lamented; and it merits public consideration, whether the requiring of oaths on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect than to make them cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at the least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office- namely, that of an oath — is required from a church-warden and an archbishop, from a petty constable and the Chief Justice of England.”

III. Lawfulness of Oaths.-There are certain religious sects, as the Moravians, and the Quakers, which regard the oath as unlawful on any occasion, and, on the ground of these scruples, refuse to swear. In support of this view they cite the words of our Saviour, in Matthew v. 34, 37 : "I say unto you, swear hot at all," "Let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." That our Saviour intended by these words to prohibit the solemn judicial oath, there is not the least evidence. On the contrary, his words evidently refer to the use of oaths in common conversation; that is, to profane swearing, and to all irreverent and unauthorized appeals to Heaven in confirmation of our veracity, without judicial form and sanction. The Jews seem to have distinguished between swearing by the name of God, and swearing by other and less sacred objects, as the heaven, the earth, Jerusalem, the head, etc.,—regarding the latter forms as less sacred and binding than the former one. Christ forbids all such use of language, as irreverent to the Supreme Being, and his direction therefore is, swear not at all; that is, not in any of these ways: they are all improper and profane. That, in so saying, he intended to forbid the

judicial oath, there is no evidence, but the highest improbability.

Sanctioned in Scripture.-No attentive reader of the Scriptures can fail to observe the fact, that the solemn oath is repeatedly recognized and sanctioned in the sacred writings. Our Saviour himself was once put on oath by the high-priest, and made reply, when "adjured by the living God," to declare whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. God repeatedly swears by himself, in the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to show the immutability of his counsel, he confirmed his own covenant with the Jews by an oath. "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." "For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them the end of all strife. Wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath" (Heb. vi. 13, 16, 17). "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return (Is. xlv. 23). "The Lord God hath sworn by himself, saith the Lord the God of hosts" (Amos vi. 8). "For I have sworn by myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah shall become a desolation" (Jer. xlix. 13).

Among the precepts of the law given on Sinai we find the following: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and、 serve him, and shalt swear by his name" (Deut. vi. 13). The same is repeated in Deut. x. 20. The judicial oath is probably referred to in these passages. Still more explicitly in the following: "Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods" (Ex. xxii. 11). Paul, in his epistles, repeatedly calls God to witness, in the most solemn manner, for the

truth of what he says. "For God is my witness" (Rom. i. 9). "Moreover, I call God for a witness upon my soul" (2 Cor. i. 23). From the above examples it is evident that oaths, solemn and judicial, are by no means condemned in the Scriptures, but, on the contrary, sanctioned both by precept and example.

Necessity of the Oath. That the frequent and irreverent use of the oath, on trifling occasions, tends to evil, has already been admitted; that its use can be, or need be, entirely dispensed with in judicial transactions, and on public occasions of solemn moment, I am not ready to admit. The state needs to employ it; nor can the ends of justice be well secured without it. Reputation, property, life itself, and all the interests that are dear to man on the earth, depend on the sanctity of the oath. So long as human nature is what it is, it is absolutely necessary to throw around the forms of justice, and the offices of high public trust, the solemnity and sanction of a direct appeal to the omniscient and omnipotent Ruler of men and things.

Where Religious Belief is wanting. The state may have occasion for the testimony or public services of those who have either no religious belief, or a widely different one from the commonly received faith; as, for example, of one who believes in Mohammed, or in the deities of the pagan world; of one who, as the Jew, believes in God, but not in Christ; or of one who rejects the doctrine of a future state, or of future retribution. In such cases, of what avail is the oath, in its usual form and significance? I reply if the faith of the testator in God, and in the retributions of the future, be not wholly wanting, his oath may be upon and according to his faith, whatever that may be, - whether Jewish, Pagan, or Mohammedan; and, as his

religion is more or less practical, and pure, and exerts more or less restraint and influence on his life, so his oath will be more or less binding on his conscience, and his testimony will be more or less worthy of credence, in that proportion. If, however, either the existence of the Supreme Being, or a state of future rewards and punishments, be not an object of earnest belief to the testator, it is difficult to see of what validity the oath can any longer be. It has lost its significance, so far as he is concerned, and his testimony, if taken, must be taken with allowance, and for what it is worth.

17*

PART III.

DUTIES TO THE FAMILY.

WE have as yet considered only those duties which man owes to himself, to society, and to his fellow-men in general. There are other duties, not less important, of a more specific character. There are in the world two great institutions, both of divine origin, both founded in man's moral and social nature, both placing him in new and peculiar relations, and requiring of him new and peculiar duties, I mean the Family and the State. Of the former I am now to treat.

The duties which belong to this class divide themselves naturally into those of the marriage relation, and those of the parental relation; or, the duties of husband and wife, and those of parent and child.

CHAPTER I.

DUTIES OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION.

The family is a distinct and peculiar institution, standing by itself; a distinct organic community, complete within itself;-having its own laws, its own rights and privileges,