of hofts.

The first inftance produced, at this time, is that remarkable prediction of Ifaiah: "In that day fhall five cities in the land of Egypt fpeak the language of Canaan, and fwear to the Lord And the Lord fhall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians fhall know the Lord in that day, and fhall do facrifice and oblation: Yea, they fhall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it *." The Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost puts various diftinguishing characters upon the feafon of the accomplishment of this prediction, by which it may be fully known;-characters fufficiently marking the Gospel economy: IN THAT DAY, that important day, when the Lord fhall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians fhall know the Lord: This can be no other than the day of Gospel light. Though Egypt was the first of the nations who cultivated the fciences, and, on this account, might be ftyled an inlightened nation; yet fhe was as ftupid as the blindeft, and came behind the greatest Barbarian, with respect to a Deity. The Lord was not known unto Egypt until the ministry of the Apoftles ftretched out the LINE of revelation on all the earth, and carried the WORD OF LIFE unto the world's end. This prediction refers alfo unto a time when Egypt is delivered from the curfe, and interested in the bleffing along with Ifrael:-When Ifrael, according to the

* H. xix. 18, and 21.

flesh,

tance."

flefu, is no longer God's peculiar people, to the exclufion of others; but God himself pronounceth them BLESSED, faying, "BLESSED be Egypt MY PEOPLE, and Affyria the work of my hands," as well as "Ifrael mine inheriGod never afforded fuch a favour unto any people but Ifrael, under the ancient ceconomy. The privilege of being God's people does not only import, that there might be fome profelytes taken from that nation, or fome ftrangers fojourning among them belonging to that defcription; but it imports, that, as a people, or in their focial capacity, he fhould own his relation to them; and they fhould avow their relation to him. As to the Gospel œconomy, God himself declares the fign of its introduction is, "I will call them MY PEOPLE Which were not my people; and her BELOVED who was not beloved. And it fhall come to pafs, that in the place where it was faid unto them, Ye are not my people ; there thall they be called the children of the living God."In the next place, The fubftance of this promife cannot be exhausted by any other duty than folemn covenanting. The terms are too explicite, and the defcription too graphical, to admit of any other application whatsoever. The first defcription of this duty is expreffed to the following purpose: "And fhall SWEAR to the Lord of hofts*." They

fhall not only fwear by the Lord of hofts, as in civil matters; but TO HIM, as the grand party unto whom they furrender themfelves in this folemn act. The phrafe is remarkable, and feems to be peculiarly ufed by inspired writers, for marking the party unto whom perfons engaged when they ratified covenants with an oath *. The next defcription of the duty intended in this promife is, "They fhall vow a vow unto the Lord and perform it." Ceremonial vows were never the vow of a people; but an individual vowed to dedicate part of his fubftance unto the Lord: This is a focial vow,

the

* Some explain this oracle of SWEARING BY GOD, and understand it as put for the whole of divine worship; but with no degree of probability. The original phrase is . Now, we will find the particle conftantly marking the perfon fworn unto, as in Gen. xxi. 23. and xxv. 33. While the perfon invoked, in fwearing, is al ways marked with the prefix 2. Nor can any inftance be given, in which he is marked with ↳. Buxtorff. Thefaur. Gram. obferves, THAT IT GOVERNS EITHER THE GENITIVE OR DATIVE. The latter most frequently, the former very rarely; and it is the Dative strictly taken, not as ufed for the Accufative or Ablative. See Wafmuth. Gram. Heb. p. 63. edit. Lipfiæ HENRICO OPITIO, A. D. 1714. I find, indeed, that fome object Zeph. i. 5. as an inftance in which marks the object of wor thip: But Drufius, in Loc. juftly obferves, that this objection originates in miftranflation: "Omnes quos quidem viderim, interpretes hic legunt, Qui JURANT PER DOMINUM: meo judicio non recte. Nam jurare per Do

quod ליהוה Hic autem legitur in Ebreo .ביהוה inimum

nos primi vertimus DOMINO. Jurare Domino quid fit difces ex 2 Par. xv. 14. Eft autem Jurejurando interpoito nomen dari pietati, et quafi Deo fe addicere et con

fecrare,"

the vow of a people, "They fhall," &c. And focial vowing is the very thing for which we plead, even fuch a vow as is ratified with an oath. Some affect to deny that ever vows were, or fhould be confirmed by an oath; but, to me, it is plain, that the fwearing mentioned in a foregoing verfe is for confirming the fpecies of the vow under confideration. The Holy Ghost alfo points us unto another vow, to be afterwards confidered, which was ratified with an path. The antitypical David, not only vow ED, but likeways sWARE unto the mighty God of Jacob.

fecrare." In fupport of this obfervation, we may add the following examples, Gen. xxi. 23. ch, xxii, 16. ch. xxiv. 3. If. lxv. 23. ch. lxii. 8. ch. Ixv. 16. Vid. NOLDI!, Concor. No. 708. TYMPIUS adds the following obfervation, in a note on If. Ixii. 8. “ Juravit Jehova PER dextram fuam, et per brachium roboris fui.” Juravit Gjuramentum) in dextra fuam (converfus); in cujus vir tute id exfecutionis ratione fundatum, quæ præftare fancitum poffit. Quo fenfu etiam conftructum nomen fumitur Exod. xxii. 1o. &c. Objectum itaque juramenti conftituit, quoties Latini præpos: PER ei præmittunt." And, although Noldius follows fome of the ordinary translations in their mistake, in his Concordance, yet he diftinguifheth between and in his Annot. "Aliud autem eft jurare, If. xix. 18. Zeph. i. 5. Pf. cxxxii. 2. 2 Par. xv. 13. Nam qui jurat per Jehovam Deum teftem invocat ; fed qui jurat Jehovæ cultum ftipulatur. Vid. Drufii. Obf. Lib. IX. cap. x. Quod Latine jurare Dominum aut per Dominum id Hebraice dicitur BADONAI cum BETH: ex quo illud Apoc. x. 6. i. e. Juravit per eum qui vivit in fecula feculum. Interdum autem reperitur Ladonai cum ?, fed alio fenfu: tum enim valet JURARE DOMINO; ut quantum inter eum cui juramus, et cum per quem juramus intereft, tantum inter hæc duo

Jacob. Hence, we may conclude, that to deny, That a vow can be confirmed with an oath is nugatory and vain. In thefe two inftances, the vow is the thing ratified, and the oath the folemnity with which it is confirmed. SWEARING unto the Lord of hofts, then, must be taken literally: Some contend, indeed, that it is metaphorical; others that it is ceremonial: But what is metaphorical fwearing, pray? Swearing must be fwearing without a figure, after all that can be faid about it. If ceremonial, like other ceremonies, it must have a substance; for a fhadow without a fubftance,-a type without an antitype, is a folecism in the groffeft degree. The fulfilment of this prediction fhall be confidered in Differtation XVII.

ANOTHER prediction of the fame prophet runs in the following terms: "I have fworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth

intereffe videtur. Si fas effet in re tam levi auderem, VIVIT DOMINUS differentiam hanc perpetuam efle; infciteque interpretes eam confundere, Sop. i. 5. cum vertunt. Qui jurant per Dominum; quod fcriptum in Hebræo LADONAI, i. e. Domino ut in Pf. cxxxii 2. Quæ ju ravit Domino vovit forti Jacob: et If. xix. 18. In die illo, &c. Quid autem fit jurare Domino difces ex 2 Par. Porro in verbis Soph. hæc fententia continetur, Qui jurati funt Domino, h. e. qui fancte ac quafi Deo tefte pollicite funt fe in fide pietate,, fœdere manfuros cum Domino, violant quod polliciti funt JURANDO PER REGEM SUUM. Sive, ut alii malunt, PER DEUM SUUM MOLOCH. See Glaff. Gram. Sac. Lib. IV. Tract. i. Obf. 5. p. 670.

XV. 14.