DEAR SIR,

Disciple.

HAYING endeavoured to imbibe the spirit of a disciple of Christ, to cherish sentiments of peace and love, and to promote the cause of "pure religion" to the extent of my abilities and opportunities, with a lively interest in the "Christian Disciple," I feel desirous of adding my mite to the advancement of a cause I have long since espoused. In doing this, I shall, at this time, beg leave to offer a quotation from a valuable work, which few have seen, and which, perhaps, few will ever have the pleasure and benefit of perusing. Should it meet your approbation, you will gratify a constant reader, by inserting it in the "Christian Disciple." Your's, &c.

AMANDER.

This author, after showing the danger, the strange and fatal inconsistencies, and bewildering tendency of many doctrines, which have long disturbed the christian church, says, "If, knowing our duty here, we perform it to the best of our power, we shall certainly be accepted of God. Whether we square our faith by the precepts of Athanasius, or Arius, or Socinus, we shall enter into life, if we keep the commandments; and follow, as nearly as possible, the steps of Jesus, which points the way to immortal light. Vainly to attempt to pierce the clouds and darkness that surround

waste our time, but cannot improve our piety. To meditate on things, that are above the sphere of our comprehension, and on which, if we lived for a thousand years, we could never form any distinct ideas, only serve to bewilder the understanding without mending the heart. The religion of Jesus consists more in beneficent actions, than in contemplative raptures; more in the calm and serene sensations of meekness, gentleness, and forgiveness, than in the wild emotions of enthusiasm."

"I feel a firm, unshaken conviction, that it is the vital benevolence of the heart and affections, and not the mere assent of the mind to any mystery of doctrine, which constitutes that religion which is most pleasing in the sight of God. There cannot be a more concise and just description of religion than that by St. James, i. 27. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their afflictions, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." There are, certainly, good and bad men among all sects; and perhaps, it would' be difficult to say, on which side the sum of moral worth preponderates. Hence, ought we not to learn that what o pinions we entertain about certain dark and inexplicable matters, are not religion? And ought they to kindle any animosity between us? Ought

"It is plain, therefore, that when we talk of three persons in the Godhead, the word person has no relation whatever to those ideas of corporeal figure which we annex to it in common use, and which, from the grossness of our conceptions, we can hardly help associating with any term expressive of personality. But it is certain, that though the Church of England worships what are, for the want of a better word, or from the choice of a bad one, called "three persons," IT ACKNOWLEDGES

BUT ONE GOD. When therefore we worship three persons, we can evidently worship only one and the same God under these different personal appellations. And if the

Church had adopted the word appellation instead of person, the whole dispute about the Trinity, and which is rather a dispute about words than about things, might have been avoided. Arians and Socinians, undoubtedly worship the same God as the Trinitarians, without body, parts, or passions. What then should keep them asunder, if they differ only about expressions? And it is clear to me that their greatest difference is nothing more than a difference, not in the substance, but in the phras eology of their adoration:Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians, consider this, and learn charity and forbearance towards each other !"

. LV. Matth. v. 33, 7. Again, 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 foot-stool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head; beVol. VI. No. 9.

35

cause 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 precept, (Exod. xx. 7,) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” was rendered by the Jews, “thou shalt not swear in vain, or falsely, by the name of the Lord thy God." It was considered particularly as a pro

hibition of perjury. But still more explicit is the command, (Lev. xix. 18.) "Thou shalt not swear by my name falsely." The Jews were also expressly forbidden to swear by false gods. But Jewish sentiments, both of an oath and perjury, as far as we can learn them, appear to have been very loose; and we have at least very ancient testimony, that the forms of swearing to which our Lord alludes in the text, were common among Jews. "A man," says Maimonides, may forswear himself four ways. For example, he may swear he hath not cast a stone into the sea, when he hath cast it; that he hath cast it, when he hath not; that he will not eat, and yet eats; that he will eat, and yet eats not." But, says the Talmud, he that swears that he will not eat, and yet eats that which is not proper to be caten, is not guilty. The distinction was also made of a vain, or a rash oath. As, Ist, when one swore of what was impossible, and contradictory, as that a pillar of stone was a pillar of gold; or 2dly, when one swore of that which could not be doubted, as that a stone is a stone; or, 3dly, when one swore that he could do, what was impossible to be done, as that he would not take food for a week; or, 4thly, when one swore that he could abstain from things plainly commanded, as that he would not wear phylacteries. Against him who made a vain, or a rash oath, beating and cursing were denounced. Yet so narrow was made the cir

cle of vain oaths, that a man might sware a hundred thousand times, and yet not transgress the limits of the caution against vain swearing.

Care was indeed taken to give great solemnity to the judicial administration of an oath. He who was to make it, was seriously exhorted to consider and weigh the circumstances, concerning which he was to swear; having before his eyes the fear of God, that he might not swear rashly. "Know thou," said the Judge to him, "when God speaks, the world trembles. Take not therefore the name of thy God in vain. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay." For other offences against the law, he was told, punishment was inflicted only on the transgressor; but the punishment of perjury extended to his family and friends. Of other transgressions, punishment might be deferred to another generation. But of perjury, it would begin with him who committed it.

When a question arose of great and peculiar concern, the ark which contained the book of the laws was opened; and he who was to swear, was required to put his hand into the ark, and to lay it upon the book of the law. If the affair of which oath was to be made was not of the most solemn nature, the books might be substituted, in which the name of God were written. But they who carried phylacteries upon their hands, upon which the words of the law of the

names of God were written, as they knew, and were supposed to feel the solemnity of an oath, were excused from these forms. Of their most distinguished wise men and doctors, an oath was not required; their affirmation being deemed sufficient. He who made oath was required also to stand while he made it, that he might feel and express greater reverence of the majesty of God. But the Rabbins made oath while sitting, because it was presumed that they constantly feared God; and could neither be enticed, nor terrified from duty. And an oath was always made in the presence of the adverse party.

But even Maimonides has said, that to swear by heaven, by the earth, by the sun, &c. even if the swearer in his mind refers to Him who created the object by which he swears, yet it is not an oath. Or if any one swears by a prophet, or by either of the books of scripture, though it be understood that he swears by Him who sent the prophet, or who gave the book, yet this is not an oath.

It appears by the Talmuds that it was common, and it seems to have been allowed, to swear by heaven, by the temple, by Jerusalem, by the altar, by the head, and by other things. So, it is said, was the custom in Israel. So did even doctors in Israel swear. When turtles and young pigeons were sold at Jerusalem for a penny of gold, R. Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, " by

this temple I will not rest this night, if they be not sold for a penny of silver."

There is indeed in the traditionary law, or rather in the commentary upon it,-a caution against excess in swearing, and in laughter. But R. Solomon interpreted it to mean, "indulge not much in swearing, even in things that are true; because in much swearing, it is impossible not to be profane."

Cicero defines an oath to be, a religious affirmation. Clemens Alexandrinus, a direct assertion, with an appell to God. Philo, the testimony of God concerning a thing doubtful in itself. Grotius has brought together a great mass of learning, in illustration of the sentiments of Jews, heath ens, and early christians, concerning oaths; and it would be grateful to spread before our readers, who have not access to it, this interesting display of the actions of so many minds, upon a subject of such vital interest to the security of society, and to the cause of piety and virtue. But our ob. ject is, as far as we can, to ascertain prevailing sentiments of Jews in the time of our Lord, and to understand his references to these sentiments, that we may comprehend the whole import, and feel the full force of his instructions, as far as this particular course of illustration will lead to these consequences.

With the sentiments then, and the custom to which we have referred, compare the instructions of our Lord in the

text. Even in the most unrestrained interpretation of his words, they forbid us from making oath, and from every form of swearing, except in cases of imperious duty. The precept, "swear not at all," is generally supposed to refer only to voluntary oaths; and it is understood that an oath may be required by a magistrate, when the affair concerning which it is demanded is either the glory of God, the security of our neighbour, or our own greatest good. The primitive christians however, it is said, understood and observed this command in a literal sense; as do the Quakers, or the Society of Friends, at this day. And happy would it be for the christian world, if cyery disciple of Christ should obtain that estimation and confidence among men, that his simple affirmation or negation should have the force of an oath from another.

Who can remember but with strong and delightful emotions, the honour which was paid by the Athenians to Zenocrates; a, man distinguished alike by his wisdom and his sanctity? When he came into court to give his public testimony, and approached the altars for the purpose of making oath, he was stopped by the unanimous decision of his judges, that his simple assertion should be taken instead of an oath; thus conceding that to his integri ty, which they were not after wards to allow even to themselves; for they were required to make oath, before they

should pronounce their judg ment.

But in answering the inquiry, may an oath be lawfully administered to christians, and made by them, we refer to the repeated examples in the epistles of Paul, of very solemn appeals to God; but above all to the example of our Lord. This is decisive. When arraigned before "the chief priests, and elders, and all the council of the Jews," he heard, without answering, the allegations of the false witnesses, who were suborned to bear testimony against him. But when the high priest said, “I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God: Jesus said unto him, thou hast said." The answer was as direct, as well understood, as if he had said, I am. In giving this answer, he made oath that he actually was, what he professed to be. Can we doubt then whether an oath may lawfully be administered, and made among christians; more than it can whether swearing in common conversation is forbidden by the christian laws?

But while our Lord thus teaches us that an oath may be made, he demands that the occasion be most solemn and peculiar; and that swearing, except in such a case, be religiously avoided. The Jews. indeed, in swearing by the temple, by Jerusalem, by heaven, or by their own heads, were understood to have a great reference to God. But because this reference was only implied, they taught that an oath