THERE is a Generation (sayes Solomon, Prov. 30.12.) that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their fil­thiness; a sort of men that walk after the Flesh in the lust of Ʋncleanness, and despise Go­vernment, presumptuous, self-willed, and that are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities, (or those that are set over them by God to be their Rulers and Governours) 2 Pet. 2.10. yet, being swell'd with a Tympany of Pride, are admirers of themselves, even to the con­tempt of others. I heartily wish, for their Souls sake, that this Character of St. Peter and Solomon might not justly be appropriated to some of the People cal­led [Page 2]Quakers, who refuse to Swear, and will not be tied to the discharge of their Duties by Oaths mini­stred unto them by Subordinate Magistrates, where­by they deserve to be move properly called (as they are indeed) Anabaptists; Quo genere hominum nullum aut pertinacius aut arrogantius, aut in erroribus aut figmentis feracius, so the judicious Cramerus in his third Classis of Hereticks, cap. 4. Than whom no kind of men are more per­tinacious and arrogant, and more pregnant in the propa­gating of false and erroneous Opinions; of which (a­mongst divers others) this is one, That it is not law­full to Swear in any case whatsoever: and this opinion they ground upon our Saviours Precept or Injun­ction, Matth. 5.34. The proper sense and meaning of which Precept when I have fully demonstrated, both from the occasion of his delivering it, and from the scope or intention of it; confirming my Interpretati­on by the joynt consent of the best Interpreters, also by the strength of divers weighty Reasons; it will appear to all judicious Readers, that the foresaid Tenet is both absurd, false, and frivolous; and that all their numerous Allegations or Testimonies to the contrary (which are no fewer than 207.) out of the Writings of Gentiles, Jews, and Christians, are to little or no purpose, of no validity to maintain the Qua­ker's Thesis or Position, in regard that most of them on­ly inveigh against Perjury and ordinary or common Swearing in our familiar Discourses, which was chiefly intended (as it shall be evidently proved) by our Sa­viours Prohibition, Swear not at all. Upon the rind or shell (i. e. the Letter) of which words the forena­med feed so much, and gnaw the Bone, that they [Page 3]never come at the Kernel and Marrow, or true mean­ing of them.

Before I proceed to the explication of this prohibi­tive Precept, I must take leave to commend to the view of the people that go under the name of Qua­kers, (or rather to the Pen-men of that Treatise) a Saying of a Christian Divine Philosopher; [...] Athenag. l. de Resurrectione. There was never any Truth, though ratified by the Authoritie of God's Word, which had not a Lye for its Attendant; which must not be so understood, as if Truth were the natural Parent of a Lye; but in regard of the malice and perverseness of men who did darken it with their misty Glosses, and corrupt it by their wresting of it, with false Interpretations. Thus the Scribes and Pharisees, like many in our Dayes, had learned this Art of spreading and maintaining their false Doctrine, by corrupting the Sacred Text. For, whereas God, commanding us to have in due and awful Reverence his holy Name, forbade the Jews, and in them us Christians, to take the same in vain, Exod. 20.7. i. e. to take it into our mouths idly, or to no purpose, without any warrant from Necessity, and without respect to the advance of his Glory; the Scribes or Doctors of the Law expounding [...] in vain, by [...] falsly, i. e. to back and confirm a Lye, which word we find, Levit. 19.12. Thou shalt not Swear by my name falsly; they hereby confounded two distinct Precepts. For, by the later in Leviticus is forbidden Perjury, which is the confirmation of a Lye by an Oath: by the former Precept in Exodus all vain, inconsiderate and rash Oaths, which men commonly use to confirm or ratifie the Truth in their [Page 4]private Negotiations, Contracts, Bargainings, and Discourse.

From this false Gloss of the Scribes interpreting the Third Commandment, as if only Perjury were forbid by it, and this too only in the abuse of God's Sacred Name; from this corrupt Spring issued these three perverse and depraved Doctrines, which in our Sa­viour's time were setled in the minds and hearts of the deluded Jews.

First, to Swear by the Creature, and to forswear, they affirmed to be no sin.

Secondly, they counted it no breach of the Third Commmandment, if they used in their ordinary dis­course the Name of God, so long as they did what they promised, and affirmed what was true. With the Scribes and Pharisees in this Second Opinion agree both Maldonat on Levit. 19. and Socinus with his fol­lowers.

Thirdly, from this later impure Stream or Opini­on issued another, as corrupt and unsound; it was this, That whatsoever they had bound themselves to by an Oath in the Name of God, they were obliged to do it, were the thing never so unjust and bad.

Our blessed Saviour, as it did become so wise a Teacher who came from God, as Nicodemus witnes­sed of him, Joh. 3.2. intending and endeavouring to root out of the peoples minds these Pharisaical Do­ctrines, or Principles unsound in themselves, and de­structive of an holy Life or good Manners, in his First Sermon Ad populum on the Mount, gave them all, as it were, their deaths Wound, stifled and choak'd them with one general Precept or Prohibi­tion, strengthened with Divine Authority, the Au­thority [Page 5]of his own Person, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; i.e. Swear not at all per ullam rem creatam, Beza in L [...]c. Ex proximè sequentibus quas Christus damnat for­mulis liquet, non ipsum ju [...]jurandum reprehendi. by any thing created, or which is the Workmanship of God, for by so doing you will attract to your selves the guilt of Idolatrie, by ascribing to the Creature that which is proper and essential to the Creatour, i. e. omnisciency, and omnipotency, as if it knew our hearts and secret intentions, and could punish us if we should be guilty of Perjury. With the forena­med Beza in the Margine concurrs his Compatriot, and no less Learned Calvin in his Comment on the Text, whose assertion is this, Particula omninò non ad jurandi Verbum refertur, sed ad subject as Sacramen­torum formulas, i.e. The Particle At all is to be referred not to the words which go before Swear not, but to that which follows, Neither by Heaven— nor by the Earth— neither by Hierusalem— nor by thy Head— By this our Saviour gave a check to the Scribes first Doctrine, viz. That to Swear by the Creature was no sin.

Secondly, as this Prohibition, Swear not at all, ex­cludes the Creatures, be they the holy Evangelists, Saints departed, or Angels, (whom to invocate, as in Prayer, so in Swearing, is held to be lawful by the Romanists, as it was by the Manichees:)Epiphan l. 1. c. 19. so it includes and forbids all vain and superfluous Oaths in use then among the Jews, and now too frequently used by Christians in their common and familiar Discourses. That this was likewise our blessed Saviours meaning, may be evidenced by that which follows by way of Precept after the Prohibition,Vers. 37. But let your communica­tion be Yea, Yea, and Nay, Nay, i.e. In your common talk and discourse use only a bare Affirmation of what you know to be true, and a simple Negation of what [Page 6]you are assured is false, without interposing the dread­ful and Sacred Name of God. Let your communica­tion be Yea, Quod dicis verbo dic o­pere, quod ne­gas verbo no­li confirmare facto. Ugo. Yea, &c. On which words Ʋgo thus Glosses, Let not thy actions give thy words the Lye: what thou hast affirmed or promised with thy tongue, ratifie the same by thy action: and what thou hast denied in thy words, confirm not the same by thy deeds. This Gloss is inge­nious, and might be embraced, if Christ had said on­ly, Let your Yea be Yea, &c. but these words, Let your communication— being prefixed to the Yea, Yea, im­ply and require another (and that more proper) inter­pretation, which may be this,B [...]za. Because men usually swear, that, what they affirm or deny, may be fully credited or believed; our blessed Lord therefore commands us rather to use a double Affirmation, say­ing, Yea, Yea; and a double Negation, Nay, Nay, than rashly swear by Gods holy Name: By which to swear (and that in their familiar discourses) the Jews in our Saviours time thought it (as was said before) lawful, (and so they had been taught by the Scribes) in case the thing was true which they had sworn. And for­asmuch as they deemed it not to be Perjury (or thought they were not perjured) if they had Sworn only by the Creatures and broke their Oath, misinterpreting that Text, Exod. 20.7. Thou shalt not forswear thy self, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine Oaths: Our Savi­our for these reasons (and this was the scope only, or intent of his Prohibition) said unto them, Swear not at all; Swear not by the Creature (to do this is super­stitious and idolatrous.) Swear not rashly nor lightly; this is prophane and blasphemous. Swear not falsly; this is to back a Lye with an Oath, upon which follows the guilt of Perjury. Lastly, Swear not unjustly, bind [Page 7]not your self by an Oath to do what is against the rule of Justice or Honesty; by this you make an Oath to be Iniquitatis vinculum, a bond of Iniquity, which is rather to be broken with repentance and sor­row of heart for taking of it, than kept. Such was He­rod's rash Oath to the wanton Daughter of Herodias, Mark 6.23. to give unto her whatsoever she should ask: Such was that of the Jews, who bound themselves under a Curse, saying, That they would neither eat nor drink, Act. 23.14. till they had killed Paul.

The Prohibition of Christ being thus explained, (for which I have the consent of the most and best Interpreters, both modern and ancient, whose names are so numerous, that the Margine cannot contain them) to that Explication I shall subjoyn many un­deniable and weighty Reasons, to evince and prove the falsity and absurdity of the Anabaptist's Tenet, or Thesis (which is grounded upon that general Prohibi­tion) That in any case whatsoever it is not lawful for a Christian to swear. For the disproving, and refuting of which dangerous Position (and that I may reconcile Moses to Christ, the Law to the Gospel, Deut. 6.13. 10 20. Isa. 65.16. Ierem. 12.16. many Texts in Deuteronomy, and in the Prophets, which enjoyn us to Swear by the Name of God, to the prohibitive com­mand of our Saviour) let me premise this for an un­deniable Maxime or Thesis, That the Precepts of the Gospel are not repugnant, Præcepta E­vangelii non contrariantur præceptis le­gis. Aug. or contrary to the Commands of the Law. This Position is defended and proved at large by S. Augustine in his Nineteenth Book against Faustus the Heretick, Cap. 16. What the Law com­mands, the Gospel does not forbid; and what the one forbids, the other does not allow: but both meet together in a sweet consent and harmony of Truth, [Page 8]and (as it were) kiss and embrace each other; so that the Gospel in a manner bespeaks the Law in the words of that Parasitical Servant in the Comedie to his Master, Quod ais aio, quod negas nego, what you command I commend, what you condemn I disallow: and there is no surer or better way of expounding the Law than by the Gospel, and of the Gospel than by the Law, according to that known saying of Ire­næus, l. 4. c. 63. Secundùm Scripturas expositio legitima est, & sine periculo, It is the safest course and method for the ending of Disputes, to expound Scripture by Scri­pture, one Text by another, if there be a seeming diffe­rence in the former from the later.

Now I must put this Question to a dissenting Qua­ker, to any one of the People so called, Dost thou imagine, or darest thou say, that Moses and the Pro­phets borrowed not their Light of Revelation or Doctrine from Christ the everlasting Sun of Righte­ousness (who likewise being the Eternal Word of God,Mal. 4.2. spake to them by his Spirit, and dictated to them what we find in their Writings, as Rules of our Faith and Manners?) I presume thou wilt not say it; and unless thou wilt assert, that they were not true Stars, but only slimie Meleors coloured with shews and pre­tences of Truth, and that their Doctrine is false; un­less thou assert this (which is an horrid and hainous crime, even blasphemy, but to think) and I know thou wilt not, then thou must set thy Seal to this undeni­able Truth, that in some cases it is not unlawful or sinful to use an Oath, according to that of the Pro­phet Jeremiah in his Exhortation to revolted Israel, Thou shalt swear, Ierem. 4. [...]. The Lord liveth, in Truth, in Judge­ment, and in Righteousness. i. e. When thou makest [Page 9]or takest an Oath,Iudicio caret juramentum incautum, veritate ju­ramentum mendax, Iustitia jura­mentum ini­quum & illi­citum. Aquin. thou shalt swear by the Eternal Lord of Life, who is a discerner of the mind and heart, to whom are clearly known the inward moti­ons of it, who will likewise severely punish us if we be false in our sayings, and unjust in our doings. This profession we make when we invocate him in taking of an Oath, being called to it by the Magistrate, and hereby God's name is sanctified, (it being an extra­ordinary part of God's worship) but with this proviso, That the three forenamed Cautions or Circumstances mentioned before by the Prophet do attend it. They that thus Swear by Gods Name shall be commended, Psal. 63.12. i.e. They that swear in weighty matters (when they are urged to it) either for the confirma­tion of the Truth, or to maintain their suspected In­nocency, and oblige themselves by an Oath before a Magistrate to do that which is righteous, just, honest, and good; such men sin not, neither offend against our Saviour's, or S. James his Prohibition, Swear not, chap. 5.12. by which is condemned and forbid only rash and inconsiderate, false and dishonest Swearing, approved not of by the Laws of men, and condemn­ed by the Word of God, by which the contrary is commended, Isa. 65.16. He that Sweareth in the earth shall Swear by the God of Truth.

To my former Position and Question proposed to a Scrupulous Quaker (or rather Anabaptist) I shall add another Quære, which I desire him to consider; it is this, Whether Christ's Assertion and Testimony of Himself be not true, Matth. 5.17. I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. I cannot expect, if I should talk with him, but that he would say in his proper Language, Yea. This being granted (as he dares not [Page 10]deny it) then I would reply, and tell him, That if Christ came not to destroy the Law, then he forbade not what the Law commands; and if he came to fulfil it, then he must acknowledge that Christ did that for which he came into the World (for his coming was not in vain, or fruitless) and that He (in whom dwel­leth the fulness of tine Godhead, Gal. 2.9 i.e. who is perfect God and man in one person, and in whom there is a ful­ness of Wisdom and all heavenly Grace) fulfilled the Law two manner of ways,Aquin. 12.101. Q. 2. Art opere & ore, by his Works and Words, or Divine Doctrine.

First, by his Works or Deeds, in that, to leave us an Example of a meek heart and sound obedience, he submitted himself to the Ceremonial Law, being cir­cumcis'd the Eighth day, &c. So likewise to satisfie the rigour of God's Justice, he fully performed the Moral by his Active obedience, doing what the Lord required of us to be done, thereby to bring us to Heaven; and by his Passive, suffering for our Sins to redeem us from the pains and torments of Hell.

Verum legis sensum expti­mendo. Secondly, he fulfilled the Law by his heavenly Do­ctrine; this he did by explaining the full scope, the in­tent or meaning of the Law (as in those two Cases of Murder and Adultery, Præcepta le­gis ordinando ut tutiùs ob­servaretur quod lex ve­tuer at. A­quin. Matth. 5.21, 27.) and by pre­scribing Rules for the better observing of the Laws Affirmative and Negative commands.

Thus because the Law forbids all kinds of Perjury, Thou shalt not Swear by my Name falsly, Lev. 6.5. that this Prohibition might be the better kept and obser­ved, and men secured from the danger of so great a sin (in regard that men accustomed to Swearing, ac­count Perjury but a light and frivolous thing) Christ therefore in his Sermon upon the Mount, gave to his [Page 11]Auditors or Disciples a safe and wholsom admonition, Swear not at all, i.e. never, nisi in causâ necessitatis (as the Learned Zanchy upon that Text) except in cases of Ne­cessity, Ʋbi gloria Domini vindicanda [...]t fratris ædifca­tio promovenda, when and where the glory of God is to be vindicated by a bold defence of the Truth opposed, and when our neighbours welfare may thereby be pro­moted, and either our own credit or reputation preser­ved. St. Chrysostome himself (who was a rigid enemy to Swearing (i.e. to vain and idle Oaths in mutual and pri­vate Conference) and in whose mistaken and wrested Sayings the Pen-man of the Treatise against Oaths does much The Author has stuff'd two and twenty Pages in his Treatise with Citati­ons out of that most Elo­quent Father, which are nothing to his purpose; for S. Chrysostome con­demn [...] not all kinde of Swearing. triumph) he in his Fifth Homily Ad pop. Antioch. does clearly admit of, or allow an Oath to be taken in a case of Necessity, as is evident by these words, (cited in En­glish, p. 72. of the treatise) ‘Moreover, this I say, That in the mean time we may cut off Superfluous Oaths, those I mean, which are made rashly amongst Friends and Servants without any Necessity, &c.’ Hence I inferr (having great and weighty Reasons which hereafter I shall produce, and that florid golden mouth Father's warrant for my Assertion,)Necessitas tollit ferias. Prov. Heb. That as Necessity (as we say commonly) has no Law; so to take an Oath when a man is necessi­tated or compelled to take it, is not superfluous, vain, or sinful, and no violation of Christ's Precept, or of Moses his Law, I mean the Third Commandment, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: For if every Negative Precept does include (which no man will deny) the contrary to it, which is the Af­firmative, we may then inferre, and say with Moses (who spake from God) Thou shalt fear the Lord thy Deut. 6.13. [Page 12] God, and serve him, and shalt Swear by his Name, not vainly, or to no purpose, but to justifie the Truth, or to give to thy Neighbour (who requires it) an assu­rance of thy integrity, or sincerity of thy promise; and in other cases which are warranted by an inevi­table Necessity. Thus if any one should accuse thee of perfidiousness or slander, as having with the black tooth of Calumny wounded his reputation, or de­frauded him of his goods; If thou, to purge thy self from this foul aspersion, shalt deny the fact by a simple and bare protestation of thy innocency, and he still suspecting thee to the contrary shall require an Oath of thee, to confirm his belief of what thou deniest; in such a case, to vindicate thy credit, and to work out of his mind that injurious suspicion, thou mayest use a solemn Attestation, by invocating or calling God to witness the Truth of thy Assertion. And that in such or the like case (to settle in another a perswasion of our Integrity) an Oath between private persons is no sin; we have the examples of God's Saints in the holy Scriptures to warrant it,Gen. 21.23, 24. as that of Abraham, who be­ing urged to it by Abimelech King of Gerar, did Swear unto him that he would not deal falsly with him, &c. The like promissory Oath passed between Jacob and Laban, Gen. 31.53. and from Boaz to Ruth, Chap. 3.13. Let me annex to these Examples the testimony of Saint Augustine: Aug. l. 10. de Serm Dom c. 30. When Christ (sayes he) enjoyned us to use in our common discourse, by way of Affirmation and Negation, Yea, Yea, Nay, Nay, He said not that whatsoever is more than this is evil or sin, but proceeds from evil, i.e. from some bad principle, from the evil of in­firmity in him, who requires an Oath, and that is his incredulity, suspecting the Truth of the others Narra­tion [Page 13]or Report, or his want of Charity, entertaining in his breast a bad opinion of his Brother, and perhaps undeservedly; Tu enim non malè facis qui benè uteris juratione, &c. For thou doest not ill who usest an Oath well (i. e. to a good end) that thou mayest beget in another a firm belief of the Truth, and of thy sincerity: He rather doeth ill whose diffidence or distrust enforces thee to use an Oath; his sin shall not be imputed to thee.

For the farther ratification of my former Position concerning an Oath's legality, in case of an undeniable and inevitable Necessity, I shall propound one Quære more to W. P. the Quakers Oracle or Antesignanus of the Anabaptists, it is this; Suppose a knot of Thieves should assault thee in thy journey, and, having by force and violence robbed thee of thy money, should urge thee to Swear that thou wilt not betray nor pro­secute them by raising the Country to a pursuit of them, in the mean time affrighting thee with execra­ble dreadful Oaths, that unless thou secure them by a solemn Oath, they will kill thee; tell me, W.P. wouldst thou in this case rather lose thy life than Swear, to which by blasphemous threats they urge thee? I ve­rily believe, that, as thou hast a plentiful Estate, thou wouldst not easily part with it, and thy life at once, by fondly bogling at an innocent Oath: This perswa­sion I have of thee, because, as thou professest thy self, with the rest of thy Gang, to be men of Truth, and tran­scendent Sanctity, so I conceive that thou hast not wholly forfeited thy Reason, but by that sparkling Light which still remains in it, thou (being cast into these streights) wil'st consider, First, that it thou re­fusest to Swear, thou shalt run upon the rock of a dan­gerous guilt, which is the breach of the Sixth Com­mandment, [Page 14]by which the use of all lawful means for the preservation of our lives is commanded; and if we may preserve them and will not by such means, we are self-murderers. Now Swearing is not absolutely forbid neither by Christ nor his Apostles. Secondly, Thou surely wouldst consider, that by thy refusing to Swear, thou shouldst be the occasion, or rather the partial cause of the loss of thy Brother's Soul (a Thief by the bond of Nature is thy Brother) he being made guilty of Murther by shedding thy blood, which might be kept in thy veins by thy taking of that harm­less Oath, the which being once taken, must be religi­ously kept, for that he that is robbed is bound to be si­lent, and not to betray a Thief, having Sworn not to do it; so the late most Pious and Learned Bishop of Norwich determines the Case,Cas. Consc. Resol. Dec. 1. c. 8. and annexes this saying to his determination, (to deterre all men from Per­jury, or breaking their Oaths) When once we have in­teressed God in any business, it is dangerous not to be punctual in the performance. With him concurres in the same opinion the profound Doctor Sanderson in his Fifth Lecture and Seventeenth Section,Lib. de ju­ram. obligat. where he disputes the case against Baldwin, once Professor of Divinity at Wittenberg, and having answered his three Arguments alledged to the contrary, concludes, That as it is not unlawful for one to Swear to a Thief (supposing that if he did not, he should cer­tainly be murder'd) so there lies a necessity upon him of keeping that Oath not to discover him to the Ma­gistrate, Si licuit jurare, licebit & juramentum observa­re, they are his very words, pag. 132. So are not those cited out of his 141. page by the falsifying Penner of the Treatise; I must therefore be bold to tell that con­ceited [Page 15]man of Truth that he is guilty of Forgery, I might rather say in plainer and more express terms, of a Lye, to which the Thirteen Abettors of the Trea­tise have subscribed, as they have to many more com­prehended in that Treatise, (as shall hereafter be evi­denced.) The Author (or rather Authors of it, for no doubt many hands and Jesuited cunning Heads con­curr'd to the composing of it) having asserted every Oath to be vain and unlawful, Pag. 20. (under which notion the Oath of Supremacy. and Allegiance must needs fall in his opinion) gives this reason of his Assertion, For Christ's Prohibition, Swear not at all, was not a meer Repetition of what was forbidden under the Law, but what the Law allowed, as Bishop Sanderson well observeth, in these words,There is not one Syllable to this pur­pose in that Page 141. of the Book Prin­ted 1647. ‘It was not needful that Christ should forbid what was forbidden in it self, or was alwayes unlawful, which vain Swearing was and is by the Third Command­ment, Thou shalt not take, &c. Therefore Christ ex­ceeded the Prohibition of the Law, i.e. condemned all kind of Swearing.’ This fallacious way of arguing, by making Authors speak what they never said nor in­tended, and by drawing conclusions from premises misinterpreted, has a great smack and tang of the Je­suite. But to the whole I answer thus partim, in par­ticular; first I deny the truth of the Assertion, Every Oath, &c. and the Reason he give for it I affirm to be invalid and false, For Christ's Prohibition, &c. In op­position to the Reason, First, I shall lay down this Thesis or Position, That Christ by his Precept or pro­hibitive Command repeated (and that he usually did) what was forbid by the Law, such is vain Swear­ing, and Swearing by any thing but by the Name of God in weighty causes, and in cases of Necessity when [Page 16]we are commanded by the Authority of the Ma­gistrate. Secondly, I affirm that it was needful and very expedient Christ should do it (as it was for Saint Paul to write the same things to the Philippians, chap. 3.1.) and that, First, by reason of the perverseness, dul­ness, stupidity, and forgetfulness of mans nature, which needs Line upon Line, Isa. 28.13. Precept upon Precept, that is, to have the same Commands and Prohibitions oft repeated, and inculcated. Secondly, it was needful and very convenient, that thereby he might shew that there was an amicable harmony or agreement between the Gospel and the Law, so that what was enjoyned and commanded by the former, is not forbid and con­demned by the later. Thirdly, it was needful that so he might gain an higher estimate to the Law of Moses, by not contradicting or gainsaying of its Precepts, but ratifying the same by his Commands, he being greater than Moses, who received those lively Oracles from his mouth on the Mount. And, Fourthly, he might do it (i.e. repeat the same Commands which were deli­vered by Moses) to refute and give a check to those blasphemous conceits (which he foresaw would spring up in the Church in after Ages) or to those gross opi­nions of the Manichees and of their followers, who maintained that there were two Deities, the one Au­thor of the Old Law, the other of the New, which are at large confuted by the Malleus Hæreticorum, Tom 6: Saint Austin in his Tractates against Faustus the Manichean, and his Abettors, Adimantus, Fortunatus, Secundinus, and others.

From all that has been said, and for these four Rea­sons I inferre, that the forenamed Author is guilty of no less a sin than Blasphemy by asserting,Pag. 20. That Christ [Page 17]forbade what the Law allowed, and in the room of such Oaths and Vows as were to be performed unto the Lord, he introduced Yea and Nay with a most absolute Swear not at all. What is this but to make our Blessed Sa­viour (who spake by the Prophets) to contradict him­self, by commanding one thing in the Law, and an­other thing in the Gospel, or by forbidding what he had commanded; as if he (who is unchangeable, and whose Precepts as well as his Promises are Yea and A­men, 1 Cor. 1.20. i. e. immutable) had upon better thoughts alter­ed his mind or judgement? To think this, much more to say it, is blasphemous. The Author of the Trea­tise does in effect say as much, by affirming that all Oaths, in their full compass and latitude, are by Christ's Swear not at all prohibited: witness his bold Protestation, which he makes in his own, and in the name of all his Brethren,Pag. 155. We profess our selves in the Fear of Almighty God, to be such, as have thus learned Je­sus Christ, and for the Reverence we bear to his righte­ous Commandment, we can't take an Oath in any Case. He should have said, we will not take God's Name in vain; for this in part is the sense and meaning of Christ's command, Swear not at all.

If the Treatist (with his Confederates) bears such a Reverence to God's Commandments, why then does he (or how dares he) so audaciously and openly trans­gress against Three of them at once? I mean the Fifth, Sixth, and the Ninth, Honour thy Father, &c. Thou shalt do no Murder. Thou shalt not bear false witness a­gainst thy Neighbour. This he has done by wounding the reputation of a most righteous and Learned Pre­late the late Lord Bishop of Lincolne, a renown'd Fa­ther of the Church, now a glorious Saint in Heaven; [Page 18]and by belying him, and that by attesting he wrote that which he never did (for that I cannot find any such thing or words in his most elaborate Work De juramenti Obligatione) and is diametrically opposite, or contrary to his known opinion, and the whole frame of his Book. The words which the Father of Lyes put into the Treatist's mouth, and from thence dropt into his erring Pen, are these, Christ exceeded the Prohibition of the Law, i. e. condemned all kind of Swearing. Can any believe that so wise, so godly, and acute person did ever say or write this, and there­by contradict himself; who, for the preventing of Perjury, has prescribed in that golden Book many ex­cellent Rules for the right taking of an Oath, whether it be Assertory or Promissory, and defines an Oath thus, Est actus religiosus in quo ad confirmandam rem dubiam Deus testis invocatur, Pag. 4. A religious act in which (or by which) for the confirmation of a thing in doubt (or called into question, it being uncertain) God is invocated (or called upon) to be a witness.

That it is a religious Act he proves, First, by the Authority of the Scriptures,From hence the School­men aver that it is Actu [...]la­t [...]æ, or of that worship which is only due to God. Aquin. 22. Q. 89. Deuter. 6.13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and Swear by his Name. Secondly, from the joynt consent of all Nations, who although they were only led by the dim light of Nature, did account of an Oath as a most Sacred thing, and so in their Writings is oft termed a Sacrament. He proves it, Thirdly, from most evi­dent and clear Reason, because an Oath tends or con­duces much to God's honour, and to the glory of his Name, by the acknowledgment or confession of his Truth, Knowledge, Justice, and Almighty Power; all these four Attributes we acknowledge to be in him, when [Page 19]in taking of an Oath we call upon him to be out wit­ness, and Judge. What can the Treatist answer to this? how can he vindicate himself from the guilt of notorious falsity and forgery, by averring that the Bishop asserted, that Christ by his prohibitive Precept exceeded the Prohibition of the Law, or Third Com­mandment, by commanding us not only not to Swear vainly or falsly, but not to use an Oath in any case whatsoever. Does not that godly Prelate in his Tenth Section of his Seventh Prælection lay this down for an undeniable conclusion, Juramenti usus est licitus, and proves an Oath to be lawful, as by divers weighty Reasons, drawn from the use of it in the Old and New Testament, for that the Rom. 1.9. Gal. 1.20. Gen. 14.22.26.31.31.53. Apostle Saint Paul and ho­ly Patriarchs did use it, and all Controversies were appointed by Moses to be terminated or ended by it, Exod. 2.11. so also from the Conditions to be ob­served in Swearing prescribed by the Prophets, as in that fourth Chapter of Jerem. vers. 2. which I have formerly cited and illustrated; after all which he challenges any man to give just Reason, why under the Old Testament it should be lawful for holy men to Swear, and not for the Faithful under the New, see­ing this act of Swearing did not appertain to the Cere­monial Law, which was abrogated by Christ, as is e­vident by the end of it (which is of perpetual use) and that is the confirmation of the Truth, and ending all litigious Disputes and strifes about it. And will not any prudent man conclude from all this, that an Oath to its own and proper nature, is not an evil thing, but lawful and good, when much hurt and many distur­bances which may happen in the transaction of hu­mane affairs, may by it be prevented? This is attest­ed [Page 20]by Saint Paul, Heb. 6.16. An Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife, i. e. where there is no end of contradicting, there an Oath is expedient; when the Plaintiff affirms, and the Defendant stifly denies, when there is no other way of finding out the Truth, one part of the contradiction being confirmed by the interposition of an Oath, the other part ceases, and so the strife is terminated. Can we imagine then, that the God of peace, unity, and concord, our Lord Christ, would wholly forbid Swearing, or the use of an Oath at any time, or in any case, by means whereof, oft-times, as litigious suits and strifes at Law are ended, so Faith and Justice, the two most firm bonds and liga­ments of humane Society, are preserved, (for he that lies under a solemn Oath, dares not be unfaithful or unjust.) I am sure our Saviour never did forbid it, but only the light, rash, and vain use of an Oath in our ordinary and common discourse; this he did, and so our most judicious Prælect. 7. Sect. 11. ad finem. Bishop expounds those words of our Saviour, Matth. 5.34. and the same repeated by Saint James, Chap. 5.12. which are the Quakers or Anabaptists only Asylum, to which they flie for San­ctuary, when they are urged to take an Oath by the Magistrate; but I hope they will be effectually beaten, or driven from their Asylum, when their shallow and dark understandings are better enlightned, and they being convinc'd, shall acknowledge in their hearts, though they will hardly confess it with their tongues, that the whole weight of their rotten Position hangs upon a weak and slender thread, even one word, Omninò, at all, which is by them misinterpreted: A good construction whereof is that expression of one Eusebius a Gentile Philosopher in Serm. 37. Stobæus, Many [Page 21]sayes he there) exhort men to Swear the Truth; but my exhortation to them is, Ut ne quidem omnino facilè jurent, That they Swear not at all easily; he means fami­liarly, without great necessity, which is the principal or prime meaning of our Saviours Prohibition, Swear not at all.

I should here have given a stop to my flying Pen, and taken both it and my wearied hand on from this Paper, had not my Zeal inflamed with indignation spurred me on to a just vindication of the honour of another holy and more ancient Father, most renown­ed (as the former was) in his generation (which was 422. years after Christ) for his holy life and stupen­dious knowledge in Divine and Humane Learning, I mean St. Jerom, Pag. 11. whom the Impostor or Treatist chal­lenges as a Patron of his Opinion, saying, (though most falsly) That he makes this the reason why God in­dulged the Jews in the use of Swearing, That they were but in the state of Infancy, and that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods. I was amazed when I read this, so will the judicious Readers be astonished at the boldness, and madness, I may add Falsity and Fol­ly of the Treatist, inciting the Gloss of St. Jerom upon that Text, Matth. 5.34. it being so clearly and whol­ly against him.

The Father's Gloss is this, which for the benefit of an illiterate Quaker, I shall translate word for word into English;Hanc per ele­menta juran­di pessimam consuetudi­nem semper habuere Iu­dæi, &c. This most ungodly custome of Swearing by the Elements was ever in use amongst the Jews, for which they are oft condemned by the month of the Pro­phets. He that sweareth, either worshippeth or loves him by whom he sweareth. We are commanded in the Law to Swear by none but by the Lord our God. The Jews swear­ing [Page 22]by the Angels, by the City of Jerusalem, by the Temple, and by the Elements, gave that honour and worship to the Creatures and carnal things, which was only due to God. But Let the Au­thor of the Treatife and his Brethren consider this. consider that our Saviour does not forbid us to Swear by God, but by Heaven, and Earth, by Hierusalem, and by the Head. Et hoc, quasi parvulis fuerat lege con­cessum: and this (subaud. he forbids) as if it had been permitted to the Jews, as to little Ones; even as they offer'd Victims unto God, that they might not sacrifice the same unto Idols; so they should be permitted to Swear in Deum against God; not that they should do well in so doing, but that it was better to exhibit that honour to God (viz. by Swearing by his Temple, &c.) than to Dæ­mons. From the later part of this Comment begin­ning at, Et hoc quasi parvulis, &c. altogether miscon­strued by him, the Treatift (though most absurdly) inferrs that God indulged (in the opinion of St Jerom) the Jews in the use of Swearing, they being then in the state of Infancy, that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods. For St. Jerom (or to vindicate him) I ap­peal to St. Jerom; Doth he say any such thing? or do his words sound, or imply any thing to this pur­pose? I absolutely deny it. He only saith, ‘That Christ forbade his Disciples to Swear by Heaven and Earth, &c. Et hoc, and forbade this, quasi, as if it had been permitted to the Jews in their minority to Swear by them, as it was to offer Victims unto God, that they might not sacrifice them unto Idols.’ The Father does not positively affirm that God ever permitted the Jews to Swear by any Creature, he sayes onely Quasi, as if it had been permitted. And let the Treatist shew me any place in the whole Bible, where ever it was tolerated. But this is not the Dispute now be­tween us.

I must only ask him this friendly Question, What reason he had to pass by those words of St. Jerom, Consider that our Saviour forbids not us to swear? He cannot but answer, or I will for him, because it is wholly adverse to his Position: But like as a man that is drowning, catches at any small twig to keep him from sinking, so he to uphold his rotten and cor­rupt opinion, layes hold on four words of St. Jerom, Concessum fuerat jurare parvulis, He sayes not concessum suit. It had been permitted to little Ones for to Swear; and wilfully omitting what goes before and follows after, concludes from them (which relate only to Swearing by the Crea­ture) and from Deut. 6.13, 14. ‘That God dispensed with the Jews for Swearing by his Name, that he might take them off from Swearing by false Gods, because thereby they would acknowledge them, and not the true God, so that Swearing is only better than Idolatry; Therefore in no case good in its own Nature.’ In answer to this, I say, that there is a comparative without a posi­tive, as it is better (say some) to be drunk than to com­mit Fornication, because this is a complicate sin be­tween two, the other a single one of one individual person. Is it then an evil thing to Swear at all by in­vocating God's Name? who dares affirm this but an Anabaptist, it being an act of Religious Worship, as hath been demonstrated? But I demand again, Did God ever say by Moses, or any of his Prophets, Thou shalt not take my Name into thy mouth in any case, or at any time? said he ever this without any restriction, or limitation? If he had made this general Proclama­tion, undoubtedly to take it into our mouths, would be a great and hainous Sin, and so the Jews could not have done it lawfully without a special dispensa­tion [Page 24]from God by the mouth of a Prophet: For God being the Supreme Law-giver, whose Jurisdiction and Dominion is over all, and above all, may ad pla­citum dispense with a Negative Precept that forbids a sin; but then it must be either by an inspired Pro­phet, or by a voice from Heaven. Now God never did absolutely forbid the Jews to Swear by his Sa­cred Name, but onely vainly or falsly in the Third Commandment. And this Negative includes an Affir­mative, Thou shalt (when there is an urgent occasion for it) Swear by my Name Truly. He therefore that affirms, that, God dispens'd with the Jews for Swearing by his Name, (which is in its proper nature absolute­ly good, because it is allowed of, and enjoyned by God) does in effect say, that it is a sin to invocate, or call upon God, and so falls under the Prophet's curse,Isa. 5.20. Wo unto him that calls good evil, and evil good. Consider this thou vain daring man, who dost plead for a Dispensation to the Jews, which never came in­to any mans head to think of but thine; neither hadst thou thought of it, hadst not thou look't by chance into St. Jerom, who by his Concessum suerat never intended any such thing as hath been clearly evi­denced.

Thou mayst as well assert that God dispens'd with the Jews to keep the Sabbath day, that they should not celebrate the Feasts of the Gentiles, as say, That he dispens'd with Swearing by his Name to keep them from Swearing by Idols, or from the Idolatrous Worship of the Heathen Gods; the former as well as the later (though both be frivolous) may be averred. And upon this account it would be as great a sin for Christians to keep the Sabbath, as to swear in any [Page 25]case, if God dispens'd only with the Jews for either: For, a Dispensation (as it is a comprehensive term im­plying a relaxation of an obligation to any command, so that a man may do what the Law prohibits, or not do what it enjoynes) is in the opinion of the Treatist a concession or grant to do that which is evil in its own nature, and not practicable, or to be done but only by the allowance or approbation of the Legisla­tor, whose will is his Law, as being Supreme.

Now if he can prove by any evidence out of the Gospel or Evangelists, that to Swear is a sin in its pro­per nature (with which the Jews, as he falsly asserts, were dispens'd by God) if he can do this (which I know is impossible) I will recant what I have writ, and exhort all my Friends and good Christians not to Swear at all.

I am confident that the Author of the Treatise was startled, and put to a staining blush when he perused St. Jerom's Gloss upon our Saviour's words, and met with his Considera quod hic Sal­vator per De­um jurare non prohibuerit. Considera in the middle of it, ‘Consider that our Saviour here forbade not Swearing by the Name of God,’ but only vain, rash, and impertinent Swear­ing; surely he consider'd it, but being displeas'd with the Holy Man for his opinion, and angry at his Exhortation, studied a revenge, which was to blast him with a Lye, and make him guilty of a Con­tradiction, by saying in effect, that what he appro­ved of, was a sin, yet not disprov'd of in the Jews by means of God's special Dispensation.

From all that has been said in Vindication of Bishop Sanderson, and the forenamed Father, may be right­ly concluded, That the Treatist has been bred up in the Jesuits School, in which is taught that Diabolical [Page 26]Arithmetical Art of Subtraction, Addition and Division, to which may be added that black Art of Detraction, for that he to the Bishops Book De Juramenti Oblig. has added what he never writ; to St. Jerom he has subtracted (by dividing the former part of his Com­ment from the later) what the Father has plainly pub­lished, and is a refutation of what he endeavours to maintain, which is a great Falsity, and repugnant to Scripture Truth; and in all, he has by a foul and dirty Pen detracted from both their reputations and credit.

Thus too he hath done by the Reverend Doctor Gawden late Bishop of Gloucester, and before that of Exeter, whom he hath peremptorily listed amongst those who seem to favour his Opinion (as being an Antijurist) and laid (as I may say) this Bastard at his door, begot by the Father of Lyes, upon an Ʋnder­standing darkned with Errour, and brought forth by the Midwifry of an unruly malepert Tongue, and nur­sed up by the help of a virulent Pen. But what hath that holy Bishop, that righteous man (whom none can read but with amazement or admiration, both for the floridness of his Style, and Chrysostome-like Tongue, together with his profundity of Reason, and great variety of Learning, as is evident by his Printed Works, especially his Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Suspiria) what hath he done or said, that they should chal­lenge, or own him for their Patron? I'le tell you first what he hath said of Them, and then what they quote out of Him. In his Dis­course con­cerning Pub­lick Oaths. Pag. 4. First he says of Them, ‘That they have a canting or Chymical Divinity, which bubbles forth many specious Notions, fine fancies, & short-liv'd Conceptions, floating a little in an airy and empty brain, but not en­during the firm touch or breath of any serious Judge­ment.’ [Page 27]And Pag. 7. ‘I profess there appears to me so no­thing of an excellent or Extraordinary Spirit in them, that there is much of Silliness, and not well-catechis'd Ignorance, set off with a great Confidence.’ Again, ‘They generally seem a busie, petulant, and pragmatick sort of people, measuring themselves by themselves,2 Cor. 10.12. ad­miring each other, even in their ridiculous Affectations, and Falsities; a kind of Dreamers,Iud. 8. 2 Pet. 3.13. at once deceiving and being deceived, doting and glorying in their rude and contemptuous carriage towards all men, that do not either favour, or flatter them in their rusticity and petu­lancy, which hath in it a great seed of Pride and Am­bition.’ And in his Suspir. Anglic. pag. 73. He terms them, ‘The meanest and short-spirited men, who in reli­gious differences, and in the matter of Ceremonies, do affect to appear most cruelly Zealous, and unchari­tably pertinacious.’ This is the Character he gives of them. But what sayes the Treatist of him?

Nothing, I confess, derogatory to his person, but he quotes, or cites only a remarkable saying of his, which makes much against the Anti-Jurists, it is this,Pag. 154. ‘The evil of mens hearts and manners, the jealousies and di­strusts, the dissimulations and frauds of many Christi­ans, their uncharitableness, unsatisfactions, and inse­curities, are such, and so great Diseases, as make the application of Solemn Oaths and Judicial Swearing necessary by way of Consequence and Remedy.’ What replyes the Quaker to this? His answer is, That there is no need of these applications to him or his Frater­nity; and why? Because, forsooth, Pag. 155 Christ who is the Restorer of Breaches, and builder of Waste-places, has redeemed them into Truth-speaking, which takes away the Occasion of an Oath, and such as are the true, humble, [Page 28]and faithful followers of this Worthy, need no Oath to compel them into Truth, to whom it's natural (My good Friend, I thought it had been a work of Gods Grace) being freed by it from fraud and falseness, and consequently from Swearing, which took occasion by it to enter into the World. To all which he subjoyns this solemn Pro­testation in the name of his Friends (as he calls them) i. e. his fellow-Quakers.

Ibid. Now we profess our selves in the fear of Almighty God to be such, as have thus learned Jesus Christ, and for the Reverence, and holy Love we bear to his righteous Com­mand, we cannot take an Oath in any case. In answer to this Profession, I must, First, tell the Professour, that there is no such command of Christ, he never forbade us to Swear in any case; this hath been sufficiently il­lustrated and proved. Secondly, he must give me leave to be his Instructor and Teacher, and make him under­stand, that his former Profession is a Formal Oath, as having the Form or Essence of an Oath in it, which consists in a Confession of God and his Almighty Power, as this implies an Invocation of God to be a Witness and Judge of what we speak or affirm; and I am as­sured that it is an Untruth what is affirmed by him, viz. That Christ taught us, Not to Swear in any case. So then, the tantamount or sum of their Profession is this, In the presence of God, whom we confess and acknowledge to be Almighty and accordingly fear him, because he is able, and will destroy us if we profess a Lye— What is this but a Form of Swearing, even as Saint Paul did, when he made a Profession of his Sincerity, saying, Before God I Lye not? Gal. 1.20. So the Quaker by an implicite calling upon God to be a Witness of what he sayes, viz. That he has learned of Christ not to Swear at all, does [Page 29]indeed Swear, Thus a Blas­phemer being once rebuked for his Swear­ing, Swore that he would Swear no more. Tit. 3.2. and that too which is false (for he has not been so taught of Christ) therefore he calls God to witness an Untruth; and what is this but false Swearing, which another would cloath with an har­der (though proper) term? But as I desire to be gentle shewing all meekness to all men, (as Saint Paul exhorts) so parcè loquor, I forbear to name it, as fearing that I should, by mentioning that, at which my heart trem­bles, put the poor mistaken man into a new fit of Quaking.

He protested that he could not Swear, and did it in protesting: It seems the man of great Reading and pretended Knowledge, was ignorant of the material parts of a Formal Oath; so was not another grand Professor of Quakerisme in Ireland, one E. C. who is yet living; sparing his Name, I shall faithfully relate what was lately reported to me of him a professed Ʋsurer, and Factour for some Merchants here in London. The story of him is this; There was a Bill not long since put into the Chancery there against him, in a Money busi­ness, to which he was commanded to give in his An­swer upon Oath, the which he refused, and after some delayes addressed himself to a worthy person Dr. W. one of the Masters of the foresaid Court, proffering him Twenty Pieces in Gold if he would exempt him from Swearing, and admit of his Yea and Nay to his An­swer, and all Interrogatories that should be proposed unto him; the Doctor, as it became him, sent him a­way with a sharp reprehension for his boldness, and wicked attempt to corrupt him. Upon this he was more bold in petitioning the Lord Deputy that his Yea, &c. might be admitted, but was likewise with a severe check dismissed unsatisfied; at last, when he [Page 30]perceived,To this In­stance some of his party may reply, that he was forced Swear against his mind up­on necessity, but we say, that no honest man will a­gainst his con­science Swear a falsity. that unless he made Oath to his Answer he should be non-suited, he dispens'd with his tender Conscience, and took it; after which, there came in such strong evidences against him, that he was found guilty of Perjury, and cast in the Suit between him and the Plaintiff. By this may be collected what cre­dit is to be given to a Quaker's Yea and Nay, when as, if the man has a false heart, under the covert of it a Lye may be shelter'd.

But leaving him to Christian Pity, and God's mer­cy, I must return from this short digression, and from the former false Profession of the Treatist reflect upon his vain Ostentation, apparent in his Protestation (which goes before it, Pag. 155. of the Treatise) viz. That Christ has redeemed him and the rest of his Combination into Truth-speaking, which takes away the Occasion of an Oath. What is this but Pharisaisme, or proud boast­ing, becoming a Thraso or Miles gloriosus in the Co­medy, rather than the mouth of a Christian, being one of the many marks which Saint Paul fixes upon an unregenerate and carnal man,Despightful, proud, Boast­ers. Rom. 1.30. Moreover he saith, (and what is it but perfect Pelagianism?) that Truth is natural unto them; if it be the fruit of Nature, then it is not of Grace: what could have been said more by Pelagius, or his Disciple Faustus! Omit­ting a farther Refutation of his vain-glorious and proud. Assertion, I shall plainly discover unto him the falsity of it by this one direct Syllogisme, They that are redeemed by Christ into Truth-speaking, to whom Truth is natural, need no Oath to compel them to Truth; but, we the true, humble, and faithful followers of Christ are such; Ergo, we need not an Oath. I could deny the Major Proposition, as being false (as I shall prove here­after;) [Page 31]but for the present I deny the Assumption or Minor; and to manifest the truth of my denial, I shall not make use (as I might) of a Sorites by an enu­meration of particular persons among them, and from them whose Lives and Actions have witnessed the contrary, draw a Negative Conclusion, I will onely ask the man of Truth, I mean the Professing Treatist, this one Question, If Truth-speaking, or Veracity be natural to him, and all things by Nature ever the same, without any the least change or alteration (as the Phi­losopher attests) why then contrary to his Nature which must argue a perverseness in his Will) and con­trary to the Rules or common moral Honesty (which argues a pravity in his Nature) did he belye two emi­nent Fathers or the Church by endeavouring to per­swade the world that they said or writ what they ne­ver did? [...]. Arist. And if Christ's Saints be redeemed by him into Truth-speaking, then they that make no conscience of a Lye, or that love, and make a Lye, are neither Saints nor redeemed by Christ; I am sure Saint John reckons them amongst those that shall never enter in­to Heaven (such are Sorcerers, Whoremongers, Revel. 22.15. Murder­ers, and Idolaters) without an high degree or measure of repentance.

Once more, If he be a man of Truth, why walks not he then in the Truth, or as the Rule of Truth, the Word of God, directeth?2 Ep. Ioh. 4. This commands us to give honour to whom honour is due, Rom. 13.7. and to honour the King, 1 Pet. 2.17. This neither he, nor any of his rude Tribe will do, witness his, and his Associates un­mannerliness, and proud demeanour even towards the King, and great persons of Honour, to whom they measure the same Omer of respect which they do to [Page 32]their Equals, and Inferiours, witness their Thouing and Theeing them, and covered heads before them, which betokens no Humility, but much Pride to be in their hearts, proceeding from a pretence, or phansie that there is a Diviner Spirit, and a brighter Light in them, than either Reason or Scripture, or great Read­ing affords to others, whereby they think that they have cause to glory in their illuminations, and to de­spise all those who have not arrived to the pitch or height of their presumptuous Phansies. But that un­mannerly rudeness might be born with, if they would give the Lord of Heaven the honour that is due unto him,Hebr. 13 17. Obey them that &c. by obeying his commands, in obeying the King's Laws tending to Decency, Order, and Peace both in State and Church: And because they are resolved to live and dye in a constant opposition to all Govern­ment, they therefore will take no Oath which may bind them to submit unto it; nay, they will not take an Oath when it is offered by the Magistrate, when they might thereby determine a Controversie be­tween man and man, put an end or give a stop to a vexatious Suit in Law, or promote their Neighbours welfare, by giving thereby a firm Testimony of his suspected Honesty: and does not this argue a great want of Charity? Nay, a Quaker will not Swear though he might thereby save his Neighbour's life: and is not this an high piece of Cruelty? So obstinate­ly unmerciful, so stiffly uncharitable is this Quaking Tribe, that as they ought to do no evil that good may come of it; so they will not do that which is in it self good (such is the taking of a Lawful Oath) to prevent a great evil, damage, or hurt that may or will befall a Neighbour, be it the losing of an Estate. [Page 33]Are such men governed and guided by the good Spirit of Christ? I cannot omit here to relate a Story of a Quakers obstinacy, who could not be invited to Swear the Truth of that whereof he was an eye witness, it is this. I was my self an Ear witness of this private Business. A Mariner going to Sea, and being pre­pared for a long Voyage, gave a Bill of Attorney to his Wife, enabling her to receive his Wages in his ab­sence; now because (as it is ordered by the Commis­sioners for the Navie) no such moneys will be paid unless the Bill be attested by a Witness Sworn before a Justice of Peace, that he was present at the writing of it, it happened that a Neighbour poysoned with the Quaker's Principles (being one of their Disciples) was only present when the Seaman writ it, and being desir'd by his Wife to witness the same, he refus'd to appear before the Justice, and could not be perswaded to take the Oath which was to be ministred unto him, by which means the poor woman would be deprived of her maintenance, if her husband had been gone to Sea, and not Transcribed the foresaid Bill in the pre­sence of an honest Man, who thought it no sin to swear for the benefit of another, being assured that it was not (as it is not) repugnant to any command of our Saviour. Now it is easie to determine which of these two is the better Christian; there is no wise man but will give his sentence for the latter, and not think him worthy of the name of Christian who wants that which is the life and soul of Christianity, and that is (with Meekness and Humility) an Universal Charity to all men, which is a diffusive Grace prompting a man to be beneficial even to his enemies, and not contract his love and kindness only to those who are of his party, and combine with him in his opinions, though they [Page 34]be repugnant to the truth in the holy Scriptures. Such is the narrow, and short-breath'd Charity of the Anti-Jurists, whose Opinion (or false conceit) of the unlaw­fulness, and sinfulness of all Judicial and State Oaths, is both unchristian, as being uncharitable, in that as it hinders them from doing good to their Friends and Neighbours, so if it were embrac'd by all (as it ne­ver will) it would impede in Courts of Judicature the due administration of Justice; it is likewise destructive and very dangerous, in regard that the Safety, Peace, and Tranquillity of the King and Kingdom cannot without Oaths (I mean those of Supremacy and Allegi­ance) be secured against the Traiterous plottings, and mischievous designs of domestick and intestine ene­mies, Popish Recusants, and others, Antipapists in the points of some fundamental Doctrines, but Co-papists, as being Adversaries of the Churches Discipline.

The contrary opinion of the lawfulness and unlawful­ness of the forenamed Publick Oaths, is agreeable to the word of God, ratified by the continued Customes of this and all other Nations, both Ecclesiastical, Civil, or Common; and approved of by the best of Christi­ans in all ages, by the consonant unanimous Judge­ments of the ancient Fathers, and modern Writers of the Reformed Churches, (together with the most eminent Divines in ours,) it is also confirmed by the Harmony of their Confessions, both Lutherans, and Cal­vinists, by all Canonists, and Casuists, all of them in a just severity condemning the use of False, idle, and profane Oaths, assert the Authority of lawful Magi­strates (which the Treatist and his Abettors proudly deny) to require and impose religious Oaths, and de­clare that it is the duty of Subjects to take them, as it [Page 35]becomes Christians, with due reverence to the Ma­jesty of God, and fitting obedience to the commands of Superiour and Inferiour Magistrates, who are in­trusted with their power from God, and are to use it to his glory and the welfare of the Church and Common-Wealth.

This bright Cloud of Witnesses to the Truth I can­not say that I oppose to the 200 and 7. Authorities mustered up in a Catalogue plac'd in the front of the Quaker's Treatise, for, As Chrysost. Augustine, Ierome, Atha­nasius, &c. most of them onely inveigh without any limitation, or reserve against mens easie & ordinary course of Swearing in private conversation, yet holding it lawful both to give and take an Oath in great and weighty concerns for a ratification of Truth, and establishing of Justice. As for some others of them cited in his Catalogue, they were tainted with the Heresies of the Samosatenians, Pelagians, Massilians, and the Euchites, and of their disciples or followers in their opinion against Swearing at all, the Albigenses, and Anabaptists, to whom we may add the Menists in the Netherlands mentioned by the Treatist, p. 157. for this reason they are not to be held for competent Judges in the case, neither are their authorities to be admitted; so are the Arguments drawn from the say­ings and practises of a few godly Martyrs to be rejected, to wit, of Basilides and Polycarpus who only refused Oaths propounded to them which were in the matter and form of them sinful, as to swear by the Fortune of Cæsar, which Polycarpus denied, or by the Genius of the Emperor, which Basilides and Speratus refused,Pondere rati­onis haud Au­thorum nu­mero est men­suranda veri­tas. as is to be seen in Eusebius. I do therefore conclude, and repeat what I premised in my Preface that the Treatist's 207 Authorities are to little or no purpose, rather [Page 36]against, than for him, and his Co-Anti-Jurists. Nay; I add and say, put case he had produc'd a thousand move Authorities against all kind of Swearing,Tert. li. Præscrip. cont. Hær To this saying Tert. l [...]t me add thi [...] of S. Ambrose, Nolo nobis credatur, recitetur Scriptura. I would retort to them all with that saying of Tertullian. Non expersonis fidem, sed ex fide personas metiamur, we must not measure the Truth by the persons of Men, as to say it is true because such a Learned man said it, but in so because the Word of God does maintain it; and those persons (though never so holy in outward appearance) are not to be commended, or imitated, who out of a scrupulous, nice, erroneous conscience shall refuse to do that which the same word alloweth, so is Judici­al Swearing. Therefore the poor deceived Quakers (whose ignorance I pitty) are in a dangerous error, being Affirmatively superstitious, in counting that a du­ty which is not, and Negatively, in abstaining from that as sin, which is no sin, (i. e.) from all kind of Swear­ing.

Psal. 53.5.As presumptuous confidences where there is no Di­vine permission, so erroneous fears where no fear ought to be, are very dangerous, and cast a snare upon the Conscience.

I have one thing more (and that material) to pro­pose to the Treatist, that is, whether he was compos mentis, Pag. 3. and not transported by a whim of Phansie, when he was bold to make a Proposal in the Preface of his Pamphlet dedicated to the King and Parliament, that the Quakers Yea and Nay (which is the mark in their mouths whereby they are known and distin­guished from others) may stand for an Oath, they being willing if they should ever be convinced of a Lye (by pro­mising what they performed not, or asserting an un­truth) to sustain the same Penalty that is usually inflicted [Page 37]on Perjury. What was all this but to desire that the old Forms of State and Judicial Oaths should be alter­ed and turned into New? I'le instance onely in the Oath of Allegiance (which involves in the body of it that other of Supremacy) in the propounding of which to W. P. or to any or his Brethren, the Magistrate must (if the others request be granted) act the part of a Catechist, in these terms: ‘Dost thou W. P. ac­knowledge the Kings Highness to be the onely Supream Governour of this Realm, and of all other His High­nesses Dominions, and Countreys, in all Causes and over all persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, and do you promise that you will bear faith, and true Allegiance to his Majesty, and defend Him to the utmost of your power against all conspiracies, and attempts whatsoever against his Crown and Dignity, and do your best en­deavour to declare, and make known to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which you shall know or hear to be made against him?’ To all these interrogations the suppo­sed honest W. P. will say Yea, and if I break my pro­mise let the Penalty of Perjury be inflicted on me. I pray what is all this but Canting? cunningness, and craft lies at the bottom of it: What is the punishment of a Perjured person? It is to lose his cars in a Pillory, and not to be admitted for a witness in any Court of Justice, &c. Now consider how favourable a motion the good man has made for himself and his Brethren! He cannot but know, and be assured of it, that if he breaks his promise, by joyning in a private Conspiracy against the King, or by open rebellion raising any popular commotion, or tumults, he will be indicted for Felony or Treason, and so lose his life in an halter instead of his ears.

And what securitie can the King have from W. P. (or any of his Tribe) for his own safety and the King­doms Peace, or be assured that he will keep his pro­mise, and not be attached for a Lye in breaking of it, when he (the supposed prime Penman of the Trea­tise) makes no conscience to assert or affirm what is most false, as in the Case of Bishop Sanderson, and Saint Jerom, hath been demonstrated to his great shame. He that shall once baffle me with a bold lye, I will hard­ly take his word, or rest in his Yea; and he that has invented, and publickly vented one out of the Press, it may be suspected he will not keep his private promise, and that his bare word will not bind him to an exact performance, which a solemn Oath might do, whereby he calls God to be both a witness of his pro­mise,Num. 22.31. and a severe Judge to punish him both in body and soul if he be a Promissifragus. An Oath like to the Angel with a glittering Sword in his hand, who stopped Balaam in his way to Balak, is of more force, and energy than a naked word to bind a man to his duty; and there is no man that has an honest heart and meaning, and knows the many temptations he is exposed to from his own corrupt nature, the Fles [...], the World, and the Devil, but will chearifully, and solemn­ly take an Oath first praying to God that he may have, by his grace, strength and power to keep it) whereby he may be the more aw'd by fear of God's vindica­tive Justice, to be faithful and just in the discharge of his duty, or any publick office, which will procure to him the peace of a quiet mind or indistur'd Consci­ence, which is a great blessing, and is gain'd many times by means of a Promissory Oath in Swearing.

There is besides the former Proposal of the Quakers, [Page 39]a Question put by the Author of the Treatise, whom I find to be in divers shapes, sometimes acting the part of a Pelagian in saying, that Truth (which is a grace of God) is natural to him, next of a perfect Jesuit, as in the point of Dispensation to the Jews, and his false Citati­ons, and corrupting of the Fathers, and now the part of a downright audacious Quaker, Pag. 14.15 Quo te Constringam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? His Quære is this, Why their Yea and Nay may not be admitted instead of an Oath, as well as the Lords Avouchment upon their Honour? by which must be understood Vertue in the sense of the best and most ancient Philosophers: what does he infer from this, (though he be mistaken in the proper notion of Vertue, His words are, Vertue needs not Swear &c. and belyes too the Philoso­phers?) This is his Inference (or to this effect) We are Vertuous persons, therefore we need not Swear, much less have Oaths impos'd upon us to tell the Truth, the onely use of Oaths. My good vertuous Friend, I must tell thee mildly, this is a Thrasonical brag. But to come to the Quære, My answer to it in general is, That it is im­pertinent, and incongruous, For first the Quaker's Yea is onely a simple Affirmation to assert the Truth, or what has been said or done, a Question to this purpose having been put unto him; But the Avouchment of a Lord upon his Honour, is a more solemn Protestation and Asseveration of a Truth, and implies an Option, or wish, (as an Oath does an Imprecation) and the sense or meaning of it (being but an abridgment of his This Form was antiently the Lords Protestation. per Fidem & Allegiantiam meam) is this, ‘As I bear true Faith and Allegiance to my Soveraign Lord the King, so is that which I say most true, and if I witness an untruth, or promise what I do not purpose, nor will perform; let disgrace and reproach fall upon my Ho­nourable [Page 40]person, let me listed amongst those that are disloyal and not faithful to their King, let me be counted for a vile person unworthy of any honour, or respect from men, &c.’ So that by Honour is not meant Vertue properly so called, as the Treatist fondly imagines, for Vertue (or vertuous actions) is onely the ground of Honour, which is, In honorante not in honorato (as the Aristot. Philosopher attests in his Ethicks, or Book of Manners, which the Quaker never studied) It is in the Honourer, not in him that is honoured, being nothing else but an high esteem and outward Reve­rence which men have of, and exhibit to a Noble per­son for his Vertue, for his Piety towards God, and Loy­alty to his King. By this we may collect how the Treatist is mistaken, I will not say for want of Learn­ing, to which he pretends by citing many Authors, (and it argues a cripple or lame Cause that needs so many Crutches) I rather impute it to his Sophistical crafty industrie, in laying hold on any thing, though it be but one word, by which, and that misunderstood, he may gain a little countenance to his exploded Opi­nion.

Besides this he cannot be excused for his Malapert rudeness, who dares put himself into the Scales with the best of the Lords (and those vertuous Persons) and con­clude, that because in some cases they have a priviledge to attest onely upon their Honours, therefore he may challenge the same for his Yea and Nay, by which ma­ny credulous and well-meaning men have been delu­ded, and drawn into Errours; witness E. B. a late Brewer in Westminster, who is famous, rather infamous, for cheating all his Creditors to the ruine of many Fa­milies.

Moreover I must acquaint him, for a further refu­tation of his bold Proposal, with what I have learn'd from that great Oracle of Law, and Law-Cases, Sir Ed. Cook in the 12 Part of his Reports, p. 95, 96. There he tells us, that ‘If any one who is Noble, and a Peer of the Realm be sued in Chancery, he ought to answer upon his Oath; and, if any Noble person be produced as a witness between party and party, he ought to be sworn, or otherwise his Testimony is of no value; in these cases his attestation, or Avouchment upon his Honour will not be admitted, though in many others it may and ought to be accepted.’

Furthermore, I must in lieu of his Proposal to the King and Parliament propound a Question to him, which is, whether the King, and his Lords both Spiritu­al and Temporal committed an hainous sin, when his Majesty at his Coronation, bound himself (by a gracious condescension) in an Oath to discharge faithfully that great Trust for the wellfare of the Church and State committed by God unto him, and they likewise obli­ged themselves by a reciprocal Oath to be True and Faithful to him, with this close, So help me God, hereby invocating God to be a Witness and Judge of what they had sworn, and desiring no help or mercy from him, if they should ever rebell against their King? Dares the Treatist or his Fellow-Quakers say that they sinned or broke Christ's command by doing it? I presume they dare not, nay they cannot, without being guilty of a lye; and to say that it is a sin to invocate or call upon God, is no less than blasphemy. From hence I infer, that their general Thesis, to wit, That it is not lawful to Swear in any case, is absurd, false, and ridiculous.

So it is likewise of a dangerous Consequence, as tend­ing to the subversion of Order, the destruction of good [Page 42]Manners (which they want) in States, Polities, and Common-wealths, together with the stopping of legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature (as hath been pro­ved) and before Justices of the Peace. In the foresaid publick Courts of Justice, there is a most necessary use of an Assertory Oath to find out the Truth as to parti­cular facts or actions; of a Promissory Oath there is not so much need, or use in them: This is necessary in Publick, and Private matters, which are called by the Lawyers Extrajudicial, the use of it in these is to con­tain Subjects in their Loyalty and Fidelity to their King, for this end were framed the Oaths of Supre­macy, and Allegiance; the first in the beginning of the Raign of Queen Elizabeth, the last in the third of King James. It is likewise morally necessary to confirm Leagues and Covenants contracted between Princes & Common-wealths, To the keeping of the Laws, and Sta­tutes, and consequently the honour, order, and peace of Colledges, and Societies; To the binding of all pub­lick Officers to an honest and faithful discharge of their duties, To ratifie private bargains between Buy­ers and Sellers, when it is required by any one of them, who suspects the others Truth and Honesty in his deal­ings; but in this latter case, I could wish, that Oaths might be forborn, and rather other means used, with less hazzard to Conscience, such are Pawns, and Wit­nesses, Bonds, and Handwritings.

To the former Wish, I shall add another; That all profane and blaspheming Rabsheka's would in this one thing imitate the (so called) Quakers, (and for which they cannot but be commended) who have so great a fear of an Oath as they pretend) that out of a timorous jealousie of Swearing amiss they will not Swear at all, by them the other may learn to have a just abhorrence [Page 43]of the sin of easie, trivial, familiar, inconsiderate, and vain Swearing, which brings a curse upon a man,Iurandi facili­tate in perju­rium labimur. Aug. and his family, and disposeth men to that horrid Sin, a sin of the first magnitude, that is Perjury, or false Swear­ing, of which a Lye (most abominable to God) is the Ingredient, besides the affront, irreverence, and disho­nour done to God, by calling upon him to witness an untruth.

I have a third Option, it is my hearty with and de­sire that the Treatist and his Confederates would enter their names in the School of Wisdom, Eccies. 7.16. and learn of Solomon this wholesom lesson of moderation, Be not righteous overmuch, neither make thy self overwise, why shouldst thou destroy thy self? This Precept is of a great extent and latitude,Mercerus. but the learned Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in Paris impales, and confines it with­in the compass of these three Words, Ne sis justus ni­mium, Be not over-righteous, (i.e.) Be not Severe, Leges mode­randas docet nec severius exigendas. . ibid. be not Superstitious, be not Perverse. First, Be not Se­vere, so it concerns the Judge, exhorting him by a mild interpretation to mitigate the rigour or the Laws, and not tourge and press the bare letter of them against Offenders, that break them either out of weakness, or ignorance. Secondly, Be not Superstitious, so it rea­ches the Romanists, Iusti nimium sunt (i.e) videri volunt, qui in suis operibus Iustificatio­nem collocant Idem. and condemns their works of Su­pererrogation, their going on Pilgrimage, their tedious and long journeys to visit the shrines of Saints whom they worship, also their self-castigations, their whip­ping & scourging of themselves, conceiving vainly that these acts are meritorious, and fancying that they shall be justified, and saved by their works. Thirdly, Be not Perverse, this founds an alarm to the Separatists, the rigid Antidisciplinarians, whom this long Name well befits, having continued a long time for many [Page 44]years in their opinions, for which they have neither God's Word, nor right reason for their Defendants, and from whom there is little or no hope that they will be reclaimed, so long as they are guided by their obstinate wills, which they palliate with the specious & abused name of Conscience. Their Sons begot by them, and their Scholars, the poor Quakers, first learned of them the Trade of Separatism, and are (in this of the same Temper with them) stiffned in perverseness. Of this opi­nion is S Am­brose l 2. Apol. pro Davide. with others of the Fathers. Iude 19. Exod 22.11. Solo­mon, who died a Convert, and repented of his vanities, bespeaks them both (though he be dead) by his lively precept, O vain men, Be not overmuch righteous, neither in doing that which the Laws of the Church forbid, (agreeable to the word) Do not separate, neither in not doing what God allows in his Word, Do not refuse to take an Oath, when there is a great need of it, and when it is required of thee by the Magistrate who is the Kings Deputy,Heb. 13.17. as he is God's vicegerent who commands you to obey them that have the rule over you, in things lawful, and so you obey them in the Lord, both in respect of the Commander and the things Commanded.

To that exquisite gloss of Mercerus, I cannot omit to subjoyn another of the great Scripturist Deodatus (once Professor of Geneva) upon the forecited Text of Ecclesiastes, which in my opinion comes home to an obstinate Quaker, or any other Dissenter, his numeri­cal words are these. ‘Be not bent too much upon a thing which in thy opinion is just, without yielding any way either in Charity, or wise integrity to the opinion of others, to the necessity of times, and humane frailty.’ Surely this holy man would have told an Anti-jurist if he had discoursed with him, that he was overmuch righ­teous by his refusing to swear at all, and maintaining it to be sinful in others to swear in any case, when the suspi­cions, [Page 45]jealousies, frauds, and falsities of men require an Oath, or make it necessary in Judicial proceedings. The same Commentator, who had an extraordinary gift from God (as his name imports) in expounding the Sacred word, says thus in his Comment upon Mat. 5.34. (The Text which is mis-interpreted by the Ana­baptists) ‘Seeing that an Oath is a means, and an help to Truth, and to proof, appointed by God, and oftentimes very necessary, we must restrain this command of Christ (to wit, Swear not at all) to voluntary Oaths, not requi­red by them who have Authority, vain, frivolous and vici­ous Oaths, seeing those things which are set down here have relation onely to such.’

Be not righteous overmuch (perverse Separatist) for why shouldst thou destroy thy self, (i.e.) (as Tremelius upon the Text) By thy pride and arrogancy run headlong into destruction, Col 1.18. Eph. 4.15. by undergoing the penalties of the Laws here, and endangering the salvation of thy soul hereaf­ter. Separation from the Church his mystical Body, is a dividing from Christ the Head.

In the last place, and for a close of all, I do earnest­ly desire the Heads and Abettors of the Quaking party to afford me so much Charity, as to believe, that I had no other design in undertaking the Refutation of their Treatise (put into my hands by a most religious know­ing person) but onely their Conviction, and Conversi­on. For when I had read, what is the sixth of eleven things which they desire to be considered, viz. Pag. 155, 156, 157. That their Refusal to Swear in all cases, is a matter of Faith, and whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin, I pitied their mistake, (as to the former part of their Position) and conceived it my duty (with others of the Clergy) to undeceive them poor mistaken souls, by demon­strating that as it is usual with God, to send men (as the [Page 46]Apostle speaks) strong delusions to believe a lye, 2 Thes. 10.11. because they received not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved; so They believe that to be true which is appa­rently false, and that it is a sin to do, what they (though falsly) believe ought not to be done, (i. e.) To Swear by the Name of God, although it may be for God's glory in the vindication of the Truth, or to promote a Neighbours good.

My next design was (which is every mans duty) to prevent the Contagion which might spread amongst the poor people from their2 Tim. 2.17. Their word will eat as doth a Can­ker. Gangreen-Opinion; for whilst they profess Conscience for their disobedience, & alledg Scripture (though misconstrued) for their Conscience, and colour all with an appearance of outward Sancti­ty in their lives, not usually tainted with debauchery, and drunnkeness, it may be justly feared that the Po­pulacy, if not fortified by pregnant demonstrations of Truth against their spreading errours and Opinions, will cry up their Piety (they appearing for a great part of them morally Just, and civilly Innocent, as were some of the refined Heathens) and by degrees joyn with them in their Confederacy against the Laws of the Kingdoms, and the Churche's Constitutions, there being sown in the hearts of the people the seeds of Rebellion, Faction, and Sedition, which are oft­times sad effects of Conventicles, or private Meetings, called by alearned Greek Father (from the sad experi­ence he found of them) Denns of Thieves or Rob­bers, [...], Epiphan. for that the Meeting-Masters steal the hearts of Subjects from their King and Governors, of Wives from their Husbands, and of these from their Wives, of Children from their Parents, of Servants from their Ma­sters; for there can be no true love or affection, where there is a difference of Opinion, and Practice, whilst [Page 47]two or three of a Family go to Conventicles, and the rest to open Churches to joyn with Gods Saints, and Servants in the publick Service of God, as it is enjoyned by the fourth Commandment. He likewise terms them [...], The Receptacles of evil Spirits, such as filled and possessed the hearts of Judas, and Simon Magus, and may possess the hearts of many of the Leaders and Teachers in them.

For a Coronis or superpondium of all hath been writ in the defence of the Legality of a Judicial, and in some cases of a private Oath, I desire the Treatist once more to consider what he hath said Pag. 27. of his Treatise. Take away lying and there remains no more ground for Swear­ing; He should have said, there will be no ground for Perjury; For suppose a man never told a Lye, yet if an Oath should be required of him by the Magistrate to vindicate his own, or anothers suspected Honesty and Truth, he would have a good ground for his Swearing in this Case, he being commanded to do it; so that the Treatist's Proposal is vain, as it is likewise of a thing that is impossible.1 Cor. 11 19. For as there must be Heresies (i. e. they cannot be hindred) so there will be (as long as the world lasts) lying, or false-speaking, with dissimulation amongst men, Ergo, by the Quakers own concession, there will be a necessity of Swearing. Thus I may retort and say, the Anti-Jurist is (as the Giant Goliah was) wounded with his own weapon,1 Sam. 17.51. refuted by his own Argument.

But I shall not (out of my tender pity and regard to his Soul, and to the deluded Souls of his Disciples) leave him gasping and bleeding under his wound, but as I for­merly praised him, and them for their pretended awful reverence to Gods holy Name, so (as it becomes a merciful Soul-Physician, & as the good Samaritan did to the woun­ded Traveller, Luke 10.) I shall pour the oyl of my prayers [Page 48]into his wound, beseeching God the Father of mercyes so to open his, and the eye of their understandings (as he did the eyes of Balaam) and the door of their hearts (as he did open Lydia's) that they may (laying aside all prejudice) attend to those saving Truths which have been delivered in this Anti-Treatise, Num. 21.31. Act. 16.14. and (being convin­ced of their errors) submit with a due, and humble obe­dience (according to the will of God) to the wholsom Laws of the Realm, and to the Churches laudable consti­tutions, that so they and we may meet now together in love, unity and concord, and hereafter in the great Con­gregation of Heaven above, into which none shall be ad­mitted but only those, who are the true and lively mem­bers of Christ their Head, who are animated, quickned, and guided by his good Spirit the spirit of love, and unity, (which rests not in the breast of a perverse malicious Schismatick) and the spirit of Truth, where with the soul of a proud obstinate Heretick (who maintains and propa­gates opinions repugnant to the word of God) is not en­lightned. From that Venom of Schism, and this Pest of Heresie, Lord preserve and defend thy Church: And so sanctifie the Hearts, and govern the Tongues of all pro­fane Swearers, that (being aw'd by a trembling fear of those dreadful Judgments, which have in all ages fallen upon such miscreants) they may with thankful lips, and by the holiness of their lives advance thy glory, and publish thy praises. O let thy mercy be glorified in their Conversion, and not thy Justice magnified in their Confusi­on. This I humbly beg in the behalf of them, and all Dis­senters from the Orthodox Professors of thy Truth, and sound Religion, for thy mercies sake and alone merits of thy beloved Son our Lord and only Saviour Christ Jesus. Amen.