Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. The Oath of Royal Supremacy introduced by Henry VIII, 1534, repealed by Mary and revived by Elizabeth, was chiefiy concerned with the succession. The Oath of Allegiance to James I, also called the Oath of Obedience, introduced 1606, doing away with the deposing power of the pope, was objectionably worded, fraudulently intended, and a dishonor to the Holy See; its infiuence was great and its consequences lasting and far-reaching. These oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced. The Test Oath, 1672,1678, also called the Declaration of Attestation Oath, compelling office holders to make a "declaration against Transubstantiation" and other tenets, marks the consummation of English anti-Catholic legislation, as it insured that no Catholic could be admitted to office without renouncing his faith. The Quebec Acts 1771, was the first tolerant measure for Catholics since Mary's reign. The Irish Oath, 1774, was followed by the so-called relief bills, and other tests involving also English Catholics, until, owing to the influence of Daniel O'Connell and the Irish, Catholic Emancipation was granted, 1829, without any tests.

Oaths exacted by the Crown after it had imposed Protestantism on England. The Oath of Royal Supremacy introduced by Henry VIII, 1534, repealed by Mary and revived by Elizabeth, was chiefiy concerned with the succession. The Oath of Allegiance to James I, also called the Oath of Obedience, introduced 1606, doing away with the deposing power of the pope, was objectionably worded, fraudulently intended, and a dishonor to the Holy See; its infiuence was great and its consequences lasting and far-reaching. These oaths fell into temporary desuetude when the Puritans came into power, and the Oath of Adjuration under the Commonwealth, 1643, imposed monstrous penalties on anyone refusing to take it, the refusal branding him a papist; this oath, however, was sparingly enforced. The Test Oath, 1672,1678, also called the Declaration of Attestation Oath, compelling office holders to make a "declaration against Transubstantiation" and other tenets, marks the consummation of English anti-Catholic legislation, as it insured that no Catholic could be admitted to office without renouncing his faith. The Quebec Acts 1771, was the first tolerant measure for Catholics since Mary's reign. The Irish Oath, 1774, was followed by the so-called relief bills, and other tests involving also English Catholics, until, owing to the influence of Daniel O'Connell and the Irish, Catholic Emancipation was granted, 1829, without any tests.

OATHS. How the need of oaths must first have arisen can be seen in such a passage as Exodus 22:10-11 : ‘If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or a beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing It: the oath of the Lord shall be between them both, whether he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.’ As there is no witness to substantiate the innocence or prove the guilt of the suspected person no man seeing it God is called to witness. An oath is really a conditional curse, which a man calls down upon himself from God, in the case of his not speaking the truth or not keeping a promise. The use of oaths was not restricted to judicial procedure, but was also connected with a variety of everyday matters; to swear by the name of Jahweh was regarded as a sign of loyalty to Him (cf. Isaiah 48:1 , Jeremiah 12:16 , Deuteronomy 6:13 ). There are two words in Hebrew for an oath; (1) shĕbû‘ah , which comes from the same root as the word for ‘seven’ ( sheba’ ); the Heb. word for ‘to swear’ comes likewise from the same root, and means literally ‘to come under the influence of seven things.’ Seven was the most sacred number among the Hebrews (cf. shâbûa’ , ‘week’ of seven days), and among the Semites generally. Among the Babylonians the seven planets each represented a god. Originally, therefore, there must have been a direct connexion between this sacred number and the oath. (2) ’âlah , which, strictly speaking, means a ‘curse,’ and was a stronger form of oath. The combination of both words was used on especially solemn occasions, e.g. Numbers 5:21 (cf. Matthew 26:72 of Peter’s denial). There were various forms used in taking an oath, e.g. ‘God do so to me and more also if …’ ( 1 Kings 2:23 ); the punishment called down in the case of the oath not being observed is left indeterminate in this form; this is to be explained from the fact that there was a fear lest the mention of the curse should ipso facto bring it to pass; it is a remnant of animistic conceptions ( i.e . there was the fear that a demon might think his services were required). In later times, however, the nature of the curse is sometimes mentioned, e.g. ‘… saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire’ … ( Jeremiah 29:22 ; cf. Isaiah 65:15 , Zechariah 8:13 ). Another form was: ‘God is witness betwixt me and thee’ ( Genesis 31:50 ), or, ‘The Lord be a true and faithful witness amongst us, if …’ ( Jeremiah 42:5 ); a more common form is: ‘As the Lord liveth’ ( Judges 8:19 ), which is sometimes varied by the addition of a reference to the person to whom the oath was made: ‘As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth’ ( 1 Samuel 20:3 , cf. 2 Samuel 15:21 ). Another form was: ‘God … judge between us’ ( Genesis 31:53 ). God Himself is conceived of as taking oaths: ‘By myself have I sworn …’ ( Genesis 22:15 ). The usual gesture in taking an oath was to raise the arm towards heaven ( Deuteronomy 32:40 , Daniel 12:7 ), the motive being to point to the dwelling-place of God; to ‘raise the hand’ became an expression for ‘to swear’ ( Exodus 6:8 , Numbers 14:30 ). Another gesture is referred to in Genesis 24:2 ; Genesis 47:29 , viz. putting the hand under the thigh; the organ of generation was regarded as peculiarly holy by the Hebrews. With regard to the breaking of an oath see Leviticus 6:1-7 ; and for the use of oaths in ratifying a covenant see Genesis 21:27-31 ; Genesis 26:28 ; Genesis 31:53 , Jos 9:15 , 2 Kings 11:4 . W. O. E. Oesterley.

A formal appeal to God or some sacred object as a support to fulfill a promise. Ancient societies lacked laws and documentation as a means of legal enforcement. Binding transactions depended upon the power of a person's word. Without a modern judicial system, the very security of the society demanded that people speak the truth to one another. The oath maintained the obligation to speak honestly. Solemn oaths in the Bible were binding. Violation of an oath was serious and could not be disregarded (Ezekiel 17:13 ,Ezekiel 17:13,17:16 ,Ezekiel 17:16,17:18-19 ). The Old Testament and Oaths The making of covenants revealed the binding nature of the oath. See Covenant . The parties made oaths to enforce the awareness that a violator of the covenant would suffer the same fate as the sacrificed animal. Symbolic acts often accompanied an oath. Oath takers often raised their right hands or lifted both hands to heaven (Genesis 14:22 ; Daniel 12:7 ; compare Revelation 10:5-6 ). Bible writers could even use human images to describe God, saying the Lord swears by His right hand (Isaiah 62:8 ). Invoking the name of a reigning monarch was another symbolic act joined with oath taking. Using the Lord's name in an oath directly appeals to His involvement regarding testimony and establishes Him as the supreme Enforcer and Judge. To violate the Lord's name was to violate the Lord; therefore, oaths that used God's name carelessly are condemned (Exodus 20:7 ; Leviticus 19:12 ). The oath reinforced God's promises to His people (Exodus 33:1 ; Deuteronomy 6:18 ; Deuteronomy 7:8 ; Psalm 132:11 ). The oath established boundaries around human speech and set guidelines for human conduct (Numbers 30:1 ; Deuteronomy 23:21 ). Israel ratified their treaties by oaths (Joshua 9:15 ,Joshua 9:15,9:18 ,Joshua 9:18,9:20 ), and the writer of Ecclesiastes reminded his readers that it is better not to make a vow than to make a vow and not keep it (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 ). The New Testament and Oaths The New Testament raised the oath to a new level of understanding. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus established a different standard of speech, one based not upon oaths but upon simple integrity. A clear yes and no would be sufficient for communication (Matthew 5:33-37 ; compare James 5:12 ). Jesus spurned oaths made by the Temple (Matthew 23:16-21 ). At His trial before Caiaphas, He was silent to the questions until a binding oath was placed upon Him (Matthew 26:63-65 ). Jesus did not condemn oaths, only the abuse of God's name in the taking of oaths. Other New Testament passages reveal the gravity of oath taking. Peter's denial of Christ was first, a simple refusal to acknowledge Jesus. An oath accompanied his second denial. He issued his final denial in the form of a curse (Matthew 26:69-75 ). The apostle Paul frequently called upon God in the form of an oath to witness to his own sincerity (Romans 1:9 ; 2 Corinthians 1:23 ; Galatians 1:20 ). Hebrews establishes the superiority of Christ's priesthood over the Levitical priesthood because it was promised with an oath whereas the Levitical priesthood was not (Hebrews 7:20-22 ). Throughout church history, some Christians have insisted that oath taking is a concession to the evil of this present age. Certain Christian groups have refused to take oaths under any conditions. Most Christians do not condemn oaths under any circumstance, but they condemn the abuse of God's name in oaths. Brad Creed

(pl.) of Oath

OATHS.—Christ’s teaching on the subject of oaths is set forth in one of the sections of the Sermon on the Mount, in which He contrasts His doctrine with that of the earlier dispensation (Matthew 5:33-37). The position of the Law on the subject is summed up in the statement, ‘Thou shalt not forswear thyself,’ but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.’ This is a combination of different passages in the Law (Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:3, Deuteronomy 23:22), of which the first deals specially with oaths, the others with vows. But in point of obligation oaths and vows were recognized in the Rabbinical schools as on the same footing (Wünsche, Neue Beitriäge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien aus Talmud und Midrasch, p. 57), and the statement in which Christ here represents the position of the Law was, no doubt, the current formula in which, in these schools, the doctrine of the Law on the question was summed up. in opposition to this dictum of the Law, Christ lays down an absolute prohibition, ‘Swear not at all’ Matthew 5:34), and proceeds to draw out the full meaning of the ‘at all’ (ὅλως) by showing that His prohibition covers every appeal to anything beside us in confirmation of our word, and not merely such as expressly introduce the name of Jehovah. The casuists among the scribes made a distinction between more and less binding oaths. The former class consisted of those which invoked the name of God; the latter used such forms as ‘by heaven,’ ‘by earth,’ ‘by Jerusalem,’ ‘by the life of my head.’ An oath by heaven and earth, for instance, was not considered to be binding, because one did not require to think of the Creator; whereas if one swore by one of the letters of the Divine name, or by one of the Divine attributes, that was regarded as binding, and he who treated such an oath lightly was punishable (Wünsche, op. cit. p. 59; Schürer, HJP ^[1] ii. ii. 122). Our Lord Himself gives other examples of such casuistical distinctions in the matter of oaths in Matthew 5:16-22. He refers to them here because the full import of His prohibition of oaths might not be realized by those who were familiar with such distinctions. It might be thought that He was merely forbidding a direct appeal to the name of Jehovah. And so He proceeds to show how utterly different is His standpoint on the question of oaths from that of the Rabbinical authorities. They endeavoured to empty the oath of reference to God, so as to narrow the scope of the commandment against perjury. Christ sought to make explicit the reference to God virtually contained in every asseveration, so as to widen the scope of His prohibition of swearing. With this object He takes some of the common forms of oaths which were regarded as less binding, and shows how, though the name of God be not expressly mentioned, they are meaningless unless they involve an appeal to Him. Thus to call heaven or earth to witness our statement is an empty form, unless we be thinking not merely of heaven or earth, but of the Power they suggest, who will punish unfaithfulness (Matthew 5:34-35 a), i.e. God, of whom heaven is the throne and earth the footstool (Isaiah 66:1). To appeal to Jerusalem (Matthew 5:35 b) is meaningless unless we be thinking of the great King, who has made Jerusalem His city (Psalms 48:3). And to swear by one’s head Matthew 23:36) involves an appeal to Him in whose hands our destiny lies, and who alone can bring upon our heads the punishment of perjury. For ourselves, we cannot make one hair black or white. Black hair is here used as the symbol of youth; white, of old age. The very colour of our hair, Christ would say, reminds us that we are in the hands of a higher Power. It is to that Power we appeal when we swear by the life of our head. Every form of asseveration, then, Christ concludes, every appeal to anything beside us in confirmation of our word, is an oath, for it virtually involves an appeal to God. All such forms come under Christ’s prohibition. His command is: ‘Swear not at all; but let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay’ (Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:37). These last words have received different interpretations. Beza renders them, ‘Let your affirmation be yea, and your negation nay,’—an attempt to bring the present verse into harmony with James 5:12 at the sacrifice of grammar. Equally unjustifiable grammatically is Grotius’ attempt to secure the same object by his translation, ‘Let your yea and nay of speech correspond to a yea and nay of fact,’ with the additional fault that it is questionable whether that is the meaning of the passage in James. The simplest way of taking the words is to regard the ναὶ ναί, οὒ, οὔ, as a repetition, such as was common in actual speech (cf. 2 Kings 10:15, 2 Corinthians 1:17), to confirm a statement. ‘Let your speech,’ says Christ, ‘be a clear and forcible yes or no. For whatsoever is more than these,’ He continues, ‘cometh ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ.’ Again there is difference of opinion as to these last words. Many take them as equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλον. But B. Weiss (Matthäusevangelium, ad loc.) contends that such a view is incompatible with the fact that the OT requires oaths (Exodus 22:11), and even puts them into the mouth of God (Genesis 22:16; Genesis 26:3). It is better to take the πονηροῦ as the gen. of the neuter; so that the statement will mean that the oath springs from evil, either in the sense that it is the presence of evil in the world that leads to the oath in confirmation of one’s word, and that in the Kingdom of God, in which truth prevails, the oath must altogether disappear (so Weiss), or that the practice of confirming one’s statement by an oath springs from the tacit assumption that when one does not so confirm it, one is not bound to speak the truth (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210). Before proceeding to discuss the conclusion to be drawn from the passage, we must note an interpretation of Matthew 5:34-36 which has gained considerable acceptance, but which puts quite a different meaning upon Christ’s prohibition in Matthew 5:34 from what we have given above. It is suggested that the prohibition is not meant to embrace all oaths, but merely the thoughtless swearing of everyday life whereby the name of God is profaned (so Calvin, Ewald, Tholuck, and many others). The ὀμόσαι ὅλως of Matthew 5:34, it is contended, does not include swearing by God; for, as Ewald (Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 267) says, that was done only in courts of law, and Christ is not referring to this at all. If He had meant to forbid oaths absolutely, He would certainly have mentioned the direct oath in which the name of God is expressly invoked. As He has not done so, we must conclude that His prohibition is not meant to apply to it, i.e. that he means to forbid only such thoughtless oaths of common life as He proceeds to exemplify. This attempt to empty the ὅλως of its meaning does not commend itself. It is evidently inspired by fear of the consequences which seem to ensue from the absolute prohibition Christ lays down, and such a motive does not tend to sound exegesis. It fails to do justice to the original. The only permissible translation of μὴ ὀμόσαι ὅλως is that which regards it as an absolute prohibition. Only thus does Christ’s position present a proper contrast to that of the Law. The Law forbids swearing falsely; Christ forbids swearing at all. Thus we have a sufficient contrast to, and advance beyond, the position of the Law. But on the present interpretation Christ sets over against the commandment against perjury in the name of God a prohibition merely of frivolous swearing, and that of a kind which does not mention the name of God at all, which is somewhat of an anti-climax. It is true, as the supporters of this interpretation point out, that Christ does not expressly mention the oath by the name of God in the instances He adduces. But it is much more reasonable to suppose that He omits it because it is evident that it is included under the swearing He prohibits, while there may be doubt as to these indirect oaths He specifies, than to argue that, when He prohibits swearing ὅλως, He includes under the prohibition only those forms of oath which were hardly regarded as oaths at all by His contemporaries, and omits the one oath that was universally so esteemed. We conclude, then, that Christ’s word in Matthew 5:34 is to be understood as an absolute prohibition of swearing, and that it cannot be restricted to the thoughtless, irrelevant oaths of common life. And it remains to consider in what spirit this absolute prohibition is laid down, and what are the conclusions that follow from it. Christ has Himself given the reason for His prohibition of swearing. Whatsoever goes beyond the distinct and forcible affirmation and negation, He says, cometh of evil (Matthew 5:37). As we saw above, this saying may be interpreted in different ways. It may be taken to mean that it is the presence of evil among our fellow-men that necessitates oaths, to convince them of the good faith of the speaker. So Augustine (Sermon on the Mount): ‘Tu autem non malum facis, qui bene uteris juratione, quae, etsi non bona, tamen necessaria est, ut alten persuadeas quod utiliter persuades, sed a malo est illius, cujus infirmitate jurare cogeris.’ But, as Tholuck (Sermon on the Mount, English translation p. 252 f.) remarks, this is open to a twofold objection—first, that in such a case the evil in question rests with him who requires the oath, whereas all the stress of the prohibition is directed against taking oaths; and, second, that on this interpretation the fulfilment of our Lord’s command would be deferred to the realization of that ideal state in which no evil exists, in which case the present command would stand on a different footing from the others of the Sermon on the Mount, which plainly apply to a world in which evil is prevalent. For this reason we accept the other interpretation of the words given above—that whatever goes beyond the plain affirmation and negation cometh of evil, in the sense that behind it is the tacit assumption that, when our word is not confirmed by an oath, we are not bound to adhere strictly to the truth. This brings the present passage into harmony with the general spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. The theme of that Sermon is righteousness of the heart. When Christ opposes His commands to those of the Law, it is to show that He requires more than the Law demanded, that He insists not only upon righteousness of outward conduct, but upon righteousness of the heart. The Law required strict truth whenever an oath was taken. The tendency of the Pharisaic formalism of Christ’s day was to keep the letter of the Law by strict fulfilment of one’s promise and scrupulous adherence to the truth whenever the Divine name was invoked, but to break its spirit by assuming that whenever such an oath was not taken, greater latitude was allowed. Christ insisted upon such a regard for truth that the absence of the oath should make no difference. To feel that one is more bound by an oath than by one’s simple word is to have the spirit of falsehood in one’s heart. In such a case whatsoever is more than the direct yea and nay cometh of evil. Once we realize what is the spirit in which Christ’s prohibition is given, we are in a position to decide some of the questions raised as to the practicability of the observance of the command in existing social conditions. If the prohibition is absolute, on what ground can the practice of taking oaths in courts of law be defended? The answer is that the spirit in which the oath is taken in such a case is very different from that which our Lord condemns in the present instance. In a court of law we take the oath to convince our fellow-men, who cannot see our heart and judge of our regard for truth, of our good faith. That is a very different thing from thinking that we are not required to speak the truth unless bound by an oath; and it is the latter view that Christ condemns in His dictum upon swearing. We may still keep the spirit of our Lord’s command though we break the letter of it by taking an oath in court, just, as we may keep the spirit of many other injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. that with regard to praying in private (Matthew 6:6), though we break them in the letter. Christ Himself, according to the Gospel in which the present passage occurs, did not refuse to answer when the high priest adjured Him by the living God (Matthew 26:63). And though Mark omits the adjuration, so that we cannot with confidence appeal to the conduct of Christ Himself on this occasion, all the Gospels represent Him as frequently strengthening His declarations by the solemn ἀμήν, which in the Fourth Gospel becomes ἀμὴν ἀμήν. In a word, while the prohibition of swearing is absolute, and is on no account to be modified in the manner we have referred to above, we must remember that what Christ is aiming at is not the mere outward oath, but the spirit of evil which inspired it, and regard as an infraction of His command only such conduct as cometh of the evil He seeks to destroy. When we regard the commandment in that light, there is no need to defer the fulfilment of it to an ideal state. It does not describe the conditions which should prevail between the members of the Kingdom of God only in their relations to one another, but lays down a, principle which should guide the member of the Kingdom in his relation to all with whom he comes in contact. And though, owing to the conditions of the society in which he lives, he may have to depart from the strict letter of the precept by taking a solemn oath on occasion, so long as he does not do so from the unworthy motive which inspires the oaths against which Christ contends, he may still claim to remain faithful to the command of Christ. Literature.—The various Commentaries; Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘Oath’ and Extra Vol. p. 28; PRE ^[2] 3 ^[3] , art. ‘Eid’; Tholuck, Sermon on the Mount; Wendt, Lehre Jesu, ii. 210–213; Gore, Sermon on the Mount; Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1067; Dykes, Manifesto of the King, p. 265; Martensen, Christ. Ethics, ii. 226. A full list of the relative literature will be found in Tholuck and Rothe. G. Wauchope Stewart.