Chapter 22: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

Question 1.

Is the name of God, that only by which men ought to swear?

Yes. (Deuteronomy 6:13)

Well then, do not the Papists err, who in their swearing, join with their calling upon the name of God, the calling on saints departed, and their relics?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because, swearing is a part of divine worship, which is only due to God (Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 65:16). (2) Because, God only is the judge of hidden and secret truth; and the avenger to take vengeance on them, that do not swear in truth. Therefore he only is to be called on as witness of those things, which are asserted, and promised, which was the practice of the Apostle Paul (Romans 9:1; Romans 1:9; Philippians 1:8). (3) Because, God condemns swearing by them, that are no gods (Jeremiah 5:7).

Question 2.

Is an oath warranted by the word of God, under the New Testament, as well, as under the Old, in matters of weight, and moment?

Yes. (Hebrews 6:16; Isaiah 65:16; Galatians 1:20; Romans 1:9; Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:18, 23; 2 Corinthians 11:31; 2 Corinthians 12:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; Revelation 10:6)

Well then, do not the Quakers and Anabaptists err, who maintain, that there is no lawful use of an oath under the New Testament?

Yes.

Do not likewise the Papists err, who make it a degree of perfection, to abstain from all oaths?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) From Isaiah 65:16, where it is promised, under the time of the Gospel, that the nations to be converted to Christ, shall swear by the name of God, as is clear also from Jeremiah 4:2. (2) Because, the calling upon the name of God with due fear and reverence in swearing, is commanded in the third commandment, as the profanation of his name is forbidden: but Christ came not to abolish the moral law. (3) From the approved examples of the saints, which occur in the New Testament (Galatians 1:20; Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:13, 18; Revelation 10:6). (4) Because, the end of an oath, is approved by God, and is in all ages, necessary to all men, being the end of all controversy (Hebrews 6:16). (5) Because, an oath rightly taken, is an act of religion, whereby we glorify God, and adore his attributes. We thereby, first, solemnly acknowledge his being and existence. Secondly, his ubiquity that he is present in all places, and at all times, and within our hearing (Psalm 139:7). His omniscience, that he is the searcher of the heart. The Apostle calls him Kardiognostes (Acts 15:8). We acknowledge, fourthly, his truth and veracity: he is a witness brought into the court, that cannot lie, nor be imposed upon, as says the Apostle, be not deceived God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7). Fifthly, his supremacy over all creatures, for verily men swear by the greater (Hebrews 6:16). We acknowledge, sixthly, his vindictive justice, as he is a revenger of perjury. Seventhly, we acknowledge his providence, and fatherly care of the concerns of mankind, owning the cause of the righteous.

(6) Because, there being an express law for swearing (to wit rightly; Deuteronomy 10:20) it must either belong to the moral law, to the judicial law, or ceremonial law. The adversaries will not call it, a part of the judicial law, which was given to the Jews, as a body politic, which expired together with the state of that people. It is no part of the ceremonial law: for what was purely ceremonial, was purely typical: but the law concerning an oath was not a type of any thing to come. And if it was a type, where will you find its antitype in all the Gospel, or the thing represented by it? Therefore, it must be a part of the moral law (Deuteronomy 6:13; Jeremiah 4:2), and consequently perpetual, which Christ came not to destroy. It is confirmed hence, that it was of authentic use, and held sacred among the patriarchs, before the delivery of the Levitical law, as it is clear from Abraham the father of the faithful, and Abimelech (Genesis 21:23, 24, 31). Consider also that other instance in Abraham (Genesis 24:2, 3, 9), who would not give his servant an oath rashly, nor exercise his authority to impose on his conscience. It is evident also from the example of Isaac, who made a covenant, and swore to Abimelech (Genesis 26:28, 31), and from the example of Jacob, who made a covenant with, and swore to his uncle Laban, by the fear of his father Isaac (Genesis 31:53). That is, by God, who is called our fear, by reason of the filial awe, and fear we ought to stand in before him (Isaiah 8:13). (7) Because, the reasons and usefulness of oaths, are perpetual, and the same to us under the Gospel, as they were to them under the law. There is as much need of oaths for ending of strife in this litigious age, as there could be in former times. (8) Because, oaths were once lawful, therefore they are lawful still; unless the adversaries prove them repealed; which they must do, not by stealing out of the Scripture single words by themselves, making one part contradict another. (9) Because, we need not fear to imitate any thing, which is done in Heaven. Our Lord has taught us to pray, your will be done in earth, as it is done in Heaven. But the Angel (says John; Revelation 10:5, 6) which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to Heaven, and swore by him that lives for ever and ever. That Angel, calls himself our fellow-servant, and of our brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book (Revelation 22:9). And therefore the angels being of the same fraternity with us, do not act under different dispensations from us.

Question 3.

Is an oath to be taken, in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation?

Yes. (Psalm 24:4; Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 19:12; Jeremiah 4:2)

Well then, do not the Anabaptists err, who maintain, that it is lawful in swearing, to use words of equivocation?

Yes.

Do not likewise the Papists err, who maintain mental reservation, to be lawful in swearing?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because the Scripture requires from all men in their common dealing one with another, in their discourse and conferences, veracity and simplicity (Matthew 5:37; Ephesians 4:25). Much more are these things required in swearing, wherein God is called to be witness of the truth of those things which are asserted. (2) Because the Lord threatens such as use guile and deceit in their words (Psalm 15:4; Psalm 24:4; Galatians 2:11-13). (3) Because the Lord requires in every oath, truth, righteousness, and judgment (Jeremiah 4:2). (4) Because equivocations and mental reservations are against the very end of an approved oath, which is to put an end to all debate and controversy. (5) Because, if equivocations and mental reservations were lawful, in vain should the Lord have made laws against lying: for a lie may be excused by mental reservation. (6) If equivocations and mental reservations were allowed, they would take away all commerce among men, and would make bonds, contracts, and charter-parties of none effect.

Quest. 4.

Is a religious vow to be made to God alone, and not to any creature?

Yes, to God alone (Jeremiah 44:25-26; Psalm 76:11).

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain vows may be made to saints departed, and to cenobiarchs, that is, to priors of monasteries or abbeys?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because vows are a part of our gratitude and thankfulness due to God only, for his favors and mercies conferred upon us (Psalm 50:14; Psalm 66:13-14). (2) Because we are commanded in the Word to make our vows to God and perform them, but nowhere are we appointed to make our vows to saints departed (Psalm 58:14). (3) Because God only is the trier and searcher of the heart, and it is he only that knows the sincerity of the man's mind that vows, and is able to punish such as violate and break their vows (Deuteronomy 23:21). (4) Because the Lord threatens those severely that had vowed to any other gods but to himself alone, and accuses them of a very great sin (Jeremiah 44:25-26).

Quest. 5.

Are popish monastical vows of a perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares in which no Christian may entangle himself?

Yes (Matthew 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9; Ephesians 4:28; 1 Peter 4:2).

Well then, do not the Papists err, who maintain monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, to be degrees of higher perfection?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

(1) Because a vow of a perpetual single life is unlawful. For no man ought to vow the performance of that for which he has not a promise of strength to perform. But no man has a promise of perpetual continency, which is necessarily required to a perpetual single life. In fact, Christ says expressly that the gift of continency is not given to all men (Matthew 19:11). (2) Because marriage is honorable among all men, and the bed undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). (3) Because the Apostle bids every man take his own wife, for shunning of fornication (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 9). (4) Because the forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1, 3).

Next, the vow of professed poverty is unlawful.

(1) Because the Lord did not allow beggars to be among his people of old (Deuteronomy 15:7). (2) Because Agur wished that the Lord might not give him poverty, lest he should steal and take the name of God in vain (Proverbs 30:8-9). (3) Because the Lord will have every man to eat his bread in the sweat of his face (Genesis 3:19). (4) Because the Apostle commands the Thessalonians to work with their own hands (1 Thessalonians 4:11). (5) Because professed poverty hinders a greater good, namely our charity and benevolence toward the poor and indigent members of Christ, which is contrary to the Apostle's rule (Ephesians 4:28).

The vow of regular obedience is likewise unlawful.

1) Because it makes us the servants of men, which is contrary to the Apostle. You are bought with a price; be not the servants of men — that is, do not do anything for the service or obedience of men (superiors) which should be repugnant to the commands of the service of God. Or, do not suffer yourselves, in spiritual things, to be brought into bondage by any men, so that you should not freely use that which the Lord has made free to us (1 Corinthians 7:23).