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
A35132	Sixteen reasons drawn from the law of God, the law of England, and right reason, to shew why diverse true Christians (called Quakers) refuse to swear at all for the satisfaction of all the upright in heart, that the innocent may not be condemned with the wicked / by John Crook.	Crook, John, 1617-1699.	1661 (1661)	Wing C7213; ESTC R1138	7,523	8

SIXTEEN REASONS Drawn from the Law of God THE Law of England AND Right Reason TO SHEW Why diverse true Christians called QVAKERS refuse to Swear at All For the satisfaction of all the Upright in Heart that the Innocent may not be Condemned with the Wicked By John Crook LONDON Printed for Robert Wilson at the Black-spread-Eagle and Wind-mill in Martins Le Grand I. BEcause Christ Jesus the KING and LAW-GIVER to his people hath said Swear not at all Mat. 5. And it is left upon record for our practise and is so sure that no averment lies good against it which doctrine was practiced before the Apostacy and promoted by the Apostles in their day as may be seen James the 5. which may serve for an answer in this case unto them that plead for swearing as Christ said upon another occasion which was permitted in the old time of the law but was not so from the beginning so Christ the Truth redeems his children out of the fall and all that have come in by it unto himself who hath commanded his followers not to swear at all II. Because in the Old time when swearing was used according to God's command expressed in the Law of Moses and also instanced by the Apostle Paul who was a Jew and wrote unto the Jews unto whom he signified in his Epistle both the end and use of swearing in those times and cases wherein it was used who knew very well what was Ceremonial and Tipicall and what was Moral and Perpetual and therefore mentioneth an Oath in his Epistle aforesaid by way of figure and similitude which he instanceth in the particular practice of it at that time saying An Oath for confirmation is to them the end of all strife and so Christ Gods Oath and Covenant the substance of all shadows and figures puts an end to all strife and variance between God and that man which takes hold of Christ and receives him into the heart by the living saith whereby he hath strong consolation according to the saying of the Apostle whose end in mentioning swearing in that 6. of Heb. is only by way of allusion and similitude and proves no more a necessity of the lawfulness or continuance of swearing because he mentions the word Oath then mens living in strife proves the lawfulness or necessity of the continuance of strife because in the same place he mentions the word strife also the which if it should be concluded from his words would make the Apostle a Transgressor and guilty of building again the thing that he destroyed in his Epistle elsewhere who concluded the Corinthians as Carnal and that not only because they walked as men which he blames them for but also because they lived in strife and envyings c. So that all which the forementioned place Heb. 6. proves is only this that when an Oath was used in old time amongst the Jews according to Gods appointment it was in those cases which would put an end to strife and so is of authority sufficient to condemn all Oaths now that are either used where there is no strife at all or else in those cases wherein Oaths are taken and the strife not ended which if observed the Oath of Obedience cannot justly be required III. Because when swearing was in use as aforesaid we never read in holy writ that any of the Kings of Israel were either made by an oath or required an oath of those people that were to be subject to them neither was it required upon such a penalty as now it is either by the Common Statute Law of England untill KING James his time upon occasion of the Gun-powder Plot which OATH was made by the PARLIAMENT as the likeliest expedient in that juncture of time to prevent like designes and also to find out the POPES Alliances and Emissaries in these Kingdoms as may be seen both by the Preambles to the Statutes and also by the substance and contents of the said Oath and not at all intending those that are True Protestants who were not tainted with that cursed Popish Principle of breaking faith with an Heretick and deposing excommunicated PRINCES as may be seen by the Statute aforesaid much less those who could not swear at all in conscience to an Oath because Christ hath forbid it IV. Because God commands Subj●ction and Obedience to Magistracy and all his commands are equally to be observed for the breach of one renders a man guilty of all and how a Magistrate can in justice and righteousness swear men to the observance of one command more than to all the rest without partiallity doth not to good conscience and right reason appear except the honour and safety of Rulers should be preferred before the glory of God V. Because the Ruler-professing Christianity and his Subjects also professing the same it ought not to be supposed that that God whom the true Christians worship who hath by an instinct in nature obliged relations so firmly that he hath never required any other security for the performance thereof than that bond which he himself hath made And would it not be accounted preposterous and absurd for to swear a Child to his Father or a Wife upon marriage to her husband and is it any whit less absurd and needless to swear a true Christian subject to a Christian King seeing the Command of God no less requires Obedience to him then to the other relations and doth not this promise as much or more belong to him that rules for God as to any particular Christian viz. Who shall harm you if you follow that which is good And will not God punish Rebellion as the sin of witchcraft which is security sufficient for a Christian Prince and therefore ought not to impose an Oath upon them who cannot swear for conscience sake VI. Because an oath in this case hath been found by experience to be insufficient as to answer the end for which it is given and therefore for the refusing of it by true Christians as aforesaid or those that cannot swear at all ought not to make them liable to the penalty of the Statute and to prove that it is not able to answer the end aforesaid witness all those at any time who have been found in rebellion against the King who have they been but the Swearers and Lyars and Covenant breakers so that their Oaths have been of no more use to them than to beget a perswasion in themselves that now their Prince is satisfied concerning their Loyalty and they may plot with lesse suspition and so with Judas will cry Hail Master and kiss Him that they may get their Rewards and bring their Designes to pass VII Because he that swears is either a True man or a false if a True man his Honesty without an Oath engageth him to performance but if a false man he will swear rather than forfeit his Liberty and Estate and so his Oath doth but save himself but is no security to

the King and it may easily be supposed that he that will swear for his own advantage only will not refuse to plot when he may do it as he thinketh for his own preferment especially considering he that swears Allegiance and yet proves a Traitor is no more punished then he that commits Treason and swears not at all and therefore seeing SWEARING cannot bind a Knave and GOODNESSE will bind an honest man what sound reason then can be given why the good man should be so severely punished onely because he cannot swear at all VIII Because the OATH of Judges and Justices which is to do equall Law and Execution of right to all the Kings loving Subjects which Oath is not observed except the Judge distinguish and put a difference between them who only refuse to swear because all Oaths are forbidden and those who refuse to swear because Allegiance is required for the one likes not the thing sworn to and the others owns the thing but denies the Oath and to punish him that denies to swear in the one sence equally with him who refuseth to swear in the other sence is neither execution of equal law nor right and so not according to their Oaths aforesaid IX Because that the Kings safety depends not upon swearing but upon performing the thing to which the Oath is required and if that be given or yeilded the end is answered though there be no swearing at all and therefore the penalty for not taking the Oath ought not to be imposed upon them who refuse to swear in conscience to an Oath especially considering the Law hath provided another penalty for them as in cases of high Treason if guilty thereof and to require two securities for one debt seemes to be unreasonable and is no lesse absurd than for a man who hath a just debt owing unto him upon a bond which debt is proffered to be paid according to the contents of the bond but will not be received by the Creditor except the person will first SWEAR to perform the same X. Because to punish so severely as to the loss of Liberty and Estate for the refusall of a Ceremony as it is called by the imposers thereof and that denyed out of conscience to Christs command is contrary both to the nature and end of the law which is to punish for offences and therefore to stand upon the Letter or Ceremony when the Truth and Substance thereof is answered is to make the Law become cruell to kill and destroy and not mercifull to save which is all one as if a man should say the Sun was only to scorch and burn and not to warm nor give light and as if the earth should be said only to bury and not to bring forth encrease XI Because it hath been observed by Statutes as in the Stat. of the first of Queen Mary that love and honesty binds stronger to Kings and Governours than the severity of Laws made with extream pains and rigorous punishments for not obeying their Soveraign Ruler and Governour c. And therefore the Oath of Obedience which was made by the PARLIAMENT as in anger and hast against the Papists being provoked thereunto by the Gunpowder Plot the occasion of making that Statute c. And therefore ought not in the coole of the day to be stood upon according to the formalities of it the substance being kept to Besides in the third part of COOK' 's Institutes cap. 74. he saith That there were certain poor Christians That had spoken against the worshipping of Images In Justification of Gods Command as many do now against swearing at all because Christ hath forbid it yet notwithstanding then as now those poor Christians were by the Bishops of that time sworn to worship Images which OATH saith Cook was against the express Command of God and therefore ought not to have been imposed And the Law of the Nation because they had no warrant to minister the same And if this was condemned in that day and that by the Chief Justice of ENGLAND who also is called the Oracle of the Law it may well be hoped that the like evill practise will not be justified in this time of greater light although some plead for swearing NOW against Christ's c●mmand as some did THEN for the worshipping of Images gainst Gods Command XII Because to take away mens Liberties and Estates because they cannot swear at all cannot be drawn into example for others except to teach them to swear which they are apt enough to do without example for the Rule of the Law is Paena ad paucos ut motus ad omnes perveniat The punishment is to a few that all may fear which is not observed in this case because the punishment for refusing to swear at all cannot become an example to deter men from committing of Treason and therefore the penalty aforesaid ought not to be inflicted as in the case of Cook 's 3d part of Institutes where he mentions a man committing Treason if ●he prove not Sanae Memoriae he shall not be called to answer or if after judgement he becomes so he shall not be executed and the reason given by COOK is because it cannot be an example to others which reason is much more true in the case in hand XIII Because it was a Brand upon Jeroboam the Son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin which he did by causing them to worship the Calves at Dan and Bethel which he had set up though under a plausible pretence as may be seen by the story yet notwithstanding their obeying his command this thing was their sin So in like manner would it be sin now in them who cannot swear at all because Christ hath commanded so if they should take the Oath of Allegiance or any other Oath which he hath forbidden XIV Because the proceedings of the Ministers of the Law are and have been more Irregular in their apprehending and securing of those persons unto whom they tender the Oaths than their denial to take the Oaths may be deemed to be because the former is against the very fundamental Lawes of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right with several other Lawes that are expresly against the searching of mens houses and securing of their persons by Souldiers or Armed men in the times of peace as also is signified by the Kings late Proclamation where he saith That for the future such things shall not be practised and if any do they shall incur his displeasure and be proceeded against according to Law which is such an implication as amounts to an affirmation that what hath been done hitherto in that kind is contrary to Law besides an errour in the Foundation is of more danger then in any other part of the building but the latter which are those that deny to take the Oath is only against a law made in hast or anger as aforesaid and but against the Ceremony or forma verbalis and not against forma