surely were not by any Creature but by his Name nor yet vain and rash Oaths for such were never commanded to be performed unto the Lord. Moreover Christ forbad Swearing by God the Creator when he forbad Swearing by Heaven Earth c. because he gives that for the Reason why we should not Swear by these Creatures viz. because Heaven is the Throne of God and the Earth is his Footstool and none can Swear by the Throne of God but he must Swear by his Creator that sits thereon as is manifest in Mat. 23. 22. Object 10. If no kind of Oath be lawful to Swear why did the Apostle Paul use such a form of Oath in 1 Cor. 15. 31. as in saying I protest by your rejoycing I die daily Answ. There is no word for I protest in the Greek Moreover if these words could be made an Oath then the Apostle must of necessity have Sworn by their Rejoycing and so by a Creature which was always unlawful and therefore this cannot be accounted an Oath without reflecting upon the Apostle as a Transgressor both against the Law and Gospel Object 11. If no Oath must be used in any Case how can Justice be administred according to the Rule of the Gospel viz. by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses Mat. 18. 16. in many Cases where there is but one single Witness by which the Controversy can be decided As for Example in one Case instanced in Exod. 22. 10 11. If a Man deliver unto his Neighbour an Ass or an Ox or a Sheep or any Beast to keep and it die or be hurt or driven away no Man seeing it Then shall an Oath of the Lord be between them both that he hath not put his hand to his Neighbours Goods and the Owner of it shall accept thereof and he shall not make it good Now if in this or such a Case the Man 's bare word be taken for the Proof of his Innocency the Controversy will be decided by one only Witness directly against Christ's Precept in Mat. 18. 16. That in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established Therefore in such Case the guiltless Party must take in God to Witness with him viz. by his Oath that so the Matter may be decided by two Witnesses at least according to Christ's Precept aforesaid to wit by him that makes the Oath and by God whom he calls to Witness with him Answ. In such a Case if a Man doth Swear and call God to Witness with him unto the Matter yet this will not make it to be decided according to Christ's Precept for Christ saith Take with thee one or two more that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established Now the one or two more besides himself must be humane Persons and not Gods except the Party can call two Gods to witness with him which is absurd to suppose and also in such a Case where there is two or three Witnesses it may be decided by Christ's Rule without their Oaths Therefore Christ's Rule to have two or three Witnesses extends only to such Cases as is possible to have so many Witnesses and lays no necessity upon Swearing to the deciding thereof according to or by his Precept And moreover if one Swearing calls God to witness with him how is the Matter in Controversy decided by the Mouth of two Witnesses according to Christ's Precept when only by the Mouth of one Man every word is spoken to testify the truth in question For if God should testify or reveal the truth of such a Matter in question immediately by his own Mouth there would be no need of any Man's Testimony to strengthen his Evidence because no Man can add any thing to Gods immediate Revelation or Testimony which is perfect of its self Object 12. If Christ's Prohibition to Swear in Mat. 5. 34. be so general that it admits of no limit or exception to the Sentence so that none ought to Swear in any Case because the words are general then by the same Reason none can lay up for himself any Treasure on Earth nor take thought for his Life what to eat or drink c. nor yet take thought or care for the Morrow in any case without breaking some other of Christ's express Commands in the same Sermon as in Mat. 6. 19. 25. 34. all which are as general as that against Swearing in Mat. 5. 34. and then if it be so how can any be industrious in their Imployments and Trades and take care to provide for their Families which he that doth not is worse than an Infidel 1 Tim. 5. 8 Therefore for any Persons to put such a general and unlimited Construction on any of Christ's Commands when according to such of their own unlimited sense they themselves are daily guilty of breaking some other of Christ's Commands and so condemn or dissallow that in one Case which they do and must of necessity allow in another Case is ridiculous and great disingenuity and confusion Answ. Christ forbidding us to lay up Treasures for our selves on Earth c. extends only to such laying up earthly Treasure as to set our Hearts on it for our Hearts ought only to be with our heavenly Treasure as is manifest from Verse 20 21. Therefore if any one can lay up things on Earth where his Heart is not with them Christ's Command extends not to him because such things are not properly his Treasure for the word Treasure most properly signifies that which is most precious in his esteem Likewise Christ forbidding us to take thought or care for our Lives c. and for the Morrow is not to be anxious or too much careful or distracted or over-troubled in ones mind about them which is also a setting our Hearts upon them for so the words in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signify and therefore these Prohibitions are not so general as that in Mat. 5. 34. concerning Swearing which is also as full against all Oaths whatsoever both in the Greek and Latin as in the English However if it should be granted for Argument sake that those Prohibitions aforesaid are as general in all Cases as that of Swearing yet this will not prove that of Swearing any whit the less general nor that any Person ought to commit Sin in breaking a Command of Christ's in any one thing because they may do so in some other things but rather such ought to repent and leave off those things wherein they do or have broke his Commands if it plainly so appears and be more careful afterwards of keeping all his Commands But if it be impartially and ingenuously considered there is but little sign that those Persons are very careful of laying up for themselves Treasures on Earth or taking thought for their Lives or for the Morrow who hazard the losing of all their earthly Things and Enjoyments and their Lives and Liberty too
because they dare not do that which they believe will be a breaking of Christ's Command as aforesaid Object 13. If all Oaths are forbidden by Christ in Mat. 5. 34. how could the Apostle Paul who without question understood the extent of Christ's words and would not do any thing contrary thereunto so often call God to witness to the Truth of what he said which is a formal Oath as God is my Witness Rom. 1. 9 I call God for a Record upon my Soul 2 Cor. 1. 23. Before God I lie not Gal. 1. 20. God is my Record Phil. 1. 8. Ye are Witnesses and God also 1 Thes. 2. 10. I say the truth in Christ I lie not my Conscience also bearing me Witness in the Holy Ghost Rom. 9. 1. Answ. If simply the saying God or any thing else is my Witness or only the meer calling God or any Creature for a Witness or Record c. on any Account be a formal Oath then Paul Swore by the Men he wrote to in 2 Thes. 2. 10. as well as by God when he said Ye are Witnesses and God also And by the same Reason he Swore by his Conscience in Rom. 9. 1. when he said My Conscience also bearing me Witness c. And also by the like Reason Moses Swore by Heaven and Earth in Deut. 41. 26. when he said to the People I call Heaven and Earth to Witness against you this day All which would render Paul and Moses too to Swear by the Creatures which those that plead against the universality of Christ's Prohibition themselves confess were always unlawful and a breach of Christ's Command in the Gospel and also of God's Command under the Law when he permitted Men to Swear only by his Name according to their own Explication and Interpretation of them So if such Expressions could be proved Oaths it is manifest that we ought not to imitate them for the Reasons aforesaid neither are such Examples of the Prophets and Apostles sufficient or enough then to invalidate to us now the Command of Christ for the abolishing all Swearing no more than Paul's then shaving his Head at Cenchrea because he had a Vow Acts 18. 18. or his purifying himself in the Temple and offering with the four Jews that had a Vow Acts 21. 26. or his circumcising of Timothy because of the Jews Acts 16. 3. can warrant us to the Observation of those legal Rites and Ceremonies now nor indeed ought we to imitate the Prophets or Apostles in any particular thing without having any Warrant or Precept to us for the same especially when it seems against any general and positive Command in Scripture and most especially when it seems directly against any positive Command or Prohibition of Christ who is Lord of all the Prophets Apostles and Angels and whom we are especially to hear and obey in all things Acts 3. 32. for though they were exemplary for us to imitate and follow vet it must be in such things that we are sure they were followers of Christ and that are alike binding to all Christians according to the Apostle Paul's own Exhortation in 1 Cor. 11. 1. and not otherwise as in Gal. 1. 8 9. But however to find a better Exposition of the Expressions supposed to be Oaths afore-mentioned than to make the Apostle and Prophets transgressours as aforesaid let it be seriously observed what the Definition or Nature and Substance of an Oath is which I here propose to all Men as well to the Ingenious and Learned as to the Unlearned to consider of with my Reasons hereafter following An Oath or the Substance of an Oath is a Religious Tye or a Sacred Bond when it is given for a Temporal or Earthly Thing As the beseeching or invoking of God or any thing reverenced and esteemed for a Deity or the expressing or naming any superiour thing as a Surety that most properly belongs to God which is not in any Man's power to dispose of and thereby binding the Soul as a Pawn or Pledge for a Security to an Inferior for confirming the truth of any Human or Temporal Matter in question is a Swearing And this is also confirmed by the Original or Etymology of the Word Juro to Swear from the best Authorities viz. Juro ex Jure vel quasi Jovem Oro aut testem invoco Quod jurare proprie sit ita sancte promittere ac si jus esset Seu juris servandi causa religiose assevero By which it seems that Swearing being first among the Heathens was an invoking or using the Name of their God or that which they reverenced as a Deity for a Bond-tye or Security of their Affirmations and Promises whereby they bound their Soul to their Idol as a Pledge for the truth and certainty thereof so likewise when the Israelites were permitted to Swear by the true God only for a time to draw them off from their Idols they by the same reason bound their Souls to him as a Pledge for a Security which was better than to be bound to an Idol And also by the Latin definition of the word Juramentum viz. Juramentum est aliquod mente Juratur An Oath is a bond or security of something understood in the Mind binding the Soul and implying a Curse in case of not then speaking the truth though not perhaps so plainly expressed in Words at length as it is but in few Oaths And this seems further manifest from Mat. 5. 34 35 36. where Christ gives some reason why they should not Swear by Heaven Earth nor Jerusalem viz. because one was God's Throne and the other his Footstool and the last his City and none could Swear by any of these Creatures that most properly belonged to God but he must Swear by the Creator as is plain from Mat. 23. 22. He that Swears by Heaven Swears by the Throne of God and by him that sits thereon So here is a Swearing by God implied and consequently a binding the Soul when only Heaven and a Creature is used or mentioned to Swear by the like Reason is when one Swears by his Head because our Head and Body too are none of our own but the Lords Rom. 14. 8. and so properly belong to God And therefore this is plain to all Men That none ought in any Case to assign that for a Surety Pawn or Pledge tho' but an Earthly one and much more a greater and higher which is anothers and none of their own nor that any one can lawfully give any thing which is not in his power to dispose of And so now seeing the nature of an Oath is such a binding of the Soul for a Pawn or Pledge in temporal Affairs was there not great reason why Christ discontinued the use of them among Christians by his Prohibition in Mat. 5. 34 For let it be considered whether it would not be an unreasonable thing for any one to pawn his Soul for or upon any temporal matter where there is no visible
or intelligible proportion between the value of the Pawn or Pledge and of the thing it was pawned for And also would it not be a dangerous thing to run such a great hazard in case of any mistake as human Sense and Understanding is subject to tho' not designedly as is frequently seen among those that Swear in Courts and before Magistrates notwithstanding the Bond of their Oaths And also might not this be one Reason too why the Apostle James commanded the Brethren That above all things they should not Swear seeing it is one of the most dangerous of all things for any one so slightly to put his Soul into such a hazard like laying ones Soul for a Wager by his own consent and agreement And would not all esteem it a very unreasonable thing of any Man that should require a thousand Pounds for a Pledge or Pawn for any thing but of the value of a Shilling And yet this would be far short of the Proportion of the value of a Soul to any earthly temporal Matter And doth it not also shew that such as will give such an extraordinary Pledge for a small and trivial matter in comparison of the Pledge when duly considered esteem but lightly of their Souls or of what they Pawn as Esau did when he sold his Birth-right for a Mess of Pottage And to prove that a Surety Pawn or Pledge of the Soul or of eternal and heavenly things only makes or is properly called an Oath when it is applied to or offered or given for temporal and earthly Matters Observe That an Oath according to the Apostle in Heb. 6. 16. is such a Bond as is made by a greater which consequently may not be so when made by a lesser Therefore the same kind of Speech or Expressions that are an Oath being made bâ— a greater may not so be when made by a lesser as by these following Instances First The calling God to Witness to bind any Affirmation Promise or Denial especially when relating to temporal and lesser Matters most understanding Men and especially the Learned in most Ages accounted it an Oath but the calling a Man to Witness to any Matter or Fact or to any Affirmation Promise or Denial who counts it a Swearing Or that one Swear by the Man so called Secondly To say So do God to me and more also if I do not such a thing is an Oath 2 Sam. 3. 35. But to say to a Man So do thou to me and more also if I do not such a thing who will account it an Oath by the Man Thirdly To say Our Life for yours I will do such a thing is an Oath Josh 2. 14 17 20. But for one to say My Horse for thine I will do such a thing who will say that such an one Swears by his Horse Except any will say That every one that lays a Wager always Swears by the Wager that he lays Hence may be seen that a temporal Surety and Security is only proper for temporal Matters and such a Bond or Security is not accounted an Oath but whatsoever is higher as things of a divine and eternal Nature are too high and great to be offered for a Surety and Security for temporal and earthly Things and therefore such an extraordinary Bond or Security for such an improper use is accounted and properly called an Oath Therefore according to the definition and nature of an Oath before mentioned The invoking or calling God for a Witness and many other high Expressions of the Apostle's that he used only in treating of divine Matters and indeed the appealing after any manner to God as Judge or any ways using his sacred Name or mentioning any thing whereby it may be imployed as by Heaven Earth c. being only designed for a further strengthning and confirming the Truth of any Speech Affirmation Promise or Denial when relating only to humane worldly and inferiour Matters may be granted to be an Oath but otherwise not so when used only upon a divine and religious Account For the same Words and Expressions either such as are found in the Scriptures or others that are commonly used in some Cases which are good and lawful in themselves when rightly used may be an Oath or no Oath according to their application design and intent in using them as will further appear by the Instances Reasons and Demonstrations following 1. If one should say in Prayer So help me God that I may walk in thy ways here the words So help me God who will say are an Oath But when these words So help me God are used to bind or confirm any Speech or the truth thereof in humane and temporal Affairs they make up the common National Oath for Jury-men Witnesses c. 2. Likewise if one should say religiously speaking By Christs Blood the Saints are justified or By Christs Life they are saved Rom. 5. 9 10. Who will say That there is the least Sign of any thing of the nature of an Oath in these Affirmations or in them words soused But if any one should use these words By Christs Blood or By Christs Life in Affirmation or Denying or in promising any thing relating to humane worldly or temporal Matters it would amount to an Oath of an high degree or of the worst sort that would be very irksome and burthensome for all sober and religious Persons to hear 3. Also if one should say simply in a religious and serious manner upon some good occasion By God I am still alive and enjoy my health meaning his Power Favour or Mercy who will account this an Oath But if a Drunkard or common Swearer should use these very words in his usual manner of Speaking when only to confirm the truth of his Speech or in his accustomed manner of Swearing and express all the same Sentence too would not all that should hear him grant that he Swore by his Maker that he was still alive and enjoyed his health 4. To say or religiously to affirm As the Lord liveth he will preserve those that fear his Name and continually trust in him from the snares of the evil one who will account it an Oath But for one to say affirm or promise any thing relating to humane and temporal Matters in this manner As the Lord liveth such a thing is or shall be done c. is called an Oath as is manifest in 1 Sam. 19. 6 20. 3. and 28. 10. and also in Jer. 38. 16. 5. To assert or promise any thing by the words God is my Witness or Record when it relates only to humane and temporal Matters and to satisfie such incredulity or distrust that will be content with no less security than by the Name of God may be an Oath because his Name is here mentiond and used as a Bond or Surety for an earthly and inferior Matter but for one sensibly and sincrely to say God is my Witness or Record that I have lived in his fear who can
account it an Oath 6. Though the Apostle Paul Called God for a Record upon his Soul to confirm his Assertion of sparing the Brethren being in some divine and religious respect as seems manifest in the next Chapter and therefore might not then be an Oath in the Apostle Yet what good Christians in imitation of these words durst promise or say in any thing relating to common and humane Affairs I call God for a Record upon my Soul that I will do or I will not perform such a thing would not this be as great an Oath as if he had instead thereof used the words As the Lord liveth or the words So help me God 7. Likewise though the Apostle's saying Now the things which I write unto you Behold before God I lie not might not be an Oath in the Apostle because he treated and wrote of religious and divine Things in which respect Gods Name and the appealing to him too may be lawfully used by sincere Christians in many Cases As for Instance one may truly say I speak or do a thing before or in the presence of God if he be then livingly sensible thereof to assist him in the performing it yet if another should speak the same words that was not livingly sensible of his presence at that time he would Speak if not Swear falsly as well as he that said The Lord liveth when he was not sensible thereof Swore falsly though the Lord liveth is as true in it self as that nothing can be spoken or done but it must be so before God as that it cannot be hid from his Presence And further for one to promise or say Before God I will pay thee that Mony or Before God I will not stay here who will not account either of these Expressions to be an Oath And moreover it may be observed that being the Apostle used the word behold before the words before God and which in the Greek is without any Point or Comma after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for behold and hath also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying because or that which is omitted in the English as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Expression may be translated or understood in a moderater sense than it is commonly taken in the English as Behold before God that I do not lie or speak false as much as to say I do not speak false in these things I write unto you because I am now sensibly before or in the Presence of God and therefore I cannot mistake or be disappointed in the truth thereof as the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may also signifie at such a time And let it be further considered that to use the words before God to promise any humane terrene or earthly Matter by cannot be lawful or safe in any sense however for in the first place altho' a Christian may sometimes say or hath truly used them words in the Present and Preter Tense yet who can appoint a time in the future when he will approach to or be sensibly before God to perform any humane Matter in his presence And if in saying Before God I will perform such a Matter could be only understood in such a common sense as that all things are and must be performed before him because nothing can be hid from his presence it would be superfluous and using his Name in vain because nothing can be done but it must be before him as well the breaking of the Promise as the performing it Or if such a Sense be excluded the possibility of which is not easily to be conceived whereby God is appealed to or invoked to take notice thereof as a Judge and so consequently as a just Revenger in case of non-performance of the Matter promised which is of the nature of an Oath to what purpose would it be for any one to use or require such words for a strengthning or confirming the said Promise So by this Reason also it would be an using or taking God's Name in vain 8. And also though the Apostle Paul in Rom. 9. 3. after having just before mentioned his godly Sorrow and Exercise for the Israelites c. said I could wish my self Accursed from Christ for my Brethren c. Yet what good Christian durst imitate or use these words of the Apostle in such a different sense as he used them as to wish himself Accursed from Christ to confirm the truth of any Affirmation or Promise and most especially when relating to humane and temporal Affairs And if any one should promise or say I wish my self Accursed from Christ if I speak false or if I do not perform such a thing what sort of Oaths would any sincere Christian count worser than such an Expression though the Party should excuse himself by improperly pleading the Apostle's Example for it as before-mentioned So it is plain from what hath been before-mentioned That we are not to imitate the Apostles in any such extraordinary Expressions nor yet in every particular and extraordinary thing they might say or do except upon such like occasion and that we had the same Authority or Permission or a Command or Precept therefore for we are only to imitate and be Followers of them and all Christians one of another in all such general Duties as is plain we are all alike commanded by our and their Lord and Master and not otherwise For because one Christian has a Gift and Command to Preach it doth not therefore follow that all other Christians must imitate him and be Preachers too nor because another may have a Gift of Prophecying it will not follow that all the rest must be Propheciers too by only imitating him But to come closer to the Matter still if possible and to answer the most critical Objections as may or can be If any would yet imitate any of the said Apostles Expressions in their Epistles and use Gods sacred Name for a Witness to or a Confirmation of any thing surely they ought to do it in the like Cases and Sense and by the same Spirit and Authority as the Apostles did and wrote their Epistles in or else it cannot have the same approbation and acceptance seeing Gods Name may be used amiss and in vain but the contrary As for Example Would it not be a presumption for any Man to Call or Summons an earthly King for a Witness or as a Surety to any of the Man 's own particular and trivial Causes Yet if the same King should commissionate or require any of his Subjects to call him for a Witness or to be a Security for a thing wherein the King's Cause is chiefly concerned it would be then no presumption in a Subject so to do And furthermore seeing according to several express Scriptures that none can Worship or Adore or Reverence according to the Greek God aright without his Spirit Joh. 4. 23 24. Nor can any ask or pray as they ought except in Christ's Name or by
the Spirits help Joh. 14. 13 14. Rom. 8. 26 27. No nor yet so much as to truly say that Jesus is the Lord though nothing is more true in it self without the Holy Ghost or Spirit 1 Cor. 12. 3. How can any considering these things that profess either the Scriptures or the Spirit to be their Guide or Rule invoke God for a Witness or any other purpose or any ways to imploy and use his Sacred Name for a Security in earthly Matters if it was not a proper Oath which is more than barely to ask a Petition in Prayer in their own time Or at the requirings of others without they certainly know that they have his Commission or the Assistance of his Spirit at the time to perform it rightly and with such due reverence as they ought For if none can approach Gods presence to worship him or so much as to ask a Petition in Prayer with a fit or due Adoration or Reverence without Christ's Name or Authority or the Spirit 's assistance much more can any invoke God into their presence for a Witness or Surety c. with a sufficient Adoration or Reverence without his Commission or the Assistance of his Spirit for who are so bold as peremptorily to approach the presence of or speak to an earthly Prince without his permission first obtained or some one to introduce him or to mediate for him Much more how dare any to invoke God into their presence upon any account when they please and at any time appointed by Man without first having obtained a divine Permission or being required thereto by his Spirit Therefore from hence it is evidently plain and clear That we ought to have a care of using any other form or higher manner of Expressions for asserting the truth and promising any thing in all Cases especially relating to temporal Matters but what may plainly agree with Christ's Precept or form of Speech which he prescribed and commanded us to use instead of an Oath Mat. 5. 37. viz. That our Word or Speech be Yea yea and Nay nay as is according to the Greek which seems to be only a doubling of such words that we commonly use for affirming or denying of a thing as Christ himself often did when he said Verily verily lest we should run into an Oath unawares or so far as to use or take God's Name in vain that is not to be used customarily or formally or at least into any thing which Christ counted was more or higher than Yea yea and Nay nay and said cometh of evil Not but that I believe we may use other Words or Expressions for Yea yea and Nay nay that are equivalent thereunto as truly or verily or such like for Yea and Amen are the same 2 Cor. 1. but not such as are higher for Christ's saying Whatsoever are more or more full according to the Greek than these cometh of evil seems plainly to intimate that there may be other Expressions higher than these though not in the Superlative Degree that are dangerous to use if they can be lesser than an Oath or else why did Christ here only forbid what is in the Comparative Degree to Yea yea and Nay nay after he had forbidden what was in the Superlative Degree before in Verse 34. when he forbad all Oaths Now for a further Confirmation of all these Reasons and Demonstrations aforementioned see what several of the most learned famous and eminent Fathers Doctors Christians and Martyrs in divers and former Ages have said and believed concerning the same and especially that we should not go higher or exceed Christ's Evangelical Sentence of Yea yea and Nay nay in all Cases where Oaths are required 1. SImocâ—atus Epist. 33. F. saith Strange that faithful Yea and Nay is stopt when Perfidiousness with an Oath can pass all Guards Courts and Offices Observation Here this Author believed That Yea and Nay was sufficient to be taken in all Cases instead of an Oath 2. Tertul. de Idololatria Cap. 11. He which signs a Bill of Security containing and confirmed by an Oath is guilty of Swearing as if he had spoken it Observ. Here this learned Author esteem'd a Swearer guilty of something which surely must be evil and withal in such necessary Cases as Bills of Security tho' the Person himself spoke not one Word nor yet writ one Syllable of the Oath therein contained but only instead thereof set his Name to the Bill 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. 7. It sufficeth to add unto his Affirming or Denying this viz. I speak truly That he begets Faith in them who perceiveth not the stability of his Answer Observ. Here is the utmost Confirmation that the Author allows and that only to such as may not at first perceive the Truth and not to gratify such as questions it meerly from incredulity and distrust 4. Clem. Alex. Strom. Lib. 7. Neither doth he Swear as being one who hath determined to put for his affirming Yea and for his denying Nay Observ. Here also the same Author counts Yea and Nay sufficient instead of Swearing 5. Athanasius on the Passion of Christ saith 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 Observ. What can be said plainer against rising higher or using any greater Asseveration than Yea yea and Nay nay instead of Oaths 6. Again by the same learned and eminent Author on the same Subject 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 these 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 Judicature as one that is greater than both Actors and Judges why do we cite him that is uncreated to created things and make God to be despised of Men 〈◊〉 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 lie Observ. Here are eminent Reasons against all Swearing and the necessity thereof as well for such as cannot be believed and trusted as for those that can though in Courts of Judicature And likewise against the using God's sacred Name for a Surety c. in human Affairs And also against exceeding or going beyond the simplicity of Yea yea and Nay Nay in all humane Cases and Affairs 7. Hillary on Mat. 5. 34. Faith doth remove the custom of an Oath making the businesses of our Life to be determined in Truth and laying aside the affecting to deceive prescribing the simplicity of Speaking and Hearing that what was was and what was not was not that the business of deceiving might be
one that is either doubtful or apparently false 20. Suarez De quaest Jur. Christ. p. 276 said Grant this were possible to bring God for a Witness which this Author questioned it seems disorderly to bring the Person of God to confirm Mens businesses Covenants or Words because iâ— 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 Business of Men. Observ. Here is a notable Testimony against using God's sacred Name to confirm humane and temporal Affairs 21. Joac 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 Observ. Here is another Testimony for the keeping to the simplicity of equivalency of Speech to Yea yea and Nay nay 22. Bishop Usher If the Question be weighty whether saith the Bishop the Doubt may be ended with Truly or Verily or doubtingly with Verily verily as Christ did for you by his Example we ought to forbear an Oath Mat. 5. 37. Observ. See here the utmost that this learned and eminent Bishop allows to be used instead of an Oath although in doubtful Cases 23. Bishop Gauden in his Discourse for solemn Swearing says or confesses thus much That the ancient Christians and Fathers c. refusing to Swear said 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 Observ. Then it is plain those that have went or shall go beyond this simplicity of Yea yea and Nay Nay did or must decline from the Sanctity and Credit of the Profession of the Primitive Christians 24. There was a People in the City of Middleburgh that could not Swear at all called the Menists who profered to the then Grave of Nassau and Prince of Orange that their Yea might pass for an Oath and it was granted them in the year 1577. Observ. See here that these conscientious People profered no further than the simplicity of their Yea c. to be taken instead of an Oath So now considering the demonstrative Reasons and the many Authorities aforementioned so wonderfully concurring to the same thing with what face or pretence can any that sincerely profess Christianity take any Oath Or use any higher Expressions for confirming humane and temporal Matters than Christ's Evangelical Sentence of Yea yea and Nay Nay or what is equivalent thereto And what Christian Men or Magistrates or Powers of the Earth can awfully prescribe or require more than Christ hath permitted herein And who can undertake or pretend to prescribe a better form of Words or Expression than Christ hath prescribed and allowed us by his Command and Example to be used instead of an Oath And if Christ hath not limited us thereby to them bare words or to that particular form of Speech yet surely he has to a degree of Speech in our affirming or denying beyond which to be sure Christians ought not to go But I think it is much easier as well as safer for them to practise that or such like forms as Christ hath left us than it will be to fix and agree to Overpluses Here follow a few Lines by way of Postscript from one that took a short view of this Treatise which I thought meet also to Insert I Have taken a short view of this Manuscript with the Authorities therein quoted and it seems to me highly to favour the Doctrin of the People called QUAKERS who have been and are exposed to great Sufferings for their refusing to Swear in any Case however let none therefore slight the Authorities Arguments and Reasons therein urged but rather by express Scripture without undue Consequences and corrupt Meanings disprove for how mean soever the Instruments are that God makes use of they are not to be slighted for the Ass was made to rebuke with Man's Voice the Prophets madness and then saw more than he did and all his Blows could not get him forward and the Reason you know was he saw the Angel of the Lord with a drawn Sword in his Hand And notwithstanding the Sufferings that the QUAKERS have been and are exposed to and the Laws that on this foot have been made against them yet who can get them any further than a bare affirming or denying because of Christ's Precept and his Apostles And although they use the Name of God and those very words in a religious way which makes up the common and formal Oaths yet are very cautious of making use of that sacred Name in their worldly or temporal Affairs and urging that none can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost And I have heard they have been very sollicitous to the Government to have their solemn Words taken instead oâ— an Oath upon subjecting to the samâ— Punishment or Penalties that 's due to Perjured Persons if they affirm oâ— deny falsly which to me indeed seemâ— very reasonable to be granted them on those Terms Although I have heard the Government are for obliging them to some Form of Speech in their solemn Affirmations wherein the Name of God is made use of as these or the like words viz. before in the presence of God which the tendency of this Treatise seems not to allow in any temporal Affair without a particular Command and likewise to exclude that because it so strictly contends for the literal Sense of Mat. 5. Jam. 5. That it s not reasonable to conclude that God will give a Command to any to contradict his own Son 's positive Precept Upon the whole I must confess The plain and simple way of affirming or denying hath a tendency to advance the Repute of the Christian Religion and this Cautiousness of making use of the reverent Name of God in temporal Affairs if duly observed would be a good step to put a stop to the breach of that Command which forbids taking his Name in vain though that may be done and is too much in Matters relating to spiritual Things as well as temporal and if once People were come to God's Spirit and its Leadings in all things as their Phrases are they would not take his Name in vain in any wise And for those that look upon themselves concerned to stand firm in this Testimony and most clear and strict to the literal Sense thereof it 's certain that not to make use of Phrases or Words before or in the sight or presence of God or to name God at all is most likely to keep clear from that which is more than Yea yea and Nay nay and cometh of evil for if once it be allowed that the Name of God may be made use of in affirming or denying or binding the truth of our Words about any temporal Matters how shall we able to distinguish what is more than Yea yea and Nay nay that cometh of evil and what is not For if I say in Evidence in relation to such an Affair before God or so help me God in the Sight or Presence of God this is true or false what do I less than Swear and imply by such a Speech God should judge condemn or punish me if what I affirm be not true And wherefore do I use it but to beget a greater Credit to what I say by making use of his Name that is greater than my self Which as the Apostle said is the manner of those that Swear to Swear by the greater Heb. 6. 16. Vale. FINIS