The New ATHENIANS no Noble BAREANS: Being an Answer to the Athenian Mercury of the 7th Instant, in behalf of the People called QUAKERS.  
I Am hearty sorry to see Men, professing so much Ingenuity, fall so much below their Pretensions. Your Design, at first, carried the Face of Instruction, and gave us hopes of a general Improvement of useful Learning; and for that reason your Papers were as welcome to Us, as any other People; especially those that referred to Natural Philosophy, mathematics, and History: Insomuch, that some of us collected them as they came out, and others bought them as they were completed into Volumes; being much concerned if at any time trivial or light Questions were considered, as an unworthy diversion from the end by you in the beginning proposed. But you have not only been lead, upon such occasions, to exceed too often the bounds of modesty, but you have taken occasion also to violate those of Christianity, in falling upon peoples Opinions in Religion, instead of giving your own impartially; and upon their Persons likewise, and at last the Society itself, as if your business were to expose them instead of informing them, and to increase Animosities rather than to take up their time with more peaceable and profitable Subjects. What if you were I ad to speak of any Principle held by the People called Quakers? Could not that have been done as indifferent persons, which you by your very Design would bespeak yourselves to all persuasions, and not as Parties Disputants and angry Antagonists? Might not the Intention of the People have past for good and sincere, though any part of their Doctrine had, in your opinion been unsound; but you must use hard Words and Names for both Things and Persons? A sober and unconcerned Answer, upon any Question that might be sent you relating to their Belief, would have taken better with every body that deserved your pains, and have brought us sooner to reflect upon our mistakes, if such they were: But, in earnest, it looks as if you were almost aground, and wanted Matter, that so specious a Design as this first shewed itself, should dwindle away into Froward controversy and Personal Invectives about Religion; or that you are not sufficient fo● your Work, that can be so easily moved out of your province.  
I beseech you leave this preposterous Digression and pursue your own Business with more care and exactness; and before you go, suffer yourselves first to be a little better informed of what you have so irregularly and undeservedly censured.  
You take occasion at these words, Truth is always persecuted, to say, that will indifferently serve Turk, Jew, Heathen, or heretic, as well as the Quakers. This is harsh and unchristian. Are none worse than we? and we as great heretics as any? You judge before you convict us: 'tis too gross partiality, and false in every degree. But whatever the persecuted be, the Persecutor to be sure is always in the wrong; which is your case against the Quakers. But you recriminate and will prove us Persecutors. That were to the purpose indeed. Let us hear it. You excommunicate such as will not subject to your Injunctions: And good reason too, if they are Injunctions of civil order. He that joins himself to any Society, is obliged to the Rules of that Society; and every Society has, and must have that power upon the Members that constitute it, or confusion follows and the Society dissolves. For instance, Injunctions about Civil Controversies, Care of poor Orphans, due and orderly Proceedings relating to Marriages, &c. are to be complied with, without the reproach of Persecution: And yet farther too; look upon what Principles of Communion any person enters into any Society, if he leave them, or any of them, it is no Persecution to disown him in that thing wherein he alters; so that it touches not Person or Estate: for that is Persecution in a proper sense; which is not our case. But we Imprison such as disturb our Meetings. How this will be proved, is hard to tell; and yet if it be persecution, it will light hardest elsewhere, even upon those perhaps that you account us heretics for separating from. But, thanks be to God, we can and do deny the Charge. See, say you, Francis Bug's one Blow more: But if this be Athenian, it is not Barean, to condemn an whole People upon another man's authority, that you are not assured was well grounded. Besides, it is a Book we have answered, which you take no notice of, and that is unfair, if you knew of it; and if you did not, you ought to have asked, before you had espoused another man's Allegations. This is not answerable to that candour you profess; and we must tell you, that Francis Bug is an Apostate Quaker, an angry, unreasonable and clamorous Man; often and again detected and proved inconsistent with himself; and you will find, in the issue, of no reputation to your charge against us. But did you ever red our Orders of Discipline, or have you ever been an eye or ear-witness of our Injunctions upon Conscience? if you have, you should have mentioned them, and shown us our fault; but your evidence here, is what a discontented man says, who speaks ex parte, and is Judge in his own cause, against a Body of People he was once among, and zealous for; who, upon a private controversy, because he had not his own will, takes pet at those that could not be brought to humour him; and from thence, run out from the very Profession of a Quaker; which shows the Foundation wrong, that quits a Principle for being displeased in a Man or Men. What will become of Society if such Humours are uncontrollable, or they must give Rule or Law to the whole?  
Your next Proof of our being Persecutors, is from a passage of George Fox and George Roff, in their Letters to O. Cr. by which we perceive your new Acquaintance, and with what Tools you work, which we are sorry for, both for your sakes and theirs. But those Passages are plainly wrested by you; for they advice O. Cr. to go on in the Work he was called to; and what was that pray? Is there one word of imposing Religion upon the People of those Countries, or forcing them to abjure or renounce their own? no, not a tittle of it. Where then is the Persecution? but inasmuch as they were Countries that did persecute, by which means the Truth of God had not a free entrance or passage, but Inquisitions in Popish, and Consistories in P●●●stant Governments suppressed all that conformed not to their re●●e●●ive Establishments; therefore he should have made it his business en the way for a true Liberty of Conscience, that Truth might 〈◇〉 under Violence, and Persecution for Conscience-sake oppress its Professors. This is the upshot of those Passages, their very scope and tendency, as will appear to any impartial Reader, that will please to weigh them with what goes before and follows. But if you call this Persecution, to be sure it must be so to fight for Religion: And if it was unlawful for O. Cr. to fight for Liberty of Conscience, who was of a fighting Principle, what think you of punishing People because of their Conscience that would not fight with you? You are very tender of a sudden, if it may but brush at us, while you do not consider the blow you give yourselves and your own friends, that have but too signally appeared in that spirit and practise. The Lord inform and forgive them.  
You justify calling us silly Enthusiasts, for believing it is not lawful to Swear, and say you are of the same mind, because we, without reason, by the dictates of our own fancy, which we call God's Spirit, oppose the Saints practise of old, of which it was prophesied it should be used under the Gospel; was so by the Apostles and Primitive Christians, nay, by God himself, therefore the Quakers are silly Enthusiasts. Thus you.  
Now we think this will not prove us Enthusiasts, nor silly, for we argue from a Text, and not our own Dreams or Fancies. Had we only pretended the Authority of a private Revelation for this assertion, and that not true, then it had been Enthusiasm, and we Enthusiasts, in the worst sense: It is silly indeed to call an Opinion, g●●●unded upon an express Text of Scripture, either Enthusiasm or ●●lly▪ when there is not a plainer Text for one God than this of our Saviour's against swearing, Matth. 5. 34. Swear not at all. But if we had overstrained it, where's the silliness of it? is it Enthusiasm, or silly, to shut out all vain swearing, by shutting out all swearing? The advantage of that exceeds the disadvantage of Lying in evidence, when that Lying is made as punishable as Forswearing. What silliness or Enthusiasm is in this, pray you? Scotland and Holland think no such thing, that have indulged that tenderness.  
And if the Text be but seriously considered, the Inference we make is beyond exception. First, The tendency of that Sermon upon the Mount is to show, that the Righteousness of the Gospel excels that of the Law; as in the case of Adultery, Divorce, Revenge, &c. But the Law forbade false and vain swearing, therefore this must refer to that which was not forbid under the Law. This is acknowledged by many learned Men, and in particular one of our own Nation, Bishop Sanderson, in his Latin Lectures, of the Obligation of an Oath. But we for another reason, that shall anon be mentioned, think he yet narrows the extent of that Evangelical Precept, for he refers to Vows only, and not Swearing in any case; but we to Swearing at all. And our reasons are, First, If it had been Vows only, there had been no need of substituting any way of speaking in the room of it. And, Secondly, If the Text cannot therefore refer to Vows in particular, Swearing at all must be intended; or nothing is forbid, that was not forbid under the Law. Thirdly, Christ's prohibiting Swearing and substituting something in the room of it, and that something purely referring to the way and manner of Christians declaring the Truth, it is, to us, evident that he comprehended all Cases wherein the truth of a thing is in doubt, and consequently the end of Swearing: So says Christ, Let your {αβγδ}, your Speech, or your Word, be Yea, Yea; or Nay, Nay. It is rendered Communication by our Translations, that it might refer only to common discourse, that word being sometimes so understood; and yet Communication comprehends all acts of Justice, as well as other parts of Life: For if it comprehends Discourse in dealing, it also comprehends the Evidence of that dealing, and the Laws of just dealing; and consequently the word Communication cannot lessen the real force of our sense of the Text; but the words of the Text do plainly express a degree, if not a form of declaring truth, be it Yea or Nay. And since Truth-speaking takes in and relates to Controversies amongst Men, as well as other parts of human Converse, this Text is a Measure of Truth-speaking on all those occasions also. Fourthly, Now how far Christian-men may go in declaring, the Truth, or where they are to be bounded, the Text is plain, viz. a double, but bare Averment, or Denial: Let your Word or Speech be Yea, Yea; Nay, Nay: That is, let yours Answers, whenever you are asked the truth of a matter, go no farther than a simplo Affirmation or Negation, which you may double if you please. Fifthly, The reason Christ gives for bounding his Followers within Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay; excludes all Oaths, yea, all that is more than Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay; to wit, that they come of evil, because they proceed from distrust, infidelity and impatiency: A simplo Assertion declares truth; more, is a straining of the mind, and but to stoop to unreasonable Incredulity, which hath an evil rise. Now what is more than Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay? why Imprecations are more an outward sign, denoting an Oath is more than Yea, Yea; and Nay, Nay; and consequently cometh of evil, because below a Christians truth and sincerity to gratify. Sixthly, And truly the Text is so far from excluding Judicial Cases, that it serves chiefly to relate to evidence upon differences. 1. Because it is in the room of the swearing the Law allowed, which was true swearing: And, 2. Because of doubling the Assertion Yea, Yea; for a single Yea is enough for a Christian in ordinary cases. Well, but you oppose to this, the prophesy 19 Isai. v. 18. to which, if you please, we will add two more, ch. 45. v. 23. and Jer. 4. 2. and make your best of them: For besides that it begs the Question, that the Prophets treated of Gospel-times, and not of some happy time before the period of their dispensation, God might speak to them in the language of their time to be interpnted in a more spiritual sense; and this the place quoted by you shows: For ver. 21. mention is made of Oblation and Sacrifice, that shall be offered in that day, which in a Jewish sense is not true of Gospel-times, but in a Gospel-sense, to wit, Prayers and Praisings with heart and voice, is true. So it is in the case of Swearing, they shall swear in that day, as they sacrifice in that day; that is, a Christians Oath shall be his Solemn Word; and the difference is not greater between them, than between the Sacrifices and Oblations of Beasts and Birds under the Law, and the Spiritual Sacrifices and Oblations of the Hearts, Wills and Affections of People under the Gospel: And thus you see, that prophesy stands you in little stead.  
But you object the practise of the Apostle, Rom. 1. 9. God is my Witness. 2 Cor. 11. 31. God knoweth I lie not. Gal. 1. 20. Before God I lie not. And you add, If these are not formal Oaths, you would fain know what are: In which, if you will not be offended, we will say as well as think, you have not been Ingenuous, to be so hard upon us, before ye had first stated and agreed with us what an Oath is; for if that be disputable, as it may be for what you have done to settle it, you argue at random. Premises must ever be agreed by Disputants, or nothing can follow clearly and satisfactorily. We may say the same thing you say, without allowing it the same force and extent; nay Swear perhaps in your Opinion tho' not in our own; the same Words being an Oath and not an Oath, as they may be used and applied in different manners. For if you should think that an Oath, which we think none, and you argue for Swearing by proofs, that for that Reason are none to us; how do you prove Swearing lawful, or convince us that not Swearing at all is Silly and Enthusiastical, when you have not yet adjusted what is Swearing at all? This had been well worth your Mercury, for it had been informing, and shown good Reading.  
But you put it off thus, after citing the apostles words, God is my Witness, &c. If these are not formal Oaths, weed fain know what are. In which you shift your Post, and turn Querist, instead of answering Questions.  
But having such supposed able Men to deal with, we are not willing to be put off so; and therefore return it upon you, to state what an Oath is, which you so zealously recommend; denying, on our part, any of those Texts to be an Oath,  
As did Basil the Great, upon Psalm 15. And Gregory Nazianzen, in his Dialogue against Swearing: And Bishop Sanderson in his Defence of Joseph, in his Oxford Lectures; which will much better defend the Apostle from your Imputation.  
For what you say of Tertullian, you wrong him extremely, and your Reader also, by not telling him where to find it: For in his Apology, Chap. 32. whence, we suppose, your Objection is taken, he does equivocally and improperly own Swearing, That they Swore, tho' not by the Genius of Caesar, yet for the health and safety of Caesar, just as they did Sacrifice. Hoc salvum esse volumus,& pro magno id juramento habemus. Our wishing well to Caesar we have or account for an Oath, or instead of an Oath. And as the Pythagorians say, There is in all reasonable Creatures an Oath or tie, viz. A Mind, not to transgress the Law of God: And as Clemens Alexandrinus speaks, That a good Man Swears by his Deeds. So Tertullian urged upon them, That the Christians sacrificed for the health of Caesar, as well as they, but it was in the Christian way, by pure Prayers. So that as he was for Sacrifice, he was for Swearing. Thus to Scapula. C. 1, 2.  
And in his Book of Idolatry, Chap. 11. I speak not of Perjury, says he, because it is not lawful to Swear. And Chap. 31. He that signs a Bill of Security, containing an Oath, is guilty of Swearing, and transgresses Christ's Command, who hath commanded not to Swear. And speaking of the Temptations Christians were exposed to, if they should launch into the traffic of the World, he adds, Not to speak of Forswearing, seeing it is not lawful, so much as to Swear.  
We are the longer upon this, because he is one of your Authorities. Your other is Athanasius, That he purged himself by an Oath, pleading the apostles example. Which, by the way, looks like an Excuse for doing it, and as if in other cases he did not allow it. But pray take the pains to red his Annotations upon Christ's Passion, and you will find, first, That he denies all Swearing; and upon our Grounds. The Evangelical Sentence, says he, of the Lord is, Let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, Nay: Thus far we, who are in Christ, may confirm our Words with Asseverations, but come no nearer to an Oath.  
To this he objects himself, the common Opinion, That God Swore. He answers it, That God did not properly and formally Swear, nor could not; for the nature of an Oath is to Swear by that which is greater and better than ones self, Heb. 6. 16. But if any thing, says he, this must be said, His word is an Oath to Man for Verity, because of his Faithfulness and Truth. And he will not have the Apostle to have Sworn, nor the most celebrated Fathers of and before his time. So that we return it upon you, that if at any time they used those Expressions of the Apostle, it was in Church Matters, and because they did not think it an Oath. And if you will please to turn to Just. Martyr's second Apology, p. 63. you will find he is of the same Mind; We should speak, but not swore the Truth, and vouches Christ's Authority, Mat. 5, for it. Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 7. and Tertullian's Contemporary, Cyprian, hilary, Grig. Nyssen, Caesarius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and Chrysostome above all the rest, styled the Golden Doctor or Father, out of whose Discourse, upon this Subject, we observe these 5 Things.  
1. That Oaths are not lawful under the Gospel.  
2. The Reason of it, that their Evangelical Verity is the Christian, and a better Security.  
3. That the rise of an Oath is Infidelity and Distrust, which are from Evil, and that is below a Christian state; for he that dare not Swear, which once was permitted, dare not lie, which never was permitted; and therefore his Yea, is Yea, and his Nay, Nay.  
4. That Swearing was a condescension to a weak and low state of the World, to divert People from Swearing by false Gods, which was the evil custom of those times; as if God should say, I will suffer you to Swear, if you will Swear by me that am the true God, and not by their false Gods: And that from hence came his Command to Swear by him, not for the sake of Swearing, but to avoid Idolatry.  
5. That this Principle is the only means of rooting out all evil Swearing out of the World. Take the Cure for this most Pernicious and Epidemical Distemper, in the words of Basil the great.  
The Remedy consisteth in a twofold Admonition, First, not to Swear at all: Secondly, to suppress the Form of Oaths. I will close with what the In●tituons say, that go under the name of Clemens Romanus. Our Master hath commanded that we should not Swear, no not by the true God; but that our Word should be more credible than an Oath. This Clemens was very ancient, you know, since the Apostle Paul mentions him, and that to him some of the Ancients ascribe the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
We hope, after you have considered the Authorities that support this doctrine, you will be so charitable at least to allow that we are neither Silly nor Enthusiasts for asserting it. This comprehending your Answers and Exceptions to the Queries upon this Subject( for against a Command so p●ainly proved, they must fall of course) we are under no Obligation to consider them, and yet they sall not pass our notice, tho it were but to let you see how little they deserve it.  
The first Query is, If Christ's coming did not supersede Oaths, since it was to end Sin, the occasion of Oaths? The second, If Man improving the means given him to answer that end, may not obtain it? I put them together because you give the same Answer to both, which is Negative; and for the same Reason, viz. Because Christ did not come to end Sin: And your Reason for that is. ; That if Christ intended to have ended Sin by his coming, it had been ended, which is not so, and therefore it was not the end of his coming. This opposes as plain a Text as is in the Bible, 1 Joh. 3. 5, 6. And ye know he was manifest to take away our Sins. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; Whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin. The Angel thus declared the end of his coming, Mat. 1. 21. Christ commands Perfection, Chap. 5. 48. Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. The Heavenly Leaven was given to Leaven the whole Lump, Chap. 13. 33. The Apostle desired, That the Christians of his time might be sanctified throughout in Body, Soul and Spirit; which leaves out no part of Man, nor no part of that part unsanctified, 1 Thes 5. 23. and exhorted them to press forward to the Mark which was a Perfect Man, even to the measure of the fullness of Christ. Phil. 3. 14, 15. Eph. 4. 13. In which Passages the end of Christ's coming, and the work and blessing of the Gospel, was to end Sin, both as to the Guilt and Nature of it: and to sanctify and regenerate the Soul. red Phil. 1. 10. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 5. Heb. 2. 11.  
2. Your Reason is both weak and dangerous: For if all comes to pass that Christ intends, then he intended not the conversion of Jerusalem, notwithstanding he lamented it so, because it came not to pass. Again, if Christ intended to take away the Guilt and Power of Sin, it should accordingly be taken away: but in whole Nations of Believers, how very few can say it, or can you say it of? Nor know you but that there are some that walk blamelessly now as well as then. Your Ignorance is no Argument to the contrary: A Principle may be true for all Mens Practices, and Gods end for good to Man, tho Man may frustrate it to himself.  
3. The Scriptures you urge are against you, Jam. 3. 2. Here we will join issue with you, his Chapter being a strong proof of our Point; yea this very verse: For it supposes a perfect Man, which you deny, and by the similes of a Bridle and an Helm, it shows how a Man may come to be so. But, say you, in the name of the Apostle, In many things we offend all: Yet consider, pray, that the Apostle included himself no more there than verse 9. where speaking of the Tongue, he also saith, Tberewith bless we God, and therewith curse we Men. You cannot therefore think, I hope, that the Apostle was a Curs●r; but it was a way of speaking to fetch in the Guilty, and the better to reach them, by personating them or involving himself among them.  
Hear again the same Apostle in this very Chapter, vers. 11. 12. Doth a F●untain sand forth at the same place sweet Water and bitter? Can the Fig-Tree, my bretbren, bear Olives? Yes say the Athenians, no say the Quakers. Pray who keeps closest to the Text? Hear him further, vers. 17. and ch. 1. 27. he tells you the nature and end of their Religion. In few words, Humanity and Purity, Bowels and Holiness, they are the pure Religion and undefiled in God's sight, in his account; not Creeds but practise, not Profession, tho of true Words, but Experience and good Living. And, without offence, had you been of this Religion, you would have been less exceptions at us and ours. Your next Scripture is as unhappily chosen as the former, 1 Joh. 1. 8. If that we say we have no Sin we deceive ourselves and the Truth is not in us. Now if you please but to red the verse foregoing and following, perhaps you will see it is not to your purpose.  
If we walk in the light as( God) is in the Light, we have Fellowship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all Sin. Now follows your Text; If we say we have no Sin( that is, no Sin to be cleansed from, no need of Christ to take away our Sins) we deceive ourselves and the Truth is not in us. Observe now what follows, we desire you. If we confess our Sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins) and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness; which comprehends both the Guilt and Nature of Sin. And that we have not misinterpreted your Text, the next and last verse proves our Sense genuine; If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar, and his word is not in us: That is, if we say we have not sinned, and so have no need of a propitiation for Sins past, or to be cleansed from the Sin that is present, we make God a liar, that says we are Sinners, and therefore sent us his Son to redeem us from Sin. But now we will suppose your Answers good to the two Queries; pray what does that lessen the validity of not Swearing at all? Tho' Men art not in all things perfect, may they not tell Truth and be believed without the force and strain of an Oath? Must all Men be liars that are not sinless? Look about you Athenians: If this be not the case, Swear not at all, is both good doctrine and practicable, for all that you have said to the contrary.  
Your Answer to the third Query, If there be a plainer Precept than this of Swear not at all, is a Jest at us, but it turns in earnest upon yourselves. Show us, say you, a more positive Command than that, He that hath two Coats let him impart to him that has none, which if we followed in Winter time, you say, we should look wors● than we do. But we tell you it is to be followed both Winter and Summer by all that will follow Christ; and however ill they look for it here to Scoffers, Christ will look very well upon them for it another day. But you think you pinch us by urging the Text upon us literally, which alas is your Mistake; for so that we do not Swear, we answer that Precept tho' by other words than Yea and Nay; and if we give of our abundance to them that want, we answer this, tho not exactly in a literal sense: And now you see your Jest upon the Looks of the Quakers makes you look no better than you should do. And thus much for your first Paper; what remains being but Heads insisted upon in your following Mercuries, where I shall find them, and in my next consider them particularly as they lye.   

LONDON: Printed for Thomas Northcott in George-vard in Lombard-street 16●2.