Selected quad for the lemma: rest_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
rest_n	day_n	end_n	sabbath_n	3,443	5	9.5995	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44801	Oaths no gospel ordinance but prohibited by Christ being in answer to A. Smallwood, D.D. to his book lately published, being a sermon preached at Carlile, 1664, wherein he hath laboured to prove swearing lawful among Christians, his reasons and arguments are weighed and answered, and the Doctrines of Christ vindicated against the conceptions and interpretations of men, who would make it void / by a sufferer for Christ and his doctrine, F.H.	Howgill, Francis, 1618-1669.	1666 (1666)	Wing H3174; ESTC R16291	80,066	92

Reformed Chu●ches and were the most ancient and true Protestants if any Reformation be looked at beyond Luther they professed it no way lawful for a Christian to swear and the said Bishop Vsher de Succes Chap. 6. doth esteem that place of the 5th of Mat. Swear not at all and that of 5th James to be a sufficient plea for them against the Papists and he pleads their cause and this made Renerius and Jansenius so much envy the Waldenses two Romanists who said amongst all the Sects which are or have been there is not any more pernicious to the Church meaning the Church of Rome then the Waldenses and that for three Reasons first their Antiquity secondly because of their Universality thirdly in that they did maintain and hold it no way lawful for a Christian to swear on any occasion But it may be that A. S. will tell us that these and other were condemned in some general or Provincial Council for Heresie and if he do it is no great matter since most of these have erred especially since all Nations have drunk of the VVhores cup of Fornication and have erred from the faith and have lost the power and then contend for a forme and bind all to receive it upon some comination or malediction or other or else they were Hereticks And why who said so the Church hath so decreed and if these Canons and such like must be binding A. S. will hardly escape their censure if he continue in the profession of the faith he is in though he and they seem to agree in this particular about swearing But I come to his fifth Argument Fifth Argument Christ never forbad any thing but what was intrinsecally evil as may be proved by induction he forbids anger abusive language he forbids lust and divorce and swearing by Creatures and therefore what ever he forbad was evil and that in it self and not meerly as forbidden but swearing in general is not for that hath not only been the practice of holy Men but of Angels Dan. 12. 7. Revel 10. 6. Reply Was it evil in it self under the Law if a man smote out anothers eye or tooth or cut off his hand or his foot or give one a would in any part of the body Deut. 21. 24. Levit. 1. 24. 20. Deut. 19. 11. was it evil in it self for the Judges in those days to give sentence that he that had struck out his Neighbours eye or struck out his tooth or cut off his hand to pronounce and give the same judgment unto the offender that he should be so done withal was this eternally evil or intrinsecally evil for the party so wronged to seek remedy or was it not an act of justice equal and good not only because enjoyned and commanded but in it self just and was it or is it an act in it self intrinsecally evil if a man sued a man wrongfully at the Law and takes a mans coat or garment away to seek to defend himself and preserve his coat or cloak if not A. S. his argument is of no moment for even in the same Chapter where envy and murther and divorce saving for fornication and abusive language and all swearing is forbidden so is that forbidden which is not intrinsecally evil by Christ Mat. 5. 39 40. But I say unto you that you resist not evil and whosoever shall smite the one cheek turn him the other also and if a man sue thee at the Law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also and whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile go with him twayn And it is in the new Testament I hope written Avenge not your selves And was it evil in it self or morally evil to keep the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath or only good because commanded or was it lawful to fight with Amalecks Edomites Aegiptians and Canaanites because Israel was only commanded or because they were real enemies to God in their hearts or as Samuel Fisher said well in answer to Doctor Gauden which A. S. quarels with that Circumcision Sacrifices and Offerings Passeover and New Moons Fasts and Swearing was not evil in themselves but because forbidden and though A. S. give such a great Challenge to S. F. to produce one instance that any thing was prohibited by Christ but what was intrinsecally evil or else his argument is in vain I say the aforementioned thing prove it that something was forbidden that was not evil eternally and intrinsecally but because prohibited and again in the same Chapter ver 44. But I say unto you love your enemies bless them that curse you though under the Law they did fight and might fight with the aforesaid enemies the Canaanites and Gentiles but now I say put up forgive love your enemies Peter put up thy Sword he that takes hold on it shall perish by it avenge not go not to Law one with another 1 Cor. 6. 7. Suffer forbear forgive if thy brother sin against thee seventy times 7. times And though A. S. say that nothing was forbidden by Christ or in all the new Testament but what was in it self evil or in some respect conducing thereunto methinks he hath given too bold a Challenge what will he say to all the former things mentioned and what evil had Circumcision in it or the Passeover or Sacrificing or New Moons and the Sabbath days or what tendency had they to evil but rather were good for the end they were ordained to be signes and types and figures of holy things to come like as swearing was among the rest what ever A. S. say or argue and yet when the substance of the good things was come to them that had believed and received him who was the summe of all the Apostle said Gal. 5. 2 3. If you be Circumcised Christ profits you nothing after he was offered up And Gal. 4. 9 10 1. You observe new Moons and holy days and Sabbaths And these things that were once as really good as ever swearing was considering the end wherefore they were enjoyned and these things was never evil in themselves yet the Apostle reckoned them beggarly Rudiments and told them they had begun in the Spirit and now sought to be made perfect through the flesh and so stood in doubt of them that his labour had been in vain and therefore if A. S. or any other will needs uphold swearing because commanded to the Jewes before the seed Christ was revealed I say he is Gal. 5. 34. a debter to the whole Law and is as much bound to keep it in all other points as this or else he is a transgressour and is one of those that would be laying yoaks upon the Disciples necks unto whom they were never intended for if the Ceremonies and Rites and outward observations which properly did belong to the Jewish Church and state to observe till the fulness of time when the partition wall should be broken down and the Jewes and Gentiles should be one and

upon him that gives false evidence or speakes an untruth about any proceedings in judicature or otherwise called to bear evidence in any controversie if found out let them suffer as them that sweares falsely and as perjured and the case is one and here all scruples and contentions about swearing would end and there would not be the least obstruction in legal proceedings or in administration of justice and let me tell Doctor Smallwood and the rest of his Brethren that if they would move such a thing in Parliament peradventure it would be readily received from them and in so doing they would do as acceptable a piece of service and as well pleasing to God and would conduce as much to the peace and tranquility of the Nation as any thing that ever they will do in their age or hath been effected many ages and so all these heart-burnings contentions and evil surmisings and evil representing one another would cease and end and which if not effected nothing can be looked for but sad suffering and great oppression and persecution which will provoke the Lord to anger and ever did against all them that were the cause of it in ages past but I come to his second Argument Second Argument Some without any colour reason or possibility of proof will need have swearing a Ceremonial write but God ranks it with his fear and service therefore it must needs be moral and therefore what at all times as well under the Gospel as under the Law as well amongst the Gentiles as the Jewes tends to the glory of God that is not a Ceremonial Ordinance nor forbiden by Christ but such is swearing and therefore it cannot be thought to be prohibited Reply to this It hath been said and often asserted that all the ten words and Commandements were moral and perpetual as well under the Gospel as under the Law then I wonder what A. S. and divers others intends to do with the fourth Commandment if it be moral and perpetual and to be observed in the same manner and with the same service as then commanded and the same day and time then he and most of them who contend most for the morality of these ten Commandments are great transgressors and if he grant there was something Ceremonial in it and typical or figurative which then was the seventh day which was given for a signe of the Worlds rest from its labour and of keeping after it an everlasting Sabbath to the Lord by Mans cessation from his own works as God did from his Isai. 58. and the last Heb. 4. which Iewish observation of the seventh day as a Sabbath now though never so solemnly as then commanded will have no acceptation at all no more then he and he as much that is none at all that never so solemnly swears by the name of God in such ceremonious ways as the Iewes did of old or goes beyond the bare asseveration or testimony of truth with some attestation of Gods power and veracity which hath never been denyed which to do we do not only think but know it to be a superfluous Ceremony of Judaism not to say brat of Jewish extraction as A. S. doth now circumcised and cut off from Christians by Christ and what though God did Deutro 10. 20. rank it with his fear and service was there any service or worship in that Covenant that had not some signe and shadow in it and was Ceremonial and was to end in the substance was there not prayer and praysing and were not these service and worship and had these not the Ceremony of Incense and Sacrifice which then attended these Services but the substance was lifting up of the heart unto the Lord and making a melody in the heart and circumcision is now that of the heart Rom. 2. which was outward before the killing of a Lamb at the Passeover was an Ordinance in that Covenant the substance thereof is Christ the Passeover the other now under the Gospel would be no more then cutting of a Dogs neck these were all Ordinances of God to be observed and in their time and day and they that did according to the command of God tended to the glory of God in that first Covenant but in the second under the Gospel whosoever should observe them in the Figure Ceremony and shadow should much dishonour God and his Christ the substance and Christ would profit him nothing see that Ceremony of swearing the morality that only abides under the Gospel is testifying the known truth from the heart with some attestation of God to witnesse who is witness of all we do or say and that no more then confession or deniall by yea or nay which is no oath is that standing substance and the moral if A. S. will have it called so that remaines under the Gospel which answers that ceremonious way of swearing under the Law which is most evident by the Apostle Pauls rendring of that terme swearing as it was spoken in way of prophesie concerning its continuance then Isa. 45. 23. To me every tongue shall swear under that tearm confessing only under the Gospel Rom. 14. 11. Every knee shall bow every tongue shall confess to God confession under the Gospel is made equivolent with an oath under the Law but this rendring of it A. S. doth not like but would pervert Pauls words to have it confession but put to his own addition by oath so that his Argument is void swearing was binding in that ceremonious way which it was commanded under the Law but not under the Gospel nor among the Christians who are come to the substance and to confess and speak the truth in Christ to the glory of God acknowledging his power and omnisciency and his justice in discerning whether truth be spoken and in punishing them that speak falsely and his wisdome in discerning the secrets of all hearts and A S. might as well have said that offrings and oblations and sacrifice tends much to the glory of God under the Gospel as under the Law as swearing but saith he swearing is a part of Gods peculiar service that is incommunicable to any creature the like I say of the former offring and sacrifice and incense was incommunicable to any creature but was due unto God alone yet it doth not follow as well under the Gospel as under the Law for that were to set up the figure and deny the substance so this second Argument is insufficient and the third is somewhat related to it which I now come unto Thirdly This third Argument is that if Christs purpose be utterly to abolish all swearing as an illegitimate brat of Jewish extraction not to be admitted into the Christian Church then it must be either as it is repugnant to our duty to God or else to our neighbour for into that summary he hath contracted the whole Law Reply We must still distinguish that which was once a duty to be performed under the Law because commanded is

a lyer pag. 17● Since upon that account whosoever swears by the name of God swears in vain and to no purpose whether he be a true man or one deceitful his word amounting to as much as his oath And why A. S. mentions the third Commandment to prove swearing lawful under the Gospel except for the morality of it which he looks upon Christ came not to destroy and doth he look that every letter and syllable of all the ten Commandments is so moral in all respects unchangable and uncaple of any annihilation by Christs coming he much forgets himself for all these things contained in the first Table are not so moral or perpetual without some ceremoniality and subjection to alteration by Christs coming as he imagines if he had but remembred the fourth Commandment the next unto it Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day which then was the very 7th day of the week which God had sanctified was but a type and sign and shadow and figure and a ceremony of the 7th day of the worlds rest from its labour and of the everlasting Sabbath as I said before Heb. 4. and I might as well argue if the 7th day of the week was commanded in the fourth Commandment then the 7th day is not prohibited neither by commandment example or practice of Christ the Apostles or Primitive Christians and I might add this as a reason because Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it and further I might add the 7th day was enjoyned in the 4th Commandment and they used to call it as moral as the third and therefore it ought to be so under the Gospel or else the Law written in ' lables of stone cannot be vindicated from imperfection and what would all my arguing prove even as much as A. S. his arguing the continuation and necessity of oaths from the third Commandment and that is nothing at all and the Law of God needs not A. S. nor any vindication it is perfect and endures for ever Psal. 19. 7. and the Ceremonies land types and shadows that were joyned with and unto the substance of the Law doth neither add nor detract from its perfection but it is the same in its self for ever and though we cannot own swearing in that ceremonious way as the Jewes did use it till the seed came unto whom the Law and the Prophets bore witness yet we do not make void the third Commandment we take not his name in vain but reverence it and speakes well of it and sanctifies it in our hearts and as the Apostle said Do we make void the law through the preaching of Faith God forbid So do we make void the law or the perfection of it by speaking the truth and bearing witness to the truth though as I said we cannot own those typical ceremonious way of swearing as it was in the first Covenant nay it is established and the third Commandment is established for he that speaks the truth and bears witness in and from the truth honours Gods name and reverences it forasmuch as he is called the God of truth and as we have said being lawfully called before a Magistrate to bear testimony in any thing wherein the glory of God or our Neighbour is concerned or the decision of Controversie seeing that true testimony is a medium that concernes as much to that purpose now as swearing did under the Law therefore we have still been and are ready to answer all these necessary ends and as well and this is as good and expedient to be put in practice amongst Christians as interposition of Oaths enjoyned by God in the first Covenant and far more Evangelical and therefore shall conclude with that of Jerome the Gospel truth admits not of an Oath His eighth Argument is That Christ did never any things without some ground of reason but no reason can be shewed why all manner of swearing should be forbidden in a due manner and upon a just and necessary occasion and therefore we may well believe that such swearing was neither here or any where else forbidden Reply We shall not much dissent or disagree about terms with A. S. that Christ did never any thing without some ground or reason but yet we must deny his Conclusion that no reason can be given why all manner of swearing should be forbidden first of all there was a time since man had a being in this Creation when he was in the image of God and stood in the Covenant of God when there was no Oath neither any necessity thereof Man being endued with power from God which was placed in him so that he was in a capacity to fulfill obey and serve and believe his Maker without an Oath for unbelief or sin had not yet entred and this was before the fall Gen. 1. 26 27. Secondly Christ the unspeakable gift of God who is the Mediator of the everlasting Covenant yea the Covenant it self who is given for a leader to the People and who is made a Propitiation for sin and transgression to end both sin transgression and unbelief which was the cause of the addition of the Law who leads to the beginning again all that truly do believe and are worthy to be called true Christians or by the name of Christ to have union with God again in that life power truth righteousness and wisdom in which the Image of God truly consists which was before sin and transgression and before the Law which was added because of it which was commanded four hundred and thirty years after the Promise was made Gal. 3. 17. Thirdly After sin was entred and death by sin an unbelieving part got up in all the Sons of Adam so that they could not believe God nor his Promises and yet such was his love unto Mankind considering the state into which they were plunged for confirmation of his Word unto man he swore by himself this was the Lords condescention unto their low and unbelieving estate all that time and no way exemplary for Christians truly such who are come into the Faith and to the truth it self who do believe that all the Promises are fulfilled in Christ yea and amen who is the author of Faith and of eternal Salvation to them that believe Heb. 9. 12. who prohibited that by his command Mat. 5. 23. which sometimes was permitted yea and commanded yea and added because of transgression and for which the law and the command for Oaths was only added which he did not destroy because he leads from under the power of that which the Law came against which is just and good and holy and the seed fulfills it and hath unity with it and with him who is the Judge and Law-giver and Saviour of all that do believe in him from sin and transgression Fourthly At that time when the Law was given forth at Mount Sina Exod. 19. 20. generally all the Nations were given to Idolatry and to serve and worship strange