Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-03-17

lO4O, w tNc 4ICtftOUtSG- OWuICH UC
Columbus, Mss.
Having been called on for copy of this dis
course, have concluded TO furnish it, imper-
feet as it is, for publication, not with the cx-
pectation of producing any thing new, but SIM
ply in the hope Of exciting attention to the
subject embraced in it. | am indebted for
much Of the doctrine and arrangement, and
even some Of the language, to Paley's Moral
and Political Philosophy, Waylands Moral
Science, and Wardlaw's Christian Ethics.
S. B. SAWYER.
Text" lie that slceareh to his Olon hart,
and chaageth noi."-PsALM 10, A.
The object of this Psalm is to answer two
important questions proposed in the first verse,
which amount in substance to these: Who is
fit for the church militant below, and who is fit
for the church in Heaven! Among other quail
ifcations, strict regard to truth, a sacred OBJ
servance of promises, is declared to be essen
tial; and this is the uniform testimony of the
word Of God. Truth, or veracity, for they are
convertible terms, "has respect to the past and
present, or to the future" When we make
statement concerning what is past or what is
now passing, if it possess certain character,
we call it truth; if not, we call it falsehood-
But the future is also in some degree in our
power and we may therefore place ourselves
under an obligation to act in a certain manner,
by declaring our intention thus to act. This
we call a promise. When we make PROM
Use, we voluntarily place ourselves under an
obligation, and the same law OF veracity which
requires us to speak the truth concerning things
past or present, binds us to fulfil our promises.
The obligation is precisely the same, and the
consequences involved in a transgression OF the
law of veracity in the one case, are the same as
in the other. It is to be feared this view of
the subject has not always been taken. Some
men do not scruple to violate promise, either
verbal or written, who would nevertheless
scorn 10 tell deliberate falsehood. And at a
time like the present. when it is difficult to full
fiji engagements, especially of a pecuniary ma
ture, there is peculiar danger of attaching too
| little importance to them. Vice soon loses its
horrors by familiarity; and if our opinions Of
right and wrong are formed under pressure
Of public and private calamities like the pres
ent, in which almost every individual is involv-
ed, danger, arising from the force of example
and the power Of temptation, is to be appre.
bended. Under these circumstances, it is wei
for US TO pause, and examine our whole ground
The subject will be discussed in the following
order: LIST, the obligation Of promises; 2nd, the
manner in which thy are to be interpreted
Bird, in what cases they are not binding.
First--The obligation Of promises. "Why
am obliged to keep my word," is question
that lies at the foundation of this subject. Som,
would answer, because it is right; others, be
cause it is agreeable to the fitness of things o
according to reason and nature; or ACCORDING
to truth; or conducive to the public good. A
this is true, as far as it goes. 1t lis evident tha
God has impressed on our nature a love
: truth, which is not entirely forfeited by tn
fall and also disposition to believe whs
G we hear, as is proven by observing the credI
t lty and simplicity of childrenS until repeate
J. receptions have made them sceptics. 1t
o equally evident that we are go constituted tn;
obedience to the law of veracity is necessat
o to our happiness as individuals and as commit
/ mites. 1t is the foundation of confidence b
tween man and his fellow man. "Were v
to lose our disposition to speak the truth, or
receive as truth what is related to us, socie
. would be at once broken up" Every joint
the social fabric would groan aloud, and f
q apart. The same remarks are applicable
At promises. Let any one reflect on what wou
2 be the consequences, if all promises were ma
o to be broken, and all confidence in them &
o stroyed, and he may form some idea Of thu
r importance to the weIl-being ofsociety. B
= does this constitute the moral obligation
= keep our word! Does this weighty obligatl
! rest on the doctrine of mere expediency
ae utility? Is the public good the basis of mo
= obligation! Such is the teaching Of sol
(. learned Doctors Of Divinity, but such is not
q doctrine OF f1oly w III. II VIC ~ " VIZ =
IL lowed retreats of inspiration to learn moral
a. we there find the loil Of God held up as b.
OF the origin. and the rule Of moral obligation
m, Who are they that shave right to the tre'
ito life, and may enter in through the gates into
ire city,! aThey that do his Commandments
'u' Rev. %, IA. Who are they that shall ser
ne into the kingdom of Heaven! s'Not every
" that saith Lord, Lord, but he that doeth the
ON of my Father which is in HEAVIER" MAR
.is 81. The emphatic statement of scripture
me that ..sin is the transgression Of the la
aThis, them" says DIR. Wardlaw, sis the b
TO definition Of sin, or moral evil. The comp
nm son Of three other statements equally brief
ne bring out, clearly and summarily, the doct
on Of revelation on this interesting point. ko'
ans 15-.Where no law is there is no transg
ally sion , Row. 5, l3-sSin is not imputed wi
ler- there is no law : and ROW. 3, 20--By the
the IS the knowledge of SIM These four short
h Of fences, or scripture aphorsms, when come