will examine the matter thoroughly, can hardly fail, I think, to be fully fatisfied of the contrary.

That an oath hath no unlawfulness in its own nature, needs very little proof. For what is it? It is acknowledging ourfelves to stand in the presence of God, and have him for the witness of what we say: it is declaring ourselves to be sensible, that if we speak falsely, we forfeit his favour; and confeffing, that we forfeit it justly. Now these are truths, all of them highly honourable to God and it cannot be finful, it is indeed an act of piety and worship, to make a serious profession of them before him. And for the only thing befides, which an oath is taken to imply, that we freely consent to become objects of his anger, if we are not fincere; it must evidently be limited to fuch confent, as we are capable of giving, to what will equally follow, whether we consent or not. We speak in the fame manner on common occafions perpetually; and* tell those, to whom we apply, that if fuch or fuch a thing, which we say, be not true, we willingly renounce all claim to their friendship. The expression is universally understood, and used without fcruple, between men and it is just as intelligible, and allowable too, when addressed to God.

Oaths therefore, in themselves, are certainly lawful: and farther, they are highly useful also. For men are so extremely prone, both to conceal truth, and to speak untruths, when their paffions, or their interests, prompt them to do so; that they have need of the most powerful restraints to keep them from it; and those to be inforced, in the most affecting manner, on their confciences. Now undoubtedly the thought, that God knows and will avenge it, if we tranfgrefs, may awaken and check men, when nothing else can. And the most effectual way of bringing that thought strongly into our minds, is rea quiring us to make a folemn acknowledgment of it, as in his prefence. He is indeed equally present, and equally juft, whether we invoke him or not. But it is our sensfe of his prefence and juftice that must influence us: and nothing can possibly either excite or testify that so completely as an oath.

It must be owned, great numbers will certainly speak truth without an oath: and too many will not speak it with one: But the generality of mankind are of a middle fort: neither so virtuous, as to be safely trusted, in cases of importance, ori their bare word; nor yet so abandoned, as to violate a more folemn

folemn engagement. Accordingly we find by experience, that many will boldly say, what they will by no means adventure to swear: and the difference, which they make between these two things, is often indeed much greater than they should; but still it shews the need of infifting on the strong-st security. When once men are under that awful tie, and as the fcripture phrase is, have bound their fouls with a bond *, it compofes their paffions, counterbalances their prejudices and interests, makes them mindful of what they promise, and careful what they assert; puts them upon exactness in every circumstance: and circumstances are often very material things. Even the good might be too negligent, and the bad would frequently have no concern at all, about their words, if it were not for the folemnity of this religious act. And a farther advantage of it is, that when we have thus had the strongest assurance given us, which we can have, concerning any matter, we are naturally disposed to acquiesce in it: and an oath for confirmation becomes the end of all strife +.

This practice therefore is of so great consequence, that human society would scarce be kept in tolerable order by any other means. Perhaps indeed a small community, of which every member fcrupled taking an oath, may, by strict difcipline, subsist for fome time without it and a small fect of fuch perfons, in the midst of a larger community, may, under due limitations, be fafely excused from it also, whilft they continue sufficiently distinguished from the rest of the world; and whilst the value, which they set on this indulgence, makes them fearful of doing any thing to forfeit it. But were such a permiffion to become general throughout a large nation, especially one enjoying wealth and commerce and liberty; were all the different forts of persons in it to be released at once from what they all looked on as their strongest obligation to trath; it is easy to fee, that universal confufion must inevitably follow. And there is not any age, or nation of the world, but have shewn, that they were sensible of this. All governments have ever required the most highly esteemed of their subjects, on every fit occafion, to confirm their teftimony by an appeal to God: for if it is not demanded of every one who is able to give it with a good confcience, how can it be expected of any

Not only amongst the heathens therefore, but amongst the holy

Numb. xxx. 2.

† Heb. vi. 16.

holy patriarchs also, from early times, good men have asked, and equally good men have given, the security of an oath. God himself is represented in scripture as swearing to men : and men are not only introduced swearing to God; I have fworn, and am stedfastly purposed to keep thy commandments * but in the law of Mofes, they are expressly commanded to fwear by his name to one anothert. Cases are specified, in which the oath of the Lord shall be between them : and it is appointed, that if any man hear the voice of swearing, that is, have the form of an oath pronounced to him, as called to be a witness, by the magistrate; if he doth not utter upon that oath, what he hath feen or known of the matter, be shall bear bis iniquity §. Nor do the prophets, though they sometimes improve upon the law, and carry things to a higher degree of purity and strictness, ever mention oaths, but with honour; provided men Swear as Jeremiah directs, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness T. And far from intimating, that under the Meffiah this act of religion would become unlawful; they foretell, in passages, which must be understood of the gospel times. that then unto God every knee shall bow, and every tongue Shall fwear ||.

But as all things are liable to abuse, and few things in religion have escaped it; great abuses in the matter of oaths had prevailed amongst the Jews before our Saviour's days. Prompted by wicked motives to interpret away the obligation of the third commandment, as far as they could, some of them pretended, that swearing to a vain thing meant only swearing to a falfe one; and therefore made no scruple at all of needless oaths, if they were but true ones. Others, because it was only faid, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, thought it very lawful, so they did not use that name expressly, to swear when they would, by other forms, however equivalent **. And upon this imagination a yet worse was grafted; that such oaths, not being of the fort, to which alone the law related, they were liable to no punishment for breaking them, nor consequently obliged to keep them *. For these notions we find in their writings preserved to this day. Indeed our Saviour informs us, that in his time they did not conceive all such oaths to be void, but fome only. If a man fwore by the altar, it was nothing: if by the gift upon it, that was binding. And other like distinctions without a difference they had; by which the artful could entangle others, and keep themselves free †.

Such then being the advantages of oaths, and such the Jewish perverfions of them; which is it likely that our blessed Lord intended to forbid; the total use, or the abuse only? Is it credible in the least, that he, whose kingdom is not of this world †, should mean to take away from all the governments of the world, a right which they had enjoyed from the creation to that day? Can it be imagined, that the greatest lover of mankind that ever was, would loose the firmest bonds of human society; and make it a part of his reformation of things, to forbid our acknowledging ourselves to speak in the prefence of God, and to incur his displeasure, if we speak falsely? Certainly this was not his intention, if his words can poffibly fignify any thing else: and I shall proceed to shew you, that they naturally may; indeed, that they must.

It is true, the prohibition is at first view absolute and general: but so are many others in scripture, and particularly in the fermon on the mount, which yet every one allows to have their limitations in the nature of the thing. The very next prohibition after this, is just as general: But I fay unto you, that ye resist not evils. Yet on some occafions, and in some ways, we all do and ought to resist it. Another in the next chapter is, Take therefore no thought for the morrow. And a third immediately follows, Fudge not that ye be not judged ||. Here all the world understands our Saviour to speak only of needless thought and rash judgment. And why then should not we understand him to speak of needless and rash swearing; and apprehend, that he chose such comprehenfive terms on all these subjects, because there was much occafion to warn men VOL. I. Yy strongly;

• Lightf. in Matth. v. Matth. xxxiii. 16,-22. See Wolf. Matth v. 35 † John xviii. 36. § Matth. v. 39. 4 Matth. vi. 34. Matth. vii. 1.

strongly; and in comparison little danger of their failing to make proper exceptions? There is full as much ground in the reason of the case, to think thus of the point before us, as of the rest: and there is farther ground from his words themselves; for they are visibly pointed against the Jewish evafions, which I have just mentioned to you. Some of them imagined, they could not fin by other than false swearing. He therefore tells them, that swearing at all was a fin; meaning, where they could avoid it: but swearing before a magistrate they could not avoid. Some again thought, if God was not named, the oath was harmless. He therefore shews them, that their other common forms were of the same nature, as if they did name him; for they all referred to him; Heaven was his throne, earth his foot-stool, ferufalem bis city; their heads and lives were preserved by his power, not their own*. So that swearing by fuch things, indeed by any thing, is in effect swearing by God himself: (For the world is the Lord's, and the fulness thereoft:) and bringing any part of it into the form of an oath, can have no other sense than appealing to him, as the disposer of that, and the whole. Now from hence again our Saviour appears not to condemn swearing before an officer of justice; for on such an occafion these forms were never admitted. And what he doth condemn, the words following his prohibition, joined with it, as they ought, shew plainly enough. Swear not at all: but let your communication be, yea, yea; nay, nay. Communication, here and elsewhere, means, difcourse with one another: as when St. Paul directs, Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth. The original word, as well as the English, is the same in both places, and confefsedly denotes this. Oaths in common talk therefore are the thing, which our blessed Lord intended to forbid, and nothing else. Had he designed to prohibit more, he would have faid, "Swear not at all, but let your anfwer, even though a magistrate require an oath of you, be only yea, yea; and nay, nay." But when he faith only, Swear not at all, but let your communication, your usual discourse confift of naked affertions, and no more; we cannot reasonably extend the first part of his precept beyond the latter; but must understand the cafe, in which we are forbidden swearing, to be the fame with