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

4
hearing, say the prohibition was universal
we have no contemplate argument tina
that is the real meaning OF the words
For to whom were the words addressed
Not to schoolmen, Of whom it was known
that they would make nine distinction!
and curious investigations; not 10 men o
learning, who were in the habit of eau
tiously weighing the import of words;-
but to multitude, mixed and unschool
ed multitude. II was TO such persons thai
the prohibition was addressed; it was to
such apprehensions that its form was
adapted, r.--
at hath been said of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyseli" Why refer
TO what was said Of old time? For this
reason assuredly; to point out, that the
present acquisitions were different from
the former; that what was prohibited now.
was different from what was prohibited
before. And what was prohibited before .!
Swearing talsely,-Swearing and not per-
forming. Whatth could be prohibited
|now2 Swearing trRLy,-Swearing, even,
and-performing: that is, swearing at all !;
for il is manifest that if truth NAV not be
attesled by an oath, no oath may be taken.
OF old time it was said, "Ye shall not
swear by my name faIsely."" IF man
swear an oath to bind his soul with
bond, he shall not break his word. u
There could be no Ineligible purpose in
tontra-dislinguishing the new precept
r. al h,,I 10 Oh
nc difference; and there is no Ineligible
characteristic difference but that which
denounces all oaths. Such were the views
Of the early Christians. 1.-THE old Iaw,"
says one Of them, us satisfied with the
honest keeping Of the oath, but Christ
cuts off the oPPOrtu"tty of peTury."t In
acknowledging that this predatory refer
ence TO the former law, is in my view
absolutely conclusive of our Christian
duty, | would remark, as an extraordina-
ry circumstance, that Dr., Paley, in citing
the passage, omits this introduction and
takes no notice of it n his argument,
II say unto you, Swear not at ALL"
The words are absolute and exclusive.
Neither by heaven, nor by the earth.
nor by Jerusalem, nor by thy own head"
Respecting this enumeration it is said that
it prohibits swearing by certain objects,
but not by all objects. To which a suffi-
cient answer is found in the parallel pas
sage in James: "Swear not" he says
- neither by heaven, neither BY the earth,
neither by any other oath."S This mode
of prohibition, by which an absolute and
universal rule is first proposed and then
followed by certain examples of the pro-
hibited things, is elsewhere employed liz
Scriptures. Thou shalt have no other
gods before me. Thou shalt not make
unto thee any craven image; or any like
ness of anything that is in heaven above;
or that is in the earth beneath; or that is
in the water under the earth" No man
supposes that this Instrumentation was
designed to restrict the obligation of the
law,-rhou shalt have no other gods
before ME. Yet it were as reasonable to
say that 1t was lawful to make idols in
the form of imaginary monsters, because
they were not mentioned in the enumera-
ton, as that it is lawful to swear any given
kind Of oath because it is Tot mentioned
in the enumeration. Upon this part of
the prohibition it is curious that two con-
Trajectory opinions are advanced by the
defenders of oaths. 'Fhe first class OF
reasoners says, The prohibition allows US
to swear by the Deity, but disallows swear
ing by inferior things. The second class
says, The prohibition allows swearing by
inferior things, but disallows swearing by
the Deity Of the first class is Milton
The injunction, be says, "does not pro-
hibit US from swearing by the name OIL
God.-we are only commanded not &c
swear by heaven" &c.T But here again
the Scriptures itself furnishes conclusive
answer. 1t asserts that 10 swear by heav-
en- IS TO sOeGr By The Deity: He that
shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the
throne of God, and By Him that stitch
thereon."'' To prohibit swearing by
heaven, is therefore to prohibit swearing
by God. Amongst the second class is
DR.. Paley. He says, j" On account of the
relation which these things the heavens
the earth, Sci bore to the Supreme Be-
ing, to swear by any of them was in
effect and substance to swear by Him.
for which reason our Savior says, Swear
not at all; that is, neither directly by God
nor indirectly by anything related to
Hlm."tt But if We are thus prohibited
from swearing by anything related to Him
how happens it that Paley proceeds to
justify Judicial oalhs2 Does not the judi
cial dePonent swear by something related
Ito lGod2 Does he not swear by some
thing much more nearly related than the
earth or our own heads! Is not oul
hope of salvation more nearly related
than member of our bodies? But ate
ne has thus taken pains to show tina
swearing by the Almighty was especially