Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	oath_n	strife_n	swear_v	3,032	5	9.0688	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25667	The anti-Quaker, or, A compendious answer to a tedious pamphlet entituled, A treatise of oaths subscribed by a jury of 12 Quakers, whose names are prefixed to it, together with the fore-man of that jury ... William Penn : alledging several reasons why they ... refuse to swear, which are refuted, and the vanity of them demonstrated both by Scripture, reason, and authority of ancient and modern writers / by Misorcus, a professed adversary of vain swearing in common discourse and communication.	Misorcus.	1676 (1676)	Wing A3506; ESTC R165	32,510	58

much to God's honour and to the glory of his Name by the acknowledgment or confession of his Truth Knowledge Justice and Almighty Power all these four Attributes we acknowledge to be in him when in taking of an Oath we call upon him to be out witness and Judge What can the Treatist answer to this how can he vindicate himself from the guilt of notorious falsity and forgery by averring that the Bishop asserted that Christ by his prohibitive Precept exceeded the Prohibition of the Law or Third Commandment by commanding us not only not to Swear vainly or falsly but not to use an Oath in any case whatsoever Does not that godly Prelate in his Tenth Section of his Seventh Praelection lay this down for an undeniable conclusion Juramenti usus est licitus and proves an Oath to be lawful as by divers weighty Reasons drawn from the use of it in the Old and New Testament for that the * Rom. 1.9 Gal. 1.20 Gen. 14.22.26.31.31.53 Apostle Saint Paul and holy Patriarchs did use it and all Controversies were appointed by Moses to be terminated or ended by it Exod. 2.11 so also from the Conditions to be observed in Swearing prescribed by the Prophets as in that fourth Chapter of Jerem. vers 2. which I have formerly cited and illustrated after all which he challenges any man to give just Reason why under the Old Testament it should be lawful for holy men to Swear and not for the Faithful under the New seeing this act of Swearing did not appertain to the Ceremonial Law which was abrogated by Christ as is evident by the end of it which is of perpetual use and that is the confirmation of the Truth and ending all litigious Disputes and strifes about it And will not any prudent man conclude from all this that an Oath to its own and proper nature is not an evil thing but lawful and good when much hurt and many disturbances which may happen in the transaction of humane affairs may by it be prevented This is attested by Saint Paul Heb. 6.16 An Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife i. e. where there is no end of contradicting there an Oath is expedient when the Plaintiff affirms and the Defendant stifly denies when there is no other way of finding out the Truth one part of the contradiction being confirmed by the interposition of an Oath the other part ceases and so the strife is terminated Can we imagine then that the God of peace unity and concord our Lord Christ would wholly forbid Swearing or the use of an Oath at any time or in any case by means whereof oft-times as litigious suits and strifes at Law are ended so Faith and Justice the two most firm bonds and ligaments of humane Society are preserved for he that lies under a solemn Oath dares not be unfaithful or unjust I am sure our Saviour never did forbid it but only the light rash and vain use of an Oath in our ordinary and common discourse this he did and so our most judicious * Praelect 7. Sect. 11. ad finem Bishop expounds those words of our Saviour Matth. 5.34 and the same repeated by Saint James Chap. 5.12 which are the Quakers or Anabaptists only Asylum to which they flie for Sanctuary when they are urged to take an Oath by the Magistrate but I hope they will be effectually beaten or driven from their Asylum when their shallow and dark understandings are better enlightned and they being convinc'd shall acknowledge in their hearts though they will hardly confess it with their tongues that the whole weight of their rotten Position hangs upon a weak and slender thread even one word Omninò at all which is by them misinterpreted A good construction whereof is that expression of one Eusebius a Gentile Philosopher in * Serm. 37. Stobaeus Many sayes he there exhort men to Swear the Truth but my exhortation to them is Ut ne quidem omnino facilè jurent That they Swear not at all easily he means familiarly without great necessity which is the principal or prime meaning of our Saviours Prohibition Swear not at all I should here have given a stop to my flying Pen and taken both it and my wearied hand on from this Paper had not my Zeal inflamed with indignation spurred me on to a just vindication of the honour of another holy and more ancient Father most renowned as the former was in his generation which was 422. years after Christ for his holy life and stupendious knowledge in Divine and Humane Learning I mean St. Jerom Pag. 11. whom the Impostor or Treatist challenges as a Patron of his Opinion saying though most falsly That he makes this the reason why God indulged the Jews in the use of Swearing That they were but in the state of Infancy and that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods I was amazed when I read this so will the judicious Readers be astonished at the boldness and madness I may add Falsity and Folly of the Treatist inciting the Gloss of St. Jerom upon that Text Matth. 5.34 it being so clearly and wholly against him The Father's Gloss is this which for the benefit of an illiterate Quaker I shall translate word for word into English Hanc per elementa jurandi pessimam consuetudinem semper habuere Iudaei c. This most ungodly custome of Swearing by the Elements was ever in use amongst the Jews for which they are oft condemned by the month of the Prophets He that sweareth either worshippeth or loves him by whom he sweareth We are commanded in the Law to Swear by none but by the Lord our God The Jews swearing by the Angels by the City of Jerusalem by the Temple and by the Elements gave that honour and worship to the Creatures and carnal things which was only due to God But * Let the Author of the Treatife and his Brethren consider this consider that our Saviour does not forbid us to Swear by God but by Heaven and Earth by Hierusalem and by the Head Et hoc quasi parvulis fuerat lege concessum and this subaud he forbids as if it had been permitted to the Jews as to little Ones even as they offer'd Victims unto God that they might not sacrifice the same unto Idols so they should be permitted to Swear in Deum against God not that they should do well in so doing but that it was better to exhibit that honour to God viz. by Swearing by his Temple c. than to Daemons From the later part of this Comment beginning at Et hoc quasi parvulis c. altogether misconstrued by him the Treatift though most absurdly inferrs that God indulged in the opinion of St Jerom the Jews in the use of Swearing they being then in the state of Infancy that they might be kept from Swearing by false Gods For St. Jerom or to vindicate him I appeal to St. Jerom Doth he say

this may be collected what credit is to be given to a Quaker's Yea and Nay when as if the man has a false heart under the covert of it a Lye may be shelter'd But leaving him to Christian Pity and God's mercy I must return from this short digression and from the former false Profession of the Treatist reflect upon his vain Ostentation apparent in his Protestation which goes before it Pag. 155. of the Treatise viz. That Christ has redeemed him and the rest of his Combination into Truth-speaking which takes away the Occasion of an Oath What is this but Pharisaisme or proud boasting becoming a Thraso or Miles gloriosus in the Comedy rather than the mouth of a Christian being one of the many marks which Saint Paul fixes upon an unregenerate and carnal man Despightful proud Boasters Rom. 1.30 Moreover he saith and what is it but perfect Pelagianism that Truth is natural unto them if it be the fruit of Nature then it is not of Grace what could have been said more by Pelagius or his Disciple Faustus Omitting a farther Refutation of his vain-glorious and proud Assertion I shall plainly discover unto him the falsity of it by this one direct Syllogisme They that are redeemed by Christ into Truth-speaking to whom Truth is natural need no Oath to compel them to Truth but we the true humble and faithful followers of Christ are such Ergo we need not an Oath I could deny the Major Proposition as being false as I shall prove hereafter but for the present I deny the Assumption or Minor and to manifest the truth of my denial I shall not make use as I might of a Sorites by an enumeration of particular persons among them and from them whose Lives and Actions have witnessed the contrary draw a Negative Conclusion I will onely ask the man of Truth I mean the Professing Treatist this one Question If Truth-speaking or Veracity be natural to him and all things by Nature ever the same without any the least change or alteration as the Philosopher attests why then contrary to his Nature which must argue a perverseness in his Will and contrary to the Rules or common moral Honesty which argues a pravity in his Nature did he belye two eminent Fathers or the Church by endeavouring to perswade the world that they said or writ what they never did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist And if Christ's Saints be redeemed by him into Truth-speaking then they that make no conscience of a Lye or that love and make a Lye are neither Saints nor redeemed by Christ I am sure Saint John reckons them amongst those that shall never enter into Heaven such are Sorcerers Whoremongers Revel 22.15 Murderers and Idolaters without an high degree or measure of repentance Once more If he be a man of Truth why walks not he then in the Truth or as the Rule of Truth the Word of God directeth 2 Ep. Ioh. 4. This commands us to give honour to whom honour is due Rom. 13.7 and to honour the King 1 Pet. 2.17 This neither he nor any of his rude Tribe will do witness his and his Associates unmannerliness and proud demeanour even towards the King and great persons of Honour to whom they measure the same Omer of respect which they do to their Equals and Inferiours witness their Thouing and Theeing them and covered heads before them which betokens no Humility but much Pride to be in their hearts proceeding from a pretence or phansie that there is a Diviner Spirit and a brighter Light in them than either Reason or Scripture or great Reading affords to others whereby they think that they have cause to glory in their illuminations and to despise all those who have not arrived to the pitch or height of their presumptuous Phansies But that unmannerly rudeness might be born with if they would give the Lord of Heaven the honour that is due unto him Hebr. 13 17. Obey them that c. by obeying his commands in obeying the King's Laws tending to Decency Order and Peace both in State and Church And because they are resolved to live and dye in a constant opposition to all Government they therefore will take no Oath which may bind them to submit unto it nay they will not take an Oath when it is offered by the Magistrate when they might thereby determine a Controversie between man and man put an end or give a stop to a vexatious Suit in Law or promote their Neighbours welfare by giving thereby a firm Testimony of his suspected Honesty and does not this argue a great want of Charity Nay a Quaker will not Swear though he might thereby save his Neighbour's life and is not this an high piece of Cruelty So obstinately unmerciful so stiffly uncharitable is this Quaking Tribe that as they ought to do no evil that good may come of it so they will not do that which is in it self good such is the taking of a Lawful Oath to prevent a great evil damage or hurt that may or will befall a Neighbour be it the losing of an Estate Are such men governed and guided by the good Spirit of Christ I cannot omit here to relate a Story of a Quakers obstinacy who could not be invited to Swear the Truth of that whereof he was an eye witness it is this * I was my self an Ear witness of this private Business A Mariner going to Sea and being prepared for a long Voyage gave a Bill of Attorney to his Wife enabling her to receive his Wages in his absence now because as it is ordered by the Commissioners for the Navie no such moneys will be paid unless the Bill be attested by a Witness Sworn before a Justice of Peace that he was present at the writing of it it happened that a Neighbour poysoned with the Quaker's Principles being one of their Disciples was only present when the Seaman writ it and being desir'd by his Wife to witness the same he refus'd to appear before the Justice and could not be perswaded to take the Oath which was to be ministred unto him by which means the poor woman would be deprived of her maintenance if her husband had been gone to Sea and not Transcribed the foresaid Bill in the presence of an honest Man who thought it no sin to swear for the benefit of another being assured that it was not as it is not repugnant to any command of our Saviour Now it is easie to determine which of these two is the better Christian there is no wise man but will give his sentence for the latter and not think him worthy of the name of Christian who wants that which is the life and soul of Christianity and that is with Meekness and Humility an Universal Charity to all men which is a diffusive Grace prompting a man to be beneficial even to his enemies and not contract his love and kindness only to those who are of his party

are nothing to his purpose for S. Chrysostome condemn● not all kinde of Swearing triumph he in his Fifth Homily Ad pop Antioch does clearly admit of or allow an Oath to be taken in a case of Necessity as is evident by these words cited in English p. 72. of the treatise Moreover this I say That in the mean time we may cut off Superfluous Oaths those I mean which are made rashly amongst Friends and Servants without any Necessity c. Hence I inferr having great and weighty Reasons which hereafter I shall produce and that florid golden mouth Father's warrant for my Assertion Necessitas tollit ferias Prov. Heb. That as Necessity as we say commonly has no Law so to take an Oath when a man is necessitated or compelled to take it is not superfluous vain or sinful and no violation of Christ's Precept or of Moses his Law I mean the Third Commandment Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain For if every Negative Precept does include which no man will deny the contrary to it which is the Affirmative we may then inferre and say with Moses who spake from God Thou shalt fear the Lord thy Deut. 6.13 God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name not vainly or to no purpose but to justifie the Truth or to give to thy Neighbour who requires it an assurance of thy integrity or sincerity of thy promise and in other cases which are warranted by an inevitable Necessity Thus if any one should accuse thee of perfidiousness or slander as having with the black tooth of Calumny wounded his reputation or defrauded him of his goods If thou to purge thy self from this foul aspersion shalt deny the fact by a simple and bare protestation of thy innocency and he still suspecting thee to the contrary shall require an Oath of thee to confirm his belief of what thou deniest in such a case to vindicate thy credit and to work out of his mind that injurious suspicion thou mayest use a solemn Attestation by invocating or calling God to witness the Truth of thy Assertion And that in such or the like case to settle in another a perswasion of our Integrity an Oath between private persons is no sin we have the examples of God's Saints in the holy Scriptures to warrant it Gen. 21.23 24. as that of Abraham who being urged to it by Abimelech King of Gerar did Swear unto him that he would not deal falsly with him c. The like promissory Oath passed between Jacob and Laban Gen. 31.53 and from Boaz to Ruth Chap. 3.13 Let me annex to these Examples the testimony of Saint Augustine Aug. l. 10. de Serm Dom c. 30. When Christ sayes he enjoyned us to use in our common discourse by way of Affirmation and Negation Yea Yea Nay Nay He said not that whatsoever is more than this is evil or sin but proceeds from evil i.e. from some bad principle from the evil of infirmity in him who requires an Oath and that is his incredulity suspecting the Truth of the others Narration or Report or his want of Charity entertaining in his breast a bad opinion of his Brother and perhaps undeservedly Tu enim non malè facis qui benè uteris juratione c. For thou doest not ill who usest an Oath well i. e. to a good end that thou mayest beget in another a firm belief of the Truth and of thy sincerity He rather doeth ill whose diffidence or distrust enforces thee to use an Oath his sin shall not be imputed to thee For the farther ratification of my former Position concerning an Oath 's legality in case of an undeniable and inevitable Necessity I shall propound one Quaere more to W. P. the Quakers Oracle or Antesignanus of the Anabaptists it is this Suppose a knot of Thieves should assault thee in thy journey and having by force and violence robbed thee of thy money should urge thee to Swear that thou wilt not betray nor prosecute them by raising the Country to a pursuit of them in the mean time affrighting thee with execrable dreadful Oaths that unless thou secure them by a solemn Oath they will kill thee tell me W.P. wouldst thou in this case rather lose thy life than Swear to which by blasphemous threats they urge thee I verily believe that as thou hast a plentiful Estate thou wouldst not easily part with it and thy life at once by fondly bogling at an innocent Oath This perswasion I have of thee because as thou professest thy self with the rest of thy Gang to be men of Truth and transcendent Sanctity so I conceive that thou hast not wholly forfeited thy Reason but by that sparkling Light which still remains in it thou being cast into these streights wil'st consider First that it thou refusest to Swear thou shalt run upon the rock of a dangerous guilt which is the breach of the Sixth Commandment by which the use of all lawful means for the preservation of our lives is commanded and if we may preserve them and will not by such means we are self-murderers Now Swearing is not absolutely forbid neither by Christ nor his Apostles Secondly Thou surely wouldst consider that by thy refusing to Swear thou shouldst be the occasion or rather the partial cause of the loss of thy Brother's Soul a Thief by the bond of Nature is thy Brother he being made guilty of Murther by shedding thy blood which might be kept in thy veins by thy taking of that harmless Oath the which being once taken must be religiously kept for that he that is robbed is bound to be silent and not to betray a Thief having Sworn not to do it so the late most Pious and Learned Bishop of Norwich determines the Case Cas Consc Resol Dec. 1. c. 8. and annexes this saying to his determination to deterre all men from Perjury or breaking their Oaths When once we have interessed God in any business it is dangerous not to be punctual in the performance With him concurres in the same opinion the profound Doctor Sanderson in his Fifth Lecture and Seventeenth Section Lib. de juram obligat where he disputes the case against Baldwin once Professor of Divinity at Wittenberg and having answered his three Arguments alledged to the contrary concludes That as it is not unlawful for one to Swear to a Thief supposing that if he did not he should certainly be murder'd so there lies a necessity upon him of keeping that Oath not to discover him to the Magistrate Si licuit jurare licebit juramentum observare they are his very words pag. 132. So are not those cited out of his 141. page by the falsifying Penner of the Treatise I must therefore be bold to tell that conceited man of Truth that he is guilty of Forgery I might rather say in plainer and more express terms of a Lye to which the Thirteen Abettors of the Treatise

him and they likewise obliged themselves by a reciprocal Oath to be True and Faithful to him with this close So help me God hereby invocating God to be a Witness and Judge of what they had sworn and desiring no help or mercy from him if they should ever rebell against their King Dares the Treatist or his Fellow-Quakers say that they sinned or broke Christ's command by doing it I presume they dare not nay they cannot without being guilty of a lye and to say that it is a sin to invocate or call upon God is no less than blasphemy From hence I infer that their general Thesis to wit That it is not lawful to Swear in any case is absurd false and ridiculous So it is likewise of a dangerous Consequence as tending to the subversion of Order the destruction of good Manners which they want in States Polities and Common-wealths together with the stopping of legal proceedings in Courts of Judicature as hath been proved and before Justices of the Peace In the foresaid publick Courts of Justice there is a most necessary use of an Assertory Oath to find out the Truth as to particular facts or actions of a Promissory Oath there is not so much need or use in them This is necessary in Publick and Private matters which are called by the Lawyers Extrajudicial the use of it in these is to contain Subjects in their Loyalty and Fidelity to their King for this end were framed the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance the first in the beginning of the Raign of Queen Elizabeth the last in the third of King James It is likewise morally necessary to confirm Leagues and Covenants contracted between Princes Common-wealths To the keeping of the Laws and Statutes and consequently the honour order and peace of Colledges and Societies To the binding of all publick Officers to an honest and faithful discharge of their duties To ratifie private bargains between Buyers and Sellers when it is required by any one of them who suspects the others Truth and Honesty in his dealings but in this latter case I could wish that Oaths might be forborn and rather other means used with less hazzard to Conscience such are Pawns and Witnesses Bonds and Handwritings To the former Wish I shall add another That all profane and blaspheming Rabsheka's would in this one thing imitate the so called Quakers and for which they cannot but be commended who have so great a fear of an Oath as they pretend that out of a timorous jealousie of Swearing amiss they will not Swear at all by them the other may learn to have a just abhorrence of the sin of easie trivial familiar inconsiderate and vain Swearing which brings a curse upon a man Iurandi facilitate in perjurium labimur Aug. and his family and disposeth men to that horrid Sin a sin of the first magnitude that is Perjury or false Swearing of which a Lye most abominable to God is the Ingredient besides the affront irreverence and dishonour done to God by calling upon him to witness an untruth I have a third Option it is my hearty with and desire that the Treatist and his Confederates would enter their names in the School of Wisdom Eccies 7.16 and learn of Solomon this wholesom lesson of moderation Be not righteous overmuch neither make thy self overwise why shouldst thou destroy thy self This Precept is of a great extent and latitude Mercerus but the learned Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in Paris impales and confines it within the compass of these three Words Ne sis justus nimium Be not over-righteous i.e. Be not Severe Leges moderandas docet nec severius exigendas .. ibid. be not Superstitious be not Perverse First Be not Severe so it concerns the Judge exhorting him by a mild interpretation to mitigate the rigour or the Laws and not tourge and press the bare letter of them against Offenders that break them either out of weakness or ignorance Secondly Be not Superstitious so it reaches the Romanists Iusti nimium sunt i. e videri volunt qui in suis operibus Iustificationem collocant Idem and condemns their works of Supererrogation their going on Pilgrimage their tedious and long journeys to visit the shrines of Saints whom they worship also their self-castigations their whipping scourging of themselves conceiving vainly that these acts are meritorious and fancying that they shall be justified and saved by their works Thirdly Be not Perverse this founds an alarm to the Separatists the rigid Antidisciplinarians whom this long Name well befits having continued a long time for many years in their opinions for which they have neither God's Word nor right reason for their Defendants and from whom there is little or no hope that they will be reclaimed so long as they are guided by their obstinate wills which they palliate with the specious abused name of Conscience Their Sons begot by them and their Scholars the poor Quakers first learned of them the Trade of Separatism and are in this of the same Temper with them stiffned in perverseness Of this opinion is S Ambrose l 2. Apol. pro Davide with others of the Fathers Iude 19. Exod 22.11 Solomon who died a Convert and repented of his vanities bespeaks them both though he be dead by his lively precept O vain men Be not overmuch righteous neither in doing that which the Laws of the Church forbid agreeable to the word Do not separate neither in not doing what God allows in his Word Do not refuse to take an Oath when there is a great need of it and when it is required of thee by the Magistrate who is the Kings Deputy Heb. 13.17 as he is God's vicegerent who commands you to obey them that have the rule over you in things lawful and so you obey them in the Lord both in respect of the Commander and the things Commanded To that exquisite gloss of Mercerus I cannot omit to subjoyn another of the great Scripturist Deodatus once Professor of Geneva upon the forecited Text of Ecclesiastes which in my opinion comes home to an obstinate Quaker or any other Dissenter his numerical words are these Be not bent too much upon a thing which in thy opinion is just without yielding any way either in Charity or wise integrity to the opinion of others to the necessity of times and humane frailty Surely this holy man would have told an Anti-jurist if he had discoursed with him that he was overmuch righteous by his refusing to swear at all and maintaining it to be sinful in others to swear in any case when the suspicions jealousies frauds and falsities of men require an Oath or make it necessary in Judicial proceedings The same Commentator who had an extraordinary gift from God as his name imports in expounding the Sacred word says thus in his Comment upon Mat. 5.34 The Text which is mis-interpreted by the Anabaptists Seeing that an Oath is a means