Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	place_n	scripture_n	word_n	9,705	5	4.5641	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39572	One antidote more, against that provoking sin of swearing, by reason of which this land now mourneth given forth from under the burden of the oppressed seed of God, by way of reply both to Henry Den's epistle about the lawfulness, antiquity, and universality of an oath, and his answers to the Quakers objections against it, recommended (by him) to all the prisons in this city and nation to such as chuse restraint, rather then the violation of their consciences : and also to Jeremiah Ives his printed plea for swearing, entitituled, The great case of conscience opened, &c. about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of swearing, which said reply to these two opposers of the truth, as it is in Jesus, is recommended not onely to all the prisons in this city and nation, and to all such real Christians, as chuse restraint rather then the violation of their consciences, but also, to all such nominal Christians out of prison, as, rather then restrain, chuse to purchase their earthly liberties by swearing, to the violation of the command of Christ, who saith, Mat. 5.33, swaer not at all. Jam. 5.12, above all things my brethren swear not / by Samuel Fisher ...	Fisher, Samuel, 1605-1665.	1660 (1660)	Wing F1054; ESTC R5750	69,157	84

Let H. D. put his terms wholly or altogether to it what then will it appear to be to any but such a one as H. D. who does as it were Jurare in suam ipsius sententiam but an injunction totally to forbear it an universal Prohibition of it that is a Prohibition of Swearing even totally alias wholly or altogether What gets H. D. then by this What difference is there here if the case be candidly considered by one that is not devoted to cast Clouds in clear Cases over Christian Consciences between swear not and forbear swearing these two Phrases being both Prohibitions of one and the same thing i. e. of swearing it is undeniably forbidden in them both and though by the unusualness of the promiscuous use of those phrases at all and altogether in our English Tongue it seems at first somewhat harsh course odd uncouth and well-nigh non sensical to use them indifferently or one instead of the other in all places yet in reality being rightly heeded there is no more difference as to their sense and signification though not their sound between at all or in any wise and wholly totally or altogether then there is between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yea between {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} omnino omnino the self-same Greek and the self-same Latine words vvhich are rightly enough Englished by them all And though to H. D. whose fancy works so strongly to fetch it about his way that he might maintain that swearing now vvithout vvhich men are not like to be maintained says Swear not wholly or altogether seems to vary so much from swear not at all or in any wise making the first exclusive of some swearing onely and the last onely exclusive of all swearing yet hovvever it does in sound in sense verily it varyes no more then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nè jurate omnino nè jurate omnino that one Greek and that one Latine phrase vvhich is truly Englisht by them both And let any man that confesses swear not to be the same in English vvith forbear to swear as vvho does not put that term at all vvhich is in universum totaliter omnino after one or t'other he shall see it amounts to the same in sense though not in sound for forbear to swear at all and swear not at all are as to their signification are one and the self-same prohibition in which swearing at all is forbidden and in which swearing at all is wholly totally altogether or universally forbidden So I say What such difference is there between forbear to swear at all or leave swearing wholly totally universally or altogether and swear not at all if men be not minded to muddle their own and others minds with they know not what Nevertheless though H. D. get nought by it if we should give it him yet we will not give it for granted to every one that the Word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must be rendered wholly or altogether rather then at all for it may be and is at all as well as so and yet at all and altogether being both the English to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or omnino are much at one But H. D. that he may seem to do something now he is once entred though hoc aliquid nihil est it is no more then nothing to his purpose siddles on as follows That I may shew you quoth he what warrant I have for this interpretation co●…sider three places of Scripture where the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is used the first is 1 Cor. 5. 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. Fornication is reported commonly among you {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quoth he is here translated commonly ordinarily frequently and it can have no other sense for if it should be translated here by the word at all it would be sound without sense If I may take the liberty then to translate it so in Matth. 5. 33. then it will run thus Swear not commonly ordinarily or frequently And you see I have good Authority quoth H. D. for what I have done Rep. Here H. D. by a pretended Authority takes a liberty to himself to translate Matth 5. 33. such a way as both varies from his own above overthrows him also in his cause ten times more then that did he translated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Matth. 5. before wholly or altogether and to shew as he sayes what warrant he hath so to interpret it he brings another place wherein himself says it 's translated quite another way viz. Commonly ordinarily frequently and according to that he would have Matth. 5. ru●… thus Swear not commonly ordinarily frequently which is another thing as different from altogether or wholly as it is in sense and signification from at all What strange twinings and turnings doth the Serpent here use to save his head by which he rather wounds it himself the●… saves it either altogether or at all For swear not wholly altogether totally or universally is one thing Swear not commonly ordinarily frequently is another Men may swear commonly frequently ordinarily as 't is common frequent and ordinary for men now to swear before Magistrates who do not swear universally totally wholly or altogether or in all manner of conversation There 's a difference between saepe and semper often and alwayes men may swear ordinarily or often who do not swear in all cases nor at all times Let H. D. then have it this way by the Authority pretended viz. of its being so rend●…ed 1 Cor. 5. 1. though I would have him to see it how the Authority of all Translators rendring a word so or so is no good Authority at all with him when he is minded on his own head to vary from it Witness Mat. 5. 33. which though all Translators that ever I read render it Swear not at all yet the Authority of them all is not worth a rush with H. D. yea who sees not how he wrests it from them all to have it otherwise in his piece of wrangling for some swearing But I say let him have it this way Swear not commonly ordinarily frequently What follows Even this to his own confutation viz That at least that swearing before Magistrates that is in our Courts which H. D. sayes p. 7. it is the aim of our Saviour not to forbid and which he and I. I without any colour of Scripture so eagerly contend for is forbidden as vvell as any other sorts of common frequent light and trivial swearing for swearing is a thing us'd there as commonly as ordinarily as frequently as any thing else or as it self is in any other places yet for this sense H. D. contends on

from his second place viz. 1 Cor. 6 7. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} If this should be read quoth he there is at all a fault in you what sense is in these words But if I read them thus There is vvholly altogether commonly frequently ordinarily a fault in you the sense will be good Rep. It s to be noted that the Corinthians in going to Law one with another for their own thought they did very well that there was no fault at all in so doing in them Now his business being to convince them to the contrary there is as good sense in answering their false Opinion by praeocupation in these words there is at all a fault in you i. e. though you think ther 's none at all yet there is as in the other by which it 's rendered ther 's utterly or altogether a fault in you H. D's third place is 1 Cor. 15. 20. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} if the dead rise not at all this he confesses is according to the English trunslation good sense yet he appeals to all among whom I am one whether it be not better and nearer to the scope of the place if we read it thus If the dead rise not wholly fully or compleatly Rep. I answer Not better for this one reason which I urge as an Argument ad hominem onely cogent enough to H. D. sith 't is his own else there 's little in it viz. Because we have the good Authority of the Translators on our side so rendring as it is viz. If the dead rise not at all 2. Not better nor yet nearer but much further off from the the scope of the place if we read it thus If the dead rise not wholly fully compleatly then if thus If the dead rise not at all that for this reason viz. Because the Apostles business all along in that part of the Chap. where this clause is and downward to 35. ver. where he first begins to speak of the manner of the resurrection insists wholly upon the proof of the matter of it viz. That the dead do rise against them who deny they shall rise at all and not how they shall rise viz. Whether wholly fully or compleatly or not till he comes past this verse to the 35. Witness ver 12. 13. How say some that there is no resurrection of the dead Now if there be no resurrection i.e. none at all then we are false witnesses in testifying that God raised Christ whom ●…he raised not up if the dead rise not i.e. not at all Ver. 15. And if the dead rise not v. 16. i.e. not at all then they that are fallen asleep in Christ are perisht if they be not made alive again and rise not not if they be not fully wholly alive for that would suppose as if he vvere pleading against a sort of men that deemed men at the resurrection must be raised by the halves or left half alive and half dead vvhich vvere absur'd but quoth he all shall be made alive v. 22. And then v. 29. Si omnino mortui non resurgunt If the dead rise not at all {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} if they be not made alive at all but perish wholly or altogether why then are we baptized and v. 32. why do I fight with Beasts or beastial spirited men What advantage is this tō me if the dead rise not i.e. at all Besides let H. D. tell me what sense is in this viz. If the dead rise not commonly ordinarily if they rise not freqently but seldom or sometimes only then our Faith is vain c. viz. as much as is in this The Law says Forswear not your selves but I say swear but seldom But if we read thus If the dead rise not at all the word at all bears good sense there as he yeilds himself and say I as good as swear not at all And lastly further to inculcate on him the sense of at all as very proper to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the New-Testament where he saies he finds it but three times I shall shew H. D. one place where the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which no Schollar will deny to be altogether the same with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} both which I confess signifie as universally as may be per totum in universum c. is rendred at all where if it should be rendred his way by ordinarily frequently commonly the absurdity that would follow would be intolerable viz. Acts 4. 18. where the chief Priests commanded the Apostles to preach no more at all in the Name of Iesus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ●…e omnino praedicarent where if it should be rendred as H. D. would have the Word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which in sense is the self-same thus viz. That they should not preach ordinarily commonly frequently it would intimate that the Priests charge to the Apostles not to preach at all was not an universal Prohibition of their preaching as it was but rather a toleration given them to preach sometimes as they say in effect Christs prohibition of them is Matth. 5. concerning swearing For to say Preach not Swear not commonly ordinarily frequently gives as much dispensation to preach and swear sometimes now and then a Sermon now and then an Oath which would be a plea for some moderate vain Swearers that rap out an Oath by God but seldom or now and then as it gives prohibition to men to swear so often so frequently so ordinarily so commonly as they do in Courts Yet hath H. D. one fetch more in justification of his singular Translation of Matt. 5. 33. against the Qua. and all men and in proof that it should not be swear not at all but swear not ordinarily commonly the Hebrew Text quoth he in which Tongue it 's generally judg'd Matthews Gospel was written reads it thus Be col derek which is Englished in every way Rep. I have seen and can shew one Hebrew Text which reads it Be col da●…ar which if it may not be English't in any wise as I know not why it may not yet may be in any word or in any thing●… though at the rate at which H. D. reads his Be col derek in every way I know he will read it in every thing But had he well heeded the manner of the Hebrews speaking he would have found Be col derek to be as truly translated in any way as in every way and so have seen we are at least upon even ground with him as to that for there 's an Hebraism in the words and Col is as well used in the Scripture to express any as every and signifies not onely all but also as the Hebrews often speak by it any at all and if H. D. look into the self-same place which his Brother Ives urges in another case and truly enough