Part 60

[1.] When we assert a thing, without implying this condition that ought to be contained in it, if God will, or he be pleased to enable us to do it. This the apostle particularly mentions, when he blames those who say, _To day or to morrow we will go to such a city, and continue there a year, and buy, and sell, and get gain. Whereas they know not what shall be on the morrow._ And therefore, they _ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that_, James iv. 13, 15.

[2.] When we promise a thing, that is out of our power to perform; and, much more, when we do not design to perform it.

[3.] When we promise a thing, which is in itself unlawful; as the Jews did, who _bound themselves under a curse, that they would not eat nor drink till they had killed Paul_, Acts xxiii, 12. If we have obliged ourselves by an oath, to perform that which is unlawful, as we sin in making, we should do so in fulfilling it. There are, however, some cases in which persons may not perform what they have sworn to do, and yet not be guilty of perjury, or violation of their oaths; as,

_1st_, When they have used their utmost endeavours to fulfil what they have promised to do, but yet cannot accomplish it. Though here it must be observed, that if the thing promised was absolutely out of their power when the promise was made, the oath (as we but now observed) was unlawful. But supposing the thing was in their power when they promised it; but an unforeseen providence has put it out of their power at present, though they have used their utmost endeavours to perform it, they are not chargeable with the guilt of perjury.

_2dly_, If we have promised to do a thing that is for the advantage of another; but now see reason to alter our mind, apprehending some detriment will accrue thereby to ourselves; we must, notwithstanding, fulfil our promise. Thus the Psalmist says, _he sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not_, Psal. xxv. 4. However, if the person to whom we have made the promise, who is to receive the advantage by our fulfilling it, is willing to discharge us from our obligation, we may omit to do it, and not be guilty of perjury.

Here it might be enquired; whether we are always obliged to fulfil a promise extorted from us by violence? In answer to which, it is generally supposed, by divines, that we are not. Nevertheless, the person can hardly be excused from sin in snaking such a promise, when he designs not to perform it, though some small degree of force or threatening were used; especially since the will cannot be obliged to consent, or the tongue to utter the promise. And to all this we may add, that they are guilty of the breach of this Commandment (how much soever they may think themselves guiltless) who use equivocations, or mental reservations, in taking solemn and religious oaths. Thus the Papists make no scruple of swearing to support the government under which they live, and yet take the first opportunity that offers to subvert it, pretending they swore to support it as it stood before the reformation; or when they swear allegiance to their sovereign, and yet do what they can to dethrone him; and have this mental reservation, that they intended only to do it for the present, till they have a convenient opportunity to join in a successful rebellion. By this means they break through the solemn tie of religious oaths, elude the law, and impose upon the common sense of mankind, in such a way, as even the Heathen themselves are afraid and ashamed to do.

(3.) This farther leads us to consider this Commandment as broken by swearing profanely; namely, when we make use of the name of God, and pretend to confirm what we assert by an appeal to him, and, at the same time, are far from doing this in a religious manner. This many do, who give vent to their passions by profane swearing, by invoking the name of God upon light and trifling occasions, without that due regard that ought always to be paid to his divine Majesty.

Under this head we may observe, that cursing is a vile sin, whether a man imprecates the wrath of God on himself or others. They who curse themselves, do, in effect, pray that God would hasten their everlasting destruction; as though their damnation slumbered, or as if it were a thing to be wished for. These do that which the devils themselves would not venture to do. And to curse others is to put up a profane wicked prayer to God, to pour out his vengeance upon them, which is the highest affront to him; as though the vials of his wrath were to be emptied on men, when they pleased, to satisfy their passionate revenge against them. This also includes in it a vile instance of uncharitableness, towards those whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, Matt. xxii. 39. And how contrary is it to that golden rule laid down by our Saviour, _All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them?_ chap. xvii. 12. Thus we are said to break this Commandment by perjury or profane swearing. And to this we may add, that it is notoriously broken by sinful vows; either when we resolve, or determine, to do what is unlawful, or bring ourselves under solemn engagements, to do that which is lawful, to our own strength, without dependance on the grace of God in Christ.

(4.) It is farther observed in this answer, that men take the name of God in vain, by sinful lots; but this is to be farther explained. Therefore let it be considered; That when lots were an ordinance by which God, in an extraordinary manner, determined things that were before unknown; they being an instituted means of appealing to him for that end; as in the case of Achan and others, Josh. vii. 13, 14. Acts i. 26. then lots were not to be used in a common way, for that would have been a profaning a sacred institution. But since this extraordinary ordinance is now ceased, it does not seem unlawful, so as to be an instance of profaneness, to make use of lots in civil matters; [213] provided we do not consider them as an ordinance which God has appointed, in which we think we have ground to expect his immediate interposure; and to depend upon it as though it were a divine oracle. In this view it would be unlawful at present, to use lots in any respect whatsoever.

(5.) Persons are said to break this Commandment by murmuring, quarrelling at, curiously prying into, and misapplying God’s decrees or providences, or perverting what he has revealed in his word, _i. e._ when we apply things sacred to profane uses, and have not a due regard to the glory of God, which is contained therein; when we pervert scripture, by making use of those sacred expressions that are contained therein, in our common discourse, as some make the scripture the subject of their profane wit and drollery. This is certainly a taking God’s name in vain. And, it is farther added, that we do so, by maintaining false doctrines, _i. e._ when we pretend, that such a doctrine is from God, when it is not, or that he makes himself known hereby; when the doctrine is altogether disowned by him.

(6.) This Commandment is farther broken, by making use of God’s name as a charm; as when the writing, or pronouncing some name of God, is pretended to be an expedient to heal diseases, or drive away evil spirits; which is a great instance of profaneness, and that which he abhors.

(7.) This Commandment is farther broken, by reviling or opposing God’s truth, grace, and ways; whereby we cast contempt on that which is most sacred, and lightly esteemed that which he sets such a value on, and makes himself known by. To this we may add, that this is done by hypocrisy, and sinister ends in religion, whereby we walk, so that we are an offence to others, and backslide from the ways of God. This is an abuse of that which ought to be our glory, and a disregarding that, whereby God manifests his name and glory to the world.

III. We are now to consider the reasons annexed to the third Commandment. And these are taken,

1. From the consideration of what God is in Himself, as he is the Lord, whose name alone is Jehovah; whereby he puts us in mind of his sovereignty over us, and his undoubted right to obedience from us; and hereby intimates that his excellency should fill us with the greatest reverence and humility, when we think or speak of any thing, by which he makes himself known. Moreover, he reveals himself to his people as their God, that so his greatness should not confound us, or his dread, as an absolute God, whom we have offended, make us despair of being accepted in his sight. Therefore we are to look upon him as our reconciled God and Father in Christ; which is the highest motive to obedience.

2. The observation of this Commandment is farther enforced, by a threatening denounced against those that break it; concerning whom it is said, That the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. This implies that there will be a judgment, a reckoning day, when all shall be called to an account; and it shall be known whether they are guilty or not guilty. It is farther observed, that the profaning of God’s name is a sin that carries in it a great weight of guilt, and renders the sinner liable to punishment, in proportion thereunto; and accordingly God is said not to hold them guiltless, or that they shall not escape the punishment from him; though they may, and often do, escape punishment from men.

There are many instances of the profanation of the name of God, which no laws of man can reach. As when we attend on his ordinances without that inward purity of heart, and those high and becoming thoughts of him, which we ought always to entertain. On the other hand, human laws against open profaning the name of God, are not severe enough to deter men from it; and if they are, they are seldom put in execution; which is one reason why we behold the name of God so openly blasphemed, and yet this iniquity go unpunished from men. Nevertheless, such are to expect that God will follow them with the tokens of his displeasure, sometimes with temporal, at other times with spiritual judgments. And this is assigned as a reason why we ought to make mention of the name of God, or of every thing whereby he makes himself known, in such a way, as that we may glorify him thereby.

Footnote 210:

_See Vol. I. Quest._ iv.

Footnote 211:

_Quest._ xi.

Footnote 212:

Παρρησια.

Footnote 213:

If they appeal to God in an irreverent manner, they are a violation of this commandment. If they be not appeals to him, they are in fact, an application to him without any knowledge of him, and this is Atheism.

Quest. CXV., CXVI.

QUEST. CXV. _Which is the fourth Commandment?_

ANSW. The fourth Commandment is, _Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it._

QUEST. CXVI. _What is required in the fourth Commandment?_

ANSW. The fourth Commandment requireth of all men, the sanctifying, or keeping holy to God, such set time as he hath appointed in his word; expressly, one whole day in seven, which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian Sabbath, and in the New Testament, called the Lord’s day.

In this Commandment it is supposed, that God is the sovereign Lord of our time; which is to be improved by us, to the best purposes, as he shall direct. And, inasmuch as there are some special reasons which he has appointed for the exercise of religious worship, these are called _holy days_, and as we are to abstain from our secular employments therein, while engaging in religious duties, they are called _sabbaths_; and that more especially, because they are sanctified, by God, for his service. These are considered more generally, as including in them all those set times which God has appointed in his word, which is contained in the moral reason of this Commandment; and therefore, if he was pleased to institute, as he did under the ceremonial law, various Sabbaths, or days appointed for rest, and the performance of religious worship, his people are obliged to observe them. And therefore, I take the meaning of this commandment to be, Remember a sabbath day, or every sabbath day, or every day which God hath sanctified for that end, to keep it holy; and then follows the particular intimation of the weekly sabbath. This, as is observed in the answer we are explaining, was the seventh day of the week, from the beginning of the world, to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the week ever since; which is the Christian Sabbath, and, in the New Testament, is called the Lord’s day. In considering the subject-matter of this Commandment, we must

I. Inquire, since it is contained in the decalogue, which is an abstract of the moral law; whether we are obliged to observe the Sabbath by the law of nature, or by some positive law. For the understanding of which, let it be premised, that some laws are moral by way of eminency, or, in the highest sense, as distinguished from all positive law; and others we may call moral-positive, that is, the laws are positive; but yet there is some moral reason annexed to enforce our obedience to them. And this moral reason is either what is founded in the sovereignty of God commanding, which takes place in all positive laws, which, in this respect, are moral, though they could not be known without a divine revelation; or else positive laws may have a moral circumstance annexed to them, to engage us to obedience, taken from some glory that redounds to God, or good to ourselves, by the observation thereof; or from some other reason which God annexes to them. As for instance, the reason annexed to the fourth Commandment, is taken from God’s resting from the work of creation on the seventh day, and its being sanctified for our performing religious duties therein. Here we shall consider,

1. In what respects the Sabbath is moral in the highest and most proper sense of the word, as before mentioned. That this may appear, we shall lay down the following propositions, which may be considered in their respective connexion.

(1.) It is a branch of the moral law, that God should be worshipped. This is founded in his divine perfections, in the relation we stand in to him, and in the consideration of our being intelligent creatures, capable of worship.

(2.) The moral law obliges us to perform social worship. This appears from hence, that man, as a creature, is capable of society, and naturally inclined and disposed to it: which we cannot but know, when we look into ourselves, and consider the disposition of all intelligent creatures, leading them together with ourselves, to this end; so that without any positive law to direct us, we should be naturally inclined to converse with one another.

(3.) As man is a creature designed to worship God, as the law of nature suggests, so it appears, from the same law, that he is obliged to perform social worship. For if we are obliged to converse with one another, and thereby to be helpful to each other, in other respects; certainly we are obliged, by the same law to converse with one another therein, and to express our united concurrence in those things that relate to the glory of God.

(4.) The law of nature farther suggests, that as the whole of our business, in this world, is not included in that of society, which is rather to be occasional than stated; and there are other secular employments, which we are to be engaged in, in which we do not converse with others; so we are not to spend our whole time in public or social worship. Therefore,

(5.) It follows from hence, that some stated times are to be appointed for this end; and it is agreeable to the law of nature, that God, who is the sovereign Lord of our time, as well as the object of social worship, should appoint these times; that is, that he should ordain a Sabbath, or what proportion of time he pleases, for us to perform those religious duties which he enjoins, therein. These considerations, relating to our observation of the Sabbath, are purely moral, and not positive.

2. We shall shew in what respects the Sabbath is positive, and not moral in the highest and most propense sense of the word. Here let it be considered, that it is the result of a positive law, that one proportion of time should be observed for a Sabbath, rather than another; namely, that it should be a seventh, rather than a third, fourth, fifth, or sixth part of our time; for this could not have been known by the light of nature, any more than the other branches of instituted worship that are to be performed therein. So that, whether it be the seventh day in the week, or the first, which we are to observe, this being founded in the divine will, we conclude it to be a positive law. This we are obliged to assert, that we may fence against two extremes, namely, that of those who, on the one hand, deny the Sabbath to have any thing of a moral circumstance contained in it; and that of others, who suppose that there is no idea of a positive law in it. That, in some respects, the fourth Commandment is a branch of the moral law, may be proved from the following arguments:

(1.) It is inserted, among other commandments that are moral, which were proclaimed by the voice of God from mount Sinai, whereas the ceremonial and judicial laws were not; though they were given by divine inspiration. _These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire of the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more_, Deut. v. 22. _viz._ at that time.

Moreover, they were written on two tables, with the finger of God, which none of the other laws were; and were laid up in the ark before the Lord, Exod. xxxi. 18. all which denotes the dignity and perpetuity of these laws, above all others that were ceremonial, judicial, or merely positive.

(2.) The Sabbath was enjoined to be observed not only by the Israelites, who were in covenant with God, together with their servants, who were made proselytes to their religion, and were obliged to observe the ceremonial and other positive laws; but it was also to be observed by the stranger within their gates, namely, the Heathen, who dwelt among them, who were not in covenant with God, and did not observe the ceremonial law; these were obliged to obey the Sabbath, it being, in many respects, a branch of the moral law.

(3.) If the observation of the Sabbath had been a duty of the ceremonial, and, in no respects, of the moral law, it would have been wholly abolished at the death of Christ; but, though then the day was altered, yet there was still a Sabbath observed, after his resurrection, even when the ceremonial law was no longer in force.

(4.) The weekly Sabbath is distinguished from all the ceremonial festivals; which are also called _sabbaths_, in that God lays a special claim to it, as his own day; and therefore it is called, in this Commandment, _The sabbath of the Lord thy God_; and it is styled, _his holy day_; Isa. lviii. 13. by way of eminence, to distinguish it from other days, which he has appointed to be, in other respects, devoted to his service; and when changed, it is called The _Lord’s day_, Rev. i. 10. which is a peculiar honour put upon it. For these reasons we conclude, that the Sabbath has in it something moral, and is not a part of the ceremonial law.

_Obj._ 1. It is objected, that the Sabbath is included, by the apostle, among the ceremonial laws, which were designed to be abrogated, under the gospel-dispensation; and therefore he says, in Col. ii. 16, 17. _Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon; or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ._

_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that by the Sabbath days, which are _a shadow of things to come_, we are to understand the Jewish festivals; such as the new moons, the passover, pentecost, the feast of tabernacles, &c. which are often called sabbaths: wherein holy convocations were held. So that when the apostle says, _Let no man judge you_, in respect of this matter, he means, let none have occasion to reprove you for your observing of those days, which were merely ceremonial, the design whereof was to typify the gospel-rest. Now, that the apostle does not mean the weekly Sabbath, is plain; for hereby he would contradict his own practice, and that of the churches in his day, who observed it; whereas, the other sabbaths were abolished, together with the ceremonial law.

Moreover, it is evident, that he intends no more than the ceremonial sabbaths, or Jewish festivals; because he adds, _Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink_, as well as _in respect of an holy day_, &c. by which he does not mean, let no man have reason to judge or condemn you for gluttony or drunkenness, but for your abstaining from several sorts of meat, forbid by the ceremonial law; by which he means that the distinction of meats is removed under the gospel-dispensation. And consequently the ceremonial sabbaths, or holy days, are taken away; which are intended by the _sabbath day_ in that place, and not the weekly Sabbath; and therefore our translation rightly renders it, the _sabbath days_, not the Sabbath day. Or if it ought to be rendered _the sabbath day_, or the weekly Sabbath, because it is distinguished from the holy days before mentioned; then it may be farther replied to it, that he means the seventh-day Sabbath, which was abolished, together with the ceremonial law, in opposition to the Lord’s day; and how far this was a sign or shadow of good things to come, will be considered in what will be replied to the next objection.

_Obj._ 2. It is farther objected, by those who pretend that the Sabbath is a branch of the ceremonial law, that it is said, in Exod. xxxi. 16, 17. _The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever, &c._

_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that whenever the weekly Sabbath has an idea annexed to it, agreeably to that of the ceremonial law; as when it is said to be _a sign_ between God and Israel, as in this scripture, we are to understand nothing hereby, but that there was a ceremonial accommodation annexed to it, as an ordinance for their faith, in particular, signifying the gospel-rest; which signification was not annexed to it from the beginning; but when it was given to Israel. From the beginning, it was not a type; but when God gave the ceremonial law, it was made a type. Even as the rainbow, which proceeds from natural causes, and was, doubtless, set in the heavens before Noah’s time; yet it was not ordained to be a sign of the covenant between God and him, till God ordered it to be so, in his time. Thus God ordained the Sabbath to be a type or sign to Israel, when he gave them the ceremonial law, though it was not so before. And at Christ’s resurrection it ceased to be an ordinance, for their faith in the gospel-rest, or to be observed, when another day was substituted in the room of it, to wit, the first day of the week.