LECTURES ON THE SHORTER CATECHISM OF THE WESTMINSTER AS

a great part of what is required in the third commandment, has been

TO YOUTH.

LECTURE XLI.

The third commandment, which we are now to consider, is thus expressed:

"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." This commandment, according to our Catechism, "requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, words, and works."

There is in the decalogue a beautiful order, not I believe generally observed, in the statement of the duties which we owe to God. In the first commandment, the only proper object of religious worship is clearly set before us; in the second, the only acceptable mode or method of worship is distinctly prescribed; and in the third, the right temper of mind for the performance of God's worship is specified and required. In view of this close connexion of duties enjoined by these precepts, I remark, that it is not easy nor indeed practicable, to treat of them separately, and yet distinctly and fully-they unavoidably include or involve each other. Accordingly, in the three or four lectures which precede the present, VOL. VII. Ch. Adv.

occasion to consider in the very beginning of our course, in speaking of the Being, attributes, word, and works of God-subjects to which the first twelve answers of our catechism chiefly and directly relate. The ordinances of divine institution, I further remark, will hereafter demand our particular attention, both as to their nature, and the reverent manner in which they ought to be observed. In speaking, therefore, of what is required in this commandment, I shall confine myself to a brief notice of two or three particulars; and

1. The names and titles of God may need some farther explanation. In assigning names to men, the design, you know, is to discriminate one individual from another; and among the ancient nations, names were not entirely arbitrary as with us, but were often intended to be indicative of the character of the individuals to whom they were applied. Agreeably to this usage, the Supreme Being, in condescending to make himself known to men, has assumed names that discriminate him from all other beings, and which most impressively indicate his infinitely glorious nature or character. Thus we are told that when Moses first received a command to return from the land of

2 U

Midian to Egypt, for the deliverance of his people, he "said unto God, Behold when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." And then after recognising his covenant relation to their fathers, he adds"this is my name forever, and this my memorial to all generations. Dr. Scott remarks on this passage, that "I AM THAT I AM; or, I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE, signifies, I am He that exists, and implies selfexistence, independence, unchangeableness, incomprehensibility, eternity, and consummate perfection. JEHOVAH (a name of similar signification) thus distinguished himself from the idols of the nations, which are nothing in the world; and from all creatures, which have only a derived, dependent, mutable existence, in him, and from him.” In the 34th chapter of Exodus we have a remarkable passage, in which God is said to proclaim his name; and this name is said to consist of the appellations of LORD, or JEHOVAH, and GoD, with an enumeration of his moral attributes-"The LORD, the LORD GOD, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty." The relations which the three persons of the one adorable Godhead sustain to each other, are, you are aware, made known to us by the terms, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST.

The titles of God, as well as his names, are mentioned in the answer we consider. The difference between these, according to Fisher, is this-"His names set forth what he is in himself, his titles what he is

unto others." These titles, moreover, are, by the same writer, distinguished into those which belong to the Deity "as the God of nature, and those which are ascribed to him as the God of grace." As the God of nature, his titles are such as these "The Creator of the ends of the earth; the Preserver of man ; King of nations, and Lord of hosts." The titles ascribed to him as the God of grace, are the following, among others-"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Jacob; the Holy One of Israel; King of saints; the Father of mercies; the Hearer of prayer; the God of peace; the God of hope; the God of salvation." The most common and ordinary title ascribed to God in the New Testament, is the infinitely amiable and encouraging one of The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We find also in the prayer dictated by our blessed Redeemer to his disciples, that he teaches them to address the Majesty of heaven and earth as "Our Father in heaven;" and the apostle Paul gives it as the language of the spirit of adoption, that those who possess it address God, crying, "Abba Father." What, my dear youth, can be more condescending and tender than this! What a more constraining motive to come with holy freedom and delight to a prayer hearing God!

2. Oaths, vows, and lots, are mentioned in our larger Catechism as included in the requisitions of this commandment. What is unlawful we are to consider in speaking of things forbidden in the precept before us. At present we confine ourselves to things required, and among these we place religious oaths, or those which are taken with religious solemnity.

"An oath is an appeal to God, the searcher of hearts, for the truth of what we say, and always expresses or supposes an imprecation of his judgment upon us, if we prevaricate. An oath therefore im

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," (λoyos) 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

• Witherspoon-Moral Philos. Lec

ture 16th.

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, in 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, inasmuch as they are seals of covenant engagements, or promises made to God. In prayer, also, such promises and engagements are frequently made, and on this account prayers are sometimes called vows. But a formal vow is a separate and distinct act, in relation to some specifick object. Such vows were common 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, indeed, that the apostle Paul was once under the obligation of a special vow, and that he joined with four other individuals, who belonged to the Christian church at Jerusalem, 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 observances 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 regarded 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, coin. cide 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 experience 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