Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	true_a	word_n	write_v	2,796	5	5.3970	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

answer is that the very obteyning receyving of such a licence is unlavvfull because it is a reall acknovvledgement that such a Byshop hath a lavvfull povver to grant it Which is neyther so nor so for 1. The asking receyving of leave or licence which are both one doeth not allways implie an acknowledgement of his lawful authoritie from whome it is sought If any man of violence shall usurpe a power to him self of permitting or hindering the lawful good offices that pertaine unto honest men so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell or teach any science or trade of life if an honest man whome these duties concerne should in that case take a licence from that usurper though hee were no better then a strong theif no reasonable man will say that in so doeing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful The rulers of Iewish synagoges had no lawfull power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministerie neyther would Paul ever acknowledge so much yet hee Barnabas accepted of such licence or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authoritie See an example act 13.15 Mr. R. him self hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochiall assemblie which leave must bee given by the parochiall minister churchwardens whose authoritie hee holdeth one with the Bishops If therfore leave or licence whether in word or writing that is all one may be lawfully taken from them without acknowledging any authoritie lawfull which is unlawfull why not from the Byshop 2. There is some authoritie in the Bishops derived from the king which may bee acknowledged lawfull Such is this of giving licence libertie civill authoritie for men to doe good The civill magistrat may doe it him self or appoint others to doe it 2 chro 17.7 The abuse of this authoritie doeth not make it unlawfull But Iohn Claydon sayth Mr. R. a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded vvhen he vvitnessed that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author for hee could neyther write nor read 2. Whosoever was the author the meaning was that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops the persons that usually obteyned their approbation licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome though those conditions beeing removed ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found For concerning the Byshops licence hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop Sir as touching your letters of licence or other Byshops vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach vvee knovv vvel that neyther yovv sir nor any other Byshop of this land vvill grant to us any such letters of licence but if vvee should oblige us to yovv to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes not to passe the bounds termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us And since in this matter your termes bee some too large some too strait vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit as yovv doe to friers such other preachers 3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimonie in such a sense as Mr. R. wil haue it understood in yet the generall consent of almost if not absolutely al the other martyrs beeing otherwise as is wel knowen to such as have read their stories this one of it self could work no great praejudice This for the answer directly applied unto the demand Vnto the comparative reason annexed that a man may ask leaue of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions he opposeth 2 things 1. A difference betwixt leave licence that to ask leaue is to desire one not to hinder him but to obteine a licence of the Byshop is to obteine publique authoritie of the publique officer according to the publique lavves of the church to exercise a publique ministerie 2. That the great Turk is a lavvfull civill magistrat vvith vvhose civill authoritie it is lavvfull to partake But so is not the Byshop a lavvfull ecclesiasticall officer vvith vvhose spirituall iurisdiction gods servants may communicate In all which ther is not one sound sentence For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave licence my meaning was that it was lawfull to obteine a licence of the Turk for to preach the gospell in his Dominions 2. Leave from one that is in authoritie so as he that hath it shal be hindered of none subject unto that authoritie is a liceÌ„ce with authoritie So that the difference betwixt leave licence insinuated by him must consist onely in the great sound of the word publique so ofteÌ„ repeated in vaine publique authoritie publique officer publique lavves publique ministerie Which how idle it is hath formerly been shewed 3. He that hath a Byshops licence orders too hath no such authoritie actuall conferred upon him therby but that hee may bee hindered many ways even by those that are subiect unto the Byshop from ever exercising that wherto he hath licence so that in this respect ther seemeth not so much as full perfect leave to bee conteyned in a Byshops licence 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrat it would trouble Mr. R. to prove 5. The Byshop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes which may lawfully bee communicated with 6. And lastly though all this were so as Mr. R. sayth that it were unlawfull for to seek or take such a licence of a Byshop yet it doeth not follow but it might be lawfull to communicat with him that hath taken it especially seeing it was lawful before and the man doeth hath all good that he did or had before onely with this difference that he doeth that with licence of the Byshop which he did before with his connivence So that this demand remaineth unanswered which was not made of the getting of licence but of communicating with him that had gotten one Which communion can be no more unlawfull then that which schollers haue with a schoolmaister who hath takeÌ„ a Bishops liceÌ„ce according as many are urged to doe from the same Bishop or that which subiects haue had with their lawfull king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that forme of admission which is called

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

Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Text snippets containing the quad