[The practice which prevails, in this country, in the administration of oaths, has long been just cause of lamentation to the religious public. The levity, the irreverence, not to say the profanity, which are every where observable in our courts of law, have attracted the attention and brought down the universal condemnation of Christians. It is not long since this practice was quoted, by the Synod of Ulster, as one cause for public humiliation. We are rejoiced to learn also, that one of the Presbyteries of the Synod has been directing its attention to the subject, and intends to submit it to the consideration of the whole body at its next annual meeting. Under these circumstances, we cannot but cheerfully acquiesce in the request of the writer of the following article to give it a place in our pages. We recommend his observa

tions to the serious attention of our readers.-EDIT.]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN. SIR,

AT the present period, when oaths are administered to such a dreadful extent, it seems necessary to examine the subject, and to lay the result of our investigation before the public. In this paper I shall inquire, Is it lawful to take an oath? and, What is the proper mode of administration?

"A lawful oath," says the Westminster Divines, "is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth." To constitute an oath lawful, it has been said that four things are required—a proper administrator, a legal call, a Scripture mode and a religious frame, and a suitable end. But without enlarging on any of these points, I would observe, that the lawfulness of oaths is established by scriptural precepts and examples, both in the Old Testament and in the New. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and swear by his name," Deut. vi. 13. "He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth," Isa. lxv. 16. "And thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness," Jer. iv. 2.

R

To these Old Testament precepts we would subjoin a few Old Testament examples-"Abraham said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth," &c. Gen. xiv. 22; and to Abimelech he also sware, Gen. xxi. 24. “Jacob sware by the Fear of his father Isaac," Gen. xxxi. 53. Joseph sware to his father Jacob that he would bury him in the land of Canaan, Gen. xlvii. 31; and Moses sware to Caleb and Joshua that they should receive an inheritance in the promised land, Josh. xiv. 9. "But time would fail me to speak of" all the examples of swearing in the Old Testament; even the great Jehovah himself sware to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that he would give them the land of Canaan for an inheritace, Exod. vi. 8. The Apostle Paul, referring to this oath in Heb. vì. 13, says, "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself; for men verily swear by a greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife,” ver. 16. The nature of an oath consists in the invocation of a superior, in whose power we are; and a respect to punishment is that alone which gives full efficacy to oaths among men. The omnipotent power of God is able to punish all transgressors, and in proportion as the minds of men are influenced by this consideration, so are their oaths valid and useful. To men, God is represented as swearing either in love or in wrath, hereby assuring them of the immutability of his purposesthat the blessings he promised should be bestowed, and that the judgments he threatened should be inflicted, Gen. xxii. 16, 17; Psal. xcv. 11; Heb. vi. 17. The Father also sware to his Son, the Messiah, the Mediator of the new Covenant, that Christ should be the only eternal Priest, hereby honouring his Son, and giving strong consolation to his people in such a royal High Priest, who should effectually manage all their concerns with him for ever. Ps. xi. 4; Heb. vii. 21.

Should it be objected that these examples are principally from the Old Testament; and that the Saviour, who came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, forbids all kinds of oaths in Matth. v. 34-"I say unto you swear not at all," I could not answer this objection better than by quoting Dr. Paley's words. He says, "the answer cannot be so well understood without first stating the whole passage-Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is

God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thine head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.'

yea,

"To reconcile with this passage of Scripture the practice of swearing, or of taking oaths when required by law, the following observations must be attended to. 1. It does not appear that swearing by heaven,' by the earth,' by Jerusalem,' or 'by thine own head,' was a form of swearing ever made use of amongst the Jews in judicial oaths, and consequently it is not probable that they were judicial oaths which Christ had in his mind, when he mentioned these instances. 2. As to the seeming universality of the prohibition, Swear not at all,' the emphatic clause, 'not at all,' is to be read in connexion with what follows- not at all,' i. e. neither by the heaven,' nor by the earth,' nor by Jerusalem,' nor by thy head;' not at all does not mean upon no occasion, but by none of these forms. Our Saviour's argument seems to suppose, that the people to whom he spake made a distinction between swearing directly by the name of God,' and swearing by these inferior objects of veneration-the heavens,' 'the earth,' 'Jerusalem,' or thine own head:' in opposition to which distinction, he tells them, that, on account of the relation which these things bore to the Supreme Being, to swear by any of them, was, in effect and substance, to swear by him; 'by heaven, for it is his throne; by the earth, for it is his footstool; by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; by thy head, for it is his workmanship, not thine; thou canst not make one hair white or black;' for which reason he says, swear not at all, that is, neither directly by God, nor indirectly by any thing related to him. This interpretation is confirmed by a passage in the same Gospel, Matt. xxvii. 16-22, where a similar distinction, made by the Scribes and Pharisees, is replied to in the same manner. 3. Our Saviour himself, being adjured by the living God to tell whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, or not, condescended to answer the High Priest, without making any objection to the oath (for such it was) upon which he examined him. God is my witness,' says Paul to the Romans, that without ceasing I make mention of you in my prayers; and to the Corinthians still more strongly, 'I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet to Corinth.' Both these expressions

contain the nature of oaths. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the custom of swearing judicially, without any mark of censure or disapprobation. Men only swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.' Upon the strength of these reasons, we explain our Saviour's words to relate, not to judicial oaths, but to the practice of vain, wanton, and unauthorized swearing in common discourse. St. James's words, chap. v. 12, are not so strong as our Saviour's, and therefore admit the explanation with more ease."

I shall now advert to what appears to me to be the most impressive and scriptural mode of taking and administering oaths. Without adverting to the various modes of swearing in different countries, I shall confine my remarks to the two principal modes that prevail in the United Kingdom, viz.-by lifting up the right hand, and touching and kissing a book. We shall contrast these two systems, in order to ascertain their comparative merits.

1. Swearing with an uplifted hand is the most ancient practice on record.

Paley says, "Among the Jews, the juror held up his right hand towards heaven, which explains a passage in the 144th Psalm-Whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand is a right hand of falsehood.' We find this mode practised so early as the days of Abraham. Gen. xiv. 22— And Abraham said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up my hand to the Most High God, the possessor of heaven and earth," &c. We have good reason to believe that this mode was practised from the earliest ages, even before the flood; and that men, in making a solemn appeal to the Omniscient Jehovah, lifted up their hand toward the place where his honour dwells. We cannot trace the practice of swearing by the book farther back than the fourth or fifth century, and even then it was condemned, as we shall afterwards show, by the Fathers.

2. Swearing with an uplifted hand seems to be of DIVINE APPOINTMENT, whereas book-swearing is an INSTITUTION OF

MEN.

Religious swearing is of divine origin, as to the manner as well as the end. That the form of lifting up the right hand is of divine appointment, is evident from the following considerations:-1. The very light of nature taught men to lift up their hand, in this act of worship, to that great Being whom they addressed in their supplications. 2. It is taught by ob

66

ligatory Scripture examples, by the example of Abraham, the friend of God, and by the example of God himself. When he was about to deliver Israel out of Egypt, he says, Exod. vi. 8, "I will bring you in unto a land, concerning which I did swear (Heb. lift up my hand) to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Again, in the wilderness, after the law was given, Num. xiv. 28, 30, He sware that the unbelieving Israelites should not enter the promised land; and Ezekiel declares that this was done with an uplifted hand, xx. 15– "Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them." This mode the same Prophet mentions fourteen times in his prophecy. In Deut. xxxii. 40, Jehovah says, "I lift up my hand to heaven and say I live for ever." This is evidently an oath respecting the performance of what follows. The Prophet Isaiah declares the same thing, lxii. 8—“ The Lord hath sworn by his right hand and arm of his strength.” By the Prophet Daniel, an Angel is represented as swearing in the same manner, xii. 5, 7" He lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, that it should be for a time, times, and half a time; and the same un created Angel, the Angel of the Covenant, appears to the Apostle John, Rev. X., standing with one foot on the sea and the other on the land, and he lifted up his right hand to heaven and sware that time should be no longer." Divine examples have the same force as divine precepts:"Be ye followers of God as dear children." 3. God's approbation of this plan proves the same thing. God gave his approval and commendation of those who imitated him in this act of worship. In the time of Israel's greatest glory they practised this mode; but when they revolted, then did they swear by God and Malcom. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, speaking on this subject, says, "We are to suppose that God gave his people the equal to a command for their so doing; as, other wise, he would have expressly condemned that practice in his worship, afterward in his word, as an encroachment on his pre rogative in prescribing the manner of his worship, and of giv ing laws unto his people relating thereto without his warrant." 4. Divine acts and divine mandates establish its divine origin. In addition to the examples above-mentioned, we might add, that when Christ was adjured by the Living God, viz. called to answer upon oath, he was not required to touch and kiss á book; nor did the Apostle use one when he said to the Corinthians, in the form of an oath, "I call God for a record