Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-05-16

Snrlst forbade swearing by God,
, ana next, that He violated his own com.
t mand.
:, but let your communication be yea
yea, nay nay" This is remarkable: it
Is positive superadded to negative CON-
mands. We are told not onl v what we
ought not, but what we ought to do. 1t
mas indeed been said that the expression
your communication" fixes the meaning
to app y to the ordinary intercourse of
NE. But to this there is a fatal objection:
the whole prohibition sets out with a ref
erence not to conversational language but
10 solemn declarations on solemn occa-
slons. Oaths, Oaths Ito the Lord" are
placed at the head of the passage; and it
Is too manifest to be insisted upon, that
solemn declarations, and not everyday
talk, were the subject of the prohibition.
"Whatsoever is more than these, COM
eth ofevil" This is indeed most accurately
true. Evil is the foundation of oaths: it
is because men are bad that it is supposed
oaths are needed take away the wicked
ness of mankind, and we shall still have
occasion for No and Yes, but we shall
need nothing "more than these" And
this consideration furnishes distinct mo-
tive to good man to declineto swear
To lake an oath is tacitly to acknowledge
that this "evil" exists in his own mind,
that with him Christianity has not ef-
fected its destined objects.
From this investigation of the passage,
it appears manifest that all swearing upon
all occasions is prohibited Yet the or
binary opinion, or rather, perhaps, the
ordinary defence is, that the passage has
no reference to judicial oaths. 1--WE
explain our Savior's words to relate not
to judicial oaths, but to the practice Of
vain, wanton, and unauthorized Swearing
in common DISCOURSE" 10 this we have
| just seen that there is one conclusive an
swer: our Savior distinctly and specific
ally mentions, as the subject of his in
structons, solemn OathS. But there is
another conclusive answer even upon our
opponents own showing. They say,
first. that Christ described particular forms
Of oaths which might be employed, and
next, that his precepts referred to wanton
swearing THAI is to say, that Christ de-
scribed what particular forms of wanton
swearing he allowed and what he disaI-
lowed! You cannot avoid this monstrous
conclusion. If Christ spoke only of vain
and wanton swearing, and if he described
the modes that were lawful, he sanctioned
wanton swearing provided we swear in
the prescribed form.
With such distinctions of evidence as
to the universally of the prohibition of
oaths by Jesus Christ, it is not in strict
ness necessary TO refer to those passages
in the New Testament which some per-
sons adduce in favor of their employment.
If Christ have prohibited them, nothing
else can prove them to be right. Our
reference 10 these passages will accord
ingly be short. ..... s.-..
Il adjure thee by the living God that
thou tell US whether thou be the Christ,
the Son Of God" 10 those who allege
that Christ, in answering to this, Thou
hast said," took an oath, sufficient an
swer has already been intimated. If
Christ then took an oath, he swore by the
Deity, and this is precisely the very kind
of oath which it is acknowledged he him.
self forebade. But what imaginable rea-
son could there be for examining him
upon oath? Who ever heard o: calling
upon prisoner to seceG1 that he was
guilty. Nothing was wanted but a sim
pie declaration that he was the Son of
God. With this view, the proceeding
was extremely natural. Finding that, to
1.-THE less urgent solicitation he made no
reply, the high priest proceeded to the
more urgent Schleusner expressly re-
marks upon the passage, that the words,
adiure, do not here mean II make to
swear OF put upon OATH but, 81 solemn
ly and in the name, Of God exhort and
enjoin." This is evidently the natural,
and the only natural meaning; just as it
was the natural meaning when the evil
spirit said, 81 adjure thee by the living
God that thou torment me not" The
evil spirit surely did not administer an
oath.
"God is my witness that without ceas-
ing l make mention of you always in my
prayers. ~" That the Almighty was wit
ness to the subject of his prayers, is most
true but TO state this truth is not 10 swear.
Neither this language nor that which is
Indicted below, contains the Characters
tics of an oath according to the definitions
even of those who urge the expressions
None Of them CONTAIN, according to Mil
toms definition, ga curse upon ourselves"
nor according to Paley's, an invocation
of Gods vengeance" Similar language,
but in more emphatic form, is employed
in writing to the Corinthian converts. 1t
appears from Cor. ii, that Paul had re-
solved not again to go to Co-inth in heav-
. mess, lest be should make them sorry
And to assure them qchg he had made this