also presumes to tell us Here is nothing forbidden but what was forbidden in the Law when Swearing by the Lord was not only lawful but expresly commanded Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. All which is answered by Christ himself where he recites what was said in old time in this Case of Swearing as namely It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thy Oathes But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay c. Which makes it very plain that here was more forbidden by Christ then what was by the Law his words in this holding parallel with his very next words Ye have heard that it hath been saith An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth but I say unto you That ye resist not Evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right Cheek turn to him the other also vers 38 39. Did not Christ himself hereby forbid his Disciples that kind of severe Retaliation which was allowed under the Law as he allowed divers and other things in Condescension to the People's Weakness Deut. 24. 1. Matth. 5. 31 32. Luke 16. 18. And in this Case of God's allowing the Jews to swear under the Law where he said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name Deut. 6. 13. This appears plainly to be a Condescension to their Weakness and an Obligation to prevent them from going after other Gods as is evident by the very next words Ye shall not go after other Gods of the Gods of the people that are round about you vers 14. This State was much below the Evangelical State of the true Christians who in the Love they bear to the Lord are engaged to speak the Truth in Yea and Nay without an Oath as Christ his Apostles have taught So the Difference lies here the Jews when bound by an Oath they feared the Oath or the Curse contained or implyed in it they Swearing by the Great God as chiefly to be feared them with regard to his Power to judge and avenge c. and this was for a time some tye upon them to prevent them from going after other Gods The True Christians are bound in their Consciences by the Royal and Evangelical Law of Love which was before Swearing was and takes away the Occasion of Oaths to serve God and speak the Truth every man to his Neighbour without Swearing So that the Disparity between the State under the Law and that under the Gospel lies here Under the Law Thou shalt fear the Lord and Swear by his Name Under the Gospel Thou shalt so Love the Lord as to speak the Truth and confirm it in Yea and Nay without being bound by an Oath Now judge serious Reader which of these do express more Love Respect and Honour to God whether he that 's bound by an Oath not to go after other Gods and to speak the Truth as fearing an Oath and the Curse which was the better use of Oaths which now few that use them regard or he that is bound in Conscience to speak and do Truth without an Oath whose word Yea and Nay is more binding to him and of more Value and Credit then men's Swearing Imprecations and Curses And likewise between man and man and Neighbours which do express most Love one to another and Confidence in each other they that will not believe one another without Oathes and Curses or they that will like Christians speak the Truth and believe one another's plain and simple Yea Yea and Nay Nay as Christ and his Apostle has commanded Such are the true Christians and People of God as are come to the fulfilling of the Evangelical Prophesie Surely they are my People Children that will not Lye and so was he their Saviour Isa. 63. 8. And the Remnant of Israel shall not speak Lyes neither shall a Deceitful Tongue be found in their Mouth But to return to Christ and his Apostles express Prohibition But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. nor by ANY OTHER Oath Hereby Christians are so plainly forbidden Swearing in any Case as Christ forbids an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth or hating thine Enemy see Mat. 5. 39 44. Or else what Coherence is there in his Words and what Difference is there between the Dispensation of the Law and that of the Gospel if as this man sayes Christ here forbids nothing but what was forbid in the Law By which he renders Christ as thus speaking It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths And I say the same Instead of But I say unto you Swear not at all And likewsie ye have heard that it hath been said An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth And I say the same to you instead of But I say unto you Resist not Evil c. And so this would make Christ still leave his Followers in the Fighting Revengful Nature as this man's limiting his words for Swearing as the Jews did renders Christ as leaving his Followers but still in the same common Humane Infirmity as his words are and weak Distrusting and unsteady Condition as the Jews under the Works of the Law were in who were allowed to Swear by the Lord as a Prevention from running after other Gods and to remove Jealousie or Hard Thoughts out of the Minds one of another as about the Case mentioned Exod. 22. 10 11. Upon the words Neither by any other Oath J. S. adds Swear not at all by Heaven Earth or any other of those Forms of Swearing by the Creature that Christ forbad the use of p. 17. whereas the words of the Apostle who well knew the Mind of Christ extend farther as not only a forbidding a Swearing by Heaven or Earth but also by ANY OTHER OATH But mark how presently after this Oath-Vindicator hath opposed Swearing by Heaven Earth or the Creature he contradicts himself in the same page where he saith He that swears by Heaven swears by him whose Throne it is He that swears by Earth swears by him whose Foot-Stool it is because though God's Name be not expresly mentioned in such Forms of Oaths yet it is implyed and therefore we are not to use such Forms in our common Speech any more then the Name of God himself but in Reverence and in extreme Necessity p. 17. So that by this he allows of such a Form as Swearing by Heaven or Earth that thereby they may Swear by God that dwells therein when before they are not at all to Swear by Heaven Earth or any other of thâ—se Forms See what an eminent Antagonist this is that undertakes to confute the Quakers and yet contradicts himself in one and the same page As much as to say We may not
what is by the Will of God we will or wish that God may save and this to us is for or instead of a great Oath And the same WE also will or desire that is the Well-fare of Caesar or the King as acknowledging God's Power or Hand in setting him up For that Promotion comes not from the East nor from the West c. but from the Lord who putteth down one and setteth up another as he pleaseth His accusing the Quakers for wresting those Passages aforesaid we pass by among the rest of his Slanders But his confessing That no People upon the Earth were more scrupulously tender of taking solemn promissory Oaths then the Jews were at that time when our Saviour gave them this Prohibition pag. 24. from Joeseph Antiq. l. 18. cap. 5. This makes for us for were not promissory Oaths as well as assertory allowed under the Law And if they were tender of taking promissory Oaths they were more fitted for Christ's universal Prohibition of Oaths as they were in some measure prepared for Christ by John's Baptism He tells us That the Jews could swallow such Camel-Oaths as by Heaven c. pag. 24. And is not he himself guilty of the same Could not he swallow such Camel-Oaths where he allows the use of such Forms as Swearing by Heaven c. because Gods Name is implyed And he that sweareth by Heaven sweareth by him whose Throne it is which he accounts lawful pag. 17 19. But in pag. 24. To Swear by Heaven or Jerusalem are Camel-Oaths What Credit can this man's Work against us be of He reckons that Christ's words may be applyed to their Stipulations by Oath in their private Contracts and mutual Trading whenas Christ's Prohibition as explained by the Apostle James is general But his applying it to an Oath in private Contracts seems to grant That Christ did forbid something of this kind that was used under the Law as well as in a publick manner And there seems no Reason why Christ's words should be only thus applyed unless men were more clear of Corruption and Fraud in private Contracts then in publick Testimonies or why Christ's general words For whatsoever is more then these cometh of Evil or of the Evil One should extend only to the private and not to the publick appears not to us However they whom the Evil One leads to Lye for any Self-Interest what Credit is to be given to their Swearing And is it not evident how little the Custom thereof sweyes with their Consciences by the Injury and Injustice many suffer and the long Continuance of Contests Law-Suits and Quarrels And a man would think that there should be less need of Swearing in the Magistrates Presence then in private Covenants and Contracts because it is the Magistrates Wisdom to search and find out the Matter and in his Power to punish the False Witness and be a Terror to him but in Private only the Fear and Terror of God in men's Consciences can restrain them from Evil However what 's more evident then that private Oaths and Covenants thereby between man and man were in use both before and under the Law So that this man's deeming Christ's Prohibition to extend to an Oath in private Contracts between man and man and yet reckoning that he forbids nothing but what was forbidden in the Law we cannot but wonder at such wonderful and frequent Contradiction J. S. saith Applying Christ's Prohibition to solemn Oaths either Promissory or Assertory or to any but common-Discourse-Oaths makes Christ a Transgressor of the Law I Tremble at the Thought of this Consequence which as naturally flows from the Quakers Hypothesis as Light from the Sun pag. 25. Answ. He hath cause rather to Tremble because of his own Igrance and perverse Talk thus to tye up Christ's Prohibition so fully explain'd in Opposition to former Oaths and Swearing under the Law even those to the Lord which surely were solemn and serious Neh. 10. 29. as also to the Heathenish Swearing by Creatures where he forbids his to swear at all adding neither by Heaven nor by the Earth further explain'd by his Apostle James Nor by any other Oath And yet Christ was so far from being a Transgressor of the Law it self or from causing an Obstruction to all Legal Proceeding or proclaiming an Indemnity to Thieves Murderers Blasphemers and all sorts of injurious Persons or turning of Hell loose in the Kingdom of God as this man blasphemously words it That Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it in answering the End of it as in this Particular where Swearing under the Law was a kind of Bond upon their Soul to speak or do that which was Right and Just in the Sight of God and Men the greater Weight still was upon this then upon those words and Ceremonies of Swearing which though Christ ended Swearing and the Law thereof with many other Circumstances Ceremonies and Shadows yet he did not come either to stop Justice or to indulge Malefactors he being the End of the Law for Righteousness and yet unto his own forbids some things the Law allowed as that An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth though he was for overcoming of Evil with that which was Good J. S. pag. 26. alledgeth St. Paul as if he called Witnesses to swear concerning him in saying All which the High Priest and all the State of the Elders can bear me Witness And in his Apology before Felix he challengeth his Accusers to prove the Matter of Fact they accused him with Acts 24. Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me And that in his Answer before Agrippa he appeals to the Testimony of those that knew him from his Youth Acts 26. 5. To which he adds That if he had thought solemn swearing to be unlawful by this Prohibition of Christ he would rather have undergone a Thousand Deaths then tempt so many to make Ship-wrack of their Immortal Souls by calling them to that unlawful Act pag. 27. Answ. This is a far fetcht Consequence and as far from proving the thing intended For first it is an unlikely thing Paul should call the High Priest and all the State of the Elders to Swear that he had been a Persecutor for then he must call many to be Swearers And it was sufficiently known abroad among the Jews what manner of Person he had been Secondly Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me was far enough from calling them to swear against him Thirdly His admitting a bearing him witness or the Jews testifying concerning him who knew his former manner of Life Acts 26. 4 5. Did he therein call them to swear in saying If they would testifie The most Paul allowed of was a bearing Witness If they would have sworn it had been the Rulers and their own Act who did not think it an Evil and therefore not so great to them as to those that believe it is so
Swear by any of those Forms as by Heaven or Earth yet we must swear by such Forms of Oaths as by Heaven or Earth that we may Swear by him that made them and dwells therein being his Throne and Footstool whereas it is confessed on all hands that to Swear by Heaven or Earth or any other Creature is absolutely forbidden but Swearing by the Lord on a Book or otherwise is the Matter in Controversie But this man further in his own Contradiction saith As to the Forms of Swearing whether God's Name be expresly mentioned in them or only implyed by mentioning some of his Creatures with respect to him as when we call Heaven and Earth to bear witness to what we say I do not find any Difference between them either in Point of Lawfulness or Obligation by the People of God or God himself in any Age p. 19. He finds little to purpose then but what is to his own Contradiction and Confusion that one while confesses it unlawful to swear by Heaven Earth or any other Creature and another while finds no difference between Swearing by Heaven or Earth without mentioning the Name of God and Swearing by God himself And yet in his second page his Definition of an Oath is nothing else but a calling God to Witness but here he hath found something else for an Oath in his 19th page is calling Heaven and Earth to Witness Oh what a Labyrinth of Confusion is this man in It is true that Christ reproved the Scribes Pharisees Folly and Blindness in saying Whosoever Sweareth by the Temple it is nothing but whosoever shall Swear by the Gold of the Temple he is a Debtor See his Reproof upon them Mat. 23. 16 c. He also addeth ver 22. He that sweareth by Heaven sweareth by the Throne of God and him that sitteth thereon Now this man in allowing such Forms of Oaths as a Swearing by Heaven c. because therein it is both a Swearing by the Throne of God and him that sitteth thereon he represents Christ as contradicting himself who said Swear not at all neither by Heaven nor by Earth c. So that he forbids both Swearing in general and using such Forms of Oaths as this man allows of as a Swearing by the Throne of God and by him that sitteth thereon And we do not find that Christ allows the Scribes Pharisees to use any such Form of Oaths as Swearing by Heaven and therein by God any more then he allowed them to swear either by the Temple or by the Gold of the Temple either by the Altar or by the Gift that is upon it But rather reproves them with Ye Fools and Blind Wo to you Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites c. He is so far from telling them that to swear by Heaven and so by God was the most August Act of Divine Worship as this man hath affirmed and yet saith We are not to use such Forms but in extream Necessity which in his sense is to tell us We are not to perform the Worship of God or the most August Act thereof but in extream Necessity For he sayes That Swearing implies the whole Worship of God p. 13. And that he is not Glorified sufficiently in order to God's Accepting us either in Prayer Thanksgiving or Attending upon his Word unless we add Swearing by his Name But who besides himself of the Church of England will believe such Doctrine By the same Reason that God interprets it as an Affront offered to him when Perjury is committed in the Name of an Idol this man's idolizing Swearing as implying the whole Worship of God and as being the most August Act of Divine Worship God may justly interpret as an Affront offered to him and a Depraving his Worship who was and is truly loved and worshipped in the Spirit and in the Truth before mens Oaths and Swearing were and when they are ended J. S. alledgeth 1 Cor. 15. 31. saying I Protest by your Rejoycing or more properly I Swear for saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that Tongue is a Note of Swearing and therefore makes the Apostle say I Swear by your Rejoycing To which we say First Let it be considered whether their Rejoycing was God their Maker if not as we know none holds then whether this man hath not rendered Paul highly a Transgressor according to his own Opinion in making him Swear by something that is not God as also by the Rejoycing of others for their Rejoycing simply could but be an Effect of Grace or of the Spirit Secondly Though the Adverb 〈◊〉 was sometimes used as a Note of Swearing among the Greeks yet not always for it is simply an Affirmation as coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea or truly and is used when we are about to affirm somewhat see the Lexicons And some read the Apostles words thus Verily I dye daily for your Rejoycing or our Rejoycing which I have in Christ Jesus And likewise J. S. represents the primitive Christians who sufferd under the Pagan Persecutions the most exquisite Torments rather then to Swear by the Heathen Gods or the Genij of the Emperors yet by the Health of the Emperors Tertullian assureth us they did and as saying We Christians Swear by the Health of the Emperor which is more worth then all the Genij and by the Majesty of the Emperor And also addeth That the Form of the Military Oath which the Christian Soldiers took in Constantine's time is thus laid down By the Majesty of the Emperor c. And saith That in such Forms of Swearing though we name some Creatures yet we Swear not ultimately by that Creature pag. 20. First However Tertullian represents these Martyrs as Swearing by the Health of the Emperor and those afterwards by the Majesty of the Emperor The Truth of the first is a Matter in Question especially since Swearing by a Creature hath been accounted unlawful both among Jews and Christians neither can such an Example if true be Warrant to any to take such a Form of Oath as by the Health of a Man or Creature Secondly Neither is Swearing by the Health of the Emperor any more warrantable And did not both these Oaths savour of Heathenism which if any esteemed Christians came under and took it was more a Condescension for Fear then any Example to be followed And his saying That though we name some Creature yet we swear not ultimately by that Creature yet however it implies a Swearing in part by that Creature And how well this agrees with his accounting a Lawful Oath but a calling God to witness or a Swearing only by his Name let the ingenuous Reader judge or with Tertullian his Sense of the said Swearing by the Health of the Emperor viz. Per salutem Imperatoris salvum esse volumus quod Deus voluit et hoc nobis pro magno juramento est We acknowledge that Emperors are set over the Nations by the Will of God and
J. S. undertakes further to expound James 's words But above all things my Brethren Swear not He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no-where else rendred in Scripture above but before and it should be so here pag. 29. And then he thus paraphases Let not an Oath lie uppermost upon your Heart and come first of all before all things out of your Mouth pag. 30. This is a kind of an easie Meaning but a plain Perversion of the Apostle's Testimony which does not allow of any such Liberty at all for swearing as this doth as if he only forbad Swearing in the beginning of our Discourses wheâ—as the Prohibition is plain and positive Above all things Swear not neither by Heaven neither by the Earth neither by any other Oath but this man will still have some other Oath So whether must we believe him or the Apostle James judge Reader And though we do not look on Swearing as worse then Adultery or Man-slaughter as is queried upon the words Above all things Swear not yet doubtless the Apostle saw the Consequence of it might be bad and sad enough or else he would not so strictly have Forbidden it to the Twelve Tribes J. S. makes these the Consequences of our sticking to the express Command of Christ and his Apostle viz. That Paul's calling God to witness came from an Evil spirit That our Saviour as often as he said Amen Amen had those words put into his Mouth by the Evil One pag. 31. To the first we say No it was Christ the Son of God that spoak in Paul whose Witness God is and the Son 's simply owning the Father for his Witness we do not look upon as making up a Formal Oath To the second Neither can we own that our Saviour swore as often as he said Amen or Verily Verily which was but a Note of Affirmation and not of Swearing and more then Yea Yea Nay Nay Again He infers That the Elect Angel which Christ sent from Heaven to communicate the Knowledge of future things to St. John was inspired by the Devil when he swore by him that liveth forever Answ. No that he was not for he spoak as God's Representative or Ambassadour having a peculiar Commission Power and Dispensation therein which men may not imitate which extended through the Law and the Prophets in which the Swearing was and wherein the Angels were sent as God's Messengers and Representatives Ministring Spirits and Servants to the whole Seed of Abraham and Heirs of Salvation to whom God's Promise was confirmed by an Oath And this was a Vision represented in Figures His telling us That Christ prohibits the use of whatsoever is more to be intrinsecally Evil pag. 31. Answ. Though Oaths when lawful could not be accounted intrinsecally Evil yet there was an Evil that was an Occasion of Oaths before permitted among the Jews as that of Diffidence Jealousie Instability Liableness to run after other Gods and to do Injustice Distrust one of another c. and as this man confesseth common humane Infirmity Ambiguity pag. 1. and pag. 17. How plain is it it was Weakness Distrust and Fear in Abimelâ—ch which was the cause of his requiring Abraham to Swear that he would not deal falsly with him and a Covenant with Isaac that he would do them no Hurt Gen. 21. 23. and chap. 26. 28. Therefore Christ's words are plain Let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay for whatsoever is more then these that is in Affirming and Denying cometh of Evil or of the Evil One. And many Things Ceremonies Circumstances and Shadows under the Law that in themselves were not intrinsecally evil did wax old and grew out of use and vanished as the old Covenant it self did being accounted Weak Insufficient and of a Decaying Nature when a higher and more eminent Dispensation was brought in as that of the New Covenant which therefore to oppose with any of those inferiour things before lawful cometh now of the Evil One. And J. S. his Consequence and Doctrine appears both Gross Impious and Antichristian where he saith That if the Christian-Churches do not perform Homage to the God of Truth by Swearing as well as Blessing in his Name if their Tongues do not as well Swear as their Knees bow to him then the Christian-People are not the People of the Messiah and the Messiah is not yet come but stâ—ll to be expected Then the Blessed Jesus is not the Christ of whom the Prophet speaketh but as the Jews at his Arraignment and their Posterity Blasphemously stile him a Deceiver and a Counterfeit pag. 34. Answ. Oh Monstrous and Blasphemous Stuff First Thus insolently to attempt the engaging of the Christian Church to Swearing as well as Blessing yea to Cursing and daring God to his Face challenging the Divine Vengeance to do its worst as before he hath defined an Oath as well as Blessing in his Name bowing the Knee or performing Worship to him What people of a Christian-Spirit can believe this Doctrine Secondâ—y His rendering Swearing such an eminent Proof of Demonstration of the Messiah's Coming against the Jews Opinion of him and as reasonable as to tell us that the effectual Means to convince the Jews that Jesus is the Christ is to swear that he is so instead of the Apostle's plain Confession of him that Jesus is the Christ who preferred Confession instead of Swearing Again His scornful Talk of the Reign of the Quakers Christ and saying That the Quakers Gloss defrauds God of his due Homag robs the King of Saints of one of the Prime Jewels of his Crown presents the Ever-blessed Jesus in the Form of an Impostor and False Christ leads directly to the Gulf of Gross Infidelity and Denyal of Christ pag. 35. This is as Wicked and Blasphemous as his Consequence before and shews this man to be a most gross Idolater in thus unscripturally applauding of Swearing as the Prime Jewel of the King of Saints his Crown whereas the King of Saints and his Servant have plainly forbidden Swearing which is not to make the Gospel contradict the Holy Prophets as to their spiritual Intent and End which was to confess to God and to Christ as is falsly inferred And as falsly he represents the Prophets as saying Christ should teach his Disciples to Swear The Lord liveth but where the Prophets so say we are all to seek but not where they testifie against Swearing see Jer. 23. 10. Hosea 4. 15. chap. 2. 3. Zach. 5. â— Zeph. 1. 5. Eccles. 9. 2. But if Swearing were that Divine Homage or included the whole Worship of God that is to be among Christians why is Christ so silent in it and the Apostles as not expresly to command it but on the contrary expresly forbid it Or if Swearing were the most August Act of Divine Worship surely the Apostle James instead of saying Above all things my Brethren swear not should have said Above all things my Brethren swear ye There was a time when the Iews
suffered under Verus the Emperor Ann. 170. Eus. l. 4. c. 14 15. Eâ—e Chro. 567. To our saying that he was demanded to swear by the Emperor 's Good Fortune or Caesar 's Prosperity he absolutely denyed and said He was a Christian J. S. answers They interpret GOOD FORTUNE by Prosperity or as if this Martyr could not swear by the Emperor 's Good Fortune but by his Prosperity But for that he hath left us to seek for a Proof He adds Eusebius in the place quoted hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translation renders Jurare per Caesaris genium Swear by the Genius the good Daemon or good Fortune of Caesar which Form of Oath Polycarpus and the whole Army of Martyrs refused to take because that which the Gentiles stilâ—d Genij the Christians know to be Devils A Daughty Argument Polycarpus would not swear by an Heathenish Goddess or their Gods who were Devils therefore Christians must not Swear by the True God Reply This he calls a Daughty Argument is none of ours but his own Consequence unjustly deduced against us for ours is That Polycarpus refused to swear as the Heathen required because he was a Christian for Conrcience sake but J. S. thinks this not enough to prove that he refused to swear by the True God And as he hath not proved this so we do not think that he hath proved or can prove that Polycarpus either could swear or profered to swear by the true God for that was not required of him Therefore it was enough for him to refuse all the swearing that they required and not to tell them he could not swear by the True God for that was not the Matter he was called upon It is true that Polycarpus and those Christian-Martyrs refused to Swear by the Good Fortune of Caesar which is as we cited before 2. But why makes this man such a Difference between the Good Fortune of Caesar or Caesar's Prosperity He tells us p. 20. That Tertullian assureth us That the primitive Christians who suffered under the Pagan Persecutions who would not swear by the Genij of the Emperors have sworn by the Health of the Emperors Tertull. Apolog. c. 32. Whatever Tertullian saith of those Christians it doth not invalidate our particular Instance of Polycarpus who was a more eminent Martyr and clear in his Testimony then many others For what is more plain in Ecclesiastical History then that some Christian-Martyrs exceeded many of the more weak Christians both in their Courage Valour Patience Nobility and Clearness in bearing their Testimony And we did not say that all the former Christians Martyrs and Fathers since the Apostles dayes refused to swear as we do but many did and therefore said we have of many more given some Instances and Testimonies of such Primitive Christian-Martyrs and Fathers c. the Case p. 9. And also it s confessed that the Christians prayed for the Emperor's Health and wished Caesar's Prosperity which to them was instead of a great Oath Tertull. ibid. And though J. S. would insinuate That Polycarpus did not refuse to Swear upon the Account of Christ's Inhibition but the Impiety of the Form of the Oath saying That the true Criterion was this That the Gentiles would have had the Martyrs swear by the Idols but the Martyrs would not swear but by the God of Truth pag. 38. See the Man's Contradiction to himself and to what he saith Tertullian assures us viz. That without the least scruple of Conscience they have sworn by the Health of the Emperor Oh strange and yet would not swear but by the God of Truth Was there no Difference between the Health of a Wicked Persecuting Emperor and the God of Truth If Polycarpus had then profered according to J. S. his Account of those Martyrs viz. By the Eternal God I wish or pray for the Health of the Emperor or else if this would not have pleased his Persecutors when they urged him to swear by the Fortune of Caesar he had then answered Well I will swear by the Prosperity or Health of the Emperor probably he might have come off at a more easie rate then he did as many Temporizers have evaded Suffering in our dayes But to proceed with Polycarpus The Proconsul urged him divers times to swear by the Fortune of Caesar To whom Polycarpus answered If thou requirest this Vain-Glory that I protest the Fortune of Caesar as thou sayest seigning thou knowest me not who I am hear freely I am a Christian and if thou desirest to know the Doctrine of Christianity appoint the day and thou shalt hear it The Proconsul commanded the Beadle thrice in the midst of the Theatre Polycarpus confesseth himself a Christian The Multitude both of Jews and Gentiles inhabiting Smyrna cryed with one Voice That Polycarpus must be Burnt quick upon which the Multitude forth-with carried Logs and Wood and Sticks out of their Shops and Bootks but especially the Iews served promptly after their wonted manner for that purpose c. See the Account at large Euseb. l. 4. chap. 15. So it appears that both the out-ragious Gentiles who were for swearing by their Heathen Gods and those hypocritical Iews who were commanded to swear only by the True God both joyned together to murder this Eminent and Valiant Christian-Martyr who would have taught the Proconsul the Christian Doctrine which contains an express Prohibition of Swearing and whose Refusing to Swear by the Good Fortune of Caesar appears to be as he was a Christian from Christ's Prohibition with respect to him as well as upon the Account of the Impiety of the Form of the Oath it self though those furious Heathens and envious Iews were not fit to hear all his Reason on that Account Consider that Irenaeus reporteth Lib. 3. against Heres That Polycarpus was not only instructed by the Apostles and conversant with many who saw Christ but also of the Apostles ordained Bishop of Smyrna who lived long and was very old and at length finished this Life with most Glorious and most renowned Martyrdom when he had continually taught that which he learned of the Apostles And that he converted many of the Hereticks unto the Church of God preaching the one and only Truth received of the Apostles To which we add It is not then probable that he should teach the Iews Doctrine for swearing by the Lord either to God or men much less that he taught men to swear by the Health of Caesar But rather that he taught them as Christ and his Servant Iames did Not to swear at all by Heaven Earth or any other Oath seeing he continually taught that which he had learnt of the Apostles 2. It is not probable he should so plainly contradict the Apostle Iames his Doctrine My Brethren Swear not neither by Heaven nor by Earth nor by any other Oath as to say My Brethren Ye may either Swear by God that you wish Caesar's Prosperity or otherwise You may Swear by the Health of
And were not this most grosly to charge Paul with Transgression both of Law and Gospel Whereas in a Formal Oath as made amongst Men there is First Swearing by the Great God intended Secondly An Imprecation or Curse contained Thirdly Some Ceremony or Sign used besides the bare words of invocating or calling upon God or so help me God For that the same Invocation may as well be used without an Oath even in our praying for God's Help and Assistance The words So help me God or I call God to witness may be used without any Intent of Swearing as well as in an Oath in desiring his Help and simply as owning him for Witness to the Truth spoken in Christ which as such is not an Oath but when thus intended viz. So let me have or want the Help of God according as I speak the Truth or so let God be Witness or judge for or against me In this latter Sense is an Oath implying a Curse as Let God be Witness or Judge against me if I speak not the Truth but the bare words so God help me or God is my Witness or God knows I speak the Truth in Christ I Lye not cannot be a Swearing nor a Formal Oath without an Intention thereof or of an Imprecation or Execration implyed as of old some time an Oath of Cursing was used among the Jews and there are several Sorts of Oathes and several Wayes or Ceremonies expressing Formal Swearing as among the Heathen Laying the Hands upon the Altar and Swearing by the Gods Abraham's Servant putting his Hand under his Thigh the Angel Lifting up the Hand towards Heaven among the professed Christians a Laying the Hand upon a Bible and Kissing it or Swearing upon the four Evangelists according to the Pope's Imposition However we taking the last as the Magistrates general Sense of an Oath the Definition thereof is not so much the Matter in Controversie as the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Swearing among Christians His Instance that Jacob Swore by the Fear of his Father Isaac proves not that Laban's simply saying God is Witness makes up a formal Oath seeing he also said This Heap viz. of Stones is Witness between me and thee see Gen. 31. VVill any presume to say That he Swore by the Heap of Stones which was a Witness or a Memorial His accusing St. Paul notwithstanding Christ's prohibition that he did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath is both a gross Abuse of Paul and contradicts this man's confessing that he delivered the Truth with great Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power and that by Manifestation of the Truth he commended himself to every man's Conscience in the Sight of God 1 Cor. 2. 4 13. 2 Cor. 4. 2. Surely the Demonstration of the Spirit and Manifestation of the Truth was not Swearing to every man's Conscience for there was no need of Swearing where the Truth was so manifest among the Saints But to say that Paul did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath renders him both of very little Power Manifestation or Credit as a Minister of Christ among his Saints and Churches none of them excepted and them also to have as little Knowledge and Confidence of Paul and his Testimony Further He varies between saying God is Witness and mens calling him for a Record against their Soul where he brings Augustine for a Proof that Paul Swore in these words If so Augustine is not constant to himself nor with other Fathers particularly Basil. on Psal. 14. pag. 155. of his Works impr at Paris 1618. where he saith There are some Speeches which have the form of an Oath which are not Oathes but are Remedies for the Hearer as the Apostle to the Corinthians willing to shew his Love said Yea or by your Rejoycing c. for he was not disobedient to the Doctrine of the Gospel who was intrusted with the Gospel but he gave a small word in the Form of an Oath that their Rejoycing was most desirous to him he shewed by such a manner of Speech Thus far Basil though we know the Particle by is not alwayes a Note of Swearing In his second Argument he grants that Justice may be administred according to the Rule of the Gospel by the Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses Mat. 18. 16. but not of one without an Oath as taking in God to witness with him where there is but one Witness as in the Case instanced Exed 22. 10 11. However that Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses may decide a Controversie without an Oath and where there is but one faithful Witness God is Witness with him and for him therein and hath a Witness for him in men's Consciences And the Law-makers to whom we have applyed and not to such busie Opposers as this Agent against us have Power to make Provision for such a one as cannot for Conscience sake Swear that his Testimony may be taken instead of an Oath especially he being willing to undergo the same Penalty that is due to perjured Persons if he be found false in his Testimony as we have proposed however this Opposer takes little notice thereof And many in Authority have confessed our Proposition therein to be fair and sufficient and not at all tending to obstruct the Administration of Justice nor to patronize Injustice as is most falsly insinuated against us pag. 3. In his third Argument he asserts That the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament Prophets did commend Swearing by God as that which was to be the practice of his Elect Servants in the Christian-Church after his Rejection of the Jews and chusing the Gentiles Answ. We deny this Assumption that they did so commend Swearing as a Practice to continue in the Christian-Church among Jews and Gentiles For Christ and his Apostles Prohibition of Swearing at all either by Heaven or Earth or any other Oath was of an Universal Extent to both Jews and Gentiles that come to be of the Christian-Church both forbidding such Swearing as the Jews of old time used under the Law viz. by the Lord and the Apostate Jews and Gentiles Swearing by Idols or the Creatures or any Oath whatsoever He attempts to prove his Assumption from Isa. 56. 15. And ye shall leave your Name for a Curse to my Chosen that is saith he the people that I shall chuse from among the Gentiles shall use your Name in Execration when they have a mind to denounce a Curse c. And this he brings to prove Swearing a Practice to continue amongst God's Elect Servants in the Christian-Church And so he would perswade them not only to Swear contrary to Christ's Command but to use Execrations and to denounce a Curse when they have a mind as he supposes which is contrary to Christ and his Apostles Doctrine who taught the Elect to Bless those that Curse them and to Bless and Curse not for to Bless God and Curse man ought not to be In his fourth
that men must be very diligent to learn it and therein come into God's Way and Condition of Acceptance when Drunkards Lyars Dissemblers c. can easily and do frequently tread that Path and walk in that Way of Swearing both in and out of Courts J. S. saith Men may confess God in Prayer and Thanksgiving and Attendance upon the Word and Sacraments and yet not glorifie him sufficiently in order to God's accepting of them as true Worshippers in order to his reputing them living Stones fit to be laid in the Walls of his House the Church except to those who are mentioned and all other wayes of expressing their Homage they add this of Swearing by his Name except they learn diligently withal to acknowledge his Omnisciency Omnipotency c. by Swearing by his Fearful Name Where this most solemn Invocation is denyed him he esteems all other Acts of Invocation not serious enough to obliege him that tenders them to a sincere Confession pag. 13. Answ. Oh what lamentable Doctrine sad Work is this What is this but to tell the World that they cannot acceptably confess God nor sufficiently glorifie him either in Prayer Thanksgiving Attendance on the Word c. unless withal they add thereto a Swearing by his Fearful Name which is to teach or tell People When they go to Prayer to Church or else-where they must go there to Swear and also in their Attendance upon the Word while the Minister is preaching the people must swear and from thence the more they Swear the more they perform Divine Worship which therefore must needs be most effectually done where there is most frequent Swearing and as his words are DARING GOD TO HIS FACE And then a farther Abuse against God is That without Swearing by his Name which he reckons a daring him to his Face he esteems all other Acts of Invocation and Prayer not serious enough to express a sincere Confession Oh sad As if God did not regard a sincere Soul and upright Heart in his Devotion without Swearing or regarded not the Sighing and Breathing of the Needy when he is worshipped in the Spirit and in the Truth Again J. S. in Justification of Swearing by the Name of God saith God esteems this as the Highest and most August Act of Divine Worship that the Creature can possibly exhibit to him and as that which eminently contains all others and comprehends the whole Condition of the Gospel all the wayes of God's People confessing to him and that Swearing by God implies the whole Worship of God p. 13. Answ. This is such a Commendation of Swearing as we never read of before and such a Way of expressing the whole Worship of God and the whole Condition of the Gospel as neither God nor Christ ever taught him Nor yet did ever God say when he allowed Swearing that he allowed it as the highest and most august Act of Divine Worship But 't is to be considered yet whether this highest Act of Divine Worship that eminently contains all others to be administred by the Laity to all sorts of People without Distinction be not the highest Degree of Prophanation or otherwise Whether the Admistration thereof do make Clarks of Courts Ministers of the Gospel and of the Clergy as well as Parish Clarks yea or nay Having taken notice of his high Commendation of swearing by the Lord and the Advantage he hath promised thereupon as no less then God's accepting them that so swear as sincere Disciples and of his ingrafting them into his Evangelical Church Now let us take notice of his Threats against such as refuse to swear or to learn this Way of Confessing God by swearing It renders man obnoxious to the Dint of his Fearful Doom I will utterly pluck up and destroy that Nation And that God doth reject them And that he will not let them escape unpunished who will not learn to swear by his Name in Judgment Righteousness and Truth they shall perish c. p. 14. But they that abide in the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles who said Swear not at all they will not fear such Threats nor do they value this man's vain Flourish Boasting and Reviling nor his threatning Familists Anabaptists Catharists Quakers with Destruction if they will not learn diligently to swear contrary to what Christ learns us and because of Oaths the Land mourns and God's Hand and Controversie is against such Opposers of Christ's Doctrine and Urgers of Men to swear Does not Christ say I am the Way the Truth and the Life And must not we walk in him the New and Living Way and obey his Commands Sect. II. The End of Swearing and Oaths proved from the Texts commonly urged by us HE undertakes the Explanation of the Texts we commonly urge against Swearing which are Mat. 5. 34. But I say to you Swear not at all neither by Heaven for it is God's Throne neither by the Earth for it is his Footstool neither by Jerusalem c. But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay for whatsoever is more then these cometh of Evil. And Jam. 5. 12. But above all things my Brethren Swear not neither by Heaven neither by the Earth neither by any other Oath But let your Yea be Yea and your Nay Nay lest ye fall into Condemnation For our urging these he most grosly and falsly reflects upon us as dealing with those Texts as the Devil did with that which he quoted he should have said cited to Christ Mat. 4. 6. out of Psal. 91. 11. leaving out in all thy Wayes so these Men quoth he wrest these Portions of Scripture by making a Stop at Swear not at all leaving out the words following neither by Heaven c. Herein he abuseth us for first we leave not out those words as both ours and his own Citation proves see our Case p. 24. and his own Book p. 15 Secondly We make no other Stop but what the Greek Copies and Translations have after swear not at all where neither a Disjunctive follows which he joyns in the same Colon or Member of Sentence whereas in the Greek after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is a middle Distinction or severing of the Members of the Sentence as likewise in the Latine after omnino and in the English after at all more fully explained by James Swear not neither by Heaven Earth c. nor ANY other Oath which this Opposer by his Meaning endeavours to restrain only to swearing by those or any Creatures and also to irreverential and common Swearing p. 23. and lavish Oaths p. 24. voluntary rash Oathes p. 31. and to swearing rashly prophanely irreverentially in our ordinary Communication p. 32. and in your common Talk p. 36. as if only these were forbidden in the Texts before But still he pleads for Swearing by the Lord reverently besides the extent of the Prohibition before neither by any other Oath As if this man should tell us that Swearing by the Lord is no Oath Who
â—eared an Oath but through the Custom of Swearing they run into False Swearing And though they said The Lord liveth yet surely they swore falsly And because of Oaths the Land mourned and this Land mourneth And therefore even in the Prophets time Oaths Swearing were testified against as Though thou Israel play the Harlot yet let not Iudah sin Come not ye unto Giâ—gal neither go ye up to Bâ—thaven not swear The Lord liveth Hos. 4. 15. If it be said that this forbidding to Swear was because of their Wickedness and Prophanation we say by the same Reason we may now testifie against Swearing and for Conscience sake cannot uphold the Custom thereof nor submit to the Imposition thereof though this man is not ashamed for all this Abuse and Prophanation to urge and applaud it as the highest Act of Divine Worship and the Condition of God's receiving people which if it could be granted as it is not it only signifies thus much That only the Righteous and such as are converted to God must swear and that upon a very sacred Account to God himself Now judge serious Reader what the Tenor of this man's Work amounts to it is that Righteous Men must obliege themselves to God and adore him by Swearing What is this to swearing to men in litigious Courts And what is this to the Imposition of Oaths we desired the Parliament to remove Under the Law Oaths were used in two respects namely First To prevent and end Strife among men and these both in private and pubâ—ick 2dly â—o God himself or between man and man And man and God or Swearing to man and Vowing to God See Gen. 24. 9. 31. 53. 21. 23. 26. 28. 47. 31. Num. 30. 23. 1 Sam. 20. 3. chap. 14. 26. 1 King 8. 31. Neh. 10. 29. chap. 5. 12. Now this man's Work renders Swearing by God in general to be the highest Act of Divine Worship which only they that are converted to God can perform in his Sense and such none of the Wicked or Unconverted are capable to perform Judge whether this Distinction be made in the usual Practice of Swearing or Hath this man taken so much Pains with the Magistrates as to instruct and warn them not to impose Oaths upon the Unconverted nor especially upon those Excommunicated by the Bishops For it needs must be granted on all hands That they that are Wicked and Unchristian prophane the Name of the Lord if they swear by him and they must needs partake of their Sin who force them to it And as for the Converted and Righteous they are of Credit and there is no need to force them to Swear being under a greater Bond and Covenant with God then that of Oaths imposed by man Christ being to them their Covenant and Bond the End of Oaths under the Law and the Substance of God's Oath to the Heirs of Promise So we leave this man's Doctrine for all serious Readers to judge of concerning Oaths and Swearing As what an OATH is and concerning SWEARING these are his Affirmations 1. It is an Invocation of God's Name 2. Nothing else but a calling God to Witness to the Truth of what we say 3. A calling God for a Record against their Soul 4. An Execration or Denouncing a Curse 5. An Evidence of Conversion to the Lord. 6. Divine Service and Homage 7. An eminent Act of Saving Confession 8. One part of Divine Worship 9. A Sign Witness and Argument of Egypt's Conversion to the Lord of Hosts 10. The Language of Canaan that pure Language which God promised to restore to all Nations at the Coming of Christ. 11. That Pure and Vndefiled Religion which was at first revealed to man in Parad se. 12. Such a Condition as upon the fulfilling thereof God will number men among his Disciples 13. That Confession of God without which they do not sufficiently glorifie him either by Prayer Thanksgiving Attendance on the Word and Sacraments 14. A Daring God to his Face challenging the Divine Vengeance to do its worst in case he swear falsly 15. That God esteems this Swearing as the Highest most August Act of Divine Worship that the Creature can possibly exhibit to him 16. That which comprehends the whole Condition of the Gospel all the Wayes of God's People confessing to him 17. That Swearing by God implies the whole Worship of God 18. That Men ought to learn diligently to Swear by the Name of God to learn this as the Way of God's People 19. To Swear Religiously by his Name yet but in extream Necessity 20. That in the Forms of Oaths we are to Swear by Heaven Earth c. and call them to Witness lawfully because he that swears by Heaven swears by him whose Throne it is 21. We must subscribe to this that in such Forms of Swearing we name some Creature 22. That to Swear by Heaven by Jerusalem c. are Camel-Oaths 23. That strong Asseveration by Oath as a solemn Invocation of God's Name is the Celebration of the most august Act of Divine Worship and Adoration that can possibly be tendered to Divine Majesty 24. That Christian-Churches ought to perform Worship to God by Swearing as well as Blessing their Tongues must swear as well as their Knees bow 25. That Swearing is one of the Church's strongest Bull-Works one of those Demonstrations of the Spirit whereby the Champions of the Christian-Faith have irrefragably proved that Jesus is the Prophets Christ viz. Because since the calling of us Gentiles we have worshipped the True God in Swearing by his Name 26. That this Swearing is one of the Prime Jewels of the King of Saints his Crown 27. That the Prophets say That he Christ should teach his Disciples to learn to Swear The Lord liveth 28. That it is and alwayes was the will of God that Oaths should be reserved and sequesterd to the Service of God Thus having summ'd up this man's Fruitless Work for Swearing to make it conspicuous we proceed to his Accusations and Aspersions in his Third Section Sect. III. The Anthorities and Testimonies Rescued THat some of the most eminent primitive Christians Martyrs and Fathers were of the same Mind with us in their Conscientiously refusing to swear not only by the Heathen Gods but also more generally in Obedience to and Pursuance of the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostle James before urged against swearing at all and that we have alledged Examples pertinent for Tender Conscience not only against swearing in particular Cases but swearing in general and have neither bewrayed the Want of Ingenuity or Honesty therein as most falsly and malitiously our Antagonist hath asperst us But that he himself hath bewrayed his own Want of both Ingenuity and Honesty will appear though those Examples that we have alledged in this Case are but a very few to those we could alledge 1. About Polycarpus that eminent Martyr who was said to be the Disciple of St. Iohn the Evangelist and who
with several other Clauses some more particular and others general before he comes to the particular Instance in your Bargains ye need no Oath ye need no Execration or Cursing which Particular cannot make void his general Position and Reason both before and after to which we refer the Reader to view at large And likewise on his Paraphrase on Jam. 5. 12. he is as general and positive in asserting and arguing the Case against Swearing thus But especially my Brethren Swear not lest by little and little you accustom your selves to Forswear Among the Jews and Heathens for Fidelity's sake there is an Oath put between But among Christians which ought neither to distrust any man neither be in will to deceive it is a vain thing Whosoever is accustomed to swear is cousin german to the Peril of Forswearing Be ye afraid not only to swear by God in humane Affairs and in light Matters but also abstain from all kind of Swearing that you Swear neither by Heaven neither by Earth nor any other thing that the common people esteem holy and religious Whosoever dare be bold to Lye without Swearing he dare do the same also when he Sweareth if he list He that is a good man will believe a man without Swearing and that nought is will not trust a man if he Swear But among you that are furnished with Gospel-like Plaineness there is neither place of Distrusting nor to imagine Deceit but let your plain Communication be regarded for no less true and stedfast then any manner of Oath of the Jews or Pagans how holy soever it be c. To our Instance of Augustin on Psal. 88. de mendacio J. S. answers The very words here alledged evince that St. Augustine speaks of common Swearing and that he must be beside his Text if from the Old Testament he infer the Unlawfulness of all kinds of Swearing Reply Augustine's words are plain and general that we cited however he kept to the New Testament Text and to himself in other places we shall not at present examine if he did not it should have been retracted by him but recite Augustine's words more fairly then J. S. hath done It is well that God hath forbidden man to Swear lest by Custom of Swearing inasmuch as we are apt to mistake we commit Perjury There is none but God can safely swear because there 's no other but may be deceived I say unto you Swear not at all lest by Swearing ye come to a Facility of Swearing from a Facility to a Custom and from a Custom ye fall into Perjury Observe here Reader that both his Positions and Reasons are general and his Inference deduced from Christ and his Apostles own words against Swearing as Erasmus's are And we now must further cite Augustine in the Case see Augustin Serm. 3. Ad competentes Let them not only abstain from Perjury but also from an Oath Because he doth not Lye who saith A man Swearing much shall not depart from Iniquity and the Plague shall not depart from his House Eccles. 23. Augustin de serm dom in monte on the place in Mat. 5. thus The Righteousness of the Pharisees is not to Forswear This he confirmeth who forbiddeth to Swear which belongeth to the Righteousness of the Kingdom of Heaven For as he who doth not speak cannot speak a Lye so he cannot Forswear who doth not Swear so he goes on to excuse Paul for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and calling God to Witness c. saying That an Oath is not of good things or among good things but of evil things or to be reckoned among evil things And sayes Let a man refrain to use it but upon Necessity for the Infirmity of others which is Evil from which we pray that we should daily be delivered Augustin on Jam. 5. de verbis Apostol serm 30. Perhaps it is only for God to Swear who cannot Forswear And so he goes on to shew how hard it is for men to avoid Perjury Augustin de mendacio Retract lib. 1. c. ult He says is obscure and intricate To our Instance of the Albines in France and Mich. Sadler an eminent Martyr in Germany that they held it was unlawful to Swear and that one Article alledg'd against him was that he had said That men should not Swear to or before the Magistrate To these J. S. answers Your Authors say only that That Charge was alledged against them but not that it was proved Repl. Neither do we read that the Authors say That that Charge was denyed by them and then what need was there of proving it before it was denyed To our alledging Jerome Chrysostome Justine Martyr against Swearing our Adversary answers viz. When you name the Texts of these three Fathers we shall examine whether you faithfully report them We Reply Let him examine then the Report and Citation already given of Chrysostome And now of the other Two we hope more faithfully then he hath done of B. Usher and divers others See Jerome's Commentary on Mat. 5. on the place Swear not thus This was granted as to little ones by the Law that as they did offer Sacrifices to God lest they should offer them to Idols So they were suffered to swear by God not that they did this rightly but that it was better so to give it to God then to Devils But the Truth of the Gospel doth not receive an Oath seeing every faithful Speech or every Speech of a faithful Man or Believer is for or instead of an oath Justin-Martyr Apolog. for Christians pag. 63. printed at Paris 1615. summing up the Doctrines of Christ to the Heathen Emperor sayes He commanded us not to Swear at all but alwayes to speak Truth Swear not at all but let your Yea be Yea and Nay Nay for whatsoever is more comes of Evil. As for Walter Brute in his Testimony against Swearing is as plain positive and rational as any of them see Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol. 653. J. S. saith As to Walter Brute it is true he affirmed what is alledged but with Protestation That he would retract that Opinion if he were convict of the Error of it and accordingly did upon Conference with the Bishop of Hereford submit himself to the Determination of the Church as appear◠from your own Author Fox v. 1. p. 653. Reply This is just the manner of the Papists undervaluing the Martyrs Testimonies by endeavouring to fasten Retractations and Recantations upon them and because this man has thus darkly and unfairly represented Walter Brute as so doubtful in that Particular Opinion against Oaths and so ready to retract it be pleased Reader to hear Walter Brute's own words in the page before cited how far he submitted in saying I Walter Brute submit my self principally to the Evangely of Jesus Christ and to the Determination of holy Kirk and to the Sentence and Determination of the four Doctors viz. Augustine Ambrose Jerome and Gregory
of Swearing if the Name of God be but mention'd when no Swearing is intended nor any Imprecation or Ceremony of an Oath used But how manifestly doth this contradict his granting there may be a confessing the true God in Prayer in Thanksgiving c. without Swearing in his counting such Confession of God not sufficient or acceptable except they add Swearing by his Name so that however the Name of God may be solemnly confessed without Swearing And if on some weighty Occasion a Christian be moved to say God knows I Lye not God is my Witness How can this be a solemn Oath or Swearing when he neither intends it nor useth the Ceremony of an Oath nor any Imprecation or Curse For there is a plain Difference between a man 's earnestly appealing to God by way of Imprecation as the great Judge of Heaven and Earth Avenger of Injury and Falshood And tenderly committing or resigning his Cause unto God that he may discover the Truth being Witness thereof to others when it is or may be doubted or question'd As in a Case of moment wherein I know am sure the Truth is on my side while others may doubt or question me if I appeal commit or resign my Cause to God as knowing him to be my Witness therein it is singly with a Desire that he may enlighten their Understandings bring them to know the Truth of my Cause and for that End I both trust him and leave it with him and not at all with any Ceremony of an Oath nor any Imprecation Invocating of God for Witness or Judge against my Soul for what need of that when I know I am clear What need I be under any such Bond as the Fear of a Curse to bind me to speak the Truth whenas I am both ascertained of and engaged in the Truth and my Christian-Reputation and Soul's Peace is naturally concerned in it And on the other hand if any should wilfully or knowingly utter false Things without binding their Souls with an Oath or conditional Curse that will not hinder the Curse Judgment or Reward of false Swearers from coming upon them nor secure the Guilty THE END * See Gen. 24. 9. and 47. 29 31. But our Opposer hath brought us no Scripture for Kissing and Laying the Hand on a Book * Iuramentum aliquod mente juratur Num. 5. 24. 1 Sam. 14. 28. * Jurare aras Hor. Gen. 24. 2. 47. 29. Chrysost. Tom. 1. Hom. 17. on Mat. 5. Oecumen on Jam. 5. pag. 136. Hilary comment on Mat. Canon 4. on Mat. 5. 34. See the various Readings in Walton and the Crâ—ticks * All of them did not so Swear See Gen. 24. 9. 31. 53. 21. 23. 26. 28. 47. 31. Num. 30. 2 3. 1 Sam. 20. 3 17. 1 King 8. 31. 14. 26. Euseb. l. 4. c. 14. Eus. l. 4. c. 14. Euseb. l. 3. c. 32. Is there any Probability or Appearance of Likelihood that if the Denyal of Swearing had not been a received Doctrine from the Primitive Christians but the Martyrs for the first Three Hundred Years had sworn all along That the Famous Fathers in the succeeding Ages of the Greek Church which was the less degenerated as Chryâ—ostuâ—m Basil Hilary c. should bring it in as a reviv'd Doctrine against that which had been practised several Ages without mention of the Maintainers or Abettors of the contrâ—ry And Origen Iustin Martyr c. even in those Times of Persecution testified against Swearing which Testimony was continued among the VValdenses who as their Adversaries say continu'd from the primitive times And Vsserius de successione cap 10. §. 2. ex Botono Parmensi ci eth Humiliaâ—i in nullo errabant nisi quia condemnabant jurantes Of these he saye their Original were in Millan They were rejected of Pope Innocent 3. and Pope Lucius Chap. 8. §. 22. Anno 1052. Agennenses Manichaeâ—s Radul Ardens ita insectatur Tales sunt hodie haeretâ—â—i Manichai quia sâ—â—a haeresi patriam Agennensem maâ—ulaâ—erunt qui mentiuntur se vitem Apostolorum tenere Dicentes se non mentiri nec omnino jurare K. Rich. 2. Anno 1391. They were about Ann. 1200. Morl. Hist. pag. 217 218. Erasm. para on Jam. 5. 12. August on Psal. 88. August De mendacio An. 1176. Act. Mon. Iâ—V f. 623. Fol. 653. Fol. 625.