fons of this Doctrine, having, at the laft Occafion, in reprehending the loose Doctrine of the Jewish Scribes in this particular, fhewed you the Evil of the Practice of Swearing in common Converfation, and therefore the Reasonablenefs of this Prohibition.

II. The next Thing I obferved in our Saviour's Improvements on this Commandment, is, that he difallows of all Swearing by the Creatures. Now, though under the laft Head of the Errors of the Jewish Doctors on this Commandment, I fhewed you briefly the Unreafonableness of this Practice; yet having then been straitned in Time, I will add a little more diftinctly on this Head.

That the Swearing directly by any Creature, fo as to give that Creature the Honour of being the Witness or Judge of our Veracity in fuch an Oath, is highly criminal, I cannot in the leaft doubt, both because that Honour is every where in the Holy Scriptures peculiarly limited to God himself, and because the Reafon of the thing does neceffarily require it, for it is both Nonfenfe and Impiety, in fuch Secrets as Oaths are to confirm, to appeal to any Perfon or Thing that is not omnifcient to know, and omnipotent to inflict that Vengeance which the prevaricating with an Oath doth tacitly imprecate. But where the Creatures. are invoked only figuratively, fo as there is a plain Reference to Almighty God himself, and not to the Creature, there it does not feem to be unlawful to that Person who means and intends it in that manner. So if one should fwear by Heaven, meaning God, as that Word is often used by Authors in that Sense; as when the prodigal Son is

brought

[SERM. brought in saying to his Father, (a) I have finned against Heaven, and before thee, the Meaning is, I have finned against God and thee; there, I fay, the Intent being not to fwear by the material Heavens, but by God in Heaven, in fuch a figurative Sense the thing is allowable, provided it be truly fo meant and understood. And fuch Manners of Speaking are common in all Languages. So an Appeal to Rome, every one understands to be an Appeal to the Pope; an Appeal to Whitehall, is well enough understood to be an Appeal to the King; and fo the fwearing by Heaven, is the fwearing by God. But where there is any doubt whether God is underftood to be referred to, not only by the Taker of the Oath, but by others that might be misled by fuch a Doubt, it is certainly much fafer not to fwear by the Creature at all. But then here is another Danger, even where the Honour is not defigned to the Creature, but to the Creator, namely, that where the Creature is named, it is reckoned an inferiour fort of Oath, and fo both takes off the Dread and Reverence of an Oath at present, which is apt to make Oaths more common, cheap, and customary; and to leffen the Obligation of them for the future. And this was the Cafe here in those Oaths by Creatures in my Text; they had fo worn off the Dread of them, that at last they were elufory, and they did not think themfelves obliged to perform them, unless they had been made in the Name of God himself; the evil Confequence of which our Saviour perceiving,

(a) Luke xv. 18.

fets

fets himself to rectify this part of their Doctrine and Practice; and this was

III. The third Thing I observed in our Saviour's Improvements upon this Commandment, namely, that he afferts the Obligation of feveral Oaths, which they reckoned elufory, and did not think themselves obliged to perform. Now, as to this Error of theirs, our Saviour had them under an unanfwerable Dilemma; for either these Oaths by the Creatures, had a reference to God, or not. If they had no reference to God, then it was an high piece of Sacrilege to put this divine Honour upon them, to fwear by them; an Honour which the very Light of Nature, as well as their Law and their Prophets, taught them was peculiar to Omnifcience and Omnipotence, that is, to God alone; and of this fort of Oaths, I think our Saviour gives an Example here, in their fwearing by their Head. But if the Oaths had a reference to God, then they ought religiously to be performed as to him, and not evaded. There was no answering of this Argument, but the Truth was, that by a fupine Neglect, countenanced by the corrupt Doctrine, of their Teachers, the relation which most of thefe Oaths had to God, (viz. the Oaths by Heaven and Earth, and Jerufalem) was quite forgotten, and fo the Performance of them came to be neglected, and therefore our Lord puts them in mind how that relation to God was in these customary Oaths of theirs, and fo concludes for the Obligation of them. I fhall briefly clear up that part of the Text, and then in purfuance of the Defign of it, dehort from all evafive, elufory Oaths whatsoever; and fo conVOL. II. clude;

A a

clude; for I perceive the main Rule which our Saviour fubftitutes for avoiding thefe inferior Oaths, namely, a Simplicity and Honesty in Converfation, I fhall not have time now to enter upon.

As to the Relation between fome inferiour Oaths then in Ufe, and God Almighty, our Saviour himself here clears it in three of these Oaths, by Heaven, and Earth, and Jerufalem.

The Oath by Heaven had an exprefs relation to God, for it is God's Throne. Now this is very intelligible, for it is customary by the Throne, to understand the King or Queen that fits thereon; fuch a thing was fpoke from the Throne; that is, was spoke by the King fitting on his Throne.

The fame Account is to be given of an Oath by Earth, which our Saviour elegantly calls God's Footftool; and fo faid God in the Prophets, Isa. lxvi. i. Thus faith the Lord, Heaven is my Throne, and the Earth is my Footstool. It is a part of the fame Throne, but an inferiour part of it, and therefore ftill reference must be had to God himself, who fills Heaven and Earth.

The third Inftance is in Jerufalem, which was the chief Place of the Divine Prefence upon Earth; there was the Temple, and the Holy of Holies; there God was faid to dwell between the Cherubims; and therefore in thefe three, Heaven, Earth, and Jerufalem, the reference to God is very plain.

The fourth is a little more obfcure; Neither fhalt thou fwear by thy Head, because thou canst not make one Hair white or black. This seems

to

to me an Example of the other part of the Dilemma, namely, of thofe Oaths which have no reference to God, and therefore should not at all be made ufe of, being an Oath by an infirm Creature, that cannot make one Hair white or black.

Now what our Saviour intends by all this, is to fhew, that none of thefe, or fuch like Oaths, is to be jefted with, and broken at pleasure; but that fome of them, namely, fuch as do not fignify God, are to be totally avoided, and those that do, are all binding: and if they are broke, that it is Perjury, as if the Oaths had been made in the Name of God himself.

From all this, we may conclude how much our Saviour abhors all false, elufory Oaths. After-Ages have invented a great many more than are here mentioned, and upon the fame Defign, namely, that they may have the appearance of the Confirmation of an Oath, to impofe upon the Hearers Credulity, but at the fame time may make no Impreffion on the Taker's Confcience, fo that he makes no Scruple of breaking through them. But there are two Things very immoral in all fuch Practices; one is the defigned Trick or Falfhood; the other, the backing that Trick with the Solemnity of an Oath, or something like an Oath; which, if it has any Senfe at all, must reflect Dishonour upon Almighty God, to call him in, either directly or indirectly, to help out with fuch Fraud. And therefore let us be guarded, not only against the more deep, but likewise against the more flight fort of Swearing in Converfation. Let us aim at nothing but Truth, and content our felves to deliver it in a