be a strange madness to dare, a great folly to hope the persuading
it thereby. What were more ridiculous than to swear the truth of a
demonstrable theorem? What more vain than so to assert a disputable
problem: oaths (like wagers) are in such cases no arguments, except
silliness in the users of them.

If a matter of history be started, then if a man be taken for
honest, his word will pass for attestation without further
assurance; but if his veracity or probity be doubted, his oath will
not be relied on, especially when he doth obtrude it. For it was no
less truly than acutely said by the old poet, [Greek], "The man doth
not get credit from an oath, but an oath from the man." And a
greater author, "An oath," saith St. Chrysostom, "doth not make a
man credible; but the testimony of his life, and the exactness of
his conversation, and a good repute. Many often have burst with
swearing, and persuaded no man; others only nodding have deserved
more belief than those who swore so mightily." Wherefore oaths, as
they are frivolous coming from a person of little worth or
conscience, so they are superfluous in the mouth of an honest and
worthy person; yea, as they do not increase the credit of the
former, so they may impair that of the latter.

"A good man," as Socrates did say, "should apparently so demean
himself, that his word may be deemed more credible than an oath;"
the constant tenour of his practice vouching for it, and giving it
such weight, that no asseveration can further corroborate it.

He should [Greek], "swear by his good deeds," and exhibit [Greek],
"a life deserving belief," as Clemens Alex. saith: so that no man
should desire more from him than his bare assertion; but willingly