former course of life hath not been corresponding to so holy a Calling but that we blame them for is that they take upon them the honour and office of the Priesthood not being called thereunto as was Aaron that they despise the Churches Ordination by Imposition of hands that they handle the holy Scripture and Sacraments with black foule and unwashed hands that they presume that they have those gifts and graces of the Spirit which indeed they have not that they usurp upon the place and function of the Ministers of the Gospel and too much undervalue the cure of souls which as Saint Gregory rightly defineth it is Ars artium the Art of all arts And S. Paul by the question he propoundeth resolveth as much saying Who is sufficient for these things But now as the practise is and the common estimation of the vulgar we may crosse S. Pauls question with a contrary Interrogatorie Who is not sufficient for these things sith Coach-men Weavers Felt-makers and other base Mechanicks are now by some thought able Ministers and profound Doctors of the Church and Exercise as they tearme it not onely in private Conventicles but also per famam populum in great Churches and publique Assemblies to the great dishonour of God prophanation of his Ordinances and scandall of the Reformed Churches ARTIC 5. Concerning taking an oath especially ex officio ANABAPTIST NO Christian may lawfully take an Oath no not though it be required by a Magistrate especially such an Oath whereby they may hazard their life liberty or estate THE REFUTATION Though this assertion of the Anabaptists as they maintaine it hath a glosse and varnish put upon it of piety prudence and justice of piety in preventing all occasion both of false and vaine oathes of prudence in not insnaring our selves of justice in not concurring actively to our own prejudice or wrong yet upon due examination it will appear to be repugnant to all three to piety by robbing God of a part of his substantiall worship to wit a holy kind of invocation to prudence by unfurnishing our selves sometimes of our best defence which is to cleare our innocency by oath to justice by depriving all Courts of justice of this soveraigne evidence of truth and all humane society both of the surest tye of fidelity and the readiest meanes to end all strife and controversie For the farther manifestation whereof I am to cleare three points 1. That oathes may lawfully be taken by Christians 2. That some oathes may be lawfully exacted of them and imposed upon them 3. That oathes may be lawfully urged and exacted not only in civill but in criminall causes such as are commonly tearmed oathes ex officio when a man is required to answer upon oath concerning some crime or fault objected to him or articled against him Some deny it to be lawfull to take any oath others allow of oathes freely taken but not imposed a third sort dislike not all oathes imposed but only except against oathes ex officio These three questions hang as it were upon one string For if no oath may bee lawfully taken certainly none may be lawfully imposed and if oathes may not be imposed least of all the oath ex officio whereby we hazard and endanger our lives liberties limbes or estate if we confesse but our soules if we deny upon oath what is truly laid to our charge Againe on the contrary if the oath ex officio in some cases may be lawfully imposed then other oathes may be imposed with much lesse difficulty and if oathes may be lawfully imposed certainly they may be lawfully taken Yet must these questions of necessity be handled apart for the satisfaction of scrupulous consciences who first must be perswaded of the lawfulnesse of taking an oath in generall before they will suffer an oath to be imposed upon them and secondly that the Magistrate hath a lawfull power to exact oathes before they will take such and such a kind of oath required of them To lay the foundation therefore firme before wee build any thing thereupon First I prove the lawfulnesse of taking oathes the conditions prescribed by the prophet being observed namely that we sweare in judgement righteousnesse and truth in truth not falsely in judgement not rashly in righteousnesse not wickedly to the prejudice of equity or breach of Christian charity ARGUMENT I. Whatsoever God commandeth is lawfull for Gods command is the rule of good his command maketh that good which otherwise were evill as Abrahams offer to kill his sonne and the Iewes robbing the Egyptians of jewels of gold and silver and in like manner his prohibition makes that evill which otherwise in it selfe were good as working in a mans calling on the Sabbath the sparing the fattest of the cattell for sacrifice by Saul If every sinne be a transgression of the law it cannot be sinne to fulfill it But God commandeth taking of oathes as part of his worship Deut. 6. 13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God and serve him and sweare by his name Deut. 10. 20. To the Lord thou shalt cleave and sweare by his name hee is thy praise and he is thy God And Ier. 4. 2. Thou shalt sweare The Lord liveth in truth judgement and justice And to such as sweare in such a holy and religious manner God promiseth a blessing both outward and inward outward Ier. 12. 16. If they will diligently learne the wayes of my people to sweare by my name then shall they bee built in the midst of my people inward Psal. 63. 11. The King shall rejoice in God and every one that sweareth by him shall rejoice or glory in him Ergo to sweare is lawfull for Christians ANABAP ANSVVER It was lawfull to sweare when God commanded it under the law but it is not now lawfull for Christians sith Christ hath forbidden it in the Gospell REPLY 1. The same God is Law-giver both to the Iewes and Christians and the same truth shineth in the law and in the Gospell only with this difference in the law it shined through a tiffany or vaile of rites and ceremonies but in the Gospell as it were with open face The vaile is now taken away whereof religious swearing by the name of God was no part For an oath containeth not a resemblance of Christ but a worship of God It is no type or sign of grace but seale of truth the sense whereof is meer morall the law of it naturall the use perpetuall the worship performed in it to God is essentiall When we call God to witnesse a hidden truth in the sincerity of our intentions wee agnize his Soveraigne greatnesse For every oath is by a greater Heb. 6. 16. we professe his all-seeing wisdome we invocate his revenging justice which are not rituall but substantiall parts of worship In which regard in the texts of the Prophet Ieremy above alleadged swearing is joyned with the feare of God and cleaving to him both duties of the
which law is morall and perpetuall as all grant Prove that any ought to be compelled by the gospel That which Iosiah did agreeably to the morall law bindeth us under the gospel for Christ in the gospel both repeateth and confirmeth this commandement of loving the Lord with all our heart and all our soul calling it the first and great commandement Mat. 22. 37. 38. Therefore our princes are as much bound as Iosiah was to compell their subjects to serve the true God Yet farther to give you satisfaction I will prove that it is agreeable to the new law to compell men to come to church and hear Gods word and receive the sacraments for this Christ teacheth in the parable recorded by S. Luke chap. 14. 23. Of a King who made a great supper and bade many guests and when they made excuses he said to his servant gâ—e to the high-ways and hedges and compell them to come in that my house may be full To this nothing being answered D. Featley proceeded in his argument Besides this command in the parable thus I prove that you ought to come to our churches the Apostle commandeth Rom. 13. 1. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers and Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the over-sight of you and submit your selvs for they watch for your souls c. To which if we adde those places in 1 Tim. 2. 2. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. An undeniable argument may be framed to convince your conscience after this manner All lawfull superiours either temporall or spirituall commanding lawfull things are to be obeyed But your lawfull superiours in church and common-wealth require you to come to our church which I proved to be a true church of Christ. Ergo you ought to obey them and you sin against God by your disobedience to lawfull authority if you come not The word of God doth not command us to come to your steeple-houses the King hath nothing to doe to command us in that kind The King hath power to command you in all things that are lawfull and not repugnant to Gods word indeed if he should command any thing against Gods word you ought rather to obey God than man by the example of the Apostle in the Acts 4. 19. But it is a thing lawfull and no way repugnant to Gods word but most agreeable thereunto to come to our steeple-houses as you call them where the servants of God assemble on the Lords day and other times to worship him in spirit and truth Ergo the King hath power to command you to come to our church The King makes an Idoll of the church where doth Christ command us to come to it Where he commandeth us to hear the word preached for in our church the word of God is preached and therefore there we ought to hear it I am not so averse but if one of our society should preach in Olaves or Mary Overis church I would hear them I would come where the church is gathered for therein I obey Christ. Then you will hear none but one'of your society as if your societie were the true church and none of the true church but those of your society I have proved already that we have a true church among us but you have none For where there are no lawfull pastors nor flocks there is not a true church But amongst you there are not lawfull pastors nor flocks Ergo no true church We have amongst us lawfull Pastours There are no lawfull Pastors but those who are sent Ro. 10. 15. No man ought to assume unto himself that honour but he that is called as was Aaron Heb. 5. 4. all Presbyters are to be made by imposition of hands 1 Tim. 4. 14. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 1. 6. But your Pastors have no sending no calling no imposition of hands on them Ergo you have no lawfull pastors None amongst us teach but they have Ordination for they are elected examined and proved Have you imposition of hands of the Presbytery Wee are not bound to tell you if you will come to our Church you may see I pray you M. Doctor come to the point how prove you the Baptisme of Children to be lawfull by the Word of God It seems you will willingly fall upon no other point but this of Anabaptism which heresy was condemned neer fifteen hundred years ago Here after a long space the Scotchman puts in a word saying Not sixteen hundred years ago If it were but a thousand it is long enough being condemned by the whole Christian Church Greek and Latin Sir that is neither here nor there you know what the woman of Samaria said Joh. 4. Our father 's worshipped in this mountain and ye say that at Ierusalem is the place where men ought to worship they continued in an error above 2000 years You are mistaken in your chronology for there were not 2000 years between Iacob and Christ. But to let that your errour passe the Samaritans indeed were in an errour a long time but this is no errour but a doctrine of truth that children ought to be baptized There are three sorts of arguments of great force with all understanding men the first and chiefest from 1. Scripture 2. From consent of the universall church 3. From evident reason I will produce all these for the baptisme of children We desire to have it proved by scripture Our proofs out of scripture are of two sorts some probable some necessarie First probable as where it is said in the Acts 16. 33. that the Apostle baptized the Gaoler with all that belonged to him and Lydia and her houshold Acts. 16. 15. and 1 Cor. 1. 16. that he baptized the houshold of Stephanas and in a whole houshold in all probabilitie there were some children I cannot tell that let 's hear your necessary proofe out of Gods word There is as good ground reason or warrant for the baptizing of children now as there was of old for circumcising them But of old children were to be circumcised many plain places there are where that was commanded Ergo now by the same warrant they are to be baptized We denie that there is the same warrant or ground now for the baptizing of children that there was of old for the circumcising of them For there is an expresse command for circumcising of children but there is none for the baptizing of any but those who can hear the word preached Mat. 28. Go teach and baptize 1. That which circumcision was in the old law to the Jews that is baptisme now to us the sacrament of entrance into the church for so St. Austine and all sound divines hold that our sacrament of baptisme answereth theirs of circumcision as the sacrament of the Lords supper doth their Paschall Lamb. 2.
first table required by the eternall and morall law of God 2. As we have warrant for swearing in the old Testament so also in the new for Christ himselfe was made our Priest by oath Heb. 7. 21. Those Priests were made without an oath but this with an oath by him that said unto him The Lord sware and will not repent thou art a Priest c. By so much was Iesus made a surety of a better Testament God his using an oath for confirmation of Christ his Priesthood warranteth the custome of giving and taking an oath at the Inauguration of Emperours Coronation of Kings Consecration of Bishops Ordination of Ministers and generally the admission of any person of quality into any place of trust or command or weighty charge in Church or Common-wealth God himselfe using this kind of confirmation confirmeth this kind and use of an oath Neither are promissary oathes only approved by the Gospell to bind our faith and assure loyalty and fidelity but also assertory to cleare doubtfull truth and end litigious suites Heb. 6. 16. For men verily sweare by the greater and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife even Christ himselfe who is AMEN the faithfull witnesse and in whom all the promises of God are yea and AMEN often corroborateth his divine Essayes and heavenly promises with that sacred ingemination AMEN AMEN which is virtually if not formally an oath according to the strict definition of an oath which is affirmatio religiosa or as the Schooles define it more fully affirmatio vel negatio interposita religione a religious asseveration or the affirming and denying any thing with a divine attestation Christ in the fifth of Matthew forbiddeth not all kind of swearing but the ordinary and accustomary swearing then in use among the Iewes and allowed by the Scribes and Pharisees who erroneously conceived that swearing by heaven and earth or Ierusalem or any creature was no taking Gods name in vain because in such oaths Gods name was not used This practice of theirs our Saviour condemnes and refutes their errour Mat. 5. 34. Sweare not at all neither by the heaven for it is Gods Throne nor by the earth for it is his Footstoole nor by Ierusalem for it is the City of the great King c. But of this more in the solution of the adversaries objections ARGUMENT II. That which hath been practised by God himselfe the elect Angels and Saints speaking by divine inspiration cannot be sinfull or unlawfull else we should make God himselfe the Authour of sinne and lay impiety or iniquity to the charge of holinesse and justice it selfe But the Scripture bringeth in first God swearing Gen. 50. 24. Exod. 13. 5. 11. Exod. 33. 1. Numb 14. 16. 23. 30. Num. 32. 10. 11. Deut. 1. 8. 8. 35. Ios. 5. 6. Psal. 95. 11. 110. 4. Heb. 6. 17. 7. 21. 22. Secondly Angels Dan. 12. 7. I heard the man cloathed in linen when he held up his right hand and his left to heaven and sware by him that liveth Rev. 10. 5. 6. And the Angell which I saw stand upon the Sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth for ever that there should be time no longer Thirdly the Saints Abraham Gen. 21. 24. Iacob 31. 53. Ioseph Gen. 47. 35. Moses Ios. 14. 9. David 1. Sam. 20. 3. 24. 22. Ionathan 1. Sam. 20. 16. Eliah 1. Kings 17. 1. Gedallah 2. Kings 25. 24. Asa. 2. Chron. 15. 14. Obadiaah 1. Kings 18. 10. Elisha 2. Kings 2. 6. Ergo swearing is not unlawfull ANABAP ANSWER God giveth the law to us not to himselfe and for the examples alleadged out of the old Testament they are no good Precedents for us to follow because the people of God were not forbidden to sweare by God in the law but we are by Christ in the Gospell REPLY Though God be under no law yet he is a law to himselfe his nature is his law which he never doth or can transgresse violate or dispense with He is all light and there is no darknesse all truth and there is no falshood all justice and there is no iniquity in him Neither is it true that the Saints under the Gospell lie under a greater restraint in respect of oathes then those under the law for as they so these have not refused upon just cause and weighty occasions to appeale to God and call him to attest the truth of their speeches and sincerity of their intentions For how many sacred attestations in this kind find we in the writings of the Apostle neither can it bee said he used them being transported by passion or out of infirmity for his Epistles are inspired and the religious asseverations in them are no other then the dictates of the Holy Ghost Such are these Rom. 1. 9. God is my witnesse whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospell of his Son that without ceasing I make mention alwayes of you in my prayers Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing witnesse in the Holy Ghost that I have great heavinesse and continuall sorrow in my heart 2. Cor. 1. 23. I call God for a Record upon my soule that to spare you I came not as yet to Corinth Gal. 1. 20. Now the things which I write unto you behold before God I lie not Phil. 1. 8. For God is my Record how greatly I long after you all in the bowells of Iesus Christ 1. Thess. 2. 10. Yee are witnesses and God also how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved our selves among you that beleived ARGUMENT III. No part of Gods true and substantiall worship can be sinfull else vertue should be vice and godlinesse it selfe wickednesse light should bee darknesse and good evill But swearing with such cautions and provisoes as are set downe by the Prophet Ieremy is a part of Gods true and substantiall worship for it is a religious invocation of his name with an acknowledgement of his omniscient wisdom and omnipotent justice omniscient wisdom whereby he knoweth all hidden things and the very thoughts and intentions of the heart of man and omnipotent justice whereby he is able and will punish those sinnes which come not within the walk of mans justice Ergo swearing after a religious manner cannot be sinfull ARGUMENT IV. Whatsoever is necessary for the detecting and punishing of wickednesse and vice and the acquitting of innocencie and preservation of all humane commerce and society cannot be sinfull and unlawfull For where God appointeth the ends he appointeth also the meanes and as the powers that are are ordained by God so the estates that are to continue among men are established by him But the giving and taking of oathes is necessary for all these ends as the experience of all Societies demonstrate and the practice of all Courts both Ecclesiasticall and civill and the custome of all nations wherein there is
culpô To leave therefore these detestable Sectaries whom to detect is to consute and to name is everlastingly to brand there are but three only sorts to whom that name properly and peculiarly appertaineth The first broached their doctrine about the year 250. which was this That all those who had been baptized by Novatus or any other hereticks ought to be re-baptized by the orthodox pastours of the church The second broached theirs about the year 380. which was this That none were rightly baptised but those that held with Donatus and consequently that all other who had received baptisme in the catholike church by any other save those of his partie ought to be re-baptized The third broached theirs in the year 1525. which was this That baptisme ought to be administred to none but such as can give a good account of their faith and in case any have been baptized in their infancie that they ought to be re-baptized after they come to years of discretion before they are to be admitted to the church of Christ. For the first sort though their opinion and practise were erroneous yet some conceive causas habet error honestas that they had very plausible pretences for it namely that hereticks were miscreants and had no place themselvs in the true church of God and that therefore they had no power by their baptisme to admit any into it that they had not the holy Ghost and therefore could not confer the gifts thereof upon any that they were foul themselvs how then could they by their baptisme wash others clean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Against this opinion and practise of theirs Pope Stephen mainly opposed himself and in a Synod held at Rome condemned it as being repugnant to the tradition of the church which as he affirmeth received hereticks upon their submission recantation of their heresies without re-baptizing them But St. Cyprian a famous bishop in Africa in those dayes and afterwards a glorious Martyr took Pope Stephen to task refelled his argument drawn from unwritten tradition by scripture and in a provinciall Synod held at Carthage whereof he was president Anno Dom. 258. with the joynt suffrages of 87. bishops condemns the sentence of the Roman Synod and determines the flat contradictorie thereunto namely that the baptisme administred by hereticks was invalid and Null and that all that had no better baptisme ought to be brought again to the font and be christened anew no otherwayes to be accounted members of the true church And truely Erasmus in his Preface to his Edition of St. Cyprian affirmeth it to be an even lay between both opinions and that though the church in latter ages took part with Stephen yet that they might as well have confirmed St. Cyprians opinion without any prejudice at all to the catholike faith Howheit with Erasmus his good leave be it spoken whosoever shall dive deep into the point and ponder what St. Austine hath written in his exquisite tractates against the Donatists especially in his third book where professedly he scans all the arguments alledged by St. Cypran and his colleagues in the above-named third Synod at Carthâ—go will find that St. Cyprian had the better parts and gifts but yet the worst of the cause and therefore in the first and most celebrious councell of Nice it is ordered can 8. that the Catharists or Novatians who shall renounce their heresie and seek to be reconciled to the church shall be received by imposition of hands without requiring any new baptisme of them yet in the nineteenth canon it is decreed that is the hereticks called the Paulians taking that name from Paulus Samosatenus fly to the catholike church that they shall be re-baptized by all means By which seeming contradiction of the decrees of this most sacred Synod as it were by the collision of flint stones the fire of truth is thus clearly beaten out That we must distinguish of hereticks whereof some destroy the foundation as the Paulians Gnosticks Cataphrygians and the like others held the foundation but built upon it hay and stubble as the Catharists and Novatians and such hereticks as had a right beliefe in the blessed Trinitie and the natures and offices of Christ yet upon this good seed super seminarunt zizania some depraved the essentiall form of baptisme prescribed by our Saviour as did that Arrian of whom Nicephorus writeth that after he had used an hereticall kind of form dipt his hand in the font to christen the child all the water suddainly vanished away others though they had ill opinions concerning other articles of faith yet were right in doctrine of the Trinity and maintained the true form of baptisme and all those who were baptized by these latter sort of hereticks the church held their baptisme good and therefore did not re-baptize them when they received them into the church but only enjoyned them publikely to renounce their errours but those who had been baptized by the former sort of hereticks in regard their baptisme was indeed no baptisme the church appoynted agreeably unto this decree of the Synod of Nice that they should not be admitted without a new baptisme For the second sort of Anabaptists they were far worse then the former for they made a separation from the catholike Christian church holding that none were members thereof but those that held with Donatus all other they accounted no Christians and therefore if any were converted or rather perverted to their heresie they christened them again The former sort of Anabaptists were accounted only erroneous and schismaticall but not heretical but these were stigmatized for heretiks also and that deservedly for confining the church of Christ only to Africa and their sect there they consequently denied a main article of the Creed viz. Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam I beleeve the holy catholike church and the communion of saints Yet with these hereticks and schismaticks our Iacobites Brownists and Barrowsts symbolize for as the Donatists refused communion with the catholike church in regard of some scandalls they observed in it so do these separate from the true church of England in regard of some abuses and as they tearm them popish corruptions in it As they excluded all from hope of salvation who were not of their pure precise sect so these go not much behind them in their uncharitable censures of all those who are not of their fraternitie and as St. Austine complains of the Donatists that wheresoever they bore sway they brake down the communion tables which he there metaphorically tearmeth Altars and defaced the churches so we have had but too just cause to complain of the like out-rages committed by some of the Zelots of that strain though some of them of late have not escaped the heavy judgment of God for it For the third sort of Anabaptists they have sunk deeper in the former quag-mire are drowned over head eares in it For they not only
it is resolved that the faithfull may bee constrained by the Consistorie to tell the truth so farre forth as it derogateth nothing from the authority of the Magistrate This constraint could not be by fine or imprisonment or torturing the body for in so doing then they should trench upon the Civill Magistrates right but by imposing of an oath which is a kind of torturing of the conscience Ergo oathes ex officio are just and lawfull in Spirituall Courts ARGUMENT V. If the oath of purgation whereby a man in a cause criminall is required to take his corporall oath that he is not guilty of such an offence wherewith he is charged bee lawfull the oath ex officio cannot be unlawfull for they are either the same or at least stand upon the same ground But oaths of purgation as they have been very ancient so they have bin alwayes held lawfull and in many cases necessary Ergo the oath ex officio is also lawfull Now for an oath of purgation we find it as ancient as the Trojan warres Agamemnon being suspected to be nought with Hippodamia commanded an Host or Sacrifice to bee brought and drawing his sword he divided it in two parts and passing between them with his bloody sword sware that hee had never defiled Hippodamia by incontinence In the eighth generall Councell Action 5. when Photius the heretick was demanded by the Councell whether he would admit of the Ordinances of the holy Fathers and he answered not any thing thereunto the President of the Synod signified unto him that by that his silence he should not escape but the rather be condemned silence in such a case evidently arguing guilt In a Councell held at Tribur a lay-man in case of vehement suspition is appointed to purge himselfe by his oath and a Priest to be interrogated by the consecration of the holy Sacrament and before this Sixtus the third an ancient Bishop of Rome upon the accusation of one Bassus did willingly make his purgation upon oath and Gregory the great injoyned Leo Memius and Maximus three Bishops to cleare and purge themselves of severall crimes by their oathes ANABAP OBIECT But they object out of the law Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare vel prodere sive propriam turpitudinem raevelare No man is bound to accuse or detect himselfe or lay open his own shame But by taking the oath ex officio he bindeth himselfe if he be a Delinquent to discover his own crimes and so lay open his nakednesse therefore no man is bound to take the oath ex officio No man is bound to goe to the Magistrate and indict himselfe and give the first notice of any crime he hath committed but the case is altered when upon a fame or strong presumptions he is legally called before a Judge and according to forme of law required upon oath to testifie the truth For then as saith Aquinas Non ipse se prodit sed ab alio proditur dum ei necessitas respondendi imponitur per oum cui obedire tenetur He doth not detect himselfe but is detected by another when the Iudge to whom he is bound to answer directly by interrogation upon oath extorts the truth from him Neither doth the law nor the Judge principally nor in the first place intend by ministring such an oath to intangle much lesse condemne him out of his own mouth but find out the truth and clear the party thereby if he be innocent and in such case by refusing the oath he wrongs himselfe and his own cause We cannot follow a better President then our Saviour but he when he was examined of his Disciples and Doctrine Io. 18. 19. would give no direct answer whereof the high Preist might have taken advantage but puts him off v. 20 21. to those that heard him saying I spake openly to the world I ever taught in the Synagogue and in the Temple whither the Jewes alwayes resort and in secret have I said nothing why askest thou me aske them that heard me Therefore we ought not to confesse ought against our selves by oath or otherwise but put our adversaries to the proofe In a case where other proofe may be had there is no necessity for a man to give advantage to his adversary by his owne confession but in case there be no other evidence and the lawfull Magistrate to whom we are bound to give a direct answer in obedience to his lawfull command this example of our Saviour doth not warrant us to use any evasion or tergiversation The example of our Saviour was truly alledged above to the contrary for though upon a bare interrogation of the high Preist hee did not discover himselfe unto him what he was yet upon his adjuration which was a requiring to answer upon oath hee acknowledgeth himselfe to be Christ the Sonne of God Every oath ought to be for confirmation to put an end to all strife Heb. 6. 16. But this oath ex officio is not ministred to make an end of any Litigious suite but rather to begin it and set it on foot for as soone as Articles are put in against a man before any pleading of the cause on either side this oath is usually tendered There are two sorts of oathes promissory of things to come assertotory of things past In promissory there is no respect at all had to compose any difference or controversie but to assure loyalty or fidelity in assertory oathes one end is ending strifes but not the only end neither doth the Apostle imply that every controversy may be decided and ended by a single mans taking his oath For this oath may be suspected and the contrary thereunto deposed by others and sometimes evidence of fact controls his oath but the meaning is that in controversies among men the oath of an honest man is a great meanes to set a period to farther waging of Law Even this oath tendeth to the speedier ending of controversies and oftentimes it stops all farther proceedings when the party burthened by presumptions is cleared and dismissed upon his oath Though this oath be given in the beginning of a suit to lay a firme ground and foundation thereon yet the intention of him that ministreth the oath is by clearing the matter of fact to proceed more speedily to the Quaestio Iuris and the pleading it and more maturely deciding it and so this oath tendeth to the sooner ending of strife Either the crimes objected against any man are manifest or hidden if they bee open and manifest there needs no oath ex officio to discover them but witnesses only are to be produced which in such cases cannot be wanting and if they be hidden and secret then the Apostles rule takes place 1. Cor. 4. 5. Therefore judge nothing before the time untill the Lord come who both will bring to light the hidden things of darknesse and will make manifest the Counsels of the hearts and then shall