An Apology for the True Christian Divinity / Being an explanation and vindication of the principles and doctrines of the people called Quakers

by Robert Barclay

§. XII.

Object.Sixthly, They object, That God swore, therefore to swear is good.

Answ.Athan. in pass. & cruc. Dom. I answer with Athanasius; “Seeing it is certain it is proper in Swearing to swear by another, thence it appears, that God, to speak properly, did never swear but only improperly: Whence, speaking to Men, he is said to swear, because those Things which he speaks, because of the Certainty and Immutability of his Will, are to be esteemed for Oaths.” Compare Psalm cx. 4. where it is said, The Lord did swear, and it did not repent him, &c. God swears not by another, but by himself.And I swore (saith he) by myself: “And this is not an Oath; for he did not swear by another, which is the Property of an Oath, but by himself. Therefore God swears not according to the Manner of Men, neither can we be induced from thence to swear. But let us so do and say, and shew ourselves such by speaking and acting, that we need not an Oath with those who hear us; and let our Words of themselves have the Testimony of Truth: For so we shall plainly imitate God.”

Object.Seventhly, They object, Christ did swear, and we ought to imitate him.

Answ.I answer, That Christ did not swear; and albeit he had sworn, being yet under the Law, this would no Ways oblige us under the Gospel; as neither Circumcision, or the Celebration of the Paschal Lamb. Jerome Lib. Ep. Part. 3. Tract. 1. Ep. 2.Concerning which Jerome saith, “All Things agree not unto us, who are Servants, that agreed unto our Lord, &c. The Lord swore as Lord, whom no Man did forbid to swear; but unto us, that are Servants, it is not lawful to swear, because we are forbidden by the Law of our Lord. Yet, lest we should suffer Scandal by his Example, he hath not sworn, since he commanded us not to swear.”

Object.Eighthly, They object, That Paul swore, and that often, Rom. i. 9. Phil. i. 8. saying, For God is my Record. 2 Cor. xi. 10. As the Truth of Christ is in me. 2 Cor. i. 23. I call God for a Record upon my Soul. I speak the Truth in Christ, I lie not, Rom. ix. 1. Behold, before God I lie not, Gal. i. 20. and so requires Oaths of others. I obtest thee (saith he) before God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. v. 27. I charge you by the Lord, that this Epistle be read to all the Brethren. But Paul would not have done so, if all Manner of Oaths had been forbidden by Christ, whose Apostle he was.

Answ.To all which I answer, First, That the using of such Forms of Speaking is neither Swearing, nor so esteemed by our Adversaries. For when upon Occasion, in Matters of great Moment, we have said, We speak the Truth in the Fear of God, and before him, who is our Witness, and the Searcher of our Hearts, adding such Kind of serious Attestations, which we never refused in Matters of Consequence; nevertheless an Oath hath moreover been required of us, The Ceremonies of an Oath.with the Ceremony of putting our Hands upon the Book, the Kissing of it, the lifting up of the Hand or Fingers, together with this common Form of Imprecation, So help me God; or, So truly Let the Lord God Almighty help me. Secondly, This contradicts the Opinion of our Adversaries, because that Paul was neither before a Magistrate that was requiring an Oath of him, nor did he himself administer the Office of a Magistrate, as offering an Oath to any other. Thirdly, The Question is not what Paul or Peter did, but what their and our Master taught to be done; and if Paul did swear (which we believe not) he had sinned against the Command of Christ, even according to their own Opinion, because he swore not before a Magistrate, but in an Epistle to his Brethren.

Object.Ninthly, They object, Isa. lxv. 16. where speaking of the Evangelical Times, he saith, That he who blesseth himself in the Earth, shall bless himself in the God of Truth; and he that sweareth in the Earth, shall swear by the God of Truth; because the former Troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine Eyes. For behold I create new Heavens, and a new Earth. Therefore in these Times we ought to swear by the Name of the Lord.

Answ.I answer, It is ordinary for the Prophets to express the greatest Duties of the Evangelical Times in Mosaical Terms, as appears among others from Jer. xxxi. 38, 39, 40. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. and 40. and Isa. xlv. 23. I have sworn by myself, that unto me every Knee shall bow, every Tongue shall swear. Where the Righteousness of the New Jerusalem, the Purity of the Gospel, with its spiritual Worship, and the Profession of the Name of Christ, are expressed under Forms of Speaking used to the Old Jerusalem under the Washings of the Law, under the Names of Ceremonies, the Temple, Services, Sacrifices, Oaths, &c. Swearing is expressed by Confessing under the Gospel.Yea, that which the Prophet speaks here of Swearing, the Apostle Paul interprets expresly of Confessing, saying, Rom. xiv. 11. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every Knee shall bow to me, and every Tongue shall confess to God: Which being rightly considered, none can be ignorant but these Words which the Prophet writes under the Law, when the ceremonial Oaths were in Use, to wit, Every Tongue shall swear, were by the Apostle, being under the Gospel, when those Oaths became abolished, expressed by, Every Tongue shall confess.

Object.Tenthly, They object, But the Apostle Paul approves Oaths used among Men, when he writes, Heb. vi. 16. For Men verily swear by the greater, and an Oath for Confirmation is to them an End of all Strife. But there are as many Contests, Fallacies, and Differences at this Time as there ever were; therefore the Necessity of Oaths doth yet remain.

Answ.I answer; The Apostle tells indeed in this Place what Men at that Time did, who lived in Controversies and Incredulity; not what they ought to have done, nor what the Saints did, who were redeemed from Strife and Incredulity, and had come to Christ, the Truth and Amen of God. Moreover, he only alludes to a certain Custom usual among Men, that he might express the Firmness of the Divine Promise, in order to excite in the Saints so much the more Confidence in God promising to them; not that he might instigate them to swear against the Law of God, or confirm them in that; no, not at all: For neither doth 1 Cor. ix. 24. teach Christians the vain Races, whereby Men oftentimes, even to the Destruction of their Bodies, are wearied to obtain a corruptible Prize; so neither doth Christ, who is the Prince of Peace, teach his Disciples to fight, albeit he takes Notice, Luke xiv. 31. what it behoveth such Kings to do who are accustomed to fight, as prudent Warriors therein. Secondly, As to what pertains to Contests, Perfidies, and Diffidences among Men, which our Adversaries affirm to have grown to such an Height, that Swearing is at present as necessary as ever, that we deny not at all: Deceit among the False, not the true Christians.For we see, and daily Experience teacheth us, that all Manner of Deceit and Malice doth increase among worldly Men and false Christians; but not among true Christians. But because Men cannot trust one another, and therefore require Oaths one of another, it will not therefore follow, That true Christians ought to do so, whom Christ has brought to Faithfulness and Honesty, as well towards God as one towards another, and therefore has delivered them from Contests, Perfidies, and consequently from Oaths.

Object.Eleventhly, They object, We grant, That among true Christians there is not Need of Oaths; but by what Means shall we infallibly know them? It will follow then that Oaths are at present needful, and that it is lawful for Christians to swear; to wit, that such may be satisfied who will not acknowledge this and the other Man to be a Christian.

Answ.Truth was before Oaths. I answer, It is no Ways lawful for a Christian to swear, whom Christ has called to his essential Truth, which was before all Oaths, forbidding him to swear; and on the contrary, commanding him to speak the Truth in all Things, to the Honour of Christ who called him; that it may appear that the Words of his Disciples may be as truly believed as the Oaths of all the worldly Men. Neither is it lawful for them to be unfaithful in this, that they may please others, or that they may avoid their Hurt: For thus the Primitive Christians for some Ages remained faithful, who being required to swear, did unanimously answer, I am a Christian, I do not swear. What shall I say of the Heathens, some of whom arrived to that Degree? For Diodorus Siculus relates, Lib. 16. Heathen Testimonies against Oaths.“That the giving of the Right-hand was, among the Persians, a Sign of speaking the Truth.” And the Scythians, as Qu. Curtius relates, said, in their Conferences with Alexander the Great, “Think not that the Scythians confirm their Friendship by Swearing; they swear by keeping their Promises.” Stobæus, Serm. 3. relates, That Solon said, “A good Man ought to be in that Estimation that he need not an Oath; because it is to be reputed a Lessening of his Honour if he be forced to swear.” Pythagoras, in his Oration, among other Things hath this Maxim, as that which concerns the Administration of the Commonwealth: “Let no Man call God to witness by an Oath, no not in Judgment; but let every Man so accustom himself to speak, that he may become worthy to be trusted even without an Oath.” Basil the Great commends Clinias an Heathen, “That he had rather pay three Talents, which are about three thousand Pounds, than swear.” Socrates, as Stobæus relates, Serm. 14. had this Sentence, “The Duty of good Men requires that they shew to the World that their Manners and Actions are more firm than Oaths.” The same was the Judgment of Isocrates. Plato also stood against Oaths in his Judgment de Leg. 12. Quintilianus takes Notice, “That it was of old a Kind of Infamy, if any was desired to swear; but to require an Oath of a Nobleman, was like an examining him by the Hangman.” The Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus saith, in his Description of a good Man, “Such is his Integrity, that he needs not an Oath.” So also some Jews did witness, as Grotius relates out of Maimonides, “It is best for a Man to abstain from all Oaths.” The Essenes, as Philo Judæus relates, “Did esteem their Words more firm than Oaths; and Oaths were esteemed among them as needless Things.” And Philo himself, speaking of the Third Commandment, explains his Mind thus, viz. “It were better altogether not to swear, but to be accustomed always to speak the Truth, that naked Words might have the Strength of an Oath.” And elsewhere he saith, “It is more agreeable to natural Reason altogether to abstain from Swearing; persuading, That whatsoever a good Man saith may be equivalent with an Oath.”

Oaths abrogated by Christ.Who then needs further to doubt, but that since Christ would have his Disciples attain the highest Pitch of Perfection, he abrogated Oaths, as a Rudiment of Infirmity, and in Place thereof established the Use of Truth? Who can now any more think that the holy Martyrs and ancient Fathers of the first three hundred Years, and many others since that Time, have so opposed themselves to Oaths, that they might only rebuke vain and rash Oaths by the Creatures, or Heathen Idols, which were also prohibited under the Mosaical Law; and not also Swearing by the true God, in Truth and Righteousness, which was there commanded? The Testimonies of the Fathers against Oaths and Swearing.As Polycarpus, Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. and many Martyrs, as Eusebius relates. Tertullian, in his Apol. Cap. 32. ad Scap. Cap. 1. of Idolatry, Cap. 11. Clem. Alexandrinus, Strom. Lib. 7. Origen, in Mat. Tract. 25. Cyprianus, Lib. 3. Athanasius, in pass. & cruc. Domini Christi. Hilarius in Mat. v. 34. Basilius Magn. in Psalm xiv. Greg. Nyssenus in Cant. Orat. 13. Greg. Nazianzenus in Dialog. contra juramenta. Epiphanius adversus Heres. Lib. 1. Ambros. de Virg. Lib. 3. Idem in Mat. v. Chrysostom in Genes. Homil. 15. Idem Homil. in Act. Apost. Cap. 3. Jerome Epistol. Lib. Part. 3. Ep. 2. Idem in Zech. Lib. 2. Cap. 8. Idem in Mat. Lib. 1. Cap. 5. Augustinus de Serm. Dom. Serm. 28. Cyrillus in Jer. iv. Theodoretus in Deut. vi. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. Lib. 1. Epist. 155. Chromatius in Mat. v. Johannes Damascenus, Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Cassiodorus in Psalm xciv. Isidorus Hispalensis, Cap. 31. Antiochus in Pandect. Script. Hom. 62. Beda in Jac. v. Haimo in Apoc. Ambrosius Ansbertus in Apoc. Theophylactus in Mat. v. Paschasius Radbertus in Mat. v. Otho Brunsselsius in Mat. v. Druthmarus in Mat. v. Euthymius Eugubinus Bibliotheca vet. Patr. in Mat. v. Oecumenius in Jac. Cap. 5. Ver. 12. Anselmus in Mat. v. the Waldenses, Wickliff, Erasmus, in Mat. v. and in Jac. v. Who can read these Places and doubt of their Sense in this Matter? And who, believing that they were against all Oaths, can bring so great an Indignity to the Name of Christ, as to seek to subject again his Followers to so great an Indignity? Is it not rather Time that all good Men should labour to remove this Abuse and Infamy from Christians?

Object.Lastly, They object, This will bring in Fraud and Confusion; for Impostors will counterfeit Probity, and under the Benefit of this Dispensation will lie without Fear of Punishment.

Answ.I answer, There are two Things which oblige a Man to speak the Truth: First, Either the Fear of God in his Heart, and Love of Truth; for where this is, there is no Need of Oaths to speak the Truth; The Punishment of Liars.or, Secondly, The Fear of Punishment from the Judge. Therefore let there be the same, or rather greater Punishment appointed to those who pretend so great Truth in Words, and so great Simplicity in Heart that they cannot lie, and so great Reverence towards the Law of Christ, that for Conscience Sake they deny to swear in any wise, if they fail; and so there shall be the same good Order, yea, greater Security against Deceivers, as if Oaths were continued; and also, by that more severe Punishment, to which these false Dissemblers shall be liable. Hence wicked Men shall be more terrified, and good Men delivered from all Oppression, both in their Liberty and Goods: For which Respect to tender Consciences, God hath often a Regard to Magistrates and their State, as a Thing most acceptable to him. But if any can further doubt of this Thing, to wit, if without Confusion it can be practised in the Commonwealth, let him consider the State of the United Netherlands, and he shall see the good Effect of it: The United Netherlands instanced.For there, because of the great Number of Merchants more than in any other Place, there is most frequent Occasion for this Thing; and though the Number of those that are of this Mind be considerable, to whom the States these hundred Years have condescended, and yet daily condescend, yet nevertheless there has nothing of Prejudice followed thereupon to the Commonwealth, Government, or good Order; but rather great Advantage to Trade, and so to the Commonwealth.