An Expository Comment on 2 Corinthians 1, Exposition · Sermon 141
SERM. CXLI.
Of Oaths and ſeveral expreſſions uſed in Swearing.
2 COR. 1. 23.
Moreover I call God to record upon my ſoul, &c.
THe Definition and lawfulneſſe of an Oath in neceſſary and urgent motives being declared, I ſhall proceed to anſwer ſome Caſes or Queſtions, and that from the Deſcription given. Only
Firſt, It is good to take notice, that there are theſe four things may be uſed to the confirmation of any thing that is ſaid.
The firſt is, A bare Affirmation, or Negation, according to that command, Let your communication be yea and nay.
2. When we to this affirmation adde an Aſſeveration or Atteſtation. Thus our Saviour many times, Verily, verily; which is not an oath, as learned men ſhew againſt thoſe, who have thought ſo: ſo when we ſay truly, or indeed, this is an aſſeveration.
3. There is an Obteſtation, and that cometh near to an Oath, but is not an Oath; and that is, when we doe appeale (as it were) to the creatures, to witneſſe ſuch a thing, as Moſes to affect the ſenſleſſe Iſraelites, ſaid, Hear, O Heavens, and hearken, O Earth. Thus Paul, (1 Tim. 5. 21.) I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the elect Angels. He doth not there ſwear, but uſe an Obteſtation, and that not onelyonly before God, and Chriſt, but Angels alſo; for they are preſent with us, and bear witneſſe of us.
Laſtly, There is an Oath, and that is, When we call upon God as a witneſſe, to confirme what is ſpoken. I ſay, When we call upon him as a witneſſe. For when there is a meer allegation of ſome Text of Scripture, to confirme a truth, there is a witneſſe of God made uſe of, he is then brought as a witneſſe; but it is not an Oath, becauſe it is not by way of Invocation.
In the next place, Oaths may either be compleatly and perfectly expreſſed, as here in the Text: Or elſe elliptically or defectively, which is very ordinary, If they enter into my reſt; God doe ſo to me, and more alſo. Many times the creature that is dear to us, we mention, as expoſing it to Gods curſe, if we ſay not truth, and the name of God is not mentioned. This is good to be remembred, becauſe many uſe execratory ſpeeches, and thinke, becauſe God is not named, here is no ſwearing, whereas they are terrible oaths, ſuch are, Would I might never ſtirre, would I might be hanged, &c. Theſe are horrible execratory oaths, though God be not named.
Theſe two things premiſed, let us conſider, What doubts may be raiſed from the forementioned definition of an Oath? And
Firſt, In that an Oath is ſaid to be a religious calling upon God, it may be 1. Whether words be neceſſary to an oath. Anſw.asked, Whether words be neceſſary to an oath? May it not be by other ſignes?
The Anſwer is, That a man may ſwear mentally, and in his heart onelyonly, becauſe God is a ſearcher of that, and knoweth every thing which moveth in us.
And again, Dumb men, as Zacharias for inſtance, no doubt might have ſworne by ſome ſignes he might make. Hence the Comical Poet, cited by Covarruvias and Grotius, foreign, It is a firme Oath, though I doe but nodde with my head. A man alſo may ſwear by writing; and thus the Apoſtles Oath is here in the Text by writing. Yea Auſtin's obſervation is, That he doth not remember, that ever the Apoſtle did ſwear any otherwiſe than in writing, not in ſpeech or diſcourſe, he delivered by mouth: And hereby an Oath is made more deliberate. If no men would ſwear, but firſt write it down, it would be a ſpecial means to ſtop much ungodly ſwearing.
The ſecond Queſtion is, We define an Oath to be a religious calling upon 2. Whether it be not lawfull to ſwear by the creature.God as a witneſſe; Whether then it be not lawfull to ſweare by the creature? What is more ordinary, not onelyonly amongſt Papiſts, but Proteſtants alſo, than to ſwear by the light, by this bread, by their faith and truth; and theſe are creatures?
To this it is anſwered,
Firſt, That the Papiſts (Covarruvias part. prima relect. de juram.) though Anſw.they hold an Oath to be a religious worſhip of God, yet they ſay, we may ſweare by creatures; but with this diſtinction, not abſolutely and terminatively ſtaying in them, but relatively to God, whoſe power and goodneſſe is eminent in the creatures. But this is an empty diſtinction. For our Saviour doth abſolutely prohibit to ſweare by the creatures (Matth. 5.) and the command is often, to ſweare by God alone; they are reproved alſo, who ſweare by God and Baal, God and Milchom. For although they were Idols, yet the reaſon of the prohibition is, becauſe they are not Gods, and every creature is not a god; therefore it is not lawfull to ſweare by any creature, neither terminatively nor tranſitively; for all is Idolatry, giving the worſhip due to God, unto the creature. It is true, though a man ſweare by the creature (which is unlawfull) yet it is an Oath for all that, and doth oblige, as our Saviour informed againſt the Phariſees. Non te audit lapis loquentem, ſed Deus te punit fallentem, ſaith Auſtin, ſpeaking of the Heatheniſh cuſtome, which was to hold a flint in their hands, while they did ſweare, ſaying, If I doe deceive, let me be caſt out of the City, as I throw away this ſtone. This they called ſwearing, Pexr Jovem lapidem. Therefore it is a fooliſh and ſenſleſſe evaſion of many, to ſay, they doe not ſweare by God, they are but petty oaths (as is to be ſhewed.) For here is the more Idolatry, when you ſweare by a creature: Is your Faith a God. Is your Troth a God? Is the Light and Bread you ſweare by a God? Theſe oaths were uſual amongſt Heathens. Socrates, whether it was to deride the Heathens opinions about their gods, would ſweare by a Cocke, and by a Dogge. It cannot be denied, but that it might be, men at firſt out of a ſuperſtitious reverence to God, did forbeare to ſwear by him; but herein they did more diſhonour God, while they thought to honour him, which is alwayes the fruit of ſuperſtition. Some Proteſtants indeed (Calvin and Peter Martyr) are ſaid in ſome ſenſe to allow ſwearing by creatures, as the ſymbols of Gods preſence and power: but that is not ſafe; and there is no creature, but in it the power and wiſdome of God doth appear, ſo that then we might ſwear by every creature. God then onelyonly is to be ſworne by; for he alone is the all-ſeeing witneſſe of all that we doe, and omnipotent to puniſh ſuch as ſhall take his Name in vaine. So that thou art not to thinke thou art clean from the diſhonour of God, becauſe thou ſweareſt, but doeſt not name him.
It is true, two wayes learned men ſay, we may mention a creature in an Oath, though we do not ſwear by it. AndHow we may mention a creature in an oath, and not ſwear by it. Anſw. 1.
The firſt is, when we mention it as a pledge, in which we deſire God would puniſh us, if we ſay not the truth. As here in the Text, Paul doth name his ſoule, though he doth not ſweare by it. And in this ſenſe ſome excuſe that ſpeech of Joſeph's, By the life of Pharaoh, Geneſ. 42. 15. For (ſay they) his meaning is, As deare as Pharaoh's life is unto me, which I would have God conſtantly preſerve, it is thus and thus. Even as in the primitive times, though the Chriſtians refuſed to ſwear, Per genium Imperatoris, yet they did ſwear per ſalutem, as that which was dear unto them. Although for that fact of Joſeph, ſome ſay, it was his ſinne, and condemn him therein, as if by living in Pharaoh's Court, he had contracted this ſinfull cuſtome.
In the ſecond place, it is lawfull to mention a creature in an Oath, and Anſw. 2.not ſwear by it, When we make a collation, and compariſon (as it were) betweene the truth of one thing, and another. As when David ſaid to Jonathan, As the Lord liveth, and as thy ſoule liveth, there is but a ſteppe betweene me and death, 1 Samuel 10. 3. Thus Hannah ſaid to Eli, O my Lord, as thy ſoule liveth, I am the woman that ſtood here praying, 1 Sam. 1. 26. Thus Abner ſaid to Saul, when he asked him, Whoſe ſonne David was? he anſwered, As thy ſoule liveth, O King, I cannot tell, 1 Sam. 17. 55. In theſe places, they doe not ſweare by the ſoule of a man, but make a compariſon, as ſure as they live; which is plaine and manifeſt, ſo ſurely is ſuch a thing true. And in this ſenſe likewiſe ſome defend that Oath of the primitive Chriſtians, By the ſafety or life of the Emperour, if thereby they did not meane God himſelf; as David often calleth God, The health and light of his countenance, yea his life alſo. Now although in theſe reſpects a creature may be named lawfully, yet the latter way is not to be uſed by Chriſtians. For it is offenſive to godly eares, eſpecially that is a wicked and moſt ungodly compariſon, which ſome men uſe, when they will ſay, Such a thing is as true, as God is true. For that is blaſphemy to compare a creature, and the infinite Majeſty of God together in matter of truth.
In the third place, Concerning this Definition of an Oath, that is, A 3. Whether it is lawfull to ſay, I vow 'tis ſo.religious calling upon God; we may queſtion concerning ſome forme of ſpeeches, which are frequently uſed amongſt us, whether they be Oaths, or no. As
Firſt, Many have this ordinary expreſſion, I vow to God it is ſo. Is this lawfull?
To which Suarez anſwereth, (Disput. de Juramento) ſaying, That it is not onelyonly an improper and abſurd ſpeech, but alſo very ungodly, and highly Anſw.wicked. It is improper and abſurd, for it confounds a vow with an oath. A vow is not properly uſed to confirme a thing, for that is the nature of an Oath. But if there were impropriety onelyonly in it, that were not ſo hainous; but it is abominable irreverence, making ſuch things the object of a vow, which are light and triviall. And thereupon ſome conclude, There is more prophaneneſſe and irreverence in it, then in uſing an oath: yea (they ſay) it is a very great Oath.
But then ſecondly, The great Queſtion is, Whether theſe expreſſions (in faith) Whether in faith, and by faith be oaths. Anſw.and (by faith) are oaths, or not?
To which I ſay,
Firſt, When there is a doubt and diſpute, whether ſuch a forme of ſpeech be an Oath? then the ſafeſt way for thy conſcience, is to abſtaine from expreſſions, as the Apoſtle argueth, (Romans 14.) Whatſoever is done doubting, is a ſinne. If then there be a diſpute, and that amongſt learned men, Whether in faith (for moſt grant by faith to be one) be an Oath? Is it not farre better for thee to leave off ſuch forme of words? If there were nothing but the ſcandall to others, it is a juſt cauſe to make thee avoid ſuch expreſſions: So that the diſputes about the thing, is argument enough to make thee leave theſe words, there being no neceſſity to uſe them.
But in the ſecond place, leſt you might ſay, Perhaps they are ſome Preciſians and Doctors of that ſtrictneſſe that may thinke in faith, to be Oaths: Even amongſt the Popiſh Authours, there are thoſe who judge ſo. OnelyOnly they diſtinguiſh about faith, What faith doe you meane (ſay they) when you ſay in faith? If the Chriſtian faith, that is a ſacred thing, and ſo it's an Oath; if a moral faith, that is nothing, but humane veracity, or a civil faith, as we may call it, the faith of a Nobleman or Gentleman; then (they ſay) it is no Oath. But who is there that ſaith in faith, doth conſider what faith he meaneth? Nay ſome perhaps, if they were asked that Queſtion, could not tell how to anſwer it. OnelyOnly becauſe not onelyonly men of the greater ranke, but of the inferiour ſort, doe uſe that expreſſion, and becauſe they doe it for further confirmation; it is to be preſumed, that they meane the Chriſtian faith; and if ſo, according to ſome Popiſh Authours, it is an Oath. Neither is that any thing conſiderable to ſay, we doe not uſe the Prepoſition by; we doe not ſay by faith, but in faith; as Soto the Papiſt ſaith, To ſay by faith is an Oath, but not to ſay in faith. For Suarez an acuter Jeſuite ſaith, (Disp. de Juram.) That ſuch an exception is vaine; and that by faith, and in faith is all one. Neither doth the Prepoſition make an Oath. We conclude then, that in faith, as well as by faith, are Oaths. It's true, Doctor Ames opinion is, That in faith is no more, than an aſſeveration. OnelyOnly he addeth, We muſt abſtaine from the Prepoſition by. But (as I ſaid) in and by are all one, in this caſe. And if you ſay, Why ſhould in faith be more an Oath, than in deed, or in ſincerity? To this Doctor Sanderſon giveth a conſiderable anſwer, (De Juram. Praelect. 1. Sect. 8.) he maketh foure foreign, or markes, by which we may diſcover ſome formes of ſpeech to be Oaths; and one of them is, The cuſtome and uſe of the Countreyes language, where we live. So that although it may fall out, that if we doe regard the words, there is no reaſon, why one ſhould be not an Oath, more than another, yet the cuſtome and uſe of the Countrey muſt carry it, becauſe words doe not ſignifie naturally, but by meere inſtitution. So that as that may be money in one Countrey, which may not be in another: Thus that expreſſion may ſignifie an Oath, in one Countrey, which doth not in another. We grant therefore, that if we doe reſpect the meere words, there is no argument can be given, why in deed ſhould not be an Oath, as well as in faith; but the cuſtome of ſpeech in this Land, at leaſt amongſt thoſe who are more ſober, and deſire to feare an Oath, is to judge of it as an Oath. And no doubt but thoſe that uſe it, doe for the moſt part intend ſo. Yea, why doe many uſe that expreſſion in faith, but becauſe they would not be thought too preciſe? For by this they would be diſtinguiſhed from others, who are more ſtrict. This is the Shibboleth (as it were) by which they would be notified. Beſides, it is a Rule amongſt Caſuists, That Juramentum eſt ſtricti juris, becauſe of the danger that may be therein. And, Quando verbum eſt ambiguum, praeſumendum eſt in ſalutem animae. It being better, if we doe erre to abſtain from words, that may be an Oath, than to venture upon them, becauſe of our particular perſwaſion.
I ſhall therefore conclude this, with that Authour above-mentioned, He that while he doth attend onelyonly to the forme, or force of words, indulgeth himſelfe in a liberty of uſing ſuch expreſſions in his common diſcourſe, without any choice or ſcruple, which by long uſe have obtained with us the eſteeme of an Oath, doth violate the command of Chriſt concerning not ſwearing; giveth a ſcandall to his brother, and expoſeth himſelfe to the danger of perjury. This is very good and grave counſell. Therefore whatſoever the Diſpute may be about theſe termes, whether oaths, or not, let him who loveth his ſoule, who would not give a juſt ſcandal to his brother, and is knowne by his character, that he feareth an Oath, with all diligence and circumſpection avoid ſuch expreſſions for the future.