country ere long. He declares, that all the horrors of all former revolutions, the wild animal beastialities of the French one ineluded, will be trifling in comparison to what may be expected in England, when disorder once begins, because of our peculiar cir

cumstances.

These circumstances are, that our resources of food are more varied and artificial than those of France; no nation ever before England had to manage a debt of 800 millions, in the midst of a revolution; and no nation ever before England had such a body of men to deal with as revolutionists. The amount of the manufacturing population is altogether incalculable, being out of all proportion greater than the natural resources are able to supply. Mr. Bernard continues

"They are said to exceed the agricultural population by two to one: formerly, in 1700, the numbers were two to one the other way. Accordingly, no nation before ever had such a large body of men to provide for, as this would have in case of a Revolution, arising out of manufactures, the whole of whom, as disorders began, would, at once, be deprived of employment and bread, along with the fundholders. Neither of these two vast and powerful bodies would consent to starve without a struggle, and if food was not given to them quietly, they would take it by force. Fed, therefore, they must be, or the nation would be filled, in an instant with scenes of violence, rapine, tumult, and murder, from one extremity to the other. But from what quarter would it be possible to obtain food? Certainly, not from the farmer; for if the burthen were to be laid upon him, in the shape of an additional poors-rate, the measure of requiring him to feed such numerous bodies, in addition to those already saddled upon him, would, in his present very reduced circumstances, compel him to throw up his business at once, even though his landlord were willing to forego the entire rent; and then there would be no food for any person except what could be got from abroad. A Revolution must, therefore, necessarily wind up the farmer's affairs, when the cultivation of English land will immediately cease. Food must then be procured from foreign countries; the whole world, however, could not supply it;-admitting, indeed, that it could, and even further, that the supply could be furnished without difficulty, the ultimate result would be exactly the same. To obtain food, the gold and silver now in circulation would be to be sent abroad in exchange for it. The gold and silver would all speedily vanish. To replace it, it would be found necessary to melt down plate of every kind and turn it into coin; this, in its turn, would quickly vanish also, along with every other exchangeable article that foreigners were inclined to receive in payment for food. The whole would soon be exhausted ; and then the nation would be driven back upon its resources, though not a single available resource would be left in it for satisfying the commonest cravings of nature. The few remaining bullocks and sheep would be instantly devoured; the horses and dogs would follow; when, at last, all being gone, and there being nothing whatsoever to appease hunger with, people would finish by eating one another. The strong man would begin by eating the weak one; and it is not easy to see how these atrocities could ever be put an end to, except foreigners interfered to root out, by

the sword, many millions of a population, which, having lost the artificial system which before supported it, would require to be cut down to the level of a natural system, to enable people in general to obtain bread. Mothers devoured their own infants at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and mothers will do the same here, if they ever come to be inspired by similar provocations. Such, indeed, appears to be the regular and inevitable termination of civil liberty when pushed to its extreme consequences."―pp. 492–494.

Here we must leave Mr. Bernard. We have been at the pains to explain the nature of his work, if it were only for the purpose of exhibiting what we deem to be a moral curiosity-ingenuity happily exercised under the influence of enthusiasm. The reader will surely be struck with the singular propriety and clearness of style of the author; indeed in this respect it may be regarded as a model. But as to our being convinced that the constitution is gone, and that a revolution, in which blood is to be poured upon the green fields of Old England,-indeed we firmly believe that Mr. Bernard does not credit it himself.

ART. XI.-Oaths; their Origin, Nature, and History. By JAMES EUDELL TYLER, B. D. Rector of St. Giles's in the Fields, and Late Fellow of Oriel College. London: Parker. 1834.

A GREAT deal of curious and valuable information is to be found in this volume, although to the cursory reader, the promise involved in the brief title would imply the contrary. The reverend author seems to have paid no small attention to this subject, most properly deemed by him a very fit theme for his contemplation, as one connected with a moral question replete with perplexities.

The points which appear to have rested as so many unsolved problems on the mind of the reverend gentleman, appear to be capable of being resolved into three. The first was, were oaths in themselves a violation of the Christian law-could a faithful Christian take them? Secondly, though the Christian religion did not positively condemn oaths when it was necessary to take them, yet was there any circumstance connected with the administration of oaths in England which rendered them incapable of promoting the cause of truth and justice, and further made them hostile to the spirit of sound religion? Thirdly and lastly, it was a question with our author to determine, in case that the present system of adminstering and taking oaths was found objectionable, upon what principles, and by what course, could a change of the system be accomplished?

With respect to the first of those questions, are oaths in themselves lawful to the Christians, or are they prohibited either in spi

rit or in words by the Christian? we are happy to say that the worthy ecclesiastic answers that they are not in themselves unlawful to a Christian. The whole of the authority, which is strictly ecclesiastical, the Old and New Testament, the writings of the Apostles and Fathers, clearly establish the propriety of an oath being taken. "When a cause of faith and charity requireth it, so it be done according to the prophets teaching, in justice, judgment, and

truth."

With respect to the second point, are the circumstances attending the administration of oaths in this country of a nature to make those oaths objectionable to a moral and religious conscience? the reverend author discovers good reason for answering in the affirmative, and that there are many classes of oaths, and myriads in number, which may be abolished with the greatest safety. This part of the work, however, we shall postpone for the present, as the historical portion of the volume offers some interesting facts, which we shall first lay before the reader.

The first oath with which we are acquainted, is on the authority of the Old Testament, and it occurred during an interview between the King of Sodom and Abraham, when the former royal personage urged the father of the faithful to accept the good things which he offered him. Abraham, in declining the offer, alleges as a reason for his doing so, the oath which he had taken.

"I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most High God, possessor of Heaven and Earth, that I will not take from a thread to a shoe-latchet, that I will not take any thing that is thine." It is evident from this and from other passages in the Old Testament, that the lifting up of the hand was the most solemn form of oath in the patriarchal days, and that the Almighty himself, as we learn from the sublime hymn of Moses, set the example when he used this expression: "I lift up my hand to Heaven, and say I live for ever!" In the Books of Ezekiel and of Exodus, in the last chapter of the prophecy of Daniel, and also in the Book of Revelations, there are examples related of the oath being taken in this

manner.

their

It appears to be very doubtful if this custom prevailed in ancient times in the East. Homer represents heroes as lifting up hands when they swore: from what we find in Virgil also, it would appear that this was the customary mode of taking an oath. That it was the practice very early in England, is sufficiently testified by history. At the Parliament which sat at Shrewsbury in 1398, the Lords took an oath on the Cross of Canterbury, never to suffer the transactions of Parliament to be changed at the same moment, the members of the Commons held up their hands, signifying that they too took the oath. In France, the person taking an oath, lifts up his hand, saying, "I swear."

Another form of oath is noticed in the Old Testament, which is confined simply to the utterance of the words, "I swear," " without

any gesticulation or action. But in other cases, an imprecatory addition was always made, such as that of Ruth, "The Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." Again, we find that when Abraham prepared to bind his chief steward to the performance of some duty, in the strictest manner, he made the man place his hand under his (Abraham's) thigh, and in that position swear to him, by "Jehovah, the God of Heaven, and the God of Earth." Jacob also, when he was dying, made Joseph put his hand under his thigh, whilst he promised to perform his father's commands. We find in the Pagan times, something like an imitation of this form of oath, for the Romans, when they invoked one of their Gods, always touched the foot or knee of the statue. But even in the era to which the Old Testament refers, we find that joining hands was a ceremony employed in any solemn engagement, such as a treaty for example. We may state generally, that it appears to have been the understanding of the Jewish nation, that they were to swear only by Jehovah, and that it was not lawful for them to do so by any other name; and we find that the Israelites are solemnly warned not to swear, "The sin of Samaria," or say, "ThyGod! O Dan, liveth."

The Greek nations appear to have considered oaths in a very systematic manner, for they divided them into the great oaths and the small ones. They by no means admitted perjury to be that heinous crime which it really deserves to be considered, and were satisfied with a very small penalty, even in case of the most solemn oath being falsely taken. Thus they were in the habit of swearing by the river Styx; but if any one took this oath in support of a false affirmation, he would be deprived of his nectar only in the next world, and forfeit his divinity for a hundred years. The Greeks used to go to the altar of a particular God, and laying their hands upon it, then take the oath. That this custom was not confined to Greece may be at once inferred from the fact, that after the termination of the African war, Hannibal, then a boy of only nine years of age, was made by his father to swear eternal enmity against Rome; the father led the boy to the altar, where he laid his hand on the sacred things. Homer, however, has left us a minute description of the ceremony of oath taking, at least in such cases as those in which persons confirmed a vow or a contract by an oath. They poured out of the pitcher some wine into their cups, offering up their prayers at the same time to the gods in this style: "Thou, Jove, most glorious, most great, and ye other immortal gods, which ever party shall first violate these oaths, thus may their brains and their children's be scattered on the ground as this wine now is," &c. They had one form of oath that was particularly solemn as to the ceremony which accompanied it. The individual who took this oath, was obliged to descend into the consecrated temple of Ceres and Proserpine, and there, after the performance of certain religious rites, to clothe himself in the purple

robe of the goddess, and, taking a burning torch in his hand, "to swear the great oath." Both in the most ancient Jewish times, as well as amongst the Greeks, it was customary to swear not by Jehovah or the gods, but by some human being; and in Greece, in particular, the swearing at length became incorporated with a great variety of things, mortal or immortal, living and inanimate. "By my spear," was a usual oath of warriors, but it was always reckoned blasphemy. The reverend author proceeds to give the following sketch of the most prominent of this description of oaths :—

"Lucian tells us that the Scythians swore by their acinaces (a sort of sword), which they worshipped as their god, and by the wind; the former representing death, the latter being an emblem of life. Some writers suppose that swearing by the sceptre, one of the forms inseparable from our earliest acquaintance with classical antiquity, was identical with swearing by the spear, which was held by the kings as their sceptre. That it was connected with idolatry is made evident by many testimonies. Eustathius mentions distinctly that Cæneus erected a spear, and commanded it to be worshipped as a Ged; and Justin declares that, from the earliest date, the ancients worshipped their spears as their gods. No wonder Agamemnon called the oath he swore by his sceptre a great and solemn oath. It is certain that this form of oath prevailed through almost all the countries of the north; it can be traced among the Danes, and also our Saxon ancestors. With many other forms savouring of paganism, it was forbidden by authority in the sixth synod; and the Coucil of Constantinople excommunicated those Christians who swore by Heathen oaths.

Among the Arcadians, as we learn from Herodotus, the most binding oath was by the waters of the Styx, a fountain in their country.

2

"Of their oath by the souls of the departed, we have different instances upon record; among the rest, that celebrated burst of Athenian eloquence, when Demosthenes swears by the patriots who fell in battle at Marathon. So Propertius, "I call to witness the ashes of my forefathers;" and again, "By the bones of my mother and of my father, I swear to thee if I deceive thee, alas! let the ashes of both weigh heavy on my soul." So in Silius Italicus, "By the head of my noble father, and no divity is more sacred, I swear.' But we need not multiply instances: the classical remains of Greece and Rome abound with them: but not more abundant are they in those remains, than are the degrading facts in the records of the Christian church, which testify how Rome Christian, in this point, as in others, willingly and closely followed the example of Rome Pagan. These oaths are just tantamount to those which Christians swore so freely, by the souls of the saints and the faithful departed. Thus, when we find Helen swearing a sacred oath by the head of Menelaus; and Ilioneus, in his address to Latinus, swearing by the fates of Æneas, and by his powerful right hand; and the Pythagoreans swearing by Pythagoras, our thoughts are involuntarily carried onwards to those days of strange mental thraldom and bigotry, when Christians swore by the safety of the Apostolic see and the Popes; when monks swore by their abbot's foot, and Norman warriors by their earl's hand, and the head of the Emperor. But of these, hereafter.

"We must not omit to mention the custom prevalent among the Greeks,