definitions. It is often quite enough practically, if he takes care to employ the same word in the same sense throughout. I am, however, the rather inclined to propose one in this place, because some of those definitions which have been most current, especially in modern* times, appear to have done much to countenance and propagate the erroneous views to which I have just referred. The following definition, then, seems most nearly to coincide with the view which I have been led by inquiry and reflection to take of the essential nature of an oath. "AN OATH IS AN OUTWARD PLEDGE GIVEN BY THE JUROR THAT HIS ATTESTATION [OR PROMISE]

IS MADE UNDER AN IMMEDIATE SENSE OF HIS

RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD."

Without improperly anticipating what we must examine hereafter, I may, in this early stage of our inquiry, express my opinion, that whether the distinction of the Moravians be too finely drawn or not, were our English oath to be reconstructed, a form of adjuration might be devised, which would appear to the generality of persons unobjectionable-more reverential and pious, and, at the same time, equally secure. The persons sworn

* I have never found either the definition of an oath, or the form of an oath implying the imprecatory clause, acquiesced in by the early Christians. The ages when the most dreadful imprecations were used, and a multiplication of them was relied upon as a greater security for the truth, were the ages of religious darkness and corruption.

would simply declare their sense of the presence of God as the witness of the truth, and their responsibility to Him as the Judge of mankind, leaving the punishment of falsehood to His righteous judgment, without expressly imprecating, in any case, the Divine vengeance on themselves.

CHAPTER IV.

ARE OATHS LAWFUL TO A CHRISTIAN?

HAVING thus endeavoured briefly to trace oaths to their origin, and to take a correct view of their real nature; we must now enter upon the first of those three practical questions which have been already stated in the introductory chapter, and ascertain whether oaths are, in themselves, lawful to a Christian, or whether they are altogether forbidden by the Gospel*.

* First, however, in order to obviate any objection against the application of our arguments in this inquiry, to the case of our present form of oath in England, (an objection, which possibly may arise, in consequence of my definition excluding the imprecatory clause which that form of oath retains,) I would be allowed to observe, that I mean our English legal oath to be included in this inquiry. Indeed, I intend to include every form which might be required by the legislature of any country, in which Christians live, provided neither its words, nor the ceremonies attending its administration, involve a renouncement of our Christian faith, or are derogatory to the honour of God's holy name. It would be an unfair inference from my reasoning, to regard me as condemning all imprecatory forms of adjuration as unlawful, because I consider them less agreeable to the Spirit of the Gospel, and the practice of primitive times, than those forms of oaths which exclude any express imprecation. We might, in many instances, wish that things were otherwise, and yet not condemn them as they are. Some laws it might be highly desirable for a Christian legislature to alter, but which, as long as they remain unchanged, it would be sinful in a Christian to

C

Objections to taking an oath in any form, are by no means of recent origin in our country. Quakers, indeed, are generally supposed to be the only or the first persons to have objected, from religious scruples, to take an oath, even when required to do so by a judge in the furtherance of justice; but this is by no means the case. The unlawfulness of taking an oath was one of the tenets of the old Anabaptists, long before the Quakers had a name or existence in Christendom. And, in ages of our history still more remote, whilst the intolerant spirit of the times suggested a very summary method to prevent the spreading of the same error, measures were also taken to inform the people of England of the true state of the case. Whilst the Constitutions of Arundel provided that, "None shall bring into dispute the determinations of the Church concerning oaths to be taken in the ecclesiastical or temporal courts, on pain of being declared a heretic ;" it was at the same time directed, that "it shall be publicly taught and preached by all, that, in judicial matters, oaths may lawfully be taken*."

Now how much soever we may disclaim the spirit of the penal clause in these Constitutions,

disobey. If oaths are at all lawful, which is the question now to be examined, I cannot consider the form now prescribed by our laws so essentially objectionable, as to justify any subject who lives under the protection of those laws, in refusing to submit to it.

Arundel, Lindwood, 297.

that the doctrine required by them to be taught is agreeable to the principles of Christian truth, can, I conceive, admit of no doubt at all with reasonable and well-informed men, who will patiently and calmly examine the question for themselves, with the same openness to conviction which they would entertain in any secular or philosophical inquiry; weighing the true intent and meaning of words rather than their sound, and looking to the spirit and circumstances of a command, rather than to its mere letter.

In the first place, oaths were not only tolerated among the Israelites, when the Almighty was their immediate sovereign legislator, but, in some

cases, positively commanded. This fact proves, that by themselves, in their nature, they are not evil. For had they been intrinsecally sinful, GOD, the author of the Mosaic Polity, would not have enjoined them*. I do not here allude to the command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name†," because I can regard that rule as nothing more than a prohibition against swearing by any other name whatever except only the name of Jehovah; just as

* Augustin, in his Comment on St. James, uses the same argument. "If an oath had been sin, we should not have read in the Old Testament, ‘Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform to the Lord thy oath;' for a sin would never have been enjoined on us."

Deut. vi. 13.