Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	form_n	prayer_n	use_v	4,815	5	5.9954	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

the law that Bishops are the kings spirituall judges their lawes his ecclesiasticall lawes their iurisdiction so dependaÌ„t on him that he may exempt any man from it grant the same also to whome he will For the which purpose he that desireth may finde pleÌ„tiful proofs in a book intitled an assertion for church policie Now wheras M. R. aledgeth that the same iurisdiction ecclesiasticall vvhich had been in use in popery a great part of the popish hierarchy vvas confirmed primo Elizabethae he hath put another weapon in our hands for to wound his cause withall For the very title of that statute is an act restoring to the crovvne the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical And the whol house of commons haue so interpreted the meaning of that restauration which is therin made that by vertue therof the king is inabled to give povver jurisdiction ecclesiasticall to any subiect borne so if it please him all causes may bee taken from Byshops their officers given unto other men in every parish of England This interpretation is found in the bill of greivances presented to the king by those of the lower house an 1610. Printed in a book called a recorde of some vvorthy proceedings c. That this or any other judgemeÌ„t of the law is not infallible I easily admit especially touching the quaestion of lawfull or unlawfull good or evill of which kind those instances are which Mr. R. chooseth in this place to appose But 1. Seeing that when we alledge the parishes to be severall churches to be considered as they subsist in their severall conditions and the calling of ministers in many assemblies to be grounded on the peoples choice c. wee hear it still opposed with loud voyce the lavves of the land allovv no such things they acknovvledge no such matter c. Was it not both fit necessarie then to declare the judgement of lawe or can he with honestie reject the sentence of lawe so ligtly now whoe a litle before built all upon it 2. The quaestion is heere of a matter of fact and the positive not morall nature of it whether this authoritie commeth from the king or no not whether it bee every way good laudable as is the controversie about crosse syrplice such like abuses which he mentioneth and in such a case if the the lawes say yea and those that submit to them say also yea Mr. R. must pardon us if his no be reiected except his reasons be passing strong His first reason why this power is not civil is because it is not coactive or bodily enforcing but the Bishop after excomunication can goe no further except he procure a civill coactive processe by vvritt out of another court I answer 1. Though it had no bodily enforcing at all annexed unto it yet it might be a civill power Bodily enforcing is but a penall sanction which commeth after the authoritie or power civil may bee seperated from it 2. It is therfore coactive or bodily enforcing because it may directly require as due by law belonging unto it such coactive assistance by other officers as Mr. R. himself speaketh of So many civill commissions letters patent are granted to men which haue no authoritie seated in themselves for forcing of meÌ„ unto obedience but haue authoritie to charge the constable or justice that next is to ayd them in their affayres which authoritie of theirs notwithstanding is civil in that respect coactive A second reason is taken from the works of prelats iurisdiction vvhich are for substance sayth he the making of ministers excommunicating of offenders vvith their contraries appurtenances vvhich are not civil vvorkes neyther can be performed by any civil magistrat Where if by can or may he understandeth such right as men haue for their deedes by the law or word of God then I willingly grant that no civil magistrate may by his civill office performe those workes of ordination excommunication c. Neyther can the Byshop so performe them heerin consisteth that presumptuous usurpatioÌ„ wherof they are guilty before God man But if he understandeth such right or power as men haue for their deedes by mans law then I avouch out of the former grounds testimonies of law that any other civil magistrat may receyve authoritie of iurisdiction in those causes as well as prelats Which experience confirmeth de facto in the high commissioÌ„ some other courts Wherby it is manifest that though these workes in their nature be spirituall yet thorough great abuse they are performed by civill authoritie Secondly I answer that these workes of ordination excommunication vvith their contraries appurtenances are not the substance or in effect the vvholl iurisdiction vvhich Bishops doe exercise in their provinces dioces though Mr. R. affirme it againe againe For 1. The principall iurisdiction which prelats haue is under the king to make certain rules canons or lawes for ordering of certain causes coÌ„mitted unto them 2. Those causes are for a great part of them meerely civil such as by Gods law the civil magistrat hath power to order Of which kind are the causes of matrimonie of wills or testaments many circumstances pertayning to the severall churches within their precincts 3. In the very businesse of ordination excommunication it is of substance to see that worthy men be admitted unworthy excluded The formes of ordination excommunication usurped by them are corrupt appurtenances to those lawfull actions not the substance wherto all the rest apperteyne Neyther doeth Mr. R. agree with himself in making all the substance of spirituall government to consist in calling of ministers and exercising of censures or ordination excommunication seeing his opinion is that all this may be doen by the people yet in his former book p. 26. affirmeth government not to belong to them vvherin sayth he doeth the people govern as many please to reproach us The third argument is taken from the forme used in consecration of Byshops vvherin no mention is made of civil authoritie but onely of spirituall Wherunto I answer 1. That their episcopall jurisdiction over a special diocesse or province is not expressed in that consecration nor any thing of substance which is not conteyned in a parochiall ministers ordination Which is an argument that the Byshop receyveth not that iurisdiction from him by whose hands he is consecrated but from some other power that is from the king 2. It is not necessarie that words formes of consecration should agree in all pointes with the state of a Byshop For a Byshop in that state proceeding which now is in use is partly fish partly flesh or such a compound as were the feete of Nebuchadnetsars image that were part of yron part of clay which did not cleave one to the other for so is he part of civill power which is of sound mettall or yron part of

Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Text snippets containing the quad