lasted into the modern world, as when a few generations ago
Swedish peasants might be heard to swear, “Odin take me if
it is not true!” (Hylten-Cavallius, Wärend och Wirdarne,
i. 228). The thunder-god holds his place still in vulgar German
exclamations, such as “Donnerl” (Grimm. Deutsche Mythologie,
pp. 10, 166). The affected revival of classical deities in Italy in
the middle ages still lingers in such forms as “per Bacco!"
“cospetto di Bacco!” (by Bacchus! face of Bacchus!). In
France the concluding oath of the last paragraph dwindled into
“mordieu!” or “morbleu!” much as in England the old oaths
by God's body and wounds became converted into “oddsbodikins!”
and “zounds!” (E. B. T.)
Law.—Politicians and moralists have placed much reliance on oaths as a practical security. It has been held, as Lycurgus the orator said to the Athenians, that “an oath is the bond that keeps the state together” (Lycurg Leocr. 80; see Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws). Thus modern law-books quote from the leading case of Omichund v. Barker: “No country can subsist a twelvemonth where an oath is thought not binding; for the want of it must necessarily dissolve society.” On the other hand, wherever the belief in supernatural interference becomes weakened, and oaths are taken with solemn form but secret contempt or open ridicule, they become a serious moral scandal, as had already begun to happen in classical times. The yet more disastrous effect of the practice of swearing is the public inference that, if a man has to swear in order to be believed, he need not speak the truth when not under oath. The early Christian fathers were alive to this depreciation of ordinary truthfulness by the practice of swearing, and opposed, though unavailingly, the system of oaths which more and more pervaded public business. How in the course of the middle ages oaths were multiplied is best seen by examining a collection of formulas such as the Book of Oaths (London, 1649), which range from the coronation oath to the oaths sworn by such as valuers of cloths and the city scavengers.[1] Oaths of allegiance and other official oaths are still taken throughout Europe, but experience shows that in times of revolution they are violated with little scruple, and in the case of the United Kingdom it is doubtful whether they have any more practical value than, if so much as, simple declarations. The question of legal oaths is more difficult. On the one hand, it is admitted that they do induce witnesses, especially the ignorant and superstitious, to give evidence more truthfully than they would do on even solemn declaration. On the other hand, all who practise in courts of justice declare that a large proportion of the evidence given under oath is knowingly false, and that such perjury is perceptibly detrimental to public morals.
The oaths now administered among civilized nations are chiefly intended for maintaining governments and securing the performance of public business. In England the Coronation oath is to be administered by one of the archbishops or bishops in the presence of all the people, who, on their parts, reciprocally take the oath of allegiance to the crown. The archbishop or bishop shall say: “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dominions thereto belonging according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and customs of the same?" The king shall say: “I solemnly promise so to do.” Archbishop or bishop: “Will you to the utmost of your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?” King: “I will.” Archbishop or bishop: “Will you, to the utmost, of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship, discipline and government thereof, as by law established in England. And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England, and to the churches therein all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them?” King: “All this I promise to do.” After this the king, laying his hand upon the holy Gospels, shall say: “The things which I have here before promised I will perform and keep; so help me God,” and then shall kiss the book.
The chief officers of state take an “official” oath well and truly to serve his majesty. Special oaths are taken by privy councillors, archbishops and bishops, peers, baronets and knights, recruits and others. The old oath of allegiance, as administered (says Blackstone) upwards of 600 years, contained a promise “to be true and faithful to the king and his heirs, and truth and faith to bear of life and limb and terrene honour, and not to know or hear of any ill or damage intended him without defending him therefrom” (Blackstone, Commentaries, book i. chap. x.). In the reign of William III. it was replaced by a shorter form; and it now runs: “I . . . do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty . . . , his heirs and successors, according to law.” Statutes of Charles II. and George I. enacted that no member should vote or sit in either house of parliament without having taken the several oaths of allegiance, supremacy and abjuration. The oath of supremacy in the reign of William III. was: “I A B doe swear that I doe from my heart abhorr detest and abjure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare that no forreigne prince person prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preeminence or authoritie ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this realme. Soe,”, &c. The oath of abjuration introduced in the time of William III. recognizes the king's rights, engages the juror to support him and disclose all traitorous conspiracies against him, promises to maintain the Hanoverian Protestant succession, and expressly renounces any claim of the descendants of the late Pretender. This oath was not only taken by persons in office, but might be tendered by two justices to any person suspected of disaffection. In modern times a single parliamentary oath was substituted for the three, and this was altered to enable Roman Catholics to take it, and Jews were enabled to sit in parliament by being allowed to omit the words “on the true faith of a Christian.” In its present form the parliamentary oath consists of an oath of allegiance and a promise to maintain the succession to the crown as limited and settled in the reign of William III.
The “judicial” oath taken by judges of the court of appeal or of the High Court of Justice, and by justices of the peace, is “to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” jurors are sworn, whence indeed their name (juratores); in felonies the oath administered is: “You shall well and truly try and true deliverance make between our sovereign lord the king and the prisoner at the bar whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give according to the evidence.” In misdemeanours the form is: “Well and truly try the issue joined between our sovereign lord the king and the defendant, and a true verdict,” &c. The oath of the jurors in the Scottish criminal courts is: “You [the jury collectively] swear in the name of Almighty God and as you shall answer to God at the great day of judgment that you will truth say and no truth conceal in so far as you are to pass upon this assize." The oldest trace of this form of oath in Scotland is in Reg. maj. i. cap. 11, copied from Glanvill, which points to an origin in the Norman inquest or “recognition.” In the ancient custom of compurgation, once prevalent in Europe, the accused's oath was supported by the oaths of a number of helpers or compurgators who swore to their belief in its validity.
Witnesses in English law courts must give their evidence under the sanction of an oath, or of what is equivalent to an oath, and the ordinary form of oath adapted to Christians is: “The evidence you shall give . . . shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.” Many alterations of the English law as to oaths have been made in relief of (1) those Christians who object on conscientious grounds
- ↑ As to reform of the excessive multiplication of oaths, see Paley, Moral Philosophy, bk. iii. pt. i. ch. 16; and J. E. Tyler, Oaths.
