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
A93646	The guilty-covered clergy-man unvailed; in a plain and candid reply unto two bundles of wrath and confusion, wrapt up in one and twenty sheets of paper. The one written by Christopher Fowler and Simon Ford of Reading; the other by William Thomas of Ubley in Somersetshire. Wherein all their malicious slanders and false accusations, which they cast upon the truth, are clean wash'd off; their weapons with which they war against the Lamb, broken over their own heads; and they, with the rest of the tyth-exacting teachers, proved to be the great incendaries, and mis-leaders of these nations. In which also there is made a brief and sober application, to the magistrates, and other inhabitants, within the city of Bristol. / By Thomas Speed, a friend to all that tremble at the Word of the Lord; but an irreconcileable enemy to the mysterious deceit, and monstrous hypocrisie of those that do teach for hire, and divine for money.	Speed, Thomas, b. 1622 or 3.	1657 (1657)	Wing S4905; Thomason E893_1; ESTC R203614	61,807	87

answer which Matth. 5.34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΛΩΣ I cannot but take notice of your preambular Observations 1. You suggest that the Founders of the Quakers Religion as you express it are supposed to be Papists Rep. This is such a ridiculous suggestion that the like I have seldom met with I have been a diligent inquirer into the principles professions lives and conversations of that despised people and upon inquiry do find that there is not a people in the world who in all these do more directly strike at the very root of Popery then they do and yet the deluding Teachers of this Nation do hoping thereby to contract an odium upon them among the simple cry out O they are many of them Jesuites and Papists Sure I am it 's no difficult thing to prove the greatest part of your Steeple-house-worship to be but refined Popery 2. I say that swearing by the Contents of a Book and kissing a Book is a superstitions popish invention and that which was never practiced by the Saints of old whilst swearing was in force The sum of your two first Queries to me is Whether Christ spake or intended any thing which might clash with the commands of God or whether he did forbid any part of Gods moral worship Ans But that the Lord in just judgement upon you for fighting against the truth hath given you up to blindness of heart could one almost imagine that two that pretend themselves able Schollars and eminent Christians should propose Queries that have not the least shadow and weight of reason in them May you not on the same ground charge Christ with clashing with Gods commands in putting an end to all the Iewish Rites and Ceremonies was not the practice of their whole worship taken up by express command from God Exod. 30.28 Lev. 6.18 22. Lev. 23.13 14 Exod. 28.42 43. Gen. 17.13 consisting in washings meat-offerings drink-offerings the Priests vestments Sacrifices Circumcision c. Concerning most of which and many other Rites it 's said by the Lord which I never read of swearing that they should be Statutes for EVER throughout ALL generations and yet Christ cometh and abolisheth all these and not clash with his Fathers commands Was not Circumcision commanded upon that severe penalty of being cut off from the people in case of not being circumcised Gen. 17 14. Gal. 5.2 and yet Paul telleth the Galathians that if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing There is a time when it is death not to circumcise and there is a time when Paul maketh it more then death to use it Christ in like manner yeeldeth by way of concession that there was a season when swearing was lawfully used Mat. 5.33 34. but I say unto you NOW swear not at all And if he say it sure I am it is not for you to dispute his commands for it was not onely decreed in heaven but by the Lords own mouth proclaimed on earth that he is his beloved Son and that him should all men HEAR Matth. 17 5. What you say touching the necessity of Oathes to decide controversies is but a lame begging of the question for there can be no real necessity supposed for that which Christ the great Law-giver forbiddeth the use of Heb. 6.16 That the Author to the Hebrews saith that an oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife is true To which I reply three things 1. That Author writeth to the Hebrews among whom swearing was first practised by way of concession that it was used among them who were probably ignorant of the change of the Priesthood and consequently of the repeal of that practife for that purpose but he doth neither command it nor commend it 2. In that he saith that to men it is an end of strife it is even thence clear that to them who are already come to the end of all strife being redeemed out of it an oath is useless 3. But lastly if this Author or an Angel from Heaven had commanded men to swear yet behold a greater then the Author to the Hebrews a greater then Moses a greater then the Angels whom the Father commandeth to worship him is here who saith Heb. 1.6 swear not AT ALL. And him are we all commanded to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us And every soul which will not hear him shall be destroyed from among the people Deut. 18.15 saith the Spirit of the Lord Act 3.22 23. by the mouth of Moses and Peter That prejudice you suggest to which mens Estates would be liable by cheating companions in case there were no swearing is of no force for he that will contrary to the witness of God in his conscience say a thing falsly will not stick to swear it And he that can affirm or deny a thing falsly with his yea yea nay nay will not scruple to seal the same with his oath As for the examples you offer of Abrahams requiring an oath of his servant Jacob of Joseph Nehemiah of the Jews they all fall to the ground with Circumcision and other Rites practised by the same persons not onely by the coming but the countermand of the great Law-giver who saith Swear not at all Of which being 〈◊〉 to your selves you pass from them and in your closing Query by which you thought to have struck me silent do confidently demand of me whether the Apostle Paul did well or ill to swear who saith Behold Gal. 1.20 before God I lie not Rep. Monstrous impiety matchless impudence What was it not sufficient for you to clip and mince the commandement of Christ but you must audaciously attempt to fasten a slanderous accusation upon innocent Paul by charging him for a swearer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is Pauls saying before God any more then in the presence of God or in the sight of God Do you not know which induceth me to beleeve that you sin against the light of Christ in your consciences that the same Greek word is used to signifie so in more then twenty places of the Scripture Luke 15.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doth not Luke use the same word when he saith that there is joy in the PRESENCE of the Angels over one repenting sinner Doth not the same Evangelist use the same word for Luk. 1.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in conspeclu meo Gen 17.1 in the sight of God saying touching John Baptist that he should be great in the SIGHT of the Lord Doth not God command Abraham saying walk BEFORE me and be thou perfect and Luke commend Zacharias and Elizabeth for being both righteous BEFORE God And did God and Luke swear in these sayings Luk. 1.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay by this blasphemous doctrine of yours how will you absolve Christ himself from being a swearer who besides other instances in Scripture doth use the same expression three times in one Chapter saying