they administered to them the Oath of Alle giance, knowing that they would not take it, and that confiscation of property and imprisonment would ensue. But neither ill-usage, nor imprisonment, nor loss of property, ever made any impression upon them, so as to induce them to swear in judicial cases; and they continued to suffer, till the Legislature, wearied out with the cries of their oppression, decreed that their affirmation should in all cases, except criminal, or in that of serving upon juries, or in that of qualifications for posts of honour or emolument under Government, be received as equivalent to their oath. And this indulgence is continued to them by law to the present day. The Quakers have an objection to oaths, as solemn appeals to God, because they are unnecessary. It is an old saying among their writers, that "Truth was before all oaths." By this they mean, that there was a time when men's words were received as truths without the intervention of an oath. Antient fable, indeed, tells us, that there were no paths in the Golden Age, but that, when men men departed from their primitive simplicity, and began to quarrel with one another, they had recourse to falsehood to substantiate their own case; after which it became necessary that some expedient should be devised, in the case of disputes, for ascertaining the Truth. Hence, Hesiod makes the God of Oaths the son of Eris or Contention. This account differs but little from that of Polybius, who says that the use of oaths in judgment was rare among the antients, but that, as perfidy grew, oaths increased. And as it is a saying of the Quakers, that "Truth was before all oaths," so they believe that “truth would be spoken, if oaths were done away." Thus, that which is called Honour by the world will bind men to the truth, who perhaps know but little of religion. But if so, then he, who makes Christianity his guide, will not be found knowingly in a falsehood, though he be deprived of the opportunity of swearing. But if it be true, that truth existed before the invention of oaths, and that truth would still be spoken even if all oaths were abolished, then the Quakers say that oaths are not so necessary as some have imagined, because they have but a secondary effect in the production of the truth. This conclusion they consider, also, as the result of reason. For good men will speak truth without an oath, and bad men will hardly be influenced by one. And where oaths are regarded, it is probable that truth is forced out of men, not so much because they consider them as solemn appeals to God, as that they consider the penalties, which will follow their violation; so that a simple affirmation, under the same pains and penalties, would be equally productive of the truth. They consider oaths, again, as very inju rious to morality. For, first, they conceive it to be great presumption in men to summon God as a witness in their trifling and earthly concerns. They believe, secondly, that if men accustom themselves to call upon God on civil occasions, they render his name so familiar to them, that they are likely to lose the reverence due to it; or so to blend religious with secular considerations, that they become in danger of losing sight of the dignity, solemnity, and awfulness of devotion. And it is not an unusual remark, remark, that persons the most accustomed to oaths are the most liable to perjury. A Custom-house oath has become proverbial in our own country. I do not mean by this to accuse mercantile men in particular, but to state it as a received opinion, that where men make solemn things familiar, there is a danger of their moral degradation. Hence, the Quakers consider the common administration of oaths to have a tendency, that is injurious to the moral interest of men. This notion relative to the bad tendency of oaths the Quakers state to have prevailed even in the Gentile world, As Heathen philosophy became pure, it branded the system of swearing as pernicious to morals, It was the practice of the Persians to give each other their right hand, as a token of their speaking the truth. He, who gave his hand deceitfully, was accounted more detestable than if he had sworn. The Scythians, in their conference with Alexander the Great, addressed him thus: "Think not that the Scythians confirm their friendship by an oath. They swear by keeping their word." The Phrygians were wholly against oaths, They neither took them themselves, nor re quired them of others. Among the proverbs of the Arabs this was a celebrated one: "Never swear; but let thy word be Yes or No." So religious was Hercules, says Plu tarch, that he never swore but once. Clinias, a Greek philosopher, and a scholar of Pythagoras, is said to have dreaded an oath so much, that, when by swearing he could have escaped a fine of three talents, he chose rather to pay money than do it, though he was to have sworn nothing but the truth. Indeed, throughout all Greece the system of swearing was considered as of the most im moral tendency; the very word, which signified "perjured*" in the Greek language, meaning, when analysed, "he that adds oath to oath," or "the taker of many oaths." the But, above all, the Quakers consider oaths as unlawful for Christians, because they have been positively forbidden by Jesus Christ. The words, in which they conceive this prohibition to have been contained, they take from the Sermon on the Mount. Again, ye have heard, that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not VOL. III. * ἐπίορκος. forswear |