The true Christian cannot, indeed, be ignorant that he is in the presence of an omniscient God, who is perfectly aware both of his secret thoughts and of his open declarations. Nevertheless, the principle, to which I have now adverted, appears to afford a substantial reason why he should abstain from attempting to add to the force of his yea or his nay, by making such an awful appeal to the Deity as constitutes an oath. But further: there appears to be a distinct moral objection to oaths, on the ground that, according to general usage, both ancient and modern, they plainly imply an imprecation—a conditional calling down upon one's self of some dreaded penalty. A man swears either by something which is dear and valuable to him, or by some personal object of his reverence and dread. In the former case, the penalty which he means to attach to himself, on the supposition that his oath is untrue, is the loss of that which he loves; and, in the latter case, it is the wrath and vengeance of him whom he fears. When the ancient Grecian, for instance, swore by his head, he professed to subject himself to the loss of his head; and when he swore by Jupiter, he cursed himself with the wrath of Jupiter, provided his oath should be false or broken. Now, it is a very affecting consideration that the oaths in use among the professors of Christianity are unspeakably more terrible than any heathen oath; in as much as the penalty which the swearer calls down upon himself, on the supposition of his swearing falsely, is one of infinite weight and severity. It is nothing short of damnation — the destruction and eternal punishment of his immortal soul.

That such is the import of the common juridical oath of this country, is notorious. An individual, who is called upon to give evidence in an English court of justice, swears that he will tell the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth; and he adds, "so help me God," or, as the words were formerly recited, "So help me God at his holy dome;" that is to say, Let this be the condition, on which God shall help me in the day of judgment; see Rees's Cyclopædia, "Oath." The help of God, thus technically adverted to-the help of God in the day of his holy dome—plainly signifies that help by which alone the soul of man can be saved from eternal misery, and introduced to a state of never-ending happiness. Thus, then, the English swearer, in his appeal to an all-seeing, omnipotent, Deity, voluntarily and expressly appends his own salvation to the condition of his speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. On the supposition of his infringing that condition, he curses himself with the loss of God's help, and with consequent damnation.

Even were it absolutely certain that the alternative, on account of which a man calls down upon himself this everlasting ruin and destruction, could by no possibility occur, the reflecting Christian, who dwells under a just sense of the judgments of the Lord, and of the unutterable importance of eternity, will scarcely fail to acknowledge that such a cursing of self is, in a high degree, rash and irreverent. But, how much more evidently presumptuous, how much more awfully dangerous, is such an imprecation, when it is connected with an alternative, the negative of which must always, in the very nature of things, be deemed, in a great degree, uncertain! The senses of men frequently deceive them; their memory easily fails them when they are surrounded with appalling circumstances, or perplexed with difficult questions, their presence of mind is very commonly disturbed or destroyed; and, above all, their own hearts are corrupt and deceitful: so that, perhaps, a person, who is about

to give evidence in a court of justice, can never be absolutely assured that he shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: and yet, in appealing to the omnipresent Jehovah, he presumes to stake upon this frail and fallible condition the salvation of his immortal soul!

J

Those who are acquainted with the history of the Society of Friends must be aware how uniformly they have objected to the use of oaths; how fully persuaded they have, at all times, been, that they could in no case comply with the prevalent custom of swearing, without grieving and offending their heavenly Guide and Governour; and how multifarious were the sufferings which the early members of that Society preferred to the infringement of their duty in this important practical particular. Nor will the reader be surprised by the decision and steadiness of their views and conduct, in this respect, when he has candidly reflected on the moral principles which have now been stated; when he has considered their clearness on the one hand, and their weight and importance on the other. It is not, however, solely on account of these moral principles that Friends regard it as their indispensable duty to abstain from all swearing; but, more especially, because of the express commands of Jesus Christ himself, and of one of his apostles. "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time," said the Lord Jesus, in his Sermon on the mount, "Thou shalt not forswear thyself; but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thine head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black: but let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay; for,

whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;" Matt 1, 33–37. The apostle James has also adverted to the subject in forcible and explicit terms: "But above all things, my brethren, swear not; neither by heaven; neither by the earth; neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation;" ch. v, 12.

It might have been supposed that such plain injunctions would have convinced the generality of persons, who derive their moral standard from the New Testament, that oaths, on any occasion, and under any pretext, are absolutely unlawful for the followers of Jesus. But the very prevalent notion, that they are necessary to some important purposes of civil society, has, evidently, been the means of preventing this result. Many persons have, accordingly, acceded to the glosses by which commentators endeavour to escape from the force of these passages; and that with a far greater readiness and facility than those glosses deserve. The objections which many of the learned, and especially Paley, have made to the more comprehensive interpretation of these prohibitory declarations, centre, principally, in a single point; namely, that the oaths here specified, both by our Saviour and his apostles, are oaths, not by Jehovah, but only by his creatures. Since the latter oaths alone are specified, these writers conclude that they alone, or they principally, are forbidden; and since it appears that, in their courts of justice, the Jews swore not by heaven, the earth, Jerusalem, or their own heads, but only by God himself, and that they used these inferiour oaths on more familiar occasions; it is argued that the injunctions of Christ and his apostles were not directed against judicial swearing, but exclusively against that which was common and conversational. Now, as the inference thus deduced depends entirely upon the

supposition that the swearing forbidden by our Lord and his apostle was only, or chiefly, swearing by the creatures, and not the oath by Jehovah; it follows, that, if that supposition be disproved, the inference itself must fall to the ground. I hope, then, to make it plain to the reader's apprehension that, in these passages, every kind of swearing is forbidden, and especially swearing by Jehovah.

In the first place, the terms in which our Lord expresses his new law are of the most decisive and

comprehensive nature. "But I say unto you, Swear

68

not at all." The apostle, whose words may be regarded as a sort of commentary on those of Christ, maintains, and even increases, the force and extent of these terms: he says, "Above all things, my brethren, swear not ;" and, after specifying the oath by heaven and that by the earth, he completes the significancy of his sentence by the subsequent clause, "neither by any other oath." The negative injunction is, moreover, in both instances, elucidated and confirmed by another of a positive character. "Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay," says the apostle-that is, let them be naked, simple, plain, absolutely destitute of any oath. "Let your communication (or your speech") be yea, yea, nay, nay," says our Saviour; "for whatsoever is more than these"-whether it be the lesser or the greater oath, the oath by the creature, or the oath by the Creator" whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." Here our Lord has justified and explained his law by a declaration. Now, that declaration extends to every description of swearing; it applies to the higher kinds of it with still greater force than to the lower: and it must needs be understood as univeral, because, whatever exception may here be imagined by Christians, none is expressedμὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως. Ο λόγος.

8