A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an…

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. There are more means of disorder & corruption then one. Neither can any such necessary conjunction be showed 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.

4. He reckoneth up sundry corruptions, idoll preists, crosse & surplice vvith such vanities, mixture of profane vvith the godly, and asketh, if it be possible that the prelacie beeing abolished such things should remayne as novv? I answer 1. It is possible. Ther are more meanes of disorder & corruption then one. Neyther can any such necessarie cōjunction 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 chāged. 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 main objection by Mr. R. urged, viz:¹ 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 it self a sufficient bar against public communion, it must also be held sufficient against such private in & for which a man is also subject.