didly examining the question in hand; and I feel a peculiar fatisfaction in fo doing from the known abilities of the perfon who has opened this controverfy, which will enable him, if I am wrong, to overturn my argument, and thereby prevent me from doing an injury; and alfo, I truft, if he fees I am right, his candour will induce him as freely to acknowledge it, which ought to be the cafe in all controverfies; it is what I would do; and fhould feel, that though he had gained the victory, I fhould have the advantage in being delivered from an error. For why should we wish to retain error either in theory or practice? I have often thought, that of all fools they are the greateft who. are determined to hold any opinion contrary to rational evidence, or who act the hypocrite in religion, seeing a day is coming when every man's works fhall be tried as by firewhen every error in fentiment or practice must be publicly expofed, confeffed, and given up.

In respect to the command in queftion, I am free to confefs, that, in my opinion, it is abfolute as to what it relates; and as our Lord has given us a clue to our inquiry by faying "It was faid to the ancients, (meaning, no doubt, in the Law of Moses) thou fhalt not forfwear thyfelf, but fhalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths," we shall foon have our difficulties removed when we come to refer to the law and the teftimony; for it is clear, that it is that kind of oaths our Lord intends to prohibit which the ancients were fo ftrictly enjoined to perform. But as I have faid there are three kinds of oaths, I fhall firft give my reafons for objecting to two of them as being contained in the prohibition ---anfwer fome objections that might be made---and then fhew what kind of oaths I think our Lord alludes to.

And firft, as to profane fwearing---I am of opinion with Mr. Wright that cannot be the thing intended, for the reason he has given, viz. that the fwearing here prohibited, is what was once allowed; whereas profane fwearing always was forbidden. Secondly, it appears to me that it cannot be swearing for the confirmation of a fact that is forbidden, because I am perfuaded Chrift never did abrogate a moral law; and if it can be proved that this is one, in my opinion it will decide the controverfy. I would afk, What is the moral law? It appears to me to be that law which arifes out of the nature of things, and the relation they stand in to each other---as, that I should love God with all my heart, with all my understanding, and with all my ftrength, and my neighbour as myself: that I fhould do unto others as I would have them do unto me. All these arife out of the nature of things, and their relation to each other. That I should

love God does not depend upon any pofitive law; he is my creator, my preferver, my bountiful benefactor; I cannot do without him; I love him because he first loved me: and the love of my neighbour arises in a fimilar way---He is my brother; we have one common Father; we are creatures of the fame God; and if we love him who begat, we also must love him who is begotten; and that I fhould do unto others as I would they should do unto me, is connected with the love of my neighbour, as well as that there is scarce a fituation he can be in, but what, at fome future period, I may be in the fame. All these things would have been binding upon man, if there had been no pofitive law to that effect, and ever must be fo, because of the nature of man, and the relation he stands in to God and his neighbour; even fo does fwearing for the confirmation of a fact arife in the fame way. Man is an imperfect and depraved creature, capable of deceiving or being deceived; it is therefore neceflary that he fhould appeal to one who is not capable of either, for the fatisfaction of his neighbour, from whom, in like circumstances, he would reasonably expect the fame kind of affurance, seeing that in many inftances, no other proof can be given of the truth of a fact than the confidence that is given to the declaration or teftimony of a man; and he being capable of deceiving and liable to be deceived, it arifes out of the nature of man, that the one fhould require and the other should comply with an appeal to that Being who knows the fecret thoughts of the heart, and who is not liable to be deceived, for the truth of the thing that is required; and in so doing, he is only complying with that part of the moral law which teaches us to do unto others as we would have them do un to us. Again, we find, though God never requires man to fwear to him, he knowing their hearts, and therefore he does not need fuch proof, yet, in compaffion to the weakness of their nature, he has frequently fworn to them; Heb. vi. 13.; for when God made the promise to Abraham, fince he could fwear by no greater, he fware by himself: for indeed men fwear by a greater Being; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all contradiction. Therefore God, being willing to fhew more abundantly to the heirs of promife the immutability of his purpose, confirmed it by an oath. Thus we fee that, because it was a custom among men to fwear for confirmation to each other, which practice Paul does not reprove, but shews its beneficial effects, as being the end to all contradiction, therefore, or for that reafon, he fays, God fware to the heirs of promife; that fo, by two immutable things, (his word and his

oath)

bath) in which it was impoffible for God to speak falfely, they might have a strong ground for confolation, &c. Now if God, who is the governor of all, and whofe 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 laft 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 refused so to do, and thereby suffered 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 supposing that any 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 feriously and clofely examine, before they determine that to be a law of Chrift which would lead to fuch confequences.

of

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

fouli

foul; and again, (Gal. i. 20.) Behold, before God I lie not. It is contended by fome, that these are not oaths, but merely ftrong affeverations; but to me they look fo much like oaths, that I must confefs I am incapable of difcovering any difference. But fuppofe 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 Christ, 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 afked, Was it likely he should err when writing deliberately, and under the influence of the Spirit of God, to the churches? and that he should repeat it in fo mauy epiftles, and never discover his error and correct it? or that Peter, who wrote after him, should suffer fuch a grofs violation of a command of Chrift to ftand as an example to the churches without reproving it? Surely, he could not plead ignorance, for he was prefent 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 reafons 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. 1, 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 shall do all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Again, Deut. xxiii. 21- “ When thou fhalt 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 shalt 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 thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths;" and I am fully perfuaded, that every candid man must 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, especially when compared with Mat. xxiii. 18. is fufficient to prove that it is fuch oaths as thefe, for our Lord is exprefsly fpeaking of them, and ridicules the folly of the fcribes and Pharifees for making curious diftinctions as to what fhould bind a man and what should not. If it had been oaths for confirmation, that they had thus faid fome were not binding, would they not have taught the people, that, if they were only careful what they fwore b, they might bear falfe witnels againft their neighbour? And befide, what court of juftice 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 thefe 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 fpeak 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 Christ commands his difciples not to bind themselves by any oaths,

、