Selected quad for the lemma: diversity_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
diversity_n	gift_n	lord_n	spirit_n	2,136	5	5.9244	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27407	A true testimony concerning oaths & swearing &c. as also an answer to the subject matter contained in twelve arguments or reasons laid down in a sermon preached at Carlisle, Aug. 17, 1664 by Allan Smallwood ... to prove that our savior did not forbid all swearing : wherein is fully cleared the command of Christ and his apostle James swear not at all ... / by Ger. Benson.	Benson, Gervase, d. 1679.	1669 (1669)	Wing B1902; ESTC R23682	37,196	48

A.S. calls Moral in which ●s he saith Oaths are commanded Therefore A. S. is blame-worthy in asserting Swearing as an everlasting Statute to be observed by all that obey the Lord and his Christ and in so doing he is found in the steps of those in the Apostles dayes who taught That it was needful to Circumcise such as believed in Christ and to command them to keep the Law of Moses insomuch as the Apostles and Elders came together to confides of the matter and after consideration had declared That it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them to lay upon them which from among the Gentiles were turned to God no greater burden than those necessary things viz. That they should abstain from meats offered to Idols and from blood from things strangled and from Fornication But I proceed to A. S. his tenth Argument or Reason as he calls it which was Arg 10. That the High Priest charged Christ our Saviour to swear and be accordingly Answered upon Oath and that some years after he had said Swear not at all Whence it follows That the lawful Magistrate may impose Oaths and the People upon whom they are imposed may and ought by Christs Example to Answer upon Oath notwithstanding the seeming prohibition Swear not at all Answ. That it was some years after that Christ said to his Disciples Swear not at all That the High Priest did use that expression unto Christ I adjure thee c. is believed But that Christ Jesus the true and faithful witness who came into the World to bear witness of the Truth and to establish the true witness-bearing as it was before swearing was when he said unto the High Priest Thou hast said did in so saying Swear or Answer upon Oath is denied Neither hath A.S. proved that Christ did swear otherwise then by his and other mens conjectures and conceivings All of which being Swearers are not in this case competent Witnesses And that he saith That the High Priest adjured Christ and Christ answering Thou hast said without more saying did Swear by the Living God not expressed indeed by him but by the High Priest Answ. But how doth A. S. know that Christ before his Answer to the High Priest did not deny swearing or to swear for it s written Ioh. 21.25 That there were many things which Iesus did which if they should be written every one c. And therefore to conclude because it is not mentioned by the Apostle that Christ did not deny to swear therefore Christ did swear This is to ●esk a surmise to warrant swearing when Christ had before commanded his Disciples Not to swear at all For if to answer by way of affirming or denying that which is asked by a Magistrate were an Oath and Swearing because the Magistrate doth require the Party to Swear without addition of somewhat more Than surely many have suffered in these late years as refusers to take an Oath and to Swear when they did Swear But my belief is That the Magistrates by whom such have been f●oned and imprisoned or otherwise censured for refusing to Swear or take an Oath and better know what a legal Oath is than A. S. doth in this particular are of another judgment or opinion than A. S. is or else it may be hoped that none hereafter shall suffer upon that account of refusing to Swear when they are willing to Answer and do Answer to such questions as they shall be asked or examined of by the Court or particular Magistrate And therefore A. S.'s Conclosion is denied failing in the proof of his premisses But to proceed to his eleventh Arguments or Reason viz. Arg. 11. That no Exposition of this Text or any other was to be admitted that put an inconsistence betwixt the Old Testament and the New But that Exposition Swear not all that renders it a total prohibition of all Swearing does so for it makes it contradict several Texts in the Old Testament And therefore is not to be admitted Answ. The Law of Christ is Penal to the transgressors of it Heb. 1.2 3. 12.25 and therefore doth not admit of any supply to be made by man who is and ought to observe the Command without exception of persons and not to frame Arguments against it and the Lord hath forbidden man to add any thing or diminish from what is written For the Law of God and of Christ being perfect therefore nothing ought to be added to it Therefore to admit of any Exposition of the Scripture whereby to make them contradictory one to another or any Text of Scripture contradictory in it self were a great evil And therefore all commodious Interpretations as they are called of that Text Mat. 5.34 But I say unto you Swear not at all c. inducing the lawfulness of Swearing in some cases is denied as being contradictory to what is written For if such Expositions were received for Truths Then would an able Oratour with his School-Distinctions and Syllogisms make the same thing seem either likely or unlikely according to his fancy And in the end do as the Scribes and Pharisees did make void the Law of God with their Traditions and subtil Distinctions but we have not so learned of Christ who are taught of him the Truth as it is in him unto which nothing is to be added nor any thing taken therefrom And where it is said by A.S. That that Exposition of that Scripture Swear not at all that renders it a total prohibition of Swearing does put an inconsistency betwixt the Old Testament and the New I Answer and do say It doth no more so than those Texts which A.S. and others of his judgment do own for the change of the Seventh-day Sabbath unto the First day of the Week nor thus the Apostle did 1 Cor. 7.19 where he said Circumcision is nothing and Gal. 5.2 If any man be circumcised Christ Iesus shall profit him nothing nor then Christ Jesus himself did Mat. 5-43 44. when he said It hath been said of old time thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine Enemy But I say unto you Love your Enemies bless them that curse you Besides several other Texts of Scriptures that might be mentioned in the New Testament to that purpose So that although there hath been diversities of Dispensations and diversities of Administrations and Commands as there are diversities of Gifts and Operations yet the same Spirit and the same Lord Law-giver Judge and King who at sundry times and i● divers manners spoke in the old time to our Fathers by the Prophets and hath spoken to us in these last dayes by his Son a● Commanded that all should hear him and honour him to whom he hath committed all Judgment who saith Swear not at all ● that if Times and Dispensations were rightly discerned and distinguished the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do agree for there is no contrariety in the Spirit that gave them forth but the contrariety is in