Legi Concionem hanc, dignam, que censui, quae publicâ Luce donetur.  
Datum, Episcopo-Thorpae, juxta Eboracum, Jun. 29. 1665. Edm. Diggle, S. T. P. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri, ac Domino, Domino Richardo Archiepiscopo Ebor●censi à Sacris Domesticis.   

A SERMON Preached at CARLISLE, Aug. 17. 1664.  
By A. Smalwood. D. D.  
YORK, Printed by Stephen Bulkley, 1665.   

To the Honourable and Loyal Sir Philip Musgrave Knight and Baronet, Mayor of the City, and Governor of the Garrison of Carlisle; and the rest of the Noble Gentlemen of the County of Cumberland, the Candid Auditors of this Sermon, the humble Author wisheth all happiness.  
IT pleased some of you to put me first upon preaching, than upon Printing this Sermon: I have obeyed your Commands, you have your desire: may God have the glory, the people the benefit, and the contentment will redound to  
Your humble Servant A. SMALWOOD.   

To the READER.  
THE Reverend Judges of the Circuit desired that the Sermon should be ended by ten a Clock, in respect of the multiplicity of their occasions. Whereupon I was enforced to omit much of what was prepared, and somewhat was also added during the time it lay by me. But whatsoever was not than uttered in the Pulpit, is marked in the margin by ' or halfmoons: The rest is the Sermon Verbatim, as it was spoken, without any change, addition or diminution. Besides, after it was preached, some of the Gentlemen that desired it might he sent to the Press, furnished me with some Papers (some printed, some written) by such persons as were of contrary Judgement: upon those as often as I found them offering any Reason against what I have here inserted, I have bestowed some Marginal Annotation or other referred to the place whereto it relates, by some of these Characters * † ‡ etc. In all that I have here spoken or writ, I have proceeded sincerely and according to the dictates of my Conscience, and am persuaded that there is nothing laid down, but what is perfectly consonant to Truth, Reason, and Religion: and if any thing can be discovered herein to be otherwise, I shall willingly retract it, freely submiting mine opinions to the Doctrine and Judgement of the Church of England. Of my Readers I shall desire nothing, but that they peruse this Sermon and Notes with impartial and unbiased affections, and an earnest desire to found out the Truth, and submit to it. Let them weigh seriously what here they found, and the Lord give them right judgement in all things. If aught seem obscure, I shall be willing to clear it, and if any rational objection be made, I shall be ready to give them satisfaction: but shall not put myself upon the trouble to take notice of any lose discourse wherein I found many Words and little Matter.   
St. Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all. 
THe peculiar favour God had for his people Israel, was evidenced in that He vouchsafed to be their Legislator, not only as to the Moral Law, writ with his own Finger; but also in Ordaining them political Ordinances (which Divines call the Judicial Law) far transcending 
Dent 4. 8,  those of other Nations. And because the most wholesome Statutes, not put in execution, are to no more purpose than a Sword rusted in the Scabbard. He therefore that they might be observed duly, and Justice administered equally, appointed Judges. Ever blessed be God 
Deut. 16. 18.  that we are not defective in either particular, having to enliven our Laws, (and it is now near 500 years since that Institution) Justices itinerant, that like so many Samuels, 
1 Sam 7. 16.  Judge our Israel in their several Circuits. Whose Authority, though as to the designation of their Persons, & extent of their Power it be delegated to them by Commission from his sacred Majesty; yet their Office is from Heaven: Ego dixi dii estis; 
Psal. 1● 6.  God himself calls them Gods, that is, by substitution from him, to mind them, that they should act according to his good pleasure in the dispensation of impartial Justice: which notwithstanding cannot be effected, unless Truth in the Causes brought before them; be made to appear by the Information of Witnesses; whose Testimonies, that they may with greater security be relied upon are to be given in upon Oath. And so it seems it was in the Apostles days, and before: Else he could not have said, (as he does) An Oath for confirmation 
Heb. 6. 16.  is to men an end of all strife: Whereupon, it may seem strange, that I have chosen a Text, which in appearance, so flatly opposes the ground of Legal proceed, But I say unto you, Swear not at all.  

Sect. 2.  
To clear mine intentions, you may please to take notice, that there are two sorts of men that do violence to my Text. The one winds it up to too high a note, as though our Saviour had thereby absolutely forbidden all kind of Swearing whatsoever: This error, as far as I can trace it in Antiquity, had its rise from that Saint in show, but indeed grand Heretic Pelagtus: For I found a Letter from one Hilary, written it seems from Syracuse (and therefore, as it is certain, that it was not that famous Father and Bishop of Poitiers, who goes under the name of St. Hilary, for he was dead above 20. years before St. Austin was Baptised; but Hilary afterwards 
Epist 88 & 89.  Bishop of Arles) to St. Austin concerning this matter, above 1200. years ago; for as for Polycarpus St. John's Scholar, and by him ordained 
Voss. Mist. Pelag. lib. 5. Part. 2. Antith. 1.  Bishop of Smyrna, he refused not Swearing in general, but that Oath that was tendered him, to wit, by the fortune of Caesar. And Basilides, 
Suseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 4. 6. 15.  a Martyr not 40. years after, denied also to Swear; but that was Moore Ethnico per Deos Gentiles (say the Centurists) after the fashion 
Gent. 3. cap. 6.  of the Heathen, and by their Gods: Which may be confirmed by that of Tertullian, 
Apel. cap. ●2.  who lived at the same time, when Basilidey suffered, Sed & juramus sient non per Genios Caesarem, it a per salutem eorum, quae est angustior omnibus Geniis: They would Swear not by the Genii of their Emperors (which they esteemed Devils,) but by their safety, that is, by God, from whom cometh health and salvation; A notable monument of the judgement, and practice of the Primitive Christians concerning Swearing. But not to digress, This Error revived in St. Bernard's time, about 500 years since, in the Province of Th●louse in France, in a Sect of fanatics that were called Henricians, from one Henricus their Master, and Apostolicks, because they pretended that they lived according to the Apostles Doctrine: Against whom St. Bernard Preached in his 65th. Sermon upon the Canticles, and complained of that Henry to Hildefonse Earl of St. Giles, in his 240. Epistle, wherein he mentions, That the Bishop of Hostia in Italy was sent from the Apostolic Sea, to root out the Tares, which that Heretic had sown in God's Vineyard. Which not withstanding, the Albigenses, or Albienses, as some term them, in the same Province, no doubt, sprung from the same root, who denied all manner of Swearing; but were refuted publicly, in the year 1176 (as says Spendanus in his epitome of Baronius) by the Archbishop of Lions, and their opinions, and particularly this against Swearing, were condemned in a Provincial Synod; as themselves were also, not long after, in the third Council of Lateran, of 280. or (as Gulielmus Tyrius, who was there present, says) of 300. Bishops under Alexander the third. But (alas) notwithstanding all these endeavours for the suppression of this Error, it was resuscitated by Wicliss, and his followers; & again amongst us, during our late distractions, When 
Judg. 21. ●1.  there was no King, in Israel: but every man did what was right in his own eyes. Which error, though masked under the fair colour of a more than ordinary piety, tends to the overthrowing of all Judicatories, and taking away the decision of all emergent suits, and controversies. And were it granted, we should be necessitated, if not to disown the Magistrates Authority, yet to disobey their Legal commands, as having a countermand from Christ himself, I say unto you, Swear not at all.   

Sect. 3.  
The other sort are men of Atheistical Principles, such as have no fear of God before their Eyes, who in despite of my Text, dare Swear, not only commonly, rashly, profanely; but falsely, and that upon set purpose, and with deliberation, whereby innocent persons may be bereft of their lives, and any man of his just Estate. The former go disguised in the habit of Angels of light: but these, admit not possibly of any disguise, but walk in their proper colours, as black as outer darkness. And yet these are more ancient than those; for I found the Prophet complaining of such, Though 
Jer. 5. 2.  they say, the Lord liveth, they Swear falsely: The former would abolish Judicial proceed, and make them nothing: These would corrupt them, and tender them (if possible) worse than nothing. To induce the former to relinquish so irrational an opinion; and the latter to forsake so criminal a practice, that God may be glorified, our Judgements rectified, our lives amended, our Estates secured, and just obedience to the King and his Laws performed, was my design in the choice of these words.   

Sect. 4.  
And these, I hope, by God's blessing may be effected; The Explication of my Text, will serve for the one: And the Application for the other. And when I have, by the assistance of Heaven, and your Noble Patience posted over these two Stages, I shall not longer entrench upon your weighty occasions. I begin with the former, The Explication of the Words. And here, be pleased to give me leave to proceed, First, Negatively, And secondly, Affirmatively. Negatively, what is not the purport of these words. And Affirmatively, what it is. For the former, I lay down this Proposition, Our Saviour did not intent by these Words, Swear not at all, an absolute, universal, an● unlimited Prohibition of all manner of Swearing; And that I prove:   

Sect. 5.  
First, It is a Principle of the Christian Faith, that the Father and the Son are one, and the same God; that is, of the same Nature, Power, Wisdom, Immutubility, and Eternity: To deny this, were horrid blasphemy. Now, if they be of the same Wisdom, they are of the same Will; and if they be of the same Will, they cannot issue forth contrary Commands, for so there should be a contraricty, or a mutability in their Wills, and consequently, they should not be one, and the same immutable God; But God the Father, has 
* Maste● Crook, Mr. Fisher, Morgan, VVa●kins, (of I understand them) and others, I take it, do confess, That Swearing was on to commanded by God; but deny that that Command was part of the Moral Law, because that than, swearing should be performed as a duty continually though no Magistrate require it, which, it seems, they think to be very absurd. But I conceive it to be no absurdity to follow Truth whither so ever it leads, and doubt not at all but that a man aught to swear, not continually; (for affirmative Precepts hind semper, but not ad semper: as a man ●● obliged to hear Sermons, but not continually: for so, be should do nothing else,) but whensoever there is a necessity for an Oath: which may hap, not only when it is imposed by a Magistrate, but whensoever he cannot otherwise do that good to his Neighbour that Charity requires. And the neglect thereof ●●sire of Omission. in not doing his Brother that good Office that lawfully be night and therefore aught to have done. And this sin is aggravated: if the lawful Magistrates (to whose just, and Legal Commands, by God's Law, we are to yield Obedience) require an Oath of him to testify the Truth, and he refuse it. For thereby he withdraws his due subjection from ●is Superiors, and as much as in him is, abstracts the course of Justice, and (in some cases) hinders the preservation of h●● Neighbours Person, or Estate. And les any man judge, whether these be not grievous sins, To say there be many that swear rashly, and prophantly in their ordinary discourse, is (alas) too true, but impertivent. For Vertus is placed in the medium, betwixt two extremes (on either hand one) which both are (more or lesle) vicious. And therefore to say, there be too many covetam people in the World, is no excuse for a Prodigal. In like s●r●, to say there be too many lewd Swearers, neither excuses, nor extenuates his faul●, that will not Swear when he aught Let these the●● whom it concerns, not suffer themselves henceforth to be deluded, nor plunge themselves into a certain sin, whilst they pretend to a degree of Piety above others, jest they be i●relled in the Catalogue of those foolish people mentioned by the Pe●t, who— 
Dum vitant vitia, in contraria current.   commanded swearing, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt Swear by his name, Deut. 6. 13. And therefore it is not possible that God the Son should forbidden it.   

Sect. 6.  
At quid verba audio, cum facta videam? says not the Text, Swear not at all? I answer, That where there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a seeming contradiction in Scripture, (which cannot possibly be real, the whole Scripture being exactly true) there by some commodious Interpretation, the places are so to be expounded, as to admit of a fair reconciliation one with another. As when we read, Sacrifice and Offering, 
Ps●. 40. 6.  thou didst not desire; we cannot understand it, (how plain soever it appears) as to the Words at the first view seem to import; because it is clear, That God required Sacrifices and Offerings in the levitical Law, which was in force in the Psalmists days. So we, cannot understand our Saviour's words in the Text, in that latitude, that some interpret them, as generally prohibitive of all Swearing, seeing God has required it not lesle, than he did his own Service and Worship in the Moral Law.   

Sect. 7.  
If any allege in contradiction to this Argument, That Christ abolished the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws once commanded by God, (though Objections be no Answers) I must deny that Assertion. For we were never under the Judicial Law, it being given solely to the Jews, for the regulation of their Commonwealth, so long as they enjoyed it, and that in their own Land; 
Deut. 4. 14.  and therefore, it was never obligatory to us, that neither are Jews, nor ever dwelled in Canaan: And what was never imposed, need not be abolished.   

Sect. 8.  
As for the Ceremonial Law, it was merely temporary, as appears by the Sacrifices typifying the death of Christ to come, and therefore ceased of itself at our Saviour's Death, and was not at all 
* If to the contrary, That of the Apostle, Eph. 2. 15. be objected: I answer, That Christ may be said to have abolished the Ceremonial Law, not by repealing it, but by dying; at whose death it expired. So the High Priest dying, might be said to free the Man-flayer from his Confinement, (which during his life, he could n●t, either by disannulling, or dispeasing with the Law, Numb. 35.) because at the High Priests death, the Man slayer had liberty to live at horn securely, who by the Law was confined to some City of Refuge, until the High Priests death.  abrougated, but observed by him in his life. So when a Parliament Enacts, That a Law shall continued in force for seven years, and no longer; at the end of that term (though during that season, it obliges as much as any other) it ceases of itself, and is not properly said to be repealed, but expired. In like manner, our blessed Saviour, cannot be properly said to have repealed the Ceremonial Law Enacted by his Father; but is expired of itself. The greatest human wisdom may think fit to Enact a Law, which after, upon some emergent, and unforeseen inconveniences, may with Reason be Repealed. But it is not so with the unerring Wisdom of God, who foresees all things passable, ab Aeterno. Hence I may Conclude, Seeing God the Father has Commanded Swearing, that God the Son has not forbidden it.   

Sect. 9  
Secondly, Because some, without any colour of Reason, or possibility of proof, pretend that Swearing was only 
* Mr. Fisher takes Swearing for a Ceremony. And of that mind are many of that Sect. Yet. John Wigon in his Paper, directed from Eancaster Castle, to Judge Twisden, would rather place it amongst the Judicials, Ex. 22. 10.  a Ceremonial Rite; (whereas on the contrary, God himself ranks it with his fear, and service, Deut. 10. 20. which certainly are Moral.) I argue thus, What at all times, as well under the Gospel, as under the Law, as well amongst the Gentiles, as the Jews, tends in an especial manner to the Glory of God, that is neither a Ceremonial Ordinance, nor forbidden by Christ. But 
* Swearing so much conduces to God's glory, that it is an owning of him in his several Attributes; so ●hat he that Swears by any object, implicitly acknolwedges it for a Deity. Whereupon, that old Father Lactaentius, de falsa sapientia, sect. 19 accuses Socrates of madness, Qui per canem & ansere● dejerabat; because, Animal curpissimum pro Deo habuit. Indeed Swearing tends so much to the glory of God, that Sim-na kavod laihovah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Give God the Glory, was one of the Forms (ac Grotius says on Mat. 26. 63.) which the Jewish Magistrates used, when they required an Oath of any Person brought before them, because the Act of swearing, is an expression and acknowledgement of the Power, Wisdom, and Providence of God. And he brings in two Scripture instances, Iosh. 7. 19 and john 9 24. which to the intelligent, and considerative Reader may strongly evidence the profound knowledge, and ●aga●ity much above the rate of common Enpositors) of that admirable ●a●: The former pla●e is read by the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which seems to me to bear this sense, Give Glory to God, etc. and make thy Confession in his presence, (our Translation read i● unto him) and tell me, etc. The acknowledgement of his sin to God, is plainly differenced, from his ●●●ing it to joshua. Besides, it is observabi●, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Englished Confession, is a Verbal of that same word, whereby the ●●. first, and after them St. Paul, Rom. 24. 11. renders the Prophet's word, tish●bang, shall swear, Isay 45. 23. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, must needs signify the same, if the one be a true Translation of the other. So also jer. 44. 26. where our English has it, Behold I have sworn by my great Name, I found it in Greek, (cited by Conrade. Kircher, in his Concordance of the Old Testament, in the word nishbang) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appears than that both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (if the word nishbang be rightly rendered by them) do sometimes signify to swear. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for ●● Oath by justin Martyr in his second Apology for Christians: as appears by the Context. And so johannes Long●● there Translates it. And if so, why there may not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denote, a Confession upon Oath? Add hereto, that Masius on the place tells us. That in Origens Greek Bible (made up of the 70●s and Theodotion's Translation) in this verse, after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Particle ●● was inserted. Quae (says he) vim quandam u●gendi habet, ut scripfit Vir doctissimus Theodorus Gaza. And for that other Text, of john 9 24. it is not very probable, that when the Phariseas were dissatisfied with the account, the quendam blind man had given them, how he had obtained his sight, his re-examination should be upon Oath; Nor can I conceive what other so fit sense can be given of what they said, Give God the praise: Let the Reader consider and judge.  such is Swearing, and therefore it cannot be thought to be prohibited. Such, I say, is Swearing; For he that Swears by Gad for the confirmation of an unknown Truth, acknowledges his Omnisciency, in discerning whether he speak truly, or no; and his Power in being able; and his Justice, in being willing, to punish such as Swear falsely. And does not the acknowledgement of God's Wisdom, (in discerning, the secrets of all hearts) and his Sovereign Power, and Impartial Justice in the Punishment of Offenders, tend much to the Glory of God? And that as well now under the Gospel, as it did before under the Law? Nay, it is a part of ●●at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God's peculiar service, that is incommunicable to any Creature. Hence that prohibition to Swear by Creatures, because thereby, we should yield to them that Honour, that is due to God alone. The Glory of God, is the end of our Creation. And therefore, what ever highly advances that, must needs be good, and consiquently, liable to no prohibition. Surely Christ, who Honours his Father, and 
joh. 8. ●9. joh. 6. ●●.  who came from Heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him, would not, did not prohibit what God had so clearly expressed to be his will, and what so eminently conduces to his Glory.   

Sect. 10.  
Thirdly, If Christ's purpose here, be utterly to abolish Swearing, as an illegitimate Brat of Jewish extraction, not to be admitted into the Christian Church; than it must be, either as it is 
† This is Rodolphus Gualtheru● 's Argument, open Heb. 6. Non prohibet Deus ●a, quae landem illius non mi●u●nt, 〈◊〉 o●sunt proxime, ergo non juramentum prohibet.  repugnant to our Duty to God; or else to our Neighbour; for into that Summary, he has contracted the whole Law. And I freely confess, That Perjury is in both respects exceeding culpable, as highly tending to the dishonour of the God of Truth, who is called thereby to the attestation of a lie, and to the injury of men, who thereby may loose their lives, livelihoods, or what else is dearest to them in this World: Perjurium peccatum esse, & grande peccatum 
●erm. 28. de Verbis Apost.  nemo dubitat, says Saint Austin. And I grant likewise, That frequent, and customary Oaths, upon slight, or (possibly) no occasion, are both extremely derogatory to the Majesty of that infinite, and incomprehensible Essence, to whom all Knees must bow, and whom we are not to name without Internal Reverence, and Adoration; and also in great measure scandalous to such as hear them. Many of the Fathers Preached so 
* St. chrysostom Preached 21. Sermo●● ad Populum Antiochenum, yet extant: and in 17. of them, which follow immediately one after another, (one only excepted) he in●●ight more, or less, (●●d in some of them very largely) against this sin of swearing.  often, and with so much vehemency against this vicious Custom, that they fell under suspicion of disallowing all Swearing: And St. Austin punished every such Oath in those of his own Family by the forfeiture of some part of their wont 
‡ S. Saint chrysostom Hom, 5. prescribes the like Artidote against swearing. If any (says he) does perceive himself, his Wife, Childrens or Servants addicted to that 〈◊〉, let him male them go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Supperless to Bed, as often as they offend.  Ordinary, (as Possidonius records in his life) the sooner to withdraw them from that profaneness. Hence it cannot be denied, but these Oaths may, and aught to be restrained as offensive, and insolent breaches of our duty both to God and Man. But such Oaths as are adadvisedly, and reverently taken upon necessary occasions, are so far from being displeasing to God, or hurtful to Men; that on the contrary, they are acceptable to the one, and advantageous to the other: Nihil 
Enarrat. in Ps. 131.  gratius Deo possumus offer, quam jure jurare, says St. Austin. And by them Princes are secured of their Subjects Allegiance, and Generals of their Soldiers fidelity, and Subjects assured that their Princes shall not degenerate into Tyrants; Leagues confirmed between Nations; Peace conserved; Mutual Commerce and Trading confirmed, every Man's just Right maintained; Offenders discovered, and duly punished; and Controversies and Suits decided. And these are such great, and good ends, that Men cannot subsist in any degree of security, or happiness without them. Hereupon Julian the Apostate, the most subtle Enemy that ever Christianity had, Skoffed at this Precept, Swear not at all, (being willing to understand it in the utmost latitude) as destructive to all Government, and human Societies, which unless we would verify (as I see not but we must, if we expound the words as Julian did) we shall be enforced to profess that false and vain (but not at all necessary) Oaths, were here prohibited.   

Sect. 11  
I may add, Swearing by Creatures, it being Idolatry to ascribe that honour to them, that is peculiarly due to the Creator. But the disannulling of such Oaths, as are taken by such things as are no Gods, does not restrain, but rather confirm the use of those that are lawfully taken by God. And therefore, as Swearing by false Gods, is forbidden, 
Iosh. 2●. 7.  jest thereby, they should be owned for Deities. So Swearing by the true God, aught not to be forbidden, because Men thereby acknowledge his Divine Nature.   

Sect. 12.  
Fourthly, Had Christ intended Universally to forbidden all kind of Oaths; it had been sufficient to have said, Swear not at all; because a General includes all Particulars; and so these following expressions, Neither by Heaven, nor by the Earth, neither by Jerusalem, neither by the Head, had been useless, as being evidently included in the general prohibition foregoing. As he that says, No Substance is a Quality, needs not add, neither Heaven, nor Earth, nor Man, nor Beast, for all these are comprehended in the word Substance; and therefore the enumeration of several Substances were altogether superfluous, and vain. But it were highly blasphemous to say, That our blessed Saviour who condemns all vain Words, did himself 
Mat. 1●. 36.  use them in his Sermon.   

Sect. 13.  
Besides, the following words were in probability added, for the illustration, or explication of the former. But had he meant, That no Oath should be used upon any occasion, these subsequent words, are so far from giving light to the preceding, that they have much obscured them. For had he said not more, but Swear not at all, it might have been thought, that he had disallowed all Oaths; whereas, his descending to this, and that Creature in particular, may rationally imply, that his purpose was only to forbidden all such Swearing, and not that which was formerly enjoined. And surely, these words, as they are laid down in the Gospel, might well be spoken without any intention to forbidden Swearing by God. For from this Proposition, Swear not at all by this, or that Creature; it cannot be Logically inferred, that we aught upon no occasion to Swear by the Creator. But on the contrary, it seems, that Christ, jest any should conceive, that he forbade all kind of Swearing; to prevent that mistake, add●, Neither by Heaven, nor by Earth, etc. thereby manifesting what kind of Oaths he would have difused.   

Sect. 14  
If any dislike this Interpretation, I would gladly know what other sense these words can import; or what the enumeration of these severals, Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, thy Head, can add to a general negative, which comprehends all them, & more: Or how can they be thought not to be superfluous, if they mean nothing, but what was plainly expressed before? The learned Calvin was of this opinion; for he says, Si ad substantium refer 
Institut l. 2. cap. 8. sect. 21.  as particulam, omnino acsi nulla exceptione illicitum esset quodvis juramentum, quorsum explicatio quae mox additur; neque per Coelum, neque per terram, etc. As wise a man as he was, (and our judicious Hooker says, He was incomparably the wisest, 
Preface to Eccle. Polit.  that ever the French Church had since) yet, it seems, he could not vindicate these words from being superfluous; unless the Word omnino were referred to them, and not to the Act of Swearing. And than the sense of this Verse in the utmost extent thereof will be no more than this; I Command you, that you shall not upon any Consideration whatever, Swear by any Creature, which is not at all exclusive of such Oaths, as God before had Commanded.  
Fifthly, Christ never forbade any thing, but what was of itself 
† Mr. Fisher in his Answer to Bishop Gauden says, That some things are Prohibita quia mala: and some things are, Mala, quia prohibita; evil to us, merely because forbidden: And of this sort (he says) are these Ceremonies, Circumcising, Sacrifices, Swearing, &c By which words, he plainly acknowledges, That Swearing, is neither in its own Nature, nor in any other respects evil, save only as it is Forbidden by Christ. But I say, That our Saviour did never universally forbidden any thing, but what was in itself evil, or in some respect conducing thereto. Which If be deny, I would gladly hear but one, instance in any particular thing whatsoever, which being of itself either good, or indifferent, was generally, and perpetually forbidden by Christ (so that it should be lawful for none afterwards to do it) as he pretends Swearing to be. If in the four Gospels, or in all the New Testament any such prohibition, be, it may easily be produced: If not, the dictate of Mr. Fishers is vain.  intrinsically evil, as may be proved by Induction; For he forbids Anger, and abusive Language, sect. 22. and they are evil, he forbids Lust, sect. 28. and that is evil; he forbids Divorce, saving for the cause of Fornication, sect. 32. And Swearing by Creatures, and they are evil. And the same Reason may be rendered of all his Prohibitions. And therefore, what ever he forbade was evil, and that in itself, and not merely as forbidden. But such Swearing in general, is not: For that hath not only been the Practice of holy Men; but also an Angel did Swear, Dan. 12. 7. And so another, (which according to many Interpreters, was Christ) Swore by him that liveth for ever, & ever Rev. 10. 6. Besides our Saviour's Amen, Amen, 24. times used in St. John's Gospel, according to the Judgement of St. Ambrose, 
In Heb. 6. Jurat enim & idem Christus in Evangelio dicens, Amen, Amen dico vobis.  (if he be the Author of that Comment upon the Hebrews, which is Printed with his Works) amounts to an Oath. So that very Learned & judicious Lutheran Chemnitius, says expressly, That Christ 
Harm: Evang. c. 51. peric, 3. in locum. So G. Biel l. 3. dist. 39 A. 2 C●ncl. 1. Amen, Amen est jurare, etc.  Swore; and proves, that Amen, is, formula jurandi, out of Heb 6. 13. 14. referring the Greek Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Hebrew, Amen; which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says our Lexicographer) Frequentissimum usum in jure jurando habet. And although an Oath be there mentioned, there is none expressed, unless that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be it. Nor is Mr. Nicholas Fuller's objection 
Miscel. l 1. c. 2.  against it of force, That there is no Oath, where God is not interposed, if by Amen, Apoc. 3. 14. These things saith the Amen, be denoted the Person of Christ, as Expositors tell us. And indeed, What else can it be? A like instance is in Isay 65. 16. for where our Translation Reads it, The God of Truth; in the Original it is, Be lohe Amen; and in the vulgar Latin, In Deo Amen, where Amen seems to be either a Name, or an Epithet of God. So also St. Hierome, In veteri Testamento, 
In Ezek. 16.  Dei juramentum est, vivo Ego, dicit Dominus in Novo autem, Amen, Amen dico vobis. And this is the opinion of our Church, as is plainly expressed in the former part of the Homily against Swearing, in these words, 
* And this is the same▪ that is asserted by Saint chrysostom in Heb 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quomodo juravit Pater ita etiam filius jurat. per se, dicens, Amen, Amen dico vobis. So Theophilact, in Heb. 6. to the very same purpose, in Amos 5.  Our Saviour Christ did Swear divers times, saying, Verily, verily. And it cannot be denied, That God himself Swore, The Lord hath Sworn, and will not repent, Ps. 110. 4. The like may be found in several places of Scripture, as St. Hierome saith, Jurantem Deum saepiùs Scriptura describit. Now since the holy Ghost bears witness, that not only the best Creatures; but also that the Creator himself sworn: It appears undeniably, That Swearing is not Morally, and of its own Nature evil. And St. Austin, upon this very ground, affirms it to be no sin, 
* This may also he further proved, because God once commanded Swearing, which therefore cannot be intrinfecally evil. Non enim peccatum praeciperetur nobis, saith Saint Austin, Serm. 28. de Verb. Apost.  Jurat Deus qui peccatum non habet; non ergo est peccatum jurare. And therefore, we must either say, That Christ forbade that which was not evil, but good, 
† A like argument migbt be form thus; Christ neve forbade any thing in itself good, as Swearing is, which has many good ends and purposes, both in respect of God and Men.  (which I think no man will) or else some other sense must be put upon these words than that which implies a total Prohibition of Swearing.  
Sect. 16. Sixthly, Either these words, Swear not at all, must be so interpreted, as not to forbidden every Oath, though taken upon a just occasion, or St. Paul never knew the meaning of this Text, or else contrary to his knowledge, and that upon set deliberation, he acted against it, and that in those very writings wherein we all believe, that he was infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost. For his Oaths are upon record, 1 Thes. 2. 5. God is witness. So Rom. 1. 9 and in several other places. 
† There is a little Pamphles extent, called, Supplementum sublatum, in answer to Mr. Tombs, by Richard Hubberthorne, in a Samuel Fisher, who deny that these expressions, I affirm before God. God is witness, etc. are Oaths, because were these Oaths, than the Apostle did Swear frequently and unnecessarily, in respect his credit was so good amongst the Saints to whom he did wri●e, that his words would have been taken at any time without an Oath. I answer, That though he swore several times, yet never unnecessarily. For had he not judged those Oaths necessary, he would not have used them. And he knew better in what credit he was with his Countrymen, than either Mr. Hubber thorn or Mr. Fisher I am sure St. Austin was not of ●ha● judgement, For he says (●erm. 28. de verbis Apost.) Videbat ibi, (that is amongst the Galations to whom he had used this expression behold before God I lie not, Gal. 1. 20) eos qui●e edebant, videbat & alios qui non credebant. Thus St. Aust●n with an undeniable, evidence of Reason. For if all had so readily believed his word, how came it to p●ss that some, even of the believers, disputed against his Doctrine? Acts 15 Or what occ●si●n bade there been for him to have written (as he does Rom. 9 1.) I say the truth in Christ, (or, by Christ) I lie not? Which translation (by Christ) Mr. Fisher in his Antidote carps at, because it is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And yet it is the same word, (as he knows, I doubt not) that is h●re translated by Heaven, by Earth, etc. Mat. 5. 34. 35. 36. But not to digress, it is not probable to be as they imagine: For were their Argument good, as there had been no need of such Oaths, so neither of such vehement Asseverations, as they themselves take these to be. And than i● would follow, that the Apostle writ what he needed not, which to assert savours of blasphemy, if we grant that be writ by inspiration from the holy Ghost. But if these be Oaths, how is it (say they) that the Judges and Justices in Sessions will not own them as so—? And than they triumph saying, Surely the Magistrate in England do not believe the Priest's Doctrine. I answer, (1.) I have heard a great Magistrate say, That such Oaths should be accepted by him. (2) I suppose that they are accepted by such as be in Authority so to do, when they are persuaded of the fidelity of the Swearer. For I have it under the hand of Mr. Isaac Pennington (one of the most considerable of that Fraternity) that he once gave satisfaction, which he heard found acceptance with the Court to which he gave it, and also to the King, etc. (3.) The same I. P. gives a Reason why that savour is not indulged to all. His own expressions are these, (Many words have been spoken by several eminent Persons (as hath been often related to me) of their belief and satisfaction in relation to our words, and a good inclination in them several times to accept thereof in stead of an Oath, if they knew but how to exclude others from the like indulgence, whom they were more jealous of. (4ly.) Inferior Magistrates (such as they speak of) are sworn to act according to Law: And the Law prescribes (as I understand) in what manner, and with what formality Oaths are to be taken, which it is not in their power to dispense with, or vary from pro arbitrio. And therefore though they firmly believe that calling God to witness is an Oath; yet they are not at liberty to accept thereof, because they are tied up to Rules of Law. And of this me thinks Mr. H. and Mr. F. should not be ignorant, and if they were not, than this Quaere were needless. Lastly, they argue thus, If to say God knows, or God is witness, as in appeal to God's contestation be Swearing by God; than to say such a man knows, or such a man is witness to the truth of what I say as an appeal to that man's contestation is Swearing by that man And than they cry out upon such an absurdity. 'Tis strange that men of Parts, and Reason should be so deluded. They mightst well have argued, That if a Man may lawfully marry a Woman, than a Man may lawfully marry a Beast. I say as well. For as the Essence of lawful Matrimony consists in the mutual agreement betwixt a Man and a Woman; and not betwixt a Man and a Beast: so the Essence of a lawful Oath consists in calling God to wi●ness, not in calling Man to witness. I beseech God to open their eyes, that they may discern into what absurdities they fall, whilst they v●●●ly dream of putting absurdities upon others.  Now to call God to witness, is the very substance of an Oath. Jurat (saith Saint Austin) qui adhibet testem Deum. And again, Hoc est jurare, Deum testuri. And in several passages of his Books, he condemns their ridiculous folly that thinks otherwise: Were it to any purpose, I could produce more than 
‡ Cicer●, Est jus jurandum affirmatio religiosa. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Juramentum est confessio definitiva cum divina assumptione. Ambrose ad Valentin. Ep. 30. Quid est jurare nisi eju● quem testare fidei tuae praesule, divinam potentiam confiteri? Et in Praefar. in Luc. Dominus Naturae fidei testis adhibe●ur. So Saint chrysostom Hom. 9 in Act for Swearing uses this Periphrasis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Deum vocabant testem, Austin in Psalm. 109. Enarrat. Quid ergo tu facis cum jurat? Testaris Deum. Hoc est jurare Deum testari. And in his former Book de Sermone Domini in monte and else where to the same purpose. Cyril. Alex de Adorat. in Spirit. & ver. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Quod fi haec loquendi forma est, & non ab aliquo contemnatur, tum denique juris jurandi usus ad id revocetur, quod est nobis, imò verò univers● creaturâ majus. Cassiodorus in Psal. 14 Jurare est sub attestatione divinâ aliquid polliceri. Eu●hym. Zygabon. in eundem. Juramentum nihil aliud est quàm dictorum confirmatio in quâ testem assumimus Deum Tho Aquin. 28. ●ae. Q. 89. A. 1. Conclus. Assumere Deum in testem dicitur jurare. And Q. 98. A. 2. Concl. Jurare est Deum testem in vocare. P. Lumb●●d. l 3. dist. 39 In omni juratione aut Deus testis adhibetur, aut creatura Deo obligatur, & oppigneratur, ut hoc sit jurare ●sc. Deum testem adhibere, etc. G Biel. l. 3. dist. 39 Q 1. A. 1. brings in several definitions thereof to this purpose. So King Henry the 8ths' necessary Doctrine Published, 1543. on the 3d, Command. They Swear in vain that Swear without lawful or just cause, for that they take the Name of God in vain, although the thing they Swear be true. Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 8. §. 23. Est (juramentum) Dei attestatio a● veritatem Sermonis nostri confirmandam. M. Chemnitius (in locis, de lege Dei) Juramentum est invocatio nominis Dei, qua petimus ut Deus sit testis de nostro animo, quod non velimus fallere homines in eâ re de qua asseveramus, & simul petimus ut Deus sit vindex, si fefelierimus: & nos ipso reste ad poenam obligamus secundum ipsius comminati●nem. And again, Harm. Evang. c. 51, Peric. 3. Est juramentum contestatio, seu invocatio Dei, qua petimus ut Deus qui est inspector cordium, & patronus veritatis sit testis de animo nostro quod non velimus fallere, & simul, netimus ut sit vinde● si fe●ellerimus. M. Bonacina in adum Decalogi Praeceptum, (as they count them) Q. 1. Juramentum est invocatio divini nominis in testimonium. Tilemannus Heshurius in Examine Theologico, Dedicated to the Duke of Sexony, 1586. Loc. 15. Juramentum est adseveratio alicujus rei nobis perspectae cum invocatione veri Dei, ut sit testis dictorum, & judex seve●●●● innocentem, & veracem clementer desendat: perjurum vero fallentem & nomine divino abutentem puniat, & cocrceat. Pareus in Mat. 5. 34. Juramentum est invocatio Dei, qua petitur, ut is tanquam unicus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, testimonium det Veritati, & jurantem puniat, si sciens fallat. Which definition be borrowed of Ursin. Q. 102. of his Catechism. And upon Rom. 9 1. he says it is, Species invocationis Dei, & pars culcus divini: (and than to take that away, is to bereave God of a part of his worship and service.) The right Reverend and Learned Bishop Sanderson, de juram. Prael. 1. § 2. Juramentum est Actus religiosus in quo ad confirmandam rem dubiam Deus testis invocatur. I. Wollebius Compend. Theol. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6 can. 6. Objectum juramenti per quod jurandum sol●s Deus est. H. G●otius de jure B●lli & Pac. l. 2. c. 13. § 10. Forma juris jurandi verbis differt, re convenit. Hunc enim sensum habere debet, ut Deus invocetur, etc. It is said in the first part of the Homily against Swearing, set out by the authority of our Church, Saint Paul Sweareth thus, I call God to witness. Wilson in his Christian Dictionary thus expounds what it is to Swear, sc. To use the name of God in an Oath to witness some matter in controversy for the ending of strife. The Author of that most excellent Treatise, entitled, The whole duty of Man, pag. 101. §. 4. In all Oaths you know God is solemnly called to witness the truth of that which is spoken. Corn. à Lapide in Rom. 14. 11. Est juramentum vera, ac aperta ejus Dei professio, quem ut testem, & perjuril vindicem appellamus, etc. The Learned Mich. Walther in his Harm. Bib. Deut. 6. 13. Est jusjurandum non solum vinculum— sed etiam invocatio veri Dei qua Deum testem citamus vera nos dicere, seu asseverationem nostram esse veracem, & petimus ut severè nos puniat, si mentiamur; Lorinus in Ps. 118. 106. Paulus scribers— Testis est mihi Deus, censetur jurasse. And in Ps. 62. 12. Derivantes aliqui nomen illud Dei, Eloah vel elohim obalah, quod est jurare sive affirmando, sive execrando colligunt in omni juramento nomen Dei aliquo modo includi. So N. Fuller, Missel. l. 1. c. 2. In jurisjurandi Religione semper interponit Deu● & testis, & judex. So the learned Dr. Prideaux late Bishop of Worcester, than Divinity Professor in Oxford, Cons. 5. de Relig. Juram. sect. 12. Inter plurimas juramenti definitiones quae occurrunt passim apud plurimos caete●is haec videtur accuratior, & contactior. Juramentum est asseveratio religiosa de re possibili & licita cum veri Dei invocatione facta, qua petimus ut sittestis dictorum, & fallentes puniat. And Illiricus in his Clavis Script. Jurare praeter suam propriam fignificationem quae est Deum in testem vocare alicujus dicti, aut Sententiae. So Athanasius in his Apoligy to the Emperor Constantius. We speak (says he) in the presence of God. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Oath we Christians use. And Rodolphus Gualtherus in his Comment upon the Hebrews, cap. 6. says, That an Oath is Contestatio summi Numinis quod omnia intuetur. Philo Judaeus (as Grotius has it upon Heb. 6. 15.) calls an Oath, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the testimony of God in a doubtful business. The learned Vossius, Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. part 2. Juramentum est actio qua Deus sive simpliciter sive cum piecatione aliqua intestem eorum invocatur quae asseuntur, aut promittuntur. So Peter Martyr, in Gen 21. 24. says, That an Oath is, Confirmatio voluntatis testimonio Dei, vel divinarum rerum. Nor do I believe that ever any not interested Person was otherwise m●nd●●. Ipsi Ethnici (says Bishop Sanderson, Prael. 5. sect 7) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad juramenti essentiam pertinere docuerunt. And therefore he that says, That Swearing is forbidden, but means not that which all the world calls so, is like to him that would undertake to prove, that Snow is not white▪ but meant not that which is commonly named Snow, but some other meteor.  twenty Authors of the same Judgement. Nor indeed have I seen, or read of any of the contrary opinion, except some fanatics, who would they yield the substance, and with St. Paul, call God to witness of the Truth of their Assertions, it might be wished out of condescension to their weakness that they might be dispensed withal (if the Law would give leave) as to the external formalities of an Oath.   

Sect. 17  
But not to digress; If any be still of that conceit, notwithstanding the contrary Judgement of all the world, that no man Swears unless be say by God; I would demand what they mean, when they say, By God this is true, or that is false? Is it any more, than I call God to witness, or than So help me God? And if these forms of speech be all aequivolent, than if one be an Oath, why be not the other? If there be any difference, it may well be thought that these last are more certain expressions of an Oath than the first. They cannot well be used to any other purpose, but the first may, 
‡ So Saint Austin, Serm. 28. de verbis Apostoli. Ut noveritis verum jurare non esse peccatum, invenimus & Apostolum Paulum jurasse, Q●otidiè morio● per vestram Gloriam fratres, etc. Per vestram Gloriam juratio est, non enim sic ait: Per vestram Gloriam m●riot, quasi vestra Gloria me fecit mori: quomodo si diceret, ●er venenum mortuus est, per gladium mortuus est, per Bestiam mortuus est, per inimicum mortuous est, id faciente in mico, faciente gladio, faciente veneno, & fimilia: non sic d●xit, Per v●stram Gloriam. Ambiguitatem Graecus Sermo dissolvit. Incipitur in Epistola Graeca, & invenitur ibi juratio●●e non est ambigua, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ubi dixerit Graeous, jurat— Ergo, nemo dubitet jura●se Apostolum Paulum, cum dixit, Per v●ltram Gloriam, fratres,  Per non semper significatio juramenti est: nam si dicam per puerum misi, non statim per puerum jurasse putabor, said Sedutius. The 
In 1 Cor. 15. 31. & Hierom ibidem.  Particle by, is not always a note of Swearing, but of a medium or instrumental cause whereby any thing is effected, as in this Prayer, By thy Cross and Passion, good Lord deliver us; which some rather maliciously, than ignorantly would mistake for an Oath. When the Israelites craved passage through Edom, they said, We will go by the King's 
Num 20. 17.  highway. Can any imagine that they swore by the Way? It is said, Thou 
Ps. 77. 20  leadest thy people like a Flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron. Will any say that the Psalmist Swore by the hand of Moses and Aaron that God led his people? So, There is no King saved 
Psal. 33. 16.  by the multitude of an Host. Does the Prophet there swear, by the multitude of an host, that no King is saved? I should abuse both your time, and patience, and seem to distrust your Judgements, should I give you more instances, which might in a great number, and variety, be produced to show, that the word by doth not always import an Oath, as the former expression, I call God to witness perpetually; and, So help me God most commonly does. These generally are Oaths; but so is not the other. And therefore if any difference be put betwixt them, the scale will go down on this side, for these may more certainly be reputed Oaths than the other, which is often liable to various, and doubtful construction. The truth is, That the substance of an Oath consists in the attestation of God, by what terms soever it be expressed. And therefore, Non audiendi sunt (says St. 
In Epist. ad Galat.  Austin) qui has jurationes esse non putare. Nor have I found any before this present Age that does deny it, and some in express terms declare it. So P. Lombard, Juravit Apostolos, dicens, 
Lib 3. Dist. 39  Testis est mihi Deus; ac si dixisset, Per Deum ita est. And St. Austin long before 
Serm. 28, de verbis Apost. So Saunder son Praelect. 5. sect. 6. Per Deum est— propriè juramentum, & qui sic loquitur, Deum inducit testem.  him, Si dicas, per Deum juras; Si dicas, Testis est Deus, non juras? Quid est enim, Per Deum, nisi Testis est Deus? Aut quid est, Testis est Deus; nisi, Per Deum?   

Sect. 18.  
I know there is a generation of people, Quo● non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, who will have by, and nothing else to be the formality of an Oath. Were that true, than that which God himself expresses to be an Oath, Jer. 4. 2. & 5. 2. The Lord liveth was none, because there is not the particle by. And again, were that true, it could not be denied but that St. Paul swore, 1 Cor. 15. 31. by your rejoicing. And indeed, there want not Interpreters that so expound it. The Syriack Translator renders it Jure per gloriam vestram. And seven. the original word in that place, is as ordinarily a note of swearing in Greek, as by is in English. Hence Saint Austin writing to Hillarius, 
Epist. 89. Serm. 28. de verb. Apost.  draws an argument for the lawfulness of Swearing. And again more clearly, Per vestram gloriam juratio est. Notwithstanding they that affirm the particle by to be the only and peculiar mark and characteristical expression of an Oath, will not I believe allow it to denote one in this place. And therefore I shall not insist further upon it.   

Sect. 19  
However the Apostle swears by Christ, Rom. 9 1. so the Syriack, and Athiopick Translators; as also Piscator, Beza, Pareus, and Hentenius the Translator of Oecumenius, read it, Per Christum. And the Fathers, St. Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophilact, 
In locum.  and Oecumenius say, that the Apostle here brings in Christ for a witness, which is Swearing. And 
* Gualterus jusjurancum inter ponit piscator. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●d est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, formula jurantis. Pareus, Jurejurando fimula●i doloris suspitlonem averrit— docet— Christianis non esse illicitum jurejurando Veritatem confirmare in rebu● gravibus, Gloriam Dei, & salutem proximi concernentibus, ubi alioqui fides verbis non haberetur. A Lapide, Jure per Christum me verum dic●re. Grotius— sus●itionem— à se amoletur. & qu dem jurejurando abhibito per Christum, quod non minoris ha eri debet in novo scedere, quàm jurament in veteri scedere per Deum fact●.  modern Expositors, both Romish and reform, as many as I had opportunity to consult with, do unanimously agreed, That this is an Oath, and hence conclude the lawfulness of Swearing And further this preposition 
† So Sal●● Mat. 23. 16. 18. 20, 21, 22. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the formula jurandi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the temple, by the gold, by the altar, by heaven, by the throne of God. Si verborum vis, & genuinus sensus penitium introspiciatur, nullum erit discrimen inter praepositiones per, & in fi ad eundem rem applicentur. Sanderson Praelect. 5. sect. 7.  ●here used is the very same that is used in St. Mat. 5. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Heaven, sect. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Earth, sect. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Head. And therefore why not here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Christ? And thus is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the 7 tie. Dan. 12. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per viventem, swore by him that liveth for ever. So Jer. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, swore by them that are no Gods. And Ephes. 4. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Obtester per Dominum, so the Arabic, and  Translators, and Beza. 
‡ 1 Cor. 12. 3, 9, 13. & 14. 6. 1 Joh. 2. 3. Mat. 23. 16. 2. Cor. 6. 6. 7. & 10. 15. Gal. 2. 17, 20. & 3. 11. Ephes. 2. 13, 18. & 3. 5. 21. & 4. 14, 21, 30. & 5. 26. Phil. 4. 19 Col 1. 16, 17, 21. 1 Thes. 3. 3. & 4. 1. 15. 2 Thes. 3. 16. 1 Tim. 1. 18. Mat. 17. 21. 1 Pet. 5. 10.  And many times in the New Testament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by, 1 Cor. 6. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. by you. And fitly 
* As Ephes. 2. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 22. 2 Cor. 7. 8. Gal. 3. 14. & 2. 4.  it might be so Englished in several other places. It appears by what has been said, that both the use of the word, and the sense of the place concur in evidencing, that the Apostle swore, especially it being a synonymon to beth, which amongst the Hebrews is, nota jurantis, as appears, Gen. 22. 16. by nishbangtis, By my self have I Sworn. And Josh. 2. 12. Jurate mihi per Dominum, baihovah, Swear unto me by the Lord. This Argument St. 
In Epist. ad Galat.  Austin afforded me, Nam utique Apostolus noverat praeceptum Domini, & juravit tamen. Hence than we must either lay the imputation of Ignorance, or wickedness upon that great Apostle; or else understand these words, Swear not at all, (as doubtless he did) in a limited sense.   

Sect. 20.  
Seventhly. If some swearing be enjoined in the third Command, than all swearing is not forbidden by Christ in these words, Swear not at all, because he came not to destroy the Law. But some swearing is there enjoined, or else the Law written by the Finger of God in Tables of Stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection, which to assert were not lesle blasphemous in itself, than conrrary to the Psalmists profession, to wit, That the 
Ps. 19 7.  Law of the Lord is perfect. The Consequence, that God's not enjoining some swearing, implies some imperfection in the Law, as it was delivered upon Mount Sinai; I thus show, Whatsoever is perfect is defective in nothing; Perfectum est cui nihil deest. If than the Law summarily contained in the Decalogue, be perfect, it must command every practical duty, and prohibit every vice; which is impossible, being contracted into so short an Epitome, unless we admit of those Rules which Divines have been necessitated in order to the maintaining the perfection of the Law, to make for an extensive Interpretation of these synecdochical precepts.  
And if we admit of them, it follows, That God commanded some swearing, for one of them is this: Every negative precept commands the contrary virtue. By this general Rule, (which either must pass without exception, or else we cannot defend the perfection of the Law) it follows from the sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill, that we are obliged (quantum in nobis est) to preserve our Neighbours, and to do all charitable offices to them: So from the seventh, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, that we should live in Chastity and Temperance, etc. And so from the third, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, it follows by this Rule, that thou 
† The prohibition of an abuse implies the permission of the due use of any thing. And that Maxim, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis, holds no lesle in Reason than in Law.  shalt take the Name of the Lord thy God (that is, thou shalt swear) whensoever an Oath is not vain, and that Oath is not vain, but necessary, which is required by a lawful Magistrate for the glory of God, the preservation of his Majesty, the peace of the Nation, the manifestation of Truth, the just punishment of Offenders, the security of men's Lives and Estates, or the decision of Controversies; which last the Apostle mentions, Heb. 6. 16. And seeing there be controversies amongst men now, as well as there were than, and so are like to be to the ending of the world, and that it is necessary that they be decided for the preservation of Peace and Concord; and seeing an Oath is a Medium that conduces as much to that purpose now, as it did formerly, it is clear that there must be the same necessity thereof now, that there was than. All these are necessary ends, but not atteinable, at lest not so well, by any expedient yet put in practice, as by interposition of Oaths, which as they were enjoined by God in the third Commandment, not lesle than Charity in the sixth; so it cannot reasonably be believed, that our blessed Saviour would forbidden them being of such important use for the safety of Empires, Kingdoms, and Commonwealths, and the lives, means, and well-being of the generality of Mankind, and that only of his own mere good pleasure.  
And that puts me in mind of another Argument. For,   

Sect. 21  
Eightly. Our blessed Saviour did never any thing without some ground, or evidence of 
† That of which no Reason can be given, is not a Moral Precept, Dr. Taylor in his Ductor Dubitantive, Book 2. Chapt. 2. Rule 5. Ject. 66.  Reason. But no Reason can be showed why all manner of swearing should be forbidden. Indeed swearing by Creatures, without respect to the Creator, is therefore unlawful, (as hath been already mentioned, sect. 11.) because thereby we ascribe that Glory to them, that is incommunicably due to God. And swearing by God falsely, is abominable, because thereby we make him (as much as in us is) guilty of our lie. So swearing truly by God in trivial matters, is also to be disallowed, because it is dishonourable to that high Majesty to be called to witness for a trifle. Likewise customary Oaths in ordinary communication, are therefore not without cause forbidden, in respect that thereby men get such a habit of swearing, that Oaths with them are but words of course, and formalities of Speech, they very often (as experience shows) neither knowing, nor regarding what, or when they swear, which highly tends to the dishonour of Almighty God, whose Holy and Reverend Name aught never to bementioned without inward Reverence and fear. Besides, frequent swearing is an occasion of frequent perjury, and absolutely voids the end of an Oath, which is the assurance, and confirmation of truth. For men that constantly swear are not in Reason to be better believed for their swearing. But none of all these, nor any other the like inconveniences that I can imagine can be objected against swearing in a due manner, and upon a just and necessary occasion. And therefore we may well believe, that such swearing was neither here, nor any where else forbidden.   

Sect. 22  
It is objected, That Oaths may justly fall under prohibition, as idle and unnecessary, because they neither do, nor can serve to any good purpose. For a good man will speak truth though he be not sworn; and a wicked man will not be restrained from lying by the Religion of an Oath. I answer, (first,) That were this dilemma granted, it would infer only the no-necessity of an Oath, but not the unlawfulness thereof, which is the point in question. (Secondly,) The Fathers that (as far as we 
Chrysost. Hom. 15. ad pop. Antioch. & Hom. 9 in Act.  know) were the first that thus argued, are to be understood of rash, and customary, not useful, or imposed Oaths, intending thereby to break that profane custom of ordinary swearing in common discourse. Thirdly, Upon supposal that some are so exact observers of Truth, as never to lie upon any occasion; and others so desperately wicked, that they dare on set purpose swear a known untruth; yet it cannot reasonably be thought that the generality of men are to be ranked in either of these Classes. For it has been observed, that some who have not much scrupled to tell a lie, notwithstanding have refused to swear it, making more conscience of the one, than of the other. And amongst all such, (and they may well be supposed to be the greatest part of mankind) an Oath is a fit expedient for discovery of Truth, or obliging them to the performance of a duty. Fourthly, Even amongst those good men that will never lie, some perhaps may think themselves not obliged to discover voluntarily an hidden truth, especially if it ten● to the prejudice of themselves, or some whom they favour. And there are not a few that hold, Mendaciu● Officiosum, to be but a venial sin. And as to such, an Oath is not vain, or useless, but necessary for the discovery of the truth. And therefore this can be no Reason why such Oaths should be forbidden.   

Sect. 23  
Ninthly, Either these words, Swear not at all, must not be extended to a total prohibition of swearing, or else Christ thereby gave a new moral Command; for all men grant, that before, Swearing was either commanded, or permitted, not forbidden. But Christ gave no new 
‡ Isidoru● Pelusiota in an Epistle to Timotheus Lector, (l●b. 1. Ep. 107.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nullain ●dog●matum novitatem Dei filius legi, ac Prophesis induxit. And there is reason for it. For if our Saviour gave a new Precept, than the Moral Law before it was supplied by that Precept was defective, and imperfect, or else that new Precepts was superfluous. But that David denies, Psal. 19 7.  Moral Command. For that had been contrary to Gods expressed will, Deut. 4. 2. You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, and would also have argued the imperfection thereof. Besides, he ordained no new Law in the matter of the sixth and seventh Commandments; but only reproved the erroneous Tenants, or vicious manners of the Jews. To manifest which assertion, you may take notice that he reduces the Decalogue into a duologue, Mat. 22. 37. & 39 Love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself. But both these (whereupon says Christ, hung all the Law, and the Prophets, sect. 40.) were of old. The former is expressed, Deut. 6. 5. The latter verbatim, Levit. 19 18. 
† So Saint Austin, l. 19 c. 28. contra Faustum Manichaeum, Itaque vel omnia, vel penè omnia, quae moquin, seu praecepit, ubi adjungebar; Ego autem dico vobis, inveniuntur & in illis veteribus libris. And there be gives sundry particular instances. And Christophorus Pelargus in his Evangelicall Questions ●● Mat. ●5. part. ult. Q. 1. says, Omnia quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loco, & quasi supplemento hic recitantur, in Lege & Prophetic priùs comprehensa apparent; whereof he also gives several instances.  And further, Christ reproved nothing, but what had been disallowed before. He forbids Anger; but for that God had of old rebuked Cain, Gen. 4. 6. He prohibits reviling, sect. 22. But that had God formerly declared against as punishable, Zeph. 2. 8, 9 He disallows hatred, sect. 43. 44. But that was unlawful before, Leu. 19 17. He forbids Lust, sect. 28. And that was likewise prohibited of old, Ex. 20. 17. Thou shalt not covet. 
Prov. 6. 25. Joh 31. 1.  Whence St. Paul (which else he had not) understood Lust to be a sin, Rom. 7. 7. And shall we think that our Saviour, who vindicated the other Commandments from the lewd depravations of men, has abrogated this only, as though it had not been framed by the same wisdom, and enacted by the same God, or that in lieu thereof he instituted a novel Precept never heard of formerly? Whatever we do, St. Austin did not: For he says, 
Tract. 3. in Joh. cap. 1.  Legite vetus Testamentum, & videte quia carnali ad huc populo ea quidem praecipiebantur, quae nobis. If to the contrary any urge the clause, But I say unto you; I reply, that as it denoted not a new Commandment, sect. 22. & 28. not more does it now, but only our Saviour's opposition, not against God's Law, but the Pharisaical 
‡ Observandum est quod Christus sequence suam senten●iam non Legi Dei opponat, sed corruptelis; quas Pharisai ex prava & perversa Legis Dei interpretatione in Ecclesiam invexerant, Chemnit in locum If any her●●● oppose the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by them of old time, § 33. and thence conjecture that thereby Moses and the Prophets are meant. I reply, That that word does not always denote great antiquity: For we found it used, Acts 15. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ab antiquis diebus, which in our last Translation, and others, is Englished, a good while ago, intimating, that it was no very long time before. And our Commentators understand it, to be lesle than twenty years. Pareus on the place speeks to the same purpose; Antiquos autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christus non intelligit Patres, vel Mosen, sed majores Pharisaeorum tam falsae doctrin●e Authores. And this may be added in confirmation thereof, that when out Saviour had disallowed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, sect. 20. he immediately adds sect. 21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, etc. What them, but the Scribes and Pharisees next before mentioned? For against than righteousness he disputes, not against the righteousness of Moses, and the Fathers. The learned Ma●donat with other Jesuits, the Anabaptists and Socini●● contend earnestly for the contrary opinion; alleging, the Christ named expressly the Commandments themselves, Thou shalt not Kill, sect. 21. Thou shalt not commit Adultery, sect. 27. and thereto opposed his, But I say unto you, § 2●. & 28. To this i● may be replied, that Christ did not only mention, Thou shalt not kill, but further, that whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of Judgement: which words are not to be found in the Law of Moses, though spoken (●● our saviour says) by them of old time, And therefore it was not against the Law, but against the depravation thereof by those Ancients that Christ opposed. Another like instanct may be produced, sect. 43. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, (which is found Levit. 19 18.) and hate thine enemy; But that is no where extant in the Law, and appears to be a corrupt addition destructive to the former member of this Sentence, For the hatred of this or that man, under the ●●●ion of an enemy, is inconsistent with the love of our neighbour, Hence it may appear that Christ did oppose his, But I say unto you, to the Pharisaical innovations, not to the Divine Ordinances; or if to the Law, not as it was given by God (for it was exactly perfect) or expounded in the Old Testament, (for so it fully agrees with Christ's Doctrine in the New) but as depraved by the corrupt Glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. Do we make voided the Law through Faith? (says Saint Paul, Rom. 3. 31.) God forbidden! yea we establish the Law.  misinterpretations thereof, against which it is as reasonable to interpret this place as the former. And if so, than did not Christ by these words, Swear not at all, promulgate a new Law, nor consequently forbidden such Oaths as were lawful, or enjoined before.   

Sect. 24  
Tenthly, If the High Priest charged our Saviour to swear, and he without exception thereto answered upon Oath, as acknowledging his Authority over him (as he did pilate's, Joh. 19 11.) and that some years after he had said, Swear not at all; than from thence follows, that when the Magistrate imposes an Oath, the persons charged to swear, may lawfully answer upon Oath, as Christ himself did, notwithstanding this seeming prohibition, Swear not at all; and consequently, that all swearing was not forbidden in these words. But the high Priest did charge 
The same kind of adjuration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Irenaeus calls an Oath, as it is cited in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 19 or (according to the Greek) 20.  our Saviour to swear, Mat. 26. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 juramentum) I adjure thee, that is, I command thee to Swear; or (as it is in Tompsons' Translation of Beza's new Testament dedicated to Sir Fran: Walsingham) I charge thee Swear unto us. So the word is used by the Septuagint, Gen. 24. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thereby giving the sense of ashbignacah, faciam te jurare. And sect. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My Master made me swear. So Gen. 50. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, My Father made me swear. The like use of the word is found, sect. 6. & 25. and in 
* Ex. 13. 19 Josh. 6 26. 1 Sam. 27. 28. 1 Kings 2. 42. 8●. 2●. 16. 2 Kings 1. 4. 2 C●●o●. 18. 15. & 36. 13. Ez. 10. 5. Nehem. 15. 12. 1 Esd. 8. ult.  many other places, And though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes in Scripture, or perhaps in the Septuagint be rendered charge, yet so is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither, when an answer is to be given, nor unless in matter of fact, when somewhat is required to be done. No● does either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive case follows after it (as it does here) signify any other thing any any where in these holy writings than to adjure, or make to swear. So than, the high Priest enjoined Christ to answer upon Oath, whereto happily he might be warranted from 
‡ De testibu● Lex ●●tat, Levit, 5. 1. ubi o●ini obnoxius. produnciatur testis, qui verum sub●ice● post quam ●udicrit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quol alah. Grotius in Mat 26. 63. And there be mentions two of the forms which the Magistrates were want to use when they caused any to ●●ear. One whereof ●● this which the high Priest used ●● Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Leu. 5. 1. and he accordingly who before held his peace, in reverence it seems of his heavenly Father by whom he was adjured, and in preservation of the Magistrates Authority, and perhaps in obedience to the Law, Leu. 5. 1. answered directly (as every man aught that speaks upon Oath) and acknowledged the whole Truth; which surely he would not have done, but rather have reproved the high Priest, had he enjoined him what was unlawful.   

Sect. 25  
I confess that some pretend, that Christ here by these words, Thou hast said, 
Fisher's Antidote.  did rather wave than give any positive answer. But that is a groundless conceit. For it consisted not with the ingenuity, and honour of our Saviour (who is the faithful Witness, Rev. 1. 5. and who came into the World to bear witness to the Truth, John 18. 37.) not to have afferted that Truth in his utmost danger, which was necessary for the salvation of mankind, and which before when he was in safety, he had plainly professed to the Samaritan woman, John 4. 26. I would demand whether one of us brought before some Heathen Tyrant, and examined whether he were a Christian, or not, might lawfully by obscure, or ambiguous words elude the question. If so, the Martyrs were indiscreet in not so doing. If not, it were not fit to impute that to the Master, which would misbecome the Disciple. Besides, the Apostle testifies of Christ Jesus, That before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a good Confession, 1 Tim. 6. 13. And what was that, but only that he was the King of the Jews, the expected Messiah, and Saviour of the World? To put the matter beyond all dispute, St. Mark (14. 62.) relates plainly, that Christ's answer was, I am. And therefore that in St. Matthew, must be the same in sense, unless we would make the one Evangelist differ from the other. And thus the high Priest apprehended it, when he rend his clotheses, and cried blasphemy, Mat. 26. 65. 
† That the Phrase, Thou hast said, imply: a grant, and concession of the demand, appears by our Saviour's answer to Judas' question Mat. 26. §. 25. So here, a● Plyricus upon St. John 18 37. (cited by the learned Mr. Gataker in the 19th. Chapter of his Adversari● Miscellanea) Phrasi quadam Hebraeae Linguae propriâ modestè confi●●tur se esse Regem. For, Tu di●isti may well be understood, Re●●●u tetigisti, Thou ●ast ●●; So 'tis; Thou hast his the ●ail on the head.  And doubtless he understood well enough what Christ's answer was, though it appear not so intelligible to us, who are not so versed in the idiotismes of the Language the Jews than used) otherwise he had been very rash in renting his clotheses he knew not why.   

Sect. 26  
To reply, that Christ swore not (though Caiphas had adjured him) because he said not I swear, is vain. For an examinat is to answer the Magistrate both in matter, and form, according to what is proposed to him. It was enough that he denied not to swear, which assuredly, had it been unlawful, he would have done. He that came to teach all Truth, would not so have deluded the people there present, as to seem to speak upon Oath, when he intended it not; and by his example taught them dissimulation. Qui tacet consentire videtur. And let any one judge, whether (upon supposition that all swearing is unlawful) this had not been at lest (which the Apostle forbids; 1 Thes. 5. 22.) an appearance of evil. If it be demanded, whether (had the high Priest asked the blessed Jesus forty Questions touching the same matter, without reiterating his Adjuration) he was still to answer upon Oath; mine opinion is, That he was. Nor is that to multiply unnecessary Oaths, for one and the same Oath puts an obligation upon the party examined to speak the whole, and the sole Truth in all Interrogatories touching that matter concerning which he was sworn.   

Sect. 27  
To allege, that Christ swore not, becausé he laid not his hand on 
† That Ceremony i● ancient. For it appears by St. chrysostom, Hom. 19 ad pop. Antioch. That the Gospel-Book was holden out to those that were to take an Oath in that time. And that is above 1250. years since.  a Book, or kissed it, is to trifle. For the Essence of swearing, is in calling God to witness: the lifting up of the hand, or the laying it on a Bible, are but extrinsecall formalities, and tender an Oath more solemn, not more obligatory. The Question is concerning swearing itself, and not the Ceremonies thereof. Nor is it pretended, that those Accidental Rites in taking an Oath were prohibited in these words, Swear not at all.   

Sect. 28  
And for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Anabaptists last evasion, That swearing was lawful until our Saviour's death, and than abolished as a Ceremonial Ordinance: it is not true; and if it were, it yielded the Question. First, It is not true. For swearing duly performed, is (as hath been Sect. said) a part of God's peculiar worship, an acknowledgement of the infinite Wisdom, Power, Goodness, and Justice of God; and therefore incommunicable to any Creature, or false God. Whereupon it is equally commanded, with the fear and service of God, Deut. 6. 13. & 10. 20. and consequently obliges equally at all times, not lesle now under the Gospel, than it did formerly in time of the Law. Nor has it in its substance an, 
† It is evident that Oaths were anciently reputed more obligatory than the Sanctions of the Ceremonial Law, and consequently were to be referred properly to the Moral Law. The Author of the Questions and Answers in the Works of Justin Martyr in Resp. ad Quest. 27. says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Moses for the greater obserservance of the Oath (in carrying Joseph's bones out of Egypt) violated the lesle forcible Obligation of the Ceremonial Law; which denounced a Legal impurity in all those that that touched any dead body, Numb. 19 11. or a man's bone, or a g●ave, § 16.  Type at all. Circumcision, the Passover, the levitical Obligations, and the other Ceremonies of the old Law, had no Moral goodness in them (as swearing has) but were mere Shadows of things future, and therefore ceased of themselves, which cannot with any colour of probability be said of swearing, that conduceth now as much to the honour of God as ever it did. And why might not that command, Zech. 8. 16. Speak ye every man the Truth to his Neighbour (which without all peradventure is Moral) as well be counted Typical, (as relating to Christ the everlasting Truth) and consequently now antiquated, as swearing performed in a due manner, which was a more immediate service of God than the other? For Christ is essentially the Truth; John 14. 6. and saving Truth came by him, John 1. 17. But he is improperly called the Oath of God.   

Sect. 29  
But were it so indeed, that Oaths were Ceremonial, than it follows, that Christ in this Text did not forbidden them, for he did not forbidden the Ceremonial Law, but observed it all his life, eating the Passeover with his Disciples the Night before his death; unless perhaps some would interpret his words thus; I command you that you do not swear, yet am willing that this command shall not oblige you at present: For I am content that for a year or two you may swear by Heaven or Earth as you have been accustomed; but after my Crucifixion, and Resurrection, swear not more. He that thus dares expound these words, may also at his pleasure Paraphrase in the like manner upon the 28. sect. You are not to look lustfully upon a Woman, for that is Adultery of the heart, which for the present indeed I permit you to do: but after my Passion do it not. If this Interpretation be worthily deemed absurd; so likewise is the other. And therefore let these that disallow swearing as a part of the Ceremonial Law, and consequently now antiquated, argue not more the unlawfulness thereof from these words, Swear not at all.   

Sect. 30  
11thly. No Exposition of this Text, or any other, is to be admitted that puts an inconsistency betwixt the Old Testament and the New, both being inspired 
2 Tim. 3. 16 2 Pet. 1. 21. Contra adversarium Legis. & Pr●phetarum, c. 16. & 17.  by the same God; So St. Austin, Testamenti utriusque unus est Deus: And again, Deus Author est amborum Testamentorum. And hence he infers the 
† Contra Adimantum c. 4. Unde clarescat benè intellie entibus utriusque Testamenti man festa concordia. And cap. 7. Ex quo facile apparet— utrumque Testamentum convenire, arque congruere, tanquam ab uno Deo utrumque conscriptum, &c, And cap. 19 Haec isti si aut legerent, aut non impie legerent, vielerent omnia in utriusque Testamenti Scriptures— si●i concordantia, & suis gradibus ordinata. And contra Faustum, lib. 10. cap. 3. Omnia quae in vetere scripta sunt, nos & vera esse dicimus, & divinitus mandata, & congruis temporibus distributa. And contra Adimanium cap. 3. Quod isti si conside are vellent— omnia cam in veteri, quam in no●o Testamento uno Sancto Spiritu conscripta & commendata esse sentirent.  perfect Harmony, and Concordance betwixt the two Testaments, as proceeding from one and the same God, who is uncapable of fashood, or alteration. Whereupon if we be not so Atheistical as to deny the veracity, or immutability of the most High, (Tit. 1. 2.) it must be granted, that his Word is of eternal Truth, (Jam. 1. 17.) His Promises are Yea, and Amen; His predictions 
2 Cor. 1. 20 Mat. 26. 24. ●4 & Luk. 24. 25, 26, 27  must needs be accomplished, His Precepts are more unalterable than the Laws of the Medes and Persians' Nor did our Saviour come to destroy, but to fulfil 
Mat. 5. 17. L●k. 16. 17.  them who affirms that it is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass than one tittle of the Law to fail. Whereupon he enjoins obedience to the 
Mat. 2●. 2. 3.  commands of the Pharisees, as sitting in Moses Chair: Quo loco (says St. Austin) 
Contr. Adimantum, c. 16  Authoritatem legis quae per Moysen data est, codfirmat Dominus. From all which pasages it is apparent that the Old Testament is so far from being contradicted, that it is fully confirmed in the New. 
* So the s●me Father refuting an Heretic, that disclaimed the Authority of the Law, and the Prophets (contra adversarie Legis & Prophetarun, l. 2. c. 2.) Nec iste adversus lucem, vocemque Dominicam, vel Apostolicam tam caecus & surdus est, ut ignoret quemadmodum à Christo, & Apostles in libris ad novum Testamentum pertinentibus confirmetur Legis. ac Prophetarum, & commendetur Authoritus. So our Church in the 7th Article, The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, etc.  It was part of the Manichean Heresy to set the one in opposition to the other: Against which, and the Assertors thereof, Faustus, Adimantus and the rest of that crew, St. Austin writ above 40 Books yet extant. This Error was likewise confuted By Epiphanius, who says, 
‡ Haer. 66 Sect. 74. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that though there be two Testaments yet there is but one God the Author of them both; and that thereupon they are set to the same tune. And it is no small evidence of the Divine Authority of holy Scripture that there is so full an agreement in all the particulars thereof, though written by several Penmen at very distant both times and places. This Truth hath ever been maintained against both Heathens and Heretics. 
† Lib 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ne●ther (sa●es he) did the Father sending Jesu●, forget what he had commanded Moses, neither did he condemn his own Laws, repent, and sand a messenger for contrary purposes Sigismundus Gelenius the Translator renders it thus Evangelium Deo Legis Authorise non opponit,— Nec Pater Jes●m mittens oblitus erat quid Mosi mandaverit, neque penitentia ductus damnata propria Lege misit Evangelium doct●●um contraria mandatis pristi●is.  Origen makes it good against Celsus, that there is no contradiction betwixt the Law and the Gospel, which differ not in substance nor in deed, more than the Sun under a cloud from itself when it shines forth in its brightest lustre. So St. Austin; Et novam in 
Contr. Adversarium Leg. & Prophet. l. 1. c. 17.  vetere est figuratum; & vetus in novo est revelatum. The Law is the Gospel vailed and the Gospel is the Law revealed. What was typified or foretold in the one; is verified and accomplished in the other. From all these Premises I may well draw this conclusion that these words, Swear not at all, aught not to be so interpreted as to tender all 
* It was also Prophesied before, that Christians under the Gospel should swear, Is. 19 18. & 45. 23. which if at might not be fulfilled without contradiction to our Saviour's command would entrench upon the Truth of the Prophecy, and make the Gospel thwart the Law beyond all terms of Reconciliation.  swearing unlawful, (Deut. 6. 13. & 10. 20. Psal. 63. 11. not without promise of reward, Jer. 12. 16.) which before was both commanded, and commended. For I cannot but look upon it as a perfect piece of Manicheisme, and extremely derogatory both to Scripture, and God himself, that for what Moral duty one man was commended in the Old Testament, another for the same should be condemned in the New.   

Sect. 31  
12thly. and lastly, The consent of the Christian World, the practices of Emperors, Kings, Princes, Councils, Bishops and People of all sorts confirm this Truth, that the general opinion was, that Christ their Lord, notwithstanding these words which were well enough known, had never forbidden swearing as altogether unlawful. For otherwise doubtless it had not been in so common, and unquestioned use. It would be a work more fit for a Volume, than a Sermon, to relate historically the practice thereof through all Ages, and places. Let it suffice that the Centurists tell us that in the 12th. Age after Christ one Otho was consecrated Bishop of the Bambergenses, and had no Oath administered unto him, Quod hactenus (say they) nulli Germanorum Episcopo accidisse constat, which is certain had 
† Sir Roger Twisden in his learned Vindication of the Church of England, cap. 3. sect. 51. shows, that Oaths were imposed not only upon Arch-Bishops at the receipt of their Pall, but also upon Bishops and Abbots. Nay, not so much as the Popes themselves were exempted.  never happened before to any Bishop of Germany. So also many Laws have been made concerning Oaths, as well in our own Country as else where, and punishments decreed and inflicted upon perjured persons. All which are Arguments that just Oaths were always allowed. True it is, that some of the Fathers, especially in their Homilies and Sermons to the People, inveighed much against swearing, as though it had been altogether unlawful. But that was out of a Religious zeal against irreligious and customary Oaths. A 
In Haggai 2. 1.  Lapide relates a story of St. Chrisostome that he preached so often against swearing, that the people were offended thereat; which he understanding, told them, he would never leave that Sermon till they would leave that profane Custom; which I found taken out of his fifth Homily ad populum Antiochenum. But as to the Fathers; they spoke lesle cautelously; never perhaps suspecting that lawful swearing upon just occasion would be denied: not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with great vehemency refuting that horrid Custom of common swearing in ordinary discourse; but not at all intending to take away necessary Oaths. Origen in his 25th Tract upon St. Matthew says, that Christ  vetuit omnino jurare: whereupon I conceive it came that Pareus branded him with holding the Anabaptistical Tenent against swearing which I cannot grant, because he 
* The like may be said of St. Hierum, as appears out of his 153. Epistle to Paulinus.  himself swears in his first book against Celsus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God is witness of my Conscience that, etc. And so the great Athanasius having declaimed with much vehemency against 
In Pass. & Crucem Domini.  profane swearing; yet in his Apology to the Emperor Constantius, he spontaneously swears again and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Lord is witness, and his Christ is witness. And several times he useth such Oaths, and wishes that his Accuser were there to be examined according to the Oath used by Christians. So chrysostom, though he often sharpened his stile against swearing, (for which Pareus, unadvisedly enough, listed him with other of the Fathers as bearing arms for the Anabaptists) yet in his 5. Homily, ad Populum Antiochenum, he advises the People to leave 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  superfluous Oaths, such as are rashly, and without necessity uttered at home, amongst their friends and servants, which if they did, they should need him not further in these matters. All which clearly shows, that though they zealously inveighed against the profane practice of swearing; yet they did not disallow the voluntary taking an Oath upon just occasion, and much lesle judiciary proceed, which were than, and ever since every where publicly practised even till these times. To omit the Master of the sentences, and the School Divines who are generally consentient to this Doctrine, the Churches of the Reformation have publicly professed the lawfulness of Oaths, as may be seen in the Harmony of Confessions, and accordingly 
† The inferior Ministers in Hungaria and Transylvania swear Canonical obedience to their Bishops as is the custom of England) The form of their Oath is set down by Monsieur Darel in his excellent Book of the conformity of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas with that of England, Sect. 1. § 19 beginning thus, I N. N. swear before the living God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, etc.  practised them. The confession of Switzerland condemns the Anabaptists for denial of Oaths required by the Magistrates. The confession of Basil (Helvetica Basiliensis, vel Milhusiana, Ann. 1532. Art 11.) protests that they reject, and damn as abominations and blasphemies, that Doctrine that we must swear in no case, though the glory of God and Charity to our brethrens require it. And in a marginal note they profess, that swearing is lawful, and give reasons for it; to wit, because God in the old Testament commanded it, and Christ in the new did not forbidden it; but on the contrary▪ both Christ and his Apostles practised it. So also the Augustine confession 
Art 16.  teaches, that Christians thereto called by the Magistrates may lawfully swear, and condemns them which forbidden that duty. To conclude, our own Church in the 39th Article speaks thus, As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle; so we judge that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth in a cause of Faith and Charity; whence it appears, that they are neither Children of the Church of England, nor conformable to the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, nor agreeable to the Doctrine, and practise of the Primitive Church, who deny the lawfulness of swearing upon just occasion. Hence also it is evident, that not only the Church of England, and the Reformed Churches; but also the whole Catholic Church in all times, and places approved this Doctrine, that all swearing is not unlawful, which accordingly they practised as occasion served. Whence it follows, that either the whole Christian Church in all places, and ages was so ignorant as not to understand our Saviour's meaning; or so wicked, as understanding it, to teach and practise the quite contrary; or else that Christ never meant to forbidden all kind of swearing. To assert either of the former, were to profess all that went before us were either dunces or Devils. And if so, what's become of the holy Catholic Church professed in the Creed? Nay, what's become of our Saviour's promise, Mat. 28. 20. I am with you always even unto the end of the World, when upon this supposition he never assisted them effectually either in the profession of his Truth, or practice of his Commands? And of these absurdities one is unavoidable, unless (which is most reasonable) we confess that these words, Swear not at all, are not to be extended to that latitude in which some of late have been pleased to expound them.   

Sect. 32  
To sum up all than that has been said; if we would not oppose God the Son against God the Father; if we confess that swearing tends in an especial manner to the glory of God in the acknowledgement of his Omnisciency, Power, and Justice; if it neither thwart our duty to God, nor that to our Neighbour; if the particular Enumeration of several Oaths in this place forbidden, be irreconciliable with that interpretation, that from hence infers a total abolition of swearing; if we grant that it is not unlawful, ex natura rei, being practised by holy men, Angels, and God himself; if we acknowledge that Saint Paul assisted in a great measure by the Holy Ghost understood his Master's meaning, and yet advisedly, and upon deliberation did several times swear; if we yield that swearing upon weighty occasions, and in due sort is enjoined in the third Commandment, as we must, unless we have a mind to deny the perfection of God's Law; if no Reason can be given, why all manner of swearing should be forbidden; if we confess that Christ ordained no new Law, but only reform the abuses in the interpretation of the old; if Christ himself brought before a Magistrate answered upon Oath; if no Text of the Gospel aught so to be expounded as to infer a repugnancy to the Moral Law, as this does according to the Anabaptistical interpretation thereof; and if we consent to the Doctrine and practice of the Christian world in all Ages, than we must confess that our Saviour by these words, Swear not at all, intended not an absolute and unlimited prohibition of all manner of Oaths.   

Sect. 33.  
And thus I have done with the negative Explication of the Text. And though I should not be able to lay down positively the genuine meaning thereof, yet I am encouraged by the former Reasons to hope that I have freed these Judicial Proceed from any sad influence which the dismal aspect of these words might seem to portend against them.   

Sect. 34.  
And now I come to the affirmative part of my Task, what the sense thereof may be. And here I have scarce so much time as to show the many Expositions, whereby several Authors have endeavoured to clear their latent meaning. Some only of the principal I shall: First, that Portent of learning Hugo Grotius was of opinion (and I think that glory of our English Divines the incomparable Dr. Hammond was much of his mind) that Promissory Oaths are here principally, though perhaps not only understood in our Saviour's Prohibition. And that is probable because the immediate words before my Text, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths, relate only to such as are Promissory. And 'tis reasonable, that the following sentence should be understood as the foregoing whereto it answers. And this may be thought more likely, in respect to that what is future is not in our power, and consequently not so fit to be promised by Oath, though indeed I conceive we engage not so much the after event as our present intention, and future endeavour. Again, this interpretation is not inconsistent with legal proceed. For all Oaths therein are 
† Assertorii us●● praecipuus est in Judiciis ad lites t●rminandas, Sanderson Pral. 1. sect. 8.  assertory (as I take it) and concern the truth of things already past.  
Sect. 35. 2ly. Others think that Christ here forbade such Oaths, as than were, and still are too frequently used in common discourse, but not such as the Magistrates require by Law: Nor is this improbable, for here is not a syllable of any proceed in Law; but on the contrary, this Comment receives a great Corroboration from the place itself, sect. 37. but let your Communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these (that is in your Communication) cometh of evil. Now if this verse refer to my Text, as the particle but seems to imply, Swear not at all, but say yea, nay, than as on the one side we are enjoined to use bore affirmations or negations; so on the other, we are forbidden to swear at all in Communication. And for the further confirmation hereof, it is urged that the Hebrew word Nishbang is most frequently used in the Old Testament: And that is known to be of the passive voice, implying, that we are not to swear, but be sworn, Quod nemo jurare nisi coactus solemniter debeat, says Pagnin. And this is the judgement of some very reverend and learned persons now living.   

Sect. 36.  
3ly. There are who say that profane, false, rash, and vain Oaths are generally here prohibited, as never to be used upon any occasion: and no other. So Pareus, Nihil haec Christi 
In locum  sententia derogat legitimis juramentis quae vel in judiciis vel extra judicia quandoque praestanda sunt. And that such Oaths as are seriously taken, and upon good ground, whether required by Magistrates, or extrajudicial, are lawful, and therefore not dis-allowed by Christ is highly warranted by the Authority and 
† This was also St. Augustine's practice. Cum videro non mihi credi, nisi faciam, & ei qui mihi non credi, non expedire quod non credit, ha● per pensâ rat●one, & consideratione libratâ, cum mag●o timo●e dico, coram Deo, aut Testi● est Deus, aut scit Christus, sic esse in animo me●. Serm. 28. de Verb. Apost.  practice of St. Paul And on the contrary frequent and idle swearing, the taking in vain the dreadful Name of the most High, which aught not to be used but advisedly, and with great Reverence, must needs argue a great impiety, and disrespect of the Almighty. Whereupon it must be granted, that this Exposition is very suitable to other Scriptures, and the Analogy of Faith, and neither restrains Oaths imposed by Authority, nor is disagreeable to the Text, if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (from which I suppose come our English words whole and wholly) be rendered commonly, as it may well be, and as it is, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is commonly reported; There goeth a common saying as an old Translation reads it. Nor can it hence be inferred, that the Apostles were common Swearers, though St. Peter that great Apostle, was not altogether free from this vice, some years after these words were spoken, as appears St. Mat. 26. sest. 72. and 74. For as St. Ambrose says, Non ad solos Apostolos loquebatur, 
In Ps. 108 Octo●. 14.  sed ad turbas. And Christ himself says as much, Luke 6. 27. I say unto you which hear; and that was this same Sermon whence I have chosen my Text, at the end whereof it is said, S. Mat. 7. 28. that the people were astonished at his Doctrine, and therefore assuredly they heard it. Besides, as there is no Reason that I know to be rendered, why swearing should in general & totally be prohibited; so there are two great causes why common swearing should severely be forbidden. The one is the profanation of God's Name. The other, jest thereby men at unawares fall into that horrid sin of 
* To this sense St. Austin expounds this Text Epist. 1ST.— In novo Testamento dictum est, ne omnino juremus Quod quidem mihi proptere● dictum videtur, non quià verum jurate peccatum est, sed quià perjurare immane peccatum est, à quo nos longè esse voluit, qui omnino ne juremus admonuit. So also St. Ambrose, l. 30. de Virginibus: Non immeritò Dominus in Evangelio jubet non esse jurandum, ne ●it causa perjurii, ne sit necessitas delinquendi. And again, Tract. de hort▪ add Virg. prope finem. Non jurandum, inquit, facile, quia plerumque multi casus accidunt, ut non pomssius imple●e quod juraverimus. Qui autem non jurat, utique non pejerat: qui autem jurat, aliquando necesse est incidat (I suppose is should be read in) perjurium, qui● 〈◊〉 homo mendax. Noli ergo jurare ne incipias pejera●e. A●● again in Ps. 118. Octon. 14. Voluit te non jurare ne pe●jures. So Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nam qui ne jur● quidam multum abest ut sit pejera●ur●s So St. Basil ● Psal. 14. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Qui non jurat periculum vitavit perju●● And Isidorus Hispalensis, lib. 2. Sentent. cap. 31. sect. Non est contra Dei praeceptum jurare, sed dum us●●ju andi facimus, perjurii crimen incurrimus And ● contemptu mundi, Prohibe etiam tibi juramentum, tol● jus jur●ndi (that's his word) usum, quia periculos●● est. Assiduitas jurandi perjurii consuetudinem facit, & So Euthymius Zigabo●us in Mat. 5. Qui facile jurat al●quando for●asse pejerabit ob jurandi cousuetudine● And in Regula S. Benedicti (cap 4. sect. 27.) the Rule ●● Non jurare, ne forte perjures. He lived Anno 500 A●● these words are made use of by Theodulphus Aureliane●sis above 300 years after.  Perjury, the prevention whereof is here more clearly discovered than it wa● before. For whereas it wa● said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, etc. Christ expressly forbids the occasion o● Perjury, rash, and customary swearing, not only as ill ●● itself, but also in respect of the danger adjoined. This Reason is touched by St. James 5. 12. if we read the Text with the most learned Bishop Walton in his Polyglot, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ne incidatis in simulationem as the Arabic Translator renders 
Eccl. 23. 11. In Epitome divinarum Institut. sect. 4. In Ps. 118. Oct. 14. In verba Domini & de Serm. Dom. in monte. l. 1. & In Ps. 88 & In Ps. 109.  it; which Grotius expounds, ne fallaces inveni●mini. Thus also Syracides, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that ancient Father Lactantius speaks of a good man, who, Ne jurabit quidem, ne quando vel necessitate, vel consuetudine in perjurium cadat. So St. Ambrose Voluit te non jurare ne perj●res. So St. Austin, ne facilitate jurandi in perjuriu● prolabamur; to which purpose he (as many others) speaks in several places.   

Sect. 37.  
4thly. Many understand that by these words of Christ, all swearing by Creatures is forbidden, but not that by God himself. And that seems evident if the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not referred to the foregoing act of swearing, but to the subsequent objects. Besides, this opinion, as it fully agrees with the Analogy of Faith, and makes a perfect concord betwixt the Old Testament and the New, and is no way repugnant to swearing in judicial proceed; so it is backed with great Authorities. Considera (says St. Hierome on the place) quod hic salvator non per Deum jurare prohibuerat, sed per Coelum, & terram, & Hierosolymam, & per caput tuum. This way went the Gallican Council that condemned the Albigenses, where it is said, that in the Text, Non prohibet nos jurare per Deum, sed per Creaturas: and this great reason is there given, Si licitum fuisset per Creaturas jurare, Reverentia, & honour qui Deo soli debetur, creaturis exhiberetur. And 
In Respe●● ad co●●●ta Bulg●rocum.  before that Nic. the first Bishop of Rome (about 800. years since) says that here, nil nisi ut per Creaturam juretur procul dubio inhibetur; without doubt, nothing is here forbidden, save only swearing by Creatures. And before that also about 1200. years ago, according to the judgement of the noble Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman, who by his unparelled labours has so highly merited 
Cap. 23.  of our Church, an Irish Synod holden under St. Patrick, expounded this, Non jurare omnino, non adjurandam esse Creaturam, that we should not be sworn by a Creature.   

Sect. 38.  
And now I hope you do not expect, that so mean a Person should sit down in the Moderators Chair, and determine which of these Expositions is most consonant to our Saviour's meaning. Let me not be guilty of such a Presumption. Yet what my thoughts are of this matter, without the lest derogation to any of the recited opinions warranted by so much Reason, and Authority, I shall not refuse to declare.   

Sect. 39  
It has in part, and may be sufficiently proved that our Saviour did not in this Chapter disallow the Moral 
vide s●●t. 23.  Law, but only the Pharisaical corrupt Glosses thereon, and the irreligious practices of the misinformed Jews, who (as Origen 
Tract. 25. in Mat.  tells us) Consuetudinem habent per Coelum jurare. To that same purpose, St. Hierom, Hanc per Clementa 
In locum  jurandi possimam consuetudinem semper habuere Judaei. And so St. chrysostom, 
In locum  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They were accustomed to swear by these things. And Christian Druthman a 
In locum  Writer of 850 years standing, saith, Habuerunt Judae● consuetudinem jurandi per Creaturas, Deus hoc nobis prohibet. Nay farther, because the Pharisees taught them to perform whatever they had promised, swearing by God, they under a specious pretention, that they would not take God's Name in vain upon a slight occasion, fell to swear by Creatures (which the Pharisees, as Grotius shows out of Philo Judaeus, did not disallow) the easilier thereby to delude such credulous people as believed those Oaths, which themselves neither thought obligatory, nor meant to keep. This cheating trick grew not long after to be so notoriously known every where, that Martial, in the Reign of the Emperor Domitian in one of his Epigrams made sport with it, bringing in a Jew swearing by the Roman Gods; Non credo (said he) 
Mart. l. 11. Epig. 95.  jura verpe per Anchialum, corruptly, for in chai eloah, as the Lord liveth. The Poet ignorant of this Language, mistook it for the proper name of some God, by whom alone he thought they durst not swear falsely. And it is certain that the Scribes and Pharisees taught the People, that to swear by several Creatures, as by the Temple, and the Altar, was not binding: For Christ reproves them as blind guides upon that account, S. Mat. 23. 16. etc. This practice was a gross offence as well against the eighth Commandment as the third. And our Saviour having already prohibited the abuses against the sixth and seventh, proceeds now in due order to reprove such as were committed not only against the third, but also the eighth, which otherwise might seem to be omitted. Upon which ground I conceive (with submission to better Judgements) that Christ's scope in these words, was to rectify the erroneous Doctrine of the Pharisees (which had too powerful an influence upon the lives of the people) and the vicious 
† St. Austin de Sermone Domin● in monte, makes a Quaere why Christ forbade swearing by Heaven, Earth, etc. and answers it thus, Credo propterea quia non putabant Judei se t●neri ●ure jurando, si per ista Jurassent, & quoniam audierant, Reddes autem Domino Jusjurandum tuum, non se putabant Domino debere Jusjurandum, si per Coelum, aut tertam, aut per Hycrosolimam, aut per c●put suum jurarent: qu●d non vitio praecipientis, sed illis malè intelligentibus factum est. To the same purpose speaks Chemnitius, Har●. Evang. cap. 51. Pericop. 3. Explicatio certior & firmior est quae ex Textu samitur▪ duae enim quasi species subjiciuntur. 1. Quod Pharisaeorum traditio erat in quibusvis casibus in familiari Sermone, & in communibus negotiis rectè, & sine pe●●●to posse nomen Dei ad Juramentum assumi. 2. Quod sentiebant in quibusdam obliquis sive indirectis jurandi formulis, ut per Caelum, per caput juramentum impunè posse violari. Illis igitur persuas●onibus Christus opponit particulam omnino, quae ad hanc subjectum materiam restringenda est, ut sc. omnino non lice●t vel ●irecte per Deum, vel indirecte per creaturas, vel vane, seu temere, vel falso jurare. Haec autem prohibitio Christi non est nova quaedam Le●, etc.  practices of that seduced Nation, as to the third and eighth Commandments, as well as he had done already in the sixth and seventh. The one taught that it was Perjury indeed to break an Oath, if a man had sworn by God; but not, if he had only sworn by some Creature. And the other took advantage of that liberty, and customarily used those non-obliging Oaths (as they accounted them) upon a set design to overreach their credulous Neighbours. In opposition to which, both Doctrine, and Practise, Christ forbids all swearing by Creatures, and Teaches (contrary to the Jewish Rabbis) that though such Oaths aught not to be taken; yet being taken are binding, in respect of the Creatures relation to the Creator; which is the purport of the latter part of this 34, 35, and 36. verses. And Sect. 37. he order them in place of these sinful Oaths, to use only bore Affirmations or Denials in their mutual converse. Whereof he gives this reason, that whatsoever is superadded there to (as their accustomed Oaths) 
† Some argue from thence, that therefore ●ll swearing is unlawful as coming from evil. But that is no good Argument. For, first; all swearing comes not from evil causally (though occasionly it do) because some is commanded by God. Only that swearing that comes from a vicious habit in ordinary discourse, (whereof our Saviour speaks especial●y here) or Perjury, or swearing to wicked purposes, which come from the instinct of the Devil, or from men's own malicious, or co●●tous Passi●ns: or swearing, when otherwise we cannot he believed, ei●her in respect we have been formerly promise●●●akers: or through incredulity, or want of Charity in the hearers (which ordinarily ariseth out of the consciousness of their own fraudulency, and deception of others) may truly the said to come of evil: and so thu reaches not all Oaths. But secondly▪ It is not true, that what ever comes occasionly of evil, is evil it se●f. For good Laws are ●●casioned by evil manners. And the preservation of Jacob and his Family from perishing by Famine was good; set it was occasioned by selling of Joseph, which was evil. So if a man will no● believe what's necessary for him, nine Oath is good, though his distrust which occasioned it, be evil.  cometh of evil, that is, either by the suggestion of Satan that evil one, or else from their wickedness, and desire of defrauding their brethrens.   

Sect. 40  
I know that many judicious Persons have interpreted this word evil, to be the Incredulity of those with whom we converse. But I must crave leave to descent from them in this particular, because that might be a motive to us to Swear, especially in matters of importance, when otherwise we should not be credited; but no Reason why we should not Swear. Another man's distrust, cannot make mine Oath unlawful. Nor is this Argument of any force, I aught not to Swear, because some men will not otherwise believe me.   

Sect. 41  
If any of a contrary persuasion be not yet satisfied, but still urges the universality of the expression, Swear not at all; and that of St. James 5. 12. Above all things, my brethrens, Swear not, neither by Heaven, neither by the Earth, neither by any other Oath. I answer, first to the Texts severally; and than to both together. To the former, it is plain, that they who thus argue, break of our Saviour's Sentence in the middle, and suffer him not to come to his intended Period, which is wrong, and incivility to an ordinary speaker. For he said not, Swear not at all, there fixing a point; but, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, etc. nor by Earth, etc. And it is certain, that the beginning of many sentences, were the explanatory words cut of, might admit of a construction (and that with a great show of probability) contrary to the meaning of the Author. For example, There be some (saith the holy Jesus) standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom, St. Mat. 16. 28. should any put a full point at Death, and lordship of the remainder of the sentence, how distant would the sense seem from the intending meaning? if any than urge against you, Swear not at all, you may desire him to speak on, and what God has joined together not to put asunder.   

Sect. 42.  
And as for that of St. James, it must of necessity be understood with Restriction. 
Serm 28. de Verb. Apost.  St. Austin preaching upon that Text, scruples at the first words, Quare ante omnia? jurare pejus est quam furari, etc. quam adulterare, etc. quam hominem occidere? Absit? It cannot be that swearing is worse than forswearing, Theft, Adultery, Murder; nor so ill, if that Father may be judge. These are heinous crimes, nulla utem culpa est verum jurare. But it is no sin to swear the Truth, with due qualifications. Why than above all things, Swear not?  vigiletis ne surrepat vobis consuetudo jurandi; not that swearing is so great an offence as many others, or indeed any offence at all rightly used; but left we contract a habit thereof, which we shall be apt to do, if carefully we avoid it not, and than probably by rash Oaths we shall offend God, by false swearing wrong our Neighbours, by both, damn our souls. And therefore above all things (which is here no more than in 
† Quid est ante omnia? Prae caeteris cautus esto, plus ad hoc in●entus e●●o, quàm ad alia, Aust. Serm. 28. de Verb. Apost.  an especial manner) forbear swearing. In like sort, the subsequent words any other Oath, must be understood in a restrained sense. For thereby is not meant any Oath whatever; but only such as the Apostle there speaks of. As therefore it were an illogical inference from the former part of that Verse, to say, that swearing is worse than Murder, because St. James says, Above all things swear not: so it is no better a consequence to say that swearing by God is unlawful, because it is here enjoined, that we should not swear neither by Heaven, neither by the Earth, neither by any other Oath, that is, any Oath taken by any other Creature. For so of necessity must the Apostle be understood, unless we so interpret his words, as to make them contradict Gods, and set the Servant in a manifest opposition to his Master.   

Sect. 34  
Secondly, I answer to both these Texts conjunctim, that these Propositions, how universally soever expressed, aught not in equity to be extended beyond the intention of the Speakers, but to be limited according to the subject matter. Swear not at all (says Christ) neither by Heaven, nor by Earth, etc. that is, I universally forbidden you all those Oaths, which you were want to use frequently to wicked purposes. And this is not a fancy of our own to evacuate the words of our Saviour: far be that from us; we rather seek to establish them in the full latitude that they were intended to bear: But to this Restriction of them, the former Reasons do constrain us. If it be said, that than, for all Christ's words, we may swear as often as we please, and that vainly, and falsely too, by God, if only swearing by Creatures be here prohibited, which seems most absurd. I reply, that these vain, and false Oaths by God, even by the acknowledgement of the Pharisees themselves were sufficiently forbidden before; and so there was no need either for Christ or St. James to speak of them, or forbidden them again. Christ came neither to make a new Law, nor to voided, or altar what was already established; but to vindicate the perfect Law of God from the sinful interpretations of men. Nor is this exposition of these Texts strange, or unusual. Other places of Scripture must of necessity be thus interpreted, a● 1 Cor. 10. 23. All things are lawful for me. How? is it lawful to kill, or steal? nothing lesle. The Apostle is speaking there of things indifferent, and therefore the words there (just in the same manner as here) are to be restrained to the subject matter. All things in general are not lawful, but all such adiaphorous things as the Apostle there discourses of. So here, all Oaths are forbidden, not all in general, but all which our Saviour, and St. James had occasion to speak of: many like instances might be given. There went out to John the Baptist all the Land of Judaea, Mar. 15. What? sure not all the sick, blind, lame, decrepit, bedrid, but some from all quarters of the Landlord St. Luke says, he had perfect understanding in all 
Cap. 1. 3  things. What? of all Arts, Trades, Professions, Nations, Languages, etc. Not sure, but of all things concerning which he was to Writ. Augustus' decreed that all the World should be taxed. But 
Lu. 2. 1.  that was no more than that part of the World that was under his Dominion: For the rest was not under his command, and at that time much of the Earth was either not inhabited, or unknown; and all that was not known, was not than subject to the Roman Empire. We read in the fourth Command, In it (that is in the Sabbath day) thou shalt do 
Ex. 10. 10.  no manner of Work, or (as it is rendered by our last Translators) Thou shalt not do any Work; yet notwithstanding this expression of the most extensive latitude, it is certain that Works of Piety, Charity, or Necessity were not forbidden. So our Saviour says, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven 
Mat. 12. 31.  unto Men; an universal proposition, which nevertheless admits of a Restriction; for he immediately adds, that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And besides, notwithstanding the generality of these words, All manner of sin shall be 
Luc. 13. ●  forgiven, we know that no sin shall be forgiven but upon condition of Repentance. The woman that was healed by touching the border of Christ's garment, St. Luk. 8. 47. told him before all the people why she had touched him. How, before all the people of the World, or before all the people of the Land? Not doubtless, but before all the people there present. Reason plainly shows that these and many like Enunciations, how universally soever proposed, must be restrained according to the occasion, and purpose of the speaker. And so accordingly must these words be, Swear not at all.   

Sect. 44.  
And here the grand objection falls of itself, which is, either all kind of Swearing is here forbidden, or else Christ notwithstanding his words, But I say unto you, forbade nothing which was not forbidden before, which is utterly improbable. The reason is, because God had formerly prohibited all false, and vain Oaths, and all swearing by Creatures: all which I grant to be true. Nevertheless, the Pharisees▪ had taught the People otherwise, and that under a religious pretence of a greater Reverence to God's Name. And the practice of that Nation, misled by their Teachers, was widely distant from the Commandment, both which were very necessary to be reform. Which here our Saviour did in these words, But I say unto you, swear no● at all; Which were not spoken in any opposition to God's Law, but to the false, and wicked glosse● of those blind Guides (that made the Commandment of God of small effect by their Tradition) and the lewd de-deportment of the People.   

Sect. 45.  
And now I have done, and I fear it is more than time to have done with the Exposition of these words. For Application let me address myself to you all, who either now, or at some other time may be legally called to take your Oaths, which you have heard vindicated to be lawful, notwithstanding the seeming opposition of these words, Swear not at all. But this must be understood only of just and necessary Oaths. Hear what our Saviour says, St. Mat. 5. 20. I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. But they condemned Perjury in the Verse immediately before my Text: Thou shalt not forswear thyself. So than, if you swearing by God, do not carefully avoid all false Oaths, you are so far from exceeding them, that you fall much below them. And than if they shall not enter into Heaven, what will become of these that are much worse? For the regulation of your Practice in this point, I shall commend that Text of the Prophet. Jer. 4. 2. And thou shalt swear (here is your warrant for swearing, which thence appears to be not only Lawful, but in some cases Necessary, because commanded) The Lord liveth; whence you learn by whom you are to swear, that is, only by the Living God. Consider, O consider with what fear, and reverence, and care of the Truth you aught to approach into the presence of God, whom you call to Witness; that God who is your Maker and Preserver; that God through whose Mercies you hope to be saved; that God who is the searcher of your hearts, and the just Judge, and severe Revenger of all Perjury. In Truth, in Judgement, and in Righteousness, these three are the qualifications of a lawful Oath; and no Oath is lawful, if it be repugnant to any of these. St. Hierom calls them, the Companions of 
In Jer. 4.  an Oath, without which, Nequaquam est juramentum, sed Perjurium, it is not swearing, but forswearing.   

Sect. 46  
The first Concomitant of an Oath is Truth, which engages you neither▪ to swear any thing you know false, nor any thing you know not to be true. Ground not your Evidences on surmises, or conjectures, but on your own certain knowledge. Jurare (says St. Ambrose) judicium scientiae, testimonium Conscientiae 
In Ps 11● Oct. 14.  est. Use plain, and not ambiguous words, without deceit, partiality, or by respects. Be not transported with fear, favour, or ill will to any Person: Your testimonies are neither to be lamed by concealing aught that's true, nor corrupted with the addition of any falsehood.  
The second is Judgement, which admonishes you, that what you speak upon Oath should not be passionate, rash, or inconsiderate; knowing, that whatever Information you give to a Judge upon Earth, you must at the last day be accountable for it to the great Judge of quick, and dead. Be therefore wary, and well-advised what you utter, that neither through wickedness, nor inconsideration, you pervert Justice, or prejudice their right who may suffer through your sin, or unadvisedness.  
The third is Righteousness, which aught to be your scope. Accuse not the innocent, excuse not the guilty. Remember that, he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, are both abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17. 15. Be than so conscientious in bearing witness, for, or against others, that your own Consciences bear not witness against you in the day when God shall judge the secret of all men by Christ Jesus. Consider that you do not only speak in the presence of God, (and therefore aught to regard what you say,) but also call him to witness with you the Truth of your Affirmations. Think that every false Oath is a grievous curse, wherein you renounce the help of your Creator, the hope of Heaven, your salvation by Christ's death declared in the Gospel; and by your falsehood bid defiance to the God of Truth. The honour of that God in protecting the innocent, and punishing the wicked, and the security of men's persons, and Estates depend much upon your fidelity. Seek not by wronging others to loose your own souls; these soul● for the salvation whereof our blessed Saviour was content to shed his dearest blood. Let me shut up all in the words of the Prophet Zech. 8. 16. Speak ye every man the truth to his Neighbour: execute the Judgement of Truth, and Peace in your gates. And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his Neighbour, and love no false Oaths; for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord. May our heavenly Father so imprint these words in our minds, that we may love what he loves, hate what he hates, and at length may be partakers of everlasting happiness, through the Merits and Mediation of Christ Jesus, to whom with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, three Persons, and one God, be all honour and glory, now, and evermore. Amen, Amen.   
FINIS.