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	time_n	1,881	5	3.2583	3	false

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

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

of the Lords Supper as of greater solemnity and consequently requiring greater preparation Yet Baptism alwayes so esteemed as not to be administred by a Deacon but in the absence of a Priest The great clamor amounts to this then The Sacrament of Baptism because of the sudden occasions which may often require haste hath therefore been thought fit by the wisdom of the Church rather than the administration thereof in case of danger should be omitted to be permitted to be performed by a Deacon in case a Priest be not at hand to perform it The case in the Lords Supper is clear otherwise because that is not usually administred without publike notice given to the People some convenient time before when it shall be done at which time it is presumed the Priest who gave the notice will be present to attend the service There is a clear disparity in the Natures of the two Sacraments those Reasons which Apologize for Permission in case of the one will by no means reach the other Nor do we want evidence for the Deacons power to Baptize out of Scripture it self In the 8. of the Acts we read that Philip the Deacon ver 12. Baptized that it was that Philip not the Apostle appears because we find Peter and Iohn sent to lay hands on those he preached to that they might receive the Holy Ghost and accordingly we read that they two did lay their hands but no manner of intimation that he did joyn with them which he would certainly have done had he been an Apostle In the 21. of the Acts where his being one of the seven i. e. a Deacon is expresly mentioned he is there owned an Evangelist though but a Deacon He who will say he was a Presbyter ought well to consider how to prove it The next of the Oxf. Reasons is That in taking this Oath they should break another And what security can they expect by an Oath who themselves teach men to break them By this Covenant they swear to alter what they had by the Parliaments Order sworn to maintain in the Protestation 5. of May 1641. Which Mr. Cr. thus reconciles p. 65. The House of Commons the then known Legislators explained the Protestation to be meant only so far as is opposite to Popery That is to say The House of Commons are Legislators distinct from King and Peers For in that capacity they made that interpretation of an Oath which sure they were not solely to interpret because they were not the sole Imposers and they declared the Lords meaning contrary to their Lordships express protest to the contrary that that was not their meaning Their being sole Legislators in defiance of King and Peers for so it was in that case is very prety Doctrine which I would have been glad to have seen one Law to have proved I wonder Mr. Cr. should think it would be taken for granted But indeed Mr. Cr. hath one expression which could not have been well spared The House of Commons were then known to be c. I must confess there were many prety things then known to be though no man knew why The words of the Protestation The Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England c. Now what is in the 39. Articles is I suppose The Doctrine of the Church of England and then if the Covenant be contrary to any of those these are contradictory Oaths The 36. Article which declares that there is nothing in the Book of Consecration superstitious or ungodly is hardly reconcileable to the second Article of the Covenant Sure the meeting of the Assembly is irreconcileable with the 21. Article if we suppose His Majesty was a King at that time As to the explication of it by the House of Commons notwithstanding the Lords express dissent it was an arrogating of the whole Parliamentary Power and more to themselves solely and so a breach of the Fundamental Constitution of that Assembly And then declaring none fit to bear Office but those who would except of that explication and so concur with and assist them in that violence was against the Liberty of the Subject as depriving Men of what they had no way legally forfeited Where the Legislative Power resides I do not here mean to decide But certainly according to the worst Principles then owned The Commons were not the sole Legislators and then sure not the sole Interpreters and therefore the Oxf. Men had very little cause to accept of their meaning for Authentick That Man is little obeyed whose words must be taken in the sense that another and he as frequently in our case his declared Enemy shall put upon them The next is The consistency of the Covenant with the Oath of Supremacy which binds us to defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies granted or belonging united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which in the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. this is one That the Clergy are not to Enact Promulge c. any new Canons Constitutions c. or by whatever Name they shall be called unless the KINGS ROYAL Assent first be had to make promulge c. Now the very meeting of the Assembly and this Covenant was a defiance to this His Prerogative unless the Votes of the two Houses be the KINGS ROYAL Assent Mr. Cr. answer to this is p. 67. in short High Treason That the Power given to the King is such a Power as Bishops Cardinals Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Iurisdiction in themselves over Church and Crown As I understand words Your Majesties humble and Loyal Subjects assembled in Parliament signifies not your Lords and Masters How comes Treason to be against the King and not against them if they are Supream How come they to have ever retained a Iurisdiction over the Crown when our Law so often owns all Iurisdiction to flow from the Crown How comes the Kings Masters to be so absolutely at His disposal as to be turned out as easily as it is possible for him to say so How comes England in our own and other Chronicles and Laws to be styled a Monarchy an Imperial Crown How comes it to pass that we neither pay nor promise Allegiance to these our true Soveraigns The King is expresly called sole Supream Governour in the Oath of Supremacy and yet he hath Superiours Sharing in the Supremacy with the King was all I had thought would have been required not retaining Iurisdiction over him I wonder if this be true That Mr. Cr. did so prevaricate with his Brethren when he pleaded as he calls it for the King when it was indeed only against the Sectaries and so was not Loyalty but Spite But why did he if this be true urge Precepts for and Examples of Obedience out of Scripture and the Primitive Church though by the way they were such as themselves had before taught them to slight or answer Why did he urge them when they reached