the sacredness of the name of God, had an awful notion of the consequences of perjury, if committed after an appeal to it, and therefore had recourse to the names of the creatures, in case they should swear falsely. But even the oaths thus substituted. by them are forbidden by Jesus Christ; and they are forbidden upon this principle, as we find by a subsequent explanation given by St. Matthew, that whosoever swore by these creatures, really and positively swore by the name of God. But if they are forbidden, because swearing by the creatures is the same thing as swearing by God who made them, then the oath by "the name of God," which had been permitted to the Jews of old, was intended by Jesus Christ to be discontinued, or to have no place in his new religion.

The Quakers, then, considering the words in question to have the meaning now annexed to them, give the following larger explanation of what was the intention of our Saviour upon this occasion.

In his Sermon on the Mount, of which these words on the subject of Oaths are a part, he inculcated into his Disciples a system of morality far exceeding that of the Jews; and therefore, in the verses which precede those upon this subject, he tells them, that whereas it was said of old, "Thou shalt not kill," he expected of them that they should not even entertain the passion of revenge. And whereas it was said of old, "Thou shalt not commit adultry," he expected that they should not even lust after others, if they were married, or after those in a married state. Thus he brings both murder

and adultery from act to thought. He attaches a criminality to unlawful feelings if not suppressed,or aims at the subjugation of the passions, as the springs of the evil actions of men. Going on to show the further superiority of his system of morality over that of the Jews, he says, again, "Whereas it was said of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself," he expects that they should not swear at all, not even by the name of God, which had been formerly allowed; for that he came to abrogate the ancient law, and perjury with it. It was his object to make the word of his true Disciples equal to the ancient oath. Thus he substituted truth for oaths. And he made this essential difference between a Jew and a Christian, That whereas the one swore in order that he might be believed, the other was to speak truth in order that he might not swear. Such was the intended advance from Jew to Christian, or from Moses to Christ.

The Quakers are further confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, by believing that Christianity would not have been as perfect as they apprehend it to have been intended to be, without this restriction upon oaths. Is it possible, they say, that Jesus Christ would have left it to Christians to imagine that their words were to be doubted on any occasion ? Would he have left it to them to think so dishonourably of one another, or of their new vocation, that their words were to be tried by the touchstone of oaths, when his religion was to have a greater effect than any former system of morality ever known, in the production of truth? Is it pos

sible, when oaths sprung out of fraud and falsehood, as he himself witnesses (for whatever is more than Yea and Nay cometh of evil) that he would have left this remnant of antiquity standing, as if his religion was not intended to extirpate the very groundwork of it?

Finally, they are confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, from a belief that oaths were to cease either at the coming of Jesus Christ, or as men became Christians. For, in the first place, the oath "by the name of God" is considered by some, as I have before noticed, to have been permitted to the Jews during their weak state, that they might not swear by the idols of their contemporary neighbours, and thus lose sight of the only and true God. But what Christian stands in need of any preservative against idolatry, or of any commemorative of the existence and superintendence of an almighty, wise, beneficent, and moral Governor of the World? Some, again, have imagined, that as the different purifications among the Jews, denoting the holiness of God, signified that it became men to endeavour to be holy, so the oath by the name of God, denoting the verity of God, signified that it became men to devote themselves to the truth. But no true Christian stands in need of such symbols to make him consider his word as equivalent to his oath. Others, again, have imagined that the oath "by the name of God" typified the Truth, or the Eternal Word. But as the type ceases when the antitype appears, so the coming of Jesus Christ, who in the Gospel-language is called both the Truth

—so

and the Eternal Word, may be considered as putting an end to this, as to other types and shadows of the Jewish church.

CHAPTER III.

SECTION I.

War-Tenet on war-Quakers hold it unlawful for Christians to fight—scriptural passages which they produce in support of this tenet-arguments which others produce from scriptural authority against it—reply of the Quakers to these argu

ments.

THE next of the great tenets, which the members of this Society hold, is on the subject of War. They believe it unlawful for Christians to engage in the profession of arms, or indeed to bear arms, under any circumstance of hostility whatever. Hence there is no such character as that of a Quaker-soldier. A Quaker is always able to avoid the regular army, because the circumstance of entering into it is generally a matter of choice. But where he has no such choice, as is the case in the militia, he either submits, if he has property, to distraint upon it; or, if he has not, to prison.

The Quakers ground the illicitness of war on several passages, which are to be found in the New

Testament.* I shall not quote all the texts, which they bring forward, but shall make a selection of them on this occasion.

Jesus Christ, in the famous sermon which he preached upon the mount, took occasion to mention specifically some of the precepts of the Jewish law, and to inform his hearers that he expected of those, who were to be his true disciples, that they would carry these to a much higher extent in their practice under the New Dispensation, which he was then affording them. Christianity required a greater perfection of the human character than was required under the Law. Men were not only not to kill, but not even to cherish the passion of revenge. And "Whereas it was said of old, An for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, I say unto you, says Christ, that ye resist not evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." And further on in the same chapter he says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said,

eye

* The Quakers have been charged with inconsistency in refusing military service, and yet in paying those taxes, which are expressly for the support of wars. To this charge they reply, That they believe it to be their duty "to render to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's," and to leave the application of it to Cæsar himself as he judges best for the support of Government. This duty they collect from the example of Jesus Christ, who paid the tribute-money himself, and ordered his Disciples to do it, and this to a Government not only professedly military, but distinguished for its idolatry and despotism. Personal service, however, they conceive to militate against a positive command by our Saviour, which will be explained in this chapter.

Matt. v, 38, &c.