Annotation XXVI

”But I say to you, swear not at all.” — Matthew 5:34

Whether every oath, even in a true and just cause, is a sin.

Gen. 22; Jer. 4.

Chrysostom seems to hold — not only in the present passage, but in almost innumerable other places — that an oath is a most evil thing, and so forbidden to Christians that it is nowhere lawful for them to swear, not even in a just cause. He plainly pronounces this opinion, homily 15 on Genesis, in these words: “Let a Christian flee oaths in every way, hearing the sentence of Christ which says, ‘It was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not forswear thyself; but I say to you, there is to be no swearing at all.’ Let no one, therefore, say, ‘I swear in a just cause’; for neither in a just matter nor in an unjust one is it lawful to swear.” And in homily 9 on the Acts of the Apostles, he decrees that those are impious and deserve to be barred from the Church, who in forensic actions, contracts, and sureties either swear or exact an oath from others. Again, assigning the causes for which it is not lawful to swear, he reckons among others this — that an oath is an utterly diabolical crime. For thus he speaks, in the homily on the fifth Psalm: “To swear is from the devil, since Christ says, ‘For whatever is more than these is from evil.’” And in homily 19 to the people of Antioch: “You have heard the wisdom of Christ, saying that not only to forswear, but even to swear in any way whatsoever, is diabolical and wholly the contrivance of the evil one.” And in the first book Against the Detractors of the Monastic Life: “If to swear is found to be diabolical, with what punishment must those be smitten who forswear?” And in the first book On Compunction of Heart: “If truly to swear is a crime and a transgression of the commandment, where shall we place perjury?” Nor content with these [alone], Chrysostom also refutes the reasons of the theologians that cry out against his opinion.

Of which the first is: that if an oath were of itself evil, God — who cannot do evil — would not have sworn, saying to Abraham, “By my very self have I sworn, says the Lord”; and in Psalm 109, “The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent.”

The second is: if to swear were a crime, God would not have commanded us, through the prophet Jeremiah, “Swear by the true God.”

The third is: that since an oath is most necessary for settling civil and ecclesiastical controversies, it is not to be refused by a good man, but — as often as a just necessity presses — most promptly to be rendered.

Meeting these, Chrysostom responds to the first reasoning that God in no way swears; and that if the divine Scriptures sometimes testify that God has sworn, an oath is ascribed to God not properly and according to the human manner of swearing, but improperly and metaphorically, insofar as the oath

signifies a pledge and a sure promise. For thus he writes, in the homily on the hundred-and-ninth Psalm, expounding that [verse], “The Lord has sworn,” etc.: “But when you hear ‘oath,’ do not think it is [truly] an oath. For just as anger in God is not [passionate] anger, but is the right of punishing and not a perturbation of mind, so also [is] the oath. For God does not swear, but declares what is certainly to be.” And in homily 47 on Genesis, and on the eleventh [chapter] of the Epistle to the Hebrews, explaining God’s oath to Abraham, he asserts that the words by which God seems to swear are not oaths but promises — which nonetheless God calls “oaths” in the human manner, condescending to human infirmity; and that he may adapt himself to it, he regards not his own dignity, but — to persuade men — taking up words unworthy of himself, he calls his pledges “oaths” after the manner of men, who, when they wish things to be believed without any doubt, promise that they will do them with an oath added.

Next, he satisfies the second argument in homily 17 on Matthew, where, explaining that [saying], “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatever is beyond these is from evil,” he questions himself thus: “If an oath is from evil, how then was it commanded in the Law?” And a little later he answers: “An oath, in the Old Law, was not commanded, but only permitted — just as also divorce [was permitted] — on account of the infirmity of those who received the Law, lest they should either worship idols or swear by idols. Wherefore, just as divorce, once conceded, is now judged adultery, so an oath, once permitted in the Law, is now — in the evangelical law, after such great arguments of virtue — believed to be from evil, and doubtless has very much of evil in itself.”

Finally, rejecting the third reason too, in homily 8 to the people of Antioch: “What then,” he says, “if a necessity of swearing be present? I answer: Where there is transgression, there is no [true] necessity; for it is possible not to swear at all.” And in homily 17 on Matthew, repeating the same: “What then,” he says, “if someone exacts an oath, and imposes the necessity of swearing? I answer: Let the fear of God be more forcible to you than any necessity; for if you are always willing to bring forward occasions of this kind, you will keep nothing of what is commanded.” Thus far Chrysostom. It remains that — to avoid a superfluous repetition of this argument — I set down here the opinions of the fathers who are thought to agree with Chrysostom, with their “antidotes” added, so that they may be read without any offense.

Origen, treatise 35 on Matthew: “It behooves not that a man who wishes to live according to the Gospel should put another under oath. For similar is that which the Lord himself says in the Gospel, ‘But I say, swear not at all’ — [and therefore] adjure not at all. For if to swear is not lawful, as regards Christ’s evangelical commandment, it is true [also] that neither is it lawful to adjure another.”

Athanasius, in the sermon On the Passion and Cross of the Lord: “If, therefore, there is faith and truth in the one who has sworn — what use is an oath? But if there is no faith in him — why do we take on so much impiety as, for the sake of poor mortal men, to invoke as witness God, who is above men? What, then, is to be done?”

Gen. 22; Ps. 109.

Epiphanius, in the first book of the Panarion, disputing against the Ossenes, says thus: “First, then, one ought not to swear — neither by the Lord himself, nor by any other oath. For to swear belongs to that evil one, namely the devil.”

Hilary, in canon 4 on Matthew: “The Law had appointed a penalty for perjury, that the sacredness of the oath might restrain the deceit of liars; but faith removes the practice of oaths, establishing the affairs of our life in truth. Therefore, for those living in the simplicity of faith, there is no need of the religion of swearing — with whom what is, always ‘is,’ and what is not, ‘is not’; and by this their action and all their speech is in truth. ‘Neither shalt thou swear by heaven,’ etc. — He does not merely forbid us to render oaths to God (since all the truth of our word and deed is to be maintained by simplicity); but he condemns the superstition of the old obstinacy. For with these names of the elements the Jews had a [false] religion — to swear by heaven and earth, by Jerusalem, and by their own head — by which, to the reproach of God, they paid to the oath the veneration [due to God].”

Ambrose, in the exposition of Psalm 118, on [the verse] “I have sworn and determined”: Therefore the Lord — who came to teach the little ones, to instruct the new, to form the perfect — says in the Gospel, “There is to be no swearing at all,” because he was speaking to the weak. And indeed he was speaking not to the Apostles alone, but to the crowds. For he wished you not to swear, lest you forswear. And he added, “Swear not, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by thy head” — namely, by those things which are not subject to thy power. “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent.” Let him, then, swear, who cannot repent of his oath. And what did the Lord swear? That “Christ is a priest for ever.” Is what the Lord swore uncertain? is it impossible? could it be changeable? Do not, then, usurp the example of an oath, you who have not the power of fulfilling the oath.

Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, in the fifth chapter of [his] commentaries on Matthew: “‘But I say to you, swear not at all,’ etc. — [this comes] through the grace of the evangelical doctrine. The Law, given through Moses, received [its] perfection [from the Gospel]. In the Law it was commanded that one should not forswear; but in the Gospel, that one should not [even] swear. And this same thing the Holy Spirit commanded through Solomon,

foretelling, saying, ‘Accustom not [thy mouth] to swearing’; and again, ‘As a slave, constantly scourged, is not [freed] from bruising, so everyone who swears will not be purged from sin’ — whence it is by no means fitting for us to swear. For what need is there for each of us to swear, since it is not at all lawful for us to lie — [we] whose words, being always so true, ought to be so trustworthy that they be held [as good] as an oath? And therefore the Lord forbids us not only to forswear, but even to swear.”

Jerome, in chapter 5 of [his] commentaries on Matthew: “‘Swear not at all,’ etc. The Jews were permitted to swear by God — not because they did this rightly, but because it was better to render this to God than to demons. But the evangelical truth does not admit an oath, since every faithful speech is [as good] as an oath.” And in chapter 4 of [his] commentary on Jeremiah, expounding “Thou shalt swear in truth, says the Lord,” etc., he speaks thus: “If the Lord says ‘Swear in truth,’ how does the Gospel forbid us to swear? I answer: here ‘Thou shalt swear’ is said for confession, and for the condemnation of the idols by which Israel used to swear.” Likewise, in the commentaries on the eighth chapter of Zechariah, he says: “‘Love not an oath’ — the Lord commanding in the Gospel, ‘But I say to you, that you swear not at all.’ In the precepts which pertain to [right] living, and are clear, we ought not to seek allegory — lest, as the comic poet [says], ‘we seek a knot in a bulrush.’”

The author of the Opus imperfectum on Matthew, attributed to Chrysostom: “Hear, O clerics, who hold out the holy gospels to those swearing oaths: how can you be secure from that oath, you who give the occasion of perjury? If to swear rightly were just, you would justly say, ‘We gave them the Gospel that they might swear, not forswear.’ But now, since you know that even to swear rightly is a sin, how can you be guiltless, you who give the occasion of sinning against God?” These things are said of those who swear by God; but of those who swear by the elements, the iniquity is more execrable.

Theophylact, in the fifth chapter of [his] commentary on Matthew: “To swear,” he says, “and to add anything further — even ‘yes’ or ‘no’ — is from the devil. But if you should say, ‘Then the Law of Moses too will be evil, since it commands swearing’ — learn that then it was not evil to swear; but after Christ it is evil, just as also to be circumcised, and, in sum, whatever is Jewish. For to suck [milk] befits a boy, but a grown man by no means.” (the verb is “sugere,” to suck: an oath is the milk of spiritual infancy — Sixtus quotes and glosses this same line on p. 443 / PDF 448.)

Oecumenius, in the fifth chapter of [his] commentary on the Epistle of James, on “Above all, my brethren, swear not,” etc., speaks thus: “But someone will say, ‘If one is compelled to swear, what is to be done?’ We say that the fear of God will be stronger than the necessity that brings force to bear. But someone might also doubt: since the old Law reckons him who swears by the name of the Lord worthy of praise, how does grace [the Gospel] forbid doing this? We say that the old Law — drawing the Jews away, lest they swear by idols — commanded them to swear by God; just as it also commanded them to sacrifice to God, drawing them away lest they sacrifice to idols. But when it had sufficiently taught the worship of God, then it also rejected the sacrifices as useless.”

Euthymius, in the fifth chapter of [his] commentary on Mat- [on Mat]thew: “If an oath is from the devil, how did the old Law permit it? Because the sacrifices too were from evil, and by [means of] the deception of idols — yet the Law permitted these on account of the infirmity of the Hebrews. For since they were gluttons and gormandizers, they loved the meats offered to idols; and thus, being unbelievers, they also loved swearing. But that they might neither sacrifice to idols nor swear by idols, the Law indeed permitted [them] to sacrifice and to swear [by God], and whatever else is similar — but transferred all things to God. And it was to come to pass that, in the course of time, it should cut away even these things by a loftier legislation. And to suckle [with milk] is useful for infants, but for grown men quite unfitting; and therefore we concede this to [people] living in the manner of infants. What, then, is to be done, if someone demands an oath — nay, compels [one] to swear? Let the fear of God be more forcible to you than this necessity; and choose to suffer all things, rather than transgress the precept.”

These and such-like authorities of the saints have been used by the heretics who have forbidden to Christians every kind of oath whatsoever — such as the Waldenses, the Albanenses, the Wycliffites, the Pseudo-apostles, and recently the Lutherans and Anabaptists. Against whose wicked dogma all the schools of theologians and the sanctions of the pontiffs cry out, establishing that an oath is a thing venerable, sacrosanct, and excellent — both from its origin and from its end [purpose].¹ From its origin, indeed, because an oath has its rise from the reverence which we show to God — showing what estimation we have of him: namely, that he knows those things about which there is controversy among us, and that he is truthful and cannot lie; and on that account, when swearing, we invoke God as witness of what we say. Wherefore an oath is rightly placed among the first parts of that supreme worship which by the Greek word is called latría — God saying, in the fifth book of the Law, “The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him alone shalt thou serve; and by his name shalt thou swear.”² And from its end, they say an oath is excellent, because it is necessary for verifying men’s actions and for ending inextricable controversies which cannot be resolved by human judgment. Whence, when in the fourth [session of the] Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus the fathers had decreed that Nestorius should sing the palinode of his heresy, and did not sufficiently trust his words, they exacted from him an oath in these words: “It is fitting also that you confess by oath that you anathematize your polluted and profane dogmas, and that you hold and teach what we believe and hold.” And in the same synod, a certain Victor, a friend of Cyril — falsely accused — could not be cleared until, with hands lifted up to heaven, he had sworn himself innocent by holy baptism and the venerable mysteries of Christ. And in the Council of Constance, after — among the other heresies of Wycliffe — the article which abolishes all oaths had been condemned, it was decreed by the fathers that, for the confirmation of the treaty which the kings of the Romans [the Empire] and of Aragon had entered upon for the overthrow of the schism, an oath should be demanded from all then present in the council — which was there and then fulfilled, all swearing.

But as far as pertains to the aforesaid opinions [of the fathers], if with a fair mind we weigh the intent and scope

of the authors who put them forth, we shall recognize that they did not wish to take away from Christians the duty of swearing, but wished chiefly to forbid three things concerning the rite of the oath.

First, that no one should in any way swear blasphemously and impiously by creatures — as if reckoning that something of divinity lies hidden in them, and paying to them the worship owed to the Creator — but [that one should swear] only by the Creator. Because Christ especially forbade this when he said, “Swear not at all, neither by heaven, nor by earth,” etc. In which sense, indeed, Epiphanius and Jerome are to be interpreted; for both testify that Christ, by these words, wished to remove the depraved custom of swearing by the elements.

Second, that no one should swear by God easily and without necessity — lest from facility they descend to habit, and from habit to contempt of the oath and the practice of perjury. For, looking to this, Christ said, “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatever is beyond these is from evil” — that is, either from the evil habit of him who, even unasked and without any necessity, swears by God; or from the evil of him to whom [the oath] is sworn, who is unwilling to trust another’s words without an oath. To this end especially are to be referred the things which Chrysostom brought forth against oaths, by an excess of speech and out of the ardor of rebuke, desiring to root out utterly the inveterate license of the Greeks — who (as he himself complains in various homilies), in workshops, at crossroads, and in the marketplace, for ten obols, for a pair of shoes, and for any most trivial things whatever, were not afraid to exact and render untimely oaths. That Athanasius, Chromatius, and Oecumenius also had this in view, the words plainly show which they add a little after the quoted opinions, condemning those who incessantly, and without any discernment, run of their own accord to oaths. But Athanasius is so far from a prohibition of a just oath that he himself, in the apology to the Emperor Constantius, offers an oath from the divine oracles, and exacts [one], in these words: “To your Piety, with a great and clear voice and with hand outstretched — as I learned from the Apostle — I call God to witness upon my own soul, and (as is written in the books of Kings) I take an oath: let the Lord be witness, and his Christ [be] witness, that I never made mention of you for evil before your brother Constans Augustus, nor stirred him up against you.” And a little below: “I could wish that this man, whoever he is, were present here, that — an oath being tendered — I might question him about these things under attestation of the truth. For the things we wish to be said and heard as if in God’s presence, we Christian men are wont to express under this formula of an oath.”

Third, those most weighty men wished to warn that no one of those who profess the highest state of Christian perfection should — for any cause, even a just one — swear by God in controversies arising among the perfect themselves; because Christ, among the counsels of surpassing perfection, gave this counsel too: that the perfect, in their own causes and when dealing among the perfect, should abstain altogether from every oath. Which was also observed of old by the Essenes, [who] [the Essenes, who] profess the most perfect life among the Hebrews. For these (as Josephus and Philo write) shunned an oath as [they would] perjury, reckoning that among perfect men oaths are neither to be exacted nor rendered — both because it ought [to hold] that whatever is declared by perfect men has the force of an oath; and because he would seem convicted of lying who would not be believed without God as witness. Therefore it is agreed that Hilary, Ambrose, Theophylact, and especially Euthymius spoke according to this sense — when [Euthymius] says, “To suckle is useful for infants, but unfitting for grown men; therefore we concede this (namely, the oath) to those living in the manner of infants.” From whom Theophylact does not much differ, saying: “To suck befits a boy, but grown men by no means” — hinting by this metaphor that an oath befits beginners and the still-imperfect, but the perfect by no means. (This is the line printed a touch ambiguously on p. 441/PDF 446 — the verb is “sugere,” to suck.)