A
Second
Manuduction
For
M
r.
ROBINSON
,
Or
a
confirmation
of
the
former
,
in
an
answer
to
his
manumission
.
IT
is
not
much
to
bee
merveiled
at
,
Manumis
p.
3.
If
a
man
(
remayning
a
member
in
some
parish
of
England
)
intending
the
ministerie
,
&
competently
qualified
therto
,
having
approbation
of
godly
&
learned
men
,
shall
,
without
any
further
calling
,
for
a
time
,
performe
the
actions
of
prayer
&
prophefijing
,
by
leave
in
a
publick
assembly
there
,
that
it
is
lawfull
to
communicate
with
him
in
that
work
.
And
moreover
,
that
if
the
same
man
shall
continue
in
that
course
for
some
yeares
,
not
having
any
further
warant
,
but
the
seal
which
God
setteth
to
his
labour
in
the
fruight
of
it
,
&
the
consent
of
those
people
which
repaire
unto
him
for
instruction
;
it
is
lawfull
,
still
to
have
communion
with
him
.
All
this
he
acknowledgeth
(
though
not
in
so
plaine
a
manner
as
ingenuous
dealing
requireth
)
in
calling
of
it
privat
.
This
grant
of
M.
R.
is
of
no
small
moment
in
the
consequence
of
it
.
For
by
vertue
therof
,
those
of
his
minde
,
may
bee
present
at
many
sermons
in
England
upon
occasion
,
not
onely
to
the
spiritual
comfort
&
aedification
of
their
soules
,
but
also
to
the
avoyding
of
much
danger
&
damage
in
their
outward
estate
.
For
of
this
kinde
are
a
multitude
of
religious
exercises
ordinarilie
performed
by
students
in
the
colledges
of
both
the
universities
,
whoe
are
wonte
in
their
colledge
chappels
to
make
trial
of
their
giftes
though
they
be
not
ordeyned
ministers
;
&
not
onely
there
,
but
in
such
assemblies
of
the
countrie
as
they
haue
oportunitie
.
Some
also
haue
been
knowen
to
continue
long
,
even
for
20
yeeres
together
,
in
preaching
by
no
other
warrant
then
this
:
as
by
name
,
M.
Flood
of
Northampton
,
&
M.
Marburie
.
By
the
same
reason
it
will
follow
also
(
as
by
&
by
wee
shall
see
)
that
communion
may
bee
had
in
the
like
actions
of
those
which
have
further
authoritie
:
for
this
communion
is
of
publick
nature
&
a
church
action
,
&
so
for
substance
,
of
one
reason
with
the
other
.
That
this
doeth
follow
upon
the
former
grant
,
if
so
bee
that
such
exercises
of
religion
bee
publick
actions
,
M.
R.
doeth
well
understand
:
&
therfore
to
avoyd
that
which
he
is
loth
to
acknowledge
,
he
denieth
such
actions
to
bee
of
publick
nature
.
To
this
purpose
he
insinuateth
2
reasons
.
1.
Becaus
a
privat
action
may
bee
performed
in
a
publick
place
,
as
a
publick
may
in
a
privat
:
and
2
because
no
action
is
publick
,
that
is
not
performed
by
publick
calling
or
authoritie
.
The
former
of
which
I
willingly
grant
:
and
therfore
made
no
such
mention
of
the
place
,
as
if
it
were
of
it self
sufficient
to
make
these
exercises
publick
.
The
second
I
doe
flatly
denie
until
I
see
that
reason
which
(
as
he
sayth
without
any
further
proofe
)
doeth
of
it self
teach
it
.
For
this
purpose
he
willeth
the
reader
to
see
Mr.
Perkins
in
treatise
of
christian
equity
;
where
nothing
is
to
be
found
that
perteyneth
unto
this
purpose
.
For
there
Mr.
P.
speaketh
onely
of
such
publick
actions
,
as
are
usually
called
actions
of
law
,
wherin
publick
justice
is
quaestioned
,
the
mitigation
wherof
perteyneth
unto
that
christian
equitie
which
there
is
handled
:
such
as
execution
of
penall
statutes
,
suing
of
bondes
,
taking
forfeitures
&
fines
are
.
If
he
would
know
Mr.
Perkins
his
judgement
about
this
point
,
let
him
see
to
the
purpose
his
treatise
of
divine
or
religious
worship
(
the
thing
that
now
is
in
hand
)
where
he
shall
find
this
description
,
church
service
is
that
which
is
performed
publickly
in
the
congregation
of
the
people
of
God
.
But
leaving
his
testimonie
,
let
us
search
a
litle
after
that
reason
which
Maister
Robinson
telleth
us
will
teach
us
what
actions
are
publick
.
Publick
is
as
much
as
peoplelick
because
that
which
is
not
restreined
unto
one
or
a
few
,
preach
publikely
.
It
is
the
phraze
of
king
Richards
letters
against
them
,
as
is
to
bee
seene
in
M.
foxe
,
p.
406.
Like
phraze
is
used
in
like
case
,
by
all
that
write
or
speake
therof
.
So
that
both
by
reason
&
custome
,
&
all
good
rule
of
speech
,
it
is
manifest
,
that
these
exercises
of
religion
which
M.
R.
granteth
lawfull
are
publick
actions
:
and
so
,
that
not
onely
privat
,
but
also
publick
communion
is
by
his
owne
confession
,
lawfull
in
the
parish
assemblies
of
England
.
the
very
obteyning
&
receyving
of
such
a
licence
is
unlawfull
:
because
it
is
a
reall
acknowledgement
,
that
such
a
Byshop
hath
a
lawfull
power
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
was
otherwise
minded
,
when
he
witnessed
,
that
the
Byshops
licence
to
preach
the
word
of
God
was
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
,
which
yee
say
wee
should
have
to
witnesse
that
wee
were
able
to
bee
sent
for
to
preach
:
wee
know
wel
,
that
neyther
yow
sir
,
nor
any
other
Byshop
of
this
land
,
will
grant
to
us
any
such
letters
of
licence
,
but
if
wee
should
oblige
us
to
yow
,
&
to
other
Byshops
by
unlawfull
othes
,
not
to
passe
the
bounds
&
termes
which
yee
sir
with
other
Byshops
wil
limit
to
us
.
And
since
in
this
matter
your
termes
bee
some
too
large
&
some
too
strait
:
wee
dare
not
oblige
us
thus
to
bee
bounde
to
you
for
to
keepe
the
termes
which
yow
will
limit
,
as
yow
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
lawes
of
the
church
,
to
exercise
a
publique
ministerie
.
2.
That
the
great
Turk
is
a
lawfull
civill
magistrat
with
whose
civill
authoritie
it
is
lawfull
to
partake
:
But
so
is
not
the
Byshop
a
lawfull
ecclesiasticall
officer
,
with
whose
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
licence
with
authoritie
.
So
that
the
difference
betwixt
leave
&
licence
,
insinuated
by
him
must
consist
onely
in
the
great
sound
of
the
word
publique
so
often
repeated
in
vaine
,
publique
authoritie
,
publique
officer
,
publique
lawes
,
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
taken
a
Bishops
licence
(
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
orders
of
the
diocessan
,
THe
fift
quaestion
was
of
a
man
that
being
desired
,
&
so
chosen
by
some
assembly
wherin
there
are
many
fearing
God
apparently
,
he
taketh
a
pastoral
charge
of
them
,
Hee
denieth
an
assembly
gathered
&
consisting
of
many
fearing
God
,
&
many
without
the
fear
of
God
,
to
bee
a
lawfull
church
assemblie
,
hauing
right
in
communion
to
call
&
enjoy
a
Pastor
.
But
the
question
was
made
of
an
assembly
wherin
are
many
fearing
God
apparently
,
without
his
supplie
of
many
not
fearing
God
,
though
with
them
ther
may
be
mingled
some
which
give
not
such
apparent
evidence
of
Gods
grace
to
be
in
them
,
but
rather
praesumptions
of
the
contrarie
.
Will
Mr.
R
,
denie
the
title
of
a
true
church
unto
all
assemblies
that
haue
some
such
amongest
them
?
then
must
hee
condemne
most
rashly
not
onely
a
multitude
of
praesent
churches
(
Dutch
&
French
)
but
those
of
Corinth
,
Galatia
,
Pergamus
,
Thyatira
,
Sardis
,
&
Laodicea
also
,
of
which
the
Apostles
&
Christ
him self
gave
other
judgement
.
2.
He
telleth
us
,
that
none
can
truely
take
a
pastoral
charge
in
the
Parish
assemblies
:
because
he
cannot
governe
or
rule
the
flock
.
But
first
,
a
man
may
truely
take
upon
him
that
which
he
cannot
fully
&
in
every
part
performe
or
fullfill
,
desiring
&
endeavoring
so
farr
as
his
knowledge
&
abilitie
extendeth
.
Otherwise
,
no
high
Preist
in
Israel
from
the
time
of
Salomon
unto
the
time
of
Hezekia
did
truely
take
upon
them
the
charge
of
a
high
preist
:
because
none
did
celebrat
the
passouer
which
was
a
principall
sacrament
,
in
such
sort
as
was
written
.
2.
Cron.
30.5.26
.
Nor
keepe
the
feast
of
tabernacles
in
a
far
longer
time
.
Nehem.
8.17
.
Nor
did
any
king
al
that
time
truly
take
upon
him
the
charge
or
office
of
a
king
:
because
none
did
reforme
things
as
he
ought
.
If
any
difference
bee
,
their
sinne
was
greater
,
that
might
haue
doen
their
duty
&
would
not
,
then
theirs
that
would
&
cannot
.
Secondly
,
the
meere
want
of
performing
one
part
of
the
charge
,
doeth
not
hinder
but
that
a
man
may
well
communicat
in
the
other
parts
,
which
are
well
undertaken
&
discharged
also
.
3.
He
addeth
,
that
the
church
of
England
acknowledgeth
no
such
calling
as
is
cheifly
grounded
on
the
peoples
choyce
.
Such
private
intendiments
&
underhand
professions
of
particular
persons
in
secret
,
are
cloaks
of
shame
&
craftinesse
,
like
unto
disguised
familisme
.
And
if
any
ministerie
bee
so
grovnded
,
it
is
not
the
ministerie
of
the
church
of
England
.
But
what
that
church
of
England
alloweth
which
he
understandeth
by
this
title
,
it
maketh
nothing
to
the
quaestion
.
It
is
enough
if
such
a
calling
bee
in
some
assemblies
of
England
.
Yet
for
a
minister
to
lay
the
cheif
ground
of
his
calling
upon
the
peoples
choice
,
so
that
he
haue
withall
those
formallities
required
,
I
know
no
law
in
England
that
doeth
forbid
or
disallow
it
.
Ther
is
therfore
no
necessitie
for
him
that
doeth
so
,
to
speak
of
it
in
secret
onely
:
hee
may
professe
it
in
the
pulpit
,
as
many
haue
been
knowen
to
doe
,
&
yet
bee
a
minister
of
a
church
established
by
the
law
of
England
.
Neyther
is
that
after
consent
by
acceptance
&
submission
which
Mr.
R.
speaketh
of
so
slight
a
matter
for
this
purpose
as
he
would
make
it
.
For
as
in
wedlock
,
the
after
consent
of
parents
or
parties
doeth
often
make
that
a
lawfull
state
of
mariage
which
before
&
without
that
was
none
:
&
in
governement
,
acceptance
&
submission
doeth
make
him
a
king
which
before
was
a
tyrant
,
though
in
their
nature
these
actions
bee
rather
consequences
then
causes
of
that
calling
,
so
is
it
betwixt
minister
&
people
.
All
the
wind
that
he
spendeth
therfore
in
this
answer
,
is
but
a
venting
of
his
praejudiciall
passions
.
The
quaestion
it self
he
secretly
granteth
,
in
making
a
ministerie
grounded
on
the
peoples
choyce
to
bee
no
ministerie
of
the
church
of
England
:
insinuating
therby
,
that
with
such
a
ministerie
he
cannot
say
but
communion
is
lawfull
.
Now
that
ther
is
such
a
ministerie
to
be
found
in
England
,
as
it
is
manifest
in
diverse
places
,
so
he
him self
doeth
as
much
as
witnesse
it
in
the
next
page
,
where
he
affirmeth
that
in
sundry
places
the
people
are
ready
to
suffer
persecution
with
their
ministers
.
4.
He
excepteth
against
baptizing
of
all
infants
borne
in
the
Parish
.
But
(
to
absteine
from
by
controversies
)
it
shall
suffice
for
that
,
that
other
churches
doe
extend
the
use
of
that
sacrament
to
as
great
largenes
as
England
doeth
,
with
whome
not
withstanding
Mr.
R.
wil
not
denie
all
communion
publick
.
The
6
quaestion
was
of
a
deprived
&
silenced
minister
,
why
a
man
should
not
hear
him
when
he
preacheth
?
Mr.
R.
after
a
censorious
note
or
two
passed
upon
such
ministers
,
giveth
for
answer
,
that
such
a
man
remayning
still
a
minister
of
the
church
of
England
,
&
preaching
by
that
calling
,
cannot
bee
communicated
with
,
without
submission
unto
and
upholding
of
the
prelats
antichristian
authoritie
,
which
in
that
work
hee
exerciseth
.
Which
is
a
conceyt
past
commune
apprehension
.
That
hee
which
by
the
prelat
,
the
prelats
cannons
,
&
all
that
his
authoritie
can
make
,
is
forbidden
to
preach
,
often
times
excommunicated
also
by
him
,
and
all
this
for
witnessing
against
his
usurped
authoritie
,
should
in
performing
that
duty
,
which
also
he
did
law
fully
before
he
receyved
any
commission
from
any
prelat
,
not
onely
exercise
the
prelats
authoritie
,
but
so
exercise
it
,
that
no
christian
man
may
bee
present
therat
,
without
actuall
submission
to
antichristian
power
.
I
can
say
no
more
,
but
let
him
that
readeth
give
judgement
.
To
the
7
&
last
demand
,
which
was
of
one
that
thorough
infirmitie
admitteth
of
some
corruptions
in
the
exercise
of
his
ministerie
,
he
answereth
nothing
of
moment
,
but
what
was
examined
before
,
&
therfore
need
not
a
several
triall
.
that
such
a
Parishionall
minister
is
a
branch
of
the
prelacie
,
as
receyving
power
from
it
,
by
which
it
doeth
administer
.
My
answer
was
by
deniall
,
with
this
distinction
,
that
a
parishionall
minister
as
I
formerly
described
had
power
of
right
unto
his
ministery
before
ever
he
had
to
doe
with
the
prelat
,
though
a
power
of
externall
legall
abilitie
,
he
may
bee
sayd
to
receyve
from
the
prelat
in
part
.
When
I
sayd
he
had
nothing
to
doe
with
the
prelat
before
he
had
gotten
right
,
my
meaning
was
,
that
he
had
not
to
do
about
that
pastorall
charge
.
Yet
wee
may
suppose
him
also
not
to
haue
proceeded
by
such
degrees
as
were
formerly
for
argument
sake
set
in
ranke
,
but
first
to
have
dealt
with
the
people
or
been
dealt
with
by
them
,
having
never
seen
any
prelat
in
all
his
life
,
or
as
good
as
not
seen
him
.
To
come
then
to
the
poynt
,
his
answer
is
,
that
no
parish
assemblies
haue
power
of
right
to
choose
their
ministers
.
Wheras
on
the
contrarie
it
is
most
evident
that
every
congregation
of
christians
hath
right
unto
this
thing
from
Christ
him self
so
inseparablie
annexed
unto
it
,
that
no
externall
oppression
by
others
,
or
abuse
of
their
owne
can
possiblie
deprive
them
of
this
right
,
so
long
as
they
remaine
a
christian
assemblie
or
congregation
.
Suppose
they
bee
in
externall
bondage
,
&
that
in
some
sense
spirituall
,
yet
no
matter
of
fact
can
take
away
right
,
while
they
abide
such
as
Christ
hath
given
that
right
unto
.
The
whol
case
may
be
cleared
in
this
example
,
two
single
persons
agree
on
mariage
betwixt
themselves
,
with
allowance
of
parents
,
&
haue
by
vertue
of
that
contract
,
mutual
right
one
in
other
,
yet
the
lawes
of
the
place
where
they
live
hauing
ordered
that
none
shall
be
held
for
married
persons
without
certain
formes
which
they
appoint
,
they
haue
not
externall
legall
power
or
libertie
one
in
the
other
,
before
such
rites
be
performed
.
Even
so
standes
the
matter
betwixt
minister
&
people
in
England
,
they
agreeing
or
contracting
betwixt
them selves
have
right
one
in
other
:
but
externall
legall
power
or
libertie
they
must
receyve
from
others
.
Another
example
also
I
would
haue
considered
,
the
emperor
sometime
was
so
subiect
unto
the
pope
that
he
had
not
liberty
of
emperiall
rule
untill
he
receyved
his
crowne
from
Rome
:
yet
was
the
emperor
then
no
proper
part
of
the
papacie
,
nor
did
he
take
his
right
from
the
pope
,
neyther
did
those
that
submitted
unto
him
,
therin
communicat
with
the
popes
authoritie
.
So
is
this
in
hand
.
If
Mr.
R.
will
shutt
his
eyes
against
the
light
I
cannot
make
him
see
the
difference
that
is
betwixt
these
two
powers
.
OVt
of
Mr.
R.
his
owne
grounds
there
were
certain
assertions
observed
,
that
which
I
admitt
in
his
affirmation
hath
enough
in
it
to
ouerthrow
my
consequence
:
for
if
it
belong
to
the
prelats
to
cal
ministers
&
that
in
calling
them
they
giue
them
power
&
authoritie
to
preach
,
then
it
followeth
undeniablie
,
that
those
ministers
thus
preaching
,
doe
therein
exercise
the
prelats
power
.
And
if
unto
this
bee
added
such
an
aestimation
of
all
the
ecclesiasticall
state
in
England
as
he
cōceyteth
,
&
would
haue
others
to
take
for
granted
,
then
he
sayth
all
wil
follow
that
he
desires
.
Onely
he
disliketh
,
that
diligent
preaching
should
be
accounted
the
ministers
mayn
office
:
because
that
in
abstracted
notions
,
it
is
rather
a
work
then
an
office
,
&
such
a
work
as
may
bee
performed
by
Apostles
,
or
others
that
are
no
pastors
,
&
therfore
as
he
full
wisely
concludeth
,
it
cannot
bee
the
pastors
office
maine
or
mean
.
Secondly
he
descants
upon
the
word
founded
,
affirming
that
men
may
haue
power
to
doe
more
then
they
very
thinges
upon
which
their
office
is
founded
&c.
But
1.
A
man
may
take
an
argument
from
that
which
he
doeth
not
with
consent
admit
.
And
so
did
I
in
using
his
assertion
concerning
the
Byshops
authoritie
in
calling
of
ministers
:
never
granting
(
as
former
passages
doe
sufficiently
witnesse
)
that
all
authoritie
of
calling
them
resteth
in
the
prelat
.
2.
A
man
may
bee
in
some
sort
called
by
another
to
exercise
some
power
which
is
not
his
that
so
called
him
.
As
when
a
physitian
is
called
by
the
civil
magistrat
or
by
a
Bishop
to
exercise
such
art
as
he
hath
,
among
the
people
that
are
ruled
by
him
.
For
no
man
I
think
will
say
that
such
a
phxsitian
in
giving
of
a
potion
doeth
exercise
a
kingly
or
an
episcopall
power
.
So
likewise
is
the
case
of
a
schoolmaister
set
in
place
by
a
Bishops
licence
&
authoritie
:
in
teaching
of
grammar
,
he
doeth
not
exercise
the
power
of
a
Byshop
.
3.
Though
in
strictnes
of
distinction
,
an
office
dissereth
,
from
the
work
of
it
,
yet
Mr.
R.
I
hope
will
give
us
leave
to
follow
in
phraze
of
speach
the
custome
of
speakers
&
writers
,
whoe
doe
usually
call
that
work
mens
office
wherto
by
office
they
are
seperated
,
Especially
seeing
the
Apostle
Paul
himself
doeth
call
the
office
of
a
Byshop
a
worke
.
1.
tim.
3.1
.
And
the
work
of
ministrie
,
a
ministerie
.
Rom.
12.7
.
But
it
seemeth
he
doeth
not
esteeme
preaching
any
proper
work
of
a
pastors
office
,
because
Apostles
&
others
may
doe
it
.
As
if
the
apostles
&
ordinarie
pastors
had
not
one
generall
office
,
because
they
haue
not
the
same
in
speciall
;
or
that
one
man
may
not
be
tied
by
office
unto
a
work
which
another
also
hath
libertie
by
oceasion
to
doe
without
such
a
speciall
office
.
As
if
it
were
not
a
deacons
office
to
distribute
unto
the
poore
,
becaus
others
may
doe
so
.
4.
His
strict
acception
of
the
work
founded
can
neyther
stand
with
his
other
interpretation
of
the
word
office
nor
with
that
sentence
wherto
it
belongeth
.
For
a
prelats
office
or
state
is
in
nature
before
that
usurpation
he
speaketh
of
,
&
not
founded
upon
it
.
Neyther
is
the
quaestion
,
whether
prelats
haue
power
to
preach
or
no
,
nor
yet
whether
that
be
in
the
strictest
sense
a
foundation
of
their
office
,
but
whether
their
office
,
doeth
so
conteyne
that
as
a
part
of
it
,
as
that
,
whosoever
preacheth
with
in
their
diocesse
,
must
needes
execute
a
part
of
their
office
or
power
?
A
Second
assertion
wherof
use
was
made
in
the
manuduction
was
,
preaching
is
no
naturall
or
necessarie
part
of
the
parochiall
ministers
office
.
Concerning
this
sentence
,
Mr.
R.
complayneth
first
that
it
was
by
me
unjustly
reproched
,
&
secondly
,
that
my
inference
upon
it
is
of
no
force
.
Reproch
it
I
did
not
,
but
so
reprove
it
as
it
was
worthy
:
wondering
much
at
the
shamelessnesse
of
it
.
Now
I
doe
much
lesse
merveyl
at
it
then
I
did
before
:
seeing
that
which
he
heere
affirmeth
of
the
parochiall
minister
,
he
doeth
as
boldly
affirme
of
all
ministers
&
true
pastors
,
viz:
preaching
is
not
the
pastors
office
,
eyther
main
or
mean
.
I
doe
rather
merveyl
,
that
he
should
cast
that
upon
parochiall
ministers
for
a
crime
,
which
he
maketh
to
be
the
case
of
all
true
pastors
.
Yet
for
the
reproof
I
used
,
it
was
deserved
.
I
saye
,
it
was
an
intemperat
speech
,
proceeding
from
an
impotent
sicknesse
of
mind
:
that
is
,
an
unreasodable
assertion
arising
out
of
passion
or
perturbation
.
My
reason
annexed
was
,
because
he
can
find
marijng
,
churching
,
burijng
among
the
naturall
or
necessarie
parts
of
this
ministrie
,
things
not
mentioned
in
the
ordination
:
but
cannot
find
preaching
any
part
,
though
it
be
expressely
mentioned
,
&
that
as
a
mayn
part
.
Whoe
doeth
not
see
,
that
such
partiall
dealing
doeth
proceed
from
passion
?
the
force
of
this
argument
thus
couched
in
that
comparison
,
Mr.
R.
observing
wil
take
no
knowledge
of
,
but
frameth
another
,
which
he
thought
he
could
answer
:
and
simply
proproundeth
my
reason
to
bee
,
that
preaching
the
word
is
expresly
mentioned
in
the
ordination
:
&
therfore
a
naturall
&
necessarie
part
of
the
parochiall
ministers
office
.
Though
this
I
neyther
sayd
nor
meant
,
yet
if
it
bee
rightly
understood
,
viz:
that
preaching
of
the
word
is
mentioned
as
the
principall
work
to
which
he
is
ordeyned
,
the
argument
is
good
&
sound
:
&
the
objections
which
Mr.
R.
hath
brought
against
it
,
are
but
as
the
raising
of
a
litle
dust
unto
the
clearenes
of
a
shining
light
.
It
is
mentioned
also
in
the
ordination
of
a
maspreist
:
But
is
not
mentioned
as
the
cheif
work
wherunto
he
is
concecrated
:
sacrifizing
for
quick
&
dead
is
the
maine
.
Yet
according
to
the
intention
of
those
which
first
framed
that
forme
of
ordination
,
it
is
manifestly
the
office
of
him
that
is
so
ordeyned
,
to
preach
the
word
of
God
.
So
also
is
ministring
the
discipline
of
Christ
as
the
Lord
hath
commanded
,
expresly
mentioned
.
So
is
it
also
a
part
of
his
office
,
though
he
be
not
now
permitted
to
performe
it
,
according
as
he
should
.
The
Bishop
also
expressely
bids
his
ordeyned
one
,
receive
the
H.
Ghost
:
doeth
he
therfore
so
receyve
it
?
most
trifling
.
Is
this
the
quaestion
now
,
whether
the
ordeyned
one
receyveth
every
thing
that
he
is
bidden
receyve
?
or
doe
those
words
any
ways
import
an
office
of
such
receyving
?
The
greatest
part
of
the
ministers
want
abilitie
of
preaching
,
therfore
it
cannot
be
a
naturall
or
necessarie
part
of
their
office
.
So
did
the
greatest
part
of
the
preists
&
levites
in
the
days
of
Ieremie
,
&
the
other
prophets
:
was
it
therfor
no
naturall
or
necessarie
part
of
their
office
?
But
the
publique
lawes
doe
approve
of
their
inabilitie
to
preach
,
by
appointing
homilies
to
be
read
by
them
.
It
is
a
publick
slander
to
say
so
,
when
as
in
the
very
preface
to
those
homilies
,
the
appointers
of
them
doe
declare
,
that
their
intent
was
not
to
approve
such
unsufficiencie
,
but
to
make
some
kind
of
supplie
for
that
which
was
wanting
in
such
men
toward
the
performance
of
their
office
,
and
that
for
a
time
onely
,
while
better
provision
might
be
made
.
Wherby
also
it
is
manifest
,
that
it
is
not
law
,
but
pretense
&
abuse
of
law
that
continnueth
such
blots
in
so
many
assemblies
.
This
of
the
speach
reproved
:
now
for
the
inference
deduced
out
of
it
.
Which
was
,
that
if
preaching
be
no
naturall
part
of
such
a
ministers
office
,
then
he
in
preaching
doeth
not
exercise
any
power
receyved
from
the
prelat
:
neyther
doeth
he
that
communicates
with
him
in
that
action
of
preaching
,
therby
communicat
with
him
in
any
corrupt
office
of
prelacie
,
or
preisthood
receyved
from
it
.
Wherunto
Mr.
R.
answereth
,
that
though
it
bee
not
a
naturall
&
necessarie
part
or
work
of
his
office
,
yet
is
it
a
casuall
&
arbitrary
part
or
work
,
which
when
it
is
doen
,
proceedeth
from
the
same
power
with
those
that
are
naturall
,
that
is
,
from
the
authoritie
of
the
prelate
.
But
whoe
doeth
not
see
how
casuall
&
arbitrarie
the
answers
of
this
man
are
?
Sometime
preaching
is
no
office
of
the
ministers
,
neither
main
nor
mean
,
as
we
heard
before
:
sometime
it
is
a
part
,
but
not
naturall
or
necessarie
.
And
where
did
he
learn
(
I
wonder
)
to
distinguish
the
parts
of
any
thing
into
naturall
&
preternaturall
,
necessarie
&
casuall
?
that
which
is
preter-naturall
to
a
wholl
is
no
part
of
it
,
neyther
is
ther
any
part
which
is
not
in
some
degree
necessarie
.
The
duety
of
preaching
may
bee
a
naturall
&
necessarie
part
of
the
ministers
office
:
though
the
work
of
it
be
not
so
necessarily
urged
,
as
the
office
doeth
require
.
That
the
work
also
is
made
no
more
necessarie
,
it
ariseth
not
from
the
nature
of
the
office
,
but
from
the
corruption
of
the
officers
.
A
Third
assertion
of
Mr.
R.
applied
unto
the
former
purpose
,
was
that
the
root
beeing
plucked
up
,
the
branch
cannot
survive
:
he
denieth
&
merveyleth
that
I
would
affirme
,
the
same
parochiall
office
&
power
of
ministerie
to
remaine
in
any
churches
of
Germanie
that
was
in
use
when
prelats
were
there
in
time
of
poperie
,
which
was
mas-preisthood
.
But
1.
It
was
not
affirmed
,
that
the
ministerie
there
doeth
remaine
the
same
with
that
which
was
there
before
:
but
the
same
for
substance
with
that
which
is
England
though
we
haue
prelats
&
they
haue
none
.
The
truth
of
which
is
evident
unto
all
that
haue
any
knowledge
of
the
state
of
those
churches
.
2.
If
the
removing
of
the
masse
&
the
reference
of
preisthood
unto
it
,
doeth
necessarily
inferr
a
change
of
the
ministeriall
function
,
(
as
this
answer
importeth
)
why
then
doth
Mr.
R.
so
much
forget
himself
,
in
affirming
that
the
office
of
a
masse
preist
&
of
a
parochial
minister
is
one
&
the
same
?
And
for
the
poynt
:
the
reasons
by
Mr.
R.
alledged
(
to
prove
that
the
parochial
ministerie
cannot
stand
in
all
the
substantiall
parts
of
it
if
the
prelacie
be
taken
away
)
are
so
frivolous
&
voyd
of
substance
,
that
if
passion
&
praejudice
be
taken
away
,
they
cannot
possibly
stand
.
1.
All
the
ministers
are
made
&
appoynted
by
the
Bishops
:
if
therfore
the
Bishops
be
taken
away
,
how
can
the
ministers
remayne
the
same
?
take
away
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
substance
)
that
were
before
?
Fie
upon
sophistrie
.
2.
Take
away
the
prelacie
(
sayth
Mr.
R.
)
and
how
can
such
a
ministerie
continue
,
wherof
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
reason
,
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
away
(
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
with
such
vanities
,
mixture
of
profane
with
the
godly
,
and
asketh
,
if
it
be
possible
that
the
prelacie
beeing
abolished
such
things
should
remayne
as
now
?
I
answer
1.
It
is
possible
.
Ther
are
more
meanes
of
disorder
&
corruption
then
one
.
Neyther
can
any
such
necessarie
conjunction
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
changed
.
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
jurisdict●●
,
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
communion
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
sufficient
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
lawes
doe
no where
derive
from
the
kings
civill
authoritie
,
the
power
of
the
Bishops
spiritual
administrations
,
but
doe
onely
make
the
king
an
establisher
&
up
holder
civilly
of
this
power
.
2.
Though
the
lawes
of
the
land
did
esteeme
this
iurisdiction
civill
,
yet
it
doeth
not
follow
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.
exstant
in
Mr.
Fox
p.
961.
Where
the
Byshop
sweareth
,
that
he
knowledgeth
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
England
are
given
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
the
law
that
Bishops
are
the
kings
spirituall
judges
,
their
lawes
his
ecclesiasticall
lawes
,
their
iurisdiction
so
dependant
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
plentiful
proofs
in
a
book
intitled
,
an
assertion
for
church
policie
.
Now
wheras
M.
R.
aledgeth
,
that
the
same
iurisdiction
ecclesiasticall
which
had
been
in
use
in
popery
,
&
a
great
part
of
the
popish
hierarchy
was
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
crowne
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
power
&
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
worthy
proceedings
&c.
That
this
or
any
other
judgement
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
lawes
of
the
land
allow
no
such
things
,
they
acknowledge
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
writt
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
men
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
,
which
are
for
substance
(
sayth
he
)
the
making
of
ministers
,
&
excommunicating
of
offenders
,
with
their
contraries
&
appurtenances
:
which
are
not
civil
workes
,
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
usurpation
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
commission
,
&
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
with
their
contraries
&
appurtenances
are
not
the
substance
or
in
effect
the
wholl
iurisdiction
which
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
committed
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
,
wherin
(
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
,
wherin
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
,
The.
4.
Argument
is
vaynly
built
upon
a
supposition
which
formerly
was
proved
false
,
viz:
that
all
the
civil
iurisdiction
which
prelats
haue
,
consisteth
in
their
being
privy
councellers
,
high
commissioners
,
or
iustices
of
the
peace
.
This
therfor
needeth
no
further
answer
.
Onely
let
it
be
observed
that
Mr.
R.
in
defending
of
the
separation
,
as
well
as
I
in
opposing
it
,
doeth
iustifie
some
part
of
the
authoritie
which
Byshops
exercise
in
England
,
professing
communion
with
it
and
submission
unto
it
.
The
onely
quaestion
is
,
how
much
of
their
authoritie
is
such
.
Let
preiudiciall
insinuations
&
groundlesse
imputations
therfore
be
layd
aside
,
and
that
quaestion
onely
discussed
.
The
last
argument
is
raised
from
a
forme
of
words
used
by
the-Byshops
,
in
that
they
proceed
in
the
name
of
God
,
&
not
in
the
kings
name
as
all
civile
proceedings
doe
.
Wherunto
I
answer
.
1.
That
a
sound
&
convincing
argument
cannot
be
brought
from
words
of
forme
&
office
.
If
they
should
change
their
stile
,
&
begin
their
actions
in
the
king
name
,
I
doubt
whether
Mr.
R.
would
allow
of
that
as
any
strong
reason
for
their
civill
authoritie
.
2.
Many
actions
are
performed
with
the
same
words
of
forme
,
as
all
wills
or
testaments
&c:
which
yet
are
no
spiritual
but
civil
deedes
.
So
Henrie
the
fourth
king
of
England
began
his
clayme
to
the
crowne
.
In
the
name
of
God
,
amen
.
I
Henrie
of
Lanc.
&c:
as
it
is
in
Mr.
Foxe
p.
474.
Yet
was
not
any
other
then
a
civil
claime
.
3
I
affirme
thatit
is
an
abuse
against
lawe
,
that
Byshops
in
their
acts
of
iurisdiction
doe
not
use
the
kings
name
:
and
therfore
howsoever
that
the
formal
words
be
wanting
,
yet
the
thing
it self
is
to
bee
understood
,
viz:
as
Sr
Ed.
Cooke
hath
written
,
that
howsoever
the
forme
runneth
in
the
Byshops
name
,
yet
the
authoritie
is
no
other
but
the
kings
.
This
I
will
shew
by
an
instance
most
pregnant
.
Byshop
Farrar
in
king
Edwards
days
,
being
troubled
&
vexed
by
evil
Willershad
(
amongest
other
)
these
2
articles
obiected
agaynst
him
as
deserving
deprivation
1.
that
he
appoynted
his
Chancelour
by
his
letters
of
commission
,
omitting
the
kings
maiesties
stile
&
authoritie
&c.
5.
Item
he
hath
commonly
made
his
collations
&
iustitutions
,
as
he
did
his
first
commission
,
in
his
owne
name
&
authoritie
without
expressing
the
kings
supremacie
.
To
the
first
,
the
Byshops
answer
was
,
that
what
formalities
soever
be
wanting
in
his
commission
,
yet
the
kings
maiesties
stile
&
authoritie
was
fully
set
forth
in
the
same
commission
.
Neyther
did
the
sayd
chancelour
offer
to
visit
but
in
the
kings
name
&
authoritie
,
to
the
sayd
Bishop
committed
.
To
the
fifth
he
sayth
,
that
the
sayd
defendant
made
his
collations
&
institutions
in
his
owne
name
,
not
by
his
owne
āuthoritie
,
nor
by
any
others
▪
save
onely
the
kings
authoritie
,
according
as
he
hath
declared
in
his
first
article
,
expressing
in
them
the
kings
supremacie
with
the
Byshops
owne
name
&
seale
of
office
,
as
he
ought
to
doe
according
to
the
prouision
of
the
kings
statute
in
such
a
case
.
See
Mr.
Foxe
p.
1405.1406
.
In
which
one
plea
,
we
haue
the
authoritie
of
statute
,
the
sentence
of
lawyers
&
iudges
,
with
the
confession
&
practise
of
prelats
themselves
,
for
the
kings
name
&
authoritie
to
give
life
unto
their
proceedings
.
Heere
it
must
be
observed
,
that
this
accusation
&
answer
of
B.
Farrar
was
grounded
immediatly
on
a
statute
made
the
first
of
Edward
6.
wherin
it
was
enacted
,
that
the
Byshop
,
should
make
their
proces
&
writinges
in
the
kings
name
,
and
that
theyr
seales
should
be
the
kings
armes
.
Which
act
was
but
an
appendix
declaring
&
adding
forme
to
that
statute
of
supremacie
made
in
Henry
8
his
dayes
,
wherby
ecclesiasticall
iurisdiction
was
annexed
to
the
crowne
so
as
all
Byshops
were
to
fech
it
from
thence
.
Now
though
that
act
of
king
Edward
was
repealed
in
Queere
Maries
time
,
and
not
since
revived
,
yet
that
doeth
declare
the
meaning
of
the
former
statute
of
Henrie
8.
to
be
such
as
hath
been
sayd
:
which
statute
is
now
in
force
.
Howsoever
,
the
Byshops
haue
(
undoubtedly
)
the
same
kind
of
state
which
they
had
in
the
days
of
king
Edw.
If
therfore
they
were
then
civil
officers
,
proceeding
by
the
kings
authoritie
,
they
are
also
now
such
,
viz:
of
civil
nature
for
their
state
,
deriving
their
iurisdiction
from
the
king
,
though
they
proceed
not
in
his
name
so
formaly
as
in
king
Edwards
days
they
did
,
&
now
in
reason
they
should
.
THus
much
for
that
obiection
touching
spiritual
subiection
.
they
who
thus
disclaym
in
word
the
Byshops
governement
,
confesse
themselves
therin
to
be
under
no
spirituall
externall
government
at
all
,
&
so
be
lawles
persons
&
inordinate
walkers
&c.
This
because
it
sounded
as
a
dangerous
&
deepe
charge
,
ensuing
upon
that
former
defense
which
was
made
,
that
good
ministers
are
no
branches
of
the
prelacie
nor
necessarily
dependent
on
them
as
spiritual
officers
,
I
thought
it
needfull
to
give
answer
unto
it
.
My
answer
therfore
did
consist
in
these
3
branches
,
1.
That
ther
was
no
such
want
of
spirituall
governement
in
the
ministers
which
governe
themselves
well
,
as
could
be
a
iust
barrt
against
all
communion
with
them
:
seeing
privat
men
living
in
the
same
want
,
may
well
be
communicated
with
.
2
That
they
are
subiect
unto
some
spirituall
governement
.
And
3.
That
for
that
want
of
government
which
they
are
in
,
they
are
no
more
lawlesse
walkers
or
inordinate
walkers
then
Mr.
R.
himself
is
,
whoe
is
not
subiect
to
any
other
spirituall
government
then
they
are
except
he
will
say
that
the
people
governe
him
,
which
he
counteth
to
be
a
reproche
.
Now
let
us
hear
what
replie
he
maketh
.
1.
He
pleadeth
,
that
he
did
not
infer
this
exception
upon
the
former
ground
.
But
let
that
passage
of
his
book
be
wayed
p.
29.30
.
And
it
will
be
found
that
against
his
allegation
of
the
parochiall
ministers
being
a
branch
of
the
prelacie
,
this
was
one
defense
,
that
they
are
not
subiect
to
their
government
,
wherupon
this
inference
followeth
,
that
then
they
are
inordinate
walkers
&
lawles
persons
.
Which
is
the
very
same
order
of
inference
that
I
observed
.
2.
He
sayth
it
was
not
alledged
to
prove
communion
unlawfull
with
them
,
but
as
a
reproof
&c.
But
seeing
the
main
reason
was
for
unlawfulnesse
of
communion
because
of
their
branching
out
of
prelacie
,
and
the
allegation
nothing
but
an
establishing
of
that
reason
by
removall
of
one
principall
defense
supposed
to
be
brought
for
it
,
it
must
of
necessitie
tend
unto
the
same
ende
,
of
barring
from
all
communion
.
And
in
deed
,
if
it
were
not
a
slander
,
it
were
none
of
the
weakest
arguments
which
he
hath
alledged
.
3.
He
affirmeth
the
1.
and
2.
Answer
to
be
beside
the
purpose
because
they
speak
onely
of
personall
,
or
civill
,
or
else
a
more
generall
kind
of
government
then
he
intended
,
whoe
spake
onely
of
outward
guidance
and
ordering
of
the
church
in
her
publike
affaires
,
in
which
respect
he
affirmeth
all
in
the
parrish
assemblies
to
be
lawlesse
persons
,
if
they
be
not
under
the
prelates
jurisdiction
spirituall
.
Wherto
I
answer
1.
That
such
good
government
as
he
granteth
these
men
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
supplications
by
a
special
gift
of
prayer
?
is
there
no
guidance
&
ordering
by
the
preaching
of
the
word
?
surely
this
accusation
may
in
no
sense
be
excused
from
overlashing
.
Lastly
it
is
alledged
that
this
,
not
beeing
subiect
to
government
is
misapplied
by
me
unto
ministers
,
when
he
spake
it
of
the
people
,
as
is
evident
by
his
reply
.
Wheras
indeed
the
contrarie
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
than
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
power
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
,
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
communion
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.
When
he
granteth
that
the
reformed
churches
generally
use
a
stint
forme
of
prayer
,
with
whom
yet
he
wil
not
refuse
al
publick
communion
,
&
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
where
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
,
which
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
with
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
communion
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
hand
?
Take
we
in
also
that
which
he
sayth
our
quaestion
is
about
;
that
churches
are
gathered
by
constreynt
of
all
the
profane
parshioners
with
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
reasōably
gathered
that
al
which
practise
accordingly
are
constreyned
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
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
was
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
acquaintance
,
that
he
had
been
amongest
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
constreynt
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
communion
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
,
About
the
formost
of
these
,
he
moveth
4
quaestions
,
1.
How
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.
How
many
&
which
of
the
parrish
churches
consist
of
a
people
separated
out
from
the
world
?
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.
How
the
true
forme
of
a
church
can
be
found
in
any
parrish
church
of
the
land
,
which
is
not
any
particular
act
,
disposition
or
relation
,
but
(
as
he
conceaveth
)
a
publick
orderly
covenant
&
union
of
a
particular
assembly
,
by
which
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
it
is
an
act
;
or
for
the
state
arising
from
that
act
of
obligation
,
which
is
nothing
else
but
the
relation
those
persons
obliged
haue
one
to
another
&
so
it
is
a
relation
,
or
else
for
the
thing
to
which
they
are
obliged
,
or
the
signe
therof
,
&
so
it
may
be
eyther
an
act
,
or
a
disposition
,
or
some
other
good
.
All
these
significations
of
the
word
covenant
I
find
in
scripture
&
use
of
speach
:
any
other
beside
these
,
I
doe
not
understand
.
If
Mr.
R.
had
another
meaning
,
he
should
haue
doen
well
to
haue
expressed
it
better
:
the
poynt
especially
being
of
such
moment
.
The
things
covenanted
or
the
signe
he
cannot
meane
:
for
these
are
not
constantly
resydeing
in
the
whole
&
all
the
parts
therof
,
which
is
a
condition
of
this
forme
by
him
required
:
some
act
or
relation
therfore
he
must
needs
understand
,
gainsaying
one
part
of
the
sentence
by
the
other
.
3.
The
truth
is
,
this
forme
in
strict
&
accurate
meaning
must
needs
be
some
relation
by
Mr.
R.
his
owne
reason
.
For
nothing
beside
a
relation
can
possiblie
resyde
actually
one
&
the
same
and
at
all
times
in
a
whole
companie
of
men
,
and
in
all
the
parts
of
that
companie
.
4.
Wheras
he
calleth
this
forme
an
orderly
covenant
,
his
words
are
doubtfull
at
the
least
.
For
there
be
many
degrees
of
orderly
proceeding
in
businesses
publick
as
wel
as
private
:
and
every
circumstance
of
order
doeth
not
apperteyne
(
as
absolutely
necessary
)
to
the
constituting
forme
of
a
true
church
.
Now
for
the
declaring
of
the
trueth
concerning
this
matter
,
I
propound
to
be
considered
this
breif
demonstration
.
A
visible
church
must
not
be
considered
as
a
simple
effect
,
arising
of
meer
matter
&
forme
,
as
Mr.
R
doeth
speak
of
it
:
But
as
a
whole
or
compound
consisting
of
partes
or
members
:
so
that
the
members
must
conteyne
in
themselves
all
the
essentiall
both
matter
&
forme
also
,
which
make
the
wholle
by
compacting
or
uniting
themselves
in
one
.
Christian
men
being
the
called
of
God
,
haue
in
them
both
matter
&
forme
essentiall
for
making
of
a
visible
church
,
else
could
they
not
giue
essence
or
being
to
the
church
,
for
nothing
can
give
that
which
it
hath
not
.
Now
these
members
combining
themselves
into
one
body
as
they
are
such
,
doe
make
or
rather
are
actually
a
true
visible
church
,
one
integrall
body
not
continued
,
but
by
aggregation
:
which
integral
church
as
it
is
such
,
hath
for
the
constituting
forme
that
relation
which
ariseth
out
of
the
combination
of
all
the
members
:
and
so
differeth
not
essentially
from
all
the
members
compacted
,
but
onely
in
reason
.
Further
,
this
integral
body
for
the
wel
being
of
it
in
exercising
those
operations
which
belong
unto
it
&
wherunto
it
serveth
,
must
become
as
we
say
organicall
,
having
members
of
diverse
rankes
,
some
as
head
,
mouth
&
eyes
,
the
pastor
,
teachers
,
&
elders
,
some
as
hands
,
the
deacons
&
helpers
:
wherupon
ariseth
another
relation
&
forme
of
accidental
perfection
,
in
state
of
government
:
which
is
complete
or
incomplete
,
freely
exercising
the
power
granted
by
Christ
to
his
church
,
or
else
restreyned
or
defective
therin
.
Out
of
all
this
my
answer
is
,
that
the
essentiall
forme
of
a
visible
church
is
the
covenant
of
God
,
or
true
fayth
made
visible
by
profession
;
the
notes
&
markes
wherof
are
the
word
&
sacraments
rightly
administred
&
receyved
,
with
fruights
of
obedience
.
The
integral
constituting
forme
is
that
state
,
relation
or
reference
which
a
congregation
of
such
professors
haue
one
to
another
by
vertue
of
their
setled
combination
,
the
note
or
mark
wherof
is
their
usuall
assembling
into
one
place
&
watching
one
over
another
.
The
organicall
active
forme
is
that
state
of
order
wherin
officers
&
people
stand
one
to
the
other
,
the
note
of
which
is
direction
&
submission
.
Now
to
the
poynt
,
so
many
parrish
assemblies
of
England
as
haue
any
competent
number
of
good
christians
in
them
,
united
together
for
to
worship
God
ordinarily
in
one
societie
,
so
many
have
essentiall
&
integrall
forme
of
a
visible
church
:
and
all
they
have
entyre
right
to
Christ
&
to
all
the
meanes
of
enioying
him
:
howsoever
they
are
defective
in
the
puritie
of
their
combination
,
&
in
the
complete
free
exercising
of
their
power
.
The
4
and
last
quaestion
propounded
by
Mr.
R.
concerning
the
church
is
,
how
parrish
assemblies
being
partes
of
diocesan
false
churches
,
can
any
more
be
reputed
true
churches
,
then
could
a
particular
Iewish
synagogue
be
so
reputed
,
which
should
haue
made
it self
an
entyre
&
independent
body
in
respect
of
the
nationall
church
&
temple
?
To
which
I
answer
,
that
ther
is
not
the
like
reason
.
For
parrish
assemblies
are
not
spirituall
parts
of
a
diocesan
spirituall
church
:
but
entyre
spirituall
bodies
though
civilly
combined
into
a
diocesan
government
.
Neyther
is
the
principall
worship
performed
at
the
cathedrall
church
as
it
was
in
the
temple
,
but
in
the
parrish
assemblies
themselves
.
In
the
second
head
,
ther
is
but
one
quaestion
moved
;
that
is
,
whether
a
man
fitted
&
inwardly
called
to
the
ministery
being
perswaded
in
his
heart
that
a
lawfvll
outward
calling
,
&
without
sin
in
the
enterance
&
continuance
can
not
be
had
in
the
church
of
England
,
whether
such
a
man
be
not
bound
in
conscience
to
seek
out
&
procure
another
church
&c.
I
ans.
1.
That
inward
calling
is
not
ordinarily
to
be
built
upon
,
without
some
outward
approbation
doeth
confirme
it
.
2.
A
lawfull
outward
calling
is
had
&
enioyed
in
many
churches
of
England
.
3.
He
that
cannot
enter
in
one
place
without
sin
,
&
yet
hath
his
heart
so
fully
set
unto
the
ministery
that
he
cannot
haue
peace
without
that
function
ought
as
I
think
to
take
any
good
occasion
of
removing
into
some
other
place
of
more
freedome
.
To
the
demands
in
the
3
&
4
head
,
I
haue
answered
before
,
that
preaching
is
necessarily
required
by
the
natur
of
a
ministers
office
in
England
;
some
ruling
is
exercised
by
those
that
make
conscience
of
their
duty
;
and
unto
this
function
men
are
not
called
meerely
by
the
prelat
.
These
4
conditions
therfore
so
farr
as
they
are
of
absolute
necessitie
for
a
true
ordinary
minister
of
Christ
,
are
manifestly
to
be
found
in
many
assemblies
of
England
.
Which
also
Mr.
R.
in
a
manner
granteth
,
in
confessing
that
there
are
to
be
found
in
the
parochiall
ministery
men
apt
to
teach
,
unreproveable
in
conversation
,
having
an
inward
calling
from
God
,
that
is
,
a
holy
disposition
&
desire
to
administer
the
gospell
of
Christ
to
the
glory
of
God
&
furtherance
of
mans
salvation
.
For
this
is
the
2.
condition
which
he
acknowledgeth
to
be
found
in
the
parochial
ministery
.
And
can
any
charitable
&
aequall
minde
receyve
into
it self
this
thought
,
that
so
many
men
of
so
good
knowledg
,
&
syncere
conscience
should
be
so
far
forsaken
of
God
,
all
the
time
of
their
life
,
and
that
one
generation
after
another
,
as
not
onely
to
continue
in
Babilon
as
members
of
Antichrist
but
to
bow
downe
ordinarily
&
give
spiritual
honour
to
so
many
hatefull
idols
exalted
above
all
that
is
called
God
,
as
these
men
doe
telus
of
in
the
English
assemblies
?
or
if
Mr.
R.
did
inwardly
beleeve
that
they
lived
in
such
continuall
practise
of
idolatrie
as
he
doeth
in
words
accuse
them
of
,
would
he
account
them
unreproveable
men
in
their
conversation
,
without
any
exception
annexed
?
I
say
no
more
,
but
God
grant
me
that
comfort
which
many
of
them
haue
had
in
their
unreproveablenes
,
and
more
to
Mr.
R.
then
he
can
possiblie
finde
in
such
kind
of
reproving
or
rather
slandering
of
them
.
Amen
.