also presumes to tell us Here is nothing forbidden but what was forbidden in the Law when Swearing by the Lord was not only lawful but expresly commanded Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. All which is answered by Christ himself where he recites what was said in old time in this Case of Swearing as namely It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thy Oathes But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay c. Which makes it very plain that here was more forbidden by Christ then what was by the Law his words in this holding parallel with his very next words Ye have heard that it hath been saith An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth but I say unto you That ye resist not Evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right Cheek turn to him the other also vers 38 39. Did not Christ himself hereby forbid his Disciples that kind of severe Retaliation which was allowed under the Law as he allowed divers and other things in Condescension to the People's Weakness Deut. 24. 1. Matth. 5. 31 32. Luke 16. 18. And in this Case of God's allowing the Jews to swear under the Law where he said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name Deut. 6. 13. This appears plainly to be a Condescension to their Weakness and an Obligation to prevent them from going after other Gods as is evident by the very next words Ye shall not go after other Gods of the Gods of the people that are round about you vers 14. This State was much below the Evangelical State of the true Christians who in the Love they bear to the Lord are engaged to speak the Truth in Yea and Nay without an Oath as Christ his Apostles have taught So the Difference lies here the Jews when bound by an Oath they feared the Oath or the Curse contained or implyed in it they Swearing by the Great God as chiefly to be feared them with regard to his Power to judge and avenge c. and this was for a time some tye upon them to prevent them from going after other Gods The True Christians are bound in their Consciences by the Royal and Evangelical Law of Love which was before Swearing was and takes away the Occasion of Oaths to serve God and speak the Truth every man to his Neighbour without Swearing So that the Disparity between the State under the Law and that under the Gospel lies here Under the Law Thou shalt fear the Lord and Swear by his Name Under the Gospel Thou shalt so Love the Lord as to speak the Truth and confirm it in Yea and Nay without being bound by an Oath Now judge serious Reader which of these do express more Love Respect and Honour to God whether he that 's bound by an Oath not to go after other Gods and to speak the Truth as fearing an Oath and the Curse which was the better use of Oaths which now few that use them regard or he that is bound in Conscience to speak and do Truth without an Oath whose word Yea and Nay is more binding to him and of more Value and Credit then men's Swearing Imprecations and Curses And likewise between man and man and Neighbours which do express most Love one to another and Confidence in each other they that will not believe one another without Oathes and Curses or they that will like Christians speak the Truth and believe one another's plain and simple Yea Yea and Nay Nay as Christ and his Apostle has commanded Such are the true Christians and People of God as are come to the fulfilling of the Evangelical Prophesie Surely they are my People Children that will not Lye and so was he their Saviour Isa. 63. 8. And the Remnant of Israel shall not speak Lyes neither shall a Deceitful Tongue be found in their Mouth But to return to Christ and his Apostles express Prohibition But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. nor by ANY OTHER Oath Hereby Christians are so plainly forbidden Swearing in any Case as Christ forbids an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth or hating thine Enemy see Mat. 5. 39 44. Or else what Coherence is there in his Words and what Difference is there between the Dispensation of the Law and that of the Gospel if as this man sayes Christ here forbids nothing but what was forbid in the Law By which he renders Christ as thus speaking It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths And I say the same Instead of But I say unto you Swear not at all And likewsie ye have heard that it hath been said An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth And I say the same to you instead of But I say unto you Resist not Evil c. And so this would make Christ still leave his Followers in the Fighting Revengful Nature as this man's limiting his words for Swearing as the Jews did renders Christ as leaving his Followers but still in the same common Humane Infirmity as his words are and weak Distrusting and unsteady Condition as the Jews under the Works of the Law were in who were allowed to Swear by the Lord as a Prevention from running after other Gods and to remove Jealousie or Hard Thoughts out of the Minds one of another as about the Case mentioned Exod. 22. 10 11. Upon the words Neither by any other Oath J. S. adds Swear not at all by Heaven Earth or any other of those Forms of Swearing by the Creature that Christ forbad the use of p. 17. whereas the words of the Apostle who well knew the Mind of Christ extend farther as not only a forbidding a Swearing by Heaven or Earth but also by ANY OTHER OATH But mark how presently after this Oath-Vindicator hath opposed Swearing by Heaven Earth or the Creature he contradicts himself in the same page where he saith He that swears by Heaven swears by him whose Throne it is He that swears by Earth swears by him whose Foot-Stool it is because though God's Name be not expresly mentioned in such Forms of Oaths yet it is implyed and therefore we are not to use such Forms in our common Speech any more then the Name of God himself but in Reverence and in extreme Necessity p. 17. So that by this he allows of such a Form as Swearing by Heaven or Earth that thereby they may Swear by God that dwells therein when before they are not at all to Swear by Heaven Earth or any other of thâ—se Forms See what an eminent Antagonist this is that undertakes to confute the Quakers and yet contradicts himself in one and the same page As much as to say We may not
THE CASE OF THE QUAKERS Concerning OATHS Defended as Evangelical IN ANSWER To a Book entituled The Case of the Quakers relating to OATHS stated by J. S. Because of Swearing the Land Mourneth Jer. 23. 10. Printed in the Year 1674. THE PREFACE READER IF thou hast perused the said Pamphlet against the People called Quakers entituled The Case of the Quakers we desire thee to read over this following Answer But if thou art not pleased so to do thou art requested according to the Rule of Equity not to entertain prejudice nor to censure the said People upon the meer report and reproaches of their Adversarys it being unjust to pass a Judgment upon a People without hearing them upon the bare Reports of their Enemies However this Disadvantage we are put upon in the Eyes of the World that our Enemies will be our Judges and that at the Instigation of the Father of Lyes Be pleased to take notice that while our Adversary scoffs at our Plea as that our Conscience will not allow us to Swear he saith we actually do Swear in as solemn and August a Form as 't is possible for the Tongue of Man to express in our saying God who is the Searcher of Hearts knows that it is with a Holy Respect c. And thus he does not only render us to contradict our own Doctrine but also in like manner represents the Apostle Paul as frequently confirming his Sayings with an Oath in these and such Expressions God is my Witness I say the Truth in Christ I Lye not The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I Lye not c. which were in his Epistles to the Saints and not formal Swearing on the four Evangelists before the Magistrates Howbeit he is mistaken in his Reckoning these and such like words a most solemn and august Form of Actual Swearing And what can he argue from hence but that Paul most highly swore in his Epistles upon a sacred Account therefore we ought to Swear before Rulers in Courts which follows not though he reckons we do Swear in saying God knows But does not perswade the Magistrates to accept of it for an Oath but rather vilifies us However herein we are not of his Mind that either the Apostles or primitive Christians did swear or held it lawful for we make a Difference between earnest Affirmations and Swearing and they did really speak the Truth in Christ unto which God was Witness and this was in a state so nâ—arly related to God as that of being in Christ wherein they could neither speak nor do any thing against the Truth But the state of the Jews under the Law was much inferiour to this wherein their Swearing by the Lord as the Chief Judge and Revenger of Falshood and Injury was in a more remote state when they formally bound themselves by an Oath or conditional Curse which was a Bond upon their Souls when they feared it as few do now who are in the Swearing Nature But there is no need for the true Christians in Christ to use Imprecations or to pronounce any conditional Curse against themselves to bind their Souls and we have not so learned Christ as thus to Swear or Curse but to say the Truth in Christ unto which God is witness which is not to Swear the Truth in Christ nor to bind our Souls with an Implicite Curse in his Name knowing also that the Penalty from God of all Lyars is the Lake of Misery as well as of false Swearers For where did the Apostle Paul say I Swear the Truth in Christ Howbeit if otherwise our Conscience as to our simple Affirmation or Denyal in Yea or Nay be question'd we have proposed to those in Power thus That we desire and request that you will be pleased to Enact and Provide that in stead and place thereof as the Cases may require our Yea and Nay may be accepted and taken and if we break our Yea and our Nay which is Christ's solemn Form of sound words and which is his Gospel Command which we stand to and for then let us suffer the same Penalty as they that can Swear and break their Oaths This we have left to the serious Consideration of those in Power and not to the Prejudice of malicious men such as our Opposer who like a Busy Body hath vainly spent his Labour against us This is written on behalf and in the Person of the People of God called Quakers and their Evangelical Testimony by some who are Lovers of the said People and the Souls of all Men. THE CASE of the QUAKERS Concerning OATHS Defended as Evangelical c. Section I. Of the Nature and Extent of Oaths not a Property of True Christians LEt the serious Reader judge whether our Opposer J. S. hath taken a Christian Way and Method to convince us of Error or not by Vilifying and Railing calling us Monsters of men impudent obstinate and reprobate-minded men as in his second and sixth pages and on serious Examination of his Matter we shall find it as ineffectual for the same End as in his first Argument to prove the Lawfulness of Swearing He Instanceth Paul's saying God is my Witness Rom. 1. 9. I say the Truth in Christ I Lye not my Conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost Rom. 9. 1. Together with 2 Cor. 1. 23. chap. 11. 37. Gal. 1. 20. Phil. 1. 8. 1 Thess. 2. 10. Ye are Witnesses and God also And these Forms of Speech he saith are sacred Oaths and that the Definition of an Oath in the common Notion of Mankind is nothing else but the calling God to Witness to the truth of what we say p. 2. It appears that he varies and is confounded about the definition of an Oath for one while he saith It is the Invocation of God's Name a most solemn Invocation of the Divine Majesty Another while it is the Denouncing of a Curse p. 4. Another while a man's calling God for a Witness against his Soul daring him to his Face challenging the Divine Vengeance to do its worst in case he swear falsly p. 13. Now Reader be pleased to observe first his Variation and Contradiction between his saying An Oath is nothing else but a calling God to witness and the pronouncing of a Curse daring God to his Face challenging Divine Vengeance to do its worst As for the first We cannot be convinced that it makes up a formal Oath among Christians to whose Testimony God is Witness as he was to Paul's As for the latter It is more then an Oath and savours of high Presumption unbecoming a Christian-Spirit either to dare God to his Face or challenge Divine Vengeance Besides if those very words of Paul God is my Witness make up a formal Oath by him then we ask If his saying My Conscience bearing me witness and Ye are Witnesses doth not by the same Reason make up a Formal Oath by his Conscience and by those Saints to whom he wrote
And were not this most grosly to charge Paul with Transgression both of Law and Gospel Whereas in a Formal Oath as made amongst Men there is First Swearing by the Great God intended Secondly An Imprecation or Curse contained Thirdly Some Ceremony or Sign used besides the bare words of invocating or calling upon God or so help me God For that the same Invocation may as well be used without an Oath even in our praying for God's Help and Assistance The words So help me God or I call God to witness may be used without any Intent of Swearing as well as in an Oath in desiring his Help and simply as owning him for Witness to the Truth spoken in Christ which as such is not an Oath but when thus intended viz. So let me have or want the Help of God according as I speak the Truth or so let God be Witness or judge for or against me In this latter Sense is an Oath implying a Curse as Let God be Witness or Judge against me if I speak not the Truth but the bare words so God help me or God is my Witness or God knows I speak the Truth in Christ I Lye not cannot be a Swearing nor a Formal Oath without an Intention thereof or of an Imprecation or Execration implyed as of old some time an Oath of Cursing was used among the Jews and there are several Sorts of Oathes and several Wayes or Ceremonies expressing Formal Swearing as among the Heathen Laying the Hands upon the Altar and Swearing by the Gods Abraham's Servant putting his Hand under his Thigh the Angel Lifting up the Hand towards Heaven among the professed Christians a Laying the Hand upon a Bible and Kissing it or Swearing upon the four Evangelists according to the Pope's Imposition However we taking the last as the Magistrates general Sense of an Oath the Definition thereof is not so much the Matter in Controversie as the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Swearing among Christians His Instance that Jacob Swore by the Fear of his Father Isaac proves not that Laban's simply saying God is Witness makes up a formal Oath seeing he also said This Heap viz. of Stones is Witness between me and thee see Gen. 31. VVill any presume to say That he Swore by the Heap of Stones which was a Witness or a Memorial His accusing St. Paul notwithstanding Christ's prohibition that he did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath is both a gross Abuse of Paul and contradicts this man's confessing that he delivered the Truth with great Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power and that by Manifestation of the Truth he commended himself to every man's Conscience in the Sight of God 1 Cor. 2. 4 13. 2 Cor. 4. 2. Surely the Demonstration of the Spirit and Manifestation of the Truth was not Swearing to every man's Conscience for there was no need of Swearing where the Truth was so manifest among the Saints But to say that Paul did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath renders him both of very little Power Manifestation or Credit as a Minister of Christ among his Saints and Churches none of them excepted and them also to have as little Knowledge and Confidence of Paul and his Testimony Further He varies between saying God is Witness and mens calling him for a Record against their Soul where he brings Augustine for a Proof that Paul Swore in these words If so Augustine is not constant to himself nor with other Fathers particularly Basil. on Psal. 14. pag. 155. of his Works impr at Paris 1618. where he saith There are some Speeches which have the form of an Oath which are not Oathes but are Remedies for the Hearer as the Apostle to the Corinthians willing to shew his Love said Yea or by your Rejoycing c. for he was not disobedient to the Doctrine of the Gospel who was intrusted with the Gospel but he gave a small word in the Form of an Oath that their Rejoycing was most desirous to him he shewed by such a manner of Speech Thus far Basil though we know the Particle by is not alwayes a Note of Swearing In his second Argument he grants that Justice may be administred according to the Rule of the Gospel by the Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses Mat. 18. 16. but not of one without an Oath as taking in God to witness with him where there is but one Witness as in the Case instanced Exed 22. 10 11. However that Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses may decide a Controversie without an Oath and where there is but one faithful Witness God is Witness with him and for him therein and hath a Witness for him in men's Consciences And the Law-makers to whom we have applyed and not to such busie Opposers as this Agent against us have Power to make Provision for such a one as cannot for Conscience sake Swear that his Testimony may be taken instead of an Oath especially he being willing to undergo the same Penalty that is due to perjured Persons if he be found false in his Testimony as we have proposed however this Opposer takes little notice thereof And many in Authority have confessed our Proposition therein to be fair and sufficient and not at all tending to obstruct the Administration of Justice nor to patronize Injustice as is most falsly insinuated against us pag. 3. In his third Argument he asserts That the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament Prophets did commend Swearing by God as that which was to be the practice of his Elect Servants in the Christian-Church after his Rejection of the Jews and chusing the Gentiles Answ. We deny this Assumption that they did so commend Swearing as a Practice to continue in the Christian-Church among Jews and Gentiles For Christ and his Apostles Prohibition of Swearing at all either by Heaven or Earth or any other Oath was of an Universal Extent to both Jews and Gentiles that come to be of the Christian-Church both forbidding such Swearing as the Jews of old time used under the Law viz. by the Lord and the Apostate Jews and Gentiles Swearing by Idols or the Creatures or any Oath whatsoever He attempts to prove his Assumption from Isa. 56. 15. And ye shall leave your Name for a Curse to my Chosen that is saith he the people that I shall chuse from among the Gentiles shall use your Name in Execration when they have a mind to denounce a Curse c. And this he brings to prove Swearing a Practice to continue amongst God's Elect Servants in the Christian-Church And so he would perswade them not only to Swear contrary to Christ's Command but to use Execrations and to denounce a Curse when they have a mind as he supposes which is contrary to Christ and his Apostles Doctrine who taught the Elect to Bless those that Curse them and to Bless and Curse not for to Bless God and Curse man ought not to be In his fourth
Argument he saith The Spirit of Christ which was in the Prophets fore-told That in the Time of the Gospel the Lord's people should Swear by his Name as an Evidence of their Conversion to him Answ. This we also deny together with his high Applause of Swearing as an Evidence of man's Conversion in the Time of the Gospel and as Divine Service and Homage and as denoting an eminent Act of saving Confession to God and as a part of Divine Worship and as a Sign Witness and Argument of Egypt 's Conversion and the Language of Canaan a pure Language which God promised to restore to all Nations at the Coming of Christ yea the Condition of God's accepting men for his people the Condition of accepting us as sincere Disciples the Way of God's People as may be seen in his 5th 6th 9th 10th 11th and 14th pages All these high Commendations he attributes to Swearing by the Lord As if all those that so Swear must needs be such great Converts divine Worshippers attained to the pure Language of Cananan highly accepted of God sincere Disciples in God's Way c. Mark here Swearing by the Lord is this man's Gospel and the Condition of all his Felicity but such Ignorance and silly Stuff what rational man cannot see His Proof is Isa 45. 23. and Chap. 19. 18. In the first it is said I have Sworn by my self the Word is gone out of my Mouth in Righteousness and shall not return that to me every Knee shall bow every Tongue shall swear In the second it is said In that day shall five Cities in the Land of Egypt speak the Language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of Hosts There shall be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt c. Here he applies Swearing to Gospel-Times so takes Swearing as literally under the Gospel to continue as under the Law but not the Altar but confesseth that the Altar here specified is no other then that which St. Paul mentions Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar c. that is saith he Christ's Stable-Throne of Grace p. 8. So that the Altar he interprets figuratively under the Gospel but swearing literally see his Confusion Whereas if the Altar be Christ's Stable-Throne of Grace then by the same Reason he should have said that by Swearing is intended a Gospel-Confession according to the Apostle's own words Rom. 14. 11. where mentioning the Prophets words before instead of Every Tongue shall swear he saith Every Tongue shall confess to God And likewise Phil. 2. 11. And that every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father It is not every Tongue shall swear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Jesus Christ is Lord but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall confess the same word that is in Rom. 10. 10. And with the Mouth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is confessed or Confession is made to Salvation And likewise in John 4. 2. Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh is of God there is the same word He doth not make swearing that Jesus is the Christ that Proof nor commend swearing to God in the Gospel as an infallible Mark of man's Conversion and the Condition of God's accepting them as sincere Disciples as our Opposer doth For many both can and do Swear by God that never came to such Acceptance nor to such a Confession of Christ as is to God's Glory which proceeds from a heart that believes to Salvation For that no man can thus confess to God or say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 12. 3. But many can and do Swear without the Holy Ghost therefore true Confession is Evangelical and not Swearing It is true Confession from a believing Heart is an Evidence of Men's Conversion and not making Oath or Swearing which this Man seems to confess appertains to common humane Infirmity p. 1. And what was that Infirmity upon which Swearing was occasioned under the Law but man's Diffidence Jealousie or Distrust which if they had fulfilled the Principal and Royal Law of Love both to God and one another there would have been no such occasion of Distrust Therefore Swearing was neither Moral Perpetual nor Evangelical as some suppose nor is it essential to the Divine Worship of God as this man vainly thinks which is in Spirit and Truth for that Worship was both before Swearing and is performed without Swearing That God himself swore by himself who could not swear by a greater we deny not But if this must be made an Argument that therefore in this man may imitate God who is his Maker we deny the Consequence for this were to set up a Creature in the Creator's place Nay as good an Argument did the Serpent bring when he said Ye shall be as God's c. To J. S. his saying That to Swear by the Lord of Hosts is to speak the Language of Canaan that pure Lauguage which God promised c. that pure and undefiled Religion which was at first revealed to man in Paradice p. 10. Answ. First That God promised to return to his People a pure Language we own and that they should serve him with one Consent therefore they should not need to Swear one to another or be Swearers under the Gospel Secondly Nor doth he prove by Scripture that to swear by the Lord of Hosts was that pure and undefiled Religion which was at first revealed to Man in Paradice For this is to tell the World that God taught Adam and Eve to Swear to each other in the State of Innocency when there was no Occasion of Swearing In his fifth Argument to prove Swearing in Gospel Times the Condition of God's accepting Men for his People such a Condition as upon the fulfilling thereof he will number them among his Disciples and account them his People that do viz. learn to Swear by his Name p. 11. For Proof of this erroneous Assertion he cites Jer. 12. 16. And it shall come to pass that if they will diligently learn the Way of my People to Swear by my Name the Lord liveth as they taught my People to Swear by Baal c. Answ. This was in the Prophets Time and to be fulfilled under the Law There is not the same Reason for Christians under the Gospel to swear by the Lord to divert them from Swearing by false Gods as there was in those former dayes For those that had learned to swear by Ball viz. As Baal liveth by the Life of Baal c. p. 12. which was opposed by swearing As the Lord liveth under the Law and now confessing his Name and making Confession to his Glory under the Gospel His telling us of a diligent Learning to Swear by God's Name and a learning this way of God's People c. p. 12 14 15. is as if he should tell us that to swear by the Name of the Lord is such a difficult and hard Lesson
with several other Clauses some more particular and others general before he comes to the particular Instance in your Bargains ye need no Oath ye need no Execration or Cursing which Particular cannot make void his general Position and Reason both before and after to which we refer the Reader to view at large And likewise on his Paraphrase on Jam. 5. 12. he is as general and positive in asserting and arguing the Case against Swearing thus But especially my Brethren Swear not lest by little and little you accustom your selves to Forswear Among the Jews and Heathens for Fidelity's sake there is an Oath put between But among Christians which ought neither to distrust any man neither be in will to deceive it is a vain thing Whosoever is accustomed to swear is cousin german to the Peril of Forswearing Be ye afraid not only to swear by God in humane Affairs and in light Matters but also abstain from all kind of Swearing that you Swear neither by Heaven neither by Earth nor any other thing that the common people esteem holy and religious Whosoever dare be bold to Lye without Swearing he dare do the same also when he Sweareth if he list He that is a good man will believe a man without Swearing and that nought is will not trust a man if he Swear But among you that are furnished with Gospel-like Plaineness there is neither place of Distrusting nor to imagine Deceit but let your plain Communication be regarded for no less true and stedfast then any manner of Oath of the Jews or Pagans how holy soever it be c. To our Instance of Augustin on Psal. 88. de mendacio J. S. answers The very words here alledged evince that St. Augustine speaks of common Swearing and that he must be beside his Text if from the Old Testament he infer the Unlawfulness of all kinds of Swearing Reply Augustine's words are plain and general that we cited however he kept to the New Testament Text and to himself in other places we shall not at present examine if he did not it should have been retracted by him but recite Augustine's words more fairly then J. S. hath done It is well that God hath forbidden man to Swear lest by Custom of Swearing inasmuch as we are apt to mistake we commit Perjury There is none but God can safely swear because there 's no other but may be deceived I say unto you Swear not at all lest by Swearing ye come to a Facility of Swearing from a Facility to a Custom and from a Custom ye fall into Perjury Observe here Reader that both his Positions and Reasons are general and his Inference deduced from Christ and his Apostles own words against Swearing as Erasmus's are And we now must further cite Augustine in the Case see Augustin Serm. 3. Ad competentes Let them not only abstain from Perjury but also from an Oath Because he doth not Lye who saith A man Swearing much shall not depart from Iniquity and the Plague shall not depart from his House Eccles. 23. Augustin de serm dom in monte on the place in Mat. 5. thus The Righteousness of the Pharisees is not to Forswear This he confirmeth who forbiddeth to Swear which belongeth to the Righteousness of the Kingdom of Heaven For as he who doth not speak cannot speak a Lye so he cannot Forswear who doth not Swear so he goes on to excuse Paul for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and calling God to Witness c. saying That an Oath is not of good things or among good things but of evil things or to be reckoned among evil things And sayes Let a man refrain to use it but upon Necessity for the Infirmity of others which is Evil from which we pray that we should daily be delivered Augustin on Jam. 5. de verbis Apostol serm 30. Perhaps it is only for God to Swear who cannot Forswear And so he goes on to shew how hard it is for men to avoid Perjury Augustin de mendacio Retract lib. 1. c. ult He says is obscure and intricate To our Instance of the Albines in France and Mich. Sadler an eminent Martyr in Germany that they held it was unlawful to Swear and that one Article alledg'd against him was that he had said That men should not Swear to or before the Magistrate To these J. S. answers Your Authors say only that That Charge was alledged against them but not that it was proved Repl. Neither do we read that the Authors say That that Charge was denyed by them and then what need was there of proving it before it was denyed To our alledging Jerome Chrysostome Justine Martyr against Swearing our Adversary answers viz. When you name the Texts of these three Fathers we shall examine whether you faithfully report them We Reply Let him examine then the Report and Citation already given of Chrysostome And now of the other Two we hope more faithfully then he hath done of B. Usher and divers others See Jerome's Commentary on Mat. 5. on the place Swear not thus This was granted as to little ones by the Law that as they did offer Sacrifices to God lest they should offer them to Idols So they were suffered to swear by God not that they did this rightly but that it was better so to give it to God then to Devils But the Truth of the Gospel doth not receive an Oath seeing every faithful Speech or every Speech of a faithful Man or Believer is for or instead of an oath Justin-Martyr Apolog. for Christians pag. 63. printed at Paris 1615. summing up the Doctrines of Christ to the Heathen Emperor sayes He commanded us not to Swear at all but alwayes to speak Truth Swear not at all but let your Yea be Yea and Nay Nay for whatsoever is more comes of Evil. As for Walter Brute in his Testimony against Swearing is as plain positive and rational as any of them see Act. Mon. 1 vol. fol. 653. J. S. saith As to Walter Brute it is true he affirmed what is alledged but with Protestation That he would retract that Opinion if he were convict of the Error of it and accordingly did upon Conference with the Bishop of Hereford submit himself to the Determination of the Church as appear◠from your own Author Fox v. 1. p. 653. Reply This is just the manner of the Papists undervaluing the Martyrs Testimonies by endeavouring to fasten Retractations and Recantations upon them and because this man has thus darkly and unfairly represented Walter Brute as so doubtful in that Particular Opinion against Oaths and so ready to retract it be pleased Reader to hear Walter Brute's own words in the page before cited how far he submitted in saying I Walter Brute submit my self principally to the Evangely of Jesus Christ and to the Determination of holy Kirk and to the Sentence and Determination of the four Doctors viz. Augustine Ambrose Jerome and Gregory