. When
duty presents itself Covenant engagements should be made to perform it.
With the enlargement of the field of duty, should proceed the
enlargement of Covenant promises, in dependence on Divine aid to
overtake it. According to the display of God's glorious goodness and
mercy, should be the solemn engagements of his people to give it
celebration. If one view of his glory calls to the exercise, every one
brighter will invite to it, till both engagements and their fulfilment
merge into eternal unbroken obedience in heaven.

Thirdly. In Covenanting, there should be made engagements to abandon
whatever evil unobserved there may be in the vow made, or whatever may
be inconsistent with its lawful parts. A vow may sometimes be sinful,
notwithstanding the use of the utmost care to make it in consistency
with the calls of duty. The sinful parts are due to the imperfection of
the individual who makes it; the lawful part alone is obligatory. The
making of the good part of a vow ought not to be refrained from on
account of a dread of associating with that a part that might be evil.
Were an evil part to be introduced under the apprehension of its
enormity, daring crime would be committed, to which we could not
conceive of an illuminated individual being accessory. Vowed in
ignorance even, evil involves in sin. When discovered in its true
character, it ought to be discarded. When the vow is made, there should
be included in it the engagement, to refrain, so soon as it is
discovered, from performing any part of it, which, having been sinful,
and therefore possessed of no obligation, ought not to have entered into
it. Nothing, indeed, but a sense of propriety can hinder men from
claiming the performance of engagements, even of an evil character,
that are made to them. But God who commands that only what is good be
vowed, disapproves of such a demand, as well as of the engagement on
which it is based.

Finally. Covenanting does not shackle inquiry. It is a wrong
interpretation of the words, "It is a snare after vows to make inquiry,"
that represents them as condemning every endeavour made, after vowing,
to increase in knowledge, even in reference to the vow. The passage
would seem only to designate as sinful, the practice of endeavouring to
make inquiry, for the purpose of evading an engagement made by a vow of
a lawful nature. Were a vow perfect, it would not need revisal, and
would therefore be altogether independent of the incr