Pray, when a Man asserts a Thing upon his Honour,
is it not a Kind of Swearing by himself, as others do by God? If it
was not so, and there was supposed to be the least Danger, that Men,
endued with the Principle of Honour, could deceive or prevaricate, I
would fain know, why it should be binding and acquiesc'd in.
Hor. You may say the same of the Quakers; and that there must be
supposed to be some Divinity in them, that their solemn Affirmation
should be thought equivalent to an Oath.
Cleo. That's quite another Thing. The Quakers take all Oaths whatever,
whether they are made before a Magistrate or otherwise, to be sinful,
and for that Reason they refuse to Swear at all. But as it is their
avow'd Opinion, that a wilful notorious Lie is not less Criminal in
the Sight of Heaven than we take Perjury to be, it is evident, that in
giving their Testimony, they stake their Salvation equally with other
People that make Oath. Whereas those who, with us, are credited upon
their Honour, have no such Scruples, and make Oath themselves on other
Occasions: The Reason therefore why they don't try Criminals and
pronounce their Judgment upon Oath, as other Judges and Juries do, is
not, that they think appealing to God or Swearing by his Name to be
Sinful, which is the Case of the Quakers; but because they are
supposed to be altogether as credible without it, as if they did. And
if there was not some Adoration, some Worship, which Men of Honour pay
to themselves, the Principle they act from could not have produced the
visible Effects it has in so many different Nations.
Pages:
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85