190

THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF MANKIND. [Pakt III.

firming the integrity of those who are invested with situations andoffices of trust.

One of the chief means, which have been relied on to securethe observance of truth in witnesses, and integrity in those whohold situations of public trust, is, the administration of oaths, bywhich, earthly virtue, imperfect as it is, may be confirmed by thegreat ultimate sanction of morals, — the consideration of a futurestate of rewards and punishments. Men continue, as in the daysof St. Paul, to “ swear by the greater, and an oath for confirma-tion is” still “to them an end of all strife.”* I shall con-sider oaths under the several divisions, —■ 1. Of their lawfulness.2. Their forms. 3. Their signification. 4. Their efficacy assecurities for truth and integrity. 5. Their abuse. 6. In whatcases they are not binding.

1. The use of oaths on solemn occasions, especially to givethe highest binding force to solemn and important transactions, iscoeval with the first dawn of history. The distinction betweenjudicial and profane swearing seems to be recognised in the tencommandments (compare the third and ninth); and an examina-tion and comparison of the passages in the New Testament, whichpertain to oaths, f has had the effect of convincing all Christians,except the Quakers and Moravians, of their lawfulness in a moralpoint of view. The distinction, indeed, between judicial andprofane oaths is a very plain one ; and, while the former are clearlysanctioned by the sacred writers, the latter are condemned andforbidden by them. From respect to the plea of a tender con-science, urged by the Quakers and Moravians, the forms insert-ed in our political constitutions, and used in our courts of justiceand wherever else judicial oaths are accustomed to be adminis-tered, generally, if not always, admit of an affirmation instead ofan oath. In the view of every good man, however, this is adifference in form rather than in substance. J

2. The forms of oaths and the ceremonies accompanying their

* Heb. vi. 16.

t Matt. v. 33- 6; xxvi. 63; Rom. i.9; 2 Cor. i.23; Heb. vi. 16; James v. 12.^ The lawfulness of oaths is well vindicated by Dr. Paley, in his Moral andPolitical Philosophy, pp. 112-114, — and strenuously opposed by Dymond,Essays on Morality, pp. 147 - 152.