CHAPTER II.

ORIGIN OF OATHS.

It is well observed by an ancient writer*, that would men allow Christianity to carry its own designs into full effect; were all the world Christians, and were every Christian habitually under the influence of his Religion in principle and in conduct, no place on earth would be found for OATHS; -every person would, on all occasions, speak the very truth, and would be believed merely for his word's sake: every promise would be made in good faith, and no additional obligation would be required to ensure its performance.

When entire reliance on any individual's credit is intended to be expressed, we often hear a phrase employed asserting that his word is equally good with his bond;' and in a Christian's mind, the love of truth, for its own sake, is tantamount to every other consideration. The highest Authority, too, that ever spake on earth, has pronounced that whatever is more than this,-whatever goes beyond the simple statement of the truth,-cometh of evilt. Our Lord does not say (as some have

* Hilarius, Comment. Matt. v. 33. This is also the sentiment of many other early Christian writers.

Matt. v. 37. Some, however, regard our Lord's words in this passage, as referring solely to the ordinary com

misunderstood him to say), that whatever goes further than the mere passing of one's word is itself sinful, but that its source is evil; it originates in what is in itself bad. And undoubtedly the evil in which oaths take their rise is the prevalence of falsehood and wrong, and the consequent prevalence of suspicion and distrust*. It is because we do not place confidence in the veracity of men in general, when they profess to speak the truth; it is because we cannot rely upon their good faith, when they make a bare promise, that we are driven to seek for something more satisfactory to ourselves, by imposing upon them a more binding responsibility than that of their mere word.

Such an obligation has been supposed in every age and country of the world to be afforded by the interposition of an OATH. Through all the diversified stages of society, from the lowest barbarism to

munication between man and man. The earliest and most celebrated writers of the Christian church, seem to me to have considered them as applicable to all Oaths. Whichever of these two views we adopt, His words equally refer us to the origin of the evil. Augustin (De Verb. Apost. Jac. v.) takes the view adopted in this chapter.

* Hesiod represents Strife," the Malignant Deity, to have been the parent of a thousand evils, enumerating a long and black catalogue; and, as though he would put that end to the climax, beyond which nothing further could be conceived, he adds, "And that which most of all is the bane of mortal men, should any voluntarily incur the guilt of perjury,—AN OATH."-Theogon. 230, 231.

the highest cultivation of civilized life,-where the true religion has been professed, no less than where paganism has retained its hold, recourse has been had to Oaths as affording the nearest approximation to certainty in evidence, and the surest pledge of the performance of a promise*. Even in the present state of society, among professed Christians, however it may be lamented as a proof of the deficiency of sound religious principle, an oath seems to be considered necessary, as impressing the mind of almost every one, with a more awful sense of the guilt and danger of falsehood, and of the religious obligation to speak the very truth,-the whole truth, and nothing but the truth†. Whoever offends by falsehood, after binding himself by an oath to speak the truth, offends (as Archdeacon

* "Horcus," or the God of Oaths, is said to be the son of Eris, or Contention; and fables tell us, that in the golden age, when men were strict observers of the laws of truth and justice, there was no occasion for oaths, nor any use made of them. But when they began to degenerate from their primitive simplicity, when truth and justice were banished out of the earth, when every one began to take advantage of his neighbour by cozenage and deceit, and there was no trust to be placed in any man's word, it was high time to think of some expedient, whereby they might secure themselves from the fraud and falsehood of one another: hence had oaths their origin.—Potter's Antiq., b. ii., c. 6.

The Solicitor-General, Murray, in the celebrated case of "Omychund and Barker;" to which we shall have occasion frequently to refer, says, “No country can subsist a twelvemonth, where an oath is not thought binding; for the want of it must necessarily dissolve society."

Paley remarks) with a high hand, in the face of God, and in defiance of the sanctions of religion.

For a more full and very satisfactory and interesting view of this subject, I refer the reader to the sentiments of Heineccius*. They will be found in Part III., Section A.

* This treatise was in a forward state of preparation for the press, before I had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with the sentiments of that learned and sensible writer: I have, therefore, preferred making an extract, rather than attempt to interweave his views with my own. The dissertation from which that extract is made, and which he calls A Treatise on the Lubricity or Slippery Uncertainty of the Suppletory Oath, is a work well deserving a careful examination.

9

CHAPTER III.

DEFINITION OF AN OATH.

THE first point in our proposed inquiry, after tracing an oath to its true origin, would seem to be to settle its definition. And this is not so readily and easily determined as it might, at first sight, be supposed to be. A difficulty presents itself to us on the very threshold, involving, in some measure, our own national practice in England of employing the imprecatory form, and bearing directly on the objections of one of those few classes in our community, who refuse to bind themselves by the oath prescribed by our law. Dr. Paley*, seems not to have been aware of this difficulty, nor of the distinction made conscientiously by many excellent Christians. His definition of an oath runs thus ; "It is the calling upon God to witness, i. e., to take notice of what we say, AND it is invoking his vengeance, or renouncing his favour, if what we say be false, or what we promise be not performed."

It is somewhat curious, that the Archdeacon's next words are 66 Quakers and Moravians refuse to swear upon any occasion." This is a mistake. The fact is, that whilst Quakers object to an oath in any form, the Moravians would not refuse to swear, were that form of oath observed which the

*Moral Philos., b. iii., part 1, c. 16.