of the obligation, under which it is pronounced, as by the manner in which it is delivered, and by the known character of the parties who deliver it. And in persons whose moral sense is feeble and degenerate, and who have, in their own minds, little objection to the sacrifice of truth, veracity of evidence is far more likely to be obtained by the uniform and speedy infliction of punishment on the breach of an affirmation, than by the easily-disregarded influence of any form of words, however expressive, and however solemn.

In reverting to the principal heads of the present dissertation, I have again to observe that, while Christians of every denomination unite in condemning irreverent and conversational swearing, Friends decidedly object to any use of oaths whatsoever that their objection is in full accordance with certain obvious moral principles, but is grounded chiefly on the express command of our Saviour himself-that the introduction of swearing on particular occasions plainly lowers the general standard of simple truth-that the self-imprecation essential to every oath is always presumptuous; and in juridical swearing, as practised among modern Christians, peculiarly rash and dangerous-that the precept of Christ, and that of his apostle James, against oaths, are of the most comprehensive and explicit character-that the attempt to explain those precepts, as relating exclusively to conversational swearing, is, by several plain considerations, evinced to be futile-that the notion of our Lord's having been himself sworn in a court of justice

appears to be erroneous-that, were it true that Paul swore in his epistles, his example could not be safely followed in opposition to the law of his divine Master; but that, on examination, he in no case appears to have employed expressions which amount to an oath -that true Christians are far from being justified in breaking the law of Christ, because oaths may be deemed expedient for persons who are accustomed to an inferior standard of morals-and that even this expediency is exceedingly doubtful.

Since the moral principles on which we object to oaths are of so much practical weight; and since the authority under which we act, in refusing to swear, is at once so high and so clear-we may well be encouraged to a persevering faithfulness in such a line of conduct. The steady sufferings of our forefathers have indeed been the means of earning for us, in reference to this particular, an entire ease and freedom.

I cannot but indulge the hope that, as such a faithfulness is maintained among Friends, and as their light is thus made to shine before other men, religious persons of every denomination will gradually perceive the obligation which so plainly rests upon them, to abstain from all swearing. Certainly it must, on all hands, be allowed, that the standard to which the professors of Christianity are at present accustomed, with regard to this subject, is miserably low. Not only are oaths, in our own enlightened country, introduced in connexion with matters of solemn import, and in promotion of the ends of justice; but they are

multiplied in every direction; are required by the law, and taken by the subject, on a thousand occasions of comparatively trifling consequence; and are very generally administered in a loose, technical, and irreverent manner. Such provisions are utterly disgraceful to the Christian character of Great Britain; and demand the speedy interference of those members of our legislature, who are blessed with a deep sense of the importance of the principles of the Gospel, and who know that the real prosperity of every nation depends on the consistency of its counsels with the will of God.7

7 Since the foregoing sentences were written, a great improvement has taken place in the laws of this country on the subject of oaths. A vast number of useless oaths have been cut off by act of parliament; and merchants and tradesmen can now transact their business at the custom house without involving themselves in the awful and unchristian practice of the conditional cursing of themselves. These changes are doubtless the result of an increasingly enlightened public opinion. May the progress of divine truth, in every class of society, speedily lead to the entire abolition of a practice, which the Lord of nations and the Judge of all flesh, has emphatically forbidden!

CHAPTER XI.

ON WAR.

Of all the practices which disturb the tranquillity and lay waste the welfare of men, there is none which operates to so great an extent, or with so prodigious an efficacy, as war. Not only is this tremendous and dreadfully-prevalent scourge productive of an incalculable amount of bodily and mental suffering,-so that, in that point of view alone, it may be considered one of the most terrible enemies of the happiness of the human race-but it must also be regarded as a moral evil of the deepest dye. "From whence come wars and fightings among you?" said the apostle James; "come they not hence, even of your lusts. which war in your members? Ye lust and have not; ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not."1 War, therefore, has its rise in the inordinate desires and corrupt passions of men; and as is its origin, so

1 Chap. iv. 1, 2.

is its result. Growing out of an evil root, this tree of bitterness seldom fails to produce, in vast abundance, the fruits of malice, wrath, cruelty, fraud, rapine, lasciviousness, confusion, and murder.

Although there are few persons who will dispute the accuracy of this picture of war—although every one knows that such a custom is evil in itself and arises out of an evil source-and although the general position, that war is at variance with the principles of Christianity, has a very extensive currency among the professors of that religion-it is a singular fact, that Friends are almost the only class of Christians who hold it to be their duty to God, to their neighbour, and to themselves, entirely to abstain from that most injurious practice. While the views of Friends on the subject are thus complete, the generality of professing Christians, and many even of a reflecting and serious character, are still accustomed to make distinctions between one kind of war and another. They will condemn a war which is oppressive and unjust; and, in this respect, they advance no further than the moralists of every age, country, and religion. On the other hand, they hesitate as little in expressing their approbation of wars which are defensive, or which are otherwise undertaken in a just cause.

The main argument, of a scriptural character, by which warfare in a just cause (as it is termed) is defended, and its rectitude maintained, is the divinelysanctioned example of the ancient Israelites. That the Israelites were engaged in many contests with other