CHAPTER X.

ON OATHS.

In the preceding chapters I have endeavoured to give a clear account of those religious peculiarities of the Society of Friends which belong particularly to the subject of worship, and which therefore involve duties (whether positive or negative) especially affecting our relation to the Supreme Being himself. The points still remaining for discussion have reference to our conduct in common life, and more especially towards our fellow-creatures: for there are several matters of this description also, respecting which Friends entertain sentiments, and adopt practices, different from those of the bulk of their fellow-Christians. these practical peculiarities, the first which presents itself for our consideration is, the disuse of oaths. Profane and irreverent appeals to the Almighty, and those conversational blasphemies which, even in Christian countries, continue to disgrace the various classes of worldly society, are indeed unanimously condemned by all true Christians: but Friends (in accordance, as I understand, with the Moravians) advance a step

Of

further, and consider it their bounden duty to avoid swearing of every kind, and on every occasion. Such a line of conduct they deem to be both justified and required, first, by certain plain moral principles, and, secondly, by divine commands, of the most impressive and comprehensive character. On both these heads I may now offer a few observations.

Of the moral principles alluded to, the first may be considered as lying at the foundation of the apostolic precept, "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation,"1 and as deriving a clear confirmation from the declaration of Jesus himself, that "whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;" or, as the Greek may be more accurately rendered, of the evil one.” 2 Since the law of truth, in the verbal communications between man and man,-a law strenuously supported even by heathen moralists, and obviously essential to the well-being of all human societies-is very frequently enjoined in the records of God's revealed will; since it is plainly of universal obligation on the followers of Jesus; and since, on the other hand, there is nothing more decisively condemned in the sacred volume than the false tongue, it follows that, with true Christians, a deliberate and serious, yet simple, affirmation or negation, possesses a force so perfect in its kind, as to be incapable of any real augmentation. Hence there arises a plain moral obligation, in conformity with the precept of the apostle James, that our yea should be yea, and our nay, nay-that is to say, that our affirmations and

1 James v,

12.

2 ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Matt. v, 37.

negations should be naked and simple, and wholly unaccompanied with any form of oath. For if, on any particular occasion, a man swear, in addition to his yea or nay, in order to render them more obligatory and convincing, their force becomes comparatively weak at other times, when they receive no such confirmation. If such a one is a believer in the Lord Jesus, and especially if he is a serious professor of religion, it is plain that, by his conduct, he gives countenance to the false and dangerous notion, that the oath of the Christian is more binding upon his conscience, and therefore more credible, than his deliberate word; and thus he inevitably lowers the standard of the law of truth.

Nor is the deduction of this consequence the work of mere theory. Experience bears ample testimony to the fact, that the prevalence of oaths among men (Christians not excepted) has produced a very material and very general effect in reducing their estimate of the obligation of plain truth, in its natural and simple forms. Even the heathen philosophers of old were well aware of the deleterious results of the practice of swearing; and some of them have left on record an express condemnation of that practice.3

3 Epictetus says, παραίτησαι ὅρκον εἰς ἅπαν—“ Avoid swearing altogether." Plato, ögxos msgi mavròs dior-" Let an oath be avoided on every occasion.” Charilus, ὅρκον τ ̓ οὔτ ̓ ἄδικον χρεὼν ἔμμεναι οὔτε dixasov-"No oath, whether it be a just or an unjust one, ought to be allowed:" Menander, ögzov de peũye xặv òmaíws duvins—“ Abstain from swearing, even though it be justly." See Grotius on Matt. v, 34. "Stobæus, Serm. 3, relates that Solon said, A good man ought to be in that estimation, that he need not an oath; because it is to be reputed a lessening of his honour, if he be forced to

Truly, then, may it be asserted, that those awful appeals to a superior agency, by which, in every oath, the truth is supposed to be confirmed, (whatever may be the occasion on which such oath is employed,) arise out of an evil source,-produce an evil consequence, and are at variance with the principles of that perfect law, to which Christians, above all others, so plainly owe an exact and universal obedience.

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 a curse-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;

swear. Pythagoras, in his oration, among other things, hath this maxim, as that which concerns the administration of the commonwealth Let no man call God to witness by an oath; no not in judgment; but let every man so accustom himself to speak, that he may become worthy to be trusted, even without an oath ;” Barclay's Apology, prop. xv, § 12.

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.

to say,

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 Let this be the condition, on which God shall help me in the day of judgment. The help of God, thus technically adverted to the help of God in the day of his holy doom-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 con

4 See Rees's Cyclopædia, " Oath."