West-Jersey pioneer., 1871-04-21
THE THEORY OF THE CIVIL OATH.
BY REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR, DID.

solemn affirmation or declaration made with
an appeal to God for the truth of what is
affirmed" To this he adds the following
explanatory observations /" The appeal to
God in an oath implies that the person inn
precates his vengeance and denounces his
favor, if the declaration is false; or, if the
declaration is a promise, the person inyokes
the vengeance of God if he should fail to
keep it. !" John Milton, in his /" christian
Doctrine, y says s.An oath is that whereby
we call God to witness the truth of what
we say, with curse upon ourselves, either
implied or expressed, should it prove false"
Such definition at once raises the ques-
ton in every thoughtful mind whether any
man can, without the greatest presumption,
take an oath, and especially whether the
State has any right to compel him to do so.
If itsbe mere form, having no mental
reality, as is often the case, then it is an act
of sacrelgious trifling with God-indeed,
species of religious hypocrisy. Upon this
supposition the man who processes to swear,
does not in reality swear at all. He simply
goes through the form prescribed by law. o
If, however, the oath be mentally real,
then the person who takes it asks God to
curse him upon an hypothesis which is not
only possible, but considering the infrmi-
ties of human nature, more or less proba-
BILE, and in too many instances fact.
Where, then, is his authority for invoking
the penal curse of God spon himself on any
supposition asking God to become a
Judicial party to the case, armed with the
thunderbolts of His wrath, and beseeching
Him to hllrl it upon him in the event of his
not being absolutely truthfule Where is
the man who, in the character of witness
sworn to discharge the duties of his office
to, the BEST of his ability, can so guarantee
to himself his own integrity as to justify
him in imprecating upon himself the Divine
vengeance in the event of failure? 1t
would seem to be much more sensible to ask
God to forgive him, should he fail to speak
the truth or keep his promise. If the oath
be mere form, then it is not only an act
of sacrilege, but has no power to dispose
one to the utterance of truth. If it be men
tally real, then it involves very question
| able presumption, while it makes most
unnatural prayer. In either aspect Of the
| question the omission of the oath would
seem to be better than the practice. Clearly
the State has no right to compel one by
swearing, to imprecate the curse of God
upon himself against his own consent. II
i would be an absurdity and an outrage tc
make an oath compulsory.
| The ordinary plea for swearing men is
| that Of practical utility. We are told that
it increases the certainty that witnesses will
| speak the truth, and that public officers will
faithfully perform their duties and hence
! that, as means to this end, it is both allow.
able and proper. This is a question of fact
and the fact is that we have the result, in
multitudes of cases. perjured witnesses, and
in a much larger number of cases, perjured
officers of law. As a preventive of false
hood the civil oath is failure and it may
! well be doubted whether it has ever added
/
\ If one has no fear of God before his eyes,
swearing him that he will speak the truth
or discharge his official duties is not likely
to increase the certainty that he will do So
/ The oath is not, process of reformation
but an appeal to moral sentiments already
existing; and if these sentiments are moi
present, then the oath has no power to Sc
cure the utterance of truth. IT. on the
other hand, one be man of habitual We
racity, he will speak the truth, and discharge
his official duties, whether sworn or not
Either then the oath is uselsss, and for thi.
reason it may be well omitted !; or it is
unnecessary, and for this we should come
to the same conclusion. Those nwho nee6
todbe sworn in order to make them truthful
will not be made so thereby and those
who are already truthful do not need to be
sworn.a Sworn witnesses or sworn officers
are not regarded as any more credible or re-
liable than those who simply affirm, but de-
cline on conscientious grounds to take al
oath. j 1llt az ;Ht9@n l0a s9p9 lHi
Z The m amer in which and the men b,
whom the civil oath is usually administered
addyery little, if anything, to the sanction
and solemnity of truth. There is nothing
in the usual form of swearing to impress
the mind or awaken in it any special sense
Of responsibility to God. If it be anything
but an empty and meaningless form, it i,
an immensely solemn thing and yet the
Fordinary process of administration is sc
stereotyped, so much mere matter oi
routine and usage, that probably not one
person in a hundred has any increased sense
of the presence of God, or the sanctions oi
truth as arising from His government ane
attributes. Those who administer the oath
are not necessarily religious men they may
4 be, reigiously considered, very bad men
and the same may be true of those who
take the oath. The mockery Of the anna
zing solemnities involved in the theory Of
swearing men, if there be anything in it be-
yond the mere form, is enough to startle
one who thinks soberly on the subject. The
idea and the practice are SO antagonistical,
and the results are so little in accordance
with the idea, that one may well hesitate as
to the expediency of the oath at ALL The
farce of-the form is in painful contrast with
assumed solemnity ofithe theory. It makes
sacred things SO commonplace, and handles
them with such unthinking carelessness,
that they really cease to be sacred The
administrator swears the witness or the Of
ficer with about as much solemnity as he
would have in eating his breakfast or wri-
4 ting his name on piece of paper; and the
sworn is in about the same predicament, SO
far as the religious sanction is concerned.
4 Either the oath ought to be abandoned al
1 together, or we ought to have an entirely
new dispensation for its administration. y
II Welbelieve, moreover, that helcivil oath,
50 farIas it makes any impression, has a
tendency to make false impression on
mems minds. It proceeds upon the suppo-
sition thataone who is under oath is in some
/ - n . n.