WE cannot but deem it strange, that not­withstanding in our Saviour's holy Ser­mon on the Mount, Matth. 5.34. he so expresly forbids us to Swear at all, and afterwards, his Apostle James hath it Neither by Heaven &c. nor by ANY OTHER OATH, [...] [...].12. that any should blame us for keeping to those holy [Page 2] Precepts, so as not to sware on any Account; however to shew that we are not singular, nor that we put any meaning upon those holy Precepts, contrary to the plain and right meaning thereof, as acknowledged to be such by many godly Fathers and Martyrs, of the primitive Church, and also by many since that time, we have here presented the Reader with abundance of Instances out of their Writings; whereby it may be seen, that we are, as it were encompassed with a Cloud of Witnesses, and there­fore may be the more encouraged to hold fast our holy Profession, without wavering; yet so as that we first & principally look unto Jesus as the Author and Foundation of this our faith, to wit, Not to Swear at all, yet so as that when we are legally called to give Evidence &c. & there­upon openly declare that what we shall say (whether in the Affirmative or Negative) shall be the Truth &c. that we take care it be so; then will our Yea be Yea, and our Nay, Nay, without violating the holy Precept, or being unjust to our Neighbours.

Our Instances, or Testimonies of the Antients are collected out of the aforesaid Treatise of Oaths, and at the end of each Citation, still citing the pages in which they are, also giving the names of the Authors of the said Testi­monies, with the Titles of their books &c. as far as they are set down. And we shall begin with the first we find, after James the Apostle reorded against swear­ing, and that was the holy Martyr Polycarpus Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 4. cap. 15. about about twenty years after James wrote, & was said to be a disciple of John at his death when the Governor bid him swear by the Fortune of Cesar, he refused, say­ing 'Hear freely who I am I am a Christian. p. 40. Mark; he did not say, we must swear by the true God, if at all, or the like (no such Objection do we find) but [Page 3] I am a Christian that was enough.

And Bishop Gauden tells us ‘That the Antient Christians and Fathers (that they might not be short of the Esseni) Refused to swear,See his Discourse for so­lemn Swearing saying to the hea­then, Christianus sum. I am a Christian, and to each o­ther, Yea Yea, and Nay Nay: thereby keeping up the sanctity of their Profession. Page 154’

Justin Martyr Euseb. lib. 4 cap. 16 says ‘Christ hath thus commanded, Swear not at all, but let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay Nay, and what is more than these, is of Evil.’ Apol. 2 pro Christianis, ad Ant. Pium Oper. p. 63. — page 41.

Basilides, who had been a souldier,Ibid. lib. 6. cap. 4. but convinced of the Truth in Christ, being required to swear, he affirmed plainly it was not lawful for him to swear at all, for (said he) I am a Christian. pag. 42 Note, had Chri­stians then believed it lawful to swear in any Case, is it likely that this Godly Man would have alledged, that his being a Christian was the cause he could not swear at all?

Tertullian was a Lawyer, a strict and learned man,Tertull. de Id. la­tria cap. 11. who wrote a very notable Apology for the Christians, saith he 'I speak not of perjury, seeing it is not law­ful 'to swear. page 43. And in Chap. 23 says ‘He which signs a Bill of security containing, and confirm­ed by an Oath, is guilty of swearing, as if he had spoken it, and Transgresses Christ's Command, who has prescribed not to swear; which if any should do, he should surely be the servant of Covetousness, in un­dertaking an unlawful practice for gain. page 44’

Clem. Alex. l. 7. Clemens Alexandrinus, famous for Learning and strict living, speaking of a believer saith, ‘It sufficeth to add [Page 4] add unto his Affirming, or Denying, viz. I Speak truly. pa. 47.’

Origen in Matth. Tract. 25. speaking of Christ's prohibiting the Jews from swearing by Heaven &c. saith; ‘These things he speak to the J [...]ws, forbid­ding them to give heed to the Traditions of the Pharisees, otherwise before he manifestly forbad to swear at all. page 49’

Cyprian lib. 3. Testini. ad Quirin. a famous Father and faithful Martyr, having at the Request of Qui­rinus, drawn out several Heads from the holy Scrip­tures of the Christian Religion, his 12th Head is Not to swear. p. 51.

Hilary ▪on Matth. 5.34.▪ very famous in the days of Constantius, saith, ‘That 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. page 58.’

Basilius Magnus on Psalm 14 ('tis the 15 with us) He that Sweareth and deceiveth not his Neigh­bour, (so Basilius 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. Again, the Lord to take away all occasion of Perjury &c. takes away Swearing ALTOGETHER. (Pray mark that) Again, Is the thing not done? Let there be a de­nial. Is it done? Let it be Affirm'd by Word, and he that shall, not Assent to him so Affirming, let him look to it, and feel the Harm of his unbe­lief pa. 60 61.’ Again, in his 29 Canon to Am­phitochius, ‘Because an Oath is altogether forbid­forbidden, [Page 5] such an one as is taken to an evil pur­pose is much more to be condemned. pa. 62.’

Ambros. (de Virgin. l. 3.) A Citizen of Milan, was by the people (against his will) chosen Bishop, for his great Worth & Godliness, speaking of the Incon­veniencies occasioned 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.’ — Again,Ambros. on Mat. 5. ‘The Lord who came to teach the Little ones, to Inspire Novices, to confirm the Perfect, saith, in the Gospel, You must not SWEAR AT ALL. page 68.69.’

Chrysostom (on Gen. Hom. 15.) was very fa­mous in the Church, and therefore styl'd the Golden Doctor, saith, ‘A Christian must flee Oaths by all means, hearing the Sentence of Christ, who saith It was aid 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. p. 70.’

Again in answer to the Objection, What evil hath Swearing? ‘Much evil without question; — But now at this time, after so great Manifestation of Power, not by any means. p. 76.’ — Again, ‘Let all men know, that none may Swear who are of this Congregation: and hereby we may be assu­red and by this Sign be distinguished from the Greeks, and from all men. — And we also may be known, if we speak as the Apostles, and speak as the Angels: for if any one say, Swear, let him hear that CHRIST hath commanded, even not [Page 6] to Swear.Ho [...]. 10. 101. page 89.’ Again, ‘Christ hath made a Law that none Swear; tell me now, what is done about this Law? lest, perchance coming again (as the Apostle saith) I do not spare you. page 91. Again Do as you list, I Impose this Law, NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL; what Hope is there of Salva­tion, when you so contemn and despise all things.’

I. 1 c. 15 Isidorus Pelasiota, who, Evagrius Schol. saith, led the life of an Angel, and wrote many notable works,Ep. lib. 1. Epist. 155. in one whereof he writes against Swearing thus, ‘If thou art of our Flock, and art ordred un­der a good Shepherd, deny the nature of wild Beasts, and obey his Voice that forbiddeth to Swear at all, page 104.’

On Mat. 5. Chromatius, Bishop of Aquilcia, saith ‘The Law given by Moses, received a Growth Proficiency or Perfection, by the Grace of the Doctrine of the Gospel. In the Law it was commanded not [...]o Forswear; but in the Gospel, not to Swear. — Every one that Sweareth shall not be purged 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 it is not at all lawful for us to Lye. p 105.’

Johannes Damascenus, bringeth a Testimony of one Nilus against swearing, the words are these, It [Page 7] is not profitable to Swear, but very pernicious, and execrable and abominable; wherefore hereafter make an end of Swear­ing. &c. p. 107

Antio [...]hus, said to be a man famous for Holiness and Learning, about the Year 614 in his Pandects of Scrip­ture, Hom. 62 saith thus in the Greek, ‘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 & Saviour commandeth not to Swear at all, neither out of season, nor in season: for he saith unto 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 Command thou shalt not forswear; but to you that believe in me, I Command NOT TO SWEAR AT ALL; nei­ther Little nor Great Oaths; that a Difference may plain­ly appear who are Bastards, and who are true Sons. Let us therefore, dear Friends, fear him who hath vouch­safed us so much Honour, even the Lord & Father, with all fear, as Sincere Ingenuous Servants, let us keep his Commandments, Not to Swear at all: l [...]st he say, as in Esai. 1. I have nourished and brought up Children, & they have rebell'd against me. page 109, 110.

In the Plowmans J. Fox Mart. V 1, page 527 Complaint it is said ‘Lord thou givest us a Command of Truth, in bidding us say Yea Yea, 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.’ This was R [...]ored by John Fox as not unwor­thy to keep company with Protestant Martyrs. p. 121.

[Page 8] Theohpylact Arch Bishop of the Bulgarians, very fa­mous about the ninth Century, in his Comment on Matt 5 saith, ‘To Swear, or Adjure more to Yea or Nay, is of the Devil. — If thou shouldest say, Also the Law 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 Jewish page 113.’

J. Fox Mart V. 1. p. 614, 618. William Swinderby lived in the time of Richard [...] being charged for holding that no man ought to Swear for any thing but simply, without an Oath to Affirm or deny, answers thus, Whereas Christ's Law forbibs Swear­ing, the Popes Law Justifieth Swearing: me thinks saith he there is no need to comfort or encourage the People in swearing. — page 123. He was a zealous follower of John Wickliff.

J. Fox Mart V. 1. p. 623.359. Walter Brute an Intimate of William Swinderby, being charged with saying, It is not lawful for Christians for any cause to SWEAR, by the Creator, neither by the Crea­ture, he answer'd for himself, in part thus, ‘As the Per­fection of the Antient Men of the Old Testament was, Not to Forswear, 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 broken. page 124.’

Ibid. V. 3 p. 910 911 Eliz. Young, who was brought to Examination in the Marian days (the Bishop said, why Wilt thou not swear before a Judge?) answered. My Lord I will not swear that this Hand is mine. No, said the Bishop; and why? She answered Christ saith, That whatsoever is more than Yea Yea and Nay Nay, it cometh of Evil. And so she persisted until it pleased God to deliver her out of their hands. page 126.

[Page 9] 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, W. C. Albrid. p. 193.194-195. whose brethren were also executed with the sword and his wife and children drown'd, Anno 1527. One Article alledg'd against him was, that he had said, That Men should not swear to, or before a Magistrate. page 128.

The Christian Protestants of Piedmont, who were cruelly tortured to death by the Papists. about Ann. 1655.Mort. Hist. p. 217.218. Comm. on Mat 5 One Article alledged against them was, That they believ,d it was not lawful to swear any thing, be it true or false.

Erasmus, ‘Among Jews & Heathens for Fidelity sake there is an Oath put, but among Christians which ought neither to distrust any man, [...]o [...] to deceive, it's a vain thing to Swear.’ — Again, speaking of the Law of the Gospel▪ saith▪ It doth utterly condemn all manner of Oaths.

Jo. Major Hadingtoniani, on Matt. 5th. Not to Swear at all, That Precept was given to the Disciples (the Basis) of the first Church, page 143.

Peter Charron, Doctor of Law in Paris, in his Book of Wisdom, chap. 37. saith, ‘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) What is more, is from the Devil. p. 144.

Bezi 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.’

Lodovicus Soto Major, Comm. on 1. Tim 1. having shewn that Christ's Words Amen, or Verily Verily is not Swearing saith, ‘He (Christ) not only forbad his to Swear, but also at the same time, and that very Wholsomly, that they [Page 10] should only use in their Speech, a Simple Affirmation or Denial without an Oath. page 145.’

Now behold Friendly, Reader, Is not here a Series of Christian Testimonies, of the Antient and Famous Men of the Church, from the Apostle James's time downwards, against taking any Oath, or Swearing at all, and abun­dance more might be brought; yet in as much as accord­ing to the Proverb, there is nothing can be said but some may Object against it, and knowing many objections to these two positive Precepts, of our LORD and his A­postle James, are brought to oppugn their said Doctrine as professed by us (viz.) Not to swear in any Case we think it therefore needful, what in us lies, to remove those objections, and that chiefly in the very words of the forementioned, and other Famous and Learned Men, as cited in the said Treatise of Oaths, still citing the pages where to find them.

Object. 1. St. Paul saith, That an Oath for confirma­tion was to them an End of all strife. Hebr. 6.16.

Answer. Though Paul as it were indefinitely speaking, saith That among men it was so yet it does not follow that it was always, nor at any time, universally so: for in page 37. of the said Treatise, we read that the Essaeans the most Religions People among the Jews, shun'd Oaths as Perjury, and cites Joseph. de Bello Judaico l 2. c. 7. and in page 30. cites Sociad. in Stob. 28. saying It was one part of the Doctrine of the Seven Sages so famous in Greece; That men ought not to Swear. And ma­ny more in the said Treatise are cited both of Jews and Gentiles, even before Christ's time, that denied-Swearing. And cites Diodorus Siculus l. 16, saying That the Persians (which was a great People) gave the Right Hand as a [Page 11] Token of Truth Speaking, and he that did it deceit­fully was counted more detestable than if he had sworn. page 28. (Mark) did they not then esteem Swearing detestable? Again in page 29. cites Quint. Curt. in Vit Alex. What the Scythians (also a Great Peo­ple) said to Alexander, upon the occasion of an expect­ed Security, thus, Think not that the Scythians con­firm 'their Friedship by Oath; they Swear by keeping 'their Word. And we find Chrysostom saying, That before Abraham's time, which was about 2000 Years after the Creation, there was not an Oath; and then Queries, Whence then came in an Oath? and answers, 'When Evils increased, when all things became topsy turvy, when they inclined to Idolatry, then verily, when they appear'd unfaithful, they call'd God to witness, as giving Surety for security for their words &c, page 83. However, were they more or less that in Paul's time, or since that, did or do swear, the Question is not what men did, or now do, but what the Lord & Saviour of men has commanded to do, which is, Not to Swear at all.

Objest. 2 Christ forbids only swearing by the Creature, as by Heaven &c. but not by the true God.

Answer. It seems then that Christ forbidding to Swear by the Heaven, forbad to Swear by the true God: for he that Swears by Heaven, Swears by the Throne of God, & by him that sits thereon which surely is the True God. Matt. 23 22. And Chrysostom saith, That Christ to put off the hearers that they should not Swear by God, he saith neither by Heaven, for it is God's Throne &c. page 37.

[Page 12] See Biblio­theca Veter. Patrum. Euthymius Zagabonus on Matth, 5 page 43. speaking about Swearing by Heaven, saith, He that Sweareth by these things, Sweareth again by God who fills these things &c. page 117.

De Quaest. jur. Christ. p. 227. Suarez saith, If Christ therefore forbiddeth to Swear by Heaven, because God dwells therein, much more he forbiddeth to Swear by God. &c. page 141.

Object. 3. But God commanded his People the Jews to Swear by him, therefore not unlawful.

Answer. First in the words of Theophylact aforemen­tioned, very famous about the ninth Century, being as it were their Apostle, who on Matth. 5. saith. To Swear or Adjure more to Yea or Nay, is of the Devil. If thou shouldest say 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 Jewish. p. 113.

On Matt. Hom. 17 Chrysostom upon the Question, How can it be that the same [Swearing] is sometimes good and sometimes not? answers, To be carried in ones arms is a good part in the first Age, afterwards a very pitiful thing. — A­gain, even Man slaughter it self, which Christ calls a work of the Devil, sometime in due season done, hath been praised; as Phineas kill'd a man, and it was im­puted to him for Righteousness. — And Peter slew two, but that was a Spiritual work: so we must not on­ly consider the Action, but the Time, Cause, Will, Difference of Persons, and all other Circumstances. p. 77

Again, saith he, Will you learn why they allowed them of old to swear? It was because they swore by I­dols. page 91.

Paschalius Ratbertus on Matt. 5 saith, By the Law for [Page 13] the carnal People, it was lawful to swear by God, and this was allow'd as to little ones, that as they offered Sacrifices to God lest they should offer them to Idols; so also it was permitted to them to Swear by God: because it was better to give it to God than to Devils. page 113.114. To the same Purpose saith Tho. Aqinas. page 132.

Druthmarus on Matt. 5. 'Lest the Jews should Sweat by Idol's Names, the Lord suffered them to Swear by his own Name. page 114.

Euthymius. &c. aforesaid, upon the Question, If an Oath be of the Devil, how did the old Law permit it? answers, Because the Sacrifices of Living Creature were also of evil, yet the Law Permitted them, because of the Infirmity of the Hebrews ▪ for whereas they were glut­tonous and Smell-Feasts, they lov'd the Sacrifices of I­dols; and whereas also they were unbelieving, they also lov'd an Oath, and that they should not afterwards either Sacrifice or Swear by Idols, the Law permitted them to Sacrifice and Swear. page 118

Anshelmus Bishop of Canterbury, about Ann. 1090. on Matt. 5. about Oaths, saith, 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. p. 120.

Object. 4. But God Swore, say they, he swore to A­braham, as Moses witnesseth, and (in the Psalms) The Lord swore and will not repent, and thereby there seems to be permitted to men a Liberty of Swearing.

Answ. To which let Athanasius (a man in great Re­nown in the days of Constantine, and whose Creed is the [Page 14] Faith and Test to Christendom at this day) give answer:On the Passion of Christ He says, This is not so: God sweareth by none; for how can he, seeing he is Lord and Master of all things?

Jamb. 20 Gregory Nazianzen, a great man in the Churh, in his Dialogue against Swearing, answers the Objection, that God swore (thus) ‘Is there any thing better than God? Surely nothing. If therefore nothing be found better than he, it should follow that he never sware: when God saith any thing that is the Oath of God, page 64’

See Catena 65 Graec. Patr on Lnk 1. Cyrill, whom Evagrius Scholasticus styles Renowned ‘Let none because he hears that God sware to Abraham, use to swear: — for God doth not swear, for the Oath of God is his own Word &c. pags 108.’

Object. 5. Christ swore, therefore &c.

Answ. Jansenius on Matt 5. Yea, & Amen are the same 2. Cor. 1. Not Swearing but Affirming, so Christ Swore not. p. 115.

Jacobus Faber on Matt. 5 p. 23.24. saiths Who spake more seriously than our Saviour? Who more Ne­cessary things? Yet he Used no other than that Verily Verily I say unto you, or some other such like, which was a true Form or Manner to them that swore not. page 138. — Again, saith he, The Lord made Answer to an Adjuration, but he did not swear. page 139

[Page 15] Jerem Libr. Epistol. part. 3. Tract. 2. Epist. 2. of O­bedience, Knowledge & Revenge, saith, It is not lawful for us servants to swear: because we are forbidden by the Law of the Lord; but lest we should suffer an Of­fence by his Example, since the time he forbade us to swear, neither did he himself ever swear. &c p. 92.

Suarez: He affirmeth ‘Christ never sware.De Quaest. jur. Christ. p. 306. — It is spoken of him only some­times, that he said Amen, or Truly or Verily, which we have before shewed to be no particle of swearing, p. 140.’

Object. 6. But Paul sware therefore &c.

Answ. As to Paul; Basil aforementioned saith ‘There be some Speeches which have the forms of Oaths, which are no Oaths at all, but rather Remedies to per­swade. — The Apostle willing to shew his Love to the Corinthians, said, By the Glorying of you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord: For he did not depart from the Doctrine of the Gospel, who by a thing before all most dear unto him, sought belief to the Truth p. 61.62.’

And Gregory Nazianzen, in his Dialogue against swear­ing, on the Objection that Paul swore, says, ‘Oh! what a vain Jangler was he that said it! Quoth he, God is my witness; and God knows those words are not an Oath, but a certain Asseveration in such great things (mark such great things constant and inviolable. p. 61,’

Object. 7. We tak [...] Christ's Prohibition to respect on­ly common conversation oaths: but not when requir'd to take them by any lawful Authority, as Magistrate Court or the like.

Answ. Then it seems by our opposers way of Argu­ing [Page 16] else where, if Paul swore he broke Christ's Command­ment, being not call'd thereto by any Magistrate &c. but as the Text Swear not at all, seems to us to give no favour to this objection, so neither did it in the Ap­prehension or Sense of the Antient Fathers of the Church:Against tde Jews, Hom. 34. for Chrysostom seeing one call'd a Christian compelling a certain honest faithful Matron to go to the Jews Synagogue, there to be sworn about some bu­siness in controversie betwixt them, she desiring help, I, saith he, kindled with ZEAL, arose, and not suffering her to be drawn into this prevarication. Rescued her. — And going on in speaking I taught him out of the Holy Gospel, that it is not lawful to swear at all, not to incite any to swear &c.

Here we may see Chrysostom thought swearing unlaw­ful,On Matt. Hom, 17 'though before Authority. — Again saith he, Hear Oye Clergy Men, who bring the Holy Gospel for men to swear upon. — If it were well done to swear ye said rightly, That we gave 'em the Gospel to swear not to for wear: but now ye know it is a Sin even to swear well. page 81. — But what shall I say of Oaths of the Court: for there for six pence both Oaths and Perjury are made. for,His Im­perfect Work, c. 5. because a Thunder-bolt doth not come down from above, and all things are not turn'd, thou standest and and wilt bind God: Why? that thou may'st get herbs and shoes for a small price, thou callest him to witness, do we therefore think we do not sin, because they are not punished? This is the Lord's Mercy, not our de­sert. page 85.86. — Again saith he, Hath he forsworn? thou hast lost both thy self and him: but hath not for­sworn? even so thou hast lost, who hast driven him to transgress the Commandment. Let us expel this disease [Page 17] from the Soul, let us drive it now from the Court, mark, from the Court, and from all Merchants and Trades Man's shops, it was a greater Labour to us, do not you think that worldly things are corrected by the Transgressings of divine Laws. page 87.83. (Mark this)

And about compelling to swear, Origen saith, But I account that a man that will live according to the Gos­pel must not adjure another. — For if it be not law-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. page 50.

Cyprian saith,De mor­tal. Adv. He­res. l. 1. ord. 19. § 6. It is unlawful for any man to compel another to take an Oath. page 52

Epiphanius saith, We must not swear, no not by the Lord him self; 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 any other things &c. page 68.

Chrysostom saith,On Matt. Hom. 17. He that compels hath a more una­voidable punishment than he that swears. page 84.

Isidorus l. 1. c. 15. saith. If the man speaks truth usu­ally, he will always speak Truth without an Oath, but if he is a Liar, he will lye though he swear (Note, Where is then the service of an Oath?) Therefore for both these causes, one ought not to require an oath. page 104

William Tindal saith That no Judge, or other,On Matt. Hom. 17. ought in any Case to Compel any man to swear against his Will. page 149. — Again, Chrysostom saith Behold my Friend, [...], not to Force any man to swear. — Again, O foolish man! that compellest another to Swear, thou knowest not what thou doest. p. 80.

[Page 18]Upon the Question, What if any lay on me a necessity of swearing? &c. Certainiy (saith he) where the Law is violated, one must not make any mention of necessity; there is one unavoidable necessity, Not to Offend GOD: for that mouth that hath learned to flee an Oath, if any would compel it ten thousand times, it never will admit of fall [...]ng into that custom &c. — But if thou fear nothing else, at least fear that Book, which thou takest in thy hands,Hom. 5. ad pop. Antioc. bidding another to swear — And markest what Christ hath there commanded concerning Oaths, Quake and Forbear. p. 72. Note, Sure no Body will say, all this is meant of common Conversation Oaths. — Again Chrysostom further saith, that those that inhabit the City Antioch had rather their tongues should be cut out, than an Oath should proceed out of their mouth. p. 73. Again, concerning swearing by the true God' and how Reverently we ought to speak of him;Socrates Scholast. lib. 4. cap. 22. fiirst hear Gregory Thaumaturgus, so called for his working of Miracles, It is meet saith he, to give diligent heed to the words of the King, & to flee an Oath by all means, especially that whih is taken in the name of God. page 51.

Adv. He­res. l. 1. ord. 19. § 6. Epiphanius saith, we must not swear, no, not by the Lord him self; 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. p. 68

And Erasmus, speaking of the Law of the Gospel, saith, That we may be the more remote from peejury, it doth utterly condem all Oaths: and that it is not law­ful to Swear, neither by God, neither by Heaven, &c. page 129. And the famous Athanasius afore mentioned saith, ‘The Evangelical Sentence of the Lord is, Let [Page 19] your Yea be Yea, and your Nay Nay: On the Passion of Christ. 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 vain: for if any one is plainly wor­thy to name the Name of God, he is worthy of belief.’

‘On the Contrary, if he be not worthy of belief, that may be Credated without an Oath, surely he is not wor­thy to name God. — 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 na earthly King to the lowest Judicatures. Why do we cite him that is Uncreated, to Created things, and make God to be despised of men? Hout, that exceeds all Iniquity and 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 Lie. p. 54.55.’ Again Chrysostom upon the Subject of Oaths saith,On Matt. Hom. 17. Ye know ‘not what God is, and with what a mouth he ought to be invocated.— Again, Ought not one even to dread when God is named? — Even among the Jews this Name was so Reverend that it was written on the Plate of the Mitre, and none might bear those Letters of the Name of God but only the High Priest. — If it was not lawful for all to Name God simply, how great Audaciousness is it to call it in Witness! p. 86.’

Suarez saith, ‘It seems plain that an Oath is not an Act [Page 20] of Religion; it may be declared by Reason: because first, It is impossible that men can bring God for a wit­ness, therefore the Name of God is taken vain, as often as it is taken to Swear, therefore it is Evil in it self. p. 142.’ Note then, surely not any Part of God's worship, for that is not Evil in it self. — Again Erasmus saith, 'Be you afraid,Comm. on James 5. not only to swear by God in Human Affairs, & in Matters: but also abstain from all kind of Swearing. — p. 130.

Hom. 28, Cant. p. [...]76.Again saith Suarez, ‘Grant it were possible to bring God for a witness, it seems disorderly to confirm men's Business, Covenants or Words, because it is disorderly to order things of an higher Order to those that are inferior, much more is it disorderly to mix the Sacred Authority of God, to the profane (or common) words or business Men.’

Certainly these thing ought to have weight with all Profest Christians, yet the Fears of some are such, that notwithstanding what hath been said, we expect to be accosted with this distrustful Argument, That without Oaths, or calling God to Witness we may be deprived of Ju­stice &c. To which let the Answer be from those An [...]i­tient Christians and Fathers. And first hear once more that often mentioned and Famous Chrysostom, (his Im­perfect Work cap. 5.) who saith, Tell me my friend what doest thou get by swearing; for if thy Adversary did believe thou wouldest swear well he would not force thee to swear but because he thinks thou wilt [...]wear falsely therefore it is he Compels thee to swear; & when thou hast Sworn, he doth not sit down satisfied in the Truth of thine Oath, but goes away full of Revenge &c. Then he brings, and Answers some Objections, first thus ‘But what shall I do, [Page 21] he neither doth nor will believe me, unless I swear.’

And Erasmus saith, A Good man will believe a man without Swearing, and he that is Naught will not trust a man though he swear: Again whosoever dares be bold to Lie without swearing he dares do the same also when he swear­eth, if he List. page 131.

Otho Brunfelsius on Matt. 5. saith But thou wilt say I shall not be trusted unless I Swear.— But such Distrust ought not to Reing in the Faithful; but if we trust not words, what should an Oath do? It is a proverb, None is less Trusted than he which shall often swear. page 114.

On Matt. 5. page 43. Enthymius, aforementioned brings a Question, What then it to be done if any require an Oath, yea, compel to swear? and answers, Let the fear of God be more forcible than this Compulsion.— And Chose rather to suffer all things, than to transgress the Command.—Unless thou Esteem the Command of God more forcible, all things wilt depart from thee, void and unperform'd page 118.

On Matt. 5 Page 23.24.Jacobus Faber says 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 verily Good and true, it is enough to hear of him Yea or Nay, but if that be not Evident, or that it be Evi­dent [Page 23] that he is bad, perhaps that's required of him which ought not. page 139.

And Bishop Gauden beforementioned says, That neither a true Christian and Good Man need be Compelled to swear, in order to the Awing him into Truth telling, not is ill M [...]n's Swearing of much Credit.

Note how near this late Bishop agrees with the above Authors, especially Chrysostom, who argues of a man, that if he fear God he will not Lie, though not sworn, but if he fear not God he will Lie tho' sworn. &c.

And as Isodorus saith, If he be a Liar he will lie tho he swear. And as Erasmus saith, Whosoever dares be bold to lie without swearing he dares do the same also when he sweareth, if he list. (as before)

Our last Instance is the Waldenses, who were reputed to have continued uncorrupted with the Grosness of the A­postacy ever since the Apostles times; they were defended by Bishop Usher, in his Book de Successione, but Persecuted by the Papists; one Article Charged against them was That they would not Swear at all. page. 110

As from the foregoing it's evident, that the Fathers held it to be according to Scripture that Swearing by the true God was lawful under the Law to keep them from swearing by Idols, yet no ways lawful under the Gospel consequently no Part of God's Worship or as Suarez hath it No Religious Act; And the Scriptures no where say that Christ swore nor Paul swore nor that it was in common Conversation only, or by the Heavens &c. that our Lord forbade to Swear: So also according to the Judgments and Testimonies of the aforegring many cited Fathers, Martyrs & Learned Protestants that tho' Swearing was allowed under the Law, yet not under the Gospel in any Case, neither with, nor with­out [Page 24] swearing by the Name of the Lord nor with, nor upon a Book, nor that we should be compelled before a Judge, or o­therwise to Swear; nor did they make the least Exception to Court Oaths, or of taking them before Authority, but abso­lutely forbidding to compel any to Swear, this must respect Magistrates, because none else have Power to compel to swear: nor that Christ nor Paul did swear nor that there is the expected Security in Swearing, but that, as B [...]za hath it, on James 5.12. What you have to say or Affirm, speak or affirm it without an Oath. Or as Lodovicus on Matt. 5. hath it, To use only in our Speech a simple Affirmation and Denial, without an Oath.

Upon which we Conclude and say, first, This we are Satisfi'd is according to the Doctrine of our Bles­sed Saviour, and therefore Necessary to be kept to: what remains we also deem very needful to speak to, and indispensibly Necessary to be kept and performed by all, as they tender the Honour of God, doing Justice to their Neighbour, true Peace to their Consciences, and the everlasting Happiness of their Souls, & that is as Erasmus hath it. As often as You Confirm any thing, Con­firm it with all your Heart, and perform indeed the th [...]ng that you speak: at often as you deny any thing deny it with your whole Heart; neither let any else be in your Heart, than your mouth speaketh, that there be no Counterfeiting in you &c. page 131.

Under the Law it was, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths Matt. 5 34 Under the Gospel it is, Swear not at all but speak every man Truth with his Neigh­bour. Matth. 5 34. Ephesians 4.25.

But since notwithstanding what our Friends have offered, there is still pleading a necessity for Oaths; we [Page 25] shall therefore in the words of another Antient Author, make one Answer more, it was given by way of a Close and Home Query (and needful to be deeply considered by all) to such as pleaded for the permission of Swearing, his Answer was this, But where shall we dispose, or how shall we dispence with the Evangelical Precept in the Gospel that forbids us taking ANY OATH AT ALL. Blastaris Syntagma Tit. E c. 32. p. 62.

And that it may further appear▪ That this is no No­velty, even in our own Nation, but has met with Indul­gence by our Superiors in former Ages, Observe a Char­ter of King Ethe [...]tan before the Conquest, in which are these words as Quoted in Blount's Law Dictionary, viz. Quod Homines sui (Riponenses) sunt Credendi per suum Ye, & per suum Na [...] ▪ in omnibus Querel [...]s & Curiis, licet tangen. FREED MORTEL or FRODMORTEL— That is, That the Kings Men of Rippon (where the Charter was Granted) were to be Credited by their YEA & by their NAY, in all Controversies (or Pleas) & in all Courts▪ altho touching MURDER or MAN­SLAUGHTER.

Published in the Behalf of our Friends and others who for Conscience Sake cannot SWEAR AT ALL.