the Thessalonians, that they should see that his epistle was read by all the holy brethren," 1 Thess. v. 27. How would he have dared to do this, if it had been forbidden him?

3. Further, an oath is often necessary on account of the weighty controversies, which happen between man and man, and on account of contracts, which men make one with another. How shall men believe one anothers testimony and promise, and truth and fidelity be confirmed? must it not be by an oath? therefore the text saith, "An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife." Would yea and nay suffice to believe one another without scruple? Are not "all men then liars ?" Psalm cxvi. 11. Rom. iii. 4. Or will the truth of the Mennonitish men and women satisfy us? why do they then make use of Mennonitish tricks and ambiguous expressions to deceive their neighbours? can they show us men and women of their sect, who are so true, that they never lie? and what is their affirmation by the truth of men and women, but an implicit oath, by which they engage their honour as true men, with an oath, and desire that God should expose them to shame, if they do not speak the truth?

4. How can an oath be forbidden in the New Testament, when it conduceth to the glory of God, and to the salvation of our neighbour? By an oath a person protests in a solemn manner, that God is true, allknowing, righteous and almighty, and he calls upon him as such, with a fear and dread of his wrath. The honour, the property, the life and salvation of our neighbour is at stake, if either he himself, or some other cannot deliver him by an oath; shall it then be deemed sinful? How is this to be endured?

Let none object here the words of Christ. Matt. v. 34. 37. "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for, &c. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil," which is briefly repeated by James, James v. 12. These texts do not surely favour the opinion of the Mennonites; for they make use of more than yea and nay, when they confirm their words by the truth of their men and women. Christ himself made use of more than yea and nay; for he often confirmed his words with a double verily therefore we may say more than yea and nay in matters of importance. But when he saith, Swear not at all. he opposes the false glosses of the old Pharisees, who made the law of God of no effect by their traditions. This is evident from the whole chapter; for Jesus forbids us to "break even the least of God's commandments," as 19. He teacheth that "our righteousness

:

must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees," vs. 20. They had taught that "men ought to love their neighbours, but that they might hate their enemies." vs. 43, which was contrary to the law, Prov. xxiv. 29. xxv. 21, 22. They also persuaded themselves and others, that only false oaths were forbidden, but not vain ones: yea, they thought that they might swear by the creatures, and even by mean creatures, and moreover, that they were not bound by such oaths, as the Saviour plainly shows. Matt. v. 33-37. xxiii. 16-22. Jesus as the best expositor of God's, yea, of his own law, opposes these expositions. It is true, that what is more than yea, and nay, cometh of evil; but an oath doth not therefore come of evil; for how could God himself then have sworn, and commanded oaths? Christ would not then have suffered himself to be adjured, nor the saints of the Old and New Testament have made use of oaths; but that which is more than yea and nay is a vain oath by the creatures, and a false oath; for Satan, the evil one, first swore a vain and false oath; see Gen. iii. 5. It cometh also of evil, that men cannot be believed on account of their yea and nay, but are liars, and are therefore obliged to confirm their words with an oath : See John viii. 44.

The Mennonites are so scrupulous with respect to oaths; but the Papists proceed to as great an extreme of lightness and trifling with them, when they venture to swear by the saints and by other creatures. This abomination we justly condemn with the instructor, and that our reasons for condemning it may be the more forcible, and that we may unsinew the principle arguments of our adversaries against us, we will explain the subject of this controversy somewhat more particularly. The question is not, whether we may not pledge or stake a beloved object in our oath, to confirm truth and fidelity, as Paul did "his rejoicing which he had in Christ Jesus," 1 Cor. xv. 31. We may not disapprove of this, because we submit ourselves in an oath to the divine punishment, if we swear falsely: neither is the dispute here whether we may not confirm truth, or fidelity by something, of which every one is certain, as Joseph confirmed his assertion by the life of Pharaoh, of which every one was conscious, 1 Cor. xv. 31, unless we would consider Joseph's words, as a pledging of the life of Pharaoh, which was very dear to him. See also 1 Sam. I. 26. xvii. 55. xx 3 xxv. 26. In what sense soever it be taken, we will not condemn it. Neither do we dispute with our adversaries whether we may not make a strong protestation before creatures, who are present, and can be witnesses of what we affirm; for Moses made such a protestation before "heaven and

earth," Deut. xxx. 19, and Paul "protested before the elect an gels," 1 Tim. v. 21. Or if we would consider this protestation be fore the angels, as an oath, to adjure Timothy, and oblige him to keep the commandment, then we must look upon those creatures, as instruments of God's anger against the disobedient; and so this protestation is, as it were, an urging of a person to his duty by the denunciation of a curse, as the apostle did, 1 Cor. xvi. 22. That we may appeal in this manner to the creatures in an oath we will not deny. And so the question between us and the Papists is, whether we may call upon, or pray to any creature religiously, to bear witness concerning any secret matter, and to punish us judicially, if we swear falsely. The Papists say that this is lawful, but we deny it for the most weighty reasons. For

1. We may not pray to the saints, nor to any other creatures, as we have proved on the first commandment; and besides this, swearing by the creatures is contrary to the nature of an oath, because that supposeth an allknowing, righteous and almighty supreme Judge, to whom we appeal, that he may bear witness to the truth, and punish us, if we swear falsely, as we have proved before. Now since it is certain, that no creature possesses these perfections, how can we then presume to swear by the saints, or by other creatures?

2. Swearing by the creatures is condemned, threatened and punished by God, as a grievous sin. He saith, Jer. v. 7. "How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me and sworn by them that are no gods." Hear what a dreadful judgment, the Lord threatens to inflict on "the fair virgins and young men of Israel, even that they should faint for thirst, because they swore by the sin of Samaria, and said, Thy God, O Dan, liveth, and the manner of Beersheba liveth: they should fall and not rise up again." Amos viii. 13, 14. It is recorded as an abomination, that the Jews "swore by the Lord and by Malcham," Zeph. 1. 5.

The Papists endeavour in vain to defend their idolatrous swearing with the oath of Jacob "by the fear of his father Isaac," Gen. xxxi. 53; for that oath of Jacob is opposed to the idolatrous oath of Laban, by "the god of Abraham, the god of Nahor, and the god of their father." Those gods were idols, which Abraham served before his conversion. See Joshua xxiv. 2. Therefore the fear of Isaac was the true God, who was with him, and helped him, vs. 42. as the Lord God is often called "the fear and dread" of his people, Isaiah viii. 13, the act being put for the object of the act by a metonymy, because the Lord, the object of the fear, is worthy to be feared.

The Papists object further the words of the Saviour from Matt. xxiii. 16-22. "Wo unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor, &c. Whosoever shall swear by the temple sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon." They conclude from this, that we may swear by the creatures, and particularly by those, that are dedicated to God, because they represent God. The Saviour doth not however teach this; but, among other things, that the Phar isees, by pledging and engaging the temple and altar in their oaths, as precious things, swore by God, as the Judge, that he might punish them in those things, and that they were therefore bound by such oaths. This text doth not therefore militate against our opinion, since we do not disapprove of submitting creatures, which are dear to us, to the judgment of God. Neither is this the subject of our controversy, but whether we may call on the saints and other creatures, in secret matters, to bear witness, and to be judges, in order that they may punish us, if we swear falsely and therefore this text is not applicable here.

The swearing of the Papists by the saints and other creatures is not the only mistake, which they commit with respect to oaths, but also, that they, especially the Jesuits, allow that men may make use of doublemeaning words, and mental reservations in swearing; whereby they utter a word, which may be understood in a twofold sense, in one sense, and keep the other sense to themselves: or when they utter words, which have only one simple sense, but intend some limitation of it in their own minds. For instance, we ask a Popish priest, whether he is a priest, and he, seeing that he would expose himself to danger by an honest confession, answers no, but with this reservation and tacit limitation, I am not a priest of Baal, or, I am not a priest to tell you that I am.

But the saints did not act so, for they renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, and walked not in craftiness," 2 Cor. iv. 2. They would rather suffer the most painful deaths, than rescue themselves by such miserable shifts. The citizen of Zion "doth not swear deceitfully," Psalm xxiv. 4. God condemned the conduct of his people in "not swearing in truth and righteousness," Isaiah xlviii. 1. It is also abominable: for by this mean a person deceives with an oath, which is required, in order to prevent all kinds of decei: he increases disputes, contrary to the nature of an oath, Heb. vi. 16. All truth and fidelity is thus abolished, good neighbourhood VOL. II.

2 H

is destroyed, and the Jesuits compel us to discredit their words and their oaths for ever; yea, this is such a sin, that they are ashamed of their opinion, they will conceal it, and even deny it

This filth cannot be cloked with the words of Abraham, who said that Sarah his wife was his sister, Gen. xx. 2, nor with the declaration of Samuel, who gave out that he was come to Bethlehem, in order to offer sacrifice to the Lord, when it was his intention to anoint David, 1 Sam. xvi. 1-5. But if these men sinned, must we therefore imitate them? They also spoke the truth; for Sarah was indeed the sister of Abraham, Gen. xx. 12, and Samuel did indeed go to Bethlehem, in order that he might sacrifice: but they did not utter the whole truth, which we are not always obliged to do: we may utter one truth, and suppress another. See Jer. xxxviii. 24-27.

It is not less hateful in the Papists, to teach that men are not obliged to keep their oaths with heretics, by which means these men have turned the world into a shambles. When the emperour Sigismund had promised John Hus a safe conduct, in order that he might appear without danger at the council of Constance, that ecclesiastical assembly enacted a law, that men should not be bound to keep faith with heretics, and they condemned him to be burned, contrary to the word of the emperour. But the Israelites acted differ ently from this with the Gibeonites, when they spared them on account of their plighted oath, although the Gibeonites had deceived the Israelites, and had obtained an oath from them by deceit, Joshua ix. When Saul, in his mad zeal for the children of Israel, had put them to death, the Lord revenged the slaughter many years after upon Israel, and ordered it to be revenged on the family of Saul, 2 Sam. xxi. It matters not to whom, but by whom we swear; but the Papists render themselves so detestable, that no man dares to trust them, either upon their word, or their oath.

Two questions arise here: first, whether we may require an oath from an idolater, who swears by that which is no God? It is certain that we may enter into covenants with persons, who are not of the same faith with ourselves, yea, who are idolaters, in order to maintain good neighbourhood. But inasmuch as it is dangerous to depend, in such momentous cases, upon the single word of the idolater, it becomes therefore necessary to require an oath of him. Now as he will not swear by any one but his idol, since he looks upon his idol to be a God, and thus reckons himself as much bound by such an oath as if he had sworn by the true God, there is therefore no reason why we should not require an oath of him; doth he commit a sin, it will lie at his own door: others, who earnesly de