THE

EVANGELICAL REGISTER.

SEPTEMBER, 1842.

MAY A CHRISTIAN TAKE AN OATH?

DURING the last Session of Parliament, a Bill passed through several stages, allowing an affirmation to be substituted for an oath in courts of justice, in cases where the witness alleged a scruple of conscience in the matter; the Bill, however, was absurdly (one might say ludicrously,) limited to Baptists. In discussing the measure, some remarks were made by the Editor of The Record Newspaper, which we think sensible and judicious; they are therefore here subjoined :— The Society of Friends have the unhappy prominence of leading the way to the rejection of oaths on just occcasions. This error of theirs, like most of their peculiarities, arises from a limited, and therefore, a false view of scriptural truth. But any individual, and still more any body of men, have much cause to weigh maturely any novelties which they attempt to palm on the Church. If false, it is impossible to say what extensive evils may not originate in their promulgation; and even in the most favourable circumstances, that of their originators being, notwithstanding their errors, true members of the Church, it is apparent that our Saviour looks with anything but indifference on any, even the most minute departures from the faith-(Matt. v. 19.)

Most scriptural errors arise from men taking one text or set of texts without considering them in the light of other passages of Scripture, and not unfrequently from putting the Old Testament Scriptures (though equally with the New the Word of God) practically out of sight. This last is a most dangerous error, and both are very conspicuously displayed in this question of oaths.

No doubt there stand in the inspired record the words, "Swear not at all." But there also stand the following:-" Give to him that asketh thee :" "Him that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none:""From him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away:" "Him that smiteth thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." By the example of our Lord himself, when smitten, we find the last text quoted is to be taken figuratively. From the example of the Friends, as well as others, we find that they take all but the first figuratively; and this is at once consistent with truth, and necessary, if they would not " go out of the world." But the first command is not more absolute in its terms than the others, and were they to take a comprehensive view of the Word of God, they would be led to the conclusion, that this command is not to be taken absolutely any more than the others; it is applicable under certain circumstances, and not applicable under others.

In confirmation of what we say, we observe that one of the peculiar marks of God's people, in the latter and glorious days of the Church, as described in the lavth chapter of Isaiah, is this, He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth." Not by false gods, or irreverently, which is vile, but by "the God of truth." That this was the practice in the primitive times of the Church, under the eye of the Apostles, is proved by that statement of St. Paul in Hebrews "For men verily swear by the greater," and the scriptural object of the oath is added" and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife."

vi. 16:

VOL. XIV.

2 A

This view of the subject is further confirmed if the whole passage, beginning with the words in question, namely, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all," is brought into view. It is known to every one, that to understand the scope and bearing of any passage, not a part, but the whole, must be presented to the mind. To consider it in fragments, instead of viewing it as a whole, is wilfully to run into error. It will be observed, then, upon reading the passage, that our Lord, in entering into a detail of the oaths we are not to take, does not specify the swearing "by the God of truth;" which, as the practice of " swearing by His name" in courts of law was then, as now, habitual, it is to be presumed He would have done had He intended to change the law in this respect. But He adverts not to that practice at all, but specifies that we are not to swear by heaven, or the earth, or by Jerusalem, or by our head, concluding the whole by these words, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." As, then, He apparently does not advert to the then habitual legalized practice of swearing by the name of God in courts of law; as the oaths He names were those generally used among the Jews in common conversation; and as He rounds off the subject by directing, as the practical conclusion of the whole, that our communication our conversation with one another-should be confined to the terms, Yea, yea; nay, nay;" the legitimate inference appears to be, that He confines Himself in the passage to the forbidding of oaths, or anything approaching to them, in our ordinary conversation with one another.

66

This view of the subject is further confirmed by the practice of our Lord himself, and that of the great apostle of the Gentiles, in relation to this subject. The direction, "Let your communication be Yea, yea; nay, nay;" is as absolute, abstractly considered, as, "Swear not at all;" but we find our Lord himself, on special occasions, adding the solemn expressions, "Verily, verily ;" and we find the great apostle, in his epistles, while writing under the plenary inspiration of the Spirit, enforcing the important truths he was desirous of impressing on the minds of those to whom he wrote, by a variety of appeals to God which we need not stop to specify. The Spirit in Christ and in His apostle is one. His teaching must ever be essentially the same. God cannot deny or contradict Himself. And hence, again, we are led to the same conclusion, that while in our ordinary "communication" with one another every semblance of an oath is to be scrupulously avoided, and our conversation is to be characterized by simplicity of language, as well as the integrity of truth, it is not only characteristic of His true people that in solemn legal proceedings they are, "for an end of strife," to "swear by His name," but that on other important and suitable occasions, they may depart from simple assertion or denial, and enforce what they say, not only by fitly chosen words, of emphasis and weight, but even by an appeal to God as to the truth of what they advance. We observe, in conclusion, that legislation on such a subject ought to be slow and wary. In the strong disposition manifested in certain quarters to get rid of oaths, there is, unquestionably, much latent Infidelity. There is a great disposition to banish the remembrance of God, of His name, of His presence, of His moral government, and of His final judgment, from the mind and proceedings of mankind. Our legislators of religious character and just moral principle, will do well to bear this fact in their mind, and also not readily to give way or pander to scruples which, though not Infidel in their origin, are Infidel in their tendency, and have their foundation in ignorance, or perversion of the Word of God. At the same time the evil of the vast multiplication of oaths in this country, and those taken on trivial occasions, and often in the most irreverent manner, is great indeed. And we trust that while Parliament will do nothing to militate against the solemn sanction of an oath taken on suitable occasions, or to infringe on the Scriptural practice of the people of God of "swearing by His name," they will do much to stop those innumerable oaths required to be taken in courts and offices of all descriptions, from the House of Lords downwards, and adopt such measures as will also secure, that where oaths are justly required, they shall be taken with the solemnity befitting so high an appeal to Him, who will not hold them guiltless who take His name in vain.

A SERMON,

BY THE REV. JOHN J. BRAINE.

PREACHED AT MELKSHAM, WILTS, ON SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 3, 1842.

"Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.” -1 Cor. xv. 20.

tion of strangers and enemies to Christianity, not indeed to the particular fact of the resurrection of Christ, but to other facts connected with the origin of Christianity, that will furnish assistance for our argument.

rising up in our nature of both body and | ternal evidence that he honestly believes soul to everlasting glory. that to be true to which he bears witness, That such were the views of the apos- and especially, if there be proof furnishtle, will be seen, if we consult the lan-ed of his clear acquaintance with the subguage in connection with the text. "If ject. We are furnished with the attesta Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain: yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. . For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most

miserable.'

In offering a few thoughts further on this subject, it will not be deemed unnecessary to advance a few plain arguments, in favour of the assertion in the first clause of the text, "Now is Christ risen from the dead;" and then make some inquiries as to the import of the second clause, or what is implied in His becoming "the first-fruits of them that slept."

I. Let us endeavour to advance a few arguments, in favour of the doctrine of Christ's resurrection.

The historians Tacitus and Pliny, who lived in the age of the apostles, give us ample information of the fact, that Christ lived-was crucified-that His followers were called Christians-that they became, very early after His death, exceedingly numerous, and had extended into the city of Rome and other populous parts of the empire; that the cruel treatment they received was unjust, for they were zealous advocates for virtue, personal, domestic and public; and that they suffered the most awful torments for the sake of Christ. Other authors in the second century, in the third and in the fourth, speak of Jesus and His apostles, as persons well known. These testimonies furnish proof of the fact of the appearance of Jesus in the flesh, and of His death; and respecting His resurrection we may obAs the resurrection of Christ is one of serve, the apostles fearlessly published the fundamental principles of the Chris-it, even in the city of Jerusalem, and in tian religion, it has always been called in question by the sons of infidelity. We need not be surprised at their conduct in this matter, when we consider that they have ever been inclined to call in question the whole system of redemption, devised by infinite Wisdom, and accomplished by Almighty power and love; and when we consider, that they are aware, if they could prove the resurrection of Christ to be an imposition, they would at once overturn the whole fabric of Christianity, since the resurrection of its Founder is 1. That Christ actually arose from the its principal basis. In endeavouring to dead, is evident, from the authority of the prove this glorious fact, we must, neces- angel who visited the sepulchre, and desarily, refer to the testimony of the fol-clared to some of our Lord's disciples, lowers of Christ, because there are no "He is risen, He is not here." We canother written testimonies in existence, not suppose an angel would descend from that apply to the point. Those who pro-heaven, to assert falsehood; nor indeed, fess to disbelieve the doctrine, raise this have we any reason to suppose, that any circumstance as one of their objections to of those holy beings would descend to it; "the writers of the New Testament," our earth, with any kind of message to say they, were the parties concerned in man, unless commissioned by the great the affair." But we cannot conceive how Inhabitant of eternity; and to suppose the testimony of a witness in a court of that He, who is properly styled the God law, can be invalidated, if there be in- of love, would thus impose upon, and

66

the presence of His murderers. They knew its importance, and felt it to be one of the principal topics of a Gospel ministry, "that He who was crucified and slain, God hath raised from the dead." To the candid mind, the evidences furnished by the sacred writers are incontestible, which the more we examine, the more firmly we are grounded and established in our belief of the event they go to prove. We will, on the present occasion, notice a few of those evidences.