THE LAST WORK OF THE TRUE CHURCH
By M. E. Cornell
"Bind up the testimony: seal the law among my disciples." In the preceding chapters we have noticed several points in the testimony of Jesus which are strangely perverted and wrested from their true meaning. But there is yet one departure from a plain and positive precept of Christ, which we have hitherto left unnoticed; and as we would "bring all the tithes into the store-house," it becomes our duty (as far as possible within these limits) to plead in behalf of one of the plainest precepts of the New Testament: one which has always been disregarded by nearly all Protestant christendom. It is found in Christ's sermon on the Mount. Matt. v, 33, 34. "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," &c. Many suppose that this precept simply forbids common profanity among the wicked who take God's name in vain; but we shall see by examination that this idea is erroneous. Jesus first directs our minds to the precept that once existed, that a man should not forswear himself, but perform his oaths, &c. This will lead us to inquire, (1.) What does the term forswear signify? Webster says to forswear one's self, is to swear falsely: Jesus intimates that it was once lawful to swear, but the oath must be performed. By reference to the Scriptures we learn that such was the fact. See Deut. vi, 13. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name."
Here is a positive command to swear by God's name; but we find it qualified by Lev. xix, 12,238"And ye shall not swear by my name falsely." We have the same in Num. xxx, 1, 2. "And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded: If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath, to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." By this quotation we understand that it was lawful anciently for a man to swear or bind himself with a bond; but the law required the performance of the oath; and this seems to have been the only prohibition in the matter. This prepares us to understand what is comprehended in the precept, "swear not." Notice the negative manner in which it is introduced: "But I say unto you, Swear not at all." This precept prohibits doing what men were once permitted to do; viz., "To swear and perform." Webster defines it as follows: (1.) "To affirm or utter a solemn declaration with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. (2.) To promise upon oath." And he says, "This seems to have been the primitive use of swear; that is, to affirm." This conclusion of Mr. Webster, is no doubt drawn from the Scriptures; for those already quoted teach that to swear is to bind with an oath to perform; to solemnly bind to perform; giving a pledge; therefore the command to swear not by heaven or earth is against using these as a pledge. First, men are forbidden to swear at all; and then four things are specified by which men shall not swear. A principle is laid down or a reason is given as follows: 1. A man shall not confirm anything by pledging heaven, for (reason given) it is God's throne. 2. Neither the earth; for it is his footstool. 3. Nor by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 4. Neither by his head; for he cannot make one hair white or black. Man has no right to swear by, or offer as a pledge his interest in heaven, earth or Jerusalem; for these belong to God, and are sacred to him. And to swear by his own head would be to swear by his life, which is also sacred. A man has no right to pledge his own life for the performance of any thing; but how often we hear even professors of religion, while boasting of their abilities, &c., say, "If this or that is not thus and so," or "If I do not thus and so, I will give you my head for a foot-ball." The foot-ball is knocked about on the ground with a club; hence if a man were to give his head for a foot-ball, he must cause it to be severed from his body, which would of course be literally giving his own life. If a man is so weak and utterly powerless that he cannot make one hair white or black, he surely cannot restore his own life; hence he has no right to swear by his head. In the above specifications, reasons are given why men shall not swear by certain things; but the precept forbids swearing by any thing which exists. Swear not at all. After informing men what they shall not say, Jesus establishes a precedent, or gives a rule to govern them in regard to pledging or agreeing to perform any thing. It is as follows: "But let your communication be yea, yea: nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." This prohibits any thing beyond a simple statement: no pledge is to be given more than a simple promise: no consideration, either earthly or heavenly, is to be offered (beyond a mere promise) for the performance of any object. Some suppose that Jesus only prohibits swearing by what he specified; but that this idea is erroneous is evident from the epistle of James, chap. v, 12. All must concede that this chapter is prophetic of the last days, the patient waiting time of the saints; therefore we seize upon its instruction as of special importance at the present time. After exhorting to patience, &c., he says, "But above all things, my brethren, swear not: neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea; and your nay nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." No one can fail to see the stress laid upon this precept by the Apostle, "above all things." This language excludes all possibility of any plausible claim that this subject is unimportant. The expression, "Neither by any other oath," shows that any ceremony whatever that amounts to an oath, is forbidden. We inquire, therefore, what the term, oath, signifies? Webster defines it as follows: "A solemn affirmation or declaration made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor, if the declaration is false; or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury." According to Webster, then, the principle involved in an oath is a consideration of loss if the affirmation be false. Hence affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury is forbidden: because there is a consideration of loss: a certain amount of money, or liberty is at stake. Webster defines perjury as follows: "The act or crime of willfully making a false oath, when lawfully administered." Perjury being a false oath, to affirm under its pains and penalties, is equivalent to an oath; and the law thus regards it; and any one can see that the same principle is involved. We cannot suppose that Jesus, or the apostle James, had reference to any particular form of oath; but the principle of oath-taking in general, which (as we have already seen) is for men to bind themselves to tell the truth, by some important consideration of loss; pledging in some manner a forfeiture if they witness falsely. To affirm by any object is to stake that object as a pledge or forfeiture. To affirm by the penalties of perjury is to pledge one's own liberty. For a man to affirm by his liberty is not an oath of so great magnitude as to affirm by his life, simply because the "curse," or consideration of loss, is not so great. An appeal to the Scriptures will settle this point. In Acts xxv, 12, we read: "And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, (or with an oath of execration, margin,) saying, that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul." That this binding under a curse (penalty) was an oath, is evident not only from the marginal reading, but also from the testimony of Paul's nephew; [see verse 21;] . . . "for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath," &c. From this it is evident that binding "under a curse," and "with an oath" are the same. In this instance life was at stake. This was a more solemn oath than to pledge liberty or gold. Nothing is dearer than life. In verse 14, the conspirators against Paul speak as follows: "We have bound ourselves under a great curse (oath) that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul." From the foregoing we conclude that to affirm under any penalty is an oath. We have instances of the followers of Christ affirming, but not under any penalty. Rhoda affirmed that Peter was before the gate. Acts xii, 15. Paul affirmed that Jesus was alive. Acts xxv, 19. Paul instructed Titus to affirm constantly that believers should maintain good works. Titus iii, 8. These affirmations were all according to the rule which Jesus had laid down. In every case it was a simple statement of yea, yea: or it is so, without pledging money, liberty or life. To affirm under the penalties of perjury, is more than yea, yea: nay, nay; and therefore "cometh of evil." Brethren, beware! But some brother may object and say, We may not raise our hands to the words, "You do solemnly swear," &c., but we may affirm. This was the way the Quakers reasoned; and to satisfy their consciences a provision was made in the law. For their sake the law-makers invented a new form of oath, involving the same principle. Now brother, let us compare the two ceremonies, and see which is the strongest. Come and let us reason together. (1.)
"You do solemnly swear in the presence of God, that the evidence you shall give shall be the truth, &c. So help you God."
(2.)
"You do solemnly affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the evidence you shall give shall be the truth," &c. Now if there is any difference in these two forms of oath the latter is the most solemn; because the penalty is referred to in the ceremony. The words, "in the presence of God," and "so help you God," are perfectly harmless, unless their use in oath-taking be a violation of the third commandment. The man that affirms does it in the presence of God, although it is not expressed; and the words, "so help you God" do not make the oath any stronger, simply because they do not express the least consideration of loss. When it is once settled that it is the penalty that makes the oath, all will be clear and plain. Where there is no forfeiture either expressed or implied, the ceremony (whatever it may be) is not an oath. The term swear cannot be used with any propriety except in an oath. It is the mere name of a principle; and substituting affirm does not in the least alter that principle; hence the oath of affirmation would be the same as any other oath if under the same penalty. We have the following from Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, Vol. 2, p. 251. "Oaths are taken in various forms," &c. After speaking of an oath by the words, "You do solemnly swear," &c., he says, "In another form of attestation commonly called affirmation, the officer repeats, 'You do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm,' &c., and adds, 'The oath however may be varied in any other form in order to conform to the religious opinions of the person who takes it.'" Here is an explanation by a standard author. Mark: he says, "The oath may be varied in any form to suit the religious opinions of the person who takes it." The Quakers' conscience is satisfied by having the oath varied so as to make it the "oath of affirmation." But can an oath be varied to suit the religious opinions of the remnant who are binding up the testimony, and to whom the epistle of James is directed? We answer it is impossible to vary an oath so as to conform to the rule which Jesus has laid down. The oaths of the remnant cannot be varied, because Jesus has forbidden such oaths coming into existence. "Swear not at all." The instant a man brings an oath into existence, that very instant he swears. The testimony of Jesus does not forbid any particular form of oath, but all oaths of whatever form. Any form of ceremony that involves a penalty, is an oath. The form may be varied a thousand times, and yet the principle involved be the same. It is swearing by the penalty, (forfeiture,) whatever it may be. But should any brother still say that the principle is not the same in all ceremonies where it is by a penalty, that a man may affirm (swear) by the pains and penalties of perjury and yet it is nothing; let such an one be corrected by the testimony of Jesus. See Matt. xxiii, 16-23. "Wo 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. 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, (margin, debtor or bound.) 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 all the things thereon. And whoso sweareth 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." Jesus here teaches that a man is just as much bound when he has sworn by the altar as by the gift that is on the altar; and the reason he gives is that the gift is no greater than the altar upon which the gift is offered. The gift and the altar, the temple and the gold, are alike important. How vain was the239reasoning of the Pharisees, and yet their saying that a man was not bound when he swore by the altar or temple was no greater an inconsistency than it is for a man now to say that to affirm under (by) the pains and penalties of perjury, is not swearing, because the term "swear" is not used in the ceremony. Let it be remembered that the original word now translated swear represents a principle, and that principle is being put under extra bonds to tell the truth. All men are bound to speak the truth, as far as a moral principle will bind men. And there is no virtue in a man's speaking the truth merely because he is bound by an oath to do it. And the system of oath-taking in this dispensation, involves the principle that the precept, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," &c., written upon the hearts of men, is not sufficient to deter them from speaking falsehoods. Of the extent of the violation of this precept, swear not, it is hardly necessary to speak at length. Every officer in the United States, from the President down to the pettiest officer in a common-school district are obliged to take an oath. Editors cannot collect their subscriptions, without swearing that they have published the paper. No difference if the court, and every man in the village knows that he is the publisher of said paper; the law will not be satisfied without an oath. In the State of Michigan the law requires that every man, liable to taxation, shall make a statement of his taxable property, and then swear or affirm that the statement is correct. The fine for neglecting to comply with this law is $25. For two years past the churches in Michigan as a general thing have refused to comply with the law. But our faith in regard to oath taking has been explained to the collectors, and the brethren have been pardoned with only one exception. Bro. J. P. Kellogg, then residing in Livingston County was compelled to pay the fine. But the town soon became ashamed of it and voted the money back. One brother in Wisconsin was summoned as juror, and upon refusing to take an oath in any form, because he respected the testimony of Jesus, was discharged. Lawyers everywhere admit that any form of ceremony which will satisfy the law is in reality an oath. Religious men of almost all denominations have violated this precept without scruple. A plainer or more definite precept is not found in all the teachings of Christ, and yet with the Bible in hand learned ministers and commentators have totally neglected it. Like the fourth commandment it has been spiritualized and wrested from its true meaning, and thus explained away. They have claimed that it forbids the violation of the third commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," &c. If this is the intent of our Saviour's precept, we must conclude that it was once lawful to profane God's name; because it is an exact negative to the former precept, "Thou shalt swear by my name and perform," &c. The subject which the Saviour introduces is the system of swearing and performing, which we have clearly established to have been lawful in the typical dispensation. We have also seen that the ancient swearing was the principle of binding with a bond; hence the precept, "Swear (be bound) not at all" is so plain that there is no excuse for its violation. In conclusion we would say to the remnant, Bring all the tithes into the storehouse. You have engaged in the work of restoring paths to dwell in, and consider the sealing of the law very important. I beseech you neglect not to bind up the testimony. The law only is not a sufficient shield against all the errors of this time, hence we are directed also to the testimony. Then my brethren above all things, SWEAR NOT, LEST YE FALL INTO CONDEMNATION. The law and testimony composes our shield, our test and perfect detector. With these we are able to detect false ways, and shun the legions of fables, which are to lead the world captive in the last days. Those that heed the warning of our text, and keep the law and testimony perfectly, will not fall into condemnation. They will shun the worship of the beast and his image, the mark and number of his name. When the dragon's fire is kindled to a flame, they will realize a mighty deliverance; be sheltered from the seven last plagues, and sing the song of Moses and the Lamb on mount Zion. In view of an eternal life of glory in the kingdom of God; saved from sin and all its consequences; we beseech you dear fellow mortals to heed the warning voice, of the last message of mercy to poor fallen man. Despise not this warning. Its last notes will soon die away, and then will
"Stern justice lift the avenging sword
To slay the mockers of God's word."
O then improve the present; for yet a little while and the voice of sweet mercy will be heard no more. Fear not the reproach or revilings of men, but be willing to suffer persecution. Be wise and sacrifice all for glory and do it now. Let the signs of the times admonish you to make no delay. The days are evil; therefore redeem the time. The present in mercy is given us, and as the poet says,
"We are living, we are dwelling
In a grand and awful time,
In an age on ages telling,
To be living is sublime.
Hark! the waking up of nations
Gog and magog to the fray,
Hark! what soundeth? is creation
Groaning for its latter day?"
And now patient reader, I must bid you farewell. If you will keep the Law and Testimony unto the end, I shall expect to meet you in the kingdom of God. May this be our happy lot. Amen.