"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear;" Isaiah xlv. 23. See also Jer. xii. 16, and a multitude of other passages, that might be cited. Now the design of God's using oaths was, manifestly, to secure the faith and obedience of his people, and to afford them strong consolation, by giving them the most positive assurance of his faithfulness and truth. But this implies that men had an understanding of the nature, lawfulness, and obligation of an oath; otherwise it would not be likely to have the intended effect.

It is well known also, that holy men, under the special guidance of Providence, were in the habit of using solemn oaths, when occasion required, even before the giving of the law, at Mount Sinai. Thus, Abraham sware to Abimelech, (Gen. xxi. 24,) and administered an oath to his servant. Gen. xxiv. 3-9. So Jacob sware with Laban, (Gen. xxxi. 52,) and Joseph to his father. (Gen. xlvii. 31.) In these, and many similar instances, the oath was used religiously, and under the divine sanction; which shows that the practice was accordant with the immutable principles of morality.

Under the Mosaic dispensation, oaths were required of the people on frequent occasions, as a part of their duty to one another, and to their heavenly King. Thus, the Lord made his people enter into an "oath to serve him, and to keep his covenant." Deut. xxix. 12, 14. King Asa made all "Judah swear that they would seek the Lord with all their hearts." 2 Chron. xv. 14. Nehemiah called the priests, and "took an oath of them, to do according to their promise," (Neh. v. 12); and he, moreover, engaged the nobles and people to "enter into an oath that they would walk in God's law, and do his commandments;" chap. x. 29. And are not Christians call

ed upon, in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, to bind themselves sacramentally, i. e. with an implied oath, to Christ and to the careful observance of his precepts?

Yet some persons refuse to take an oath, on any occasion, alleging, as the ground of their scruples, two passages in the New Testament, viz.: Matt. v. 33-37, and James v. 12. The latter of these texts is taken from the former; and the de-. sign of the apostle, evidently is, to guard Christians against making rash vows or promises, in seasons of peculiar affliction. We shall confine our observations, therefore, to what our Saviour says on the subject. Let us keep the whole passage in our eye, and attend carefully to its scope, connexion, and bearing: it forms a part of what is called his Sermon on the Mount; and is as follows: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you swear not at all: neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King: neither shalt thou swear by thy head; because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

The learned Dr. John Owen, in his admirable "Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews," remarks, "That all things prohibited by our Saviour, in this sermon to the Jews, were in themselves, and by virtue of the law of God, antecedently unlawful. Our Saviour rends the veil of their pharisaical hypocrisy, discovers the corruptions of their traditions and interpretations of the law, declares the true nature of sin, and in sundry instances, shows how, by these false glosses, the body of the people had been drawn into soulruining sins; whereby he restored

the law, so to speak, to its pristine glory. Let any one of the particulars mentioned by our Saviour be considered, and it will be found, that it was before unlawful in itself, or declared so in the positive law of God."

This observation, we believe is just and weighty. Let us apply the principle which it embodies, to the case now before us. We have seen that oaths were in use before the giving of the law; that Jehovah himself employed them, and required his people to swear on sundry occasions; we have seen, that the moral law sanctioned the use of them, as means of maintaining truth, and of binding men to the faithful discharge of duty. We are not to suppose, therefore, that when Christ says "Swear not at all," he intends to forbid the proper use of judicial oaths, or religious vows; for "he came, as he solemnly affirms, not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it," and establish its sanctity. What sort of swearing then did he mean to prohibit? We answer; all swearing in our communication," or ordinary conversation and intercourse with one another; especially, such as was countenanced by the frivolous distinctions of the Pharisees, and other uninspired expounders of the law. These "blind leaders of the blind," taught the people that they might swear by the Almighty as often as they pleased, provided they complied with their oaths. They taught, also, that if men swore by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, or their own heads, such oaths were not binding. This was a manifest violation of the third commandment; and, in this way, it is extensively and shockingly violated still, and that too, by many who have been better taught, than were the disciples of the Pharisees. Mark, how our Divine Teacher from Heaven reproves these miserable expositors, and unveils their silly glosses, in the xxiiid chap. of Matt. 16-22.

"Woe unto you, ye blind guides! who say, whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. Ye fools, and blind for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind! for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso, therefore, shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon: and whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein: and he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon."

If our Lord meant to prohibit all swearing, in all possible cases, we think, (and we desire to say it reverently, for sake of the argument,) he violated his own precept; which no Christian can admit. In the viii. 12. of the gospel by Mark, we find this expression, used by him, in reference to a presumptuous demand of the Pharisees, of a sign from heaven, to demonstrate his Messiahship: "Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given unto this generation." By a more literal translation the passage would read, Verily I say unto you, if a sign shall be given to this generation: which, as that eminent critic, Dr. Daniel Whitby remarks, is a Hebrew form of swearing, and imports thus much: "Let God punish me, or let me not live, if a sign be given to this generation." The words are exactly parallel to several other expressions in scripture, which are expressly called oaths, and may be fairly regarded as a form of swearing. In the xxvith chap. of Matt. 63d verse, we are informed that the high priest addressed our Lord thus: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ the Son of God." This

was the form used at that time, in putting men on oath; and criminals and witnesses were required to answer, as in the presence of God. It is perfectly plain, therefore, that our Lord here answered upon oath ; which he certainly would not have done, had he, in his discourse on the mount, intended to forbid swearing in a judicial and solemn manner. If the use of the oath was to be entirely discontinued, under the gospel dispensation, why did the Redeemer countenance its continuance by his own practice? And why did the angel, in the Apocalypse, x. 5 and 6. lift his hand to heaven, and swear by him that liveth for ever and ever ?" Why did the primitive Christians make no scruple on the subject? And why does the apostle Paul so frequently make use of expressions which are undeniably equivalent to oaths ? Take a few instances; and let it be remembered that Paul is the amanuensis of the Holy Spirit: "God is my witness, that without ceasing, I make mention of you in my prayers;" Rom. i. 9. "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not;" Gal. i. 20. "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not ;" 2 Cor. xi. 31. "

I call God to record upon my soul, that to spare you, I came not yet to Corinth;" 2 Cor. i. 23. “God is my record, how greatly I long after you in the bowels of Jesus Christ;" Phil. i. 8. "Now," says the learned Whitby, "these examples prove that blessed Paul and that good Spirit by which he was directed thus to write did not conceive all swearing to be forbidden by our Saviour's words; but that it was still lawful, when the matter was of great importance to the welfare of the souls of men, and could not be confirmed any other way, to seal it with a voluntary oath. Now, undoubtedly St. Paul well understood the mind of Christ, in this, his prohibition; and, therefore, had he conceived it so universal, as VOL. I.

some contend it is, he would not have encouraged others by his example to transgress it."

Christians are warranted in the use of oaths, then, provided they use them lawfully; i. e. when regularly called upon by ecclesiastical or civil authority to give testimony, for the maintenance of truth and justice, and for the terminating of strife. The manner of taking an oath, has been various in different periods and nations of the world. The kissing of the Bible, requiring the witness to swear upon the holy evangelists, and the admission of simple affirmation, instead of an oath, are usages which we cannot approve of. We would prefer, in every instance, the lifting up of the hand, with a direct appeal to the omniscient Searcher of hearts. The oath is an awful solemnity, and it ought never to be resorted to lightly or needlessly. The two most common abuses of this divine rite, are perjury and profaneness. These, indeed, are nearly allied. The man, who swears falsely, imprecates upon his soul the infinite and insupportable displeasure of the Almighty God: and he who swears in common conversation cannot fail to perjure himself. What foolhardiness,-what infatuated temerity,-what a gross outrage upon the laws of decency and religion, for an intelligent and accountable creature to invoke his Maker to attest his hard speeches, his ribaldry, or his nonsense!

We close our remarks, on this subject, by subjoining a solemn admonition to profane swearers, from the pen of the late Dr. Dwight, president of Yale College, (Con.)

"You, unhappily for yourselves, are those who take the name of God in vain; and, of course, are now, or soon will be subjects of all the guilt and danger, which I have specified. Now, therefore, thus saith the Lord, consider your ways. Remember what you are doing; against whom your evil tongues Q

pear to its opponents, we feel convinced, that it is the doctrine of the Bible, and can be satisfactorily established. And,

1. From plain scripture declarations. That the persons for whom Jesus laid down his life, are a selection from among men, is evident from the epithets and names by which they are designated, by the Spirit of God, in the sacred oracles. They are called Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God-Redeemed from among men-Few, when compared with the great mass of mankind; many are called but few are chosen. Jesus denominates them, his sheep, his friends, his brethren, as contradistinguished from the goats, enemies and aliens -not of the world, but chosen out of the world-given to him by the Father-chosen in him before the foundation of the world; with many other such characteristics of peculiarity as are utterly inconsistent with universal redemption.

2. From the limitation of Jesus' intercession. This intercession is founded on the propitiation for sin, and coextensive with it: and the propitiation is exactly commensurate with the extent of the Father's donation for this purpose. "All those whom the Father has given unto me, shall come unto me; and him that cometh unto me, will I in nowise cast out." For these he in

tercedes. "I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept thy word." Here they are manifestly distinguished as a selection from the world that lieth in wickedness. The intercessions both of our Lord, and of his followers, have their limitations. There is an unpardonable sin, for which prayer would be altogether useless; and that for this plain reason, it is declared to be irremissible. Our Lord has declared it so. It is the sin against the Holy Ghost. Now, it is clear,

if this sin be unpardonable, the person guilty of it must for ever lie under the ban of vindicatory justice, and consequently his punishment must be eternal. We shall show hereafter, that an escape from penal evil by a return to the womb of nonentity, is altogether incompatible with claims of justice. Surely for such persons Jesus could not possibly have made an atonement. How absurd would it be to suppose that our Redeemer, a God of infinite knowledge, should have voluntarily paid the price for sheep, he knew he was never to receivewhose condition he pronounces irretrievable-and for whose salvation, prayers and intercessions may not be made! If there be any force in this reasoning, Jesus did not lay down his life for all men. What! Die the cursed death of the crossdrink the bitter cup of JEHOVAH'S wrath, and endure the most exquisite agonies in the room of sinners, while he bare their sins in his own body on the tree, all to bring them to glory, and at the same time declare, he would not so much as pray for them, but pronounce their case to be utterly irremediable!

3. If the foregoing arguments be admitted to be conclusive, it will plainly follow, that the doctrine of a universal atonement involves an impeachment of the divine wisdom. Jesus declares the sin against the Holy Ghost to be unpardonablenever to be forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come. Now it will be granted that our Lord did nothing in vain: but had he died to procure the pardon of sins, declared previously by himself to be unpardonable; then, indeed, the question respecting the manner of Abner's death, would not be altogether inapplicable to his. What would be thought of the mercantile talents of a man of business, who, knowing with absolute certainty, that he should never receive certain pieces of goods; yet, notwithstanding, should purchase