Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n aforesaid_a king_n kingdom_n 3,131 5 6.6027 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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