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
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 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 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 't is 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 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 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
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
2 But why would not Mr. Willes answer mee A. I suppose I prevented him truly it is not worthy the while and is not this your cunning by such Pamphlets to draw him off by imploying him from further prosecuting this subject Q. 3 But why will not Mr. Willes dispute with mee A. Alas you see what rashness you are guilty of by seeing how a mean man can deal with you and what little need there was of it Q. 4 But why were the people so rude when I desired publick satisfaction A. It is the trick of the Devil first to be the cause of an offence and then to accuse for it Q. 5 But why do I answer you by Counter-Queries A. That you may see how easie it is for a fool to aske more Questions than a wise man can answer The Confident QUESTIONIST QUESTIONED OR The Querists Questions Answered by COUNTER-QUERIES The Question stated by Mr. Ives Mr. Willes ONe thing asserted by you was That it was not lawful for any to preach ordinarily and constantly but such as were ordained except it was for approbation or in cases of necessity when such Ordination cannot bee had SIR 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 Vsher did acknowledge Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be vallid and that hee answered King Charles by an instance that
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 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 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 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