bath) in which it was impoffible for God to speak falfely, thev might have a ftrong ground for confolation, &c. Now if God, who is the governor of all, and whose word creatures might depend upon, faw it proper and neceffary, in compaffion to the weakness of our nature, to confirm what He faid with an oath, how much more is man bound by the relation he ftands in to man, to give him that fatisfaction, as well as from his nature, which makes him capable of deceiving and liable to be deceived? And if fwearing for confirmation was forbidden, man would frequently be under a neceffity either of difobeying the command which forbad him to fwear, or be obliged to violate that part of the moral law which teaches him to love his neighbour as himself, and to do unto others as he would have them do unto him. As for inftance---Suppose I were in company with a man at eight o'clock last night, and to-day was to be charged with murdering a man at that fame time, Would there not be a moral obligation for that man to fwear I was in his company at that time, and fave my life? Or would he fhew that he loved me, his neighbour, as himself, or do as he would have me do unto him, if the law of the land required him to fwear, and he refufed fo to do, and thereby fuffered my life to be taken away---my innocent blood to be fhed---my wife left a widow, and my children fatherless? I know it may be faid, that the laws of a country may militate against the laws of Chrift, and then Chriftians ought not to obey them, whatever were the confequences. This I will grant, if in refufing to obey them we do not violate the moral law of loving our neighbour, and doing to others as we would have them do to us. But I would not impeach the wisdom and forefight of our great Lawgiver, by fuppofing that any of his pofitive laws fhould lead, in their confequences, to a breach of those parts of the moral law, on which he himself declares depend all the law and the prophets. And I think Chriftians ought to pause, and seriously and closely examine, before they determine that to be a law of Chrift which would lead to fuch confequences.

But I have other reafons why I cannot conceive our Lord intended to forbid fwearing for the confirmation of a fact; and one of them is, that the great apostle Paul did not understand it in that fenfe; for we find him frequently appealing to God for the truth of what he afferts, in language as ftrong as the oath administered by the civil magiftrate in this country, So help me God; as for inftance---Paul fays, (2 Cor. i. 18.) But as God is true, &c. and (verfe 23.) I call God for a record upon my VOL. III.

D

foul;

foul; and again, (Gal. i. 20.) Behold, before God I lie not.

111

It is contended by fome, that these are not oaths, but merely trong affeverations; but to me they look fo much like oaths, that I must confefs I am incapable of difcovering any difference. But suppose I were to admit they were not oaths; yet it furely must be granted me, that in his communications he has used fomething more than Yea, yea, that is, a bare affirmation, and, confequently, has violated the law of Chrift, as though they were oaths; for as well as "Swear not at all,”. our Lord hath faid, "Let your communications be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil." It is faid by fome, Paul was but a man, and he might err. But it might be asked, Was it likely he should err when writing deliberately, and under the influence of the Spirit of God, to the churches? and that he fhould repeat it in fo mauy epiftles, and never discover his error and correct it? or that Peter, who wrote after him, fhould fuffer fuch a gross violation of a command of Chrift to stand as an example to the churches without reproving it? Surely, he could not plead ignorance, for he was present when his mafter gave the law; and he notices the writings of Paul, but never mentions this error: he fays, In his epistles there are fome things hard to be understood; and he might eafily have faid he had mistaken a command of Chrift; but, on the contrary, he calls him his beloved brother Paul; and declares, that he wrote his epiftles according to the wisdom given to him.

Thus having cleared the character of Paul, and given my reasons for not understanding the command "Swear not at all," as intending to forbid fwearing for confirmation of a fact, I fhall attempt to fhew what it does mean.

It appears to me, the oaths intended to be prohibited by our Lord, were voluntary oaths which men made to bind themfelves to the performance of fomething for God, or, which they confidered the fame, for the temple; for our Lord fays, "It hath been faid to the ancients, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths." Now, an oath for confirmation is an appeal to God for the truth of what they fay to man; but these oaths are either by God, or Jerufalem, or by their own head, to perform fomething to God; for it is faid, they were to perform unto the Lord their oaths. But if we refer to the law of Mofes, we fhall foon discover what oaths they are, and where it has been said to the ancients; and the firft paffage I will refer to is Numb, xxx. I, 2. "And Mofes fpake unto the heads (the ancients) of the tribes concerning the children of

Ifrael-...

Ifrael---This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded : if a man vow a vow, or fwear an oath, to bind his foul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he fhall do all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Again, Deut. xxiii. 21- "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not flack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will furely require it of thee, and it would be fin in thee; but if thou fhalt forbear to vow, it shall be no fin in thee: that which is gone out of thy mouth thou fhalt keep and perform; a free-will offering, according as thou haft vowed to the Lord thy God, which thou haft promised with thy mouth." And David, Pfalm lxxvi. 11. fays, "Vow and pay unto the Lord your God." Let these paffages be compared with Mat. v. 33. "It hath been faid to the ancients, Thou shalt not forfwear thyfelf, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths;" and I am fully perfuaded, that every candid man muft acknowledge they are the places referred to by Jefus Chrift: that being the cafe, it is clear to me it is vows or oaths binding men to the performance of fomething for the temple, or, indeed, to do any thing at a future time, that our Lord means to prohibit. Indeed the connection of the paffage itself, efpecially when compared with Mat. xxiii. 18. is fufficient to prove that it is fuch oaths as these, for our Lord is exprefsly fpeaking of them, and ridicules the folly of the scribes and Pharifees for making curious diftinctions as to what should bind a man and what fhould not. If it had been oaths for confirmation, that they had thus faid some were not binding, would they not have taught the people, that, if they were only careful what they fwore b, they might bear false witness against their neighbour? And befide, what court of justice admits men to chufe what oath they will swear by? Whereas, in this cafe, they had the choice in themselves. But it is evident it related to vows, fuch as that of binding themselves to give all their fuperfluous property to the temple; fo when their parents wanted their affiftance, they would fay, It is Corban---that is, a gift; and, by these curious diftinctions in their oaths, they could refuse to help their parents, though they were perifhing for want. Therefore our Lord fays, (Mat. xviii.) "Woe to you, ye blind guides, who fay, Whofoever fwears by the temple it is nothing; but whosoever fwears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' Bound! to what? to speak truth, and in the other cafe may he bear false witnefs? No, but he is bound to perform that which is gone out of his mouth to the Lord. But Chrift commands his disciples not to bind themselves by any oaths

to perform, and fhews the folly of such distinctions; and that, let them fwear by what they will, they are bound by their oath ; and therefore forbids his difciples to bind themselves, by faying, "Swear not all, neither by heaven, nor earth, nor Jerufalem, because it is the fame as if they fwore by God; nor yet by their head, because they could not make one hair white or black. ---All their fwearing by their head was of no avail in that refpect, and therefore it was a folly to call for curfes upon their heads to bind themselves to perform any thing, as was the cuftom among the Jews; and Chrift commands them to let their communications be yea, yea, and nay, nay; that is, If you determine to perform any thing, fay you will do it, and do not bind yourself with an oath; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; it is either a fnare of the devil, or will be likely to draw you into one.

Another reason why I think it is vows our Lord forbids is this---they were a part of the ceremonial law, and of course fell with it in the general abolition of Jewish rites and ceremonies, and therefore needed not to be infifted upon feparately; but if it had been oaths for confirmation, it would appear to me neceffary to be mentioned by each of the evangelifts and in all the Epiftles; whereas it was only fpoken of in the gofpel by Matthew and in the epiftle of James; and it is remarkable, that they wrote expressly to Jews, who were in the habit of binding themselves in the way I have been treating of.

It may be objected, that the difficulty ftill remains as to what James hath faid upon this fubject---"But above all, my brethren, fwear not all, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, left ye fall into condemnation." To this I would reply, if it is clearly proved that his master did not mean to prohibit oaths for the confirmation of a fact before the civil magiftrate, his servant had not authority to do it, especially as what he fays is a quotation of that faying of our Lord we have been treating of. But I think an attention to the context will clearly fhew the true fenfe that James attached to this command. It should be observed, there is nothing in the context that relates to fwearing before magiftrates; for James is exhorting the perfons to whom he is writing to patience under affliction, by the example of Job and others; and fhews, that in them they have feen the defign of the Lord in afflicting his faints, that it is good; and then, as it was the cuftom of the Jews, especially those who did not perceive this defign, to bind themselves to perform fomething to God, if he would deliver them out of

it, fo he exhorts the Jewish converts to be careful of this, and, inftead of impatiently defuing to be delivered from their affiction, and, as though God were to be influenced by fuch oaths, to avoid them, and patiently to endure, as knowing the Lord is abundantly compaffionate and merciful; and that, if they were humbled under his mighty hand, he would, in due time, raise them up; that is, when the affliction had anfwered the good defign for which the kind father of mercies had fent it; and therefore, inftead of binding themfelves by oaths, in hopes of deliverance, he exhorts, if any are afflicted, let them pray. And knowing alfo, it was a cuftom, in time of profperity to bind themselves to do fomething for the temple, as a mark of gratitude to God, he says, Is any one chearful, let him fing pfalms, and fhew forth his gratitude by finging the praifes of that Being who giveth us all things richly to enjoy ; let him fhew forth his gratitude by vifiting the fatherless and widow in their afflictions, and keep himself unfpotted from the world; let him do good and communicate; for it is with fuch facrifices God is well pleased; better than with all the vows he could make. And, as another reason why they should not bind themfelves with an oath to perform any thing, he adds, Left he fall into condemnation, by not being able to perform what he has bound himself to do, either through the uncertainty of life, or a deprivation of the means, which at prefent may appear to be in his power; and fo he might come under condemnation, by not being able to perform that which is gone out of his lips, a free-will offering to the Lord.

From thefe confiderations I am decidedly of opinion, that oaths before a magiftrate for confirmation are lawful, and no where prohibited in the New Teftament; at the fame time I deplore the frequency of them, because it takes off that folemnity which fhould accompany an appeal to the immortal God; which ought to be done with the deepeft confideration and reverence; and for want of which this land groaneth because of fwearing. My reafon for writing on this fubject is not to encourage the multiplication of oaths, but because I know many weak minds are burthened, and their perfons and property expofed to danger, by conceiving that Chrift has forbidden them to swear. To fuch perfons the clearing up this matter may be of fervice to the world it can do no injury, for they will fwear the fame, whether our Lord hath forbidden it or not.--But there are Chriftians who, either for want of inclination or opportunity to examine, are undetermined either one way or the other, and yet are in the habit of fwearing, and fall into

that