Book 2, Chapter 13: Oaths

Of an Oathe.

The sixt head of Gods worship is, an Oath; concerning which, three Questions are to be handled.

- I. What an Oathe is? - II. How an Oathe is to be taken? - III. How farre forth it bindeth, and is to be kept?

Sect. 1.

I. Question. What is an oathe?

An Oathe, is a religious, and necessarie confirmation of things doubtfull, by calling on God, to be a witnesse of truth, and a revenger of falshood.

First, I call it, a Confirmation; for so the Holy Ghost speaketh, An oath for confirmation, is among men an ende of all strife (Hebrews 6:16).

Secondly, I terme it a religious confirmation, because an Oath is a part of Gods Religion and worship; yes, it is sometimes put for the whole worship of God (Isaiah 19:28): In that day, shall they swear by the Lord of hosts, that is, they shall worship the true God.

Thirdly I adde, a necessarie confirmation, because an Oathe is never to be used, in way of confirmation, but onely in case of meere necessitie. For when all other humane proofes do faile, then it is lawfull, to fetch testimonie from heauen, and to make God himselfe our witnes. In this case alone, and never els, it is lawfull to vse an Oathe.

Fourthly I say, in which God is called upon, as a witnes of the trueth, and a reuenger of falsehoode. This is added in the last place, because herein alone, stands the forme and life of an Oathe; that in things doubtfull; we call God as a witnes of truth, and a iust revenger of the contrary. There be sundry kindes of confirmation, as the affirmation, the asseueration, and the obtestation. And by this Clause, an Oath is distinguished from them all; because in it, we call upon God to give witnesse to the thing avouched, but in the other three we doe not.

Now touching this last point, of the forme and life of an Oathe, three Questions are to be answered, for the better clearing of the whole doctrine.

I. Question. Whether an Oathe taken by Creatures be a true Oath, and to be kept?

Ans. An Oathe by creatures, is an Oath, though vnlawfull. For though there be not in it, a direct invocation of God for witnesse, yet when we call the creature to give testimony, we doe then indirectly cal upon God, because he is seene in them; and looke how many creatures there be in the world, so many signes are they of Gods presence. This answer Christ himselfe maketh (Matthew 23:21-22): He that sweareth by heauen, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon, that is, by God himselfe.

II. Question. Whether an oath by false gods, be a true oath or no? For example, the oath of the Turke by Mahomet; the oath of Laban, by the gods of Nachor, that is, by his Idols: when as in them, there is no inuocation of the true God of heauen and earth.

I answer as before; though it be not a lawfull oath, yet it is in value & effect an oath. For though that thing be a false god indeed, by which it is taken; yet it is the true God, in the opinion of him that sweareth. Thus Mahomet is to the Turke, in stead of the true God, and is honoured of him as God: and therefore his oath by Mahomet, is a true oath. Thus when Iacob in the couenant that he made with Laban, sweares by the feare of his father Isaak, and Laban by the Idols of Nachor; Iacob accepted the oath which was tendered to him, in the name of a false god; which he would not have done, if it had not beene an oath at all. And hence the Case is plaine, that swearing by a false god, is an oath: and therefore bindeth the swearer in Conscience, thought it be vnlawfully taken.

III. Question. If in every oath, God ought to be cited as a witnes, how then can God sweare by himselfe, seeing none can witnes to him?

Ans. This description of an oath, whereby the creature sweareth, includes not that oathe, whereby God sweareth. For the ende why God sweareth is, to binde himselfe (as it were) with a bond to man, whereby he would have man to repute him a lier, and no God, if he failes and keepes not his promise. Thus the Lord sweares in his wrath (Hebrews 3:11): If they shall enter into my rest. The words of the oath, are to be vnderstoode with this clause, If, &c. then let me be holden as no God, or as a false god. And in this manner is God said to sweare, when he manifesteth to man, that he is content to be counted no God, if that which he auoucheth by oath, be not performed.

Furthermore in every Oath, there be foure distinct things. First, an Asseueration of the truth; which should be avouched, though there were no oath taken. Secondly, a confession or the omnipotent presence, wisedome, iustice and truth of God; whereby we acknowledge, that he is the searcher and knower of the heart; yea that he is both witnesse, iudge, and reuenger of falshood and lying. Thirdly, Prayer and Inuocation, whereby God is called upon, to give testimonie to the conscience of him that sweareth, that he speakes nothing, but the truth. These two actions, of Confession and Invocation, doe make an othe, to be no lesse a true and proper part of Gods worship, then praier it selfe. Fourthly, Imprecation, in which a man acknowledging God the iust reuenger of a lie, bindes himselfe to punishment, if he shall sweare falsely, or speake an vntrueth wittingly or willingly.

Now, though these be the distinct parts of an oath, yet all of them are not expressed in the form of every oath; but sometimes one, sometimes two of the principal, and the other concealed, but yet always understood. For example. The Prophet Jeremiah teaches the people of Israel a form of swearing, You shall swear, The Lord lives (Jeremiah 4:2). In which, there is expressed only the second part, Confession, and in that, the rest are to be understood. Again, the words of Ruth to Naomi, The Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death depart you and me, are only an Imprecation, in which the other parts are infolded. So, the oath which God makes (Hebrews 3:11), If they shall enter into my rest, is expressed only by imprecation, and the other parts understood, though they be not mentioned. In common speech between man and man, it is usually avouched, (though most wickedly,) If it be not thus or thus, let me be hanged, I would I were dead, I would I might never move hence, etc. Now this avouchment, however it may be taken, is indeed a form of swearing, in value and force all one with the oath of God, when he says, If they enter into my rest, let me be no God, but a deceiver.

Sometimes two parts of the four are expressed, and the rest understood. Now I call God to record to my soul (2 Corinthians 1:23). Here Invocation with Imprecation is uttered in speech, and the other two conceived in the mind. By these particulars, we see it usual in Scripture, to propound forms of swearing, by expressing some one, or two particular parts in stead of the rest, yet so, as the parts concealed be all understood, for otherwise the oath is not formal and entire.

Sect. 2.

2. Question. How an oath is to be taken in a good and godly manner?

For the answering hereof, two rules are to be remembered.

The first rule. He that will take an oath by the name of God, must swear in truth, in judgment, in righteousness (Jeremiah 4:2). Here three virtues are required in a lawful oath.

First, that it be made in truth. And we must know, that there is a double truth, the one, of the thing spoken, the other, of the mind wherein it is conceived. Truth of the thing is, when a man's speech is framed according to the thing, as it is indeed, or as near as possibly may be; and that because God is truth itself: this is called by Schoolmen, logical verity. Sometimes by reason of men's frailty, this truth is wanting, because we know not things as they are. The truth of the mind is, when a man speaks or swears as he thinks, or is in conscience persuaded of the thing; and this the Schoolmen term, moral verity. Now, though the first of these two be wanting, yet the latter must necessarily be in an oath, lest we fall into perjury.

The second virtue is judgment, that is, prudence or wisdom. This judgment requires discretion, and consideration, principally of five things. First, of the thing in question, which is to be confirmed. Secondly, of the nature of the oath, that is taken. Thirdly, of the mind, and true meaning of him that swears. Fourthly, of the particular circumstances, of time, place, and persons, when, where, and before whom he swears. Fifthly, of the event or issue of the oath. All these are duly to be regarded, that we swear not rashly, or unadvisedly.

The third is justice, wherein also care must be had of two things. First, that the point to be confirmed, be lawful. And it is then lawful, when it may stand with piety, and charity. Secondly, that the occasions of taking the oath, be also just; and they be chiefly four. 1. When it may further God's glory and worship: or serve to prove some doctrine of salvation, in whole or in part. 2. When it may tend to the furtherance of brotherly love; or to the preservation of our neighbor's life, goods, or good name: or further, to the confirmation of some league, covenant, or contract made between parties, upon good ground, and for good and necessary purposes. 3. When it serves, to relieve a man's own private necessity; as when one swears to maintain his own good name, goods, or life; to confirm his own faith and truth in contracts. An example hereof we have in Paul; who to confirm the Romans, in the persuasion of his love and care of their salvation, says, God is my witness (whom I serve in my spirit, in the Gospel of his Son) that without ceasing, I make mention of you (Romans 1:9). And again, to keep his own credit and good name, among the Jews, I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness, in the Holy Ghost (Romans 9:1). 4. When the Magistrate does exact it, by order of justice. This, though it be a just occasion, and warrant of an oath, yet three caveats are in it to be observed.

First, that the oath be administered lawfully, not against piety or charity. Secondly, he which takes an oath, tendered by the Magistrate, must swear according to the mind and meaning of the Magistrate who exacts the oath, and not according to his own private intent. Thirdly, he must not swear ambiguously, but in a simple sense, so as the words of his mouth, may be agreeable with that, which he conceives in his heart (Psalm 15:2). And whatever oath is taken without observation of these caveats, the same is not taken in truth, but in fraud and deceit. Popish teachers affirm, that in some cases, they may swear in a doubtful meaning: and this they practice in time of danger, when being convented before the Magistrate, and examined, they answer Yea in word, and conceive a negation, or No in their minds. A practice most impious, and flat against this excellent rule of the Prophet, that a man should swear in truth, judgment, and justice.

The second rule is, that the form in which the oath is propounded, must be a plain, simple, and direct form, wherein God is directly called to witness. For his worship is directly to be given to him: and therefore the oath also, being an Invocation of his name, and a part of his worship, is directly to be made.

That the meaning of this rule, may the better appear, one question is to be answered; whether in the form of an oath, a man may not swear, directly by creatures, and indirectly by God?

Most of the Popish sort, and some Protestants hold, that he may. But the truth is otherwise. I say to you (says our Saviour) swear not at all: neither by heaven — nor by the earth — nor by your head, &c. (Matthew 5:34). In which words, he forbids all indirect oaths, whereby men swear directly by creatures, and indirectly by God: for so did the Pharisees. Again, if a man might swear by creatures, and conceal the name of God, it would diminish his majesty and authority, and much deceit might be used: for the swearer might say, that he swore not, but only used an obtestation.

Against this it is objected. 1. That Joseph swore by the life of Pharaoh (Genesis 42:25), therefore it may seem, that oaths by creatures are not unlawful. Answer: First, it may be said, that Joseph sinned in so swearing: for therein he imitated the Egyptians, who swore by the life of their King. Secondly, it may be answered, that Joseph does only make an asseveration, and not an oath.

Objection 2. The Church in the Canticles takes an oath, by the creatures (Canticles 2:7): I charge you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, &c. Answer: It is no oath, but an obtestation, whereby the Church calls the creatures, to witness her earnest affection to Christ. The like is made by Moses (Deuteronomy 30:19), when he says, I call heaven and earth to record against you this day. And by Paul, in his charge to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:21): I charge you, before the elect Angels. In which, and the like speeches, there is no swearing, but a kind of citation, or summoning of the creatures as witnesses. And there is great difference between an oath, and an obtestation. In the obtestation, there is no more, but a calling of the creature to give testimony, the matter being already apparent and manifest. But in an oath, where the matter is not so manifest, God is made not only a witness, but also a judge and revenger.

Objection 3. Saint Paul swears by his rejoicing in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:31), which rejoicing was a created passion, or a creature. Answer: That was also an obtestation, or a word of avouchment, and asseveration; and not an oath. For it is all one, as if he had said thus; My sorrows and afflictions, which I endure for Christ, would testify (if they could speak) that as certainly as I rejoice in Christ, so certainly I die daily.

Objection 4. Abigail swore to David by the creature; As the Lord lives, and as your soul lives (1 Samuel 25:26). Answer: The former part of her speech, may be called an oath, but the latter is only an obtestation, or earnest avouchment, joined with an oath.

Now, although it be in no sort, lawful to swear by creatures, yet when a man swears directly by God, he may name the creatures in way and form of an oath; specially if he make them as his pawns, and pledges, set before God, that he may in justice, be revenged upon him in them, if he lies and swears not a truth.

Sect. 3.

3. Question. How far forth does an oath bind, and is to be kept?

The answer to this Question is large, and therefore for order's sake I distinguish it into two parts, and first I will show when an oath binds, secondly when it binds not.

For the first; an oath taken of things certain, lawful, and possible, is to be kept, yes and binds always, though it be tendered even to our enemies. To this purpose God has given special commandment in sundry places. Numbers 30:3: Whoever swears an oath, to bind his soul by a bond, he shall not break his word, but shall do, according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. Matthew 5:33: You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord. Exodus 20:7: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; that is, lightly and rashly. But God's name is taken in vain, when an oath made of things lawful and possible is not kept. David, at the humble request of Shimei, (who had before cursed him) pardons his fault for the time, and swears to him that he should not die (2 Samuel 19:23). David made conscience of this oath, knowing himself to be bound thereby, and therefore till his death he kept it; only he charged Solomon not to count him innocent (1 Kings 2:9).

Now for the better clearing of the answer, we are to consider four particular cases touching this point.

1. Case. What if a man take an oath by false Gods, whether is he bound to keep it, yes or no?

Answer: He is, and the reasons are these. First from the like. There was a question among the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:16), whether a man swearing by the creature were a debtor or no. The Pharisees taught, that if a man swore by creatures, the oath did not bind; but Christ (verse 20) affirms, that he that swears by the Temple, or by the Altar or by heaven, swears by God indirectly, and so takes an oath, though not a lawful oath; and thereupon remains bound, and is a debtor. Now by proportion he that swears by false Gods, swears by God indirectly, because the false God is, in the opinion of him that swears, a true God, and so his oath binds, and is to be kept. Secondly, Abraham accepts the oath that Abimelech tenders to him in the name of a false God (Genesis 21:23). So does Jacob accept of the oath made to him by Laban (Genesis 31:53), which they would not have done, if their oaths had not been sufficient bonds, to bind them to observation, and performance.

It will be said; He that admits of an oath by an idol, does communicate in the sin of him that swears. Answer: In case of necessity, a man may admit of such an oath, without sin. A poor man, being in extreme want, borrows of a usurer upon interest. It is sin to the usurer to take it; but it is not so in the poor man, who is compelled by the usurer to give interest. Thus the poor man does use well the iniquity of the usurer. So it is in an oath; a godly man may well use, and take benefit by the wicked oaths of idolaters, so far forth as they shall serve for the ratifying, and confirming of lawful covenants.

2. Case. If a man take an oath, and afterward endure hurt or damage by it, whether is he then bound to keep his oath or no?

If the loss be but temporary and private, (the oath being made of a thing lawful) it must be endured. For David reckons it among the properties of a good man, that he swears, and changes not, though it be to his hurt (Psalm 15:4).

And here a difference is to be made between a promissory oath, and a single promise. A single promise may be reversed by the will, and consent of him, to whom it is made; but a promise made by an oath, is to be kept, though losses and hindrances ensue thereupon. For the reverence we bear to the name of God used in the oath, ought to be of greater force with us, than any private hindrance or inconvenience, which may befall us, upon the performance of the same.

3. Case. Whether does an oath bind conscience, whereunto a man is drawn, by fraud and subtlety?

If the oath be of things lawful and possible, it binds and is to be kept, though we were induced to it by deceit. Joshua deceived by the Gibeonites, was brought to make covenant of peace with them, and to bind it by an oath: now perceiving after three days, that they had wrought it by craft, he would not touch them, in reverence of the oath, that he had taken (Joshua 9:18, 19, 20). And about 300 years after, when Saul had slain certain of the Gibeonites, the Israelites for that fact, were punished with three years famine; which could not be stayed, till seven persons of Saul's house were hanged up in Gibeah (2 Samuel 21).

4. Case. What if a man take an oath by fear and compulsion, is he to keep it, yes or no? For example: a man falling into the hands of thieves, for the safety of his life, is urged to take a solemn oath, that he will fetch and deliver them some portion of money, and withal never disclose the parties. The oath being thus taken, the question is, whether he be bound to keep it?

Some divines are of opinion, that the oath is to be kept, and some say no: but generally it is answered, that it must be kept, because this fear did not abolish the consent of his will. But if it be alleged, that in so doing, he shall hurt the commonwealth: answer is made, that if he does not swear secrecy, he may in probability bring greater damage to the public weal, in depriving it of a member, by the loss of his own life. But it will be said, by this means he maintains a thief. Be it so: yet he remains excusable, because that was not his intent, but only to preserve his own life, to the good of the commonwealth.

Thus the most and best divines do hold. But for my part, I leave it in suspense; though it seems in likelihood that the party which swears silence, does after a sort maintain theft, and communicate with the sin of the robber: and further gives occasion, that others may fall into the like hazard and jeopardy of their lives. And so much of the first part of the answer.

The second part of the answer to this third main question follows: namely to show, when an oath binds not. An oath does not bind in six cases.

1. When it is against the word of God, and tends to the maintenance of sin. The reason is, because when God will not have an oath to bind it must not bind: for an oath must not be a bond of iniquity. Hereupon David having sworn a rash oath, to destroy Nabal and his house, and being stayed from it by the Lord in the means of Abigail; he praises God in this manner: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent you this day to meet me, and blessed be your counsel, and blessed be you, which has kept me this day, from coming to shed blood" (1 Samuel 25:32, 33).

2. If it be made against the wholesome laws of the commonwealth; because every soul must be subject to the higher powers (Romans 13:1).

3. If it be taken of such persons, as want reason; as of children, madmen, or fools; because they know not what they swear: and there can be no binding of conscience, when he that swears wants reason to discern what he does.

4. If it be made by those, who are under the tuition of their superiors, and have no power to bind themselves; as by children which are under the government of their parents: for these are part of their parents' goods, and therefore not fit to undertake an oath, without their consent. Neither are they to choose a calling, or make any contract of themselves, but only by the direction and advice of their parents; though some of the Popish sort do erroneously teach, that a child may bind himself by oath, to become a monk of this or that order, without consent of parents.

5. If it be made of things impossible: for then it is a vain oath.

6. If at the first it were lawful, and afterward become impossible and unlawful. For such oaths God himself may be said to reverse. Thus if a man bind himself by oath to live in single life without marriage, and after finds that God has not given him the gift of continence; in this case, his oath becomes impossible to be kept, and therefore being reversed by God, and becoming unlawful, it may be broken without impiety.

To these six, the Papists add two other. The first, when the oath is made upon custom. And they put this example: if two men going out of a door or over a bridge, the one swears by God that he will not go first; likewise swears the other: yet at the last after contention, one of them goes first. In this case, says the Papist, the oath binds not. Custom cannot make that, which is sin, to be no sin, or perjury, to be no perjury: but rather doubles the sin, and makes it above measure more vile and abominable: and they that give themselves to this usual, and customable swearing, cannot but oftentimes become guilty of flat perjury.

The Second Case is, when the superior power, that is, the Pope, or other inferior Bishops, give order to the contrary, by relaxation or dispensation. The answer is: it is false. For in every lawful oath there is a double bond; one of man to man, the other of man to God. Now if in the oath taken, man were only obliged to man, the oath might be dispensable by man; but seeing man, when he swears to man, swears also to God, and thereby is immediately bound to God himself, hence it follows that an oath taken cannot have release from any creature. Therefore our Savior Christ's commandment is, You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform your oaths, to whom? to the Lord (Matthew 5:33). And the oath that passed between David and Jonathan is called the Lord's oath (2 Samuel 21:7 and 1 Samuel 20:8). God will have the oath to bind as long as seems good to him; yes, and cease binding when it pleases him. And that which himself binds, or will have to be bound, no creature can loose; the things which God has coupled, let no man separate (Matthew 19:6). And herein the Pope shows himself to be Antichrist, in that he challenges power to dispense with a lawful oath, made without error or deceit, of things honest and possible.

Out of this answer, another question may be resolved; namely, when does a man commit perjury?

Answer: 1. When a man swears that which he knows to be false. 2. When he swears that which he means not to do. 3. When he swearing to do a thing, which he also means to do, yet afterwards does it not. In these three, the not performing of an oath made is flat perjury.

That we may yet be informed concerning the sin of perjury, one question of moment is to be scanned. In societies and corporations, there be laws and orders; to the keeping whereof, every one admitted to an office takes a corporal oath. Afterward it falls out upon occasion that he breaks some of the said statutes. The question is, whether he be not in this case perjured?

Answer: statutes are of two sorts. Some are principal or fundamental, which serve to maintain the state of that body or corporation. Others less principal, or mixed, that serve for order or decency. In the statutes principal, the lawmaker intends obedience simply; and therefore they are necessary to be kept. But in the less principal, he exacts not obedience simply, but either obedience, or the penalty; because the penalty is as much beneficial to the state of that body as the other. The breach of the former makes a man guilty of perjury; but it is otherwise in the latter, so be it the delinquent party be content to bear the mulct if it be imposed. Thus, students and others belonging to such societies may in some sort excuse themselves from the sin of perjury, though not from all fault, in breaking some of the lesser local statutes, else few could live in any society without perjury.

Yet one more question is propounded touching perjury, whether a man may exact an oath of him whom he fears or knows will forswear himself. Answer: a private man must not; but a magistrate may, if the party offer to take his oath (not being urged thereto) and be first admonished of the grievousness of the said sin of perjury. In the execution of civil justice, magistrates must not stay upon men's sins. Moses expected not the Israelites' repentance for their idolatry, but presently proceeded to punishment. Neither must the public good of the commonwealth be hindered upon the likelihood or suspicion of a man's perjury.