passions, as the springs of the evil actions of men.  Going on to shew the farther superiority of his system of morality over that of the Jews, he says again, whereas it was said of old, “thou shall not forswear thyself,” he expects that they should not swear at all, not even by the name of God, which had been formerly allowed, for that he came to abrogate the ancient law, and perjury with it.  It was his object to make the word of his true disciples equal to the ancient oath.  Thus he substituted truth for oaths.  And he made this essential difference between a Jew and a Christian, that, whereas the one swore in order that he might be believed; the other was to speak truth in order that he might not swear.  Such was the intended advance from Jew to Christian, or from Moses to Christ.

The Quakers are farther confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, by believing, that Christianity would not have been as perfect as they apprehend it to have been intended to be, without this restriction upon oaths.  Is it possible, they say, that Jesus Christ would have left it to Christians to imagine, that their words were to be doubted on any occasion?  Would he have left it to them to think so dishonourably of one another, or of their new vocation, that their words were to be tried by the touchstone of oaths, when his religion was to have a greater effect than any former system of morality ever known, in the production of truth?  Is it possible, when oaths sprung out of fraud and falsehood, as he himself witnesses, (for whatever is more than yea and nay, cometh of evil) that he would have left this remnant of antiquity standing, as if his religion was not intended to extirpate the very ground-work of it?

Finally, the Quakers are confirmed in their ideas upon this subject from a belief that oaths were to cease, either at the coming of Jesus Christ, or as men became Christians.  For, in the first place, the oath “by the name of God,” is considered by some, as I have before noticed, to have been permitted to the Jews during their weak state, that they might not swear by the idols of their cotemporary neighbours, and thus lose sight of the only and true God.  But what Christian stands in need of any preservative against idolatry, or of any commemorative of the existence and superintendence of an almighty, wise, beneficent, and moral Governor of the world?  Some again have imagined, that, as the different purifications among the Jews, denoting the holiness of God, signified that it became men to endeavour to be holy, so the oath “by the name of God,” denoting the verity of God, signified, that it became men to devote themselves to the truth.  But no true Christian stands in need of such symbols, to make him consider his word as equivalent to his oath.  Others again have imagined, that the oath “by the name of God,” typified the truth, or the eternal word.  But as the type ceases when the antitype appears, so the coming of Jesus Christ, who in the gospel language is called both the truth and the eternal word, may be considered as putting an end to this, as to other types and shadows, of the Jewish church.