RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Oath
the commandment of the old dispensation not to swear falsely, Jesus places the commandment of the new dispensation not to swear at all. As swearing falsely is prohibited in the Old Testament because the name of God is thereby profaned (Lev. xix. 12), the hallowing of God's name (Matt. vi. 9) is to be extended, according to Jesus' intention, to entire abstinence from the use of the oath. And when, in his enumeration of the various formulas of oaths, Jesus omits the direct appeal to God, he could do so without being misunderstood, partly because his condemnation of all the usual indirect formulas involved a still severer condemnation of the direct one; partly because the latter was very little used among the Jews on account of their reluctance to pronounce the name of God. This reluctance is also the reason why a tender and candid Christian conscience shrinks from using the name of God in making its statements. If, however, the passage quoted be interpreted as a definite prohibition of swearing, it comes into conflict with other New-Testament passages. The words of Paul (referred to above) have certainly the character of the oath. And when Jesus condescended to answer the question of the high priest (Matt. xxvi. 63), though it was counted in the formulas employed when oaths were taken in the courts, he allowed his own words to assume the same character; moreover, the passage Heb. vi. 16 could never have been written if swearing had been absolutely prohibited among the first Christians. This contradiction is to be solved in the same way as the contradictions between the prohibitions of the Sermon on the Mount — not to be angry, not to revile. Only when issuing from the lower egotistical affections and impulses of human nature are anger,'reproach, and swearing forbidden, that is to say, under circumstances which, for instance, would make an oath profane swearing. It is quite otherwise when the same act is performed for the sake of high ethical interests, as, for instance, when the civil authorities demand an oath in order to reach the truth and to make justice safe.
It was in this way that the doctrine of the New Testament concerning oaths was conceived by the Reformers and the large Protestant communities (cf. Augsburg Confession, xvi.; Luther's Larger Catechism; Geneva Catechism; Heidelberg Catechism; Thirty-nine articles of the An- 2. Protes- glican Church). The canon law of the tant Roman Church, following Jerome, de- Position, mands that the oath be taken in accordance with Jer. iv. 2 (Vulgate): "in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness "; the same is found also in the Anglican articles. Modern Protestant ethicists, while in the main agreeing with the confession of the Church, differ somewhat in that they regard the oath partly as an evil necessary on account of the moral condition of the human race; partly — and in this case the oath is justified— as an expression of devout sentiment; they refer the words in the Sermon on the Mount mainly to " frivolous formulas of swearing." On the whole it must be acknowledged that swearing, whatever be the circumstances and conditions, " cometh of evil" (Matt. v. 37). It presupposes a distrust which rules human society and a lack of CQnscien- VIII.— 14
tiousness in Christendom. A really Christian morality ruling the community everywhere would make the oath superfluous and give place to the simple "yea, yea" and "nay, nay" (cf. on this point especially the works on ethics by Wuttke, Palmer, Schmidt, Luthardt, Kubel). Considering the holiness and justice of God, the form of an oath should be as simple as possible. The mere invocation of God as witness should be sufficient, all else should be prohibited; a form like " so help me God to my everlasting salvation" is objectionable (see Wuttke). Objectionable also are all oaths attached to promises, because they express more than was intended by the swearer. The claim that the oath which a Christian takes should always fully express faith in God as revealed in Christ, is unfounded. That atheists should neither be forced nor allowed to swear is a matter of course, a conclusion which is founded on the nature and object of the oath. (J. KosTLiNf.)
III. In Canon Law: The subject receives treatment in canon law principally in Decretum Gratiani, causa XXII. ; in the collection of decretals of Gregory IX., II., xxiv.; the Liber Sextus; the Clementines; and the decretal of Innocent III., c. xxvi., X., de jurejurando.
Only by way of intimation, it is true, but still
plainly enough, the canon law defines an oath as an
asseveration with at least silent appeal to God as
the omniscient witness not only to the
i. The words and works but to the thoughts
General and intents of man. The canon law Conditions, also distinguishes between the right and the wrong uses of the oath, following the Vulgate of Jerome on Jer. iv. 2, which reads: " And thou shalt swear: The Lord lives! In truth, judgment, and in justice "; it demands that the oath shall have these three " attendants," viz., truth (in the mind), judgment (in swearing), and justice (in the object). By the first it means the sincerity of the intention in the case of the assertive oath to speak the truth, in the case of the promissory oath to fulfil the promise. By the second it means the proper understanding of what an oath is. By the third, justice in the object, it means that it is an oath which the swearer can rightfully take. All of which is in harmony with the teaching of Innocent III.: " Thou art able to swear without wrongdoing if thy oath has these three accompaniments of which the prophet [Jeremiah] speaks when he says: 'Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth, in truth and judgment and justice.' " It is correct but not directly derived from the canon law to say that the object of the oath and the purpose of its use should be consonant with the divine character. The development of the general legal doctrine of the oath must then proceed along these lines.
The correct consequences from the first condition, judicium in jurante (" the judgment in swearing "), involve notice of the following hindrances or disqualifications to taking oaths: (1) the person is under age. The canon law only expressly forbids that any one who is not of the age of reason should be forced to take an oath (XXII., v. 14), but in practise this has rightly been construed as forbidding such an oath under all circumstances. Later
Oath Obadiah