ously. Whenever then Creatures are fworn by, it must not be with relation to themselves, but to the Creator of them; and it is acknowledged that it is fafer not to fwear by them at all, fince it. cannot be done but in a figurative Manner, which it is not eafy always to distinguish.

And as for the Reasons of this Practice. 1. That it is an indecent Thing, for every Thing to make an Appeal to God, and therefore in finaller Matters they would do it to the Creatures; it is indeed a very good Reason why in fmall Matters we fhould not fwear at all, but content ourselves with a bare Affirmation, or Negation: but it is no Reafon for our finding out an inferiour Sort of Beings to fwear by, for we may as well, for the like Reason, pretend that it is neceffary in all our ordinary Addreffes to pray unto Creatures, referving our more extraordinary Devotions for Almighty God. And the other Reafon for fwearing by the Creatures, that fuch Oaths might be eafier broke, is yet worse; as being both more highly Derogatory to Almighty God, and more Injurious to Men, by making that an Inftrument of Fraud, which is the great Bond of Truth. And this leads me to the third Thing which our Saviour faults in the Jewish Doctors, namely,

III. That they reckoned fuch Oaths by the Creatures (a very few excepted) not binding. It is true, this is here but by Implication; for our Saviour, while he brings his Reasons for the Obligation of all thefe Oaths, fuppofes that they thought they were all to be eluded, as having no relation to God. This Doctrine we have more exprefly elsewhere, Mat. xxiii. 16. Wo unto you, blind Guides, which fay, whofoever shall fwear by

ye

the

the Temple, it is nothing; but whofoever shall fwear by the Gold of the Temple, he is a Debtor. And it follows there how they made their Oaths, by the Altar, and by Heaven, nothing; that is, thought they were of no Obligation. It may perhaps seem strange, that though our Saviour condemns thefe Oaths by Creatures, as to the form of them, he should yet ftand up for the Obligation of them; but if we confider the great Corruption which was brought into Mens Morals, by making elufory Oaths, we fhall not at all wonder at this Doctrine. For where there was a Promise or Vow, feemingly confirmed by an Oath, the Person to whom the Promife was made, depended on the faithful Performance of it; but then, truly, by a fecret Doctrine which these Doctors referved among themselves, like fome of our loose Cafuifts, they flunk their Neck out of the Collar, and put a trick upon the Perfon to whom they feemed thus to promise upon Oath. It can be no Disparagement, but a very great Commendation of the Christian Morals, that they difcourage and condemn every Thing that looks like Trick, and Fraud, and Deceit; for if it were but a fimple Promife, cloathed with no Ceremony of an Oath at all, it ought to be observed; and much more where an Oath intervenes, though defective as to the effential Forms of it. If a Heathen should fwear by his falfe Gods, and promise us any thing upon fuch an Oath, we should no doubt expect the Performance; and though he is guilty of Idolatry, in fwearing by them that are no Gods, he would be further guilty of Perjury, if he should not take himself to be bound by fuch an Oath. Thus we find Ifaac, a Believer, entring into a Co

venant with Abimelech, King of Gerar, an Unbeliever, which Covenant was mutually ratified, by Oath, Gen. xxvi. 28. And another Covenant we find between Jacob and Laban, confirmed too by Oath, though Laban's falfe Gods are exprefly mentioned. But we need not flee to fuch Shifts for Juftification of our Saviour's Doctrine in this particular; for most of the Creatures, by whom the Jewish Doctors allowed their Profelytes to fwear, had fome relation to the true God, as our Saviour here argues, and therefore the Oaths made by them, terminated in him. But this will fall in better, when we come to speak of our Saviour's Improvements upon this Commandment. I hasten now to the fourth and last Thing he faults in the Doctrine of the Scribes and Pharifees upon this Commandment, namely,

IV. That by their loose Doctrine about Oaths, they had brought in a Practice of Swearing in common Converfation, and fo made way for Rafh, Profane, customary Oaths. This I take to be the principal of their Errors on this Subject, and that to which all the reft, which I have fpoken of, had an immediate Tendency; and which confequently our Saviour fets himself chiefly to rectify, by forbidding all customary Oaths in Converfation: All their other Errors, I fay, about the Third Commandment, had an immediate Tendency to this. For, Firft, what was the natural Confequence of their Doctrine that nothing was prohi-: bited in the Third Commandment, except the Sin of Perjury? Was it not plainly this, that they might fwear as much as they pleased to any thing that was true? And, Secondly, what was the Confequence of their Swearing by the Creatures,

but

but to leffen the natural dread and fear of an Oath, where the Name of God himself is invoked? And is not that fear of an Oath, one of the beft Curbs and Restraints of that profane Practice? Take this off, and you let Mankind loofe to as much rafh Swearing as they have a mind to. And Thirdly, this was certainly the Confequence of their Doctrine concerning the Non-obligation of feveral Oaths by Creatures. They kept it as a Secret in the Breafts of their Doctors, which of these were, and which were not binding. Had they taught that none of them were binding, then no Body would have been cheated with them; the Credit of them would have funk, for no Body would have believed them: And fo probably they might have run into defuetude. And had they taught that they were all binding, Men would have been afraid to have taken them, for fear of the after-reckoning of Performance. But while the People were made to believe, that their Do&tors had fome fecret Diftinctions, by which they thought they could abfolve them from all thofe most common Oaths by the Creatures, they thought themselves fafe enough in the common Ufe of them.

But now, that this was a very dangerous Practice, the Practice I mean of common Swearing in Conversation, and that it deferves our Saviour's following Improvement upon this Commandment, is what I fhall now endeavour to evince from the following Confiderations.

1. It was then, and is ftill acknowledged by all, that an Oath is a part of Religious Worship, and a very folemn Part of it, and therefore should be gone about as such, that is, with Serioufnefs

and

and Gravity, and with a due Belief and Confideration of the Majefty of God. And therefore the Rule which the Wife Man prefcribes, as to God's Worship in general, is particularly applicable to this of Oaths, Eccl. v. 2. Be not rash with thy Mouth, and let not thine Heart be hafty to utter any Thing before God. How this Rule is obferved by the customary Swearer, who in his Wrath, or Drink, or heat of Difpute, and Impatience, or upon no thought at all, lets flie Voleys of Oaths, every one must be fenfible.

2. They could not be Ignorant, that it was given as a Character of a bad Man, that he is a Swearer, that is, a common Swearer; and as the Character of a good Man, that he feareth an Oath, Eccl. ix. 2. As is the good, fo is the finner; and be, that fweareth, as he that feareth an Oath. Now certainly, there is nothing more Inconsistent with the fearing of an Oath, than the Rash and Inconfiderate venturing upon it.

3. An Oath is not prefcribed as a common Duty, but as a Duty in a Cafe of Neceflity. It is like Phyfick, which is not to be turned into daily Food, That would be the way to make it lofe all it's Virtue; but it is to be referved for more, extraordinary Occafions. As at Law, here among us, Appeals to the King in Council are allowed of, but not ordinarily nor frequently, but in: Weighty Caufes, and after the Juftice of other: inferiour Magiftrates has been tried; fo it is with Oaths, they are an Appeal to God, and like a laft Refult, ought not to be made use of, but in Cafes of weighty Confequence and Concern, and when other ordinary Proofs by Reafon and Argu-1 ment do fail. For,

I