what he asserts or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears. When a person swears to facts past or present, this is called an assertory oath; when one swears that he will perform a certain deed or deeds in time to come, this is called a promissory oath. An oath may relate to matters civil or ecclesiastical, and, according to its matter, may be denominated a civil or ecclesiastical oath; but to whatsoever matter it may be applied, the oath itself retains its high place among the solemnities of religion. 2. An oath is only to be taken in the name of God. We are expressly commanded "to swear by his name," (Deut. vi. 19); and to "swear by them that are no gods" is represented as highly criminal. Jer. v. 7. Swearing by the name of God implies a belief and acknowledgment of his omniscience, omnipotence, and justice; it follows, therefore, that to swear by any other besides him, must be utterly unlawful, and no less than idolatry. 3. An oath may be warrantably taken on weighty occasions, when imposed by lawful authority. The Quakers, and some others, deny the lawfulness of swearing an oath in any case, under the New Testament. But their opinion is refuted by a variety of arguments. An oath for confirmation is warranted by the third precept of the moral law; for while that precept prohibits the taking of God's name in vain, it sanctions swearing by the name of God on lawful occasions. The practice is confirmed by numerous approved examples under the Old Testament. Abraham sware to Abimelech that he would not deal falsely with him. Gen. xxi. 23, 24. A king of the same name desired that an oath might be between Isaac and him; and they sware one to another. Gen. xxvi. 31. In like manner Jacob sware to Laban, (Gen. xxxi. 53); and Joseph sware to his father. Gen. xlvii. 31. All these examples occurred before the Mosaic law was given to the Jews, and therefore an oath can be no peculiarity of the Mosaic dispensation. But that law expressly recognized the warrantableness of taking an oath, (Lev. v. 1), and under that dispensation we have various examples of holy men swearing by the name of God. Thus Jonathan required David to swear unto him, (1 Sam. xx. 17); and David also sware unto Saul. 1 Sam. xxiv. 21, 22. The taking of an oath being no part of the judicial, or of the ceremonial law, must be equally warrantable under the present dispensa tion, unless expressly prohibited in the New Testament. But there is much in the New Testament to confirm the practice. The apostle Paul frequently appeals to God in these and similar expressions: "God is my witness:" "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not," (Rom. i. 9; ix. 1): "I call God for a record upon my soul." 2 Cor. i. 23. Christ himself answered the question of the high priest, when he adjured him by the living God; which was the common form of admin. istering an oath among the Jews. The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the oath which God sware to Abraham, "who, because he could swear by no greater, sware by himself;" and he adds, "An oath for confirmation is an end of all strife," (Heb. vi. 13, 16); plainly showing that he sanctioned the practice. It must be evident, therefore, that our Saviour's words, (Matt. v. 34), “Swear not at all,” and the similar words of the apostle James, (v. 12), do not absolutely prohibit all swearing on necessary and solemn occasions; but only forbid the practice of swearing in common conversation, and particularly of swearing by creatures. It must be remarked, however, that an appeal to God in trivial matters, and the frequent and unnecessary repetition of the same oath, is a taking the name of God in vain. And it may also be observed, that as the lifting up of the hand is the usual mode of swearing mentioned in Scripture, (Gen. xiv. 22; Rev. x. 5, 6), so it ought to be preferred; and all superstitious forms ought to be rejected. 4. An oath ought to be taken "in truth, in righteousness, and in judgment." Jer. iv. 2. In truth; that is, with an entire correspondence between the sentiments of the mind and the words of the oath, in their common obvious meaning, and as understood by those who administer it; without any equivocation and mental reservation. To allow of mental reservation in swearing, as the Church of Rome in certain cases does, is to defeat the very end of an oath, to destroy all confidence among men, and to involve the swearer in the heinous sin of perjury. In righteousness; that is, in things lawful and possible for us at the time of swearing, and with a fixed intention to perform what we pledge ourselves to do. In judgment; that is, deliberately and reverently, well considering whether the matter of the oath be good and just, and whether the ends proposed be suffi cient to justify us in interposing the glorious and dreadful name of God for a pledge of the truth of our declarations. 5. A lawful oath binds to performance. Oaths engaging persons to what is sinful are in themselves null and void; and they who have rashly taken such oaths ought to repent of and renounce them, instead of adding the sin of keeping, to the sin of making them, as Herod most wickedly did in beheading John the Baptist for the sake of his oath. Mark vi. 23, 26. But a lawful oath is binding, though the performance may be prejudicial to a man's temporal interest; and it is the character of a good man, that though "he swears to his own hurt, he changes not." Ps. xv. 4. It is a detestable principle of the Romish church, that "faith is not to be kept with heretics." SECTION V.—A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.13 SECTION VI.-It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone;14 and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.15 SECTION VII.-No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God.16 In which respects Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.17 13 Isa. xix. 21. Eccl. v. 4-6. Ps. lxi. 8; 14 Ps. lxxvi. 11. Jer. xliv. 25, 26. 16 Acts xxiii. 12, 14. Mark vi. 26. Numb. xxx. 5, 8, 12, 13 17 Matt. xix. 11, 12. 1 Cor. vii. 2, 9. Eph. iv. 28. 1 Pet. iv. 2. 1 Cor. vii. 23. EXPOSITION. These actions relate to the nature, the matter, and the obligation of a vow. A vow is a solemn promise made to God, and may be either personal or social. Although a vow is "of the like nature with a promissory oath, yet they admit of being distinguished. In an oath, man is generally the party, and God is invoked as the witness; in a vow, God is both the party and the witness. A vow is to be made to God alone; and, therefore, to make vows to saints departed, as Papists do, is superstitious and idolatrous. Vows ought to be entered into voluntarily, and in the exercise of faith, or in dependence upon the grace of Christ for enabling us to perform them. Phil. iv. 13; 2 Cor. xii. 9. Persons may bind themselves by a vow, either to necessary duties or to other things not expressly required, so far and so long as they may be conducive to the better performance of these duties. But no man may vow to do any thing which is either unlawful or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he has no promise of ability from God. A vow has an intrinsic obligation, distinct from the obligation of the law of God. In the law, God binds us by his authoritative command; in a vow, we bind ourselves by our own voluntary engagement. To represent a vow as laying no new or superadded obligation on the conscience, or to maintain, as some Popish writers do, that a vow does not bind us in moral duties commanded by the law of God, because our vow cannot add any obligation to his law, is manifestly absurd. It is equally contrary to Scripture and to the common sense of mankind. The law of God obliges; this is the primary obligation. But a vow also obliges; this is the secondary obligation. And subordinate things oppose not each other. The performance of vows is frequently and strictly enjoined in the word of God. "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God," says Moses, "thou shalt not slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee." Deut. xxiii. 21; see also Eccl. v. 4; Ps. 1. 14; lxxvi. 11. CHAPTER XXIII. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE. SECTION I.-God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.1 SECTION II-It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth ;3 so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.1 Rom. xiii. 1-4. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. 2 Prov. viii. 15, 16. Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 4. Ps. ii. 10-12. 1 Tim. ii. 2. Ps. lxxxii. 3, 4. 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. 1 Pet. ii. 13. EXPOSITION. • The sacred Scriptures are a perfect "rule of faith and manners.' They prescribe the duty incumbent upon men in every station and relation, whether as members of the Church or of the commonwealth; whether as rulers or as subjects. * * * * * It is true that sects have sprung up, at various periods, which have held principles subversive of all civil government. * * * * * The German Anabaptists who, in the sixteenth century, produced such dreadful commotions, maintained that, "in the kingdom of Christ civil magistrates were absolutely useless." And even after their principles were modified by Menno, they "neither admitted civil rulers into their communion, nor allowed any of their members to perform the functions of magistracy." They also denied "the |