upon my soul." "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt swear by his name"-not by a book, but by the great name of God. "He that sweareth in the earth, shall swear by the God of truth," evidently not by the contents of a book. These witnesses give their united testimony to the divine appointment of swearing with an uplifted hand. On the other hand, book-swearing is the institution of men. When these nations were converted from Paganism, the ancient heathens being accustomed to kiss their idols, the Papists took an oath of them of fidelity; and the manner was by kissing the cross, and afterwards the Latin Bible. When the Romish yoke and ritual were laid aside at the Reformation, this figment of Popery remained to dishonour God and defile the consciences of his people.

3. Swearing with an uplifted hand is a scriptural act of religious worship, whereas book-swearing is an idolatrous, superstitious, Popish rite.

"Every oath," says the Rev. John Turner, of Christ's College, Cambridge, "is a part of divine worship, being an acknowledgment of the Divine Omniscience, justice, and power; including an appeal to the former as a witness, and a prayer to the two latter, to dispose themselves either for our benefit or our hurt, as we assert truly or perform faithfully what we affirm, deny, or promise." This act of worship is performed in a scriptural manner when it is done agreeably to Scripture precept and example, viz. with the right hand lifted up to heaven. On the contrary, swearing, by touching and kissing a book, is an idolatrous rite. It was an article in heathen mythology to kiss whatever god or idol they worshipped. Job refers to the idolatrous practice, xxxi. 26, 27, 28— "If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for 1 should have denied the God that is above." When the object of worship was not within their reach, they kissed their own hand, bowing towards the idol in token of religious homage,* the very practice that Job declares worthy of punishment as a denial of the Supreme Being. It was likewise the practice of the idolatrous Israelites to kiss Baal when they worshipped him-1 Kings xix. 18, "Yet have I left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth

Hence the word adoration from ad to, and os the mouth.

which hath not kissed him." Jeroboam, also, in establishing idolatrous worship among the ten tribes, commanded his subjects to kiss the idols he had set up at Dan and Bethel. "Let them that sacrifice kiss the calves," Hos. xiii. 2. In the modern idolatrous rite, if the juror is not called to kiss a calf or a lamb, he is required to do what is equally contemptible, viz. to kiss the skin of one of these animals! This idolatrous rite, which the Papists derived from the heathens, is a necessary part of their worship. Hence, in their Ordo Celebrationis, it is enjoined, "Celebrans Osculator Evangelium per eum dictum in ejus principiis," i. e. "He who celebrates mass after he has read the Gospel must kiss it where he began to read." The Gospels are more reverenced by Papists than the law, hence they stand while the Gospels are read, but sit during the reading of the other parts of Scripture. In this idolatrous mode of swearing, a similar preference is given to the Gospels, or Holy Evangelists, as they are termed, which is antiscriptural, popish, and absurd.

4. Swearing with an uplifted hand is more impressive and solemn than kissing a book.

Paley says, referring to the common practice of bookswearing, "that in no country in the world is the form of an oath worse contrived to convey the meaning and impress the obligation of an oath, than in our own. The juror, with us, after repeating the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm, adds, So help me God;' or more frequently the substance of the oath is repeated to the juror by the officer or magistrate who administers it, adding, in the conclusion, So help you God.' The energy of the sentence resides in the particle so; so, that is, hac lege, upon condition of my speaking the truth or performing this promise, and not otherwise, may God help me. The juror, whilst he hears or repeats the words of the oath, holds his right hand upon a Bible, or a book containing the four Gospels. The conclusion of the oath sometimes runs, Ita me Deus adjuvet et hæc sancta evangelia, or, So help me God, and the contents of this book; which last clause forms a connexion between the words and the action of the juror, that before was wanting. The juror then kisses the book; the kiss, however, seems rather an act of reverence to the contents of the book (as in the Popish ritual the Priest kisses the Gospel before he reads it) than any part of the oath." This obscure and elliptical form of administration, together with the levity and frequency with which it is administered, has diminished the solemnity

that should always accompany a sacred appeal to the omniscience of God. How vast is the difference between the solemnity of an oath as administered in the Scottish courts, where the juror lifts up his right hand to heaven, using this form, "I DO SWEAR BY GOD, AS I SHALL ANSWER TO GOD AT THE GREAT DAY OF JUDGMENT," (adding the words of the promise or affirmation which the oath is intended to confirm,) and the laconic phrase, So help me God, followed by the idolatrous and Popish practice of kissing a book! The present idolatrous practice of administering oaths has completely effaced the solemnity and obligation of an oath from the minds of the populace, whereas the scriptural plan of lifting up the right hand, and making a solemn appeal to God as the great Judge, is calculated to deter from the awful crime of perjury, and to produce on the occasion a peculiar solemnity of mind. As an example of this, I mention the following authenticated anecdote. A native of Ireland having taken over horses to Scotland at a time when they were prohibited, on examination, said that one of them was for his own use; this he was required to swear according to the method practised in that kingdom, "by lifting up the right hand to heaven, and swearing by the eternal God." This solemn mode of administration made so deep an impression on his mind, that he refused to swear, and confessed the whole truth; saying, that he considered nothing more would have been required than to kiss a book, which was a matter of small moment.*

"If, as Paley thinks, an oath is a part of religious worship," says a sensible writer, "it is reasonable to expect that the law would hold the shield of toleration over the person who offers to swear in a manner that is scriptural. If, as he insinuates, the kissing of the book is no part of the oath, but an act of religious reverence to the book itself, it is a serious matter to compel a person to perform this act of religious worship to a piece of inanimate matter, while the person's conscience tells him, in the language of Jehovah, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' If the custom was introduced by Popery, it may be politic to observe the same in administering oaths to the members of the Church of Rome. But how is it consistent with religion, policy, or hu

The reader will find much valuable information on this subject in a Pamphlet entitled, "Truth Restored, or the New Mode of Swearing ReTigious Oaths, by Touching and Kissing a Book, Examined." By the late Rev. William Stavely, Kellswater. Newry, 1775.

The

manity, to use compulsory measures towards those who cannot conscientiously comply with such a demand? It may be said that it is customary-that it is an act easily performed-and that it appears like obstinacy for a person to refuse. same arguments were frequently used to induce the primitive Christians to worship the Roman emperor, by kissing his image, or bowing to it, or swearing by his genius; and what person of humanity does not feel shocked at the recital of the sufferings that many of them endured rather than comply.*

5. Swearing with the hand lifted up to heaven has been approved by a great host of learned and eminently religious men, from the early Christian Fathers to the present time, while they have condemned book-swearing as antiscriptural and idolatrous:

Chrysostom says of the book-oath, as he calls it, "If I touch and kiss the book, the meaning of that ceremony is nothing else but that I swear by it; whereas it is not lawful to swear by any creature."+ Athanasius, in the fourth century, would comply with no other form in swearing except lifting up the hand. The famous Paræus, in his Comment on those places where the children of Israel kissed their idols, calls kissing the book in religious swearing idolatry. In the reign of James I., many suffered persecution for their adherence to the scriptural form of swearing with an uplifted hand. Paræus, Rivet, Voetius, Goodwin, Philip Nye, who lived in 1640, and considered kissing the Gospels the worst of the English-Popish ceremonies, Jeremiah Burrough, Dr. Owen, Thomas Hall-all considered book-swearing as idolatrous. Quick says, in the first volume of his Synodicon, "The Reformed Church of France, at Gappe, in 1603, where Chamilez was Moderator, in their assembly condemned the practice of swearing by kissing the book. A case was moved in Synod, whether an oath might be lawfully sworn before the magistrate by laying the hand on and kissing the Bible. The decision was, "This assembly judgeth that ceremony to be dangerous. Therefore declare that it ought not to be used. That whosoever are called out to swear shall lift up their hand." Mr. Woodhouse, an Archdeacon of the Church of England,

* The reader will find the opinions of the Lord Chancellor of England, · on swearing with an uplifted hand, in a valuable little Pamphlet, (referred to in this letter more than once,) published in the Pall-Mall, London, 1784, and reprinted in Londonderry, in 1822, considerably enlarged and improved.

+ Fox's Martyrs.

takes notice of the prevailing deviations from the scriptural manner of swearing, and remarks, with Dr. Paley, the continuance of the proper method still in Scotland. "The Angel," says he, "takes a solemn oath in a form of scriptural antiquity. This mode of swearing has descended to our own times and nation, being still used in Scotland."-Com. on Rev. x. 5, 6. We might bring forward many additional authorities on this subject, but shall only notice the speech of the Lord Chancellor of England on the second reading of the "SCOTCH OATH BILL," in the House of Lords, on the 14th of July, 1783. The Bill was entitled, "An Act to ascertain the manner and form of taking an oath, by certain persons, Protestants of the ancient Church of Scotland." This Bill was got up by the members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church living in London, and other parts of England, who were often subjected to loss, because they refused to swear by kissing the book. The learned Lord stated, that the form now claimed by those who call themselves members of the Covenanting Church, and which meant members of the ancient Church of Scotland, was a form that books bore testimony was of very ancient practice. In Bracton, a book which it was impossible to say when it was written, he found this sentence, "singuli homines juraverunt erectes sursum manibus." He proved, to the conviction of the House, that the liberty of swearing by lifting up the hand was the law of the land, and was universally held to be such, and the undoubted privilege of a British subject. "And with regard," said his Lordship, " to commissioners appointed to take affidavits in the country refusing to swear those who desired it as the Bill prescribed, viz., by lifting up the right hand, if there were any of that description in so dead and miserable a state of ignorance, they were unfit for their offices, and ought to be deprived of them. If any Justice of the Peace refused to do his duty in this respect, let him be punished; file an information against him—a fact the newspapers would soon publish to the world, which would soon make known what the law was on the subject.' In the pamphlet whence this extract is taken, it is shown, that swearing with an uplifted hand is the established law of the land; and that there is no law or statute, but only use and custom for the mode of swearing by kissing the book. "King James I."

* In M'Nally's Justice of the Peace, Vol. II. page 56, at bottom, it is distinctly stated, that Scotch Covenanters are permitted, even in criminal cases, to swear according to the laws of their own Church, viz. with an uplifted hand.