plies a belief in God and his providence, and indeed is an act of worship, and so accounted in Scripture, as in that expression, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God-and shalt swear by his name. Its use in human affairs is very great, when managed with judgment."* In the passage just quoted there is an inspired precept, enjoining a solemn oath; we have also examples in the sacred Scripture of the Deity swearing by himself; and in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, the lawfulness of oaths is distinctly recognised, where it is said "an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife;" so that it cannot be fairly asserted that solemn swearing was a part of the Jewish ceremonial, abolished by the advent of the Saviour. Those who deny the lawfulness, under the gospel dispensation, of religious oaths, taken with a view to ascertain and establish truth, ground their principal objections on two passages of Scripture, of which the second is nearly a transcript of the first. Consult them for yourselves, in Matt. v. 33 -37, and James v. 12. But nothing is more evident than that the Saviour (whom his apostle appears to quote) when he says, "Swear not at all," &c. speaks of profane swearing, in common conversation. This is manifest from the passage itself, in which a number of profane colloquial oaths, known to have been frequent among the Jews at that time, are distinctly specified; and in which the term "communication," (yes) conversation, or speech, is expressly mentioned. Now, to apply what is spoken of one subject, to another of totally a different kind and character, is a gross violation of all the laws of propriety and just construction of language; and if adopted, not only might the Scriptures, but every other kind of writing, be entirely perverted, and

be made to say something directly opposite to their true intention and design. We are not forbidden then, but in duty required, to take an oath, accompanied with religious solemnities, when called to it by the civil magistrate, or by an officer duly authorized, in ecclesiastical courts. "The oath has been adopted by all nations in their administration of justice, in order to discover truth. The most common and universal application of it has been to add greater solemnity to the testimony of witnesses. It is also sometimes made use of with the parties themselves, for conviction or purgation. The laws of every country point out the cases, in which oaths are required or admitted in publick judgment. It is however lawful, and in common practice, for private persons, voluntarily, on solemn occasions, to confirm what they say by an oath. Persons entering on publick offices are also often obliged to make oath that they will faithfully execute their trust. Oaths are commonly divided into two kinds, assertory and promissory-those called purgatory fall under the first of these divisions.' I cannot here forbear to mention, that in Britain and the United States, there has been a multiplication of oaths, demanded by the laws of these countries, which the best moralists consider as of a most unhappy tendency. The frequency of an act is always apt to diminish its solemnity, and an oath, from its very nature, ought not to be required, except on important occasions. Innumerable perjuries, it is believed, have been the consequence of the multiplication of oaths, especially of those exacted in the collection of the revenue of the country. The hasty and irreverent manner in which oaths are too often administered, is also calculated to produce the same

evil.

Witherspoon, ub. sup.

It appears from Scripture that there have been various forms made use of in the administration of an oath. Jacob and Laban, at parting, ate together on a heap of stones, and erected a pillar as a memorial of perpetual peace and friendship, and then sware by the God of Abraham and Nahor, and the fear of Isaac, that they would not injure each other. Abraham, in exacting an oath of his servant, in regard to taking a wife for his son Isaac, made the servant swear by putting his hand under his master's thigh. It would seem, therefore, that the form of administering an oath is not essential, and may be varied. Yet, as the highest examples recorded in the sacred volume to prove the lawfulness of taking a solemn oath, do at the same time show in what form and manner the parties swore, we surely shall act wisely and safely, in following their example. "I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth," was the language used by Abraham to the king of Sodom, in stating in what manner he had sworn not to receive any part of the spoil which was taken from the kings they had vanquished. In like manner, the angel whom John saw in vision standing on the sea, and upon the earth, "lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever and ever-that there should be time no longer." Nay, the ever blessed God himself, is said to have sworn in this manner. He is represented (Deut. xxxii. 40) as saying "I lift up my hand to heaven, and say I live for ever." This indeed appears to have been the usual form of taking an oath in ancient times. The custom of swearing on the Bible, and of afterwards kissing it, is certainly an imitation of the heathen practice of kissing their idols, and came to us through the Romish church. It is not required by law in this country, and my advice to you is never to

comply with it; but in taking an oath to adhere strictly to the Scriptural example of doing it, by solemnly lifting up the hand.

A formal religious vow is "a solemn promise, made to God, ini which we bind ourselves to do, or: to, forbear, somewhat, for the promoting of his glory."* Hence the sacraments of the New Testament partake of the nature of vows, inas much as they are seals of covenant engagements, or promises made to God. In prayer, also, such promises and engagements are fre quently made, and on this account prayers are sometimes called vows. But a formal vow is a separate and distinct act, in relation to some spe cifick object. Such vows were com mon under the Mosaick dispensation, and particular rules were given in relation to their being made and fulfilled (Num. xxx. et alib.). There is no particular command, in regard to these special vows, in the New Testament; and it certainly is not the genius of the Christian dispensation to encourage their frequent, much less their hasty or rash formation. It appears, deed, that the apostle Paul was once under the obligation of a spe cial vow, and that he joined with four other individuals, who belonged to the Christian church at Jeru salem, in the observance of the Mosaick ritual, relative to persons in their circumstances. All these men, however, were Jews, who, in the first age of the Christian church, were allowed to retain certain ob servances of the preceding economy, not inconsistent with gospel principles. Paul, it appears, was persuaded by his brethren to join in these observances, and hence it is probable that his first intention was not to have done it. Some of the best commentators think that his compliance, on this occasion, was wrong; and the issue was certainly disastrous. On the whole,

* Buck's Theological Dictionary.

the gospel, without encouraging a frequent resort to special vows, does not forbid them, and the great apostle of the Gentiles, in one instance, did make a special vow. There may be cases, therefore, in which they are not sinful, but expedient. Yet the cases are not numerous, and no person ought to make such a vow but on serious, mature, and prayerful deliberation. The object of the vow ought to be clearly lawful, and when made, the obligation to performance should be egarded as most sacred; unless some providential dispensation renders it utterly impracticable, or clearly inexpedient-Those who in sickness, or in other imminent peril, make vows and promises to devote their lives to God, if he shall spare them, are certainly and sacredly bound to the performance of what they thus engage. In the Romish church, however, the three vows which are made to constitute an individual what they denominate a religious-the vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience-are without the shadow of authority from the Sacred Scripture. They are indeed characteristicks of the "man of sin," and are not binding on any one after he is enlightened to see the truth, and becomes convinced that these vows ought never to have been made.

Of lots I cannot speak at length, although volumes have been written on their nature and use. My own opinions, on this subject, coincide very much with those expressed by Ridgley in his "Body of Divinity;" and as what he says is very summarily expressed, I shall give it to you in his own words. "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,) then lots were not to be used in a common way, for that would have been a profaning a sa

cred 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; 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."

As to those that are denominated games of chance, such as cards, dice, and all lotteries for money, I hold them to be unlawful; and I exhort you to renounce and avoid them altogether. If there were no other objection to these games than the infatuating influence which all ex-perience shows they have on the mind, and the portion of precious time which is wasted by all who become addicted to them, this would of itself be a sufficient reason, why a prudent and conscientious person should have no concern with them. But there are other and weighty considerations, why you should altogether abstain from them. They are not only of bad report with all serious Christians, but to gain money, or to lose it, in the use of these games, appears to be morally wrong. The successful gamester sometimes obtains property to a large amount, in a few hours, without either labour or skill; and this amount is lost with equal rapidity by others, to their great inconvenience, and sometimes to their utter ruin. The atrocious crimes of theft, highway robbery, and even suicide itself, have often been the bitter fruits of gambling. Surely, every person who is not lost to all moral sensibility, must desire and resolve to have nothing to do with practices which may lead to such fearful consequences. Games of chance are found in experience to be more enticing and pernicious than games of skill; and the rea

son probably is, that the former may be indulged in, with little mental talent or exertion; whereas the latter require an exercise of mind and ingenuity which gamblers dislike, and of which the most of them are incapable. Another reason may be, the speed with which, in games of chance, a decision is made, in regard to the stake at issue. But games of skill, when money is played for, as it sometimes is, are to be condemned equally with games of hazard; and indeed a fondness for them, simply as a matter of amusement, often leads to such a misspending of time as a truly conscientious person will by no means consider innocent.

3. The name of God, and all his titles, attributes, and ordinances, are to be used with holy reverence; and this feeling or sentiment is to be preserved and cherished, even in contemplating his works of creation and providence. Deep and habitual reverence for every thing connected with the honour and glory of God, is a discriminating mark of a truly devout and pious mind. On such a mind there ever is, and must be, such a strong impression, at, once of the transcendent majesty' and the infinite excellence and amiableness of the Lord Jehovah, that every thing by which he manifests himself will be regarded with a mixture of awe and love. These are, as it were, the signatures which mark the feelings and exercises of all good beings, whether angels or men-See a remarkable instance of this, in the sixth chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah. How strikingly, also, were these sentiments exemplified by Abraham, in the whole of his plea for guilty Sodom-increasing in intensity as he proceeded in his intercession-" Behold now I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes-Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak-Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak vet but this once." What a con

trast between the spirit and the language here exhibited, and the style and manner of address we too often hear in prayer! But profound reverence for the Supreme Being is not peculiar to uninspired men. It characterizes, as you have heard, all good men; and may, indeed, be considered as a kind of measure, to ascertain the degree of their goodness. The eminently enlightened and pious Robert Boyle, is reported to have been in the habit of always making a pause, both before and after he pronounced the awful name of God.

Cultivate, my young friends, this deep reverential regard for all that is sacred. Never use the name of God with levity, and rarely in common conversation. Never mention his titles or attributes but with solemnity. Never read his holy word, nor even open the sacred volume, in a hasty and careless manner. Never attend on his ordinances but with récollected thought, and a truly devout spirit. Oh there is much profaneness-shocking profaneness-in the professed worship of God; in the very service in which we profess to honour him.

Nor should the works of God be contemplated, without seeing in them the wisdom, power, and goodness of their great Author. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." The 19th Psalm, from which these words are taken, presents us with an inimitable meditation on both the works and the word of God, and of the manner in which the devout mind of the Psalmist passed from the one to the other, and concluded both with solemn reflection and earnest prayer. The 104th Psalm is a composition of unrivalled sublimity on the works of God, both in creation and providence. To "look through