most evil. The lustful desires of an old rué are there alluded to in the most familiar manner, and treated as a mere joke. Women, virtuous women, make themselves merry at the expense of this old voluptuary; and after having inflicted upon him a few laughably inadequate punishments, the play concludes by all the actors in it sitting down to a feast. Is this the punishment due to an adulterer? Is it so that woman should treat the insulter of her modesty? Is it as Ford treated Falstaff that a husband should treat the would-be seducer of his wife? Is this the morality we are to be taught to imitate? Do not tell us to remember the age in which Shakspere wrote. Can time alter the morality of such an act as adultery? Can time alter the virtue of woman's purity or woman's constancy? Can time alter the rebuke due to injured modesty? No! and far other than the morality taught in "The Merry Wives of Windsor," must be that taught by him who aspires to be England's greatest poet.

But let us not be misunderstood. We acknowledge the genius of the great dramatic writer. As a delineator of human nature, as one who speaks to and touches the feelings, as a poetic philosopher, we admit him to stand unrivalled. We know and have felt the exquisite beauties, the affecting truths of

"Sweetest Shakspere, Fancy's child." We believe nothing can be found in the English language which speaks with greater force than the tragedy of "Julius Cæsar." Anthony's oration to the citizens of Rome is the perfection of eloquence.

Oh! yes, Shakspere, thou wert indeed a great poet, and well mayest thou be called "divine."

But let not our admiration of the beauties of his verse close our eyes to its many faults. Alas! not his most ardent admirer can deny that we have in too many instances to wade through whole pages of rubbish, before wa meet with one truly beautiful and poetic idea; and that but too many of his plays abound in ribaldry and low wit. How painfully this contrasts with the high moral tone, the lofty purity, that pervades all the writings of Milton!

But to conclude. We have expressed a sense of difficulty in comparing the writings of the two poets under consideration, owing to their different styles. The poetry of ear! has, in our opinion, reached the standard of perfection. How, then, can we say that the one is a greater poet than the other? By careful examination. If imagination be the quality most requisite in a poet; if that quality be the more called into action in contemplating things not of this world, rather than the things of this world; in writing concerning spiritual essences, rather than corporeal beings; if sublime, lofty, dignified, awe-inspiring beauty be of a higher order than elegant, mirth-inspiring, heart-rending beauty, then, believing, as we do, that the one of each of these two appsitions, together with purity, belongs to Milton and to his poetry, whilst the other, with, alas! much impurity, belongs to Shakspere and his poetry, we must conclude that the former is the more to be admired, is a greater poet, than the latter.

Φιλαλήθης.

IN bringing this important debate to a close, we would express our approbation of the christian spirit, intelligence, and evident thoughtfulness which pervade the articles of the two J. F.s; while, on the other hand, we would as unmistakably manifest our unqua

lified repugnance for the shallowness and impotence of C. E.'s, arising from the absence of both adequate investigation and thoughtfulness. What we thus denounce we shail proceed briefly to expose. C. E. inquires,

May not the commandment of our Saviour

are not.

The longer we examine the subject, the more firmly are we convinced that the antichristian spirit of a state church is at the root of the custom, as performed in civil purposes. J. F., of the July number, wrongly supposes that we regard "the Bible as the depository of two kinds of religion." This we do not. The spirit of both Judaism and Christianity is one; but the manifestations We believe that the "childhood" of Christianity was Judaism. But J. F. does not credit this, because we, in our opening article, affirmed that the use of oaths was in harmony with the religion of the Jews, and yet not with the spirit of Christianity. Now J. F. must be aware that there are many things in Judaism of the same character, on the very principle which J. F. embodies when he speaks of Judaism as the childhood of Christianity. The idea of opposition and superiority he confounds. Just as there are many things consistent with childhood that are not with manhood, so there are many things consistent with Judaism that are not with Christianity; for instance, the observance of those things which Paul forbids in Col. ii. 16. So we think it is with the use of oaths. "Perjury, however, we have reason to believe, is not so extensively practised as to weaken materially the value of an oath." Has J. F. studied the late crisis in France, and the bribery and corruption of our elections, and

of the awful fact that thousands do this very thing to become spiritual teachers, alias burdens, and often disgraces, to society? Has he considered the nature of clerical subscription, or the words of the Bishop of Norwich, who declared in the House of Lords "that he never knew a clergyman who agreed entirely with every article he had subscribed," which was equal to saying he never knew a clergyman who had not been guilty of mental lying. And wherein does mental reservation, in the matter of an oath, differ from perjury? We, too, have reason to believe, though not with J. F., that such perjury prevails extensively in the social and political branches of society, and that this has been brought about in part by the use of oaths. J. F. says, 66 Christ himself sanctioned the use of oaths by his own example," Mark viii. 12. 'Aμy Xéyw vμïr εἰ δοθήσεται τῷ γενεᾷ ταύτη σημείον! reads the original. But "in the original there is an ellipsis of some such words as these, May I not live,' or it may be, 'So help me, God.'" It amounts to this, that Christ uttered no oath at all; simply an unqualified assertion; but an ellipse is made out, and that ellipse is the oath required. This is an advance on C. E.'s method, but a very poor expedient in so grave a matter. What saith the reader? The life of Christ accords with his own words, "Swear not at all."

E. W. S., the writer of the first negative article, admits that oaths or appeals "to the recognised deities or Deity in the presence of others" have been common amongst all civilized nations; and then, after describing the manner in which the Jews were accustomed to perform the ceremony, he attempts to prove, under his third division, that the use of oaths is not in harmony with scripture and the spirit of Christianity. Will our friend be good enough carefully to read the following passage from the nineteenth chapter of Deuteronomy:-"If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests

E. W. S.

and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you;" and then to refer to the declaration of our Saviour contained in the fifth chapter of Matthew, that he did not come to destroy the "law or the prophets, but to fulfil it," thus assuring us that he had no design to abrogate any part of the moral law, or to loose mankind in the least measure from their duty to God and man; but that he came to fulfil the law, by yielding a personal obedience to it, and giving mankind in

after ages the benefit of his example. But we would more particularly direct the attention of the impartial reader to the conclusion of our friend's article, in which he professes to be shocked at the immoral tendency of the use of oaths for civil purposes. And why? Because, forsooth, a certain lawyer in Northamptonshire had a test-book (an indispensable requisite in a solicitor's office) which he did not read in the office, and died from the habitual use of brandy. Our friend cites this fact as an argument against the use of oaths, and pathetically bids "the reader beware how he complies with a custom which tends in the end to such levity and thoughtlessness of things eternal and divine." Need we ask, What had the brandy to do with the test-book or the use of oaths? Must not the negative side of the question be a defenceless one indeed, if its supporters cannot find arguments more to the point than this?

66

We now turn to the arguments of E. D., the writer of the second negative article, who first endeavours to explain the nature of an cath, and then asserts that oaths must be unnecessary, as the obligation to speak the truth is universal, without limitation as to person, time, or circumstance; because, as the Deity takes equal cognizance of all human speech and conduct, his estimate of truth or untruth cannot be varied by any ceremonies or circumstances." When E. D. wrote his article he must have quite forgotten the third commandment; that oaths were sanctioned by God himself; and that, in the passage in Deuteronomy which we have before quoted, he commanded that the same punishment should be inflicted upon the perjurer as he, by his false testimony, had caused to be inflicted upon his innocent brother. As we are told that God seeth not as man seeth, but that he judgeth the very heart and reins, E. D.'s assertion, that he takes equal cognizance of all human actions, without regard to time or circumstance, cannot be supported. In the third place, our friend adduces as an argument against the use of oaths the frequent enforcement of the laws against perjury; we, on the other hand, are fully prepared to argue that this fact is a very strong reason why the use of oaths should be continued; for if the heart of man is so depraved that even the dread of transportation and ignominy will not prevent him

telling a lie, and solemnly calling upon his Maker to hear it, ought not the ceremonies for the taking, and the punishment for the breaking, of oaths, to be increased rather than abrogated?

Our friend, in the last place,, argues that the habitual use of oaths in courts of justice has an evil effect, and that children, and persons who deny the existence of God, are not considered as competent witnesses. Is there anything unreasonable in this? Can a child call upon and invoke the presence of the God whose nature and attributes he cannot understand, or the Atheist upon a Being whose very existence he denies? The well-merited rebuke of the bankruptcy commissioner upon the Secular Socialist wouldbe witness, referred to by our friend, has been too much dwelt upon and approved by the newspaper press to need any comment here.

E. D., in his second article, in the July number, tries very hard, but without success, to prove that our Saviour did not answer the high priest upon oath, because the high priest is only represented as using the adjuration by St. Matthew, as though the testimony of one inspired writer to a fact was not sufficient. But here our friend is completely at fault; for, if he will turn to the fifty-third verse of the fourteenth chapter of Mark, and to the sixty-sixth verse of the twenty-second chapter of Luke, he will find that our Saviour was arraigned, and his testimony taken, according to the Mosaic law as instituted by God in the above-quoted passage from the nineteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, in the presence of the Lord, the elders, the priests, and the judges; and of course, as a witness, he would give his evidence in the usual manner, by calling upon God to witness its truth; for there cannot be the least doubt that the Jewish council, with their usual adherence to forms and ceremonies, would even then carry out to the very letter the instructions as to testimony given them in the wilderness by their great Lawgiver.

In conclusion, we think a better argument in favour of the use of oaths for certain civil purposes, when ordered by the legislature, cannot be found than the following explanation, given by the Rev. William Burkitt, in his "Commentary on the New Testament," of the thirty-third to the thirty-sixth verses of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew:-"The next commandment which our Saviour ex

pounds and vindicates is the third, which requires a reverent use of God's name. Now the Pharisees taught that perjury was the only breach of the commandment, and that swearing was nothing, if they did not forswear themselves; and that persons were only obliged to swear by the name of God in public courts of justice, but in their ordinary and common discourse they might swear by any of the creatures. Now, in opposition to these wicked principles and practices, Christ says, 'Swear not at all;' that is, first, swear not profanely in your ordinary discourse; secondly, swear not unduly by any of God's creatures, for that is ascribing a deity to them; and, thirdly, swear not lightly upon any trifling or frivolous occasions, for oaths upon small occasions are great sins. So that an oath is not here forbidden by our Saviour, but retained; for though light and needless, common and ordinary, swearing be a great sin, yet to take an oath, when lawfully called thereunto, is a christian and necessary duty. Christ by his prohibition doth not forbid all assertory or promissory oaths in matters testimonial, when imposed by the magistrate, for he himself, when adjured by the high priest, did answer upon oath." It is absurd to think that God, who is described as "not a man, that he should lie; nor the son of man, that he should repent," would

first institute and command the use of oaths among his own peculiar people, the Jews,' and even set them the example by swearing to Abraham by himself, and then change his mind and abrogate their use altogether. The very name of God, as used when oaths are administered in our courts of justice, must be a great inducement to a true Christian to speak the truth, and a strong preventative against perjury being committed by even the most hardened wretch.

We still hope that the time when the use of oaths for civil purposes will be abolished is far, far distant; but the increased facilities of education, and the rapid advancement of the noble art of printing, fostered by a free constitution, have wonderfully extended the knowledge of the masses of the people; but we are sorry to see that with these improvements there has arisen an unbounded love of change, coupled with a hatred of and a desire to abrogate the time-honoured institutions of our country. Though advocates of steady and proper reform, we fear that many innovators, by changing the laws and altering the principles of our glorious constitution, would pave the way for a democracy, which sooner or later, as in the case of France, would certainly be changed into an absolute despotism.

C. E.

appear if we confine our attention to isolated and limited periods of history; but, if we take a wide survey of the history of a civilized nation, the evidences become numerons and palpable. In the legislation and administration of the British constitution during the last half century we have a remarkable instance of this in a comparatively short period; while, if we take the history of China, we must study that history for several centuries back in order to meet with similar, and even then less palpable, evidence. The desire which pervades the popular mind, and the manifest tendency on the part of the legislative and administrative powers in this country, to mitigate penal inflictions and penal laws without forfeiting