Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

II. It is farther broken, by unfaithfulness, or breach of trust; whether the trust he devolved on us by nature, as that of parents towards their children; or by contract, as that of servants, who are entrusted with the goods and secrets of their masters; or, that which is founded in the desire and request of those who constitute persons executors to their wills, or guardians to orphans, under age, provided they accept of this trust; I say, if these violate their trust, by embezzling or squandering away the substance of others, defrauding them, to enrich themselves. This is not only theft, but perfidiousness, and highly provoking to God; and deserves a more severe punishment from men, than is usually inflicted.

III. This Commandment may be said to be broken, by borrowing, and not paying just debts; as the Psalmist says, _The wicked borroweth and payeth not again_, Psal. xxxvii. 21. Nevertheless, there are some cases in which a man is not guilty hereof, though he borrows and does not pay, _viz._ If, when he borrowed, there was a probability of his being able to repay it; or otherwise, if he discovered his circumstances fully to him, of whom he borrowed, to whom it would hereby appear, whether there was any likelihood of paying him or not; or if he gave full conviction, when he borrowed, that he was able to pay, but the providence of God, without his own default, has rendered him unable; in this case mercy is to be shewn him, and he is not to be reckoned a breaker of this Commandment. However, a person is guilty of the breach hereof, in borrowing, and not paying debts.

1. If the borrower pretends his circumstances to be better than they are, and so makes the lender believe, that, in a limited time, he shall be able to repay him; when, in his own conscience, he apprehends that there is no probability hereof.

2. When a person was in such circumstances at the time of his borrowing, that by industry in his calling, he might be able to pay the creditor; but, by neglect of business, or embezzling his substance, he renders himself unable to pay, such an one is chargeable with the breach of this Commandment.

3. If pity be shewn, by compounding for a part, instead of the whole debt, in case of present insolvency; though the debtor, in form of law, be discharged, with the creditor’s consent; yet the law of God and nature, obliges him to pay the whole debt, if providence makes him able hereafter; or else he can hardly be excused from the breach of this Commandment.

This leads us to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the Israelites _borrowing of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold_; which we read of in Exod. xii. 35. whether they were herein guilty of the breach of this Commandment.

_Answ._ The word[3] which we render _borrowed_, might as well be rendered _asked_, or _demanded_. And so we must suppose, that the Egyptians were so desirous that the Israelites should be gone, apprehending, that if they continued, they were all dead men, that they might have of them whatever they demanded, as necessary for this expedition; and, if they came back again, as they supposed they should, they would be obliged to return them. If this be the sense of the Hebrew word, there is no difficulty in the text, nor any appearance of the breach of this Commandment.

But since the sense of the word is indeterminate, signifying to _demand_, as well as to _borrow_, as was before observed, God’s order imports the former; though they might understand it in the latter, as denoting a borrowing with a design to restore. Therefore, let it be considered,

(1.) That they did this by God’s command, who has a right to take away the goods that one possesses, if he pleases, and give them to another; for he takes away nothing but his own. Now, that they had his warrant for borrowing or demanding these things of the Egyptians, appears from the second verse.

(2.) The reason why God ordered them to do this, if we look beyond his absolute sovereignty, was, because the Israelites deserved them as wages, for their hard service; and this might be reckoned a reward of the good offices that Joseph had done to that kingdom; which had been long since forgotten.

(3.) As to what concerns the Israelites, it is probable, they expected nothing else but to return again, and restore to the owners what they had borrowed of them, after they had sacrificed to God in the wilderness; at least, they were wholly passive, and disposed to follow the divine conduct, by the hand of Moses. And when they were in the wilderness, they could not restore what they had borrowed, since the owners thereof, as is more than probable, were drowned in the Red Sea, whose revenge and covetousness, as well as Pharaoh’s orders, prompted them to follow them. Or if some of the owners might have been heard of, as yet surviving, their right to what was borrowed of them, was forfeited, by reason of the hostile pursuit of Pharaoh and his hosts, which put them into a state of war.

This may lead us farther to enquire, what judgment we may pass on the many ravages and plunders that are generally made by armies engaged in war; whether they may be reckoned a breach of this Commandment? And,

[1.] It is beyond dispute, that, if the war be unjust, as all the blood that is shed, is murder, or a breach of the sixth Commandment; so all the damage that is done by burning of houses, or taking away the goods of those against whom it is carried on, is a breach of this Commandment. But,

[2.] If we suppose the war to be just, and the damage done only to those who are immediately concerned in it, and that it is an expedient to procure peace; it is unquestionably lawful, and no breach of this Commandment. Thus when the Israelites were commanded to destroy the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, as criminals, they were admitted to seize on the spoil of other nations, who were remote from them, Deut. xx. 14, 15. when conquered by them.

[3.] As for those plunders and robberies which are committed on private persons, who are not concerned in the war any otherwise than as subjects of the government, against which it is undertaken; and especially, if their loss has no direct tendency to procure peace; this can hardly be justified from being a breach of this Commandment.

IV. This Commandment is also broken by oppression; whereby the rich may be said to rob, and even swallow up the poor, Psal. xiv. 4. Psal. x. 9. Micah iii. 2, 3. Now there are various ways by which persons may be said to oppress others.

1. By engrossing those goods which are necessary for food or clothing, thereby to enhance the price thereof, whereby the poor are brought into great extremities.

2. When persons enrich themselves out of the unmerciful labour exacted of their servants, whom they will hardly suffer to live, to eat the just reward of their service. Such a master was Laban to Jacob, Gen. xxxi. 41, 42.

3. When landlords turn their tenants out of their houses or farms, when they find that they get a comfortable subsistence by their industry, taking occasion from thence, to raise their rent, in proportion to the success God gives them therein.

4. When the rich make the poor suffer by long delays, to pay their debts, that they may gain advantage by the improvement of that money which they ought to have paid them.

V. A person may be said to break this Commandment, by engaging in unjust and vexatious law-suits. However, it is to be owned, that going to law is not, at all times, unjust; for it is sometimes a relief against oppression; and it is agreeable to the law of nature for every one to defend his just rights; and for this reason God appointed judges, (to determine such-like causes) to whom the people were to have recourse, that they might _shew them the sentence of judgment_, Deut. xvii. 8, 9. Nevertheless, we must sometimes conclude law-suits to be oppressive; as,

1. When the rich make use of the law, to prevent, or prolong the payment of their debts, or to take away the rights of the poor, who, as they suppose, will rather suffer injuries than attempt to defend themselves.

2. When bribes are either given or taken, with a design to pervert justice, 1 Sam. viii. 2. And to this we may add, that the person who pleads an unrighteous cause, concealing the known truth, perverting the sense of the law, or alleging that for law or fact, which he knows not to be so; and the judge who passes sentence against his conscience, respecting the person of the rich, and brow-beating the poor; these are all confederates in oppression; and such methods of proceeding, are beyond dispute, a breach of this Commandment.

_Obj._ Our Saviour forbids going to law, though it were to recover our just rights; when he says, _If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also_, Matt. v. 40.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that some things may be omitted for prudential reasons, which would not otherwise be unlawful to be done. Our Saviour does not forbid using our endeavours, in a legal way, to recover our right in all cases; but more especially at that time, when his followers could hardly expect to meet with justice. And, it may be, they were oppressed by fines, or distress, laid on them, for their embracing Christianity; in this case he advises them, patiently to bear injuries, when they could hardly expect relief from their unjust judges.

VI. This Commandment is broken by extortion, or oppressive usury. Thus it is said of the righteous man, _He putteth not out his money to usury_, Psal. xv. 5. The word[4] signifies _biting_ usury; which is, beyond dispute, unlawful. We have elsewhere considered in what cases the Israelites might take usury, and when not[5]. And, upon the whole, it is certainly unlawful, to exact more than the legal rate or worth of the loan of money; or to exact any usury of the poor; especially for that which was borrowed to supply them with the necessaries of life.

Having considered in what instances this Commandment is broken, we proceed to shew, what a person ought to do, who has been guilty of the breach thereof, in any of the forementioned instances, in order to his making restitution for the injuries he has done to his neighbour. This ought always to attend the exercise of sincere repentance in those who have been guilty of this sin, of which we have an instance in Zaccheus, Luke xix. 8. and the neglect hereof will be like a worm at the root of ill gotten estates, and will be little better than a continual theft.

_Obj._ 1. To this it is objected, that this may be a prejudice to our reputation, by making our crime public, which before was only known to ourselves.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied;

1. That, what we do in this matter, is not really a reproach, but an honour; and it is hardly to be supposed, that he, to whom we perform so just and unexpected a duty, will be so barbarous as to divulge or improve this against us, to our disadvantage.

2. There are private ways of retaliation, whereby the injured party may receive what is sent to him, in a way of restitution, and not know from whom it comes; or, good turns may be done to him, in a way of compensation for the damages he has received, and he not know, that they are done with this design; and, by this means, we disburden our consciences, perform a necessary duty, and, at the same time, prevent the supposed ill-consequences that might attend it.

_Obj._ 2. It is farther objected, that sometimes the making restitution is impracticable; as when the person injured is dead, and we know of none that has a right to receive it. And sometimes we may have been guilty of so many instances of fraud and oppression, and, that to such a great number of persons, that it is next to impossible, to make restitution.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied; that when it is impossible for us to make restitution to those whom we have injured; or, when we know of none that survive them, who have a right to receive it, the best expedient, I apprehend, we can make use of, is, to give it to the poor; for, since it is not, in justice, our own, we do, as it were, hereby give it to the Lord, who is the original proprietor of all things.

Footnote 3:

_The Hebrew word_ שאל _which is here used, does not only signify_
commodavit, _or_ usui dedit, _or_ accepit, _but_ petiit, _or_
postulavit; _in the last of which senses it is to be understood, in_
Deut. x. 12. What doth the Lord require or demand of thee, &c. _And
in_ Judges v. 25. _where the same word is used, it is said, that_
Sisera asked water of Jael; _not as one that was borrowing it of her,
but as a gratuity for former kindness which he had shewn to her_.

Footnote 4:

_From נשך, momordit._

Footnote 5:

_See 3 vol. p. 422._

Quest. CXLIII., CXLIV., CXLV.

QUEST. CXLIII. _What is the ninth Commandment?_

ANSW. The ninth Commandment is, [_Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour_.]

QUEST. CXLIV. _What are the duties required in the ninth
Commandment?_

ANSW. The duties required in the ninth Commandment are, the
preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good
name of our neighbour as well as our own. Appearing, and standing
for, and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully,
speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and
justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of
our neighbours; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name,
sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely
acknowledging their gifts and graces; defending their innocency; a
ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit an evil
report concerning them, discouraging tale-bearers, flatterers, and
slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it
when need requireth, keeping of lawful promises, studying and
practising of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of
good report.

QUEST. CXLV. _What are the sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment?_

ANSW. The sins forbidden in the ninth Commandment, are, all
prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours as well
as our own, especially in public judicature, giving false evidence,
suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an
evil cause, out-facing and over-bearing the truth, passing unjust
sentence, calling evil good, and good evil, rewarding the wicked
according to the work of the righteous; and the righteous according
to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue
silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth
for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others;
speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or
perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal
expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice, speaking untruth,
lying, slandering, back-biting, detracting, tale-bearing,
whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial, censuring,
misconstruing intentions, words, and actions, flattering,
vain-glorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too
meanly of ourselves or others, denying the gifts and graces of God,
aggravating smaller faults, hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins
when called to a free confession, unnecessary discovering of
infirmities, raising false rumours, receiving and countenancing evil
reports, and stopping our ears against just defence, evil suspicion,
envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavouring or
desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy,
scornful contempt, fond admiration, breach of lawful promises,
neglecting such things as are of good report, and practising or not
avoiding ourselves or not hindering, what we can in others, such
things as procure an ill name.

In this Commandment we are to consider,

I. What are the duties required? These are,

1. Our endeavouring to promote truth in all we say or do; and that, as to what either concerns ourselves, or others. As to what concerns ourselves, we are to fence against every thing that savours of deceit or hypocrisy; and, in our whole conversation, endeavour to be what we pretend to be; or to speak nothing but what we know, or believe to be true, upon good evidence, the contrary whereunto is lying. As to what concerns others, we must not neglect to reprove sin in them, how much soever our worldly interest may lie at stake. Thus Azariah reproved Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 18. and Elijah, Ahab; though this could not but be an hazardous attempt in each of them. Moreover, we must endeavour to undeceive others, who are mistaken; especially if the error, they are liable to, be of such a nature, that it endangers the loss of their salvation. We are also to vindicate those who are reproached by others, to the utmost of our power, according as the cause will admit of it.

2. This Commandment obliges us, to endeavour to promote our own, and our neighbour’s good name.

(1.) Our own good name; which consists, not in our having the applause of the world, but in our deserving the just esteem thereof, and in our being loved and valued for our usefulness to mankind in general. And this esteem is not to be gained by commending ourselves, or doing any thing, but what we engage in with a good conscience, and the fear of God. And in order hereto, we must, take heed that we do not contract an intimacy with those, whose conversation is a reproach to the gospel, Prov. xxviii. 7. Also we must render good for evil, and not give occasion to those, who watch for our halting, to insult us as to any thing, besides unavoidable infirmities, 1 Pet. ii. 12. Phil. iv. 8.

This degree of honour in the world, we ought first to endeavour to gain, especially so far as it is necessary to our honouring God, and being useful to others. And then we must be careful to maintain our good name; forasmuch as the loss thereof, especially, in those who have made a public profession of religion, will reflect dishonour on the ways of God, from whence his enemies will take occasion to blaspheme, 2 Sam. xii. 14. But if all our endeavours to maintain our character and reputation are to no purpose; being, nevertheless, followed with reproach as well as hatred and malice, from an unjust and censorious world; let us look to it, that if we _suffer reproach_, it be _wrongfully; not as evil doers, but for keeping a good conscience in the sight of God_; which may be a means to make those that reproach us, _ashamed_, 1 Pet. iii. 16. Moreover, let us count the reproach of Christ, that is, for his sake, a glory, chap. iv. 14. Acts v. 41. Again, let us always value their good opinion most, who are Christ’s best friends; and expect little else but ill treatment from his enemies; and then we shall be less disappointed, when we are exposed to it. And let us not decline any thing that is our duty, in which the honour of God, and the welfare of his people, is concerned, for fear of reproach; but in this case, leave our good name in Christ’s hand; whose providence is concerned, for, and takes care of, the honour, as well as the wealth and outward estate of his people.

(2.) We are to endeavour to maintain the good name of others; and in order thereto, we must render to them those marks of respect and honour, which their character, and advancement in gifts, or grace, calls for; yet without being guilty of servile flattery or dissimulation. And if they are in danger of doing any thing that may forfeit their good name, we are carefully to reprove them, while we have a due regard to any good thing that is in them, towards the Lord their God; and, in maintaining their good name, we are to conceal their faults, when we may do it without betraying the interest of Christ; and especially when the honour of God, and their good, is, by this means, better promoted, than by divulging them, 1 Pet. iv. 8. Prov. xvii. 9.

However, this is not without some exceptions; and therefore it may be observed, that we are not to conceal the crimes committed by others.

[1.] If private admonition for scandalous sins committed, prove ineffectual, and the discovering them to others may make the offender ashamed, and promote his reformation; then we are not to conceal his crimes, though the divulging them may lessen the esteem which others have of him, since it is better for him to be ashamed before men, than perish in his hypocrisy, Matt. xviii. 16, 17.

[2.] If the crime committed be such, that shame, and the loss of his good name, be a just punishment due to it, we are not to conceal it, thereby to stop the course of justice.

[3.] When the honour and good name of an innocent person cannot be maintained, unless by divulging the crimes of the guilty, he that, in this case, has forfeited his good name, ought to lose it, rather than he that has not.

We shall close this head by considering what reason we have to endeavour to maintain the good name of others. To take away our neighbour’s good name, is to take away one of the most valuable privileges he is possessed of, the loss whereof may be inexpressibly detrimental to him. And sometimes it may affect his secular interest; so that hereby we may be said to take away his wealth and outward estate, and prevent his usefulness in that station of life in which providence has fixed him. Accordingly we are to express a due concern for the honour and reputation of others as well as ourselves. Thus concerning the duties required in this Commandment.

II. We proceed to consider the sins forbidden therein; which are contained in that general expression bearing false witness: This may either respect ourselves or others. A person may be said to bear false witness against himself; and that either in thinking too highly or meanly of himself; in the former respect we value ourselves, or our supposed attainments, either in gifts or graces, too much, in which we are, for the most part, mistaken, and pass a wrong judgment on them, and are ready to say, with the church at Laodicea, _I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that we are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked_, Rev. iii. 17. These, on the one hand, mistake the common gifts of the Spirit, for grace, and conclude themselves to be something, when they are nothing: And, on the other hand, many conclude, that they have no grace, and rank themselves among hypocrites and unbelievers, when their hearts are right with God, and they have had large experience of the powerful influences of his Spirit, but are not sensible thereof. Thus Christ says to the church in Smyrna, _I know thy poverty; but thou art rich_, chap. ii. 9. In these respects persons may be said to bear false witness against themselves.

But that which is principally forbidden in this Commandment, is, a person’s bearing false witness against his neighbour; and that when he either endeavours to deceive, or do him prejudice, as to his reputation in the world; the one is called lying, the other back-biting or slandering. As to the former of these, when we speak that which is contrary to what we know to be truth, with a design to deceive, this is what we call telling a lye; and when we act that which is contrary to truth, it may be deemed a practical lye; both of which are very great sins.

1. A person is guilty of lying, when he speaks that which is contrary to truth, with a design to deceive: This the old prophet at Bethel did, to the prophet of the Lord; upon which occasion it is said, that he _lyed unto him_, 1 Kings xiii. 18. That this may be farther considered, let it be observed, that it is not barely a speaking what is contrary to truth; for that a person may do, and be guiltless; as,

[1.] When there is some circumstance that discovers him to speak _ironically_; and therefore he does not appear to have a design to deceive those, to whom he addresses his discourse. Thus when the prophet Micaiah said to Ahab, _Go and prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it_, viz. _Ramoth-Gilead, into the hands of the kings_, chap. xxii. 15. it is plain that he spake the language of the false prophets, and that Ahab understood him in this sense, or suspected that he spake _ironically_; and therefore says, _How many times shall I adjure thee, that thou tell me nothing but that which is true?_ ver. 16. Upon which, the prophet tells him, without an _irony_, though in a metaphorical way, which Ahab easily understood; _I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: And the Lord said, These have no master, let them return every man to his house in peace_, ver. 17. which was an intimation, that, if he went up to Ramoth-Gilead, he should fall in battle: Upon which occasion Ahab says to Jehoshaphat, _Did I not tell thee, that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil_, ver. 18. by which it appears, that the prophet did not deceive him, notwithstanding the mode of speaking, which he at first made use of, without considering it as an irony, seemed to intimate as much.

[2.] A person may speak that which is contrary to truth, being imposed on himself, without any design to deceive another. This cannot, indeed, according to the description before given, be properly called a lie: However, he may sin by asserting too positively, that which he thinks to be true from probable circumstances, or uncertain information; especially if what he reports, carries in it that which is matter of scandal, or censure. This was the case of Job’s friends, who did not tell a lie against their own consciences: Nevertheless, they were too peremptory in charging him with hypocrisy, without sufficient ground; therefore God imputes _folly_ to them, in that _they had not spoken of him the thing which was right_, Job xlii. 8.

Here it may be enquired, whether a person, who designs not to deceive, nor speaks contrary to the dictates of his own conscience; yet if he promises to do a thing, and does it not, is guilty of lying? To which it may be replied,

_1st_, That if a person promises to do a thing, which, at the same time he really designs, and afterwards uses all the endeavours he could, to fulfil his promise, and something unforeseen happens, in the course of providence, which prevents the execution thereof, he cannot, properly speaking, be said to be guilty of a lie; though we ought not to promise any thing but upon this supposition, that God enables us to perform it.

_2dly_, If a person intends to do a thing, and, accordingly, promises to do it, but afterwards sees some justifiable reason to alter his mind, he is not guilty of a lie; since all creatures are supposed to be mutable. Thus the angels told Lot, that they would _abide in the street all night_; but afterwards, upon his intreaty, they _went into the house with him_, Gen. xix. 2,

3. And our Saviour, when he walked with his disciples to Emmaus, _made as though he would have gone farther: But they constrained him, saying, abide with us; and he went in to tarry with them_, Luke xxiv. 28, 29. But, notwithstanding this if a person promises to do any thing that is of advantage to another, as the paying a just debt, _&c._ it is not a sufficient excuse, to clear him from the guilt of sin, if he pretends that he has altered his mind, supposing that it is in his power to fulfil it: For this is, indeed, a breach of the eighth Commandment, and in some respects, it will appear to him, to be a violation of this.

That we may more particularly speak concerning the sin of lying which multitudes are chargeable with, let it be observed, that there are three sorts of lies,

_1st_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to truth, and the dictates of his own conscience, with a design to cover a fault or excuse himself or others: This we generally call an officious lie[6].

_2dly_, When a person speaks that which is contrary to the known truth, in a jesting way; and embellishes his discourse with his own fictions, designing hereby to impose on others: This they are guilty of, who invent false news, or tell stories for truth, which they know to be false. This is to lie in a jesting, ludicrous manner[7].

_3dly_, There is a pernicious lie, _viz._ when a person raises and spreads a false report with a design to do injury to another; which is a complicated crime, and the worst sort of lying[8].

Here there are two or three enquiries which it may not be improper to take notice of;

(1.) Whether the midwives were guilty of an officious lie, when they told Pharaoh, in Exod. i. 19. that _the Hebrew women were delivered of their children ere they came in unto them_; concerning whom it is said, in the following verse, _that God dealt well with the midwives_ for this report, which carries in it the appearance of a lie.

_Answ._ To this it may be replied,

[1.] That they seem not to have been guilty of a lie; for it is not improbable, that God in mercy to the Hebrew women, and their children, might give them uncommon strength; so that they might be delivered without the midwives assistance: Or,

[2.] If this was not the case of all the Hebrew women, but only of some, or many of them, the midwives report contains only a concealing part of the truth, while they related in other respects, that which was matter of fact. Now a person is not guilty of telling a lie, who does not discover all that he knows. There is a vast difference between concealing a part of the truth, and telling that which is directly false. No one is obliged to tell all he knows, to one, who, he is sure, will make a bad use of it. This seems to be the case of the midwives; and therefore their action was justifiable, and commended by God, they being not guilty, properly speaking, of an officious lye.

(2.) Another enquiry is, what judgment we must pass concerning the actions of Rahab, the harlot, who invented an officious lye, to save the spies from those who pursued them, in Josh. ii. 4, 5. it is said, _she took the two men and hid them_; and, at the same time, pretended, so those who were sent to enquire of her concerning them, that _she wist not whence they were_; but that they _went out of the city about the time of the shutting of the gate; though whither they went she knew not_. The main difficulty we have to account for, is what the apostle says, in which he seems to commend this action, in Heb. xi. 31. _By faith Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace._

_Answ._ To which it may be replied, that the apostle says, indeed, that she _received the spies with peace_, that is, she protected, and did not betray them into the hand of their enemies: But this act of faith does not relate directly to the lie that she invented to conceal them; for, doubtless, she would have been more clear from the guilt of sin, had she refused to give the messengers any answer relating to them, and so had given them leave to search for them, and left the event hereof to providence. This, indeed, was a very difficult duty; for it might have endangered her life; and her choosing to secure them and herself, by inventing this lie, brought with it a degree of guilt, and was an instance of the weakness of her faith in this respect.

But, on the other hand, that faith which the apostle commends in her, respects some other circumstances attending this action; and, accordingly, it is not said, that _by faith_ she made the report to the messengers concerning the spies; but _she received them with peace_: And there are several things in which her faith was very remarkable, as,

[1.] That she was confident that _the Lord would give them the land_, which they were contending for, Josh. ii. 9.

[2.] In that she makes a just inference relating to this matter, from the wonders that God had wrought for them in the red sea, ver. 10. And,

[3.] In that noble confession which she makes, that _the Lord their God, is God in heaven above, and the earth beneath_, ver. 11.

[4.] Her faith appears, in that she put herself under their protection, and desired to take her lot with them; which was done at the hazard of her own life; which she might have saved, and probably, have received a reward, had she betrayed them. This, I conceive to be a better vindication of Rahab’s conduct, than that which is alleged, by some who suppose, that by entering into confederacy with the spies, she put herself into a state of war with her own country-men, and so was not obliged to speak truth to the men of Jericho; since this would have many ill consequences attending it, and give too much countenance to persons deceiving others, under pretence of being in a state of war with them. And, as to what the Papists say in her vindication, that a good design will justify a bad action; that it is not true in fact; and therefore not to be applied to her case.

(3.) It might be farther enquired, what judgment ought we to pass on the method that Jacob took to obtain the blessing, when he told his father, _I am Esau, thy first-born; I have done according as thou badest me_, Gen. xxvii. 19. whether he was guilty of a lie herein?

_Answ._ There is not the least doubt but that he was. Some, indeed, endeavour to excuse him, by alleging, that he had, before this, bought the birth-right of Esau; and, upon this account he calls himself Isaac’s first-born. But this will not clear him from the guilt of a lye; since it was an equivocation, and spoken with a design to deceive. Others own it to have been a lye; but extenuate it, from the consideration of God’s having designed the blessing for him before he was born, chap. xxv. 31. But these do not at all mend the matter: For, though God may permit, or over-rule the sinful actions of men to bring about his own purpose; yet this does not, in the least, extenuate their sin.

That which may therefore be observed, with reference to this action of his, and the consequence thereof, is, that good men are sometimes liable to sinful infirmities, as Jacob was; who, was followed with many sore rebukes of providence, which made the remaining part of his life very uneasy.

_1st_, In his living in exile twenty years, with Laban, an hard master, and an unjust and unnatural father-in-law.

_2dly_, In the great distress that befel him in his return; occasioned first by Laban’s pursuit of him, and then by the tidings that he received of his brother Esau’s _coming out to meet him_; (being prompted hereto by revenge which he had long harboured in his breast) _with four hundred men_, from whom he expected nothing less than the destruction of himself, and his whole family.

_3dly_, He did not obtain deliverance from the hand of God without _great wrestling_, chap. xxxii. 24-25. and this attended with _weeping_, as well as _making supplication_, Hos. xii. 4. and, though he prevailed, and so obtained the blessing, and therewith forgiveness of his sin; yet God so ordered it, that he should carry the mark thereof upon him, as long as he lived, by touching the hollow of his thigh, which occasioned an incurable lameness.

(4.) Another enquiry is, whether the prophet Elijah did not tell a lie to the Syrian host, who were before Dothan, in quest of him, when he said, in 2 Kings vi. 19. _This is not the way, neither is this the city: Follow me, and I will bring you to the man you seek. But he led them to Samaria?_

_Answ._ If what he says to them be duly considered, it will appear not to be a lie; for he told them nothing but what proved true, according to the import of his words; for,

_1st_, He does not say, I am not the man ye seek, which would have been a lie; neither does he say, the man is not here: but he tells them, _I will lead you to the place where ye shall find him_, or have him discovered and presented before you.

_2dly_, When he says, _This is not the way; neither is this the city_; he does not say, this is not the way to Dothan; neither is this the city so called; for then they would have been able to have convicted him of a lie; for they knew that they were at Dothan before they were struck with blindness: But the plain meaning of his words is, that this is not your way to find him; since the men of this city will not deliver him to you; but _I will lead you to the place where you shall see him_; and _so he led them to Samaria_, upon which their eyes were opened, and they saw him: So that this was not a lie. And the reason of his management was, that the king of Israel, and the Syrian host, might be convinced, that they were poor creatures in God’s hand, and that he could easily turn their counsels into foolishness, and cause their attempts to miscarry with shame, as well as disappointment.

(5.) It may be farther enquired, whether the apostle Paul was guilty of a lie; when, being charged, in Acts xxiii. 4, 5. with _reviling God’s high priest_, he says, _I wist not that he was the high priest_? How was it possible that he should entertain any doubt concerning his being the high priest; which none, who were present, could, in the least, question?

_Answ._ We may suppose, that the apostle, when he says, _I wist not that he was the high priest_, intends nothing else, but I do not own him to be the high priest, as you call him; for he is not an high priest of God’s appointing or approving; which, had he been, he would have acted more becoming that character; and then I should have had no occasion to have told him, _God shall smite thee, thou whited wall_; for that would have been a _reviling him_; since I know that scripture very well, that says, _Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people_; therefore he intimates, that, though he was an high priest of man’s making, he was not one of God’s approving; and accordingly he was to be treated with contempt, instead of that regard which was formerly paid to the high priests, when they were better men, and acted more agreeable to their character. No one, that deserves to be called God’s high priest, would have ordered a prisoner, who came to be tried for his life, instead of making his defence, to be smitten on the mouth.

But, suppose we render the words agreeably to our translation, I did not understand that he was the high priest, he may be vindicated from the charge of telling a lie, if we consider,

_1st_, That this was a confused assembly, and not a regular court of judicature, in which the judge, or chief magistrate, is known to all, by the place in which he sits, or the part he acts in trying causes.

_2dly_, The high priest, in courts of judicature, was not known by any robe or distinct habit that he wore, as judges now are; for he never wore any other but his common garments, which were the same that other people wore, except when he ministered in offering gifts and sacrifices in the temple. Therefore the apostle could not know him by any distinct garment that he wore.

_3dly_, Through the corruption of the times, the high priest was changed almost every year, according to the will of the chief governor, who advanced his own friends to that dignity, and oftentimes sold it for money; it is therefore probable, that Ananias had not been long high-priest; and Paul was now a stranger at Jerusalem, and so might not know that he was high priest. Thus, if we take the words in this sense, in which they are commonly understood, the apostle may be sufficiently vindicated from the charge of telling a lie.

(6.) It may be farther enquired, what judgment we may pass concerning David’s pretence, when he came to Abimelech, in 1 Sam. xxi. 2. that _the king commanded him a business_, _which no one was to know any thing of_; and that he had _appointed his servants to such and such a place_; and also of his _feigning himself mad_, before the king of Gath, ver. 13. which dissimulation can be reckoned no other than a practical lie.

_Answ._ In both these instances he must be allowed to have sinned, and therefore not proposed as a pattern to us; and all that can be inferred from it is, that there is a great deal of the corruption of nature remaining in the best of God’s people. What he told Abimelech was certainly a lye; and all that he expected to gain by it, was only a supply of his present necessities; the consequence whereof was, the poor man’s losing his life, together with all the priests’, except Abiathar, by Saul’s inhumanity. And David seems to be truly sensible of this sin, as appears from Psal. xxxiv. which, as is intimated in the title thereof, was penned on this occasion; in which he arms others against it, in ver. 13. _Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile_: And in ver. 18. he seems to relate his own experience, when he says, _The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit._

As to his behaviour before the king of Gath, which was a visible lie, discovered in his actions; it can, by no means, be excused from being a breach of this Commandment. It is, indeed, alleged by some, to extenuate his fault; that he was afraid that his having killed Goliah, would have induced Achish to take away his life; as appears from what is said in ver. 11, 12. Nevertheless, it may be considered as an aggravation of his sin,

[1.] That his fear seems to have been altogether groundless; for, why should he suppose that the king of Gath would break through all the laws of arms and honour, since Goliah had been killed in a fair duel, the challenge having first been given by himself? why then should David fear that he would kill him for that, more than any other hostilities committed in war? Besides, it is plain from what Achish says, in ver. 15. _Have I need of mad-men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad-man in my presence? should this fellow come into mine house?_ that the king of Gath was so far from designing to revenge Goliah’s death on him, that he intended to employ him in his service, and take him into his house; but this mean action of his made him despised by all; for it seems probable, by Achish’s saying, _Have ye brought this fellow to play the mad-man?_ that he perceived it to be a feigned, and not a real distraction. And this was overruled by the providence of God, to let the Philistines know, that the greatest hero is but a low-spirited man, if his God be not with him.

[2.] If we suppose that there had been just ground for his fear, the method taken to secure himself, contained a distrust of providence; which would, doubtless, have delivered him without his dissembling, or thus demeaning himself, or using such an indirect method in order thereunto. Thus concerning the violation of this Commandment, by speaking that which is contrary to truth.

2. This Commandment is farther broken, by acting that which is contrary to truth; which is what we call hypocrisy: And this may be considered,

(1.) As that which is a reigning sin, inconsistent with a state of grace; in which respect an hypocrite is opposed to a true believer. Such make a fair shew of religion; but it is with a design to be seen of men, Matt. vi. 5. They are sometimes, indeed, represented as _seeking_ God, and _enquiring early_, or with a kind of earnestness after him, when under his afflicting hand; but this is deemed no other than a _flattering him with their mouth, and a lying unto him with their tongues_; inasmuch as _their heart is not right with him_, Psal. lxxviii. 34,-37. And elsewhere, they are said to _love the praise of men more than the praise of God_, John xii. 43.

(2.) It may be farther considered, as that which believers are sometimes chargeable with, which is an argument that they are sanctified but in part; but this rather respects some particular actions, and not the tenor of their conversation: Thus the apostle Paul charges Peter with dissimulation, Gal. ii. 11,-13. though he was far from deserving the character of an hypocrite, as to his general conversation. And our Saviour cautions his disciples against hypocrisy, as that which they were in danger of being overtaken with, Luke xii. 1. though he does not charge them with it as a reigning sin, as he did the Scribes and Pharisees, whom he compares to _painted sepulchres_, Matt. xxiii. 27, 28. nor were they such as the apostle speaks of, whom he calls _double-minded men, who are unstable in all their ways_, James i. 8.

As to that hypocrisy which we may call a reigning sin, this may be known,

[1.] By a person’s accommodating himself to all those whom he converses with, how much soever this may tend to the dishonour of Christ and the gospel: And this may give us occasion to enquire,

_First_, Whether the apostle Paul was in any respects, chargeable with this sin, when he says, in 1 Cor. ix. 20-22. _Unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some._ For the understanding of this scripture, and vindicating the apostle from the charge of hypocrisy, let it be considered,

_1st_, That this compliance he here speaks of, was not with a design to gain the applause of the world, but to serve the interest of Christ; neither did he connive at, or give countenance to, that false worship, or those sinful practices of any, that were contrary to the faith, or purity of the gospel. Therefore when he says, _Unto the Jews, I became as a Jew_; he does not intend that he gave them the least ground to conclude, that it was an indifferent matter, whether they adhered to, or laid aside the observation of the ceremonial law: For, he expressly tells some of the church at Galatia, who were supposed to Judaize, that this was contrary to the _liberty wherewith Christ_ had _made them free, a being again entangled with the yoke of bondage_; and that _if they circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing; and_, that they were _fallen from grace_; that is, turned aside from the faith of the gospel, Gal. v. 1,-4. Therefore, in this sense he did not become as a Jew, to the Jews. Neither did he so far comply with the Gentiles, as to give them ground to conclude, that the superstition and idolatry, which they were guilty of, was an harmless thing, and might still be practised by them. Therefore,

_2dly_, The meaning of his compliance with the Jews or Gentiles, is nothing else but this; that whatever he found praise-worthy in them, he commended; and if, in any instances, they were addicted to their former rites, or modes of worship, he endeavoured to draw them off from them, not by a severe, and rigid behaviour as censuring, refusing to converse with, or reproaching them, for their weakness; but using kind and gentle methods, designing rather to inform than discourage them; while at the same time, he was far from approving of, or giving countenance to any thing that was sinful in them, or unbecoming the gospel.

_Secondly_, From what has been before said concerning an hypocrite’s being one who performs religious duties with a design to be seen of men, as our Saviour says of the Pharisees, that _they love to stand praying in the synagogues, or in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men_, Matth. vi. 6. We may enquire, what may be said in vindication of the prophet Daniel, from the charge of hypocrisy? concerning whom it is said, in Dan. vi. 10. that when Darius had _signed a decree_ prohibiting any one from asking _a petition of any god or man, save of the king, he_ should _be cast into the den of lions: He went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber, towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime_. In answer to this we may observe,

_1st_, That this was not done to gain the esteem or applause of men, which they are charged with, who are guilty of hypocrisy; but he did it in contempt of that vile decree of the Persian monarch.

_2dly_, He did it at the peril of his life; and hereby discovered, that he had rather be cast into the den of lions, than give occasion to any to think that he complied with the king in his idolatrous decree.

_3dly_, Though it is said, that _he prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did_ aforetime; yet this is not to be understood as though he set open his windows aforetime; so that his praying publicly at this time, was to shew that he was neither ashamed, nor afraid to own his God, whatever it cost him; therefore he was so far from being guilty of hypocrisy, that this is one of the most noble instances of zeal for the worship of the true God, that we find recorded in scripture.

[2.] Hypocrisy is a reigning sin when we boast of the high attainments in gifts or grace, or set too great a value on ourselves, because of the performance of some religious duties, while we neglect others, wherein the principal part of true godliness consists. Thus the Pharisee _paid tithe of mint, annise, and cummin_, while he _omitted the weightier matters of the law; judgment, mercy and faith_, chap. xxiii. 23, 24.