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 intent of the lawe , do subscribe , and conforme according to the laws of the State .

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

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 .

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 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 ( and noe other for substance ) which is proper to true Pastors and Teachers .

1. The Proposition is not true , except hee vnderstand by offices , Callings , and administration , the Substantial , or Essentiall parts therof . Otherwise those very Pastors 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 aledged 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 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 ministration 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 .

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 Assumption 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 .

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 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 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 afore 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 .

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 , 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 Arguments , doe rely vpon the judgement of the Authours following , more then of the former .

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 of a seconde , the first is voyd ; Yea the Prelats themselues ; 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 them 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 .

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 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 exemption it selfe , is an act of the Magistrats Iurisdiction & depends , onely vpon his pleasure ! & how can it them , any waies impair the same . & hytherto hee hath dealt by Syllogismes such as they are , now for a conclusion of this first Argument , hee shoots at rouers as followeth .

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 , and effect of that office , though they should from the name ; No nor from 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 standing 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 , them they may without any absurdity hould that they Arch Bishops , and Bishops , are generall Commissioners 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 Congregations to bee Pastors , could not tell what to make of the office of Arch Bishops and Bishops , what s 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 them 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 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 . Rom. 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 Ionger sort , to baptize & to preach 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 shal be 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 ?