Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	holy_a	teach_v	2,670	5	6.1174	4	true

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

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

and they are the only witnesses to give in evidence out of charity and justice to swear for ending of strife Richard Hubberthorn addes something against what I argue in proof of the fourth Proposition omitting any shew of answer to my sixth Argument for my first Proposition and passing over the second and third I alledged to prove this Proposition That the King is the only supreme Governor in all his Dominions the example and rule of Christ Mat. 22. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. Luke 2. 51. which he saith I bring to prove an oath of Supremacy to King Caesar which is not true it being brought to prove a supremacy over all persons not an oath of supremacy and so all his answer is impertinent The Argument stands good Christ himself did acknowledge subjection to Caesar and his parents therefore no Prelate is exempt from the Kings government Richard Hubberthorn addes John Tombes saith That Paul a Saint was subject to the judgement of Caesar and appealed to him then he acknowledged him supreme c. Ergo. Ans Paul was a prisoner for the word of God and testimony of Jesus and appealed to Caesar for justice because he was unjustly accused and had not done any thing worthy of bonds or of death therefore according to their law he ought to be set free but Paul did not call Caesar the Supreme Head of the Church and chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things for if Caesar had been the supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would but have needed little appealing unto for setting him at liberty but in such Arguments as Tombes hath used is manifest the ignorance of foolish men wherein their folly appeareth to all men as the Scripture saith 2 Tim. 3. 9. I reply 'T is true I alledged Pauls example Acts 25. 8 10. to prove the King Supreme Governor over all persons in his Dominions and Acts 23. 29. and 24. 5 6 8 10. and 25. 8 11 19 21. and 26. 2 3. to prove him Governor in all Causes or Chief Ruler in Ecclesiastical things not to prove Caesar Supreme Head of the Church as R. H. misrepresents me Now he shews not any defect in my proof taken from matter of fact related in the Text but tels us If Caesar had been Supreme Head of the Church of which Paul was a member he would have needed little appealing which is to alter the conclusion and to say nothing to that point which was in question nor to answer the proof at all which all that know the rules of arguing know to be ridiculous and indeed very foolish Speeding no better in answering my Arguments R. H. proceeds to his wonted course of invectives against my person which I am necessitated to take notice of because they are impediments to many of receiving the truth I teach and do so fill people with prejudice that their ears are stopped from hearkning to the clearest demonstrations and they are carried away with the vain conceits of Quakers and other blind guides He tels me That my Ministry if received would beget men from their holy and harmless state into transgression of Christs command and from the tenderness of conscience into hardness of heart and saith When I say the Oath of Supremacy was imposed for excluding of the Popes jurisdiction c. if so why dost thou preach it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians who are redeemed from the Popes power and jurisdiction that I am a miserable comforter to tender consciences that my end is seen and therefore cannot deceive many that those holy persons who are tender of an oath ought to be my teachers who am far from righteousness or tenderness of conscience that it is a shame for me to be an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences who profess my self a Minister of Christ that it is manifest my Ministry is to bring people into condemnation in which he falsly accuseth me that I am an imposer of oaths upon tender consciences that I preath it up to be imposed upon the holy harmless godly Christians because to free them from the snare which the Law of the Land brings them into by reason of their denying to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance I have endeavoured out of compassion to their souls to prove to them that such swearing may be lawful It is not I that impose the Oaths on them but the Law and the Officers that are to execute it nor did I preach it up to be imposed on tender consciences but after it was imposed on them by others and my Petition with others to his Majesty for the release thereof without the desired effect I did upon advise and importunity publish the writing about it to free them from mistakes who scrupled the thing there being then in appearance no other way for the liberty and help of many then imprisoned and more liable to imprisonment for their refusal to swear then by shewing them the lawfulness of that for denying of which they suffered and therefore they might without danger to their souls and much benefit to themselves in their outward estate take an expedite course for their peace Which charity that thinketh no evil that hopeth all things believeth all things 1 Cor. 13. 5. 7. if there had been any in R. H. would not have construed to have been done to any evil end but out of love and mercy to men for their good and for the great advantage of them that are of the same judgement with me in point of baptism that it may not be imputed to them as their common tenent that they allow no Oaths no not in judicial proceedings which is interpreted as tending to the overthrow of all civil Government and so the persons counted intolerable which hath caused and is yet likely to cause great persecution to those that hold the truth about baptism In which thing I bless God I have not been so miserable a comforter but that I know my self of many and am told of more hundreds yea thousands who have had their liberty and their families saved from ruine by reason of the clearing of the point to them in that book and if some after their swearing have been disquieted in spirit because of their Oath it is not to be imputed to that book but their own weakness or such affrightments as R. H. and others do put upon them I refuse not to be taught by R. H. or any other but sure I am in this thing R. H. yields me no light to rectifie me but by his false accusations of me as far from righteousness as bringing men into condemnation by my Ministry c. gives me occasion to fear that he is led by an evil spirit so venomous a tongue discovering a malicious poisoned heart My answer to the grand objection from Mat. 5. 34 35 36 37. James 5. 12. was that there must of necessity be some limitation of Christs speech as of the next speech ver 38

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