“Christianity,” says an excellent prelate of our church, “forbids no necessary occupation, no reasonable indulgences, no innocent relaxation. It allows us to ‘use’ the world, provided we do not ‘abuse’ it. It does not spread before us a delicious banquet, and then come with a ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not:’ all it requires is that our liberty degenerate not into licentiousness; our amusements into dissipation; our industry into incessant toil; our carefulness into extreme anxiety and endless solicitude. When it requires us to be ‘temperate in all things,’ it plainly tells us that we _may_ use all things temperately. {26} When it directs us to ‘make our moderation known unto all men,’ this evidently implies that within the bounds of moderation we may enjoy all the reasonable conveniences and comforts of this present life.” I have noticed this, in my opinion, erroneous practice of the Quakers at the more length, because it is not confined to them. Asceticism, of which this is one branch, has been the bane of the church and of Christianity generally; and few sects are entirely free from the notion that holiness requires a withdrawal from amusements, and a certain degree of seclusion from the world. Yet, if the world is to be improved, the leaven must be placed _in_ it; and a good man probably never does his Father’s work more effectually than when he spreads the sanctifying influence of his example through all the relations of life; showing that there is no position in society where Christianity does not add a grace and a relish unknown without it: spreading refinement of manners and delicacy of thought, and insensibly rendering social intercourse more polished, and more delightful, by banishing from it all that can offend. The Quakers adduce Matt. v. 33–37, James v. 12, &c. in support of their objection to all oaths, even judicial ones, and consider that the Christian dispensation abrogated their use. But in answer to this we may observe that even the Almighty is represented as confirming his promises by a solemn oath. “Because,” says the apostle, “He could swear by no higher, He sware by Himself;” and St. Paul on particular occasions expresses himself thus, “As God is true:” “Before God I lie not:” “God is my record,” &c. all which expressions undoubtedly contain the essence and formality of an oath; and the Apostle upon some occasions mentions this solemn swearing with approbation, “an oath for confirmation is the end of all strife:” the swearing, therefore, which our Saviour absolutely forbids, is common or unnecessary swearing, and we are recommended to affirm or deny in common conversation without imprecations. “Let your conversation be yea, yea,—nay, nay.”