p. 10 | OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS by W. H. Littlejohn

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, January 1, 1880

FromAdvent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 1

OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

Each of the three pledges of the “American Health and Temperance Association”—i. e., those known respectively as the anti-rum and tobacco, the anti-whisky, and the teetotal pledge—begin with the words, “I do hereby solemnly affirm,” etc. It not infrequently occurs that individuals object to signing one or other of these pledges on the ground that one who solemnly affirms that he will not use tobacco, tea, coffee, opium or alcohol, virtually thereby takes an oath that he will abstain from the use of the same.

While we have no doubt that in many cases the objection is resorted to simply as a subterfuge by which it is hoped that the individual will be enabled to escape the necessity of refusing to sign the pledge on the ground of real hostility to it, still, as it is not impossible that there may be found occasionally one to whom the difficulty is real, I shall briefly consider with candor the principles involved therein.

First, then, I suggest that even though it were conceded that an affirmation were equivalent to a judicial oath, it by no means follows that it would be wrong for one to affirm, or, if you please, swear, that he would scrupulously abstain from the narcotics and stimulants covered by the pledges, on the ground that they are destructive to life, health, and morals, and, therefore, ought not to be used under any circumstances.

God has said in his word that he who defiles the temple of God,—i. e., his own body,—him will God destroy. 1 Cor. 3:17. If, therefore, the defiling of this body is in the sight of God an offense so heinous that it demands the utter destruction of the offender, then surely it is of sufficient importance and solemnity to warrant the taking of an oath to abstain therefrom, in order that we may thus influence others to desist from practices which are liable to ruin both soul and body.

But, in the second place, it is easy to demonstrate that the line of argument employed against the signing of the pledge on the ground that the affirmation contained therein is equal to a judicial oath, is utterly unsound from the fact that it is not true that such an affirmation is equivalent to the oath in question. By appealing to standard Lexicons, we learn that the term “affirm,” like many other words, has an ordinary and a technical signification; i. e., in common conversation it means one thing, and in legal parlance it means another thing. Whenever, therefore, the expression is employed, either in conversation or in documents which are not legal in their character, we are to take the word in its ordinary sense; when, however, it is found in legal papers, statutes, etc., it is to be understood in its legal or technical sense.

Having premised thus much, it is now time to introduce Webster’s definition of the term, as found in his Unabridged Lexicon. It is as follows: Verb transitive. “1. To make firm; to establish, confirm, or ratify; as, the supreme court affirmed the judgment. 2. To assert positively; to tell with confidence; to aver; to maintain as true;—opposed to deny. Syn.—To assert; aver; declare; asseverate; assure; pronounce; protest; avouch; confirm; establish; ratify.” Verb intransitive. “1. To declare or assert positively. . . . 2. (Law.*) To make affirmation; to make a solemn promise, before an authorized magistrate or tribunal, to tell the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury; to testify under affirmation.”

A moment’s reflection will be sufficient to enable the reader to draw the line between the technical and the common use of the word. He will readily perceive that in signing any one of the pledges in question he is neither making “a solemn promise, before an authorized magistrate or tribunal, to tell the truth under the pains and penalties of perjury,” nor testifying under affirmation; and, consequently, that he is employing the words, “I do solemnly affirm,” not in the legal, but merely in the ordinary sense. In other words, that what he is doing is in no sense a legal transaction; but, on the contrary, consists merely in the giving of a solemn pledge on his part to abstain wholly from the use of things which he is convinced cannot be employed without injury to his person.

Finally, as it is not to be supposed that the disciples are to be regarded as more wise or more conscientious than their teachers, and, therefore, that they should not hesitate to use expressions frequently employed in the New Testament, it may be well to consult that volume with reference to the question before us.

In Acts 25:19, Festus declares that Paul “affirmed” that Christ was not dead, but alive. In Rom. 3:8, Paul speaks of certain ones as “affirming” that Christians did evil that good might come. In 1 Tim. 1:7, Paul speaks of the Jews as not understanding the law whereof they “affirm.” In Titus 3:8, we read as follows: “This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” See also Luke 22:59; Acts 12:15.

In the foregoing, we believe, are found all the instances in which the word is employed in the New Testament. The unprejudiced reader will readily perceive, that, as used, it was evidently employed in the sense of earnest, emphatic, and solemn declaration. He will observe, furthermore, that in the text which we have quoted in full, the apostle Paul gives his most unqualified indorsement of the use of affirmation. This being the case, he will not hesitate to conclude that, in so good a cause as that of temperance, we are justified, by both the common and the Scripture use of language, as well as by the example of the great apostle himself, in affirming that we will abstain from every evil practice and perform every good work.

Let him, therefore, refuse to affirm, who does not believe that the use of stimulants and narcotics is injurious, and that the temperance work is a good work. On the other hand, let him who believes in abstinence, and who is convinced that the temperance work, as a whole, is highly beneficial to the community, be careful how he impedes its progress by suggesting difficulties and dangers which do not exist.