Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	doctrine_n	see_v	1,919	5	3.3976	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44847	Supplementum sublatum Iohn Tombes, his Supplement, or Second book about swearing disproved and made void and his abusing the Scripture plainly manifested : against which the truth of Christ's words is vindicated and maintained / in a few words briefly returned to him from Richard Hubberthorne and Samuel Fisher.	Hubberthorn, Richard, 1628-1662.; Fisher, Samuel, 1605-1665.; Tombes, John, 1603?-1676. Supplement to the serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy.	1661 (1661)	Wing H3236; ESTC R28706	5,140	10

Supplementum Sublatum Iohn Tombes HIS SUPPLEMENT Or Second Book About Swearing Disproved and made Void and his abusing the Scripture plainly manifested Against which the Truth of Christ's words is vindicated and maintained In a few words briefly returned to him From Richard Hubberthorne And Samuel Fisher. LONDON Printed for Robert Wilson at the Signe of the Black Spread-Eagle and Wind-mill in Martins le Grand 1661. Supplementum Sublatum John Tombes his Supplement or second Book about Swearing disproved JOhn Tombes thy first part of speech in proof of the Lawfulness of Swearing being it seems such an Adjective as could not well stand by it self against such as have answered it without the supply of some other words to be joyned with it thou hast added another part of speech for even this also is but a part of what thou sayst thou yet intendest to make upon that subject as a little Supplement so thou cal'st it to supply the defects of the former which thou confessest did want framing method and matter But when thou again reviewest this thy last Supplement it will need little more condemnation than the words of thy own mouth Therefore we shall say a little to thee lest thou be wise in thy own conceit if thou be unanswered altogether and yet but a little lest we should seem to be like thy self in multiplying words without method and matter The substance of thy book being answered already in a book called One Antidote more against Swearing we shall speak to some passages in it relating to our selves As first Thou sayst page 5. that the using of these speeches God knows or I affirm before God or God is our witness or This we say in the presence of him that shall judge the quick and the dead as an appeal to God's contestation is plain swearing and that Sam. Fisher swears in his book entituled The Rusticks Alarm to the Rabbies p. 48. 61. in saying God knows I affirm here before God and all men and so while we speak against all swearing we practise some swearing Reply It is made plain in that book entituled One Antidote more against swearing that these are no oaths and here again that if they were oaths it being very frequent with Paul as Hen. Den saith to use them then that Apostle whom ye justifie therein uncalled to it by or before a Magistrate which is the only swearing now disputed for did swear as frequently commonly ordinarily in his communications with the Saints Churches among whom his credit was so good that his word might at any time be taken without an oath and consequently as unnecessarily as other men which do use frequent ordinary and unnecessary swearing which both J. Tombes Hen. Den and Jer. Ives do unanimously diallow and so ye are guilty of egregious partiality condemning in some the things which ye allow in others Mor●over if those be Oaths how is it that the Judges and Jus●ces in Sessions will not own them as so and set free those prisoners when they offer to say G●d knows God is witness c. that we intend no other but good peaceableness faithfulness and truth to the King and all men c Surely the Magistrates in England do not believe the Priests doctrine for if they did they would practise it so that we may conclude That they do but beat the Ayr and spend their strength for nought when both Magistrates and people will neither believe nor practise that for truth which their Priests deliver for doctrine And whereas J. Tombes saith in p. 5. That those Baptists of Maidstone have offered an Engagement taken before some Justice of the Peace in a solemn manner with calling God to witness to the truth of what they say and that they do offer to swear and take an oath Reply Herein he hath condemned the Judges at Maidstone either to be ignorant of an Oath or else to proceed in unjust judgement against them seeing the Judges required nothing of them but an Oath and they offered an Oath and yet they would not receive it so that instead of condemning the prisoners because they cannot swear he hath condemned the Judges for not knowing or at least not owning an Oath when it was offered them and so contrary unto right Rule and Justice keeping them still in prison for not swearing who offered willingly to swear as he saith so that it appears that the Judges do no more agree with J. Tombes's judgement that that was an Oath then the Quakers do But what strange Doctrine or rather confusion is this in J. Tombes to accuse the Quakers because they will not swear and yet say that they do swear fully and plainly And yet the Judges Mayors and Magistrates will not take it So that by J. Tombes's book and the rest that have been written for swearing the Quakers are found guiltless and the Magistrates only are to be blamed and reproved because they will not accept of an Oath when it is offered to be given by those of whom they require it But again secondly If to say God knows or God is witness as an appeal to Gods contestation be swearing by God then to say such a man knows or such a man is witness to the truth of what I say ●s an appeal to that man's contestation is a swearing by that man which Absit absurdum hoc nigro carbone no tandum if these Baptists J. T. H. D. Jer. Ives or any others shall say it is We shall say they are not yet so wise as they will be when they once come with the Quakers to own the truth which they now deny Again Jo. Tombes saith That Christ is no where called the Oath of God Reply In the same sence and place in which he is called the Covenant of God as Isa. 55. 5. he is called the Oath of God for God's Covenant is his Oath which he swore Luke 1. 72 73. Again J. T. saith That there is no instance given by Sam. Fisher of any place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in a more moderate sence then to bind by Oath Reply What needed one to be given by S. F. when thou gavest one thy self viz. 1 Thess. 5. 27. which is translated truly enough I charge you by the Lord which is no more but I will require or command you in God's sight presence or such like which thou falsly saist is a charging or requiring one to swear by the Lord. Or secondly What need any more instance be given then thou hast given thy self who confessest it over again in thy Supplement p. 8 9. more plainly then in thy former confessing to thy further confutation that these three places viz 1 Thess. 5. 27. 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1. are alike charges and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used 1 Tim. 6. 13. is only to command or enjoyn and doth not include an oath or swearing and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used 2 Tim. 4. 1. signifies