A DISCOURSE Concerning The solemn League And COVENANT, Proving it to be Obligatory. Together with a TREATISE Concerning oaths, And particularly The Obligation of forced oaths. By an episcopal Divine. Printed in the Year 1661. To the Right Reverend Father in God John Lord Bishop of Excester his Grace. MY LORD, AS well the consideration of your Lordships most eminent dignity in the Church, as those evident and public testimonies of your pious affection to it, which you have not ceased at those times to demonstrate, when the black clouds of Malignity had overspread it; hath emboldened me to present this Treatise to your Patronage. Nor can I doubt that your Lordship, who hath been so high a Vindicator of the Churches honour, will deny to Cherish with the beams of affection, any thing which offers at the defence of Devotion and Piety. Blessed be God, the Sun of the Gospel hath again appeared, and the truth of Religion in part dispelled, those clouds which so lately hide it in obscurity: how great an Instrument your Lordship hath been in the promotion of this great and happy work, is fitter to be left to the judgement of the world, then for me to speak or your Lordship to hear. But that there are still some mists in this our Hemisphere, whose foggy influence doth blind wages of truth, is so well known and so much lamented by your Lordship that I dare be bold to assure myself, that you will look upon nothing as needless or unnecessary which endeavours to make plain the catholic paths. The thing itself was long since delivered in Latin, by a worthy and pious Divine in order to the satisfaction of a learned Auditory; under your Patronage and Protection my Lord, it offers itself in English for the vulgars devotion and reasonable service. Let your Lordship therefore be graciously pleased, to excuse the boldness of this address, and to put it on the score of our holy Mother the Church, who hath already been so signally obliged by your endeavours; and grant that he who continually preys both for Her& Your Lordships prosperity, may confidently assume the boldness to subscribe himself ( My Lord) Your most humble and most Obedient Servant, J. D. A DISCOURSE Concerning the solemn League and Covenant, &c. IT is evident to any considering man, that the Dispute of the Present, and, if it doth not please God mercifully to prevent it, the Quarrel of the succeeding Age, will be upon these two Heads, viz. Ceremonies, whether they may lawfully be observed; and the Covenant, whether it may lawfully be broken. Concerning the First of these, the Arguments drawn from Reasons of Scripture against, and those taken from Reason of State for them, are so directly thwarting and contradictory to each other, that hitherto it hath been a kind of drawn match between Piety and Policy: and the Truth of the Question, as to the concernements of Christian Liberty, by the Irreligious and Unpeaceable proceeding of too many, hath given so great scandal, that whoever Disputes for the Power of Impositions, although in far greater matters than those contested about, will have a very great advantage against a modest Opponent: Since though the Principle, upon which the Non-conformists do ground their Dissent, viz. That Indifferent Things in Religious Worship, ought not to be made Necessary, may for Reasons obvious enough, easily be asserted, yet the Consequences, which have resulted from the Intemperate Abuse of it, are too Manifest, to be denied and too Malicious, to be defended. And therefore in the midst of so many offences most impiously given, and but too justly taken, it cannot but be looked upon, as a Singular goodness of God, that his Majesty hath already indulged so far; whose Pious Concessions, had they been as Candidly pursued, as they are by his Majesty most Christianly pressed, that controversy had ere this been ended. For while men, in these Circumstances of Worship, were left free to the Guidance of their several persuasions, a short time would have decided whether Ceremony or substance; the form or the Power of Godliness, would most prevail amongst Conscientious professors. But since notwithstanding his Majesties late Indulgence, some of the Episcopal persuasion have not yet abated of their Rigour; but continue still to urge Subscription and Conformity, alleageing in Excuse that their Oaths formerly taken do still oblige them; they have hereby given a very just occasion to have the Covenant revived, and this Question seriously examined, whether that Oath doth not much more strictly obleige the Takers; since the Matter of it, is( not like theirs, about pressing of Ceremonies, i.e. of things which they themselves acknowledge to be Indifferent,) but, about things much more substantial; and likewise the manner of Expression, is so strict and Particular, that there is not the least room left for any Evasion. In the managing of this Enquiry, that what shall be said may find the better reception amongst equal and unprejudiced Readers, it will be necessary for the Undertaker, to free himself from the suspicion of being a Party, least he should be thought to pled, not so much the Cause of Truth, as of his own concernment. And therefore I do profess, 1. That I nev●… took the Covenant. 2. That I ventured the loss of all my Fortunes, rather than I would Submit to the Authourity which Imposed it. 3. That I then did, and still do conceive that the Arbitrary, and, as I think, Illegal Imposing of that Oath; and the undoing of so many thousands, merely because they conscientiously declined it( amongst whom my own nearest Relations were none of the least sufferers) this was a practise, to say no more, much misbecoming Christians. For though to swear, in some Cases and with due Caution, may be lawful; yet sine an Oath, like other Acts of Religion, is to be Free and Voluntary; and of the two, rather to be Feared and Avoided, than rashly entred into; then to offer violence to the Conscience of any, and by Penalties of what kind soever, to force an Oath, cannot be justified by the Dictates either of Religion or Reason; as being contrary to that Known Rule of Equal Justice, scil. of Doing, as we would be done by; and likewise to those other Precepts, whereby Tender Consciences, though in matters of less concernment, are expressly secured and provided for. But yet notwithstanding all this, I have so Just and impartial a Regard for Truth; and withall so great a Fear of the sad and miserable Consequences of Perjury; that, in spite of my own Prejudices, I think the Covenant is still obliging, if not to the whole Nation, yet at least, to all those particular persons, who entred into it: and that 1. Because, I never yet saw any Argument, which did clearly evince, that the matter of that Oath, was in itself unlawful. 2. Because the Manner of Imposing, though illegal and Injust, yet cannot Null the Obligation of any Oath. For proof of the First Assertion, I will not insist upon the First, and the Four last Articles of the Covenant; wherein, Reformation of Religion, Defence of his Majesties Person and just Prerogative, Bringing of Delinquents to Punishment, Preserving of the fundamental Laws and Liberties of the Nation, and the like, are sworn to: for these carry their their own Equity and Reasonableness so apparent in themselves, that it would be but lost Labour to Defend them. As for that Clause of the third Article, at which many sober, disinterested Persons have taken Exception; viz. the swearing to defend the Kings Person in Defence of Religion, which seems to lay a Restriction, as if the King were no longer to be defended, than might consist with the good of Religion; if this indeed was intended for the sense of it, I shall not scruple to say, that it is most Unchristian; for the Authority of Princes depends not at all upon their Religion, but upon their Right to govern: and were our Princes now, as the Emperours formerly were, open and professed Infidels, yet could we not lawfully deny them our Obedience in all Civill things, or forbear the Defence both of their Person and Power, though to our own temporal Injury; as the two great Apostles both Paul and Peter expressly affirm. But, without inquiring into the secret design and meaning of the Contrivers( which perhaps might be bad enough) the words themselves— in the defence of Religion, are capable of this fair Interpretation— so far as Religion doth oblige and warrant us; which, as I said before, our Religion doth universally and unlimitedly bind us, though not always to act for, yet always not to Resist their power, nor to violate their Person. But to omit this, which seems to be merely a Cavil, that Article which is opposed with greatest vigour and strength of Reason, is the second against Praelacy; whereby not only the Jurisdiction but likewise the Order of Bishops, seems to be decried as Anti-christian; and here two things are usually insisted upon. 1. That Episcopacy or the subordination between Bishops and Presbyters, is commonly presumed to be Jure Divino; and though Learned Men differ much in their judgement about it, yet none hath so clearly resolved the doubt, but that, 1. The Distinction which our Saviour himself seems to put between the twelve Apostles, and his scutcheon Disciples 2. The Superiority, and pre-eminence, at least in point of Order, which the Apostles had over the Presbyters, whom they ordained. 3. The examples of Timothy and Titus, who were delegated by the Apostle Paul to Ordain Elders by their single Authority. 4. The Consent of Antiquity, which, as the best and most unsuspected Records testify, do all avouch and own this Constitution. All these Instances do conclude thus much, that if Episcopacy be not perfectly, and at all points Jure Divino, yet at least it may be evinced to be more Apostolical, more Ancient, and more defensible both by Primitive Practise and impartial Reason, than any other form of Churchgovernement whatever. And therefore to cry it down, as the Covenant doth, for Antichristian, before they have answered the Reasons, which prove it to be Divine; this, say some, is a proceeding no ways justifiable, as being both unreasonable and absurd in itself, and likewise since that, found very Inconvenient; because many have Petitioned against Ministers maintenance, and particularly Tithes, as Antichristian; which those, who have laboured to pull down Bishops under that style, though they are willing to retain, yet can but very ill, if at all defend; since upon enquiry they will be found, as to the Jus Divinum of them, to be founded only upon general Rules of Analogy and Interpretative Reason from Scripture, but of much less Antiquity. 2. A second Objection is, that Episcopacy with all the Circumstances and appendices, covenanted against in that second Article, is confirmed by the Law of the Land, and particularly by the so much contended for Magna Charta; and therefore for any to take them away is absolutely unlawful. But upon this Objection I will not enlarge, because it may be answered. 1. That there is no Law merely human, but, if it be found Inconvenient, the same Authority which made, may without Injury to any, abrogate it; and though all the Natives of any place, are tied to preserve the Laws, that can be only meant of the Laws in Being, and never yet did hinder but that New Laws might daily be made, since the Supreme and Legislative Powers cannot be bound, but by the general Rules of Equity and Convenience, of which they alone are Judge. 2. There is no part of the Popish Religion, as it is opposite to the Reformed, but was once established by our Laws; particulary the Popes Supremacy; which certainly none of those who are most zealous for Episcopacy, but will affirm that it was lawfully taken away. 3. The Law, which is to be the only Rule in things appertaining to Religion, is the Word of God; and therefore if the Supposition in the Covenant, viz. that Episcopacy, as there expressed, is Antichristian, can be proved; it will be in vain to allege in defence of it any national Constitutions, which cannot be any longer Obligatory to any, than as they have a Consistency with that Divine and Heavenly Law. The first Objection therefore is of most weight, and by all persons concerned in taking the Covenant, ought to be most severely inquired into, least they should be found {αβγδ}, by rash flying into the other extreme, to destroy what they should only have amended; and to pull up the three, which had they only pruned and pared away the superfluous Branches, would have been of exceeding Use; like him in the Fable, who knew no other way to prevent drunkenness, but by cutting up the Vines. That I may( as a person unconcerned, and therefore likely to be clear either from Partiality or design) freely discover, where I think the stress of the Cause lies, and how it is to be stated; I shall premise these three things. 1. That the Calling of Gospel-ministers, as distinct both in Office and Order, from the People they Preach to, and Preside over, is Jure divino. And this I do not ground upon those Reasons, which are commonly alleged: As, 1. A ministerial succession in all Ages; which is hard to prove, and, because of our seccession from the Church of Rome,( which abounds in such kind of Arguments) is altogether Impertinent. Nor, 2. Because our Saviour did himself constantly Preach the Gospel, and appointed his Disciples to do the like; after whose Ascension, the Apostles, especially Paul, did ordain Elders in all the Churches which they had planted, to be continually resident. For these are Instances which tell us only what was then done, not what always should be done; nor can any thing of direct proof, but only by way of Analogy be deduced from them: and the most that such Arguments amount to, is only to prove the Calling convenient or fitting, but not necessary. The Reasons therefore which I found the Jus divinum of a Gospel-Ministry upon, are; 1. Our Saviours great instance, and frequent urging of his Apostles to pray, that God would sand labourers into his harvest: i.e. not such as should Preach now and then, but such as should make it their business, as the word labourers plainly implies. And therefore the Apostle Paul, that there might not want a race of Ministers, commands his Son Timothy to deliver what he knew, {αβγδ}, to faithful, industrious men, who might be able to teach others; which charge, had he not intended that they should teach authoritatively, and by way of Office, would have been altogether impertinent. For what need there have been select men appointed for that purpose, if every man were permitted to be a Teacher. 2. Because God doth still impart variety of gifts; as Tongues, Interpretation, prophesy, Doctrine, &c. though not in so plentiful a measure, yet for the same end as formerly, viz. for the building up his Church, and the completing of his mystical body. And therefore as the Apostle asks, {αβγδ}; Are all Apostles? Are all Teachers? Have all the gift of edifying? He that hath, let him look upon himself as called unto that duty for which he is gifted; and that to do it not desultorily and by the by, but by constant waiting upon his Ministry, as the Apostle Paul in many places directly commands. 3. Because of those inavoidable ill consequences which would follow in the Church of Christ, if there were no settled Ministry to attend in it. For as it is in a State, that which is left at random, for any to do if they please, if it be a matter of difficulty and trouble, is usually neglected by all: So will it happen in the Assemblies of Christians, the {αβγδ} which the Apostle James warns us against, i.e. the many teachers, and no learners, would only beget pride and contempt in the ignorant, and negligence and remissness in the knowing; and so for want of some able and fixed Pilot to sit at the Helm, and guide the Ship, it will inevitably miscarry. Therefore without undertaking to determine, how many persons shall belong to each Pastors charge; nor defining by whom the respective Preachers shall be chosen; this I affirm, that in every Church, i.e. Congregation of Christians, there is to be a Preaching-Minister, distinct and separate for that employment, and that Jure divino. 2. The second thing I premise is, That according to the Scripture, all Gospel-Ministers, qua tales, are equal; and no one hath in that respect, any Jurisdiction or Authority above another. This is plain from that of our Saviour, where forbidding his Disciples all supremacy and dominion, he gives this reason for it, For ye saith he, are brethren. And suitable to this intimation was the practise of the Apostles, for in that first general, and last holy Synod, they would not undertake to determine any thing, without the consent and assistance of the Elders and Brethren. Act. 15. Gal. 2. Thus Peter and James, who were in respect of gifts accounted chief among them, yet gave the right hand of fellowship, i.e. acknowledged an equality in Office unto Paul, though he were an Apostle of a later edition, and less standing then themselves. So Paul doth in many places call Timothy, Agollos, Sosthenes, and others, his fellow-labourers and co-workers in the Ministry; 1 Ep. c. 5. and Peter in that very place where he forbids {αβγδ} to exercise Lordship over their Past or all cares, that he might induce them to humility by his own example, he doth style himself {αβγδ}, their fellow-Elder and Partner. Hence is it that whatever Names there are which seem to denote dignity or prelation, as {αβγδ}; Rulers, Presidents, Teachers, Bishops or Overseers, and the like; all these throughout Pauls Epistles, are given without distinction unto those Preachers and Elders concerning whom he writes. And the reason of this Equality is manifest, because the proper business of a Minister of Christ, is to Preach the Gospel, and to convert souls: in the discharge of which work, though all have not the same skill and ability, yet all have the same Commission. Which doth not run item, Dominamini— go, bear Rule over, but item, predicate, go, preach unto every Creature. 3. The third and last thing I will premise is this: That notwithstanding this, as I may call it, fundamental and Original Equality, yet it is very lawful for a Company of Presbyters( the ancient stint was Forty, as appears out of Cornelius the Bishop of Rome's test, Lib. 6. cited by Eusebius) to Elect and Choose one out of their Number, that he may Preside in their Meetings, moderate in their Debates, and be vested with some eminent Acts of Power, as Laying on of Hands in Ordination, Pronouncing of sentence against Offenders, and the like, which yet he is so to exercise as to aclowledge, that he hath no Paramount Authority of his own, but what he solely derives from the Consent of the Presbytery, over which he Presides. And this is the true Platform of that Primitive Episcopacy, which, for the forementioned Reasons, may lay a good claim to Jus Divinum, as being best suited to apostolical Precept and ancient usage, which where it may be had pure and incorrupt, is the best Interpreter of Controverted and ambiguous Texts. These things being premised, to apply what I have said, particularly to the Covenant, I affirm 1. That if the Covenant be construed to exclude the Order of Bishops, and that Superiority which by mutual consent may be placed in the Presbyteries over each other; then is it utterly unlawful, because it unduly deprives Christians of the Liberty to erect a Government in the Church, which the Word of God doth insinuate, Antiquity defends, and Reason may demonstrate to be absolutely the best. But 2. If that Article barely means, as the words seem to sound, the pulling down of Prelacy, i.e. Episcopacy with those appendices, so chosen, and so governing, as is there expressed: then is it so far from being unlawful, that I have often wondered the Bishops did not of themselves alter whatever was grievous and offensive to the people, rather then they would let the Nation enter into a Covenant and Combination against them, and expose their Order itself to censure. For all the while they continue their ancient frame and Hierarchy, they will hardly excuse themselves from being( I was about to say, as some angry men do, Antichristian, but to use a milder expression) directly contrary to what the Primitive Bishops were, and to what an apostolical Bishop should be: And that in these three particulars; 1. In point of Choice and Designat on to that Office: which the Bishops now derive, not from the consent of those over whom they Preside, as was the Primitive usage, but immediately from the supreme Civill Magistrate; and so in strict propriety of Phrase, are rather the Kings Lords, then the Churches Bishops; whereby the Foundation of their Jus Divinum is shrewdly shaken; since it is evident, that the same Civil Power which creates, may dissolve them again, without the least violence offered, either to Scripture, or to Antiquity. 2. In point of Power and Jurisdiction; which in temporal things, and over their Fellow-Ministers( I mean any farther then by consent, is directly for bidden all Scriptu e-Bishops, in those words of our Saviour; where speaking of the Impotent Rule of Heathen Princes, who think of no other Paradise, but Earthly Power, he concludes with this, prohibition to his Disciples— It shall not be so, among you; but he that is the greatest among you, let him be servant of all. In obedience to which command, the Apostle Paul doth expressly disclaim {αβγδ}; i. to Lord it over the Faith or Conscientious persuasion of any; how small or Indifferent soever the thing was which he scrupled at; and of himself he professeth, that he would not so much as Eat Flesh all his dayes, rather then his Brother should be offended; How much less, think we, would that blessed Apostle have enjoined any thing less material upon the Practise of any; in which particular, I am sorry to red, that the Bishops heretofore did exercise a power very different from that which the commands of our Saviour, and the examples of his. Apostles do warrant, who, certainly ought to be the only Gospell-Patternes. 3. Lastly, in point of revenue and Maintenance; which Consists principally in Impropriate Tithes. For if it be a question not yet determined amongst Divines, whether Tithes be due to gospel Ministers Jure Divino; then certainly for them to be alienated from the Preaching Ministers( unto whom, by the Apostles Canon, a double Honour, both of Reverence and revenue is due) and given to the support of those, to speak modestly, preach not over-often: This may be styled, a worse and more unjustifiable sacrilege, than that which is now complained of. I conclude therefore that since the Covenant may be understood only, 1. Of paring away the Impertinent and useless parts of Episcopacy; and, 2. Of taking away not the Order, but the Undue Dominion and sovereignty of Bishops; for where they were not chosen they can have no Right, and where they have no Right, they ought to have no Power: hence it follows, that that Article of the Covenant, is Materially Lawfully; and by the mere equity of it, doth oblige all Christians, to endeavour a Reformation, although they never had; but much more those, who already have entered into an Oath for that purpose. And so much for the First assertion. The second Assertion was this, That the Manner of Imposeing, though absolutely unlawsull, yet cannot null the Obligation of any Oath, after it is taken. And the Reason of this is clear, because the force of an Oath depends not upon the Inducement which made us take it,( for then when the Occasion which made us swear, once ceases, the Obligation of every Oath would cease likewise, which is Absurd) but upon the Reverence we owe to God, by whose Name we swear, which being once interposed, the Oath is ratified in Heaven, and always obliges either to Performance, or else to Divine Punishment. And because this Reason, though clear and Demonstrative, may seem too close and Compact; for Reason, like cloth of Tissue, is best seen when it is most displayed; therefore I have enlarged myself upon it in the following Question; which though briefly( for neither the Age nor my own Temper can endure great Books) yet is I hope, sufficiently stated, to the satisfaction of all sober men: At least I have in it discharged my own Conscience, which was to do my part, as a Minister of the gospel, in endeavouring to obviate and hinder the sin of the Times, and that is, Regardlesseness of oaths; For which, it is to be feared, that God may still have a controversy with this Land; and sand a sword amongst us to avenge the quarrel, L vit. 26. not of ours any longer, but according to the Scripture-stile, of his Covenant; as being solemnly taken, and Nationly engaged in. And however it may please God to wave his usual method of Providence, in proceeding to be a Swift witness against the False Swearer; yet, Mat. 2. at the last day, when Idle words shall be accounted for, no Empty Subterfuges, nor poor political Pleas will serve the turn; but the Covenant-breakers will then be left as Defencelesse and as Naked of excuse, as Adam was, when he had nothing but Fig-leaves to cover him. From which Irrecoverable, and none knows how sudden, misery, we are bound to pray and endeavour, that all our Fellow Christians, our Brethren after the Flesh, may be delivered; and to conjure them by all the sacred ties of Love to us, or to their own souls; that they will not allow themselves to violate their Engagement; or to do more in this particular, then what they have just ground from the word of God to believe, that God hereafter will acquit them for. To which Pious and Christian designs, if this short discourse may at all contribute, it hath attained that end, for which it was mainly written, and intended. A Treatise concerning oaths; and particularly the Obligaton of a forced Oath. NOt to trouble the Reader or myself with a tedious Preface, I shall briefly explain, whatever I find from Scripture that concerns the Nature or Obligation of an Oath; and herein I will inquire into these three things; 1. What is an Oath. 2. Whether it be lawful to take an Oath. 3. Whether a forced Oath, after it is once taken can lawfully be broken, 1. In Answer to the first Quere, I find to Scripture that this is the most proper definition of an Oath, viz. An Oath is a solemn Invocation of God to be a witness to the truth of what we speak, and likewise an Imprecation of Divine vengeance upon ourselves in case we be found to speak falsely. In which definition there are these two parts. 1. An Oath is a solemn Invocation of God to be a witness to the truth of what we speak. I call it a solemn Invocation, because the most usual posture wherein oaths were made, was by hands lift up on High. Gen. 14. Hence Abraham mentioning the Oath he had made, says, I have lift up my hand to the most high God. Dan. 12. Rev. 16. Thus the Angel in Daniel and the Apocalypse is brought in with these words, that he lifted up his hand to Heaven, and swore by him that liveth for ever. c. 32. Nay God himself in Deuteronomy speaketh in the same manner, I lift up my hand to Heaven, and I say, I live for ever; which is all one with this in another place, Isa 49. I swear by myself. Now this posture of lifting up the hand, is a posture of Prayer; according to that of the Apostle, I will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 1 Tim 2. For as when we Petition God, we ought to use reverend gesture; so much more when we appeal to him; and therefore those gestures of body in swearing, which do not denote inward devotion and awe of mind, are too light and trivial for so weighty and sacred an action. 2. It is a solemn Invocation of God to be a witness; and this will appear by those forms of oaths, which we find recorded in Scripture, wherein the Name of God, or else some Attribute of his is expressly mentioned; as in that Oath which Abraham exacted from his servant, Gen. 24. I will, saith he, make thee swear by the Lord, the God of Heaven, and the God of the Earth. So in the Covenant or League between Laban and Jacob; Gen. 31. Laban swore by the God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor; but Jacob swore by the fear of his Father Isaac; i.e. by that God which his Father Isaac feared. Gen. 42. Hence is that command twice repeated in the Law, that they should fear the Lord, and swear by his Name; therefore all Oaths by the Creatures, such as was Josephs, by the life of Pharaoh; and the Pharisees, by their Head, by the Temple, by the Altar, and the like, were unlawful, Mat. 23. since they did put the Creature into the place of God; and therefore are expressly forbidden by our Saviour; although even such Oaths do oblige, as our Saviour argues, since he that swears by the Temple, swears by it; and by him that dwells therein: i.e. He that swears by the Creature, swears by that, and likewise by the God of the Creature; and in that respect obliges himself. 2. An Oath is an Imprecation of divine vengeance upon ourselves, in case we be found to swear falsely. {αβγδ} And this is implyed in the very name, which in Hebrew, signifies both an Oath and a Curse; because a Curse is always annexed as the condition of an Oath. And in Deuteronomy, c. 29. where Moses repeats the Law of God, he tells them, that they should enter into Covenant with the Lord, and into his Oath, which he calls presently, the words of this Curse; and again, the Curses of this Covenant; because of that fatal and inseparable connexion there is between an Oath broken, and a Curse, deserved at least to attend it. The same is likewise implyed in what is said, that an Oath was an Invocation of God to be a witness; which in the Hebrew dialect, doth not only signify to Hear, but likewise to Punish; Gen. 32. as Laban to Jacob, See, saith he, man is by, God is witness betwixt me and thee: that is, as he himself interprets it, the Lord judge betwixt us. Whence it is that God threatens by the Prophet, Mal. 2. to be a swift witness against the false Swearer: i.e. speedily, and without delay, to avenge himself of him. Secondly, The second thing to be inquired into, is, Whether it be lawful to take an Oath? This I know is commonly presumed, and the contrary opinion is loaded with so much scorn and obloquy, that it may seem needless to discourse about it. But that I may give all men, how erroneous soever, their due, I think those who hold it utterly unlawful to swear, and in pursuance of that Tenet, suffer with so much constancy, are rather to be pitied, nay commended, for their tenderness; then either to be bitterly censured, or have any violence offered to their consciences: especially since they proceed not barely upon an obstinate humour, but upon this appearance of Reason and Scripture. 1. Because our Saviour and his Apostle James, Mat. 5. Jac. 5. doth command in direct terms, Swear not at all; and, Above all things swear not. Which words, if they be taken universally, as prohibiting all manner of Oaths, I do not see but the Texts may well warrant such an Exposition; at least they cannot be thought unworthy of the name or usage of Christians, who are willing to observe our Saviours precepts in their fullest and most comprehensive Latitude. 2. Because in the Time of the Law, when Swearing was allowed, yet it was looked upon as a sign of a good man to fear an Oath; i.e. To fear to take one; as the opposition in Eccl. 9. v. 2. sheweth, where among wicked ungodly men, is ranked— he that Sweareth; to whom is opposed by way of contradistinction, he that fears an Oath i. e. That doth not swear at all; as the words may very well be interpnted. 3. Because, to swear is a thing, at the best, permitted only, it is no where commanded. For those words in the Commandement, Ex. 20. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, is according to our Saviours interpretation, a command only, that we should not break our Oath, but not that we should take one. Like that concerning marriage, of which the Apostle saith, Rom. 7. that a woman is bound by the Law( not to mary, for that she may forbear if she please, but) to be true to her Husband so long as she is married. So the Precept in Deuteronomy, c. 12. Thou shalt serve the Lord, and swear by his name, is no Positive Command that we should swear at all, but only a direction in what manner and by whose name we should swear, when we have just occasion to do it. I can remember but two cases in Scripture, wherein an Oath is peremptorily commanded: the one is the case of a thing, which was borrowed and lost no witness being by; then he who borrowed it, Ex. 22. was obliged to clear himself by an Oath; and that, not to the Party in private, but before the Magistrate; as those words clearly imply; There shall be an Oath between them i. administered by such as have Authority to judge and decide Controversies. Another case wherein an Oath was commanded, was that of a woman, Numb. 5. who being by her Husband suspected of Adultery, and yet wanted proof to clear the matter of Fact, she was to be brought unto the High Priest; who, together with giving her the Bitter water, was to adjure her by an Oath, to which she was obliged to say Amen; and to take the curse upon herself, in case she had been guilty. But both these were extraordinary cases, and such as could not be decided by witnesses, as both the places mentioned do expressly testify; but in every thing else which related to judicial proceedings, the matters were to be ended by Witnesses without swearing, as is plain in the command; which doth not run, thou shalt not swear falsely, but, Thou shalt not bear False witness against thy Neighbour. 4. Because the custom of exacting an Oath, Mat. 4. proceeds {αβγδ}. From evil, if not otherwise, yet thus far, in that it intimates, he who does it, suspects his Neighbours Truth and Veracity; which however Heathens have just reason to do, yet Christians are utterly forbidden: for it is their duty, Eph. 4. 1 Cor. 13. To speak the truth in Love one to another; and the Apostle stated it, That Love thinketh no evil. 3. Lastly, because that Inconvenience, which, amongst many, makes swearing in a Court of Justice to be held so necessary, viz. Because many may be thought to value an Oath, who would not otherwise regard their single Testimony; This indeed is neither True nor Inconvenient: not True, since daily experience tells us, that men are Naturally as apt to swear a lie as to speak it: there being no Imaginable Reason why he who breaks Gods command in one thing, should observe it in another: which is apparently seen in such who in common Discourse, swear frequently, their very oaths do for the most part make them to be discredited: according to what God speaks of his own People, though they swear the Lord liveth; yet they swear falsely. 2. Not Inconvenient, because it is easy to make that provision, which the Law of God did, that the False witness should have the very same punishment inflicted on him whether for Life or Estate, Deut. 16.16.20. which he had designed against his Innocent Neighbour; which if it were once impartially executed the custom of swearing would cease, with the pretended Necessity of it Besides these Arguments which may be enforced against swearing in general; there are Two more of great weight against Promissory Oaths in particulars. 1. Because an Oath is a Bond or Ty; so we find it called Num. 30. If a man swear, to bind his soul with a Bond. And so all along that Chapter. For as cords and chains do bind the Body, so do Oaths, the soul: and as far as we have sworn, so much of our Liberty we have partend with; which both as men, we ought to value; and as Christians we are bound to preserve: because a Free use of Indifferent things, is part of our Saviours purchase. And therefore, by the way, those Voluntary and Unnecessary vows of perpetual Chastity, Pilgrimage, Fasting, Penance, and the like; are so far from being Meritorious, that they are most highly displeasing to God, as being made without, nay against, his warrant: And will at the last day, instead of Reward, meet only with a Quis requisivit— Who hath required these things at your hands? who bid you divest yourselves of that Liberty, which Christ at so dear a rate purchased for you? And, when there are so many things that lie undone by you, who bad you load yourselves with the Unprofitable Burden of uncommanded duties? 2. Because of the Uncertainty of future things. Eccl. 11.2. What the wise man speaks concerning Liberality to the poor, Give a Portion to seven, and also to eight, for thou dost not know what evil shall be upon the Earth— may be inverted, as to this business of swearing, forbear to do it, for thou knowest not what evil may be upon the Earth. The world, as it was made a Round Globe, so its moral or political motions are, like its natural, always in a circled. Life itself is called by the Apostle James {αβγδ}, i. not the Course as we render it, c. 3.6. but, the wheel of our Nativity. Upon which consideration, he sharply reprehends those, who take upon them so much as peremptorily to promise, c. 4. that they will Buy and sell; whereas, says he, ye know not what shall be to morrow. But if the uncertainiy of Future things ought to keep us from bare promising, much more ought it to make us cautious in Swearing, for the same Reason, which the Apostle there gives, because we do not know what shall be to morrow. And therefore for any to swear Absolutely, I will do such, or such a thing; and not leave himself that Retreat, which by the same Apostle is expressed, If the Lord will, we shall live and do this or that; this would be nothing else, but on the one hand to Tempt God, and to confine the Free and Arbitrary Actings of his Omnipotence; and on the other hand, to destroy ourselves, by running upon the Rocks either of Perjury, if we break, or else of Poverty, if we keep our oaths: and when it once comes to that Dilemma, few there are of so Tender consciences, but will strain at a Distinction; which had they at first directly denied to swear, they would not be liable to the temptation of. But notwithstanding what I have said, I cannot be convinced that it is utterly unlawful to swear, either by way of Assertion. i. e. when we assert the truth of a thing, to which we ourselves are privy, and therefore cannot, unless we will, be mistaken: by way of Promise, provided that the thing we swear, be in itself lawful, and in our Power to do it. And my Reasons are 1. Because I find the patriarchs, before the giving the Law, did it, as without scruple on their own parts, so without check on Gods. Thus Abraham, and afterwards Isaac made a League with Abimelech: Jacob with Laban; and in private Abraham exacted an Oath, from his servant; Jacob from his brother Esau, and afterwards from his son Joseph; which last Action is so mentioned by the Apostle, H. b. 11. as withall it is commended as an Effect of his Faith. Now, though I will grant that examples prove nothing against a Rule, yet when a Rule is in controversy, the Constant practise of Holy men ought to guide us in our Interpretation. 2. Because when Jacob in his flight prayed to God for his Protection, he at the same time made a vow, Gen. 28.22. that he would erect an Oratory at Bethel, and for the maintenance of Gods public worship, devote the Tenth of his Estate; which Action of his, is so far from being censured, that God mentions it with special Approbation; Gen. 31.13. Ps. 15.4. I am, saith he, the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the Pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me. And when David reckons up the Characters of a man who was fit to be an Inhabitant of Sion, he makes this one, not that he never swore, but that he never forswore himself: He is one, saith he, who swears to his Hurt, and changeth not. Which implies that to swear was lawful. And therefore David in his Confession to God useth this expression, as a sign of his sincere and unfeigned Piety— I have sworn and I will perform; Ps. 119. that I will keep thy Righteous judgements. 3. The Prophet Jeremy doth express it as the Happy Condition of Gospell-times, that they should swear, Jer. 5.2. the Lord liveth, in Truth, in righteousness, and judgement. i. Not that they should utterly abstain from oaths, but use them with due Care and Circumspection; fully understanding what and why the swear. 4. Our Saviours, and likewise the Apostle James Prohibition, of swear not at all. Need not to be understood universally, no more then when we are commanded to say Yea and Nay, that we are thereby tied to use those individual Phrases; but may very well be limited to Private Discourse, as the words following intimate {αβγδ},— Let your Communication, be altogether free from swearing, because as it is a sacred, so it ought to be a solemn Action. For were our Saviours words to be literally taken, it cannot be imagined that the Apostle Paul, should in so many places, use expressiones, that if they are not, yet they are little less then Oaths,— as By your rejoicing, in the Presence of God I lie not: with many the like; and above all, 2 Cor. 1.21. that {αβγδ}, I Invoke God as a witness upon my soul; which words contain the very formality of an Oath, since therein he Invokes God as a witness, i. as a Judge to punish him if he swears falsely: for the Hebrew Notation of the word to witness, signifies to Judge, as I have formerly observed. I conclude therefore that before a Magistrate, in a Lawcase, and upon a just call; it is not unlawful to take an Oath: though I must confess, the former Arguments weigh so much with me, that I think, if lawfully we may, it is much more Pious and advisable in Christian Prudence to avoid the Occasion of swearing, then voluntarily to run into it. As the Apostle speaks concerning Marrying, which is an Action very lawful too; 1 Cor. 7. so say I concerning swearing; He that swears( upon those Cautions and Considerations that I have premised) doth well, but he that swears not, doth better. And so much for the second Question. 3. The third Question is— whether a Forced Oath, after it is taken, may Lawfully be broken. For the right stating of which I premise these two things. ( 1.) That the Question must be understood of a thing in itself not unlawful; for no man can be obliged, whether willingly or unwillingly, to commit a sin. ( 2.) That though to speak properly no Oath can be Forced, because no man can be brought into such a streight, but he may refuse to swear or to do any other Action, which he thinks unlawful, if he will, yet in compliance with custom, that Oath, which a man takes upon some Apprehension of violence, that is intended to him, if he should refuse to swear, I call Involuntary or Forced— and this I say doth as much oblige, as if no Force did at all intervene; which I shall prove, first by Instances secondly by Reason. 1. My first Instance shall be that of Zedekiah, who was Nebuchadnezzars prisoner, and had taken an Oath of Fealty and allegiance to him, which, for the matter of it, was as unlawful; as for the manner, Involuntary; for the condition of that Oath was to enslave both himself, and the children of Israel unto the arbitrary commands of nabuchadnezzar, as God himself expresses it, That the Kingdom might be base, Ezek. 17.14. that it might not lift itself up; but that by keeping of his Covenant it might stand. This Oath Zedekiah( pretending no doubt, that it was unlawful, that it was against the fundamental Constitutions of Judea, and that he himself was under a Force at the time of taking it, with the like Thin and Airy excuses) presently after breaks, and all Israel with him: But, saith God, shall he prosper? shall he escape, that doth such things? or shall be break the Govenant and be delivered? seeing he despised the Oath by breaking the Covenant, when lo he had given his hand;( i. by hands lifted up, had solemnly ratified it) As I live, saith the Lord, surely, Mine Oath that he hath broken, 2 Chron. 36.12, 13 and my Covenant that he hath despised, even it will I recompense upon his own Head. And we find that the event did answer this sad perdiction, for in the Chronicles this is related as the Cause Zedekiabs destruction, because he harkened not to the words of the Prophet Jeremy,( who as we find in his Prophecies, did very often, and by reiterated Arguments, persuade him to continue his. Allegiance unto nabuchadnezzar) and broke his Oath unto nabuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by the Lord; wherefore the wrath of the Lord arose against the People, until there was no remedy. Wherein is insinuated, that that sin of Perjury is of so deep a die, and so provoking a nature, that nothing can expiate it: I do not mean as to its guilt,( for that upon true Repentance may be done away by the Blood of Christ) but as to its Obligation unto temporal punishment. 2. My second Instance shall be that of Souldiers taken in battle, who swear to be true Prisoners; this Oath, all Nations, whether Christian or Heathen, do hold to be Obligatory; and amongst others, Tully an Heathen Author, relates how infamous such persons were reputed among the Romans, who used indirect and subtle Acts to elude the force of that Oath; whereupon he lays down this Conclusion— Quicquid affirmatè, tanquam Deo teste juraveris, idtenendum est. Whatever you promise by an Oath, invoking God as a witness, that is to be held inviolable. Which pious speech, from the mouth of one, who had nothing but the Light of Nature to guide him, will certainly rise up in judgement against too many Christians, whom their Religion doth not carry so far, as mere Morality did him. 3. A third Instance shall be the Oath made to a Thief upon the High-way, not to discover him: which the best Casuists have resolved to be Obligatory; and amongst other our Reverend and Learned Dr Sanderson, to whose unanswerable Reasons, I shall refer the Reader. 4. Lastly, My last Instance shall be from such Oaths which are recorded in Scripture as Obligatory; and yet have much more to be said against them, to render them invalid and null, then Oaths merely forced; and these are of two sorts: 1. Rash and unadvised Oaths: 2. Oaths gained from us by deceit and fraud. Now if it shall appear that these Oaths do oblige, then the Inference will be very good, that forced Oaths, where we know what we do, and have nothing to complain of but the violence intended us, do oblige us much more. 1. Rash and unadvised Oaths are Obligatory. We are indeed commanded not to be Rash with our mouth; Eccl. 5.1. but if notwithstanding that Precaution, we will be Rash, it is but equal that we should smart for our Folly, and not add unto our Rashness in making an Oath, Presumption in breaking it. The Command is very peremptory, Num. 30.2. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an Oath to bind his soul with a Bond; he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeded out of his mouth. And lest any should pretend that they were not obliged, because they swore rashly and unadvisely; therefore it is repeated in Deuteronomy, c. 23.21, 23. with an express Answer to that Objection. When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord, slacken not to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin unto thee. As if he had said; have a care what you do in this business of Oaths: do not meddle with them unawares, for if once you have bound your souls with these Bonds, God is then concerned to exact payment, and he will be sure to do it, because he had commanded you beforehand to be wary. And that this was the opinion and practise of the ancient, and as yet unsophisticated world, as well as the Command of God, will appear from two remarkable examples. judge. 11.30. The one is of Jephtha, who vowed rashly enough, that in case God brought him home with victory, whatever came first out of his doors, he would offer it to the Lord; and when his Daughter to testify her joy, was the first that met him at his return, he did not cast about for a distinction, but presently reflecting upon his Oath, Alas, saith he, my daughter, thou hast brought me very low; for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. And she it seems was bread up in the same conscientious observance and fear of an Oath, for she encourages her Father; If, saith she, thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, then do not dispute the point any further, but do unto me according to all that hath proceeded out of thy mouth. I do not think that Jephtha did proceed to sacrifice his Daughter,( as yet Josephus and many others do suppose) both because it was a moral evil( and he that was so Religious and circumspectly in the observance of his vow, could not but know that no Oath did oblige him to commit of sin) but likewise because his Daughter did desire him, that she might have leave to go only, and to bewail her virginity; intimating that the effect of her Fathers vow, was to dedicate her unto the service of God, as a vestal Virgin. Yet the case was very sad, for it cut off from Jephtha all hopes of Issue, she being his only child. However the good man was so conscientious, that though his Oath was Rash, and the keeping of it was so fatal and destructive both to him and his Family; yet he durst not think of breaking it, because as he alleged, he had opened his mouth unto the Lord, and therefore he could not go back. Another example is that of the Israclites, judge 21.7. who in the heat and fury of their Civil Warres, had sworn by the Lord, not to give of their Daughters unto the Benjamites for Wives: And perceiving at last their great Error, for by this means a whole Tribe was like to be utterly destroyed, we do not find, that upon pretence their Oath was Rash, they did presume to break it, but they rather advice their Brethren of Benjamin, to snatch Wives for themselves as they could get them, and pacify the discontents of the injured Parents with this, Ye did not give unto them, i.e. your Daughters for Wives, that you should be guilty, &c. of breach of Oath. Perhaps some may object that both Jephtha and the Israelites were too nice and scrupulous; that they should only have repented of their sin in swearing, and all had been well; but let such well consider with themselves, what is the importance of that Command— When thou vowest a vow unto the Lord, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools— i. in men that say and unsay, that play as it were fast and loose with him. Pay that which thou hast vowed. And in case any should pled in their excuse, I did it rashly; that is wholly taken away in the following words, Say not thou before the Angel—( i. when he comes to require the payment of thy vow) it was an error,( i. I was mistaken, I did not consider of it, I knew not what I did, and the like) for why should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thy hands? i. God will not take such an excuse to be valid, but will certainly punish thee for breaking thy Oath, though thou dost pretend it was unadvisedly taken. 2 oaths gained from us by Fraud and Deccit, i. Such oaths, into which we are merely betrayed and cozened, and which, had we been rightly informed of all Circumstances, we would never have taken, do notwithstanding oblige us. This was the Case so well known, Josh. 9. between Joshua and the Gibeonites; they came to him under a False Name, for they said they were strangers, whereas they lived in the country: they told him a False story, that they had been so many dayes on that Journey, as had worn out their clothes, and moulded their Provision. They came about an undue, and for ought I can see; an unlawful Errand, for it was to make a League with the Israelites; which, in many places, was expressly forbidden. add to this, Deut 7.3. &c. that what Joshua and the Princes did, as it was without asking counsel of the Lord, so it was utterly against the mind of the Congregation: for we find that they murmured against Joshua, and the Princes about it. Put all these Circumstances together, and one would think, if any thing could justify the breach of a solemn League and Covenant, Joshuah had enough for him. But we find that he durst not do it, and that for but one unanswerable Argument, We have, saith he, sworn to them by the Lord, therefore we may not touch them. As if he had said, These men indeed deserve no favour at our hands, but we have used the name of our God to give them security by, therefore we may not touch them; for God will own and avenge their quarrel: Therefore, saith he, we will let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the Oath that we swore unto them. c. 10. Which conclusion of Joshua's, as it was most pious in itself, so was it most pleasing to God; as he declared first by the miraculous victory he gave them, when they went to succour the Gibeonites, as their allies and Confederates; and afterwards by the Plague; which he sent upon all Israel about four hundred and fifty years after, for the furious and bloody zeal of Saul, who did violate this League. From whence I draw this Inference, That if Zedekiahs Oath, which was directly forced; if the Oath of a Prisoner; and of a Traveller made to a Thief; if rash unadvised Oaths, and such into which we are merely betrayed and cozened, do all oblige us; then it follows, that a precedent Force doth not at all melt the Obligation of a subsequent Oath. Which was my first Argument. My second Argument is from Reason; and that 1. From the nature of an Oath, which is an immediate contract between God and the soul; and therefore the tie of it depends upon nothing else, but upon the Force and significancy of the words wherein, and upon the Majesty of God by whom it is taken. Which is plain from that of Joshua, who alleges no other Reason why he kept his League with the Gibeonites, but only this— We have sworn to them by the Lord, therefore we may not touch them. And when Zedekiahs sins are recapitulated, this is added by way of aggravation, that he broken his Oath unto nabuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by the Lord; the interposing of whose Name, gives every Oath its sanction, and ought to make it sacred. 2. Because of that great dishonour which is done to God, by the wilful and deliberate breach of a solemn Oath. For since our honouring of God doth not consist in the deportment and carriage of our bodies before him,( for in this hypocrisy may outact the most resolved Piety) but in that inward awe and veneration of mind which we have for so great a Majesty; there to trifle with Oaths, to pretend we were forced, or the like, when we swore by the Lord; and in that were credited, this is nothing else but to proclaim to the world, that we have low and mean thoughts of God, as if either he did not hear, or that he would not punish: which is nothing else but to question either his Providence, or his Justice, which are two Attributes of God, so essential to his Nature, and so necessary to be believed in the world, that God neither will nor can in honour suffer them to be questioned. And therefore to that Command against Forswearing, is added by way of penalty, that he will not hold them guiltless; i. he will assuredly punish such as take his Name in vain. And I think, if we search into former Ages and inquire, we shall not find many that did mock God( and certainly then we mock him, when we break an Oath which it is in our power to keep, because of some Inconvenience, which may thence arise unto ourselves) and prosper. Lastly, The last Reason shall be from the Inconveniencies which will follow, if there be allowed the least Dispensation for Oaths. For in case a preceding Force shall be admitted as a sufficient defeasance for that Bond; then it follows— 1. That all Warres must be prosecuted, not only to victory, but ad Internecionem, to the total extirpation of the opposite Party; because there can be no tie upon them so strong, as may induce us to believe that ever they will surcease their Hostility. For if their Oaths and Covenants be objected to them( as the Grecians in Homer {αβγδ}, Where are your Oaths, and right hands, to which we trusted?) they will presently reply, that they were compelled to swear, and therefore( according to this Divinity) absolved from their Oath, as soon as ever they took it. 2. There can be no possibility of any Agreement between Princes, especially where the one hath been conquered; for it will be easy( as it is too ordinary) for him to pled, that he was Forced unto Conditions of Peace. Lastly, if we grant this once, then immediately all Subjects will rise up in Arms against their respective sovereigns. For it is evident, that were there not some kind of awe and constraint upon People, they would never enter terms of Fealty and Allegiance. So that in all these cases, if an Oath because imposed by Force, doth not oblige, then are the foundations of all Society shaken, and the world will shortly be left a place of more dismal and atheistical Confusion, than Hell itself. For there the Devils believe there is a God, and tremble; but here the Name of God shall merely be made a stale to deceive and undo others by. To conclude therefore, for I do not love to insist long upon so plain a Case; as we are to pity those who have been forced to swear against their Consciences; so are we to pray, that they will rather reflect upon the Majesty and Dread of God by whom they swore, than upon the iniquity and sin of those persons, who compelled them to it. FINIS.