WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE I THE OATH. I 8 i § "I i A SERMON | Si ^ i ON THE g 3 NATURE AND OBLIGATION iJF THE uA I'll, g io 6 I OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. | S * g DELlVJii;iD IN THE O ismHSiiii!, I 1 LEXmOTON, VA,, MARCH, 27th, 1864. ^ g I BY i i BBV. W. H. RUPFNER. g S -g S [PUBLISHED BY REQUEST.] g i - '"^ ■ ?■ P S LEXINGTON: ^ g ^ PRINTED AT THE GAZETTE OFFICE. *0 g 1864. & I . ■ i George Washington Flowers Memorial Collection DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ESTABLISHED BY THE FAMILY OF COLONEL FLOWERS ihr e)vl)i. I'xoDUsj 20: ,'f, . Thou shalt jrot take tl ' tfie Lord thy (}od in rain ; for the Lord icill net hold h ■■"■, fTx/f tnl-^th hi.^ name in 'sain. The long neglect of popular iiisitrurtiua uu luv: i un- n.pn., lui- plied ill tills ooHiinamlnient. namely, the oath, in its viiriGnsuses and nbu8e«, and the (jpeh degradation of this soloinn act by the practice of conversational •wearinir. and the unnecc:*sary i:.altiplication of civil oaths, are now in the time of trial exhihitin.: the natural fruit; cither in the form of ignorance and bewildernunt as to what is rig;ht, from which proc«»ed practical errors) over which we try to throw the mantle of charity, or in the inore dan;;erou3 form oftl. laxity and indifference to the moral obligation iavolVed. whick arew degrading, damaginetwee7i God and the donscience of man, cannot be taken except through those whom God has appointed to represent hiia oii earth." Here an erroneous sequence is brought into imm-ediate coD»ection with a great truth. And it is just the error also of the old Roraau law in the days of the Empire. The oath was then viewed in^ itft true character as ''a pact between God and the conscience of man," ft duty to do that M'hich is wrong. He who swears to do a thing which ke believes at the time to be innocent, and afterwards dis- covers' to be criminal, is absolved by the prior and immutable obligation to do right. If he knew before taking the oath tho,t it involved, or might inrolre^ the doing of wrong, he ought not to keep it; but he ■comiaits a crime in taking the oath, of which he ought to repent, for he was morally bound to refuse it. Herod was guilty of two distinct crimes in the case of the dancing girl and John the Baptist; first, in binding himself by an oath which might in many ways require of him to sin, and second, in committing the eriminp,! act, which he was called upon to do, instead of renouncing and repenting of hie oath. ^ All obligations are to be V-onstrned in harmony with the entire ■ code of moral duties: but ai)art fram th^se natural and always iihplied limitations of the oath, we have no right to place t(«y restriction, or to allow any exception, to the binding authority of the "oath of God." That a^man is bound by his oathjis one of those elementary truths, which, although susceptible of irreft-agable proof, do not need to be elaborately proved from either Scripture or reason; because they are instinctively accepted as true by the human mind. It is there- fore unnecessary to comment at much length upon the divine Law, which is clear and unequivocal, still less to draw arguments from the intrinsic natureof the transaction itself, and its value to society. The third commandment, ''Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," certainly forbids all violations of the oath. And Moses, the inspired lawgiver, by whose haad the Decalogue was delivered, and who was coKnmissioneel to expound the law, gives to the people in 'K umbers 301 2, a commentary on the 3rd pommaudment in the form of special statute: which is in these words — "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." What could be clearer, more explicit, or freer from proviso and ground of exception ! 6. Conclusive as such eonsidorati^ns really are, wiien their weight is dnly estimated, there are intelligent, hcnest, Christian j>eop}e, who allow theiJiselveg to iall in with tlie suktiuiout that .111 oulli taken under '■coin])ulsion,*' as it is callcd^.is^ not binding. It is au improper use of tho word "compulsion" to apply i^ ^o the taking an oath. Human power may tuke away a man's property, his lihorty, -or his life, but no potcer on earth am a-mpel a mu)i to take un oath. Pcnaltiej* may be intiicted upon hini for refu.sing» but if lie tikes it at all, it is h'is own voluntary ((ct. Hand not tyrxnts been thu^; test- . in- tho integrity of the good iu all ages of the world i And whilit. tile feebler have ott«u succumbed to their tyranny, the nobk-r souls have dffiod their utn)ost terrors, and illustrated the sublime and blessed fact, that the h-anian soul is //v^— free to cko08« und free to refuse. '■ licfu^,^e h sought, however, from the obligation of tlio oath under a provision of the civil law, whereby contracts m^de under Jure&>! are voidable. Duress according to law is eitKer imprisonment, or jeoi)ardy of life or limb. And contr.^cts made to regain liberty, or to save life, cannot be enforc«d by the law of tiiG land, and values extorted under such circumstaucws are recoverable. The law is no doubt a proper one. It is based upon the lact, that a man who has extorted from another a promise, say of money, by the use of vio- lence or intimidation, has not thereby acquired any just right to the money. There has not been in tho sense, of the law the ''value received" by the defendant, which is the sole ground oil which a plaintiff can enforce any claim. Moreover the imprisonment, or threatened murdering or maiming, are pre-supposed to have been uidawful; and it would be an inconsistency in the law to allow its machinery to be used for the enforcement of claims acquired hf unlawfurmeans. . Tlie law in botli its negative and positive opera- tion simply throws the case out of Court, and leaves the paynaejit ,to the judgement aod conscience of the party, who contracted the obligation. It is a case similar in principle to that of many others in which the decisions of the civil law are not and were never in- tended to bo the rule of private morality. In many instanoes, as for example, under the statute of limitations, in debts of honor, in cases where claims have failed from loss of papers, informalities, want of testimony and other similar causes, the decisions of the law whether negative or positive, are not, and were not ureant to be, iu accordance with the claimr, of private morality. However the law of duress may be explained or justified, the question of private morality certainly remains unaffected. And in this latter view, I do not hesitate to exi)ress the opinion, that he who assumes an obligation uuder duress is morally bound to fulfill it. And tiiis for two reasons : first and chiefly, because of the gen- eral obligations of truth and honor, and second, because. of the fact that he did receive a valuable consideration, which, however repu- diated by the public law, was wne which he at the time considered an equivalent, and which really was to him a great bion, viz: his liberty or his life. Y. The discussion of this point, however, is gratuitous, and might have been waived as irrelevant. It belongs to a difierent and lower (lepartment of morals. It is a question of promise which belongs to tije 'Jth eommandment, and is a part of the second table of tho divine law, which treats of the relative duties of man to man; — whilst the subject of oaths comes under the 3rd commandment or the first table, whiph embodies our duties to God directly. And whilst ihe Supreme I^uler demands tho faithful discharge of our ter- restrliil iluti^s, tlie direct ol»lIg;\tipns lo liimsolf are dirter^wtia their nature, nnd are held to be thfe most sA'-red, weighty and iriTiolable. This distinction is recognized in tho civil law in' the wide differ- ence that U inado between a man's vow, and his oath. The simple ■n-ord of the bt-st citizen will not be received in Court: he mnst be put on his oiith. Tiie meaning of which is. that the obligations of truth are not regarded as possessing the same weight and authority as the obligations of Religion. Ilenco perjury is "regarded both in the law and by the common .sentiment of mankind, as one of the most degrading and destructive of all crimes, whilst simple false- hood, low and wicked as it is, passes com])arativeIy unnoticed. The civil law gives no countenance to the idea that oaths taken under duress arc not binding, for all testimony is given under im- plied duress. It is not optional with a witness whether or not ho will appear and testify. He mnut testify or be imprisoned. Here js duress; but does tiie law release him from the obligations of Jiis .i+ath, because he takes it only to avoid going to jail ? No. He is jield to his oath ; and if he swears falsely, he is\isited with con- dign punishment ! Hero then we find the real sentiment of the law with regard to the binding authority of the oath of God. The fact that in this case the duress itself is lawful, and in the other case un- lawful, affords a justification for the enforcement of the obligation by Jegal means in the one case and for its non-enforcement in the ether: but it does not affect the soundness of the position that in the very heart of th« law wo find the principle acknowledged, that the fact pf duress, does not in itself considered, invalidate the obligation of an oath. 8. A doubt as to the universality of this doctrine is sometimes sug- gested by the fact, that there are exceptions, or apparent exceptions, to some of the commandments of the Decalogue, and why not to Ihis? The answer to this is, that there are no reel exceptions to any of the commandments of God. The cases which seem to be exceptions are cases in which the law was not meant to apply. For example, the command "Thou shalt not kill" was not meant to cover the ca- ses of taking life in self-defence and by civil government, as we know from Beriptuve, as well as from ihe nature of the case. In the in- spired commentaries of Moses and elsewhere, the taking of life for .crime and in war is expressly provided for ; as is also the case with regard to the commandments affecting the rights of property. The command '"Thou shalt not bear false witness," although belonging to human relations and running through all these relations, is left by the scripture in its naked and unabated force ; and the ablest mor- alists deny that it is subject to any qualification whatever. The law of the Sabbath is classed with the first table, and certainly has a sacredness higner than belongs to the precepts of the second table ; but it really partalce^ of the nature of both. And the true princi- ple of its application is given by our Saviour in the words— "The Sabbath was made for mm, not man for the Sabbath." But with the first three commandments \s directly involved the honor of God: and his honor he can never hoM in abeyance, or his glory give to another! The oath combines in itself all the authority of both tables of the law ; for the sanctions of the 3rd are superadded to the obligations of the 9th commandment : but its peculiar and distinguishing au- thority, arises from the fact of its being an obligation assumed to the Almighty himself, and if a^igumed deceitfnllv, ©r Tiolated after heiHg aJ^Sli!rt^ci, ex;'spt under its im[)li(iU lilhitations, is cithor ft di- rect iasblL to the dignity t»f the Supreme Being> or a 'Dreacii ot'laitb of the highest possible aggravation ; tlie commUsion of which evin- ces a most inadequate couceptiou of tUehondr and fealty duo to the King of Kin?s. Annanias and Sappliira were struck dead because th©y '-lied not unto men, but unto tha Holy Ghost." And tlic ex- amples of Siuion Magus, U;izah, Nadab and Abihu, and Uzziah, teach U3 profound lessons of the jealoa»y of God with regard to his honor, and the sincerity, huujility. awe and revereneo which ought ever to cliaracterize our approaches to Him, and our us© of his holy and reverend name. Let us now bring these principles to bear upon Oaths of -^yiegi- ance in general, and the oath of allegiauoo to the United Slates in particular- Oaths of allegiance afe subject to tho samo moral ruk."*, which govern oaths in general : and they arc to be taken or refused on tho same principles. They cannot be lawfully taken, where they bind one to do or to sanction that which is wrong or believed to be wrong. If taken, \i must be done, reverently, honestly, without mental res- ervation aUd secAindum auimnm imponentis. The i mi poser is the State, or Government, to which the oath is taken; and whatever is the mind of the imposer quoad hoc, that is, whatever^ is the meaning or interpretation put upon the oath of allegiance by the State or Gov- ernment imposing it, is the thing sworn to by him who takes it. — Tiiis is a universally admitted principle. The oath of allegiance however, should be carefully distinguish- ed from tho military parole, and from promises or even oaths of neutrality during the pendency of a war, or during the occupation of the country by the enemy. Such premises, if taken, are of course binding; but they are temporary in their duration and negative in their signiticance, requiring only an abstinence from active opposi- tion tor A specified timei Where it is simply the parole of a prison- er of war hot to bear arms until exchanged, or the promise of a cit- izen not to engage in any hostile act or movement during occupan- cy, there is no impropriety in its being required by the enemy, or given by the soldier or citizen. But the oath of allegiance is a transaction of far higher moment, and more comprehensive significance. Allegiance is the loyalty and obedience due from a citizen to his prince or country. And the oath of allegiance includes, first a renunciation of all other claims upoa his loyalty and obedience from any prince, potentate, state, govern- ment, or country whatsoever, and second, a promise of fia!i3 10 ihit import «f tfea U. S. oath of allegidnoe, as it "ts now pressed upon the citizens of the Confederato Stttaa. In 8ome cases the languacjoot the oatli itself embodies its full meaning. In most iQstiincQs the simple oath to snpport the constitution of the tJ. S. is tendered. i>at no matter what be the form, the meaning is always the same. It includes all now tlaat it included formerly, with" the vital addition of the whole question between the two governments. Hence it i^^ their party test, their Shibboleth, their battle-llag, their sucramentum, by means of whick they would re- v^ulre us to desert our cau^e and espouse theirs I ' Suppressing^ our feelings of indignation, let us contiaue to inves- tigate the question of dury with the calmness of re.en whose first desire is to settle th«ir minds upon the solid foundations of Christian tnorality. The question as to the ]>ropriet} of taking this oath under any circumstances, which have arisen or can arise during the present war, is one on which every mind ought to bo clearly settled, as it it one of the great practical question* of the time, and one in which thd honor of the Omnipotent God, individual integrity, national reputation, and the success of our arms, are all vitally involved. — The general principles on the subject of oaths, and the import of oaths of allegiance, which have been passed in review, ought to make the .solutm^ of this question short and easy, certainly to those who consider their allegiance justly due to the Confederate States. In making a practical application of these principles, it will be> necessary to use a freedom of illustration and argument in referring to the state of public affairs, which would ordinarily be unbecoming to the pulpit, and which can be justified dhly in cases like the pretsent, where the claims of moral and political duty are so iudis- aulubly connected, that they cannot be considered apart. The citizen is called upon to decide whether h© ought under any circumstances during the pendency of the war to take the oath of allegiance to the United titates. Tie cannot come to an intelligent decision without having clearly placed before his mind the exact nature of the obligation, which he assumes. Let us then consider the taking of this oath, tirst, apart frwm otir duty to our own gov- ernment. Supposing that we w«re cosmopolites, owing allegiance to HO government, and were landed in the city of New York, with all the knowledge we have at present concerning the United States as a nation and a governttent, its pre^^ent degradation as compared with its former glory, its noble constitution practically abolished, its govurnfneut reckless and tyrannical, its treatment of the Sourli bar- barous beyond anything known in modern history, among civilized rations, its niwde of warfare worthy only of the dark ages, its Chris- tianity perverted into a religion breathing rather the spirit of Moloch than of Jesus, and its future purposes toward the South unprinci- pled and merciless. With such knowledge as we have, and such sentiments as we hold, concerning that government in its present degenerate condition, could we, as a rnero independent question, with a good conscience in the sight of God, swear allegiance to it? thus paying it the highest compliment of which we are oapaUe, thus in a manner endorsing its detestable character, thus becoming an integral part of a nation whose crimes smell to heaven, and by the very act, devoting o«r influence, fortune, and life itself, to tlie snpport and defence, not simply of an almost imaginary con- stitution, but of this whole system of horrible wickedness. No, no, wo could notj thus vicwiHg the facts of the case, become par- 15 takei-f) of Bftch •rimes, without fenrful gailt in ttit »iflit *f God. It irould not be vrith us us it is "with mattj oitizcas of th« United States, who stand aloof and view with liorror the wreck and the crimes of tlieir govcrnnient. The new ciiizen,'as he comes in, takes the governinent as he finds it, and swears allegiance to the consti- tntion as interpreted and administered at the time. But to us this is onlj half the question. We are not left to consider it in its abstract form. We, the people of the Confederate {States have done as our fathers did on a wider scale — set up a now GoYernment, as we had a right to do. This Government is ac- knowledged by all loyal men to be valid, and to be to us the ordl^ nance of God — "the powers that be" — to which we owe true and faithful allegiance. Tor the doing of this, the United States have waged war upon us. Tkey dony the validity of our government, they say that it is no proper Government, but a traitorous league. They declare their purpose to destroy it, and to reduce us to abject submission. And for three years they have with fire and sword been striving for their end. Their plan is to conquer the people as they go. When they gain a footing in any section of th« country, they offer the oath as a party test, and call upon our people to de- cide the groat question of the war in their favor. They call upon Tis to declare ia substance under the tremendous sanctions of the oath, that wo owe no allt^giance to the Confederaff^ Government, that it is not the proper Government of the country, that it is no Government at all, but a diabolical league which ouglit to be utter- ly destroyed. And on the other hand, that the claims of the Uni- ted States are just, that it is the true and proper government of the country, and that we hereby assume all the obligations of citizen- whip, which includes a devotement of all that wo have and are to their service. In other words, that so far as we can aid in ending the war in favor of th« United States and against the Confederate States, we arc prepared to do it; that onr struggle for the Southern cause is over, and that we are not subjugated simply, but converted., turned from having been enemies into friends, loyal citizens, sup- porters and helpers. And in the case of Virginians and others within whose limits have been set up new and spurious State gov- ernments, the oath includes a renunciation of the original and proper State government, and an acceptance and endorsement of the new. Now it matters not whether all this be expressed in the terms of the proffered oath, as it sometimes is in substance, or whether tho ]>lain old form be used, it is all inthemindoftheimposer^ and there- fore it is all sworn to by him who takes the oath. If nothing wioro than neutrality was meant, only a promise or oath of neutrality would bo required : but the tender of the oath of allegiance^ when the question of allegiance is the very gravamen of tne war, can mean nothing but a demand for the surrender of the whole South- ern cause, and a full espousal of their claims and an endorsement of their course. To state the case is to decide it for every true Southerner. The nature, the solemnity and the binding authority of the oath, and the true meaning of this oath which is presented for our acceptance, being brought clearly before the mind, the moral instincts of every true patriot decide in a moment that the taking of the oath is not only unpatriotic in the extreme, but for him, would be ipio facto an Rot of perjnry. Such is uidewiaWy the ipoftttneo^p, iBsMnctire decision of tbe ])atriotIo mliid, aad yet inea of cbargcUr aocl patriotlsBi arc !• be found, -vv'ho atringely enough parry tho force of theso natire, nn- corrupted moral instincts, and find apologies foe puebing them as^idc, and allowing the citixeu to accept of the oath under ocrtaia circumstances. We must givo somo attention to these apologies, although the established principles which have already been passe(i in review before us embody substantially answers to thorn all. It has been said, for example, that the government occupying any section ot tho country, becomes to the inhabitants thereof ''th© powers that be," to which tho Scriptures require subjection. All force in this objection quickly disappears, when we rocellcot, first, that no liuman government is to be obeyed, when it requires us to do or to sanction that which is wrong (See Acts 5 : 28, 29.;; second, thot the acknowledged American doctrine on this subject is, that "tho i)0wer3 that bo," in the lawful sense, are the authorities or government, created and sanctioned by tho people themselves; third, that the war is waging for the protection of tho entire people ; and finally, that all ideas of government would be thrown into confusion, if tho military occupation of a section of conntry by a public enemy during a war of invasion, absolved the inhabitants of that section from their allegiance to their own government. If a country were completely conquered, its government «rer- thrown, and all hope of successful resistance extinguished, then the rictorious government becomes "tihe powers that bo," to which the remaining iuhnbitauts owe subjection, as was tho oa^e with tho Israelites in the time of our Saviour, their government having been destroyed, and the Roman government exercising unquestioned dominion over the country. But even in such a case it would not follow that the duty of subjection included the duty of taking the oath of allegiance, which is a difteront thing, and tho propriety of wliich would depend on the animus imponentis. If tho proffered. oath Avas designed by tho imposer to refer only to future obedience, and required in the duties of that obedience nothing sinful, then it might be honestly taken, But if it included an endorsement ot past injustice, Christian morality would forbid its acceptance. But this is not the ((uestion we are called to deci^j3. Wo have a living government, which we have established, and -whose validity we aeknowledgo. This fovernment is the ordinance of God to us, to which we are bound to adhere ia its adversity as well as in it» prosperity, anxl to which we are bound to render our moral support, even in the presence of its enemies, and when no longer able to render it material aid. Apologies have been made for taking the U. S. oath in considera- tion of the sufferings of our peeple within tho enemy's lines. Our sympathy with eur distressed brethren, and the knowledge which every man has of his Awn frailties, may well incline us to charitable judgments: but to allow of this oath merely as an escape frora sutlering is not only to elevate the temporal above the eternal, and to give preference to bodily comfort ever sound principle, good con- science, good citizenship and tho lawful authority of God: but it i& to admit a principle, which would annihilate all moral obligatioo, and cast contempt on tho patient endurance of suffering virtue io all ages of the world. T he great Captain of our salvation was mado perfect through suflforing ; and frora before the days of Daniel, the prophet, until now, men in all forms »f government, have been tempted to abandon tlieir principles by meaas of P(?rsecution in :i4 some form ; some ]iav« ignomlnioHsly Tieldei], otiaors liavd borne a consistent testimony in spite of their sutferingg. Need tt be nykcd which olass is the more honorable? Surely in this onligliteneAap:© and in thisenliglitened land, it is not necessary still to argue, wbeth- er a man's principles ought to be abandoned, as soon'as they inrolvo pergonal sacrifice. The case is too plain for serious argument. But, as w^s intimated in a former part of this discourse, it i» c3e- clared in some respectable quarters, that an oath taken under such circumstances i^ not binding. This point has already been argued in its J»ain feature. Bui let us look at it a little more closely. Tbe taking of the oath iS either a hona fide transaction, or it is not. If it is, its binding obligation of course follows. If it is no-t, then it is a mere form of words used, where there is no corresponc^iijij feel- ing or purpose, in the mind of him who takes it. Whether the sub- sequent violation of such an oath be perjury or not, this mach may be said without controversy, that he who takes such ani oath is guilty of the sin of profanity ; and this is as clear, though not as aggravated, a violation of the Srd Commandment a* perjury. It is using the name of God deceitfully, which is one mode of taking his name in vain. Now what moral right has a man to shield him- self by profanity any more than by ])erjury 1 The Apostle Peter, saved himself from the perils ot threatened duiresg by profane curs- ing, and swearing that he knew not tne man Jesius Christ; but he was never applauded for his course, and his bitter weeping testified to his self-condemnation. Archbishop Cranmer, in the hope ot sav- ing liim«eif from the stake to which he had been condemned, sign- ed a hypocritical abjnration of his sentiments, but it has always be«n considered a foul blot upon an otherwise noble name, and he himself when finally brought to the stake which he had thus sought to avoid, first thrust his right hand into the fiajn®, and there un- flinchingly held it until it was wholly consuwied, bitterly exclaiming all the while, "oh thou offending memb«r ; thou olfcndiKg memb&r." And thus should it be with those who deny their country, and do \% by a profane use of the solemn oath of God. And instead of seeking to justify their course, they should like Peter and Cranmer, be smitten with an agony of penitential sorrow. But we insiSTjthat such an ©ath, although profane in spirit, is still Talid and authoritative. For it is univerbally admitted among sound moralists, that deceit or mental reservation in any form, does not affect the validity of the oath, any more than a sncretpurposo to avoid payment affects the validity of a bond. The force of the transaction lies in the external act. And there are no exceptions to its binding authority when once uttered, except the natural lim.- itations heretofore mentioned of possibility and morality. A loyal' "citizen of the Confederate States who has unhappily taken the oath of allegiance to the United Stales, is not bound to keep it, because,, 'and only because it binds him to sin, and was therefore null and ■void from the moment it was taken. His duty is not that of obe- dieuce to the sinful promise he has sworn to keep, but of deep re- pentance for having made it, and apublic renunciation of thesame„ "Were, however, the subject-matter of the oath free from moral ob- jection, and within the range of ability, its validity would nothavo been impaired by the fact that it was taken under duress. The dis- cussion of this point is important as a question of morals belonging^ to the subject at large, but it- might have been whidly dispensed with in this conneation: for tho circumstances undei" which the V^ ^. oath IS Gdnunonlj teutlored do not constitute a case of dureis. — In most cases there' i» do jeopardy of life or limb, or even threat ot iraprisonnient — but only exposure to pecuniary damage, to disagree- able treatment, and to difficulties in securini^ the means of sub»is- teuce — not to giturvfttion ; for rations are issned to those who are in ^vant, because, and we are justified in flaying, only because tUo already sutliciently taxed patience of the civilized world would not bear the iniliction of actual starvation upon non-combatants. But even if the oath were taken under duress, it would be none the less binding, as is generally agreed among stand.ird moralists, both an- cient and modern, both heathen and christian. Plutarch say?, ''He that deceiveth an enemy by art oath doth confess that hefeareth his enemy and denpiseth God.'^' Aristotle says, "Ho that will extenuate an oath, mu»t say that those villainous wretches that think God seeth not, do think also to go away with their purjnry unpunished." And for a people in ancient times to allow of deceitful oatiis was to bring upon themselves the odious stigma ''Jides punlca,''' which was a brand of the g:reatest infamy, and like the "Lord have mercy on us" written over the doors, was a sign of a destroying plague within. And such is the doctrino of all except the loosest casuists ©f modern times. In its ultimate analysis, it is simply a question such as has been presented for practical solution to theiuthers, and Sid- neys j»nd Baxters, and Ham])dens in all ages — a question of supremacy between principle and personal case, courage and cowardice, God> law and man's tyranny ! And whatever be the apologies suggested by hun)an weakuess, the impartial judgment of mankind has ever coincided with the teaching of Scripture, that deceit \» a despicable vice, and that integrity is always demanded, especially in solemn religious transf ctions. , ,.; There is an example recorded in the Scriptfires which settles this question as to the binding authority of oaths of allegiance even when taken under duress. The narrative is to be ff)und in King* and in Ezeklel. During the reign of Jehoachin, Kingof Jndah, Neb- uchadnezzer, King of Babylon, conquered the land of Judea and carried into captivity the King and his household, tlie princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even 10,000 captives, and all the crafts- men and smiths : none remained save the poorest sort of people of the land. He, however, placed upon the Jewish throne Zedekiah, an uncle to the captive King, requiring him to take the oath of allegiance to him. It is fcaid in Chronicles that Xobuchadnezzer "-made him swear by God," an expression taken in connection with all thecircumstancea showing that it was a strong case of duress. Jt was no doubt right for Zedekiah to take this oath and to assume the governmtnt, as^ tho best alternative left fc^ff.himself and the miserable remnant of his fellow-cowntrymcn. Some years however afterwards without provocation, so far a» we kHow, be applied for and received aid from the King of Egypt to engage in a revolt against the King of Babylon : a movement; which ended most disastrou>^ly for himself and his people. The prophet Ezekiel was in Babylon when the news of Zedekiah's re- volt arrrived. Then the word of the Lord came to him ir the fol- lowing pointed and impressive termii: "Say now to the rebelliona ^ouse. Know ye not what these things mean ? Tell them, Behold, the King of Dtibylon is come to Jernsalem, and hath taken the King thereof, and th« princes thereof, and led them with hinvttx Babylon ■ :i8 And liatli takftn of tko King'i ited, (riz, Zedokiah) «ml hath made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him ; he hath also< taken the nnighty of the land. That the Kingdom might bo base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his eovenanti it might stand. But he rebelled against him in sending hiii ambas- ladors into Egypt, that they might give hitn horses and much peo- ple. Shall he prosper? Shall he eso?.pe that do«th such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered i As I live, saith the Lord, surely in the place where the King dwelleth that made him King, whose oath lie despised and whoso covenant he brake^ «ven with him in the midst of Babylon shall he die. * * * See- ing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, (wlicn lo, he ]iad given his hand,) and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. Therefor*, thus saith the Lord God : "As I live, snrely mine oath that ho hath despised, and my covenant that ho hath bro- ken, even it will I recompense upon his own head." Other particulars are predicted concerning the sad fat© of him' and his people, which were fulfilled to the letter. This is a most instructive narrative and prophecy. Here was an oath of allegiance given to an enemy, to a heathen, a eon(iueror of the country, and taken under duress, and yet it was so sacred an obligation by the Almighty, that iio visited the most terrible punishment upo* Zede- kiah and the people for its violation, calling it and treating it as a flagrant act of perfidy to himself. The great practical lesson we hare to draw from this narrative is that no one has a right to regard an oath lightly, or qnestioii its validity, when taken under any circumstances, even the most pres- sing and dangerous, where no sin is required. The puro man and of lloly Writ is he "who hath not sworn deceiffully,''^ but who ^'■stceareth to Ma own luart and rhangeth noty But when the proffered oath requires ©ne to do that which ho knows or believes to be wrong, or to do that which in his heart ho does not intend to do, there is but one course that is honest in itself, or that will keep the soul clear under the burning eye of God and that is to refuse it — yes, to refuse it, though a thousand bayo- nets were pointed at his breast. With what honor will the name of Muntord, of Kew Orleans be mentioned in all coming time ! — After being condetnued to the gallows by the inhuman wretch, whose name will live on the roll of infamy Avith those of Jeffreys and Haynan, the martyr was otiered his life in condition that ho would subscribe the oath of allegiance to the United States: but like the higher souls of all ages, he preferred a good conscieuce and an honored grave to a wretched life and a dishonored memory. This whole argument gains in weight, when we consider the dam- aging effect to our cause of taking the oath of allegiance to the Uni- ted States during the progress of the war, 'The citizen of the Confederate States, who accepts the oath, pays dfeai'ly for the few priviliges he purchases thereby. He and the whole community probably soon discover, that tliey enjoy as little liberty and less respect from the enemy, than if they had generally refused the bribe. He is still subject to oppression, insult, robbery, suspicion, espionage, contempt, and all the lighter abominations of •vulgar tyranny. He is liable for all the burdens and services of cit- izenship, without the respect and confidence which usuallV accom- panies the relation. * And w« may justly argUe from the general facts of hnman nature^ 17 Hiak luK mental *«fttM'iug:» nre agj^raraUd by tai aet, *\-hick K* muet ffcl to be .1 bitter liumiliation, and the propriet}' «t which in manj fftnefi must be a matter of doubt to himself, in spite of all lii.«i apol- ogies. And whore there is this uneasiness of conscience, ospccially where a great pwhlic cause has been betrayed, tlicre follow* a mor- al wretchedness, which exceeds all other suffering:. As long as a man can preserve a good conscience, h« carries a fountain of com- fort in his breast, which no adrersitTcan dry up. And where it i» the result of af»ettl«d i)cace xritb God, and a determination to adher» to the right, the most aggravated forms of suffering, OTen of death, mar be met with triumphant joy. But where consci<9us rectitude gives place to remorse, the joyful courago of a Paul, gives place to the intolerable wretchedness of a Judas. It is not affirmed that u sense of guilt succetds the taking of this oath in crery case. There are abandoned characters, who take it without thought and without remorsp, and often for the sake of carrying on a petty traffic between the contending partie><. Theso are simply moral outlaws, who have the perfidy of Judas, without liis tenderness of conscieuce. A^nd there have no doubt boon men of honorable character, wlio felt themselves to bo justified ia tak- ing this oath. J3ut it h difticult to believe, that persons of enlight- ened minds and virtuous habitu, and of true Southern sentiments, could under the circumstances in which it has been uaually taken, accept the oath without a degree of subsequent mental disquie- tude, which would far over-balance any advantage roceivod, and without being conscious of damage to their mor*l natures. And in addition to this, they must feel the loss of reputation and of con- fidence among friends, and must dread the day of settlement with their own generation, and the future judgment of history. The way of the transgressor is hard. ||; 2. Another argument agaiust taking this oath, is tho encourage- ment thus atforded to oiir enemies in their work of subjugation. They know that an army cut otf from the moral and physical sup- port of the domestic population, is vitally damaged in its means of prolonged resistance. As long as the ])eople remain true to tboir own cause, ©ur enemies feel that military occupation is far from subjugation. But when the people abandon their owa cause, thoy feel that the work goes braveh' on : that they have only to over- rnn the Southern territory, and the work is done: that after all, it; is an easier task to subdue these high-niettled Southerneis, than the world had supposed. They conclude, either that the pcoplo generally in their hearts sympathized with the Union cause, and that the prominent argument which tho U. S. government at firsfi urged for carrying on this war, had a good found^rtioB, viz: thati the people of the South were held down by a military usurpation, and only awaited an opportunity to testify their devotion to the Fnion, or else that the courage and pride of the Sonthern people ha^ been greatly overrated, and needed only to be put to the test to bo thoroughly humbled. Thus we are in danger of becoming, as a peo- jde, an object of contompt, oven in the eyes of our enemies. And were either supposition true, we would indeed be a contcmptiblo people. And although both suppositions are false, the acceptance of the oath gives a semblance of truth, and affords an apology, if not an actual ground of encouragement to the enemy, for persist- ing in the war. A high toned people ought to be jealous of their national as well'af personal repntation, and ought to appreciate the u influence of a geudral spirit of lojaltj, iu tiisLoarteuiug the enemy and multiplying his difficulties. Though they reraaia passiva in the presence of the enemy, y«t the very fact of their wnbendinj» adhe- rence to their own principles and their own government, opposes to the progress of the invader, a bulwark, whose formidable char- acter is second only to the active power of th« army. 3. Finally, consider the damage done to the cause throughout all our land, when the peo]>le yield their position of loyalty. An evil example is always a public injury. Whatever tends to weaken the authority of the oath, to sear the public conscience, and to loosen the hold of moral and religious principle on the mindsJ of the peo- ple, is always to be deprecated; but especially in this great public exigency, when our cause needs to be buttressed by owary possible support. He M'ho sets an evil example, thereby weakens the pow- er of resistance in all within the scope of his influence. And SHch cases as this cast a shade of discouragement over the vrhole land. Every loyal heart feels its saddening influence, though pity and chaiity may put a seal on^the lips. Struggling as wo are for a common cause, we have a right to expect at least the moral support of our loyal population; and if any section fails in its duty, an increased burden is thereby thrown upon the rest, and it ohIv remains for these to imitate the evii example in order to sap the very foundation of all our Lopes. Moreo^'er, what right have a people to expect of t7ieir soldiers a higher morality or a truer patriotism than they exhibit themselves I What right have they to demand of their soldiers to leave home, family, and business, at any cost of inconvenience and loss to themselves, and of suffering to their families, to live on poor and scanty fare, to sleep^under a wet blanket on the wet earth, to fao« the tempests of winter and the fierce heats of summer, aye, to face at any moment the fiery tempest of shot and shell, and to count no hardship, no (danger too great, if thereby they may purchase peace and liberty f