• All are bound in the worship of God to heare and communicate onely with that ministery which Christ hath giuen, and set in his Church for that worke.
• But the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of En­gland, is not that which Christ hath giuen, and set in his Church for the worke of his Ministery.
• Therfore it is not lawfull for any in the worship of God to heare or communicate with the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England.

Answere.

Not to contend about the Proposition. I deny the As­sumption: and affirme, That the present Ministery of our Church Assemblies (how soever it may in some par­ticuler parts of the execution, happely be defectiue in some places) is, (for the substance thereof) that very same Ministery which Christ hath set in his Church for the worke of his ministery whether it bee the ministery of those which hee calleth the forward Preachers, or of those which being qualified according to the true intēt of the lawe, do subscribe, and conforme according to the laws of the State.

Fr. Ihon.

• The Ministery which Christ hath giuen, and set in his Church, is, of Apostles, Prophets, Euangelists, Pastors, and Tea­chers spoken of Eph. 4.11.12.
• But the present Ministery of the Church of England is none of these spoken of Eph. 4.11.12.
• Therefore it is not the Ministery which Christ hath giuen and set in his Church.

Answere.

The present Ministery of the Church of England (1. of the Church Assemblies of England) is the Mini­stery of Pastors and Teachers.

Fr. Iohn.

• The present Ministery of the Church of England is of Prelates, Priestes and Deacons.
• But nether Prelates, Priestes, nor Deacons of that Church, are Pastors or Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.12.
• Therefore it is none of those spoken of Eph. 4.11.12.

Answere.

I denye both Preposition and Assumption. For 1. Though our Preletes, doe sometimes voluntarily and occasionnally performe the same worke and seruice in some of our Church Assemblies, which our ordinary Ministers doe, yet their Prelaticall or Episcopall office or Ministery is not the proper Ministery of any of our Church Assemblies. But (in the intent of our lawes) their propre Ministery consists in overseeing the Mini­sters and Ministery of our Church Assemblies.

[Page] 2. Though sometimes our Ministers be called PRIESTS and DEACONS yet the MINISTERY vnder those names assigned vnto them, and which they exercise is not the proper and essentiall Ministery of ei­ther Priestes or Deacons; but of Pastors and Teachers: Soe that they are onely in aequivocation, and name, or Metaphorically Priestes and Deacons: But really Pa­stors and Teachers, and therfore such Priests and Dea­cons, may bee, and indeede and truth are such Pastors and Teachers as are spoken of Eph. 4.11.12.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Preposition is manifest.
• 1. The Law of that Church admitteth not any other Ministery, but that of their Prelacie Priesthoode and Deaconry, re­ceaued amongst them selues or from the Papistes.
• 2. Their Constitution is such as all the Ministers of that Church must bee Priests or Deacons, and theise also either in a Supe­rior degree as the Prelates, Arch. Bishops Suffraganes &c. or in an inferior, as Parsons, Vicars, Stipendaries, Chaplins.

Answere.

1. It is not necessary that the Ministery of a contrey or nation should be alwaies such as the law establisheth or admitteth: The Ministery (at least in some places) may be good though the law in generall should admit and establishe such a one as is bad: as on the contrarye side, the ministery may at some times, and in some cases be bad, though the laws admit, & establish neuer soe good; for the Gouernors of Churches and common wealths who haue the dispensation of lawes, may in their Chri­stian wisedome, and moderation permitt a ministery in [Page]sundrie respects different from that which the laws re­quire; yea and our owne Gouernors in fact haue per­mitted the ministery of some, who neuer receiued ordi­nation, either from Papists or themselues. And hee can­not be ignorant but that some by connivencie are yet suffred in some points of their ministery to swerue from some observances which the lawes require. The Argu­ment therefore will not follow, from the qualitie of the ministery, except hee can proue that our Ministery is in all our Assemblies, in all respects aimswerable to our lawes.

2. The Preesthood which the law admitteth is not cal­led Sacerdotius but Presbyteratus, and the Priests are not called Sacerdotes or sacrificers but Presbyters, (as suffi­ciently appeares by our orders in Latin.) Therefore the Law doth not intende any true and proper Priesthood but onely boroweth the name to expresse an office of another kinde.

3. To bee Persons, Vicars, Stipendaries, Chaplins, &c. is not to haue a diuers kind of Priesthood or deaconry, or Ministery (as hee foolishly conceiteth:) onely varie­tie of Tytles is giuen to the same kind of Ministery, in diuers persons, in respect only of a diuers kinde of main­tenaunce or dependance, for Parsons are such as haue all tythes in kinde; Vicars such as haue only the smaller Tyths, the other being impropriated by the Magistrate for other purposes; Stipendaries are such as are maintai­ned by the voluntary Contribution of their Churches or by some such like meanes. Chaplins are such as depend vpon great men; The Ministery of all which (If they duly execute the same) is one and the same, even that [Page](and noe other for substance) which is proper to true Pastors and Teachers.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Assumption is prooued by their 7. Arguments follo­wing.
  The. 1 Arg.
• The Pastors and Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. haue their offices, callings, administration and mainetenaunce ordained by Christ in his Testamente, Eph. 4.8.11.12. and Rom. 12.7.8. Act. 14.23. and 20.17.28. Heb. 5.4. Col. 4.17, 1. Thes. 5, 12.13.14, 1. Pet. 5.1.2.3. Reu. 2. and 3. and 22.18, 1. Cor. 14.1. and 5.4. and 9.14. and 11.23. and 12.28. Gal. 6.6.
• But the Prelates, Priests & Deacons of the Church of England, haue not their offices, Callings, Ministration and Mainte­naunce ordained by Christ in his Testament.
• Ergo. They are not Pastors and Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.
• The Assumption appeareth by their Constitution and practice, in as much as their offices of Prelacie, Priesthood, and Dea­conry, their calling, and entraunce, according to their Ponti­ficall, Their choyse of their people, whoe stand themselues vnder Antichrist, and vnseperated from the worlde, and are noe true visible Churches of Christe. Their Ministration by their owne, and other Popish Canons, Artes Iniunctions, and booke of Common prayer, their maintenaunce by Tyths, Lordships &c. were neuer ordained by Christ for his Ministe­ry, but diriued from Antichrist and his Apostasye, as hath bene proued by vs in diuers treatises.

Answere.

1. The Proposition is not true, except hee vnderstand by offices, Callings, and administration, the Substantial, or Essentiall parts therof. Otherwise those very Pastors [Page]and Teachers ther spoken of, may haue diuers accessary parts of their offices callings and administration not or­dayned by Christ in the newe Testament. Nether is it true, Yf by maintenaunce hee meane any speciall kind of maintenaunce. It is to be graunted in generall. That Ministers, are to haue sufficient maintenaunce, and the texts a ledged for that proues noe more, and therfore that which they proue, is nothing to the purpose; As little to the purpose are the other Texts, for it will not follow from any force in them, but that there may bee sundry accidents cleauing as parts to the offices, calling, and maintenaunce of true Pastors, and Teachers, which Christ neuer ordained.

2. Concerning the Assumption. 1. whether Prelates haue their office, calling &c. ordained by Christ is besids the present question. Except M. Iohnson can proue that they are ordinary Ministers of our Church Assemblies; which I am sure hee cannot. 2 Soe many of our Mini­sters (whoe in the booke of ordination are called Priests and Deacons) as in all points concerning the substaunce of their Ministery, are qualified according to the intent of the lawes, haue their offices, callings, administration and maintenaunce for the substaunce therof, ordained by Christ: And yet I deny not, but ther may be some acci­dentall defects, or Superfluityes in and a bout them all; yet such as doe or cannot be proued to destroy the na­ture and substance of any of them.

3. All that is brought to proue the Assumption is falce, and as much if not more controuersal then the Assump­tion it selfe. For 1. hee can neuer proue, that either the practis of all our Ministers, is in all things according [Page]to that Constitution, or their constitution according to their practis, or either of them answerable to the strict termes of the law in all points. 2. Hee can neuer proue, that either in their constitution, or practis, or by the law they are in proper speech, either Priests or Deacons; only hee presumes them to be such, because through some libertie of speech vsed in the lawes, they are ter­med such. Though it should bee graunted that our peo­ple stand vnder, some kinde of observances, and offices which in their owne nature, and first originall, are in some kinde Antichristian; Yet they are of such a nature, that divers worthy Martyrs of Iesus Christ, that haue with stood Antichrist vnto blood, haue stood vnder as much as wee. And therfore such a manner of standing vnder Antichrist, cannot be said to overthrowe though it may somwhat staine the Ministery of Christe. But howsoeuer, hee herein shamefully begs the question, in the naked affirming, without any prooffe, That all in this kingdome are vnder Antichrist.

4. Though (for avoyding further controuersie) that should be graunted him, that some parts of our mini­stratiō by the Canons, &c. was neuer ordayned by Christ. Yet at the least the maine principall, and Essentiall parts therof performed according to the Canons and booke a foresaid, are ordayned by Christ; yea by M. Iohnson himself. Nether hath hee proued or euer can proue, That that part of our ministration, by our Canons, and booke a foresaid, which Christ hath not ordayned (If any such bee) is of that nature and qualitie, that it neces­saryly destroyeth or maketh a nullity of the other parts of their Ministery, which vse them.

[Page] 5. Though Tythes and Lordshippes and manners in perticulers, bee not ordayned by Christ for the main­tenaunce of Ministers, yet they are as much ordayned as any other particuler, or speciall kind of maintenaunce, It is the will of Christ that the Ministers of the Gospell should liue of the Gospell. i. should bee manietanied for their Ministery sake by them to whome they preach the Gospell. But in what particuler manner that maintay­naunce should bee raysed, hee hath noe wher defined and therfore left it to the discretion of Christian Magi­strates or Churches.

6. Wheras for the proofes of theis maine pointes, hee referreth vs to the generall Tytles of certaine Treatises formerly published, hee might as well send vs (as they say) to seeke a needle in a bottle of hay, and why doth hee not in all other points of this booke, as well as in the is, send vs to the saide Treatises? seeing hee saith no­thing throughout this in effect, that hee hath not all ready saide in some one or other of his former bookes.

Fr. Ioh. pag. 8.

• The Ministery of Pastors and Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.
  The 2. Arg.
  is the ordinary and perpetuall Ministery giuen by Christ to his Church, and such as the Princes of the Earth nether may nor ever shall bee able to abolishe, seing Christ hath appoynted it to continue to the end of the worlde.
• But the Prelacie Preesthood, and Deaconrye of the Church of England is not the ordinarije and perpetuall Ministery giuen by Christ to his Church, but such as the Princes of the Earth may and ought to abolish out of their Dominions. Rev. 17, 16 1. Tim. 2.2. Rom. 13, 4. with 1. Kin. 23.3. deu. 12.2. Psa. 72.1.
• [Page]Therfore the Preesthood Prelacie and deaconrye of the Church of England is not the Ministery of Pastors and Teachers spo­ken of Eph. 4.11.

Answere.

Idenye the Assumption. Vnderstanding by Prelacie Preesthood and deaconrye, The ordinary Ministery of our Church Assemblies against which hee propounds to himself to Dispute; And aunswer. That it is the ordina­ry and perpetuall Ministery, giuen by Christ to his Church, and such as the Princes of the Earth are boun­de by Gods Lawes to maintaine and protect by their Authoritie; And if their bee any corruption in and a­boute the same, which they ought to abolish that yet they are accidentiall and personall; and not soe Essenti­all as that they doe Distroy the Ministery.

The places of Scripture anexed to the Assumptiō for the proofe therof, are all abused and profaned for not on of them doth any way soe much as colourablye proue either of the Clauses in the Assumption, but only they proue in generall, That the Idolatry and Idolatrious Mi­nistery of Antechrist is to be abolished: Soe that the man in his symplicitie, takes it as graunted; That our Ministe­rye is such an Idolatrious Ministery; which is the maine matter in Controuersy, and in effect the generall que­stion of his whole booke.

Fr. Iohn. pag: 9.

• The Office of Pastors and Teachers ordayned by Christ in his Testament,
  The. 3. Arg.
  are such as did or could stand, with the offices of the Apostels, Prophetes and Euangelists.
• But the offices of the Prelates, Priests or deacons of the Church [Page]of England, are not such as did, or could stand, with or vn­der the offices of Apostles, Prophets and Euangelists: which if any deny, let him shew the Countrary, by the Scriptures; Light hath no fellowship with darknes; nor Christ with Anti­christ. And suppose the Apostles were a liue in their Persons, and were in England, It were worth the knowing, whether they and the ordinances giuen by them, should giue place to the Prelates, and their Canons, and whether they should be suffred to preach, &c. without subscribing, and conforming. Their Canons vrge all vpon paine of Excommunication ipso facto.
• Therfore they are not the Pastors, and Teachers ordained by Christ in his nue Testament.

Answere.

1. What a shamelesse man is this to affirme, That our Ministery nether did nor could stand with the offices of the A­postles &c. and for proofe therof bid vs, If we deny it shew the contrary by Scriptures. Doth not the burden of prouing by the very lawe of Common Reason ly vpon the accu­ser? If I should in like manner reproch his Ministery, & say it is a Ministery that standeth vpon Sorcery, witch croft and Coniuration and for proofe therof bid him, If hee deny it shew the countrary by Scripture, were I not worthy at least to bee laughed out of the Scholes. This is a sufficient justification of our Ministery; that such Malitions aduersaries therof, whoe woulde seeme soe expert in the Scriptures; are no better able by Scrip­ture to proue their vnchristian accusation.

2. It is true, that light hath noe followship with darknes, nor Christ with Antichrist. Yet ther is no light in men in this [Page]life, but it is mingled with some darknesse; and the best Christians that are, or euer haue bene since the Apost­les times, may be infected with some points of Anti­christianisme. Many of the late Martyrs since the revea­ling of Antichrist, were worthy lights, and renoumed Christians, and yet the light of many of them, was mingled with more darknesse, and their Christianitie with more Antichristianisme, then can be founde in our Ministery.

3. Our Bishops haue as good reason, to make the like supposition against him, and as much worthy the inqui­rie that were, if the Apostles, &c. were a liue now in their owne Persons where hee liueth, and should pro­fesse the Church Assemblies in Englande to be true Churches, and their Ministery in generall to be a law­full Ministery, and their worship for substaunce to bee a true worship, whether M. Iohnson and his Church would suffer them to be soe much as priuate members, of their Society, much more to preach, &c.

4. Though our Bishops should herein be soe impious as to advance in such a manner, their owne Authority, and ordinances aboue the Apostles. Yet what is that to proue that the Preesthoode and Deaconry of the Mi­nisters of our Church Assemblies, (who many of them in theis pointes are meere patients, and esteeme of theis things as burdens) cannot stand with the offices of A­postles, &c. doth M. Iohnson think that none of our Ministers in England would suffer the Apostles to preach in their Cures, without wearing a Surplice, If they might haue their owne wils, or should this any whit derogate from their Ministery, that the [Page]Bishops therin would not suffer them to haue their will.

5. It is besids the present question, and a needlesse thing to spend time in justifying the Canons herein: If the Bishops therin haue gonne too far, it may seeme to bee the fault of the Parsons, rather then of the Pre­lacie it selfe, and therfore to make and vrge such Ca­nons, and Traditions as are a fore saide doth not proue, but that for all that, the Prelacie & in of it selfe, might stand well enough with the offices of the Apostles &c. for those offices may of themselues, (If their bee noe other impediment) stand well one with an other, which in the actions therof doe not (but by accident only) one overthrowe or oppugne the other.

Fr. Iohn. pag. 9.10.

• The offices of true Pastors,
  The 4. Arg.
  and Teachers are by the ordinaunce of Christ set in the Church, and imployd in the Ministery of the word, Sacraments & Church Gouerment, soe as they may not, with their Ecclesiasticall functions receaue Cyvill offi­ces, and callings, nor take vpon them princely Titles and di­gnities. Eph. 4.11, 1. Pet. 5.1. Rom. 12.2.4. Luk. 12.14. and 22.25. 1. Cor. 12.5.8. 1. Tim. 4.13.15.16. 2. Tim. 2.4.
• But the officies of Prelates, Priests, and Deacons of the Church of England, are not soe, but by their owne Constitution we set in the Church, and imployd in the Ministery soe as they may also receaue Cyvill offices and Callings, as to be Iustices of Peace, &c.
• Therfore they are not true Pastors and Teachers.

Answere.

Ther are 4. Termes in this Syllogisme, The grosse So­phisterye wherof may appeare by the Explanation ther­of in others wordes.

• True Pastors & Teachers may not (viz. by Gods lawe) take vpon them Cyvill offices.
• The Ministers of England may (viz. by Mans lawe) take vpon them Cyvill offices.
• Therfore they are not true Pastors and Teachers.

This is the effect of his Argument, & who is so blind, but hee may see the fallacie therof. And it is as though we should reason in the like manner against their owne Ministery, thus,

• True Pastors & Teachers may not bee Drunckards, Anabaptists, Familists.
• The Ministers of the Seperation at Amsterdam may be Drunckards, Anabaptists, Familists.
• Therfore they are not true Pastors and Teachers.

This Assumption is as true as the former, for the same kinde of Authoritie that permits our Ministers to bee Cyvill Magistrats, doth permit them to bee Drunckards &c. The goverment vnder which they liue, permitteth the one to more, then our state doeth the other.

But I answer more particulerly.

1. That by the same lawe, that our Ministers may take vpon them Cyvill Magistracie; Any true Pastors, and Teachers, may take vpon them, the same Authority, and by the same lawe that true Pastors and Teachers, may not take Cyvill Authoritye vpon them our Ministers may not take the same vpon them.

2. All our Ministers may not (noe by the lawes of our State) take vpon them Cyvill Authority; But such only as are called specially therto, by the fauours, & grace of the Cyvill Magistrate, not as they are Prelats, Priests or Deacons, or by vertue of those functions; but in respect of other qualifications. Nether are the forced by any law to adjoyne any such Authoritie to their Ministery, but permitted only. But what if by the lawes of men, Ministers might be Murtherers, Adulterers, Theeus, &c. should theis lawes chaunge the nature of their Ministe­ry? what? of their Ministery that denye vnto themselues that lycence; would it not rather the more justify their Ministery; when in Conscience of Gods law, they shall for beare that which flesh, and blood and humaine laws would permit vnto them.

3. Suppose not onely that it is vnlawfull for any true Pastors, and Teachers, to bee Cyvill Magistrats, but that also by our lawes, all our Ministers, were forced therunto, and that by vertue of their Ministery, will it thence follow, that for this cause, they are not true Pa­stors and Teachers; May not true Pastors and Teachers, in their weacknesse, ignorance, and infirmities (the laws of the State requiring the same) admitt of some kind of office or Authoritie, for bidden them; but they must needs ther vpon cease to bee true Pastors, & Teachers? doth the admitting of every vnlawfull thing chaunge the nature of the Ministery, and make it either noe Mi­nistery, or a Ministery of an other kinde.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of Christian Pastors, and Teachers,
  The. 5. Arg.
  standeth by [Page]the word, and ordinance of Christ, so as all Churches vnder Heaven, are bound to receaue, and submit thervnto.
• But the Prelacie, Preesthood and Deaconry of the Ghurch of England staundeth only by the Authoritie and Law of man, soe as other Churches els wher, nether are nor neede to bee subjecte thervnto; which euen themselues of all sorts haue acknowledged; for which see Whitgifts defence in the Pre­face. The Answer to the Abstraucte pag. 58. The Admoni­tion to the Parlement; The defence of the Godly Ministers the demonstration.
• Therfore it is not the Ministery of Christian Pastors and Tea­chers.

Answere.

I deny the Assumption. The Ministery of our Church Assemblies of England, whether of Prelates, Priests or Deacons, or by what other names soeuer they be called, for the substance therof, standeth by the word, and ordi­nance of Christ, and not onely by the Authority and law of man: And all other true Churches, are and ought to be subject, to the same kinde of Ministery, and to noe other, that shall in any Essentiall point of Ministery dif­fer from ours.

If any Perticuler Parsons amongst vs, haue bene soe vnaduised to graunt the Assumption, let them answer for themselues; Hee hath noe more reason to binde vs to their opinions, then wee to binde him vnto what­soeuer his predecessours Browne, Barrowe, and Green­wood haue held before him. Concerning some of the particulers, Doctor Whitgifts words are theis, The sub­stance, [Page]and nature of Gouerment must indeed by taken out of the word of God, and consisteth in theis parts. That the word be truely taught, the Sacraments rightly administred, virtue fur­thered, vice repressed, and the Church kept in quietnesse and order: The offices of the Church, wherby this Gouerment is wrought bee not namely, and particulerly expressed in the Scrip­ture, but in some points left to the discretion, and libertie of the Church, to be disposed according to the State of times, Places, and persons. The Author of the Answer to the Abstract in the place aledged saith, That it cannot be proued that any set and exacte particuler forme of discipline is recomended vnto vs in the word of God. Now are either of theis to af­firme, That the Ministery of our Church Assemblies staundeth only by the lawes and Authoritie of Man? Hath M. Iohn­son any shame left in his face that thus shamefully abu­seth the names of learned, and reuerent men, soe direct­ly contrary to their words and meaning. Is ther not cause to suspect that the other Authors, are in like man­ner abused, and that for the better hideing of his frau­de, hee forbeareth to quote any particuler places; Being therfore convinced of depravation, in the places parti­cularly quoted, wee may presume, that if the other pla­ces had bene more pertinent, hee would haue giuen vs some particuler directions also for the finding of them; And the rather, for that hee cannot be ignorant, that those whom specially hee fighteth against in theis Ar­gumēts, doe rely vpon the judgement of the Authours following, more then of the former.

Fr. Iohn.

• The offices of Pastors,
  The 6. Arg.
  and Teachers, which Christ hath appoin­ted, are such as they which haue them must bee members of a true visible Church, and bound to one perticuler Congrega­tion for the Ministery and Gouerment therof.
• But the Offices of the Prelats, Priests, and Deacons of the Church of Englande, are such as they which haue them, need not bee, neither in their State can bee members of a true visi­ble Church, but of a fals, neither are bound to one perticuler Congregation for the Ministery and Gouerment therof, but the Prelates are our whoele Prouinces, and Diocesses & other inferior Priests, may haue in that State pluralitie of benefices and Ecclesiall Cures &c. which none can deny.
• Therfore they are not the Pastors & Teachers that Christ hath appointed.

Answere.

Though some parts of the Proposition bee disputa­ble; Yet because other besids the Seperation doe hould the whol for truth. I will leaue it in medio.

The Assumption is falce; especially if it bee vnder­stoode (as it ought to bee) of the offices of such Prelats, Priests, and Deacons as are Ministers of our Church As­semblies. For most of those which haue such offices are, and are bound to be members of true visible Churches; And cannot in their Estate (they being in all points an­swerable to the lawes) be members of a falce Church; They are all (such excepted as haue speciall dispensa­tions) bound to one particuler Congregation, and may not by law, haue more Cures then one; but admitting [Page]of a seconde, the first is voyd; Yea the Prelats thēselues; though in regard of their Prelaticall office, they are Go­uernors of whole Prouinces, & diocesses, yet it is possi­ble for them (not withstanding) to be members (in their Estate) of a true visible Church, and bee bound (as are the Prelats of Scotland) to one particuler congregation for the speciall Ministery and Gouerment therof. And though the other Ministers may haue in that estate pluralitie of benefices, and Cures, yet it doth not fol­low, that therfore they are such, as in their estate cannot be members of a true visible Church; excepte they haue thē indeede, yea & though they should be pluralists in­deede, yet (for ought hee hath proued to the contrary) they may bee membres of true visible Churches, and may each bee bound to one particuler Congregation, for the Ministery and Gouerment therof.

But what man, except hee were halfe frantick, wold reason, thus, Our Ministers may bee Pluralists therfore they neither are nor can be true Pastors and Teachers; Is not this rather one of the honors then blemishes of our Ministers; That they may be pluralists, and yet are not. If by our lawes their owne Assemblies were established If by the same lawes their Pastors and Teachers, might bee non residents or pluralists, or worse, would they think hemselus euer the worse for this? would they not rather thinke themselus the better that they are not soe bad, as by mans lawe they might bee.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Offices Condition and Gouerment of Pastors and Teachers,
  The 7. Arg.
  are such as noe way impaire the Authority and Supremacy of the Syvill Magistrate.
• [Page]But the offices, Condition and Gouerment of Prelates, Priests & Deacons, are such as doe many waies impaire the Authori­tie Supremacie and dignity of Kings, and all other Magi­strats both in Civill, and Ecclesiasticall Causes. For the Pre­lates will haue their presence, voice, and Authority, to be at Parlaments, for enacting of lawes and Statuts for the Com­mon wealth. They are Rulers of whol Prouinces, and diocesses in the Ecclesiasticall causes therof.
• In Civill State, and dignity, some of them are aboue all, and all of them, aboue some of the Nobles, Iustices, and other Ma­gistrats of the Lande. Themselues their Courts and officers handle and determine sundry Civill Causes, and affaires, appertaining to the Magistracie; They inflict Civill Mu­lts, and punishments; In their forbidden times they giue licence to Mary. The beneficed Priests sweare Canonicall obeidience to the Prelats. All the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrats Iurisdiction in diuers things appertaining vnto them, and answerable onely or cheifly to the Prelats and their officers.
• Therfore they are not the onely Pastors and Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.

Answere.

The Assumption is falce, nether doe the instances proue the same. 1. The Prelats claime their voices in Parlament not as diuine ordinaunces appartaining to their Prelateship, but as an honor annexed to the same by the Civill Magistrate.

2. Their Authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall ouer Pro­uinces, &c. is either such as the Civill Magistrate him­selfe may execute, and administer in his owne person if [Page]hee please; or such as is not for them, as they are Magi­strats, to execute. The first sort they administer only, by vertue of the Magistrats owne Commission, and therin they cannot impair either his dignity, or Supremacie much lesse in the other part of their Authoritie, which belongeth not to the Magistrats themselues to execute especially when they vse it not nether, without their consent, lycence, and approbation.

3. That all are aboue some, and some aboue all of the Nobles, and Iustices, &c. is a free and voluntary honour graunted vnto them by the Civill Magistrate, and held in tenure from him, and not claimed (as I thinke) as belonging to their Episcopall function, by diuine right.

4. Their Courts determine noe other Civill causes, then the Civill Magistrate, and his lawes do permit, or if they doe the falt is in the Parsons, and not in the Pre­latship; further they inflict Civill punishments, giue ly­cences, exacte Oathes, &c. by Authority from the Ma­gistrat whose subsistutes therin they are. And therfore the Prelates neither in theis, nor in any of the former instances can bee saide to impaire the dignity, Autho­ritie, or Supremacie of the Civill Magistrate, when herein they doe all things, in and by the protection of his Authoritie, much lesse can other inferior Ministers who haue noe dealing in the aforesaid matters. Lastly if all our Ministers be exempt from the Magistrats Iu­risdiction, in some things appertaining vnto them (but wherin I knowe not) this very exemptiō it selfe, is an act of the Magistrats Iurisdiction & depends, onely vpon his pleasure! & how can it thē, any waies impair the same. & [Page]hytherto hee hath dealt by Syllogismes such as they are, now for a conclusion of this first Argument, hee shoots at rouers as followeth.

Fr. Iohn.

• To this end diuers other reasons might be aledged, for example If they say that Arch Bishops haue the Pastors, then they haue but two. If Lord Bishops, then but 26. and what office then haue the Arch Bishops amongst them. If the other Priestes, then what office haue the Arch Bishops: and Bi­shops seing God hath or dayned noe higher ordinary Ecclesia­sticall office, as some of them-selus acknowledg. If they say the deacons haue the Pastors office, the same absurdity follow­eth as in the former besids that the works of the deacons office are opposed to the worke of the Ministery. Act. 6.2. with. Eph. 4.11. Rom. 12.8. If they should say they haue the Teachers office, it would be known, which of their officiers haue it amongst them, and to whom they are adioyned for the worke of Ministery, as Teachers are to Pastors, and what office the rest haue whom the accompt not to haue the Teachers office & whether the Teacher spoken of Eph. 4.11. must first bee dea­cons; and then Priestes and permit obeydeince to the Prelates; and that also is to their ordinaires, and be sylenced and depo­sed at thtir pleasure.

Answere.

Here hee thinkes hee hath knitt such Gardian knotts as cannot be vntide, without a sword or a bill; but the Simplicitie of the man here in is to bee laughed at, for 1. though some should say, that either our Arch Bishops: or Bishops haue the Pastors office, yet ther in they doe not exclude the other Ministers, from that which is the sub­stance, [Page]and effect of that office, though they should from the name; No nor frō the name neither, but should ther­in onely make degres of pastours, viz. of Arch Bishops. over Bishops and their Diocesses of Bishops over Mini­sters and their Churches, and of Ministers ouer their owne Congregations; Leaving vnto them (not with stāding the Superioritie of the other Pastors) that maine and Substantial office of the Pastor which is enough to define and denominate a Pastor. And therfore they may make such Pastors, as are over whole Prouinces but two, & such as are over whole diocesses but, 26. and yet hold also without any absurditie, that their are also as ma­ny Pastors besyds, as ther are Ministers of a particuler Congregation. And though it should be graunted that herein they were deceaued in making Provinciall and diocesme Pastors; yet the sorteing of vnproper Pastors; with true or the subiecting of true Pastors vnto other sorts of Pastors, doth not necessarily make the true Pa­stors fals, soe long as vnder them they performe, the name, and substantiall duties of true Pastors; which all the Ministers of our Church Assemblies doe, or by the lawes ought to doe.

2. If any hould that the Ministers of perticular Con­gregations, onely are Pastors, thē they may without any absurdity hould that they Arch Bishops, and Bishops, are generall Cōmissioners vnder the King to see that the Pastors doe their duties, and in that regard, may also Me­taphorically, and in another sence bee called Pastors, as Princes themselves are soe called, in good and approued Authors; and what absurdity can follow vpon this? Or what if they which hould the Ministers of perticular [Page]Congregations to bee Pastors, could not tell what to make of the office of Arch Bishops and Bishops, whats that to the purpose? are not our Ministers, and Teachers therfore Pastors, because they which shall hould them to bee soe, cannot tell what to make of the Calling of Arch Bishops and Bishops?

3. Though this should bee yelded vnto him that all Pastors are equall, and that the Pastors of perticular Congregations, are the highest ordinary Ecclesiasti­call officers; yet should this make nothing to the con­firming of his conceit, That our Ministers are not ther­fore true Pastors and Teachers, because then Arch Bi­shops and Bishops should be excluded; for this doth not exclude them from being Commissioners, and Visitors in causes ecclesiasticall vnder the King over the Pastors, and Churches, of such and such Prouinces and Dioces­ses, which is to giue thē their principall honour, & due. 4. Concerning the Teachers office (not to contende needlesly, with him about the nature and quality therof but to suppose a Teacher in that sence which hee mean­eth) This may reasonably bee held; That some of our Ministers, (whether Priests or Deacons so called, or whether Parsons, Vicars, Curats or Stipendaries) are Pastors and some Teachers, That so many of them as haue and vse the gift, not onely of doctrine and instru­ction, but of Exhortation, are Pastors, That those which wanting the power of Exhortation, and yet haue & vse the gift of instruction and doctrine are such Teachers, as hee meaneth. And therfore herein also if it should bee yealded vnto him, That it were fit that every Congre­gation should haue both theis offices; and that the Tea­cher [Page]should be the Pastors Assistant, yet it doth not fol­low, but that in want of sufficient men, for both theis of­fices in every Congregation, some may inioy one, and some an other. For if the Churches of their owne way, and constitution, may bee without both Pastors & Tea­chers, and that for a long time, till men may be chosen vnto that office? Why may not a Church much more in the like necessity retaine a Pastor without a Teacher, or a Teacher without a Pastor, Can hee proue by any colour out of Gods word, That one cannot bee called vnto, or execute the office of a Pastor vntill hee haue a Teacher to assist him, or that hee cannot execute the office of a Doctor, except hee do it as an actuall assistant of some Pastor? If not, then is this a most frivolous demaunde, when hee askes to whome our Teachers are adioynd for the worke of their Ministery: nether doe the places hee quoteth viz. Eph. 4.11. Rō. 12.7. proue any such matter. 5. As idle and impertinent is that demande which fol­loweth whether the Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. must first bee Deacons, & then Priests, & promise obeidience to Prelats, & be silenced and deposed at their pleasures. For what if noe such matters bee required of Teachers by Paul, either in that or any other place, doth it thervpon follow, that their submission to such things, makes them noe Teachers! may not Magistrats, & others also require, some things of Teachers, not required by the Apostles, but they must needs thervpon, become no Teachers? But what repug­nauncie is their in theis matters, to the office of a Tea­cher? To be a Deacon in the intent of our lawes what is it, but (as himselfe out of our booke of ordination hath in effect published it) To read the Seriptures, Pag. 31. & to pray in the Church to Catechise the Iōger sort, to baptize & to preach [Page]if the Bishop shal think him sitt. what is it to bee a Priest, or Presbyter in our law? hath not himself also taught vs? viz. Pag. 32. To haue authoritie to Preach the word, and to Minister the holy Sacramentes in the Congregation, wher hee shalbe ap­pointed, what obeidience doe they (promise to Prela­tes in the intent of the lawe? but onely in things that they shal judge honest, and lawfull, and not repugnaunt to the word of God; what is it to bee sylenced and de­posed, but to forbear to Minister publiquly (as themsel­ues doe also forbeare) vpon the Magistrats pleasure: for the Bishops pleasure soe far as they proceede according to the lawes, is the Magistrats pleasure, otherwise it is but a personall fault. And wherein Imarvaile doe any of these acts, so oppugne the office of a Teacher, that they cannot stand together! wher doth Paul forbid any of theis acts vnto the Teacher? or if hee should, doth euery Act forbidden to a Teacher, make him noe Teahcer?

Fr. Iohn. pag. 14.

Answere.

Here absurdly, and Childishly hee goeth about to answer such an objection, as noe body ever made against any thing contained in the former Argument. This Ar­gument onely is vsed in generall to shewe, that some corruptions in Ministers and Churches are not of that nature, that men should therfore seperate from all Spi­rituall Communion with them, And wher hee saith, that this is nothing for any fals Ministery neuer ordained of the Lord, such as ours is proued to bee: Noe man ever brought it to proue any such matter; But onely to proue that such corruptions as are in our Ministery, ought noe more to hinder, communion with our Ministers, then the cor­ruptions in the Ministery of the Scribes and Pharesees, did hinder the communion, with their Ministery, and that the corruptions in our Ministery doe noe more ar­gue our Ministers to bee fals Ministers, then their cor­ruptions, did argue them to bee fals Ministers: Nether hath hee brought any Argument to proue our Ministers fals Ministers, but either such corruptions, as the Scribes and Pharesees were guilty of, in as high if not a higher degree, or in respect of their names, in that they are cal­led Priests and Deacons; So that if the Scribes & Phare­sees were true Ministers, not with standing their names, and other corruptions, our Ministers cannot bee fals, in regard of the like names and corruptions: furthermore if to be expounders of the Law, bee sufficient to argue their Ministery to bee a true Ministery, nothwithstanding their names of Scribes and Pharesees, with other vile & grosse corruptions; why may not the Preaching of the [Page]word, and administration of the Sacraments bee suffi­cient to argue, our Ministers to bee true Pastors, and Teachers, notwithstāding that in the mouth of the law, they are sometimes called Priests and Deacons. For o­therwise in the mouths of men; euen of the Bishops themselues they are not so called; except sometimes by Metaphoricall allusions to the Leviticall Preesthood; But they are vsually so called onely by profane Atheists, or ignorant people, with whom in this point, the Sepe­ration goeth hand in hand.

2. To bee a Pharesie was not onely (as hee minceth the matter) to be of a speciall Sect amongst the Iewes, that pretended more strict obseruances of the law then others. But also (which as it is to be feared with a fraudulent minde hee concea­leth) to joine mainy humaine Traditions, and will-wor­ships to the worship and seruice of God (wherby they are saide by Christ himselfe, in vaine to worship God, and to make the commaundements of God of none ef­fect;) making more accompt of; and vrging with more severity the said Traditions, then Gods owne laws; And in like manner, wee affirme, That to bee a Priest and Deacon, in the intent of our law (whatsoeuer the words may ring to the contrary in some mens eares) is (at the worst) to bee such a kinde of pastor and Teacher, as is content, over and besids those duties of the Ministery which Christ requires of them to yeald conformity al­so to humaine Traditions, of noe worse nature and qua­lity in themselues, then those which the Pharesies vsed in or about Gods seruice, wherin to suppose that they sin, yet cannot this their sin be so repugnant to the Mi­nistery of Christ as that of the Scribes and Pharesies, [Page]which they are forced to acknowledge to be a true Mi­nistery, In that they were the vrgers of Traditions, wheras our Ministers (for the most part) onely yeald vnto them, either in obeidience and loue; or feare of the Magistrat that commaundes them. Lastly wheras hee argues them true Ministers by this, that though they were very corrupt, yet the did still hould that euery Ministery must bee from Heaven, and not of men. It deserues rather to bee lau­ghed at, then answered. For may not yea doe the falsest Ministery that are or ever haue bene, hould so much, at least in such a sence and meaning as the Pharesies might hould it. And can hee name any amongst vs, that houlds not as much?

Fr. Ihon.

• NOne may heare or haue any Spiritually communion with the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• Such is the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande.

Ergo,

None may heare haue any Spirituall communion with the same.

Answere.

I graunt the Proposition; taking the words in the plaine and common sence viz. vnderstanding by the Mi­nistery of Antichrists Apostacie. The administration and dispensation of the things of Antichrist; otherwise to communicate spiritually with any Ministers what soe­uer onely in the holy things of Christ, is not to commu­nicate with the Ministery of Antichrists Apostacy, no though the Ministers be Ministers therof. Nether do the 5. Reasons following whereby hee needlesly proues his preposition, proue it vnlawfull to heare or haue any spi­rituall communion with the Ministers of Antichrist, then, when they Minister the things of Christ.

For the profe of the Assumption hee makes a terrible muster if no lesse then 7. Arguments. But let vs pull vp our Spirets, and see what is in them, one by one.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of Deacons and Priests ordained by the Prelats thervnto is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.
  The 1. Arg.
• The Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande, is such a Ministery.

Ergo,

It is of Antichrists Apostasie.

Answere.

Hee brought this very Argument to proue the first Reason and now hee brings it againe for a profe of his second Reason: And is not this a learned kind of rea­soning? when hee will make a shew of multitudes of [Page]Reasons against vs, and yet all of them come to one issue and lie vpon one ground, and depend vpon one profe; so that the overthrowe of one, is the overthrowe of all: But his childish vanitie herein wee shall better perceaue in that which followeth.

Both the Proposition and Assumption are fals; For 1. It is not necessary, that the Ministery of Priests, and Deacons, though ordained by Antichrist himselfe, should be the Ministery of his Apostacy; But not with­standing his ordination, their Ministery may be the Mi­nistery of Iesus Christ; As was the Ministery of Luther, Husse, Wickliffe and others.

2. The Ministery of such manner of Priests and Dea­cons, as the Prelats ordaine, (or by the lawes ought to ordaine) is the true Ministery of Iesus Christ, and for the substance therof, directly contrary to the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.

3. The Ministery of our Church Assemblies, is not (as I haue shewed before) the Ministery of Priests and Dea­cons properly so taken, but of Pastors and Teachers.

The Proposition hee proueth as followeth by two Arguments.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of Deacons and Priests which accompts it selfe to bee Christs, and yet was not set by Christ in his Church, for the worke of his Ministery, is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.
• Such is the Ministery of Deacons and Priests, ordained by the Prelats therevnto.

Ergo,

It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.

Answere.

This Argument is it which hee bringeth for the first Reason of all; and here hee brings it to proue that which before was brought to proue it. For hee proues, That our Ministery is not set by Christ in his Church, by this because it is the Ministery of Priests and Deacons, and so by consequent of Antichrists Apostasie. Here hee proues, That the Mi­nistery of Priests and Deacons is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie, Because it is a Ministery, that was not set by Christ in his Church; This doth hee most grosly runne round in a circle, as if I should proue that his Ministery is vnlaw­full, because hee is a Schismatick, and that hee is a Schis­matick, because his Ministery is vnlawful. The 2. Reason wherby he proues his Proposition followeth.

Fr. Iohn.

• 2. If the Prelates of the Church of England haue such offices, and Gouerment as be speciall parts of Antichrists Apostasie, then the Ministery ordained by them thervnto must needs bee the Ministery of that Apostasie.
• But the Prelats of the Church of England haue such offices and gouerment, as bee speciall parts of Antichrists Apostasy.
• Therfore the Ministery ordained by them is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• The consequent is manifest, because the fruit must needs bee as the tree is. Mat. 7.16. and who can bring a clean thing out of filthinesse. Iob 14.4.
• The Assumption is proued.
• 1. Whosoever (besids Christ) haue such offices and Gouerment, wherby the claime to bee spirituall Lords, the haue the offices, [Page]and Gouerment which are speciall parts of Antichrists Apo­stasy, and are indeed very Antichrists themselues.
• But such are the Prelats of the Church of Englande.
• Therfore the haue such offices and Gouerments, as are speciall purts of Antichrists Apostasy.
• The Proposition is proued by those places of Scripture which teach that there is but one spirituall Lord, the Lord Iesus.
• The Assumption is proued by the lawes, and Statutes of the land, wherin they are called Lords Spirituall, and in their Canons they take vpon them to prescribe their owne ordinaunces to the Ghurch for the worship of God, and binde the spiret and couscience to the acknowledgement, and approbation therof, and to giue the holy Ghost.
• 2. The offices and Gouerment of such Bishops, as are ouer Dio­cesan, and Prouinciall Churches, and exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction ouer all the Ministers and people therin, are spe­ciall parts of Antichrists Apostasie.
• But such are the Prelates of the Church of Englande.

Ergo,

They haue such offices and gouerment as bee specially parts of Antichrists Apostasie.

Answere.

1. I deny the cōsequent of the Proposition of the 1. Sil­logisme. The officers & gouernors of Antichrists Apo­stasy, may & haue ordained some things that are Chri­stian, Nether doth the saying of Christ or Iob proue the consequent; for though it should be graunted vnto him, that the gouernors of Antichrists Apostasy haue ordai­ned this Ministery; yet doth it not follow that it is ther­fore a propre & meere fruit of Antichrist, but may be an [Page]dentall effect, as are many other things which hee ordai­neth agreable to Christs owne ordinaunces, so that hee must proue that our Ministery ordained by the Pope or Bishops, doth as properly flowe from the nature of their office and gouerment, as figs from a fig tree, or grapes from a vine, or filthy water from a foule fountaine; The contrary wherof is in this case most euident. For leaue the bare names and tytles, and consider our Ministery in all the essentiall parts, and offices therof, and it is a possi­ble, either for a Presbythery, or for any perticuler Church, such in constitution as their owne, to ordaine the like Ministery in all points and respects, with all the defects and faults therof.

2. Concerning the first profe of the Assumption, The Proposition may bee denied; It being one thing to bee, and another to make claine to bee, for euery one is not that which hee claimeth to bee, The Instances alledged to proue the Assumption, either are fals or proue it not. The lawes may giue their titles, to men which they doe not claime. Neither doe either their Canons or practis shew that they prescribe their owne ordinances for wor­ship or propound to binde mens consciences to the acknowled­gement of any such matter. The professe the contrary, and vrge their owne ordinaunces onely vnder the name of things indifferent, Though therfore in error of iudge­ment, they may, and happily doe commande such ordi­nances of their owne, as are diuine worship, and in such a manner as it bindeth conscience (which M. Iohnsons owne Church in many cases may doe, except they think themselues priviledged from error) yet they protesting against any such power and authority, they cannot be [Page]saide therin to arrogate the office of Spirituall Lords, in that sence at least, in which Christ is said to bee the on­ly Spirituall Lord. And though in their ordination of Ministers, they vse as a ceremoniall speech to say, Receaue the holy Ghost; and therin peraduenture offer some force vnto the Scripture vnto which the allude; yet they dis­claime al actuall power and authority of giuing the per­son or gifts of the holy Ghost vnto men.

It shall bee needlesse in this controversie, to spend time in the defence of the calling of Bishops any fur­ther then the necessity of the argument requires, Onely for the further clearing of the truth in the differences of them of the Seperation not only from the Bishops, but from the other sort of Ministers also, which doe not approue of their callings, I offer theis pointes vnto them to consider of advisedly.

1. Whether the Supreame Magistrate haue not power to ouer see, and Gouerne all the severall Churches with in his dominions, yea whether hee bee not bound so to doe?

2. Whether for his further helpe and assistance herein hee may not make choise of graue learned and reuerent men to assist him in the same gouerment.

3. Whether by vertue of his power theis persons thus called to assist the Supreame Magistrate, may not law­fully try the gifts of all the severall Ministers with in his dominions, and giue publique approbation of the wor­thy, & inhibit those which they finde vnworthy, frō the execution of their Ministery, & whether they may not visit the severall Ministers and Churches, conuent them before them, examine them, how they haue behaued [Page]themselues in their places, and punish the blame wor­thy.

4. Whether for the more easy and orderly Gouerment of the said Churches, so far forth as appertaineth to him, hee may not devide his kingdom (as ours is) into Provinces assigning over each of them vnder himself some speciall Magistrat for learning and experience to oversee, and gouerne all the perticuler Churches there, and whether hee may not subdevide those Provinces into Diocesses, assigning also to them, other more infe­rior officers, vnder him, and his provinciall officers, to over see the severall Churches with in such, and such a precincte?

5. Whether it doe destroy the nature of a Ministeriall or a perticular true visible Church, that many of them should appertaine vnto one Provinciall or Diocesame gouerment, though in that respect they should bee held and reputed, but for one Provinciall, or Diocesame Church?

6. Whether Antichrist hauing vsurped the Kings Su­premacy, and taken into his hands this authority and corrupted the same, hath made it now vnlawfull for the Magistrate to execute the same in manner and forme a fore saide; or whether the Iurisdiction a fore saide doe not directly and properly belonge to the Civill Magi­strate, and not to Antichrist. But by vsurpation; And whether his vsurpation of this office can make it a part of his Apostasie in those places where it is restored a­gaine to the Supreame Magistrate.

7. Whether the Supreame Magistrate recerving this his right from Antichrist, and together with it happily [Page]taking also to himselfe some thing also that belonges to the Kingdom of Antichrist: & executing the same either in his owne person or by others, together with his owne lawfull right, whether (I say) this doe destroy his owne lawfull right? and whether the subiect is ever the lesse bounde to subject themselues vnto the same right, ei­ther in his owne person, or his substitute.

Hither to hee hath indevoured to proue the Proposi­tion of the first Argument, wherby hee would confir­me, the Assumption of his 2. reason, and now hee sets v­pon the profe of the Assumption. Namely, That the pre­sent Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande, is the Mi­nistery of Deacons, and Priests ordained by the Prelats ther vn­to. This hee saith is proued by the Canons constitutions & obseruation of our Church; And this hee confirmeth first by a longe, tedious and idle rehersall of the forme of ordination of our Ministers, bestowing cost to print, in a manner our whole booke of ordination.

2. By certaine of the late Canons pressing subscrip­tion, conformity, and an acknowledgement of the law­fulnes of the calling of Bishops, and of their ordination.

3. By certaine sharpe speeches of some Martyrs and of some others of our owne Nation against the Arch-Bishops, Bishohs, & other of the cleargy of their times. In the relation of which pointes hee spends some 5 lea­ves; wherin still hee runs in a circle begging one of his arguments to proue an other, So that one of his Argu­ments are as good as all, and all no better then one; This may suffice for answere. 1. That if all par­ticulars mentioned in the booke of ordination should bee strictly, and precisely practized (as alwayes they are [Page]not) yet ther is not one clause in the whole forme of or­dination by him cited, that doth necessarily argue them, which are so ordained, to bee true and proper Priests, and Deacons; But if ther were and if also the Ministers ordained, were anointed with oile, if their crownes were shawen, and they had power giuen to offer the ab­hominable Idole of the Masse, yet this is not sufficient to argue, that their Ministery is the Ministery of Priests, &c. except in their Ministery they should execute the same. If their owne Church should ordaine one to the Mini­stery of a Pastor, and should in their ordination require him only to preach the worde sincerely, and to admini­ster the Sacraments according to Christs institution, and yet in his practis and execution, hee should do no­thing, but sing Masse and Mattens, and they should ac­cept of this Ministery, and no other, at his hands; would any that is in his wits, say that this mans Ministery, is the Ministery of a Pastor: because hee was in formality of words & ceremonies ordained to that office, how much lesse can any say that our Ministery is the Ministery of Priests, when they doe not only execute any such office, but the clean contrary; and when in their ordination not so much as any parte of a Priests office (properly so taken) is assigned vnto them, but only the name; and not so much as their name in their orders written in Latin, which are to interpret the meaning of the English worde.

2. Though the Ministers should doe all things requi­red, by the canons, and should bee every way answera­ble vnto them, And though the Testimonies of our Martyrs and others were yealded to bee true, yet must [Page]hee streiue hard, that can from either or both, argue that our Ministers, are indeede Priests, except in a Metapho­ricall, and borrowed speech.

The other Arguments wherby hee proueth the maine Assumption of the 2. Reason viz. That the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England, is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy, followe.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of the Prelacie professing it selfe to bee Christs,
  The 2. Arg.
  and yet standing in such an estate as it doth not obey Iesus Christ in his ordinance of Ministery, worship and gouerment of the Church, as their Prophet, Priest and King, is the Mini­stery of Antichrists Apostasy.
• Such is the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of En­glande.

Ergo,

It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.

Answere.

To the Proposition I answer, That not onely the Mi­nistery of the Prelates, but of a Presbytery, or any Church whatsoever that stands in such an estate, is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostacie; And not onely the Ministery of the Prelats, but any other Ministery els vpon earth, may stand in such an estate, as that it may in diuers, and sundry Perticulers of (ignorance or infirmity) disobey Christ in his owne ordinances of Ministery, worship, and gouerment of the Church, and in that respect, and so far forth bee the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy, & yet bee also the Ministery of Iesus Christ. Hee proues [Page]the Proposition by 19. places of Scripture; to as much purpose, as if by as many Testimonies, hee should proue that it is day lighte at high noone; Except hee meane, That that is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie, doth not in euery perticuler obey Christ in his owne ordinances of Ministery. But which his 19. proofes haue no more force to proue it, then to proue that their is a man in the moone, as any may see that hath nothing els to doe, but to examine them.

2. I deny the Assumption; The Ministery of our Church Assemblies, though it bee ordained by the Pre­lats, and bee subject vnto them, yet it is not their Mini­stery, but the Ministery of Iesus Christ; They preaching his worde, & administring his Sacraments; And it doth (if it bee answerable to the law:) obey Christ in all the maine essentiall parts of his owne ordinaunce of Mini­stery, &c. And in all other points (for ought hee can proue to the contrary) as far as the Lord hath revailed the truth vnto them which exercise the same.

But (saith hee) the Assumption is evident by that which hath bene said in the 1. Reason and their Constitution it selfe shewes it, in that they are so farre from obeing Christ in his ordi­nances of Ministery &c. as that they execute the Ministery and gouerment of an other Arch Bisschop, L. Bishop then Christ of an Arch-Deacon, Parson, Vicar, &c. as also in their reading; prayers out of a booke, and observing other humaine inven­tions, and in their Church Gouerment according to Canons, Courts, &c. which were neuer appointed by Christ. To omit that here againe, hee begs his first reason to proue his seconde, If the Assumntion haue noe better evidence, the evidence is fals, as I haue made it evident, in the [Page]Answer to the first reason? Nether hath hee there or els where (in any of those other of their wrightings which hee sends vs vnto pag. 40.) proued that our Ministers do not obey Christ, in his ordinance of Ministery, worship, and Gouerment, yea though it should be graunted that they execute the Ministery, and Gouerment of other Arch Bishops, and L. Bishops besids Christ. And though they should bee Arch Deacons, Parsons, Vicars, reading stinted prayers, &c. For all this may bee donne yea and they may sinne some way in doing all this, and yet they may obey Christ in all the maine essentiall and substan­tiall pointes of his Ministery worship and Gouerment.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of Christians which is opposed against and exal­ted aboue the holy things, Ministery & ordinances of Christ,
  The 3. Arg.
  is the Ministery of Autichrists Apostasie, 2. Thes. 2.3.4. with 1. Ioh. &c.
• Such is the Ministery of their Church Assemblies.

Ergo,

• It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• The Assumption is euident, 1. Aman may peaceably receaue or administer, their holy things in their manner, by vertue of their Deacoury or Priesthoode, receaued from their Prelats.
• But if any doe administer or receaue the holy things of God by the offices of Pastors, and Teachers entred into and executed according to the Testament of Christ, they are reviled and persecuted.
• 2. Their Prelacie, Priesthoode, and Deaconry is the very meanes of thrusting away and keeping out of the [Page]Church the Ministery and order which Christ hath appoin­ted, which some of themselues hereto fore haue acknowledged, and written.

Answere.

1. The Ministery of our Church Assemblies being answerable to the lawes, is not a Ministery exalted in any thing, aboue the Ministery of Christ, but the very same in nature and qualitie, though in some accidents it may differ. In which difference, if ther bee any sinne, it is of ignorance, or infirmitie in the Ministers; which may in as high or a higher degree befall vnto the best Ministers that ever were since the Apostles times.

2. The holy things which they administer are the holy things of Iesus Christ, and not of their owne, & by ver­tue of that Priesthoode and Deaconry which they haue receaued they may not administer any other holy things but what Christ Iesus requireth. The other things which they administer are iudged by them which ad­minister them; onely things indifferent and matters of order, wherein if they which vse them be deceaved, it is but such an error as worthy Martyrs of Iesus Christ haue bene subject vnto, and not sufficient to make their Ministery an Antichristian Ministery.

3. The Prelats doe not persecute any true Pastors and Teachers, so much for Ministering any of the holy things of Christ, as for refusing to conforme to some speciall ordinances of their owne, which they doe not hould to bee holy things, but matters of order, & which by reasons they haue indevoured to proue to bee so: wherein the practis of Prelats is noe more extreame, [Page]then their owne, who censure as farr as they can, in all extremity, all them whoe doe not in al points, conforme and agree to their owne orders, ceremonies and Church policie.

4. It can never bee proued, that the admittance of this Ministery, is a hindrance of a better, but rather it is a meanes to keepe out a wors, and away in time to bring in a better, if a better bee to be brought in, for by yeal­ding to some things that may be bettered & is so wished and indeavored, a dore is opened to Minister many holy things, which otherwise should bee shut. And if it bee as lawfull, for vs to conjecture, as for him, Their general Schisme and rent from this Ministery, hath bene one maine and principall meanes to vphoulde it as it is.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery which is such as in the nature and condition therof it pertaineth not to any body or estate either civill or ecclesiasticall but only to the body or kingdome of Antichrists Apostasie.
  The 4. Arg.
• Such is the Ministery of their Church Assemblies.

Ergo,

• It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• The Assumption is clear, in as much as their Prelacie, Priest­hood, and Deaconry; is such that the Civill State may bee perfect without, them and the Church of Christ may bee com­pleat without them, onely the body, and Kingdome of the Romish Antichrist, cannot bee full and furnished in all the offices therof without them.

Answere.

For Answere to the Assumption,

1. Concerning the Prelacie (though it bee not any Ministery of any of our Church Assemblies, and ther­fore Idly vrged, in this and all the other Arguments) this may bee saide; 1. That the principall, and most ho­norable parts therof is onely vsurped by Antichrist, and doth not appertaine to him, but to the Iuris­diction of the Supreame Magistrats, and States.

2. That the State of a Christian common wealth can­not bee perfect, without some generall visitors, and o­verseers of Churches. 3. That though a perticuler Church or congregation may bee compleat without them, yet for the necessary vnion, and agreement of the severall Churches in Christian Provinces, and King­doms, it is fit and agreable to reason, and noe wayes re­pugnant to Gods word, that vnder the Supreame Ma­gistrate ther should bee, other Governors to protect, and incorrage those Ministers, and Churches which doe their dutie, and to punish those which shall offende. Wherin if either through warrant of humaine lawes, or some personall corruption, they shall in some things passe their bounds, they doe no more then any other of­ficers either Civill or Ecclesiasticall, through frailtie, & infirmitie may doe. 4. That the kingdome of Anti­christ cannot be furnished, in all the offices therof with­out the Authority of Civill Magistrats, and therfore this seemes to make as much against the calling of civill Magistrats as Bishops.

2. Concerning the Ministery of our Priests and Dea­cons, [Page]such as it is, or by lawe ought to be in our Church Assemblies, the Church of Christ cannot bee compleat without it; yea it is noe Church without it. Nether can the kingdome of Antichrist stand before it, Nether will hee ever proue the contrary.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery which is such as the body of Antichrist the man of sinne,
  The 5. Arg.
  cannot without it be compleat in all the members and canonicall functions therof is the Ministery of Autichrists Apostasie.
• Such is the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande.
• It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• The Assumption is proued by the Canons, Pontificall, and estate of the Romish Antichrist.

Answere.

This Argument is but the taile of the former, & ther­fore needs noe further Answer, it being cut of in the answer to the former. The Canons Pontificall, & State. of the Romish Antichrist doe manifest the countrary, which haue and doe curse and persecute with sworde and fier, such a Ministery as is the Ministery of our Church Assemblies: if it bee in all points to the intent of the law.

Fr. Iohn.

• The Ministery of Deacons, Priests, and Prelates which accounts it selfe to be Christs, and yet indeed is such, as the Kings and Rulers of the Earth may and ought to suppresse, and roote out of their dominions, is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie.
• [Page]Such is their Ministery.
• Therefore it is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy.
• The Assumption is proued in the former reason and in other Treatises, and by some of themselues in their Suites to Parla­ment, and if the Prelats and their conforming cleargy, deny it they are by their owne Canons excōmunicated ipso facto.

Answere.

This sixt Argument is borrowed from the first Rea­son wher it is brought to proue that our Ministery is not the Ministery of Pastors and Teachers, as here it is brought againe to proue, that it is the Ministery of An­tichrists Apostasy; Thus then hee reasoneth, the King may and ought to suppresse this Ministery, Therfore it is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasy. But how doth hee proue, That the King ought to suppresse this Mini­stery? Hee refers vs for the proofe therof especially to the former Reason, how doth hee proue it ther? Thus. It is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie. Therfore the king ought to suppresse it. Is not this learned stuffe?

Concerning his other Treatises, which hee so often sends vs vnto, as if they were in every streete and market place of the lande, wee haue not so much idle time to seeke after them: and wee presume wee shall find noe better stuffe in them then in this; If any amongst vs haue put vp any such suit to the Parlament, for the Abol­lishing of our Ministery in generall, let them answer for themselues; But the Prelats may well laugh at his sim­plicity, and seelinesse of wit, that thinks to fright them with such a bug-beare as this, in making them beleeue that they are by their owne Canons excommunicated [Page] ipso facto, if they deny that the King may, and ought to abolish our Ministery.

Fr. Iohn.

• If it bee such as shall bee abolished by the Lord throughout the power, and light of his Gospell,
  The 7. Arg.
  then is it the Ministery of An­tichrists Apostasie.
• The first is true.
• Therfore the latter is true also.

Answere.

The same answer will serue to this Argument, that was giuen to the former; For the Assumption is fals, The light of the Gospell shall more, and more, con­firme establish, and perfect it, and remoue all the defects and blemishes in it, his profe is as ridiculous, and so­phisticall, as is the former; for hee proues it by the same question, that here it is brought to proue, for so in effect proceeds his disputation.

• That which shall bee abolished is Antichristian.
• Our Ministery shall bee abolished.
• Ergo, It is Antichristian.

But how doth hee for our learning proue that our Ministery shall bee abolished, very learnedly and pro­foundly thus.

• That which is Antichristian shall be abolished.
• Our Ministery is Antichristian.
• Therfore it shall be abolished.

For this is the effect of that idle discourse of 2. or 3. leaues, viz. pag. 46.-51. tending to proue, That Anti­christ, and all his offices shall be abolished.

• WHat soever Ministery is such none can heare or haue any spirituall communion with it, but in so doing hee shall worship the Image of the beast, and re­ceaue his Marke, in his forehead or hand. That Ministery may none heare, or haue any spirituall communion with all.
• But the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England, is such as none can heare or haue any spirituall Communion therwith but in so doing hee shall worship the Beasts ima­ge, and receaue his marke in his forehead or hand.

Ergo,

None may heare or haue any Spirituall communion therwith.

Answere.

This Reason for the effect and substance therof diffe­reth not from the seconde, for what is it (by his owne interpretation) to worship the beasts image, but to subiect him­selfe to the Ministery, and worship of Antichrists Apostasie, and how is it possible for him to proue this but by runing to the former Reasons, for their help therin.

For the profe of the Assumption hee sets vs downe a tedious and impertinent discours of some six leaues of paper, teaching what is meant by the beast & his Image, [Page]and by receaving the marke in the forehead or hand, The some and effect wherof is this,

That by Beast wee are to vnderstand the Romaine Dominion and Antichrists hierarchie, withall the offices, lawes, Pag. 51.—63. and autho­rity appertaining thervnto, That by worshipping the Beasts I­mage may bee vnderstoode the yealding of spirituall subiection to that Antichristian kingdome in the lawes offices and Iuris­diction therof, That by receaving the marke in the forehead or hand, is publiquely to professe and obserue them not being a sha­med of the beasts wayes. And this doe all they who submitte to the goverm̄et of Prelats, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, booke worship, &c. Not to contende about this interpretation, but to sup­pose it true, ther is nothing in substance here brought to confirme the 3. Reason, but that which is in the 2. Rea­son, viz. that therfore wee worship the beast, in commu­nicating with our Ministery, Because it is the Ministery of Antichrists Apostasie. And therfore it needs noe o­ther Answer, then what hath bene giuen already. Only thus much further, That for men so far forth to sub­mit to the Gouerment of such Prelats, &c. as our lawes doe require, is not to yealde spirituall subjection to the King­dom of Antichriste, nor without shame to professe the Beasts wayes. For they may not withstanding that bee subject to Christ and his lawes, and to fight against the beast. Yea though it should be graunted, that ther, in sundry perticulers they yeald to some things, in their vse Antichristian and vnlawfull; which the best reformed Churches and Ministers, sometimes of ignorance or in­firmity may doe; and yet remaine the Churches and Ministery of Christ.

• NOne may heare or joine in any Spirituall Communion with that Ministery which deriveth not their power and function of Ministery from Christ, which is the head for the edification of his Church, which is his body.
• Such is the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England.
• Therfore none may heare or joyne in Spirituall Communion therwith.

Answere.

This reason is the same with the first; for it is all one, To be derived from Christ, &, To be set by Christ in his Church, The other words which here hee addeth, Doth noe more vary the force of the Argument, then a new gar­ment put vpon the same witnesse would make him a nue and different witnesse from himselfe.

In the profe of the Assumption hee daubes 6. pages, bringing therin, nothing but his ould brokery, the sub­stance wherof is as followeth.

• 1.
  Pag. 64.—70.
  That our Ministers haue not these offices which Christ hath giuen to his Church for the worke of his Ministery.
• 2. That it is the Ministery of Deacons and Priests made by the Prelats.
• [Page]3. That they were left in England by the Pope, and are still in the Kingdome of Antichrist wher they first rose, and theefore is devilish, and by consequent the more gifts and truth the Mini­sters bring with them, the more the vphould the Ministery of iniquitie, and intisse vnto their stolne waters and hid bread.
• 4. That our Church assemblies are not true visible Churches of Christ vnseperated from the worlde not joyned together in Communion of the Gospell by voluntary Profession of the faith and submission to the Gouerment of Christ, but standing in bon­dage vnto Antichrist.

The very rehearsall of which reasons is answer suffi­cient, he being notable to proue, any of theis assertions, but either by the Assumption it selfe, that they are brought to proue or one by another circularly; Contra­rily I affirme.

1. That ther is no ordinary Ministeriall office that Christ hath giuen vnto his Church, for the worke of his Ministery, but our Ministers either haue or by our lawes ought to haue the same.

2. That it is a Ministery as opposite for the substaunce therof, to the Ministery of Popish, Priests, & Deacons, as light is opposit to darknesse.

3. That the Pope left not such Priests, and Deacons as ours are, nor hath any such in his Kingdome; But that our Priests and Deacons, haue bene vnder God and the Prince, the principall Persons that haue driuen, the Pope and his Priests and Deacons, out of the Realme; That it is devilish for any to say that they are devilish except they can proue it by better reasons. That they that haue the best gifts, doe not intice any to stolne wa­ters, or hidden bread, or to vphould any Mistery of [Page]iniquitie; Except the Gospell of Iesus Christ, and the true and onely meanes of salvation; bee the Mistery of iniquitie.

4. That our Church Assemblies being such as by the lawes of the land they ought to bee; are so far forth se­perated from the world, joyned together in the com­munion of the Gospell, by the voluntary profession of faith, &c. and freed from Antichrist, as is sufficient to make them true visible Churches of Christ, notwith­standing that many things may bee wanting, to the full and desired perfection of them. And I doubt not but wee shall bee far more able at any time by reason out of Gods worde, to proue theis points, then ever M. Iohn­son will bee to proue the contrary. And yet it were easie to proue any thing, by such a jugling Method of Rea­soning, as M. Iohnson hath gotten; For hee can proue you the 1. Reason by the 2, the 2. by the 1. The 3. by the 1. and 2, the 1. and 2. by the 3. The 4. by the 1.2. & 3. and every of them by the 4. and all 4. by that question which here they are brought to proue.

Fr. Iohn.

• NOne may heare or haue any Spirituall communion with those Ministers, which Minister the holy things of God, and worke vpon the Consciences of men, by vertue of a fals Spirituall calling.
• Such are the Ministers of the Church Assemblies of Englande.

Ergo,

None may heare or haue any Spirituall communion with them.

Answere.

This Argument which here hee brings against our Ministery, is the very same with the 2. For by a fals Spiri­tuall calling, hee meanes a calling proceeding from the Apostasie of Antichrist.

The Preposition for brevitie sake hee proues by fiue and thirtie places of Scripture: And yet who soeuer shall pleas to take the paines to examine them, shall finde, that nether severally nor joyntly, they proue the same.

The Assumption wheron the whole weight of the controversie, leaneth, hee proueth onely by the first Ar­gument, wherby hee proued the Assumption of the 2. [Page]Reason viz. Because they doe it by vertue of their Ministery re­ceaved of their Prelats, from their Spirituall Authority, which is vsurped and Antichristian; And this is all this witnesse hath to say; and all the answer it needeth; Onely hee wandreth into certaine objections, and queries, groun­ded vpon some supposed defences of some of our Mi­nisters; Vnto which I will (though I neede not) giue a breif answer from point to point.

Ans. I knowe none hauing receaued ordination from the Prelats, that neede deny that they preach partly by vertue of the Ministery which they haue taken from them; Noe though they hould the calling of Prelates vnlawfull: For what is the Ministery which they haue taken from them, for the substance therof. But (after a triall of their gifts) a libertie, and leaue graunted vnto them to preach the worde of God, and administer the Sacraments, in such Congregations as they shall bee called vnto.

Ans. They may acknowledge a further calling, then that of the Prelats, and yet not therin renounce the cal­ling receaved from the Prelates, but rather ratifie the same; For the Prelats being learned divines, and having approued of their gifts, and by words, and letters Testi­moniall giuen, libertie to execute the Ministery of the Gospell; they doe not therby thrust them into a Mini­stery, but they leaue them to bee further called or cho­sen, [Page]either by the people, or those Patrons, vnto whose fidelitie the people haue committed this charge: And therfore this acknowledging of a further calling, ma­keth nothing to the justification of the proude & igno­rant schism of this Persons.

Ans. Though this should be graunted (which hee in his ignorāt simplicitie doth suppose) that some amongst vs, hauing bene ordained by the Prelates did exercise our Ministery, by virtue of another calling, and though the law of the land, alow noe other, yet (especially so long as they are permitted to execute their Ministery by those in Authority, though it bee by virtue of another calling) they are to bee reputed Ministers of that Church, that hath vse of their Ministery.

Ans. All theis inferences are vpon a fals supposition; yet if there were any such Persons, they could noe more therin bee said to bee intruders, and hipocrits then they of the Seperation are; For though the publique lawes should bee against any other calling, yet so long as they take an office by a good calling, they cannot bee said to [Page]intrude themselues. Nether doe any such amongst vs (if ther bee any such) pretend in shew any more then they doe indeed performe, for so far forth as any differ in iudgement from the publique lawes, of the State, they are ready to professe it, being called thervnto, and they practis onely that, which they iudge lawfull, being as ready, as any of the seperatiō to suffer, rather then prac­tis approue, or assent vnto any thing, which they judge vnlawfull, and vnwarrantable.

Obj. But suppose they had some other lawfull calling yet they also retaining this vnlawfull calling of the Prelats this were but to halt betweene two opinions, and to set their threshould by Gods threshoulds and their posts by Gods posts.

Ans. How can such bee said to retaine the vnlawfull calling of the Prelats, which protest against the same, & professe that they preach not by that, but by another calling? But if ther bee any such, that exercise their Mi­nistery by another calling besids that of the Prelats, they therin refuse; obeidience, and conformitie to what soever in the Prelats calling they judge vnlawfull, and so doe not joyne an vnlawfull and a lawfull calling to­gether, but reject the corruptions, retaine the good, and supplie the defect with another calling; and this is the worste that can bee made of it; But this is not to joyne mans Treshoulds to Gods, &c. but clean contrary, to seperate them, as much as may bee; And how can they bee saide to halt betweene two opinions, when so far onely as the truth (in their iudgement and opinion) is established by publique lawes they imbrace it, acknow­ledging their subjection to the same lawes, and contra­rily, wher they judge that the law swerves from the [Page]truth, they take another course, But still hee begs this, (which is the maine controversie) that our Ministers haue receaued an vnlawfull calling from the Pre­lates.

In the next place hee labors to proue by reasons that howsoever some pretend another calling, yet it is evident, that the execute all the duties of their Ministeries, by virtue of their calling taken from their Prelats; But what of that; This will stand him in noe steed, vnlesse it bee given him of almes. That every Ministery executed by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelats, is an vnlawfull and an Antichristian Ministerie; For proue it hee cannot, And if wee should, except this also bee given him, That our Ministery is executed ONLY by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelats; and not by any other power, or virtue besids, taken either from God or man. But let vs see his reasons.

1. They cannot stand publique Ministers except they re­ceaue of the Prelats the Priesthood and Deaconry a fore­said.

2. They are excommunicated ipso facto, if they affirme that they whoe are made Bishops, Deacons, and Priests, are not lawfully made, vntill thie haue some other calling.

3. The people haue not the liberty of the Churches of Christ nor power in this their estate to chose and submit vnto the true and lawfull Ministery appointed by Christ.

4. Without and against the peoples consent, they are by the Prelats a lone silenced, depriued, and degraded from exercisiing any Ministery in those Assemblies.

Theis reasons doe not proue, That they exercise their ministery ONLY by virtue of a calling receaved frō the [Page]Prelats, and therfore whether true or fals are nothing to the purpose, and vnworthy any further Answer.

After this hee fetcheth another Rode out, and labou­reth to proue, that our Ministers ought not to suffer themselues to bee silenced, and deposed from their publique Ministery, no not by lawfull Magistrats, which is not onely fals and sedi­tious; as shall appeare afterwarde, but idle and imperti­nent, to the present controversie, for if it were true that Ministers ought not to doe in this case, as ours doe; yet this doth not argue, any corruption in the calling of their Ministery, but a weacknesse onely in the Persons that execute it, in yealding further from their owne right, then they neede to doe; But let vs consider the perticulers, that hee objecteth against our Ministers in this respect.

Obj. The Apostles being true Ministers of Christ would not at the commandement of lawfull Magistrats, leaue to preach, much lesse should true Ministers, at the appointement of vsur­ping Prelats. Nether did the Apostles make, their imediate calling from God the ground of their refusall, but this, That they ought to obey God rather then man, which is a duty re­quired of all Ministers and Christians.

Ans. 1. Wher hee distinguisheth between silencing, & depriving, by Prelats and lawfull Magistrats, it is in our case, wher the Prelats doe it by Authority, and commis­sion from lawfull Magistrats; a distinction without a difference. 2. Though the Apostles did not assigne, their imidiate calling from God, as the ground of their refusall, in so many letters, and sillables, yet that which they doe assigne, is by implication, and in effect the same with it; for it is as much as if they had said; God himselfe [Page]hath imposed this calling vpon vs, and not man; & ther­fore except wee should rather obey man, then God, wee may not forbeare, this office, which hee hath imposed vpon vs. For opposing the obeidience of God to the o­beidience of man, hee therin pleads a calling from God; and not from man: otherwise if they had receaved a cal­ling from man, there had bene incongruitie in the ans­wer, considering that in common sence and reason, they ought so far forth to obey men, forbidding them to ex­ercise a calling, as they exercise the same by virtue of that calling els by this reason, A Minister should not ceas to preach, vpon the commandemēt of the Church, that hath chosen him, but should be bound to giue them also the same answer which they Apostles gaue, which were absurd. So that by this grosse conceit of M. Iohnsons, their should bee no power, in any sort of men whomsoever, to depose a Minister from his Ministery, but that notwithstāding any comandement: of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery. But for the further answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to sedition, wee are to know; That though the Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists, prea­ched publiquely where they were not hindred by open violence, And did not, nor might not leaue their Mini­stery vpon any humain Authoritie and commandement whatsoever; because they did not enter into or exercise the same, vpon the will, and pleasure of any man what­soever; yet they never erected and planted publique Churches and Ministeries in the face of the Magistrate, whether they would or noe, or in dispite of them. But such in respect of the eye of the Magistrat, were as pri­vate [Page]and invisible as might bee: Neither were some of the Apostles onely forbidden, so as others should bee suffered to preach the same Ghospel in their places: but the vtter abolishing of Christian Religion was mani­festly intended in the silencing of them. But our Chur­ches wherof wee are Ministers, are noe private & secreat Assemblies, such as hide themselues from the face of a persecuting Magistrat, and State. But are publique pro­fessing their worship, & doing their religion in the face of the Magistrate and State, yea and by his contenance, authoritie and protection; And wee are set over those Churches, not onely by a calling of our people, but also by the authoritie of the Magistrate who hath an armed power to hinder any such publique Action: who is wil­ling also to permitte and maintaine other true Mini­sters of the Gospel in those places where hee forbiddeth some. If therfore after our publique calling, to Minister to such a knowne and publique Church, but by the Ma­gistrat also, The Magistrate shall haue matter against vs, (whether just or injust it skilleth not) and shall in that regard forbid vs to Minister to our Church. I see not by what warrant in Gods word, wee should thinke our selues bounde not withstanding to exercise our Mini­stery still; Except wee should thinke such a law of Mini­stery to ly vpon vs, that wee should judge our selues bound, to run vpon the sword point of the Magistrate or to oppose sword to sworde. It being not the vse of the higher powers, in such cases nakedly to forbid, but to set a sword to the breast, therby to force them, which shall refuse. And suppose the Magistrate should [Page]doe it injustly, and against the will of the Church, and should therin sinne; yet doth not the Church, in that regard ceas to bee a Church, nor ought shee therin to resist the will of the Magistrate; Nether doth shee stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister (how great and deserved soever) to de­prive her selfe of the protection of the Magistrat, by leauing her publique standing to follow her Mi­nistery in private and the darke; refusing the bene­fit of all other publique Ministery, which with the leaue and liking of the Magistrate shee may injoy; Nether doe I knowe what warrant any ordinarie Minister hath by Gods worde in such a Case so to draw any such Church or people to his private Mi­nistery, that therby they should hazzard their out­ward state and quiet in the Common wealth wher they liue, when in some competent Measure they may publiquely, with the grace and fauours of the Magistrat, inioy the ordinarie meanes of their Sal­vation, by another, (and except hee haue a calling to Minister to some other Church) to bee content to live as a private member, till it should please God to reconcile the Magistrate vnto him, and so call him againe to his owne Church, laboring in meane while, privately vpon perticuler occasions offred, to strengthen and cofirme, in the wayes of God those people that are deprived of his pu­blique labours, and I take it to bee the dutie, of the people in such a case, if they will approue [Page]themselues, faithfull Christians, and good Subjects, so to submit to the Ministery of another, as that by prayer and all other good dutifull and loyall meanes, they may doe their best indevour to obtaine him of whom against their will, they haue bene deprived and still to affect and loue him as their Pastor. Now if the people doe thus, then is that Minister called to bee silent not onely by the Magistrate, but by them also, though with much greife.

Obj. It is the dutie of all Ministers, and Christians as will as Apostles, to obey God, and not man, when man forbiddeth that which God commandeth, or commandeth that which God forbiddeth.

Ans. True, but God noe wher that I can find, com­maundeth either a Minister to Minister publiquely in a publique Church maintained by the Magistrate, against the will, and in despite of the Magistrate, noe more then against the will and in despite of the Church it selfe.

Obj. Vriah at the commaundement of the King made an Alter after the fashion of that of Damascus but therin sin­ned, though hee offred theron such burnt-offrings as God had appointed; much lesse may the Ministery vnder the Gospell, bee framed after any nue manner devised by man least of all after Antichrist, though in that Ministery many doctrines of the Gospell bee taught, and such Sacraments administred as God hath ordained.

Ans. This Example of Vriah the Priest is altogether impertinent, vnto that which goeth before. It being one thing vpon the commaundement of the Magistrate to forbeare the publique exercise of a true Ministery, an­other thing vpon his commaundement to frame a nue [Page]Ministery after a nue manner devized by man or Anti­christ.

After this hee runs out of his way againe to satisfie an objection, that hee had propounded and indevoured (as far as his learning would giue him leaue) to answer before; And which doth nothing at all depend vpon any thing that goeth before in this Argument, wherin hee resembles some wanton Curs, that takes delight to turne round about to catch their owne tailes; But let vs see what it is hee saith.

Obj. Here againe concerning such as plead that they teach the truth, and many excellent points of Doctrine. It is to bee observed, that yet none may therfore heare their Ministery vnder Coler of learning the truth because in yealding to re­ceaue and heare it from Antichrists Ministery, They defile the Temple of God, and become the Subjects of Antichrist, pag. 75.

Ans. Wher hee againe, taketh it as matter that must whether wee will or noe, bee graunted vnto him, That our Ministery is Antichrists Ministery, which needs noe o­ther answer then before, yet thus much further. 1. That noe Ministery whatsoever (so far forth as it teacheth the truth of Christ especially a truth opposite to the doctri­ne of Antichrist) is the Ministery of Antichrist; And tho­se which shall submit and subject themselues vnto any Ministery whatsoever, onely so far forth as they Mini­ster and teach such truth, cannot therin bee said to defi­le the Temple of God, or to bee Subjects of Antichrist, but bee obedient to Iesus Christ.

2. Our Ministery in divers Congregations of the land at the least, Teach not onely many excellent points of doc­trin. [Page]But so much doctrine as is sufficient to the Salva­tion of him that beleeueth the same; even all the maine fundamentall points of Salvation clearly set downe in Gods word; yea and for ought any can proue to the countrary. All other lesse necessary points, so far forth, as God hath revealed, and convinced their consciences of the truth of them.

3. Those amongst vs who make conscience of hea­ring our Ministery, doe not heare them vnder a Colour of learning the truth, but onely to this very end, and purpose, that they might learne the truth, and therin the true way of serving and worshipping God according to his owne will.

Obj. And not to speake of the many errors & falshoods which they also teach, it is no nue thing that the Ministers of Anti­christ, should in diuers things teach and bring the truth with them, for when Sathan cannot by falshood vtter his wares, ordinaunces, Ministery worship, hee will bee glad to vtter the same by teaching the truth. pag. 75.76.

Ans. 1. Our Errors whether for weight or member, or qualitie, are not such, so great, so many, but they may be fall vnto true Christians, whether Ministers or people, yea (as M. Iohnson well knoweth) many of the Martyrs of Iesus Christ, haue liued and died, in more and greater Errors of the same kinde, and therfore well may hee passe by this point. This is but a peece of his simple the­toricke, carelesly to seeme to passe by that which hee cannot proue. For how many Errors, can hee name or number, that hee is able to justify to be taught in the Ministery of our Church Assemblies? what one truth of Religion can hee name, that is not or hath not bene [Page](when just occasion hath bene offred) taught by some of our Ministers? I am not ignorant that in his treatises against M. A. H. and M. H. I. hee mustreth a whole troup of pretended Errors, but suppose them to bee so many destinct Errors, how doth hee proue they are taught in our Ministery or that they are required by law to bee taught? Ther is indeed a Conformitie and Subscrip­tion required to some of them, and a Canon that requi­res that the late Canons bee reade in Churches some times in the yeare, as also that the booke of Articles bee read at the first entrance vpon an Ecclesiastical Church, with a testification of assent vnto it: But is this Ministe­rially to teach the Errors contained in the said bookes? May not a man in the weacknesse of his judgement, and in infirmitie at his first entrance into a calling, conforme and subscribe vnto some things, not so warantable, and true, and yet not teach them for truths; yea may hee not, for all that teach doctrin in it selfe directly coun­trary to those vntruths, yea and yet satisfie also the minde of the law, which being humaine, and ther­fore not alwaies perfect, may commaunde that very truth to bee taught, which being thorowly followed, will destroy some vntruths, which the same law also re­quires? Further it is one thing to reade the Canons to the people, therby to declare vnto them what is requi­red at their hands, by their Governors, another thing to teach, and justifie the Errors countained in them, and to testifie an assent vnto some Errors, is not Ministerially to instruct the people in those Er­rors.

[Page] 2. Though it bee noe nue thing that the Ministers of Anti­christ, should in divers things bring the truth with them; Yet this is a nue thing and never hard of before, That the Ministers of Antichrist, should teach the wholl truth of Christ Iesus for the substāce therof. That they should oppose directly and zealously against the maine, and foundamentall doctrins of Antichrist; That they should professe him to bee Antichrist, and that man of sinne, and to the sheeding of their blood, should exercise their Ministery against Antichrist and his kingdome, prote­sting against him and his Service, were it not nue straun­ge that a man should bee counted a true Subject vnto a Prince, then when hee doth openly protest against him. Counting him a vsurping Tirant, and imploying all the wit power and strength hee hath against him? such sub­jects of Antichrist are our Ministers, or by the lawes such they ought to bee. Could hee bee said to bee a Mi­nister of Christ, that yealding to some externall kites, and professing some doctrines of Christian faith, doth not withstanding, directly, openly and professedly, re­nounce Christ and his Seruice, and professe himselfe to bee an enemie to him, and his Kingdome, If it hould not in the one, it is not both a nue and strang thing that it should hould in the other.

3. M. Iohnson out of his knowledge must teach vs; how Sathan can be said, by teaching the truth to vtter his owne Ministery, or worship, or how a Sathanicall Ministery can be vttered when in and by the Ministery, nothing but the truth of Christ is administred; what is the Ministery of Sathan but the Ministery of Error? how can the Ministery of Error bee vttered by teaching [Page]the Truth? or how can a Ministery be said to be vttered, by a truth, when it is the Ministery it selfe that vttereth the truth, Surely noe more then a Marchandize can bee said to bee vttered by selling of wares, and were it not a wonder, if a man should vtter his bad Marchandice, by selling good & sound wares? Sathan and Antichrist in­deed together with some truths, seeke to vtter much falshoode, which otherwise (they knowe) would not be receaued: And many of our Ministers are content to yeald to some things which they judge not so counve­nient (if it did otherwise some good to the State) to the end they may vtter the truth. But that like Antichrist and Sathan our Ministers should propound this vnto themselues, to teach some truths to this end that they might, therby vtter falshood and lies, fals Ministeries & worships is a Malitious imputation, and can never bee justified.

Obj. Beza saith, Though Antichrist teach the truth (which sometimes hee doth) to the end hee may more easily seduce to beleeue his lies, yet wee are to stoppe our eares against him, least vnder his pretence, wee bee deceaved by him. pag. 76.

Ans. Well, but it is yet to proue, That our Ministers are Antichrists, and that they teach the truth to any such wicked intent; the contrary is manifest, when many of them in regard of the times, are countent, to yealde to some colourable vntruths, that they might therby pur­chase libertie vnto themselues, to aduance the truth of Christ, They yeald to some things in appearance Anti­christian, that they might with more libertie fight a­gainst Antichrist.

Obj. Who knoweth not that Antichrist and his Ministers [Page]are hipocriticall frends to Christ vnder the name of Christ fighting against him.

Ans. But who knoweth not that our Ministers, if they bee such as our lawes require them to bee, are sworn e­nemies to Antichrist, and in the name of Christ, and vn­der some of Antichrists owne Rites doe fight against him and resist him vnto blood; And who knoweth not, that many of them haue died for Christ at the foot of Antichrist.

• IF the present Ministery of the Church of Englande bee a strange Ministery, then is it not lawfull in the worship of God, to heare it, or haue any Spirituall communion ther­with.
• But such is the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England.
• Therfore it is not lawfull in the worship of God to heare it, or haue any Spirituall Communion therwith.
• The Assumption is manifest, for a strange Ministery is that which is not by the law ordained, and giuen for that worke, as themselues here to fore haue published, and as is proued in the first Reason.

Answere.

This Reason differreth not in substance from divers of the former, for what is it to bee a strang Ministery, but to be a Ministery that is not set by Christ in his Church [Page]which is his 1. Reason. But to bee a Ministery which de­riveth not the power and function from Christ, which is his 4. Reason. But to bee a Ministery that worketh v­pon mens consciences by virtue of a fals Spirituall cal­ling which is his 5. Reason. Might hee not with as greate facility out of this method of reasoning haue brought forth 7000. Reasons as theis seaven. But how doth hee proue the Assumption of his reason? by sending vs back againe (as you may see) to the first Reason. So that all the reason of this Reason is borrowed from the 1. Rea­son and is answered all ready in the Answer therof.

But before hee passeth to the next reason, hee runs out after the wonted fashion, into an idle discours, no­thing at all appertaining to the Argument in hand, brin­ging in some idle observations vpon the Story of Co­rah, Dathan, and Abiram, & also of Naaman, falsly Mis­applied vnto our Church Assemblies & Ministery. For hee taking it as graunted, or as a thing that could not be denied him, That our Ministery is Antichristian, & that our worship is Idolatry, hee makes our Ministers, & peo­ple even the best of them wors then Corah, Dathan, & Abiram and them which were of their conspiracy, and our Assemblies and worship as bad as the Temple of Rimmon, and the idolatry therin performed. And wher hee brings the example of Naaman, as brought by some of vs to justifie our joining with our Church Assemblies I persuade my selfe he doth against the knowledge and light of his owne conscience bely vs; & that ther cannot be one of vs brought forth, that ever made this plea; we hould it as vnlawful (as themselues) outwardly & but in appearance to joyne with Idolators, in their Idolatry: & [Page]wee see noe warrant why for every perticuler Act, that in a large sence is Idolatrous, adjoined to Gods true worship, wee should forbeare our presence, at the true worship it selfe. Or that our presence, for the true wor­ships sake alone, should in respect of some point of false worship thervnto a nexed bee (as hee speaketh) the sub­mitting our bodies to a strang worship. Especially when wee are not perticuler Actors in it, but onely present, be­houlding it with greife, and suffering it in others for the true worship sake vnto which it is adjoined, If this should bee held vnlawfull; then can noe man present himself with a good conscience, at any publique wor­ship of God whersoever. Because (except it should be stinted and prescribed, which M. Iohnson holds to bee a fals worship) hee can haue noe asseurance, but that some errors in matter or forme will bee committed; yea if hee bee a man of vnderstanding, and learning, hee may presume in a māner, that in the publique worship, some error or other in matter or forme, greater or lesser will bee committed, before which he must present himselfe. But what? were the Iewish Sinagoges in Christs time free from all parts of fals worship? the Scripture wit­nesseth the contrary. Did they when Christ came into them, for beare their Assemblies? The Scripture confir­mes the contrary, was Christ presence then (as heere he saith our presence is) a very bowing downe vnto them? was hee also therin an vnconscionable dissembler. Did hee therin imbrace the bosome of Strangers? breake his couenant, goe a whoreing with the inventions of man. For (such fiere as this hee spits at vs) if not, why should it bee such a sin in vs? who haue not such eyes to pearce into the impiety of mans traditions, as our Saviour had.

Fr. Iohn.

• IF the present Ministery of the Church of Englande bee not from Heaven, but of men, then is it not lawfull in the worship of God to heare or haue any Spirituall Commu­nion therwith.
• Such is the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande. Ergo, It is not lawfull in the worship of God to haue any Spi­rituall communion therwith.
• The Assumption is evident, because God hath not appointed the Ministery of the Church Assemblies, but man, as appeares by their booke or ordination, And if they will say the contrary, let themshew their callings out of the word of God.

Answere.

This Reason is the very same with the 4.5. and 6. and hath noe ground, or profe but from them: And therfore is Answered also in the Answer of them. And this may bee sufficient to shew, that our Ministery is from Hea­ven, when so malitious, and excercised an Adversary whose whole Religion seemes to lie in opposing to our Ministery, can say noe more against it.

Fr. Iohn.

• AL will-worship is Sinne.
• To heare or communicate with the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande, in Church Ser­vice in manner and forme prescribed, is a will-worship.
• Therfore to heare or communicate with that Ministery is Sinne.

Answere.

This Sillogisme is Sophisticall, consisting plainely of foure termes, Except hee make his conclusion this. Ther fore to heare or communicate with that Ministery in manner [Page]and forme prescribed is a Sinne. For the third Argument being wil-worship. Al the other terms they being no parts therof, must bee in the conclusion: If so bee the sillogis­me bee true as every Sophoming boy, in the vniversitie knoweth: And therfore hee must either exclude them out of the Assumption, or include them in the conclu­sion, which hee cannot doe, it being his intent, by theis Arguments to proue it a sinne to communicate ther­with not onely in manner or forme prescribed, but any o­ther way, And therfore hee Sophistically, or rather in ignorant and witlesse simplicity, concluds a generall from a Speciall thus,

• It is a will-worship to communicate with our Ministery in manner and forme prescribed.
• Therfore it is a sinne to communicate therwith whether in manner or forme prescribed or any other way.

Wheras a Childe may knowe this, That an Action donne in some manner and forme prescribed may bee a will-worship and a sinne, which donne otherwise may bee true worship; A man may therfore (if neede bee) graunt both his premises and deny his conclusion. Ne­ther will it help him, that the Author of the 12. Argu­ments, concluded against the Ceremonies, in the same forme of words, that hee doth here against the Ministe­ry, It being plain by the scope of his wholl disputation, That though hee do not expresse those words in manner and forme prescribed, in the conclusion; That yet hee vn­derstandeth them, It being not his purpose to dispute absolutely against all vse of them, but against the vse of them, in that manner and forme that they are prescri­bed.

But whatsoever his Conclusion is, The Assumption is fals, yea though it should bee graunted that in our Mi­nistery ther is some will-worship performed; yet let vs see how hee proues the Assumption.

Fr. Iohn.

• All parts of divine worship and Service imposed onely by the will and pleasure of man vpon the Communicants in divine service and that of necessitie to bee donne, is will-worship.
• But to heare and Communicate, with the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Eugland, in Church Service in manner and forme prescribed, are such parts of divine wor­ship, as is a foresaid.

Ergo,

To heare and Communicate with the present Ministery of the Church Assemblies of England in manner and forme pres­cribed is a will-worship.

Answere.

The Proposition is taken forth of the 12. Argumentes and therfore needs noe Answer.

The Assumption is fals, But hee proueth it thus,

• 1. Man imposeth this Ministery vpon man, and God in his word hath not appointed these offices and Callings, Nether required any to communicate with them in Church Service in manner and forme prescribed.
• And 2. the people stand bound to heare, and communicate with them vpon paine of Suspension, deprivation, &c. and God must haue noe solemne worship in England except it be with communion to the same.
• Ergo, To heare and communicate with the present Ministery, [Page]&c. is a part of divine worship imposed as a fore saide.

The first part of the Anticedent is fals and is not proued by any ground taken from the 12. Arguments, for not man onely, but God also hath imposed this Mi­nistery, and hath appointed for the substance therof their offices & Callings of the Ministers of our Church Assemblies; And hath required vs to communicate with them in Church Service, in that forme and manner, which the law in the true meaning therof, prescribes, & which many at the least doe practis.

Nether doth the consequent follow vpon the second part of the Antecedent, for though humaine lawes vn­der never so great punishments, should bind vs to never so great corruptions in Gods Service; yet so lang as wee doe not actually communicate in those corruptions, but onely in the true parts of Gods worship, our communi­cating is never the wors; for the said lawes of men, but rather the better. Nether doe wee herein stand more bound, then M. Iohnson and his people doe, when they are in theis dominions: So that it makes as much against communicating with their Ministery as ours: Though therfore (as the Author of the 12. Arguments hath indevoured to proue) the Ceremonies in Controversie should be held to be a will-worship, and therfore a sin to vse them in Gods worship, yet it followeth not, by the same Argument that it is a sinne, to communicate with the Ministery of our Church Assemblies, noe though it should vse the said Ceremonies, much lesse, wher and when it vseth them not, as in some places, or at some times it doth not, nether is it by law required so to doe.

Fr. Iohn.

• IT is a sinne against God for Christians to pertake with the Ministery of such, as accounting thomselues to bee Ser­vants of Iesus Christ, yet doe in the execution of their Ministery giue speciall honor to Antichrist, and his officers.
• But the Ministery of the Church of England is such.
• Therfore it is a sinne for Christians to pertake therwith.

Answere.

First I deny the Proposition, The true and best Mini­sters of Iesus Christ, that ever were or shall bee since the Apostles, may in their ignorance, or weacknes, do some act in their Ministry, that may bring some speciall ho­nor to Antichrist, and yet Christians may lawfully, and without sinne pertake with such in their Ministery. It being not necessary, that who soever pertaketh, with a [Page]Ministery should pertake also with the accidentall cor­ruptions therof.

Hee tels vs like a bould and blind biard. That the Pro­position is manifest and clear to any that haue an ey of Reason, and any light of divinitie shining in it. And yet it hath not so much as any colour of truth, but in the eyes of such owles and bats as himselfe is; Arg. 2 The Proposition in the twelue Arguments vnto which hee would equall and paralel his, is this, It is a sinne against God, for him that is by way of excellency a Servant of Iesus Christ (without a precise and directe warrant from him at any time especially in the So­lemne worship of God) to give speciall honour to Antichrist and his members; What? must it needs follow vpon this, That it is a sinne to pertake any manner of way with such a ones Ministery, as shall in any measure commit such a sinne? must the joining with them in any other parts of their Ministery needs bee a communicating with them in this sinne? Hee bids vs see for this 2. Cor. 6.14.17. Rev. 18.4. but what is this to the twelue Arguments, from which hee saith this reason is taken? And to what end should wee see those places, except hee had first made vs to see, That our Ministers in their Ministery are Infi­dels and Belials. That their Ministery for the substance therof is vnrighteousnes and darknesse. That the God wee serued in our Ministery is an Idoll, That our Assemblies are Babylon. And all this because some thing happily is donne, by our Ministers, which (and yet contrary to their intent) is some honour to Antichrist. For except all this bee graunted vnto him, theis Texts are of noe force to confirme the Preposition.

The Assumption is as fals as the Proposition, [Page]Nether doth it follow from the Assumption, of that Argument of the 12. from which hee would ground it. For though it should bee graunted, That to vse the Cere­monies in Controversie in manner and forme prescribed were to give speciall honors to Antichrist and his officers. Yet it doth not follow, That the Ministery of our Church Assem­blies, are such that in the execution of their Ministery giue speciall honour to Antichrist, and his officers. For some of our Ministers, from whom hee seperateth, do not in the execution of their Ministery vse the said Ce­remonies at any time, Nether do any of our Ministers at all times in the execution therof, vse them, nether are required so to doe. The Assumption not-withstanding hee proceedeth to proue thus.

Fr. Iohn.

• Such a Conformitie to Antichrist and his officers as is not onely besids the word of God, but in a speciall manner derogatory to all reformed Churches that haue departed from the Synago­gue of Rome, is a speciall honour to Antichrist and his Offi­cers.
• But the Execution of the Ministery of the Church of Englande is such.

Ergo,

The Execution of that Ministery in manner a foresaid is to giue speciall honour to Antichrist and his officers.

Answere.

The Proposition is word for word in a manner taken out of the 12. Arguments. And therfore for this contro­versie not to bee stood vpon, whether it be true, or fals.

The Assumption is fals, and hath noe ground at all from the 12. Argumets. For though it should be graun­ted. That to vse the Ceremonies in Controversie in divine wor­ship is such a Conformitie to Antichrist, and his members, as is specified in the Proposition; yet noe man except hee haue some Crack in his braine, can from thence inferre, That the execution of our Ministery, is such a confor­mitie, especially then when in the execution therof, they doe not vse the said Ceremonies, which none doe at all times, and some doe never.

Hee proceeds to proue the Assumption, not by any ground taken from the 12. Arguments, but by some of the fragements of his owne former reasonles reasons, and therfore the maine issue of the Argumēt, lying not vpon any thing, in the said Arguments. This second reason of his, cannot bee said to bee taken from the 12. Arguments. And therfore they are noe wise guilty of his schisme, nor doe any wayes herein this place, patro­nize the same.

Fr. Iohn.

• IF such bee the State of the Ministery of the Church Assem­blies of England, as they are bound in their Ministra­tion vnto such things, as the vsing of them in Church Service, in manner and forme prescribed, is a will-worship, a giving of specially honour to Antichrist and his members, a performing of honours more then Civill, even Religions, onely to a humaine power, a warranting of the like vse of Iewish, Turkish, Paganish or Popish observations; a doing of Scysmaticall Actions, an hauing of Spirituall Communion with Papists, in the Misteries of their Idolatry, and Super­stition, Amingling of prophane things with divine, an vsing of vnlawfull things in divine worship; An administring of Sacraments, that are not of divine institution. A solemne ac­knowledging of Speciall homage, to the Spirituall vsurped authoritie of Lord Bishops, an vsing of humaine Traditions in Gods worship as necessary to salvation, an apparent meanes of the damnation of many Soules. An observing of a lieturgy [Page]which in the wholl matter, and forms therof, is too like vnto the masse booke, &c. Then is it not lawfull to communicate with the Ministers in their Ministery.
• But such is the estate of the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Englande.
• Therfore it is not lawfull to communicate with them therin.

Answere.

M. Iohnson thinks surely, that in this Argument hee hath out of our owne writings, for ever disgraced our Ministery; But whether here or in the Arguments fol­lowing, he deale faithfully with our writers, I know not, his bad dealing in this kinde, wee haue discoured in part before, and doth most evidently appeare in one perticu­ler following, wherein hee most shamfully and lewdly, as a man void of all common honesty and grace, ma­keth the Ministers of Lincolne to affirme, See pag. 98. That the Pre­lats are reveiled to bee great Antichrists, and their Ministery, and constitution, to bee great troublers of the Church at this day, and that it cannot but bee very sinfull and hurtfull, to re­taine or communicate with them. The Devill himselfe would haue bene a shamed in this open manner to haue tould such a ly, and therfore hee is to bee trusted, no fur­ther, then hee is seene; And herein his lewdnesse is the more to bee suspected, That wher hee rehearseth many harsh, bitter, and vnsauory speaches against our Ministery and worship, as written by some of our selues, that retaine communion with the Mini­stery, and worship of our Church Assemblies; Hee doth not quote the perticuler places, but onely refers [Page]vs to the Authors in generall, as though we had nothing els to doe, but to reede ouer wholl bookes to finde out his Allegations, or that wee must take them vpon his word to bee faithfully reported. But let vs suppose, that our men haue so written; yet ther is noe consequent in the Proposition: For what if our Ministery were bound to say Masse, to sing Mattins. To worship the Virgin Mary. To acknowledge the Popes Supremacie, &c. yet for all that it might bee lawfull to Communicate with our Ministers, in their Ministery: Except that in the exe­cution of their Ministery they submitted vnto that which they were bound vnto. It being one thing, to bee bound, and another thing to fulfill the bonde; he might contrarily with as much witt and vnderstanding haue reasoned thus, If this bee the estate of the Ministery of the Church Assemblies of Rome, that they are bound in their admi­nistration, to the renouncing of Antichrist, and all his Idolatry, offices, and will-worship; to conforme onely, in their Ministery to the Gospell of Iesus Christ, and to such or dinances as are agrea­ble to the same, then it is lawfull to communicate with them in their Ministery and worship. M. Iohnson would quickly dis­cerne the inconsequence of this Proposition; And why? because in the execution of their Ministery, they fulfill not this bound; And yet hee cannot deny, but that they are, by a stranger bond, even a divine bond, bounde vnto this, then our Ministers to the contrary.

The consequent hee saith is proued by the Ministers of Lincolneshire, Abridgement pag. 17. But to passe by his depraving of them before touched, noe such matter can bee concluded from the words, which hee here citeth, yea though hee had dealt faith-fully in the citation of [Page]them. For though it should bee graunted that some act of spirituall fornication should bee donne in our Mini­stery, ‘That wee are to seperate from Idolators and Anti­christians, and to bee as vnlike them as may bee, in their religious observations, Though God doe beare a dete­station of Idolatry, and all the Inticements therof, as vnto speciall whoredome. Though wee ought to bee a shamed of the monuments of Idolatry, and cast them away with detestation. Though wee should bee in some danger by them to bee corrupted in Religion, by con­forming vnto Idolators in their Ministery and worship. Though keeping communion with such Ministers should be a speciall meanes to harden them in their sins. Though the Prelats were revealed to bee great Anti­christs. Though the Godly learned haue constantly taught, that Christians are bound to forsake and cast of the Ministration, Ceremonies, and religious customes of Pagan, Iewes, Antichristian Idolators, and Hereticks, and carefully to shum all conformity with them therin;’ Yet it doth not therupon follow, That if the Ministers of our Church Assemblies bee bound as a foresaid, that then it is not lawfull to communicate with them in their Ministery.

M. Iohnson therfore must bee put to this paines, To proue this consequent.

For further profe of the former consequent, he brin­geth six Reasons more out of his owne ould and fusty horn of store which proue the consequent just a baculo ad augulum. To which it shall bee needlesse to giue auns­wer, they being profes clean besids the purpose of theis reasons, which is to justify their schisme by grounds ta­ken from our owne writings.

The Consequent then of the Proposition being evi­dently fals, The Assumption though it should haue ne­ver so much ground from our owne writings, wil stande him in noe stead.

Fr. Iohn.

• IF the Offices of Arch Bishops, Arch Deacons, Lord Bishops, Suffraces, Parsons, Vicars, &c. bee Antichristian and contrary to the Scriptures, then the people of God may not communicate with them in their Ministery.

• The first is true.
• The later also.

Answere.

The Consequent is fals, and hee goeth not about to proue it, by any thing taken out of our owne writings but by a stale profe that hath bene answered before; and therfore it requires noe answer, onely thus much of free bountie. That the offices of Arch Bishops &c. quatenes ta­les, are not of the essence of the Ministery of our Church Assemblies but meere Accidents.

The Assumption therfore will stand him in noe steed whether it bee true or fals, and therfore I leaue it to their maintenance from whom hee saith hee borroweth it.

Fr. Iohn.

• IF the Propositions propounded to bee maintained in the of­fer of Conference bee true,
  To avoid te­diousnes, I forbeare to set them downe as M Iohnson hath done, but thou shalt discern what they are after­ward in the Answer.
  then is it not lawfull to heare or haue any speciall Communion with the present Mini­stery of the Church Assemblies of Englande.
• But those Propositions are true.

Ergo,

It is not lawfull to haue any Speciall Communion with the same.

Answere.

The Consequent is fals; & doth not follow from the said Propositions.

1. Though it should be graunted, That all matters mee­rely Ecclesiasticall, lawfully imposed vpon any Church are such as may bee concluded necessarily from the written word of God. [Page]Yet in a true constituted Church some matters meerely Ecclesiasticall may bee imposed through humaine frail­ty, that cannot so bee concluded.

2. Though, all humaine ordinances vsed onely or specially in Gods worship, whervnto they are not necessary of themselues were simply vnlawfull. Yet is not every such humaine or­dinance of that nature, that it maketh the Church and Ministery wher it is vsed, to bee a fals Church, and Mi­nistery, much lesse those Churches, and that Ministery, wherin it is not vsed, but injoined onely.

3. Though it were generally graunted of all, That eve­ry true visible Church of Christ is such a Spirituall body politick as is specially instituted by Christ, or his Apostles in the new Testament. Yet it will not thence follow, That those Churches, and Ministeries are not to bee communica­ted withall, that haue any thing in or appertaining to the constitution therof not instituted by Christ; or that such Churches are not true visible Churches.

4. Though, every true visible Church of Christ or ordinary Assemblie of the faithfull, hath by Christs ordinance power in it selfe immedialy vnder Christ, to elect and ordaine, deprive and depose, their Ministers, and to execute all other Ecclesiasticall Censures. Yet will it not follow from thence, That all they are fals Churches, and not to bee communicated with all. That doe not or by the lawes of man are not suffred to vse that power, Nether is it sure the meaning of them who offer the Conference, To maintaine, That they are no true visible Churches of Christ that cannot vse that power; but are therein subject to others; for one may by Christs ordinance haue a power to doe that which yet in regard of man he hath noe power to doe.

[Page] 5. Though, the Pastor of a perticuler congregation should be yealded to bee the highest ordinary Ecclesiasticall officer in any true constituted visible Church of Christ. Yet cā it not hence bee concluded, That those Pastors are fals Pastors, who are outwardly by mans lawes, subjected to a Superior Ecclesiastical officer. The Father ordinary is the highest officer in the family; yet if the Magistrate subject the fa­ther in some matters appertaining to the family to ano­ther, Though therin it may bee hee may doe the father some wrong, yet doth not the father therby become a fals father, or the family a fals family. Admitte then that this prerogatiue due to Pastors, to haue noe Spiri­tuall officers superior vnto them, yet is it not so essential vnto him, that without the Actuall vse and possession of it, hee cannot bee a true Pastor; And yet take a true visi­ble Church in that sence, which the officers of the con­ference doe viz. for a perticuler ordinary Assembly or Congregation, And then in our owne Churches, The Pastor is the higest, ther being noe Ecclesiasticall Offi­cer in any such Churches, a boue him.

6. Graunt this, That it is the office of every true. Pastor to teach and Governe Spiritually one Congregation immediately vnder Christ. Can it from hence bee concluded, That they are noe true Pastors, which governe more congre­gations then one, or which are subject in some outward things to some others besids Christ.

7. Admit, That the offices of Provinciall and diocesan Bi­shops were contrary to the word of God; must it needs ther v­pon follow, That those Ministers, and Churches which are vnder them by the lawes of man, are fals: such espe­cially who obey them onely in things which they judge [Page]honest, and lawfull, and who vnder this subjection doe no more then they would doe, if they were not subject at all vnto the Bishops.

A man must therfore bring a better head, & wit with him, then M. Iohnsons, That by the Propositions of the offer of Conference (how harsh soeuer they may seeme to bee) can conclude it vnlawfull to joine and communi­cate with our Church Assemblies.

For the profe of this consequent he bringeth nothing out of our owne writings, but onely to giue his reader therby a vomit, some of his owne Coleworts, not twise, but twise twenty times sodden; To which wee giue him leaue to looke an Answer, from some as idle headded as himselfe.

Fr. Ihon.

• IF the is Assertious bee true, That that Church calling for which the Scripture giue noe expresse warrant, is meerely vsurped, and vtterly vnlawfull, That as it is not lawfull to bring in any strange doctrin, so is it not lawful, to teach the true doctrine vnder the name of any other function then is instituted by God, &c.
• [Page]But the aforesaid Assertions are true.
• Therfore it is vnlawful to haue communiō with that Ministery.

Answere.

This Argument being a collection out of our writers doth not differ from the former; as himselfe graunteth, and therfore needs noe further Answer.

The Consequent is fals, and hee proues it not by any of our owne writers, as hee ought to doe, but stil brings vs profes out of his owne musty Aumbry.

The Assumption therfore borrowed out of our owne writers, will doe him noe pleasure.

Fr. Iohn.

• IT is a sinne against Christ the sole head of the Church, to haue spirituall communion with those Ministers, which in their Administratiō of divine things do either by word or deed solemly professe and yeald a spirituall homage to an vsurped spirituall Authoritie in the Church.
• But so do the Ministers of the Church Assemblies of England.
• Ergo, It is a sinne to haue communion with the same.

Answere.

The Proposition is fals; And hath noe ground from that Proposition in the 12. Arguments vnto which hee would match, and forth of which hee would draw it. The Proposition there is this. It is a sinne against Christ, the sole head of the Church, for any one of his Ministers, especially in the administration of divine things, either by words or signes, solemly to professe, and acknowledge, a spirituall homage to a v­surped Sperituall authoritie in the Church. Can hee conclude his proposition from this doth it hence follow, That be­cause our Ministers in their Ministery if they conforme do in some measure in infirmitie or ignorance commit some such sinne, That therfore it is a sinne to communi­cate with them, in other divine things, wherin they doe not commit the same sinne?

Hee tels vs, That the Proposition may not bee gaine-said, and why doth hee tell vs so? because the Author of the 12. Arguments saith, his Proposition may not bee denied. As though there were just the same reason for the one as is for the other; But why may not the Proposition; Because all Spirituall power vsurped over the Churches of God is an An­tichristian Authoritie, & to communicate with those Ministers which Professe Spirituall homage therunto, is to communicate which such as professe Spirituall homage to Antichrist, which must needs bee a sinne against Christ the head of the Church. A deepe and learned Reason. It can bee no sinne against Christ, to communicate with them, which in some a­ction professe Spirituall homage to Antichrist, except in their communion, they also professe the same homa­ge, which like an ignorant disputant, hee maketh noe [Page]question of. As though to joine with one, that doth e­vill, in that which is good, is alwaies to joine with him in the evill, as though to joine with a glutton in eating necessary food, were to joine with him in his gluttony, or to joine with a blasphemer, in the act of his blasphe­ming in rescuing an inocent out of the hands of Rob­bers, were to communicate with him in his blasphemy; But herein hee propounds onely to play the Ape imita­ting the Author of the twelue Arguments, who saith his Proposition may not bee gaine said, Because all Spiri­tuall Power vsurped over the Churches of God, is an Antichri­stian Authority, and to professe spirituall homage thervnto, is to professe spirituall homage vnto Antichrist, which must needs bee a sinne. But what? is there no more Reason in this reason then in his? If this bee a good Argument to proue that Proposition for which it is brought, must his Argument needs, bee as good to proue his proposition? what be­cause it is a sinne to professe Speciall homage vnto Antichrist must it needs also bee a sinne, to communicate also with them, who do professe some homage vnto Antichrist, what? to communicate with them in other matters?

The Assumption is as fals as the Proposition, And hath noe ground for the twelue Arguments, for though it were graunted, That to vse the controverted ceremonies in manner and forme prescribed were even in the solemne worship of Christ by solemne signes to acknowledge a spirituall homage to a spirituall vsurped Authority of Arch Bishops and Bishops. Yet doth it not ther-from follow, That our Ministers in the administration of divine things, doe the same; for none of our Ministers do alwaies in the administration of divine things professe any such homage, and some do [Page]never professe it. And those who professe it, when they doe professe it, propound, and intend noe such matter.

Hee proues the Assumption, Thus

They preach the word and administer the Sacraments by vir­tue of their calling receaved from the Arch-Bishops and Bi­shops, &c. The vanity wherof hath bene sufficiently she­wed all-ready hee therin begging one of his stale rea­sons, and not borrowing any thing, from the twelue Ar­guments. That which followeth, wherby hee would proue, That the Authority of L. Arch-Bishops, and Bishops is vsurped, which he makes the 2. parts of his Assumption; is altogether idle, and to noe purpose, and donne onely of malice to the Author of the twelue Arguments for otherwise, had hee intended herein the convincing of the said Author, and of them which are of his minde, (which is the onely vse of the later sort of his reasons, & which can serve for noe other vse) it had bene sufficient to haue produced his Assertion without his profes; for that had bene enough to declare, The Authors con­ceit.

Hee concludes crowing as if hee were some Cock of the game, that had picked out the eyes and broken the necks of al that haue bene set against him. And thus (saith hee) the cause is yealded by themselues. And is it not (thinke wee) finely yealded? is it not a feild stoutly wonne, Is it any mervaille, that hee makes such out cries against the wholl Christian world, that will not follow such a lea­der.

But I leaue him to his vaine conceits of his owne cause, Trusting that any sober and judicious Christian, will bee able to discerne, therin his fond and ignorant [Page]vanity. And wher as in the Answer of his Reasons, I haue omitted to answer to many perticuler passages. All things considered I shall not neede to aske him par­don, I should rather haue cause to expect thanks, if I had to deale with a reasonable and good natured adver­sary.