W DISSERTATION ON OATHS. ENOCH LEWIS. URIAH HUNT. 101 MARKET STREET. NATHAN KITE. APPLETREE ALLEY, Near Fourth Street 1838. DISSERTATION ON OATHS, I SHALL first inquire, what an oath is. Second. The time and cause of their in- troduction. Third. The practice under the law in relation to them. Fourth. The practice of the ancient gentiles in regard to oaths. Fifth. The precepts and doctrines of Christ and his disciples. Sixth. The opinion and practice of the early Christians. Seventh. The opinions of the early reformers. Eighth. The sufferings of the primitive Friends on that account. Ninth. Their use as a means of discovering the truth, or insuring a faithful performance of an engagement. A DISSERTATION Of the nature and character of Oaths. " An oath," says Cruden, " is a solemn action, whereby we call upon God, the searcher of hearts, to witness the truth of what we affirm for the ending of strifes and controversies." Concordance, word Oath. " An oath," says Milton, " is that whereby we call God to witness the truth of what we say, with a curse upon ourselves, either implied or expressed, should it prove false." Christian Doctrine, p. 579. " Whatever be the form of an oath," says Paley, " the signification is the same : it is the calling of God to witness, that is, to take notice of what we say, and invoking his vengeance or renouncing his favour in case what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed." Moral and Political Philosophy, chap. 16. It is laid down by legal authorities that, " what is universally understood by an oath, is, that the person who takes it imprecates the vengeance of God upon him, if the oath he takes is false." Vide Atkyn's Chancery Re- ports, vol. 1, p. 19. Without further inquiry, it must be obvious that there are very serious objections to the customary use of oaths. To make the express or implied renunciation of the Divine favour a condition of our speaking the truth, or perform- ing an engagement, is certainly unbecoming ON OATHS. such dependent beings as we are. A just sense of the awfulness of the Divine majesty, and a conviction that his favours are all gratuitous, would lead us to regard every declaration which partakes of the nature of an oath, with fear and suspicion. It is moreover observable that, under the ancient dispensations, whether patriarchal, legal, or prophetic, the motives and sanctions were chiefly of an external character; the promises and threatenings related chiefly to the affairs of the present life. But Christianity takes a higher aim ; it directs our fears and hopes to the life to come. Hence the prospect of the Divine displeasure becomes much more awful. With the ancients, an invocation of Divine vengeance might be considered as con- nected merely with worldly and temporal affairs, but to the Christian professor it involves the interests of an eternal duration. It would therefore appear, without further examination into the doctrines and precepts of the Christian religion, that an oath, as above defined, is of too awful a nature to be introduced among Chris- tians, for the adjustment of any of their worldly concerns. However sincerely disposed any person may be to speak the truth, without dis- guise or concealment, or to fulfil his engage- ments according to their true intent, it ia scarcely possible to be so certain of the entire correctness of what we are going to say, or of 1* 6 A DISSERTATION the exact fulfilment of what we are about to promise, as to justify us, on the score of pru- dence, to say nothing of its irreverence, in making our hopes of eternal salvation an express or implied condition of our faithfulness and truth. When we consider the liability of man to be influenced by prejudice, fear or favour, to deviate a little in his testimony from the line of strict veracity ; or by interest, passion or indolence, to neglect the performance of some things which he may promise, we must be con- vinced that we cannot, without extreme rashness and impiety, annex to any engagement we can make, a declaration that we are willing to renounce our hopes of final acceptance, ana to incur the penalty of an eternal separation from the source and fountain of happiness, in case we inadvertently slide into any of those errors which so easily beset us. Yet if we seriously examine the import of those oaths which are so familiarly administered, and so inconsiderately taken, upon many frivolous occasions, we can hardly give them any other meaning : a very awful consideration for those who are instru- mental in producing them ! Of the timp and cause of the Introduction of Oaths. Of the first introduction of oaths we have no ON OATHS. 7 certain account. We hear nothing of them till the time of Abraham. But we find that wars had found their way into the post-deluvian world, before we hear of oaths. And it is observable that the stratagems of war often require the admission of falsehood. From various parts of the patriarchal history we are authorized to conclude, that a very depraved morality had overspread the world ; and where so many corruptions prevailed, it can scarcely be doubted that falsehood was one of the number ; several instances indeed are noted, in which a want of veracity appeared in persons conspicuous for piety. If the best would some- times descend to the utterance of falsehood, we may readily suppose the practice common among the worst. In such a state of society it was natural to seek some method, on important occasions, to secure veracity. Ancient fable indeed tells us, that there % were no oaths in the golden age, but that when men departed from their primitive simplicity, and began to quarrel with one another, they had recourse to false- hood to substantiate their own case; after which it became necessary, in case of disputes, that some expedient should be devised for ascertaining the truth. Hence Hesiod makes the god of oaths the son of Eris or contention. Polybius also asserts that oaths in judgment were rare among the ancients, but that as perfidy grew, oaths increased. 8 A DISSERTATION It is perfectly obvious that oaths could not have been necessary for any of the purposes on account of which they are resorted to, if false- hood had not been introduced. Where truth and candor prevail, oaths are at best super- fluous. As the practice of departing from the truth was one of the vices which, at an early day, was introduced among men ; an appeal to the Supreme Being, as witness and judge, with an express or implied renunciation of his favour, in case a falsehood was uttered, appears to have been adopted upon solemn occasions, as a security against the prevailing mendacity. Among the ancient Hebrews it appears to have been usual for the juror to hold up his hand toward heaven when he pronounced the oath. Thus Abram told the king of Sodom, " I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of Heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoe-lachet ; and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldst say I have made Abram rich." And in the 144th Psalm we find David praying for " deliverance from the hand of strange children, whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a righthand of falsehood." Oaths being introduced as a remedy against falsehood, the opinion expressed by several of the ancients respecting them, is clearly correct. Thus Basil the Great observes, " Oaths are an ON OATHS. 9 effect of sin." Ambrose, " Swearing is only in condescension to a defect." Chrysostom, " Swearing took its beginning from want of truth and punctuality." Practice under the Law. The institutions of Moses were designed to prepare the Israelites for a more perfect dis- pensation. The evils which the preceding ages had introduced were subjected to restraint. But many things were admitted which compose no part of a system such as Christianity was intended to introduce and establish. The nations of the earth, in the time of Moses, appear to have been almost universally addicted to idol- atry. One of the great objects of the Mosaic dispensation was to wean the people from idol- atry, and establish the worship of the true God. A morality of a higher order than that which generally prevailed was unquestionably enjoined. Still, the system was in its nature imperfect, though adapted to the state of the people for whom it was intended. War was not only permitted, but commanded, in certain cases. It is, however, proper to observe, that Moses gives no authority to prosecute wars of aggres. sion, except those which were expressly enjoined. The practice of polygamy, which had been introduced in preceding ages, was not 10 JL DISSERTATION prohibited by the Mosaic law. Divorce, at the will of the husband, was generally allowed ; though that authority was subjected to regula- tion. It is therefore no subject of surprise, that oaths were admitted, with other evils of the day. They, like other ills of former ages, were placed under restraint. They were admitted only on solemn occasions. Swearing by the divinities of the heathen was forbidden. The precept of the decalogue, " thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain ; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain,"* clearly prohibits swearing, even by the true God, upon trivial occasions, or falsely, upon any occasion. The injunction, " thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and swear by his name,"f though sometimes construed as a command to swear, may be con- sidered as prohibiting all swearing except by the true God. It is not very important, in the present day, to ascertain with positive accu- racy, what duties were laid on the people of Israel by different parts of the law. But as this passage has been adduced by some moderns to establish, not merely the lawfulness, but the duty, of swearing, under the Christian dispen- sation, a few observations may be made upon it. If swearing, even by the true God, was * jExod. xx 7, t Duet. vi. 13. ON OATHS. 11 in itself a religious act, it is not easy to dis- cover why we might not swear, in that manner, upon every occasion, whether great or small. For certainly there can be no valid objection to the religious performance, even of the smallest actions. That it was not an injunction, to swear, even on important occasions, is fairly deducible from the conduct of the legislator himself. Moses was not likely to disregard, in his own practice, those duties which he pre- scribed to the people. Now it is obvious, that occasions of the utmost importance were often occuring in his intercourse with the people under his direction ; yet I do not find, in his whole history, as delivered by himself, a solitary instance of his resorting to an oath to establish the truth of his declarations.* Neither do we find that he ever descended to the meanness of false- hood. As the power of divorce was allowed because of the hardness of their hearts, so the use of an oath was admitted as a defence against mendacity. But in his own practice the necessity of an oath was obviated by an * It is true that we find Caleb, when speaking of a circum- stance which occurred forty-five years before, mentions that Moses sware unto him that the land whereon he had trodden should be his inheritance, and his child rens' forever. This being the only instance upon record, we may fairly infer that Moses very seldom, even on solemn occasions, confirmed his declarations by an oath. 12 A DISSERTATION unvaried adherence to veracity. There is reason to believe, that before the law, as well as under it, oaths were seldom used, except upon important occasions ; but we have evi- dence that their use was not confined to cases of testimony before persons in authority. Thus Jacob sware unto Laban by the fear of his father Isaac ; and he requested his son Joseph to swear that he would not bury him in Egypt. Rahab also exacted an oath of the spies whom Joshua had sent. Engagements ratified by an oath were held sacred and inviolable. Thus, Joshua and the princes of Israel having been beguiled into a treaty with the Gibeonites, which the princes bound themselves by an oath to support, the contract was held to be indissoluble. Though the people of Israel were divinely forbidden to made any treaty with the inhabitants of Canaan, yet when they had been betrayed into one, they could not retract, for they had sworn by the Lord God of Israel to observe it. The obliga- tion of an oath, with them, did not cease with the jurors themselves, but extended to their posterity ; for we find the slaughter of the Gibeonites, several ages after the treaty, visited with a famine on the land. From what appears on the sacred records we may infer, that the oa*th commonly used under the law contained no invocation of the ON OATHS. 13 Divine vengeance as a condition of veracity. The expression, Jls the Lord liveth, appears to have constituted the Hebrew oath. Thus the prophet Jeremiah declares, " If they will dili- gently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, (as they taught my people to swear by Baal,) then they shall be built in the midst of my people." xii. 12, 16. See also 1 Sam. xiv. 45. xx. 21. xxv. 34. xxvi. 10, 16. 2 Sam. iv. 9. xiv. 11. xv. 21. 1 Kings, i. 29. xvii. 12. xviii. 10, 15. xx. 22, 14. 2 Kings, ii. 2, 4, 6. iii. 14. v. 20. Jere- miah, iv. 2. v. 2. This therefore, being the oath used among the Israelites, we may consider this to be the kind of oath allowed by the Mosaic law. This expression is in its nature, much less excep- tionable than the modern oath. If then it could be proved, that this oath was never prohibited, that would be no justification of the modern one. The same term, applied to different things, does not identify them. And the word oath as applied to the ancient attestation, did not signify the same as when used to designate the modern one. The latter however, includes all that was objectionable in the former ; for it includes the appeal to the Supreme Judge, with the addition of a conditional invocation of his displeasure. Should it then appear that the oath permitted by the Mosaic law, was subse- 2 A DISSERTATION quently forbidden, that prohibition would also reach the modern one ; though the admission of the former, would not justify the latter. We find indeed a few instances in the Israelitish history, in which a conditional imprecation was uttered. But these are mostly, if not always, expressions of anger rashly uttered, and justly chargeable with a violation of the command in the decalogue, " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."* *"The form of oaths," says Dr. Paley, "in Christian countries are very different, but in no country in the world, I believe, worse contrived to convey the meaning, or to impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The substance of the oath is repeated to the juror, by the officer who administers it, adding in the conclusion, so help you God. That is, upon condition of my speaking the truth , or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help me. The juror while he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand on a book containing the four gospels ; the conclusion of the oath sometimes runs ' so help me God and the contents of this book ;' which last clause forms a connection between the words and action of the juror which before was wanting. The juror then kisses the book ; the kiss, however, seems rather a reverence to the contents of the book, as in the popish ritual, the priest kisses the gospel before he reads it, than any part of the oath." Moral and Political Philosophy, chap. 16. It appears from Selden's account of the practice under the first Roman emperors who professed the Christian religion, that the practice which now generally prevails, was borrowed from the pagans. Among the Gentoos of the present day, it appears that the juror touches the feet of a Bramin as an act which given sanctity to the oath. Vide Atkyn's Reports, vol. 1, p. 23. ON OATHS. 15 Of the Practice of the Ancient Gentiles relative to Oaths. Among the ancient Persians, according to Diodorus Siculus, giving the right hand was a token of speaking the truth. He that did it deceitfully, was reckoned more detestable than if he had sworn. The Scythians, as reported by Quintis Cur- tius in his life of Alexander, told him, " think not that the Scythians confirm their friendship by an oath. They swear by keeping their word." Which plainly implies, that they were not accustomed to swearing even on important occasions. " So religious," says Plutarch, " was Her- cules* that he never swore but once." A plain indication, that, in the opinion of the historian, swearing was irreligious. " An oath," says Hesiod,f " greatly hurts men. An oath goes with corrupt judgment." In other words, oaths disappear when corrupt judgments are excluded. The seven sages of Greece, taught that men ought not to swear. Solon,J the celebrated legislator of Athens, * He is supposed to have lived 1280 years before Christ t B. C. 800 years. \ B. C. 600 years. 16 A DISSERTATION and one of the seven sages of Greece, exhorted the people to observe honesty more strictly than an oath. Another of his sayings implies " that a good man should have such reputation as not to need an oath." It is a dimunition of his credit to be required to swear. Theoginus, a Greek poet, who lived about the time of Solon, also expressed his disappro- bation of swearing. Pythagoras,* being earnestly intreated by the Crotonian senators, for his advice in relation to the affairs of their government, laid down as one of the maxims, " Let no man attest God by an oath, though in courts of judicature ; but accustom himself so to speak, that he may be credited without an oath." Socrates, the great promoter of virtue among the Athenians, has this saying, " that good men must let the world see, that their manners or dealings are more than an oath." Plato, a disciple of Socrates, forbids swear- ing even in solemn cases ; " that none swear himself; that none require an oath of another." Xenocrates,f an Athenian philosopher, was so renowned for virtue and integrity, that when called upon to give testimony upon oath, the judges rose and forbad the oath to be tendered to him ; because they would not have it believed * B. C. between 500 and 600 years. t B. C. 337 years. ON OATHS. 17 that the truth depended more upon an oath than upon the word of an honest man. Menander, the Greek poet cotemporary with Xenocrates, says, " Flee an oath, though thou shouldst swear justly." Epictetus, the stoic philosopher, advised to refuse an oath altogether. Quintillian says, " that in time past it was a kind of infamy for grave and approved men to swear ; as if their authority should suffice for credit. Therefore the priests or flamens were not compelled to it ; for thus to compel a noble- man to swear, would be like putting him upon the rack." To this we may add the declaration of Josephus, that the Essenes kept their promises, and accounted every word they uttered of more force than if they had bound it with an oath ; that they avoided oaths more than perjury ; for they esteemed him as condemned for a liar, who could not be believed without calling God to witness. These Essenes, we may remember, were the most religious of the Jewish sects, though the Pharisees made the highest profes- sions. And it is remarkable, that while the hypocritical profession of the Pharisees is fre- quently rebuked by our Saviour, the Essenes" are never mentioned by him or his disciples. The son of Sirach also has this maxim : " Accustom not thy mouth to swearing, neither 2* 18 A DISSERTATION use thyself to the naming of the Holy One. For as a servant that is continually beaten, shaH not be without a blue mark ; so he that swear- eth and nameth God continually shall not be faultless." Ecc. xxiii. 9, 10. From the preceding extracts, as well as others that might be adduced, it is apparent, that notwithstanding the frequency of oaths among the degenerate nations of antiquity, there were many of the wisest and best in vari- ous ages, who clearly understood their nature and origin, and saw that they must be excluded if perfidy and corruption were banished from the world. Of the Precepts and Doctrines of Christ, and his Apostles, in relation to Oaths. ' When we direct our attention to the doctrines of the Christian religion, it is important that we should remember, that this is the last and high- est dispensation of God to man. That in this dispensation, is embodied the promise " that the seed of the woman should bruise the ser- pent's head." That this is the means divinely appointed to restore to man what was lost by the fall. That this dispensation was introduced by the Son and sent of the Father, who, though touched with a feeling of our infirmities, and ON OATHS. 19 tempted as we are, was yet superior to every temptation ; a perfect pattern both in life and doctrine ; who came to make an end of sin, to finish transgression, and to bring in everlasting righteousness ; and that in him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. With this view of Christianity, we should necessarily conclude, that a practice which originated in perfidy, and which is, at best, only an imperfect remedy for the meanest of vices, would be swept away before it. Even if no precept of our Saviour or his apostles, could be found, which relates directly to the subject, we should consider the exclusion of oaths as a necessary part of a system, of such transcendent excel- lence and purity, as this was intended to be. If we judge of the Christian religion by the pro- phetic writings, and then inquire whether it is possible that fraud and perfidy shall so far pre- vail among Christians, as to render it necessary or allowable frequently to appeal to the Supreme Being, and invoke his conditional displeasure, as a security for the utterance of the truth, we must spontaneously answer the inquiry in the negative. In the compend of Christian morality con- tained in the sermon on the mount, our hopes and expectations are at once directed to a higher object than the preceding dispensation had presented ; and a righteousness of a supe- 20 A DISSERTATION rior order is enjoined. " Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The righteousness of the law and the prophets was to be merged in the superior righteousness of the gospel. Our Saviour accordingly enume- rates several of the maxims of preceding ages, and teaches us, that his dispensation absorbs them all. The outward law regulated the out- ward acts; but the law of the spirit of life, which he came to introduce, purifies the heart, and rectifies the springs and principles of action. The legal dispensation lopped the luxuriant branches of evil, but the gospel lays the axe to the root of the tree. In regard to oaths, the language is at once energetic, direct, and conclusive. Oaths being admitted as a remedy for falsehood, were held to be obligatory. " Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shall not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oalhs." This unquestionably refers lo oaths in evidence, and to religious vows, all which were required by the Mosaic laws to be according to truth, and to be faithfully kept. " Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, nei- ther shall thou profane the name of thy God." Levit. xix. 12. " 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 ON OATHS. 21 according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Numb. xxx. 2. "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it ; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee." Deut. xxiii. 21. These precepts are condensed in the foregoing words of our Lord. In this, as in the other instances, when an ancient maxim is cited, the expression, but " /" say unto you, certainly implies that something more was intended than a mere revival of the cited maxim. The righteousness inculcated by the prohibitions of the Mosaic law is perfected by the suppression of the pas- sions from which the prohibited vices spring ; and the evil of perjury is swept away by the exclusion of oaths. " But I say unto you, swear not at all" What language could he have used, which would more clearly forbid swearing than this ? " Let your communication [in the Greek Ays, word, or speech,] be yea, yea, and nay, nay ; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Here is the prohi- bition, and the reason of it. The maxim of our Lord is twofold. We are told negatively what we must not do ; swear not at all ; and affirm- atively what we must do ; speak the truth in sincerity ; let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay ; or let your yea be truly and sincerely yea, and your nay nay ; for whatso* ever is more than these cometh of evil. Oaths 22 A DISSERTATION originated in perfidy. If the reason of the pro- hibition is universal, as it unquestionably is, then the prohibition itself must also be universal. It is a legal maxim, that the reason of the law is the life of the law ; hence the law always applies, when the reason of it is applicable ; and the principle is as sound in theology as in law. The command, swear not at all, appears general and complete. Is its force or generality destroyed or impaired by the succeeding enu- meration ? The Jewish oath to which he had just referred, was by the Almighty himself; he certainly did not mean to imply that they might still use that kind of oath. But the enumeration shows that the smaller oaths, as they are some- times esteemed, were also forbidden. We are taught that heaven, the earth, the city Jerusa- lem, and our own heads, are so related to their author, as to be included in the general prohibi- tion. In the 23rd chapter of Matthew we are distinctly informed, that whoso sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Hence it is obvious that this enumeration, instead of diminishing the force of the gene- ral precept, confirms it. Indeed, if we recur to the nature and meaning of an oath, we find ON OATHS. 23 these minor oaths destitute of meaning, when considered without reference to the Creator. To call an inanimate or powerless object to witness the truth of what we say, and invoke its ven- geance in case a falsehood is uttered, without reference, express or implied, to any superior intelligence, would be absurd. The apostle James, who may be fairly pre- sumed to have understood his Lord's intention, is particularly emphatic on this point, " Move all things, my brethren, swear not : neither by heaven, neither the earth, neither by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into condemnation." We may remember that the sermon on the mount was delivered to a promiscuous assem- bly, consisting of the ignorant as well as the learned ; and that the epistle of James was addressed to the twelve tribes which were scattered abroad ; we may therefore conclude that the language of both would be suited to the people who were to be instructed : that, in these communications, their yea was yea, and their nay was nay. Could these passages be read, for the first time, to a number of intelligent persons, who knew nothing of the practice of Christians in relation to oaths, we can hardly doubt but that they would agree unanimously, that swearing, in every form, and upon every occasion, was absolutely forbidden by our Lord 24 A DISSERTATION and his apostle. We may therefore consider, that this is the true construction. If further confirmation of the correctness of this conclusion was required, we should find it in the vague and inconclusive arguments adduced in support of the practice of swear- ing, by those who acknowledge the authority of the gospel. Cruden tells us, " God has prohibited all false oaths, and all useless and customary swearing : but when necessity and the importance of the matter require it, he allows us to swear by his name, but not in the name of any false Gods, or in the name of inanimate things, whether on earth or in heaven, or by the stars, or by the life of any man whatever. Lev. xix. 12. Exod. xx. 7. 23. 13. Deu. vi. 13. Jer. iv. 2. Our Saviour, who came into the world not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil, forbids all kinds of oaths. Matt. v. 34. And the primi- tive Christians understood and observed this command in a literal sense, as may be seen from Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, &c. However, it is acknowledged, that neither the apostles nor fathers have abso- lutely condemned swearing or the use of oaths upon every occasion, and all subjects. There are circumstances wherein we cannot be morally excused from it. But we ought never to swear but upon urgent necessity, and to do ON OATHS. 25 some considerable good by it."* Miltonf was also of the opinion that we are not prohibited from swearing by the name of God, but that we are commanded not to swear by heaven," &c. But to this opinion there are two fatal objections. 1. The oaths allowed under the law, to which our Saviour refers, as inadmissible under his dispensation, are pre- cisely those which Milton and Cruden say are not now prohibited. And it is observable, that the texts adduced to establish this doctrine, are all from the old testament, and therefore relate to the law, and not to the gospel. 2. As we are distinctly informed, that he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon ; it follows as a neces- sary consequence, that if we cannot lawfully swear inferentially, we cannot lawfully swear directly by the name of the Most High. To say that we may swear immediately by the name of God, but that we may n6t swear mediately, and through the instrumentality of any of his works, by the same sacred name, is too futile for sober argument ; yet to such pue- rile evasions are these commentators driven in support of the lawfulness of swearing under the Christian dispensation. * Concordance, word " Swear." t Christian Doctrine, p. 582. 3 26 A DISSERTATION When it is acknowledged that our Saviour himself has forbidden all kinds of oaths, it would appear needless to inquire whether the apostles and fathers have absolutely condemned them or not. If it could be proved, as it cer- tainly cannot, that they allowed them, we might justly inquire what authority they had to abro- gate the orders of their Lord. The only pas- sage, however, in the apostolic writings, in which the use of oaths is mentioned, with approbation or disapprobation, is the one above cited from the epistle of James ; and this cer- tainly condemns them unequivocally. What the circumstances can be in which we cannot be morally excused from disobeying the command of Christ, or what urgent necessity there is for such disobedience, or what great good is ever to be effected by it, is not easily explained. The reasoning of Dr. Paiey upon this subject appears remarkably obscure and perplexed. He observes, " To reconcile with this passage of scripture," [that already quoted from the sermon on the mount,] " the practice of swear- ing, or taking of oaths, when required by law, the following observations must be attended to. 1. It does not appear, that swearing by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, or by their own head, was a form ever made use of among the Jews in judicial oaths ; and therefore it is not probable that they were judicial oaths, which ON OATHS. 27 Christ had in his mind, when he mentioned these instances. 2. As to the seeming univer- sality of the prohibition, swear not at all, the emphatic clause, not at all, is to be read in con- nection with what follows ; not at all, i. e. nei- ther by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jeru- salem, nor by the head : not at all does not mean upon no occasion, but by none of these forms." Hence it would appear that we may swear upon any and every occasion, judicial or not, provided we do not use either of these forms of speech. If this is not trifling, I know not what is. But he goes on : " Our Saviour's argument seems to suppose, that the people to whom he spake, made a distinction between swearing directly by the name of God, and swearing by those inferior objects of veneration, the heavens, the earth, Jerusalem, or their own head. In opposition to which distinction he tells them, that on account of the relation which these things bore to the Supreme Being, to swear by any of them, was, in effect and sub- stance, to swear by him. For which reason, he says, swear not at all, that is, neither directly by God, nor indirectly by any thing related to him."* Had Dr. Patey stopped here, we might have supposed he intended his readers should under- stand that all oaths were forbidden by this pre- * Moral and Polit. Philosophy, p. 131. 28 A DISSERTATION cept of our Saviour. But he proceeds : " Our Saviour himself, being adjured by the living God, to declare whether he was the son of God, or not, condescended to answer the high priest, without making any objection to the oath (for such it was,) on which he examined him. ' God is my witness,' says St. Paul to the Romans, ' that without ceasing I make mention of you in my prayers.' And to the Corinthians, still more strongly, * / call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet to Corinth.' Both these expressions contain the nature of oaths. The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the custom of swearing judicially, without any mark of censure or disapprobation. ' Men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.' " Upon the strength of these reasons, we explain our Saviour's words to relate, not to judicial oaths, but to the practice of vain, wan- ton and unauthorised swearing, in common discourse. St. James's words are not so strong as our Saviour's, and therefore admit the same explanation with more ease." And is this the best argument which so acute a reasoner as Dr. Paley can produce in support of judicial swearing ? This reasoning, we may observe, is defective in principle. Had there been no precept of our Lord or his disciples remaining on the ON OATHS. 29 subject of oaths, or no general maxim in which they could be fairly included, we might reason- ably inquire what could be inferred from the practice of the day. Or had the precepts been dark or ambiguous, we might have considered the practice of our Saviour and his apostles as an illustration of their meaning. But as we have an injunction of our Lord himself directly to the point, which to an unsophisticated understand- ing appears neither dark nor ambiguous, the advocate of judicial swearing ought, in justice to his subject, to have shown, that this injunc- tion, correctly construed, does not prohibit judicial oaths. He ought to have found in the precept itself, or in some other of equal authority, the limitation for which he contends. For certainly, to explain away the force of a clear and positive command, by referring to a prac- tice, or rather to a few insulated acts, which, to make the most of them, are merely of a doubtful character, is to show quite too little regard for the precepts of our Saviour, as well as to depart from the rules of correct ratiocination. By the mode of reasoning which our author has adopted to show that judicial oaths are not forbidden, we may readily arrive at a conclu- sion still more revolting. What authority have we to suppose that the Jews ever imagined they were required to perform unto the Lord such vain, wanton, and unauthorised oaths as they *3 30 A DISSERTATION might happen to utter in common discourse ? It is indeed obviously absurd to suppose that there is any religious obligation to observe such oaths at all. The obligation, even under the Mosaic law, was to avoid, not to fulfil, such oaths. We may therefore confidently assert that oaths of that character were not those which our Saviour had in his mind when he delivered the precept before us. Shall we thence infer that vain, wanton, and unauthorised swearing in common discourse is not inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel 1 To suppose there was less intended than a fair construction of his words will authorise, is to judge too meanly of his character. In him were hid the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. We must therefore conclude that he perfectly comprehended the force and extent of his own words. Speaking of oaths in general, he must be understood as de- signing that his words should apply to them all But in regard to these instances cited, even allowing them the force of a positive precept, it will appear that they do not support the con- clusion for which they are adduced. It is an inquiry of no great importance whether the high priest swore or not ; for the language used by our Lord was not an assumption of that which the high priest had uttered; and cer- tainly no one will assert, that every thing said or done, without a direct rebuke, in that day ON OATHS. 31 of turbulence and abuse, was approved, and to be made a precedent for the conduct of Christians. But Schleusner, in his Lexicon of the Greek Testament, remarks, that the word 'E%of*iv rendered / adjure, does not here sig- nify I make to swear, or put upon oath, but I solemnly and in the name of God exhort and enjoin. The same verb in a simpler form is used in other places in the New Testament, where it will not be pretended an oath was administered or taken. Thus, the evil spirit cried out, " I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not," Mark, v. 7 : and Paul to the Thessalonians writes, " I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren," 1 Thes. v. 27. Here the Greek verb is ^*< and in the Latin translation of Arius Montanus, the same word , adjuro, is given in the three places. If Dr. Paley considered the answer, thou hast said, which our Lord returned to the high priest's injunction, as taking an oath ; ought he not to assert that the reading of the epistle addressed to the Thessalonians, to all the holy brethren, was also an oath ? The same verb is used in the expression of the seven sons of Sceva, when they attempted to cast out the evil spirit. Did they administer an oath to the demo- niac, or to the spirit by which he was possessed? Indeed, the attempt to attach an oath to our Saviour's reply, under the circumstances 32 A DISSERTATION of the case, is particularly absurd. He was then numbered with the transgressors ; arraigned as a criminal ; a number of charges had been exhibited against him, to which he had made no reply. Of these charges, it is obvious that the assumption of the Divine or regal character was one. The testimony produced was not sufficient to convict him of any crime: for though many false witnesses came, yet their testimony was discordant. The high priest at first urged him to plead to the accusations which were made against him. Finding him still silent, he spoke more vehemently, charg. ing or adjuring him by the living God to tell them whether he was the Christ, the son of God, or not. A little attention to the circum- stances of the case must satisfy us that there was no occasion for an oath. We may readily account for the anxiety of the high priest to obtain a reply to his question. If he should answer affirmatively, it would afford an oppor- tunity to convict him of what they called blas- phemy, upon his own confession. If he should answer negatively, that would be a disavowal of the sacred character, of which they were particularly anxious to divest him. The ques- tion, upon which the oath is supposed to have been administered, related entirely to his divine character ; and it is evident, that the malice of ON OATHS. 00 the Jews would have been gratified by a simple reply, either affirming or denying that charac- ter. But if the question had even related to the charges in general which were exhibited against him, the case would not have required his answer to be given on oath. Viewed as a cri- minal, he might be required to plead to the indictment; to confess or deny the charge; but certainly not to swear that he was guilty. Neither would an oath of innocence have been available. But whatever the words spoken by others may be supposed to imply, the expression thou hast said, uttered by our Saviour himself, cer- tainly contain nothing of the nature of an oath ; and therefore no inference in support of swear- ing under the Christian dispensation can be fairly drawn from this passage. It is rather surprising that these passages in the epistles of Paul should be cited in support of judicial swearing ; for they were not uttered before a magistrate, but contained in an address to his brethren. If it could be made appear that Paul swore in these instances, it would be unauthorized swearing, and therefore, accord- ing to Dr. Paley's own theory, a violation of his Lord's command. Thus the archdeacon, in his zeal to defend the practice of legal swearing, has virtually condemned the apostle, without obtaining any advantage to his argument. We 34 A DISSERTATION may justly question the propriety of making these expressions a precedent for ourselves. They were used by the apostle on solemn occa- sions; and no doubt under an indubitable conviction of their truth. But they do not constitute an oath according to its modern definition ; for they contain no invocation of the Divine displeasure in case of falsehood. It is also well known that such expressions would not be admitted as a fulfilment of the law, when an oath is legally required. The argument, if argument it may be called, deduced from the passage in the epistle to the Hebrews is extremely weak. The apostle was not treating on the lawfulness of oaths under the Christian dispensation. He was showing the certainty of the Divine promises ; and that under the patriarchal dispensation, in conde- scension to the weakness of man, the Almighty, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of salvation the immutability of his promise, confirmed it by an oath. As a conclusive argument in favour of a perfect reliance on these promises, thus confirmed, the apostle remarked, that among men, an oath for confir- mation was an end of all strife ; alluding, pro- bably, to the provision of the Mosaic law. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ox, or an ass, or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or be hurt or driven away, no man seeing it ; ON OATHS. 35 then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he hath not put his hands to his neighbour's goods ; and the owner shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. Hence he argues, that as men were required to rely on the solemn oaths of others, though men may speak and swear falsely, much more ought they to repose unshaken confidence in these immutable assurances, in which it was impos- sible for God to lie. The illustration is certainly a strong one, as applied to its object, but has no efficacy to impair or explain away the force of our Lord's command. It surely cannot be pretended, that a mere reference to a practice, by way of illustration, affords a sanction to the practice itself. The apostle elsewhere speaks of the Isthmian games, without condemning them, but this is no argument in favour of horse racing. Our Saviour illustrates the necessity of preparing our minds to endure the trials attendant on a life of discipleship, by the exam- ple of one king going to make war upon another ; but certainly, this does not give his sanction to all the wars which kings may choose to wage with each other. Yet this reference would supply as valid an argument, in support of aggressive war, upon any, or upon no provo- cation, as this passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, affords in defence of judicial swear- ing. 36 A DISSERTATION To reconcile the use of legal oaths with the precepts of our Lord, one of two things appears necessary. First, To show that those precepts are to be modified or annulled at pleasure, by human legislation. Secondly, That there is an essential difference in nature and kind, between those oaths, which are authorized by the laws of the land* and those which are not. The former df these propositions, requires only to be enunciated to show its absurdity ; and the latter, certainly cannot be proved. Oaths of every description originate in the same prin- ciple \ and the declaration of our Saviour, that they come of evil, is applicable to them all. To suppose therefore, that oaths are allowed upon extraordinary occasions, is to suppose that a practice, radically and essentially evil, is nevertheless to be admitted into the Christian system in uncommon emergencies. For such emergencies, our Saviour has made no pro- vision. If we suppose such cases, and consti- tute ourselves the judges, when they arise, we in fact nullify those precepts altogether. An argument in favour of swearing has been drawn or attempted, from the declaration several times repeated in the old testament, that the Almighty himself swore ; hence it may be inferred, that swearing is not necessarily always evil ; and consequently the Words of our ON OATHS. 37 Saviour, are to be construed with some excep- tions. To this it may be answered, that what the Almighty may do, in the exercise of his sov- ereign authority, is not, therefore, right for us. The obligation which we, as dependent crea- tures, are under, to repeat the sacred name with reverence, when we repeat it at all, is not diminished by any expressions which he may himself have used. It would not therefore follow, that because he may have sworn by himself, we may also, swear by him. But if we look closely into the subject, we shall perceive, that the argument itself, is found- ed upon a misapprehension of terms upon the sound rather than the meaning of the words employed. For the word swear, when applied to the Almighty has a totally different meaning from what it has, when applied to us. If we recur to the definition of an oath calling upon God to witness the truth of what we say, with a curse upon ourselves, either expressed or implied, in case we speak falsely a solemn calling upon God to witness the truth of what we affirm, and invoking his vengeance or re- nouncing his favour in case what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed we must see at once, that this definition cannot be applicable to any oath which the Almighty may speak. It has therefore been said, that 4 38 A I.I "I I!T \TK. \ strictly speaking, we cannot assert that God ever swore. We certainly cannot correctly assert it, in the sense in which we declare it of men. Under the ancient dispensations, an oath by the name of the Most High, was the strong- est assurance known among men. A promise confirmed by an oath, was with them, sub- stantially this : That as certainly as the Lord liveth the most solemn and unquestionable of all imaginable truths so certainly should the promise be performed. Now, when the Most High, in condescension to the weakness of man, confirmed his promise by an oath, the mean- ing could be nothing more than that the promise was as certain as his own existence. It there- fore has no affinity with the oath of modern times, and consequently gives it no support. The matter may then be summed up in this manner. Oaths were originally introduced because of the perfidy of men. Our Saviour has forbidden them, in unequivocal terms, with- out the express exception of any kind ; and given a reason for this prohibition which is applicable to oaths of every description. One of his immediate disciples repeats the injunction not to swear, in terms equally general. There is not in the New Testament, a single expression which can be construed as a counter order. The examples in support of the practice are, to make the most of them, of doubtful cha- ON OATHB. 39 racter. And no authority was conferred on any of the disciples, or professed by them, to repeal the injunctions of our Saviour. Of the Opinions and Practice of the Early Christians. POLYOARPUS, who is said to have been the disciple of John the Evangelist, and who suf- fered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Anto- ninus about A. D. 102, has left a brief, yet expressive testimony against the use of oaths. When urged by the proconsul, to take his oath, and defy Christ, with a promise of release, he replied, " Four score and six years have J been his servant, yet in this time hath he never offended me in any thing." The proconsul still urging him to swear by the fortune of Ccesar, he answered, "If thou requirest this vain glory of me, that I protest the fortune of Caesar, feigning not to know who I am, I make known unto thee, that / am a Christian ; and if thou desirest to know what the doctrines of Christianity arc, appoint a time, and thou shalt be informed." Here it is observable, that Polycarpus does not rest his refusal upon the character of that particular oath ; he does not say, the doctrines of his Master prohibit swearing by the fortune A DISSERTATION of Cassar. But he refuses compliance with the command of the proconsul, on the ground of being a Christian ; and he offers to explain the doctrines of Christianity to them if the proconsul will assign a time. If the opportunity had been given, he must, to justify his refusal, have shown that the precepts of Christianity forbid swearing at all ; for he certainly could not prove a specific prohibition to swear by the fortune of Caesar. Justin Martyr, about the year 150, wrote an Apology for the Christians, addressed to the Roman Senate ; and subsequently, a second to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in which he observes, that we should not swear at all, but always speak the truth ; reciting the maxim of our Lord, " Swear not at all, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, and what is more than these is of evil." Near the same time, a youth of fifteen, named Ponticus, and a woman named Blandina, suf- fered martyrdom, being cruelly tormented ; the tormentors frequently urging them to swear, which they constantly refused. In the reign of the Emperor Severus, near the end of the second century, Basilides, a military officer, being appointed to conduct a female Christian to execution, and by her convinced of the truth of Christianity, was sometime after- wards required to swear upon some occasion, which he refused. His answer was, " It is not ON OATHS. 41 lawful for me to swear, because I am a Chris- tian." It is true, that some have supposed the objection was, to swearing the Roman oath ; but that is merely a conjecture unsupported by historical evidence, and inconsistent with the uniform declaration, " It is not lawful far me to swear, because I am a Christian" The refusal was founded upon the profession of Christi- anity; and in what part of the precepts of Christ, are we forbidden to swear by the idols or emperors of Rome, but permitted to swear by something else ? During the same reign lived Tertullian, an ecclesiastical writer of great learning and eloquence, who wrote an able apology for the Christians, in which he answers the charge usually brought against them ; that they were not the friends and well wishers of Csesar, because they refused to sacrifice, and swear by the genius, fortune and health of the emperor. In this he intimates that they performed the substance of these ceremonies. That reverently looking up to the judgment of God in the emperors, and yielding a willing obedience to them, were to the Christians, instead of an oath ; and that their wishing and praying for the health of the emperor, constituted a sacri- fice. But in his book respecting idolatry, he speaks clearly, saying, " I speak not of perjury seeing it is not lawful to swear." And again, 4* 42 A DISSERTATION " he who [signs a bill of security, containing and confirmed by an oath, is guilty of swearing as if he had spoken it ; and transgresses Christ's command, who directed not to swear." Le Prieur, in his annotations on Tertullian, observes, that "although the Christians did believe that all swearing was forbidden them, they, before all oaths, were wary of swearing by the genius or fortune of the prince." Nearly cotemporary with Tertullian, lived Clemens Alexandrinus, a pious and learned man, who argued that oaths were superfluous to men of truth and integrity ; and that an upright life contained the substance of an oath. " Where," says he, " is there any need of an oath to him that so lives, as one that hath attained to the height of truth ? He therefore that doth not swear is far from forswearing ; he that transgresseth in nothing that is cove- nanted and agreed, he may never swear." Origen, who lived about the middle of the third century, and was also eminent for learn- ing and piety, speaks on the subject of oaths in such manner as to show that he understood the injunction of our Lord, swear not at all, in its obvious and literal sense. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who lived a little later than Origen, laid it down as one of the articles of the Christian religion, that they were not to swear. He also exhorted the pas- ON OATHS. 43 tors and teachers to remember what the Lord taught, and said, " let your sayings be yea, yea, and nay, nay." He also gave his opinion that it was unlawful for any man to compel another to take an oath. Athanasius condemned swearing as incon- sistent with our Saviour's command, or the reverence due to the Supreme Being ; as well as an indication of a want of veracity. Hilary, who lived during the reign of Con- stantius, near the middle of the fourth century, laid down the doctrine, that faith obviates the necessity of an oath, and requires the business of life to be conducted in truth and sincerity. In the Apostolical Institutions, attributed to Clemens Romanus, we have this declaration, " Our master hath commanded that we should not swear ; no, not by the true God ; but that our word should be more credible than an oath itself." And subsequently, " He that in the law established to swear well, and forbad false swearing, commanded also not to swear at all" In an ancient work styled the Gospel of Nicodemus, which, by whomsoever written, was unquestionably intended to exhibit the lead- ing doctrines of Christianity, as then understood, we find it declared, " We have a law, not to swear, because it is a sin." If Homer may be cited to prove the manners and opinions of his time, notwithstanding his facts are chiefly ficti- 44 A DISSERTATION tious, so may a work of unquestionable antiquity be brought as authority to ascertain the opin- ions prevalent at the time it was written, though its character in other respects may not be entitled to credit. Basilius Magnus, who lived in the time of the Emperor Valens, testified, that under the gospel, swearing was altogether forbidden quoting the command, swear not at all, as con- clusive on this subject. He observes, that as our Lord endeavoured to prevent several other vices, which he speci- fies, by removing their causes, so he took away all occasion of perjury, by forbidding to swear. He gives an opinion, that a swearer impeaches his own integrity, as he thereby intimates that his word is not worthy of belief. In another place, he says, " Because an oath is altogether forbidden, such an one as is taken for an evil purpose is much more to be condemned." Gregory Nyssenus, brother to Basil, bears his testimony against oaths, signifying that our Saviour, by the instrumentality of Moses, laid the foundation of the law, but by himself ful- filled all the law and the prophets. As the crimes which the law prohibited, were, under the gospel, excluded by the subjugation of the passions from which they spring, so the crime of perjury was prevented by the prohibition of oaths. ON OATHS. 45 Gregory Nazianzen denies the assertion, which it appears is as old as his time, that Paul swore ; pronouncing the one who asserted it a vain jangler. He objected to all swearing; observing, that those who were in the frequent practice of it, would not be credited when they spoke the truth. Caesarius, brother to Gregory Nazianzen, advises to avoid every oath, and obtain credit by speaking the truth, and preserving a virtuous life. Chrysostom, styled the golden doctor, says, " A Christian must flee oaths, by all means hear- ing the sentence of Christ, It was said to them of old, you shall not forswear ; but I say unto you, swear not at all.' Let none therefore say, I swear in a just business. It is not lawful to swear ; neither in a just, nor unjust thing." And again, " thou hast heard the wisdom of Christ, saying, that not only to forswear, but also, in any manner to swear, is a device of the evil one." And further, " God himself, who forbad forswearing, even he afterwards com- manded not to swear : he therefore that is not afraid to set light by the commands of God in swearing, will not be afraid to do the like in forswearing." He treats largely and ably on this subject, and disallows oaths of every description. Numerous testimonies of a similar character 46 A DISSERTATION might be cited, which, to avoid prolixity, I omit. The reader who desires to examine them may consult William Penn's treatise on oaths. Of the Opinions and Practice of the Early Reformers in Relation to Oaths. THE Waldenses, who arose in France about the middle of the 12th century, appear to have construed the injunction of our Lord in relation to oaths, as a total prohibition. These people being very much persecuted, what we have of their lives and doctrines, comes to us through the writings of their enemies. Renerius, one of their bitterest opponents, acknowledges that they had a great show of holiness, living justly before men, believing all things were of God, and holding all the articles contained in the creed ; only they hated and blasphemed the Romish Church. One of the charges brought against them, was their refusal to swear ; and it does not appear that they ever denied it. The Albigenses, a people who arose in Lan- guedoc, in the same century, also held it unlaw- ful to swear. About the year 1360, during the reign of Edward III. was written a work entitled, " The Prayer and Complaint of the Plowman." This work, although the name of the author is not ON OATHS. 47 known, was evidently the production of one of the reformers of that day. It exposes many of the vices and corruptions of the Romish church. One passage is to the following import. " Lord, thou gavest us a command to speak the truth, that our yea should be yea, and our nay, nay, and not to swear at all ; but he that calls him- self thy vicar on earth, has broken these com- mandments ; for he makes a law to compel men to swear, and teaches that a man, to save his life, may forswear and lie. So that by the encouragement of him and his laws, men are emboldened to swear and lie, and often to swear falsely." Fox, i. 459. John Wickliffe, who lived in the time of Edward III. and Richard II. is justly celebrated as one of the early English reformers. After his death, his doctrines, as collected from his writings, opposed to those of the Romish church, were exhibited to the council of Con- stance. One of these points then charged against him, is, that he maintained that all oaths made for any contract or civil bargain, between man and man, are unlawful. Fox, i. 513. Geoffrey Chaucer, though not usually classed among the reformers, was a follower of Wick- liffe. His writings abound with invectives against the doctrines and practice of the Romish clergy. His exposition of the vices and corruptions of the church, was sometimes veiled 48 A DISSERTATION in allegory and facetious tales. In more than one of his tales he indicates his disapprobation of oaths ; expressly declaring the practice of swearing to be a violation of our Lord's com- mand. About the year 1389, William Swinderley an adherent of John Wickliffe, was charged before the Bishop of Hereford, with having promulgated sundry doctrines inconsistent with those which were then maintained by the Romish church. One article of the charge was, that he declared that no man ought to swear upon any account, but simply to affirm or deny, without oath ; and that to swear was a sin. To this he answered rather ambiguously, professing not to remember that he had used those words. He however plainly declared, that according to the Divine law, men ought not to swear by any creature or by an idol, as they were generally accustomed to do : there- fore, adds he, " Methinks there is no need to comfort (encourage) t he people in swearing." But afterwards, appealing to King Richard II. from the bishop's sentence, he expressed him- self clearly against swearing. " Whereas Christ's law forbids swearing, the Pope's law justified swearing and compelled men thereto." Fox. i. 536. 540. Walter Brute, cotemporary of William Swin- derley, and a dissenter from the doctrine of the ON OATHS. 49 Romish church, being required by the bishop of Hereford, to state, in writing, his opinion on several doctrinal points, produced an able ex- position of several questions; some of them, particularly his opinion of war, would not be unworthy the consideration of Christians in the present day. His observations in relation to oaths are in the following words : " As con- cerning oaths, I believe and obey the doctrine of the Almighty God, and my master Jesus Christ, which teacheth that Christian men in affirmation of a truth, should pass the righte- ousness of the scribes and pharisees of the Old Testament, or else he excludeth them from the kingdom of heaven. For he saith, * unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And as concerning oaths, he saith, It hath been said by them of old time, thou shall not forswear thyself, but shalt per- form unto the Lord those things which thou knowest ; but I say unto you, thou shalt pot swear at all ; neither by the heaven, nor yet by the earth,' &c. ; ' but let your communication be yea, yea ; nay, nay ; for whatsoever shall be more than this proceedeth of evil.' There- fore, as the perfection of ancient men of the Old Testament was not to forswear themselves, so the perfection of Christian men is, not to swear at all, because they are so commanded of 5 50 A. DISSERTATION Christ, whose commandment must in no case be broken ; although the city of Rome is con- trary to this doctrine of Christ, even as in many things she is found contrary to herself." Fox, i. 570. John Huss, Jerome of Prague, William Sawtry, William Thorpe and others, of the early reformers, are recorded by writers in Germany and the Low Countries, to have been opposed to all swearing, and in all cases. Though John Fox and others, who were them- selves in favour of swearing in some cases, have represented them as holding a similar opinion. It is however, observable, that in their refuta- tion of the doctrines of the Romish church, they steadily appeal to the scriptures, and reject every conclusion, which, according to their understandings, could not be supported out of them. I shall close this branch of the subject, with the testimony of Erasmus, cotemporary of Luther, and a favourer, if not a supporter, of the reformation. In his commentary on Matthew, v. he says, " Commandment was given to your elders, none otherwise, but if they had made an oath, they should perform it, and not be for- sworn ; for now they are bound to God and not to man only ; wherefore among the Jews, only perjury is punishable ; but he that deceives his neighbour, without any oath made, he goes ON OATHS. 51 unpunished ; but yet the law of the gospel con- demneth him ; the which that ye may be the more remote from perjury, doth utterly condemn all manner of oaths ; that it is not lawful to swear, neither by God, nor by those things which seem to the common sort, to be things of less religion, that is, neither by heaven, because it is the seat of God ; nor by the earth, because it is his footstool ; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King," that is to say, " of him that hath made all things." Neither as the heathen swear, by the head of another man, whereof thou hast no authority; but it is consecrated to God, that hath made all things as he would ; for thou canst not make one white hair black, or the contrary ; and because all things are consecrated to God, the maker, thou oughtest to be fearful to swear by any thing. And what needeth any oath among them, when no man, because of their simpli- city, can distrust ; nor no man can desire to deceive, though they might do it 1 Such is their simplicity and perfectness, specially in those things of which they declare themselves to be despisers. Therefore, among you, plain and simple speech ought to be more holy and more sure, than the devout and solemn oath among the Jews ; for among you, whose hearts and mouths ought to agree, there is no other use of speech, but to express your minds each 52 A DISSERTATION to other. In your bargains, ye need no oath, ye need no execration, or cursing, or such like, to bind the promiser, or to assure him to whom the promise is made ; two words be sufficient, nay and yea, whereby thou deniest that which thou dost not promise, and whereby thou dost perform that, which thou didst promise by plain word, that thou wouldst do. For there is no man less bound by his simple and bare word, than the Jew swearing by all holy things ; and he whom thou makest thy promise unto, doth trust thee as much, as if thou hadst made a solemn oath. If there be any more besides these, it must needs come of evil and sin ; for he that sweareth, either he thinketh evil of him to whom he sweareth ; or else he that requireth the oath doth distrust. But none of these things ought to be in you whom I would have perfect in all points. Therefore, when I utterly forbid swearing, I do not abolish the law which doth utterly prohibit perjury ; but I make the law more full, and I withdraw men further from that which the law doth punish." And again, in his commentary on the epistle of James, chap, v., " Let your mind be pure and plain, and let your heart and mouth go to- gether. Let no man with feigned words, deceive his neighbour ; but especially, my brethren, swear not, lest by little and little, you accustom yourselves to forswear. Among the Jews and ON OATHS. 53 heathens, for fidelity's sake, there is an oath put, but among Christians, which ought neither to distrust any man, nor to deceive, it is a vain thing to swear. Whosoever is accustomed to swear, is cousin-german to the peril of forswear- ing. Be you afraid, not only to swear by God in human affairs and light matters, but also abstain from all kinds of swearing, that you swear neither by heaven, neither by earth, or any other thing, that the common people esteem for holy and religious. Whosoever dare be bold to lie without swearing, he dare do the same also, when he sweareth, if he list. To be brief, he that is a good man, will believe a man with- out swearing ; and he that is naught, will not trust a man though he swear. But among you that are furnished with evangelical plainness, there is neither place to distrust, nor to imagine deceit ; but let your plain communication be regarded for no less true and steadfast, than any manner of oath among the Jews or pagans, how holy soever it be. As often as you con- firm any thing, confirm it with all your heart ; and perform indeed, the thing that you speak. As often as you deny any thing, deny it with your whole heart ; neither let any thing else be in your heart, than your mouth speaketh, that there be no counterfeiting in you, seeing you are disciples of the truth." 5* 54 A DISSERTATION Sufferings of the Primitive Friends on that account. As our early Friends suffered many tedious imprisonments, on account of their refusal to take the oaths tendered to them by the autho- rities of the day ; it will, perhaps be acceptable to some of my readers, to have an account of the nature and design of those oaths, which were made the means of their sufferings. The first in order of time, though not the first under which they were persecuted, was the oath of supremacy. When Henry VIII., renounced the autho- rity of the pope, an act of parliament was obtained, declaring him the only supreme head of the church of England, on the earth ; and utterly abolishing the authority of the Roman pontiff, within the British dominions. The oath of supremacy, was *xn engagement to observe the requisitions of this act ; an acknowledg- ment of the king and his successors as the supreme head of the English church on earth, and a renunciation of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The act establishing the supremacy of the king, was repealed in the time of Mary, but revived upon the accession of Queen Eliz- abeth. Near the beginning of the reign of James I., ON OATHS. 55 a plot to destroy the king and members of parliament, known by the appellation of the gunpowder treason, produced an unusual excite- ment throughout the kingdom. As this plot appeared to have been fomented by some bigoted adherents to the Roman catholic persuasion, it renewed and increased the odium under which all the professors of that religion had long lain. A law was soon afterwards enact- ed, for the discovery and punishment of popish recusants ; that is, such as refused to acknow- ledge the independent authority of the king. An oath of allegiance was drawn up, which the British subjects were required to takCt This oath contained an acknowledgment of the lawful authority of the reigning monarch ; and a denial of the right of the Roman pontiff to depose the king, to dispose of any of his domin- ions, to exonerate his subjects from their alle- giance, or to authorize any foreign prince to annoy him, or the countries under his dominion. The engagement entered into by this oath, was nearly the same, as by the oath of supremacy ; but there was, in this oath of King James, no acknowledgment of the king as head of the church. By this omission, Roman catholics, who admitted the temporal independent autho- rity of the king, might take the oath of allegi- ance, without denying the supremacy of the pope in spiritual affairs. 56 A DISSERTATION It may be remembered, that these acts were passed long before the Society of Friends appeared, and at times when very few of the inhabitants of Great Britain questioned the law- fulness of an oath. Of course, all the peaceable protestants within the British dominions, were expected to take these oaths, when required, without deserting their principles. In the year 1655, during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, an oath abjuring the authority of Charles Stuart, was tendered to the people of Great Britain. The exact words of this oath I have not been able to find. But it was pro- bably similar to that prescribed by the Rump parliament, to the members of the council of state, in 1659, which was in these terms. " I do hereby swear, that I do renounce the pretended title of Charles Stuart, and the whole line of the late King James ; and of any other person, as a single person pretending, or which shall pretend to the crown or goverment of these nations of England, Scotland arid Ireland, or any of them ; and that I will, by the grace and assistance of Almighty God, be true, faithful and constant to the parliament, and commonwealth ; and will oppose the bringing in, or setting up any single person or House of Lords, and every of them, in this commonwealth." Rapin, vol. ii. 612. The same year that the oath of abjuration came out, we find the sufferings of Friends on ON OATHS. 57 that account commence. The peculiar doc- trines preached by George Fox and his coadju- tors, particularly their denunciation of the practice of preaching for hire, roused the indignation of the clergy against them. By the encouragement of the priests, they were imprisoned without law, or upon charges which were destitute of legal foundation. But the order requiring the oath of abjuration furnished an opportunity of giving the colour of law to the proceedings of the persecuting magistrates. Although George Fox took care to inform the Protector, that his principles were opposed to violence; that he utterly denied the use of carnal weapons against him, or any other man ; and that he and his friends were restrained from swearing by the command of Christ and his apostle ; still, the oath of abjuration was frequently tendered to them, as a means of convicting them of a legal offence. George Fox and Edward Pyott were arrested on their journey; and as nothing could be charged against them, the oath of abjuration was ten- dered to them : upon their refusing to take it, they were imprisoned, and detained about sixteen months. G. Fox, vol. i. 217. In or about this year, John Whitehead, having offended some of the clergy, by his preaching and questions, was arrested under pretence of vagrancy, and carried before two 58 A DISSERTATION justices of the peace. To rebut this frivolous charge, a neighbour, Marmaduke Storr, was admitted, and gave such a testimony of his character, as entirely to remove all doubt, if any previously existed, on that subject. But as Marmaduke refused to confirm his testimony upon oath, the expedient of tendering the oath of abjuration to them both was adopted. For refusing to swear,' or give security for their good behaviour, they were committed to prison, and detained until they were discharged by an order from Oliver Cromwell.* In the same year we find Thomas Salthouse and Miles Halhead imprisoned near seven months on several frivolous pretexts, of which refusing the oath of abjuration was one.f William Sewell asserts, that among his papers of that time he had the names of about one hundred persons, who suffered in person or property for refusing to swear, or declining to pay the tithes demanded by the priests.J What proportion the number who suffered imprisonment for refusing to swear, bore to the whole, is not stated. It is, however, observable, that as the proclamation which required the oath of abju- ration to be taken did not authorise the impri- sonment of those who refused to take it, those Sough, vol. i. 193. t Ibid. 209. \ Hist, of Quakers, vol. i. 229. Gough, vol. i. 207. ON OATHS. 59 officers who wished to find an excuse for send- ing Friends to prison, and yet were desirous of paying some regard to the laws of the country, generally managed to connect some other charge with the refusal of the oath, in order to give at least the appearance of law to their tyrannical proceedings. Some of them, how- ever, as appears in the case of George Fox and Edward Pyott, required nothing more than" a refusal to take the oath of abjuration, to autho- rize their imprisonment. Soon after the restoration of Charles II. to the throne of his ancestors, the insurrection of the fifth monarchy men furnished a plea to the persecuting ministers of that profligate monarch, to issue a proclamation forbidding all meetings and conventicles under pretence of religion ; and commanding the oaths of alle- giance and supremacy to be tendered to all persons disaffected to the government ; and in case of refusal, they were directed to be prose- cuted upon the statute of the 7th of James. Rapin, vol. i. The refusal of Friends to take the oaths required of them, notwithstanding their refusal was founded upon the Christian maxim, literally understood, swear not at all, subjected them in numerous instances to the penalties of the stat- utes of premunire. The law of premunire, so frequently men- tioned in the history of the sufferings of Friends 60 A DISSERTATION during the reign of Charles II., arose out of the contests between the temporal and ecclesi- astical powers. The enactments connected with this law were first made in the time of of Edward I., and revived and enlarged in the reign of Edward III., for the purpose of restraining the encroachments of the Roman pontiff. They applied to ecclesiastics holding ordination under the papal see. The frequent attempts of the papists, during the time of Elizabeth, to disturb or overturn the govern- ment, gave rise to some severe enactments against popish recusants. For them the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and the statute of premunire, were designed. In the year 1662, an address, from George Fox and Richard Hubberthorn, was presented to the king, in which they state, that there were then in prison, seventy-three Friends, com- mitted in the name of the commonwealth ; and that three thousand and sixty-eight had been imprisoned since his restoration ; although the time then passed since that event, was only about two years. In this address they inform the king, that one of the greatest things for which they formerly suffered, was because they would not swear to the protectors, and the changeable governments of that time : and now they were imprisoned because they could not, consistently with their religious persuasion, take ON OATHS. 61 the oath of allegiance.* How many of these were imprisoned for refusing to swear, is not stated ; but the oath was commonly tendered, when a wish to find some colour of legal offence, could be gratified in no other way. And we may observe that those who were imprisoned about that time for refusing to take the oaths required of them, could hardly have escaped perjury in case of compliance. Indeed, it is manifest, that those who took the various oaths which were imposed upon the people of England during the latter part of Charles I.'s reign, the interregnum, and the succeeding reign of Charles II., must have made incompatible engagements. The solemn league and covenant was subscribed and sworn to, in 1643, by two hundred and twenty-two members of parliament in one day, and doubtless by a great number of others ; for the Committee of Estates published an order, that it should be subscribed and sworn to by all the subjects, on pain of having their lands and rents confiscated. This covenant bound the parties to endeavour the extirpation of superstition, prelacy, &c. ; also to endeavour, with their lives and estates, to preserve the rights and ^privileges of the parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms ; and to preserve and defend the king's person * Fox's Journal, vol. 2, 7. 6 62 A DISSERTATION and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion, and liberties of the king- doms, &c.* In 1649, the Rump Parliament put to death the king whose person and autho- rity they had sworn to preserve and defend ; voted the House of Lords, an integrant part of the parliament whose privileges they had engaged to support both useless and dan- gerous, and therefore abolished. They abolished the oaths of allegiance and supremacy ; and in order " that they might have some obligation of obedience from their subjects, who had broken all the former oaths which they had taken, a new oath was prepared and established, which they called an engagement, the substance of which was, that every man should swear, that he would be true and faithful to the government established, without king or house of peers, and that he would never consent to the readmitting either of them again."f This was followed, as already mentioned, by the oath of abjuration, in 1655. But in 1660, Charles Stuart, thus abjured five years before, was restored to the throne, and the House of Peers re-established, apparently with the general consent and appro- bation of the English nation. The oath of allegiance, so rigidly exacted during the early * Rapin, vol. ii. p. 482, 483. t Clarendon's Hist. Rebel, vol. v. p. 2413. ON OATHS. 63 part of this reign, we observe was totally incompatible with more than one of those required a few years before. In the year 1663, we find George Fox imprisoned for refusing the oaths of supre- macy and allegiance.* In this instance he suffered a very severe as well as tedious confinement ; for he was not released until the autumn of 1666. His enlargement was then procured by an order from the king.* In the 10th month, 1673, George Fox was again arrested, and, though he was not charged with any definite violation of law, committed to prison. Being afterwards brought before the Court, and nothing appearing against him, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were again tendered to him. He told them he acknowledged the king to be lawful successor to the realm of England, and abhorred all plots and conspira- cies against him : that he denied the pope, his power and religion, and abhorred it with all his heart. But as he refused to swear, he was remanded to prison. Being several times brought into Court, and the oaths again ten- dered to him, at length the sentence of pre- munire was passed upon him in a very irregular manner. After an imprisonment of nearly fourteen months he was discharged upon proof * Journal, vol. ii. 35. 74. 64 A DISSERTATION of errors in the indictments* that is to say, he was committed without legal cause ; required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as a means of legalizing those irregular pro- ceedings ; subjected, for his refusal, to the penalties of a law which was designed to punish and restrain the excesses of the popish clergy, with whom he never had any connec- tion, and at last discharged, because his perse- cutors had overlooked the technicalities of the law. In 1663, Margaret Fell, widow of Judge Fell, and afterwards wife of George Fox, was sent for and taken from her house, from the midst of her family, and carried before two justices of the peace, who questioned her respecting the practice of holding meetings in her house. They proposed tendering the oath of allegiance to her, but offered to omit it, if she would decline holding or suffering meetings in her house ; but as she would not agree to this requisition, they tendered her the oath, as a snare, and, upon her refusal, committed her to an open and incom- modious prison. Thus was this respectable woman, who had been accustomed to such accommodations as wealth can bestow, con- fined to a miserable smoky prison, exposed to wind and rain, for no crime, real or pretended, * Ibid. 176. 198. t Gough, vol. ii. 30. ON OATHS. 65 except refusing to swear. There were then in the prison to which she was committed, a number of poor men, whose families were dependent upon their daily labour, for their support. Of these some were imprisoned for attending meetings, and others for refusing to swear. After considerable detention in prison, Margaret Fell was brought to trial; and although no crime was charged against her, except her refusal to swear, and she clearly stated her admission of the affirmative, and denial of the negative required by the oath, yet as she would not swear, the sentence of premunire was pronounced against her. Under this sentence she continued a prisoner about four years. By the law of premunire the real estate was forfeited for life, and the personal forever ; but I do not find that her property was seized. In the same year, (1663,) Francis Howgill, an eminent minister of the society of Friends, being about his temporal concerns, in the market of Kendall, was summoned to appear before two justices of the peace, who were sitting at a tavern. Upon his appearance, the oath of allegiance was offered to him ; and he, on refusing to take it, was immediately com- mitted to prison. At the ensuing assizes, the oath was again tendered to him, and eventually the sentence of premunire was pronounced 6* 66 A DISSERTATION against him. Under this sentence he was remanded to prison, where he remained, until the beginning of 1669, when his bonds were broken by the hand of death. He was edu- cated at the university, and designed for a priest ; but early in life he left the established religion ; and afterwards became a preacher among the Independents; amongst whom he was deservedly esteemed for virtue and exem- plary conversation.* In 1664, Thomas Curtis and wife, were com- mitted to prison for being at a meeting held in their house. The oath of allegiance was ten- tered to them, and they upon refusing to take it, were committed to prison. A sentence of premunire was pronounced against him, and his goods to a considerable amount were seized as forfeited to the king. While he was in prison, his house and business being under care of a servant man and woman, the man was arrested and also imprisoned, for refusing to take the oath of allegiance. Soon afterwards, Joseph Coale, who resided in the same house, and was confined by indisposition, was dragged down stairs and sent to prison, for refusing to take the oath of allegiance. He remained a prisoner till his death which occurred in 1670. Gough, vol. ii. 202. 204. * Gougb, vol. ii.31, 96, 236. ON OATHS. 67 The following incident is related by George Fox in 1668. A thief stole two beasts from a Friend. The thief was afterwards arrested and cast into prison. When the case came to trial, somebody informed the judge, that 'the prose- cutor was a Quaker ; he therefore, before the testimony was heard in the case of the theft, tendered the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to him, and because he refused to take them, premunired him, but set the thief at liberty. Journal, vol. ii. p. 99. In Wales, soon after the insurrection of the Millinarians, a body of armed men on horse- back, dragged several Friends from their houses, and some of them from their beds, and drove them on foot before their horses about twenty miles. Four of them were then required to take the oath of allegiance, and for refusing it, were committed to the custody of a jailor. He, in the wantonness of power, put them in irons, and sent them in fetters twelve miles to prison, where they were detained fifteen or sixteen weeks, daily exposed to insult and abuse ; their bibles, inkhorns, knives and money being taken from them, and their friends prevented from administering to their necessities. One Francis Winson, was taken out of his own house, confined near three weeks by the officers, by whom he was hardly used, and then taken before the commissioners, who tendered 68 A DISSERTATION him the oatli of allegiance. Upon his declining to swear, he was committed to prison and con- fined in a dungeon. He was a poor labouring man, having a wife and five small children depending upon him for their subsistence. Ibid. 250. In 1662, Robert Smith was indicted for refus- ing to take the oath of allegiance. Sentence of premunire was passed upon him, under which he was imprisoned, and continued in confine- ment nearly ten years. His goods were also seized, as forfeited to the king, the sheriff not overlooking the minutest article. The same year, Thomas Stordy being at Carlisle assizes, went to visit some of his Friends who were in prison, where he was illegally detained by the jailor. Shortly afterwards, he and another prisoner were called before the Court, and the oath of allegiance tendered to them. In consequence of their refusal to take it, the sentence of premunire was passed upon them, under which they lay in prison several years. Their goods were also seized and sold at public sale, the inhuman sheriff, not even permitting the workmen who had been em- ployed in collecting the grain, to be paid for their services, out of the proceeds. Near the close of the same year, four Friends appeared at the sessions at Hertford, to answer a process against them, for absence from the national ON OATHS. 69 worship. The bench, however, dropping the original prosecution, tendered them the oath of allegiance ; and upon their refusal to swear, the sentence of premunire was pronounced against them, under which they were detained in prison through a severe winter, to the great injury of their health. Their goods were like- wise ordered to be seized, but the execution of the order was arrested, and the prisoners even- tually released by an order from the king. About the same time, in Sussex, Ambrose Rigge was indicted, on the same account ; tried and sentenced to a premunire, by which he was adjudged to lose his lands and tenements during life, his goods and chattels forever, and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure. Under this sentence he lay in prison upwards of ten years. There was another grievance to which Friends within the British dominions were long subjected in consequence of their conscientious refusal to swear. Advantage of this scruple was sometimes taken by their debtors, to pre- vent the recovery of their just debts. When a debt was demanded, and the usual proceedings at law were likely to secure the recovery, the claimant was sometimes subpo3naed into Chan- cery, where his answers could not be admitted without an oath. One or two instances may be cited. In Wexford, Thomas Holme having about 70 A DISSERTATION two hundred pounds due to him, for which judg- ment at common law had been obtained, was subpoenaed into Chancery by the debtor, Captain Thornhill ; by which proceeding, as the plain- tiff could not answer upon oath, he was de- frauded of his due. And James Fade of Dublin, having about forty pounds due to him, was in like manner subpo3naed into Chancery, where for the same reason he not only lost his debt, but seventy pounds more to get clear of the debtor. This grievance was not redressed until the accession of George I. Of the use of Oaths as a means of eliciting the Truth or securing a Faithful Performance of Engagements. IN the first place, it is obvious, that an oath must be needless and consequently useless, with persons of strict integrity.* A departure from * We find this doctrine clearly attested at a time to which the people of the present day would hardly look for instruc- tion on moral or religious subjects. At a council composed of clergy and laity held in Essex, in the year 697, during the Saxon heptarchy, the following canons, among others, were adopted. That the hare affirmation of the king, or a bishop, should be equivalent to their oath. That if a bishop, abbot, or deacon, is charged with any crime, and being brought to the altar, he solemnly declares, ON OATHS. 71 the truth, or a neglect to fulfil engagements, implies a want of moral rectitude. It there- fore appears, that an oath is used only for the purpose of binding those who are not strictly upright. Does an oath generally answer its ostensible object? It is not denied that persons are sometimes to be found, whose morality is sufficiently loose to permit them to give testimony which they know to be false, who yet would not confirm that testimony upon oath. Upon such as these it is admitted, that the solemnity of an oath imposes some restraint. It will however appear upon examination, that the practice of requiring an oath, in those cases where it is particularly important that the truth should be known, has a tendency to produce the very evil which the oath is intended to remedy. When a person is brought forward to give testimony in a case of importance, and an oath is required as a security against falsehood, two motives to veracity are offered : First, a moral obligation to speak the truth on all occasions, more parti- cularly when some important consequence depends upon it ; and next, the dread of perjury. Now it is obvious that the former is amply sufficient to determine the conduct of any well that he speaks the truth ; this declaration shall be the same us an oath. Rapin, vol. i. 78. 72 A DISSERTATION regulated mind. Whatever we may think of the lawfulness or sanctity of an oath, the moral obligation to adhere to the truth, and to place the subject to which the testimony relates in its true light, must be admitted as the prominent duty of the witness. It is to secure the perform- ance of this duty, that the oath is administered. The obligation to abstain from perjury is impor- tant rather as a means than as an end.* It is merely subsidiary to the former. Now if an oath is always required, in those cases where the truth is particularly important, the attention of the less reflecting class is diverted from the primary to the secondary obligation. An opinion is encouraged, that the obligation to speak the truth depends, not upon a primary duty, but upon the solemnity of the oath. The primary obligation is obscured by the second- ary. Hence the sense of obligation to speak the truth, when an oath is not employed, becomes weakened. When a strong tempta- tion presents to disguise or distort the truth, * This is illustrated and confirmed by the common law doctrine, that false testimony given upon oath is not perjury in law, unless it is material to the subject under examination. Thus, if a witness introduces irrelevant matter into his testi- mony, any declarations, however false, in relation to that matter, not affecting the subject of inquiry, do not subject him to the pains and penalties of perjury. Blackstone, Vol. iv. p. 137. ON OATHS. 73 the supposition that the obligation to adhere to veracity, depends very much on the oath by which the testimony is introduced, naturally suggests the expedient of evading the oath, as a means of evading the duty of adhering to the truth. A curious instance of this is given by Charles Jones, solicitor to the admiralty, in his testimony before a committee of the House of Lords. " I knew," says he, " a person who was discharged as an insolvent debtor ; and I found her afterwards selling a freehold estate which she possessed at the time of her dis- charge, at which time she had sworn, that she had delivered up all her property. After the estate had been sold, she was asked how she could think of swearing, upon her discharge, that she had given up all her property ? She answered that she had not taken the oath. She was told that she must have taken the oath, or she could not have been discharged ; she said, / repeated the words but I did not kiss the book." John Stafford, chief clerk of the Bow-street police office, before the same committee, stated that he had observed many witnesses, who would, if not closely watched, evade the oath, by kissing their thumbs, instead of the book ; and in such cases, they did not appear to care what falsehoods they told. To persons of strict veracity, as already ob- served, an oath is needless ; and to one, desti- 7 74 A DISSERTATION tute of principle, it is obviously unavailing. But probably a large part of the human family does not fall under either of these descriptions. As every man's conscience is moulded by his opinions of what is right or wrong ; and the opinions of most men, are little else than the echo of the opinions of others ; we may fairly conclude, that the consciences of most men are very much formed or modified by public opin- ion. From the manner in which the proceedings of legal tribunals are intrenched in oaths, it is almost impossible for those who are in the practice of swearing, to bear false witness without being guilty of perjury. The odium, properly due to testimony designedly false, is therefore by common consent, thrown upon perjury. We do not so much regard the radical evil, of palming upon the community a falsehood instead of the truth, as the instrument by which it was effected. We view wilful perjury as an abominable crime, but forget that the essence of this crime, lies in the falsehood which it covers. And this obliquity of opinion, may be fairly charged upon the practice of giving testimony upon oath. Our^detestation of falsehood, con- sidered merely as falsehood, is weakened, by the very means which are used to exclude it. If the oath was avoided, and the same odium, ON OATHS. 75 and the same punishment, were awarded to the delivery of false testimony, which are now visited upon perjury, there can be little doubt but we should have, not only in the fear of temporal consequences, but in the conscientious persuasion of most men, a greater security for the utterance of truth than we now possess. Writers who do not question the morality of legal oaths on important occasions, generally admit that the frequency of the practice, the frivolous occasions on which they are taken, and the consequent levity with which they are commonly administered, exceedingly diminish their weight and efficacy, with those who employ them. A committee of the British House of Lords have recently published a report of their examinations into the subject of oaths. A number of persons, holding import- ant official stations, were examined- in relation to their experience of the efficacy of oaths. As many of the oaths, formerly required by law, were, some years previous to this examination, dispensed with by act of parliament, one object of inquiry was, whether any disadvantage had arisen from the omission. On this point the answers were substantially the same ; that none had been experienced. Another point to which their inquiries were directed, was the practicability of obtaining equal security for the utterance of truth, and the prevention of fraud, 76 A. DISSERTATION by substituting a declaration instead of an oath. On that subject it is observable, that the wit- nesses were generally of opinion, that the security obtained from an oath, did not arise from any religious obligation attached to the oath, so much as from an apprehension of the punishment or disgrace with which perjury would be visited. The declarations of the witnesses on this point, were merely their opin- ion, rather than the statement of facts, and they appear to have been generally accustomed to the administration of oaths, as a necessary means of securing the government against deception, and may therefore be supposed rather prejudiced in favour of swearing, yet with but few exceptions, they unite in the opinion that the purposes of justice, within their respective departments, could be as effectually answered by a simple declaration, as by an oath, provided the punishment or infamy now fixed upon perjury, were made the consequence of a false declaration. The subject was examined as a question of expediency ; the peculiar doctrines of Christi- anity were not brought into view. Both ques- tions and answers might, without any incon- sistency, have been uttered in a Grecian or Roman senate. The conclusion to which they lead, is therefore independent of the doctrines contained in the New Testament. An import- ON OATHS. 77 ant inference, however, may be drawn from this examination. It proves, as far as it proves anything, that the administration of justice, in civil society, would not be endangered by giving a strict and practical construction to the words of our Saviour, swear not at all. A few of these answers will be noticed. William Green, solicitor to the land revenue, having stated that the surveyors employed by his office, were required to confirm by oath every survey which they returned ; so that if an hundred surveys were made in a year by the same individual, an hundred oaths must be taken ; was asked, Should you consider that a declaration accompanied with penalties might be safely substituted ? Answer. I think so, I should be quite as well satisfied myself with the declaration of a surveyor, if he were acting for me individually. John Hignet, assistant to the solicitor to the ordinance. In your opinion, would the substi- tution of a declaration in lieu of the ordinary oaths be expedient, provided that any breach of such declaration should be declared infamy, with the penalties now applicable to perjury ? I believe that the officers and storekeepers of the ordinance department, are uniformerly gen- tlemen; and I do think that a declaration would influence them in the honourable perform- ance of their duties quite as powerfully as an 7 * 78 A DISSERTATION oath ; and of course the penal consequence of a breach of declaration, such as that which is alluded to, might operate very effectually with men who are not influenced by honourable prin- ciples ; and, upon the whole, I should consider that such a declaration would be quite sufficient without the oath. Charles Jones, solicitor to the admiralty, having stated that in the adjustment of his accounts, such as from their nature, could not be supported by vouchers, were confirmed by his oath, was asked : Do you not conceive that a declaration, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, would be a sufficient security, with- out calling on gentlemen in your situation to make an affidavit of the truth of their amount ? Answer. Clearly ; I should consider that my declaration would be as binding on my con- science, as any oath I could take ; I would not make a declaration to the truth of which I should be unwilling to swear. R. B. Dean, Chairman of the Board of Cus- toms.* In the year 1830, an act was passed to abolish certain oaths in the department of the customs ; have you found any inconvenience arise to the public from these oaths having been abolished ? Not the slightest. Do you think it could be carried still further * He had held that station 16 years. ON OATHS. 79 without inconvenience to the public ? I think it is now carried into every branch connected with the customs revenue. I think the substitu- tion of a declaration for an oath, with a penalty of one hundred pounds for a breach of it, has been extended to every branch. Docs the department of the customs ever call upon persons to make affidavits 1 They were perpetually in the habit of calling upon parties to make affidavits of certain things when proof was necessary ; but that is not now done, because a declaration is now substituted for the oath. We still require the proof, but that proof consists of a declaration, and not of an oath. And no inconvenience has resulted from that change? None whatever. I think that any man who wished to commit a fraud would not be deterred by the form of an oath. Do you think that formerly, the oaths were taken too much as a matter of form ? I have no hesitation in saying a great deal too much. A custom-house oath, with certain classes of persons, was almost proverbial for a lie. Do the commissioners in the Board of Cus- toms take an oath of office ? They do ; and every officer that is admitted into the service, takes an oath before the board ; and they take an oath that they will take no fee or any other emolument, but only their salary. 80 A DISSERTATION Do you think that a declaration might be substituted for the oath, making a breach of the declaration punishable as perjury ? Certainly ; as far as the moral effect goes, I can see no difference. A man of principle would consider a declaration equally binding as an oath ; and if not, I should think neither would have much effect upon him. John Stafford, chief clerk of the Bow-street police office. Are the accounts of your office sworn to ? Yes. Who swears to them ? I do. We never used to swear to the Bow-street accounts till of late. If you swear that an account is cor- rect, and then it proves not to be so, can you be indicted for the breach of that oath? I believe not. Were there any errors detected in the accounts previously to the establishment of the oath ? I never heard of any. And the accounts were as well kept formerly as they are now 1 I believe quite as well. Have you seen many instances in which parties, having said one thing, corrected them- selves when put upon oath ? Not many ; not more than I should suppose might happen with- out any intention to swear falsely. H. Wedgewood, one of the magistrates of the Union Hall police office. Have you turned your attention much to the oaths, which you are called upon to adminis- ON OATH3. 81 ter ? Yes, I have thought a deal both of them and of those we have to take as magistrates. To qualify a man to act as magistrate for any one county, he has to take eight oaths ; and consequently a police magistrate, who acts for six divisions, has to take forty- eight oaths to qualify him for his office. From the experience you have had as a magistrate, do you not think it might be advis- able in every point of view, to substitute, in many instances, declarations for oaths ; always making a breach of the declaration subject to a severe penalty 1 I think that with all affidavits, without any exception, it might be done with perfect safety. I believe people only require evidence to be given in the legal form, what- ever that may be, to give such faith to it, as it may deserve. It requires some authorized form to show that a man is aware he is not speaking with the looseness of ordinary con- versation, but deliberately, with the conse- quence of false swearing before his eyes. : and I think that in all affidavits, and in all cases where an oath is now required, except in giving open evidence in a court of justice, a form of this kind might be advantageously substituted for an oath. Nobody gives at all, a less degree of credit to a Quaker or a Moravian, than to a sworn witness ; and that, I am persuaded is not because they believe him to be a more than - .'' A. DIMWIT ATION ordinary moral man, but because ho gives hi* evidence in the form required by law ; and I think that this fact is decisive of the question of how little credit is actually attached to the oath itself. Do you mean that you would abolish all oaths in courts of justice ? I certainly think they might be abolished without any danger to the cause of truth, in all cases ; but I am afraid that public opinion is not yet sufficiently ad- vanced to make that possible, I think we have as good an opportunity in the police office as anywhere, of seeing the effect of an oath. Parties are in very little awe of the court, and there is consequently the less danger of con- founding the respect paid to the court, with that due to the oath. I am decidedly of opinion, that even by the party taking the oath, it is in general only considered as the form under which he must give his evidence. Do you not believe, that diminishing the number of oaths will give more sanctity to those which remain ! I am afraid no diminution that can be made, will have much effect that way, I think in those oaths which do remain, the circumstances would be just the same as they arc now. I should be very glad to see them entirely abolished. IV you not dunk, that if oaths were much diminished in number, they might be adnunb* 0\ OATHS. 83 tered with more solemnity, and be likely to produce more effect ? I do not think the little regard that is paid to oaths, depends much on the irreverent manner in which they are admin- istered ; and I do not think there will be much difference in the solemnity of their administra- tion. No reduction that can be made in the number of oaths, can make them so few, as much to diminish the familiarity with them, of the administering officer. George Maule, Solicitor to the Treasury. Do you conceive that the effect of an oath, generally speaking, is derived from the sacred character of the act, or the fear of punishment that would follow the commission of perjury ? I am sorry to say, I am afraid the temporal consequences have generally more power over men's minds, than any other consideration. J. S. Graham, Cashier of Greenwich out pensioners, of the Navy. This witness stated, that the pensioners in the country took an oath in support of their claims, but those in the city did not, because they could be certainly identified. Do you conceive it to be necessary that the oath should be required in the country ; or do you think that a declaration would be as effica- cious in guarding against fraud ? If the pen- alty were the same upon the declaration being 84 A DISSERTATION false, as it would be under the oath. I do not see any difference at all. You do not think that the parties are influ- enced by any consideration relating to the nature of the oath? No. No peculiar obligation 1 Not in the slightest degree. Having stated that very few frauds had of late been practiced upon his department, he was asked To what do you ascribe the fact of its being stopped of late ? We are so particular, it is almost impossible. They are not stopped by the oath ? I think not ; a rogue would as soon take an oath as not ; we do not trust them. Do you conceive that the frauds have been more frequent among those who have taken the oath, or those who have not 1 I have not gone so deeply into it, to examine, but I imagine that the oath has never been any hindrance at all. One of the witnesses examined by the com- mittee, stated the number of oaths taken the preceding year* by persons receiving allow- ances from the army pay-office, at 47,670. Another informed them, that he supposed the number of oaths administered by the magis- trates in a week at Bow-street must be three or * This examination was made in 1834. ON OATHS. 85 four hundred ; or perhaps, in some weeks, six or seven hundred. A third, who was a magis- trate of Union Hall police office, being asked, what number of oaths do you suppose you administer in a week 1 answered, I cannot form the least guess. I think the pawnbrokers affidavits are forty or fifty in a day ; other affidavits perhaps twenty a day. The other oaths vary so extremely I can form no guess. It would hence appear, that in these three departments alone, about ninety thousand oaths were annually administered. And yet. accord- ing to the opinions of men well qualified to judge, the object of them all could be as well attained without them. From the preceding extracts, as well as the nature of the case, we may fairly conclude that very little security in regard to testimony, can be obtained from the use of oaths. Let us now inquire whether engagements are likely to be more faithfully kept when ratified by an oath, than when they are not. Engagements may relate to things that are lawful, or to those that are unlawful. With regard to unlawful engagements, we need not spend much time in examining how far those who make them, are bound to their fulfilment by any oath they can take. For it is generally admitted, that no engagement, however it may be formed, or whatever may be its sanctions, can impose an obligation to do 8 86 A DISSERTATION an unlawful act. Even in national compacts, it is held that " a treaty concluded for an unjust or dishonest purpose, is absolutely null and void, nobody having a right to engage to do things contrary to the law of nations." Vattel, section 161. We meet, however, in scripture, with one striking instance in which an engagement of this nature, inadvertently made, appears to have been fulfilled for the oath's sake. My reader will probably anticipate the information, that I allude to the promise of Herod to the daughter of Herodias, who demanded and obtained the head of John the Baptist. This case, as far as it proves anything, proves the impropriety of engaging either with or without an oath, to do a thing the extent of which we do not understand. Engagements which are lawful, are in some cases, of so complicated a character, that per- sons who bind themselves to their fulfilment, by an oath, cannot possibly understand exactly the extent of their engagement; and of course, if they reflect coolly on the subject, do not expect to fulfil all they promise. This is, or at least was, particularly applicable to the English university oaths, which the students, upon ad- mission, were required to take. In our own country, the members of the general and state legislatures, and the execu- tive and judicial officers, are bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of the ON OATHS. 87 United States ; and yet how many cases arise, in which even those who have devoted the greatest attention to the subject, disagree as to what that constitution authorises or requires. Jurors empanelled to try a cause, are bound in the same manner to try the cause submitted to them, and give a true verdict according to the evidence, unless dismissed by the court ; and yet in practice it is often nearly impossible to decide exactly what is proved by the evi- dence and what is not. If we construe the obligation to imply that the verdict shall be what the jurors believe to be proved, still there is often more promised than they as individuals can strictly perform. The verdict, whatever it is, must be agreed to by them all. But in a complicated case, encumbered with abundance of conflicting testimony, in which the prejudices if not the passions of the jurors, are likely to be somewhat involved, it is not likely that twelve men will be exactly of a mind as to what has been proved. Juries are frequently a long time before they can agree, and when at last they bring in a verdict, it is not because they had come to an uniform opinion, not because those who have yielded are convinced of their error, but be- cause somebody must give up. Verdicts in fact, are frequently the effect of compromise. As no penal sanctions are attached to this kind of forswearing, little or no disgrace ensues. 88 A DISSERTATION In regard to promissory oaths in general, it may be fairly presumed they add very little security to the engagements, on account of which they are taken. We indeed sometimes hear persons, in official stations, speak of the engagements which they have sworn to observe; yet if the same individuals were asked, whether they would feel themselves at liberty to disre- gard those engagements, in case no oath had been taken, they would probably, in all cases reply, that their honour or conscience would bind them to their fulfilment, independently of their oaths. If it would not, the oath would certainly furnish a slender security. If we inquire what class of engagements are of the greatest importance, we shall perhaps be answered, that those on which the repose of nations, and the stability of governments de- pend, are of that character. Accordingly such security to the stability of government, as oaths can supply, has been very frequently demanded by those in power. But -what monarch ever sat more steadily upon his throne, because his subjects had sworn allegiance to him 1 Or what aspirant after power, was ever checked in his career, by the sanctity of an oath ? William of Normandy, exacted an oath of Harold, that he would not aspire to the British crown,* yet he immediately exerted all his influence * Rapin, vol. i. p. 136. ON OATHS. 89 and ingenuity to secure to himself the succes- sion which he had sworn to renounce. The same William, upon assuming the Eng- lish crown, took an oath that he would protect the church and its ministers ; that he would govern the nation with equity ; that he would enact just laws and cause them to be strictly observed; and that he would forbid all rapines and unjust judgments.* He afterwards took an oath that he would establish the ancient laws of the realm, which were termed the laws of Edward the Confessor.f Yet so little regard did he pay to his promises, that he dispossessed nearly all the English nobles of their estates ; he desolated great part of Northumberland to grati- fy his vengeance, not leaving a single house re- maining for sixty miles together ;J and depopu- lated a district of thirty miles in circumference in Hampshire, thus forming a retreat for wild beasts, in order to gratify his taste for hunting. Henry I. of England, three times exacted from the principal men of his kingdom, an oath to maintain the succession of his daughter Matilda to the throne, and his nephew Stephen was one of the first who came under the en- gagement.|| Yet this same Stephen began during the king's life, to concert measures for obtaining the crown, and immediately after his death, adopted the most effectual means in his power, to exclude the princess whom he had * Ibid. 167. t Ibid. 173. f Ibid. 172. Ibid. 177. || Ibid. 198. 8* 90 A DISSERTATION sworn to acknowledge.* The bishops and clergy also disregarded their previous engage- ments, fortified as they were by repeated oaths, and exerted their influence to place Stephen upon the throne. Stephen in order to secure the support of the English, and particularly the clergy, granted them several important immu- nities which he bound himself by an oalh to preserve ;f but a few months only were per- mitted to elapse, before he violated his promise, and seized the property which he had given up by his charter and oath. Henry II., took an oath that he would exe- cute the will of his father ; yet he soon after- wards drove his brother from the possessions which that will had conferred upon him.J John and his son Henry, notwithstanding they had repeatedly sworn to observe the charter of Henry I., and magna charter grant- ed by John himself, paid no other regard to them than their fears or necessities required ; and the latter openly annulled them. They were even absolved by the Pope from the observance of their oaths. Charles I., while Prince of Wales, took an oath to maintain the marriage articles just agreed upon with the Infanta of Spain, yet he and his profligate favourite, were then concert- ing measures, which they soon afterwards matured, to prevent the projected marriage. * Ibid. 200. t Ibid. 201. I Ibid. 224. $ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 226. ON OATHS. 91 Oliver Cromwell, who made great professions of religion, bound himself by an oath to observe the instrument of government, which had been framed by his orders. One of the provisions of this instrument was, that parliament was to be always allowed to sit five months, without adjournment, prorogation or dissolution. Yet he dissolved the first parliament which was con- vened after the adoption of that instrument, ele- ven days before the expiration of five months.* Francis I. of France, after being defeated and made prisoner at Pavia, entered into a treaty with the conqueror, which he bound him- self by an oath to observe ; but as soon as he regained his liberty, if not before, he showed by his conduct, that he never intended the treaty should be executed. The reigning Pope, Clement VII., even absolved him from the ob- servance of his oath.f Christian II. of Den- mark, when crowned King of Sweeden, went to the cathedral and swore that he would govern the Swedes, with the mild and benefi- cent disposition of a prince, raised to the throne by the universal voice of the people. Yet he shortly afterwards, procured the massacre of great part of the Swedish nobility ; not because they had been convicted of crimes, but because they were considered dangerous to his authority. J These are a few, and only a few of the cases * Ibid. 593. t Russel's Hist, of Mod. Europe, vol. ii. 239. I Ibid. 381. 92 A DISSERTATION with which history abounds, of the obvious violation of oaths. These instances all relate to persons in conspicuous stations ; and in some of them, the contests which the oaths were designed to prevent, cost an incalculable effu- sion of blood. Among the great number of treaties, which have been made between the nations of Christendom, it may be fairly ques- tioned, whether any have been more faithfully observed, in consequence of their being in- trenched in oaths. And the fact that these oaths are so little regarded, furnishes no trifling argument for their abolition. It would be easy to produce a number of specific instances of false swearing, in cases of testimony, to show that oaths are of very little use in the establishment of facts, as well as in the performance of promises. But on this point it is needless to enlarge, as the practice of our legal tribunals sufficiently proves that whatever importance may be ascribed to the oath, as a farm, very little dependence is actually placed upon it. The means employed to elicit the truth, are the same as if no oath had been taken ; and the credit accorded to testimony depends upon circumstances unconnected with the preliminary oath. I therefore conclude, that as a matter of expediency, without adverting to any peculiar obligation resulting from our profession of Christianity, the use of oaths, as a means of ON OATHS. 93 securing the utterance of truth, or the perform- ance of promises, has past away. But while legal oaths thus appear to have lost their force, in relation to their ostensible object, strong moral objections to their employment remain. It can hardly be doubted, that the use of oaths, either in the administration of justice, or in the higher departments of government, must con- tribute to the practice of swearing in common discourse. It would be strange indeed, if men who are inducted into important and desirable stations by oaths ; or who find the hearing or the administration of oaths, a part of their daily employment, and this supported and required by the laws of the country, should feel any great horror at finding them employed on other occasions where they are not legally required. The practice of vain and unauthorized swearing in common discourse, is generally admitted to be a breach of the moral law ; and in some governments is treated as a crime. In Pennsyl- vania, at the present day, profane swearing is punishable by fine or imprisonment ; the offence to be proved by the testimony of one or more credible witnesses. Now it would appear a strange anomaly in judicial proceedings, to pro- secute a person for swearing, and establish the charge by the oath of the prosecutor. It is indeed no wonder that laws for the suppression of this species of immorality, should remain dormant, when the means of executing them 94 A DISSERTATION may involve the same act which they were intended to punish. Conclusion. THE Holy Scriptures declare that God made man upright ; but they have sought out many inventions. Of these inventions, indicating a deviation from primitive uprightness, the intro- duction of oaths was unquestionably one. When we advert to the design of our benefi- cent Creator, in the formation of man The purity and innocence of his original condition ; and contemplate the probable consequences which would have resulted from his steadfast continuance in obedience to the Divine law, we cannot doubt that if this state had been maintained, oaths would have been unknown among men. Without the transgression of the Divine law, and consequent loss of original purity, perfidy and falsehood could not possibly have obtained a place in the world ; and with- out perfidy and falsehood, oaths could not have been required, and must therefore have remain- ed unknown. Now, if we consider that the coming of our Lord and Saviour into ihe world in that pre- pared body, and the introduction of the Chris- tian religion, were the means appointed by infinite wisdom and goodness, to restore the fallen race of Adam, not merely to the condition OK OATHS. 95 in which he was originally created, but to perfect the design of man's creation, to lead to a union with Christ the fountain of purity, we must necessarily conclude, that this religion whenever its work is fully accomplished, can- not fail to remedy the evils which have sprung from the fall. In examining the precepts of our Saviour and his apostles, we are bound, when any ambiguity of language appears, to give them a construction correspondent with the general tenor of the Christian system. This I presume will not be denied. If oaths are admitted to have come into the world in consequence of sin, then a religion which was designed to make an end of sin and to finish transgression, may be fairly presumed unlikely to tolerate their continuance ; consequently the precepts of our Saviour, if they admit of such a construction, ought to be construed as excluding all oaths. For their total exclusion is unques- tionably more analogous to the general tenor of Christianity than their admission. But .the expression, so frequently cited from the sermon on the mount, " Swear not at all ; but let your words be yea, yea ; nay, nay ; for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil ;" does admit of such a construction. If this expression could, without violence to the sense, be also construed to allow of oaths before a magistrate, still it appears that the rules of correct reasoning would lead to the conclusion, that oaths of all 90 A DISSERTATION kinds and upon all occasions, were prohibited ; because this conclusion is more consistent with the spirit and tenor of Christianity. But we must admit, that this is not only a natural con- struction of the text, but that it is the only natural construction of which it is susceptible. The most strenuous advocate for judicial swearing, must agree, that our Saviour and the apostle James, have upon his theory, expressed themselves obscurely. To deduce from the sermon on the mount, or the epistle of James, any other doctrine relative to oaths, than a total prohibition of them, unquestionably requires a very strained and difficult construction. There is no other maxim in the New Testament in- imical to the construction which Friends have always given to the words of our Saviour and his apostle. The passages cited from the New Testament in support of legal swearing, all admit of easy interpretations, quite consistent with our theory. And giving to those passages the utmost latitude of construction, in favour of swearing, which they can possibly bear, they could only render it doubtful, if we had no pre- cept on the subject, whether oaths were entirely prohibited or not. But they avail nothing in opposition to a direct and positive command. . A due regard to the awfulness of the Divine majesty, would make us very cautious of ap- pealing to him for the truth of our words or the sincerity of our engagements ; and more ON OATHS. 97 particularly fearful of invoking his displeasure, in case of deviation either in word or action from strict integrity. But the practice of frequently making such appeals, and express or implied invocations as oaths include, can scarcely fail to diminish the reverence due to the sacred name. Hence the use of legal oaths on the numerous and trifling occasions on which they are employed, must naturally, if not necessarily, lead to their use in ordinary communication. At least, we may reasonably apprehend that while the higher classes of society use and encourage the practice of ming- ling oaths with the proceedings of legislative and judicial assemblages, the habit of vain and wanton swearing in common discourse, will hardly be excluded from the inferior class. By an act of the British parliament passed in 1835, " A declaration is to be substituted by the lords of the treasury for all oaths, solemn affir- mations, or affidavits, hitherto required in the public departments, relating to the collection of revenues, auditing of accounts, &c., &c. A copy of such declaration as may be agreed upon by the lords of the treasury, is to be pub- lished in the London Gazette, and to come into operation in twenty-one days after publication, and TIO oath afterwards can be administered. " Declarations are also to be substituted in lieu of oaths in the following cases : 8 98 A DISSERTATION " Churchwardens and sidesmen, on entering office. The oath on quitting office is abolished. " In all trusts relating to turnpikes, roads, lighting, paving, watching, or improving any town or place. " In the taking out of patents. " In the business of pawnbrokers. " On the transfer of stock at the Bank of England, or relating to the loss, mutilation, or defacement of bank notes or post bills. " In matters relating to the recovery of debts in British colonies, &c., under the 5 Geo. II. c. 7, and 54 Geo. III. c. 15. "In attesting the execution of any will, codicil, or deed ; and in all suits on behalf of his majesty in any court of law or equity relat- ing to debts or accounts. " Where voluntary oaths or affidavits have been required to give validity to written instru- ments, a declaration is to be substituted but justices are prohibited from administering or receiving any voluntary oath or affidavit in matters of which they have no control by stat- ute, except whei'e they may relate to the preser- vation of the peace or the prosecution of offences, or where an oath may be required by the laws of any foreign country to give validity to in- struments designed to be used in such country. " All corporate bodies who have power by law to administer oaths, &c., may substitute a declaration. ON OATHS. 99 " The act, however, does not affect the taking of the oath of allegiance, nor the admin- istering or taking of any oath in judicial pro- ceedings in courts of justice. " The same penalties which are annexed to the taking of false oaths in certain cases are annexed to the making of a false declaration : and in all cases under the act, where declara- tions are substituted for oaths, any person making or subscribing a false declaration is held to be guilty of a misdemeanor. " The same fees are to be payable on the making of declarations as on the taking of oaths. " The lords of the treasury are (as we have already stated) to prescribe the form of the declaration to be used in the public depart- ments and corporate bodies may prescribe what declaration they will substitute for such oaths as they have hitherto administered but in all other cases the following is to be used : " ' I A. B. do solemnly and sincerely believe, That and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an act made and passed in the year of the reign of his present majesty, intituled, an act to repeal an act of the present session of parliament, intituled, an act for the more effectual abolition of oaths and affirmations,' " &c., &c. It is very desirable, that the proper autho- rities in these United States, should not merely I'OO DISSERTATION ON OATHS. imitate the example, but so far recognize the duty of regarding the precepts of our Saviour, as to extend the principle to all cases coming under their jurisdiction. The author of nature, being likewise the founder of Christianity, there can be no reason to apprehend that the stability of governments, or the safety of the people, requires the use of means, which the precepts of the gospel prohibit. Indeed a sound and vital morality is generally considered as the firmest foundation upon which the pillars of government can rest. But morality, properly considered, has no foundation of its own. It depends for all its stability upon religious principle. And religious principle, to be per- manent and operative, must be laid in a deep and abiding sense of the awfulness of the Divine majesty. But such a sense is necessarily impaired by the frequent and familiar use of oaths. Hence we may safely conclude, that the practice of mingling oaths with the ope- rations of government, has a tendency, by weakening the foundations of morality, to in- troduce into civil society, those evils which governments are instituted to redress or pre- vent. It therefore appears to be a necessary part of a sound and liberal policy, to exclude them entirely from our legislative and judicial proceedings. O University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. THI I LIBRARY FACILITY