But it was concerning his own heart and purpose, whereof there might be much doubt and hesitation, yea, presumption contrary to the truth; when yet it was of great concernment to the church to have them truly known and stated. And in this case he confirms his assertion by an oath; which wholly takes off all pretence of a general rule that an oath is unlawful under the new testament, with those who will not make the apostle a transgressor.

(3.) Had an oath been unlawful under the new testament, God would not have continued the use of it in any kind, lest Christians should thereby be drawn to act against the rule and his command. But this he did in that of the angel who "lifted up his hand unto heaven, and sware by him who liveth for ever and ever," Rev. x. 5, 6. To give a great and an approved example of that which in no case we may imitate, doth not become the wisdom of God, and his care towards his church.

Add unto all these considerations the express approbation given in this place by our apostle unto the practice of solemn swearing among men, to confirm the truth and to put an end unto strife, and the lawfulness of an oath will be found sufficiently confirmed in the New Testament as well as the Old.

There are two places in the New Testament which are usually pleaded in opposition unto this liberty and duty. The first is in the words of our Saviour, Matt. v. 33-37, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black: but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." And unto these words of our Saviour the apostle James hath respect, chap. v. 12, "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."

The

Ans. It is evident that this place of James is derived from, and hath respect unto the words of our Saviour; it being an express inculcation of his precept and direction, on the same reason. same answer, therefore, will serve both places; which will not be difficult, from the observation of the reasons and circumstances of our Saviour's discourse. And to this end we may observe,

[1] That all things prohibited by our Saviour, in that sermon to the Jews, were in themselves, and by virtue of the law of God, antecedently unlawful. Only, whereas the Pharisees, by their traditions and false interpretations of the Scripture, in a compliance.

with their own wickedness and covetousness, had persuaded the body of the church, and brought them into the practice of much lewdness and many sins; and by their ignorance of the true spiritual nature of the law, had led men unto an indulgence unto their internal lusts and corruptions, so they brake not forth into open practice; our Saviour rends the veil of their hypocrisy, discovers the corruption of their traditions and interpretations of the law, declares the true nature of sin, and in sundry instances shows how and wherein, by these false glosses, the body of the people had been drawn into soul-ruining sins: whereby he "restored the law," as the Jews speak, "unto its pristine crown." Let any one of the particulars mentioned by our Saviour be considered, and it will be found that it was before unlawful in itself, or declared so in the positive law of God. Was it not evil, to be " angry with a brother without a cause," and to call him "raca," and "fool ?" verse 22. Was it not so, to "look on a woman to lust after her?" or were such unclean desires ever innocent? That, therefore, which is here prohibited by our Saviour, "Swear not at all," was somewhat that was even then unlawful, but practised on the false glosses of the Pharisees upon the law. Now this was not solemn swearing, in judgment and righteousness, which we have proved before not only to have been lawful, but appointed expressly by God himself.

[2] Our Saviour expressly limiteth his precept unto our communication, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay," verse 37. There was then amongst men, and that countenanced by the Pharisees, a cursed way of mixing oaths with men's ordinary communication. This blasphemous wickedness, as it was a direct violation of the third commandment, so it was frequently rebuked by the prophets. But, as other public sins, it grew and increased among the people, until their corrupt leaders, in compliance with them, began to distinguish what oaths in common communication were lawful and what were unlawful, what were obligatory and what were not. To eradicate this cursed practice, our Saviour gives this general prohibition unto all that would be his disciples, "Swear not at all," that is, in communication; which is the first design of the third commandment. And as there is nothing which more openly proclaims a contempt of Christ and his authority, among many who would be esteemed Christians, than their ordinary, customary swearing and cursing by the name of God, and other hellish imprecations which they have invented, in their daily communication; so possibly the observation of the greatness of that evil, its extent and incurableness, hath cast some on the other extreme. But it is no property of a wise man, by avoiding one extreme, to run into another.

[3] The direction and precept of our Saviour is given in direct opposition unto the corrupt glosses and interpretations of the law,

introduced by tradition, and made authentic by the authority of the Pharisees. This is evident from the express antithesis in the words, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time: but I say unto you." Now these were two. 1st. That there was no evil in an oath at any time, but only in swearing falsely. This they gathered (as they fathered their most absurd apprehensions on some pretext of Scripture) from Lev. xix. 12, "Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God." From hence they concluded that God's name was not profaned in swearing, unless a man sware falsely; that is, forsware himself. And this also they restrained principally unto promises by oaths, or vows to be performed unto God; which turned to their advantage, who had the disposal of things sacred and devoted. This they judged to comprise the whole of the prohibition in the third commandment: but most falsely, and unto the hazard of the souls of men; for not only the using or interposition of the name of God in a false matter, which is perjury, but also the using of it "in vain,”—that is, without just cause, or reason, or call, lightly and vainly, is expressly forbidden. Herein our Saviour interposeth his divine interpretation, and, in opposition unto the corrupt exposition of the Pharisees, declares that not only false swearing by the name of God, in judgment or otherwise, is forbidden in the command, but also that vain interposition of the name of God in our "communication" is utterly prohibited. And it is hence evident unto me, that no man ought voluntarily to take an oath, unless the matter in controversy be undeterminable without it, and the authority be lawful that requires it. 2dly. Aiming to comply with the lusts and corruptions of men (as the great artifice of all false teachers consists in the accommodation of doctrines to the blindness and prevalent sins of men), they had found out a way how they might swear, and swear on, without the guilt of perjury, did they swear never so falsely. And this was, not to swear by the name of God himself,which if they did, and sware falsely, they were perjured,—but by the heavens, or by the earth, or Jerusalem, or the temple, or the altar, or their own heads; for such kind of oaths and execrations were then, as also now, in use in the ordinary communication of men. But herein also the filthy hypocrites had a farther reach, and had insinuated another pestilent opinion into the minds of men, tending to their own advantage. For they had instructed them, that they might freely swear by the temple, but not by the gold of it; and by the altar, but not by the gift that was upon it, Matt. xxiii. 16-19. For from the gold offered in the temple, and the gift brought unto the altar, did advantage arise unto these covetous hypocrites; who would therefore beget a greater veneration in the minds of men towards them than to the express institutions of God

themselves. In opposition unto this corruption, our Saviour declares that in all these things there is a tacit respect unto God himself; and that his name is no less profaned in them than if it were expressly made use of. These are the things alone which our Saviour intendeth in this prohibition; namely, the interposition of the name of God in our ordinary communication, without cause, call, warrant, or authority, when no necessity requireth us thereunto, where there is no strife otherwise not to be determined, or which by consent is to be so ended; and the usage of the names of creatures, sacred or common, in our oaths, without mentioning of the name of God. And there are two rules, in the interpretation of the Scripture, which we must in such cases always carry along with us: [1.] 'That universal affirmations and negations are not always to be universally understood, but are to be limited by their occasions, circumstances, and subject-matter treated of. So, where our apostle affirms that he "became all things unto all men," if you restrain not the assertion unto things indifferent, false conclusions may be drawn from it, and of evil consequence. So is the prohibition of our Saviour here to be limited unto rash and temerarious swearing, or it would be contrary to the light of nature, the appointment of God, and the good of human society. [2.] It is a rule also of use in the interpretation of the Scripture, 'That where any thing is prohibited in one place, and allowed in another, that not the thing itself absolutely considered is spoken unto, but the different modes, causes, ends, and reasons of it, are intended.' So here, in one place swearing is forbidden, in others it is allowed, and examples thereof are proposed unto us: wherefore it cannot be swearing absolutely, that is intended in either place; but rash, causeless swearing is condemned in one, and swearing in weighty causes, for just ends, with the properties of an oath before insisted on, is recommended and approved in the other. I shall shut up the discourse with three corollaries from it ::

Obs. X. That the custom of using oaths, swearing, cursing, or imprecation, in common communication, is not only an open transgression of the third commandment, which God hath threatened to revenge, but it is a practical renunciation also of all the authority of Jesus Christ, who hath so expressly interdicted it.

Obs. XI. Whereas swearing by the name of God, in truth, righteousness, and judgment, is an ordinance of God for the end of strife amongst men; perjury is justly reckoned among the worst and highest of sins, and is that which reflects the greatest dishonour on God, and tendeth to the ruin of human society.

Obs. XII. Readiness in some to swear on slight occasions, and the ordinary impositions of oaths on all sorts of persons, without a due consideration on either hand of the nature, ends, and properties

of lawful swearing, are evils greatly to be lamented, and in God's good time among Christians will be reformed.

VERSES 17-20.

In this last part of the chapter two things are further designed by the apostle: 1. An explication of the purpose and end of God in his promise, as it was confirmed by his oath; and therewithal and from thence he makes application of the whole unto all believers, seeing the mind and will of God was the same towards them all as they were towards Abraham, to whom the promise so confirmed was made in particular. 2. A confirmation of the whole privilege intended, by the introduction of the interposition of Christ in this matter; and this is expressed in a transition and return unto his former discourse concerning the priesthood of Christ.

Ver. 17-20.—Εν ᾧ περισσότερον βουλόμενος ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιδεῖξαι τοῖς κληρονόμοις τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς αὐτοῦ, ἐμεσίτευσεν ὅρκῳ, ἵνα διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ἀμεταθέτων, ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι Θεὸν, ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπί δος· ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν, καὶ εἰσερχο μένην εἰς τὸ ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος, όπου πρόδρομος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθεν Ἰησοῦς, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

E, &, “in quo,” “qua in re.' Syr., N, "propter hoc," "qua propter." Some have respect unto the thing itself spoken of, some unto the reasons of things spoken.

66

T

ПeproσÓTEрov Bovλóuevos, "abundantius volens," "volens ex abundanti." Syr., maxime voluit," "abunde voluit;""would abundantly." Exidia. Manuscript [A] ideiaobai, "ostendere;" "manifestly to set forth." Τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλῆς. "Immutabilitatem consilii," Bez. "Immobilitatem," An., Vulg. Lat., Rhem.; "the stability;" which answers neither of the words used, which are more emphatical. Syr., "that his promise should not be changed.' Αμετάθετον is that which cannot be altered nor transposed into any other state. 'EμeoíTevσev opxy. "Intervenit juramento," An. "Fidejussit jurejurando,' Bez. "Interpositionem fecit jurejurando," "interposuit jusjurandum," Vulg. Lat. Rhem., "he interposed an oath." Not properly, for isoírevσey is, “he himself came between, or in the midst; he interposed himself, and gave his oath." From μéros is μeoírns, “interventor," "fidejussor," "interpres," εipnvomolos, "pacificator." Thence is μEITE, "mediatorem ago," "pacificatoris partes ago;" "to interpose a man's self by any means to confirm and establish peace;" which was here done opx, with "an oath." The word is used in this place only in the New Testament, as peoírns is nowhere used but by Paul, Gal. iii. 19, 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. viii. 6, 9, 15, xii. 24.

66

Aid dúo πрayμáтwy àμsтalitwy, "ut per duas res immutabiles," or "immobiles." Rhem., "that by two things unmovable." Syr., "which are not changed," or ought not to be. “ By two immutable things.” Ισχυρὰν παράκλη o Exaev, "fortem consolationem habeamus," "fortissimum solatium," "validam consolationem habeamus," "haberemus." 12 N N NN, Syr., "that great consolation should be to us." 'Ioxvpav denotes such a power and strength