But this would not be acknowledged by any; and yet it must follow, if it be considered that the charge of the chief priest, constituted an oath, on the part of our Saviour.

The various forms of expression, used by the apostle Paul, and insisted on by some, as equivalent to swearing, are not oaths, nor are they so considered in any legal proceedings.

It may also be observed, that the primitive christians for the first 300 years, considered it unlawful to swear. For the testimonies in support of this assertion, the reader may consult Barclay's Apology, p. 554, 555, and W. Penn's Works, vol. 2, p. 363.

The primitive christians were not alone in their ideas of oaths. It is well known that many of the most pious heathen had a clear view of some of the principles of the gospel. Among these is the subject of oaths. (Vide Barclay's Apol. p. 553, 554.)

An important objection was formerly made to the abrogation of oaths, on account of the security which they were supposed to afford to the community. It was even imagined that justice could not be administered, nor government itself be supported, without oaths. And this sentiment was avowed, both from the pulpit and the seat of justice. This fact affords strong evidence of the power of prejudice, and the weakness of human reasoning, when founded on expediency, as opposed to the precepts of Jesus Christ. But such was the infatuation of mankind, not two centuries ago, that from reasoning like this, they reconciled themselves to punish, as malefactors, men, and even females, who, feeling a reverent regard for the precepts of our Lord, could not swear; depriving them of their property, their liberty, and even of their lives, (indirectly,) while those who could swear and for

swear, were suffered not only to roam at large, but prey on the best interests of society!

This delusion is now over, in part. Enlightened and liberal minded men, of different denominations, do not now suppose that oaths are essentially necessary to the support of civil government; and the laws themselves admit affirmations instead of oaths. We might therefore suppose, that the practice would be abandoned; as all dread of consequences is removed, and it is found that a simple affirmation answers all the purposes that ever could reasonably be expected from oaths. And indeed, considering the light which has been cast on the subject— that not one solitary advantage can result from the judicial use of oaths, instead of affirmations, but on the contrary, much evil, independent of the violation of a positive precept of Jesus Christ-it is not less strange that they should now be sanctioned by an enlightened and religious people, than that they should have been considered, in a less enlightened age, of absolute necessity in civil society.

The imposition of an oath, carries with it the strong presumption, that the individual is not to be believed without it. This idea has an extensively demoralizing effect, on those who are placed within the sphere of its influence. It opens a wide door to the disgusting vice of lying. When men become reconciled to the idea, that an oath is necessary to the truth, it is a kindred feeling to reconcile them to falsehood, in their ordinary communications. Nor is this the only immoral tendency of requiring oaths, to ensure the truth. It holds out a temptation to swearing, in conversation. Reconciled, in the first place, to speak falsehood, unless under the coercion of an oath, and, in the next place, to attest the Truth by swearing, a disposition is produced, in some men, to give their conversation the appearance of truth,

by interspersing it with profane oaths. When their feelings are thus depraved, there is very little dependence on their veracity, either with or without oaths, and the formality of a book, and the aid of a civil officer, would add but little to the obligation. It is not intended to convey the idea, that these effects are uniformly produced. But that this species of immorality does prevail, to a melancholy extent, will hardly be denied, & that the public sanction of oaths, may be numbered among the causes of this vice, I think is equally evident. Still it is readily admitted, that there are many, who occasionally take judicial oaths, without supposing that they are violating a precept of Jesus Christ, and without falling into the practice of using profane language. But even these would do well, seriously to investigate the subject. And I am persuaded that those solemn impressions which they sometimes feel, in contemplation of the subject-before —at the time—or after the taking of an oath, would result in a clear conviction of the impropriety of the practice.

I will draw to a conclusion, with a summary view of the subject.

However the practice of swearing, might have been sanctioned in times of ignorance and "hardness of heart," it was positively prohibited under the Gospel. The primitive christians, for three hundred years after Christ, maintained the doctrine of the unlawfulness of oaths; and even pious heathen entertained the same principle. It is now conclusively proved, that oaths are not necessary for the purposes of civil government, inasmuch as no evil has ever resulted from admitting an affirmation, instead of an oath—and there are strong grounds for believing, that the frequent recurrence of judicial oaths, has a powerful influence in producing falsehood and profaneness.

CHAPTER XVI.

Of War.

THE Society of Friends believe, that War is altogether inconsistent with the Spirit and Precepts of the Gospel.

We believe that the Almighty, in the creation of the world, and in placing man on earth, dignified with the Divine Image, never designed that he should be the enemy of his species, or that discord and violence should mark his conduct. On the contrary, he was certainly designed to pursue that line of conduct, which would secure his own happiness, and correspond to the attributes of his Creator. His defection from original purity and excellence, proved an inlet to those depraved and violent passions, without which wars would never have had a beginning on earth. Thus the apostle James queried, "Whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not from hence, even of your lusts, that war in your members?" And no man who has reflected on the subject, can dissent from the apostle. In the original order of human actions and human feelings, there certainly was harmony-nothing like the features, or even the seeds of war.

Soon after the fall of our first parents, from this happy state, in which they were no doubt designed to continue, violence and bloodshed made their ap

pearance.

We therefore believe that God, in the formation of all things, designed that man should live in peace and harmony. That wars and violence, were the

effects of that diabolical spirit, which gained admission into the human heart, through sin: and which the gospel was designed to eradicate.

If we believe that wars would never have taken place, had man retained his original innocence and command over his passions-if they are the fruits of that malevolent spirit, which gained admission in the fall-and further, if we believe that the object of Christ's coming was, to destroy the works of the devil, and to bring in everlasting righteousness—we must believe, that where the gospel is brought into its just pre-eminence, all wars must cease.

The example of pious persons under the legal dispensation, has been considered as evidence, that war is not inconsistent with the gospel.

But to this objection, it may be replied, that the practices under the law, do not necessarily establish the same things under the gospel. The morality of the law, was certainly inferior to that required under the gospel. It would be injurious to the character of our Lord, and of the dispensation which he introduced, to say that he made no discoveries of Truth, or pointed his followers to no superior state, in our relations to God and one another, than that which was attained before his coming.

The construction of the human mind, requires to be gradually informed and expanded. And as, in the fall, it was sunk into a low and servile state, so, it pleased Divine Goodness to prepare a means for its restoration, by the coming of Jesus Christ into the world; who not only became a propitiation for us, but brought to light those important truths, which had remained obscured for ages and generations, through the weakness and darkness which pervaded the human mind. But in order to prepare mankind for this exalted discovery of Truth,