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 ...

CHAP. IV. Of the lawful use of an Oath, to attest the Truth before the Magistrate: Being the second Great Case of Conscience.

SECT. I.

MAny Christians are doubtful in this Case, but without sufficient grounds. For first,

The use of an Oath cannot be of the number of things which are sin∣ful in their own Nature, as Idolatry, Murther, and Lying are; Nay, it is so far from that, that the truth is, it is very sacred in it self: Because the Holy God (with whom Sin could never have to do) hath frequently used it, Gen. 22. 16. with Heb. 6. 13. By my Self have I sworn, saith the Lord, That in blessing I will bless thee. And again, The Lord swore, and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever, Psalm 110. 4. And again, Once have I sworn by my Holiness, that I will not lye unto David, Psal. 89. 35. We must therefore have an holy apprehension of an Oath,

as a very solemn and sacred thing, and in no wise of a poluting conside∣ration in it self.

2. The holy Angels by God's appointment, have delivered their Mes∣sage with a solemn Oath, Rev. 10. 5, 6. The Angel lifted up his Hand to Heaven, and Swear by Him that liveth for ever and ever, — that there should be time no longer.

3. Before the Law was given, holy Men as they were taught of God, used an Oath in very solemn Cases. Gen. 14. 22. I have lift up my hand to the Lord, the most High God. Again, Now therefore swear unto me here by God, that thou wilt not deal falsly with me, — and Abraham said, I will swear, &c. Gen. 21. 23, 24. And ver. 31. He called that place, The Well of an Oath; for there they sware both of them. The same we find solemnly used by the Patriarks, Isaac and Jacob; and all this before the Law of Moses was. So that we may say, the use of an Oath is not of Moses, but of the Fathers, yea, of the Father of Heaven, even God himself. And moreover, when we find it given in express Precept to Israel, it is joyned with that in one entire Sentence, which is universally Moral and Perpetual; Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his Name. So that, me-thinks, he must be more than ordinarily bold, and blind too, that cries down the use of an Oath in all cases as sinful.

4. When the Apostle saith, Men verily Swear by the Greater; and an Oath for Confirmation, is to them an end of all Strife, and this in the * 1.1 Present-tense too, and not as the mention of some old or antiquated Custome. This Custome the Apostle doth not mention only without Censuring it, but makes it Argumentative in a great point of Faith; for this is his scope: If when any thing is Confirmed unto Men by an Oath, there is no further striving about the certainty of the matter at∣tested, that being the most solemn way in which Mortals can testifie what they know: Then Christians, the Heirs of Salvation, have a surer ground of hope concerning their Salvation, because God himself confirmed his Promise in that Case, by an Oath. Certainly, the Apostle refers to this Practice among Men as that which was vertuous, and would by it excite Christians to a Vertue like unto it, in that Case he had in hand, namely to believe (without any striving) that Record which God had Confirmed by Oath. And therefore

5. We must not pass by the common Approbation, that that way of witnessing things before Authority by an Oath, hath, and doth receive from God to this Day. For though no Man can assign any example (I suppose) of the Hand of the Lord going out against any Man, that (be∣ing lawfully called) hath given evidence by Oath against a Thief, Mur∣therer, or other Malefactor, or in any Cause depending, or Strife arising among Men, provided he hath only spoken the Truth without prejudice to the Person, &c. But on the contrary, How eminently hath the Lord pleaded the Honour of his Name, when by Perjury it hath been propha∣ned? No Man can be ignorant of this, who hath conversed with our English Historiographers, to which I will add that remarkable Example of God's Justice recounted by Eusebius, * 1.2 concerning three false Witnesses,

who by Oath and solemn Execration, accused Narcissus Bishop of Jeru∣salem. And the Judgment of the Lord followed them as they had im∣precated, the first being accidentally Burnt alive to Ashes; the second consumed with a wasting Disease; the third seeing the Hand of God fal∣len upon the two former, confessed the Perjury.

6. When Paul tells us, the Law is good if a Man use it lawfully; and then tells us, 'tis made for Perjured Persons, as well as other Offenders, 1 Tim. 1. 9, 10. What doth he less than plainly declare his Mind, that an Oath is lawful? 'tis only Perjury, or false Swearing, or bearing false Witness by Oath, which he condemns. For when he saith, the Law was not made for a Righteous Man, it's evident he speaks of the Penal Law only; for the preceptive part of all good Laws are made for Righteous Men, as well as for any others. Now then, let us see the opposition between a Righteous and a Wicked Man, in the sense of this Text: Here is the Murtherers of Fathers, and Murtherer of Mothers, the Per∣jured Person, &c. The Righteous Man in opposition to these, is he that nourisheth his Father and Mother, and sweareth nothing but that which is Truth. Paul is here speaking of the Law, as in the Hand of the Magi∣strate, and is so far from condemning the use of an Oath in the lawful use of this Law, that he justifieth it to be a part of the lawful use thereof.

7. An Oath being a Sacred Thing, and no Legal Ceremony, it seems to be part of that Religion which is Universal, which we have proved the Magistrate is to have care of; and to the intent that Witness (on which Mens Lives and Estates depend) should be made with the greatest Tie that may be upon the Conscience, God hath therefore ordained that the Testimony be given in his Name, which must put the greatest Awe of any thing upon the Conscience of Man. And hitherto may be referr'd the Third Commandment, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain. We may therefore, yea, we ought to take the Name of the Lord in Truth and Righteousness, else we make this Command to teach nothing which is Practical, and so give a very lame Exposition. And to take the Name of the Lord in Truth and Righteousness, what is this less than to attest what we say by a solemn Oath, when performing the office of a Witness before a Judg?

8. * 1.3 The consent of Nations, or the universal use of an Oath taken in the Name of the Greater, to wit, God, (or at least what the Nations take to be so) and therein to comport with the most holy Men we read of, shews that this Custome arises from that Dread of his Name, which He hath placed in Man's heart generally, and by the solemn use of an Oath in all cases of Importance, in Courts of Judicature, which are also his Ordinance, he seems to bear Rule by this Tie or solemn Band, not only in the Conscience of the Witness, but also over the whole Court it self, who regularly can do nothing, but that which must accord with the Evi∣dence which is given in the Name of the Lord; by this Power Men live, Men die, and their Estates are preserved, or destroyed. But if any abuse the Name of the Lord by false Witness, God first or last, will certainly

implead that wicked Man, that durst presume to speak a Lye in the Name of the Lord.

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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, jurant. Montanus.
• * 1.2

  Euseb. l. 6. c. 8. but the 9 after the Greek.
• * 1.3

  Here the Qua∣ker is convict∣ed by the Light in Men.