صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

weak to be admitted. It is too bold, because, by such a license, the whole body of Christian doctrine might be subjected to the most palpable innovation. What would become of the morality of mankind, if such latitude were taken in explaining the moral law? It is weak, because it supposes that our Lord and his apostles did not intend to prohibit legal oaths, but only the use of profane language; when legal oaths were the very subject on which the command was given. The oaths of the Law (which were judicial) were distinctly brought into view, as practised under the former Dispensation, but prohibited under the Gospel. The prohibition is complete. It not only enumerates certain kinds of oaths, but it says; "Swear not at all." Now I would ask those who contend for the practice, if he that swears before a justice of the peace, can be said to "swear not at all ?" It must either be said, that a judicial oath is not an oath, or that it violates the command of Jesus Christ. Our Lord goes on further to say, that "Whatsoever is more than these [yea and nay] cometh of evil.” Again we are brought to the point, that an oath is no more than yea or nay-or, that it "cometh of evil.” We cannot hesitate on this question, that it is more than a simple affirmative or negative; of course we must acknowledge that it comes of evil, and ought to be laid aside; or we must positively contradict our Lord and Saviour.

The admonition of the apostle James is equally hard to reconcile to the practice of taking oaths. "Above all things, my brethren, swear not." And after enumerating several kinds of oaths, he adds, "neither by any other oath." Here it will devolve on the advocates for

[ocr errors]

oaths to prove, in the first place, that he that swears before a civil officer, swears not; or, in the next place, that it is neither by any of the oaths enumerated by the apostle, nor by any other oath." Nor ought we to pass lightly over the manner in which the apostle closes his admonition. For after excluding every kind of oath, he adds, "lest ye fall into condemnation." Here condemnation stands as the inevitable consequence of a violation of this precept, in its most unlimited acceptation.

We all admit the authority of the Scriptures; and a great majority of those who contend for oaths profess to believe, that they are the only rule of faith and practice. And yet the most clear, positive, and explicit passages, are made to give way to constructions of a very untenable description!

But it is said that Jesus Christ took an oath, when brought before the chief priest, previous to his crucifixion.

This objection is founded on the words of the chief priest: "I adjure thee by the Living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God." Matt. xxvi. 63. Whatever of an oath was in these expressions is chargeable to the priest, and not to Jesus Christ. Our Lord had no agency in it whatever. Nor does it appear that the answer which He gave afterwards, had any reference to the manner of the charge. He gave the answers which He pleased, according to his inscrutable wisdom, and not under the coercion of the authority of the priest, or his adjuration; for it does not appear that He pursued any different course from that which he would have pursued without it.

If an oath can be imposed entirely at the will of the officer, and without the consent or agency of him that swears, it differs very widely from the common understanding of mankind. And, as it would not be in the power of any man to refuse to swear, so neither could it possibly bind, as a moral obligation. Upon this ground also, as the early members of this Society were never backward in acknowledging their fidelity to the governments under which they lived, the civil authorities always had it in their power, to convert these declarations into oaths of allegiance.

But this would not be acknowledged by any; and yet it must follow, if it be considered that the charge of the chief priest constituted an oath, on the part of our Saviour.

The various forms of expression used by the apostle Paul, and insisted on by some as equivalent to swearing, are not oaths, nor are they so considered in any legal proceedings.

It may also be observed, that the primitive Christians, for the first three hundred years, considered it unlawful to swear. For the testimonies in support of this assertion, the reader may consult Barclay's Apology, Prop. 15, § XII; and W. Penn's Works, vol. 2. p. 363.

The primitive Christians were not alone in their ideas of oaths. It is well known that many of the most pious Heathens had a clear view of some of the principles of the Gospel. Among these is the subject of oaths. (Vide Barclay's Apol. Prop. 15, § XII.)

An important objection was formerly made to the abrogation of oaths, on account of the security which they were supposed to afford to the community. It was

even imagined that justice could not be administered, nor government itself be supported, without oaths. And this sentiment was avowed, both from the pulpit and the seat of justice. This fact affords strong evidence of the power of prejudice, and the weakness of human reasoning, when founded on expediency, as opposed to the precepts of Jesus Christ. But such was the infatuation of mankind not two centuries ago, that, from reasoning like this, they reconciled themselves to punish, as malefactors, men, and even females, who, feeling a reverent regard for the precepts of our Lord, could not swear; depriving them of their property, their liberty, and even of their lives, indirectly, while those who could swear and forswear, were suffered not only to roam at large, but prey on the best interests of society!

This delusion is now over, in part. Enlightened and liberal-minded men, of different denominations, do not now suppose that oaths are essentially necessary to the support of civil government; and the laws themselves admit affirmations instead of oaths. We might therefore suppose, that the practice would be abandoned; as all dread of consequences is removed, and it is found that a simple affirmation answers all the purposes that ever could reasonably be expected from oaths. And indeed, considering the light which has been cast on the subject that not one solitary advantage can result from the judicial use of oaths instead of affirmations, but, on the contrary, much evil, independent of the violation of a positive precept of Jesus Christ-it is not less strange that they should now be sanctioned by an enlightened and religious people, than that they should have been

considered, in a less enlightened age, of absolute necessity in civil society.

The imposition of an oath carries with it the strong presumption, that the individual is not to be believed without it. This idea has an extensively demoralizing effect on those who are placed within the sphere of its influence. It opens a wide door to the odious vice of lying. When men become reconciled to the idea that an oath is necessary to the truth, it is a kindred feeling to reconcile them to falsehood, in their ordinary communications. Nor is this the only immoral tendency of requiring oaths, to ensure the truth. It holds out a temptation to swearing in conversation. Reconciled, in the first place, to speak falsehood, unless under the coercion of an oath, and, in the next place, to attest the truth by swearing, a disposition is produced, in some men, to give their conversation the appearance of truth, by interspersing it with profane oaths. When their feelings are thus depraved, there is very little dependence on their veracity, either with or without oaths; and the formality of a book, and the aid of a civil officer, would add but little to the obligation.

may

It is not intended to convey the idea that these effects are uniformly produced. But that this species of immorality does prevail to a melancholy extent, will hardly be denied; and that the public sanction of oaths be numbered among the causes of this vice, I think, is equally evident. Still it is readily admitted, that there are many who occasionally take judicial oaths, without supposing that they are violating a precept of Jesus Christ, and without falling into the practice of using profane language. But even these would do well seriously to

« السابقةمتابعة »