The fixth and seventh precepts of it are quoted in as many words *; and the third, as to its fcope and import, in the words above cited. To ascertain the meaning of this precept, I might fhew, from whence it is taken.-What culpable expositions of it were rejected by Chrift. -And what he declared to be the genuine import of it. As to the firft, I find authors remarkably divided, fome referring us to one place of the Old Teftament, fome to another; and others to the Jewish traditions. They judge beft who confider it as refpecting more places than one; fuch as, "Ye fhall not fwear by my name falfely, neither fhalt thou profane the name of thy God t." And, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." To which may be added, "Vow and pay unto the Lord thy God §." The fenfe of all which texts is fummed

* Matth. v. 21, 27. † Levit. xix. 12. + Exod. xx. 7.

Pfal. lxxvi. 11. The Dutch translators, after Beza, mention the two first of these, To thew, that Chrift refers to the Old Testament, and not any tradition, faying, It may be observed, That it was the Law of Mofes, and not any traditionary fyftem, that Chrift meant to explain: And this declaration, as well as the fixth and feventh commandment, is what had been faid to the Fathers By God; and not what had been faid BY them, as our translation has it." That rois apxaiós is here to be rendered in the Dative, may be concluded, 1. From the words, I SAY UNTO YOU, where a is undoubtedly in the Dative cafe. 2. Because the word ippéen is always joined to this cafe, fo Rom. ix. 12, 26. Gal. iii. 16. Rev.

Zzz 2

ix.

fummed up in the words formerly quoted.With respect unto the culpable expofitions of this precept, which were rejected by Chrift, we may obferve, that there were two parts of their conduct which merited reprehenfion in this matter: Chrift taxed them for fwearing by creatures; fuch as, by heaven and Jerufalem, &c. by the temple and the altar, &c. and that in matters of juftice and importance; as well as in their ordinary converfation. In the next place, He taxed their mental refervation in these oaths; they imagined, as they had fworn only by creatures, fo they were not bound by their oaths if the name of God had not been invoked: But he gave them to know, that it was abfolutely unlawful to ratify their oaths and vows, in fwearing by any but the true God: That their diftinction between fwearing by the temple and the God of the temple was nugatory and vain; because, if their oath meant any thing at all, it meant an invocation of God himfelf: That it was folemn trifling with God himself, to imagine they were at liberty to break their vows if the name of God was not directly invoked in the engagement into which they had entered. As to fuch oaths as were an invocation of mere creatures, it was finful

ix. 4, 11. And where mention is made of a thing fpoken By another, the phrafe is still rò pndav væo, or tò puber did, 3. Because the words, thus cited, are spoken to them of old." Vid. FREDERIC. SPANHEIM. P. Dub. Evan. P. III, Dub, 138, GROT, in V, 21. LUDOVIC. CAPELL. ibidem,

to enter into them at the firft; and, if the matter of them was lawful, equally finful to break them after they had been made. Again, Chrift reprobated their fwearing by creatures, in their ordinary converfation. Their falfe doctrine, on this head, feems to have been this, That they answered all the import of the third commandment, if they did not use any of God's names in their ordinary converfation; although they fware by his creatures: But the great teacher affured them, he would not beftow his glory on any creature, however glorious. The fcope of this teftimony, as explained by Christ, feems to be, as if he had faid, "Ye have heard that it has been faid unto the fathers, by various infpired perfons, in fundry places of the Old Teftament, Ye fhall not incur the dreadful guilt of perjury, neglecting to accomplish fuch promises as have been ratified by a folemn appeal to God: Thou fhalt, on the other hand, perform these folemn engagements in the most exact manner, and that unto Jehovah himfelf; for, as he is both the party to whom thou haft fworn and the object invoked when thou enteredft into the oath; fo he will exact the punctual accomplishment of it. But I folemnly declare unto you, that ye much narrow the meaning of the Law, if ye confine the whole import of this precept unto that fpecies of duty: Its demands are vaftly wider, as it prohibits a great variety of things in which ye indulge yourselves; fuch as, fwearing by crea

tures

1

tures in ordinary converfation, as well as the breach of thofe promifes which are ratified by appeal unto inferior beings. Ye ought, by all means, to give up thofe criminal indulgences; and not leave the performance of your vows undone."

6. THAT our Lord Jefus Christ, in the days of his flesh, took his difciples engaged, oftener than once, unto fuch particular articles of doctrine, and parts of duty as were then opposed. The perfonal ministry of Chrift belonged, indeed, to the Church of the circumcifion; but it was a prelude likeways of his kingdom in the Gospel ftate; or, as an interlude between the two difpenfations: Hence Christ did not enter upon the renovation of fuch covenants as bound unto an obfervance of the ritual fyftem; for he came to finish that system: Neither did he take them bound unto the inftitu

tions of the Gospel economy; for that was not yet formed. But there were various doctrines which were the PRESENT TRUTH in that period; fuch as, That Jefus of Nazareth is the true Meffiah; and that he is the Son of the living God: There were alfo duties correfpondent unto these truths; namely, acknowledging him to be the true Meffiah, receiving his doctrine, cleaving to his person, and owning his caufe. Now, we will find, that Christ took his difciples engaged unto the profeffion of thefe truths, and obfervance of thefe duties;

yea,

yea, he required a renovation of these engagements, and they confirmed them with a folemn appeal unto his own omniscience. Hence, fays a late writer of distinguished merit, "In the days of Chrift's humiliation we have an example of it, (viz. of focial vowing). At a certain time, when many who profeffed steadfastnefs in their attachment to Christ's person and ministrations had gone back,-He put a question to the twelve," "Will ye alfo go away?" Peter fpake the fentiments of the whole, in a PUBLIC VOW," Lord, to whom shall we go! Thou haft the words of eternal life: And we believe and are fure, That thou art that Chrift, the Son of the living God." This declaration hath not only the eflentials of a vow, but even the very form of it. It is made not merely concerning Chrift, but to him; it contains a dedication of themfelves to him for time and eternity, as the Lord of eternal life; and it is attended with a folemn profeffion of their faith concerning the character of Chrift, on whom they believed. In short, Peter faid all that can be expreffed in the most prolix form of words used in any folemn vow. We have another example of folemn vows from the tips of the fame confeffor, after Chrift's refurrection. Peter had shamefully deferted, and wickedly denied his Lord. His divine mafter, in order to restore him to the other difciples, whom, no doubt, he had fcandalized by his conduct; and to give the other Apoftles affurance, that