Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
book_n call_v old_a scripture_n 2,142 5 5.5182 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A62891 Short strictures or animadversions on so much of Mr. Croftons Fastning St Peters bonds, as concern the reasons of the University of Oxford concerning the covenant by Tho. Tomkins ... Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675. 1661 (1661) Wing T1839; ESTC R10998 57,066 192

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

make a sufficient ground for separation and the godly Non-conformists contended against separation This seems to me a very pretty Argumentation There was no necessity to separate from the Church as it was by Law established in Discipline Ceremonies c. yet there was a necessity to pull it down lest we be partakers of other mens sins and so of their plagues c. with other such like phrases as the Covenant expresses it Sure I am if there was no sufficient ground for separation there was no sufficient ground for a Covenant to reform in so violent a way and to pull down that Church from which there was sufficient reason in your own judgement to separate If as you truly urge Our Saviour kept Communion with a Church much in need of Reformation and taught men so to do I would willingly learn Who taught men to take up Arms to destroy what you acknowledge to be only such a Church If there was no necessity for even those who did not approve the Worship and Ceremonies to separate as you do and say the godly Non-conformists alwayes did What imaginable necessity could there be for these English men who were subjects and the Scots strangers to compel by force Prince and People who approve of both to swear it down Now come p. 53. some Endeavours to prove the Doctrine and Discipline of this Church to be not agreeable to the Word of God First Can. 36. Enjoyns Common Prayer and no other which they had broke by Praying at St. Maryes and is it self a limitation of the Spirit c. To the first That the Church ever intended to bind men to say those Prayers in the Pulpit before Sermon is not true but contrary to her own Laws and practice Those universal words must as all others of that sort are to be be referred ad subjectam materiam The Liturgy was made for what indeed it is and hath approved it self to be so far as skill and malice never questioned but carped only at particular phrases it was made I say only for a Compleat Form of Publick Prayer comprehensive of all our common needs imaginable from whence none could pretend upon that score reason to vary But it was never intended to banish occasional Prayers of which nature those before Sermons are for which a peculiar Canon is provided and that penned in words which admit of latitude I suppose because they are looked upon as occasional and so may better endure to be various Limitation of the Spirit is a phrase equally admired by those who understand nothing as laught at by those who do It is vulgarly granted but upon what reasons I could never yet learn That Praying by the Spirit signifies in Scripture To pray Ex tempore Though to me it seems rather a sign of a voluble tongue then inspired heart and to pray without considering is rather I should think boldness then grace But if that be the import of that phrase as Women and Lecturers generally hold the Prayer of Christ is least said by the Spirit of Christ and so the most unacceptable Prayer we can put up to him in all the world is his own But now I begin to think on that phrase I profess my self unable to understand it which makes me think the reason many do not apprehend when the Argument drawn from thence is answered is Because they do not know what it means It would be no inconsiderable damage to the Puritan Cause if they would explain those terms Limitation of the Spirit I will pawn my Credit on it the very admiring Rowt shall laugh at it the very same moment they understand it the whole force of it consisting like that of a charm in being unintelligible Whatever I can guess it to be according to those principles and purposes it is used for amounts clearly to this He limits the Spirit in himself who gives over while he hath one word left to say and he limits it in another when he suffers any body to hear him because he confines him to his words when the Spirit might possibly suggest to him different And this is really so in every Auditory unless we can suppose that every man there were he called to exercise would use the same matter and words which he who carryeth on the work of the day doth make use of But some men have ventured to say and prove too which I wonder Mr. Cr. took no notice of it if he thought it possible to answer it That the Directory it self was guilty of this evil viz. Limiting the Spirit if it be an evil which it was intended to remove That Directory prescribed matter and in most cases the very order of Praying Seeing it prescribes the matter the only excellency whereby it differs is it gives weak and careless that men which are by much the major part leave to choose words unapt to express that matter it self prescribes It hath then all the real inconveniences of unprescribed Prayers and that one fancyed one of prescribed The second Exception of his p. 54. is very Tragical and vaunting In comes great zeal and little wit and tells us of a fault so very gross that the very plain Popish Scotch service-Service-Book shall be commended for not being guilty The very first sentence so called of Scripture is not there At what time soever a sinner doth repent c. I perswade my self Mr. Cr. hath read in the New-Testament of proofs alleadged out of the Old barely according to the sense the express words whereof are no where to be found the instances are various I mention but one Mat. 2.6 taken out of Micah 5.2 But what need I stand to prove that some men can very be angry when there is little cause for it Nor scape we so and therefore Thirdly In the last we did read that which is not Scripture now we do not read what confessedly is Much of the Canonical Scripture is omitted Apocrypha read some parts of the Scripture dignified above others as the Gospel by standing c. Many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture not being read in course was one of the mighty faults the wise Assembly took upon them to mend and it amounted to this When the vulgar people came to Church to hear the Law of God according to which they must frame their lives a considerable part of the year they caused to be spent in Genealogies or less Edifying History which could not but have had the same effect upon the people read in Hebrew as English or else the Ceremonial Law which at this day concerns no body and never did concern them at all This was so apparently absurd that no imaginable account can be given of it besides that not very Christian resolution of spite and singularity or that politick Art of not receiving Pay Preferment and Applause without seeming to do something for it Our Dignifying as they phrase it some parts of Scripture above other as the Gospel by standing is a thing
not why before the third I find nothing material only p. 92. in answer to that acknowledgement That the Holy Church was founded in Prelacy because the Church when that Statute was made was Popish he insinuates that it was so when it was first founded in Prelacy A thing which the Romanists have long in vain laboured to prove and if Mr. Cr. will at last do it effectually the Pope will no doubt acknowledge his good sevice with many thanks The third of the Oxf. Reasons is now considered Why it was not in its own turn considered I know not unless this Book was wrote by a Club and he to whose lot this fell was not timely provided The first was this The Oxf. men alleadge That they had as they were by Law required testified their approbation to that Government as agreeable to the Word of God which they are now required to swear down as contrary to it To which Mr. Cr. if not for the above mentioned Reason his fellow-helper tells us The Article might only intend it to be a Political Civil Constitution as indeed all our Statutes do suggest and so an adiaphoron c. p. 94. This is the best Salvo to reconcile this Oath with the Subscription and this Mr. Cr. himself refutes p. 95. By telling us That in the Book Ordering Priests c. It is directly affirmed That it is evident by the Holy Scriptures c. That from the Apostles Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Which words declare their intent to found that Government upon the Word of God not the Law of the Land and so that Interpretation of his is false and the Oxf. mens Reason good and the Covenant irreconcileable with the Subscription The Oxf. mens second Reason is They had received Orders from Bishops Hands and theref●re could not so ill requite them as to lay to their hands to pull them down To which Mr. Cr. Replyes p. 96. In so doing they would do the Bishops a real kindness of which he gives us this satisfactory account Richard Havering Archbishop of Dublin dreamt that a Monster heavier then the whole world stood upon him and when he waked thought it to be his Bishoprick and renounced it Sure Mr. Cr. was scarse awake when he thought to answer the University with a dream The fourth Reason is this They held their livelyhoods by such Titles c. And sure being not convict of any crime were not to be bound to undo themselves and were to the contrary sworn Cr. p. 97. They held their Estates at the pleasure of the Parliament whose Pow●r is over the enjoyment of all publick much more particular Societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind them We have already shewed how this Covenant destroyes the Kings Prerogative this Doctrine teaches us in what a high degree it asserts the Proprieties and Liberties of the Subject The Power of Parliaments over our Estates so as to dispose of some part in Taxes according to our several Proportions is indeed clear and legal To prevent wilful mistakes I do not mean to justifie the Taxes the Long Parliament imposed For they may dispose of the Subjects money to the King They have no pretence of right to dispose of it to themselves But this Power of Parliaments which Mr. Cr pleads for is equally groundless and unreasonable a power so unlimited both in regard to their King and Countrey as it is not fit in regard of either they should have nor doth it at all appear how or when they came to have it It can never be made appear to be one of the due priviledges of Parliament unless we suppose whatever it is possible for them to Vote to be so though against all the Laws and the King and then what a prety Animal is his Majesty of England But in earnest if it be considered by any but those who no otherwise are like to get Estates or can justifie what they have already got That the two Houses may dispose at pleasure of all the Lands of publick and particular Societies and sure then private mens for so beside that other capacity are those who are interessed in Publick Lands though c●nvict of no crime That they may cancel all Oaths is what I never till now thought to be one of the Liberties of the Kingdom If their Power and Trust be so great I would we had not at least the security of an Oath that they would use it well By this Doctrine they may even strike up a bargain and share all amongst themselves And call you this Securing Propriety A Monarchy may possibly be founded in Nature and so in himself retain all rights he hath not parted with But such a thing as an Assembly as our Parliaments can have no pretence to any thing as I before have observed but what they have by Grant from him who calls them or compact with those who send them Whatever therefore they cannot thus shew they are not to pretend to for Assemblies are not born but made As to Lands that the two Houses have any thing to do further then by Established Laws they are enabled which receive all force from the Kings assent I cannot imagine ground for Our Lands we all receive from and hold of the KING as Sir Edward Cook in the first part of his Instit and as I remember in the very beginning but that we at all depend upon the two Houses for them He though a great adorer of that Assembly affirmeth not But if we had received them partly from the two Houses of which there is not the least shadow or colour yet that would not justifie this Doctrine They may dispose of them at pleasure as Mr. Cr. prodigiously affirms to the Oxf. men who alleadge That they were not convict of any crime because they had not broke the conditions upon which they received them Did they at the same time give them and keep them at their own dispose And upon this ground it is that His Majesty could not without injustice and consequently without sin should He have agreed to the Houses in that particular though in the Courts of Earth it might have had the effect of a Law yet in that of Heaven it would have passed for Iniquity established by a Law because by giving it to another he passed away that interest from himseif when he gave it away The Dominium utile I mean and in this I think consists the propriety of the Subject But Mr. Cr. hath placed this All-disposing Power in the two Houses when they were in hostile opposition to the King and so makes us as great Slaves as Earth hath any to our fellow-Subjects And much greater slaves are all we free-born People of England made by the assertors of our Liberties then Villains were among our selves For I remember though not the page and have not the book by me that Sir Edw. Cook in his Chap. of Villenage affirmes That whatever the slave had was his