11. Vain and rash swearing,“ is opposed to that which is important, and deliberate, or done upon principle: it arises from habit, and is intro— duced for no good purpose; it must have some motives, but they are some kind of wrong senti- ments; often parts and kinds of vanity.

„Forbidden Christian men,” here again our concern is only with Christian Scripture: the pas- lages referred to, when Christ and St. James are mentioned, are Matt. v. 34, &c. and James v. 12.

[…]

• Doth not prolibit” suppose a man thought, that Scripture discouraged swearing, even in evidence,

L’L 2 and

532 BOOK IV. 11.

and that it was most safe to avoid it; still he -might allow, that Scripture did not prohibit It.

« When a Magistrate requireth,” —this is op- posed to the vain and rash swearing; — therefore, though a man might use vain and rash swearing before a Magistrate, yet that is not the thing meant here. The vain and rash swearing here meant, the Magistrate is supposed to have no concern with; it is supposed to be in private life.

• In a cause of faith and charity,” in causa fiaei et charitatis; —that is, from motives of ascer- taining the truth, that Justice may be done; and of doing god. idem facere is to create confidence, or make one’s self believed: —causa seems to be used

by Cicero where we should now use the word ae; in a cause of faith and charity, may therefore mean, in a case which requires credit to be established for the sake of knowing the real {tate of 1t, as a ste to doing Justice : or in a case, in which, by taking an oath, you may do an act of charity or benevo- leuce. Dr. Ogden seems to have had our exprel- sion in his mind, when he uses the expressions, * in causes of importance, for the sake of Truth, in support of Justice, at the call“ of Charity ;” —Luther® says, we may swear if commanded by the Magistrate, or if not commanded, yet from motives of charity, as we may do other things not quite regular : — But in our Article, seemingly, both in the caule of Faith and the cause of charity, the Magistrate commands our evidence.—It fo, it may be said, we cannot make ourselves perfect judges what kind of cause or case it is. It seems as if we could not ; but an Article is not for pra alice;

it

2 Fifth Sermon on the Commandments, Vol. 2. page 63. 12mo.

b Works, Vol. 7. Enarrations on the Sermon on the Mount, — On Matt. v. 34. or thereabouts.

BOOK IV, 111. 533

it only lays down what is rig/t every man must avoid oaths, in cases not ot faith and charity, as much as he can*.— The concluding part of our Article does also point out what is right; adopt- ing the words of the Prophet Feremiah*® ; which seem also to be used in other places; and to denote {wearing honestly and sincerely.

111. We will now come to Proof.

Solemn oaths, taken in obedience to authority, and from benevolent motives, are not forbidden by the Gospal.”

Furst we will take some direct proots of this proposition.

Under the old Law, {wearing by Jehovah was considered as a mode of professing to serve him; in preference to Idals. As Goliah curled David by his Gods, so a Jew swore by Jehovah. In this light we are to fee Deut. vi. 13.—Plalm Ixiii. Ir. — id this idea want confirming, any one might consult Isaiah Ixv. 16. And the paslages referred to in the margin of that text, which 1s introduced into our Article.

In the New Teflament, we may look at Matt. xxvi. 63. observing, that whatever was said in answer to adjuration, was said upon Oath. And we should read Mark viu. 12. for the sake of the «, (in English verily) which is sometimes a particle of swearing, an{wering®* to & in Hebrew. — The Helvetic Confession says, « Christuser Apostolif jura-

runt;

< After all, the expression, *in a cause of faith and charity,” may allude to something which I have not seen. Or it may be taken from Luther, and made less clear by alteration, Luther ves, to my mind, a more distin conception than our Article. Bur Dr. Ogden is perfectly clear. 6 Jer. IV. 3»

e See Parkhurft’s Greek Lexicon under EI. Si je Paime! is

not an cath ; but a pretty powerful exclamation, Diderot. f Confes. Helvet. ad finem,

; *

e 3 g 1 .

LY ,

N N 94 3 Fa

«a.

a” ” ÞY […] 5 * > . — 4 : + - 1,4 5 […] „ner

534 BOOK iv.

• runt;” the instances of Christ we have just men- tioned: St. Paul several times uses expressions, which may with propriety be called Oaths. As in Rom. i. 9.—1 Cor. xv. 31. where the particle n denotes an Oath.—2 Cor. i. 23. is too strong to need any remark; and the same may be said of 2 Cor. xi. 31 Gal. i. 20. is very plain; as well as Phil. 1. 8.— In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Deity is mentioned as swearing, Heb. iii. 11. (where « again occurs), and Heb. vi. 16, 17.

Iv. But, as in the preceding Article so here, it is the indirect proof which requires the greatest atten- tion. — The 2uakers® are very peremptory in object- ing the two paslages already mentioned, Matt. v. 3337. and James v. 12. but they do not, that I perceive, use Matt. xxiii. 16—22. these free passages should be in view together. And from them, taken together, I think the truth of our proposition cannot be disproved.

I do not perceive that the Quakers, or others, have made their supposed prohibition of solemn oaths consistent with our direct proof: till they do that, they cannot be allowed to have the true sense of Scripture.

The passages on which the objection is founded, have no relation to the acts of the Magistrate, as Luther observes : oaths taken in obedience to autho- rity, are not affected by them. Neither do they prohibit {wearing by the Deity himself : people may indeed {wear in private by the Deity himself, pro- fanely and blameably ; but that was not, seemingly, | a cy//om amongst thole who are reproved in the New Teitament : indeed the reasoning in both the passages of St. Matthew, shews, that it was care- fully avoided; and on that avoiding, all excuses were built.

All

s Barclay’s Apology, Prop. 15. Sect. 10.

All the oaths specified by Christ, were vain and childish, though connected with the Jewish religion; for the people who used them, were not, as in our days, dissolute and licentious; but formal and pre- cise. We have not, that I know of, any set of people amongst us, who have the © form” of God- liness,” and yet accustom themselves to a set of pious oaths, excusing themselves by saying, that such as they take, are uo oaths. Yet this seems to have been the case amongst the Jews; the very Scribes and Pharisees! ran into the most frivolous and un- meaning distinctions, between those sayings which were real oaths, and those Jike sayings which were no oaths. Now sayings like oaths, yet accounted no oaths, would produce two faults; one, hypo- critical profaneness, the other, deceit and fraud,— Matt. v. 33—37. seems to turn more upon the former, and Matt. xxiii. 16—22. more upon the latter. —If it should be thought, that , © he is a debtor,” Matt. xxiii. 16. 18. means only, as opposed to vdev egi, it is nothing,” to denote a real oath; still the two faults, prolaneness and fals- hood, would, in fact, arise; and would both deserve severe reprehension. 6 |

I remember to have heard very young and very ignorant people, use words like oaths, and then excuse themselves, by saying, that they had not (worn; but grave, religious people have not, I think, amongst us, any such system of hypocritical profaneness. That our Saviour spoke of common converscaio, appears from the word Aoyes, fermo,

discourle : and (Luther thinks) from the terms

<< yea, yea; nay, nay“.“

We

i Matt. xxiii. 16, 16. & April 21, 1792. The accounts given me this day, by a

Captain in the Navy, of oaths in trials in the Admiralty-court, are curious.

b 2 Tim. ii. 5.

He says, that people of different Nations and | Religions,

-—- — - - jo warJ — — . _ * - - 2 — 8 2 7 = WA 7 >, N 2 3 = — : -

. a

25> £ N

—

536 BOOK IV. v.

Me can conceive, that it might be worthy of

our Lord to check such folly. It was profane and impious; and so had a tendency to debase and bring contempt upon religion: it must also greatly weaken and loosen mens principles of veracity.— But why might not the evil most immediately in view, be, its hurting the dignity and the obliga- tion of solemn oaths ? and fo occafioning perjury ? at least, stopping such foolish oaths as the Jews made use of, is rather supporting solemn oaths, than dis- couraging them. And is perfectly consistent with such as St. Paul used.

v. With regard to St. James, he seems to have had the same view of the subject with our Saviour when on the Mount. He mentions 7wo of the fame frivolous oaths, but goes no farther : instead of going on, he says, as a kind of et cetera, c neither by any other oath;” - which must mean, any other such oath; we cannot conceive his thoughts to leap from such a train of trifling pro- faneness, to a solemn, devout, deliberate oath by the Supreme Deity himlelf. — Let your yea be

yea,“

Religions, will swear anything, and flatter themselves they are not perjured, if only the form of taking the oath differs, in any thing, from that to which they have been accustomed. And methods are used, by those belonging to the Court, to hit off their modes of swearing: one man, while a foreigner is taking an oath, will hold up one finger, another two fingers, a third presents a Crucifix; and so on; meaning to use that form, which the witness will deem binding. | The chief case in which these oaths are taken, seems to be, when enemy’s ‘property has been taken under neutral colours ; then the neutral Captain swears the property to be neutral : there are always papers concealed somewhere, shewing the real case: and others, counterfeits, to produce to Captors. ‘The real papers, had, in one case, been found, and the Captain, not knowing that, swore to the counterfeits: on the real papers being produced, he dropped down. dead. One could not hear such an account, from respectable authority, without recollecting the death of Auanias,—Atts v. 5,

BOOK IV. VI, $37

yea,” has been understood to mean, * speak the Truth ; and therefore to imply, that the Jews had run into falshood. He concludes with, ** lest ye fall into condemnation,” vo xgiow”.

Our Lord had marked the origin of such folly, ex Ts Women ; St. James points out the consequence. But such Bp as are described in our Article, would scarcely be said to proceed from evil, at least, in the speaker : though, as before, oaths, in gener al, may imply, some presumed imperfection | in mens general veracity ®.

As the Quakers will allow of nothing but literal construction, one might aik them, in the way of argumentum ad hominem, how they understand * Matt. v. 40.

I will here close my indirect proof, presuming that objections to our proposition are now removed.

vi. If we had 7zime, I might make some Appli- cation, by offering a few remarks on Perjury, and on profane swearing, such as shocks our ears in modern times; but this is at present impracticable :—per- jury I have treated in a System of Morality; and profane {wearing is attacked in a very masterly manner, in Dr. Ogden’s Sermons on the Com- mandments.

| For dv xew0w, the MSS, Steph. ist. and Veles. read eis dong, which Grotius adopts: how such hypocritical oaths may make men fall into hypocriy, is intelligible enough.

m The First Bodleian MS. has ex e .

n Art. xxxV11. Sect, 111.

„ P. S. When I appealed to this Text I believe I was not aware of Dr. Ogden’s appeal to the same (Serm. v. on the Commandments, Vol. 2. page 57. duodecimo.)— He says, It