ence be not questioned, that
the dread of His majesty be not voided, that all religion be not
overthrown by the outrageous commission thereof with impunity.
It immediately toucheth His name, it expressly calleth upon Him to
mind it, to judge it, to show himself in avenging it. He may seem
deaf, or unconcerned, if, being so called and provoked, He doth not
declare Himself.
There is understood to be a kind of formal compact between Him and
mankind, obliging Him to interpose, to take the matter into His
cognisance, being specially addressed to Him.
The bold swearer doth importune Him to hear, doth rouse Him to mark,
doth brave Him to judge and punish his wickedness.
Hence no wonder that "the flying roll," a quick and inevitable
curse, doth surprise the swearer, and cut him off, as it is in the
prophet. No wonder that so many remarkable instances do occur in
history of signal vengeance inflicted on persons notably guilty of
this crime. No wonder that a common practice thereof doth fetch
down public judgments; and that, as the prophets of old did
proclaim, "because of swearing the land mourneth."
VIII. Further (passing over the special laws against it, the
mischievous consequences of it, the sore punishments appointed to
it), we may consider, that to common sense vain swearing is a very
unreasonable and ill-favoured practice, greatly misbecoming any
sober, worthy, or honest person; but especially most absurd and
incongruous to a Christian.
For in ordinary conversation what needful or reasonable occasion can
intervene of violating this command? If there come under discourse
a matter of reason, which is evidently true and certain, then what
need can there be of an oath to affirm it, it sufficing to expose it
to light, or to propose the evidences for it? If an obscure or
doubtful point come to be debated, it will not bear an oath; it will
be a strange madness to dare, a great folly to hope the persuading
it thereby. What were more ridiculous than to swear the truth of a
demonstrable theorem? What more vain than so to assert a disputable
problem: oaths (like wagers) are in such cases no arguments, except
silliness in the users of them.
If a matter of history be started, then if a man be taken for
honest, his word will pass for attestation without further
assurance; but if his veracity or probity be doubted, his oath will
not be relied on, especially when he doth obtrude
|