force and perspicuity seeming to require no comment. I shall therefore make none upon them; but, after saying, that on these and other similar passages in the Scriptures, we ground our testimony against oaths and war, shall proceed to consider the objections that are made, to the adoption of precepts so clearly conveyed to us, and the practice of which would be attended with so many benefits to mankind. With respect to oaths, the apparent necessity of them is so small, and their real injury is so great, by profaning the Sacred Name, that, it is presumed, very few religiously minded people will be disposed to plead in their favour and indeed, it appears to me difficult to find an objection of any importance, to laying them wholly aside. : The principal arguments used by those who are disposed to plead for them, must however be considered. One of these is, that the Almighty is sometimes said, in Scripture, to make use of an oath. To this it may be answered, that the Almighty could not swear as man swears, there being none greater than Himself to whom He could appeal; or to whom He was amenable for the truth of his declaration. Besides which, we apprehend, that what He might do, as Sovereign Lord, may not be proper for us to do as dependent creatures, whose highest perfection is obedience to His will; and this will being expressly revealed to us in this instance by his beloved Son, our obvious duty is to comply with it. Another argument in favour of swearing before magistrates, is advanced from the circumstance of our Lord's being silent before the high priest, until he adjured Him by the Living God. That the high priest intended formally to administer a judicial oath to our Saviour, is what, 1 apprehend, the context will not support. It rather appears, that Caiaphas, being irritated by our Lord's silence, made use of this expression in the violence of his temper, and not in a judicial capacity; and, until the latter can be proved, our Lord's simple reply, "Thou hast said," in no degree partakes of the nature of an oath. A third argument in favour of the use of oaths, is drawn from some expressions of the apostle Paul; as, "God is my witness;"+"I charge thee before God," &c. These, and other similar expressions, do not, however, appear to constitute an oath; nor would they be admitted as such in a court of judicature. In the beginning of our Society, such expressions were sometimes offered to magistrates instead of an oath, but always refused. Besides, if these words of the apostle are to be considered as oaths, they would prove too much, by showing that he used them in private correspondence, or communication; which those who plead for judicial swearing, agree our Lord meant to prohibit, by the command: "Swear not at all." Some have also argued in favour of judicial swearing, from an allusion to it in the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. vi. 16. But surely the incidental mention of a general practice among "men," is not a sufficient argument for the rectitude of that practice: nor a proof that it was allowed by Christians, who, in comparison with the rest of mankind, were then few in number. It may, perhaps, be still argued, that the ends of justice could not be answered without an oath. To this it may be replied, that if the same penalty were annexed to a false affirmation, as to a false oath, those whose consciences are + Rom. i. 9. + 2 Tim. iv. 1. * Matt. xxvi. 64. The first affirmation granted to our Society instead of an oath, was a declaration "In the presence of Almighty God." But this not affording universal relief, the legislature afterwards indulged us with the present form of attestation, in which there is no use of the Sacred Name. not sufficiently tender to preserve them from giving a false affirmation, would find, in the penalty, as much terror from offending against the one, as against the other. It has been alleged by some, that this prohibition of oaths relates only to common conversation but the context will by no means support this construction, as will appear from the following considerations. First, Profane swearing was prohibited under the Law, and it is evident that Christ was forbidding what the Law had allowed. Secondly, Swearing is here contrasted with forswearing or false swearing. Now, this being contrary to the Law, whether before a magistrate, or in private conversation, the command not to swear at all must be equally extensive. Our construction of the command of Christ, is further confirmed by the exhortation of his disciple and apostle, James: "Above all things, my brethren, swear not; neither by heaven, neither by earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest you fall into condemnation.” * Having said what appears to be sufficient on the subject of oaths; we come next to consider the arguments used in defence of war. Of these the principal one is, that it is unavoidable and necessary. In reply to this we say, that so long as mankind are disposed to live under the influence of their passions, and to sacrifice their dearest interests to their avarice or their ambition, this plea will not be wanting. But let us consider what proofs have been given, that war is really unavoidable. Has any nation fairly made the experiment, and failed? Where is the country that has regulated its conduct by that justice, that liberality, that love, that humility, and that meekness, which Christianity requires, and yet has found war unavoidable? * James v. 12. Can we contemplate the characters of the individuals who have been the rulers of nations, and say, that such have been thy dispositions which regulated their public and private conduct; and that still they have not been able to preserve their country from war and bloodshed? Till all this can be clearly proved, the argument from necessity is of no weight. If, then, it cannot be shown that men, living and acting in a truly Christian spirit, have found war to be necessary and unavoidable, the argument assumed must be considered as destitute of foundation. But, that I may not be thought to reason chimerically, I shall show that a people have existed who, acting upon these Christian principles, preserved their country from war and bloodshed, even while their neighbours were frequently involved in them. Pennsylvania, it is generally known, was originally the property of one called a Quaker, who filled most of the offices of the government with persons of his own persuasion. Had not the conduct of this people. towards their neighbours, both Indians and Europeans, been recorded by men totally unconnected with the Society, my relation might appear partial and interested; but history, impartial history, has transmitted the conduct of this people to posterity, in such a manner as renders it unnecessary for me to say more, than that, so long as they retained their ascendancy in the state, which was about sixty or seventy years, neither internal nor external war was permitted to disturb their peaceful habitations.* We do not say that occasions of difference never occured: but other means of settling their differences, than those generally resorted to, were pursued: and, if not found successful, submission was * In corroboration of these circumstances, the following quotation is given from the translation of a Latin Poem, entitled: "Descriptio Pennsylvaniæ," and written in 1729, by Thomas Makin, after forty years' residence in Pennsylvania: wisely preferred to the precarious and violent decision of the ****ord. Great pains are taken to make a distinction between offensive and defensive war; and, whilst the former is generally reprobated, the latter meets with many advocates. It must, I suppose, be admitted, that in almost every war both parties profess to act on the principle of defence; and where is the criterion which accurately determines the difference? But, supposing an extreme case, and that without any provocation, one man, or one nation, is attacked by another, is there no dependence to be placed on a superintending Providence? and have religion and virtue no resources, but in the arm of flesh? Were our minds brought into a true Christian state, the protection of Divine Providence would be humbly and safely relied upon; so far, at least, as to prevent us from seeking redress, by means destructive of the lives of our fellow-creatures. Such is the natural state of mankind, that "offences must needs come;" but it ought to be remembered, "that wo is to him by whom the offence cometh." Were those dispositions recommended by our blessed Lord, cherished by that which considers itself the offended party, it would soon appear, that war is not so necessary and unavoidable, as is by many imagined. "On just and fairest terms the land is gained, No force of arms has any right obtained. The blest inhabitant enjoys his own. See Proud's History of Pennsylvania, page 211-Note. |