The weekly American banner. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1855-18??, 1855-06-01
ExTR h.lUDlcIAL oATHs.

ENTRAsJUDlCIAL oATHs.
our neighbor II Cd Democfat asks, IS ii
oath extra iudieially adminlatered lawfalrs
What DOES he mean BY hgfnli IL 10 means
required BY law. wefeply that such oaths arc
not lawful. But our neighbor would 81 %
asusc the English language. We understand
him to use the word to signify altoseed BY law;
and We bold affirm that there Is no law. human
or divine, which forbids such oaths. Ii other
wise then we have reason to believe our neigh
Dor has violated the law, for, unless we are
greatly mistaken, the Odd Fellows require can
didates for admission to take an oath OF secrecy
and other oaths, and we know that our neigh
Dor is on Odd-Fellow. What difference does
It make that the Know-N othing order Is ESQ.,
ciety not recognized by law!s None whatev-
er. No law confers on the Odd Fellows or Ma
sons the rightto administer oaths. and even If it
did those oaths would. still be ENTHUSIASTICALLY
administered. !" What would our neighbor think
of an Odd-Fellow who would violate these ex-
trajudicial oaths, About the same, no doubt,
that We think of the man who violates his oath
OF Secrecy to the Know Nothings.
In two articles in the Democrat of last week
our neighbof places the whole matter upon the
ground that he would violate an extrajudicial
oath @coed not be CONDUCTED Of perjury This
we have never disputed; but shala man com.
nit moral perjury because he cannot be con-
victed of legal perjury. We know our neigh
Dor will not take this ground. ..Vain and rash
swearing Gre expressly forbidden by christian
men. by both our Lord Jesus Christ and James
His APOSTLE Very true. They condemn a
violation Of the third commandment, which is
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy
God in vain" An appeal to God not to me
on trial occasions. But when promises are
made, and ratified by solemn oath, no christian
man will justify the violation of that oath unless
the performance of the oath would be unlawful;
and no manwill say it is unlawful to keep the
secrets of the Know Nothings.
promised to borrow some commentaries
and give cur neighbor the benefit Of the remarks
on this subject. This will be better than any
comment upon our own. And FIRST we viii quote
more fully from 1.-THE learned Adam Clark, the
passage which is quoted in part by our neigh
Dor. lie says, ssThat the Jews were notorious
Fly guilty Of common swearing, for which our
Lord particularly reprehends them, and warns
his disciples against &C., &c. '.f'hey did not
pretendto forbid ALL common swearing but on
ly what they term MUCH. A Jew might swear
but he must not be too abundant in the practice.
Against such permission our Lord opposes his
SWEAR Nor AT ALL. He who us an oath ex-
cept what he is solennly called by The maeis-
trate to make, so farfrom being christian, lie
does not deserve the reputation, either OF deccn.
cy or common sense. In some of our old elemen.
tary BOOKS for children, we have this good max
i'm; Never stcear; for he that suears will lie; and
he that lies will steals; and if SO what bad thing,
will he not do" Now all this evidently applies
to common swearing in conversation, rot to sol
emn appeals to God, with due reverence for hi.
holy name. The same writ r, in commenting
on James, s.; IL, condemns in strong terms 'tha
liypocritical method of taking an cath, which i:
subversse of all moral feeling, and must make
conscience itself callous." He advises s.to have
as little to do as possible With oaths,' because
''an oath will not bind knoue nor liar, ana
an honest man needs none for his character an,
conduct swear for him. I'VE use his italics,
Here he shows that he regards him knafc ant
a lar who having taken an cath is not bound b,
it. Again he says, do not pretendto say yc;
with your lips, and annul it in your heart; lie
the yea or the nay which you cypress be bona fd
such; do not imagine that any mental reserva
ton can cancel any such expressions Of obliga
ton ii, the sight of Cod The very learned d
Macknight remarks, at is supposed by some
that James in his passage forbade the brethren
to make indiscreet vows for the purpose of de
liverihg them out Of their affection; because
practice OF that sort showed great ignorence 0
the character of God, and great impertnence
Yet / rather think he forbade them, whel
brought before the tribunals of their prosecutor
to deny their faith with oaths; which some @
them it seems. thought they might do with
safe conscience, if the oath was one Of thes
which are reckoned not binding. For that tn
Jews thought some oaths obligatory and other
not, appears from our Lords. condemnation O
that false mortality, recorded Matthew s.;
"Ths apostle in this passage sets the ecniemaa
nation Of God threatened in thed dialogue agains
fase swearers, in opposition to the co ,demnat O.
Of men. whichthe Brethren might escape VIII
swear falsely concerning their faith
In the notes Of Melancthon w. Jacobus of
Matthew. he remarks: sOur Lcrd would teac
that light swearing, as well as false swearin
+ was forbidden; that taking his name in val