which, there is too much reafon to fear, many fouls are fent unprepared into an awful eternity. By joining on thefe occafions, we conceive that we should act inconfiftently with thofe peaceable principles which our bleffed Lord has fo ftrongly inculcated, and which will be more particularly treated of in the following chapter.

After giving these reasons for our diffent on this fubject, I fhall conclude with the words of the apostle Paul : One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully perfuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.*" Let us not therefore judge one another any more but judge this rather, that no man put a ftumbling-block, or an occafion to fall, in his brother's way."+

CHAPTER VIII.

ON OATHS AND WAR.

Quotations from Matt. v.-Oaths unneceffary-Arguments, in Favour of them anfwered.-Arguments in Favour of War anfwered.-The Chriftian Religion the only Remedy for this Evil.

YE have heard that it hath been faid by them of old time, Thou shalt not forfwear thyfelf; but fhalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I fay unto you, Swear not at all; neither by hea ven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footftool-But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than thefe cometh of evil."

"Ye have heard that it hath been faid, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I fay unto you, that ye refift not evil. -Ye have heard that it hath been faid, Thou fhalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies; blefs them that curfe you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them which defpitefully use you and perfecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his fun to rife on the evil and on the good; and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."*

* Matt. v. 33,3 4, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45.

After reciting thefe ftrong and unequivocal injunctions of our divine Master, I have paufed to confider, whether I should say a word more on the fubject of them; their own force and perfpicuity feeming to require no comment. I fhall therefore make none upon them; but, after faying that upon these, and other fimilar paffages in the fcriptures, we ground our teftimony againft oaths and war, fhall proceed to confider the objections that are made to the adoption of precepts fo clearly conveyed to us, and the practice of which would be attended with fo many benefits to mankind.

With respect to oaths, the apparent neceffity of them is fo fmall, and their real injury fo great, by profaning the facred name, that, it is prefumed, very few religiously-minded people will be difpofed to plead in their favour: and, indeed, it appears to me difficult to find an objection of any importance, to laying them wholly afide.

The principal arguments ufed by thofe who are difpofed to plead for them, muft however be confidered. One of thefe is, that the Almighty is fometimes faid, in fcripture, to make use of an oath. To this it may be anfwered, that the Almighty could not fwear as man fwears, there being none greater than himself to whom he could appeal; or to whom he was amenable for the truth of his declaration. Befides which, we apprehend, that what he might do, as fovereign Lord, may not be proper for us to do as dependent creatures, whofe highest perfection is obedience to his will; which being exprefsly revealed to us in this inftance by

his beloved Son, our obvious duty is to comply

with it.

Another argument in favour of fwearing before magiftrates, is advanced from the circumftance of our Lord's being filent before the high priest, until he adjured him by the living God. That the high priest intended formally to administer a judicial oath to our Saviour, is what, I apprehend, the context will not support. It rather appears, that Caiaphas, being irritated by our Lord's filence, made ufe of this expreffion in the violence of his temper, and not in a judicial capacity; and until the latter can be proved, our Lord's fimple reply "Thou haft faid,"* in no degree partakes of the nature of an oath.

A third argument in favour of the ufe of oaths, is drawn from fome expreffions of the apostle Paul; as, "God is my witnefs ;"+"I charge thee before God," &c. Thefe, and other fimilar expreffions, do not, however, appear to constitute an oath; nor would they be admitted as fuch in a court of judicature. In the beginning of our fociety, fuch expreffions were fometimes offered to magiftrates, instead of an oath, but always refused.§ Befides, if these words of the apostle are to be confidered as oaths, they would prove too much, by

* Matt. xxvi. 64. † Rom. i. 9. † 2 Tim. ix. 1.

The first affirmation granted to our fociety instead of. an oath, was a declaration "in the prefence of Almigh, ty God." But this not affording univerfal relief, the legiflature afterwards indulged us with the prefent form of: attestation, in which there is no ufe of the facred Name.

fhowing that he used them in private correfpondence or communication; which thofe who plead for judicial fwearing, agree our Lord meant to prohibit by the command, "Swear not at all."

Some have alfo argued in favour of judicial fwearing from an allufion to it in the epiftle to the Hebrews, chap. vi. 16. But furely the incidental mention of a general practice among "men," is not a fufficient argument for the rectitude of that practice; nor a proof that it was allowed by Christians, who, in comparison with the reft of mankind, were then few in number.

It may perhaps be ftill argued, that the ends of juftice could not be answered without an oath. To this it may be replied, that if the fame penalty were annexed to a falfe affirmation as to a falfe oath, thofe whofe confciences are not fufficiently tender to preserve them from giving a falfe affirmation, would find, in the penalty, as much terror from offending against one, as against the other.

It has (as before obferved) been alleged by fome, that this prohibition of oaths relates only to common converfation; but the context will by no means fupport this construction, as will appear from the following confiderations. First, Profane fwearing was prohibited under the law, and it is evident that Chrift was forbidding what the law had allowed. Secondly, Swearing is here contrafted with forfwearing or falfe fwearing. Now this being contrary to the law, whether before a magiftrate, or in private converfation, the command not to fwear at all must be equally extenfive. Our conftruction of the command of Chrift is further