silence in our religious assemblies eminently accords with that divine law, that God, who is a spirit, must be worshipped spiritually-that, in this sentiment, we are confirmed by a consideration of some of the principal constituents of true and spiritual worship, viz. humiliation before the divine Majesty, waiting upon God, and submissive attention to the immediate teaching of the Lord Jesus-that to these several duties the silent subjection of the soul is peculiarly suited, and even absolutely indispensable-and that this frame of mind is, in our judgment, most easily obtained, and most effectually preserved, through the medium of an outward silence.

mer may

Such are the reasons for the value which Friends are accustomed to attach to silence in worship; and which will, I trust, be found more and more to recommend so salutary a practice to Christians of every name and profession. In conclusion, however, it ought to be remarked, that, although silence is a natural attendant of this inward state of prostration, waiting, and attention to the divine teaching, the foroften be maintained when the latter has no * existence. It is easy for any man to be outwardly silent, while he allows his mind to be occupied with a thousand passing reflections which have no proper connexion with his religious duty; and, when this is unhappily the case with persons who are met together for the professed purpose of rendering a public homage to the Almighty, it must be confessed that their worship is as inefficacious, and nearly as much of a mockery, as it would be, did it consist in the use of words at total variance with the feelings of the heart. How clearly, then, is it the duty of Friends, of every age and station, to maintain a true watchfulness and diligence of soul, that their silent worship may not be marred by the influence of worldly thoughts, and

}

L

thus degenerate into a barren and lifeless form! It may, indeed, be freely allowed, that a condition of true internal silence is one of no easy attainment. Great is our infirmity in this respect, and difficult do we, sometimes, find it to stay the rapid course of our own cogitations, and to present ourselves, in real quietness, a living sacrifice to our God. But we do not expect to accomplish this object in our own strength. In our endeavours to worship God in spirit and in truth, we are taught to rely on him alone; and, while such continues to be our reliance, experience will still enable us to testify that he is often pleased to arise for our help that he has the will, as well as the power, to bring our vain thoughts into silence-to raise our souls into holy communion with himselfand to say to the multitudinous imaginations of the natural man, Peace, be still.

1

CHAPTER X.

ON OATHS.

IN the preceding chapters I have endeavoured to give a clear account of those religious peculiarities of the Society of Friends, which appertain, particularly, to the subject of worship, and which, therefore, involve duties (whether positive or negative) especially affecting our relation with the Supreme Being himself. The points still remaining for discussion have reference to our conduct in common life, and, more especially, towards our fellow-creatures: for, there are several matters of this description also, respecting which Friends entertain sentiments, and adopt practices, different from those of the bulk of their fellow-Christians. Of these practical peculiarities, the first which presents itself for our consideration is, the disuse of oaths. Profane and irreverent appeals to the Almighty, and those conversational blasphemies which, even in Christian countries, continue to disgrace the various classes of worldly society, are indeed unanimously condemned by all true Christians: but Friends (in accordance, as I understand, with the Moravians) advance a step farther, and consider it their bounden duty to avoid swearing of every description, and on every occasion. Such a line of conduct they deem to be both justified and required, first, by certain plain moral principles, and,

secondly, by divine commands, of the most impressive and comprehensive character. On both these heads I may venture to offer a few observations.

Of the moral principles alluded to, the first may be considered as lying at the foundation of the apostolick precept, "Let your yea be yea, and your nay nay, lest ye fall into condemnation,” Jas. v, 12; and, as deriving a clear confirmation from the declaration of Jesus himself, that "whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil;" or, as the Greek may be more accurately rendered, "of the evil one," Matt. v, 37. Since the law of truth, in the verbal communications between man and man, a law strenuously supported even by heathen moralists, and obviously essential to the wellbeing of all human societies-is very frequently enjoined in the records of God's revealed will; since it is plainly of universal obligation on the followers of Jesus; and since, on the other hand, there is nothing more decisively condemned in the sacred volume than the false tongue; it follows that, with true Christians, a deliberate and serious, yet simple, affirmation or negation, possesses a force so perfect in its kind, as to be incapable of any real augmentation. Hence there arises a plain moral obligation, in conformity with the precept of the apostle James, that our yea should be yea, and our nay, nay-that is to say, that our affirmations and negations should be naked and simple, and wholly unaccompanied with any form of oath. For if, on any particular occasion, a man swear, in addition to his yea or nay, in order to render them more obligatory and convincing, their force becomes comparatively weak at other times, when they receive no such confirmation. If such a one is a believer in the Lord Jesus, and especially if he is a serious professor of religion, it is plain that, by ὁ ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

his conduct, he gives countenance to the false and dangerous notion, that the oath of the Christian is more binding upon his conscience, and therefore more credible, than his deliberate word; and thus he inevitably lowers the standard of the law of truth.

Nor is the deduction of this consequence the work of mere theory. Experience bears ample testimony to the fact, that the prevalence of oaths among men (Christians not excepted) has produced a very material and very general effect in reducing their estimate of the obligation of plain truth, in its natural and simple forms. Even the heathen philosophers of old were well aware of the deleterious results of the practice of swearing; and some of them have left on record an express condemnation of that practice. Truly, then, may it be asserted, that those awful appeals to a superiour agency, by which, in every oath, the truth is supposed to be confirmed, (whatever may be the occasion on which such oath is employed,) arise out of an evil source,-produce an evil consequence, and are at variance with the principles of that perfect law, to which Christians, above all others, so plainly owe an exact and universal obedience.

66

6 Epictetus says, παραίτησαι ὅρκον εἰς ἅπαν— Avoid swearing altogether." Plato, ögnos megi Tavròs ȧTέorw—“Let an oath be avoided on every occasion." Charilus, ögzov r' oür' ädıxov xgewv nueva vûte díxasov-" No oath, whether it be a just or an unjust one, ought to be allowed:" Menander, ögxov de peũye näv dixaíws juvúns“ Abstain from swearing, even though it be justly." See Grotius on Matt. v, 34. "Stobæus, Serm. 3, relates that Solon said, A good man ought to be in that estimation, that he need not an oath; because it is to be reputed a lessening of his honour, if he be forced to swear. Pythagoras, in his oration, among other things, hath this maxim, as that which concerns the administration of the commonwealth, Let no man call God to witness by an oath; no, not in judgment; but let every man so accustom himself to speak, that he may become worthy to be trusted, even without an oath ;" Barclay's Apology, prop. xv, § 12.