Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	false_a	prophet_n	teacher_n	2,885	5	10.0275	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

39 40 41 42. and many more places which I then did not recite but shall now refer the Reader to some of them Mat. 5. 29 30. Mat. 6. 17 19. 25. 34. Mat. 7. 1. Mat. 10. 28. Mat. 23. 3 8 9. Luke 6. 30. John 6. 27. which with many more if they were understood without limitation would cross other Texts of holy Scripture and such truths as are undeniable and introduce such evils as are intolerable And that Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. is to be limited I proved it from the Angels and Pauls swearing and adjuring after that precept which shews they understood it with limitation and so are we to understand it and that it is to be limited as I there set down I proved from the words of the Text there and elsewhere Hereto R. H. speaketh thus Indeed it doth plainly appear that thou must of necessity either disprove Christs words or else deny thy own seeing they are contrary the one to the other so therefore thou saist that it was those oaths above mentioned that was forbidden by Christ and the Apostles and I shall shew it plainly that thou hast no necessity to limit Christs words to vain and prophane swearing but only that thou wouldst have thy words true and his false for Christs words in Mat. 5. do not intend such oaths for he speaks of the true oaths which was used among the Jews and such oaths as Christ told them they were to perform for it was not said in old time that they should perform vain light prophane unnecessary customary and passionate oaths but such as they were to perform betwixt the Lord and them and the solemn Vows and Covenants which they made in old time to their Kings and one to another the Christians now by the command of Christ was not to swear these oaths neither any oath true nor false To which I reply 'T is true Christ spake of true oaths to be performed to the Lord as the occasion of his precept did lead him to speak But it is true also that our Lord Christ forbids not such oaths universally nor as they were used in old time among the Jews and to their kings and one unto another but as the Pharisees and other teachers interpreted what was said to them of old time that what was said to them did bind no further then not to break their oaths but to perform them to the Lord otherwise they might swear as oft as they would and in what manner they pleased But this Christ denied and determines they might not swear frequently unnecessarily with such oaths as they used and conceits of the obligation of some and not others as the Text leads us to conceive and the reasons by me given prove the words are to be limited to which R. H. hath given no answer and therefore my answer and whole dispute stands good notwithstanding the opposition of R. H. and S. F. And for the insinuations of R. H. that this is preaching of the lawfulness of swearing or sinning against Christs command and that such teachers are given to change with every government and that they preach as the false prophets did for handfuls of barley and pieces of bread they are but a further continuation of his revilings it being no teaching against but expounding of Christs command nor have we changed our doctrine or principles with change of government but shewed subjection to the powers that be as Paul injoins Rom. 13. 1 2. Nor do we look at wages any otherwise then we are allowe nor conceive we are bound by any law of Christ or his Apostles to refuse or neglect more liberal maintenance be it by tithes or other pay assigned by law then that which is by meer alms or voluntary contribution which in most places is so scant that persons of worth are necessitated to live in a sordid manner or people are necessitated to take persons of little worth and thereby the Ministry is debased the people untaught or ill taught such ignorant and corrupt men as R. H. seems to be by his writing creep in among men and pervert them That which R. H. saith the Jews sware by the living God but the Apostates by the book insinuates as if such were apostates as swear thus and that they swear by the book and not by the living God But neither doth he prove that they who teach the lawfulness of some swearing are apostates from Christianity any more then holy Paul who hath left upon record in holy Scripture his oaths after he was an Apostle nor is this form of swearing So help me God and by the Contents of this book any other then swearing by the living God made known in that book and pawning our interest in his help according to the doctrine and promises in that book expressed by laying the hand on the book as formerly by coming before the altar 1 Kings 8. 31. 2 Chron. 6. 22. as a sign of our abandoning our interest in Gods help made known in that book if we speak not truth I find in an humble petition of some prisoners in Maidston dated January 25. that they cannot acknowledge any authority that God hath given the King in spiritual things or causes and they thus argue If thou hast any power to be a Lord over our faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on our consciences it is given unto thee as thou art a Magistrate or as thou art a Christian but thou hast no such power given unto thee of God as thou art a Magistrate appears 1. Because if Magistrates as such have such an authority then all Magistrates in all Nations have the same power In Turky I must be a Mahometan in Spain a Papist and for ever as the authority changes Religion I must do the same 2. Because the Apostles refused to be obedient to their rulers when they were commanded to forbear that which they judged part of the worship of God Acts 4. 19. Acts 5. 29. 3. All the Scriptures of the new Testament that injoyns obedience unto Magistrutes were written when the Romans had the Empire of the world whose Emperours were for the most part if not all heathenish idolaters for the first 300 years until Constantine 's time it therefore cannot be supposed that any of these Texts of Scripture that calls for obedience to Magistrates intends an obedience in matters of faith or worship for then the Christians that lived under those Emperours must needs have denied Christ and worshipped the Roman gods as some of the Emperours commanded Answ Though in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy there is that said which might have prevented this objection yet being willing to clear the truth more fully I say 1. That it is not rightly supposed That by outward force any thing in the worship of God may be imposed on mens consciences For though by outward force things may be imposed on the outward man and

A SUPPLEMENT TO THE Serious consideration of the Oath of the KINGS Supremacy Published October 1660. IN First Some consideration OF THE Oath of Allegiance Secondly Vindicating of the consideration of the Oaths of the Kings Supremacy and Allegiance from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher Samuel Hodgkin and some others against them in the points of swearing in some case and the matters of those Oaths By John Tombes B. D. Mat. 22. 21. Render therefore to Caesar the things tbat are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods LONDON Printed by Henry Hills living in Aldersgate-street next door to the sign of the Peacock To the Christian Readers I Need not tell you again what may be seen in my Epistle to the Readers before my book of the serious consideration of the oath of the Kings Supremacy how I was induced to compose and publish it conceiving it to be a work of charity to others and a necessary duty to my self as circumstances then concurred I have found not a little fruit of my labor therein by satisfying many that I know and more as I am told whom I know not of the lawfulness of taking such oaths as are therein asserted and thereby preventing the ruine of themselves and families though I find by the opposition of some that it hath proved an offence to others insomuch that I was told that I had thereby given occasion of the alienation of many hundreds from me of whose peace and welfare I was and still am very tender Besides what exceptions have been made in private conference which I have in such conferences endeavoured to remove Richard Hubberthorn Samuel Fisher and some others have in print opposed that writing Richard Hubberthorn intitles his writing Antichristianism reproved as if my book had contained Antichristianism which is a term that affrights many weak Christians and is therefore by those that craftily endeavour to uphold and further divisions put upon those actions doctrines and writings which they would scare less discerning souls from and so separate them from others and fasten them to their party though it be for the most part but a frivolous imputation and a gross calumny Antichristianism according to the Apostle John who only of all the holy Writers useth the term Antichrist being a greater matter then some errors or evil in some points of practice to wit a denial of the father and the son 1 John 2. 22 23. not confessing Jesus Christ come in the flesh 1 John 4. 3 4. 2 John 7. of which sort my defending the lawfulness of some swearing is not And to omit his nonsense in saying the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles is justified against swearing meaning my doctrine of swearing where he saith that it is there proved according to the Scriptures that all my six Propositions for the lawfulness of swearing are both against Christ and his Apostles doctrine It must needs be false sith he hath not brought any Scriptures against the three last Propositions As for his Epistle to me that which he insinuates by his expostulations with me of dividing my self from mine own people of teaching people to swear first one way and then another of my being long a hiding my self under so many false covers is the foam and froth of his railing spirit of which he and others of the Quakers seem by their frequent venting reproaches unjust censurings and revilings to have gotten an habit and are more like Antichristianism then any of my doctrines who preach not up that which Christ and his Apostles deny but endeavour to clear their words from mistake Nor was my writing indigested as if God did not brook it though I confessed in respect of the composure of it there was want of such accurate digesting that is framing in respect of words method and matter as the thing required by reason of my shortness of time and yet there was no cause for Samuel Fisher to term it a toy as he doth in the margin of his Epistle to the Reader before his impetuous though impotent book intitled the Rusticks alarm to the Rabbies so terming Dr. Owen Mr. Danson Mr. Richard Baxter and my self I confess I had an intention and began to draw up a writing to that purpose to publish a fuller Treatise about swearing having in Catechetical Lectures somewhat largely handled the general nature of an Oath the several forms and rites of swearing the lawfulness of swearing the sorts of Oaths the rules obligation urging dispensation of Oaths But my late continual molestations imprisonment restraint from my Ministery in the place where I was seated thirty years before and the uncertainty of my dwelling have hindred me from prosecuting thereof and other works which I hoped to accomplish for publique good nor am I yet secured from the like molestation and uncertainties and therefore know not what I shall do or resolve to do therein Wherefore I have being requested thereto published this little Supplement whereby my aim is to benefit others though I find as I have always done the cleering of truth in this to have occasioned many hard censures of me and much injury to me which the Lord forgive Yet I hope I shall truly say with the Apostle 2 Cor. 12. 15. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you though the more I love you the less I be loved As for those that find any benefit by my labors in this matter or any other I request them that they would return thanks to God for it and that all would in their prayers to God for me help me who am Their brother and servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES London March 6. 1660. The Oath of Obedience in the Act for discovery and repressing Popish Recusants 30. of Jac. c. 4. commonly called the Oath of ALLEGIANCE IAB doe truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King JAMES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries and that the Pope neither of himself nor by any authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any power or authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to invade or annoy him or his Countries or to discharge any of his subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication or deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the

lawfulness of oaths in all which the Apostle took God to witness his love to the Saints and labour in the work of his Ministry signifying that all understand how that he spoke the truth and did not lie and kept to his yea and nay according to Christs doctrine and did not swear at all I reply 1. Those Texts were not brought by me as a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men but to prove that some swearing in Gospel-times may be lawful sith the Apostle Paul a man moved by the holy spirit even in his holy writings and speeches did swear which is enough against R. H. and his complices who deny any swearing lawful in any case 2. I say that these speeches God is my witness I speak the truth in Christ I lie not my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost behold before God I lie not God is my record are forms of swearing it being the definition of an oath which all Writers that I know of agree in that an oath is an appeal to or invocation of God as joint witness with us of the truth of our speeches and therefore in this I write nothing but what God will witness the truth of I speak truth before God without abusing the Apostles words in pleading for the lawfulness of some swearing and in this I dare stand to the arbitrement of sober honest-hearted intelligent men not fearing the censure of R. H. as if I were a Novice who have been a professor of Christianity above forty years and a Preacher of the Gospel above thirty and wish R. H. do not accuse me as lifted up with pride with the like spirit as it is said that Diogenes trampled on Plato's pride with greater pride there being not many branches of pride greater then this to take on him to judge the secrets of anothers heart and to foretel what he will do it being to behave himself as if he were God Sure they that know me and judge of me with a charitable mind they that have had experience of my adventures and losses for asserting truth will not believe R. H. in what he here suggests that I would do or say any thing for hire Who would thank R. H. if he would shew what hire I have taken which the words of Christ and his Apostle allow not Luke 10. 7. 1 Cor. 9. 7 10 11 13 14. 1 Tim. 5. 17 18. Gal. 6. 6. But if he think his tongue is his own that he may accuse and reproach at his pleasure I think it my duty to tell him that his practice is rayling and false accusing and that his tongue is set on fire of hell and that without repentance he shall not inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. He proceeds in the same vein of reviling censuring and false accusing in his speech of my fifth Argument to which he makes no answer but this That to break Christs command is of no necessary use that I might as well have stated my Argument That to break Christs command is of benefit to humane society therefore to break Christs command is lawful c. and might thus have proved it that except we break Christs command we cannot preach for hire nor sue men at law for tithes nor live in pride ease and vanity nor keep our places of profit and benefits which is necessary for our society of Priests Ergo. But we whose eyes God hath opened do see that all his book tends to perswading of people to swear when Christ hath said Swear not at all and that which he would now swear for again would swear against for the same advantage and profits which he hath in his eye yea or he would perswade all men not to swear and bring scripture to prove it upon the same account so that what he doth in this kind is because of advantage for two years since he did not preach this doctrine nor write those arguments To which I reply The Lord rebuke thee there 's none of thy accusations of divinations here after thy rayling fashion brought by thee which thou canst prove by me and those that know me know it to be false which thou suggests concerning my seeking gain and suiting my actions thereto and changing my doctrin There is no doctrin in that book thou here opposest or the other of the insufficiency of light in each man which hath not been my constant doctrine What thou wouldst have imagined as if no swearing were of necessary use to humane society is contrary to all experience of governors of Kingdoms and Commonwealths and the Apostles words alledged by me Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife That which Samuel Fisher saith That what swearing was then allowed of as before a ruler it then was to end a strife among men who are yet in strife is now unlawful among his Saints who are redeemed out of strife and the rest of those fleshly works which it is one of Gal. 5. is a silly shift For 1. The Saints are men 2. Those of the old Testament were Saints and yet were to swear 3. If men not Saints may swear to end strife then it is not prohibited by Christ to them to swear in some cases and sith the precept of not swearing is not limited to Saints if others may swear in some cases notwithstanding that precept Saints may swear also 4. Saints are redeemed from other works of the flesh yet are not so redeemed but that they may have envyings wrath emulations However Quakers imagine themselves perfect yet the Scripture doth not say that the most eminent Saint is so redeemed out of strife but that he may be tempted to and guilty of some unlawfull strife while he is in the body 5. There was strife between Paul and Barnabas Acts 15. 39. Paul and Peter Gal. 2. 11. the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. Who were termed Saints ver 2. 6. Quakers are guilty of strifes in opposing Preachers and reviling dissenters from them and therefore if it be necessary to end strifes of men that there be oaths it is also necessary to swear to end strifes with them Do not they seek to recover stollen goods due debts and if so oaths are necessary for them 7. Oftimes Saints are found so guilty of contentions among themselves that were not Magistrates impowred to compose them they would be endless and remediless The story of the libels brought to Constantine the great at the Nicene Council of one Bishop and Confessour against another and burnt by him shewes how ill it would fare with the best Saints if Magistracy did not quiet them Our own times have had too much experience of this 8. Saints live among men unholy to whom they owe duties of love and righteousness which cannot be done without testifying the truth in many cases wherein they differ to end their strife and therefore Saints are bound when the laws require oaths