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: For whatsoever is more than these, 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 swearing in conversation, St. James, we may be fure, intended no more than his Master did; especially 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 same sense. In the 8th verse 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 setting 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 beaven, or by earth, or by any other oath: do not imagine, that foftening and mincing your imprecations will change the nature of them: but let your yea, be yea; and your nay, nay: let your assertions and denials, under the greatest provocations, be mere affertions and denials, without any fuperadded vehemence of phrase 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 swearing before a magiftrate, to which his prohibition of swearing by heaven and earth cannot poffibly relate; or even swearing on any other folemn and needful occafion: but only fuch oaths, as are apt to break out in common speech, especially from persons under oppreffion. And it is very material to observe farther, that the more ferious and fstrict of the Jewish teachers themselves forbid swearing in the same general terms, with our Saviour and St. James. But when they say, as more than one of them doth, that " it is good for a man not to swear at all;" do they mean, that it is good for him not to swear in cases, where their own law requires that he shall swear? Nay Solomon himself 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, whose 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, consistently with other obligations, it can be avoided. Nay, the heathen moralists also, at one time feem to prohibit fwearing abfolutely; and at another interpret their intention to be, that an oath should 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 present, when at any time we direct a child, or a fervant, that they must be fure never to swear. And there is a most remarkable instance, in the Jewish historian Jofephus †, of the necessity of interpreting this rule with some exceptions; though it be laid down in as absolute and ftrong terms, as well can be. The Effenes, a fect of that nation, he tells us, had so great an abhorrence of swearing, that they looked upon taking an oath, even as a worse crime than breaking it. And yet these very persons, he informs us but a few lines after, were obliged, on their admiffion into that fect, to take a most solemn 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 still 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 say, if he were the Chrift, the Son of the blessed; 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 observed Eccl. ix. 2. † See beginning of ferm. 34 B. J. 1. 2. c. 8. § 6, 7. p. 162, 163. Ed. Haverc. 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 blessed 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 solemn oath, even where the magistrates authority was not interposed: Verily I fay unto you, we translate 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 phrafe, "The Lord do so to me, and more also, ift " this be not true." But, lest any one should alledge, though without a shadow of reason, 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 several of his epistles made use of one form or another of swearing, on occafions, which he saw were proper: God is my witness ‡ : I call God for a record upon my fouls: These things, which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. And, which is yet more, he writes to the Thessalonians 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 epistle be read to all the holy brethren ||. Now is it possible that he should understand so little, or observe so ill, the rules of that gospel, which he had learnt from Christ himself by revelation, and received an extraordinary commission 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 those very writings, which make part of God's word? Or is not his practice, in these circumstances, an abundantly sufficient commentary on our Saviour's doctrine? We have, besides this, if it were wanted, the testimony of Clement of Alexandria **, a writer of the second century, that St. John gave an afsurance upon oath to a young man, whose unhappy cafe he apprehended to need it. • Mark viii. 12. § 2 Cor. i. 23. What † Ruth i. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 35. xix. 13. † Rom. i. 9. | Theff, v. 27. Θρκιζω ύμας. Gal. i. 20. ** Lib. quis dives salvabitur et. ap. Eufeb. H.E.". 3. c. 23. Ο δ' εγγυωμένος, επομνύμενος, ως αφέσιν ευρη [σε] ται. κ. τ. λ. What the practice of Christians in the two succeeding ages was, is neither so material, nor quite certain. Some of them perhaps might think that our Saviour had absolutely condemned all swearing *. Others like him might speak against it strongly in general: and yet like him allow of exceptions. But no wonder, if they were feldom willing to swear before heathen magiftrates, because they must usually have sworn by heathen gods. And therefore Tertullian, who also lived in the fecond century, acquainted the emperors in his apology †, what fort of oaths a believer in Christ could take; and what he could not. But as foon as ever Christanity was established, magistrates required this security, and subjects gave it, just as freely as had been done among the Jews before. All these confiderations unite in shewing, that the words of our Saviour and St. James relate only to swearing without neceffity, in difcourse. But indeed were there much less to favour this limitation, yet while the state of the world continues such as it is; if questions of importance arise, as they often do, which cannot be decided as they ought, without our testimony, and the magiftrates will accept no testimony, except upon oath; how must we act? Must we stand by, and fee falsehood and wickedness triumph, and the fortunes and lives of men taken away unjustly, rather than do a thing, confefsedly lawful in itself, to prevent it? Or ought we not in such 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 magiftrate, 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 swearing in common discourse: and what we deliberately afssert on occurrences of more than ordinary moment, is of a nature very superior to common difcourse: • Bafilides, when newly turned Christian, and required by his fellowfoldiers to take an oath, μη εξείναι αυτώ παραπαν ομνύναι διαβεβαιωτο χρι διανον γαρ υπαρχειν. Eufch. H. E.l. 6. c. 5. † C. 32. Sed. et juramus, ficut non per genios Cæfarum, fic per falutem eorum, quæ augustior eft omnibus geniis. Hof, vi. 6. Matth. ix. 13. xii, 79 course: for which reason, and especially since he and his apostles did on fuch occasions make use of oaths, it is not always unlawful for us to do so too. But it is much more expedient and prudent; it shews a far higher reverence of the name of God, and a more pious fear of tranfgreffing; it is keeping ourselves from the appearance, from the borders of evil; from becoming guilty insensibly, and then more and more guilty; resolutely to avoid fuch oaths, whenever we poffibly can: and most men may avoid them intirely. It happens exceedingly seldom, to very few of us, that our fincerity cannot be sufficiently 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 shew you, how far oaths are lawful. And the subject is material enough to be thus enlarged on, were it only for the three following reasons: that Chriftianity may not lie under the imputation, for a heavy one it would be, of censuring as criminal, what the welfare of society makes indispensable: that the whole body of its professors may not be accused of authorizing the transgressionsof one its of fundamental precepts: and that none of you in particular, if at any time called to give your testimony in a legal manner, may do it with a confcience doubtful, whether you do well or ill : for whatsoever is not of faith is fin *. But a fourth use may be, to lay open the error of some, who imagine themselves led more immediately, than others, by the spirit of God within them: but indeed are led, in this matter at least, by mistaken appearances, to condemn what scripture hath not condemned, and the good of mankind requires to be practised. Only you will remember, that though the consequences of their opinion, were it to prevail, would be extremely hurtful; yet they cannot intend those consequences: 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 such importance to society; 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 Rom. xiv. 23. care; |