A knot untied or, allegiance sworn to the King, no breach of allegiance due unto God : written at the request, and for the private satisfaction of some friends: but now made publick for the benefit of all such, who (in tenderness of conscience towards God) scruple the taking of the said oath.

A KNOT ƲNTIED. OR Allegiance sworn to the King; No breach of Allegiance due unto God.

Q. 1. Whether promissory Oaths be lawfull.

1. PRomissory Oathes (as bare promises themselves) are of two kinds: either 1. Of actions, or things indifferent, and which a man before, or without, either Oath or promise, was at liberty whether he would perform, or do them, or no. Or 2. Of such Actions, unto the performance or doing whereof he stood ingaged, or bound otherwise, as viz. by some Law of God, or of nature, or by the Law of a good conscience, or the like.

2. Concerning promissory oaths of the former kind, the lawfulness, or however the expediency of these is more questionable; because a man by coming under the band of any of these, deprives himself of such a part of his liberty, the use and exercise whereof in some other way, might, for ought he knows, or is able to foresee, have been more serviceable, either unto God and Jesus Christ, or unto men, or to himself

Concerning the latter kind of these Promissory Oaths, the lawfulness of them in many cases, yea in some cases, the necessity, or Christian expediency of them, seems to be more clear. For

1. If a simple Promise be, as the case may be (and cases of this nature are frequent) lawfull, yea, in some cases necessary (which I suppose is no mans doubt or question), doubtless the binding, or strengthening of this promise by an Oath, may be lawfull also, and in some cases necessary; (although I do not judge an Oath in any case lawfull, but onely wherein it is to some good degree necessary.) For if the matter of the promise which I have made to another man, be lawfull, I stand in duty bound to perform this promise, whether I swear to perform it or no. Yea, if the concerment of my performance of this promise be in any degree considerable unto him, to whom I have made it, and he suffers much in his mind through fear, lest I should prove careless and unfaithfull in keeping promise with him, and upon this account, should, for his better satisfaction, require further security from me for my faithfulness, by an Oath, I make litttle question but that, in this case, I should stand bound in duty, and in conscience towards God, to swear unto him accordingly. Thus Abraham the better to insure himself of the care and faithfulness of his servant, to inquire and take a wife for his son Isaac from amongst his kindred, and not of the daughters of Canaan, requited of him a serious and solemn Oath in that behalf, which the servant without scruple gave unto him. Gen. 24.2, 3, 9. A like Oath Abraham himself had a little before sworn unto Abimelech, upon a like occasion of jealousie in him, that Abraham would not be so tender, or conscientious in keeping a bare promise, as he would be, in case it were ratified and sealed with an Oath, Gen. 21.23, 24.31. A like Promissorie Oath did Isaack also, upon request, make either unto the same Abimelech (or unto another of the name) upon the same occasion, Gen. 26.28.31. Jacob in like manner sware unto Laban, to give him the assurance he desired, of his friendship and fidelity unto him, Gen. 31.53. yea himself, a little before his death, required a like Oath from his own son, whom notwithstanding he greatly loved, and (doubtless) confided much in his bare word or promise, concerning the place of his buriall, Gen. 47.29.30, 31. The Prophet Jeremy, though we do not find that he demanded or required, yet he accepted an Oath for his security, from King Zedekiah, and was better satisfied upon it, Jeremy 38.15, 16. Not to inquire after any more instances of this kind, the great God himself (of whom we are charged to be followers, as dear children, Eph. 5.1.) although his bare word and promise were sufficient, yea, super-sufficient, to have given security inabundance unto the world for the reall performance of whatsoever he should promise, yet being willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsell, and that we might have strong consolation, he confirmed the said immutability of his counsel, [concerning the terms of the Gospel, and the salvation of men by faith in Christ] with an Oath, Heb. 6.17. yea that which induced him (as it seems) to the confirmation of such his gracious counsel, and intendments towards men, by an Oath, was, that a like course [viz. by swearing] was ordinarily practised amongst men for a like end and purpose. For men verily, swear by the greater, and an Oath for Confirmation is to them an end of all strife (verse 16.) Now if swearing amongst men for confirmation, and so to put an end to all strife, were even under the Gospel, unlawfull, the Holy Ghost would never have insisted upon it as a practice, wherein God would comport with men, much less, as an Argument or motive, to perswade him into the same course, for the managing and ordering of his affairs to his own mind.

Besides this, there is as well in reason, as Religion to satisfie us, that Promissory Oaths, in the cases, and for the ends specified, are lawfull, and somewhat more [I mean, necessary by way of duty] yea, and this nothing less, if not somewhat more, under the Gospel, then under the Law; viz. that it is one of the chief ends, and principal commendations of any mans Religion, or of the love and fear of God in him, to accommodate, please, and satisfie his brother, yea his enemy-brother, by the exercise or acting of it. Now that swearing simply considered, and where there is no sinfull circumstance to alter the property of it, is an exercise of Religion, is evident: because it is an invocation upon God to be witness of the truth of what we swear; wherein we profess and acknowledge, 1. The Omnisciency of God. 2. his Righteousness, as expecting none other, but to hear from him in some judgement or other, in case we shall swear falsely; and 3. (and lastly) his power, as being able to punish us, what course soever we shall take to escape.

Object. But against what hath been argued for the lawfulness, (yea and necessity, in the cases specified) of Promissory Oaths, these sayings of Christ are frequently objected. But I say unto you Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is Gods throne: nor by the earth: for, &c. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay: for whatever is more then these cometh of evil, Mat. 5.34, 35, 36, 37▪ To which that of the Apostle James is sometimes added. But aabove all things my Brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other Oath: but let your yea, be yea, and your nay, nay, lest ye fall into condemnation, James 5.12.

Answ. The answer to these things is, that all kind of swearing is not forbidden in any of these places, nor particularly, that kind of swearing which hath been argued; but 1. Swearing (as it were) of course upon triviall and light occasions, and in ordinary discourse, and 2. All swearing, in or by, such names or things, which are not meet or proper to be attested in an oath, as being creatures; although being so attested, they make the Oath binding because of their relation unto God. For

1. That all swearing, without exception, is not forbidden in the places cited, is evident from the practice of the Apostle Paul, who to gain credit and belief in some weighty assertions or denialls, the truth of which was otherwise obnoxious to the jealousies and doubtings of men, interposed and made use of an Oath severall times. God is my witness—that without ceasing I make mention of you alwayes in my Prayer, Rom. 1.9. By our rejoycing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily [for so the former Translation read the place, according to the Original, where the word protest, inserted in the last Translation doth not at all appear] 1 Cor. 15.31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, knoweth that I lie not, 2 Cor. 11.31. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Gal. 1.20. All these expressions are juramentall, and contain the matter and substance of an Oath, though in somewhat differing forms.

2. That such promissory Oaths which were formerly lawfull, are not forbidden by our Saviour in the passage before us, appears: 1. Because he is not here giving a new law, but declaring and proving the ancient Law given by God, to be (as the Apostle Paul testifies of it, Rom. 7.14.) Spirituall, in opposition to those glosses and constructions of it, by which the Scribes and Pharisees had represented it as little better then carnal, and so like unto themselves: and consequently, he doth not (in the present discourse) prohibit, or make any thing unlawfull, which was lawfull before, but (as hath been said) partly declares some things to be unlawfull, which those evil and ignorant expounders of the Law mentioned, had taught the people to be lawfull and justifiable by the Law; and partly affirms some things to be comprehended as duties, in the Law, unto which yet the letter of some particular Law, seems to require things contrary, and was (as is probable) carried and interpreted accordingly, by the said expounders of it.

That Christ doth not in any of the passages adjoyning to that under present debate, (either before, or after it) make any new Law, or prohibit as unlawful, any thing that was lawful, under the Mosaical dispensation, may be made evident by taking a view of some of the particular instances, as first v. 27.28. Ye have heard, that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Now it is evident, that Christ in this passage doth not prohibit, or make unlawfull, that which was lawfull before; but only declares, that this Law of God, Thou shalt not commit adultery, doth not onely prohibit, or restrain the formall or gross act of adultery, (which it seems, was all that the Scribes and Pharisees and many others made of it) but all adulterous motions and desires of the heart also, together with all actions tending to the raising, or fomenting of them. For there is nothing can be more evident, then that lust was alwayes a sin, and prohibited by God in the old Law, as well as the gross act of adultery it self, Prov. 6.23, 24, 25. For the commandement is a lamp and the Law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of astrange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart, &c. And Exod. 20.17. To covet thy neighbours wife, is there expresly forbidden, and prohibited, wherein, looking on her to lust after her is (without all doubt) comprehended; as appears yet more evidently by that of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 7.7. For I had not known LƲST, except the law had said, thou shalt not COVET. So that it is manifest, that when Christ saith in the passage under consideration, Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart; He doth not herein prohibit, or make unlawfull, that which was lawfull before, but seeks to take off those false glosses, which the Jews had put upon the Law of God formerly given; and labours to work up their consciences to the Spirituality and just extent thereof.

Again, verse 31.32: It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to c • mmit adultery, &c. That Christ hath the same d • sign in this pass • ge also, with that last mentioned, appears from his own mouth, M • tth. 19. verse 3, &c. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them. Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefo • e they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joyned together, let no man put asunder.

They say unto him (verse 7.) Why did Moses then command to give her a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? And (verse 8.) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

First, there was no Law given by God, either for a man to put away his wife upon any cause whatsoever, or to prohibit him cohabitation, and conjugal society with her, however unpleasing she might be unto him. Onely because the Jews were (generally) an hard hearted people, and like to be very injurious and cruel to such wives, of whom they had any dislike, in case they remained with them, therefore God, in favour and pity to such women, who in such cases were obnoxious to great miseries, dispenced so far with his own Law (of an ancient date) concerning the indissolveable band of marriage (Gen. 2.24) as to per • i • the husband to put away such a wife, with whom he could not peaceably and lovingly cohabit; but withal strictly injoyned him to provide for the womans honour and accommodation, by giving her into her hand a writing of her divorcement at her dismission, which might testifie that she was free from her former husband, and so at liberty to be joyned in marriage to another man.

2. It is in no degree probable that when God did permit the Jews for the signall hardness of their hearts, to put away their wives upon occasions beneath adulterie, that he intended to dissolve the authority or obliging force of his own Law, by which he had established the perpetuity during life, of the marriage-Society, Gen. 2.24. For

1. That he did not approve, or take any pleasure in those, who made use of their permission in putting away their wives upon ordinary occasions of dislike, is evident from that of the Prophet: For the Lord the God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away, Mal. 2.16. Where likewise he chargeth men of such practises, with covering violence with their garment; that is, with justifying themselves in their injurious and hard dealings towards their wives in putting them away, under the pretence of a permission from God so to do.

2. God in ordering the permission we speak of, as he hath done, seemeth to intimate, that the woman put away, upon the account of that his permission, ceaseth not absolutely, altogether, or in every respect, to be the wife of him, that put her away. For first he injoyns him to provide for her honour and accommodation (as hath been said) by giving her a writing concerning her Divorce; now it is the known duty of an husband to make provision for the comfort and wel-being of his wife. 2. In case the woman put away shall become the wife of another man, God termeth her use of the marriage bed with him, her defilement (Deut. 24.4.) which plainly intimateth that in Gods esteem, she still beareth somewhat (at least) of the relation of a wife unto her former Husband, notwithstanding her divorce from him, and her being joyned unto another man. For were she absolutely free from him upon such an account, her conjugal society with another man could not bear the name of a defilement; marriage (as the Apostle testifieth, Heb. 13.4.) being honourable in all. 3. The reason assigned by Moses, why the former husband may not take again to wife, her, whom he had put away, in case she hath in the mean time been married to another man, viz. because by this means she is defiled; evidently supposeth, or implyeth, that in case she had not known the bed of an other man, he might lawfully have re-entertained her into his, and consequently, that her putting away did not absolutely nullifie, or make void, the marriage relation between them: no nor yet her after marriage to another man; but onely that this (her latter marriage and conjugal society with another man) made it very uncomely in the sight of God (Moses termeth it, an abomination before the Lord, Deut. 24.4.) that her former husband should again enjoy her as his wife. The reason of which uncomliness might be argued, but that the digression would be too large.

These Considerations clearly prove, that God neither approved the putting away of the wife by the husband, (but only upon the high crime of adultery) notwithstanding his permission unto them on that behalf: nor that he intended any thing less in that his permission, than the abrogation of his ancient Law, concerning the indissolveableness of the marriage-communion, being founded upon those Principles of reason and equity, which are expressed in the Sanction of that Law, Gen. 2, 23, 24 So that Christ, in not allowing men to put away their wives, but onely in the case of fornication, doth not introduce, or impose a new Law upon the world, nor restrain any thing as sinfull, which before was lawfull and good; but onely asserts the standing authority of that Law of God concerning the firmness, fastness, and closeness of the marriage-ingagement and tie, ratified by him in the first institution of it, or (in our Saviours expression) in the beginning, and sheweth hereby, that the practice of the Jews, in putting away their wives upon occasions of lighter import, then fornication, was sinfull, notwithstanding the permission, which is commonly supposed they had from God to do it. Even as the same people in the dayes of Samuel, sinned greatly in demanding a King to be set over them (1 Sam. 12.17.) although God permitted them to have their desire in this kind.

Let me add this one thing further to all that hath been already said, upon the account to prove, that the Jews sinned in putting away their wives, upon other occasions, besides fornication, notwithstanding any permission they might have from God for it. This permission being granted (as our Saviour himself informeth us) for the hardness of their hearts, it is a plain case, that the making use of it was a fruit of this hardness, and proceeded from it. Now this hardness of heart, by reason whereof the permission was granted unto them, being unquestionably sinfull, and (in particular) repugnant to the equity, and sweetness of the Law of God concerning marriage (so oft pointed at, Gen. 2.) it undeniably follows, that the fruit of it must needs be sinfull also, and a transgression of the said Law.

Nor doth the sinfulnes of making use of such permissions of God by men, as those mentioned, any wayes prove the permissions themselves to be sinfull, or that God gives men leave to do that which is simply evil, or displeasing unto him. All that can be inferred from the said permissions, is, that God approves rather of that which is comparatively good (as lesser sins are, in respect of greater) then of that, which is superlatively evil (as greater sins are, in respect of lesser): and that whilst men are in any degree straitned, or scanted, in means for the inlarging of their hearts to refrain, as well from lesser, as from greater sins; he had rather prevent the perpetration of those that are greater, by a kind of toleration of the lesser, then by any proceedings in severity of judgment against such perpetrators. But,

2. All, or the greater part, of this latter Discourse might have been spared without any disadvantage to our present undertaking, if the confident (and not altogether unprobable) opinion of some, were admmitted; namely that Moses himself (or God, in & by the Law of Moses) did not suffer or permit men to put away their wives, but for the cause of fornication only. For by that uncleanness (as our Translation gives us the word, Deut. 24 1.) or matter of nakedness (as Moses, in his language expresseth it) upon the discovery whereof in the wife by the husband, it is supposed, that be would, and might make use of the permission granted unto him to put her away, the opinion we now speak of understandeth the uncleanness or nakedness of adultery, or fornication onely, and not of any other. If this interpretation will stand (as somewhat, not inconsiderable, is said, to make it stand) it is a plain case, that Christ in restraining the lawfulness of divorce unto the cause of fornication onely, is so far from giving a ne • Law, or making that unlawfull for the future, which was lawfull before; that he doth but assert and ratifie the self same thing with Moses, onely expressing himself more significantly, and plainly in the case, as the manner of the Gospel is to do. But because this opinion is of a late edition, and in the debate of it may be found somewhat incumbred, and so require more to be said for the clearing of it, then can well be allowed here, therefore we shall not build with any great weight of confidence upon it: especially considering, that what hath been argued otherwise with clearness and evidence of truth, fully reacheth the Conclusion, which we are making after in our present Discourse.

The like Consideration will not wrong our Saviours mind in any other of the particulars, whereon he insists likewise. Let us c • st our eyes upon v. 38, 39, &c. Ye have heard, that it hath been said An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, &c. It seems that the teaching, which was in credit, and prevailed amongst the Jews, had perswaded them to believe and think, that this Law of God, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, imposed a necessity upon them of seeking revenge, in case of an injury done unto them: or however, that they were freed by it, from any patient bearing, or passing by any injury, or hard measure from men; and that God required of them, in case they were wronged, to seek after a just and full satisfaction in a way of retaliation, therefore Christ by his D • ctrine vindicates the said Law, from any such construction, or meaning, by which it should be conceived to require of men, or approve in men, any action, or practice, contrary unto love, meekness, patience, gentleness, forbearance, &c. For these, and all such like holy affections and dispositions, with their severall fruits and expressions, were alwayes in high esteem both with God and men, as well under the regency of Moses his Law, as in the times of the Gospel. This is of it self a thing so evident and elear, that to go about to prove it, were but like the lighting up of a candle whereby to see the Sun. Therefore if the question be, Whether Christ, by proposing his Law of not resisting evil, &c. did not abrogate the said Law of God, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, or at least make that to be a duty, which was none before? The answer is near at hand; namely that he is so far from abrogating the said Law, that he gives countenance unto it, by asserting the good correspondency and agreement, which it holds with those sweet and heavenly dispositions and practices mentioned, patience, gentleness, meekness (with the like): yea and rescues it out of the evil hands of such interpreters, who had set the face of it a contrary way. Whether the said Law be now abrogated, either in whole, or in part, how far, or in what cases may be matter of another inquirie: but certain it is, that it was no part of Christs intent (in the place before us) to speak any thing to the prejudice, much lesse to the abrogation of it. He had said, a little before in the same Chapter (namely v. 17.) That he was not come to destroy, either the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them.

There remains onely one instance more proposed by our Saviour, in this quarter of his discourse, the consideration whereof will complete our demonstration of this conclusion; that he intended not in any of those passages, from the beginning of v. 21. to the end of vers. 44. of this Chapter, to introduce any new law into the world, nor to make any thing sinful or condemning, which before his coming was lawful and approved. So then vers. 43, 44. he speaks thus, Ye have heard, that it hath been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, &c. This Clause; and hate thine enemy, is not, in the letter of it, or in so many words, found in the writing of Moses, or (indeed) in all the old Testament. Onely there are some passages in the Books of Moses, from whence (it seems) the Scribes and Pharisees presumed they might safely infer such a sentence, or saying, without any explication, limitation, or Proviso, and accordingly in their D • ctrine, held it forth unto the people, as a branch of the L • w of God. The Passages in Moses, which (as is most like they conceived) • mou • ted • o the f • ll sense and import of those words, are these two (happily with some others of like consideration) Observe thou that which I command thee this day, Behold, I drive out before thee the Amori • e, and the Canaanite, & the Hittite and th • Perizzite, & the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take h • ed to thy self, lest thou make a Covenant with the inhabitants of the Land whither thou g • est. But ye shall destroy their altars, &c. Exod. 34.11, 12, 13, &c. so again: When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the Land whither thou goest to possesse it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the G • rgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusi • es. Seven nations greater and mightier then thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no Covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: neither shalt thou make marriages with them, &c. Deut. 7.1, 2, 3, &c. Now though some actions, and carriages, which frequently proceed from hatred, are here enjoyned, and required by God of the Jews, yet they do not alwayes, or necessarily, proceed from this affection: nor is the affection it self of hatred, here enjoyned, or required of them. A man may do the severe executions here enjoyned, smite and utterly destroy out of a principle of obedience unto God, or out of reverence to his Authority, when he commands it. There is no reason to imagin that the servants of Absolon hated Amnon, when notwithstanding upon the encouragement and command of their Master they fell upon him, smote, and slew him, 2 Sam. 13.28, 29. There are sundry instances of like nature extant in the Scriptures. Therefore, whoever they were, that out of the said passages made the exraction of such a Law as this; Thou shalt hate thine enemy, and so commended it unto men as the Law, or command, of God, committed two evils, the one Logicall in weak arguing; the other Moral, in setting up the imagination of their own heart, as the Law of God.

Secondly, the severe executions, with the other particulars of carriage, injoyned in the said passages, were enjoyned with particular reference and determination unto the people and nations specified, and were not so much as allowed or permitted unto them in relation unto other enemies, and most apparently, not unto all, nor at all times, nor in all cases. The Aramites were enemies unto the Jews: yet the King of Israel, having them at an advantage, and being desirous (as it seems) to smite and to destroy them, onely judging it best to know the mind of the Prophet before he acted, was restrained by him from doing it, as being a thing very unmeet, and unworthy. And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them. Wouldest thou smite them whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword, and with thy bow? but set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their Master. And he made great preparation for them, &c. 2 Kings 6.22, 23. Saul likewise was an enemy unto David, full of hatred, and of a malitious and bloody spirit against him; yet David was far from thinking himself bound by any Law of God to smite, or to destroy him, when he had a large opportunity to have done it; yea the Text records, that his heart smote him, onely for cutting off the skirt of Sauls garment, 1 Sam. 24 6. Now it is against all reason, and very importune, when an order or command is given, with special limitaion for the execution of it, and the persons expressed by name, on whom the execution is to be done, to put such a construction upon it, as if it did import, that the will & pleasure of him that gave it, were, that it should be executed upon others, as well as on those, against whom by Name it was issued forth by him. But,

3ly, And lastly (to cut off further arguing about the businesse in • and) evident it is, that Christ (in the words before us) injoyning men to love th • ir enemies, injoyned nothing, but what the world, and more particularly the Nation of the Jewes, stood charged with, and obliged unto, by God, long before: nor doth he prohibit any other hatred of an enemy, then what w • s prohibited upon the like tearms.

1. That men under the Law, were commanded to love their enemies, many Texts, and Contexts, in the Old Testament, make maninifest. If thou meet thine enemies Oxe (saith God by Moses) or his Asse, going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the Asse of him that hateth thee, lying under his burthen, and wouldest forbear to help him [i. though it be against thy stomach to help him, and hadst rather see him perish: yet] thou shalt surely help with him [i. shalt compell thine heart▪ to love even him that hateth thee, and joyn thy hand with his, for the preservation of his beast] Exod. 23.4, 5. So Solomon (a person well instructed in the Law of God) If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat: and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. Prov. 25.21. Yea, God commanded a degree of love, love thus far to be shewed, even to the Nations mentioned, whom the Jewes were commanded to smite and to destroy; namely, to proclaim peace to their Cities, when they came to besiege them, and make Warre against them, and to give them quarter for their lives, in case they opened their Gates peaceably unto them. Deut. 20.10, 11. The Jewish Writers report, that Joshua, before he made Warre upon these Nations, sent three Writings unto them: The tenor of the first of which, they say was this: He that will flee, let him flee. Of the second, this: Whoso will make Peace, let him make peace. Of the third, this: Whoso will make Warre, let him make it. However, evident it is, by what hath been shewed from the Scriptures (unto which much more might be added, upon the same account, if need were) that the commandement of loving our enemies, was no stranger in the world▪ for many generations before our Saviours dayes. And

2. As evident it is, that neither d • th Christ here prohibit, either explicitly, or implicitly, any other hatred of enemies, then what was prohibited also many ages before. For (doubtless) he prohibits not, in one kinde or other, any such execution of judgement upon his enemies, being our enemies also, which he hath predicted in his word shall be done upon them by his Saints, and servants, when they shall be invited, and called by himself to do it. Nor doth his command of loving our enemies, at all imply, that because the Beast, and his Hosts and followers, are our enemies, therefore we may not fight against them, when himself hath said unto us, concerning their Metropolis, Babylon (by which he signifieth the Corporation, Body, or Community of them, as well as the place or City) Reward her, even as she hath rewarded you, and double unto her double, according to her works: in the Cup which she hath filled, fill unto her double; how much she hath glorified her self, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her, &c. Revel. 18, 6, 7. See also vers. 14, 16, & 17. of the preceding Chapter. Therefore, that hatred of enemies which Christ (in a consequential way) prohibiteth, and condemneth by his precept and command, to love our enemies, importeth, only all malicious, cruel, or hard intendments, and practises agai • st men, upon the account of our own private suffering, any injustice, any unkinde or hard measure from them, whether really, or in apprehension and conceit only: wherein I comprehend, injuries, or unkindnesses done by them, to persons particularly related to us, as wife, children, kindred, speciall friends, &c. because in the sufferings of these, we our selves may be truely said, privately, or particularly to suffer also. Now that such hatred of enemies as this, was cleerly and plainly prohibited under the Law, hath been demonstratively proved already: and to those that are yet unsatisfied, it may be further evidenced by a diligent consideration of these, and such like places (besides those lately cited in the cafe.) Job 31.29, 30. Psal. 7.4. Prov. 24.17. 1 King. 3.11.

From these debates, and through examination of all the particular instances of like nature and consideration, with that under question, concerning swearing, on which Christ insisteth, both before, and after it, I presume it sufficiently appeareth, that in the said passage, or prohibitory discourse, concerning swearing, he intendeth no restraint, or prohibition, of any kinde of swearing, that was lawfull, and allowable in the Saints and servants of God, under the Law! but only the reproof, and prevention for the future, of such irrational, customary, and sinfull swearing: in the use and practise whereof, the Jewes had been encouraged, by the ignorance of their teachers, upon pretence of the warrantableness hereof, by the an • ien • Law, or Lawes of God, concerning swearing. There is not the least colour of reason to imagine, that Christ, in that one only instance (concerning swearing) should intend wholly to disannull, abrogate, and abolish, all the former Lawes of God about it, and make a new Law in opposition thereunto; when as in all other particulars adjoyning to it, both behinde, and before, carried and managed after the same manner, and method with it, he cleerly intended the confirmation, and establishment of the authority and worth, of all those Lawes of God▪ of which he judged it needfull for him to discourse; by declaring and asserting, a far greater spirituality, and comprehensiveness of duty in them, then the narrowness and blindness of the understandings of, the Scribes and Pharisees, in their interpretations of them, did extend unto. I have seen an end (saith David) of all perfection: but thy Commandement is exce • ding large, (P • al. 119.96) It was this exceeding largenesse of the Commandements of God, which our Saviour, in all the instances, we have now discussed, intended to declare, and not to contract any of them into nothing.

Now that Swearing was lawful under the Law, and that this lawfulness of it, could not be dissolved by Christ (especially not in the place under consideration) may appear by this noon-day-light. The former, because God gave particular and express Directions and Commands about Swearing, and the manner of it: And ye shall not swear by my Name falsly, &c. Levit. 19.12. Again, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his Name, Deut. 6.13. And he that sweareth in the Earth, shall swear by the God of Truth. Isa. 65.16. And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in Truth, in Judgement, and in Righteousness, Jer. 4.2. Now God is not wont to prescribe Rules, or to give Directions unto men, how to act, or manage that which is sinful or unlawful. Therefore it is above all doubt, that Swearing was lawful under the Law; yea, and that it must needs continue lawful, whilst these Laws, Rules, and Directions from God about it, stand in force, and remain unrepealed, and un-dissolved, for the reason mentioned: Now then for the proof of the latter particular, (namely, that the lawfulness of Swearing under the Law, was not taken away by Christ (especially not by the words or passage of Discourse under consideration) is evident, because those Laws, Rules, or Directions of God, about Swearing (lately mentioned) were in their full strength and Authority, after this Discourse by Christ; for he abrogated no Law of God at all, until his death, nor in any other way, or by any other means then by it, Eph. 2.15. Col. 2.14, And 2dly, the said Laws or Prescriptions of God concerning the due and worthy manner of Swearing, are no part of that Law, the Law of Typical or Carnal Ordinances (as the Apostle termeth them, Heb. 7.16.9.10▪) but relate unto, and are members, or branches of the Moral Law, which (as we heard) is spiritual, and founded by Godlike unto Mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever. For they are plain and significant explications of the third Commandment in this Law.

3dly, Our Saviour to his Negative Precept or Charge of not Swearing at all, subjoins this affirmative by way of opposition, But let your Communication, or your speech, or talk, be yea, yea, nay nay, for, &c. which plainly shews, that by not swearing at all (in his Negative Precept) he intended onely to restrain all manner of Swearing in mens ordinary talk or communication: For what a man utters before a Magistrate upon a special and weighty occasion, cannot be called his communication, or any part of it.

4thly, Having first delivered a prohibition in general against swearing at all, and immediately giving instance in several particular forms of Swearing, which he prohibiteth unto them as to swear by Heaven, or by the Earth, or by Jerusalem, or by a mans own Head, &c. it appears that his intent in that his general prohibition, was not universally to restrain all, and all manner of Swearing, but onely all swearing; first, of that kind of Oaths, of which he gives several instances, (as was said:) And 2dly, all Swearing upon such terms, or upon such occasions, as on which these, and such like oaths were used amongst the Jews, viz. in their common discourse, and upon any frivolous or slight occasion. If his intent had been to forbid all swearing universally, and without all exception, he would rather have made a stop at his general Prohibition, Swear not at all, then have presently added by way of explanation of himself therein, several instances of particular forms of Swearing, from which he commandeth them to abstain; For this implies, there being another kind of Oath, much differing from all those named by him, that he intended not to include this in his general prohibition, nor to enjoin men in all cases to abstain from it. And

5ly, It is observable, that the onely lawful Oath, or kind of Swearing, which is by the Name of God, (Deut. 6.13.10.20.) is not mentioned by Christ in the Catalogue or number of those Oaths, or kinds of Swearing, in which he exemplifies his general Precept against Swearing at all: Which seems to be a clear intimation, that when he delivered and explained that general Precept, he intended to leave a place for that Oath in such cases which should require, or reasonably bear it.

6tly, (and lastly) It is the sence and judgement of the most learned and pious expounders of the Scriptures, both ancient and modern, That it was no part of our Saviours intent or meaning in the passage cited from him, to deny the lawfulness of Swearing in every kind, or in every case whatsoever, but onely of those sinfully-devised Oaths (with others like unto them) which he mentions, together with the lawfulness of all swearing, save onely in cases well-becoming an Oath. Their judgement is the same concerning the place cited from Jam. 5. I shall not need, (I suppose) nor have I time to transcribe any thing from any of these Writers upon the account specified, but onely acquaint you with a memorable saying of Austin to this point: He that understands that an Oath is not to be used in all cases that are honest and good, but onely in those that are necessary, let him refrain himself as far as he is able, from the use of any, but only when necessity shall require it, as when he shall find men slow and averse to believe that, which yet is profitable and needful from them to believe, unless they be confirmed and secured in their belief by an Oath.

If notwithstanding all this, the Letter of our Saviours general Prohibition, Swear not at all, and so of that clause in James, nor by any other Oath, shall still be urged, and the judgements of men cannot yet be fully satisfied, but that the said general restraints debar men from all liberty of Swearing in what case or cases soever, they may please further to know, and to consider, that it is very frequent in the Scripture, that general terms, or words importing some universality, are used to express onely that universality which relateth to the subject matter in hand, and are not to be extended further, or unto all particulars, that may in any sense or consideration, be comprehended under them. Thus the Apostle saith, That the Corinthians were in every thing enriched by Christ, in all utterance, and in all knowledge, (1 Cor. 1.5.) His meaning is not, that they were enriched by Christ in every thing without exception, as in Silver, Gold, precious Stones, Houses, Lands, or the like; but in every thing of a spiritual nature that was necessary, and of concernment unto them. Nor were they enriched by him with all knowledge whatever, as of all humane Arts and Sciences of the Natures of Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and other Creatures, with the knowledg whereof Solomon was enriched: But his clear meaning is, That by Christ preached in the Gospel unto them, they were richly furnished with the knowledge of the whole Counsel of God concerning their Salvation. Those words, and in all utterance, are to be limited and understood likewise. So Matth. 4.23. Christ is said to have gone about, healing every sickness, and every disease among the people. First, this is to be understood onely of such sicknesses and diseases, that the people of Galilee were now under; for the Text speaks of this people onely, as appears from the beginning of the Verse. Again, it is not meant that he healed every sickness, and every disease whatsoever, and without exception of any, that were amongst this people, but every sickness and disease viz. which came in his way, and with which he was made acquainted, &c. I have not time to insist upon more examples of the Rule lately given. See at your leisure, and weigh diligently the like forms of expressions, 1 Cor. 9.19.22. 1 Cor. 10.23.33. 1 Tim 4.4. besides other the like without number. So that from those general Precepts, swear not at all, swear neither by Heaven, nor by the Earth, nor by any other Oath, it cannot be reasonably, nor with agreement to the usual Language of the Scripture, concluded, that all swearing whatsoever, or swearing without all exception or limitation, should be universally forbidden; but onely all that kind of swearing, or all such swearing which is under Discourse, where these precepts are found.

Quest. 2. Concerning the Question, Whether it be lawful to swear, or to confirm by Oath, our Allegiance, Loyalty, or Subjection unto Kings and Princes, whether good or evil, friends. or enemies to Christ, much conducing to satisfaction in it, may (I suppose) be gathered from the former debates. However, wanting time to levy a methodical and thorow discussion of it, I desire that these few particulars following may be taken into consideration instead thereof, at the present.

1. I suppose it is no mans doubt, but that Allegiance or Subjection is due, as well from Christians, as from other men, unto the chief Magistrates, or Rulers, of those Countreys, where they dwell. The Scriptures requiring this of them so frequently, sufficiently proves it to be a due debt, made such by express order and assignment from God himself. See Rom. 13.1, 2. &c. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 15.

2. It is clear likewise from the Scriptures, that Christians are not absolved from the said Obligations, unto their Kings and Rulers, by their Idolatry, Wickedness, Unbelief, or any the like unworthiness found in them, any whit more then those Christians that were called to the Gospel in the condition of Bondmen, were freed from the yoke of their servitude by the frowardness, injustice, or other misdemeanors of their Masters, (1 Pet. 2.18.) This assertion is evident from hence, that the Kings and Rulers of the Earth, were generally, and without exception of any, persons of all these wretched Characters, when those injunctions of obedience and subjection to them, were first issued forth from God unto Christians.

3dly. From these premises it followeth, that no assuming, owning, or exercising any incompetent or heterogeneal Power, by any Magistrate, Ruler or King, can discharge their Christian Subjects from their obligation of Loyalty and subjection unto them. The Roman Emperors in the Apostles dayes, and several ages after, had the Power and Dignity (such as they were) of the chief-Priesthood about their Idolatrous Ceremonies, and Divel-Worship in use amongst them, annexed to their Imperial Thrones.

To plead that it is worse, and a greater sin in Kings and Princes professing Christian Religion, to assume and exercise a power unmeet, and incompetent to them, then it is, or was for heathen Princes to do it, and that this may alter the case between the primitive Christians, who lived under Pagan-Rulers, and Christians in these dayes, who live under Kings and Rulers professing subjection unto Christ, and to the Gospel: So that the lawfulness of their obedience unto persons claiming a lawless Power, proveth not a like lawfulness in Christians now to yeild subjection unto their Kings or Rulers, who claim from God, or from Christ, a Power never given unto them; to plead (I say) such a plea as this, is not to prove any difference in point of lawfulness, between the subjection of the primitive Christians to their Rulers, and the subjection of Christians amongst us, unto theirs. For

1. Though it be simply, and (as it is usually expressed by the Learned) in thesi, worse for Kings professing themselves Christians, to claim or exercise a Power not belonging to them, then it is for Kings professing Paganism; yet is it not always worse in hypothesi, or in every particular case; nor particularly in that before us. For it is much worse for an Heathen King to assume and exercise such a Power, which is simply, absolutely, at all times, and for all persons, broadly and notoriously unlawful, and which cannot be exercised but to the great dishonour of God, and eternal perdition of the souls of men (which is the condition of the Power claimed and exercised by Pagan Empeperors in the primitive times) then it is for a King that is by profession, Christian, to accept and exercise onely such a Power, which though it be supposed unlawful for him to own, or exercise, yet may it very possibly be (the unlawfulness or unduness of the assuming it, onely waved) exercised to the glory of God, and without the least danger or detriment to the salvation of any man; especially if it shall be considered yet further, 1. That in the judgement of very many, both learned, judicious, grave and pious men, this Power doth of right, and according to the Will of God, appertain to him, and ought to be accepted, and administred by him: whose arguments and reasons in this behalf, although they be not demonstrative, or of sufficient eviction to carry the truth before them; yet they must be acknowledged to have much probability in them, and not to be of any easie or ready solution. This doth much qualifie and ease the guilt of his offence, that shall erre in the case; I mean that shall accept of a power incompetent to him.

2. The power we now speak of, is either the same, or very near, or like to that power which was antiently owned, and exercised by Kings of greatest renown for their zeal and faithfulness in the things of God; as by David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, &c. and this not onely without any check or reproof from God by any of his Prophets in those times, but (as it seems) to their honor and commendation.

3 (And Lastly) there is no King (I presume) in these daies professing Christianity, that either claims or exerciseth that power we now speak of, unless the Laws of that Nation or People over which he is King cast it upon him, and do in a manner necessitate, or constrain him to accept it, unless he will, together with it, refuse his Kingdom: which is a temptation, that were flesh and blood excusable under the commission of any sin, is most likely to befriend them in that kind. However, these circumstances laid and weighed together, take off much of the offence, or demerit of the Kings we speak of, in accepting (at least) such a power, as many of us judge incompetent to them. And if they offend not at a higher rate in the exercise of it, then in accepting it, they may for all this, pass in the number of good men, compassed about with infirmities: and deserve not an harder censure, then to be parallel'd with the Idolatrous Pagan Emperors, who unto their Politick and civil power, assumed the office of Pontifices Maximi, of being Chief-Priests unto the Divel. But

2. Were it true, that such Kings as we now speak of, are more sinful in accepting, and exercising the Power judged by us unlawful for them, then the Heathen Empetors were, in assuming that power, by the exercise of which they served the Divel in things appertaining unto him, and his worship, yet neither will this prove the subjection of Christians now unto these Kings, to be unlawful, it being supposed, that the subjection of Christians unto those Emperors was lawful. The principles of Reason tell us, that more, and less, do not alter, or change the Species, or kinds of things. That water which is colder, is of the same kind of water with that which is hotter: nor is a greater degree of cold, of another kind of coldness, from a lesser. In like manner, a King or Sovereign Ruler, that is more sinful, or wicked then another, may yet, in respect of the Civil Authority, or power vested in him, be the same Ordinance of God with him. And it is this, unto which subjection is required by God, without respect had, either to a lesser, or greater degree, whether of Righteousness, or of Sinfulness, in the Person. Much more might be added for the clearing of this patticular, if need were: Onely this may be taken along with us for a rule; That no dissimilitude between things destroies any other Analogies, or Proportions between them, but onely those which are founded upon some property, or consideration wherein they differ.

4. If it be a duty imposed by God upon Christians to yield Homage, Loyaltie, and Subjection unto their Kings, and Princes; it is lawful to profess, yea and to promise upon occasion this Loyaltie and Subjection unto them. A duty is as meet and innocent matter for a promise, as any thing besides.

5. If it be lawful to promise Obedience and Subjection unto Kings, as circumstances may be, it may be necessary, and become a Duty. For in things that are lawful, it is our duty to become servants unto all men, and please all men, and not to offend any man, 1 Cor. 9.19, 22. & 10.32.33.

6. If it be a Duty charged upon us by God, not onely to exhibit and yield, but to promise also upon occasion, Allegiance and Subjection unto Kings, then may, and ought this duty of making promise, to be performed by us, heartily, willingly and truly; for such should our Obedience unto all the will and pleasure of God, be.

7. If it be our duty both to yield, and upon occasion to promise Obedience and Subjection unto Kings, then ought we not to be tender, or make scruple of the performance of either, out of any fear or anxiety of mind, lest the doing of either may ensnare or incumber us for the future, or be a bar in our way to hinder us from doing any such service unto God, or unto Christ, which, were we at liberty, we might have opportunity to do. For as it is unchristian to do evil, that good may come of it; so it is a sinful weakness to forbear doing of good, because evil may come of it. Men ought not to neglect a present duty for fear of being disabled hereby from doing such, or such a duty, another time. No fear of inconvenience should indispose us in the least to the keeping of any the Commandments of God.

8. As was argued in the preceding Question, if it be lawful and in some cases necessary to promise Allegiance or Loyalty unto Kings and Rulers, then may it be lawful, if the occasion be weighty and much considerable, to confirm and strengthen this promise with an Oath. If my King, or Prince shall, especially upon any competent or reasonable ground, be very jealous or doubtful of the truth of my loyalty and faithfulness unto him, and cannot receive satisfaction, or be quiet in his mind in this case, upon my simple promise of being faithful unto him; especially if, in case I shall refuse, upon his demand, to secure him touching my Allegiance, by an Oath, his jealousie shall be provoked more and more, so that I have just cause to fear, that he will look upon me, and handle me as an Enemy, or as a person dangerous to his Life, Crown and Dignity; why may I not, in a conjunction of two such grand occasions as these, consult both the satisfaction of my Prince, and my own peace also, by the interposure of an Oath? Doubtless if an Oath be in any case lawful, it canot lightly but be judged lawful, yea and necessary also; (for lawfulness and necessity always go together in swearing, as was formerly hinted) in such a juncture of occasions as that now mentioned. And upon what account, either in Reason, Conscience or Religion, it should be unlawful, I cannot apprehend. For

1. It cannot lightly be judged unlawful, but rather commendable in any man, either to multiply, or to fortifie and strengthen, those engagements that are already upon him, for the doing of his duty in any kind. Now it being (as hath been proved) the duty of every Christian, to perform loyalty and subjection unto his Prince, and the proper import of an Oath being to lay a deeper, and more weighty charge upon the Conscience, then wupoasn it before, for the doing of that duty, which he sweareth to do, I cannot make reason, or conscience of it, to think it unlawful that a man should swear his duty in such a case; I have sworn, (saith David) and I will perform it, [or, as another Translation hath it, I am steadfastly purposed] that I will keep thy righteous Judgements, Psal. 119.106. So that David found himself the better and more throughly resolved to do his duty, by means of the Oath that he had laid upon himself in that behalf.

2. Unless a man shall judge himself infallible in determining the negative (I mean, in concluding it to be unlawful to swear Allegiance unto his Prince in any case whatsoever) he shall run the hazard of sacrificing either more, or less, of that which belongeth unto God, (for every mans Estate, Liberty, & Life, are God's, more then his own) upon the service of an Idol, (I mean his erroneous imagination, or false perswasion) in case his Prince shall inflict any thing penal upon him for his refusal of such an Oath. Whereas on the other hand, in case a man should be mistaken in judging it lawful to accept of such an Oath, and should take it accordingly, yet his miscarriage herein cannot reasonably be judged of so provoking a consideration as the other; because he shall • ot, in this case, honor his error, or mistake with any sacrifice, nor much commend it to the judgments or thoughts of men. All the harm that he is like to do by such a mistake, or miscarriage, is to hold forth an error to the world without any confirmation, or argument of value for the proof of it.

3dly, If it be the duty of Christians to supplicate, pray, and intercede with God, for Kings, and all that are in Authority, that under them we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty, (1 Tim 2.1, 2) why may we not upon the same account, and to a like end and purpose, invocate the Name of God, and desire him to be witness to the loyalty, truth, and uprightness of our hearts towards them, and profess our selves willing to be judged and punished by him, in case we be hollow-hearted, and flatter with our lips? Or what is our swearing Allegiance unto them, but the doing of these things? And if it be lawful, and so our duty, thus to swear, why may we not (as we lately argued) do it, and consequently say that we do it, Heartily, Willingly, and Truly? That at present we are under much reluctancie, and many scruples of mind and conscience, against the doing of it, seemeth to arise cheifly from hence; that we have affectionately imployed the strength of our minds and understandings to discover and make the most of all arguments and reasons, which have any thing in them, so much as in appearance, to render our subjection and Loyalty unto them, bitter, greivous, or burthensome unto us; & on the other hand have either been negligent in inquiring out, or else preposterous and dis-ingenious in valuing those considerations, motives, and grounds, which are proper to commend such our Allegiance and loyaltie, as very comely and beneficial unto us. For as it is usually seen that men insensibly drink in the genius and temper of their company, and daiely consorts, and learn their wayes, though at first contrary to their own, yea and otherwise not so pleasing in themselves, according to that of Solomon; Make no friendship with an angrie man, and with a furious man thou shalt not go, Lest thou learn his wayes, and get a snare to thy Soul, Pro. 22.24.25; In like manner the mind and intellectuall powers of the souls of men, by much and intimate conversing with arguments and reasons of such, or such, a tendency, or inclination, in time, and by degrees, come to be (as it were) baptized into their Spirit, and to invest themselves with that Opinion which they perswade and lead unto, be it never so uncouth or unworthy. No one clause in all the Scripture hath (to my remembrance) been oftener in my thoughts without satisfaction about it, then that, wherein the Apostle Paul mentioneth some professors of Christianity, who supposed gain to be godliness, 1 Tim. 6.5. I could not of a long time work it out in my thoughts, how men, especially having any knowledge of the Gospel, should so handle, or go to work with their Reasons, Judgements, and Understandings, as to come to embrace such an uncouth and strange opinion, or conceit as this, that to get money, and encrease a mans Estate in the World, should be a strain, or act, of godliness. But this consideration lately presented by God unto me, gave me ease in my mind, both concerning that matter, and many others of like impo • t, viz. That when a man, whether it be by means of his Education, of his Company, or Acquaintance, of his own inclination, whether natural, or vicious, or upon any other occasion, shall be continually plodding and poreing upon arguments and grounds of inducement unto him to be of such, or such an opinion, and shall withall refuse all communion, or (which is in effect the same) all ingenuous, free, and friendly communion with the reasons which oppose, and bear hard against this opinion; bee the opinion never so crooked or deformed, never so void of all probability in the eye of an unprejudiced understanding, yet he will in time, be as securely, as importunely confident of the truth of this opinion, as if he had received it by immediate and unquestionable revelation from Heaven. And this is further considerable in the point, that when a man shall, upon any the occasions mentioned, or the like, fall in with such reasonings, or pleas, day after day, ruminating, musing, and feeding his fancy and imagination with them, which commend unto him any such notion, or Tenent that is much pleasing unto flesh and blood, or otherwise, of any plausible compliance with some humour, or pre-conceived principle in him, that bold and confident belief of truth in it, of which we speak, is so much the sooner, and with the more facility, raised and wrought in him. Now that gain, or the encreasing of a mans worldly Estate, should be godliness, (in the sense hinted) is a Doctrine, or conceit, which is like to be very acceptable and welcome to the old man, when it comes to him in any likelihood or appearance of truth. In which respect both fewer, and weaker Arguments, and these less ruminated and digested, will serve to give it a seeming tincture of truth; especially in the eye of the mind of such a person, that is but a little more then ordinarily addicted to this present World. Nor will the Devil be wanting to furnish and prompt men with arguments and reasons, the best that he can invent, and of which they are capable, to set them forward into the confident belief of such an error, unto which he finds them in any degree inclinable beforehand; yea I verily believe, that far the greatest part of those fond and by-opinions, with which the profession of Christianity is at this day so turmoiled, and incumbred in the world, have taken the Heads, Judgements, and Consciences of their respective abettors and maintainers, by that unhappy method and means, which have been now pointed at; and that too much, and too intimate, converse with such apprehensions, which seemed in their eyes strongly to favour those opinions, by which they are (respectively) characterized, and distinguished, both among themselves, and from others, in conjunction, either with a total neglect, or with a superficial and slight perusal, or (which is worst of all) with an illiberal and ante-dated Judgement, of those reasons, with which they, who are contrary-minded unto them, conscientiously endeavour to convince them, have ensnared them, and bewitched them against obeying the truth in those things, wherein they are found to err. And as the generality of flesh and blood professing the Gospel, could be well pleased (as was lately hinted) to think, or to suppose, gain to be godliness, (in the sense declared) if they had but any tolerable grounds whereon to comfort and build up themselves in such a supposition, which some (it seems) have met with, and hampered their judgements and consciences with them into this supposition (as remote both from reason, and truth, as it is) in like manner many of the same order of men are very apt to argue themselves into this supposition, that to refuse the yoke of subjection unto the Authority of Kings and Princes, and to break asunder, and cast from them, the cords of obedience unto them, is a point of godliness also. Neither is it to be denied, but that, the sad and violent antipathy that is generally found in the principles, and practices, of Kings and Princes in their Government, unto the interest, comfort, and peace, of persons truly godly, being duly considered, they have a sore temptation upon them to keep at a great distance from them in their affections, and consequently, to be still intermedling with all arguments and reasonings, whose faces are set against all willing & close subjection unto them; of which kind of Arguments there are not a few, and some of them very plausible and taking. And that there is a great aversness of heart generally incident even to good Christians themselves, to comply with the Kings and Rulers of this World in any strict or close Allegiance, or subjection, the Holy Ghost himself seems to intimate, by calling upon them so oft, and so loud, to quit themselves worthily, according to the mind of God, and not their own, at this turn. Put them in mind (saith the Apostle to Titus) to be subject to Principallities and Powers, to obey Magistrates, &c. (Tit. 3.1.) implying, that this was a duty they were apt to forget, or turn aside from. So to the Romans, Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, (Rom. 13.1.) enforcing this charge upon their Judgements and Consciences by several Arguments following; and ver. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not onely for wrath, but also for Conscience sake. In saying, there was a necessity for them to be subject (for so the Original hath it) he evidently implies a great jealousie in him of a strong indisposition and aversness in them to the duty now enjoined them. The Apostle Peter in like manner; Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supream, or, &c. 1 Pet. 2.13. And ver. 15. he commends such a submission as a good and worthy act or behaviour of Christians, chosen and appointed by God for that great & honorable service, the stopping of the mouths that are commonly opened against the servants of God, as evil doers, and enemies to rule and Government. Several other texts of Scripture might be insisted on, which both imply, that it is a sinfull demeanour, very incident to men, Yea and these not of the worse, to make themselves aggreived at their Rulers and Governours, and to study revoult in affection from them; and likewise that such a beheavour in them as this, is very displeasing unto God, and severely prohibited by him. That likewise might be observed, that in all, or most of the places mentioned (and in other besides) there is expresse mention made of Kings, or persons Supreme in Rule, or power; as that Kind of Ruler, against which the Spirits of men are most apt to rise, rather then against those that are subordinate (whereof some reasons might be given) and unto which, in that respect, God doth more particularly and peculiarly enjoyn subiection. Therefore persons that are in other things truly and Really conscientious, should rather exercise themselves in seeking after such arguments, which are proper to strengthen their hand to the performance of a dutie so clearly imposed on them by God, though otherwise distastfull, and bearing hard upon their flesh, and in ruminating and chewing the cud upon these, then either in inventing, hearkening after, or feeding upon, any reasons, or motives whatsoever, that mediate with their Judgments and consciences any aversness or unwillingness thereunto.

But though Swearing Allegiance unto Kings may be simply, and under due Circumstances lawful, yet it may be some man's scruple, Whether the exacting, enforcing, or requiring an Oath in this kind, by a Law, and under such severe penalties, as it is imposed upon men by the Magistrate in this Nation, doth not render the taking of it unlawful; considering that an Oath should be taken willingly and freely.

I Answer; That an Oath may be taken as willingly and freely, where it is enjoined by Law, & the severest penalties threatned against the refuser • , as if men were left, in respect of such inducements, or enforcements, at their full liberty whether they would take it, or no. Yea when men have no reason or ground otherwise to refuse an Oath, and especially when they have reason otherwise, and a band of Duty upon them to take it (which, as hath been argued and proved, is the case in the Oath of Allegiance unto Kings, when required.) here the additional ingagements of a Law enjoining it, and penalties threatned upon the refusal of it, must in reason make men so much the more willing and free to take it. The obedience and service which the Saints perform unto God, are willing and free, notwithstanding they are both enjoined and imposed upon them by a great Law, and the most severe punishments likewise that are, indispensably threatned against those that shal refuse, or not perform them. The more Reason, or Reasons, or the more and greater motives any person hath to act in one kind or other, his will must needs be proportionably quickned, raised and inlarged to the action. It is true, there is no motive, or motives whatsoever, that ought in reason or conscience so much as to affect, or incline the will in the least to act any thing contrary to the will, or commandment of God: But when a man hath these, either concurring with him, or not opposing him, in his way, all conveniencies and accommodations in themselves lawful, should make him have so much the more good will (as we use to say) on it, or to it.

9. Though it should be supposed that there may be some Dignity, or Dignities (which may by some be so called) annexed to the Crown, which are not warrantable by God's Law, yet may we very safely (according to the tenor and words of the Oath) swear, to defend the King—against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his Person, Crown, and Dignity [not, Dignities] by reason or colour, &c. For by the word [Dignity] in this clause, nothing else, in any reasonable construction, can be understood, but that sublime Honor, or Majestick State (or the like) which according to the custom and manner in all nations, accompany the office of a King, or the Person, or Persons, intrusted and invested with the Sovereign power amongst them.

10. Concerning those words (in the begining of the Oath) I do acknowledge, profess, testify, and declar in my Conscience &c. With those in the end of it, Upon the true Faith of a Christian; Neither the one, nor the other, can reasonably be concieved to have any affinity with those prohibited Oath's, or formes of Swearing, Mat 5.34, 35, 36. For to testifie and declare in a man's Conscience, that a thing is So, or So, importeth nothing else, but that he speaketh the sense, and inward thought of his Mind, Judgment, and Conscience, when he affirmeth it to be So, and that he doth not dissemble in such an Affirmation, or Saying. The expression is of much nearer affinity with that of the Apostle, Rom. 9.1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, then with any of the said forbidden Oaths: as with that likewise of the same Apostle; For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our Conscience, &c. 2 Cor. 1.12. For the latter words mentioned; to make an acknowledgment upon the true Faith of a Christian, signifieth no more, then that we utter our acknowledgment, whatsoever the matter of it be, with that fidelity, honesty, and plainness of heart, which become Christians in all their sayings. Nor (doubtless) was there any thing more then this, or besides this, intended in the words by the Law-makers themselves, or Contrivers of the Oath.

11. (And Lastly) There is no question to be made, but that, when God so oft, and so strictly (as we have heard) gave command and charge unto Christians to yield subjection unto Kings, and Persons in Authority; he foresaw all that enmity and contrariety of Spirit unto himself, his waies, and people; foreknew all those destructive counsels, plottings, and practices against his Saints, that would in time break forth, and shew themselves out of the hearts of the generalitie of Kings and Rulers of the Earth▪ untill the coming of Christ unro judgement (See, and compare verse 24. and 25. of 1 Cor 15) yet did not this his foreknowledge at all hinder him from giveing out those strict and severe orders unto his Saints, which have been mentioned that they should obey and submit themselves unto them (notwithstanding). Therefore neither should the Saints think themselves dis-obliged from that subjection unto them, which God hath enjoined them, when they shall see (Yea and feel) them, using that power to their trouble, sorrow, and destruction, wherewith they are instructed by God for their comfort and Protection. But how should the Gospell do for Martyrs, and the community of Saints, for sufferings, if Kings and Great men on Earth, Should not use their power, and this somewhat vigorously to molest and afflict them.

Notwithstanding (to offer this in the close) I verily believe, that God hath subjected the antipathie & malignitie commonly found in Kings & Potentates of the earth, against the Saints, unto their prayers, and thanks-givings for them, upon occasion; So that if their hearts did but serve them to quit themselves Strenuously, and like men, at these weapons they might bind the heads, and the hearts, and the hands of their Kings, as it were with chains. So that they should neither plot nor purpose, nor practise, any thing contrary to their interest of peace and comfort in the world My faith in this seeming paradox, I build upon the credit of the great Apostle; writing thus unto Timothy: I exhort therefore, that first of all [i. e. as a matter of very prime consequence unto Christians] Supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giveing of thanks, be made for all men; For Kings, and for all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty. 1 Tim. 2:1, 2. From this passage two things seem very observable to our present purpose. First, that there is little or no hope, no ground of expectation, that Christians should ever live a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty [in this world] unless that evil Spirit, which is so apt to reign and rage in Kings, and Great men, against them, be effectually charmed with all the varietie of these applications and addressments unto God on the behalf of these men. For God is not wont to prescribe means, Especially not so large a retinue of means as appeareth here [Suplications, prayers▪ intercessions, giveing of thanks] Least of all with that speciall Solemnitie of charge, which is here Likewise found in t ese words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , First of all; [or, of all things] God (I say) is not wont to prescribe the use of means upon such tearms as these, for the obteyning of such ends, which are in any degree likely, if at all possible, to be obteined without them. I said not unto the seed of Jacob, seek ye mee in vain (Esa. 45.19.) Meaning, on the one hand, that they had not been like to have found him, or not long to have enjoyed him in his love and favour, with out seeking him [i. e. without applying themselves diligently in Faith and obedience unto him] and on the other hand, that if they should thus seek him, they should certainly find him. For unless both these be supposed, the saying of God unto them, Seek ye my face, had been in vain. So that from the passage of the Apostle now mentioned, it seems that that evil Spirit, which so haunteth the greatness of this World, still exasperating and whetting up their Spirits against the people of God, is of kin to that kind of Spirit, which goeth not out (as our Saviour saith) but by prayer and fasting.

Secondly, From the said passage it is further observable, that it is not at all questionable, but a thing certain, that Christians may lead a peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and honesty, under Kings, and men in Authority; yea even under such, who at present bear them no good will, if they shall diligently, conscientiously, and perseveringly prosecute the matter and means here commended unto them by God himself for that purpose; i. e. Shall make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks for them. For as God is not wont (as hath been said) to be solicitous, as here he seems to be, in prescribing means unto men, for the compassing of such ends, which are likely to be obtained without them: So neither, on the other hand, doth it stand with his wisdom and goodness, to prescribe any such means in order to the obtaining of such, or such ends, which are weak, scant, or ineffectual for the compassing of them: Wherefore, as when Amalek prevailed, it was a sign that Moses his hands were let down (Exod. 17.11.) and so when Israel fell before their Enemies, it argued some great unworthiness, or high misdemeanor in the Camp, (Josh. 7.12.) God himself telling Joshua, not that he should not, but (very emphatically) that he could not, stand before his Enemies, until the accursed thing was taken away from amongst them; In like manner when the evil Spirit in Kings and Rulers prevails over them, and moves them to trouble, molest, and interrupt the servants of God in their way of worshipping and serving him; it is not to be doubted but that there is some great oscitancy, remisness, or neglect in this Generation, and that they either wholly decline the use of the means mentioned, and directed unto them by God for their quietness and peace, neither making supplications, nor prayers, nor intercessions, nor giving of thanks, for Kings, &c. or else that they satisfie themselves, and think it sufficient, to use onely a part of the means here enjoined them, and not the whole: Or (lastly) that when they do any of these, supplicate, pray, intercede, or give thanks for Kings, &c. they do them as if they did them not, or cared not much whether they did them, or no, the best of their hearts being absent, whilst their lips and tongues are at the work. Now as the Apostles observation in a case not altogether unlike, is, If a man strive for Mastery, yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully, (2 Tim. 2.5.) So in the case in hand, if men be not regular, i e. conscientious, diligent, constant, and thorow-hearted in the use of those means, which God hath sanctified for so great and desirable a purpose as that we speak of, there is no reasonable or equitable ground for them to expect or think to prosper in them. How much less ground is there for us so much as to dream of quietness and peace, if we be found so far from complying with God in his means appointed unto us for these ends, that instead of supplicating, praying, interceding, giving of thanks for Kings, we shall please our selves in imprecations against them, or in speaking evil of them behind their backs? They that under any pretence whatsoever, shall walk contrary unto God, do they not stand under the dint of that threatning, that he will walk contrary unto them? See Levit. 26.23, 24. Doubtless the Sons and Daughters of God, whilst they are cursing reviling, pouring out contempt upon the Rulers of their people, are as much out of the way of their quietness and peace, as these are out of the way of their honor & safety, whilst they are troubling, molesting, and persecuting them.

One thing further may be worthy consideration from the tenor of the passage in hand, for the promoting of the quietness and peace of the Saints in the world, this is, That the generality or body of the Nation, or people, amongst whom we live, have place given unto them in our Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of Thanks, as well as Kings, and men in Authority; yea the Holy Ghost assigns the first place unto them, and the second unto the other. For all men; and then follows, For Kings, &c. Not but that these are comprehended also amongst those, to whom the first place is given, in those words, for all men; and then have this by way of priviledge, or prerogative, cast upon them, namely when they have been made partakers of our devout applications unto God in common with other men, then to be singled out from amongst them as choice persons, and more considerable then others; and in this respect to have appropriate recommendations unto God in the devotions and religious Addressments of his Saints unto him. But this is that; which I would chiefly note here; that the Apostle suspends the quiet and peaceable living of the Saints in all godliness and honesty, as well, and as much, upon their making supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, for the community, or intire body of their people as upon the doing of these things appropriately for Kings and Rulers. And the truth is, that the faithful Servants of God, are as well, if not as much, exposed to suffer from the inconsiderate multitude, and common sort of people, as from Kings, and men in Authority▪ Yea they seldom come to suffer from these, but by the malignity, and ungodliness of the other, Mat. 10.17, 18. In which respect it seems altogether as necessary that we take order in Heaven for the nurturing, quieting, and composing of the Spirit of the Multitude, and persons of inferior rank and quality, as of Kings and men in Authority, if we desire to lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty.

FINIS.