A Second Manuduction

A Second Manuduction For M ^r. ROBINSON, Or a confirmation of the former, in an answer to his manumission.

I T is not much to be merveiled at, if one assay praevaileth not with him for public communion, who was so hardly drawn unto private, by many & long strivings. We may rather hope, that in time, he will be brought, to see reasō for that as well as for this. The success being left unto God: I think it a Christian part, to stretch out a little & strengthen that hand which before was lent him for a manuduction. First then must be marked, how far M. R. is come already: and then the points that he stayeth at, with the grounds of that his stay. He granteth; If a man (remaining a member in some parish of England) intending the ministry, & competently qualified thereto, having approbation of godly & learned men, shall, without any further calling, for a time, perform the actions of prayer & prophefijing, by leave in a public assembly there, that it is lawful to communicate with him in that work. And moreover, that if the same man shall continue in that course for some years, not having any further warrant, but the seal which God setteth to his labor in the fruight of it, & the consent of those people which repair unto him for instruction; it is lawful, still to have communion with him. All this he acknowledgeth (though not in so plain a manner as ingenuous dealing requireth) in calling of it private.

This grant of M. R. is of no small moment in the consequence of it. For by virtue thereof, those of his mind, may be present at many sermons in England upon occasion, not only to the spiritual comfort & edification of their souls, but also to the avoiding of much danger & damage in their outward estate. For of this kind are a multitude of religious exercises ordinarily performed by students in the colleges of both the universities, who are wont in their college chapels to make trial of their gifts though they be not ordained ministers; & not only there, but in such assemblies of the country as they have opportunity. Some also have been known to continue long, even for 20 years 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 we shall see) that communion may be had in the like actions of those which have further authority: for this communion is of public nature & a church action, & so for substance, of one reason with the other.

That this doeth follow upon the former grant, if so be that such exercises of religion be public actions, M. R. doeth well understand: & therefore to avoid that which he is loath to acknowledge, he denieth such actions to be of public nature. To this purpose he insinuateth 2 reasons. 1. Becaus a private action may be performed in a public place, as a public may in a private: and 2 because no action is public, that is not performed by public calling or authority. The former of which I willingly grant: and therefore made no such mention of the place, as if it were of itself sufficient to make these exercises public. The second I do flatly deny until I see that reason which (as he saith without any further proof) doeth of itself 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 pertaineth unto this purpose. For there Mr. P. speaketh only of such public actions, as are usually called actions of law, wherein public justice is questioned, the mitigation whereof pertaineth unto that Christian equity which there is handled: such as execution of penal statutes, suing of bonds, taking forfeitures & fines are. If he would know Mr. Perkins his judgment 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 publicly in the congregation of the people of God. But leaving his testimony, let us search a little after that reason which Master Robinson telleth us will teach us what actions are public. Public is as much as peoplelick because that which is not restrained unto one or a few, but extended as commune to a people either civil or ecclesiastical, that is peoplelick or public. Thus some actions done first in private, and after extending to the knowledge of the people, become thereby public scandals, though the actors of them have no public calling or authority for doing of them. Much more, are those actions to be esteemed public, which are performed in a public place, extending to the present knowledge or use of the people, & so intended, whether they be good or evil in which respect no mā cā deny the prophecies of Zedekiach & other his fellows 2 Crō. 18. to have bē as public as that of Michaia, though he only & not they had lawful calling or authority for that action. Those exercises of religion which are ordinarily used in the separate assemblies, called prophecijngs, wherein prayers are offered up in the name of all the people, & the word interpreted unto all, they are I think esteemed public by them selves: sure I am they are so, however they be esteemed: yet the actors in those businesses have no special set calling or authority for that they do. In the time of Wycliffe, when many that received light of truth from him did upon all occasions publish the same unto others either in churches or churchyards, or else in markets, fairs, & such like open assemblies, though they did it without license of the ordinaries, or other sufficient authority of that kind, yet they are said to preach publicly. It is the phrase of king Richards letters against them, as is to be seen in M. fox, p. 406. Like phrase is used in like case, by all that write or speak thereof. So that both by reason & custom, & all good rule of speech, it is manifest, that these exercises of religion which M. R. granteth lawful are public actions: and so, that not only private, but also public communion is by his own confession, lawful in the parish assemblies of England.

THus far then we have Mr. R. consenting. Now at the third demād, he maketh a stand: but with such oppositiō as will not stand. The demand was of the same mā, who formerly did lawfully preach in a public assembly, if he should obtain a license from the L. Bishop of the diocese, without any unlawful condition for to continue in that his course, whether that leave or license given doeth pollute the actions, seeing a man may ask leave of the great Turk, to preach the gospel within his dominions? His answer is, that the very obtaining & receyving of such a license is unlawful: because it is a real acknowledgement, that such a Bishop hath a lawful power to grant it. Which is neither so nor so: for. 1. The asking & receyving of leave or license (which are both one) doeth not always imply an acknowledgement of his lawful authority from whom it is sought. If any man of violence shall usurp a power to himself, of permitting or hindering the lawful & good offices that pertain unto honest men, so that without his license a man could not buy or sell, or teach any science or trade of life; if an honest man whom these duties concern, should in that case take a license from that usurper (though he were no better then a strong thief) no reasonable man will say, that in so doing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful. The rulers of Jewish synagoges had no lawful power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministry, neither would Paul ever acknowledge so much: yet he & Barnabas accepted of such license or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authority. See an example act. 13.15. Mr. R. himself hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochial assembly: which leave must be given by the parochial minister & churchwardens, whose authority he holdeth one with the Bishops. If therefore leave or license (whether in word or writing, that is all one) may be lawfully taken from them, without acknowledging any authority lawful which is unlawful, why not from the Bishop? 2. There is some authority in the Bishops derived from the king which may be acknowledged lawful. Such is this of giving license, liberty & civil authority for men to do good. The civil magistrate may do it himself; or appoint others to do it 2 chro. 17.7. The abuse of this authority doeth not make it unlawful.

But John Claydon (saith Mr. R.) a martyr of Christ was otherwise minded, when he witnessed, that the Bishops license to preach the word of God was the true character of the beast. Which testimony is found in deed in the book of martyrs, p. 588. But 1. It is not John Cleydons, but found in a book whereof he was the owner but not the author: for he could neither write nor read. 2. Whosoever was the author, the meaning was, that in regard of the conditions required by those Bishops, & the persons that usually obtained their approbation, licences might be held as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome: though those conditions being removed, there was no such wickedness in the bare license. This meaning may be gathered out of the answer of William Thorp, who may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherein this testimony was found. For concerning the Bishops license, he rendereth a just reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seek them p. 492. In this his speech to the archbishop. Sir, as touching your letters of license, or other Bishops, which ye say we should have to witness that we were able to be sent for to preach: we know well, that neither yow sir, nor any other Bishop of this land, will grant to us any such letters of license, but if we should oblige us to yow, & to other Bishops by unlawful oaths, not to pass the bounds & terms which ye sir with other Bishops will limit to us. And since in this matter your terms be some too large & some too strait: we dare not oblige us thus to be bound to you for to keep the terms which yow will limit, as yow do to friers & such other preachers.

3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimony in such a sense as Mr. R. will have it understood in, yet the general consent of almost (if not absolutely) all the other martyrs being otherwise, as is well known to such as have read their stories, this one of itself could work no great prejudice.

This for the answer directly applied unto the demand. Unto the comparative reason annexed, that a man may ask leave of the great Turk to preach the gospel within his dominions, he opposeth 2 things. 1. A difference betwixt leave & license, that to ask leave is to desire one not to hinder him: but to obtain a license of the Bishop, is to obtain public authority of the public officer, & according to the public laws of the church, to exercise a public ministry. 2. That the great Turk is a lawful civil magistrate with whose civil authority it is lawful to partake: But so is not the Bishop a lawful ecclesiastical officer, with whose spiritual jurisdiction gods servants may communicate. In all which there is not one sound sentence. For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave & license, my meaning was, that it was lawful to obtain a license of the Turk for to preach the gospel in his Dominions.

2. Leave from one that is in authority, so as he that hath it shall be hindered of none subject unto that authority, is a license with authority. So that the difference betwixt leave & license, insinuated by him must consist only in the great sound of the word public so often̄ repeated in vain, public authority, public officer, public laws, public ministry : Which how idle it is, hath formerly been shown. 3. He that hath a Bishops license & orders too, hath no such authority actual conferred upon him thereby, but that he may be hindered many ways, even by those that are subject unto the Bishop, from ever exercising that whereto he hath license so that in this respect, there seemeth not so much as full & perfect leave to be contained in a Bishops license. 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrate, it would trouble Mr. R. to prove. 5. The Bishop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes, which may lawfully be communicated with. 6. And lastly, though all this were so as Mr. R. saith, that it were unlawful for to seek or take such a license of a Bishop, yet it doeth not follow, but it might be lawful to communicate 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, only with this difference, that he doeth that with license of the Bishop which he did before with his connivence. So that this demand remaineth unanswered: which was not made of the getting of license, but of communicating with him that had gotten one.

Which communion can be no more unlawful, then that which scholars have with a schoolmaister, who hath takē a Bishops license (according as many are urged to do) from the same Bishop: or that which subjects have had with their lawful king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope.

THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that form of admission which is called orders of the diocessan, not knowing any evil in it, whether such a fault, if it be a fault, doeth pollute that communion with him which otherwise is lawful? that it doeth not Mr. R. seemeth to witness in his former treatise p. 15. For this he referreth the reader unto that answer which he gave to the former demand: and so do I to the refutatiō of it. Whereas he addeth, that his testimony is misaplied, because his meaning was, that a human infirmity about an external ordinance doeth not hinder from communion in actions performed merely by personal grace; I answer, that it is possible for a man which hath such orders, to perform the actions of prayer & preaching even in a public place, merely by virtue of the personal grace & gifts which God hath endued him with all. Especially this man of whom here we speak, who yet hath no special state or reference by office unto those that communicate with him in the word & prayer. The reason therefore is one and the same, in this case, & that which Mr. R. speaketh of.

THe fifth question was of a man that being desired, & so chosen by some assembly wherein there are many fearing God apparently, he taketh a pastoral charge of them, having the Bishops & patrons admission, but chiefly grounding his calling upon the people's choice, and that he do nothing but the same he did before, besides the administration of the sacraments to such as are in charity & discretion to be esteemed worthy, what hindereth from communion here? To this a four fold answer is given in show, though none in deed. 1. He denieth an assembly gathered & consisting of many fearing God, & many without the fear of God, to be a lawful church assembly, having right in communion to call & enjoy a Pastor. But the question was made of an assembly wherein are many fearing God apparently, without his supply of many not fearing God, though with them there may be mingled some which give not such apparent evidence of God's grace to be in them, but rather praesumptions of the contrary. Will Mr. R, deny the title of a true church unto all assemblies that have some such amongst them? then must he condemn most rashly not only a multitude of present churches (Dutch & French) but those of Corinth, Galatia, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, & Laodicea also, of which the Apostles & Christ himself gave other judgment. 2. He telleth us, that none can truly take a pastoral charge in the Parish assemblies: because he cannot govern or rule the flock. But first, a man may truly take upon him that which he cannot fully & in every part perform or fulfill, desiring & endeavoring so far as his knowledge & ability extendeth. Otherwise, no high Priest in Israel from the time of Solomon unto the time of Hezekia did truly take upon them the charge of a high priest: because none did celebrat the passover which was a principal sacrament, in such sort as was writ̄. 2. Chron. 30.5.26. Nor keep the feast of tabernacles in a far longer time. Nehem. 8.17. Nor did any king all that time truly take upon him the charge or office of a king: because none did reform things as he ought. If any difference be, their sin was greater, that might have dō their duty & would not, then theirs that would & cannot. Secondly, the mere want of performing one part of the charge, doeth not hinder but that a man may well communicate in the other parts, which are well undertaken & discharged also. 3. He addeth, that the church of England acknowledgeth no such calling as is chiefly grounded on the people's choice. Such private intendimēts & underhand professions of particular persons in secret, are cloaks of shame & craftiness, like unto disguised familism. And if any ministry be so grovnded, it is not the ministry of the church of England. But what that church of England alloweth which he understandeth by this title, it maketh nothing to the question. It is enough if such a calling be in some assemblies of England. Yet for a minister to lay the chief ground of his calling upon the people's choice, so that he have withal those formallities required, I know no law in England that doeth forbid or disallow it. Ther is therefore no necessity for him that doeth so, to speak of it in secret only: he may profess it in the pulpit, as many have been known to do, & yet be a minister of a church established by the law of England. Neither 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 lawful state of marriage which before & without that was none: & in government, acceptance & submission doeth make him a king which before was a tyrant, though in their nature these actions be rather consequences then causes of that calling, so is it betwixt minister & people. All the wind that he spendeth therefore in this answer, is but a venting of his praejudiciall passions. The question itself he secretly granteth, in making a ministry grounded on the people's choice to be no ministry of the church of England: insinuating thereby, that with such a ministry he cannot say but communion is lawful. Now that there is such a ministry to be found in England, as it is manifest in diverse places, so he himself doeth as much as witness it in the next page, where he affirmeth that in sundry places the people are ready to suffer persecution with their ministers. For if the lifting up of a hand in tokē of consent be a choosing, a consent declared by such fruights must needs imply no less.

4. He excepteth against baptizing of all infants borne in the Parish. But (to abstain from by controversies) it shall suffice for that, that other churches do extend the use of that sacrament to as great largeness as England doeth, with whom not withstanding Mr. R. will not deny all communion public.

The 6 question 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 remaining still a minister of the church of England, & preaching by that calling, cannot be communicated with, without submission unto and upholding of the prelates antichristian authority, which in that work he exerciseth. Which is a conceit past commune apprehension. That he which by the prelat, the prelates cannons, & all that his authority can make, is forbidden to preach, often times excommunicated also by him, and all this for witnessing against his usurped authority, should in performing that duty, which also he did law fully before he received any commission from any prelat, not only exercise the prelates authority, but so exercise it, that no Christian man may be present thereat, without actual submission to antichristian power. I can say no more, but let him that readeth give judgment.

To the 7 & last demand, which was of one that thorough infirmity admitteth of some corruptions in the exercise of his ministry, he answereth nothing of moment, but what was examined before, & therefore need not a several trial.

THus much for maintenance of the arguments implied in the foresaid quaeres. Wherein also those bars are now removed which were by Mr. R. opposed before in general, & now as we have seen, particularly applied. Yet further some what to pursue the matter, it may be a defense of that which is said already. The principal & in deed the only ground of opposition was laid by him in this, that such a Parishonal minister is a branch of the prelacy, as receyving power from it, by which it doeth administer. My answer was by denial, with this distinction, that a parishional minister as I formerly described had power of right unto his ministry before ever he had to do with the prelat, though a power of external legal ability, he may be said to receive from the prelat in part. When I said he had nothing to do with the prelat before he had gotten right, my meaning was, that he had not to do about that pastoral charge.

Yet we may suppose him also not to have proceeded by such degrees as were formerly for argument sake set in rank, 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 point, his answer is, that no parish assemblies have power of right to choose their ministers. Whereas on the contrary it is most evident that every congregatiō of Christians hath right unto this thing from Christ himself so inseparablie annexed unto it, that no external oppression by others, or abuse of their own cā possibly deprive them of this right, so long as they remain a Christian assembly or congregation. Suppose they be in external bondage, & that in some sense spiritual, yet no matter of fact can take away right, while they abide such as Christ hath given that right unto.

The whole case may be cleared in this example, two single persons agree on marriage betwixt themselves, with allowance of parents, & have by virtue of that contract, mutual right one in other, yet the laws of the place where they live having ordered that none shall be held for married persons without certain forms which they appoint, they have not external legal power or liberty one in the other, before such rites be performed. Even so stands the matter betwixt minister & people in England, they agreeing or cōtracting betwixt them selves have right one in other: but external legal power or liberty they must receive from others. Another example also I would have considered, the emperor sometime was so subject unto the pope that he had not liberty of emperiall rule until he received his crown from Rome: yet was the emperor then no proper part of the papacy, nor did he take his right from the pope, neither did those that submitted unto him, therein communicate with the popes authority. So is this in hand. If Mr. R. will shut his eyes against the light I cannot make him see the difference that is betwixt these two powers.

OVt of Mr. R. his own grounds there were certain assertions observed, which show that the power of preaching which ministers in England do exercise professing that to be their main office, is not properly a part of the prelates power. The first was, that the office of the prelates is founded on their usurpation of the churches rights in calling of officers & censuring of offenders: power therefore of preaching can be no part of it. To which first he answereth, that that which I admit in his affirmation hath enough in it to overthrow my consequence: for if it belong to the prelates to cal ministers & that in calling them they give thē power & authority to preach, then it followeth undeniablie, that those ministers thus preaching, do therein exercise the prelates power. And if unto this be added such an estimation of all the ecclesiastical state in England as he cōceyteth, & would have others to take for granted, then he saith all will follow that he desires. Only he disliketh, that diligent preaching should be accounted the ministers main office : because that in abstracted notions, it is rather a work then an office, & such a work as may be performed by Apostles, or others that are no pastors, & therefore as he full wisely concludeth, it cannot be the pastors office main or mean. Secondly he descants upon the word founded, affirming that men may have power to do more then they very things 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 Bishops authority in calling of ministers: never granting (as former passages do sufficiently witness) that all authority of calling them resteth in the prelat. 2. A man may be in some sort called by another to exercise some power which is not his that so called him. As when a phycisian is called by the civil magistrate 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 episcopal power. So likewise is the case of a schoolmaister set in place by a Bishops license & authority: in teaching of grammar, he doeth not exercise the power of a Bishop. 3. Though in strictness of distinction, an office dissereth, from the work of it, yet Mr. R. I hope will give us leave to follow in phrase of speech the custom of speakers & writers, who do usually call that work men's office whereto by office they are separated, Especially seeing the Apostle Paul himself doeth call the office of a Bishop a work. 1. tim. 3.1. And the work of ministry, a ministry. Rom. 12.7. But it seemeth he doeth not esteem preaching any proper work of a pastors office, because Apostles & others may do it. As if the apostles & ordinary pastors had not one general office, because they have not the same in special; or that one man may not be tied by office unto a work which another also hath liberty by oceasion to do without such a special office. As if it were not a deacons office to distribute unto the poor, because others may do so.

4. His strict acception of the work founded cā neither stand with his other interpretation of the word office nor with that sentence whereto it belongeth. For a prelates office or state is in nature before that usurpation he speaketh of, & not founded upon it. Neither is the question, whether prelates have 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 contain that as a part of it, as that, whosoever preacheth with in their diocese, must needs execute a part of their office or power?

A Second assertion whereof use was made in the manuduction was, preaching is no natural or necessary part of the parochial ministers office. Concerning this sentence, Mr. R. complaineth first that it was by me unjustly reproached, & 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 do much less merveyl at it then I did before: seeing that which he here affirmeth of the parochial minister, he doeth as boldly affirm of all ministers & true pastors, viz: preaching is not the pastors office, either main or mean. I do rather merveyl, that he should cast that upon parochial 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 say, it was an intemperat speech, proceeding from an impotent sickness 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 natural or necessary parts of this ministry, things not mentioned in the ordination: but cannot find preaching any part, though it be expressly mentioned, & that as a main part. Whoe doeth not see, that such partial dealing doeth proceed from passion? the force of this argument thus couched in that comparison, Mr. R. observing will take no knowledge of, but frameth another, which he thought he could answer: and simply proproundeth my reason to be, that preaching the word is expressly mentioned in the ordination: & therefore a natural & necessary part of the parochial ministers office. Though this I neither said nor meant, yet if it be rightly understood, viz: that preaching of the word is mentioned as the principal work to which he is ordained, the argument is good & sound: & the objections which Mr. R. hath brought against it, are but as the raising of a little dust unto the clearenes of a shining light. It is mentioned also in the ordination of a maspreist: But is not mentioned as the chief work whereunto he is concecrated: sacrifizing for quick & dead is the main. Yet according to the intention of those which first framed that form of ordination, it is manifestly the office of him that is so ordained, to preach the word of God. So also is ministering the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, expressly mentioned. So is it also a part of his office, though he be not now permitted to perform it, according as he should. The Bishop also expressly bids his ordained one, receive the H. Ghost: doeth he therefore so receive it? most trifling. Is this the question now, whether the ordained one receyveth everything that he is bidden receive? or do those words any ways import an office of such receyving? The greatest part of the ministers want ability of preaching, therefore it cannot be a natural or necessary part of their office. So did the greatest part of the priests & levites in the days of Jeremiah, & the other prophets: was it therefore no natural or necessary part of their office? But the public laws do approve of their inability to preach, by appointing homilies to be read by them. It is a public slander to say so, when as in the very preface to those homilies, the appointers of them do declare, that their intent was not to approve such unsufficiencie, but to make some kind of supply for that which was wanting in such men toward the performance of their office, and that for a time only, while better provision might be made. Whereby 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 speech reproved: now for the inference deduced out of it. Which was, that if preaching be no natural part of such a ministers office, then he in preaching doeth not exercise any power received from the prelat: neither doeth he that cōmunicates with him in that action of preaching, thereby communicate with him in any corrupt office of prelacy, or priesthood received from it. Wherunto Mr. R. answereth, that though it be not a natural & necessary part or work of his office, yet is it a casual & arbitrary part or work, which when it is done, proceedeth from the same power with those that are natural, that is, from the authority of the prelate. But who doeth not see how casual & arbitrary 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 natural or necessary. And where did he learn (I wonder) to distinguish the parts of anything into natural & preternaturall, necessary & casual? that which is preter-natural to a wholl is no part of it, neither is there any part which is not in some degree necessary. The duty of preaching may be a natural & necessary 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 necessary, 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 being plucked up, the branch cannot survive : for the prelacy being plucked up, the parochial ministry might stand still, in all the substantial parts of it: as reason will teach any man that considereth without passion, and experience also showeth in many parts of Germany. Therfor the parochial ministry can be no proper branch of the prelacy. For answer heerunto, first, he denieth & merveyleth that I would affirm, the same parochial office & power of ministry to remain in any churches of Germany that was in use when prelates were there in time of popery, which was mas-priesthood. But 1. It was not affirmed, that the ministry there doeth remain the same with that which was there before: but the same for substance with that which is England though we have prelates & they have none. The truth of which is evident unto all that have any knowledge of the state of those churches.

2. If the removing of the mass & the reference of priesthood unto it, doeth necessarily infer a change of the ministerial function, (as this answer importeth) why then doth Mr. R. so much forget himself, in affirming that the office of a mass priest & of a parochial minister is one & the same?

And for the point: the reasons by Mr. R. alleged (to prove that the parochial ministry cannot stand in all the substantial parts of it if the prelacy be taken away) are so frivolous & void of substance, that if passion & prejudice be taken away, they cannot possibly stand. 1. All the ministers are made & appointed by the Bishops: if therefore the Bishops be taken away, how can the ministers remain the same? take away the correlative & relation ceaseth.

Trew, the relation ceaseth, But is that external relation unto an efficient cause any part of the substance or essence of the ministry? I had thought that the substance & essence of a thing had consisted in matter & form, & not in such external relations. Mariages are also made (as Mr. R. affirmeth) by Bishops authority: take away Bishops therefore & by this reason the marriages shall not remain the same for substance which they are now. Licences for teaching school & in many places for practicing of physic are given by the Bishops & their officers: take away the Bishops, & may not the same schoolmasters & physicians yet still remain (for substance) that were before? Fie upon sophistry.

2. Take away the prelacy (saith Mr. R.) and how can such a ministry continue, whereof one part (viz: ruling) shall be usurped by the prelat ? As if when once that power is taken from the minister, it now appertained to the substance of his ministry, by whom it were usurped, whether he that possessed it were a Bishop, or a high commissioner, or of some other place! that which is without a thing may be changed without any substantial change of the thing itself: else how can Mr. R. say that either the function of masspreists, or of Popish Bishops do remain still in England as of old for substance, when there is so great an alteration in that supreme power from whence of old they were derived? The office of a king also, it remaineth the same for substance now, that it was in time of popery, for the substantial parts of it: yet one part thereof was in those times usurped & possessed by the pope, & is now restored to the crown, viz: power over ecclesiastical persons, & in ecclesiastical causes. It cannot therefore be denied, but by the same reasō, the parochial ministry should abide the same for substance that now it is, thovgh that part which is now usurped by Bishops should be restored again. So that Bishops being removed, whether that power of ruling should be translated unto some other officers, or settled in the ministers as it ought, Mr. R. argument hath by neither way any weight or force at all.

3. Take away (saith he) the provinc: & diocesan churches & prelates, the parochial churches & ministers, as partes of them, must fall also. As partes of them in deed they must of necessity fall: that is, they must cease to be partes of them: but it doeth not therefore follow, that anything of their internal substance should fall. The national church of England, & so the provincial & diocesan did once stand members, or partes of the ecumenical papal church of Rome: now that is removed out of England, so far at least, that this national church is not subject unto Rome, nor dependant on it, or contained in it as a part in a wholl: yet Mr. R. will say that the same diocesan provincial & national church remaineth (for substance) that was before. Why doeth he not then see that parochial churches may remain the same for substance, though diocesses and provinces did follow the other?

4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions, idol priests, cross & surplice with such vanities, mixture of profane with the godly, and asketh, if it be possible that the prelacy being abolished such things should remain as now? I answer 1. It is possible. Ther are more means of disorder & corruption then one. Neither can any such necessary cōjunction be shown betwixt the prelacy & these abuses, but that it is possible to separate one from the other. Yet 2. If they should all be abolished with the prelacy, no reasonable man will therefore say that the substance of parochial churches should be therein changed. If prejudice could be set apart, the shallowness of this & the former reasons could not be hid from the eyes of him that framed them.

TO a main objection by Mr. R. urged, viz: that all parochial ministers are subject unto the spiritual jurisdiction of prelates, answer was given, first, that so are private Christians subject unto the same jurisdict •• , not only in their church actions which they perform with others in public, but also for personal & private opinions & behaviours: this subjection therefore 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 been a fit answer to be given, we should certainly either have had it repeated here (for of repetition Mr. R. is not so nice) or at least the page quoted where we might have found it. But in deed it is not possible, but if mere subjection to Bishops be in itself a sufficient bar against public communion, it must also be held sufficient against such private in & for which a man is also subject.

The second answer unto the forenamed objection was that the greatest part of the prelates jurisdiction is from the king derived unto those that do exercise the same, and therefore must of necessity be a civil power, such as the king might as well perform by other civil officers, as it is in the high commission. The laws of the land do so esteem it, &c. In this Mr. R. insisteth much, as thinking no small advantage to be given him, & therefore requireth of the reader well to observe what here is said on both sides. In which request I ioigne with him: so that it be marked withal, that I do not undertake to justify the Bishops wholl state, much less their proceedings, but only so far, that some subjection unto some of their authority is not simply unlawful.

Mr. R. plea (after his praeamble) ariseth unto these 3 defenses. 1. The laws do nowhere derive from the kings civil authority, the power of the Bishops spiritual administrations, but do only make the king an establisher & up holder civilly of this power. 2. Though the laws of the land did esteem this jurisdiction civil, yet it doeth not follow that therefore it is such in deed: because they misesteeme diverse things. 3. That the prelates jurisdiction is not civile, as appeareth plainly by 5 reasons of him alleged. For the first of these, I appeal 1. To the oth of the clergy to the king, established by a statut law in the reign of king Henry 8. exstāt in Mr. Fox p. 961. Where the Bishop sweareth, that he knowledgeth himself to hold his Bishopric of the king only.

2. To the act that was then made for the supremacy, wherein all jurisdictions belonging to the title of head of the church in England are givē to the king, as it is in the same book p. 963.3. I appeal to the 5. Book of Sr Edward Cooks reports, where he showeth out of the law that Bishops are the kings spiritual judges, their laws his ecclesiastical laws, their jurisdiction so dependāt on him, that he may exempt any man from it, & grant the same also to whom he will. For the which purpose, he that desireth may find plētiful proofs in a book intitled, an assertion for church policy. Now whereas M. R. aledgeth, that the same jurisdiction ecclesiastical 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 withal. For the very title of that statute is, an act restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical. And the whole house of commons have so interpreted the meaning of that restauration which is therein made, that by virtue thereof the king is enabled to give power & jurisdiction ecclesiastical to any subject borne, so if it please him all causes may be taken from Bishops & their officers, & given unto other men in every parish of England. This interpretation is found in the bill of grievances presented to the king by those of the lower house an. 1610. Printed in a book called a record of some worthy proceedings &c.

That this or any other judgment of the law is not infallible, I easily admit, especially touching the question of lawful or unlawful, good or evil, of which kind those instances are which Mr. R. chooseth in this place to appose. But 1. Seeing that when we allege the parishes to be several churches, & to be considered as they subsist in their several conditions, and the calling of ministers in many assemblies to be grounded on the people's choice &c. we hear it still opposed with loud voice, the laws of the land allow no such things, they acknowledge no such matter &c. Was it not both fit & necessary then to declare the judgment of law? or can he with honesty reject the sentence of law so ligtly now, who a little before built all upon it. 2. The question is here of a matter of fact, and the positive not moral nature of it, whether this authority cometh from the king or no, not whether it be every way good & laudable (as is the controversy about cross, syrplice & such like abuses which he mentioneth) and in such a case if the the laws say yea, and those that submit to them say also yea, Mr. R. must pardon us, if his no be rejected, 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 go no further except he procure a civil coactive process by writ out of another court. I answer 1. Though it had no bodily enforcing at all annexed unto it yet it might be a civil power. Bodily enforcing is but a penal sanction which cometh after the authority or power civil, & may be separated from it 2. It is therefore 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 civil commissions & letters patent are granted to men which have no authority seated in themselves for forcing of mē unto obedience, but have authority to charge the constable or justice that next is to aid them in their affairs, which authority of theirs notwithstanding is civil, & in that respect coactive.

A second reason is taken from the works of prelates jurisdiction, which are for substance (saith he) the making of ministers, & excommunicating of offenders, with their contraries & appurtenances: which are not civil works, neither can be performed by any civil magistrate. Where, if by can or may he understandeth such right as men have for their deeds by the law or word of God, then I willingly grant that no civil magistrate may by his civil office perform those works of ordination excommunication &c. Neither can the Bishop so perform them: herein consisteth that presumptuous usurpatiō whereof they are guilty before God & man. But if he understandeth such right or power as men have for their deeds by man's law, then I avouch out of the former grounds & testimonies of law, that any other civil magistrate may receive authority of jurisdiction in those causes as well as prelates. Which experience confirmeth de facto in the high commissiō, & some other courts. Whereby it is manifest, that though these works in their nature be spiritual, yet (thorough great abuse) they are performed by civil authority. Secondly I answer, that these works of ordination & excommunication with their contraries & appurtenances are not the substance or in effect the wholl jurisdiction which Bishops do exercise in their provinces & diocese, though Mr. R. affirm it again & again. For 1. The principal jurisdiction which prelates have is under the king to make certain rules canons or laws for ordering of certain causes committed unto them 2. Those causes are for a great part of them merely civil, such as by God's law the civil magistrate hath power to order. Of which kind are the causes of matrimony, of wills or testaments & many circumstances pertaining to the several churches within their precincts. 3. In the very business of ordination & excommunication, it is of substance to see that worthy men be admitted & unworthy excluded. The forms of ordination & excommunication usurped by them, are corrupt appurtenances to those lawful actions, & not the substance whereto all the rest appertain.

Neither doeth Mr. R. agree with himself in making all the substance of spiritual government to consist in calling of ministers and exercising of censures, or ordination & excommunication: seeing his opinion is that all this may be done by the people, & yet in his former book (p. 26.) affirmeth government not to belong to them, wherein (saith he) doeth the people govern as many please to reproach us?

The third argument is taken from the form used in consecration of Bishops, wherein no mention is made of civil authority, but only of spiritual. Wherunto I answer. 1. That their episcopal jurisdiction over a special diocese or province is not expressed in that consecration: nor anything of substance which is not contained in a parochial ministers ordination. Which is an argument that the Bishop receyveth not that jurisdiction from him by whose hands he is consecrated, but from some other power, & that is from the king. 2. It is not necessary that words & forms of consecration should agree in all pointes with the state of a Bishop. For a Bishop in that state & proceeding which now is in use, is partly fish & partly flesh, or such a compound as were the feet of Nebuchadnetsars image, that were part of iron & part of clay, which did not cleave one to the other: for so is he, part of civil power which is of sound metal or iron, & part of spiritual usurpation, like miry clay.

The. 4. Argument is vainly built upon a supposition which formerly was proved false, viz: that all the civil jurisdiction which prelates have, consisteth in their being privy councellers, high commissioners, or iustices of the peace. This therefore needeth no further answer. Only let it be observed that Mr. R. in defending of the separation, as well as I in opposing it, doeth justify some part of the authority which Bishops exercise in England, professing communion with it and submission unto it. The only question is, how much of their authority is such. Let prejudicial insinuations & groundless imputations therefore be laid aside, and that question only discussed.

The last argument is raised from a form of words used by the-Bishops, in that they proceed in the name of God, & not in the kings name as all civile proceedings do. Wherunto I answer. 1. That a sound & convincing argument cannot be brought from words of form & office. If they should change their style, & begin their actions in the king name, I doubt whether Mr. R. would allow of that as any strong reason for their civil authority. 2. Many actions are performed with the same words of form, as all wills or testaments &c: which yet are no spiritual but civil deeds. So Henry the fourth king of England began his claim to the crown. In the name of God, amen. I Henry of Lanc. &c: as it is in Mr. Fox p. 474. Yet was not any other then a civil claim. 3 I affirm thatit is an abuse against law, that Bishops in their acts of jurisdiction do not use the kings name: and therefore howsoever that the formal words be wanting, yet the thing itself is to be understood, viz: as Sr Ed. Cook hath written, that howsoever the form runneth in the Bishops name, yet the authority is no other but the kings.

This I will show by an instance most pregnant. Bishop Farrar in king Edwards days, being troubled & vexed by evil Willershad (amongst other) these 2 articles objected against him as deserving deprivation 1. that he appointed his Chancellor by his letters of commission, omitting the kings majesties style & authority &c. 5. Item he hath commonly made his collations & iustitutions, as he did his first commission, in his own name & authority without expressing the kings supremacy. To the first, the Bishops answer was, that what formalities soever be wanting in his commission, yet the kings majesties style & authority was fully set forth in the same commission. Neither did the said chancelour offer to visit but in the kings name & authority, to the said Bishop committed. To the fifth he saith, that the said defendāt made his collations & institutions in his own name, not by his own anuthoritie, nor by any others▪ fave only the kings authority, according as he hath declared in his first article, expressing in them the kings supremacy with the Bishops own name & seal of office, as he ought to do according to the provision of the kings statute in such a case. See Mr. Fox p. 1405.1406. In which one plea, we have the authority of statute, the sentence of lawyers & judges, with the confession & practice of prelates themselves, for the kings name & authority to give life unto their proceedings.

Here it must be observed, that this accusation & answer of B. Farrar was grounded immediately on a statute made the first of Edward 6. wherein it was enacted, that the Bishop, should make their process & writings in the kings name, and that their seals should be the kings arms. Which act was but an appendix declaring & adding form to that statute of supremacy made in Henry 8 his days, whereby ecclesiastical jurisdiction was annexed to the crown so as all Bishops were to fech it from thence. Now though that act of king Edward was repealed in Queere Mary's time, and not since revived, yet that doeth declare the meaning of the former statute of Henry 8. to be such as hath been said: which statute is now in force. Howsoever, the Bishops have (undoubtedly) the same kind of state which they had in the days of king Edw. If therefore they were thē civil officers, proceeding by the kings authority, they are also now such, viz: of civil nature for their state, deriving their jurisdiction frō 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 objection touching spiritual subjection. Concerning which, I found nothing further directly pertaining unto the purpose, except one passage which I found p. 30. Where these words are, they who thus disclaym in word the Bishops government, confess themselves therein to be under no spiritual external government at all, & so be lawles persons & inordinate walkers &c. This because it sounded as a dangerous & deep charge, ensuing upon that former defense which was made, that good ministers are no branches of the prelacy nor necessarily dependent on them as spiritual officers, I thought it needful to give answer unto it.

My answer therefore did consist in these 3 branches, 1. That there was no such want of spiritual government in the ministers which govern themselves well, as could be a just barrt against all communion with them: seeing private men living in the same want, may well be communicated with. 2 That they are subject unto some spiritual government. And 3. That for that want of government which they are in, they are no more lawless walkers or inordinate walkers then Mr. R. himself is, who is not subject to any other spiritual government then they are except he will say that the people govern him, which he counteth to be a reproach. Now let us hear what reply he maketh.

1. He pleadeth, that he did not infer this exception upon the former ground. But let that passage of his book be weighed p. 29.30. And it will be found that against his allegation of the parochial ministers being a branch of the prelacy, this was one defense, that they are not subject to their government, whereupon this inference followeth, that then they are inordinate walkers & lawles persons. Which is the very same order of inference that I observed. 2. He saith it was not alleged to prove communion unlawful with them, but as a reproof &c. But seeing the main reason was for unlawfulness of communion because of their branching out of prelacy, and the allegation nothing but an establishing of that reason by removal of one principal defense supposed to be brought for it, it must of necessity 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 alleged.

3. He affirmeth the 1. and 2. Answer to be beside the purpose because they speak only of personal, or civil, or else a more general kind of government then he intended, who spake only of outward guidance and ordering of the church in her public affairs, in which respect he affirmeth all in the parish assemblies to be lawless persons, if they be not under the prelates jurisdiction spiritual. Wherto I answer 1. That such good government as he granteth these mē 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 lawless & inordinate walkers, which he without law or limit had cast upon them. And for this purpose were those 1 & 2 answers opposed. Neither 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 public affairs? what not in those prayers wherein they go 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 accusatiō may in no sense be excused frō overlashing. Lastly it is alleged that this, not being subject to government is misapplied by me unto ministers, whē he spake it of the people, as is evident by his reply. Whereas indeed the contrary may better be gathered out of the reply. For therein (p. 30.) he speaketh first in general terms excluding none: & after doeth take in the ministers in special, expressly naming them no less thē 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 own tongue: and therefore hath now to help that, changed the term of spiritual government into another of the power of Christ for the censures, and because he doeth not acknowledge himself to be under any external spiritual government, yet under the power of censures he is, therefore the want of this in ministers & people he choseth now to impute for a lawless & inordinate state p. 19 As if this power of censuring were such a thing as every want thereof were a sufficient cause of so deep a censure: and this were not rather an audacious & abusive straining of the apostles phrase, 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 restrained. But thus much for this objection: and so for the justification of some public communion to be lawful in England.

THese things hitherto discussed were all that I could or can yet find in M. R. book, directly concluding against all public communion. Yet because there be 2 other objections, which by some might be thought to pertain unto the same purpose, viz: that all are urged to communion by penal statutes, and that a set form of prayer is appointed, I added therefore 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 communiō public, seeing there are many exercises of religion, wherein 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 separation, whereof I am persuaded also he doeth not yet repent. Further to reason about them is beside the purpose of my writing: and in deed needless, seeing the accuser hath answered himself in the one, p. 9. Whē he grāteth that the reformed churches generally use a stint form of prayer, with whō yet he will not refuse all public communion, & make like answer to the other, out of the laws of Geneva, where he shall find like strictness to be used toward all the inhabitants of that city, though he hath unadvisedly denied it in his so large assertion of our assemblies difference therein 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 miserably mangled the same without giving any answer directly to the purpose.

1. He bringeth in my first answer thus, he neither purposeth nor thinks it needful to deal about these things, seeing there are many exercises of religion where none are present by, constraynt &c. Was this my answer why doeth he leave out that wherein the main question consisteth, & whereupon all that followeth dependeth? viz: that those things do not hinder from all communion public. For this that reason was brought which he mentioneth: and not for that whereunto he pleaseth to apply it. Great distance there was in my writing betwixt those words which he patcheth together.

Neither was it my saying, that I had no purpose to deal about those things 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 evil custom, which is not (saith he) about men's being present by constraint at the exercises of religion, but of churches gathered by constraint of all the profane parishioners with the other handful. But what goodness is in this custom, to pass by the wholl question in hand, and then to move controversy about other matters? the state of our question thorougout this dispute, is, whether all public communiō in the parish assemblies of England be unlawful or no? the objection in this place was that all are urged to communion by penal statutes. For answer of which I said that there be many exercises of religion public, where none are present by virtue of such constraint, & therefore such constraint could not hinder from all communion, though it might from some. Could anything be more direct & press to the matter in hand? Take we in also that which he saith our question is about; that churches are gathered by constraint of all the profane parshioners with the other handful, what advantage hath he by it? nothing at all, but only that his charirie & moderation is thereby made known. For 1. There be many parishes in England which are but a handful in all, & diverse of them consisting only of a family two or three, having none in them that are profane. Diverse also there are more populous which have more then a handful of such in them as no holy man having bridle of his tongue can cal profane.

2. Though laws do urge unto such communion, yet it cannot be reasonably gathered that all which practice accordingly are cōstrained unto it: except Mr. R. will say that all men which live orderly with their wives & children & abstain from murder, treason, & such like offenses, do it by constraint, because laws do require & urge the same under great pains. 3 . Though all were gathered into churches by constraint, yet that constraint appertaineth not unto those exercises of religion, where none are present but of their voluntary mind. He should have given a mad answer, that being desired to hear Mr. Perkins, should have denied upon this ground, because that parish church where he only taught (for a member of it a long time he was not) was gathered by constraint, when none came to hear him by any constraint, & of that parish few or none to speak of were present. By all which we see, that this argument though framed thus as Mr. R. would have it, concludeth nothing against all public communion in England.

3. For that which I by the way only remembered, that he himself was once at a sermon in that assembly since he professed separation, as he had been at many of Mr. Perkinses before, he answereth▪ it was neither pertinently nor truly objected: because at that time he disputed only for separation, but had not professed it.

Practised it in deed he had not in that settled manner which since he hath: but by report of some that had speech with him, he declared then to one of his acquaintance, that he had been amongst some company of the separation before his coming to Camb: & exercising amongst them had renounced his former ministry. 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 cōstreynt 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 offenses against God? The historical narration which upon this occasion he interposeth, I pass over as remote from the argument in hand.

4. He acknowledgeth that for the very use of a set form of prayer he will not separate from a true church in things lawful▪ But many differences he findeth betwixt the set forms of other churches & that which is used in England, even so many as make the service-book a hateful Idol advanced above all that is called God. The temper of which speech I leave to be considered of himself & others. My argument is granted; viz: that a set form of prayer in itself is not a sufficient cause of denijng all public communion. Let the manner of imposing be as hateful 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 friend to hear with me a sermon preached by a godly man, where he shall neither see nor hear anything else beside the sermon, & such prayers as belong unto it; will any sense allow him to answer, no I dare not, there 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 laws do require church communion of all the inhabitants of that city, he seeketh as before to find some differences betwixt that & England: but granteth in the mean time, that if a state for politick respects expel out of their territories such as will not ioign in church communion, that kind of compulsion doeth not make their communion unlawful. Meer injunction of law therefore though it be general for all doeth not make all public communiō unlawful. Especially in such actions where it is manifest that none do communicate but voluntarily. This is all that I maintained. Which being granted by Mr. R. with some other of my demands, and the rest opposed with so slender defences as we have now shown; I do 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 usual meaning of that title I do not understand.

NOw though I have not undertaken to give answer unto everything that Mr. R. may object against the state of our assemblies, and therefore might without praeiudice neglect that addition which he hath annexed unto his answer, yet least any should think some unanswerable reasons to be contained in the same maintenance of his separation, I will briefly & plainly declare what I think in all the particulars of it. He undertakes to set down, what things are of absolute necessity for a true ordinary church-officer & minister of Christ, reducing the same unto 4 heads, a true visible church, a fit person, a lawful office, and a right calling.

About the foremost of these, he moveth 4 quaestions, 1. How the ministers of England can be true ministers, not being made & ordained such in & to any particular church? I ans: making & ordaining are two things, he may be a minister that is not formally ordained 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 parish churches consist of a people separated out from the world? How many such there are in England, I cannot tell, because I have no sufficient intelligence, whereby to inform myself therein. But divers assemblies there are, well known to such as are not willfully ignorant, which are so far at the least separated from the world as is of absolute necessity to the being of a true church. Perfect separation is not of that nature. As for the mixture in diocese &c. It is (as formerly hath been shown) a civil combination.

3. How the true form of a church can be found in any parish church of the land, which is not any particular act, disposition or relation, but (as he conceaveth) a public orderly covenant & union of a particular assembly, by which it hath in itself entire right to Christ & to all the means of enjoying him?

Wherein. 1. It is to be observed, that it is not a very easy thing to discern of this form of a church: for this man that hath labored so long about the search of it, & that with more abilities & helps then ordinary Christians can attain unto, yet speaketh something doubtfully or fearfully concerning the matter, as I conceive it can be no other then this. Me think then that charity should teach him & others more sparingly to censure & condemn those assemblies which do not practice this form so orderly as they should: seeing difficulty of discerning a duty doeth always 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, & therefore cannot be right. He saith that this form is no particular act, disposition, or relation : & yet it is a public orderly covenant & union. A covenant & union must be taken either 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 have one to another & so it is a relation, or else for the thing to which they are obliged, or the sign thereof, & so it may be either an act, or a disposition, or some other good. All these significations of the word covenant I find in scripture & use of speech: any other beside these, I do not understand. If Mr. R. had another meaning, he should have done well to have expressed it better: the point especially being of such moment. The things covenanted or the sign he cannot mean: for these are not constantly resydeing in the whole & all the parts thereof, which is a condition of this form by him required: some act or relation therefore he must needs understand, gainsaying one part of the sentence by the other. 3. The truth is, this form in strict & accurate meaning must needs be some relation by Mr. R. his own reason. For nothing beside a relation can possibly resyde actually one & the same and at all times in a whole company of men, and in all the parts of that company.

4. Whereas he calleth this form an orderly covenant, his words are doubtful at the least. For there be many degrees of orderly proceeding in businesses public as well as private: and every circumstance of order doeth not appertain (as absolutely necessary) to the constituting form of a true church.

Now for the declaring of the truth concerning this matter, I propound to be considered this brief demonstration. A visible church must not be considered as a simple effect, arising of mere matter & form, as Mr. R doeth speak of it: But as a whole or compound consisting of partes or members: so that the members must contain in themselves all the essential both matter & form also, which make the whole by compacting or uniting themselves in one. Christian men being the called of God, have in them both matter & form essential for making of a visible church, else could they not give 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, do make or rather are actually a true visible church, one integral body not continued, but by aggregation: which integral church as it is such, hath for the constituting form that relation which ariseth out of the combination of all the members: and so differeth not essentially from all the members compacted, but only in reasō. Further, this integral body for the well being of it in exercising those operations which belong unto it & whereunto it serveth, must become as we say organical, having members of diverse ranks, some as head, mouth & eyes, the pastor, teachers, & elders, some as hands, the deacons & helpers : whereupon ariseth another relation & form of accidental perfection, in state of government: which is cōplete or incomplete, freely exercising the power granted by Christ to his church, or else restrained or defective therein. Out of all this my answer is, that the essential form of a visible church is the covenant of God, or true faith made visible by profession; the notes & marks whereof are the word & sacraments rightly administered & received, with fruights of obedience. The integral constituting form is that state, relation or reference which a congregation of such professors have one to another by virtue of their settled combination, the note or mark whereof is their usual assembling into one place & watching one over another.

The organical active form is that state of order wherein officers & people stand one to the other, the note of which is direction & submission. Now to the point, so many parish assemblies of England as have any competent number of good Christians in them, united together for to worship God ordinarily in one society, so many have essential & integral form of a visible church: and all they have entire right to Christ & to all the means of enjoying him: howsoever they are defective in the purity of their combinatiō, & in the complete free exercising of their power.

The 4 and last question propounded by Mr. R. concerning the church is, how parish assemblies being partes of diocesan false churches, can anymore be reputed true churches, then could a particular Jewish synagogue be so reputed, which should have made itself an entire & independēt body in respect of the national church & temple ? To which I answer, that there is not the like reason. For parish assemblies are not spiritual parts of a diocesan spiritual church: but entire spiritual bodies though civilly combined into a diocesan government. Neither is the principal worship performed at the cathedral church as it was in the temple, but in the parish assemblies themselves.

In the second head, there is but one quaestiō moved; that is, whether a mā fitted & inwardly called to the ministry being persuaded in his heart that a lawfvll outward calling, & without sin in the entrance & continuance cannot 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 confirm it. 2. A lawful outward calling is had & enjoyed in many churches of England. 3. He that cannot enter in one place without sin, & yet hath his heart so fully set unto the ministry that he cannot have peace without that function ought as I think to take any good occasion of removing into some other place of more freedom.

To the demands in the 3 & 4 head, I have answered before, that preaching is necessarily required by the nature 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 merely by the prelat.

These 4 conditions therefore so far as they are of absolute necessity 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 parochial ministry men apt to teach, unreprovable in conversation, having an inward calling from God, that is, a holy disposition & desire to administer the gospel 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 ministry. And can any charitable & equal mind receive into itself this thought, that so many mē of so good knowledge, & sincere conscience should be so far forsaken of God, all the time of their life, and that one generatiō after another, as not only to continue in Babylon as members of Antichrist but to bow down ordinarily & give spiritual honor to so many hateful idols exalted above all that is called God, as these men do telus of in the English assemblies? or if Mr. R. did inwardly believe that they lived in such continual practice of idolatry as he doeth in words accuse them of, would he account them unreprovable men in their conversation, without any exception annexed? I say no more, but God grant me that comfort which many of them have had in their unreproveablenes, and more to Mr. R. then he can possibly find in such kind of reproving or rather slandering of them. Amen.