The Unreasonableness of the Separation Made Apparent 2, Part 1 · Reason 1

The Unreasonableness of the Separation Made Apparent 2 · Part 1 · Reason 1

p. 16The first Reason.

Fr I.

All are bound in the worship of God, to heare and communicate onelyonly with that ministery, which Christ hath given and set in his Church for that worke.

But the present ministery of the Church-assemblies of England is not that, which Christ hath given and set in his Church for the worke of the ministerie.

Therefore 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.

VV. Bradshaw

Not to contend about the proposition: I deny the Assumption: and affirme, that the ministery of our Church-assemblies (howsoever it may in some particular parts of the execution, happily be defective 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 he calleth the forward preachers, or of those, which being qualified according to the true intent of the Law, doe subscribe and conforme according to the Lawes of the State.

Hereunto Maister Can, desirous to pick out somewhat to cavill at, thus replieth.

1. He marvells, why Maister Bradshaw should say, that Maister Iohnson stiled them forward preaches in disdain? and accuseth him of breach of charity therein: since that he knew not Maister Iohnsons heart, affirming withall on his knowledge, that it is a tearme commonly given and taken of them acceptably in good part.] But for Maister Cans knowledge what ever it be, to say nothing of his charity, his conscience by this worke of his is so well knowne, that his credite is very meane, either in this cause, or any other. It is well knowne, that the phrase is usually taken as a flout; and may the rather be so taken from the mouths and pens of such, as so deeme of them as Maister Iohnson and Maister Can doe.

2. He desireth to be informed, what Lawes are here meant; and what the intent of those Lawes is: and whether all bee so qualified or no.] To all which in a word it is sufficient to answere, that they who have proclaimed a Separation from All our Church-assemblies, and by these and the like arguments endevour to enforce a necessity of the same, must make that they produce in justification p. 17thereof, good in the generall: and if any shall be pleased to point out some to them, against whome they are least able to make any colourable Exception, that is more then they need doe, they that have undertaken to proove the Generall Separation, must make theire proofes for it as generall.

As for the Law meant I might well turn him over to his brother Iohnson, to demand of him, what Lawes he meant or speakes of in the proofe of the proposition of the next syllogisme but one: or to the Booke of Ordination, that he hath in a manner transcribed in prosecution of the proposition of the first Argument of his 2 Reason. But, for fuller satisfaction both concerning the Laws and the true intent of them, I referre him to the Abstract; a booke which by his quotation of it elswhere, I presume him to be well acquainted with.

3. He bids observe the vanity of Maister Bradshaws speech: Theire ministers are true ministers if they be, &c. which is, saith he, as if a known harlot should say, I am honest, if I am qualified according to the word of God.

Surely this man, it seemeth, hath got a harlots forehead; he hath no shame at all what he saith. For where doth M^r. B. say, that our ministers are true ministers, if they be qualified according to the word of God? which unles M^r. Bradshaw say, M^r. Can saith he cares not what: supposing that with an Et caetera, he might make his Reader, not having M^r. Bradshaws booke by him, beleeve that M^r. Bradshaw had sayed so much. Yea where doth he say, that they are true ministers, If they be qualified according to the true intent of the Law? as if he spake by an hypothesis, that putteth nothing in Esse. He saith onelyonly, that the ministery not of forward preachers onelyonly, as M^r. Iohnson tearmes them, thereby meaning the non-conformists, but even of those also that conforme and subscribe, so many of them, at least, as are so qualified, as the Law entendeth they should be: presuming that sundry such are as well of the one sort as of the other; and understanding thereby men of competent ability of gifts, and of honest course of life, (for both these our Lawes, as the Author above mentioned sheweth, require in them) and that many such are in most parts with us, is so manifest, that the devill himselfe (whatsoever M^r. Can may doe) I suppose, durst not deny it. But let hereby not the vanity onelyonly, but the conscience of the man, and his square dealing appeare, that hereafter he be tried before he be trusted.

Fr. Iohnson.

The ministery which Christ hath given and set in his Church, is of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, 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.

p. 18Therefore it is not the ministery, which Christ hath given and set in his Church.

VV. Brads…aw.

The present ministery of the Church of England (i. of the Church-Assemblies of England) is the ministery of Pastors and Teachers.

Fr. Iohnson.

The present ministery of the Church of England is of Prelates, Priests, and Deacons.

But neither Prelates, Priests, nor Deacons of that Church are Pastors and Teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11, 12.

Therefore it is none of those spoken of Eph. 4.11, 12.

VV. Bradshaw

I denie both proposition and assumption. For 1. Tho' our Prelates doe sometimes voluntarily and occasionally performe the same worke and service in some of our Church-assemblies, which our ordinarie ministers doe, yet their Prelaticall or Episcopall office or ministery consists in overseeing the ministers and ministery of our Church-assemblies.

Here the proposition being, as you see thus denyed, Maister Can tells us that M^r. B. mistakes Maister Iohnsons words; for he saith not, that the Prelates are ministers of the Church-assemblies, but of the Church of England.

But Maister Bradshaw mistakes not Maister Iohnsons words, but Maister Can mistakes the matter in hand, and Maister Iohnson if he speake other wise, goeth from the matter. For if Maister Can please but to looke backe to the assumption of the first syllogisme, he shall finde that it ought to bee so conceived, or else it speakes not to the purpose; and this exception therefore is frivolous. Yet he telleth us with all that he can proove, if neede were, that the Prelates are the ministers of the Church-assemblies. But belike it needed not; and therefore he letteth it alone, and so leaveth Maister Iohnsons proposition to shift for it selfe.

2. He saith, that if the ministery of the Prelates bee not the proper ministery of the Church-assemblies, then is the same Antichristian; and tells us, he hath formerly prooved so much from their owne principles.] But what is this to the confirmation of Maister Iohnsons proposition? he may finde himselfe worke p. 19that will follow his wilde-goose race. Let others doe that, if they will.

Lastly he saith, Maister Bradshaw should have prooved, that authority and power that the Law giveth the Prelates, to be Lawfull. Did this man, thinke wee, ever learne, what belongeth to Logick, or methode, or Laws of dispute, that putteth the answerer to prove, and requireth him to proove that which nothing concerneth the present argument? who is so silly, as not to see the folly of this argument: Maister Bradshaw hath not prooved the Prelates power to be Lawfull. Therefore Maister Iohnsons proposition standeth firme; or M^r. Bradshaw ought not to deny it.

But he seeth not what reason Maister Bradshaw had to mention it. Must M^r. Bradshaw needs both give an answere, and finde Maister Can either eyes to see what he answereth to, or to conceave the reason, why he so answeres. If he had considered what Maister Iohnsons proposition was or ought to be, to wit, The present ministery of the Church-assemblies of England, is the ministery of Prelates, &c. he might soone have seene what reason Maister Bradshaw had to mention them. He whome he answereth to, had so done before him; and he was to make answere to what he had propounded: which is done here by deniall.

VV. Bradshaw

2, Tho' sometimes our ministers be called Priests and Deacons, yet the ministery under those names assigned to them, and which they exercise, is not the proper and essentiall ministery of either Priests or Deacons, but of Pastors and Teachers. So that they are onelyonly in equivocation and name, or metaphorically, Priests and Deacons; but really Pastors and Teachers: and therefore such Priests and Deacons may be, and in deed and truth are such Pastors and Teachers as are spoken of Eph. 4.11, 12.

The Assumption being by Maister Bradshow thus denied, Maister Can replieth:

1. By bare contradiction of Maister Bradshaws deniall.

2. By noting his lightnes and inconstancy, as he saith, standing one while for the justification of all our ministers as here, other while defending those onelyonly that are qualifyed by Law, &c.] Which exception of his is idle, as hath beene before shewed. For whatsoever his answere is, theire proofes ought to be generall; theire separation intended to be prooved Lawfull, yea and necessary, being such.

Besides Maister Bradshaw saith no more here (his answere considered as it p. 20hath reference to Maister Iohnsons assumption) but that notwithstanding the name of Priests and Deacons, those that are so stiled, yet may and doe exercise such a ministery as the Apostle there speaketh of; and the ministery exercised, to wit, by such as doe exercise the same, is such a ministery.

Whereby also may appeare the frivolousnes of that he addeth: to wit, that it is untruely affirmed, that theire Priests and Deacons doe exercise the proper & essentiall ministery of pastors and teachers. Which to proove he alledgeth out of some broad-mouthed writers, that they are most of them idle-bellyd Epicures, senseles asses, and such as can not preach: that our Deacons are not by Law to administer the Sacraments, nor the full-priests, but according to a popish Liturgy: yea that none of them may, nor doe exercise Church-government, which is an essentiall and proper part of their ministery.

To which I answere.

1. Tho' all this were passed over, and no notice taken of M^r. Cans new exceptions, yet were M^r. B^s. answere no way prejudiced thereby, nor prooved insufficient to M^r. I…hnsons argument, which alone he was to answere.

2. To let passe that, as a peece of M^r. Cans Rhetorick, that he stileth our forme of administring the Sacraments a popish Liturgy; the controversy that may be of assigning men principally for some time to the execution of some part of the ministery; the dispute of the necessity of such Church-goverment, as these men fancy to themselves; the exception to such Church-goverment denyed by Law to the ministers of the Church-assemblies; the grosse and palpable falshood of theire assertion, what ever they were, that affirme the most of our ministers to be such as he saith: suppose they were so, what is all this to M^r. I^s. argument, that therefore the ministers of the Church-assemblies of England are not the pastors and teachers S^t. Paul speaketh of, because they are stiled Priests and Deacons. For unlesse he can proove that therefore they are such idle-bellyed Epicures sensles Asses and unable to preach, because they are stiled Priests and Deacons, M^r. I^s. argument remaineth still of as little force as ever it was; for ought that Maister Can here saith; that is, in truth, of just none at all.

But let us see whether M^r. Iohnson himselfe have brought stronger matter to confirme the denyed axiomes, or no. His proposition he thus prooveth.

Fr Ihonson.

The proposition is manifest.

1. The Laws of that Church admitteth no other ministery, but that of their prelacy, priesthood and Deaconry, receaved amongst themselves, or from the papistes.

p. 212 Their constitution is such, as all the ministers of that Church must be Priests or Deacons, & these also either in a superior degree, as the Prelates, Arch-Bishops, Suffraganes, &c. or in an inferiour, as parsons, vicars, stipendarys, chaplins.

VV. Bradshaw

1. It is not necessary that the ministery of a country or nation should be alwayes 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 establish such a one as is bad: as on the contrary side, the ministery may at some times, and in some cause be bad, though the Laws admit and establish never so good. For the governers of Churches & Commonwealths, who have the dispensation of Laws, may in their Christian wisedome & moderation permit a ministery in sundry respects different from that which the Lawes require: yea & our own governers in fact have permitted the ministery of some, who never receaved ordination, either from papists or themselves: & he can not be ignorant, but that some by connivency are yet suffered in some points of theire ministery to swerve from some observances which the Laws require. The argument therefore will not follow from the quality of the ministery, except he can proove that our ministery is in all our assemblies, in all respects āswerable to our Laws.

Here there is indeed an evident eviction of the weaknesse of M^r. I^s. proofe: But what saith M^r. Can to it? he good modest man, that holdeth it no Christian office to render rebuke for rebuke, & holdeth it better a thousand times to sustain even a legion of reproaches, then by returning tho' but one, to give cause of suspition that evill hath got some part of conquest in him. Yet he can not holde any longer but as a vessell full of new wine, that will burst if it want vent, breaketh out in plaine termes and telleth us; that no man could ever passe this man here in absurdenes, and there is neither wit nor truth in that he saith. And his reasons forsooth: 1. Our question, saith he, is not of what should or may be in a land; but of that which we know is by Law established and practised accordingly.

But the question, M^r. Can, is (if you know what you are or should be about, to wit, the defence of M^r. Iohnsons arguments, & the discovery of the invalidity of the answeres thereunto,) whether this be a sound argument: The Law admitts no ministery, but such and such. Ergo the ministery of all the Church-assemblys in England, is such as the Law onelyonly admitts. Which is plainely shewed to be unsound, because the ministery is not necessarily allwayes such as the Laws of a State onelyonly admitt. That which in due course of reason doth necessarily evince the weakenes of Maister Iohnsons consequence, as Maister Can himselfe, if he understand reason, can not deny. The question p. 22therefore is, what may be in a land, notwithstanding the Laws of the Land. And whatsoever Maister Can and his companions know to be either by Law with us established, or accordingly practised, is nothing to the proposition now present in question.

2. He cannot believe that any such as Maister Bradshaw speaketh of were by the Prelates ever permitted: yea he is perswaded that he could never proove it.

And I beleeve Maister Bradshaw had good ground for that he said, and was able to make good proofe of it. Nor doe I doubt but instance might easily be given therein, if need were. But Maister Bradshaws credite is, I suppose as good as Maister Cans: & upon theire two credits, or the assertion of the one, and the conterpersuasion of the other, let the busines it selfe rest. Yet let me adde that Maister Can himselfe herein confesseth: It may be that some one or two might secretly pas in such sort; unknowne: I suppose, he meaneth, to the Prelates; which is sufficient to cut the sinewes of Maister Iohnsons argument, which he undertaketh here to defend; and to proove the reason from the ministery by the Law onelyonly admitted, to the ministery exercised and executed, not to be generally sound.

3. For suppose, saith he, a Prelate should for love or money permit the ministery, &c. doth it follow therefore that the ministery of that Church is any other, but of theire prelacy priesthood or deaconry, as Maister Iohnson saith? For what if some have as much permission under the papacy is not theire ministery then of prelacy, priesthood & deaconry? indeed so Maister Bradshaw did inferre, but with what witt or truth, let the Reader judge.

Now this is brought to pr…ove, (and therefore after that his bold-bayardly censure, vizt. No man, I thinke, could pas him in absurdnes here, it hath a For fixed before it) that Maister Bradshaw is the absurdest man that ever was. But I suppose, any indifferent Reader, and advised compater of both theire writings together, will soone see and say, that Maister Can is one of the triflingest fellows, that ever put pen to paper. For uppose a Prelate should permit the ministery of some, that never receaved ordination from either Papists or themselves (for that is it, that Maister Cans, &c. should have expressed) doth it not necessarily hence follow, that the ministery of such may be other then that which the Law onelyonly admitteth, and consequently the ministery of neither Prelates, Priests nor Deacons; it being presumed that the Law admitteth no p. 23other ministery, than the ministery of such? yea for permission under the papacy (though Maister Bradshaw speaketh nothing of any permission under them, nor doth inferre ought at all thence, much les ought without wit or truth, which is therefore Maister Cans owne grosse & manifest untruth) but suppose under the papacy some should have permission to exercise a ministery not receaved from them, would it not thence follow, that the ministery of such were other then their Law alloweth, and not necessarily the ministery of either Prelates, Priests or Deacons? But this man still forgetteth himselfe where he is, and indeed put out of the way a little by his brother Iohnsons Sophistry, not carefull to keepe himselfe to the tearmes of the question, & to put in as he should have done, in his former argument, the ministery of the Church assemblies of England, supposeth, that Maister Bradshaw should reason on this manner.

Some are or have beene permitted to exercise their ministery, who never receaved it from the Prelates. Therefore the ministery of the Church of England, consisteth not of Prelates, Priests and Deacons. Which being not Maister Bradshaws argument, but the fruite of his owne idle brain, if there be any such grosse absurdity in it, as he saith, he may well take it to himselfe.

4. He tells us, a man may be an unlawfull minister, though he never receaved the Bishops ordination, as when he runs of his owne head, and not elected, called and ordained by the free & common comsent of a true Church; and such were those as Maister Bradshaw speaketh of if he speake truth.

To let passe his unchristian censure of such as he professeth himselfe altogether ignorant of, and cannot therefore know either by whome or in what manner they were elected, called and ordained, and yet passeth such a peremtory sentence upon them, therein verifying the common proverb, that a fooles bolt is soone shot. Whether they were Lawfull ministers or no, the instance granted is sufficient to proove (if he that taxeth others for want of wit, had wit enough to conceave it) that the ministery of some may be other then by the Law is alone allowed.

5. As little therefore to the purpose is that which he addeth, that though some doe swerve from some observances, yet theire calling is not therefore more true and Lawfull: as Monkes and Friers, though they keepe not all their rules and orders, yet are still the Divels and the Popes Officers; even so, &c.] And who, but an idle cocks-combe like himselfe, would ever frame any such argument? or doth Maister Bradshaw make any such inference? p. 24onelyonly he thence inferreth, that a ministery may be other then the Law of a place, where it is exercised, alloweth. And Maister Can therefore may keepe such divels Officers, as he tearmes them, to himselfe and his, if he please.

VV. Bradshaw

2. The Priesthood which the Law admitteth, is not called Sacerdotium, but Presbyteratus; and the Priests are not called sacerdotes or sacrificers, but presbyters, (as sufficiently appeares by our orders in Latine.) therefore the Law doth not intend any true or proper Priesthood, but onelyonly borroweth the name to expresse an office of an other kinde.

This is that indeed, which Maister Iackson before mentioned would not beleeve, untill he was shewed some letters of orders, whereby the same evidently appeared.

Now to this Maister Can replieth, that tho' our Law intend not such a proper Priesthood, as was in the Iewish Church, nor as is in all respects now under the Romish beast, yet this helps nothing theire cause, seing it establisheth such a ministery, as by theire owne confession is directly against the word of God.

You see, grant this man the maine conclusion in controversy, and hee needs no more, he will cary all hand smooth afore him. Whether this helpe our cause or no, is not materiall for the present. Sure it taketh of the edge of M^r. Iohnsons argument: and yet I thinke that helpeth us not a little, that disableth any dart thrown against us by so great a Golias as M^r. Iohnson was among them generally esteemed, before the schisme broke out betweene Maister A^s. & him, from either touching us or doing us any damage.

For if our priesthood be but presbyteratus, and our priests no other then presbyters; sure the argument, whose whole weight lieth on the very tearme it selfe, therefore denying our Ministery to the ministery of Pastors & Teachers spoken of by Saint Paul, because it is a ministery of presbyters; when as these very pastors and teachers spoken of by Saint Paul were no other then presbyters, as appeareth Tit. 3.5. and 1. Tim. 5.17. is a most frivolous and ridiculous reason.

W. Bradshaw

3. To be Parsons, Vicars, Stipendarys, Chaplins, &c. is not to have a divers kinde of Priesthood or Deaconry, or ministery (as he foolishly conceiteth:) Only variety of titles is given to the same kinde of ministery, in diverse persons, in p. 25respect onelyonly of a divers kinde of maintenance or dependance. For parsons are such as have all tithes in kinde; Vicars such, as have onelyonly the smaller tithes, the other being impropriated by the magistrate for other purposes: Stipendarys are such as are maintained by the voluntary contribution of theire Churches, or by some such like meanes: Chaplins are such as depend upon great men. The ministery of all, which (if they duly execute the same) is one and the same, even that (and no other for stubstance) which is proper to true Pastors and Teachers.

To this Maister Can replieth 1. that he hath prooved from the writings (of I know not whome, and whome neither I nor Maister Bradshaw have here any thing to doe with) that these names and offices came wholly from the Devill and Antichrist: and that Maister Bradshaw pleadeth for Baal, and telleth a tale, that neither helpeth him nor hurteth them: and withall tells him what he should have done, if he would have Maister Can of his counsell; vizt. have manifested, that his brethren have notoriously slandered our ministery, and so have taken quite away theire Reasons.] So it seemes in Maister Cans judgement, that M^r. Iohnsons arguments, without better reasons, that have ben brought by other of our owne, are of no validity to evince the point in controversy; and that therefore it neither helpeth us, nor hurterh them, whether his arguments stand or fall. Maister Bradshaw had here to doe onelyonly with him; and because he hath so well warded all the blows that he reacheth at us; Maister Can would have him to let him alone, whome he had undertaken to deale with, and set himselfe against some other.

2. He saith, his conclusion is pittifull, in regard of those words, if they duly execute the same. Not without just cause inserted by Maister Bradshaw, because a man may have the office of a pastor, and not execute it duly, and so make his ministery the more questionable.] But I may well say, he is a pittyfull replier, that leaveth the argument he undertaketh to maintaine, to sinke or swim, as it will it selfe, running out the whilest into wilde vagarys, that nothing concerne it.

And hitherto of Maister Bradshaws answere to Maister Iohnsons proposition of his second prosyllogisme, with his proofes of it: in replie whereunto M^r. Can hath canted much in his Schismaticall language; but not given us any one word that maketh to the purpose.

The Assumption, wherein the weight of the argument most resteth, is by Maister Iohnson backed with 7. severall arguments; that among such variety some one at least may make all sure.] The first of them is this.

p. 26Fr. Iohnson.

The pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. have theire offices, callings, administrations and maintenance ordained by Christ in his Testament Eph. 4.8, 11, 12. Rom. 12.7, 8. Act. 14.23. & 20.17, 28. Hebr. 5.4. Col. 4.17. 1. Thes. 5.12, 13, 14. 1. Petr. 5.1, 2, 3. Rev. 2. & 3. & 22.18. 1. Cor. 14.1. & 5.4. and 9.14. & 11.23. & 12.28. Gal. 6.6.

But the Prelates, Priests and Deacons of the Church of England have not their offices, calling, ministration and maintenance ordained by Christ in his Testament.

Ergo, they are not the pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.

VV. Bradshaw

1. The proposition is not true, except he understand by offices, callings & administration, the substantiall or essentiall parts thereof. Otherwise those very pastors and teachers there spoken of, may have divers accessary parts of theire offices, callings and administration not ordained by Christ in the New Testament.

Neither is it true, if by maintenance he meane any speciall kinde of maintenance. It is to be granted in generall; that ministers are to have sufficient maintenance, and the texts alleadged for that, proove no more; and therefore that which they proove is nothing to the purpose. As litle to the purpose are the other tents: for it will not follow from any force in them, but that there may be sundry accidents cleaving as parts to the office, calling and maintenance of true pastors and teachers, with Christ never ordained.

Here Maister Can having acknowledged his owne ignorance, that he knows not what those accessary part are, which when he is better informed of, we shall heare more of his minde: after his wonted manner, when he hath nothing to say, runs away to another matter, and telleth us, that our ministery wants the substantiall and essentiall parts of these offices, and what he would have Maister Bradshaw have done here, but doth not. Which what is it, all of it, to Maister Iohnsons proposition, that saith nothing of our ministery at all, (which his assumption is to speake of) but of the ministery of pastors & teachers in generall, as they have their callings, offices, administrations, and meanes of maintainance, ordained by Christ in his testament? Unles any man in his right wits, Maister Can onelyonly excepted, will deeme this a good argement: The ministers of the Church of England want the very essentiall parts of the offices of pastors and teachers, p. 27as some of them selves doe not barely say, but soundly proove too (if you will take it on Maister Cans word) and Maister Bradshaw hath nothing in this booke to confute them (tho' that is as true as the other.) Ergo, the offices, callings, administration and maintenance of pastors and teachers are in all points specially ordained by Christ in the new testament.

VV. Bradshaw

2. Concerning the Assumption. 1. whether prelates have their office, calling, &c. ordained by Christ, is besides the present question. Except Maister Iohnson can proove that they are ordinary ministers of our Church-assemblies; which I am sure he can not.

To this Maister Can replies, that whether they be ordinary or extraordinary ministers, it is not materiall, and therefore the distinction is idle and impertinent. Hnd so havinh spent some of his wonted railing Rhetorick upon them, he leaveth them, to be placed by him in what order or degree he will.

Yet by his leave, it is pertinent: For Maister Iohnson laying his action against the ministers of our Church-assemblies, and the issue betweene him and Maister Bradshaw being joined thereupon, tho' he could make that he saith good against the prelates, unles he be able to proove them ministers of our Church-assemblies, he speaketh nothing that toucheth those, against whome his plea is.

W. Bradshaw

2. So many of our ministers (whoe in the bookes of ordination are called Priests and Deacons) as in all points concerning the substance of their ministery, are qualifyed according to the intent of the Laws, have their offices, callings, administration & maintenance, for the substance thereof, ordained by Christ. And yet I deny not, but there may be some accidentall defects, or superflaitys in or about them all; yet such as doe not, or can not be prooved to destroy the natute and substance of any of them.

To this is nothing by M^r. Can here said; and we have nothinh therefore concerning it to say further to him.

Fr Ihonson.

The Assumption appeareth by their constitution and practise: in as much as their offices of prelacy, priesthood and deaconry; their calling and entrance, according to theire pontificall; theire choise of theire people, who stand themselves p. 28under Anti-Christ, and unseperated from the world, and are no true visible Churches of Christ; their ministration by their owne and other popish canons, actes, injunctions and booke of Common praier; their maintainance by Tithes, Lordships, &c. were never ordained by Christ for his ministery, but derived from Antichrist, and his apostasy; as hath bin prooved by us in divers treatises.

W. Bradshaw

3. All that is brought to proove the assumption is false, and as much if not, more controversall, then the assumption it selfe. For

1. He can never proove, that either the practise of all our ministers, is in all things according to theire constitution, or theire constitution according to theire practise, on either of them answerable to the strict termes of the Law in all points.

2. He can never proove, that either in theire constitution or theire practise, or by the Law, they are in proper speech, either Priests or Deacons; onelyonly he presumes them to be such, because through some liberty of speech used in the Laws, they are tearmed such.

3. Tho' it should be granted, that our people stand under some kinde of observancies 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 have withstood Antichrist unto blood, have stood under as much as we. And therefore such a manner of standing under Antichrist, can not be said to overthrow, tho' it may somewhat staine, the ministery of Christ. But howsoever he therein shamefully begs the question in the naked affirming, without any proofe, that all in this Kingdome are under Antichrist.

4. Tho' for avoyding further controversy, that should be granted him, that some parts of our ministration by the Canons, &c. was never ordained by Christ; yet at the least, the maine, principall and essentiall parts thereof performed according to the canons and booke aforesaid, are ordained by Christ; yea practised by M^r. Iohnson himselfe. Neither hath he prooved or ever can proove, that that part of our ministration by our Canons and booke aforesaid, which Christ hath not ordained, (if any such be) is of that nature and quality, that it necessarily destroyeth or maketh a nullity of the other parts of theire ministery, which use them.

5. Tho' titles, Lordships and manners in particular, be not ordained by Christ for the maintenance of ministers, yet they are as much ordained as any p. 29other particular or speciall kinde of maintenance: It is the will of Christ, that the ministers of the gospell should live of the gospell, i. e. should be maintained for their ministery sake by them, to whome they preach the gospell. But in what particular manner that maintenance should be raised, he hath no where defined, and therefore left it to the discretion of Christian Magistrates or Churches.

6. Whereas for the proofe of these maine points, he referreth us to the generall titles of certaine treatises formerly published, he might as well send us (as they say) to seeke a needle in a botle of hay. And why doth he not in all other points of this booke, as well as in this, send us to the said treatises? Seeing he saith nothing throughout this in effect, that he hath not allready said in some one or other of his former bookes.

To all this passing by 2. sections of it wholly untouched (whereas yet it concerned him to have replyed unto them, as well as to the rest) Maister Can saith onelyonly this:

1. That Maister Bradshaw could never proove, when he was alive that either the practise of all the priests in the Church of Rome, was in all things answerable to theire constitution, or theire constitution according to theire practise, or either of them answerable to the strict tearmes of the Law. And there upon inferreth that by Maister Bradshaws grounds a man could not conclude any th ng generally against the unlawfulnes of their ministery.

But by Maister Cans good leave, nothing lesse followeth from ought that Maister Bradshaw here saith: but this rather; that he that will proove a necessity of separation from all Church-assemblies in the papacy, or any part of it, must use better arguments against them, then Maister Iohnson hath used against ours; and such as are not justly liable to such exception, as this is.

2, That Maister Bradshaw through ignorance or deceit speaketh besides the present question For Maister Iohnson to proove them fals Ministers, mentioneth theire calling and entrance according to theire Pontificalls. Now he saith nothing to this, but talkes of theire practise.

What the present question is, it may seeme, Maister Can himselfe scarce p. 30well knew, or would not know; he speaketh so oft indeed besides it. But most false it is, that he saith, that Maister Bradshaw speaketh of their practise, but nothing of their entrance; which either must come within compas of one of the 2. members of Maister Iohnsons division, to wit, constitution, or else maketh nothing to the purpose of that Maister Iohnson speaketh of, when he telleth us, that his assumption appeareth by theire constitution and practise: of both which Maister Bradshaw expressely speaketh againe and againe. Tho' of the ensuing particulars, which either must come under one of those heads, or are else altogether impertinent, he speaketh nothing in particular; because nothing is brought to make them good, but his Reader is turned over to other treatises to seeke, as he well saith, a needle in a botle of hay; and they may as easily be denyed by us, as by him they are avowed. And Maister Cans merry passage therefore that insueth, concerning a bastard, that he saith would make a man laugh, and may well indeed, to see Maister Cans folly, might very well have bin spared by him, unles he had a minde as some men at sometimes have, to make himselfe a laughing-stock.

3. He denieth that those administrations, which are performed by theire popish canons, and booke of common prayer, are the maine, principall and essentiall administrations, which Christ hath ordained.

Which is no deniall at all of that which Maister Bradshaw hath avowed; for his words are, that the maine and essentiall parts of our ministery, performed according to the canons and booke aforesaid, are ordained by Christ; and that part of it, if any be, which Christ hath not ordained, is not such as destroyed or makes a nullity of the rest. So that this man shootes at random still as his usuall manner is.

Howbeit now, that you may see he meaneth to play the part of a replier, he will proofe what he saith, and the rather, because Maister Iohnson hath failed in his proofes, and given things here barely upon his own word.

For 1. These allow of no true pastors and teachers.

2. They require the Sacraments unlawfully to be administred.

Lastly. They command an idolatrous worship and a devilish discipline.

You see what round worke here is. What would you have more? yea heare Maister Cans Oracles; a downright man: which if you please, you may take upon his word: for he prooveth them as well as Maister Iohnson: and if you p. 31will but give him his owne words, all will be by and by at an end. As for his next merry passage, (for it seemeth he was in a vain of laughter, when he was about this argument) he may doe well to reserve it to make himselfe merry, when he is in some such melancholy fit; as it may seeme he fell suddenly into in the shutting up of his reply to this part, where he blurreth his paper with those black lines formerly related; of that mishapen birth, that he wished buried in its mothers wombe, or kept in some darke hole, where it might never see light. Which he might very well have wished to have befalln his own booke, unles the matter of it had been more lovely, then hitherto it hath appeared.

Thus are we come at length to an end of Maister Iohnsons first argument, which being grown to this issue: That Maister Bradshaw in answering thereunto hath averred, that the maine, principall and essentiall parts of our ministery are such as were ordained by Christ, nor are there any such accessarys thereunto annexed, as make as nullity thereof: there is nothing hereunto replyed, as ought to be, but bare words without proofe.

Passe we to the 2. Argument by Maister Iohnson thus conceived.

Fr. Iohnson.

The ministery of pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. is the ordinary and perpetuall ministery given by Christ to his Church, and such as the Princes of the earth neither may nor ever shall be able to abolish, seeing Christ hath appointed it to continue to the end of the world.

But the prelacy, priesthood and deaconry of the Church of England is not the ordinary and perpetuall ministery given by Christ to his Church; but such as the Princes of the earth may and ought to abolish out of theire dominions. Rev. 17.16. 1. Tim. 2.2.. Rom. 13.4. with 1. King. 23.5. Deut. 12.2. Psalm 72.1.

Therefore the priesthood, prelacy and deaconry of the Church of England is not the ministery of pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.

VV. Bradshaw

I deny the assumption. Understanding by prelacy, priesthood & deaconry, the ordinary ministery of our Church assemblies, against which he propoundeth himselfe to dispute: And answere, that it is the ordinary and perpetuall ministery given by Christ to his Church, and such as the Princes of the earth are bound by Gods Laws to maintaine and protect by their autority; and if there be any corruptions in and about the same, which they ought to abolish, that yet p. 32they are accidentall and personall; and not so essentiall, as that they doe destroy the ministery.

Upon the assumption thus by Maister Bradshaw denyed, if it be conceaved according to the question propounded, heare we now how substantially Maister Can replyeth.

1. He telleth M. Bradshaw if it be so, that Princes are bound to maintaine our ministery, then hath he shamefully from time to time mocked and abused them, in craving so earnestly to have the same quite rooted out and abolished, and the right established in the roome of it.

True indeed, Maister Bradshaw hath shamefully abused and mocked the Magistrate, if ever he so did. But meane while Maister Can shamefully abuseth Maister Bradshaw, & mocketh his Reader, in averring that Maister Bradshaw ever so did: which neither he doth proove, nor will ever be able to doe.

2. He saith, that dumb dogs, cater pillers and idle bellys had never a better proctour then this man, to pleade for theire unlawfull standing: for he saith, the magistrate is bound to defend theire ministery.] When Maister Bradshaw plainely distinguisheth betweene the ministery it selfe, and the personall abuses of it. Neither such abusers of the ministery, nor theire abuses of it doth he pleade for; which he granteth the Magistrate stands bound to abandon and abolish; but to maintaine that ministery that by them is so abused.

For as for what he prateth so oft of his not making distinction of ministers & ministers among us: theire proofes must be generall; as the separation, they should inferre, is such.] And for other his lavish language of Maister Bradshaws conscience, as if he cared not how he let it out here at large; I say no more, but wish Maister Can as tender a conscience, as Maister Bradshaw had, and himselfe as carefull to tie it short. It had in part saved his credite, and spared others some labour, had he kept it in a little better.

VV. Bradshaw

The places of Scripture, annexed to the Assumption for the proofe thereof, are all abused and prophaned. For not one of them doth any way so much as colourably proove either of the clauses in the assumption: but onelyonly they proove in generall, that the idolatry, and idolatrous ministery of Antichrist is to be abolished. So that, the man in his simplicity takes it as granted; that our ministery is such an idolatrous ministery; which is the maine matter in controversy, and in effect, the generall question of this whole booke.

p. 33So Maister Bradshaw. And indeed so gros and palpable is Maister Iohnsons dealing with Scripture here (a thing too usuall with those of that side) that at the conference with Maister Iackson before mentioned, he and some other of his company (it being evidently evinced) at first, would faine have made it the fault of the Printer, that had misplaced the proofes, and annexed them to the wrong part of the premisses: but when they saw that they fitted as ill, or wors rather, with the proposition, then with the assumption, they were at theire wits end, and had nothing to say in defence of this foule abuse.

But there is no cause so desperate, but Maister Can dare undertake it. Yea by Maister Bradshaws own grants he will make it appeare, that these Scriptures doe proove Maister Iohnsons assumption, and are not therefore abused and prophaned by him. For Maister Bradshaw confesseth, that the idola…rous ministery of Antichrist is to be abolished. And ours, said Maister Can, is such.] But I demand of Maister Can; whether it be so or no, doe these places proove it so to be? Suppose a man should reason on this wise.

A Christian man should shun the societie of such as be haughty, high-minded, selfconceited, boasters, contemners of autority, makers of schisme and division in the Church of God by separating and withdrawing themselves to perdition.

But such are M^r. Can & his company; as appeares by 2. Tim. 3.2, 4. Iude 8, 10, 19. Rom. 6.18. Hebr. 10.25, 39.] Albeit, the things spoken in those parcels of Scripture pointed to, were true; as it is to be feared they are of too many among them: yet would not M^r. Can cry out of intolerable abuse therein offered, not to them onelyonly but to Gods word also? Yea whether the things charged upon them were true or false, yet were it indeed a foule prophanation of Scriptures, to produce it for the proofe of that which it speaketh not, & so to wring that out of it, which in no wise it will yeeld. And yet just such, or rather wors then such, is the practise of Maister Iohnson in this place, as by those instances of places produced by him may appeare.

The Princes of the earth shall destroy the whore of Babylon. Rev. 17.16. therefore the prelacy, p…iesthood and deaconry of the Church of England is not the ordinary and perpetuall ministery given by Christ to his Church; but such as the Princes of the Earth may and ought to abolish. Or wors then this: Let prayer be made for Kings and all th…t be in autority, that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life in all godlines and honesty. 1. Tim. 2 2, Therefore the prelacy, priesthood and deaconry of the Church of England, &c. Or, for feare of turning the Readers stomake with too much of such unsavory matter, to passe by all the rest and take the last onelyonly.

p. 34Give the judgement to the King, O Lord; and they righteousnes to the Kings Sonne. Psalm 72.1. Therefore the prelacy, priesthood, &c.

What is to make the Scripture a nose of wax, if this be not, and to wring out of it what our selves will? A man may indeed by this course of dealing condemne easily any people person or profession, out of Scripture so abused, taking for granted, the truth of the crime or fault charged upon them, and producing such Scripture as speaketh in generall of such crime or offence, and with all telling them, that by such Scripture appeareth what they are, and what will become of them, or ought to be done to them. I insist the rather upon this, that others may be admon…shed to heede well these mens quotations; which they heape up often for a flourish, to delude silly soules with, and make them believe, that they hold nothing, nor require nothing, but what the word of God it selfe doth; and not to take the places quoted by them upon trust; but turne to them themselves, and examine the fittnes and forciblenes of them to confirme that that they are produced for.

For, as for this mans vaine idle bible bable here following, that our entrance is popish, our service Antichristian & idolatrous, the manner of performance of it unlawfull, &c. And that all this, many non-conformists of greater note & zeale then ever Maister Bradshaw was, have by reason soundly manifested; & that he therefore hath shewed the more pride and ignorance in opposing them, &c. What is it indeed but a shamefull begging of the maine matter, and a turning of us over to others for the proofe of that, that he is not able himselfe to make good? Besides, that it is all nothing to the insufficiency of Maister Iohnsons argument, nor to the justification of this gros abusing charged on him, of the Scriptures alledged by him; which no more proove us to be papists, then those other doe them to be schismaticks; and which yet unles they doe, they say nothing for Maister Iohnsons purpose, that any way concerneth us.

As for pride and ignorance (arrogance, I suppose it should be: but it mattereth not, whether it be, since that pride may well include this to) charged upon Maister Bradshaw for opposing many non-conformists, and if it be a point of so much pride and arrogancy for one to oppose men of greater note and zeale then himselfe, I will not say Maister Can hath well merited his own censure, by opposing Maister Bradshaw especially in such manner as he doth; but I dare be bolde to say, that Maister Can and his associates may by his owne ground and grant be justly concluded to be deepely tainted with excesse of pride and arrogancy, in not opposing onelyonly, but condemning also as false and Antichristian ministers, so many famous worthys, as no age since the Apostles time, hath in p. 35likely hood, afforded theire equalls; and so many godly martyrs, as have for gods cause constantly and cheerefully embraced fier and fagot; men that may justly be presumed to be and have ben, of greater note and zeale, than either Maister Can himselfe, or any of his schisme. Or, if, to waive the imputation, they will bee so confident, or impudent rather, as to avow themselves of greater note & zeale than any, or many, of the best of those, whome they thus condemne, (unles of greater ill note and bitter zeale they shall meane) so far thereby shall they be from shifting of the censure, that they shall by such fond profession manifestly bewray a far further degree of extreame selfe conceite, the worst sort of pride that may be. Let not therefore either Maister Can himselfe, or his complices hereafter blame us, if we take them for a company of exceeding proud arrogant persons, and accordingly speake of them, when occasion requireth; Maister Can theire pastor having given us good ground here so to speake, & so to thinke.

But passe we to Maister Iohnsons third Argument.

Fr. Iohnson.

The office of pastors and teachers ordained by Christ in his Testament, are such as did or could stand with the offices of the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists.

But the offices of the Prelates, Priests and Deacons of the Church of England are not such, as did or could stand with or under the offices of Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists: which if any deny, let him shew the contrary by the Scriptures.

Therefore they are not the pastors & teachers ordained by Ghrist in his new Testament.

VV. Brads…aw.

What a shamelesse man is this to affirme, That our ministery neither did nor could stand with the offices of the Apostles, &c. and for proofe thereof bid us, if we deny it, shew the contrary by Scriptures? Doth not the burden of prooving, by the very Law of common reason lie upon the accuser? If I should in like manner reproach his ministery, and say, that it is a ministery that standeth upon forcery witchcraft and conjuration, and for proofe thereof, bid him, if he deny it, shew the contrary by Scripture, where I not worthy at least to be laughed out of the Schooles? This is a sufficient justification of our ministery, that such malitious adversarys thereof, who would seeme so expert in the Scriptures, are no better able by Scripture to proove theire unchristian accusation.

But this fond foppery of Maister Iohnson, Maister Can taketh notice of; p. 36tho' it concerned him so to have done; the rather, for that he exacteth the same of Maister Bradshaw himselfe, and taxeth him for not doeing that in his booke, tho' not belonging to his part, that Maister Iohnson here requireth pag. 217, But let us see Maister Iohnsons proofes of his Assumption.

Fr. Iohnson.

1. Light hath no fellowship with darknes; nor Christ with Antichrist.

VV. Bradshaw

It is true, that light hath no fellowship with darkenes, nor Christ with Antichrist. Yet there is no light in men in this life, but it is mingled with some darknes; and the best Christians that are, or ever have ben 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 renowned Christians, and yet the light of many of them was mingled with more darknes, and theire Christianity with more Antichristianisme, then can be found in our ministery.

Fr. Iohnson.

2. Suppose the Apostles were alive in theire persons, and were in England, it were worth the knowing, whether they and the ordinances given by them, should give place to the Prelates and theire Canons; and whether they should be suffered to preach, &c. without subscribing and conforming. Theire Canons urge all upon paine of excommunication ipso facto.

VV. Bradshaw

1. Our Bishops have as good reason to make the like supposition against him, & as much worthy the inquiry that were, if the Apostles were alive now in the…re own persons where he liveth, and should professe the Church-assemblies in England to be true Churches, and theire ministery in generall to be a Lawfull ministery, and theire worship for substance to be a true worship, whether Maister Iohns…n and his Cnurch would suffer them to be so much as private members of theire society, much more to preach, &c.

2. Though our Bish…ps should be herein so impious, as to advance in such a manner, theire owne autority and ordinances above the Apostles: yet what is that to proove that the priesthood & deaconry of the ministers of our Church-assemblies, (who many of them in these points are meere patients, and esteeme of these things as burdens) cannot stand with the offices of Apostles, &c. doth Maister Iohnson think that none of our ministers in England, would suffer the p. 37Apostles to preach in theire cures, without wearing a Surplice, if they might have theire owne wills? or should this any whit derogate from theire ministery, that the Bishops therein would not suffer them to have theire will?

3. It is besides the present question, and a needlesse thing to spend time in justifying the Canons herein. If the Bishops therein have gone too farre, it may seeme to be the fault of the persons rather than of the prelacy it selfe: & therefore to make and urge such Canons and traditions as are aforesaid, doth not proove, but that for all that the prelacy in and of it selfe, might stand well enough with the offices of the Apostles, &c. for those offices may of themselves, (if there be no other impediment) stand well one with an other, which in the actions thereof doe not (but by accident onelyonly) one overthrow and oppugne the other.

Now to all this Maister Can returneth us never a wise word, nay giveth us neither good nor bad, save to the very last alone: that he cannot thinke, that Maister Bradshaw speaketh in earnest; That the prelacy in and of it selfe may stand well enough with the offices of the Apostles, &c. (taking no notice withall of his reason annexed thereunto) and that some other non-conformists are herein of an other minde. And this he flourishes a little over with a story of Lycurgus, reported in cutting down a vine to have killed his own Sonne, and cutt his own shins: meane while little regarding to save the shins and the sinews of his brother Iohnsons argument, which he had undertaken to shelter and savegard from such damage; not helping him with any one word to avoyd or ward of that maine exception; that all here spoken of the prelacy helps no whit to proove that which is principally to be prooved, to wit, that the priesthood and deaconry of our Church-ass…mblys can not stand under the offices of the Apostles, &c. But suffering it to be wholly thereby …ewed down to the very ground.

Fr. Ihonson.

The offices of true pastors and teachers are by the ordinance of Christ set in the Church, and imployd in the ministery of the word, Sacraments and Church government, so as they may not with their Ecclesiasticall functions receave civill offices & callings, nor take upon them princely titles & dignitys. Eph. 4.11. 1. Pet. 5.1. Rom. 12.2, 4. Luke 12.14. and 22.25. 1. Cor. 12.5, 8. 1. Tim. 4.13, 15, 16. 2. Tim. 2.4.

But the offices of Prelates, Priests and Deacons of the Church of England are not so, but by theire own constitution are set in the Church, and imployd in the ministery, so as they may allso receave civill offices and callings, as to be justices of peace, &c.

p. 38Therefore they are not true pastors and teachers.

VV. Bradshaw

There are 4. tearmes in this syllogisme: the grosse sophistry whereof may appeare by the explanation thereof in other words.

True past…rs and teachers may not (vizt. by Gods Law) take upon them civ…ll offices.

The ministers of England, may (to wit by mans Law take upon them civill offices.

Therefore they are not true pastors and teachers.

This is the effect of this argument, and who is so blinde, but he may see the fallacy thereof? And it is as though we should reason in the like manner against their m…niste…y thus:

True p…stors and teachers may not be Drunkards, Anabapt sts. Familists.

The min…sters of the Separat…on at Amsterdam may be Drunkards, Anabaptists, Famil…sts

Therefore they are not true p…stors and teachers.

This As…umption is as true as the former. For the same kinde of autority that perm…tt…th our min sters to be civill magistrates, doth permit them to be drunkards, &c. the gove…m…nt under which they live permitteth the one to more, then our State doth the other.

But I answere more particularly

1. That by the same Law, that our ministers may take upon them civill magistracy, any true pastors and teachers may take upon them the same autority. And by the same Law that true pastors and teachers may not take civill autority upon them, our ministers may not take the same upon them.

2. All our ministers may not (no, not by the Laws of our State) take upon thē civill autority, but such onelyonly as are called specially thereunto by the favour and grace of the civill magistrate; not as they are prelates, priests or deacons, or by vertue of those functions; but in respect of other qualifications. Neither are they forced by any Law to adjoyne any such autority to theire ministery, but permitted onelyonly. But what if by the Laws of men ministers might be murtheres, adulteres, theeves, &c. should theire Laws change theire nature of theire ministery? what? of theire ministery, that deny unto themselves that licence? would it not rather the more justify theire ministery, when in conscience of Gods Law they shall forbeare that, which flesh and bloud, and humane Laws would permit unto them?

p. 393. Suppose not onelyonly, that it is unlawfull for any true pastors and teachers to be civill magistrates; but also, that by our Laws, all our ministers were foreced thereunto, and that by vertue of theire ministery; will it thence follow, that for this cause, they are not true pastors and teachers? may not true pastors and teachers, in theire weakenes, ignorance and infirmity, (the Laws of the State requiring the same,) admitt of some kinde of office or autority forbidden them; but they must needes thereupon cease to be true pastors and teachers? doth the admitting of every unlawfull thing change the nature of the ministery, & make it either no ministery, or a ministery of an other kinde?

To all this Maister Can, who saith that Maister Bradshaw answers nothing, but with ifs, and ands, and I says, replieth nothing at all pertinent to the maine matter in hand, or to the justification of Maister Iohnsons argument but like the Aegyptian dogs, as they runne along by the banks of Nilus, taking here a snatch and there a snatch, as his owne fancy serveth, or the toy taketh him in the head, as things least pertinent letteth all that passe, wherein the weight of the poynt lyeth; onelyonly taketh up Maister Bradshaw after his wonted arrogant straine, & falling foule on the man, lets the matter shift for it selfe.

1. He chargeth him with corrupt shifts, used by him to justify civill offices in Ecclesiasticall persons; whereas other non-conformists affirm the thing to be utterly unlawfull. Which is nothing indeed but a grosse untruth, and more then a single one. For neither doth Maister Bradshaw justify civill offices in such by ought that he here saith; nor doth he use any corrupt shifts, to justify ought that he doth say.

2 He chargeth him to say, that the same autority, that permitteth our ministers to be civill magistrates, doth permitt them to be drunckards, &c. And to slander therein the state.

A gros untruth, as plaine and evident, yer more palpable then the former. For Maister Bradshaw saith no such thing of our State, or our min…sters, but of the ministers of the separation of Amsterdam, and of the State under which they live. That the same kinde of autority (to wit, the civill magistracy) that permitteth our ministers to be civill magistrates, doth permit them (that is, the ministers of the Separation at Amsterdam before spoken of, as any eye may soone see in the context before related) to be drunckards, &c. (that is, Anabaptists and Familists, as before he had said) the government, under which they live, permitteth the one no more, then our State doth the other. Nor is this any untruth, nor any slander to our State; which permitts not these enormitys in any either ministers or others, but by Laws to that purpose enacted inhibiteth them in all, howsoever p. 40in matter of execution thereof default may be: whereas it is not so with the State, where Maister Can it seemes, liveth. For Maister Can may be, & Maister Iohnson might have ben as well a Drunckard, or a Familist, or an Anabaptist, as a Separatist, or a minister to a separating congregation: the civill magistrate permitting as well the one as the other. Maister Can therefore, either knoweth, not what he opposeth, which is the note of a brainsicke idiote, or regardeth not, what untruth he speaketh against his own knowledge, which is a far worse matter, a note of an unsound and a cauterized conscience.

3. He chargeth him, to put the lye upon the writings of his brethren, in saying, that by the same Law, that theire min…sters may take upon them civil magistracy, any true pastors may take upon them the same autority.] To omit the habituated broadenes of this foul-mouthed fellowes language, in saying, he puttes the lye upon them, as if every one that manifesteth his opinion in any point to be contrary to the judgement of some other, must needes in so doeing put the lye upon him, from whome he so manifesteth his dissent. To let this passe, I say, had this blinde buzzard a right understood, as he might easily have done, (if he had either his eyes in his head, or so much witt in his brain) either by looking back to the Assumption of Maister Iohnsons Syllogisme, as Maister Bradshaw had layd it open; The min…sters of England may (to wit by mans Law) tak… upon them civill offices: or foreward to the very next ensuing words; And by the same Law that true pastors and teachers may not take upon th…m civill autority, our ministers may not take the s…me upon them: He might soone have seen that Maister Bradshaw saith nothing at all contrary unto that which they say, whome he saith that he giveth the lye unto. And I may well therefore retort and returne his owne words here upon him; what a shameles man is this to affirme such untruths? yea and more then that, to charge another with shamelesnes in this kinde there, where he scarce speakes a true word himselfe, but lyeth notoriously and palpably, as the very booke it selfe tolde him, that he had then before his eyes; in fathering those untruths that he speaketh of, upon him whome he so censureth?

4 Having nothing to speake to the point, he giveth a snatch at those words, Answ. 2. By the favour and grace of the civill magistrate. Whether they be, saith he, civill magistrates by the favour and grace of Princes, as he speakes, or any other way, it is nothing to the purpose, seeing the thing it selfe is every way and altogether unlawfull.

To let passe his peremtory sentence, that may not be controled; and yet, I beleeve, would make him sweate soundly, ere he could substantially proove it: p. 41It is little indeed to the purpose, to ought that he here saith; who, as the manner of those is that have undertaken an ill cause, loves to be dealing rather with any thing that comes in the way, than with the matter that he hath undertaken; yet it maketh to the purpose of Maister Iohnsons argument; for it sheweth, that neither all our ministers either are, or may be such, as is here pretended: & the exception therefore to lie, were it never so sound, in comparision but against few.

5. He concludeth all with this, which is all returns to Maister Bradshaws last exception; When they have prooved themselves to be true pastors and teachers, then there will be a fit place to shew whether the admitting of a civill office doe change the nature of a Church ministery, or no.

Had any man, thinke we, ever to doe with a more senseles dolt then this is; that regards not what he saith, so he may seeme to say somewhat? Maister Iohnson whome he undertakes to defend, would proove our ministers therefore to be no true pastors and teachers, because they may by the Law of our Land be civill Magistrates. To make this good, it must of necessity be avowed, that the admitting of a civill magistracy doth change the nature of a Church ministery, yea doth overthrow the very truth and essence of it. Yet this man biddeth his adversarys, first proove theire ministers to be true pastors and teachers, & then they will come to dispute that point, which is or should be the maine pith and heart of theire argument, and being pull'd out of it, leaveth it a sory barke without body. Can we possibly thinke we, make this man to see his own senselesnes? we will assay it, though it be over-tedious, a little for his owne sake, if it may help him to see himselfe. For as for others, if they have but common sence, not forestalled wholly with extreame prejudice, they will easily apprehend it by what hath ben said. Suppose a man should reason against Maister Can as M^r. Iohnson doth against us. He that may by the Laws of the State he liveth under, be a Familist, is no true minister of Christ. But so may Maister Can be, by the Laws of the State he liveth under, Maister Can therefore is no true minister of Christ. If Maister Can in defence of himselfe should deny the proposition, and tell us, that a man may be a true minister of Christ, notwithstanding such permission of the State he liveth under, for that no such permission doth change the nature of a Church-ministery, nor overthrow the Essence of it. And an other in this case, being to reply upon him, should bid him, first proove himselfe a true minister of Christ; and then he will dispute the question afterward, whither it doe so or no. Would not Maister Can exclaime on such a one as a very dolt indeed, and one that understood not what belonged, I will not say, to Logick, the art of reasoning, p. 42but even to reason and common sense it selfe? which if he might in such case well doe, as there is no doubt but he might, he may easily understand, what might be sayd of himselfe, for his like-dealing in an argument of the very selfe same mould.

Fr. Iohnson.

The ministery of Christian pastors and teachers standeth by the word and ordinance of Christ, so as all Churches under heaven are bound to receave and submitt thereunto.

But the prelacy, priesthood and deaconry of the Church of England, standeth onelyonly by the authority and Law of man; so as other Churches elswhere neither are, nor neede to be subject thereunto, which even themselves of all sorts have acknowledged. For which see Whitgifts defence in the preface, the answere to the Abstract. pag. 58. the admonition to the Parliamant; the defence of the Godly ministers; the demonstration.

Therefore it is not the m…nistery of Christian pastors and teachers.

VV. Bradshaw

I deny the Assumption, the ministery of our Church-assemblys of England whether of Prelates, Priests or Deacons, or by what other names soever they be called, for the substance thereof, standeth by the word and ordinance of Christ; and not onelyonly 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 no other, that shall in any essentiall point of ministery differ from ours.

If any particular persons among us have ben so unadvised as to grant the Assumption, let them answere for themselves. He hath no more reason to bind us to their opinions, then we to bind him unto whatsoever his predecessors, Brown, Barow and Greenwood have held before him.

Concerning some of the particulars, D^r. Whitgifts words are these: The substance and nature of government must indeed be taken out of the word of God & consisteth in these parts: that the word be truly taught, the Sacraments rightly administred vertue furthered, vice repressed, and the Church kept in quietnes and order. The offices of the Church, whereby this government is wrought, be not namely and particularly expressed in Scripture▪ but in some points left to the discretion and liberty of the Church, to be disposed according to the State of times, persons p. 43and places. The author of the A…were to the Abstract in the place alledged saith; That it can not be prooved, that any set and exact particular forme of discipline is recommended to us in the word of God. Now are either of these to affirme; That the ministery of our Church-assemblys standeth onelyonly by the Laws and authority of man? Hath Maister Iohnson any shame left in his face, that thus shamefully abuseth the names of learned and reverend men, so directly contrary to theire words and meaning? Is there not cause to suspect, that the other authors are in like manner abused; and that for the better hiding of his fraud, he forbeareth to quote any particular places? Being therefore convinced of depravatiō in the places particularly quoted, we may presume, that if the other places had been more pertinent, he would have given us some particular directions also, for the finding of them. And the rather for that he can not be ignorant, that those, whom specially he fighteth against in these arguments, doe rely upon the judgement of the Authors following, more then of the former.

Now to this Maister Can affordeth nothing that may soundly confirme the thing denyed, nor assayeth to cleere Maister Iohnsons credite from abuse of the Authors quoted by him for the justification of his Assumption; relying wholly on what some men may say: which if it were all true, as you see it in part evidently prooved false, yet were no sufficient proofe. OnelyOnly saith, that Maister Bradshaw here casts his brethren of. pag. 224. 225.

But this is one of Maister Cans last refuges and forlorne hopes, to tell us that others have soundly prooved that before, that neither Maister Iohnson hath prooved, nor Maister Can himselfe can ever make good. It seemes the man groweth weary, and is almost tired out with his worke, when he is faine to fill up whole pages with such stuff as this is.

Fr. Iohnson.

The offices of pastors and teachers, which Christ hath appointed, are such, as they, which have them, must be members of a true visible Chu…ch, and bound to one particular congregation for the ministery and government thereof.

But the offices of Prelates, Priests and Deacons of the Church of England are such, as those that have them, neede not be, neither in theire State can be, members of a true visible Church, but of a false; neither are bound to one particular congregation for the ministery and government thereof; but the Prelates are over whole Provinces and Diocesses; and other inferiour priests may have in that State plurality of benefices and Ecclesiasticall cares, &c. which none can deny.

p. 44Therefore they are not the pastors & teachers, which Christ hath appointed.

VV. Bradshaw

Tho' some parts of the proposition be disputable; yet because others besides the Separation do holde the whole for truth; I will leave it in medio.

The Assumption is false: Especially if it be understood (as it ought to be) of the offices of such Prelates, Priests and Deacons, as are ministers of our Church-assemblys. For most of those, which have such offices, are & are bound to be members of true visible Churches, and cannot in theire estate (they being in all points answerable to the Laws) be members of a false Church. They are all (such excepted, as have speciall dispensations) bound to one particular congregation: and may not by Law, have more cures then one; but admitting of a second the first is void. Yea the Prelates themselves, though in regard of theire Prelaticall office, they are Governeurs of whole Provinces and Diocesses; yet it is possible for them notwithstanding, to be members in theire estate, of a true visible Church, and be bound (as are the Prelates of Scotland) to one particular congregation, for the speciall ministery and government thereof.

But what man, except he were halfe frantick, would reason thus: Our ministers may be Pluralists; therefore they neither are, nor can be true pastors and teachers? Is not this rather one of the honours, then blemishes of our ministers, that they may be Pluralists, and yet are not? If by our Laws theire own assemblys were established, if by the same Laws theire pastors and teachers might he non-residents, or pluralists, or worse, would they thinke themselves ever the worse for this? would they not rather thinke themselves the better, that they are not so bad, as by mans Laws they might be?

Here M^r. Can flatly giveth over replying, leaving M^r. Iohnson to shift as well as he can for himselfe; and falleth to mooving of many questions, which tho' they were all resolved, yea and resolved as he would have them, would not all helpe to make M^r. Iohnsons halting argument stand upright.

1. Whereas Maister Bradshaw, not so peremptory as Maister Can where doubt may well be of ought, leaveth the proposition, though questionable for some part of it, in medio; Maister Can makes pag. 226. a quere, whether the ministery of such Priests, as have no particular place to serve in be unlawfull? supposing M^r. Bradshaw to imply as much, tho' there be nothing spoken by him that doth imply it; nor, were it granted, did it any whit help M. I^s. cause, which is to proove the ministers of our Church-assemblys, to be no true pastors and teachers; and that our Church-assemblys are generally to be severed from.

p. 452. Because Maister Bradshaw avoweth the assumption to be false, being understood, as it ought, of such Prelates, Priests and Deacons, as are min…st…rs … Church-assemblys, seeing that the most of such are, and are bound to be mem … of a true visible Church: he mooveth thereupon a 2. quere: Whether such as … not by Law bound to be such, be true pastors or no? Which againe whether it … either said or denyed, Maister Iohnsons cause, and Maister Cans likewise is …o… thereby supported; since that it stands them upon, to make good the generall. And this is therefore but to trifle and wast inke and paper to no purpose, in regard of that taske that these men have undertakē; the matter of the quere being by M^r. Can here most falsly affirmed to be the main point in question. Which yet if it were, it were either Maister Iohnsons or M^r. Cans part to determine, & so to argue upon it. But an Asse, they say, when he groweth weary of his way, Asel… … cum … …su… … rit, … verticu…. … … ron. ad Caetà.will be ready to turn in at every gate, or by land, that he meeteth with. Suppose some one of us, undertaking to proove M^r. Cans congregation to be (as they may justly be deemed) a company of Schismaticks; and having thus endeavoured to evince it. Those that have rent themselves off from the Church-assemblys in England, are Schismaticks. But Maister Cans congregation at Amsterdam consists of such as have rent themselves off, from the visible Churches of Christ in England, &c. M^r. Can, or some other in defence of his congregation, should answere, they deny the Assumption: For that the most of his congregation were never member of any visible Church in England: Should the opponent hereupon reply nothing, but moove a quere to M^r. Can. What he thinks then of all those that have been sometime members of some Church-assembly in England; as if Maister Can implyed by his answere, that such indeed were Schismaticks. Might he not be justly laughed at for his labour? and yet just such, and no other, is M^r. Cans manner of reply here.

3. Whereas Maister Bradshaw addeth, that such as were before spoken off, cannot in theire estate (they being in all points answerable to the Laws… be members of a fae Church; he mooveth a 3. quere; VVhat if they be not in all points answerable to the Law, are they then members of a false Church? Indeed either his words cary such a meaning, or to me they seeme nonsense. A most senseles inference.]

If a man had to deale with one that understood Schole-learning, he might tell him, that, A non posse in subjecto, ad esse in opposito, non sequitur argumentum. But having to deale with Maister Can, to whome every one speakes non-sense, that speaketh not senselesly like himselfe, let us p. 46talke a little with him, though it be somewhat tedious in his owne language. If a man then should say; None of those that laugh at Maister Cans absurditys, can be Asses; because Asinus non est animal risible; his words must needs either cary such a meaning, that all that doe not laugh at them, are Asses: or else (to Maister Cans sense) they seeme to speake non-sense. And this s just Maister Cans inference from Maister Bradshaws words, and his wise censure past upon them.

4. Whereas Maister Bradshaw saith; That all ministers among us, such excepted, as have speciall dispensation, are bound (to wit, by the Laws of our land) to one particular congregation; and may not by Law have more cures then one; here Maister Can comes in with an other quere; Have not some in the Church of Rome dispensations to have more Cures then one? yes surely. Now doe these speciall dispensations make the act Lawfull? such an inference M^r. Bradshaws words have, or else the man talkes he knowes not what.] Did any man living ever heare a man rave in this manner, unles he were utterly distracted? Sure if M^r. Can knew what he talked, he would never talke in this mad manner. The Lawfullnes of pluralitys, or the unlawfullnes of them is no point here in question. Howbeit, that which Maister Can would inferre from Maister Bradshaws words, doth all well follow from them, as if one should say: He that shall say, an English man can not without danger of the Law be a Schismatick, unles he get him to Amsterdam doeth import that getting thither makes his action Lawfull or else the man talkes he knowes not what. Or thus; He that saith, a man can not in England, without danger of Law, except he keepe himselfe close, be a Familist, or a Seperatist; doth thereby import, that a man, if he keepe himselfe close, may Lawfully be either, or else he talkes he knowes not what. These are just the same for frame and force of consequence with Maister Cans inference here: which if they be not mad ones, in any reasonable mans judgement, let me be deemed a mad man.

The residue here adjoyn'd is all stuff of the same making. He saith. Maister Bradshaw taketh it for granted, that theire Churches are true; but brings no proofe for it. As if Maister Bradshaw were to proove them true, and not M^r. Iohnson rather to proove them false; which till he hath done they are so to be esteemed. The prisoner accused is not to be condemned as guilty, till good evidence be given in against him: nor is he to proove himselfe guiltles, but to answere in his own defence against such evidence as his accusers shall bring against him to proove him guilty.

p. 47And thus you see how worthily Maister Gan hath acquitted himselfe for this sixt Argument: Let us see if he have any better for the seventh.

Fr. Iohnson.

The offices, condition and government of Prelates, Priests and Deacons, are such as doe many ways impaire the authority, supremacy and dignity of Kings, and all other magistrates, both in civill and Ecclesiasticall causes. For the Prelates will have theire presence, voice and authority to be at Parliaments for enacting of Laws and Statutes for the common wealth: They are Rulers of whole Provinces and Diocesses in the Ecclesiasticall causes thereof. In civill State and dignity some of them are above all, and all of them above some of the nobles, justices and other Magistrates of the Land. Themselves, theire Courts and officers handle and determine sundry civill causes and affaires, appertaining to the magistracy. They inflict civill mulcts and punishments; in theire forbidden times they give licence to marry: the beneficed Priests doe sweare canonicall obedience to the Prelates. All the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrates jurisdiction in divers things appertaining unto them, & answerable onelyonly or chiefly to the Prelates and theire officers.

Therefore they are not the onelyonly pastors and teachers spoken of Ephes. 4.11.

VV. Brads…aw.

The Assumption is false: neither doe the instances proove the same

1. The Prelates claime their voices in Parliaments, not as divine ordinances appertaining to their Prelateship; but as an honour annexed to the same by the civill Magistrate.

2. Theire authority in causes Ecclesiasticall over Provinces, &c. is either such as the civill magistrate himselfe may execute, and administer in his owne person, if he please; or such as is not for them, as they are magistrates, to execute. The first sort they administer, onelyonly by vertue of the Magistrates own eommission, and therein they can not impaire either his dignity or supremacy; much lesse in the other part of theire authority, which belongeth not to the Magistrates themselves to execute, especially when they use it not neither without theire consent, licence and approbation.

3. That all are above some, and some above all of the nobles, justices, &c. is a free and voluntary honour granted unto them by the civill Magistrate, and held in tenure from him, and not claimed, as I thinke, as belonging to their Episcopall function, by divine right.

p. 484. Theire Courts determine no other civill causes, than the civill Magistrate and his Laws doe permitt, or if they doe, the fault is in the persons, and not in the Prelateship. Further, they inflict civill punishments, give licencys▪ exact oaths, &c. by authority from the Magistrate, whose Substitutes therein they are. And therefore the Prelates neither in this, nor in any of the former instances, can be said to impaire the dignity, authority, or supremacy of the civill Magistrate; when herein they doe all things in and by the protection of his authority. Much lesse can other inferiour ministers, who have no dealing in the aforesaid matters.

Lastly if all our ministers be exempt from the Magistrates jurisdiction, in some things appertaining unto them (but wherein I know not) this very exemption it selfe, is an act of the Magistrates jurisdiction, and depends onelyonly upon his pleasure: and how can it then any wayes impaire the same?

The answere to this Argument Maister Can thus turns over; that the matter is not much, whether the government, which the Bishops exercise in civill and Ecclesiasticall cases, doe impaire the dignity, autority, or supremacy of the civill Magistrate, seeing the same is unlawfull and Antichristian; as, saith he, we have before prooved. OnelyOnly flieth in the Answerers face, taxing him, with notorious boldnes, in denying that (though he give good reasons for it, unto which he returneth no… a word) that the non-conformists confidently affirme; and with daubing up of vile things, as being a man, that cares not how he loose the peace of conscience, so he may gaine a supposed victory, and that he can have a small comfort in this writings.

And this is the usuall manner of Maister Cans confutation; the very relation whereof is refutation sufficient, and enough to shew any indifferent and intelligent Reader, what a manner of disputant this man is.

VV. Bradshaw

Hitherto Maister Iohnson hath dealt by Syllogismes, such as they are: now for a conclusion of this first argument, he shootes at rovers, as followeth.

Fr. Iohnson.

To this end divers other reasons might be alleadged. For example, if they say, that Arch-Bishops have the Pastors office, then they have but two, if Lord-Bishops, then but 26. & what office then have the Arch-Bishops among them? p. 49if the other Priests, then what office have the Arch-Bishops and Bishops? seeing God hath ordained no higher ordinary Ecclesiasticall office; as some of themselves acknowledge. If they say, the Deacons have the Pastors office, the same absurdity followeth, as in the former: besides that the workes 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 have the teachers office, it would be known, which of theire officers have it among them, and to whome they are adjoyned for the worke of the ministery, as teachers are to pastors; and what office the rest have; whome they account to have the teachers office; and whether the teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. must first be Deacons, and then Priests and promise obedience to the Prelates; and that also as to theire ordinaries, and be silenced and deposed at theire pleasures.

W. Bradshaw

Here he thinkes he hath knit such a Gordian knott, as cannot be untyed, without a sword or a bill. But the simplicity of the man is herein to be laughed at.

For 1. Though some should say, that either our Arch-Bishops, or Bishops have the Pastors office, yet therein 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 therein, onelyonly make degrees of Pastors: vizt. of Arch-Bishops over Bishops, and theire Diocesses, of Bishops over Ministers and theire Churches, and of ministers over their own congregations. Leaving unto them (notwithstanding the superiority over the other Pastors) that main and substanciall office of the pastor, which is enough to define and denominate a Pastor. And therefore they may make such Pastors as are over whole Provinces, but two; and such as are over whole Diocesses but 26. And yet holde also without any absurdity; that there are also as many Pastors besides, as there are ministers of particular congregations. And though it should be granted, that herein they were deceaved in making Provinciall and Diocessan Pastors; yet the sorting of unproper Pastors with true, or the subjecting of true Pastors unto other sorts of Pastors, doth not necessarily make the true Pastors fal…e; so long as under them they performe the maine and substantiall dutys of true Pastors; which all the ministers of our Church-assemblys doe, or by the Laws ought to doe.

2. If any holde, that the ministers of particular congregations onelyonly are Pastors, then they may, without any absurdity holde, that the Arch-Bishops & p. 50Bishops are generall commissioners under the King to see that the Pastors doe theire dutys; and in that regard, may also metaphorically, and in an other sense be called Pastors; as Princes themselves are so called in good and approoved Authors. And what absurdity can follow upon this? Or what if they, which h…lde the ministers of particular congregations to be 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 therefore Pastors, because they which shall holde them to be so, can not tell what to make of the calling of Arch-Bishops & Bishops.

2. Though this should be yeelded unto him, that all pastors are equall, & that the pastors of particular congregations, are the highest ordinary Ecclesiasticall officers: yet should this make nothing to the confirming of this conceit that our ministers are not therefore true pastors & teachers, because then Arch-Bishops and Bishops should be encluded. For this doth not exclude them, from being commissioners, and visitors in causes Ecclesiasticall, under the King, over the Pastors and Churches of such and such Provinces and Diocesses; which is to give them theire principall honour and due.

For answere to this, Maister Can tells us, that Maister Bradshaw in these pages sheweth himselfe a miserable informer and setler of the conscience: for his counsell is much to this effect. So a man holde something, it is no matter what it be, nor how ungroundedly taken up.

But by his leave, here is no such matter; nor doth Maister Bradshaw either avow or imply any such thing: tho' in some cases it is not necessary, that a man bolde ought; the matter either not concerning him to know, or his weake brain being not able to apprehend grounds sufficient to build a judgement on either way. And in some points againe, men may be of divers mindes; yea it cannot but so be, while they know but in part: the matter controverred being not so cleare. But Maister Bradshaw sheweth onelyonly hereby, the weakenes of Maister Iohnsons suppo…ed indissoluble, dilemma, or his double-horned argument; that whether a man take it by the one horne or the other (as some may be herein of one minde, some of an other; and whether they be of this or that minde, they may put Maister Iohnson to proove either) he may easily overturn it. For that no such absurdity, as M^r. Iohnson would inferre, doth ensue necessarily, on the averring it of either part.

But hereupon M^r. Cans answere to M^r. Bradshaws ifs and whats particularly, as he saith.

p. 511. VVhat if some, saith he, shall say that our Arch-Bishops and Bishops have the Pastors office? Answere. Then they shall speake untruely or you your selves beare false witnes against them in affirming that they are not pastors and teachers, neither any true ministers at all in the Church of God.

Yea but Ma…ster Can remember your selfe, that the question is not, what verdict your selfe, or I know not, who will passe in this kinde: but whether this granted would inferre, that the whole land hath no more pastors th n they; and this supposed, exclude all other ministers among us, from that which is the effect and substance of the office. So that Maister Can, who seemeth better acquainted with loose pratling, then with Scholarlike disputing, may well set himselfe down, and suspend his sentence, till he be called to tell us his minde, that no man here asketh him in this matter: Or, if he will doe that which the person of a replier, which he hath undertaken, exacteth of him; an…were the question indeed by Maister Bradshaw propounded, whether that will hence follow, that his fellow: I affirms.

His answeres to the other querys, being of the same stamp, that this is, I willingly could let p…sse, (for to what end should I further wast time and blot paper with matter wholly impertinent?) as that to h…l…e the Bishops pastors metaphorically so tearmed, as commissioners and visitors of the ministers of particular congregations, in causes Ecclesiasticall under the King is contrary to theire Law, and directly against theire profession a d practise: and the magistrate hath no autority from God to set up such officers: and that to holde the ministers of our particular co…gregations to be Pastors▪ there is no reason for it. Because they have no true calling unto the office, nor doe perform the substantiall dutys thereof. Whereas the question here, is not, whither these be so or no; but whether upon the supposition of them so to be; such absurditys, as M^r. Iohnson avoweth, will ensue. OnelyOnly I relate them, that it may be seene what they are, & how impertinent to the point in question at present.

After these answeres of his thus given to questions not asked; he returneth to the wonted flowers of his railing Rhetorick, tearming all that Maister Bradshaw hath here spoken, base stuff, sillie and childish words, worthy to be laughed at, having neither rime nor good reason: in his peremptory manner againe censureth M^r. Bradshaw for one that sinned herein fearefully against his knowledge and conscience: and demandeth, is not here wit to dispute with ifs and thoes?

p. 52It is true indeed, a man that intends not to distinguish things discrepant, but to confound and jumble alltogether, and to patch together things that have no dependance one upon the other, may dispute without ifs and thoes. But that it should be deemed a fault in dispute, to use ifs, where the dependance of one thing upon an other is questioned; and thoes, where things discrepant are to be severed and distinguished, was a thing never heard in the art of reasoning before. And when Maister Can therefore hath framed us a new Logick of his own, we shall learne, it may be, if we like it at least, to amend this fault. Meane while let him fasten the forng of his censure herein upon his brother Iohnson in the first place, who disputes all with ifs, before he turne it upon Maister Bradshaw who doth but follow him therein.

VV. Bradshaw

4. Concerning the teachers office (not to contend needlesly with him about the nature and quality thereof, but to suppose a teacher in that sense, which he meaneth) This may reasonably be held: That some of our ministers, whether Priests or Deacons so called, or whether parsons, vicars, curates or stipendarys, are pastors, and some teachers. That so many of them as have and use the gift, not onelyonly of doctrine and instruction, but of Exhortation, are pastors; that those which want the power of Exhortation, and yet have and use the gift of instruction and doctrine, are such teachers as he meaneth. And therefore, herein also, if it should be yeelded unto him, that it were fit that every congregation should have both these offices: and that the teacher should be the pastors Assistant, yet it doth not follow, but that in want of sufficient men, for both theire offices in every congregation, some may enjoy one and some an other. For if the Churches of theire own way and constitution, may be without both pastors & teachers, & that for a long time, till men may be chosen unto 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 he proove by any colour out of Gods word that one cannot be called unto, and execute the office of a pastor, untill he have a teacher to assist him? or that he cannot execute the office of a Doctor, except he doe it as an actuall assistant of some pastor? if not, then is this a most frivolous demand; when he askes, to whome our teachers are adjoyned, for the worke of theire ministery: neither doe the places he quoteth (Eph. 4.11. Rom. 12.7.) proove any such matter.

To this is nothing replyed, but that Maister Bradshaw telleth us that some of the…re pri…sts are pastors, and some teachers; but Maister Can hath prooved p. 53the contrary; and therefore both now and hereafter doth purpose to let his idle repetitions passe. And is not this a Scholarlike kinde of confuting.

OnelyOnly he would be informed, whether dumb ministers be pastors or teachers: which he may be then answered, when he hath shewed, what reference it hath to the argument, that we now have in hand. For it is as if one should say: Vnles you determine whether dumb ministers be pastors or teachers, you cannot answere Maister Iohnsons argument, that meddles not with them. Yea adde I might, that it nothing availeth them, in the maine matter, at first propounded. For though it were never determined, whether dumb ministers, are true pastors and teachers. or determined as he would have it, that they are neither of both; yet how could that justify a generall separarion even from such congregations, where none such are; but men able, & conscionable in using theire abilitys for the benefit of their people?

VV. Bradshaw

5. As idle and impertinent is that demand, which followeth, whether the teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. must first be Deacons, and then Priests, and promise obedience to Prelates and to be silenced, and deposed at theire pleasures. For what if no such matters be required of teachers by Saint Paul, either in that or any other place, doth it thereupon follow, that theire submission to such things, makes them no teachers? may not magistrates and others also, require some things of teachers, not required by the Apostles, but they must needes thereupon become no teachers? But what repugnancy is therein this matter, to the office of a teacher? to be a Deacon in the intent of our Laws, what is it, but (as himselfe, out of our booke of ordination hath in effect published it) to reade the Scriptures, and to pray in the Church, to catechise the younger sort, to baptize and to preach, if the Bishop shall thinke him fitt? what is it to be a Priest or Presbyter in our Law? hath not himselfe also taught us? namely, to have autority to preach the word, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where he shall be appointed? what obedience doe they promise to the Prelates in the intent of the Law, but onelyonly in things that they shall judge honest and Lawfull, and not repugnant to the word of God? what is it to be silenced and deposed, but to forbeare to minister publikely upon the Magistrates pleasure: for the Bishops pleasure, so farre forth as they proceede according to the Laws is the Magistrates pleasure. Otherwise it is but a personall fault. And wherein, I marvei… doe any of these acts so oppugne the office of a teacher, p. 54that they can not stand together? where doth Paul forbid any of those acts to the teacher? or if he should, doth every act forbidden to a teacher, make him no teacher?

Maister Can. 1. To the quere, whether Magistrates may not require something of teachers, not required by the Apostles: he answereth thus; yes forsooth, But if they require before a man shall be a Teacher, that he enter into the ministery by an unlawfull and popish vocation, and shall execute afterwards the same in an idolatrous manner; if he also in this doe obey them, he must needes thereupon become no true minister: and such is theire cause by theire own confession. And therefore the question, as he propoundeth it, is deceitfull, & impertinent.

Nay rather, your whole rablement here is idle and impertinent. For what is all this to that, that Maister Iohnson propoundeth, of being Deacons first, and then Priests? to be a Deacon with us, being as Maister Iohnson acknowledgeth, to reade the Scriptures, and to pray in the Church, to Catechise th… younger sort, to baptise and to preach, if the Bishop shall thinke him fit. For, as for that which he telleth us, of our own confession; Neither is Maister Bradshaw nor any other, bound to admitt ought avowed by others, be they non-conformists, or w…at they will; more then Maister Can or Maister Iohnson to admitt, what Maister Smith and his abetters say of theire triformed presbytery; allbeit they be Separatists as well as themselves.

2. To these words of Maister Bradshaw, (wherein Maister Can tells us that he excuseth the Priests, which obey the Bishops) what obedience doe they promise to Prelates, but onelyonly in things that they shall judge honest and Lawfull, and not repugnant to the word of God? If this manner of arguing, saith he, (answering, he should say, if he understood but the very tearmes of dispute) what corruptions so abominable, but may get countenance? under such pretense any hereticke may maintaine the grossest errors, which he holdes and practiseth.

A man may truely say here, in Maister Cans own words, is this wit or sense either, in arguing with such an if as this is? For how doth, yea how can M^r. Can with all the wit he hath, (which I confesse is not over much) make good this inference? One would thinke, that such a grosse and abominable imputation, so peremptorily charged, should have been strongly backed, and clearely p. 55made good, whereas here is never a title, that may helpe to give any colour at all unto it; much lesse to shew the necessity of any such inference. And indeed, who is so senseles or void of ordinary apprehensiō, that will take this for a sound consequence; Maister Bradshaw saith, that the ministers of the Churches in England promise not obedience to the Prelates but in things onelyonly that they shall judge honest and Lawfull, and not contrary to Gods word. Ergo any Arrian, or Familist, or Papist, may under the like pretense maintaine, that Christ is not God, or tooke not flesh of the Virgin Mary, or is made of a peece of breade, &c.

His office was to have disprooved that which Maister Bradshaw said, & not to foame out his owne filth and folly in such froathy and unsavory stuff as this is.

And here he falleth againe, as his wont is, into an invective against Maister Bradshaw as justifying these practises in this worke of his▪ that elswhere he condemnes, of which before hath been spoken, and which till Maister Can shall by sound proofe make good, he is not therefore the more guilty of, then the man in the moone, but Maister Can standeth justly charged with a calumnie, worthily deem'd most unjust.

Fr. Iohnson.

Whereas some alledge, that the people were to heare the Scribes and Phariseys sitting in Moses chaire. It is to be noted that they were Levites & Priests, and therefore had the true offices appointed by Moses. This therefore is nothing for a false ministery, such as theires is prooved to be. Further to be a Pharise, was not to have a new kinde of ministery, but to be of a speciall sect among the Iews that pretended more strict observances of the Law, and might be of any tribe. Lastly though they were corrupt yet did they holde, that every true minister must be from heaven: & this have the forward preachers acknowledged as T. C. pag. 83.

VV. Bradshaw

Here absurdly and childishly he goes about to answere such an objection, as no body ever made, against any thing contained in the former Argument. This argument onelyonly in generall is used to shew, that some corruptions in ministers and Churches, are not of that nature, that man should therefo e separate from all spirituall communion with them. And where he saith, that this is nothing for p. 56any false ministery never ordained of the Lord, such as ours is prooved to be: No man ever brought it to proove any such matter; but onelyonly to proove, that such corruptions as are in our ministery, ought no more to hinder communion with our ministers, then the corruption in the ministery of the Scribes and Pharisees, did hinder the communion with theire ministery: and that the corruptions in our ministery doe no more argue our ministers to be false ministers, then theire corruptions did argue them to be false ministers. Neither hath he brought any argument, to proove our ministers false ministers, but either such corruptions as the Scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, in as high, if not a higher degree, or in respect of theire names, in that they are called Priests and Deacons. So that if the Scribes and Pharisees were true ministers, notwithstanding theire names, & other corruptions, our ministers cannot be false, in regard of the like names and corruptions.

Further more if to be expounders of the Law, be sufficient to argue theire ministery to be a true ministery, notwithstanding theire names of Scribes and Pharisees, with other vile and grosse corruptions, why may not preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, be sufficient to argue our ministers to be true pastors and teachers, notwithstanding that in the mouth of the Law, they are sometimes called Priests and Deacons. For otherwise in the mouthes of men, even of the Bishops themselves they are not so called; except sometimes by metaphoricall allusions to the Leviticall Priesthood: but they are usually so called onelyonly by prophane Atheists, or ignorant people, with whome in this point the Separation goeth hand in hand.

2. To be a Pharisee, was not onelyonly (as he minceth the matter) to be of a speciall Sect amongst the Jews, that pretended more strict observances of the Law then others; but allso (which as it is to be feared, with a fraudulent minde he concealeth) to joine many humane Traditions, and will worships to the worship & service of God; (whereby they are said, by Christ himselfe, in vaine to worship God, and to make the commandements of God of none effect,) Making more account of, and urging with more severity, the said traditions, then Gods owne Lawes. And in like manner we affirme, that to be a Priest and Deacon in the intent of the Laws (whatsoever the words may ring to the contrary in some mens eares) is, at the worst, to be such a kinde of pastor and teacher, as is content over & besides those dutys of the ministery, which Christ requires of them, to yeeld conformity allso to humane traditions, of no worse nature and quality in themselves, then those which the Pharisees used in or about Gods service: wherein to suppose that they sin, yet cannot this theire sin be so repugnant to p. 57the ministery of Christ, as that of the Scribes and Pharisees (which they are forced to acknowledge to be a true ministery) in that they were the urgers of traditions; whereas our ministers (for the most part) onelyonly yeeld unto them, either in obedience and love, or feare, of the Magistrate that commands them.

Lastly whereas he argues them true ministers by this, that though they were very corrupt, yet they did still holde that every ministery must be from heaven, and not of men; it deserveth rather to be laughed at, then answered. For may not, yea doe not the falsest ministers that are, or ever have been, holde so much, at least in such a sense and meaning, as the Pharisees might holde it? and can he name any amongst us, that holdes not as much?

As M^r. Can ended his last discourse with a loud lie; so he beginneth the next with the like. Heere Maister Bradshaw, saith he, bestirs himselfe to proove their ministerie good by the Scribes and Pharisees. Whereas M^r. Bradshaw in plaine tearms affirmeth, that this argument from the Scribes and Pharisees, is used onelyonly to shew, that some corruptions in ministers or Churches, are not of that nature, that men should therefore separate from all spirituall communion with them; & that none of ours ever alledged it to such purpose, as Maister Iohnson pretendeth.

To little purpose therefore is all that ensueth, save that he serveth in Maister Iohnsons more then twice sodden coleworts again. For first, howsoever, saith he, they had new names, and in many things were very corrupt, yet they sate in Moses chaire, i. e. came rightly and Lawfully to the Leviticall and Priestly offices, which they executed in the Church of God, but theire ministers, as we have shewed it under their owne hands, doe want this true calling▪ and therefore the comparison holdes not.

1. If M^r. Iohnson be pleased to make such objections as none of us ever made; or M^r. Can such comparisons as we never dreamed of, are we bound to make good either M^r. Iohnsons fictions, or Maister Cans fancies?

2. Can he shew this that he saith under Maister Bradshaws hand, or under the hands of I know not what discontented persons (some Non-conformists, he meaneth) that may have said much more in theire heate then they are able to make good, is no binding argument to others; no more then Maister Can will account it such to himselfe, what we can shew under the hands of themselves, that is, of Schismaticall Separatists like themselves, concerning theire presbyterie, and Church-constitution. But such weapons as these must serve, where no better can be had.

p. 583. How doth he proove, this to be the meaning of those words: They sit in Moses chaire, that is, they came rightly and Lawfullie to the Leviticall and Priestly offices. Forsooth he points us to Pareus. For in the margine, with a star in the context to guide us to it, See Pareus, saith he, on Math. 23.2. and that we may not misse, but be sure to finde it there just so as he saith here, he giveth us the page too, page 578.

Now suppose that Pareus had averred the very same that he here doth; yet were it but as if I should tell M^r. Can that the Democraticall exercise of Church-censures in his congregation is unwarrantable, and ill grounded on Christs words. Math. 18.17. And for proofe of it point him, as well I might doe, to Maister Iohnson upon the place.

But as himselfe speaketh, (though most unjustly of Maister Bradshaw in this very page) beholde the forehead of the man. Pareus in that very place, that he pointeth us unto, sayeth the very direct contrary to that for which Maister Can here produceth him; to wit, that the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses chaire, because they came rightly and Lawfully to the Leviticall and Priestly offices. For Pareus saith expresly, that they were wrongfull invaders und entruders of themselves into that power & place that God had assigned to the Priests and Levites, & not to them. Let me give thee, good Reader, though it be somewhat tedious, (that the honestie and conscience of this man may the better appeare) Pareus his owne words at large.

It is not obscure, saith he, that by the phrase of sitting in Moses chaire is signifyed the office of teaching publickely, and delivering the doctrine or Law of Moses: he doth not derogate from them▪ but attribute to them for the present the ordinary function of teaching: but withall he implieth, that this sect had without regard of right or wrong invaded the chaire, at the first originall, long since, given in charge by God to the Priests and Levites. Hitherto saith he they have set, that is, inthronised themselves in Moses chaire, which they now holde. And again; they have without any calling of God seised on that chaire, which they holde. And yet againe, (as if he must needes more then once, though l…ttle d…ming thereof when he writ this, give Maister Can here the lye.) Thus not o…ely the missembassage of the Pharisees exercising other mens offices, but the perfidiousnes and sloathfullnesse of the Priests, in neglecting the duty enjoyned them by God, is taxed here by Christ. And yet saith he, because p. 59they have sat, and doe sit in Moses chaire, that is, this sect doth still holde the prime place in the government of the Church, and interpretation of the Law, and there are no other ordinarie teachers; heare them. Yet, as he after sheweth not absolutely, but so farre forth as they sit in Moses chaire, that is, teach Moses doctrine, doctrine agreable to his. Could any man have brought in a witnesse to speake more directly against himselfe? I say no more, but let simple ones take heed hereby how they trust Maister Cans quotations hereafter: and let him learne to see and acknowledge, if he have any drop of grace in him, his own wicked folly to his shame.

4. It were an hard taske to put Maister Can to proove (that which Maister Iohnson allso averred before him, but in the very next words allmost againe contradicted himselfe in) that all the Scribes and Pharisees in those times had either priestly or L…viticall offices. Saint Paul, I am sure, was a Pharisee before his conversion, though neither Levite nor Priest; being of the tribe of Benjamin. Phil p. 3. 5. and Maister Iohnson granteth that they might be of any tribe: & yet were such allso permitted in their Synagogues to preach: as appeareth by that example of his. Act. 13.15. And if this had been spoken of them as Priests Lawfull or unlawfull, they should rather have beene said to stand in Aarons roome, then to sitt in Moses chaire.

5. All this title tatle mixt, as you see, with grosse untruth, is nothing to the present point: which is this onelyonly, whether the names of Scribes and pharisees mad: them …o be false ministers, as Maister Iohnson would proove ours to be, because they are sometime tearmed priests and deacons. Or why (not matter of calling, which is not now the present question, but) the title of priests and deacons should p…oove us to be false ministers, more then the title of …ribes and pharisees prooves them to be such. So that this is to tell us of a mattock, when we are talking of a spade.

2, He cannot thinke, he saith, that Maister Bradshaw should be so ignorant as in this place he makes shew of; for his words impor…, that the ability which the Pharisees had to expound the Law, argued them true ministers. But this is false.

This indeed is most false, that Maister Bradshaws words import any such thing. He demandeth onelyonly this; if to be expounders of the Law, (which, as Pareus, Maister Cans Advocate, before him, he understandeth to be the meaning of sitting in Moses chaire, with better ground then Maister Can maintaines his exposition, which by grosse falsehood and lyes, as you have heard, he seeketh to p. 60support,) were sufficient to argue theire ministerie to be a true ministery (as Maister Iohnson acknowledgeth it to be) notwithstanding theire names and corruptions otherwise: then why may not the preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, doe the like with ours, notwithstanding the names excepted against? For what Maister Can addeth of the Scribes and Pharisees, of which fam ly (to wit, of Levi) were these; which to proove he printeth us to Ioh. 1.19. w…h 24.) and then addeth, So many as were emploied in or about the service of the Sanc…uarie.

1. It is false, as was shewed before, that all the Scribes and Pharisees were such. And will you see how soundly he prooves it by the place produced? The Pr ests and Levites that were sent to Iohn Baptist, were of the Pharisees. Ergo the Pharisees were all Priests or Levites. As if a man should reason thus, supposing two or three coopers or coblers to have given theire voices, in calling Maister Can to be their Pastor. The coopers or coblers that at Amsterdam gave their vo…ces for M^r. Can were of the Separation. Ergo, all the Separatists, either there or elswhere, are coopers or coblers. The one argument is every ace of it, as good as the other. But thus these men cite Scripture: which this place excepted, he hath scarce done in this whole discourse againe, for proofe of ought questioned, howsoever for some things, whereof there is no question, sometime he doth it,) & you see how happily he doth it here.

2. What he addeth, of so many as were imploied in or about the Sanctuarie; that cometh a great deale too short of that that is in question, of sitting in Mos…s cha…re, and expounding of the Law in the synagogues; which many did, that were not imploied in the temple at all.

All that he subjoines, either of Popish Priests, or Jeroboams Priests, what they might pleade for themselves; & of M^r. Bradshaws leaving the blinde Priests in the ditch; & of his shifting too & froo, as one that sitteth uneas ly; is but dust & smoake, raised to make a smoother withall, to hinder the Readers eyes, while he is taken up with impertinent passages, from observing and discerning how M^r. Can swarveth from the present argument, & passeth by the principall & maine matter of that, that he ought to have replied unto; to wit, that such appellations and corruptions as have be…n spoken of, though granted, doe not proove our minis… r to be false ministers; no more then t…e l ke did the Scribes and Pharisees to be such: & that their arguments for separation drawn from either of them, are unsound, that which he dissemblingly passeth by, & answereth not a title unto.

And thus are we come to an end of M^r. Iohnsons first Reason, backed with 7. Arguments: no one whereof M^r. Can hath once indeavoured to make good p. 61by taking away the Answeres directly returned thereunto; save by repeating M^r. Iohnsons words over againe, denying the Answere to be true, upon his own bare word, or the sayings of some other body; snatching and snarling at by matters; misrelating M^r. Bradshaws words; grosely belying him; virulently taunting him; & running out into tedious and unsavoury passages, impertinent, and such as nothing touch that that be ought to reply unto. Allbeit therefore there is little better to be looked for in the rest of his discourse; and to much inck & paper, besides pretious time, hath been cast away allready in survey of the former: yet, least the worst & weakest part may seeme to have been dealt with onelyonly, the better & more substantiall leaft untoucht, I shall, intreating the Readers patience, proceede on, though it be indeed a very tedious taske, that I have here undertaken, to discover further the mans vanity, for all his peremtory language and carriage, in those things that ensue.