erres in any thing as those do that go thither for Ordination then he being ignorant of their errors may lawfully be ordained there and that Christ will accept of it for you say That a sincere aim at the substance with ignorance of the errors in circumstance will excuse So that all that you have said though it will not justifie a mans going to Rome for Ordination that knows their errors and knows there is no necessity to go thither yet it doth justifie all that are otherwise minded and are still ignorant by your own confession for you confess that Christ accepts of all Ordinations that differ but in circumstance are you not indulging the Church of Rome But to proceed Quest 17 I demanded If the Protestant Ordination be the onely lawful Ordination then which of those whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent be that which Christ approves of c. Thereupon you query Whether you may not say All are approved by Christ But doth all you have said signifie Christ's approbation of all these have you urged any thing but that which is as disputable as the thing in question and so endeavour to prove one doubtful thing by another for you ask me If that I do not easily see all these viz. the Episcopal Presbyterian and the most sober Independents own the essence of Ordination that is say you a setting apart men to the Ministery by Ministers and that they do practice the purity of that Ordinance by setting apart fit men in a Gospel-way for those ends a Ministery is appointed without superstitious intermixtures Sir when you have proved this which you ask me If I do not easily see to be in all the Ordinations before mentioned then I shall grant your consequence viz. That Christ approves all these Ordinations but in the mean while I deny the Antecedent for all you say I might easily see it but if it was so easie for me to see why was it not as easie for you to have proved it is this to reason rationally or is it not that which a Scholar that values either credit or conscience would scorn viz. to take it for granted all these Ministers are such and that all their Ordinations are lawful and then conclude that Christ owns them all and give us no Text to prove any thing you say though the stress of the Controversie depends upon it Quest 18 And because I query if all those Ordinations of Episcopacie and Presbytery c. were lawful as you confess then why were these Ordinations opposed one to the other by the several Patrons of them This was the substance of that Query You thereupon ask me If I am not uncharitable to charge the error of one man meaning Dr. Taylor who opposed the Presbyters as Men that had no power to ordain upon the rest of the Episcopal way c. To which I answer That though I cited him for brevity sake yet I did refer the Reader to his Book called Episcopacie asserted where he cites the Fathers and the constant Opinion of the Churches for the proof of what he saith against Ordination by Presbyters to which you have said nothing but tell us a story at the third hand of what Bishop Usher told the King of the practice of one particular Church viz. of Alexandria and of what the Rubrick saith and of what Dr. Prid. saith But to these I may answer That it is nothing to the Opinion of most of the Bishops way and that not onely in England but where-ever that Government is practised And for your citing the London-Ministers are not they like to be good Witnesses seeing they are parties that would fain make all Antiquity speak for the things they profess that the novelty of them may not be suspected Quest 19 In my nineteenth Query I ask If that the Ordination by Bishops was lawful why then did the Presbyterians throw down Episcopacy and not rather reform it This was the sum of this Question To which in stead of answering you ask If I do still go on in my unchristian charges whereby you tell me I do not onely lay injustice but blood upon the head of Presbyterians c. But wherein do I speak any thing unlike a Christian if that be true as you say viz. That Episcopal Ordination was good and that they did practice it in the purity of it without superstitious mixture as you confess in your seventeenth Query then how do I exhibit an unchristian charge against them by asking why they did not reform the Government rather then cashier it c. You go on and further demand Whether I dare assert that the Presbyterians did throw down the Government of Episcopacy meerly for this error in Ordination c. I answer as before If they did erre in other things why were not those reformed and Ordination by Bishops still preserved seeing you say that their Ordination was in purity But further how comes this to pass that in your seventeenth Query you say That Episcopal Ordination was in purity and yet ask me Whether that Government was thrown down meerly for the error in Ordination how can it be in purity if it had errors And for your saying That the Anabaptistical Spirits are bloody witness those in Germany c. I answer This is an unchristian Charge indeed and therefore you thought you would cry out first That others were guilty that your self might not be suspected for what if that story of Germany were true which is doubtful in many things doth not this shew what Spirit you are of laying the cause of the late Wars at the Anabaptists Doors have they not been as serviceable to their Power to free their Country from slavery as any both in Purse and Person were they the cause of the first and second War in Scotland and the second War in England was any of them you call Anabaptists in the treasonable Engagement who of them did joyn to bring in King Charles again into Scotland first and afterwards into England was it the Anabaptist or who was it pray speak out that made all these Uproars both in City and Country But lest you should erre for want of Information let me shew you That the Presbyters have been inspired with a worse Spirit to carry on their Presbyterian-Usurpation then ever the Anabaptists were in Germany nay I am sure I should not be rash if I should say The same Spirit which they have cried down in their Adversaries the Jesuites hath been found breathing in them And for proof hereof I shall refer the Reader to the Histories and Writings that have been writ by great Patrons of the Presbyterian way I shall begin with Mr. Knox who in his History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland saith That without the Reformation which they desired they meaning the Covenanters would never be subject to any mortal man See Knox History of the Church of Scotland first Impression in Octavo page 265. They viz. the Presbyterians
heartily doth congratulate with them and doth rejoyce at their begun-return to their Mother the Church of Rome in that they have forsaken the erronious Opinion of the Protestants concerning the civil Magistrate and have happily in that particular joyned with the Church of Rome And in the same page he saith That they viz the Presbyterians have so well begun at the Head the civil Magistrate that they trust they will imbrace the other members of the Roman Doctrine By which the Reader may see that the Presbyters have sought to climbe into their Authority by the Jesuites steps though now they cry out against the same things which makes me remember an old saying which is verified in the Presbyters though it hath been applied to Princes Presbyters inthron'd when once their turns are ended Throw down those stairs by which themselves ascended Quest 20 But you proceed to the twentieth Query and therein you tell me That Bishops did not ordain as Bishops but as Ministers in answer to my twentieth Query But how do you prove they did not ordain as Bishops This is a figment of your own brain for if they did it as Ministers why then might not any Minister have ordained as well as they but they never suffered any such thing among them And for your saying That they were lawful Ministers of Christ and therefore you do not distrust his promise of being with them What an Argument is this may not any body by this Argument cry up themselves for Ministers as too many now adays do and say That Christ will be with them to the end of the Would Therefore before you go to prove that which I deny not prove that which is denied that they are Christ's Ministers but if they be your Brethren the Presbyterians have done very ill to throw them out of their Livings and expose their Wives and Children to penury and want while they enjoy their Places and Revenues Did ever Christ's Ministers turn any out of their places that they judged Christ's Ministers or did ever any of them come to take the profits of another's living without his consent which was the incumbent then they judged the incumbent Christ's Minister and yet these things have been done without blushing So that though you say Christ hath not devested them of their power sure some body hath devested them of their profits Quest 21 In the twenty one Query I demand why a man may not still go to the Bishops for Ordination if that their Ordination be of God since their Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way which is the sum of this Question whereupon you query What I mean by taking away Authority I answer When they shall be devested thereof by the Church for scandalous and enormous crimes You ask If Episcopal Authority of ordaining as Ministers is not founded upon Gods word I answer first If Episcopal Authority to ordain as Ministers be absurd then it cannot be grounded upon the Word of God and that it is so appears for is it not absurd for you to say That the Bishops Authority is of God to ordain Ministers and yet say That they must not ordain as Bishops but as Ministers for if Episcopal Authority be of God then they may lawfully ordain as Bishops for all will confess That a man may lawfully exercise any Authority that comes from God Therefore how ridiculous are you to confess That Episcopal Authority is of God and yet say they must not ordain as Bishops but as Ministers And to the later part of your Counter-Query about the purity of Ordination I have already answered by shewing you how shamefully you beg the Question by taking it for granted that your Presbyterian-Ordination is a purer Ordination then any other when for the proof thereof you have not alledged one Text nor Argument through your whole Book For the third particular in this Question I shall answer that when I come to speak to the twenty seventh Query Quest 22 I demand in my twenty second Query If that Christ had ever two Ordinations in his Church one contrary to the other and yet both lawful for such is the state of Episcopacy and Presbytery In your counter-Query to this you talk of Logick and indeed you do but talk of it for had you observed the Rules of Logick you would never have begged Questions in stead of answering and proving them But how doth it appear that I say any thing that is illogical in the last Question if I do say The Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordinations cannot be both of Christ's appointment since they contradict one another But you think to salve this sore by telling us That they are not contradictious since they both agree in an Ordination by Ministers and differ but in circumstances c. To this I answer That they so differ that where any hath been ordained by meer Presbyters it hath in most parts of the Christian World been esteemed as a rullity and where Presbyterian Ordination hath been allowed it hath been but in case of necessity as appears by the English Bishops Confession to the Bishops of Scotland That it hath been adjudged a nullity viz. Ordination by Presbyters I prove first from the testimony of Hierom What saith he doth a Bishop that a Priest doth not Epist ad Evagrium Hom. 11. in 1. ad Timot. initio EXCEPT ORDINATION Chrysostome saith the same A Bishop saith he exceeds a Priest ONELY IN ORDINATION Athanasius speaking of Ischyras who profest to be a Priest saith That he did but boast himself to be one Apolog. 2. Epist Presbyt ad flavi for saith he he is in no sort to be approved of seeing he was not ordained by a Bishop but by Coluthius a Presbyter And the Councel of Alexandria speaking of the same Coluthius saith That he died in the SIMPLE DEGREE OF A PRESBYTER and therefore all the impositions of hands exercised by him were null and that all those that were ordained by him were but lay Persons and under that name and title of lay-Persons they were admitted to the Holy Communion Again Epiphanius reckons Ordination by Presbyters as an Arrian Heresie Her 75. in as much as Arrius held That the Presbyters might ordain as well as Bishops c. And further he saith That the Episcopal Order is to beget Fathers to the Church whereas the Priestly or Presbyterian Order is to beget Children by the Laver of Regeneration and therefore saith he they meaning the Presbyters cannot ordain nor beget Fathers and Doctors to the Church c. Augustin Haeres 53. blames the Arrians for that they had learned of one Arrius to confound the Order of Priest and Bishop Is it not plain then that you endeavour to delude your Reader by saying That there was no contradiction touching this matter and that it was the error of one man meaning Dr. Taylor when indeed your ignorance is very great if you say He was alone in this matter By this
though they should run from the errors of Rome into other errors that were as bad or worse But I therefore answer further That though a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of these ways it doth not therefore follow as I have already shewed in my Answer to Mr. Willes his Letter at the beginning of this Book that Mr. Willes is a Minister either of these wayes For though I grant these two to be the wayes of admission into the Ministery yet I do deny him to be entred by either of them though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers for I do deny that they were true Ministers of Christ either way or that they had either a lawful Succession or necessity to authorize them But of this more anon Quest 27 I demand If Mr. Willes be a Minister by succession whether he did not succeed from Rome You thereupon demand Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome Your first Reason is Because the corruptions of the first Receivers could not null this Ordinance c. To which I answer What if that be granted That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully after they have been separated from for their corruptions But your second Reason saith That the corruption of the Dispensers could not make the succession cease And this you would prove by many similitudes you say The Law doth not lose its force if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge c. I answer If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness then though the Law doth not lose its force yet this Judge hath no power to administer it so I say of your Ordination That if you had justly ejected the Pope he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ no more then a Judge that is thrown out hath power to administer the Law of the Land Thus your simile makes against you And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite whence you would infer That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administred by them I answer That it is true That so long as their sins are like your Name unknown if they do administer Ordinances they may be valued but what if their sins are known and that they shall be rejected as Hereticks or as scandalous Persons have they then any power to administer sacred things This Answer will serve for all the rest of your similitudes But further If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Hereticks and the Church of England had ejected her and separated from her and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist as indeed they did then it followeth from Scripture That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them for the Scripture saith Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publican Now then if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge and be ordained by him as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church then are you very wicked in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body if they are not of the Body then any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they And this is not my single Opinion but it hath been the Opinion of former times for Athanasius saith in Epist de Conciliis By what right can any be Bishops that do receive their Ordination from Hereticks And further he saith That it is impossible that Ordinations made by Secundus being an Arrian could have any force in the Church of God And further If the Pope be rejected as that great Antichrist it cannot be imagined that he whom all the Protestants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory as lawfully to ordain and impower men to preach Christ So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome and reject them as Hereticks or if you did you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination And further the Protestant Calvinists in France say in the Confession of their Faith Confes Art 21. That their Calling is extraordinary and do confirm the same by their practice in that they ordain anew such Priests as revolt from Rome but if the corruption of the Dispensers did not make their Ordination a nullity then there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church And Mr. Whitaker is of this minde for saith he We would not have you think that we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them And Mr. Fulk that famous Opposer of Rome tells them That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons-better then Lay-Men See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick p. 50 And further Mr. Fulk saith That with all our heart we meaning the Protestants abhor and detest all your stinking greasie Antichristian Orders And yet other of you glory in your succession See the contradictions among your selves who of you shall a man believe So that if I say You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome seeing they were by you judged Hereticks and such as were deservedly excluded I have the Scripture of my side that saith You should esteem such as Heathens I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old I have some of the reformed Churches and therein many very famous both at home and abroad which are of my minde Your last Argument you bring to this Point is That Christianity was profest and therefore you ask me If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here c. Whence you infer If they were true believers then there was a Church and if a Church then there must be a Ministery because you say Christ promised Ephes 4.11 12 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministery till they come to be a perfect man c. If this be a good Argument why do you rail against the Anabaptists For dare you say There is not true believers among them if there be then by your Logick they are a Church and if a Church then they must have Christ's promise fulfilled and they then must have a true Ministery till they come to be a perfect man By this Rule Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church and must have a true Ministery or else you must say The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers Quest 28 I demanded in my twenty eighth Query Whether the Church of Rome
but what men take up by Necessity c. This is the substance of the question To which you say nothing but what hath been said and answered only you demand Whether there may not be a lawful succession from those that first took upon them this Office by Necessity and whether any in an ordinary lawful way can be in office but those that have it from that succession c. To this I answer That if what you here suppose be true then why did not our first Reformers go to the Ministers of other reformed Churches for Ordination rather then take it from Mr. Scory and that Faction since there was divers reformed Churches where they might have been ordained without receiving it from Rome or without putting themselves into the Office upon a pretended necessity So that if what you say be true That there may be a lawful succession from those who first became Officers by vertue of a necessity and that it is sinful to pretend to necessity afterwards then our first Reformers cannot plead Not Guilty since as I have said there was no necessity for them to own an Ordination from Rome because they might have have had it in more purity from those you call the reformed Churches which had separated from the Church of Rome before England And secondly There was no necessity for them to become Officers whithout Ordination no more then there is now because there were many reformed Churches in being to which they might have applied themselves for Ordination as in France and Germany c. Lastly if there was no true Church in the world that had power to ordain our new Bishops but they must make use of that which they received from Rome and that this be a lawful Ordination as you confess then you must needs say That the Churches of France Germany Geneva Scotland c. were no true Churches and had no true and lawful succession or if they had been true reformed Churches either by succession or necessity why then did not our first Reformers go to some of these to be ordained and since they did not doth it not manifestly appear that they were not true Ministers by succession because they received Ordination from Rome whom you call a Harlot when they might have had it from the Ministers of the reformed Churches then in being and because there was reformed Churches in being where they might have been ordained they had no reason to plead to any necessity then of preaching without Ordination any more then Mr. Brooks and others have whom Mr. Willes and you condemn Quest 40 I come now to the fortieth Question that I propounded which demands what Ground Mr. Willes had to baptize the children of wicked parents c. And to this you say nothing but what I have answered already only you beg a question viz. That children have a right to be members of a visible Church Which when you have proved it viz. That infants while they are in infancy have an immediate right to be members of a Church in the new Testament I shall confess they may be baptized but till then I shall be against the baptizing any infant for all you think I would conceal my Opinion in this matter Quest 41 In the next place I demand Whether to baptize the children of wicked parents be not contrary to the Opinion of the reformed Churches You reply That in the sense M. Willes doth assert the baptizing of the children of wicked parents it is lawful To which I answer That I have replied to Mr. Willes his sense about the baptizing the children of wicked parents in my Answer to his Letter at the beginning of this Book All that you say to this question besides what I have answered doth appertain to some practices of Mr. Brooks which I shall not meddle with because I am not acquainted with them only I take notice that in p. 48. of your Book before you end this question you say That if the Ministery of England be Antichristian then it will follow that those that they have baptized are unlawfully baptized c. How shamefully do you contradict your self did you not say before That the corruptions of the dispensers of Ordinances could not make the Ordinances a nullity though the Administrator was Antichristian And do you not now in effect say That baptism is a nullity if the Administrator be Antichristian for you say If the National Ministery be Antichristian as Mr. Brooks saith it will follow that it is unlawful Do you not now justifie all that I have said viz. If the first Reformers were ordained by Antichristian Ministers that then it followeth that their Ordination is a nullity and that till they are ordained again they all of them preach without Ordination from Christ Thus the Reader may see that rather then you would want an arrow to shoot at M. Brooks you would borrow one out of my quiver and you do as good as confess as much when you conclude and say That your heart trembleth and you heartily wish that you could not plead so strongly to sadden honest hearts to please me and such as I am It seems then your conscience told you That you had given away your cause to the grief of your self and others because you could not help it and therefore you wish heartily that you COULD not plead so much to please such as I am So that it seems you are now forced to yield to your own grief and others of your friends which you call honest hearts c. it seems then the truth is too strong for you But to proceed You come now to make Counter-queries upon my 42 43 44 and 45 Queries that are grounded upon Mr. Willes his decrying the Fifth-Monarchy-Men as the smoak of the bottomless pit to this I have already given answer And to the Counter-queries you propound upon my 46 question touching Mr. Willes his Discourse with me in private I have already answered in my Reply to M. Willes his Letter And for your Counter-query that you make upon my 47 question about Mr. Willes his perswading a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite though you say I am too blame to receive an information from one man c. Sure you are more too blame to believe the Accused's bare negation but for the truth of what I object against M. Willes viz. That he did desire a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite I shall refer the Reader to the Gentleman aforenamed who is ready to make oath for his further satisfaction And for your saying That I did live a concealed life about London for many yeers and therefore there might be some ground for people to suspect me Truely I think there is more reason why I should suspect you who are so concealed as that you refuse to let your Name or place of abode be known I am sure this I never did upon any occasion in all my life I come now to take notice of
the heighth of my Ambition in that undertaking You proceed to an Epistle where you tell your Reader That if he be a Friend to Truth he probably hath ere this been grieved to see the host of Israel routed c. and the Ministery SO MUCH shattered c. why then do you glory and cry victoria if the Clergy which you call the Host of Israel be routed should not you mourn as well as you would have your Reader but in stead thereof you blame your Enemy for glorying as though he had no occasion and wear the Lawrel your self wreathing it upon your own brows as though you had so routed your Enemy that he would never rally what need is there for the Reader to grieve if Mr. Willes hath routed and shattered the choicest Ranks of his Enemies unless you flatter Mr. Willes and deal truely with your Reader for is not this strange that you tell your Reader See his Epistle to Mr. Willes the Lords Host is routed and yet flatter with Mr. Willes and tell him the Enemy is routed And by this you may see that you are so unfit to be an Armour-Bearer in this Warfare that you justly deserve to be chashiered the Camp for your false Intelligence For you tell Mr. Willes the Enemy is shattered and yet tell your Reader the Ministery are shattered But is the Clergy shattered no marvel then that the people are shattered for like Priest like People a shattered Clergy must not look for any thing but a discomposed people And truely that is the greatest Truth in your Packet for how few of them agree in any thing save in the point of Tythes common experience can testifie if you had said nothing You go on still in your Epistle and tell your Reader That if he be shaken you have sent him some Counter-Queries and bid him judge and try and then you say you hope he will blush at his unconstancy c. So he may well if what you have writ should shake his understanding then he must needs be one that is carried about with every Airy notion You further tell your Reader That if he be an enemy to truth he hath triumphed before the victory c. How can that be when you exhort to grieve because them that you call the Enemy have routed the Host what is that less then Victory if you speak Truth You go on and tell your Reader That if Mr. Brookes or his Church invited me to be the Patron of their cause you might guess them to be miserably baffled c. First neither Mr. Brookes nor his Church ever invited me to do them this service but if they had if their inviting me to be a Patron to the cause had argued them to be miserably baffled how miserably baffled did you fear your self should be in what you had writ when you begged Mr. Willes to be your Patron You tell your Reader That he cannot expect Mr. Willes should hinder his more serious discussion of this weighty point to take notice of my slight Queries This I confess is an easie way to confute the strongest Arguments for a man that is contrary minded to call them slight and say he is not at leasure to answer them If I had answered you thus surely men would have judged you had more strength on your side then you have You go on and bid your Reader see if here be not enough to puzzle me c. You are now guilty of that which you blamed your Adversary for but now viz. of triumphing before the Victory but it seems then the end of your writing was to puzzle and not to convince your Adversary I proceed now to take notice of your Epistle to Mr. Willes in which you tell him my grounds are slight c. This triumphing of yours is but like that which Job speaks of that is but for a moment Job 20.5 You demand of Mr. Willes in what sence he asserted the baptizing the Children of wicked Parents c. and you presume he means onely such as are Church-Members and are not cast out c. Truely either your Church are all good or else you are partakers of their sins in not casting them out for I have not heard of one vile person that the Presbyters have excluded There is another Question which you propound to Mr. Willes viz What were his own words concerning the Fifth-Monarchy-men About Mr. Willes asserting those words touching the Fifth-Monarchy-men I have not wronged him as hereafter shall appear You further ask Mr. Willes Whether he did positively assert me to be a Jesuite c. Surely you did not think Mr. Willes had so much to do as you made your Reader believe even now that you ask him so needless a Question for did I say or intimate that Mr. Willes did positively assert me to be a Jesuite why did you not ask him whether I had two hands or three it had been as much to your purpose But to proceed You tell him That if any thing appear in print in answer to the whole it will beg his patronage of its cause c. If he did not father it it would be an Orphan since the true Father will not be known But doth not your Logick teach me to believe you feared to be miserably baffled since you thus beg for his Patronage Surely you thought your Wine to be mix'd with Water that you beg Mr. Willes his Bush to hang at your Door that so it might sell the better and not be questioned The next thing that followeth in your Book is Mr. Willes his Letter wherein he tells you That the people were so rude that it might have proved to my peril if he had not pacified them c. This shews what Spirit your Churches are filled withal that it is perillous for a man to ask a Question among them though never so soberly for no man in his wits will believe that they were of Mr. Brookes his Church that were so much my Enemies seeing you say I came to be a Patron to their cause Mr. Willes tells you further That he laid down two Principles as the grounds of my satisfaction 1. That Ministers in an ordinary way were to be ordained by Ministers 2. That in case of necessity where there was no Ministers to ordain fit Persons might become Ministers without Ordination c. But he doth not tell you that I asked him by which of these ways he came into the Ministery and he would not tell me though I prest him once and again for though I grant these two ways of Admission yet I denied that ever he came in by either Hereupon he told me If there was but two ways of coming into a House and if he were in I must conclude that he came in at one of them But is not this a shameful begging the Question for though I granted these two were to be the ways of entrance yet I denied him to be come in by either Now