The Society of Friends are convinced, that by giving this kind of reverence to the externals with which, since the days of the apostles, the religion of the New Covenant has been invested, and which belongs only to God, a superstitious, and in many instances, an idolatrous feeling is excited in the mind; and the attention of the people is proportionably diverted from that worship of the Father, which is in spirit and in truth; and which is performed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, bestowed on us freely of the Father, through the mediation of Jesus Christ, his Son. This Holy Spirit convinces mankind of sin; leads to genuine repentance, and to faith in Christ as the propitiation for sin, and as our Advocate and High Priest at the right hand of the Father as well as in all his other offices; and constitutes those who yield implicit obedience to the will of God, thus revealed in the secret of the heart, spiritual worshippers-"lively stones," that "are built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."* The following testimonies of the apostle Paul afford a further elucidation of this important doctrine : "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."t "Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters saith the Lord Almighty."‡ Agreeably to the foregoing exhortation, the Society of Friends esteem it to be the privilege, as well as the duty of Christians, not only to renounce every thing obviously wrong; but every thing even of an ambiguous character,-to "abstain from all appearance of evil;" § they nevertheless, are far from judging censoriously of those who do not see eye to eye with them, in these and other things, in which they believe it their duty to persevere in a line of conduct different from that, pursued by other bodies of Christians. On the contrary, they desire to regard with Christian love, all who fear the Lord, and work righteousness; and constantly to bear in remembrance the saying of the apostle: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." || 1 Peter ii. 5. + 1 Corinthians iii. 16, 17. 2 Corinthians vi. 16, 17, 18. Romans xiv. 4. APPENDIX. The Question, "ARE JUDICIAL OATHS LAWFUL?" Answered; with some Observations on the Moral Influence of Judicial Oaths. By JAMES BACKHOUSE. In a country professing the Christian Religion, but having laws that require evidence in courts of justice to be given upon Oath, the question, Are Judicial Oaths Lawful? is necessarily to be understood as the enquiry ;-Is it in accordance with the laws of God, as revealed in the New Testament, for men to swear in confirmation of evidence, before magistrates? and this enquiry is necessarily involved in the more general one-Are Oaths of any description lawful under the Gospel? In order to determine this question, it is neceesary, in the first place, to define what an oath is; much confusion having arisen, in connexion with this subject, from not distinguishing between Oaths and Solemn Affirmations. An Oath may be defined to be, a declaration combined with an imprecation—a conditional calling down upon one's self some dreaded penalty. A man either swears by something which is dear to him, or by some object of his reverence or dread. In the former case, the penalty he means to attach to himself, on the supposition that he swears falsely, is the loss of that which is dear to him; and in the latter case, it is the wrath of him whom he reverences or fears. When the ancient Grecian, for instance, swore by his head, he professed to subject himself to the loss of his head; and when the Jew swore by the Lord God of Israel, he cursed himself by the wrath of the Lord, provided his oath should be false or broken. This feature in the constitution of an oath is observable in all the cases in which the Saviour of men has commented on swearing. The British law also makes this distinction betwixt oaths and affirmations; refusing to accept evidence upon the latter, even when most solemnly made, except in a few cases, in which, in deference to the conscientious scruples of certain religious communities, by special laws, their evidence is received on simple affirmation. Solemn appeals to the Deity, unaccompanied by imprecations, do not constitute oaths, from their very nature; they do not invoke the special wrath of God should they be broken; but only call to mind, whether formally or by inference, the great truth, that God is ever the witness of our motives and actions; and that for all these we must give account to Him in the Day of Judgment. The Jews under the First Covenant were limited in the use of oaths, to swearing by the name of the Lord: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and thou shalt swear by his name.”* -"Be ye therefore very courageous, to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; that ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you: neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them.f When Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, promulgated the perfect standard of morality belonging to the New Covenant, he said, "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."‡ The words of Jesus, on this occasion, appear to contain a plain and unqualified interdiction of all swearing. In the first place, the command to the Jews not to forswear or perjure themselves is mentioned: "Ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself." In the next place, the only form of oath allowed under the law of Moses is alluded to: "But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths." Then comes the emphatic distinction between the Law and the Gospel, in the words, "But I Deut. vi. 13. + Joshua xxiii. 6, 7. Matthew v. 33, 37. say unto you." Immediately following this and the preceding allusion, is the command of Jesus-" Swear not at all;" which, from the construction of the whole paragraph, prohibits, primarily, the oaths which of old time, were to be performed unto the Lord; and secondarily, those which had been introduced among the Jews by the traditions of the Pharisees; these being connected with the former by the conjunctions "neither" and "nor." Jesus then adds, in conclusion, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil:” thus, after having forbidden all swearing as tolerated under the Mosaic Law, he established, by a positive, clear, and definite precept, the use of simple affirmation, as that form of communication which alone belongs to the dispensation of the Gospel. The Apostle James appears to have understood the above command of our Lord, to be absolute; and in accordance with this view, he uses the exhortation, not less clear and emphatic than that of his Divine Master: "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."* The primitive Christians, for some ages, refused to take oaths: being called upon to swear, they constantly answered, "I am Christian, I do not swear." Some of the advocates of judicial oaths have urged, that this refusal was on account of the nature of the oaths tendered them; but there is no proof that this was their sole ground of objection; on the contrary, their answer favours the conclusion, that they considered all oaths as unlawful for Christians. They appear to have objected, not to the species of oath only, but to swearing; in obedience to HIM who said, "Swear not at all." That the judgment of the early fathers, both Greek and Latin, was, that the words of our Lord and his Apostle James, forbid all oaths, without any exception, is abundantly evident from their writings. "I say nothing of perjury," says Tertullian, "since swearing is unlawful to Christians;" "The old law," says Basil, "is satisfied with the honest keeping of an oath: but Christ cuts off the opportunity of perjury;" "He who has precluded murder by taking away anger," observes Gregory of Nysse, “and who has driven away the pollution of adultery by subduing desire, has expelled from our life the curse of perjury, by forbidding us to * James v. 12. b swear; for where there is no oath there can be no infringement of it." "Let the Christian entirely avoid oaths, in obedience to our Lord's prohibition;" says Chrysostom, "do not, therefore, say to me, I swear for a just purpose: it is no longer lawful for thee to swear, either justly or unjustly. Let us preserve our mouths free from an oath." "It is our absolute duty," says Gregory Naziansen, "strictly to attend to the commands of our King, and by all means to avoid an oath, especially such an one as is taken in the name of God." See also Justin, Clement Alex., Origen, Cyprian, Hilary, Theophylact, Ambrose, Jerom, and Isidorus Pelus. Barclay's Apology, Prop. xv. sec. 12. Gurney's Peculiarities of Friends, &c. Notwithstanding the plain interdiction of all swearing by our Saviour and his Apostle James, many attempts have been made to prove that some exception is implied in these interdictions; and that swearing before a magistrate is compatible with the Gospel; it becomes necessary, therefore, to consider, separately, the arguments used in support of Judicial Oaths. In order to support the assumption, that Christ intended to except swearing by the name of the Lord from his interdiction, "Swear not at all;" it is urged, that when he used these words, he was merely combating the perversions of the Pharisees, in which they taught, that to swear by heaven, or by the earth, or by any of God's creatures, was no breach of the command, "And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou prophane the name of thy God: I am the LORD,"* nor an infraction of the Third Commandment: " "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." But though Jesus had previously told those around him that, "except their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter the kingdom of heaven ;" and, though he noticed, also, the oaths introduced by the Pharisees, and forbade them, after having first forbidden swearing by the oath that, under the Law of Moses, was to be performed unto the Lord, it by no means appears that the general tenour of this part of his Sermon on the Mount was exclusively, or even principally, directed against those traditions of the Pharisees, by which they made the commandments of God of none effect. The general scope of his discourse, on this occasion, was obviously, to call the attention of his audience to the imperfect morality of various precepts in the Mosaic Law, that related to Leviticus xix. 12. + Exodus xx. 7. + Matthew v. 20. |