A TREATISE ON FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION: IN WHICH ARE ILLUSTRATED THE PROFESSION, MINISTRY,
AND FAITH OF THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS
Jesse Kersey
Philadelphia: Emmor Kimbor, 1815. Pages 90-93.
Made in Linux. Best Viewed in Any
Browser. Lynx Tested.
OF OATHS
[P. 90] The Society of Friends are of the opinion that swearing is not only
unreasonable in itself, but contrary to the positive command of Christ, and
in no instance ought to be submitted to by those who profess to be Christians.
"Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not
forswear theyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thy oaths, but I say unto
you, swear not at all. Neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by
the earth, for it is his footstool. Neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city
of the great King. [P. 91] Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because
thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be
yea, yea, nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil." Mat.
5 33-38. The Apostle James appears to have very fully adopted the counsel
of his Divine Master, and to believe it right to give his testimony against
swearing. "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven,
neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea,
and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into temptation." James 512. Taking this
general view of the antichristian practice of swearing, the Society of Friends
bear their testimony against it, and believe that, among Christians, it ought
to be abolished.
It would require a considerable history, were I to give an account of the
many sufferings which our predecessors passed through, because they refused
to take oathsand certainly it is a practice which ought to be seriously
considered by every man; and more especially if he professes any claim to
the character of a Christian. Because there is no point of duty enjoined
by the Saviour of the [P. 92] world, more clearly stated than this, to refrain
from swearing. Nor do I know of any practice in civil government so inconsistent
with the end to be answered by it. But lest we should be thought to start
a new doctrine in regard to oaths, it may be useful to show that an objection
against the cause and practice of swearing, was made by others. Polybius
has said "the use of oaths in judgment was rare among the ancients; but by
the growing of perfidiousness, so grew also the use of oaths." Basil the
Great saith, "swearing is the effect of sin." And Ambrose, that "oaths are
only a condescendency for defect." Chrysostom saith, that "an oath entered
when evil grew, when men exercised their frauds, when all foundations were
overturned. That oaths took their beginning from the want of Truth." And
again, "for what end wilt thou force him to swear, whom thou believest not
that he will speak the Truth?" Many others might be mentioned, to show that
swearing has been condemned by others, as well as Friends. But if no one
had come to own this doctrine of Christ, from the time that he delivered
it until now, it would even in that case be proper that a Christian Society,
in conformity to his express commands, should [P. 93] refuse to swear. Having
stated the forgoing, I will refer the reader to Barclay's Apology, where
he will find this particular treated upon at large; and where, I am of the
opinion, all the reasons for swearing, of in favor of it, are fully and clearly
refuted.