་

to God, because all the truth of God is to be held in the fimplicity of word and deed; but also condemneth the fuperftition of old difobedience,' &c.

Suarez, de Juram. 1. 1. c. 1, 2.

SAXLII. The next teftimony we fhall pitch upon in confirmation of our reasons, and the sense we take our Master's precept in, "Swear not at all," is afforded us out of the Apoftolical Institutions afcribed to Clemens Romanus, reported by Suarez, in his book de Juramentis. "Our Master,' faith Clemens hath commanded, that we should not swear; no, not by the True God; but that our Word should be more credible than an Oath itself.' Which is a plain indication of the apoftolical doctrine to have been the abfolute prohibition of oaths, in that fense wherein they were only reputed lawful; for if men ought not to fwear, no, not by the True God, then, confequently, by no other oath, as his following words not only imply, but exprefs, viz. That the Word of a Chriftian fhould be more credible than an Oath itfelf. Again, He that in the Law established to fwear well, and forbad falfe fwearing, commanded alfo, not to fwear at all*?

Orthodoxographia, p. 11.

XLIII. There is a tract called, "The Gofpel of "Nicodemus:" We know it is reputed fpurious, but that makes nothing against us; that difputes the Author, and not the Matter; for though Nicodemus never wrote fuch a book, certain it is that fuch a book was written, which is in favour of Chriftianity, as then received. In the place cited, Pilate is made to fay, "I adjure you by the Health of Cæfar, that these things that you fay," &c. They answered, "We have a law, not to fwear, because it is a Sin." Whoever wrote it, this benefit cometh to our argument, that the Chriftians at that time thought an Oath a Sin: for it is not to be doubted, but that he that

,,

This, if that Clemens, fhould have been firft, because he lived in Paul's time, but we were not willing to begin our teftimonies with fufpicion; howbeit it is an ancient writing, 1. 6. c. 23.

Cc 3

gave

gave
that answer, knew it to be the doctrine and prac-
tice of Chriftians; for he was therein to represent
them.

Bafilius Magnus, on Pfalm 14.

XLV. Bafil, called the Great, another champion of the like fame, and in the fame time of Valens, the Perfecuting Arian Emperor, by whom he suffered imprifonment and cruel threatnings (fee their praises in Socrates Scholafticus) on the 14th Pfalm, with us the 15th, "He that fweareth, and deceiveth not his "neighbour:" So Bafil hath it, and upon it these words:

Here he feemeth to allow an oath to a perfect man, which in the Gofpel is altogether forbidden;'"But "I fay unto you, Swear not at all."

What shall we fay then?'

So

< That every-where the Lord, as well in the Old as in the New Law, hath the fame confideration of commanding for, defiring to anticipate the effects of fins, and prevent them by diligence, and to extinguish iniquity at the first beginnings, as the old Law faith,' "Thou shalt not commit Adultery," the • Lord faith,' "Thou shalt not Luft." The old Law faith,'"Thou shalt not Kill;" the Lord, ordaining perfection,' faith, "Thou shalt not be angry." alfo in this place, the prophet indeed feemeth to affent to an Oath; but the Lord, to take away all occafion of Perjury, and willing to prevent the dangers of fwearers, takes away fwearing altogether: for he names 'an Oath, in many places, the immutable and firm Conftancy of any Thing or Purpose." "I have "fworn, and have ftedfaftly purpofed, to keep the judgments of thy righteoufnefs:" Alfo,' "The "Lord hath fworn, and will not repent." Not that • David brought the Lord for a witness of his fayings, and to get belief to his doubting; but that he con'firmed the grace of his profeffion by an immutable and firm decree: fo alfo he could have faid here, that is,'" He that fweareth, and deceiveth not his "neighbour," that it may agree with the faying of

Socrat. Eccl. Hift. lib. 4. cap. 21.

< our

1

1

our Saviour,' " Let your Word be Yea, Yea; Nay, "Nay." To things that are, thou mayeft affirm and affent; but of things that are not, although all men. t urge thee, yet thou mayeft never be drawn by any means to affirm against the nature of the Truth. is the thing not done? let there be a Denial: is it • done? let it be affirmed by Word. And he that shall not affent to him fo affirming, * Let him look to it, and feel the harm of his unbelief. It is a bafe and a very foolish thing to accufe one's felf, as one unworthy of being believed, and to betake and refer one's felf to the fecurity of an Oath. Now, there are some speeches which have the Forms of Oaths, and yet are no Oaths at all, but rather Remedies to perfuade; as Jofeph, to make the Ægyptians familiar with him, fwore by the Health of Pharaoh (nyn 'n live Pharaoh). And the apoftle, willing to fhow his love to the Corinthians, faid,' "By the glorying of you, which I have in Chrift Jefus, our Lord." "For he did not depart from the doctrine of the Gospel, who, by a thing before all most dear unto him, fimply fought belief to the truth t.'

6

Bafil refused to fwear at the Council of Chalcedon ‡. Speaking of Clineas, a Pythagorean, who might have avoided a mulct of || three talents, if he would have fworn, which he rather fuffered, faith, In keeping these things, he feems to have heard that command concerning an Oath, that is forbidden Us.' And he upbraided the Chriftians of his time with it that would fwear.

This Bafil the Great, in his 29th Canon to Amphilochius, writes thus: Because an Oath is altogether for bidden, fuch an one as is taken to an evil purpose is ⚫ much more to be condemned.'-Again, 'If an Oath, fimply as fuch, be prohibited, of greater reafon when it is to effect fome mifchievous end.-The cure con

Pray mark where Bafil layeth the blame, if a word go not for an oath. + Jofeph fwore not. Paul fwore not. ‡ Ad Nepotes. Il above 3001.

fifteth in a twofold admonition; 1. Not to fwear. 2. To fupprefs the Form of Oaths.'

Blaftaris Syntagma, Tit. E. c. 32.

XLV. There was an ancient law made to this effect, It is forbidden to all, from the bishop and clergy'men men to the readers, to take any oath at all.' Blaftaris alfo brings in this objection, But fince those are punished who fwear falfely, and those are paffed by who fwear well, fome may fay, Therefore it is permitted to fwear.' To which he answers, But where fhall we difpofe, or how fhall we difpenfe with, the evangelical precept in the Gofpel, that forbids taking any oath at all?' adding, But I believe that the Gospel endeavoured to root out that Wicked Stem (as I may fay) which is in finful men, and for that caufe prohibited an oath, which is as the door or inlet to Perjury t.'

Gregor. Nyffenus, on Cant. Orat. 13.

XLVI. Gregory Nyffenus, brother to Bafil, fpoken of by Socrates Scholafticus in the fame place, and in lib. v. cap. 9. his works are famous. In his Explanation on the Canticles, he beftows this teftimony upon us: He, who by Mofes established the beginnings of the Law, by himself fulfilled all the law and the prophets, as he faith in the evangelifts: "I came not to deftroy the Law, but fulfil it," who taking away Anger, abolifheth Killing alfo; and together with Luft, took away Adultery. He alfo cafts out of mens lives accurfed Perjuries, whilft, by the prohi'bition of an Oath, he has put in his Sith as it were to Security. For it cannot be, that any fhould break an oath, when there is no oath: therefore, faith he,' "You have heard that it was faid to them of old time, "Thou shalt not forswear, but shalt render to the Lord "thy oaths; but I fay unto you, Swear not at all, neither "by heaven, &c. but let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay,

"Nay; for whatsoever is more is of the devil." Thus do they moftly end; which shows how they understood Chrift's words.

Greg. Nazianz. in his Dialogue against Swearing, Jamb. 20.

XLVII. Gregory Nazianzen, a great man in the church, alfo fpeaketh to the fame purpose, in his Dialogue against Swearing, faying,

B. What Oath doft thou leave to us?

A. I wish I might leave none, and that there were never any more. But thou fayeft, We have heard that God himself sometimes fwore: the holy fcriptures record that but is there any thing better than God? Surely nothing is found better than he: If therefore nothing be better than he, it should follow that he never fwears.

B. Why therefore do they record that he swore?

A. When God faith any thing, that is the Oath of God.

B. And how doth he fwear by himself?

A. How! he should not at all be God, if he should lie. B. Thou speakest strangely.

A. No wonder; that is the nature of God peculiarly, that he cannot lie: there is none that can deny this.

B. But what wilt thou fay to me of the Old Covenant? Surely, it doth not prohibit an oath, but requires a true one?

A. No wonder at that time only it was prescribed in the Law concerning Murder; but now it is not lawful for any caufe, fo much as to finite or beat: then the end of an evil deed only came into judgment; but now that alfo which moveth to the end. This is my judgment: for now we have made a long progress; wherefore a wife man will abftain from oaths.

B. What then? Doft thou give to fome, as infants, a kind of first food, that they may at length receive a fucceeding kind of meat?

A. Thou judgeft right and wifely.

B. But