OATH (Ang.-Sax. Oh, Ger. eid), in the religious use of the word, may be defined an expressed or implied calling upon the Almighty to witness the truth of an 8Ssev era t or the good'faith of a promise; with which is ordinarily conjoined an imprecation of his vengeance, or a renunciation of his favor, in case the asseveration should be false, or the promise should be broken. This practice has prevailed, in some form or other, in almost all the religions of the ancient, as well as of the modern world. It supposes. however, a. belief of the existence of a provident Supreme Being, in order to its moral efficacy as a safeguard of truth. Among the Jews, we find instances in Gen. xiv. 22, xxi. 24. xlvii. 31, 1. 5, confirmed even by the example 'of God himself, Numb. xiv. 28, Jer. xliv. 26, Isa. lsii. 8. It was strictly forbidden to the Jews to swear by false gods (Amos viii. 14, Jer. xii. 16). The form of oath was probably variable, either a direct adjuration as "The Lord liveth," or an imprecation, "The Lord do so to me;" but in all cases, the strongest denunciations are held out against the false swearer (Exod. xx. 7, Lev. xix. 12). Oaths were employed, both judicially and extrajudicially, by the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, as well as by the Greeks, and also by the Romans. The forms were very various—one of the most solemn consisting in the act of placing the hand on the altar of the deity who was invoked as witness. In the judicial proceedings of both the last-named nations, oaths were employed, but not universally; and in examples of their extrajudicial use, the literatures of both abound. In the Christian dispensation, the solemnity of an oath is enhanced by the elevated idea of the sanctity and perfection of the deity.
The lawfulness and fitness of the practice, under circumstances of due solemnity, are commonly recognized by Christians. Some communions, of which the most remarkable are the Mo•avians and the Society of Friends, applying literally the words of Christ (Matt v. 341, regard all oaths as unlawful. But other communions generally restrict this prohibition to ordinary and private discourse, and find in Rom. i. 9, 2 Con xi. 21, Gal. 1. 20, Phil. i. 8, and 1 Thess. ii. 5, full warrant for the lawfulness of oaths in judicial and other solemn use. From some passages of the fathers, it might seem that they slimed the difficulties of the Quakers and Moravians on the subject of the lawfulness of swearing; but these fathers for the most part referred to the oaths required of Christians by the pagans. which generally involved a recognition of particular pagan divinities; and they
condemned these pagan oaths, rather as involving or even directly containing a profes sion of the popultul paganism than as unlawful in themselves. The Christians of the later ages may perhaps be said to have multiplied in an opposite degree the occasions of oaths; especially of what were called "purgatorial" oaths, in which a party charged with a crime justified himself by swearing his innocence. These oaths were commonly &ccompanied by some imprecatory form or ceremonial, and were often expected to be followed by immediate manifestations of the divine vengeance upon the perjurer. The common instrument of attestation on oath was the Bible or some portion of it; but oaths were sometimes' sworn on the relics of saints, or simply by raising the hand to neaven, or by laying it upon the breast or the head. In canonical processes, the oath was often administered to the party kneeling. The forms varied very much; the most general being that which the English oath still retains (Sic one Bees adjavet). Divines commonly require, in order to the lawfulness of an oath, three con ditions (founded upon .der. iv. 2), viz., truth, justice, and judgment—that is to say (1), that the asseveration, if the oath be assertive. shall be true, and that the promise, if the oath be promissory. shall be made and shall be kept in good faith; (2), that the thing promised shall be objectively lawful and good; (3), that the oath shall not be sworn with out clue discretion and deliberation, and without satisfactory reasons founded on neces sity, or at least on grave and manifest utility.
The Mohammedans do not employ oaths in their judicial proceedings; but they retard deliberate perjury, even when extrajudicially committed, as sinful, and deserving of God's vengeance. For this, however, they require that the oath should be an express adjuration of God himself by some one of his well-known holy names; that the jurant should be of full age and intelligence; and that the oath should be sworn deliberately, and with the intention of swearing.