Page images
PDF
EPUB

passions are inflamed, and the restraints of religion rendered more irksome, and the enjoyments of practical piety become less desired. Even parental tenderness and care, are represented as intrusions of cruelty and power..

Were we to consider the subject with reference to economy alone, there would be sufficient grounds to abandon this species of reading. The term economy, will apply to time and feeling, as well as to the expense that is thus wasted. There is no individual that acquires a strong relish for novels, who does not suffer it to occupy time, that is demanded. by important concerns. And as to feelings, even in those cases in which the principles of morality are not concerned, where the passions excited, are considered of the amiable kind, I consider there is a very improper waste of such feelings. Those feelings, so far as they are valuable, were given us for practical purposes, to be directed to real objects, and not expended on objects, which have no existence but in imagination. We may be as prodigal of sympathy, as of money, direct it to quite as improper objects, and render ourselves as destitute of the one as the other, when real objects are presented to us. Thus it has been observed, that the sentimental novel reader, would rise with tears, from the perusal of her favorite tale, and spurn the beggar from her door.

Considering our duties, as rational and accountable creatures--the important purposes which we have to accomplish, during the short period of human life: it is a deeply interesting inquiry, how our time should be applied? When we contemplate the feelings which arise, in the moments of levity. and forgetfulness of God--that they are inevitably succeeded by conflict and suffering, how can we coolly place ourselves within the sphere of their in

fluence? It is one of the very solemn reflections,suggested by divine revelation: "that for every idle word, we shall be brought into judgment." The amusements of the vain, and the gratifications of the licentious, though fleeting in themselves, are yet to arise in judgment, when every one must give an account, to the Author of his existence, for the application of the time and talents, with which he had been entrusted.

"Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be, in all holy conversation and godliness; looking for, and hastening unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" "Nevertheless," said the same apostle, "we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless." 2 Pet. 3. 11, &c.

.

CHAPTER XV.

Of Oaths.

THE gospel dispensation, we think, superceded the use of oaths. The clear and unequivocal precepts of our Lord, we believe, are binding upon christians. "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. But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King, neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black: But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matt. 5. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.

The apostle James, adverts to the same thing, in the impressive language: "But above all things my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." Jam. 5. 12. It is strange indeed that precepts so positive and clear, should be construed away to mean any thing, that professors please.

The construction, by which it is attempted to destroy the obligation of these precepts, is too bold and too weak to be admitted. It is too bold, because by such a licence 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 explain

N*

ing 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 practiced 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 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," &c. 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, & 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 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.

« PreviousContinue »