a Christian may swear vainly and rashly by a spontaneous and occasional easiness either promising or asserting although it be a truth and by the true God but without reverence to God and in matters of so little yea no importance or difficulty as neither deserve nor need nor require an Oath To this we all agree with the Quakers Christs words condemning all such profane and trivial swearing much more if it be in fraud and falsitie which makes such Oaths as the Coyn of an Usurper which is false metal and stamp too a complicated sin and one of the strongest chains of darkness which the Devil and a mans own lusts hamper the Soule withal 2. Not is it any question whether Christians may swear in any case by any Creature as such not relating by it and through it to God above all who is the Alpha and Omega the center and circumference of all things from whom they have their being and in whom is the Idea or Prototype of all their perfections To terminate an Oath in a Creature is to put the stamp of Divinity on it to make it an Idol in Gods stead and to profane his holy name by swearing by it as by a false God The swearing by any Creature as such we all own to be a great sin according to those instances which our Lord Christ and Saint Iames from his mouth give us when they explain their meaning of Swear not at all c. 3. Nor is it a question whether an Oath made by the name of any Creature and in a thing lawful may yet be broken or whether it be a sin to swear falsly by them All agree that though the Oath be rash as by a Creature yet it binds in things lawful no less at least to truth and justice then any simple promise and it may be something more Here that is true Fieri non debuit factum valet Like Bastards they should not have been begot but they must be kept unless the matter be sinful as Herod's Oath was which beheaded Iohn Baptist Mat. 14. 9. 4. But the question is Whether those words of Christ and the Apostle do utterly forbid all Swearing in any case whatsoever to all Christians so that by the Law of Christ it is a sin to swear as in private so in publick transactions or any Courts of Judicature be the matter of the Oath never so just and true and the manner of it never so solemn and sacred and the Authority requiring them never so lawful in civil respects This the Quakers affirm led thereto as they profess meerly by the Conscience of that obedience they oweto Christ whose will they say is expresly declared in those words to all his Disciples Not to swear at all in no case at no time upon no mans command Nor do they argue any thing further by way of rational deduction moral grounds or religious principles either from the nature of an Oath or from the consent of other Scriptures or from the Divine Attributes and glory but barely insist upon the words and urge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Letter as an absolute or universal Negative without any limitation or dispensation So feeding on the rinde or shell of the Letter and gnawing the bone of the bare words that they never come at the kernel and marrow or true meaning of them On the other side I do deny in the behalf of my own Conscience and the consentient sense of this Church and Kingdome yea of all Christian and Reformed Churches of any renown That all swearing is forbidden by those words of Christ and his Apostle But that our Saviours words are to be understood with such a limited sense and strict interpretation as suited to his scope and design which was to rectifie popular errors and remove common abuses in Swearing but not wholly to forbid the use of it in a religious and lawful way And because it is not sufficient in order to my design which is to justifie the legal proceedings of this Kingdoms Iustice by Oaths and to satisfie the scruples of the Quakers to oppose my Nay to their Yea or to offer the husk and chaff of words void of such Reasons as either slow from the nature of all things and all actions as good or evil morally or from the will of God revealed in the Scriptures which is a Treasury of right Reason as well as a Rule of true Religion I will endeavour to give those Reasons which induce me to believe that the Quakers as Christ said to the Saducees do erre not knowing or not right understanding the mind of Christ in those Scriptures which is not to forbid all Swearing nor such as the just and religious Laws of England do require of all under its subjection in some cases I will not seek to oppress or confound the Quakers with the shew of many Reasons as if I would carry the cause by number and not by weight but content my self with those few which are most pregnant plaine and easie to be understood by them 1. Reason From the occasion of Christs and the Apostles words and the scope or end of them to which his own instances by way of explication of his meaning do best direct us both as to what he forbids and enjoynes to some of which the Quakers themselves do consent 2. Reason From the moral and religious nature end and use of Oaths which God had instituted and approved without any repeal by Christ or his Apostles 3. Reason From other places of the New Testament which give light to these both by principles granted and suitable examples expressed To these Reasons I will add by way of full measure heaped up and running over the concurrent judgement of other Christians and Churches ancient and modern in their interpretation of these words with answer to the Allegations made from the sayings and manners of some Primitive Christians This done the conclusion will easily follow with great clearness and good authority to all that are truely wise and have their eyes opened and senses exercised to discerne good and evil The first Reason is from the occasion scope and end of our Saviours words and so of the Apostles For these as the biass of all speech do best discover the speakers mind there being no surer way to wrest and pervert Scriptures then to take them abruptly and absolutely when they have a relative comparative or limited sense in the aim and purpose of the speaker Our blessed Saviour in this Divine Sermon on the Mount of which Saint Matthew gives us so large an account makes it his main aim and scope first to set forth those spiritual heavenly and eternal blessings which beyond those sensible earthly and temporary ones which were so much of old set before the Jews to invite them to obedience of Gods Laws were now to be chiefly regarded by Christians as their peculiar comforts hopes and rewards under the Gospel
which though attended with many persecutions yet was not without many blessings peculiar to true believers from vers 3. to vers 12. Secondly our Saviour gives many singular lessons or precepts of more eminent deligence patience charity mortification self-denial sincerity conspicuity perseverance and perfection of obedience required now under the Gospel above what either the Letter of the Mosaick Law seemed to exact or by the Pharisaical Interpretations were taught to the Iewes So that unless their righteousness did exceed that so popularly admired of the Pharisees they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven vers 20. Thirdly our Saviour with much earnestness and exactness applyes in this Sermon to reform those abuses which either by the Pharisaical glosses either too much loosning or restraining the meaning of Gods Law or by their depraved examples or by popular custom had prevailed among the Iewes contrary to the true meaning of the moral Law of God and the primitive Institution which gives us the clearest view of the Law-givers intention For the exact observation of which however by Divine indulgence and connivence or by the hardness and uncharitableness of their own hearts and the customary depravedness of times and manners they might seem to have had some temporary dispensation heretofore granted to them or at least had presumed to take it to themselves yet now under the Evangelical strictness to which Christ came to restore or raise the Church they might not fancy to themselves any such liberty but were to keep themselves in thought look desire word and deed to that sanctity and severity which was required by the Law and most conform to the holy Will Attributes and Nature of that God whom they ought to imitate as their heavenly Father in all sacred perfections which humane Nature assisted by the light of the Gospel the grace of Gods Spirit and the visible example of Christ was capable to attain at least sincerely to aim at and endeavour So vers 22. He tells them that not only wilful murder or malicious killing was forbidden but rash unreasonable and irreconcilable anger Vers 28. That not only Adultery but all lust inordinate after a Woman that is not in order to marriage and the honest ends of it were so severely forbidden under pain of Hell fire that it were better to deny those sensual pleasures of the flesh which seem as dear to men as the delight of their eyes or the strength of their hands then to indulge them with the danger of their souls Vers 32. So in the case of humorous and lascivious Divorces usually given to Wives upon no just cause Christ restrains that indulgence only to the case of a Wives deserving to be put away for having broke her conjugal vow and band of Matrimony by her Adultery Not to instance in many other particulars of abuses which Christ reckons up and reforms in that Sermon as touching private Revenge vers 39. not publick and vindicative Iustice so of loving our enemies vers 44 of almes prayer and fasting without ostentation pride or hypocrisie against immoderate love and care for things of this world and the like the immediately next is this of Swearing vers 33 34. In which as in many other things the Iews had much depraved both the true nature and use of Oaths 1. They pretended indeed as Philo and Iosephus tell us a great reverence of the Name of God and seemed to make great conscience of swearing in small matters by the name of the Lord according to the Letter of the Scripture yea they made scruple to swear at all in any case by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord liveth For which the Heathens mocked the Iewes as in that of Martial Jura verpe per Anchialum These Oaths they thought binding nor would they in these easily swear or forswear themselves Which regard to their Gods was in use among the gravest Heathens as is observed out of Homer therefore they took any obvious thing to swear by 2. But they indulged themselves in other familiar Oaths or forms of common Swearing as many Christians now do by whatever came next to their minds or tongues as by the Temple and holy City by their own or others Heads Hands Lives and Souls so by Heaven and Earth and the Light Thus waving the attestation of Gods omniscient Justice and the swearing by his name as was commanded in righteousness judgement and truth they put this Character of Divinity on the Creatures no way competent for them unless as they are in relation to depending on and derived from the blessed God 3. These vulgar Oaths they used not only in a familiarity and facility of inconsiderate swearing upon small and light occasions yea and in asserting of things not true as to their knowledge and intention which was doubly a false swearing but in things of weight and concerne as to that charity justice and equity which they owed to others they chose this way of Creature-Swearing both promissory and assertory because they fancied such Oaths being not with the solemnity of invocating Gods name were not binding upon their Souls either as to truth or right but they might play with them at fast and loose according as their own interest or pleasure did sway them Hence as they sware amiss in point of form so also as to the matter without any regard in these cases to that Command of God against forswearing and for the performance of Oaths to the Lord which places Christ cites and to which Law they professed to adhere so far only as they used the name of God else they dispensed with their Oaths and easily digested even perjury it self Upon this occasion and to reform these gross abuses our blessed Saviour gives this Command Swear not at all that is as Erasmus paraphraseth not after those usual presumptuous and unlawful forms by the names of Creatures of which he gives so many following instances to express his meaning For he doth not instance in the lawful use of religious Oaths by the name of the true God which was not only allowed but in such cases as did require an Oath with its due circumstances of Judgement Justice and Truth commanded 2. He tells them that even in those Oaths which were attested only by the naming of any Creature as by Heaven or Earth or Jerusalem or their Head c. there was a tacit calling of God to witness since every Creature depends on God and relates to him as the Center and Circumference the Source and Sea of all things Heaven is Gods Throne Earth Gods Foot-stoole the Temple Gods Sanctuary Jerusalem the City of God the most eminent place of the great King of Heavens residency on Earth 3. He implyes that however such various and irregular forms of Oaths by the name of any Creature were as to the manner of them unlawful yet they obliged men to perform them if the matter of them were lawful nor were
Speratus the Martyr about the same time denied to swear so because he knew not what the Genius of the Emperor meant Tertullian tells us in the second Century That Christians would not swear by the Genius or Daemon or Fortune of Cesar but by the health or safety of the Emperor they did because they understood by that God and the Lord Christ And when other Christians did in publick cases swear being required by Authority yet the Bishops of the Church were not put to swear as Basilius a Bishop pleaded for his priviledge when in the Council of Chalcedon he was required to give Oath the sanctity of his Life and honour of his Order being assurance sufficient for his truth The Christian Souldiers as Vegetius tells us took Oath in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit to obey their Commanders not to desert their Colours and to dye for the common welfare which was called Sacramentum militare both before and after Christianity had prevailed in the Empire And hence the name Sacrament came to be applied to Christian Mysteries which are special and solemn dedications of them to the true God and Saviour In the Nicene Council Arrius with an Oath renounced his heretical Opinion So in the Ephesine Council it was ordered that Nestorius should abjure all heterodox and profane Doctrines In the Sixth Synod of Constantinople Gregorius the Librarian made Oath tactis Evangeliis upon the Bible that he left the Books in the Library such as he found them without any blotting out or inserting which Oath I wish the Romish Expurgators had taken and kept as to their Edition of ancient Church-Authors Fathers and others Athanasius who seems and is very zealous against profane and popular swearing yet in his Apology to Constantius purges himself by Oath from the calumnies cast upon him by impudent persons citing for his defence the example of S. Paul Nor is it any news to read of Christian Kings and Magistrates requiring and Subjects giving their Faith by Oath in matters civil sacred and solemn when the form of Oathes were such as consisted with the truth of Christian Religion and the honour of the true God Nor did any Canons of the Church ever forbid such Swearing Indeed while Christians lived in persecution without any protection from the civil Indicatories there can be no examples of their Swearing after the heathenish manner But when Christianity and Christians came to be wrapped up in the Imperial Laws and defended by the Supream powers and were enabled to vindicate their civil rights in judicial proceeding they did not think that unlawful which God had of old commanded which hath a moral that is an eternal good end in it as an act of trust and appeal of agnition and veneration toward God of justice and satisfaction to man also of private and publick charity as the School-men truly observe for the ending of controversies and taking away of jealousies Only due circumstances were strictly required according to the word of God in judgment righteousness and truth Yea we read of old some condemned by the orthodox part of the Church as S. Austin and others tell us for this error among others that they denied all swearing to be lawful So did the Samosatâ—nians and some Pelagians in Syracuse so the Massilians and Euchites so in S. Bernard's days some of the Albigenses and of later dayes some Anabaptists and now the Quakers whether out of policy and art or simplicity and ignorance God knows It were as needless as endless in respect of the Quakers satisfaction who do not value them to produce the consonant judgements of Modern Writers of the Reformed Churches or the Romanists and the most eminent Divines among them which may easily be seen in the Harmony of their Confessions or in their particular Tracts in this Subject Swearing All agreeing as in just severity against false idle and profane Oathes against all perjury intentional and eventual So they do all assent to the moral good in a judicious and solemn swearing with due circumstances upon just occasions by lawful Call of Authority in cases honest and true especially to end controversies to secure Princes and preserve the common wellfare in Iustice and Peace Nor do they think that by any positive Law of Christ all swearing is become now unlawful to Christians among whom the same end use necessity and sanctity of Oaths may be and still are to be had which was once lawful to the Jewes and used in all Nations but only that kind of evil swearing which then was become customary and thought either not sinful or venial This is and ever was forbidden as by the Law of God of old so by the renewed vigor and force of it which Christ restored after it had been so much depraved by the Pharisaical presumption and popular profaneness which imposed rigors where God had laid none and affected liberties where God had given none Agreeably all eminent Writers of the Greek and Roman Church among the learnedest Papists Lutherans and Calvinists Canonists and Casâ—ists as well as those in these British Churches do assert the Authority of lawful Magistrates to require and impose religious Oathes and the duty of Subjects to obey both God and them in taking them as becomes Christians with due reverence to the Majesty of God and with fitting obedience to these commands of Superiours who have their power from God and are to use it to his Glory Nor do they disallow even private and spontaneous attestations of God in weighty matters as to quench the fire of jealousie or to purge away an unjust infamy or to give some such security as justice and charity may require for our own and others goods as a sober Heathen tells us to the just condemnation of Christians who in trivial affairs venture to prostitute the sacredness of an Oath And thus I have with greater prolixity then I intended my wonted fault and Apology endeavoured to vindicate the Divine and true sense of our Saviours words First to remove the crying sin of Swearing vainly rashly irreverently profanely falsly in small or great matters Next to shew the moral end and religious use of Oathes lawful for matter and form and particularly those required in Judicial proceedings according to the Laws and Customes of England both Ecclesiastical and Civil or common agreeable to the word of God and the judgement of the best Christians in all Ages Having herein no design but to give Testimony to that Truth which I believe to justifie the sanctity of our Lawes to serve His Majesty and to do the duty of a good Subject a good Christian a good Minister of Christ and a good Bishop of this Church dispelling the needless scruples and superstitious fears of these poor people called Quakers shewing them their safe liberty to obey and how to escape the Penalties for disobeying the Laws and obstructing Justice by refusing
they excused from perjury or false-swearing in those cases if in assertory Oaths they sware falsly or in promissory either not intending to perform what they so sware or not after performing them so far as was in their power But the Yea and Nay the Affirmative or Negative of such swearing in word ought to be also Yea and Nay in the purpose and performance And although they ought not so to swear yet having so sworn they were obliged to the moral ends of an Oath which is to make it good in Truth and Faith Agreeable to the same end and scope and almost in the same words Saint Iames writes to the dispersed Christian Iewes who still retained that evil Custome of ordinary Swearing by the Creatures as Heaven and Earth and other such like Oathes without any conscience of the manner or matter or making good in effect such Oaths The meaning therefore of both places as the learned Grotius and others observe is no more then to take away the ordinary abuse of such swearing but not that right use which God had allowed and commanded in his word Nor is there more implied in these words as to the subject matter then in those where God complains that because of Swearing the land mourns Hos 4.2 3. that is by unlawful Oaths and the curse shall come into the house of the Swearer Zach. 5.4 that is such as use idle false and forbidden Swearing Zach. 8.17 Not those who swear as they might do by the name of the Lord in righteousness judgement and truth which God no where reproves As if one should inveigh against drinking and feasting and singing and danoing and dalliance there where the usual viot excess and wantonness of any people had generally run these things to an inordinacy which doth no way condemn the sober modest and seasonable use of them That this thus limited sense of Christs words against the abuse of Swearing so familiar among the Iewes was Christs meaning in the negative part of his words appears by the affirmative part of them which the Quakers themselves will I suppose confess must not be taken in an exclusive latitude or such a broad universality of command as enjoynes us to use no other words in any communication by way of affirming or denying any thing but only Yea Yea and Nay Nay Which words the Quakers so much affect to use as if they would fancy themselves literally or verbally tied to those Monosyllables and those to be repeated in all their assertions or promises yet none of them in case of more full declaring their assent or dissent upon any matter do seruple to use such paraphrases or enlargements of speech as the matter or the parties understanding or diffidence may require For if they would keep all their communication to those precise words Yea Yea Nay Nay they would be no less obstructive to civil and private conversation then they seek to be to judicial proceedings by their refusing at all to swear Doubtless our Saviours own larger expressing of himselfe in many cases by such periphrases or commentaries of words as amount to affirmations or negations besides and beyond the bare terms of Yea Yea and Nay Nay do abundantly justifie together with the practise of all the Apostles that these proverbial Phrases or Epitomes of speech here commanded under the words of Yea and Nay do only import that plainness or simplicity of Christians meaning and doing as may be consonant to their words in truth and honesty without fraud or falsity in common speech not at all forbidding either more ample expressions of their sense in private converses nor yet forbidding such religious and judicious use of Swearing in great and publick matters as are necessary to carry on humane affairs with iustice and Peace but only such false frivolous and fraudulent Oaths as for the matter manner and meaning are by the Law of God by all right Reason and Religion prohibited and which then were so familiarly used and abused by the Iewes upon those presumptions and dispensations which they had taken up As then the affirmative part of Christs words are not to be understood literally as a confining of all Christians communication to Yea and Nay but only to that truth and honesty of mind intent and action which Christ aimes at and beyond which whatever is of fraud and falsity is from evil in mens hearts so as to the negation of swearing not at all it cannot in Reason or Religion be extended further then that swearing which is from evil and tends to evil not that which is from good and tends to good namely the veneration of God and love of Truth and Iustice which are not from the evil one the Devil nor from evil principles in men nor for evil designs As for that absolute and universal Negative which they urge from the words of Christ of not swearing at all nothing is more clear and usual in Scripture then to confine the meaning of such Generals to the particular subject and scope intended as I formerly shewed in many instances out of the holy Scriptures but yet further to clear this truth from the most short and exact way of the Scripture-style which is in the commands of the Decalogue In the second Command we are forbidden to make to our selves any graven Image or similitude of Creatures in the way of Worship or Religion yet we read that Moses in the Tabernacle made the Cherubins so did Solomon several Images of Flowers and Beasts in the Temple and for his Throne and without sinne So in the fourth Command All manner of work is forbidden on the Sabbath day yet the intent is only against ordinary works of our civil callings not against works of Religion or decency or charity or necessity against which the Pharisaical rigor and severity had stretched the Letter of the Law beyond the meaning as our Saviour convinceth them Mat. 12. Mark 2. 27. Luk. 14. 3. In the sixth Command Thou shalt not kill the putting men to death in just and legal wayes or in self-defense is not forbidden but only as to private revenge and malice So the tenth Command Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy Neighbours is to be understood only of an evil and injurious coveting of what is our Neighbours but not of such a desire as is commensurate to Justice and Charity which desires in honest wayes of buying or exchanging to get those things which our want requires and our Neighbours sufficiency willingly affords us Else we must always want but never wish or fairly endeavour for supply by those wayes of commutative justice which by mutual necessities invite men to society Such commodious Interpretations of Scriptures are as necessary to attain their true meaning as the contrary wrestings of them upon a bare Letter are pernicious to all Reason Justice and true Religion and indeed contrary to the very word
possibly now in England be not only destructive to many thousands but very disadvantagious to the King and Kingdome to the Trade and Commerce of the Nation by opening a little Wicket of Royal Clemency only to some few and shutting the great Gate to many whose tender and unsatisfied or scrupulous Consciences do as much expect need and deserve it as those that have it in petty matters while all others scruples are driven to discontent and despair by denial of all indulgence to them in greater scruples There are but these four wayes of treating any party that dissents from the publick establishment of Religion and its Lawes in any Church and Kingdom 1. Either to impoverish imprison banish and destroy all Dissenters as the King of Castile did the Moores of Granada which is a very rough barbarous unwelcome and unchristian way disallowed by all wise men of all perswasions Or Secondly by rational convincing them of their errors which is a work of time and dexterity not to be done on the sudden no more then bodily cures without a miracle though very worthy to bear a part in the Discipline of the Church which should require of every one a reason why they differ from or forsake the established Religion and treat them according as their perswasion passion or pertinacy shall appeare to the Conservators of Religion Or Thirdly by changing established Laws for their sake which is not for the Piety Prudence Honour and Safety of a Nation and Church when it judgeth its Constitutions to be religious righteous and convenient Or Fourthly by way of discreet connivance and charitable indulgence so farre as the civil peace of the Nation will bear until Reason and Religion of whose prevalency wise and good men never despair have by calme and charitable methods recovered people from the error of their wayes by the sacred Doctrine and good examples of those who conforme to the established Lawes in Church and State This being first done will render Dissenters unexcusable and justifie any severity which shall be inflicted upon the extravagancies of those opinions and actions which do any way perturb the publick peace or affront the established Religion And in this particular case of the Quakers who refuse all legal Oathes upon scruples of Conscience and so threaten either to subvert our Laws or to obstruct all judicial proceedings pleading for their disobedience to mans Laws the express command of Christ and his Apostle Saint James no sober man can think by meer penalties to reduce them to a conformity with our Laws or to stop the spreading of their Opinions untill it be plainly shewed that it is not true Religion but onely Superstition in them a fear where no fear is a being righteous over-much by a mistake of Christs meaning a wresting of those Scriptures by their own unlearnedness and unstableness to their own destruction as well as to the publick perturbation Noble Sir this great work for so it is to convince weak and wilful men of the error of their wayes I have undertaken in this little Treatise by Gods blessing not unseasonably I hope as to our times nor unsuitably as to my profession If I may be happy to do any of them good who possibly may erre in this with no evil mind by redeeming them from their mistakes and so from the penalties of the Law I shall more rejoyce in that success then those Souldiers did who among the Ancients were rewarded with Civick Garlands for preserving any of their Countrey-men and fellow-Citizens which Honour you know the Roman valour esteemed more then any victorious Laurels for destroying their Enemies And in this charitable endeavour prospered by Gods grace I shall the more seriously triumph because I believe it most agreable as to my Saviours preoept and primitive examples of Christian Bishops so to your generous Soule whereby this piece may probably be fortified with the approbation of so pieus and judicious a person whose single suffrage is to me more valuable then the sequacious and vulgar votes of thousands whose empty brains and clamorous mouths like hollow places where Echo hides her self do commonly receive and report things not as the Truth is in them but as the noise and cry is lowdest I know you are as much above plebeian censures as titular Honours traditional Philosophy and popular Religion being every way judiciously devoted to God and his Truth full of Loyalty to the King and Laws also of sober Conformity to the established Religion of this Church whose royal Law is that of Charity the bond of perfection and centre of Peace In all which respects you deserve and have the love and honour of all worthy Persons and particularly of him who may without vanity own this as an instance of some worth in him that he is SIR Your most affectionate Friend and humble Servant JOH EXON March 20 1661. A DISCOURSE Concerning Publick Oaths and the Lawfulness of Swearing in Judicial Proceedings c. FInding lately in the most Honourable House of Peers that a Law was likely to pass in order to punish with great Penalties those English Subjects who under the name of Quakers shall refuse to take as other legal Oaths so those which are usually required in Judicial proceedings thereby to prevent either the alteration of the good Laws and Customs of England according to private mens fancies or the obstructions and violations of publick Justice the free course of which as that of the Blood and Spirits to the Natural is the preservation of the Life and Health the Peace and Honour the Happiness and very Being of the Body Politick which by the Laws and ancient Customs of this Kingdom of England cannot be duly administred but by those forms of solemn and religious Oaths in the Name of the true God which are the highest Obligations to Truth and Justice upon them that swear also the greatest satisfactions or assurances that can be given to others for the belief of what is so attested and for acquiescency in what is so decided I was hereupon bold thus far humbly to intercede with that Honourable House in the behalf of those poor people who are likely to fall under the Penalties of that Law That however I might consent to the passing of that Bill out of that justice and charity which I owe to the publick peace and welfare to which all private Parties Interests and Charities must submit yet I craved so far a respite for some time as to the execution of those Penalties upon any of them as Offenders until some such rational and religious course were taken as might best inform those men of the lawfulness by God's as well as Man's Law of imposing and taking such publick Oaths That so answering first their Scruples and fairly removing their difficulties either they might be brought to a chearful Obedience in that particular or else be left without excuse before God and man while the truth of the Law was justified against
the high and holy one whose supream power and inimitable excellency is the highest asseveration or ascertaining of what is so spoken either to win us to belief or to strike us with terror leaving men without excuse if being so happy as to have the Oath of God to assure them of a truth yet they will not believe God no not swearing for their sake as Tertullian speaks But also we have express commands of God First that great one in the Decalogue where the Negative of not taking Gods name in vain or falsly doth include the Assirmative of using the name of God in thinking or meditating in reading and writing in speaking praying blessing praising promising or attesting vowing or swearing with due reverence and adoration to his Divine Majesty which is intimated by his holy name as the summary of all his Attributes And agreeable to this great Command are those many other places so frequent in the Old Testament which command the people of God to swear only by his Name Deut. 6. 13. and this in righteousness judgement and truth Jer. 4. 2. of which I shall after give more particular account when I prove that moral divine and eternal good which is in lawful swearing Hence Gods frequent reproof threatning and punishing with a curse not all men that did swear but only such as sware falsly either as to their present judgements and intentions or as to their after violating of their Oaths to the proâ—aning of the name of God yea and those who by trivial light and inconsiderate swearing took the name of God in vain having no reverence to his Majesty when they made mention of his name with their lips lastly those that sware though truly by false Gods as Baal or by any Creature as if it were to them in stead of God This then I suppose is so clear even to the sillicst and most scrupulous Quakers that they cannot doubt of the lawfulness of swearing lawfully among the Jews not only as permitted but commanded Nay perhaps they will grant that a Christian in some cases may give his Oath to an Heathen Prince or others of different Religion from Christianity when in cases of safety or ransome or life or other great concerns they may be thereto required of them and will by no other way be satisfied It being a Principle of natural Divinity bred in the hearts of all mankind that the invocation attestation and adjuration in the name of the God which they respectively own is the greatest assurance which can be given or desired as I shall make to appear afterward when I come to shew the consent and practise of Nations as to deciding of Controversies by swearing The scruple then lies only upon these prohibitions in the Gospel given by Christ and the Apostle Saint Iames forbidding absolutely as they suppose all swearing at least among Christians whatever was used or indulged among the Iewes as were Revenge Polygamy and Divorces and other political dispensations for the uncharitableness wantonness and hardness of their hearts Christ as they presume restoring the communication of Christians both publick and private to that integrity of mind simplicity of speech and sanctity of manners which may deserve of one another as much credit as if they sware according to that strictness which the Esseni among the Iewes used whose word was As sure as an Oath So that they say we may not in charity either exact of our Brethren or give to them any Oath since they deserve to be believed upon the same terms which they believe others that is their bare Yea or Nay simple affirmings or denyings without any swearing which they think an old Iudaick superfluity of speech now circumcised and precisely cut off from the lips of Christians No man deserving to be believed on his Oath who hath lost by lying the credit of his bare word nor any man deserving to be confirmed by any honest mans Oath who hath not the charity and humanity to believe him without it And certainly the affairs of Christians both publick and private would be no less to their honour and ease if there were in no case any need or use of any Oaths or Swearing but such an authentick veracity and just credulity on all sides as might well spare even the most true sincere and lawful Oaths keeping on all sides as great a distance from lying as from false swearing And certainly as these two true speaking and true swearing are near of kind of the same Father God and the same Mother an honest and veracious heart so the other two lying and false-swearing are progenies of the same parentage of their Father the Devil and from a persidious heart Perjury and Lying are of the same Web or Spinning only the first hath the stronger twist and the deeper dye or tincture of Hell being more the Devils colour and in gram The Eutopian desire and aim of these Quakers is not to be found fault with if it were feisable Yea it were to be wished that the evils of mens hearts and manners the jealousies and distrusts the dissimulations and frauds of many Christians their uncharitableness unsatisfactions and insecurities were not such as by their diseases do make these applications of solemn Oaths and judicial swearings necessary not absolutely and morally or preceptively as the Schoole-men note well but by way of consequence and remedy as good new Laws are necessary for the curb or cure of new evils in Polities and Kingdoms Possibly as Christians truly such we should need no swearings in publick or private but as men weak and unworthy we cannot well be without such Oaths to end Controversies and to secure as much as man can do the exact proceedings of Justice If it do appear that all swearing is absolutely by our Lord Christ forbidden to his Disciples God forbid we should not obey his word and rather change the Laws of man then violate his commands to whom we Christians owe the highest love loyalty and obedience But if it shall appear to religious Reason that the words of Christ do not import any such absolute forbidding of all use of swearing but by the scope of them and the analogy of Scripture they have another true interpretation and limited meaning we must not be so much slaves to the Letter as to lead Truth and Reason captive or to deprive our selves of that religious liberty which is left us and so is not only lawful for Christians to use but in some cases it may be prudentially necessary as to the expediences of mens jealousies lives liberties estates and good names even in private much more in the dispensations of justice to the publick peace and general satisfaction of whole Polities and Communities wherein men live socially under law and government The Controversie therefore which is risen between the Quakers and almost all other Christians will come into this narrow room 1. Not whether
of the Law and the intent of the Law-giver Else what shall we make of that seeming contradiction Jer. 7. 22. I spake not to your Fathers nor commanded them in the day I brought them out of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings c. But this thing I I commanded them Obey my voice c. Here the principal intention of God must give the Interpretation and take away the Contradiction Nor are affirmative places of Scripture to be many times less limited from their seeming Latitude Indefiniteness and Universality As All things are yours takes not away meum and tuum the properties of Christians as to what they have by private right and possession So All things are lawful must not be stretched to any immoral licentiousness but confined to such things as are by no word of God forbidden but left in an indifferency and to be used as Reason and Religion requires or the moral end of all things doth permit So I please all men in all things So To the pure all things are pure the meaning must not be after the Manichean and Familistical imagination as if such as are pure might do or use any thing even to those mixtures which are morally impure or sinful for these are alwayes and at all times forbidden to all men who may not fancy that pure which God hath marked with the brand of sinful impurity nor may they count that sinfully impure on which God hath set no such stamp â—y any Law forbidding it If Scriptures as I have largely shewed must be understood only by the bark or shell of words and not by the kernel and intent we shall make those expressions to be approbations which are the sharpest reproofes and prohibitions yet by way of Irony and seeming concession As Eccl. 11. 9. Rejoyce O young man in thy youth walk in the wayes of thine heart and the light of thine eyes So Christs commending the unjust Steward doth not import his justifying of his 〈◊〉 but of that prudence though sinister which he shewed to preserve himself from temporal extremities the more to reproach the improvidence negligence and supineness of those who will not use honest means for their eternal preservation It were easie by many more parallel instances besides those I for merly gave to manifest to the Quakers or any men not wilfully shutting their eyes against that light of Reason and Religion which shines in the Scriptures That since the Holy Oracles of God are spoken or written for the instruction of men and in such a familiar style or mode of speech as was used among men in the several times languages and occasions of writing them which the Hearers or Readers then easily understood it cannot be any part of Religion so to urge any Letter Phrase or Form of speech as to swerve the sense of words from the evident scope intent or end of the speaker which is gathered both from the rise or occasion and end why he spake and any additional instances which are oft given as explications and special marks or boundaries of the speakers meaning which are here evident For the Jewes were not blamable for swearing by the name of the true God as by the Law and Prophets they were commanded in righteousness judgement and truth nay they even superstitiously waved this kind of swearing but for their new and customary forms of swearing by the Creature and fancying it no forswearing themselves in case they were false either in intention or execution This being the usual and almost only swearing in fashion among them it is no wonder that our Saviour aiming only at this gives such a prohibition of Swear not at all that is not at all for matter or manner as you have accustomed your selves to swear contrary to or beyond what God allowes in his Law which was the thing I was to prove 2. My second Reason to prove that our Saviour and the Apostle do not forbid all swearing with its due reverence and integrity is from the moral nature end and use of an Oath First by the light of Reason and principles of innate Divinity yet unextinguished in the heart of man-kind it hath ever been and still is owned and used as a special part of Religion a solemn agnition of the Divine Being and Attributes in Omniscience Justice and Power which all men attest as believing that none can escape that Witness and Judge of all things Thus Egyptians Scythians Persians Greeks Romans and all Nations that had any thing Civil and Religious among them have used some form of Swearing by their respective Deities as a special honour and appeal to their Soveraignty as the only means in cases dubious to give satisfaction gain credit and make men assured of the veracity and honesty of the speaker in their promises and testimonies in their leagues and contracts And however the noblest and wisest of the Heathens required no less veracity and certainty in the bare words then Oathes of men yet they highly distinguished between swearing and forswearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This last they thought a great sin and to be punished by the Gods if either they meant not as they sware or performed not what they had justly sworn yea and they oft brought in their Gods and Jupiter himselfe as chief swearing Polybius observes that in the better and simpler ages of the world Oathes were seldom used in Judicatures but after that perfidy and lying encreased the use of Oathes encreased as the only remedy meet to restrain those mischiefs that where men could not see or be sure the omniscience and vengeance of God should be invocated on mens consciences which none could elude or escape Hierocles also tells us That men ought not to swear but for great and necessary ends which cannot otherwaies be obtained But where the end was good and this a necessary means there they thought agreeable to true Reason and Religion that swearing was a lawful means Secondly God himself the great patern of all holiness and perfection would not have given so many express commands and regulations concerning Swearing if all swearing had in its nature been morally and so eternally evil The moral precept is Exod. 20. 7. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain or upon falsity which imports a lawful use of Gods name as is explained Lâ—â— 19. 12. Ye shall not Swear by my name falsly nor shalt thou profane the name of the Lord thy God Which sense is further cleared Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him and shalt swear by his name which is repeated Deut. 10. 20. So of vowing by an Oath to God Num. 30. 2. Deu 23. 21. So Is 45. 23. To me every tonguâ— shall swear So again Isa 65. 16. He that sweareth in the Earth shall swear by the God of Truth Jer. 4. 2. And thou shalt
swear The Lord liveth in truth in judgement and in righteousness i. e. To what we know to be and just Nor doth the Lord ever by the Prophets condemn the Jewes for swearing simply and sincerely but only for vain false perfidious and perjurious swearing as he doth Zedekiah for despising the Oath he had given to King Nebuchadnezzar Answerably we read the unblamed practise of many holy men Abraham Jacob Joshua David and others who themselves sware and exacted Oathes and adjured others without any sin or offence in such serious and weighty cases which the Law of God right Reason Iustice and Charity did permit or require Among the Iewes all publick testimonies were ratified by an Oath as Buxtorse Drusius and others observe who write of the civil administrations of Iustice among them Yea we find as I formerly touched the Lord himself confirming this by his own great and most holy example swearing more then once by himselfe by his own life and great name to create credit and give confirmation to what he saith If then from all these premisses it be clear that some swearing is morally lawful as an act extraordinary of Religion a high glorifying of God by appeal to him agreeable to the express Law of God even in the third Commandment in which we are not only forbidden to profane the name of God but the affirmative is also included of sanctifying his name by all ways of praying praising vowing and swearing as he allowes us if in doing thus upon just occasion private or publick in a lawful manner we sin not against any moral Law of Prety Iustice or Charity it must undeniably follow that Christ did not by this procept Evangelical forbid or annul the old Law as to the sanctity and morality of an Oath but only take away the corruption and abuse It being no design of our Lord to do so as he expresly assures the Iewes to take off their jealousies and prejudices in this kind That he came not to destroy or diminish but fulfill the Law moral However he came in the way of fulfilling to abrogate the Ceremonial yea and the politick Laws too so far as they were peculiar to the Jewish polity in Church and State This speech of Christ being the Key which opens his meaning in all his following emendations of Iudaick pravities and in all the constitutions of Evangelical rectitudes it must needs be preposterous to contradict so clear and emphatick a Scripture in order to fix such an interpretation on these places at which the Quakers now stumble as is only conform to their own fancy but contrary to the evident tenour of both Law and Gospel in this particular of lawful swearing in lawful cases and manner which was a part of that moral Law which Christ signally tells them he did not come or ever intended to abolish but to maintain so far as the love of God and our Neighbour are great accomplishments of all Laws to both which religious swearing is most conform it being to Gods glory and our Neighbours good There is no danger then of doing hurt to our own consciences any more then in serious affirmations or negations an Oath having onely the attestation of God to it who is witness of all we say and doe 3. The third Reason for the limiting these words of Christ against some but not all kind of swearing under the Gospel is from those after-evidences in the Gospel which sufficiently clear the meaning of our Saviour First his own frequent asseverations Amen Amen are by many esteemed as a solemn form of assertion next degree to swearing by attestation of the truth of God upon the certainty of his words But if this amount not to so much in our Saviours form of averring what he uttered yet we read in the Apostle Saint Paul's writings more then once not only attestations but obtestations and adjurations of others as Saint Austin observes even to the very form of Swearing Rom. 1. 9. God is my witness c. Gal. 1. 20. Behold before God I lye not 1 Cor. 15. 31. I protest by your Rejoycing which hath the very form of common Oathes among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per Iovem 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lye not 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ c. As a ground to justifie his own practise in things weighty and of great concern to Gods glory the vindicating of his own fidelity and the inducing others to beliefe in cases that cannot otherwise be so fully cleared decided and confirmed to them this great Apostle who well knew his Masters meaning tells us That an Oath not was but is among men for an end of all controversie or strife and therefore men swear by God as greater then themselves and all Creatures whatsoever intimating that the sanctity and validity of an Oath still remains in use under the Gospel as among all men where the matter form and ends required by the moral Law and immutable principles of Piety Iustice and Charity are duly observed Nor doth the Apostle there or any where intimate that this former liberty of Swearing by the Law of God among the Iewes was abrogated under the Gospel as if Christians might not Swear in any case which had been so necessary a lesson as none more in practicks considering that all those civilized Nations where he most preached and to whom he wrote so many Epistles would never have believed all swearing unlawful which the light of nature dictated and the law of God allowed with due regulation unless they had some special precept from the Apostle that he had so received it of the Lord which had he written he had contradicted himself as to his practise and made himself an offender But the reproof of Christ and so of the Apostle Saint James was peculiar to the corrupt custome among the Jewes to whom Christ spake and the Apostle Saint James wrote that Epistle especially in promissory Oaths to which the learned Groâ—ius thinks the words of Christ wholly and only relate To conclude this Reason we read the Angel in the Revelation by his example justifying the lawfulness of some swearing for he is brought in thus lifting up his hand to heaven and swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever c. after the same manner as the Angel in Daniel did swear lifting up both his hands to Heaven In which forms we cannot think the holy and good Angels would have so solemnly appeared on record in Old New Testament as exemplary to the Church and people of God if the great Angel of the Covenant our Lord Iesus Christ had precisely forbidden all Swearing either because in its nature morally and utterly unlawful which cannot be said without blasphemy and
contradiction to the Law of God of old or as now become evil and unlawful because absolutely forbidden by a positive Evangelical command without any moral reason either alledged or imaginable from any nature of sin Which false gloss of Christs words cannot be reconciled with the other principles places and examples evident and authoritative in the Gospel or with that express and signal Oracle of Christ which is a salvo for all that is morally good that he came not to destroy any part or tittle of the Law which had any moral internal and eternal holiness in it as being therefore expressed in his revealed will or word because it is conform to the glory of Gods nature and essence which all reasonable Creatures ought ever to fear reverence adore and admire above all things As those do who by religious swearing give glory to God as the supream Iudge of all men and things as the searcher of all hearts and as the infallible dispenser of Iustice Which sacred celebrations of the Divine Glory and Majesty in solemne Swearing being no way derogating from Gods honour but highly advancing it in the world and no way injurious to our selves or others but advantageous to Justice Truth Charity and Peace cannot be looked upon as abolished or forbidden by Christ to us Christians Fourthly having thus examined First the occasion and intention of our Saviours words Secondly the moral nature of an Oath Thirdly the Evangelical practise my Fourth and last work is to justifie this limited sense and Interpretation of our Saviours and the Apostles words which I have given consonant to the practise of the Church of England by the concurrent judgement of other Churches and learned Interpreters both ancient and modern Nor that I think any humane or Ecclesiastical authority swayes much if any thing with the Quakers who are most-what strangers to all Learning and not much to be moved by any such Engine but only to confute the more evidently their singularity and pertinacy also to satisfie others of my Countrey-men that this is no novel Interpretation put upon the words of Christ and his Apostle whose true meaning the ancient and later Churches might without any vanity be thought to understand as well as any of this new Generation And certainly we may with more modesty appeal to and acquiesce with conscience in their judgement of places dark and dubious then listen to any men in later times who superciliously dissent from them all Doubtless if the Catholick Church hath been a faithful preserver of the Scriptures it may not be suspected to have been an unfaithful Interpreter of them in any main points of Faith or of Morality and such as this of sober serious reverent and judicial Swearing The primitive Christians were not only very cautious of Swearing rashly vainly falsly but if they took any Oath they made such conscience of keeping it that they would sooner dye then break it wilfully or basely Indeed in private conversation Christians were then esteemed so strict exact and cautious of their words in asserting or promising that there was no need of an Oath among them yea they so kept up the sanctity and credit of their profession among unbelievers that it was security enough in all cases to say Christians sum I am a Christian If any urged them further to any Oath for matter or manner or authority unlawful they repeated this as the only satisfaction they could give There needed no more then the veracity of their bare word They thought it not lawful for them in such cases to Swear being in this emulators of the Esseni among the Jews of whom Iosephus tells us that their word was as sure as an Oath and that they avoided not only all forswearing but all swearing or that which brought their fidelity in question and lessened the reputation of their Sect. Thus Christians that they might not come short of the Esseni among the Iewes who would not swear but in Judicature or of any men in this pious severity especially in abstaining from all unlawful swearing did keep themselves from all kind of swearing especially Heathenish and Idolatrous their profession and reputation being test enough to their words Nor did they think any men under Heaven were so worthy as Christians to make good some of the ancient and soberest Heathens dictates in this kind Such as were that of Menander so to avoid evil Swearing as not to swear though in things just and true And that of Solon A good man should have that credit that no man should believe him the more for his swearing it being some diminution to his reputation to be put to swear or to need an Oath to gain credit Diogenes Laert. tells us that the Athenians would not suffer Xenocrates a man of great integrity and honour to take his Oath at the Altar as a thing unworthy of his reputation Nor did the Romans exact Oaths of their chief Priests Indignum credentes viro tanta sanctimoniae sine juramento non credere Hence we find some of the Ancient Fathers as Origen Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius Hilarie Athanasius S. Jerom Theodoret Lactantius and others frequently inveighing without any limitation or reserve against Christians swearing as to private conversation yea and Saint Austin himself in his Sermon on these words of Christ adviseth to abstain from cesie and ordinary swearing in cases never so true and honest lest by wontedness of swearing we get a proneness to swear even falsly S. Basil commends Clinias a famous Greek that he rather suffered a mulct of three Talents then he would save it by swearing to the loss of his honour which he thought caution sufficient for his honesty Not that Saint Austin held it unlawful for a Christian in any case of great and weighty concern solemnly to give Oath as a further ratification of Truth and Iustice yea he asserts it as lawful and proves it by those instances of the Apostle Pauls swearing or obtestation in his Epistles which I formerly produced Not as if faith he Saint Paul had forgot or were ignorant of the words of Christ but by his practise he shews us the meaning of them is only to forbid false and frivolous swearing As the graver and eminentest of the Iewes did not deny Oaths of Allegiance to Herod and their Governours as Iosephus tells us so neither did the Christians however the zeal of some of the Ancients in their Sermons or Homilies to the people wholly cry down all customary and vain swearing especially according to the wonted forms of Heathenish swearing as by their Gods or Emperors and the like So Polycarpus in the first Century answered the Prefect who promised to dismiss him if he would swear by the Fortune of Cesar but he refused affirming I am a Christian In like manner Basilides the Martyr when the Officers exacted an Oath of him replied It is not lawful for me being a a Christian to swear So