THE UNREASONABLNES OF THE SEPARATION; Made apparent, in an Examination of, and answer to, certain Reasons of master Francis Johnson; Whereby he laboureth to justify his schism from the Church-Assemblies OF ENGLAND; By master William Bradshaw deceased.  
Together with a Rejoinder, in defence of the said answer, against the late Reply of master John can( a Leader to a Company of Brownists in Amsterdam) thereunto, by a friend of the deceased.  
 
Prnited in the year of our Lord, 1640.   

THe intelligent Reader is to be desired in his own observation of the scope of passages throughout this treatise to correct what Errata may be found in the printing, because there was noc Englishman to attend the Correction of them.   

To all the ENGLISH PREACHERS& HEARERS Of Gods word( who are noe Brownists) whether continuing in their own country or removed into foreign parts.  
REverend& Beloved. Give me Leave, I beseech you to mind you of that which after a special manner concerns you all: There are a Generation of your country, called Brownists, who glory in this, that they are of the separation, Brethren of the Separation they call themselves,& take it very ill, if any of you call them otherwise. Now you must know that in the judgement of these, it may be not of every particular man or woman of them, but of the Leaders of them,& the greatest part of them, I say in the judgement of these.  
1. Amongst you who are preachers, if you have received any Allowance or Authority to preach from Bishops unless you have again solemnly renounced what you haue received from them, there is not a man of you, who is a Minister of Jesus Christ. And marvel not at this, for they have the same judgement of all, who have been preachers before you in the like kind, though some of them have been glorious Martyrs, others have been famous writers in defence of the truth& others have had their preaching crwoned with the happy conversion of many souls to God: yet not a man of them any minister of Christ. Ah poor England hath the Lord Christ so neglected thee above all other Protestant nations that to this day, he hath given thee not one of his Pastours& Teachers, which he hath sent abroad since his ascension, unless some, few Brownists?  
2. Amongst you who are hearers of Gods word preached by any of these though otherwise you serve God in righteousness and holinesse, before him all your dayes there is not a man or woman of you if the Brownists may judge, but you are all such, who live in manifest sin and wickedness by this your hearing of them. Even this very year one of them in Amsterdam, and an other of them in London have in print passed this doom upon you all.  
Doth it not then concern you all to inquire seriously, whether these men judge righteous judgement of you or noe? Reverend& Beloved, The Treatise following will help you much this way, if you will be content to red it,& observe diligently what you read, which that you may the better understand, it will be requisite, you take special notice of this relation.  
Long since one master Francis Johnson a prime Leader of Separatists in Amsterdam published divers arguments& reasons to prove it not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present ministry of the Church Assemblies in England. Sundry yeares after that, by an occasion, which you will find reported in this ensuing Tractate, one master William Bradshaw▪ a Learned and Godly divine of England answered those Arguments. And some few yeares past, one master John Can:( who as I hear hath in a late printed book styled himself Minister of the English Church in Amsterdam, as though there were noe other English Church there but he& his Company. whereas there is an other, and it approved both by Magistrates& Ministers there, when as he& his Company are onely tolerated there as Papists Anabaptists& some other sectaries are:) This master John Can wrote a book to prove from the Principles of English Non Conformists, that there ought to be a separation from the Church Assemblies in England, in which book of his he labours to defend master Iohnsons arguments against the answers of master Bradshaw. Now you must know, that however this book of master Can hath been answered by some in private, to satisfy some weak in judgement, yet for some yeares it hath received noe Answer in public onely master John Davenport▪ a famous preacher sometimes in London, hath professed in a book of his, that he had many things to say in defence of Dr. Ames( whom in that book master Can makes use of to his purpose) and withall affirms that he had heard some others had under taken to answer him. 
Treatise between him& master Paget p. 282 283.  But the truth is, I never yet knew or have heard that in print he hath been answered and would you know the reason? surely I can give you noe other then this, That generally in England with the most judicious that book of his hath not been thought worthy of Answer, Learned men not judging it worth the while, to stop his mouth who barks so loud,& bites so little: yet now you may see here that book of his is answered, especially in the main of it,& master Can himself may see, that he hath been dealt with, as the spirit of God would have such persons as he is, 
Pro. 26.5.6.  dealt withall.  
For a time he hath not been answered, least the Answerer of him should have seemed to bee like him, yet in time he is Answered, least he should bee wise in his own eyes, and so Answered now he is, That as the Learned and Reverend author of this rejoinder which follows, hath vindicated the worth and honour of his dear friend master Bradshaw, from the weak Argumentations and unworthy Calumnies of master can, so he hath discovered master can to bee a mere empty cask, not with standing the great sound, which he hath made. It is long since even some yeares past, that this work hath been ready for the press, and for that end out of the authors hands, and however for some reason hitherto concealed, yet now thought meet to bee published.  
1. In Regard of master can, that he may no more complain of Gnatts, which he hath felt, but not seen, and of Trencher squibbs reaching no further then the end of the table, not so far as to pen ink and paper, for answering him in a faire and honest way, Thus he complains in his late book against master Robinson, here now he hath an Answer prepared for him, the pen, 
Epistle to the ●eader.  ink and paper whereof may possibly bite him after another maner then these gnatts he speaks of, and startle him some what more then these squibbs he mentions. And is it not time that the man should have an Answer, seenig he so calls for it?  
2. It hath been thou●ht the more seosonable now to print this work. In Regard of some others, who have lately drawn many good souls, into ways of separation and are( at is seems) looking very wistly upon master cans way. It seems he takes it they are of his mind, For whence is it el●e, that he so insults in that book of his called a stay against straieng, 
epistle to 〈◇〉.  That now men are of founder judgement then to defend either the Church state, ministery, worship or Government of England as some professors formerly haue done the falseness of these being now seen and acknowledged of the honester and better sort every where, so that none now except Formalists, Familists and men of corrupt minds, who count gain godliness, will appear in the Defence hereof. And surely some others besides master can have great cause to suspect that some of these at the least, however for a time they hover about, yet their purpose is in the end to meet with master can in the same center of separation. For it is commonly said, that some of their leaders keep great correspondency with him in private, and when they or their disciples are occasionally in Amsterdame or the Lords day, they either altogether or for the most part frequent his assembly. Now here also in this Treatise, unless their judgements bee to much forestalled▪ these may also meet with some what for their satisfaction and this may the rather bee hoped, because for ought is yet published by them, they have no other ground for their separation, especially from the ministery of the Church Assemblies in England, then what master Johnson who is here answered had formerly. There is jndeed a great noise in England at this day, and hath been for these 3. or 4. yeares past of a New light and a New way, but where shines this light? surely if any where it is onely in some dark lanterns. Heertefore when master Johnson, Ainsworth, Smith, Robinson led others in to separation, the like cry was then raised of a New light and a New way, but then those Ringleaders made known the light, whereby they were guided in to that way, but it is not so with these, who though they are in ways of separation, yet further then by private letters and clancular manuscripts, thy hold not forth the light leading them in to their way. And this master can himself seems to complain of in some of them, who belike jump not as yet with him in every thing, It seems he expects they should bee in every degree of separation as he is, and therfore being discontented, that they are as yet some what a loof from him, he blames them, That they do not publish to the world their New principles in a faire and open way. But however he fretts some what at these, it is probable he hath better, hopes of some others amongst them, not onely because of that Insultation of his formerly specified but because he tells the world in that book of his,, 
In the same Epistle.  That he is now in hand with a large Treatise of ecclesiastical policy, even the whole external Regiment of the church of God. Now it is not like that master can should bee the onely oracle of his time to give satisfaction in such a matter, especially considering how this rejoinder discovers both his want of learning and indeed of honesty. But if some of greater strength, will yield him their help, choosing rather to vent their New Notions by his pen then their own, then he may have some encouragement to undertake such a business, yet bee it so, I can say no less, but that it is very improbable, either he or any other joining with him in the like degree of separation, should perfect so high and difficult a task, considering how many arrows have been shot awry at this mark by former separatists, yet as famous in their time for learning and piety as any who have now put themselves on in this fe●ld of separation. truly it pities me to think, that some now who are indeed worthy of great honour for their excellent parts and abilities should yet by their ways of separation.  
1. Wound that good cause of old Non conformity in England, by confirming many there, in that ancient yet common mistake of Non conformists that they are all Brownists in heart. I may well call that a Mistake, remembering how many Non conformists haue written against brownism as master Cartwright, Gifford, hildersham, Darrell, Brightman, Ames, Bradshaw, Paget, &c.  
2. Dishonour that ancient and approved course of Church government, by Presbyteries Classes, synods, which hath been and still is used amongst the Protestant cantons in Helvetia, in the Protestant Churches of France and Belgia, and in the Church of Schotland also: It is an easy thing, to say this was Caluins device; and to cry out of classes as fowle things, when yet they who cry out so, know not what they are. But if this government bee good, for any to cry it down as evil, may prove a course drawing woe 
Esa 5.20.  with it.  
3. Carry on so many precious christians of all ranks in to courses, which may very probably wast their estates, expose their posterities to misery and want, plunge themselves in to various errors and Heresies, and at the last break them into pieces by schisms amongst themselves, as it hath come to pass, with many heretofore, who however when they were in their first love of that New way, they supposed, they found such rare and extraordinary comforts in it, that no dissuasions then could take them of, yet such became their Deplorable estate, that many of them came home again by weeping cross, and others still abiding in foreign parts, fell upon such inconveniences as have been name. It is therfore much to bee desired, that if these men have any thoughts of leading on their Disciples into the same degree of separation with master can, that they would look well before they leap, and for that end, take along with them the help of this Treatise, which may bee like through the blessing of God upon their humble and pious inquiry after the truth, to satisfy them in that main point of the ministery of the Church assemblies in England.  
As both in regard of master can and those other menti●ned, the printing of this ensuing work is conceived now to bee most seasonable, In regard of you all, who are by Brownists judged No Ministers of Christ, if you bee preachers, and if private Christians, yet such as live ●n an unlawful way and course, by hearing these preachers. If you now Reverend and Beloved shal with honest hearts red this book and seriously compare every Argument with the Answer to it, and every Reply, with the Rei●ynder to it, there may bee good hope, that God will bee pleased so far to enlighten you, that you who are faithful and conscionable preachers, shall bee able to see, that you have the substance and Essentialitie of a lawful calling, notwithstanding all circumstantial defect which may bee found about it so that whatever Brownis●… affirm to the contrary, you are Messengers of the Churches and the Glory o●… Christ. And you who are Hearers of Gods word from these preachers shal be 〈…〉 able to discern, That as you have lawfully and to your great comfort hear●… these, so you may lawfully still do it, and wait on God for a spiritual blessing upon the ministery of these, what ever John Lilburne out of his prison o●… John can out of his press, have this year written to the contrary. I will say 〈…〉 no more, but the Lord give understanding in all things.   

Dr. AMES HIS PREFACE to Mr. Bs. answer.  
To the well-meaning Reader.  
think not evil, if thou meanest well. wee intend not to insult over him that is down, or to pursue a man that is flying of himself; but to lend him a hand, that knoweth not well which way to take. Mr. johnson indeed is rather to be pitied, then much opposed. wee need but stand stil as lookers on, he falleth willingly on his own sword. But that his fall may be a rising again, not onely to himself, but to others also, both armour-bearers& followers of his; it was judged necessary to guide them a little while their heads are dizzy,& bring them fairly from of the bog they have stood on.  
It is not M. johnson that is dealt withall alone. For change the name onely& put in Mr. Ainsworth, or any such: themselves will not say, but the Reasons are theirs, and the answer to them as well as to him. It may be, that they having less acquaintance with Logical forms of dispute, will look for large discourse, or heaped quotations out of Scripture. But reason will tell them, that many words do rather hid, then untie the knot of a syllogism: and much quoting may prove something; but answereth not directly to any thing. Now the writers meaning was, not to gather proofs; but to point at the weakness of such as these men have gathered. read therefore with understanding,& learn a mean betwixt all& Nothing.   

The Authors Preface to this Rejoinder.  
IT is no mastery to pluck a dead Lion by the beard. Any cowardly cur dare do it: even such as durst not come within a furlong, much less look once in the face of a Lion, while he lived. Nor is it a thing unusual, for men of little worth, to trample upon the ashes of Gods worthies deceased. In this kind one Can, a man hitherto of little note or name,( though the head, it seemeth, now of a schism) hath endeavoured to get and gain some better note and name to himself by trampling upon, and insulting over some of Gods servants of good name and note, but at rest now with the Lord.  
Among other of those, whom he hath undertaken thus to traduce, is that blessed servant of God Mr. William Bradshaw; a man for his piety, patience, humility, modesty, peaceable carriage, unblamable conversation, quickness of apprehension, maturity of judgement, clearness of resolution, plainness, painfulness and powerfulness in the work of the ministery, was much admired of those that knew him. and conversed with him while he lived, and hath left a sweet and savoury remembrance of him, since his decease, in the mindes, not of them alone, but of others also that have been conversant in his works.  
Now this hath this Can taken occasion to do, pretending in way of justification of the schism that he and his faction stand in, the refutation of, or reply unto, an answer published by Mr. Bradshaw, in his life time,( a thing before him now, not attempted or undertaken by any) to certain Reasons of Mr. Fr. johnson concerning that argument, Wherein how he hath demeaned himself, shall hereafter appear.  
To vindicate therefore both the truth of God by him maintained, and the credite of this his servant unjustly appeached against the frivolous oppositions and false calumniations of this Can;( which he himself, were he living, had been, not fittest onely, but best able of any that I know; to have performed) out of the entire affection& reverend respect, that I bare to him while he lived,& do still deservedly to the memory of him now deceased, I have undertaken this task: though not intending to engage myself further in these controversies, wherein too much paper to little purpose hath been wasted already, save as this my chief intendemet shall necessary require.  
Now here before I come to examine Mr. Cans refutation of the work itself; I can not but take notice of some personal aspersions cast by him upon the Author of it, to the end that those removed, we may the more clearly, without by-lets, proceed in the main business.  
First therefore, by occasion of some speech of Dr. Ames, the publisher of Mr. Bs. book, that it was not the Authors meaning to gather proofs, he taketh occasion p. 210. to tax him for not alleging of Scripture, and bringing proof thence, for that he speaks: that which he oft repeateth afterwards again and again, as hereafter shall bee shewed.  
But had Mr. Can been pleased but to read, or to add, Mr. Bs. very next words: but to point at the weakness of such as these men have gathered: he might have had a faire& full answer to this his exception. It was a sufficient answering of Mr. Is. to show that the proofs produced by him were impertinent, which might well bee performed without any further allegations.  
To this might be added, first, that the one moiety of Mr. Is. book consisteth of Reasons professedly drawn from human testimonies; which needed not therefore, nor were indeed, by any such course to bee answered; but either by rejection of the witnesses authority; or by showing, that his assertions make not for Mr. Is. purpose, or the proof of his conclusion. And secondly, that in the other moiety of Reasons pretended to be taken from Scripture, howsoever for the proposition indeed of his arguments, being either apparent& undeniable, or less questionable at least, many Scriptures are packed together many times to little purpose, as being either needlessly or incongruously alleged: yet the Assumption, which is generally the more questionable part, being matter of fact also for the most part, is by Mr. Is. himself very seldom backed with any Scripture at all, save in that one place, p. 11. the Assumption of the second argument in the first Reason: where Scriptures, the truth is, are mustered up, more then enough, but so palpablely abused, as hereafter we shall show, that some of his own followers have been sometime ashamed of it.  
Nor can Mr. Can tax Mr. Bradshaw herein without censuring of himself; who throughout his whole intended refutation of Mr. Bradshaw is very sparing in this kind; having very few proofs of Scripture for any, not any at all for many, yea for the most, points therein controverted: though for things not questioned, after his brother Iohnsons fashion, or matter of mere illustration, he paint his margin some time with them.  
Howbeit renewing his charge of Mr. Bs. with a brazen brow, he most falsely averreth, p, 217. that his proofs are always beggarly I says, or Ifs, and may be so. And that he doth not in all his writing either directly or by sound consequence from the Scriptures, confirm any one thing whereof he speaketh,& p. 225. He delivers his opinion upon his own word:& if we will not take that, we must have nothing. For p. 235. He never brings either Scriptures, examples Reasons, or human testimonies, to confirm any one thing whereof he writes. And again, abusing the name of God withall p. 239. The wisdom of God is marvelously here to be seen, which suffered not this man to countenance his corrupt speeches with any weight or show of Argument, And yet again, p. 240. He hath not from the beginning to the end of his book, brought one proof from the word of God; to make good any one thing, whereof he speaketh, but, as if he were one of the illuminate Fathers of the Familist, delivereth his yea& nay always upon his own bare word.  
All which Exceptions are no less fals then frivolous,& frivolous then false, for may not Mr. Bs. discover M. is ignorance, unless he quote Scripture for it; as Mr. Can doth p. 257. 1. Tim. 1.7.& judas 10? nor detect the faultiness of his Arguments, unless, as Mr. Can doth. p. 235. he quote jerome for it, saying of some( if he say so at least, for Mr. Can credit is none of the best) that they have their Arguments neither in mood nor figure, &c. nor tax him in his own terms, unless he city Salomon, prov. 26.5? nor refer to Scripture, unless he quote chapter& verse; for example; to prove that the Scribes& Pharisees were, not onely, as Mr. Is. minceth it, a special sect among the Iewes, that pretended a more strict observation of the law then others; but joined also many human traditions& wil-worships to the worship& service of God; was it not sufficient for him to say as he doth, p. 28. They are said by Christ himself to make the commandements of God of none effect, &c. unless forsooth he quot Math. 15.6.— 9. a place that every one almost well enough knoweth, or to prove, that the jewish Synagogues in Christ time were not free from all kind of false worship, taking false worship in a large sense, for all such as failes either in matter or form, more or less, to say as he doth, p. 70. that Scripture witnesseth the same, unless he muster up all those places, where our Saviour displayeth the erroneous doctrine& practise of the chief and principal teachers of those times? or, was it not enough for him to say, concerning The Ministers maintenance, p 9. It is the will of Christ, that the ministers of the Gospel should live by the gospel; unless he quote 1. Cor. 9.14. though he give you Paules very words?& again, p. 104. Christ hath set down no more in his Testament, then this in effect, that the Labourer is worthy of his hire: And that for the ministration of spiritual things, the Churches, that enjoy their Labours, ought to minister unto them of their temporals. And again, p. 108. That our Churches fulfil the Testament of Christ, in giving their temporal things for spiritual, in giving hire to the Labourers, unless withall he quote Math. 10.10.& 1. Cor. 9.11. though he deliver the very words in express terms of the one in the one place,& the just& full sum& substance of both of them in the other? Belike our Saviour,& his Apostles never alleged Scripture for ought that ever they taught, when either they name not the book or cited not the particular psalm or chapter, that I say not, verse too, for any testimony thence produced. Neither yet relate I these Mr. Bs. allegations, as acknowledging any necessity at all of allegation of Scripture in an answer of this nature: which for the reasons before rendered was not needful, nor could justly be required; but to show this mans vanity and falsehood, not regarding what he saith, though never so untrue, nor so easy to be evinced.  
For to pass by what he saith of no example brought by him, wherein the examples of Luther, hus, Wicklif, &c. alleged by Mr. B. pag. 31. in answer to the 1. argument of the 2. Reason; directly give Mr. C. the lye. And as for human testimonys, which, also he requireth, to omit, that they convince not the conscience; a man may as well allege Scripture to a professed Atheist; as human testimonies to those of his faction. for what weight can any human testimony have with them, who in the pride of their hearts condemn all writers almost of any note, as well ancient, as modern( a few of their own faction only excepted) those blessed martyrs, that have suffered so many of them for Christs cause not exemted form this their arrogant Censure; as either false ministers, or members of false Churches,& such as were therefore to be separated from? And is not this a wise mans part, think wee then, to require testimonies in this cause, wherein he knoweth we are able to produce twenty, if not 100. for one: and when he knoweth, that if we should produce them,( suppose Cyprian& Cornelius, against Novatus: Optatus& Augustine against Donatus: Dr. Junius to the Separatists at Amsterdam: Dr. Ames against Robinson; Mr. Cartwright against Harrison; Mr. Gifford against Barrow& Greenwood: Mr. Paget against Ainsworth, &c.) we should be but laughed at by them for our labour; as alleging those against them, whom they condemn as well as they do us? yea their unequal carriage in this kind Mr. B. justly taxeth, p. 16. answer to the fifth argument of the second Reason: that will press us with opinions, as Mr. Can here doth, of some of our writers, when themselves refuse the whilst to be bound unto, what their predecessors, Brown, Barrow, and Greenwood have held before them.  
But whether Mr B. as he here chargeth him, never annex any reason for the proof of ought he saith( though it belonged not to him, being defendant or respondent, but to the plaintiff or accuser by course of Law, to the opponent by rule of dispute to prove) let this book itself speak: wherein it will be found, that Mr. B. very seldom denies any proposition, but he giveth some reason or other of his denial: which indeed, true it is, Mr. Can seldom or never taketh notice of; but his usual manner is in stead thereof, having framed answers, arguments,& inferences of his own,( absurd ones, you may be sure, like himself) to father them upon him; and then having shewed his skill in shooting at men of straw of his own making, to triumph and shoute, as if he had hit and sped master Bradshaw.  
And this may suffice for the wiping away of this first calumney; the detection of master Cans vanity& untrueth therein uttered.  
In the next place, because master Br. discovereth sometimes Mr. Iohnsons defaults in logic; and speaketh somewhat quick now and then upon just occasion, but without such gull and bitterness, as with these men is too usual; master Can chargeth him, pag. 212. with intemperate speeches: but saith withall, that he waiveth the recital of them▪ or the repaying of them with the like: because, it is( he saith) no Christian mans part to render rebuk for rebuk; and he deemeth it a 1000. times better, to sustain even a Legion of reproaches, then for a man by returning, though but one, to give cause of suspicion, that evil hath got some part of conquest over him.  
Where, for what is said concerning master Is. logic, and master B. taxing of it, we shall consider of it, as occasion shall be hereafter.  
But for intemperate speeches, neither is the charge just nor doth it well beseem him, who, as throughout his whole book he doth so carry himself, that I I am verily persuaded, there is scarce any man that shall have the patience to read it out, but taking notice how full it is fraught with vile, virulent, base, broad, scurrilous, unseemly and unsavoury language, he will easily aclowledge with me, if he be not a bide of his own feather, that he never met with a more down-right railer. So in his dealing here with master B. though having before protested against such courses, yet he cannot forbear to cast out, if not some bitter taunts, and satirical squibs& scoffs,( which are so over rife here, that they may well seen to be but as words of course with him) yet some lavish language or other at least, almost in every page. of his ensuing discourse: and that not returning the same onely, where he pretendeth some such given, but there jerking it out, where no show or shadow of such is before afforded either to master johnson or to the cause he maintains.  
Among much other stuf of this kind, let the Reader be pleased to take these few passages for a taste; that he may see the mans modesty,& how well he performeth what before he professed, pag. 215. No man could pass master B. in absurdnesse here. pag. 221. Any one may see by his work, that he meant not to thy his conscience short: but would make a little bold with it for the present. and, so he might fetch over a sore blow upon us he cared not, though with every stroke he made wounds through the sides of his bretheren. Pag. 235. jerome speaketh of some who have th ir syllogisms and argumentations, not in mood and figure, but in their heels: master B. is not much unlike those, for wanting all proof to make good the points that he boldly affi mes, he layeth about him with his heels. Pag. 229. I desire the Reader to compare with this base stuf their former principles, and consider whether there be not probable reasons to think, that he sinned here in fearfully against his knowledge and conscience. I bid. If he had not meant mere gulling and mocking of the world he would not have taught men to hold this thing, and that what they would, without any reason or ground. Pag 227. The boldness of this man is notorious; that he dares in this manner still daub up the vile things which his brethren pull down with both hands. Pag. 223. I profess in all good conscience, I never saw to my remembrance such daubing in any Conformists: and to say truth it is a great deal worse. Pag. 245. If this be not unreasonable daubing, I know not what is. pag. 235. If the non-conformists had seen but half such rot●en stuf in any Conformists writings, they would have cried out and that justly, daubing, daubing. Pag. 223 If M. A. had not boasted of this mans book, I would not have touched it: because I knew the bowels of it could not possibly be opened, but it would cause an ill savour to some, in regard it contains most vile and unclean matter. Pag. 220. How much better had it been, if this misshaped thing had had its mothers womb for the grave or being brought out had been kept in some hole, or dark place, where it should never have seen any light, nor any mans eye should ever have looked upon it then to serve in this sort, as it doth, namely to strengthen the hands of the wicked, grieve the hearts of the righteous, and to discover their own vile hating and double dealing.  
Thus of Mr. Br.& his writing he pratles,& rails upon him at his pleasure. For as for those ordinary flowers of his rhetoric, that our minister, are bastardly ministers, and our ministry a bastard& the child of a whore, p. 219. our ministers the most of them, loitering idle bellied Epicures, and senseless ignorant Asses, p. 214.& p. 248. our service idolatrous, our government Antichristian, our discipline devilish: a power taken every part of it from Antichrist& the devil, p. 272. 220. 249. 256. these& the like I let pass, because they are every where obvious,& I doubt not but he deemeth his work exceedingly graced with them; having to that purpose raled together a many of them from the writings of some intemperate spirits like himself; and added thereunto no small store of his own invention: and they are indeed the principal ornaments wherewith his book is throughout embellished.  
Thirdly, among other particulars he chargeth him more specially& most spitefully, with much hypocrisy, in maintaining of points contrary to his own judgement. And this the more to enforce he repeateth the charge thrice in one page., diduced to 3 heads, as 3. distinct enditements, though in effect speaking nothing but one& the same thing. p. 217. for,  
1. Although in the course of his life( saith he) he made show to be a great enemy to the Bishops,& their traditions; yet now against us he stands to maintain the vilest abominations in their Churches.  
2. Such corruptions as the Non-conformists generally have condemned, he basely here justifieth.  
3. He sheweth great hypocrisy in pleading for such evils, as some which knew him do well know, that his judgement of them, at least of many of them, was otherwise.  
And again elsewhere p. 230. To hypocrisy adding impudence: so that Mr. Bs. hypocrisy, belike, is spun with no very fine thread, when it carrieth impudence with in the forehead.  
None of the non Conformists have more effectually condemned their popish ceremonies, then this man▪ for he hath by many Arguments proved, that the use of them is very sinful▪ notwithstanding behold his forehead, how in his writing here against us, he seeks by flattering speeches to justify the very practise, which he professeth in his writing against the Hierarchy to be unlawful, idolatrous, Antichristian▪ we abhor this Hypocrisy.  
In a charge of heresy, saith jerome, of hypocrisy, may I well say, 
Nol● in suspicion● haereseos quenquam esse patientem Hieron. adv. etro●. joan. Hierosol.  a man can hardly have patience: the cause being either his own, or some others, that are or have been known to bee, not free onely, but far, from any such carriage, as might give just suspicion of the same. This imputation therefore well deserved to be singled, and to be cleared by itself. The charge you have heard; take the defence along with it.  
First therefore, true it is indeed, that master B. pleads here for sundry things, that master Can and his schism condemn as evils, the substance of our Liturgy, the truth of our ministry, the lawfulness and warrantableness of joining with our Church-assemblies, and the like, these be the evils that master B. pleads for, But that Mr. B. was ever of a contrary judgement, in these or any of those t●●●gs that he pleads for, neither can master Can prove, nor doth he offer once ●●prove; save by the report of some, who, he saith, knew him, and do well know it so to bee Wherein he that chargeth master B. with much hypocrisy, doth evidently evince himself guilty of much want of charity, in fastening so foul an imputation upon so reverend and well-deserving a servant of Christ, upon others bare reports: for how can he know, that they knew Mr. Bs. judgement therein to be such, but by their bare relations, onely? and why mentioneth he not in particular those many things, or some of them at least, concerning which these men( what ever they bee, if it bee not a mere figment of his own brain) say, that he was of a clean contrary mind, to that that he hath here written. Such an accusation as this of such an one, ought to have been backed with better proof, and specified at least in some few particulars: though some few would not suffice to make good the charge: but here is not any one produced of many.  
2. For master Bs. dissenting from some other non-conformists in some things, it is not to bee marveiled, if he should so do, the non-conformists are men, I hope, subject to error and ignorance, as well as others; and may therefore, notwithstanding their joint consent in nonconformitie, in many particulars differ in judgement, as from others, so among themselves. Yea as among their Separatists there is much variety of opinion, master Robinson and his company dissenting from master Can, and his crew; master johnson and his, from master Ainsworth and his, after their parting, master Smith and his, before, from them both: So it is well known, that there is and hath been no small diversity of judgement between our non-conformists among themselves; some condemning some rites but allowing others, and some condemning those also which those others allow; some esteeming the things simply evil, in themselves, some onely as inexpedient, and in regard of some consequences: some excepting against some passages in our Liturgy, which some other of them stick not at, and the like. And indeed considering the wants& weaknesses that do ordinarily attend mens apprehensions, and what variety of opinion by reason thereof men are subject unto, in such things as are not clearly evident of themselves; for a multitude of men of divers parts, abilitys, dispositions, and endowments, to concur and agree all in every particular doubt or debate, question, or controversy, where a multitude of such is moved, might justly be deemed, rather a conspiracy, then an uniformity of judgement. In regard here of therefore, neither is master B. nor any non-conformist bound to hold and defend whatsoever some others of that side have supposed or maintained, no more then the Separatists will be tied on their par●●● the like. Howbeit true it is indeed, that if master B. should, as Maiste● Can here chargeth him, justify any such course as the non-conformists have generally condemned for a corruption, master B. being one of that number himself, must of necessity contradict himself. But setting master B. himself apart; that in this work of his, he hath endeavoured to justify any one point or act, by all non-conformists befide himself censured for such; and much more, that he hath basely justified such corruptions,( more then one or two belike, though no one is here instanced) as hath been before said, is more then ever can bee proved, and is therefore a notorious calumny on master Cans part.  
3. True it is indeed, that master B. refused conformity to some rites& ceremonies imposed upon, and practised usually in our Church assemblies; as esteeming in his judgement the use of them evil and unlawful,( though not giving them such terms, that I any where find in his writings, as master Can here relateth) and had suffered, and did suffer still in some sort, at the very time when he writ this, yea even to his dying day, for his refusal of the same. And is it probable then, that he that suffered then for refusal of those things,& was resolved still so to do, should yet at the same time writ in the defence of thē? Or, that he, that was of so tender a conscience in regard of them, should yet stand to maintain things more vile and abominable then them, if ought at least in our Churches be more vile and abominable in master Cans eyes, then these are? But that master B. in this work of his doth maintain the use of any of those things as lawful and warrantable, which in judgement he so condemned,( howsoever he defend the warrantableness of communicating with them that do use them, in the holy things of God) the book itself will show it to bee a most shameless lie, and yet again, though he had therein maintained and levied some of them, yet would not that have served master Cans turn neither, to free him from guilt of so foul an offence, unless he could make good( for master Can will bee sure to lay his charge large enough, how scant soever his proofs are) that he hath therein maintained contrary to his own judgement, the vilest abominations( you have his own terms) that are in our Churches. This over-reaching lash therefore of master Cans lavish tongue deserves to bee refuted with the lash of a whip rather, then with the dash of a pen.  
Fourthly he chargeth him,( therein playing fast and loose with us) and that again upon report, not with writing so now, as his former charge was, but with fathering an others work, contrary to his own judgement, to the maintaining of those most vile abominations before spoken of. It is true, saith he, that report goes, and it is probable enough, that he was not the proper Author of it, but an other did it and got him to father it. Notwithstanding his evil is not the less, if he should suffer any one, as the ass did Balaam, to ride upon him for to curse the Israel of God.  
For the better cleared of this,( which yet crosseth the former) it shall not be amiss to insert here a word or two, concerning the occasion of master Bs. both writing and publishing the work, wee have now in hand.  
master B. sometime at the request of some friends was induced to a Conference with one master jackson, a man lead aside by some Separatists, but yet professing a willingness to be informed of the truth: at which conference myself also among others was present. This condescended unto, Mr. jackson conceiving that no better grounds could bee produced to justify and enforce a Separation, then those of Mr. johnson, contained in his book of Reasons, newly then come abroad, referred himself to them, and required liberty to press them, and that answer might be given thereunto, or to what he might further produce in pursuit of them. This was agreed upon, and in part performed, in the presence of divers others also of either side;& the objections& answers set down all in writing, subscribed to by either party. But after the first dayes conference, wherein the weakness and lameness of some of master Iohnsons Arguments were discovered, and some palbable abuses of Scriptures alleged by him evidently evinced, master jackson dissuaded by some of that side, refused to have any further conference in such manner, and so the business broke of. Howbeit master B. considering master Iohnsons book was relied upon, and having, by this occasion, in part detected and laid open the nakedness thereof, he thought good to go on in the survey of the whole;& having propounded his pains therein taken to the perusal of others, he was incited by them to make the work more public; which by Mr. Ameses means was some good space of time after done.  
For the discourse itself, though his name bee not to it,( and how is he charged then to father an other mans child, that doth not so far agnize his own?) those that have been versed in other of his works, and acquainted with his method and manner of writing, if they be not altogether strangers to that kind of skill, whereby the writings of Authors are discerned whose they are▪ will easily descry it jo be his own, and no others.  
As for Mr. Cans rhetorical flourish of Balaam and his ass. Balaams ass was in some sort better then he, for it spake nothing but good reason: whereas he many times talks as if he had never come, where Reason ruled or understood not what it meant: that which if I make not evidently to appear to any intelligent Reader, that hath perfect use of Reason, I will bee content, to take the ass from him to myself: and I will join issue with him herein, upon some of those passages in the wise quaeres propounded by him in examination of the 6 Argument of Mr. Iohnsons first Reason pag. 226. And whether the imputation of cursing Gods people, lie more justly and deservedly upon Mr. B. or Mr. Can let any unpartial man judge, that readeth the writings of either. Certainly in this kind he& his are worse not then Balaams ass, but then Balaam himself; for they do that, that he never did nor durst do.  
Fiftly, upon report,( as he speaketh; for Mr. Can you see, builds all still upon reports) he chargeth Mr. B. for one that of all the Non-conformists, came nearest to the Separation, pag. 227.  
Whereas indeed the direct contrary rather may with good probability bee avowed, that not any one of them was in likelihood farther from the Separation, then and: that which appeared by his constant and earnest endeavour, both to with hold, and to withdraw from it, such as were either upon terms of entering, or already entred thereinto: the same being also manifested, both by his sundry conferences by word of mouth with their two greatest rabbis, Mr. johnson and Mr. Ainsworth, and with other forward ones among them, as well in prison, as elsewhere; and by his writings, some published, as this against Mr. johnson, and some to be seen yet, though not published, against Smith, Elwise, Cliffon, and others of that faction. Yea so far, was he from any such schismatical Separation, as these men practise, that he conversed as inwardly& entirely with some of those that differed from him for matter of conformity both in judgement and practise, as he did with any of those that concurred with him therein. He had learned Christ better, then for difference of opinion in such points, to make ●●●ismes and divisions, as their manner is, with all those that do not in all ●●ings concur with them, and subscribe to what they say: witness th● notorious rents among the chief ringleaders of them, the two brethren ●●e Iohnsons; and the one of them and Mr. Ainsworth, after they had been ●ncked so long together.  
And thus much for the personal imputations and aspersions, that this Can hath cast, and endeavoured to fasten, on him, whose work he hath here undertaken to confute: dealing therein, as bad pleaders are wont to do, who having undertaken the defence of some ill cause, leave the matter, and fall foul on the party, by traducing of him hoping to prejudice his cause, which they cannot otherwise well oppose.  
Concerning which practise, hear we Mr. Cans own censure. This is( saith he, pag. 211. to be observed generally, that those that stand for bad causes do after this sort still reproach their adversaries. And again, 227. there is a {αβγδ},( whither it bee his or his printers greek, I know not,) of idle scoffing necessary attending that pen, which undertakes the defence of such a cause. And by master Cans carriage herein, if you please, let it, from his own ground and grant, be deemed, what manner of cause it is, that he hath in this work of his undertaken to defend.  
For as for his charge upon Mr. Bs. manner of writing, wherein he taxeth him as most absurd, pag. 215. and confused, not putting difference between things that are to be distinguished, pag. 236. Turning his tale so oft forward& backward that a man knoweth not how to follow, nor where to have him. pag. 214.& 225. speaking nonsense, pag. 226. and arguing in such silly and childish words, as have in them neither rhyme nor Reason, pag. 229. by shifts and tricks putting quiter by the matter in hand, and leaving things more obscure and dark then he found them, pag. 226. and 262. In discussing of the particulars it will easily appear, how far he is from such defaults as these are: it being indeed a principal ornament, that God, among many other his excellent virtues, had endowed him withall, that he had a singular faculty in clearing and extricating of points obscure and intricate: and reducing each thing to his proper place. And for the acknowledgement of his rare and almost unmatched dexterity in that kind, I could produce, if need were, the letters of some of eminent note in foreign parts, wherein they give an ample and extraordinary testimony thereunto. 
D. lord. capel, in Epist. Salm. dat. ad docti●●. ornatiss. clarisque virum D. S. Br. Nihil i● humanis scriptis dogmatic●●●actenu● a me lect h est, quod tam vehemente● mi●i plac●etit. ita docte, acute, press, solid, ner●ose, apart, si●●l& mira brevitate to●um hoc argumentum comprehensum at●●e p●r tractat●●●● est.  Yea for proof hereof I need go no farther, then appeal to that exquisite treatise of his concerning the justification of a sinner before God. Of which one of those before mentioned freely professeth; That he never red any human writing of dogmaticall divinity, penned more learnedly, ●●●ely, closely, solidly, pithily, clearly, fully and yet wondrous briefly. And let it th●● bee considered, how likely it is, that such a one as Mr. B. appeareth, and hath ●●ll approved himself to be, should in this present argument deal so darkly, obsc●●●ly, absurdly, confusedly, impertinently, unreasonably, childishly, selily, senselessly, as ●r▪ Can chargeth him here to have done.  
As for this man that thus chargerh him, how little he is acquainted either with the grounds of logic, or laws of dispute, will bee sufficiently manifested in the further process of this discourse, and the examination of this his reply: before which I have thought good constantly to set down verbatim at full, both Mr. Johnsons Reasons, and Mr. Bradshaws answers, because the book itself is not so commonly now had: and that, partly in regard of Mr. Bradshaw that both it may the more easily be seen, how fully he hath answered Mr. Iohnsons book, leaving no part or passage of his disputes, demands, or objections unanswered: and withall that it may upon exact view be descried, whither it be such a misshaped monster, as Mr. Can would make of it: and partly also in regard of Mr. Can, that it may thereby the better appear, both how little of Mr. Bs. Mr. Can hath replied unto, and how well his Reply suiteth with Mr. Bradshow answers in that little, to speak of, unto which he hath replied.  
Let the intelligent Reader, that desireth to be rightly informed, be pleased to read altogether, and compare one with an other, master Bradshaws answer with master Iohnsons Arguments, master Cans Reply with master Bradshaws answer, and with master Cans reply the present Rejoinder: and then let him give sentence, as he shall see cause, and judge, as he shall find the cause, upon due trial, to stand between us and them.   

The main Conclusion of master Johnsons Reasons, as it is propounded by himself.  
Fr. johnson.  
It is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present ministry of the Church-Assemblies of England.  
W. Bradshaw.  
This he laboureth to prove, 1. by Reasons, as he fancieth, drawn from Scripture, and other testimonies.  
2 By Arguments collected from the writings of them, whom he styleth( in disdain) forward preachers. And this he performeth, as far as the remainders of his logic skill will give him leave, in mood and figure. But the figure for the most part is of his own shaping, such as never came forth of any logic schools: yet seeing the truth he opposeth receiveth no disadvantage thereby, I can, for my own part, bee content that his syllogisms still retain those forms and figures, that he hath put upon them, and spare the labour of translating them into new. And so, without any further expense of words, I come to the examination of the first sort of Reasons.  
In these words of Mr. B. Mr. Can observeth nothing but some insinuating flourishes,( as he speaks) of his own skill in logic▪ and great contempt put upon master Johnson for his unablenes therein; which he purposely passeth by.] But Mr. Can may do well to consider, that it was justly to be expected of Mr. johnson pretending to draw all to syllogistical forms, contrary to the usual manner of those of that side, whose common fashion is, to fling out pamphlets full stuffed, either with furious invectives, or tedious discourses, having neither head nor foot, but so jumbled together, that in a main heap of words a man can hardly find any show or shadow of Argument; that he should have been exact and precise in those his forms: and he might deservedly therefore be censured for his failings therein, unless it could be shewed, that he had not therein failed.  
The first sort of Reasons from Scripture and other Testimonies.  


The first Reason.  
Fr I.  
All are bound in the worship of God, to hear and communicate onely with that ministry, which Christ hath given and set in his Church for that work.  
But the present ministry of the Church-assemblies of England is not that, which Christ hath given and set in his Church for the work of the ministery.  
Therefore it is not lawful for any in the worship of God, to hear or communicate with the present, ministry of the Church-assemblies of England.  
W. Bradshaw  
Not to contend about the proposition: I deny the Assumption: and affirm, that the ministry 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 ministry, which Christ hath set in his Church for the work of his ministry, whether it bee the ministry of those which he calleth the forward preachers, or of those, which being qualified according to the true intent of the Law, do subscribe and conform according to the laws of the State.  
Hereunto master Can, desirous to pick out somewhat to cavil at, thus replieth.  
1. He marvells, why master Bradshaw should say, that master johnson styled them forward preaches in disdain? and accuseth him of breach of charity therein: since that he knew not master Iohnsons heart, affirming withall on his knowledge, that it is a term commonly given and taken of them acceptably in good part.] But for master Cans knowledge what ever it be, to say nothing of his charity, his conscience by this work of his is so well known, that his credite is very mean, either in this cause, or any other. It is well known, 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 deem of them as master johnson and master Can do.  
2. He desireth to be informed, what laws are here meant; and what the intent of those laws is: and whether all bee so qualified or no.] To all which in a word it is sufficient to answer, that they who have proclaimed a Separation from All our Church-assemblies, and by these and the like arguments endeavour to enforce a necessity of the same, must make that they produce in justification thereof, good in the general: and if any shall be pleased to point out some to them, against whom they are least able to make any colourable Exception, that is more then they need do, they that have undertaken to prove the general Separation, must make their proofs for it as general.  
As for the Law meant I might well turn him over to his brother johnson, to demand of him, what laws he meant or speaks of in the proof of the proposition of the next syllogism but one: or to the book 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 refer him to the Abstract; a book which by his quotation of it elsewhere, I presume him to be well acquainted with.  
3. He bids observe the vanity of master Bradshaws speech: their 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 shane at all what he saith. For where doth Mr. B. say, that our ministers are true ministers, if they be qualified according to the word of God? which unless Mr. Bradshaw say, Mr. Can saith he cares not what: supposing that with an Et caetera, he might make his Reader, not having Mr. Bradshaws book by him, believe that Mr. Bradshaw had said 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 onely, that the ministry not of forward preachers onely, as Mr. johnson terms them, thereby meaning the non-conformists, but even of those also that conform and subscribe, so many of them, at least, as are so qualified, as the Law intendeth 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 laws, as the Author above mentioned sheweth, require in them) and that many such are in most parts with us, is so manifest, that the devil himself( whatsoever Mr. Can may do) I suppose, durst not deny it. But let hereby not the vanity onely, but the conscience of the man, and his square dealing appear, that hereafter he be tried before he be trusted.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry 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 ministry of the Church of England is none of these spoken of Eph. 4.11, 12.  
Therefore it is not the ministry, which Christ hath given and set in his Church.  
W. Brads●aw.  
The present ministry of the Church of England( i. of the Church-Assemblies of England) is the ministry of Pastors and Teachers.  
Fr. johnson.  
The present ministry 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.  
W. Bradshaw  
I deny both proposition and assumption. For 1. Tho' our Prelates do sometimes voluntarily and occasionally perform the same work and service in some of our Church-assemblies, which our ordinary ministers do, yet their prelatical or episcopal office or ministry consists in overseeing the ministers and ministry of our Church-assemblies.  
Here the proposition being, as you see thus denied, master Can tells us that Mr. B. mistakes master Iohnsons words; for he saith not, that the Prelates are ministers of the Church-assemblies, but of the Church of England.  
But master Bradshaw mistakes not master Iohnsons words, but master Can mistakes the matter in hand, and master johnson if he speak other wise, goeth from the matter. For if master Can please but to look back to the assumption of the first syllogism, he shall find that it ought to bee so conceived, or else it speaks not to the purpose; and this exception therefore is frivolous. Yet he telleth us with all that he can prove, if need 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 master Iohnsons proposition to shift for itself.  
2. He saith, that if the ministry of the Prelates bee not the proper ministry of the Church-assemblies, then is the same Antichristian; and tells us, he hath formerly proved so much from their own principles.] But what is this to the confirmation of master Iohnsons proposition? he may find himself work that will follow his wilde-goose race. Let others do that, if they will.  
Lastly he saith, master Bradshaw should have proved, that authority and power that the Law giveth the Prelates, to be lawful. Did this man, think wee, ever learn, what belongeth to logic, or method, or Laws of dispute, that putteth the answerer to prove, and requireth him to prove that which nothing concerneth the present argument? who is so silly, as not to see the folly of this argument: master Bradshaw hath not proved the Prelates power to be lawful. Therefore master Iohnsons proposition standeth firm; or Mr. Bradshaw ought not to deny it.  
But he seeth not what reason master Bradshaw had to mention it. Must Mr. Bradshaw needs both give an answer, and find master Can either eyes to see what he answereth to, or to conceive the reason, why he so answers. If he had considered what master Iohnsons proposition was or ought to be, to wit, The present ministry of the Church-assemblies of England, is the ministry of Prelates, &c. he might soon have seen what reason master Bradshaw had to mention them. He whom he answereth to, had so done before him; and he was to make answer to what he had propounded: which is done here by denial.  
W. Bradshaw  
2, Tho' sometimes our ministers be called Priests and Deacons, yet the ministry under those names assigned to them, and which they exercise, is not the proper and essential ministry of either Priests or Deacons, but of Pastors and Teachers. So that they are onely in equivocation and name, or metaphorically, Priests and Deacons; but really Pastors and Teachers: and therefore such Priests and Deacons may be, and in dead and truth are such Pastors and Teachers as are spoken of Eph. 4.11, 12.  
The Assumption being by master Bradshow thus denied, master Can replieth:  
1. By bare contradiction of master Bradshaws denial.  
2. By noting his lightness and inconstancy, as he saith, standing one while for the justification of all our ministers as here, other while defending those onely that are qualified by Law, &c.] Which exception of his is idle, as hath been before shewed. For whatsoever his answer is, their proofs ought to be general; their separation intended to be proved lawful, yea and necessary, being such.  
Besides master Bradshaw saith no more here( his answer considered as it hath reference to master Iohnsons assumption) but that notwithstanding the name of Priests and Deacons, those that are so styled, yet may and do exercise such a ministry as the Apostle there speaketh of; and the ministry exercised, to wit, by such as do exercise the same, is such a ministry.  
Whereby also may appear the frivolousnes of that he addeth: to wit, that it is untruly affirmed, that their Priests and Deacons do exercise the proper& essential ministry of pastors and teachers. Which to prove he allegeth out of some broad-mouthed writers, that they are most of them idle-bellyd Epicures, senseless 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 do exercise Church-government, which is an essential and proper part of their ministry.  
To which I answer.  
1. Tho' all this were passed over, and no notice taken of Mr. Cans new exceptions, yet were Mr. Bs. answer no way prejudiced thereby, nor proved insufficient to Mr. I●hnsons argument, which alone he was to answer.  
2. To let pass that, as a piece of Mr. Cans rhetoric, that he styleth our form of administering 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 ministry; the dispute of the necessity of such Church-goverment, as these men fancy to themselves; the exception to such Church-goverment denied by Law to the ministers of the Church-assemblies; the gross and palpable falsehood of their assertion, what ever they were, that affirm the most of our ministers to be such as he saith: suppose they were so, what is all this to Mr. Is. argument, that therefore the ministers of the Church-assemblies of England are not the pastors and teachers St. Paul speaketh of, because they are styled Priests and Deacons. For unless he can prove that therefore they are such idle-bellyed Epicures senseless Asses and unable to preach, because they are styled Priests and Deacons, Mr. Is. argument remaineth still of as little force as ever it was; for ought that master Can here saith; that is, in truth, of just none at all.  
But let us see whether Mr. johnson himself have brought stronger matter to confirm the denied axioms, or no. His proposition he thus proveth.  
Fr Ihonson.  
The proposition is manifest.  
1. The Laws of that Church admitteth no other ministry, but that of their prelacy, priesthood and Deaconry, received amongst themselves, or from the papists.  
2 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, suffragans, &c. or in an inferior, as parsons, vicars, stipendarys, chaplains.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. It is not necessary that the ministry of a country or nation should be always such, as the Law establisheth or admitteth. The ministry( at least in some places) may be good though the Law in general should admit and establish such a one as is bad: as on the contrary side, the ministry 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 wisdom& moderation permit a ministry in sundry respects different from that which the laws require: yea& our own governers in fact have permitted the ministry of some, who never received ordination, either from papists or themselves:& he can not be ignorant, but that some by connivency are yet suffered in some points of their ministry to swerve from some observances which the Laws require. The argument therefore will not follow from the quality of the ministry, except he can prove that our ministry is in all our assemblies, in all respects answerable to our Laws.  
Here there is indeed an evident eviction of the weakness of Mr. Is. proof: But what saith Mr. Can to it? he good modest man, that holdeth it no Christian office to render rebuk for rebuk,& holdeth it better a thousand times to sustain even a legion of reproaches, then by returning tho' but one, to give cause of suspicion that evil hath got some part of conquest in him. Yet he can not hold any longer but as a vessel full of new wine, that will burst if it want vent, breaketh out in plain terms and telleth us; that no man could ever pass 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, Mr. Can, is( if you know what you are or should be about, to wit, the defence of Mr. Iohnsons arguments,& the discovery of the invalidity of the answers thereunto,) whether this be a sound argument: The Law admits no ministry, but such and such. Ergo the ministry of all the Church-assemblys in England, is such as the Law onely admits. Which is plainly shewed to be unsound, because the ministry is not necessary always such as the Laws of a State onely admit. That which in due course of reason doth necessary evince the weakness of master Iohnsons consequence, as master Can himself, if he understand reason, can not deny. The question therefore is, what may be in a land, notwithstanding the Laws of the Land. And whatsoever master 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 master Bradshaw speaketh of were by the Prelates ever permitted: yea he is persuaded that he could never prove it.  
And I believe master Bradshaw had good ground for that he said, and was able to make good proof of it. Nor do I doubt but instance might easily be given therein, if need were. But master Bradshaws credite is, I suppose as good as master Cans:& upon their two credits, or the assertion of the one, and the conterpersuasion of the other, let the business itself rest. Yet let me add that master Can himself herein confesseth: It may be that some one or two might secretly pas in such sort; unknown: I suppose, he meaneth, to the Prelates; which is sufficient to cut the sinews of master Iohnsons argument, which he undertaketh here to defend; and to prove the reason from the ministry by the Law onely admitted, to the ministry exercised and executed, not to be generally sound.  
3. For suppose, saith he, a Prelate should for love or money permit the ministry, &c. doth it follow therefore that the ministry of that Church is any other, but of their prelacy priesthood or deaconry, as master johnson saith? For what if some have as much permission under the papacy is not their ministry then of prelacy, priesthood& deaconry? indeed so master Bradshaw did infer, but with what wit 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 think, could pas him in absurdnes here, it hath a For fixed before it) that master Bradshaw is the absurdest man that ever was. But I suppose, any indifferent Reader, and advised compater of both their writings together, will soon see and say, that master Can is one of the triflingest fellows, that ever put pen to paper. For uppose a Prelate should permit the ministry of some, that never received ordination from either Papists or themselves( for that is it, that master Cans, &c. should have expressed) doth it not necessary hence follow, that the ministry of such may be other then that which the Law onely admitteth, and consequently the ministry of neither Prelates, Priests nor Deacons; it being presumed that the Law admitteth no other ministry, than the ministry of such? yea for permission under the papacy( though master Bradshaw speaketh nothing of any permission under them, nor doth infer ought at all thence, much less ought without wit or truth, which is therefore master Cans own gross& manifest untruth) but suppose under the papacy some should have permission to exercise a ministry not received from them, would it not thence follow, that the ministry of such were other then their Law alloweth, and not necessary the ministry of either Prelates, Priests or Deacons? But this man still forgetteth himself where he is, and indeed put out of the way a little by his brother Iohnsons Sophistry, not careful to keep himself to the terms of the question,& to put in as he should have done, in his former argument, the ministry of the Church assemblies of England, supposeth, that master Bradshaw should reason on this manner.  
Some are or have been permitted to exercise their ministry, who never received it from the Prelates. Therefore the ministry of the Church of England, consisteth not of Prelates, Priests and Deacons. Which being not master Bradshaws argument, but the fruit of his own idle brain, if there be any such gross absurdity in it, as he saith, he may well take it to himself.  
4. He tells us, a man may be an unlawful minister, though he never received the Bishops ordination, as when he runs of his own head, and not elected, called and ordained by the free& common comsent of a true Church; and such were those as master Bradshaw speaketh of if he speak truth.  
To let pass his unchristian censure of such as he professeth himself altogether ignorant of, and cannot therefore know either by whom or in what manner they were elected, called and ordained, and yet passeth such a peremptory sentence upon them, therein verifying the common proverb, that a fools boult is soon shot. Whether they were lawful ministers or no, the instance granted is sufficient to prove( if he that taxeth others for want of wit, had wit enough to conceive it) that the ministry 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 do swerve from some observances, yet their calling is not therefore more true and lawful: as monks and Friers, though they keep 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 himself, would ever frame any such argument? or doth master Bradshaw make any such inference? onely he thence infereth, that a ministry may be other then the Law of a place, where it is exercised, alloweth. And master Can therefore may keep such divels Officers, as he terms them, to himself and his, if he please.  
W. 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 appears by our orders in latin.) therefore the Law doth not intend any true or proper Priesthood, but onely borroweth the name to express an office of an other kind.  
This is that indeed, which master jackson before mentioned would not believe, until he was shewed some letters of orders, whereby the same evidently appeared.  
Now to this master Can replieth, that tho' our Law intend not such a proper Priesthood, as was in the jewish Church, nor as is in all respects now under the Romish beast, yet this helps nothing their cause, seing it establisheth such a ministry, as by their own confession is directly against the word of God.  
You see, grant this man the main conclusion in controversy, and he needs no more, he will carry all hand smooth afore him. Whether this help our cause or no, is not material for the present. Sure it taketh of the edge of Mr. Iohnsons argument: and yet I think that helpeth us not a little, that disableth any dart thrown against us by so great a goliath as Mr. johnson was among them generally esteemed, before the schism broken out between master As.& 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 term itself, therefore denying our ministry to the ministry of Pastors& Teachers spoken of by Saint Paul, because it is a ministry 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, chaplains, &c. is not to have a divers kind of Priesthood or Deaconry, or ministry( as he foolishly conceiteth:) Only variety of titles is given to the same kind of ministry, in divers persons, in respect onely of a divers kind of maintenance or dependence. For parsons are such as have all tithes in kind; Vicars such, as have onely the smaller tithes, the other being impropriated by the magistrate for other purposes: Stipendarys are such as are maintained by the voluntary contribution of their Churches, or by some such like means: chaplains are such as depend upon great men. The ministry 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 master Can replieth 1. that he hath proved from the writings( of I know not whom, and whom neither I nor master Bradshaw have here any thing to do with) that these names and offices came wholly from the devil and Antichrist: and that master 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 master Can of his counsel; vizt. have manifested, that his brethren have notoriously slandered our ministry, and so have taken quiter away their Reasons.] So it seems in master Cans judgement, that Mr. Iohnsons arguments, without better reasons, that have ben brought by other of our own, 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. master Bradshaw had here to do onely with him; and because he hath so well warded all the blows that he reacheth at us; master Can would have him to let him alone, whom he had undertaken to deal with, and set himself against some other.  
2. He saith, his conclusion is pitiful, in regard of those words, if they duly execute the same. Not without just cause inserted by master Bradshaw, because a man may have the office of a pastor, and not execute it duly, and so make his ministry the more questionable.] But I may well say, he is a pitiful replier, that leaveth the argument he undertaketh to maintain, to sink or swim, as it will itself, running out the whilst into wild vagarys, that nothing concern it.  
And hitherto of master Bradshaws answer to master Iohnsons proposition of his second prosyllogisme, with his proofs of it: in reply whereunto Mr. Can hath canted much in his schismatical 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 master johnson backed with 7. several arguments; that among such variety some one at least may make all sure.] The first of them is this.  
Fr. johnson.  
The pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. have their 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.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. The proposition is not true, except he understand by offices, callings& administration, the substantial or essential parts thereof. Otherwise those very pastors and teachers there spoken of, may have divers accessary parts of their offices, callings and administration not ordained by Christ in the New Testament.  
Neither is it true, if by maintenance he mean any special kind of maintenance. It is to be granted in general; that ministers are to have sufficient maintenance, and the texts alleged for that, prove no more; and therefore that which they prove is nothing to the purpose. As little 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 master Can having acknowledged his own ignorance, that he knows not what those accessary part are, which when he is better informed of, we shall hear more of his mind: after his wonted manner, when he hath nothing to say, runs away to another matter, and telleth us, that our ministry wants the substantial and essential parts of these offices, and what he would have master Bradshaw have done here, but doth not. Which what is it, all of it, to master Iohnsons proposition, that saith nothing of our ministry at all,( which his assumption is to speak of) but of the ministry of pastors& teachers in general, as they have their callings, offices, administrations, and means of maintenance, ordained by Christ in his testament? unless any man in his right wits, master Can onely excepted, will deem this a good argement: The ministers of the Church of England want the very essential parts of the offices of pastors and teachers, as some of themselves do not barely say, but soundly prove too( if you will take it on master Cans word) and master Bradshaw hath nothing in this book 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.  
W. Bradshaw  
2. Concerning the Assumption. 1. whether prelates have their office, calling, &c. ordained by Christ, is besides the present question. Except master johnson can prove that they are ordinary ministers of our Church-assemblies; which I am sure he can not.  
To this master Can replies, that whether they be ordinary or extraordinary ministers, it is not material, and therefore the distinction is idle and impertinent. Hnd so havinh spent some of his wonted railing rhetoric 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 master johnson laying his action against the ministers of our Church-assemblies, and the issue between him and master Bradshaw being joined thereupon, tho' he could make that he saith good against the prelates, unless he be able to prove them ministers of our Church-assemblies, he speaketh nothing that toucheth those, against whom his plea is.  
W. Bradshaw  
2. So many of our ministers( who in the books of ordination are called Priests and Deacons) as in all points concerning the substance of their ministry, are qualified 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 accidental defects, or superflaitys in or about them all; yet such as do not, or can not be proved to destroy the natute and substance of any of them.  
To this is nothing by Mr. 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 their pontifical; their choice of their people, who stand themselves under Anti-Christ, and unseperated from the world, and are no true visible Churches of Christ; their ministration by their own and other popish canons, acts, injunctions and book of Common prayer; their maintenance by Tithes, Lordships, &c. were never ordained by Christ for his ministry, but derived from Antichrist, and his apostasy; as hath been proved by us in divers treatises.  
W. Bradshaw  
3. All that is brought to prove the assumption is false, and as much if not, more curtal, then the assumption itself. For  
1. He can never prove, that either the practise of all our ministers, is in all things according to their constitution, or their constitution according to their practise, on either of them answerable to the strict terms of the Law in all points.  
2. He can never prove, that either in their constitution or their practise, or by the Law, they are in proper speech, either Priests or Deacons; onely he presumes them to be such, because through some liberty of speech used in the Laws, they are termed such.  
3. Tho' it should be granted, that our people stand under some kind of observancies and offices, which in their own nature, and first original, are in some kind 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 stain, the ministry of Christ. But howsoever he therein shamefully begs the question in the naked affirming, without any proof, that all in this kingdom are under Antichrist.  
4. Tho' for avoiding 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 main, principal and essential parts thereof performed according to the canons and book aforesaid, are ordained by Christ; yea practised by Mr. johnson himself. Neither hath he proved or ever can prove, that that part of our ministration by our Canons and book aforesaid, which Christ hath not ordained,( if any such be) is of that nature and quality, that it necessary destroyeth or maketh a nullity of the other parts of their ministry, 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 other particular or special kind of maintenance: It is the will of Christ, that the ministers of the gospel should live of the gospel, i.e. should be maintained for their ministry sake by them, to whom they preach the gospel. 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 proof of these main points, he referreth us to the general titles of certain treatises formerly published, he might as well sand us( as they say) to seek a needle in a bottle of hay. And why doth he not in all other points of this book, as well as in this, sand us to the said treatises? Seeing he saith nothing throughout this in effect, that he hath not already said in some one or other of his former books.  
To all this passing by 2. sections of it wholly untouched( whereas yet it concerned him to have replied unto them, as well as to the rest) master Can saith onely this:  
1. That master Bradshaw could never prove, when he was alive that either the practise of all the priests in the Church of Rome, was in all things answerable to their constitution, or their constitution according to their practise, or either of them answerable to the strict terms of the Law. And there upon infereth that by master Bradshaws grounds a man could not conclude any th ng generally against the unlawfulness of their ministry.  
But by master Cans good leave, nothing less followeth from ought that master Bradshaw here saith: but this rather; that he that will prove a necessity of separation from all Church-assemblies in the papacy, or any part of it, must use better arguments against them, then master johnson hath used against ours; and such as are not justly liable to such exception, as this is.  
2, That master Bradshaw through ignorance or deceit speaketh besides the present question For master johnson to prove them fals Ministers, mentioneth their calling and entrance according to their Pontificalls. Now he saith nothing to this, but talks of their practise.  
What the present question is, it may seem, master Can himself scarce well knew, or would not know; he speaketh so oft indeed besides it. But most false it is, that he saith, that master Bradshaw speaketh of their practise, but nothing of their entrance; which either must come within compass of one of the 2. members of master Iohnsons division, to wit, constitution, or else maketh nothing to the purpose of that master johnson speaketh of, when he telleth us, that his assumption appeareth by their constitution and practise: of both which master Bradshaw expressly speaketh again and again. 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 seek, as he well saith, a needle in a bottle of hay; and they may as easily be denied by us, as by him they are avowed. And master Cans merry passage therefore that ensueth, concerning a bastard, that he saith would make a man laugh, and may well indeed, to see master Cans folly, might very well have been spared by him, unless he had a mind as some men at sometimes have, to make himself a laughing-stock.  
3. He denieth that those administrations, which are performed by their popish canons, and book of common prayer, are the main, principal and essential administrations, which Christ hath ordained.  
Which is no denial at all of that which master Bradshaw hath avowed; for his words are, that the main and essential parts of our ministry, performed according to the canons and book 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 shoots at random still as his usual manner is.  
Howbeit now, that you may see he meaneth to play the part of a replier, he will proof what he saith, and the rather, because master johnson hath failed in his proofs, 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 administered.  
Lastly. They command an idolatrous worship and a devilish discipline.  
You see what round work here is. What would you have more? yea hear master Cans Oracles; a downright man: which if you please, you may take upon his word: for he proveth them as well as master johnson: and if you will but give him his own 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 do well to reserve it to make himself merry, when he is in some such melancholy fit; as it may seem 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 misshapen birth, that he wished butted in its mothers womb, or kept in some dark hole, where it might never see light. Which he might very well have wished to have befalln his own book, unless the matter of it had been more lovely, then hitherto it hath appeared.  
Thus are we come at length to an end of master Iohnsons first argument, which being grown to this issue: That master Bradshaw in answering thereunto hath averred, that the main, principal and essential parts of our ministry are such as were ordained by Christ, nor are there any such accessarys thereunto annexed, as make as nullity thereof: there is nothing hereunto replied, as ought to be, but bare words without proof.  
pass we to the 2. Argument by master johnson thus conceived.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. is the ordinary and perpetual ministry 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 perpetual ministry given by Christ to his Church; but such as the Princes of the earth may and ought to abolish out of their dominions. Rev. 17.16. 1. Tim. 2.2.. Rom. 13.4. with 1. King. 23.5. Deut. 12.2. Psalm 72.1.  
Therefore the priesthood, prelacy and deaconry of the Church of England is not the ministry of pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11.  
W. Bradshaw  
I deny the assumption. Understanding by prelacy, priesthood& deaconry, the ordinary ministry of our Church assemblies, against which he propoundeth himself to dispute: And answer, that it is the ordinary and perpetual ministry given by Christ to his Church, and such as the Princes of the earth are bound by Gods Laws to maintain and protect by their authority; and if there be any corruptions in and about the same, which they ought to abolish, that yet they are accidental and personal; and not so essential, as that they do destroy the ministry.  
Upon the assumption thus by master Bradshaw denied, if it be conceived according to the question propounded, hear we now how substantially master Can replieth.  
1. He telleth M. Bradshaw if it be so, that Princes are bound to maintain our ministry, then hath he shamefully from time to time mocked and abused them, in craving so earnestly to have the same quiter rooted out and abolished, and the right established in the room of it.  
True indeed, master Bradshaw hath shamefully abused and mocked the Magistrate, if ever he so did. But mean while master Can shamefully abuseth master Bradshaw,& mocketh his Reader, in averring that master Bradshaw ever so did: which neither he doth prove, nor will ever be able to do.  
2. He saith, that dumb dogs, cater pillars and idle bellys had never a better proctor then this man, to plead for their unlawful standing: for he saith, the magistrate is bound to defend their ministry.] When master Bradshaw plainly distinguisheth between the ministry itself, and the personal abuses of it. Neither such abusers of the ministry, nor their abuses of it doth he plead for; which he granteth the Magistrate stands bound to abandon and abolish; but to maintain that ministry that by them is so abused.  
For as for what he prateth so oft of his not making distinction of ministers& ministers among us: their proofs must be general; as the separation, they should infer, is such.] And for other his lavish language of master Bradshaws conscience, as if he cared not how he let it out here at large; I say no more, but wish master Can as tender a conscience, as master Bradshaw had, and himself as careful to tie it short. It had in part saved his credite, and spared others some labour, had he kept it in a little better.  
W. Bradshaw  
The places of Scripture, annexed to the Assumption for the proof thereof, are all abused and profaned. For not one of them doth any way so much as colourably prove either of the clauses in the assumption: but onely they prove in general, that the idolatry, and idolatrous ministry of Antichrist is to be abolished. So that, the man in his simplicity takes it as granted; that our ministry is such an idolatrous ministry; which is the main matter in controversy, and in effect, the general question of this whole book.  
So master Bradshaw. And indeed so gros and palpable is master Iohnsons dealing with Scripture here( a thing too usual with those of that side) that at the conference with master jackson before mentioned, he and some other of his company( it being evidently evinced) at first, would fain have made it the fault of the Printer, that had misplaced the proofs, and annexed them to the wrong part of the premises: but when they saw that they fitted as ill, or wors rather, with the proposition, then with the assumption, they were at their wits end, and had nothing to say in defence of this foul abuse.  
But there is no cause so desperate, but master Can dare undertake it. Yea by master Bradshaws own grants he will make it appear, that these Scriptures do prove master Iohnsons assumption, and are not therefore abused and profaned by him. For master Bradshaw confesseth, that the idola●rous ministry of Antichrist is to be abolished. And ours, said master Can, is such.] But I demand of master Can; whether it be so or no, do these places prove it so to be? Suppose a man should reason on this wise.  
A Christian man should shun the society of such as be haughty, high-minded, selfconceited, boasters, contemners of authority, makers of schism and division in the Church of God by separating and withdrawing themselves to perdition.  
But such are Mr. Can& his company; as appears 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 Mr. Can cry out of intolerable abuse therein offered, not to them onely but to Gods word also? Yea whether the things charged upon them were true or false, yet were it indeed a foul profanation of Scriptures, to produce it for the proof of that which it speaketh not,& so to wring that out of it, which in no wise it will yield. And yet just such, or rather wors then such, is the practise of master johnson in this place, as by those instances of places produced by him may appear.  
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 perpetual ministry 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 authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1. Tim. 2 2, Therefore the prelacy, priesthood and deaconry of the Church of England, &c. Or, for fear of turning the Readers stomach with too much of such unsavoury matter, to pass by all the rest and take the last onely.  
Give the judgement to the King, O Lord; and they righteousness to the Kings son. 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 ourselves will? A man may indeed by this course of dealing condemn 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 general 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 heed well these mens quotations; which they heap up often for a flourish, to delude silly souls with, and make them believe, that they hold nothing, nor require nothing, but what the word of God itself doth; and not to take the places quoted by them upon trust; but turn to them themselves, and examine the fittnes and forciblenes of them to confirm that that they are produced for.  
For, as for this mans vain idle bible babble here following, that our entrance is popish, our service Antichristian& idolatrous, the manner of performance of it unlawful, &c. And that all this, many non-conformists of greater note& zeal then ever master 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 shameful begging of the main matter, and a turning of us over to others for the proof of that, that he is not able himself to make good? Besides, that it is all nothing to the insufficiency of master Iohnsons argument, nor to the justification of this gros abusing charged on him, of the Scriptures alleged by him; which no more prove us to be papists, then those other do them to be schismatics; and which yet unless they do, they say nothing for master 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 master 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 zeal then himself, I will not say master Can hath well merited his own censure, by opposing master Bradshaw especially in such manner as he doth; but I dare be bold to say, that master Can and his associates may by his own ground and grant be justly concluded to be deeply tainted with excess of pride and arrogancy, in not opposing onely, but condemning also as false and Antichristian ministers, so many famous worthies, as no age since the Apostles time, hath in likely hood, afforded their equals; and so many godly martyrs, as have for gods cause constantly and cheerfully embraced fire and faggot; men that may justly be presumed to be and have ben, of greater note and zeal, than either master Can himself, or any of his schism. Or, if, to waive the imputation, they will bee so confident, or impudent rather, as to avow themselves of greater note& zeal than any, or many, of the best of those, whom they thus condemn,( unless of greater ill note and bitter zeal they shall mean) 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 extreme self conceit, the worst sort of pride that may be. Let not therefore either master Can himself, or his complices hereafter blame us, if we take them for a company of exceeding proud arrogant persons, and accordingly speak of them, when occasion requireth; master Can their pastor having given us good ground here so to speak,& so to think.  
But pass we to master Iohnsons third Argument.  
Fr. johnson.  
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 show the contrary by the Scriptures.  
Therefore they are not the pastors& teachers ordained by Ghrist in his new Testament.  
W. Brads●aw.  
What a shameless man is this to affirm, That our ministry neither did nor could stand with the offices of the Apostles, &c. and for proof thereof bid us, if we deny it, show the contrary by Scriptures? Doth not the burden of proving, by the very Law of common reason lye upon the accuser? If I should in like manner reproach his ministry, and say, that it is a ministry that standeth upon forcery witchcraft and conjuration, and for proof thereof, bid him, if he deny it, show the contrary by Scripture, where I not worthy at least to be laughed out of the schools? This is a sufficient justification of our ministry, that such malicious adversarys thereof, who would seem so expert in the Scriptures, are no better able by Scripture to prove their unchristian accusation.  
But this fond foppery of master johnson, master Can taketh notice of; tho' it concerned him so to have done; the rather, for that he exacteth the same of master Bradshaw himself, and taxeth him for not doing that in his book, tho' not belonging to his part, that master johnson here requireth pag. 217, But let us see master Iohnsons proofs of his Assumption.  
Fr. johnson.  
1. Light hath no fellowship with darkness; nor Christ with Antichrist.  
W. Bradshaw  
It is true, that light hath no fellowship with darkness, nor Christ with Antichrist. Yet there is no light in men in this life, but it is mingled with some darkness; and the best Christians that are, or ever have ben since the Apostles times, may be infected with some points of antichristianism. 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 darkness, and their Christianity with more antichristianism, then can be found in our ministry.  
Fr. johnson.  
2. Suppose the Apostles were alive in their 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 their Canons; and whether they should be suffered to preach, &c. without subscribing and comforming. their Canons urge all upon pain of excommunication ipso facto.  
W. 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 profess the Church-assemblies in England to be true Churches, and their ministry in general to be a lawful ministry, and their worship for substance to be a true worship, whether master Iohns●n and his Cnurch would suffer them to be so much as private members of their society, much more to preach, &c.  
2. Though our Bish●ps should be herein so impious, as to advance in such a manner, their own authority and ordinances above the Apostles: yet what is that to prove that the priesthood& deaconry of the ministers of our Church-assemblies,( who many of them in these points are mere patients, and esteem of these things as burdens) cannot stand with the offices of Apostles, &c. doth master johnson think that none of our ministers in England, would suffer the Apostles to preach in their cures, without wearing a Surplice, if they might have their own wills? or should this any whit derogate from their ministry, that the Bishops therein would not suffer them to have their will?  
3. It is besides the present question, and a needless thing to spend time in justifying the Canons herein. If the Bishops therein have gone too far, it may seem to be the fault of the persons rather than of the prelacy itself:& therefore to make and urge such Canons and traditions as are aforesaid, doth not prove, but that for all that the prelacy in and of itself, 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 do not( but by accident onely) one overthrow and oppugn the other.  
Now to all this master Can returneth us never a wise word, nay giveth us neither good nor bad, save to the very last alone: that he cannot think, that master Bradshaw speaketh in earnest; That the prelacy in and of itself 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 mind. And this he flourishes a little over with a story of Lycurgus, reported in cutting down a vine to have killed his own son, and cut his own shins: mean 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 avoid or ward of that main exception; that all here spoken of the prelacy helps no whit to prove that which is principally to be proved, 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 employed in the ministry of the word, Sacraments and Church government, so as they may not with their ecclesiastical functions receive 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 their own constitution are set in the Church, and employed in the ministry, so as they may also receive civill offices and callings, as to be justices of peace, &c.  
Therefore they are not true pastors and teachers.  
W. Bradshaw  
There are 4. terms in this syllogism: the gross sophistry whereof may appear 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 blind, 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 kind of authority 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 answer 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 authority. And by the same Law that true pastors and teachers may not take civill authority 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 authority, but such onely as are called specially thereunto by the favour and grace of the civill magistrate; not as they are prelates, priests or deacons, or by virtue of those functions; but in respect of other qualifications. Neither are they forced by any Law to adjoin any such authority to their ministry, but permitted onely. But what if by the Laws of men ministers might be murtheres, adulteres, thieves, &c. should their Laws change their nature of their ministry? what? of their ministry, that deny unto themselves that licence? would it not rather the more justify their ministry, when in conscience of Gods Law they shall forbear that, which flesh and blood, and human Laws would permit unto them?  
3. Suppose not onely, that it is unlawful 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 virtue of their ministry; will it thence follow, that for this cause, they are not true pastors and teachers? may not true pastors and teachers, in their weakness, ignorance and infirmity,( the Laws of the State requiring the same,) admit of some kind of office or authority forbidden them; but they must needs thereupon cease to be true pastors and teachers? doth the admitting of every unlawful thing change the nature of the ministry,& make it either no ministry, or a ministry of an other kind?  
To all this master Can, who saith that master Bradshaw answers nothing, but with ifs, and ands, and I says, replieth nothing at all pertinent to the main matter in hand, or to the justification of master Iohnsons argument but like the egyptian dogs, as they run along by the banks of Nilus, taking here a snatch and there a snatch, as his own fancy serveth, or the toy taketh him in the head, as things least pertinent letteth all that pass, wherein the weight of the point lieth; onely taketh up master Bradshaw after his wonted arrogant strain,& falling foul on the man, lets the matter shift for itself.  
1. He chargeth him with corrupt shifts, used by him to justify civill offices in ecclesiastical persons; whereas other non-conformists affirm the thing to be utterly unlawful. Which is nothing indeed but a gross untruth, and more then a single one. For neither doth master 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 authority, that permitteth our ministers to be civill magistrates, doth permit them to be drunkards, &c. And to slander therein the state.  
A gros untruth, as plain and evident, yer more palpable then the former. For master 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 kind of authority( 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 soon see in the context before related) to be drunkards, &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 in matter of execution thereof default may be: whereas it is not so with the State, where master Can it seems, liveth. For master Can may be,& master johnson 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. master Can therefore, either knoweth, not what he opposeth, which is the note of a brainsick idiot, 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 lie upon the writings of his brethren, in saying, that by the same Law, that their min●sters may take upon them civil magistracy, any true pastors may take upon them the same authority.] To omit the habituated broadenes of this foul-mouthed fellowes language, in saying, he puts the lie upon them, as if every one that manifesteth his opinion in any point to be contrary to the judgement of some other, must needs in so doing put the lie upon him, from whom he so manifesteth his dissent. To let this pass, I say, had this blind buzzard a right understood, as he might easily have done,( if he had either his eyes in his head, or so much wit in his brain) either by looking back to the Assumption of master Iohnsons syllogism, as master Bradshaw had laid it open; The min●sters of England may( to wit by mans Law) tak● upon them civill offices: or forward to the very next ensuing words; And by the same Law that true pastors and teachers may not take upon th●m civill authority, our ministers may not take the s●me upon them: He might soon have seen that master Bradshaw saith nothing at all contrary unto that which they say, whom he saith that he giveth the lie unto. And I may well therefore retort and return his own words here upon him; what a shameless man is this to affirm such untruths? yea and more then that, to charge another with shamelessness in this kind there, where he scarce speaks a true word himself, but lieth notoriously and palpably, as the very book itself told him, that he had then before his eyes; in fathering those untruths that he speaketh of, upon him whom he so censureth?  
4 Having nothing to speak 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 speaks, or any other way, it is nothing to the purpose, seeing the thing itself is every way and altogether unlawful.  
To let pass his peremptory sentence, that may not be controlled; and yet, I believe, would make him sweat soundly, ere he could substantially prove it: It 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 master Iohnsons argument; for it sheweth, that neither all our ministers either are, or may be such, as is here pretended:& the exception therefore to lye, were it never so sound, in comparison but against few.  
5. He concludeth all with this, which is all returns to master Bradshaws last exception; When they have proved themselves to be true pastors and teachers, then there will be a fit place to show whether the admitting of a civill office do change the nature of a Church ministry, or no.  
Had any man, think we, ever to do with a more senseless dolt then this is; that regards not what he saith, so he may seem to say somewhat? master johnson whom he undertakes to defend, would prove 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 ministry, yea doth overthrow the very truth and essence of it. Yet this man biddeth his adversarys, first prove their ministers to be true pastors and teachers,& then they will come to dispute that point, which is or should be the main pith and heart of their argument, and being pulled out of it, leaveth it a sorry bark without body. Can we possibly think we, make this man to see his own senselesnes? we will assay it, though it be over-tedious, a little for his own sake, if it may help him to see himself. For as for others, if they have but common sense, not forestalled wholly with extreme prejudice, they will easily apprehended it by what hath ben said. Suppose a man should reason against master Can as Mr. johnson 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 master Can be, by the Laws of the State he liveth under, master Can therefore is no true minister of Christ. If master Can in defence of himself 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 prove himself a true minister of Christ; and then he will dispute the question afterward, whither it do so or no. Would not master Can exclaim on such a one as a very dolt indeed, and one that understood not what belonged, I will not say, to logic, the art of reasoning, but even to reason and common sense itself? which if he might in such case well do, as there is no doubt but he might, he may easily understand, what might be said of himself, for his like-dealing in an argument of the very self same mould.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of Christian pastors and teachers standeth by the word and ordinance of Christ, so as all Churches under heaven are bound to receive and submit thereunto.  
But the prelacy, priesthood and deaconry of the Church of England, standeth onely by the authority and Law of man; so as other Churches elsewhere neither are, nor need to be subject thereunto, which even themselves of all sorts have acknowledged. For which see Whitgifts defence in the preface, the answer 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.  
W. Bradshaw  
I deny the Assumption, the ministry 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 onely by the authority and Law of man. And all other true Churches are, and ought to be subject, to the same kind of ministry, and to no other, that shall in any essential point of ministry differ from ours.  
If any particular persons among us have ben so unadvised as to grant the Assumption, let them answer 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, Dr. 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 administered virtue furthered, 'vice repressed, and the Church kept in quietness 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 and places. The author of the A●●were to the Abstract in the place alleged saith; That it can not be proved, that any set and exact particular form of discipline is recommended to us in the word of God. Now are either of these to affirm; That the ministry of our Church-assemblys standeth onely by the Laws and authority of man? Hath master johnson any shane left in his face, that thus shamefully abuseth the names of learned and reverend men, so directly contrary to their 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 depravation 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, do rely upon the judgement of the Authors following, more then of the former.  
Now to this master Can affordeth nothing that may soundly confirm the thing denied, nor assayeth to clear master 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 proved false, yet were no sufficient proof. Onely saith, that master Bradshaw here casts his brethren of. pag. 224. 225.  
But this is one of master Cans last refuges and forlorn hopes, to tell us that others have soundly proved that before, that neither master johnson hath proved, nor master Can himself can ever make good. It seems the man groweth weary, and is almost tired out with his work, when he is fain to fill up whole pages with such stuff as this is.  
Fr. johnson.  
The offices of pastors and teachers, which Christ hath appointed, are such, as they, which have them, must be members of a true visible church, and bound to one particular congregation for the ministry and government thereof.  
But the offices of Prelates, Priests and Deacons of the Church of England are such, as those that have them, need not be, neither in their State can be, members of a true visible Church, but of a false; neither are bound to one particular congregation for the ministry and government thereof; but the Prelates are over whole Provinces and dioceses; and other inferior priests may have in that State plurality of benefice and ecclesiastical cares, &c. which none can deny.  
Therefore they are not the pastors& teachers, which Christ hath appointed.  
W. Bradshaw  
Tho' some parts of the proposition be disputable; yet because others besides the Separation do hold 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 their estate( they being in all points answerable to the Laws) be members of a false Church. They are all( such excepted, as have special dispensations) bound to one particular congregation: and may not by Law, have more cures then one; but admitting of a second the first is voided. Yea the Prelates themselves, though in regard of their prelatical office, they are Governeurs of whole Provinces and dioceses; yet it is possible for them notwithstanding, to be members in their estate, of a true visible Church, and be bound( as are the Prelates of Scotland) to one particular congregation, for the special ministry and government thereof.  
But what man, except he were half frantic, 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 their own assemblys were established, if by the same Laws their pastors and teachers might he non-residents, or pluralists, or worse, would they think themselves ever the worse for this? would they not rather think themselves the better, that they are not so bad, as by mans Laws they might be?  
Here Mr. Can flatly giveth over replying, leaving Mr. johnson to shift as well as he can for himself; and falleth to moving of many questions, which tho' they were all resolved, yea and resolved as he would have them, would not all help to make Mr. Iohnsons halting argument stand upright.  
1. Whereas master Bradshaw, not so peremptory as master Can where doubt may well be of ought, leaveth the proposition, though questionable for some part of it, in medio; master Can makes pag. 226. a quere, whether the ministry of such Priests, as have no particular place to serve in be unlawful? supposing Mr. 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. Is. cause, which is to prove the ministers of our Church-assemblys, to be no true pastors and teachers; and that our Church-assemblys are generally to be severed from.  
2. Because master 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 moveth thereupon a 2. quere: Whether such as 〈◇〉 not by Law bound to be such, be true pastors or no? Which again whether it 〈◇〉 either said or denied, master Iohnsons cause, and master Cans likewise is ●o● thereby supported; since that it stands them upon, to make good the general. And this is therefore but to trifle and wast ink and paper to no purpose, in regard of that task that these men have undertaken; the matter of the quere being by Mr. Can here most falsely affirmed to be the main point in question. Which yet if it were, it were either master Iohnsons or Mr. Cans part to determine,& so to argue upon it. But an ass, 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 prove Mr. Cans congregation to be( as they may justly be deemed) a company of schismatics; and having thus endeavoured to evince it. Those that have rent themselves off from the Church-assemblys in England, are schismatics. But master Cans congregation at Amsterdam consists of such as have rent themselves off, from the visible Churches of Christ in England, &c. Mr. Can, or some other in defence of his congregation, should answer, 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 move a quere to Mr. Can. What he thinks then of all those that have been sometime members of some Church-assembly in England; as if master Can implyed by his answer, that such indeed were schismatics. Might he not be justly laughed at for his labour? and yet just such, and no other, is Mr. Cans manner of reply here.  
3. Whereas master Bradshaw addeth, that such as were before spoken off, cannot in their estate( they being in all points answerable to the Laws● be members of a fae Church; he moveth a 3. quere; What if they be not in all points answerable to the Law, are they then members of a false Church? Indeed either his words carry such a meaning, or to me they seem nonsense. A most senseless inference.]  
If a man had to deal 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 deal with master Can, to whom every one speaks non-sense, that speaketh not senselessly like himself, let us talk a little with him, though it be somewhat tedious in his own language. If a man then should say; None of those that laugh at master Cans absurditys, can be Asses; because Asinus non est animal risible; his words must needs either carry such a meaning, that all that do not laugh at them, are Asses: or else( to master Cans sense) they seem to speak non-sense. And this s just master Cans inference from master Bradshaws words, and his wise censure past upon them.  
4. Whereas master Bradshaw saith; That all ministers among us, such excepted, as have special 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 master 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 do these special dispensations make the act lawful? such an inference Mr. Bradshaws words have, or else the man talks he knows not what.] Did any man living ever hear a man rave in this manner, unless he were utterly distracted? Sure if Mr. Can knew what he talked, he would never talk in this mad manner. The lawfulness of pluralitys, or the unlawfullnes of them is no point here in question. Howbeit, that which master Can would infer from master 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 schismatic, unless he get him to Amsterdam doth import that getting thither makes his action lawful or else the man talks he knows not what. Or thus; He that saith, a man can not in England, without danger of Law, except he keep himself close, be a Familist, or a separatist; doth thereby import, that a man, if he keep himself close, may Lawfully be either, or else he talks he knows not what. These are just the same for frame and force of consequence with master 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 adjoined is all stuff of the same making. He saith. master Bradshaw taketh it for granted, that their Churches are true; but brings no proof for it. As if master Bradshaw were to prove them true, and not Mr. johnson rather to prove 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 prove himself guiltless, but to answer in his own defence against such evidence as his accusers shall bring against him to prove him guilty.  
And thus you see how worthily master 'gan hath acquitted himself for this sixth Argument: Let us see if he have any better for the seventh.  
Fr. johnson.  
The offices, condition and government of Prelates, Priests and Deacons, are such as do many ways impair the authority, supremacy and dignity of Kings, and all other magistrates, both in civill and ecclesiastical causes. For the Prelates will have their 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 dioceses in the ecclesiastical 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, their Courts and officers handle and determine sundry civill causes and affairs, appertaining to the magistracy. They inflict civill mulcts and punishments; in their forbidden times they give licence to mary: the beneficed Priests do swear canonical obedience to the Prelates. All the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrates jurisdiction in divers things appertaining unto them,& answerable onely or chiefly to the Prelates and their officers.  
Therefore they are not the onely pastors and teachers spoken of Ephes. 4.11.  
W. Brads●aw.  
The Assumption is false: neither do the instances prove the same  
1. The Prelates claim 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. their authority in causes ecclesiastical over Provinces, &c. is either such as the civill magistrate himself may execute, and administer in his own person, if he please; or such as is not for them, as they are magistrates, to execute. The first sort they administer, onely by virtue of the Magistrates own eommission, and therein they can not impair either his dignity or supremacy; much less in the other part of their authority, which belongeth not to the Magistrates themselves to execute, especially when they use it not neither without their 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 tenor from him, and not claimed, as I think, as belonging to their episcopal function, by divine right.  
4. their Courts determine no other civill causes, than the civill Magistrate and his Laws do permit, or if they do, 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 impair the dignity, authority, or supremacy of the civill Magistrate; when herein they do all things in and by the protection of his authority. Much less can other inferior 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 itself, is an act of the Magistrates jurisdiction, and depends onely upon his pleasure: and how can it then any ways impair the same?  
The answer to this Argument master Can thus turns over; that the matter is not much, whether the government, which the Bishops exercise in civill and ecclesiastical cases, do impair the dignity, authority, or supremacy of the civill Magistrate, seeing the same is unlawful and Antichristian; as, saith he, we have before proved. Onely flieth in the Answerers face, taxing him, with notorious boldness, in denying that( though he give good reasons for it, unto which he returneth no● a word) that the non-conformists confidently affirm; and with daubing up of vile things, as being a man, that cares not how he loose the peace of conscience, so he may gain a supposed victory, and that he can have a small comfort in this writings.  
And this is the usual manner of master Cans confutation; the very relation whereof is refutation sufficient, and enough to show any indifferent and intelligent Reader, what a manner of disputant this man is.  
W. Bradshaw  
Hitherto master johnson hath dealt by syllogisms, such as they are: now for a conclusion of this first argument, he shoots at rovers, as followeth.  
Fr. johnson.  
To this end divers other reasons might be alleged. 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? if the other Priests, then what office have the Arch-Bishops and Bishops? seeing God hath ordained no higher ordinary ecclesiastical office; as some of themselves aclowledge. If they say, the Deacons have the Pastors office, the same absurdity followeth, as in the former: besides that the works of the Deacons office are opposed to the work of the ministry, 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 their officers have it among them, and to whom they are adjoined for the work of the ministry, as teachers are to pastors; and what office the rest have; whom 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 their ordinaries, and be silenced and deposed at their pleasures.  
W. Bradshaw  
Here he thinks he hath knit such a Gordian knot, as cannot be untied, 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 do 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, onely make degrees of Pastors: vizt. of Arch-Bishops over Bishops, and their dioceses, of Bishops over Ministers and their Churches, and of ministers over their own congregations. Leaving unto them( notwithstanding the superiority over the other Pastors) that main and substantial 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 dioceses but 26. And yet hold 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 deceived in making provincial and Diocessan Pastors; yet the sorting of unproper Pastors with true, or the subjecting of true Pastors unto other sorts of Pastors, doth not necessary make the true Pastors fal●e; so long as under them they perform the main and substantial dutys of true Pastors; which all the ministers of our Church-assemblys do, or by the Laws ought to do.  
2. If any hold, that the ministers of particular congregations onely are Pastors, then they may, without any absurdity hold, that the Arch-Bishops& Bishops are general commissioners under the King to see that the Pastors do their 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 approved 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 hold them to be so, can not tell what to make of the calling of Arch-Bishops& Bishops.  
2. Though this should be yielded unto him, that all pastors are equal,& that the pastors of particular congregations, are the highest ordinary ecclesiastical 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 ecclesiastical, under the King, over the Pastors and Churches of such and such Provinces and dioceses; which is to give them their principal honour and due.  
For answer to this, master Can tells us, that master Bradshaw in these pages sheweth himself a miserable informer and setler of the conscience: for his counsel is much to this effect. So a man hold something, it is no matter what it be, nor how ungroundedly taken up.  
But by his leave, here is no such matter; nor doth master Bradshaw either avow or imply any such thing: tho' in some cases it is not necessary, that a man bold ought; the matter either not concerning him to know, or his weak brain being not able to apprehended grounds sufficient to build a judgement on either way. And in some points again, men may be of divers mindes; yea it cannot but so be, while they know but in part: the matter controverred being not so clear. But master Bradshaw sheweth onely hereby, the weakness of master Iohnsons suppo●ed indissoluble, dilemma, or his double-horned argument; that whether a man take it by the one horn or the other( as some may be herein of one mind, some of an other; and whether they be of this or that mind, they may put master johnson to prove either) he may easily overturn it. For that no such absurdity, as Mr. johnson would infer, doth ensue necessary, on the averring it of either part.  
But hereupon Mr. Cans answer to Mr. Bradshaws ifs and whats particularly, as he saith.  
1. What if some, saith he, shall say that our Arch-Bishops and Bishops have the Pastors office? answer. Then they shall speak untruly or you yourselves bear false witness against them in affirming that they are not pastors and teachers, neither any true ministers at all in the Church of God.  
Yea but master Can remember yourself, that the question is not, what verdict yourself, or I know not, who will pass in this kind: but whether this granted would infer, 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 master Can, who seemeth better acquainted with loose prattling, then with Scholarlike disputing, may well set himself down, and suspend his sentence, till he be called to tell us his mind, that no man here asketh him in this matter: Or, if he will do that which the person of a replier, which he hath undertaken, exacteth of him; an●were the question indeed by master Bradshaw propounded, whether that will hence follow, that his fellow: I affirms.  
His answers 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 termed, as commissioners and visitors of the ministers of particular congregations, in causes ecclesiastical under the King is contrary to their Law, and directly against their profession a d practise: and the magistrate hath no authority from God to set up such officers: and that to hold 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 do perform the substantial 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 Mr. johnson avoweth, will ensue. Onely I relate them, that it may be seen what they are,& how impertinent to the point in question at present.  
After these answers of his thus given to questions not asked; he returneth to the wonted flowers of his railing rhetoric, terming all that master Bradshaw hath here spoken, base stuff, sillie and childish words, worthy to be laughed at, having neither rhyme nor good reason: in his peremptory manner again censureth Mr. Bradshaw for one that sinned herein fearfully against his knowledge and conscience: and demandeth, is not here wit to dispute with ifs and thoes?  
It is true indeed, a man that intends not to distinguish things discrepant, but to confounded and jumble altogether, and to patch together things that have no dependence 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 dependence 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 master Can therefore hath framed us a new logic of his own, we shall learn, it may be, if we like it at least, to amend this fault. mean while let him fasten the forng of his censure herein upon his brother johnson in the first place, who disputes all with ifs, before he turn it upon master Bradshaw who doth but follow him therein.  
W. Bradshaw  
4. Concerning the teachers office( not to contend needlessly 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 onely 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 yielded 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 their offices in every congregation, some may enjoy one and some an other. For if the Churches of their 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, retain a pastor without a teacher; or a teacher without a pastor? can he prove by any colour out of Gods word that one cannot be called unto, and execute the office of a pastor, until he have a teacher to assist him? or that he cannot execute the office of a Doctor, except he do it as an actual assistant of some pastor? if not, then is this a most frivolous demand; when he asks, to whom our teachers are adjoined, for the work of their ministry: neither do the places he quoteth( Eph. 4.11. Rom. 12.7.) prove any such matter.  
To this is nothing replied, but that master Bradshaw telleth us that some of the●re pri●sts are pastors, and some teachers; but master Can hath proved the contrary; and therefore both now and hereafter doth purpose to let his idle repetitions pass. And is not this a Scholarlike kind of confuting.  
Onely 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: unless you determine whether dumb ministers be pastors or teachers, you cannot answer master Iohnsons argument, that meddles not with them. Yea add I might, that it nothing availeth them, in the main 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 general separarion even from such congregations, where none such are; but men able,& conscionable in using their abilitys for the benefit of their people?  
W. 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 their 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 their 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 needs 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 himself, out of our book of ordination hath in effect published it) to read the Scriptures, and to pray in the Church, to catechize the younger sort, to baptize and to preach, if the Bishop shall think him fitt? what is it to be a Priest or Presbyter in our Law? hath not himself also taught us? namely, to have authority to preach the word, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where he shall be appointed? what obedience do they promise to the Prelates in the intent of the Law, but onely in things that they shall judge honest and lawful, and not repugnant to the word of God? what is it to be silenced and deposed, but to forbear to minister publicly upon the Magistrates pleasure: for the Bishops pleasure, so far forth as they proceed according to the Laws is the Magistrates pleasure. Otherwise it is but a personal fault. And wherein, I marvei● do any of these acts so oppugn the office of a teacher, that 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?  
master 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 ministry by an unlawful and popish vocation, and shall execute afterwards the same in an idolatrous manner; if he also in this do obey them, he must needs thereupon become no true minister: and such is their cause by their own confession. And therefore the question, as he propoundeth it, is deceitful,& impertinent.  
Nay rather, your whole rabblement here is idle and impertinent. For what is all this to that, that master johnson propoundeth, of being Deacons first, and then Priests? to be a Deacon with us, being as master johnson acknowledgeth, to read the Scriptures, and to pray in the Church, to catechize th● younger sort, to baptize and to preach, if the Bishop shall think him fit. For, as for that which he telleth us, of our own confession; Neither is master Bradshaw nor any other, bound to admit ought avowed by others, be they non-conformists, or w●at they will; more then master Can or master johnson to admit, what master Smith and his abetters say of their triformed presbytery; albeit they be Separatists as well as themselves.  
2. To these words of master Bradshaw,( wherein master Can tells us that he excuseth the Priests, which obey the Bishops) what obedience do they promise to Prelates, but onely in things that they shall judge honest and lawful, 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 terms of dispute) what corruptions so abominable, but may get countenance? under such pretence any heretic may maintain the grossest errors, which he holds and practiseth.  
A man may truly say here, in master Cans own words, is this wit or sense either, in arguing with such an if as this is? For how doth, yea how can Mr. Can with all the wit he hath,( which I confess is not over much) make good this inference? One would think, that such a gross and abominable imputation, so peremptorily charged, should have been strongly backed, and clearly made good, whereas here is never a title, that may help to give any colour at all unto it; much less to show the necessity of any such inference. And indeed, who is so senseless or voided of ordinary apprehension, that will take this for a sound consequence; master Bradshaw saith, that the ministers of the Churches in England promise not obedience to the Prelates but in things onely that they shall judge honest and lawful, and not contrary to Gods word. Ergo any Arrian, or Familist, or Papist, may under the like pretence maintain, that Christ is not God, or took not flesh of the Virgin Mary, or is made of a piece of bread, &c.  
His office was to have disproved that which master Bradshaw said,& not to foam out his own filth and folly in such frothy and unsavoury stuff as this is.  
And here he falleth again, as his wont is, into an invective against master Bradshaw as justifying these practices in this work of his▪ that elsewhere he condemns, of which before hath been spoken, and which till master Can shall by sound proof make good, he is not therefore the more guilty of, then the man in the moon, but master Can standeth justly charged with a calumny, worthily deemed most unjust.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whereas some allege, that the people were to hear the Scribes and pharisees sitting in Moses chair. 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 ministry, such as theirs is proved to be. Further to be a pharisee, was not to have a new kind of ministry, but to be of a special sect among the jews that pretended more strict observances of the Law, and might be of any tribe. Lastly though they were corrupt yet did they hold, that every true minister must be from heaven:& this have the forward preachers acknowledged as T. C. pag. 83.  
W. Bradshaw  
Here absurdly and childishly he goes about to answer such an objection, as no body ever made, against any thing contained in the former Argument. This argument onely in general is used to show, that some corruptions in ministers and Churches, are not of that nature, that man should therefo e separate from all spiritual communion with them. And where he saith, that this is nothing for any false ministry never ordained of the Lord, such as ours is proved to be: No man ever brought it to prove any such matter; but onely to prove, that such corruptions as are in our ministry, ought no more to hinder communion with our ministers, then the corruption in the ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees, did hinder the communion with their ministry: and that the corruptions in our ministry do no more argue our ministers to be false ministers, then their corruptions did argue them to be false ministers. Neither hath he brought any argument, to prove 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 their names, in that they are called Priests and Deacons. So that if the Scribes and Pharisees were true ministers, notwithstanding their 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 their ministry to be a true ministry, notwithstanding their names of Scribes and Pharisees, with other vile and gross 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 mouths of men, even of the Bishops themselves they are not so called; except sometimes by metaphoricall allusions to the levitical Priesthood: but they are usually so called onely by profane Atheists, or ignorant people, with whom in this point the Separation goeth hand in hand.  
2. To be a Pharisee, was not onely( as he minceth the matter) to be of a special Sect amongst the Jews, that pretended more strict observances of the Law then others; but also( which as it is to be feared, with a fraudulent mind he concealeth) to join many human Traditions, and will worships to the worship& service of God;( whereby they are said, by Christ himself, in vain 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 own laws. And in like manner we affirm, that to be a Priest and Deacon in the intent of the Laws( whatsoever the words may ring to the contrary in some mens ears) is, at the worst, to be such a kind of pastor and teacher, as is content over& besides those dutys of the ministry, which Christ requires of them, to yield conformity also to human 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 their sin be so repugnant to the ministry of Christ, as that of the Scribes and Pharisees( which they are forced to aclowledge to be a true ministry) in that they were the urgers of traditions; whereas our ministers( for the most part) onely yield unto them, either in obedience and love, or fear, 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 hold that every ministry must be from heaven, and not of men; it deserveth rather to be laughed at, then answered. For may not, yea do not the falsest ministers that are, or ever have been, hold so much, at least in such a sense and meaning, as the Pharisees might hold it? and can he name any amongst us, that holds not as much?  
As Mr. Can ended his last discourse with a loud lye; so he beginneth the next with the like. here master Bradshaw, saith he, bestirs himself to prove their ministery good by the Scribes and Pharisees. Whereas Mr. Bradshaw in plain terms affirmeth, that this argument from the Scribes and Pharisees, is used onely to show, that some corruptions in ministers or Churches, are not of that nature, that men should therefore separate from all spiritual communion with them;& that none of ours ever alleged it to such purpose, as master johnson pretendeth.  
To little purpose therefore is all that ensueth, save that he serveth in master Iohnsons more then twice sudden coleworts again. For first, howsoever, saith he, they had new names, and in many things were very corrupt, yet they sate in Moses chair, i.e. came rightly and Lawfully to the levitical and Priestly offices, which they executed in the Church of God, but their ministers, as we have shewed it under their own hands, do want this true calling▪ and therefore the comparison holds not.  
1. If Mr. johnson be pleased to make such objections as none of us ever made; or Mr. Can such comparisons as we never dreamed of, are we bound to make good either Mr. Iohnsons fictions, or master Cans fancies?  
2. Can he show this that he saith under master 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 their heat then they are able to make good, is no binding argument to others; no more then master Can will account it such to himself, what we can show under the hands of themselves, that is, of schismatical Separatists like themselves, concerning their presbytery, and Church-constitution. But such weapons as these must serve, where no better can be had.  
3. How doth he prove, this to be the meaning of those words: They sit in Moses chair, that is, they came rightly and lawfully to the levitical and Priestly offices. Forsooth he points us to Pareus. For in the margin, with a star in the context to guide us to it, See Pareus, saith he, on Math. 23.2. and that we may not miss, but be sure to find 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 Mr. Can that the democratical exercise of Church-censures in his congregation is unwarrantable, and ill grounded on Christs words. Math. 18.17. And for proof of it point him, as well I might do, to master johnson upon the place.  
But as himself speaketh,( though most unjustly of master Bradshaw in this very page.) behold the forehead of the man. Pareus in that very place, that he pointeth us unto, saith the very direct contrary to that for which master Can here produceth him; to wit, that the Scribes and Pharisees are said to sit in Moses chair, because they came rightly and Lawfully to the levitical and Priestly offices. For Pareus saith expressly, that they were wrongful invaders and 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 honesty and conscience of this man may the better appear) Pareus his own words at large.  
It is not obscure, saith he, that by the phrase of sitting in Moses chair is signified the office of teaching publicly, 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 chair, at the first original, long since, given in charge by God to the Priests and Levites. Hitherto saith he they have set, that is, inthronised themselves in Moses chair, which they now hold. And again; they have without any calling of God seized on that chair, which they hold. And yet again,( as if he must needs more then once, though l●ttle d●●●ming thereof when he writ this, give master Can here the lie.) Thus not o●ely the missembassage of the Pharisees exercising other mens offices, but the perfidiousness and sloathfullnesse of the Priests, in neglecting the duty enjoined them by God, is taxed here by Christ. And yet saith he, because they have sat, and do sit in Moses chair, that is, this sect doth still hold the prime place in the government of the Church, and interpretation of the Law, and there are no other ordinary teachers; hear them. Yet, as he after sheweth not absolutely, but so far forth as they sit in Moses chair, that is, teach Moses doctrine, doctrine agreeable to his. Could any man have brought in a witness to speak more directly against himself? I say no more, but let simplo ones take heed hereby how they trust master Cans quotations hereafter: and let him learn to see and aclowledge, if he have any drop of grace in him, his own wicked folly to his shane.  
4. It were an hard task to put master Can to prove( that which master johnson also averred before him, but in the very next words almost again contradicted himself 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 master johnson granteth that they might be of any tribe:& yet were such also 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 lawful or unlawful, they should rather have been said to stand in Aarons room, then to sit in Moses chair.  
5. All this title tattle mixed, as you see, with gross untruth, is nothing to the present point: which is this onely, whether the names of Scribes and pharisees mad: them ●o be false ministers, as master johnson would prove ours to be, because they are sometime termed 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 proves them to be such. So that this is to tell us of a mattock, when we are talking of a spade.  
2, He cannot think, he saith, that master Bradshaw should be so ignorant as in this place he makes show 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 master Bradshaws words import any such thing. He demandeth onely this; if to be expounders of the Law,( which, as Pareus, master Cans Advocate, before him, he understandeth to be the meaning of sitting in Moses chair, with better ground then master Can maintains his exposition, which by gross falsehood and lies, as you have heard, he seeketh to support,) were sufficient to argue their ministery to be a true ministry( as master johnson acknowledgeth it to be) notwithstanding their names and corruptions otherwise: then why may not the preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, do the like with ours, notwithstanding the names excepted against? For what master Can addeth of the Scribes and Pharisees, of which fam ly( to wit, of Levi) were these; which to prove he printeth us to joh. 1.19. w●h 24.) and then addeth, So many as were employed 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 proves it by the place produced? The Pr ests and Levites that were sent to John 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 cobblers to have given their voices, in calling master Can to be their Pastor. The coopers or cobblers that at Amsterdam gave their vo●ces for Mr. Can were of the Separation. Ergo, all the Separatists, either there or elsewhere, are coopers or cobblers. The one argument is every ace of it, as good as the other. But thus these men city Scripture: which this place excepted, he hath scarce done in this whole discourse again, for proof 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 employed in or about the sanctuary; that cometh a great deal 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 employed in the temple at all.  
All that he subjoines, either of Popish Priests, or Jeroboams Priests, what they might plead for themselves;& of Mr. Bradshaws leaving the blind Priests in the ditch;& of his shifting too& froo, as one that sitteth uneas ly; is but dust& smoke, raised to make a smother withall, to hinder the Readers eyes, while he is taken up with impertinent passages, from observing and discerning how Mr. Can swarveth from the present argument,& passeth by the principal& main 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, do not prove 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 Mr. Iohnsons first Reason, backed with 7. Arguments: no one whereof Mr. Can hath once endeavoured to make good by taking away the answers directly returned thereunto; save by repeating Mr. Iohnsons words over again, denying the answer to be true, upon his own bare word, or the sayings of some other body; snatching and snarling at by matters; misrelating Mr. Bradshaws words; grossly 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. albeit therefore there is little better to be looked for in the rest of his discourse; and to much ink& paper, besides precious time, hath been cast away already in survey of the former: yet, least the worst& weakest part may seem to have been dealt with onely, the better& more substantial left untouched, I shall, entreating the Readers patience, proceed on, though it be indeed a very tedious task, that I have here undertaken, to discover further the mans vanity, for all his peremptory language and carriage, in those things that ensue.   

The second Reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
None may hear, or have any spiritual communion with the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
Such is the ministry of the Church-assemblies of England.  
Ergo none may hear, or have any spiritual communion with the same.  
W. Bradshaw  
I grant the proposition, taking the words in the plain& common sense: to wit, understanding by the ministry of Antichrists apostasy, the administration& dispensation of the things of Antichrist: otherwise to communicate spiritually with any ministers whatsoever onely in the holy things of Christ, is not to communicate with the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy, no though the ministers be ministers thereof. Neither do his five reasons following, whereby he needlessly proves his proposition, prove it unlawful to hear, or have any spiritual communion with the ministers of Antichrist then, when they minister the things of Christ.  
Here Mr. Can telleth us, that Mr. Bradshaw begins with a manifest untruth. viz. that to communicate spiritually with the ministers of Antichrist in holy things, is not to communicate in his Apostasy. And that this is an untruth, Mr. Can thus proves: If this be true, then unlawful ministers may lawfully be communicated with. But this, saith he, cannot be,& that he proveth, because it was unlawful to communicate with Corah, or with uzziah, tho' they burnt true incense; or with Ieroboams Priests, tho' they offered true sacrifices.  
1. His proposition is denied. For neither will it follow, that no unlawful minister may lawfully be communicated ●ith, all that communicate with any minister of Antichrists Apostasy in any holy thing of God, do communicate with him in his Antichristian Apostasy, howsoever they were guilty therein of sin otherwise. Nor yet again; tho' it be granted, that some may communicate in some holy things with a minister of Antichrists Apostasy, and yet not communicate with the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy, will it thence follow, that an unlawful minister may Lawfully be communicated with.  
2. His Assumption is not proved by the instances produced. It is no good consequence. It was not lawful to communicate with Corah, uzziah,& Ieroboams priests in some things. Therefore with no unlawful ministers in any thing.  
Besides, what he saith of Ieroboams Priests& sacrifices, that they were true sacrifices; if by true he mean real and essential sacrifices; so were those that the jews offered to devills and all heathen their idols; and being so understood the instant is idle. For that is not sufficient to make them holy things. Or if by true he mean legal, and truly religious, it is false that he affirmeth of them; they were in themselves not holy things, but unholy and abominable sacrileges. And the absurdity of the inference will easily appear. It was unlawful to communicate with Ieroboams priests in their idolatrous sacrifices. Therefore it is unlawful to communicate with any false minister in the holy things of God.  
W. Bradshaw▪  
For the proof of the Assumption he makes a terrible muster of no less then 7. Arguments. But let us pull up our Spirits, and see what is in them, one by one,  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of Priests and Deacons ordained by Prelates thereunto, is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
The ministry of the Church-assemblys of England is such a ministry.  
Ergo. It is of Antichrists Apostasy.  
W. Bradshaw  
He brought this very Argument to prove the first reason,& now he brings it again for a proof of his second reason: and is not this a learned kind of reasoning? when he will make a show of multitudes of reasons against us, and yet all of them come to one issue, and lye upon one ground, and depend upon one proof; so that the overthrow of on● i● the overthrow of all: but his childish vanity herein, we shall the better perceive, in that which followeth.  
Both the proposition and assumption are false. For  
1. It is not necessary, that the ministry of Priests& Deacons, though ordained by Antichrist himself, should be the ministry of his Apostasy: but notwithstanding his ordination, their ministry may be the ministry of Iesus Christ, as was the ministry of Luther, hus, Wickliff and others.  
2. The ministry of such manner, of Priests& Deacons, as the Prelates ordain,( or by the Laws ought to ordain) is the true ministry of Iesus Christ,& for the substance thereof, directly contrary to the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
3. The ministry of our Church-assemblys, is not( as I have shewed before) the ministry of Priests& deacons properly so called, but of pastors& teachers.  
The proposition he proveth as followeth, by two Arguments.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of Deacons and Priests which accounts itself to be Christs, and yet was not set by Christ himself in his Church, for the work of the ministry, is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
Such is the ministry of Deacons and Priests, ordained by the Prelates thereunto.  
Ergo it is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
W. Bradshaw  
This argument is that which he bringeth for the first reason of all: and here he brings it to prove that which before was brought to prove it. For he proves, that our ministry is not set by Christ in his Church, by this, because it is the ministry of priests and Deacons, and so by consequent of Antichrists Apostasy: Here he proves, that the ministry of priests and Deacons is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy, because it is a ministry, that was not set by Christ in his Church. Thus doth he most grossly run round in a circled; as if I should prove, that his ministry is unlawful; because he is a schismatic; and that he is a schismatic, because his ministry is unlawful.  
The 2. reason, whereby he proves his proposition, followeth.  
Fr. johnson.  
2. If the Prelates of the Church of England have such offices and government, as be special parts of Antichrists Apostasy, then the ministry ordained by them thereunto, must needs be the ministry of that Apostasy.  
But the Prelates of the Church of England have such offices& government, as be special parts of Antichrists Apostasy. Ergo  
The ministry ordained by them, is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy▪ The consequent is manifest, because the fruit must needs be as the three is, Math. 7.16. and who can bring a clear thing out of filthiness. job 14.4.  
The assumption is proved.  
1. Whosoever( besides Christ) have such offices and government, whereby they claim to be spiritual Lords, they have the offices and government which are special parts of Antichrists Apostasy, and are indeed very Ant●christs themselves.  
But such are the Prelates of the Church of England.  
Therefore they have such offices and government, as are special parts of Antichrists Apostasy.  
The propos t on is proved by those places of Scripture, which teach there is but one spiritual Lord, the Lord Iesus Christ.  
The assumption is proved by the Laws and Statutes of the land, wherein they are called Lords spiritual, and in their Canons they take upon them to prescribe their own ordinances to the Church, for the worship of God;& bind the spirit and conscience to the acknowledgement and approbation thereof,& to give the holy ghost.  
2. The offices and government of such Bishops, as are over Diocessan& provincial Churches, and exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over all the ministers and people therein, are special parts of Antichrists Apostasy.  
But such are the Prelates of the Church of England.  
Therefore, they have such offices and government, as be specially parts of Antichrists Apostasy.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. I deny the consequence of the proposition of the first syllogism. The officers and governers of Antichrists Apostasy, may and have ordained some things that are christian. Neither doth the saying of Christ or job prove the consequence. For though it should be granted unto them, that the governers of Antichrists Apostasy have ordained this ministry, yet doth it not follow, that it is therefore a proper and mere fruit of Antichrist, but may be an accidental effect, as are many other things, which he ordaineth, agreeable to Christs own ordinances. So that he mu t prove, that our ministry ordained by the Pope or Bishops, doth as properly flow from the nature of their office and government, as figs from a fig three, or grapes from a vine, or filthy water from a f●ule fountain: the contrary whereof is in this case most evident. For leave the bare names and titles, and consider our ministry in all the essential parts and offices thereof, and it is as possible either for a presbytery, or for any particular Church, such in constitution as their own, to ordain the like ministry in all points and respects, with all the defects and faults thereof.  
2. Concerning the proof of the Assumption, the proposition may be denied: it being one thing to bee, and on other thing to claim to be; for every one is not that which he claimeth to be. The instances alleged to prove the assumption, either are false, or prove it not. The Laws may give those titles to men which they do not claim; neither do either their Canons or practise show, that they prescribe their own ordinances for worship, or propound to bind mens consciences to the acknowledgement of any such matter. They profess the contrary, and urge their own ordinances onely under the name of things indifferent. Though therefore in error of judgement, they may, and happily do command such ordinances of their own, as are divine worship,& in such a manner, as it bindeth conscience,( which master Iohnsons own Church in many cases may do, except they think themselves privileged from error) yet they protesting against any such power and authority, they cannot be said therein to arrogate the office of spiritual Lords; in that sense at least, in which Christ is said to be the onely spiritual Lord. And tho' in their ordination of ministers, they use, as a ceremonial speech, to say, receive the holy Ghost; and therein peradventure offer some force to the Scripture, unto which they allude, yet they disclaim all actual power and authority of giving the person, or gifts of the holy Ghost, unto men.  
It shall be needles in this controversy, to spend time in the defence of the calling of Bishops, any further then the necessity of the argument requires: onely for the further clearing of the truth, in the differences of them of the Separation, not onely from the Bishops, but from the other sort of ministers also, which do not approve of their callings, I offer these points unto them, to consider of advisedly.  
1 Whether the supreme Magistrate have not power to oversee and govern all the several Churches within his dominions; yea whether he be not bound so to do.  
2. Whether for his further help and assistance herein, he may not make choice of grave, learned be reverend men, to assist him in the same government.  
3 Whether by virtue of his power these persons, thus called to assist the supreme Magistrate, may not Lawfully try the gifts of all the several ministers within his Dominions,& give public approbation of the worthy, and inhibit those, which they find unworthy, from the execution of their ministry: and whether they may not visit the several ministers and Churches, convent them before them, examine them, how they have behaved themselves in their places,& pun●sh the blame worthy.  
4. Whether for the more easy and orderly government of the said Churches, so far forth as appertaineth to him, he may not divide his kingdom( as ou●s is) into provinces, assigneing over each of them under himself, some special ma●●strate, f●t for learning& experience, to over see& govern all the general& particular chu●ches there:& whether he may not subdivide those provinces into dioceses, assigneing also unto them, other more inferior officers, under him,& his provincial officers, to oversee the several churches within such& such a p●ecinct.  
5. Whether it do destroy the nature of a ministerial or a particular true visible church that many of them should appertain to one provincial or diocessan government; tho' in that respect they should be held and reputed, but for one P●ovinciall or Diocessan Church.  
6. Whether Antichrist, having usurped the Kings supremacy and taken into his hands this authority, and corrupted the same, hath made it now unlawful for the Magistrate to execute the same in manner and form aforesaid: or whether the jurisdiction aforesaid do not directly and properly belong to the civill Magistrate; and not to Antichrist, but by usurpation: and whether his usurpation of this office, can make it a part of his apostasy, in those places, where it is restored again to the supreme Magistrate.  
7. Whether the supreme Magistrate, recovering this his right from Antichrist, and together with it happily taking also to himself, something that belongs to the kingdom of Ant●christ, and executing the same, either in his own person, or by others, together with his own lawful right, whether, I say, this do destroy his own lawful right: and whether the subject is ever the less bound to subject themselves, unto the same right either in his own person, or his substitute.  
Hitherto he hath endeavoured to prove the proposition of the first argument, whereby he would confirm te Assumption of the second reason:& now he sets upon the proof of the Assumption; namely: That the present ministry of the Church assemblies of England, is the ministry of Deacons and Priests ordained by Prelates thereunto. This, he saith, is proved by the Canons, constitut●ons and observation of our Church. And this he confirmeth first with a long tedious and idle rehearsal of the form of ordination of our ministers, bestowing cost to print in a manner our whole book of ordination.  
2. By certain of the late Canons pressing subscription, conformity, and an acknowledgement of the lawfulness of the calling of Bishops and of their ordination.  
3. By certain sharp speeches of some martyrs, and of some others of our own nat●on against the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and other of the Clergy of their times: in the relation of which points he spend some 5. leaves: wherein still he runs in a circled, begging one of his arguments to prove an other: So that one of his arguments are as g●o● as all, and all no better then one.  
This may suffice for answer.  
1. That if all particulars mentioned in the book of ordination should be strictly& precisly practised( as always they are not) yet there is not one clause in the whole form of ordination by him cited, that doth necessary argue them which are so ordained, to be true and proper Priests and Deacons: but if there were, and if also the ministers ordained were anointed with oil, if their crowns were shaved, and they had power given to offer the abominable idol of the mass, yet this is not sufficient to argue, that their ministry, is the ministry of Priests, &c. except in their ministry they should execute the same. If their own Church should ordain one to the ministry of a Pastor,& should in their ordination require him, onely to preach the word sincerely, and to administer the Sacraments according to Christs institution; and yet in his practise and execution, he should do nothing but sing mass and matins, and they should accept of this ministry& no other at his hands; would any that is in his wits say, that this mans ministry is the ministry of a Pastor, because he was in formality of words and ceremonys ordained to that office? how much less can any man say, that our ministry is the ministry of Priests, when they do not onely execute any such office, but the clean contrary; and when in their ordination not so much as any part of a Priests office( properly so taken) is assigned unto them, but onely the name;& not so much as their name in their orders written in latin, which are to interpreate the meaning of the English word.  
2. Though the ministers should do all things required by the Canons,& should be every way answerable unto them: and though the testimonys of our martyrs and others were yielded to be true, yet must he strive hard, that can from either or both argue, that our ministers are indeed Priests, except in a metaphoricall and borrowed speech.  
Out o● all this whole piece, master Can calleth and cutteth out onely two or three shreds, to be snipping and snatching at, after his manner.  
1. It is certain( saith he) that the ministry of Priests& Deacons ordained by Antichrist, is the ministry of his apostasy, and not Christs, as he profanely affirms, for he makes them not according to the institution prescribed of God; but wholly after a wicked and devilish device of hi● own brain: so that the same is a mere fruit of the beast and false Prophet; and no accidental effect, but a most cursed thing, which doth as properly flow from his defection, as figs from the fig three, or a child from the seed of the parents.  
B●t master Ca●s p●●positi●n here, if ●is argument be syllogistically framed, is d●●yed. For though Antichrist should have ordained them after so wicked and devilish a manner; yet it will not thence fo●low, but that such ministry as they, notwithstanding such ordination, may execute and exercise, may be the ministry of Christ, even of pastors and teachers, as hath ben before said. And Mr. Cans certain avowchment will not be taken therefore upon his word, till he bring us some better proof.  
2. As for Luther,( saith he) hus, wickliff,& others, whereof he speaks; it is but an absurd and childish begging of the question: Seeing it cannot be proved, that they received a lawful& ordinary ministry from the Church of Rome.  
1. If this crackbraind fellow did but understand, either what his adversary answereth, or what himself saith, he would never in this shameless manner foam out his own folly, and abuse both himself and those that read him. He saith that master Bradshaw childishly begs the question, who neither keepeth himself to the question, nor understandeth what the begging of the question mean ●. He beggeth the question, that requireth that to be granted him that is in question, for the proof of that he saith. master Bradshaw onely in way of answer to master Iohnsons proposition affirmeth, that the ministry exercised by some that have been ordained by Antichrist;( for example, Luther, Wickl ffe, hus, &c.) may be the ministry of Christ. Which without begging the question must still stand good, till master johnson or master Can have proved the contrary.  
2. He saith that therefore master Bradshaw begs the question, because it cannot be proved, that these men before mentioned received a lawful ordinary ministry from the Church of Rome: when as, neither is this the question, whither they did receive a lawful ordinary ministry from the Curch of Rome, or no; nor doth master Bradshaw say any such thing.  
3. To that of master Bradshaw that the ministry of such Priests& Deacons as the Prelates ordain, or by the Laws ought to ordain is the true ministry of Iesus Christ: and for the substance thereof directly contrary to Antichrists apostasy.  
To this▪ I say, master Can thus replys.  
He saith, hat the ministry of such Priests and Deacons, which the Prelates ordain, are the true ministers of Iesus Christ. W●at every dumb dog,& all those 60. 80. and 100. which are made at a clap, and sent forth as rogues ad masterless servants, to get benefice where they can, havi●g no particular congregation, &c. Yea, now all again are levied, for he speaks without exception or limitation.  
Where fi●st, he clippeth away some o● master Bradshaws words: then to make him say, what he would have him say, he speaketh non sense himself: and maketh him likewise to do the like, in saying, as he saith, that the ministry of such Priests and Deacons, which the Prelates ordain, are the ministers of Iesus Christ: And so after a parcel of his base and scurrilous language, taken up it seems, at second hand from some sorry broker like himself; not free from just suspicion of gross untruth, he concludeth with a loud lie, that master Bradshaw speaketh without exception or limitation: which is manifestly false. For he saith expressly; that the Prelates ordain, or by Law ought to ordain.  
2. master Bradshaw doth not avouch all ministers made by the Prelates to be lawful ministers, but that the ministry of Priests and Deacons such as our Law intendeth( which are in effect no other then pastors and teachers, nor have appeared to be any other▪ by ought that hath hitherto been objected) can not therefore be d●nyed to be the ministry have ben ordained by the Pre●ates. For, as for those that have no particular congregation, we have in this controversy nothing to do with them; since the same,( which we are enforced to mind master Can so oft off, that we may keep him from ranging; because he still forgets himself where he is, and what he is about) is concerning Separation from our Church-assemblys, and consequently of the ministers of particular congregations; which they are not, which have none.  
Nor doth this therefore any way cross or contradict, either that which some other, he saith, have said, that all ecclesiastical officers ought to be chosen by the free choice of the people.( which yet would be hard for master Can it may be, to prove) or that which master Bradshaw himself saith el●where; that some ministers have ben permitted among us, that have not had ordination from the Prelates: for all master Cans loud cry of daubing, rotten stuff, &c. And much less doth it infer, what he would hence squize out; that if men will be Priests of our Churches, they may come in any way; and it is no matter how they be ordained, nor who ordain them, nor whether they be ordained or no: His words indeed, saith master Can; imply no less. Which being but a base calumny of one, who by his course constantly held here, evidently sheweth, that he litl●e regards what he saith, tho' never so manifestly false; so he may any way utter that, that may cast some aspersion upon his adversary: and having in the former passage, by explanation of his meaning, sufficiently cleared it, I let it pass,& leave it with the rest of the like kind, for master Can to answer, when all those shall be reckoned with, that either love or make lies.  
To the same reckoning I refer that also which next followeth, well deserving the whetstone, where he saith, that master Bradshaw never brings either scriptures, examples, reasons or human testimonys, to confirm any one thing, whereof he writes. Which albeit he had not done, yet he might have done as much as could justly be exacted of him, being in place of an answerer to an othe●s arguments, whose proper office is to answer, either by distinction, or denial: yet whither he have never brought any of these, to confirm any one thing, that he writes of, let any Reader consider advisedly; and if he find it not to be a most notorious untruth, let him return me the lie, and I will willingly undergo it.  
4. Passing by certain frothy demands( as he termeth them) which yet to men of und●rstanding will appear to be substantial, and very pertinent to the matter of may ter Iohnso●s Arg●ment and the proof of his Assumption; Th●t the ministry of the Church-assemblies of England, is the ministry of Deacons and Priests, by the Bishops ordained thereto, &c. He replieth onely this; that master Bradshaw bewrayeth great ignorance, in not putting a difference between a ministry, and the execution of it; which are distinct things. And if he had not wanted wit, he would not so absurdly have confounded the one with the other: that it is possible, that one should be a true ecclesiastical officer, and yet never do the services thereof: as a woman is really a wife immediately upon her marriage, before she perform any duty yea though she should never pe●forme any. And master Bradshaw therefore was deceived to think if one be a false minister by ordination that the administration of lawful things, makes him true. Which he sheweth by an instance of some other then of Aarons house admitted to be Priests, administering without exception, and yet no lawful officers notwithstanding. And again, that one ordained a Pastor according to Christs instituiion, hath certainly a lawful ministry, howsoever things should fall out afterward, yea tho' he should sing mass and matins▪ as a person may be a servant, or subject truly and fully, and yet do afterwards the actions of thieves, rebels, traiters, &c.  
But neither was master Bradshaw such a silly ignoramus, as master Can would make of him, as not to be able to distinguish between ordination and execution; nor such a loose and unlimited disputant, as to wander, as master Cans wonted manner is, from the matter he hath in hand. The po●nt in present agitation is concerning the ministry of Priests and Deacons, such a●●y our Prela es are ordained, what it is for the substance of it: which master johnson t prove it to be the ministry of Pri●sts and Deacons, properly so termed,& no● of pastors and teachers, allegeth the book of ordination and certain canons& constitutions, wherein conformity, and some other such things are enjoined. To which master Bradshaw as you have heard, answereth, that neither any o●e clause in the whole form of ordination argueth them, so to be as he saith; nor tho' there had been in their ordination power given them to sing and say mass and matins would it prove, therefore their ministry to be the ministry of Priests, properly so termed, unless they did execute t●e same no more then the ministry of master Can would be deemed the ministry of a Pastor, though being ordained to that office he should do nothing but sing mass and matins.  
The difference therefore is here to be put, not between the ministry, and the execution of it, as master Can speaks; but between the en●rance into it, and the substance of it. The latter whereof is the main matter at ●re●ent in question between master johnson and master Bradshaw, as master Can was admonished, had he either wit or will to take notice of it, both at the very first entrance, in answer to the first reason; and again in answer to the first argument, for the Assumption of the second reason. 92.  
W. Bradshaw.  
The other arguments, whereby he proveth the main Assumption of the 2. reason. viz. that the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England, is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy follow.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of the prelacy professing itself to be Christs,& yet standing in such an estate, as it doth not obey Iesus Christ in his ordinance of ministry, worship and government of the Church, as their Prophet, Priest and King, is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
Such is the present ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Ergo, it is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
W. Bradshaw  
To the proposition I answer, that not onely the ministry of the Prelates, but of a presbytery, or any Church whatsoever, that stands in such an estate, is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy: and not onely the ministry of the Prelates, but any other ministry el●e upon earth, may stand in such an estate, as that it may in divers and sundry particulars, of ignorance or infirmity, disobey Christ in his own ordinances of ministry, worship and government of the Church,& in that respect, and so far forth be the ministry of Antichrists apostasy;& yet be also the ministry of Iesus Christ.  
he proves the proposition by 19. places of Scripture; to as much purpose as if by as many testimonys he should prove that it is day light at high noon: Except he mean, that that is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy, which doth not in every particular obey Christ in his own ordinances of ministry. But his 19. proofs have no more force to prove it, then to prove that there is a man in the moon, as any man may see, that hath nothing else to do, but examine them.  
2. I deny the Assumption. The ministry of our Church-assemblys, though it he ordained by the Prelates, and be subject unto them, yet it is not their ministry, but the ministry of Iesus Christ; they preaching his word and administering his Sacraments: and it doth, if it be answerable to the Law, obey Christ in all the main essential parts of his own ordinances of ministry, &c. And in all other points( for ought he can prove to the contrary) as far as the Lord hath revealed the truth unto them which exercise the same.  
Fr. johnson.  
The Assumption is evident by that which hath been said in the 1. Reason,& their constitution itself shows it: in that they are so far from obeying Christ in his ordinances of ministry, and as that they execute the ministry and government of an other Arch-Bishop, and Lord-Bishop then Christ; of an archdeacon, person, vicar, &c. as also in their reading prayers out of a book,& observing other human inventions, and in their Church government according to Canons, Courts, &c. which were never appointed by Christ.  
W. Bradshaw  
To omit, that here again he begs his first reason to prove his second: if the assumption have no better evidence, the evidence is false, as I have made it evident in the answer to the first reason.  
Neither hath he there or elsewhere( in any of those other of their writings which he sends us unto pag. 40.) proved, that our ministers do not obey Christ, in his ordinances of ministry, worship and government: yea tho' it should be granted that they execute the ministry and government of other Arch-Bishops and Lord-Bishops besides Christ; and tho' they should be Arch-Deacons, parsons, vicars, reading stinted prayers, &c. For all this may be done, yea and they may sin some way in doing all this,& yet they may obey Christ, in all the main, essential and substantial points, of his ministry, worship and government.  
To this master Can thus replieth: master Bradshaw as one that purposeth to deceive others, concealeth that that should give special light to the matter; and merely to guile his reader hides from him whatsoever should serve for his most true information about the point in dispute; affirming, that ministers may in divers and sundry particulars, disobey Christ in his ordinances of worship and government: not expressing what those divers and sundry particulars are: that which he is persuaded he durst not do, because they would then soon have joined issue with him: and when he shall do, till which time he leaveth him in the midst of his idle discourse( as he termeth it) he telleth him he will return him an answer.  
But thus master Can, as elsewhere, still forgetts himself, and what part master Bradshaw holdeth in this dispute with master johnson, it is an answerers part and person that he sustaineth. And it is enough, that he denieth master Iohnsons proposition. Which unless it be made good; That in no particulars at all, a ministry may( not Lawfully, for that master Bradshaw saith not, but that it may so fall out that it so doth) disobey Christ in his own ordinance, &c. And yet continue still the ministry of Christ; master Iohnsons proposition falleth to the ground.  
And as he forgets master Bradshaws part, so his own place too: he tells us, he w l an●●ere, if we will tell him this and that; whereas he ought to reply,& prove that that ●s denied. But this is the manner of sorry disputants, when they are at a ●on plus, to give over their opposition, and bid the answerer, either tell what he meaneth, or take their office upon him, prove that that he saith, when they cannot prove what themselves say.  
For as for joining of issue( which master Bradshaw forsooth had so much cause to fear) it was joined long since, between master johnson as plaintiff& master Bradshaw as defendant. master Bradshaw as you see here denying the truth of master Iohnsons plea, as he hath laid it; and master Can his proctor refusing to make it good, and so leaving his clients cause altogether undefended, while with other idle discourse( to return him his own term) he trifleth out the time, and tireth his readers to no purpose.  
The like answer may be returned to that which followeth; where he requireth, that in the next reply, they will show some good reason, for that which master Bradshaw writes, that ministers may execute the ministry and government of other Arch-Bishops, &c. As if this were master Bradshaws reply, and not an answer to master Iohnsons arguments; which if he will make good, he must prove the thing here denied; and not put the other party by some proof to make go●d his denial.  
Nor doth it thence follow, as he would have it, that all pleas against the prelacy, must needs be unjust: since that just complaint may be, both of irreptitious corruptions adhering to a ministry, and oft injurious usurpation exercised on it, and suite made for the reformation and remoovall of either; and yet the ministry itself not necessary therefore, for the essence and substance of it, denied to be the ministry of Christ, nor obedience, by those that execute fuch a ministry, denied unto Christ in the main and essential parts of his ministry, worship and government.  
For as for that he relates out of some intemperate spirites, that our book of Common prayer was taken out of the vile mass book, full of all blasphemys, lies and abominations; and our government taken wholly and every part from the Pope: we are no more tied to aclowledge what such say, then they, what master Smith and his followers, viz. that their Church in regard of her Constitution is as very an Harlot, as either her Mother England, or her grandmother Rome is, out of whose loins she came: and as her constitution, so her worship, ministry& government false. In his Epistle before the Character of the Beast; that Antichrist is not utterly revealed or abolished, but in a very high degree is exalted in their Churches; in his preface to the differences of the Churches of the Separation. And that their Eldership is an invention of man, having an Antichristian ministry and government in it. And that therefore when the popish presbytery was suppressed, and their tr formed presbytery substituted, one Antichrist was put down and an other set up in his place, or the beast was suppressed, and his image was advanced, &c. vide p. 24.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of Christian which is opposed against, and exalted above the holy things, ministry and ordinances of Christ, is the ministry of Antichrists apostaly. 1. Thes. 2.3.4. with 1. joh. &c.  
Such is the ministry of their Church-assemblys.  
Ergo, It is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
The Assumption is evident; 1. A man may peaceably receive or administer their holy things in their manner, by virtue of their Deaconry or Priesthood, received from their Prelates.  
But if any do administer or receive the holy things of God by the offices of pastors and teachers entred into and executed according to the testament of Christ, they are reviled and persecuted.  
1. Their prelacy, pr●esthood and deaconry is the very means of thrusting away, and keeping out of the Church, the ministry and order which Christ hath appointed, which some of themselves heretofore have acknowledged and written.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. The ministry of our Church-assemblys being answerable to the Laws, is not a ministry exalted in any thing above the ministry of Christ, but the very same in nature and quality, tho' in some accidents it may differre: in which difference, if here be any sin, it is of ignorance or infirmity in the ministers; which may in as high or a higher degree befall unto the best ministers, that ever were since the Apostles times.  
2. The holy things, which they administer, are the holy things of Iesus Christ, and not of their own, and by virtue of that Priesthood and Deaconry which they have received, they may not administer any other holy things, but what Christ Iesus requireth. The other things which they administer, are judged by them which administer them, onely things indifferent, and matters of order, wherein if they which use them be deceived, it is but such an error, as worthy martyrs of Iesus Christ, have been subject unto,& not sufficient to make their ministry an Antichristian ministry.  
3. The Prelates do not persecute any true Pastors and Teachers, so much for ministering any of the holy things of Christ, as for refusing to conform to some special ordinances of their own; which they do not hold to be holy things, but matters of order, and which by reasons they have endeavoured to prove to be so? wherein the practise of Prelates is no more extreme then their own, who censure as far as they can, in all extremity, all them who do not in all points conform and agree to their own orders, ceremonys and Church polity.  
4. It can never be proved, that the admittance of this ministry, is a hindrance of a better, but rather it is a means to keep out a worse, and a way in time to bring in a better, if a better be to be brought in. For by yielding to some things that may be bettered, and is so wished and endeavoured, a doare is opened to minister many holy things, which otherwise should be shut. And if it be as lawful, for us to conjecture, as for him, their general schism and rent from this ministry, hath been one main and principal means to uphold it as it is.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry which is such as in the nature and condition thereof it pertaineth not to any body or State either civill or ecclesiastical, but onely to the body or kingdom of Antichrists Apostasy, is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
Such is the ministry of their Church-assemblys.  
Ergo, It is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
The Assumption is clear, in as much as their Prelacy, Priesthood and Deaconry, is such, that the civill State may be perfect without them, and the Church of Christ may be complete without them; onely the body and kingdom of the Romish Antichrist, can not be full and furnished in all the offices thereof without them.  
W. Bradshaw  
For answer to the Assumption.  
1. Concerning the Prelacy( though it be not any ministry of any of our Church-assemblys, and therefore idly urged, in this& all the other arguments) this may be said.  
1. That the principal, and most honourable parts thereof are onely usurped by Antichrist, and do not appertain to him, but to the jurisdiction of the supreme Magistrates and States.  
2. That the State of a Christian common-wealth cannot be perfect, without some general visitors and overseers of Churches.  
3. That though a particular Church or congregation may be complete without them, yet for the necessary union and agreement of the several Churches in Christian Provinces and kingdoms, it is fitt and agreeable to reason,& no ways repugnant to Gods word, that under the supreme Magistrate there should be other governers to protect and encourage those ministers and Churches which do their duty; and to punish those which shall offend. Wherein if either through warrant of human Laws, or some personal corruption, they shall in some things pass their bounds, they do no more than any other officers, either civill or ecclesiastical, through frailty and infirmity, may do.  
4. That the kingdom of Antichrist can not be furnished, in all the offices thereof without the authority of civill Magistrates: and therefore this seems to make as much against the calling of civill Magistrates as Bishops.  
2. Concerning the ministry of our Priests and Deacons, such as it is, or by Law ought to be, in our Church-assemblys, the Church of Christ can not be complete without it. Yea it is no Church without it. Neither can the kingdom of Antichrist stand before it. Neither will he ever prove the contrary.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry which is such, as the body of Antichrist, the man of sin can not without it be complete in all the members and canonical functions thereof, is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
Such is the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Ergo, It is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
W. Bradshaw  
This argument is but the tail of the former; and therefore needs no further answer, it being cut off in the answer to the former, the canons pont●ficall& State of the Romish Antichrist do manifest the contrary, which have and do persecute with sword and fire such a ministry as is the ministry of our Church assemblys: if it be in all points, to the intent of the Law.  
Fr. johnson.  
The ministry of Deacons, Priests and Prelates, which accounts itself to be Christs, and yet indeed is such, as the Kings& rulers of the earth may& ought to suppress and roote out of their Dominions, is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
Such is their ministry. Ergo,  
It is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
The Assumption is proved in the former reason, and in other treatises, and by some of themselves in their suits to the Parliament: and if the Prelates,& their comforming Clergy deny it, they are by their own Canons excommunicated ipso facto.  
W. Bradshaw  
This sixth argument is borrowed from the first reason, where it is brought to prove, that our ministry is not the ministry of pastors and teachers: as here it is brought again to prove, that it is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
But how doth he prove that the King ought to suppress this ministry? he refers us for the proof thereof, especially to the former reason, how doth he prove it there? thus: it is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy, therefore the King ought to suppress it. Is not this learned stuff?  
Concerning his other treatises which he so often sand us unto, as if they were in every street and marketplace of the land; we have not so much idle time to seek after them: and we presume we shall find no better stuff in them, then in this.  
If any among us have put up any such suite to the Parliament, for the abolishing of our ministry in general, let them answer for themselves. But the Prelates may well laugh at his simplicity and silliness of wit, that thinks to fright them with such a buggbeare as this, in making them believe, that they are by their own Canons excommunicated ipso facto; if they deny that the King may and ought to abolish our ministry.  
Fr. johnson.  
If it be such as shall be abolished by the Lord through the power and light of his gospel, then it is the ministry of Antichrists Apostasy.  
The First is true. Ergo  
The Latter is true also.  
W. Brads●aw.  
The same answer will serve for this argument, that was given to the former. For the Assumption is false, the light of the gospel shall more and more confirm, establish and perfect it; and remove all the defects and blemishes in it. his proof is as ridiculous and sophistical, as is the former, for he proves it by the same question, that here it is brought to prove. For so in effect proceeds his disputation.  
That which shall be abolished is Antichristian.  
Our ministry shall be abolished. Ergo  
It is Antichristian.  
But how doth he, for our learning prove, that our ministry shall be abolished? very learnedly and profoundly thus.  
That which is Antichristian shall be abolished.  
Our ministry is Antichristian.  
Therefore. It shall be abolished.  
For this is the effect of that idle discourse of 2. or 3. leaves. to wit, pag. 46. 51. tending to prove, that Antichrist& all his offices shall be abolished.  
In defence of these 3. arguments master Can gives not a word, good or bad; but leaveth them and their Author, to shift as they may for themselves. Onely he is pleased, after his wonted manner, when he wanteth other matter, to mind his reader, how master Bradshaw again rejecteth and relinquisheth the principles( as he terms them) of some Non-conformists: As I hope master Can will in like manner of some Separatists, unless he mean to condemn his own Churches constitution, as Antichristian in a high degree.   

The third Reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whatsoever ministry is such, as none can hear or have any spiritual communion with it, but in so doing he shall worship the image of the beast,& receive his mark in his forehead or hand; that ministry may none hear, or have any spiritual communion withall.  
But the present ministry of the Church-assemblys of England is such, as none can have any spiritual communion therewith; but in so doing, he shall worship the beasts image, and receive his mark in his forehead or hand. Ergo,  
None may hear or have any spiritual communion therewith.  
W. Bradshaw  
This reason for the effect and substance thereof differeth not from the second. For what is it( by his own interpretation) to worship the beasts image, but to subject himself to the ministry and worship of Antichrists apostasy?& how is it possible for him to prove this without running to the former reasons, for their help therein?  
For the proof of the assumption, he sets us down a tedious discourse of some six leaves of paper, teaching what is meant by the beast, and his image, and by receiving the mark in the forehead or hand. The sum and effect whereof is this.  
That by beast we are to understand the roman dominion, and Antichrists hierarchy, with all the offices, Laws and authority appertaining thereunto. That by worshipping the beasts image, may be under stood the yielding of spiritual subjection to that Antichristian kingdom, in the Laws office& jurisdiction thereof. That by receiving the mark in the forehead or hand, is ment publicly to profess and observe them; not being ashamed of the beasts ways, And this do all they who submi t to the government of Prelates, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, book-worship, &c.  
Not to c●ntend about this interpretation; but to suppose it true; there is nothing in substance here brought to confirm the 3. Reason, but that which is in the 2. Reason. Namely: that therefore we worship the beast, in communicating with our ministry, because it is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy: and therefore it needs no other answer then that which hath been given already.  
Onely thus much further; That for men so far forth to submit to the government of such Prelates, &c. as our Laws do require, is not to yield spiritual subjection to the kingdom of Antichrist; nor without shane to profess the beasts ways. For they may notwithstanding that, be subject to Christ and his Laws, and to fight against the beast: Yea though it should be granted, that insundry particulars they yield to some things, in their use Antichristian, and unlawful: which the best reformed Churches and ministers sometimes of ignorance or infirmity may do, and yet remain the Churches and ministry of Christ.  
This also master Can passeth by, supposing it seems, master Bradshaws verdict true of it, as an idle repetition of reasons, formerly delivered;& for want of better store, to make show of more variety, new dished,& with some other garnishment now served in again.   

The fourth Reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
None may hear or join in any spiritual communion with that ministry, which deriveth not their power and function of ministry from Christ, which is the head for the Edification of his Church, which is his body.  
Such is the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Therefore none may hear, or join in spiritual communion therewith.  
W. Bradshaw  
This Reason is the same with the first: For it is all one to be derived from Christ; and to be set by Christ in his Church. The other words which here he addeth, do not more vary the force of the argument, then a new garment put upon the same witness, would make him a new witness, and indifferent from himself.  
In the proof of the Assumption he daubs six pages, bringing therein nothing but his old brokery: the substance whereof is as followeth.  
1: That our ministers have not those offices which Christ hath given to his Church, for the work of his ministry.  
2. That it is the ministry of Deacons and Priests made by the Prelates.  
3. That they were left in England by the Pope, and are still in the kingdom of Antichrist, where they first rose; and therefore it is devilish; and by consequent, the more gifts and truth, the ministers bring with them the more they upholde the mystery of iniquity, and entice unto their stolen waters, and hide bread.  
4. That our Church-assemblys are not true visible Churches of Christ, unseparated from the world, not joined together in communion of the gospel by voluntary profession of the faith and submission to the government of Christ, but standing in bondage unto Antichrist.  
The very rehearsal of which Reasons, is answer sufficient; he being not able to prove any of these assertions, but either by the Assumption itself, that they are braught to prove, or one by another circularly.  
Contrarily I affirm:  
1. That there is no ordinary ministerial office, that Christ hath given to his Church, for the work of his ministry, but our ministers either have, or by the Laws ought to have the same.  
2. That it is a ministry as opposite, for the substance thereof, to the ministry of popish Priests and Deacons, as light is opposite to darkness.  
3. That the Pope left not such Priests and Deacons as ours are, nor hath any such in his kingdom: but that our Priests and Deacons have been under God and the Prince, the principal persons that have driven the Pope and his Priests and Deacons out of the Realm. that it is devilish, for any to say that they are divilissi, except they can prove it by better Reasons. That they that have the best gifts do not entice any to stolen waters, or hidden bread, or to upholde any mystery of iniquity; Except the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the true and onely means of salvation, be the mystery of iniquity.  
4. That our Church-assemblys, being such as by the Laws of the Land they ought to be are so far forth separated from the world, joined together in the communion of the gospel by the voluntary profession of faith, and freed from Antichrist, &c. as is sufficient to make them true visible Churches of Christ; notwithstanding that many things may be wanting to the full and desired perfection of them. And I doubt not, but we shall be far more able at any time, by reasons out of Gods word to prove these points; then ever master johnson will be to prove the contrary. And yet, it were easy to prove any thing by such a juggling method of Reasoning, as master johnson hath gotten. For he can prove you the 1. reason by the 2. the 2. by the 1. the 3. by the 1.& 2. the 1. and 2. by the 3. the 4. hy the 1. 2. and 3. and every of them by the 4. and all four by that question, which here they are brought to prove.  
To this in defence of master johnson as justly liable to the forenamed Exception, master Can saith as little almost, as to the former; onely gives a snatch or a snarl rather, at that which master Bradshaw saith; That there is no ordinary ministerial office, which Christ hath given to his Church, but their ministers either have, or by the Laws ought to have the same: and telleth his Reader, that he hath before( but we know not where) proved that this is not true. And that master Bradshaw useth a juggling method of Reasoning: their ministers have such; because by Law they ought to have them: and that a man, by the same manner of arguing, may prove, that there be no thieves, traiters, whore mongers, &c. within the Kings dominions; because by the Laws every one should be true, loyal, chast; which would be laughed at of all; and yet the former is to the same effect, or else it serveth to no use at all, but to show that the man had more will to do mischief, then he had either wit or skill to accomplish the same.  
But this is indeed not a juggling, but a mere cavilling and calumniating method and manner of replying. For master Bradshaw doth not so reason, that therefore our ministers have them; because by Law they ought to have them, but that our ministers either have them,( as implying, that they do ordinarily enjoy them and execute them,) or( whether they do enjoy them& execute them, or no) by our Laws they ought to have them. The very constitution of our Church, as appears by the books themselves objected by Mr. johnson to the contrary, enjoining and requiring the same of them.  
Nor is the clause here therefore unuseful: because it meeteth with such objections as master johnson elsewhere bringeth from our Church-canons& constitutions. These sorry and senseless cavils therefore, beseeming such as defend an ill cause, and want sound matter to support it, do evidently show indeed( as he saith of master Bradshaw) that master Can hath more malice, than might, more will, than wit or skill to do mischief; and more ability to calumniate, then to maintain an orderly dispute.   

The fifth Reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
None may hear, or have any spiritual communion with those ministers, which minister the holy things of God, and work upon the consciences of men, by virtue of a false spiritual calling.  
Such are the ministers of the Church-assemblys of England. Ergo  
None may hear, or have any spiritual communion with them.  
W. Bradshaw  
This argument, which here he brings against our ministry, is the very same with the 2. For by a false spiritual calling, he means a calling proceeding from the Apostasy of Antichrist.  
The proposition he proves for brevity sake by five and thirty places of Scripture. And yet whosoever shall be pleased to take the pains to examine them, shall find that neither severally, nor jointly they prove the same.  
The Assumption, where on the whole weight of the controversy leaneth, he proveth onely by the first argument, whereby be proved the Assumption of the 2. Reason, viz.  
Because they do it by virtue of their ministry received of their Prelates, from their spiritual authority, which is usurped and Antichristian. And this is all this witness hath to say; and all the answer it needeth: onely he wandereth into certain objections and queries, grounded upon some supposed defences of some of our ministers, unto which I will( though I need not) give a brief answer from point to point.  
Here master Can lets all go as it will: onely chargeth master Bradshaw with idle scoffing at master johnson for quotation of many Scriptures. Whereas he taxeth master johnson( and it seemeth not unjustly; for master Can his Proctor stands mute here in his defence) for alleging a multitude of Scriptures, for that, which they neither severally, nor jointly prove. That which is indeed a foul abuse of Scripture, though with them overusuall. And master Cans office had been,( if he could at least) to have cleared his client of wrong therein offered to Gods sacred word, by proving his proofs pertinent. For as for his twitting master Bradshaw for not quoting scripture, his place required it not; his office being not to prove, but to answer by distinction or denial.  
Fr. johnson.  
Some say, they preach, not by virtue of their ministry taken from the Prelates; but by virtue of some other calling and authority.  
W. Bradshaw  
I know none, having received ordination from the Prelates, that need deny that they preach partly by virtue of the ministry which they have taken from them: no though they hold the calling of Prelates unlawful. For what is the ministry which they have taken from them, for the substance thereof; but( after a trial of their gifts) a liberty and leave granted unto them to preach the word of God; and administer the Sacraments, in such congregations as they shall be called unto.  
Fr. johnson.  
Why will such seem to renounce that calling received of the Prelates, and yet blame us for doing the like?  
W. Bradshaw  
They may aclowledge a further calling, then that of the Prelates, and yet not therein renounce the calling received from the Prelates, but rather ratify the same. For the Prelates, being learned Divines, and having approved of their gifts, and by words and letters testimonial given liberty, to execute the ministry of the gospel, they do not thereby thrust them into a ministry, but they leave them to be further called or chosen, either by the people or those patrons, unro whose fidelity the people have committed this charge.  
And therefore this acknowledging of a further calling, maketh nothing to the justification of the proud and ignorant schism of these persons.  
1, In this invective( for so he is pleased to style it) master Can telleth us, there are many grievous errors bound up; but one that for lying surmounts the●… all. And what is that, think we? Surely this; that the Prelates do not thrus●… them into a ministry, but leave them to be called by the people, or patrons, &c. This he saith he hath, proved elsewhere to be very false; and it is strange to him, that they should dare to affirm so known and apparent an untruth.  
But this is a sorry cavil, since that master Bradshaws meaning is manifest, that the ministers are not upon the Prelates ordaining them, necessary thereby put into any pastoral charge or ministerial employment. Nor doth master Can prove any such thing in that place of this his rambling rapsodie, that he turneth us over to, for the justification of this his charge.  
As for the other many grievous errors in this invective of master Bradshaw, since master Can hath not vouchsafed to tell us what they are, we have nothing to say to them, till he be pleased to detect them: and till then therefore we let him with the rest of his lavish language here, containing no new charge, but descanting and dilating in his tragical outcries after his usual guise upon the former, pass for the present.  
2. he demandeth some good proof for the things, th●t this bold man( remember you must, who speaks it) here affirmeth. First that the people have committed this charge unto the fidelity of patrons. 2. If they have, whither the thing be lawful or no?  
Now what be the things that this bold man here affirmeth? for master Can relateth but one; and that one might easily( if need were) be confirmed out of those Authors that have written, either modern of ancient, of the grounds of such right of patronage, arising from the foundation of parochial Churches or the endowment of them, confirmed by our Laws, to which the whole body of the realm are parties: not to add that, which is well enough known; that many of them are no other then Feoffees in trust for the body of the Parish or congregation, being by their joinct act therein enfeoffed. But master Cans office was to have disproved it, if he could. For as for his other quere of the lawfulness of the thing; master Bradshaw speaks onely de facto: nor doth he deliver any one word in way of approbation of it; much less laboureth,( as master Can here chargeth him) what he can,( which is utterly untrue) to maintain so vile and wicked a thing, as he termeth it.  
Nor, on the other side, if any other do( as he saith) condemn all patrons as Latrones, or any patrons by their abuse of the trust reposed in them, have deservedly been so styled, is that ought to master Bradshaw, who hath nothing here to answer for, but what he himself hath here avowed?  
But what is all this to the strengthening of master Iohnsons objection,& his demand, why such, as themselves renounce the calling received from the Prelates, blame him and his for the like? or to the taking away of master Bradshaws direct answer thereunto; that such men do not wholly re●ounce it, though they aclowledge a further calling; nor do blame them so much for renouncing of it, as for their seditious and arrogant schism, and their unchristian and uncharitable censure of others?  
Fr. johnson.  
If they preach by virtue of an other calling, how then stand they ministers of that Church, where no other is allowed? and how impose they themselves upon any of their parish assemblys, seeing the laws of the Land allow onely the Prelacy, Priesthood and Deaconry aforesaid?  
W. Bradshaw  
Though this should be granted, which he in his ignorant simplicity doth suppose, that some amongst us, having been ordained by the Prelates, did exercise our ministry by virtue of an other calling; and though the Law of the Land allow no other, yet( especially so long as they are permitted to execute their ministry by those in authority, though it be by virtue of an other calling) they are to be reputed ministers of that Church, that hath use of their ministry.  
Fr. johnson  
How also herein can they avoid, to be both intruders and hypocrites? intruders, in taking upon themselves a public office in that Church against the public Laws and constitutions thereof; hypocrites, because they pretend in show one thing to the Prince and State, and yet perform an other indeed?  
W. Bradshaw  
All these inferences are upon a false supposition, yet if there were any such persons, they could no more therein be said to be intruders and hypocrites, then they of the Separation are. For though the public Laws should be against any other calling, yet so long as they take an office by a good calling, they cannot be said to intrude themselves. Neither do any such amongst us( if there be any such) pretend in show any more, than they do indeed perform. For so far forth as any differ in judgement from the public Laws of the State, they are ready to profess it, being called thereunto; and they practise onely that, which they judge lawful; being as ready as any of the separation, to suffer rather then practise, approve, or assent unto any thing, which they judge unlawful and unwarrantable.  
Fr. johnson.  
But suppose they had some other lawful calling; yet they also retaining this unlawful calling of the Prelates, this were but to halt between two opinions, and to set their thresholdes by Gods thresholdes, and their posts by Gods posts.  
W. Bradshaw  
How can such be said to retain the unlawful calling of the Prelates, which protest against the same, and profess that they preach not by that, but by an other calling? But if there be any such, that exercise their ministry by an other calling, besides that of the Prelates, they therein refuse obedience and conformity to whatsoever in the Prelates calling they judge unlawful; and so do not join an unlawful and a lawful calling together: but reject the corruptions, retain the good, and supply the defect with an other calling. And this is the worst that can be made of it, but this is not to join mans thresholdes to Gods, &c. but clean contrary to separate them as much as may be. And how can they be said to halt between two opinions, when so far one lye, as the truth( in their judgement and opinion) is established by public Laws, they embrace it, acknowledging their subjection to the same Laws: and contrarily, where they judge that the Law swerves from the truth, they take an other course. But still he begs this( which is the main controversy) that our ministers have received an unlawful calling from the Prelates.  
In the next place he labours to prove by reasons, that howsoever some pretend an other calling, yet it is evident that they execute all the dutys of their ministries, by virtue of their calling taken from their Prelates. But what of that? this will stand him in no stead, unless it be given him of alms; That every ministry executed by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelates, is an unlawful, and an Antichristian ministry. For prove it he can not: And if we should, except this also be given him: That our ministery is executed ONELY by virtue of a calling taken from the Prelates; and not by any other power or virtue besides, taken either from God or man. But let us see his Reasons.  
Fr. johnson.  
1. They can not stand public ministers, except they receive of the Prelates the Priesthood and Deaconrie aforesaid.  
2. They are excommunicated ipso facto, if they affirm, that they who are made Bishops, Deacons& Priests, are not Lawfully made, until they have some other calling.  
3. The people have not the liberty of the Churches of Christ, nor power in this their estate to choose and submit unto the true and lawful ministry appointed by Christ.  
4. Without and against the peoples consent, they are by the Prelates alone silenced, deprived and degraded from exercising any ministety in those assemblys.  
W. Bradshaw  
These Reasons do not prove that they exercise their ministery ONELY by virtue of a calling received from the Prelates: and therefore whether true or false are nothing to the purpose; and unworthy any further answer.  
After this he fetcheth an other road out, and laboureth to prove; that our ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be silenced, and deposed from their public ministry, no not by lawful Magistrates: which is not onely false and seditious, as shall appear afterwards; but also idle and impertinent to the present controversy: for if it were true, that ministers ought not to do in this case, as ours do; yet this doth not argue, any corruption in the calling of their ministry, but a weakness onely i● the persons that execute it; in yielding further from their own right, then they need to do. But let us consider the particulars, that he objecteth against our ministers in this respect.  
Fr. johnson.  
The Apostles, being true ministers of Christ, would not at the commandement of lawful Magistrates, leave to preach: much less should true ministers at the appointment of usurping Prelates. Neither did the Apostles make their immediate calling from God, the ground of their refusal; but this, that they ought to obey God rather then man; which is a duty required of all ministers& Christians.  
W. Bradshaw.  
1. Where he distinguisheth between silencing and depriving by Prelates, and lawful Magistrates; it is in our cause, where the Prelates do it by authority and commission from lawful Magistrates, a distinction without a difference.  
2. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate calling from God, as the ground of their refusal in so many letters and syllables, yet that which they do assign, is by implication, and in effect the same with it: for it is as much as if they had said; God himself hath imposed this calling upon us,& not man; and therefore except we should rather obey man, than God, we may not forbear this office, which he hath imposed upon us. For opposing the obedience of God to the obedience of man, he therein pleads a calling from God,& not from man: otherwise, if they had received a calling from man, there had been incongruity in the answer: considering, that in common sense and reason, they ought so far forth to obey men, forbidding them to exercise a calling, as they exercise the same by virtue of that calling. Else by this reason a minister should not cease to preach, upon the commandement of the Church, that hath chosen him; but should be bound, to give them also the same answer, which the Apostles gave; which were absurd. So that by this gross conceit of master johnson, there should be no power in any sort of men whomsoever, to depose a minister from his ministry; but that notwithstanding any commandement of Church or State, the minister is to continue in his ministry.  
But for the further answer of this his ignorant conceit, plainly tending to sedition, we are to know: that though the Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists preached publicly where they were not hindered by open violence; and did not, nor might not leave their ministery upon any human authority& commandement whatsoever, because they did not enter into, or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any man whatsoever; yet they never erected and planted public Churches and ministerys in the face of the Magistrate, whither they would or no, or in despite of them. But such, in respect of the eye of the Magistrate, were as private and invisible as might be.  
Neither were some of the Apostles onely forbidden, so as others should be suffered to preach the same gospel in their places; but the utter abolishing of Christian religion, was manifestly intended in silencing of them. But our Churches, whereof we are ministers, are no private and secret assemblys, such as hid themselves from the face of a persecuting Magistrate and State, but are public, professing their worship and doing their religion, in the face of the Magistrate and State, yea and by his countenance authority and protection: and we are set over those Churches, not onely by a calling of our people, but also by the authority of the Magistrate, who hath an armed power to hinder any such public action; who is willing also to permit and maintain other true ministers of the gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some. If therefore after our public calling, to minister to such a known and public Church, not by the Church onely, but by the Magistrate also, the Magistrate shall have matter against us( whither just or unjust, it skilleth not) and shall in that regard forbid us to minister to our Church: I see not by what warrant in Gods word, we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our ministry still: Except we should think such a Law of ministry to lye upon us, that we should judge ourselves bound to run upon the sword point of the Magistrate, or to oppose sword to sword: It being not the use of the higher powers, in such cas●s nakedly to forbid, but to set a sword to the breast; thereby to force them which shall refuse. And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly,& against the will of the Church, and should therein sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Church, nor ought she therein to resist the will of the Magistrate: Neither doth she stand bound, in regard of her affection to her minister( how great and deserved soever) to deprive herself of the protection of the Magistrate, by leaving her public standing, to follow her ministry in private and the dark; refusing the benefit of all other public ministery, which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate, she may enjoy.  
Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary minister hath by Gods wo●d in such a case, so to draw any such Church or people to his private ministry, that thereby they should hazard their outward State and quieth in the commonwealth where they live; when in some competent measure they may publicly, with the grace and favours of the Magistrate, enjoy the ordina●y means of their Salvation, by an other: and( except he have a calling to m●●●ster to some other Church) he is to be content to live as a private member, till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate unto him, and to call him again to his own Church; labouring mean while privately upon particular occasio●s offered, to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God, those people that are deprived of his public labours. And I take it, to be the duty of the people, in such a case, if they will approve themselves faithful Christians, and go●d subjects, so to submit to the ministry of an other, as that by prayer, and all other good, dutiful, and loyal means, they may do their best endeavour to obtain him, of whom against their will they have been deprived, and still to effect and love him as their Pastor: now if the people do thus, then is that minister called to be silent, not onely by the Magistrate, but by them also, though with much grief.  
Fr. johnson.  
It is the duty of all ministers& Christians, as well as Apostles, to obey God and not man, when man forbiddeth that which God commandeth, or commandeth, that which God forbiddeth.  
W. Bradshaw  
True, but God no where; that I can find, commandeth, either a minister to mini●●er publicly in a public Church maintained by the Magistrate, against the will and in de●pite of the Magistrate; no more then against the will and in de●pite of the Church it sel●e.  
Fr. johnson.  
Uriah at the commandement of the King made an Altar after the fashion of that of Damascus; but therein sinned, though he offered thereon ●uch burnt offerings as God had appointed, much less may the ministery under the gospel be framed after any new manner devised by man; least of all after Antichrist; though in that ministry many doctrines of the gospel be taught,& such Sacraments administered as God hath ordained.  
W. Brads●aw.  
This Example of Uriah the Priest is altogether impertinent, unto that which goeth before. It being one thing upon the commandement of the Magistrate to forbear the public exercise of a true ministry: an other thing upon his commandement to frame a new ministery, after a new manner devised by man, or Antichrist.  
After this, he runs out of his way again to satisfy an objection that he had propounded& endeavoured( as far as his learning would give him leave) to answer before.  
And which doth nothing at all depend upon any thing that goeth before in this argument: wherein he resembles some wanton curs, that take delight to run round about to catch their own tails: but let us see what it is he saith.  
Fr. johnson.  
Here again concerning such as plead, that they teach the truth, and many excellent points of Doctrine; It is to be observed, that none may therefore hear their ministery under colour of learning the truth; because in yielding to hear and receive it from Antichrists ministery, they defile the temple of God,& become the subjects of Antichrist.  
W. Bradshaw  
Where he again taketh it as a matter, that must, whether we will or no, be granted unto him; that our ministry is Antichrists ministry; which needs no other answer then before. Yet thus much further,  
1. That no ministry whatsoever,( so far forth as it teacheth the truth of Christ, especially a truth opposite to the Doctrine of An●●christ,) is the m●nisterie of Antichrist. And those which shall submit and subject them e●ves unto any ministry whatsoever, onely so far forth as they minister and teach such truth, cannot therein be said to defile the temple of God; or to be subjects of Antichrist, but be obedient to Iesus ●hrist.  
2. Our ministry, in divers Congregations of the Land at least, teach not onely many excellent points of Doctrine: but so much Doctrine, as ●s sufficient to the Salvation of him that believeth the same. Even all the main fundamental points of Salvation clearly set down in Gods word. Yea, and for ought any can prove to the contrary, all other less necessary points, so far forth as God hath revealed, and convinced their consciences of the truth of them.  
3. Those amongst us, who make conscience of hearing our ministery, do not hear them under a colour of learning the truth; but onely to th●s very end and purpose, that they might learn the truth, and therein the true way of serving and worshipping God according to his own will.  
Fr. johnson.  
And not to speak of the many errors and falsehoods, which they also teach; it is no new thing that the ministers of Ant●christ, should in divers things teach and bring the truth with them: for when Satan can not by fal●ehood utter his wears, ordinances, ministry, worship, he will be glad to utter the same by teaching the truth.  
W. Bradshaw.  
1. Our Errors, whither for weight, or number, or quality, are not such, so great, so m●ny, but they may befall unto true Christians, whether ministers or people. Yea,( as master johnson well knoweth) many of the martyrs of Iesus Christ have lived and died, in more and greater errors of the ●ame kind. And therefore well may he pass by this point.  
Th●s is but a piece of his simplo rhetoric, carelessly to seem to pass by that which he can not prove. For how many errors can he name or number, that he is able to justify to be taught in the ministery of our Church-assemblys? What one truth of Religion can he name, that is not, or hath not been( when just occasion hath been offered) taught by some of our ministers? I am not igno●ant, that in his treatises against M. A. H. and M. H. I. he mustereth a whole troope of pretended Errors: but suppose them to be so many dist●nct Errors, how doth he prove they are taught in our ministery, or that they are required by Law to be taught?  
There is ●●deed a conformity and subscription required to some of them,& a Canon that requires, that the late Canons be red in Churches, some times in the year: as all●o, that the book of Articles be red, at the first entrance upon an ecclesiastical charge, with a testification of Assent unto it. But is this ministerially to teach the Errors contained in the said books? may not a man in the weakness of his judgement, and in infirmity, at his first entrance into a calling, conform and subscribe unto some things, not so warrantable and true,& yet not teach them for goldsmiths? yea may he not for all that, teach doctrine in it self d●rectly contrary to those untruths? yea and yet satisfy also the mind of the Law, which being human, and therefore not always perfect, may command that very truth to be taught, which being thoroughly followed, will destroy some untruths;, which the same Law all o requires?  
Further, it is one thing to read the Canons to the people, thereby to declare unto them, what is required at their hands by their governers; an other th●ng, to teach and justify the errors contained in them: and to testify an assent unto some errors, is not ministerially to instruct the people in those errors.  
2. Though it be no new thing that the ministers of Antichrist, should in divers things bring the truth with them; Yet this is a new thing, and never heard off before, that the ministers of Antichrist should teach the whole truth of Ie●us Christ, for the substance thereof: that they should oppose directly and zealously, against the main and fundamental doctrines of Antichrist; that they should profess him to be Antichrist, and that man of sin;& to the shedding of their blood should exercise their ministry against Antichrist and his kingdom, protesting against him and his service. Were it not new and strange, that a man should be counted a true subject unto a Prince then, when he doth openly protest against him; counting him an usurping tyrant, and employing all the wit, power and strength he hath against him? Such subjects of Antichrist are our ministers, or by the Laws such they ought to be. Could he be said to be a minister of Christ, that yielding to some external rites, and professing some doctrines of Christian faith, doth notwithstanding directly, openly& professedly renounce Christ and his service, and profess h mselfe to be an enemy to him, and his kingdom? if it hold not in the one, is it not both a new and strange thing, that it should hold in the other?  
3. master johnson out of his knowledge must teach us, how Satan can be said by teaching the truth, to utter his own ministry or worship: or how a satanical ministry can be uttered, when in and by the ministry, nothing but the truth of Christ is administered. What is the ministery of Sata●, but the ministry of error?& how can the ministry of error be uttered by teaching the truth? or how can a ministry be said to be uttered by a truth, when it is the ministery itself that uttered the truth? Surely no more then a merchandise can be said to be uttered by selling of wears. And were it not a wonder, if a man should utter his bad merchandise by selling good and sound wears? Satan and Antichrist indeed together with some truths, seek to utter much falsehood, which otherwise( they know) would not be received. And many of our ministers are content to yield to some things, which they judge not so convenient( if it did otherwise seem good to the State) to the end they may utter the truth. But that like Antichrist and Satan, our ministers should propound this unto themselves, to teach some goldsmiths to this end, that they might thereby utter falsehood and lies, false ministries and worships, is a malicious imputation, and can never be levied..  
Here master Can having all this while been silent, like hounds at a loss,& having let master Iohnsons fond objections,& as frivolous reasons pass, as sufficiently by master Bradshaw answered; begins at length again to open and bark after his wonted manner; but, as curs unmanaged, that run after a wrong game, and by their yelping, endeavour to draw the rest of the pack after them.  
1. master Bradshaw( saith he) asketh what errors we can prove in their Church,& is so audacious to affirm, that those set down by master Johnson are pretended. And hereupon he reckoneth up no less then 70. taking up well near 2 whole pages, which he saith, have been published under our own hands, and professed to be poisonful leaven of Antichrist. As among the rest. 1. The Popish names and offices of Arch-Bishops. 2. Lord-Bishops. 3. Their titles of primacy and Lords grace. 4. Their visitations, &c. 5. Their dominions, revenues and retinue. 6. Their black Chimer, white rotchet, and other popish apparel. 6. Chancellors. 8. deans. 9. Subdeanes, and so forward, to Parsons, Vicars, Parish Priests, Chaplens, clerks, Sextines, &c. For he will be sure to bring in the same persons, more then once, under divers names, rather then miss of his account. Though he saith, he could to these add many a store of vile errors more. It is marvel, when the poor Sextine could not escape him, how the ringing of bells, and making of graves, and sweeping the Church, and shutting the doors, came not in among the rest, as vile,( not abuses but) errors in his beaderoll, but they are, it may be, among those that he saith he could, but doth not add.  
Whereas master Bradshaw neither demandeth what errors can be proved to be in our Church( which he denieth not some to be) but how many errors he can name or number, to be taught in the ministry of our Church-assemblys. And all that master Can therefore here prates, is but mere smoke, unless he can prove his whole beaderoll of vile errors,( as he termeth them) the black chimer, the white rochet,& the Sexlines office, among the rest, to be taught, yea and generally taught, in all our Church-assemblys: and again prove them to be errors so vile, that they make the Church-assemblys, where they are taught, to be no Churches of Christ. For without this presumed, no such separation from our Church-assemblys, as they maintain, and master johnson undertakes to demonstrate, albeit these were granted all to be errors, can be necessary thence inferred.  
As for his calling them a whole troope of pretended errors, which master Can also taketh exception to, and calleth unreasonable daubing) he might well so do for divers causes.  
1. Because, it seemeth, Mr. johnson had done there, as Mr. Can here, made distinctions without difference, to make his list of them the longer;& set down as distinct errors, points in substance the same.  
2. Because he might deem some of them at least, such as can not be proved so to be. For what others have said, is nothing to him; nor is he bound to answer to it, or to make good what such have said.  
3. Because Mr. johnson it is likely relateth them there onely, as Mr. Can doth here;& they might well be termed, what ever they were in themselves, in regard of him, pretended, until they be proved by him so to be.  
And Lastly, the question is, not so much here what they are, but it being taken for granted, that they are such as they are pretended to be, whither they be generally taught in our Church-assemblies or no.  
As little therefore to the purpoe is all that that followeth, that the errors above name are by authority commanded, and constantly practised( in every Church-assembly, think we, a black Chimer, a white rotchet, a Lord-Bishop, dispensation for boyes and dolts to have benefice? Yea or reading of homilies, or a dumb ministry?) and upon all occasions defended in public and private; and there are terrible Canons against those that speaks against our liturgy, Ceremonies, Church-government and ordination. All this nothing touching( though never so true, as part of it is nothing less then true) the point in present agitation.  
2. To master Bradshaws demand of the contrary, what one truth of religion is not taught by some of our ministers. Mr. Can answers.  
1. That this is not material to the point in controversy; seeing that none of them teach true Doctrine, but in a false and Antichristian calling; taking that for granted still, that remains still to be proved: and yet is that material, that master Bradshaw here saith to master Iohnsons charge, and the answer to his objection.  
1. That if we will believe the Non-conformists, master Bradshaw hath small cause to brag thus of our preaching, since that our ministers are for the most part ignorant asses, that either can not, or do not preach;& a number of those that do, profane& heathenish Orators, the grace of whose preaching lieth in affencted eloquence, fond fables, &c.  
For master Can, or who ever else he be, that shall pass such opprobrious terms upon the most part of our ministry,( how esteemed of in the reformed Churches of Christ abroad, the testimonies given in the writings of the principal men of note among them for learning and piety there unto; and their sending over of their young Students to learn a method of preaching from the ministers in these parts, doth evidently show) I will say no more; but as the angel sometime to the Prince of detractors and calumniaters, in whose train master Can may well claim a prime place, The Lord rebuk thee, Satan.  
But neither doth master Bradshaw here brag of our preaching; wherein yet I suppose we may truly say; that our Churches are not inferior for number of able men, yea and painful ministers, to any of the Reformed Churches of Christ in foreign parts: Nor, though a number, yea the most part of our ministers were such as is here said, yet either would that any whit contradict ought that master Bradshaw here implieth; to wit, that the general body of necessary saving truth, is entirely taught by some or other of our ministers; or justify the necessary separation that these arrogant schismatics undertake to defend, from the ministery or Church-assemblys of those that are not such.  
3. That, though some of them deliver many sound goldsmiths; yet they lay not the axe to the roote of the three; they seek not to suppress the evils that reign most amongst them. And what are those? devised service, false ministery, Antichristian government, &c.  
But 1. here is the question pittyfullie begged: that taken for good& granted, that all the controversy is about; that our ministery is false, and our service devised; in such sense as they intend: which neither he nor Mr. johnson have been able hitherto to prove.  
2. admit the government established with us were such as he saith,( but neither doth attempt here, nor is able to prove) yet neither is that an evil reigning in our Church-assemblys; nor would the discussing of such controversys profit the people much more( though master Can so inform us) then our loud& long crying out of judgement, judgement onely against swearers, drunkards, usurers, whoremongers, &c.( as if this were all the subject matter of our preaching in these parts:)& much less then the opening and pressing of the main points of Christian faith and piety: which it is to be feared many of Mr. Cans faction are too raw in; though they can prate and pratle at large, more by roate than by reason, of a Churches calling and constitution.  
3. To that master Bradshaw saith concerning, not the defence of reading,( as master Can fal●ely relateth him, but) the reading of the book of Articles& Canons in the Church: that the reading of them is not ministerially to teach the errors( if any be) in the said books: Not approving the same, but disapprooving it rather, as a weakness in those, that supposing some errors therein contained, yet testify their assent thereunto; distinguishing between reading them as things required by their governers, and justifying the things contained in them.  
To this I say master Can replieth.  
1. That if that which master Bradshaw saith be true, yet the fault is not the less. Which is nothing at all to the purpose.  
2. That he speaketh falsely herein: for it is enjoined them as a part of their office, and none may by Law do it but they. Which though it were granted to be as Mr. Can affirmeth; yet would it not prove that the reading of it so enjoined, were ministerially to teach the things in the said book contained; nor that master Bradshaw therefore speaketh untrue therein. Though ministers be enjoined to publish in the congregation his Majestys letters patents, in behalf of such as have sustained great and grievous pretended losses, by casualty of fire or wrack at sea, &c. and none may by authority publish the same but they: yet it followeth not therefore, that they do m●nisterial●y teach the relations therein contained.  
3. If they do not teach them for goldsmiths, then it must be for lies and errors.  
But it followeth not, if( as M. Bradshaw saith, and so he saith, nor doth Mr. Can d● prove him there●n) they teach them not at all.  
4. His answer here, he saith, ●s quiter besi●es the point;& that he seeks me●rely to cousin his Reader. And why so? Forsooth, Mr, Ioh●son spe●k●s of Arti●les an● Canons, v●le and wicked things,( though neither he nor Mr. johnson show them to be such,) and to this he replieth,( answereth he should say) may not a man in the weakness of his judgement and infirmity, at his fi●st entrance into a calling, comform and subsc●ibe to some things not so warrantable& true, &c. Ergo he may comform to the damna●le Articles and Canons, read them to the people. By the same reason of argu●ng, he may be a jew, a Turk, a Heathen, any thing.  
What a shameless either beast or bedlam is this? for I know not whither a man should term him. Where doth master Bradshaw say any such thing, or frame any such argument? that which he saith onely is this; that a man may at his first entrance ●nto a calling conform and subscribe to some th●ngs ●ot so warrantable and true, either ou● of weakness of judgement( supposing them to be warrantable and true, when indeed they are not) or out of infirmity( yielding there unto contrary to his own judgement concerning them) and yet( ●n his ministry afterward) not teach them fo truth Now how this agreeth what Mr. Can here chargeth upon him, or how by ought that is here said, liberty is given for any man to be Tu●k, jew o● H●a●hen, or any thing, let any indifferent person judge.  
For as for Mr. Cans raving clamours of vile, wicked, damnable Canons and A●ticl●s, and his appeal for such outcr●es to I know not what othe●s, for distemper, it may be, not wholly unlike himself; we are now ●o enured to them, that we regard them no more, than the neighbouring borderers d●e the none of the roaring downfalls of Nilus.  
5. Running back again, as in a wild goose race,& suspecting, it seemeth, that he had not sufficiently taken away some of Mr. Bs. answers to some of Mr. Is. former reasons, under colour of discovering some of Mr. Bs. senseless shif●s, he taketh occasion to make an Almond leap backward,& very solemny relateth.  
That whereas master johnson proveth our ministry to be unlawful and Antichristian, because neither their offices, calling nor administration is according to Gods word; but all taken from Antichrist; master Bradshaw childishly tells us, that true pastors and ●eachers may want some accessary parts of their offices, 〈◇〉. which answereth nothing to the point, nor is more to any purpose, then if a convicted traitor would seek to prove his cause to be otherwise for that he wants some accessary parts of a true fuhject.  
Thus this man of a bra●en brow,&( it is to be feared) of a seared conscience, not childishly, but maliciously, as one desperately bent to forge and vent any thing, though never so untrue, tending to the disgrace of his adversary, especially, if at the very instant it might not be diserned. For he points us to no place, where either master johnson so argueth, or master Bradshaw so answereth. master Iohnsons second reason runs mainly upon this, that our ministry is the ministry of Antichrists apostasy. But in all master Bradshaws discourse in way of answer thereunto, there is not a title of our ministers wanting of some accesso y parts of their offices: much less any such answer as is here related to any such axiom or position of master Iohnsons, as it is here said to be returned unto. Or, if he had an eye to master Iohnsons first argument, for the proof of the Assumption of his first reason,( for his arguments too oft interfere) the Assumpt●on whereof, he saith, is averred by this; that the offices, calling, entrance choice, ministrat on and maintenance of our ministers wer● never ordained by Christ; but are derived from Antichrist and his apostasy: master Bradshaw as the book itself sheweth you, and did then show him, not in answer to the Assumption, much less in answer to this related for the proof of it, which he answereth to other wise at large, but in answer to the proposition( which is th s: The pastors and teachers spoken of Eph. 4.11. have t●eire offices, callings administration, and maintenance ordained by Christ in his Testament▪ a●d of which he distinguisheth) saith, it is not true, unless by offices, callings and administration he understand the substantial or esse tiall parts thereof otherwise it is false: for that those very pasto●s and teachers, there spoken of, may( not want, as master Can he ●e● late●h him, ●u●) have divers accessary parts of their offices, callings, and administration, not ordained by Christ in the new Testament. Thus you see how shamelessly he twice in one breath, belieth master Bradshaw affirming him 1. to say; They may want; when he saith, they may have, And 2. to return this as an answer to that assertion of master johnson: both which the book itself before him gave him directly the lye in. It is childish indeed, to lay this as an imputat●on upon master Bradshaw that he doth not relate in particular, what accessary parts, such may have; when it is his own part, if he will reply, to take away his distinction, by proving that no such can be had. But it is not ch●ldish but knavish, thus wickedly and maliciously, out of his own mischievous brain-pan, to forge and frame such absurd and senseless answers, and then to father them upon others. In stead ●herefore of that he addeth; that th●s is a● if a conv●cted traitor, would prove his cause to be otherwise, for that he wants some accessary parts of a true subje●●,( a doughty plea indeed,& well worthy such a patron, as here enters it,) I may much better subjoine, that a convicted Liar,( such as master Can both here and elsewhere sheweth himself to be) wants not some accessary parts, but some essential, of an honest man.  
6. At last, remembering himself, and returning out of his late raving fits, to his right wits again; he begins at length to take notice of what he was indeed to reply to; but having no great mind to be doing with it, he is willing to part with it again as soon as he cometh at it.  
Touching the distinction, saith he, between reading the Canons to the people, and not teaching the Errors contained in them I shall leave it as another demand how they can prove that t●ese falsehoods and lies may be red, in the manner that they are, and yet be neither taught nor justified.  
You see how soon the man hath done dispatched all in a trice: and h●w soundly he replieth, and in replying refuteth( for so he should do) what his answerer hath averred; by demanding of him how he can prove that, that he saith. Though indeed he cutteth the Answerers words of by the halves, and leaveth out that clause, that giveth a full answer to his demand,( his broad language set aside,) to wit, as declaring what is by their governers required, not as teaching or justifying any errors therein contained.  
Fr johnson.  
Beza saith, though Antichrist teach the truth,( which sometimes he doth) to the end he may more easily seduce to believe his lies, yet we are to stop our ears against him; lest under this pretence we be deceived by him.  
W. Bradshaw.  
Well, but it is yet to prove, that our min●sters are Antichrists, and that they teach the truth to any such wicked intent: the contrary is manifest; when many of them in regard of the times are content to yield to some colourable untrueths, that they may thereby purcha e liberty unto themselves, to advance the truth of Christ. They yield to some th●ngs in appearance Antichrist●an, that they might with more l●bert●e fight a a●nst Antichrist.  
Fr. johnson.  
Who knoweth not that Antichrist and his ministers are hypocritical friends to Christ, under the name of C●rist fighting against h●m?  
W. Bradshaw  
But who knoweth not that our min●sters, if they be such as our Laws require them to be, are ●worne Enemys to Antichrist: and in the name of Christ, and under some of Antichrists own rites, do fight against him, and resist him unto blood? and who knoweth not, that many of them have died for Christ at the foot of Antichrist.   

The sixth reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
If the present ministery of the Church of En land be a strange ministry then is it not lawful in the wor●●ip o● God, to hear it, or have any ●pirituall communion therewith.  
But such is the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Therefore it is not lawful in the wor●●●p o● God to hear it, or have any spiritual communion there with.  
The Assumption is manifest; for a strange ministry is that which is not by the Law ordained and given for that work ●s them●e●ves heretofore have published; and as is proved in the first Rea●on.  
W. Bradshaw  
This reason differeth not in substance from divers of the former: for what is it to be a strange ministery, but to be a ministery that is not let by Christ in his Church? which is his first reason: but to be a ministry, which deriveth not the power and function from Christ? which is his 4. reason: but to be a ministry that worketh upon mens consciences by virtue of a false spiritual calling? which is his 5. Reason. Might he not with a great facility, out of this method of reasoning have brought forth 7000. reasons, as these 7? But how doth he prove the Assumption of his reason? by sending us back again, as you may see to the 1. reason. So that all the reason of this reason is borrowed from the first reason; and is answered already in the answer thereof.  
But before he passeth to the next reason, he runs out after the wonted fashion, into an idle discourse, nothing at all appertaining to the argument in hand; bringing in some idle observations upon the story of Corah, Dathan and Abiram,& also of Naaman, falsely misapplied unto our Church-assemblys and ministry. For he taking it as granted, or as a thing that could not be denied him; that our ministry is Antichristian, and that our worship is idolatry, he makes our ministers and people, oven the best of them, wors than Corah, Dathan and Abiram, and them which were of their conspiracy,& our assemblys and worship as bad as the temple of Rimmon,& the idolatry therein performed. And where he brings the example of Naaman, as brought by some of us to justify our joining with our Church-assemblys; I persuade myself he doth against the knowledge and light of his own conscience belie us:& that there cannot be one of us brought forth, that ever made this plea. We hold it as unlawful( as themselves) outwardly& but in appearance to join with idolaters, in their idolatry;& yet wee see not warrant why every particular act, that in a large sense is idolatrous, adjoined to Gods true worship, we should forbear our presence, as the true worship itself: Or that our presence for the true worships sake alone, should in respect of some point of false worship thereunto annexed be,( as he speaketh) the submitting our bodies to a strange worship: Especially when we are not particular Actors in it, but onely present, beholding it with grief, and suffering it in others for the true worships sake, unto which it is adjoynd. If this should be held unlawful; then can no man present himself with a good conscience, at any public worship of God wheresoever; because( except it should be stinted and prescribed, which master johnson holds to be a false worship,) he can have no assurance, but that some errors in matter or form will be committed: yea if he bee a man of understanding and learning, he may presume in a manner, that in the public worship some error or other, in matter or form, greater or lesser will be committed, before which he must present himself. But what? were the jewish Synagogues in Christs time free from all parts of false worship? the Scripture witnesseth the contrary. Did they, when Christ came into their assemblys, forbear them? the Scripture confirms the contrary. Was Christs presence then,( as here he saith our presence is) a very bowing down unto them? was he also therein an unconscinable dissembler? did he therein embrace the bosom of strangers, break his covenant, go a whoring with the inventions of man? for such fire as this he spitts at us if not, why should it be such a sin in us, who have not such eyes to pierce into the impiety of mans traditions, as our Saviour had?  
1. To this master Can replieth, that if it be unlawful, as master Bradshaw saith, outwardly, and but in appearance, to join with idolaters in their idolatry, then master Bradshaw sheweth himself an unreasonable man, in persuading them to return to return to our service; for that it were by our own grounds to join with idolaters in their idolatry.  
A peremptory reply, you see, but without proof; unless you will take I know not what grounds, of I know not whom,( for none are name, nor so much as once pointed to) for currant payment in a point of such importance.  
2. He demandeth what Scriptures witness, that there was false worship in the jewish Synagogues, and of what kind it was; And requireth of this proof, that Christ was present where and when the same was pra●●ised.  
Which so farforth as it is by master Bradshaw affirmed, is no hard matter to prove: for taking false worship in a large sense, as he there saith it may be,( in way of answer to master Iohnsons indistinct and indefinite speech of it,) for any error either in matter or manner of performance, it is apparent by our Saviours own refuting of them, that the Scribes and Pharisees, the chief& common teachers of those times, were very faulty in either. And it is as apparent, that our Saviour notwithstanding the same, did usually frequent their assemblys: nor is it likely, that for his presence they forbore their usual manner either of preaching or practise.  
And this is all that he affordeth us in defence of master Iohnsons sixth Reason. For of the next, as indeed it well deserved, he hath not a word.   

The seventh Reason.  
Fr. johnson.  
If the present ministery of the Church of England be not from heaven, but of men, then it is not lawful in the worship of God, to hear, or have any spiritual communion therewith.  
Such is the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Ergo, It is not lawful in the worship of God, to have any spiritual communion there with.  
The Assumption is evident: because God hath not appointed the ministery of the Church-assemblys, but man; as appears by their book of ordination: and if they will say the contrary, let them show their calling out of the word of God.  
W. Bradshaw  
This Reason is the very same with the 4. 5. and 6. and hath no ground or proof, but from them: and therefore is answered also in the answer of them. And this may be sufficient to show that our ministry is from heaven, when so malicious and exercised an adversary, whose whole religion seems to lye in opposing to our ministry, can say no more against it.    

The second sort of Reasons taken, as is pretended, forth of our own writers.  

The first reason taken from the 12. Arguments.  
Fr. johnson.  
All will worship is sin.  
To hear or communicate with the present ministery of the Church-assemblys of England in Church service, in manner and form prescribed, is a will worship.  
There fore to hear or communicate with that ministry is sin.  
W. Bradshaw  
This syllogism is sophistical, consisting plainly of four terms, Except, he make his conclusion this; therefore to hear or communicate with that ministery in manner and form prescribed, is a sin. For the third argument being will worship; all the other terms they being no parts there of, must be in the conclusion, if so be the syllogism be true, as every Sophoming boy in the university knoweth: and therefore he must either exclude them out of the Assumption, or include them in the conclusion, which he cannot do; it being his intent by these arguments to prove ●t a sin, to communicate therewith, not onely in manner and form prescribed, but any other way. And therefore he Sophistically, or rather in ignorant and witless simplicity, concludes a general from a special, thus.  
It is will-worship to communicate with our ministry in manner and form prescribed,  
Therefore it is a sin to communicate therewith, whether in manner and form prescribed, or any other way.  
Whereas a child may know this; that an action done in some manner and form prescribed may be a will-worship and a sin, which done otherwise may be true worship. A man may therefore( if need be) grant both his premises& deny his conclusion. Neither will it help him; that the Author of the twelve Arguments concluded against the Ceremonys, in the same form of words, that he doth here against the ministery: it being plain by the scope of his whole disputation, that though he do not express these words in manner and form prescribed in the conclusion; that yet he understandeth them: it being not his purpose to dispute absolutely against all use of them, but against the use of them in that manner and form that they are prescribed.  
But whatsoever his conclusion is, the assumption is false, yea though it should be granted, that in our ministery there is some will-worship performed. Yet let us see how he proves the assumption.  
Fr. johnson.  
All parts of divine worship and service imposed onely by the will and pleasure of man upon the communicants in divine service,& that of necessity to be done, is will-worship.  
But to hear and communicate with the present ministery of the Church-assemblys of England, in Church service, in manner and form prescribed, are such parts of divine worship as is aforesaid. Ergo,  
To hear and communicate with the present ministery of the Church-assemblys of England, in manner and form prescribed, is a will-worship.  
W. Bradshaw  
The proposition is taken forth of the twelve arguments, and there fore needs no answer. The Assumption is false; but he proveth it thus.  
Fr. johnson.  
1. Man imposeth this ministry upon man, and God in his word hath not appointed these offices and callings: neither required any to communicate with them in Church service in manner and form prescribed.  
2. The people stand bound to hear and communicate with them upon pain of suspension, deprivation, &c. and God must have no solemn worship in England, except it be with communion to the same. Ergo,  
To hear and communicate with the present ministry, &c. is a part of divine worship imposed as aforesaid.  
W. Bradshaw  
The first part of the antecedent is false,& is not proved by any ground taken from the twelve arguments. For not man onely, but God also, hath imposed this ministry: and hath appointed, for the substance thereof, the offices and callings of the ministers of our Church-assemblys:& hath required us to communicate with them in Chnrch-service, in that form& manner, which the Law in the true meaning thereof, prescribes; and which many at the least do practise.  
Neither doth the consequent follow upon the second part of the antecedent; for though human Lawe under never so great punishments, should bind us to never so great corruptions in Gods service; yet so long as we do not actually communicate in those corruptions, but onely in the true parts of Gods worship, our communicating is never the worse for the said Laws of men, but rather the better. Neither do we herein stand more bound, then master johnson and his people do, when they are in their Dominions. So that it makes as much against communicating with their ministry, as ours. Though therefore( as the author of the 12. arguments hath endeavoured to prove,) the ceremonys in controversy should be held to be a will-worship; and therefore a sin to use them in Gods worship; yet it followeth not by the same argument, that it is a sin to communicate with the ministry of our Church-assemblys, no though it should use the said ceremonys; much less where and when it useth them not, as in some places, or at some times, it doth not, neither is it by Law required so to do.  
Here Mr. Can forbearing to vindicate his brother Iohnsons logic, which this his whole discourse throughout sheweth him never to have had much acquaintance with, or to justify either of the axioms denied, in which the proof of his assumption wholly consists, doth after his old wont.  
1. Renew his former cavil concerning the Law mentioned by master Bradshaw, what Law he means; and what the true intent and meaning of that Law is; as if who were true ministers, could not be known without it;( which is a silly and senseless inference) For answer whereunto we shall require him to the place where the question was first moved, or the cavil rather first made: withall adding, that, if master Bradshaw had a good cause in hand, he would have referred his readers to the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles,& not used such carnal and idle talk. Belike he would have master Bradshaw do as his brother master johnson allege Scripture for matter of fact, to show what our ministers do, or are, or what the government they live under requires of them, or intendeth they should be and do, and so both abuse Scriptures, and make himself ridiculous, as his brother johnson therein hath done.  
2. He telleth us, he can not believe master Bradshaw in that( which cometh in on the by, ex abundante; for the answer takes away master Iohnsons argument without it) that it is lawful to communicate in that worship where the ceremonys are used; And hereupon breaketh out in his wonted manner, like the sheering of Swine, with much cry, and little wool; charging this inconsiderate man( as he pleaseth to style him) with rashness and folly, that durst without any reason more than boldness, justify that that his brethren have by many sound arguments, manifested to be evil and unlawful: and accordingly serveth us in a long mess, not very savoury, out of a nameless author,( no country-man of ours what ever he be; his language bewrayeth him,) who taking for granted, that kneeling used in communicating of the Lords table is idolatrous:& that those that join in communion with such as so do, though themselves sit, do communicate with them, when they are committing the very act of idolatry, doth thence infer the unlawfullnesse thereof: and with this Authors discourse, and his own descant there upon to raise the bulk of his book, he filleth 3. whole pages.  
But neither is it material what master Can believeth in this case, nor what his nameless author saith, till he bring better proof for what he speaketh; since that we are neither tied to subscribe, either to the belief of the one, or to the sentence of the other.   

The second Reason taken from the twelve Arguments.  
Fr. johnson.  
It is a sin against God, for Christians to partake with the ministry of such, as accounting themselves to be servants of Iesus Christ, yet do in the execution of their ministery give special honour to Antichrist and his officers.  
But the ministry of the Church of England is such. Ergo,  
It is a sin for Christians to partake therewith.  
W. Bradshaw  
First I deny the proposition: the true and best ministers of Iesus Christ, that ever were or shall be, since the Apostles, may in their ignorance or weakness do some act in their ministry, that may bring some special honour to Antichrist, and yet Christians may Lawfully, and without sin, partake with such in their ministry. It being not necessary, that whosoever partaketh with a ministery, should partake also with the accidental corruptions thereof.  
He tells us, like a bold and blind baiard; that the proposition is manifest and clear to any, that have an eye of reason, and any light of divinity shining in it; And yet it hath not so much as any colour of truth; but in the eyes of such owls and bats as himself is. The proposition in the twelve arguments, unto which he would equal and parallel his, is this: It is a sin against God, for him that is by way of excellency a servant of Iesus Christ,( without a precise and direct warrant from him, at any time, especially in the solemn worship of God) to give special honour to Antichrist and his members: What? must it needs follow from this; that it is a sin to partake any manner of way, with such a ones ministry, as shall in any measure commit such a sin? must the joining with them in any other parts of their ministry, needs be a communicating with them in this sin? he bidds us see for this 2. Cor. 6.14, 17. Rev. 18.4. But what is this to the 12. arguments, from whence he saith this reason is taken? and to what end should we see those places? except he had first made us to see, that our ministers in their ministry are infidels and Belials; that their ministry for the substance thereof is unrighteousness and darkness; that the God we serve in our ministry is an idol; that our assemblys are Babylon: and all this because some thing happily is done by our ministers, which( and yet contrary to their intent) is some honour to Antichrist. For except all this be granted unto him, these texts are of no force to confirm the proposition.  
The Assumption is as false as the proposition. Neither doth it follow from the assumption of that argument of the 12. from which he would ground it. For though it should be granted; that to use the ceremonys in controversy in manner and fcrme prescribed, were to give special honour to Antichrist, and his officers; yet it doth not follow, that the ministers of our Church-assemblys are such, that in the execution of their ministry give special honour to Antichrist, and his officers. For some of our ministers, from whom he separateth, do not in the execution of their ministry use the said Ceremonys at any time: neither do any of our ministers at all times in the execution thereof, use them, neither are required so to do.  
The Assumption notwithstanding he proceedeth to prove thus.  
Fr. johnson.  
Such a conformity to Antichrist and his officers, as is not onely besides the word of God, but in a special manner derogatory to all Reformed Churches, that have departed from the Synagogue of Rome, is a special honour to Antichrist and his officers.  
But the execution of the ministry of the Church of England is such. Ergo,  
The execution of that ministry in manner aforesaid, is to give special honour to Antichrist and his officers.  
W. Bradshaw  
The proposition is word for word in a manner taken out of the 12. arguments, and therefore for this controversy not to be stood upon, whether it be true or false.  
The assumption is false, and hath no ground at all from the 12. arguments. For though it should be granted; that to use the Ceremonys in controversy in divine worship, is such a conformity to Antichrist and his members, as is specified in the proposition: yet no man, except he have some crack in his brain, can from thence infer, that the execution of our ministry, is such a conformity; especially then when in the execution thereof they do not use the said Ceremonys; whice none do at all times, and some do never.  
He proceeds to prove the assumption not by any ground taken from the 12. Arguments, but by some of the fragments of his own former reasonless Reasons: and therefore the main issue of the argument, lying not upon any thing in the said arguments; this second reason of his can not be said to be taked from the 12. Arguments. And therefore they are no wise guilty of his schism, nor do any ways here in this place patronise the same.   

The third Reason taken out of the twelve Arguments, the London ministers Exceptions, and the abridgement, &c.  
Fr. johnson.  
If such be the State of the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England, as they are bound in their ministration unto such things, as the using of them in Church service, in manner and form prescribed, is a will-worship; a giving of special honour to Antichrist and his members, a performing of honours more than civill, even religious, onely to a human power; a warranting of the like use of jewish, Turkish, Paganish or Popish observations, a doing of schismatical actions; an having of spiritual communion with Papists, in the mysterys of their idolatry and superstition; a mingling of profane things with divine, an using of unlawful things in divine worship; an administering of Sacraments that are not of divine institution; a solemn acknowledging of special homage to the spiritual usurped authority of Lo●d-Bishops; an using of human Traditions in Gods worship, as necessary to salvation; an apparent means of damning of many souls; an observing of a Liturgy, which in the whole matter& form thereof is too like unto the mass-book, &c. then it is not lawful to communicate with the ministers in their ministry.  
But such is the estate of the ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Therefore it is not lawful to communicate with them therein.  
W. Bradshaw  
master johnson thinks surely, that in this argument he hath out of our own writings for ever disgraced our ministry, but whether here or in the arguments following he deal faithfully with our writers, I know not, his bad dealing in this kind, we ●ave discovered in part before, and doth most evidently appear in one particular following, wherein he most shamefully and loudly, as a man voided of all common honesty and grace, maketh the ministers of lincoln to affirm, that the Prelat●s are revealed to be great Antichrists, and their ministry and constitution to be great troublers of the Church in this day, and that it can not but be very sinful and hurtful to retain or communicate with them. The devil himself would have been ashamed in this open manner to have told such a lye: and therefore he is to be trusted no further then he is seen, and here in his loudness is the more to be suspected, that where he rehearseth many harsh, bitter and unsavoury speeches against our ministry and worship, as written by some of ourselves, that retain communion with the ministry and worship of our Church-assemblys; he doth not quote the particular places, but onely refers us to the authors in general, as though we had nothing else to do, but to read over whole books to find out his allegations; or that we must take them upon his word to be faithfully reported: but let us suppose, that our men have so written; yet there is no consequence in the proposition. For what if our ministers were bound to say mass, to sing matins, to worship the Virgin Mary, to aclowledge the Popes Supremacy, &c. yet it might be lawful to communicate with our ministers in their ministry; except that in the execution of their ministry they submitted unto that which they were bound unto: it being one thing to be bound, and an other thing to fulfil the bond. He might contrarily with as much wit and understanding have reasoned thus: If this be the estate of the ministery of the Church assemblys of Rome, that they are bound in their administration to the renouncing of Antichrist, and all his idolatry, offices& will-worship, to conform onely in their ministry to the gospel of Iesus Christ, and to such ordinances, as are agreeable to the same; then it is lawful to communicate with them in their ministry and worship. master johnson would quickly discern the inconsequence of this proposition. And why? because in the execution of their ministry, they fulfil not this bond: and yet he cannot deny, but that they are by a stronger bond, even a divine bond, bound unto this, than our ministers to the contrary.  
The consequent he saith is proved by the ministers of lincolnshire, abridgement, pag. 17. but to pass by his depraving of them before touched, no such matter can be concluded from the words which he here citeth; yea though and had dealt faithfully in the citation of them. For though it should be granted, that some act of spiritual fornication should be done in our ministry; that we are to separate from idolaters& Antichristians, and to be as unlike them as may be, in their religious observations; though God do bear a detestation to idolatry,& all the enticements thereof, as unto spiritual whoredom: though we ought to be ashamed of the monuments of idolatry, and cast them away with detestation; though we should be in some danger by them to be corrupted in religion, by comforming unto idolaters in their ministry and worship; though keeping communion with such ministers should be a special means to harden them in their sins; though the Prelates were revealed to be great Antichrists; though the godly learned have constantly taught, that Christians are bound to forsake and cast of the ministration; ceremonys and religious customs of pagans, jews, Antichristian idolaters and heretics, and carefully to shun all conformity with them therein; yet it doth not there upon follow, that if the ministers of our Church-assemblys be bound as aforesaid, that then it is not lawful to communicate with them in their ministery.  
master johnson therefore must be put to this pains, to prove his consequent.  
For further proof of the former consequent, he brings six reasons more out of his own old and fusty horn of store, which prove the consequent just à baculo ad angulum: to which it shall be needles to give answer, they being proofs clean besides the purpose of these reasons; which is to justify their schism by grounds taken from our own writings.  
The consequent then of the proposition being evidently false, the assumption, though it should have never so much ground from our own writings, will stand him in no steede.   

The fourth Reason taken out of the Admonitions to the parliament.  
Fr. johnson.  
If the offices of Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Lord-Bishops, suffragans, Parsons, Vicars, &c. be Antichristian and contrary to the Scriptures, then the people of God may not communicate with them in their ministry.  
But the first is true.  
Ergo the latter also.  
W. Bradshaw  
The consequent is false, and he goeth not about to prove it, by any thing taken out of our own writings, but by a stale proof that hath been answered before: and therefore it requires no answer. Onely thus much of free bounty: That the offices of Arch-Bishops, &c. quatenus tales, are not of the essence of the ministry of our Church-assemblys, but mere accidents.  
The assumption therefore will stand him in no steede, whether it be true or false;& therefore I leave it to their maintenance, from whom he saith he borroweth it.   

The fifth Reason taken out of the offer of conference.  
Fr. johnson.  
If the propositions propounded to be maintained, in the Offer of conference be true, then is it not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion with the present ministry of the Church-assemblys of England,  
But those propositions are true. Ergo,  
It is not lawful to have any spiritual communion with the same.  
W. Bradshaw  
The consequence is false, and doth not follow from the said propositions.  
1. Though it should be granted, that all matters merely ecclesiastical, Lawfully imposed upon any Church, are such, as may be concluded necessary from the written word of God: yet in a true constituted Church, some matters merely ecclesiastical may be imposed through human frailty, that cannot be so concluded.  
2. Though all human ordinances used onely or specially in Gods worship, whereunto they are not necessary of themselves, were simply unlawful; yet is not every such human ordinance of that nature, that it maketh the Church and ministry where it is used, to be a false Church and ministry much less those Churches and ministry wherein it is not used, but enjoined onely.  
3. Though it were generally granted of all, that every true visible Church of Christ is such a spiritual body politic as is specially instituted by Christ, or his Apostles, in the new testament: yet it will not thence follow, that those Churches and ministers are not to be communicated withall, that have any thing in or appertaining to the constitution thereof not instituted by Christ; or that such Churches are not true visible Churches.  
4. Though every true visible Church of Christ, or ordinary assembly of the faithful, hath by Christs ordinance, power in itself immediately under Christ, to elect and ordain, deprive and depose their ministers, and to execute all other Ecclesiastica●l censures: yet will it not follow from thence, that all they are false Churches,& not to be communicated withall, that do not, or by the Laws of man are not suffered to use that power; neither is it sure the meaning of them who offer the conference, to maintain that they are no true visible Churches of Christ, that cannot use that power, but are therein subject to others: for one may by Christs ordinance have a power to do that, which yet, in regard of man, he hath no power to do.  
5. Though the Pastor of a particular congregation should be yielded to be the highest ordinary ecclesiastical officer in any true constituted visible Church of Christ; yet can it not thence be concluded, that those Pastors are false Pastors, who are outwardly by mans Laws subjected to a superior ecclesiastical officer. The father ordinarily is the highest officer in the family; yet if the Magistrate subject the father in some matters appertaining to the family to an other, though therein, it may be, he may do the father some wrong; yet doth not the father thereby become a false father, or the family a false family. Admit then that this prerogative is due to Pastors, to have no spiritual officers superior unto them; yet is it not so essential unto them, that without the actual use and possession of it, he cannot be a true Pastor. And yet take a true visible Church in that sense, which the officers of the conference do, viz. for a particular ordinary assembly or congregation, and then in our own Churches, the Pastor is the highest; there being no ecclesiastical officer in any such Churches above him.  
6. Grant this, that it is the office of every true Pastor, to teach and govern spiritually one congregation immediately under Christ: can it from hence be concluded, that they are no true Pastors, which govern more congregations then one; or which are subject, in some outward things, to some others besides Christ?  
7. Admit, that the offices of provincial and D●ocessan Bishops were contrary to the word of God: must it needs there upon follow, that those ministers and Churches, which are under them by the Laws of man, are false? such especially who obey them onely in things which they judge honest and lawful,& who under this subjection do no more, than they would do, if they were not subject at all, unto Bishops?  
A man must therefore bring a better head and wit with him then master Iohnsons, that by the propositions of the offer of conference( how harsh soever they may seem to be) can conclude it unlawful to join and communicate with our Church-assemblys.  
For the proof of his consequent, he brings nothing out of our own writ ings but onely to give his Reader thereby a vomit, some of his own Cole-wortes, not twice, but twice twenty times sudden, to which we give him leave to look an answer from some as idle-headed as himself.  
master Can having lain still a long time, as one fast a sleeps, nor regarding either his brothers Iohnsons credite, very shrewdly appeached, or his sorry Reasons so shattered, that it would require a very skilful Surgian indeed, either thoroughly to salue the one, or make any limb almost of the other stand upright; yea despairing, it may seem, of any good cure likely to be done upon either; yet now beginneth again to rouse up himself, and set up his bristles, as if he meant to d●e something. And  
1. To master Bradshaw answers to the several propositions he subjoineth some one or other, such as they are, frivolous and impertinent exceptions.  
To the first, That though it should be granted, that in a true constituded Church, some matters merely ecclesiastical may be imposed through human frailty: yet this helpeth their cause nothing at all, in regard that a false worship an Antichristian hierarchy, an unlawful ministry there from, is imposed upon, and hy the people slavishly submitted unto.  
But 1, how is all this proved; unless master Cans word shamefully ever and anon begging the main points in controversy, go for good?  
2. How doth this any way confirm master Iohnsons consequence, which is this, or else none, from this first proposition; All matters merely ecclesiastical Lawfully imposed upon any Church, are such as may be concluded from the written word of God. Ergo, it is not lawful to have any spiritual communion with the present ministry of the Church-assemblys of England.  
For neither is master Cans rabblement any part of this Antecedent, nor doth the proposition, though granted, infer; that wheresoever ought swerving from that rule is imposed, there enfueth presently a nullity of a true Church.  
To the 2. That though every human ordinance be not of that nature, as to make the Church and ministry false, where it is used: yet some are, and such are in their parish assemblys, as by their own principles( saith he) we have shewed.  
But what is this again,( to pass by his naked assertion of our parish-assemblies, and his concealed principles of I know not whom, of as much weight with us, as his own word) what is this, I say, to prove Mr. Is. consequence? All such human ordinances are unlawful. Ergo the Churches where any such are used are no Churches, or the Churches where they are onely enjoined, and not used.  
To the 3. Though it were generally granted of all, that those Churches and ministerys are to be communicated with, that hav● some thing in or appertaining to the constitution thereof, not instituted by Christ; yet it will not thence follow that we may with such, as in their constitution were wholly false, but such are theirs.  
You see still master Cans word must go for an Oracle: which if it may do, all the controversy will be soon at an end.  
To the 4. Grant this, that all are not false Churches, which do not, or by the Law of man are not suffered to use their power.  
If you grant it, then your brother Iohnsons consequence is unsound. Yea but saith master Can, your congregations do altogether this power;& stand under that which was taken every part from the devil& Antichrist, if some of yours speak true themselves.  
Yea, but good master Can, if any so say, what ever they be, be pleased to tell them, that we believe neither you nor them, nor are bound so to do; till better proof be brought then either your brother johnson or you here bring.  
To the 5. admit, that those may be true pastors, who are outwardly by mans Laws subjected to superior ecclesiastical officers. Though for this, in the margin he saith, he shall expect to see some proof; whereas he ought rather, if the assertion be unsound, to have disproved it. And yet is it not true of al pastors of any Separatists living in this land? as I presume there be, are, or have been such.  
But if it be admitted, master Iohnsons consequence is rejected as inconsequent; who from this would infer, that our Churches are no true Churches, because the pastor ought to be the highest officer in the Church: the vanity of which inference master Bradshaw by strong reasons,( though this shameless beast say, he never useth any one reason to confirm any one thing that he saith) hath evidently discovered; but he deigneth not to take notice of it. Yea, but yet, saith he, it can not hence be concluded, that their ministers are true; seeing neither their offices, callings, administrations, &c. are agreeable to the word of God. Yet it can not hence, &c. Whence meaneth the man, think we? because a true pastor may yet by mans Laws be outwardly subjected to some superior ecclesiastical officer? who goeth about, or is so voided of sense as to conclude in this manner: A true Pastor is the principal officer in his parish,( for that is the proposition that master johnson here propoundeth.) Ergo, The ministers of the Parish-Churches in England are true ministers? Or on this wise. True Pastors may yet outwardly be subjected by mans Laws to a superior ecclesiastical power. Ergo, The ministers of the Church-assemblys in England are true ministers? But these are frames of master Cans own contriving; who wanting better work, it seemeth, or having nothing to do, rather then he will be idle,& yet he were better be idle and do nothing, then be so idly employed, busieth himself about knitting of knots,( but very loose ones, you see) that he may show his skill at fast and loose in unknitting of them again.  
To the 7.( for the sixth happily escaped his hand) that if the offices of provincial and diocesan Bishops be contrary to the Scripture, then necessary that ministry, which is derived from it,( what it? from the Scripture, think we? for there is nothing else to refer this it to. But belike he forgot himself, as he oft doth, and would say, them:) must needs be so also, and that the Papists from the writings of the conformist have drawn this conclusion. And I hope then it must needs be authentic.  
But this is one of master Iohnsons coleworts master Bradshaw spe●ks of, oft served in before, and hath been sufficiently piscussed in his proper place, in answer to the second Reason of the first sort.   

The sixth Reason taken out of divers treatises.  
Fr. johnson.  
If these Assertions be true, that that Church calling for which the Scripture gives no express warrant, is merely usurped, and utterly unlawful; that as it is not lawful to bring in any strange doctrine, so it is not lawful to teach the true doctrine under the name of any other function then is instituted by God, &c.  
But the aforesaid Assertions are true. Therefore  
It is unlawful to have communion with that ministry.  
W. Bradshaw.  
This argument, being a collection out of our writers, doth not differ from the former, as himself granteth: and therefore needs no further answer.  
The consequent is false, and he proves it not by any of our own writers, as he ought to do: but still brings us proofs of his own musty aumbry.  
The Assumption therefore, borrowed out of our own writers, will do him no pleasure.   

The seventh Reason taken out of the tenth of the 12. Arguments.  
Fr. johnson.  
It is a sin against Christ, the sole head of the Church, to have spiritual communion with those ministers, which in their ministration of divine things do either by word or dead solemnly profess and yield a spiritual homage to an usurped spiritual authority in the Church.  
But so do the ministers of the Church-assemblys of England.  
Ergo, It is a sin to have communion with the same.  
W. Bradshaw  
The proposition is false, and hath no ground from that proposition in the 12. Arguments, unto which he would match, and forth of which he would draw it. The proposition there is this:  
It is a sin against Christ the sole head of the Church, for any one of his ministers, especially in the administration of divine things, either by words or signs solemnly to profess and aclowledge, a spiritual homage, to an usurped spiritual authority in the Church. Can he conclude his proposition from this? doth it hence follow, that because our ministers in their ministry, if they conform, do in some measure, in infirmity or ignorance, commit some such sin; that therefore it is a sin to communicate with them in other divine things, wherein they do not commit the same sin?  
he tells us, that the proposition may not be gainsayd, and why doth he tell us so? because the Author of the twelve Arguments saith; his proposition may not be denied. As though there were just the same Reason for the one as there is for the other. But why may not the proposition? Because all spiritual power usurped over the Churches of God, is an Antichristian authority; and to communicate with those ministers, which profess spiritual homage to Antichrist; which must needs be a sin against Christ, the head of the Church. A deep and learned reason! It can be no sin against Christ to communicate with them, which in some action profess spiritual homage to Antichrist; except in their communion they also profess the same homage, which like an ignorant disputant, he maketh no mention of. As though to join with one that doth evil, in that which is good, is always to join with him in the evil; as though to join with a glutton in eating necessary food, were to join with him in his gluttony, or to join with a blasphemer in the act of his blaspheming in rescuing an innocent out o● the hands of robbers, were to communicate with him in his blasphemy. But herein he propounds onely to play the Ape, imitating the Author of the 12. arguments, who saith, his proposition may not be gainsaid; because all spiritual power usurped over the Churches of God, is an Antichristian authority; and to profess spiritual homage there unto, is to profess spiritual homage unto Antichrist, which must needs be a sin. But what? is there no more reason in that reason, then in his? if this be a good argument to prove that proposition for which it is brought; must his argument needs be as good to prove his proposition? what, because it is a sin to profess special homage unto Antichrist, must it needs be a sin also to communicate with them, who do profess some homage unto Antichrist? what? to communicate with them in other matters?  
The Assumption is false as the proposition; and hath no ground from the 12. Arguments. For though it were granted; that to use the controverted Ceremonys in manner and form prescribed, were even in the solemn worship of Christ by solemn signs to aclowledge a spiritual homage to a sp ritual usurped authority of Arch-Bishops and Bishops; yet doth it not there from follow, that our ministers in the administration of divine things, do the same. For none of our ministers do always in the administration of divine things profess any such h mage; and some do never profess it; and those who profess it, when they do profess it, propound and intend no such matter.  
He proves the Assumption thus.  
They preach the word, and administer the Sacraments by virtue of their calling received from the Arch-Bishops& Bishops, &c.  
The vanity whereof hath been sufficiently shewed already; he therein begging one of the stale reasons, and not borrowing any thing from the 12. arguments.  
That which followeth, whereby he would prove, that the authority of L. Arch-Bishops and Bishops is usurped; which he makes the second part of his assumption; is altogether idle, and to no purpose, and done onely of malice to the Author of the 12. Arguments. For otherwise had he herein intended the convincing of the said Author, and of them which are of his mind,( which is the onely use of his latter sort of Reasons, and which can serve for no other use, it had been sufficient to have produced his assertion without his proofs. For) that had been enough to declare the Authors conceit.  
He concludes, crowing as if he were some Cock of the game, that had picked out the eyes, and broken the neck, of all that have been set against him. And thus, saith he, the cause is yielded by themselves. And is it not( think we) finely yielded? is it not a field stoutly won? is it any marvel, that he makes such outcries against the whole Christian world, that will not follow such a leader?  
But I leave him to his vain conceits of his own cause; trusting that any sober and judicious Christian will be able to discern therein his fond and ignorant vanity. And whereas in the answer of his Reasons, I have omitted to answer to many particular passages; All things considered, I shall not need to ask him pardon: I should rather have cause to expect thanks, if I had to deal with a reasonable and good natured adve●sary.  
Here master Can weary of his work, and willing to end his reply, but not weary of his wicked wont of lend and palpable lying, having repeated some of Mr. Bradshaws concluding words, and returning him them again; to display and traduce Mr. Bradshaws manner of answering, canteth on this wise.  
The proposition, saith he,( master Bradshaw he meaneth) is false; the assumption is false: But for proof, a man may find as soon a needle in a bottle of hay, as any for the things he boldly denies.  
But to this froth and falsehood, I answer,  
1. Suppose all were true that master Can here saith; though it may be, he scarce knoweth what he saith, when he requireth master Bradshaw to prove the things that he denies. For is any man bound to prove the things that himself denies? or is there any, I lay not reason for it, but sen●e in it, to require any man so to do? Mr. Bradshaw might as well require master Can to prove our Churches to be true Churches, and our ministers true ministers; for those be the things, to use his own words, that he boldly denies.  
But we will suppose his meaning to be, if he knew at least what he meant; that master Bradshaw hath brought no proof, that is rendered no reason of his denial. It was not needful he should. It is sufficient for the answerer, as for the defendant, to deny, and require proof of the adverse party, the accuser or plaintiff, who●e part it is to make what he saith good. Let us make our case master Cans a while. Suppose one writing a libel against master Can should thus argue in it Syllogistically.  
No bastard ought to be a minister of the gospel.  
But master Can is a bastard▪ was not begotten in lawful marriage, but his mother had him by an other man then her ●usband.  
Ergo, master Can ought not to be a minister of the gospel.  
Or Enthymematically thus:  
master Can had bastards by divers women, when he was sometime in England, hath enticed women to folly, that have repaired to him for conference in private hath carried these things so closely that they could not hitherto be discovered, hath related to some, what others have spo●en in great secrecy.  
And is therefore a necromancer, and works by the devil.  
Put case now master Can were to answer hereunto; would he not speak as he saith master Bradshaw speaks, if he were at least to answer Logically, according to the rules, and in terms of Art,( which yet seldom he doth:) The proposition is false; the assumption is false, the antecedent is false: the consequence is false; all is false, every jot of it. Or could any man justly blame master Can for so doing? telling him, that he denieth things boldly, but bringeth no proof for the things he denied? or would master Can himself, think we, aclowledge any equity in it; for his adversary to require of him, to disproove the things charged upon him, to prove all that is said by him to be false? and yet just such is master Cans dealing with us. He saith, the Church of England our mother, is no true Spouse of Christ, but an harlot; our ministers are idolaters, that is, spiritual adulterers: our people all bastards, begotten out of lawful wedlo●k: our government Antichristian: our discipline devilish: our worship flat idolatry; with many other the like outcrys against us. And when we deny there things, he either biddeth us prove the contrary; or telleth us onely at the best, that some say so.  
2. I answer, That though this were sufficient for master Bradshaw to answer by bare denial of those things, that master johnson objecteth, and master Cans part were, if he will reply, to take away such his answer, by confirming and making good master Iohnsons assertions; yet in answer to this very argument now in hand, as also very frequently elsewhere, he rendereth reason of his denial, both of proposition and assumption: which being a truth so evident and obvious to every ones eye, that doth but read over master Bradshaws answer here; had master Can had either any shane in his forehead, or wit in his head-piece, he would never have adventured in so shameful, or shameless rather, a manner, to vent so evident an untrueth, against his own eyesight and the open view of all men, and thereby to crase& crack, yea to wrack, not his conscience onely, but his credite too.  
But this is not either the firstly master Can hath here told, nor the first time that he told this lie. For we have had it more than once before: and as they say of some addicted to that 'vice, that they tell some lies sometimes so often to others, that at length they come to believe them themselves; so it may be it is befalln master Can in this case, that he hath told his Reader this untrue tale so oft, that his own eyes now can hardly persuade him, though it be never so evidently false, not to yield credit thereunto. Or it may be it is with master Can, as some say of the ostrich, that when she hath hidden her head in a bush, she thincketh no body can see her. He is one peradventure of those, of whom the greek historian saith, that when they wink themselves, they think others see not them. Sure either he hoped, that his Readers wanting master Bradshaws book, being not every where to be had, to see his words, would believe him upon his word; ot else, that his confident and constant avowing of it, would bear men down, and make them not believe their own eyes; and his wilful winking cause them not to see what they saw. I say no more for the present, but God amend him, and give him grace to see his sin.  
Howbeit, that we may see, that the man hath yet some metal left in him, as well for matter of replying as lying;( though for this latter he is much better of the twain) be maketh way hereunto, by telling us, that moreover the points in controversy, which are of greatest weight and moment, he either puts quiter of by a fine trick, they need no answer,( but of this master Can gives no instance,& it may well go with the rest to make his farthel of fittons the fuller) or else answereth to them besides the matter.  
Now for an instance of this latter, as having forgot to discover it when time was, and yet saying ●ow the very same in effect he said then, save that he leaves out the devil& Antichrist, here,( the usual flowers of his raving rhetoric,) and it was but the very next page. before that he said it; but mildoubting belike his Readers short memory, and loathe that, what but even now he said, and would now say over again, should be lost, he fetcheth us a jump backward to the fourth proposit●on of the fift Reason of the second sort: there, saith he, the proposition being, that every true visible Church hath power, &c. his reply( you must remember master Can speaks it, with whom to answer is to reply) out is, that All are no f●lse Churches, that do not us● this power, &c. And thus having taken master Bradshaw tardy,( as he supposeth) he followeth him hard at the heels, and layeth on load, to be even with him for altogether at parting; for this is the last bl●w he reacheth at his whole answer. And is not this, saith he think we wittily answered? we say, from their principles, that a true Church can not be without power; but their Churches are wholly without it. For answer he tells us, a true Church may wa●t the use of it. We say so too But doth it follow, because a man in a sound hath not the use, for the time, of that life which is in him therefore one may be quiter without life, and yet not dead? To this effect he reasoneth or else, as Paul said of some, he understood not what he said, nor whereof he affirmed, but spake evil of the things which he knew not.  
Thus silly soul, or sot rather, he thinketh he hath hit Mr. Bradshaw home, and paid him to the purpose, for attempting in this manner to reply,( as he speaks) on his brother Johnson.  
And surely were this his last charge on master Bradshaw true, that he spake evil of things he knew not, yet were not master Bradshaw so bad as master Can that speaketh evi●l( if lies and untruths be evil) so oft and so notoriously against his own conscience of those things, that seeing evident before his eyes, he knoweth to be otherwise.  
But for the thing itself, master Bradshaws answer is sufficient, yea complete. For  
1. To master Johnsons main hypothetical proposition, consisting of 7. several single propositions taken out of the offer,& making up its antecedent, he answereth directly by denying the consequence in general.  
2. He proceedeth in particular to render reasons,( which yet master Can most falsely affirmeth that he never doth) distinctly, of his former denial of the consequence in general, in regard of the several single propositions or axioms there●n contained. And to the same, as it taketh in this fourth proposition or single axiom, and so maketh up a syllogism thus conceived:  
If every true visible Church of Christ, or ordinary assembly of the faithful, hath by Christs ordinance power in itself, immediately under Christ, to elect and ordain, deprive and depose their ministers,& to execute all other ecclesiastical offices; then it is not lawful to hear or have any spiritual communion, with the present ministry of the Church assemblys of England.  
But every ●ue vi●●b●e Church hath such power, &c. Ergo. he subjoineth this reason, why he denieth the consequence of the proposition, so made up; because that, albeit every true Church had such power, as is here mentioned by the ordinance of Christ; yet it would not foll w that our Churches either not using, or restrained by human Laws from the exercise of such power( which were all at most that could be proved) were the efore no true Churches  
And this was a full and sufficient answer to master Iohnsons argument, as it is there framed. For that every true Church hath such power master johnson proves ndeed by the ●ayings of such& such; but that our Churches have it not, he proveth not at all, Being propounded in master Cans form as now it is, a man might well demur on both parts of it. For as for the proposition, setting mens sayings aside, master Can I suppose, will hardly be able to produce any one direct place of Scripture, where such an absolute power is given by Christ to every particular Church-assembly, as is here related; or to produce out of Scripture any one evident example of the exercise of the same. And for the Assumption, which he, silly man, thinking cock sure, never once looks after: supposing such a power by Christs ordinance conferred, upon every particular Church-assembly, he w●ll never be able to prove, that our particular Church-assemblys have it not, to wit, by Christs ordinance; unless he will, after his brother Iohnsons wise manner, run round in a circled, and prove that therefore they have it not, because they are no true Churches. For all that he will be able to produce, is but matter of sact, to wit, that either they use it not, or are by human Laws restrained from the use of it. And as soundly by the same reason he may prove, that Paul had no such power, as the other Apostles had, or was not therefore a true Apostle, because he used it not. 1. Cor. 9.4, 5, 6, 15. Or, that those whom the Jewish governers excommunicated, for the profession of Christ Joh. 9.22, 34. had not power by Gods Law of access to Gods house, and to the assemblys of his servants.  
Thus at length after a tedious winding and turning and making forward and backward, as the blast of master Cans breath hath blown with us, we are arrived at the end of his roving reply.  
Hence forward he hath taken on him the office of an answerer, wherein how he hath acquit himself, the sequel will show.    

W. Bradshaws Reasons or Arguments, tending to prove, that it is a sin to separate from the public ministry of the Church-assemblys of England: Directly contrary to master Iohnsons own Reasons, and usually in that regard, made in the same mood and figure.  

The first Argument.  
It is a sin to separate from that ministry, which is set by Christ in his Church, for the work of his ministry.  
But such is the ministry of the Churchassemblys of England.  
Therefore it is a sin to separate from it.  
The proofs which he bringeth to confirm the main proposition of his first Reason, will serve to prove this.  
The assumption may be proved thus:  
The ministry of true pastors and teachers is the ministry which is set by Christ in his Church.  
The ministry aforesaid is the ministry of true pastors and teachers. Therefore,  
It is a ministry set by Christ in his Church.  
The proposition is his own.  
The assumption I prove thus:  
The ministry which hath in it all things essential to the office and calling of true pastors and teachers, is the ministry of true pastors and teachers.  
But such is our ministry, therefore  
It is the true ministry of true pastors and teachers. I think he is not so simplo as to deny the proposition. The assumption is proved thus.  
To have such gifts as Christ ascended up into heaven to give for the work of his ministry; to be outwardly called to that work by such a Church, as professeth the fundamental points of the gospel; to instruct the people committed to their charge in the doctrine of the Law and gospel, 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 ministry of the Church-assemblys.  
Therefore it is the true ministry of pastors& teachers.  
If he deny the proposition, he must show what other matters do essentially appertain unto their calling, which yet he hath not done.  
For confirmation of the Assumption, it shal be sufficient, that we can set forth unto him such a ministery insundry of our Church-assemblys, of which all these points may be truly verified, their conformity to the State, and their sin therein( if any be) notwithstanding.   

The second Argument.  
The ministery of our Church-assemblys is not the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
Therefore it is a sin to separate from the same.  
The consequent must be true, until he can bring forth any other exceptions against our ministry, then such as appertain to the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
The Assumption is proved thus.  
The ministry of the Church-assemblys of Antichrist is of Priests and Deacons.  
But the ministry of our Church-assemblys is not the ministry of Priests& Deacons.  
Therefore it is not the ministry of Antichrists apostasy.  
The proposition is his own.  
The assumption, if I should follow his learning, I might prove thus:  
The ministry of true pastors and teachers is not the ministry of Priests& Deacons.  
But such is the ministry of our assemblys. Ergo, &c. And for the proof of the assumption, I might sand him back again to my first argument; but I will leave such a kind of disputing to himself, as his own peculiar, and prove it otherwise thus:  
That ministry, which in the main& essential facultys and offices thereof, is opposite to the main and essential facultys, functions and offices of Priests& Deacons, is not the ministry of Priests and Deacons.  
But such is our ministery.  
Therefore it is not the ministry of Priests and Deacons.  
The proposition is undeniable.  
The assumption may be proved thus.  
That ministery which is opposite to the Sacrifice of the mass, is opposite to the main and essential facultys, functions, and offices of Priests and Deacons.  
Such is our ministry.  
Therefore it is opposite to the main and essential facultys of Priests& Deacons.  
I do not see which of these premises he can with any colourable reason deny. I will therefore for bear to proceed further in this argument, until I can see what he can say against it.   

The third Argument.  
That ministery, which professing Christ by maintaining his covenant with the seals of it, doth directly and professedly war against the beast,& against all that worship his image, and receive his mark in their forehead and hand, can not without sin be separated from.  
Such is our ministry.  
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from,  
The proposition is true: for no ministry so professing Christ, but the true ministry of Iesus Christ, doth directly and professedly war in manner and form aforesaid.  
The assumption I prove thus.  
That ministry which so professing, opposeth itself professedly to the Pope of Rome, as that great Antichrist; which directly and expressly renounceth all ecclesiastical homage unto him, or any of his professed clergy; that denieth and disputeth against( most effectually) all the main and fundamental points of Popery; which opposeth itself, 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 heretics, and idolaters, and in the State of condemnation, and such as no good Christian ought to communicate spiritually withall, that ministry, I say, doth directly war against the beast, and against all that worship his image, &c.  
But all this is done in and by our ministery.  
Therefore it doth directly and professedly war 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 prove them.   

The fourth Argument.  
That ministry, which deriveth the power and functions thereof from Christ can not without sin be separated from.  
The ministry of our Church-assemblys deriveth the power and functions thereof from Christ.  
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.  
The proofs of the main proposition of his fourth argument will serve to prove this proposition.  
The assumption is as sufficiently proved by my first and third Arguments, as his contrary is by his third and first.  
But I further prove it thus.  
If the power and functions of our ministry 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 show any substantial difference between the one and the other.   

The fift Argument.  
That ministry which worketh upon the consciences of men by a spiritual calling, can not without sin be separated from.  
Such is our ministery.  
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.  
The proposition can not be gain-said.  
The assumption is proved by my second argument, but I further prove it in this manner.  
That ministry which worketh upon the consciences of men, onely by a spiritual gift and grace given by Christ, and directed by the word of God, doth work upon the consciences of men by a true spiritual calling.  
Thus doth the ministery of our Church-assemblys.  
Therefore it worketh upon the consciences of men by a true spiritual calling.  
The truth of either of these propositions I shall easily prove, if they be denied.   

The sixth Argument.  
The ministry of our Church-assemblys is no strange ministry.  
Therefore it is a sin to separate from it.  
This antecedent is better proved by my first argument, then his contrary assumption is by the first argument.  
I prove it notwithstanding thus:  
That ministry, which for the substance thereof was practised by Christ, the Apostles, many worthy an● famous martyrs and witnesses of Jesus Christ in Church-assemblys, is no strange minist●ry.  
Such is our ministry for the substance thereof.  
Therefore it is no strange ministry.  
Surely he will never deny the proposition.  
Neither can he deny the assumption, except he can show a substantial difference between the ministerys aforesaid.   

The seventh Argument.  
That ministry which is from heaven can not without sin be separated from.  
The ministry of our Church-assemblys is from heaven.  
Therefore it can not without sin be separated from.  
The proposition is plain.  
The assumption is proved by all the former arguments, which in his logic schools, in his own cause, is proof good enough. But I add a further proof.  
That ministry which in all the parts and powers thereof is principally exercised and directed to bring men to heaven, is a ministry from heaven.  
Such is our ministry aforesaid.  
Therefore it is from heaven.  
The proposition is firm: it being not possible, that that ministry 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 show in what other thing it is more principally exercised, and to what other end directed; which he can never do.  
To these Reasons master Can giveth us a very quick and short answer, that he hath neither time nor mind to follow master Bradshaw in his vagarys, and idle repetitions: thereby wounding through master Bradshaws sides his own fellow, master Johnson as the Persian did through his fellows sides the magician. For master Bradshaw in these reasons precisely followeth master johnson, as master Can himself also,( though he term it a mocking imitation of him) acknowledgeth. But he will in few words, he saith, set down the sum of his long talk:( though nothing so long as his brother Iohnsons was) & give answer to it briefly.  
So having set down the last syllogism 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 read master Bradshaw a logic lecture; if their writings be both well weighed.  
But for the clearness of it, master Can might have considered, what master Bradshaw minded him at the first proposition for the proof of it, that it hath all those Scripture crutches to support it and keep it up from falling to the ground, that master Iohnsons parallel proposition of his first argument, for the assumption of his first reason had; and mentioneth all the essentialls, that master johnson 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 affirm, 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 itself doth aloud cry out the contrary.  
2. The Bishops from whom they take their ministry, are not in any sense a Church, save a malignant one. And this alone is enough to overthrow all.  
To this master Bradshaw hath fully and largely answered on master Iohnsons fift reason of the first sort, and the obj●ctions by him there propounded. Neither hath Mr. Can yet made any sound reply th●reunto.  
3. T●ough they instruct the people in some doctrines of the Law and gospel, as do Papists and other heretics, yet the reading of the Service-booke in form an manner; the celebrating of marriage; burying of the dead; conformity& subscription; are more essential to their ministry, and more necessary required by the Laws of their Church, then is preaching either of Law, and gospel. And this he proveth by the testimony of master Bradshaw, affirming( as he relateth him) that, t●ose that yield to the Ceremonys, need not preach at all except they will; nor do any part of divine Service, if they will keep a Curate conformable to say Service.  
1. For master Cans coupling our ministers with Papists and heretics in teaching some Doctrines of the Law and gospel, I will say no more, but appeal for the justification of the entire body of saving doctrine both in Law& gospel commonly taught by our ministers, to the pious and learned labours of a numberless multitude of them, first preached to their people, and after published in print, sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person in this point;& though, not to stop the mouths of such barking cars, as this master Can is, yet to evince evidently his malicious and virulent vanity, in yoking them with heretics and papists herein.  
2. To omit, that somethings here mentioned by him, as Subscription, are no ministerial offices or employments: albeit, it should be granted, that these things mentioned, were more necessary required by the Laws of our Church, then preaching of Law and gospel: And again, that( as master Bradshaw is said to say) some ministers need not preach themselves( the Law not compelling them thereunto) if they will maintain a Curate, &c. yet it followeth not hence, either that the ministers of our Church-assemblys, do not instruct the people committed to their charge in the doctrine of the Law and gospel,( which is all master Bradshaw saith, in his assumption, of this branch,) for suppose that some need not, or do not, what is that to them, and those so many, that constantly do? or that these things are therefore, as master Can saith, more essential to their ministry, then the preaching of Law or gospel are. Matters of order, in politic 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 own say are by them wickedly mingled and profaned, and wickedly administered. And if master Bradshaw may be believed, divers Sacraments not of divine institution administered; 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 master Bradshaw here saith, may still stand firm: the charge is too general; as if one should charge master Can with living wickedly and profanely, but not showing wherein:& must pass therefore as a fond and frivolous charge, until the action be more particularly laid, that a just issue may be joined.  
For the latter likewise, though it contradict not master Bradshaws assertion, who saith, that they administer the holy Sacraments of Christ;( which appeareth to be a truth undeniable, when master Can himself can not deny it, an yet denieth the assumption, whereof this is one b●anch,) whether master Bradshaw or any other( for I know not who his Author is, nor dare I take ought on master Cans word) may so term 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 appear by any constitution of our Church, or part of our liturgy, that any of these are either enjoined, or used as Sacraments truly and properly so termed; to wit, as seals, of Gods covenant of grace; or, of justification by faith in Christ.  
5. The Prayers our ministers are to make to God, when they read their Service-booke, must of absolute necessity, without partial dispensation, or manifest violation of oath, be foolish, false and superstitious.  
To let pass, 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 frantic?) his charge is too wild to be reduced to any due issue; nor doth it, though it were in some particulars acknowledged, cross the branch intended of master Bradshaws assumption.  
But let us yet strain to hear a little more of his ravings: he will not trouble us long: he is taking his farewell; and like him whom herein he imitates, he is the more furious, it may be, because he is near 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 ministry in sundry of our Church assemblys, of which all those points may be truly verified. Who would have thought, that master Bradshaw having blotted so many leaves of his book with mere scoffing at master johnson about his logic, should so grossly overshoot himself in terms 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 prove it, saith: We can show some such. It seemeth then that those some such must make all the rest true. In truth he so infers, or else his Argument is crackbrained, and lacks not truth onely but sense also. And hereupon he runneth out further in this like strain; comparing master Bradshaw to such crafty merchants, who to put of the false wears that lye on their hands, will show the buyer a little of the best, by that means cunningly to shift all the rest upon him. And telleth us, that he mentioneth the oftener these his deceavable shifts, that they may have more honest dealing hereafter, that if they will justify all their ministers and Churches, they will say so directly; or if but some few, they speak it out plainly,& not make folk believe they mean all, when themselves are persuaded that the greatest number are false and Antichristian.  
And I s●all desire the Reader likewise to observe, how witlesly and senselessly, not unreasonably alone, master Can carrieth himself 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 random, as one very sorille acquainted with the rules, either of right reasoning, or right speaking.  
1. It shall be sufficient, saith master Bradshaw, to set him forth sundry such. And it is sufficient say I,( whatsoever master Can prate to the contrary) so to do, for the proof of his assumption, and the evincing of the truth in question. The controversy between master Bradshaw and master johnson is whether such a Separation, as master johnson and his faction maintain, from the Church-assemblys of England, be sinful or no. This separation thus controverted is general, so practised, so professed, and so prosecuted in the whole discourse, and dispute. Now there is not onely no puny, or Freshman in the schools, but no man whosoever, that is not wholly voided, I say not, of the art of reasoning, but even of Reason itself, or that hath not laesa principia, but is able to acquaint master Can with this common ground of reason; that any one particular( and much more many) affirmed is sufficient to overthrow a general denied. 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 necessary thence flowing, that a particular negative is sufficient to take away a general affirmative; and a particular affirmative to bear down a general negative. If master Bradshaw therefore had said, that he could set forth but some one onely such Church-assembly among us, it were sufficient to evince the Separation here questioned, as it is generally laid, sinful; and to prove master johnson in avowing the said Separation, not lawful onely 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 master Can have in matter of reasoning grossly overshot himself, let any reasonable man decide.  
2. To let pass that notorious untruth; that master Bradshaw hath blotted many leaves of his book with mere scoffing at master johnson about his logic; that childish charge, that he hath grossly overshot himself in terms of reasoning;( for what terms doth master Bradshaw here use, other then usual and authentical?) and that incongruous coherence; What wise man, but he, would have laid down a position, &c. and to prove it, saith& c?  
Surely wise men and in their wits do not usually speak, much less writ, thus. But we must bear with master Can, as well for grammar as logic. His heat and fury makes him forget oft the rules and ground of either of them. Consider we onely the main matter. The crime charged upon master Bradshaw, and that such as no wise man would ever have been overtaken with, is that having laid a position comprehending indefinitely and generally all the ministers of their assemblys, to prove it, he saith, he can show some such.  
But 1. master Can here sheweth us a trick or two of leger demaine. For he abates master Bradshaws terms in the one branch; sundry, saith master Bradshaw, some saith master Can, belike supposing that master Bradshaw had failed there, as he telleth him, in his logic terms. Then raiseth them on the other side, in the latter branch, as high. The ministery of the Church-assemblys, saith master Bradshaw. All the ministers of the Church-assemblys, saith master Can, and writes the words withall in a different Character, as master Bradshaws own express terms, which is most false. Neither doth master Bradshaw as by his own words appeareth, so speak; nor was it needful, as hath been before shewed, that he should. Yea master Cans own words containing a manifest contradiction, do evidently evince the falsehood of his charge, and convince him of untruth. He saith master Bradshaw speaketh indifinitely: and yet addeth, that, he saith, All, &c. Now if he speak indifinitely, how doth he say, All. Or if he say, All: expressly, how speaketh he indefinitely? since that, then a proposition is said to be indefinite, when the note or term of quantity 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 logic,& if a man therefore shall say, There are schismatics at Amsterdam; because he speaketh indefinitely, he must needs be understood generally; that All the schismatics that are in the world harbour there. Or if he shall say; that fools and Doltes writ books; he must needs be conceived to comprehend all writers,( because his speech is indefinite) and master Can among the rest. But were master Can so wise, as he would seem 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 term or axiom may be taken,& so is to be, either generally or particularly, according to the nature and tenor of the subject matter in hand: and is therefore in master Iohnsons argument to be taken universally; because a general default enforcing a general separation is to be proved: whereas in master Bradshaws argument it need not be so taken; because the particular being made good, is enough to infer a conclusion directly contradictory unto that of master johnson. And you see now, how wisely mayst Can hath made this his wise charge good against master Bradshaw.  
3. But let us wade yet a little further in this mire& mud. It seemeth( yet at least, saith master Can.) that those( Some Such) must make all the rest true. In truth, so he infers, or else his argument is crack-brained,& lacks not truth onely, but sense also.  
I, might well demand, why those Some Such might not as well make the rest true; as those ignorant asses& idlebellyed Epicures, that master Can so oft casts in our dish, should make all the rest false,& worthy to be severed from: for the reason may pass as well for the one as for the other. But I, let that pas,& come a little nearer home to master Can.  
It is a question among some, whither in truth be an oath, or no. if it be, I shal hardly ever here after believe master Can upon his oath, if not I shal yet hardly believe him delivering ought upon his truth: when binding it so solemnly& seriousy with an in truth, he telleth his reader here such a palpable untrueth. For where, or how, or in what terms either express or equivalent there unto. doth master Bradshaw infer, 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 speak ought? as hath formerly been shown.  
Yea but his argument else is crack-braind, as he saith of master Johnson& lacks not truth onely, but sense also.  
Nay rather, he that so saith, therein sheweth himself either to be crack-braind, or to have his brains crow, and to want as well truth as wit. As for his tale therefore of crafty merchants fals wears& deceivable shifts, he may do well to keep them in store, for such false forgers& sorry shifters, as he here sheweth himself to be. And yet such shameless and truthles companions, as make no conscience of coining falshoods at pleasure, nor of fastening groundless calumnys upon others, have the face to cry& call for more honest dealing, even then, when they deal most dishonestly themselves.  
4. Yea but master Can would have master Bradshaw and the rest of us deal plainly, and tel directly, whether, when we speak indefinitely, we mean some few, or all. This is, as if some pe●emptorie shameless person like himiselfe should affirm 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 groundless and slanderous censures b● told, by some friend to the nation and profession ( We can set you forth sundry of them, against whom 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 shameless beast, to require the party to speak plainly,& to say direct●y, whether he mean to justify those some few, or all in general; and to ask whither 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 master Can the like, we so leave him, and let him go as he is.  
And yet we must not do so neither. For he will have one fling more at the cock, for his money, ere he go;& that he hopeth will hit him fall on the head: and he hath reserved it therefore, like enough, for the last cast.  
master Bradshaw following master Iohnsons precedent, frameth his third Reason for the truth of our Churches, from our opposition to Antichrist, and renunciation of him. To this master Can answereth, not by denying any part of the Argument; but by affirming, that we retain st●●l the self same ministry( 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 mass then questionless) Canons, &c. and so are like one that calls a woman whore, and yet lies in bed with her, for all that, and committs folly with her. And if we ask how he proveth this; because it is no denial of any part of master 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 near 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 instead of answer 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 master Bradshaw, he mistook his mark, but he hitteth his brother johnson, whom he should fight for, full on the hand. For master Bradshaw doth thus onely, that he may precisely follow master Johnson, and treadeth exactly in his steps.  
Howbeit, one 'bout more we must have with him, concerning some Demands of his brother johnson; the deciding whereof the said master johnson faith will end the controversies between them and us.    

master Francis Iohnsons Demands.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether the Lord Iesus Christ have by his last will and testament given unto, and set in his Church, sufficient ordinary officers, with their calling, work,& maintenance, for the administration of his holy things, and for the sufficient ordinar●e instruction, guidance and service of his Church, to the end of the world.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. I answer directly( understanding by officers, spiritual officers) that he hath: and that it is a sin herein to break his will and testament, e●ther by depriving the Church of any of those officers; or by bringing into it any other kind, with any other kind of calling or work, then he hath appointed in the same.  
2. That notwithstanding this, the civill Magistrate hath power to set over the Churches of Christ in his dominions commissioners and overseers, which are not specially appointed by Christ in his testament, civilly to guide and govern the Churches, and to maintain those privileges, libertys, offices and orders, that Christ hath endowed them withall, against all the Enemys both without and within the same.  
3. Concerning the maintenance of the ministers, Christ hath set down no more in his testament, then this in effect; that the Labourer is worthy of his hire; And that for their ministration of spiritual things, the Churches that enjoy their Labours, ought to minister to them of their temporals. But after what special manner they shall be maintained; he hath( for ought appeareth yet to the contrary) either left it to the discretion of the Churches, if they have the free disposition of their temporal goods in their own hand; or of the Christian Magistrate; who in such cases may see what is fitter then the Churches themselves.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether the offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons and Helpers be those offices appointed by Christ in his testament before said? Or whether the present ecclesiastical offices of Arch-bishops, Lord-bishops, suffragans, deane●, prebendarys, canons, petty canons, priests, deacons, Arch-deacons, doctors of divinity, chaplains, or hou●e-priests, commissarys, officials, proctors, apparitors parsons, vicars, curates, vagrant or mercenary preachers, church-wardens, Sidemen, clerks, sextons,& the rest now had in the cathedrall& parishonall assemblys, be those officers appointed by Christ in his Testament, as is aforesaid, or no?  
W. Bradshaw  
1. I grant that the offices in the first place mentioned are those very offices, which Christ hath appointed and there is no Church of Christ, but hath use& need of them: and that such are some way defective, that want any one of them.  
2. That yet notwithstanding, they may be true Churches, that want some of them, yea& the chifest of them; as those assemblys of your own profession in England have for many yeares been without either all, or the chiefest of them: and yet they judge themselves true Churches; yea though they have not so much as the Sacraments administered among them.  
3. Where the civil magistrate doth his duty as he ought,& where the Churches have the benefit of his help, for the suppressing of sin,& the relieving of the poor,& those that are in any distress( which the Apostolical Churches wanted) there the want of some of these offices may be the better born with all& the Church less defective that doth want them, especially the two latter.  
4. I grant that none of those offices here mentioned in the latter part( excepting that of Deacons) are in name those offices which Christ hath appointed: some of them neither in name, nor in dead: some in dead though not in name: some have the name of that which indeed they are not: some, though they be set over the Churches; yet are not indeed any proper offices of the Church, some offices here name neither indeed nor name, as they are such, are ecclesiastical offices, but onely school titles& dignitys given to men Eminent in Learning, for encouragement to others to study good letters, especially divinity.  
5. All the offices appointed by Christ to be in his Church, to the end of the world, in effect& substance may be found contained under some of these; though some what disguised with strange names, borrowed from the Church of Rome. And the principal& most necessary are under some of these. For many of these which you despitefully call me cenary preachers, house-priests, yea parsons, vicars, curates, are in very dead& truth, in office and practise( whatsoever they are in name) the very pastors& teachers, that Christ hath ordained, ministering in his Churches( according to their places& callings,& those gifts which Christ hath bestowed upon them) all the ordinary means, of Salvation. As for these variety of names, most of them arise from that variety of maintenance that is in our Churches, and not of their spiritual offices. So that in this manner to dispute against our Churches; because the ministers thereof have such& such names, is, as though one should dispute against the Church of the jews in Christ time,& have denied communion with it, asking whether priests, Levites,& prophets, were not those officers which God hath appointed, to govern the Church of the jews with all; or whether Scribes, Pharisees, saducees, Captains of the temple, Rulers of the Synagogues, Doctors of the Law, Centurions, Souldiers, the high priests Servants, &c. were those officers: Or as if one disputing against your own Churches, or those which have,( though ●ot so fully, as you would have them) entertained the same discipline with you, should to warrant their Separation from you,& their condemnation of you as false Churches, move the very same question, in nature, unto you asking ●ou whether pastors, teachers, Elders, Deacons,& helpers, be not those offices which Christ hath appointed in his Testament; or whether schismatics, refracta●ys, Lay-aldermen, parish bishops, Consistorians, parish popes, proctors of Spi●le hauses, daubers, thackers tailors, tinkers, &c. be those officers? for thus it hath pleased some to put these odious names upon those, which bear& exercise the offices of pastors, teachers, Elders, &c.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether the callings& entrance into the ecclesiastical offices aforesaid, their administration& maintenance now had& retained in England, be the manner of calling, administration and maintenance, which Christ hath appointed for the offices of the Church above name, or no.  
W. Bradshaw  
Not to stand( for the avoiding of multiplicity of unnecessary questions) upon defence of the calling, entrance, administration, and maintenance of all; I answer directly and plainly; That the calling, entrance, administration, and maintenance of many( at the least) that are called into ecclesiastical offices, is in very effect& substance, the same that Christ hath appointed. They are men instructed in the knowledge of good letters, especially in divinity: They have a gift in some good measure, to divide the word of God, according to the necessitys of their people, over whom they are set. They have a desire to do Christ and his Church service in his ministry, and a purpose to give themselves over unto that work. They have in some good measure( for none hath them in perfection) all those graces& gifts, that Paul to Timothy requires to be in Bishops and Elders. They are so judged and esteemed to be of other ministers, and well grounded Christians, and of those people which submit unto their ministry; who accepting of them and their ministry as sent of God, desiring and yielding themselves to live under them, as is fitting for Christians; and they resolving to guide and govern them, as becometh spiritual leads& guides.  
Such calling and entrance as this, have many of our Church officers: more than this in substance and effect is not appointed by Christ. Those defects and errors, which over and besides, many times they yield unto in their calling, entrance and administration, are not of that nature and quality, that they make a nullity thereof, or make it a false, and Antichristian calling, entrance, or administration. The maintenance they live by, as it is no where in general or special forbidden; in the yielding whereof unto the ministers, they fulfil the testament of Christ, in giving of their temporal things, for spiritual, in giving hire to the Labourers, &c. and do not therein break any parts else thereof; he having no where forbidden any such manner of maintenance, but left it indifferent, to give money, or fruits, in fruits to give the twentieth, the twelfth, the tenth, the eighth of the increase, according either to their estate, or the necessity of the ministers; wherein the Magistrate hath authority to rule& define, who hath in his hand the power of mens temporal estates; or the Church, if the magistrate leave unto them the free use of their own temporalitys.  
Neither is the tenth required to be given by the Magistrate, or yielded to be given by the Church to the maintenance of ministers, any more ceremonial or judicial in regard of the number, then in regard of the matter.  
Neither did there any mystery lye so much in the quantity of the thing given, as in the very gift and offering itself. So that by the same reason, that you make it unlawful for ministers to be maintained by Tithes, you make it unlawful for them to haue any kind of maintenance from the Church; there having been a ceremony in the very matter itself as much as in the quantity or number. For not onely their giving the tithe of their increase, but also the very giving of their increase itself, out of that consideration, was ceremonial.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether every true visible Church of Christ be not a company of people called and separated out from the world, and the false worship and ways thereof, by the word of God; and joined together in fellowship of the gospel by voluntary profession of the faith and obedience of Jesus Christ.  
W. Bradshaw  
I answer, 1. That every true visible Church of Christ, is such a people.  
2. That yet, notwithstanding they be such, they may in their infirmity& ignorance, walk in some of the ways, and practise some parts of the fal●e worship of the world, notwithstanding their said separation, conjunction and profession.  
3. They may in time become the true visible Churches of Christ, which at the first were not in the said manner and form, called, separated and joined together; but forced and constrained against their will by the sword of the Magistrate.  
4. Many of those Churches in our kingdom, from which you separate, as they now stand, are such a company of people, so called, separated, and joined together: tho' in all three there may be some kind of defects and wants.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether the Sacraments, being the seals of righteousness which is by faith, may be administered unto any other but to the faithful, and their seed: or in any other ministry, or m●nner than is appointed by Iesus Christ, the apostle& high-priest of our profession. And whether they be no otherwise administered in our Cathedrall& parishional Curches in England.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. I grant that ihe Sacraments ought to be admi●ist●ed onely to the faithful in outward p●ofession, and their seed; and in no other ministry or manner, then is appointed by Christ.  
2. In many of our Church●s( at the least) they are adm●nistred in no other manner, from& by no other minist●●y then Christ hath appointed; nor to no other persons.  
3. every error& defect in some part of the matter& form, and ministry, arising from ignorance or infirmity, maketh not the Churches false Churches: Except you hold; That no true particular Church can err; which is a more gross opinion, than that of the Papists.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether the book of Common Prayer, with the Feasts, fasts, holy dayes, stinted prayers,& Liturgy prescribed therein, and used in these Assemblys, be the true worship of God commanded in his word; or the device& invention of man, for Gods worship& service.  
W. Bradshaw  
1. Tho' it should be granted, that the b●oke of c●mmon prayer, in all the parts& parcels thereof, is n●t the true worship of G●d; but containeth in it some devices& inventions of man; yet the true worship of God not with standing is prescribed in it.  
2. So much of it as is used in many of our Churches, is the true worship of God, and in effect commanded in his word.  
3. Those devices and inventions of men, with the Feasts, fasts, and holy daies therein p●escribed, though they should be granted to be sins& corruptions in our Chu●ches, and such as ought not to be conformed unto: and such as we ought rather to separate from our Churches, than either by Subscription, conformity, or any other means, to approve; yet are they not of that nature, that the simplo use of any or all of them, doth destroy the very being of those Churches, which use them; making them false Churches, and such as we may have no spiritual communion withall, no not in the best things.  
Fr. johnson.  
Whether all people and Churches, without exception, be not bound in Religion, onely to receive and submit unto that min●stery, worship& order, which Christ as Lord and King hath given and appointed to his Church. Or whether any may receive and join unto another devised by man for the service of God, And consequently, whether they that join to the present ecclesiastical ministry, worship and order of the Cathedrall and parishional assemblys, can be assured by the word of God, that they join to the former ordained by Christ, and not to the latter devised by man, even the man of sin, for the worship and service of God?  
W. Bradshaw  
1. I grant that we are bound in Religion, to do that which is specified in the first part of your question.  
2. To join with our ecclesiastical ministry, worship and orders( at least in those assemblys, whether Cathedrall or other, when and where all things are not performed according to the rigour of our Laws,) is not to join with a ministry and worship devised by that man of sin; but( though not in all the specialitys and formalitys thereof) with such a ministry and worship, as is required and instituted of God.  
3. They which join to the present ecclesiastical ministry, worship and order of the Cathedrall or parishional assemblys, in those things which are performed therein according to the true intent and meaning of our Laws, though some things be done not warrantable by the word; yet they may be assured by the word of God, that they join to the substance of that ministry, worship& order, which Christ as Lord and King hath given and appointed to his Church. At least they may be as well assured thereof by Gods word, as any that join with the present ecclesiastical ministery, worship& order of the assemblys of those of the Separation, can be assured by the same word, that they join to that form which is ordained by Christ.  
Now as concerning these demands, master Can telleth us, that master Bradshaw undertook indeed to answer them but he kept himself of so covertly from the point, that he hath left them far more obscure and dark than they were before: and in stead of them therefore he propoundeth 13. other questions of his own, gathered( as he saith) from master Bradshaws shifting answers& idle put-ofs.  
A pretty shift and put-of indeed, to save himself labour of taking away master Bradshaws answers; which he knew not well how to turn his hand unto. It seemeth that either he is not of his brother Johnsons mind, that these demands decided, will, as he saith, end the controversys between us and them; or he is not over-willing to have them at an end; least his schismatical function end, and expire with them: or lastly he conceiveth, that master Bradshaw hath in h●s answers so decided th●m, that the sentence of decision goeth on our side. Now this though he like not well of, yet is he loathe to take the pains to take them away, which indeed and ●either is nor ever will be able well to perform.  
As for h●s own bakers dozen of questions, let them deal that list with him. For this is no Scholerly course, but boys-plaie, when Demands have been made, and answers returned to them, not to reply upon the answers returned thereunto, nor to examine a●d scan what they say; but to tell the Answerer, that his answers are so covert, that they leave things more obscure and dark, than they were, and propound other queres in room of the former, letting the dispute, propounded and so far prosecuted, fall to the ground.  
Thus having run over and examined in defence of master Bradshaws answer to master Johnson, whatsoever hath by master Can here been opposed thereunto; I conclude at length, as I find, master Cans whole discourse, in regard of his fond and frivolous manner of reasoning, to be nothing else but a Can full of froth; in regard of his lying and unsavoury language, to be not a Can full of froth onely, but of filth too.  
Now if upon view hereof, if it ever be so happy, as to come to master Cans hand, his fingers shall be itching, as peradventure they will, to be scribbling and blotting of paper again, thereby to assay, what he can, to lick his credits whole again, which by his fond and foul dealing therein descried and discovered, he may justly deem much impeached and impaired: Let him in the first place recant his notorious falsehoods& forgerys, to every eye obvious; these by name among the rest.  
1. That master Bradshaw doth in this book stand to maintain the vil●st abominations in our Churches, having formerly made show to be a great enemy thereunto, pag. 217.  
2. That such corruptions as the Non-conformistes generally have condemned, he basely therein justifieth, ibi.  
3. That pleadeth for dumb dogs, cater-pillers, and idle-bellys, and is such a proctor for them as they never had a better. pag. 221.  
4. That he justifieth all such Priests and Deacons, as the Bishops make, without limitation or exception. pag. 234.  
5. That he saith generally, All the ministers of our Church-assemblys. pag. 260.  
6. That he infers, that those( some such) must make all the rest true. ibid.  
7. That he sclandereth our State, affirming, that it permits our ministers to be drunkards. pag. 224.  
8. That he hath from time to time earnestly craved the aid of Princes, to have the ordinary ministry of our Church-assemblys quiter rooted out and abolished. pag. 221.  
9. That he useth corrupt shifts to justify civill offices in ecclesiastical persons. pag. 224.  
10. That he labours, what he can, to justify the peoples practise, in committing the charge of assigning them Ministers to patrons. pag. 242.  
11. That he defendeth the reading of the Articles and Canons. pag. 249.  
12. That he justifieth the practise of Popish Ceremonys by himself condemned. pag. 230.  
13. That his counsel is much to this effect, so a man hold something, it is no matter what it be, nor how ungroundedly taken up. pag. 227.  
14. That by his arguing any heretic may maintain the gross●st errors, that he holds and practiseth, pag. 230.  
15. That by this manner of arguing a man may be a jew, a turk, a Heathen, any thing. pag. 750.  
16. That he bestirs himself to prove our ministry good, by the Scribes& Pharisees. pag. 231.  
17. That Paraeus on Math. 23.2. affirmeth the Scribes and Pharisees to have come rightly and lawfully to the offices they executed. Ibid.  
18. That master Bradshaws words import, that the ahility, which the Pharisees had to expound the Law, argued them true ministers. pag. 232.  
19. That to that of master johnson affirming our ministry to be unlawful and Antichristian, because neither their offices, calling, nor administration is according to Gods word, but all taken from Antichrist; he childishly answereth, that true pastors and teachers may want some accessary parts of their offices. pag. 250.  
20. That he asks, what errors they can prove to be in our Church. pag. 423.  
21. That he saith, our ministers have such and such offices, because by Law th●y ou●ht to have them. pag. 240.  
22. That he delivereth his yea and nay always upon his own bare word. pag. 141.  
23. That he says the proposition is false, the assumption is false, the consequent is false: but for proof, a man may as soon find a needle in a bottle of hay, as any, for the things which he boldly denies. pag. 257.  
24. That he never brings either Scriptures, Examples, Reasons, or human Testimoni●s, to confirm any one thing whereof he writes. pag. 235.  
These, I say, and other the like evident untrueths, let him in the first place agnize and revoake, whereby his repentance for them may appear; and then,( if he think good) in the next place, let him enter his Surre●o●nder in defence of his reply, leaving his idle vagarys into points in pertinent to the present business, and applying his discourse punctually to the Subject matter fi●st ●ntended; to wit, the justification of master Iohnsons book against master Bradshaws answer, and he shall not want an answer to whatsoever he shall surrejoine to this my Rejoinder. Otherwise, let him for my part, look to be answered as Salomon willeth, such as he sheweth himself here to be, Prov. 26.4. with silence. For who will endure to maintain discourse with one, that by persisting in manifest and palpable untrueth, thereby manifestly sheweth, that he cares not what he says, so it may seem any way to serve his turn? Or who can have the patience to hold dispute with him, that will by no means be kept to the point in present agitation; but run backward and forward, and ramble up and down, without list or limit, into what he likes or lists himself?  
It is a hard task, I well know, that I now put master Can to; and yet no more than equity and reason requireth. And if the propositions therefore please him not, nor he like to accept of them, let him prate at pleasure,& bawl as loud as he list, and rave ad rail, as he doth almost throughout his whole book; and fasten as many forged untrueths on this Rejoinder, as he hath done here on master Bradshaws answer; and crow when he hath so done, as if he had made a faire full and final conquest, because he is not again answered; all his clamours and calumnys, urgings and darings shall never induce me to set pen to paper again, and to enter the lists with such an one as he is, so persisting in his folly, until I shall deem it fit to vie broad and base language with some common scold, or to contend with a man beside himself.  
I pitty onely his poor people, that in schismatical Separation are lead on by such a guide, as this very work of his shows him to be; which beginning with mention of grace, and ending with prayer for sincere walking, he sheweth little grace or sincerity in the whole body and bulk of it. And wishing them more wisdom to discern things that differre, and him more grace and sincerity, than here he hath manifested, I end; having, I hope, sufficiently vindicated in any indifferent& intelligent mans judgement, the credite of my worthy friend, and Gods faithful servant, from this mans unjust aspersions; and the soundness of his answer, from his undue oppositions; or whether I have so done or no, referring myself to the doom and sentence of any person not extremely partial.   
FINIS.