Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prayer_n	form_n	lawful_a	set_a	2,091	5	11.0014	5	false

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-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

ordering of the church in her publike affaires in vvhich respect he affirmeth all in the parrish assemblies to be lavvlesse persons if they be not under the prelates jurisdiction spirituall Wherto I answer 1. That such good governmeÌ„t as he granteth these meÌ„ personally civilly generally to be ruled lawfully religiously by for all this he denieth not is more then sufficient to remove from them that imputation of lawlesse inordinate walkers which he without law or limit had cast upon them And for this purpose were those 1 2 answers opposed Neyther yet can it be with any truth affirmed that in that strict acception of government the former imputation doeth cleave unto all in all assemblies Are there none in any assemblies that are any way in any measure guided ordered by their ministers in publique affaires what not in those prayers wherin they goe before the people and direct them in their supplicatioÌ„s by a special gift of prayer is there no guidance ordering by the preaching of the word surely this accusatioÌ„ may in no sense be excused froÌ„ overlashing Lastly it is alledged that this not beeing subiect to government is misapplied by me unto ministers vvheÌ„ he spake it of the people as is evideÌ„t by his reply Wheras indeed the coÌ„trarie may better be gathered out of the replie For therin p. 30. he speaketh first in general termes excluding none after doeth take in the ministers in special expressely naming them no lesse theÌ„ 6 times in that one side of a leaf The truth is he findeth himself touched not with a touch of wit as he termeth it but with a glance of his owne toung and therfore hath now to help that changed the terme of spirituall government into another of the povver of Christ for the censures and because he doeth not acknowledge himself to be under any externall spiritual government yet under the power of censures he is therfore the want of this in ministers people he choseth now to impute for a lawlesse inordinate state p. 19 As if this power of censuring were such a thing as every want therof were a sufficient cause of so deepe a censure and this were not rather an audacious abusive strayning of the apostles phraze applijng that unto most godly men which he spake of the scandalous Or as if all power of censuring in any degree were wanting because the liberty of proceeding is in a great part restreyned But thus much for this obiection and so for the justification of some publike communion to be lawful in England THese thinges hitherto discussed were all that I could or can yet find in M. R. book directly concluding against al publick communion Yet because ther be 2 other obiections which by some might be thought to perteyne unto the same purpose viz that all are urged to communion by penall statutes and that a set forme of prayer is appointed I added therfore concerning them this answer following What fault soever may be found with them they lie not so in the way as that they should hinder from all communioÌ„ publick seeing there are many exercises of religion wherin none are present by constraint where the service book doeth not so much as appear As by name Mr. Perkins his exercise was where Mr. R. hath often been and at whose successors he hath once been since he professed seperation wherof I am perswaded also he doeth not yet repent Further to reason about them is beside the purpose of my writing and in deed needlesse seeing the accuser hath answered himself in the one p. 9. WheÌ„ he graÌ„teth that the reformed churches generally use a stint forme of prayer with whoÌ„ yet he wil not refuse al publick coÌ„munion make like answer to the other out of the lawes of Geneva where he shall find like strictnesse to be used toward all the inhabitants of that citie though he hath unadvisedly denied it in his so large assertion of our assemblies difference therin from all true churches in the world This answer of mine I was forced to repeat that the reader may see how Mr. R. being putt as it seemeth to hard shifts hath miserablie mangled the same without giving any answer directly to the purpose 1. He bringeth in my first answer thus he neyther purposeth nor thinks it needfull to deal about these thinges seeing there are many exercises of religion vvhere none are present by constraynt c. Was this my answer why doeth he leave out that wherin the mayn quaestion consisteth wherupon all that followeth dependeth viz that those things doe not hinder from al communion publick For this that reason was brought which he mentioneth and not for that wherunto he pleaseth to applie it Great distance ther was in my writing betwixt those words which he patcheth together Neyther was it my saying that I had no purpose to deal about those thinges at all but not further then I had answered before this mangling patching confoundeth all 2. He chargeth me with changing the state of the question after my evill custome vvhich is not sayth he about mens being present by constreynt at the exercises of religion but of churches gathered by constreynt of al the profane parishioners vvith the other handfull But what goodnesse is in this custome to passe by the wholl quaestion in hand and then to move controversie about other matters the state of our quaestion thorougout this dispute is whether all publick communioÌ„ in the parish assemblies of England be unlawfull or no the obiection in this place was that all are urged to communion by penall statutes For answer of which I sayd that ther be many exercises of religion publick where none are present by vertue of such constreynt therfore such constreynt could not hinder from all communion though it might from some Could any thing be more direct presse to the matter in haÌ„d Take we in also that which he sayth our quaestion is about that churches are gathered by constreynt of all the profane parshioners vvith the other handfull what advantage hath he by it nothing at all but onely that his charirie moderation is therby made knowen For 1. There be many parrishes in England which are but a handfull in all diverse of them consisting onely of a familie two or three having none in them that are profane Diverse also there are more populous which haue more then a handfull of such in them as no holy man having bridle of his tongue can cal profane 2. Though lawes doe urge unto such communion yet it cannot be reasoÌ„ably gathered that al which practise accordingly are coÌ„streyned unto it except Mr. R. will say that all men which live orderly with their wives children absteyne from murder treason such like offences doe it by constreynt because lawes doe require urge the same under great paynes 3 Though all were gathered into churches by constreynt yet that constreynt apperteyneth

Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Text snippets containing the quad