On the Articles: Article XXXIX

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

The Octave of All Saints Day

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

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, judgement, and truth.

Article XXXIX, the last, addresses two different issues.

The first sentence of the Article notes that, “vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men,” by which it means profanity is barred. From the commandment not to use the Lord’s name in vain to Christ’s warning that what comes out of the mouth is more damaging than what goes in, there is a clear line in Scripture that tells us that Christians ought not to be vulgar. It should be recognized that there is a cultural context to profanity—what is considered to be profanity changes from language to language and time to time. In some cultures, for instance in Quebecois French, many vulgarities are sacrilegious, while in English, vulgarities are often sexual or relate to bodily waste. No matter their case, it is what they reflect from within us that is prohibited, and it is the causes of the utterances of profanity that is truly being warned against, not simply the utterances of profanity itself.

The second sense of the Article is a reference not to profanity, but to the swearing of oaths. While it is primarily the second part of this Article that addresses this, there is one historic way in which that first sentence condemning “vain and rash Swearing” also applies to the swearing of oaths. Historically prior to the reformation, it was common for young children to be sent to monasteries and convents. In order to be taken in, these young children would be required to swear oaths of celibacy, poverty and other forms. This Article condemns that medieval practice pointing out that it is a rash thing to have someone swear an oath so rashly, namely when they cannot understand the full consequences of what they are about to do. Biblically, the story of Jephthah (Judges 11. 29-40) seems to speak against this as well, as Jephthah swore rashly and paid a severe price for that mistake, being forced to sacrifice his daughter.
The second half of the Article makes a similar reference to the swearing of oaths in a way that would be understandable to modern eyes, namely the civil and legal sphere where oaths must be sworn, for instance before entering into a civil office or giving legal testimony in a courtroom. To some of the more radical reformers, Christ’s admonition to, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil,” (St Mt 5. 37) is interpreted as prohibiting the swearing of such oaths.

Yet there are many other places in Scripture where oaths are commended, from the Law of Moses (Deut 6. 13) to St Paul’s many references (Rm 9. 1, 2; II Cor 1. 23; Gal 1. 20). Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ overturn the law of Moses, and St Paul and the other Apostles, St James the Bishop of Jerusalem is mentioned explicitly in the Article.

It should be noted that there is room and even historic example, of how Christians ought to apply the lack of oaths, which comes from honesty: the lives as relate to Christians. In monastic communities, monks were prohibited from swearing oaths once they had joined their community because they were to be honest in all things and to swear additional oaths was to suggest they failed in their duty to be honest in all things. It may have been the extension of this practice to clergy in general in the medieval period that placed the seed of the prohibition of oaths among some of the radical reformers of the day.

In recognizing however that not everyone is held to such a standard, because not everyone is Christian, it becomes clear that this Article is a practical way of ensuring that Christians can relate to them in a pluralistic society. While the Christian should follow Christ’s commandment for honesty, that does not prohibit them from swearing an oath, to God or simply directly to another person, in order that the other party might believe them. Similarly, even among Christians, the use of contracts as a legal vow between parties are not prohibited as they can ensure clear understanding on both parties and ought not to be implied to suggest a lack of trust by one party towards the other.

The final sentence of this Article instructs that Christians ought to follow lawful civil authority, “according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement and truth.” This is a rather suitable prescription to conclude the Articles, saying simply that as far as our relationship to civil society goes, we ought to do our best to live in such a society in recognition that not all within it are Christian, but bearing witness to Christ in what we do, displaying justice, good judgement and God’s truth.