A treatise of oaths containing several weighty reasons why the people call'd Qvakers refuse to swear : and those confirmed by numerous testimonies out of Gentiles, Jews and Christians, both fathers, doctors and martyrs : presented to the King and great council of England, assembled in Parliament.

A treatise of oaths containing several weighty reasons why the people call'd Qvakers refuse to swear : and those confirmed by numerous testimonies out of Gentiles, Jews and Christians, both fathers, doctors and martyrs : presented to the King and great council of England, assembled in Parliament.

Table of contents

Title page

TO THE King and Great Council OF ENGLAND, Aſſembled in PARLIAMENT. The Caſe of the People call'd QUAKERS relating to OATHS further Repreſented; and Recommended to their Conſideration, in order to a Speedy and Effectual REDRESS.

A Catalogue of the Authors, Teſtimonies and Preſidents cited in Favour of this Treatiſe.

Some Inducements Offer'd TO Anſwer this REQƲEST, From a Conſideration of the Cauſe and End of an Oath, And thoſe REASONS AND TESTIMONIES, Given by us againſt the USE and IMPOSITION of it.

The GROUND or Reaſon of Swearing.

It will remain that we give our REASONS why we cannot take this Liberty, and Swear, as well as other Men have done, and yet do.

Memorable TESTIMONIES againſt Swearing, collected out of the Writings of Gentiles, Jews & Chriſtians; ſome of which were deliver'd to the World ſeveral Ages before Swear not at all was writ by Matthew, or ſpoaken by Chriſt; which makes Swearing, but eſpecially Puniſhing for not Swearing, among Chriſtians, ſo much the more Diſallowable.

I. The Sayings of the Gentiles or Heathens, in Diſlike of Oaths.

Diodorus Siculus, lib. 16.

Quint. Curt. in vit. Alex.

Plutarch Rom. Queſt. 28.

Heſiod Theogon. p. 88.

Seciad. in Stob. 28.

Stob. Serm. 3.

Theognis ver. 660.

Valer. Max. lib. 8. cap. 18. Laert. Hermip. & Orig. contr. Celſ.

H. Grot. on Mat. 5.34.

Hierocles Comment in Carm. Pythag. p. 28.

Stobaus Serm. 114.

Plut. in Lacon. Epoph.

Iſocr. ad Demon.

Plat. de Leg. 12.

Valer. Max. 10. Cic. pro Corn. Balb. Diog. Laert. in vit. Xenocr.

Menander.

Cherillus in Perſeid.

Stobaeus in Jur. c. 27.

Simocat. Epiſt. 33. F.

H. Gr•t. on Mat. 5.

Quint. l. 8.

Plutarch Rom. queſt. 44.

M. Aur. Ant. in Deſcript. bon. Vir.

Libanius.

Auſon. Epiſt. 2.

II. Teſtimonies from the Jews in Diſlike of all Swearing.

H. Grot. Com. on Mat. 5.34.

Raimund. p. 135.

Jofeph. de bello Judaico l. 2. c. 7.

Philo de decalogo, p. 583.

Philo Judeus on Com. 3d.

III. Teſtimonies from Chriſtians, both Fathers, Doctors and Martyrs, in Diſlike of All Swearing.

Polycarpus.

Juſtin Martyr, Apol. 2. pro Chriſtianis, ad Anton. Pium oper. p. 63.

Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. lib. 5. c. 1.

Euſeb. ibid. lib. 6. cap. 4.

Tert. Apol. pro Chriſtianis adverſ. gent. cap. 32.

Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7.

Origen in Matth. Tract. 25.

Socrates Scolaſt. lib. 4. cap. 22. of his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory.

Cyprian Lib. 3. Teſtim. ad Quirin.

Athanaſius on the Paſſion of Chriſt.

Hilary on Mat. 5.34.

Suarez de Juram. l. 1. c. 1, 2.

Orthodoxagrapha p. 11.

Baſilius Magnus on Pſalm 14.

Blaſtaris Syntagma Tit. E. c. 32.

Gregor. Nyſſenus on Cant. orat. 13.

Greg. Nazianz. in his Dialogue againſt Swearing, Jamb. 20.

Caeſarius, Num. 43.

Epiphan. adv. Hereſ. lib. 1. ord. 19. §. 6.

Ambroſ. de Virgin. lib. 3.

Chryſoſt. on Gen. hom. 15.

Jerom. Libr. Epiſtol. part 3. Tract. 2. Epiſt. 2. Of Obedience, Knowledge and Revenge.

Auguſtine de Sermone Domini, Serm. 28.

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

The Judgment of Shoolmen and others, in this Point.

98

§

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

Maldonat on Mat. 5. reckons up ſeveral againſt Swearing.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

Here follow Two Letters of the Grave of Naſſou and Prince of Orange, to the Magiſtrates of the City of Middelburgh, in Behalf of the Meniſts there.

CXXI. A Copy of the Firſt Letter.

CXXII. A Copy of the Second Letter. The Prince of Orange, Grave of Naſſau, Lord and Baron of Bueda, Dieſt, &c.

123

§

[Page]

[Page]

A TREATISE OF OATHS, Containing Several Weighty Reaſons why the People call'd QƲAKERS refuſe to SWEAR: And thoſe Confirmed by Numerous Teſtimonies out of Gentiles, Jews and CHRISTIANS, both Fathers, Doctors and Martyrs.

Preſented to the King and Great Council of England, Aſſembled in PARLIAMENT.

Mat. 5.34.

But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all.

Jam. 5.22.

Above all things, my Brethren, Swear not.

Jer. 32.10.

Becauſe of Oaths the Land Mourneth.

Theognis,

He ought to Swear neither this thing nor any thing.

Maimonides,

It is a great Good for a Man not to Swear at all.

Chryſoſtom,

It is not lawful to Swear, neither in a juſt nor unjuſt Cauſe.

Printed Anno 1675.

TO THE King and Great Council OF ENGLAND, Aſſembled in PARLIAMENT. The Caſe of the People call'd QUAKERS relating to OATHS further Repreſented; and Recommended to their Conſideration, in order to a Speedy and Effectual REDRESS.

[Page]

[Page]

THe common Benefit of the Free People of England being undoubtedly both the firſt and greateſt Reaſon for the Ancient, Juſt & Neceſſary Conſtitution of Parliaments; and being alſo inform'd that it is your Reſolution, to employ this Seſſion to the Redreſs of Publick Grievances: And ſince We cannot but repute our [Page]ſelves a Member of this Great Body you repreſent, by Birth and Engliſh Deſcent; and are not only involved in the Common Calamities of the Kingdom, but in Particular very cruelly Treated in our Perſons and Eſtates, becauſe we cannot for pure Conſcience take any Oath at all (though we have again and again tender'd our ſolemn Yea or Nay; and are moſt willing to ſuſtain the ſame Penalty in Caſe of Lying, that is uſually inflicted for Perjury) To the End we may not be interpreted to decline the Cuſtom out of meer Humour or Evaſion (though our frequent & heavy Sufferings by Fines and tedious Impriſonments, ſometimes to Death it ſelf, ſhould ſufficiently Vindicate us againſt any ſuch Incharitable Cenſure) WE do, with all due Respect, preſent you with our Reaſons for that Tenderneſs, and many Teſtimonies and Pr [...]ſidents in their [Page]Defence; and we entreat you, to expreſs that Care of a Member of your own Civil Body, which Nature and Chriſtianity excite to; We mean, That it would pleaſe you to conſider how deeply we have already ſuffered, in Perſon and Eſtate, the Inconveniencies we have daily to encounter, and thoſe Injurious not only to our ſelves, but others we commerce with, in that both they and we, becauſe of our Tenderneſs in this Matter, are conſtantly at the Mercy of ſuch as will Swear any thing to advantage themſelves, where they are ſure that a Contrary Evidence ſhall be by Law eſteem'd (however True) Invalid; under which Difficulty ſeveral of us at this Hour fruitleſly labour: That being ſenſible of our Calamity, you may pleaſe to endeavour, as for others, ſo for this Grievance, both a Speedy and Effectual Redreſs; otherwiſe, beſides [Page]ordinary Caſes, wherein many of us extraordinarily ſuffer, we may perhaps prove in this of Oaths the Greateſt, if not the Only Sufferers of the Kingdom; a Cruelty, we hope, you do not deſign againſt us.

God Almighty, we beſeech him with all Sincerity of Heart, incline you to Juſtice, Mercy and Truth, Amen.

London, the 25th of the 3d Moneth, 1675.

Subſcribed on the behalf of the reſt of our Friends by,

Alexander Parker,

George Whitehead,

Stephen Criſp,

William Mead,

Gerrard Roberts,

William Welſh,

Samuel Newton,

Thomas Heart,

John Oſgood,

James Claypool,

Thomas Rudyard,

Richard Richardſon,

& William Penn.

A Catalogue of the Authors, Teſtimonies and Preſidents cited in Favour of this Treatiſe.

[Page]

AESchylus, p. 31.

Albertus Magnus, p. 10, 115.

Albingenſes, p. 100, 121.

W.C. Albrid. p. 12.

Alexander de Ales, p. 115.

Alexander ab Alexandro, p. 18.

Alexid, p. 34.

Alphonſus de Avendano, p. 134.

Ambroſius, p. 10, 68, 135.

Ambroſius Ansbertus, p. 112.

Anabaptiſts, p. 100, 101.

Antiochus Paleſt. p. 109.

Anthelmus Cantuar▪ p. 120.

Tho. Aquinas, p. 115, 132.

Ariſtophanes, p. 102.

Ariſtoteles, p. 18.

Athanaſius, p. 50, 54.

Auguſtinus, p. 10, 95, 132, 133.

M. Aurelius Antoninus, p. 36.

Auſonius, p. 36.

B

Bagool, pag. 100.

Baptiſta Folengius, p. 115.

Baro [...]ius, p. 100, 121.

Baſil. Magnus, p. 10, 60, 100.

Baſilides, p. 41.

J. Bechet, p. 124.

[Page]Beda, p. 110, 141.

Counc. Berghamſted, p. 111.

Bernard, p. 100, 113, 115 137, 144.

Beza, p. 102, 141.

Bible folio, printed 1578. p. 144.

Bible 4to. printed 1559. 143.

Biblioth vet. patr. p. 116.

Blandina, p. 41, 45.

Blaſtaris, p. 62, 111.

Brugenſis, p. 10, 115.

Otho Brunfelfius, p. 114.

Beat Bruno, p. 46.

Wal. Brute, p. 123.

J. Burrel, p. 126.

C

Cajetan, p. 133, 135.

Caeſarius, p. 67.

Joac. Camerar▪ p. 143.

Gui. Carmelite, p. 100.

Caſſiodorus, p. 46, 108.

Caſtro, p. 100, 141.

Caten. 65. Graec. Patr. p. 108.

Cathari, p. 100.

Hug. Cardinal. p. 115.

Pet. Charron, p. 144

Geff. Chaucer, p. 122.

Cheril, p. 33.

Chromatius, 10, 104.

Chryſoſtom, p. 10, 11, 17, 50.70, 100, 112, 120, 141.

Cicero, p. 18, 33.

Clemens Alexandr. p. 15, 43, 47.

Clemens Roman. p. 58, 101, 142.

J. Clements, p. 124.

[Page]Clineas, p. 31, 62.

Qu. Curtius, p. 29.

Cyprian, p. 51.

Cyril, p. 107.

D

J. Damaſcen. pag. 107.

Diodorus Siculus, p. 28.

Diogenes Laert. p. 33.

Druthmarus, p. 114, 141.

E

Archiep. Ebur. Egbert, p. 111.

J. Edward, p. 124.

Epictetus, p. 34.

Epiphanius, p. 50, 67.

Eraſmus, p. 128.

Eſſeni, p. 37.

Euſebius, p. 40, 41, 99.

Evagrius Scholaſt. p. 104, 107.

F

Jacob Faber, p. 138.

Feſtus ad Lapidem, p. 18.

J. Fox Martyrol. pag. 121, 122, 123.124, 125, 128.

G

Bp. Gauden, p. 10, 14, 30, 154.

Gentian Hervet. p. 48.

Gennadius, p. 99

Gloſſ. Ordin. p. 107, 115.

Hug. Grotius, p. 31, 34, 37, 150.

H

J.M. Hadingtonian. p. 143.

Haimo, p. 112.

Hercules, p. 29.

Heſiod, p. 29.

[Page]R. Herbert, p. 124.

Hierocles, p. 31.

Hilary, p. 50, 57

Hilary Syracuſ. p. 100.

Huetius, p. 50.

Humiliati, p. 100.

J. Huſs, p. 126.

I

James on the Fathers, pag. 78.

Janſenius, p. 100, 114.

Jerom, p. 11, 92, 127, 136, 141, 143.

Jews Antiquities, p. 154.

Joſephus, p. 37, 136.

Juſtin Martyr, p. 41.

Irenaeus, p. 97.

Iſidorus Peluſiot. p. 104.

Iſodor. Hiſpalenſ. p. 109.

Iſocrates, p. 32.

K

Hiſt. ref. Kirk Scotland, p. 127.

L

Lactantius, p. 43.

Laertius Hermip. p. 30.

Libanius, p. 36.

Lindenbrogius, p. 18.

Lodovicus Pius, p. 148.

Lollards, pag. 127.

Lotharius, p. 148.

Ludulphus, p. 10, 115,

Luitprandus, p. 158.

N. Lyra, p. 106, 115.

Lyſander, p. 32.

M

Maimonides, pag. 37.

Menander, p. 33.

Maldonat, p. 101. 144.

Manichees, p. 100.

Marlorat, p. 144.

Fra. de Mendoca, p. 136.

Archiep. Mentz. p. 111.

S. Morland, p. 128.

N

Grave of Naſſou, p. 160, 161.

G. Nazianzen, pag. 42. 64,

Nicodemus's Goſpel, p. 59

Nilus, p. 107.

G. Nyſſen [...]s, p. 63.141.

O

Oecumenius, pag. 119.

Olympiodorus, p. 108.

Prince of Orange, p. 162.

Origen, p. 30, 49, 100, 101.

Orthodoxographa. p. 59.

P

Paſchatius Ratbertus, p. 113.

Patrini, pag. 100.

Pelagians, p. 100, 101

Perſians, p. 28.

Philo Judaeus, p. 36, 38, 138, 146.

Plato, p. 32.

Plinius, p. 18.

Plowman's Complaint, p. 121.

Plutarch, p. 29, 32, 35.

Polybius, p. 10, 18.

[Page]Polycarpus, p. 40, 45.

Ponticus, p. 41, 45.

Potamicna, p. 42.

Jer. of Prague, p. 126.

Prateolus, p. 100.

Le Pricur, p. 45.

Proteſtants of Piedmont, p. 128.

Publicani, p. 100.

J. Purrey, p. 124.

Pythagoras, p. 30, 31.

Q

Quintilian, p. 34

R

Rabanus, p. 107, 115.

Raimundus, pag. 37.

Reiner. p. 120.

Remigius, p. 115.

Rhadamanthus, p. 32.

Rigaltius, p. 46.

Ruffinus, p. 115.

Rupertus, p. 115.

S

Mich. Sadler, pag. 127.

Ger. Sagarel, p. 128.

Grae. Sages, p. 30.

Rob. Sanderſon, p. 20, 101, 104.

W. Sawtree, p. 126.

Scapula, p. 102.

Scultetus, p. 43, 46.

Scythians, p. 29.

Simocat. p. 34.

Smaragdus, p. 115

[Page]Sociad. p. 30.

Socrat. Schol. pag. 51, 60, 63, 71.

Solon, p. 30.

Lod. Soto Major, p. 144.

H. Spelman, p. 111.

Spotſwood, p. 127.

Stobaeus, p. 30, 34.

Swarez, p. 47, 58, 100, 140.

W. Swinderby, p. 122.

Jer. Taylor, pag. 155.

Tertullian, p. 42, 52, 100.

Gr. Thaumaturgus, p. 51.

Theodoret, p. 11. 106.

Theognis, p. 30.

Theophylact, p. 100, 113, 141.

W. Thorp, p. 124, 126.

Titelmannus, p. 10.

Treatiſe of Peace, p. 163.

Archiep. Triers, p. 111.

V

Valerius Max. p. 30, 33.

Villerius, p. 143.

Voſſius, p. 100.

J. Uſher, p. 100, 121, 128, 152.

W

Walden, p. 100.

Waldenſes, p. 100, 120.

Bp. Walton, p. 102.

W. White, p. 126.

J. Wickliff, p. 121.

Wickliffiſts, p. 101.

Widſord, p. 100

Em. Willy, p. 124.

X

Xenocrates, p. 33, 15.

Xenophon, p. 102.

Y

Eliz. Young, p. 125.

Z

Euthymius Zagabonus, p. 126.

Some Inducements Offer'd TO Anſwer this REQƲEST, From a Conſideration of the Cauſe and End of an Oath, And thoſe REASONS AND TESTIMONIES, Given by us againſt the USE and IMPOSITION of it.

[Page]

The GROUND or Reaſon of Swearing.

THis (we think) all will agree to have been the Degeneration of Man from primitive Integrity, at what time Yea and Nay were enough; for when men grew corrupt, they diſtruſted each other, and had recourſe to extraordinary Wayes to awe one another into Truth's-ſpeaking, as a Remedy againſt Falſeneſs; [Page] elſe, what need had there been of an Oath, or any Extraordinary Way of Evidence, when every Syllable was freighted with Truth and Integrity? It had been a meer taking of God's Holy Name in vain: Truth then flowed naturally, and wanted no ſuch Expedient to Extort its Evidence.

Thus, Lived before Chr. 200. years. H. Grotius on Mat. 5. Bp. Gauden of Oaths, p. 36. in Pſalm 14. [...]amb. 20. Polybius, though an Heathen, in his Story of the Romans, ſaith, Among the Ancients Oaths were ſeldom uſed in Judicatures themſelves; but when Perfidiouſneſs increaſed, Oaths increaſed, or then the Uſe of them firſt came in.

Baſilius Magnus ſaith, Oaths are an Effect of Sin.

Gregorius Nazianzonus in his Dialogue againſt Swearing, ſaith, An Oath is nothing elſe but a certain conſumation of Miſchiefs.

Commen [...]. on Hebr. c 6. Ambroſius ſaith, Swearing is only in Condeſcenſion to a Defect.

Hom. 9. on Acts 3. Chryſoſtom ſaith, An Oath came in when Evils increaſed, when men appeared unfaithful, when all things became Topſy Turvy. Again,

Hom. Pſal. 5. To ſwear is of the Devil, ſeeing Chriſt ſaith, What is more (then Yea, &c.) is of Evil.

Ad Pop. Antioc. Swearing took its Beginning for want of Truth or Punctuality.

on Mat. 5. Auguſtin ſaith, An Oath is not among good, but Evil Things, and uſed for the Infirmity of others which is Evil, from which we pray that we may be daily delivered.

on Mat. 5. Chromatius ſaith, What need we ſwear, ſeeing it is unlawful to Lye. Which ſhows that Lying was the Occaſion of Oaths, and by leaving off Lying, Oaths vanquiſh as unprofitable.

on Pſal. 14. on Mat. 5. Vit. Chr. p. 2. c. 12. on Mat. 5. Titelmannus ſaith, that an Oath belongs not to Virtue.

Albertus Magnus ſaith, Swearing is by Indulgence.

Ludulphus ſaith, An Oath was permitted of Infirmity.

Burgenſis cites Jerome ſaying, Our Saviour teacheth that an Oath ſprung from the Vices of Men.

p. 17. and 23. Bp. Gauden alſo tells us, That the Evils of mens [Page]Hearts and Manners, the Jealouſies and Diſtruſts, the Diſſimulations and Frauds of many Chriſtians, their Ʋncharitableneſs and Inſecurities are ſuch, as by their Diſeaſes do make ſolemn Oaths and judicial Swearing neceſſary, not ABSOLUTELY▪ MORALLY or PRECEPTIVELY; but as a Remedy or Expedient.

Jerom (with many of the Fathers, Chryſoſtom, Theodoret, on Mat. 5.3, 37. and others here omitted, becauſe largly cited hereafter) make this the Reaſon why God indulged the Jews in the Uſe of Swearing, That they were but in the State of Infancy, and that they might be kept from Swearing by falſe Gods; which the Scripture is plain in: For thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, Deutr. 6.13▪ 14, 15. and ſwear by HIS Name; Ye ſhall not go after other Gods, for God is a Jealous God, &c. Which ſhews, that he diſpenſed with Swearing by his Name, that he might take them off from Swearing by Falſe God's, becauſe they would thereby acknowledge them, and not the True God; ſo that Swearing is only better then Idolatry.

It will remain that we give our REASONS why we cannot take this Liberty, and Swear, as well as other Men have done, and yet do.

I. THe firſt is drawn from the Cauſe and Ground of Oaths, viz. Perfidiouſneſs, Diſtruſt and Falſhood: God's Injunctions to avoid thoſe hateful Crimes; The Ability he hath given man to anſwer his Commands; and Man's Duty to make that uſe of God's Gift: For if Swearing came in by Perfidiouſneſs, Diſtruſt, Diſſimulation and Falſhood, it is a moſt juſt Conſequence that it ought to go out with them; or that as the Riſe and Increaſing of thoſe Evils were the Riſe and Increaſing of Oaths; ſo the Decreaſing and Extirpation of thoſe Evils [Page] ſhould be the Decreaſing and Aboliſhing of Oaths; otherwiſe there would be no Truth in the Rule of Contraries, nor Reaſon in that ancient Maxim, Ceſſante ratione Legis ceſſat lex; That the Ceaſing of the Reaſon of the Law is the Ceſſation of the Law: Expedients are no longer uſeful then to obtain what they are deſigned to. Means are ſwallowed up of their Ends; Diſeaſed Men only want Remedies, and Lame Men Crutches; Honeſty needs neither Whip nor Spur, She is Security for her ſelf; and Men of Virtue will ſpeak Truth without Extortings; for Oaths are a ſort of Racks to the Mind, altogether uſeleſs where Integrity ſwayes.

This we preſume no man of Reaſon will deny, viz. That Swearing came in, and ought to go out with Perfidiouſneſs; and we hope it will be as eaſie to grant, at leaſt it will be very eaſie to prove, That God hath frequently, both by Prophets and Apoſtles, reproved men for ſuch Impieties, and ſtrictly required Truth and Righteouſneſs; as, Iſa. 59, 3, 4. Jer. 9.3, 5. Rom. 12.19. Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. Col. 3 8, 9, 10. Joſh. 24.14. 1 Sam. 12.24. 1 King. 2.4. Eph. 4.25. and by abundance of other Places in Holy Scripture. And that God ſhould enjoyn man any thing that he hath not impowered him to perform, is unworthy of any man acknowledging a God, ſo much as to conceive. It is true, that the unprofitable Servant in the Parable is repreſented to entertain ſo blaſphemous a Thought of his Maker, that he was ſo hard a Maſter, as to reap where he did not ſow; but the ſame Parable alſo acquaints us of the dreadful Conſequence of that Preſumption: The Prophet Micha preached another Doctrine,Mic. 6.8. The Lord hath ſhewed thee, O Man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do Juſtly, to love Mercy, and to walk Humbly with thy God? For this End hath the Grace of God appeared unto all Men, as ſpeaks the Apoſtle Paul to Titus, that they ſhould be taught to deny Ʋngodlineſs and Wor [...]dly Luſts, which entering & over-running the World, [Page] made way among other Expedients for that of Oaths; ſo that to live that Life which needs No Oath, man is both requir'd and impower'd: And as it is only his Fault and Condemnation, if he doth not; ſo certainly there can be no Obligation upon him who liveth that Life of Truth and Intetegrity to perpetuate that which roſe, and therefore ought to fall with Falſhood and Perfidiouſneſs: the Reaſon of the thing it ſelf excuſes him; for, he that fears Untruth, needs not ſwear, becauſe he will not lye, to prevent which men exact Swearing: And he that doth not fear telling Untruth, what is his Oath worth? He that makes no Conſcience of that Law that forbids Lying, will he make any Conſcience of Forſwearing? Veracity is the beſt Security; and Truth ſpeaking the Nobleſt Tye and Firmeſt Teſtimony that can be given. This we declare to you to be both our Judgment and Attainment; We ſpeak not Boaſtingly, but with Humility before the Great Lord of Heaven and Earth, to whoſe alone Power we do unanimouſly aſſcribe the Honour: He hath taught us to ſpeak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, as plainly and readily without an Oath as with an Oath, and to abhor Lying as much as Perjury; ſo that for us to ſwear, were to take his Holy Name in vain: Nor are we therein ſingular; for that not only Chriſtian Fathers, Mar- and Doctors, but alſo Jews and Heathens have had this Senſe of the Riſe and Uſe of Oaths, as will hereafter fully appear.

II. Our ſecond Reaſon, why we refuſe to comply with this Cuſtom, and our Superiours ought not to impoſe it, is this, It would Gratifie Diſtruſts, Humor Jealouſies, and Subject Truth, and thoſe that love it, to the ſame Checks, Curbs and Preventions that have been invented againſt Fraud; whereby the Honour of a Nobler Profeſſion, the Power of a veracious Example, and the juſt Difference that ought to be made betwixt Truſtineſs and Diffidence, Integrity and Perfidiouſneſs, are utterly loſt▪

[Page]How is is poſſible for men to recover that ancient Confidence that good men repoſed in one another, if ſome don't lead the Way, and hold forth to the World a Principle and Converſation beyond the Neceſſity of ſuch extraordinary Expedients? At preſent People lie all in a Heap; and the Greateſt Truth finds no more Favour then the greateſt Fraud; Fidelity muſt wear the Shackles worldly Prudence hath made againſt the Evil Conſequences of Couzennage, and ſubject her ſelf to the Cuſtoms brought up through Fraud, or go to Gaol. Be pleaſed to conſider, that Truſtineſs did not all at once quit the World, nor will it return univerſally in the Twinkle of an Eye; Things muſt be allowed their Time for Riſe, Progreſs and Perfection: And if ever you would ſee the World planted with Primitive Simplicity and Faithfulneſs, rather cheriſh then make men Sufferers for Refuſing to Swear, eſpecially if they offer the ſame Caution to the Law with him that will ſwear. We dare not Swear becauſe we dare not Lye, and that it may appear to the World, that we can ſpeak the Truth upon eaſier Terms then an Oath: For us then to be forc'd to ſwear, is to make us do a needleſs thing, or to ſuſpect our own Honeſty. The firſt we dare not, becauſe, as we have ſaid, it is to take God's Name in vain; and we have no Reaſon to diſtruſt our ſelves, being no wayes conſcious of fraudulent Purpoſes: Why then ſhould we ſwear? But much rather,Biſh. Gaud. of Oaths, p. 41. why ſhould we be impoſed upon? It is a Saying aſſcribed to Solon, That a good man ſhould have that Repute as not to need an Oath; that it is a Diminution to his Credit to be put to Swear. It becomes not an Evangelical Man to Swear, was a primitive Axiom; but more of that anon: In the mean while pleaſe to remember, you have a Practice among you, to exempt your Lords in ſeveral Caſes, placing the Value of an Oath in their bare Avouchment upon their Honour, ſuppoſing that men of thoſe Titles ſhould have ſo much Worth, as that their Word might be of equal Force with a Common Man's [Page] Oath: And if you will pleaſe to underſtand Honour in the Senſe of the moſt ancient and beſt of Philoſophers, to wit, VIRTƲE, your own Cuſtom gives Authority to our Reaſon, & makes you to ſay with us, That Virtue needs not Swear, much leſs have Oaths impoſed upon her, to tell Truth, the only Uſe of Oaths. It was Evangelically ſpoaken of Clemens Alexandrinus, That a Good Life is a firm Oath; which was memorably verified by the Judges of Athens, who, though Heathens, forbad the Tendering of Xenocrates an Oath, becauſe of their great Opinion of his Integrity, which was Three Hundred Years before Chriſt came in the Fleſh.

III. Our third Reaſon for Non conformity to your Cuſtom is, the Fear we have, leſt by Complying we ſhould be guilty of Rebellion againſt the Diſcoveries God hath made to our Souls of his ancient holy Way of Truth; & conſequently of concealing his Goodneſs to us, and depriving him of that Glory & the World of that Advantage this honeſt Teſtimony may bring to him & them. He has redeem'd us from Fraud; 'Tis he only that hath begotten this Conſcientiouſneſs in us; and we dare not put this Light under a Buſhel, neither can we deny his Work, or him to have the Honour of it. We intreat you, take this Tenderneſs of ours into Chriſtian Conſideration.

IV. Oaths have in great meaſure loſt of the Reaſon of their primitive Inſtitution, ſince they have not that Awful Influence which was and only can be a Pretence for uſing them; on the contrary, they are become the familiar parts of Diſcourſe, and help to make up a great ſhare of the A la mode Converſation: and thoſe who decline their Company, or reprove their Practice, are to go for a ſort of Nice and ſqu [...]amiſh Conſcienc'd Men. Theſe Swear without Fear or Wit, yet would be thought Witty in Swearing, Fearleſs they can't: Some are curious in their Impiety; Old Oaths are too dull for men of their Invention, who almoſt ſhift [Page] Oaths with their Faſhions: Nay, the moſt judicial Oaths are commonly adminiſtred and taken with ſo little Reverence and Devotion (to ſay nothing of the Perjuries, that through Ignorance or Deſign, are too frequently committed) that we can't but cry out, Oh the great Depravity that is in the World! How low is Man faln from the primitive Rule of Life? Well may the Prophet's Complaint be ours, for, If ever Land mourned becauſe of OATHS, with great Sadneſs we ſay it, this doth. And what more effectual Remedy can any People propoſe againſt the notorious Abuſe and evil Conſequence of Swearing, then Truth-ſpeaking? for thoſe that dare not Lye, need not Swear; and they that make no Conſcience of Lying, do not much fear an Oath, at leaſt their Conſciences are very crazy in taking it. This only Reaſon, were we deſtitute of all other Allegations, would be a ſtrong Diſſwaſive from Swearing; for we hold God's Honour, and our Profeſſion greatly concern'd to prove to ſo Falſe an Age, that there is a People who are ſo far from vain and falſe Swearing, that they dare not ſwear the Truth; but whoſe Yea and Nay ſhall weigh againſt other mens Oaths, and that with a free Offer of ſuſtaining double Puniſhment in caſe of Miſcarriage. Expedients may laſt a while, but TRƲTH only ſhall have the Honour of conquering Falſhood, and Virtue will and muſt be greater then an OATH.

V. The Omnipreſency of God rightly underſtood, ſhows the Uſeleſneſs of an Oath, and is with us a good Argument againſt Swearing; for what need is there of that Man's being aw'd into true Evidence by ſuch ſort of Atteſtations and Imprecations as make up the common Form of Oaths, who knows God to be always preſent to reſide and preſide in his Soul, according to that New and Everlaſting Covenant which he hath made, that his People ſhould be his Temple, that he would dwell IN them, and walk IN them. Did the Children of men know the Power, Glory and Majeſty of God, Acts 17.28. WHOM the Apoſtle preacht NIGH to the Athenians, [Page] and declared to the Epheſians to be Father of all, Epheſ. 4.6. above all, through all and IN THEM ALL, there would be no Oaths, and but few Words, and thoſe utter'd with Reverence and Truth.

VI. We do not find that Oaths anſwer this part of the End for which they are impoſed, viz. To convince thoſe for whoſe ſakes they are taken, of the Weight and Truth of a Man's Teſtimony by Force of God's Witneſs joyn'd therewith: For they don't behold God's concurring Witneſs by ſuch an Aſſiſtance or Avenge of that Party, as the Truth or Falſhood of his Teſtimony deſerveth; for the Judgments of God are ſecret, and rarely ſo publickly ſeen to Men, perhaps once in an Age, that he ſhould give any memorable Diſcovery of his good Will or Diſpleaſure in ſuch a Caſe; but whenever he doth it, it is not at Man's Appointment: And it is an evident Sign that God approveth not of that ſort of Invocation, becauſe he doth not anſwer them that invoke him, according to their Wiſh; as neither did he in the old Law or Cuſtom of Combating appear on his ſide that had the better Title or Cauſe,Numb. 5 21, 22. as he promiſed in the Law of Jealouſie, that their Thigh ſhould rot, and their Belly ſwell, &c.

VII. We look upon it to be no leſs then a preſumtuous Tempting of God, To ſummon him as a Witneſs, not only to our Terrene, but trivial Buſineſſes; ſuch as we ſhould doubtleſs account it an high Indignity alwaies to ſolicit an Earthly Prince to give his Attendence about. What! Make God, the Great God of Heaven and Earth our Caution in worldly Controverſies, as if we would bind him to obtain our own Ends? It is to make too bold with him, and to carry an undue Diſtance in our Minds towards him that made us; An Irreverence we can by no means away with, and upon which Chryſoſtom is moſt ſharp, as will be ſeen anon. Beſides it is vain and inſolent to think that a man when he pleaſeth, can make the Great God of Heaven a [Page] Witneſs or a Judge in any matter to appear by ſome ſignal Approbation or Judgment, to help or forſake him, as the Truth or Falſeneſs of his Oath requires, when he ſaith, So help me God.

VIII. Beſides what we have hitherto urged in Defence of our ſelves againſt the Subſtance of the Oath, we juſtly except againſt the Form of it (which further adds to its Unlawfulneſs, and conſequently to our Vindication) as by the Contents and kiſſing of the Book; Swearing by a Sign, being Heatheniſh or Jewiſh. Fest. ad Lapid. Polyb. l. 3. c. 25. Alex. ab Alex. l. 5. gen dier. 10. Cic. l. 5. Ep. 1. Ariſt. 3 Pol. 10. Plin. in pan. ad. Trajan. c. 64. For the Romans held a Stone, and ſaid, If I deceive wittingly then let Dieſpiter caſt me out of my Goods, as I this Stone: The Heroes ſwore by lifting up of the Scepter: Caeſar ſwore by his Head, his Houſe, that is, conſecrated them to the Wrath of God, if he wittingly deceived, &c. The manner of the Jews is from Gen. 14.22. that Abraham lift up his hand to God, [...], If, &c. putting the Hand under the Thigh, on the Head; paſſing betwixt Beaſts divided, as God did to Abraham, &c. ſee more in Lapid. Sophoc. in Antiq. v. 270. Scoliaſt. Baptiſt. Hanſen of paſſing through Fire, ſwearing by the right Hand, &c.

The Uſe of So help me God, we find from the Law of the Almans, Lindenbro. c. 3. ſect. 7. of King Clotharius: The laying on of three Fingers above the Book is to ſignifie the Trinity; the Thumb and the little Finger under the Book, are to ſignifie the Damnation of Body and Soul, if they forſwear, So help me God.

Further be pleaſed to conſider that the Engliſh Cuſtom has very much overgone Engliſh Law in this Buſineſs of Oaths; they were anciently but ſolemn Atteſtations, As the Lord liveth, &c. which are now improv'd to Imprecations, So help me God and the Contents of this Book: Though it was [...]o of old at Combat; but that concerns not our Caſe. For the Kiſſing of the Book, that is alſo Novil: Indeed after they riſe from ſolemn Atteſtations to Imprecations, the Law required a Sight and Touch of the Book; The Saxon Jurors were Sacratenentes; In the firſt Norman Times it was Sacris tactis; and in later Writs, Evangeliis tactis; [Page] nay, the Prieſt's Hand was on his Breaſt (in Matthew Paris) not upon the Book. However Jew and Gentile, Superſtition and Ceremony, have made up the preſent Form of Oaths, which the true Chriſtian-man neither wants, nor we conceive, ought to perform; much leſs impoſe where Tenderneſs by ſober Conſciences is pleaded, and equal Caution offer'd to the Law for the Integrity of Yea and Nay.

IX. But were we alſo deſtitute of this Plea, and the uſual Oaths of our Country the moſt inoffenſively form'd, and beſt penn'd that ever any were, we have both the Example and Precept of our Lord and Saviour, Jeſus Chriſt, to oppoſe to any ſuch Practice; for in all that Hiſtory delivered to us by the four Evangeliſts, we never read him to have uſed any further Aſſeveration then what in Engliſh amounts to Verely, Verely, or Truly, Truly, I ſay unto you: Thus by his Example exciting us the more readily to obey his expreſs Prohibition of Swearing, Mat. 5.33, 34, 35, 36, 37. which runs thus, Again, Ye have heard that it has been ſaid by them of old time, Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, but ſhalt perform unto the Lord thine Oathes; but I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; neither by Heaven, for it is God's Throne; nor by the Earth, for it is his Footſtool; neither by Jeruſalem, for it is the City of the great King; neither ſhalt thou ſwear by thy Head, becauſe thou ca [...]ſt not make one Hair white or black; but let your Word be YEA, YEA; NAY, NAY; for whatſoever is MORE then THESE cometh OF EVIL.

He here prohibits even the leſſer Oaths, as They thought them that reverenced Swearing by the Name of the Lord, which in old time he ſuffer'd by reaſon of the Falſeneſs of their Hearts, and great Pronneſs to Idols; even as Moſes permitted them to put away their Wives, which in the precedent Verſe alſo is diſallowed by Chriſt, though with the Exception of Fornication; but Swearing without any Exception: He doth not ſay, Swear not except before a [Page]Magiſtrate (though he ſays, Put not away thy Wife, except for the Cauſe of Fornication) but SWEAR NOT AT ALL: why? becauſe it is OF EVIL; which reaſon reaches the Oaths taken before Magiſtrates, as well as other Oaths; for Diſtruſt & Unfaithfulneſs are the Cauſe of one as well as the other: And there is equal Reaſon in that reſpect, that a Maſter ſhould ſwear in private to his Servant at his Entrance, that he will pay him his Wages, as that the Servant ſhould ſwear in publick to a Magiſtrate, that at his Departure his Maſter would not pay him his Wages; both which Oaths the Certainty of their Words, their Yea being Yea, and their Nay being Nay, makes vain and ſuperfluous.

Obj. We are not unſenſible of the common Objection that is made againſt this Allegation of our Maſter's Command, That he only prohibited Vain Oaths in Communication: But if the words of the Text and Context be conſider'd, every Oath will be proved Vain and Ʋnlawful; for Chriſt's Prohibition was not a meer Repetition of what was forbidden under the Law,Bp. R. Sanderſ. de Jur Oblig. p. 141. but what the Law allowed, as Bp. Sanderſon well obſerveth; It was not needful that Chriſt ſhould forbid what was forbidden in it ſelf, or was alwayes Ʋnlawful, which vain Swearing was and is by the third Commandment, Thou ſhalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; therefore Chriſt exceded the Prohibition of the Law: And the whole Chapter is a Demonſtration of a more excellent Righteouſneſs then that which either needed or uſed Oaths; for Chriſt brings Adultery from the Act to the Thought; in lieu of Revenge he commands Suffering, and extends Charity not only to Friends, but Enemies; ſo in the Place controverted, in the room of ſuch Oaths & Vows as ought to be perform'd unto the Lord, he introduces Yea and Nay, with a moſt abſolute SWEAR NOT AT ALL. This was the Advance he made in his excellent Sermon upon the Mount; he wound up things to an higher pitch of Sanctity then under the Law, or the childiſh State of the Jews could receive. Again, ſaith he, Ye have heard of old [Page]time, thou ſhalt not Forſwear thy ſelf, but ſhalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths; but I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; as plain, general and emphatical a Prohibition as can be found in Holy Scripture. However, thoſe Perſons that uſually advocate for the Continuance of Oaths under the Goſpel, tell us, it is not a general Prohibition, but is limited to Swearing by Creatures, either by Heaven, Earth, Jeruſalem or Head, &c. VVhich is wholy inconſiſtent with the Scope of the Place, as we ſhall make appear from theſe Four Conſiderations: 1ſt, The Prohibition reaches as well to ſerious as vain Oaths, ſuch as men made, if they ſwore at all, and ought to make to God only; for to him alone ſhould they perform them, and are they accountable for them: Theſe very allowed Oaths of Old Time, are the firſt prohibited by Jeſus Chriſt; It was ſaid of Old, thou ſhalt not Forſwear thy ſelf; but I ſay, SWEAR NOT AT ALL. 'Tis true, it is not particularized what Oaths they were to keep of old; but in general Terms, that they were not to Forſwear themſelves; and it is clear that God enjoyned them that would Swear, that they ſhould only Swear by his Name. Now what can be hence inferred more evidently, then that men ought not to ſwear thoſe Oaths under the Goſpel, which they might ſwear, and ought not to forſwear, but to perform unto the Lord in the Law. 2dly, Chriſt himſelf gives the Explanation of his own Words, Chap. 23.16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. where he teacheth us, That he that ſwears by the Temple, ſwears by it, and by him that dwells therein; and he that ſhall ſwear by Heaven, ſwears by the Throne of God, and by him that ſits thereon: So that he that ſwears by the Head, ſwears by him that made it: and he that ſwears by the Earth, ſwears by him that created it; which leaves no room for the Objection, for it is as if Chriſt ſhould have ſaid, I not only command you not to Forſwear, but perform, as it was ſaid to them of old time; but I charge you, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL: I mean, not only that you ſhould not ſwear by God, and thoſe Oaths that the Phariſees account binding; but alſo[Page]that you ſhould not ſo much as ſwear by thoſe leſſer Oaths, as they eſteem them, and which they are wont to ſwear by; for they are not leſs nor more allowable, in that they that ſwear by them, ſwear by him that is the Author and Maker of them: wherefore being of the ſame Nature with the other, I forbid you to ſwear by them as well as by thoſe Oaths that were of old time made, and ought not to be broak, but perform'd unto the Lord; for this is one of my great Commandments, which they muſt keep that will be my Diſciples, that is to ſay, SWEAR NOT AT ALL. Our 3d Inducement to believe this to have been the Intention of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, is the concurrent Teſtimony of the Apoſtle James, which is not only a Repetition of his Maſter's Doctrine, but an Addition and Illuſtration, we hope ſufficient to determin the preſent Queſtion with every unprejudic'd Reader; But above all things, my Brethren (ſaith he) ſwear not; which runs parallel with Swear not at all: The Negative is as general & forcible. He proceeds, neither by Heaven, neither by the Earth; Words of equal Import with the latter part of Chriſt's Prohibition: and as if he had foreſeen the Cavils of our Swearing Adverſaries, he adds, neither by any other Oath; which though as clear as the Sun, if yet for their laſt ſhift they ſhould tell us, that he only meant any other Oath of that kind, not that he prohibited Swearing by the Name of the Lord, it will not do their Buſineſs; for that Chriſt hath already aſſured us, Whoſoever ſwears by Heaven, ſwears by him that ſits thereon; and the very next words ſhow that it was not his Deſign only to prohibit vain, but plainly to exclude all Swearing, But let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, Nay, leſt ye fall into Condemnation; elſe why had he not ſaid, but you may ſwear by the Name of God before a Magiſtrate? Why muſt Neither by any other Oath be added after ſuch a plain Prohibition, as, My Brethren, Above all things Swear not? And why muſt Yea and Nay be ſubſtituted in the room of an Oath, if it was yet intended by the Apoſtle, that Chriſtians might riſe higher in their Evidence then a bare Affirming or Denying? that is, Though their Yea be never ſo truly Yea, and their Nay [Page] never ſo ſincerely Nay, or the very Truth of the Matter be ſpoaken, which is the Import of the Words; yet that they ought to ſwear. What is this but to contradict the natural Tendency of the Command of Chriſt and his Apoſtles? which is plainly this; If your Yea be Yea, it is enough; if your Nay be Nay, it is ſufficient; for Chriſtians ought not to ſwear, if they do, they fall into Condemnation, in that they break their Maſter's Command, who hath told them, that Whatſoever is more then Yea or Nay, cometh of Evil, which is the Ground of all Oaths; for they ought to mean ſo ſimply and honeſtly in what they ſay, as that they ſhould never need to ſwear in order to tell the Truth. Our 4th and laſt Conſideration, and that which to us ſeemeth of great Moment to clear up our Lord and Saviour's ſenſe, and reſcue the Paſſage from the Violence of Objectors, is this Clauſe, For whatſoever is MORE then Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay, cometh of Evil. This cannot be intended of more Words then Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay, provided they are not of an higher Strain, but of the ſame Degree of Speach importing a plain Aſſertion or Denyal of a thing; for it is not the Number, but Nature of the Words ſpoaken, that is here prohibited: Nor can it be only underſtood of Perjury; for every body knows that to be evil in it ſelf, which is more then that which cometh OF, or becauſe of Evil: Therefore▪ it muſt be underſtood as well of Swearing, as of Forſwearing, which is not Evil it ſelf, yet cometh of, or by Reaſon of Evil in the World: Nor is there any thing more then Yea and Nay beſides Perjury, which can be intended, but an Oath; and therefore that was intended. Chriſt doth not only prohibit Evil it ſelf, but that which is Evil by Superfluity to Evangelical Sincerity, and that Swearing is (be it of what ſort it will) wherever Yea is Yea, and Nay is Nay. In ſhort, If what is More then Yea and Nay, cometh of Evil; then becauſe any Swearing, as well as Forſwearing, is more then Yea and Nay; it follows, that any Swearing cometh of Evil, and therefore ought to be rejected of Chriſtians. Nor will our Engliſh Tranſlation of [...] ſhelter our Objectors: For, Communication doth not exclude thoſe [Page] many Caſes that require Evidences among men, no nor any the leaſt Action of Man's Life; on the contrary, they have a great Place in Human Communication, which is comprehenſive of the various Diſcourſes and Tranſactions of a Man's Life, as 2 Kings 9.11. 2 Sam. 3.17. Eph. 4.29. Col. 3.8. 1 Cor. 15.33. It is a word of the ſame Extent with Converſation, which takes in all that can happen between man and man in this World: Thus the Pſalmiſt, To him that ordereth his Converſation aright, Pſalm 50.23. So the Apoſtle, Let your Converſation be as becomes the Goſpel, Phil. 1.27. Beſides, [...] may be rendred Word, as in Joh. 1.1. and the Italian and French Tranſlations have it, Let your Word be Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay; as much as if Chriſt had ſaid, As I do not only condemn the Act for Adultery, which the Law did, but alſo the Conception of the Mind; and not only Murder, but Revenge likewiſe; ſo I do not only condemn Forſwearing, which is done to my hand in the Law of God, but prohibit Swearing at all; for I make that to be Unlawful, which the Law doth not call Unlawful: Therefore when your Evidence is called for, Swear not at all, but let your Word be Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay; that is, Do not ſpeak Untruth; for that is Evil: Don't Swear; for that comes of Evil. To conclude; People ſwear to the End they may ſpeak Truth; Chriſt would have men ſpeak Truth, to the End they might not ſwear: he would not have his Followers upon ſuch baſe Reſerves, but their Word to carry the Weight of an Oath in it; that as others ought not to be guilty of Perjury, Chriſtians ought not to be guilty of Lying: For ſuch is the Advance from Moſes to Chriſt, Jew to Chriſtian, that as the Chriſtian needs not the Jew's Curb, ſo his Lye is greater then the Jew's Perjury, becauſe his Yea or Nay ought to be of more Value then the other's Oath.

X. And laſtly; Beſides theſe expreſs Prohibitions, Swearing is forbidden by the very Nature of Chriſtianity, and unworthy of him that is the Author of it, who came [Page] not to implant ſo imperfect a Religion, as that which needed Oaths, or ſhould leave Fraud, the Ground of Swearing, unextirpated; but to promulgate that Goſpel which retrives ancient Sincerity, builds up Waſte Places, reſtores thoſe Breaches Oaths entred at, and leads into the Ancient Holy Paths of Integrity they never trod in: He is that Powerful Lord, which cureth the Diſeaſes of all them that come unto him, and Myſtical Serpent exalted, that relieves all that believingly look up to him: His Office is to make an End of Sin, that made way for Swearing, and introduce that Everlaſting Righteouſneſs which never needs it; The Religion he taught, is no leſs then Regeneration and Perfection; ſuch Veracity as hath not the leaſt Wavering; Sincerity throughout, that it might not only exceed the Righteouſneſs of the Swearing Jews, but that Law which permitted it till the Times of Reſtitution, which he brought to the Degenerated World, who ſaid, Swear not at all; for the Law that permitted Oaths; was given by Moſes; but Grace and Truth, that ends them, came by Jeſus Chriſt, who therefore prohibits them. And not only is this Goſpel of Chriſt, or the Holy Religion he taught, of ſo pure and excellent a Nature; but thoſe who will be his Diſciples, are oblieged to obey it, inſomuch that he himſelf hath ſaid,Joh. 14.15. If ye love me, keep my Commandments; and if ye keep my Commandments, ye ſhall abide in my Love. Again,& 15.10, [...]4. Ye are my Friends, if ye do whatſoever I command you: If any man will come after me, let him deny himſelf, and take up his Croſs, and follow me: For I ſay unto you, Mat. 16.24. that except your Righteouſneſs ſhall exceed the Righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſees, ye ſhall in no Caſe enter the Kingdom of Heaven: Be ye therefore Perfect, Mat 5.20.48. even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect. Theſe are the weighty Sayings of our Bleſſed Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt; and certainly, he who breaks not the leaſt Commandment (forbidden Verſ. 19.) who can Suffer rather then Revenge, love Enemies, and be perfect as his Heavenly Father is perfect, is above the Obligation of an Oath unto [Page]Truth-speaking. His Diſciples preacht not another Goſpel then their Maſter's, who prayed, that thoſe who believed might be ſanctified THROUGHOUT,1 Theſſ. 5.23. in Body, Soul and Spirit, Phil. 3.14. which is a perfect Removal of the Ground of Swearing; and they were exhorted to preſs after the Mark of the Price of this High and Holy Calling, until they ſhould all come unto a perfect Man, unto the Meaſure of the Stature of the Fulneſs of Chriſt Jeſus:Epheſ. 4.13. For even hereunto (ſaith Peter) were ye called, 1 Pet. 2.21, 23. becauſe Chriſt alſo ſuffered for us, leaving us an Example, that ye ſhould follow his Steps, who did no Sin, neither was Guile found in his Mouth:1 John 4.17. And ſaith John, As he is, ſo are we in this World. If No Guile be found in our Mouths, then No Oaths; for they came becauſe of Guile: And if we ought to reſemble him in this World, then muſt our Communication be Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay; that is, we muſt live the Life of Truth, and ſpeak the Words of Truth, which ought to be of greater Force then Oaths, that come of Evil. If the Righteouſneſs of the Law ought to be fulfilled in us, we ought not to ſwear, becauſe we ought to be ſo Righteous as not to Lye. This is Evangelical; for as he that conceives not a foul or revengeful Thought, need not to purge himſelf of Adultery and Murder: Neither is there any Reaſon, that man ſhould purge himſelf of Lying by Sweating, that doth not ſo much as countenance an untrue Thought. The Language of the ſame Apoſtle to the Epheſians further explains this Evangelical Evidence, But ye have not ſo learned Chriſt, if ſo be that ye have heard him, Epheſ. 4.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. & have been taught by him, as the Truth is in Jeſus; That ye put off concerning the former Converſation the Old Man, which is Corrupt, according to the Deceitful Luſts, & be renewed in the Spirit of your Mind, & that you put on the New Man, which after God is created in Righteouſneſs and true Holineſs: Wherefore PƲTTING AWAY LYING, SPEAK EVERY MAN TRƲTH with his Neighbour: Beyond which, there can be no Aſſurance given or deſired. And if Chriſtians ought never to Lye, it is moſt certain they need never to Swear; for Swearing [Page] is built upon Lying; Take away Lying, and there remains no more Ground for Swearing; Truth-ſpeaking comes in the room thereof: And this not only the Chriſtian-Doctrine teaches and requires; but Chriſt, the bleſſed Author of it, is ready to work in the Hearts of the Children of Men, would they but come and learn of him, who is Meek, Lowly, filled with Grace and Truth. And we muſt needs ſay, It is a ſhameful thing, and very Diſhonourable to the Chriſtian-Religion, that thoſe who pretend themſelves to be the Followers of Chriſt, for ſo true Chriſtians ought to be, ſhould ſo degenerate from his Example and Doctrine as to want and uſe ſcarcing Aſſeverations, diſpenced with in ſome of the weakeſt Times of Knowledge, and ſuch horrible Imprecations (never known to ancient Jews and Chriſtians) to aſcertain one another of their Faith and Truth: Religion muſt needs have ſuffered a great Ebb, and Chriſtianity a fearful Ecclips ſince thoſe brighter Ages of its Profeſſion: For Biſhop Gauden himſelf, in his Diſcourſe of Oaths, confeſſes, That the ancient Chriſtians were ſo ſtrict and exact, that there was no need of an Oath among them; yea, they ſo kept up the Sanctity and Credit of their Profeſſion among Ʋnbelievers, that it was Security enough in all Caſes to ſay, Chriſtianus ſum, I am a Chriſtian.

But to fortifie what we have hitherto urged in Defence of our Judgment and Practice; and to the End it may more fully appear, that our Tenderneſs in this great Caſe of Oaths comes not from any Sower, Sullen or Superſtitious Humor, or that we would trouble the World with any New fangled Opinion, we ſhall produce the concurrent Teſtimonies of ſeveral Famous and Good Men for above theſe Two Thouſand Years, among Gentiles, Jews and Chriſtians, enough to make an Occumenical Council; We ſhall cite them out of the beſt Editions we have been able to procure, and as truly and punctually as we can render them, digeſted in Order of Time.

Memorable TESTIMONIES againſt Swearing, collected out of the Writings of Gentiles, Jews & Chriſtians; ſome of which were deliver'd to the World ſeveral Ages before Swear not at all was writ by Matthew, or ſpoaken by Chriſt; which makes Swearing, but eſpecially Puniſhing for not Swearing, among Chriſtians, ſo much the more Diſallowable.

[Page]

The Whole publiſht not only in Favour of our Cauſe; but for the Inſtruction of the World, and to their Juſt Honour that ſaid & writ them, as durable Monuments of their Virtue.

I. The Sayings of the Gentiles or Heathens, in Diſlike of Oaths.

Our two firſt Teſtimonies ſhall be the Practice of two great People, the Perſians and Scythian:.

Diodorus Siculus, lib. 16.

Theſe Nations were many Hundred Years bef. Chriſt.I. ‘AMong the Perſians, ſaith Diodorus Siculus, Giving the Right Hand was the Token of Truth-ſpeaking: He that did it Deceitfully, was counted more Deteſtable then [Page] if he had Sworn.’ Which plainly implyes, that Swearing was Deteſted among them, as well as that they needed not to Swear, who ſo much uſed Truth-ſpeaking.

Quint. Curt. in vit. Alex.

II. The Scythians, as it is reported by Q. Curtius, in their Conference with Alexander, upon Occaſion of an expected Security, told him, ‘Think not that the Scythians confirm their Friendſhip by Oath; They Swear by keeping their Word.’ Which is not only a Proof of their Diſuſe of Common Oaths, but Swearing at all, even in Matters of greateſt Importance.

Plutarch Rom. Queſt. 28.

III. ‘So Religious was Hercules, ſaith Plutarch,Liv'd before Chriſt about 1280. years; being in the dayes of Gideon, Judg. 8. that he never ſwore but once.’ If it was Religiouſly done to ſwear but once in a Man's Life, it had been more Religiouſly done not to ſwear at all. How juſt and ſevere a Cenſure is this out of an Heathen's Mouth upon the Practice of Diſſolute Chriſtians?

Heſiod Theogon. p. 88.

IV. Heſiod in his Theogonia places an Oath amongſt the Brood of Contention; ‘An Oath, ſaith he,Bef. Chriſt 800. years; in the dayes of Hoſea, Joel and Amos. greatly hurts men.’ Again preſently, ‘An Oath goes with corrupt Judgments;’ or an Oath flyes away together with cotrupt Judgments, that is, when Juſtice appears among men, Oaths vaniſh, as his Scope in that place ſhews.

Seciad. in Stob. 28.

[Page]

Bef. Chriſt 620. years; in the dayes of Joſiah.V. It was one part of the Doctrine of the Seven Sages, ſo famous in Greece, ‘That men ought not to Swear.’

Stob. Serm. 3.

VI. Solon, the famous Law-giver of Athens, and one of thoſe Seven Sages, exhorted the People to ‘obſerve Honeſty more ſtrictly then an Oath.’ As if he had ſaid, Honeſty is to be preferred before Swearing, as another Saying of his imports, ‘A good Man ſhould have that Repute, as not to need an Oath; it is a Diminution to his Credit to be put to Swear, Bp. Gaud. of Oaths, p. 41.’

Theognis ver. 660.

Bef. Chriſt 593. years.VII. Theognis, the Greek Poet, writing of a Perſon Swearing, ſaith, ‘Neither ought he to ſwear this or any thing: This Thing or Swearing (it ſelf) ſhall not be.’ What is this leſs then, Swear not at all?

Valer. Max. lib. 8. cap. 18. Laert. Hermip. & Orig. contr. Celſ.

Bef. Chriſt 500. years; Theſe Three Perſons liv'd in the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.VIII. Pythagoras, a Grave and Virtuous Perſon, being earneſtly intreated of the Crotonian-Senators for his Advice in things relating to the Government, did in his [...]ra [...]ion, among other Excellent Sentences, with more then ordinary Emphaſis, lay this down in the Nature of a Maxim, ‘[Page] Let no man atteſt God by an Oath, though in Courts of Judicature; but uſe to ſpeak ſuch things, as that he may be credited without an Oath.’

H. Grot. on Mat. 5.34.

IX. Clineas, a Juſt Greek, Bef. Chriſt 560. years. and Follower of Pythagoras, out of Love to Truth, and Reſpect he bore his Maſter's Doctrine, that injoyned him to fear and ſhun an Oath, choſe to pay Three Talents, which amount to about Three Hundred Pound, rather then he would take any Oath: Whoſe Example Baſilius Magnus upbraided the Chriſtians of his Time with, that were then learning to Swear.

Hierocles Comment in Carm. Pythag. p. 28.

X. Hierocles teſtifies, ‘That Pythagoras, Bef. Chriſt 422. years; in the time of Ahaſuerus, Ezra 4. in enjoyning them to revere an Oath, not only prohibits Forſwearing, but requires them alſo to abſtain from Swearing.’

And Aeſhilus makes a ſincere Beckon to a Matter a firm Oath.

Stobaus Serm. 114.

XI. Socrates, that worthy Gentile, Bef. Chriſt 422. years; in the dayes of Haggai & Zachariah. and great Promoter of Virtue among the Athenians, among many Excellent Sentences delivered this, ‘That Good Men muſt let the World ſee, how that their Manners or Dealings are more firm then an Oath.’ Which both proves that he ſaw a more Excellent Righteouſneſs then Swearing Truth it ſelf, and believed it attainable; for he manifeſtly exhorts [Page] Good Men to that Integrity, which is a greater Caution then an Oath. He was put to Death for teſtifying againſt the Heathen Idols, acknowledging one only God.

Plut. in Lacon. Epoph.

Bef. Chriſt 400. years.XII. Lyſander, the great Spartan Captain; thought an Oath of ſo little Value in compariſon of Truth, that he beſtowed this contemptuous Saying upon Swearing, ‘Children are to be deceived with T [...]yes, and Men with Oaths.’ Implying, that Sincerity is a greater Security then an Oath.

Iſocr. ad Demon.

Bef. Chriſt 394. years. Theſe two lived in the days of Malachi.XIII. Iſocrates, a Greek Orator, in his Oration to Demonicum, adviſes, ‘Not to take an Oath for Money Matters.’ Alſo he teaches, ‘That Good Men ſhould ſhew themſelves more credible then an Oath.’

Plat. de Leg. 12.

Bef. Chriſt 266. years.XIV. Plato (call'd Divine) forbids Swearing in ſolemn Caſes, ‘That none ſwear himſelf; That none require an Oath of another.’ He ſpeaks there, how ‘Rhadamanthus brought in Swearing by the Gods; but that his Art therein was not agreeable to that Time (it ſeems he accounted it an Art of Policy)’ ‘But that in all Actions or Cauſes, Laws which are made with Underſtanding, ſhould take away Swearing from both Adverſaries. [Page] For (ſaith he) it is an Horrible Thing, that when many Judgments are done in a City, well near half the People are forſworn in them—Therefore let the Preſidents of Judgments not permit any to ſwear in Actions, not even for Perſwaſions ſake; but that he perſevere in that which is Juſt, with a fitting Speech, &c.’

Valer. Max. 10. Cic. pro Corn. Balb. Diog. Laert. in vit. Xenocr.

XV. Xenocrates was ſo renowned at Athens, Bef. Chriſt 337. Years. for his Virtuous Life and great Integrity, that being called to give his Evidence by Oath, all the Judges ſtood up and forbad the Tender, becauſe they would not have it thought, that Truth depended more upon an Oath, then the Word of an Honeſt Man.

Menander.

XVI. Menander, the Greek Poet, ſaith,Bef. Chriſt 336. Years. ‘Flee an Oath, though thou ſhouldſt ſwear juſtly.’

Cherillus in Perſeid.

XVII. Cherillus ſaith, ‘Oaths bring not Credit to the Man, but the Man muſt bring Credit to the Oaths. What ſerve they for then? to Deceive?’ It ſeems by this, that Credit is better then an Oath; for it is the Credit that is the Security, not the Oath.

Stobaeus in Jur. c. 27.

[Page]

XVIII. Alexides in Olynth, ſaith, ‘A Wiſe Man ought alwayes to give Credit, not to Swearers, but to the Things themſelves.’ Then Oaths are vain; for it is not the meer Oath, but the Likelihood of the Truth of the Evidence, from the Conſideration and Comparing of the Circumſtances, that turns the Scale.

Simocat. Epiſt. 33. F.

XIX. Simocatus, ‘Perfidiouſneſs appears ſecurer then Faithfulneſs; and an Oath impoſed is a fit Engin for Deceit. Strange! that faithful Yea and Nay is ſtopt, when Perfidiouſneſs with an Oath can paſs all Guards, Courts and Offices.’ He manifeſtly links Oaths and Perfidiouſneſs, and gives the Praiſe to Faithfulneſs.

H. Gr [...]t. on Mat. 5.

XX. Epictetus, a famous and grave Stoick, counſelled, ‘to Refuſe an Oath ALTOGETHER.’

Quint. l. 8.

XXI. Quintilian ſaith, that ‘in Time paſt it was a kind of Infamy for Grave and Approved Men to Swear, as if their Authority ſhould ſuffice for Credit: Therefore the Prieſts or Flamins were not compelled to it; for then to compel a Noble Man to Swear, were like putting him upon the Rack, &c.’ Which ſhows an Oath to be an Unnatural [Page] and Extorting Way of Evidence, and that they preferred V [...]rtue and Truth before an Oath.

Plutarch Rom. queſt. 44.

XXII. Plutarch in his 44th Rom. qu. upon the Cuſtom of the Romans, holding it Unlawful for the Flamen Dialis, or Chief Prieſt, to Swear, puts the Queſtion, ‘Why is it not Lawful for Jupiter's Prieſt to Swear? Is it becauſe an Oath miniſtred unto Freemen is as it were the Rack & Torture tendered unto them? For, certain it is, that the Soul, as well as the Body of the Prieſt ought to continue free, and not be forced by any Torture whatſoever; or for that it is not meet to Diſtruſt or Diſcredit him in ſmall Matters, who is believed in Great and Divine Things? or rather becauſe every Oath endeth with Deteſtation and Malediction of Perjury? And conſidering that all Maledictions be odious and abominable, therefore it is not thought good, that any other Prieſts whatſoever ſhould Curſe, or pronounce any Malediction: And in this reſpect was the Prieſteſs of Minerva in Athens highly commended, for that ſhe would never curſe Alcibiades, notwithſtanding the People commanded her ſo to do; For I am (quoth ſhe) ordained a Prieſteſs to pray for Men, and not to curſe them. Or laſt of all, was it, becauſe the Peril of Perjury would reach in common to the whole Common-wealth, if a Wicked, Godleſs and [Page] Forſworn Perſon ſhould have the Charge and Superintendence of the Prayers, Vows and Sacrifices made in the behalf of the City?’ Thus far Plutarch, whoſe Morals have the Praiſe among all the Writings of Philoſophers; who is alſo commended himſelf very highly for his Virtue and Wiſdom. See his Life.

M. Aur. Ant. in Deſcript. bon. Vir.

XXIII. M. Aurelius Antoninus, that Philoſophical Roman Emperor, in his Deſcription of a Good Man, ſayes, ‘That the Integrity of a truly good man is ſuch, that there is no need of an Oath for him.’ Certainly then he was far from impoſing Oaths upon his People, who both by his Exam-and Precept prefrr'd Integrity before an Oath.

Libanius.

XXIV. Libanius, a Greek Orator, though otherwiſe no Admirer of Chriſtians, reckons this amongſt the Praiſes of a Chriſtian Emperor; ‘He is (ſayes he) ſo far from being blackt with Perjury, that he is even afraid to ſwear the Truth.’ It ſeems then, they ſwore not in his time; and that Libanius, an Enemy to Chriſtians, preferr'd and admired Swear not at all.

Auſon. Epiſt. 2.

XXV. We ſhall conclude with Auſonius, whoſe Saying ſeems to be all contracted, or thoſe other Teſtimonies digeſted into [Page] one Axiom, that is, ‘To ſwear or ſpeak falſly, is one and the ſame thing.’

Theſe are the Reflections upon Oaths we receive from Heathens, who by the Light they had, both diſcerned the Scope of the Evangelical Doctrine, Swear not at all, preceptively laid down by Chriſt our Lord, Mat. 5.34. and preſt it earneſtly: And which is more to their Honour, but to the Chriſtians Shame, ſeveral of them lived it ſincerely.

II. Teſtimonies from the Jews in Diſlike of all Swearing.

H. Grot. Com. on Mat. 5.34.

XXVI. Maimonides, out of the moſt ancient of the Jewiſh Rabbies extracts this memorable Axiom, ‘IT IS BEST FOR A MAN NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL.’

Raimund. p. 135.

XXVII. Raimundus quotes him thus,If it be a great Good, not to Swear at all; what is it to Impoſe an Oath? ‘Maimonides in tract. de juramentis; IT IS A GREAT GOOD FOR A MAN NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL; The ancient and lawful Doctrine of the Synagogue.’

Jofeph. de bello Judaico l. 2. c. 7.

XXVIII. ‘The Eſſeni or Eſſaeans (ſaith Joſephus) keep their Promiſe, and account every Word they ſpeak of more force then if they had bound it with an Oath; and they ſhun Oaths worſe then Perjury; [Page]for they eſteem him condemned for a Lyar, who is not believed without calling God to witneſs.’

‘Theſe Eſſaeans were the moſt Religious of the Jewiſh Pepole, though the Phariſees made the greateſt Noiſe amongſt the Rabble.’

Philo de decalogo, p. 583.

XXIX. Philo, that excellent Jew, relates thus much concerning the ſame Eſſaeans, ‘That what ſoever they ſaid, was firmer then an Oath; And that to Swear was counted amongſt them a thing ſuperfluous.’

Philo Judeus on Com. 3d.

XXX. The ſame Philo himſelf thus taught in his Treatiſe on the Ten Commandments; Commandment 3d. Thou ſhalt not take the Name of God in vain: ‘Many Wayes (ſaith he)’ ‘do men ſin againſt this Commandment; ſo THAT IT IS BETTER NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL; but ſo well accuſtom thy ſelf to ſpeak Truth alwaies, that thy Bare Word ſhall have the Force and Virtue of an Oath. Page 583. It is become a Proverb, That to ſwear well and holily is a ſecond Voyage; for he that ſweareth is ſuſpected of Lying and Perjury. It is, ſaith he,Page 515. moſt profitable and agreeable to the reaſonable Nature, to abſtain ALTOGETHER from Swearing. Whatſoever a godly Man ſpeaks, let it go for an Oath.’

The Wiſdom and Moderation of this worthy Perſonage reflects juſt Blame upon thoſe that Pillage their Neighbours, becauſe they Conſcientiouſly Refuſe an Oath: But that men, who pretend to be the Diſciples of Jeſus Chriſt, ſhould commit theſe Cruelties, aggravates [Page] their Evils, and doubt leſs their Guilt. How can they ever hope to look their Lord with Comfort in the Face, who ſo ſeverely Treat their Fellow-Servants? Certainly Jews and Heathens will one Day riſe up in Judgment againſt ſuch Chriſtians, for their Unnatural Carriage towards their Brethren: This is not to Love Enemies, but injure Friends. Jews and Heathens are become Names of Reproach; yet to the Rebuke of Chriſtians, as they call themſelves, they not only diſcern'd the Riſe and Ground of Oaths, but the Evil of uſing them, even while they were tolerated; and both avoided them, and exhorted others to that Integrity which had no need of them.

Theſe Teſtimonies, though they are of Weight with us, and we hope they will have a due Impreſs upon the Minds of many of our Readers; yet becauſe nothing produced out of Jews and Gentiles, may advance our Cauſe with ſome, or render it ever the more acceptable, We ſhall next betake our ſelves to the more Chriſtian Ages of the World, for Approbation of our Judgment, who we are ſure will kindly entertain us, their Liberality being Extraordinary to our Cauſe; and from whom we ſhall never want Votes for SWEAR NOT AT ALL, while their Works are in the World: May our Superiors joyn theirs with them, and we have Reaſon to believe, that our Deliverance from the Yoak of Oaths will be the happy Iſſue of this neceſſary Addreſs.

III. Teſtimonies from Chriſtians, both Fathers, Doctors and Martyrs, in Diſlike of All Swearing.

[Page]

Polycarpus.

XXXI. The firſt Teſtimony recorded againſt Swearing, after the Apoſtles Times, was that of Polycarpus, who had lived with the Apoſtles, and was ſaid to have been Diſciple to John, not the leaſt of the Apoſtles; for at his Death, when the Governour bid him Swear, Defie Chriſt, &c. he ſaid, ‘Fourſcore and Six Years have I ſerved him, yet hath he never offended me in any thing.’ The Proconſul ſtill urged and ſaid, 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, feigning thou knoweſt not who I am, Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. lib. 4. cap. 15. hear freely, I AM A CHRISTIAN.’ This Good man began his Fourſcore and Six Years, which was about Twenty Years after James wrote Above all things, my Brethren, Swear Not; and ſeveral years before John the Apoſtle deceaſed; for he is called his Diſciple. See his Hiſtory and Commendation in Euſebius.

We know it is objected by ſome, That he refuſed to Swear only becauſe he could not ſwear by that Oath, which is a Gueſs, and no Confutation of what we alledge: But if that had been Polycarpus's Reaſon, why did he not rather ſay, The Law of God forbids Swearing by Idols? [Page] 'Tis certain, the firſt Chriſtians would not Swear, but thought Polycarpus's Anſwer Security enough to them that demanded their Oath: He refuſed all Oaths as a Chriſtian; therefore ſaying, he was a Chriſtian, was Reaſon ſufficient why he would not take that Oath.

Juſtin Martyr, Apol. 2. pro Chriſtianis, ad Anton. Pium oper. p. 63.

XXXII. It was ſome time before his Suffering that Juſtin Martyr, who is the firſt we find writing of it, publiſht an Apology for the Chriſtians in the year 150. as himſelf ſaith, and a ſecond after that, wherein he tells us, after the Doctrine of his Maſter, ‘That we ſhould NOT SWEAR AT ALL, but alwayes ſpeak the Truth. He, that is, Chriſt, hath thus commanded, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; but let your YEA be YEA, and your NAY, NAY; and what is more then theſe is of Evil.’ See his Praiſe and Martyrdom in Euſebius, ſoon after Polycarpus. Euſeb. lib. 4. cap. 16.

Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. lib. 5. c. 1.

XXXIII. ‘Under the ſame Emperor (ſays Euſebius)’ ‘ſuffered alſo Ponticus, of Fifteen Years of Age, and Blandina, a Virgin, with all kind of Bitter Torments; the Tormentors now and then urging them to Swear, which they conſtantly Refuſed.’

Euſeb. ibid. lib. 6. cap. 4.

XXXIV. And in the next Emperor's Reign, Baſilides, a Souldier of Authority amongſt [Page] the Hoaſt, being appointed to lead Potamiena to Execution, and by her convinced of the Truth in Chriſt, was after a while required to Swear; But he affirmed plainly, ‘It was not lawful for him to Swear; for (ſaid he) I am a Chriſtian. He did not lay the Unlawfulneſs upon that Oath, but upon Swearing at all.’ The Hiſtory only ſayes, His Companions would have him ſwear upon ſome occaſion or other, not mentioning by what; His Anſwer was, It is Unlawful for me to Swear; and why? becauſe, ſaith he, I am a Chriſtian: The Conſequence is plain, Chriſtians took no Oaths, therefore not their Oaths.

Tert. Apol. pro Chriſtianis adverſ. gent. cap. 32.

Tertullian was a Lawyer, Son to a Centurion of Pro [...]conſular Dignity. See his Life.XXXV. In the ſame Emperor's Reign lived Tertullian, a ſtrict and learned Man, who wrote a very notable Apology for the Chriſtians, wherein he anſwers the Objection of the Heathen, who accuſed them of not being Well-wiſhers to the Emperor, nor Caeſar's Friends, in that they refuſed to Sacrifice and Swear by the Genius, Fortune and Health of the Emperor (we begin with this becauſe it is urged by ſome againſt us) ſaith he, ‘We do Swear, as not by the Genius of the Caeſars, ſo by or for their Safety, which is more Auguſt then all Genius's or Petty Gods; for we reverently look up unto the Judgment of God in the Emperors, who hath ſet them over the Nations; and we know that to be in them which God wills, and what God wills, that we will to be ſafe (that God ſave it) Hoc ſalvum [Page] eſſe volumus, et pro magno id juramento habemus; i. And that we account for a great Oath, Rigaltius adds, ‘I will ſpeak plainly, that the Emperor is Lord, but after the common manner.’ or that we have inſtead of a great Oath; namely, our Well-wiſhing to Caeſar:’ the thing that was deſired, the Subſtance of the Oath; that Oath which the Pythagoreans ſaid was in all reaſonable Creatures, viz. a full Reſolution of Mind not to tranſgreſs the Law of God, which Tertullian ſaith here they had Reſpect to; That Oath which a Juſt Man ſweareth by his Deeds, as Clemens Alexandrinus ſpeaketh. In like manner Tertullian ſayes,Tertul. ad Scap. c. 1, 2. to Scapula, ‘We do Sacrifice for the Health of the Emperor, but that Way that God pleaſes, by pure Prayer;’ ſo ſayes he,Apol. c. 33. ‘Here we do ſwear by the Health of the Emperor, by willing his Health; and I do work for the Health of the Emperor; for I commend him to God’ I do offer Sacrifice by Prayer, c. 30. Otherwiſe, if we take the Words of this Doctor ſtrictly and properly, who in writing is difficult, as Scultetus notes; and obſcure, as Lactantius ſayes, we ſhall both croſs the Scope of the Place, and accuſe him and the Primitive Chriſtians and Martyrs of his time, not only of Swearing, but Sacrificing for the Health of the Emperor; neither of which do we ever read they did, nor as much as offered to do, had they, doubtleſs we ſhould have heard off me Releaſe or Favour ſhown them on that Condeſcenſion: Beſides we ſhall alſo make him to contradict himſelf (which Scultetus accuſes him not of, in this) For in his Book de Idololatria, Tertul. de Idololatria, cap. 11. he ſpeaks without any Obſcurity; ſaying, ‘I ſpeak not of Perjury, [Page]ſeeing it is not Lawful to Swear.’ And in Chap. 23. he proves, ‘That he which ſigns a Bill of Security containing and confirmed by an Oath, is guilty of Swearing, as if he had ſpoaken it, and tranſgreſſes Chriſt's Command, who hath preſcribed not to ſwear.’ He is before ſpeaking of the Idolatry, Chriſtians are obnoxious to in regard of Imployments, as School-Maſters by reaſon of Heatheniſh Books and Cuſtoms; and Merchants ‘or Traſſiquers of Covetouſneſs and Lying; not to ſpeak of Forſwearing, ſaith he, SEEING IT IS NOT LAWFUL SO MUCH AS TO SWEAR; which if any ſhould do, he ſhould ſurely be the Servant of Covetouſneſs, in undertaking an unlawful Practice for Gain, as he ſayes Lying was; but if they ſhould alſo Forſwear, ſo adding Swearing to Lying, that ſhould be a Servant of Servants to Covetouſneſs, that is Idolatry:’ Which if Chriſtians had committed indeed, it is unlikely that Tertullian would have made ſuch a ſleight and ſhort preterition with a Sentence of Eight Words. And further obſerve, that both Tertullian and the Martyrs make uſe of the moſt Univerſal Proof, to make their Teſtimony for God full and compleat. And though their Enemies Tryal of them were ſhort of proving them Chriſtians, and diſtinguiſhing them from Jews; yet in the Wiſdom of God, their Anſwer and Argument being General and Chriſtian, including the Special and Jewiſh, proves them not only true Jews, who were forbidden by God to Forſwear, [Page] or to Swear by Idols; but true Chriſtians, not to ſwear, becauſe it was unlawful; for Chriſt had forbidden it: And as his Argument in the Apology aforeſaid, was, It is Unlawful to Swear, much more to Forſwear; ſo here, Chriſt (ſaith he) hath preſcribed not to Swear, then ſure not to Swear and ſubſcribe Gentile Oaths. So Baſilides, Becauſe I am a Chriſtian, it is not lawful for me to ſwear; then not your Oath: this is the juſt Senſe and Conſequence of it. And ſaid Polycarp, I would have thee to know, that I am a Chriſtian, and the Doctrine thereof, if thou wilt appoint a Time, I ſhall teach thee (that is, not to ſwear) therefore it is in vain for thee to bid me ſwear, and defie Chriſt: So Blandina and Ponticus were urged to Swear (by what it is not ſaid, and it matters not) but in vain; for they were Chriſtians: We do not read that any uſed the Jewiſh Argument, the old Commandment, Thou ſhalt not Swear by Idols; but the Chriſtian Argument, the new Commandment, It is not lawful to Swear, Chriſt forbad it, I am a Chriſtian, &c.

And to this Purpoſe ſpeaks Le Prieur on this Place of Tertullian, in his Annotations (which the Publiſhers deſired becauſe of his Obſcurity; ſee their Preface) ‘Although, ſayes he, the Chriſtians did believe that It is confeſt by le Prieur, that the Chriſtians did deny all Swearing. All Swearing was Forbidden them, they before all Oaths were aware of Swearing by the Genius, or Fortune of the Prince.’ Here he confeſſes they were aware of All Swearing, much more that which was never lawful, [Page] to wit, Swearing by Idols. And thereupon he brings the Example of Polycarpus: But if all Oaths, then of Swearing by the Health of the Emperor; for that was an Oath. And this African Writer's intricate Senſe (as the Publiſher's Terms are) muſt needs be in this as in the other, all along myſtical: and as he ſayes a little before, I offer a Sacrifice (oratione) by Prayer; ſo going along he ſayes,Bruno and Caſſiodorus on Pſalm 14. & Pſalm. 61. We Swear, juramus, i. jure oramus; for ſo Bruno & Caſſiodorus derive the Word, Jurare dictum eſt, quaſi juſte orare, hoc eſt, juſte loqui.

This Caſſiodorus was a Roman Senator & Counſellor of Theodoricus, about the year 490.Again, Pſ. 61. ‘They ſwear in God, or to God, or by God, who Promiſe an inviolable Odience of Mind to him.’ Jurare to ſwear (ſaith he) ‘is, jure orare, to ſpeak Equity, that he will not decline to another Party, from what he hath promiſed.’ Again, ‘Here Swearing is firmly in mind to reſolve to fulfil the good Purpoſe.’ And that this muſt be Tertullian's Senſe, not only the Scope (for which ſee Scultetus on the Place) but his Explanation of it, by willing what God wills, and that to be to them for a great Oath; plainly declares to ſagacious Readers, and ſuch Tertullian's African Speech requires, as Rigaltius ſayes of his Writings, which have been There are about 2000. Corrections in Tertullian his Works. altered of them that could not comprehend them. But is it likely that a Man ſo ſevere, that condemned the very ſubſcribing of a Writing wherein an Oath was contained, and for this Reaſon, becauſe Chriſt forbad to Swear at all; and thought it [Page] needleſs to ſpeak of Perjury, becauſe it was not lawful to ſwear, ſhould yet allow it in himſelf and others to ſwear even by that which was not God? Beſides, Suarez reckons him amongſt thoſe Fathers who were more eſpecially againſt Swearing.Suarez. de Juram. c. 2.

Thus are the Conſpirers againſt this part of the Doctrine of Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, Primitive Fathers and Martyrs, forc'd out of that Sanctuary they betook themſelves to, in the Sentence of this intricate Doctor.

Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7.

XXXVI. Clemens Alexandrinus, his Contemporary, famous for Learning and Strict Living, to help him in his Myſtical Meaning of an Oath, ſayes, ‘He who is once a Believer, why ſhall he make himſelf an Infidelity keeps Company with Swearing: And for a Chriſtian to Swear, is with Clem. Alexandr. to turn Infidel again. Unbeliever, as that he hath alſo need to Swear, and doth not ſo lead his Life, that the ſame (to wit, his Life) be a firm and definite Oath, and ſhew the Faithfulneſs of Confeſſion in a conſtant and ſtable Speech — Far be it, that he who is approved and diſcerned in ſuch Piety, ſhould be propenſe to Lye or to Swear—He who liveth juſtly, tranſgreſſing in nothing of theſe things that ſhould be done, the ſame ſweareth truly and holily by his Deeds and Works (Mark how this agrees with Tertullian's improper Swearing)’ ‘the Teſtimony of the Tongue is ſuperfluous to him— It ſufficeth to add unto his Affirming or Denying this, viz. I SPEAK TRULY, that he beget [Page] Faith in them who perceive not the Stability of his Anſwer: For it behoveth him, as I judge (ſaith he) to have a Life worthy of Credit (or Faith) among thoſe that are without, that an Oath be not ſought from him— Neither doth he Swear, as being one, who hath determined to put for his Affirming YEA, for his Denying NAY.’

‘— Where is there any need of an Oath to him that ſo lives, as one that is attain'd to the height of Truth? He therefore that doth not Swear, is far from Forſwearing: He that tranſgreſſeth in nothing that is covenanted and agreed, HE MAY NEVER SWEAR.’

‘— Seeing he is fully perſwaded that God is every where, and is aſhamed not to ſpeak Truth, and profeſſeth that it is a thing unbeſeeming, and unworthy for him to ſpeak Falſe; he is content with this, that God and his own Conſcience know it, and therefore he doth not Lye, nor do any thing beſides or againſt what is covenanted and agreed: By that means he neither ſweareth, if he be asked; nor denyes, ſo as to ſpeak falſe, though he dye upon the Rack for it.’

Likewiſe in his 5th, 7th and 8th Books of Strom. alſo in his 3d Book of his Paedagogue with Gentianus Hervetus's Notes on it, ‘where he forbids to ſet Two Prices, and commands but one ſingle one, and to ſpeak Truth WITHOUT an Oath, &c.’

Origen in Matth. Tract. 25.

[Page]

XXXVII. Origen, his Succeſſor, a Man of equal Fame for Learning and Piety, ſucceeds him alſo in this Teſtimony concerning Swearing: ‘Becauſe, ſaith he, the Jews have a Cuſtom to ſwear by Heaven; to the fore-going (Prohibition) Chriſt added this alſo to reprove them, becauſe they more eaſily ſwore by Heaven then by God; becauſe he deals alike unreaſonably, who ſweareth by HEAVEN, as he that ſwears by the TEMPLE, or by the ALTAR, in that who ſweareth by Heaven, ſeemeth to ſwear by him that ſitteth in that Throne, and doth not eſcape Danger, as he thinks, becauſe he ſweareth not by God himſelf, but by the Throne of God: And theſe things he ſpeaks to the Jews, forbidding them to give heed to the Traditions of the Phariſees;He makes two Prohibitions, as we do: 1. Swear not by God; 2. by no Creatures. otherwiſe, before, HE MANIFESTLY FORBAD TO SWEAR AT ALL.’

‘The Chief Prieſt ſaid unto him,Ibid. Tract. 35. Mat. 26. I adjure thee by the Living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Chriſt, the Son of God.’

‘In the Law we find the Uſe of Adjuring;Num. 5.19. The Prieſt ſhall adjure the Woman with the Adjurations of this Curſe.’

‘Alſo Ahab ſaid unto Michaeas, I adjure thee that thou tell me the Truth in the Name of the Lord. 1 King. 22.16. The King adjured the Prophet, not by Command of the Law, but by his own Will. And now the Prieſt adjures Jeſus by the Living God. [Page] But I account that a Man that will live according to the Goſpel, MUST NOT ADJURE ANOTHER: For it is even like that which the Lord himſelf forbids in the Goſpel, BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, Orig. againſt all Swearing with us; and Compelling. SWEAR NOT AT ALL. For if it be not lawful to ſwear, as to the Goſpel-Command of Chriſt, it is alſo true, that it is not lawful to Adjure another, or compel him to Swear.’

Huetius upon him addeth, that Athanaſius, Chryſoſtom, Epiphanius, Hilary, and many more were of of the ſame Mind with him: and if ſo, we may without Offence add, upon that Reſpect our Superiors ſeem to carry to their Names, that it muſt needs be very remote from the Doctrine of the ancient Church, to fine, impriſon, and bitterly treat thoſe that for Conſcience of that Goſpel-Command do ſcruple an Oath in this Age.

Orig. on Jer. 4.1, 2.If thou wilt return, O Iſrael, ſaith the Lord, and put away thy Abominations, then ſhalt thou not remove. And thou ſhalt ſwear the Lord liveth in Truth, and Judgment, and Righteouſneſs.

Origen here tells us, ‘That this is a Reproof of them that did not Swear in Judgment, but without Judgment: Howbeit, we know (ſaith he) that the Lord ſaid unto his Diſciples, But I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL. Perhaps formerly it behoved them to Swear in Truth, Judgment and Righteouſneſs; that after any had given Proof of his Integrity, he might be thought worthy of being believed [Page] WITHOUT ANY OATH AT ALL. But once having YEA, he needs no Witneſs that it is YEA; and having NAY, he needs no other Evidence to prove that it is NAY.’

Thus doth Origen prefer and extol Evangelical Verity, wrapt up in ſolemn Yea or Nay, above the Swearing that was in Truth, Judgment and Righteouſneſs under the Diſpenſation of the Law.

Socrates Scolaſt. lib. 4. cap. 22. of his Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory.

XXXVIII. Gregory Thaumaturgus, ſo called from his working of Miracles, on Eccleſ. lib. 46. cap. 8. ſaith, ‘It is meet to give diligent heed to the Words of the King, and to flee an Oath by all means, eſpecially that which is taken in the Name of God.’ See his great Praiſe, his Works and Miracles.

Cyprian Lib. 3. Teſtim. ad Quirin.

XXXIX. Cyprian, a famous Father, and faithful Martyr (who lived about the middle of the Age, in the beginning of which Origen flouriſhed) in his third Book of Teſtimonies to Quirinus, ‘Who hath deſired me (ſaid Cyprian) to draw out of the holy Scriptures certain Heads, belonging to the Religious Diſcipline of our Sect (for ſo he calleth his own, the Chriſtian Religion)’ His 12th Head amongſt them is, ‘Not to Swear.’

Again, Writing of Paſtors and Teachers,Cypr. Epiſt ad Corn. n. 5 he biddeth them, ‘Remember what the Lord [Page] taught, and ſaid, Let your ſaying be Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay.’

Cyprian de Mortal.In another Place he ſaith, ‘It is unlawful for any man to compel another to take an Oath.’

Hitherto the Chriſtians, being under moſt cruel Sufferings, generally kept faithful to the Command of Chriſt in this Point; and ſo we find very little in their Writings about it, beſides a ſimple and bare aſſerting of it as the Doctrine of Chriſt, not to ſwear at all, as well as it was of Moſes, not to ſwear falſly or vainly; for more was no way needful, in that it was not Conteſted, but univerſally ſo Received. But after that Chriſtian-Emperors had engaged themſelves in Parties, then it ſeems many out of Flattery, and to engage them to their Sect, took Liberty to Swear, even by the Health of the Emperor, as is objected againſt us by ſome out of Euſebius; but ſuch he did not account Religious; neither that a Religious Part ſo to do, much leſs an Auguſt Act; and leaſt of all, a moſt Auguſt Act of Divine Worſhip, as ſome would have it; ſeeing Stobaeus obſerves from him, That whereas many exhorted that they be honeſt and faithful in an Oath,Euſeb. apud Stob. de Jure [...]ur. c. 27. he, for his part, eſteemed it not the Part of a Religious Man, not to avoid even Swearing it ſelf. And we believe it will be a hard Matter to find any in the Greek Church, eſpecially for the firſt Three Hundred Years, that would allow Swearing ſo large a Place in Sacred Things, yea, or in later Ages either, even in the Latin Church; nay, of thoſe who have allowed it in ſome Caſes, many or moſt of them have denyed it any Place at all in the Worſhip of God, as of it ſelf, accounting it an Abatement, rather then an Advancement to Chriſtianity, which no part of the true Worſhip of God can be. But ſome perhaps taking of Tertullian's word Auguſtior, or more Auguſt, (which he ſayes, the Safety of the Emperor is, in Compariſon of all the Genius's) to be the higheſt Act of God's [Page] Worſhip, they would have us ſwear by that, after the Example of thoſe mention'd in ſome Chriſtian-Emperors Times. Tertullian's Senſe we ſhall eaſily grant; for it is ſo, and we do ſo, in that we commend our Prince and Governours to God, to God only, with earneſt and ſincere Deſires for his and their Safety, above all ſuch Genius's, as Tertullian calls Daemonia. But we juſtly deny upon the ſcore of what we have made appear to the contrary, even from Tertullian himſelf, and others, That he, or the Chriſtians in his time, or for Two Hundred Years before, or a Hundred Years after, did ſwear, as ſome would have us, leaſt of all as a moſt Auguſt Act of the Worſhip of God, without which all others are unacceptable; or that thoſe who did ſwear afterwards were the moſt Religious; ſeeing Euſebius eſteems otherwiſe, and not he only, but alſo thoſe very Devout Men that we have already produced, beſides many which might and may be mentioned: For, all that we have yet met with, in thoſe Times, that ſpeak of it, ſpeak againſt it; and of the following Times Men of greateſt Renown and Authority, labour'd with all Earneſtneſs to expel Oaths the Society of Chriſtians, and cure them of that Diſtemper by inculcating the Doctrine of Integrity, that needs no Oath; proving by holy Scripture, that it was the plain and abſolute Law of Chriſt, that Chriſtians ought not to ſwear at all; and by other Arguments, that the Original of Oaths was neither from God, nor good Men: But they crept into Uſe through the Corruption of Times, and meer Careleſneſs of Governments; for, when they could not truſt one another, they called their God's to witneſs; but God ſeparating Abraham and his Poſterity from among them, to himſelf, the better to draw them from Idols, commanded them to ſwear by him only: as much as if he would have ſaid; If you will Swear, let it be by my Name rather then Idols, that ſo you may, though it be after a mean manner acknowledge a real Deity, the Only Lord of all: But how long was this Condeſcenſion to laſt? [Page] But till the Fulneſs of Time came; That, with other Permiſſions, removed all Swearing, Chriſt bringing men to the Truth in the Inward Parts, as in the Beginning, before Swearing was in being; for from the Beginning it was not ſo.

But to ſhew what other Fathers Reaſons & Teſtimonies againſt this Heatheniſh and Jewiſh Uſage, indeed Bondage, were, at the coming in of the Apoſtacy, we ſhall begin with Athanaſius, a Man that was in great Renown in the dayes of Conſtantine the Great, and whoſe Creed is the Faith and Teſt of Chriſtendom at this day.

Athanaſius on the Paſſion of Chriſt.

XL. ‘The Evangelical Sentence of the Lord is, Let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, Nay: Thus far we, who are in Chriſt, may confirm our Words with Aſſeverations, and with no further Progreſs let us flee to or approach Oaths, that we alledge not God for Witneſs for Corruptible Money's ſake, eſpecially ſince Moſes ſo ſets down the Law; Thou ſhalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in a vain thing. For if any one is plainly worthy to name God, he is alſo worthy of Belief; For, whoſoever is meet for greater things, he will be much more fit for leſs: On the contrary, if he be not worthy Belief, that he may be credited without an Oath, ſurely he is not one that is worthy to name God. If he be not faithful in Word, how will God by any means be the Witneſs of an Oath for him, who is deſtitute of Faith, to which God hath Reſpect?’ ‘Again, The Lord is nigh to all [Page]that call upon him in Truth; by which alone the Lord can be called upon: Wherefore why do they ſwear by God, who are not truſted even in ſmall Matters? Otherwiſe,Athanaſ his Abhorrence and Deriſion of Oaths. an Oath is a Teſtimony of Truth, and not a Judge of Buſineſſes, ſith men do ſwear, not that they may ſignifie Buſineſſes, but that they may confirm the Truth; and that they may ſhew, that thoſe things which they produce, are without Lying: If therefore he that ſwears hath Faith and Truth, WHAT USE IS THERE OF AN OATH? But if he hath no Faith nor Truth, why do we undertake ſuch an Impiety, that for poor ſilly Men, and thoſe mortal too, we call to Witneſs GOD, that is above men? For if it be a baſe Part to call to witneſs an Earthly King to the loweſt Judicatures, as one that is greater then both Actors and Judges; why do we cite him that is uncreated to created things, and make God to be deſpiſed of men? HOUT,Athanaſius his Reaſon and Diſlike of Oaths. that exceeds all Iniquity and Audaciouſneſs: What then is to be done? NO MORE but that our YEA be YEA, and our NAY be NAY; and in ſhort, THAT WE DO NOT LYE. But if we ſhall ſeem to ſpeak Truth, and imitate the true God, ſome perchance may thus contradict.’

‘If an Oath be forbidden to men,Object. and a man imitates God in not Swearing, how is it that God is related in the holy Scriptures to ſwear? for, he ſwore to Abraham, as Moſes witneſſeth: And it is written in the Pſalms, The Lord ſwore, [Page]and will not repent, &c. For theſe things ſeem to be repugnant to the former; and that thereby there is permitted to men a Liberty of Swearing.’

Anſw. ‘But this is not ſo, nor can any think ſo: For God ſweareth by none; for how can he, ſeeing he is Lord and Maker of all things? But if any thing, this muſt be ſaid, that His Word is an Oath, inducing the Hearers by a ſure Faithfulneſs, that what he promiſeth & ſpeaketh, ſhall certainly be effected; ſith God ſweareth not as Man, but his Word to us is as an Oath for V [...]rity. And ſpeaking to men, he is ſaid to ſwear: And this alſo the Saints do utter after the manner of men; that as they themſelves ſpeaking would have Credit to be given them, ſo likewiſe they themſelves ſhould give Credit to God: For, as a man's Word confirmeth an Oath, ſo alſo thoſe things that God ſpeaketh,Athanaſius will not have it, that God ever ſwoar, properly & ſtrictly taken; only in a way of ſpeaking, having the Truth & Immutability of the trueſt and greateſt Oath becauſe of the Firmneſs and Immutability of his Will are to be reputed Oaths. The ſame alſo that is there written confirmeth my Saying, For the Lord hath ſworn, and will not repent; as a thing not to be retracted by Repenting, but certainly to be effected, according to the Engagement of an Oath. This alſo God doth declare in Geneſis, ſaying, I have ſworn by myſelf: But that is not an Oath; for he ſwore not by another, which is proper for an Oath, but by himſelf, which contains not the Eſtimation of an Oath. But this is done that the Sureneſs of his Promiſe may appear; and how confidently that ought to be [Page] believed which is ſpoaken. That ſweet Pſalmiſt will witneſs for me in his Pſalm, calling God to mind, when he ſaith, Where are thy ancie [...]t Mercies, O Lord, which thou ſwareſt to David thy Servant, in (or by) thy Truth? For God ſweareth not by his Truth; But becauſe he, who is True, ſpeaketh in his Word, That to men is for an Oath unto Belief. So God doth not ſwear after the manner of men: neither muſt we be induced thereby to take Oaths; but let us ſo Say, and ſo Do, and ſo approve our ſelves in ſaying and doing, that we need not an Oath for the Hearer; and that our Words of themſelves may have the Teſtimony of Truth: For, by that Way we ſhall plainly imitate God.’

Hilary on Mat. 5.34.

XLI. Hilary, a Father, very Famous in the dayes of Conſtantius, Son to Conſtantine (but an Arrian, and which was worſe, a Perſecutor, ſo that this Hilary was baniſhed) in his Commentary on thoſe words in Matthew, Ye have heard that it was ſaid to them of old, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear thy ſelf, &c. thus expreſſeth himſelf, ‘The Law ſet a Penalty for Perjury, that the Conſcience of Religion or Fear of an Oath might reſtrain the Deceitfulneſs of Minds; for the rude and inſolent People made frequent mention of their God by a familiar Courſe of Swearing: But Faith doth remove the Cuſtom of an Oath, [Page] making the Buſineſſes of our Life to be [...]etermined in Truth, and laying aſide the affecting to deceive; preſcribing the Simplicity of Speaking and Hearing, that what WAS, WAS: what WAS NOT, WAS NOT; that the Buſineſs of Deceiving might be apparent between IT IS, and IT IS NOT; and what is more, is all of Evil: For what is, it is its Property alwayes, that ſo it is; and what is not, it is its Nature, that it is not: Therefore to them that live in the Simplicity of Faith, there is no NEED of the Religion (or Superſtition) of an OATH; with whom alwayes what is, IS; what is not, IS NOT: And by theſe both all their Words and Deeds are in Truth. Neither by Heaven] God not only ſuffers us not to make Oaths to God, becauſe all the Truth of God is to be held in the ſimplicity of our Word and Deed; but alſo condemneth the Superſtition of old Diſobedience, &c. This, if that Clemens, ſhould have been firſt, becauſe he liv'd in Paul's time; but we were not willing to begin our Teſtimonies with a Suſpicion: howbeit it is an Ancient Writing.’

Suarez de Juram. l. 1. c. 1, 2.

XLII. The next Teſtimony we ſhall pitch upon in Confirmation of our Reaſons, and the Senſe we take our Maſter's Precept in, Swear not at all, is afforded us out of the Apoſtolical Inſtitutions aſſcribed to Clemens Romanus, reported by Suarez, in his Book de Juramentis, ‘Our Maſter (ſaith Clemens) hath commanded, that we SHOULD NOT SWEAR, no, not by the True God; but that our Word ſhould be more credible then an Oath it ſelf.’ Which is a plain Indication of the Apoſtolical [Page] Doctrine to have been the abſolute Prohibition of Oaths, in that Senſe wherein they were only reputed Lawful: for if men ought not to Swear, no, not by the true God; then conſequently by no other Oath, as his following words not only imply, but expreſs, viz. ‘That the Word of a Chriſtian ſhould be more credible then an Oath it ſelf.’ Again, ‘He that in the Law eſtabliſhed to Swear well, l. 6. c. 25. and forbad Falſe Swearing; commanded alſo, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL.’

Orthodoxagrapha p. 11.

LXIII. There is a Tract, call'd, The Goſpel of Nicodemus: We know it is reputed ſpurious, but that makes nothing againſt us; that diſputes the Author, and not the M [...]tter; for though Nicodemus never wrote ſuch a Book, certain it is that ſuch a Book was written, which is in Favour of Chriſtianity, as then received: In the Place cited Pilate is made to ſay, ‘I adjure you by the Health of Caeſar, that theſe things that you ſay, &c.’ They anſwer'd, ‘We have a Law, not to SWEAR, becauſe it is a Sin.’ Whoever wrote it, this Benefit cometh to our Argument, that the Chriſtians, at that time, thought an Oath a Sin; for it is not to be doubted, but he that gave that Anſwer▪ knew it to be the Doctrine and Practice of Chriſtians; for he was therein to repreſent them.

Baſilius Magnus on Pſalm 14.

[Page]

XLV. Baſil, called the Great, another Champion of the like Fame, and in the ſame time of Valens, Socrat. Eccl. Hiſt. lib. 4. cap. 21. the Perſecuting Arrian Emperor, by whom he ſuffered Impriſonment and Cruel Threatnings (ſee their Praiſes in Socrates Scolaſticus) on the 14th Pſalm, with us the 15th, He that ſweareth, and deceiveth not his Neighbour; ſo Baſil hath it, and upon it theſe words:

‘Here he ſeemeth to allow an Oath to a Perfect Man, which in the Goſpel is ALTOGETHER forbidden; But I ſay unto you, not to Swear at all.’

‘What ſhall we ſay then?’

‘That every where the Lord, as well in the old as in the new Law, hath the ſame Conſideration of Commanding; for deſiring to anticipate the Effects of Sins, and prevent them by Diligence, and to extinguiſh Iniquity at the firſt beginnings, As the old Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not commit Adultery; the Lord ſaith, Thou ſhalt not Luſt: The old Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not Kill; the Lord ordaining Perfection, ſaith, Thou ſhalt not be Angry: So alſo in this place, the Prophet indeed ſeemeth to aſſent to an Oath; but the Lord, to take away all Occaſion of Perjury, and willing to prevent the Dangers of Swearers, takes away Swearing ALTOGETHER: For he names an Oath in many places the immutable and firm Conſtancy of any [Page] thing or purpoſe. I have ſworn, and have ſtedfaſtly purpoſed to keep the Judgments of thy Righteouſneſs: Alſo, The Lord hath ſworn, and will not repent. Not that David brought the Lord for a Witneſs of his Sayings, and to get Belief to his Doubting, but that he confirmed the Grace of his Profeſſion by an Immutable and firm Decree: ſo alſo he could have ſaid here, that is, He that ſweareth, and deceiveth not his Neighbour, that it may agree with the Saying of our Saviour, Let your Word be YEA, YEA; NAY, NAY. To things that are, thou mayſt affirm and aſſent; but of things that are not, although all men urge thee, yet thou mayſt never be drawn by any means to affirm againſt the Nature of the Truth: Is the thing not done, let there be a Denyal; is it done, let it be affirmed by Word. And he that ſhall not aſſent to him ſo affirming,Pray mark where Baſil layeth the Blame, if a Word go not for an Oath. let him look to it, and feel the Harm of his Unbelief. It is a baſe and a very fooliſh thing to accuſe one's ſelf, as one unworthy of being believed, and to betake and refer one's ſelf to the Security of an Oath. Now, there are ſome Speeches which have the Forms of Oaths, and yet are no Oaths at all, but rather Remedies to perſwade;Joſeph ſwore not. as Joſeph to make the Aegyptian familiar with him, ſwore by the Health of Pharaoh ( [...] live Pharaoh) And the Apoſtle, willing to ſhew his Love to the Corinthians, ſaid, By the Glorying of you, which I have in Chriſt Jeſus, our Lord: Paul ſwore not. For he did not depart from the Doctrine of the Goſpel [Page] who, by a thing before all moſt dear unto him, ſimply ſought Belief to the Truth.’ He refuſed to ſwear at the Council of Chalcedon: And ſpeaking of Clineas, Ad Nepotes. a Pythagorean, who might have avoided a Mulct of Three Talents, above 300. l. if he would have ſworn, which he rather ſuffered; ſaith, ‘In keeping theſe things he ſeems to have heard that Command concerning an Oath that is forbidden us.’ And he upbraided the Chriſtians of his time with it, that would ſwear.

This Baſil the Great, in his 29th Canon to Amphilochius, Baſil. Mag. can. 29. writes thus, ‘Becauſe an Oath is ALTOGETHER FORBIDDEN, ſuch an one as is taken to an Evil Purpoſe, is much more to be condemned — Again,’ ‘If an Oath, ſimply as ſuch, be prohibited, of greater Reaſon when it is to effect ſome Miſchievous End — The Cure conſiſteth in a twofold Admonition;Baſil's Expedient, to remove Oaths. 1. NOT TO SWEAR; 2. TO SƲPPRESS THE FORM OF OATHS.’

Blaſtaris Syntagma Tit. E. c. 32.

XLV. There was an ancient Law made to this effect, ‘It is FORBIDDEN to all, from the Biſhop and Clergy-Men to the Readers, to TAKE ANY OATH AT ALL.’

Blaſtaris alſo brings in this Objection, ‘But ſince thoſe are puniſhed who ſwear falſly, and thoſe are paſſed by who ſwear well, ſome may ſay, Therefore it is permitted to ſwear.’ To which he anſwers, ‘But where ſhall we diſpoſe, o [...] how [Page] ſhall we diſpenſe with the Evangelical Precept in the Goſpel, THAT FORBIDS STAKING ANY OATH AT ALL?’ Adding,The Reaſon of prohibiting Oaths. ‘But I believe that the Goſpel endeavoured to root out that Wicked Stem (as I may ſay) which is in ſinful me [...], and FOR THAT CAƲSE PROHIBITED AN OATH, which is as the Door or In-let to Perjury.’

Gregor. Nyſſenus on Cant. orat. 13.

XLVI. Gregory Niſſenus, Brother to Baſil, ſpoaken of by Socrates Scolaſticus in the ſame place, and in lib. 5. cap. 9. His Works are Famous: And in his Explanation on the Canticles, beſtows this Teſtimony upon us: ‘He, who by Moſes eſtabliſhed the Beginnings of the Law, by himſelf fulfilled all the Law and the Prophets, as he ſaith in the Evangels: I came not to deſtroy the Law, but fulfil it; who taking away Anger, aboliſheth Killing alſo; and together with Luſt, took away Adultery. He alſo caſts out of men's Lives accurſed Perjuries, whilſt by the Prohibition of an Oath, he has put in his Sith as it were to Security: For it cannot be, that any ſhould not keep an Oath when there is no Oath; Therefore ſaith he, You have heard, that it was ſaid to them of old time, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, but ſhalt render to the Lord thy Oaths; but I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL, neither by Heaven, &c. but let your YEA be YEA, and your NAY, NAY; for whatſoever is more, is of the Devil.’ [Page] Thus do they moſtly end; which ſhows how they underſtood Chriſt's Words.

Greg. Nazianz. in his Dialogue againſt Swearing, Jamb. 20.

XLVII. Gregory Nazianzen, a great Man in the Church, alſo ſpeaketh to the ſame Purpoſe, in his Dialogue againſt Swearing, ſaying, ‘B. What Oath doſt thou leave to us? A. I wiſh I might leave none, and that there were never any more. But thou ſayeſt, We have heard that God himſelf ſometimes ſwore: The holy Scriptures record that; But is there any thing better then God? Surely nothing is found better then He: If therefore nothing be better then he,God ſwears not. it ſhould follow, that he never ſwears. B. Why therefore do they record that he ſwore? A. When God ſaith any thing, that is the Oath of God. B. And how doth he ſwear by himſelf? A. How! He ſhould not at all be God, if he ſhould lye. B. Thou ſpeakeſt ſtrangely! A. No Wonder; that is the Nature of God peculiarly, that he cannot lye: There is none that can deny this. B. But what wilt thou ſay to me of the old Covenant? Surely it doth not prohibit an Oath, but requires a true one? A. No Wonder: At that time only it was preſcribed in the Law concerning Murder; but now it is not lawful for any Cauſe ſo much as to ſmite or beat: then the End of an Evil Deed only came into Judgment; but now that alſo which moveth to the End. [Page] This is my Judgment: for now we have made, a long Progreſs; wherefore a Wiſe Man will abſtain from Oaths. B. What then? Doſt thou give to ſome as Infants a kind of firſt Food, that they may at length receive a ſucceeding kind of Meat? A. Thou judgeſt right and wiſely. B. But Paul alſo ſwore, as they ſay? A. Who ſaid ſo?Paul did not Swear. Oh, what a vain Jangler was he that ſaid it! Quoth he, God is my Witneſs, and God knoweth: Thoſe words are not an Oath, but a certain Aſſeveration in ſuch great things, conſtant and inviolable. B. Wilt thou allow the ſame alſo to me? A. I wiſh, that to thy Power thou wouldſt plainly become a Paul, and ſo thou wouldſt have a Right Rule of thine Actions. B. What if I uſe an Oath Unwillingly, but to free me from Danger?See Tertullian before, to whom this agrees. A. Let another allow thee that. B. What if an Oath be written, and not pronounced with the Voice? A. And what's the Meaning of a Writing? Surely amongſt all other Obligations, a Writing doth more bind and obliege us. B. What if we be drawn by Neceſſity to give an Oath? Mark how Gregor. Naz. ſpeaks of the Scripture, in Compariſon of God's Omnipreſence with the mind and the ſenſe, and regard man ought to have of it. A. Why didſt thou not rather Dye? For ſurely, thou ſhouldſt rather Dye then do that. B. What if the Books of the holy Scriptures be not uſed? A. What! Is Religion placed in a Leaf? Is God abſent by this Means? It is evident that thou feareſt (Paper, or) Parchment, and I fear God more: This is a frequent Diſeaſe to many, and uſual; neither is it otherwiſe then if a Man beat the Maſter, and Diſgrace [Page] him, and make his Servant a Free-man, and do him Honour (What a notable Reproach ſhould that be?)’ ‘or as if a Man ſhould preſerve the King's Image, and in the mean time deſtroy the King. B. It is even as thou ſayeſt: But I would have thee ſay what is more to be ſhewn. A. Many uſe to ſay, I ſwore with my Tongue, but my Mind is free from Swearing. Any thing may be more cunningly excuſed then an Oath: Let him not ſuffer any Colour to be made for himſelf; For this is an Oath:Greg. Naz. his Account of an Oath. And how much Miſchief, tell me, comes from Deceit it ſelf? Let us ſee what an Oath is: Nothing elſe but the very Meaning (or Mind) of thoſe things which we ſet down — Thou wouldſt have me add what remains: Surely an Oath is nothing elſe, but a certain Conſummation as it were of Miſchiefs: O Dangerous Flame! B. But Plato doth ſome ſuch thing. He is Religiouſly aware, that he ſwear not by any God. A. Truly I know what thou art about to ſay: There was a certain Plane Tree, by which alone he made Oath: But he did not ſwear rightly, neither by that; For he had an Underſtanding in ſomething; but what a juſt & religious Oath ſhould be, that he could not underſtand. And what was this, tell me now? A certain Shadow of an Oath; a Declaration without a Name; an Oath no▪ Oath, as the Philoſophers ſwore by a ſtrange and unknown God. Laſtly, it is nothing elſe, but to make Oath by any thing. Here our Speech let be an End. Thou threatneſt that thou wilt leave [Page] me athirſt ſooner then I would. A. If an Oath ſeem a ſmall thing to thee, truly I cannot commend thee: But if it is, as it is, in the number of horrible things, I will alſo dare to produce a mighty thing: I do adjure by a very Oath it ſelf, that thou abſtain from, and beware of Oaths, and thou haſt the Victory. B. I wiſh I had. What Fruit gets he that often ſweareth? Laughter. What more? That when he ſpeaks Truth, he ſhall not be believed.’

In another place he ſaith,Greg. Naz. on Cant. Hom. 18. ‘That to ſwear by Creatures is to ſwear with regard to God himſelf; ſo Chriſt himſelf ſaith, Mat. 5.35. and chap. 23.16, 23.’

Caeſarius, Num. 43.

XLVIII. Caeſarius, Brother to Gregory Nazianzen; in his ſpiritual Sentences, hath this Sentence, ‘Flee ALL Swearing, or EVERY Oath: How then ſhall we get Belief? As well by Speech as by virtuous Actions and Carriages, that gain Belief to our Speech. Perjury is a Denying of God: What need of God in this Matter?’ Interpoſe and put in ure thy Actions.

Epiphan. adv. Hereſ. lib. 1. ord. 19. §. 6.

XLIX. Epiphanius, whom S [...]crates Scholaſticus, lib. 6. cap. 9. calls a Man of great Fame and Renown, and a Virtuous and Godly Perſon; in his firſt Book againſt Hereſies [...]not accounting Denying to Swear an Hereſie, but rather the [Page] contrary, as may appear by his words, which are theſe) ‘In the Law, as well as the Goſpel, it is commanded not to uſe another Name in Swearing: but in the Goſpel he commanded not to Swear, neither by Heaven nor Earth, nor other Oath; but let Yea Yea; Nay, Nay; BE AS AN OATH as Petavius tranſlates it)’ ‘for what is more then theſe is of Evil. Therefore I ſuppoſe that the Lord ordained concerning this, becauſe of ſome mens Allegations, that would ſwear by other Names; and firſt, that we muſt not Swear, no, not by the Lord himſelf, nor by any other Oath; for it is an Evil thing to ſwear at all. Therefore he is Evil that compels not only to ſwear by God, but by other things, &c.’

Ambroſ. de Virgin. lib. 3.

L. Ambroſe, ſoon after, being a Lay man or Citizen of Milan, was by the People, againſt his Will, choſen Biſhop of that City, for his great Worth and Godlineſs, whoſe Writings are of great Account; And ſpeaking of the Inconveniency occaſion'd by an Oath, ſaith, ‘Wherefore not without Cauſe doth the Lord in the Goſpel command not to Swear, that there may be no Cauſe of Forſwearing, that there may be no Neceſſity of Offending.’

Exhortat. ad Virgin. ‘He that Sweareth not, certainly he never Forſweareth; but he that Sweareth, ſometimes he muſt needs fall into Perjury, becauſe all Men are ſubject to Lye. Do not [Page] therefore Swear, leſt thou beginneſt to Forſwear.’

‘Therefore the Lord, who came to teach the little Ones, to Ambroſe on Mat. 5. INSPIRE Novices, to confirm the He was for Inſpiration & Perfection. Perfect, ſaith in the Goſpel, YE MUST NOT SWEAR AT ALL; becauſe he ſpoak to the Weak.’

‘Laſtly, He ſpoak not only to the Apoſtles, but to the Multitude; for he would not have thee to Swear, leſt thou ſhouldſt Forſwear.’

‘And he added, Not to ſwear, neither by Heaven, nor by the Earth, &c. namely, by thoſe things that are not ſubject to thy Power.’

‘The Lord Sware, and ſhall not Repent. Pſalm 109. He may ſwear, who cannot repent of his Oath: And what did the Lord ſwear? That Chriſt is a Prieſt forever: Is that Uncertain? Is that Impoſſible? the Lord has ſworn.’ Can it any way be changed?

‘Do not therefore uſe the Example of an Oath, becauſe thou haſt not Power to fulfil an Oath.’

Alſo, in his Commentary on the Hebrews, Ambr. Com. on Heb. c. 6. he ſaith, ‘Becauſe Mankind is incredulous, God condeſcendeth to us, if even he ſweareth for us.’

So that he ſhews,Oaths founded on Defect, not to be encouraged; then not to be impoſed. that not to be an Argument for Swearing to be deſired, ſeeing it is only in Condeſcenſion to a Defect; not to be encouraged from it to ſwear, or to require it.

Chryſoſt. on Gen. hom. 15.

[Page]

LI. Chryſoſtom, in thoſe dayes very Famous in the Church, and therefore ſtyl'd the Golden Doctor; in his 15th Homily on Geneſis, ſaith; ‘A Chriſtian muſt flee Oaths by all means, hearing the Sentence of Chriſt, which ſaith, It was ſaid to them of old, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear; But I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL. Let none ſay therefore, I ſwear in a Juſt Buſineſs. IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO SWEAR, NEITHER IN A JUST NOR UNJUST THING.’

Id. Hom. Pſa. 5. ‘To ſwear is of the Devil, ſeeing Chriſt faith, For what is more, is of Evil, or the Evil One.’

Ad pop. Antioch. Hom. 19. The Reaſon of Oaths. ‘Swearing took not its Beginning from the Will, but from Negligence only. Thou haſt heard (ſaith he) the Wiſdom of Chriſt, ſaying, That not only to Forſwear, but alſo in ANY MANNER TO SWEAR, is Deviliſh, and all a Device of the Evil One.’

Againſt the Diſpraiſe of ſolitary Life l. 1. ‘IF TO SWEAR IS FOUND TO BE DEVILISH, how are they to be puniſhed who Forſwear?’

Of Compunction of Heart, l. 1. ‘IF TO SWEAR TRULY BE A CRIME, and a tranſgreſſing of the Commandment, where ſhall we place Perjury?’

Againſt the Jews, Hom. 34.Speaking of a Chriſtian (ſo call'd; for he that dare do ſuch things we cannot call a ſincere Chriſtian) whom he ſaw compelling a certain [Page] Honeſt, Ingenuous, Modeſt and Faithful Matron, to go into the Jews Synagogue, there to be Sworn about ſome Buſineſs in Controverſie betwixt them, ſhe deſiring Help,Agreeing with Euſe bius before. and imploring to be freed from this Wicked Force, &c. ‘I (ſaith he) kindled with Zeal, aroſe, and not ſuffering her to be further drawn into this Prevarication,The Godly Zeal of Chryſoſtom Commendable. reſcued her; and enquired of him that had drawn her to it, Whether he were a Chriſtian or not? Who confeſſing he was; I ſeverely urged and upbraided him with his Folly and Extream Madneſs, to go about to draw any Body, he profeſſing himſelf to be a Worſhipper of Chriſt, TO THE JEWS DENS, who had crucified him. And going on in ſpeaking, I taught him out of the holy Goſpel,Much leſs to force others. Chryſ. calls Swearing & Compelling to Swear at all, an Error; then we are Orthodox. THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO SWEAR AT ALL, NOR TO INCITE ANY TO SWEAR, after that; not one that is a Believer or initiated, no, nor one that is not initiated, to be drawn to that Extremity: After I had ſpoaken much, and a long time of it, I delivered his Mind from the Error of Opinion, &c.’

Be pleaſed to obſerve how Chryſoſtom, See his great Praiſe in Soc. Schol. l. 6. c. 3. He was of the Race of Senators. Remember Tertullian's Caſe by this. a Zealous and Famous Man, both for his Books, and the Perſecution that he ſuffered, being Patriarch or Prime Overſees of the Church at Conſtantinople, one of the Four of the chiefeſt in the World, uſes no Diſtinction of private and publick Oaths, the common Talk of our Impoſers; for here he labours againſt drawing any to Swear at all, even in Judicature, becauſe it was not lawful TO [Page]SWEAR SO AT ALL, no, not as the Jews ſwore, much leſs as the Gentiles.

Homil. 28. Ecclog. de juram.Again, ‘Let none ſay to me, What if any lay on me a Neceſſity of Swearing? And what if he do not believe?’

Hom. 5. ad pop. Avitioc. ‘Certainly where the Law is violated one, muſt not make any mention of Neceſſity; for there is one unavoidable Neceſſity, NOT TO OFFEND GOD. Moreover, this I ſay, That in the mean time we may cut off ſuperfluous Oaths, thoſe, I mean, which are made raſhly and without any Neceſſity amongſt Friends and Servants; And if thou take away theſe, in the other thou ſhalt need me no more: For that Mouth which hath learned to fear and flee an Oath, if any would compel it ten thouſand times, it will never admit of falling into that Cuſtom, &c.’

Chryſoſt. againſt giving an Oath. ‘But if thou fear nothing elſe, at leaſt fear that Book which thou takeſt in thy hands, bidding another to Swear; and when thou turnſt it, and markſt what Chriſt hath there commanded concerning Oaths, Chryſoſt. exexhorts to be Right Quakers by Trembling, & not Swearing. QUAKE & FORBEAR.’

‘What doth it ſay then of OATHS there?’

‘Anſw. But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all. Doſt thou make that Law an Oath, which forbids to Swear? Oh Injurious, Oh Unjuſt thing! For thou doſt, as if a man ſhould take for his Companion a Law giver that forbids to kill, and command him to be made a Murderer. As therefore, when a Fight is begun, although we are often Reviled; [Page] yet we endure it well, and we ſay to him that doth it, that Patron of thine hath hurt me, he holds my Hands; and this ſerves us for Solace. After the ſame manner if thou wilt exact an Oath of any, reſtrain thy ſelf, and with-hold; and ſay to him that is about to ſwear,Againſt Compelling to Swear, & ſhows how to avoid it. What ſhall I do to thee, ſith God hath commanded, neither to ſwear, nor to compel to ſwear; he now with-holdeth me? This is enough for the Law-giver's Honour, for thy Security, and his Fear who ſhould ſwear.’

‘Do thus much for me therefore,He differs much from thoſe that puniſh us for not ſwearing. that they that come hither may ſay, That is not to be ſeen in any City, which is at Antioch; For they that inhabit that City had rather their Tongues ſhould be cut out, then an Oath ſhould proceed out of their Mouth, &c.’

‘What is it? Thou ſhalt render unto the Lord thy Oaths: that is,On Mat. Homil. 17. [...] in ſwearing thou ſhalt ſpeak true; But I ſay unto you, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL: And then, to put off the Hearers, that they ſhould not ſwear by God, he ſaith, Neither by Heaven, for it is the Throne of God; nor by the Earth, for it is his Foot-ſtool, &c. For he ſaid not, becauſe the Heaven is Fair and Great, nor becauſe the Earth is Vile; but becauſe that is the Throne of God, and this his Foot-ſtool; by all which he drives them to the Fear of God.’

‘— What then, if any require an Oath, Object. and impoſe a Neceſſity of Swearing?’

‘A. Let the Fear of the Lord be more forcible to thee then all Neceſſity or Compulſion: For if thou wilt alwayes object ſuch like Occaſions, [Page] thou wilt keep none of thoſe things which are commanded: For thou mightſt alſo ſay it concerning thy Wife; What if ſhe be a Scold? What if ſhe be Nice and Curious? And of thy Right Eye; What if I have a Delight in it, and be inflamed with the Love of it, &c.? and ſo thou wilt trample upon all things that are commanded. But in the Laws which Men command thou dareſt alledge no ſuch thing, as, What if this or that, &c? And if thou wilt keep the Law of Chriſt, thou wilt not ſuffer any Compulſion to hinder thee from the Obſervation thereof▪ Conſtancy in not Swearing getteth Veneration. for he that heard the Bleſſedneſs that is before, in the ſame Sermon, and ſhews himſelf ſuch an one as Chriſt commendeth, he ſhall ſuffer no ſuch Compulſion from any, ſeeing he is Venerable and Admirable with all Men.’

Object. ‘What then ſhall we ſay is beyond Yea and Nay?’

‘A. Without doubt AN OATH, not Perjury; ſith this is altogether manifeſt, and none needs be taught that it is of Evil; and not ſo much Superfluous, as Altogether Contrary. Now,Great Rea [...]on. that is ſuperfluous which is added needleſly, and too much; which ſurely is an Oath.’

Object. ‘Why then ſhall this be ſaid to be of Evil? And if it was of Evil, how was it commanded in the Law?’

‘A. Thou wilt ſay that alſo concerning thy Wife; How is it now Adultery, which was ſometime ſuffered? What then ſhall we ſay to theſe things? But that many of thoſe things which were then ſpoaken, the Weakneſs of them [Page] that received the Law required: For it is a thing very unmeet for God to be worſhipped with the Smell of Sacrifices, even as it is not congruent for a Philoſopher to ſtutter and bable; Therefore ſuch a Divorce is now called Adultery;This is True Chriſtian Doctrine. and an Oath now comes of Evil, when the Increaſings of Virtues are come to their Perfection. But if theſe things had been the Laws of the Devil from the beginning, they had never come to ſuch Proficiency; for unleſs thoſe things had gone before, thoſe other had never been ſo eaſily received. Do not therefore deſire the Virtue of thoſe things, whoſe Uſe is now paſt:With Chriſtians it ought to be ſo. What Evil is it then to hale men back again upon Penalties? They were available indeed then when the time required, yea, if thou pleaſeſt, now alſo: For now their Virtue is ſhewn in that ſame thing alſo, wherein we moſt accuſe; for that they now appear ſuch, is their great Praiſe: For, unleſs they had nurs'd us up well and profitably, and had made us fit for the receiving of greater things, they would not now ſeem to us to be ſuch. For as the Nurſe's Teat, when it hath done all its Office, and brought the Child to the meaſure of the ſtronger Age, ſeems to be unprofitable; and the Parents, who formerly judged the Teat to be Neceſſary for their Child, do afterward purſue it with very many Scorns, and uſually do not only make it Uncomely in Words, but alſo beſmear it with certain bitter Juices of Herbs, that when they cannot bridle the eager unſeaſonable Deſire of the Child about it, they may quench it at leaſt with thoſe things. So alſo Chriſt ſaid, It was of Evil; not that he might ſhew the [Page]old Law to be of the Devil, but that alſo he might recall them more vehemently from the old Vileneſs: And theſe things he ſaid unto his Diſciples; but unto the ſtupid Jews, and them that perſiſt in the ſame Impiety, as with a certain Bitterneſs, he ſo compaſt their City, they being captivated with Fear, as that he made it inacceſſible: And becauſe he could not hereby reſtrain them, but that they again deſir'd to ſee it, as Children running back to the Teat, he took it quite away, deſtroying it, and ſcattering them, moſt of them, far away from it; as men uſually ſhut up Calves from their Dams, that they may gain them to be weaned from their accuſtomed Food of Milk.’

‘But if the old Teſtament were of the Devil, he would not have forbidden A great Enemy to Images. Images to be worſhipped; and to the contrary, have brought in and commanded ſuch a Worſhip as this; for the Devil would have ſuch a thing to be done. But now we ſee that the Law did on the contrary; and for that Cauſe alſo the Way of Swearing was in times permitted, The Reaſon why God admitted Oaths. No Ordinance of God or man originally, but▪ Corruption inſenſibly brought it, & God only ſuffer'd it by a true Deity till the Times of Reformation. leſt men ſhould Worſhip Images, and Swear by them, Swear, ſaith he, by the true God. So the Law brought not a mean Good to men▪ but a very great one, if it ſought to bring them to ſolid Meat.’

Object. ‘What Evil therefore hath Swearing?’

‘Much Evil, without queſtion; But now at this time,His Reaſon our Reaſon. after SO GREAT MANIFESTATIONS of Power; not then by any means.’

Object. ‘Thou wilt ſay; How can it be, that the ſame is ſometimes Good, ſometimes not?’

[Page] ‘I will alſo produce too againſt thee, How is it that the ſame thing is ſometimes good, ſometimes not good▪ Doth not all that is in the World proclaim the ſame, as, Educations, Arts, Fruits and all other things?’

‘Therefore firſt weigh that in our own Nature: For to be carryed in one's Arms, is a good Part in the firſt Age, afterwards a very pittiful thing. To uſe Chew'd Meats in the beginning of one's Life is good, afterwards very full of Indecency and Loathſomneſs: To be fed with Milk & to flee to the Nouriſhment of the Teats, at the firſt is profitable and wholſome, but afterwards hurtful & noiſom. Thou ſeeſt how the ſame things are ſometimes good, according to the times, and ſometimes appear to be of another Nature: For it is a comely thing for a Child to wear a Child's Veſture, but ſhameful for a Man. Wouldſt thou alſo learn on the contrary, how thoſe things are not fit for a Child, which are not for a Man? Give a Man's Veſture to a Child, and great Laughter will follow thereupon, and greater Danger in Going, making him to reel this way and that way: Commit unto him the Care of Civil Buſineſſes and Affairs, either to Traffique, or Sow or Reap, and again it will be very ridiculous. But what do I ſpeak of theſe? Even Man-ſlaughter it ſel [...], which Chriſt calls evidently a Work of the Devil, ſometime in due ſeaſon done, hath been praiſed; as Phineas killed a Man, and it was reputed to him for Righteouſneſs; Abraham alſo was not only a Homicide, [Page] but a Parrici [...]e; and Peter ſl [...]w [...]wo, but it wa [...] [...] Spiritual Wo [...]k: So we muſt not only conſider the Actions, but the Time, Cauſe, Will and Difference of Perſons, and all other Circumſtances.Much regarded and obſerved by venerable Antiquity, ſaid Jam [...]s and the Fathers, part 2. page 36. Act. Mon. v. 1. p. 701.’

Again, in his [...] Work, cap 5.

‘It hath been ſaid, Thou ſhalt not for [...]wear; but ſhalt perform to the Lord thy Oath [...] But I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT [...]] Behold the fourth Command, [...]hi [...]h Covetous Men account the leaſt, becauſe they do not account it a Sin to Swear, without which the Command of the Law cannot ſtand? For unleſs Swearing it ſelf be forbidden, Falſe Oaths cannot be taken away,A Great [...]ruth; Forſwearing ends in No Swearing. becauſe out of Swearing ſprings up Forſwearing; for, whoſoever ſwears often, at one time or other ſwears falſly; for this Reaſon Solomon gives that Admonition, Accuſtom not thy Mouth to Swearing; for there is much Danger therein. For, as he that accuſtoms himſelf to talk much, muſt needs at one time or other utter Unſeaſonable Words; and he that uſeth frequently to ſtrike with his Hand, cannot but ſometimes ſtrike Unjuſtly; ſo he that accuſtoms himſelf to Swear in things Convenient, oft-times Forſwears himſelf, even againſt his Will (Cuſtom prevailing in him) in things ſuperfluous; for we can accuſtom our ſelves to any thing when we will, but we cannot turn off that Cuſtom when we will. And what the Judgment of God is againſt them that ſwear, Solomon teacheth; [Page] A man, ſaith he, that Swears much, a Wound ſhall not depart from his Houſe. If then a Wound depart not from them that ſwear, how ſhall it at length depart from them that forſwear. Tell me, my Friend, What doſt thou get by Swearing? For if thy Adverſary did believe that thou would'ſt Swear well, he would never force thee to ſwear at all;Excellently diſtinguiſht, and the Sordidneſs of Oaths fully repreſented. but becauſe he thinks thou wilt ſwear falſly, therefore it is that he compels thee to ſwear; and when thou haſt ſworn, he doth not ſit down as ſatisfied in the Truth of thine Oath, but goes away full of Revenge, as it were in Condemnation of thy Perjury.’

‘An Oath never has a good End; for,According to Euſebius. The Unhappineſs of Swearing, eſpecially againſt Conſcience. His Advice about the —Matter, when drove to a Pinch. Object. ſome will judge thou haſt ſworn for Covetouſneſs; and ſome too, that thou haſt Forſworn: But they that are willing to ſuppoſe well of thee, although they do not believe thou haſt ſworn FALSLY, yet they are not able to affirm thou haſt ſworn IN TRUTH: But no man can maintain thou haſt done RELIGIOUSLY. By Swearing therefore thou comeſt into Reproach with thy Enemies, and into Suſpicion with thy Friends. But thou wilt ſay perhaps,’

‘What ſhall I do; he neither doth nor will believe me, unleſs I Swear?’

‘Be content rather to loſe thy Money then thy Salvation; ſet more by thy Soul, then by thy Eſtate: If thou ſhouldſt loſe any part of thy Eſtate, thou may'ſt live notwithſtanding; but if thou loſeſt God, whereon wilt thou live? [Page] Doſt thou not know, that what thou parteſt Self-denyingly with for the Fear of God, thou receiveſt a greater Reward for it, then if thou hadſt given Alms; becauſe, the more we bear the Groſs, the more worthily are we crowned for it?His Caution to thoſe that impoſe Oaths, and Reflection upon the Practice. Behold, my Friend, I adviſe thee not to Force any man to ſwear; if thou thinkeſt he will ſwear well, avoid it; or if thou thinkeſt he will ſwear amiſs, avoid it ſo much the rather: For although he ſwear well, yet thou, as far as relates to thy Conſcience art become the Cauſe of his Perjury, becauſe thou compelleſt him to take an Oath with this Intention, not barely that he ſhould Swear, but that he ſhould Forſwear; for if thou hadſt thought he would have ſworn honeſtly, thou wouldſt not have forced him to ſwear at all. Oh fooliſh man, that compelleſt another to Swear! Thou knoweſt not what thou doeſt: He, although he forſwear himſelf, yet does it with Advantage; but thou, without any Advantage, art found a Partaker of his Perjury. He that does not ſtick at Lying, does not fear Swearing;Lying as bad as Swearing in his Eſteem. for he that tells a Lye, goes beyond the Truth in his Heart; and he that ſwears falſly, paſſes over God in his Words: What then is the Difference between paſſing over God, and going beyond the Truth, ſeeing God is Truth it ſelf?’

‘This is the only Difference, That when we Lye, we paſs over the Truth in our Heart; but when we Forſwear, we paſs over God in Words; For, to men we give Satisfaction by WORDS; to God, by CONSCIENCE. God himſelf, who forbad [Page] Forſwearing, even he afterward commanded NOT TO SWEAR: He therefore that is not afraid to ſet light by the Commands of God in Swearing,Admirably well argued. will not be afraid to do the like in Forſwearing. But what wouldſt thou have? Doth he fear God, or doth he not fear him? If he be one that fears God, he will not Lye, though he be not ſworn; but if he be one that does not fear God, he cannot ſpeak Truth, though he be ſworn. Hear, ye CLERGY-MEN, His Rebuke to the Clergy for tendring the Goſpels (or Bible) to ſwear on. who bring the HOLY GOSPELS for men to ſwear upon; How can ye be ſecure from that Oath, who ſow the Seed of Perjury? He that brings the Fire by which an Houſe is burnt, is he a Stranger to the Burning? or who reaches a Sword, whereby a man is ſlain, is not he an Acceſſory to the Slaughter? So he that gives the Opportunity of Forſwearing, is a Partaker of the Perjury: If it were well done to ſwear, ye ſaid rightly, that we gave them the Goſpel to Swear, not to Forſwear; But now ye know, THAT IT IS A SIN EVEN TO SWEAR WELL, how can ye be acquitted that give the Occaſion of Sinning againſt God? Let the Fire ceaſe, and there is no Burning; take away the Sword, and the man is not ſlain; SO TAKE AWAY SWEARING, AND THERE IS NO FORSWEARING. Be theſe things ſpoaken of them that ſwear by God▪ But as for them that ſwear by the Elements, their Iniquity is more deteſtable; for Heaven and Earth, and the reſt of the Elements God made for his own Service; not for men to ſwear by: For, [Page] behold, in the Law it is commanded, that they ſhould ſwear by none but God: He therefore that ſwears by Heaven, or by the Earth, or whatſoever it is he ſwears by, makes a God of it; Therefore every one commits Idolatry, who ſwears by any thing beſides God, if it were at all lawful to ſwear, becauſe he does not perform his Oaths to the Lord his God, but to the Elements: And ſo he commits a double Sin; firſt, in that he ſwears; and 2dly, in making a God of that by which he ſwears, &c.’

Again, in Chap. 23. Homil. 43. on theſe words, Wo unto you Blind Guides, who ſay, Whoſoever ſhall ſwear by the Temple, it is nothing; but whoſoever ſhall ſwear by the Gold of the Temple, he is a Debter — ‘Many Chriſtians (ſaith he) now adayes do ſo unwiſely underſtand many things; for lo, if there ſhall be any Cauſe, he ſeems to do a ſmall matter, who ſwears by God; but he that ſwears by the Goſpel ſeems to have done ſome greater thing: To whom it may be ſaid, Fools! The holy Scriptures are for God, not God for the Scriptures; for God is GREATER which ſanctifieth the Goſpel, then the Goſpel which is ſanctified of God.’

Again, Hom 9. on Acts of the Apoſtles, ch. 3.

‘To this conduces not a little, not to Swear, and not to be Angry; for, in not being Angry, we ſhall not have an Enemy; and caſt off a mans Oath, and withal thou ſhalt caſt off thoſe things that concern Wrath, and ſhalt extinguiſh all [Page] Anger: For Wrath and an Oath are like the Wind. We ſet forth ſail, but there is no benefit of the Sail if there be no Wind: ſo if we do not cry out, nor ſwear, we cut the Sinnews of Wrath. Come, tell me for what Cauſe an Oath was introduced, and why it was allowed? Let us tell its Original, Again, the Original of an Oath. He concurs with us. and whence it ſprung up again, and how, and by whom; and by our Declaration we ſhall gratifie your Attention: For, he that doth juſtly, muſt neceſſarily be alſo ſtudious of Wiſdom; and he that is not yet ſuch, is not worthy to hear a Diſcourſe: For, Abraham made Covenants, and ſacrificed Sacrifices, and offered Offerings; and as yet there was not an Oath: Whence then came in an Oath? When Evils increaſed, when all things became topſiturvy, when they inclined to Idolatry; then verily when they appear'd unfaithful, they called God to witneſs, as giving a Surety for Security for their Words; for an Oath is a Suretiſhip, The Definition of an Oath. where their Behaviours have no Truſt or Credit: Whereupon, firſt he that ſwears is taxed, If he have no Credit without an Oath, and the greateſt Surety: And becauſe men ſo little truſt one another, they ſeek God for a Surety, not Man. Secondly, He is in the ſame Crime who receives an Oath, if he draw God to be a Surety for Contracts; and ſay, THAT HE WILL NOT TRƲST EXCEPT HE HAVE HIM. Oh monſtruous thing! Oh ſhameful Diſgrace! Thou a Worm, Duſt and Aſhes, and a Vapour; dareſt thou ſnatch thy Lord, who art ſuch[Page]an one for a Surety, A ſevere Declamation againſt Compelling People to ſwear. and compelleſt to accept him? Tell me, if a Fellow-Servant ſhould ſay to your Children, ſtriving among themſelves, and not truſting one another, Unleſs the common Maſter become a Surety, there is no truſting; would not many Stripes be inflicted, that he might learn, that he ſhould make uſe of him as a Lord in other things, not in theſe? What do I ſpeak of a Fellow-Servant? For, if one would have a more Venerable Man, would not the Caſe have Diſgrace in it?’ But I ſhall (ſaith he) ‘therefore neither compel him, becauſe this is alſo amongſt men. He may ſay thus, Sometimes thou may'ſt not receive a Surety to thine. What then? And I ſhall loſe (ſaith he) what is given. I would not ſay this; but do not thou endure that God be reproached.Again, of the Danger of Compelling People to ſwear▪ Therefore he which Compels hath a MORE Unavoidable Puniſhment then he which Swears. Likewiſe he alſo which ſwears when none requires; this alſo is harder, that one ſwears for a Half-Penny, for a little Commodity, for Unrighteouſneſs. And theſe things are ſo dangerous, when there are no Perjuries; but if Perjuries are committed, then all things are confounded, and both he that ſwears, and he that receives an Oath, are the Cauſe.’

Object. ‘But there are ſome things that are not known, ſay they.’

‘But ſore-ſeeing theſe things, thou muſt do nothing raſhly; but if thou ſhalt do any thing [Page] negligently, take the Penalty of the Inconvenience in thy own Hand; better ſo to ſuffer Loſs then otherwiſe. For, tell me, Thou haleſt a man to an Oath; What doſt thou ſeek? Wouldſt thou have him to Forſwear? But this is extream Folly; for the Loſs will turn upon thy own Head: It were better to loſe thy Means, then that he ſhould be loſt; wherefore thou doſt this to thy own Dammage, and to God's Diſhonour; ſuch is the Soul of a Beaſt and of a Wicked Man!’

‘But I expect that he may not Forſwear. Object.’

‘Therefore believe him Without an Oath alſo.’

‘But there are many, ſay they,Object. who without an Oath dare Defraud, who with an Oath do not do it.’

‘Thou deceiveſt thy ſelf, O Man! A Man who hath learn'd to Steal and to Wrong a man, will alſo trample upon an Oath often: But if he hath a Reverence in Swearing, much more in doing Unjuſtly.’

‘But thou wilt ſay, He ſuffers this unwillingly. Object.’

‘Therefore he is worthy of Excuſe. But what ſhall I ſay of Oaths of the Courts that are left? for there thou canſt ſay no ſuch thing; for there for Six Pence both Oaths and Perjuries are made: For, becauſe a Thunder-Bolt doth not come down from above, and all things are not overturned, thou ſtandeſt, and WILT An Oath is a Binding of God for our Security. BIND GOD: Why? That thou mayſt get Herbs and Shoes for a ſmall Price, thou calleſt him to witneſs. Do we [Page] therefore think we do not ſin, becauſe they are not puniſhed? This is the Lord's Mercy, not our Deſert.A Pathetical Cenſure of Oaths, and them that uſe them even in Courts Swear by thy own Child, ſwear by thy ſelf; ſay, So let the Officer keep from my Sides: But thou art afraid of thy Sides; IS GOD MORE VILE, more Contemptible then thy Head? Say, So may I not be blind? But Chriſt ſo ſpareth us, that he FORBIDS US TO SWEAR EVEN BY OUR OWN HEAD. But we do ſo deſpiſe the Glory of God, that he is drawn every where: Ye know not what God is, and with what a Mouth he ought to be invocated. Moreover, when we ſpeak of any Virtuous Man, we ſay, Waſh thy Mouth, that ſo thou mayſt be heedful. But now we vainly diſtract that Honourable Name, which is a Name above every Name, which is Wonderful in all the Earth, which the Devils hearing do tremble at: OH MOST CONTEMPTIBLE CUSTOM WHICH HATH DONE THAT! Laſtly, If thou ſhalt impoſe on any a Neceſſity of Swearing in the holy Houſe, how horrible an Oath doſt thou enjoyn, if thou doſt ſo?With what Tenderneſs God's Name ſhould be uſed. Is it that we abuſe that ſimply, this not ſo? Ought not one even to Dread when God is named? But even among the Jews this Name was ſo Reverend, that it was written on the Pla [...]e of the Mitre, and none might bear thoſe Letters of the Name of God, but only the High Prieſt: And now alſo we ſo bear his Name tenderly. If it was not lawful for all to Name God ſimply, how [Page] great Audaciouſneſs is it to call it in Witneſs? Tell me now, how great Madneſs is it? Behold, I ſay▪ and Chryſoſtom's Boldneſs. He teſtifies our Mind. teſtifie to you, amend thoſe Court-Oaths, and ſhew me all thoſe that do not obey: Behold, even in your Preſence I will command them that are ſet apart for the Miniſtry, the Houſe of Prayer, and admoniſh and ſhew, THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY TO SWEAR, nor otherwiſe neither. Let him therefore be brought to me, whoſoever he be, becauſe theſe things alſo ought to be done before us, becauſe ye are Children. Mark the great Zeal of Chryſoſt. in this place. Oh Shame! for, it is Confuſion that ye have need to be inſtructed in ſome things. Dareſt not thou that art initiated touch the holy Table? But that is yet worſe, thou which art initiated, dareſt thou touch the holy Table, and that which it is not lawful for all the Prieſts to touch, AND SO SWEAR? but being gone out, thou wouldſt not touch the Head of thy Child; but toucheſt thou the Table, and doeſt not dread nor fear? Bring ſuch to me, I will inflict a juſt Puniſhment; and with Joy will ſend both away with this Commandment, Do as you liſt, I Men never could plead Conſcience for not being believed without an Oath; many have, to be credited without one. Impoſe this Law, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL: What Hope is there of Salvation, when you ſo contemn and deſpiſe all things? Haſt thou therefore received Letters and Badges that thou ſhouldſt loſe thy Soul? What ſo great thing haſt thou gained, as that which thou haſt loſt? Hath he forſworn? Thou haſt loſt both thy ſelf and him: But hath he not [Page] Forſworn? Even ſo thou haſt loſt, who haſt driven him to tranſgreſs the Commandment. Let us expel this Diſeaſe from the Soul: Let This was Chryſoſtom's Exhortation Now its ſaid, How can we Trade without an Oath? us drive it now from the Court, and from all Merchants & Tradeſmen's Shops. It was a greater Labour to us, do not you think, that Worldly things are corrected by the Tranſgreſſings of Divine Laws. But he doth not believe, ſaith he; for I have alſo heard this of ſome, Unleſs I ſwear many Oaths they will not believe me: Thou art the Cauſe of theſe things, who ſweareſt ſo promptly and eaſily. But if this were not, but it were manifeſt to all, that thou wouldſt not ſwear, believe me, more Credit would be given to thy very BECK, then thoſe who ſwear abundance of Oaths. Whom therefore do you more believe, me that do not ſwear, or them that do ſwear?’

Object. ‘But, ſayes he, thou art a Prince and a Biſhop.’

‘What then, if I ſhall ſhew thee, that it is not this only? Anſwer me in Truth now: If I had ſworn alwayes, and at every ſeaſon, what Priviledge would my Principality have? No, thou ſeeſt that it is not for this: What gaineſt thou then,Encouragement to ſuſtain the Penalty. tell me now? Paul Hungerd; and do thou chuſe rather to Hunger then to tranſgreſs any of God's Commandments: Why art thou ſo Unbelieving? Shalt thou chuſe to do and to ſuffer all things, that thou mayſt not ſwear, and ſhall not he Reward thee? But he feeds daily Forſwearers and great Swearers,Our Doctrine made an Axiom by Chryſoſtom. and will he give thee up to Famiſh, becauſe thou hearkeneſt to him? Let all men know, that NONE MAY[Page]SWEAR THAT ARE OF THIS CONGREGATION; and hereby we may be aſſured, and by this Sign be diſtinguiſhed from the Greeks and from all men, and not only by the Faith (or Chriſtian-Profeſſion.) Let us have this Mark from heavenly things, that we may ſhine with it every where, as the King's Flock. We are now known by the Mouth and the Tongue, as the Barbarians, and they that know to ſpeak Greek; for we are diſcerned from the Barbarians by the Tongue. Tell me now, How are Parrets known? Is it not that they ſpeak like Men? And we alſo may be known, if we ſpeak like the Apoſtles, and ſpeak as the Angels: For, if any one ſay, Swear; let him hear, that Chriſt hath commanded, EVEN NOT TO SWEAR: This ſufficeth to bring in all Virtue. It is a certain Gate of Godlineſs, a Way bringing on unto the Love of Wiſdom (or Philoſophy) It is a certain Exerciſe (or Maſtery) Let us keep theſe things, that we attain both preſent and future good things, by the Grace of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, with whom, to the Father, with the holy Spirit, be Glory, Dominion, Honour, now and forever and ever, Amen.’

‘Theſe Precepts were becauſe of the Jewiſh Depravation; but thoſe perfect ones, to deſpiſe and relinquiſh Riches, ſtand manfully, lay down thy Life for Preaching; deſpiſe all Earthly things; have nothing to do with this preſent Life; do good to them that unjuſtly afflict thee; if thou be defrauded, bleſs thou; if any ſlander thee, honour thou him; be over all [Page] things: It was fit to hear theſe and ſuch like things; But now we diſcourſe concerning an Oath. And it is even as if when a man ſhould come to Philoſophy, he ſhould draw him away from thoſe his Teachers, and make him ſpell with Letters and Syllables.’

‘Conſider now, what a Confuſion it would be for a man that hath a w [...]ighty Scrip, and a Staff, and a Gown to go to the Grammar-School with Boyes, and to learn the ſame things that they do; would it not be a Matter of much Laughter? but more from you; for there is not ſo great a Difference betwixt Philoſophy and the Elements of Speech, as between the Jewiſh Matters, and Ours; but as much as is between Angels and Men. Tell me now, if any ſhould call down an Angel from Heaven, and tell him, That he muſt ſtand and hear our Sermons, as if he muſt be thereby inſtructed, would it not be a ridiculous and confuſed thing? And if it were a ridiculous thing to be yet inſtructed by theſe; tell me now how great Condemnation, and how great Confuſion were it, not to give Attention to thoſe former? And how then is it not Confuſion, that a Chriſtian muſt be inſtructed, that he muſt not ſwear? But let us repreſs our Affections, that we be not more laught at. Let us now diſcourſe concerning the Jewiſh Law to day: What is that, will he ſay? Do not uſe thy Mouth to Swear, nor be familiar with the Holy Name. Why? For as a Servant, if he be continually ſcourged, ſhall not be clear from Marks, ſo neither he that ſweareth. Conſider [Page] the Wiſdom of that Wiſe Man; He ſaid not, Do not uſe thy Mind, but thy Mouth; becauſe he knew it to be all of the Mouth, and which is eaſily amended, &c. The Puniſhment here that is oppoſed to it, tells us, that it is not Perjury, but Swearing, that is here to be removed; Therefore TO SWEAR IS A SIN. Verily the Soul is full of ſuch Wounds and Scars. But if thou ſwear becauſe he doth not believe; ſay thou, Believe, or if thou wilt not, ſwear by thy ſelf; and I do not ſay, that thou art contrary to the Law-giver: Far be it; for, ſaith he, Let your Word be YEA, YEA, and NAY, NAY; that herein I may condeſcend to you, and bring you to this, that I may free you from this Tyrannical Cuſtom. Will you learn why they allowed them of old to Swear, not to Forſwear? It was becauſe they ſwore by Idols: You muſt not be confounded in theſe Laws, in which they that were weak were converſant. For, if I now take a Greek, I do not forthwith enjoyn him this; but now I admoniſh him, That Chriſt muſt be known: But a Believer, and one who hath learned him, and heard, if he ſhould uſe the ſame Indulgence and Liberty, as the Greek, What Profit and Advantage would there be?’

‘Chriſt hath made a Law, that NONE SWEAR; Tell me now what is done about this Law, leſt perchance coming again,Hom. 10. p. 101. as the Apoſtle ſaith, I do not ſpare.’

We hope none will diſpute whether Chryſoſtom was againſt [Page] All Swearing, or that he underſtood Chriſt's Doctrine as we do; yet no Body can Promiſe for them that endeavour to ſqueeze Swearing out of Chriſt's SWEAR NOT AT ALL. We have been the larger in this Authority, partly becauſe he excellently diſputes it; and partly, becauſe our Caſe needs it; and laſtly, to ſhow Chriſtians their Apoſtacy, that they may reform.

Jerom. Libr. Epiſtol. part 3. Tract. 2. Epiſt. 2. Of Obedience, Knowledge and Revenge.

LII. ‘Thou ſaidſt, if I miſtake not, That on this Account thou mayſt juſtly render Evil for Evil, and oughteſt to ſwear with them that ſwear, becauſe the Lord ſometimes ſwore, and rendred Evil for Evil.’

‘Firſt, I know that all things are not fit for us, that are Servants, which are agreeable to the Maſter, &c. I know the Lord oftentimes ſwore, who hath forbidden us to Swear ▪ Nor muſt we raſhly ſpeak Evil of, or Blaſpheme in this, that he forbad another what he did himſelf; becauſe it may not be ſaid, the Lord ſwore as Lord, whom none forbad to ſwear: It is not lawful for us as Servants to Swear; becauſe we are Forbidden by the Law of our Lord to Swear. But leſt we ſhould ſuffer an Offence by his Example, ſince the time he forbad Us to Swear,God never [...]wore properly. neither did he himſelf ever Swear, &c.’

Upon Zachary, Book 2. Chap. 8.

‘And love ye not a Falſe Oath]—As to the Lord's commanding in the Goſpel, But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all; but let your Word be YEA, YEA; NAY, NAY: He that ſhall Never Swear, can [Page] never Forſwear: But he that ſweareth, let him hear that which is written, Thou ſhalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in a vain thing; for [...] theſe things I hate, ſaith the Lord, according to the words of Malachy, ſaying, And ye did all that I hate. In Precepts which belong to Life, and are clear, we ought not to [...]eek an Allegory, leſt we ſeek a Knot in Ruſh, as ſayes the Comick.’

On Jeremy 4. Book 1. chap. 3.

And thou ſhalt Swear the Lord liveth in Truth and Righteouſneſs, and Judgment, &c.

‘And how doth the Goſpel forbid us to Swear? But [...]ere it is ſaid for a Confeſſion, thou ſhalt Swear, and for the Condemnation of Idols, by which Iſrael ſwore. Laſtly, Offences are taken away [...]d he ſweareth by the Lord;An excellent Reaſon why Oaths were permitted. and what is ſaid in the Old Teſtament, the Lord liveth, is an Oath, to the condemning of all the Dead, by whom all Idolatry ſweareth. And it is alſo to be minded, that an Oath hath theſe Companions, Truth, Judgment and Righteouſneſs; if theſe be wanting, it is not Swearing, but Forſwearing.’

Alſo on Matth. Book 1. chap. 5.

But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c.

‘The Jews had alwayes this Cuſtom of Swearing by the Elements, as the Prophet's Speech often reproves them. He that ſweareth, either reverenceth or loveth him by whom he ſweareth: [Page] In the Law it is commanded, that we muſt not ſwear but by the Lord our God.’

‘The Jews Swearing by the Angels, and the City Jeruſalem, and the Temple, and the Elements, did worſhip the Carnal Creatures with the Honour and Obſervance of God. This between the Two Stars ſeems a ſelf-contradiction; but doubtleſs he intends it of the 2d Prohibition in a further Reaſon, why Oaths were permitted. Laſtly, conſider, that here the Saviour forbad not to ſwear by God, but by Heaven, &c.This between the Two Stars ſeems a ſelf-contradiction; but doubtleſs he intends it of the 2d Prohibition in a further Reaſon, why Oaths were permitted. and this was allowed by the Law, as to little ones, that as they offered Sacrifices to God, leſt they ſhould ſacrifice to Idols, ſo alſo they were ſuffered to Swear by God; Not that they did this rightly, but that it was better to yield that to God then to Devils. But the Truth of the Goſpel doth not receive an Oath, ſince every faithful Word is for an Oath.’

Thoſe of after Times, that in ſome reſpect allow of an Oath, ground moſt upon the Authority of Auguſtine, as he from the larger acceptation of the Word Swear and Oath, which he extends to that which Nazianzen (as before) calls but a firm Faithfulneſs joyned to his words, which yet he will not admit of, but to a Paul, a Planter of Churches, ſpeaking by the Spirit of God to them he had begotten in the Goſpel, in Danger to be ſeduced by Falſe Apoſtles, and to ſleight him, and ſeek a Proof of Chriſt ſpeaking in him, compelled by them to ſeem a Fool in glorying, and ſo driven, and no otherwiſe, to ſeem a Swearer too, yea, even to an Auguſtine, and ſo to compel him (even Auguſtine) to ſay, It is a hard Queſtion; I have alwayes avoided it. But though he durſt not condemn it altogether out of Reverence to the Apoſtle, which he thought uſed it, becauſe of the Form of Speech; yet to ſhew that he [Page] did little encourage men to practiſe it, as any Act at all of the Worſhip of God, much leſs an Auguſt Act, He ſaith, That Falſe Swearing is Deadly; True Swearing, Dangerous; No-Swearing, Safe; God only Swears Safely, who cannot be deceived.

Auguſtine de Sermone Domini, Serm. 28.

LIII. And Auguſtine himſelf confeſſeth, ‘That it was uſual to alledge Chriſtianity for not Swearing, bringing in one Saying, It is not lawful for a Chriſtian to Swear, when an Oath is required of him; Lam a Chriſtian; it is not lawful to ſwear.’ And on Pſalm 88. as allowing the Unlawfulneſs, he ſaith, ‘It is well that God hath forbidden men to Swear, leſt by Cuſtom of it (inaſmuch as we are apt to Miſtake) we commit Perjury. There is none but God can If men can't Swear ſafely, then it is more dangerous to ſwear then not to ſwear and it is better for People, nay, they are bound to refuſe it. ſafely Swear, &c.’

And in that very Book, which is alledged for it, he ſaith, ‘I ſay unto you, de mend [...]c. 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.’ But if any think that Book makes moſt for them, let them conſider the Author hath retracted it;It is obſcure & intricate. for what Cauſe let himſelf ſpeak in the end of his Book of Retractations: For ſure, that which we have here cited out of it, agreeth with his other Works, which contain much more to this Purpoſe.

[Page] De Verb. Jacobi, Ante omnia nolite jurare, Serm. 28. ‘Where, ſayes he, wouldſt thou chuſe to walk? Upon the Brink of a Precipice, or far from it? I think far from it. So he which ſwears, walks in the Border, and walketh with unſure Feet, becauſe humane: If thou ſtumbleſt, down thou goeſt; if thou falleſt, down thou goeſt.’

We would fain know, if a moſt Auguſt Act of God's Worſhip be nigheſt the Pit's Brink, or fartheſt from it? for there all ought to chuſe to walk; in whoſe Way they that walk, walk ſafely; their Place is ſure, and their Foot-ſteps ſhall not ſlide; but the Wicked's Feet are in ſlippery Places, where Auguſtine ſays, Swearers walk.

Conſider what he ſaith on thoſe words of Chriſt in Mat. 5. ‘It is the Righteouſneſs of the Phariſees, not to Forſwear; This he confirmeth, who forbiddeth to ſwear, which If it belongs to the Righteouſneſs of the Kingdom of Heaven, Not to Swear, then what will become of thoſe that not only break that Commandment of, Swear not at all, but teach men ſo to do? nay, puniſh men for not obeying ſuch Anti-Evangelical Doctrine. belongeth to the Righteouſneſs of the Kingdom of Heaven: For, as he which doth not ſpeak, cannot ſpeak a Lye, ſo he cannot Forſwear, which doth not Swear.’ He goes on to excuſe Paul, and ſayes, ‘That an Oath is not among good things, but among Then certainly they are to be rejected of true Chriſtians. evil things, and uſed for the Infirmity of others, which is Evil, from which we pray, that we may be daily delivered.’

But there is this to be ſaid for Auguſtine, and ſome others after him, that he and they write not clearer in a Point ſo conſtantly maintained; His Horizon then was over-caſting apace. Apoſtacy, as a mighty Torrent, did not only ſwell and beat againſt the Simplicity of the Chriſtian-Doctrine and Diſcipline; but like an Unruly [Page] and impetuous Sea broak down the Banks of Primitive Society, and made way for all ſort of Superſtition, worldly Intereſt & Fraud; that, to ſay no more then he did, was to incur, perhaps, the Cenſure of the Grandees of his Age, who had joyn'd Earthly Policy to Chriſtian-Religion, and caſt off the Bleſſed Yoak of their Self-denying Lord, to ſwim in the Delicious Liberty of the World: A Time full of ſuch Circumſtances as ſeem'd to conſpire the Return of Oaths, that were not dead, but retired only: For as men grew Falſe and Diſtruſtful, Truth became burdenſom, and Yea and Nay no Security with them; and therefore declin'd, or rather exil'd them their Government; Old Judaiſm or Gentiliſm pleas'd them better. 'Twas harder Living that Watchful Life that was ſufficient to credit a Yea or Nay, then to take an Oath, that dependeth upon the ſaying of ſo many Words only: This was conſiderable, and made Swearing then, and continues it grateful to our very Times. But ſad it is, that Oaths rid thus in Sate, while Integrity went Barefoot, and Evangelical Yea and Nay turn'd off for a Non-ſufficient, and that too, not without Fines, Priſons, and a great deal of Reproach. However, we muſt acknowledge, that the Gravity and Chriſtian Care of this Perſon, and other his Contemporaries, appeared in not only diſſwading, but deterring thoſe Ages from the Brink (for ſo he calls Swearing at all) and turning their Faces after the Woman, now on her Flight into the Wilderneſs: During all which Time, the Witneſſes, though feweſt in Number, and myſtically cloathed in Sack-cloth, forbore not to propheſie even in this Particular.

And we hope, having no certain Knowledge to the contrary, that moſt of them, at leaſt that were Men fearing God, and ſerving him according to what they knew and in that Manner they were perſwaded was moſt acceptable to him. And as Irenaeus ſaid of the Poets and Philoſophers, Theſe Men, every one ſeeing that which was connatural from Part of the Divine-ſown-Reaſon, ſpoak excellently, and [Page]where right and conſiſtent with themſelves, they are ours, Iren. lib. 5. cap. 18. So we ſincerely declare of Men differing from us, that as we deſire the Good of all, ſo we can own the Good in all, and the Truth in all, and receive it from them, though in other Reſpects our Adverſaries; and would have all to do the like with us and each other: And howbeit our Adverſaries may have hard Thoughts of ſome of the Perſons our Matter leads us to inſtance, as Men intereſſed in the Doctrine and Practices of thoſe darker Times they lived in, and of us for making Uſe of ſuch for Authorities; yet we hope they would alſo judge it an hard and very cruel Thing to repute them utter Caſt-awayes. And though we know that Men differ within themſelves, and all of them more or leſs from the Truth, yet ſince there may be ſome Truth and Sincerity, we cannot but acknowledge and embrace: And we hope, the Reaſons and Authorities of others they bring, and the Conceſſions and Confeſſions they make, may, and indeed ought to be of Weight in that Point, at leaſt to ſhew, that it is no new, ſtrange or unreaſonable Thing for us to refuſe Oaths. And though ſome might with a Mixture of Sup [...]rſtition and W [...]ll-worſhip, undertake and maintain that Strictneſs and Preciſeneſs, which ſome of the holy Ancients by the Spirit of Truth were led to practiſe (the ancient Hiſt [...]ries of whom, from Eye-Witneſſes, as the Word ſignifies,Euſeb. Pam. Socr. Schol. Evagr. &c. of ſome of them, we in a great Part believe) And ſome later more Enlightened and Zealous Men, taking Offence thereat, but eſpecially at the Hypocriſie and Abomination, palliated by ſuch fair Pretences, have ſtreined much in Oppoſition to that Evangelical Doctrine, yet is the Doctrine nevertheleſs a Truth in it ſelf. Nor can we believe that all that were accounted Hereticks, were out of the Catholick or Univerſal Church; for the Word Catholick ſignifies Ʋniverſal, containing all that are in the Church (that is in God the Father of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt) in all Times,Theſ. 1.1. and thoſe were not all of the ſame Mind in all Things,Phil. 3.15. as may be read in the Holy Scriptures, and alſo in Euſebius and other Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtories, where [Page] Men are commended for Holineſs and Virtue,Soc. l. 6. c. 1 [...] Evagr. l. cap. 11. c. 9. yet at much Difference in ſome Things. Syneſius, though he believed not the Reſurrection, was choſen to miniſter, and afterward was made a Biſhop, the Charity of Chriſtians was ſo great in that Age. And ſome accounted Hereticks, ſuffered Martyrdom, that are commended or excuſed by Euſebius;Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſ. l. 8 c. 28. l. 4. c. [...]5. one in particular that dyed with Polycarpus, and another called Aſclepius, called Marcionites. See alſo the beginning of his eighth Book concerning the Diviſions among them that afterward ſuffered for the Teſtimony of the Univerſal or Catholick Truth; nor can we receive their Judgment, that branded thoſe with the Name of Hereticks, Pelagiu [...], a Brittain, an. 400. wrote Notable Books, ſaith Sennaida, who lived ſoon after him. Pelagians, &c. who denyed Swearing in thoſe declining Ages, and ſuppreſſed their Works under that Name and Aſperſion only; not allowing them to ſpeak for themſelves to us of latter Times.

We ſee how unjuſtly we our ſelves are aſperſed in almoſt every Doctrine we hold, and that under Pretence of ſerving God; particularly, with ſeeking to work our Salvation by our own Power, and when they have made us this Belief, they beſtow Pelagianiſm upon it (for Fathers have Right to name their own Children) whereas of all other People, we eſpecially diſclaim our own Ability, and wait to be renewed and guided by the Spirit of Chriſt, and to be found in his Righteouſneſs, and therefore on the other hand reputed Phanaticks, Enthuſiaſts, &c. and mocked for being moved by the Spirit, following the Light, &c. But let their Example or Authority be as it will, or however they were in other Reſpects, the Doctrine of the ancient primitive Fathers, and Practice of that Church, as alſo the Doctrine of famous Men among themſelves, neither of which Sort dare they condemn for Hereticks, do ſufficiently defend them from the Aſperſion of Hereſie in that Particular: And ſo we ſhall come to our remaining Teſtimonies, it being our Buſineſs, not to maintain every one of their Principles we cite; but this Doctrine of Swear not at all, to have had the Voice of ſeveral Ages to confirm it.

[Page]The ancient Waldenſes, reputed to have continued Ʋncorrupted with the Groſneſs of the Apoſtacy, ever ſince the Apoſtles Times (ſee their Hiſtory in P. Perin, S. Moreland and Bp Ʋſher de Succeſ.) we have good Cauſe to ſay, denyed the taking of any Oath in what Senſe the Primitive Chriſtians and Fathers refuſed, See Baronius, an▪ 1310. Joh. Walden againſt John Wickl [...]f and Waldenſes. Reiner. Rub. Capitan. W. W [...]dford. Gui Carmel. V [...]ſſ. Hiſtor. Pelag. l. 5 p. 2. Bp. Ʋſher, de Succeſſ. and that was altogether. Sure, their Enemies charg'd them with it for above three hundred Years, and we cannot find they then denyed the Charge: We ſuppoſe none will attempt to prove they did; Though one of our Adverſaries joyns with theirs, traducing them for Perjurers, and with them abuſes that worthy and learned Man Bp. Ʋſher, who defends them from that improbable and contradictory Aſperſion, of Lying and Forſwearing, and yet of Denying to Swea [...]; who ſayes, that they were as far from Lying and Forſwearing, as their Enemies were from Mod [...]ſty and Truth, which did appear in that they were charg'd by them, Not to ſwear at all: Peruſe that part of his Book de Succeſſione, where he treats of them; and where alſo you may read of their Succeſſion, how that the Syrians & Armenians came out of the Eaſt into Thracia, thence in proceſs of Time into Bulgaria and Sclavonia, thence into Italy and Lumbardy, and were called by ſeveral Names, of ſeveral People, or at ſeveral Times, as Manichees, Waldenſes, Albingenſes, Cathari or Puritans, Patrins, Publicans, Humiliati, &c. who were charged with denying Swearing; And how that ſeveral of the better ſort of the Clergy, and of the nobler Laity (who refuſed the preſent Uſe of Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper) were burnt under the Name of Manichees. Suarez alſo reckons-up the Cathariſts, de Juramentis, l. 1. c. 1, 2. Alba. Bagnald, and others which Prateolus and Caſtro relate, the Waldenſes, the Anabaptiſts, &c. And which Janſenius alſo out of Auguſtine, Epiſt. 89. the Pelagians out of Hilary Syracuſanus, Epiſt. 88. Bernard homil. 69. on Cant. The Fathers, ſayes he, ſeem to favour this Opinion, eſpecially Baſil, hom. in Pſal. 14. Chryſoſtom hom. 19.78. ad popul. and 17. on Mat And Theophylact on Mat. 5. Origen Tract 35. Mat. Tertullian de Idololat. [Page] Clem. Rom. l. 6. Conſtitut. Apoſt. Maldonat on Mat. 5.34. ſaith, the Anabaptiſts, the Wickliffiſts, ſome Syracuſans, a kind of Pelagians, denyed Swearing, and that Origen was not far off that Opinion. Here the Hereticks, as accounted, and the Fathers are reckoned up together, as holding the ſame Opinions: Sure in this they were not Hereticks; for then the Fathers ſhould be condemned with them, and called Hereticks too, as well as they, or elſe theſe Men are partial and contradictory.

On Jam. 5. of the words of the Apoſtle, thus, Ser. 30. ‘Perhaps it is meet for the Lord alone to ſwear, who cannot forſwear.’ And ſo he goes on to ſhew how hard it is for men to avoid Perjury.

In Serm. 3. ad competentes: ‘Let them not only abſtain from Perjury, but from Swearing; 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.’

But if it were an Auguſt Act of the Worſhip of God, he would on the contrary have exhorted at leaſt, if not commanded them to ſwear, which we never read any Command for, but in Oppoſition to Idols, even in the time of the Old-Teſtament-Writings, as the Teſtimonies before alledged declare, and in the time of the New, no Command at all; but on the contrary, a Prohibition by the Lord himſelf, and another by his Apoſtle, nor any Example; for that of Paul's was but an Aſſeveration, as by the Teſtimonies already produced, and to be alledged appears: For beſides thoſe of the Fathers and other Doctors, of late Bp. Ro. Sanderſon in his Oxford Lectures, ſhows, that is ſometimes uſed in the Form of an Oath which is no Oath; and ſo he defendeth Joſeph from breaking God's Command, that is, not to have ſworn ſo; and therefore not to have ſinned, but to [Page] have uſed an Aſſeveration,Agreeing with Chryſoſtom. as if he had ſaid, as ſure as Pharaoh liveth ye are Spyes: So may Paul be defended againſt the breaking Chriſt's Command, as if he had ſaid, as ſure as ye, or as ſome Greek Copies have it, We Rejoyce in Chriſt Jeſus: For [...], which they tranſlate, I proteſt by, hath ſometimes the ſame ſignification that [...], yea, hath, as may be ſeen in Scapula; For he ſayes, [...] (tranſlated, I proteſt by) is a Particle, ſometimes of granting and affirming; ſometimes it is put for verily, indeed; and he interprets [...] by the ſame word, which is tranſlated yea, which Scapula ſaith, is alſo ſometimes uſed in Swearing, and cites Ariſtophanes and Xenophon for it: And that [...] is uſed alſo in Compoſition, for affirming, as in [...], profuſus, laviſhing; which cannot ſignifie Swearing.

And how eaſily might the Tranſcriber, through that common Uſe, alter a Letter, being of the ſame ſignification, ſeeing in that very Verſe, in ſome Copies, there is not only in another word an Alteration of a Letter [...] & [...], our and your, but in another word five Letters, [...] & [...], referring it to the Verſe before; yea, a whole Word of Seven Letters added, [...]. And of about Thirty Greek Copies there are not Two of them that agree, but they interfer, ſome in one place, ſome in another; inſomuch that there are Thouſands of various Readings, which many of the ancient Fathers diverſly follow, ſome one, ſome another. See the (various Lections) Variae Lectiones Graec. Nov. Teſt. in Bp. Walton's Polyglot, vol. 6. alſo the Preface and Beza's Epiſtle therein: And conſider how hard a thing it is to conſtrue, limit, and lay the Interpretation of the Sayings of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the Weight of a Doctrine, and that as men would avoid Penalties too, upon a Letter (which yet alters not the Signification) upon Credit of the Tranſcribers, eſpecially in Paul's Epiſtles, wherein Peter ſayes, many things are hard to be underſtood, and wreſted by the Ʋnlearned, which he muſt needs intend in ſuch [Page] Learning as he himſelf had, and that was not of Worldly Academics; but from the Holy Spirit. And theſe words, which are joyned with that Particle, are not ſuch words as men uſe in Swearing, but for a Ground of his Fidelity, and a Remedy againſt their Incredulity, and queſtioning of the Weight of his Aſſertions, amongſt whom other Teachers were preferred, and who compelled him to ſpeak as a Fool, he ſays, even to commend himſelf. So that it is not ſtrange, if to them, and not to other Churches, he uſed ſuch forcible Aſſeverations from the Teſtimony that they had of him, of the Truth and Work of Chriſt in [...]im, and the Record thereof upon his Soul, and his Joy therein, that he ſpoak the Truth to them, and did not lye; ſo that he brings his Perfections againſt their Imperfections, to gain Belief, which can amount to no more then a Voluntary Condeſcenſion for the time being, and cannot prove or countenance a Compulſory, Promiſſory, Formal, Ceremonial Oath to be exacted or taken up for the future.

But Mark, that the word Oath, or Swear, uſed both by Chriſt and the Apoſtle James in their Prohibition, is never uſed by Paul in his Aſſeverations, neither doth he ever apply it to Brethren; b [...]t ſpeaking to them of the Oath that was in old time, and of men (indefinitely) that uſe to ſwear, he ſaith, Men ſwear, and to them an Oath is for Confirmation; that is, as among the Jews and Heathen; he doth not ſay to Ʋs, or to You; or We, or Ye ſwear, who are not in Strife, which, if had that been true, it might have ſtood the preſent Oath-Advocates in ſtead: So that ſuch as will have it, that Paul ſwore, muſt being the word ſwear, or Oath, to prove it; But if they could▪ his Example then were not enough to invalidate to us now the Command of Chriſt, for the Aboliſhing of Swearing, no more then his ſhaving his Head at Cenchrea, becauſe he had a Vow; or his purifying himſelf in the Temple, and offering with the four Jews that had a Vow; or his circumciſing of Timothy, becauſe of the Jews, [Page] can warrant us to the Obſervation of thoſe legal Rites and Ceremonies, which ſo long ſince are not only dead, but deadly, as the Fathers and Bp. Sanderſon diſtinguiſh about them. And thoſe that would therefore bring in Swearing and Vows, might under the ſame Colour, bring in ſacrificing and circumciſing too.

54

L. 1. c. 15.LIV. ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA, who as Euagrius Schol. writes, lived at the ſame time with Cyrill, and that the Fame of his Sayings and Doings was ſpead far and near, and riſe in every man's Mouth, that He led on Earth the Life of an Angel, Ep. lib. 1. Epiſt. 155. and wrote many notable Works, amongſt which are his Epiſtles, in one whereof he writeth againſt Swearing thus; ‘If thou art of our Flock, and art ordered under a good Shepherd, deny the Nature of Wild Beaſts, and obey his Voice that Forbiddeth to Swear AT ALL. Moreover not to Swear is, not to require an Oath of another: Now, if thou wilt not ſwear, neither require thou an Oath of another,Not to require an Oath by any means of another man. for two Cauſes; either becauſe he who is asked loves Truth, or on the contrary to Lye: If the man ſpeaks Truth uſually, he will alwayes ſpeak Truth without an Oath; but if he is a Lyar, he will Lye, though he Swear: Therefore for both theſe Cauſes, one ought not to require an Oath.’

55

On Mat. 5.LV. CHROMATIUS, Biſhop of Aquileia, about or not long after that time, upon theſe words, But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all, paraphraſeth thus; ‘The Law (ſaith he) given by [Page] Moſes received a Growth, Proficiency or Perfection by the Grace of the Doctrine of the Goſpel. In the Law it was commanded, not to Forſwear; but in the Goſpel NOT TO SWEAR: Which very thing heretofore the Holy Ghoſt did premeditate that Solomon ſhould command or teach, ſaying, Let not thy Mouth uſe to Swear. And again, As a Servant beaten continually, is not leſſened from the Paleneſs of his Stripes; ſo every one that ſweareth, ſhall not be purg'd from Sin. Wherefore it is not meet for us to Swear AT ALL: For, what need is there for any of us to Swear, ſeeing that it is not at all LAWFUL FOR US TO LYE; whoſe Words ought always to be ſo True, ſo very Faithful, that they may be accounted for Oaths. And therefore the Lord not only forbids us to Forſwear, BUT EVEN TO SWEAR; that we may not ſeem to ſpeak Truth ONLY when we ſwear; That we may not think that thoſe whom he hath appointed to be True in all their Speech, may have Liberty to Lye without an Oath: For this is the Cauſe of an Oath, Becauſe that every one who ſweareth, doth ſwear to this End,Suſpicion, the Cauſe of an Oath. that he will ſpeak that which is true, and therefore the Lord would have no Difference to be between their Oath and their Word: Becauſe as in an Oath there ought to be no Perfidiouſneſs, ſo in our Words there ought to be no Lye, in that both Perjury and Lying is condemned by the Puniſhment of the [Page] Judgment of God, ſeeing the Scripture ſaith, The Mouth which Lyeth killeth the Soul: Therefore whoſoever ſpeaketh Truth, ſweareth; becauſe it is written, A Faithful Witneſs doth not Lye. And therefore holy Scripture (not without Cauſe) often relates, that God hath ſworn, becauſe whatſoever is ſpoaken of God, who is true, and cannot lye, is counted for an Oath, becauſe all which he ſpeaks is true — Now we find God ſometimes ſwearing, but it is for the Perfidiouſneſs of the Jewiſh Infidelity, who think that all Truth conſiſts in the Credit of an Oath; Therefore alſo God would ſwear, that they who would not truſt God ſpeaking, might truſt him when he ſwore: Therefore our Lord ſaith, Ye have heard it ſaid of old, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear; But I ſay unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL, &c.’

56

On Deut. 6.LVI. THEODORET on Deut. 6. pag. 57. ‘Why doth the Law command, that they ſhould ſwear by God?A ſmart and true Anſwer. Leſt they ſhould ſwear by falſe Gods: For he ſaid the ſame by the Prophet, If thou takeſt the Names of Baalam out of thy Mouth, and ſhalt ſwear, The Lord liveth with Truth: And here, when he had ſaid, Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve, and ſhalt cleave unto him and ſhalt ſwear by his Name, he ſubjoyned, Ye ſhall not w [...]k [...]ter other or ſtrange Gods, which are of the Gods of the Nations, which are round about you.’ Lyra ſaith the ſame.

57

[Page]

LVII. Ordinary Gloſs. on Mat. 5.37. hath this Sentence, ‘A Faithful Speech ought to be accounted for an Oath.’

58

LVIII. Johannes Damaſcenus, Parallel. lib. 3. cap. 16. bringeth a Teſtimony of one Nilus, againſt Swearing. There was one nam'd NILUS in Aegypt, a Martyr, mention'd by Euſebius. Another Biſhop of Conſtantinople, ſpoaken of by Socrates, both very famous; the words are theſe: ‘It is not profitable to Swear, Nilus forbids Oaths. but very pernicious, and execrable and abominable: Wherefore hereafter make an End of Swearing; nor commit ſuch a thing, as that thy Tongue uſe Oaths.’ In the ſame place he alledgeth Teſtimonies out of J. Chryſoſtom, Hom. 13. ad Populum Antiochenum.

59

LIX. CYRILL, On Jer. 4. whom Evagrius Scholaſt. ſtyles Renown'd, in his Commentary on Jeremy the 4th; And ſhall ſwear, the Lord liveth in Truth, and in Judgment, and in Righteouſneſs; ſaith, ‘Let us look, who ſwear, how we do not ſwear in Judgment, but without Judgment; ſo that our Oaths are by Cuſtom rather then Judgment; we are laſhed therefore, and the Word reproving that ſame thing, ſaith, and if he ſhall ſwear the Lord liveth in Truth, in Righteouſneſs and Judgment: For we know it is ſaid in the Goſpel by the Lord unto his Diſciples, But I ſay unto you, that you Swear NOT AT ALL. But let us conſider alſo this Saying, and if God grant, both ſhall [Page] be rewarded: For, perhaps, it firſt behoveth to ſwear in Truth, in Judgment, and in Righteouſneſs; and after one hath made Proficiency, he may be made worthy NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL, but may have YEA, not needing Witneſſes that IT IS SO; and may have NAY, not needing Witneſſes that IT IS VERILY NOT So.’

Cyril. See Catena. 65. Grae [...]. Patr. on Luk. 1. p. 23.And ſayes Cyrill further, ‘Let none becauſe he hears that God ſwore to Abraham, uſe to ſwear: For, as that which is called Wrath in God, is not Wrath; nor doth it ſignifie a Paſſion, but a Puniſhing Power, or ſome ſuch like Motion; ſo neither is Swearing SWEARING: For, God doth not Swear; but ſhews the Certainty, that what he ſaith ſhall come to paſs, certainly: For the Oath of God is his own Word, filling the Hearers, and making every one believe, that what he hath promiſed and ſaid, ſhall ſurely come to paſs.’

60

On Pſal. 94.LX. CASSIODORUS, on Pſalm 94. ſaith, ‘Hence it is, that men are forbidden to ſwear, becauſe by their own Power they cannot perform their Promiſes,agreeth with Auguſtine. This Caſſiodorus was Famous about the year 500.’

61

On Eccleſ. 8.LXI. OLYMPIODORUS was alſo Famous about the ſame time, who on Eccl. 8. ſaith thus, ‘Keep the Mouth of the King, and do not ſtudy concerning the Word of the Oath of God, but [Page] go far from the Face of it, viz. of an Oath; that is, Refrain and depart from it, and do not AT ALL endure to take an Oath into thy Mouth.’

62

LXII. ISIDORUS HISPALENSIS was famous about that time, and liv'd with him they calld St. Gregory, who diſliked the bringing in the Title of Univerſal Biſhop, and alſo the Uſe of Swearing: his Words are theſe, ‘Many are ſlow to believe which are moved at the Belief of the Word: Chap. 31. But they do grieveouſly offend, who compel them to Swear that ſpeak to them.’

63

LXIII. ANTIOCHUS ſaid to be a Man famous for Holineſs & Learning, living in Paleſtine about the time of Heraclius, the Emperor, that was about the Year 614. In his Pandects of Scripture, Hom. 62. concerning Swearing ſaith thus in the Greek (which ſee; for the Latine Tranſlation is in ſome things imperfect) ‘The old Law, as giving Laws to Children, which for their Age were not capable of more holy Doctrine, not unſeaſonably commands, To Swear nothing to their Neighbour in Deceit; But us our Lord and Saviour commandeth, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL, neither out of Seaſon, nor in Seaſon; for he ſaith to us, Let your YEA be YEA, and your NAY, NAY; for whatſoever is more, is of the Evil.’

And ſaith he to the firſt People of a Stiff Neck, ‘I commanded, Thou ſhalt not forſwear, but ſhalt perform thy Vows unto the Lord, as to them that were [Page] Hard-hearted and Diſobedient to me: But to you that believe in me, to whom I have given Power to become the Sons of God, that are born again of the holy Spirit, I command, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL, neither little, nor great Oaths; that a Difference may plainly appear who are Baſtards, and who true Sons. Let us therefore, Dear Friends, fear him, who hath vouchſafed us ſo much Honour, even the Lord and Father, with all Fear; as ſincere ingenuous Servants let us keep his Commandments, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL, leſt he ſay as in Iſa. 1. I have nouriſh'd and brought up Children, and they have rebell'd againſt me: Let's not be Sleighters and Deſpiſers of this Commandment of the Lord; for thoſe things that are ſaid and done without an Oath, are more credited by Men, and more pleaſing to God.’

64

LXIV. In the next Century, BEDA, an Engliſh man,Beda in Ep. Jam. c. 5. the moſt famous of thoſe Dayes, and ſtyl'd Venerable, in his Expoſition upon theſe words, Before all things, my Brethren, ſwear not, &c. ſaith, ‘Becauſe he deſires entirely to draw out the deadly Poiſon of the Tongue in his Hearers, he forbad to detract or ſlander any man, or to judge his Neighbour, who forbad to grieve in Adverſities, which are open Sins;’ he adds this alſo (ſeeming light to ſome) ‘that he may take away the Cuſtom of Swearing. For that this alſo is not to be eſteem'd a light matter, plainly appears to them, that carefully conſider that Sentence of the Lord, [Page] where he faith, Of every idle Word that men ſhall ſpeak, they ſhall give Account in the Day of Judgment.’

[That ye fall not into Condemnation.] ‘Therefore (ſaith he)’ ‘I reſtrain you from the Fault of Swearing, leſt by Swearing frequently true things, ye fall ſometimes alſo into Forſwearing; but ſtand ſo far from the Vice of Forſwearing, that you will not Swear neither, but by the greateſt Neceſſity. But he alſo falls under the Judgment of Guilt, who although he never Forſwear, yet ſweareth true oftener then there is need; namely, he offends in the very Idleneſs of ſuperfluous Speech, and he offendeth the Judge, which forbad both every unprofitable Word and OATH.’

From this chief man among the Engliſh of that time, it is manifeſt that this was the Doctrine they then held, as further appears from H. Spelman, that learn'd Engliſh Knight,Spelm. Brit. Council. p. 260. in his Book of Brittiſh Councils, Canons, &c. in the Exceptions or ſelect Collections of Egbert, Arch Biſhop of York, Artic. 19. That no Prieſt wha [...]ſoever may ſwear an Oath, but let him ſpeak all things ſimply, in Purity ond Truth. And in the ſame Author and Council, Art. 18. the chief of Monaſteries, Prieſts & Deacons ſhould ſay (without Swearing) when they were to purge and clear themſelves, only thus, I ſpeak the Truth in Chriſt, I lye not.

And in pag. 259. In England, at the Council of Berghamſt [...]d about the Year 750. Artic. 17. That a Biſhop or a King's Word or Affirmation without an Oath is irrefragable.

This agrees with Blaſtaris Canons above mention'd. And at this Day in ſome Countries, as the Electoral Arch-Biſhops in Germany, of Colen, Mentz and Triers, and many Noble Men in their Station, ſpeak without an Oath, upon their Honour, &c.

[Page]Certainly then it is much below the Nobility of true Chriſtians in their Spiritual Station to Swear, as Chryſoſtom and the Ancients have well obſerv'd.

65

LXV. HAIMO lived about 840. who on the Revelations ſaith, ‘That it's lawful only for Men and Angels to ſwear; but to Men it is forbidden.’

66

LXVI. AMBROSIUS ANSBERTUS, Gallus Presbyter: ‘Seeing the Lord cohibits the Faithful from every Oath, ſaying, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c. but let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, On the Revelations, p. 196. Nay; what abounds more then them is from the Evil: Who ſtretcheth out his Hand to Heaven, and ſweareth by him that liveth forever, Are not his Sayings and Actings ſet for Examples for Believers to imitate? But only in that men are often deceived by an Oath; but he, who is the Truth, never is deceived; for he would not have prohibited men from an Oath if he had not known Sin to be in it: For, what do we underſtand to be figured by the Hand of the Angel, unleſs (as before noted) a Diſpenſation of Redemption of Mankind? For, his Hand is the Operation of our Salvation; although alſo, if it may be ſo ſaid, the ſame Son be his Right-Hand, as when the Word of the Father ſpeaketh, he ſheweth that he is the Word of the Father.’

68

[Page]

LXVIII. THEOPHYLACT, Arch-Biſhop of the Bulgarians, whom ſome place in the Ninth Century, others after; to be ſure very Famous; being as it were their Apoſtle; in his Comment on Mat. 5. ſaith, ‘To ſwear, or adjure more to Yea or Nay, is of the Devil. Moreover (ſayes he) if thou ſhouldſt ſay, That the Law alſo given to Moſes was evil, becauſe it commandeth to ſwear, Learn, that then it was not Evil to ſwear; but after Chriſt, it is Evil, as alſo to be circumciſed; and in brief, whatſoever is He makes Oaths Jewiſh, at leaſt in Oppoſition to Evangelical; becauſe imperfect, & permitted to the Jews in Condeſcenſion. Jewiſh: For, it is convenient for a Child to ſuck, but not at all for a Man.’

69

LXIX. Barnard; ‘The Truth needs not an Oath.’ De modo bene vivendi, Ser. 32. De perjurio. ‘A Faithful Word holds the Place of an Oath; as he cannot Lye who doth not Speak, ſo he cannot Forſwear who doth not undertake to Swear: grounded on Matthew 5.’

70

LXX. PASCHALIUS RATBERTUS on Mat. 5. Ye have heard, &c. ‘In this place, as alſo every where in thoſe things, the Perfection in Righteouſneſs is renew'd; for by what every one ſwears, he either worſhips, loveth or fears it; Therefore by the Law, for the carnal People it was lawful to ſwear by God, and this was allow'd as to little Ones, that as they offer'd Sacrifices to God, leſt they ſhould offer them to Idols; ſo alſo it was permitted [Page] to them to ſwear by God: Not that they did this well; but becauſe it was better to give it to God then to Devils.’

71

LXXI. OTHO BRUNFELSIUS on Mat. 5. But let your Word be Yea, &c. ‘That is the Duty of a Chriſtian man, to be ſo ſure in his Words, that being Unſworn he ſurpaſs any Jew or Heathen, ſwearing by all his holy Things, namely in theſe bare Words only, Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay: Such Faithfulneſs & Conſtancy is commended in good men by prophane Authors; Read Seneca, Cicero, Valerius Maximus.’

‘But thou wilt ſay, I ſhall not be truſted, unleſs I ſwear: Even ſo it is permitted by the Popes, to ſwear good Words in a good Cauſe. But ſuch Diſtruſt ought not to reign in the Faithful: But if we truſt not Words, what ſhould an Oath do? It is a Proverb, None is leſs truſted then he which ſhall often ſwear. Moreover, Who gave Power to Popes, to break the Command of God?’

72

LXXII. DRUTHMARUS on Math. 5. ‘Leſt the Jews ſhould Swear by Idols Names, the Lord ſuffered them to ſwear by his own Name.’

‘— The Lord taught us Perfection, that ſuch Truſt is to be among Chriſtians, that there ſhould be no need to interpoſe the Name of God for Witneſs.’

73

LXXIII. JANSENIUS on Matth. 5. ‘If [Page] all Chriſtians were ſuch as they ought to be, it would certainly be needleſs both to require and take an Oath — I think this more Chriſtian; and not to Swear at all, nor Compel to Swear, more Spiritual—Yea and Amen are the ſame, 2 Cor. 1. not Swearing, but Affirming: So Chriſt ſwore not.’

See Bernard, Hom. 69. in Cant. De more bene vivendi, Serm. 32.

74

LXXIV. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, on Mat. 5. ‘Swearing is by Indulgence.’

Thomas Aquinas cites Rabanus on Mat. 5.

75

LXXV. Alex. de Ales citeth HUG. CARDINAL, ſaying, ‘The Lord Forbad Swearing, leſt any ſhould deſire to ſwear as a Good Thing,p. 3. q. 59. alſo that none might fall into Perjury.’

76

LXXVI. REMIGIUS on Rom. 1. ‘Who never Swears, never Forſwears.’

77

LXXVII. RUFFINUS on Pſal. 14. ‘Not to Swear at all is of Perfect Men.’

See alſo Smaragdus on Mat. 5.

Titelmannus on Pſal. 14.

Brugenſis on Mat. 5.

Ludolphus Carthuſianus, vita Chriſti, part. 2. cap. 12.

Rupertus, de operibus ſpiritus ſancti, fol. 453.

Baptiſta Folengius, on Pſal. 15.

Nic. Lyra and Ordinary Gloſs on Mat 5.

78

[Page]

See Bibliotheca veter. Patrum.LXXVIII. EUTHYMIUS ZAGABONUS, on Matth. 5. p. 43. ſaith thus; Again, ye have heard, that it hath been ſaid to them of old time, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, &c. but I ſay unto you, Swear not at all, &c. ‘Now the old Law ſaith, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, but ſhalt offer to the Lord thine Oaths; which he added that he might put Fear into the Swearer, that he ſhould not Forſwear, knowing that God, which knows all things, undertakes the Oath. [But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all] For he that eaſily ſweareth, ſometimes perchance may Forſwear, by the Cuſtom of Swearing; but he that Swears by no means, will never Forſwear. Beſides, thou that ſweareſt, ſo be thou do not Forſwear, thou obſerveſt the Worſhip of God; but Swearing by no means, thou doſt promote it: And the other is the part of mean and imperfect Philoſophy; but this of that which is the higheſt and perfect. The other, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, is written in the Book of Exodus; but this, Thou ſhalt reſtore to the Lord thine Oaths, in the Book of Deuteronomy, but in other words: Now he commanded this, leſt they ſhould ſwear by Gods of a falſe Name.’ Again,

‘Not to Swear, and not to require an Oath, comes to the ſame thing: For, how canſt thou induce thy Brother unto that, which thou avoideſt thy ſelf; if ſo be that thou art a Lover of thy Brother, and not rather of Money?’

[Page] Nor by Heaven; for it is the Throne of God, &c.

‘Leſt they ſhould think, that he forbad to ſwear by God only, in ſaying, By God, he adds alſo other kind of Oaths, by which then the Jews did ſwear; for he that ſweareth by theſe things, ſweareth again by God, who fills theſe things, and rules them; for they have theſe things in Honour for him, and not for themſelves; for he ſaith by the Prophet, Heaven is my Throne, and the Earth is my Foot-ſtool; the Prophet manifeſting by this, that God filleth all things: Do not I fill Heaven and Earth? David alſo ſaith, The City of the Great King.’

Neither by thy Head.

‘Therefore thou ſhouldſt not ſwear the meaneſt Oath; I ſay, even by thy own Head, leſt thou proceed to greater, or by any other manner; for the Creature is alſo the Poſſeſſion of God; And again, the Oath is made by God, who hath it (the Creature) in his Power; for, although it (the Head) be made thine, yet it is not thy Work, which is manifeſt from this, That thou canſt not make one Hair white or black.’

But let your Words be Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay, &c.

‘Let your Speech be when ye affirm, Yea; and when ye deny, Nay; and uſe only theſe for, or inſtead of Oaths to Confirmation, and no other then Yea and Nay; what is adjoyned beſides theſe, he calleth an Oath.’

[Page] ‘Queſt. But if an Oath be of the Devil, how did the old Law permit [...]:’

Anſw. ‘Becauſe the Sacrifices of Living Creatures were alſo of Evil, and by the Deceit of Idols; yet the Law permitted them, becauſe of the They all agre in the Reaſon of ſuffering Oathes under the Law, viz. the Jews Weakneſs. Infirmity of the Hebrews: For, whereas they were Gluttons and Smell-Feaſts, they lov'd the Sacrifices of Idols; and whereas alſo they were Unbelieving, they alſo loved an Oath: And that they ſhould not afterwards either ſacrifice to Idols, or ſwear by Idols, the Law permitted them to ſacrifice and to ſwear; and if there were any thing elſe of that kind, they transferred all unto God. Now it was to come to paſs, that in proceſs of time, he would cut off theſe things alſo, by a more ſublime Law to be brought in; becauſe it is good for Infants to be ſuckled; but for men it is very unfit: There we allow this to them that live after the manner of Infants; but we with-draw or prohibit them that are manly from it.’

‘Queſt. What then is to be done, if any require an Oath, yea, compel to Swear?’

Anſw. ‘Let the Fear of God be more forcible then this Compulſion or Neceſſity; and chuſe rather to ſuffer all things, then to tranſgreſs the Command, ſith in every Precept Force and Violent Danger will often meet with thee: And unleſs thou eſteemeſt the Command of God every where more forcible, all things will depart from [Page] thee Void and Unperformed. In the following Paſſages the Lord ſaith, The Kingdom of Heaven ſuffered Violence, and the Violent take it by Force.’

79

LXXIX. OECUMENIUS, a Famous Greek Writer, about Ann. 1070. writes on Jam. 5.12. thus, ‘But ſome will ſay, If any be forced to ſwear, what is to be done? We ſay, that the Fear of God ſhall be ſtronger then the Force of him that compels. But ſome may doubt, How it comes to paſs, that Grace doth not command this, as did the Old Law, affording Praiſe to him that did ſwear by the Name of the Lord? We ſay, The old Law leading the Jews not to ſwear by Devils, appointed to ſwear by God, as it commanded them to ſacrifice, drawing them from the Sacrifice of Idols or Devils: But when it had ſufficiently taught them to have a Religious Reſpect to God, then it rejected Sacrifices as unprofitable, ſeeking not a Sacrifice by Beaſts, but a Broaken Spirit; that is, a ſweet whole Burnt-Sacrifice, enflamed by the Fire of Love. That ye fall not into Hypocriſie (ſo ſome Copies have it; for the words in Greek are ſomething alike) Hypocriſie he ſaith, or Condemnation, which follows them that Swear without ſparing, and through the Cuſtom of Oaths are carryed out to Forſwear. The Word Hypocriſie ſignifies thus much, that which being one thing appears another; How then falleth he into Hypocriſie that ſweareth? Anſw. When he that is believed for the Oath's [Page] ſake to be true, and yet Tranſgreſſion following, is declared to be a Lyar, inſtead of a true Man, not producing Yea in Certainty. He forbids to ſwear by God, becauſe of Perjury; but by Heaven and other Oaths, that men ſhould not bring theſe things into the Honour of God; for all that ſwear, do ſwear by the Greater.’

80

LXXX. ANSHELMUS, Biſhop of Canterbury, about Ann. 1090. on that place of Mat. 5. thus, pag. 38. Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, &c. ‘Moſes ſeeing that he could not take away Swearing, takes away Perjury.’ And again, ‘Becauſe men have in great Reverence thoſe things by which they ſwear, leſt they ſhould make the Creatures Gods to themſelves, he commands them, to render their Oaths to God, and not to ſwear by Creatures: But the Lord removes them more perfectly from Perjury, when he forbids them to Swear at all.’

81

Vid. Baron. Anno 1310. Joh. Walden adv. Wicklif & Waldenſ. Reiner. Rub. Capitan. W. Woodford.LXXXI. The Ancient WALDENSES we have good Cauſe to ſay, Deny'd the taking of any Oath in what Senſe the Primitive Chriſtians and Fathers refuſed, and that was altogether: To be ſure their Enemies charged them with it for above Three Hundred Years; and we cannot find, that they then deny'd the Charge: We ſuppoſe none will attempt to prove they did; for they were well known in the World as to this Particular.

82

[Page]

LXXXII. And Bp. USHER pleads for them, againſt the Papiſts, who were Swearers.De Succeſſ. l. 6.

83

LXXXIII. Likewiſe,Ban. Anno 1310. n. 3. a People of Albi in France, Ann. 1176. held, ‘It was Unlawful to Swear.’

84

LXXXIV. The Plowman's Complaint, containing, as abundance of mournful Applications to God, ſo many notable and ſerious Reprehenſions of the Lapſt, Erroneous and Cruel Nature of Men; among others it hath this notable Paſſage to our Purpoſe, ‘Lord, thou giveſt us a Command of Truth, in bidding us ſay, Yea, Yea;J. Fox Mart. v. 1. p. 527. and Swear for Nothing; but, Lord, he (Pope) that calls himſelf thy Vicar on Earth, hath broken the Commandment, ſo makes a Law to Compel men to Swear.’ Who was the Author of this, is not certainly known; but to be ſure it was embraced of the Wickliffians, Men honoured by Proteſtants. as worthy of their Patronage; and remembred and recorded by John Fox, as not unworthy to keep Company with Proteſtant Martyrs.

85

LXXXV. JOHN WICKLIFF, J. Fox Mart. v. 1. p. 554, to 558. our Country-man, and in his time Divinity-Profeſſor of Oxford (Famous for his Learning and Godly Courage in oppugning the Doctrines and Practices of Rome, in the time of Edward the third, and Richard the ſecond, about the year 1370.) [Page] was accuſed among other things, for maintaining, that all Oaths, which be made for any Contract or Civil Bargain betwixt man and man, are Unlawful.

86

LXXXVI. We will bring in here a Paſſage out of the Plowman's Tale, as it lyes in GEFFRY CHAUCER's Works, not impertinent to our Purpoſe; whoſe Learning, Honour and Wit was great in the time he lived, which was about 1360. John Wickliff's Contemporary.

Geff. Chauc. Works, fol. 86.

'Theſe Wollen make men to Swear,

'againſt Chriſt's Commaundment;

'And Chriſt's Members all to tear,

'on rood as he were new yrent:

'Such Laws they maken by common Aſſent,

'each one it throweth as a Ball;

'Thus the Poor be full ſhent;

'but ever Falſhood foul it befal.

He hath Expreſſions not leſs diſliking Oaths in his Parſon's Tales, where he makes the Parſon to ſay, ‘After thoſe, then cometh Swearing, expreſly againſt the Commandment of God, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who ſaith by St. Matthew's words, Ne ſhall ye not Swear in all manner, or on no Account.’

87

J. Fox Mart. v. 1. p. 614, 618.LXXXVII. WILLIAM SWINDERBY, Prieſt, and a Zealous Follower of John Wickliff, alſo lived in the time of Richard the ſecond, as appears by his Appeal to that King, from the [Page] Unjuſt Sentence of the Biſhop of Hereford, in which, to this part of the Charge exhibited (That no man ought to ſwear for any thing, but ſimply, without an Oath, to Affirm or Deny) he anſwers thus, ‘Whereas Chriſt's Law forbids Swearing, the Pope's Law juſtifieth Swearing, and compels men thereunto: Methinks (ſaith he) there is no need to Comfort or Encourage the People in Swearing.’

88

LXXXVIII. WALTER BRUTE, J. Fox Mart. v. 1. p. 623, 359. alſo an early Diſſenter from the Roman Church, and Intimate of William Swinderby; being charged, among other things, with ſaying, That it is not Lawful for Chriſtians, for any Cauſe to ſwear by the Creator, neither by the Creature; thus anſwer'd for himſelf, and indeed, it comprehends much of our Belief in this Matter: ‘As concerning Oaths, I believe and obey the Doctrine of Almighty God, and my Maſter, Jeſus Chriſt, which teacheth, That Chriſtian-men in Affirmation of a Truth ſhould paſs the Righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſees, the old Teſtament, or elſe he excludes them from the Kingdom of God: For Chriſt ſayes, Unleſs your Righteouſneſs exceed the Righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſees, ye cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And as concerning Oaths, Chriſt ſaith, It hath been ſaid by them of old time, thou ſhalt not Forſwear thy ſelf, but ſhalt perform unto the Lord thoſe things that thou knoweſt: But I ſay unto you, Thou ſhalt not ſwear at [Page]all, neither by Heaven, nor yet by the Earth, &c. but let your Communication be Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay; for, whatſoever ſhall be more then this, proceedeth of Evil: Therefore, as the Perfection of the ancient Men of the Old Teſtament was, Not to Forſwear themſelves; ſo the Perfection of Chriſtian Men is, Not to Swear at all, becauſe we are ſo commanded of Chriſt, whoſe Commandments muſt in no Caſe be broaken.’ Thus much of W. Brute.

89

J. Fox Mart. v. 1. p. 687.LXXXIX. John Purrey, John Edward, John Becket, John Clements, Richard Herbert and Emmot Willie, with many more in the time of Henry the fourth, through Fears and Hopes deſerted their Profeſſion, and revolted (as John Fox tells us) from their Faith, which was the Religion then profeſt of thoſe called Wickliffians or Lollards (the True, Poor, Perſecuted Chriſtians of that time) And of the Fifteen Articles, by them abjured, this was one; Item, That neither the If they could not, it was then held none could; ſo that then it was denying all Tenders. Pope, nor the Prelate, neither any Ordinary can compel any man to Swear by any Creature of God, or by the Bible-Book.

90

Ibid. p. 701, 702.XC. WILLIAM THORPE, whom John Fox calls, The Conſtant and Bleſſed Servant of God, and good Man and Servant of Chriſt, &c. refuſed to ſwear upon a Bible, when the Arch-Biſhop tendered the Oath to him; for, he thought it Not Lawful to take or give an Oath thereon, ‘Becauſe [Page] a Book is nothing elſe (ſayes he) but divers Creatures, of which it is made; and ſuch Swearing is ever Unlawful, as witneſſeth Chryſoſtom plainly, blaming them greatly, that bring out a Book to ſwear upon; charging Clarks, that in no wiſe they conſtrain any Body to ſwear well, when that thing is ſooth (or true) that they ſwear for. And alſo, full many Men and Women now ſay, That it is well done to ſwear by God, and by our Lady, and by other Saints, to have them in mind; others ſay, That they may not ſwear, when they may otherwiſe be believed: But ſince all theſe Sayings are Excuſes, and Sin, methinks, Sir (ſaith he) that this Senſe of Chryſoſtom may be alledged well againſt all ſuch Swearers.’

91

XCI. ELIZABETH YOUNG, who was brought to Examination in the Marian-days,J. Fox Mart. v. 3. p. 910, 911. before the Catholick Inquiſitors of Heritical Pravity, as they then called themſelves, and commanded to Swear, this Language was uſed to her.

Dr. Martin, ‘Thou ſhalt he racked Inch-meal, thou Trayterly Whore and Heretick; but thou ſhalt ſwear before a Judge before thou go.’

Eliz. Young, ‘Sir, I underſtand not what an Oath is, and therefore I will take no ſuch thing upon me.’

Dr. Martin, ‘She refuſeth to ſwear upon the four Evangeliſts before a Judge; for, I my ſelf and Mr. Huſſey, have had her before us Four Times, but we cannot bring her to ſwear.’

[Page]Then ſaid the Biſhop, ‘Why wilt thou not ſwear before a Judge, &c?’

Eliz. Young, ‘My Lord, I will not ſwear, that this Hand is mine.’

‘No, ſaid the Biſhop; and why?’

Eliz. Young, ‘Chriſt ſaith, That whatſoever is more then Yea, Yea; or Nay, Nay, it cometh of Evil.’

Then Dr. Cook brought her to a Book, commanding her to lay her Hand thereon.

Eliz. Young, ‘No, my Lord, I will Not Swear.’ And ſo ſhe perſiſted, till God delivered her out of their Hands.

John Huſs, Jerom of Prague, Walter Brute, William Swinderby, William Sawtry, William White, William Thorpe, &c. are recorded by thoſe of other Nations, both High and Low Dutch, to have refuſed all Swearing; as well by God, as by Creatures, in any Caſe, private or publick. Though ſuch as admit of Oaths in ſome Caſes, labour, as John Fox in England, and the Calviniſts abroad, to ecclipſe and mutilate their Teſtimony; as if they were one while only againſt Book-Swearing, as being a Creature; another while, only againſt Swearing in Private Caſes; another while, as J. Fox relates in John Burrell, That it is not lawful to ſwear, but in Caſe of Life and Death, &c. But moſt evident it is, that they were againſt All Swearing, or Swearing at all; elſe, why ſhould they ſo frequently alledge Chryſoſtom, who, though he accounted ſwearing by Creatures a more execrable Sin, then to ſwear by God; yet conſtantly counted Swearing at all, a Sin in Chriſtians, as cleaving to that which Chriſt had abrogated, being only permitted to the Jews, for the Hardneſs [Page] and Blindneſs of their Hearts, their Unbelief and Propenſity to follow the Courſe of the Heathens, and ſwear by their Gods. Let it not be forgotten, that Chryſoſtom not only inveighs againſt them that bring forth the Book to ſwear by, becauſe it is a Creature; but that he alſo upbraided them with Impudence and Audaciouſneſs, that dare make uſe of that Law to adminiſter an Oath by, that ſo ſtrictly forbids an Oath.

Ridiculous it is, to make them deny Swearing only in private Caſes, and to be ready to ſwear in Caſe of Life and Death: For where is there any Shadow of ſuch a Law? And how ſhould thoſe Honeſt Men invent one? Chriſt's Law we read Mat. 5. The Doctors, Chryſoſtom and Jerom's Judgment, whom they had moſtly in their Mouths, we have repeated here at large, in which is not the leaſt Reſtriction. Theſe Good Men then muſt needs be underſtood to take the Law of Chriſt either to have forbidden Swearing in any Caſe, and then not to ſwear in Caſe of Life; or not to forbid Swearing at all, and then they not only might ſwear to ſave their Lives, but Liberties and Eſtates, and ought ſo to do. But we hope there can be no room left for this Objection.

92

XCII.Spotſ. Hiſt. pag. 61. The LOLLARDS of Kille in Scotland were againſt all Swearing, as both Spotſwood in his Chronicle doth relate, and the Book called, The Hiſtory of the Reformation of the Kirk of Scotland.

93

XCIII.W.C. Albrid p. 193, 194, 195. MICHAEL SADLER (an Eminent Man, call'd a Lord) was Cruelly Tortur'd and put to death by ſome Papiſts under the Emperor of Germany, whoſe Brethren were alſo Executed [Page] with the Sword, and his Wife and Siſters Drowned, Ann. 1527. One Article alledged againſt him was, that he had ſaid, That men ſhould not Swear to, or before the Magiſtrate.

94

XCIV. The CHRISTIAN-PROTESTANTS in the Valley of Piedmont, who were Cruelly Tortured to Death by the Papiſts, about Ann. 1655.Morl. Hiſt. p. 217, 218. One Article alledged againſt them was, That they believed it was not lawful to Swear any thing, be it True or Falſe.

95

J. Fox Mart. v. 2. p. 420.XCV. GERARD SAGARELD of Parma, and his Followers, Denyed all Oaths and Vows. So did ſeveral in Germany, mention'd by B. Uſher, in his Book De Succeſſione: ‘In Germany, Jury and Swearing is well excluded, and need not much to be required.’

96

Comm. on Mat. 5.XCVI. ERASMUS, ‘Now ye ſhall hear another thing. Commandment was given unto your Elders, none otherwiſe; but if they had made an Oath, they ſhould perform it, and not be Forſworn; for now they are bound to God, and not to man only: Wherefore among the Jews only Perjury is puniſhable; but he that deceives his Neighbour without any Oath made, he goes unpuniſhed; but yet the Law of the Goſpel condemneth him; the which, that ye may be the more remote from Perjury, doth utterly [Page] condemn all manner of Oaths; that it is not lawful to Swear, neither by God, nor by thoſe things which ſeem to the Common Sort to be things of leſs Religion, that is, Neither by Heaven, becauſe it is the Seat of God; nor by the Earth, becauſe it is his Foot-ſtool; nor by Jeruſalem, becauſe it is the City of the Great King, that is to ſay, of him that hath made all things: Neither as the Heathen ſwear, by the Head of another Man, whereof thou haſt no Authority; but it is conſecrate to God, that hath made all things as he would; for thou canſt not make one White Hair Black, nor the contrary: And becauſe all things are conſecrate to God, the Maker, thou oughteſt to be fearful to ſwear by any thing. And what needeth any Oath among them, where no man, becauſe of their Simplicity, can diſtruſt; nor no man can deſire to deceive, though they might do it? Such is their Sincerity and Perfectneſs, ſpecially in thoſe things of the which they declare themſelves to be Deſpiſers. Therefore among you, plain and ſimple Speech ought to be more holy and more ſure then the devout and ſolemn Oath among the Jews: For, among you, whoſe Hearts and Mouths ought to agree, there is no other uſe of Speech, but to expreſs your Minds each to other. In your Bargains ye need no Oath, ye need no Execration, or Curſing, or ſuch like, to bind the Promiſer, or to aſſure him to whom the Promiſe is made: Two Words be ſufficient, Nay and Yea, whereby [Page] thou denyeſt that which thou doſt not promiſe, and whereby thou doſt perform that which thou didſt promiſe by plain Word, that thou wouldſt do: For, there is no man leſs bound by his ſimple and bare Word, then the Jew Swearing by all holy Things; and he whom thou makeſt thy Promiſe unto, doth truſt thee as much as if thou hadſt made a ſolemn Oath. If there be any Eraſm. here plainly forbiddeth all Swearing on any account. more beſides theſe, it muſt needs come of Evil and Sin: For, he that ſweareth, either be thinketh Evil of him to whom he ſweareth,; or elſe, he that requireth the Oath, doth diſtruſt: But none of theſe ought to be in you, whom I would have perfect in all Points. Therefore, when I utterly forbid Swearing, I do not aboliſh the Law which doth prohibit Perjury; but I make the Law more full, and I with-draw men further from that, which the Law doth puniſh.’

‘Let your Mind be pure and plain, and let your Heart and your Mouth go both together:Comm. on Jam. 5. Let no man with feign'd words deceive his Neighbour. But eſpecially, my Brethren, Swear Not, leſt by little and little you accuſtom your ſelves to Forſwear. Among Jews and Heathens, for Fidelity's ſake, there is an Oath put; But among Chriſtians, which ought neither to diſtruſt any man, nor to deceive, it is a Vain Thing to Swear. Whoſoever is accuſtomed to Swear, is Couſen-german to the Peril of Forſwearing. Be you afraid, not only to Swear by God in humane Affairs, and in light Matters, but alſo abſtain from all kind [Page]of Swearing, that you Swear neither by Heaven, neither by Earth, or any other thing, that the Common People eſteem for Then not by God; for the common people eſteemed him ſacred. Holy and Religious. Whoſoever dare be bold to Lye without Swearing, he dare do the ſame alſo when he Sweareth, if he liſt. To be brief: He that is a good man, will believe a man without Swear [...]ng; and he that is naught, will not truſt a man though he Swear: But among you that are furniſhed with Evangelical Plainneſs, there is neither place to diſtruſt, 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. As often as you confirm any thing, confirm it with all your Heart; and perform indeed the thing that you ſpeak: As oft as you deny any thing, deny it with your whole Heart; neither let any thing elſe be in your Heart then your Mouth ſpeaketh, that there be no Counterfeiting in you, ſeeing you are Diſciples of the Truth.’

Thus far, we hope, is put altogether out of Queſtion, Whether many Learned and Chriſtian Men have not flatly denyed the Ʋſe of Oaths to True Chriſtians: And though we need not the Contribution that is afforded us by ſeveral School and other Roman Doctors, yet to evidence a kind of Succeſſion, and Univerſality of Teſtimony to this Doctrine, we think it not improper to mention ſome of them.

The Judgment of Shoolmen and others, in this Point.

[Page]

Gloſs on Mat. 5. p. 22. XCVII. T. AQUINAS, Non j [...]rare omnino, &c. Not to ſwear at all, &c. ‘The Lord had taught before, Wrong is not to be done to our Neighbour, as in forbidding Anger with Murder, Luſt, Adultery, putting away of one's Wife; and now he teacheth conſequently, that we muſt abſtain from the wronging of God, when he doth not forbid only Forſwearing, as Evil, but alſo an Oath, as the Occaſion of Evil, from whence he ſaith, hear thou again, For it was ſaid of old time, Thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf: and leſt that they might make to themſelves the Creatures Gods, he commandeth, to render the Oaths to God, and not to ſwear by the Creatures; from whence it follows, Render to God, &c. that is, If one ſhall happen to ſwear by the Creator, not by the Creature, whence he ſaith in Deuteronomy, Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, and by his Name ſhalt ſwear; and this was allowed by the Law, as to Children, that as they did offer Sacrifice to Idols, they ſhould not offer them to Idols; ſo they were permitted to ſwear by God, not that they might do this rightly, but that it might be better to give this to God, them to Devils. Chryſoſtom upon Matthew, For no man ſweareth frequently that ſometimes may not forſwear; as he that makes it a Cuſtom to ſpeak many things, ſometimes he ſpeaks unfit things. Auguſtine againſt Fauſlus, The Lord was more willing that we not [Page]Swearing might come ſhort of the Truth, then Swearing the Truth, to come nearer to Perjury: Whence it follows, I ſay unto you, Swear not at all. Auguſtine on the Words of the Lord in the Mountain, in which he confirms the Righteouſneſs of the Phariſees, which is, Not to Forſwear, For be cannot Forſwear, that doth not Swear.’

98

XCVIII. CAJETAN, Again, On Mat. 5. fol. 18. Ye have heard] ‘He perfects another Precept of the Old Law concerning Perjury (becauſe it was ſaid to them of old time, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear) Exod. 20. Thou ſhalt not take the Name of thy God in vain: And Levit. 19. Thou ſhalt not Forſwear in the Name of the Lord; but ſhalt render to the Lord thy Oaths. The firſt part of this Precept (namely, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear) is negative, forbidding Evil in its kind; for Perjury is Evil of it ſelf, therefore by no Reaſon it can be exc [...]ſed. But the ſecond part (namely, Thou ſhalt render to the Lord thy Oaths) is affirmative, and doth not ſignifie to fulfil the Oaths which thou haſt promiſed (as it appears) and thereupon nothing follows of fulfilling of Promiſes) but it ſignifies, that the Oaths to God are to be rendred; that is, that Swearing muſt be by the Lord, not by the Creatures: For theſe words are not in the Law, but the Senſe of them is, Deut. 6. Thou ſhalt ſwear by the Name of the Lord thy God: Where Swearing is not commanded, but is but regulated, that it ſhould be by the Name of [Page] God, and not by the Name of the Creatures: For, the Law commandeth, that this Act of Religion, which is, to ſwear, ſhould be exhibited to God, and to no Creatures or Idols whatſoever. But I ſay unto you] He perfecteth both the Precepts, adjoyning two Precepts; the one negative, the other affirmative (Not to Swear at all) Lo a negative Precept, wherein two things are contained, that is, Not to Swear, and Not at all; he forbids us to Swear at all, by all means, as well in expreſſing God, as not in expreſſing God; ſuppoſe by Heaven and Earth, and by the reſt of the Creatures: And in this he perfects the Precept concerning not Forſwearing, not only by taking away an Oath, but the Occaſion of Forſwearing; for, 'tis impoſſible to incur Forſwearing without an Oath: and alſo, the Precept of performing the Oath to God, by taking away the Care of Performing; for where nothing is ſworn, there is no need of any Care of performing the Oath to God.’

§

Comm. on Mat. 5.CV. ALPHONSUS de Avendano, ‘It's to be noted out of Cajetan, that in this the Lord perfected the Command of not Forſwearing, by taking away not only Forſwearing, but the Occaſion of not Forſwearing; becauſe, without an Oath it is impoſſible to incur Perjury. An Oath was not neceſſary by the firſt Intention of Nature; for if men had continued in the Truth, they had not lyed; and becauſe Chriſt came, that he might bring back men to this firſt [Page] Innocency, an Oath was not neceſſary, ſuppoſing that men ought to return unto it, then to men that live according to the Simplicity of the Goſpel, an Oath is not neceſſary, and therefore not Good.’

Reaſons for avoiding Caths, from the ſame Author.

‘1ſt, Leſt by Swearing they fall into Perjury, for which Cauſe Swearing is of an ill Report amongſt the Saints, as in Ambroſe, Pſalm 18.’

‘2dly, For Reverence of the Name of God.’

‘3dly, For the mutual Confidence which one Chriſtian ſhould have of another, which ought to be ſo great, that every one ſhould be ſure, and not poſſible to be deceived in the leaſt thing, although he ſhould ſpeak in a ſingle Aſſertion; and for the Authority of the Saints, which do ſeem to forbid all Oaths to Chriſtians, and that the Truth of the Goſpel receives no Oath, as good and deſirable of it ſelf; ſeeing every one is of Evil.’

‘Laſtly, Out of Cajetan, The Lord perfecteth this Precept of not Forſwearing, by taking away not only Perjury, but the Occaſion of it, and taking away the Care: For, where there is no Swearing, there is no need of Care of Rendering.’

‘Oh! how Sincere and True would the Lord make his Chriſtians, that all Affirmations ſhould be included in Three Letters only, all Denyals in other Three, that the Truth ſhould be ſo familiar to us, as to be included in the Compendium of Three Letters?’

100

[Page]

C. FRANCISCUS de MENDOCA, Olyſiponenſis, Dr. Theol. in Eburenſ. Academia, Sacr. lit. Interpres,On 1 King. 12. n. 3. II. in 4. lib. Reg. Tom. 3. Speak, ‘ſaith he, of me, &c. In the Hebrew it is [...] i. e. teſtifie, from the verb [...], which not only ſig [...]ifieth to ſpeak but alſo to bear Teſtimony, as it is to be ſeen Ex. [...]. n. 14. Deut. 19. n. 15. Job 16. n. 9. et paſſi [...] alib [...], and many other places▪ as if there were no Difference with the Hebrews of ſpeaking and teſtifying, nor without Cauſe; for there ought to be ſo much Veracity of Good Men, that their Simple Speech may be accounted ſworn, and their private Conference be accounted a publick Teſtimony, which was to be accounted the Fidelity of Cato, who was believed in a Court-Caſe even Unſworn; which alſo S. Jerome, in his Epiſtle to Celantia, inculcates; Let there be, ſaith he, ſo much Love of Truth in thee, that whatſoever thou ſayeſt, thou mayſt think to be ſworn. The ſame Jerome to that of Mat. 5. Swear not, &c. The Goſpel-Truth, ſaith he, doth not receive an Oath, ſith every Faithful Speech is for an Oath. To which Opinion is agreeable the Doctrine of Philo Alex. in his Book of the Decalogue, It will be moſt profitable, ſaith he, and moſt agreeable to the rational Nature, to abſtain Altogether from Swearing; and be ſo accuſtom'd to Truth, that one's ſingle Word may have the Force of an Oath. The like relateth Joſephus, in the ſecond Book of the Jewiſh War, cap. 7. De his Eſſeni, moſt [Page] ſincere Worſhippers of Truth (vericultoribus.) The Hebrew Elders alſo, when they would make their Innocency about the man kill'd by an Uncertain Author, teſtified with an Oath, as the Rabbins, Solomon and Moſes in Lyran. affirm, Deut. 21. Nevertheleſs, they are brought in by the Scripture, aſſeverating it only with ſimple Speech; And they ſhall ſay, ſaith he, Our Hands have not ſhed this Blood, nor our Eyes ſeen it. Becauſe the ſimple and Naked Speech of a Wiſe Man, is equivalent to an Oath; which St. Bernard vehemently commendeth in Comite Theobaldo, in Epiſt. 38. to the ſame, And indeed, ſaith he, in other Princes, if at any time we take a Word of Lightneſs or Falſeneſs, we account it neither new nor wonderful: But with Count Theobald, we do not at all patiently hear Yea & Nay, to whom, as it is ſaid, Simply to ſpeak, is to Swear; and a light Lye is accounted a heavy Perjury; for among very many Enſigns of Virtue, which do very much ennoble your Dignity, and make your Name Renowned and Famous throughout the World, the Conſtancy of Truth is eſpecially praiſed in you. 3. Certainly God himſelf hath (tantundem) ſo much to ſpeak nakedly, and to ſwear by himſelf holily: For that he promiſed with an Oath an Off-ſpring to David, which ſhould ſit on his Throne, is read no where in the Scripture; And yet Abner, 2 King. 3. n. 9. acknowledges an Off-ſpring ſworn to David, The Lord do ſo to Abner, ſaith he, and add theſe things to him, unleſs as the Lord hath ſworn to David, ſo I do with him. [Page] And in Pſalm 88. God himſelf ſaith, Once have I ſworn in my Holineſs, if I Lye to David, &c. Alſo the Land of Canaan is no where found, in the holy Scriptures promiſed to the ancient Fathers with an Oath; but God promiſed it ſimply to Abraham, Gen. 12, 13, & 17. to Iſaac, Gen. 26. to Jacob, Gen. 28. Yet Moſes, in Deut. 1. Poſſeſs, ſaith he, the Land, for which the Lord ſware to your Fathers. Philo Alex. in the Book of Abraham, at the end looſes the Knot notably; That therefore the ſimple Promiſe of God in thoſe places is called an Oath, becauſe it hath the Force of an Oath.’

101

On Mat. 5. p. 23, 24.CI. JACOBUS FABER, ‘It is the part of a Spiritual Man, not only Not to Swear in a Vain Thing, but alſo not in any Serious thing; for, you which are ſuch, are true: Unto true men it's ſufficient that a true man gain Belief, if he ſay, that the Lord hath commanded Yea, Yea, in Affirming; Nay, Nay, in Denying: But if with incredulous and Evil men a Speech alſo be had concerning a ſerious and neceſſary Matter, why ſhall one Swear for their Badneſs, that he may gain Belief with them? Who ever ſpake more ſeriouſly then our Saviour? Who more neceſſary things? Yet he never uſed other Speech then that, Verely, verely, I ſay unto you, or ſome other ſuch like, which was a true Form or Manner to them, that ſwore not. Therefore that now ſome Swear, to gain Belief concerning ſome profitable and neceſſary things, which [Page] they think is to be given rather to the Oath then to the Perſon: Perhaps alſo there is a Danger when an Oath is required in Judgment, leſt he that exacteth it, ſin; For if it be manifeſt, that he that is called into Judgment be verely good and true, it is enough to hear of him Yea or Nay; but if that be not evident, or that it be evident, that he is bad, perhaps that's required of him which ought not to be required. What then? It is lawful to Adjure: For the Lord made Anſwer to an Adjuration, but he did not Swear; and Adjurations are found in the New Law: But if any one being Adjured of another, ſpeak the Truth, by anſwearing Yea or Nay, or by declaring the thing requir'd, neither the one nor the other offendeth; but if he ſpeak a Falſity, he offends, and incurs the Offence of a Falſe Teſtimony, but perchance he ſinneth leſs then if by Swearing he had alſo fallen into the Guilt of Perjury: For, as he that (being adjured) anſwereth in Truth, doth not Swear; ſo he that anſwereth in Falſneſs, doth not Forſwear, but he is a Falſe Witneſs: but he alſo who hath adjured, is altogether guitleſs; for, there is no doubt but he hath required that which was lawful to require. And although its not my Purpoſe to contradict the Ordinances of Judgments, yet I may think this to be more Chriſtian, both N [...]t to Swear at all, neither to Compel to Swear, to be more Spiritual: But yet, if the Badneſs of men would permit it, although [Page] you would have this Sentence of the Lord concerning not Swearing, to be applyed to the Believers common and daily Cuſtom of ſpeaking (for he ſpeaks to his Diſciples) which is very true, eſpecially if the old Law, which the Lord declares, Thou ſhalt not Forſwear, but ſhalt render to the Lord thine Oaths, was given concerning common and daily Speech; but afterwards the Lord amendeth another thing, which was written in the Old Law, that the Law might be perfect, and that he might ſhew how he hath fulfilled it; and it may be fulfilled of others, as Matthew ſhews.’

102

De quaeſt. jur. Chriſt. p. 306.CII. SUAREZ: He affirmeth, Chriſt ‘did not Swear, becauſe that which he could not lawfully do, he could not ſimply do; but he could not lawfully ſwear, therefore he could not at all: But that he never ſwore, is proved, becauſe that he himſelf commanded or counſelled, Not to ſwear at all; but ſimply to ſpeak, Yea, it is; Nay, it is not, &c. therefore ought to go before the Example. It is ſpoaken of him only ſometimes that he ſaid Amen, or Truly or Verily, which we have before ſhewed to be no Particle of Swearing.’

‘It's not only forbidden in the New, but alſo in the Old Teſtaments, Not to Swear, as Hoſ. 4. Zach. 5. quoteth Tertullian, lib. de Idololat. cap. 11. ſaying, I am ſilent about Perjury, ſeeing that indeed it is not lawful to Swear.’

pag. 227. ‘And thoſe very words of Chriſt, Swear not at [Page]all, ſignifie this (ſeeing he ſubjoyns, Neither by Heaven, &c.) as if he had ſaid, not only greater Oaths, but alſo theſe, which ſeem leſs, you are to take heed of, and it is apparent from the Reaſon which he adjoyns, ſaying, Neither by Heaven: If therefore Chriſt forbiddeth to ſwear by Heaven, becauſe God dwells therein, much more he forbiddeth to ſwear by God, &c. Now he forbiddeth all manner of Swearing by the Creatures, and every Oath by God himſelf,Hom. 18. in Cant. as Greg. Nyſſen rightly argues, and Chriſt himſelf hath plainly ſo declared, Mat. 23.’

‘Laſtly, The following Words of Chriſt are oppoſit, Let your Word be Yea and Nay; for, by them he declareth, that he before forbad the Addition of any Oath. 2dly, Jerome anſwers, Swearing was permitted to the Jews, as to Children; but Evangelical Verity receives not Swearing, ſeeing every Faithful Word is for an Oath. The ſame Doctrine and Expoſition doth Chryſoſtom follow. Theophylact, after Chriſt, It is an Evil to Swear, as to be Circumciſed, and in brief, whatſoever is Jewiſh. Beda, alſo Caſtro and Druthmarus confeſs, and Bernard himſelf denyes not, that it is the Counſel of Chriſt, not to Swear. And Precepts are not contray to Counſels.’

‘Libr. 1. cap. 14. p. 282. Whether an Oath be an elicit Act of Religious Virtue?’

‘There may be a Reaſon of Doubting, becauſe every Act of Religion is Principally intended for the Worſhip of God: But an Oath [Page] is not made primarily, and of it ſelf (per ſe) for the Worſhip of God; but for confirming, &c. as Heb. 6. From whence it ſeems plainly to follow, That an Oath is not an Act of Religion.’

‘It may be declared by Reaſon;pag. 276. becauſe,’

‘1ſt, It is impoſſible that man can bring God for a Witneſs, although he would never ſo fain: Therefore the Name of God is taken in vain, as often as it is taken to ſwear; Therefore it is Evil in it ſelf (per ſe.)’

‘2dly, Grant this were poſſible, to bring God for a Witneſs; it ſeems diſorderly to bring the Perſon of God to confirm men's Buſineſſes, Covenants, or Words, becauſe it is diſorderly to order things of an higher Order to thoſe that are inferiour: Much more is it diſorderly, to mix the ſacred Authority of God to the prophane (or common) Words, and Buſineſſes of Men.’

‘3dly, Though-in ſome Caſe an Oath might be uſed without Inconvenience, yet it is ſo expoſed to Dangers, that it can ſcarce be done without Crime: But in the Law of Grace; becauſe of the Perfection of it, not only Sins are to be forbid, but alſo thoſe things which do morally and neareſt entangle into Sin: For he that loveth Danger, ſhall periſh in it.’ He quotes Clemens Romanus, lib. 6. Conſtitut. Apoſt. as before;Conſt. 6. & 11. Our Maſter commanded, that we ſhould not Swear, no, not by the true God; that our Word ſhould be counted more firm and credible then an Oath it ſelf. He quotes alſo Greg. Nazianzen, as before, upon [Page] theſe words, But I ſay unto you, &c.] He forbiddeth all manner of Swearing by the Creatures, even with Reſpect to God: Hence it follows from the forcibler, as I ſaid, that he forbad all Swearing by God himſelf, as Gregory Nazianzen rightly argues, as before, on Cant. Homil. 18. And Chriſt himſelf plainly ſo declared, Mat. 23. He that Sweareth by Heaven, Sweareth by the Throne of God, &c.

‘Laſtly, The words withſtand, which Chriſt ſubjoyns, Let your Word be, &c.] For, by them he declares, that he had before forbidden the adding of any Oath: Therefore Jerome anſwered, That Oaths, &c. were permitted to the Jews, as to Children.’

He uſes many other Arguments, and quotes many Authors, as may be ſeen at large in his Book concerning Swearing.

103

CIII. JO. MAJOR HADINGTONIANI, on Mat. 5. Not to Swear at all: ‘That Precept was given to the Diſciples (the Baſis) of the firſt Church.’

104

CIV. JO AC. CAMER. and P. LOSELER VILLERIUS's Marginal Note upon Mat. 5.37. ‘Whatſoever you vouch, vouch it barely; and whatſoever you deny, deny it barely, without any more words.’

105

CV. Bible, imprinted An. 1559. in Quarto. What is more is of Evil] Marginal Note, ‘From an evil Conſcience, or from the Devil.’

106

[Page]

CVI. MARLORAT on Mat. 5. ſaith, ‘Some men, not bad, hold againſt Swearing.’

Maldonat on Mat. 5. reckons up ſeveral againſt Swearing.

CVII. PETER CHARRON, Doctor of Law in Paris, in his Book of Wiſdom, chap. 37. ‘An Oath, what is it, but a Symptom and ſhameful Mark of Diſtruſt, Infidelity, Ignorance, Humane Infirmity, both in him that Requires it, that Gives it, that Ordains it (alluding to Chriſt's Words, ſaith he) Quod amplius eſt a malo; What is more, is from the Devil.’

108

CVIII. BEZA, on James 5.12. ‘That which you have to ſay or affirm, ſpeak or affirm it ſimply, and without an Oath; and that you have to deny, deny it ſimply and flatly.’

109

CIX. Folio Bible, printed Ann. 1578. Marginal Note on Mat. 5.34. Swear not at all, ‘Let Simplicity and Truth be your Words, and then you ſhall not be ſo light, and ready to Swear.’

110

Comm. on 1 Tim. 1. pag. 210.CX. LODOVICUS SOTO Major, ‘In the Goſpel, this Particle (Amen) is often uſed by Chriſt our Lord, confirming his Words by it, as Hierem alſo noteth; yet it's not to be thought (that none [Page] be deceived) that Chriſt our Lord ſwore, or would have to Swear, as often as he uſeth this Word or Form of Confirming; but rather ſo to have been willing, more to Confirm, and Perſwade, and Commend thoſe Things which he taught, and eſpecially, by Reiterating or Repeating this Word, as he often uſeth; for neither in this doubling of the Word, for nought that Chriſt our Lord ſometimes uſeth it in the Goſpel, but rather it hath a great Emphaſis & Encreaſe, that is, great Moment and Weight to perſwade and gain Belief, as Auguſtine rightly teacheth and explaineth in his 41. Tract upon the Goſpel of John, expounding thoſe Words of Chriſt, ſaying, Amen, or verely, verely, I ſay to you, He that doth Sin, is the Servant of Sin: although therefore that it be not a Swearing, yet it is a certain greater Confirmation and Aſſeveration of thoſe Things which are ſpoaken; yet nevertheleſs it is not Swearing; for otherwiſe, is it likely that Chriſt the Lord, who himſelf d [...]horts others from Swearing at all, for Danger of Forſwearing, ſhould himſelf Swear ſo often? for he not only forbad his to Swear, Mat. 5. but alſo at the ſame Time, and that very wholſomly that they ſhould only uſe in their Speech a ſimple Affirmation and Denyal, without any Oath, ſaying, Swear NOT at all, &c. for this much more becomes the Simplicity, Sincerity, Piety and Modeſty of Chriſtians; for nothing is more Simple, Brief and Effectual to perſwade (the Badneſs and Naughtineſs of Men being removed) then a ſingle Affirmation [Page] or Denyal, although there were no Danger of Perjury.’

In this Senſe in a Manner, do moſtly all the graver Authors interpret that Place of the Goſpel, or Command of Chriſt, of Not Swearing at all; but eſpecially Auguſtine lib. 4. of the Lord's Words in the Mount, C [...]p. 30. and 31. and in his Book de Mendacio, cap 15. and Epiſt. 154. to Publicola, and often elſe-where; For which Interpretation or Underſtanding votes alſo Philo Judaeus in his Book of the Decalogue, Tom. 2. p. 129. where treating of an Oath, he thus congruently writeth; Men ſin in this Reſpect many and divers Wayes, therefore it will be moſt profitable and moſt agreeable to the Reaſonable Nature, to abſtain ALTOGETHER from Swearing, and ſo to accuſtom to Truth, that ſimple Sp [...]ech may have the Force of an Oath, &c. Which Things Philo in the ſame Place purſues to the ſame Senſe, very congruently in the Goſpel, that which alſo he confirms in his Book of Special Laws, Tom. 2. pag. 137. And afterwards, If therefore, as I ſaid before, Chriſt the Lord for the Danger of Perjury, and alſo for the Reverence or Religion of an Oath, commands his NOT to Swear at all, though otherwiſe, it be true which they affirm; If I ſay, there be ſo much Reverence of an Oath, how great is the Perfection? It is not likely nor agreeable to Reaſon, that the Lord Chriſt, the Patern of true and ſolid Virtue, every Action of whom is our Inſtruction, did Swear ſo often, that is, ſhould ſwear as often as he uſed this Form, Verely, verely, I ſay unto you, &c. For how can every moral Action of his, or in his Converſation, be our Inſtruction or Example, if he ſo frequently and every where ſeems to do that, which he ſo vehemently and earneſtly commanded his, even his choſen Diſciples, that is, his Apoſtles, that they ſhould not do it at all? Yet Auguſtine in his Book of the Apoſtles Words, Ser. 30. ſeems by his Authority to create ſome Scruple and Ado for us, inaſmuch as he ſeems to cenſure and ſay, That it is a kind of Perjury when any wittingly & willingly (that is, with [Page] certain Reaſon and Will, or of ſet Purpoſe) uſeth this Word VERELY, to confirm any Thing: Yet if we diligently mark and weigh the Words of St. Auguſtine there, he intends no other then what we intend, acknowledge and confeſs, and is neceſſarily to be confeſſed, namely, that he which from a falſe Opinion and Perſwaſion, and an Erroneous Conſcience, as Divines call it, thinketh and believeth that he Sweareth in very Deed in uſing this Word, as if this Word were an Adverb of Swearing, that ſometimes he happens in a Manner to Forſwear, if that which he affirms in this Manner be falſe; yet this is accidentary and adventitious, namely, by the Intention of him that ſweareth of his own Will, or rather Error or Ignorance, and not by the Force and Propriety of the Word Amen or Ve [...]ely, ſeeing, as we have ſaid even now, that it is not a Word or Note of Swearing, but rather of confirming, as we confeſs: and the ſame St Auguſtine teacheth elſe-where, but eſpecially in Tract 41. on the Goſpel of John, on thoſe Words of Chriſt the Lord, Verely, verely, &c. where Auguſtine moderating his Words, ſaith thus, ‘Verely, verely, is, if we may ſo ſay, in a certain Manner, a Sw [...]aring of Chriſt.’ Now theſe Words of Auguſtine are to be weighed; he dealeth not ſimply, but with an Additament and Caution. Verely, verely, to be (if it be lawful to ſay it) after a Manner a Swearing of Chriſt; for ſo he declares plain enough, that Verely, verely, is not properly [...]wearing, or a Note of Swearing, but only improperly, and after a certain Manner, viz. So far forth as Chriſt the Lord doth familiarly uſe this Word as Swearing, although in very Deed, and properly it be not an Adverb of Swearing, but rather affirming and aſſerting ſimply and in good Faith, to gain a better Perſwaſion of the Matter or Doctrine; for Chriſt never ſeems to have Sworn, if we will [...]peak truly and properly of Swearing, but alwayes us'd a ſimple Speech though ſometimes by am [...]ſicationem; he hath uſed this, even repeated, I ſay, for the [...]reater Perſwaſion of his Heavenly Doctrine, that by this [...]eans he might give his an Example [Page] of Not Swearing raſhly and every where, as we have already ſaid, to whom he plainly commanded, ſaying, Swear not at all, &c. but, &c. ſo great is the Religion of Swearing, and the Danger of Forſwearing.

The Approbation and Commendation of the Doctors of Paris.

We have carefully read theſe Commentaries on the Epiſtles of St Paul, and Timothy, and Titus, wherein the moſt Learned Author, according to the great Learning wherein he excells, largely and elegantly opens the more hidden Senſes of the Apoſtles; and we have thought them worthy to be printed for publick Profit, Act Par. 16. Feb. 1610. F. Coeff. F.J. Tourn, &c.

111

Lindenbrog. Cod. l [...]g. antiquar.CXI. LODOVICUS PIUS Emperor, who in his Prologue ſaith, That from his Youth, by Chriſt's Inſpiration, he had the Deſire of the Worſhip of God, Capitul. Addit. 4. Tit. 96. Of not Swearing: ‘That every one beware of Swearing; becauſe Forſwearers as alſo Adulterers, ſhall not inherit the Kingdom of God.’

112

Ibid.CXII. King LUITPRANDUS; The Law of the Lumbards, Tit. 28. Law 2. ‘If he that enquires concerning Theft, believe not the Witneſſes, the Witneſſes may confirm it with an Oath, except they be ſuch Perſons as the King or Judge may truſt without an Oath.’

113

Ibid.CXIII. The Emperor LOTHARIUS, Of the Law of the Lumbards, Tit. 3. Law 10. ‘Of thoſe that enforce Payment of Tythes, we will not have them [Page] to be conſtrain'd with an OATH, for Fear of Forſwearing.’

114

CXIV. Of the Law of the VISOGOTHS, Ibid. L. 2. Tit. 1. Law 23. which was ancient: ‘Let none come eaſily to an Oath: For the true Search of Juſtice rather commendeth this, that the Scriptures in all things may intercur, and the Neceſſity of Swearing may altogether ſuſpend it ſelf.’

Thus much againſt Swearing from ſeveral Roman Doctors and others.

We ſhall in the next Place produce the Judgment of thoſe Men, who run not ſo high in their Cenſure of Oaths, as the Perſons that we have hitherto cited, but that believe it is not unlawful in any Caſe to take an Oath, and from them we doubt not to make appear, that it is beſt Not to ſwear at all; ſo far they from pleading for Swearing, or puniſh thoſe that conſcientiouſly refuſe it.

115

CXV. WILLIAM TINDAL ſaith, ‘Our Dealing ought to be ſo ſubſtantial, that our Words might be believed without an Oath: Our Words are the Signs of the Truth of our Hearts, in which there ought to be pure & ſingle Love toward thy Brother. Again he ſayes, Swearing can only be allowed in Charity, where Yea and Nay have loſt Credance; however, that no Judge or other ought in any Caſe to compel any Man to ſwear againſt his Will.’

Peter Martyr, who deſerves well of the Engliſh Proteſtants, confeſſeth, ‘That Chriſtians ought to [Page] live ſo Charitably and Uprightly, as not to need an Oath, and that they may not be called upon to Swear.’ Again, ‘Let us ſo live that there may be no need for us to Swear, either by God, or any other Thing at all; and this (ſayes he) is that ſame AT ALL, which Chriſt ſpoak of.’

N. Zegerus upon Mat. 5.34. tells us, ‘That the moſt Ancient Writers from thence concluded all Oaths forbidden, and that the bare Word of Chriſtians ought to be more Sacred and Firm then the moſt Religious Oaths of the Jews.’

116

CXVI. H. GROTIUS, a great & Learned Man, excludes all Oaths, On Mat. 5. & De Jur. Bell. ac Pac. p. 2. c. 26. ad 47. not only ſuch as are uſed in common Converſation; but ſuch as relate to Trade or pecuniary Matters; allowing ſome oth [...]rs for avoiding Infamy, for preſerving a Friend, & for a great Service to their Country, as not morally neceſſary, and by Precept, but only by Conſequence and Remedy; concluding that it is beſt to live ſo, as not to need an Oath: And ſo both many of thoſe Oaths impoſed upon us, are laid aſide by him; and alſo he gives many Cautions ſhewing that it is beſt not to Swear at all, if it may poſſibly be avoided: But in Anſwer to his Interpretation; All Oaths are forbid that are performable to the Lord▪ Now unles the vain inconſiderate, Oaths, ſuch as are uſed in common Traffique are only thoſe that are to be perform'd to the Lord, Solemn Oaths, ſuch as the Law allow'd, are alſo prohibited. Beſides, the Yea and Nay of a true Chriſtian is as capable of all thoſe good Services as an Oath, if the Sanctity of his [Page] Faith and Profeſſion be allowed: And if any Prejudices come to a Man's Friend, Country or Self, becauſe his Yea and Nay is rejected, it will never lye at his Door, who offers all Chriſt permits him, and his Conſcience will diſpenſe with; but on the Diſtruſter's Side, eſpecially, when he that in Conſcience can't Swear, offers as large CAUTION as he that SWEARS, and is willing to undergo Equal Puniſhment, in Caſe of Ʋntruth, that the other by Law ſuſtains for Perjury. And thoſe that will have it to relate to Raſh, and not Judicial Oaths, quite croſs the Text; for Chriſt prohibits not only vain and ſuperfluous Oaths, as now called, ſuch as were alwayes unlawful, even under the Law; but ſuch as were allowed in the Times of the Law, rendring them alſo by Evangelical Verity under the Goſpel, Vain, ſuperfluous and Ʋnlawful: For well ſaid Bp. Sanderſon, ‘No Need to forbid by a new Command Things that of themſelves were alwayes unlawful.’ De juram. Praelect. 5. Otherwiſe, we muſt read Chriſt's Words thus, Ye have heard by them of Old Time, thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, but ſhalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths; but I ſay unto you, Swear not at all, except before a Judge; as if Swearing before a Judge under the Law, were not an Oath performable to the Lord; and ſuch it ſelf the Place moſt expreſly forbids; or thus, Of Old it was ſaid, thou ſhalt not forſwear thy ſelf, but let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, Nay, th [...] is, perform to God thine Oaths in Truth and Righteouſneſs: But I (who ſay more then was ſaid of Old) ſay unto you, Swear not at all, but perform thine Oaths to God in Truth and Righteouſneſs; The Inconherence of which muſt needs be obvious to every conſiderate Perſon; yet it is the only Reading that [...]an be left upon thoſe Interpretations. We ſay, that what God diſpenſed with under the Law, he reſolved to remove under the Goſpel, and to wind up Things to a higher Pitch of Truth & Righteouſneſs: from Adultery in the Act, to Adultery in the Thought; from Revenge, to Sufferance; from True Swearing, to NO Swearing at all, whereby all Abuſe of Oaths and Perjury come to be removed [Page] with the Oaths themſelves, by working out of Man's Heart that Fraud and Falſhood that brought them in, and implanting Evangelical Verity in room thereof, which ſpeaketh the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth to his Neighbour, and makes a like Matter of Conſcience to t [...]ll a Lye, as to Forſwear. And it is known to Almighty God, and we moſt heartily deſire it may be known and belived by you, that we have no other End nor Inducement to this ſo general Refuſal we are found in throughout the Nation.

117

CXVII. Bp. USHER is ſo tender in this Point, that ſet aſide his Vindication of the Waldenſes, in his Sum of Chriſtian-Religion, he makes it neceſſary to the taking of an Oath, that it be conſidered,

‘Firſt, If the Party we deal with (really) doubt of the Thing we affirm or deny, thereby making Diſtruſt the Cauſe of Swearing, and implying, that not Cuſtom, but real Diffidenc [...] ſhould only continue Swearing; conſequently, not to continue where Diſtruſt is done away.’

‘Secondly, It is to be weighed if the Party's Doubt whereof we ſpeak, be Weighty, and Worthy of an Oath, which we fear, is ſeldom thought upon; Cuſtom prevailing even to Triffles, as well as moſt exceſſive vain Swearing in Common Converſation.’

‘Thirdly, If the Queſtion be Weighty, w [...]e [...]her (ſaith the Biſhop) the Doubt may be ended with Truly or Verely; or doubting, it Verely▪ Verely, as Chriſt did for you, by his Example we ought to forbear an Oath? Mat. 5.37. Wherefore ſhould it not, eſpecially among Chriſtians.’

[Page] Fourthly, ‘Whether there be not yet any other fit Means to try out the Matter before we come to an Oath.’

This is our Caſe; and we make it our Sober Requeſt, that it would pleaſe you to conſider this Particular; for doubtleſs, an Expedient may very eaſily be found, without bringing us under the Bondage of an Oath.

118

CXVIII. JER. TAYLER, Chaplain in Ordinary to K. Charles I. and late Biſhop of Doun and Conner, in his Book call'd ' [...], A Courſe of Sermons, London printed 1673. Serm. Of Chriſtian Simplicity, fol. 228. Thus, ‘Our bleſſed Lord would not have his Diſciples to Swear at all (not in publick Judicature) if the Neceſſity of the World would permit him to be obey'd. If Chriſtians will live according to the Religion, the WORD of a Chriſtian were a ſufficient Inſtrument to give Teſtimony, and to make Promiſes, and to ſecure a Faith; and upon that Suppoſition, Oaths were uſeleſs, and therefore forbidden; becauſe there would be no Neceſſity to invoke God's Name in Promiſes or Affirmations, if men were INDEED Chriſtians; and therefore in that Caſe would be a Taking in vain: Note: Viz. All their Reverent Fathers in God, Arch-Biſhops, Biſhops, Deans, and the [...] Judges of the Land, Juſtices of the Peace, and all Officers term'd Eccleſiaſtical or Civil, Judges, Prieſts and People NO Chriſtians, elſe would they ſuffer Chriſt's Doctrine to be obeyed, who not only enforce OATHS on Strangers, but having the like D [...]ffidence, One Father in God of Another, one Judge and Juſtice of another, impoſe them on their Brethren and Fathers, with Equal D [...]ſtruſt. But becauſe MANY are not; and they that are in NAME, oftentimes are in nothing els, it became neceſſary that Men ſhould Swear in Judgment and in publick Courts. But conſider who it was that invented and made the Neceſſity of Oaths, of Bonds, of Securities, & all the Artifices of Human Diffidence and Diſhoneſty: Theſe Things were indeed found out by Men, [Page]but the Neceſſity, of theſe was from him that is the Father of all Lyes;’ from him that hath made many fair Promiſes, but never kept any; or if he did, it was to do a bigger MISCHIEF, to ſlatter the more; For ſo does the DEVIL.

See Jews Antiquities, Chap. 12 Pag. 52. Concerning the Pythaegoreans, the Eſſeni, and concerning the Juſt Man at Athens, which they would not have to ſwear; And what the Scholiaſt on Ariſtophanes, Lib. 12. p. 286. ſaith of Rhadamanthus.

119

CXIX. Laſtly, Bp. CAUDEN in his Diſcourſe for Solemn Swearing, ſayes thus much againſt it.

1. ‘That Diſſimulations, Frauds, Jealouſies, &c. gave Riſe to Oaths.’

2. ‘That The Ancient Chriſtians and Fathers, that they might not be ſhort of the Eſſeni, who WOULD NOT TAKE AN OATH, REFUSED TO SWEAR, ſaying to the Heathen, Chriſtianus ſum, I am a Chriſtian; to each other, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; thereby keeping up the Sanctity and Credit of their Profeſſion.’

3. ‘That as Chriſtians, truly ſuch, we ſhould poſſibly need no Swearing; for an Oath is not (ſayes he) Moral or Preceptive, but an Expedient or Remedy only againſt Falſeneſs.’

Laſtly, ‘That neither a true Chriſtian and good Man need to be Compelled to Swear, in Order to the Awing him into Truth-telling— Nor is ill Mens Swearing of much Credit; with more to that Purpoſe: What Need then is there of either's Swearing?’

[Page]The Subſtance of all which is this; Oaths riſe with Fraud; Mens growing Falſe and Jealous, Swearing or Awing by Oaths into True Evidence, became an Expedient; and during this imbecil and imperfect State of Mankind, Almighty God, that hath been ever wont to ſtoop to Man's Weakneſs, condeſcended to yield the Jews that Cuſtom, provided that they refrain'd from Common and Idolatrous Oaths; and when they were called to Swear, they did it by the Name of the True God▪ thereby manifeſting their Acknowledgment of him; but Chriſt, who is the Reſtorer of Breaches, the Builder of waſte Places, the Bringer back of the Captivity of his People (where Oaths were firſt wanted and learned) and the Setter up of the Kingdom of God (which ſtands in Righteouſneſs) redeems into Truth-ſpeaking which fulfils the Law by taking away the Occaſion of an Oath; and ſuch as are the true, humble and faithful Followers of this worthy Leader, need no Oath to compel them into Truth, to whom Truth is Natural, being freed by it, Joh. 8.32. from Fraud & Falſeneſs, and conſequently from Swearing, which took Occaſion by it to enter the World. Now we profeſs our ſelves in the Fear of Almighty God to be ſuch as have thus learned Chriſt Jeſus, and for the Reverence and Holy Love we bear to his Righteous Commandment we can't take an Oath in any Caſe.

Object. 'Tis True, and you ſay well, Oaths only ſerve till Truth-ſpeaking comes, and you ſay, it is come to you; But how ſhall we know that?

Anſw. We intreat you to try us: No Man can be juſtly condemn'd before he be guilty; nor reputed guilty in the Sight of men, till diſcover'd, You will have as eaſie a Way to catch us at Lying, as others at Forſwearing; and if you find us ſuch, inflict the ſame Puniſhment for Our Lye, which is enacted for their Perjury.

Be pleaſed to conſider:

I. The Riſe of OATHS.

II The Prohibition of CHRIST.

III. The Judgment of ſo many good HEATHENS.

IV. The Belief & Practice of ſo many primitive CHRISTIANS, Celeb [...]ious FATHERS, Godly MARTYRS, and Learned PROTESTANTS.

[Page]V. The Caution they uſe who in any Senſe allow of an Oath.

VI. That it is matter of Faith; and What is not of Faith, is Sin: And that we cannot alter our Minds without Conviction, unleſs we ſhould turn Hypocrites; And what Security can or will you have from our Oaths, who muſt firſt make us to break the Tye of our own Conſcience before we can take them? It can't be thought, we ſhould keep with you, when you make us break with our ſelves.

VII. Conſider what expreſs Scripture we have for it, and that in the Judgment and Martyrdom of many good and famous Perſons.

VIII. Be pleaſed to weigh the great PERJURY that is now in our World, and daily Numerous Oaths belcht forth by ſome, to ſhow they dare be bold with Sacred Things; by others, to vent Paſſion; by too many (as they impiouſly think) to grace their Matter, whilſt others have ſo great Doubt of their own Credit, that they Swear, to drive, what they ſay, home; and not a few uſe it, meerly to fill up vacant places, being barren of better Matter. We tkink that inſtead of taking Advantage againſt us for Not Swearing, in ſo Forſwearing an Age, we ſhould rather receive Incouragement for ſpeaking That Truth without an Oath, which others are compell'd to by Oath, if yet they ſpeak it. Falſe-ſpeaking neceſſitated the Uſe of Oaths (ſay many) But Oaths proving now not the Remedy, but the Diſeaſe, What better Expedient can be uſed then to come back to Truth-ſpeaking, which endeth Oaths in their firſt Cauſe, or Occaſion at leaſt: However, that ſuch as are not Sick ſhould be oblig'd to take the Potions of the Sick, only to keep them Company, That ſeems Ʋnreaſonable.

IX. Be pleaſed to conſider the periſhing Difficulties we meet withal in our Commerce in the World, particularly as Creditors, Executors, Merchants, Ship-Maſters, Apprentices, &c. Men making us pay becauſe of our Tenderneſs in this Matter. Oh the OPPRESSION that is exerciſed in Petty Courts and Seſſions upon many Hundreds of us, who know not which Way to Right our ſelves, an Oath ſtill being required in the Caſe; the Refuſal of which for Conſcience ſake, expoſing us to great Loſſes, both of Eſtate, Liberty and ſometimes Life by Tedious and Cruel Impriſonments.

X. But the Loſs and Trouble is not alwayes our own; Our Neighbours frequently become Sufferers againſt our Wills: Firſt, In that we can perform no Office in common with them, however otherwiſe [Page] able to diſcharge it. Secondly, Nor can we ſerve them in the Capacity of Witneſſes, which Qualification goes a great Way towards the Maintenance of Juſtice; and all becauſe our ſolemn Word will not be received inſtead of an Oath: Relieving us here is a double Benefit, for our Neighbours ſhare with us in it; and it manifeſtly tends to the Preſervation of Society. And whatever any may pleaſe to think of us, we are as willing and ready to contribute all Honeſt Aſſiſtance to the Maintenance of Juſtice, and anſwering the Ends of Government, according to our Ability and Conſcience, as any Sort of Men that live under it.

XI. And Laſtly, We intreat you further to conſider, that Our CAUTION is as large as the Man that Swears: For though you make a Difference between him that tells an Ʋntruth, and he that Forſwears, in Favour of the former; yet we cheerfully ſubmit our ſelves to the Puniſhment of the Perjured, if we break our WORD; do you but pleaſe to take us into equal Priviledge with the Swearer: If there be any Dammage, we conceive it is done to Ʋs, who ſuſtain the ſame Puniſhment for an Ʋntruth, which is the only Due of Perjury; and if you condeſcend to yield us the Kindneſs of the one, we offer our Perſons to anſwer the juſt Severity of the other.

We will add here out of Hoof [...]'s Hiſtory of the Netherlands, a Preſident, not impertinent to our Purpoſe, fol. 464, 465. tranſlated out of Latin as follows.

120

CXX. ‘In this Aſſembly of the States (ſaith’ Hooft) ‘there was ſomething attempted towards the Oppreſſion of the Meniſts, as appears by a certain Letter, written from Dort, the laſt of March, by the Ld. St. Aldegonde, to the Miniſter Caſpanus Heidanus; which was thus worded.’

‘The Cauſe of the Meniſts hath ſince receipt of your and Taffin's Letters yeſterday been treated of with the moſt illuſtrious Prince; And verely, I find it more difficult then I had hoped [for ever may and will ſuch’ Curſed Hopes meet with ſuch Wiſe Repulſes from prudent [Page] Rulers] ‘For, he had at Middelburgh given me great Hopes, that we ſhould ſeclude from the Freedom of Burgeſſes, or at leaft, not ſo ſolemnly receive thoſe that refuſed an Oath. Now he alledgeth, that ſuch a thing cannot be concluded without a new Convulſion in the Churches, becauſe the States will never ſuffer, that ſuch a Law be made, as they judge no wayes conducing to the Common Good of the Republick. Yea, he avers, That this was the only Cauſe formerly, which brought their Conſiſtories ſo far into the Diſpleaſure of the States, that it differed very little, but they had been all at once voted down, and laid aſide by the Council. That they [the Clergy] were now again about the ſame thing, and that in ſuch a ſeaſon, that no doubt many would pour in cold Water out of the Popiſh Hodg-podge. That his ſettled Judgment was, that this would turn to great Diſadvantage, and breaking down of their Churches.’

‘And when I [ſaith Aldegonde] fervently urged, That we could eaſily reject thoſe that broak the Band of all Humane Society, upon Pretence of Civil and Political Order: and when I added (ſaith he) how much Danger and Peril Church and State were threatned with by ſuch a Concluſion of the Council, in it ſelf Ungodly, He anſwered me ſharply enough, That thoſe men's YEA muſt paſs for an Oath; and that we muſt not urge this thing any further, or we muſt confeſs, that the Papiſts had Reaſon to Force us to a Religion that was againſt our Conſciences; and that the North-Hollanders would not at all allow of it.’

‘In ſhort (ſaith he) I ſcarce ſee any thing we can get done in this Point, which verely [ye may believe [Page] him upon his Proteſtation]’ Is the greater Smart to me, ‘the more I obſerve that the Minds of many Honeſt Men, by the pretending of I know not what unſeaſonable Stumbling Blocks, will be thereby imbitter'd, yea, I could almoſt ſay, wounded, to ſee them leſs affected [...]o thoſe, that to their uttermoſt ſeek to advance the Cauſe of the Church.’

‘The PRINCE (ſaith he) partly in the Name of the State, and partly of himſelf, chid me, as if we were about to ſet up in our Clergy a Dominion over the Conſcience; and as if they endeavour, by their Laws and Conſtitutions, to ſubject all others to them: And he praiſed the Saying of a Monk that was lately here, who anſwered to the Objection [of the Perſecuting Spirit of the Romiſh Church]’ ‘That our Pot had not gone ſo long to the Fire as theirs, whom we did ſo much revile upon that Account — And that he clearly ſaw, That before two Ages paſſed, the Church-Dominion would upon both ſides ſtand on even Ground.’

To which Hooft adds, ‘By this we may obſerve, of what Conſequence the Prince and States then held Liberty of Conſcience to be.’

And that what we have hitherto ſaid may not be thought a thing impracticable, we ſhall preſent you with the Judgment and Edicts of Forreign Governments.

Here follow Two Letters of the Grave of Naſſou and Prince of Orange, to the Magiſtrates of the City of Middelburgh, in Behalf of the Meniſts there.

CXXI. A Copy of the Firſt Letter.

[Page]

FOraſmuch as a Supplication hath been preſented unto his Excellency in behalf of certain Inhabitans of this City of Middelburg; complaining thereby, That the Magiſtrates of the ſaid City had lately cauſed their Shops to be ſhut, and conſequently prohibited their Trade, which yet the only means which they have to maintain their Families; the ſ [...]id Prohibition proceeding from their not having yet taken the Uſual OATH, as others: The ſaid Inhabitants further remonſtrating, how that they now, for a certain long Term of Years, have, without taking the ſaid Oath, freely born all Civil Burdens, Contributions and Taxes, equally with other Burgeſſes and Inhabitants of this ſaid City, without ever having been in any Default: and therefore ought at preſent ſtill to remain unmoleſted, ſeeing they do therein not deſire any thing elſe, then to live in the Liberty of their Conſciences, upon which Account this preſent War againſt the King of Spain hath been by his Subjects taken up, and all Ceremonies contrary thereunto reſiſted; in which ſuch Advance is, through the Help of God, made, that the afore-ſaid Liberty of Conſcience is preſerved; and therefore it would be an Unequal Thing to Deprive [Page] the Supplicants thereof, who have helped to acquire the ſame by bearing Taxes, Contributions, and other Burdens, not without great Peril of their Bodies and Lives; conſonant to which they having preſented a Requeſt to the aforeſaid Magiſtrates, but got for Anſwer, That they muſt regulate themſelves according to the Policy and Order of the aforeſaid City: Whereby (ſaith the Petition) the aforeſaid Magiſtrates ſeem to endeavour by the Oath, not only totally to ruin and expel out of theſe Lands the Petitioners, with their Wives & Children, reſiding in Middelburgh; but conſequently innumerable others, in Holland and Zeeland, who have (according to his Excellency's Proclamations) placed themſelves under his Excellency's Protection, by which no man can be any wayes benefited; but all theſe Lands received great and conſiderable Dammage, becauſe thereby the Traffique thereof would be every where greatly diminiſhed: Intreating therefore, and humbly begging his Excellency, that looking upon their Caſe with Compaſſion, he would take due Courſe about it, eſpecially ſeeing that the aforeſaid Petitioners do proffer, that their YEA paſſing for an Oath, the Tranſgreſſors hereof ſhould be puniſhed as Oath-Breakers.

[Page] Therefore, his Excellency having conſidered the Premiſes, and having maturely deliberated upon the ſame, hath, with the previous Advice of the Governour and Council of Zeeland, ordered and appointed, ordereth and appointeth hereby, That the aforeſaid Petitioners, YEA ſhall be received by the Magiſtrates of the aforeſaid City inſtead of an OATH; provided, that the Tranſgreſſors thereof ſhall be puniſhed as Oath-Breakers and Perjured Perſons. His Excellency charging and commanding the Magiſtra [...]es of Middelburgh, and all others whom this may concern, No further to oppreſs the Petitioners contrary to their Conſciences, concerning the Oath; but ſuffer them to Open their Shops, and Enjoy their Trades, as they formerly have done: all by Proviſion, and till ſuch time as there ſhall be, in more Tranquillity of Affairs, with ripe Deliberation, regard being had thereunto, ordained therein, as ſhall be found convenient.

By my Gracious Lord, the Prince, ſubſcribed, De Baudemont.

This done under his Excellency's Name and Seal, in the City of Middelburgh, upon the 26. January, 1577.

Guilliaume de Naſſou.

CXXII. A Copy of the Second Letter.
The Prince of Orange, Grave of Naſſau, Lord and Baron of Bueda, Dieſt, &c.

[Page]

Honourable, Honeſt, Worſhipful, Wiſe, Diſcreet, Dear and Singular:

FOraſmuch as certain Houſe-keepers there inhabiting, being, as they ſay, Meniſts, have, by way of Complaint divers times ſignified to us, how that You are daily Moleſting them, and Depriving them of the Means of Gaining in Reſt & Quietneſs their Livings for them and their Families; forbidding them to open their Shops, under the Pretence, that they ſhould Refuſe to take an Oath in the ſame Form as other Burgeſſes; upon which we having taken ripe Deliberation: And foraſmuch as the aforeſaid People do proffer to bear equally all Burdens with other Citizens, and even in the Caſe of Arms, which moſtly moves them to contribute, do you ſuch Performances at their Charges, as your ſelves, or they that ſhall have the Orders ſhall find in all Reaſon and Equity fit to be done, and they will bear it:

[Page] We therefore conceive, that ye do very ill, not to permit them to live in Peace and Quietneſs, according to the Mind of their Conſcience, according to the Act which we, with the Advice of the Governour and Council formerly afforded them, which they ſay, they have exhibited to you; And yet notwithſtanding, we find that you have hitherto refuſed to give heed unto it, and to our precedent Letters, and ſo we are conſtrain'd for this laſt time to write this, by which we plainly declare unto you, That it concerns not you to trouble your ſelves in particular with any Man's Conſcience, ſo long as nothing is tre [...]ted or done that might extend to any Man's Scandal; in which Caſe we will neither reſpect nor bear any Man.

And therefore we charge and order you expreſly, To deſiſt all further Moleſtation or Hinderance of the ſaid Menists in their Merchandize or Handicrafts to gain their Livelihood for their Wives and Children; ſuffering them to open their Shops, and work as they have in times paſt done; till ſuch time as there ſhall be otherwiſe ordered by the Generality (who are thereunto qualified) And therefore take heed that ye do nothing againſt this, and the Act to them granted, or to further any Fines from them upon that Account; provided, [Page]nothing be by them attempted, which might tend to the Scandal of any Man: And they ſhall bear all Civil and Equal Burdens, as other Men. Herewith, &c.

ſubſcribed by Copy, De Baudemont.

123

CXXIII. Alſo, by the Treaties of Peace between the States General of the United Provinces, and the Kings of England, Spain, &c. ann. 1674. there is a ſpecial Article therein contained, That ‘All their Ship-Maſters of Merchant Ships, ſhall carry along with them a Sea-Brief, according to the Form thereby preſcribed.’

In which it is expreſly declared, tha [...] ‘Such Maſter ſhall come before the Magiſtrates, and by his ſolemn Oath teſtifie, that ſuch Ship, whereof he is Maſter, doth properly belong unto the Subjects of the ſaid States General; unto which Sea-Brief, under the Seal of the City's intire Faith and Credit is given.’

And although by the ſaid Treaties, the Maſter was to give his Oath, yet the Magiſtrates in Holland do take the Solemn Affirmation of ſuch as Cannot Swear inſtead of an Oath, and inſert it ſo accordingly in their Sea-Briefs; and then it runs thus, ‘Theſe are to certifie, &c. That A.B. hath before us Solemnly Affirmed and Declared, that the Ship C.D. whereof he is Maſter, doth properly belong and appertain to the Subjects of the States General of the United Provinces, &c.’

Which can be ſufficiently evidenced, if required.

[Page]This was the Care, this the Condeſcenſion of other Governments, for the Relief of Perſons under our Circumſtances: And we take Liberty to affirm, That the Trade and Wealth of the Ʋnited Provinces, are owing more to the Ingenuity and Induſtry of thoſe Indulg'd Diſſenters then to them of the National Religion, who would have ſlugg'd and tyranniz'd all into Poverty and Vaſſallage.

Have Regard to our Suffering Condition, we beſeech you, and ſhew your ſelves both Natural to a Member (be we reputed the meaneſt) of your own Civil Body, and ſo far Lovers of him who ſaid, Swear not at all, as not to continue us Sufferers for not acting againſt his Command, at leaſt, our Senſe of it, and therein of our own Conſciences; But make ſome Proviſion for us, as well as other Countries have done before you, as in your Wiſdom you ſhall think meet; that all thoſe, who are of the Society of the People called Quakers, and known of themſelves to be ſo, ſhall not be moleſted for the future upon the Account of Swearing, but their S [...]lem [...] YEA or NAY ſhall be taken in lieu thereof, and their Untruth, or Breach of Word, Puniſhable as Perjury.

God, we know, that delights in Mercy, and in all Acts of Tenderneſs to the Sons of Men, will favour ſo Natural, ſo Generous and ſo Chriſtian an Enterprize; and the Propoſers, Promotors & Effecters of this happy Deliverance from the heavy Clog of Swearing, under which we and our Families have ſo long groaned, will not, we da [...]e believe, go without their Rewards at the Hands of the Almighty, whom, at what rate ſoever ye ſhall deal with us, we do, from the bottom of our Souls, humbly and heartily implore, That it would pleaſe him ſo to diſpoſe your Hearts, as [...]ou may beſt Diſcharge that High Truſt repoſed in you, to the Ho [...] of his Great Name, and the Proſperity of this Famous [...], the moſt certain Foundation of True Feli [...]ity [...] [...]nd which will give, as a good Example [...] [...]ſt Reputation to you and your Poſterity.

This perform'd in the [...] for the Service of the Pe [...]le [...] William [...] Richardſon.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A treatise of oaths containing several weighty reasons why the people call'd Qvakers refuse to swear : and those confirmed by numerous testimonies out of Gentiles, Jews and Christians, both fathers, doctors and martyrs : presented to the King and great council of England, assembled in Parliament.

Penn, William, 1644-1718.

Edition statement

1675

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A70779

ID [STC]

Wing P1388

ID [STC]

ESTC R17219

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12599618

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12599618

ID [VID]

64138

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70779)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 64138)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 675:1 or 1675:14)

Source

— A treatise of oaths containing several weighty reasons why the people call'd Qvakers refuse to swear : and those confirmed by numerous testimonies out of Gentiles, Jews and Christians, both fathers, doctors and martyrs : presented to the King and great council of England, assembled in Parliament., Penn, William, 1644-1718., Richardson, Richard, 1623?-1689., Parker, Alexander, 1628-1689., Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723..

Extent

[2], 4, [8], 9-166 p.

s.n.],. [London? :: 1675.. (Signed: "This perform'd in the name and for the service of the people call'd Quakers. William Penn, Richard Richardson.") (Prefixed to the "Treatise" is an address "To the King and great council of England, assembled in Parliament", subscribed by Alexander Parker, George Whitehead and several others, the signatures ending with the names of Richardson and Penn.) (Place of imprint suggested by Wing.) (Errors in paging.) (Item at reel 1659:3 identified as Wing P1400 (number cancelled).) (Reproduction of originals in Duke University Library and Harvard University Library.) (Includes bibliographical references and index.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.