A Christian Directory Volume I Part 88

_Direct._ X. Accordingly (besides your aforesaid general preparations) be prepared particularly for those duties and those temptations: carry still about with you some special preservatives against those particular sins of speech which you are most in danger of; and some special provisions and helps to those duties of speech, which you may be called to: as a surgeon will carry about with him his instruments and salves which he is like to have use for, among the persons that he hath to do with; and as a traveller will carry such necessaries still with him, as in his travels he cannot be without. If you are to converse with angry men, be still furnished with patience and firm resolutions to "give place to wrath," Rom. xii. 19. If you are to converse with ignorant, unG.o.dly men, go furnished with powerful, convincing reasons, to humble them and change their minds. If you are to go amongst the cavilling or scorning enemies of holiness, go furnished with well-digested arguments, for the defence of that which they are likest to oppose, that you may shame and stop the mouths of such gainsayers. This must be done by "the Sword of the spirit, which is the word of G.o.d," Eph. vi. 17. Therefore be well acquainted with the Scripture, and with particular plain texts for each particular use: by them the "man of G.o.d is complete, throughly furnished to every good work," 2 Tim. iii. 17.

_Direct._ XI. Continually walk as in the presence of G.o.d, and as under his government and law, and as those that are pa.s.sing on to judgment.[488] Ask yourselves, whatever you say: 1. Whether it be fit for G.o.d to hear? 2. Whether it be agreeable to his holy law? 3.

Whether it be such speech as you would hear of at the day of judgment?

If it be speech unmeet for the hearing of a grave and reverend man, will you speak it before G.o.d? Will you speak wantonly, or filthily, or foolishly, or maliciously, when G.o.d forbiddeth it, and when he is present and heareth every word, and when you must certainly give account to him of all?

_Direct._ XII. Pray every morning to G.o.d for preservation from the sins of speech that you are liable to that day. Commit the custody of your tongues to him; not so as to think yourselves discharged of it, but so as to implore and trust his grace. Pray as David, "Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips; incline not my heart to any evil thing: and that the words of your mouth and the meditations of your heart, may be acceptable to him," Psal. cxli. 3, 4; xix. 14.

_Direct._ XIII. Make it part of your continual work, to watch your tongues. Carelessness and negligence will not serve turn in so difficult a work of government. James telleth you that to tame and rule the tongue, is harder than to tame and rule wild beasts, and birds, and serpents: and as the ruling of a horse by the bridle, and of a ship that is driven by fierce winds: and that the "tongue is an unruly evil: and that he that offendeth not in word, is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body," James iii. Make it therefore your study and work, and watch it continually.

_Direct._ XIV. Call your tongues daily to account, and ask yourselves, what evil you have spoken, and what good you have omitted, every day; and be humbled before G.o.d, in the penitent confession of the sin which you discover, and renew your resolution for a stricter watch for the time to come. If your servant be every day faulty, and never hear of it, he will take it as no fault, and be little careful to amend: nay, you will remember your very ox of his fault when he goeth out of the furrow, by a p.r.i.c.k or stroke, and your horse when he is faulty, by a spur or rod. And do you think if you let yourselves, even your tongues, be faulty every day, and never tell them of it, or call them to account, that they are ever like to be reformed, and not grow careless and accustomed to the sin? Your first care must be for preventing the sin, and doing the duty; saying, as David, Psal. x.x.xix. 1-3, "I said, I will take heed to my ways, that I offend not with my tongue; I will keep my mouth with a bridle while the wicked is before me: I was dumb with silence, I held my peace." Psal. x.x.xv. 28; lxxi. 24, "My tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long." Psal.

cxix. 172, "My tongue shall speak of thy word." Psal. xlv. 1, "My tongue is as the pen of a ready writer." But your next care must be, to repent of the faults which you commit, and to judge yourselves for them, and reform: remembering that "there is not a word in your tongues, but is altogether known to G.o.d," Psal. cx.x.xix. 4.

_Direct._ XV. Make use of a faithful monitor or reprover. We are apt, through custom and partiality, to overlook the faults of our own speech.

A friend is here exceeding useful. Desire your friend therefore to watch over you in this: and amend what he telleth you of; and be not so foolish as to take part with your fault against your friend.

_t.i.t._ 2. _Special Directions against profane Swearing, and using G.o.d's name unreverently and in vain._

[Sidenote: What an oath is.]

I. To swear is an affirming or denying of a thing, with an appeal to some other thing or person, as a witness of the truth, or avenger of the untruth, who is not producible as witness or judge in human courts. An affirmation or negation is the matter of an oath: the peculiar appellation is the form. It is not every appeal or attestation that maketh an oath.[489] To appeal to such a witness as is credible and may be produced in the court, from a partial, incredible witness, is no oath. To appeal from an incompetent judge, or an inferior court, to a competent judge, or higher court, is no swearing. To say, I take the king for my witness, or I appeal to the king, is not to swear by the king; but to say, I take G.o.d to witness, or I appeal to G.o.d as the judge of the truth of what I say, is to swear by G.o.d. But to appeal to G.o.d as a righteous Judge, against the injustice or cruelty of men, without relation to his attesting or judging any affirmation or negation of our own, is no swearing by him, because there wanteth the matter of an oath. An oath is an appeal to some supernatural or higher and more terrible power, than that of the court or person we swear to, to make our testimony the more credible, when other evidences of certainty or credibility are wanting. So that a legal testimony or appeal are not swearing.

[Sidenote: What is a lawful oath.]

Swearing is either just and lawful, or sinful and abusive. To a just and lawful oath it is necessary, 1. That it be G.o.d alone ultimately that we swear by; because no witness and avenging judge above human courts can be appealed to but G.o.d: and therefore to swear by any creature properly and in the sense that G.o.d is sworn by, is to idolize it, and to ascribe to it the properties of G.o.d.[490] (Of which more anon.) 2. It is necessary to a just oath, that the matter be true as it is a.s.sertory or negative; and also if it be promissory, that the matter be, 1. Honest and lawful, 2. and possible. And where any one of these is wanting, it is unlawful. 3. It is needful that there be an honest end; for the end is a princ.i.p.al ingredient in all moral good and evil. 4. It is needful that it be done upon a sufficient call and honest motives, and not unnecessarily or without just reason. 5. And the manner and circ.u.mstances must be lawful.

An oath is an equivocal word, taken sometimes for that which is formally so, as before described; and sometimes for that which is but the matter and expressive form without any real intent of swearing.

Or, an oath is taken either for the whole human act completely, containing the words signifying and the purpose signified; or else for the outward sign or words alone. (As the word prayer signifieth sometimes the bare form of words, and sometimes the words and desire signified by them. And as the word sacrament is sometimes taken for the external signs only, and sometimes for the signs with the mutual covenanting and actions signified.) Here it may be questioned,--

_Quest._ Whether it be swearing or not, which is frequently used by ignorant, careless people, who use the words or form of an oath, in mere custom, not knowing what an oath is, nor having any thought or purpose of appealing to G.o.d, or to the creature by which they swear.

The reason of the doubt is, because it seemeth to be but the matter or external part of an oath; and it is the form that specifieth and denominateth. He that should ignorantly speak the words of an oath in Latin or Greek, while he understandeth not the language and intendeth no such thing, doth not swear.

[Sidenote: How far the intent of the swearer (as of the baptizer or baptized to baptism) is necessary to the being of an oath.]

_Answ._ 1. In the full and properest sense of the word, it is before G.o.d no oath if there be no intent of confirming your speech by an appeal to G.o.d, or to that which you swear by. As a ludicrous washing and using the words of baptism, is no true baptism, no more than a corpse is a man.

(And thus it is true which the papists say, that the intention of the baptizer is necessary to the being of baptism; that is, it is necessary to the being of sacramental administration to the baptizer himself, before G.o.d, that he really intend to baptize; and it is necessary to the being of baptism before G.o.d in the person baptized, that he himself if at age, or those that have power to dedicate him to G.o.d if he be an infant, do really intend it; and it is necessary to the being of the external ordinance _in foro ecclesiae_, before the church, that both the baptizer and baptized do profess or seem to intend it.) 2. But if you use such words as are the ordinary form of an oath in a language which you understand, so as the hearers may justly suppose you to understand it, it is an oath, _coram hominibus_, before men, and in the latter narrower sense of the word. And it shall be obligatory and pleadable against you in any court of justice by those you swear to; yea, and G.o.d himself doth take you thereby to be obliged thus to men: and if it be a profane, causeless swearing, men must call it an oath; for they see not the heart; even as they must take him to be baptized that professeth to intend it; and _in foro humano_, it is so indeed: and G.o.d himself will account you a sinner, even one that useth the external form of an oath, and that which before men is an oath, to the wrong of his name and honour, and to the scandal of others. And it will not excuse you that you knew not that it was an oath, or that you knew not the nature of an oath, or that you rashly used it, not considering that it was an oath; for you were bound to have known and to have considered; you should have done it, and might have done it if you would. But if they were words which you could not know to have been the form or expressions of an oath, but the hearers might perceive that you meant no such thing, but something else, then you are excusable, if you had just cause to use them.

[Sidenote: How far swearing by creatures is a sin.]

II. As to the case of swearing by creatures, how far it is sinful; it is just like the case of worshipping images, or by images. He that worshippeth an image or any creature as G.o.d, and ultimately terminateth his worship in it, doth commit direct and full idolatry;[491] which is so much the greater sin, by how much the baser the thing is which he idolizeth. But if he make the image or creature but his medium of that worship which should be immediately offered to G.o.d, in whom it is ultimately terminated, then it is not gross idolatry, but it is false and forbidden worship of the true G.o.d. But if the creature be made but the medium of that worship which G.o.d would have offered him by a medium, then it is lawful so to use or worship it (as to honour and admire G.o.d as appearing in his works; to give that worship or honour to our parents and rulers as his officers, which is ultimately terminated in G.o.d). Just so is it in the case of swearing; for swearing is a part of the worship of G.o.d. He that sweareth by any creature as a G.o.d, or as the avenger of those that by falsehood elude the judgment of man, doth commit idolatry in it;[492]

as Julian did when he swore by the sun (which he praised by his orations and worshipped as G.o.d). But he that only sweareth so by a creature, as to intend G.o.d ultimately as the witness and avenger, but yet so as that the creature only is named, or so named as hath an appearance of idolatry, or tendeth to entice the mind from G.o.d, or scandalously to obscure his honour, or in any other forbidden way, doth swear by the true G.o.d intentionally, but in a sinful manner. But he that directly sweareth by G.o.d, (upon a just call,) and by the creature (or nameth the creature rather) but in a just, and clear, and inoffensive subordination to G.o.d, is excusable. So we use to lay our hands on the Bible and thus to swear, So help me G.o.d, and the contents of this book. Thus on great occasions many good men in their writings to clear themselves from some calumny have said, I call G.o.d, and angels, and men to witness. Many in naming creatures intend rather a curse than a swearing by the creature: as, If it be not so, let G.o.d destroy me by this fire, or this water, &c.

_Quest._ Is it lawful to lay hands on the book and kiss it in swearing as is done in England?

_Resp._ To take an oath as imposed in England with laying the hand on the Bible and kissing it, is not unlawful.

_Proved_ 1. That which is not forbidden by G.o.d is lawful (before G.o.d).

But so to take an oath is not forbidden by G.o.d----Therefore, &c. The minor will be sufficiently proved by disproving all the pretences of a prohibition. The major needeth no proof.

2. If it be forbidden it is either, 1. As an act in worship not commanded, and so will-worship. 2. Or as a significant ceremony in worship not commanded. 3. Or as an uncommanded significant ceremony, which hath in itself some forbidden matter or manner. But it is not forbidden in any of these respects; therefore not at all.

I. Not as an act not commanded in worship; for _a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia_, then all acts in worship not commanded would be unlawful, which is false: for, 1. The acts used in swearing, Gen. xxiv. 2; xiv.

22; Apoc. x. 5, were not commanded and yet lawful; of which more anon.

2. G.o.d hath not commanded what tune to sing a psalm in, what division to make of the Bible into chapters and verses, whether to use a written or a printed Bible, what words, what method, what particular text to choose, what translation to use, with many such like.

II. Not as a significant ceremony not commanded; for then all such should be forbidden, which is not true. For, 1. Abraham's swearing by lifting up the hand, (and so the angels, Apoc. x.) and Abraham's servant by putting his hand under the thigh, were significant ceremonies. And he that will say they were commanded must prove it. The contrary may well by us be supposed, 1. Because no such law is notified in Scripture, and here _non apparere_ and _non esse_ are equal, because of the perfection of G.o.d's laws. 2. Because it is mentioned, as Paraeus and other commentators note, as some accustomed rite, and so dependeth not on any particular precept to Abraham alone as a prophet. 3. Because it is not one but several sorts of swearing rites that are mentioned, lifting up the hand, and putting it under the thigh.

2. Almost all christians take some uncommanded significant ceremony in swearing to be lawful. The ceremony mentioned by Paraeus, ibid. as used in the Palatinate, is such, of lifting up three fingers, _Hodie nos juramus, digitis tribus dextrae sublatis, invocantes vindicem S.

Trinitatem_. The English annotations tell you that the customs of countries are very various in this point, yet most agree in adding some outward attestation of action or gesture to words in taking of an oath, to make it better remembered and more regarded, than bare words of affirmation, promise, or imprecation. And Josephus (cited by Grotius) tells us it was then the custom among the Jews to swear by this ceremony of putting the hand under the thigh (whether in token of subjection, or because it was the place of the sword, the instrument of revenge, as Grotius and others, or in expectation of the promised seed, as the fathers thought). And the case of Joseph's adjuration shows it. Vid. Perer. in Gen. xiv. and xxiv.

3. An action of another part of the body is no more forbidden to express the mind by, than of the tongue. G.o.d never said, you shall no way express your minds in things sacred or civil, but by the tongue. A change of the countenance may express it; a frown, or a pleasant look.

(_Index animi vultus._) Paul did lift up the hand to the Jews when he would speak for himself; Christ made as if he would have gone further, Luke xxiv. Words are not natural signs, but invented and arbitrary in particulars, though the power of speaking words so invented and learned be natural. If it be lawful to use significant words, not commanded in worship, it is lawful to use significant actions (under due regulation). Therefore all the ancient churches, without one contradictor that ever I read of, did use many such. Though Augustine, Ep. ad Januar. sadly complaineth that then they were grown to an oppressive number; yet he never speaketh against the thing itself. To stand up at the creed is a significant expression of consent, which not only all the churches else, but the old non-conformists never scrupled, nor do the present as far as I can learn: whether to sit, stand, or kneel, at singing psalms, is left at liberty. To put off the hat is a significant ceremony or act in worship, not commanded in itself, nor used of old for the same signification as now. And where the covering of the head doth signify reverence, it is better than to be bare. In one country custom maketh standing up, in another sitting and hanging down the head, in another kneeling, in another prostration, to be the sign of reverence, which accordingly may be used in G.o.d's service. When covenants between G.o.d and the people are renewed, consent may lawfully be expressed either by standing up or by holding up the hand, (by which suffrages in things sacred were used to be given,) or by subscribing, or by voice. For G.o.d hath commanded us the expressing of consent, reverence, &c., but left the word, gesture, or expressing sign to liberty. He that affirmeth that G.o.d hath left no other signification of our minds in sacred things to our liberty, but tied us to words alone, must prove what he saith (which he must do against Scripture, against nature, and against all the judgment and custom of all Christ's churches and of the world).

III. If laying the hand on the book and kissing it be unlawful for any special matter or manner forbidden more than other significant acts, it is for some of the reasons named by you: which now I will answer.

I. _Object._ It savoureth of the Romish superst.i.tion. _Answ._ I. Not at all; prove that if you can. 2. Superst.i.tion is the feigning of things to be pleasing or displeasing to G.o.d which are not, and using or disusing them accordingly; whatever be the etymology of the word, _Superst.i.tum cultus_, or _supra statutum_, &c. it is certain that the common use of it among heathens (as Plutarch at large) and christians was, for an erroneous, undue fear of G.o.d, thinking this or that was displeasing or pleasing to him, to be done or to be avoided, which was not so, but was the conceit of a frightened, mistaking mind. Therefore to say that G.o.d is displeased with this signification of the mind, when it is not so, nor can be proved, is superst.i.tion. And this is not the solitary instance of Satan's introducing superst.i.tion under pretence of avoiding superst.i.tion. 3. The sense of the law is to be judged of by the law, and by the notorious doctrine and profession of the law-makers and of the land; which here renounceth the superst.i.tious use of it. But I confess I was more afraid that the papists had too much derogated from the Scripture, than given too much to it. And they profess that they swear not by a creature. Vid. Perer.

ubi sup. in Gen. xxiv. 2.

_Object._ But Paraeus, &c. in Gen. xxiv. 2, saith, _Non absque superst.i.tione fit c.u.m super crucifixum aut codicem Evangelii digitis impositis juratur, ut fit in Papatu_. _Answ._ 1. But that same act which _in Papatu_ is superst.i.tious because of superst.i.tious conceits and ends, is not so in all others that have none such. 2. It is no new thing to be quick in accusing our adversaries: but Paraeus addeth not a syllable of proof; and if he had, it must have been such as touched not us, or else invalid.

_Object._ Some good men have scrupled it. _Answ._ 1. Ten thousand to one such have not scrupled it. 2. They are not our G.o.ds nor law. 3.

The quakers and the old anabaptists (and they say Origen) scrupled, yea, condemned all swearing, or all imposed oaths. And if we avoid all as sin which some good men have scrupled, we shall make superst.i.tion a great part of our religion: and when on the same grounds we have but practised all as duty, which some good men have taken for duty, we shall quite out-go the papists. He that readeth Beda, Boniface, and abundance such pious writers, will soon see, that G.o.dly or fanatical religious persons, dreams, visions, strict opinions, confident a.s.sertions, and credulous believing one another, with the hope of improving such things against pagans and Jews, for christianity, brought in almost all the legends and superst.i.tions of the papists.

II. _Object._ Our common-law commissions, that give authority to examine persons, direct it to be done _supra sacramenta sua per sancta Dei evangelia fideliter praestanda_: and in the form of administrations in ecclesiastical courts the words are, _Ad sancta Dei evangelia rite et legitime jurati_: whether these forms do not infer that in their first use, (at least,) persons either swore by the evangelists or offended in that mode of swearing; and our common-law calls it a corporal oath, from touching the book.

_Answ._ 1. To know the sense of our present law it is not necessary that we know the sense of the first users of the form. For the law is not now the king's law that first made it, (he hath no law that hath no government,) but the king's law that now reigneth, and beareth his sense. 2. To justify our obedience to a law, it is not necessary that we prove every phrase in that law to be fitly expressed. 3. But examine it well, and try whether it be not also fit and laudable.

1. There are three things conjoined in the oaths in question: 1. A testimony a.s.sertory, or a promise. 2. An oath. 3. An imprecation. The a.s.sertory testimony here is the first thing intended; and the oath and imprecation are but as a means to make that testimony or promise valid. 2. The published doctrine of England, in the thirty-nine articles, the book of ordination, &c. is, that the holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, as being G.o.d's law or rule of our faith and life. All our duty to G.o.d is there commanded; all the promises on which we hope are there contained; all the punishments which the perjured or any sinner must feel and should fear, are there threatened. Therefore, 3. The laying on the hand and kissing the book, is an action directly related to the imprecation, and not to the oath, but only by consequence, as the imprecation is subservient to the oath, as the oath is to the a.s.sertion. So that this is the plain paraphrase of the whole: I do believe that G.o.d the Ruler of all the world, is the Judge of secrets which are above man's judgment, the Searcher of hearts, and the hater and avenger of perjury, according to this his holy word by which he governeth us; and to this G.o.d I appeal as to the truth of this my testimony, consenting myself, to lose all the benefit of his promises to be just, and to bear all the punishment here threatened to the perjured, if I lie.

And what could be said more fitly, 1. To own the protestant doctrine that the Scripture is G.o.d's perfect word; that the evil to be feared, and the good to be hoped for, is all there contained, and is all the fulfilling of that word? 2. And to put the word in its due subordination to G.o.d? And our ordinary form of swearing showeth this, So help you G.o.d, and the contents of this book. Whether you will call this swearing upon or by the gospel, or call it a corporal oath, or a spiritual oath, is only _de nomine_, and is nothing to the matter thus truly described. _Sacramentum_ signifieth the oath itself, and _Ad sancta evangelia_ is a fit phrase: or if _super sacramenta_ signify the two sacraments of the gospel, it can mean no more than, As one that by the reception of the sacrament, doth profess to believe this gospel to be true, I do renounce the benefits of it, if I lie; and in this sense it hath been some men's custom to receive the sacrament when they would solemnly swear.

III. _Object._ Some seem to object against kissing the book, as having the greater appearance of giving too much to it, or putting some adoration on it; and because this ceremony of kissing is held to be of later date than laying on the hand.

_Answ._ The ceremony signifieth that I love and approve the gospel, and place the hope of my salvation in it. And the public doctrine of the kingdom before cited, showeth us a full exposition what we ascribe to it. But as some scrupulous brethren in Scotland gratify the papists by rejecting the oath of supremacy, which is the most th.o.r.n.y hedge against them, and this while they cry out against popery; so others would gratify the papists, by suggesting that we give too much to the Bible, and adore it; when the very sum of England's protestantism, is their just ascribing to the holy Scriptures its sufficiency as to all things necessary to salvation. Thus Satan undoeth still by overdoing.

IV. _Object._ Laying on the hand, and kissing the book, seem of the same nature with the cross in baptism, and other significant ceremonies; and an oath is part of the worship of G.o.d; therefore not to be taken, with these ceremonies, or else will seem to justify the other.

_Answ._ 1. Significant words, gestures, or actions are not therefore evil, because they are significant (unless brutishness be a virtue); nor because any call them by the name of ceremonies (else that name might be put on any thing by an enemy to deprive us of our liberty). Therefore I can judge of no ceremony by that general name alone, till it be named itself in specie. 2. Of the cross in baptism, see my "Disputations of Church Government," of Ceremonies, written long ago. There are these notorious differences in the case: 1. The cross is an image used in G.o.d's worship; though not a permanent, yet a transient image, and used as an image of the cross of Christ, though but in water or oil. And G.o.d hath more specially forbidden images used in his worship, than he hath done a professing significant word, gesture, or action, which is no image, nor used as such. 2. The cross seemeth to be a third sacrament of the covenant of grace, while it is used as a symbol of christianity, and a dedicating sign (as the canon calleth it) by which, before the church, there is made a solemn self-obligation, as sacramentally, to renounce the devil, the world, and the flesh, and manfully to fight under Christ's banner, as his faithful servants and soldiers, to our life's end; implying our trust and hope in Christ crucified for the benefits of his death. So that if it be not a complete third sacrament, it hath so much of that which is proper to a sacrament, (like the _sacramentum militare_, whence the name came into the church,) that for my part, I dare not use it, though I presume not to censure those that do, nor to condemn all other uses of the cross, which the ancients abounded in, as sudden, particular, professing signs, much below this solemn covenanting use. And as I think the king would not take it well, when he hath made the star the badge of the knights of the garter, if any subject will presume to make another _symbolum ordinis_, though yet many a significant gesture or act may be used without offence; so I fear Christ would not take it well of me if I presume to make or use another symbol or _tessera_ of christianity, especially with so much of a covenanting sacramental nature. But what is this to things or gestures significant of no such kind? You see then the difference of these cases.

But if you were able to prove the cross as harmless as the swearing ceremony, I would be for the cross, and not against the laying the hand on the book, and kissing it. For, 1. I am not of their mind that form their judgment of other particulars to suit with their preconceived opinions of things of the same rank or quality; nor make the interest of my former conceptions to be the measure of my after judging. 2. Nor do I think it so great an honour to be strict in my opinions, as dishonour to be superst.i.tious, and to add to G.o.d's law, by saying that he forbiddeth what he doth not, or to be affectedly singular in denying lawful things, with a "touch not, taste not, handle not," &c. Nor do I esteem him to be the wisest, best, or holiest person, who is narrowest or strictest in his opinions, but who is rightest; nor him that maketh most things to be sins, but him that committeth least sin, which is such indeed; nor him that maketh most laws to himself and others, but him that best obeyeth G.o.d's laws.

_Quest._ 1. May one that scrupleth thus swearing himself, yet, commissioned, give an oath thus to another that scrupleth it not?

_Answ._ 1. If the thing be, as is proved, lawful, his scruple will not make him innocent in neglecting the duty of his place. 2. If the substance of the oath were lawful, and only the mode or ceremony were sinful, as suspected, then, (1.) If the commissioner must himself particularly command that mode, it were unlawful for him to do it.

(2.) But if he only command, and give the oath as an oath, leaving the mode, without his approbation or command, to the taker and the law, he may so give the oath: and thus christians in all ages have taken it for lawful to make covenants even with infidels and idolaters, and to take a Turk's oath by Mahomet, when it is only the oath that we demand, and the mode is his own, which we had rather be without, and give no approbation of. And if a king may thus demand an infidel's or idolater's oath, (as G.o.d himself doth men's duty, when he knoweth that they will sin in doing it,) much more may one do so, in case of a doubtful ceremony, which he is neither the author nor approver of. But I think this in question, is lawful, fit, and laudable.

[Sidenote: How G.o.d's name is taken in vain.]

III. As to the case of taking G.o.d's name in vain, which for brevity I join with swearing, it is done, 1. Either in the grossest and most heinous sort; 2. Or in a lower sort. 1. The grossest sort of taking G.o.d's name in vain, is by perjury; or calling him in for witness to a lie. For among the Jews, vanity and a lie, were words frequently taken in the same signification. 2. But the lower sort of taking G.o.d's name in vain, is when it is used lightly, unreverently, contemptuously, jestingly, or without just cause; and in these also there is profaneness and a very great sin, which is aggravated according to the degree of the contempt or profanation.[493] It is a great sin unreverently in common talk to make a by-word of saying, O Lord, or O G.o.d, or O Jesus, or G.o.d help us, or Lord have mercy on us, or G.o.d send this or that, or any way to take G.o.d's name in vain; but to use it in jeers and scorns at religion, or make play-books or stage-plays with such profane contemptuous jeers, is one of the greatest villanies that man's tongue can be guilty of against his Maker. (Of which anon.)