Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	day_n	observe_v	sabbath_n	1,418	5	9.5618	5	false

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

Reformed Chu●ches and were the most ancient and true Protestants if any Reformation be looked at beyond Luther they professed it no way lawful for a Christian to swear and the said Bishop Vsher de Succes Chap. 6. doth esteem that place of the 5th of Mat. Swear not at all and that of 5th James to be a sufficient plea for them against the Papists and he pleads their cause and this made Renerius and Jansenius so much envy the Waldenses two Romanists who said amongst all the Sects which are or have been there is not any more pernicious to the Church meaning the Church of Rome then the Waldenses and that for three Reasons first their Antiquity secondly because of their Universality thirdly in that they did maintain and hold it no way lawful for a Christian to swear on any occasion But it may be that A. S. will tell us that these and other were condemned in some general or Provincial Council for Heresie and if he do it is no great matter since most of these have erred especially since all Nations have drunk of the VVhores cup of Fornication and have erred from the faith and have lost the power and then contend for a forme and bind all to receive it upon some comination or malediction or other or else they were Hereticks And why who said so the Church hath so decreed and if these Canons and such like must be binding A. S. will hardly escape their censure if he continue in the profession of the faith he is in though he and they seem to agree in this particular about swearing But I come to his fifth Argument Fifth Argument Christ never forbad any thing but what was intrinsecally evil as may be proved by induction he forbids anger abusive language he forbids lust and divorce and swearing by Creatures and therefore what ever he forbad was evil and that in it self and not meerly as forbidden but swearing in general is not for that hath not only been the practice of holy Men but of Angels Dan. 12. 7. Revel 10. 6. Reply Was it evil in it self under the Law if a man smote out anothers eye or tooth or cut off his hand or his foot or give one a would in any part of the body Deut. 21. 24. Levit. 1. 24. 20. Deut. 19. 11. was it evil in it self for the Judges in those days to give sentence that he that had struck out his Neighbours eye or struck out his tooth or cut off his hand to pronounce and give the same judgment unto the offender that he should be so done withal was this eternally evil or intrinsecally evil for the party so wronged to seek remedy or was it not an act of justice equal and good not only because enjoyned and commanded but in it self just and was it or is it an act in it self intrinsecally evil if a man sued a man wrongfully at the Law and takes a mans coat or garment away to seek to defend himself and preserve his coat or cloak if not A. S. his argument is of no moment for even in the same Chapter where envy and murther and divorce saving for fornication and abusive language and all swearing is forbidden so is that forbidden which is not intrinsecally evil by Christ Mat. 5. 39 40. But I say unto you that you resist not evil and whosoever shall smite the one cheek turn him the other also and if a man sue thee at the Law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also and whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twayn And it is in the new Testament I hope written Avenge not your selves And was it evil in it self or morally evil to keep the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath or only good because commanded or was it lawful to fight with Amalecks Edomites Aegiptians and Canaanites because Israel was only commanded or because they were real enemies to God in their hearts or as Samuel Fisher said well in answer to Doctor Gauden which A. S. quarels with that Circumcision Sacrifices and Offerings Passeover and New Moons Fasts and Swearing was not evil in themselves but because forbidden and though A. S. give such a great Challenge to S. F. to produce one instance that any thing was prohibited by Christ but what was intrinsecally evil or else his argument is in vain I say the aforementioned thing prove it that something was forbidden that was not evil eternally and intrinsecally but because prohibited and again in the same Chapter ver 44. But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you though under the Law they did fight and might fight with the aforesaid enemies the Canaanites and Gentiles but now I say put up forgive love your enemies Peter put up thy Sword he that takes hold on it shall perish by it avenge not go not to Law one with another 1 Cor. 6. 7. Suffer forbear forgive if thy brother sin against thee seventy times 7. times And though A. S. say that nothing was forbidden by Christ or in all the new Testament but what was in it self evil or in some respect conducing thereunto methinks he hath given too bold a Challenge what will he say to all the former things mentioned and what evil had Circumcision in it or the Passeover or Sacrificing or New Moons and the Sabbath days or what tendency had they to evil but rather were good for the end they were ordained to be signes and types and figures of holy things to come like as swearing was among the rest what ever A. S. say or argue and yet when the substance of the good things was come to them that had believed and received him who was the summe of all the Apostle said Gal. 5. 2 3. If you be Circumcised Christ profits you nothing after he was offered up And Gal. 4. 9 10 1. You observe new Moons and holy days and Sabbaths And these things that were once as really good as ever swearing was considering the end wherefore they were enjoyned and these things was never evil in themselves yet the Apostle reckoned them beggarly Rudiments and told them they had begun in the Spirit and now sought to be made perfect through the flesh and so stood in doubt of them that his labour had been in vain and therefore if A. S. or any other will needs uphold swearing because commanded to the Jewes before the seed Christ was revealed I say he is Gal. 5. 34. a debter to the whole Law and is as much bound to keep it in all other points as this or else he is a transgressour and is one of those that would be laying yoaks upon the Disciples necks unto whom they were never intended for if the Ceremonies and Rites and outward observations which properly did belong to the Jewish Church and state to observe till the fulness of time when the partition wall should be broken down and the Jewes and Gentiles should be one and

out that command Swear not at all The reasons the very strength of them I have laid down as A. S. hath published them without varying from his own words the Answer thou may peruse and read without prejudice and weigh with the measure of Gods Spirit in thy self for unto that I appeal which is a more certain thing then Councils or Nations or Consent of multi●udes who hath the name of Christian and walks not in his Doctrine neither lives his life nor doth the things he saith I am shut up in a corner and have not that advantage that some opposers have of others labours as to bring Authors of divers Ages that denied to Swear though not only some there were but many but alas they are condemned already by A. S. and others for Phanaticks and Heteradox and so their sayings will seem of less force but however I have not much striven neither shall to fetch things from far in the Apostacy but rest in that which makes all things evident even the spirit of God in thy own heart and the Scriptures of Truth which was spoken by the Spirit which are so clear unto many that there needs not multitude of words to demonstrate this truth of the prohibition of all Oaths among true Christians but I shall not detain thee from the matter it self and the Lord give thee an understanding F H. Oathes no Gospel Ordinance but prohibited by Christ. THere being a Book lately published by A. Smalwood D. D. as I understand Doctor of Divinity first preached in a Sermon at Carlile I suppose before the Judges at the Assizes then holden the 17 th day of August 1664. since which I perceive many Additions by reasons and paraphrases are added thereunto and printed at York In which Discourse he hath vindicated the lawfulness of Swearing under the Gospel and hath gone about to prove it by many reasons and Authors how that Christ upon that subject Mat. 5. 34. Swear not at all did not intend an absolute universal prohibition of all manner of swearing under the Gospel which Book of his I have perused with an upright heart and an impartial eye seriously to the end I might own that which is good in it not as one being glued to an opinion or judgment but what as carries demonstration of truth with it upon my conscience and in my heart it being a principle well known and believed amongst us to have our consciences void of offence towards God and towards Man and seeing my self and many more are great sufferers at this day upon this very account which I look upon being truly and conscientiously grounded upon the Doctrine of Christ and consonant to the Primitive Christians and seeing so large things have been written by other hands in asserting the truth of what we have believed which yet stands as a witness unto the Doctrine of Christ notwithstanding all opposition and gain-saying that it hath had by many hands I could have been wholly silent and have refered all that have been said to the judgment of the Lord and to that of God in every Mans conscience but that I perceive A. Smalwood hath rendred that People which I own in judgment and practise to be in error and hath greatly gain-sayed and villified all such as ever did or do deny Swearing upon never so conscientious account as erroneous and as only sprung from the Pelagian Heresie and Manacheus and I know not who and have rendred all with reproach and disdain as Phanaticks who discent from him with disdainful and reproachful names to represent us as odious as may be to the Magistrate and at such a time as this when tender and conscientious people who fear the Lord in their hearts and desires to live and be at peace and seeks it with all Men are sufferers and great sufferers too upon this very account whereby many are stired up to more persecution and wrath against us and besides this Discourse it seemes is cryed up as the most exquisite that ever was or can be and as unanswerable and that we who deny to swear would abolish all judicable proceedings and make them nothing this Discourse is printed as A. S. in his 12. page sayes to induce us to forsake so irrational an opinion and to convince us of our error and it seemes he himself besides many other exspects it must effect some great matter Reply I say all these things being considered was a strong inducement to me to write something in reply thereunto though in very deed I love not contention neither strife about words but seeing it is the Doctrine of Christ and that which hath been and is stedfastly believed by divers faithful Professors and sufferers both formerly and now however by A. Smalwood accounted and reproached by that disdainful name of Phanaticks a word lately invented in the Pit of Darkness where many of those and the like reproaches come from I was engaged in my heart to hear my testimony against this said Book and for the truth of Christs Doctrine not out of obstinacy and wilfulness but in duty as by conscience to God and his truth which is dearer to me then my outward liberty or all I have to loose for it which I and many more at this day choose rather to suffer then to be found violating the commands of Christ or deny that which I have stedfastly believed being perswaded thereunto by the spirit of the Lord and evidence of the Scripture of truth The subject A. Smalwood hath taken to treat upon and in the end to gain-say and pervert are no less then Christs own Doctrine Mat. 5. 34. But I say unto you swear not at all who would have believed or thought that one who accounts himself a Doctor a Divine and a Minister of Christ should choose Christs own words to plead against Christ and them that do abide in his Doctrine or that ever any should go about to prove swearing lawful from these words in Gospel times or that swearing is not forbiden but what would not this Man encounter with or what would not he oppose if he have but the power of this World on his side it is a small thing to gain-say what we say and pervert our words and make them seem erroneous and to make our intentions one thing and our words another when he is so bold as to make Christs Doctrine his express words Swear not at all and his intentions contrary to his words what do we judg of a Man that speaks one thing and intends another it's fearful to think what conclusions some will make to carry on their intended designes but me thinks A. S. might have been more considerate then to have taken Christs own Doctrine and words to oppose Christs intention or to be so bold as to assert the intention of Christ was otherwise then his words import but rather have chosen some other subject but what matter makes many of subjects for with a consequence or two and a little