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

Like the one just considered, this Article, which has remained without change since 1553, is aimed against a tenet of the Anabaptists, which is also condemned in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum.

“Prseterea nee juramentorum Anabaptistse legitimum relinquunt usum, in quo contra Scripturarum sententiam et veteris Testamenti patrum exempla, Pauli etiam apostoli, imo Christi, imo Dei Patris procedimt; quorum juramenta saepe sunt in sacris Uteris repetita,” etc.^

There are two passages of the New Testament which have appeared to others besides the Anabaptists to forbid the taking of an oath m any case.^ They are (a) our Lord’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and (b) the very similar words of S. James.

and cf. the quotations given above under Art. XXXVII. p 761.

2 Not only the Quakers of later days, but some among the Christian

lathers took this view.

■■■«•

(a) S. Matt. V. 33-37: « Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time. Thou ahalt not forswear thyself, but Shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : but I say unto you, Swear not at aU ; neither by the heaven, for It is the throne of God ; nor by the earth, for it 18 the footstool of His feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ; and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.”

Q)) S. James v. 12: “Above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and your nay,^ nay {or, * let yours be the yea, yea, and the nay, nay,’ R V. rmrg.) ; that ye fall not under judgment.”

These are evidently the passages to which the Article

alludes, when it says that we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle.

And It is tolerably clear that in neither passage is the formal tendering of oaths in a law court under consideration. Such a solemn act is referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews in terms which conclusively indicate that the writer of the Epistle saw nothing wrong in it. ” Men swear by the greater : and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation ” (Heb. vi 1 6). So S. Paul, several times in the course of his Epistles, makes a solemn appeal to God, which is a form of oath (2 Cor. L 23, xi 10, 31, xii 19; Gal. i 20; Phil, i 8), and in one instance uses the expression vrj rrjv viierepav KaxrxnQiv^ 1 Cor. XV. 31. And there are references to God as swearing by Himself, which it would be difficult to reconcile with the idea that there is anything essentially wrong in a solemn asseveration or oath, in order to gain credence for a statement (Heb. iiL 11, vi 16, 17). But, SI

further, what seems quite decisive is the fact that when our Lord was solemnly adjured by the high priest, t.. put on His oath. He did not refuse to answer. See S. Matt xxvi. 62-64, “And the high priest stood up, and said unto Him, Answerest Thou nothing ? What is it which these witness against Thee ? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest said unto Him, I adjure Thee by the living God (iopKia ae Karh rod Geov tow fwin-o?) that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God ? Jesus said unto him. Thou hast said : nevertheless I say unto you. Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” In this case, as in others, our Lord’s actions form the best commentary upon the meaning of His words, and prove decisively that the reference in the Sermon on the Mount is, as the Article takes it, to ” vain and rash swearing.” S. James* words are apparently directly founded on our Lord’s, and there is nothing in them to lead us to think that he is contemplating anything more than ordinary conversation and the use of oaths in it. We conclude, therefore, that there is nothing in Holy Scripture which need raise any scruple in the minds of Christians as to the lawfulness of acquiescing when solemnly put upon their oath. Whether the use of oaths by the Legislature is advisable is another matter, on which we are not called upon to offer an opinion. A man may regret the custom, and feel that it brings with it grave dangers of the profanation of sacred things, and encourages the false idea of a double standard of truthfulness, and yet hold 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

• This is made very plain if the marginal rendering of the Revised Version be adopted.

the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment,

and truth. The ” prophet,” whose ” teaching ” is here referred to, is the prophet Jeremiah, who says (iv. 2), “Thou Shalt swear. As the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness “;i and if judicial oaths are permissible at all, it can only be on these conditions.

?^

I*

I’

Notes

• De ffceres. c. 15. De juravuntis et participatione domhiiece CcmcCt
• ’* Et jurabis : Vivit Dominus in veritate, et in judicio, et in justitia” (Vulgate). The passage is quoted in the Homilj “Against Swearing and Perjury” (p. 73, S.P.C.K.), where the whole question of the lawfulness of oaths is also argued.