George Paxton I.2

SECT. II.

PUBLIC VOWS AN ORDINANCE OF GOD.

---

THE duty of public covenanting rests upon the firm foundation of divine authority. If any person ask, Who hath required this at your hand?—It is the God of heaven; it is the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls. The following arguments are offered in proof of this assertion.

1. As public vows are absolutely necessary to a church state, so they must be agreeable to the will of God. Religious society is instituted by God, and therefore must be agreeable to him. But religious society, in its very nature, supposes a confession of faith in Christ, and profession of obedience to him; which we have seen is equivalent to a public vow.

2. It is the will of God that his people dwell together in unity; but unity cannot subsist without public vows; therefore they are agreeable to his will. The visible church is held together by no other tie than her relation to Christ. But there can be no union among Christians, if their relation to Christ be not visible and credible. A public profession of attachment to Christ, is the only sign which renders that relation visible to men. Therefore the scriptures join them together, and make them equally necessary to salvation. With the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. But if a profession exist at all, it must be public: and a public profession, it has been shown, is equivalent to a public vow.

3. Public vows are necessary to the communion of the church, and therefore must be lawful. They are the very foundation of communion, because they are included in the very idea of a church state, and of that visible union which connects the members of a visible church in one body, without which there can be no communion whatever. But, this is not all. Church communion is either that which the members

[Page 13]

of a religious society have with God or with one another. As the first consists in a joint dedication of themselves to the Lord, as living sacrifices, in every act of public social worship, it is nothing else than a formal public vow. They say, and they say to God in the presence of each other, “The Lord is our portion.” This is all that can be said in any vow; and it is made as publicly as any vow can be. The second, as it consists in an interchange of all the offices of love among church members, implies their attachment to Christ, professed and made public to one another; which is equivalent to a public vow of that society.

But, besides, covenanting is communion. One of the most essential branches of communion with God, both in heaven and in earth, lies in the joint and public acknowledgments which the redeemed offer up before the throne of their heavenly Father. It is also an eminent act of communion among believers; for by them they encourage one another in the good ways of the Lord.

4. Public vows are lawful, because God cannot be worshipped rightly without them, in any ordinance of Christ’s appointment. In the due use of all the ordinances of Christ, there is a material and constructive vowing. Let the description which has been given of public vows, be applied to any one ordinance of Christ, and to the use which Christians ought to make of these institutions, and it will be found, that public vowing is implied in each of them without exception.

For example, Prayer is not more certainly a social duty, than it is a public vow, when it is socially performed. Christians who come to a worshipping assembly, not merely to hear prayer, but to join in that duty, “socially devote their own selves” to God. A praying assembly is a vowing assembly. If they do not present their persons, a living sacrifice to God, they do nothing. But what is done materially by divine approbation, may be done with every degree of solemnity, when circumstances make it necessary. In the due use of some ordinances there is a public formal vowing, as in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

5. The duty which the churches owe to the world and to one another cannot be discharged, at certain seasons, without public covenanting. To exhibit and to hold fast the truth, to avow the Redeemer in the whole extent of his character, at every expence, is a duty which the Christian owes to the world. “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels.”

[Page 14]

Christian churches owe important duties to one another, which cannot always be discharged without public vows. Members of the same body, they are in duty bound not to suffer sin in one another, but to bear witness against the errors and defections into which any of them may fall, and to avow their attachment to bleeding truth, before God and man; and, if the circumstance promises to be attended with success in reclaiming the offending society, or in confirming the faithful, they ought to ratify their avowal, by a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts.

6. Public vows are expressly commanded in scripture. This duty is clearly implied in the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.* This precept requires reasonable creatures to acknowledge God as the only true God and their God, in public as well as in private: and this is public vowing in the fullest extent of the terms.

The church is exhorted as a body, to “vow and pay unto the Lord†.” The context shows that public covenanting is principally intended in this text. The mercies, which the Jewish church are called to acknowledge by this duty, are not of a private, but of the most public nature. Now, if private mercies require private vows, in the very nature of things, public mercies demand public vows.

The last scripture which we shall mention from the Old Testament, is that celebrated passage of Isaiah: “In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts.—They shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and shall perform it‡.” This scripture undeniably refers to New Testament times; for it never was accomplished in any one age prior to the fulness of time. It is absurd to imagine that it received its fulfilment when Onias, a Jewish priest, about 149 years before Christ, built a temple at Heliopolis, in Egypt, in imitation of the temple at Jerusalem. For this undertaking was a heinous transgression of the divine law§. And, it were strange indeed, if the sin of the church were the accomplishment of the promise. This passage contains all the formalities of public covenanting. “They shall vow a vow unto the Lord;” and this vow, they shall confirm by solemn oath; “they shall swear unto the Lord of hosts.” They do all this in the most public manner; “five cities” join in giving themselves to the Lord. This is not to be understood of their simply professing the truth; for their profession is expressed by another term exceedingly emphatical—“They shall speak

_____

* Exod. xx. 3.

† Ps. lxxii. 2.

‡ Isa. xix. 18, 21.

§ Lev. xvii. 8, 9. Josh. xxii. 1 Kings viii.

[Page 15]

the language of Canaan.” To this profession is added something more solemn—“They shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and swear to the Lord of hosts.” It is true this text is not a precept but a promise; but every promise contains a precept. God never promises grace to do what his authority never required.

On this point the New Testament coincides with the Old. The adversaries of public vows, demand with an air of triumph, “Where is the appointment of covenanting in the New Testament?” We answer, The Old Testament is still the rule of our faith and practice; and since the duty of vowing to God is not abrogated in the New, it is still to be observed. But waving this argument, we will retort the question, and demand, Where is the appointment for infant Baptism in the New Testament? Where is your warrant in the New Testament, for admitting women to the Lord’s table? Let the adversaries of covenanting point out an express precept or example in either of these cases if they can. Your warrant for infant Baptism and admission of women to the Supper is implied—Our warrant for public vows is something more. For we have both precept and example for this duty, in the New Testament. We have shown that it is contained in the first precept of the Moral Law, which is the rule of duty in every dispensation. Now, the New Testament dispensation establishes the Law*. Besides, our Lord’s exposition of the Third commandment contains a warrant for this duty: “Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths†.” With this explanation our Lord does not insinuate the least dissatisfaction, but only shows, in the subsequent verses, that there are various other ways, in which it may be violated.

We shall only add, that the Apostle exhorts the Romans to that duty with great earnestness; “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service‡.” This New Testament church is entreated to give themselves to the Lord, to serve him with the whole heart, and in opposition to the sinful customs of their days, to make his law the rule of their conduct. But, if this was a duty incumbent upon the Romans on general grounds, it must be a duty incumbent upon the churches of Christ at all times. And if circumstances render every possible solemnity requisite, this commandment renders the duty clothed with all its solemnities indispensibly necessary.

_____

* Mat. v. 17.

† Verse 33.

‡ Rom. xii. 1.

[Page 16]

7. The approved example of the church in the Apostolic and succeeding ages establish the lawfulness of public vows. None who have read their bibles will call in question the practice of public covenanting under the Old Testament. Public vows, in that age, belonged neither to the ceremonial nor to the judicial law of Moses; for Abraham was a covenanter before circumcision itself was instituted; and Jacob vowed a vow at Bethel many ages before the Mosaic economy commenced; and Stephen declares that it was with the church, not with the state, or nation of Israel, that the angel treated from the top of Sinai*. In all ages, covenanting is purely a religious duty, emanating from the Moral Law.

The Apostolic age affords us several examples of this duty. The churches of Macedonia, Gentile churches, that were never under Moses, practised it with the express approbation of an inspired Apostle, pronouncing it to be “by the will of God.” If there be any thing certain in Revelation, it is indisputable that these churches entered into a public vow, according to the will of God. What language more expressive of this exercise could even an inspired Apostle have chosen? “They gave their own selves to the Lord, according to the will of God.” This proceeding cannot refer to their first association for public worship, for they had been a regular organised church for some time; nor to the communion of the Lord’s Supper, which it was quite customary for the churches often to celebrate. The Apostle had no reason to be surprised at what he had long and often witnessed. But this was something above his expectation, yet according to the will of God. The language is the same which the scripture uses for public covenanting, therefore it could be nothing else.

But this is not the only example of covenanting in the age of inspiration. During our Lord’s humiliation, when many had forsaken him, he put a question to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” Peter spake the sentiments of the whole in a public vow. “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe and are sure, that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God†.” This declaration hath not only the essentials of a vow, but even the very form. The declaration is directed to Christ himself; it contains a dedication of themselves to him, for time and eternity, as the Lord of eternal life: and it is attended with a solemn profession of their faith concerning the character of Christ in whom they believed. No covenanter could say more, nor does he say any thing else than Peter did.

_____

* Acts vii. 38.

† John vi. 68, 69.

[Page 17]

We have another example of public vows from the lips of the same confessor, after the resurrection of Christ. Peter had shamefully deserted, and wickedly denied his Lord. At his restoration, the Saviour drew him to a solemn public vow of his love to the Master whom he had lately denied, confirmed by the solemnity of an oath. “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord! thou knowest that I love thee,” &c.* Here is both a formal public vow, and a formal public appeal to the omniscience of Christ concerning his sincerity. It was, indeed, the act of Peter alone, because none of the other disciples shared in his guilt. But, if they had been associates with him in the sin of denying their Lord, the same reason would have pled for extending the question to all, that they might have jointly professed their love to Christ, in a social as well as in a public vow.

Since the Apostolic age, covenanting has been the practice of the churches, in all the several periods of the Christian dispensation. The primitive churches received none into communion but those who made a public profession of their adherence to the creed of the society, and bound themselves by oath to be stedfast in the faith. The truth of this assertion appears not only from the writings of the first Christians, but also from the testimony of heathen authors who lived at the same time. In the beginning of the second century, and only twelve years after the death of the Apostle John, Pliny, a Roman governor, and a person of undoubted credit, in an epistle to the emperor Trajan, giving an account of the general practice of the Christian churches, has these remarkable words: “They affirmed, the whole of their guilt or their error, was, that they met on a certain stated day, before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ, as to some God, binding themselves by a SOLEMN OATH, not for the purposes of any wicked design; but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.” But if this was the general practice of the church only twelve years after the death of John, it must have been the general practice during his time, and by his direction. Justin Martyr, in his second apology, written about the year 160, declares, “That Baptism was given only to those (he speaks of adult Baptism) who, to the confession of their faith, added a vow to live according to their knowledge.” Fifty years later, Tertullian, inveighing against shows, and theatrical representations, insists, “These things belong to

_____

* John xxi. 15, 17.

[Page 18]

the pomp of the devil, against which we swore at the sealing of our Creed.” Jerom also assures us that solemn covenanting preceded Baptism: “We enter into covenant with the Sun of Righteousness, and engage that we shall serve him.” This practice continued from the times of the Apostles till those of Gregory Nazianzen, who composed a solemn covenant, which he swore, and published to the world, as the strongest testimony he could give against the Arian heresy. “By the eternal word I swear—I solemnly swear, that I will never embrace any evil opinions repugnant to the truth,” &c. Subscription of religious covenants in those days was as common as vowing and swearing. “Thy hand writing,” said an ancient Father, “is registered not only on earth, but in heaven also.” Covenanting was also a term of communion in the primitive churches; for it incontrovertibly appears from their writings, that no adult was admitted to Baptism without vowing, swearing, and subscribing.

During the dark ages of Popery, the Evangelical churches in the vallies of Piedmont, who began to separate from the Romish church in the beginning of the ninth century, published their confession of faith in 1120, in opposition to the errors and abominations of Antichrist: and this is equivalent to a public vow. In the year 1532, they gave a new statement of their testimony, and ratified it by their solemn oaths. In 1603, they renewed their declaration, and addressed it to all the Protestant churches, promising before the whole world, to live in the doctrines of the holy scriptures, and if necessary to seal their testimony with their blood*. In like manner, the followers of the celebrated Huss in Bohemia, on the 11th November, 1571, drew up a bond of union, and confirmed it by oath.

The Reformation no sooner commenced, than the Protestants swore and subscribed bonds of association and confessions of faith. In 1530 was the famous league of Smalkald framed, in which the churches of Germany publicly recognized the Reformation as the cause of God, by solemn oath to the MOST HIGH. On the 20th July, 1537, the capital articles of the Christian religion were sworn by the Senate and people of Geneva; and this bond extended to Berne and Lausanne in Switzerland. In the churches of Holland, those who were admitted to the Lord’s table made a public profession of their faith before all the congregation; and engaged by promise and covenant to continue in the faith, and lead sober and righteous lives. The churches in Hungary and Transylvania prescribed an oath to be taken by the ministers of re-

_____

* Moreland’s Hist.

[Page 19]

ligion, and by such as were converted from error to the truth of the gospel. The reformed churches in France have added their example to that of all the pure churches of Christ. For, in the year 1619, their deputies met in their National Synod, and avowed their attachment to the truth, in a covenant ratified by their solemn oaths. The covenants of the British churches are sufficiently known. From Europe, the practice of covenanting passed over into the wilderness of America. The settlers who arrived at Salem in 1629, on the 6th of August, a day set apart for fasting and prayer, formed themselves into a church by a confession of faith, and by entering into covenant with God. This deed was several times renewed with every solemnity.

From this brief statement, it appears, that the duty of public and solemn covenanting rests upon the broad and sure foundations of scripture, reason, and the practice of all the churches in their best days, ever since the Redeemer had a church among men.

It is a distinct ordinance of God; and therefore it is a daring impeachment of the knowledge and wisdom of the Divine Lawgiver to say, that it is unnecessary, or superseded by other institutions. The institution and approved practice of it says, that God judged it necessary, and that he will not hold him innocent who neglects or despises it.

Though vowing to God is implied in other ordinances, it is not superseded by them; for why then did God require and honour the distinct performance of it with his unequivocal approbation? Other ordinances contain only an implicit, but this ordinance is intended to give an explicit acknowledgment of all the truths and institutions of Christ. Its primary and principal design is altogether different from that of any other ordinance; therefore it never can be superseded by the other institutions of Christ. No one ordinance can answer the primary intention of another; for the Lawgiver is infinitely wise, and does nothing in vain. In Baptism there is a solemn and public vowing to Christ, as well as in the Lord’s Supper. Yet the one does not supersede the other,—neither can these institutions supersede the duty of covenanting.

Public vows add nothing to the obligation of the Moral Law. And what additional force do civil oaths impart to God’s Law? If it be unlawful or needless to swear a religious covenant, because it cannot increase the obligation of the Divine Law, it must, for the very same reason, be unlawful and unnecessary to swear in civil affairs. And is it to be supposed that God requires his church to take his name in vain? If a religious oath is vain now, it was always so: for the Moral Law is the same at all times. Therefore, when the holy Majesty of Heaven required his people to swear by his name, he commanded them

[Page 20]

to profane it! But, though a religious oath does not increase the obligation of the Law, it brings home that obligation upon conscience, awakening the callous mind to a sense of duty; and it satisfies society concerning the ingenuity of the swearer. Must this important duty be discarded, because it does not accomplish an end for which it was never intended? Happy is that man, and blessed, who, in the spirit of a little child, receives with humility and thankfulness, the institutions of Jesus, as he gives them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.