SECTION I. The Design of this Treatise.

IT is not mine intention, to examine the Truth of many Assertions boldly affirm'd by these Men, without any proof, or shew of probability, but not without an evidence of Pride and Vain-glory; nor to inquire into the sincerity and pertinency of all the Examples and Testimonies annexed to their frame of their Case, which can only dazle the Eyes, or amuse the Minds of vulgar Readers. But my design is, out of the Love which I owe to Truth and Peace, Zech. 8.19. both which can never be so well preserv'd, as by the Holy and Wise Gods Ordi­nances for their security, to assert (with as much brevity and perspi­cuity, as I can well use) the warrantable use of Oaths under the Gos­pel, [Page 4]when Christians do, upon a just occasion, Swear by the True and Living God in Truth, Jer. 4.2.in Judgment, and in Righteousness; notwith­standing Christs inhibition (in his Sermon on the Mount) that the Jews, then his Auditors, should not swear at all by the Creatures, nor by God himself, Matth. 5. [...]—37 in ordinary communication; and also to defend the Authority of our Lawful Superiors, to require an Oath from them, who are subject to their Government, be it Civil, or Ecclesiastical. Now because these subverters of Government, do invite (or rather provoke) the whole Nation to consider their Case, that they may gain pitty to themselves from the Common People, and Protection from the Powers ordain'd of God, even in their disorderly ways of singularity, wherein they villify Authority, and disturb that peace of Conscience, with which good Christians do approve themselves, to be faithful Subjects both to Christ, and his Vicegerents on Earth, I shall endeavor to discover, not only the defects, but also the frauds of these new Casuists in stating of the Question; and then proceed to unfold the Nature of an Oath, in order to the right stating of the Question in hand, viz. Whether an Oath of God, or of the Lord, (as the Holy Ghost speaks) be consistent, or repugnant, with or to the Gos­pel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Eccl. 8.2. Exod. 22. [...]. And lastly I shall reconcile sober, deli­berate, and reverent swearing unto Christian Religion, still procee­ding upon those Principles, and Maxims which are avowed by all, who are indeed, the Disciples of Christ, taught of God by his holy Spirit and Word, which in Religion, deriv'd from Heaven by Revela­tion, are never to be severed, since the holy Scriptures are by Gods gracious providence employed, and by his Blessing are sufficient to make us wise unto Salvation. And in this undertaking I do earnestly beseech the only wise God, who is the Father of Lights, and free-flowing Fountain of Wisdom, to direct and assist me in the lighting of my Candle at his written Word, and in drawing the Waters of Life, out of that never failing Well of Salvation.

SECT. II. The Pretence of the Quakers.

THis late upstart Generation, raised up by the Lord, as they boast, (and we will acknowledge it to be true in some sense, Exod. 9. [...]6. as God says he raised up Pharoah, first to be a Destroyer, and then to be De­stroyed) [Page 5]complains that for 20 or 30 years last past, under the va­rious Revolutions of Government, although they have been of a peaceable behaviour, (They say nothing of their refractory disobe­dience to Authority, in what hand soever) have been a suffering Peo­ple only for refusal of Oaths; whereas they cannot swear at all, their Consciences not allowing them to do so, because of the express command of Christ, and out of obedience to the Doctrine of the Apostles. They alleadge, Mat. 5.33, 34. Jam 5.12 from whence they conclude, that though Swearing were allowed in the Law, yet Christ and his Apostles forbid it in his Gospel. They dare, and do appeal to God the searcher of Hearts, (pray mark, how near this comes to an Oath, wherein every Swearer doth, as St. Paul did, 2 Cor. 1.23. call God to Record upon his Soul) that their refusing to swear, is with respect to the Reputation of Christianity, and the Evangelical dis­pensation of Truth and Righteousness, which exceed that of the Law and the solemn Oaths thereof, and to the express Prohibition in the Case. This is the summe of their Case, and the ground of their Re­quest, to be eased of the heavy burden, and to be deliver'd of the Snare of Oaths.

SECT. III. An Examination of this Pretence for Refusal of Oaths.

I Shall not now make inquiry, whether all the Imprisonments and Sufferings of Quakers, have been only for their refusing of Oaths exacted of them by Magistrates. But my business is to examine, whether their pretence of Conscience be allowable in this Case, to exempt them from being prest to Swear, or to se­cure them from the guilt of disobedience, in their obstinate refusal of all Oaths whatsoever. Here, first I must lay open two things in this Discourse, to wit, the foul Hypocrisie, and the false Doctrine of these Quakers, in the ground-work of their perverseness. It is a matter of much consequence, to the right understanding of this serpentine breed, to compare their professi­ons here, of respect to the Honor of Christianity, of obedience to Christs command, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, with their [Page 6]known Principles and Practises, and to see whether there be an uni­formity in them, and these Men bear an equal regard to all the Pre­cepts of Christ, Psal. 119.6. and his Apostles, as David had a respect to all Gods Commandments. For partiality in keeping one command with a nice scrupulosity, but breaking others with licentiousness, is a cer­tain token of insincerity, and a pretence of Zeal, for one part of the Rule of Religion, when all the Rule beside is rejected, can be taken for no other, than divelish dissimulation. Now let the Con­versation of the Quakers, in relation to other parts of Christianity, be a little looked into, and you will quickly see, how little value, credit, or obedience, they defer to the precepts of Christ, and his Apostles. Do they not cast aside the Ordinances of Christ and his Apostles, for Worship and Government? Do they not avowedly refuse to give honor, Rom. 13.7. to whom honor is commanded to be given as due? Do they not dissolve, or weaken those bonds of civil societies, which Christ by his Gospel hath tied streighter, than the Law of Nature did? Do they not violate Christian Charity, by Damning all that are not of their combination? To say nothing of their reviling all Ministers of the Gospel. Hath this Precept of not Swearing, swallowed up the whole Body of their Christian Religion? Or shall the observance of it pass current for universal, and uniform obedience, to the compleat Law of Liberty? Jam. 1.25. Is not then something else in the bottome, besides the tenderness of the Reputation of Christianity? Let this be well thought on. But another thing is yet more remar­kable. Who would not think, but that these hot Zealots for Christs Doctrine of the Gospel, who suffer such hard things, rather than break Christs Commandment, did make the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which Christ, and his Apostles, have, by practice and precept, commended to our study, for the confirming of our Faith, and the regulating our Lives, and those of the New Testa­ment superadded to them, joyntly to be the Foundation on which we are built up to be that Temple, Eph. 2.19. whereof Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone, or the compleat Rule of Faith, and Manners? For indeed without the Scriptures, now who can assuredly know what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect Will of God? And how came these Men to be acquainted with this very Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, but by the Scriptures? But after all this, you will find your self much mistaken, if you imagine that these Men make the written Oracles of God, their principle of Religion, or Rule of Life. For the heads of them, in several Books, set up the Light of [Page 7]God within them, for the only infallible Rule, and they disparage the Holy Scriptures, which they allow to be, at the best, but a shadow of Gods will. Again their dissimulation of what they dare not deny, to be the Word and Will of God concerning Swea­ring, together with their impious despising of the same Holy Word, is apparently visible in their Sophistical conclusion, thus exprest with all the subtilty that the old Serpent could inspire into them, So though it (viz. Swearing) was allowed in the Law, (viz. of Moses which is opposed by them in the precedent sentence, and here to the Gospel) Christ and his Apostles forbid it in his Gospel.

Here is a double fallacy in the first Member of the conclusion. They would induce a conceit, that as Divorce was by God, and Mo­ses, permitted to the Jews, to pass unpunished, Mat. 19.8. Mal. 2.16. for the hardness of their hearts, which yet was not approved by God, as good in it self, and therefore it is regulated by a Law for the security of the Wo­man, which Law doth but permit the divorce, but enjoyn the giving a Bill; so Swearing was but allowed barely with prescription of forms for Solemnity, and not commanded: Deut. 6.13. & 10.12.20. Whereas Swearing by the Name of God was commanded, (which is devoted by the Fear of God in Scripture) as a solemn part of his Holy Worship, whereby Man gives God the Glory of his Sovereignity, Providence, Omnipre­sence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Veracity, Justice and Equity. The Prophets also, who reached to the depth of the Law, which was Rom. 7.14. Jer. 4.2. & 12.16. Spiritual, commanded Swearing under the Old Testament, and Esa. 19.18. & 45.23. & 65.16. foretold, in their Evangelical Sermons, that way of serving God and Christ under the dispensation of the New Covenant, when the Gentiles turn to the Lord, (mark the words of Esaiah,) which according to the Hebrew, run thus. He that blesseth himself in the Earth, shall bless himself in God Amen; (as we render it not amiss, but not to the full importance of the word, Esa. 11.9. the God of Truth) and he that Sweareth in the Earth (when it shall be full of the Knowledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea, in the new state of the Church, when God calls his Servants by another Name, Esa. 65, 16, 17. And what is that new and blessed name but Christians?) Shall Swear by God Amen. Christ himself expounds the word, when in his Hea­venly Epistle to the Church of Laodicea, Apoc. 3.14. he takes to himself that glo­rious Title Amen. The true and faithful witness, who is invoked as a Witness and Judge of the Heart in every Oath made by his Name. It is not to be omitted, that the Oaths, which God commanded to be used in judicial proceedings, are enjoyned as fit means in their own [Page 8]nature for the discovery of truth, Heb. 6.6. and decision of controversies, which benefit and effect is common to all Nations in all Ages, who are imbrued with an apprehension, and fear of God, as Judge of the World. It is therefore an Imposture of these Wolves in Sheep­skins, to attempt the persuasion that Swearing was only allowed, and not as expresly commanded in the Law, as these Dreamers Dream it to be forbidden in the Gospel.

Their second piece of juggling is this, that by their taking no notice of the practice of all Nations, not debauched into direct A­theisme, and of the constant practice of Gods best servants, who used Oaths for firm binding themselves and others in publick Confe­deracies, and private transactions, which were made between Gods servants on both sides, and also between the people of Gado on one side, and Idolatrous people on the other part, (of which proceed­ings, the Sacred History of the World, before the Law given by Moses, Rom. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.15. 1 Cor. 10.11. Heb. 10.1. Col. 2.17. yields a full Harvest of Precedents) they divert us from look­ing after those things, which as St. Paul says, were before written for the instruction, conviction, reformation, teaching and admonition of us, upon whom the ends of the World are come. Therefore though Jesus Christ brought that Grace and Truth, whereof Moses, in the Cere­monial Law, by Gods wise contrivance, gave the Jews a Shadow, and that Shadow vanished, when the Body of the Son of Righteousness appeared above the Horizon of the Church, yet Christ in his Gospel did not diminish any thing of that natural Religion, the seeds where­of, God had once sown in the Hearts of all Mankind, for the keep­ing up the Faith of his Providence, and the fear of his Judgment, which are the two Pillars of Justice, without which, no civil society can firmly subsist.

I now proceed to animadvert the false Doctrine, either insinuated secretly by supposition, or expressed openly by profession.

First, It is falsly supposed, that the Law of Moses doth not in any part of it concern, or oblige us Christians. I shall hereafter shew that Christs prohibition of Swearing in familiar Discourse, and St. James's restraint of the Tongues outrage in passionate heates, is no forbidding of what the Law commands. But if the Law of Swea­ring oblige Christians, or be but a precedent to direct them, we must observe it, or at least may warrantably imitate it. The Ceremonial part of the Law, which concerned the Typical Service and Sacrifi­ces of the Temple, ceased as to the design and Virtue of it, when Christ by his Gospel published the accomplishment of our Redemp­tion [Page 9]wrought by his Death and Resurrection. The Political Law of Moses, which was peculiarly accommodated, in many parti­culars, to the seed of Jacob, called Israel, as they were, by Co­venant, made God's Tenants of Canaan, ceased, when they ceas­ed to be the Politick People of God. Both were openly abrogated, as to their exercise and practice by the utter devastation of the Holy City, with the Temple it self, by the dissolution of the Policy, by the ejectment of the Nation out of their Land, and dispersion over the face of the Earth, in which state of exile, Hos. 3.4. accompanied with bondage, they yet remain without King, Prince, Sacrifice, Image, Ephod, and Teraphim; that is, without any set­led Form of Government, and without any means to serve, or to consult God, as formerly they had done. But for the Law of Moses, so far as it prescribes Offices, and exercises of Piety, Charity, Justice, Humanity, and Prudence; it obliges Christi­ans, not upon the same account it did the Jews, to wit, as it was a part of the Covenant made in Horeb, but as it is a clear explication, and improvement of the Law of Nature, by de­duction of particular Precepts, from general Principals of Reli­gion, and Righteousness. Therefore St. Rom. 13.8. Eph. 6.1.2.Paul charges Christians with obedience to the Law, the second Table whereof he in­grafts into the Gospel. And (which is yet more considerable, to manifest our concernment in the Law) he establishes the libe­ral maintenance of the Ministers, not only upon the Ordinance of Christ, but also upon two Laws of Moses, 1 Cor 9.8.14. according to the Spi­ritual meaning of the one, and the Reason and Analogy of the other. And when we hear him speak thus, ver. 9. Doth not also the Law say these things? We must remember, that as St. Paul says elsewhere, Rom. 3.19. We know whatsoever things the Law speaks (either for conviction, or for direction) It speaks unto them that are under the Law. We therefore who have and hear, by God's bounty, Moses and the Prophets, as well as the Apostles, are under the Law, Luk 16.29. not as a Covenant of Righteousness and Life by Works, (for in this respect, We are not under the Law, Rom. 6.14.but under the grace of the Gospel) but as an obligatory Rule of obedience, to the Will of God, declared therein; therefore St. James calls the Law re­corded by Moses, a Perfect Law of Liberty, the doing whereof must be added to the hearing, if we desire to be happy, St. James also calls it The Royal Law, one Commandement whereof being broken, the whole Golden Chain is broken, by which we must order our [Page 10]lives, Jam. 1.25. & 2.8.12. and shall be judged. Now St. James knew, that the third Com­mandment running in the Negative, Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, did include the Affirmative Precept of Swearing reverently, and keeping legitimate Oaths, which were Duties known well by the light of Nature, but reinforced upon the Jews by the Law, Now is it imaginable, that St. James the Apostle of the Circumcision, writing to the Jews, should so far forget him­self, as after this high commendation of their Law, expresly pro­hibit what the Law enjoyned, and by a total abolition of swear­ing, cancel the Third Commandment, as a thing that hath no fur­ther any place or use under the Gospel? This intolerable in­convenience is easily avoided, if according to the scope of the Apostles discourse, easily gathered from the Context, and con­sidering, that impatience is the Parent of rash Oaths, we say, that St. James did very wisely joyn his inhibition of Swearing in heat and haste, upon the Sallies of Passion, to his exhorta­tion unto patience; Jam. 5.8.12. and yet he did not abolish the Third Com­mandment, nor banish Oaths out of Christendom. I confess I have unawares transgressed mine own limits, and expounded St. James before the method I prescribed to my self did require it; but I shall have the less to say hereafter. Indeed being inga­ged to shew how St. James, and indeed all the Apostles, do oblige Christians to their observance of, and obedience to the Law, in those Precepts which concern all Nations, who are by Christ set at liberty from the Judaical Yoke of Ceremonies and carnal Ordinances, amongst which, none was so mad yet, as to rank an Oath; I could not but observe the incongruity of the Apostles prohibition, as it is over-stretched by the Quakers, with his own honouring of the Law, and to prevent any scruple which might arise through misunderstanding of the Apostles restraint of us from swearing, by this distinction of imprudent and passionate Oaths, belched out in rage, from deliberate swear­ing upon weighty Causes, either arbitrarily, or out of obedi­ence to Authority, but always with due reverence to God, I have open'd a way to reconcile St. James to himself, and the Law to the Gospel. And now I proceed,

Secondly, To refute the dangerous errors of the Quakers, which they lay for a foundation of their abstinence from swear­ing. They affirm, the Righteousness of the Gospel exceeds that of the Law. This Affertion they maintain by the example of [Page 11]one Walter Brute, who, (as Mr. Fox relates, in his Martyrology) defended his refusal of an Oath, because his Master Christ taught Christian Men, that in affirmation of a Truth, they should pass the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees of the Old Te­stament, or else he excludes them out of Heaven, Matth. 5.20. To the words recited out of Matth. 5.33.37. Walter Brute subjoyned; Therefore as the perfection of the antient Men of the Old Testament was, not to forswear themselves; so the perfection of Christian Men, is not to swear at all, because they are so commanded of Christ. But though Walter Brute was mistaken in the sense of Christs Commandment, yet his words mount not to such an height of Error, as this po­sition of the Quakers. For W. B. doth well note, that our Sa­viour says, our Righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, but not that of the Law of Moses. And to the right understanding of Christs Sermon in the Mount; we must take notice that Christ doth not unfold to his novice Disciples, the Mysteries of the Gospel; but first corrects the Jewish vul­gar error of Happiness, consisting in the full enjoyment of the Temporal Blessings promised in the Law, and prepares them for the Cross, to be suffered for Righteousness: and that they might not be deceived by a counterfeit or defective Righteous­ness, he establishes the Law, and the Prophets, to be the Rule of Righteousness, and then proceeds to clear and vindicate the Law of Moses from the corrupt Glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, whose new Model of Righteousness was so defective, that our Saviour said plainly, and severely; that except your Righteousness exceed beyond that of the Scribes and Pharisees, Math. 5.20. ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, ye cannot be Subjects of the Kingdom of the Messiah, which now ye long to see. Mark that Christ spake then to the Jews, who were carried away with a reverence and esteem of the Scribes and Pharisees, who partly enervated, partly made void the Law of Moses, by their new Traditions, and false Interpretations. Christ recovers the Law of Moses, as it was expounded by the Prophets, who preferred a Spiritual Obedience, and sincere Righteousness, and charitable Mercy before Sacrifices, from noval corruptions, and recom­mends it, explain'd by himself, to them, who delighted to be counted the Disciples of Moses. He propounds no superabundant Righteousness beyond the Law, which cannot be exceeded in a tittle. For there is nothing imaginable in the way of Righte­ousness, [Page 12](as it imports a conformity of Man's Will unto God's Will) beyond the loving of God with all the Heart, Soul, Ʋnder­standing,Matt. 22.37.40.and Strength, and the loving of our Neighbor as our self, on which two Commandments all the Law and the Prophets do depend. These, Christ came neither to make void, nor to improve by any new Precept of Righteousness. The Righteousness of God by Faith, which is now fully and clearly revealed in the Gospel, Rom. 1.17. & 3.21, 22. is another thing, far different from the inherent and active Righteousness, which Christ in his Sermon so earnestly recommends to his new-come Auditors. The conceit that Christ made up the defects of the Law, and laid a yoke of more exact Righteousness upon Christians, than Moses laid upon the Jews; (yet Papists say, we may take up, or refuse at pleasure, because all these pretended additions (which we may find as easily in the Old Testament, as in the New) are not Commandments, but Counsels,) hath bred many pernicious errors and practises in the Church. The Popish way of taking Christs additional Ordinances (as they conceive) for Counsels leading to a state of Perfection above common Christians, hath begot the Doctrine of Works of Supererogation, of Merit, of Monkery, and all the Superstitions and Frauds, depending upon them. The Phanatick way of false expounding Christs inter­pretations of the Old Law, for New Precepts obliging all Christi­ans, hath put Anabaptists and others upon the conceit, that the use of the Sword in the Magistrates hand, and in the Soldiers, and also Swearing, is altogether inconsistent with Christianity. But let it be considered, whether it is likely that Christ would engage his raw Disciples to break the Law of Moses, and in a refractory manner to disobey their Magistrates by refusal of Oaths, which might be exacted of them almost every day. Certainly if his Doctrine had been such, and any number of his Disciples, had been obedient to his new Law; his adversaries who took much pain to little purpose, in suborning witnesses against Christ, might, with ease, have found ground enough of accusation, and plenty of Witnesses, who heard and practised his Doctrine, or, in their Courts, saw it observed: (if Christs words had been taken at that time in the same sense as the Quakers do now) to have overwhelmed our Saviour with the charge of abrogating Moses's Law.

Lastly, is it imaginable, that Christ our Blessed Lord and Master would so prevaricate, as not to observe, and practise, [Page 13]what he taught and preached to his Disciples? But our Blessed Saviour, whom these Seducers affirm to have forbidden Swear­ing in a Court, at the Command of a Magistrate, and to have made this abstinence from Oaths a degree of Perfection above the Righteousness of the Law, did, himself, at the great Coun­cil at Hierusalem, after long and strange silence, give an an­swer to the High Priest, being required to speak upon his Oath; and he submitted to the High Priest's adjuration, by confessing himself to be Christ. The High Priest (as if he would use a Spi­ritual Rack, to extort a confession from his silent Prisoner) said, I adjure thee by the living God, Mat. 24 63.that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. The form of the Oath is pronounced by the Judge himself, with the Matter inquired for. Our Sa­viour's answer of assent, is a taking of the Oath. Thus Christ did, and that he taught the contrary, is contrary to Reason, and to the sense of our Saviours Sermons, who therein secures the Law of Moses to a Tittle, and excludes from Heaven, Matt. 5 17, 18 19, any one that teaches the breach of the least Commandment in the Law. Surely if his Auditors had then understood their new Master to have abrogated all the Precepts of Moses, concerning Oaths in Judicature especially, they would have accused him of contradicting himself, and of disparaging Moses, and of vi­lifying the Law of God, and in that humor would have de­serted him. But it is evident that our Saviours Doctrine had a powerful Influence upon them another way, Matt. 7 28, 29. to raise their Won­der and Reverence of his Authority, above that of the Scribes and Pharisees.

But the knotty question is not yet untied. For it is said by many, If our Saviour did not fill up (as they expound [...]) the Defects, or the Shortness of the Law, in points of Righteous­ness; why doth he oppose his sayings, to what was said of old in the Law, and settle a new Rule of Righteousness? Here lies the difficulty, which I pray God direct me to clear.

First, I say, that the common exposition of the word [...], by fulfilling, (as the Evangelist uses it, Matt. 3.15. when he relates our Blessed Saviours Speech, wherewith he satisfied John the Baptist, concerning Baptizing his Master; Thus it becometh us to fulfil all Righteousness) is very pertinent and apposite, to the former mem­ber of the Sentence, as much as 'tis agreeable to the Truth. For Christ that came to destroy the works of the Devil, 1 Joh. 3.8.6.5.and to take away sin, which is the breach of the Law; by his Holy Life and [Page 14]Doctrine, and by his expiatory Sacrifice, might truly and fitly say, he came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them. And to reject this Sense of Christs words, without manifesting the incongruity of it, is an injurious dealing with Scripture. On the other side, the expounding of it Filling up, or Supplying, is supposed to be true, before it is proved; where­as it is not so agreeable to the opposition set between [...] and [...]. Certainly, Filling up by Addition is not so directly opposite to the destruction of the Law and Prophets, as Fulfilling them is, which strengthens their Authority and Credit. But let these Men, who are so earnest for Christs improvement of the Law, by ad­dition of more excellent Precepts of exact Purity, and heroick Patience, shew how he hath supplied the defects of the Pro­phets; since Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophets, have in se­veral places given the same Rules of Purity, Peace, Patience, &c. and the Apostles have enforced their exhortations to these Christian Vertues, by testimonies taken out of the Old Testa­ment, as any one that is indifferently versed in the Apostolical Epistles will find.

Secondly, this pretended filling up of the Law, makes the new Doctrine of Christ, indeed to be the inserting a piece of a new and unwrought Cloth into an old Garment, Matt. 9. [...]6. which agrees not with it, but makes the rent worse. For if the superstructure, which these expositors build upon their fancied foundation, be true, Christ came to destroy the Law of Moses and the Prophets as unsufficient for Christians, and for the Jews too at that time, by requiring a Righteousness more accurate, then they did. For if Christ forbad all Oaths, even those which Moses command­ed, it unavoidably follows, that the great Prophet Christ un­taught what Moses and the Prophets injoyned, and he dissolved their building, which is a strange way of perfecting, and Christ for his part, strongly disavows to have been the intent of his coming. Matt. 9. [...]2. The rub that lies in my way, is Christs prohibition of Divorces, except in case of Adultery; and the reduction of God's Ordinance of Marriage, to its primitive Unity, Purity, and In­dissolubility, Matt. 16. [...]. &c. as our Saviour more largely elsewhere handles the case. It is besides my present purpose to enter upon another question, besides that of Oaths: I shall only say, that our Blessed Saviour intended a reformation of the Jewish Nation, corrupt by custom, and the restitution of Marriage, throughout all Christen­dom, to its Integrity, and Dignity; and to prefer God's Primitive [Page 15]Ordinance before a political Law; attempered by a wise and a Gracious Law-giver, to the humour of an ill-natured people. And yet here is nothing new, or more perfect than what was deli­vered in the Law and the Prophets. For Christ proves his Doctrine of Marriage out of Moses. Matt. 19. [...]

The severe Law of Retaliation which God made, that he might, by terror, prevent the first injury; and not that he might en­courage the last of Revenge, is no more repealed by Christ, than by Solomon, Prov. 20.22. and 24.29. But it sounds harsh­ly, when a Man says, This Law is filled up by Christ, when he disswades the use of the Law. By the way take notice, that many Political Laws were wisely contrived, and provided, by God, for the Jewish People, as fit remedies of many evils emer­gent by the naughty disposition of a froward Generation, which Provisions were left to the liberty of the offended Party to make use of. Now Christs prudential admonitions of the Jews, not to fly to those Remedies, are no abrogations of those Laws. But I have said enough of Christs preserving reverence, and en­joyning obedience to that original Rule of Righteousness, gi­ven to Mankind, which was antienter than the Law, given in Mount Sinah, and is set down and explain'd in the Law, and in the Prophets, which compleat the Body of the Holy Scrip­tures of the Old Testament, which God hath thought expe­dient to preserve, for the benefit of his Church Universal of all Nations.

Finally, to solve the whole objection, the Adversaries and their Doctrine, against which, Christ bends his Discourse, are to be enquired for, and discovered. Christ, before he delivered his own Sense and Saying, premises this to his present Auditors, Ye have heard, that it was said to, or by them of old time, &c. Mal. 5.21.27.23. ver. 38.43. ver. 31. Or, Ye have heard that it hath been said, &c. Or barely, It hath been said. Now that which was said to them of old time (viz. to the Ancestors of the Jews, that either heard God himself, or Moses and the Prophets) which is recited and interpreted by our Savi­our, is either some words of the Decalogue, viz. the 6.7, and 3 Commandments; or else some Precepts in the Law, as those concerning Divorce, Retaliation, Love and Hatred; but of whom did that people hear it? without doubt, of the Scribes and Pha­risees, Matt. 23.13, & and 16. whose form of Righteousness Christ taxes for defective­ness, and whom elsewhere he sharply reproves for Blind Guides, yet active and cunning Seducers; and of whose sower but spread­ing [Page 16]Leaven of false Doctrine, he warns his Disciples to beware. But did they hear all that God said to them of old time, and no­thing else? Did these popular Rabbies preach the word of God intirely, and sincerely, without addition, mutilation, corruption, and adulterating, by vain traditions of Men, and by fraudulent glosses? No such matter; this is confessed, and without con­troversy, that those soothing Preachers insisted on the Letter of the Law, and to gratify the corrupt affections of their Clients and Scholars, who looked on them, as bearing the Keys of Know­ledge, and uncontroulable interpreters of the Law, and reward­ed them accordingly; perswaded them, that an external obedi­ence, or abstinence from Adultery, Murder, Perjury, was a full satisfaction to the Law, and this patch of innocency was an entire raiment of Righteousness. Further, They gave all the indul­gence to the Peoples passions of Lust and Revenge, which the politick Law did not reach at to punish. In the mean time they neglected all the Sermons of the Prophets, who were, by their Office, Interpreters of the Law, and Preachers of Repentance, and did constantly require the cleaness of the Heart; Truth in the inward Man, and Regularity in their Affections. Now our Saviour Christ reflects upon the Impostors, and their cor­rupt comments upon the Law of God, when he expounds the several Commandments: He makes no distinction of Perfecti­ons (as W. Brute misconceived) as if there were one perfection of the Men of the Old Testament, and another of Christian Men. A sincere endeavour to be Holy, and Merciful, as God our Heavenly Father is, and shews himself to be our pattern, is the Perfection common to both Jew and Gentile, that follow after the Righteousness of God's prescription. That which W. Brute, and these Quakers that follow him, call The perfecti­on of the Antient Jews, Not to forswear themselves, is but the par­tial, clipt, and counterfeit Righteousness of the Scribes and Pha­risees, expounding the 3 Commandment by halfes; Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; that is, said they, Thou shalt no swear falsly, nor break thy Oath, whereas they never counted rash and vain Oaths to be a breach of this Command­ment, worthy their reproval. And that which they call the per­fection of Christian Men not to swear at all, is indeed a corruption of Religion, by depriving God of his Honour and Worship, and a great Defect introduced into the publick Institutions of Justice, by debarring Christian States of a very serviceable Ordinance of [Page 17]God. The reason of mine Assertion is this; As Christ in ex­pounding the sixth and seventh Commandment, the force of which he extends to the restraint of the Eye, Heart, and Af­fections, as well as to the Members of the Body, opposes no­thing but what the Pharisees indulged; In like manner, in deal­ing with the third Commandment, Christ forbids not what the Law (which he himself, being the Word of God, did give unto Moses, and by his hand, unto the People) did Command, and Establish, but that sinful swearing in ordinary communica­tion, which being grown customary (peradventure with the Leaders, as well as the following people) these Masters in Is­rael connived at, who sought their own Glory and Profit, and never seriously considered the honour of God, which Christ sought to advance, in all that he did and taught. And now I hope I have evinced, that Christ did not set up a new, and more perfect rule of Righteousness, than what of old was given by God, and that he hath cleared it from the corruption, and re­stored it to its integrity, from the defalcation of the Scribes, and Pharisees, without addition or detraction; and without crossing or abolishing his own Law, concerning reverent swear­ing by the Name of God. I do not think it needful, to take notice now of the fond and senseless Traditions of the Phari­sees, concerning the binding force of Oaths, which varied with them, according to the several forms of them, as they were expressive, either of the Name of God the Creator, or of the Creatures; and in the names of several Creatures, they defer­red more Virtue to some than to others, though the prefe­rence be ridiculous, because unreasonable, Mal. 23.16.22. as our Saviour hath related, and censured them. Our Saviour in this Prohibition of Swearing, now under debate, appears clearly to have had a reflex­ive Eye upon some of their frivolous niceties. But these are be­sides the lines of the main matter in question, and may, with­out prejudice to the Cause, be past over without any further handling. It is high time now to conclude this Section.

SECTION IV. Concerning the Nature of an Oath.

AN Oath being the subject Matter of the Controversy, the right understanding of it will conduce much to the stating, clearing, and determining the Question, con­cerning the consistency thereof with Christianity. I shall there­fore explain the nature of an Oath, by a more resplendent Light, than that of the Natural Conscience, which yet is a Di­vine Light, and spark of Piety, which God in his Wife and Holy Providence, kept alive in the World, for the preservation of Humane Society, from our Universal Confusion. The Ho­ly Scripture informs us abundantly, of the nature and use of Swearing, which is common to God the Creator, and the Crea­tures that bear the Image of God, both Angels and Men.

By the way, hence we may collect the absurdity of all them, who deny deliberate Swearing, upon weighty motives, as an Imperfection; whereas indeed, to swear in due manner, upon just grounds, Mat. 5. [...]8. is to be perfect in Truth, Sincerity, and Constancy, as our Heavenly Father is Perfect, and to make Christians, even be­fore the Resurrection, in some measure equal to Angels. Now though there be a great difference between the Oath of the Cre­ator; Heb. 6. [...]3. Jer. 22. [...]. Deut. 32. [...]0, 41. Jer. 51. [...]4. Psal. 89. [...]5. Amos. 4. [...]. Heb. 6. [...]7. who because he hath none Superior or Greater than himself, swears by Himself, by his Life, hy his Holiness, that is, his in­communicable Majesty, and the Oath of the Creature, who swears by God in the way of an Appeal, to a Sovereign Lord, who is both a sharp-sighted witness of Truth, and a severe avenger of falshood; yet there is somewhat common to both; for which, in propriety of speech, Swearing is, by the Holy Ghost, attributed, to both; I do therefore describe an Oath in general to be the binding ones self immutably, to speak and act according to Truth and Faithfulness. St. Paul leads me to this description, by say­ing, that God willing to shew more abundantly the unchangeable­ness of his Counsel, to the Heirs of the Promise, confirmed it by the interposition of an Oath. Numb. [...]0.2. &c. All swearing, (as Moses teaches us) is binding the person, with a Bond, to be constant and true to his word that goes out of his mouth. Now God is above the pow­er [Page 19]of being bound by others, but yet may, and doth bind him­self, by himself, and to himself primarily, and secondarily, by a gracious condescention to his Creatures. But Man who is subject to the power of others, may not onely bind himself, of his own accord, by an Oath, but may also, and sometimes ought to suf­fer this sacred Bond to be imposed on him, and to put it on himself. For persons under the Authority of Magistrates, Parents. Masters, are bound by the express Law of God, to take such Oaths, which, upon just grounds, are exacted of them; and those of equal quality may, by God's Warrant, bind themselves each to other, by interchangeable Oaths. It is superfluous now to recite at large all the examples of these obligations recorded in Scripture, which frequently occur to the Reader, and are set up by God as Pillars for the direction of Travellers, Psal. 1.105. or (to use David's words) are designed to be a Light to our Feet, and a Lantern to our Paths. But the Swearer, whether by his own motion, or at the command, or intreaty of another, ought to bind himself to nothing, but what is agreeable to Goodness and Justice. God, the Fountain and Measure of Goodness and Justice, can do no other; And Man made, at first, in the likeness of God, ought to do no other. Therefore the two celebrated Axiomes of Di­vines, which depend one on the other, are true and fixed Rules of Conscience. 1. An Oath ought not to be made the Bond of Iniquity. 2. An Oath taken to that purpose, binds to nothing but Repentance.

Now that by which a person binds himself in swearing, is suitable to his own nature, or quality and condition. God, who is an independent Being, (as his Name, by which he revealed him­self to Moses, imports, I am that I am, or more concisely, Exod. 14. I am) binds himself by the very mention of, and reflexion upon his own indeficient, and invariable Life and Holiness, Tit. 1. Heb. 6.18. 2 Tim. 13. Mal. 3 6. Jam. 1 17. who can equal­ly neither Lye nor Dye; who is one, and changes not, and is inca­pable of variation, and ingages himself, by his immutability, to constancy in his word. But Man, who is a Creature dependent, and obnoxions to God, his Sovereign Lord, Lawgiver, and Judge, binds himself over to the vengeance of God, if he fail in the Truth and Sincerity of his Swearing, by an open, or at least an imperfect invocation of God, to be first a witness to his Assertion, or Ingagement, and then to be the Judge and Aven­ger, if he fail of Truth and Honesty in either. Furthermore, it is necessary for us, to the right understanding of God's [Page 20]Swearing, to observe, what very many do not take notice of, or do not enough consider, and therefore set up their rest here, that God, when he takes an Oath, deals with Men after the man­ner of Men, out of a gracious condescention to Humane infir­mity, that complying with Men's weakness, he may cure their infidelity with an Oath, as an Antidote against Ʋnbelief, and a cordial strengthener of Faith. Now though there be Truth in this, and I will not say that this Doctrine is unsound, yet I will say, and prove, that it is too short or narrow an explication of the mystery of God's Swearing. For the Scripture informs us, that God hath sworn, not only to us who are mere Men, sometimes in Mercy, as to Abraham, and to his Seed, for the confirmati­on of his promises, and to David and others; and sometimes in wrath, as to the incredulous and murmuring Jews, to shew the irreversibility of that sentence, whereby they were exclu­ded out of the promised Land, [...]l. 95. [...] Heb. 3. [...].18, [...] because they, had forfeited their Title to it, by Infidelity; But God the Father hath also sworn to God his own Son, when he was designed to be made Man, and being invested with our Flesh, to be the Saviour of the World. Now the Eternal Son of God, being the brightness of his Fathers Glory, Heb. 1. [...]4. was more excellently Pure, than the very Angels, who, although (as Gregory Nazianz speaks) they were [...] Spotless mirrors of God's Holy Light in their original estate, yet were, as experience proved, by the ruine of some, ca­pable of foul darkness, and therefore Christ stood not in need of such means, to preserve his fixed Purity, as we do to re­store and secure our health, which depends upon our Faith on God's word. Yet God for other reasons did swear unto Christ, Thou art a Priest for ever, [...]l. 110.after the Order of Melchisedeck. It is im­pertinent to say, that God swore only for our assurance, and encouragement to rely upon the alsufficient atonement of this High Priest, and for binding us to serve and obey this King of Peace and Righteousness. For by that Oath, as we do not swear Fealty and Allegiance to God or Christ, so God doth not swear to us, that Christ shall be a Faithful High Priest; but the Holy Scripture reveals the transaction which past in the Court of Heaven, for set­ling the Mediatorship upon Christ, how the Father swore unto his Son, [...]b. 7. [...] 25. Thou art a Priest, &c. And the Apostle gives us some account of the matter; for from this Oath of God, in the constitution of the Messiah, to be King and Priest joyntly, he in­fers the Dignity of Jesus Christ's Priesthood, above the Levitical, [Page 21]because these Priests were ordained without an Oath to a tempora­ry, successive, and, at last, a transitory, and failing Priesthood, where­as, Christ, by an Oath, was consecrated to an unpassant and eternal Priesthood. Here is no shadow of imperfection in this grand af­fair of State, in the Kingdom of God, nor any appearance of God's condescention to humane infirmity in the business, but a manifestation of the Riches of God's wisdom, and Mercy, in the Divine Counsel, concerning the salvation of miserable man­kind, by the Mediation, Propitiation, Intercession, and Redemp­tion, of the Son of God incarnate, who is our King and Priest, and is by oath inaugurated into both. If this be duely weighed, we shall find that there is no reason to say, that Christ took a­way swearing from Christians, to advance them to a state of Perfection above the Jews. But this proud affectation of Pha­naticks, to be above Oaths, surmounts the pride of Lucifer, in the Prophet Esay, who said, I will exalt my Throne above the Stars of God; I will be like the most high. Esa. 14.12, 13, 14. Dan. 12.7. Apoc. 10.5, 6. For not contented with excelling the Angels in Heaven, who did swear by the living God, nor satisfied with being like unto God, they will be above swear­ing, that their single testimonies shall pass for creditable. This indeed, if it were obtained, would not be the perfection of Christian Religion, which Christ hath adopted to the condition of all Mankind, yet full of imperfections; but of these sin­gularists, who would be above, as they are cross to, all the world, and above God himself, who is not above swearing, and counts it no disparagement to the Glory of his Truth. I will conclude this discourse with the Pious Meditation of Tertullian. O nos fae­lices, quorum causà jurat Deus, sed & miserrimos, si Deo juranti non credimus. O how happy are we, for whose sake God himself doth swear? but oh the wretched misery of us, if we do not give credit to God, when he swears to win our belief. But because not Divine, but Humane Oaths are at present in question, their special nature is to be examined. Now Man's Oath is plenarily described by a very Learned Divine, to be an extraordinary part of Religious Wor­ship, wherein God is solemnly called in to be a witness with us of the Truth and Sincerity of our speaking, upon the peril of his wrath, to be inflicted on us, if we deal not sincerely. Cicero Offic. l. 3. says an Oath is Affirma­tio Reli­giosa.

1. It is a part or act of God's worship, because it is not a bare naming of God, or making use of his name, as pious per­sons may often do, who yet may live many years without swearing, but it is an act of Religion, wherein the name of [Page 22]God is taken up on purpose for his Honour, in the acknow­ledgement of his Presidency, over Humane affairs. Thus it a­grees with Adoration, Deut. 32.40. Ex. 17.16. Numb. 14.30. Deut. 6.13. and was of old, accompanied with such Ceremonies, as import an Adoration, as lifting up the hand to Heaven, or laying the hand on the Altar, for which cause, the lifting up of the hand to Heaven, is ascribed to God, who is a Spirit, when his Swearing is intended to be exprest, It is such an emi­nent act of Religious Worship, that it is put sometimes for the whole service of God.

2. 1 Thess. 17. It is an extraordinary piece of Worship, not of so frequent use as Prayer is, which is enjoyned to be in a manner unces­sant, but restrained to certain weighty occasions, so that it is more like Physick than Food. And for this cause Christ for­bids it in ordinary communication: It is not the common lan­guage of a Christian, nor the embellishment of familiar discours­es, but a Holy weapon to be taken up for the defence of Truth and Justice, when the security of either doth require it.

3. As to the special nature of this Religious Act, an Oath is an Appeal to God with a Penalty. It is first, an invocation of God, to bear witness with us. And so we acknowledge God to be, videntem veri, one that sees and knows the truth of the thing doubted of (for it is in vain to call in one for a witness, who knows nothing of the matter) and also a searcher of Secrets, a tryer of the Hearts, who knows our thoughts and inten­tions, and the conformity of our words to our Knowledge and Purposes; And then there goes a curse upon our selves, a­long with our Prayer to God. There is always an imprecation of Vengeance added to the invocation of God's testimony, in case we speak otherwise than we know, or intend. Herein we acknowledge God to be Vindicem falsi, a just and pow­erful Revenger of Falshood, Deceit, and particularly of our abuse of him, by drawing him down to countenance our lies and fraud. These things are so cleer, that I need not enlarge my Lecture upon the proof of them. But these evident Truths I lay now as the premises, out of which I shall anon draw my conclusion.

And that will the easier obtain credit, if to the nature of an Oath, we briefly recollect the Ends, Ʋses, and Bene­fits of an Oath, which are indeed too many to be particu­larly recounted, and unfolded at this time. The main ends of swearing are two, 1. The Glory of God, which naturally results [Page 23]from Man's serious acknowledgements of God's Sovereignty, and all those excellencies which are requisite to such a Wit­ness and Judge, as we make our Appeal to, whensoever we swear in sobriety. 2. The good of others, or our selves, which we are bound to procure, and promote. For it is designed as a means, 1. To cleer the Truth, and to preserve the Reputa­tion of Men, charged unjustly. 2. To discover Crimes, Heb. 6.16. that evil may be taken away from a society. 3. To put an end to Controversies. 4. For the firmer binding of Contracts. In many cases, all other means of giving satisfaction to Ma­gistrates, Friends, &c. may be ineffectual in matters of mo­ment, where the requiring and taking of an Oath, may have a good effect to procure Quiet, Peace, and Justice. I need say no more; and what I have said, is warranted by the Law of God, and the good customs of the Nations, which are not only recorded, but approved by God in Scripture. It is therefore perversly done, by those Fanaticks, (whereof the Anabaptists are a part,) who do maintain, in shew at least, the Holy Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Life, and de­fend their Authority against the Quakers, to refuse deliberate Oaths, which are so frequently commanded, Psal. 15.1, 4. & 63.11. and commend­ed in Scriptures; because Christ in one place, restrains Men from rash, light, and vain Oaths, which are very near a kin to perjury, and because one Apostle forbids hasty Swearing in fits of impatience, which make Men unfit, even for Prayer, much more for Swearing. For that St. James meant no more, 1 Tim. 2.8. it is manifest, because another Apostle, who was led by the same Holy Spirit of Truth, (and that Spirit never contradicts himself) doth in his Divinely-inspired Epistles, pretty fro­quently make use of an Oath upon several weighty occasions, 2 Cor. 1.23. 1 Cor. 15.31. Gal. 1.20. 1 Thess, 2, 5, 10. Rom. 9, 1. whereof one was the vindication of his own reputation, be­cause the credit of his Apostleship, and the success of his Ministry, did, in a good measure, depend upon it. And the same Apostle St. Paul charges others by Oath, to perform their Duty, or what he thought expedient for the publick be­nefit of the Churches. See 1 Tim. 6.13, 14. 1 Thess. 5.27. This last instance, wherein St. Paul adjures the Christians of Thessalonica, is a paralel for Words, and for the power of im­posing of an Oath, with the High Priest's adjuration of Christ himself before-mentioned. Let now the Anabaptists find a more commodious way of reconciling the Apostles in [Page 24]this matter, if they can, than this, which we offer, saying, The Gospel of our Lord Jesus, preached by his Apostles, forbids temerarious swearing in anger, by Heaven, or Earth, or in any other form of an Oath, unto which Men were then accustom­ed, who were wont to express their Oath by a Creature con­cealing, or sparing the name of God (for this is the true mean­ing of the words, Nor any other Oath, which these Men vainly urge for their cause) but at the same time the Gospel allows swearing by God, or by the Lord, upon grave and important occasions, with judgement; and also, charging inferiors, under an Oath, to do their Duty. But the Quakers are no less, if not more irrational, then the former; for they do not deny the Scriptures, which Jews for the Old Testament, and Christi­ans for the Old and New Testament, acknowledge to be written by Divine Inspiration, to be True; but they fondly affirm, that nothing is the Rule of Humane Life, but the Light of God within us. We deny not the Light of God within us, to be the Director of us, but acknowledge that God, who commanded Light to shine out of Darkness, hath enlighten­ed his House the Church, (which was larger, or lesser, as he saw good, to proportion the frame of it, under several dispen­sations of Grace) with his Word, both outwardly published, and inwardly applyed, 2 Cor. 4, 6. and by both ways doth shine in our Hearts. And we further affirm, That since God hath com­mitted his living and lightsome Oracles to Writing, and the Churches custody, as a Standard, whereby we may try the Spirits, whether they are of God, the Father of Lights; or of the Prince of darkness, who doth frequently transform him­self into an Angel of Light, 2 Cor. 11.14. that he may with false Light de­lude and secure Men into his Kingdom of Darkness; nothing ought to be accepted, attended, and followed, as the Light of God within us, but what is agreeable to the Light of God without us, and shines in the Candlestick, that is the Church, which Christ hath set up to bear the Light.

To come close then to the purpose, is it not a perverseness and giddiness of Spirit in these Men, to allow the Truth of the New Testament, which commends the Holy Scriptures of the Old, as directors of us in all those Duties to God and Man, which concern all Nations, whom God would have come to the knowledge of the Truth, and yet to condemn them who direct their actions, parti­cularly in taking Oaths, by this Rule? Again, since the Light of [Page 25]God within us, is, (as they acknowledge) an infallible Rule, and we, in Swearing deliberately, do follow that Light of God, which shi­ned in the Hearts of all Nations, as well as of the Patriarchs, and of Gods Servants, both before, and after the separation of the Jews from the wide World, to be Gods chosen, and peculiar people, and of the Prophets, and of the Apostles, and the practice of these Men agreeable to Gods revealed word and will, shews that the Light of Conscience, which directed and moved the Nations to Swear, was no other than the Candle of the Lord; is it not a prodigious obstinancy in this froward Generation, not to entertain this light, but to condemn all those that do receive it and walk by it? Till then the Quakers can and do by some evidence, as clear, as that is for which we receive and submit unto the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, manifest that this pretended Light within them, which is directly opposite to the Light which hitherto hath enlightened all the World, which did not extinguish it by Atheism, or wink against it with wilful folly, is of God, we cannot but conclude, that the use of Oaths is still as warrantable, from the very Nature and benefit of them, as ever it was. And as the superstitions, which, though con­trary to the common Notions of a God, and to the natural principles of Piety, yet by Satans malicious subtilty, and the vanity of Mans mind, are ingrafted upon the stock of natural Religion, do not extirpate the root of natural Religion, which will maintain true Piety to Gods Glory, when by good husbandry the corrupt grafts are cut off, and the root and branch are cultivated aright for the service of the true God; so the various abuses of Oaths, frequent in all Ages, with prophane despisers of God, and by vicious custom too ge­neral with Professors of Religion, do not in themselves directly, and should not, by consequence, eliminate the religious practice of Swearing. For the banishment of a Sacrament, as the Latines call an Oath, out of humane Society, is a step to supersede all Worship of God, and to remove an Oath out of all procedures of Judica­ture, is no little artifice to extinguish the fear of God in the World.

SECT. V. Concerning the summe and end of the Gospel.

THat we may yet draw nearer to an end, and hit our Mark close and deep, it will be fit to consider the intimate and pe­culiar quality of the Gospel, to which these pretenders to Evangeli­cal perfection say, that an Oath is irreconcileable. The Gospel, as it stands in opposition to the Law of Works, Rom. 3. [...].28. & [...].5.— [...]. whereby Man was to seek Righteousness and Life by his own perfect obedience, is called by St. Paul, the Law of Faith, whereby Man being, by the gene­ral corruption of humane nature, and by his singular sinfulness, ob­noxious to Gods wrath, which is the Messenger of Death, obtains Righteousness, Luk. 1. [...]9. [...] Cor. 5. [...]8.19. [...] 3.9. and Life by Faith on Christs Blood. The Gospel then is a way of peace, a word of reconciliation, a ministery of Righ­teousness, Peace, and Life, which are purchased by the Death of Christ and by the Blood of his Cross.

The primary ends of the Gospel are these two inseparable benefits, which our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath compassed by his Death, and works, by the power of the Gospel, upon the Con­sciences of Believers, Reconciliation, and Reformation of Man, who was in a state of enmity with God, both active and passive, by his Sin. Rom. 5. [...]0. Col. 1. [...]1.22. [...] Pet. 3. [...]8. & 2. [...]3. Tit. 2.11. [...]2. In one word, this is the Reduction of the lost sheep, or the fugitive servant, unto God, in the way of Peace and Holiness. The saving Grace therefore of the Gospel teaches all mankind, which is enlightened with its beams, to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and piously in this present World. We are moreover to observe, that from the first foundation of a Church, which immediately was after Mans Sin and Sentence, began to be built upon the promised Messiah, who is the Rock of Salvation. common to all Ages, God did set up a way of Worship, which had relation to Christ the Lamb of God, [...] Pet. 1. [...]9. 20.fore-designed by God, and manifested in Gods own season. This instituted Religion, in several shadows, drawn out by Gods hand, in such proportions, as he thought fit, conteined the Salvation by Christ, and the Doctrine of Faith and Repentance, of which the Law given to Man, in his state of integrity, made no words, and gave no hopes of Salvation that way. The Gospel therefore first in the cloudy Pillar, which was the guide [Page 27]of Patriarchs and Prophets, and then in the brightness of its Reve­lation by Christ, since all is accomplished and preached to the Nati­ons, superadds to the Law, Rom. [...].17.the Righteousness of God from Faith to Faith: but it pares off nothing of the Religion and Righteous­ness which Man owes to God, and to his Neighbour, by that na­tural dependence upon God, and that order to his neighbour, Act. [...].26. which God established by Creation of Mankind after his own Image, and of one blood to bind them together. This indeed is that which we call the Law of Nature, which God unfolded and taught the Pa­triarchs, the first Fathers of Families, and founders of humane Society. And the grace of the Gospel is so far from loosening the Bond of this Law; that on the contrary, by addition of the inesti­mable benefit of Redemption to our deep engagement by Creation, it ties more strictly the Redeemed of the Lord, who are enlarged from the bondage under Sin, and made the Servants of Righteous­ness, to yield up all their Members, once abused to the service of uncleanness and iniquity, Rom [...].19. to become now the servants and instru­ments of Righteousness unto sanctification. This then being the end and efficacy of the Gospel, to clear the light of the Law of Nature, and to strengthen the holy bonds of Love to God and Man, how is it imaginable, that the Tongue is restrained now by the Gospel, from being still made an instrument of Religion and Righteousness? Since the Evangelical Prayer of our Saviours framing for our use, is, that Gods name should be hallowed in all the World, can we think that silence, and total abstinence from taking up the name of God in an Oath, with reverence upon just occasions, sanctifies, or magnifies the Name of God? Mal. [...].11. Or is it consonant to that enlargement of Gods honour, which is the effect of the Gos­pel, in regard of persons, and to the maintenance of it, by all acts of Piety, which our Saviour professes to have been his work and care, that Heathens and Infidels should still, by the Law of Nature, be bound to acknowledge, and honour the Name of God, by Swearing in a due manner; and Christians should have their hands tied from lifting up to Heaven, 2 Cor 14. and their Tongues from calling upon his Name, and giving him the Glory due unto it? Indeed the Apo­stle says, what participation is there between righteousness and the transgression of the Law? what communion of Light with Darkness? or what agreement of Christ with Belial? Let it therefore first be proved, that an Oath is the transgression of the Law, Ma [...] 33 before it be cast out of the Kingdom of God, as inconsistent with the Righteous­ness [Page 28]thereof, [...]h. 5. [...]. which Christ commands us to seek. Let an Oath which is indeed a Light (according to the Apostles sentence) because it doth discover, and manifest somtime Truth, and somtime many shameful things which are done in secret, be proved to be an un­profitable deed of Darkness, or else let this light shine still in a Chri­stian state. Let it first be proved, that the Man who suffers the Lords anointed to rule over him, and submits to authority in Swea­ring, is a Child of Belial, (that is, of the Devil, who is so called, for his impatience of a yoke, and therefore the refractory people, who would not submit to Saul, [...]am. [...] 27. annointed by God, are stiled Chil­dren of Belial) is a work of the Devil, which Christ hath destroyed by his Gospel, or else there will be a good harmony still between Christs Gospel, and a Reverend Oath.

SECT. VI. The Conclusive Arguments, to warrant the reverent use of Oaths among Christians.

THese things being premised, not to preoccupate, but to expe­dite the decision of the Question, concerning the consistency of Swearing, with the glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I shall now make their agreement evident by all the Light of Na­ture, Law, and Gospel, united in one body. To this purpose I will first prove, the Divine Right and Power of the Magistrate to ex­act an Oath, and with the same labour open a wide door for Chri­stians to come into a Court, without pinching their Consciences, and bring them in with Christs Authority. [...]m. [...]7. And for private Oaths, they may have Christs good leave to use them, as well as Jonathan and David had Gods.

This Case of the Quakers is an Axe laid to the root of Magistracy, which fells down all Christian Magistrates, as Anti-Christian Ty­rants, who, contrary to Christs command, bind themselves and their subjects by Oaths, and persecute all them who out of pure Con­science of Christs command, and for the honour of Christianity, refuse to renounce their Christian Faith, which they say cannot be avoided, if they take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, or any other legitimate Oath. [...] 49. Indeed these seemingly tame peo­ple, are a brood of Vipers, like the Adder in Jacobs Prophetick [Page 29]character of Dan, which bites the heels of the Horse, and makes him throw his Rider: I spare the application, because it is obvious; But I will break the Cockatrices Egg, Esa. 59.5. I mean this Aphorisme of Anarchy, Christians ought not to Swear by the force of Christs prohibi­tion. And to make the way plain for proceeding in my Method, I shall first inquire to whom the Sermon of our Saviour was Prea­ched, and how it reached the present and future Auditors. This Sermon was not spoken to Magistrates, whether Soveraign, or Subordinate, but to the Multitude of the people, neither is there any part of it which relates to the Magistrates special duty; except that severe threatning. Mat. 5.19. Whosoever breaks one of the least Commande­ments of Moses, and the Prophets (and certainly, Thou shalt Swear by the Lord, is one of them, and not the least) he shall be called, i. e. esteemed, and taken for the least in the Kingdom of Heaven, be thought applicable to the Magistrate, as well as to the Mini­ster. Those precepts therefore of not resisting evil, and not judging (which if they were given to Magistrates in their politick capacity, Mat. 5.37. & 7.1. do overthrow Tribunals, and either disarm the powers ordained of God, or tye up the Sword, both Civil and Martial, in the scab­bard) concern not Magistrates further, than as they are considered in an estate common with them to private persons, and are subject to the same duties. This is to be taken notice of the rather, because some pious Doctors of the ancient Church, who lived under Hea­then and persecuting Emperors, and making no prospect into the latter times wherein Kings, according to several Prophesies, should kise the Son of God, and serve him with their Authority, Psal. 2.11.12. & 72.11. & 138.4, Esa. 43.23. & 60.3. prove the Guardians of both Tables of the Law, Defenders of the Faith, and Patrons of the Church, did think Magistracy it self, and the use of the Sword, inconsistent with the Christian Faith; and it is no mar­vail, if some of latter times were tender of Swearing, who mi­stook the Subject and scope of our Saviours discourse. But we must know that our Saviour who was born a King, but of such a Kingdome as is not of this World, Mat. [...].2. was very sollicitous to decline any thing that favoured of Worldly power, and was an cautious in his Sermons, of reflecting upon Princes, Joh. 18, 36, Luc. 12.13.14. Joh. 8.3.—11. and very careful to secure the Authority of the Magistrate, in his whole conversation, and also in his Gospel. For his design being the Salvation of all sorts of Men, of all Nations indifferently by the Preaching of the Gos­pel, he did insert nothing into it, which might rationally obstruct the entertainment of it, and especially nothing prejudicial to the power of Princes, whereof they are jealously tender, that they [Page 30]might have a just aversion from the Faith. The Antient Church therefore sung this true and good Anthem, unto the Honour of Christ, Qui regna das caelestia, non eripis terrestria;

Indeed Christ took the World as he found it, and altered nothing in the secular estate of Kings, or Subjects, but by vertue of his Heavenly power in a spiritual way, by his word and spirit, establi­shed light instead of darkness, knowledge, and the fear of the true God in­stead of ignorance, and impiety, faith, in himself, instead of Paganism, and holiness of heart and life, instead of vitiousness in his new erect­ed Kingdom, the subjects whereof continued in the same outward estate, See 1 Cor. 7.21.22. wherein they were called, whether bond or free, Sub­jects or Governors. As the grace which came by Jesus Christ, en­tituled no Man to Wealth or Power, to which a believer had no right and title before, by the Law of Nations, and of his own Government, under which he lived; so it Pauls Heavenly [...] (Phil. 3.20.) whereby he was a Citizen of Je­rusalem, that is, above, the City of the Living God, (Heb. 12.22.) did not extinguish his [...], his being a Citizen of Rome, which was his Birth­right, and that a precious Priviledge; neither did the former hinder the A­postle from claiming the benefit of it, and making advantage of it. See Act. 22.25-29. & Act. 16.37.38.39. devested not, nor disinherited any of honour or estate, nor abridged any secular liberty, nor retrenched any publick Autho­rity, which the Ministers of Gods Pro­vidence were entrusted with, for the pub­lick good. If it did, let that Scripture of the New Testament be produced. But none such ever was, or can be alleadged. Yea many, indeed too many to be repea­ted now, are obvious in the Apostolical Writings, which manifest the contrary. Furthermore, as the truth of the Gospel crost no truth, See Rom. 13. 1-7. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13-18. Eph. 6.1-9. Col. 2.20 &c. & 4 1. either evident by the light of Natu­ral Reason, or revealed by the word of God written; so the Grace of Christ loosened no bonds of the Law of Nature, nor of the Laws of Nations, which were agreeable to natural Justice and hu­manity, but binds Christians by new bonds of peace in obedience to Ma­gistrates, Parents, and Masters, although they be harsh and frow­ard. And now I come to mine Argument, which I shall frame out of these Propositions.

1. The Soveraign Magistrate, and those who are sent by him, according to the Evangelical Doctrine, have received in their Di­vine Ordination, a power to use all means, that either by Gods ap­pointment are, or in common prudence seem, to the Wisdom of the State, [Page 31]directly conducible to the preservation of the Peace, and promo­tion of Righteousness; and for punishment of Offenders: all which indeed is the publick good, and for the procuring whereof, God hath armed his Deputies with a Sword, or a coercive power, that the fear or the feeling of it, may constrain Men to obedience. All this is written with a Sun-beam in the New Testament. See Joh. 19.11. Rom. 13.1. &c. And it is further confirmed, by what I have already produced to shew, that the Gospel takes no flower out of the Crowns of Kings, though they were infidels, much less if they be faithful. For if St. Pauls Logick be good, that Servants being made Christians ought the rather to serve their Masters being con­verted, because they are believers, and beloved; 1 Tim. 6.2. we may by pro­portion conclude, that the Magistrates embracement of the Christian Faith, doth not impair his Authority, and ought not to diminish the Subjects inclination to serve and obey, and is an indeerment of the King to his People.

2. An Oath seasonably administred, and duely taken, is a fit means to preserve Peace, by a firm obligation of Subjects to their Soveraign, (whereof we have an example, 2 Kings 11.17.) and to secure and promote Justice, and to carry on judicial proceedings, in discovery of right and wrong, and in conviction of Offenders. To prove this, I need say no more, than advise any doubter, to look upon the judgment and practice of all polished Nations under the Sun, since the Foundations of Kingdomes and Republicks in the World. And if all that be counted but a general corruption of rea­son, like the general Idolatry of the Nations estranged from God, let him remember, that the use and force of Oaths, is founded up­on no other basis, but the hearty Faith and sincere fear of Gods power and vengeance. But I shall drive the Nail to the Head by Gods own Sentence, who established Swearing in his own govern­ment, as a means proper to produce the effects aforesaid, and tells the Jews for their credit, that their political Laws did exceed those of all Nations, for Wisdom and Righteousness. Deut. 4.5.8. Now the use of Oaths is an ingredient of very many Laws in the Govern­ment.

3. The Magistrate who stands accomptable to Christ, Apoc. 19.16. who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, for the exercise of his power, in order to the ends of Governement, may and ought to require Oaths of the Subject, as the occasions, viz. of secuting the Kings Life and Honour, the preservation of the publick Weal and Peace, the ending of Controversies, and the execution of Justice, or the [Page 32]like, do require. Otherwise, he will hardly be able to clear him­self of imprudence, or of remisness, in refusing the choice and use of such means, as God himself hath approved, and appointed in the course of Government. I think I may now upon these premises, safely and rationally infer.

Ergo the Magistrate according to the Gospel, may put his Sub­ject, of what Religion soever, to his Oath to Swear by the true God. I wave the Question of requiring Jews, and Infidels to Swear upon the Gospel, that it is by Jesus Christ, whom we confess to be the true God, but they do not own as such.

I have now suffciently proved, (as I think, and hope that all who are both rational and impartial will apprehend) that the Gospel of Christ doth not infringe, but confirm that power that Magistrates in joy'd by the Law of Nature, that is to say, by Gods general ordi­nation of humane Society throughout the World) and the Kings of Gods special anoyntment, and appointment over his people, were endow­ed with by his Statutes, to tender Oaths to their Subjects, and to require their obedience in taking them, supposing still that the use of them be referr'd to their proper ends. See an example of an Oath im­posed by Solomon, 1 King 2.42. Rom. 13.4. I have now but little to do farther for the proof, that the same Gospel binds Christians to take such Oathes as are administred to them by their lawful Supe­riours. For God both in the way of Nature, and also in the course of Grace, doth nothing in vain, (and as St. Paul says expresly,) Gods Minister doth not carry a Sword in vain, and is as much bound to draw it for the defence of Gods honour, which is concerned in Swearing, as the servants of Secular Kings, are obliged to fight for the Life or Honour of their Master; which rule of Worldly State, Christ hath consecrated by his Sentence. Joh. 18.36. But the Magistrates pow­er is rendered vain and ineffectual, if the subject can clude his Au­thority, and resolve his commands into such wind as shakes no Corn, by his obstinate refusal to swear. I shall therefore urge but one Argument to satisfie the Subjects Conscience in this case.

The Gospel of Christ, Rom. 13.1-7. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13.14.17. taught by the Apostles to all Nations, lays, upon all Christians, a necessity of submission, and obedience, with a readiness to every good work, unto the supereminent powers and principalities of the World, and to the Administrators of Govern­ment commissioned by them, not only for Wrath, (and yet that ter­ror arising from the apprehension of the Sword that gliters in the Magistrates hand is justified by St. Paul) but also out of Conscience, (Quakers, mark that, to wit, Conscience binds to no things but obedience, in this case rightly stated) or reverence of Christ, by [Page 33]whom Kings Reign, and Princes Decree Justice. Prov. 8.15. Eph. 6.1 And this univer­sal obedience, like that which Children owe to their Parents, is li­mited but by one Rule, obey in all things in the Lord. It reaches to things indifferent, as the obedience of the Rechabites did, Jer. 35.8.9.10.18.19. which God commended and rewarded with a Blessing. But Obedience to our Superiours in those things, which are so far from being evidently repugnant to the Will and Command of the Lord, that they are consonant to the express Word of God, and agreeable to his Ordinances, is an Evangelical Duty unavoidable upon any pre­tence whatsoever, where there is a possibility of performance.

If you consult the Allegations out of St. Paul and St. Peter, and confer them together, the perspicuity of the words will not per­mit you to doubt of the truth of this Proposition.

But Swearing in the manner aforesaid, when it is exacted by a lawful Superior, is a good Work done in the Name of the Lord, as I have abundantly proved already. Therefore some Swearing is not only consistent with Christianity, but also required by the Gospel.

It remains only for me to show, for the direction and satisfacti­on of Christians in several cases of a more private concernment, that Oaths taken or given, without the interposition of the Ma­gistrates Authority, either upon a single persons own Motion of Spirit, impelled thereto by weighty considerations, or out of com­pliance with a Neighbour, are not repugnant, but agreeable to the Rules of the Gospel. Here I shall, for brevities sake, produce but one argument, which hath Light and Strength enough to prove my conclusion, and may lead the Reader to frame more by pro­portion out of the Gospel, if he please, for the fuller Conviction of the Adversary, to stop his Mouth with number, if weight will not bear down his reason. The Gospel doth always allow, 1 Cor. 10.21. 1 Pet. 4.11. Rom. 15.2.3. 1 Cor. 10.24. Phil. 2.4. and as the importance of the matter requires, commands Christians to do whatsoever doth directly, and by the nature of the act it self, tend to the Glory of God, which ought to be the aim which we intend in all our deliberate actions: and in like manner to perform freely whatsoever really conduces to the good, peace, and welfare of our Neighbor, whom we are bound to love, as our selves, by the Law and Gospel.

But the due Swearing in many things that concern our selves, or for the satisfaction of our Brother; or for a mutual engagement to do what is agreeable to Piety, Justice, and Charity, doth bring Glory to the Name of God, and procures the good of our selves [Page 34]and others; And therefore is not by the Gospel wholly banished out of the conversation of Christians.

The Assumption is manifestly true. For it is apparent to sence and reason, that when a Christian calls God to witness, regard, judge, and revenge falshood upon the Head and Soul of perjur'd persons, he sets forth the Glory of God, as much as Jacob and Laban, or Jonathan and David, or any of the former days before or under the Law did. And common experience teaches us, what satisfaction and benefit, we mutually give and receive by an Oath reverently ta­ken. The conclusion therefore naturally flows from the premises, and abides firm as built upon a Rock, that Christianity hath not made the Third Commandment a mere insignificant or useless Cy­pher to us, by forbidding Oaths, which leaves no place for the ho­nouring of Gods Name that way, and stops up the passage against Piety and Impiety both together.

I confess, that a great measure of Christian Prudence is requisite in the private use of Oaths, above what is needful in Oaths admini­stred by authority. For our submission to the wisdom of the State enjoyned us by God, absolves us from much of the trouble and care about the sufficient weight in the ground of the Oath; where­as now the whole burden of the Oath, with all the circumstances to qualifie and legitimate the same, lies upon the discretion of the private Christian, who ought to have a full assurance in his own Mind, Rom. 14. [...]5. of the warrantableness of the action. Therefore the spa­ring use of private Oaths is safe, commendable, and comfortable. For according to St. 1 Cor. 6.12. & 10.23. Pauls golden rule. All things that are law­ful for us, are not always expedient, neither do they always edifie. And Christs precept of abstinence from Swearing in ordinary dis­course, doth, in a manner, restrain his Warrant concerning Oaths, to matters not only serious, but also weighty, which need such an inforcement of belief, or engagement. Being now arrived at this conclusion, I will imitate my Adversaries a little, and quote the Testimony of a Heathen, who was beholden to the Gospel for his refined Morality, but a profest Enemy to Christ. Hierocles, one of the † By the way, we may ob­serve, that it was a cunning Stratagem of Satan in that age, that he might yet support his sinking Kingdom, to revive and set up the Pythagorcan and Platonick Philosophy, the Morality whereof they improved, not without borrowing Light from the Christian Religi­on. But the Devils design was, by Philosophy to baffle Faith, and to discountenance Christia­nity, as being, at the best, but useless, which could do no more to advance Vertue, than Paganism it self. This is evident by the Writings of Porphyrie, Jamblichus, Hierocles, and the like. Platonick School at Alexandria, in his accurrate Co­ment on the Golden Verses of Phythagoras, explicating that Pre­cept, [Page 35] [...], Reverence an Oath, discourses thus, as I shall render his sence faithfully, without transcribing the Greek. He calls an humane Oath, the Image of Gods Oath, whereby God establisheth the immutable Law and order of the Ʋniverse, the helper of humane affairs, and Procurator of constancy and truth; which reduces the versatile free will, into order and affixedness, both in words and deeds. The Reverence of an Oath, is the keeping of what is Sworn to, as much as in us lies, without violation, which by a voluntary ne­cessity, trimmes them that reverence an Oath, to the constancy and truth of a Divine Habit or Constitution. None but they who are possest with political Virtues, can swear aright. [...] The word of the Law, Ma [...] 5.33. [...]. Naughtiness or vitiousness is the Mother of false or for-swearing. How is it possible, that a cove­tous, voluptuous, or cowardly person, should ever do other, then put off the reverence of an Oath, and when ever he imagins that some advan­tage may be reaped by Perjury, barter away Divine Goods, for those which are mortal and fading? Now the best course of care to preserve the reverence of an Oath, is not to use it frequently, nor at adventure, nor upon light occurrents, nor for the filling up of talk, nor for the gi­ving credit to a relation; but as far as it is possible, to reserve the use of it for things that are equally necessary and precious, and them only when their Security appears not any other way to be procured, but by the truth issuing from an Oath. And then our Oaths will gain credit, when our whole conversation bears harmony with it, to show, that, in humane matters, nothing is more precious with us, than Truth, whe­ther we be unsworn, or swear. Now this precept charges us not onely to Swear aright, but also to abstain from Oaths. For so we shall alwayes swear aright, if we do not [...], Mark that the word [...], does not alway [...] signifie the Abuse of a thing but sometimes the full use o [...] a thing to the utmost of ou [...] power and liberty. So St. Pau [...] who never had thoughts of abu­sing his power in the Gospel resolved to deny himself, b [...] not using his full power of l [...] ­ving upon the Gospel, 1 Co [...] 9 18. And the transitoriness o [...] the World, should move Chri­stians [...], not t [...] use it at full liberty, but spa­ringly, with self-denial, 1 Co [...] 7.31. abuse Oathes, or rather take our full liberty of Swea­ring. For also in frequency of Swearing, a Man shall readily fall into perjury. But keeping of Oaths follows upon the sparing use of them. For a Man will either not Swear, or when he doth, will Swear aright, neither will his Tongue, by custome, out run his mind, neither will his Mind be overthrown, by the violence of his intemperate passions. This the good Mans Vertue will correct, and the custo­mary abstinence from Swearing, will cure the other. But Swearing aright becomes the Honour of the Gods, before given in Charge, (we must remember, the Heathen Philosopher speaks of God in the plu­ral number,) it being bred together, and a companion of Piety. Reverence an Oath by not over freely and hastily using it, that [Page 36]you may be accustomed to swear aright, (to wit, when there is a fit and just occasion) by not accustoming your self to Swear. For Swearing aright, is no small part of Piety. Thus the Philosopher hath secured the Reverence due to Oaths, religiously taken, by abstinence from rash, light, vain, and customary Swearing, without banishing an eminent piece of Piety and Honour due to God out of the Life of Men. This one Testimony of Hierocles I shall oppose, to the ma­ny examples in the Quakers Case, not for any esteem I have of the person, but for the solidity of his reason, which gives us a precedent to reconcile the Reverence of an Oath, with abstinence from customary, dangerous, and prophane Swearing, which is the taking of Gods Name in vain, and as much forbidden by God in the Third Commandement, as perjury, which the Scribes and Pharisees accounted to be the only crime struck at by Moses. And this is all that I have at present to say to the Question, concern­ing the lawfulness of Oaths under Christianity. I shall briefly recol­lect the summe of the whole discourse, into these Corolla­ries.

1. The Quakers may justly be suspected of a false pretence, when they ascribe their disobedience to authority, in refusal of Oathes, to their consciencious regard of, and to obedience to Christs Com­mand, because they do not with equal Zeal, obey Christs Ordinan­ces of Worship and Church Government.

2. They do very ill consult for the reputation of Christian Re­ligion, Tim. 6. [...]. Pet. 2. [...]. when, by their alledging Christianity it self, for the ground of their disobedience, they make the way of Truth, to be evil spoken of.

3. They blaspheme Christ, and his Holy Gospel, by fathering their pernicious Errors, and Heresies, upon the truth it self.

4. They reproach the Footsteps of the Lords Anointed, by char­ging him with persecution, when he uses the Sword for the punish­ment of evil doers.

5. The nature of an Oath justifies Swearing to be an act of Piety, and an instrument of Justice.

6. The Gospel of our Lord Jesus confirms the Magistrates pow­er, to exact an Oath of his Subjects.

7. The same Doctrine binds all Subjects to obedience, when an Oath is in due manner tendred to them.

8. The Christian Liberty of Swearing upon some occasions, is not taken away by Christ and his Apostles.

9. Abstinence from Oaths in ordinary communication, is com­manded by the Gospel, not as a special perfection of any order of Men, but as a common Duty of all Christians, who are obli­ged to bridle their Tongues, and to endeavour to arrive at this perfection.

10. The Religion of Quakers, who refuse sober Oaths, but their mouth is full of Cursing and Bitterness, who incessantly spit forth the poyson of Aspes, with unbridled Tongues, is, according to St. Jams's Sentence, a vain Religion, from which good Lord de­liver us, Amen.