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
The Confident Questionist Questioned OR The Examination of the DOCTRINE Delivered by Mr. THOMAS WILLES in certain QVERIES Published by Mr. Jeremiah Ives Examined by COUNTER-QUERIES By N. E. With a Letter of Mr. Tho. Willes Gal. 1.6 I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel 7 Which is not another but there bee some that trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ 8 But though wee or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you then that which wee have preached unto you let him bee accursed 9 As wee said before so say I now again if any man preach any other Gospel unto you then that you have received let him bee accursed 2 Tim. 3.13 Evil men and seducers shall waxe worse and worse deceiving and being deceived 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of knowing of whom thou hast learned them LONDON Printed for Tho. Newberry and are to bee sold at his shop in Sweetings-Rents in Cornhil near the Exchange 1658. Reader IF thou art a Friend to the Truth probably thou hast been somewhat ere this grieved to see the Host of Israel routed and the Philistims to carry the sacred Ark into their Idol-Temple to see the Ministry so much shattered and uncircumcised ones to take the holy Gospel and dispense it after their own humane inventions Blessed be God that this Foundation-Truth is undertaken to be rescued and that by a worthy hand for thou if thou hast heard wilt say with many more that we have cause to bless God for that light and discovery of the truth there hath been and for that satisfaction that was given to many honest hearts I doubt not but by this time Mr. Ives his Queries have fallen into thy hands I shall not so far question thy judgement as to say that he hath staggered thee in the belief of what Mr. Willes hath delivered If he hath to settle thee who art too soon moved I have sent thee some Counter-Queries Judge and try and then I hope thou wilt blush at thy inconstancy And for a further settlement I advise thee to attend Mr. Willes his Lecture in Crooked-Lane But if thou art an enemy to the Truth I am confident thou hast sung many Iopaeans and hast triumphed before the victory 's got Should Mr. Brooks or his Church invite this man to be the Patron of their cause we might guess them miserably baffled and that they have too much inclination to his other Errors thou canst not expect that Mr. Willes by taking notice of these slight Queries should hinder his more serious discussion of this weighty point which hee hath undertaken in the foresaid Lecture Seriously and impartially Catechise the Questionist by the Questions a meaner hand hath prepared try if here is not enough to puzzle him Modesty forbids to say more I have printed a letter of Mr. Willes his for thy satisfaction in some things which I received for my own If I have mistook in any thing as a Christian forgive because not wilfull and learn not in any thing to attribute the weaknese of the Author to the cause I could wish that thou and I could prevail with Mr. Willes to publish his solid and serious Discourses concerning this subject that the enemies may bee confounded Christians established and directed the Truth vindicated seduced ones reduced For which blessed effect I should joyn with thee in prayer who am Thy Christian Brother N. E. The Coppy of a Letter to Mr. Willes Mr. Willes I Lately met with a Book of Mr. Ives that questions your confidence in the truth I judge him too bold if not worse seeing his grounds and warrant for it are so slight For truly my mean judgement is scarcely shaken much less routed by this assault I begge not therefore your Reply to recruit your Cause neither do I think any else do cry out for your help but those that are more affraid than hurt I only desire to bee informed of some private and personal transactions which hee hints and of some Expressions hee lays to your charge 1 In what sense you assert the baptizing of the children of wicked Parents Q. 40. I suppose you mean only of those that are Church-members and not cast out as having a visible right 2 I desire to know what were your own words concerning the fifth Monarchy men Q. 42. 3 Whether did you positively assert him to bee a Jesuit or not Q. 47. 4 And I pray give mee some brief account concerning your private discourse with him An Advertisement concerning these Particulars will bee satisfaction both to mee and to others If any thing shall appear in print in answer to the whole it will begge your Patronage of its cause your pardon of its weaknesse this only I further crave viz. that you will love and pray for him who is Your Friend and Servant N. E. The Answer I received to this Letter followeth THE Coppy of Mr. Willes his Letter Sir THe Book or printed Papers you speak of were sent to my hand from the Author himself who if you know him not was once a souldier is now by Trade a Chees-monger and for Sect an Anabaptist Hee came openly to oppose mee at my Lecture at Fish-street-hill whereby hee occasioned a very great disturbance which might have proved to his own peril But for the pacification of the tumult I openly declared to all the people that if any of them had any thing to object against the Doctrine by mee delivered if they would bee pleased to signifie their objections to mee in Word or Writing at any convenient time I would answer all that were material in my further prosecution of that subject at Michaels Crooked-lane Hereupon Mr. Ives with some others came unto mee pretending to desire satisfaction though as it afterwards appeared the intent was rather opposition The principal thing that Mr. Ives stuck upon was the Call of our first Reformers Two principles I propounded to him as the grounds of his satisfaction which were no other than what I had publickly delivered viz. 1 That Ministers in an ordinary way and case were to bee ordained by Ministers 2 That in a case of necessity where there were no Ministers to ordain fit persons might become Ministers without ordination For a positive Law gives place to necessity Mat. 12. 1-5 Both these hee owned and acknowledged to bee true before sundry witnesses and particularly declared his high esteem of the latter Hereupon I offered him satisfaction as to the call of our first Reformers after the prevalency of Popery in the Land For if hee would say the Popish Priests and Bishops were no Ministers of Christ and had no power to ordain then did the case of Necessity warrant the Call of our first Reformers for as much as then there was no such Ordination as hee would acknowledge valid to bee had But if hee should say
there was no such Necessity then must he needs acknowledge the Popish Bishops to have power of Ordination for as much as there was no other Ministers to ordain and from them they had received Ordination So that which way soever hee should turn their Call would appear to bee clear and certain Neither could the opinion of the Receivers null or annihilate the truth of their Call which could not depend upon their opinion but must needs consist in the conformity of their Ordination as to the substance of it to the primitive Institution or the necessity of the susception of the work of the Ministry as in an extraordinary case without Ordination But hee refusing either to receive satisfaction from or to make any direct Reply unto this fair Proposal manifested his intents by offering an open opposition to both in a publick Dispute if hee might bee admitted thereunto notwithstanding his Concession of both principles and thereby manifested his desire of contention rather than love of Truth and Peace the great Interests of all good Christians and upon this account his offer was and I conceive most justly rejected For my part I know no ground wee have in the Gospel to admit the enemies of the Truth and open opposites to the Gospel-Ministry as are the Sect of the Anabaptists publickly to dispute in Christian Assemblies against our Doctrine and Ministry which wee hold forth in concurrence with the universal Christian Church from the Word and Gospel Though I do beleeve there may bee a sufficient ground for dispute against the enemies of the Truth and true Religion when the Gospel cannot well by other means get footing or it may bee conducible for the further propagation of it amongst such as have not embraced it What ground there may bee for some particular dispute upon some special occasion with special Cautions and Rules to regulate it I shall not here define but only say such things are to bee ordered by Prudence according to the general Rules of the holy Scripture Thus as to that which you last desired I have I hope in the first place given you some satisfaction Only this I le adde that I received from him and some of those that were with him what I told them I expected from them from some words they spake unto that purpose even an unchristian-like abuse in slanderous and reproachful reports that I could not make good my Calling to the Ministry nor maintain in private what I had delivered in publick But besides the Testimony of persons of credit that were then present I hope I shall bee able through divine Assistance to evidence that I can make good the doctrine I have delivered Now as for your other Questions I shall answer them in order 1 As for what I spake concerning the baptizing of the children of wicked Parents I spake only as might plainly appear to them that heard mee of such as being under the outward Administration of the Covenant of Grace were to bee accounted Members of the Visible Church till juridically ejected by excommunication And I see no reason why the children of such Parents may not bee baptized under the Gospel as well as the children of the wicked Jews were to bee circumcized under the Law When God in the times of the Gospel doth more largely extend the grace of the Covenant what ground have we to abridge any of any such Ordinance whereby that grace may bee communicated And do not wee often see that God passes by the children of good and godly Parents and chuses the children of those that are evil and wicked And if it bee the outward subjection unto the external Administration of the Covenant of grace in the Parents that gives children right to this outward priviledge of Baptisme why are not the children of wicked Parents living under this outward Administration to bee admitted to Baptisme of equal right with the children of those that are truly godly and religious Now it must needs bee the Parents outward profession of the true Religion or submission to the Administration of the Covenant of grace or the inward possession of the grace of the Covenant that must give them right for their children to Baptisme The latter it cannot bee viz. the inward possession of the grace of the Covenant because this falls not under mans cognizance but now visible Administration requires some visible Evidence of the parties interest in or right to that Ordinance which is to bee visibly administred And therefore the latter it must needs bee viz. an outward profession of the true Religion an outward submission to the Administration of the Covenant of grace And therefore the children of wicked Parents being members of the Visible Church and so having a true right in Foro Ecclesiae to the Sacrament of Baptisme ought as well to bee baptized as the children of Parents are to repeat the very words as I delivered them in publick the more need there is that their children should bee solemnly engaged to God I judge it very necessary that a solemn obligation to the duties of Christianity should by Baptisme bee laid upon them But I see not why Mr. Ives should enter his exception against the baptizing of the children of wicked Parents as such unless hee sought to colour his opinion which hath ever been exploded in the Christian Church when it is well known hee is against the baptizing of any children at all 2 As for what I spake of the fifth Monarchy-men I mean that generation which in these daies is called by that name take my very words at large which were but briefly rehearsed in the Sermon excepted against for the correction of a mistake under which they were censured take them thus some there are that do openly decry the Ministry their Call Maintenance and Administrations as Anti-Evangelical and Antichristian Such are these foul-mouthed Sectaries Seducers and Hereticks Quakers Anabaptists and Fifth-Monarchy-men whose breath is the very smoake of the bottomless Pit smelling strong of the Brimstone of Hell This I spake in allusion to that whereby such like Errors Heresies and Blasphemies as are vented now adays by men of these Sects are prophetically represented Rev. 9.2 3. as some do interpret it If there are not some of all these Sects as bad as I have represented them I confess I am under a great mistake and I could heartily wish it was but onely my errour 3 And as for that charge that I should tell any Gentleman that I was informed that Mr. Ives was a Jesuite and should stirre him up upon that account to apprehend him I must needs reckon it amongst those slanders and reproaches that have been most injuriously raised against mee For though I suppose you are not ignorant that Mr. Ives is openly and commonly reported to bee a Jesuite though upon what grounds I know not whether because of his erroneous principles and extravagant Practices in his intrusion into the Office and yet opposing the Call of
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
the corruption of the corrupt Popish receivers of Ordination and the corruption of the corrupt Popish dispensers of it ever since could not break off the line of succession because it hath not its foundation in men but in the Word of God then our first Reformers must needs be true Ministers by succession and the present Ministry of England true as having received it from them Are not the Ordinances and Ministry of Rome the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ so far as they are according to the Word Object But may you say this is it I wish for then my sixteenth Query is not answered may wee not go lawfully then to Rome to bee ordained A. View my sixteenth Counter-Query 1 Dare you say it is lawful to submit to such corruptions that lead to Popery 2 Since wee know it 3 And that there is no necessity for it but it may bee had purer here was not this an unpardonable sin in the Israelites to offer Sacrifice under every green tree when there was a Temple to Sacrifice in Remember therefore these things 1 That Ordination is an Ordinance founded upon the Word 2 That the corruption of Receivers or Dispensers cannot null it 3 That our first Reformers were lawfully ordained by the corrupt Popish Bishops because it was a case of ignorance or necessity 4 That it is exceeding sinful and unlawful to receive Ordination NOW from Popish Bishops because no such excuse A second Argument to prove the line of succession not to bee broke Since Christianity was profest can you say there were not a company of true Beleevers a Church for so many years that England was under Popery If there was a Church then shee had Ministers or not if no Ministers what became of that promise Ephes 4.11 12 13. that the Saints shall have a Ministry till they come to a perfect man c. If there was a true Ministry then they were ordained ones or unordained ones If ordained ones we have that wee run for viz. that the line of succession was not broke off if unordained ones shew us it where they preached in what Church who they were give us an instance in one during all that time Query 28. Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her as shee was when they received Ordination from her which was but a little before Counter-Query Probably shee was as good what then wee left her not as shee was the Spouse of Christ but as shee was an Harlot wee left not her Ordinances as they were Christs but her corruptions and Idolatries Query 29. If you shall say Here was a succession of Brittish Ministers in England before the Papal Power had to do here or before Gregory the Pope sent Austine the Monk to convert the Saxons then I query whether all those Ministers were not brought into subjection to the Papal Power and so were swallowed up in the See of Rome If not then Counter-Query Doth not Gildas report of a Ministry in England before Austin the Monk was sent over Might there not then bee thousands that had not bowed the knee to Baal 1 King 19.14 and wee not know of it Query 30. Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England who were separated from the Church of Rome if there was shew us where that Church was all the time the Papal Power was exercised here and who were they that governed it and also how your Ordination proceeded from this reformed rather than from the Papal Line Counter-Query If as before might not there bee a Succession from such and we not know of it Is not God wont to make his own waies to flourish most though many times secretly ought you not to beleeve that God hath ordered all for the best it is more becomming us to wonder at then search admire then sound the secret works of God Query 31. If you say It came from Rome and not from that presupposed Succession then I query if Rome was a little before Henry the Eights time intrusted with the Administration of Christs Ordinances as a Church of Christ whether it was not your sin to leave her as a cage of every unclean thing Counter-Query But if it came from Rome and the sacred Ordinances of God were there may not Rome notwithstanding bee accounted a cage of every unclean thing what if a theef hath a Bible in his pocket is hee not therefore a theef can the possession of Ordinances make holy Then never a Minister can bee an unholy man If Rome was unclean notwithstanding those Ordinances as indeed shee was ought wee not then to depart from her corruptions Numb 16.37 the Censers of Korah and his company wherein they burned incense to the Lord were holy yet the Israelites were to separate from them that they might bee destroyed Query 32. If you say truly of her as indeed you do that shee was the cage of every unclean thing how then could shee dispence at that time so sacred an Ordinance as Ordination of Gospel-Ministers is by you judged to bee Counter-Query Is it not strange that you aske such a Query and not shew any reason why Why could she not dispence such a sacred Ordinance as Ordination notwithstanding her uncleanenesse Must those accounts in your Book which you know to be just and right be nulled and may others disowne their debts there because through the fault of your Boy they are naughtily written or blotted and blurred would you serve God as you would not bee served Query 33. If you say Shee had power as a Church and you did separate because of her corruptions that you might serve the Lord with more purity then I query whether you are not guilty of that evil your self if yet it bee an evil which you charge upon Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt and maimed Counter-Query If wee say shee had power as a Church why did you not disprove it For if shee was a Church then her Ministers were true Ministers though corrupt and the Succession was not broken off To what end then have all your former Queries been Reader thou mayest bee the more convinc'd that the Line of Succession was not broke because the adversary yeelds up his own weapons thus thou mayest see hee hath more of subtlety to puzzle than of strength to convince But Sir do you think by your yeelding to draw us into ambush that Mr. Brooks may separate as well from the halt and maimed as wee from Papists consider either hee acknowledged his Parishioners of Margarets-New-Fish-street to be a Church or not if not 1 Must hee not condemn then Mr. Froysell and other godly Ministers that have acknowledged them a Church and upon that account were their Ministers and gave them the Sacrament 2 Must hee not prove that such a company of beleevers that have been baptized thereby admitted Members of a Visible Church that will still publickly own this Baptisme that were never
cast out by any Church Censures are not a Visible Church to whom belongs all the Ordinances 3 Did not hee himself acknowledge such as these are to be the matter of a Church though the former particular proves them actually a Church to use his own words Is it not then his duty either to convince them that they are not beleevers that they are scandalous by evident proofs from their lives which hee never did yea before hee knew them hee disclaimed them yea in a Book called Pills to PURGE Malignants c. hee unchristianly branded them with vile Names and this as hee confesseth before hee knew them O sad was this to come as an Embassador of Christ among them or else if hee cannot is it not his very great sin to see stones and timber fit for a spiritual building and not to build them up to be a Church of Christ much more must hee not bee accountable for plucking down and indeavouring not to leave one stone upon another in that which is already a Church of Christ 4 Or must hee not prove that some corruptions unchurch them Were not the Corinthians some carnall 1 Cor. 3.3 some proud 1 Cor. 4.18 did not some go to law before the unjust ch 6.1 were not some defrauders ch 6.8 some drunken ch 11.21 some unworthy receivers ch 11.27 28 29. some ignorant of God and of the resurrection 1 Cor. 15.34 35. yet the Corinthians were a Church for all this as Mr. Willes urged Thus some of the seven Churches of Asia were corrupt yet were stiled Churches still Rev. 3.14 15. some of the Church of Pergamos held the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans Thyatira v. 20. suffered the woman Jezebel to seduce The Laodiceans were luke-war me c. 2 But if his Parishioners bee a Church I query whether doth hee separate from them as a Church or as corrupt If as a Church is it not an horrid schisme such as the Protestants justly plead not guilty of to the Papists or ought hee not to let this company of Visible Saints to enioy their own means and meeting-place that they may get to themselves a Minister that shall give them the Ordinances How dares hee in conscience hinder a Church of Christ from uniting and from enjoying his Ordinances which hee hath left for it How will hee answer it at the day of judgement before Christ Ought not his own Church as hee calleth them to have a meeting-place of their own and not to rob these of their liberty How durst hee thrust himself upon a flock to sheere the fleeces but will not be their Shepheard But if hee separate only from their corruptions to make your Query sound any thing ought hee not to shew his Parishioners that they bee guilty of such corruptions as made us separate from Rome The Papists worship Saints and Images and make more Mediatours than one These and more I can make evident upon proof can Mr. Brooks evidently prove his Parishioners to bee guilty of these or such like corruptions do you read of any that ever suffered so great a Church-punishment as being kept from the Ordinances is unless first there were conviction of a notorious scandal 2 Brotherly admonitions Matth. 18.15 16 17 18. 3 And a casting out by Church-Censures 1 Cor. 5. Againe could there have been any Corruptions in that Church but through his neglect For hath he not power upon evident conviction to keep back the scandalous I say upon evident conviction for God never intended his Ministers should search the hearts of men as to say they are formal and wicked and censure their hearts when they can evidently prove nothing from their lives Is it not likewise his duty to instruct the ignorant Is hee not bound in charity to judge all others to be true visible Christians How then can he plead that he separates from that Church because of her corruptions seeing it is his duty and in his power according to the Rules of the Gospel to have reformed it Will not these Schismes and separations lye heavie at his doore and yours Ought you not to cleare your selves to the world Query 34. Whether it hath not been common for those of your way to separate from the Papists and yet take their Tythes and to use your owne phrase sheer those lame and diseased Sheep which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you Counter-Query Are not Tythes setled in Parishes for the maintenance of those that take the care and charge of those Parishes Doth not therefore the Tythes belong to those of Master Willes his way that take this charge Doth Mr. Brookes doe thus Doth hee not declare that hee takes no more charge of the Parish as their Minister than of any other Doe those of Mr. Willes his way deny the Papists any thing that is their right and due Hath not the Church debarred them from communion with us Is it not equity then they should not deny their due Doth Master Brookes doe thus When were his Parishioners cut off from Church Communion how or by whom Have not those of Mr. Willes his way the consent of those Parishes they take the charge from whom they require their maintenance But hath not Mr. Brookes unworthily crowded in by might and yet never intended to take the charge for which the Tythes were intended Yea and hath he not troubled his Parishioners for the non-payment of them Query 35. If you say They might if they would reforme have communion with you I query then whether this very Objection that causeth you to exclude Papists be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants and other prophane people viz. because they doe not reforme Counter-Query Wee doe say if they would reforme and turn Protestants that the Churches of England would have communion with them will Mr. Brookes say thus of his Parish Nay would it not be a rejoycing to many honest hearts if hee could make it manifest that he refuseth none but scandalous and prophane people and that because they are such and will not reforme Doth Mr. Brookes exclude the whole Parish because scandalous and prophane Is it not evident that they are counted prophane and excluded as Papists because they will not owne his Church and dis-own their owne Would hee not owne some of these very men and count them reformed ones if they would but owne his Schismatical way to whom hee never yet otherwise would tender the Ordinances Did ever Christ intend that his Ordinances should be tied up to Mr. Brookes his opinion How will you or this man excuse his conscience in this Query 36. If you shall deny this Succession and say That there was none and that it was lost then I query whether this be not a singular and private Opinion of your owne differing from the rest of your Brethren Counter-Query Don't you easily see by this time that we have no need to deny a Succession and that your Queries have been