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

1 The Quakers, in their refusal either to take or administer an oath, as also in their objection to all war as utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel, revived the opinions of the Anabaptists.

§ 3.— EXPOSITION.

(1.) Vain and rash swearing is forbidden.

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle :

See the Third Commandment, and the words of our Lord recorded in S. Matt. v. 34—37, and of S. James in his Epistle v. 12. These passages are no doubt the ones referred to in the Article.

(2.) There is nothing contrary to the principles of Chris¬ tianity IN TAKING AN OATH BEFORE A MAGISTRATE.

so we judge that Christian religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate re quire th, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

The Gospel prohibitions were evidently directed against “ vain and rash swearing,” against the habit, to which the Jews of our Lord’s time were much addicted, of using oaths upon the most trifling occasions, swearing by Heaven, by Earth, by Jerusalem, and by the head (S. Matt. v. 34-36), without seriously considering themselves bound by such asseverations. In view of this prevalent practice Christ exhorts ecrTco Se 6 \6yog vjucov (i.e., in your common intercourse with one another), Nod ra/, O v ov • to Se irepLcr- crdr tovtcov e/c tov Trovrjpov euTLV (S. Matt. v. 37)- That our Lord’s prohibition of swearing does not extend to solemn oaths before “ the Magistrate … in a cause of faith and charity ” is clear from His own example ; for, on being Himself adjured, or called to answer upon oath, before the high-priest’s judgment-seat, He refused not to do so (S. Matt. xxvi. 63, 64). In many passages in his Epistles S. Paul also solemnly calls God to witness the truth of his statements ( e.g ., Rom. i. 9, ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 18, 23; Gal. i. 20).

That to take an oath is not in itself unlawful appears from several places of Scripture (e.g., Deut. vi. 13; Ps. xv. 1, 4, lxiii. 1 1 ), and under the Old Covenant a power was given to the judges of examining persons upon oath (Lev. v. 1). But the same Scripture likewise emphatically declares that, when an oath is taken, it must be done “in justice, judgment, and truth”

(Jer. iv. 2).1 Further, God Himself is sometimes expressly said to swear (see Gen. xxii. 16; Jer. xliv. 2 6; Ps. lxxxix. 35, cx. 4, cxxxii. 1 1 ; Heb. vi. 13, vii. 21).

To conclude, if men were always truthful there would be no need for the administration of oaths ; but while, on account of the evil that is in the world, solemn attestation of the truth by oath is required, it need not be refused by the Christian.

“ Whosoever sweareth when he is required of a judge, let him be sure in his conscience that his oath have these three conditions, and he shall never need to be afraid of perjury. First, he that sweareth must swear truly; that is, he must, setting apart all favour and affection to the parties, have the truth only before his eyes, and for love thereof say and speak that which he knoweth to be truth, and no further. The second is, he that taketh an oath must do it with judgment ; not rashly and unadvisedly, but soberly, considering what an oath is. The third is, he that sweareth must swear in righteousness; that is, for the very zeal and love which he beareth to the defence of inno- cency, to the maintenance of the truth, and to the righteousness of the matter or cause, all profit, disprofit, all love and favour unto the person for friendship or kindred, laid apart.”

THE RATIFICATION }

This Book of Articles before rehearsed , is again approved , and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God , of England, France, and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith , &c. Which Articles were deliberately read , and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper House, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy in the Nether House in their Convocation, in the year of our Lord God

TI10 last four Articles of 1553, struck out in 1563, ran as follows : —

The Resurrection of the dead is not as yet brought to passe, as though it only belonged to the soulle, whiche by the grace of Christe is raised from the death of sinne, but it is to be loked for at the laste daie : for then (as Scripture doeth moste manifestlie testifie) to all that bee dead their awne bodies, fleshe, and bone shalbe restored, that the whole man maie (according to his workes) haue other rewarde, or punishment, as he hath liued vertuouslie or wickedlie.

Resurrectio mortuorum non ad- huc facta est, quasi tantum ad animum pertineat qui per Christi gratiam a morte peccatorum exci- tetur, sed extremo die quoad omnes qui obierunt, expectanda est; tunc enim vita defunctis (ut Scripturae manifestissime testantur) propria corpora, carnes et ossa restituentur, ut homo integer, prout vel recte vel perdite vixerit, juxta sua opera, sive praemia sive poenas reportet.

1 This Ratification dates from 1571, since which time no change has been made in the wording of the Articles.

The text of this Article is given in the notes on Article XXII., p. 149, footnote.

Thei that goe about to renewe the fable of heretickes called Mil- lenarii, be repugnant to holie Scrip¬ ture, and caste them selues headlong into a Juishe dotage.

Qui Millenariorum fabulam re- vocare conantur, sacris literis ad- versantur, et in Judaica delira- menta sese praecipitant.

Thei also are worthie of con- demnacion, who indeuoure at this time to restore the dangerouse opinion, that al menne, be thei neuer so ungodlie, shall at length bee saued, when thei haue suffered paines for their sinnes a certaine time appoincted by Goddes justice.

SUNT.

Hi quoque damnatione digni sunt, qui conantur hodie perni- ciosam opinionem instaurare, quod omnes, quantumvis impii, servandi sunt tandem, cum definito tempore a justitia divina poenas de admissis flagitiis luerunt.

On the omission of these Articles in 1563 see Introduction, p. 14, and compare the paragraph at the end of the notes on Article XVIII., p. 126.

2 s

/

Notes

• The passage from Jeremiah quoted in the Article is thus explained in the Homily of Swearing (p. 73, ed. S.P.C.K.)