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
A49979	News of a trumpet sounding in the wilderness, or, The Quakers antient testimony revived, examined and compared with itself, and also with their new doctrine whereby the ignorant may learn wisdom, and the wise advance in their understandings / collected with diligence, and carefully cited from their antient and later writings, and recommended to the serious reading and consideration of all enquiring Christians, by Daniel Leeds.	Leeds, Daniel, 1652-1720.	1697 (1697)	Wing L914; ESTC R11241	77,230	166

that Swearing in any case were unlawful if it had not been written Swear not at all Is not then the Scripture your Rule in this case W. Penn there answers This shews the Ignorance of Tho. Hicks in the Writings of the best Gentiles and his acknowledgment of the Light 's sufficiency in case we are able to prove Swearing disallowable before Christ came in the flesh The seven wise men saith he famous among the Greeks 500 years before Christ came in the flesh esteemed Swearing but a Remedy against Corruption Now observe does not this plainly shew that they held Swearing not only allowable but also good to be used for what good men would not use means to remedy Corruption was not W. P. dotish when he brought this Instance to prove the Light sufficient without the knowledge of what is written to shew men they should not swea● Besides was it likely that the Light or Law in the best Gentiles would forbid all Swearing at the same time when the Law outward was in force that allowed and commanded Swearing or that the Gentiles had a light beyond the Prophets who never did forbid such Swearing but on the contrary commanded it Jer. 4 2. Another Instance W P brings is That Socrates said There is a Life more f●●n and unquestionable than an Oath I Answ Does not the Law hold forth the same viz. that there is no need of an Oath amo●g men that live a life unquestionable or out of Strife for an Oath was for reconciling and putting an end to strife so that this of Socrates was so far from saying Sware not at all that it says as the ●aw says an evidence of what Paul said That the Gentiles did by Nature the things contained in the Law Now let wise men judge how far W.P. has proved the Light sufficient to shew men they should not swear without knowing the written Command of Christ And does not W. P. also confound himself in accusing T. Hicks of Ignorance for if we ask him who they be that live an unquestionable Life he shews us that the Saints do not for in Rejoynder p 175 he says The Saints shall judge the World and much more by their Judgment determine or reconcile things among themselves Thus seeing the Saints live not a life unquestionable but that they need to have things judged and reconciled how much less do others But more particular of Swearing W. P. and R. R. in their Treatise of Oathes put out in the Na●●e of the Quakers p 46. cites this Pass●ge viz. They Swear in God or to God or by God who promise an inviolable Obedience of Mind to him Now to say I solemnly Promise or Declare in the Presence of Almighty God c. is a calling upon God to be a Witness to the Truth of the Testimony given which in p 17. they look upon to be no less than a presumptuous Tempting of God to summons him to be a Witness not only to our Terrene but Trivial Business These are their express words And yet are they now so far apostatized and fallen from their antient Yea and Nay that this is the Oath that the Quakers have used under the new Name of a Test especially in W. Penn's Province of Pennsilvania till of late that G K. and his Friends bore Testimony against it And yet now in England they have got it confirmed by Law as I 'll shew anon But to proceed In pag. 68. they cite That it is evil to compell not only to Swear by God but by other things But how do they here condemn themselves for in their Courts about Delaware have seen Quakers give command the English formal Oath to be given to those that were not Quakers And yet for this very thing they condemn J. Perrot as an Apostate in their Book called A loving Invitation p 8. because when he was Clerk of a Court he gave some People the Oath Yet behold now their Brother Da Lloyd can do the like and be accounted no Apostate Again in the Book of the Tryal of G. Whithead and T. Barr at Norwich p. 2● 29. the Recorder threatning to Praemunire them unless they would take the formal Oath We are ready and willing says G W. to sign this est or Declaration viz. I do in the Presence of Almighty God solemnly declare c. I do hereby faithfully promise by Gods help c. Note This they declare in p. 82. to be the Substance of the Oath which they then offered to sign and kissing the Book and saying I swear they there call the Ceremony and Circumstance so it seems they can now dispence with swallowing the Substance for they there say They conscientiously scruple the Ceremony and Circumstance to say I Swear and kiss the Book as much as to say We offer to swear but cannot in Conscience say I Swear Behold the Hypocrasie He further adds That he is willing to sign such Declaration of his Duty of Allegiance if he may not otherways be believed Mark If they may not be believed by saying Yea or Nay they 'll do that now which is more rather than be praemunired I confess that would have been hard but why then have they bound themselves up to Yea or Nay by printing so much in denyal of Swearing if they cannot defend it by Suffering out will Apostatize rather than Suffer Lastly in p. 35. their Keepers pulling them from the Bar to have them to Prison again Take no●●e says G. W. to the Court we have not yet refused the Oath being not d●ly nor regularly brought upon the point c. Behold could any man knowing the Quakers Faith about Swearing ever have expected to hear such a word to come out of the mouths of Quakers and a chief Leader especially were it not better to be plain as those Quakers have been whos● Names are R●corded in th● Court of Chancery London for taking the formal Oath for this Hypocrisie has but caused some to publish in print That the Quakers can work Miracles for they can take an Oath and yet not Swear at all And G W. in said Book shews That he and some other Quakers did Petition to the Parliament to have the aforesaid Test established by Law for the Quakers to take instead of an Oath So the Parliament did last year grant their Request and confi●med it by Law in these words viz. I A. B. do declare in the Presence of Almighty God the Witness of the Truth of what I say This is the Quakers Oath that they call a Test now made into a Law according to their desire Behold now what 's become of their antient Yea or Nay Can now say this is no more than Yea or Nay Pray what is become of their tender Consciences that cannot Swear and yet can swallow down this Test without scruple Than which no Oath in the Wo●ld can be greater or more binding yea were I read in History I doubt not but I could prove this Test to