Reply.

YOu have so ingenuously stated the Question, that I hope in my following Queries I shall not need upon every occasion to mention the termes [ordinarily and con­stantly] and the exceptions, viz. the cases of [approbation and necessity.]

Query 1.

Whether any thing can bee charged as sin upon any, but what is against a Divine Law? since the Apostle saith, Rom. 4.5. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression, 1 John 3.4. Sin is the transgression of a Law.

Counter-Query.

As that must needs bee a sin which is against a Divine Law, 1 Joh. 3.4. so is not that a sin which is practised as a Gospel duty, and hath no law or foundation in the Gos­pel? Who hath required these things at your hands?

Query 2.

Whether by any Law of God it is a sin for men that are gifted for the Ministery, to preach the truth of Christ to the e­difi­cation [Page 18]of their Brothren, although they were not put upon it by reason of your supposed necessity, or though they should ne­ver bee ordained to office?

Counter-Query.

Must not then unordained mens preaching be sinful, seeing they not onely have no law for it (if they have, shew it) but unwarrantably transgress a Divine institution?

Query 3.

If there bee any Law manifesting such a practise to bee sinful, pray tell mee where that Law is written, that so I may see my errour, and reform.

Counter-Query.

First, Is not that an Apostolical Institution, for the or­dination of Ministers? Tit. 1.5. Ordain Elders in every City. 2 Is not publick teaching an act of that office, as well as baptizing, being both joyned in the same commission, Mat. 28.19. Is there any difference put? 3 Are not unordained men that are teachers, usurpers upon that office, and trans­gressours of that Divine Institution? do not you see your errour by this?

Query 4.

If there bee a liberty for gifted men to preach in order to their approbation for Office, as you confess, pray tell mee whe­ther they do not preach in the capacity of gifted Brethren, be­fore their Ordination; since they cannot preach by vertue of Office, while as yet they are not in it?

Counter-Query.

Is there not a third thing which you forget? viz. that Approbationers preach neither as meer gifted Brethren, nor as lawfully constituted Officers; But as having by consent of Ministers (who have power to confer the Of­fice) leave to preach in relation to an Office? Doth a Boy you take upon likeing sell your Cheese as hee is fit to sell it; or as your Apprentice? if as fit to sell it, then every boy may have that right that is so fitted? as your Ap­prentice hee can not, because not bound; therefore datur tertium, hee sells it with your consent, in relation to bee bound.

[Page 19] Query 5.

If they preach as gifted Brethren before their Ordinati­on, then I quere, How long they may thus preach till their preaching becomes sinful?

Counter-Query.

Is it not a sin and an usurpation all the while they preach without the forementioned relation? Do you preach as a gifted Brother or not? if as a gifted brother, ought you not to shew what law you have expresly to warrant it? if as one in Office, how came you by it? were you ordained by Ministers or not? if by Ministers, whether by Protestant or Popish, that you may assure us of your Office: But if by a Church, I aske, are not Election and Ordination di­stinct things? do you ever read that the Church did any thing but elect? ought you not to shew some authority from a Divine Institution the Church hath to ordain? or else do you not run before sent?

Query 6.

If you say, Till the Ministry of Presbyters approve them, and are very well satisfied with their abilities and qualifica­tions for that imployment: then I quere, How if this man whom they approve of, is unsatisfied with their power to or­dain him; is it then a sin for him to preach till hee is satisfied with their power?

Counter-Query.

Seeing Approbationers preach in relation to an Of­fice, ought not others to bee accounted rather intruders, than Approbationers? But if truly Approbationers ought they to preach any longer than till approved? can you think Ministers would approve him to bee in Office, that owned not their power to ordain him? doth hee preach by vertue of the Ministers consent in relation to an Office, that owns not their power? but rather as a gifted brother, and a transgressour of the Gospel Order and Insti­tution? How can you bee satisfied with the power of the Church to ordain? had it been the Churches work, why did not the Apostle enjoyn the Romans, Corinthians, Gala­tians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalanions, to ordain Mini­sters [Page 20]rather than Timothy and Titus? If it bee as you say, why did hee mention it at all to these Ministers, Timothy and Titus? and why is hee quite silent of it to the Churches in all those Epistles, if it bee not rather the Ministers work than the Churches?

Query 7.

How if a man bee gifted and inabled to preach the Gos­pel to edification and comfort, and yet findes himself very short of a power to rule the Church of God as that Office re­quires, or it may bee wants faithful Children, such as are not accused of ryot; it may bee hee hath not power over his passion, but may bee soon angry, &c. which are those qualifi­cations that Paul tells Timothy and Titus MUST bee found in such officers: See 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Tit. 1.6, 7. I quere from hence, whether a man should sin to use those gifts (God hath blessed him withal) out of Office, because hee hath not all those qualifications that are required, before hee bee ad­mitted to Office?

Counter-Query.

Are you not bound, ere there will bee any strength in this Query, to shew by some law that a man may exer­cise a part of that office with which hee is not invested? is not your Query in short this? If one bee fit for part of the office, but not for the whole; if fit to preach, but not to rule, why may hee not exercise that hee is fit for out of office? I answer from the same place, 1 Tim. 3.2, 3. what if one be the Husband of many Wives? what if given to Wine, a meer drunkard, and so is unfit to bee admitted to office? why may hee not exercise his gift of preaching, if God hath blest him with it? why doth His Highness turn such out? why may not ignorant, yea prophan persons, that may be fit to rule in your Church at least for some acts of government do that they are able, or fit for? these Que­ries have the same foundation with yours. Again, ought you not to prove that preaching is not an act of the Mini­sterial Office? 2 Or that acts of Office may bee performed by him that hath not that office? 3 Or that acts of Office may bee communicated? 4 Yea and that where the [Page 21]whole Office it self ought not to be-conferred? when you were a souldier you left off box-making, when a Chees­monger, souldiering; and is not this Query one ground why since you were a pretended Minister (as it is reported) you may excuse your self from what acts of this Office you please, and take the liberty of being a Chees-monger still?

Query 8.

And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained, except as before excepted, I quere,

Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained? if so, shew mee where that Law is to bee found?

Counter-Query.

As to your Query concerning the peoples sin in hear­ing unordained men. I Quere,

If hee that preacheth sinneth in usurping that act of the Ministerial Office, then do not they sin that shall wit­tingly and willingly submit to this usurpation in hearing? if hee hath no lawful call to preach, Rom. 10.15. can they have a lawful call to hear? is not the receiver as bad as the theef?

Query 9.

Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel, as is recorded? Act. 18.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. publickly and fre­quently; and whether hee could hee an Officer of the Church at that time, seeing hee knew ONELY the baptisme of John, or was not acquainted with the baptisme of the Spirit? therefore pray shew us that hee was at this time an Officer, or else that hee preached for approbation to it, or that hee preached by vertue of any necessity. By vertue of necessity hee did not preach: for, there were able Christians before, such as the Text saith did instruct him. And if hee preached at this time as an Officer, or for approbation thereunto, pray shew how that appears.

Counter-Query.

Ought you not to have answered what Dr. Seaman, Mr. Gilespy, Chemnitius, &c. have answered to this? is it not the part of an unwise man to aske that which hath [Page 22]been so often answered without the least shew of a new cause of dissatisfaction? shall we not suppose you intend­ed to seduce the Vulgar that read not books? But not to shun your strength: Is this a good Argument?

Apollos taught in a Jewish Synagogue, where wee read of but two Christians Aquila and Priscilla, and those Paul brought with him; therefore a gifted brother may teach in our Christian Congregations?

Can a particular example in a Church not constituted bee a rule for ordinary practice in a Church constituted? Again, is it not evident that Apollos was in Office, and therefore call'd a Minister? 1 Cor. 3.5. therefore to sift it more narrowly, how will you prove Apollos not to bee in Office?

1 Must you not prove either that hee was no Priest? for they were the ordinary Teachers in the Synagogues; or that hee had not given any testimony to the Jews that hee was a Prophet, for these likewise had that liberty (had they not such apprehensions of Christ and his Apostles, because of their miracles?) or else are you not bound to shew up­on what account besides, the Jews let him teach in the Synagogue? was hee not thus in Office?

2 Must you not prove that John did not authorize him to teach, if hee was not acquainted, as you say, with the Baptisme of the Spirit, if hee had not those Gospel gifts that not only enabled, but stirred up men to preach, if hee was not informed of such a duty or work? if likewise you consider how suddainly hee undertook it as his duty with­out any sollicitations; is it not very probable hee was sent by John? and if so, must you not prove that Johns mission to Apollos was not as vallid as his Baptisme to Christ; was he not thus in Office?

3 Ought you not to prove, that there was no necessity which we both agree is sufficient to authorize? As 1 Was there any constituted organical Church, and Officers in it to preach? 2 Or was the Apostolical institution as yet practis'd there? 3 Or were any there to ordain him? 4 Or did hee know of such a thing to bee had from the A­postles, [Page 23]or others? 5 Was there not need and a way open to teach? was not here evident necessity then if all, or but some of these stand? if so, did hee preach as a meer gift­ed Brother?

4 How will you prove that even then hee was not cal­led, or in office, when you consider these particulars?

• 1 'Tis very certain hee was in Office. For,
  • 1 Can you deny but that hee did the work of an Evan­gelist in watering those Churches Paul had planted? 1 Cor. 3.6. and that he was to have been sent by Paul, as Timothy was, 1 Cor. 16.12.
  • 2 Was not his worth and name the head of a faction, as was Pauls, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, &c. 1 Cor. 1.12. was hee then an ordinary gifted brother?
  • 3 Is hee not called in express termes a Minister, and that in the same sense that Paul was? 1 Cor. 3.5. He was an Officer then sure.
• 2 Do you ever finde hee had any call to this Office after his preaching here? Act. 18.24, 25. if so, shew it I pray.
• 3 Do not these things prove that he was in Office now?
  • 1 Why did not Aquila teach then, and rather than A­pollos? for though Apollos was eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, yet Aquila taught him, verse 26. give then any rational account why Apollos rather preach't than Aquila; if it were not because Apollos was in Office, and Aquila not; surely Apollos being so ignorant, his eloquence could not make him more fit to teach than Aquila's knowledge of the Gospel.
  • 2 Was it not upon this account of his Office that the brethren in Achaia are written to, to receive him to help them, v. 27. especially if you compare it with Mat. 10.40, 41. — Where you see that such receiving is put for owning as an Officer?
  • 3 Why may wee not say that his HELPING them which beleeved THROUGH GRACE; hinteth to us his Office and Call? for thus the word signifieth, Rom. 1.5. & 15.15. 1 Cor, 3.10. All these things lye upon you to consider ere you can evince that this particular Example [Page 24]may bee an exception to that positive institut ion; ad more must bee said ere you can make this particular in­stance a foundation for the constant and ordinary practice of unordained men?

Query 10.

It is said, Mal. 3.16. that THEY that feared the Lord, SPAKE OFTEN one to another, &c. And Heb. 10.25. It is required that wee should not forsake the as­sembling of our selves together, but exhort one another daily, &c. where by the light of these Texts it doth not ap­pear, 1 That Gods people ought to meet often together. 2 That they may and ought to exhort one another, being thus assembled. 3 Whether by one another wee are not to un­derstand any one that hath a word or gift of Exhortation, as well such as are no Officers, as those that are?

Counter-Query.

Doth this Text, Mal. 3.16. and Heb. 10.25. prove any authoritative act of preaching to bee done by unor­dained men? where is one such word or rational conse­quence? do not you know that wee acknowledge Chri­stians ought to meet together, to edifie one another in mu­tual exhortations? but ought it not bee done according to Gospel order and rule?

Query 11.

Is it not written, Rom. 2.1, 2. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self: for thou that judgest dost the same things. Verse 3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judge­ment of God? Verse 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacriledge?

Whether by the light of these Scriptures, your darkness is not discovered, who told the people how sinful and dangerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks; when your self hath heard him once and again? And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice, will not bee arguments to justifie o­thers, as well as you? And since you cryed the hearing of such [Page 25]men down, as a general evil, without any exception; pray tell mee (let your pretence in hearing bee what it will) how can you do evil that good may come? And whether, by the same pretence that you can make to hear Mr. Brooks (if to hear him bee sinful, which is not yet proved) any man may not hear in an Idols Temple, or eat meat in an Idols temple, and so cause his weak brother to bee emboldened in his way, and make him to perish for whom Christ dyed, contrary to that in 1 Cor. 8.10, 11.

Counter-Query.

Though the people are not called to hear him that is not called to preach, Rom. 10.14, with 15. how shall they hear without a sent-Preacher? yet may not Mr. Willes be called to correct him that is not called to preach? is hee not called to that very place to instruct and teach? is hee not bound to convince gain-sayers then? and is hee not bound to hear therefore that hee may convince them? hath any of the Congregation such a Call as this? may not a Captain, even while his troop is marching up against an enemy, go out of his rank to view the enemy, when it is death to a common souldier? ought not the sheep to run a­way from the Wolf, yet the Shepheard may stand him, and pursue? May not a Physitian go to one sick of the Plague, yet it will bee a tempting of providence for others to do it? Hath not the Minister a better Call to pluck up tares, than the people to receive them? But is not this a slander you lay upon Mr. Willes? or do you remember the reasons of his dehortation?

Query 12.

It is said, Heb. 5.12. That when for the time yee OUGHT to bee Teachers, &c. I query from hence, Whether here is not a Duty required, and whether the Duty bee not Teaching? Again, whether the persons that the Text saith, OUGHT to teach, were not members out of Office? If so, then I query, whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in publick Assemblies, as in private Families: Since neither this, nor any other Text makes the one any more unlawful than the other; [Page 26]provided, they have abilities to the one as well as to the o­ther.

Counter-Query.

Is there in the 5. of the Heb. 12. the least ground for gifted brethrens teaching? if they ought to bee Teachers, ought it not to bee according to the Gospel rule? Masters of families to their families, Ministers to their Congrega­tions? But consider, that this Text is meant either that they ought to bee able to bee Teachers, or to bee actually Teachers; if it speak of only the ability and power, it is nothing to your purpose, yet much to the Apostles, who would shame them for their ignorance that had opportuni­ty enough to bee more knowing: this sense may be pro­bable. 1 Doth hee not plainly blame their ignorance un­der such means of knowledge; because they were not ca­pable of hard things, Verse 11. so that it is a reproof that they could not understand those mysteries hee would tell them; not that they were not Teachers? 2 Had they been such Teachers as they ought, had they not been re­ceivers of strong meat, vers. 12. not stewards to provide it for others? 2 But if you say it is meant of being actual­ly Teachers; you must prove it first, and secondly, That it is not meant of private teaching in families, &c. but if without reason you will say it is meant of actually publick teaching, you must prove it ere wee shall beleeve you; is not this spoke in general to all the Jewish Christians? wo­men are not excepted, and ought they to bee teachers? 2 If all the Jewish Church ought to bee actually publick teach­ers, do not they sinne in your Church, that are not so? tell them the next time, as indefinitely as the Text is, all you my Church sinne if you do not all actually practice publick preaching? if all the Church ought to be a tongue, where will the hearing bee?

Query 13.

It is said, 1 Cor. 14.1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts; but rather that yee may PROPHE­SIE, &c. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL pro­phesie, and there come in one that beleeveth not, &c. and [Page 27]Verse 31. Yee may ALL prophesie one by one, that all may learn, and all may bee comforted.

From these Texts I query, whether that this was a prophe­sying by Gift or Office? if it shall bee said, it was by Office; then I query, whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office? If it shall bee said, That it was by extraordinary Office, then it follows, That the Apostle exhorted the whole Church, to co­vet after extraordinary Offices, when hee exhorted them to follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that THEY might PROPHESIE, v. 1.

Counter-Query.

Is this to aske a Question for conscience sake, when you will not take notice of what Answers have been given unto this, as well as other Queries? is it not vain-glory to make the world beleeve that the London Ministers in their jus Divinum Min. ch. 6. from p. 95. to 103. that Mr. Collins in his vindication, Min. from p. 49. to 56. that Mr. Tho­mas Hall, p. 56, to 59. and many others who writ con­cerning this Text, have done nothing worthy Mr. Ives his regard of it?

1 Is not an extraordinary Call by extraordinary gifts such an authority from God, that no ordinary gifted bro­ther as such may presume to have?

2 Were not these in 1 Cor. 14 thus extraordinarily called? 3 Were they not expresly called Prophets, which is an Office (improperly so called) pro tempore:

4 You may all prophesie; can this be meant of any but Pro­phets? is it an argument then for gifted brethren? but you say: then were all the Church exhorted to covet after extraordinary Offices. Answ. The word Office here is somewhat improper; again, it was but temporary; and well may it be said, that they all ought to seek after these extraordinary gifts which thus qualified them: when a Judges place falls, all the Serjeants in Town may lawful­ly seek for it, though all cannot obtain it; God had promi­sed such gifts, and ought they not to seek for them?

Query 14

If it shall bee said that prophesying here was an ordina­ry [Page 28]Office; then it follows, That the whole Church are exhorted to covet to bee ordinary Officers: which would bee, to make the whole Body of Christ monstrous. If it shall bee said, That they were not exhorted to prophesie, as extraordinary, or as ordinary Offices; Then I query, whether they were not to do it as gifted Brethren? since wee never heard of any other way.

Counter-Query.

This Query is worth nothing; only I query, why may not your whole Church covet to bee all ordinary Of­ficers, as well as to bee preaching gifted brethren? if be­cause it is monstrous to have so many ruling heads, is it not as monstrous to have as many speaking tongues in the body of Christ?

Query 15.

Whereas you say, That none ought to preach, but those that are ordained, except as before excepted: I query: A­mong those several Ordinations that are in Christendome, which of those, whether some one of them, or all of them, bee that which Christ approves of? If you say, All of them; and that the errours of the Administrators in some Circumstances, doth not make the Ordination a Nullity?

Counter-Query.

1 Is not this the essential of Ordination; viz. a setting apart Men to the Ministry by Ministers? 2 Is not this the purity of it, viz. when fit persons are duely set apart by Gospel Ministers, in that Gospel way, and for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed, there being no su­perstitious corruption accompanying this Ordinance? 3 May there not bee some circumstantial differences even among those that practice this purity in this Ordinance? 4 May wee not say then that all the Ordinations in Chri­stendome are approved by Christ that differ but thus cir­cumstantially, as well as men of opinions different in ma­ny things are accepted by him?

Query 16.

Whether one may not by this Opinion, bee lawfully ordained at Rome?

[Page 29] Counter-Query.

1 Dare you say that Rome observes that Gospel purity in this Ordinance? 2 Though the substance may be there, yet is it not exceeding sinful NOW for US to submit to their impurities? Considering that these three things only ex­cuse in errours circumstantial? 1 When the errour is so slight, that it is no prejudice to the substance, nor doth engage to other pernicious errours? doth not Ordination among the Papists do this? doth it not oblige to obedience to, and Mission by that Autichristian See? (Note that the cases following excuse when this cannot bee pleaded.) 2 When a sincere aime at the substance is accompanied with ignorance of the errours in circumstance; can wee plead ignorance of the errours of Rome? or shall wee say that man hath a sincere aime that shall go thither to submit to it NOW? 3 When a case of necessity is, viz. 1 When we are bound to have the Ordinance its self. 2 And when it cannot bee elsewhere had but with these errours and im­purities. 3 Or when greater evils than those errours would follow. Is this our case NOW with Rome? though Preachers are bound to submit to that Ordinance of Ordi­nation, yet can they not have it else where than at Rome in more purity? Answer, Sir, Is it not in more purity done by the Ministers in England, than by those at Rome?

Query 17.

If you shall say, The Protestant-Ordination is lawful, and that only; then I query, which of those, whether the Episco­pal, Presbyterian or Independent Ordination, bee that which is approved by Christ to impower the Ministers to preach? since all these are Protestants, and greatly differ in this thing.

Counter-Query.

Do you not easily see by what hath been said, that the Protestant Ordination only is acknowledged to bee law­ful to us NOW? Do you not as easily see the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and the most sober independent Ministers, own the essence of this Ordinance, viz. that it is a setting apart men to the Ministry by Ministers? 2 That they pra­ctice [Page 30]the purity by setting apart fit men in a Gospel way, for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed, without su­perstitious intermixtures? 3. Ought wee not then to say that ordination by all or any of them is approved by Christ, and true Christians to impower Ministers to preach, not­withstanding they may differ in some circumstantials?

Query 18.

If you say, All of these are lawful; then were not the Mi­nisters of the Episcopal way greatly out, in crying up the Ordi­nation by Bishops to bee the onely Authoritative Ordination, in opposition to that of the Presbytery? And that they did so, will appear, if you consult Dr. Jer. Taylor, Chaplain to the late King, in his Book called Episcopacy asserted, page 120, 121, 122. It is cleer (saith hee) that Bishops were to do some Acts which the Presbyters COULD NOT do; one of which hee calls Ordination by imposition of hands, which hee saith was not to bee done by Presbyters. Again, the said Doctor saith, That the Apostles did impose Hands for confirmation, which (saith hee) was to continue in the Church; and could not bee done by the seventy, or any MEER Presbyter. And for this hee cites the constant pra­ctice of the Fathers, and the Opinions of divers Churches. Therefore pray tell mee if this be that Ordination which a man must have, without which his Preaching is sinful?

Counter-Query.

Is it not unchristian to charge the errour of one man (though a worthy man) upon the rest of the Episcopal way? is it not evident that the most of them judged them­selves to ordain as Ministers, and not as meer Bishops? Doth not Mr. Baxter say in his second sheet, that Bishop Ʋsher did acknowledge Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be vallid, and that hee answered King Charles by an instance that Hierom and Evag. tells us of? viz. that the Presbyters of Alexandria, till the daies of Heroclas, and Dio­nysius took one from among themselves, and made him a Bishop; therefore they may make Presbyters which is less; were not the Bishops wont to have Presbyters to joyn with them in this work? Hath not a sheet of this Reverend [Page 31]Bishops written for accommodation at the Isle of Wight, hinted this to be his judgement? Aske the more moderate Presbyterians if they could not close with it? Hath not the Rubrick told us, that Bishops ordain'd as Presbyters? Doctor Prid. in his Fasciculus therefore subscribes him­self in the Epistle Dedicatory, Episcopus vester & sympres­byter; Doth not the Vindication of the Ministry by the Lon­don Ministers bring abundant testimony of this? Lastly, aske the most rigid Episcopal man in England, and try if he will not say, that Ministers ordain'd by Presbyters are more lawfully Ministers than those that have a pretended Ordination from Churches?

Query 19.

Again, if you say, All or any the fore-mentioned Ordinati­ons be lawful, then how vaine a thing was it for the Presbyte­rians, to throw downe the Government of Episcopacy? Why did they not rather reforme it, than cashiere it, seeing it was a power by which Ministers might have been authorized to preach, according to Gods Ordinance?

Counter-Query.

Doe you go on still to your unchristian charges, where­by you would not only lay injustice, but bloud upon the heads of Presbyterians? Dare you assert, speake out, that the Presbyterians did throw downe the Government of Episcopacy meerly for this errour in Ordination? Was this the only reason of such sad miseries? May wee not more safely say the Anabaptistical spirits (which usually are bloudy, witness those in Germany) egg'd on to ruine whilst only Reformation was intended? Did not they make the civil wounds turn to fatal deaths? Did not they blow up that unbrotherly fire, which might have been timely quencht, into a destroying flame, and then with joy warm'd their hands at it?

Query 20.

If the Bishops, as Bishops, had this lawful Power, when did any Power from Christ devest them?

Counter-Query.

If Bishops not as Bishops, but as Ministers had this [Page 32]lawful power, may we not be confident that Christ hath not devested those that are lawfully Ministers of this Power? we will never so farre distrust his promise, as to doubt but he will bee with them to the end of the world Matth. 28.20.

Query 21.

If Episcopal Authority were of God, as the Bishops pretend, why may not a man lawfully goe still to them for Ordination, in case this Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesi­astical way?

Counter-Query.

1 Can that Authority which is founded upon the Word of God, bee taken from any in an Ecclesiastical way? What doe you mean?

2 Is not this Episcopal authority of Ordaining as Mi­nisters founded on the Word?

3 Can the contrary opinion either of the Ordainer, or the Ordained, null this lawful authority?

4 May not a man lawfully goe to them, if they will Ordaine as Ministers?

5 If not, ought he not in conscience, since no necessity bindes now to the contrary, take it where 'tis more purely administred?

Query 22.

If you say, That both Presbyterian and Episcopal Ordina­tion is lawful; then I query, whether that Christ ever ere­cted two wayes of Ordination of Ministers, one contrary to the other, and yet both lawful? for such is the state of Episcopacy and Presbytery in England; one saith, that the Presbytery hath no power to ordain, the other saith they have.

Counter-Query.

Is not both Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordinati­on the same as to the substance, as is already hinted, and as esteemed lawful the same as to purity, only differing in Circumstances? How irrational then, and me thinks, if Logick be rational, illogical is it to say there is contra­riety where there is but one thing, viz. Ordination by Ministers? Surely only two distinct things can bee called [Page 33]contraries: Must you not bring better Arguments the next time to prove this, then to say, because some Cir­cumstances differ, therefore there is a contrariety, &c. be­cause Episcopal and Presbyterian Ministers contradict one another, therefore Ordination by each is contrary each to other? If there bee such an essential agreement, and only a circumstantial difference, what reason then for such a Query, whether did Christ erect two wayes of Ordina­tion?

Query 23.

If it is that Ordination that is among the Independents, then we have that we run for; then if one have their suf­frage and Ordination, and this be lawful (which I think you will not say) then wherein is Master Brooks in this to bee condemned?

Counter-Query.

Have you urged any thing yet that should force us to owne any Ordination among Independents but what is according to the Gospel-rule, viz. by Ministers? Would you make the world beleeve you run for Independan­cy? Are you not past it, and got to Anabaptisme? Would you not faine have this as a cloake, that your designe may be the more plausible? Or is it that you tun for the defence of Mr. Brookes only? Must we not neces­sarily hence suspect either that Mr. Brookes, or his Church were staggered, and that they got you to be their Patron? or that you were guilty of presumption, by intruding into their Cause uncall'd?

Query 24.

Again, If you say, That Ordination by the Presbytery is the only Ordination; then where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty years agoe?

Counter-Query.

Since Ordination, as I have said, is by Ministers, were there not true and lawful Ministers in England thirty years agoe? Doe you think so easily by your Sophistry to per­swade us there cannot be a true Ministry under the name of Episcopacy and Presbytery? As if Bishops [Page 34]thirty years agoe could not be true Ministers, and Ordaine true Ministers? or as if Presbyters now cannot be true Mi­nisters, nor ordaine true Ministers? prove this by the next.

Query 25.

Is it not very strange that you should tell the people they sin, in hearing those that are not Ordained, when you never tell them, whether you mean any Ordination may serve, nor what Ordination of those divers kindes it is that God approves of?

Counter-Query.

How Mr. Ives! dare you thus charge Mr. Willes? ei­ther you heard him all his Sermons there or not, if not, how durst you say that hee never told the people what Ordination he meant? If you did hear him, then, how dare you falsly charge him with that, that hundreds of people can witness against? Did he not publickly declare that they ought to hear none but Ministers ordain'd by Ministers, and that he was rigidly neither for the afore­said Independancy, Presbytery, or Episcopacy, but for a moderation, seeing they differ in this but circumstantial­ly? and that he held Ordination performed by Ministers of any of these three wayes to bee valid and good. Be not a Tale-bearer, and take not up a false report against thy Neighbour.

Query 26.

Since you say, That none ought to preach, but they must bee Ordained, except as before excepted; then I query, whether your Ordination bee derived from the Line of Succession, or whether it had its Original from Necessity, because such an Ordination by Succession could not bee had? This Question is grounded, partly upon what you preached, partly upon what you granted me at your House, viz. That where it cannot be had from a lawful successive power, there a man may lawfully officiate in the Office of the Ministery without it, and that because he is put upon it through necessity. Since therefore (you say) there is but these two wayes by which a man may be justified in preaching, or the poeple in hearing; I query now (as I did at your House) by which of these two wayes came you into the Ministery? for you told us, That none could pretend to Necessity, when it might be had by Succession.

[Page 35] Counter-Query.

Do not you grant, 1 That a true Succession makes true Ministers? 2 That where Succession is broken off, there is a case of necessity? 3 That such a case of Ne­cessity (to which a positive Law gives place) makes true Ministers? Is not here then an unanswerable Argu­ment, that the present Ministry of England are true and lawful Ministers, because the first Reformers were such from whom they receiv'd it? For,

If the true Line of Succession was quite broke off, then the first Reformers were true Ministers by a case of ne­cessity;

If the true Line of Succession was not broke off, then they were true Ministers by Succession; so that if the first Reformers must needs be true Ministers, then these like­wise must needs be so that received it from them.

Sir, I challenge you to answer this Argument by the next; don't you miserably shuffle off answering by pro­pounding Queries? and doe the following Queries any way answer the Argument? If your Queries prove there were no Succession evidently, there was a Necessity; or if they prove no Necessity, must there not needs be a Succession? Are not therefore your Queries to the Fortieth to no purpose? But to follow you.

Query 27.

If you say, By Succession, then surely you succeed from Rome; if so, then I query, whether the Church of Rome was the Spouse of Christ, and her Ministery and Ordinances the Ministery and Ordinances of Christ, when your Predeces­sors received their Ordination from them? if so, then,

Counter-Query.

Why may there not be a lawful Succession from the A­postles by Rome? If you say a Necessity and Succession cannot be consistent at the same time, because if there be a Necessity there can be no Succession, and if a Succession, no Ne­cessity; then I query, whether though there bee not an absolute Necessity of the susception of the Office with­out Ordination, when an Ordination may bee had; yet [Page 36]there may not bee so far a necessity as to make valid an impurer Ordination, when no better can bee had? for as much as the essentialls of Ordination may remain, not­withstanding circumstantial corruptions?

Consider 1 Have not Ordinances their foundation up­on the Word of God? do they not consist in a conformi­ty to the Divine institution? 2 Hath Ordination any dependance as to its essence upon the opinions or practices of men whilst they hold this conformity as to the substance of the Ordinance? 3 Can then the corruptions either of Re­ceiver or of Dispenser null this Ordinance of Ordination? If the corruption of the first Popish corrupt Receivers, or the corruptions of the Popish Dispensers of it, could not null this Ordinance, then there was a true succession of it, and the Papists could not break off this succession, ei­ther in their receiving or giving, and therefore it was truly handed down to our first Reformers. I shall therefore prove,

1 That the corruptions of the first corrupt receivers, that first received this Ordinance from the Apostles or their successours, that did purely administer it, could not null this Ordinance, or break off this line of succession: If because wee are corrupt and unholy the Ordinances are no Ordinances, then Gods Ordinance depends upon mans holiness: so that if all the world in a sense should bee cor­rupt, God should have no Laws or Ordinances in the world? then you may well recant your Book against the Quakers, and tell us now that wee must look to our light and holiness within, more than to the word of God. If so, then, every time any of your Rebaptized ones proves corrupt, or is guilty of any backslidings is drunk, &c. hee hath nulled his Baptisme, and must bee baptized again over and over as often as hee sins; or if the corruption of the receiver null'd an Ordinance, then none could be guil­ty of abusing Ordinances, because his corruption makes it to bee no Ordinance; Then none can bee guilty of the body and blood of Christ in receiving the Lords Supper, for if hee bee worthy, hee is not guilty, if unworthy, then [Page 37]hee is corrupt, and (if the former principle bee true) the Sa­crament is nulled, and it represents not the body and blood of Christ: But S. Paul hints that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance to one that is a corrupt receiver, and therefore hee is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11, 27. Because a man's a villain, a rogue, &c. may hee not therefore have justice from the Law against him that would rob him of Land that hee hath a true title to? can the corruption of the receiver null the Law? was that miracle of Christs not to bee esteemed a mercy, because bestowed upon ungrateful blinde men? doth it not appear then that the succession was not broke by the corruption of the first corrupt receivers?

2 The corruptions of the corrupt dispensers of it, viz. of Popish Priests could not break this line of succession: A Judge probably may deserve to bee hanged for bribery and injustice, doth therefore the Law lose its force, because pronounc'd by such a one? Suppose Judas had baptized one while hee was a traytour in his heart, had it been no Baptisme? Suppose that one of your Rebaptizers or Dip­pers was an errant Hypocrite, Deceiver, &c. was whatever hee had done null'd, and must all bee dipt again? if this Opinion bee true, can wee ever bee assured that wee have true Ordinances? if the Minister that dispenseth it bee cor­rupt, it is no Ordinance, and can I search his heart? or know his head and opinions? Is not this a sad case and condition for Christ to leave his Spouse in? Is not this to make the Ordinances man's, and not God's? If I am assu­red the Proclamation comes from the supreame Magi­strate, am I not bound to obey it, though it bee read by a Rebel, if sent to do it? shall gold bee gold, though in a dunghil, and shall the Ordinances of God, those rare Jew­els, not only lose their lustie, but essence because in wick­ed hands? Ordinancess have their foundation on the word, and therefore depend not upon the corruption or holiness of any man. Reader, now Judge; If the corrup­tion of the corrupt Popish receivers of Ordination, and the corruption of the corrupt Popish dispensers of it ever since [Page 38]could not break off the line of succession, because it hath not its foundation in men, but in the Word of God: then our first Reformers must needs be true Ministers by succes­sion? and the present Ministry of England true, as having received it from them: Are not the Ordinances and Mi­nistry of Rome, the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ so far as they are according to the Word?

Object. But may you say, this is it I wish for, then my sixteenth Query is not answered, may wee not go lawful­ly then to Rome to bee ordained?

A. View my sixteenth Counter-Query. 1 Dare you say it is lawful to submit to such corruptions that lead to Popery? 2 Since wee know it? 3 And that there is no necessity for it, but it may bee had purer here? was not this an unpardonable sin in the Israelites, to offer Sacri­fice under every green tree, when there was a Temple to Sacrifice in? Remember therefore these things; 1 That Ordination is an Ordinance founded upon the Word. 2 That the corruption of Receivers or Dispensers cannot null it. 3 That our first Reformers were lawfully ordain­ed by the corrupt Popish Bishops, because it was a case of ignorance or necessity. 4 That it is exceeding sinful and unlawful to receive Ordination NOW, from Popish Bishops, because no such excuse.

A second Argument, to prove the line of succession not to bee broke.

Since Christianity was profest, can you say there were not a company of true Beleevers, a Church for so many years that England was under Popery? If there was a Church, then shee had Ministers or not; if no Ministers, what became of that promise, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. that the Saints shall have a Ministry till they come to a perfect man, &c. If there was a true Ministry, then they were or­dained ones, or unordained ones; If ordained ones, we have that wee run for, viz. that the line of succession was not broke off; if unordained ones, shew us it where they preached, in what Church, who they were; give us an in­stance in one, during all that time.

[Page 39] Query 28.

Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her, as shee was when they receiv­ed Ordination from her, which was but a little before?

Counter-Query.

Probably shee was as good, what then? wee left her not as shee was the Spouse of Christ, but as shee was an Harlot; wee left not her Ordinances as they were Christs, but her corruptions and Idolatries.

Query 29.

If you shall say, Here was a succession of Brittish Ministers in England before the Papal Power had to do here, or before Gregory the Pope sent Austine the Monk to convert the Sax­ons then I query, whether all those Ministers were not brought into subjection to the Papal Power, and so were swallowed up in the See of Rome? If not, then,

Counter-Query.

Doth not Gildas report of a Ministry in England before Austin the Monk was sent over? Might there not then bee thousands that had not bowed the knee to Baal, 1 King. 19.14. and wee not know of it?

Query 30.

Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England, who were separated from the Church of Rome? if there was, shew us where that Church was all the time the Pa­pal Power was exercised here, and who were they that govern­ed it; and also how your Ordination proceeded from this re­formed, rather than from the Papal Line.

Counter-Query.

If as before, might not there bee a Succession from such, and we not know of it? Is not God wont to make his own waies to flourish most, though many times secretly? ought you not to beleeve that God hath ordered all for the best? it is more becomming us to wonder at, then search, ad­mire, then sound, the secret works of God.

Query 31.

If you say, It came from Rome, and not from that presup­posed Succession; then I query, if Rome was a little before [Page 40]Henry the Eights time intrusted with the Administration of Christs Ordinances, as a Church of Christ, whether it was not your sin to leave her as a cage of every unclean thing?

Counter-Query.

But if it came from Rome, and the sacred Ordinances of God were there, may not Rome notwithstanding bee ac­counted a cage of every unclean thing? what if a theef hath a Bible in his pocket, is hee not therefore a theef? can the possession of Ordinances make holy? Then never a Minister can bee an unholy man. If Rome was unclean, notwithstanding those Ordinances (as indeed shee was) ought wee not then to depart from her corruptions, Numb. 16.37. the Censers of Korah, and his company, wherein they burned incense to the Lord, were holy, yet the Israe­lites were to separate from them, that they might bee de­stroyed.

Query 32.

If you say truly of her (as indeed you do) that shee was the cage of every unclean thing; how then could shee dispence at that time so sacred an Ordinance, as Ordination of Gospel-Ministers is by you judged to bee?

Counter-Query.

Is it not strange that you aske such a Query and not shew any reason why? Why could she not dispence such a sacred Ordinance as Ordination, notwithstanding her uncleanenesse? Must those accounts in your Book, which you know to be just and right be nulled, and may others disowne their debts there, because through the fault of your Boy, they are naughtily written, or blotted and blur­red? would you serve God as you would not bee serv­ed?

Query 33.

If you say, Shee had power as a Church, and you did sepa­rate because of her corruptions, that you might serve the Lord with more purity; then I query, whether you are not guilty of that evil your self (if yet it bee an evil) which you charge up­on Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt and maimed?

[Page 41] Counter-Query.

If wee say shee had power as a Church, why did you not disprove it? For if shee was a Church, then her Ministers were true Ministers, though corrupt, and the Succession was not broken off. To what end then have all your for­mer Queries been? Reader, thou mayest bee the more convinc'd, that the Line of Succession was not broke, be­cause the adversary yeelds up his own weapons; thus thou mayest see hee hath more of subtlety to puzzle, than of strength to convince. But Sir, do you think by your yeeld­ing to draw us into ambush, that Mr. Brooks may sepa­rate as well from the halt and maimed, as wee from Papists? consider, either hee acknowledged his Parishioners of Margarets-New-Fish-street to be a Church, or not; if not,

1 Must hee not condemn then Mr. Froysell and other godly Ministers that have acknowledged them a Church, and upon that account were their Ministers, and gave them the Sacrament?

2 Must hee not prove that such a company of beleevers that have been baptized, & thereby admitted Members of a Visible Church, that will still publickly own this Baptisme; that were never cast out by any Church Censures, are not a Visible Church, to whom belongs all the Ordinances?

3 Did not hee himself acknowledge such as these are to be the matter of a Church (though the former particular proves them actually a Church) to use his own words? Is it not then his duty, either to convince them that they are not beleevers, that they are scandalous by evident proofs from their lives? (which hee never did, yea before hee knew them hee disclaimed them; yea in a Book called Pills to PURGE Malignants, &c. hee unchristianly bran­ded them with vile Names, and this as hee confesseth be­fore hee knew them: O sad! was this to come as an Em­bassador of Christ among them?) or else if hee cannot, is it not his very great sin to see stones and timber fit for a spiritual building, and not to build them up to be a Church of Christ? much more must hee not bee accountable for plucking down, and indeavouring not to leave one stone [Page 42]upon another in that which is already a Church of Christ?

4 Or must hee not prove that some corruptions un­church them? Were not the Corinthians some carnall? 1 Cor. 3.3. some proud? 1 Cor. 4.18. did not some go to law before the unjust? ch. 6.1. were not some defrauders? ch. 6.8. some drunken, ch. 11.21. some unworthy recei­vers, ch. 11.27, 28, 29. some ignorant of God, and of the resurrection? 1 Cor. 15.34, 35. yet the Corinthians were a Church for all this, as Mr. Willes urged. Thus some of the seven Churches of Asia were corrupt, yet were stiled Churches still, Rev. 3.14, 15. some of the Church of Per­gamos held the doctrine of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans; Thyatira, v. 20. suffered the woman Jezebel to seduce. The Laodiceans were luke-war me, &c.

2 But if his Parishioners bee a Church; I query, whether doth hee separate from them as a Church, or as corrupt?

If as a Church, is it not an horrid schisme, such as the Protestants justly plead not guilty of to the Papists? or ought hee not to let this company of Visible Saints to en­ioy their own means and meeting-place, that they may get to themselves a Minister that shall give them the Or­dinances? How dares hee in conscience hinder a Church of Christ from uniting, and from enjoying his Ordinances which hee hath left for it? How will hee answer it at the day of judgement before Christ? Ought not his own Church (as hee calleth them) to have a meeting-place of their own, and not to rob these of their liberty? How durst hee thrust himself upon a flock to sheere the fleeces, but will not be their Shepheard? But if hee separate only from their corruptions to make your Query sound any thing, ought hee not to shew his Parishioners that they bee guilty of such corruptions as made us separate from Rome? The Papists worship Saints, and Images, and make more Mediatours than one: These and more I can make evident upon proof; can Mr. Brooks evidently prove his Parishioners to bee guilty of these or such like corruptions? do you read of any that ever suffered so great a Church-punishment (as being kept from the Ordinances is) unless first there were [Page 43] conviction of a notorious scandal? 2 Brotherly admoni­tions, Matth. 18.15, 16, 17, 18. 3 And a casting out by Church-Censures, 1 Cor. 5. Againe, could there have been any Corruptions in that Church but through his neglect? For, hath he not power upon evident convicti­on to keep back the scandalous? I say, upon evident con­viction, for God never intended his Ministers should search the hearts of men, as to say they are formal and wicked, and censure their hearts, when they can evidently prove nothing from their lives? Is it not likewise his duty to instruct the ignorant? Is hee not bound in chari­ty to judge all others to be true visible Christians? How then can he plead that he separates from that Church be­cause of her corruptions, seeing it is his duty, and in his power, according to the Rules of the Gospel, to have re­formed it? Will not these Schismes and separations lye heavie at his doore and yours? Ought you not to cleare your selves to the world?

Query 34.

Whether it hath not been common for those of your way, to separate from the Papists, and yet take their Tythes, and (to use your owne phrase) sheer those lame and diseased Sheep, which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you?

Counter-Query.

Are not Tythes setled in Parishes for the maintenance of those that take the care and charge of those Parishes? Doth not therefore the Tythes belong to those of Master Willes his way, that take this charge? Doth Mr. Brookes doe thus? Doth hee not declare that hee takes no more charge of the Parish as their Minister than of any other? Doe those of Mr. Willes his way deny the Papists any thing that is their right and due? Hath not the Church debarred them from communion with us? Is it not equi­ty then they should not deny their due? Doth Master Brookes doe thus? When were his Parishioners cut off from Church Communion? how, or by whom? Have not those of Mr. Willes his way the consent of those Pari­shes they take the charge, from whom they require their [Page 44]maintenance? But hath not Mr. Brookes unworthily crowded in by might, and yet never intended to take the charge for which the Tythes were intended? Yea, and hath he not troubled his Parishioners for the non-payment of them?

Query 35.

If you say, They might (if they would reforme) have com­munion with you; I query then, whether this very Objection that causeth you to exclude Papists, be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants, and other prophane people, viz. because they doe not reforme?

Counter-Query.

Wee doe say, if they would reforme and turn Prote­stants, that the Churches of England would have com­munion with them; will Mr. Brookes say thus of his Parish? Nay, would it not be a rejoycing to many honest hearts, if hee could make it manifest, that he refuseth none but scandalous and prophane people, and that because they are such, and will not reforme? Doth Mr. Brookes exclude the whole Parish because scandalous and prophane? Is it not evident that they are counted prophane, and excluded as Papists, because they will not owne his Church, and dis-own their owne? Would hee not owne some of these very men, and count them reformed ones if they would but owne his Schismatical way, to whom hee never yet otherwise would tender the Ordinances? Did ever Christ intend that his Ordinances should be tied up to Mr. Brookes his opinion? How will you, or this man excuse his conscience in this?

Query 36.

If you shall deny this Succession, and say, That there was none, and that it was lost; then I query, whether this be not a singular and private Opinion of your owne, differing from the rest of your Brethren?

Counter-Query.

Don't you easily see by this time that we have no need to deny a Succession? and that your Queries have been very vaine all the way? Is not this the opinion of the [Page 45]most godly and sober Protestant Ministers? I suppose Mr. Willes did not assert Necessity in opposition to Suc­cession as his opinion, but brought it as one branch of that Dilemma he brought for your satisfaction, viz. that the first Reformers must needs be true Ministers, either by necessity, or by Succession, which you have not answe­red. Reader, take notice then, that in my answering his following Queries I plead not for Necessity, as if there were no Succession, but to shew you, supposing that suc­cession was broken off, how weakly hee argues against Necessity.

Query 37.

If that Ordination from Rome, and receiving Holy Or­ders from thence, was thrown off upon a politick account, as doubtlesse it was at first, (though since wee have declined it upon more religious considerations) then I query, how any body could pretend to the Argument of Necessity to preach without Ordination?

Counter-Query.

Have you proved plainly, cleerly, and convincingly that there was no true Succession, are you sure of it? Have you done it with the true strength of Argument ra­ther than with subtilty: Is it certaine Reader, art thou convinc't? Then, hath hee not as cleerly prov'd the first Reformers to be Ministers by Necessity? Can you deny it, but that there is a case of Necessity when Ordinationcan't be had from Succession, and doth not such a case of Necessi­ty make them true Ministers, that cannot in the ordinary way be Ordained? why then dare you thus to seeme to unsay what you have said, by pleading against Necessi­ty, notwithstanding you have argued that there was no Succession? But if we should suppose Succession was lost, is your Query of any force against Necessity? what if the religious considerations of the first Reformers imbrac'd that opportunity, which Political Interests gave, were they therefore impious? Or what though through igno­rance of the losse of Succession they did not pretend to the Argument of Necessity, doth it follow they lost this title [Page 46]therefore? What if a man should not know that the wri­ting is lost whereby he hath a right title to his House, of which hee and his Ancestors have had an unquestionable possession an hundred years, doth it follow that because he doth not plead the right of prescription, that therefore he hath not that right? Thus might not the first Refor­mers be truly Ministers by Necessity (it being supposed) though they pleaded it not?

Query 38.

Whether or no, when the Line of Succession was broke, it was not lawful THEN for every one to preach that could; although it might not have been lawful before? because Ne­cessity puts one lawfully upon that work; where a successive Ordination cannot be had, by your owne Maxime.

Counter-Query.

1. Doth not a case of Necessity rather give that right which a positive Law should give in an ordinary way then make a new Law? 2 Doth not such a case of Ne­cessity then rather put men into office, as doth the posi­tive Law, Tit. 1.5. then give liberty to meer gifted Bre­thren to preach, for which there is no Law in the whole Word of God? 3 Doe not then those that are by a case of Necessity put upon the work of the Ministry act as men in Office, and not as meet gifted Brethren? 4 Or doth this case of Necessity make any Ministers but those that are fittest, and undertake the Ministerial Charge? 5 Doe not they then preach without Authority from this case, and so sin, that preach as not in Office by this case, notwithstanding their gifts?

Query 39.

If it were true (as you say) that none ought to preach while the successive Ordination of Christ remaines un-inter­rupted, but such as are lawfully ordained (which is the great thing in question) how doth it become a sin for men that are gifted to preach, since there is no such Ordination now on foot, but that which men put themselves upon through necessity, and want of the other by Succession?

[Page 47] Counter-Query.

Seeing therefore none but those that are in Office, ei­ther by lawful Ordination in the ordinary way, or by a Case of Necessity are to preach: is it not a sin for meer gifted brethren to preach? If there was a Case of Neces­sity, did not this put our first Reformers in Office? 2 (Sup­posing this Case of Necessity which is not yet granted) you insinuate they did not pretend to that Argument, how could they then through Necessity put themselves upon the Office, would not providence (supposing the Case) plainly put them upon it? 3 Supposing they were actual­ly in Office by this Necessity, is there not at least a law­ful Succession from THEM? 4 Can any then in an ordi­nary lawful way bee in Office, but those that have it from that Succession? And are not likewise the present Ministry true and lawful that thus have it?

Query 40

Whereas you say, You can baptize the children of wicked Parents; I query, what ground you have in Scripture so to do?

Counter-Query.

Do you not handsomely and neatly indeavour to de­lude? one while by pretending to run for Independency, when you are an Anabaptist already; another while by pleading against the baptizing of the children of wicked Parents, when you are against the baptizing of any chil­dren? Do not you acknowledge that those that have a right to bee Members of the Visible Church ought to bee baptized? may not they then as well baptize the children of those that are Church-Members, as having a right to Membership upon their Principles?

Query 41.

Whether to baptize the children of wicked Parents, bee not contrary to the Opinion of those which your self calls the Re­formed Churches?

Counter-Query.

In the sense Mr. Willes asserts this Baptisme, it is easy to see it belongs to the children of those that are Members of [Page 48]the Church; And do not most Reformed Churches thus judge? Ile propound one Query concerning what you probably know, or at the least wish to bee: Whether or no is Mr. Brooks inclinable to Anabaptisme? had bee not very favourable thoughts of it when hee pleaded so much for men of that opinion? Either hee owns the Baptisme of children, or not: if he doth, why doth hee not acknow­ledge all the Parishioners of Margarets-New-Fish-street to bee members of the Visible Church, since they have been baptized, and were never cut off? why hath hee ever since hee came, without cause, or at least proof of cause, debar­red them from those Priviledges that belong to them as Members of a Visible Church? If hee doth not own pae­dobaptisme; then may wee not say this is the reason, why for thus many years hee never gave the Lords Supper to one Master of a Family in his Parish, unlesse to an Ale­house-keeper, who now is dead; notwithstanding there are many sober and godly men there? May we not hence guess the reason why hee spake so many good words for them? may wee not hence guesse why hee denies to baptize so many children, that when they might bee engaged by this to be Christs Disciples, hee is unwilling to it, yea, and when he hath nothing to say but the Parents may be as god­ly, as if they were of his Church? therefore I could wish I knew how to convince my self that hee doth not baptize the children of those of his own Church out of self-ends, rather than out of respects to the Ordinance it self.

Again, hath hee not too evidently asserted that the Or­dination of the Ministry of England is Antichristian; it will follow then, that it is unlawful, and that all they have baptized, are unlawfully baptized, must hee not then be for Anabaptisme? may we not therefore justly fear that hee and his are in great danger to fall to Anabaptisme, as others of that way have done? how doth my heart tremble whilst thus I argue! I could heartily wish I could not plead so strongly to sadden honest hearts, and to please such as you are.

[Page 45] Query 42.

Where as you said, that the Fifth-Monarchy-men were as the smoak of the bottomeless pit, and that their Principles did rase the Foundation of Religion; I quere, whether they were not called Fifth-Monarchy-men, because they did beleeve, that when the Caldean Monarchy, and the Monarchy of the Medes and Persians, and the Grecian and Rom in Monar­chy should bee wholly extirpated, that then the Lord himself should set up a Fifth-Monarchy, which should succeed these four, of whose Kingdome there should be no end; accord­ing to that of Dan. 7.23, 24.

Counter-Query.

This you speak of may be the reason of the Apellation of Fifth-Monarchy-men; But is it to yours or my purpose to examine whether there is sufficient ground for this Opi­nion? I do confess there are divers sober men of this judge­ment. But did not Mr. Willes speak of the Fifth-Monarchy-men that are so infamously famous for decrying both Ma­gistracy and Ministry? what is this but the smoak of the bottomless pit?

Query 43.

If this principle were grounded upon this and such like sayings in Scripture, what reason had you to cry out against it?

Counter-Query.

Was not this reason enough (setting aside that the point its self is so clearly questionable) that with such raving rage they joyn'd together with others to cry down, and more, such standing Ordinances?

Query 44.

If you say, It was because of the evil practice of some of them in these latter times; I do thereupon query, If this bee a good Argument: Some of their practices were bad; Ergo, their principle is bad. Whether a man might not have said the same both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian way, since that some of them were such as ingaged the Nation in war and blood, more than ever those were like to do you call Fifth-Monarchy-men? but this surely is un-man-like reasoning.

[Page 50] Counter-Query.

Did Mr. Willes at all speake for or against the Opinion of the Fifth Monarchy-men as such? Did hee not so em­phatically express Fifth Monarchy-men, and upon such an account and occasion (speaking then against those that decry'd the Ministry) that you as well as I, and many more, might easily know he meant those that this City not long since rung of so much? those great decry­ers of Magistracy and Ministry? Is it not unman-like arguing then from so poor an Argument to lay bloud up­on on the heads of Episcopal-men, and Presbyterians? If the War was carried on by some for a while with honest in­tentions, yet you may see by my nineteenth Counter-query whose hands I guesse to be most embrued in bloud.

Query 45.

Whereas you would seem to blame Mr. Bookes for harsh Judgement, I query, whether your Judgement was charita­ble when you decryed the Fifth Monarchy-men as so many monstrous Hereticks, that rase the Foundation without any kind of exception; especially considering what Ground there is for it in Gods Word, and also that it was the opinion of many men both antient and modern; for Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius the Emperour, asserts the thousand years Reign of Christ upon Earth; and he further saith in his Dialogue a­gainst Tryphon, that is was the belief OF ALL CHRISTIANS exactly Orthodox. And of latter times, we have Mr. Robert Matton, Mr. Archer, Mr. Mead, Doctor Twisse, Mr. Ephraim Hewit, Mr. Parker of New-England, Doctor Homes, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and Mr. Joseph Caryl, who upon his perusal of Doctor Homes his Book, saith, That it is truth confirmed by Scripture, and the testimony of Ancient and Moderne Writers of all sorts.

Counter-Query.

Doe they not strike at the Foundation, whilst they would pluck downe such corner stones? Is this harst Judgement? probably to you it is, if you only fear Ma­gistracy, and hate the Ministry. I suppose those you [Page 51]hereafter mention were not guilty of this evil of denying Magistracy and Ministry; Are all these then you menti­on of the same opinon as to Christs Personal Reigne? But this is not a place now to consider it; as for Mr. Brookes, we may guesse him as harsh to Mr. Willes (as by his mis­representing his words, and insinuating those unchristi­an charges of Deceiver, Hypocrite, &c. appears) as he is too facile in his judgement to Dr. Everard, to whose Book (which I judge to be very erroneous, I had almost said Blasphemous) hee hath writ an Epistle very much commendatory, to which Mr, Barker hath set his hand; and I wonder by what trick they got an Imprimatur to it from that Reverend, Pious, and Learned Mr. Caryl.

Query 46.

And whereas you told me when I was at your House, you would stop my mouth, I cannot think you meant to stop my mouth with sound Arguments, for that you refused to doe, though I did desire it of you once and againe; and if you meant to doe it, it must be either by a secular power, or ani­mating the people to rudeness, for I know no other way, seeing you refused the first; then I query, whether in so doing (sup­posing me to have erred) you walk according to that Rule that tells you, that with meeknesse you should instruct those that oppose themselves? &c. 2 Tim. 2.24.

Counter-Query.

If Arguments would have stopt your mouth, ought you not to have been silent now? Why did you not answer in these Queries that Argument which hee urged to you at his house for your satisfaction, which hee mentions in his Letter, and which I have laid down in my six and twenti­eth Counter-Query? But if your tongue be an unruly Member, and will not be quieted with Reason; ought it not to be quieted some other way? And if those that op­pose themselves will not bee instructed with meekness in an orderly way, ought they then to be allowed in publick disorders and oppositions? Are you not sensible that all Churches would be filled with nothing but disputes and disorders? If this should be permitted, may not every man [Page 48]plead for this liberty, as well as you? would you desire this should be, if you had not a design to bring confusions into our publick worship, and to trouble the weak with doubt­ful disputations?

Query 47.

Doth not the Scripture say, That the Minister of Christ must bee an example to a Beleever in charity? 1 Tim. 4.12. I query then, whether back-biting, tale-bearing, and taking up a reproach against your Neighbour, be not contrary to the Law of Charity; and whether you were not guilty of this, when you told a Gentleman that lives at High-gate, who is ready to witnesse the truth hereof, That you were enformed I was a Jesuite; and therefore told him he would doe well to ap­prehend me. Truly Sir, if you doe not tell me who informed you, I shall say it was a slander of your owne devising, either thereby to take away my life; for that is the punishment the Law hath provided for Jesuites, by the Stat. of Eliz. 27.2. or else (if that Gentlemn would have been ruled by you) that I might have been laid in Goal right or wrong, to the undoing of my self and Family, till I could have cleared my self of the supposed Crime in open Sessions. This must needs bee your de­sign, otherwise why did you encourage him to apprehend me as a Jesuite? but more of this in a more convenient place, where I doubt not of reparation: only let me tell you, That if you could as easily prove the Affirmative, viz. That you are sent of God to preach, and that all you preach is true, as I can prove the Negative, that I am no Jesuite, the controversie between us would soon be ended.

Counter-Query.

Do you not see by Mr. Willes his Letter how much you are to blame; thus in Print, to take up a reproach against him? and that upon the bare information of such a single person? did hee ever assert you to be a Jesuite? At the most hee only said you were suspected, and this hee spake in private: And indeed who would not suspect that man to be Jesuitical, who was cryed out on to be such to his face in a great Congregation at Clements beyond Temple-Bar, [Page 49]that hath the vox populi to accuse him of it? That is reported to have converse with Jesuites? that liv'd a conceal'd, I had almost said a suspected life for some years together in and about London, that hath Jesuitical opinions and de­signs; especially to pluck down the Ministry of England, or to make it odious? That these grounds of suspition may be had concerning you I shall not assert; but only wish that we had no more ground to suspect you to be Jesuitical, then Mr. Willes to be uncharitable in accusing you, or erroneous in what is here controverted, and I make no question but you would in your next subscribe your self a friend to Mr. Willes and this Truth, in some measure vindicated. Confess the Truth, and glorifie God. Amen.