LECTURES ON THE SHORTER CATECHISM OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES-ADDRESSED TO YOUTH.

LECTURE LV.

What is forbidden in the ninth commandment is to be the subject of the present lecture. "The ninth commandment, according to our Catechism, forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own and our neighbour's good

name."

Although in treating of the precept now before us, the arrangement adopted has been to consider separately, its requisitions and its prohibitions, yet in speaking of the former, the latter has been in a measure anticipated. This anticipation, which it was not easy to avoid, is attended with this advantage, that of the two parts into which the answer now to be discussed is divided; namely, the violations of truth, and the injury of our own and our neighbour's good name, the latter has received so much attention, that a separate consideration of it does not seem necessary. What farther notice it may require, will fall under some of the particulars embraced in the series which will be laid before you. In pursuing this series, I will speak: 1. Of whatsoever is prejudicial to truth in courts of justice. The awful sin of perjury, as it involves the crime of profaneness as well as VOL. IX. Ch. Adv.

of falsehood, was treated of in our lecture on the third commandment; and it was also noticed, with a distinct reference to witness bearing, in the close of our last lecture. But in courts of justice, in our country, there are not only witnesses, but judges, jurors, and attorneys: And of these, the judges as well as the jurors, always act under the solemnity and responsibility of an official oath. The judge or magistrate, therefore, who pronounces a sentence, or gives instruction to a jury, contrary to what he knows to be law and justice, violates his official oath, and is really guilty of perjury, as well as of an act of gross injustice to the person, property, or good name of his neighbourhood. Nor is he scarcely less guilty, if he neglects to do all in his power to prevent, or detect, the suborning of false witnesses, or the false swearing of witnesses not suborned. In like manner, the juror who knowingly gives, or consents to a false verdict, breaks his oath, as well as incurs the guilt of doing injustice to his neighbour. The attorney, also, who labours to gain a cause which he knows to be altogether unjust, or to clear a culprit whom he knows to be guilty, is chargeable with a palpable and shameful disregard to truth. I do not say that an attorney may not lawfully appear as the friend and protector of a guilty party, to prevent his being punished beyond his desert. This

P

is often an important service, and is what reason, as well as law, will approve. But it is no valid apology which is frequently made by those who endeavour entirely to clear the guilty, knowing them to be such, that the attorney identifies himself with his client; and that as the client would doubtless, if he acted for himself, endeavour to escape all penalty, or to gain his cause although he knew it to be unjust, therefore the attorney, who acts for him, should do the same. The truth is, that supposing a wrong-doer to have become right minded, he would not himself seek to escape the penalty of the law, or to pervert it to the injury of his neighbour; and he who assists an offender to do so, is what the scripture denominates " partaker of another man's sin." Equally futile is the allegation, that the pleas on the opposite sides of a litigated question are to be made as plausible as their advocates severally can render them, and that thus the exact truth will be most likely to be clearly seen: for it is notorious, that an able and eloquent ad vocate may, and often does, make the worse appear the better cause, and that substantial injustice is the result.

a

2. The uttering of known falsehood, with an intention to deceive, is a manifest and palpable violation of the precept we consider. The kinds of falsehood which fall under this particular, and the degrees of criminality which they severally involve, are very various. A deliberate lie is more sinful than one into which a man is surprised by sudden fear, or by a strong desire to escape some unwelcome consequence of speaking the truth; although in both instances the liar is without excuse. In like manner, a malicious lie, intended to do injury to our neighbour, or one which from any cause is likely to be followed by serious evils, is more aggravated than one which involves none of these consequences, and is princi

pally injurious to the falsifier himself. There are some persons who consider falsehoods told in jest as innocent. This is by no means to be admitted-Truth is a thing too sacred to be sported with. Of officious lies, something was said in the last lecture. But I feel constrained to add here, that physicians, who by falsehood make their patients believe they are recovering, or likely to recover, when they know that the sick are sinking to the grave, are chargeable with grievous and wicked simulation. While hope is entertained by the physician, he may and ought to cherish it in his patient. But when he has no hope, he acts with cruel falsehood, if both the sick individual and his relations and friends are not, in a discreet and tender manner, apprized of the truth. With a knowledge of it, the most important interests, both temporal and eternal, may be connected; and to these no other considerations can be a counterbalance.

Under this particular, also, I must warn you, my young friends, against ever indulging in the fashionable, but most unchristian practice, of falsely denying yourselves to be at home, when inquired after by a friend or a stranger. Such inquiry is a courtesy, which we are bound to reciprocate, if we are not actually so engaged as to forbid it; and if we are, a kind and frank statement of the fact, will give no offence to a reasonable person; and it is better to offend the unreasonable, than to violate truth ourselves, or to teach domesticks to lie, by putting a falsehood into their mouths.

It has been inquired, whether an individual who makes a promise which he fully intended to fulfil when he made it, but refuses to do so in consequence of something occurring which he did not know or anticipate when he promisedwhether such an individual is to be considered as telling a lie? I answer, that when we do all in our

power to fulfil a promise, but are prevented by the providence of God, or by any insurmountable obstacles, we are clearly not guilty of falsehood; for every promise must be supposed to have been made subject to these contingencies. If however our best endeavours have not been used to fulfil every lawful and proper promise, failure always involves guilt-much, if no attempt has been made; less, if the attempt was not sufficiently earnest and persevering. Farther -when a promise has been made with a sincere intention to perform it, occurrences may take place which would have prevented our promising, if we had foreseen them; and which every reasonable person will admit, should have prevented us at first, and ought to absolve us afterward. All such cases however ought to be very clearly marked. A conscientious man will choose, in all but extreme cases, to fulfil even an indiscreet promise, unless the party to whom it has been made will consent to release him: and if the promise relate to property, and is not plainly unlawful or impracticable in itself, the obligation to fulfil ought to be considered as indispensable, unless he to whom it was made will grant a free release. The Psalmist gives it as a discriminating feature in the character of a good man, that "he sweareth to his hurt, and changeth not."

The expression of a purpose, or intention, is not binding, if on reflection we see reason to change our purpose. Yet even here, the duty we owe to ourselves should render us cautious. The man who is observed frequently to change his mind, after he has declared it, although it be in regard to things not important in themselves, will acquire a character for levity, or versatility, which will exceedingly diminish his respectability and influence. He who would have the greatest weight of character, must

There is often as great, or, perhaps, it may be safely said there is often a greater degree of terror in persons brought under occasional convictions, which are afterwards fruitless, than in others, in whom they are the introduction to a saving change. It is probable that the horror of mind which possessed Cain after his brother's murder, was of the most terrible kind. It is probable that the humiliation of Ahab, after he had caused Naboth to be destroyed by false evidence, and was threatened with a dreadful visitation, was exceeding great. It is probable that the mere passion of fear in either of these criminals was equal, if not superior, to the fear of any true penitent recorded in scripture. It is the principle that distinguishes their nature. It is the differing principle that produces opposite effects. The one is alarmed and trembles through fear of wrath from an irresistible and incensed God; the other is truly sensible of sin in all its malignity, and fears the sanction of a righteous, but violated law. The one feels himself a miserable creature; the other confesses himself a guilty sinner. The one is terrified, and the other is humbled.

*

*

Would any know, therefore, whether their sorrow for sin hath been to the requisite degree, let me intreat them to suffer conscience to answer honestly to the following interrogatories. Has your conviction of sin been such as to make

you abhor and hate it in every form? Hath it been such as to make you resolve upon a thorough and perpetual separation from your once beloved pleasures? Does it make you ready to examine the lawfulness of every pursuit, and to abstain even from every doubtful or suspected practice? Is there no known sin that you are desirous to excuse or palliate, studious to conceal, or willing to spare? Remember this Remember this necessary caution of our Saviour: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."* Is there no sin, however long practised, or however greatly delighted in; is there no sin, however gainful or honourable, but you desire liberty from its enslaving power, as well as deliverance from its condemning guilt? Is there no part of the law of God, of the duty and character of a Christian, however ungrateful to a covetous heart, however despised by a scorning world, but you acknowledge its obligation? Would you, indeed, rather be holy than great? Do you rather choose persecution with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season? See what terms Christ makes with his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me: for whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life, for my sake, shall find it."*-Upon the whole, instead of finding fault with the duty or lot of God's children, can you truly say, "O that there were such an heart in me that I could keep his statutes! The

• Matt. v. 29, 30. † Matt. xvi. 24.

law of the Lord is perfectly holy. The paths of the Lord toward me have been infinitely gracious. My heart only is exceeding sinful. O Lord, write thy law in my heart, and put it in my inward parts: give me a new heart and a new spirit, and cause me to walk in thy statutes, and keep thy judgments, and do them."

3. It is an excellent evidence of conviction's being right both in principle and in degree, when the penitent hath a greater fear of sin than of suffering. As the great source of genuine conviction of sin is a sense of its evil in itself, rather than an apprehension of its consequences even in the life to come, there is no way in which this will discover itself more distinctly, than in the views we have of sin, and suffering in the present state. Whether do you grieve most heartily for sin, or for worldly losses? Which of them do you avoid with the greatest solicitude and care? Will not this show what it is that lies nearest your hearts, and hath the dominion there? Will not this show it in a manner that must be convincing even to yourselves, and leave no room to reply? Alas! how heavy a sentence does this carry against many professing Christians? How great their anxiety about the things of time, how little about the concerns of eternity? How carefully will they observe the increase or decrease of their trade and opulence? But how little attention will they pay to the growth or decay of religion in their hearts? They will dread the arts, and fly from the society of a fraudulent dealer, but will suspect no danger while their ears are drinking in the poison of licentious or impure conversation. The loss of a child, or the loss of their substance, oppresses them with sorrow, while even the commission of gross sin, if concealed from the world, produces a reflection scarcely felt, and speedily forgotten.