Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-05-16
The next and the last argument is of a

upon silence. For men verify swear by
the greater. and an oath for confirmation
is to them an end of all strife."* Re.
specting this it is said that it speaks d
the custom of swearing judicially without
any mark of censure or disapprobation. u
Will 1t then be coitended that whatever
an apostle mentions without reprobating
be aHproVes?~ The same apostle speaks
just IN the same manner Of the pagan
games; of running race for prizes and
[ OF "striving for the mastery" Yet who
would admit the argument, that because
Paul did not then censure the games, he
thought them right? The existing Gus.
toms both of swearing and of the games,
are adduced merely BY way of aIustra-
ton Of the writer's subject.
Respecting the lawfuness Of oaths then,
as determined by the Christian Scriptures,
how does the balance of evidence stand ?
Ga the one side, we have plain emphatic
al prohibitions, -prohibitions of which
the distinctness is more fully proved the
more they are investigated: on the other
we have-counter preceptS2 No: 1t is
not even pretended: but we have exam
Piles of the use of language of which it
is saying much to say, that it, is doubtful
whether they are oaths or not. How
then would the man of reason and of phi
Iosophy decide! MANY of the Chris
tian fathers" says Grotius, condemned
all oaths without exception."t Grotius
was himself an advocate of oaths. 81
say nothing of perjury" says Tertulian,
"sinre swearing itself is unlawful to
Christians. + Chrysostom says, DO
not say to me, swear for just purpose
it is no longer lawful for thee to swear
either justly or unjustIy."9 He who,'
says Gregory of Nysse, "has precluded
murder by taking away anger, and who
has driven away the pollution of adultery
by subdujng desire, has expelled from our
life the curse of perjury by forbidding US
TO swear; for where there is no oath there
can be no infringement Of it. Such is
the conviction which the language Of
Christ conveyed 10 the early converts to
his pure religion; and such is the convic-
ton which think it would convey to Us,
if custom had not famiIiarized US with
the evil, and if we did not read the New
Testament rather to find Qualifications Of
our practice, than 10 discover the truth
and to apply it to our conduct.
INEFFIcAcY OF OATHs.-Of the infu-
ence of legal penalties in binding to vera
city, little needs to be said 1t is obvious
that if they induce men to refrain from
theft and violence, they will induce men
10 refrain from perjury. Jurymen swear
that they will give verdict according 10
the evidence, and yet it is perfectly we'll
known that they often assent to a verdict
which they believe to be contrary to that
evidence. They dc not all coincide in
the verdict which the foreman pronounces;
it iS\ndeed often impossible that they
should coincide. This perjury is COM
mltled by multitudes; yet what juryman
cares for it, or refuses, in consequence of
his oath, to deliver a verdict which he
believes 10, be improper? The reason
that they do not care, is, that the oath,
as such, does not bind their consciences.
1t stands alone. The public do not often
reprobate the violation of such oaths The
law does not punish it; jury men learn to
think that it is no harm to violate them !;
and the resulting confusion is, that the
form of an oath cannot and does not sup
ply the deficiency it cannot and does
not apply the religious sanction.
Step few yards from the jury-box - the
witness-box, and you see the difference
There, public opinion interposes lis power
there the punishment Of perjury impends-
there the religious sanction is applied-and
there, consequently, men regard the truth.
If the simple intervention of an oath was
that which bound men to veracity, they
would be bound in the jury-box as much as
al ten feet off: but it is not.
To take an oath in voluntary ignorance Of
the obligations which ii is intended TO inn
pose, and to excuse ourselves for disregard
| inc them because we do not know what
they are, cannot surely be right. Yet it is
often difficult, sometimes impossible, TO
discover what an oath requires. The abb
sence of precision in the meaning Of terms,
the alteration Of general usages whilst the
forms of oaths remain the same, and the
origioaI want Of explicitness of the forms
themselves, throw sometimes insuperable
obstacles in the way of discovering, when
a man takes an oath, what it is that he binds
himself to do.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, touching the matter in ques-
ton" Is the witness to understand by this
that if he truly answers all questions that
are put to him, he conforms to the requisi-
tions of the oath2 If ne is, the terms of
the oath are very exceptionable; for many a
witness may give true answers to counsel,
and yet nottell "the whole truth" Or does
the oath bind him to give an exact narrative
Of every particular connected with the mat
ter in question, whether asked or Dot2 If
it does, multitudes commit perjury. How
then shall a witness act? Shall he commit
perjury by Withholding all information but
that which is asked? Or shall he be ridi-
culed and perhaps silenced IN court for at