ous sacraments, pilgrimages and penances, and a multitude of observances, which it would be tedious to mention. Nor are those protestants free from the charge who have retained some of the usages of popery, and enjoin the wearing of particular vestments by the ministers of religion, the sign of the cross in baptism, bowing at the name of Jesus, and kneeling at the Lord's Supper. These practices we justly call superstitious, because there is no scriptural warrant for them, and they are the devices of men. The question, "Who hath required this at your hands?" the abettors and advocates of willworship cannot answer; and it were well if they would consider the words of God concerning the Jews, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."*

This precept requires us to entertain worthy ideas of God, as a spiritual Being, of whom no representation should be formed, either with the hand or by the imagination, and to honour him with spiritual worship. In particular, it requires us to adhere to his own institutions in opposition to all human devices, to receive them with due submission to his authority, to observe them with outward reverence and inward sentiments of devotion, to maintain them in their purity and integrity, exactly as he has delivered them to us, neither adding to them, as those do who make use of the sign of the cross in baptism, nor taking from them, as Papists do, who in the Lord's Supper withhold the cup from the laity. The ordinances of religion are prayer, praise, the preaching of the word, and the celebration of the sacraments; to which may be added church government, the exercise of discipline, and other particulars which it is unnecessary to mention. It is evident, as I have already hinted, that while the prescribed forms of worship should be punctually observed, the precept calls for those dispositions and exercises of mind of which they are significant, and which only can give them value, and render them acceptable to the omniscient God, who looks not upon the countenance, but upon the heart.

This precept is enforced by the following words: "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Here a difficulty occurs, relating to the denunciation upon the posterity of transgressors. Some consider it is peculiar to the Jews, who were placed under a dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments, and understand it to import, that under such a dispensation, by the over-ruling providence of God, a man's family would be placed in such circumstances as should accord with his conduct, or that their degradation and suffering would be the effect of his sin; just as under human governments the children of traitors are deprived of their honours, and the family estate is confiscated, or as in the common course of things, a person of profligate manners entails disease, and poverty, and disgrace upon his offspring. Others have thought that the denunciation relates to those who should imitate the conduct of their parents; and consequently, that it was for their own sin, and not properly for that of their parents, that they should be punished. But besides that the words thus understood constitute no sanction or enforcement of the precept, and do not serve the purpose for which they are manifestly introduced, it is impossible to assign a reason why the third and fourth generation only are mentioned, since it is certain that God will visit to the thousandth generation those who tread in the steps of their idolatrous ancestors. Others again are of opinion, that not only temporal but spiritual judgments are denounced; that for the sins of the parents God withholds his grace from their children; and that being left to themselves, they follow the example of their parents, and are finally punished for their own sins. There is a degree of confusion in this statement, which first admits that they are punish• Matth. xv. 9.

ed for the sin of their parents, and then brings forward their own sin to account for the justice of their final allotment. It is exceedingly difficult to determine the precise import of the words. If we could satisfactorily show that the threatening related to the Jews alone, and was founded on their peculiar dispensation, and that what was threatened was merely a temporal penalty upon the families of idolaters, considered as members of the state, it would be more easy to reconcile it to our ideas of the equity of the divine administration. There seems to be a contradiction between it and the words of God by Ezekiel: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." We might reconcile them by supposing the original law, which was merely a positive one, to be revoked; or we may consider the words of Ezekiel as referring to a particular case. The Israelites had adopted this proverb: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," intimating that their present sufferings were owing not to their own sins, but to those of their ancestors. To repel this accusation against his procedure, God declares that the case was not as they supposed, that he was punishing them for their own sins; that it was far from him to confound the righteous with the wicked, and that every man among them should be rewarded according to his works.

66

The Third precept of the law is in these words, "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."

By the name of God, we understand the name or names by which he has made himself known, or is distinguished from other beings; as God, Lord, Jehovah, the Almighty, &c. To take this name, is to use it in discourse; and one form of using it, which claims our attention in the first place, is swearing by it. As a simple declaration may not be deemed sufficient, when the character of the speaker is unknown, his motives are suspected, or the matter is of too much importance to be lightly determined, men have been accustomed to demand the confirmation of it with an oath, or an appeal to God as the witness of our veracity, and the Judge who will punish us if we are guilty of deceit. Some ancient sects, and some modern, have denied the lawfulness of an oath, and have affirmed that it is sinful to swear upon any occasion. Their opinion is refuted by a variety of arguments. We have examples of oaths in the Old Testament, with directions how to swear, namely, in truth, judgment, and righteousness; and lest any should think that what was formerly tolerated is now prohibited, we have examples also in the New. When Paul says, "I call God for a record upon my soul"-" God is my witness"-"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost;" his language in all these instances, and particularly in the two first, amounts to an oath. Our Saviour recognized the lawfulness of an oath, when one having been administered to him, according to the form of his country, he broke the silence which he hitherto observed, and answered the question of the High Priest. It is impossible to understand the words of the Apostle in any other way than as a sanction of the practice, when he says, "Men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife." It is a misapprehension of our Saviour's words, "Swear not at all," to consider them as an absolute prohibition of an oath; because it is plain from his own illustration, that he meant only to forbid the practice of swearing in common conversation, and particularly of swearing by creatures.

An oath should be sworn only on such occasions as call for this solemnity, about matters of importance, and with respect to which satisfaction cannot be

• Ezek. xviii. 20.

§ Matth. xxvi. 63.

† Ib. 2.

Heb. vi. 16.

2 Cor. i. 23. Rom. i. 9. ix. i. ¶ Matth. v. 34.

otherwise obtained. God is too great and awful a Being to be appealed to as a witness for every trifling purpose. It should be taken with external and internal reverence, and be regarded not as a mere ceremony, but as a religious institution, which places us in the immediate presence of the Judge of men and angels. We should be fully acquainted with the subject of an oath; for, to swear to any thing of which we are ignorant, or about which we are in doubt, is at once to deceive men, and to set at nought the divine omniscience. We should take an oath according to the obvious meaning of it, in the sense in which it is understood by those who administer it, to the exclusion of all private interpretations, and all mental reservations. We ought to be sincere in giving a promissory oath, having a fixed intention to perform what we pledge ourselves to do, and never thinking ourselves released from the obligation except by such a change of circumstances as renders it physically impossible to redeem our pledge, or would make it sinful to do so, because some other duty of paramount authority has intervened. It is plain, therefore, that we should never bind ourselves by oath to do any thing which we know to be impossible, any thing which we know to be morally wrong, any thing which would impede our duty to God, or to such of our fellow-men as have a prior claim to our service and obedience.

The name of God is taken in vain when we swear unnecessary oaths; when we swear implicitly, without knowing beforehand the nature and extent of the obligation, when we swear lightly and irreverently, using the name of God with as little respect as we would show to that of a man; when we swear falsely, attesting that to be true, which we do not know to be true, or which we know to be false; when we do not regard the aminus imponentis, but substitute a meaning of our own as a subterfuge, under which we may escape from the understood obligation; when we swear to what we know to be impossible, or what we know to be sinful; when we swear in doubt with respect to the practicability or the lawfulness of the action to which we bind ourselves; when we swear to release ourselves from a prior obligation, as the Jews devoted their property to God, that they might be relieved from the duty of supporting their parents.

These are not the only ways in which the name of God is profaned. It is taken in vain when it is lightly introduced in common conversation; when men swear by it in anger or in sport, or in the ordinary train of their discourse; when they utter impious imprecations upon themselves or others; or when, without the slightest feeling of devotion, they call upon him to bless, preserve, or help them. There is not a name in the universe with which so much freedom is used; it is treated as with studied contempt; and it is almost impossible to walk the streets, or to go into a mixed company, without hearing language which is always offensive to a pious ear, and which, were it heard for the first time, would awaken horror and alarm in every man who retained any sense of religion. In the commission of this gratuitous and heaven-daring sin, our own country has attained an infamous pre-eminence.

This precept is transgressed not only when men swear falsely, or profanely by the name of God, but also when they make use of any other oath in conversation; for in this, as in other precepts, all sins of the same kind are forbidden. Our Saviour says, "Swear not at all,"—that is, in common discourse,— "neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."* It appears that such oaths as are here specified were frequent among the Jews; and our Lord, in forbidding these, condemns all Matth. v. 34-37.

similar oaths, such as those which are current among Christians, who swear by their faith, their truth, their conscience, and in Popish countries, by the saints.

This precept forbids all kinds of blasphemy, all accusations of Providence, all reflections against Scripture, all dishonorable thoughts of God. It forbids the profanation or abuse of any thing by which he has made himself known. As it relates to the manner of worshipping him, it condemns irreverence, carelessness, formality, hypocrisy, and unbelief, in the performance of religious du ties. We profane his word when we read or hear it with indifference; we profane the ordinance of prayer when we honour God with our lips but our hearts are far from him; when those sentiments of faith, and penitence, and holy desire are wanting, of which our words are expressive; we profane the ordinance of praise when we feel no admiration of his excellencies, and no gratitude for his favours, and when we appropriate to ourselves any share of the glory to which he has an exclusive title; we profane the Lord's Supper, not merely when we use it as a qualification for civil offices, but when we partake of it in a state of sin, in the absence of spiritual affections, without a cordial reliance upon the atonement which it commemorates, and an unreserved dedication of ourselves to him who died for us and rose again. We profane the ordinance of fasting, when our professions of repentance are not accompanied with humiliation of soul, when we use it as a means of obtaining the remission of our sins, or when we are careful to enumerate and condemn the sins of others, but slightly pass over our own. We profane Providence when we turn it to superstitious purposes, looking for signs from it to direct us where Scripture or even reason is sufficient to guide us; when we rashly and uncharitably interpret its proceedings; when we place an unwarranted dependence upon it, expecting the end without the means, venturing without a call upon danger in the hope of its protection, and trusting to it for the supply of our wants, when we are indulging ourselves in idleness.

From the sins forbidden in this comandment, it is easy to infer the duties required. They consist in general in a holy and reverent use of his name, of all his revelations, and all his institutions; and a more particular detail of them is unnecessary. It will be your business to trace them at your leisure, while you are meditating upon the subject. “The third commandment," says our Church, "requires that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing, by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves and others."*

LECTURE CIV.

ON THE LAW OF GOD.

Commentary on the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth Commandments,

HAVING considered the object, the means, and the manner of religious woI ship, let us now attend to the time which is consecrated to it. It is determined Larger Catechism, Q. 112,

in the Fourth precept of the Decalogue, which is expressed in these words: "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 manservant, 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."

66

After reciting this precept, which was delivered to the Israelites in the wilderness, we are to inquire, Whether it was then given for the first time, or was only promulgated anew? To most persons, an answer to this question seems to be supplied by the words of Moses, in the second chapter of Genesis, "And on the seventh day, God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."* These words have been commonly understood to signify, that the Sabbath was instituted at the creation. Some writers, however, are of a different opinion, and maintain that Moses speaks of it by anticipation; or that, as the reason why the Sabbath was given to men took place on the seventh day of the creation, he was led to make mention of it in this part of his narrative, although the observance did not commence till the Israelites were in the wilderness. In confirmation of this opinion, it is alleged that there is not a word said about the Sabbath during the long preceding period of two thousand and five hundred years; and that this silence is unaccountable, if it was regularly observed by the people of God. This, however, is merely a negative argument, from which no positive conclusion can be safely drawn; and, besides, it would disprove the practice of circumcision among the Jews from their entrance into Canaan to the circumcision of the Baptist, not one instance of it being recorded during that long interval. Another argument is founded on such expressions as these: God gave the Israelites a Sabbath, and he gave it for "a sign between him and them."+ But his giving them the Sabbath no more implies that it was a new institution, than his giving them the other precepts supposes that they were not previously binding,-nothing more being meant in both cases, than that they were pub lished anew to them, with peculiar circumstances of solemnity. The Sabbath may be said to be a sign, because the celebration of it would henceforth serve, with their other religious rites, to distinguish them from the nations of the world, and it was enforced by a new reason taken from their recent redemption. Hence, in the repetition of the precept, these words are added: “ And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbathday." There does not appear to be any reason for supposing that in Genesis Moses speaks proleptically, or by anticipation. The manner of the narrative would naturally lead any reader to suppose that he is relating what took place at the beginning of the world. It is a second thought, and a thought which could occur only to a mind in search of ingenious discoveries, that the present tense is here significant of the future. This seems to be a strong objection against the opinion which we are considering; it is inconsistent with the perfect simplicity of the Mosaic history, and with the accuracy which is expected from any historian, to record as a fact which took place at the period of which he is writing, what did not take place for five-and-twenty centuries. It has been observed, that the division of time into weeks, which subsisted in the age of the patriarchs, cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, but by the previous in* Gen. ii. 2, 3. † Exod. xxxi. 13, 17. Ezek. xx. 12, 20. + Deut. v. 15.