An Expository Comment on 2 Corinthians 1, Exposition · Sermon 142
SERM. CXLII.
It is lawfull in ſome Caſes to ſwear; how and when it is thus lawfull?
2 COR. 1. 23.
Moreover I call God to record upon my ſoul, &c.
THe definition of an oath being delivered, we now come to ſatisfie that party, which holdeth an oath is abſolutely unlawfull under the Goſpel: as alſo to ſhew you, how it is lawfull, and when it is lawfull, that ſo common ſwearers may be aſhamed and confounded, to ſee what guilt they daily bring upon themſelves, and yet never lay it to heart. As for thoſe who have abſtained from an oath as unlawfull, we finde the ſect of Eſſen's among the Jews reckoned by learned men as remarkable. This ſect was at the ſame time with the Phariſees and Sadduces, whoſe manners and way Joſephus relateth at large. yet (ſay ſome) our Saviour did not reprove their ſuperſtitions, becauſe they lived ſolitary in places remote from Towns and commerce of men: Euſebius upon a miſtake doth ſuppoſe them to be Chriſtians. Now their opinion was, that it did not beſeem a man to ſwear. They thought a mans word ſhould be as firm as an oath, yet that they were not abſoluely aagainſt ſwearing, appeareth in that they took an oath of every member admitted into their ſociety, to walk according to their rules. The Pelagians beſides their doctrinall hereſies, had two practicall Poſitions, which ſeemed to ſavour of much piety and religion. The one was, that a rich man abiding rich, couldnot be ſaved; whatſoever was above neceſſity he was bound to abdicate. The other was, that it is wholly unlawfull to ſwear upon any occaſion; and as for Pauls examples, they denied them to be oaths; and as for the inſtance taken from God himſelf, that he did ſwear, their anſwer was, that though God the Maſter might ſwear, yet it did not follow that ſervants might, eſpecially when their Maſter forbiddeth them. The Papiſts ſome of them, though they hold it lawfull to ſwear, yet they judge abſtinence from it a counſell belonging to perfect men, and not a precept. They uſually likewiſe charge it upon the Waldenſes, as if they judged an Oath abſolutely unlawfull. The Socinians they indeed grant an Oath lawfull in neceſſary caſes; only their errour is, That whereas raſh and vain ſwearing was not forbidden in the Old Teſtament; The Jews in their ordinary diſcourſe might ſwear, ſo only falſe ſwearing was prohibited: Now Chriſt as a more perfect Law-giver doth not only forbid forſwearing, but that common raſh ſwearing. But this is built upon their falſe foundation, That Chriſt perſected the morall Law, not by explication and declaration only, againſt Phariſaicall gloſſes, but by addition of new precepts. Some Anabaptiſts in this latter age have poſitively condemned all Oaths, and therefore refuſed to ſwear before Magiſtrates, thinking that our Saviour, Matthew… 5. did forbid it, becauſe he ſaith, Swear not at all, but let your yea be yea, and nay nay, &c. Yea, ſome of the Fathers, as Tertullian, Baſil, Chryſoſtome, and others, do ſeem as peremptorily to condemn all kinde of ſwearing, as can be expreſſed; ſome of them thinking it was allowed the Jews no otherwiſe than he Bill of Divorce was, even for the hardneſſe of their hearts. There are indeed learned men, as Sixtus Senenſis, and others, who labour to excuſe them; but by their words nothing ſeemeth to be more plain: yet Tertullian who ſaid, Qucmodo pejerare quibus ne jurare eſt licitum? how ſhall Chriſtians for ſwear, to whom it is not lawful to ſwear? acknowledgeth, that though the Chriſtians, as Polycarpus wou'd dye rather than ſwear per genium imperatoris, which they judged a devil; yet they did, per ſalutem imperatoris, by the life, or ſafety of the Emperour, or rather God the cauſe of it. But whatſoever the thoughts of men might be, yet that in ſome urgent and neceſſary caſes it is lawfull, appeareth,It is lawfull in ſome caſes to ſwear. Arg. 1.
Firſt, From the examples of it in Scripture, and that of God; of Angels, of godly and holy men; yea, of Chaiſt alſo, ſay ſome. That God did ſwear, appeareth by many places in the Old Teſtament; and the Apoſtle improveth it for the comfort of the godly, Heb. 6. 13. only his Oath is peculiar, as his Majeſty is infinite; for he ſweareth by himſelf, becauſe he hath no greater to ſwear by. Some Learned men indeed have thought, that it is but an improper and metaphoricall expreſſion, when God is ſaid to ſwear, and that it is not truly an Oath, but the Apoſtle doth expreſly make his promiſe, and his Oath two things: Not that there is a need on Gods part, to confirm his word, but on our part, who are ſubject to evil. Therefore it is our evil, that maketh God to ſwear. In ſome of thoſe Oaths, there is an ellipſis, or defect; as Pſal. 95. 11. Unto whom I ſware in my wrath, if they ſhall enter into my reſt. If, ſome make the ſupply of this Oath to be by execration, then let me not be God; but others more probably make it only for a more vehement atteſtation, conceiving ſuch an execration undecent to the Majeſty of God; as alſo becauſe his infinite perfection is ſuch as is not capable of any ſuch execration. That Angels did ſwear, appeareth, Revel. 10. 6. where one is ſaid to ſwear by him that liveth for ever. The eternity of God is the attribute there mentioned, becauſe of the fitneſſe of it to the matter in hand, the Angel declaring what would befall the Church in future ages: although it is not likely that Angels ſwear to one another for the confirmation of any thing; for this was done to John, for confirmation of the things foretold. That Chriſt did ſwear, ſome affirm in that expreſſion, Amen, Amen, but other Learned men judge not that to be an Oath: but though he did not, it muſt be granted, that he might, both becauſe as man he was capable of ſwearing as well as praying to God; and alſo hereby he might confirm the words that he ſaid, but his wonderfull miracles did abundantly eſtabliſh that; That holy men alſo have upon neceſſary occaſions taken an oath, appeareth by many examples of Paul. So that if our Saviour had intended an abſolute prohibition of all Oaths, this Apoſtle would have often offended againſt that command. It is true we told you, that all Oaths ſuppoſe ſinne, therefore in the ſtate of integrity there would have been no oath; yet Suarez Diſput. de Juram. thinketh there might have been in that condition, though not ſo often, becauſe many contingent things might have been known to one, which were not to another. Therefore he would have an Oath, not neceſſarily to ſuppoſe ſinne but leſſer perfection. It is not worth the while to contend in this. By theſe examples we ſee plainly the lawfulneſſe of ſwearing upon urgent occaſions.
The ſecond Argument is from the commands in the Old Teſtament, as Deut. Arg. 2.6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. The third Commandement in forbidding all irreverent uſe of Gods Name, eſpecially in ſwearing, doth thereby command the lawfull and reverent uſe of his Name in Oaths; yea, there are promiſes of it under the Goſpel-time, not indeed that it is a duty commanded abſolutely, and for it ſelf ſake; ſo it's not commanded as prayer is, but upon ſuppoſition, where there is need: Thus in ſome difficult caſes, in contracts between men for purgation of themſelves, or diſcovering the truth, an oath is required, Num. 30, Lev. 5. 4. Num. 5. 19, 21.
Laſtly, The Apoſtle is clear for this, Heb. 6. 16. For men verily ſwear by Arg. 3.the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them ahend of ſtrife: That doth not weaken the proof, becauſe he ſaith to men, as if he meant only the men of the world, they uſe ſuch a cuſtome, but Chriſtians do not; for one kinde of men is not there oppoſed to another; men of the world to beleevers, but men to God: Therefore you heard beleevers did ſwear, as Paul upon many occaſions. Thus Athanaſius did by an oath ſolemnly purge himſelf to Conſtantius the Emperour, that he had not ſpoken any thing againſt him to his brother Conſtans. Thus you have Scripture-ground for the lawfulneſſe of it: Neither doth any thing in reaſon, or the nature of an oath, make it unlawfull: yea, on the contrary God is thereby glorified, and the publike edified. For if you do regard the originall or riſe of an Oath, that is for the honour of God; it being introduced upon a faith, that God beholds all things, that he loveth truth, and will be a ſevere avenger of all thoſe who take his Name in vain. And then if you conſider the end of it, it is to eſtabliſh righteouſneſſe between man and man; and ſo is a bond of humane ſociety: And if you ſay, there is this unfitneſſe in an Oath, becauſe a ſpiritual thing is ordained to that which is temporall, a ſuperiour for an inferiour, the worſhip of God to decide an humane buſineſſe. Becauſe therefore of the awe and reverence to an Oath, ſome though they have thought it lawfull to ſwear in ſacred things, wherein Gods honour is immediatly concerned, yet judge it unlawfull about many Controverſies, and ſuch humane contracts. Hence Baſil. Homil, de legend. lib. Gent. commendeth Clinias a Pythagorean, who being fined a very great ſumme of money, the paying whereof he might have eſcaped, by taking an oath, yet refuſed, and would rather ſuffer that great loſſe rather than take an oath. But the true anſwer is by diſtinguiſhing of the proxime and ultimate end, though an oath, which is a worſhip of God have for its proxime end a confirmation of ſome temporall matter, yet the ultimate end is to glorifie God. Again, there may be this in reaſon againſt an Oath, that it ſeemeth to be a tempting of God, for can we make God witneſſe to a thing when we will? To this the anſwer is, that if the intention of the ſwearer in his oath ſhould be ſo, to call God to witneſſe, that he ſhould immediatly by ſome ſigne in a ſenſible manner demonſtrate his notice thereof; This indeed would be to tempt God, though ſome times Gods judgements do immediatly and viſibly fall upon ſuch as take his Name in vain, or inviſibly by terrours and horrours of conſcience; but that is not, or ought not to be the ſcope of him that ſweareth, but thereby to commit the truth of God, who in his due time here or hereafter will be avenged upon ſuch as ſwear not aright. Well then, you will ſay, all this may be granted, but what ſhall we ſay to thoſe two places of Scripture, which ſeem as clearly to forbid all oaths at any time, as clearly, as can be expreſſed.
The firſt is, Matth. 5. 33, 34. &c. But I ſay unto you, Swear not at all, &c. where firſt our Saviour doth univerſally prohibit, foreign, at no time, in no thing, as it might ſeem. 2. He ſaith, Let your yea be yea; and nay, nay: that is, uſe no more than a bare affirmation, without calling God to witneſſe. And laſtly, he addeth, Whatſoever is more, is of ſinne. Now if you compare the Apoſtle James, who alludeth to this of our Saviour, he ſpeaketh more poſitively, Jam. 5. 12. Above all things, my brethren, ſwear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath, loſt you might think: He forbiddeth ſwearing by creatures, he addeth, neither by any other oath, leſt ye fall into condemnation; or as Grotius, who ſheweth the word foreign is uſed for falſhood and a lye left by ſwearing you come to forſwearing. Thus you ſee how fairly theſe Texts ſeem to carry it againſt any kinde of ſwearing; and by this private Chriſtians are to be admoniſhed, to compare one place of Scripture with another, and panciora per plura; for the minding of ſome Texts only, not comparing them with other, hath cauſed much errour. As in the doctrine of Univerſall Redemption, becauſe ſome places ſay, Chriſt dyed for all, they runne away with them, not conſidering other places which do reſtrain them, and ſhew in what ſenſe that Univerſality is to be underſtood: So becauſe it is ſaid, Swear not at all, nor by any other oath, therefore they conclude, that no ſwearing is lawfull, And how guilty then muſt Paul be, who yet bid us follow him as he did Chriſt, for he ſweareth often? It is certain then, that our Saviour Chriſt doth not forbid ſwearing in the generall, for he ſaith at that time, he came not to deſtroy the Law, and ſwearing was lawfull in the Old Teſtament: But the Phariſaicall opinions and gloſſes for they had brought in corrupt poſitions.
1. That it was lawfull to ſwear by creatures as well as God.
2. If a man did ſwear by creatures and not by God, he was not guilty of perjury, if he did not fullfill it. Our Saviour therefore doth expreſly condemn both theſe. This is the ſumme of this Prohibition, We are not to ſwear by creatures, but yet if we do, becauſe they relate to God, it is by interpretation, as if we did ſwear by God himſelf: Grotius indeed thinketh, that this place, with that of James, is to be underſtood of promiſſory oaths: and Volkelius the Socinian, he ſeemeth to ſay, That though this place may not forbid all aſſertory oaths, when neceſſity requireth, yet promiſſory oaths are not allowable, when the thing is not certain, and it may not be in our power to fullfill it. But the Texts comprehend both. It is true, Learned Interpreters go contrary waies, though they both meet in the end. For ſome ſay, Our Saviour doth not forbid all oaths, but all oaths by creatures; and ſome make the Word foreign not to relate to ſwearing, but the words following, Neither by heaven or earth, as if it were a diſtribution of that foreign. In this ſence, the ſwearing not at all, or no other oath, is to be limited to creatures, not at all by the creatures, not any oath by them; he doth not forbid us to ſwear by God in juſt cauſes, or before a Magiſtrate, but by the creatures, and that in our ordinary diſcourſe. For the Jews did not think it lawfull to ſwear by any thing but God, in their ſolemn Judicatories. Thus it is like that univerſall All; Whatſoever they bid you obſerve, do, Matth. 23. 3. that is, all lawfull things: So when Paul ſaith, I became all things to all men, that is, in things lawful and indifferent; he did not become an Idolater: Others they grant, that our Saviour forbiddeth all oaths, as well thoſe by God as by the creatures, becauſe he giveth this reaſon, That whoſoever ſweareth by the creatures ſweareth by God in effect; and then they ſay, the meaning is, Swear not at all, that is, in unneceſſary and cauſeleſſe matters. The ſwearing is not ſo much forbidden, as the frequent and unnceceſſary uſe of it. As much as lieth in you, Swear not at all; and this is every mans duty.
Thus we have briefly vindicated that Text. In the next place, how may we ſwear lawfully? And in this the Prophet Jeremiah informeth us of three neceſſary How we may ſwear lawfully.concomitants of every oath, which all Writers almoſt upon this Subject take notice of, Jer. 4. 3. Thou ſhalt ſwear, the Lord liveth, (therefore not by any creature.)
1. In truth, that is, be ſure that the thing thou ſweareſt be true, not onelyonly in it ſelf, but to thy conſcience, that thou knoweſt the truth of it; or if thou haſt not the certainty of it, that thou beleeveſt it to be ſo upon good grounds; and againſt this offend all thoſe who ſwear falſly, and will bring, as much as lieth in them, God to witneſſe a lye.
2. In judgement, that is, with prudence, deliberation, and caution. Be well adviſed before thou ſweareſt: and againſt this offend all common ſwearers, that ſwear raſhly, and for ordinary things; as alſo thoſe who ſwear in paſſions, and when moved by anger.
3. In righteouſneſſe, that is, be ſure the matter thou ſweareſt, eſpecially in promiſſory oaths, be lawfull and juſt, ſuch which is agreeable to Gods Word. To theſe we may adde two more.
1. That we ſwear in faith, beleeving not only that there is a God, but alſo that he is an obſerver of all that we ſpeak or do, and an avenger of ſuch who ſhall pollute his Name.
And then 2. that we do it with holy awe and reverence of God upon our ſpirits. We are to fear an oath: Oh what trembling and confuſion may this work upon raſh and paſſionate common ſwearers? How often hath the name of God been taken into thy mouth raſhly and prophanely? Thou who when thou art to do with a great man in place and honour, doſt with all reverence approach to him, how cometh the Majeſty of the great God to be thus contemned by thee?
In the laſt place, When may we ſwear? and that is in the generall, when neceſſity When we may ſwear.doth compell, when the truth cannot be found out any other waies; for an oath is to be uſed when other means are deficient; and more particularly we are then only to ſwear, when the honour of God is concerned, or Religion and Chriſtianity is falſly accuſed; and theſe are publique grounds. To which we may adde the good of the Common-wealth: or we are to ſwear upon a particular occaſion to clear our ſelves from falſe accuſations and crimes charged upon us, if otherwiſe our innocency cannot appear; or in the behalf of others, when they ſhall ſuffer either in name, life, or eſtate, and we are required … unto by the Magiſtrate, that ſo juſtice may proceed.