God help me to escape this danger." And the word So, in this formula, must then mean; May God so truly strengthen me when I am weak, as I truly intend to use all my strength in order to keep my oath."

66

681. It has sometimes been objected to the use of Oaths, that it is irreverent towards God, to employ his name, and invoke his agency, for the purpose of carrying on human affairs. But we reply to this, that an Oath is really an act of reverence. We do not doubt that God does so far attend to human affairs, that he judges our actions, and will punish us if we commit wilful and deliberate falsehood. We do not pretend to call in his agency; but to express our conviction that he will act as our judge. A falsehood, uttered with this thought brought before us, is really a more flagrant sin against him, and must be supposed to draw upon us heavier punishment than an offence done thoughtlessly. In short, in an oath we do not pretend to direct the attention of God to but the attention of man to God.

man,

682. We may add, that an Oath, by referring the matter to the Providence of God, secures us from all claim of regard to man. If we had, unsworn, to give evidence which would inflict loss or disgrace upon a very powerful man, or a very dear friend, the person might, if he were one who thought that some falsehoods are excusable, expect us to withhold or distort the truth, for his benefit or exculpation; but no one holds Perjury to be excusable; and the fact of our giving our evidence on Oath, at once destroys all expectation that we will violate or trifle with the truth. It destroys this expectation so completely, that even the person proved to be guilty, feels commonly no resentment against the Witnesses who prove him so. This could result from nothing but from the establishment of an absolute and supreme obligation to tell the truth, such as an Oath alone can establish.

683. Instead of using the name of God, the phrase I solemnly affirm, and the like, have sometimes been used. The reason for this substitution would be intelligible, if the phrase were employed to avoid a recognition of the existence of God: but among men who believe that God will judge them, it does not appear what sense can be conveyed by the word solemnly, except that they recollect that there will be such a judgment. If the expression do not excite the same thought as if they had said, In the presence of God, it does not seem to have any meaning.

The

684. It is sometimes said, that if a man cannot be believed upon his word, he cannot be believed upon his oath; that if he will commit falsehood, he will commit perjury. And undoubtedly, a perfectly good man is as incapable of the one, as of the other. A person in whom the operative principle of Truth is completely established and developed, will not tell a lie; and on him, an Oath would produce no effect which could not be produced without it. But the world is not composed of perfectly good men. moral culture of many, we may say of most persons, is very imperfect, with regard to Truth. Besides that they often speak thoughtlessly, there are kinds and occasions of falsehood, which they deem allowable or excusable. We have noticed some of these, in speaking of Cases of Conscience respecting Truth. We have there stated that our moral culture requires entire truthfulness; or, as the religious man will express this, that God's approval cannot be given to anything short of entire truthfulness. But men, in their common daily actions, do not think much of their moral culture, and of God's approval. The object of an Oath is, to raise them from their common mood, in which they claim excuses and allow. ances for falsehood, into that state of mind which the thought of God's judgments is fitted to call forth.

And Oaths do produce this effect. Men's minds are solemnized by this form of an engagement. Under this impression of an Oath, they no longer claim excuses and allowances for their falsehood. They speak with consideration and gravity. If they give testimony on Oath, they are careful in their recollection of the fact. If they promise on Oath, they are watchful over themselves for the future.

685. The Oaths commonly in use among men are principally of the two kinds just referred to; Oaths of Testimony or Assertion, and Oaths of Promise or Engagement for the future. Oaths of Testimony impose upon us an especial duty of careful recollection and exact narration. The formula used in the administration of English law expresses this; it requires men to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, touching the matter in question. But in the cases in which this is employed judicially, it is for the Tribunal, rather than for the Witness, to determine what is the whole truth touching the matter in question and the English Courts of Law expect only that the Witness shall answer the questions put to him. They also excuse him from doing this, when the answer would criminate himself. These definitions of the Obligation of the Witness, are also the definitions of his Duty as a Witness. As a lover of Justice, it will often be right for a man to do much more than this.

:

686. In the same manner, Oaths of Assertion; as when we declare the value of our income, or of anything belonging to us; impose upon us a Duty of careful examination of the matter concerning which we assert; and an entire sincerity in asserting, without reserve, equivocation, or straining of the truth. Thus an Oath that we have not received or paid money, or reward (as in oaths against bribery at elections, sale of ecclesiastical offices, and the like), is violated not the less, if the money be received and

paid by some contrivance which escapes detection, or evades the law.

687. Oaths of Promise with regard to special acts are not much in use among us. We do not require a man to swear that he will perform a contract, or resign an office, or the like. The law has other ways of enforcing its Will, on such points. Our Oaths of Engagement for the future are, for the most part, promises of a general course of action; and promises of certain dispositions as suitable to the condition to which we look forward. Thus we have Oaths of Office administered to Magistrates, Judges, Jurymen, Legislators, and to the sovereign himself; and Oaths of Allegiance, administered to the subject. In these Oaths, the swearer engages to conform to the Laws of the Land in the discharge of his office; and also, generally, to act with care, impartiality, and equity. He promises to be faithful to the law, and the intention of the law; which intention is understood to be, the administration of justice. The subject promises Allegiance to the Sovereign; which was formerly further explained in the Oath itself: I promise to be true and faithful to the King, and not to know of any ill or damage intended him without defending him therefrom. These Oaths all engage the swearer to that conduct, and those dispositions, which morality would require without the Oath. For the Magistrate's Duty is generally to administer the law, to regard the intention of the law, and to identify this intention with justice (333). And the Subject's Duty is generally, as we have already said (309), a willing obedience to the laws, an affection for his country, a love of its institutions and of its constitution, a loyalty to its sovereign. There may be special cases of exception to these Duties; as when the Magistrate cannot look upon a particular law as other than unjust: or when the Duty of Allegiance is broken, under the pressure of a case of extreme

necessity. Oaths such as we have just mentioned, which engage the Swearer to that course of action which forms the General Rule of Morality, are inconsistent with a contemplation of the cases of Exception, as prominent or frequent. A person cannot, without the guilt of Perjury, take an Oath to administer the laws faithfully and justly, if he believe that to administer the laws faithfully will be to commit habitual injustice. A Subject cannot swear allegiance to the reigning Sovereign, if he not only believe him to be an usurper, but if he also be ready to join in a scheme for deposing him, if a favourable occasion should arise. Oaths of Office, of Allegiance, and the like, are to be taken in such a manner, as to identify the citizen's Duties with his Obligations and by being Oaths, they further express his conviction that the discharge of Duties, and therefore of legal Obligations, is the only way to obtain the approval of God, and the happiness which he bestows with his appreval.

688. Besides the general moral engagements contained in Oaths of Office, such Oaths often include some specification of a particular subject, with a prescribed course of action relative to it; thus, the English Sovereign, at his Coronation, swears that he will maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law: Members of Parliament take a similar Oath: Officers of special bodies, as Colleges and Corporations, in many cases take Oaths to observe the Special Laws of their body, to maintain its privileges, and the like. Along with the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign, there has often been demanded an Oath of Allegiance also to his Heirs; or an Oath of Renunciation of the Obligation of Obedience to some rival Authority: as in this country, we have, in addition to the Oath of Allegiance, the Oath of Abjuration, in which we abjure the Authority of the Pope.