SECTION B.

*

SEPARATISTS.

In the last Session of Parliament an Act was passed for the relief of persons called Separatists, a very small body according to their own account. Though I carefully perused their petition, and the papers which had been circulated on their behalf, some of their reasonings I could not understand. But of this I am quite certain, that the title and preamble of the Act of Parliament are both perfectly inconsistent with the enactment. Its title is "An Act to enable Separatists to make a solemn affirmation or declaration instead of an oath ;" and the preamble states, that the Separatists refuse, from religious scruples, to take an oath in a Court of Justice, and the body of the law enacts, that they shall in all cases where an oath is required, be allowed to make their solemn affirmation or declaration in these words, "I, A. B., do, in the presence of Almighty God, solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm and declare," &c. Now this affirmation is, to all intents and purposes, an

* Mr. Walker, who tells us that two or three individuals constitute a Church, reports that they have in Scotland only six Churches, in Ireland fourteen, and in England only three.

oath; it is the form of oath chiefly recognised by the Fathers of the Christian Church: and it is the form which, (as the reader may have already observed,) could the change be made with safety, I should gladly see adopted in England, instead of the form now used. At the same time I must consider it as much an act "binding the soul" as our present form, though that is the point upon which Mr. Walker of Camden Town, who seems to be the organ of the Separatists, chiefly dwells, as compelling him to refuse to take the usual oath in our Courts of Justice-" because," as he says, "it is binding the soul, that is, presumptuously pledging that which is not his own, and over which he has no dominion." Does not every one, who makes any declaration to another, give that pledge? Is not the soul always under a pledge to speak the truth? Is not God the avenger of falsehood, as well as of false-swearing? "I would distinctly add (says Mr. Walker) that I should have no scruple to answer, on any suitable occasion, thus, as our Saviour was adjured to speak the truth. But I fancy that the lawyers would not consider me as therefore answering upon oath." On this last question I cannot speak; but of this I am most clear, that should a witness in our Courts of Justice give his evidence after hearing from the Judge this solemn adjuration, "I adjure you by the living God to speak the truth," it would be as essentially

an oath, and the witness in answering would as really "bind his soul" as if he had pledged himself to the truth in the usual way.

This oath, now prescribed to be taken by the Separatists, is the same with the form by which, a century ago, the Moravians were allowed to swear, excepting that the words " solemnly, sincerely, and truly" are inserted, and the words "the witness of what I say" are omitted; an omission, as I think, very unwisely made the true purport of an oath being, to remind the person who takes it that God is the witness of what he says. The Act is this:

Anno Tertio et Quarto.

GULIELMI IV. REGIS.

CAP. LXXXII.

An Act to enable the people called Separatists to make a solemn affirmation and declaration instead of an oath. [28th August, 1833.]

WHEREAS there are in various places in Ireland, and in some parts of England, and elsewhere, certain dissenters from the United Church of England and Ireland, and from the Church of Scotland, commonly called Separatists, the members of which class or sect of dissenters, from conscientious scruples, refuse to take an oath in courts of justice and other places, and in consequence thereof are exposed to great losses and inconveniences in their trades and concerns, and are subject to fines and to imprisonment for contempt of court, and the community at large are deprived of the benefit of their testimony: and whereas it is therefore expedient that the said sect called Separatists should be relieved in the manner hereinafter mentioned; be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the

R

I ords spiritual and tempora, mmmons n his present

of ne me.

SECTION C.

DEFINITIONS OF AN OATH.

1. DEFINITIONS NOT IMPLYING THE IMPRECATORY FORM.

WE shall find many definitions of an oath which imply nothing of direct imprecation, both among Christian and Heathen writers. Cicero calls it "an affirmation under the sanction of religion*." Gregory of Nazianzen defines it to be "a solemn affirmation of the truth, as in the presence of Godt." The author of Fleta seems to have embraced in his view, those corrupt modes of swearing by other attestations than by a direct appeal to God himself, which disgraced Christendom too long, and, unhappily, have not yet ceased to be its shame ;—

66

an oath is an affirmation, or negation on some point, confirmed by the attestation of a holy thing‡." This corresponds very closely with the authorized definition at the present time in Spain, "An oath is an attestation, or affirmation, on any subject, by the name of God, and some sacred thing. And no one ought to swear by heaven or earth, nor by any

*Cic. de Off. iii. 29.

+ Greg. Naz. In defin. Juram. Dom. Exod. xxii. 11. See Sanderson.

Fleta, lib. v. 22.