Appendix to Psalm 15: concerning the oath.

At the end of our commentary upon Psalm 15, those things that should have been addressed, we are now added here by way of an appendix at last when, by the grace of the Lord, the whole work has been completed. Why was it not done? (I do not think that a reason should be given at all, especially when this can be mended easily enough.) In that part, it was neglected by a lack of due consideration (something that lurks in large and prolix works). In the last two verses of Psalm 15, the prophet requires, among other things, this kind of integrity from a citizen of the kingdom of God, so that he neither changes what he swore to his neighbor nor gives his money to him for usury. [Therefore,] it would be worthwhile to annotate something concerning both oath-taking and usury, especially because in our day everything is filled with oaths and because usury has grown to such an enormous extent. I know full well that those kinds of people who, up to this point, are far away from the integrity of Christian piety such that they are not even possessed by any reverence for the divine name much less motivated by an internal spirit of charity, do not have ears to hear. Indeed, lest I should abandon the duty of being a faithful admonisher, I will admonish simply and candidly what a pious person should realize and to what he should attend.

It is not necessary that I should define what an oath is. It is rather well-known and customary how it requires a declaration. It is an oath, in which, God is a witness by a citation of his name, either we testify about the truth of something, or, because it is imposed, we inviolably promise that we will guard ourselves. We are speaking not about a frivolous matter but about a legitimate oath.

The rationale for an oath is this: It is presumed that there exists in all mortals the belief that there is a divinity, to whom (1) all secret things are open, (2) trust as well as truth are most highly esteemed, and on the contrary to whom, (3) treachery, fraud, and falsehood are exceedingly displeasing. It is the pursuit of righteousness that punishes perjurers with a deserved vengeance, maintained by the public use, so that we may use the name of this divinity, the God of all, for the purpose of testifying in order to produce belief in those things whose truth we cannot render certain and resolute without some pact. We also appoint God as the avenger, if we should either swear something falsely or not render what was promised. Concerning which [point] all are convinced that it is not allowed that an abuse of God's name should go unpunished. The duty of this sort of oath-taking existed perpetually from the beginning, especially by our ancestors, not only among the Jews but also among the heathen nations. By taking an oath, those things that are doubtful and uncertain are confirmed. Also, if something arises that is disputed, it is settled by the intervention of an oath. For this reason, the apostle says in Hebrews 6[:16], "People vow by one greater than they are, and the end of every controversy is at the confirmation of oaths." There is nothing obscure about these things. Therefore, they do not need a broader disclosure, but we must advance to those things about which there is more debate, [namely] whether or not it is permitted for Christians to take an oath; second, what is an abuse of an oath; and third, concerning the dissolution of oaths.

Whether the Use of Oaths is Permitted to Christians

This question would not be necessary if the Anabaptists in our time had not thrown the consciences of many into confusion by that erroneous doctrine by which they strive to destroy absolutely every oath from the public, as if [oaths] were illicit. Thus, by the pretext of Christ's words in Matthew 5[:33-37] in which he says, "On the contrary you have heard that the ancients had said, 'you will not swear falsely, but you will pay to the Lord what you have vowed.' But I say to you, you shall not swear altogether, neither by heaven, because it is the throne of God, nor by earth because it is his footstool ... but your speech will be [such] that your yes is yes and your no is no. Furthermore, whatever is adjoined beyond these things proceeds from the evil one." From these words, they gather that, for a Christian, any kind of oath is entirely forbidden on account of this little universal expression "entirely," which they consider a prohibition that no one in any way should swear. Indeed, how poorly they understand the words of Christ and infer from them this doctrine, I will state later. Moreover, it appears that it should be shown at the present whether an oath [made] without treachery against the truth and made with the sanction of the divine name is a thing in itself evil and illicit or not. If it is evil in itself, then swearing will by all means be also illicit. If it is not evil, then neither will it be illicit, unless it is rendered evil and illicit by the circumstances of the oath. If anyone should speak evil on account of an [oath], then it is evil necessarily because by swearing he sins either against the glory of the name of God or against the love of neighbor. If indeed he does not sin by swearing in either way so that neither the love of God nor the love of neighbor is injured, I do not see how it can be said with some kind of right and firm reason that oath-taking must be evil and illicit.

Oath-Taking Is Not Against the Glory of God

First, if that rationale should be considered on account of which throughout the whole world and among all nations the employment of oath-taking has occupied, which is beyond memory, it will be evident (in my opinion) that in no way at all does it detract from the glory of God; [First,] because the truth is confirmed by the usage of his name, and also, it procures trust. Otherwise, who knows what the truth is, with no other means, either by witnesses or proof, except through the usage of the name of God can [someone] produce something worthy of trust. As a matter of fact, because God is truth itself, it cannot be [the case] that he painfully endures this custom because in [such] testimony the truth of his name is asserted. That reverence and awe does not cause dishonor to His name because, by being sworn in [the case of] an obscure and uncertain matter, it is not believed on account of the person swearing but on account of the reverence for the divine name used in the oath-taking. [That reverence and awe] felt first by those swearing and then by those to whom the oath is offered, is that God alone is the knower of secret and hidden things and the hater and avenger of all treachery. No sensible person is so insane as to think that a disgrace has been done to their own name if everywhere it should be demanded at a testimony of the truth and it alone had authority among everyone, so that by the citation of that name even by others [it] should be considered as a trust, without any contradiction from others. How plainly insane would a person be if they should not recognize that whatever use [f1130] of the oath--e.g., how levity and lies are removed--does not subtract anything from the glory of God, as it also illustrates. Thus, in Jeremiah 4[:2] we read, "And you will swear, as the Lord lives, in truth, in judgment, in righteousness, and those nations will bless and praise him." How do the nations praise the Lord through that which his people swear by his name? They praise him, that is, they render his name glorious when by swearing they have that trust, and they discern in the one swearing only his reverence and his watchfulness, so that what he swore, he should also render that very thing. Why did not the prophet simply say, "you will swear, as the Lord lives," but rather he added, "in truth, judgment, and righteousness?" Because it is also used both in the binding of oneself to God and it conveys the cause for giving glory to the name of the Lord. You shall be confident not simply, but supremely that it is good. Good, I say, in itself, if it is rightly used.

Oath-Taking Is Not Contrary to Love of One's Neighbor

The apostle's passage from Hebrews 6[:16], which we have cited above, declares sufficiently enough that the use of an oath in human affairs frequently suffices, because, through its [use], it imposes an end to controversies. Every end of controversy, he says, certainly toward the establishment of truth and peace, is the oath. As a matter of fact, to the extent that disagreements, quarrels, contentions, brawls, and other such things perturb human affairs, they also destroy the greatest good of peace from a community. Also, whoever is either the author of contentions and disagreements, or, from another direction, the one who offers the kindling to provoke disagreements and also impedes the reconciliation of those who disagree, is considered not without cause a most harmful person and an enemy of human affairs. Therefore, it is essential to determine what is that advantageous and amicable thing in human matters by whose use disagreements and contentions are removed from the community, the truth is confirmed, peace is restored, and tranquility is brought back. When those things are accomplished by the benefit of an oath, which is used piously and reverently in truth and in good faith, who is the sort of person who does not see that the advantage of an oath is so great that it cannot be withdrawn from human affairs without great detriment? Therefore, the necessity of [the oath] does not only proclaim that they are acting exceedingly foolish (lest what I should say rather sternly also be understood insufficiently) but also proclaims how much damage those who labor to subvert absolutely every use of an oath try to foist upon human association. Even if on no account does an oath concern the glory of the name of God (although this is precisely the point that God is a philanthropy), so that their attempt cannot please him in any pact, those who strive against it with as much as in them [try] to subvert the tranquility of a public good. Now because the condition of a legitimate oath is such that it is not only beneficial and necessary to human affairs but even by the singular reason that He also makes [it] clear among the nations. We irresistibly conclude that its use is not so much evil and illicit as it is proven to be both good and necessary.

An Oath Is Commanded by God

Although it may not abundantly suffice for a contentious person in adjudicating this question: If one should really inquire, as follows, into the nature and rationale of legitimate oath-taking, then it has been set forward in such a way that: [1] not only does it not contain anything evil or illicit, but [2] it also attends to the glory of the name of God, and simultaneously [3] to the most benefit and tranquility in human affairs. Nevertheless, we adduce furthermore that the use of the oath is, in addition to these things, commended in the Holy Scriptures: (1) by what has been handed down by the commandment of God to his people, (2) by the examples of the most pious persons, (3) because it is a certain part of the divine worship, and (4) because it has been predicted in the prophets' prophecies concerning the time of the New Testament that the nations converted to the faith would swear in the name of God. That the commandment to take an oath is from God, see Exodus 22[:7] where we read: "If anyone should entrust money or equipment into the care of his friend and [the money or equipment] are carried away by a thief from the recipient, if the thief is found, he will repay double. If the thief escapes unnoticed, the master of the house will come near to the gods," (that is, the magistrates and judges) "and he will swear that he did not stretch out his hand into his neighbor's things, to perpetrate a fraud. Likewise, if anyone should entrust to his neighbor any ass, bull, or mule into his care, and it should die or be debilitated, or be taken by enemies, and no one saw it, then he must take an oath in public that he did not extend his hand to his neighbor's thing. The master of the mule will accept the oath, and that one will not compel [his neighbor] to pay him back." Therefore, the use of oath-taking has been commended not only in such a way by its quality but also by the commandment of God, so that it is a fanatical person who wishes to remove it as if he destroys a reprehensible thing from the community and [also] removes it from calming human affairs.

The Oath Is Commended by the Examples of the Most Pious Fathers

Abraham, who is not only the father of many nations but also the father of believers in Christ, blamelessly used an oath, just as it is evident from Genesis 21[:22-24] where we read thus: "At the same time, Abimelech and Phicol, the leader of his army, said to Abraham, 'God is with you in everything that you do. Therefore, swear by God that you will not harm me, my posterity, and my descendants: but equally the mercy which I have done for you, you will do for me, and the lands in which you have dwelt as a foreigner.' And Abraham said, 'I will swear.'" And a little while after that: "therefore, that place was called Beersheba, because there both swore and entered into a covenant of an oath before the well" [(Gen. 21:31)]. In a similar way, in Genesis 26[:31], we read concerning Isaac, who also by furnishing an oath entered into a covenant with Abimelech. Thus also Jacob swore to his own father-in-law (Gen. 31[:44]). David, a man following after God's heart, entered a covenant with Jonathan by the interposition of an oath (1 Sam. 20[:17]) and afterward (1 Sam. 24[:21-22]) he also swore to Saul. These examples of such eminent men adequately overcome [the Anabaptists]. An oath has nothing in itself if it is rightly used that displeases God and it is suitable to a pious man who is beloved of God. Therefore, it is entirely inevitable that the Anabaptists those defamers of a holy oath--nay even more, those have been deluded in such a way that they do not see that they condemn the things with which the elect, gathered from every compass point (1) are at ease, whose piety and faith is set forth in the Scriptures for us to imitate--are the most separated from those things.

The Oath Is a Certain Part of Divine Worship

If for a brief moment those things that we have said up to this point concerning an oath are reflected upon, namely, that it pertains to [f1131] the glory of God and the advantage of our neighbor, it has been commanded by God for His people, and was in use by the holy fathers, let us proceed now to greater things. Therefore, in addition, oath-taking also has this encomium in the Scriptures because it pertains to the worship of God. In Deuteronomy 6[:13] we read: "You will fear the Lord your God, you will serve him alone, and by his name you will swear." In [Deuteronomy] 10[:20] we read similarly: "You will fear the Lord your God, and you will serve him, you will cling to him, and you will swear in his name." In these two places, not only is oath-taking commanded by God by the encouragement to offer it in the name of God, but it is also conjoined to the fear of God, to clinging to him, and to the worship of God because those things are consistent with its nature. From which cause we are readily admonished that oath-taking through the offered usucaption (2) of God's name is the spirit of fearing and worshipping God, and is inseparable from clinging to him. Moreover, what sane person does not understand that in this way fear, service, and clinging to him pertains to the worship of God, so that every observance and obligation of God, which is, as it were, the root of all of these that can be required for the sincere worship of God, is principally situated in these things? At this point, that also pertains to what is [said] in Isaiah 19[:18] when the prophet wishes to prophesy that it would happen that five cities in Egypt would swear by the Lord of hosts, and would raise in the middle of Egypt an altar to the Lord, and the inscription of the Lord close to its boundaries, which is a sign and testimony to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt where we also see that the prophet conjoins an oath made under the name of the true God to the worship of God. Moreover he was persuaded that the worship of God is the obligatory part of oath-taking: by which means those swearing were holding their hands on the altars of their gods, to whom also it is covenanted what we read in Exodus 23[:13], "All the things which I have said to you, keep, and you will not swear by the name of foreign [gods], nor will it be heard from your mouth." And Joshua 23:[7-8], "So that, after you will have entered into the nations, which will be among you, you will not swear in the name of their gods, serve them, or adore them, but rather, you will cling to the Lord your God. Therefore [that person who has done these things] has turned back from the true God to swear by those who are not gods." We plainly read what is also said in Jeremiah 5[:7] by God: "Your sons have abandoned me, swearing to those who are not gods." Additionally, what is more useful than the prophetic testimonies? Could it be that a plain argument of this matter became clear in the case that when the worship of the dead saints grew up, simultaneously they began to invoke the saints and conjoin their names to the name of God in the form of an oath?

An Oath Offered in the Faith Of God, in Truth, and in Judgment is a Certain Mark of the New Testament

So that some contentious person might not resist and say, "those things which have been said up to this point had their place in the Old Testament, but to be sure however, it is not the case in the New Testament. Therefore, it is necessary that those things which were previously mentioned about oath-taking should be proven from the New Testament Scriptures." By such subterfuge, the Anabaptists also try to escape so that they may not be compelled to raise their hands in defeat. (3) Come, let us see by what testimonies [their opinion] can be overcome [and] that the use of oath-taking, offered under the name of the one and only true God especially pertain to New Testament times. Moreover, it is my opinion that you may not poison any sincere Christian by not going to those things that are foretold in the prophetic predictions concerning the kingdom of Christ as they extend without any contradiction to the New Testament, and are most becomingly used by believers in Christ. Therefore, let us hear the prophetic predictions, concerning this case: We read in Isaiah 45[:21-23] that God says as follows: "There is not a just and saving God besides me. Turn to me and you, O ends of all the earth, will be saved because I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, a word of righteousness will proceed from my mouth, and it will not be turned back because every knee will bow, and every tongue will swear." This prediction relates to the times of the New Testament and to the kingdom of Christ the Savior. First, those words sufficiently declare that not only are the Israelites called to the knowledge and worship of God but also to all the ends of the earth [as well]. The future is also predicted, that the word progresses from the mouth of God, nor does it return void, but at every point it prospers, in order that every knee will bend to God and every tongue will swear to him. That is, in order that all nations would recognize, worship, adore, and, after they have left behind their false gods, they would swear by his name, and in that way would declare that they had converted to him. [An oath] is entirely unsuitable for anything except the kingdom of Christ and the New Testament, under which, through the preaching of the gospel all the nations of the earth are converted to the true God, which existed in the Old Testament time as aliens to the true God (Eph. 2[:11-21]). Next, the apostolic writings attest this itself (Rom. 14[:17-19], Phil. 2[:10-11]) where the prediction under consideration is adapted to the kingdom of Christ. A similar passage (locus) is considered in Isaiah 65[:16] where we read as follows: "He who will bless you in the land, he will bless you in the true God, and he who will swear, he will swear by the true God." Moreover, that whole chapter pertains to the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews. Therefore, the apostle also employed the testimony of that [fact]. So, in those prophetic and apostolic testimonies (so beautifully harmonious among themselves), [their contentious argument] is answered sufficiently clear. It is also undeniably proven that their trifling results in a fleeing retreat for the Anabaptists, who dispute the use of a legitimate oath in the Old Testament in such a way that in the New Testament [an oath] must be considered illicit. When, as it were, [an oath] is a mark of the true knowledge of God and a testimony of the divine worship, eminently pertaining to the New Testament.

God, Christ His son, and the Apostles Used an Oath

Since the obdurate Anabaptists with great impudence, do not yield to the examples of the fathers--of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which we adduced above--but attribute those things to the Old Testament, and annul the imitation of them in the time of the New Testament, let us introduce the examples of those whom without manifest impiety, they could neither include in the Old Testament times nor exclude from the New Testament times. They have confessed that it is unavoidable that the Lord is not only the Lord of the Jews but also of the Gentiles. God is not only the Lord and author of the Old Testament but also of the New Testament. Next, Christ his son, although it is granted, as Paul says, the minister of circumcision would come, yet he is the mediator and chief person (princeps) of the New Testament. Here also Paul was not [a minister] of the circumcision and of the Old Testament, but [f1132] an incomparable minister of the Gentiles of the New Testament and of the Gospel of Christ. Thus, [we will consider] the examples of God, Christ, and Paul (if any kind of mortal is appropriate for Christians when the first [two] are sufficient). Therefore, let us see whether or not the use of an oath is appropriate for God, his son Christ, or any apostle as their minister.

First, many passages (loci) in Scripture witness [to the fact] that God has sworn. In Genesis 22[:16-18], "'By myself I swear,' says the Lord, 'because you have done this thing, and you have not spared your only-begotten son, I will bless you.'" In Psalm 89[:3, 35], "I have sworn to David my servant," and "Once I have sworn in my holiness." In Psalm 95[:11], "to whom I swore in my wrath." In Psalm 110[:4], "The Lord swore and he will not repent." In Psalm 132[:11], "The Lord swore to David the truth." Many such testimonies are read in the writings of the prophets. Moreover because God swears by himself, hence it occurs that the apostle declares in Hebrews 6[:13-16], "since he does not have anyone greater by whom he may swear, he swears by himself. Indeed, people swear by him who is greater than themselves." In that passage, it is sufficiently declared that the only distinction placed between people and God is in the cause and use of the oath. It is lawful for both to use an oath, yet people do not swear by themselves but by him who is greater than themselves, that is, by God. God, indeed, does not swear by anyone greater, but rather swears by himself--not because it is illicit in itself to swear by the greater person if there could be one greater than him (but there cannot be), but because he does not have anyone greater than himself by whom he could swear. Therefore, it is not because they should turn their back on the challenge and say, "the Apostle speaks concerning people, that is the sons of this age, not concerning Christians and the elect when he says, 'People, indeed, swear by one greater.'" For the apostle does not compare people among themselves--the elect with the sons of this age--but rather, he compares people with God, and he distinguishes between those two in this one thing only, that the former swear by one greater than themselves [whereas] indeed, God swears by no one greater but by himself.

Next, if not even that is enough for contentious persons, let us examine the example of the apostle Paul. The apostle writes in 2 Corinthians 1[:23] as follows: "Moreover I call upon God as a witness against my soul that sparing you I would not, in addition, come again to Corinth." These words clearly contain an oath, for he cites God as a witness against his own soul if he is lying so that he may convince the Corinthians of the truth of those things that he says; of course, because for this reason he would not come to Corinth, in addition, so that he might spare them. Here is a most prominent use of an oath and no sensible person is so dense that he does not see that, here, Paul has manifestly and expressly used an oath. Nor does Paul fear even to summon God as a witness in other passages, and by the use of God's name, he creates trust in his words; just as it appears in Romans 1[:9], Galatians 1[:8-9], Philippians 1[:8], and 1 Thessalonians 2[:10]. Moreover, he adjures his own Timothy with the gravest supplication, saying: "I implore [you] before God and Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his coming and his kingdom, preach the word!" (2 Tim. 4[:1-3]) Who would adjure another person--and that a brother and fellow-minister (4)--to such a degree with an awe-inspiring entreaty, by what reason in a similar instance should someone recoil from offering an oath? Therefore, if you should note the [example] of the apostle to that degree (and he is a strong example of a minister of the New Testament), it is evident that the Anabaptists are exceedingly impudent when they contend that the use of an oath is not lawful for Christians.

Third, let us proceed to Christ himself, and let us see whether or not he uses an oath. As often as he said, "Amen, amen, I say to you," then just as often he swore by himself, even if he did not expressly summon the name of God. In fact, the force of the oath is not only in some expression in the name of God but also in those things that concern the glory of God; just as the truth properly relates to God, and concerns his glory. Moreover, that [expression] "Amen, amen I say to you," is nothing other than, "Truly, truly I say to you, by the truth I affirm to you." For instance, the expression Amen is supposed for the truth, just as it is familiar to whoever knows Hebrew. Paul also used that [expression] in 2 Corinthians 1[:20] when he said the promises of God are in Christ "yes" (v[alpha]i) and "amen." Therefore, to all the pious, it is taboo to use that lightly because they realize that it has the force of an oath, if they rashly use this little expression, "truly," [it is] just as if they should summon God himself as a witness. Thus, Paul in Hebrews 6[:14] introduces God as swearing by himself, saying: "[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]," that is, "truly and by no means uncertainly, blessing I shall bless you." The little expression [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], expresses the same thing in Greek as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], that is, actually. So, for this formula of swearing, the son of God the Father, who is equal in all things and also has none greater by whom he might swear, skillfully constructed his own oaths. [Christ, who is] the most suitable of all persons, even frequently swears by himself and says, "Truly, truly I say to you" from which it is evident without any contradiction not only that God the Father swore but also Christ the Son swore time after time.

Because it cannot be denied that an oath is not unlawful (because it is not evil, on the contrary it is good), it works for the glory of the name of God and the advantage of our neighbors. It has been commanded by God, and has been employed by the most pious fathers. Next, it is part of the worship of God, a mark of the New Testament foretold by the predictions of the prophets. Finally, God swore, the apostle Paul swore, and Christ himself swore. Who does not see that this is the same Christ in Matthew 5[:34] who says, "moreover, I say to you, you shall not swear altogether." This must not be understood so that in all those irresistible testimonies of the clear truth that it is opposed to God the Father, but also to [Christ] himself. It is necessary that the sense should be obtained that contains no contradiction. Likewise for the resolution of the case, is that course of action fitting that he has undertaken there? If the Anabaptists should have used caution and careful consideration here, they would have in no way at all provoked this question in the Church of Christ to throw the consciences of believers into confusion.

Concerning the sense of the words of Christ, "Moreover, I say to you, you will not swear at all." (Matt 5[:34])

This is considered by the common sense in expositing the Scriptures as exceedingly necessary rules, so that the words are not so much attended to as to the intention and way of thinking of the one speaking. (5) Otherwise, if the words are pushed without consideration of the sense in which they are said, it cannot happen but that [the interpreter] is violently mistaken. For example, in this same chapter, Christ says: "Moreover I say to you, 'Do not resist an evil person'" [(Matt. 5:39)]. If you push the words then it will be [f133] unlawful to resist evil people in any way. In this way, magistrates, ministers of the word, and the authority of parents toward children are utterly destroyed from the community, and a most unimpeded course is permitted to evil persons of whatever sorts. In another example, Luke 14[:26] says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, his wife and children, he cannot be my disciple." It is contended that the words are clear and evident, what other thing follows than that the commandment about honoring parents and [the one about] loving wives have been abrogated for Christians. Therefore, as they examine it as they love their enemies, they are also established as haters of parents, brothers, sisters, wives, and children, unless they do not wish to be Christians. Matthew 23[:2] says concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, "Whatever they should say to you, do it." Therefore, it is concluded that the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees in all things without distinction should be embraced, so that in vain Matthew 16[:6] says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," or in John 10[:8] he says: "Whoever came before me were thieves and brigands." Therefore, the prophets and John were thieves and brigands, for they came before Christ! In 1 Corinthians 9[:22] Paul says: "I have become all things to all persons." Therefore, if you push the expression generally, he has become an idolater to idolaters, and in 1 Corinthians 10[:23], "All things are lawful for me." Therefore, it was lawful for him to frequent prostitutes and to commit adultery! See how inappropriate and absurd things can be inferred from the words of Christ and the apostles, if they are simply pushed without comprehension of the sense that is intended. In a very similar manner, it plainly occurs also in this passage, when in the words of Christ, "Moreover, I say to you, you shall not swear at all," the expression "at all" is seized without a circumspect manner and [their interpretation] is deduced from that sense, to which the rest of the Scriptures taken as a whole resist, and [their interpretation] opposes not only the deeds of the fathers but also those of Christ himself and of Paul.

Therefore, just as I have also admonished on Matthew 5[:33-37], where those things are considered, it entirely follows that Christ is not speaking about legitimate oath-taking but about day-to-day swearing in a habitual and shallow manner, in which expression almost whatever we say, we affirm by swearing. That custom also had prevailed among the Jews. They used to swear rashly by heaven, by earth, by the city of Jerusalem, and each person by his own head, and because oaths of this sort were not done by some pronouncement of the name of God, they were persuaded that no one had been obligated by those things [either] to keep what he had sworn or no one had offended if he should have sworn with a spurious (falso) pact. He was exhorting that persuasion in the minds of the common people and secondarily in the minds of the Pharisees and Scribes, in which the commandment of God concerning not swearing and that [verse] in Exodus 20[:7]: "You shall not use the name of the Lord your God in vain." They were expositing it in such a way by teaching that if anyone should swear falsely, they are not sinning against the name of God, unless it has been sworn by some name of God that is peculiar and proper to him. In such a way, Rabi Shlomoh [Yitzhaki, or Rashi] wrote on this passage in Exodus. (6) The words of Christ in Matthew 23[:16-22] sufficiently declare the error of the Jews, for he says as follows: "Woe to you, you blind leaders, who say, 'Whoever should swear by the temple, it is nothing. On the other hand, whoever swears on the gold of the temple, he is obligated. O stupid and blind people! What is greater, the gold or the temple which sanctifies the gold? 'And whoever swears on the altar, it is nothing, but whoever swears on the gift which is on the altar, he is indebted.' O [you] blind people, what is greater, the gift or the altar which sanctifies the gift? Therefore whoever swears on the altar, swears on it and by all things which are upon it. And whoever should swear on the temple swears on that and on him who dwells in the temple. And whoever swears by heaven, swears on the throne of God, and by him who sits upon it." From these words, it is plainly evident how erroneous was the teaching concerning the oath that the Scribes and Pharisees had brought in, which encouraged a false persuasion of the common people. The Lord contradicts this [teaching] in another place (Matt. 5[:33-37]; 23[:16-22]). He does not destroy the authority of the law, which instructed the legitimate making of an oath, (7) nor does he condemn the examples of the most holy men who had used the oath well. Because he is not speaking about the legitimate [oath] but about the reckless and daily type that was made rashly in daily speech, thoughtlessly by an evil custom of swearing, and with a deceptive persuasion because they are not being held to keep it. They had also not sworn by the name of God, the gold of the temple, or the gift on the altar, and so in this sense Christ's words are clear. "The saying is from of old," that is, he is saying, "Thus, it has been handed down from your ancestors by the Scribes and Pharisees, 'You shall not swear falsely (peierabis)." This law was taught. Leviticus 19[:12] reads, "You will not swear falsely in my name, you will not defile the name of the Lord your God." The scribes had exposited it as follows: "If you should swear falsely by the name of the Lord God, you will be guilty, and you have defiled the name of God. If indeed you should swear falsely, but not by the name of God, then you will not be guilty. For neither have you defiled the name of God." They had added to this law that, "Moreover, you shall pay your vow to the Lord," that is, "If you vowed something by swearing to the Lord God [and] employed his name, you are obligated to pay it. But less than that, you are not obligated because you swore neither to the Lord nor by his name. Just as if someone is not obligated who swore, not to God, but to his neighbor; he swore not by the name of God, but by some creature."

Therefore, Christ makes it a topic so that he may admonish that this pharisaical teaching is below standard, "Moreover, I say to you, you shall not swear at all." In what way? Can it be that [you shall not swear] even to God? Can it be that [you shall not swear] even in a trial, in righteousness by the name of God, and in the legitimate form of an oath? Listen, he does not say, "[you shall not swear] either to God, nor by the name of God, nor in a trial." Why? Because the Jews themselves evidently used to know this, he is not guiltless who might have sworn falsely to God during a trial, who swore falsely under the name of God, and who also swore falsely to his neighbors. It was not necessary to remind them of those things, for he was not speaking about legitimate oaths but about their daily ones, by which (short of [using] the name of God), they were swearing falsely, with impunity, and without remorse for their sin. Therefore, he says in this way: "Moreover, I say to you, whatever your Scribes will have handed down, lest you should swear at all, you will not swear by heaven (because it is God's throne), not by earth (because it is his footstool), not by Jerusalem (because it is the great city of the king), and by your own head (because you cannot even make one hair of your head white or black)." See which formulas of oath-taking he strips away. He says, "Neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by Jerusalem, not by your own head." Notwithstanding, no one was using these particular formulas of oath-taking in a trial, no one was using them in covenants, no one was using them in legitimate contracts, no one was using them in the vows that they made to God. [f1134] In such matters [just mentioned], it was vowed by the use of the name of God so that what is actually evident from this is that no one was judged to be held and bound by these oaths, which Christ enumerates here. Therefore, they were not legitimate, but the usual ones used in conversation. Next, observe also the reasons that he adds, "You shall not swear," he says, "by heaven." Why? "Because it is the throne of God." "Nor by earth." Why? "Because it is God's footstool." "Nor by Jerusalem." Why? "Because it is the city of the great king." "Nor by your head." Why? "Because you cannot make one hair either black or white." That is, because it is not yours but a work of divine power (virtus).

If those oaths contained something of trust, truth, and of reverence, by which the name of God might be glorified. Just as we have shown above concerning legitimate oath-taking, those reasons might be completely unsuitable. On account of that, swearing would be by heaven, which is God's throne, where the glory of God is illustrated. Also, the rest would relate in such a way, on some account, to the glory of God. Yet [if this were the case], rather, he would have said, "Swear by heaven, which is God's throne," than "You will not swear by heaven." Therefore by this consideration it is also sufficiently evident that Christ is not speaking concerning legitimate [oaths] but about trifling, rash, and day-to-day oaths, which have been employed without trust, reverence, and truth, and, to a greater extent, with contempt for God's throne, God's footstool, and the city of God, as well as the other works of God that were made for his honor. Here and there, he does this insofar as he says, "Let your speech be that your yes is yes, and your no is no." This indicates that he is correcting their bad habit, which was in their conversation, either in affirming or denying something, they were swearing rashly. He does not say, "Let your vows, let your promises, let your judicial testimonies, and your bail-bonding, and such other things," but rather, "Let your speech be that your yes is yes and your no is no." It is also of such kind that he adds, "whatever is beyond these is from the evil one." As if he says, "It is because you are not content with these words--yes is yes and no is no--but rather you attach oaths--by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem. This occurs because your heart is vain, not furnished with any reverence and respect for God's throne, God's footstool, and the city of God, and because you do not believe anyone, unless they swear, because your speech is full of lies and falsities. If we do not understand the words of Christ in this way, what will we respond to Porphyry and Julian, if they may construct this calumny against Christ, because neither was his speech that his yes is yes and his no is no when so often he would redouble his Amen. For this reason, was that [redoubling] of it evil? Likewise, in what way, will we view the apostle, lest he wrote from an evil motive, how many times did he say, "God is my witness." or, "I invoke God as a witness against my soul?" May God forbid that either Christ or his apostle could be charged with such shallowness! Therefore, that error of the Anabaptists is exceedingly dense and senseless, in which coarse and ignorant persons are seduced by deceitful people and those entering into [their midst] who are not brethren but impostors and scoundrels; who do not serve Christ but their own passions, so that I might uncover the wickedness of these people and might run to the aid of those seduced, I have written concerning this very cause in the Germanic dialect, which was printed at Augsburg, in a dignified city with many titled persons, in the year 1533. (8) Indeed since that little book perhaps fell into the hands of a few, and it could not be understood by those who do not know German, it appears again in this place to serve the public utility, and [to address] an error not yet extinguished in the Church of Christ, according to my moderateness either to suppress them or at least to render them suspect. To the extent of this question, whether the use of oath-taking is lawful for Christians, I have spoken.

Concerning the Abuse of an Oath

These two things above all are necessarily required in asserting the case of the truth at any time. The first thing is that whatever is true in some matter should be declared and asserted. Secondly, if any abuse should arise, it should be rejected and destroyed. That is to say, it is the lot in this world of truth that, either, it will be condemned [while] being unknown by the ignorant, or, it will be hijacked by the learned into an abuse. Both have happened in this case regarding oaths. The Anabaptists, because they neither know nor endeavor to learn, obstinately condemn oaths. Carnal persons, destitute of both faith and the religion of God, what they do not condemn, they perversely usurp. Therefore, in the right order, the truth of legitimate oath-taking was first asserted, next also the abuse of it must be rebuked. After the error of the Anabaptists has been reprehended, we turn to strip away the abuse of the oath. Moreover that [abuse] is so prolific that I think it is impossible to survey and to shake out all the species of it. Nearly all the things that are done in human life swarm with oaths so that it is necessary on account of the multitude of oaths occurring in this case, which occur in loquaciousness, in which case sin cannot be avoided. On account of those who are led by reverence for the divine name, I will continuously strip away (perstringam) this part; by which the admonitions can keep their consciences intact, safe from the defiling of the name of God. For the sake of these things, we will consider how both--someone demanding an oath and someone offering an oath--abuse the obligation of an oath.

How they sin Who demand an oath

Those who demand oaths sin in a fourfold manner. First, when they set forth an oath for things trivial and of no account, or even certainly from persons of suspected faith, concerning whom it cannot be believed, because [oathtakers] are held by a particular eagerness for the truth and the obligation of the divine name. Although no one knows what is in a person except the spirit of the person that is in the person, and the heart of a person is, by itself, inscrutable; yet it cannot be excused when oaths are imposed upon such persons, who by evident proofs show how they are trivial [and] vain without any faith and without any fear of God, and altogether the sort from whom no judge (if he concerns himself with the case of offering an oath) summons even the least bit of faith, even if they swear a hundred times as requested. Whoever imposes the guaranty of making an oath upon such persons knowingly offers them an occasion to perjure themselves. (9) Therefore, that levity and indifference ([alpha][delta]I[alpha][phi]o[rho]i[alpha]) by whomever the oaths are rashly imposed also proves the levity of the judges and of the magistrates.

Next, it is sin when in a rather vain and insignificant matter without any importance a judge either for his own sake or incited by a plaintiff, imposes a guaranty of making an oath, of course by using the name of God. Here and there it [f1135] occurs because this happens in the majority of the time when the truth is investigated and known by other means, or the case of controversy can be transacted if not to a greater extent by an abridgement than would be desired by a just [and full] inquiry.

Third, it is wrong when an oath is imposed in an outstanding or impossible matter, either [of] the sort that a judge knows cannot be offered. Nor on account of this cause does he demand an oath, so that it might be kept but so that it might be kept as a convention, or the reason is held as a personal interest. Thus, they err at the present time, whoever demands, as they say, under an oath from priests and monks who have not been castrated, a vow of celibacy and chastity, when by the universal corruption of so many years--indeed of the ages--it clearly has happened that the institution of this sort is a kindling for every sort of wantonness and impurity. It is also the sort of oath-taking that is required by the supporters of bishops, so that those churches, under the titles of which they are ordered, wish to convert to faith in Christ by the preaching of the gospel. That case is not of such a kind that what those swear is possibly believed nor is this requested in earnest, on the contrary a vain and frivolous oath is knowingly and skillfully imposed, from which at last the wretches are absolved in appearance so that they may continue rather carefree in their sin. How much better I ask concerning this matter is that elector of Mainz, who falsely calls himself the Bishop of Sidon, should he have written about the imaginary sacrifice of the papist Mass, if he should decide to conduct [himself] as a good man and devoted to the truth? (10)

Fourth, they sin in the form of the oath, who conjoin the names of the saints to the name of God, for they give a reason for that sin, which Jeremiah 5[:7] blames on the sons of Israel: "Your sons," he says, "abandon me and they swear by those who are not gods." No sensible person among the papists would say that the saints are gods. Therefore, although they may swear by the saints, at any rate they swear by those who are not gods as if they were a witness conscientious of them--which is a sin that is a kind of deficiency. Chrysostom says in his second homily upon Matthew chapter 5 that whoever swears by something that is not God commits idolatry because he deifies that by which he swears. (11) Is not that an oath to deify something that attributes to it familiarity with the secrets of the heart--knowing whether something in the promises, assertions, testimonies, and vows of everyone may be true or false? Theirs is the sort of righteousness and power that it exacts punishments suitable to perjured things. If the saints can be responsible for those things, then deservedly they can be deified by the reverence of an oath. If indeed knowledge, justice, and power of all those sorts of things belong to God only, what reasonable person does not see how an oath ought not to be taken in a trial and with justice, except by God only, the knower of all secrets and the avenger of every fraud and treachery? As far as concerns this matter, this is how they repeatedly sin who impose oaths on others.

How People Sin by Taking Oaths

The sins of those who sin by swearing ought to be considered twofold. First, how those sin in daily conversation who swear without being urged to affirm something with an oath but for their own sake voluntarily [swear]. Next how also those who have been urged to swear something with an oath may sin in a trial. In their daily speech one sins by swearing, first, when something is sworn rashly and without cause, even if it is not sworn falsely. For the name of God is used in vain contrary to the third commandment of the Decalogue and errs against Christ's admonition where he says, "Moreover I say to you, you shall not swear at all, but let your speech be that your yes is yes, and your no is no" [Matt. 5:37]. The sexual union of a man and woman is good as it has been instituted by God. Certainly, if it occurs in a legitimate marriage, but it is not so if it occurs outside of marriage. It is good to sing Psalms, especially if it is sung to the Lord and with reverence, but it is not good if the Psalms are used without any reverence either at dinner parties among drinking or in the churches for profit. Likewise, an oath made under the name of God is good if it is done in a trial and reverently with the fear of God. It is not good if it is done rashly and lightly.

Next the sin is augmented when something is sworn not only lightly, rashly, and without cause, but also falsely and mendaciously. To lie by itself is evil. The evil is doubled with the accessory of an oath. It was a capital offense among the Egyptians if someone should perjure themselves "by the salvation of Pharaoh." Whoever perjures by the name of God, how could that person be considered guiltless?

Third, this sin approaches a lofty increment when a neighbor is injured by the perjury. Here are the degrees: the first degree is if a neighbor is injured in his goods, the second is if he is injured in his reputation and in the public esteem, the third if he is wounded in his body or life, the highest degree is if he is wounded in his soul and in his very salvation.

Thus, those swearing are accustomed to excuse what they do when they are caught. (1) Some say, "I do not swear out of an eagerness for evil but out of habit." This does more to accuse than to excuse them! A habit of this sort is caused not by swearing every now and then, but by the most frequent sort of oath-taking, and it is the argument of a soul destitute of the fear of God. (2) Others in a very similar manner cloak themselves with a multitude of oaths. In a multitude of sins, one magnifies a sin, one does not diminish it. Finally, it provokes the wrath of God because the sin strengthens and ripens. (3) There are those who may say, "No one is inconvenienced by my habit of oath-taking." Reflect on this: you will inconvenience no one if you deny God and serve Satan. Meanwhile you will destroy yourself. Whoever destroys his own salvation, how could he be held guiltless? Likewise, how does he injure no one if he injures God? Moreover, someone injures God gravely by rashly taking an oath and profanes his name. (4) On the contrary, it is pretended by some that they do not swear by the name of God. Those sorts do not observe the admonition of Christ in Matthew 5[:33-37] in which it is declared that the glory of God is profaned when something is sworn rashly by his creatures. (5) Others say that they do not lie by taking an oath. As if it is enough to excuse their sin if they should not lie but sin by habitual and trivial oath-taking. Therefore, a God-fearing man will most studiously take precautions so that he does not profane the name of God by swearing rashly, because if he should lose control of himself and swear, this does not excuse him but, rather, accuses him and asks that his sin be forgiven by the Lord. I know that certain republics, which were instituted a little before these years of tribulation and trial in such a way that if any of its citizens should have sinned by taking an oath with levity, he would have been lawfully punished. Now indeed, because laws of such holy discipline are broken just as if the former impunity [f1136] has been restored for whoring, adulteries, drunkenness, usury, and thus also for rash oaths, it is therefore inevitable that soon the implacable wrath of God may flare up against our Germany. God's wrath continuously increases in such a way that the nobles of the peoples will be among the first to be given their just penalties by the Lord God. Nobles who now think that they have pursued the tranquility of affairs, I do not know how, because they have thrown off the yoke of the Lord and they are guilty for not [enduring] any further dangers on account of the gospel of the kingdom of God. These nobles, preferring not to endure the wrath and indignation of men, whose breath (flatus) is in their nostrils, fall into the wrath and indignation of God, whose breath (spiritus) shakes the entire globe.

In the second place, it must be considered how they sin who swear in trials. (1) First those sin who swear for the sake of a little money, whose destruction they ought to quickly bear, who invoke the sacred name of God for the sake of such rather vain cost. (2) Next, they sin who consciously and knowingly swear falsely. This is done in two ways. First, when they assert that something is true that they know is false or when they affirm something is false that they are well aware is true. Secondly, when they promise by swearing what they do not intend to render, but they only do that, so that in their present troubles] by which they are held, they extract themselves by perjuring. (3) Third, when what they have sworn they do not render. Concerning this point is what the prophet says: "who swears to his neighbor and does not change." This kind of perjury was continually notorious among the Gentiles. The ancient Romans were gifted with such integrity that they did not want to break a trust given by an oath even to their most intense enemies. The account of Attilius is noteworthy. (12) Now, indeed, the pontifical saying is that keeping faith is not for kings and magnates (13) but for merchants. The Roman popes after they have strengthened the covenants of kings and princes by taking an oath when it seems advantageous to themselves, so many times they rend them as often as they wished and released subordinates from an oath of fidelity by their own decrees (see Gratian's Decretals, Case 15, question 6). In such a way, Pope Nicholas absolved the bishop of Trier from the bonds of an oath. (14) In such a way, Pope Zachary deposed the king of the Franks and substituted Pepin, the father of Charlemagne in place of the other and likewise all those born Franks from an oath of fidelity. (15) Moreover, how that temerity displeases the Lord, as in the reign of Zedekiah it was punished gravely when he treacherously severed his offered oath of fidelity to the king of Babylon (Ezra 17:4). Fourth, those who swear sin when they swear and use the name of God in some illicit matter cannot be rendered without sin. In the case of a minster of the word, he should promise by taking an oath that he refuses to censure the sins of a magnate or to speak against false doctrine. There are innumerable kinds of this sin. Therefore, whoever swears would offer a guaranty under the name of God should diligently foresee whether what he promises by an oath he can render without offense to God. (5) Fifth, they sin in the form of the oath who join the names of the saints to the name of God (concerning which kind of sin you recall from above). I wish to mention this concerning the abuse of oath-taking in a few words and in passing so that I may admonish pious persons for the purpose of learning in the case of oaths to take heed to themselves and to others, so that they may not consciously and knowingly sin in any way against the majesty of the divine name, being always mindful of that threat that He says in the Decalogue, "For neither will God hold him guiltless whoever has used the name of the Lord his God in vain" [Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11].

Concerning the Dissolution of Oaths

Because the Prophet says, "whoever swears to his neighbor and does not change," it is not without cause that it is asked whether there is not any reason on account of which an oath can be invalidated. Moreover this question must be inspected, not account of those who in general are held either by the least amount or not by any respect to an oath, but rather on account of those afflicted consciences who are compressed and constrained by the bonds of an oath in such a way that while they are compelled to keep the trust of the oath, they are confined to sin against God. Therefore, it must be considered concerning which cases the bond of an oath must be broken.

First, when an oath is illicit, so that in such a way that both by swearing it and by keeping it one sins inasmuch as when it is sworn to do what is contrary to the will of God. Because if a man in Israel dedicated a sacrifice to the idol Baal, either that he might pass his son through the fire or if he should dedicate to God the wages of a male prostitute (16) or of a whore--oaths of such kind were sworn illicitly and were also kept with great sin. Of such type of a great sin is it if a married man should abjure his own wife. Likewise, if someone dedicated an offering and worship to any of the saints, he sins by swearing and to that point sins more fully by keeping the oath.

Second, for the sake of keeping the oath a cause of sin is presented. Such kinds of oaths must be broken, or from this it must be proved wrong what is said in 22, question 4, "An oath is not instituted for this purpose so that it may be a bond of iniquity." (17) For example, sacrificing priests, monks, and bishops are compelled to abjure legitimate marriage for the sake of preserving their celibacy. In order that this oath may be kept, they are not hindered from prostitution (indeed they are [only] hindered from marriage, and, therefore, the bond of their oath is not broken), and a cause for the miseries of many sins is presented. Such kinds of an oath are actually made not for righteousness and purity but for unrighteousness and impurity, and so frankly it must be broken. For, with the apostle as a witness, "it is better to marry than to burn." Nor was the apostle wishing to throw a noose upon believers, but he was allowing every one into this grace, which he had accepted freely from God and not bound by any bond. The bishops ought to imitate [the apostle's] example, spirit, and doctrine if they were true bishops, and neither ought [they] to bind the consciences of the brethren to any bonds of an oath nor to retain them bound in a bond of iniquity for sinning but render them freely to God, who redeems them by his own blood from the snares of Satan. Indeed, since the Church does not have such bishops, but is subject to masters and princes, without any other counsel can the brethren be helped than that first they should know that no oath ought to prevail with that reverence that it may be a bond of iniquity and of sins? Next, according to the apostle, if they can be made free, they should try and extract themselves from that snare of Satan and flee the tyranny of the bishops, so that, while they wish to keep their offered oath, they may not wrap themselves in the gravest sins and perish. Of such kind of sin is that [account of] Jephthah, who, on account of his oath, sacrificed his very own daughter (Judges [11:30-40]). (18) Herod wickedly slaughtered John the Baptist so that he might keep what he [f1137] had sworn. Those men slaughtered these people against the will of God so that they might not perjure. You brother, who continue in harlotry lest you should loosen your vow, you yourself do not slaughter your body but what is worse, your very own soul.

Third, an illicit oath must not be kept when, for the sake of it, someone sins against the love of his neighbor. If anyone might have sworn for the murder of his neighbor, the oath must be dissolved. For an example of David, see 1 Samuel 25[:1-35]. You should learn today, whoever should swear by swearing that he would give to no one absolutely or so small an amount in return; they are once and again deceived. In this oath, they guard themselves so that they may not help the needs of their brethren. Such kinds of oaths fight with the love of neighbor and are opposed to the doctrine of Christ. Therefore, they cannot be kept without sin. Whoever spends [any] time in monasteries are bound in such a way by a bond of a monastic vow, so that they cannot expend themselves even for the duties of humanity, much less the obligations of children (so that I will pass over Christian love for parents, brothers, sisters, and other Christians), and they cannot please the Lord. Therefore, [those oaths] must be dissolved so that, because someone is a captive of human establishments, one may be free to be placed under the yoke of Christ. Thus, the apostle says, "You have been bought with a great price, do not desire to be made slaves of men" (1 Cor. 7[:23]).

Fourth, an oath or a vow does not prevail upon those who are not subject to their own right but are subject to the power of another. Therefore, because those have sworn completely without their own consent, the oath cannot lawfully be kept, even if they vowed something to the Lord God. The clearest argument for this matter is from that which is written in Numbers 30[:2-5] in this way, This is the speech that the Lord commanded: If any of the men vowed a vow to the Lord or constrained himself by an oath, he will not make void his word, but he will fulfill all that he promised. If a woman, who is in her father's house and still in the age of her maidenhood, and should vow something and constrain herself by an oath, if her father should become cognizant of the vow, which has been promised and the oath by which she obligated her own soul and he shall remain silent, she will be liable to the vow. Whatever she has promised and vowed, she will fulfill the work. If, however, when he heard it, the father should contradict it, both her vow and her oath will be void nor will she be held liable to the promise, because her father contradicted it. In a similar fashion also it is subjoined concerning wives, so that the vows and oath of wives are plainly void if, when the husbands should hear of it, he contradicts it. From this, it is clearly handed down that promises and vows of this sort which have been made by those who are not [subject] to their own right, unless the consent of those whose power they are subject is added, the oath must not be kept but must be dissolved as void. Therefore, it ought not to be supposed valid if either a son or a daughter, in contradicting their parents, binds themselves in marriage; the power of this matter belongs to the father (see 1 Cor. 7[:36-38]), which ought not to be annulled. Next, that also is plainly iniquity if a son or daughter, in resisting and contradicting their parents, casts off from themselves their father's power and enters into a monastery, and then should he be subject or not to an unknown authority of a monk so that it is absolutely impious and against the divine law, whoever the author is so that he may be hurried into trampling on the household of parents by the monastic superstition, and thus that saying of Christ is fulfilled, "you make void the commandment of God on account of your own inventions" (Matt. 15[:6]). For God said, "Honor your mother and father," and, "Whoever will curse his father or mother, let him be put to death" [Matt. 15:4]. Moreover, those teach that parents also must be trampled upon and be trod underfoot if they should stand in the way, and thus the [children] must fly away to the monastery. Who does not see how much lighter and tolerable is what the Scribes and Pharisees were doing, teaching that it might be said to parents that "the services I offer to the temple also profit you." First, they were teaching them to offer gifts to the temple of God. Next, they were admonishing them how they might satisfy parents by the explanation and meaning of the temple gifts. In so doing, the authors were indeed diminishing the help owed to parents, yet, meanwhile, they were not teaching sons that they might withdraw themselves entirely from the power of their parents nor were they commanding that parents might be trampled upon in their doors. Yet the Lord dashes them upon the broad commandment of God concerning honoring parents that they rendered void by their own inventions. I beseech you, do we think that the Lord is in this way not immutable, so that he may suspend or change his way of thinking against those authors who have sinned more gravely and immensely?

Fifth, an oath offered concerning an impossible thing does not bind. Moreover, I call a thing impossible, not only that which is in itself impossible but also that which is impossible for the one swearing and vowing. As an example, to lead an angelic life is a thing in itself quite possible, but for angels, not for humans as humans. To keep the continence of virginity even if possible for those who have received this gift from God, is nevertheless not possible for everyone. "Whoever can take hold of this, let him take it," says Christ. Therefore, if it should be impossible for him who has sworn to lead an angelic life as he has been constituted in the flesh, it is more preferable that he rescind his stupid and ill-advised promise than continue confined in a bond of an impossible thing, falling into a life no longer human but devilish. Paul did not want widows under sixty years old to be supported by the subsidy of the church and today boys and girls are compelled to keep a vow of celibacy when they are not provided with any experience insofar as whether they might have received the gift of virginal continence from the Lord. Therefore, it must be counseled to all who, on account of the impossibility of this thing, will fall apart to vices of libidinous flesh and a roving filthiness, so that recovering their senses from this stupid vow, they may flee to the counsel of the apostle who says: "On account of shunning harlotry let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7[:2]). This case, because it concerns the loosening of vows and oaths, could be treated in multiple and broad ways. Indeed, I think these things abundantly suffice for noncontentious persons.

Item 22, Question 4: Whether or not it is more tolerable to reject a stupid vow than by the prison of an unuseful promise to fulfil the measure of horrible crimes.

(1) cum quibus electi ab Oriente, Occidente, Meridie, ac Septentrione congregati: "with which the elect, gathered from the East, West, South, and North, ..."

(2) Usucaption is the legal concept of acquiring possession through long, undisturbed use. For example, for a standard definition as utilized in the Christian era of the Roman Empire and up to Musculus' time, see Corpus Iuris Civilis, Institutiones II.6.

(3) ne manus victi dare cogantur: lit. "lest they should be compelled to give the hand of the defeated." The imagery is similar to that of a wrestling match where the defeated opponent taps out.

(4) symmista (Gr. summistej) from the classical Latin of symmysta: a fellow colleague in the priesthood, a fellow priest.

(5) dicentis mens & sentential

(6) Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (1040-1105, also known as Rashi or yvr) was born in Troyes, France, and was a commentator upon the Babylonian Talmud and the biblical text (or Tanakh). His commentary was included in the second edition of the printers David Bomberg and Israel Cornelius Adelkind's Biblia Rabbinica (Venice: Bomberg, 1525). For a translation of Rashi's Psalms commentary, see Rashi's Commentary on Psalms 1-89 (Books I-III), trans. Mayer I. Gruber (Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1998), 97-98; for the Hebrew text, see the Hebrew section of the same, 26-27. See also a complete edition of the entire commentary by M. I. Gruber, Rashi's Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 18 in Brill Reference Library of Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2007), 225.

(7) de iureiurando legitime faciendo

(8) Ain frydsams unnd Christlichs Gesprech ains Evangelischen auff ainer und ains Widerteuffers auff der andern seyten so sy des Aydschwurs halben mitainander thund (Augsburg: Philip Ulhardt, 1533).

(9) This sentence as well as the marginalia refer to Gratian's Decretals, see Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Ludouici Richteri (Lipsiae: Ex Officina Bernhardi Tauchnitz, 1889), Decreti Pars Secunda, Causa XX, Quaestio V, caput v.

(10) Michael Helding was the titular Bishop of Sidon from 1538 to 1550. Helding,--together with Julius von Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, and Johann Agricola, authored the Augsburg Interim in 1548. Helding also published a series of sermons on the Mass, Von der hailigsten Messe (Ingolstadt: Alexander Weissenhorn, 1548).

(11) This is actually Chrysostom's third homily on Matthew 5 (Homily XVII, sec. 5). See Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, vol. 10 (Peabody: Hendrikson, 2004), 120. Musculus edited and translated various editions of Chrysostom's works, including Opera D. Ioannis Chrysostomi (Basel: Froben and Episcopius, 1548).

(12) The reference concerns Marcus Regulus Attilius, a consular-general in the first Punic war and his ensuing captivity and death in approximately 248-250 b.c. This is reportedly in Book 18 of Livy's Ab Urbe Condita, however, books 11-20 are lost. For a forth-century A.d. Roman account, see Eutropius, Breviarum ab urbe condite, II.xx-xxv. For an account in English see Nathaniel Hooke's The Roman History, vol. 3, 4th ed. (Dublin: Watson, 1759), 155ff. Additionally, it is noteworthy that Niccolo Machiavelli, a contemporary to Musculus, makes multiple references to this account in passing in Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Discourse upon the first ten book of T. Livy). Machiavelli's work was published posthumously in 1531..

(13) magnatus is a technical ecclesiastical term referring to archbishops, cardinals, and popes who, in this time period, are outside the jurisdiction of secular courts.

(14) Musculus is citing Corpus Iuris Canonici, Pars Secunda, Causa XV, Quaestio vi, caput 2. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) overruled the pact made between the archbishop John of Ravenna and the excommunicated archbishops Thietgaud of Trier and Gunther of Cologne. See also The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. C. G. Herbermann (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1914), XI.54.

(15) Musculus is citing Corpus Iuris Canonici, Pars Secunda, Causa XV, Quaestio 6, caput iii. The king of the Franks in question was Childeric III (Lat.--Hildericus), the last Merovingian king of the Franks who ruled from 743-752. Regarding the deposition of Childeric, see G. H. Pertzius and F. Kurze, Annales Fuldenses sive Annales Regni Francorum Orientales ab Einhardo, Ruodolfo, Meginhardo Fuldensibus Seligenstadi, Fuldae, Mogontiaci Conscripti cum Continuationibus Ratisbonensi et Althahensibus, (Hannover: Bibliopoli Hahniani, 1891), 5-6.

(16) precium canis: lit. "wages of a dog." This is a Hebrew expression from Deuteronomy 23:18.

(17) See the Corpus Iuris Canonici, Decreti Pars Secunda, Causa XXII, Quaestio iv, caput xxii. The original reads: Porro iuramentum non ob hoc fuisse institutum invenitur, ut esse vinculum iniquitatis, vel matricidi, vel fratricidi, seu cujuscunque criminis.

(18) Musculus cites this as Judges 2.