THE necessity of Religion to the sup­port of humane Society in nothing appears more evidently than in this, That the obligation of an Oath, which is so necessary for the maintenance of peace and justice a­mong [Page 2] men, depends wholly upon the sense and belief of a Deity. For no reason can be imagined why any man that doth not believe a God, should make the least conscience of an Oath; which is nothing else but a solemn ap­peal to God as a witness of the truth of what we say. So that whoever promotes Atheism and Infidelity doth the most destructive thing imaginable to humane Society, because he takes away the reverence and obligation of Oaths: And whenever that is generally cast off, humane Society must disband, and all things run into disorder. The just sense whereof made David cry out to God with so much earnestness, as if the World had been cracking, and the frame of it ready to break in pieces, Psal. 12. Help, Lord, for the righte­ous man ceaseth, and the faithfull fail from a­mong the children of men: Intimating, That when Faith fails from among men, nothing but a particular and immediate interposition of the Divine providence can preserve the World from falling into confusion. And our Blessed Saviour gives this as a sign of the end of the World, and the approaching dissolution of all things, when faith and truth shall hardly be found among men, Luke 18. 8. When the Son of [Page 3] man comes, shall he find Faith on the earth? This state of things doth loudly call for his co­ming to destroy the World, which is even ready to dissolve and fall in pieces of it self, when these Bands and Pillars of humane Soci­ety do break and fail. And surely never in a­ny Age was this Sign of the coming of the Son of man more glaring and terrible than in this degenerate Age wherein we live, when al­most all sorts of men seem to have broke loose from all obligations to faith and truth.

And therefore I do not know any Argu­ment more proper and usefull to be treated of upon this Occasion than of the Nature and Obligation of an Oath, which is the utmost security that one man can give to another, of the truth of what he saies; the strongest tye of fidelity, the surest ground of Judicial procee­dings, and the most firm and sacred bond that can be laid upon all that are concerned in the administration of publick Justice; upon Judge, and Jury, and Witnesses.

And for this reason I have pitched upon these Words; In which the Apostle declares to us the great use and necessity of Oaths a­mong men; An Oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. He had said before, that [Page 4] for our greater assurance and comfort God hath confirmed his promises to us by an Oath; con­descending herein to deal with us after the man­ner of men, who, when they would give cre­dit to a doubtfull matter, confirm what they say by an Oath. And generally when any doubt or controversie ariseth between Parties concerning a matter of fact, one side affir­ming, and the other denying, an end is put to this contest by an Oath; An Oath for con­firmation being to them an end of all strife: An Oath for confirmation, [...], for the greater assurance and establishment of a thing: Not, that an Oath is alwaies a certain and infallible decision of things according to truth and right; but, that this is the utmost credit that we can give to any thing, and the last resort of truth and confidence among men: After this we can go no farther; for if the Religion of an Oath will not oblige men to speak truth, nothing will. This is the utmost security that men can give, and must therefore be the final decision of all contests; An Oath for confir­mation is to them an end of all strife.

Now from this assertion of the Apostle con­cerning the great use and end of Oaths among men, I shall take occasion,

[Page 5] 1. To consider the nature of an Oath, and the kinds of it.

2. To shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths, in many cases.

3. To vindicate the lawfulness of them, where they are necessary.

4. To shew the sacred obligation of an Oath. I shall be as brief in these as the just handling of them will bear.

1. For the nature of an Oath, and the kinds of it. An Oath is an invocation of God, or an appeal to him as a witness of the truth of what we say. So that an Oath is a sacred thing, as be­ing an act of Religion and an invocation of the Name of God: And this, whether the Name of God be expresly mentioned in it or not. If a man only say, I swear, or I take my Oath, that a thing is, or is not, so, or so; or that I will, or will not, do such a thing: Or if a man answer upon his Oath, being adjured and required so to do: Or if a man swear by Heaven, or by Earth, or by any other thing that hath relation to God; in all these cases a man doth virtually call God to witness; and in so doing, he doth by consequence invoke him as a Judge and an Avenger, in case what he swears be not true. And if this be exprest, the oath is a formall Im­precation; [Page 6] but whether it be, or not, a curse upon our selves is always implyed in case of per­jury.

There are two sorts of Oaths, Assertory, and Promissory. An assertory oath is when a man af­firms or denies upon oath a matter of fact, past, or present: when he swears that a thing was, or is so, or not so. A promissory oath is a promise confirmed by an oath, which always respects something that is future: And if the promise be made directly and immediately to God, then it is call'd a Vow; if to men, an Oath. I proceed to the

II. Thing, which is to shew the great use and even necessity of Oaths, in many cases: Which is so great, that humane Society can very hardly, if at all, subsist long without them. Government would many times be very inse­cure: And for the faithfull discharge of Offices of great trust, in which the welfare of the Publick is nearly concerned, it is not possible to find any security equall to that of an Oath; be­cause the obligation of that reacheth to the most secret and hidden practices of men, and takes hold of them in many cases where the penalty of no humane Law can have any awe or force upon them: And especially, it is (as the Civil [Page 7] Law expresseth it) maximum expediendarum li­tium remedium, the best means of ending con­troversies: And where mens estates or lives are concerned, no evidence but what is assured by an Oath will be thought sufficient to decide the matter, so as to give full and generall satisfacti­on to mankind. For in matters of so great concernment, when men have all the assurance that can be had, and not till then, they are contented to sit down and rest satisfied with it. And among all Nations an Oath hath always been thought the onely permptory and satis­factory way of deciding such controversies.

III. The third thing I proposed, was to vin­dicate the Lawfulness of Oaths, where they are necessary. And it is a very strong inducement to believe the lawfulness of them, that the un­avoidable condition of humane affairs hath made them so necessary. The Apostle takes it for granted that an Oath is not only of great use in humane affairs, but in many cases of great necessity, to confirm a doubtful thing, and to put an end to controversies, which can­not otherwise be decided to the satisfaction of the Parties contending; An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. And indeed it is hardly imaginable that God should not have [Page 8] left that lawfull, which is so evidently necessary to the peace and security of Mankind.

But because there is a Sect, sprung up in our memory, which hath called in question the lawfullness of all Oaths, to the great mischief and disturbance of humane Society, I shall en­deavour to search this matter to the bottom, and to manifest how unreasonable and ground­less this Opinion is. And to this end, I shall

First, prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text, and from the rea­sons plainly contained, or strongly implied in it.

Secondly, I shall shew the weakness and insuf­ficiency of the grounds of the contrary Opi­nion; whether from reason, or from Scrip­ture, which last they principally rely upon; and if it could be made out from thence would de­termine the case.

1. I shall prove the lawfulness of Oaths from the authority of this Text, and the reasons plain­ly contained, or strongly implyed in it. Be­cause the Apostle doth not only speak of the use of Oaths among men without any manner of censure and reproof, but as a commend­able custome and practice, and in many cases necessary, for the confirmation of doubtfull [Page 9] matters, and in order to the finall decision of Controversies and Differences among men. For

First. He speakes of it as the generall practice of Mankind, to confirm things by an oath in order to the ending of differences. And indeed there is nothing that hath more universally ob­tained in all Ages and Nations of the World: than which there is not a more certain indication that a thing is agreeable to the Law of Nature and the best Reason of Mankind. And that this was no degenerate practice of Mankind, like that of Idolatry, is from hence evident; that when God separated a People to himself, it was practised among them, by the holy Pa­triarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and was afterwards not only allowed, but in many Cases commanded by the Law of Moses; which had it been a thing evil in it self and forbidden by the Law of Nature, would not have been done.

Secondly. Another undeniable Argument from the Text of the Lawfulness of Oaths is, that God himself, in condescension to the Custome of men who use to confirm and give credit to what they say by an Oath, is represented by the Apostle as confirming his promise to us by an oath, vers. 13. When God made the promise to Abra­ham, because he could swear by none greater, he [Page 10] swears by himself. For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsell, confirmed it by an oath: which he certainly would not have done, had an oath been unlawfull in it self. For that had been to comply with men in an evil prac­tice, and by his own example to give counte­nance to it in the highest manner: But though God condescend to represent himself to us after the manner of men, he never do's it in any thing that is in it's own nature evil and sinfull.

Thirdly. From the great Usefullness of Oaths in humane affaires, to give credit and confir­mation to our word, and to put an end to Con­testations. Now that which serves to such ex­cellent purposes, and is so convenient for hu­mane society, and for mutual security and con­fidence among men, ought not easily to be presumed unlawfull, till it be plainly proved to be so. And if we consider the nature of an oath, and every thing belonging to it, there is nothing that hath the least appearance of evil in it. There is surely no evil in it, as it is an act of religion; nor as it is an Appeal to God [Page 11] as a witness and avenger in case we swear falsly; nor as it is a confirmation of a doubtfull mat­ter; nor as it puts an end to strife and contro­versy. And these are all the essential ingredients of an Oath, and the ends of it; and they are all so good, that they rather commend it, than give the least colour of ground to condemn it. I proceed in the

2d. Place, to shew the weakness and insuffici­ency of the grounds of the contrary opinion; whether from Reason, or from Scripture.

First, from Reason. They say the necessity of an Oath is occasioned by the want of truth and fidelity among men. And that every man ought to demean himself with that faithfulness and integrity as may give credit and confirma­tion to his word; and then Oaths will be need­less. This pretence will be fully answered, if we consider these two things.

1st. That in matters of great importance no other obligation, besides that of an oath, hath been thought sufficient amongst the best and wisest of men to assert their fidelity to one ano­ther. Even the best men (to use the words of a great Author) have not trusted the best men with­out it. As we see in very remarkable instances, where Oaths have pass'd between those who [Page 12] might be thought to have the greatest confi­dence in one another: As between Abraham and his old faithfull servant Eliezer, concerning the choice of a Wise for his Son: Between Father and Son, Jacob and Joseph, concerning the bu­riall of his Father in the Land of Canaan: Be­tween two of the dearest and most intimate Friends, David and Jonathan, to assure their friendship to one another; and it had its effect long after Jonathan's death in the saving of Me­phibosheth, when reason of State and the secu­rity of his Throne seem'd to move David strong­ly to the contrary; for it is expresly said 2 Sam. 21. 7. that David spared Mephibosheth, Jonathan's Son, because of the oath of the Lord that was be­tween them; implying, that had it not been for his Oath, other considerations might probably have prevail'd with him to have permitted him to have been cut off with the rest of Saul's Children.

2dly. This Reason, which is alledged against Oaths among men, is much stronger against God's confirming his promises to us by an Oath. For he who is Truth it self is surely of all o­ther most to be credited upon his bare word, and his oath needless to give confirmation to it; and yet he condescends to add his oath to his [Page 13] word; and therefore that reason is evidently of no force.

Secondly, from Scripture. Our Saviour seems altogether to forbid swearing in any case, Matth. 5. 33, 34. Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thy self: but I say unto you swear not at all; neither by heaven, &c. But let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. And this Law St. James recites, chap. 5. ver. 12. as that which Christians ought to have a very particu­lar and principal regard to; above all things my Brethren swear not: And he makes the breach of this Law a damning sin, least ye fall into Condem­nation. But the Authority of our Saviour alone is sufficient, and therefore I shall only consider that Text.

And, because here lyes the main strength of this opinion of the unlawfulness of Oaths, it is very fit that this Text be fully consider'd; and that it be made very evident, that it was not our Sa­viour's meaning by this prohibition wholly to forbid the use of Oaths.

But before I enter upon this matter, I will readily grant, that there is scarce any Errour whatsoever that hath a more plausible colour from Scripture, than this; which makes the case [Page 14] of those who are seduced into it the more pity­able: But then it ought to be consider'd, how much this Doctrine of the unlawfulness of oaths reflects upon the Christian Religion; since it is so evidently prejudiciall both to humane Society in generall, and particularly to those persons that entertain it: neither of which ought rashly to be supposed and taken for granted, concerning any Law delivered by our Saviour: Because upon these terms it will be very hard for us to vindicate the divine wisdom of our Saviour's Doctrine, and the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion. Of the inconvenience of this Doctrine to hu­mane Society, I have spoken already. But be­sides this, it is very prejudicial to them that be­lieve it. It renders them suspected to Govern­ment, and in many cases incapable of the com­mon, benefits of Justice and other priviledges of humane Society, and exposeth them to great pe­nalties, as the constitution of all Laws and Go­vernments at present is; and it is not easy to ima­gine how they should be otherwise. And which is very considerable in this matter, it sets those who refuse Oaths upon very unequall terms with the rest of Mankind, if where the estates and lives of men are equally concern'd, their bare testimonies shall be admitted without an [Page 15] Oath, and others shall be obliged to speak upon Oath: Nothing being more certain in experi­ence, than that many men will lye for their in­terest, when they will not be perjured; God ha­ving planted in the natural Consciences of men a secret dread of perjury above most other sins. And this inconvenience is so great, as to render those who refuse oaths in all cases almost intolerable to humane Society. I speak not this ei­ther to bring them into trouble, or to perswade them to measure truth by their interest: But on the other hand I must needs say, that it is no Argument either of a wise or good man to take up any opinion, especially such a one as is great­ly to his prejudice upon slight grounds. And this very consideration, that it is so much to their inconvenience, may justly move them to be very carefull in the examination of it.

This being premis'd, I come now to explain this Prohibition of our Saviour; and to this purpose, I desire these three things may be well consider'd.

First, That severall circumstances of these words of our Saviour do manifestly shew that they ought to be interpreted in a limited sense, as only forbidding swearing in common con­versation; needless and heedless oaths (as one [Page 16] expresseth it) and in general, all voluntary swearing, unless upon some great and weighty cause, in which the glory of God and the good of the souls of Men is concerned. For that in such cases a voluntary oath may be lawfull, I am induced to believe from the example of St. Paul, who useth it more than once upon such occasions; of which I shall hereafter give par­ticular instances.

And this was the sense of Wise men among the Heathens, that men should not swear but upon necessity and great occasion. Thus Euse­bius the Philosopher in Stobaeus, counsels men. Some (says he) advise men to be carefull to swear the truth; but I advise principally that men do not easily swear at all, that is, not upon any slight, but only upon weighty occasions: To the same pur­pose Epictetus, Shun oaths wholly, if it be possible; if not, however as much as thou canst: And so likewise Simplicius in his Comment upon him, We ought wholly to shun swearing, except upon occasions of great necessity: And Quintilian among the Romans, In totum jurare, nisi ubi necesse est, gravi viro pa­rum convenit; To swear at all, except where it is necessary, do's not well suite with a wise man.

And, that this Prohibition of our Saviour's ought to be understood of oaths in ordinary [Page 17] conversation, appears from the opposition which our Saviour makes, Swear not at all; but let your communication be yea, yea; That is, in your ordinary commerce and affairs do not inter­pose oaths, but say and do. And this is very much confirmed, in that our Saviour do's not under this general Prohibition, instance in such oaths as are expresly by the name of God: The reason whereof is this; The Jews thought it unlawfull in ordinary communication to swear expresly by the name of God, but lawfull to swear by the Creatures, as by Heaven and Earth, &c. So that our Saviour's meaning is, as if he had said; You think you may swear in common conversation, provided you do not swear by the name of God; but I say unto you, let your communication be without oaths of any kind: you shall not so much as swear by heaven or by earth, because God is virtually in­voked in every oath. And unless we suppose this to be our Saviour's meaning, I do not see what good Reason can be given why our Saviour should only forbid them to swear by the Crea­tures, and not much rather by the Name of God; such oaths being surely of all others most to be avoided, as being the most direct abuse and pro­fanation of the Name of God.

[Page 18] Secondly, It is very considerable to the explain­ing of this Prohibition, that there are the like general expressions in other Jewish Authours concerning this very matter, which yet must of necessity be thus limited. Maimonides, from the ancient Rabbies, gives this Rule, that it is best not to swear at all. And Philo useth almost the same words. And Rabbi Jonathan comes very near our Saviour's expression, when he says, The just man will not swear at all; not so much as by the common Names of God, nor by his Attributes, nor by his Works, as by Heaven, or the Angels, or the Law. Now it is not imaginable, that these learned Jewes should condemn Oaths in all cases, when the Law of Moses did in many cases expresly re­quire them. And therefore they are to be un­derstood of voluntary oaths in ordinary conver­sation. And that the Jewes meant this by not swear­ing at all, seems to be very plain from a passage in Josephus, who says that the Sect of the Essenes forbad their Disciples to swear at all; and yet he tells us at the same time, that they who were admitted into that Sect, took an oath to observe the Laws and Rules of it. So that they who for­bad to swear at all, allowed of Oaths imposed by the Authority of Superiours.

Thirdly, which will peremptorily decide this [Page 19] matter, this Prohibition of our Saviour's cannot be understood to forbid all Oaths, without a plain contradiction to the undoubted practice of the primitive Christians, and of the Apostles, and even of our Lord himself. Origen and Ter­tullian tell us, that the Christians refused to swear by the Emperour's Genius; not because it was an Oath, but because they thought it to be Idolatrous: But the same Tertullian says, that the Christians were willing to swear per salutem Imperatoris, by the health and safety of the Emper­our. Athanasius, being accused to Constantius, purged himself by oath, and desired that his Ac­cuser might be put to his Oath, sub attestatione veritatis, by calling the truth to witness: by which form (says he) we Christians are wont to swear. But, which is more than this, St. Paul, upon weighty occasions, do's severall times in his Epistles call God to witness for the truth of what he says; which is the very formality of an Oath. God is my witness, Rom. 1. 9. As God is true, our word was not yea and nay, 2 Cor. 1. 18. and v. 23. I call God for a record upon my Soul. Before God I lye not, Gal. 1. 20. God is my record, Philip. 1. 8. God is my wit­ness, 1 Thess. 2. 5. These are all unquestionable oaths; which we cannot imagine St. Paul would have used, had they been directly contrary [Page 20] to our Saviour's Law. And whereas some de­fend this upon account of his extraordinary In­spiration, I cannot possibly see how this mends the matter. For surely it is very inconvenient to say that they who were to teach the Precepts of Christ to others, did themselves break them by Inspiration.

But I go yet farther, and shall urge an exam­ple beyond all exception.

Our Saviour himself (who surely would not be the first example of breaking his own Laws) did not refuse to answer upon Oath, being cal­led thereto at his Tryall. So we find Matth. 26. 63. The high Priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God; that is, he required him to an­swer this question upon Oath. For among the Jewes, the form of giving an oath to witnesses and others, was not by tendering a formal oath to them, as the custome is among us; but by adjuring them, that is, requiring them to answer upon oath: As is plain from Levit. 5. 1. If a man hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness whether he hath seen or known of such a thing, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his Iniquity. If he have heard the voice of swearing, that is, if being adju­red or demanded to answer upon oath, concern­ing [Page 21] what he hath seen or heard, he do not ut­ter the truth, he is perjured. Now to this ad­juration of the high Priest, our Saviour answer­ed, thou hast said: which words are not an avoid­ing to answer (as some have thought) but a di­rect answer; as if he had said, it is as thou sayest; it is even so, I am the Son of God. For upon this answer the high Priest said, he hath spoken blas­phemy. But, to put the matter beyond all doubt, St. Mark tells us, Mark 14. 61. that he being asked by the high Priest, Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed? He answered, I am. So that unless we will interpret our Saviour's Doctrine contrary to his own practice, we cannot understand him to forbid all Oaths; and consequently they are not unlawfull.

I have been the longer upon this, that I might give clear satisfaction in this matter to those that are willing to receive it.

As for the Ceremonies in use among us in the ta­king of Oaths, it is no just Exception against them, that they are not found in Scripture. For this was always matter of Liberty; and several Na­tions have used several Rites and Ceremonies in their Oaths. It was the custome of the Graecians, to swear laying their hands upon the Altar, quod sanctissimum jusjurandum est habitum, (saith [...] Gel­lius) [Page 22] which was looked upon as the most sacred form of Swearing. The Romans were wont Jovem La­pidem jurare; that is, he that swore by Jupiter held a Flint-stone in his hand, and flung it vio­lently from him, with these words, Si sciens fallo ita me Jupiter bonis omnibus ejiciat ut ego hunc La­pidem; If I knowingly falsify, God so throw me out of all my possessions as I do this stone.

In Scripture there are two Ceremonies men­tioned of Swearing. One, of putting the hand under the Thigh of him to whom the Oath was made. Thus Eliezer swore to Abraham, Gen. 24. and Joseph to Jacob, Gen. 47. The other was by lifting up the hand to heaven: Thus Abraham ex­presseth the manner of an Oath, Gen. 14. 22. I have lift up my hand to the most high God. And thus God condescending to the manner of men, expresseth himself, Deut. 32. 40. If I lift up my hand to heaven, and swear. In allusion to this custome the Psalmist describes the Perjured person, Psal. 144. 8. Whose mouth speaketh vanity; and whose right hand is a right hand of falshood. And there is not the least intimation in Scripture, that either of these Ceremonies were prescribed and ap­pointed by God, but voluntarily instituted and taken up by men. And thus among us the Ce­remony of Swearing is by laying the hand on the [Page 23] holy Gospel, and kissing the Book; which is both very solemn and significant. And this is the rea­son why this solemn kind of Oath is called a cor­porall Oath, and was anciently so called; because the sign or ceremony of it is performed by some part of the Body. And this Solemnity is an ag­gravation of the Perjury, because it makes it both more deliberate, and more scandalous.

I shall speak but briefly to the

IV. And last particular, viz. the sacred obliga­tion of an Oath: because it is a solemn appeal to God as a witness of the truth of what we say: To God, I say, from whose piercing and all-see­ing eye, from whose perfect and infinite know­ledge, nothing is or can be hid: So that there is not a thought in our heart but he sees it, nor a word in our tongue but he discerns the truth or falshood of it. Whenever we swear, we appeal to his knowledge, and refer our selves to his just judgment, who is the powerfull Patron and Pro­tectour of Right, and the Almighty Judge and Avenger of all falshood and unrighteousness. So that it is not possible for men to lay a more sacred and solemn obligation upon their Consci­ences, than by the Religion of an Oath. Moses very well expresseth it, by binding our souls with a bond. Numb. 30. 2. If a man swear an oath, to bind [Page 24] his soul with a bond; intimating that he that swears, lays the strongest obligation upon him­self, and puts his Soul in pawn for the truth of what he says. And this obligation no man can violate, but at the utmost peril of the judge­ment and vengeance of God. For every Oath implies a Curse upon our selves, in case of Per­jury, as Plutarch observes. And this was always the sense of Mankind, concerning the obligation of Oaths. Nullum vinculum ad astringendam fi­dem majores nostri jurejurando arctius esse volue­runt, saith Tully; Our fore-fathers had no stricter bond, whereby to oblige the faith of men to one ano­ther, than that of an Oath. To the same purpose is that in the Comedian, Aliud si scirem, qui firmare meam apud vos possem fidem, sanctius quàm jusju­randum, id pollicerer tibi. If I knew any thing more sacred than an Oath, whereby to confirm to you the truth of what I say, I would make use of it.

I will crave your patience a little longer, whilest by way of inference from this Dis­course, I represent to you the great Sin of Swear­ing in common conversation, upon trivial and need­less occasions; and the hainousness of the sin of Perjury.

1. First. The great sin of Swearing, upon tri­vial and needless occasions, in common conver­sation. [Page 25] Because an Oath is a solemn thing, and reserved for great occasions, to give con­firmation to our word in some weighty matter, and to put an end to controversies which can­not otherwise be peremptorily and satisfactorily decided. And therefore to use Oaths upon light occasions, argues great profaneness and irrever­ence of Almighty God. So Vlpian the great Roman Lawyer observes, Nonnullos esse faciles ad jurandum contemptu Religionis, that mens proneness to swearing comes from a contempt of Religion; than which nothing disposeth men more to Atheism and Infidelity. Besides that it doth many times surprize men unawares into Perjury: And how can it be otherwise, when men use to interlard all their careless talk with Oaths, but that they must often be perjur'd? And which is worse, it prepares men for deliberate perjury: For with those who are accustomed to swear upon light occasions, an Oath will go off with them more roundly about weightier matters. From a common custome of swearing (saith Hierocles) men easily slide into perjury: Therefore (says he) if thou wouldest not be perjured, do not use to swear. And this per­haps is the meaning of St. James, when he cau­tions Christians so vehemently against common swearing, [...], (for so some of the [Page 26] best ancient Copies read it) least ye fall into hypo­crisy, that is, least ye lye and be perjured, by using your selves to rash and inconsiderate swearing.

And men expose themselves to this danger to no purpose; Oaths in common discourse being so far from confirming a man's word, that with wise men they much weaken it: For common swearing (if it have any serious meaning at all) argues in a man a perpetual distrust of his own reputation, and is an acknowledgment that he thinks his bare word not to be worthy of cre­dit. And it is so far from adorning and filling a man's discourse, that it makes it look swolne and bloated, and more bold and blustring than becomes persons of gentle and good breeding. Besides, that it is a great incivility, because it highly offends and grates upon all sober and considerate persons; who cannot be presumed with any manner of ease and patience to hear God affronted, and his great and glorious Name so irreverently tost upon every slight occasion.

And it is no excuse to men that many times they do it ignorantly, and not observing and knowing what they do. For certainly it is no extenuation of a fault, that a man hath got the habit of it so perfect, that he commits it when he do's not think of it: Which consideration [Page 27] should make men oppose the beginnings of this Vice, lest it grow into a habit very hard to be left. Nemo novit, nisi qui expertus est, quàm sit difficile consuetudinem jurandi extinguere, saith St. Austin; No man knows, but he that hath tryed, how hard it is to get rid of this custome of Swearing: But yet it is certain men may do it, by resolution, and great care of themselves: For he that can chuse whe­ther he will speak or not, can chuse whether he will swear or not when he speaks. Major consue­tudo majorem intentionem flagitat; the more in­veterate a custome is, the greater care should be used to break our selves of it.

In short, This practice is so contrary to so plain a Precept of our Saviour, and by the breach whereof we incurr so great a danger (as St. James assures us) that it must be a great charity that can find out a way to reconcile a common custome of swearing with a serious belief of the Christian Religion: Which I would to God those who are concerned would seriously lay to heart. Especially, since this Sin of all others hath the least of Temptation to it. Profit or Pleasure there is none in it; nor any thing in mens na­turall tempers to incite them to it. For though some men pour out Oaths so freely as if they came naturally from them, yet surely no man is born of a swearing constitution.

[Page 28] All that can be pretended for it, is Custome and Fashion: But, to shew that this is no Excuse, it is very observable, that it is particularly in the matter of Oaths and Perjury that the Holy Ghost gives that caution, Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.

And lastly, it deserves to be considered, that this sin is so much the greater because of the fre­quent returns of it, in those that are accustomed to it. So that although it were but small in it self (as it is not) yet the frequent practice of this sin would quickly mount it up to a great score.

2. Secondly, To represent the heinousness of the sin of Perjury. But before I aggravate this Crime, it is fit to let men know how many ways they may be guilty of it.

1st. When a man asserts upon oath what he knows to be otherwise: Or promiseth what he does not intend to perform. In both these cases the very act of swearing is Perjury. And so like­wise when a man promiseth upon oath to do that which it is unlawfull for him to do; because this oath is contrary to a former obligation.

2dly. When a man is uncertain whether what he swears to be true. This likewise is Perjury, in the act; though not of the same degree of guilt with the former, because it is not so fully and di­rectly [Page 29] against his knowledge and conscience. For men ought to be certain of the truth of what they assert upon oath, and not to swear at ven­ture. And therefore no man ought positively to swear to the truth of any thing but what he him­self hath seen or heard: This being the highest assurance men are capable of in this world. In like manner, he is guilty of perjury in the same degree, who promiseth upon oath what he is not morally and reasonably certain he shall be able to perform.

3dly. They are likewise guilty of Perjury, who do not use great plainness and simplicity in oaths; but answer aequivocally and doubtfully, or with reservation of something in their minds, thinking thereby to salve the truth of what they say. And we all know who they are that make use of these arts, and maintain them to be law­full; to the infinite scandall of the Christian Religion, and prejudice of humane Society, by doing what in them lyes to destroy all Faith and mutual Confidence among men. For what can be a greater affront to God, than to use his Name to deceive men? And what can more directly overthrow the great end and use of oaths, which are for confirmation, and to put an end to strife? Whereas by these arts the thing is [Page 30] left in the same uncertainty it was before, and there is no decision of it. For there is hardly any form of words can be devised so plain, as not to be lyable to Equivocation: To be sure, a man when he swears, may always reserve something in his mind which will quite alter the sense of what ever he can say or promise upon oath. And this may be laid down for a certain Rule, That all departure from the simplicity of an oath, is a degree of Perjury; and a man is never a whit the less forsworn, because his perjury is a little finer and more artificiall than ordinary. And though men think by this device to save themselves harmless from the guilt of so great a Sin, they do really increase it, by adding to their iniquity the impudent folly of mocking God and deceiving themselves.

And whereas it is pleaded, in the favour of mental reservation, that the whole Proposition, as made up of what is exprest in words and of that which is reserved in the mind, is true; For instance, if a man being ask'd upon Oath whether he be a Priest, shall answer he is not, reserving in his mind that he is not a Priest of Bacchus, or some such thing, the whole Proposition is true, and then they say a man may swear to that which is true, without danger of perjury: This is of no force, [Page 31] because, though the whole Proposition be true, it is deceitfull, and contrary to that sincerity which ought to be in an oath: And the end of an oath is hereby likewise defeated, which is to ascertain the truth of what we say: But if a man reserve something in his mind which alters the truth of what he says, the thing is still as doubt­full and uncertain as it was before. Besides, if this be a good reason; a man may swear with re­servation in all cases, because the reason equally extends to all cases; for if the truth of the Pro­position, as made up of what is express'd in words and reserv'd in the mind, will excuse a man from Perjury, then no man can be perjur'd that swears with reservation: But this the Casuists of the Roman Church do not allow, but only in some particular cases, as before an incompetent Judge, or the like; for they see well enough that if this were allow'd in all cases, it would destroy all faith among men. And therefore since the reason extends alike to all cases, it is plain that it is to be allow'd in none.

4thly. He is guilty of Perjury after the act, who having a real intention when he swears, to perform what he promiseth, yet afterwards neg­lects to do it: Not for want of Power (for so long as that continues the obligation ceaseth) but [Page 32] for want of Will, and due regard to his oath.

Now that Perjury is a most heinous Sin, is evident, because it is contrary to so plain and great a Law of God; one of the ten Words or Precepts of the Moral Law, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; thou shalt not bring or apply the name of God to a fals­hood: Or, as Josephus renders it, Thou shalt not adjure God to a false thing: Which our Saviour renders yet more plainly, Matth. 5. 33. Thou shalt not forswear thy self. For he seems to refer to the third Commandment when he says, Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thy self, as he had done before to the 6th. and 7th. when he says, It was said to them of old time, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adul­tery. So that the primary, if not the sole intention of this Law, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, is to forbid the great sin of Perjury. And I do not remember that in Scrip­ture the phrase of taking God's name in vain, is used in any other sense. And thus it is certainly used, Prov. 30. 9. Lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of the Lord my God in vain: i. e. lest Po­verty should tempt me to steal, and stealth should engage me in Perjury. For among the Jewes an oath was tendered to him that was suspected of [Page 33] theft, as appears from Levit. 6. 2. where it is said, If any one be guilty of theft, and lyeth concerning it, or sweareth falsly; he shall restore all that about which he hath sworn falsly. Left I steal, and take the name of the Lord my God in vain; that is, be perju­red, being examined upon oath concerning a thing stoln. And for this reason the thief and the perjured person are put together, Zech. 5. 4. where it is said, that a curse shall enter into the house of the thief, and of him that sweareth falsly by the name of God. From all which it is very probable, that the whole intention of the 3d. Commandment is to forbid this great sin of Perjury. To deterr men from which, a severe threatning is there added; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain; that is, he will most severely pu­nish such a one. And 'tis very obseravble, that there is no threatning added to any other Com­mandment, but to this and the second; Intima­ting to us that next to Idolatry and the worship of a false God, Perjury is one of the greatest af­fronts that can be offered to the divine Majesty. This is one of those sins that cries so loud to Hea­ven, and quickens the pace of God's judgments, Mal. 3. 9. I will come near to you in judgment, and be a swift witness against the swearer. For this God threatens utter destruction to the man and his house, Zech. 5. 4. speaking of the curse that goeth [Page 34] over the face of the whole earth; God (says he) will bring it forth, and it shall enter into the house of him that sweareth falsly by the name of God, and shall re­main in the midst of his house, and shall consume it, with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. It shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it. This sin by the secret judgment of God un­dermines Estates and Families, to the utter ruine of them. And among the Heathen it was always reckoned one of the greatest of Crimes, and which they did believe God did not only punish upon the guilty person himself, but upon his family and posterity; and many times upon whole Nations, as the Prophet also tells us, that because of Oaths the Land mourns.

I need not use many words to aggravate this sin; it is certainly a Crime of the highest nature. Deliberate Perjury being directly against a man's knowledge, so that no man can commit it with­out staring his Conscience in the face; which is one of the greatest aggravations of any Crime. And it is equally a sin against both Tables; being the highest affront to God, and of most injuri­ous consequence to men. It is an horrible abuse of the name of God, an open contempt of his Judg­ment, and an insolent defiance of his Vengeance: And in respect of men, it is not only a wrong to this or that particular person who suffers by it, [Page 35] but Treason against humane Society; subverting at once the foundations of publick Peace and Ju­stice, and the private security of every man's life and fortune. It is a defeating of the best and last way that the wisdome of men could devise for the decision of doubtfull matters. Solomon very fully and elegantly expresseth the destructive nature of this sin, Prov. 25. 18. A false witness against his neigh­bour, is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow: Intima­ting, that amongst all the instruments of ruine and mischief that have been devised by mankind, none is of more pernicious consequence to hu­mane Society than Perjury, and breach of Faith. It is a pestilence that usually walketh in darkness, and a secret stab and blow against which many times there is no possibility of defence.

And therefore it highly concerns those who upon these and the like occasions are called upon their Oath, whether as Jurors or Witnesses, to set God be­fore their eyes, and to have his fear in their hearts, whenever they come to take an oath: And to go­vern and discharge their consciences in this matter by known and approved Rules, and by the Reso­lutions of pious and wise men; and not by the loose Reasonings and Resolutions of Pamphlets, sent abroad to serve the turns of unpeaceable and ill-minded men (whether Atheists, or Papists, or others) on purpose to debauch the Consciences of men by [Page 36] teaching them to play fast and loose with oaths. And it is a very sad sign of the decay of Christian Reli­gion amongst us, to see so many who call them­selves Christians, to make so little conscience of so great a sin, as even the Light of Nature would blush and tremble at.

I will conclude all with those excellent Sayings of the Son of Sirach concerning these two sins (I have been speaking of) of Profane Swearing, and Perjury, Eccle. 23. 9, 10, &c. Accustome not thy mouth to swear­ing; neither use thy self to the naming of the holy One. A man that useth much swearing shall be filled with iniqui­ty; and the plague shall never depart from his house. If he shall offend, his sin shall be upon him; and if he acknow­ledge not his sin, he maketh a double offence. And if he swear falsly, he shall not be innocent, but his house shall be full of calamities. And to represent to us the dreadful nature of this sin of Perjury, There is (saith he) a word that is clothed about with death, meaning a rash and false Oath; There is a word that is clothed about with death, God grant it be not found in the heritage of Jacob: For all such things shall be far from the godly; and they will not wallow in these sins. From which God preserve all good men, and make them careful to preserve themselves; as they value the present peace of their own consciences, and the favour of Almighty God in this World and the other, for his Mercies sake in Jesus Christ. To whom, &c.