prove communion unlawful with them, as he insinuates, but to reprove, and that upon their own plea, their churchstate and standing, as such as wherein they neither do nor can enjoy the spiritual external government of Christ in his . Church; and so neither have that conscience, which is meet, of the commandments of Christ by his Apostles, to give due honor to them who rule well; and to submit themselves to those who are over them in the Lord; nor of their own frailties, and in what need they stand of the Lord's ordinances, and of this in special, for their guidance and conservation in his ways. And though he pass by this reproof, not mine, but the Holy Ghost's, turning it off another way, yet let the godly reader with good conscience remember that the disciples of Christ are to observe whatsoever he hath commanded his Apostles; and withal, that it was the prophet's comfort, that he should not be confounded, when he had respect to all God's commandments.d

3. In his first and second answer he speaks not at all to the purpose in hand: our question not being about the personal government which a man hath over himself; nor about civil government, though in spiritual actions; nor about government at all, in the larger acceptation of the word; but only as it is taken for the outward guidance and ordering of the Church in her public affairs, by the bishops or elders. And thus, and in this regard, all in the parish assemblies (if not under the prelates' spiritual jurisdiction, as many would make themselves and others believe) are lawless persons, and inordinate walkers: neither is this mine assertion either lavish, or lawless, but a just and necessary testimony against their transgression: of which I wish them from the Lord more conscience, and, for that purpose, better counsel, than in this Manuduction they find. Lastly, to make way to a touch of wit, unto which he cannot get by my words and meaning truly related, he takes liberty to change the one and other for his advantage. I do, page 30, propound sundry defences made by such, both ministers and people, as dislike the prelacy: and the first, of the people, to wit, that they are not subject to the

prelates' government. And that I intend this of the people is evident by my reply in the same place, the words whereof I have formerly noted down in the second consideration of his answer. This, by me spoken, and intended of the people, he misapplieth to the ministers, putting, as my words, "These ministers are under no spiritual government"; and so would (in wantonness of wit) fasten the same reproof upon myself, as having been formerly with none, and now with one elder, and so an inordinate walker.

The truth then is, that the people, professing themselves (though most untruly) to be from under the prelates' spiritual government, do therein profess themselves to be from under all Christian church government; and that both ministers and people, professing themselves to be from under the prelates' spiritual power, do therein profess themselves to be from under all power of Christ for the censures; and in those respects and considerations (of which only I speak, though he stretch my words farther than he should either in charity or equity) to be lawless persons and inordinate walkers, and without the yoke of Christ, and one special means of their salvation.

And thus much for the confirmation of my testimony against communion with the parochial assemblies, in the particulars (though far from all in my former book, as mine opposite pretendeth) wherein he hath endeavored to weaken it: where I also desire the reader well to note, that whatsoever either he pretendeth or others conceive of public communion following upon private, yet the issue unto which things come between him and me is in these two questions: 1. Whether the bishops' jurisdiction in their provinces and dioceses be lawful, or no? 2. Whether the parochial ministers, being ordained, instituted, and licensed by the bishops, do preach by their authority, or no?

"The other two stumbling-blocks" (as he calls them) viz. " that all are urged to communion by penal laws; and that a set form of prayer is appointed," he neither purposeth nor thinks it needful to deal about, "seeing, 1. there are many exercises of religion where none are present by constraint, nor the service-book so much as appeareth": for which he instances in Mr. Perkins his exercise.

And wherefore doth he still, after his (but an evil) custom, change the state of the question? which is not about men's being present by constraint at the exercises of religion, but about churches gathered by constraint of all the profane parishioners with the other handful, as was that parish church whereof Mr. Perkins was a member, and where he taught, and that by authority from and under the prelates.

My "being once at his successor's sermon since I professed separation" is neither pertinently nor truly objected by him. I was there, as in many other places, since I made question of it, and disputed for it, but had not otherwise professed it. And upon this occasion I think good to note down the work of God's providence towards me in this matter. Coming to Cambridge (as to other places where I hoped most to find satisfaction to my troubled heart), I went the forenoon to Mr. Cha[dderton?*] his exercise : who, upon the relation which Mary made to the disciples of the resurrection of Christ, delivered, in effect, this doctrine, that "the things which concerned the whole church were to be declared publicly to the whole church, and not to some part only"; bringing, for instance and proof, the words of Christ, Matt. xviii. 17, Tell it to the church: confirming therein one main ground of our difference from the Church of England, which is, that Christ hath given his power for excommunication to the whole church gathered together for his name, as 1 Cor. v., the officers as the governors, and the people as the governed in the use thereof; unto which church his servants are commanded to bring their necessary complaints. And I would desire mine opposite either to show me how and where this church is, having this power, in the parish assemblies; or else by what warrant of God's word I (knowing what Christ the Lord commanded herein) may with good conscience remain a member of a church without this power. (much less

*

[The Rev. Laurence Chadderton, D. D., was lecturer for sixteen years at one of the churches in Cambridge. He was chosen by Sir Walter Mildmay first master of Emanuel College, when he founded it in 1584. This office Dr. Chadderton retained until 1622. "He paid," says Brook, "the most exact attention to the religion and learning of the scholars. His life was prolonged to its 103d year." See "Lives of the Puritans," Vol. II. pp. 445 – 8. - Ebs.]

a Matt. xxviii. Mark xvi.

4TH S. - VOL I.

24

where the contrary is advanced), and so go on in the known transgression of that his commandment, Tell the church?

In the afternoon I went to hear Mr. B[aynes*], the successor of Mr. Perkins, who, from Eph. v. and v. 7 or 11, showed the unlawfulness of familiar conversation between the servants of God and the wicked, upon these grounds, or the most of them: 1. That the former are light, and the other darkness, between which God hath separated. 2. That the godly hereby are endangered to be leavened with the others' wickedness. 3. That the wicked are hereby hardened, in receiving such approbation from the godly. 4. That others are thereby offended, and occasioned to think them all alike, and as birds of a feather, which so flock together. Whom afterwards privately I desired, as I do also others, to consider whether these very reasons make not as effectually and much more against the spiritual communion of God's people (especially where there wants the means of reformation) with the apparently wicked, to whom they are as light to darkness.

To that which he allegeth in the second place of "the reformed churches generally using a stint form of prayer, with whom yet I will not refuse all public communion," I answer, that, for the very use of a set form of prayer, or other the like failing, I will not refuse communion with a true church in things lawful: but between the set form of prayer used in the reformed churches, and_in the unreformed Church of England, I put great difference; not only in the matter, and sundry orders thereof, but especially in the manner of imposing it: which in the reformed church is not by compulsion, nor in the first place, as in the Church of England, where the reading of it is preferred before and above the preaching of the Gospel; and where more ministers (and those of the best sort) have been deprived of their ministry in a few months, for the not reading and observing it in manner and form, than have been ever since the pope was expelled, not only for not preaching (for which no man is so censured), but for all other wickedness of what kind soever, though abounding in the ministry there. By which, that their set service is advanced above all that is called God, and made a very hateful idol, to which both great and small are compelled to bow down, and it to honor. Which idol-service also upholdeth an idol-ministry, which, as it is truly so called, would without it be wellnigh as dumb as the idols of the heathens which have mouths and speak not.a

For conclusion, he affirmeth, that, " by the laws of Geneva, like strictness (to wit, unto that in England) is used towards the inhabitants of that city, though I unadvisedly deny it in mine assertion of the English assemblies' difference therein from all true churches in the world," page 20.

In that place of my book I observe two main differences between the churches of Christ, as the Scriptures testify of them, and the parish assemblies in their very constitution. With these differences thus propounded he meddleth not, either by showing how the assemblies agree therein with the Apostolical churches; or how, disagreeing from them in the one and other, they can be true visible churches rightly gathered and constituted. But where by the way for amplification I mention the reformed churches, as interessed in the same differences from Engl[ish], he there steps in and takes me by the hand, and leads me along to Geneva; as belike rather hoping to make the Church of England agree in something with the laws of Geneva, than with the laws of Christ's testament. But was the church of Geneva indeed gathered of all the apparently wicked and flagitious persons in the city, amongst the rest, scarce sensible in so vast a heap, as were and are the English parochial assemblies? If the state of Geneva did, in a politic respect, expel out of the city such the inhabitants as were not well affected towards the religion, and that the church were gathered of the rest, being judged in charity capable of the holy things of God, upon their personal confession; how then standeth this agreement between the Genevan and English assemblies? And if the church of Geneva had been gathered after popery (as the English assemblies were, and it was not) of all the unhallowed rout in the city, without separation, I should