Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	king_n	law_n	word_n	3,134	5	4.2980	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58672	A vvord to Dr. VVomocke. Or, A short reply to his pretended resolution of Mr. Croftons position concerning ministers use of an imposed liturgie. To which is annexed, a blow at Jerubbaal redivivus: discovering his weakness and errours in defence of his groundless secession from solemn publick worship ministred by the English liturgie. By R.S. the publisher of reformation not separation.	R. S.	1663 (1663)	Wing S140A; ESTC R219070	25,745	31

that then suffered minister their last publick and dying devotions by the Liturgie Did not the Congregations who then necessarily served God in corners worship by the Liturgie Did not they wish and wait for the return of the Liturgie and rejoyce in its revival by Elizabeth Came not Life and Liturgie in competition when the Articles objected against and on which Thomas Watts Thomas Osmond Derrick Carver John Launder Mr. Rough the Minister and Cuthbert Sympson Deacon of the congregation in Bowe Church-yard were condemned was that they used attended loved laboured to restore the English Service or Liturgie Concluded not good Mr. Bradford They fell under Gods curse for calling good evil and evil good who condemned the English Service of Heresie How far short is he who concludeth and confidently affirmeth the worship administred or administrable by the Liturgie is not Gods worship but cultus adulterinus God is not worshipped by the Liturgie Sir turn over the Book of Martyrs you may run and read these demonstrations of the matter of fact it cannot be denied Yet I tell the Zealots for the Liturgie they inferr more upon this practice then these premisses will allow for whilst I am forced to produce them against this most rigid Separatist to prove God worshipped by the Liturgie I do deny their practice to be any way cogent to confine all or any ministration of Gods worship to this mode and Liturgie Your third Answer of the disparity between their case and ours hath been fully answered by Mr. Crofton and me who hath told you the difference is gradual not real the worship of God was Reformat not Separ p. 44 45. is and must be always one and the same though the Ministerial mode do and ought to vary Your fourth Answer ad hominem is indeed most judicious I affirm Ministers may not lawfully minister by the Liturgie therefore all that did or do hereby minister do minister by a sinfull and unlawfull Form of Worship a formal positive evil I did I do so affirm what then I did not affirm The Worship administred or administrable by this finfull mode was not Gods Worship or cultus adulterinus or that God was not worshipped by the Liturgie But I affirm the contrary I did also affirm this evil formal positive evil to be a personal evil consistent with whilest conversant about Gods true worship and therefore no ground of separation I affirmed salvability under this evil positive evil And herein your Censure is a manifest breach of Charity you conclude the Martyrs had not Gods worship but adulterate false worship which is inconsistent with salvation for otherwise the very Devils may dance in hope of Heaven for they believe and tremble yea and profess true Doctrine I charge a defect in circumstantials you in the subject and substance I reprove a sin of weakness consistent with salvation you the heighth of wickedness adulterate worship which concludeth its subjects living and dying as you cannot deny the Martyrs to have done if your Notion be true under it in utter impossibility of salvation Have you not cause to sing jam sumus ergo pares Your fifth Answer is The Martyrs devotion was not confined to the Liturgie Nor is theirs who use it and administer by it or ours who attend the same Your third Proposition resolving this first Query concerning Pag. 21. the expulsion of the Liturgie I pass as not concerned in it consenting to your Conclusion though grieved to see you give so much advantage to Liturgical Zealots as by your weakness and wildness of Argumentation you have done I say it ought not to be but being will not warrant a separation The Objections you take from me I will observe your Answers to The first is Mr. Crofton's sence of scandal Your Answer doth witness you either did not read or did not regard and consider Mr. Croftons Plea to the Barr of Scandal you would else have seen his care of and compassion to the weak his concession of scandal in all acts of liberty sui juris and his neglect of scandal onely when it doth obviate his duty But you insult here as every where on manifest mistake wonder at the charge whilest you will Your fifth Proposition is your Conclusion built on the forenoted horrible and erroneous premises and must be consonant Pa. 26 27. thereunto I will to it say no more but I deny the Conclusion Your second Query as a species of the first is of the same nature Quaer 2. and in it included discussed and resolved yet you do particularly state it thus What is that which may warrant and acquit from Schism a persons non-communion with the Church of England in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper under the present mode manner and method of administration In this Query I cannot but note that the Lords Supper as in the former worship abstracted from the Ministerial mode is proposed as the Object of non-communion Your Answer to this Query is general and granted you in Thesi That if one cannot communicate in the Lords Supper without sin he is warranted in his non-communion But your Hypothesis and Assumption is yet denied Nor can your horrid breach of Charity pass without observation That the mode manner and method of administration maketh the Lords Supper poyson whereby you must conclude that all who have all who do communicate in this Ordinance thus ministred have received poyson Yet you give us no proof for this Martyr-blaspheming Saint-damning Notion But you pretend to answer some of mine Objections 1. What superstitions and corruptions attend the Ministration of the Lords Supper in which he must personally act so as to become guilty of 1 Object pag. 98. the same You answer Two the Service and the Gesture Common-prayer and kneeling But Sir you have not proved the communicants personal acting in Common-prayer nor an impossibility of receiving the Lords Supper without this gesture Suppose these warrantable reasons your secession cannot be warranted by them until you have essayed all means for publick communion without them in which I am sure you might have found a possibility of enjoying this with at least connivance as to those Ceremonies which call for personal action Your Plea that the gesture of kneeling is imposed is meerly frivolous King James his Proclamation was no Law the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. extendeth not to Successors but if it do his now Majesties Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs hath discharged the Canon challenging this Authority the Common-Prayer Book doth imply and suppose not impose this gesture your reason is as weak in matters of Law as of Divinity And Sir personal acting in the Service and Ministration being as it may be avoided it will be an hard dispute whether the Gesture imposed will constitute a sufficient Barr to so great Priviledge and so certain Duty But that it maketh the Lords Supper poyson express poyson is out of dispute to men of modesty and charity who

dare not conclude all in Hell who have received and do receive the Elements kneeling I am Sir no Advocate for this Gesture but I abominate your venemous Notion Object 2. pag. 30. Your second Objection is ad hominem thus Corruptions in point of gesture are to Mr. Crofton a warrantable ground of non-communion But corruptions in point of gesture are corruptions extrinsecal and circumstantial Ergo Some corruptions extrinsecal and circumstantial at a warrantable ground for non-communion I pray you Sir when and where did Mr. Crofton say Corruptions in point of gesture is a warrantable ground for non-communion I find it not in any of his writings I say indeed Mr. Crofton put by communion because of the Gesture which is his personal act and he judgeth sinfull is barred by violence driven he doth not go This Sir is not repugnant to what I said The worship attended with circumstantial corruptions may with safety and must in duty be used for Sir every sinfull act personally done becometh a substantial corruption but done by others onely and about Gods worship it is circumstantial and extrinsecal and becometh not my Guilt Again Sir your Argument a fortiori hath the little force of your whole Argumentation If corruption in point of gesture be a warrantable ground for non-communion which you falsly say is confessed then much more the Liturgie Sir here is a meer non sequitur for the gesture if sinfull is the personal act of the Communicant who is wholly mute and passive in the Liturgical ministration in which he needeth not to act at all Your third Querie is in effect the same with the first and second concerning the Communion in the Service or Worship exhibited by the Liturgie In the resolution of which you run round like the Horse in his Mill and whilest I grant you the Liturgie is an evil constitution as it is a Ministerial mode you fly upon the Worship ministred and ministrable by it and tell us The worship ministred by the Liturgie is not performable by faith the worship is sinful the worship is unlawfull to these I shall say nothing more then what I have said before If this Worship ministred be the ministration what it will be cultus adulterinus sinfull worship unlawfull worship God hath no stated publick worship in the world for Word Prayer and Sacraments are the worship In your last Liturgie was the object of your Communion but in this worship distinct from and opposed to Liturgie is the object of your non-Communion that we may know God is not worshipped by the Liturgie you speak out the worship is sinfull not Gods worship not performable in faith Having discoursed at Rovers concerning the subject worship Pag 34. you come to the Predicate ministred by the Liturgie and state my Objection The Liturgie is onely a Ministerial mode which the people are not to be Judges in and therefore all the guilt resulting from thence is personal i. e. peculiar to the Minister To this you gravely answer This twenty-year-old Notion is become an Article of Mr. Croftons Creed and in your Margin you referr to Mr. John Ball. Is age any harm to the Notion Is it the worse for being stated by Learned Judicious John Ball No Sir these add force and lustre to it and acquit Mr. Crofton from novelty and singularity in this notion your notions are not two years old nor can they claim any other Author save acute T. P. Secondly You deny the Liturgie is any Ministrial mode more then the Book of Scripture is in the Ministers reading If so much Sir Pag. 34. is not that enough That Gods Word be read in such a Translation measure and order is the ministration humane And that Prayer be pronounced in such method order and expressions stated or immediately conceived is the humane ministration thereof edifying expressions and reverential manner of delivery you grant is the Ministerial mode these may be both exhibited by a stinted Liturgie But Sir doth the Liturgie whatever be its order do any thing more then exhibite Word Prayer and Sacraments in such an humane mode and dress between God and his People and is not this the formalis ratio of ministration of Gods worship to which edification and order are separable Adjuncts Is yet the Liturgie no Ministerial mode Is Prayer read no Prayer and Sacraments ministred by prescribed forms no Sacraments Is such ministration no ministration Will you say it and stand to it I may commend or rather condemn your confidence You say The Popish Missal may be termed a Ministerial mode It may so it Pag. 35. is so yet it may not be attended by the people because the matter ministred by this Ministerial mode is either no worship or false worship Your parallel between the Popish Missal and Liturgie is very square they are both a Ministerial mode in the Popish Missal the subject matter the worship is vitiated in the Liturgie the subject matter the worship is right and good but the ministration and mode is bad A full agreement an excellent Harp and Harrow The Popish communicants contract guilt by communion in Idolatrous superstitious worship ministred by their Priests and Missal Ergo Our people contract guilt by communicating in Gods true and own worship ministred by the Liturgie Rare Reason but I must remember the worship is cultus adulterinus and the Liturgie is not a Ministerial mode But Who is this that crieth out that is a dangerous Principle That people may lawfully communicate by that form mode and order of worship which a Minister cannot lawfully administer by D. G. redivivus This quarrel is proper for a Liturgical Considerator But Pag. 35. wherein lieth the danger of this Principle Such Opiniators fondly try an experiment how near they may approach to sin without sin How Sir Is distribution of different capacities of Minister People and determination of the proper Duties of each a fond experiment Is an approach to sin without sin so greatly dangerous especially in the critical necessarily casuistical part of Divinity Is a serious consideration of a Case of Conscience the wanton act of the wild School-men Will not an Act of Parliament a penal Law clear this dangerous Principle and make you and many your Proselytes make this near approach to sin without sin Doth not the Law publick Peace and Order with Self-preservation conclude the man under sin whose condescensions came not near to sin without sin If we scape the sin shall we not bless God and do any thing with comfort But Your third Answer is The people have Judicium discretionis you grant not of Order and Method to direct and determine that Pag. 36. this is proper to the Minister We are Sir in this agreed but your fancy doth confound the medium cultus with the modus ministerialis the last you will not allow and the first you do not understand there is the reason of the strife I pray you Sir