A CAUTION to the sons of ZION: Being an ANSWER to Jeremiah Ives his Book, Entitled, The great Case of Conscience opened.  
I. Proving that every calling God to witness is not Swearing.  
II. Proving that Promissory Oaths were never commanded by God, only practised as Liberty under former Dispensations.  
III. Proving that Promissory Oaths were never commanded nor practised by Christ nor his Disciples in all the New Testament.  
iv Showing what an Oath is.  
V Proving the lawfulness of all Promissory Oaths in the time of the Gospel.  
For the Land is full of adulterers, for because of Swearing the Land mourneth, the pealant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right,  Jerem. 23.10. 
By Samuel Hodgkin.  
LONDON, Printed for the Author, in the year, 1660.   

An Answer to jeremiah Ives his Book Entitled The great Case of Conscience Opened.  
FOrasmuch as many of the Lords People through this Nation are imprisoned at this day for the Testimony of a good Conscience, who rather choose joyfully to suffer than to Swear, I therefore who am a prisoner upon the same account, being constrained, by those mani-fold persuasions that I have met with from the Lord upon my spirit, to persuade me hereunto, I therefore have thought it my duty to set pen to paper in vindication of that Righteous Law of Christ, for which we suffer at this day, that so the Justice of our Cause may appear the more plainly to all those who are willing to look on it with an  eye, and I am the more provoked hereunto, through consideration of those many Stars that have fallen in this evil day, who have not been contented only to Swear themselves, (although some of them have manifested by their suffering for it first, that their Conscience was convinced to the contrary) yet when they saw no way to escape suffering, they were willing rather to Swear than to suffer; and also some have not been contented only to Swear, but have endeavoured not only by pleading for, but also writing to vindicate the same; and lest it should prove to the wounding of some poor souls, I judge therefore myself bound in Conscience, for the vindication of the truth, and therefore I shall proceed,  
First, To answer as briefly as may be, what hath been asserted by Mr Ives, for the proof of Promissory Swearing in the time of the Gospel, and that I may so do, I shall examine what hath been said by him in his book, called The great Case of Conscience Opened, and to the end we way escape the dangen of those manifold extremes, that too too many are carried away by in this our day; Let us therefore take heed, least through the pretence of fear of splitting ourselves on the rock of ignorance, we cry up that for verity, which is in itself heresy: I shall therefore take notice of the method which he takes, that so by tracing him in the channel wherein he goeth, I may the better take notice wherein it agreeth, or not agreeth with the Scriptures of Truth; and if through the Lord's assistance I shall come to discover any thing therein contained not to be agreeable to Truth, I have what I aim at, and let God have the glory, and that I may so do, I shall first take notice what he undertaketh to prove, which is, That Assertory and Promissory Oaths are both lawful and useful in the time of the Gospel and the way by which he proceeds for the proof thereof is, First, To show what Sacred Oaths are. Secondly To what end they were taken. Thirdly, Whether those two Texts, Matthew 5.34. james 5.12. do forbidden all Oaths in the time of the Gospel.  
As to the first, namely what a Sacred Oath is: saith he, it is a band by which a man binds his soul to the speaking of that which is in itself true, or the doing of that which is in itself lawful, unto which the living and true God is called to witness, Numb. 30.2.  
To this I answer, that every Sacred Oath by which God is called to witness to the truth of a thing, or to the performance of a lawful thing, is a band whereby the soul is bound, but every calling God to witness in lawful things is not an Oath.  
As appears thus, if a bare calling God to witness be swearing by God, then calling the Heaven and Earth to witness is swearing by Heaven and Earth, for then Moses had sworn by creatures, Deut. 4.26. I call Heaven and Earth to witness against you this day; And so likewise God himself in Deut. 30.19. I call Heaven and Earth to record against you, chap. 31.28. but it was ever unlawful to swear by creatures, therefore I conclude, That a bare calling to witness is not swearing.  
Now wheneas Mr Ives saith there were two sorts of Sacred Oaths under the Law, (viz.) commanded and voluntary.  
I grant that there were, but there were no other Sacred Oaths commanded under the Law but Assertory, and therefore you may take notice that those Texts he hath here cited, to wit, Exod 22.11 Deut. 5.3. chap. 10.20. do not in the least mention any Promissory Swearing: Now therefore whereas he saith some Oaths were voluntary, I shall not deny it, but do say that all Promissory Oaths were voluntary, because I find not one Text of Scripture where ever God commanded them. Now whereas M. Ives saith, That there were three ways by which a man bound himself with an Oath.  
I do grant there were: namely, first when he pronounced the Oath with his own lips, Levit. 5.4.  
Secondly as a man is sworn when he pronounced the oath with his own lips, so I grant that he may as well be sworn when he is charged or abjured to swear by the living God, provided that he say amen to the oath, or I take this oath upon me; I say then if after he hath taken the Oath upon him, he do not speak the truth, he is as well guilty of false swearing, as he that pronounceth the oath with his own lips; but it doth not therefore follow, that if a man be charged or abjured to swear and to speak the truth upon his Oath, and he give no consent to the Oath, neither by saying amen, nor so be it, nor I take this upon me; I say then that it doth not follow that he hath sworn because he speaketh the truth, for then when a man is charged or abjured to swear by the living God, and to speak the Truth, it would follow, that either he must hold his peace, or else if he speak the truth, he must be sworn whether he will or no; I say therefore it doth not follow that because the High Priest charged Christ to swear by the Living God, and to speak the truth, namely, whether he were the Son of God or no; I say then it doth not follow that because he consented unto the truth, in saying thou sayest it, that therefore he was sworn; for according to what Mr Ives citeth of Mr. Answorths' writings, if he had been sworn, he must have said amen to the Oath, or so be it, or I take this Oath upon me; then after he had taken the Oath so upon him, if he had answered any thing, it had been upon his Oath.  
Again, whereas Mr. Ives citeth, Levit. 5.1. to prove that a man was sworn if he untered a matter, being abjured thereunto by the Living God; the text saith no such matter, for the text at most if we take it in his own terms, doth but say, if a man sin and hear the voice of swearing (or abjuration) and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it, if he do not utter it, than he shall bear his iniquity; as much as if the Lord should have said that he that could witness the truth of a matter, and would not when he was charged to it, should be guilty of sin, because he did not discover it; and as Solomon saith, Prov. 19.24. He that is partner with a thief hateth his own Soul, he heareth cursing and bewrayeth it not, as much as if he should say by keeping silence when he ought to witness, he became guilty of another man's sin; now the Text doth not say that if he doth not utter it, he shall be guilty of false swearing, but the text only saith he shall bear his iniquity.  
Again, whereas Mr. Ives saith from the 1 King. 22. 16,17. that the Prophet Micah was as firmly sworn when the King abjured him in the Name of the Living God, as if he had pronounced the Oath with his own lips; I much wonder that he should so much wrong the Prophet, for if every time the King abjured him, he were sworn, than he was sometimes forsworn; for it is plain from the words, How many times? That the King had sometimes abjured him before, and yet we do not find that he gave the King any direct answer before; and therefore I conclude as before that, except the Prophet had first owned the Oath, and then answered, he was not sworn; I confess I cannot but much wonder that he should so earnestly desire others to consider of this, and yet so little consider of it himself; for he first tells us that a man is sworn if he doth but speak the truth when he is abjured by the Living God, and yet he tells us afterwards, that an Oath like this we have in our Common Law; now I would appeal to any man that knoweth but any thing of the Law, whether or not when the witness is charged by the help of God to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, between party and party; now if the witness should speak the truth, without laying his hand upon the Book and kissing it, or giving his consent to, or owning of the Oath, I would fain know whether any rational man would say that this man was sworn; therefore I would desire you for to consider that it is one thing for a man to relate a matter when he is charged or abjured to swear to it, and another thing for a man first to own or take the Oath upon him, and then to relate it upon his Oath.  
Now the third way by which a man bound his Soul by an Oath, I do grant was no less Sacred, though somewhat different from the former, and that is called an Oath of cursing, Num. 5.21. But this Oath was not otherways taken then the former, for either the party taking it must utter the curse with his own mouth, 2 Sam. 3.35. Or else when the Oath was pronounced by another, the party must say amen, or a word of like import, to signify that they owned the Oath, or else they were not bound, as appears, Num. 5.22. Nehe. 5 12, 13. And all the Congregation said Amen.  
And therefore I shall now come unto the second qustion, (viz.) what was the end of sacred Oaths, and here I cannot but take notice of his distinction between Oaths commanded and voluntary, because he saith that Oaths that were commanded were ordinarily such as were made by God to men; and Oaths that were voluntary were made to God; I confess if this distinction were true, it would somewhat clear the matter, and therefore let us take good notice of the way he takes to prove it, for faith he, this distinction appears plainly, if we consider the example of Abraham swearing his Servant to him by the Loid, Gon. 23.4. And Abraham swore by the Lord Abimeleoh, Gen 21.23. and the spies Swore by the Lord to Rahab, Jos. 2 12.  
I confess if these texts prove that God Commanded men to swear one to another, they would make something to his purpose, but if every practice or example of the Servants of God of old do prove the thing practised to be a Command of God, then have I lost my understanding; But I humbly conceive that Mr. Ives will not say that every thing that was practised by the Servants of God of old was Commanded by God, for all men that know any thing, do know that they practised many things, as Liberty, and not as Command; Now therefore except I could find one text of Scripture, either in Old or new Testament, to prove that promissory Swearing was Commanded,  
I conclude that it was never Commanded; Now saith he the end of such oaths as men swore by God to one another was, as the Author to the Hebrews tells us, Heb. 6. 1●. To end all strife, and to confirm the truth of a matter in question; an example we have of this, Exod. 22.11 If a man deliver to his neighbourian Ox, or an Ass, or a Sheep, or any Beast to keep, and it die or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it, Then shall an Oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods, and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make it good; Now I grant that one end of men's swearing one to another, was, as the Author to the Hebrews saith, to end all strife, and as appears by the forementioned text, Exod. 22.11. I do also grant that another end of one man's swearing to another, was to make good all Lawful promises, according as Mr. Ives saith; but you may be pleased to take notice that here he begs the question, and saith, having spoken of the end of such oaths that were Commanded, when he hath not given one text of Scripture to prove promissory oaths Commanded.  
I shall therefore conclude that not only all Sacred oaths to God were voluntary, but also all promissory oaths to men were voluntary, because I know no text of Scripture Commanded them; I shall now proceed and take notice of what he saith to the end of voluntary oaths; Now saith he, the end of those Sacred oaths that were voluntary, were to afflict the Soul by falling or otherwise. To this I answer that some voluntary oaths were to afflict the Soul, Num. 30.3. But it doth not therefore follow that all voluntary oaths were to afflict the Soul; For some Sacred oaths were between men and men, which were voluntarily, as I have already showed from Gen. 23.4. chap. 21.22. Again saith he, those Oaths that were made to God were called Oaths to God; I confess I do not know how they should be called otherwise, because there was none else concerned in them; but it doth not therefore follow that God requires the performance of no other Oaths to him, but such as were immediately made to him; for we find in Scripture, that God owns Oaths that were made between men and men to be his Oaths, and requires the performance thereof as well as it they had been immediately made to him, as we may see in Ezek. 17.19. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, as I live, surely my Oath that he hath despised, and my Covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. So likewise the 2d. of Samuel 21.7. and 1 Kings 2.43. Now therefore, though as he saith, the end of Oaths made immediately to God, were to bind them to the performance of those voluntary Services which they were not bound to by the Law, yet it cannot be understood that Christ hath reference in Mat. 5.33. to such Oaths only as were made immediately to God, because as I have already showed, that God requires the performance, and owns such Oaths to be his, as were made between men and men.  
I now come to his last question, (viz.) whether those two Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. do forbid all manner of swearing in Gospel times, and here I shall grant with him, that Christ doth not forbid the use of such swearing as was in the Law commanded, only let me revive the  distinction, namely between Oaths commanded, and Oaths that were voluntary, and that because Oaths that were commanded were only assertory, as I have already showed; now therefore I shall pass over those reasons that he hath given to prove, that Christ did not take away the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law, only by the way, give me leave to except against some particulars that he hath instanced in for proof in this case, and first I take notice of his first Reason, (viz.) that Christ used some such swearing himself, in Mat. 26.63. when he was adjured by the Highpriest.  
To which I answer, if I should grant that Christ in this swore, yet it makes nothing to our question, because in this Text there was nothing promissory, but however I cannot but wonder, that be should so much contradict himself, as to say that Christ swore, and yet made no answer to the Oath, when he himself saith in the third page of his Book, speaking of Mr. Ainsworth's writings, in showing, that when a man is adjured or charged to swear, he is not sworn except he take the Oath upon him, by expressing some words to signify the same, which Christ did not.  
I now come to his second Reason, (viz.) that Christ in Mat. 5. could not take away the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law, because those Commandments contained in Ordinances, were not taken away till the death of the Testator, Ephes. 2.15. and those Ordinances that were contrary to us, were not taken away till Christ nailed them to his Cross, Col. 2.14. therefore those Commandments of the Law which accommodated humane affairs, and respected morals, of which, this of swearing to end strife was none of the least, could not be taken away before Christ died, and that therefore all such Oaths as were commanded under the Law, was not forbid by that Text, Mat. 5.34.  
I confess this is the soundest Argument I have met with in all his Book, and had he first proved that promissory swearing had been commanded under the Law, this had been something to his purpose; but forasmuch as promissory swearing was never commanded in any part of the Law; this Argument can at most but prove assertory Oaths to be excepted in Mat. 5. and so we are but still where we were before; for I do grant, that in Mat. 5. Christ took away nothing that was commanded, and that therefore in his prohibition ver. 34. can have reference to no other Oath but promissory, and because no other Oath binds the persons taking it to performance.  
I come to his third Reason, (viz.) that those Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. cannot forbid the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law, because the Prophet prophesied that some such swearing should be used in the times of the New Testament, Isa. 65.16, 17. I must confess Mr. Ives puts me into amaze, to think that he is already got into the new heavens, and the new earth, certainly he hath not been long there, for it was not long ago since he was in prison because he could not swear, but it should seem that he is not only got thence, but he hath forgotten all the former troubles; I confess it will be well for him, if he according to the Text, never have occasion to remember them any more; but I humbly conceive, that few men in England will say that the time is yet come that the Prophet speaks of; and although Mr. Ives citeth the Apostle Peter's words, 2 Pet. 3. to prove that the Prophet doth respect the New Testament time, yet I suppose that after the heavens and the earth is burnt up, than Mr. Ives will have done writing of Books, but to come unto the Text, if it did respect our times (as doubtless it doth not) yet it doth not reach our case, because it mentions nothing promissory. Again whereas he citeth Psalms 15.4. to prove promissory swearing under the New Testament: To this I answer, that if this Text must of necessity be understood to have respect to the time of the Gospel, than it is either because some Text of Scripture tells us so, or else because that swearing is in all ages a duty so incumbent upon Saints, that none can dwell in God's holy Hil●, that have not been found acting therein: But there is no Text of Scripture that tells us, that this Prophet in this Text hath respect to Gospel times, and I am persuaded that none will be so ridiculous as to say, that swearing is in all ages a duty so incumbent upon Saints, that none can dwell in God's holy Hill, that have not been found acting therein; and whereas he citeth Isa. 45.23. I must say it doth not respect our time, because then every tongue shall confess God, but at this present they do not, but however it doth not respect our case, and therefore I shall leave it.  
I come now to his fourth Reason, which is, that those two Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. could not forbid all such swearing as was commanded under the Law, because such swearing Jesus Christ was not only found in the practice of, but the Apostle Paul doth both practice and enjoin the same; Now to prove that the Apostle practised promissory swearing, he citys 2 Cor. 11.10. and tells us that the Apostle swore, because he said, as the Truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the Regions of Achaia; I confess I cannot but wonder to think that he should call this swearing, if it was swearing, what did he swear by? In your stead I answer, that if I should take it for granted, as you say, than he swore by that Truth or Belief of Christ which was in him; Again, if he swore, what did he swear to? I answer, that he would boast the matter, touching which he would boast of is evident; so to gather this up we thus reason, that if the Apostle swore, that then he swore by something that was not God, that no man should stop him of his boasting; Now to swear by any thing that is not God will be easily granted on all hands to be sin, which this arguing accuseth the Apostle with, and certainly it need be no wonder that men have gotten a custom in England to swear by their Faith, or Truth, if Paul swore by the same, for if swearing by the Truth of Christ that is in us be not to swear by our Faith, than I must confess I am to seek; but certainly none that well considers what they say, will affirm that the Apostle did swear by his Faith, neither that he made so slight an account of an Oath as to swear he would boast; yet notwithstanding to prove the Apostle did swear in these words, he refers us to the 1 Kings 1.29. and tells us that Daniel swore as the Lord liveth, yet if this were true, it doth not follow that the word as doth make it to be an Oath at all times; but if you look into the Text you will find that it saith that the King swore and said as the Lord liveth, from whence we may observe, that his Oath was one thing, and what he said in the following words was another thing, and if we mind the 30. verse, he tells us what the Oath was, even as I swore unto thee by the Lord; so that in plainness we may understand that the King swore by the Lord, and said, As the Lord liveth that bath redeemed my soul out of all distress; again he tells us, that under the Old Testament they swore, in calling God to witness, or record to the Truth of what they said, Judge 11.10. Jerem. 42.5. but these Texts doth not call it swearing, though Mr. Ives doth; and though he tells us, if calling God to witness be not swearing, he is ignorant what swearing is; yet let me tell you, he hath given us never a Text of Scripture to prove that it is, but I humbly conceive, that what I have already said from Deut. 4.26. and 30.19. and 31.28. doth sufficiently prove, that every calling to witness in a solemn manner is not swearing; for then not only Moses, but God himself hath sworn by Creatures, a thing which Mr. Ives himself grants was never lawful; but if it should be granted, that calling God to witness were swearing, yet it would make nothing to his purpose, because the Apostle useth it only in cases assertory, and not promissory; Again he tells us, that the Apostle swore in Rom. ●. 1. because he saith he speaks the Truth in Christ; I confess, if speaking the Truth in Christ be swearing, than this is swearing, but if not, I know not how he can make an Oath of these words; but in regard the Apostle also in this Text is asserting the Truth, I shall leave this, and come to what he saith concerning promissory swearing.  
Now to prove that promissory swearing is lawful, he citeth 2 Tim. ●. 1. where Paul charged Timothy before God and the Lord Jesus Christ; but what of this? doth this prove that he charged him to swear? the Text saith only, that Paul charged Timothy to preach the Gospel, but it is only Mr. Ives that tells us he charged him to swear; but now to make good his assertion, he brings us to 1 Thess. 5.27. where the Text speaks not a word of swearing; but to wind up his discourse, having no Text of Scripture to prove his matter, he doth as the Priests of England use to do, and tells us that it is otherwise in Beza's Translation; but what then? if it be otherwise in Beza's Translation, will it therefore follow that Beza's Translation is true, and all others false? I would appeal to all rational men, whether it be a sufficient ground for men to swear promissory Oaths, because Beza in one Text of Scripture contradicts other Translators? But again consider, what reason can there be imagined, that Paul should write to the Thessalonians to charge them to swear to read his Epistle to all the Brethren? Were it not more reasonable to think, that if the Thessalonians did value Paul's charge, they would as soon have read his Epistle without swearing, as to be sworn, or to swear to read it? for doubtless, if they had not valued his charging them to read it, they would not have valued his charging them to swear to read it; so that this considered, it doth not appear that Paul swore them.  
To proceed, I come to the fifth Reason, where he tells us that Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. could not forbid all such swearing as was used under the Law, because there is as much reason for the use of some Oaths now, as ever there was to this; I answer, that as to Oaths assertory, I shall leave it, because it is not our case, but as to Oaths promissory, I answer, and say that the Law of Christ must be above reason; for when Christ commands, we must not inquire whether his Commands be reasonable or no; if we do, it's possible our carnal reason may come short of the mind of Christ; as for instance, what reason was there that Abraham should slay Isaac, only the command of God? Again, what reason was there that all the Males should be circumcised, only the command of God? Again, what reason is there that a man or woman should go in a cold frosty morning to be baptised, only that the Servant of the Lord saith to persons when converted, arise, why tarriest thou, and be baptised; and why may we not as well say swear not at all promissory Oaths, though there were no more reason why we should refrain, than there is for the former cases cited, seeing we have for this as for the former, the command of Christ? and therefore let us take heed how we consult with reason in such cases; but I might prove sufficiently from Scripture, that there is not so much reason in our day for promissory swearing, as was in the time of the Law; but supposing that what I have said already may be sufficient, I shall only refer the Reader to Mat. 24.6, 7, 8, 9 verses, and Ezek. 24.17. desiring them to consider of them, (not that I would here be mistaken) as if I did believe from these Texts, that it is the Saints work to overturn Government; but only this I could wish, that Saints would have a care of swearing, to uphold and maintain any power, lest that power should act wickedly, and God should have a controversy with them, even to the overturning of them, which may fully by Scripture be proved to be the manner of Gods dealing with powers that he himself hath set up, and so may be found fighters against God.  
I shall now briefly take notice of what Mr. Ives further saith as to Mat. the 5.34. where Christ saith, but I say swear not at all, which words saith he doth admit of a restriction; To which I answer, that I do believe that Christ did not intent in that text to take away such swearing as was enjoined by a Law, (viz) assertory swearing; Therefore I shall pass what he hath said as to this particular; and whereas he tells us that Christ forbids all swearing in our Common Communication, and also swearing by Creatures, now these kind of swear being always unlawful, I shall love what he hath said to this, only I cannot but take notice of what he saith in the Conclusion of his book, where he tells us that the Apostle James had reference to those passionate oaths that the twelve Tribes did usually make in affliction, for saith he, it was usual for them to make passionate Oaths in affliction, and to prove this, he citys Psal. 13.2.12. Lord (saith the Psalons') Remember David in all his affliction, how he swore unto the Lord, and vowed unto the Mighty God of Jacob, Saying, I will not enter into the Tabernacle of my House, her climb up to my Bed, nor suffer my eyes to sleep, nor my eyelids to slumber, till I have found out a place for the Lord, an Habitation for the Mighty God of Jacob. Now because that God hath said that David should never build him an House, Mr. Ives is pleased to say that this Oath was passionate, but I humbly conceive that his opinion in this case was not grounded upon Scripture, for the Scripture tells us that it was such an Oath as the Lord will accept of, 2 King. 6.8. But the Lord said to David my Father, for as much as it was in thy heart to build an House for my Name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart.  
And although the Lord would not suffer David to build him an House, yet he suffered them to fulfil his Oath in every title; for he did not only find out a Place for the House to be built, but also he gave the Pattern, 1 Cro. 28 10.11. chap. Thus having answered what Mr. Ives hath written to prove promissory oaths lawful, I shall conclude what I have said with the same causion which he gives; but let every man take heed how he swears.  
And now I shall come first to show what an oath is, and secondly to prove that Christ forbids all Promissory oaches in Mat. 5. and that I may so do, you may be pleased, first to take notice of what I have already said from Dent. 4.26. chap. 30.19. chap. 31.28. namely, that calling God to witness, is not swearing, but when we read of the Servants of the Lord swearing in Scripture, we find, that it was not only a bare calling God to witness, but they swear by God that they did speak the truth, or that they would do such a thing, as you see in Gen. 23.4. Abraham swore his Servant by the Lord, 1 Sam 21, 22. David swore to Saul by the Lord, 21 Gen. 23. and Abraham swore by the Lord, 2. Josh. 12 the Spies swore by the Lord, and as it was the true manner of swearing, to swear by the Lord, when they prenounced the Oath themselves, so it was also when they were charged or abjured by another; and therefore we find that it was the manner of the Jews, that when they charged or abjured one to swear, they did not tell them that they should take God to witness to what they said, but we find that when the High Priest abjured Christ, 36 Mat. 63. he adjured him by God; So likewise when the the Prophet Isaiah Prophesied of the New Heavens, and the New Earth, Isa. 65.16. He saith that he who swore in the Earth shall swear by the God of Truth; Now to swear by the Lord is to say that they do speak the truth, or will do such a thing by the Lord, as much as if they should say, that the Lord do help them in what they do, or that they do it by his assistance; and hence it comes to pass that it was unlawful for a man to swear by any Creature, because no Creature can help him to speak the truth, or perform what he promised; and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not speak truth, because they did as much as say that God did help them to speak a lie, and so they blasphemed the Name of God in the highest nature; and doubtless those that made the oath that we have in our Common Law, did understand no less, and therefore they charge the witness by the help of God to speak the truth; Thus having shown what an oath is; I come now to prove from Mat. the 5. that Christ forbids all promissory oaths, and that I may so do, I shall first give you these distinctions, as finding them in Scripture; first swearing in their common Communication. Secondly, swearing, yet by Creatures. Thirdly, assertory Oaths, swearing by God to affirm a truth by them spoken, in a solemn manner before a Judge, or otherwise. Fourthly, promissory oaths, promising and binding it with an oath. As to the first, all men that I know of will grant that it was ever sinful. The second, I know no man that will say that it was ever Lawful. The third was once God's Law, Exod. 22.11. and therefore not taken away by Christ, Mat. 5. because those Commandments contained in Ordinances, were not taken away till the death of the Testator, Ephes. 2.15. The fourth, an old practice, yet never Commanded, but used as Liberty until Christ forbidden it in Mat. the 5.33.34. and never in the least used in all the New Testament, since the time it was prohibited, neither by Christ nor Christians. Now that Christ did prohibit it in Mat. 5.34. appears thus, first, that it was promissory is manifested from vers. the 33. in the word thou shalt perform, because there can be no performance where there is no thing promised. Secondly that it was such promissory Oaths as was sometimes Lawful that is there forbidden, appears also from vers. 33. Again ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths; Now it was Lawful both before the Law and under the Law to swear and perform; Therefore Christ forbids that which was sometimes Lawful. But if it should be objected that because the text saith, it hath been said by them of old time, that therefore Christ for bids only such promissory Oaths as the Jews allowed of by their Tradition, namely, swearing by Creatures; To this I answer, first, that in the older Translations it is read thus, It was said of them of old time; and therefore it cannot be understood to be the Jews traditions, because it was the Law of God that said to them of old time they should not forswear but perform. Secondly, it cannot be reasonably concluded that Christ hath respect in this text only to the Jews tradition, because he useth the same m●nner of expression in this text that he useth in ver. 21. and 27. Now it will be granted by all that it was the Law of God that said they should not kill, and that they should not commit adultery, and why may we not as well conclude that he intends the Law of God in ver. the 33. Now if it be objected that he doth but give the true sense and meaning of the Law in ver. 21.27. and therefore he doth not take away any thing that was ever Lawful, in ver. 33, 34. To this I answer, that it was once Lawful in the Law to put away a wife, although it was not for fornication, yet Christ prohibits it, ver, 32. Again, it was lawful in the time of the Law to have an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but Christ prohibits it, in ver. 39 therefore we may plainly see that although Christ do not take away any of the Preceptory part of the Law, yet he doth take away some of the Privileged part of the Law. Thirdly, the third and last reason why Christ cannot be understood only to forbid swearing by Creatures, is taken from ver. the 34 But I say unto you swear not at all, neither by Heaven, from whence we may take notice from the word, neither, that he doth first forbid such swearing as was sometimes Lawful, namely, to swear by God; and lest they should think that although they might not presume to swear by God, yet they might swear by those inferior things; Now to prevent this, he sayeth neither by Heaven nor Earth, nor Jerusalem, neither by the head, for we must understand that the word neither, hath reference to something going before; But if it should be objected further, that Christ meaneth only swearing, in their ordinary or Common Communication, because he saith in verse 37. But let your Communication be yea yea, nay nay; for what soever is more than these cometh of evil.  
I answer that if the word Common or Ordinary were in the text, there might bosom ground for this Objection; but forasmuch as the text only saith Communication, not Ordinary or Common Communication, I humbly conceive that this Objection will easily be answered; for we find in Scripture that the most Heavenly or most solid discourse between men and men is called Communication, as you may see, 2 Sam. 3.17, 18. Abner had a Communication with the Elders of Israel about setting up David to be King, according to the appointment of God, 2 King. 9.11. now if we compare this text with the precedent verses, we shall find that the Prophet declaring the Message of God concerning the setting up of Jehu King over Israel, is called Communication; but I conceive these will be out of qustion, and therefore I shall leave it, and commit what I have said to the ingenious Reader, desiring to leave it to the blessing of the Almighty, hoping that these who are willing to look on it with an equal eye, may thereby be enabled the better to escape the evil of our day.  
FINIS.