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
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
invested is not your Query in short this If one bee fit for part of the office but not for the whole if fit to preach but not to rule why may hee not exercise that hee is fit for out of office I answer from the same place 1 Tim. 3.2 3. what if one be the Husband of many Wives what if given to Wine a meer drunkard and so is unfit to bee admitted to office why may hee not exercise his gift of preaching if God hath blest him with it why doth His Highness turn such out why may not ignorant yea prophan persons that may be fit to rule in your Church at least for some acts of government do that they are able or fit for these Queries have the same foundation with yours Again ought you not to prove that preaching is not an act of the Ministerial Office 2 Or that acts of Office may bee performed by him that hath not that office 3 Or that acts of Office may bee communicated 4 Yea and that where the whole Office it self ought not to be-conferred when you were a souldier you left off box-making when a Cheesmonger souldiering and is not this Query one ground why since you were a pretended Minister as it is reported you may excuse your self from what acts of this Office you please and take the liberty of being a Chees-monger still Query 8. And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained except as before excepted I quere Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained if so shew mee where that Law is to bee found Counter-Query As to your Query concerning the peoples sin in hearing unordained men I Quere If hee that preacheth sinneth in usurping that act of the Ministerial Office then do not they sin that shall wittingly and willingly submit to this usurpation in hearing if hee hath no lawful call to preach Rom. 10.15 can they have a lawful call to hear is not the receiver as bad as the theef Query 9. Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel as is recorded Act. 18.24 25 26 27 28. publickly and frequently and whether hee could hee an Officer of the Church at that time seeing hee knew ONELY the baptisme of John or was not acquainted with the baptisme of the Spirit therefore pray shew us that hee was at this time an Officer or else that hee preached for approbation to it or that hee preached by vertue of any necessity By vertue of necessity hee did not preach for there were able Christians before such as the Text saith did instruct him And if hee preached at this time as an Officer or for approbation thereunto pray shew how that appears Counter-Query Ought you not to have answered what Dr. Seaman Mr. Gilespy Chemnitius c. have answered to this is it not the part of an unwise man to aske that which hath been so often answered without the least shew of a new cause of dissatisfaction shall we not suppose you intended to seduce the Vulgar that read not books But not to shun your strength Is this a good Argument Apollos taught in a Jewish Synagogue where wee read of but two Christians Aquila and Priscilla and those Paul brought with him therefore a gifted brother may teach in our Christian Congregations Can a particular example in a Church not constituted bee a rule for ordinary practice in a Church constituted Again is it not evident that Apollos was in Office and therefore call'd a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 therefore to sift it more narrowly how will you prove Apollos not to bee in Office 1 Must you not prove either that hee was no Priest for they were the ordinary Teachers in the Synagogues or that hee had not given any testimony to the Jews that hee was a Prophet for these likewise had that liberty had they not such apprehensions of Christ and his Apostles because of their miracles or else are you not bound to shew upon what account besides the Jews let him teach in the Synagogue was hee not thus in Office 2 Must you not prove that John did not authorize him to teach if hee was not acquainted as you say with the Baptisme of the Spirit if hee had not those Gospel gifts that not only enabled but stirred up men to preach if hee was not informed of such a duty or work if likewise you consider how suddainly hee undertook it as his duty without any sollicitations is it not very probable hee was sent by John and if so must you not prove that Johns mission to Apollos was not as vallid as his Baptisme to Christ was he not thus in Office 3 Ought you not to prove that there was no necessity which we both agree is sufficient to authorize As 1 Was there any constituted organical Church and Officers in it to preach 2 Or was the Apostolical institution as yet practis'd there 3 Or were any there to ordain him 4 Or did hee know of such a thing to bee had from the Apostles or others 5 Was there not need and a way open to teach was not here evident necessity then if all or but some of these stand if so did hee preach as a meer gifted Brother 4 How will you prove that even then hee was not called or in office when you consider these particulars 1 'T is very certain hee was in Office For 1 Can you deny but that hee did the work of an Evangelist in watering those Churches Paul had planted 1 Cor. 3.6 and that he was to have been sent by Paul as Timothy was 1 Cor. 16.12 2 Was not his worth and name the head of a faction as was Pauls I am of Paul I of Apollos c. 1 Cor. 1.12 was hee then an ordinary gifted brother 3 Is hee not called in express termes a Minister and that in the same sense that Paul was 1 Cor. 3.5 He was an Officer then sure 2 Do you ever finde hee had any call to this Office after his preaching here Act. 18.24 25. if so shew it I pray 3 Do not these things prove that he was in Office now 1 Why did not Aquila teach then and rather than Apollos for though Apollos was eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures yet Aquila taught him verse 26. give then any rational account why Apollos rather preach't than Aquila if it were not because Apollos was in Office and Aquila not surely Apollos being so ignorant his eloquence could not make him more fit to teach than Aquila's knowledge of the Gospel 2 Was it not upon this account of his Office that the brethren in Achaia are written to to receive him to help them v. 27. especially if you compare it with Mat. 10.40 41. Where you see that such receiving is put for owning as an Officer 3 Why may wee not say that his HELPING them which beleeved THROUGH GRACE hinteth to us his Office and Call
for thus the word signifieth Rom. 1.5 15.15 1 Cor 3.10 All these things lye upon you to consider ere you can evince that this particular Example may bee an exception to that positive institut ion ad more must bee said ere you can make this particular instance a foundation for the constant and ordinary practice of unordained men Query 10. It is said Mal. 3.16 that THEY that feared the Lord SPAKE OFTEN one to another c. And Heb. 10.25 It is required that wee should not forsake the assembling of our selves together but exhort one another daily c. where by the light of these Texts it doth not appear 1 That Gods people ought to meet often together 2 That they may and ought to exhort one another being thus assembled 3 Whether by one another wee are not to understand any one that hath a word or gift of Exhortation as well such as are no Officers as those that are Counter-Query Doth this Text Mal. 3.16 and Heb. 10.25 prove any authoritative act of preaching to bee done by unordained men where is one such word or rational consequence do not you know that wee acknowledge Christians ought to meet together to edifie one another in mutual exhortations but ought it not bee done according to Gospel order and rule Query 11. Is it not written Rom. 2.1 2. Therefore thou art inexcusable O man whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self for thou that judgest dost the same things Verse 3. And thinkest thou this O man that judgest them that do such things and dost the same that thou shalt escape the judgement of God Verse 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit sacriledge Whether by the light of these Scriptures your darkness is not discovered who told the people how sinful and dangerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks when your self hath heard him once and again And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice will not bee arguments to justifie others as well as you And since you cryed the hearing of such men down as a general evil without any exception pray tell mee let your pretence in hearing bee what it will how can you do evil that good may come And whether by the same pretence that you can make to hear Mr. Brooks if to hear him bee sinful which is not yet proved any man may not hear in an Idols Temple or eat meat in an Idols temple and so cause his weak brother to bee emboldened in his way and make him to perish for whom Christ dyed contrary to that in 1 Cor. 8.10 11. Counter-Query Though the people are not called to hear him that is not called to preach Rom. 10.14 with 15. how shall they hear without a sent-Preacher yet may not Mr. Willes be called to correct him that is not called to preach is hee not called to that very place to instruct and teach is hee not bound to convince gain-sayers then and is hee not bound to hear therefore that hee may convince them hath any of the Congregation such a Call as this may not a Captain even while his troop is marching up against an enemy go out of his rank to view the enemy when it is death to a common souldier ought not the sheep to run away from the Wolf yet the Shepheard may stand him and pursue May not a Physitian go to one sick of the Plague yet it will bee a tempting of providence for others to do it Hath not the Minister a better Call to pluck up tares than the people to receive them But is not this a slander you lay upon Mr. Willes or do you remember the reasons of his dehortation Query 12. It is said Heb. 5.12 That when for the time yee OUGHT to bee Teachers c. I query from hence Whether here is not a Duty required and whether the Duty bee not Teaching Again whether the persons that the Text saith OUGHT to teach were not members out of Office If so then I query whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in publick Assemblies as in private Families Since neither this nor any other Text makes the one any more unlawful than the other provided they have abilities to the one as well as to the other Counter-Query Is there in the 5. of the Heb. 12. the least ground for gifted brethrens teaching if they ought to bee Teachers ought it not to bee according to the Gospel rule Masters of families to their families Ministers to their Congregations But consider that this Text is meant either that they ought to bee able to bee Teachers or to bee actually Teachers if it speak of only the ability and power it is nothing to your purpose yet much to the Apostles who would shame them for their ignorance that had opportunity enough to bee more knowing this sense may be probable 1 Doth hee not plainly blame their ignorance under such means of knowledge because they were not capable of hard things Verse 11. so that it is a reproof that they could not understand those mysteries hee would tell them not that they were not Teachers 2 Had they been such Teachers as they ought had they not been receivers of strong meat vers 12. not stewards to provide it for others 2 But if you say it is meant of being actually Teachers you must prove it first and secondly That it is not meant of private teaching in families c. but if without reason you will say it is meant of actually publick teaching you must prove it ere wee shall beleeve you is not this spoke in general to all the Jewish Christians women are not excepted and ought they to bee teachers 2 If all the Jewish Church ought to bee actually publick teachers do not they sinne in your Church that are not so tell them the next time as indefinitely as the Text is all you my Church sinne if you do not all actually practice publick preaching if all the Church ought to be a tongue where will the hearing bee Query 13. It is said 1 Cor. 14.1 Follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts but rather that yee may PROPHESIE c. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL prophesie and there come in one that beleeveth not c. and Verse 31. Yee may ALL prophesie one by one that all may learn and all may bee comforted From these Texts I query whether that this was a prophesying by Gift or Office if it shall bee said it was by Office then I query whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office If it shall bee said That it was by extraordinary Office then it follows That the Apostle exhorted the whole Church to covet after extraordinary Offices when hee exhorted them to follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts but rather that THEY might PROPHESIE v. 1. Counter-Query Is this to aske a Question for conscience sake when you will not take
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
example to a Beleever in charity 1 Tim. 4.12 I query then whether back-biting tale-bearing and taking up a reproach against your Neighbour be not contrary to the Law of Charity and whether you were not guilty of this when you told a Gentleman that lives at High-gate who is ready to witnesse the truth hereof That you were enformed I was a Jesuite and therefore told him he would doe well to apprehend me Truly Sir if you doe not tell me who informed you I shall say it was a slander of your owne devising either thereby to take away my life for that is the punishment the Law hath provided for Jesuites by the Stat. of Eliz. 27.2 or else if that Gentlemn would have been ruled by you that I might have been laid in Goal right or wrong to the undoing of my self and Family till I could have cleared my self of the supposed Crime in open Sessions This must needs bee your design otherwise why did you encourage him to apprehend me as a Jesuite but more of this in a more convenient place where I doubt not of reparation only let me tell you That if you could as easily prove the Affirmative viz. That you are sent of God to preach and that all you preach is true as I can prove the Negative that I am no Jesuite the controversie between us would soon be ended Counter-Query Do you not see by Mr. Willes his Letter how much you are to blame thus in Print to take up a reproach against him and that upon the bare information of such a single person did hee ever assert you to be a Jesuite At the most hee only said you were suspected and this hee spake in private And indeed who would not suspect that man to be Jesuitical who was cryed out on to be such to his face in a great Congregation at Clements beyond Temple-Bar that hath the vox populi to accuse him of it That is reported to have converse with Jesuites that liv'd a conceal'd I had almost said a suspected life for some years together in and about London that hath Jesuitical opinions and designs especially to pluck down the Ministry of England or to make it odious That these grounds of suspition may be had concerning you I shall not assert but only wish that we had no more ground to suspect you to be Jesuitical then Mr. Willes to be uncharitable in accusing you or erroneous in what is here controverted and I make no question but you would in your next subscribe your self a friend to Mr. Willes and this Truth in some measure vindicated Confess the Truth and glorifie God Amen Reader there are faults in the printing which are not much material only correct p. 31. l. 4. read with for as POST-SCRIPT REader I thought it necessary to advertise thee of a few things 1 That to mee it is a great sign that that is a Truth and a Truth of great concernment which when it is asserted or taught men of corrupt minds are enraged at and oppose They would have the Servants sleep that being their time of sowing Tares therefore it is very observeable that when ever godliness was most likely to encrease when the Ministry have been most famous and active then the Devil hath stirred up deadly enemies and opposers this hath been in all ages this wee sadly experience in our daies Was there ever a more learned pious famous Ministry in England than now there is I challenge even its enemies and amongst them Mr. Ives to contradict it if they can And shall wee not sigh at it had ever the Ministry of England so great and so many Designers to undermine it But the Father of Truth usually so blesseth his own cause that it gets by opposition thus wee can say of this truth of Ordination of Ministers which in my knowledge hath gotten ground by these late Broyles Gather your selves together and you shall bee broken in peeces for the Lord is with us Isa 8.9 10. Mat. 28.20 2 That those that have Designs against the Truth have usually some plausible pretence to carry them on the Devil hath got the Art now adaies to wrap himself in a Prophets Mantle to appear as an Angel of light in his choycest Instruments who usually with a seeming religious garb footh up with soft words till they may opportunely change their Court-ships into calumnies Hath not Mr. Ives worthily shown himself for Ordination of Ministers as hee pretends that would make the world beleeve that the present godly Ministry is Antichristian if hee could and that hath thus thrust himself into a quarrel against it 3 That those that design the propagating of their errours will for the most part oppose their hands will bee against every man but seldome assert their own opinion and prove it is it not because it is easier to quarrel with truth than to prove an errour and because that is a time to break in when the ranks are first shattered to broach errours when men are staggered in the truth or is not this the end viz. to bee alway accusing of others that they themselves may never bee questioned or called to justifie their own practices Hath not Mr. Ives plaid his part in this by opposing every man not of his own way that wee might beleeve what hee asserts to bee truth Hath hee not done so in these Queries where doth hee bring the least positive truth or one Argument to justifie his own practice or to state what is right Hath hee brought one probable Argument to prove that gifted brethren may preach or that people may hear them that the Church ought to ordain and not Ministers hath hee unfolded any of those independent Riddles viz. that a company of those that are baptized and owne their Baptisme are not Members of a Visible Church Or that a Minister being such in relation to his Church acts no longer as in Office than to his Church and that at one and the same time and place hee preacheth as a meer gifted Brother to those that are not of his Church and as a Minister to those of his Church thus thou mayest see his spirit of Opposition and his design to cry out on others that none may suspect his cause as cut-purses that they may may not bee accused Ought hee not to do otherwise the next time 4 That this task I have here undertaken is the first and therefore may bee guilty of mistakes of which I begge thy pardon and do promise thee that nothing but what is more than ordinarily material shall provoke mee to spend my own time in writing or thine in reading Bee zealous for the truth pray for its progress and bee thankful to God for any satisfaction thou shalt receive by him who is thy concealed Friend N. E. FINIS