The Concurrence of the ancient Fathers therein.Neither is it to be omitted that without Doubt the most learned Doctors of each Sect know, That these fore-mentioned Words were understood by the ancient Fathers of the first three hundred Years after Christ to be a Prohibition of all Sorts of Oaths. It is not then without Reason that we wonder that the Popish Doctors and Priests bind themselves by an Oath to interpret the Holy Scriptures according to the universal Exposition of the Holy Fathers; who nevertheless understood those controverted Texts quite contrary to what these modern Doctors do. And from thence also do clearly appear the Vanity and foolish Certainty (so to speak) of Popish Traditions; for if by the Writings of the Fathers, so called, the Faith of the Church of those Ages may be demonstrated, it is clear they have departed from the Faith of the Church of the first three Ages in the Point of Swearing. Moreover, because not only Papists, but also Lutherans and Calvinists, and some others, do restrict the Words of Christ and James, I think it needful to make manifest the vain Foundation upon which that Presumption in this Matter is built.
§. XI.
Secondly, All rash and vain Oaths in familiar Discourses; because he saith, Let your Communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay.
Answ. 1.To which I answer, First, That the Law did forbid all Oaths made by the Creatures, as also all vain and rash Oaths in our common Discourses, commanding, That Men should only swear by the Name of God, and that neither falsely nor rashly; for that is to take his Name in vain.
Answ. 2.Secondly, It is most evident that Christ forbids somewhat that was permitted under the Law, To swear by God himself forbidden by Christ.to wit, to swear by the Name of God, because it was not lawful for any Man to swear but by God himself. And because he saith, Neither by Heaven, because it is the Throne of God; therefore he excludes all other Oaths, even those which are made by God; for he saith, Chap. xxiii. 22. He that shall swear by Heaven, sweareth by the Throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon: Which is also to be understood of the rest.
Answ. 3.Lastly, That he might put the Matter beyond all Controversy, he adds, Neither by any other Oath: Therefore seeing to swear before the Magistrate by God is an Oath, it is here without Doubt forbidden.
Object.Secondly, They object, That by these Words Oaths by God’s Name cannot be forbidden, because the Heavenly Father hath commanded them; for the Father and the Son are one, which could not be, if the Son had forbid that which the Father commanded.
Answ.I answer, They are indeed one, and cannot contradict one another: Oaths under the Old Covenant.Nevertheless the Father gave many Things to the Jews for a Time, because of their Infirmity under the Old Covenant, which had only a Shadow of good Things to come, not the very Substance of Things, until Christ should come, who was the Substance, and by whose Coming all these Things vanished, to wit, Sabbaths, Circumcision, the Paschal Lamb: Men used then Sacrifices, who lived in Controversies with God, and one with another, which all are abrogated in the Coming of the Son, who is the Substance, Eternal Word, and Essential Oath and Amen, in whom the Promises of God are Yea and Amen: Who came that Men might be redeemed out of Strife, and might make an End of Controversy.
Object.Thirdly, They object, But all Oaths are not Ceremonies, nor any Part of the Ceremonial Law.
Answ.I answer, Except it be shewn to be an eternal, immutable, and moral Precept, it withstands not; neither are they of so old an Origin as Tithes, Tithes, &c. unlawful now.and the Offering of the First Fruits of the Ground, which by Abel and Cain were offered long before the Ceremonial Law, or the Use of Oaths; which, whatever may be alleged against it, were no Doubt Ceremonies, and therefore no Doubt unlawful now to be practised.