threatenings by interposing his oath; not because he is unprincipled, and addicted to utter falsehoods, but because of the hardness of men's hearts. If Jehovah, to commend the truth of his statements to the consciences of men, spoke upon his oath, why should not those who profess to be his followers and imitators in all possible matters do the same for the same ends?

1 Sam. iii. 14; Psa. xcv. 11; cxxxii. 2, 3, &c. (b) Again: Christ did not refuse to take an oath, when sworn by the high priest in these words, "I adjure thee by the living God," &c., Matt. xxvi. 63. Now, when a person was thus adjured, he was obliged to answer upon his oath, Lev. v. 1. Being thus sworn, Christ answered, "Thou hast said" (i. e., Thou hast said right, I am the Christ, the Son of God). So Mark has it, xvi. 62. Had it not, therefore, been right to be sworn and give evidence upon oath, Christ would have entered his protest against the practice. But he did not; on the contrary, he complied with it; consequently, the practice is right and expedient.

4. In the book of Revelation, which was written posterior to the time of the abrogation of the law of Moses, we have an instance of an angel attesting the truth of a great statement by an appeal to the most high God, Rev. x. 5, 6.

IV. We argue the lawfulness and expediency of the practice of solemn swearing on the ground that it is in harmony with the whole tenor of scripture and to the spirit of Christianity. Although we differ in opinion from E. W. S. on this point, we cannot forbear admiring his deference for scripture authority in the matter. 1. It has already been acceded that the law of Moses not only allowed, but required, the use of oaths. Under this law the use of oaths was not a mere ceremony, a meaningless rite, but a great moral and religious duty; for God says expressly, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name," Deut. vi. 13; x. 20. Now, what authority, we ask, has any man to dispense with one part of this injunction and not with the other? To say that Christ abrogated the Mosaic law does not affect the subject one iota, for the use of oaths was current among God's people prior to the in-word; then how can we suppose that he stitution of the Mosaic dispensation. See Gen. xxi. 23, 24; xxiv. 39, &c.

2. The prophets, in their prophecies and promises respecting the times of the gospel, mention the use of oaths especially. "Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear," Isa. xlv. 23. Compare Rom. xiv. 11. Jeremiah, too, when describing the conversion of the heathens under the gospel, mentions the act of swearing by the name of the Lord as belonging to those persons, Jer. xii. 16.

3. Christ himself sanctioned the use of oaths by his own example, (a) when he said, "Verily I say unto you, There shall be no sign given to this generation," Mark viii. 12. In the original there is an ellipsis of some such words as these, "may I not live," or "let God punish me if a sign be given," &c. Yet, the words in their present form have an Hebrew formula of an oath,* Deut. i. 35;

*On this passage Dr. Bloomfield says, "This is a form of solemn asseveration (common in the Old Testament), in which there is implied an imprecation; which, however, is omitted, per apo- !

5. The great apostle in several places confirms his speeches and the truth of his professions by calling in God as a witness, Rom. i. 9; ix. 1; Phil. i. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 31; 2 Cor. i. 23; Gal. i. 10. In 2 Cor. i. 23 we have this significant form of an oath, "I call God for a record upon my soul," &c. Now, Paul was a Christian in every sense of the

would comply with a practice that was not in harmony" with the spirit of Christianity?" Why did not E. W. S. speak to these passages in Paul's writings? From all these examples we think it is clear that the use of oaths for civil purposes is in harmony with scripture, consequently right, and in harmony with the spirit of Christianity.

It now only remains for us to examine those words of our Saviour which E. W. S. regards as containing a decisive argument that the use of oaths for civil purposes is wrong. E. W. S. must not be surprised if we tell him that the words have no respect at all to oaths for civil purposes, for this is the case; and the inference which E. W. S. draws from these words, beginning “Thus does he teach us," &c., is very faulty indeed.

ordinary conversation, even by the name of
God, if what he swears be the truth.* In
proof of these remarks we adduce the follow-
ing evidence:-" They that swear by heaven
and by earth are free." "If a man swear
by heaven, or by earth, yet this is not an
oath." R. Judah § says, "He that says
Jerusalem, or by Jerusalem, says nothing."
"Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is
nothing," &c., Matt. xxiii. 16-22. Now,
it was against what the Jews called these
lighter oaths that Christ directed his dis-
course. Their manner of mincing those sacred
obligations was repugnant to the true nature
and design of oaths; and from what we gather
on this subject, it seems that Christ gave his
followers to understand these two things:-
1. That they ought not to swear by any
creature; for every oath, whether conceived
by a creature or otherwise, had respect to
God, and was therefore binding. To swear
by the temple was the same as swearing by
the God who dwelled therein; and so of all
the rest, Matt. xxiii. 16, &c. 2. That they
ought not to interpose the name of God at
all in attestation of common and trivial
statements, however true. That such is
the true design of our Saviour's prohibition
in Matt. v. 33, &c., is evident from this
weighty consideration, that everything else
prohibited in the same chapter was in itself
unlawful, and had always been deemed so by
God's law. It was the glosses and dogmas
of false teachers that Christ sought to root
up and destroy; with respect to the things
that were of God, he said, "Think not that
I am come to destroy the law and the pro-
phets; I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil."
J. F.

There is more than one kind of swearing: there are many; such as true swearing, false swearing, forswearing, vulgar swearing, &c. Now we have shown that one kind of swearing is used and commended in scripture, and but one; this is true swearing, for no other kind can be supposed to be right. But the same thing, attended with the same circumstances, cannot be commended in one place and condemned in another. It is a rule equal to an axiom in the interpretation of scripture, that when a thing is forbidden in one place and allowed in another, not the essence of the thing, but the accidentals, modes, or non-essentials, are spoken to, at least in one place. Besides, there are scores of instances in the Bible where the sacred writers seem to express themselves absolutely and positively when they mean to be understood comparatively and conditionally. See Luke vi. 30, where Christ says, "Give to every man that asketh of thee," &c.; 1 Cor. vi. 7; viii. 4; Matt. ix. 24; vii. 23. Thus, then, we must necessarily come to the conclusion that Christ prohibits some kind of swearing, probably all kinds, save that which is right and commended. This kind he cannot be supposed to forbid; for such a supposition sets Christ against Christ, and Paul against James. When Christ says, "Swear not at all," &c., he prohibits all sorts of vain and vulgar swearing, perjury, and the violation of oaths. The Scribes and Pharisees had erred, not only respecting the laws of uncleanness, divorce, and retaliation, but respecting the use of oaths. These men, like many others, had addicted themselves to falsehood and superstition to that degree that they were obliged to devise means in justification of their conduct or forfeit the confidence of the people; and, that they might This opinion they founded on Lev. xix. 12, follow their wicked practices without seem-ring from this text that they might swear by it, "Ye shall not swear by my name falsely," infering to incur God's wrath, they argued to the even in trivial matters, so long as their affirmafollowing effect:-1. No oath is binding, tions were true. except the name of God be interposed or expressed. 2. A man may swear in common conversation with impunity, so long as he swears by a creature only; or, the obligation of an oath increases in the same ratio as

the dignity of the person or thing by which a man swears. 3. A man may swear in

"Misn. Sheb., chap. iv. sec. 13.
#Lightfoot, on Matt. v. 34.
"Sheb.," chap. xii.

Quintilian held the same opinion:-"To swear at all (says he), except where it is necessary, does not well coincide with a wise man." And Epictetus the same:-"Shun oaths wholly, ir it be possible; if not, as much as you can."

Riches are the baggage of virtue: they cannot be spared, nor left behind; but they hinder

the march.

The Societies' Section:

REPORTS OF MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT SOCIETIES.

Paisley Artizan's Institution.-The second to form a branch of education?" 7, "Is a nation session of the essay and discussion class in con- better for having enemies?" 8," Ought the frannexion with the above flourishing institution chise to be extended to £5 in the present session having been lately brought to a close, the mem- of parliament?" 9, "Whether has hope or fear bers, along with a few friends, held their annual the greater influence on the mind?" 10, “ Which meeting in the Vulcan Hotel, County Place, on ought to exalt a man most, the good qualities of the evening of the 24th of May last. Mr. John | the head or those of the heart?" Guy, president of the class, occupied the chair, and the duties of croupier were discharged by Mr. Gordon Smith. After partaking of an excellent repast, and the cloth having been withdrawn, the usual loyal and patriotic toasts were given, and warmly responded to.

The chairman then proceeded to deliver the closing address for the session, in which he strongly recommended mutual improvement societies as an invaluable boon to all who have entered on the arduous task of mental improvement and self-education. He spoke in eloquent terms of the very great advantages which young men might derive from attending such classes, characterizing them as a sort of mental gymnasium, in the arena of which the powers and faculties of mind may be trained, by proper exercise, into a healthful and vigorous operation. He concluded a deeply interesting address, which displayed throughout a great amount of mental acumen and deep thought, by passing a high eulogium on "that excellent periodical, The British Controversialist." In referring to it he said, "I cannot allow this opportunity to pass away without bringing under your notice a most excellent periodical, specially designed for you, and conducted with great talent and ability. I refer to The British Controversialist. I would strongly advise every one now present (who may not be so already) to become at once a subscriber to that truly valuable production. As the cost is but trifling, I would have you purchase it from the commencement. The work needs no eulogium; it only requires to be seen to be appreciated. It is a library in itself; and its object, like our own, is mental and moral improvement. If you make such a work your study during the vacation months, I shall expect great things in the coming

session."

The secretary then read an interesting report of the past year's proceedings, from which it appeared that during the session nine essays had been delivered by the members on the following subjects, namely:-1, "Perjury, morally and legally considered;" 2," Patriotism ; " 3, "Love;" 4, "Conscience;" 5," Peace and War;" 6," The Chemistry of Flowers;" 7, "Frivolous Amusements;" 8, "Time;" and 9, "Sociality."

The following important questions had also been discussed, viz.:-1, “Ought slavery to be instantly or gradually abolished?" 2, "Ought a member of parliament to vote according to his own opinion or to that of the majority of his constituency?" 3," Whether is there more pleasure derived from the eye or the ear?" 4, "Whether is there more pleasure derived from the giving or receiving a benefit?" 5, Was Wellington or Napoleon the greater man?" 6," Ought dancing

As stated in the report, the essays were all of a superior character, and showed that the various writers had given the subjects their careful consi deration. The discussions were entered into with spirit, and were candidly and fairly conducted. During the evening various toasts were given by several of the members, each prefaced by a few appropriate remarks. These, interspersed with songs and recitations, kept up the hilarity of the evening till a late hour, when the company sepa rated, well pleased with the manner in which the evening had been spent, and expressing their earnest wish for the future prosperity of the class.

It may also be stated, that arrangements have been made to enable the members to enjoy one or two pleasure excursions during the summer months, to keep up their interest in the class till the approach of winter, when it is confidently expected we shall be enabled to resume our meet. ings with a very considerable addition to our numbers.

Kirkintilloch Young Men's Mutual Improve ment Society-The third social meeting of this society was held on the evening of Wednesday, the 11th of May, in the usual place of meeting, New Post Office.

At a quarter to seven o'clock the members and their friends sat down to tea. Afterwards the chairman, Mr. Robert Allan, jun., manufacturer, Kirkintilloch, amidst great applause, delivered a very excellent speech, in which he dwelt mach upon the necessity of having fixed principles, and showed by means of examples, known to most present, the serious and dangerous consequences that were likely to result to young men from their going abroad into the world and into business with their minds wholly unsettled. He then called upon the secretary, Mr. J. Russell, to read a statement of the society's business. From this it appeared that the society had been in existence since the 5th of June last year: that during that time twenty-four original essays on various subjects had been read by members; that a great number of subjects had been debated, some of which, from the great interest they excited, bad occupied the society during three nights; that members were gradually increasing in numbers; and that a library had been established, which had already risen to seventy volumes, besides the circulation amongst members of several periodicals and reviews, such as the "British Controver sialist," Edinburgh Review," "Temperance Review," &c. The report having been adopted, a vote of thanks was given to the retiring secretary. The treasurer, Mr. J. Allan, then read his report, which showed that the funds of the society were in a satisfactory condition; to whom also a vote of thanks was given.

The Suquirer.

enlightening him at all as to the real nature of the fallacy in question.

From K.G.'s observations I understand him to say, that, setting aside certain mechanical considerations in the case proposed-such as "frietion of machinery," "breadth of clock-hands," and "another circumstance or two,"-" the mi

here good naturedly concedes " Homo's" friend's position, and thus "ignores" the very fallacy which he ought to have pointed out.

of the minute hand, he says, "and so we might go on for ever;" showing plainly that his idea was, that at every step there would still be a space H. J. R. also mistakes the question when he between them over the twelfth part of which the argues upon the mechanical properties of a clock. hour hand would pass whilst the minute hand "Homo's friend's argument is merely another would pass over the whole, and so on for ever. form of the sophism of Zeno concerning Achilles If he had not an idea that space could be divided and the tortoise; and H. J. R. might as well into infinity, how could he have said, "for ever?" argue upon the "jumps" of Achilles, as upon the Surely, for ever is equal to infinity? It is some-"jumps" of the minute hand. In either case, the what strange that B. S. should throw aside my simple consideration involved is, that of two unstatement, and then directly make the same in equal uniform motions, which may be assured other words; thus,-that it is founded on the perfectly steady and continuous,-the question supposition "that a given space can be divided thus becoming abstract, without any essential into an infinite number of infinitesimally small alteration in the nature of the sophism. portions;" which B. S. says we cannot deny." I, however, do deny it, and defy him to support it, either by reason or common sense. Here is about the same display of logic as is manifested by the original statement as given by "Homo's friend; for, surely, if it can be divided into an in-nute would never overtake the hour hand." K. G. finite number, it can be divided into infinity? But these are unsound premises, and the inference drawn therefrom will prove unsound also. Look at the premises, "infinite number!" It is a manifest absurdity; oue word annihilates the other. The infinite can have no finite predicate, and rice versa. Nor is the difficulty obviated by considering them to be "infinitesimally small portions," because an infinitesimal is something infinitely small, at which sound reason revolts. If we once admit the premises that a given space can be divided into "an infinite number of portions," and that the minute must have time and space in the same ratio, it follows as an unavoidable inference that the minute hand may travel on for ever, and will never be able to overtake the hour hand. (An infinite number of portions of time is for ever.) Thus the inference is false, which we all know, and the premises proved false also. Because it cannot be reduced to the form of a syl. logism (by what I know of a syllogism I think, however, that it can), B. S. says, "at the very outset logic disowns and condemns it." I hold logic to be "the right use of our reason in search after truth." Thus it lays hold of everything, and either proves or disproves. If "school logic" requires so much indulgence, I am thankful that I was never" rolled in its dust."-A LABOURER.

J. B. rightly apprehends the question; but it may be doubted whether his attempt at syllogism will be accepted by "Homo's" friend as a fair representation of the argument.

B. S. clearly states the case in these words,"Homo admits that the minute hand will overtake the hour hand, and wishes logic to be cleared of the imputation of proving the contrary." I think, however, that his explanation of the fal lacy leaves room for a few further remarks, which I hope I may be permitted to make.

Let us now suppose it 1 o'clock, at which time the minute hand is exactly 5 minute spaces be hind the hour hand. The question, as before observed, is not whether the minute hand will overtake the other; for this is a fact which

The

Homo's" friend himself admits, when be desig nates the contrary assertion a "monstrous absurdity," and selects it as the thing "practically false" to be established by his freak of leis. The point to be decided is, whether this "monstrous absurdity" does logically follow from the argument by which it is professed to be proved; and if not, wherein does the fallacy lie? argument runs thus,-when the minute hand has If "Homo's" real object had been to amuse travelled over the 5 minute spaces, the hour hand himself by throwing dust in the eyes of your cor- will have advanced; while the minute band respondents, he would, methinks, have felt much travels over the, the hour hand will advare gratified by his success, as he could not have 5 &c. &c. "And so," says "Homo's" friend, read the replies to his query, without perceiving "we might go on for ever, and still the minute how beautifully most of his well meaning "in-hand would never overtake the hour hand." This structors" have missed their way. Indeed the reasoning has one merit at least, that we may only reply which comes at all near the true point assent to every part of it except the conclusion. at issue, is that of your last correspondent, B. S. It is quite true, that when the minute hand Your first correspondent, E. S. J., begins cor- reaches 1, the hour hand will be in advanci rectly enough by saying, that "Homo" does not that when the minute has gone over this, the require proof that the two hands will come to-hour hand will be in advance; and that this gether, being satisfied that the swifter will overtake the slower. Yet he presently goes on to say. that the grand question is whether the hands will simultaneously attain a certain spot; and not content with thus losing sight of the question, he assumes this spot to be 1 o'clock, declaring the proof as positive as anything in geometry, that the hands will certainly meet there-an assertion which is palpably absurd.

Next comes "A Labourer," who, like the preceding correspondent, edifies "Homo" with sundry irrelevant remarks on logic in general, without

subdivision may be repeated as often as we please. Yet the conclusion by no means follows. The fallacy lies in reasoning upon the supposition that these successive diminutions of the original distance between the two hands require uniform times for their completion. Were this indeed the case, the inference would be true. If these su cessive diminutions (which are, in fact, merely subdivisions of the original distance) were each to occupy a definite uniform period of time, the repetition of such periods as often as there might be subdivision, namely, an infinite number of