A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 19
LECTVRE XIX.
MATTH. 5. 21, 22.
Ye have heard, it was ſaid of old, &c.
BEcauſe my purpoſe is to ſet forth the dignity of the Morall Law, I ſhall therefore briefly demonſtrate in this preſent Sermon, the falſhood of that opinion, maintained by Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and Socinians, That Chriſt came to give us more exact precepts then Moſes delivered to the Jewes, and therefore that Chriſt was not here an Interpreter, but a Reformer. It cannot be denyed, but this Sermon of our Saviours hath bred many thoughts of heart: for, becauſe of theſe precepts here, not rightly underſtood, the Heathens took occaſion to calumniate the Chriſtian Religion, as that which could not ſtand with a Common-wealth: And the Ancient Fathers were much troubled in anſwer to their objections; for when Julian and others did urge, that ſeeing by Chriſts commands we might not reſiſt evill, but rather be prepared to receive more injuries, therefore no Warre no Magiſtracy, no places of Judicature were lawfull: the Fathers in their anſwer did ſeeme to yeeld this, only they ſaid, Here was a lawfull way, and a better way: To warre, or to take places of Juſtice were lawfull wayes; but yet to refuſe theſe, and not to medle with them at all, was a more ſublime, Chriſtian way. And from this miſtake came that erroneous opinion of Precepts and Councels. Beſides, it's thought by the Learned, that ſome of the Ancient Fathers, being Philoſophers before, did retaine much of that ſtoicall diſpoſition in them, and ſo made Chriſts Precepts comply with their affections: But this I ſhall endeavour to prove, that there is no lawfull Morall way heretofore commanded by Moſes to the Jewes, which doth not at this time alſo belong to Chriſtians. Only let me premiſe thus much, That, howſoever the things queſtioned by the Swearing neither abſolutely unlawfull, not univerſally forbidden by our Saviour with reaſons why.Adverſaries, are lawfull to Chriſtians; yet there are few that riſe up to the practiſe of them as Chriſt commanded. Certainly theſe places; Of not reſiſting evill, Of giving our cloak to him that would take away our coat, &c. though they do not exclude the office of a Magiſtrate, or our deſire of him to aide us in our defence; yet they do forbid the frequent and common practiſe of moſt Chriſtians; ſo that we may ſay, there are few ſtates; and Kingdomes which do riſe up to the practiſe of that patience, and chriſtian meekneſſe, which we ſee here commanded. inſo much that kingdomes are more the kingdomes of the world then of Chriſt, and the lawes and practiſes of Common-wealths are ſuch as ſute more with humane ſtates then with the lawes of Chriſt. But I come to the particulars.
And firſt, whereas it's granted to be lawfull by the Law of Moſes to ſwear, now (ſay ſome) under the Goſpel it's made abſolutely unlawfull, under any pretence whatſoever, and (ſay they) here our Saviour forbids it abſolutely, Swear not at all; and James, following this of our Saviour, doth the like. Hence their opinion is, that it is not only unlawfull, to ſwear falſely and vainly, but at all in any reſpect. And this (ſay they) is a perfection required of Chriſtians above thoſe of the Law. Nor is it any wonder that men of late have doubted of this, ſeeing the Learned ſhew, that ſome of the Fathers of old have thought it abſolutely unlawfull for a Chriſtian to ſwear. In Euſebius one Baſilides, a Chriſtian, being commanded to ſwear, replied, It was not lawfull for him, becauſe he was a Chriſtian: And Hierome ſaith, that to ſwear was permitted to the Jews, or infants, as to offer ſacrifices unto God; yet I cannot ſee, but that they did ſwear alſo, although ſometimes they ſpeak as if they thought there were an abſolute prohibition of it. Yet Athanaſius made a ſolemn oath, to purge himſelf, when accuſed to the Emperour: and Tertullian ſaith, though the Chriſtians refuſed to ſwear per genium Principis, becauſe that they conceived it a devill, yet they did ſwear per ſalutem principis.
Some again have thought, that it is lawfull to ſwear, but then only in religious things, or in things that do concerh the ſafety of the Publique, but that it is not lawfull to ſwear in any thing of our own, or about any money matter: and Baſil doth object to the Chriſtians of his time, the Example of one Clinius a Pythagorean, who being fined a great ſumme of money, and might have eſcaped it by an oath, yet choſe rather to undergoe that dammage then to ſwear.
Some have thought it better, if in humane affairs, where promiſſory oaths uſe to be, there were only a naked promiſe, yet with as great a puniſhment upon the breaking of it, as if it were perjury, becauſe men are for the moſt part more awed with fear of puniſhment then breaking an oath But, whatſoever the thoughts of men may be about limiting of ſwearing; yet it is lawfull in ſome caſes to ſwear: neither is our Saviour ſo to be underſtood as univerſally forbidding.
Firſt, becauſe then he would have deſtroyed the Law, which yet he denyeth that he doth; for Deut. 6. to ſwear by God, is a command not indeed of a thing abſolutely in it ſelf, but occaſionally, as opportunity ſhall be: Therefore the word that ſignifieth To ſweare in the Heb. is in the paſſive ſenſe▪ implying that we are not voluntarily to chooſe to do ſo, but when neceſſity requireth it.
Secondly, again, Chriſt doth not abſolutely prohibit it, becauſe the uſe and end of an oath is perpetuall, which is to end controverſies, Heb. 6. Therefore. Aquinas ſaith well, that, what firſt principles are in ſpeculatives, to determine all concluſions, the ſame an oath is in practicalls, to end controverſies.
Thirdly, and laſtly, we have the example of Paul ſwearing ſometimes in his Epiſtle; ſo that our Saviour doth not altogether Corrupt gloſſes of the Phariſees, touching Swaring, reproved.forbid 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 falſifie that oath. And how many come neer this, who think if they ſweare by the creatures, ſo that God is not named, it's not ſuch an hainous 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 oathes, 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 ſinne. He ſpeakes there of our ordinary & familiar diſcourſe as private perſons; not concerning a publike conſideration: even as afterwards, when he mentioneth the duty of not reſiſting evil, he forbids private revenge, and not publique juſtice. Although ſome underſtand this of our Saviours, and that of James, not of aſſertory oathes (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 performe or do ſuch a thing, yet doe not ſweare, 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 lawfull thing, as that it is propter ſe appetendum; but only as phyſick is, which is ſometimes neceſſary for another thing. Thus therefore having cleared, that our Saviour intendeth no higher thing then that was lawfull 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, Sweare not at all; and not rather, as if he ſaid, Sweare alwayes and altogether? Oh therefore that this common cuſtomary way of ſwearing, which doth ſo directly oppoſe Chriſt, were wholy laid aſide! The very Heathens will condemne us herein, and among the Heathens, ex animiſui ſententià, was in ſtead of an oath. It ſeemeth this cuſtome of ſwearing in diſcourſe hath been of old; for Chryſoſtome and Auſtin are very vehement againſt it in their Sermons. Now let us proceed.
There are ſome who from thoſe words of our Saviour ſpoken ver. 38, 39, 40, 41. do gather, that now under the Goſpel it's not lawfull, 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatſoever. 2. That it's not lawfull to warre. 3. Not to go to law in any caſe, 4. Not to ſeek to a Magiſtrate for the defence of our ſelves; Therefore in theſe opinions they thinke they hold forth much of Chriſtian meekneſſe and patience: but before we come to the particulars, let us conſider in what ſenſe In what ſenſe the words, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, are to be taken.it'a ſaid, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth. This kind of Law was an ancient one among other Nations: Ariſtotle cals it foreign. And we read of a double retaliation, one Pythagoricall, which was wicked and ungodly, holding that if a man did thieve from one, the ſame might thieve from him again: The other Moſaicall, which was good, and had juſtice in it. OnelyOnly the Queſtion is, Whether this be literally to be underſtood, that it was lawfull for a man, who had his eye or tooth ſtruck out by another, to deſire of the Judge, that he, who did this violence, ſhould alſo have his eye or tooth beaten out.
You may reade the Law Exod. 21. 23. and how it ought to be moderated by Judges, (private men not being left to revenge themſelves) Deut. 19. 19. This Law was not given (as one wickedly ſaith) to indulge the childiſh condition of the Jewes, as being apt to revenge, and therefore makes it an imperfect Law, (ſaying that many lawes of men were more perfect lawes) but it was given againſt private revenge, and the end was that juſtice might be done. Now ſome have ſaid, this law was literally obſerved, and that a man who was wounded by another, hee himſelfe was wounded againe. But I doe rather thinke that the command in the letter of it was not obſerved, but that a recompence was made according to the judgment of the Judge for the Capitall puniſhments even death it ſelfe, may be inflicted upon Ofſenders: 1. Becauſe. commanded by God.loſſe: and it would have been a very hard thing, if one man had wounded another, to inflict juſt ſuch a wound, neither deeper nor broader, nor doing no more hurt upon the man who offered violence.
Wee therefore come to the Queſtions: And firſt concerning capitall puniſhments to be inflicted upon ſome offenders. There are thoſe that ſay, It doth not ſtand with the goodneſſe and meekneſſe of a Goſpel-ſpirit to put any man to death for any crime whatſoever. But the falſeneſſe hereof doth appeare, 1. In that it's a command of God from the beginning, with a perpetuall reaſon added to it, that he who was guilty of murder, ſhould be put to death; ſo that at leaſt in this caſe there ought to be a capitall puniſhment. Now the command that God gave is Gen. 9. 6. Whatſoever ſheddeth mans blood, by man ſhall his blood beſhed, and there is the reaſon given of it, becauſe the image of God, viz. in his ſoule, is in him To elude this, they ſay that this is not a command but a meere prediction: God doth here fore-tell (ſay they) what will befall the murderer, not what a Magiſtrate is bound to do. But that is a meere evaſion; for why ſhould God fore-tell this, but becauſe it was a duty to be done? Therefore it's not ſaid indefinitly, He that ſheddeth mans blood, his blood ſhall be ſhed, but he addeth, by man it ſhall be ſhed. Therefore, howſoever a great *Grotius.Scholar ſaith, that thoſe are deceived, who think capitall puniſhments are appointed by the Law of Nature, or any perpetuall Law of God; yet this place demonſtrateth the contrary: neither is it any matter that Plato would have reduced into his common-wealth the abrogation of capital puniſhments; or that the Romans for a while did uſe no heavier puniſhment, then deportation, or baniſhment; we muſt live by commands, and not by examples, eſpecially humane. It's inſtanced in Cain, who, though he killed his brother Abel, yet God did not deſtroy him. It muſt be granted, that, Gods indulgence to Cain was very great; for he doth not only ſpare his life, but ſets a marke upon him to preſerve him (what this was, they are moſt to be commended, who dare not determine it, becauſe the Scripture is ſilent in it.) and not only ſo, but he addeth a more ſevere puniſhment to that man that ſhall kill Cain, then was due to the killing of any man. Although it may be thought God in ſuffering Cain to live, was not ſo much indulgent as ſevere, in ſuffering him to be an inſtance of his diſpleaſure againſt him to all the world; As Pſal. 59. 11. Slay them not (ſaith the Pſalmiſt) leſt my people forget: ſo that it is one thing, what God may do for ſpeciall reaſons; and another, what the common Law of Nature, and the perpetuall Law of God requireth.
A ſecond Argument for capitall puniſhents under the Goſpel, 2. Becauſe it is the Magiſtrates office. 3. Becauſe practis'd under the Goſpel, upon Ananias and Sapphira, and ſo not repugnant to it.is from the Magiſtrates office, who, Rom. 13. is ſaid, not to beare the ſword in vaine: Now the ſword, doth imply a power of life and death, and therefore Paul ſaid, If I have done any thing worthy of death, implying there were ſome things that did deſerve it.
Laſtly, that to put to death men for faults, is not repugnant to the ſpirit of the Goſpel, appeareth by the judgement upon Ananias and Sapphira. You cannot reade of a-more ſevere expreſſion under the Law, then that was of the Goſpel; ſo that as we are indeed to labour for the meeknes and patience of a Chriſtian, yet we are not to forget zeale for Godsglory, and the publick good, it being cruelty to the good to ſpare the bad: and if we would pity ſuch a man offending, we muſt much more pity the common-wealth.
That which is objected to this is, 1. The rebuke that our Saviour Object. 1.gave to his Diſciples, when they would have had fire come downe from heaven: They are reproved upon this ground, becauſe they knew not what ſpirit they were of. Now, ſay they, this ſpirit is the ſpirit of the New Teſtament, which is oppoſed to the Spirit of Elias in the Old. The anſwer is obvious that Chriſt doth not there oppoſe the Spirit of the New Teſtament & the Old together, Sol.but their ſpirit, and Elias his ſpirit. What Elias did, he was moved unto by the Spirit of God, not for any private revenge, but that the glory of God might be illuſtrated. Now this fire of theirs was raſh and vindicative: It was not elementary fire, but culinary; nouriſhed by low and unworthy conſiderations.
In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour, John 8. to Object. 2.the adultereſſe; where he doth not proceed to the ſtoning of her, but rather freeth her.
The anſwer is, that Chriſt in his firſt coming was not as a Sol.Judge, and therefore did not take upon him to medle in temporall puniſhments, only as a miniſter, he laboured to bring them unto repentance, both the woman, and the accuſers.
And whereas againe it's objected, that this way of putting to death, is againſt charity and love of mens ſouls, becauſe many Object. 3.are put to death without any ſeeming repentance, which is preſently to ſend them to Hell.
The anſwer is, that all Magiſtrates, they are to take care for the Sol.ſalvation of the melefactors ſoules, as much as in them lyeth; but if they doe periſh in their ſins, this ariſeth not from juſtice done, which is rather to bring them in mind of their ſins, and to humble them but it cometh from the frowardneſſe, & obſtinacy in their owne hearts. And in that, we ſee a Magiſtracy confirmed in the Goſpel, we need not require an expreſſe command in the New Teſtament for the putting of ſome malefactors to death.
The third thing which they ſay was allowed in the Law, but forbid by Chriſt in the Goſpel is Warre: And certainly we may reade in Antiquity, that the Chriſtians did refuſe warre, but Warre allowed by Chriſt under the Goſpel.not univerſally; for there were Chriſtian ſouldiers, only there were ſome peculiar cauſes, why in thoſe times, the Chriſtians might decline it; As, firſt, becauſe in their military oath, there was a calling upon a heathen god, and their banners lifted up Two cauſes for which the Primitive Chriſtians might decline warrewere polluted with idolatry. And ſecondly, becauſe they ſhould be forced ſometimes to be inſtruments in accompliſhing the Emperours Edicts againſt the Chriſtians, which they would not do: Now if we bring places out of the Old-Teſtament for the lawfulneſſe of warrs, they care not; for, ſay they, the laws of Nature, and of Moſes are to be reformed by the Lawes of Chriſt, God indeed (ſay they) gave the Jewes in the Old-Teſtament leave to fight, becauſe they had a temporall inheritance and poſſeſſion given them which they could not keep but by force of armes: now under the New-Teſtament, God hath not done ſo to his people. Thus they ſay, but this is a ſhift, for we know Abraham, by a meere law of nature, went to war, and delivered his nephew Lot, being oppreſſed by enemies.
By that Warre is allowed by Chriſt, appeareth plainly by comparing 1. Tim. 2. 3. and Rom. 13. where the Apoſtle would have us pray for Magiſtrates, & ſuppoſeth, that while they are Magiſtrates, they may be Chriſtians, and come to the faith; ſo that thereby we may live a quiet and godly life under them; now how can this be unleſſe they draw their ſword upon offenders? And if they cannot in an ordinary legall way be brought to judgement, then by force of Armes.
The ſecond knowne argument is from Luke. 3. where John Baptiſt counſelleth the ſouldiers not to lay downe their office, but to look to ſuch duties as were neceſſary to them in that place; and, which is to be obſerved, theſe were mercenary ſouldiers, as it is thought, they were at that time. As for the Objections, they are taken from ſuch conſiderations, as will be examined in the next particular; only the Orthodox that do hold war lawfull, they do acknowledge many rules neceſſary for the godly and holy managing of it: and it is an hard thing to have an holy camp; and this made Auſtin ſay, in regard of the concomitant evils of it, that Omne bellum etiam juſtum eſſe deteſtandum; yet not but he thought it neceſſary to have it uſed, when it concerned the glory of God, and the good of the publique.