Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	call_v	word_n	1,705	5	3.8890	3	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

living and true God is called to witness Numb 30. 2. To which Samuel Hodgkin faith To this I answer That every sacred Oath by which God is called to witness to the truth of a thing or to the performance of a lawful thing is a bond whereby the soul is bound but every calling God to witness in lawful things is not an Oath As appears thus if a bare calling God to witness be swearing by God then calling the heaven and earth to witness is swearing by heaven and earth for then Moses had sworn by creatures Deut. 4. 26. I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day And so likewise God himself in Deut. 30. 19. I call heaven and earth to record against you chap. 31. 28. But it was ever unlawful to swear by creatures therefore I conclude that a bare calling to witness is not swearing I reply The conclusion is granted and yet the definition of Jeremiah Ives stands good who did not say that a bare calling to witness is swearing but calling God to witness to the speaking of that which is true And this to be an oath is granted by Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 16. when he saith That calling God to witness is not swearing but when we read of the servants of the Lord swearing in Scripture we find that it was not only a bare calling God to witness but they swear by God that they did speak the truth or that they would do such a thing Now swearing by God at least in assertory oaths can be no other then calling God to witness of the truth of that we speak and in promissory of the truth of our intention to perform what we say we will do That which Samuel Hodgkin saith Now to swear by the Lord is to say that they do speak the truth or will do such a thing by the Lord as much as if they should say that the Lord do help them in what they do or that they do it by his assistance And hence it comes to pass that it was unlawful for a man to swear by any creature because no creature can help him to speak the truth or perform what he promised and hence it is that God took it ill when they did not speak truth because they did as much as say that God did help them to speak a lie and so they blasphemed the name of God in the highest nature and doubtless those that made the oath we have in our common Law did understand no less and therefore they charge the witness By the help of God to speak the truth is a manifest mistake of the meaning of the phrase to swear by the Lord which it seems he understands to signifie not only that he that swears calls God to be a witness of the truth of what he saith in assertory oaths and of the truth of his intentions to perform what he saith in promissory oaths but also that he calls God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or God helping him to speak truth in assertory oaths and that his intention is to perform what he promiseth by Gods help or assistance So that according to this mans conceits it is no swearing unless the person swearing do call God to be witness not only of the truth of his words and intentions but also of his acknowledging of Gods help in speaking truth in assertory oaths and his expectation of Gods help to perform what he saith he will do in promissory which is a new and wild conceit New for none as far as I know ever vented it before but all Writers that I have met with have made the calling of God to witness the truth of our speech in assertory oaths and of our intentions to perform what we say in promissory without this addition of acknowledging that it is by Gods help we speak truth or of expectation of help from God to do what we promise to be swearing And it is a wild conceit For 1. It is frivolous to call God to witness that he speaks truth by his help or that he expects his help to do what he promiseth it being impertinent to the occasion and end of swearing the occasion of swearing being some uncertainty of the truth of his words and intentions and the end to take away that there is no question or controversie to be decided by whose help he speaks truth nor by whose help he expects to perform what he promiseth Every man knowes that what is spoken or done is by Gods help else it could not be but whether it be certainly true which he affirms and his intentions true and real to perform the consideration by whose help he speaks or expects to do what he promiseth is not at all required or minded by the exactor of the oath as belonging to the oath but the acknowledging that he speaks truth by Gods help is only a duty of thankfulness which is fittest to be done by the person swearing after the oath is taken and the expectation of help from God to perform what he promises is a duty of trust in God or dependance on him to be done after the swearing 2. If this were necessary to an oath then he were forsworn or unsworn that did not acknowledge that he spake truth by Gods help or did not depend on Gods help for performance of what he promised and all infidels hypocrites Saints that neglect their duty herein let their words or intentions be never so true and their performance never so punctual and exact should be perjured or unsworn That which he alledgeth for this conceit is frivolous For the unlawfulness of swearing by any creature is not because no creature can help him that swears to speak the truth or perform what he promised he that informs him of the truth may help the swearer to speak truth though he be a creature and he that will aid him with money c. may help him to perform what he promised but because God only is a witness of secret truths and sincerity of intentions and can only be his judge and avenger if he speak not truth and therefore more fully oaths are expressed in such forms as these God be my judge witness helper c. Nor is the reason why God takes it ill that men swear falsly by his name because it is as much as to say that God did help them to speak a lie for then in promissory oaths when they swearby God he should take it ill if they do not perform their promise because it is as much as to say that God helps them to neglect their promise which is a sense no swearer imagins his words bear nor any reprover of perjury did ever give as the reason of the iniquity of the breaker of his oath but because he by false swearing shews he either believes not or fears not Gods discovery or avenging of his deceit In the form of swearing in our common Law So help me God the words are

not in the Indicative Mood as if it were God doth help me or will help me but ita me Deus adiuvet in the Imperative or Potential let God help me may God help me I pray or wish God may help me or not according as I speak truly or otherwise nor is the charge given by the giver of the oath to the witness by the help of God to speak truth but he requires him to speak truth as he expects help from God in other things as his salvation c. When the swearer speaketh the words it is his pawning his help he expects from God as a voucher that he speaks truth not an acknowledging he speaks truth by Gods helping him only in that act of speaking As for what he alledgeth out of Deut. 4. 26. and 30. 13. and 31. 28. to prove that all calling to witness is not swearing it is granted him I easily yield that men and inanimate things may be taken to witness without swearing as Gen. 31. 48. Josh 22. 34. But nevertheless calling God to witness that we speak truth or intend as we speak is swearing Even as though such rhetorical speeches as are used Isa 1. 2. Jer. 22. 29 c. are not prayers or invitations to hear yet the words of Solomon 1 Kin. 8. 28 30. are prayer so though it be not swearing which is used Deut. 30. 19. yet it is swearing which is used 2 Cor 1. 23. Another thing which Samuel Hodgkin affirms is That all promissory oaths are forbidden by Christ Mat. 5. 34. Jam. 5. 12. he grants assertory oaths not forbidden because they were commanded in the old Testament Exod. 22. 11. but denies promissory oaths to be lawful because they are voluntary and the occasion of the precept was about voluntary oaths ver 33. and therefore they are wholly forbidden but not assertory Whence he infers that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy so far as they are promissory are forbidden Concerning this opinion I deny not but that there are learned men that conceive that promissory oaths of secular matters especially of small moment are forbidden because of the occasion ver 33. of the prohibition Mat. 5. 34. But if promissory oaths be forbidden universally then the promissory oaths to the Lord are forbidden and not only oaths of secular matters between man and man And if all promissory oaths be forbidden the swearing according to our common Law not excepted against by S. H. should be unlawful For thus usually is the witness sworn You shall make true answer to such questions as shall be demanded of you You shall speak the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth The Jury thus You shall well and truly trie and true deliverance make All which are requiring of a promise and so exacting a promissory oath But that promissory oaths are not universally forbidden I prove 1. From 1 Thes 5. 27. where the Apostle urgeth the Thessalonians thus I adjure you by the Lord that this Epistle be read to all the holy brethren That this passage contains urging by oath hath been proved before in my Serious Consideration of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy and in this Supplement in my Reply to Richard Hubberthorn and Samuel Fisher But this oath which he urgeth on them was promissory it being of a thing to be done by them to wit the reading of that Epistle to all the holy brethren Whence I argue That sort of oath by which Paul adjured bound or urged the Thessalonians was lawful else the Apostle would not have urged it or them by it But Paul adjured bound by or urged the Thessalonians by a promissory oath therefore a promissory oath is lawful in the new Testament That which Samuel Hodgkin saith That the Text speaks not a word of swearing is not true the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies I adjure or urge you by oath it is the same word that is used Mat. 26. 63. which Samuel Hodgkin himself p. 5. denies not to have been a charging Christ to swear by the living God saving that Mat. 26. 63. it is the compound Verb but 1 Thes 5. 27. the simple But saith Samuel Hodgkin were it not more reasonable to think that if the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge they would as soon have read this Epistle without swearing as to be sworn to read it for doubtless if they had not valued his charging them to read it they would not have valued his charging them to swear to read it I reply Whether the Thessalonians did value Pauls charge or no cannot be determined by us but this we know that adjuring or urging by oath being a stricter bond then urging to promise or requiring without an oath it may well be conceived that the Apostle had reason to charge them by oath and not barely to charge them without it 2. I urge that passage Heb. 6. 16. An oath for confirmation is to men an end of all strife of which Samuel Hodgkin p. 8. grants that it contains the end of oaths commanded and so cannot in reason deny that those oaths which are there meant having the end of swearing are lawful But that passage speaks of the end of promissory oaths for such was Gods oath of which the Apostle there speaks ver 14. 15 17. and therefore they have the end of swearing to take away strife or contradiction or doubt concerning mens intentions and purposes one to another and so are for a necessary use and consequently lawful 3. The Angels swearing Rev. 10. 6. that there should be time no longer was of a thing future and therefore to be reduced to promissory oaths if the division of oaths into assertory and promissory be full it cannot be reduced to assertory oaths therefore it must be reduced to promissory and therefore promissory oaths are not wholly forbidden 4. That which the Psalmist makes a property of one that was to dwell in Gods holy hill Psal 15. was moral and so not unlawful as abrogated in the new Testament but when he saith a person making a promissory oath is not to change that is not to neglect to keep it though it be to his own hurt he allows a promissory oath as in some cases lawful 5. Add hereto that a promissory oath if unlawful is so either because it is swearing and then all swearing should be unlawful contrary to the grant concerning assertory oaths by Samuel Hodgkin if as promissory then all promises should be unlawful and so all civil contracts unlawful marriage covenants c. 6. If no promissory oaths be lawful to a Christian then a Christian Prince may not confirm a league with another Prince or State nor any Magistrates Officers of Justice take promissory oaths no Souldiers no Trustees Secretaries c. are to make promissory oaths of faithfulness which would expose all affairs of government and trust to such hazard and uncertainty as would take away as things and men are much of that security men have in their affairs and hasten the ruine of States That which Samuel Hodgkin saith that there is no command for promissory oaths is said without proof For the precepts Deut. 6. 13. Deut. 10. 20. Jer. 4. 2. do include promissory oaths as well as assertory As there is no difference made in the Text so there is as much if not more likelihood that promissory oaths should be chiefly meant because the oaths of which we have examples in the old Testament are most of them promissory 'T is true Mat. 5. 33. speaks of promissory oaths but that the prohibition ver 34. is limited to promissory as forbidding them only and not assertory or forbidding promissory oaths universally so as to allow none of that sort is said without proof and there is this in the text to shew that it is meant not of those promissory oaths which are meant ver 33. to wit special vows to God but of other oaths whether promissory or assertory which are in our ordinary speech 1. That the forms of oaths by the heaven by the earth by Jerusalem by the head there expressed are not used in special vowes but in common speech of one man with another and most likely in customary light needless passionate swearing 2. The expression let your communication or speech notes their conference one with another 3. And so do the terms yea and nay which are used most fitly in colloquies or speeches wherein one answers another FINIS

swearing I reply That the rule of expounding or interpreting words is not the derivation of the word which often is very uncertain but the use which is Vis norma loquendi the force and rule of speaking and there being no instance given by him of any place where it is used in any author of obliging in his moderate sense without an oath and he confessing that it is ordinarily used to signifie to adjure or bind by oath and it being I charge or adjure by the Lord it can be taken in no other sence then swearing or binding by oath nor doth my alledging 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. as like charges abate any whit the force of my proof sith I do not call them the same or the one as express for charging by oath as the other In my fourth Argument I alledged 2 Cor. 1. 18 23. and 11. 31. and 12. 19. 1 Cor. 15. 31. to prove the use of swearing by Paul in Gospel-times To the first only Richard Hubberthorn saith thus Now those that minds this Scripture may see that Paul doth only justifie Christs words in keeping to yea and nay saying that with him it was not yea and nay for saith he ver 18. but as God is true our word towards you was not yea and nay And ver 19. for the son of God Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus was not yea and nay for all the promises of God in him are yea and in him Amen So that this Scripture is so far from bringing people to oaths and swearing that he labours to bring them all to yea and nay in all things and so to Christ the substance in whom all the promises of God are yea so that the Apostle might well use these words that as God was true c. so also were they true to their yea and nay the end of all oaths I reply 1. Richard Hubberthorn in all this his pretended answer doth not deny the expressions 2 Cor. 1. 18. As God is true 2 Cor. 1. 23. I call God for a record upon or against my soul 2 Cor. 11. 31. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which is blessed for evermore knoweth that I lie not 2 Cor. 12. 19. we speak before God in Christ to be forms of swearing Surely the expression 2 Cor. 1. 23. I call God for record is so plain an appealing to Gods testimony which is the definition of an oath by attestation or contestation of God as true and upon or against my soul by pawning or wishing a curse to himself if he spake not true and so appealing to God not only as Tostis or Witness but also as Vindex the Avenger or Judge if he spake not true that I find few or no expressions of swearing more full then this and therefore do thence infer irrefragably that Paul did swear and consequently that he did not conceive Christ forbade all swearing and therefore it is but his conceit that the prescribing yea and nay Mat. 5. 37. was to put an end of all oaths 2. Whereas he saith That this Scripture labours to bring them to yea and nay in all things and that Paul doth only justifie Christs words in keeping to yea and nay it is so far from being true that if the expressions of yea and nay were meant of using those words without swearing as R. H. doth vainly imagin the Apostle would be so far from bringing them to yea and nay in all things and justifying Christs words in keeping to yea and nay that he should indeed do the contrary forasmuch as he saith Our word toward you was not yea and nay and the son of God Jesus Christ who was preached among you by us was not yea and nay I know the meaning of the speech Our word towards you was not yea and nay is not about the using of these terms yea and nay but of the constancy of his speech and actions as I express it in my Serious Consideration p. 16. But I only shew me silliness of Richard Hubberthorns talk sith what he alledgeth if understood as he seems to understand it would make against him But Samuel Fisher against my allegation of 1 Cor. 15. 31. saith thus And as for his saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a particle of swearing I say it is not necessarily so but oft of affirming only as quidem profecto truly verily c. And however where Paul uses it 1 Cor. 15. 31. he does not swear as J. T. divines he did for sith he and all confess none are to swear by any but God alone Pauls swearing there had it been an oath had been unlawful it being not by God but by his and the Corinthians rejoycing To which I reply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammarians make a particle of sweaning nor hath S. F. shewed any instance where having an Accusative Case after it as here it is a particle of affirming without swearing and until he do so it is necessarily here a particle of swearing Nor is it against the Confession That none are to swear by any but God only For in this oath he swears by God when he swears by his and the Corinthians rejoycing it being an oath by oppignoration pawning or execration in which God is appealed to as Judge or avenger as well as witness by pawning to him and wishing the forfeiture of his rejoycing or glorying in Christ Jesus if what he saith were not true as when we say On my salvation it is so as God help me c. which I hope to clear more fully if ever I finish and publish my fuller Treatise about swearing forementioned Hitherto Samuel Fisher's opposition hath confirmed my Arguments against himself I return to Richard Hubberthorn To my alledging to prove Paul ' s swearing Rom. 1. 9. 9. 1. Gal. 1. 20. Phil. 1. 8. Richard Hubberthorn thus saith Is this a proof for men to swear and take oaths for men or against men hath not the man here lost the understanding of a man thus to compare and call this the Apostles oath when he takes God to witness that he prayes for the Saints continually is this an oath to testifie the truth of his writing against lies Indeed this we desire that John Tombs and the rest of the Priests in this Nation would write nothing but what God would witness unto the truth of and that they would speak truth and not lie then they would not thus abuse the Apostles words when as the Apostles intend no such thing in their words here asserted And whereas it is again said that the Apostle took an oath Phil. 1. 8. Now let all honest and sober hearted men consider whether the truth of God and the Apostles that speak it forth be not abused that from a Novice that is lifted up in pride and would do or say any thing for his hire should bring those Scriptures to plead for swearing and that

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