A fifth precedent for fwearing we find in the xix of Acts and 13th verfe. "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcifts, took upon them to call over them which had evil fpirits, the name of the Lord Jefus, faying, we adjure thee, by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And the man in whom the evil fpirit was, leaped on them, and overcame them; fo that they fled out of the house naked and wounded."

The last precedent for fwearing that I fhall mention, is the one related in Acts xxiii. 21ft. It contains an account of forty men who had bound themfelves, by an oath, not to eat or drink, until they had. killed St. Paul. It would feem that this banditti knew each other perfectly, and that they would not act together under the form of a common obligation. The occafion, indeed, feems to require an oath. It was an affociation to commit murder. I am difpofed to fufpect that oaths were introduced originally to compel men to do things that were contrary to justice, or to their confciences.

In mentioning the precepts and precedents that are to be found in the new teftament against swearing, the following striking passage, taken from Matthew v. verses 34, 35, 36, 37, fhould alone determine the queftion."Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerufalem, for it is the city of the

S

great king. Neither fhalt thou fwear 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 thefe, cometh of evil."

The words of the apoftle James, are equally pointed against swearing, chap. v. 12. "But above all things my brethren, fwear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea, be yea, and your nay, nay; left ye fall into condemna

tion."

I know, thefe paffages are faid to be levelled only against profane fwearing in common converfation, but this will appear improbable when we reflect, that our Saviour's words were addreffed exclufively to his difciples, and that the epiftle of St. James, from whence the prohibition of fwearing is taken, is directed to a number of pious converts to christianity, none of whom, any more than the difciples of our Lord, could be fufpected of profane fwearing in common converfation. Both paffages equally condemn oaths of every kind, and demonftrate their contrariety to the gospel difpenfation

There is a peculiar meaning in the reafon which is given for the prohibition of swearing in the precept, of our Saviour, viz. that any thing more than a bare affirmation, cometh of evil. Yes, it came originally from the univerfal prevalance of falsehood in society; but the christian religion, by opening new fources of

moral and religious obligation, and by discovering more fully the beauty and rewards of truth and deformity, and future punishment of falfehood, has rendered the obligation of oaths wholly unneceffary. They comported with the feeble discoveries of the Jewish, and the numerous corruptions of the pagan religions; but they are unnecessary under that full and clear manifestation of the divine will which is contained in the gofpel. Cæfar's wife fhould not be suspected.—With how much more propriety should this be faid of the veracity of a christian, than of the chastity of the wife of a heathen emperor, Every time a chriftian fwears, he exposes the purity and truth of his religion to fufpicion. "As for you, Petrarch, your word is fufficient," said the cardinal Colonna, in an enquiry into the cause of a riot that had happened in his family, while that celebrated poet was a member of it; and in which he exacted an oath from every other member of his family, not excepting his own brother, the bishop of Luna. The fame address should be made to every christian, when he is called upon to declare the truth. "You believe in a future ftate of rewards and punishment-you profefs to be the follower of that Being who has inculcated a regard for truth, under the awful confideration of his omnifcience, and who has emphatically ftyled himself the TRUTH.” Your word, therefore, is fufficient.

A nobleman is permitted, by the laws of England, to declare the truth upon his honour. The profeffion

of christianity is declared in fcripture to be an high calling, and chriftians are said to be priests and kings. Strange! that persons of fuch high rank, should be treated with less respect than English noblemen; and ftill more strange! that perfons poffeffing these auguft titles, should betray their illustrious birth and dignity, by conforming to a practice which tends fo much to invalidate the truth and excellency of their religion.

It is very remarkable, that in all the accounts we have of the intercourse of our Saviour with his difciples, and of their subsequent intercourse with each other, there is no mention made of a single oath being taken by either of them.

Perhaps there never was an event in which the highest degrees of evidence were more neceffary, than they were to establish the truth of the refurrection of our Saviour, as on the truth of this miracle depended the credibility of the chriftian religion. But in the establishment of the truth of this great event, no oath is taken, or required. The witneffes of it fimply relate what they faw, and are believed by all the difciples except one, who ftill remembered too well the prohibition of his master, "fwear not at all," to afk for an oath to remove his unbelief.

It is worthy of notice likewife, that no prepofterous oath of office is required of the difciples when they affume the apoftolic character, and are sent forth to

preach the gofpel to all nations. How unlike the spirit of the gospel are those human conftitutions and laws, which require oaths of fidelity, every year! and which appear to be founded in the abfurd idea that men are at all times the guardians of their own

virtue.

There can be no doubt of christians having uniformly refused to take an oath in the first ages of the church: nor did they conform to this pagan cuftom, till after christianity was corrupted by a mixture with many other parts of the pagan and Jewish religions.

There are two arguments in favour of oaths which are derived from the new teftament, and which remain to be refuted.-1ft St. Paul ufes feveral expreffions in his epiftles which amount to oaths, and even declares "an oath to be the end of ftrife." It was the character of St. Paul, that he became all things to all men. He circumcifed as well as baptized Jews, and he proves the truth of revelation by a quotation from a heathen poet. Oaths were a part of the Jewish and pagan inftitutions—and, like several other ceremonies, for fome time, continued to retain a ftrong hold of the prejudices of the new converts to christianity. But the above words of the Apostle, which have been urged in favor of fwearing, are by no means intended to apply to common life. They have a retrospect to the promise made to Abraham of the coming of the Meffiah, and were defigned to fhew the

1