The obligatory12 oath has always been detrimental13 to public morality. When one oath was imposed on all persons, it was repugnant to their individual sense of truth in many cases, and men, to protect their interests, began to tamper14 with veracity15, and invent new meanings of the terms of the oath. Thus the fortunate fastidiousness of truth is broken down.
The Christian16 oath is an ecclesiastical device, framed in the interest of the Church, to enforce, under penalty, the recognition and perpetuation17 of its tenets. He who takes the oath professes18 to believe that if he breaks it "God will blast his soul in hell for ever." This is the old brutal20, terrifying form in which the consequence was expressed. It is softened21 now, to suit the secular22 humanity of the age, to a statement that God will hold the oath-taker responsible for its fulfilment. But God's method of holding any one responsible, is by sentencing him to "outer darkness," where there will be "wailing23 and gnashing of teeth." A very unpleasant region to dwell in. There is no good ground to suppose that such a sentence for such an offence would be passed, but the intimidation24 is retained. Mr. Cluer, a London magistrate25, said lately that "if the fate of Ananias befel all who swore falsely in his court, the floor would be strewn with dead bodies." But the courts fall back upon the pristine26 meaning of the oath. The magistrate asks a little child, tendered as a witness, "whether she knows, if she does not tell the truth, where she will go to?" and whether she "has never heard of a place called hell or of its keeper, the devil?" If not, he publicly deplores27 the neglect of the child's education, and declares her to be incapable29 of telling the truth. Every one who took the oath, whether rich or poor, a philosopher or a fool, each professed30 to believe that the Great God of all the worlds, notwithstanding the infinite business He has on hand, was personally present in any dingy32 court when the oath-taker calls upon Him "to witness" that he speaks the truth, and if not, God, who never forgets, burdens His celestial33 memory with that fact, with a view to eternal retaliation34, in case the oath is false. He who takes the oath and does not believe this, lies to begin with, whatever may be the character of his testimony35.
To take the oath in any other sense than that in which it is administered to you, is to deceive the court.
"He who imposes the oath, makes it.
Not he, who for convenience takes it."
The reliance on the part of those who impose the oath, is that he who takes it believes the terms of it. If the taker takes it in a private sense of his own, the virtue36 has gone out of the oath, and the court is deceived. If the Unitarian takes the oath, not believing in an avenging37 God, he creates a new oath for himself, in which the compelling power of an eternal terror is absent. He, therefore, does not take the oath of the court, but another of his own invention; and if he made known to the court what he was doing, the court would not receive his testimony. Philosophers, who have less belief than Unitarians, take the oath. But in the eye of morality it is not less discreditable—perhaps more so, for the philosopher stands for absolute truth, while the Unitarian stands only for theological truth.
The trouble was that he who refuses to take the oath of the court, in the sense of the court, became an outlaw, and that was a serious thing. I was myself an outlaw, until I was fifty-two years of age, without the power of obtaining redress where I was wronged, or of punishing fraud or theft from which I suffered, or of protecting the life and property of others, where my evidence was required. My ambition was to be a barrister, but legal friends assured me that the law turned upon the hinge of oath-taking, and that the path of the Bar would to me be a path of lying. It happens that I have never taken an oath. When I found that my belief did not coincide with that implied by the oath, I felt precluded38 from taking it.
This reluctance39 brought me peril10. When the question of a Parliamentary oath in Lord Randolph Churchill's days raged, a new doctrine40 was set up among some partisans41 of Freethought—that an Atheist42 might take the oath. That meant there was no longer any distinction in terms, or any meaning in principle. If an Atheist may, for the sake of some advantage before him, make a Christian profession, there is no reason why a Christian should not make an Atheistical43 profession if it answered his purpose. The apostles made quite a mistake by incurring45 martyrdom for conscience sake. Bruno, Servitus, and Tyndale need not have gone to the stake, had they only understood that the way to advance the truth was to abandon it, instead of standing31 to it. If a man is not to stand by the truth when the consequences are against him, there is an end of truth as a principle. It is no longer a duty to suffer for it and maintain it.
It seemed to me that the friends of reason, who rejected theological tenets, should be as scrupulous as to the truth as partisans of superstition46 have often proved themselves to be, and that the Atheist should have as clear a sense of intellectual honour as the Quaker, the Catholic, or the Jew, who all suffered rather than take an oath contrary to their sense of truth. This was regarded as a reflection upon some excellent colleagues of mine, who thought it fatuity47 to allow an oath to stand in their way, and frustrate48 their career.
It was brought against me that there were circumstances under which I should be as little scrupulous as other people. Major Bell, who had incurred49 great peril in India for the sake of honour, put a question to me in the Daily News purporting50 that, "Had I married before 1837 I should not have hesitated at twice invoking51 the Trinity as the Church service required? And if I had done so, should I not have perpetrated a piece of hypocrisy52?" There is an immoral53 maxim54 that "All things are fair in love and war," and it is probable that I should not have hesitated to perpetrate that "piece of hypocrisy," as it would have been the lesser55 of two evils, but it would not, therefore, cease to be an evil. If under any compulsion of love or war I was induced to perpetrate "apiece of hypocrisy," it would never occur to me to go about saying it was not hypocrisy. I dislike law, custom, or persons who force me to do what I know to be wrong, but no person could do his worst against me, until he prevailed upon me to go about saying it was right.
Dr. Moncure Conway asked whether, if his life was in danger in China, and I could save it by the Chinese oath of breaking a saucer, I would not do it? Certainly I would, to save Dr. Conway, if the Confucians would permit me, but I should not the less deceive them by pretending to have sworn before them in the Chinese sense. But I should regret the necessity, since in no country would I willingly treat truth as a superstition. By taking the "saucer" oath, I should obtain in Chinese eyes a validity for my word not really belonging to it. However I might excuse the act, it would still be deceit, nor ought it to be called by any other name. There is no virtuous56 vagueness in unveracity, and he who in peril uses it would not be justified57 in carrying it into common life, where Lord Bacon has warned us, "Truth is so useful, that we should make public note of any departure from that excellent habit." Major Evans Bell further argued that because the Prince of Wales may sign himself my "obedient, humble58 servant," while not feeling himself bound to act so, the terms of the oath may be likewise regarded as a form of words merely. Yet all "forms" which are unreal are unwise and hurtful. But the superscription of the Prince is known to be but a false form, and accepted as such, while the oath is a profession of faith. If the Prince went into a public court and swore in the name of God that he really was my "obedient, humble servant," I should think him a very shabby Prince if the solemnity went for nothing. As I have known Major Bell expose himself to what his friends believed to be fatal peril, from a noble sense of self-imposed duty, to which neither oath, nor contract, nor any conventional superscription called him, I no more imagine him than I did Dr. Conway, to really mean what their arguments seemed to imply.
Some are for the spirit more than the form. I was for both, and I regard all legislation as immoral which divorces them. Referring to these letters, the Daily News (December 23, 1881) regarded them as "marked by rectitude of moral judgment59, which is recognised by those who most deplore28 what they think is theological aberration60. Some such testimony as he gives was almost needed to efface61 the impression which recent events in and out of the House of Commons have made, that moral indifferentism is of necessity associated with religious negation62." I was glad of those words at a time when I was fiercely assailed63 for saying what I did, in the midst of the Parliamentary contest which then occupied the attention of the country. My object was to assist the right in the contest, and to defend the Free Thought cause. Had I not spoken then, it would have been in vain to speak afterward64. To be silent about principle in the hour of its application would have been fatal to its influence and repute, so far as it might be represented by me.
As far as in my power lay, I left no uncertainty65 in the mind of Parliament as to what was wanted, in lieu of the oath. It was simply a "promise of honour," to declare the truth in matters of testimony, and observe good faith in contracts. One of my petitions to the House of Commons ran thus:—
"Your petitioner66 is a person who never took an oath, as it implied theological convictions he did not hold. He, however, has seen persons of far greater knowledge than he possesses, of high social position and authority, and whose example men look up to, take the oath, though it was known to all that they held no belief corresponding thereunto—the opprobrium67 and outlawry68 attending the refusal of the oath being more than they would incur44. This has led to a practice of public prevarication69, that of persons saying a thing and not meaning it, or meaning something else. Nowhere is this example more disastrous70 than in your High Assembly, where anything said is conspicuous71 and its example influential72 on the conduct of others."
Another petition so interested Professor J. E. Thorold Rogers, M.P. (who had held holy orders), that he had copies made of it, and sent one with a letter to each morning paper, saying he regarded it as expressing the "quintessence of political morality." The petition set forth:—
"That it is at all times important that public declarations should be so expressed that any one making them shall be able to say what he means, and mean what he says. In these days, when popular instruction is being advanced by national schools, it is yet more desirable that no public declaration should be exacted, the terms of which are unmeaning or untrue to those who make it, inasmuch as such declaration deteriorates73 the wholesome74 habit of national veracity, and is of the nature of a fraud upon the public understanding, which becomes more repugnant as general intelligence increases.
"Your petitioner respectfully submits that the present Parliamentary oath is open to these objections so long as it is obligatory upon all members, irrespective of whatever personal and private beliefs they may hold.
"Your petitioner, therefore, prays, in the interests of public good faith, that a form of affirmation may be adopted, optional to all members of Parliament, instead of the present ecclesiastical oath."
Francis Place once explained to me that in the Benthamite view, it was not warrantable to incur martyrdom unless it was clear that the public would be gainers by the martyr's loss. In a letter, Mr. J. S. Mill, in answer to questions I put to him with regard to taking an oath, wrote:—
"I conceive that when a bad law has made the oath a condition to the performance of a public duty, it may be taken without dishonesty by a person who acknowledges no binding75 force in the religious part of the formality. Unless (as in your own case) he has made it the special and particular work of his life to testify against such formalities, and against the belief with which they are connected."
I could not concur76 with this view. Personal candour is far-reaching in its effects, and should be cherished where we can, and as far as we can. Truth is to the life of the mind what air is to the life of the body. When the mind ceases to breathe truth, the mind is impaired77 or dies.
It is necessary to add the grounds which actuated me in endeavours to put an end to the outlawry of opinion. Many beside myself helped to obtain a law of affirmation, but I was the only person among them all who had never taken an oath. Sir George Cornewall Lewis demanded in Parliament how the oath could be a vital grievance78 to Atheists, whose throats were furrowed79 with swallowing it. When summoned on the grand jury at Clerkenwell I refused to take the oath in the sense the court attached to it, and I was fined twelve guineas for not taking it. I drew up a paper showing the privileges given by the law to those who were honestly unable to swear. They were exempted80 from the militia81, from the duty of acting82 as special constable83, they could procure84 the acquittal of any thief, fraudulent person, or murderer, where their evidence was necessary to conviction. In some cases the thief has escaped, and the person robbed has been imprisoned85 instead, for his contumacy in not lying. It became known among thieves that where they could find out a witness against them, who disbelieved in an avenging God, the counsel defending the thief had only to call the attention of the court to the fact for the witness to be ordered "to stand down," and the thief would "leave the court without a stain on his character." Mr. Francis, in his "History of the Bank of England," relates how Turner, whose fraud amounted to ￡10,000, escaped, because the only witness who could swear decidedly to his handwriting, was a disbeliever in the New Testament86. The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty."
Sir John Trelawny told me that the fly-leaves I published on the "Privileges of Sceptics and the Immunity87 of Thieves" made more impression upon members of Parliament than any petition sent to the House. These and similar services, with my lifelong refusal to take the oath, caused John Stuart Mill to write to me, saying: "It is a great triumph of freedom of opinion that the Evidence Bill should have passed both Houses without being seriously impaired. You may justly take to yourself a good share of the credit of having brought things up to that pass."*
These instances will no doubt satisfy the reader as to the peril of entertaining scruples in the face of power. The earliest instance which concerned me was a case in Birmingham in which several thousand pounds were left for the establishment of a secular school which I was to conduct. Not being willing to take the oath, I could not prosecute88 my claim. When a son of mine was killed by the recklessness of a driver, I could not give evidence on the inquest because I could not be sworn. My private house was thrice robbed by servants who became aware of my inability to prosecute. When in business in Fleet Street, my property could be carted away, for which I had no remedy save lying in wait and knocking down the depredators, which would at the Mansion89 House have led to a public scandal and injured the business. Money was left to me which I could not claim, being an outlaw.
* Blackheath Park, Kent, August 8, 1869.
It would tire the reader to tell him all the instances of the perils attending scruples. Mr. Roebuck put the case in the House of Commons against Sir George Cornewall Lewis. Pointing his finger at Sir George, he asked, "What is the right honourable90 gentleman going to do? Two men go into court. One disbelieves in the oath, but he takes it. The other takes the peril of outlawry rather than profess19 a faith which he does not hold. You believe the liar91, whom you know to be a liar, and you reject the evidence of the man who speaks the truth at his peril." I had asked Mr. Roebuck to speak when the question of affirmation was before the House. There were then only he, Sir John Trelawny, or Mr. Conyngham to whom such a question could be put It was upon Mr. Roebuck that I mostly relied. After his speech I thanked him for doing what no one else could do so well. He disclaimed92 any desert of thanks, saying, "I have only done what Jeremy Bentham taught me."
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
outlaw
|
|
| n.歹徒，亡命之徒；vt.宣布…为不合法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
dubious
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，无把握的；有问题的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
redress
|
|
| n.赔偿，救济，矫正；v.纠正，匡正，革除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
knave
|
|
| n.流氓；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
scrupulous
|
|
| adj.审慎的，小心翼翼的，完全的，纯粹的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
solicitous
|
|
| adj.热切的，挂念的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
conducive
|
|
| adj.有益的，有助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
perils
|
|
| 极大危险( peril的名词复数 )； 危险的事（或环境） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
scrupulousness
|
|
| n.一丝不苟；小心翼翼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
12
obligatory
|
|
| adj.强制性的，义务的，必须的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
detrimental
|
|
| adj.损害的，造成伤害的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
tamper
|
|
| v.干预，玩弄，贿赂，窜改，削弱，损害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
veracity
|
|
| n.诚实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
perpetuation
|
|
| n.永存，不朽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
softened
|
|
| （使）变软( soften的过去式和过去分词 )； 缓解打击； 缓和； 安慰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
secular
|
|
| n.牧师，凡人；adj.世俗的，现世的，不朽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
wailing
|
|
| v.哭叫，哀号( wail的现在分词 )；沱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
intimidation
|
|
| n.恐吓，威胁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
pristine
|
|
| adj.原来的，古时的，原始的，纯净的，无垢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
deplores
|
|
| v.悲叹，痛惜，强烈反对( deplore的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
deplore
|
|
| vt.哀叹，对...深感遗憾 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
dingy
|
|
| adj.昏暗的，肮脏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
celestial
|
|
| adj.天体的；天上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
retaliation
|
|
| n.报复，反击 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
avenging
|
|
| adj.报仇的，复仇的v.为…复仇，报…之仇( avenge的现在分词 )；为…报复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
precluded
|
|
| v.阻止( preclude的过去式和过去分词 )；排除；妨碍；使…行不通 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
reluctance
|
|
| n.厌恶，讨厌，勉强，不情愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
partisans
|
|
| 游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
atheist
|
|
| n.无神论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
atheistical
|
|
| adj.无神论（者）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
44
incur
|
|
| vt.招致，蒙受，遭遇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
incurring
|
|
| 遭受，招致，引起( incur的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
fatuity
|
|
| n.愚蠢，愚昧 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
frustrate
|
|
| v.使失望；使沮丧；使厌烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
incurred
|
|
| [医]招致的，遭受的； incur的过去式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
purporting
|
|
| v.声称是…，（装得）像是…的样子( purport的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
invoking
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的现在分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
immoral
|
|
| adj.不道德的，淫荡的，荒淫的，有伤风化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
aberration
|
|
| n.离开正路，脱离常规，色差 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
efface
|
|
| v.擦掉，抹去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
negation
|
|
| n.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
afterward
|
|
| adv.后来；以后 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
petitioner
|
|
| n.请愿人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
opprobrium
|
|
| n.耻辱，责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
outlawry
|
|
| 宣布非法，非法化，放逐 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
69
prevarication
|
|
| n.支吾；搪塞；说谎；有枝有叶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
disastrous
|
|
| adj.灾难性的，造成灾害的；极坏的，很糟的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
deteriorates
|
|
| 恶化，变坏( deteriorate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
binding
|
|
| 有约束力的，有效的，应遵守的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
impaired
|
|
| adj.受损的；出毛病的；有（身体或智力）缺陷的v.损害，削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
grievance
|
|
| n.怨愤，气恼，委屈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
furrowed
|
|
| v.犁田，开沟( furrow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
exempted
|
|
| 使免除[豁免]( exempt的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
militia
|
|
| n.民兵，民兵组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
constable
|
|
| n.(英国)警察，警官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
testament
|
|
| n.遗嘱；证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
immunity
|
|
| n.优惠；免除；豁免，豁免权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
mansion
|
|
| n.大厦，大楼；宅第 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
honourable
|
|
| adj.可敬的；荣誉的，光荣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
liar
|
|
| n.说谎的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
disclaimed
|
|
| v.否认( disclaim的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |