35® O A 
but is-going" out at the tail;'’ in allufion to its having 
once been the vice of the great, though, from a refine¬ 
ment of manners, it had at length defcended to the molt 
low and vulgar of the people. That the great were ad¬ 
dicted to this vile cuftom is paft difpute, as may be proved 
by feveral of their favourite oaths, Hill preferved on re¬ 
cord againft: them : William the Conqueror, fwore by the 
J'p leu flour of God; William Rufus, by St. Luke's face; John, 
by God's tenth ; Louis the Eleventh of France, by God's 
Ertjier; Charles the Eighth, by God's Light; and the 
Chevalier Bayard, of celebrated memory, by God's Holi¬ 
day ; while there were few but made folemn appeals to 
faints, &c. fo that, in thole ancient times, every man of 
confequence had a peculiar oath. No marvel, therefore, 
that our forefathers, who were attentive to the manners 
of their fuperiors, fhould have formed the proverbs of 
“ Swearing like an Emperor,” “ Swearing like a Lord,” 
&c. Francis the Firft of France, on the contrary, ufed 
to appeal to the truth of his affeverations “On the 
Word of a Gentleman ;” a gallant expreffion, highly cha- 
rafteriftic of the times of chivalry, and fhows thatmonarchs 
ufed fometimes to value themfelves more on noblenefs of 
conduit than on their fuperiorrank. Henry the Fourth of 
France, conllar.tly reminded his nobles, that the utrnolt 
he or they could poffibly boaft of pofleffing, was the pe¬ 
culiar opportunity they had of evincing that “ they were 
all gentlemen;” and our own Henry, when he confirmed 
Magna Charta, bound himfelf to obferve its obligation 
as he was a “ Gentleman, (to which he gave the greateft 
importance.) a King, and a Knight." 
The laws of all civilized llates at prefent require the fe- 
curity of an oath for evidence given in a court of jullice, 
and on other occafions of high importance; and the 
Chriftian religion utterly prohibits fwearing, except when 
oaths are required by legal authority. Indeed, noferious 
and reflecting theift, whether he admit the truth of reve¬ 
lation or not, can look upon fwearing on trivial occafions 
as any thing elfe than a fin of a very heinous nature. To 
call upon that infinite and omniprefent Being, who crea¬ 
ted and l'uftains the univerfe, to witnefs all the imperti¬ 
nence, of idle converfation, of which great part is com¬ 
monly uttered at random, betrays afpirit fo profane, that 
nothing fhort of experience could make us believe it pof- 
iible for a creature endowed with reafon and reflection to 
be habitually guilty of a practice fo impious. No man 
can plead in extenuation of this crime, that he is tempted 
to fwear by the importunity of any appetite orpaffion im¬ 
planted in the human bread ; for the utterance of a pro¬ 
fane oath communicates no pleafure, and removes no un- 
eafinefs; it neither elevates the fpeaker, nordeprefies the 
hearer. 
Quakers and Moravians, fwayed by thefe coniiderations, 
and by the fenle which they put upon certain texts of 
Scripture, refute to fwear upon any occafion, even at the 
requiiirion of a magiftrate, and in a court of juftice. 
Thefe (cruples are groundlefs; and feem to proceed from 
incapacity todiftinguifti between the proper ufeandabufe 
of fwearing. It is unqueftionably impious to call upon 
God to witnefs impertinences, or to ufe his tremendous 
name as a mere expletive in converlation ; but it by no 
means follows, that we may not pioully call upon him to 
witnefs truths of importance; or invoke his name with 
reverence and folemnity. No individual could, without 
grofs profanenefs, pray for a thoufand times more wealth 
than he may ever have occafion to ufe; but it was never 
thought profane to pray, “ day by day for our daily bread, 
for rain from heaven, and fruitful feafons.” If it be 
lawful to alk of God thefe earthly blefiings, becaufe he 
alone can bellow them, it cannot furely be unlawful, 
where the lives or properties of our neighbours, or 
thefecurity of government, is concerned, to invoke him 
with reverence to witnefs the truth of our aflertions, or 
the fincerity of our intentions; becaufe of our truth in 
many cafes, and of our fincerity in all, none but he can 
be the. witnefs. 
T H. 
The text of Scripture upon which the Quakers chiefly 
reft their argument for the unlawfulnefs of ail fwearing 
under the gofpel, is our Saviour’s prohibition, Matth. v. 
34. I Jiu/unto you, j'wedv not at all. But whoever ffiall 
take the trouble of turning over his Bible, and looking 
at the context, will perceive that it is only in ordinary 
converfation, and by no means in courts of juftice, that 
our Lord prohibits his followers from fwearing at all. 
There is no evidence whatever, that fwearing by heaven, 
by the earth, by Jerufalem, or by their own heads, was the 
form of a judicial oath in ufe among the Jew's. On the 
contrary, we are told by Maimonides, that “if any man 
fwear by heaven, or by earth, yet this is not an oath ;” 
which furely he could not have faid, had fuch been the 
forms of judicial fwearing. Indeed, they could not have 
admitted fuch forms into their courts without expreisly 
violating' the law of Mofes, w ; ho commands them to “Fear 
the Lord (Jehovah) their God, to ferve him, and to 
Jivear by his name.” But the Jew's, as every one knows, 
had fuch a reverence for the name Jehovah, that they 
would not pronounce it upon flight occafions, and there¬ 
fore could not fwear by that name in common converfa.- 
tion. Hence, to gratify their propenfity to common 
fwearing, they invented 'fuch oaths as, by heaven, by 
earth, by Jerujalem, by the Ufe of thy head, &c. and by 
this contrivance they thought to avoid the guilt of profa¬ 
ning the name Jehovah. Thefe, however, being appeals, 
to infenfible objeCts, either had no meaning, or were in 
fair, as our Saviour juftly argues, oaths by that God 
whofe creatures they w’ere ; lo that the Jew who fwore 
them w’asfliil guilty of profanenefs towards the very Je¬ 
hovah whofe name his fuperltition would not permit him 
to pronounce. But what puts it beyond all doubt that 
theTife of judicial oaths is not wholly prohibited in the 
Gofpel, is the conduc'd of our Saviour himfelf, as well as 
of his apoltle St. Paul. When Jelus w'as fimply ajhed by 
the high pried, what it was which certain falle witnefies 
tellified againft him ? we are told by the evangelifls, that 
he held his peace; but, being adjured by the living God to 
declare whether he was the Ciirift, the Son ot God, or 
not, he immediately anfwered the high prieft, without 
objecting to the oath (for fuch it was) upon which he was 
examined. St. Paul, in his Epiftie to the Romans, faj's, 
“ God is my witnefs, that, without ceafing, I make men¬ 
tion of you in my prayers;” and to the Corinthians, ltill 
more llrongly, “ I call God for a record upon my foul, that, 
to fpare you, I came not as yet to Corinth.” Both thefe 
exjireflions are of the nature of oaths ; and the author or 
the Epiftie to the Hebrews, (peaks of the cuftom of (wear¬ 
ing judicially without any mark of cenlure ordifapproba- 
tion : Men verih/ /wear by the greater; and an oath, for con¬ 
firmation, is to them an end of all j'trife. 
But, though a nation has an undoubted right to require 
the fecurity of an oath upon occafions ot real importance, 
we do not hefitate to lay, that, in our opinion, it is fome- 
thing worfe than bad policy to multiply oaths, and to 
hold out to the people temptations to perjure themlelves. 
The fecurity which an oath alfords, depends entirely 
upon the reverence which attaches to it in the mind ot 
him by whom it is given ; but that reverence is much 
weakened by the frequency of oaths, and by the carelels 
manner in which they are too often adminiftered. An 
excellent moralift (Paley) obferves with truth, that “the 
levity and frequency with which oaths are adminiftered, 
has brought about a general inadvertency to the obliga¬ 
tion of them, which, both in a religious and political view; 
is much to be lamented ; and it merits public confidera— 
tion, whether the requiringof oaths on fo many frivolous 
occafions, efpecially in tbecuftoms, and in the qualifica¬ 
tions 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 (hip to the confumer, 
without coding half a dozen oaths at lead; and the fame 
fecurity for the due dilcharge of his office, namely, that of 
an oath, is required from a church-warden and an arch- 
bifhop, 
