Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-03-09
ron rHr AnrRrcAN ORGAN.

The Alexandra SentiRel of February 20th con-
tains an editorial headed, " Swearing What isit--
When Is 1t lawfuls"
The editor quotes from Christ's Sermon upon
the Mount, Matt, oh. 4, verses "a and 81, and
from James, oh. 8, verse IL; intending to prove
thereby either that swearing of all kinds, and un-
der all circumstances is prohibited by the word of
God, or that common profans swearing, such as we
hear every day from the thoughtess, the hardened,
or vile, or that swearing before court Of justice
was allowed, and all other sorts were prohibited.
If he intends the former or latter, he produces
nothing to bear him out for nothing in either Of
the portions Of Scripture referred TO justfes those
constructions. That the prohibition of profane
swearing was intended, l think can be proven from
many concurrent circumstances. At the com
mencement of Christs ministn.tions on EARTH there
was no organized Christian church, and conse-
quenty rules OF discipline laid down for men to
follow who desired to live new life, in conformity
to the teachings Of the Saviour and the influences
of the Holy Spirit. 1t was therefore, very neces-
sary for him to rebuke profane and common swear
ing, such as was common among the Jews u that
day: as swearing "by heaven, by earth, by Jeru-
salem" &C., and to teach that men in their COM
munications with each other should not endeavor
to fortiy their assertions by the sort Of swear
ing which is in use to this day with the hardened
and impenitent sinner. Dr. Adam Clarke, in his
commentary on the Bible, while he gives it as his
opinion that oathtaking ought not to be freely in
dulged in by Christians, yet quotes largely from
DR.. Lghtfoot to show that the sort Of swearing ]
have just named was common THAT Is, swearing by
heaven, Jerusalem, &C., among the Jews at that
day for the purpose of terrifying ordinary asser.
tons. The words "swear not at ALL no more ad-
init Of strictly literal translation than do the
commands: "If thy right hand offend thee, cut II
of, and cast it from thee !" Resist not evil = or
III any man sue thee at the law, and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak also"
Christ's Sermon on the Mount seems to have
been intended to rebuke the general depravity Of
the human heart, throughout all time, and to pre-
pare the minds of men for his mnistrations on
earth, and there does not occur in it single SEN
tence or word that can be wrested into meaning
that man is thereby prohibited from calling solemn.
ly upon God to witness the taithfulness with
which he will adhere to his promises, and, accord.
ing he is faithful or unfathfu true or false to
his promises to reward or punish him.
Saint James, in his Epistle General to the Church
Of Christ, after condemning the vices Of the day,
and commencing to the brethren the Christian
graces Of faith, hope, peace, charity, and patience
in CHI. 9th, and at verse II, furnishes us with eyi
dence of its being still necessary to caution men
against the habit Of supporting their assertions by
some form Of oath which was popularity recognised
as more substantial and to be relied on than a
| simple statement.
| We must believe the Saviour and the Apostle
| to have intended to condemn profane swearing, or
all swearing and oath-taking, under any and every
circumstance. That the latter was not the mean
ing intended to be conveyed, the Sentinel must at
once admit or deny the Orthodoxy of the Metho-
dist and Episcopal authority, which he quotes in
support of his argument to prove that Christian
ought not to take an oath unless required in q
court ofjustice to do And, in proof that taking
an oath to the ful6ment Of promise is not con.
demned by the Supreme Being, we have in Exc.
dus oh. 8, verse s, the very strongest and best
authority. "And win bring you unto the land,
concerning the which did swear to give it unto
Abraham, to Isaac, and TO Jacob, and will give
it to you for heritage-I am the Lord" This is
one Of many instances where the propriety of Ia.
king an oath to the faithful performance of a
promise is recognised in the Old Testament. If the
editor Of the Sentinel wishes to be referred to any
more, can gil one of the columns of his paper
with them In few hours.
The editor quotes the Confession of Faith OF
the Methodist, the Episcopal, and Presbyterian
Churches, which, he says, allows the taking Of
lawful oaths," imposed by "lawful authority,
and on matters of height and moment" He
seems to be so strict constructionst as not to be
to anything legaze anything, other than what the
law Of the land absolutely demands at our hands
And II he carry out the strict construction which
he seems to advocate, no matter could be one Of
"Teigh and importance" unless made so by special
enactment Of Church or State. And thus he would
call a meeting Of the Sons Of Temperance an un-
lawful assembly, because no statute has ever been
made calling them into existence or even legalizing
their existence as a secret society.
| The fact Is, the taking of an oath to the per-
Torrance Of promise when we wish to be bound
in the most solemn manner, in order to convince
the skeptical or irresoute that we intend TO do
what we say We will, is not prohibited by the laws
Of God Neither is it by nne-tenths of the differ
ent Christian churches Of the world as the authori-
ty quoted by the Sentinel land very strictly con-
sirued) abundantly proves Nor yet is it by the
laws of man, which are, fundamentally at least,
based upon the great principles of truth, justice,
and love, laid down in the word of God for the
guidance Of those who profess to love and fear
Him, and by which we shall be judged in the day
Of final account Not being prohibited, the taking
OF oaths, where the Christian or earnest seeker
after what is just right, and useful, thinks them
proper Is allowed. And the question Of expedi.
ency is the only one requiring consideration In
other words, the end to be attained being legal,
just, and important one, the question arises is
II expedient to impose an oath for the purpose of
binding persons to secrecy, diligence, and faithful
observance Of rules' Is il useful and necessary ?
In philanthropc societies il is unnecessary because
nearly every man composing those societies are