contradiction to the Law of God of old or as now become evil and unlawful because absolutely forbidden by a positive Evangelical command without any moral reason either alledged or imaginable from any nature of sin Which false gloss of Christs words cannot be reconciled with the other principles places and examples evident and authoritative in the Gospel or with that express and signal Oracle of Christ which is a salvo for all that is morally good that he came not to destroy any part or tittle of the Law which had any moral internal and eternal holiness in it as being therefore expressed in his revealed will or word because it is conform to the glory of Gods nature and essence which all reasonable Creatures ought ever to fear reverence adore and admire above all things As those do who by religious swearing give glory to God as the supream Iudge of all men and things as the searcher of all hearts and as the infallible dispenser of Iustice Which sacred celebrations of the Divine Glory and Majesty in solemne Swearing being no way derogating from Gods honour but highly advancing it in the world and no way injurious to our selves or others but advantageous to Justice Truth Charity and Peace cannot be looked upon as abolished or forbidden by Christ to us Christians Fourthly having thus examined First the occasion and intention of our Saviours words Secondly the moral nature of an Oath Thirdly the Evangelical practise my Fourth and last work is to justifie this limited sense and Interpretation of our Saviours and the Apostles words which I have given consonant to the practise of the Church of England by the concurrent judgement of other Churches and learned Interpreters both ancient and modern Nor that I think any humane or Ecclesiastical authority swayes much if any thing with the Quakers who are most-what strangers to all Learning and not much to be moved by any such Engine but only to confute the more evidently their singularity and pertinacy also to satisfie others of my Countrey-men that this is no novel Interpretation put upon the words of Christ and his Apostle whose true meaning the ancient and later Churches might without any vanity be thought to understand as well as any of this new Generation And certainly we may with more modesty appeal to and acquiesce with conscience in their judgement of places dark and dubious then listen to any men in later times who superciliously dissent from them all Doubtless if the Catholick Church hath been a faithful preserver of the Scriptures it may not be suspected to have been an unfaithful Interpreter of them in any main points of Faith or of Morality and such as this of sober serious reverent and judicial Swearing The primitive Christians were not only very cautious of Swearing rashly vainly falsly but if they took any Oath they made such conscience of keeping it that they would sooner dye then break it wilfully or basely Indeed in private conversation Christians were then esteemed so strict exact and cautious of their words in asserting or promising that there was no need of an Oath among them yea they so kept up the sanctity and credit of their profession among unbelievers that it was security enough in all cases to say Christians sum I am a Christian If any urged them further to any Oath for matter or manner or authority unlawful they repeated this as the only satisfaction they could give There needed no more then the veracity of their bare word They thought it not lawful for them in such cases to Swear being in this emulators of the Esseni among the Jews of whom Iosephus tells us that their word was as sure as an Oath and that they avoided not only all forswearing but all swearing or that which brought their fidelity in question and lessened the reputation of their Sect. Thus Christians that they might not come short of the Esseni among the Iewes who would not swear but in Judicature or of any men in this pious severity especially in abstaining from all unlawful swearing did keep themselves from all kind of swearing especially Heathenish and Idolatrous their profession and reputation being test enough to their words Nor did they think any men under Heaven were so worthy as Christians to make good some of the ancient and soberest Heathens dictates in this kind Such as were that of Menander so to avoid evil Swearing as not to swear though in things just and true And that of Solon A good man should have that credit that no man should believe him the more for his swearing it being some diminution to his reputation to be put to swear or to need an Oath to gain credit Diogenes Laert. tells us that the Athenians would not suffer Xenocrates a man of great integrity and honour to take his Oath at the Altar as a thing unworthy of his reputation Nor did the Romans exact Oaths of their chief Priests Indignum credentes viro tanta sanctimoniae sine juramento non credere Hence we find some of the Ancient Fathers as Origen Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius Hilarie Athanasius S. Jerom Theodoret Lactantius and others frequently inveighing without any limitation or reserve against Christians swearing as to private conversation yea and Saint Austin himself in his Sermon on these words of Christ adviseth to abstain from cesie and ordinary swearing in cases never so true and honest lest by wontedness of swearing we get a proneness to swear even falsly S. Basil commends Clinias a famous Greek that he rather suffered a mulct of three Talents then he would save it by swearing to the loss of his honour which he thought caution sufficient for his honesty Not that Saint Austin held it unlawful for a Christian in any case of great and weighty concern solemnly to give Oath as a further ratification of Truth and Iustice yea he asserts it as lawful and proves it by those instances of the Apostle Pauls swearing or obtestation in his Epistles which I formerly produced Not as if faith he Saint Paul had forgot or were ignorant of the words of Christ but by his practise he shews us the meaning of them is only to forbid false and frivolous swearing As the graver and eminentest of the Iewes did not deny Oaths of Allegiance to Herod and their Governours as Iosephus tells us so neither did the Christians however the zeal of some of the Ancients in their Sermons or Homilies to the people wholly cry down all customary and vain swearing especially according to the wonted forms of Heathenish swearing as by their Gods or Emperors and the like So Polycarpus in the first Century answered the Prefect who promised to dismiss him if he would swear by the Fortune of Cesar but he refused affirming I am a Christian In like manner Basilides the Martyr when the Officers exacted an Oath of him replied It is not lawful for me being a a Christian to swear So
and Kingdom as they pretended in the World till themselveâ— becaâ—e as Sodom and Gomorrah the abhorrence and abomination of all people of common honesty who saw the Land not only defiled with innocent blood but most sadly mourning under the burden of such prodigious Swearings and hypocritical forswearings as were not only vulgar and trivial but solemn and authoritative It was and is well done of the Quakers to be wary of such Swearing because the brands of Perjury as the Devils stigmatizings are among the marks of fin hardliest to be wiped off or worne out without a wound and scar on the conscience no less then the credit and reputation of a Christian But yet I cannot consent to them nor commend them for their being righteous over-much by their absolutely denying and condemning as sinful the solemn sacred and judicial manner of Swearing required by the Laws of this Kingdom and allowed by this and all other Christian and Reformed Churches In which Oaths either the recognition of a known Truth or the agnition of a Right or the profession of a loyal Duty or a sure Testimony in matter of Fact are required both in allegiance to the Prince and in justice and charity to our neighbours for the trial of doubtful Cases and determining of them in judgement righteousness and truth as with least error in themselves so with most reverence and fear of God the fountain of Justice Truth Order and Peace whose the judgment power and authority is also with most security to the publick peace and welfare which are bound up in the due execution of Justice and lastly to the most satisfaction of all men who can desire or expect no higher appeal or attestation then the Omniscience and Omnipotence of the Judge of all the earth called as a witness upon their souls These grand and publick concerns in which Gods glory and the good of man-kind are involved and carried on by the sacred solemnity of publick and legal Oaths as they do command a great strictness and conscientious cautiousness in all such Swearing so they do upon Scriptural moral and political grounds sufficiently justifie the use of that Swearing which they thus require and which without this method of religioâ—s justice cannot be obtained in the now inveterate wickedness and degeneracy of humane Nature For a 〈◊〉 and remedy to which good Laws are appointed and these executed with that equity sanctity and solemnity which at once befits both men and Christians that is persons related and responsible not only to humane society and authority but owners of and appealers to divine Justice and Vengeance of whose last great and dreadful Tribunal our little Courts of Justice and judicial proceedings on Earth are previous Emblems and Forerunners For the preserving and asserting these great and good Ends is that Law now enacted against the Errors and Obstinacies of the Quakers seeking by just penalties to remove those Obstructions which their contrary declared principles and avowed practises endeavour to put upon all judicial proceedings yea and to shake that mutual security which both King and Subjects have by the enterchange of their respective Oaths to each other in the name of the blessed God These good necessary Ends do justifie the severity of those means which the wisdom of the Parliament applies consonant to Gods word nor may any Subjects complain since as the Law is imposed by all Estates so upon all sorts of people without respect of persons nor can any Nation be thought cruel to it selfe or to inflict too severe punishments on it self when not only the regard to the personal offence but the care and caution for the publick welfare and indemnity is the measure of such Penalties inflicted Against all this the Quakers plead their consciences which they say will not permit them in any case to Swear The ground of this their consciencious Resolution of not Swearing lest they should sin is produced as appears by their Papers from those too pregnant places Mat. 5. 34. where our Saviour citing the old Law from Exod. 20. 7. Lev. 19. 12. Deu. 5. 11. as allowed by the Jews commanding them to swear only by the name of the Lord and in those cases not to forswear themselves but to perform their Oaths to the Lord adds by way of reformation But I say unto you Swear not at all and Saint James 5. 12. where the Apostle to the same sense and words repeats the command of Christ Above all things my Brethren swear not at all Both places indeed seem at first sight point-blanck as some Commentators observe to forbid all manner of swearing among Christians both have emphaticall or vehement words The first Christs Authority reforming not only the Pharisaick corruptions of the Times but even the Mosaick indulgences in some things which were rather not deâ—â—ed for the hardness of the Jews Hearts then positively granted I say unto you Swear not at all that is not by those Oaths in which you make now no scruple to swear and forswear So the Apostle Saint James writing to the dispersed Jewes Above all things my Brethren swear not evidently referring to the words of our Saviour and the same ends Nor are the fears and scruples of the Quakers in point of swearing to be wholly despised when they have two such notable Texts in their way which seem to stand as the Angel of the Lord against Balaam with a Sword in their hand to stop the way of any Swearing whatsoever Both Texts are allowed on all hands as the word of God All are agreed that the words are a divine and strict prohibition against the sin of Swearing and therefore in all charity the words ought to be cleared and their scruples removed The Questions about the interpretation scope and meaning of the words are 1. Whether all Swearing be utterly forbidden because it is and ever was in its nature a sin against morality 2. Or whether all Swearing is therefore now a sin because thus forbidden by a positive Law of Christ under the Gospel 3. Or whether only some sort of Swearing which is a sin is forbidden but not such Swearing as is no sin but rather an act of special veneration or sanctifying Gods name also an act of justice and charity to our neighbours or our selves As to the first Question whether all Swearing be now by Christ forbidden because it is and ever was in its Nature a sin against Morality that is against the eternal rectitude and goodness of the Divine Nature and Will I suppose the Quakers are not herein positive nor dare they condemn as morally and alwayes evil all swearing by the Name of the most high God For which practise of old among the Jews we have not only so many precedents or examples of holy men approved by God as Abraham Jacob David and others yea and the example of God himself as I shall after instance in swearing by himself as
which though attended with many persecutions yet was not without many blessings peculiar to true believers from vers 3. to vers 12. Secondly our Saviour gives many singular lessons or precepts of more eminent deligence patience charity mortification self-denial sincerity conspicuity perseverance and perfection of obedience required now under the Gospel above what either the Letter of the Mosaick Law seemed to exact or by the Pharisaical Interpretations were taught to the Iewes So that unless their righteousness did exceed that so popularly admired of the Pharisees they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven vers 20. Thirdly our Saviour with much earnestness and exactness applyes in this Sermon to reform those abuses which either by the Pharisaical glosses either too much loosning or restraining the meaning of Gods Law or by their depraved examples or by popular custom had prevailed among the Iewes contrary to the true meaning of the moral Law of God and the primitive Institution which gives us the clearest view of the Law-givers intention For the exact observation of which however by Divine indulgence and connivence or by the hardness and uncharitableness of their own hearts and the customary depravedness of times and manners they might seem to have had some temporary dispensation heretofore granted to them or at least had presumed to take it to themselves yet now under the Evangelical strictness to which Christ came to restore or raise the Church they might not fancy to themselves any such liberty but were to keep themselves in thought look desire word and deed to that sanctity and severity which was required by the Law and most conform to the holy Will Attributes and Nature of that God whom they ought to imitate as their heavenly Father in all sacred perfections which humane Nature assisted by the light of the Gospel the grace of Gods Spirit and the visible example of Christ was capable to attain at least sincerely to aim at and endeavour So vers 22. He tells them that not only wilful murder or malicious killing was forbidden but rash unreasonable and irreconcilable anger Vers 28. That not only Adultery but all lust inordinate after a Woman that is not in order to marriage and the honest ends of it were so severely forbidden under pain of Hell fire that it were better to deny those sensual pleasures of the flesh which seem as dear to men as the delight of their eyes or the strength of their hands then to indulge them with the danger of their souls Vers 32. So in the case of humorous and lascivious Divorces usually given to Wives upon no just cause Christ restrains that indulgence only to the case of a Wives deserving to be put away for having broke her conjugal vow and band of Matrimony by her Adultery Not to instance in many other particulars of abuses which Christ reckons up and reforms in that Sermon as touching private Revenge vers 39. not publick and vindicative Iustice so of loving our enemies vers 44 of almes prayer and fasting without ostentation pride or hypocrisie against immoderate love and care for things of this world and the like the immediately next is this of Swearing vers 33 34. In which as in many other things the Iews had much depraved both the true nature and use of Oaths 1. They pretended indeed as Philo and Iosephus tell us a great reverence of the Name of God and seemed to make great conscience of swearing in small matters by the name of the Lord according to the Letter of the Scripture yea they made scruple to swear at all in any case by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord liveth For which the Heathens mocked the Iewes as in that of Martial Jura verpe per Anchialum These Oaths they thought binding nor would they in these easily swear or forswear themselves Which regard to their Gods was in use among the gravest Heathens as is observed out of Homer therefore they took any obvious thing to swear by 2. But they indulged themselves in other familiar Oaths or forms of common Swearing as many Christians now do by whatever came next to their minds or tongues as by the Temple and holy City by their own or others Heads Hands Lives and Souls so by Heaven and Earth and the Light Thus waving the attestation of Gods omniscient Justice and the swearing by his name as was commanded in righteousness judgement and truth they put this Character of Divinity on the Creatures no way competent for them unless as they are in relation to depending on and derived from the blessed God 3. These vulgar Oaths they used not only in a familiarity and facility of inconsiderate swearing upon small and light occasions yea and in asserting of things not true as to their knowledge and intention which was doubly a false swearing but in things of weight and concerne as to that charity justice and equity which they owed to others they chose this way of Creature-Swearing both promissory and assertory because they fancied such Oaths being not with the solemnity of invocating Gods name were not binding upon their Souls either as to truth or right but they might play with them at fast and loose according as their own interest or pleasure did sway them Hence as they sware amiss in point of form so also as to the matter without any regard in these cases to that Command of God against forswearing and for the performance of Oaths to the Lord which places Christ cites and to which Law they professed to adhere so far only as they used the name of God else they dispensed with their Oaths and easily digested even perjury it self Upon this occasion and to reform these gross abuses our blessed Saviour gives this Command Swear not at all that is as Erasmus paraphraseth not after those usual presumptuous and unlawful forms by the names of Creatures of which he gives so many following instances to express his meaning For he doth not instance in the lawful use of religious Oaths by the name of the true God which was not only allowed but in such cases as did require an Oath with its due circumstances of Judgement Justice and Truth commanded 2. He tells them that even in those Oaths which were attested only by the naming of any Creature as by Heaven or Earth or Jerusalem or their Head c. there was a tacit calling of God to witness since every Creature depends on God and relates to him as the Center and Circumference the Source and Sea of all things Heaven is Gods Throne Earth Gods Foot-stoole the Temple Gods Sanctuary Jerusalem the City of God the most eminent place of the great King of Heavens residency on Earth 3. He implyes that however such various and irregular forms of Oaths by the name of any Creature were as to the manner of them unlawful yet they obliged men to perform them if the matter of them were lawful nor were
swear The Lord liveth in truth in judgement and in righteousness i. e. To what we know to be and just Nor doth the Lord ever by the Prophets condemn the Jewes for swearing simply and sincerely but only for vain false perfidious and perjurious swearing as he doth Zedekiah for despising the Oath he had given to King Nebuchadnezzar Answerably we read the unblamed practise of many holy men Abraham Jacob Joshua David and others who themselves sware and exacted Oathes and adjured others without any sin or offence in such serious and weighty cases which the Law of God right Reason Iustice and Charity did permit or require Among the Iewes all publick testimonies were ratified by an Oath as Buxtorse Drusius and others observe who write of the civil administrations of Iustice among them Yea we find as I formerly touched the Lord himself confirming this by his own great and most holy example swearing more then once by himselfe by his own life and great name to create credit and give confirmation to what he saith If then from all these premisses it be clear that some swearing is morally lawful as an act extraordinary of Religion a high glorifying of God by appeal to him agreeable to the express Law of God even in the third Commandment in which we are not only forbidden to profane the name of God but the affirmative is also included of sanctifying his name by all ways of praying praising vowing and swearing as he allowes us if in doing thus upon just occasion private or publick in a lawful manner we sin not against any moral Law of Prety Iustice or Charity it must undeniably follow that Christ did not by this procept Evangelical forbid or annul the old Law as to the sanctity and morality of an Oath but only take away the corruption and abuse It being no design of our Lord to do so as he expresly assures the Iewes to take off their jealousies and prejudices in this kind That he came not to destroy or diminish but fulfill the Law moral However he came in the way of fulfilling to abrogate the Ceremonial yea and the politick Laws too so far as they were peculiar to the Jewish polity in Church and State This speech of Christ being the Key which opens his meaning in all his following emendations of Iudaick pravities and in all the constitutions of Evangelical rectitudes it must needs be preposterous to contradict so clear and emphatick a Scripture in order to fix such an interpretation on these places at which the Quakers now stumble as is only conform to their own fancy but contrary to the evident tenour of both Law and Gospel in this particular of lawful swearing in lawful cases and manner which was a part of that moral Law which Christ signally tells them he did not come or ever intended to abolish but to maintain so far as the love of God and our Neighbour are great accomplishments of all Laws to both which religious swearing is most conform it being to Gods glory and our Neighbours good There is no danger then of doing hurt to our own consciences any more then in serious affirmations or negations an Oath having onely the attestation of God to it who is witness of all we say and doe 3. The third Reason for the limiting these words of Christ against some but not all kind of swearing under the Gospel is from those after-evidences in the Gospel which sufficiently clear the meaning of our Saviour First his own frequent asseverations Amen Amen are by many esteemed as a solemn form of assertion next degree to swearing by attestation of the truth of God upon the certainty of his words But if this amount not to so much in our Saviours form of averring what he uttered yet we read in the Apostle Saint Paul's writings more then once not only attestations but obtestations and adjurations of others as Saint Austin observes even to the very form of Swearing Rom. 1. 9. God is my witness c. Gal. 1. 20. Behold before God I lye not 1 Cor. 15. 31. I protest by your Rejoycing which hath the very form of common Oathes among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per Iovem 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Iesus Christ who is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lye not 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ c. As a ground to justifie his own practise in things weighty and of great concern to Gods glory the vindicating of his own fidelity and the inducing others to beliefe in cases that cannot otherwise be so fully cleared decided and confirmed to them this great Apostle who well knew his Masters meaning tells us That an Oath not was but is among men for an end of all controversie or strife and therefore men swear by God as greater then themselves and all Creatures whatsoever intimating that the sanctity and validity of an Oath still remains in use under the Gospel as among all men where the matter form and ends required by the moral Law and immutable principles of Piety Iustice and Charity are duly observed Nor doth the Apostle there or any where intimate that this former liberty of Swearing by the Law of God among the Iewes was abrogated under the Gospel as if Christians might not Swear in any case which had been so necessary a lesson as none more in practicks considering that all those civilized Nations where he most preached and to whom he wrote so many Epistles would never have believed all swearing unlawful which the light of nature dictated and the law of God allowed with due regulation unless they had some special precept from the Apostle that he had so received it of the Lord which had he written he had contradicted himself as to his practise and made himself an offender But the reproof of Christ and so of the Apostle Saint James was peculiar to the corrupt custome among the Jewes to whom Christ spake and the Apostle Saint James wrote that Epistle especially in promissory Oaths to which the learned Groâ—ius thinks the words of Christ wholly and only relate To conclude this Reason we read the Angel in the Revelation by his example justifying the lawfulness of some swearing for he is brought in thus lifting up his hand to heaven and swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever c. after the same manner as the Angel in Daniel did swear lifting up both his hands to Heaven In which forms we cannot think the holy and good Angels would have so solemnly appeared on record in Old New Testament as exemplary to the Church and people of God if the great Angel of the Covenant our Lord Iesus Christ had precisely forbidden all Swearing either because in its nature morally and utterly unlawful which cannot be said without blasphemy and
Speratus the Martyr about the same time denied to swear so because he knew not what the Genius of the Emperor meant Tertullian tells us in the second Century That Christians would not swear by the Genius or Daemon or Fortune of Cesar but by the health or safety of the Emperor they did because they understood by that God and the Lord Christ And when other Christians did in publick cases swear being required by Authority yet the Bishops of the Church were not put to swear as Basilius a Bishop pleaded for his priviledge when in the Council of Chalcedon he was required to give Oath the sanctity of his Life and honour of his Order being assurance sufficient for his truth The Christian Souldiers as Vegetius tells us took Oath in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit to obey their Commanders not to desert their Colours and to dye for the common welfare which was called Sacramentum militare both before and after Christianity had prevailed in the Empire And hence the name Sacrament came to be applied to Christian Mysteries which are special and solemn dedications of them to the true God and Saviour In the Nicene Council Arrius with an Oath renounced his heretical Opinion So in the Ephesine Council it was ordered that Nestorius should abjure all heterodox and profane Doctrines In the Sixth Synod of Constantinople Gregorius the Librarian made Oath tactis Evangeliis upon the Bible that he left the Books in the Library such as he found them without any blotting out or inserting which Oath I wish the Romish Expurgators had taken and kept as to their Edition of ancient Church-Authors Fathers and others Athanasius who seems and is very zealous against profane and popular swearing yet in his Apology to Constantius purges himself by Oath from the calumnies cast upon him by impudent persons citing for his defence the example of S. Paul Nor is it any news to read of Christian Kings and Magistrates requiring and Subjects giving their Faith by Oath in matters civil sacred and solemn when the form of Oathes were such as consisted with the truth of Christian Religion and the honour of the true God Nor did any Canons of the Church ever forbid such Swearing Indeed while Christians lived in persecution without any protection from the civil Indicatories there can be no examples of their Swearing after the heathenish manner But when Christianity and Christians came to be wrapped up in the Imperial Laws and defended by the Supream powers and were enabled to vindicate their civil rights in judicial proceeding they did not think that unlawful which God had of old commanded which hath a moral that is an eternal good end in it as an act of trust and appeal of agnition and veneration toward God of justice and satisfaction to man also of private and publick charity as the School-men truly observe for the ending of controversies and taking away of jealousies Only due circumstances were strictly required according to the word of God in judgment righteousness and truth Yea we read of old some condemned by the orthodox part of the Church as S. Austin and others tell us for this error among others that they denied all swearing to be lawful So did the Samosatâ—nians and some Pelagians in Syracuse so the Massilians and Euchites so in S. Bernard's days some of the Albigenses and of later dayes some Anabaptists and now the Quakers whether out of policy and art or simplicity and ignorance God knows It were as needless as endless in respect of the Quakers satisfaction who do not value them to produce the consonant judgements of Modern Writers of the Reformed Churches or the Romanists and the most eminent Divines among them which may easily be seen in the Harmony of their Confessions or in their particular Tracts in this Subject Swearing All agreeing as in just severity against false idle and profane Oathes against all perjury intentional and eventual So they do all assent to the moral good in a judicious and solemn swearing with due circumstances upon just occasions by lawful Call of Authority in cases honest and true especially to end controversies to secure Princes and preserve the common wellfare in Iustice and Peace Nor do they think that by any positive Law of Christ all swearing is become now unlawful to Christians among whom the same end use necessity and sanctity of Oaths may be and still are to be had which was once lawful to the Jewes and used in all Nations but only that kind of evil swearing which then was become customary and thought either not sinful or venial This is and ever was forbidden as by the Law of God of old so by the renewed vigor and force of it which Christ restored after it had been so much depraved by the Pharisaical presumption and popular profaneness which imposed rigors where God had laid none and affected liberties where God had given none Agreeably all eminent Writers of the Greek and Roman Church among the learnedest Papists Lutherans and Calvinists Canonists and Casâ—ists as well as those in these British Churches do assert the Authority of lawful Magistrates to require and impose religious Oathes and the duty of Subjects to obey both God and them in taking them as becomes Christians with due reverence to the Majesty of God and with fitting obedience to these commands of Superiours who have their power from God and are to use it to his Glory Nor do they disallow even private and spontaneous attestations of God in weighty matters as to quench the fire of jealousie or to purge away an unjust infamy or to give some such security as justice and charity may require for our own and others goods as a sober Heathen tells us to the just condemnation of Christians who in trivial affairs venture to prostitute the sacredness of an Oath And thus I have with greater prolixity then I intended my wonted fault and Apology endeavoured to vindicate the Divine and true sense of our Saviours words First to remove the crying sin of Swearing vainly rashly irreverently profanely falsly in small or great matters Next to shew the moral end and religious use of Oathes lawful for matter and form and particularly those required in Judicial proceedings according to the Laws and Customes of England both Ecclesiastical and Civil or common agreeable to the word of God and the judgement of the best Christians in all Ages Having herein no design but to give Testimony to that Truth which I believe to justifie the sanctity of our Lawes to serve His Majesty and to do the duty of a good Subject a good Christian a good Minister of Christ and a good Bishop of this Church dispelling the needless scruples and superstitious fears of these poor people called Quakers shewing them their safe liberty to obey and how to escape the Penalties for disobeying the Laws and obstructing Justice by refusing