Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n new_a testament_n word_n 5,021 5 4.1195 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A86438 A caution to the sons of Sion: being an answer to Jeremiah Ives his book, intituled, the great case of conscience opened. I. Proving that every calling God to witnesse is not swearing. II. Proving that promissary oaths were never commanded by God, onely practised as liberty under former dispensations. III. Proving that promissary oaths were never commanded or practised by Christ nor his disciples in all the New Testament. IV. Shewing what an oath is. V. Proving the lawfulnesse of all promissary oaths in the time of the Gospel. / By Samuel Hodgkin. Hodgkin, Samuel. 1660 (1660) Wing H2333; Thomason E1085_5; ESTC R208054 13,667 19

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Soul For some Sacred oaths were between men and men which were voluntarily as I have already shewed from Gen. 23.4 chap. 21.22 Again saith he those Oaths that were made to God were called Oaths to God I confesse I do not know how they should be called otherwise because there was none else concerned in them but it doth not therefore follow that God requires the performance of no other Oaths to him but such as were immediately made to him for we find in Scripture that God owns Oaths that were made between men and men to be his Oaths and requires the performance thereof as well as it they had been immediately made to him as we may see in Ezek. 17.19 Therefore thus saith the Lord God as I live surely my Oath that he hath despised and my Covenant that he hath broken even it will I recompence upon his own head So likewise the 2d of Samuel 21.7 and 1 Kings 2.43 Now therefore though as he saith the end of Oaths made immediately to God were to bind them to the performance of those voluntary Services which they were not bound to by the Law yet it cannot be understood that Christ hath reference in Mat. 5.33 to such Oaths onely as were made immediately to God because as I have already shewed that God requires the performance and owns such Oaths to be his as were made between men and men I now come to his last question viz. whether those two Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. do forbid all manner of swearing in Gospel times and here I shall grant with him that Christ doth not forbid the use of such swearing as was in the Law commanded onely let me revive the fore-mentioned distinction namely between Oaths commanded and Oaths that were voluntary and that because Oaths that were commanded were onely assertory as I have already shewed now therefore I shall passe over those reasons that he hath given to prove that Christ did not take away the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law onely by the way give me leave to except against some particulars that he hath instanced in for proof in this case and first I take notice of his first Reason viz. that Christ used some such swearing himself in Mat. 26.63 when he was adjured by the High-Priest To which I answer if I should grant that Christ in this swore yet it makes nothing to our question because in this Text there was nothing promissary but however I cannot but wonder that be should so much contradict himself as to say that Christ swore and yet made no answer to the Oath when he himself saith in the third page of his Book speaking of Mr. Ainsworth's writings in shewing that when a man is adjured or charged to swear he is not sworn except he take the Oath upon him by expressing some words to signifie the same which Christ did not I now come to his second Reason viz. that Christ in Mat. 5. could not take away the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law because those Commandements contained in Ordinances were not taken away till the death of the Testator Ephes 2.15 and those Ordinances that were contrary to us were not taken away till Christ nailed them to his Crosse Col. 2.14 therefore those Commandements of the Law which accommodated humane affairs and respected morals of which this of swearing to end strife was none of the least could not be taken away before Christ died and that therefore all such Oaths as were commanded under the Law was not forbid by that Text Mat. 5.34 I confesse this is the soundest Argument I have met with in all his Book and had he first proved that promissary swearing had been commanded under the Law this had been something to his purpose but forasmuch as promissary swearing was never commanded in any part of the Law this Argument can at most but prove assertory Oaths to be excepted in Mat. 5. and so we are but still where we were before for I do grant that in Mat. 5. Christ took away nothing that was commanded and that therefore in his prohibition ver 34. can have reference to no other Oath but promissary and because no other Oath binds the persons taking it to performance I come to his third Reason viz. that those Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. cannot forbid the use of all such swearing as was commanded under the Law because the Prophet prophesied that some such swearing should be used in the times of the New Testament Isa 65.16 17. I must confesse Mr. Ives puts me into amaze to think that he is already got into the new heavens and the new earth certainly he hath not been long there for it was not long ago since he was in prison because he could not swear but it should seem that he is not onely got thence but he hath forgotten all the former troubles I confesse it will be well for him if he according to the Text never have occasion to remember them any more but I humbly conceive that few men in England will say that the time is yet come that the Prophet speaks of and although Mr. Ives citeth the Apostle Peters words 2 Pet. 3. to prove that the Prophet doth respect the New Testament time yet I suppose that after the heavens and the earth is burnt up then Mr. Ives will have done writing of Books but to come unto the Text if it did respect our times as doubtlesse it doth not yet it doth not reach our case because it mentions nothing promissary Again whereas he citeth Psalms 15.4 to prove promissary swearing under the New Testament To this I answer that if this Text must of necessity be understood to have respect to the time of the Gospel then it is either because some Text of Scripture tells us so or else because that swearing is in all ages a duty so incumbent upon Saints that none can dwell in Gods holy Hil● that have not been found acting therein But there is no Text of Scripture that tells us that this Prophet in this Text hath respect to Gospel times and I am perswaded that none will be so ridiculous as to say that swearing is in all ages a duty so incumbent upon Saints that none can dwell in Gods holy Hill that have not been found acting therein and whereas he citeth Isa 45.23 I must say it doth not respect our time because then every tongue shall confesse God but at this present they do not but however it doth not respect our case and therefore I shall leave it I come now to his fourth Reason which is that those two Texts Mat. 5. and Jam. 5. could not forbid all such swearing as was commanded under the Law because such swearing Jesus Christ was not onely found in the practice of but the Apostle Paul doth both practice and injoyn the same Now to prove that the Apostle practiced promissary swearing he cites 2 Cor. 11.10 and tells