He endeavours, in his fifth chapter, to prove.

us in, consistent with the good of civil magistracy. Our adversary's reason too short for his envy. Swearing not lawful.

I!

H

AD not this chapter been found among the rest,

I might perhaps have taken him for some zealous churchman, vexed only at the increase of the poor Quakers, on a mere religious score. But when I see him wilfully mistaken, and purposely characterizing them enemies to government, and that to the insecurity of civil magistrates, I perceive what he would be at, and that nothing will serve him below our throats. He has multiplied words unnecessarily; these two, • Hang them,' would have both explained and perhaps gratified his mind better.

He delivers it as a fundamental of the Quakers religion, · That they testify against proud and lofty i magiftrates, who rule not for God, but for them· selves:' to which, as a dangerous doctrine, he opposeth the apostle Peter's exhortation ; « Submit o yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's « fake, whether to the king, as supreme, or unto go“ vernors, that are sent by him for the punishment “ of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do “ well ;” crying out, Is not this a doctrine fitted to ç ftir up fedition and rebellion; and that such are only ? magiftrates in our account that are righteous in our

esteem. If a magistrate be wicked, obedience,' says he, is still due to him.'

Ans. True; but not to that which is wicked; for that were to open a door to all the impiety a Nero could be guilty of. But what contradiction is there betwixt the apostle's language and the Quakers ? Can any sober person think the apostle Peter

exhorted the

churches to believe evil magistrates to be good ones? or prove lofty magistrates, who rule not for God, fit to be obeyed therein? This were to understand, as if the apostle meant, that such as rule not for God, punish evil-doers, and praise them that do well: a contradiction! If our faith be dangerous, the scripture must be in question. Must a reproving of evil be a disowning of magistracy? It seems then that magiftrates are not to be reproved, let their practices be never fo exorbitant. Is there no difference between our diflike of the unjust act of a Julian, and our rebellion against juft authority? If shewing men their evils, be disrespect; and a reprehension of them as unchristian, be rebellion; we must read religion backwards." But God deliver all magistrates from such counsellors,, and us from such enemies.

But that which is very remarkable, is the contradiction he gives himself, and the injustice he shews to us; who in one page says, “We would destroy all ma"giftrates, not of our own opinion :' and in the very next gives it for our judgment, though with great dilike, “That magiftrates ought not to impose opi

nions in matters of religion ;' as if we were such wretches, as to deny that power unto magistrates, which we would tyrannically use ourselves.

But he thinks he has enough against us in this expression, 'All governors ought to be accountable to

the people, and to the next fucceeding rulers, for all ! their actions, which may be enquired into upon oc

casion. This (says our adversary, with a great ránt) K borders upon treason, respecting his majesty the king of England.'

Anf. But what if he was not then in England, but a sort of people that held this very principle, and who had sworn to God, before angels and men, to maintain it, and broke their folemn oaths ? Was it not argumentum ad hominem, to such a generation ? And does not our adversary know, that there are elective governments in the world, and annual choice of offiçers in our own country, that are accountable both to the people and their fucceffors ?

But since he has brought the king of England's name on the ftage, upon this occasion, I shall briefly tell him and the world two things, and let men relish them as they please. First, That it is not for the intereft or honour of his government, for any to be over-officious in the enlarging his prerogative beyond those bounds, which the excellent fundamental laws of England have circumscribed the whole government with. No prince's crown in Europe stands more firm than his, upon English law: the law gives both right and might. It has been the part of such as dare not trust their lives and actions with the law, to whisper unlimited power into the ears of princes; but their ultimate aim was not their sovereign's greatness, but their own protection. We are no fycophants; yet we fear God, and honour the king. Secondly, It is not our business to meddle with government; but to obey, or fuffer, for conscience-fake: can our adverfary ask more? Several of us have been the faithful fervants both of him and his father; and God knows, our kindness is not changed with our religion, though it admits not of our former way of lhewing it. And this I may truly say in general, that not only our principle leads to no such nice and busy meddlings, but we are actually unconcerned in any such things: we speak not this out of fear or flattery; the truth has placed us far above both: but knowing the world will never be good till every one mends one; and that God's grace has therefore universally appeared, and yet doth, in the hearts of men ; it is both our desire, duty and practice, to endeavour after that holy, righteous, and innocent life it leads to, and that as well for others as ourselves.

Of SWEARING,

But he fays, (pagę 93) inasmuch as we refuse to • swear before a lawful magistrate, we contradict the

( word

word of God, and throw away the greatest sie any

prince hath upon his subjects ;' insinuating as if we had been dabbling with the Jesuits in this matter.

Ans. It is strange that such an illiterate fort of ' mechanicks, and ruftick rabbies,' as he is pleased to call us, should hold such correspondence with one of the most learned classes in the world! But as there is more difference between us and the Papists, than the Protestants and the Papifts, by how much the Proteftants have many things that are Popish, and we have not; fo have I ever found these filly thread-bare Nan. ders to be the refuge of. Ihallow heads and weak causes. · But I would have all know, as I have elsewhere said, · The ground of swearing is either through distrust of

honesty in him that swears, or weakness in him to to whom the oath is made. The first takes in all the swearing that is now in the world; the last, those oaths God condescended to make to the Jews. So that it is either an extraordinary way of evidence, to awe witnesses into truth; or an extraordinary way of

promifing, to work belief in the incredulous. Now incredulity and dishonesty are both unchristian: for as none are Christians, but those who are “ buried with Christ " by baptism, and are raised up unto newness of life;" so in that pure law of the spirit of life, “ Swear not at " all,” is recorded. And so far is this from contradicting the word of God, that the Great Word of God hath so enjoined us, for all our adversary's paraphrase upon it, to wit, ‘Swearing in communication;' for. the_fwearing prohibited was such as the law allowed,

as Bp. Sanderson well observes, . It was not needful & that Christ should forbid what was forbidden in itself,

or was always unlawful; which swearing in commu. nication was and is, as by the third commandment,

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God « in vain."

Christ brought forth a righteousness that needed it not; for that grace, faith and truth, which came by Jesus Christ, take away the necessity of an oath. Consequently so far as any are in that incredulity or dishoneity which needs it, fo far they are not the followers and disciples of Christ, nor qualified with his evangelical righteousness. Indeed it is a shameful thing, and very dishonourable to the Christian religion, that they who pretend themselves, to be of a Christian society, should be so un-Christ-like, to want and use the fcaring and affrighting asseverations dispensed with in fome of the weakest times of knowledge, by which to affure one another of their faith and truth. In such cases, where is their evangelical link and tie of unity? Certainly a true Chriftian's yea should be yea, and his nay, nay; that is, in answer to all questions, whether it relate to matter of evidence or promise, they should speak the truth, and mean and do what they say; which is enough.

This truth is so natural, that it is familiar with some to say, 'I had rather take his word than the other's « oath ;s' which shews how much honesty is more credible than swearing.

This made the primitive Christians not only refuse to swear by the fortune of Cæsar, but to swear at all, telling their judges in their anfwers, “It was unlawful for a Christian to swear.' And Bp. Gauden himself assures us, that they were « so strict and exact, that there was no need of an * oath among them: yea, they so kept up the sanctity cand credit of their profession among unbelievers, • that it was security enough in all cases to say, Chrif

tianus fum, I am a Christian :' and that if any urged them farther, they repeated this, as the only satisfac« tion they would give;' the veracity of their word,

& As the thief in Effex, who robbing a Quaker, in company with

another, and using them fairly, defired them not to ftir, tíll they were got clear of the road ; upon which said the other man, • l’ll • swear.' You swear! you'll swear through an anvil and back

agaix; will ihe other promise ? Thieves know honesty, though they do not practise it.

And