Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	add_v	part_n	write_v	2,577	5	5.7704	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25667	The anti-Quaker, or, A compendious answer to a tedious pamphlet entituled, A treatise of oaths subscribed by a jury of 12 Quakers, whose names are prefixed to it, together with the fore-man of that jury ... William Penn : alledging several reasons why they ... refuse to swear, which are refuted, and the vanity of them demonstrated both by Scripture, reason, and authority of ancient and modern writers / by Misorcus, a professed adversary of vain swearing in common discourse and communication.	Misorcus.	1676 (1676)	Wing A3506; ESTC R165	32,510	58

any such thing or do his words sound or imply any thing to this purpose I absolutely deny it He only saith That Christ forbade his Disciples to Swear by Heaven and Earth c. Et hoc and forbade this quasi as if it had been permitted to the Jews in their minority to Swear by them as it was to offer Victims unto God that they might not sacrifice them unto Idols The Father does not positively affirm that God ever permitted the Jews to Swear by any Creature he sayes onely Quasi as if it had been permitted And let the Treatist shew me any place in the whole Bible where ever it was tolerated But this is not the Dispute now between us I must only ask him this friendly Question What reason he had to pass by those words of St. Jerom Consider that our Saviour forbids not us to swear He cannot but answer or I will for him because it is wholly adverse to his Position But like as a man that is drowning catches at any small twig to keep him from sinking so he to uphold his rotten and corrupt opinion layes hold on four words of St. Jerom Concessum fuerat jurare parvulis He sayes not concessum suit It had been permitted to little Ones for to Swear and wilfully omitting what goes before and follows after concludes from them which relate only to Swearing by the Creature and from Deut. 6.13 14. That God dispensed with the Jews for Swearing by his Name that he might take them off from Swearing by false Gods because thereby they would acknowledge them and not the true God so that Swearing is only better than Idolatry Therefore in no case good in its own Nature In answer to this I say that there is a comparative without a positive as it is better say some to be drunk than to commit Fornication because this is a complicate sin between two the other a single one of one individual person Is it then an evil thing to Swear at all by invocating God's Name who dares affirm this but an Anabaptist it being an act of Religious Worship as hath been demonstrated But I demand again Did God ever say by Moses or any of his Prophets Thou shalt not take my Name into thy mouth in any case or at any time said he ever this without any restriction or limitation If he had made this general Proclamation undoubtedly to take it into our mouths would be a great and hainous Sin and so the Jews could not have done it lawfully without a special dispensation from God by the mouth of a Prophet For God being the Supreme Law-giver whose Jurisdiction and Dominion is over all and above all may ad placitum dispense with a Negative Precept that forbids a sin but then it must be either by an inspired Prophet or by a voice from Heaven Now God never did absolutely forbid the Jews to Swear by his Sacred Name but onely vainly or falsly in the Third Commandment And this Negative includes an Affirmative Thou shalt when there is an urgent occasion for it Swear by my Name Truly He therefore that affirms that God dispens'd with the Jews for Swearing by his Name which is in its proper nature absolutely good because it is allowed of and enjoyned by God does in effect say that it is a sin to invocate or call upon God and so falls under the Prophet's curse Isa 5.20 Wo unto him that calls good evil and evil good Consider this thou vain daring man who dost plead for a Dispensation to the Jews which never came into any mans head to think of but thine neither hadst thou thought of it hadst not thou look't by chance into St. Jerom who by his Concessum suerat never intended any such thing as hath been clearly evidenced Thou mayst as well assert that God dispens'd with the Jews to keep the Sabbath day that they should not celebrate the Feasts of the Gentiles as say That he dispens'd with Swearing by his Name to keep them from Swearing by Idols or from the Idolatrous Worship of the Heathen Gods the former as well as the later though both be frivolous may be averred And upon this account it would be as great a sin for Christians to keep the Sabbath as to swear in any case if God dispens'd only with the Jews for either For a Dispensation as it is a comprehensive term implying a relaxation of an obligation to any command so that a man may do what the Law prohibits or not do what it enjoynes is in the opinion of the Treatist a concession or grant to do that which is evil in its own nature and not practicable or to be done but only by the allowance or approbation of the Legislator whose will is his Law as being Supreme Now if he can prove by any evidence out of the Gospel or Evangelists that to Swear is a sin in its proper nature with which the Jews as he falsly asserts were dispens'd by God if he can do this which I know is impossible I will recant what I have writ and exhort all my Friends and good Christians not to Swear at all I am confident that the Author of the Treatise was startled and put to a staining blush when he perused St. Jerom's Gloss upon our Saviour's words and met with his * Considera quod hic Salvator per Deum jurare non prohibuerit Considera in the middle of it Consider that our Saviour here forbade not Swearing by the Name of God but only vain rash and impertinent Swearing surely he consider'd it but being displeas'd with the Holy Man for his opinion and angry at his Exhortation studied a revenge which was to blast him with a Lye and make him guilty of a Contradiction by saying in effect that what he approved of was a sin yet not disprov'd of in the Jews by means of God's special Dispensation From all that has been said in Vindication of Bishop Sanderson and the forenamed Father may be rightly concluded That the Treatist has been bred up in the Jesuits School in which is taught that Diabolical Arithmetical Art of Subtraction Addition and Division to which may be added that black Art of Detraction for that he to the Bishops Book De Juramenti Oblig has added what he never writ to St. Jerom he has subtracted by dividing the former part of his Comment from the later what the Father has plainly published and is a refutation of what he endeavours to maintain which is a great Falsity and repugnant to Scripture Truth and in all he has by a foul and dirty Pen detracted from both their reputations and credit Thus too he hath done by the Reverend Doctor Gawden late Bishop of Gloucester and before that of Exeter whom he hath peremptorily listed amongst those who seem to favour his Opinion as being an Antijurist and laid as I may say this Bastard at his door begot by the Father of Lyes upon an Vnderstanding darkned