Church of England, First Book of Homilies [1543], Homily 7 Against Swearing and Perjury

Church of England, First Book of Homilies, Homily 7 Against Swearing and Perjury [1543]

From the first authorised book of homilies of the Church of England. Written by Thomas Cranmer (or under his supervision) in 1542/1543. First published and authorised in 1547 with minor emendations in the following decades. In this critical edition, textual emendations are indicated by a combination of italics for deletion and bold type for additions. The year and edition in which the change was made is indicated in square brackets after the alteration in question. Thus for example attestation calling to witness [1559] indicates that in 1559 the word ‘attestation’ which had appeared in previous editions, was altered to ‘calling to witness.’ Those who want the original text need only ignore the words in bold type but keep those in italics, whilst those who want the currently authorised text will do the opposite – include the words in bold type but ignore those in italics.

Source: Bray, Gerald. The Books of Homilies: A Critical Edition. ISD LLC, 2016

7. Against Swearing and Perjury.

1. Almighty God, to the intent his most holy name should be had in honour and evermore be magnified of the people, commandeth that no man should take his name vainly in his mouth, threatening punishment unto him that unreverently abuseth it by swearing, forswearing and blasphemy. To the intent therefore that this commandment may be the better known and kept, it shall be declared unto you both how it is lawful for Christian people to swear and also what peril and danger it is vainly to swear or to be forsworn.

First, when judges require oaths of the people for declaration (or opening) [1559] of the truth or for execution of justice, this manner of swearing is lawful. Also, when men make faithful promises with attestation calling to witness [ 1559] of the name of God to observe keep [1559] covenants, honest promises, statutes, laws and good customs, as Christian princes do in their conclusions of peace for conservation of commonwealths, and private persons promise their fidelity in matrimony, or one to another in honest and true friendship; and all men when they do swear to keep common laws or local statutes and good customs for due order to be had and continued among men; when subjects do swear to be true and faithful to their king and sovereign lord, and when judges, magistrates and officers swear truly to execute their offices, and when a man would affirm the truth to the setting forth of God's glory for the salvation of the people in open preaching of the gospel, or in giving of good counsel privately for their soul's health; all these manner of swearings for causes necessary and honest be lawful. But when men do swear of custom, in reasoning, buying and selling, or other daily communication, as many be common and great swearers, such kind of swearing is ungodly, unlawful and prohibited forbidden [1559] by the commandment of God, for such swearing is nothing else but taking of God's holy name in vain.

And here is to be noted that lawful swearing is not forbidden but commanded of Almighty God. For we have examples of Christ and godly men in Holy Scripture that did swear themselves and required oaths of other likewise. And God's commandment is: 'Thou shalt dread thy Lord God, and shalt swear by his name.' ¹ And Almighty God by his prophet David saith: 'All men shall be praised that swear by him. '² Thus did our Saviour Christ swear divers times, saying 'verily, verily'.³ And Saint Paul sweareth thus: 'I call God to witness. '⁴ And Abraham, waxing old, required an oath of his servant that he should procure a wife for his son Isaac, which should come out of his own kindred, and the servant did swear that he would perform his master's will.⁵ Abraham also, being required, did swear unto Abimelech the king of Gerar that he should not hurt him nor his posterity, and so likewise did Abimelech swear unto Abraham.⁶ And David did swear to be and to continue a faithful friend to Jonathan, and Jonathan did swear to become a faithful friend unto David.⁷

Also God once commanded that if a thing were laid to pledge to any man or left with him to keep, if the same thing were stolen or lost, that the keeper thereof should be sworn before judges that he did not convey it away nor used any deceit in causing the same to be conveyed away by his consent or knowledge.⁸ And Saint Paul saith that in all matters of controversy between two persons, whereas one saith yea and the other nay, so as no due proof can be bad of the truth, the end of every such controversy must be an oath ministered by a judge.⁹

And moreover God by the prophet Jeremiah saith: 'Thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, in righteousness.'¹⁰ So that 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 that he sweareth [1547/3] truly, that is, be must, secluding setting apart [1559] all favour and affection to the parties, have the truth only before his eyes and for love thereof say and speak that which be 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 innocency, to the maintenance of the truth and to the [ 1547 /6] righteousness of the matter or cause, all profit, disprofit, all love and favour unto the person for friendship or kindred, laid apart. Thus an oath, if it have with it these three conditions, is a part of God's glory which we are bound by his commandment to give unto him, for be willeth that we shall swear only by his name. Not that he hath pleasure in our oaths, but like as he commanded the Jews to offer sacrifices unto him, not for any delight that he had in them, but to keep the Jews from committing of idolatry, so he, commanding us to swear by his holy name, doth not teach us that he delighteth in swearing, but he thereby forbiddeth all men to give his glory to any creature in heaven, earth or water.¹¹

Hitherto you see that oaths lawful are commanded of God, used of patriarchs and prophets, of Christ himself, and of his apostle Paul. Therefore Christian people must think lawful oaths both godly and necessary. For by lawful promises and covenants, confirmed by oaths, princes and their countries are confirmed in common tranquillity and peace. By holy promises, with attestation of God's name calling the name of God to witness [1559], we be made lively members of Christ when we profess his religion, receiving the sacrament of baptism. By like holy promise the sacrament of matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love, that they desire not to be separated for any displeasure or adversity that shall after happen. By lawful oaths which kings, princes, judges and magistrates do swear common laws are kept inviolate, justice is indifferently ministered, innocent harmless [1559] persons, orphans fatherless children [1559], widows and poor men are defended from murderers, oppressors and thieves, that they suffer no wrong, nor take any harm. By lawful oaths mutual society, amity and good order is kept continually in all commonalities, as boroughs, cities, towns and villages. And by lawful oaths malefactors are searched out. Wrongdoers are punished and they which sustain wrong are restored to their right. Therefore lawful swearing cannot be evil, which bringeth unto us so many godly, good and necessary commodities.

Wherefore, when Christ so earnestly forbad swearing, it may not be so understanded as though he did forbid all manner of oaths, but he forbiddeth all vain swearing and forswearing, both by God and by his creatures, as the common use of swearing in buying, selling, and in our daily communication; to the intent every Christian man's word should be as well regarded in such matters as if he should confirm his communication with an oath. For 'every Christian man's word', saith Saint Jerome, 'should be so true that it should be regarded as an oath.'¹² And Chrysostom, witnessing the same, saith: 'It is not convenient to swear, for what needeth us to swear when it is not Lawful for one of us to make a lie unto another?'¹³

Peradventure some will say. I am compelled to swear, for else men that do common with me or do buy and sell with me will not believe me. To this answereth Saint Chrysostom, that he that thus saith showeth himself to be an unjust and a deceitful person, for if he were a trusty man and his deeds taken to agree with his words, he should not need to swear at all.¹⁴ For he that useth truth and plainness in his bargaining and communication, he shall have no need by such vain swearing to ring himself in credence with his neighbours, nor his neighbours will not mistrust his sayings. And if bis credence be so much lost indeed that he thinketh no man will believe him without he swear, then he may well think his credence is clean gone. For truth it is, as Theophylact writeth, that 'no man is less trusted than he that useth much to swear.'¹⁵ And Almighty God by the wise man saith: 'That man which sweareth much shall be full of sin, and the scourge of God shall not depart from his house.'¹⁶

But here some men will say, for excusing of their many oaths in their daily talk, Why should I not swear when I swear truly? To such men it may be said that though they swear truly, yet in swearing often, unadvisedly, for trifles, without necessity and when they should not swear, they be not without fault but do take God's most holy name in vain. Much more ungodly and unwise men are they that abuse God's most holy name, not only in buying and selling of small things daily in all places, but also in eating, drinking, playing, commoning and reasoning, as if none of these things might be done, except in doing of them the most holy name of God be commonly used and abused, vainly and unreverently talked of, sworn by and forsworn, to the breaking of God's commandment and procurement of his indignation.

2. You have been taught in the first part of this sermon against swearing and perjury what great danger it is to use the name of God in vain, and that all kind of swearing is not unlawful, neither against God's commandment; and that there be three things required in a lawful oath; first, that it be made for the maintenance of the truth; second, that it be made with judgment, not rashly and unadvisedly; thirdly, for the zeal and love of justice. Ye heard also what commodities cometh of lawful oaths and what danger cometh of rash and unlawful oaths. Now as concerning the rest of the same matter, ye shall understand that And [1549] as well they use the name of God in vain that by an oath make unlawful [1576] promises of good and honest things and perform them not, as they which do promise evil and unlawful things and do perform the same.

Of such men that regard not their godly promises confirmed bound [1559] by an oath, but wittingly and wilfully break them, we do read in Holy Scripture two notable punishments. First, Joshua and the people of Israel made a league and faithful promise of perpetual amity and friendship with the Gibeonites; notwithstanding, afterward in the days of wicked Saul many of these Gibeonites were murdered, contrary to the said faithful promise made.¹⁷ Wherewith Almighty God was so sore displeased that he sent an universal famine hunger [1559) upon the whole country which continued by the space of three years, and God would not withdraw his punishment until the said offence was revenged by the death of seven sons or near kinsmen of King Saul. Also, whereas Zedekiah king of Jerusalem had promised fidelity to the king of Chaldaea, afterward, when Zedekiah, contrary to his oath and allegiance, did rebel against King Nebuchadnezzar, this heathen king, by God's permission and sufferance [1559], invading the land of Jewry and besieging the city of Jerusalem, compelled the said King Zedekiah to flee, and in fleeing took him prisoner, slew his sons before his face and put our both his eyes, and binding him with chains led him prisoner miserably into Babylon.¹⁸ Thus doth God show plainly how much he abhorreth breakers of honest promises confirmed bound [ 1559] by an oath made in his name.

And of them that make wicked promises by an oath and will perform the same we have example in the Scripture, chiefly of Herod, of the wicked Jews and of Jephthah. Herod promised by an oath unto the damsel which danced before him 'to give unto her whatsoever she would ask', when she was instructed before of her wicked mother to ask the head of Saint John Baptist. Herod, as he took a wicked oath, so he more wickedly performed the same and cruelly slew the most holy prophet.¹⁹ Likewise did the malicious Jews 'make an oath, cursing themselves if they did either eat or drink until they had slain Saint Paul. '²⁰ And Jephthah, when God had given him victory of the children of Ammon, promised of a foolish devotion unto God, to offer for a sacrifice unto him that person which of his own house should first meet with him after his return home. By force of which fond and unadvised oath he did slay his own and only daughter, which came out of his house with mirth and joy to welcome him home.²¹ Thus the promise which he made most foolishly to God, against God's eternal everlasting [1559] will and the law of nature most cruelly he performed, so committing against God double offence. Therefore, whosoever maketh any promise binding himself thereunto by an oath, let him foresee that the thing which he promiseth be good, honest and not against the commandment of God, and that it be in our his [1547/2] own power to perform it justly, and such good promises must all men keep evermore assuredly. But if a man at any time shall either of ignorance or of malice promise and swear to do anything which is either against the law of Almighty God or not in his power to perform let him take it for an unlawful and ungodly oath.

Now something to speak of perjury. To the intent you should know how great and grievous an offence against God this wilful perjury is, I will show you what it is to take an oath before a judge upon a book. First, when they, laying their hands upon the gospel book, do swear truly to inquire and to make a true presentment of things wherewith they be charged and not to let from saying the truth and doing truly for favour, love, dread or malice of any person, as God may help them and the holy contents of that book, they must consider that in that book is contained God's everlasting truth, his most holy and eternal Word, whereby we have forgiveness of our sins and be made inheritors of heaven, to live for ever with God's angels and his saints in joy and gladness. In the gospel book is contained also God's terrible threats to obstinate sinners that will not amend their lives nor believe the truth of God, his holy Word and the everlasting pain prepared in hell for idolaters, hypocrites, for false and vain swearers, for perjured men, for false witness bearers, for false condemners of innocent and guiltless men, and for them which for favour hide the crimes of malefactors evildoers [ 1559], that they should not be punished. So that whosoever wilfully forsweareth himself upon Christ's holy evangely, they utterly forsake God's mercy, goodness and truth, the merits of our Saviour Christ's nativity, life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension; they refuse the forgiveness of sins promised to all penitent sinners, the joys of heaven, the company with angels and saints for ever; all which benefits and comforts are promised unto true Christian persons in the gospel. And they, so being forsworn upon the gospel, do betake themselves to the devil's service, the master of all lies, falsehood, deceit and perjury, provoking the great indignation and curse of God against them in this life, and the terrible wrath and judgment of our Saviour Christ at the great day of the last judgment, when he shall justly judge both the quick and the dead according to their works. For whosoever forsaketh the truth for love or displeasure of any man, or for lucre and profit to himself, doth forsake Christ and with Judas betrayeth him. And although such perjured men's falsehood be now kept secret, yet it shall be opened at the last day when the secrets of all men's hearts shall be manifest to all the world, and then the truth shall appear and accuse them, and their own conscience, with all the blessed company of heaven, shall bear witness truly against them; and Christ the righteous judge shall then justly condemn them to everlasting shame and death.

This sin of perjury Almighty God, by the prophet Malachi, doth threaten to punish sore, saying unto the Jews: 'I will come to you in judgment and I will be a swift witness' and a sharp judge 'upon sorcerers, adulterers and perjured persons.'²² Which thing to the prophet Zechariah God declareth in a vision, wherein the prophet saw a book flying which was twenty cubits long and ten cubits broad, God saying then unto him: 'This is the curse that shall go forth upon the face of the earth for falsehood, false swearing and perjury; and this curse shall enter into the house of the false man and into the house of the perjured man, and it shall remain in the midst of his house and consume him, the timber and stones of his house. '²³ Thus you see how much God doth hate perjury and what punishment God hath prepared for false swearers and perjured persons.

Thus you have heard how and in what causes it is lawful for a Christian man to swear; ye have heard what properties and conditions a lawful oath must have, and also how such lawful oaths are both godly and necessary to be observed; ye have heard that it is not lawful to swear vainly, that is, other ways than in such causes and after such sort as is declared, and finally ye have heard how damnable a thing it is either to forswear ourselves or to keep an unlawful and unadvised oath. Wherefore let us earnestly call for grace, that all vain swearing and perjury set apart, we may only use such oaths as be lawful and godly and that we may truly, without all fraud, observe keep [1559] the same according to God's will and pleasure. To whom with the Son and Holy Ghost be all honour and glory. Amen.

 

---

1. Deut.6:13.

2. Psa. 63:11.

3. John 3:3, 11.

4. 2 Cor. 1 :23.

5. Gen. 24: 1-9.

6. Gen. 2 1:21- 31.

7. I Sam. 18:3, 20: 12- 17, 42.

8. Ex. 22:10-11.

9. Heb. 6:16.

10. Jer. 4:2.

11. Isa. 42:8; Psa. 150:6.

12. Comm in Matt., 5.34--37.

13. Chromatius, Tractatus in Matt., 9.11. The mistaken reference to Chrysostom is probably the result of a confusion arising from the fact that both names begin with the same three letters. There is a similar confusion in the Corpus iuris canonici, X, 2.22.5.

14. John Chrysostom, Hom in Eph., 2. See also his Hom ad populum Antioch., 7 and Hom in Acta, 9.

15. Theophylact ofOchrid, Comm. in Matt., 5.37.

16. Sir.23: 11.

17. Isa.9:3-15;2Sam.21:l-14.

18. 2 Kings 24: 17 and 25:7.

19. Matt. 14:6-11.

20. Acts23: 12.

21. Judg. 11:30- 39.

22. Mai. 3:5.

23. Zech. 5: 1-4.

Church of England, Thirty Nine Articles [1571], Article 39, Of a Christian Man's Oath

Church of England, Thirty Nine Articles [1571], Article 39, Of a Christian Man's Oath 

Source: Church of England, Thirty Nine Articles [1571], available at: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A72013.0001.001 

XXXIX.  Of a Christian mans othe.

As we confesse that vayne and rashe swearing is forbidden Christian men by our lord Jesus Christe, and James his Apostle:  So we iudge that Christian religion doth not prohibite, but that a man may sweare when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charitie, so it be done accordyng to the prophetes teaching, in iustice, iudgement, and trueth.

Robert Bellarmine, Dottrina Christiana [Catechisms], The Second Commandment

Robert Bellarmine, Dottrina Christiana [Catechisms], The Second Commandment

Shorter Catechism (Dottrina Cristiana breve da impararsi a mente) written for students in 1597, larger Catechism (Dichiarazione più copiosa della dottrina Cristiana) written for teachers in 1598.

 

Shorter Catechism, The Second Commandment

Source: Robert Bellarmine. A Shorte Catechisme. Trans: Georgius Mayr. Augsberg, 1614. Revised for Bellarmine Forum. Available @ Of the Commandments of God - The Bellarmine Forum

II. Second Commandment

Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain

- 

Student: Declare the second [Commandment].

Teacher:  The Second commandment forbids blasphemies, which are most grievous sins; false or not necessary oaths; breaking of vows; and all other dishonor that is done to God with words.

---

Longer Catechism, The Second Commandment

Source: Robert Bellarmine, “Doctrina Christiana: The Timeless Catechism of St. Robert Bellarmine”, p. 102-110. Trans.: Ryan Grant. Mediatrix Press, 2016

 

EXPLANATION OF THE SECOND COMMANDMENT

 

S. Let us proceed now to the Second Commandment. What is meant by "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"?

T. This Commandment treats on the honor and dishonoring of God that is done by words. It is commanded to honor Him and forbidden to dishonor Him. For that reason, this Commandment can be divided into four ways that God is honored by words and four that He is dishonored by them. Firstly, God is honored by words when we pronounce His name affected by charity, but He is dishonored when we take it in vain. Secondly, we honor Him by swearing oaths, and dishonor Him by perjury. Thirdly, we honor Him when taking vows and dishonor Him by violating them. Fourthly and lastly, we honor Him with invocation and praise but dishonor Him by blasphemy and cursing.

S. Explain the first part to me.

T. One use the name of God, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints by speaking simply and do so well or wickedly. For those who more intensely love God frequently remember God and speak about Him; they do this from great devotion and affection, just as it is done in the Epistles of St. Paul, wherein, as often as the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ is read, we know that St. Paul bore great devotion and affection in heart in which he divulged it in speech. On the other hand, there are others who, from a wicked custom, when they are either angry or joke rashly advance the name of God, or of some saint, and in fact nothing else comes into their mind. These certainly act wickedly because in a certain measure they tread the most Holy Name of God underfoot. As an example, even though I will not declare all things by an example, those who do such things are the same as if someone having an exceedingly precious garment should carelessly use it too much namely in every time and place.

S. Now explain the object of the second part, which treats on oaths.

T. To swear an oath is nothing other than to invoke God as a witness to the truth; to do this well three things must be present, obviously the truth, but also justice and judgment, in the same way that God Himself taught us through the mouth of Jeremiah. And just as by swearing an oath under due circumstances God is honored, so on the other hand, He is exceedingly dishonored if someone were to swear an oath without truth, justice or judgment. One who does this, signifies that God is either not conscious of his affairs or certainly makes him the patron of a lie or iniquity.

S. Tell me more in particular, what is it to swear with the truth?

T. For one to swear with the truth it is necessary that he assert nothing under oath other than what he knows for certain to be true; nor can anyone affirm with an oath something to be true which they know is false or that they certainly do not know is true. They do the same that promise something with an oath but do not think to carry it out.

S. What does it mean to swear with justice?

T. It is simply to promise under oath to do something which is just and right. And therefore, those who swear themselves to avenge injuries inflicted on themselves or to do something that displeases God gravely sin; nor must it stand or be thought that by such promises one obliges himself to these things in another manner, since no one is obliged to do evil, since the Divine Laws constrain us to not do nothing against them.

S. What does it mean to swear with judgment?

T. It is merely to swear with prudence and maturity by considering whether something is unsuitable to invoke God as a witness, unless it is for necessary affairs of great importance, and to do that with great fear and reverence. For this reason they sin who blurt out oaths in some trivial affair or in comedy and jokes. They also incur perjury who have a bad habit of frequently swearing, because it is one of the greatest sins that one can commit. For this reason, both Christ in the Gospel and St. James absolutely forbid us to swear without necessity. The saints assign this reason, that swearing an oath should be a remedy for the weakness of human trust, in as much as men may believe each other with great difficulty; for that reason it must be used like a medicine which is usually taken as rarely as possible.

S. Explain to me the third part of this Commandment, which is on Vows.

T. A vow is a promise made to God in some good matter and for the sake of the Divine Majesty. Here three things must be considered. The first is that a vow is a promise, for that reason it is not sufficient to ratify a vow for it to only have been proposed, much less desired, but it is necessary that an express promise be made by word or at least in heart. The second is that this vow is made to God, Whom vows most properly consider. Therefore, when a vow is made to the Blessed Virgin or to another saint, it must be understood that the vow was principally made to God, but to the honor of the Blessed Virgin or the saints, in whom God dwells in a peculiar and by far more excellent manner than in the rest of His creatures. This is why when a vow is made to some saint, it is nothing other than a promise made to God in memory of that saint which must be honored by some sacrifice honoring God Himself in the saint. The third is that a vow cannot he made about just anything, rather about some good and for the sake of God, such as virginity, voluntary poverty, and things of this sort. For that reason one who vows a sin, or some work that does not pertain to the worship of God, or even something good which might be an impediment to a greater good, insofar as he would not do something for the sake of the Divine Majesty thus dishonors God and offends against this Second Commandment. Just the same one would also gravely infringe upon this commandment if he were to make a vow that he does not fulfil as quickly as possible. Because God commands in Scripture that one who begins a vow should not only fulfil it but also do it without delay.

S. Explain the last part to me, which treats on the praise of God and also blasphemy.

T. In this last part of the Commandment, God commands us not to blaspheme His Holy Name, but rather to praise and bless it. And firstly, in as much as it attains to praise there is no difficulty, seeing that it is manifest that every good proceeds from God and all His works are full of wisdom, justice and mercy; it is reasonable in the first place that in all things, He should be praised and blessed. In as much as it considers blasphemy, you should know that it is nothing other than an injury inflicted upon God by words, either directly or against the saints, and there are six kinds of blasphemy. The first is when something is attributed to God that is not suited to Him; for example, that he has horns or similar inept things. Second, when something suited to God is denied to Him, such as power, wisdom, justice or any other of His attributes, so that if someone were to say that God cannot do this or that, or cannot see, or is not just. The third, is when something that is proper to God is attributed to some creature. Some men do this when they say the devil is prescient of future things or performs true miracles. The fourth, is when someone curses God, His Mother, or the other saints. The fifth, is when someone names some limb of Christ or the saints to inflict injury upon them, just as if they were ignominious things to them, even as these acts are to us. The sixth, is when something pertaining to Christ or the saints themselves is mocked; some do this when they swear by the beard of Christ or St. Peter or something like it, which are all assailed by the hatred of demons and the perversity of men.

S. I ask you to tell me how grave a sin is blasphemy?

T. It is so grave that it is nearly the gravest of all. This can be gathered from the punishment constituted for blasphemies. In the Old Testament, God commanded blasphemers to be stoned on the spot by the whole people, and civil laws punish blasphemers with death. St. Gregory relates about a five year-old boy that had learned to blaspheme; he was not corrected by his father and expired in the lap of his father, and his soul was visibly brought down to hell by demons that had appeared. This is not read about any other sin. For that reason we must very assiduously beware lest we so gravely offend the Divine Majesty. It is not difficult to abstain from this sin, since no usefulness or utility is obtained from it, as is the case with certain other sins. Rather, only damnation comes from it. Although one must never sin no matter what advantage or delight one could ultimately obtain from it.

 

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.

Juan de Valdés, Commentary on Matthew, 5:33-37

Juan de Valdés, Commentary on Matthew, 5:33-37

Written c. 1540.

Source: Valdes, Juan de, John T. Betts, and Edward Boehmer. 1882. Commentary upon the gospel of St Matthew, now for the first time transl. from the Spanish, and never before pubd in English, by John T. Betts. Lives of the twin brothers, Juan and Alfonso de Valdes, by Edward Boehmer, with intr. by the editor. London: Trubner. p. 82-84.

Christ, carrying on His design of showing the difference between the obligation of the law by human generation (birth) and that of the Gospel by Christian regeneration, says, "moreover you have heard" &c., meaning: because the law, following the obligation of generation, does not prohibit the taking of an oath, but only perjury. The scribes and Pharisees hold themselves to be righteous provided they do not perjure themselves, holding those to be righteous, who do not perjure themselves. Now, forasmuch as the Gospel, following the obligation of regeneration, does not allow the regenerate to swear at all, I admonish you not to swear, any how, nor by any thing; reducing your- selves to a simple "yea" for affirmation, and to a simple "nay" for negation; for I would have you know that all exceeding this comes forth and proceeds from an unmortified spirit, that neither feels nor knows the obligation of regeneration. This is what I understand to be the meaning of these words.

Proceeding to particularise them, it is to be understood that the law, in saying, "thou shalt not forswear thyself” meant, that when a man should promise anything by oath, inasmuch as, by swearing, it seemed that he promised to God, he should fulfil it ; for by the non-fulfilment he became perjured. This renders that, "but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths," intelligible."Thou shalt not forswear thyself" is identical with the injunction of the second commandment of the law, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."

Christ, in saying, "thou shalt not swear" excludes perjury and prohibits oaths, and means, that since the heaven is God's and not ours, and that the earth is God's and not ours, and that Jerusalem is God's and not ours, and that with our heads we cannot do what we will — it is not right to swear by any one of them. In saying, "but let your speech be" He means, let it be your affirmation and your negation. In saying "all beyond this," He means whatever is added to this, "yea," and to this, "nay."

Many write much, pretending to expound these words of Christ, limiting them, and adducing cases in which it is permitted to the Christian to swear. I rest satisfied with saying this; because I read that St. Paul, wishing to be believed, occasionally swore, as appears, Rom. i. 9, 2 Cor. xi. 11, Gal. i. 20, and feeling it to be certain that the Spirit of Christ spake by St. Paul, which Spirit never deviated from the obligation of Christian regeneration, I think thus: that in every oath which man makes voluntarily, not being constrained to do so, he deviates from Christian regeneration; so that the Christian is then permitted to swear, when he is constrained by man, and inspired by God, as St. Paul was inspired. The man who shall not be resolved, as against the world, to maintain the obligation of Christian regeneration, will never bring himself to this purity, for the world's honour will constrain him to swear, when he desires to be believed in that which he shall affirm.

Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 38-39

Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 38-39

Written 1533 CE. Published 1548 CE.

Source: Ignatius of Loyola: The spiritual exercises and selected works. Ed.: George E. Ganns. Paulist Press, NJ USA. 1991. p. 132-133

It is not permissible to swear, either by God or by a creature, unless it is done with truth, necessity, and reverence.

With necessity, that is, to affirm with an oath, not just any truth at all, but only one of some importance for the good of the soul, or the body, or temporal interests. With reverence, that is, when in pronouncing the name of our Creator and Lord one acts with consideration and manifests that honor and reverence which are due to him. In an unnecessary oath, it is a more serious sin to swear by the Creator than by a creature. However, we should note, it is harder to swear by a creature with the proper truth, necessity, and reverence than to swear by the Creator, for the following reasons.

The First. When we desire to swear by a creature, our very desire to name a creature makes us less careful and cautious about speaking the truth or affirming it with necessity than is the case when our urge is to name the Lord and Creator of all things.

The Second. When we swear by a creature, it is not as easy to maintain reverence and respect for the Creator as it is when we swear by the name of the Creator and Lord himself. For our very desire to name God our Lord carries with it greater respect and reverence than desire to name a creature. Consequently, to swear by a creature is more permissible for persons spiritually far advanced than for those less advanced. The perfect, through constant contemplation and enlightenment of their understanding, more readily consider, meditate, and contemplate God our Lord as being present in every creature by his essence, presence, and power. Thus when they swear by a creature, they are more able and better dis-posed than the imperfect to render respect and reverence to their Creator and Lord.

The Third. To swear continually by a creature brings a risk of idolatry that is greater in the imperfect than in the perfect.

Catechism of Trent III.2 The Second Commandment

Catechism of Trent III.2 The Second Commandment

Published in 1566 CE.

Source: Catechism of the Council of Trent, III.2, p. 382-395. Trans: J.A. McHugh & C.J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1923 [10th Printing, 1947]

THE SECOND COMMANDMENT: "Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain"

Why This Commandment Is Distinct From The First

The second Commandment of the divine law is necessarily comprised in the first, which commands us to worship God in piety and holiness. For he who requires that honour be paid him, also requires that he be spoken of with reverence, and must forbid the contrary, as is clearly shown by these words of the Lord in Malachy: The son honoureth the father and the servant his master if then I be a father, where is my honour?

However, on account of the importance of the obligation, God wished to make the law, which commands His own divine and most holy name to be honoured, a distinct Commandment, expressed in the clearest and simplest terms.

Importance Of Instruction On This Commandment

The above observation should strongly convince the pastor that on this point it is not enough to speak in general terms; that the importance of the subject is such as to require it to be dwelt upon at considerable length, and to be explained to the faithful in all its bearings with distinctness, clearness and accuracy.

This diligence cannot be deemed superfluous, since there are not wanting those who are so blinded by the darkness of error as not to dread to blaspheme His name, whom the Angels glorify. Men are not deterred by the Commandment laid down from shamelessly and daringly outraging His divine Majesty every day, or rather every hour and moment of the day. Who is ignorant that every assertion is accompanied with an oath and teems with curses and imprecations? To such lengths has this impiety been carried, that there is scarcely anyone who buys, or sells, or transacts business of any sort, without having recourse to swearing, and who, even in matters the most unimportant and trivial, does not profane the most holy name of God thousands of times.

It therefore becomes more imperative on the pastor not to neglect, carefully and frequently, to admonish the faithful how grievous and detestable is this crime.

Positive Part of this Commandment

But in the exposition of this Commandment it should first be shown that besides a negative, it also contains a positive precept, commanding the performance of a duty. To each of these a separate explanation should be given; and for the sake of easier exposition what the Commandment requires should be first set forth, and then what it forbids. It commands us to honour the name of God, and to swear by it with reverence It prohibits us to condemn the divine name, to take it in vain, or swear by it falsely, unnecessarily or rashly.

In the part which commands us to honour the name of God, the command, as the pastor should show the faithful, is not directed to the letters or syllables of which that name is composed, or in any respect to the mere name; but to the meaning of a word used to express the Omnipotent and Eternal Majesty of the Godhead, Trinity in Unity. Hence we easily infer the superstition of those among the Jews who, while they hesitated not to write, dared not to pronounce the name of God, as if the divine power consisted in the four letters, and not in the signification.

Although this Commandment uses the singular number, Thou shalt not take the name of God, this is not to be understood to refer to any one name, but to every name by which God is generally designated. For He is called by many names, such as the Lord, the Almighty, the Lord of hosts, the King of kings, the Strong, and by others of similar nature, which we meet in Scripture and which are all entitled to the same and equal veneration.

Various Ways Of Honouring God's Name

It should next be taught how due honour is to be given to the name of God Christians, whose tongues should constantly celebrate the divine praises, are not to be ignorant of a matter so important, indeed, most necessary to salvation The name of God may be honoured in a variety of ways; but all may be reduced to those that follow.

Public Profession Of Faith

In the first place, God's name is honoured when we publicly and confidently confess Him to be our Lord and our God; and when we acknowledge and also proclaim Christ to be the author of our salvation.

Respect For The Word Of God

(It is also honoured) when we pay a religious attention to the word of God, which announces to us His will; make it the subject of our constant meditation; and strive by reading or hearing it, according to our respective capacities and conditions of life, to become acquainted with it.

Praise And Thanksgiving

Again, we honour and venerate the name of God, when, from a sense of religious duty, we celebrate His praises, and under all circumstances, whether prosperous or adverse, return Him unbounded thanks. Thus spoke the Prophet Bless the Lord, O my soul, and never forget all he hath done for thee. Among the Psalms of David there are many, in which, animated with singular piety towards God, he chants in sweetest strains the divine praises. There is also the example of the admirable patience of Job, who, when visited with the heaviest and most appalling calamities, never ceased, with lofty and unconquered soul, to give praise to God. When, therefore, we labour under affliction of mind or body, when oppressed by misery and misfortune, let us instantly direct all our thoughts, and all the powers of our souls, to the praises of God, saying with Job Blessed be the name of the Lord.

Prayer

The name of God is not less honoured when we confidently invoke His assistance, either to relieve us from our afflictions, or to give us constancy and strength to endure them with fortitude. This is in accordance with the Lord's own wishes. Call upon me, He says, in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. We have illustrious examples of such supplications in many passages of Scripture, and especially in the sixteenth, forty­third, and one hundred and eighteenth Psalms.

Oaths

Finally, we honour the name of God when we solemnly call upon Him to witness the truth of what we assert. This mode of honouring God's name differs much from those already­ enumerated. Those means are in their own nature so good, so desirable, that our days and nights could not be more happily or more holily spent than in such practices of piety. I will bless the Lord at all times, says David, his praise shall be always in my mouth. On the other hand, although oaths are in themselves good, their frequent use is by no means praiseworthy.

The reason of this difference is that oaths have been instituted only as remedies to human frailty, and a necessary means of establishing the truth of what we assert. As it is inexpedient to have recourse to medicine unless, when it becomes necessary, and as its frequent use is harmful; so with regard to oaths, it is not profitable to have recourse to them, unless there is a weighty and just cause; and frequent recurrence to them, far from being advantageous, is on the contrary highly prejudicial. Hence the excellent observation of St Chrysostom: Oaths were introduced among men, not at the beginning of the world, but long after; when vice had spread far and wide over the earth; when all things were disturbed and universal confusion reigned out; when, to complete human depravity, almost all mankind debased the dignity of their nature by the degrading service of idols. Then at length it was that the custom of oaths was introduced. For the perfidy and wickedness of men was so great that it was with difficulty that anyone could be induced to credit the assertion of another, and they began to call on God as a witness.

Meaning Of An Oath

Since in explaining this part of the Commandment the chief object is to teach the faithful how to render an oath reverential and holy, it is first to be observed, that to swear, whatever the form of words may be, is nothing else than to call God to witness; thus to say, God is witness, and By God, mean one and the same thing.

To swear by creatures, such as the holy Gospels, the cross, the names or relics of the Saints, and so on, in order to prove our statements, is also to take an oath. Of themselves, it is true, such objects give no weight or authority to an oath; it is God Himself who does this, whose divine majesty shines forth in them Hence to swear by the Gospel is to swear by God Himself, whose truth is contained and revealed in the Gospel (This holds equally true with regard to those who swear) by the Saints, who are the temples of God, who believed the truth of His Gospel, were faithful in its observance, and spread it far and wide among the nations and peoples.

This is also true of oaths uttered by way of execration, such as that of St Paul: I call God to witness upon my soul. By this form of oath one submits himself to God's judgment, who is the avenger of falsehood. We do not, however, deny that some of these forms may be used without constituting an oath; but even in such cases it will be found useful to observe what has been said with regard to an oath, and to conform exactly to the same rule and standard.

Oaths Are Affirmatory And Promissory

Oaths are of two kinds. The first is an affirmatory oath, and is taken when we religiously affirm anything, past or present. Such was the affirmation of the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians: Behold, before God, I lie not. The second kind, to which comminations may be reduced, is called promissory. It looks to the future, and is taken when we promise and affirm for certain that such or such a thing will be done. Such was the oath of David, who, swearing by the Lord his God, promised to Bethsabee his wife that her son Solomon should be heir to his kingdom and successor to his throne.

Conditions Of A Lawful Oath

Although to constitute an oath it is sufficient to call God to witness, yet to constitute a holy and just oath many other conditions are required, which should be carefully explained. These, as St Jerome observes, are briefly enumerated in the words of Jeremias: Thou shalt swear: as the Lord liveth, in truth and in judgment and in justice, words which briefly sum up all the conditions that constitute the perfection of an oath, namely, truth, judgment, justice.

First Condition: Truth

Truth, then, holds the first place in an oath. What is asserted must be true and he who swears must believe what he swears to be true, being influenced not by rash judgment or mere conjecture, but by solid reasons.

Truth is a condition not less necessary in a promissory than in an affirmatory oath. He who promises must be disposed to perform and fulfil his promise at the appointed time. As no conscientious man will promise to do what he considers opposed to the most holy Commandments and will of God; so, having promised and sworn to do what is lawful, he will never fail to adhere to his engagement, unless, perhaps by a change of circumstances it should happen that, if he wished to keep faith and observe his promises, he must incur the displeasure and enmity of God. That truth is necessary to an oath David also declares in these words: He that sweareth to his neighbour, and deceiveth not.

Second Condition: Judgment

The second condition of an oath is judgment. An oath is not to be taken rashly and inconsiderately, but after deliberation and reflection. When about to take an oath, therefore, one should first consider whether he is obliged to take it, and should weigh well the whole case, reflecting whether it seems to call for an oath. Many other circumstances of time, place, etc., are also to be taken into consideration; and one should not be influenced by love or hatred, or any other passion, but by the nature and necessity of the case.

Unless this careful consideration and reflection precede, an oath must be rash and hasty; and of this character are the irreligious affirmations of those, who, on the most unimportant and trifling occasions, swear without thought or reason from the influence of bad habit alone. This we see practiced daily everywhere among buyers and sellers. The latter, to sell at the highest price, the former to purchase at the cheapest rate, make no scruple to strengthen with an oath their praise or dispraise of the goods on sale.

Since, therefore, judgment and prudence are necessary, and since children are not able, on account of their tender years, to understand and judge accurately, Pope St. Cornelius decreed that an oath should not be administered to children before puberty, that is, before their fourteenth year.

Third Condition: Justice

The last condition (of an oath) is justice, which is especially requisite in promissory oaths. Hence, if a person swear to do what is unjust or unlawful, he sins by taking the oath, and adds sin to sin by executing his promise. Of this the Gospel supplies an example. King Herod, bound by a rash oath, gave to a dancing girl the head of John the Baptist as a reward for her dancing. Such was also the oath taken by the Jews, who, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, bound themselves by oath not to eat, until they had killed Paul.

Lawfulness Of Oaths

These explanations having been given, there can be no doubt that they who observe the above conditions and who guard their oaths with these qualities as with bulwarks, may swear with a safe conscience.

This is easily established by many proofs. For the law of God, which is pure and holy, commands: Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and shalt serve him only, and thou shalt swear by his name. All they, writes David, shall be praised that swear by him.

The Scriptures also inform us that the most holy Apostles, the lights of the Church, sometimes made use of oaths, as appears from the Epistles of the Apostle.

Even the Angels sometimes swear. The angel, writes St. John in the Apocalypse, swore by him who lives for ever.

Nay, God Himself, the Lord of Angels, swears, and, as we read in many passages of the Old Testament, has confirmed His. promises with an oath. This He did to Abraham and to David. Of the oath sworn by God David says: The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

In fact, if we consider the whole matter attentively, and examine the origin and purpose of an oath, it can be no difficult matter to explain the reasons why it is a laudable act.

An oath has its origin in faith, by which men believe God to be the author of all truth, who can never deceive others nor be deceived, to whose eyes all things are naked and open, who, in fine, superintends all human affairs with an admirable providence, and governs the world. Filled with this faith we appeal to God as a witness of the truth, as a witness whom it would be wicked and impious to distrust.

With regard to the end of an oath, its scope and intent is to establish the justice and innocence of man, and to terminate disputes and contests. This is the doctrine of the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews.

An Objection Against Oaths

Nor does this doctrine at all clash with these words of the Redeemer, recorded in St. Matthew: You have heard that it was said to them of old: "Thou shalt not foreswear thyself, but thou shalt perform thy oaths to the Lord"; but I say to you not to swear at all; neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; neither by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king; neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be "yea, yea"; "no, no"; and that which is over and above these is of evil.

It cannot be asserted that these words condemn oaths universally and under all circumstances, since we have already seen that the Apostles and our Lord Himself made frequent use of them. The object of our Lord was rather to reprove the perverse opinion of the Jews, who had persuaded themselves that the only thing to be avoided in an oath was a lie. Hence in matters the most trivial and unimportant they did not hesitate to make frequent use of oaths, and to exact them from others. This practice the Redeemer condemns and reprobates, and teaches that an oath is never to be taken unless necessity require it. For oaths have been instituted on account of human frailty. They are really the outcome of evil, being a sign either of the inconstancy of him who takes them, or of the obstinacy of him who refuses to believe without them. However, an oath can be justified by necessity.

When our Lord says: Let your speech be "yea, yea"; "no, no," He evidently forbids the habit of swearing in familiar conversation and on trivial matters. He therefore admonishes us particularly against being too ready and willing to swear; and this should be carefully explained and impressed on the minds of the faithful. That countless evils grow out of the unrestrained habit of swearing is proved by the evidence of Scripture, and the testimony of the most holy Fathers. Thus we read in Ecclesiasticus: Let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing, for in it there are many falls; and again: A man that sweareth much shall be filled with iniquity, and a scourge shall not depart from his house. In the works of St. Basil and St. Augustine against lying, much more can be found on this subject.

Negative Part of this Commandment

So far we have considered what this Commandment requires. It now remains to speak of what it prohibits; namely, to take the name of God in vain. It is clear that he who swears rashly and without deliberation commits a grave sin. That this is a most serious sin is declared by the words: Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain, which seem to assign the reason why this crime is so wicked and heinous; namely, that it derogates from the majesty of Him whom we profess to recognise as our Lord and our God. This Commandment, therefore, forbids to swear falsely, because he who does not shrink from so great a crime as to appeal to God to witness falsehood, offers a grievous Injury to God, charging Him either with ignorance, as though the truth of any matter could be unknown to Him, or with malice and dishonesty, as though God could bear testimony to falsehood.

Various Ways In Which God's Name Is Dishonoured: False Oaths

Among false swearers are to be numbered not only those who affirm as true what they know to be false, but also those who swear to what is really true, believing it to be false. For since the essence of a lie consists in speaking contrary to one's belief and conviction, these persons are evidently guilty of a lie, and of perjury.

On the same principle, he who swears to that which he thinks to be true, but which is really false, also incurs the guilt of perjury, unless he has used proper care and diligence to arrive at a full knowledge of the matter. Although he swears according to his belief, he nevertheless sins against this Commandment.

Again, he who binds himself by oath to the performance of anything, not intending to fulfil his promise, or, having had the intention, neglect its performance, guilty of the same sin. This equally applies to those who, having bound themselves to God by vow, neglect its fulfilment.

Unjust Oaths

This Commandment is also violated, if justice, which is one of the three conditions of an oath, be wanting. Hence he who swears to commit a mortal sin, for example, to perpetrate murder, violates this Commandment, even though he speak seriously and from his heart, and his oath possess what we before pointed out as the first condition of every oath, that is, truth.

To these are to be added oaths sworn through a sort of contempt, such as an oath not to observe the Evangelical counsels, such as celibacy and poverty. None, it is true, are obliged to embrace these divine counsels, but by swearing not to observe them, one contemns and despises them.

Rash Oaths

This Commandment is also sinned against, and judgment is violated when one swears to what is true and what he believes to be true if his motives are light conjectures and far­fetched reasons. For, notwithstanding its truth, such an oath is not unmixed with a sort of falsehood, seeing that he who swears with such indifference exposes himself to extreme danger of perjury.

Oaths By False Gods

To swear by false gods is likewise to swear falsely. What more opposed to truth than to appeal to lying and false deities as to the true God?

Irreverent Speech

Scripture when it prohibits perjury, says: Thou shalt not profane the name of thy God, thereby forbidding all irreverence towards all other things to which, in accordance with this Commandment, reverence is due. Of this nature is the Word of God, the majesty of which has been revered not only by the pious, but also sometimes by the impious, as is narrated in Judges of Eglon, King of the Moabites.

But he who, to support heresy and the teaching of the wicked. distorts the Sacred Scriptures from their genuine and true meaning, is guilty of the greatest injury to the Word of God; and against this crime we are warned by these words of the Prince of the Apostles: There are certain things hard to be understood. which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

It is also a foul and shameful contamination of the Scripture, that wicked men pervert the words and sentences which it contains, and which should be honoured with all reverence, turning them to profane purposes, such as scurrility, fable, vanity, flattery, detraction, divination, satire and the like ­­ crimes which the Council of Trent commands to be severely punished.

Neglect Of Prayer

In the next place, as they honour God who, in their affliction implore His help, so they, who do not invoke His aid, deny Him due honour; and these David rebukes when he says: They have not called upon the Lord, they trembled for fear where there was no fear.

Blasphemy

Still more enormous is the guilt of those who, with impure and defiled lips, dare to curse or blaspheme the holy name of God­that name which is to be blessed and praised above measure by all creatures, or even the names of the Saints who reign with Him in glory.' So atrocious and horrible is this crime that the Sacred Scriptures, sometimes when speaking of blasphemy use the word blessing.

Sanction of this Commandment

As, however, the dread of punishment has often a powerful effect in checking the tendency to sin, the pastor, in order the more effectively to move the minds of men and the more easily to induce to an observance of this Commandment, should diligently explain the remaining words, which are, as it were, its appendix: For the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.

In the first place (the pastor) should teach that with very good reason has God joined threats to this Commandment. From this is understood both the grievousness of sin and the goodness of God toward us, since far from rejoicing in man's destruction, He deters us by these salutary threats from incurring His anger, doubtless in order that we may experience His kindness rather than His wrath. The pastor should urge and insist on this consideration with greatest earnestness. in order that the faithful may be made sensible of the grievousness of the crime, may detest it still more, and may employ increased care and caution to avoid its commission.

He should also observe how prone men are to this sin, since it was not sufficient to give the command, but also necessary to accompany it with threats. The advantages to be derived from this thought are indeed incredible; for as nothing is more injurious than a listless security, so the knowledge of our own weakness is most profitable.

He should next show that God has appointed no particular punishment. The threat is general; it declares that whoever is guilty of this crime shall not escape unpunished. The various chastisements, therefore, with which we are every day visited, should warn us against this sin. It is easy to conjecture that men are afflicted with heavy calamities because they violate this Commandment; and if these things are called to their attention, it is likely that they will be more careful for the future.

Deterred, therefore, by a holy dread, the faithful should use every exertion to avoid this sin. If for every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account on the day of judgment, what shall we say of those heinous crimes which involve great contempt of the divine name?