[3 191 us do, though unacquainted with thofe fubtiltiés by which only we ufe to defend our felves from the crime of Perjury. The other in refpef of our felves, for fear of perjury; which molt grie- vous crime undoubtedly we commit, if that morebenign interpretation chance to deceive us, which made us bold to take the Oath. This rea- fon refteth on that general, and molt profitable rule, which bids us [in doubtful cafes take the fafer fide : ] But it is the fafer not to fwea', when the words of thepropofèdOath, according to the common and obviousfenfe 6f the words, feem to contain fome- what unlawful in them ; rather than by a Lax In- terpretation fo to foften them for our own ufe, that we may the more fecurely fwear them : See- ing we know that fuck an Oath may be refuted without danger of perjury, but we know, not that it can be taken without danger or fear of it. P. 46, 47, 197. Yet we muff take heelighat this ftr;U interpretation turn not into a rigid one- of common right thefe exceptions and con- ditions (ofpromifory Oaths)are ever underftood: [r. IfGodpermit : 2. Saving the Right of others, And, asfar as is lawful; frying the Right of Supe- riours : 3. Thingsfianding as they do, or in the fame Bate : As far as I am able, &c.] P. 49. But if any admit more dubious excep. tions--he boldly and rathly removethGod's boun- daries of an Oath, and openeth a wide door to all kind ofPerjury. P. i93. The third Cafe is, when one impofeth an Oath ofan ambiguous fenfe, only requiring that thofe words be fworn, permitting the fwearer to underftand the words in what fenfe he will : I íäy, it mat defervedly be fufpeted that an Oath offered
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=