For that, in which we are confined to bare affirming or denying: which is our daily familiar speech. And a farther confirmation of this, if it needs one, follows in what he adds: whatfoever is more than thefe, cometh of evil. Now common fwearing can indeed come only of evil. But taking a folemn oath, on affairs of moment, may come, and often doth, from reverence of our Maker, from defire of maintaining peace and justice amongst our fellow-creatures: and actually maintains them in a better degree, than could be done without it. Our Saviour's words then fufficiently interpret themselves : and they interpret those of the text by neceffary consequence. For if he intended only to prohibit common fwearing in converfation, St. James, we may be fure, intended no more than his Mafter did; efpecially in words, that are evidently copied from his Master's. If they are without dependence on what comes before and after, we have no other rule to explain them by. And if they are connected with it, the connexion leads us to the fame fenfe. In the 8th verfe he exhorts to patience under afflictions. In the 9th he cautions against one common mark of wanting it, envying the more profperous: Grudge not one against another, brethren, left ye be condemned. Then after fetting before them examples of patience, in the 10th and 11th; he proceeds, in the 12th, to warn them of another fault, which impatience too frequently produces: But above all things, my brethren, fwear not have a peculiar care, that your fufferings and injuries tempt you not to a paffionate and profane ufe of the name of God: nay, Swear not by heaven, or by earth, or by any other oath: do not imagine, that softening and mincing your imprecations will change the nature of them but let your yea, be yea; and your nay, nay: let your affertions and denials, under the greatest provocations, be mere affertions and denials, without any fuperadded vehemence of phrafe left you fall into condemnation for irreligious expreffions of warmth, as others will for uncharitable repining. We have therefore no manner of reason to think, that St. James difapproved fwearing before a magiftrate, to which his prohibition of swearing by heaven and earth cannot poffibly relate; or even fwearing on any other folemn and needful occafion : but only fuch oaths, as are apt to break out in common fpeech, efpecially from perfons under oppreffion. Y y z : And And it is very material to obferve farther, that the more ferious and ftrict of the Jewish teachers themselves forbid swearing in the fame general terms, with our Saviour and St. James. But when they fay, as more than one of them doth, that "it is good for a man not to fwear at all;" do they mean, that it is good for him not to fwear in cafes, where their own law requires that he fhall fwear? Nay Solomon himfelf mentions the character of him that sweareth, as a blameable one: and of him that feareth an oath, as a commendable one*. Doth he mean to contradict Mofes, whofe law was then in force, and to say no man should take an oath on any exigence whatever? No certainly: but that he ought to avoid it, whenever, confiftently with other obligations, it can be avoided. Nay, the heathen moralifts alfo, at one time feem to prohibit fwearing abfolutely; and at another interpret their intention to be, that an oath fhould be used very sparingly +. In short, their words and our Saviour's too, were meant and taken in exactly the fame manner as ours at prefent, when at any time we direct a child, or a fervant, that they must be fure never to fwear. And there is a most remarkable inftance, in the Jewish hiftorian Jofephus ‡, of the neceffity of interpreting this rule with fome exceptions; though it be laid down in as abfolute and ftrong terms, as well can be. The Effenes, a fect of that nation, he tells us, had fo great an abhorrence of swearing, that they looked upon taking an oath, even as a worfe crime than breaking it. And yet these very perfons, he informs us but a few lines after, were obliged, on their admiffion into that sect, to take a moft folemn oath. And therefore in reality they could condemn only needless ones, however generally they might fpeak, to guard against them the better. But we have ftill further evidence, that fome oaths remained, after our Saviour's prohibition, as lawful as before. He himself, our faultless pattern, made use of them. When the high priest adjured him by the living God, to fay, if he were the Chrift, the Son of the bleffed; he affirmed upon oath, that he was §. For, according to the Jewish manner of swearing in their courts of justice, the magiftrate, as I have already obferved Eccl. ix. 2. † See beginning of ferm. 34. observed to you, pronounced the form of the oath, and then the perfon brought before him, was understood to speak under the obligation of it. Now to all the questions of the high prieft before, our bleffed Lord had returned no answer: but to this, which he would have answered least of all, if judicial oaths had been contrary to his own precepts, he answers immediately. Nay, we find him uttering a folemn oath, even where the magiftrates authority was not interpofed: Verily I fay unto you, we tranflate it, there shall be no fign given; but the original is, if there shall be a fign given to this generation *: which, the learned well know, is only an abridgement of the common phrase, "The Lord do fo to me, and more also, ift "this be not true." But, left any one should alledge, though without a fhadow of reafon, that our Saviour might exempt himself from what he bound his disciples to; observe farther, that one of the most eminent of them, St. Paul, hath in feveral of his epiftles made ufe of one form or another of fwearing, on occafions, which he faw were proper: God is my witness ‡: I call God for a record upon my foul §: Thefe things, which I write unto you, bebold, before God, I lie not T. And, which is yet more, he writes to the Theffalonians thus: I adjure you by the Lord, (for the marginal tranflation is the right one,) I lay you under the tie of an oath, that this epiftle be read to all the holy brethren . Now is it poffible that he should understand fo little, or obferve fo ill, the rules of that gospel, which he had learnt from Christ himself by revelation, and received an extraordinary commiffion of apostleship to teach, as both to do himself, and oblige others to do, what Christ had forbidden; and even be guilty of it in thofe very writings, which make part of God's word? Or is not his practice, in these circumftances, an abundantly fufficient commentary on our Saviour's doctrine? We have, befides this, if it were wanted, the teftimony of Clement of Alexandria **, a writer of the fecond century, that St. John gave an affurance upon oath to a young man, whofe unhappy cafe he apprehended to need it. What Mark viii. 12. $2 Cor. i. 23. Rom. i. 9. Ruth i. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 35. xix. 13. ** Lib. quis dives falvabitur et. ap. Eufeb. H.E.. 3. c. 23. 0 ♪' eyyuwμLENOS επομνύμενος, ως αφίσιν ευρη [σεξ ταις κ. τ. λο SER. XXXI. What the practice of Chriftians in the two fucceeding ages was, is neither so material, nor quite certain. Some of them perhaps might think that our Saviour had abfolutely condemned all swearing *. Others like him might fpeak against it ftrongly in general: and yet like him allow of exceptions. But no wonder, if they were feldom willing to fwear before heathen magiftrates, because they must usually have sworn by heathen gods. And therefore Tertullian, who alfo lived in the fecond century, acquainted the emperors in his apology †, what fort of oaths a believer in Chrift could take; and what he could not. But as foon as ever Christanity was established, magiftrates required this fecurity, and fubjects gave it, just as freely as had been done among the Jews before. All these confiderations unite in fhewing, that the words of our Saviour and St. James relate only to fwearing without neceffity, in difcourse. But indeed were there much less to favour this limitation, yet while the state of the world continues fuch as it is; if questions of importance arife, as they often do, which cannot be decided as they ought, without our teftimony, and the magiftrates will accept no teftimony, except upon oath; how muft we act? Muft we ftand by, and fee falfehood and wickedness triumph, and the fortunes and lives of men taken away unjustly, rather than do a thing, confeffedly lawful in itself, to prevent it? Or ought we not in fuch a cafe to follow the direction, I will have mercy, and not facrifice; prefer the moral and unchangeable duty duty of supporting truth and right, before the positive and mutable one, if it were one, of abstaining from an oath. But the cafe of oaths not imposed by the magistrate, is very different. And we ought to be extremely cautious about them, and manifest a strong reluctance to take them. It is true, our Saviour's prohibition is only of fwearing in common discourse: and what we deliberately affert on occurrences of more than ordinary moment, is of a nature very superior to common discourse : Bafilides, when newly turned Christian, and required by his fellowfoldiers to take an oath, μη εξειναι αυτώ παραπαν όμνυναι διαβεβαιωτου χρισ slavov yap uzap xem. Eufch. H. E. l. 6. c. 5, † C. 32. Sed. et juramus, ficut non per genios Cæfarum, fic per falutem eorum, quæ auguftior eft omnibus geniis. Hof. vi. 6. Matth, ix. 13, xii, 7, course for which reason, and especially fince he and his apoftles did on fuch occafions make use of oaths, it is not always unlawful for us to do so too. But it is much more expedient and prudent; it fhews a far higher reverence of the name of God, and a more pious fear of tranfgreffing; it is keeping ourfelves from the appearance, from the borders of evil; from becoming guilty infenfibly, and then more and more guilty; refolutely to avoid fuch oaths, whenever we poffibly can: and most men may avoid them intirely. It happens exceedingly feldom, to very few of us, that our fincerity cannot be sufliciently evidenced, if we will, by other methods of making it believed, that will appear abundantly worthy of credit; without the awful folemnity of an appeal to God; which ought to be facredly reserved for emergencies of uncommon neceflity. Thus I have endeavoured to fhew you, how far oaths are lawful. And the fubject is material enough to be thus enlarged on, were it only for the three following reafons: that Chriftianity may not lie under the imputation, for a heavy one it would be, of cenfuring as criminal, what the welfare of fociety makes indifpenfable: that the whole body of its profeffors may not be accused of authorizing the tranfgreffionsof one its of fundamental precepts: and that none of you in particular, if at any time called to give your teftimony in a legal manner, may do it with a conscience doubtful, whether you do well or ill: for whatfoever is not of faith is fin*. But a fourth use may be, to lay open the error of fome, who imagine themselves led more immediately, than others, by the fpirit of God within them but indeed are led, in this matter at least, by mistaken appearances, to condemn what fcripture hath not condemned, and the good of mankind requires to be practifed. Only you will remember, that though the consequences of their opinion, were it to prevail, would be extremely hurtful; yet they cannot intend thofe confequences for that would be intending harm to themselves, as well as others. : : There is yet one more, and a very ferious use to be made of the doctrine you have heard that if the bond of an oath, on fit occafions, be of fuch importance to fociety; fince an awful regard to God is what gives to all oaths their whole force and efficacy, that regard should be cultivated with the utmost care; Rom. xiv. 23. |