Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	england_n	true_a	2,893	5	5.1810	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19149	A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an ansvver to his manumission	Ames, William, 1576-1633.	1615 (1615)	STC 556; ESTC S115272	26,714	36

not unto those exercises of religion where none are present but of their voluntary mind He should haue given a mad answer that being desired to hear Mr. Perkins should haue denied upon this ground because that parish church where he onely taught for a member of it a long time he was not was gathered by constreynt when none came to hear him by any constreynt of that parrish few or none to speak of were present By all which we see that this argument though framed thus as Mr. R. would haue it concludeth nothing against al publick communion in England 3. For that which I by the way onely remembred that he himself was once at a sermon in that assembly since he professed separation as he had bene at many of Mr. Perkinses before he answereth it vvas neyther pertinently nor truly obiected because at that time he disputed onely for seperation but had not professed it Practised it in deed he had not in that setled manner which since he hath but by report of some that had speach with him he declared then to one of his acquaintaÌ„ce that he had been amoÌ„gest some company of the seperation before his comming to Camb exercising amongest them had renounced his former ministery That is enough for the truth of what was affirmed The pertinencie of it consisteth in this that he having so often so lately been at that exercise of Mr. Perkins his successors cannot but know that there was no coÌ„streynt nor service-book that had any place or part in it It is pertinent also by the way to know whether Mr. R. doeth repent him for hearing Mr. Perkins or whether he doeth reckon it among his offences against God The historicall narration which upon this occasion he interposeth I passe over as remote from the argument in hand 4. He acknowledgeth that for the very use of a set forme of prayer he will not seperate from a true church in things lawfull But many differences he findeth betwixt the set formes of other churches that which is used in England even so many as make the service-service-book a hatefull Idol advanced above all that is called God The temper of which speach I leaue to be considered of himself others My argument is granted viz that a set forme of prayer in it self is not a sufficient cause of denijng all publick communion Let the manner of imposing be as hatefull as Mr. R. would make it yet in those actions where it is not used nor yet imposed as in that exercise of Mr. Perkins with other like that infection is conveyed by it I cannot possibly conceyve I desire a freind to hear with me a sermon preached by a godly man where he shall neyther see nor hear any thing else beside the sermon such prayers as belong unto it wil any sense allow him to answer no I dare not ther is an idol imposed under the name of service Surely I should think he wanted sleep that would speak so idly 5. For the state of Geneva whose lawes doe require church communion of all the inhabitants of that citie he seeketh as before to find some differences betwixt that England but granteth in the mean time that if a state for politick respects expell out of their territories such as will not ioign in church communion that kind of compulsion doeth not make their communion unlawfull Meer injunction of law therfore though it be generall for all doeth not make all publick communioÌ„ unlawfull Especially in such actions where it is manifest that none doe communicate but voluntarily This is all that I mainteyned Which beeing granted by Mr. R. with some other of my demands and the rest opposed with so slender defences as we haue now shewed I doe not find fault with the title of his writing as he doeth with mine but acknowledge it to be a true manumission that is a setting free or a free grant of what was by me propounded for other usuall meaning of that title I doe not understand NOw though I haue not undertaken to give answer unto every thing that Mr. R. may obiect against the state of our assemblies and therfore might without praeiudice neglect that addition which he hath annexed unto his answer yet least any should think some unanswerable reasons to be conteyned in the same maintenance of his separation I will breifly plainly declare what I think in all the particulars of it He undertakes to set downe what thinges are of absolute necessitie for a true ordinary church-officer minister of Christ reducing the same unto 4 heads a true visible church a fit person a lawfull office and a right calling About the formost of these he moveth 4 quaestions 1. Hovv the ministers of England can be true ministers not being made ordeyned such in to any particular church I ans making ordeyning are two thinges he may be a minister that is not formally ordeyned in the church There is a making of ministers in to particular churches in England when they are called in to such churches 2. Hovv many vvhich of the parrish churches consist of a people separated out from the vvorld How many such ther are in England I cannot tell because I haue no sufficient intelligence wherby to informe my self therin But divers assemblies ther are well knowen to such as are not willfully ignorant which are so far at the least seperated from the world as is of absolute necessitie to the being of a true church Perfect seperation is not of that nature As for the mixture in dioces c. It is as formerly hath been shewed a civil combination 3. Hovv the true forme of a church can be found in any parrish church of the land vvhich is not any particular act disposition or relation but as he conceaveth a publick orderly covenant union of a particular assembly by vvhich it hath in it self entire right to Christ to all the meanes of enjoying him Wherin 1. It is to be observed that it is not a very easy thing to discerne of this forme of a church for this man that hath labored so long about the search of it that with more abilities helpes then ordinary christians can atteyne unto yet speaketh something doubtfully or fearfully concerning the matter as I conceave it can be no other then this Me thinke then that charitie should teach him others more sparingly to censure condemne those assemblies which doe not practise this forme so orderly as they should seeing difficultie of discerning a duty doeth alway lessen the fault of him that omitteth it 2. That which now he giveth for his opinion concerning this form hath a manifest contradiction in it therfore cannot be right He sayth that this forme is no particular act disposition or relation yet it is a publick orderly covenant union A covenant union must be taken eyther for the act of covenanting uniting then

possibly staÌ„d 1. All the ministers are made appoynted by the Bishops if therfore the Bishops be taken avvay hovv can the ministers remayne the same take avvay the correlative relation ceaseth Trew the relation ceaseth But is that externall relation unto an efficient cause any part of the substance or essence of the ministerie I had thought that the substance essence of a thing had consisted in matter forme not in such externall relations Mariages are also made as Mr. R. affirmeth by Bishops authoritie take away Bishops therfore by this reason the mariages shall not remayne the same for substance which they are now Licences for teaching school in many places for practizing of physick are given by the Bishops their officers take away the Bishops may not the same schoolmasters physitians yet stil remayn for substaÌ„ce that were before Fie upon sophistrie 2. Take avvay the prelacie sayth Mr. R. and hovv can such a ministerie continue vvherof one part viz ruling shall bee usurped by the prelat As if when once that power is taken from the minister it now apperteyned to the substance of his ministery by whome it were usurped whether he that possessed it were a Byshop or a high commissioner or of some other place that which is without a thing may be changed without any substantiall change of the thing it self else how can Mr. R. say that eyther the function of masspreists or of Popish Byshops doe remaine still in England as of olde for substance when ther is so great an alteration in that supreme power from whence of olde they were derived The office of a king also it remayneth the same for substance now that it was in time of poperie for the substantiall parts of it yet one part therof was in those times usurped possessed by the pope is now restored to the crowne viz power over ecclesiasticall persons in ecclesiasticall causes It cannot therfore be denied but by the same reasoÌ„ the parochial ministery should abide the same for substance that now it is thovgh that part which is now usurped by Byshops should be restored againe So that Bishops being removed whether that power of ruling should be translated unto some other officers or setled in the ministers as it ought Mr. R. argument hath by neyther way any waight or force at all 3. Take avvay sayth he the provinc diocesan churches prelats the parochiall churches ministers as partes of them must fall also As partes of them in deed they must of necessitie fall that is they must cease to be partes of them but it doeth not therfore follow that any thing of their internall substance should fall The nationall church of England so the provincial diocesan did once stand members or partes of the oecumenicall papall church of Rome now that is removed out of England so farr at least that this nationall church is not subiect unto Rome nor dependant on it or conteyned in it as a part in a wholl yet Mr. R. will say that the same diocesan provinciall nationall church remayneth for substance that was before Why doeth he not then see that parochiall churches may remayn the same for substance though diocesses and provinces did follow the other 4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions idoll preists crosse surplice vvith such vanities mixture of profane vvith the godly and asketh if it be possible that the prelacie beeing abolished such things should remayne as novv I answer 1. It is possible Ther are more meanes of disorder corruption then one Neyther can any such necessarie coÌ„junction be shewed betwixt the prelacie these abuses but that it is possible to seperat one from the other Yet 2. If they should all be abolished with the prelacie no reasonable man wil therfor say that the substance of parochial churches should be therin chaÌ„ged If praejudice could be set apart the shallownesse of this the former reasons could not be hid from the eyes of him that framed them TO a mayn obiection by Mr. R. urged viz that all parochiall ministers are subiect unto the spirituall iurisdiction of prelats answer was given first that so are privat christians subiect unto the same jurisdictâ—â— not onely in their church actions which they performe with others in publick but also for personall private opinions behaviours this subiection therfore doeth no more hinder coÌ„munion with the one then with the other in things that are good To which answer Mr. R. replieth nothing but referreth unto his former book where as good as nothing is to be found If there had bene a fit answer to be given wee should certainly eyther haue had it repeated heere for of repetition Mr. R. is not so nice or at least the page quoted where wee might haue found it But in deed it is not possible but if meere subiection to Bishops bee in it self a sufficient barr against publick communion it must also be held sufficieÌ„t against such privat in for which a man is also subiect The second answer unto the forenamed obiection was that the greatest part of the prelats iurisdiction is from the king derived unto those that doe exercise the same and therfore must of necessitie be a civill power such as the king might as well performe by other civill officers as it is in the high commission The lawes of the land doe so esteeme it c. In this Mr. R. insisteth much as thinking no small advantage to be given him therfore requireth of the reader wel to observe what heere is sayd on both sides In which request I ioigne with him so that it be marked withall that I doe not undertake to justifie the Byshops wholl state much lesse their proceedings but onely so far that some subiection unto some of their authoritie is not simply unlawfull Mr. R. plea after his praeamble ariseth unto these 3 defenses 1. The lavves doe no vvhere derive from the kings civill authoritie the povver of the Bishops spiritual administratioÌ„s but doe onely make the king an establisher up holder civilly of this povver 2. Though the lavves of the laÌ„d did esteeme this iurisdiction civill yet it doeth not follovv that therfore it is such in deed because they misesteeme diverse things 3. That the prelats iurisdiction is not civile as appeareth playnly by 5 reasons of him alledged For the first of these I appeal 1. To the oth of the clergie to the king established by a statut law in the reign of king Henry 8. exstaÌ„t in Mr. Fox p. 961. Where the Byshop sweareth that he knovvledgeth himself to hold his Bishoprick of the king onely 2. To the act that was then made for the supremacie wherin all iurisdictions belonging to the title of head of the church in EnglaÌ„d are giveÌ„ to the king as it is in the same book p. 963.3 I appeal to the 5. Book of Sr Edward Cooks reportes where he sheweth out of

Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Text snippets containing the quad