Maclear and Williams on Article XXXIX: Of a Christian man's Oath

i. Connection. The Thirty-ninth Article, like the previous one, is aimed at the fanaticism of the Anabap- tists, who, after the example of the Waldenses of the Middle Ages, and the Quakers of modern times, had such scruples on the subject of taking oaths, that they denied the propriety of their being exacted even in a court of justice.

ii. Oaths. When the early Christians were called upon to swear before heathen magistrates, they were naturally required to use idolatrous oaths. This was abhorrent to them and produced a dread of swearing altogether1. Still, as we learn from Tertullian, while they abhorred idolatrous oaths, they would occasionally swear by ” the safety of the Emperor,” though not by his genius,

[…]

deeming the genii no better than demons’. Later, about A.D. 390, Vegetius informs us “that they were wont to swear by God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit2, and the Majesty of the Emperor3.” There was, however, without doubt much scruple amongst the early Christians on the subject of swearing. Clement of Alexandria4 considered it an indignity for a Christian to be put upon his oath, as disparaging his fidelity, and says that he ought to avoid swearing, saying only “Yea and Nay.” To this we may add the testimony of Lactantius, who says that a Christian will never perjure himself, lest he mock God ; nor indeed will he swear at all, lest he fall by accident or carelessly into perjury5. Still in matters of great moment it was not thought wrong to take an oath ; and even S. Athanasius6 required of the Emperor Constantius that his accusers should be put upon their oaths7.

iii. Idle and Vain Swearing. What Scripture is specially directed against is idle and vain swearing8. Such

2 “Jurant autem per Deum, et per Christum, et per Spiritum Sanctum, et perMajestatem Imperatoris.” Veget. Inslitutio sui Militaris, i. 5. See Smith’s Diet, of Christian Antiquities, sub voce Oath, ii. 1416.

3 Compare the oath of Joseph, Gen. xlii. 16, “By the life of […] vylaav $apad>, LXX.

[…]

8 The use of oaths in ordinary con- versation was so common at Antioch that of the twenty-one homilies, which S. Chrysostom preached to the people of Antioch after the imperial statues had been thrown down, there is not one in which allusion is not made to this evil practice. ” We shall preach to you,” he says, “the whole week respecting oaths,” and in one of his sermons he threatens to exclude all swearers from partaking of the Holy Mysteries. Ad Pop. Antioch, Horn. iv. 6 ; vi. 7.

swearing is forbidden alike by our Lord and by S. James. The Jews in our Lord’s time seem to have thought they might swear as much as they chose, so long as they did not forswear themselves. But He, going deeper than the mete letter of the Commandment, bids His disciples abstain from swearing, either by heaven, or earth, or Jerusalem, or the Temple, or their heads. Let your speech, He says, be Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay (Matt. v. 33 — 37), and S. James (James v. 12) almost repeats in his Epistle the words of his Master, and he evidently regards rash and profane swear- ing in ordinary conversation as being thoroughly opposed to the Gospel of Christ.

iv. An Oath in a Court of Justice. But while vain and rash swearing is thus forbidden, it is allowable on solemn and important occasions, and especially in a court of justice, to take an oath. For

(a) When Caiaphas solemnly adjured our Lord to state whether or no He was “the Son of the Blessed,” He did not refuse to plead to such an adjuration, but answered at once (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64)- ;

O) S. Paul frequently in very weighty matters calls God to witness, which is essentially the same thing as taking an oath. Thus he writes to the Corinthians, / protest by that glorying in you”1, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily (1 Cor. xv. 31), and again, Tlie God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not (2 Cor. xi. 31)3;

1 “This one argument seems to be a host in itself. Our Lord consented to be put upon His oath. Oaths therefore before a civil tribunal cannot be forbidden to His disciples.” Bp

Browne On the Articles, p. 837.

iv Xptarw ‘IjjffoO t$ Kvplu ijuwr. See the R.V. translation of this verse. 3 Compare also Rom. ix. 1 ; i Cor.

(7) Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Ai- mighty Himself is represented as swearing (Heb. iii. 11), and the writer of the Epistle compares this with the swearing common among men, saying, Men swear by tlie greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation (Heb. vi. 161).

v. Conclusion. These examples justify on solemn and important occasions, and especially in a court of justice, the legal confirming of an assertion by a solemn attestation in the sight of God. The Article itself quotes the words of a prophet in justification of such a course. Thou shalt swear, we read in Jeremiah, the Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness (Jer. iv. 2). Three conditions are here stated to be requisite to a legitimate oath, righteousness, judgment, and truth. Righteousness, that the thing be lawful and honest, and so the Name of God be not adduced in confirmation of injustice or sin ; judg- ment, in that the oath be not taken without necessity or grave cause ; and truth, that the thing be true, or at least on reasonable grounds and bond fide believed to be true, so that the Holy Name be not brought forward to testify to a lie, which were perjury and a great sin2. An oath so taken is not only no sin but a religious act. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, said Moses, and by His Name shalt thou swear (Deut. x. 20).

xi. 10; xii. 19; Gal. i. 20; Phil. i. 8. Such solemn appeals were usual in the earliest times. God Himself sware unto Abraham (Gen. xxii. 16); Abraham swears by God to deal kindly w ith Abimelech (Gen. xxi. 23, 24) ; so also does Isaac (Gen. xxvi.

31); and Jacob swears solemnly to Laban (Gen. xxxi. 53).

[…]

’ See Bp Forbes On the Articles, p- 803.

Notes

• “Sed et juramus, sicut non per genios Csesarum, ita per salutem eorum, qua; est augustior omnibus geniis. Nescitis genios daemonas dici?” Tertull. Apol. c. 32.
• Clem. Stromat. vii. 8, p. 861, ed. Oxon. 1 7 15.
• “Hie non perjurabit, ne Deum ludibrio habeat ; sed ne jurabit qui- dem ; ne quando, vel necessitate, vel consuetudine, in perjuriam cadat.” Lactant. Epitome, c. 6.
• Apol. ad Constant, i. p. 678. “In the conference between the Catholics and Donatists in the time of Honorius the emperor’s delegate swore to judge impartially by the marvellous mystery of the Trinity, by the Sacra- ment of the Incarnation, and by the emperor’s safety.” Harl. Cone. i. 1052. Smith’s Diet, of Christian Antiquities, ii. 1416.