ARTICLE XXXIX.

Of a Christian Man's Oath.

As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian Men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle; so we judge that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a Man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a Cause of Faith and Charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching, in Justice, Judgment, and Truth.

An oath is an appeal to God, either upon a testimony that is given, or a promise that is made, confirming the truth of the one, and the fidelity of the other. It is an appeal to God, who knows all things, and will judge all men: so it is an act that acknowledges both his omniscience, and his being the Governor of this world, who will judge all at the last day according to their deeds, and must be supposed to have a more immediate regard to such acts, in which men made him a party. An appeal truly made, is a committing the matter to God: a false one is an act of open defiance, which must either suppose a denial of his knowing all things, or a belief that he has forsaken the earth, and has no regard to the actions of mortals: or, finally, it is a bold venturing on the justice and wrath of God, for the serving some present end, or the gaining of some present advantage: and which of these soever gives a man that brutal confidence of adventuring on a false oath, we must conclude it to be a very crying sin; which must be expiated with a very severe repentance, or will bring down very terrible judgments on those who are guilty of it.

Thus, if we consider the matter upon the principles of natural religion, an oath is an act of worship and homage done to God; and is a very powerful mean for preserving the justice and order of the world. All decisions in justice must be founded upon evidence; two must be believed rather than one; therefore the more terror that is struck into the minds of men, either when they give their testimony, or when they bind themselves by promises, and the deeper that this goes, it will both oblige them to the greater caution in what they say, and to the greater strictness in what they promise. Since therefore truth and fidelity are so necessary to the security and commerce of the world, and since an appeal to God is the greatest mean that can be thought on to bind men to an exactness and strictness in every thing with which that appeal is joined; therefore the use of an oath is fully iustified upon the principles of natural religion. This has spread itself so universally through the world, and began so

ART. XXXIX.

ART. early, that it may well be reckoned a branch of the law and XXXIX. light of nature.

23.

We find this was practised by the patriarchs; Abimelech Gen. xxi. reckoned that he was safe, if he could persuade Abraham to swear to him by God, that he would not deal falsely with xxvi. 28. him; and Abraham consented so to swear. Either the same Abimelech, or another of that name, desired that an oath might be between Isaac and him; and they sware one to xxxi. 53. another.' Jacob did also swear to Laban. Thus we find the patriarchs practising this before the Mosaical Law. Under that Law we find many covenants sealed by an oath; and that was a sacred bond, as appears from the story of the 2 Sam. xxi. Gibeonites. There was also a special constitution in the Jewish religion, by which one in authority might put others under an oath, and adjure them either to do somewhat, or to Lev. v. 1. declare some truth. The law was, that " 'when any soul

Josh. ix. 15, 19, &

1.

2.

(i. e. man) sinned, and heard the voice of swearing (adjuration), and was a witness whether he hath seen it, or known it, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;' that is, he shall be guilty of perjury. So the form then was, the judge or the parents did adjure all persons to declare their knowledge of any particular. They charged this upon them with an oath or curse, and all persons were then bound by Judg. xvii. that oath to tell the truth. So Micah came and confessed, upon his mother's adjuration, that he had the eleven hundred shekels, for which he heard her put all under a curse: 1 Sam. xiv. and upon that she blessed him. Saul, when he was pursu24, 28, 44. ing the Philistines, put the people under a curse, if they should eat any food till night; and this was thought to be so obligatory, that the violation of it was capital, and Jonathan Matt. xxvi. was put in hazard of his life upon it. Thus the high priest put our Saviour under the oath of cursing, when he required him to tell, whether he was the Messias or not? Upon which our Saviour was, according to that law, upon his oath; and though he had continued silent till then, as long as it was free to him to speak or not, at his pleasure; yet then he was bound to speak, and so he did speak, and owned himself to be what he truly was.

63, 64.

This was the form of that constitution: but if, by practice, it were found that men's pronouncing the words of the oath themselves, when required by a person in authority to do it; and that such actions, as their lifting up their hand to heaven, or their laying it on a Bible, as importing their sense of the terrors contained in that book, were like to make a deeper impresssion on them, than barely the judge's charging them with the oath or curse; it seems to be within the compass of human authority, to change the rites and manner of this oath, and to put it in such a method as might probably work most on the minds of those who were to take it. The institution in general is plain, and the making of such alterations seems to be clearly in the power of any state, or society of men.

XXXIX.

Ver. 16.

In the New Testament we find St. Paul prosecuting a dis- ART course concerning the oath, which God sware to Abraham, 'who, not having a greater to swear by, swore by himself;' Heb.vi. 13, and to enforce the importance of that, it is added, an oath 14, 15. for confirmation (that is, for the affirming or assuring of any thing) is the end of all controversy.' Which plainly shews us what notion the author of that Epistle had of an oath; he did not consider it as an impiety or profanation of the name of God.

In St. John's visions an angel is represented as 'lifting up Rev. x. 5, his hand, and swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever: 6. and the apostles, even in their Epistles, that are acknowledged to be writ by divine inspiration, do frequently appeal to God in these words, 'God is witness;' which contain the Rom. i. 9. whole essence of an oath. Once St. Paul carries the expression to a form of imprecation, when he calls 'God to record upon (or against) his soul.'

Gal. i. 20.

2 Cor. i.23.

These seem to be authorities beyond exception, justifying the use of an oath upon a great occasion, or before a competent authority; according to that prophecy quoted in the Article, which is thought to relate to the times of the Messias: "And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in Jer. iv. 2. judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory.' These last words seem evidently to relate to the days of the Messiah: so here an oath religiously taken is represented as a part of that worship, which all nations shall offer up to God under the new dispensation.

Matt. v. 34-37.

Against all this the great objection is, that when Christ is correcting the glosses that the Pharisees put upon the law, whereas they only taught that men should not forswear themselves, but perform their oaths unto the Lord;' our Saviour says, Swear not at all; neither by the heaven, nor the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by the head; but let your communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.' And St. James, speaking of the enduring afflictions, and of the patience of Job, adds, 'But above all things, my brethren, swear not; neither by Jam. v. 12. the heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into

condemnation.' It must be confessed that these words seem to be so express and positive, that great regard is to be had to a scruple that is founded on an authority that seems to be so full. But according to what was formerly observed of the manner of the judiciary oaths among the Jews, these words cannot belong to them. Those oaths were bound upon the party by the authority of the judge; in which he was passive, and so could not help his being put under an oath whereas our Saviour's words relate only to those oaths which a man took voluntarily on himself, but not to those

:

ART. under which he was bound, according to the law of God. If XXXIX. our Saviour had intended to have forbidden all judiciary

oaths, he must have annulled that part of the authority of magistrates and parents, and have forbid them to put others under oaths. The word communication, that comes afterwards, seems to be a key to our Saviour's words, to shew that they ought only to be applied to their communication or commerce; to those discourses that pass among men, in which it is but too customary to give oaths a very large share. Or since the words that went before, concerning the performing of vows, seem to limit the discourse to them, the meaning of 'swear not at all,' may be this; Be not ready, as the Jews were, to make vows on all occasions, to devote themselves or others: instead of those, he requires them to use a greater simplicity in their communication. And St. James's words may be also very fitly applied to this, since men in their afflictions are apt to make very indiscreet vows, without considering whether they either can, or probably will, pay them; as if they would pretend by such profuse vows to overcome or corrupt God.

This sense will well agree both to our Saviour's words and to St. James's; and it seems most reasonable to believe that this is their true sense, for it agrees with every thing else; whereas, if we understand them in that strict sense of condemning all oaths, we cannot tell what to make of those oaths which occur in several passages of St. Paul's Epistles: and least of all, what to say to our Saviour's own answering upon oath, when adjured. Therefore all rash and vain swearing, all swearing in the communication or intercourse of mankind, is certainly condemned, as well as all imprecatory Vows. But since we have so great authorities from the scriptures in both Testaments for other oaths; and since that agrees so evidently with the principles of natural religion, we may conclude with the Article, that a man may swear when the magistrate requireth it. It is added, in a cause of faith and charity; for certainly, in trifling matters, such reverence is due to the holy name of God, that swearing ought to be avoided but when it is necessary, it ought to be set about with those regards that are due to the great God, who is appealed to. A gravity of deportment, and an exactness of weighing the truth of what we say, are highly necessary here: certainly, our words ought to be few, and our hearts full of the apprehensions of the majesty of that God, with whom we have to do, before whom we stand, and to whom we appeal, who knows all things, and will bring every work to judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.'

519

APPENDIX.

No. 1.

THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.

To the short account of this confession already given, the Editor is induced to add the following particulars.†

'The Augsburg confession was prepared for the twofold purpose of rebutting the slanders of the papists, and of publishing to Europe the doctrines of the reformers. The emperor Charles V., in order to terminate the disputes between the pope and the princes who favoured the Reformation, which tended to distract his empire by civil discord, and threw a formidable barrier into the way of his ambitious projects, had ordered the convention of a Diet, at Augsburg, and promised his personal attendance. The pope, also, who had long been pressing on the emperor the adoption of violent measures to suppress the obstinate heretics, as the holy father termed them, cherished the flattering expectation that this diet would give a death-blow to the Protestant cause. Encouraged by the promise of impartial audience from the emperor, the elector of Saxony charged Luther, Melancthon, Bugenhagen, and Jonas, to make a sketch of their doctrines to be used at the diet. Such a summary was written by Luther in seventeen sections, termed the Torgan Articles. The emperor, however, instead of reaching Augsburg on the 8th of April, according to promise, did not arrive until the 15th of June. Melancthon, in the mean time, expanded these Torgan Articles into what is now denominated the Augsburg Confession. This enlarged work was then submitted to Luther at Coburg, and received his cordial sanction. On the 25th of June, therefore, at 3 o'clock, P. M. this memorable confession was publicly pronounced in the presence of the emperor, his brother king Ferdinand, the electors John of Saxony, with his son John Frederick, George of Brandenburg, Francis and Ernest, dukes of Luneburg and Brunswick, Philip landgrave of Hesse, Wolfgang, prince of Anhalt, and about two hundred other princes and divines. The chancellors of the Elector, Baier and Pontanus arose, the former holding in his hand the German copy, and the latter the Latin original. The emperor desired

See note, page 5.

+ For these remarks, together with the translation of the Twenty-one Articles, the Editor is indebted to a work entitled Elements of Popular Theology, with special reference to the Doctrines of the Reformation, as avowed before the Diet at Augsburg, in 1530. By S. S. Schmucker, D. D., Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological Seminary of the general Synod of the Lutheran church, Gettysburg, Pa. Andover, 1834.'-[ED.]