Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	england_n	reform_a	3,931	5	9.9167	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44801	Oaths no gospel ordinance but prohibited by Christ being in answer to A. Smallwood, D.D. to his book lately published, being a sermon preached at Carlile, 1664, wherein he hath laboured to prove swearing lawful among Christians, his reasons and arguments are weighed and answered, and the Doctrines of Christ vindicated against the conceptions and interpretations of men, who would make it void / by a sufferer for Christ and his doctrine, F.H.	Howgill, Francis, 1618-1669.	1666 (1666)	Wing H3174; ESTC R16291	80,066	92

Christ notwithstanding these words Swear not at all had never forbidden swearing as altogether unlawful 'T is true some of the Fathers in their Homilies to the People inveighed much against swearing as though it had been altogether unlawful but it was only against Customary Oaths Chrysostome in his Homily to the People of Antioch preached so much against Swearing that the People was offended he told them he would never leave that Sermon till they would leave that prophane custome of Swearing but the Fathers were less cautelous but with great vehemency enveigh'd against common swearing in ordinary discourse but not at all intending to take away necessary Oaths but Origen in his first Book against Colsus God is witness of my Conscience and Athanatius yet vehemently declaimed against prophane swearing yet in his Apology to the Emperour Constantius he sware again and again the Lord is witness and his Christ is witness All which clearly shews they did not disallow the voluntary taking an oath much less in Judical proceedings and the Reformed Churches and the Church of England and the whole Catholick Church in all times and places approved this Doctrine that all swearing is not unlawful so that it follows that the Church in all Ages was so ignorant as not to understand Christs meaning or so wicked as to teach and practise quite contrary or else Christ never meant to forbid all kind of swearing to assert the former were to profess all that went before either dunces or devils Reply What ever A. S. conclude and think he hath not such a consent among Christians as he makes a great flourish of it 's manifest by what hath been said Christ prohibited it amongst his Disciples Swear not at all and likewise James the Apostle agrees in the same Doctrine and the rest of the Apostles also all the Primitive Christians were esteemed so strict exact cautious of their asserting or promising that there was no need of an Oath among them they kept up the sanctity credit of their profession yea among unbelievers that it was security enough in all cases to say Christianus sum I am a Christian as Justin Martyr asserts and if they were urged any further to any oath for matter or manner they repeated this as the only satisfaction they could give there needed no more then the veracity of their bare record and thus much Bishop Gauden confesseth and also in the 36. page of his Book he says the ground or foundation for swearing now is the wickedness and unbelief of men but Christians truly such are brought out of evil and wickedness unbelief and distrust and there is no necessity among them either publick or private to swear at all Polibus observes in the better and simpler ages of the World Oaths were seldome used in Judicatures but after unbelief and lying increased Oaths increased as a only remedy to cure and restrain those evils but let it not be said that those are Christians that names Christs name and departs not from iniquity and since the perilous times came on that the Apostles spoke that Men would not abide sound Doctrine but be lovers of themselves that should have a forme of godliness and deny the power thereof such went out of the truth and went into the world and the world went after them and the false Church began to rise to dignity and have the name of Christian though she consented not to the wholsome Doctrine of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ swear not at all but perverted this as she hath done many other Doctrines and beguiled the Kings of the Earth and held out her golden cup of Fornication and made Emperours Kings and Princes drunk with her Fornication Rev. 17. 18. Councils Bishops and People are in their Judgments and by tradition one age after another have holden that lawful which Christ did not prohibit but what doth all this prove for it 's manifest that most of the ancient Fathers of the Church as Origen Chrysostome Theophilact Hillary Athanasius Jerome Theodoret Laurentius and others in their Sermons and Homilies to the People vehemently and frequently enveighed against all swearing without any Limitation without any reserve amongst Christians swearing as to private Conversation yet they did not disallow the voluntary taking an oath much less in Judicature he says but those are but terms of his own shufling in and what he speaks only of his own head by mingling his own words with theirs for his own ends for there is no such distinction made by them as he makes as lawful swearing and prophane swearing and voluntary swearing and swearing in Judicature and it 's to be desired that A. S. had but produced their testimonies and have cited only their own words without adding to them that they would have made much against him for it 's plain their judgment and witness was against all swearing what ever But A. S. tell us Chrysostome in his Homily to the People of Antioch preached so much against that prophane custome of swearing that the People were offended and he told them that he would never leave that Sermon till they did leave swearing It were to be desired that more in this age who pretends to be Christian Ministers would follow his example for the like I believe hath not been in any age Oh what customary vain rash prophane ungodly oaths in their acceptation take Gods holy Name upon every trivial occasion in vain in their mouths and daily inventing new oaths and execrations even daring God to confound them and damn them yea it grieves my heart to think and the spirit of the Lord in me to consider what sounded in my ears not long since which I mention with detestation and abhorrency that some when they had sworn even all the customary oaths and all the new invented oaths did profer 10. shill. to any that could invent ten new oaths even glorying in sin and making a mock at it and indeed it is fearful to hear how without any reverence unto God or dread of his Majesty oaths these late years are broke out like a land-flood over all the banks and no where so much to be found nor no where so common as among them that reckons themselves conformable men loyal and members of the Church of England which is one crying sin that draws down the judgment of God upon this Land and what credit can be given to such Men in Judicature shall we not say as St. Austin says It disposes men to false swearing and gross perjury nor can indeed much credit be given any more then to a Lyar to any man that swears never so solemnly and in Judicature who is a common swearer But instead of beating down that for which the Land mournes Jer. 23. 10. many are even propagators of it and pleaders for it and glories in it and it s become almost the only mark of a conformable man Oh what a sad time are we fallen into and what a sad state that they

that depart from this great iniquity are become a prey I say it had been more time for A. S. to have used his utmost endeavours this way rather then to have opposed Christ's Doctrine and added affliction to the bonds of conscientious sufferers who dare neither swear nor lie But not to digress A. S. he would make the Fathers as he doth with Christ and the Apostles he would make all dance after his Pipe and make them all of his mind and construe and interpret all their words to his end though never intended and therefore he says they were not cautelous enough and so doth with them as he doth with Christ he makes their words one thing and their intentions another though saith he Origen in his 25. Tract upon Math. says that Christ did forbid all swearing yet he himself swears in his Book against Celsus for he said God is witness of my conscience and Athanatius though he declaimed against swearing yet in his Apology to Constantious he swears again and again and why he wrote as the Apostle did the Lord is witness and Christ is witness and these must needs be oaths and voluntary oaths it 's not probable that they should use voluntary oaths when they declaimed against all Oaths and therefore Origen saith It behoves not a man who lives according to the Gospel to swear at all And Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath Likewise Chrysostome who was Bishop of Constantinople in Commendations of whom much is said in the Ecclesiastical Histories Acts and Monuments vol. 21. fol. 70. too blames them greatly who brings forth a Book to swear upon charging the Clerks that in no wise they constraine any body to swear whether they think a man swear true or false saying it 's a sin to swear well So that not only swearing upon a Book was reprehended but even all swearing such as A. S. calls lawful Theophilact upon the place in controversie Learn hence that under the Law it was no evil for men to swear but since the coming of Christ it is evil as Circumcision and in some what ever is Jewdeical to omit Wickliffe John Hus and Jerome of Prague who were faithful Men and righteous in their Generation which the Reformed Churches is beholding to for their Testimony in other weighty things against the Church of Rome though A. S. will not own them in this but rather takes part with them who burned his Bones 41. years after his decease and burnt his Books and these Articles condemned by the Council of Constance who also burned John Hus and Jerome of Prague who maintained his Articles that all Oaths be made for any contract or evil bargain betwixt man and man be unlawful under the Gospel and Walter Bevite whose testimony with many others was that as the perfection of the Old Testament was not to forswear themselves so the perfection of Christ was not to swear at all because they are so commanded of Christ whose commandement in no case must be broken the Testimony of many worthy Men and godly sufferers at this time is suitable to many of the Fathers before mentioned But this A. S. calls error who said so the Church of Rome and the Council of Constance with whom A. S. joynes rather then the sufferers of Christ and they who hold it an error not to swear at all and yet no error to break it when they have a mind and dispense with it as the Papists doth to this very day And these Fathers of the Church doubtless were the best of Men in that declining age and were neither dunces nor devils but understood by the signification of Gods spirit in them the Doctrine of Christ and that which was consentaneous thereunto was witnessed by divers in after ages before mentioned which A. S. would condemn as Hereticks and why the Church of Rome had called them so and them that sat at the sterne who always called themselves Orthodox and others Heterodox that did not sing to the same tune in swearing and every thing else when they had once got up into a pompious lordly dominion over Mens faith but what doth this prove nothing at all and what doth this prove which A. S. inserts in his Marginal notes that the Ministers who are inferiour in Hungary and Transilvania swear Canonical obedience to their Bishops or the Church of England or the Confessions of Helvetia Basil or others whom he calls reformed what of all this what doth this prove from the Scripture of truth or as to the convincement of them who hold it unlawful to swear under the Gospel because Christ hath prohibited it by his Doctrine what is all that A. S. hath said in his Arguments to dissenters satisfaction who know hundreds of things wherein as much as they fall out and fight even to blood with each other about their fancied formalities they all agree in against the light and power of godliness and against the very appearance of the Image of him in his holiness who is the substantial truth it self we say what is all this to some that dissents from A. S. his judgment and others he calls reformed whose faith stands higher then the wisdom and thoughts of Men who cannot consent so as to lead their faith and reason captive after them to try this or any other truth seeing it is the gift of God and the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding though the Church of Rome and you agree in this though you damne one another in other matters what is this to us it shewes only they erred from the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and you in this and many other things are not separated from them and thy conclusion which thou accords with is false that though God in the Old Testament commanded it yet it doth not follow that Christ in the new did not forbid it neither that Christ and his Apostles practised it who were under another Covenant and for ought can be perceived by A. S. by that he calls voluntary swearing which he hath no ground for though in other places he seem to condemn vain swearing and customary oaths yet in this he looks not like himself but seems to tollerate a kind of oaths we find no mention made of in the New Testament and yet we shall not conclude as A. S. says that all were so ignorant as not to understand Christ's mind nor so wicked as to teach the quite contrary to his mind for it is manifest many have been of the mind of Christ in former ages and latter though we shall never strive to bring in all the world or the heathen or Nations that became as waters after the publication of the Gospel nor that Rable which he calls the Christian world which hath wondered after the Beast Rev. 13. 4. and yet there hath been still some Testimony borne through ages unto the Doctrine of Christ and Christs Doctrine stands in force and in that latitude that he intended