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
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