Eighteen Choice and Useful Sermons, Sermon 15
The Fifteenth SERMON.
JEREMIAH 4.2.
Thou ſhalt ſweare, the Lord liveth in trueth, in Judgement and in righteouſneſſe.
Diviſion. SOcrates writes of Pambo the Herimit, that when one was reading to him the 39. Pſalme, and had read but the beginning.Pſa. 39.1: I ſaid, I will take heed to my wayes, that ſo I offend not in my tongue. The Heremit willed him to ſtay there and to read no further; for this, ſaith he, is a leſſon which will hardly be learned in a long time. Had the beginning of my text been read unto him, Thou ſhalt ſweare, he would rather have willed him to have read on; becauſe this is a leſſon which is learned ſoone. For who cannot ſwear without a teacher? We may ſee young children, who before they have perfectly learn'd to read, have learned this leſſon. So that if ſwearing were all which God required, almoſt every one might anſwer as the Ruler did our Saviour,Luke 18.21. All this have I done from my youth upward. But here is not onelyonly an Oath to be taken, Thou ſhalt ſwear, but the object of an Oath, or by whom we are to ſwear, Thou ſhalt ſwear, the Lord liveth; and the conditions of an Oath or how we are to ſwear, Thou ſhalt ſwear, the Lord liveth in truth, in judgement and in righteouſneſſe. The firſt againſt the Anabaptiſts who hold it unlawfull to ſwear at all, Thou ſhalt ſwear. The ſecond againſt the Papiſts who hold it lawfull to ſwear by the Creatures, Thou ſhalt ſwear the Lord liveth. The third againſt all profane ſwearers, that take either falſe or fraudulent Oaths, Thou ſhalt ſwear in truth, or inconſiderate or unneceſſary Oaths, Thou ſhalt ſwear in judgement: or laſtly pernicious and wicked Oaths, which are taken for the performance of ſome unlawfull action, Thou ſhalt ſwear in righteouſneſſe. And theſe are the ſeverall parts of theſe words.
And firſt, concerning the lawfulneſſe of an Oath, I neede not ſtand long upon the proof thereof; becauſe as the Lawyers ſay, Quod conſuetum eſt praeſumitur eſſe juſtum, That is commonly held to be juſt and lawfull which is ordinary and common. And yet becauſe the Anabaptiſts are of another opinion, and would utterly take away the uſe of an Oath, ſomething muſt be ſpoken of the lawfulneſſe thereof.
That it is lawfull therefore to take an Oath, we may ſee, eſpecially by theſe three things.
Firſt, By the expreſſe commandement of God. If to take an Oath were ſimply unlawfull,Exod. 20. then God would not have forbidden us, to take his name in vain, but to take it at all, as becauſe it is ſimply unlawfull to ſwear by falſe Gods, he doth not forbid us to take their names in yaine; but abſolutely forbids us to ſwear by them. And as he forbids us to ſwear by them:Exo. 23.13. ſo he commands us to ſwear by him. Deut. 6.13. Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, and ſerve him, and thou ſhalt ſwear by his name. Which words are repeated, Deut. 10.…0. with a little addition, Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, him ſhalt thou ſerve; thou ſhalt cleave unto him and ſwear by his name. So that the taking of an Oath, is not left unto us as a thing indifferent; but commanded by God, and that as a part of Gods ſervice and worſhip. And therefore God promiſeth a bleſſing to thoſe that ſwear by his Name,Jer. 12.16. Jer. 12.16. It ſhall come (ſaith he) to paſſe, that if they will diligently learne the wayes of my people, to ſweare by my name, The Lord liveth, as they taught my people to ſwear by Baal; then ſhall they be built in the middeſt of my people. And Pſalm 15.4. He that ſweareth, ſaith David, though it be to his own hinderance, and changeth not, Pſal. 15.4.he ſhall dwell in Gods Tabernacle. But if it were unlawfull to ſwear at all, he would not have placed him in Gods Tabernacle, that ſwears and keeps his Oath, though it be to his own hinderance; but rather him that ſweareth not, though it be to his own advantage.
Secondly, by the example of thoſe holy men in the Scripture, who have taken oathes, and that ſometime publickly. Thus Abraham ſwore to the King of Sodom, Gen. 14.22. Gen. 31.53.Gen. 14.22. And thus Iſaac ſwore unto Abimelech, the King of the Philiſtins, Gen. 26.31. ſometime privately. Thus Jacob ſwore unto Laban, Gen. 31.53. And thus David ſware unto Jonathan, 1 Sam. 20.17. I might alleadge further the example of Angels, and of God himſelfe, who have taken oathes, and therefore to ſweare is not unlawfull.
Thirdly, by the end for which an oath was ordained. An oath is a means which God hath appointed for the ending of controverſies, and for the deciſion of ſtrife and contention. And therefore the Apoſtle ſaith of an oath,Heb. 6.16. Heb. 6.16. that it is foreign the end of all ſtrife. Thus for the determination of doubtfull cauſes,Exed. 22.11. God appointed the Magiſtrate, Exod. 22. to put men to their oathes; and the party ſuſpected having thus taken an oath, was freed and acquitted. And this cuſtome hath prevailed in all Countries. For all men being perſwaded that there is a God from whom nothing is hid, and that he is a lover of truth, and an hater of falſhood, and therefore that he will be revenged upon thoſe that for-ſweare themſelves; hence it is that this cuſtom hath prevailed all over the World, that mens oathes ſhould be taken in doubtfull cauſes, that ſo the truth might be brought to light, and the matter decided.
Seeing then, that the taking of an oath it not onelyonly permitted, but commanded by God; commanded as a part of Gods ſervice and worſhip, and commanded with the promiſe of a bleſſing to thoſe that take it. Seeing it is warranted by the examples of the Patriarchs and Prophets, of the Angels and of God himſelfe, who have taken oaths; and ſeeing an oath was ordained by God for ſo excellent an end, as for the confirmation of the truth, and the deciſion of controverſies, it is plain againſt the Anabaptiſts, that there is a lawfull uſe of ſwearing. And thus much concerning the lawfulneſſe of oaths. I come now to the object of an oath, or by whom we are to ſwear, by God, and no other, Thou ſhalt ſwear, the Lord liveth.
The Heathen in their oaths were wont to ſwear by all manner of creatures. Some of them were wont to ſwear by themſelves, or by ſome part of their body, as Otho the Emperour uſed to ſwear by his beard, and Polypheme the Monſter by his one eye. Some of them were wont to ſwear by others, as the Ethiopians ſwore by dead mens ghoſts, Caligula by his ſiſter and wife Druſilla, and ſome of the Philoſophers by the name of Socrates. Some ſwore by unreaſonable and ſenceleſſe creatures, as Socrates ſwore by dogs and goats, the Germans ſwore by the names of their horſes, and the Egyptians by their garlick, leeks and onions. But to paſſe them over, the Papiſts hold it lawfull to ſwear by the Creatures. And they alleadge to this purpoſe thoſe words of our Saviour, Mat. 23.21. Whoſoever ſwears by the Temple, ſwears by it, Mat. 23.21.and by him that dwels therein; and he that ſweareth by Heaven, ſwearth by the Throne of God, and by him that ſits thereon. From whence they inferre, That ſwearing by the creatures is referred to the honour and glory of God, and therefore that it is lawfull to ſweare by them. But I would aske them this queſtion, Whether Chriſt in thoſe words doth authorize the Jews to ſwear by the creatures, and juſtifie their ſwearing by the Temple or by Heaven? If they ſay, he doth not, how do they inferre that God is honoured by their ſwearing by them? If they ſay, he doth, then why doth Chriſt ſay, Swear not by Heaven, for it is Gods Throne? for if theſe oaths were lawfull,Mat. 5.34. Chriſt would not have forbidden them, and if they be unlawfull, God is diſhonoured by them. And therefore they cannot inferre from thoſe words, that becauſe while the Jews did ſwear by the creatures, they ſwore likewiſe by God: and therefore God was honoured by their ſwearing by the creatures, but rather that in ſwearing by them they could not avoid, but they ſwore alſo by God, and therefore diſhonoured him while they counted it nothing to ſwear by them.
An oath is a part of Gods ſervice and worſhip, and ſo to be directed to no other but God. Therefore God commands (as we heard before) to ſvvear onelyonly by him.Deut. 10.20. Thou ſhalt fear the Lord thy God, him ſhalt thou ſerve, thou ſhalt cleave unto him, and ſwear by his Name. And he complaines of the Jews, Jer. 5.7. That their children had forſaken him, and had ſworn by thoſe which were no Gods: implying thereby, That we are to ſwear by God, and no other. And he threatens Zeph. 1.5. That he will cut them off, that ſwear by the Lord, & ſwear by Malcham. It is a true ſaying, Quicquid illud eſt, per quod quis jurat, illud deificat. If we ſwear by any thing, whatſoever it be we deifie the ſame. For an oath is an invocation of the Name of God, as the onelyonly ſearcher of the heart, whereby when we ſwear, we call God to witneſſe that we ſpeak the truth, and wiſh God to puniſh us if we do otherwiſe. So that whatſoever we ſweare by, we attribute unto it theſe two things.
Firſt, That it knows whether we ſpeak the truth or no, and therefore it is that we call it to witneſſe. So ſaith Thomas Aquinas, Jurare per Deum nihil alind eſt, quam invocare ejus teſtimonium. To ſwear by God, is nothing elſe but to call God to witneſſe. So that while we ſwear by any thing, we call it to witneſſe, and ſo attribute the knowledge of the truth untoit.
Secondly, That it is able to puniſh us if we ſwear that which is falſe. So ſaith the ſame School-man. Nihil aliud eſt dicere per Deum ita eſt, niſi quod Deus puniat me, ſi non it a eſt. It is nothing elſe to ſwear by God that it is ſo, but that God puniſh me if it be not ſo. So that while we ſwear by any thing, we give thus much unto it, That if we ſwear falſe, it is able to puniſh us. But theſe two things are onelyonly proper unto God, and therefore we are to ſwear by no other. Whenſoever then we ſwear by the creatures, as either by this light, which was the oath of the Manichees, or by the Roode, by the Maſſe, by our Lady, or the like; which as if we wanted oaths of our own, we have borrowed of the Papiſts; they are all ſuperſtitious and idolatrous oaths. It was decreed by the …ouncel of Carthage, that if a Miniſter ſhould ſwear by any creature, he ſhould firſt be ſharply reprehended for it, and if he perſiſted in this vice, he ſhould be excommunicated, becauſe it is an abuſe of Gods holy Name to ſwear by the creatures. And therefore Polycarp, as we read in Euſebius, choſe rather to be torn in pieces by wilde beaſts, as they threatned him at the firſt, or to be burnt at the ſtake, as he was after, rather then he would prophane the Name of God by ſwearing, as they would have had him, by the fortune of Caſar. So hainous a ſinne was it thought by this Martyr to ſwear by the creatures.
If it be objected, That the Scripture maketh mention of ſome holy men that have ſworn by the creatures, as that Joſeph ſwore by the life of Pharaoh, Gen. 42.16. 2 King. 2.4.Gen. 42.16. and that Etiſha ſwore by the ſoule of Eliah, 2 King. 2.4.
The anſwer is, That either they are not oaths, but onelyonly vehement obteſtations, as ſome Divines do hold; or if they be oaths, yet becauſe they are contrary to the Word of God, that we are not to imitate their examples: but we may ſay of them as St. Anguſtine ſaid in another caſe, Haec quidem in Scripturis ſantis legimus, non ideò tamen quia facta credimus, facienda creáamus, ne duns paſſins ſectamur exempla violemus pracepta. We read (ſaith he) indeed of ſuch examples in the Scriptures, not that becauſe we believe they vvere done, we ſhould therefore believe they may lawfully be done, left ſo we violate the commandement of God, vvhile that vve ſeek to imitate the examples of men. But thus much likevviſe for the object of an oath. I come novv to the conditions, Thou ſhalt ſwear in truth, in judgement, and in righteouſneſſe.
The firſt condition vvhichwhich is required in an oath, is, that we ſwear in truth: God to inflame us the more vvith the love of Truth, is called in the Scripture, Deut. 32.4. John 14.6. John 15.26.1 Tim. 3.15.the God of Truth. Our Saviour calls himſelfe the truth; the Holy Ghoſt is called the Spirit of truth; Gods Word is called the Scripture of truth, and his Church is called the pillar of truth. To note unto us; That they who are Members of his Church, they who are inſtructed in his holy Word, they who are led by his holy Spirit, they who are redeemed by his Son, and adopted by God to be his children, they of all others are to ſtand for the truth, to imbrance it in their hearts, to teſtiſie it in their words, and when occaſion requires, to confirme it in their oaths. And to this end, God hath given us his ſacred Name, as a Seal to ratifie and confirme the truth, that in matters of importance, the truth vvhereof cannot otherwiſe be known but by taking an oath, vve might uſe Gods Name, and call God as a vvitneſſe to the truth of our ſpeech. Whenſoever therefore vve take an oath, vve muſt be ſure that the matter be true vvhichwhich vve ſwear, otherwiſe vve commit a moſt bainous ſin; in calling God as a vvitneſſe to that vvhichwhich is falſe.
And vvhereas an oath is of two ſorts; either aſſertory, of things that vve affirme; or promiſſory, of things vvhichwhich vve promiſe to performe: vve muſt be ſure that in them both we do ſwear the truth. For if either vve doubt of the truth of the matter, or have not a full purpoſe to performe our promiſe in taking ſuch an oath, vve for-ſwear our ſelves. There are ſome that vvill make conſcience of an aſſertory oath, and vvill be ſure they ſweare nothing but that vvhichwhich they know to be the truth; yet for keeping their promiſe they make no great reckoning, though they have bound themſelves by oath for the performance thereof. But every ſingle promiſe, if the thing be lawfull, vvhichwhich a man hath promiſed, doth bind a man; conſcience to the performance of it, and when an Oath is added there is a double bond. And therefore it is ſaid, Heb. 6.17. That God widing more abundantly to ſhew the ſtableneſſe of his counſell to the heirs of promiſe, bound himſelf by an Oath, that ſo (ſaith he) by two immutable things, (namely the promiſe which he had made, and the Oath which he had taken) we might have ſtrong conſolation. So that taking of an Oath, doth bind a man doubly to the performance of his promiſe. Nay, if that a man have once taken an Oath, though he were induced thereunto by fraud and deceit; yet the thing being lawfull he is bound to performe it. And this we may ſee by the example of that Oath which was made to the Gibeonites, Joſh. 9.19. for vvhen the Gibi…nites came craftily to the Jewes, as though they had been men of a far country, and had brought them to ſwear that they would not hurt them, and the Iewes knew afterwards who they were, and therefore were offended that they ſhould be ſpared; yet Ioſhua and the Princes dia ſave their lives, in regard of the oath which they had made unto them. And becauſe Saul afterwards brake this oath by deſtroying the Gibeonits, there was a famine in the land for the ſpace of three years; and till ſeven of Sauls Sonnes were bang'd for this fact, God was not appeaſed. So grievous a ſinne is the breach of an Oath in the ſight of God. And therefore whenſoever we take an Oath, we muſt alwayes have an eye to this firſt condition, that we ſwear in truth.
Now there are two things contrary to the truth of an Oath.
Firſt fraudulent and deceitfull ſwearing, when we take an Oath with an intent to deceive them unto whom we ſweare, pretending one thing and intending another.
Such an Oath was that which Cleomenes took, who having made a truce with his enemies for certaine dayes, in the meane time ſet upon them perfideouſly in the night, pretending that the truce was made onelyonly for the dayes.
Such an Oath was that which we read of in Theodoret. A woman with child was hired by ſome, to Father her child upon Euſtathius the Biſhop of Antioch; The woman being examined and put to her Oath, ſwore that Euſtathius of Antioch was the Father of it; whereupon the Biſhop was depoſed and baniſht. She afterwards falling into grievous ſicknes, confeſſed that ſhe had wrongfully accuſed the Biſhop; and yet denied that ſhe was forſworn, becauſe howſoever ſhe pretended the Biſhop, yet ſhe meant it not of him, but of another in the City of the ſame name.
And ſuch an Oath was that which was taken by Laſus, vvhen he had ſtolne a fiſh out of a Fiſh-mongers ſhop, as we ſee in Atheneus. For Laſus having ſtoln it, & another received it & both denyied it; being both brought before the Magiſtrate & put to their oath,Athen. deipnos. Laſus ſwore thus; that he neither had it nor knew any other that ſtole it; the other ſwore thus, that he neither ſtole it nor knew any other that had it; becauſe he himſelf had it, and Laſus ſtole it. Theſe are fraudulent and deceitful Oaths.
Secondly, Contrary to ſwearing in truth, is falſe ſwearing or perjurie, when a man takes an Oath, and yet knows that that which he ſwears is falſe. And this hath been alwayes accounted both before God and man, a moſt horrible, odious and damnable ſin. Lying of it ſelf is a heinous ſinne, and therefore called Prov. 12.22. an abomination to the Lord: becauſe that God who is the God of truth cannot but hate and abhorre falſhood. But now when a man binds a lye with an Oath, he ſinnes not onelyonly himſelf by lying; but endeavours to entangle God in his ſinne by calling God to witneſſe that which he knows to be falſe. Hence it is that even the heathen themſelves have alwayes been religious in obſerving their Oaths.
We read of Alexander, that leading his Army againſt a City with a ful reſolution to have utterly deſtroyed it, he ſaw Anaximenes the Philoſopher, who had been his Tutor coming towards him, & thinking that Anaximenes would be very urgent with him to ſpare the City, he ſwore in a fury, that whatſoever it was that Anaximenes deſired, he would not grant it. Anaximenes deſired that he would deſtroy the City. Alexander ſeeing that he could not deſtroy it, but he muſt break his Oath, returned with his Army, and to ſave his Oath withall ſaved the City.
And we read of Regulus and ſome other of the Romans, that Hanniball had taken priſoners, that having taken an Oath that they would go to Rome, and if ſome of the Carthaginians vvere not exchanged for them, they themſelves vvould return, vvhen they came to Rome and effected not that for vvhichwhich they were ſent; yet they vvere ſo religious in obſerving their oaths, that though they knew for certaine that the ſaving of their oaths vvould be the loſſe of lives, yet they returned againe. So heinous a ſinne vvas perjury their accounted, even among the Heathen.
And hence it is, that this ſinne hath alwayes been ſo grievouſly puniſht, ſometime vvith baniſhment as among the Romans, ſometime vvith death as among the Egyptians; for they inflicted no leſſe then death upon every perjured perſon, as upon one who was guilty of two horrible crimes, impiety to the gods and inſidelity to men. Nay in this one there is a three-fold ſin.
Firſt, againſt God by an infinite wrong to his holy Name. If the King ſhould commit the broad ſeale unto any Subject, to ſeale ſome matter which were for the honour of the King, and the good of the whole Kingdom, and the Subject ſhould ſeale ſome other matter with it, which the King utterly deteſted, as being a diſhonour to himſelfe, a diſadvantage to his ſubjects, and a benefit to his enemies: in ſo doing he ſhould be guilty of high Treaſon. And thus is he guilty of high Treaſon againſt God, that abuſeth his Name to the ratifying of falſhood. For God hath committed his ſacred Name as a ſeale unto us,Heb. 6.6. for the confirmation of the truth, and the ending of ſtrife; both which, the confirmation of truth, and the cutting off of contention, make much for the glory of God, and the good of all men. Now he that ſwears falſly, abuſeth Gods Name to the confirming of a lie, which is moſt diſhonourable to God, who is the God of truth, moſt acceptable to the devill, who is the father of lying, and moſt injurious to men, among whom there cannot poſſibly be any ſociety, if there be no truth nor fidelity among them. If a man having a Tower or Caſtle committed to his keeping, ſhould betray it to the enemy, he ſhould be counted a Traitour to his Prince and Countrey. Gods Name (ſaith Solomon) is a ſtrong tower, whereunto the righteous reſort. Prov. 15.10.Now when a man ſwears falſly, he betraies this Tower unto the devill, who is Gods enemy; which is an infinite wrong to Gods ſacred Name.
Secondly, he that ſwears falſly is moſt injurious to men; for by this means many times it comes to paſſe, that the Jurors give up a falſe verdict, the Judge pronounceth an unjuſt ſentence, and the party that is innocent is deprived of his right.
Thirdly, againſt himſelfe: for by calling God as a witneſſe to that which is falſe, while he ſeeks to eſcape the cenſure of men, he falls moſt fearfully into Gods hands, and to avoid a pecuniary mulct, or a bodily puniſhment, doth bind his ſoule over unto Gods judgements, who hath threatned before-hand, that he will not hold him guiltleſſe.
This then being ſo hainous and horrible a ſinne, both before God and man, what may we think of thoſe who hold it lawfull to ſwear and for-ſwear, and both practiſe it in action, and defend it in writing? Thus the Romiſh Prieſts and Jeſuits, being brought before the Magiſtrate, and put to their oaths, they hold it lawfull to ſwear and for-ſwear themſelves. For this is the doctrine which is maintained among them, that unto dangerous interrogatories a man is not bound to anſwer, according to the meaning of the Magiſtrates demand, but that he may lawfully equivocate, and frame a ſafe meaning unto himſelfe, and ſwear unto it. As if a Prieſt being examined before the Magiſtrate, whether he be a Prieſt or no; though indeed he be, yet he may mean that he is not one of Baals Prieſts, and ſo he may equivocate and ſwear that he is not. Thus Garnet Superiour of the Jeſuits in England, being examined before the Councell, & put to his oath, whether he had not had any conference with Hall the Prieſt while he was in priſon, he took it upon his oath that he had had no conference with him, and when it was proved to his face to be falſe, and that he was for-ſworne; he anſwered onelyonly this, that he had offended, if equivocation did not help him. Thus Treſham the Traitour, while he lay in the Tower upon his death-bed, and died preſently after, he took it upon his ſalvation that he had not ſeen Garnet of ſixteen years before, which being afterwards found to be falſe, and that by Garnets own confeſſion, Garnet being askt what he thought of Treſham, he anſwer'd, he thought that he did equivocate. And thus under the pretence of equivocation, they hold it lawfull to ſwear and for-ſwear any thing. But this is moſt certain, that when we take an oath, and ſwear otherwiſe then that which we know to be the truth, whatſoever we pretend we are reputed as perjured in the ſight of God. Quacunque arte verborum quis utitur, Iſidor. de ſummo bonè lib. 1.Deus tamen (ſaith Iſidore) qui conſcientia teſtis eſt it a hoc accipit, ſicut ille cui juratur intelligit. What cunning ſoever we uſe in ſwearing, yet God that ſees the conſcience, takes it in the ſame manner, as he underſtands it to whom he ſweared. And thus much for the firſt condition of an oath, Thou ſhalt ſwear in truth. I come to the ſecond, Thou ſhalt ſwear in judgement.
Now there are two kindes of oaths, which are contrary hereunto.
Firſt, inconſiderate and unadviſed oaths, as when we take an oath of that we do not underſtand, or when we ſwear to perform that which is not in our power. Such an oath is that which the King of India alwayes takes at his coronation, namely, That he will make the Sun to keep his courſe, and to give them light, that he will make the clouds to ſend them ſeaſonable ſhowers, that he will make their rivers that they ſhall never be dry, but run continually, and that he will make the earth that it ſhall not be barren, but bring forth fruit in due ſeaſon. Now theſe things are not in the power of man to performe. And ſuch an oath is that which the Papiſts take, when they vow virginity and a ſingle life, as if the gift of continency were in their own power and ability. Theſe are raſh and unadviſed oaths. The Romans had a cuſtome, that he that ſhould ſwear by Hercules ſhould firſt go out of doores, that he might think of the oath which he was to take, and deliberate upon the matter which he was to ſwear. If they were ſo carefull that they ſwore not unadviſedly by the name of Hercules, how carefull ſhould we be that we uſe not Gods Name, but with great adviſe. And therefore before that we take an oath, we muſt pauſe upon it, and conſider what it is that we are to ſwear.
Secondly, contrary to ſwearing in judgement, is idle, frivolous, and unneceſſary ſwearing, when we ſwear without cauſe, or upon any light occaſion. Thus ſome, though it be but a trifle whereof they are ſpeaking, yet if they be not believed in every word which they ſpeak, they will preſently rap out an oath to confirme it; and ſo God muſt be diſhonoured that they may be believed: yet their ſwearing is ſo far from ſaving their credit, and making them be believed, that it gives men occaſion the more to ſuſpect them. For who will believe that he makes conſcience of ſwearing truely, that makes no conſcience of ſwearing unneceſſarily? or that he will be carefull that he deceives not his neighbour, that makes no reckoning of diſpleaſing his Maker? For he that will not ſtick to diſhonour God upon no occaſion, it may not be ſuſpected that he will for-ſwear himſelfe, when by his oath he may gain any thing. But if the matter be not weighty, and of ſome importance, ſuch ſwearing is the prophaning of Gods Name: for thus the Name of God is brought into contempt, while it is uſed in matters of no weight and moment.Exod. 18.26. Moſes, as we ſee in the 18th. of Exodus, being Judge over Iſracl, he ſubſtituted inferiour officers under him, and appointed the Weightier matters to be brought to himſelfe, and referred all petty controverſies to be decided by them. If it were not ſit for Moſes to be called to the determining of inferiour cauſes, is it fit for us to call God as a witneſſe to triſling matters? If a man have a jewell, he will not lay it to pawn for every trifle, and if he do, it is an argument that he makes little reckoning of it. And ſurely he makes but ſmall account of Gods ſacred Name, that is ready to pawn it upon every light occaſion: yet this is a ſinne then the which there is nothing more ordinary and common. Some there are that take a pride in ſwearing, and will ſcarce ſpeak a word but an oath muſt ſecond it, as if ſwearing were not ſo much a ſinne, as a grace to their ſpeech, and a matter of complement. And theſe are counted the great Gallants of the World. Others that are given to unneceſſary ſwearing, if a man chance to reprove them for it, they will ſay for themſelves, that they do not ſwear of any ill intent, for they ſwear many times when they do not mind it, and therefore they hope that it is no ſinne, becauſe they mean no harme. But if that their tongues ſhould ſpeak treaſon, would it help them to ſay, that they did not minde it? would not their hearts be thought to conſpire with their tongues, and ſhould not their heads (think ye) pay for it? Can they bridle their tongues, and minde what they ſay, for fear of ſpeaking treaſon againſt an earthly King, and can they not beware that they do not blaſpheme the King of Heaven? but the truth is, that they ſee in the one a preſent danger, and not in the other. For ſhould they ſpeak treaſon, they know that every man would be ready to accuſe them, and that they ſhould preſently ſuffer for it; but as for the diſhonouring of Gods Name, becauſe it is not cenſured among men, they do not regard it; others that are given to unneceſſary ſwearing, will ſay, they have got ſuch a cuſtome of ſwearing, that they cannot leave it; as if their cuſtome of ſwearing did rather leſſen then increaſe their ſinne. Plato reprehending one for playing at dice, and he replying, do you reprehend me Sir for ſo ſmall a matter? The matter indeed, quoth Plato, is ſmall, but the cuſtome of it is no ſmall matter. And ſurely, if ſwearing of it ſelfe were but an ordinary ſinne, yet it is made far the greater by ordinary ſwearing. If a thieſe being brought before a Judge for ſome robbery he had committed, ſhould acknowledge the fact, and yet deſire to be excuſed, becauſe all his life-time he had been ſo accuſtomed to robbing, that he could not well leave it, would this excuſe, think ye, ſerve his turne? And when he that hath daily robbed God of his glory, by prophaning his Nune upon every light occaſion, ſhall be called to an account at the day of judgement, and ſhall plead for himſelfe, that he had ſo inured his tongue to ſwearing ever ſince he was a childe, that he could never afterwards leave it, will God take this for a ſufficient excuſe? Surely, if a man ſhall anſwer for every idle word that he ſpeaks, much more ſhall he anſwer for idle oaths. And indeed there is great reaſon, that God ſhould be a ſevere judge againſt thoſe that ſwear unneceſſarily, and upon no occaſion.
For firſt, Though this be reputed in the world but a ſmall ſinne, yet there is not almoſt any ſinne which a man commits, wherein he ſhewes ſo inſolent contempt of Gods ſacred Name, as he ſhews in this. For other ſinnes which a man commits, yet he may pretend ſome ſhew of excuſe. He that doth not ſanctifie the Sabbath day, will pretend it may be ſome extraordinary buſineſſe; he that ſteals from his neighbour, will pretend that he did it for neceſſity and want; he that kills a man, will pretend that he did it for the wrong which he offered him, and to ſave his credit & reputation; he that makes a lye that he did it for fear: and ſo for any ſin a man may pretend ſomething; but for ordinary ſwearing no excuſe can be given, a man cannot pretend that he doth it for fear, or for his gaine and profit, or for any thing whatſoever. And therefore there is great reaſon, as I ſaid before, that God ſhould ſeverely puniſh them, that ſwear idly and vainly, and upon no occaſion.
Secondly, Becauſe there is not any one ſinne, that ſo ordinarily goes ſcot-free among men, as this ordinary ſwearing and profaning of Gods Name.
If a man do but ſlander and defame his neighbour, the Law takes hold of him and he ſhall under go the penalty; but for the ordinary diſhonouring of Gods Name, it is not cenſured among men. We have Bedlams provided for frantick perſons, we have Peſthouſes provided for ſuch as are infected, and we have Goales and priſons for theeves and robbers, but for ſuch as are a thouſand times more mad & infectious, for ſuch as daly rob God of his glory, by profaning his Name without any occaſion, there is no place of reſtraint nor puniſhment appointed. And therefore God who is jealous of his honour, hath taken the cauſe into his own hands, and threatens, that howſoever they that abuſe his name do eſcape before men; yet he himſelfe will not hold them guiltleſſe. And thus much for the ſecond condition of an oath, that we muſt ſwear in judgement.
And ſo I come to the laſt condition, Thou ſhalt ſwear in righteouſneſſe. I will ſpeak but a word or two of it.
This condition requires, that the matter whereof we take an oath be juſt and lawfull; And hereunto are contrary all wicked oaths, vvhichwhich are taken for the performance of any unlawfull actions. Such an oath was that vvhichwhich vvas taken by Herod, Marke 6.Marke 6.26 Acts 23.21. when for the ſaving of his oath Iohn the Baptiſt was beheaded. Such an oath was that which vvas taken by the Iews Acts 23. that they would neither eate nor drink ſtill they had killed Saint Paul.
And ſuch are thoſe oaths, which have been taken by the Ieſuites for the murdering of Princes, and for the concealing of their conſpiracy and treaſon. Thus vvhen they vvent about the moſt horrible treaſon that ever vvas, their Gunpowder-plot, the memory vvhereof vvil continue for ever to their perpetuall ſhame; they ſwore by the bleſſed, Trinity, and by the Sacrament vvhichwhich they vvere then to take, that they vvould never diſcloſe it. A moſt horrible ſinne, while they could not be content to be Traytors themſelves, but God muſt be made an actor in their treaſons, & his name muſt help to ſettle them forward therein. Non ad hoc inſtitutum eſt juramentum ut ſit ini juitatis vinculum: an oath was not ordain'd to this end that it ſhould be the bond of iniquity, much leſſe of Treaſon. Such oaths are better broke then kept. And therefore David (vvith vvhichwhich I vvill conclude) when he had ſworn in a paſſion to kill Nabal, 1 Sam. 25.32.yet afterward he ſpared him upon Abigails interceſſion, and bleſſed God for ſending Abigail to intreate for him. Juravit David temeré ſaith St. Auguſtin, Auguſt. in Ser. de decollat. S. Johan. Bap.ſed non implevit jurationem majore pietate, David ſwore raſhly, but he performed I not his oath with greater Pietie.
FINIS.