Against the Errors of the Anabaptists, Article 7
¶ The ſeuēth Article of Swerynge.
WE be this farre agreed touchynge an oth, that it is a confirmation whiche oughte to be done onelyonly in the name of God, and in truth not in liyng, after the commaundemente of lawe, but to chiſtian men all other are forboden by the Lorde Ieſus Chriſte.
☞ The confutation.
At the fyrſte ſhewe it appeareth that there is no euyll in thys Article. We ſe at this day the worlde ſore geuen to othes, there is no good herte, whyche is not greaued to ſe the name of God thus cōtemned: by whych it is brought to paſſe that euerye othe, what ſo euer it be, is become odious. More ouer ther is a certayne apparaunce, in theſe wordes of our ſauioure Ieſus, whyche they do alledge that all othes in general are forbydden, and it appeareth true, if a man do not take good hede vntounto the cenſes. But touching the firſte parte, it is true that ſuch an enorme and diſprayſe worthye diſſolution and licence, as is nowe adayes in the worlde, in the matter of othes, ought excedyngely to diſpleaſe vsus. And it were muche better, not to ſwere at all then ſo vaynelye to ſwere for euerye cauſe, or rather wythoute cauſe. Notwithſtandynge we muſt note this, that ye meane to reprehēd & correct an abuſe, is not to mingle & cōfoūd it with the good vſe, to cōdemne indifferētly the one and the other togither. Ther is now adaies an exceſſiue pompe and ſuperfluitie amōge many in eatyng and drynking: chiefly in theyr bankets, d…onkēnes, which is a villayne & diſhoneſte vice, doeth nowe a dayes raygne in manye people. If a man for to reproue theſe abuſes would wholly condemne the vſe of wyne, and all good meates, ſhould it not be a blaſphemyng of god, ſo to vituperate and reproue the good creatures, whych he hath deſtined to our vſe. Aſmuch or more is it of an othe. The Lorde hath ordeyned it to confirme and ratifie the truth, when there is nede thereof. Suche a maner of ſwerynge turneth is hys honour double. Bycauſe that by that meanes charitie is continued among men, and the trueth, whyche he hathe in ſinguler recommendation, is maintened: & foraſmuch as it is done for the only teſtimonie of the trueth, in doynge therof men gyue vntounto hym one of the pryncipall honours whyche he requireth. And in dede, it is expreſſed in the lawe, that a true and lawful othe, is a kind of honour whiche is done vntounto hym by his people. For euen as he cōmaundeth that we ſhold inuocate & cal on him onelye, euē ſo he cōmaūdeth that we ſhould ſweare by his name. And the prophetes cryinge our againſt Idolatrye, make often mention, that menne hauehave ſworne by ſtraunge Goddes: contrarye wyſe, wyllynge to ſignifye that the ſeruyce of God ſhoulde whollye be reſtored, they ſaye that menne ſhall ſweare by hys
Thys is then the ryghte waye to treate of othes. Fyrſte of all, we muſte ſhewe that the vſe therof is double, that is, to geue teſtimonye of thynges paſt and already done, and to bynde oure ſelues to do in tyme to come that whyche maye lawefullye be required of vsus.
After thys, we muſte ſhewe, that to ſwere is to call God vntounto wytneſſe: and therefore it behoueth vsus herein to ſhew what reuerēce we beare vntounto his name. Of this it foloweth that a manne ſhoulde neuer open hys mouth to ſwere but wyth feare of God, in ſinguler honour and humilitie. Thus by thys meanes all theſe formes of blaſphes, wher the name of God and of Ieſus Chriſte is contumeliouſtre taken, ſhall be ryght well reproued. Moreouer it muſte be ſhewed, by howe manye waies the name of God is takē in vaine and fyrſte of al, deteſte al periuries and falſe atteſtations, as excreable blaſphemies: for as muche as the veritye of God, thereby is torned into leaſinge: for as much as all hys glorye thereby is ouer throwen, and therby mē woulde as it were compell hym to deny hym ſelfe. Conſequently it muſte be ſhewed what a contemnitie of God it is, to take hys ſacret name in daliaūce, as by pleaſure, or to decke oure language, or for a ſuperfluouſe fyllynge vp of oure ſpeache, or by anger, or by laughter and myrthe: and ſo muche more ſharpelye rebuke thys vyce, as we ſee it nowe a dayes roted faſte in the worlde, & that the cuſtome therof is ſo commune: on the other ſyde, wee muſte rebuke theſe ſuperſtitions by whyche the name of God is polluted, as when men do indifferentelye take the names of ſayntes and myngle them wyth it. After thys ſorte, an othe doeth not onelyonly importe, no prophanation of the name of God: but doth greatly make for hys honoure. Now when the ende is ſuche: who ſhall dare ſay that it is a viciouſe and a wicked thyng? The ſume is that the worlde be warned that God hathe nothynge in greater recommendation then the glory of hys name to mayntayne it thorowlye, and to punyſhe thoſe whyche do obſcure or leſſen it, Therefore no man ought to take hys name but in greate reuerence, onelye to make it ſerue vntounto ſuch ende that he may be glorified thereby.
But the Anabaptiſtes lyke mad bedlems, do condemne all othes wythoute exception: wythoute decernynge whether there be good or euyll in it. And by thys it appeareth, that theyr ſayinge is nothynge grounded on reaſon. Let vsus nowe come vntounto authoritie, to ſe whether they hauehave anye teſtimonie of the worde of God. They do make a great buckler of theſe wordes of oure Sauioure Ieſus Chriſte, where he forbiddeth vtterly to ſwere for out of that they do conclude, that neither for ryght nor wronge it is lawfull to ſwere. For anſwere, I do fyrſt aſke them, whether thei thinke that Ieſus Chriſt would ad any thynge vntounto the lawe of God hys father, or whether he woulde ſimplye interprete the lawe? If they do ſaye as touchyng that, that he hathe declared the perfection of the lawe: Then aſke I further, whether this perfection was neuer knowen by fore? If they ſaye no: I ſaye that it is an euident lye. Moyſes after he hadde publiſhed the lawe, doth proteſt vntounto the people, that he hathe ſhewed the waye of lyfe, and the waye of death.
☞ Moreouer reducynge altogyther ininto a ſhorte ſummarye, he ſayeth that hys doctryne doeth tende vntounto thys ende, that a manne ſhould louelove God wyth all hys herte, wyth all hys vnderſtandynge, wyth all hys ſoule and ſtrengthe. Alſo in an other place: And now Iſraell, what is that whych God requireth of the, but onelye that thou ſhouldeſte cleaue vntounto hym wyth thy whole hert? Theſe ſentences do ſufficientlye proue that the doctrine of the lawe doeth contayne a rule of well lyuynge, to leade a manne to an whole perfection. It is therfor very certaine that God hath in the law, declared his good wyll. He hath I ſaye, once for all pronunced of good and euyl, touchinge thoſe thynges whyche are pleaſing or diſpleaſinge to hym. Therefore the Lord Ieſus, alwayes whē he ſpake of the perfite life,Mathew .xx. did ſēd thoſe that he taught thither. And S Paule in the twelfthe of the Romayns doth lead vsus vntounto the ſame ende, that we might the better perceiue what is our dutye. Therefore to ſaye that Moyſes dyd but halfe teache the people of Iſrael to honoure and ſerue God: is a blaſphemye, firſt forged by the Papiſtes, and now renued by theſe pore phantaſticals, whyche take for a reuelation frome heauen, what ſo euer fabils they hauehave heard of their grādmothers
If anye do here replye agaynſte thys that Ieſus Chriſte is called the perfection of the lawe, and that it is ſayd that we be no more gouerned by childyſh doctrine, as the aunciente people were. I anſwere, that this word perfection is not mente of the doctrine: but is referred vntounto the grace of the holy ſpirite, by whyche, that whyche is contayned in the lawe, is written and imprynted in oure hertes, to the ende that the Lorde ſhoulde not onelyonly ſpeake to our eares, but alſo vntounto our wyll: and that we ſhoulde not onelye heare thoſe thynges whyche he doeth commaunde vsus but that we ſhoulde do them.
There is alſo a ſeconde reaſon, whyche is that the Lorde Ieſus him ſelfe alone hath in hys owne perſon accompliſhed al Iuſtice, & was a perfecte obſeruer of the law, that hys obedience whyche he gaue vntounto hys father, myght be imputed vntounto vsus.
Touchynge that, ſaynte Paule calleth the lawe childyſhe doctrine: that meaneth he onlye of the ceremonies and figures. And in a lyke ſence he ſaieth that the lawe coulde not brynge hyr Diſciples to perfection. For as muche as the ende, the accompliſhmente and veritie thereof, is in Ieſus Chriſte. In the reſte, as pertaynynge to the doctrine of lyfe, ſuche as it was in the begynnynge, ſuche is it euen nowe at thys preſent, alike to vsus and to the chyldren of Iſraell. For it varieth not but as the wyll and iuſtice of God is immutable, euen ſo the lawe whyche is a true and certaine declaration thereof, doeth remaine vntounto the laſte ende, ſuche as it was at the beginning, If it be graunted touchinge ſwearyng, Ieſus Chriſt hath ſimplye interpreted the commaunddement of God his father, and hath added nothinge thereunto: as we muſte neades confeſſe: then hauehave we won yt whych we requyre. For the lawe forbiddeth not to take the name of God in no cōditiō, but forbiddeth to take hys name in vayne: ſignifiynge yt ther is a lawful way to take & vſe his name the whyche he hathe alſo permitted.
Notwythſtandynge it is neceſſarye that we expounde the wordes of our ſauiour Ieſus, bycauſe that at the fyrſte ſyght, it appeareth that he woulde forbydde all othes Nowe to hauehave good and perfecte vnderſtandyng, it behoueth to knowe the occation whych moued hym thus to ſpeake. The Scribes and Phariſeis as it appeareth thorowe oute the fyfte chapter of ſaycnte Mathewe, hadde by theyr faulſe gloſes ſo corrupted the people, that menne made no conſcience to do manye thynges agaynſte the commaundementes of God: ſo that they coulde make any excuſe or coloure to couer them ſelues. So comunelye they thought it not euyll done, to ſweare in vayne and folyſhly by heauē, and by ye earthe ſo that they dyd not directlye ſweare by the name of God.
Nowe the Lorde Ieſus ſheweth that it is a folyſhe cauillation and ſophiſtry, to thinke ſo to purge them ſelues before God: ſeynge that vnderunder heauen and earth his name is indirectly compryſed. So when he forbyddeth to ſwere at all, thys worde, at all, is referred vntounto the maner of ſpeache, or to the wordes whyche men vſe, whyche maye be proued by that he addeth cōſequently, nother by heauē: for it is the throne of God: nor by the earth: for it is hys fote ſtole. Nowe the Anabaptiſtes do peruerſlye applye thys to the motif, or to the cauſe: as thoughe it were forbydden to ſwere for anye cauſe that myghte be, whyche is contrary to the minde of the Lord and contrarye to the ſence whyche hym ſelfe doeth gyue, in the proceſſe and deduction of hys wordes.
In the meane whyle they would make vsus beleue yt we do gloſe thys place, as thoughe we ſhoulde hauehave ſayed, that it is euyll done to ſweare, or by the earthe: but to ſweare by God it is permitted. Or at leaſte wyſe, they do lay this vntounto our charges before the ſimple Idiotes, whyche hauehave nothynge hearde or ſene of vsus to Iudge by. And then hauyng caſte oute thys faulſe reporte of vsus, they crye out ſaiynge. Oh blynde foles whiche do not perceiue that God is greater thē hys throne. To whom do they ſpeake thys, but to them ſelues? ſeynge that they & no body elſe, hauehave forged thys in theyr fantaſticall braynes, bycauſe it foloweth in the wordes of our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt, that no man ſhal ſweare by hys heade: bycauſe no man can make one heere whyte or blake. Beholde ſaye they, the cauſe why all othes be forbydden: is for that we canne not performe that whiche we promiſe. But I ſaye contrarye, that if Beaſtes could ſpeake, they would ſpeake more wiſelye. Fyrſte, there is a manifeſt contradiction in that whiche they babble.
For thys reaſon is ſpeciall for all othes, where wee promiſe to do a thynge to come. Therfore it foloweth yt that oth, by whiche I teſtifie of a thynge whych is already done is not euyll. Doeth it not appeare I praye you, that they are altogyther wythoute wit, to reaſon thus? we canne not performe that whyche we promiſe, therefore all othes are forbidden. The replication to this is eaſye, that there is one kind of othe, in whych ther is no queſtion to be bounde to do any thing: but onelyonly to wytnes the truth, of a dede paſt. Alſo that it is the moſt vſed othe.
Secondly the ſence is farre otherwiſe thē they do imagyn. For the Lord Ieſus proceadeth forth to ſhewe, euen as he hathe begun, that if a manne ſweare by hys heade, it is as wel to take the name of God indirectly, as it is to ſweare by heauē, or the earth, or by Ieruſalem.
☞ Therefore as he hathe ſayed that heauen is Gods throne, the earth hys fote ſtole, Hieruſalem his holy citye: euen ſo cōſequētly he declareth that a mans heade is a portiō of his ſeignory: for as much as he alone doth diſpoſe it after hys wyll.
As thoughe he woulde ſaye: who ſo euer doeth thynke that when he doeth ſweare by hys heade, he ſweareth by a thynge that doeth pertayne vntounto hym ſelfe, and that hys othe doeth not touche God, is abuſed. For God hathe alſo there his rule, in ſuche wyſe that man can do nothynge. Therfore it is all waies to take the name of God. We ſe how the Lorde hathe ſtyl continued hys purpoſe. Theſe brayneleſſe menne woulde tranſport it wyth theym for to make it leape quickelye from the cocke to the Aſſe.
The concluſion is, that our wordes ſhold be yea, yea, naye, naye: and that what ſo euer is more then that cometh of the euyll. Theſe wordes are eaſye to vnderſtand, were it not that theſe hogges do ouerthrow them wyth theyr groynes, in ſuche wyſe that they make them all confuſed.
For they ſay, yt this is as much, as if he had ſayed, that our purpoſes ſhoulde be, yea and naye, & that it is euil done to admore thē that Nowe the Lord Ieſus putteth eche of theſe wordes twyſe, to ſignifie that we oughte to be fyrme and conſtaunte in oure purpoſes.
As thoughe he woulde ſaie, do not chaunge, to retracte eueryevery tyme your wordes: and that there be no leaſynge or hypocriſye in youre purpoſes. But let your yea be yea, and youre nay nay. And in dede I Iames, beyng in wil to geue the ſame doctrine, ſpeaketh euen ſo, worde for worde. Let your yea (ſayeth he) be yea, and your naye, naye, by whiche he ſignifieth, that all fayethfull men ought to hauehave a certen truth in their wordes. Which loyalty and trueth, if it were amonge vsus, all othes ſhold be ſuperfluous. For this ſimplicitie of wordes, ſhoulde ſuffice to affirme and denye wtout ſwearyng. It muſt nedes be therefore that the trueth raigneth not, where othes be frequented. Therefore it is not wythout a cauſe, that our ſauiour ſayth that this thing doeth procede of euyl. And to ſaye troth, the cauſe whiche induceth vsus to ſweare, is for yt the whole worlde is ſo full of lying, cantels, fayninges, and falſheades, that ſcant is ther any that dare truſte his owne brother.
Thus one euyll draweth to hym an other. But in al thys, the Lorde Ieſus meaneth nothynge of lawefull othes, whyche were permitted by the law: but onelyonly doeth reprehend and correcte that vnlawefull libertye of ſwerynge, whyche the people, beyng euyll inſtructed by euyll teachers, dyd vſe: fyrſt thincking that it was none othe to take the name of God in directlie: and thā after made no matter of periuries, eſteminge alſo theſe vayne and lyghte as nothynge.
☞ Nowe that I hauehave ſufficientlye ouerthrowen all the foundations, vponupon whyche the Anabaptiſtes, goyng about to condemne all othes wythout anye diſtinction or exception, do leane: it reſteth nowe, that by good reaſons and teſtimones of the ſcriptur, I do ſhewe howe a Chriſtian maye lawefullye ſwere wythout offendyng God. Here I proteſte agayne that thynge whiche I hauehave ſaid before: that is, that I intende not to vnbridel the worlde, to induce it to abuſe the name of God, in makynge othes at pleaſure and raſhelye. I knowe that that vyce is to common: and therfore we oughte rather to ſtudye to repreſſe it, than to agmente it. I knowe alſo that it is no ſmalle faute, to take the name of God in vayne, and therfore that we ought ſo much the more to trauell by all meanes to let ſuche an euyll. But howe? To condemne that whyche is good, whan we woulde take a waye the abuſe, is no good waye to procede. Wherefore, whan I ſaye that it is lawefull in a certayne caſe for a Chriſtian to ſwhere, I woulde euerye man ſhoulde thyncke that I meane of the righte vſe, whych is ioyned wyth the feare and reuerēce of the name of God, & that no man take occaſion of my wordes to make vaine, ſuperfluous, or vicious othes. To define ye matter more playnelye: whan I ſaye that a Chriſtē man may ſwhere wythout offence, fyrſte I meane whan it behoueth to geue teſtimonye vntounto the trueth. Secondlye if the thynge do require it: the whyche conſideration oughte to hauehave reſpecte vntounto the honoure of God & louelove of our neyghboure. That is to ſay if it be expedient and profitable to ſwere, as well for Goddes honoure, as to conſerue charitie amongeſte vsus. Thirdelye that neceſſitye do require it: that is to ſaye, that it be nedefull to vſe ſuche a confirmacion. Fourthlye that the deliberacion and intent of hym that ſwereth be ſuch. Finalli that it be done in feare & reuerence wt a deſire to ſanctifie the name of god. In ſuch a caſe, and none otherwyſe, I ſaye that the vſe of ſwerynge is permmitted to Chriſten men. Yf anye bragger do abuſe it: it ſhalbe to hys condemnacion.
☞ For confirmation of my ſaying, I wyll alledge the cōmanndement of God, in which I wyl abide. That is wher he ordeyned and commaundid, that men ſhoulde ſwere by his name: whan anye lawful cauſe were. Out of thys I conclud, that to ſwer, is not a thinge ſimple, and of it ſelfe euyll. For it cannot be, that the thinge which is euil ſhoulde at anye tyme pleaſe God.
Moreouer, ſeynge it is a kynde of homage whiche the fayethfull do geue vntounto God, as it is often tyme ſhewed in the Prophetes it is to manifeſt a reſiſtaunce vntounto the truth, to ſaye that it is a vyce and ſynne. The probation is eaſye whyche is, that it is expedient manitymes that the veritie, which other wyſe is doubtfull, be confirmed: and ther is none other meanes but by othe. That which the Anabapteſtes do alledge touchynge the correction of thys commaundement is a manifeſte blaſphemye. For ſo ſhoulde it follow that Ieſus Chriſte ſhoulde retracte that, whiche was once eſtabliſhed by God hys father. Whyche, as we hauehave ſhewed, can be by no meanes tollerable. And in dead, the Apoſtle ſpeakyng of an oth, thoughe he ſpeake there of incidentlye treatynge an other matter, doeth not ſay that the vſe therof is abrogate: but calleth it the ende and deciſion of al controuerſies betwene men. I praye you whan the Apoſtel ſpekynge to Chriſten men doeth pronounce that an othe is to make an ende of al controuerſies, doeth he not ſufficiently ſignifie that it is an order approued of God, the whiche hath place in the Chriſten churche? What foliſhe boldnes is it than to be agaynſte it, and to reiecte thys remedye which is geuen vsus, as thoughe it were a damnable vyce?
☞ Wyth this doctrine, ther be alſo the exemples, as well of God, as of all hys ſeruantes. Men, ſayth ye Apoſtel in the place before alleged, do ſwere by the name of god becauſe he is aboue them: God ſwereth by hym ſelfe becauſe he hath no ſuperioure, but is aboue al. Touching God, the Anabaptiſtes do anſwhere, that he maye well ſwere, for as much as he maye well accompliſhe all that he ſayeth: and ſo is out of daunger of periurye, for as muche as he is fayethfull, and wyll kepe all that he promiſeth: but it is otherwyſe wt a mortall man: the whyche manye tymes can not performe that whiche he hath promiſed all thoughe he woulde: and therefore it is foleſhe raiſhnes for hym to ſwere, byndynge hym ſelfe to that whyche is aboue hys power. Whan they hauehave blaſted out into the eyre, thys ſolution, they thyncke they hauehave done, and that they hauehave ſtopped oure mouthes. But the replication is redye: that they cannot ſaye the lyke of all the Patriarches, Prophetes, holye kynges, and aunciente fathers whyche hauehave alſo ſworne after the inſample of God, beholde Abrahame the father of all fayethfull menne whyche hath ſworene. Beholde Iſaac, beholde Iacob, Dauyd, Ezechias, and Ioſias whyche hauehave done lykewyſe. What difference is there bewene them and vsus? Therefore it maye well apere that ther anſwer here aboue is a meere cauillacion.
☞ Yf, to auoyde thys they wyll alledge, that theſe be exemples taken out of the olde Teſtamenete: and that nowe in the Chriſten churche we hauehave a harder brydell: thoughe thys erroure be all redye refuted yet wyll we ſhewe that it helpeth theym nothynge. For we wyll brynge forth for vsus, the Apoſtles, whyche hauehave alſo vſed othes, yea, euen in theyr wrytynges when neade required. Nowe lette vsus heare theyr prety excuſe whyche they make to auoyde thys.
Saynte Peter and .S. Paul ſaie they, dyd not ſweare to promyſe anye thynge: but onelyonly to aſſure ye promyſe made by god:
Here may we clearly ſe, howe they whiche do deliberate to ſpeake agaynſte the trueth, do wrepe them ſelues in a thouſande abſurdites, and yet hauehave no ſhame of theyr impudencie. Fyrſte, in that they make ſuch an anſwer, they graunt vntounto vsus that ther be ſome lawefull othes: that is when a manne doeth wytneſſe thynges paſte. For it foloweth of theyr wordes, that then onelyonly is the oth euil, when we promiſe a thynge to come.
Are they not paſte ſhame, ſo euidently to lye, goynge aboute to perſwade that we ſee not that thynge whyche we ſe?ii. Cor. i. Saynte Paule ſweareth vntounto the Corhynthyans, that he came not vntounto them, bycauſe he would ſpare them.Rom. ix. He ſweareth vntounto the Romayns, that he woulde be contente to be caſte oute from Chriſte,ii. Cor. xii. that the Iewes myght be ſaued. To confyrme hys louelove whyche he bare vntounto the Phyllyppians, he ſware alſo. Alſo vntounto the Corhynthyans he ſwaer that hys conuerſation, was amonge them in a good conſcience. Alſo he ſweareth vntounto ye Theſſaloniās that he came not vntounto theim for couetuouſnes, or for any profytte, and calleth God to wytnes howe holylye he lyued amonge theim. Theſe phreneticalles do ſaye, that the Apoſtles dyd neuer ſwere to affirme any thynge touchyng theyr owne matter: but onelyonly whē they ſhold teſtifye the couenaunte of God. I praye you what doeth ſuche impudency deſerue? At the leaſt, are they worthye that a man ſhoulde open hys mouthe to ſpeake vntounto them?
Notwythſtandynge wee wyll open thys doubte, whyche they putte forthe, whyche is, that a man oughte not wyth an othe to promiſe any thynge, bycauſe it lyeth not in hym to perfourme it.
To thys I anſwere, that when a ſubiecte ſweareth vntounto hys Prynce, to do hys dutye, in obeyinge, and beinge fayethful vntounto him: he doeth not thys in confidence of hys owne power, or vauntyng hym ſelfe as diſpiſynge God, and ſettynge him at nought: but rather in calling vponupon the healpe of God, he anſwereth that hys wyll ſhal be ſuche as it oughte to be. Howe be it, it is a folyſhe imaginatiō to reproue othes, and yet to permitte ſymple promiſes. For if there be foliſhe raſhnes in the one, ſo is ther alſo in the other.
Therefore if it be lawefull for vsus to promyſe, they muſte ſhew a reaſon why we may not aſſertayne our promiſe, by an othe, when neceſſitie requireth vsus, That in ſuche a caſe, an othe is holy and lawefull, we hauehave many exemples in holye ſtripture: and among all thre, whych be very notable. It is ſayed in ye boke of the Cronicles, that Aſa kyng of Iuda, beinge admoniſhed by Azarias ſacrificer and Prophet, called all the people into Hieruſalem, and there cauſed them to ſweare to ſerue God for euer. As muche is wrytten of Ioſias, whē the boke of the lawe was foūd that for to renewe the couenaunte made by Moyſes, he ſware the people, makinge them promiſe to perſeuer for euer in the obedience of God The thyrde exemple is of Eſdras & Nehemias, at whoſe inſtaūce, the people beyng returned from Babilon, dyd ſweare, for euer after to followe we God and hys word. If we do wel conſider the thinge, the lyke was done at the firſte publication of the lawe.
But bycauſe I knowe that I hauehave to do with brayneles & obſtinate people, I would aledge none, but ſuche places, where is manifeſtly made mention of othes. Ye ſe then howe the whole churche of Iſraell, made ſolemne othes vntounto god, promiſing that thing whiche is mooſte hard to be kepte, that is, to cleaue fayethfullye vntounto hym. Thys is done often tymes. That the Acte is good, there is no doubte. For it hathe wytnes, and is alſo prayſed of the holy Goſt. I wyll not greatly ſtand in thys, to declare howe men may this bynde them ſelues to God, to do that which is not in theim: but onelyonly putte you in remē braunce of that thynge whyche I hauehave touched in the waye, that the fayethfull do alwayes preſuppoſe that God wyll not fayle them of hys grace whyche he hath promiſed them: and vponupon that they grounde theyr oth. But ſeyng that it is ſo, that god hath approued thys kynde of othe, and that hys churche hath often tymes vſed it by hys ordinaunce: I aſke of our dulheades, by what authority they dare reproue it? or rather wythout troublynge my ſelfe wyth them, bicauſe it is time loſte. I deſyre and exhorte all ſeruauntes of God to conſider what boldenes theſe poore ignoraunte menne hauehave, to make ſuche Magiſtrall determinations, and to go aboute to conſtrayne the worlde to receyue theim as thynges irreuorable and not to be agayne ſayde.
☞ For my parte I doubte not, but that in the matter of an othe, as in the other before, I hauehave fullye ſatiſfied all ſuche as hauehave eares and vnderſtandinge, and be in will to conſent vntounto the trueth knowne.