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
A85315	Stablishing against shaking: or, A discovery of the Prince of Darknesse (scarcely) transformed into an angel of light, powerfully now working in the deluded people called, Quakers: with a sober answer to their railings against ministers for receiving maintenance from their people. Being the substance of one sermon preached Feb. 17. 1655. at Shalford in Essex. / By Giles Firmin (pastour of the church there) upon occasion of the Quakers troubling those parts.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1656 (1656)	Wing F967; Thomason E885_13; ESTC R202074	45,528	65

of the 19 ver of the 1 Chap. and 1 ver of the 4. Chap. there see how neatly your spirit have interpreted this 17 Chap. John was shown things that were to be hereafter but it seems there were no such wills hearts nor wisdome before Iohn but all the wickednesse of men was to be after Iohn Is this the best Interpretation your spirit can make Conclusion Since then the Quakers Light teach men to forsake the Scriptures and set up a spirit in man which shall not be examined by the Scriptures Hence I conclude the Quakers Light is the Light of Satan c. The Quakers divide the Spirit from the Scriptures Argum 4 Major That Light which maketh the Scripture to crosse it selfe and that in things known by the Light of Nature that Light is the light of Satan not of Christ Minor 〈◊〉 such is the Quakers Light Ergo. Major The Major is clear For if the same infallible spirit gave out all the parts of the Scripture then to have one Scripture plainly and truely to contradict another and that in things known by the Light of Nature would argue high imperfection in the Spirit of God which is blasphemy to impute unto him Minor But the Quakers Light doe make the Scripture crosse it self and that in things known by the Light of Nature Thus all the Quakers and Bishop in particular p. 24. quotes the 2 of Iames to overthrow all respect to persons Then where is the honouring of Parents and Superiours as in my second Argument I opened The very first verse will give the meaning of the Apostle Have not the Faith of the Lord Iesus c. with respect of persons If you like the faith of our Lord Jesus when it is in a rich man but despise it in a poor man this is sinfull yet there are good reasons to be given from the 6 7 ver that the rich man S. Iames mentions was not a believer but rather an Heathen and to have a rich Heathen preferred before a poor Believer is sinne however take the 9th if you have respect to persons c. One way it is true another way false Take the words Divisim thus may I or must I shew civill respect to a rich man that is much above me though wicked much more if a Magistrate Father c. for these relations are not founded upon Grace yes that you must else you transgresse the Royall Law Honour thy Father c. But take the words Conjunctim thus may I show civil respect to rich persons c. and despise a poor man that hath the Faith of our Lord Jesus No if you doe you sinne God will allow no such respect of persons thus the Scriptures are preserved in their harmony and Natures Light not offended Take another instance the glory of the Lord c. put out by such as the world call Quakers p. 10 11 12. He takes the words of our Saviour Mat. 5.34 Swear not at all to overthrow all swearing there he brings in severall holy men who sware Abraham Iacob David the Angel Rev. 10. Ierem 4.2 All that he answers is but Christ saith Swear not at all I observe he doth not mention Paul in 2 Cor. 1.23 I call God for a record upon my soule and other places where Paul swears yet he was after Christ did Paul and the Angel sin It is not my purpose to enlarge upon this but a few words ver 33. Thou shalt not forswear thy selfe 1. But Christ doth not quote the Deut. 10.20 6.13 where it is joyned to the command of fearing God and serving him Thou shalt sweare by his name Indeed by the Earth Heaven or Ierusalem c. thou shalt not sweare no nor by the name of God vainely but when thou art called to it upon just and weighty causes then the old command holds else I must destroy a part of the Law and not fulfill it verse 17. 2. In an oath there is some religious worship performed to God declaring him to be the Omniscient God and the Punisher of such as dare speak falshood would Christ take away this honour from his father Thirdly There is as much need of an Oath in regard of the end of an Oath now after Christ as ever there was before Christ 22 Exod. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men doe sweare not men did sweare before Christ but now left it since he spake those words there is strife still Object But where there is strife they are without p. 12. Ans 1. It were well for you if you were within 2. There may be difference between those who are in Christ and yet the difference so fairly carried as no sinfull strife but an Oath will put an end to it 3. But may a Magistrate give an Oath to those who are without surely no if that be true must not swear at all How then shall strife be ended 4. We know the Quakers are not so perfect but strife will be among them Fourthly The Quakers bid men be guided by their Consciences the Light of God within but that Light within doth lead men to swear in great cases to put an end to strife we finde it so among the Heathen Abimelech c. both before and after Christ The Light of Nature teacheth this why then doe you oppose it Fifthly I wonder Paul should so forget himself to sinne so fearfully in swearing as he did yea and an Angel also Isa 65.16 relates to the times after Christ Conclusion Hence then it followes the Quakers Light is the Light of Satan not of Christ Argum 5 Major That Light which takes men off from that rule which is perfect and cannot erre and sends them to be guided by a Light which is imperfect and may and doth erre that is the Light of Satan not the Light of Christ Minor But such is the Light of the Quakers Ergò Major The Major cannot be denied for will the Light of Christ teach men to leave his own perfect rule and goe to an imperfect one then if men walk by it how can they be blamed he must then approve of sinne The Minor need proof which is this That Light which takes men off from the Law of God his Word and send them to the Light of Conscience to be guided by it that Light take men off from a perfect rule and send them to an imperfect one c. But thus doe the Quakers Ergo. The Word of God is perfect Psal 19.7 2 Tim. 3.16 17. But the Quakers doe not send men to the Word but to their Consciences I grant it were well if men did attend to the dictates of a true illightned Conscience and it will be fearfull damnation that they doe not But this is not all the Quakers mean But however the Light of Conscience is 1 but Imperfect 2 It may erre It is imperfect here I will take occasion to examine the Text the Quakers make so much use of 1. Joh. 9. This was the