Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the state or character of the writer of the letter, I suppose I am asked whether I think him a believer or not Reading some parts alone (such as the parenthesis in the second page) I should hope that he may reading others alone I should conclude that he is not. And reading the whole, I can only say, that if he does not receive the reproof of the Word, when the wickedness of the general tenor of the letter is pointed out to him, and reject with abhorrence the sentiments in it that oppose the truth, I must conclude him a stranger to the faith and hope of the gospel. But I must add, that this part of the question proposed to me, seems to originate from a mind that looks more at the characters and reputation of men to determine what is truth, than at the word of God. With persons of this mind, corrupting the word of God is a venial error, but invading the character of a man is an unpardonable sin.

LXXXVII.

TO MR. J. C. G

Oct. 14, 1821.

SIR,-You were not mistaken in supposing that I would receive with readiness any such communication as you have favoured me with. Few things would gratify me more than that those who differ from me at present most widely, should yet afford an opportunity of amicably discussing our differences; and I often regret that this is so generally denied me. But before I reply to the immediate subject of your letter, allow me to observe upon it in general, that although I hold the question of oaths to be one of very great importance to disciples, (as I consider every thing relative to the revealed will of their God and Saviour) yet I by no means consider it of primary importance. In that rank I hold but one thing -the faith and hope of the gospel and till there appears agreement in that, I have no desire to labour for agreement on any points relative to the conduct of disciples.

I am not sure that I quite understand what you mean to put forward against my views of the unlawfulness of all oaths to a Christian; and certainly I do not understand at all the sense you affix to the precept Swear not at all." You say that I hold my own views" in opposition to all explanation." Now I confess that I have never found proposed any explanation of the passage, cpposite to its obvious meaning, which would stand a moment's critical or rational examination. You ask me," is not such a most solemn affirmation as I admit to be lawful, something more than the literal yea, or the literal nay prescribed by our Lord as the limits of our communications ?" Now I never intended to convey that the Lord confined

his disciples to any particular form of words in expressing their affirmation: but I conceive that he confines them to affirmation, and that the simplicity of mere affirmation is not at all affected by its solemnity. The simplicity of mere affirmation I consider as standing opposed to the pledging of ourselves, under any forfeiture, to the truth of what we declare, or to the certainty of what we promise. It is the latter, indeed, against which the Lord's prohibition is immediately pointed. I by no means say that the precept points particularly to judicial oaths; but I say that it points to oaths in general-oaths properly so called-in which men "bind their souls with a bond" that they will do so or so; (see No. xxx.) and I say that every oath administered in this country, even to the swearing of a common affidavit, is such and I candidly own to you that this -while it seems to me clearly the very thing against which the Lord's precept is pointed, is a thing so inconsistent with all the principles of revealed truth, that I now dare not do it, if there were no such express prohibition of it as I see. When you speak of the literal precept as violated by a judicial affirmation, as much as by a judicial oath, I suppose you must refer to the solemnity of the affirmation. But if you refer to this as constituting a violation of the precept, it is plain that the judicial occasion of it has nothing to do with your position; and how you then reconcile the solemnity of some of Paul's affirmations with the precepts of his Lord, I am quite at a loss to conjecture. But it is very possible that, from a misconception of your meaning, I may be fighting in the dark; and I am persuaded that an hour's conversation would go farther towards producing a mutual understanding, on this and other points, than ten hour's writing. Have you any objection to afford me such an opportunity?

* * * * * *

LXXXVIII.

TO THE SAME.

Nov. 6, 1821.

DEAR SIR,- My answer to your last has been delayed longer than I could wish, by bad health and much occupation with business. Let me indulge the hope, as long as nothing appears to forbid it, that you are not mistaken in supposing we are essentially agreed on the faith and hope of the gospel. On that I would only say at present, that there can be no disagreement there, that is not an essential disagreement. But on the immediate subject of our correspondence, we certainly do not as yet understand each other. In such cases I

commonly find it advantageous to mark distinctly how far I agree with the person, with whom I am engaged in discussion, that it may appear more distinctly where our disagreement lies. I therefore say,

that I quite agree with you, that it is to the real meaning of the passage we are to attend, and not to the mere sound of the words; and that, in considering the real meaning of this passage, we must fairly take into account both the preamble, by which the prohibition is introduced, and the reasons by which it is enforced.

Again, I quite agree with you that the preamble refers to Num. Xxx. 2. and gives us not partially-but wholly-the subject matter on which the Lord intended to comment.

Again, I quite agree with you, both that it may proceed from evil if we employ any peculiar solemnity of affirination on an unsuitable occasion, and that it may in other instances not proceed at all from evil, to make the most solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the truth of what we say: and I would add, that I hold this to be so, not merely in a case of life or property, nor merely when we are judicially or publicly called on to do so- -(the cases to which you seem to confine the lawfulness of the thing)—but in other cases also; such, for instance, as those in which we find an apostle thus solemnly confirming the truth of what he declares.

And, lastly, I quite agree with you, that no abuse by others of a thing intrinsically lawful can impeach the legitimate use of it by us. But now I could wish that you had not broken off so abruptly towards the close of your letter, when you say that the Lord's own reasoning comes decisively to our aid in judging of his intentions, and clearly leads to the real object of his animadversions and legislation." I could wish that you had proceeded to mark distinctly what that real object in your view is, so as to distinguish between it and all that is now strictly and properly called an oath. As well as I can collect your meaning, however, it is this-that the Lord forbids to his disciples all VOLUNTARY solemnity of confirmation when they declare any thing as true, beyond a simple assertion that the thing is or is not so or so: and I think you use the word voLunTARY here, in opposition to those occasions on which a magistrate or judge requires such solemnity of confirmation at our hands. Now if I be right in my conjecture that this is your meaning, I can confidently undertake to prove that you are mistaken. In the first place, let me remark, that in an important sense-no act of mine is the less voluntary for being done at the requisition of a magistrate. Suppose Nero commanded me on pain of death to go and burn incense on the altar of Jupiter. If I do so, I do it voluntarily. I have the alternative-the choice proposed to me to do so or to suffer death; and I chuse the former. If I be dragged indeed by force to the altar, my being there is no act of mine, and nothing voluntary. But even then, if I take the incense in my hand and put it on the fire, this is my voluntary act. However, if you chuse to use the word voluntary merely as opposed to what is done at the command of a magistrate, I shall not contest your right to do so, though I think it a misapplication of the term. But then I know not how you can reconcile with your interpretation, the solemnity of Paul's declaration, made neither publicly nor at the requisition of any magistrate.

But in the next place I would observe, that your interpretation is

utterly at variance with that preamble, which you justly refer to as marking the general theme of the Lord's discourse. From that we find indisputably it relates, not to any solemnity of declaration of what is true-not to any asseveration of a fact that has taken place, —but to engagements under which men bind themselves with respect to their future conduct. This, I think, cannot be controverted, whether we look merely at the Lord's words in the 33d verse, or at Numb. xxx. to which his words plainly refer. I would observe, also, that I think you mistaken as to what you call the Lord's reasoning in the passage. He has condescended to enforce his precept by assigning reasons; but those reasons do not lie in the words to which you refer. (v. 37.) These words are but an authoritative declaration of the evil from which every departure from his precept originates. The reasons are given in the three preceding verses-namely, that none of the things are our own, under the forfeiture of which we would pledge ourselves to act so or so, and that over the least of them we have no power. Now, my dear sir, if this reasoning be admitted to have any force, it applies as forcibly to such an engagement made at the requisition of a magistrate as to one made ever so voluntarily it concludes the intrinsic unlawfulness of all such engagements, by which we would bind our souls with respect to our future conduct: and no earthly magistrate can convert into lawful what is intrinsically unlawful. I have been assured by one who long served in high rank in the East Indies, that it to this day is no uncommon mode of judicial swearing among the natives there, to swear by the head of a near relation, a wife or child, (the juror placing his hand upon the head of the person) and that the meaning is well understood to be the staking of the life of that person, as devoted to fall a victim to the anger of the gods in case the juror fail of what he engages. Well, suppose a magistrate called on me to pledge in this way, swearing by my own head. Would the reason which the Lord assigns against the thing cease to apply, because a magistrate commanded it?

The only remaining question to a disciple ought to be-Are the oaths taken in this country engagements of such a nature as the thing prohibited? (For I readily allow that the mere name of oath should not decide the matter.) I say-yes--every one of them. Every one of them is an engagement binding the juror's soul as to his future conduct under the most awful of all pledges, over which he has no power; while he presumes to stake it, and expresses his desire to forfeit if he fail of fulfilling what he engages to do. I will do so and so; and may God so help me as I shall fulfil my engagement. As a Christian, I acknowledge the Christian duty which I always owed to the king and the constituted authorities of the state. But could I, as a Christian, pledge myself under the forfeiture of the divine favour, that I will discharge that duty the next hour? or that I will not commit murder to-morrow? I believe I need not trouble myself to prove to you, that the oath of testimony in those countries, and even the swearing of an affidavit is as much a promissory oath as the oath of allegiance; and you are well aware what is the course of examination of a child, to ascertain whether it understands the nature of an

oath-and what is the only reply that is looked for to the question— 'And what do you think will be the consequence if you should not tell the truth after swearing to tell it?' I shall go to hell.' Yes-the poor Japanese, when he dashes the china plate to the ground in his form of swearing, probably contemplates only a similar destruction to his body, which he prays to light on him if he should swear falsely. The so-called Christians have just learned from the scriptures to sport with a more tremendous stake. But the disciple of Christ, who remembers that "a man's goings are not from himself," will shrink from pledging himself absolutely as to any thing in his future conduct: much less will he desire that the salvation of his soul may be taken off from that ground on which the scriptures rest it-("not of him that willeth or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy")—and made to rest on his own adherence to the engagements which he forms.

Let me add a brief word on the two passages to which you refer— Exod. xxii. 11. Numb. v. 19, 22. They are dissimilar from each other, but both alike essentially different from all engagements with respect to future conduct. In the former, there is mentioned " an oath of the LORD that he had not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods;" and here I have no reason to think that any thing more is intended than a solemn appeal to the LORD-Or declaration of the fact as before the Lord-to which on a suitable occasion I make no objection. In the latter passage, decisively "an oath of cursing" was enjoined in the case. But let it be remembered, that it was en. joined by divine authority, and connected with the miraculous effect assigned to the bitter water of jealousy, and that it also related to an antecedent fact, the truth of which the God of Israel saw fit to decide by his own interposition. Now had it pleased the Lord to command his disciples, under the new dispensation, to appeal to him in any similar way to decide a controverted fact, I say that in such an appointment there would not have been a tittle of inconsistency with the prohibition in Mat. v. 34, which we are discussing : yet I acknowledge that, without such a divine appointment, it would be most evil and presumptuous to appeal to him for any such miraculous interference. I remain, sir, with best wishes,

Yours faithfully,

LXXXIX.

TO HIS BROTHER, JAMES WALKER.

1821.

MY DEAR JAMES, * * * * * *You say that if my ideas of religion lead me to believe that primitive Christianity may be again revived, yours is the very country (Tennessee, U. S.) where I may be

« AnteriorContinuar »