Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	adultery_n	commit_v	fornication_n	1,452	5	12.1572	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30895	An apology for the true Christian divinity, as the same is held forth, and preached by the people, called, in scorn, Quakers being a full explanation and vindication of their principles and doctrines, by many arguments, deduced from Scripture and right reason, and the testimony of famous authors, both ancient and modern, with a full answer to the strongest objections usually made against them, presented to the King / written and published in Latine, for the information of strangers, by Robert Barclay ; and now put into our own language, for the benefit of his country-men.; Theologiae verè Christianae apologia. English	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1678 (1678)	Wing B721; ESTC R1740	415,337	436

more than these cometh of evil And saith James lest ye fall into Condemnation Which words both all and every one of them do make such a full prohibition and so free of all exception that it is strange how men that boast the Scripture is the Rule of their faith and life can counterfeit any exception Certainly reason ought to teach every one that it is not lawful to make void a general prohibition coming from God by such opposition unless the exception be as clearly and evidently expressed as the prohibition neither is it enough to endeavour to confirm it by consequences and probabilitys which are obscure and uncertain and not sufficient to bring quiet to the Conscience For if they say that there is therefore an exception and limitation in the words because there are found exceptions in the other general prohibition of this fifth chapter as in the forbidding of divorcement where Christ saith It hath been said Whosoever shall put away his Wife let him give her a writing of divorcement But I say unto you That whosoever shall put away his Wife saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit Adultery If I say they say this they not only labour in vain but also fight against themselves because they can produce no exception of this general command of not swearing expressed by God to any under the New Covenant after Christ gave this prohibition so clear as that which is made in the prohibition it self moreover if Christ would have excepted Oaths made before Magistrates certainly he had then expressed adding except in judgment before the Magistrate or the like as he did in that of divorcement by these words saving for the cause of fornication which being so it is not lawful for us to except or distinguish or which is all one make void this general prohibition of Christ it would be far less agreeable to Christian holyness to bring upon our heads the crimes of so many Oaths which by reason of this corruption and exception are so frequent among Christians Neither is it to be omitted that without doubt the most learned Doctors of each Sect know that these forementioned words were understood by the Antient Fathers of the first three hundred years after Christ to be a prohibition of all sorts of Oaths It is not then without reason that we wonder that the Popish Doctors and Priests bind themselves by an Oath to interpret the Holy Scriptures according to the universal exposition of the Holy Fathers who notwithstanding understood those controverted texts quite contrary to what these Modern Doctors do and from thence also doth clearly appear the vanity and foolish certainty so to speak of Popish traditions for if by the writings of the Fathers so called the faith of the Church of these ages may be demonstrated it is clear they have departed from the faith of the Church of the first three Ages in the point of swearing Moreover because not only Papists but also Lutherans and Calvinists and some others do restrict the words of Christs and James I think it needful to make manifest the vain foundation upon which their presumption in this matter is built Obj. § XI First they object That Christ only forbids these Oaths that are made by Creatures and things Created and they prove it thence because he numbers some of these things Secondly All rash and vain oaths in familiar discourses because he saith Let your communication be Yea Yea and Nay Nay To which I answer First that the Law did forbid all Oaths made answer 1 by the Creatures as also all vain and rash Oaths in our common Discourses commanding that men should only swear by the name of God and that neither falsly nor rashly for that is to take his Name in vain Secondly it is most evident that Christ forbids somewhat Answ. that was permitted under the Law to wit to swear by the Name of God because it was not lawful for any man to swear but by God himself and because he saith neither by Heaven because it is the Throne of God therefore he excludes all other Oaths even those which are made by God for he saith chap. 23.22 He that shall swear by Heaven sweareth by the Throne of God and by him that sitteth thereon whtch is also to be understood of the rest Lastly that he might put the matter beyond all controversie he answer 3 adds neither by any other oath Therefore seeing to swear before the Magistrate by God is an Oath it is here without doubt forbidden Secondly they object that by these words Oaths by Gods Name cannot be forbidden because the Heavenly Father hath commanded them Obj. for the Father and the Son are one which eould not be if the Son did forbid that which the Father commanded I answer They are indeed One Answ. and cannot contradict one another nevertheless the Father gave many things to the Jews for a time because of their infirmity under the old Covenant which had only a shaddow of good things to come not the very Substance of things until Christ should come who was the Substance and by whose coming all these things evanished to wit Sabbaths Circumcision the Paschal Lamb men used then Sacrifices who lived in controversies with God and one with other which all are abrogated in the coming of the Son who is the Substance Eternal Word and essential Oath and Amen in whom the promises of God are Yea and Amen who came that men might be redeemed out of strife and might make an end of controversie Thirdly they object But all Oaths are not Ceremonies Obj. nor any part of the Ceremonial Law I answer Except it be shewn to be an eternal immutable Answ. and moral preceept it withstands not neither are they of so old an origin as tithes and the offering of the first fruits of the ground which by Abel and Cain were offered long before the ceremonial Law or the use of Oaths which whatever may be alledged against it were no doubt ceremonies and therefore no doubt unlawful now to be practised Obj. Fourthly they object that to swear by the Name of God is a moral precept of continual duration because it is marked with his essential and moral worship Deut. 6.13 and 10.20 Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him alone thou shalt cleave to him and swear by his Name Answ. I answer this proves not that it is a moral and eternal precept for Moses adds that to all the precepts and ceremonies in several places as Deut. 10.12 13. saying And now Israel what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God to walk in his ways and to love him and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy Soul To keep the Commandments of the Lord and his Statutes which I command thee this day And chap 14. vers 23. the fear of the Lord is mentioned together with the Tithes And so also