Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

a thing, if he utter it not, then he shall bear his iniquity." If he be adjured, or required by authority, to answer on oath to any question, and do not utter the truth, he is perjured. To this law Solomon alludes in the book of Proverbs. "Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his own soul. He heareth cursing, and bewrayeth not." He heareth the adjuration of the magistrate, or the curse laid upon him to bind him to declare the theft; but he will not bewray or discover the suspected fact, because he is partner in it. Thus he perjures and ruins his soul. This is the case, which Agur deprecated. Give me not poverty, lest I steal, and take the name of my God in vain;" or perjure myself to conceal the theft.

An adjuration, we see, was a proper oath. Now to the adjuration of the high priest our Lord answered without making any objection, or giving the least intimation, that it was unlawful for him to take, or for the magistrate to administer an oath.

In the books of Daniel, and of the Revelation, angels are introduced lifting up their hands to heaven, andswearing by him who liveth forever and ever, that the great events, which they foretold, should surely be accomplished.

Yea; the great Creator, the everliving God, is often in scripture said to swear by his own life, in confirmation of the promises and threatnings, which he makes to mortals. To establish their faith in his word, he condescends to a usage common among them. If the usage were sinful, it would never have been thus countenanced by a divine example.

God often forbids the Jews either to swear by the heathen divinities, or to swear falsely by his name; but he never forbids the use of pious oaths: Nay; on the contrary, he expressly enjoins them in cases of serious importance; and enjoins them in such

general terms, as apply to all nations, as well as to Jews. "He who blesseth himself in the earth, shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of truth." The words which follow evidently respect the gospel times, or the state of things in the new Jerusalem. "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." Again, God thus speaks to his revolting people; "If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto ne; and thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in judgment and in righteousness, and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory."

After what has been said, it cannot be alledged, that oaths, though allowed under the mosaic dispensation, were abolished by Christ under his more perfect dispensation; For, it appears, they were not first introduced by Moses; but, long before his day, were practised with divine approbation, and warranted by divine example. They belonged, not to the ceremonial, but the moral law; and by divine appointment they became a part of the civil constitution, under which the Jews were placed.

Christ never relaxed the moral law: This is permanent as heaven. Nor did he alter the civil polity of the Jews: This continued as it was in his day, until the Roman conquest dissolved it. Nor, indeed, did he abolish the ceremonial law, while he was on earth, but observed it himself until the time of his crucifixion. It remained in force, until it was superseded by his new dispensation after his resurrection from the dead.

And besides; had he intended to abolish oaths, in his sermon on the mount, which was delivered early in his ministry, he would not afterward have used them himself. And if they had been contrary to the design of his gospel, the apostles would not

have allowed and practised them under this dispensation.

It appears from what has been said, that oaths, as really as vows and prayers, are of a religious nature; for they are direct appeals to the God of truth and justice-to him who knows the heart, abhors falsehood, and will punish iniquity. An oath then should be administred with solemnity, and taken in the fear of God. It hence follows, that no oath can properly be administred to one, who is a known enemy to religion, and who avows, in word or practice, his disbelief of a divine moral government and of a future retribution; for on him an oath can have no binding force, farther than it exposes him to the penalty of the civil law; and this penalty may as well be annexed to the violation of truth, in matters of testimony, as to the violation of an oath. The sacredness of an oath ought never to be prostituted on an impious character.

Hence it follows in the clearest manner, that religion is the support of civil society, and that without a general sense of, and regard to religion no society can be safe and happy. If oaths are necessary, religion is so, for without this, oaths in themselves have no efficacy. Religion, while it gives power to oaths, adds force also to every social obligation.

It follows farther, that every wise and virtuous member of society will be disposed to encourage by his word and example, and to support by his prop. erty the regular exercises of divine worship, because these are essential means of diffusing and preserving a knowledge of God, a sense of his government, a dread of his judgment, and a reverence of his laws; and thus they become the means of promoting social virtue and happiness, and of establishing . general security under the administration of civil government. Hence David, describing the char

acter of a good citizen, says, "He walketh upright. ly, worketh righteousness, speaketh the truth in his heart, backbiteth not with his tongue; doth not evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against him. In his eyes a vile person is contemned, but he honoureth them that fear the Lord; and though he swear to his own hurt, he changeth not.”

If oaths are important to the good administration of government, and religion necessary to the efficacy of oaths, then every good government will, in regard to its own security and success, patronize and encourage religion.

It has been thought, and perhaps justly thought, by many serious persons, that, in most communitics, oaths have been unnecessarily multiplied; that in some of the smaller offices of society, and in some less important matters of controversy, common responsibility might be sufficient; and that if oaths were not exacted in such cases, they would have greater efficacy in cases of higher importance. For the frequency of them, it is supposed, diminishes the reverence, which ought to be attached to them. This, however, is a question, which concerns the legislator in his official character, rather than the citizen in his private station. In the general principle, perhaps, most will agree; but to draw the line of discrimination may be a matter of difficulty. One thing ought always to be considered, that though the immediate object of an oath may be small, yet the oath itself, being prescribed by law, and demanded by authority, may in this view be really important; because the probable consequences of a refusal under these circumstances, would be dangerous. A thing small in itself, if it be in its nature innocent, becomes weighty, when it is actually required by law; for a non-compliance in smaller instances may lead to disobedience in greater, and thus weaken the authority of

government, and relax the bands of society. And besides; when we are called to take an oath, especially in matters of controversy between citizens, we are not usually competent judges of the magnitude of the case in question; for we seldom have opportunity to view it in its connexions and consequences. And even the lower offices in society, though small in comparison with others, yet considered in their relation to the good of many, in their influence on the higher grades of office, and in their usual connexion with religion, may be judged important.

I have now fully discussed the first branch of my subject, which was to shew, that oaths, in many cases, may be lawful, and that to prohibit them was not our Saviour's intention in the passage under consideration.

I shall shew, in another discourse, what are the sins here condemned, and represent the atrocity and danger of them.

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »