Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism, Chapter 30
CHAP. XXX. Of Lawful Oaths.
2. OUr Quakers, that they may quite destroy all Politie and Government, …oyn in with Anabaptists, & Familists of N. England of late, and the Esseans, Manichees and Pelagians of old, in denying it to be lawful to swear before a judge, when called thereunto, in maters of moment. I willingly grant, that all Profane, rash, and godless oathes, used too ordinarily in common discourse, are wholly unlawful, and a manifest breach of the third command; & such a sin, as provoketh the Jealousie of the Lord of hostes, who is holy, and will not hold them guiltless who take his name in vaine. I shall also willingly grant, that such reverence should be had unto the holy name of God, that in maters of lesser moment, and maters, wherein the verity may be possibly found out, without an oath, none should be urged to take an oath; nor an oath received from persons, who willingly offer it, in such triffles, & without necessity. But as to this question, let us view, what our Confess. saith Ch. 22: §. 1, 2, 3, 4. A lawful oath is a part of Religious worship (Deut. 10▪ 20.) wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnely calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth, or falshood of what he asserteth (Exod. 20:7. Levit 19:12. 2 Cor. 1:23. 2 Chron. 6:22, 23.) The name of God only, is that by which men ought to swear; and therein it is to be used, with all holy fear and reverence (Deut. 6:13.) Therefore to swear vainly, or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name; or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred (Exod. 20:7. Ior. 5 …. Mat. 5:34, 37. Iam. 5:12.) Yet, as in maters of weight and moment, an oath is warranded by the word of God, under the New Test. as well as under the old (Heb. 6:16. 2 Cor. 1:23. Esa. 65:16) So a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority, in such maters, ought to be taken (1 King. 8:31 Neh. 13:25. Ezra. 10:5.)—Yet it is a sin, to refuse an oath, touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority (Numb. 5: vers. 19, 20. Neh. 5: vers. 12. Exod. 22: vers. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
2. The only ground of his contrary opinion, is Christs words Mat. 5:34—37 and Iam. 5:12. which he so understandeth, as simply prohibiting all Oaths whatsomever, wherein he is worse than the Socinians, for they say, that Christ added this unto the Law, that we should not sweare rashly and vainly; nor make promissory Oaths concerning things future. But the Quaker will goe a greater length, and say that Oaths imposed by Magistrates, in things weighty and necessary, are here also prohibited: Yet he walketh upon the Socinians ground; and supposeth, that Christ is here amending and correcting the Law, or adding to it; and so giving new Lawes: For if Christ only be interpreting the Law, (as we say) and it be certain, that the Oaths, we maintaine, were warrantably used under the Law; Christs Words must not be so largely taken, as he would. But a right consideration of Christs Words, together with his scope, will make all clear. Christ being here interpreting▪ explaining and vindicating the Law, and so correcting and reprehending the false, laxe and erroneous glosses, which the Pharisees, and the jewish Doctors, had corrupted the Law withal; he cometh in these verses to vindicat the third command, which these loose Casuists (whom he meaneth, when he saith vers. 33. ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time) had so interpreted, as if nothing had been thereby prohibited, but only forswearing, that is, not to performe, what was vowed and sworne to be done, thou shalt not forswear thy self, but shalt performe unto the Lord, thine Oaths: And thence gave way to rash, idle, vaine, and inconsiderat Oaths, yea and to swearing by other things, than by the true and living God▪ To correct which corruption and abuse, Christ rightly interprets the Law, as prohibiteing all such swearing by any creature at all, saying vers. 34. But I say unto you, swear not at all. But how is this not at all to be taken? The following words clear, Neither by heaven—nor by the earth—neither by Ierusalem—neither by thine head. And then addeth, to correct their rash and profane Oaths in common discourse vers. 37. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay. Whereby he sheweth, what should be our ordinary assertions, or negations, in our ordinary discourse; and what way we should take to guard against rash and unnecessary Oaths; to wit, that we should use uprightness and sincerity in our dealings, and speaches, that so no more may be required, then asserting or denying, or at most doubling of our assertions, or denials? And then addeth, for whatsoever is more then these, cometh of evil, that is, whatsoever is superfluous, or redundant and not necessary, (as all vaine, and needless Oaths, and asseverations are) is sinful, and of the Devil. So that there is nothing here, in the least, giving ground to reject all Oaths, as sinful; but only such, as are by Creatures, or are needless and superfluous, in our ordinary communication. And to this same purpose doth Iames speak Chap. 5:12. saying, But above all things, my brethren, swear not; how that is to be understood, he explaineth in the following words, Neither by the heaven, neither by the eart…, neither by any other Oath, which is the same with what Christ said; and to prevent this sin of rash and profane swearing, he addeth, as Christ did, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay: And to confirme all, addeth lest ye fall into condemnation, looking to the threatning annexed to the third command; and thereby giving us to understand, that he is but explaining that command, and enjoyning no new thing, but what was there enjoyned; for Iames is very much, in his Epistle, in pressing the Law, and obedience to it, which he calleth the perfect Law Iames 1: vers. 25. and Royal Law Iames 2: vers. 8. But now if he should have urged any thing, in these moral duties, but what was commanded in the Law, he should have condemned the Royal Law, as imperfect.
3. The mater being thus clear and manifest, we need not regard his telli…g us, that we ought to feigne no exceptions; for we faigne none; but interpret the words, according to the clear and obvious scope; which he with the Sociniant must inverte, before he make his assertion so much as probable. Nor do we, as the Reader may see, here make use of consequences (which yet are allowable, and himselfe, as we saw above, went about to confirme some of his notions, yea a special part of their Solemne Worshipe, by consequences from Scripture) or probabilities, as he alleigeth, which are obscure and uncertain; but walk upon fixed and certaine grounds; which may fully quiet the consciences of such, as stand in awe of the word: and I cannot but wonder, how he, who denieth the word, to be the rule of faith, and practice, can thus press the words, contrare to the scope and intendment of the Spirit of the Lord, and stand so stifly to the express words; yea and, for any thing I see, ground their judgment and practice, wholly and alone, upon these words: but, as we heard above, though the light within them be their supream and only Rule, they can alleige the Scriptures, and pervert them too, against us.
4. He cometh next Pag. 354. §. 11. to reply to our grounds. We say, that Christ forbiddeth all Oaths by creatures, and all vaine and rash Oaths: To which he replyeth, That the Law did forbid these Oaths; but Christ forbiddeth here something that was free under the Law: to wit, to swear by the Name of God; and so dischargeth even such Oaths, as were made by the Name of God Mat. 23:22. And he addeth, by any other oath. Answ. That the Law doth forbid both swearing by the Creatures, and also rash and unnecessary swearing by the Name of God, is true; but the Law did not prohibite, but enjoyn swearing in some cases, before Magistrates, as we see Exod. 22:7,—11. Num. 5:19, 21. (2.) That Christ correcteth or amendeth the Law, or dischargeth any thing, which was lawful by the moral Law of God; is but a Socinian dream, without any ground, or warrand, as is apparent, through that whole Sermon, and from the very first words of this part thereof vers. 17, 18. Think not, that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but fulfil: for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth passe, one jot, or one-title, shall in no wise passe from the Law, till all be fulfilled. But sure, if Christ had added to the law, or taken away from it, he had in so far destroyed it, and made it an imperfect law, and had taken away from it many Jotes and Titles, contrary to his owne expresse profession and declaration. (3.) The place Mat. 23:16—23. doth clearly explaine this; for there, their unlawful wayes of swearing are reproved; and they discovered to be fools, in alleiging such grounds, as they did, for their profane licentious swearing, and satisfying themselves with such pretexts; but not one word declareing it unlawful in all cases, to sweare by the Name of God. (4.) These words by any other Oath, are to be explained by what went before; and so to be understood of any other such like Oath, as he had instanced in; otherwise Christs discourse shall be incoherent.
5. To that, which is said, That swearing by the Name of God, was commanded by the Father, and so cannot be now contradicted by the Son, who is one with the Father, he saith, That the father appointed many ceremonial Lawes which were shadowes of good things to come, whereof Christ was the substance. Answere, This is very true; but nothing to the purpose; for he shall never prove that swearing by the Name of God was a ceremonial thing, being a part of natural Worship, taught by the Law of Nature Gen. 21: ver. 23. Iosh. 2: vers. 12. 2 Chron. 36:21. and is several times put for the whole moral Worshipe Esai. 19: v. 18. & 45:23. Psal. 63:11. And where, I pray, and when, was this ceremonial precept (if it be such) first given? But this one thing is enough to confute this dream (not to mentione, that we cannot understand, whereof it can be a shadow, or type: nor how then, as we shall hear, it was used, when types were abrogated) to wit, that Christ did not so early beginne to cry down and to annull the force and power of the ceremonial Law; but being made under the Law (ceremonial, as well as moral) was observant thereof in all points, to his dying day: for in the very night wherein he was betrayed, he observed the feast of the Passeover; and he came to ful…il all righteousness: How shall we then imagine, that in his very first Sermon, he should abrogate the Ceremonial Law, and that in moe points then one, if our Quaker be to be believed? For he will have the mater of Warres a ceremony too; and will affirme, that Christ abrogated that ceremony also, in the last words of this Chapter, as we heard?
6. He moveth this Argum. in the next place Pag. 355. That Oaths cannot be a part of the ceremonial Law, because they were in use before the promulgation of the law: An Argument, wherein I see little strength; yet I think it concerneth him to tell us, when this ceremonial law was first given, and to whom? What answereth he? It must be showne, saith he, that it is an eternal and immutable precept▪ Answ. And what needeth more for this, then to show, that it is a part of worshipe performed unto God, which the law of Nature hath taught all nations, and which hath no affinity with what is typical and figurative, having a manifestly moral import; for it is a solemne acknowledgment of Gods All-seeing eye, of his Truth and Veracity, of his Righteousness and Justice, and of his Power and Might: for therein he is called to witness a secret and hidden truth, and the swearer doth professe, that God is acquanted with the secrets of all things, and with the Intentions of the heart: Therein we acknowledge, that God abhorreth lying and dissimulation, and will be a swift witness against false swearers; and in justice will be avenged of such, as mock him, in calling the God of truth to bear witness to an untruth, and shew his power in punishing and pursueing such: all which being ingraven on the heart of Man by nature, and being laid, as the ground of this practice among all Nations, and having nothing ceremonial in it, evince this duty to be moral, and the commands enjoyning it, perpetually obligeing. He tels us, that Abel and Cain did offer the tythes of their fruit, and the first fruites of their land. But I read not this in Scripture: I finde it said Gen. 4:3, 4. that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, and Abel of the firsilings of his flock, but no more: no word of Tithes, nor of First fruites.
7. He moveth another Objection, after his owne minde; as if we said, that Swearing by the name of God is a moral duty, because it is mentioned with God's essential and moral worshipe: But what he meaneth by essential worshipe, I know not; nor know I, who useth that terme. This argument I shall thus urge: If swearing by the name of God be not only urged, together with other acts of moral worship; but also as a comprehensive part of moral worshipe, and as further exegitical and explicative of other parts of moral worshipe mentioned; then it must be a part of morall worshipe: But the former is true. Therefore, &c. The Major, I suppose, needeth no proofe. The Minor is clear Deut. 6: vers. 13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt sweare by his name: And Deut. 10:20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy good, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and sweare by his name. In both which places, we see, it is not only attended before and after with precepts purely moral; nor only joyned in the same verse, with duties purely moral; but, as the other duties, mentioned in the same verse, are truely comprehensive of that moral obedience that is due to God; so is this, and each one of these commands contribute to explicate the other; so that all are but various expressions of that one duty, of owneing the true God, for their only God, conforme to the first commandement. Adde to these passages Ier. 3:4. where it is pressed as a comprehensive duty of all moral obedience, as being the manifest declaration of their true Repentance and Turning unto God, and of their putting away all abominations out of God's sight, vers. 1. If thou will return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me; and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove: And thou shalt swear, the Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness, &c. So Ier. 12: vers. 14. to the end, where the Lord is offering salvation to the Nations about, upon condition, that they will performe this comprehensive duty, and shall learne to sweare by my name, saith the Lord, the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people; but if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up, and destroy that nation. Adde Psal. 63:11. The King shall rejoyce in God, and every one that sweareth by him shall glory. Let the Quaker now see, if his answers will suite this argument, thus proposed.
8. Another of our Arguments he mentioneth, in the fift place, which is this, as I shall forme it: If that which Christ forbiddeth, be of the Devil, then he forbiddeth not the swearing by the name of God: But the former is true, from the words of the text, for whatsoever is more then these cometh of evil, vers. 37. or of that evil one foreign out of that evil one, who is exercised in all wickedness. See Beza on the place. The Consequence of the Major is clear; for swearing by the name of God, was once commanded of God; but God never commanded that, which did flow from the Devil: Nor can it be said, with any face of reason, that any of the ceremonial Lawes, were of that evil one, or cometh of evil. How then can this man say, that this which Christ saith, cometh of evil, was a ceremonial Law, enjoyned by God? What replyeth he? Some things, saith he, are good because commanded, and evil because forbidden, and some things are commanded because good, and forbidden because evil: Thus cerem…nials are good, as long as commanded, and evil when forbidden under the Gospel, Ans. (1.) But to me, there is nothing good morally, but what is commanded, and as commanded; and no duty of man can be said to be commanded because morally good, 'antecedent to the command of the great Law-giver, whose good will and pleasure is the ground of all morality among men. (2.) Though the observation of prohibited ceremonies, be evil under the Gospel; Yet we cannot say, that they are or ever were of that evil One, or come of evil. Here he tels us Pag. 356. That oathes did prefigure God's truth and fidelity. Ans. That which is prefigured, is something to come; then it seemeth God under the Law, was not true and faithful; for these attributes were but prefigured to exist in the dayes of the Gospel: Is not this Blasphemy? He would do well to retract this, otherwayes his errour is worse, then he is a war of. He giveth us another morality of oaths, viz. Testification of truth, which was before all oathes, and will abide, when all oathes are away. Answ. This is indeed the proper end and use of oathes, to testify to truth: But what he meaneth, when he saith, it is its morality, I must waite till he explaine himself. As long sayes he, as men abide true, there is no necessity of oaths: and for this he citeth some words of Polybius and Grotius and others. But what then? This would rather plead for the necessary continuance of oathes, because men are not true enough: And knoweth he not, that good civil Lawes may be occasioned by evil manners? Knoweth he not, that by reason of the fall, many things became moral natural, secundarily, that were not primarily natural? And why may not oathes come in among these? He giveth us an Argument, thus, That which was not from the beginning, nor had any use in the beginning, that had not its rise from the will of God, but from the work of the Devil, being caused of evil. viz. of infidelity, lies and deceit, and was chiefly invented by men, as a remedy of this evil, in which they did invocate the names of their idols, and which was granted to the Israelits as children, that they might abstaine from the heathens Oaths Ier. 12:16. is no moral and eternal command. But such a thing is an Oath. Answ. This is, I confess, a very ill favoured argument: For the assumption is pregnant with blasphemy, and that upon his owne grounds; for he said before, that this swearing by the Name of God was a ceremonial command of God: Now is it not blasphemy to say, that any of the ceremonial Lawes of God had not their rise from the will of God; but from the work of the Devil? Is it truth to say, that any of Gods commands, especially such, as belong to the Gospel, as all ceremonies do, are chiefly invented by men? Faith in Jesus Christ was not from the beginning, nor was of any use in the beginning, and was occasioned only by the fall; is it true therefore, that i… had not its rise from the will of God, but from the work of the Devil, and was chiefly invented by man? (2.) If swearing be such a thing, it must be intrinsecally evil: how cometh it then, that we hear sometimes of Gods swearing? What, would God do that, or any thing like that, which had its rise from the Devil? (3.) Many things became moral, yea natural, after the fall, which were not necessary from the beginning; these are called moral natural secundarily; and yet had their rise from the will of God; and not from the work of the Devil, as covering our nakedness, which this man will grant, unless he be an Adamit too. (4.) Infidelity, lies and deceit, among men after the fall, might be an occasion of a law, and the law be good, necessary and immutable for all that, and be no invention of man, but the command of the great God. (5.) It is not proved…, that the Lord commanded the Israelites to swear by his name, because they were children, far lesse, to bring them off the useing of Heathens Oaths; the place Ier. 12:16. evinceth the contrary, viz. That God would have the heathens learning to swear by the Name of the true God.
9. A Sixt Argument of ours, he proposeth Pag. 357. thus, God hath sworne, therefore to swear is good: And indeed this doth manifestly evince, that to swear is not intrinsecally evil, nor floweth not from the work of the Devil; nor was principally invented by Man: and the Scripture bringeth God frequently in swearing Gen. 50:24. Exod. 13:5, 11. & 33:1. Numb. 14.16, 23, 30. & 32:10, 11. Deut. 1:8. & 8:35. Iosh. 5:6. Psal. 95:11. & 110:4. Heb. 6:17. & 7:21, 22. For answere he tels us out of Athanasius, That God cannot swear properly, because he sweareth not by another, but by himself. Answ. And this is very true; But yet the Scripture saying that he sweareth, and expressing his Counsels and determinations, as confirmed by an Oath, to assure us of the Truth and Immutability thereof, confirmeth what we say, to wit, that it is not simply unlawful, and to be condemned. God cannot properly Repent, and yet he is said to Repent, and this hath a moral instruction to us. God hath not properly bowels of pity and commiseration, and yet what is spoken of the moving of his bowels, sheweth that our pity and commiseration is not simply sinful, but good and lawful in some cases. A Seventh Argum. is this, Christ did swear. Out of what Author, he hath this, I know not: of Christs swearing I read not; but of that earnest asseveration Verily Verily, I read often: And if our Quaker will so strickly interpret these words of Christ, whatsoever is more then these, to wit, then yea and nay, cometh of evil, as he doth; he must also condemne these asseverations; for they are more, then yea and no? And that same asseveration may be construed for an Oath, if we consider Heb. 6.13, 14, But he answereth, That though Christ did swear, yet it will not follow. that we may; because he was under the Law, w… under the Gospel. Answ. (1) It is not proven, that this belongeth to, or is any part of the Ceremonial Law. (2.) Christ did abrogate that Ceremonial Law, as our Quaker thinketh, in that sermon of his upon the mount; and if it was then abrogate, it could not oblige him thereafer. (3.) This agreeth not with Hierom's answere, which he addeth, but rather contradicteth it; for Hierom draweth his answer from his being Lord, and under no Law.
10. An Eight Argument we use, which is better founded, and that is taken from the practice of the Apostle Paul, who several times, in weighty maters, and at necessary occasions, did use solemne Oaths and Attestations Rom. 1: v. 9. God is my witness. & 9:1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness, in the holy Ghost. 2 Cor. 1:23. moreover I call God for a record on my soul. & 11:10. as the truth of Christ is in me. Gal. 1:20. Now the things, which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Phil. 1:8. for God is my record. 1 Thes. 2:10. ye are witnesses & God also: To all which he answereth three things 1 That these are not Oaths, & that they refused not to give such Attestations themselves; but were urged to give more, (sais he) an Oath with the ceremony of laying the hand upon, or kissing the book, of lifting up the hand or the fingers, and adding this forme, so help me God. Answ. To these agreeth the definition of an Oath; to wit, a solemne callin… of God to witness, and to judge according to the truth or falshood of what is said. And whereas he saith, that they would not refuse this, but oft used such; but would not adde the outward ceremony required; he sheweth, how easily they can straine at a gnat, and swallow a camel, as the Scribes and Pharisees did Mat. 23: v. 24. As if Abrahams servant would have sworne willingly by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, but would have scrupled at the putting of his hand under Abrahams thigh Gen. 24:2, 3. who seeth not what a childish vanity this is? Yet I will not plead for any ceremony, that may justly give offence. But (2.) Must he not grant, that even this much is more then yea and nay, and consequently cometh of evil? Was this much from the beginning? Was it of any use, in the beginning? Was it not caused of the evil of infidelity &c? And was it not therefore the work of the Devil? and was it not invented of men, for a cure of infidelity and deceite? How then can he defend it according to his own principles? It seemeth the Quakers may do, what we may not. He answereth 2. That this contradicteth our opinion; for Paul was not here swearing before a Magistrat. Answ. Nor do we adduce this instance to prove that; but only to prove, that all swearing under the New Testam. is not unlawful: will he say, that Christ Mat. 5. speaketh only of Oaths taken before Magistrates? Or that such only were a part of the Ceremonial Law? He must then restrick these words of Christ and of Iames, sweare not at all, to Oaths imposed by Magistrates, contrare to his own fore-mentioned glosses. What difference is there betwixt our solemne calling God to witness to a particular, of our own accord, when necessity and the urgency of the matter presseth to it, and doing this at the command or desire of the Magistrate, for ending of a controversie? I should think, that if I may do it, of my owne accord, I may much more do it, when called thereto by a Magistrate. But his 3. Answer will cut the knot, The question is not, what Paul or Peter did, but what their and our Lord taught, saith he. Answere, Then Paul must be a transgressour, and that oftener then once or twice: But I suppose, in writing of his Epistles, he was acted immediatly by the Spirit of God: and I shall not readily think, that the Spirit would have acted him so frequently to have transgressed Christs express command, swear not at all, if our Quakers exposition be genuine. Augustine, Lib. de mendacio ad Consentium Chap. 15. learneth from this practice of Paul, how to interpret Christs Words, Iuravit. ipse Apostolus, in Epistolis suis, & sic ostendit quomodo accipiendum esset, quod dictum est, dico vobis, non jurate omvino—sed quia praecepti violati reum Paulum, praesertim in Epistolis conscriptis, atque editis ad spiritualem vitam, salutemque populorum, nofas est dicere. Intelligendum est illud, quod positum est, omnino, ad hoc positum, ut quantum in te est, nox affectes, non ames, non quasi pro bono cum aliqua delectatione appetas jusjurandum.
11. To that Prophecy of the dayes of the New Test. Esai 65:16.—he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of truth; he answereth, That it was usual with the Prophets, to express the great duties of the Gospel times, in Mosaick termes as Ier. 31:38, 39, 40. Ezech. 36:25. & 40. Esa. 45:23. And what the Prophet here speaketh of swearing, Paul interpreteth it of confessing, Rom. 14:11. Answ. That the Prophets use this way, I confess: But see no ground for this from Ier. 31:38. &c. where the Prophet is foretelling the rebuilding of I…rusalem, which was accomplished in the dayes of Nehemiah. And that Ezech. 36:25. is but a poor ground: Nor doth that place Esai 45:23. give any countenance unto this, though the Apostle Rom. 14:11. useth another word for swearing, which is but exegitical thereof, and the same upon the mater. The only doubt remaineth, whether swearing was properly ceremonial, or not; which the Apostles frequent practice, mentioned in the preceeding argument, and other arguments mentioned and to be mentioned, evince not to have been ceremonial: And there is more ground to make the bowing of the knee ceremonial, then swearing by the name of the Lord.
12. In the tenth place he mentioneth that argument, taken from Heb. 6:16. For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife: he answereth Pag. 359. That Paul only sheweth, what men, in those dayes of controversie, were wont to do; but not what they should have done; nor what the Saints did. Answ. This being a practice, not of any one age, or people, but of all ages and people; whereby a principal end of swearing, to wit, the ending of a controversie, and the right manner of going about it, to wit, in swearing by the greater, is held forth; and this being brought-in hereas an argument from the less to the more; as if the Apostle had said, if we believe a man, who by nature is a liar, when he sweareth, and confirmeth what he saith by attesting God; how much more ought we to believe God, who is truth it self, when he sweareth by himself, having no greater to swear by, sheweth the lawfulness and usefulness of this practice: So that if this had been or were, in it self, a thing …imply evil, the Apostles argument would want its due force; and cause men question, if ever G…d did or would swear; it being such a sinful and an abominable thing, …roceeding from the Devil: And so the whole argument and conclusion of the Apostle should be annulled, and the maine pillar of our assurance and hope s…aken. And though this differeth from these instances, 1 Cor. 9: ver ▪ 24. and Luk. 14: vers 31. which he adduceth to invalidate this; Yet neither can he prove, that these are simply sinful and unlawful, in all cases.
13. As for the argument he proposeth next, I owne it not; and so am less concerned in his answere: Only I would know, what he meaneth by that expression, a Christian, whom God hath called unto his essential verity, may no way swear? What meaneth he by this essential verity? And was not Paul called thereunto, whatever it be? How came it then, that he did swear some way? Were not the holy men of old called unto this essential verity? how came it then, that they did also sweare? Such as Abraham Gen. 21:24. Iacob. Gen 31:53. Ioseph. Gen: 47:35. Moses Iosh. 14:9. David 1 Sam. 20:3. & 24:22 Ionathan 1 Sam. 20:16. Eliah. 1 King. 17:1. Gedaliah. 2 King. 25:24. Asa. 2 Chron. 15:14. Obadiah. 1 King. 18:10. & Elisha. 2 King 2:6? Are not Angels called unto this essential verity? How came it then that they did swear Dan. 12:17. Revel. 10:5, 6? He citeth some passages of some heathens Pag. 360. who would not swear: And what can this prove? And what will Pythagoras prohibition evince? Or Socrates his requireing that mens words should be firmer than oaths? Or Plato's appearing against it? These and the like may be good arguments for him, whose Religion is but Paganish; but have no force with us? though I grant, these and the like may shame Christians, who regard even oathes so little. He hath Pag. 361. a number of bare citations of places of some Fathers and Others, without giving us their words; any, who hath these books, may peruse them, and see what they say: All that I shall say is this. Though it be true, that many of the Fathers, did in this assent to Pelagius; yet the more common opinion was, that Christians might in some cases lawfully sweare, which they grounded upon the practice of Paul: See Vossius Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. par. 2. Antith. 1. Pag. 513. &c. And let the Reader peruse the citations he hath there adduced, and he will see, that some of this Quakers citations, and Authors, are against himself; such, as Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, Polycarp, and others. The primitive Christians would not swear, it is true, neither by the Genius, nor by the fortune of the Emperious: See Tertul. Apol. Cap. 31. and from this some might gather, that they would not swear at all: which was certainly a mistake. And we read, that the Primitive Christians did sweare to be faithful to the Emperour, as Vossius sheweth out of Vegetius lib 2. Cap. 5. & Arnobius lib. 4. see also Dio in M. Antonino; Tertul. de Cor. mil. c. 1. Eusebii histor. lib, 5. c. 5. He sheweth also how they used to sweare by the Eucharist, out of Eusebii Histor. lib. 6. Chap. 35, The last argument, which he mentioneth, is not worth the naming, and so I leave it.
14. For a Conclusion to this, let us take notice, that Augustine was only labouring to keep oft unnecessary oathes; and would have one and other shuning what they could the giving of oathes: But would not simply condemne the taking or giving of oathes, in weighty maters, even under the Gospel: And therefore speaking upon that sermon of Christ, on the mount; and having mentioned the expressions of Paul, formerly spoken of, he addeth. Ita intelligitur, praecepisse Deum, ne Iuretur; ne quisquam sicut bonum, appetat jusjurandum, & assiduitate jurandi, ad perjurium per consuetudinem delabatur. Quapropter qui intelligit, non in bonis, sed necessariis jurationem habendam; refrenet se quantum potest, ut non eâ u…atur, nisi necessitate; cum videt, pigros esse homines ad credendum, quod ets utile est credere, nisi juratione firmetur.