The Unreasonableness of the Separation Made Apparent 2, Part 3
VV. Bradshaws Reasons or Arguments, tending to proove, that it is a sinne to separate from the publicke ministery of the Church-assemblys of England: Directly contrarie to Maister Iohnsons own Reasons, and usually in that regard, made in the same moode and figure.
The first Argument.
It is a sin to separate from that ministery, which is set by Christ in his Church, for the worke of his ministery.
But such is the ministery of the Churchassemblys of England.
Therefore it is a sin to separate from it.
The proofes which he bringeth to confirme the maine proposition of his first Reason, will serve to proove this.
The assumption may be prooved thus:
The ministery of true pastors and teachers is the ministery which is set by Christ in his Church.
The ministery aforesaid is the ministery of true pastors and teachers. Therefore,
It is a ministery set by Christ in his Church.
The proposition is his own.
The assumption I proove thus:
The ministery which hath in it all things essentiall to the office and calling of true pastors and teachers, is the ministery of true pastors and teachers.
But such is our ministery, therefore
It is the true ministery of true pastors and teachers. I think he is not so simple as to denie the proposition. The assumption is prooved thus.
To have such gifts as Christ ascended up into heaven to give for the worke of his ministery; to be outwardly called to that worke by such a Church, as professeth the fundamentall points of the Gospell; to instruct the people committed to theire charge in the doctrine of the Law and Gospell, to administer unto them the holy Sacraments of Christ, and to be their mouth in prayer unto God, are all things essentially appertaining to the office of true pastors and teachers.
Such is the ministery of the Church-assemblys.
Therefore it is the true ministery of pastors & teachers.
If he deny the proposition, he must shew what other matters doe essentially appertaine unto their call…ng, which yet he hath not done.
For confirmation of the Assumption, it shal be sufficient, that we can set forth unto him such a ministerie insundry of our Church-assemblys, of which all these points may be truely verifyed, their conformity to the State, and theire sin therein (if any be) notwithstanding.
The second Argument.
The ministerie of our Church-assemblys is not the ministery of Antichrists apostasy.
Therefore it is a sin to separate from the same.
The consequent must be true, untill he can bring forth any other exceptions against our ministery, then such as appertain to the ministery of Antichrists apostasy.
The Assumption is prooved thus.
The ministery of the Church-assemblys of Antichrist is of Priests and Deacons.
But the ministery of our Church-assemblys is not the ministery of Priests & Deacons.
Therefore it is not the ministery of Antichrists apostasy.
The proposition is his owne.
The assumption, if I should follow his learning, I might proove thus:
The ministery of true pastors and teachers is not the ministery of Priests & Deacons.
But such is the ministery of our assemblys. Ergo, &c. And for the proofe of the assumption, I might send him back again to my first argument; but I will leave such a kinde of disputing to himselfe, as his owne peculiar, and proove it otherwise thus:
That ministery, which in the main & essentiall facultys and offices thereof, is opposite to the maine and essentiall facultys, functions and offices of Priests & Deacons, is not the ministery of Priests and Deacons.
But such is our ministerie.
Therefore it is not the ministery of Priests and Deacons.
The proposition is undeniable.
The assumption may be prooved thus.
That ministerie which is opposite to the Sacrifice of the Masse, is opposite to the maine and essentiall facultys, functions, and offices of Priests and Deacons.
Such is our ministery.
Therefore it is opposite to the main and essentiall facultys of Priests & Deacons.
I doe not see which of these premisses he can with any colourable reason denie. I will therefore for beare to proceede further in this argument, untill I can see what he can say against it.
The third Argument.
That ministerie, which professing Christ by maintaining his covenant with the seales of it, doth directly and professedly warre against the beast, & against all that worship his image, and receave his marke in their forehead and hand, can not without sin be separated from.
Such is our ministery.
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from,
The proposition is true: for no ministery so professing Christ, but the true ministery of Iesus Christ, doth directly and professedly warre in manner and forme aforesaid.
The assumption I proove thus.
That ministery which so professing, opposeth it selfe professedly to the Pope of Rome, as that great Antichrist; which directly and expresly renounceth all Ecclesiasticall homage unto him, or any of his professed cleargie; that denyeth and disputeth against (most effectually) all the main and fundamentall points of Popery; which opposeth it selfe, to the uttermost of the strength and power thereof, to all the professed friends of the Pope and Church of Rome, that holdeth and maintaineth all the members thereof to be Hereticks, and idolaters, and in the State of condemnation, and such as no good Christian ought to communicate spiritually withall, that ministery, I say, doth directly warre against the beast, and against all that worship his image, &c.
But all this is done in and by our ministerie.
Therefore it doth directly and professedly warre against the beast, &c.
I know not which of these propositions he can with any face, deny. But deny either when he will, I shall be ready to proove them.
The fourth Argument.
That ministery, which deriveth the power and functions thereof from Christ can not without sin be separated from.
The ministery of our Church-assemblys deriveth the power and functions thereof from Christ.
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.
The proofes of the main proposition of his fourth argument will serve to proove this proposition.
The assumption is as sufficiently prooved by my first and third Arguments, as his contrary is by his third and first.
But I further proove it thus.
If the power and functions of our ministery for the substance thereof, be the very same, for which Christ ascended up into heaven, to procure for the edification of his body the Church, then doth it for the substance thereof derive the power and functions thereof from Christ.
But the first is true.
Therefore the latter is true also.
The consequent of the proposition is undeniable.
The assumption is as undeniable, except he can shew any substantiall difference betweene the one and the other.
The fift Argument.
That ministery which worketh upon the consciences of men by a spirituall calling, can not without sin be separated from.
Such is our ministerie.
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.
The proposition can not be gain-said.
The assumption is prooved by my second argument, but I further proove it in this manner.
That ministery which worketh upon the consciences of men, onelyonly by a spirituall gift and grace given by Christ, and directed by the word of God, doth worke upon the consciences of men by a true spirituall calling.
Thus doth the ministerie of our Church-assemblys.
Therefore it worketh upon the consciences of men by a true spirituall calling.
The trueth of either of these propositions I shall easily proove, if they be denyed.
The sixt Argument.
The ministery of our Church-assemblys is no strange ministery.
Therefore it is a sin to separate from it.
This antecedent is better prooved by my first argument, then his contrary assumption is by the first argument.
I proove it notwithstanding thus:
That ministery, which for the substance thereof was practised by Christ, the Apostles, many worthie an… famous martyrs and witnesses of Jesus Christ in Church-assemblys, is no strange minist…ry.
Such is our ministery for the substance thereof.
Therefore it is no strange ministery.
Surely he will never deny the proposition.
Neither can he deny the assumption, except he can shew a substantiall difference betweene the ministerys aforesaid.
The seventh Argument.
That ministery which is from heaven can not without sin be separated from.
The ministery of our Church-assemblys is from heaven.
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.
The proposition is plain.
The assumption is prooved by all the former arguments, which in his Logick Schooles, in his owne cause, is proofe good enough. But I adde a further proofe.
That ministery which in all the parts and powers thereof is principally exercised and directed to bring men to heaven, is a ministery from heaven.
Such is our ministery aforesaid.
Therefore it is from heaven.
The proposition is firme: it being not possible, that that ministery which is from earth or hell, should be principally directed and exercised in all the parts and powers thereof to bring men to heaven.
The assumption may not be denied, except he can shew in what other thing it is more principally exercised, and to what other end directed; which he can never doe.
To these Reasons Maister Can giveth us a very quick and short answere, that he hath neither time nor minde to follow Maister Bradshaw in his vagarys, and idle repetitions: thereby wounding through Maister Bradshaws sides his own fellow, Maister Johnson as the Persian did through his fellows sides the Magitian. For Maister Bradshaw in these reasons precisely followeth Maister Iohnson, as Maister Can himselfe also, (though he tearme it a mocking imitation of him) acknowledgeth. But he will in few words, he saith, set down the sum of his long talke: (though nothing so long as his brother Iohnsons was) & give answere to it briefly.
So having set down the last syllogisme of the first reason.
1 He saith, for the proposition he will not much contend with him, though it be lame to the ground: and withall telleth him, how it might have heen framed more briefly and much better. A fit man indeed to reade Maister Bradshaw a Logick lecture; if theire writings be both well weighed.
But for the lamenes of it, Maister Can might have considered, what Maister Bradshaw minded him at the first proposition for the proofe of it, that it hath all those Scripture crutches to support it and keepe it up from falling to the ground, that Maister Iohnsons parallell proposition of his first argument, for the assumption of his first reason had; and mentioneth all the essentialls, that Maister Iohnson there doth, and consequently they must both either stand or fall together.
2. The assumption, he saith, is false.
For 1. Our ministers have not the gifts, he speaketh of; as he hath manifested from our own writings.
But to affirme, that none of the ministers of our Church-assemblys have, yea or that the greater part of them have not, those gifts in a competent measure, yea very many of them in an eminent degree, whosoever shall say it, is so notorious an untruth, as the evidence of the thing it selfe doth aloud cry out the contrarie.
2. The Bishops from whome they take theire ministery, are not in any sense a Church, save a malignant one. And this alone is enough to overthrow all.
To this Maister Bradshaw hath fully and largely answered on Maister Iohnsons fift reason of the first sort, and the obj…ctions by him there propounded. Neither hath Mr. Can yet made any sound replie th…reunto.
3. T…ough they instruct the people in some doctrines of the Law and Gospell, as doe Papists and other Hereticks, yet the reading of the Service-booke in forme an manner; the celebrating of mariage; burying of the dead; conformity & subscription; are more essentiall to their ministery, and more necessarily required by the Laws of theire Church, then is preaching either of Law, and Gospell. And this he prooveth by the testimony of Maister Bradshaw, affirming (as he relateth him) that, t…ose that yeeld to the Ceremonys, need not preach at all except they will; nor doe any part of divine Service, if they will keepe a Curate conformable to say Service.
1. For Maister Cans coupling our ministers with Papists and Hereticks in teaching some Doctrines of the Law and Gospell, I will say no more, but appeale for the justification of the entire body of saving doctrine both in Law & Gospell commonlie taught by our ministers, to the pious and learned labours of a numberlesse multitude of them, first preached to their people, and after published in print, sufficient to satisfie any reasonable person in this point; & though, not to stop the mouthes of such barking carrs, as this Maister Can is, yet to evince evidently his malitious and virulent vanity, in yoaking them with hereticks and papists herein.
2. To omit, that somethings here mentioned by him, as Subscription, are no ministeriall offices or employments: Allbeit, it should be granted, that these things mentioned, were more necessarily required by the Laws of our Church, then preaching of Law and Gospell: And againe, that (as Maister Bradshaw is sayd to say) some ministers neede not preach themselves (the Law not compelling them thereunto) if they will maintaine a Curate, &c. yet it followeth not hence, either that the ministers of our Church-assemblys, doe not instruct the people committed to theire charge in the doctrine of the Law and Gospell, (which is all Maister Bradshaw saith, in his assumption, of this branch,) for suppose that some need not, or doe not, what is that to them, and those so many, that constantly doe? or that these things are therefore, as Maister Can saith, m…re essentiall to their ministery, then the preaching of Law or Gospell are. Matters of order, in politick respects, are many times in all States, pressed more strictly, then matters in themselves of more imp…rtance.
4. The Sacraments, as some of our owne say are by them wickedly mingled and prophaned, and wickedly administred. And if Maister Bradshaw may be beleeved, divers Sacraments not of divine institution administred; as cros, ring, surplice, &c.
For the former, to omit that though some fa…l…ng in the administration of Sacraments were granted, yet that, which Ma…ster Bradshaw here saith, may still stand firme: the charge is too generall; as if one should charge Maister Can with living wickedly and prophanely, but not shewing wherein: & must passe therefore as a fond and frivolous charge, untill the action be more particularly laid, that a just issue may be joined.
For the latter likewise, though it contradict not Maister Bradshaws assertion, who saith, that they administer the holy Sacraments of Christ; (which appeareth to be a trueth undeniable, when Maister Can himselfe can not deny it, an yet denyeth the assumption, whereof this is one b…anch,) whether Maister Bradshaw or any other (for I know not who his Author is, nor dare I take ought on Maister Cans word) may so tearm the ceremonys here mentioned, taking the word Sacrament in a very large sense, for any outward act, gesture or ornament used in the performance of Gods worship, (and yet neither can that well be said of the ring) it is not true, nor doth it appeare by any constitution of our Church, or part of our Liturgie, that any of these are either enjoyned, or used as Sacraments truely and properlie so tearmed; to wit, as Seales, of Gods covenant of grace; or, of justification by faith in Christ.
5. The Prayers our ministers are to make to God, when they reade theire Service-booke, must of absolute necessitie, without partiall dispensation, or manifest violation of oath, be foolish, false and superstitious.
To let passe, what further exceptions might justly be taken to this, as well as to the former (for who can endure to discourse more than needs must, with such a foulemouthed frantick?) his charge is too wilde to be reduced to any due issue; nor doth it, though it were in some particulars acknowledged, crosse the branch intended of Maister Bradshaws assumption.
But let us yet straine to heare a litle more of his ravings: he will not trouble us long: he is taking his farwell; and like him whome herein he imitates, he is the more furious, it may be, because he is neere at an end.
I desire the Reader, saith he, to observe how wittilie he confirmeth the assumption. It shall be sufficient, saith he, that we can set forth to him such a ministery in sundry of our Church assemblys, of which all those points may be truly verifyed. VVho would have thought, that Maister Bradshaw having blotted so many leaves of his booke with meere scoffing at Maister Iohnson about his Logick, should so grosly overshoot himselfe in tearms of reasoning. For what wise man but he, would have laid down a position, that comprehended indefinitely and generally all the ministers of their assemblys: & to proove it, saith: We can shew some such. It seemeth then that those some such must make all the rest true. In trueth he so inferres, or else his Argument is crackbrained, and lacks not truth onelyonly but sense also. And hereupon he runneth out further in this like straine; comparing Maister Bradshaw to such crafty merchants, who to put of the false wares that lie on theire hands, will shew the buyer a litle of the best, by that meanes cunningly to shift all the rest upon him. And telleth us, that he mentioneth the oftner these his deceavable shifts, that they may have more honest dealing hereafter, that if they will justify all theire ministers and Churches, they will say so directly; or if but some few, they speake it out plainlie, & not make folke believe they meane all, when themselves are perswaded that the greatest number are false and Antichristian.
And I s…all desire the Reader likewise to observe, how witlesly and senslesly, not unreasonably alone, Maister Can carieth himselfe in this his rambling and scambling discourse; not knowing, or taking notice, at least, of the ground and matter of the dispute; and talking loosely withall at randome, as one very sorille acquainted with the rules, either of right reasoning, or right speaking.
1. It shall be sufficient, saith Maister Bradshaw, to set him forth sundry such. And it is sufficient say I, (whatsoever Maister Can prate to the contrary) so to doe, for the proofe of his assumption, and the evincing of the trueth in question. The controversy between Maister Bradshaw and Maister Iohnson is whether such a Separation, as Maister Iohnson and his faction maintaine, from the Church-assemblys of England, be sinfull or no. This separation thus controverted is generall, so practised, so professed, and so prosecuted in the whole discourse, and dispute. Now there is not onelyonly no punie, or Freshman in the Schooles, but no man whosoever, that is not wholly void, I say not, of the art of reasoning, but even of Reason it selfe, or that hath not laesa principia, but is able to acquaint Maister Can with this common ground of reason; that any one particular (and much more manie) affirmed is sufficient to overthrow a generall denyed. It is one of the first grounds in reason, that Contradi…tories can not both be true: but if one be true, the other must needs be false, And an other necessarily thence flowing, that a particular negative is sufficient to take away a generall affirmative; and a particular affirmative to beare down a generall negative. If Maister Bradshaw therefore had said, that he could set forth but some one onelyonly such Church-assembly among us, it were sufficient to evince the Separation here questioned, as it is generally layd, sinfull; and to proove Maister Iohnson in avowing the said Separation, not Lawfull onelyonly but necessary, to defend an untruth: and how much more then, when he saith he can set him out sundry such?
And now whether Bradshaw or Maister Can have in matter of reasoning grossely overshot himselfe, let any reasonable man decide.
2. To let passe that notorious untruth; that Maister Bradshaw hath blotted many leaves of his booke with meere scoffing at Maister Iohnson about his Logick; that childish charge, that he hath grossely overshot himselfe in terms of reasoning; (for what termes doth Maister Bradshaw here use, other then usuall and authenticall?) and that incongruous coherence; What wise man, but he, would have layd down a position, &c. and to proove it, saith &c?
Surely wise men and in their wits doe not usually speake, much lesse write, thus. But we must beare with Maister Can, as well for Grammer as Logick. His heate and fury makes him forget oft the rules and ground of either of them. Consider we onelyonly the main matter. The crime charged upon Maister Bradshaw, and that such as no wise man would ever have been overtaken with, is that having layd a position comprehending indefinitely and generally all the ministers of their assemblys, to proove it, he saith, he can shew some such.
But 1. Maister Can here sheweth us a trick or two of leger demaine. For he abates maister Bradshaws tearmes in the one branch; sundry, saith maister Bradshaw, some saith maister Can, belike supposing that maister Bradshaw had failed there, as he telleth him, in his Logick termes. Then raiseth them on the other side, in the latter branch, as high. The ministerie of the Church-assemblys, saith maister Bradshaw. All the ministers of the Church-assemblys, saith maister Can, and writes the words withall in a different Character, as maister Bradshaws owne expres tearms, which is most false. Neither doth Maister Bradshaw as by his own words appeareth, so speake; nor was it needfull, as hath been before shewed, that he should. Yea maister Cans own words containing a manifest contradiction, doe evidently evince the falsehood of his charge, and convince him of untruth. He saith maister Bradshaw speaketh indifinitely: and yet addeth, that, he saith, All, &c. Now if he speake indifinitely, how doth he say, All. Or if he say, All: expressely, how speaketh he indefinitely? since that, then a proposition is sayd to be indefinite, when the note or tearme of quantitie is not expressed.
For as for that which he speaketh, after his blending and blundering manner, of comprehending indefinitely and genera…lie: as if indefinitely and generally were in sense and substance all one, it is just indeed according to the rest of his Logick, & if a man therefore shall say, There are Schismaticks at Amsterdam; because he speaketh indefinitely, he must needs be understood generally; that All the Schismaticks that are in the world harbour there. Or if he shall say; that Fooles and Doltes write bookes; he must needs be conceived to comprehend all writers, (because his speech is indefinite) and maister Can among the rest. But were maister Can so wise, as he would seeme to be, he might know; or had he not been overslightly versed in the art of reasoning, he might have learned; That an Indefinite either tearme or axiome may be taken, & so is to be, either generally or particularlie, according to the nature and tenour of the subject matter in hand: and is therefore in maister Iohnsons argument to be taken universally; because a generall default enforcing a generall separation is to be prooved: whereas in maister Bradshaws argument it need not be so taken; because the particular being made good, is enough to inferre a conclusion directly contradictory unto that of maister Iohnson. And you see now, how wisely maiste Can hath made this his wise charge good against maister Bradshaw.
3. But let us wade yet a litle further in this mire & mud. It seemeth (yet at least, saith maister Can.) that those (Some Such) must make all the rest true. In trueth, so he inferrs, or els his argument is crack-brained, & lacks not trueth onelyonly, but sense allso.
I, might wel demande, why those Some Such might not as wel make the rest true; as those ignorant asses & idlebellyed Epicures, that maister Can so oft casts in our dish, should make all the rest false, & worthy to be severed from: for the reason may passe as wel for the one as for the other. But I, let that pas, & come a litle neerer home to maister Can.
It is a question among some, whither in truth be an oath, or no. if it be, I shal hardly ever here after beleeve maister Can upon his oath, if not I shal yet hardly beleeve him delivering ought upon his trueth: when binding it so solemnly & seriousy with an in trueth, he telleth his reader here such a palpable untrueth. For where, or how, or in what tearmes either expresse or equivalent there unto. doth maister Bradshaw inferre, that those Some Such, yea or Sundry Such (for so his words are) either do, or must make all the rest true; when of the rest he neither spake, nor had need to speake ought? as hath formerly been shewn.
Yea but his argument els is crack-braind, as he saith of Maister Johnson & lacks not trueth onelyonly, but sense allso.
Nay rather, he that so saith, therein sheweth himselfe either to be crack-braind, or to have his braines crow, and to want as wel trueth as wit. As for his tale therefore of crafty merchants fals wares & deceivable shifts, he may do wel to Keepe them in store, for such false forgers & sorie shifters, as he here sheweth himselfe to be. And yet such shameles and truthles companions, as make no conscience of coyning falshoods at pleasure, nor of fastning groundles calumnys upon others, have the face to cry & call for more honest dealing, even then, when thay deale most dishonestly themselves.
4. Yea but maister Can would have maister Bradshaw and the rest of us deale plainly, and tel directly, whether, when we speake indefinitely, we meane some few, or all. This is, as if some pe…emptorie shameles person like himiselfe should affirme confidently & stand in defence of it, That All the merchants in England. are men so lewd & vile, that no civill commerce can safely be had with any of them
And when he shall, to controoll his groundles and slanderous censures b… tolde, by some friend to the nation and profession (We can set you forth sundry of them, against whome you can take no such exception, but that they be men of honest life and carriage, and such as you say they all are. Were it not now idle and impertinent, for such a shameles beast, to require the party to speake plainlie, & to say direct…y, whether he meane to justify those some few, or all in generall; and to aske wither those few must make all the rest honest? might he not well be answered; Sir, what is that to the purpose? So much as hath been said, is enough to make you a Liar, and so much being enough to make Maister Can the like, we so leave him, and let him go as he is.
And yet we must not doe so neither. For he will have one fling more at the cock, for his money, ere he goe; & that he hopeth will hit him fall on the head: and he hath reserved it therefore, like enough, for the last cast.
Maister Bradshaw following Maister Iohnsons precedent, frameth his third Reason for the trueth of our Churches, from our opposition to Antichrist, and renunciation of him. To this Maister Can answereth, not by denying any part of the Argument; but by affirming, that we retain st…l the selfe same ministery (of Massing priests belike; which had been fitter for him to have opposed to the 2. Reason, if he had been pleased to return ought to it) Church government, (a Pope sure, and Cardinals at least) Service, (the Masse then questionles) Canons, &c. and so are like one that calles a woman whore, and yet lies in bed with her, for all that, and committs folly with her. And if we aske how he prooveth this; because it is no deniall of any part of Maister Bradshaws argument, but a fresh charge; he telleth us that some papists and conformists say so.
And this is his last throw, that hath not yet, I hope, come neere the cocks head; though it be no great matter, if notwithstanding that he be suffered to go away with the comb. That which the rather he deserveth, for that, that next followeth. For whereas insteed of answere to the reasons ensuing, he saith, there is nothing said in them, that the former things again repeated; therein if he meant to throw at Maister Bradshaw, he mistooke his marke, but he hitteth his brother Iohnson, whome he should fight for, full on the hand. For Maister Bradshaw doth thus onelyonly, that he may precisely follow Maister Johnson, and treadeth exactly in his steps.
Howbeit, one bout more we must have with him, concerning some Demands of his brother Iohnson; the deciding whereof the said Maister Iohnson faith will end the controversies between them and us.