style of the courts of England*." "If you will not admit the oath of an idolater,” says Augustin, "there is no other adequate method of forming a covenant with him, or of binding him to keep his word, or of preserving the public peace; nor is it forbidden by any law of God to employ for a good purpose the oath of that man whose fault consists in swearing by false gods, but who keeps the faith which he has pledged +."

This question seems to have been much agitated, and various opinions were held with regard to it by the professors of the civil code in Rome. Pope Pius ruled that an oath sworn agreeably to the juror's own superstition should be accepted as valid, because the question only is, "Has an oath been taken? not whether that oath ought to have been taken." Ulpianus, however, leans to the opinion that an oath taken agreeably to the forms of a religion prohibited by the state, must be considered as altogether null and void. On this principle, in the Compendium of the Laws of Spain §, the form of the oath of a Jew or a Moor is omitted, because those religions are not tolerated in that country ||. On the other

* 2 Hale, P. C. 279.

Digest. xii. t. 2, s. 5.

$ Compendio del Derecho, 1784.

Aug. Epist. 154.

|| Still there were formerly, and are now in their lawbooks forms of oaths both for Jew and Moor; but because they are at present of no practical use, they are omitted in the compendium.

hand, it is ruled over and over again, in the lawbooks of almost every country in the world, that every one shall swear according to the most respected and "feared" mode of his own religion. Indeed the proper forms of swearing both Jews and Mahometans are recorded in ancient Law-books of different countries with great accuracy and minuteness. According to Selden, who gives a long account of a particular ceremony in swearing a Jew in courts of justice before the eighteenth year of Edward the First, the person administering an oath to a Jew said, "If you do not speak the truth, upon your head come all your sins, and your parents' sins; and all the maledictions which are written in the Law of Moses and the prophets remain with you for ever." To which he answered Amen*."

A curious anecdote is recorded by M. Merlin of a fact which seems to have excited considerable attention in France, as an important precedent†. A Jew having to make an affirmation in 1755, his counsel moved the court that he should be allowed to swear according to the usages and privileges of his nation. The president, M. Desvoeux, was for cutting the remonstrance short, and said to the Jew, "Hold up your hand," the usual mode of administering an oath; upon which the Jew, without further ceremony, clapped on his hat, took a Bible * Atkyns, vol. i., s. 32.

Répertoire de Jurisprudence.

out of his pocket, held it in his left hand, and put his right hand upon it. The president acquiesced, saying to him, "You shall swear to speak the truth.” The Jew answered all the interrogatories, and his evidence was received as valid.

But we are anticipating what will more correctly fall under another head of our inquiry. These particulars are mentioned here, merely as establishing what we have stated; that though the present rule of our own courts of law was not settled till the decision of Chief Justice Hale, perhaps even not till the time of Lord Hardwicke, when all doubts on the subject were removed in the celebrated case of Omychund and Barker*; yet the principle had been very generally adopted in other countries, and that not blindly and by chance, but after much discussion, and upon the authority of some of the greatest names in the Christian Church.

The rule, however, may now be regarded as part and parcel of the Law of England, that all persons are to be sworn according to the ceremonies of their own religion†. And this leads us natu

* 1 Atk. 21. I cannot help recommending a careful perusal of this celebrated case. It may be found in many law-books. In Atkyns the arguments on both sides, and the judgments are given at length.

Perhaps being aware of the fact I ought to observe, that to some persons there seems to be something approaching inconsistency in our practice in this respect. judge asks the witness what form of oath he considers bind

The

rally to the next subject of our inquiry in the history of oaths, namely, the various forms adopted in different ages and different countries, and by members of different religions. We begin with the earliest upon record, which are at the same time, independently of their antiquity, the most interesting to us as Christians-those of which mention is made in the Holy Scriptures.

ing, and allows him to swear according to his answer, whereas a crafty wicked man might with impunity by these means take an oath which he did not consider binding. To this however an answer has been given, that there is no possible mode of discovering the form of swearing which will be the most binding on the conscience of the witness in particular cases, other than by inquiry of the witness himself; and one object of the inquiry is, that after he has answered the question, and has been sworn accordingly, he shall not avoid the temporal punishments of perjury.

CHAPTER II.

OATHS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

THE first occasion on which any reference whatever is made to an oath in the Bible (except perhaps in the very meaning of the Hebrew word which we translate God,' and which some divines assure us, intimates the Oath of the Covenant between the Almighty and man), occurs in the interview between the King of Sodom and Abraham, upon that royal personage urging the father of the faithful to accept the good things which he offered him*. This offer Abraham declines, alleging as an insuperable barrier to his acquiescence, the oath he had taken. "" I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the Most High God, possessor of Heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoe-latchet, that I will not take any thing that is thine." Here we have one of the most solemn forms of calling God to witness, a form which we find subsequently prevalent in different ages and countries;-that of lifting up the hand to heaven. Thus, when Jehovah (who as the Apostle tells us†, "because he could swear by no greater, sware by himself," in confirmation of his promise to Abraham‡,) is described in the sublime hymn of Moses as establishing his truth Gen. xxii. 16.

*Gen. xiv. 22. † Heb. vi. 13.

H