Essays on Church, State, and Politics

Chapter VIII

241 u chapter viii u On the Duty of Those Taking an Oath§1. If man had remained honest there would have been no need for an oath. For this has only been introduced as a crutch for corrupt nature, because in the present state of sin there is no other means by which to suppress fallacy or perfidy in a person who asserts or promises something, or to remove doubt and disbelief concerning our intention in someone with whom we have business.§2. For when an omnipotent and omniscient witness and avenger is invoked as a witness, there is a strong presumption of truth and faithfulness. Nobody is easily believed to be so impious that he would dare to bring down the most severe wrath of God on himself.§3. If, therefore, we attempted to derive the duties concerning oaths from the state of innocence, it would be as foolish as trying to draw water from fire.§4. But we must not believe that an oath is a corrupt invention of corrupt nature. We have no reason to do so, and in Scripture oaths are commanded more than once and used by the most holy men.§5. Contrary arguments from Scripture, designed to show that oaths are prohibited, have been refuted by others some time ago.45 45. Thomasius is referring to Uffelmann, De jure quo homo homini in sermone obligatur liber unus. 242 institutes of divine jurisprudence§6. We define an oath as the deliberate invocation of God as a witness and guarantor, to confirm a statement or a promise.§7. The purpose of every oath on the part of the person who has an oath sworn to himself is to place others under a firmer obligation to speak the truth or keep a promise, using their fear of an omnipotent and omniscient God, whose wrath they draw upon themselves if they knowingly deceive in an oath. This is done if the immediate fear of humans is not strong enough, because they do not respect their power or hope to be able to escape or to deceive them.§8. Therefore, if the doctrine of atheism is contrary to any precept of divine law (though it is contrary to all, as is clear from the first book), it is directly contrary to the rules that we have established concerning the duty of oath takers.§9. But on the part of him who takes an oath the purpose of an oath is certainty and faith, to reassure the other person involved concerning the truth of what has been affirmed or denied, or to affirm that the person taking the oath will fulfill what he has promised.§10. The apostle expressed this elegantly when he said that an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.46 In any case he who accepts the oath is reassured because his doubts are settled. That is, unless you wanted to say that the apostle was referring in particular to the oath that is used to resolve controversies, which is called a litis decisorium [decision of a controversy].§11. The categorization of an oath is based on its purpose. Certain things are added to promises and pacts to make sure they are observed with even greater reverence. But some are used to support a statement concerning an unknown fact. The former oath is called promissory, the latter assertory. 46. Hebrews 6:16. book ii 243§12. The promissory oath is used to guarantee future events, the assertory oath past events.§13. All types of oaths based on the distinctions by the ancient Roman jurists can be reduced to these two types. For example, [Roman jurists distinguished] the oath of a witness who swears an oath about somebody else’s action and an oath that concerns his own affairs and resolves a disputed question. And this could be done with the agreement of the other side, either outside court (that is, voluntarily) or in court (that is, under compulsion); or it could be done by command of the judge, which is called judicial. The particular forms of that are the purgatory oath and the suppletory oath.47 But all these kinds of oaths are forms of assertory oaths.§14. At the same time, the purpose of oaths tells us that oaths are accessory speech. This already presupposes another assertion or promise, which it...