Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

SECT. II. Of the Objections usually brought against the use of an Oath by Christians, when brought as Witnesses before Magistrates.

The greatest pretence against that which we have said, is a mistake of the Intent of our Saviour in his Speech, Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all. To which we Answer, First,

That Christ is not now Repealing any Law which God had given to Israel, the time being not yet come to take away so much as the Ceremo∣nies of the Law; for our Saviour himself did observe divers of them af∣ter this time that he gave forth these Directions in his Sermon on the Mount: Wherein, as I said before, he is not Repealing any Law, but only giving the true Exposition of the Law. Hence therefore, it follows unavoidably, that our Saviour doth not here Abrogate that Law, Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him, and Swear by his Name. And thus Mens mistake about these words of our Saviour, is soon and plainly discovered and detected. And this also makes way to unvail that place, Jam. 5. 12. which doubtless is of the very same import with the Words of our Saviour, Mat. 5. 34. So then, if Christ's Words, Mat. 5. did not make void the Law of God, Deut. 6. 13. nor disprivi∣ledg the present Magistrate, nor any Man else, of that laudable way of giving Evidence in matters of Importance before a Judg, as for the Rea∣son before rendred, they do not; Then neither do the words of James make void that Law, Deut. 6. 13. and consequently it is as lawful still to swear in Righteousness and Truth, by the Name of the Lord, as it is to fear the Lord, and to serve him. For these things are both Commanded in one Sentence, and as yet never Abrogated, because Mat. 5. nor Jam. 5. do not Abrogate them; so that we need say no more.

Nevertheless, we shall add something, to shew what Swearing our Savi∣our and the Apostle doth prohibit. But first, It is to be diligently minded that our Lord is Correcting, not the Law of God, but the false Expositi∣on of them of old Time. Mark the Pronoun, Them, which refers not to the Law-giver, but plainly to some, either weak or corrupt Expounders of the Law: Who it seems, did not forbid Men to Swear by the Lord even in their Communication, but suffered them to Swear by Him as often as they pleased, so they did but avoid Perjury, and perform their Oaths to the Lord; which was a very unsound Exposition of God's Law in the case of Oaths, who required that his Name should not be taken in vain at all. And thus we are not to Swear at all in our Communication, but to let our yea be yea, and our nay be nay, without any ill custome of Swear∣ing, to confirm what we deliver in common Discourses. And here the words of James are aptly applied, Above (or rather before) all things, Swear not; there being scarce a more vile custome among Men, than to pollute their Discourses with variety of Oaths, as by Heaven, Earth,

the City of the Great King, and many other Oaths, which neither Christ nor the Apostle thought fit to mention, no nor ought they to do it with any Oath at all; an Oath being a more Sacred Thing than to be pro∣phanely used by any Man whatsoever.

How rudely then do those expound the Words of our Saviour and his Apostle, who instead of destroying the false Exposition of the Law of God in the case of Oaths, would make Men believe that Christ and the Apostle destroy the Law it self? Just as wisely as if a Man should de∣stroy that Law which saith, Honour thy Father, &c. because Christ saith, Call no man Father upon Earth, for one is your Father, even God. Or that we should not mind our Honest Callings in the World, because Christ saith, Labour not for the meat which perisheth. Such Negatives must have their Restrictions, according to the nature of the scope of the Speaker. Now the Scope of our Saviour being not to abrogate the Law, but rather to establish it, by giving the true sense thereof in his Doctrine; let us be∣ware of such Interpretations, as the Quakers, and some others, give of this place, lest we fall with them under the following absurdity.

For doth not our Saviour also say, It hath been said of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and then in his Exposition prohibits not Killing only, but causless Anger also. Now would it not be very strange to say, that what was said of old Time in respect of the Law by which Malefactors ought to be killed, is here forbidden: Must not the Magistrate execute Ven∣geance, even to Death, for all this? And what though it be never so true, that we ought not at all to take the Name of God in vain by Swearing with∣out cause, though such foolish Oaths be performed; doth it therefore fol∣low that we may not Swear in Righteousness and Truth before Autho∣rity, that Strife among Men may cease, and Justice be executed? Sure, the one of these would follow much like the other.

And when Christ saith, that they of old Time had said, Thou shalt not commit Adultery; and then shews the defect of their saying, in that it did not reach home to the root of the Sin. Sure, he doth not here make void the Law of God which forbad Adultery, but rather Confirms it, and only shews the folly of this Exposition, as it might seem to connive at any lustful carriage, so the Act were not committed. And truly, by this Rule, we may as easily understand our Saviour in the case of Oaths.

For what was said of old Time, was thus far true, and good, That Men ought not to forswear themselves; and this, no doubt, our Saviour Confirms, as he did part of the other Expositions. But whereas this Exposition might seem to leave them at Liberty, to Swear in all their Communication, so they did not forswear themselves; here he shews the vanity of it, and gives the full Exposition of the Third Command∣ment. Which was never intended to Prohibit, but rather to Justifie the giving our Testimonies in the most solemn manner, even in the Name of the Lord, or by Oath: but it was certainly given to prevent the prophane use of Oaths; yea, in such sort, as that he that rightly observed it, would not use them at all. And it was as much the duty of Men before Christ, as since, to forbear such a vain Custom, though through igno∣rance they understood not the Law, till it was opened by the Lion of the

Tribe of Judah, who prevailed, and hath graciously opened the Mysterie both of the Law, and the Prophets, which for the Sin of the Jewish Nation, was become to them as the words of a Book which is sealed.

Finally, It is not denied but that many Christians, both Ancient and Modern, have greatly doubted the lawfulness of an Oath in any Case, and these, Men of Eminence and Conscience too, in the things of God. Yet I conceive that which was the greatest strength to these Doubts, was not only the Words of Christ, or the Apostle, which we see may rati∣onally be freed from such a Construction; but the experience of the Snares which oft-times attends some kind of Oaths, imposed upon Men, and especially upon Christian Men, hath occasioned the mistake of the Words of Christ to be more easily received, or to be the more hard to be discerned. And pity it is, that those in whose Power it is to tender an Oath, should at all abuse that great Authority, by fra∣ming grievous Oaths, even such as may neither be lawful for them to impose, nor for others to accept. God in Mercy grant all that are in Authority, true Wisdom, and due Moderation towards their Subjects in this case of Conscience.