is my witness*" "I invoke God as a witness on my own soult," with many other instances equally clear, and equally to the point. As to the words of the apostle James, premising (as we learn from independent sources) that the Jews were in the habit of swearing by the things specified by our Lord and St. James, in the passages under consideration, I will content myself with the commentary of Calvin only, which, whilst it places the doctrine of Christianity on these points, in its true light, is full of such sound and pious sentiments as may still have a beneficial effect upon our minds. “It has been a general vice, in almost every age, to swear lightly and without consideration; such is our evilmindedness, we do not reflect how grievous a sin it is to abuse the name of God. But because God, meanwhile, enjoins solemnly a reverence for his name, men invent different subterfuges, with a * Rom. i. 9. † 2 Cor. i. 23.—Ἐγὼ δὲ μάρτυρα τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦμαι επὶ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχὴν. Augustin, in his Comment on Galatians i. 9, not only admits, but maintains, that the Apostle takes there a solemn oath, and justifies him also in doing so. The whole of that passage is well worth examination. Athanasius, too, though he strongly reprobates the custom of swearing unnecessarily, yet, when charged with designs against the Emperor, says, in his letter of defence, "I stretch forth my hand, and as I have learned of the Apostle, I invoke God as a witness on my own soul," using the very words of St. Paul above quoted, See Pole's Synopsis, Matt. v. 33. view to swear with impunity. They pretend, therefore, that no evil is done unless the name of God be expressly employed. A very old device this. Thus the Jews, when they swore by heaven and earth, fancied they did not abuse God's name, because they did not utter it. But whilst men wish to show their ingenuity in blinding the eyes of God, they do nothing but deceive themselves by their frivolous refinements and subtleties. Christ inveighed against such folly. And now James, subscribing to his Master's decree, bids us abstain from such indirect forms, because whoever swears in vain, and for a thing of nought, with whatever colour he may disguise his words, abuses the name of God. The sum is, therefore, this,-that it is not a whit more lawful to swear by the heaven or the earth, than to swear by the name of God; the reason is conveyed by Christ,-because the glory of God is engraven every where, and shines forth every where. Indeed, with no other sense or intention do men employ the names of the heaven and the earth in their oath, than they would do if they named God himself, because by such a form of language they only designate the Maker by his works." "The Anabaptists (continues this learned man), act indiscreetly in condemning all oaths under plea of this passage. For neither is James discussing the subject of oaths in general, as neither is Christ in the passage before referred to (Matt. v. 34), but each is exposing that fallacious subtlety which was invented to evade the law, whilst men were in quest of a licence to swear without expressing the name of God, a licence, I mean, which contravenes the prohibition of the law. And the very words, 'neither by the heaven, nor by the earth,' clearly convey this meaning; for had the question referred to the essential nature of an oath, what purpose could have been served by specifying these forms? It is evident then, that as well by Christ as by St. James, the childish cunning of those men was reproved, who thought they could swear without incurring punishment, provided only, they went about the matter indirectly and circuitously." 6 "In order then, to possess ourselves of the real meaning of St. James, we must in the first place, hold fast that precept of the law, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain;' from which it is evident that there is some lawful employment of the name of God. And he applies the best remedy to the fault he reprobates, namely, 'to accustom ourselves to truth and steadiness in all we say. For what other origin is there of the depraved custom of swearing, than that great unsoundness which causes credit to be withheld from those who merely employ a simple affirmation. For would men only cultivate truth and sincerity in their words, as is their bounden duty, there were no need of so many superfluous oaths. Since, then, a want of faithfulness and honesty is the fountain whence the corrupt habit of swearing flows, to remove the effect, the apostle would remove the cause, and he bids us be true and sincere in every word we utter*." Oaths then, are not, in themselves, unlawful to a Christian: From the records of the Old Testament, from the words and from the example of Christ and his apostles, from the testimony of the Christian Church, we conclude undoubtingly, that consistently with the letter and the spirit of the Gospel an oath may be taken, "when a cause of faith and charity requireth it, so it be done according to the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth." Does it therefore follow, that the system of oaths, as enjoined or permitted and practised in England, is agreeable to the word and will of God? * J. Calvin; Comment: in Jac: v. To this I must add, the testimony of Augustin, that “the intention of our Lord and of St. James, in forbidding oaths, was not that they might utterly banish them from the affairs of men, but that, by not easily being induced to swear, we might avoid perjury." Serm. xxviii. De Verbis Apost. + Artic. 39. CHAPTER V. ARE OATHS, AS AT PRESENT ADMINISTERED AND MOTE TRUTH AND JUSTICE? AND ARE THEY IN the first place, I must observe, that the very utmost limit to which Scripture authority, (looking both to the words and to the spirit of the passages which bear upon this point,) can, with any thing like fairness, be interpreted to extend, is the bare permission of oaths when NECESSARY for the ends of justice, and the maintenance of truth. This is the principle, the foundation-stone, upon which all legislative enactments on the subject of oaths should be built. It seems to be a duty incumbent on the Legislature carefully to weigh the strict NECESSITY OF THE CASE, before they require, or sanction, or even tolerate an oath, in any proceeding whatever. The Bible speaks to my mind clearly, distinctly, and unequivocally, with the voice of warning as well as of command; forbidding all oaths which can be avoided consistently with justice and order, and the well-being of the community; and commanding those who are in authority to be very jealous of the heathen practice of swearing on light |