the corruption of the corrupt Popish receivers of Ordination and the corruption of the corrupt Popish dispensers of it ever since 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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