dress, are merged in the common crowd, but with the whole mass of civil society. And as the principles, and the morals of the great mass of mankind, bear little of the impress of christianity, and much of moral pollution, the society, in the result of the comparison, has stood high in morals with the superficial observer. Those founders of new sects* were unquestionably shrewd observers of human nature; who, in devising auxiliaries to strengthen their society, and to attach, more closely, their proselytes to their systems, have called into their aid, principles that operate on the propensities and vanity of the human mind. What Mohammed effected by the trivial rites of ablutions of water, or sand, and by prostrations toward Mecca, and by pilgrimages; that Eustathius did; and that Fox and Penn did, in their way, by a distinctive dress, and speech, and manners. They aspired to the same lofty origin, the special command of heaven. They had the same object in view. It is certain they do have the same tendency. The devout Arab performs his ablutions, and prostrates himself toward Mecca; and rises with unmeasurable feelings of pride in his sect; and damns the whole of the human family who are not moslem. The pious Friend looks at the dress and speech of his sect, unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and separates himself from every other sect in the christian world; and throws barriers in the way of communion with them, never to be removed by him. § 23. ON OATHS.-The society is distinguished from other christians by their rejection of oaths. The members of the Reformed churches when called to give testimony, swear, with uplifted hand, by the name of God. They are guided in this by the highest authority. "Thou shalt swear by his name." This is a section of the moral law. For there are three duties of moral and perpetual obligations set down by it in the same verse. "Thou shalt fear the Lord, and serve him and cleave unto him, ་ : Fox and Penn were not the first who made a distinctive dress a necessary part of their creed. Among others, I find Eustathius of Sebastia, the leader of a sect, who clothed himself and his followers in a new and fantastic dress. Socrat Hist. lib. iii. cap. 3. See also in Niceph. Cal. Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 796. folio. † Deut. x. 20. "and swear by his name." The patriarchs gave their practical exposition of this law by their use of oaths.* It was foretold by an ancient prophet, that the faithful should, in the new testa ment church, "swear by the name of the Lord." We have the highest examples set before us. Almighty God sware by himself. An "angel raised his hand and sware by him that liveth for ever." Paul used this form in writings dictated by the Holy Ghost; "I take God to record on my soul."§ An oath is of essential importance. In the most interesting cases, both civil and criminal, it is the only means by which truth can be drawn out. And in every case that comes before a court, it goes farther than any other means to separate truth from falsehood, and educe evidence. Nor are we dragged to an oath with reluctance. The christian considers it as a solemn act of worship. In an oath, which we approach with deep solemnity and reverence, we offer homage to the divine omniscience, and power, and justice. In fine, we lay these two precepts together, and act on the necessary conclusion drawn out of them. "An oath of the Lord shall be "between them both that he hath not, &c." "For men verily 66 66 swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation's sake is an end of all strife." The first of these texts puts a case of necessity. The last recognizes "an oath" as a well known duty. And it states by divine authority, the beneficial influence of an oath on civil society. The prohibition of our Lord, and that of James, "swear not "at all, neither by heaven, nor by the earth," is considered by some as a serious objection. Nay, it is supposed to amount to a positive repeal of oaths. It certainly does not. It is an emphatic exposition of the third precept of the law: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." It prohibits all profane oaths in conversation, and all oaths made by other objects than God. And, finally, we put this question with emphasis: Does * Gen. xiv. 22.-Josh. xiv. 9.-1 Sam. xx. 3.—2 Kings, ii. 2. Isaiah, xix. 18. and lx. 16. Heb. vi. 13-Revel. x. 5, 6. $ 1 Corinth. i. 23. Exod. xxii. 11.-Heb. vi. 16. See Ber. de Moor. perpet. Com. in Markii. Comp. vol. v. cap. 12. sect. 12. the prohibition of an abuse of a law, abrogate that law? Must we refuse obedience to the command," thou shalt serve the Lord," because others abuse their mercies, and act the part of rebels? Must we refuse to "swear by the Lord our God," because some do swear profanely, and because that profaneness is forbidden? If we act on this principle of extermination, we shall soon annihilate the authority of all laws, civil and divine. These arguments have no weight with the society. They denounce all oaths. They simply affirm.* The ancient Friends bequeathed them this antipathy, which was handed down to them from their ancestors. From the time of queen Elizabeth, great cruelty had been exercised under the arbitrary measures of the bishops. In trials they were authorized to tender oaths, ex officio, to the suspected persons. This tyrannical procedure was warmly opposed the citizens and puritan ministers opposed these oaths from the press and from the pulpit. Much was written against them during this and the succeeding reigns. The people, as might naturally have been expected, gradually transferred the arguments from particulars to generals; they argued against all kinds of oaths. By the time the arguments reached the hands of the Friends, (such is the propensity to generalize on almost every theory) they were not allowed to except even the oath authorized by divine authority: "the oath for confirmation's sake "which is an end of all strife." To support this novel doctrine, they dragged in our Saviour's prohibition of profane oaths.† Some enlarged their proof by appealing to Plato, who advocates "a life beyond an oath." And they ought to have added, that it was the peculiar prerogative of the priests, among the pagans, to α The primitive Quakers admitted the substance of an oath. See the Quaker's Dialogue with Charles II. Sewel, vol. i. p. 433. Penn's Oath, vol. ii. p 74.-Burroughs, p. 622. Matth. v 34. James v. 12. "Swear not is, omnino, at all, or by any means. It is an adverb of confirming," says Schleusner, not of extent. That is, let nothing induce you to swear. What? namely, those oaths of which he is speaking; "by heaven, by the earth.” Oaths to which the politest pagans were excessively prone in conversation, and in their gravest writings Penn. ii. 513. who quotes Val. Maxim. 2. 10. and also Cicero pro Bal. Laert. be exempted from an oath.* They had the management of the divine things: they had free access to the holy inspirations of the gods: a distrust of their word was inadmissible: they were, therefore, allowed a simple affirmation. It is certain, that Penn has grafted his doctrine of immunity from oaths, on the principle of Plato, to which I have referred above. Plato's "life beyond an oath," was a life spent under the entire guidance of the light excited in its pure flame by the cathartic virtues. The man being perfect, could not lie. An oath was unnecessary. Penn models the argument thus:† the light, or Christ, is come: he came to put an end to sin; he is in them; he has put an end to sin in them; they are perfect. In perfection there is no room for "distrust of honesty." Hence, they cannot swear. To urge an oath on them, is to question the fact. of their perfection; and to insinuate that they are weak sinners like others. I will not conceal, however, that a German divine, quoted by a writer of the society,‡ is at perfect antipodes with Penn, on this article. "Those heretics," says he, "who will not G swear, are like the devil. He is not known to have ever used an oath." And he never will. Swearing to the truth is a solemn public act of homage to Almighty God. § 24.-ON WAR. On the subject of offensive war, there is only one opinion among christians. It cannot be advocated on christian principles; it exhibits on a wide field what the robber and the assassin does on a limited scale. Their moral turpitude is the same. There is only this difference, that the atrocities of war are aggravated in the ratio of the violence, murders, and rapines which follow in its train. No christian, nor even pagan, can pretend to justify offensive war. But the Society, through an excess of zeal, proceed to the extremity of advocating nonresistance. Defensive war is, in their opinion, in all cases unlawful. All that the society has advanced on this topic, hardly amounts * Plutarch quoted by Baronius, (De Donatione Constantini Magni.) Anno. 324 num. 79, and Durham on Revei. vol. ii p. 425. Vol. ii. 130, 488, 489, 796. and Bar prop. on this article. to elegant declamation: and whatever force it has, it operates only on one branch of the subject, and wholly in favour of our opinion. War is cruel: it is horrible. Man warring against man exhibits a brutal ferocity: the deeds are disgraceful even to the savage: they outstrip the ferocious deeds of the lions of the forest. These offer no violence to their own species. But the greatest enemy of mankind is man. What a spectacle of horror is presented on a field of battle, and in the sacking of a city! What feeling heart does not shudder at it! What man of principle does not abhor it! Can a christian advocate war which fills the world with so much misery! All this is very true; and every sentiment is clearly supported by the passages of holy writ usually quoted for authority.* But it is not in point; it does not touch the question under discussion. It is merely a declamation against offensive war; and those demons in human form who bring it. The guilt of this must certainly rest somewhere. It cannot rest on those who ward off the execrable evil from their own heads and the heads of those under their protection. It must rest only on those who bring the war. While, therefore, I am willing to go all the length of the society, in denouncing offensive war, I ask them, in return, to follow me in the arguments in favour of defensive war. The Almighty has written a law on our hearts, which impels us to self-defence. This is something distinct from the spirit of revenge, or a criminal indulgence of the passions. It is a universal principle; it cannot be eradicated from the bosom, until reason and judgment be hurled from their seat, and their influence over us is lost. To oppose defensive measures, is to oppose a law of our nature, impressed on every heart by the hand of Omnipotence. The precept that determines the morality of an action, is unchangeable as the throne of Deity, whence it comes. If, by a divine command, war was made lawful four thousand years ago, it must be lawful now. Who gave the command to Moses to fight against Amalek, when he brought war against his people ?† * James iv. 1, &c. † Exod. xvii. 16. It cannot be pretended that this is a part of the ceremonial law. |