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.