Against the Papists, Anabaptists and Socinians on the Law

MATTH. 5. 21, 22.

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 the¹ 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 altogether² 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 sense³ 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 […]. 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. Onely 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 the⁴ 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,⁵ 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.

Object. 1. That which is objected to this is, 1. The rebuke that our Saviour 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.

Object. 2. In the next place they urge the fact of our Saviour, John 8. to 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.

Object. 3. And whereas againe it’s objected, that this way of putting to death, is against charity and love of mens souls, because many 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, but⁶ 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 up⁷ were 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.

Footnotes

1. Swearing neither absolutely unlawfull, not universally forbidden by our Saviour with reasons why. ↩

2. Corrupt glosses of the Pharisees, touching Swaring, reproved. ↩

3. In what sense the words, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth, are to be taken. ↩

4. Capitall punishments even death it selfe, may be inflicted upon Offenders: 1. Because. commanded by God. ↩

5. 2. Because it is the Magistrates office. 3. Because practis’d under the Gospel, upon Ananias and Sapphira, and so not repugnant to it.
   ↩

6. Warre allowed by Christ under the Gospel. ↩

7. Two causes for which the Primitive Christians might decline warre ↩