and revealed Religion; that Oaths to a Government are to be kept; that there is no greater Irreligion, no greater Affront to God no greater Infincerity and Injustice to Man, than Perjury; and no Point of Religion, upon which the Honour of God, and the Welfare of Mankind, are more highly concerned, than in keeping Oaths; that Oaths of Allegiance to a Government intend Loyalty; that Oaths are to be taken in the Sense of the Imposers that the Heart is to concur with the Lips in repeating them; that Men are to have no mental Reserves in taking Oaths; and that they must not design to break them, nor take them with Design to repent of them.

AND yet, on this Head, Atheists cannot be guilty of greater Irreligion, than fome of our High-Church Men, (under the Conduct of our High-Church Priests) who sometimes are not for reftraining our Kings by their CoronationOaths; and at other times, are not for retraining the People by their Oaths of Allegiance; that is, they are at one time for breaking Oaths, by contending for unlimited Power, and unlimited Obedience; and at another time for breaking Oaths, by retrenching the Authority of the Prince, and Allegiance of the Subject. Under this Reign, they are for the lat

ter

ter Perjury; as appears by their open Rebellions; their irreverent Difcourfes of the Perfon, and Family, of his Majefty; their Endeavours to alienate from him the Hearts of his Subjects; and infpiring the People with Difaffection to his Government ; their inventing and reporting defamatory Stories, to blemish his Character, and weaken his Authority; their rejoicing at any public Distractions; their taking Sides with the French, Turks, SwedesSpaniards, and Mufcovites, whenever any of thefe Nations are in Measures contrary to the Intereft of his Majefty; and laftly, by the ridiculing and cracking Jefts upon the State-Oaths, and citing, as a Sort of Scripture, these Verfes of Hudibras:

He that impofes an Oath, makes it;
Not be that for Convenience takes it.
Then how can any Man be faid
To break an Oath he never made?

AND thefe Things are done by them, not after an Atheistical Manner, not under the Appearance of attacking and ridiculing Religion and Virtue, the Joys of Heaven, and the Fears of Hell; but almoft as if Slander and Calumny, Treason and Sedition, were Articles of their Church, which they were in Duty obliged to perform.

E 6

perform. They pretend all the while to be religious Men, good Churchmen; concerned for the Church's Safety; Enemies of false Religion, and particularly of Presbyterianism; and zealous for the Orthodox Faith, contained in St. ATHANASIUS's Creed. And though the High-Church Priests have not as yet written any Books to defend this Manner of taking and keeping Oaths; yet they take a Method no less effectual to recommend it: They not only do not bear their Teftimony against this open Wickedness, this open practical Atheism, (as is their Duty) but are active themselves in the fame Practices, and countenance the Guilty, by the Credit and Applaufe which they give them; and by the Distinction which they fhew towards them, recommending them as good Churchmen, and reviling others, principally, for being faithful to the Oaths which they have taken to the Government. All which is more effectual to promote Perjury, than direct dogmatizing in Behalf of it; for this fly Way gets them the Applause of many, and prevents the Clamour of others against them; who would be generally detefted, notwithstanding the Devotion of the People towards them, if they openly defended Perjury.

Now,

Now, pray, what is the Difference between thefe High-Church Men and Atheists? Can Atheists be less bound by Oaths? Can Atheists be worfe Subjects? Are not Atheists deteftable, because it is supposed, that they cannot be bound by Oaths? And are others lefs deteftable, whom Oaths do not bind? Can any thing be faid worse of Atheists, than what Mr. LESLEY fays, (in his Answer to King's State of the Proteftants in Ireland) that the Parlia ment cannot make an Oath, which the Clergy will not take? Had not King GEORGE Reafon to apprehend as much Mischief from his Swearing Religious Factious ---- Rebel--Church-Subjects, as he could have from Swearing-Rebel-Atheifts! Was the Cafe of the Dif fenters, and other good Subjects, who were plundered before the Rebellion for their Loyalty, or fuffered in the Rebellion, better for receiving fuch Ufage from the Hands of HighChurchmen, than from Atheists? They are plainly as bad as Atheists can ever be supposed to be; worse than Atheists, acting by the Principles of Eafe and Self-preservation, which may be supposed to be the most general Principles of Action in Atheifts; and, in fine, worse than any profligate Libertines that I ever met with in Italy itself, that Seat of High

Church

Churchfhip; where I never heard even fuch talk fo irreligiously about Oaths, as I have heard fome High-Churchmen, or deliver fuch open Perjury as Parfon B----fe. What adds to the Wickedness and Guilt of thefe HighChurchmen, is, that they pretend to be Chriftians, and to take their Religion from the New Teftament; that they are of a Church, whose diftinguishing Doctrine is Loyalty to the Prince, and which they extend fo far, as to allow Refiftance in no Cafe to be lawful; and that they have a Sovereign, against whom they have nothing to object, but his Virtues, his mild, equal, impartial, and just Administration of Government; for, as to his Title, (which is the best of Titles, even the voluntary Eftablishment of a free People by an Act of their Legislature) thefe fwearing High-Churchmen can have no just Scruple.

are

THESE High-Churchmen therefore true Atheists; they are practical Atheists: The fpeculative Difference between them and Atheists, is a Matter of fmall Moment; for, what is it to their Neighbours, while they act like Atheists, that they believe in God and Religion? For, while they act like Atheists, they do all the Mifchief that Atheists can do, and all thofe Things for which alone Atheism