OATH
177
OATHS
LiGUORl, Theot. mor., lib. IV, tract. II, cap. ii; Noldin, Theol.
Mar.. II (7th ed.), nn. 243 aqq.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., I C2nd
ed.), nn. 552 sqq.; Goepfert, Der Bid (Mainz, 1883); Sl.iter,
A Manual oj Moral Theology, I (New York, 1909), 240 sqq.
A. Vander Heeren. Oath, Missouri Test. See Test Oath, Missouri.
Oaths, English Post-Reformation. The English Reformation having been imposed by the Crown, it was natural that submission to the essential points of its formularies should have been exacted with some solemnity, by oath, test, or formal declaration, and that these should change with the varying moods of those who dominated in the State.
I. — Oath of Royal Supremacy. — This oath was imposed in March 1534 (26 Henry VIII, c. 1). The title "Supreme Head" had first been introduced by Henry VIII into a decree of convocation, 11 February, 1531 ; and had been strenuously resisted by the clergy. Though it did not as yet have any religious significance, and might be a matter of compliment only, it might, they feared, receive another interpretation later. But acting under the advice of Fisher, Warham, and others, whose orthodoxy is above suspicion, they sub- mitted after adding the conditional phrase, " quantum per legem Dei licet". Two years later a change had taken place, which had previously seemed inconceiv- able. The king had actually broken with the pope, and Parliament had enacted that the king should be "taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head on Earth of the church of England" by every one of his subjects. But no formula for the oath was laid down in the Act, and great differences seem to have prevailed in practice. Many long "acknowledg- ments of supremacy" are extant (Camm, "English Martyrs", I, 401) but it would seem that most people were only asked to swear to the Succession, that is to the king's marriage with Anne Boleyn, which the pope condemned, and which therefore involved the suprem- acy, though the form of the Oath of Succession pre- served in The, Lords' Journals, refers to the supremacy with insidious lightness. We do not know what was its form, when Fisher and More refused to sign it. They were ready to accept the succession of Anne Boleyn's children, but refused the supremacy (Bridg- ett, hifra 2()4-S6).
The Act of Sujiremacy was repealed by Queen Mary (1 Ph. and M. e. 8) and revived by Elizabeth (1 Eliz. c. 1). The formula then adopted ran: "I, A. B., do ut- terly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm ... as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, &c. &c. &c. So help me God." This was not to be proposed at once to every one; but was to be taken by the clergy, and by all holding office under the Crown; by others, when asked. This moderation in exacting the oath helped to prevent an outcry against it, and enabled the Gov- ernment to deal with the recalcitrant in detail. Many years elapsed, for instance, before it was imposed on the graduates of the universities. The last laws passed by Elizabeth against Catholics (1592-3) enjoined a new test for Recusants (35 Eliz. c. 2). It comprised (1) A confession of "grievous offence against God in contemning her Majesty's Government "; (2) Royal Supremacy; (3) A clause against dispensations and dissimulations, perhaps the first of its sort in oaths of this class. The success of Elizabeth's "settlement of religion", had been really due to her alliance with the party afterwards called Puritans, and they were not in love with the supremacy, or unaware that it was unpopular and tyrannical.
In order to excuse their persecutions they there- fore preferred (especially after the excommunication of the queen) to make an informal test by asking the suspected person whether he would fight against the , pope, if he sent an army to restore Catholicism. The Catholics called this the "bloody question". There XI.— 12
was no law to enfo.ce an answer, there was no specific
penalty for refusal. But those who refused to answer,
were decried as traitors; and then proceeded against to
the uttermost by other persecuting laws. Those who
in their answers showed any loyalty to the Holy See
were in the same plight, a mark for persecution till
they bent or broke. But those who answered disre-
spectfully, were treated less cruelly.
Towards the end of Ehzabeth's reign, a split began in the Catholic ranks on this subject. Some of the priests who had joined in the well-known Appeal against the archpriest Blackwell had afterwards pre- sented to EHzabeth a "Protestation of Allegiance" (Tierney-Dodd, infra, iii, Ap. 188). Declarations of loyalty there had been before in plenty: those made by the martyrs being often extraordinarily touching. But the signatories of 1603, perhaps stimulated by Cisalpine ideas, for the Protestation was drawn up in Paris, besides protesting their loyalty, went on to withhold from the pope any possible exercise of the deposing power. Before this Catholic loyalists had only denied the validity of the deposition pronounced by Pius V. Several reasons seemed to justify this Protestation, at the time it was made (see Bishop, William), though unfortunate developments fol- lowed later.
II. — Oath of Allegiance of James I (1606) also called the Oath of Obedience. After the Gunpow- der Plot (q. V.) a systematic effort was made to perse- cute Catholics at every turn from the cradle to the grave, by penalizing Catholic baptisms, marriages, burials, as well as education, acquisition of property, &c. An attempt was also made to divide and dis- grace Catholics in the matter of allegiance. It was known, from the "Protestation", that there were dif- ferences of opinion on the subject of the pope's depos- ing power, an J an oath of allegiance was drafted to make capital out of those differences (for the author- ship of the formula, see Thurston infra, and Tierney- Dodd, iv, 71). The more important clauses are the following: — "I, .*. B., do truly and sincerely acknowl- edge, &c. that our sovereign lord. King James, is law- ful and rightful King &c. and that the pope neither of himself nor by any authority of Church or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, has any power to depose the king &c., or to authorize any for- eign prince to invade him &c., or to give licence to any to bear arms, raise tumults, &c. &c. Also I do swear that notwithstanding any sentence of excommunica- tion or deprivation I will bear allegiance and true faith to his Majesty &c. &c. And I do furtlicr swear that I do from my heart abhor, destcsl , iiiid abjure, as impious and heretical thisdamnablcddi't I iiiiviTiil posi- tion, — that princes which bo cxciiiniiiiiTiicalrd liy the pope may be deposed or murdcivd li\ I licir siilijccts or by any other whatsoever. And I do hclimc Ihat the pope has no power to absolve me from this f)ath. I do swear according to the plain and common sense, and understanding of the same words &c. &c. &c." (3 James I, c. 4). This oath was proclaimed law on 22 June, 1606.
Objections. — On 22 September following the pope condemned the formula, "It cannot be taken, as it contains many things evidently contrary to faith and salvatioii." It was prudent of the pope, not to at- tempt to enumerate the objectionable points, for this would have increased the tension, and it is even now diiTicult to specify them, partly because of the ambi- guity of the terms used; iiartly lucaiisc of Die deceitful interpretation put upon tlirm li\ I lie ImihIisIi .iiilhori- ties. For James now liypomlicilly asserted lliat his oath was no! meant to encroac-li u|ion anyone's con- scientious convictions. Hereupon minimizers began to maintain tiiat tiio words of the oatii might be inter- preted by the intention of the law-giver, that the oath might therefore be takeiir But it is necessary here to advert to the Church's doctrine concerning veracity in
