Year: 1871

swearing anybody; and if it be the idea,
thenitis manifestly a false one, since no


one can increase the obligation Of veracity
by any act on his own part. To imply |
distinction in the obligation not to lie under !
ordinary circumstances, and not to lie un- |
der oath, is virtually to lower the general |
obligation of veracity and so to impair the
law. of truth in the eonseiences of men as
to educate them to swear falsely. We be-
lieve that the civil oath in this respect de-
feats its own end, by implying a false dis
tinction, and that, on the whole, it rather
demoralizes the sense of truth than pro-
notes it. Those who are under special OBJ


legations to be truth-tellsrs only upon extra


occasions are in danger of regarding them


selves as licensed to lie at other times, and


forming such habits of falsehood, from


diminished sense of obligation, as will i'm


pair their scruples about lying when under
oath. The way to teach men to lie is to
have two standards of truth4athe one par
ticularly solemn and used only occasionally,
and the other not so solemn yet in constant


use. Educate men under the latter as a


sort of lower law, and they will come to


think common lying comparatively small


offence, and thereby learn how to practice


uncommon lying, SO far as the religious


sanctionsfof an oath have any power to bind


them. The man most likely to speak the


truth is just the man, whose sense of the


obligation of truth is not and cannot be


increased by the oath. So also the person


least credible under oath is the very one


most addicted to lying at ordinary times.


1t is the character previously established


and notthe one created by the swearing


process, which determines this question of


credibility. 73bio 0i ad9isAizl .qge anf8aHf


For these reasons we think that it would


be better for the State to dispense with the


oath altogether, and require witnesses or Of


ficers Of law simply to affirm, making false


testimony penal offence and official un-


faithfulness ground of impeachment. This
is enough for the State, without attempting
to administer religious rite Let it pun
ish false testimony as crime against the


State, and impeach unfaitllful officers ; and
it will WELD the only motive which it can


successfully WELD in favor of truth This


we regard as legitimate and proper. 1t is
just the sanction of truth which falls within


the province of the State. The fact that
the State permits persons to affirm without
being sworn is virtual admission that they


need not be sworn at all. The exceptional


case provided for had better be the general


rule. Society would not, in our Judgment,


lose anything by suspending usage which


answers no good end, and to which there


are certainly very serious objections.


| tt is the opinion of some religious sects


that the oath is expressly forbidden by the


teaching of the New Testament; and this
opinion we are inclined to regard as correct.
Jesus said: .sAgain, ye have heard that ii
hath been said by them of old time, thou


shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt per-
form unto the Lord thine oaths But say


unto you, Swear not at all !; neither by
Heaven, for its Gods throne nor by the


earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jeru-
salem, for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head be-
cause thou canst not make one hair white


or black. But let your communication be


Yea, yea, Nay, nay whatsoeveris more


than these cometh of evil.' James says


But above all things, my brethren, swear
not, neither by Heaven, neither by the


earth, neither by amy other oath; but let
your yeabe yea, and your nay, be nay, lest
| you fall into condemnation. = These seem
to be very comprehensive as well as en-
phatic prohibitions of all forms of swearing


accompanied with the direction that we
| should confine ourselves to simple affirma-
tion or negation. There are no other pas.
sages in the New Testament which restrict
their applications and make the civil oath


an exception. The argument against swear
Fling in private conversation is just as good


against swearing under judicial forms. The
| practice is as useless in the one case as in


the other; and the same objections are
equally applicable in both. los 3Eal .
I Many of the Christian fathers understood


the Saviour's word as condemning all oaths,


without exception. Turtullian says: 81


say nothing of perjury, since swearing


itself is unlawful to Christians" Chrysos-


tom says: "Do not say to me, I swear fol


a just purpose it is no longer lawful fol


thee to swear, either justly or unjustly''


This is the view of the Quakers-a sect Of


relgionists who decline to be sworn, and


than whom no class of men is better at.


tested for truth and veracity. If Quakers


need not be7sworn, then why swear any


one ? If we swear any, then why not swear
| all? If the oath in the hands Of the State


be lawful power to make more certain the
| utterance of truth, then why not use it in
| private life? What authority has the State
to use it which the individual does not
equally possess? There can be no pretense
! that the State is required to impose the


civil oath by any law of God and so far as


we can see, it has no exclusive right to use
| it which would not be common to itself and


all other parties. We object to the use al.


together, believing it to be morally unlaw.
full for any man to take an oath !; and, hence,


equally 20 for any earthly power to impose


it.-N. =. Independent. isai7aea h,a a9
! You'll FIND OUT.-Two darkies in the


west, went out to hunt, oppossums and by
accident found large cave with quite a
small entrance. Peeping in, they discov-
lered three young (bear) whelps in the inte-
! rior. ,..-,.a


"Look heah, Sam, Ize gwine to go in dar
and get the young bears s-you jest watch dis
/ yer hole for de old bear Sam got asleep
in the sun. When opening his eyes he saw
the old bear securing her way into the cave