Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	king_n	lord_n	parliament_n	20,596	5	6.9552	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48963	Logikē latreia the reasonablenesse of divine service : or non-conformity to common-prayer, proved not conformable to common reason : in answer to the contrary pretensions of H. D. in a late discourse concerning the interest of words in prayer and liturgies / by Ireneus Freeman ...	Freeman, Ireneus.	1661 (1661)	Wing L2841; ESTC R1576	82,822	110

from being inconsistent with it that it is most necessary thereto They proceed in the same page to tell us that if heretofore they looked on the use of those forms as indifferent surely the oath which they have taken puts it into another capacity But that cannot be both because in the former Section I proved it consistent with their Oath so far as they quote it and also because that which was before the oath thought by themselves indifferent in it self was at the same time necessary in its use being commanded by Act of Parliament and therefore being in truth necessary and not then apprehended by themselves as unlawful it could not be dispensed with much less rendred unlawful by the following Oath For if it could a man might evade every Act of Parliament about indifferent things with a safe conscience It is but swearing that he will not do what the Act requires and so according to this doctrine that which is commanded though lawful before the Oath is put into another capacity after They add It is no wonder though their judgements be altered and they hold the use now to be unlawful considering how much Light hath shone into the World in that space of time But I wonder in what Horizon that Light dwells since for ought I can find by my best enquiry the ancient Divines were more moderate and clear in their positions and the Modern Divinity like the Book which goes under that name hath only strained the several Points of our Religion into absurd extremities and run out of one Errour into another In the sixth Section of the Chapter under animadversion they say that the establishment of the Common Prayer by Law is not pleadable against the Covenant agreed upon by Lords and Commons legally assembled in Parliament though contrary to some former Act of Parliament But let the Lawyers say whether the Lords and Commons without the Kings consent can bind by oath or give permission to do any thing contrary to a former Act of Parliament while it is not repealed For whereas they add that the Covenant was so far ratified by the King as unquestionably in conscience would suffice to discharge any that shall keep it I know what Ratification they mean Indeed in their next Section they seem somewhat to explain their mind urging Numb 30. where they say God expresly determines the Oath established for ever if the Husband of the Wife or Father of the child either at first consented or did not presently dissent but hold his peace But let Histories and the Memory of men speak whether the King consented or did not dissent but held his Peace Besides his consent might warrant an Oath taken to do something that was lawful before which is the case in Numbers but if the Wife or Child or Subject swear to do any thing contrary to any Law in force the consent of the Husband Father or Soveraign cannot ratifie that Oath but it is dissolved by its own Principles Now such is the Covenant if it were contrary to any former Act of Parliament as the Authors themselves make the supposition in this case and therefore so far as I could ever learn the Lords and Commons with the consent of the King could not ratifie it without an Act disannulling the former Act to which it is supposed to be contrary But I dismiss this their Fourth Reason hoping that the Burning of the Covenant since hath saved me the labour of any further exanimation SECT II. Their Other Reasons answered 1. Their pretence against the perfection of the Common prayer since it is more perfect then the Directory None can be perfect And it is lawful to use an imperfect Good 2. what they except against the Matter of the Liturgy And 3. against Particular prayers for every day dividing the Service between Minister and People and the Number of short prayers I Shall add as an Appendix to this Chapter a Reply to the Authors eleventh Chapter containing other Reasons why divers Ministers are not satisfied concerning the use of the Common Prayer and to their twelfth entituled A summary recapitulation of the Ministers Reasons And first they accuse the Common Prayer of imperfection thus Surely none can say that take the Ordinary Prayers appointed to be read every morning-Prayer or Evening-Prayer they do contain all things requisite to be confessed or petitioned for But a little use of unbiassed consideration would have easily prompted them with this triple solution 1. The Prayers appointed for every Morning and Evening Prayer are palpably more perfect then any appointed for those times by the Directory For that prescribes none at all to be used every Morning and Evening And besides the Letany which is appointed to be read thrice a week is a more perfect prayer then I believe ever was any put up extempore For I will appeal to any man how seldom he hath heard this most necessary Petition used in an extempore Prayer which yet is in the Liturgy viz. Forgive our Enemies Persecutors and slanderers and turn their hearts 2. If they would have every particular sin confessed and good thing petitioned for explicitly and expresly in prayer they would allow no room for Preaching which they declaim against in others For to utter such a Prayer would take up a whole day Wherefore then do they argue from the imperfection of the Common Prayer that it is unlawful to use it since their own prayers are more imperfect then it and though a Prayer may be made more perfect yet still it must be imperfect except it shoulder out Preaching 3. What though the Common Prayer be not perfect what is that to prove a man may not use it May not a man use a Bible where much is torn out or make a Petition for his Life except he says all which can be said and forgets or omits nothing A good thing may be used though it be imperfect as an hand which hath lost a finger Otherwise these Ministers should discard their own Sermons since they must confesse with Paul that they prophesie but inpart 2. They next argue from the Matters of some things in the Liturgy which in their judgement is not so approveable But I wonder where they ever heard or spake a Prayer wherein were not some things not approveable in their own judgements at least in the judgements of others Take the best extempore prayer that they have ever made and let it be copied out and published and be extant an hundred years together and in all mens hands for every body to pick a fault in it and let it be the interest of the examiners to find it faulty and no doubt but they will find many things not so approveable in their Judgements But let us see the particulars of the Liturgy which in their Judgement are not so approveable They name two 1. That they understand not how they can say to God eight days together that he sent his Son to redeem us as