Supplementum Sublatum: john Tombs 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 Sign of the Black Spread-Eagle and Windmill in martin's le Grand, 1661.   

Supplementum Sublatum, John Tombs his Supplement, or second Book about Swearing disproved.  
JOhn Tombs, thy first part of speech in proof of the Lawfulness of Swearing, being (it seems) such an Adjective as could not well stand by itself against such as have answered it, without the supply of some other words to be joined 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 callest 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 thyself, 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 ourselves.  
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 entitled The Rustics Alarm to the Rabbis, 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 entitled 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, than that Apostle (whom ye justify 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. Tombs, 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.  
Moreover, 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, etc. that we intent no other but good, peaceableness, faithfulness and truth to the King, and all men, & c? Surely the Magistrates in England do not believe the Priest's doctrine, for if they did, they would practise it; so that we may conclude, That they do but beat the Air, 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. Tombs 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' judgement that that was an Oath, than the Quakers do; But what strange Doctrine (or rather confusion) is this in J. Tombs, 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' 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 God's 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. Tombs saith, That Christ is no where called the Oath of God.  
Reply. In the same sense, 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 sense then to bind by Oath.  
Reply▪ What needed one to be given by S. F. when thou gavest one thyself? 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 falsely sayest is a charging or requiring one to swear by the Lord.  
Or secondly, What need any more instance be given than thou hast given thyself, 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 enjoin, and doth not include an oath, or swearing; and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used 2 Tim. 4. 1. signifies no more than I witness before God; so that as it was told thee before, it is most evident, that Paul at that distance wherein he was from them when he wrote to the Thessalonians and Timothy, either did not charge them to take an Oath, or if he did, they did not take it, nor swear to him; unless we shall suppose they swore to some other that stood present as Paul's proxy, by word of mouth to exact it of them; which absurdity is more fit to be exploded then supposed.  
Again, Thou sayst p. 10. That S. F. shows no instance where in with an Accusative case is a particle of affirming without swearing, and till he doth, it necessarily is a particle of swearing.  
Reply. No, not necessarily; for whether with or without an accusative case, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 soundeth out no more than some strong asseveration of a thing, as with verily, truly, indeed, or such like; and differs little more from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek (with is yea in English) than the English yea, and yea verily do differ from each other; witness the Latin adverb nae, with ae diphthong, derived (as is to be seen in the Latin Dictionaries) of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, with etam or long e, which is englished no otherwise then by truly, verily, in very deed, or such like; and the very Accidence itself makes it a particle of affirming only, and not of swearing. And however J. Tombs saith, that Grammarians make the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a particle of swearing, yet the Lexicographers make it as well a particle of affirming only, without swearing, as in that place 1 Cor. 15. it being evident enough, that Paul in that place did not swear, when he saith, I protest by your rejoicing, etc. for to swear by any thing but God, is by all judged to be unlawful.  
But I. Tombs replies thus; That Paul swore by God even in those expressions an Oath (saith he) of Oppignoration, Pawning, or Execration, wishing therein the forfeiture of his own rejoicing in Christ Jesus, if it were not so as he said; as when we say On my salvation it is so, etc.  
Reply. If this had been an Oath of Oppignoration (as thou vainly callest it) or pawning of his own part or share in Christ's joy, than he would have mentioned his own rejoicing in Christ Jesus only, and not that of the Corinthians also; for what reason soever he had to with the forfeiture, or to pawn his own, yet he had neither right nor reason to wish the forfeiture of theirs, or to pawn the Corinthians part in the joy of Christ Jesus upon it, that it was so as he spoke unto them; no more than any of us have to wish evil to another man, or to pawn other men's salvation, or to wish another man damned, in case it be not true that we speak; which is a thing altogether ungodly, unlawful, and unreasonable unto those that have the spirit of judgement and understanding. And so J. Tombs his pleading for swearing from such places, is only to be judged a fruit of ignorance of Christ's Doctrine, or rather enmity against it.  
But J. Tombessaith, that swearing is a moral commandment, and therefore lawful.  
Reply. If swearing be a commandment, and a duty to be continued, as the rest of the commandments are. Then it is to be performed as a duty and command continually, without any respect to the Magistrate's imposing or requiring of it; for we are to love God with our whole heart, etc. without being required by the Magistrate, which is the first Commandment; and we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, being the second, in which all the other is included; none of which respect are a command from man for the obedience of them.  
But again, I. Tombs falls from the command, and saith, his greatest argument and inducement to swear, is, because the denying of it hath caused, and is like to cause great persecution to those that hold the truth about Baptism, and that they will be counted persons▪ intolerable; and also he saith, that by his preaching swearing lawful, he hath saved hundreds, yea thousands (having brought them and their families by it to enjoy their liberty) from ruin.  
Reply. So that it appears it is to save people from persecution, and spoiling of their goods, and to keep their outward liberty, that I. Tombs hath preached up swearing, and so it seems they have the reward of their obedience to his Doctrine already; and upon this account, he, nor those that follow him, need never suffer persecution, if they will but always deny the commands of Christ, as any outward power comes upon them to threaten them with suffering; so that in the day of his trial, we have no ground otherwise to believe, but that he will deny and break any of Christ's commands, (and teach men so) rather than suffer persecution, seeing he hath thus begun with this command of Christ, Swear not at all, which he would make of none effect by his tradition.  
Now seeing the Scripture saith, He that breaketh the least commandment, and teach men so, he shall be least (or not at all) in the Kingdom of God; therefore all such are to be denied, who make a trade of preaching, and when their Doctrines come to be tried, they are found to be but the Ministers of sin, and to live by the sins of the people; so that all people may consider and take notice, whether this be a sufficient ground or plea, either for preaching up, or believing swearing to be lawful, because thereby they may be freed from persecution; which is the greatest hypocrisy that can be either preached or practised by those that profess to be religious. But the day is come which to some hath made, and to others is making all things manifest, and is declaring every man's work of what sort it is, that the deceivers folly may be made manifest unto all men, that from them the people may be brought into the doctrine and way of salvation, which is now freely held forth and published by the power, and in the demonstration of the Spirit of God, as they have freely received it; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; for the earth hath been cumbered, and the land filled with such who have made a Trade of the Saints words, preaching them for filthy lucre sake, not freely, nor of a ready mind, but time-servers, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage, and for a piece of bread such men will transgress; as it is evidently manifest.  
And whereas Jo. Tombs writes himself B. D. yet he is read among such as are truly wise, by the name of Blind Divine, rather than Bachelor of Divinity; who hath spent so much of his time in such vain Treatises, tending to nothing but to bring people out of the obedience to Christ's Doctrine, who saith, Swear not at all; and having also confuted himself in his own words, there needs the less be said by others to make him manifest; so for the further evidencing of the truth of those things unto people, and for ending of the Controversy between the Owners of Christ's Doctrine, and the Opposers of it; we shall commend ourselves, and our Testimony unto every man's Conscience in the sight of God; that his witness may justify the Truth, and clear it unto all men.  
THE END.