public business; the concern of the Christian community. Psalms and Hymns were sung containing such passages as these: (Ps. cxvi., 15), Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints: (ver. 7), Return, O my soul, to thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee. (Prov. x., 7), The memory of the just is blessed. (Wisd. iii., 1), The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God. In later ages, other hymns were used; as, for example, the noted one referring to the day of Judgment, which begins Dies Ira, dies illa Solvet sæclum in favillâ. The greater part of the Burial Service of the English Church was in use in this country (in Latin), long before the Reformation.

800. Both the Jewish and the Roman customs directed that burial-places should be outside the city. (Luke vii. 12. John xi. 30). Cic. de Leg. 11. 23, quotes the law of the Twelve Tables: Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito. The Christians gave to their burial-grounds the name of sleeping places, Cemeteries (koμnrńpia); implying the hope of the resurrection. But they also buried their dead in the Church-yards; and this was understood as a recognition of the Communion of Saints; a community of interest, or sympathy, between dead and living believers; the place where the departed were gathered together being thus brought near the place, where those who remained in life assembled for purposes of religion.

It is to be remarked that the purpose of the Christian funeral solemnities was, in early times, understood to be, not any advantage to the dead, but the edification of the living.

801. The due religious celebration of funeral solemnities being plainly capable of being made to further such purposes; and being supported by the constant practice of Christian communities; cannot be disregarded by a Christian in any instance which

belongs to his charge, without showing irreverence and levity in religious matters; besides the blame of want of affection, and want of decency, which such a neglect naturally and deservedly incurs; even without referring to religious considerations.

802.

CHAPTER XXIII.

OATHS OF CHRISTIANS.

WE have already spoken of Oaths in general, as a custom arising from the dictates of natural Piety; we have now to speak of Christian Oaths as a Christian Ordinance. The Oaths commonly used in this country contain a reference to Christianity. The ancient form of the Oath was that the Juror touched the Gospels, and said, Ita me Deus adjuvet et hæc Sancta Dei Evangelia; and the present form is, that in taking the Oath he holds the Gospel in his hand, and kisses the book after saying So help me God.

803. Christian Oaths have been taken in various forms. As to its general character, the Ordinance is supported by all the four grounds of Ordinances which we have enumerated; Natural Piety, Early Revelation, Apostolic Practice, and Catholic Usage. But the two latter reasons have not given the Ordinance a new form and a new authority, to the same extent to which they have done in other Ordinances. Natural Piety has made the use of Oaths universal. In the Jewish Revelation we find them abundantly used, and approved and enjoined by God. Christ and his Apostles sanctioned the use of Oaths by their practice, but nowhere clearly enjoined them. There are even some passages in the

New Testament which have been understood as forbidding Oaths, but without good ground for such an interpretation. And the Universal Usage of Chris tian Communities, down to modern times, has given its authority to that interpretation of the Christian Precepts, which allows the use of Oaths on solemn occasions. We shall further illustrate some of these assertions.

804. Among the Israelites, the custom of swearing on solemn occasions existed, and is con stantly taken for granted in the Old Testament. Oaths are there commanded as a part of the usual judicial procedure: Thus, Exod. xxii., 11, if a man deliver unto his neighbour an ox, &c., and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it, Then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both. And Psalm xv., 4, it is mentioned among the characters of a good man, that he sweareth to his neighbour, and disappointeth him not, though it be to his own hindrance. The denunciation of God's anger against false swearing, imply a sanction of swearing when truly employed; and we cannot suppose God to disapprove of the practice, when he is repeatedly represented as himself having sworn an oath to Abraham (Gen. xxii., 16), to David (Psalm lxxxix., 3), and to the people of Israel on various occasions (Isai. xlv., 23. Jerem. xlix., 13; li., 14. Amos vi., 8). The command, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, implies that the name might be used on important and fit occasions; and the command appears fitted to keep up the solemn reverence for the thought of God, which an Oath implies.

805. When Jesus Christ taught the true import of the law of Moses, he noticed, among other things, the Jewish practice of Oaths. His injunctions, on this subject, were to the same effect as with regard to other parts of the Jewish usages. As with regard to retaliation, to divorce, fo honouring of pa

rents, to angry expressions, the Jewish teachers had made subtle distinctions as to what was and was not a transgression of the law, while they had neglected the spirit of the law; so with regard to swearing. The trivial and thoughtless use of forms of swearing had become common, and the teachers had laid down rules as to which of these forms were binding, and which were not so. In this, as in the other cases, Christ rejects these distinctions, and says of such cases (Matth. v., 34), I say unto you, Swear not at all. That this is the import of his words, is plain from the course of teaching in this place. Christ begins by saying (v., 17), Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; and then goes on to various points, with the expressions, Ye have heard it hath been said by them of old time. But I say unto you (v. 21, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 39). And the same form he uses here: Ye have heard that it hath been said (v. 33), Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all. If, in this instance, he had forbidden judicial Oaths, it is plain that he would have been destroying the law and the prophets. For the Law enjoined judicial Oaths, as we have seen; and if a hearer of Christ, thinking to obey him, had refused to answer upon his Oath before a judge, he would have been violating the law of Moses, and of his country, as we have seen. We do not find that Christ was ever accused of having violated the law of Moses in this part of his teaching. And when we consider how different the Oaths he spoke of were in form from the judicial Oaths of the Jews, it seems impossible to suppose that his hearers would understand him to speak of these.

806. In this passage, Christ refers to what had been said, namely, Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But we learn from another passage that this had been said with various distinctions.

In

Matth. xxiii., 16, Christ reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees on this subject: Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! . . And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon the altar, he is guilty. And he then explains, that all these distinctions, which were used to show Oaths to be no Oaths, were futile. (v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 22), The temple sanctifieth the gold... the altar sanctifieth the gift. Whosoever shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. Whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and him that dwelleth therein. He that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. These are very forcible considerations against the light or familiar use of Oaths; but of no apparent force to overthrow the Jewish law which, given by God himself, had till then permitted and enjoined Oaths. Indeed, the precept by Christ, Swear not at all, cannot be considered as having reference to judicial Oaths. The forms mentioned of swearing, by heaven, by Jerusalem, &c., were not judicial forms, and the precept is combined with other precepts which would put an end to all judicial contests: Resist not evil... And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also (Matth. v., 40). When Christ says (ver. 37), Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil, we may readily apply this to judicial Oaths, for these come as lawsuits come, from the cupidity and anger, the falsehood and levity of man. Oaths come of evil sources, and judicial Oaths among others; but there is in the precepts now referred to, nothing which denies them, so far as they are evils, to be necessary evils, as all judicial proceedings may be said to be, if we look at their origin.