Erasmus, Declarations, 4 [On Oaths]

 Erasmus, Declarations, 4 [On Oaths]

Written 1532 in response to the censures given by the theologians of the University of Paris.

Source: Erasmus. Controversies. Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 82. University of Toronto Press, 2012. [p. 47-61]

Topic 4. Oaths

VIII Erasmus’ first proposition. Matthew 5[:12]

To keep men safer from perjury, the law of the Gospel completely condemns all swearing, so that now it is not right to take an oath.  

His second proposition. Matthew 5[:35]

Christ totally forbids us to swear oaths.

CENSURE

It is manifest that Christ and the apostles swore oaths, which they would not have done if all oaths were illicit according to the law of the gospel. The process of the law often requires an oath, as the Apostle says 'that the end of all controversy is an oath.’ Hence each of these propositions is an affront to the law of the gospel and its promulgator Christ, is foreign to a sound understanding of Scripture, and is taken over from the condemned teaching of the Catharists, the Waldensians, and those who boast that they belong to the order of the apostles.  

ERASMUS EIGHTH CLARIFICATION

VIII Farewell to the Catharists, together with the Achatharists and the Waldensians, and the Apostolics, with whom I have nothing in common. It is obvious that Christ prohibits all oaths in the Gospel expressly and in dear language, and the apostle fames chimes in with Christ. But since this passage is handled variously by the Doctors of the church, it was not suitable that a paraphraser should stray very far from the words of the Gospel and trace out the ramifications of human opinions. I touch on only two opinions, one of them Augustine's, though he is not the only one to hold it: oaths are totally forbidden that we may better avoid the danger of perjury. The other is that of most scholastics, who hold that this passage in the Gospel is a counsel, not a precept, and that it applies only to the perfect. For the Lord is there setting forth an image of a perfect Christian, which, if realized, would make oaths superfluous but instead in all interchanges 'yes, yes' or 'no, no' would be sufficient, since they would be between persons one of whom would not distrust the other or plan to trick him but rather each would speak in straightforward language and fulfil what he had said no less faithfully and scrupulously than if he had sworn an oath. There is also no lack of those who explain the difficulty by saying that an oath taken to advance the gospel is allowable but not in secular and extraneous affairs. And in this way they excuse Paul when he swears. But surely there is no getting around the fact that it is somehow or other wrong to do what the Gospel so expressly and in so many words forbids, as does the apostle James. Otherwise this statement of Christ would be completely superfluous if it were to forbid only perjury or rash oaths.

But if it is objected that oaths are ordinary human practices, then if any command differing from human customs is delivered, it is more equitable for us to correct our lives in accord with the rule of the gospel rather than to twist that rule to match our customs. For in that passage the Lord is not concerned with oaths in court, since he is shaping a people who could have no lawsuits. Jerome explains the passage even more strictly than I: he thinks the Jews were permitted to swear by God for no other reason than to keep them from swearing by demons. His words are as follows: 'And the Law makes this concession to those who are, as it were, not grown up: just as they sacrificed victims to God to keep from sacrificing them to idols, so too they were permitted to swear by God, not because that was the right thing to do, but because it was better to swear by God than by demons. But the truth of the gospel does not accept oaths, since all the speech of a person of faith is equivalent to an oath.’ That is what he says. And Theophylactus is no more lenient when he says: `to swear and add anything more than "no,” comes from the devil.' If you say that the Law of Moses was evil because it commands oaths, know that it was not evil to swear at that time; but after Christ it was evil, just as circumcision was, and generally whatever is Jewish was evil.' So says Theophylactus. Hilary also does not disagree with them; for when he had said that it was permitted to the crude Jewish people to swear by God, he adds concerning Christians: 'But the faith eliminates the practice of swearing, establishing all our affairs in truth, removing the desire to deceive, and prescribing simplicity in speaking and listening, etc.' In this passage Hilary uses sacramentum 'swearing' to mean what we call jusjurandum 'oath,' and that is good Latin usage. And a little later he says: 'Therefore those who live in the simplicity of faith have no need of oaths, etc.' Chrysostorn sings the same tune about this passage, teaching that oaths were conceded to the weakness of the Jews, but that Christians ought not to swear even when an oath is demanded or urgently needed; rather among Christians all oaths are evil, so much so that it is a sin deserving hell; and he threatens clerics who had no fear of holding out the book of the gospel to those who are to take an oath. In his commentary on Psalm 118 Ambrose does not permit anyone to swear if there is any danger of perjury; but because every human being is deceitful, he concedes oaths only to God and to those who by divine inspiration are certain they can carry out what they swear to do. These are the opinions which approved Doctors of the church have dared to put in writing.

But I did not entirely follow them in the paraphrase; I merely say that among perfect Christians oaths are superfluous. Nevertheless I do not mean that a perfect person immediately sins if he swears for some serious reason or is constrained by some grave necessity; but wherever there is an oath, there is some evil, even if no more than that of weakness. The words of the paraphrase are as follows: 'What need is there, then, of any oaths among persons who out of simplicity do not distrust anyone and who out of sincerity do not desire to deceive anyone, even if they could get away with it unpunished?' And a little further on: 'If anything is added, it must be added out of some vicious motive. For either the person swearing does not entirely mean the thing he is swearing to or else the person who demands the oath is distrustful. But neither motive is fitting for you, whom I wish to be perfect in every way, etc.' This is as far as the paraphrase goes. And so it concedes oaths to the imperfect, but neither praises nor prescribes them. Why then should my proposition be an affront to the law of the gospel and its author. Christ, since I explain the very same thing which he expressly teaches and which orthodox Doctors expressly explained in their interpretations, at the same time, nevertheless, indicating a reason that oaths ought to be permitted? And how can it be just to say that I have drawn in error from the Cathars, Apostolics, and Waldensians, since what is condemned as error is clearly expressed in so many and such great luminaries of the church? If I meant that oaths could neither be demanded nor taken without sin, I could have seemed to have drawn upon approved Doctors of the church. Augustine says nothing like this about the Cathars and the Apostolics. What kind of animal the Waldensians are I neither know nor care to know.

They will say that the approved Doctors of the church make it clear in other places that they do not completely condemn all oaths. Granted that this is true, I do the same. For in my annotations on the fifth chapter of Matthew I not only indicate that this discourse of Christ applies to the perfect, and that oaths are conceded to the weak, but I also display a new way of clearing up the difficulty. I will quote my words: 'In this way, then, many knotty problems could be solved if we understood that Christ did not absolutely forbid these things but that he forbade that they should be done in the way that People ordinarily do them. Thus he forbade anger, etc.' This, I think, is not the language of someone who absolutely forbids all oaths.

But if they say that they are making pronouncements only about my proposition, I have reported much harsher judgments from very approved Doctors of the church, though they were at liberty in their commentaries to try in various ways to resolve the difficulty, while unlike them I was not free in my paraphrase, since there I speak in the person of Christ and the danger lies on that side. There is no danger that oaths will disappear from the world, but rather that perjury will flood the earth. What about this: the language of the Lord seems to forbid not only all oaths, but also all emphatic asseverations. For he says, 'anything beyond that comes from an evil source.' And, in fact, among the perfect such as the Lord hopes for here, all emphatic asseverations, such as 'believe me' or 'I am not kidding you,' would be superfluous, even though the Apostle Paul frequently asseverates and swears, if he is actually swearing when he calls God to witness. For there are some who deny that Paul is swearing, but they are refuted by St Augustine, whose opinion I have long since fully embraced. Thomas thinks that, when he says 'I call God to witness and by my soul’ he not only swore but swore with an execration. The oath was 'I call God to witness'; the execration was `by my soul.' Some say that Christ did not forbid oaths, but only those forms which are mentioned there: 'by heaven,' by the earth,' by someone else's head,' etc., as the gentiles and the Jews then commonly swore — as if it were right to swear by God but not by creatures. But when Paul swears by his own glory, he seems to swear by a creature. Again, when he writes to Philemon, 'so may I enjoy you in the Lord.'

But if we accept the interpretation of the holy Fathers, oaths are totally forbidden to Christians on the grounds that whoever swears exposes himself to extremely grave danger of perjury because a human being, on account of mental weakness, or forgetfulness, or the deception of his senses, often thinks he knows what he does not, thinks he can perform what he cannot. Paul, who was safe from these dangers, rightly swore in his writings, which issued from the breath of the Holy Spirit. On the same grounds St Ambrose excuses the holy men of the Old Testament when they swear, so that this precedent now has nothing to do with us, though those who approve of oaths for Christians adduce this as their most solid argument. Nevertheless, if we rely on the example of Paul, let us swear in the manner of Paul. He did not swear except when promoting the gospel among the weak required him to do so. We swear for any reason whatever. And if the Waldensians stick too close to the word of the Lord and shrink from oaths excessively, for us certainly the explicit precept of the Lord ought to have had enough force to make us reluctant to accept oaths. Nowadays even those who profess to have evangelical perfection swear, and they swear more out of custom than necessity. How necessary or how very useful is it for petty masters of arts to swear? The pagan Isocrates, who was not a philosopher but a rhetorician, did not want a sworn oath to be accepted unless someone was exonerating himself from a shameful crime or saving his friends from grave danger. He did not want anyone to swear for the sake of money, even if he would swear to the truth. But in the lives of Christians it is more ordinary to swear than it once was among the pagans, and there are fewer scruples about oaths, as if the Lord had laid down his precept in vain.

And although it is true that the language of the Lord pertains to the perfect, nevertheless it is the duty of all Christians to strive for perfection, each according to his own strength. I would say this not because I totally condemn all oaths, but to make it apparent that I was not heedlessly cautious about approving oaths and that I stuck closer to the words of the gospel and did not stray far from the interpretation of the ancient, orthodox Fathers.

IX His third proposition on the same subject. Luke 24

 Christ forbade swearing, which had previously not been forbidden by the Law.  

CENSURE

Since the moral precepts are the same in both laws and are confirmed by Christ through the gospel, it is erroneous to say that oaths are absolutely forbidden in the New Law, since they were permitted in the Old Law.  

ERASMUS NINTH CLARIFICATION

IX If there is anything erroneous here, it is fitting to attribute it first of all to the early Doctors, who are approved by an overwhelming consensus and who teach with one voice that what was permitted to the Jews is forbidden to Christians. Now that word 'absolutely' was added by the reporters; I say only that oaths are forbidden in the same way as divorce, which was permitted to the Jews, is forbidden. I will not delay here to consider the subtle arguments of some who say that oaths were allowed in the same way as Christian laws allow brothels. It is more probable that they were allowed in such a way as not to be sinful. Otherwise the Law could seem to deceive the Jews by allowing what was illicit.

Now that distinction of Augustine, which he thought up for pedagogical reasons, separating moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws, has many difficulties if you examine it closely. But, to accept it for the moment, if in moral matters the gospel adds nothing more perfect than the Law, the books of the ancient, orthodox Fathers are full of language suggesting that many things were allowed to the Jews which are forbidden to Christians and that the teaching of the gospel is much more perfect than that of Moses. If what they say is wrong, and they said it to avoid stumbling blocks for the weak, their words should be corrected rather than mine, since I followed them as authorities, and there is all the more danger in what they say in that they are read as greater authorities, even in church.

If they should say at this point that in moral matters Christ added nothing to the Law but only expressed the spiritual meaning of the Law more clearly and more perfectly than the scribes and Pharisees, it is hardly a new feature of language to attribute to the Law what is expressed in the words of the Law and what the ordinary run of Jews thought they were bound only to observe. For Holy Scripture uses the word 'law' in various ways. When the Lord says 'the Law and the prophets up to John’ he uses 'Law' to mean the types and ceremonies of the Law and 'prophets' to mean their predictions about the first coming of Christ. Likewise, when Paul says 'there is a setting aside of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the Law brought nothing to perfection’ he does not mean the whole Law, but the ceremonial precepts, which a little earlier he called 'the law of a carnal commandment.' In this manner the early Doctors of the church say in many places that the gospel requires greater perfection than the Law does, meaning by 'Law' not that spiritual and hidden meaning but rather the words of the Law as ordinary Jews understood them. The precept which the Pharisees themselves confess is the greatest in the Law says only 'you shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ Did Christ add nothing to this precept when he said 'love your enemies, etc.'? Then too, if nothing more is required of Christians, what will we make of that text so often cited by the holy Fathers, 'more is required of him to whom more has been given'? But if we interpret their words appropriately and do not judge them to be erroneous, then mine can all be received with similar candour.

X His fourth proposition. Matthew 5

A Christian is no less bound by his plain word than a Jew is when he swears by all that is holy.  

CENSURE

This proposition is erroneous and derogates from the honour of God, whose authority is invoked by an oath and for that reason a new bond of obligation is introduced.  

ERASMUS CLARIFICATION

X Here the reporters' interpretation is quite different from what I meant. For I do not mean that a perjurer does not commit a graver sin than someone who does not keep his plain word but rather that a perfect Christian should be so faithful to his word that he observes what he has promised by his plain word more scrupulously than a Jew, or a Jewish person, however much he has sworn. For a Jewish person does not think he is bound by his plain promise, but for a perfect Christian his plainest word counts as an oath. And if all Christians were such, how in the long run would that derogate from the honour of God? In my judgment it would be rendered illustrious by such great integrity in his followers. The Lord wants all his followers to be perfect, and the glory of a king consists in the high moral character of his people. What room is there, then, for those frightful words 'erroneous and derogating from the honour of God'?

But if God is honoured by oaths, since it is pious to honour God, why do men of such great sanctity unanimously take a stand against oaths? And also, today, why is it that the more religious a person's outlook is the more vehemently he shrinks from oaths, so much so that many persons prefer to lose their case by refusing to swear an oath than to swear an oath, even a true one? In one of his homilies St John Chrysostom with great vehemence denies entry into church to those who swear oaths contrary to the Lord's precept — merely 'swear,' he says, not 'perjure themselves.' The same Father writes concerning Matthew [5]: 'What if someone requires an oath or imposes it as necessary? Let your fear of God be stronger than any necessity. For if you always intend to bring up such qualifications, you will not observe any precepts.' This is what he says. Someone who swears by the authority of God's name other than in order to honour God commits a sin, but holy persons are urged to refrain from such honour because perjury constitutes very grave contempt for God. And who does not know that a Christian who has sworn an oath is more bound than he would be by a plain promise?

For in that place the paraphrase is not comparing a Christian who has sworn an oath with one who has not, but a Christian who has not sworn with a Jew who has. And so, just as for a perfect Christian to lust after another's wife is accounted adultery and to hate one's brother is equivalent to murder, so too to fail to keep a plain promise made to one's neighbour is no less sinful for a Christian than a Jew took perjury to be. And on this point I have followed the authority of approved Doctors. Jerome says: 'The truth of the gospel does not accept oaths, but rather all the speech of a person of faith is equivalent to an oath.' No one can be offended by my words if he reads the consecutive language of the paraphrase. For it is preceded by this: 'Among you, therefore, plain speech ought to be holier and stronger than any oath, however religious, among the Jews.' And after several intervening sentences, it repeats what had been said before: 'For the one is no less bound by his plain and bare word than a Jew who swears by all that is sacred; and the other is no less trusting than if an oath had intervened, etc.' The earlier saying, 'ought to be holler and stronger,' is here repeated in other words, 'is no less bound.'

I beg you, reader, what do such cavils contribute to Christian piety — to pick out what you can carp at, to interpret unsuitably what was picked out and twist it to some other meaning? I am afraid that such standards, which some follow in examining the writings of the ancient Fathers, contribute more to the world than to Christ and diminish the energy of the gospel rather than strengthen it. What need is there to teach the world that oaths are very useful and necessary? Augustine places oaths among what is useful, not what is approved. For evils are also necessary. And if there is an oath that is not evil, there is certainly none that does not spring from evil; and since Matthew says 'from the evil one' with the article (ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ), Chrysostom takes it to mean 'from the devil.' Softening that, Augustine takes 'from evil' to apply to guilt or punishment.

XI His fifth proposition on the same subject. Matthew 5

There is no need in contracts to mingle in oaths, execrations, or such like, which are to bind with fear the one who promises and inspire trust in the one who demands it.  

CENSURE

This proposition alleging that it is not fitting, useful, or necessary to take oaths to confirm human contracts, if it is understood to be universal, is false and comes close to the error of Wyclif. For it is sometimes useful and sometimes necessary to confirm human agreements with oaths, according to the magnitude of the subject which the contract concerns or the usefulness which arises from the oaths for the contracting persons or governments, as can be seen in the treaties of winces.  

ERASMUS CLARIFICATION

XI I did not set down this proposition universally; rather I am concerned only with those who are perfect in the simplicity of the gospel and have no other use for language than to signify and impart what they have in their thoughts. For the paraphrase says as follows: 'For among you who ought to have nothing on your lips that differs from your thoughts, language has no other use than for human beings to signify to each other what they think in their minds.' Immediately after this there follows: 'There is no need in contracts to mingle in oaths, etc.' If they had reported the drift of the passage, it would have given no offence. I am dealing there with the perfect. For this is what follows: 'But neither one applies to you, whom I want to be perfect in all ways, etc.' Also it does not matter whether there are any such persons in the world. It is sufficient that Christ depicts and hopes for them. For rhetoricians also set forth a perfect orator, such as they say has never yet been found. Now if there were such persons as Christ depicts there, what would be the use or the appropriateness or the necessity of oaths? Are not oaths superfluous among those who never distrust, who never plan treachery? Are oaths fitting and proper where for everyone plain speech is equivalent to an oath? Is something necessary if it is not appropriate and is of no use at all?

Moreover, what need was there for that qualification 'if it is understood to be universal,' since my proposition cannot be understood universally; that is ruled out by what precedes and what follows. I do not deny that among princes, such as most of them now are, oaths are sometimes useful or necessary; nevertheless it would be more desirable if princes were so trustworthy that they entered into treaties without oaths and kept them just as if oaths had been taken. But if the example of princes swearing oaths to keep their treaties moves us to approve of oaths, the treaties which princes make and break so often ought more rightly to dissuade us from taking oaths. To say nothing, in the meantime, about businessmen and litigants, most of whom swear and forswear for trivial reasons, much to the disgrace of the name of Christian. Christ did not come into the world to concern himself with the regulation of trade but to instil a heavenly philosophy in his followers. But to the same degree that oaths are praised, the energy of the gospel is depleted; it would be better if the gospel remained in its well-spring than that it should be mingled with worldly considerations.