Pious frauds, as they are improperly enough called, pretended inspirations, forging books, counterfeit miracles, are impositions of a more serious nature. It is possible that they may sometimes, though seldom, have been set up and encouraged, with a design to do good: but the good they aim at, requires that the belief of them should be perpetual, which is hardly possible; and the detection of the fraud is sure to disparage the credit of all pretensions of the same nature. Christianity has suffered more injury from this cause, than from all other causes put together.

As there may be falsehoods which are not lies, so there may be lies, without literal or direct falsehood. An opening is always left for this species of prevarication, when the literal and grammatical signification of a sentence is different from the popular and customary meaning. It is the wilful deceit that makes the lie; and we wilfully deceive, when our expressions are not true in the sense in which we believe the hearer apprehends them. Besides, it is absurd to contend for any sense of words, in opposition to usage; for, all senses of all words are founded upon usage, and upon nó~ thing else.

Or, a man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a wrong direction, when a traveller inquires of him his road; or when a tradesman shuts up his windows, to induce his creditors to believe that he is abroad; for to all moral purposes, and therefore as to veracity, speech and action are the same; speech being only a mode of action.

Or, lastly, there may be lies of ommission. A writer of English history, who, in his account of the reign of Charles the First, should wilfully suppress any evidence of that prince's despotic measures and designs, might be said to lie; for, by entitling his book a History of England, he engages to relate the whole truth of the history, or at least all he knows of it.

Forms of Oaths.
Signification.

Lawfulness.

Obligation.

CHAPTER XVI.

V. What oaths do not bind.

OATHS.

In what sense oaths are to be interpreted.

I. THE forms of oaths, like other religious ceremonies, have been always various; but consisting, for the most part of some bodily action,* and of a prescribed form of words. Amongst 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." The same form is retained in Scotland still. An oath of fidelity was taken, by the servant's putting his hand under the thigh of his lord, as Eleazer did to Abraham, Gen. xxiv. 2.; from whence, with no great variation, is derived perhaps the form of doing homage at this day, by putting the hands between the knees, and within the hands of the liege.

Amongst the Greeks and Romans, the form varied with the subject and occasion of the oath. In private contracts, the parties took hold of each other's hand, whilst they swore to the performance; or they touched the altar of the god, by whose divinity they swore. Upon more solemn occasions, it was the custom to slay a victim; and the beast being struck down, with certain ceremonies and invocations, gave birth to the expression ferire pactum; and to our English phrase, translated from this, of “striking a bargain.”

The forms of oath in Christian countries are also very different: but in none, I believe, worse contrived, either to convey the meaning, or impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror with us, after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm, adds, "So help me God:" or more frequently the substance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the officer or magistrate who administers it, adding in the conclusion, "So help you God." The energy of the sentence resides in the particle so; so, that is, hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth, or performing this promise, may God help me, and not otherwise. The juror, whilst he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon a Bible, or other book containing the four Gospels. The conclusion of the oath sometimes runs, “ita me Deus "adjuvet, et hæc sancta evangelia," or, "so help me God, and the "contents of this book;" which last clause forms a connexion between the words and action of the juror, which before was wanting. The juror then kisses the book: the kiss, however, seems rather an act of reverence to the contents of the book (as, in the popish ritual.

*It is commonly thought that oaths are denominated corporeal oaths from the bodily action which accompanies them, of laying the right hand upon a book containing the four Gospels. This opinion, however, appears to be a mistake; for the term is borrowed from the ancient usage of touching, upon these occasions, the corporale, or cloth which covered the consecrated elements.

the priest kisses the Gospel before he reads it) than any part of the oath.

This obscure and elliptical form, together with the levity and frequency with which it is administered, has brought about a general inadvertency to the obligation of oaths; which both in a religious and political view, is much to be lamented: and it merits public consideration, whether the requiring. of oaths on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the Customs, and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other effect, than to make them cheap in the minds of the people. A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at least; and the same security for the due discharge of their office, namely, that of an oath, is required from a churchwarden and an archbishop, from a petty constable and the chief justice of England. Let the law continue its own sanctions, if they be thought requisite; but let it spare the solemnity of an oath. And where it is necessary from the want of something better to depend upon, to accept men's own word or own account, let it annex to prevarication penalties proportioned to the public consequence of the

offence.

II. But whatever be the form of an oath, the signification is the same. It is 66 the calling upon God to witness, i. e. to take notice "of what we say," and "invoking his vengeance, or renouncing "his favour, if what we say be false, or what we promise be not "performed."

III. Quakers and Moravians refuse to swear upon any occasion; founding their scruples concerning the lawfulness of oaths upon our Saviour's prohibition, Matt. v. 34. I say unto you, Swear not

"at all."

The answer which we give to this objection cannot be 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 shall perform unto the Lord, thine oaths. But I say unto you, "Swear not 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 thy head, "because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let "your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is "more than these, cometh of evil."

To reconcile with this passage of Scripture the practice of swearing, or of taking oaths, when required by law, the following obsertions must be attended to.

1. It does not appear, that swearing by heaven," "by the earth," by Jerusalem,” or “ by their 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 those instances.

2. As to the seeming universality of the prohibition, "Swear not "at all," the emphatic clause "not 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 those inferior objects of veneration, "the heavens," "the earth," "Jerusalem," or " their "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 interpretration is greatly confirmed by a passage in the twenty-third chapter of the same Gospel, 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 declare 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 66 my witness,” says St. 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 expres

sions 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 verily 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, chapter v. 12. are not so strong as our Saviour's and therefore admit the same explanation with more ease.

IV. Oaths are nugatory, that is, carry with them no proper force or obligation, unless we believe that God will punish false swearing

with more severity than a simple lie, or breach of promise; for which belief there are the following reasons:

1. Perjury is a sin of greater deliberation. The juror has, I believe, in fact, the thoughts of God and of religion upon his mind at the time; at least, there are very few who can shake them off entirely. He offends, therefore if he do offend, with a high hand; in the face, that is, and in defiance of the sanctions of religion. His offence implies a disbelief or contempt of God's knowledge, power, and justice; which cannot be said of a lie where there is nothing to carry the mind to any reflection upon the Deity, or the divine attributes at all.

2. Perjury violates a superior confidence. Mankind must trust to one another; and they have nothing better to trust to than one another's oath. Hence legal adjudications, which govern and affect every right and interest on this side of the grave, of necessity proceed and depend upon oaths. Perjury, therefore, in its general consequence, strikes at the security of reputation, property, and even of life itself. A lie cannot do the same mischief, because the same credit is not given to it.*

3. God directed the Israelites to swear by his name;t and was pleased, "in order to show the immutability of his own counsel,”‡ to confirm his covenant with that people by an oath; neither of which it is probable he would have done, had he not intended to represent oaths as having some meaning and effect beyond the obligation of a bare promise; which effect must be owing to the severer punishment with which he will vindicate the authority of oaths.

V. Promissory oaths are not binding, where the promise itself would not be so for the several cases of which, see the Chapter of Promises.

VI. As oaths are designed for the security of the imposer, it is manifest they must be performed and interpreted in the sense in which the imposer intends them; otherwise they afford no security to him. And this is the meaning and reason of the rule "jurare in animum imponentis;" which rule the reader is desired to carry along with him, whilst we proceed to consider certain particular oaths, which are either of greater importance, or more likely to fall in our way, than others.

*Except, indeed, where a Quaker's or Moravian's affirmation is accepted in the ace of an oath; in which case, a lie partakes, so far as this reason extends, of the ature and guilt of perjury.