existence or miraculous nature, the reality of the Mosaic miracles is clear and undeniable."

The reason and design of the law of the jubilee was partly political and partly typical. It was political, to prevent the too great oppression of the poor as well as their liability to perpetual slavery. By this means the rich were prevented from accumulating lands upon lands, and a kind of equality was preserved through all the families of Israel. Never was there any people so effectually secure of their liberty and property, as the Israelites were: God not only engaging so to protect those invaluable blessings by his providence, that they should not be taken away from them by others; but providing, in a particular manner by this law, that they should not be thrown away through their own folly; since the property, which every man or family had in their dividend of the land of Canaan, could not be sold or any way alienated for above half a century. By this means also the distinction of tribes was preserved, in respect both to their families and possessions; for this law rendered it necessary for them to keep genealogies of their families, that they might be able when there was occasion, on the jubilee year, to prove their right to the inheritance of their ancestors. By this means it was certainly known from what tribe and family the Messiah sprung. Upon which Dr. Allix observes, that God did not suffer them to *continue in captivity out of their own land for the space of two jubilees, lest by that means their genealogies should be lost or confounded.

A further civil use of the jubilee might be for the easier computation of time. For, as the Greeks computed by olympiads, the Romans by lustra, and we by centuries, the Jews probably reckoned by jubilees; and it might be one design of this institution to mark out these large portions of time for the readier computation of successive ages.

There was also a typical design and use of the jubilee, which is pointed out by the prophet Isaiah, when he says in reference to the Messiah, "the spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." (Isa. Ixi. 1, 2.) Where "the acceptable year of the Lord," when "liberty was proclaimed to the captives," and "the opening of the prison to them that were bound," evidently refers to the jubilee; but, in the prophetic sense, means the Gospel state and dispensation, which proclaims spiritual liberty from the bondage of sin and Satan, and the liberty of returning to our own possession, even the heavenly inheritance, to which, having incurred a forfeiture by sin, we had lost all right and claim.

That our Lord began his public ministry on a jubilee, Dr. Hales

1 Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 171.

thinks, is evident from his declaration "The LORD hath anointed me (as THE CHRIST) to preach the Gospel to the poor: he hath sent me (as SHILOH, THE APOSTLE') to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and restoration of sight to the blind; to set at liberty the bruised; to proclaim the acceptable year of THE LORD." (Luke iv. 18, 19.)

1 Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book i. p. 279. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. p. 619. The best practical illustration we have seen, of the analogy between the Mosaic jubilee and the Gospel, is to be found in the reverend and learned Dr. Claudius Buchanan's "Three Sermons on the Jubilee," celebrated on the 25th October, 1809, on the occasion of our late venerable Sovereign's entering on the fiftieth year of his reign.

CHAPTER V.

SACRED OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES.

SECTION I.

OF OATHS AND VOws.

I. Of Oaths.-II. Nature of Vows-how far acceptable to God.— II. Requisites essential to the validity of a Vow.-IV. Different sorts of Vows.-1. The Cherem or irremissible Vow.-2. Other Vows that might be redeemed.-Of the Nazareate.

I. THE who confirmed his assertion by a voluntary Oath, person, pronounced the same with his right hand elevated. Sometimes the swearer omitted the imprecation, as if he were afraid, and shuddered to utter it, although it was, from other sources, sufficiently well understood. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23. Ezek. xvii. 18.) Sometimes the imprecation was, as follows; "This and more than this may God do to me." (2 Sam. iii. 9. 35. Ruth i. 17. 1 Kings ii. 23. 2 Kings vi. 31.) Sometimes the swearer merely said; "Let God be a witness ;" and sometimes affirmed saying; "As surely as God liveth.” (Jer. xlii. 5. Ruth iii. 13. 1 Sam. xiv. 45. xx. 3. 21.)

The remarks which have now been made, apply to the person, who uttered the oath himself of his own accord. When an oath was exacted, whether by a judge or another, the person who exacted it put the oath in form; and the person to whom it was put, responded by saying, N., so let it be: or gave his response in other expressions of like 'import, such as do amas. (Numb. v. 19--22. 1 Kings xxii. 16. Deut. xxvii. 15-26.) Sometimes the exacter of the oath merely used the following adjuration, viz. I adjure you by the living God to answer, whether this thing be so or not. And the person sworn accordingly made answer to the point inquired of. (Numb. v. 22. Matt. xxvi. 63.) It should be remarked here, though the formulary of assent on the part of the respondent to an oath was frequently AMEN, AMEN, that this formulary did not always imply an oath, but, in some instances, was merely a protestation. As the oath was an appeal to God (Lev. xix. 12. Deut. vi. 13.), the taking of a false oath was deemed a heinous crime, and perjury, accordingly, was forbidden in those words, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, shalt not call God to witness in pretended confirmation of a falsehood. (Exod. xx. 6.)

It was a common thing in Egypt in the time of Joseph, to swear by the life of the king (Gen. xlii. 15.): and this practice prevailed

subsequently among the Hebrews. (1 Sam. xxv. 26. 2 Sam. xi. 11. xiv. 19. comp. Psal. Ixiii. 11.) The Hebrews also swore by cities and consecrated places, such as Hebron, Shilo, and Jerusalem. A person sometimes swore by himself and sometimes by the life of the person before whom he spoke, viz. by myself, by thee,

or by thy life. (1 Sam. i. 26. 2 Kings ii. 2. Gen. xlii. 15. Josh. vii. 8. Judg. vi. 13. 15. 1 Kings iii. 17. 26.) In some instances, persons adjured others by the beasts of the field (Sol. Song, ii. 7.), a sort of adjuration, which, to the present day, makes its appearance in the writings of the Arabian poets.1

The Jews, in the time of Christ, were in the habit of swearing by the altar, by Jerusalem, by heaven, by the earth, by themselves, by their heads, by the gold of the temple, by sacrifices, &c. Because the name of God was not mentioned in these oaths, they considered them as imposing but small, if any obligation.2 And we, accordingly, find, that the Saviour takes occasion to inveigh, in decided terms, against such arts of deception. (Matt. v. 33-37. xxiii. 16-22.) It is against oaths of this kind, and these alone, (not against an oath uttered in sincerity,) that he expresses his displeasure, and prohibits them. This is clear, since he himself consented to take upon him the solemnity of an oath (Matt. xxvi. 63.); and since Paul himself, in more than one instance, utters an adjuration. Compare Rom. ix. 1. 2 Cor. i. 23.

In the primitive periods of their history, the Hebrews religiously observed an oath, (Josh. ix. 14, 15.) but we find, that, in later times, they were often accused by the prophets of perjury. After the Captivity, the Jews became again celebrated for the scrupulous observance of what they had sworn to, but corruption soon increased among them they revived the old forms, the words without the meaning; and acquired among all nations the reputation of perju rers.3

II. A vow is a religious engagement or promise voluntarily undertaken by a person towards Almighty God. "Unless the Deity has expressly declared his acceptance of human vows, it can at best be but a very doubtful point, whether they are acceptable in his sight; and if they are not so, we cannot deduce from them the shadow of an obligation; for it is not from a mere offer alone, but from an offer of one party, and its acceptance by another, that the obligation to fulfil an engagement arises. The divine acceptance of vows, we can by no means take for granted; considering that from our vows God can derive no benefit, and that, in general, they are of just as little use to man." In Matt. xv. 4-6. and Mark vii. 9-13. Christ himself notices the vow of Korban (already considered), which was common

1 Consult the Koran, Sura Ixxxv. 1—3. lxxxvi. 1. 11–13. Ixxxix. 1—4, ix. 1 4. xci. 1-8. &c.

2 Martialis Epigramat. XI. 95.

3 Mr. Upham's Translation of Jahn's Archeologia Biblica, pp. 494, 495.

+ Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 263–266.

in his time, and by which a man consecrated what he was bound to apply to the support of his parents; and he declares it to be so impious that we cannot possibly hold it to be acceptable to God. In the New Testament, no vows whatever are obligatory, because God has no where declared that he will accept them from Christians. But the people of Israel had such a declaration from God himself; although even they were not counselled or encouraged to make vows. In consequence of this declaration, the vows of the Israelites were binding; and that not only in a moral view, but according to the national law; and the priest was authorised to enforce and estimate their fulfilment. The principal passages relating to this point, are Lev. xxvii. Numb. xxx. and Deut. xxiii. 18. 21, 22, 23.

III. In order to render a vow valid, Moses requires,

1. That it be actually uttered with the mouth, and not merely made in the heart. In Numb. xxx. 3. 7. 9. 13. and Deut. xxiii. 24. he repeatedly calls it the expression of the lips, or, what has gone forth from the mouth; and the same phrase occurs in Psalm lxvi. 14. If, therefore, a person had merely made a vow in his heart, without letting it pass his lips, it would seem as if God would not accept such a vow; regarding it only as a resolution to vow, but not as a vow itself.

This limitation is humane, and necessary to prevent much anxiety in conscientious people. If a vow made in the heart be valid, we shall often experience difficulty in distinguishing whether what we thought of was a bare intention, or a vow actually completed. Here, therefore, just as in a civil contract with our neighbour, words-uttered words-are necessary, to prevent all uncertainty.

2. The party making the vow must be in his own power and competent to undertake the obligation. Therefore the vows of minors were void, unless they were ratified by the express or tacit consent of their parents. In like manner, neither married women nor slaves could oblige themselves by vow, unless they were ratified by their husbands or masters.

3. The things vowed to be devoted to God must be honestly obtained. It is well known, that in antient times, many public prostitutes dedicated to their gods a part of their impure earnings. This is most expressly forbidden by Moses. (Deut. xxxiii. 18.)

IV. There are two sorts of vows mentioned in the Jewish Law, viz. 1. The (CHEREM), which was the most solemn of all, and was accompanied with a form of execration, and which could not be redeemed; and, 2. The 3 (NeDeRiM), or common vows.

1. The cherem is no where mentioned by Moses; nor does he specify by what solemnities or expressions it was distinguished from other vows, but pre-supposes all this as already well known. The species of cherem with which we are best acquainted, was the previous devotement to God of hostile cities, against which they intended to proceed with extreme severity; and that with a view the more to inflame the minds of the people to war. In such cases,