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
A71214	A vindication of the two letters concerning alterations in the liturgy in answer to Vox cleri / by a London presbyter.	Basset, William, 1644-1695.	1690 (1690)	Wing V533; ESTC R595	18,900	36

as Duty to grant them something lest they get what we are unwilling to part from Some things imposed are without all controversie an offence to many weak ones and certainly we ought to remove the Stumbling-block so far as the safety of the Church will permit tho' they never Petition for the kindness unless their neglect of what we think is their Duty may excuse our neglect of what we know to be our own And indeed it is a pretty shuffle that because some Men are thought to be stiff therefore the Church owes no regards either to them or any of their Party of whom many may be gained if the fault is not our own But in truth all this is only a blind excuse for not doing what he hath no mind should be done for the close of this Paragraph saith it is declared in the Preface to the Liturgy as also in the Kings Ecclesiastical Commission that Alterations may be made according to the exigency of times and occasions yet he opposes another part of the Preface to both viz. That the Book that is of Common Prayer as it stood before Established by Law doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God or to sound Doctrin or which a godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit to or which is not fairly defensible to which he adds that it hath been altered for the better in some hundreds of places since suggesting hereby that it needs no Alterations now which gives an undoubted evidence 1. Of his inconsistency with himself for he argues against Alterations meerly for want of application from Dissenters and yet under the same Head changes his Topick disputing against such Alterations from the perfection of our Liturgy he would have none because Dissenters ask for none and then because there is need of none Certainly he shifts his Argument because he suspects that the first prpposed will not stand the shock and therefore brings on this as a reserve to support it 2. This speaks his Insincerity for he knows we plead for Alterations from a prudential necessity arising not so much from the Book it self as from the weakness of some who misunderstand and the perversness of others who industriously abuse it What need then of justifying the Book in this argument unless to amuse the Reader with an heap of pleas to no purpose 3. This discovers his grose Inadvertency in that he pleads against Alterations from Dissenters not asking for them and yet in the same Head declares himself absolutely against all Alterations whether they ask or not in that he uses the Kings Commission and the Preface to the Common Prayer against the design of that Commission and that very Liberty which the Preface it self doth give us so fain would he carry on a design which he is ashamed to own i. e. hinder Alteration and yet lay the fault at the Dissenters doors Whatever is at the bottom this is generally the humor amongst Men of this complexion they wish for Peace but will part with nothing for it and the Gentlemen in this Authors Neighbourhood who speak fair but do nothing are like the disobedient Son who said I go but went not for which he had I 'le warrant you as good reasons as these before you 2. He pleads p. 3. That they ought to declare what Alterations will satisfie else they have no reason to make any Answ 1 This some of 'em have done already under Car. 2. and still do by their frequent complaints and the reasons they give of their separation And the late promise of accommodation must respect the Alteration of those things so far as may be that offend the more reasonable and judicious amongst ' em Now after all this for them to make new proposals is not only actum agere but a putting their Cause back which is already known and hath advanced so far as to have gained the promise of a due consideration Therefore there is now nothing wanting on our parts in order to their case and our security but a performance of that Promise By this Paragraph he expects that all parties should agree in their demands which he knows and p. 2. acknowledges is impossible therefore his requiring impossible conditions of peace is no better than a fallacious denial of that peace it selfe Hence he urges the extravagancy of some men that have trampled on Condescensions made in the Year 1661. and others proposed by the present Bishop of Worcester in the Year 1681. which he thinks enough to render the Church justly sour and peevish forever Answ 1 He. withal acknowledges that these are but some that flie such heights and grants us p. 2. that all cannot agree in common Proposals which utterly destroys his argument for as some will not so the very Differences amongst themselves do assure us that others will accept reasonable Condescensions and the gaining a part is not only all we expect but is sufficient to our end too These few he quotes by such unreasonable flights must be presumed to design the obstructing all future Alterations as knowing that this is the ready way to break their Parties Therefore our Pamphlet not only trifles but also gratifies those few hot and designing men who intend not an accommodation but the maintaining of a Faction But p. 4. drives on the same argument quoting a Book of Mr. R. B's which saith There are Forty sinful particulars in our Communion besides Thirty tremendous Principles and Circumstantials which affright Dissenters from it and the healing attempt requires not such abatements as Authority now designs but the admission of their new Model for a Comprehension which is such as will make every Parish Church independent All which things p. 5. assure us that the Convocation neither can nor will alter and yet if any one remain unaltered the Schism will continue Whence he asks Cui bono To what end should any Alterations be made To which he thinks a satisfactory Answer cannot be given But this is an argument of the weakness of his reasoning not of the strength of his Cause for this supposes that all Dissenters are of the same mind which is a poor fallacy called Petitio principii a taking that for granted which he must prove else his whole cause falls to the ground To which we Answer It is well known that Dissenters under the same denomination are of very different minds as to the matters of our Church for some are offended at one thing some at another and some at more which together they think give a just cause of Separation Therefore a few Alterations would leave some no Objection and others too little even in their own judgments to justifie a Schism This supposes that Alterations will gain Dissenters only which we can never grant him because a great part of this Nation stands more or less doubtful and indifferent between the Church and the Conventicle who seeing the peaceable inclination of the Church manifested