Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

May I entreat you, Sir, again to attend to what is commonly called our Lord's sermon on the Mount; you will then soon be convinced, that the whole scope and design thereof was to inculcate amongst his own disciples the maxims, laws, and regulations by which the subjects of his kingdom were to be governed respecting their walk and conversation, both among themselves, as well as their deportment in the world at large. Now the self-denying injunctions, being not only different from, but perfectly opposite to all the feelings of our corrupt and evil nature, it is impossible for any one to attend to them, unless he is born again; born from above; born of that spirit whose fruits are love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith. Now a company of such, loving one another with a pure heart fervently, would have such unreserved confidence in each other as would totally supersede the want of any other assurance amongst themselves on any subject whatever than simply " yea, yea, nay, nay ; therefore the prohibition was designed by our Lord to detect and expose any hypocrite, who by wanting more of his brethren in any declaration they might make than simply yes or no, would be holding him out as wholly under the influence of the evil one (δε περισσον τούτων εκ του π νηρού εσιν) But respecting Christ's people's intercourse with the world, he has no where said, (as I can find) The world are to place that absolute confidence in your veracity, that they are never to tender an oath to any of you; and if they do, tell them, your simple yes or no, to any thing they want to know of you, is sufficient.

But our Lord's own example at once puts an end to this difficulty, Matt. xxvi. 63. where we may observe our Lord's silence as to all the charges brought against him, till the high priest arose and demanded of him, upon oath, whether he was the Messiah or not; when we are informed, he answered in the affirmative, referring him to the fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy in himself as a proof thereof, &c. From hence it is clear that our Lord never gave his disciples the least encouragement, either by example or precept, to expect the world would rest satisfied with their simple yes or no in particular; yea, so far from holding their persons in any peculiar respect, he foretells them, that they would be reproached, and their name cast out as evil for his sake, Luke vi. 22, &c.

Upon the whole, froin the vth chapter of Matthew, &c. it appears, that our Lord intended to point out the final dissolution of the Jewish Theocracy, which formerly, by divine appointment, was the light of the world, the salt of the earth, &c.; and that, instead thereof, was to be substituted a brotherhood, who were to be sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called; and to the apostles, who where the first fruits of this church, and the representatives of the whole general assembly. He says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” But, Sir, if I am to understand, when our Lord is forbidding the use of oaths in his church with each other, that he is prohibiting oaths in general, I am obligated to believe not only that he is come to destroy the law and the prophets, but also that the New Testament is perfectly hostile to the Old! For instance, Deut. vi. 13. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God,

and shalt swear by his name." Chap. x. 20. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name," &c. In the prophets also, Psal. Ixiii. 12. "But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory," &c. Isai. xix. 18. "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt swear to the Lord of hosts," &c. Chap. xlv. 23. "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear," &c. Jer. iv. 2. “O Israel, thou shalt swear the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him; and in him shall they glory."

66

From these quotations, and many more which might be produced tothe same purport, I think nothing can be more convincing, than that swearing in truth and righteousness always was and will be perfectly comformable to the mind and will of God, until the restoration of all things. Now, if you think obedience, at present, to these commands is a literal departure from Christ's words, the undeniable consequence must be that he is not only forbidding Christians to obey the law and the prophets, but he is even charging the precept itself as pregnant with the most malignant consequences; for he says, "Whatsoever is more than these (i. e. yes or no) proceedeth from the evil one." And, by the same rule, the apostle James is charging those, who are acting as the law and the prophets command, with being exposed to condemnation for so doing. But admit that our Lord and the apostle James were recommending that perfect confidence becoming those in whose hearts the love of God had been shed abroad, to such there was great propriety in cautioning them against the least appearance of jealousy or suspicion against each other, in wanting any other confirmation of what they said than bare yes or no. Without this view of the subject (according to the present state of my mind) I should doubt the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, owing to an opposition of spirit in their composition.

Another part of your argument against the use of oaths is, that the command for their use might be only temporary. Your words are, "Was the law which authorized and commanded oaths strictly a moral precept, or was it a law of positive institution, adapted to the time then being? If strictly a moral precept, we may suppose it to be still binding upon men, and most of all upon Christians; and if so how are they in any sense to be liberated from it? But if a law of mere positive institution, it may have ceased, unless Christ, the lawgiver of Christians, hath authorized it in the New Testament; even as the keeping of the Jewish sabbath hath ceased: for he hath redeemed his church from under the law. All positive institutions must of course have ceased with the economy to which they belonged, unless adopted by Christ the head of the Christian economy; for he is a perfect lawgiver; and hath given a complete system of laws to his disciples, sufficient to regulate every part of their conduct. If we could not maintain the harmony of the Old and New Testament without admitting that Christians may lawfully do whatever Moses authorized the Jews to do, we could not maintain that harmony at all; at any rate it would be necessary still to use the

circumcising knife. Therefore I see not how denying the lawfulness of oaths under the gospel dispensation, can affect the harmony of the Old and New Testament, unless it can be proved, that the Old Testament represented swearing as an unalterable moral obligation."

[ocr errors]

I answer, Swearing in truth, without all doubt, was a moral obligation, and is still binding, and will continue so to be till every knee has bowed and tongue has sworn allegiance to Jehovah; and at present it does not appear to me that any solid reason can be given why the same means should not be used to put an end to strife now that were ordained by divine appointment from the beginning of the world. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. vi. 13- -18. we have given us at large the nature and design of an oath; in which we have both example and precept from God himself, and consequently the appointment must continue until the whole creation have perfect confidence in God as well as in one another; which never will be till every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear. But in a Christian church, as the whole company, have perfect confidence (or ought to have) both in God and in one another, if an oath was used amongst any of them, he that tenders it, and he that takes it, must equally be under the influence of the evil one.

You think I am wrong in introducing the Apostle Paul as an example of taking an oath; where you say, "I am not at present convinced that · every appeal to another respecting the truth of an assertion or matter of fact, is an oath; but rather think an oath always includes the affirming a thing in question to be as true as some other thing, the truth and reality of which is beyond all dispute: so when Jehovah swore by his own life, he declared what he had spoken to be as true, and the accomplishment of it as certain as his own life. Having this idea of an oath, I am not convinced that Paul made use of one in the passages which you have quoted." Surely, Sir, I can hardly think you will deny that the Apostle was making a solemn appeal to God in 2 Cor. xi. 31. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for ever more, knoweth that I lie not." Chap. i. 18. "But as God is true," &c. See also Gal. i. 20. "Now the things which I write unto you, behold before God I lie not." If these words are not expressive of the naturė of an oath, even according to your own definition, I shall be happy to be better instructed in this subject; at any rate, the apostle went beyond the bounds of the restriction yea, yea, nay, nay, if you are right in this

matter.

As to all positive or temporary precepts, divine inspiration informs us they were instituted as patterns or shadows of heavenly things; which, when the truth of them was accomplished in the person of Jesus Christ, the same divine authority then forbid the continuance of. The circumcising knife was commanded to be applied to all Abraham's seed, till he should come to whom the promise was made; and every time it was used it preached, in prophetical language, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;" and when all the other parts of the ceremonial law were attended to, this very expressive language of the gospel was intended by them; "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," &c. Therefore our Lord informs

the woman of Samaria, that in his person all types and shadows were superceded; that his Father's pleasure did not consist in worship of an external nature; for says he, "God is a spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth;" that is, no longer in type and ceremony.

Thus, dear Sir, you may perceive I have not brought forward any new arguments, as I thought there was no occasion for additional or more forcible ones till you had confuted what I have advanced already. And as to the present state of my mind, from what you have said, and from what you have not said, I am ready, if called upon, to appeal to the Most High in confirmation of what I know to be a truth, where my simple yes or no will not be confided in; and if I was in a part of the world: amongst Mahometans and Pagans, I should rejoice in having an opportunity of so doing; and if they expressed their concern at my confidence in what they did not believe in, it would then be my duty, as well as privilege, to declare that I live in the joyful prospect of that happy period when they, with all the rest of God's rational creatures, will be brought, not only to bow the knee, but to swear allegiance to and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

- Thus, Sir, I have answered your reply with that fredom you desired; and should you produce in future such reasons which I have never yet seen in defence of your opinion, it will be my duty to attend to them with the same care and, solicitude that I have hitherto done-with the same dependence on the divine teaching, as the poet expresses.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE grand defect in the whole system of English education is, that

they act contrary to that reason of which they so much boast themselves to be the possessors of that liberty which they assert is their birthright. This arises from their being ignorant of the very foundation on which true liberty rests. The schools in England seem to consider law is

springing out of order, united with freedom of action. Hence all their punishments arise from a love of order, and from a supposition that a child knows his duty, and does not perform it-that children have freedom of action in all things but what are contrary to the will of the master, not considering that they are unacquainted, but by inference, with his will. How differently do the masters of schools reason with regard to the common concerns of life! In these they acknowledge that law is the parent of order; and that freedom of action can only be limited by law. This is the boast of Englishmen, That the will of an individual, or of any body of individuals, cannot ever restrain their actions; but the universal will may--that will which is made known by the law, and is equally binding upon all. And shall this boasted privilege be denied to our children? Shall we educate them in obedience to the absolute and uncontroulable will of an individual? Shall we train them up in habits of slavery that they may emerge from the rod of despotism capable of thinking and judging rightly for themselves-capable of using their new obtained freedom with wisdom, moderation, and integrity?

Without order there is no constant improvement; and without law there is no order. What was it made Rome the mistress of the world? -Discipline. What is it gives the superiority of the sea to Britain? Discipline. Discipline, founded on wise laws, calls forth all the mental powers, and combines the wisdom, the strength, and the virtue of the whole for general good. Wisdom, strength, and virtue, unconnected with discipline, are like scattered corn by the highway side, good in itself, but liable to be trodden down by the foot of the thoughtless passenger, or to be overthrown by the assailing gales of the restless tempest: but, protected by discipline, it is the same corn sown on the well cultivated field, protected from the unthinking passenger, and, by its regularity, combining the universal strength of every stalk, to shelter the whole from the impetuous torrent or the boisterous gale.

The difference between the workmanship of man and that workmanship which bespeaks the hand of Deity, is, that the first is but for a time perfect, and carries not within itself the means by which it can repair the waste of years, or the casualties to which it is liable. Not so the workmanship of the Most High; all his works carry within them a reviving principle, that corrects and restores every imperfection, and every waste. This principle we call the law of nature; it is the unchangeable law of God. Behold the heavenly bodies; how beautiful their arrangement, how certain their motion! The law of their Creator regulates their every action, and gives beauty, dignity, usefulness, and immortality to the whole. The same may be said concerning the whole economy of animated nature. Law it is that governs all the works of the Most High, and he has, in many places, forbidden the sons of men to alter it. Deut. xxii; 9, &c.

The law was the schoolmaster (saith the apostle) to bring us to Christ; the Mosaical dispensation was given on account of the childish state of --man'; it was given, as unto children, to preserve them from transgression • and to guide their feet in the paths of virtue. Men that know their

« PredošláPokračovať »