Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…

Thirdly, and lastly, we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle; so that our Saviour doth not altogether ¹forbid it, but he reproveth the Pharisees corrupt glosses, which were, 1. To think that if a man did not name God in his oath, though it were by other creatures, it was not perjury, if he did falsify that oath. And how many come near this, who think if they swear by the creatures, so that God is not named, it's not such an heinous thing. The second corrupt interpretation was, They thought that Gods Name was not polluted, if so be they intended to make good their promise, though they did use the Name of God in their oaths, about unnecessary, and vain matters. Now this our Saviour forbids by his affirmative Direction, Let your yea, be yea, and nay, nay, what soever is more then this is of sin. He speaks there of our ordinary & familiar discourse as private persons; not concerning a public consideration: even as afterwards, when he mentioneth the duty of not resisting evil, he forbids private revenge, and not public justice. Although some understand this of our Saviours, and that of James, not of assertory oaths (for it's spoken by our Saviour, in addition unto that, Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vows) but of promissory oaths; and so the meaning, is, Although thou intend to perform or do such a thing, yet do not swear, because things are so uncertain, and many things may fall out: and this is very probable. Only if you understand it the former way, you must not take it so, as if an oath were such a lawful thing, as that it is propter se appetendum; but only as physic is, which is sometimes necessary for another thing. Thus therefore having cleared, that our Saviour intendeth no higher thing then that was lawful before, give me leave to reprove the common practise among men, who say they are Christians, about swearing. If you observe men in their discourse, in their trading, do they carry themselves so, as if Christ had said, Swear not at all; and not rather, as if he said, Swear always and altogether? Oh therefore that this common customary way of swearing, which doth so directly oppose Christ, were wholly laid aside! The very Heathens will condemn us herein, and among the Heathens, ex animisui sententià, was in stead of an oath. It seemeth this custom of swearing in discourse hath been ⟨p. 188⟩of old;

Thirdly, and lastly, we have the example of Paul swearing sometimes in his Epistle; so that our Saviour doth not altogether