. H. S. F. nor any other of them at all proved) that is, That Christ forbade more than what was forbidden in the Law, which he never did. Only I cannot but take notice of a passage (and I shall do not more than take notice of it) and that is, That F. H. will rather fall out with himself, than agreed with A. S. For whereas I had proposed their main Objection in these words, Either all kind of Swearing is here forbidden, or else Christ forbade nothing which was not forbidden before, which is utterly improbable, (which words I spoke, as objecting, not asserting mine own Opinion, being that it is so far from improbability, that it is a certain Truth, that our Saviour forbade nothing, which God formerly had not disallowed.) Nay (says F. H.) but it is more probable than any thing A. S. has yet offered: Where he either speaks he knows not what; or else he fully complies with me against himself, and so has a hand in the subversion of this main, and grand Objection of his own party.  
I shall not trace him (and ' it's a favour I do not) where he ceases to be Argumentative, and in querulous Language casts scandalous imputations upon the Government (which in private I shall make appear to him, or any of his friends) lest 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 inform, and convert them (if possible) to the Truth, that conforming thereto, and renouncing their Errors (for which I yet pray, and hope that God in mercy at length will hear 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 uncivil reproaches (as enviously labouring that none of his friends should receive that benefit by me, which himself refused) yet that bad requital of my good affections towards them (many of whom I take to be very well meaning, though pitifully sedueed persons) has not diverted me from taking this second pains to undeceive them, and bring them, through God's 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 Christ's fold, the Church of God.  
For E. Hs. in vectives against vain, and frequent Swearing, and perjuries, I am sorry that there is so just a ground for them, and do as much abhor them, as he, or any other, and would use all just endeavours for the abolishment of so reigning a vice: but, I dare not do ill, that good may come thereof; nor sor the suppression of these two common impieties, raise, or countenance a Schism, pervert our Saviour's meaning, or teach a doctrine which my Conscience, enlightened by God's Word, and Divine Reason testifies to be false, that all Oaths whatsoever are absolutely unlawful.  
To my conclusion, S 45. where I said, Now I have done, and I fear it is more than time to have done with the exposition of these words: he replies, It's 
Pag. 80,  more than time indeed to have done, to pervert Christ's plain Doctrine with his imaginary exposition. These are, it seems, the flowers, and figures of F. Hs. Rhetoric, 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 averseness 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 impartial peruser of what we both have written (whose interest 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 Christ's Doctrine, or whether mine expesitions be solid, or (as he is pleased to term 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 hearts shall be manifest by jesus Christ, when the book of Conscience shall be opened, be found to be in real opposition unto Christ, and his reward will be according to his works, who hath by his work strengthened the hand of evil doers, and persecutors, to the adding affliction to affliction upon the Righteous— Thus F. H. with à paulò majora canamus, in an higher strain 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 F. H. to tell us how he comes to know, what he says 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 stream. Whence than 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 Prophecy, or warrant such an Usurpation upon his Prerogative to whom all Judgement is committed? I wonder that he was not afraid of that minatory prohibition, St. Mat. 7. 1. 2▪ I doubt not but the wisest o● his friends, and all such as are owners of moderation, and truly fear God, will be ashamed of this presumption, and at lest in this particular desert their Teacher. And I verily believe that what he ignorantly, or insolently says, will be found in real opposition unto Christ (when once his cloudy cavils are dispersed, and the Truth shines in its own lustre) will be clearly discovered to be perfectly conformable to the mind of God. As to the dreadful, and condemnatory sentence pronounced against A. S. which must be according to his works, (that is, strengthening the hand of evil doers, and persecutors, to the adding affiiction to affliction upon the Righteous, which doubtless is a very damnable work.) 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 himself, he should not have told others. If he did, I wonder how he came to be informed of so mysterious a secret. Has he perused the Stoic Tables of necessity, and therein discerned the unalterable fate that must inevitably fall upon A. S? Or has he been admitted Privy Counsellor to Heaven? Or is he that Lamb mentioned in the Apocalypse, that only is worthy to open the 
Rev. ●. 1.  Seals, and unclasp the book of Eternity, that is holden in his right hand that sits on the Throne? Or what spectacles has he gotten, to read 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 error it could be expiated? Or is A. S. a Person incapable of information, or F. Hs. Pamphlet so weak, and dull, as not to hold out the light of so plain 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 reveal his Truth to such as are in error, 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 not lesle ungrounded, than uncharitable censure, as a saucy in trusion, or an insolent Usurpation upon the Divine Prerogatives, and as a bugbear to affright his deceived friends, that they may not dare to consider seriously, what so damned 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, lest they fall also into the like condemnation.  
F. H. seems to be in a great jealousy that his friends will forsake him, if once they come to the knowledge of the Truth (which now, by God's blessing, may easily be discerned by all those that are impartial seekers of it, and are endued with so much humility, as to submit their own fancies to God's Word) and therefore if he cannot terrify them like Children from the search thereof by his skare-crow threaten, 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 (says he) the Righteousness of Christ's 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; than the righteousness of the Disciples is to be an other, than the righteousness of the Law, etc. He should have said, the Righteousness of the Pharisees (not of the Law) and than 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 aught 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 proposition will be as true, and the consequence will appear (as it is) notoriously false. Read it than thus. If the righteousness of Christ's 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, than the righteousness of the Disciples is tobe an other than the righteousness of the Gospel. Now what will, or can F. H. say to this? Is this manner of reasoning good, or is it not good? If it be not good, why did F. H. use it to delude his friends? If it be good, than 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 else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, as our Saviour has expressly declared concerning that of the Scribes and Pharisees, St. Mat. 5. 20. which was the ground of F. Hs. Argument.  
Which I perceive, he intended 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 lawful, yet that was to be understood only of necessary, and just Oaths, and so dehorted them from perjury, because they would fall below the Righteousness of Scribes, and Pharisees (who forbade the people to Swear falsely 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 agreed; and so unhappy am I, that I cannot 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.  
To restrain common, and needless Swearing (against which vice F. H. himself passionately d●claims) I disallowed all Oaths, but such as were necessary, and just: To which he replies, That there is none necessary amongst Christ's true Disciples, and the Righteous. By which titles (Christ's true Disciples) he means, I suppose, some of his own persuasion; but whether all of 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, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, not vouchsafeing them the honour of Saints, which is usually afforded them. But whosoever he means by his Righteous, or Christ's true Disciples, amongst whom no Oaths are necessary, he has failed in one particular (which renders his speech insignificant) and that is, That he has laid down no characteristical mark, or note of discrimination, whereby 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 Christ's true Disciples, which I fully would consent to, provided we had any certain means whereby we might assuredly discern who are such, & who are not. Let F. H. than consider hereof, and tell us not more, That true Christians may well be credited upon their bore affirmation, (for thereof I do not at all doubt, nor I think any man else 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 means so decipher those sons of Truth, whose immunity, and exemption from Swearing he so much desires, that hypocrites may not enjoy equal privileges with the other, for that would tend to the subversion of Truth and Justice.  
I proceeded, to give my Hearers a Caveat against Swearing by Creatures in their ordinary communication, and informed them, that when there was a necessity of Swearing, no other Oath was lawful, 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, not more but this, here is your warrant for Swearing, which thence appears to be not only lawful, but in some cases necessary, because commanded. To this F. H. replies, That this is pitiful proof, and warrant for Christians to Swear under the Gospel. But he might have had that ingenuity to have considered, that I had than 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 pitiful proof, as not alone enough to convince them that have imbibed such uncouth fancies as these, That the Moral Law of God is imperfect: That God the Son forbade what had been commanded by God the Father: That Swearing is a part of the Ceremonial Law, and consequently continued in force till Christ's death, (till when it was lawful) and than it was abolished; and yet notwithstanding, it was forbidden by Christ before his death; after which, it was utterly unlawful; so that it was both lawful, and unlawful at one and the same time. Such pitiful paradoxes F. H. commends to his friends, who he had rather (it seems) should sacrifice to these idols of his own imagination, than that they forsaking such portentous opinions, should embrace the Truth. I beseech God in his good time to open both his eyes, and theirs.  
And here I come to F. Hs. conclusion, wherein I shall fully close with him, and refer (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 personal respects either to F. H. or to myself. 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 error, for whom our dear Saviour was content to shed his most precious blood. And therefore I earnestly request you, whosoever shall hap to cast your eyes upon these Papers, that you Read them with deep consideration, and compare impartially what is laid down on both sides. It concerns you more, both in regard of the comfort of a good Conscience in this life, and of everlasting happiness in the life to come, to find out the Truth, than to be parties either of the one side, or the other. Wherhfore I would not that you should believe me any further, either in regard of my former loyal, and constant adherence to my Principles, or in respect of wisdom, or human Learning, (which I grant to be mean) than you shall find 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 to my Person, or out of prejudice to the Cause I maintain, or out of your respect to the supposed worth, or holiness of any that are contrary minded, or out of any worldly end whatsoever, until you have duly weighed it, and found it erroneous. On the contrary, let not your good opinion of S. F. F. H. or any other, either in respect of their knowledge, zeal, 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 what ever they say, until you find it to be true, and than in the name of God embrace it: but if you discover it to be false, as you love your souls, renounce it. And though you have formerly believed, and professed it; yet be not ashamed to retract an error. 'Tis the greatest victory to conquer ourselves, 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 aiming (I bless the Divine goodness) at any other end, but the finding out, and clearing the Truth, and have, I doubt not, found it (having had more advantages there to than some others) by God's gracious assistance, and this is it that I here declare unto you. Be serious than I pray in the perusal of this Treatise, till you fully understand it; and if through the blessing of the most High, you discern 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 find it, and thereby rest to your souls, which the Lord in mercy vouchsafe to grant.  
And yet F. H. has not done: For (he says) he cannot but mind the Reader, that A. S. has had certain books of the dissenters, in which are weighty things about this particular of Swearing, which he hath not answered at all, as to their Arguments, only carped here and there at a word, which is not of great moment: 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, 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. Tombs 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, and a short one of Peter Hardcastles besides many private Letters from several persons. So diligent have I been to inform myself 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 lest move any rational man to descent from, or doubt of the Truth of what I had delivered in my Sermon, I replied to it in some marginal Annotation. 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 fool's paradise, as thinking there were other weighty matters, whereto I had not replied, and so all refutation would be vain, or impossible. For though I had replied fully to F. H. yet possibly there might be somewhat in some other Writer which I had not observed. You may perceive herein some subtle dealing; but I refer it to the Judgement of any of his favourers, whether F. H. may in reason be thought to have left out any material passage that might assist his Cause, which he could find 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 been found little advantageous to  
And here H. F. brings his 
●●.  Army into view, and presents us with a Musterroll of his forces: The first whereof is the Answer to Bishop Gauden, by that faithful servant of God (as he terms 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 design.) And the next is his Antidote. The third is Isaac Pennington's book, whereof he gives us a Summary of several heads, all which (he says) A. S. hath passed over, and hath not answered, which proposition might be well retorted. For I could truly 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? Than follows John Crooks book the Title whereof is not (as he has it) The Case of Swearing at all discussed; But Sixteen Reasons, etc. why divers 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 found it, because than they would always be in expectation of further satisfaction (as he puts them in hope) if (as he says, 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. alleged 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 he would weed his Authors, and only 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 than, to make his Reader amendss, sand him in quest after a misnamed book, that is no where to be found? Indeed I have some reasons to suspect, that F. H. himself did never see John Crooks sheet of paper, for it is not more. In his next, I desire he would deal ingeniously, and tell us whether he have seen it, or no; and if he have not, how he comes to know that it contains such weighty matters. John Crook himself is much more modest; for in a Paper which I have under his own hand, concerning his sixteen Reasons, he says, 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, St. 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, etc. which being very true, (though not answerable 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 general, without any reflection upon that of Allegiance in particular. But besides, F. Hs. prophetic spirit here fails 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 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. says nothing of answering him; and that was wisely done: For I am of opinion, that he found nothing therein that deserved an answer.  
In his last Paragraph, F. H. (as in several other places) does that really, for which he so often aspe●ses A. S. causelessly; mine intention was (as I publicly declared in my Sermon) and still is in Writing 
●●ct. 3.  this discourse, not to cast any odium upon the dissenters, or add affliction to their bonds, (as F. H. phrases it) but to induce them to relinquish an irrational opinion, and thereby escape those penalties that are Legally imposable upon non-conformists, whereby the Church would be freed in part from that Schism that so miserably distracts it, and themselves enjoy those immunities, which are the inheritance of good, and obedient Subjects. Nor am I conscious to myself of any thing that might occasion that suspicion of me in F. H. though he has often urged it against me; I know not why, 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 dissuade 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 aught not to be misinterpreted, as a design to incite those that are in Authority to a further severity 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 drink thereof upon that account. They think it hard to suffer for not Swearing, when the Law enjoins 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 than enough (as though he were the greatest enemy to his brethrens) to irritate his Superiors against them by frequent reproaches of the Civil Magistrate, and calumnious imputations upon the Church of England. But I shall neither recite the words, nor quote the places, lest that prove the occasion of a new complaint, unless F. H. (or some in his behalf) 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 me to recrimination. And for his frequent insinuations of my being a , an opposer of Christ's plain 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 else to his crafty seeking by these petty artifices, to created in his friends a bad opinion of me, that they may reap no benefit by my labours; I beseech the Lord that these things may never be laid to his charge. For myself, I thank God, I harbour no hatred in mine heart against him, or any other. I never projected the ruin, or hurt of any of them; but only endeavoured to manifest to them, and the world, what I know assuredly, and what no rational man upon serious deliberation, and perusal 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 himself a champion for error, and so vigorously endeavoured the maintenance thereof) unless I should have wilfully betrayed 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 only tend to rectify their judgements that have been seduced by the subtleties, and specious pretensions of Religion, (amongst whom I accounted F. H. to be one, of whom I am not so ill conceited, 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 Schism, the Nation from Faction, and themselves from penalties, which they incur through disobedience. I really pity F. H. and those of his fraternity, and am persuaded 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 Sheep's clothing, to which unhappy misadventure, the lose 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 souls, and an inducement for us not only 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 of it by others miscarriages; or alured from it by the subtle suggestions of those cunning impostors, that taking the advantage of our distractions, and making use of the debauchery, and profaneness of the licentious multitude on the one side; and the unjustifiable, and contrariant positions of some that were than accounted the most zealous Preachers on the other, struck them as it were betwixt Wind and Water, over poured their well meaning simplicity, and under the plausible colour of a more strict Piety, and sincere Religion, prevailed with them to forsake the Church, and several of those Catholic, and Apostolical Doctrines therein professed. For whose reduction (through the blessing of God) I have undertaken this Task; and profess, that I have not here Written any thing, of the Truth whereof I am not fully persuaded, though mindful of human frailty, I do wholly submit it to the Judgement of the Church. In order whereto, I desire F. H. and those of his persuasion, to think of themselves, (what he expresses of England) 
Pag. 84.  that being no more than men, it is possible they may have been mistaken: and therefore that they would be pleased without prejudice, or partiality, to examine what is here laid down, and submit their opinions to the evidence of Truth, whensoever they do, or can discover it. To which end, I shall be always willing to contribute my best assistance to any of them, whether by way of Explication of what perhaps may seem dubious, or lesle intelligible: Or by way of Application more clearly to reinforce any Argument, or refel any Objection which possibly may be better affected by private conference, than by these public dissertations, which not many peradventure will regard; and sewer (I doubt) weigh seriously (as they should, and must, if they mean to profit by them) in the balance of Judgement. The Lord grant them humility, that none of them may be Wiser in his own conceit, than 
P●o. 26. 16.  seven men that can tender a reason, and open the eyes of their understanding, that they may discern their errors, and re-tract them. And as for me, God forbidden, 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 assistauce of the Divine Grace, I shall continued 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 Litany, That God would grant us in this World knowledge of his Truth; and in the world to come life everlasting.  
FINIS.