Ellis on Article XXXIX: Of a Christian man's Oath

John Ellis, 1700

Commentaries on Article XXXIX: Rogers (1607)Ellis (1660)Burnet (1699)Beveridge (d. 1708)Welchman (1713)Practical Exposition (1716)Veneer (1725)Madan (1772)Hey (1796)Tomline (1799)Wilson (1821)Jones (1849)Trollope (1850)Browne (1850)Forbes (1867)Boultbee (1871)Maclear & Williams (1895)Green (1896)Gibson (1896)Jackson (1900)Bicknell (1919) · Article 39: text, context and Study

Article XXXIX. Of a Christian man's Oath
As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.
Text: Book of Common Prayer (1662)

Cleaned OCR; [...] marks passages cut for illegibility. See the scan. Text: A Defense of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England, written in Latin by J. Ellis, S.T.D. (Articulorum XXXIX Ecclesiae Anglicanae Defensio, first published 1660), now done into English (London, 1700). Cleaned OCR from the Internet Archive scan of the Early English Books copy; passages too garbled to recover are marked [...]. Public domain.

Ob}. 1: It is the express Admonition of Chris, Mar. 5. 34. Swear nor ar all. And ‘#t» the Exhortation of St. .James, Chap. 5. 12. A- bove all things my Brethren swear not, nci- by Heaven, nor by .he Earth, nor by any 6- ther Oath,

Answ. Christ and Sr.’ Fames condemn only rash, nar neceflary Oaths, such as the Ar- tide means ; And then the Prohibition of _ Christ is ro be strictly understood of all rhose _ Oaths, which the Pharisees allowed, and thereby seduced the People : For they raughr, that it was lawful, upon any Account, to swear,

_ they . added, that ir was lawful for them to _ swear by Heaven, the Earth, Ferus/alem, or a- _ ny other Creature : And that they were never guilry of Perjury, but where there was menti- on made of the express Name of God, or of _ the Gifts that were consecrated to Ged : For that by thele Interpretations the Pharisees did corrupt the Law of God. concerning Oaths, no Man will deny that will bur diligently conlider what Christ has (aid against such Oaths as were allowed by the Pharisees, Mt. 23.16, 17, &c. __ Ob. 2. In the Law of Moses it was lawful upon any Account whatsocuer, to swear, provided there was no Lye in it, And this is plain from the Hebrew Word U Shav which signifies as much as antruly, falsly] co sw:.:r, and not to swear withour Cause, Ex. 25. 1. Deut. 5.. 20. And for this Reason, Christ, when he sud, Swear

-”

Thirty Nine Articles. 9T Swear nor art all, did perfet and compleat the

Law.

Answ. God by Meses’s Commands, Ex. 20. 7. Thou shall not take the Name of God in vain : From whence we may gather ,that they are the vain, light, and rash Oaths, thar are there for- bidden. ’ It will nor strengthen rhe Objecti- on to oppole ro us the Sense of the Hebrew Word [ Shav] because that does not only fig- nifie whatever is false and deceitful ; bur whatsoever allo is vain and light, as you may sce, Mal. 3.14. Fer. 4. 30. and P/al, 127. 2. |

Now to the Only Wise God, be Praise and Glory for ever. Amen,

THE

Ms Articles,

Read at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_a-defense-of-the-thirty-_ellis-john_1700