52. But it may be asked why, when it was said, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all,” it was added, “neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne,” etc., up to “neither by thy head.” I suppose it was for this reason, that the Jews did not think they were bound by the oath, if they had sworn by such things: and since they had heard it said, “Thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oath,” they did not think an oath brought them under obligation to the Lord, if they swore by heaven, or earth, or by Jerusalem, or by their head; and this happened not from the fault of Him who gave the command, but because they did not rightly understand it. Hence the Lord teaches that there is nothing so worthless among the creatures of God, as that any one should think that he may swear falsely by it; since created things, from the highest down to the lowest, beginning with the throne of God and going down to a white or black hair, are ruled by divine providence. “Neither by heaven,” says He, “for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool:” i.e., when you swear by heaven or the earth, do not imagine that your oath does not bring you under obligation to the Lord; for you are to swear (Gen. xxiv. 37, Josh. ix. 15; perhaps only a solemn affirmation), and in the name of the Lord (1 Sam. xx. 42; Irenæus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, etc.). The Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Quakers understand the precept to forbid all oaths, even in the civil court. “Christendom, if it were fully conformed to Christ’s will, as it should be, would tolerate no oaths whatever” (Meyer). “The proper state of Christians is to require no oaths” (Alford). If interpreted as a definite prohibition of all swearing, the passage comes into conflict with Christ’s own example (Matt. xxvi. 63), and the apostle’s conduct in the passages quoted by Augustin. The meaning has been restricted to rash and frivolous oaths on the street and in the market (Keim); in daily conver- sation (Carr, Camb. Bible for Schools). In the ideal Christian community, where truth and honesty prevail, oaths will be superfluous: the simple asseverations, “Yea, nay,” will be sufficient. To this, Christ’s precept ultimately looks. But He, no doubt, had in mind the widespread profanity of His day, and the current opinion that only oaths containing the name of God were binding (Lightfoot cites from the Rabbinical books to this effect). All unnecessary appeals to God, as well as careless and profane swearing, are forbidden, as coming either from bad passions within or a want of reverence. “Prohibition would be repeal of the Mosaic law” (Plumptre). “All strengthening of the simple ‘Yea and nay’ is occasioned by the presence of sin and Satan in the world. There is no more striking proof of the existence of evil than the prevalence of the foolish, low, useless habit of swearing. It could never have arisen if men did not believe each other to be liars,” etc. (Schaff). “Men use their protestations because they are distrustful one of another. An oath is physic, which supposes disease” (M. Henry). When the oath is performed for the “sake of ethical interests, as when the civil authority demands it,” as seems to be necessary and safe for society in its present unsanctified condition, the precept does not interfere (Köstlin, art. “Oath,” Schaff-Herzog Encycl., Meyer, Wuttke, Alford, Tholuck, etc.). An interesting imitation of the Rabbinical casuistry above referred to was practised by the crafty and subtle Louis XI. Scott says (Introd. to Quentin Durward), “He admitted to one or two peculiar forms of oath the force of a binding obligation which he denied to all others, strictly preserving the secret; which mode of swearing he really accounted obligatory, as one of the most valuable of State secrets.” 61 Chapter XVII