could wish that Saints would have a care of swearing to uphold and maintain any power least that power should act wickedly and God should have a controversie with them even to the overturning of them which may fully by Scripture be proved to be the manner of Gods dealing with powers that he himself hath set up and so may be found fighters against God I shall now briefly take notice of what Mr. Ives further saith as to Mat. the 5.34 where Christ saith but I say swear not at all which words saith he doth admit of a restriction To which I answer that I do believe that Christ did not intend in that text to take away such swearing as was injoyned by a Law viz assertory swearing Therefore I shall pass what he hath said as to this particular and whereas he tells us that Christ forbids all swearing in our Common Communication and also swearing by Creatures now these kind of swearings being alwaies unlawful I shall love what he hath said to this only I cannot but take notice of what he saith in the Conclusion of his book where he tells us that the Apostle James had reference to those passionate oaths that the twelve Tribes did usually make in affliction for saith he it was usual for them to make passionate Oaths in affliction and to prove this he cites Psal 13.2.12 Lord saith the Psalons Remember David in all his affliction how he sware unto the Lord and vowed unto the Mighty God of Jacob Saying I will not enter into the Tabernacle of my House her climb up to my Bed nor suffer my eyes to sleep nor my eye-lids to slumber till I have found out a place for the Lord an Habitation for the Mighty God of Jacob. Now because that God hath said that David should never build him an House Mr. Ives is pleased to say that this Oath was passionate but I humbly conceive that his opinion in this case was not grounded upon Scripture for the Scripture tells us that it was such an Oath as the Lord will accept of 2 King 6.8 But the Lord said to David my Father for as much as it was in thy heart to build an House for my Name thou didest well in that it was in thine heart And although the Lord would not suffer David to build him an House yet he suffered them to fulfill his Oath in every title for he did not only find out a Place for the House to be built but also he gave the Pattern 1 Cro. 28 10.11 chap. Thus having answered what Mr. Ives hath written to prove promissary oaths lawful I shall conclude what I have said with the same causion which he gives but let every man take heed how he swears And now I shall come first to shew what an oath is and secondly to prove that Christ forbids all Promissary oachs in Mat. 5. and that I may so do you may be pleased first to take notice of what I have already said from Dent. 4.26 chap. 30.19 chap. 31.28 namely that calling God to witness is not swearing but when we read of the Servants of the Lord swearing in Scripture we find that it was not only a bare calling God to witness but they swear by God that they did speak the truth or that they would do such a thing as you see in Gen. 23.4 Abraham swore his Servant by the Lord 1 Sam 21 22. David sware to Saul by the Lord 21 Gen. 23. and Abraham sware by the Lord 2. Josh 12 the Spies sware by the Lord and as it was the true manner of swearing to swear by the Lord when they prenounced the Oath themselves so it was also when they were charged or abjured by another and therefore we find that it was the manner of the Jews that when they charged or abjured one to swear they did not tell them that they should take God to witness to what they said but we find that when the High Priest abjured Christ 36 Mat. 63. he adjured him by God So likewise when the the Prophet Isaiah Prophesied of the New Heavens and the New Earth Isa 65.16 He saith that he who sware in the Earth shall swear by the God of Truth Now to swear by the Lord is to say that they do speak the truth or will do such a thing by the Lord as much as if they should say that the Lord do help them in what they do or that they do it by his assistance and hence it comes to pass that it was unlawful for a man to swear by any Creature because no Creature can help him to speak the truth or perform what he promised and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not speak truth because they did as much as say that God did help them to speak a lye and so they blasphemed the Name of God in the highest nature and doubtles those that made the oath that we have in our Common Law did understand no less and therefore they charge the witness by the help of God to speak the truth Thus having shewn what an oath is I come now to prove from Mat. the 5. that Christ forbids all promissary oaths and that I may so do I shall first give you these distinctions as finding them in Scripture first swearing in their common Communication Secondly swearing yet by Creatures Thirdly assertory Oaths swearing by God to affirm a truth by them spoken in a solemn manner before a Judge or otherwise Fourthly promissary oaths promising and binding it with an oath As to the first all men that I know of will grant that it was ever sinful The second I know no man that will say that it was ever Lawful The third was once Gods Law Exod. 22.11 and therefore not taken away by Christ Mat. 5. because those Commandements contained in Ordinances were not taken away till the death of the Testator Ephes 2.15 The fourth an old practice yet never Commanded but used as Liberty untill Christ forbid it in Mat. the 5.33.34 and never in the least used in all the New Testament since the time it was prohibited neither by Christ nor Christians Now that Christ did prohibit it in Mat. 5.34 appears thus first that it was promissary is manifested from vers the 33. in the word thou shalt perform because there can be no performance where there is no thing promised Secondly that it was such promissary Oaths as was sometimes Lawful that is there forbidden appears also from vers 33. Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths Now it was Lawful both before the Law and under the Law to swear and perform Therefore Christ forbids that which was sometimes Lawful But if it should be objected that because the text saith it hath been said by them of old time that therefore Christ for bids only such promissary Oaths as the Jews allowed of by their Tradition namely swearing by Creatures To this I answer first that in the older Translations it is read thus It was said of them of old time and therefore it cannot be understood to be the Jews traditions because it was the Law of God that said to them of old time they should not forswear but perform Secondly it cannot be reasonably concluded that Christ hath respect in this text only to the Jews tradition because he useth the same mâ—nner of expression in this text that he useth in ver 21. and 27. Now it will be granted by all that it was the Law of God that said they should not kill and that they should not commit adultery and why may we not as well conclude that he intends the Law of God in ver the 33. Now if it be objected that he doth but give the true sense and meaning of the Law in ver 21.27 and thereâ—ore he doth not take away any thing that was ever Lawful in ver 33 34. To this I answer that it was once Lawful in the Law to put away a wife although it was not for fornication yet Christ prohibits it ver 32. Again it was lawful in the time of the Law to have an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but Christ prohibits it in ver 39. therefore we may plainly see that although Christ do not take away any of the Preceptory part of the Law yet he doth take away some of the Priviledged part of the Law Thirdly the third and last reason why Christ cannot be understood only to forbid swearing by Creatures is taken from ver the 34 But I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven from whence we may take notice from the word neither that he doth first forbid such swearing as was sometimes Lawful namely to swear by God and least they should think that although they might not presume to swear by God yet they might swear by those inferiour things Now to prevent this he sayeth neither by Heaven nor Earth nor Jerusalem neither by the head for we must understand that the word neither hath reference to something going before But if it should be objected further that Christ meaneth only swearing in their ordinary or Common Communication because he saith in verse 37. But let your Communication be yea yea nay nay for what soever is more then these cometh of evil I answer that if the word Common or Ordinary were in the text there might besome ground for this Objection but forasmuch as the text only saith Communication not Ordinary or Common Communication I humbly conceive that this Objection will easily be answered for we find in Scripture that the most Heavenly or most solid discourse between men and men is called Communication as you may see 2 Sam. 3.17 18. Abner had a Communication with the Elders of Israel about setting up David to be King according to the appointment of God 2 King 9.11 now if we compare this text with the precedent verses we shall find that the Prophet declaring the Message of God concerning the setting up of Jehu King over Israel is called Communication but I conceive these will be out of qustion and therefore I shall leave it and commit what I have said to the ingenious Reader desiring to leave it to the blessing of the Almighty hoping that these who are willing to look on it with an equal eye may thereby be enabled the better to escape the evil of our day FINIS
us that the Apostle swore because he said as the Truth of Christ is in me no man shall stop me of this boasting in the Regions of Achaia I confesse I cannot but wonder to think that he should call this swearing if it was swearing what did he swear by In your stead I answer that if I should take it for granted as you say then he swore by that Truth or Belief of Christ which was in him Again if he swore what did he swear to I answer that he would boast the matter touching which he would boast of is evident so to gather this up we thus reason that if the Apostle swore that then he swore by something that was not God that no man should stop him of his boasting Now to swear by any thing that is not God will be easily granted on all hands to be sin which this arguing accuseth the Apostle with and certainly it need be no wonder that men have gotten a custom in England to swear by their Faith or Truth if Paul swore by the same for if swearing by the Truth of Christ that is in us be not to swear by our Faith then I must confesse I am to seek but certainly none that well considers what they say will affirm that the Apostle did swear by his Faith neither that he made so slight an account of an Oath as to swear he would boast yet notwithstanding to prove the Apostle did swear in these words he refers us to the 1 Kings 1.29 and tells us that Daniel swore as the Lord liveth yet if this were true it doth not follow that the word as doth make it to be an Oath at all times but if you look into the Text you will find that it saith that the King sware and said as the Lord liveth from whence we may observe that his Oath was one thing and what he said in the following words was another thing and if we mind the 30. verse he tells us what the Oath was even as I sware unto thee by the Lord so that in plainness we may understand that the King swore by the Lord and said As the Lord liveth that bath redeemed my soul out of all distresse again he tells us that under the Old Testament they swore in calling God to witnesse or record to the Truth of what they said Judg 11.10 Jerem. 42.5 but these Texts doth not call it swearing though Mr. Ives doth and though he tells us if calling God to witnesse be not swearing he is ignorant what swearing is yet let me tell you he hath given us never a Text of Scripture to prove that it is but I humbly conceive that what I have already said from Deut. 4.26 and 30.19 and 31.28 doth sufficiently prove that every calling to witnesse in a solemn manner is not swearing for then not onely Moses but God himself hath sworn by Creatures a thing which Mr. Ives himself grants was never lawful but if it should be granted that calling God to witnesse were swearing yet it would make nothing to his purpose because the Apostle useth it onely in cases assertory and not promissary Again he tells us that the Apostle swore in Rom. â— 1 because he saith he speaks the Truth in Christ I confesse if speaking the Truth in Christ be swearing then this is swearing but if not I know not how he can make an Oath of these words but in regard the Apostle also in this Text is asserting the Truth I shall leave this and come to what he saith concerning promissary swearing Now to prove that promissary swearing is lawful he citeth 2 Tim. â— 1 where Paul charged Timothy before God and the Lord Jesus Christ but what of this doth this prove that he charged him to swear the Text saith onely that Paul charged Timothy to preach the Gospel but it is onely Mr. Ives that tells us he charged him to swear but now to make good his assertion he brings us to 1 Thess 5.27 where the Text speaks not a word of swearing but to wind up his discourse having no Text of Scripture to prove his matter he doth as the Priests of England use to do and tells us that it is otherwise in Beza's Translation but what then if it be otherwise in Beza's Translation will it therefore follow that Beza's Translation is true and all others false I would appeal to all rational men whether it be a sufficient ground for men to swear promissary Oaths because Beza in one Text of Scripture contradicts other Translators But again consider what reason can there be imagined that Paul should write to the Thessalonians to charge them to swear to read his Epistle to all the Brethren Were it not more reasonable to think that if the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge they would as soon have read his Epistle without swearing as to be sworn or to swear to read it for doubtlesse if they had not valued his charging them to read it they would not have valued his charging them to swear to read it so that this considered it doth not appear that Paul swore them To proceed I come to the fifth Reason where he tells us that Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. could not forbid all such swearing as was used under the Law because there is as much reason for the use of some Oaths now as ever there was to this I answer that as to Oaths assertory I shall leave it because it is not our case but as to Oaths promissary I answer and say that the Law of Christ must be above reason for when Christ commands we must not enquire whether his Commands be reasonable or no if we do it 's possible our carnal reason may come short of the mind of Christ as for instance what reason was there that Abraham should slay Isaac onely the command of God Again what reason was there that all the Males should be circumcised onely the command of God Again what reason is there that a man or woman should go in a cold frosty morning to be baptized onely that the Servant of the Lord saith to persons when converted arise why tarriest thou and be baptized and why may we not as well say swear not at all promissary Oaths though there were no more reason why we should refrain then there is for the former cases cited seeing we have for this as for the former the command of Christ and therefore let us take heed how we consult with reason in such cases but I might prove sufficiently from Scripture that there is not so much reason in our day for promissary swearing as was in the time of the Law but supposing that what I have said already may be sufficient I shall onely refer the Reader to Mat. 24.6 7 8 9. verses and Ezek. 24.17 desiring them to consider of them not that I would here be mistaken as if I did believe from these Texts that it is the Saints work to overturn Government but onely this I
A CAUTION to the sons of SION Being an ANSWER to Jeremiah Ives his Book Intituled The great Case of Conscience opened I. Proving that every calling God to witnesse is not Swearing II. Proving that Promissary Oaths were never commanded by God onely practised as Liberty under former Dispensations III. Proving that Promissary Oaths were never commanded nor practised by Christ nor his Disciples in all the New Testament IV. Shewing what an Oath is V. Proving the lawfulnesse of all Promissary Oaths in the time of the Gospel For the Land is full of adulterers for because of Swearing the Land mourneth the pealant places of the wildernesse are dried up and their course is evil and their force is not right Jerem. 23.10 By Samuel Hodgkin LONDON Printed for the Author in the year 1660. An Answer to Ieremiah Ives his Book Intituled The great Case of Conscience Opened FOrasmuch as many of the Lords People through this Nation are imprisoned at this day for the Testimony of a good Conscience who rather chuse joyfully to suffer than to Swear I therefore who am a prisoner upon the same account being constrained by those mani-fold perswasions that I have met with from the Lord upon my spirit to perswade me hereunto I therefore have thought it my duty to set pen to paper in vindication of that Righteous Law of Christ for which we suffer at this day that so the Justice of our Cause may appear the more plainly to all those who are willing to look on it with an unbyassed eye and I am the more provoked hereunto through consideration of those many Stars that have fallen in this evil day who have not been contented onely to Swear themselves although some of them have manifested by their suffering for it first that their Conscience was convinced to the contrary yet when they saw no way to escape suffering they were willing rather to Swear than to suffer and also some have not been contented onely to Swear but have endeavoured not only by pleading for but also writing to vindicate the same and least it should prove to the wounding of some poor souls I judge therefore my self bound in Conscience for the vindication of the truth and therefore I shall proceed First To answer as briefly as may be what hath been asserted by Mr Ives for the proof of Promissary Swearing in the time of the Gospel and that I may so do I shall examine what hath been said by him in his book called The great Case of Conscience Opened and to the end we way escape the dangen of those manifold extreams that too too many are carried away by in this our day Let us therefore take heed least through the pretence of fear of splitting our selves on the rock of ignorance we cry up that for verity which is in it self heresie I shall therefore take notice of the method which he takes that so by tracing him in the channel wherein he goeth I may the better take notice wherein it agreeth or not agreeth with the Scriptures of Truth and if through the Lords assistance I shall come to discover any thing therein contained not to be agreeable to Truth I have what I aim at and let God have the glory and that I may so do I shall first take notice what he undertaketh to prove which is That Assertory and Promissary Oaths are both lawful and useful in the time of the Gospel and the way by which he proceeds for the proof thereof is First To shew what Sacred Oaths are Secondly To what end they were taken Thirdly Whether those two Texts Matthew 5.34 Iames 5.12 do forbid all Oaths in the time of the Gospel As to the first namely what a Sacred Oath is saith he it is a band by which a man bindes his soul to the speaking of that which is in it self true or the doing of that which is in it self lawful unto which the living and true God is called to witnesse Numb 30.2 To this I answer that every Sacred Oath by which God is called to witnesse to the truth of a thing or to the performance of a lawful thing is a band whereby the soul is bound but every calling God to witnesse in lawful things is not an Oath As appears thus if a bare calling God to witness be swearing by God then calling the Heaven and Earth to witnesse is swearing by Heaven and Earth for then Moses had sworn by creatures Deut. 4.26 I call Heaven and Earth to witnesse against you this day And so likewise God himself in Deut. 30.19 I call Heaven and Earth to record against you chap. 31.28 but it was ever unlawful to swear by creatures therefore I conclude That a bare calling to witness is not swearing Now wheneas Mr Ives saith there were two sorts of Sacred Oaths under the Law viz. commanded and voluntary I grant that there were but there were no other Sacred Oaths commanded under the Law but Assertory and therefore you may take notice that those Texts he hath here cited to wit Exod 22.11 Deut. 5.3 chap. 10.20 do not in the least mention any Promissory Swearing Now therefore whereas he saith some Oaths were voluntary I shall not deny it but do say that all Promissory Oaths were voluntary because I finde not one Text of Scripture where ever God commanded them Now whereas M. Ives saith That there were three wayes by which a man bound himself with an Oath I do grant there were namely first when he pronounced the Oath with his own lips Levit. 5.4 Secondly as a man is sworn when he pronounced the oath with his own lips so I grant that he may as well be sworn when he is charged or abjured to swear by the liveing God provided that he say amen to the oath or I take this oath upon me I say then if after he hath taken the Oath upon him he do not speak the truth he is as well guilty of false swearing as he that pronounceth the oath with his own lips but it doth not therefore follow that if a man be charged or abjured to swear and to speak the truth upon his Oath and he give no consent to the Oath neither by saying amen nor so be it nor I take this upon me I say then that it doth not follow that he hath sworn because he speaketh the truth for then when a man is charged or abjured to swear by the living God and to speak the Truth it would follow that either he must hold his peace or else if he speak the truth he must be sworn whether he will or no I say therefore it doth not follow that because the High Priest charged Christ to swear by the Living God and to speak the truth namely whether he were the Son of God or no I say then it doth not follow that because he consented unto the truth in saying thou saiest it that therefore he was sworn for according to what Mr Ives citeth of Mr. Answorths