of the plain, sober people of the present day, and to retain it, they would, in a few years, be left as singular as they now are. Friends have also this additional reason for retaining their style of dress. Experience has proved, that like their language, it has a preserving effect upon their young and weak members, and so powerful has the conviction of its usefulness been with persons who have joined the Society, that there are very few who have not thought it best for them to conform to the mode of dress commonly adopted in it. Connected with the subject of dress, the complimentary practices of uncovering the head, and of bowing, come properly under review. It will require no argument to prove that these practices are liable to the same objections as complimentary language. With regard to the custom of taking off the hat, the Society of Friends retain it, as a token of homage to the Most High, only in the most solemn acts of public worship. The congregations of this people stand with their heads uncovered in time of vocal prayer; the person thus praying being the only one who kneels; and they consider it would be an impropriety to use a sign of reverence to their fellow mortals, which they make to their Creator, only on the most solemn occasions. Their ministers take off their hats when they preach, as standing before God, and proclaiming the Gospel of His Son, and as publicly making mention of His Holy Name; but the congregations do not adopt the practice in assembling for worship; they believe it right for them, by sitting in their places of worship with their hats on, to bear a testimony against that superstition which represents buildings set apart for the worship of God, as intrinsically holy, and therefore to be reverenced by taking off the hat upon entering;-a view diametrically opposed to that maintained by the martyr Stephen; "Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands."* † This superstition appears to have arisen from the mistaken notion, that other places of worship partake of the same character of holiness, that, under the first Covenant, existed in the Temple of Jerusalem, in which the Lord specially placed his presence, and commanded it to be reverenced; a notion that seems to have been kept up, along with many others, through the influence of persons who have been taught to think that this was the case, but who have not submitted their views to a strict comparison with the New Testament. Acts viii. 48. + Friends do not think themselves bound to keep their hats on in their places of worship when personal convenience dictates otherwise. The Society of Friends are convinced, that by giving this kind of reverence to the externals with which, since the days of the apostles, the religion of the New Covenant has been invested, and which belongs only to God, a superstitious, and in many instances, an idolatrous feeling is excited in the mind; and the attention of the people is proportionably diverted from that worship of the Father, which is in spirit and in truth; and which is performed under the influence of the Holy Spirit, bestowed on us freely of the Father, through the mediation of Jesus Christ, his Son. This Holy Spirit convinces mankind of sin; leads to genuine repentance, and to faith in Christ as the propitiation for sin, and as our Advocate and High Priest at the right hand of the Father as well as in all his other offices; and constitutes those who yield implicit obedience to the will of God, thus revealed in the secret of the heart, spiritual worshippers-" lively stones," that “ are built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."* The following testimonies of the apostle Paul afford a further elucidation of this important doctrine: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." "Ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters saith the Lord Almighty."‡ Agreeably to the foregoing exhortation, the Society of Friends esteem it to be the privilege, as well as the duty of Christians, not only to renounce every thing obviously wrong; but every thing even of an ambiguous character,-to "abstain from all appearance of evil;" they nevertheless, are far from judging censoriously of those who do not see eye to eye with them, in these and other things, in which they believe it their duty to persevere in a line of conduct different from that, pursued by other bodies of Christians. On the contrary, they desire to regard with Christian love, all who fear the Lord, and work righteousness; and constantly to bear in remembrance the saying of the apostle: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.” || • 1 Peter ii. 5. +1 Corinthians iii. 16, 17. 2 Corinthians vi. 16, 17, 18. Romans xiv. 4. APPENDIX. The Question, "ARE JUDICIAL OATHS LAWFUL?" Answered; with some Observations on the Moral Influence of Judicial Oaths. By JAMES BACKHOUSE. In a country professing the Christian Religion, but having laws that require evidence in courts of justice to be given upon Oath, the question, Are Judicial Oaths Lawful? is necessarily to be understood as the enquiry ;-Is it in accordance with the laws of God, as revealed in the New Testament, for men to swear in confirmation of evidence, before magistrates? and this enquiry is necessarily involved in the more general one-Are Oaths of any description lawful under the Gospel? In order to determine this question, it is neceesary, in the first place, to define what an oath is; much confusion having arisen, in connexion with this subject, from not distinguishing between Oaths and Solemn Affirmations. An Oath may be defined to be, a declaration combined with an imprecation-a conditional calling down upon one's self some dreaded penalty. A man either swears by something which is dear to him, or by some object of his reverence or dread. In the former case, the penalty he means to attach to himself, on the supposition that he swears falsely, is the loss of that which is dear to him; and in the latter case, it is the wrath of him whom he reverences or fears. When the ancient Grecian, for instance, swore by his head, he professed to subject himself to the loss of his head; and when the Jew swore by the Lord God of Israel, he cursed himself by the wrath of the Lord, provided his oath should be false or broken. This feature in the constitution of an oath is observable in all the cases in which the Saviour of men has commented on swearing. The British law also makes this distinction betwixt oaths and affirmations; refusing to accept evidence upon the latter, even when most solemnly made, except in a few cases, in which, in deference to the conscientious scruples of certain religious communities, by special laws, their evidence is received on simple affirmation. Solemn appeals to the Deity, unaccompanied by imprecations, do not constitute oaths, from their very nature; they do not invoke the special wrath of God should they be broken; but only call to mind, whether formally or by inference, the great truth, that God is ever the witness of our motives and actions; and that for all these we must give account to Him in the Day of Judgment. The Jews under the First Covenant were limited in the use of oaths, to swearing by the name of the Lord: "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and thou shalt swear by his name. -"Be ye therefore very courageous, to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; that ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you: neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them.† When Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, promulgated the perfect standard of morality belonging to the New Covenant, he said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine 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: 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."‡ The words of Jesus, on this occasion, appear to contain a plain and unqualified interdiction of all swearing. In the first place, the command to the Jews not to forswear or perjure themselves is mentioned: "Ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself." In the next place, the only form of oath allowed under the law of Moses is alluded to: "But shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths." Then comes the emphatic distinction between the Law and the Gospel, in the words, "But I • Deut. vi. 13. + Joshua xxiii. 6, 7. Matthew v. 33, 37. say unto you." Immediately following this and the preceding allusion, is the command of Jesus-" Swear not at all;" which, from the construction of the whole paragraph, prohibits, primarily, the oaths which of old time, were to be performed unto the Lord; and secondarily, those which had been introduced among the Jews by the traditions of the Pharisees; these being connected with the former by the conjunctions "neither" and "nor." Jesus then adds, in conclusion, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil :" thus, after having forbidden all swearing as tolerated under the Mosaic Law, he established, by a positive, clear, and definite precept, the use of simple affirmation, as that form of communication which alone belongs to the dispensation of the Gospel. The Apostle James appears to have understood the above command of our Lord, to be absolute; and in accordance with this view, he uses the exhortation, not less clear and emphatic than that of his Divine Master: "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 condemnation." The primitive Christians, for some ages, refused to take oaths: being called upon to swear, they constantly answered, "I am a Christian, I do not swear." Some of the advocates of judicial oaths have urged, that this refusal was on account of the nature of the oaths tendered them; but there is no proof that this was their sole ground of objection; on the contrary, their answer favours the conclusion, that they considered all oaths as unlawful for Christians. They appear to have objected, not to the species of oath only, but to swearing; in obedience to HIM who said, "Swear not at all." That the judgment of the early fathers, both Greek and Latin, was, that the words of our Lord and his Apostle James, forbid all oaths, without any exception, is abundantly evident from their writings. "I say nothing of perjury," says Tertullian, "since swearing is unlawful to Christians;" "The old law," says Basil, "is satisfied with the honest keeping of an oath: but Christ cuts off the opportunity of perjury;" "He who has precluded murder by taking away anger," observes Gregory of Nysse, "and who has driven away the pollution of adultery by subduing desire, has expelled from our life the curse of perjury, by forbidding us to James v. 12. b |