was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her as when they received their Ordination from her c. To this you answer That she was as good when you left her as she was when Ordination was received from her And further you say You did not forsake her as she was a Spouse of Christ but as she was an HARLOT c. Sir I see now you are puzzeled indeed for you grant she was as good when you left her as she was when your Predecessors were ordained by her And after you say She was not forsaken as Christ's Spouse but as a Whore or Harlot So then it appears by your own grant That she was none of Christ's Spouse or Church at the time she did ordain your Predecessors for you say She was a Harlot when you left her and then you say She was as honest as when your Predecessors were ordained by her Is it not a shame then that you should say That you are Legitimate when afer you have taken pains to prove it you face about as though it were too hard a Task for you and in words at length call your Mother a Where for what do you less when you call her a Harlot in pag. 39. at the beginning of it Is not this madness to a great degree that you should say Rome was none of Christ's Spouse but a Harlot and yet labour to prove if you could That at this time in the middest of her Whoredoms she had power to ordain Ministers to preach Christ Pray tell me why any man might not have taken upon him to ordain as well as Rome if this be true that you say Did ever our Lord Christ give the power of Ordination of Ministers to any but his Spouse or Church whereof he is the Head and whensoever she shall turn Whore and prostitute her self to other Lovers hath she not lost this Power and Authority is she not then like unsavoury Salt fit for nothing and yet by your Logick she hath Authority from Christ to ordain Ministers to preach the Gospel This very saying of yours viz. That your Mother the Church of Rome was a Whore at the time your Predecessors were ordained by her confutes all your conceits of a lawful Succession Quest 29 I proceed to the twenty ninth Question where I demand If all the Ministers that were in England before Austin the Monk were not brought into communion with the Roman-Church And this was the sum of that Question To which you make no answer but in effect ask me the same thing over again viz. Whether Gildas doth not report of a Ministery in England before Austin the Monk c. and Whether there might not remain thousands that had not bowed their knee to Baal and we not know of it To this I answer That then your Ministery could not be derived from the British Succession if you did not know whether they did bow their knee or no. But if what you said before was true That the Church of Rome had a power to ordain in the midst of their pollutions then it is no great matter whether they did bow to Baal or no as to the matter in question seeing that if they had by your Logick it could not have hindred your lawful Succession from them Quest 30 To my thirtieth Question which demands Whether there was in England a Succession of a true Church separated from Rome all the time the Papal Power was exercised here and how it did appear That the Succession of the Ministery of England was from this reformed rather then the Papal Line You answer as before That there might be a Succession though we know not of it c. This being the same with the former let the same Answer suffice onely let me tell you That it is very improbable that a Church should remain in England in opposition to Rome all the time the Papal Power was here Witness those that were slain at Bangor since Austin the Monk by force and arms was restless in subjecting the Britains in all parts to the See of Rome Quest 31 I proceed to the next Question which doth demand Whether it was not a sin to leave Rome as a Cage of every unclean thing if she was entrusted with the Administration of Christ's Ordinances as a Church c. This was the substance of the Question Upon which you query Whether she may not be a Cage of every unclean thing and yet have Gods sacred Ordinances among them This is the sum of your Question unto which you would give light by several similitudes one is That if a Thief have a Bible in his pocket he is notwithstanding a Thief Hence you would infer That Rome may be possest with Gods Ordinances though they are Thieves But have you forgot your self did not you say That the receiver was as bad as the thief pag. 21. Now then if this be true do you not very craftily call the Clergy Thieves for they all you say did receive their Ordination from them You further say That the censers Corah burned incense in were the Lords c. Hence you would innfer That Ordination is Gods Ordinance though it be in the hands of unholy persons c. To which I answer That the Ordinances are God's as the Censers were but as Korah did wickedly in using them so did the Company that partook with him and it was not their crying out That the censers were holy that would excuse them so it is not your saying That Ordination of Ministers is a holy Ordinance that will excuse Apostates in administring of it or you in receiving such Administration Remember therefore this example of Korah and do not you partake of Korah's sin for though the Censers were holy he had no right to use them see therefore how this similitude makes against you and fully shews your vanity that all you glory in is but what you have received from a Korah a Thief a Harlot which had no more right to administer it then a Thief hath to distribute stolen Goods Quest 32 I demanded in the next place How Rome being the Cage of every unclean thing could administer so sacred an Ordinance as ordaining Gospel-Ministers c. You say nothing in your Counter-Query but what hath been said before onely you urge a fresh similitude that is nothing to your purpose viz. That if my Accounts that be in my Book be just and right they ought not to be nulled because my boy hath naughtily written them c. Hence you would infer That Ordination is Gods Ordinance though it hath been defaced by the Church of Romes uncleanness c. Which is not any part of my Question for though my Accounts are not to be disowned because my boy hath blotted them yet my boy hath not power to dispose of them acording to his invention neither is it lawful for you if I shall declare him to be a Thief to receive any of my money from him or take
but what men take up by Necessity c. This is the substance of the question To which you say nothing but what hath been said and answered only you demand Whether there may not be a lawful succession from those that first took upon them this Office by Necessity and whether any in an ordinary lawful way can be in office but those that have it from that succession c. To this I answer That if what you here suppose be true then why did not our first Reformers go to the Ministers of other reformed Churches for Ordination rather then take it from Mr. Scory and that Faction since there was divers reformed Churches where they might have been ordained without receiving it from Rome or without putting themselves into the Office upon a pretended necessity So that if what you say be true That there may be a lawful succession from those who first became Officers by vertue of a necessity and that it is sinful to pretend to necessity afterwards then our first Reformers cannot plead Not Guilty since as I have said there was no necessity for them to own an Ordination from Rome because they might have have had it in more purity from those you call the reformed Churches which had separated from the Church of Rome before England And secondly There was no necessity for them to become Officers whithout Ordination no more then there is now because there were many reformed Churches in being to which they might have applied themselves for Ordination as in France and Germany c. Lastly if there was no true Church in the world that had power to ordain our new Bishops but they must make use of that which they received from Rome and that this be a lawful Ordination as you confess then you must needs say That the Churches of France Germany Geneva Scotland c. were no true Churches and had no true and lawful succession or if they had been true reformed Churches either by succession or necessity why then did not our first Reformers go to some of these to be ordained and since they did not doth it not manifestly appear that they were not true Ministers by succession because they received Ordination from Rome whom you call a Harlot when they might have had it from the Ministers of the reformed Churches then in being and because there was reformed Churches in being where they might have been ordained they had no reason to plead to any necessity then of preaching without Ordination any more then Mr. Brooks and others have whom Mr. Willes and you condemn Quest 40 I come now to the fortieth Question that I propounded which demands what Ground Mr. Willes had to baptize the children of wicked parents c. And to this you say nothing but what I have answered already only you beg a question viz. That children have a right to be members of a visible Church Which when you have proved it viz. That infants while they are in infancy have an immediate right to be members of a Church in the new Testament I shall confess they may be baptized but till then I shall be against the baptizing any infant for all you think I would conceal my Opinion in this matter Quest 41 In the next place I demand Whether to baptize the children of wicked parents be not contrary to the Opinion of the reformed Churches You reply That in the sense M. Willes doth assert the baptizing of the children of wicked parents it is lawful To which I answer That I have replied to Mr. Willes his sense about the baptizing the children of wicked parents in my Answer to his Letter at the beginning of this Book All that you say to this question besides what I have answered doth appertain to some practices of Mr. Brooks which I shall not meddle with because I am not acquainted with them only I take notice that in p. 48. of your Book before you end this question you say That if the Ministery of England be Antichristian then it will follow that those that they have baptized are unlawfully baptized c. How shamefully do you contradict your self did you not say before That the corruptions of the dispensers of Ordinances could not make the Ordinances a nullity though the Administrator was Antichristian And do you not now in effect say That baptism is a nullity if the Administrator be Antichristian for you say If the National Ministery be Antichristian as Mr. Brooks saith it will follow that it is unlawful Do you not now justifie all that I have said viz. If the first Reformers were ordained by Antichristian Ministers that then it followeth that their Ordination is a nullity and that till they are ordained again they all of them preach without Ordination from Christ Thus the Reader may see that rather then you would want an arrow to shoot at M. Brooks you would borrow one out of my quiver and you do as good as confess as much when you conclude and say That your heart trembleth and you heartily wish that you could not plead so strongly to sadden honest hearts to please me and such as I am It seems then your conscience told you That you had given away your cause to the grief of your self and others because you could not help it and therefore you wish heartily that you COULD not plead so much to please such as I am So that it seems you are now forced to yield to your own grief and others of your friends which you call honest hearts c. it seems then the truth is too strong for you But to proceed You come now to make Counter-queries upon my 42 43 44 and 45 Queries that are grounded upon Mr. Willes his decrying the Fifth-Monarchy-Men as the smoak of the bottomless pit to this I have already given answer And to the Counter-queries you propound upon my 46 question touching Mr. Willes his Discourse with me in private I have already answered in my Reply to M. Willes his Letter And for your Counter-query that you make upon my 47 question about Mr. Willes his perswading a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite though you say I am too blame to receive an information from one man c. Sure you are more too blame to believe the Accused's bare negation but for the truth of what I object against M. Willes viz. That he did desire a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite I shall refer the Reader to the Gentleman aforenamed who is ready to make oath for his further satisfaction And for your saying That I did live a concealed life about London for many yeers and therefore there might be some ground for people to suspect me Truely I think there is more reason why I should suspect you who are so concealed as that you refuse to let your Name or place of abode be known I am sure this I never did upon any occasion in all my life I come now to take notice of
the Reader may see That former times did not esteem both Ordinations lawful viz That that was done by Bishops and that that was done by Presbyters but looked upon the one as a meer nullity so that whatever you say there hath been a manifest contradiction and that the difference was not circumstantial as you vainly tell your Reader but essential for not onely the Fathers but Councels judged Ordination by Presbyters a meer nullity and that Episcopal Ordination was essential to the being of the Ministers Office So that the thing you so much talk of viz. That both these Ordinations are of God is a meer fiction But more of this anon Quest 23 In my twenty third Query I demand If that the Independent-Ordination be of God wherein is Mr. Brookes to be condemned if he preach according to the Independent-Ordination You hereupon tell your old tale viz That you cannot believe by what I have urged any Ordination to be according to Rule but what is done by Ministers To which I answer That this was no part of my business in the Questions proposed from first to last for all my business was to shew by the light of those Queries That it was not sinful to preach without Ordination and that Mr. Willes his Ordination was a meer nullity that he so much glories in and that it is not that which Christ approves of and for your slanders in saying That I appear for Independency as a cloak for Anabaptism c. Did you not blush when you writ this horrid untruth Have I not your own confession appeared as publickly for that which you call Anabaptism Do you not tell your Reader That I did publickly appear at the Disputation held at Clements without Temple-Bar which was against Infant-Baptism And have I not published my Opinion in print touching this Controversie and yet you are so impudent as to tell your Reader I appeared for Independency as a cloak that my design might be the more plausible It 's no wonder that you conceal your Name since you can write at this rate Quest 24 I ask in my twenty fourth Question If that Ordination by Presbyters were the onely Ordination where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty yeers ago Your Query thereupon is nothing but to enquire Whether Presbyterian and Episcopal-Ordination might not both be lawful and bid me prove by the next That Bishops COULD NOT ordain then and that Presbyters CANNOT ordain mow Oh shameless Disputant I told you you could talk of Logick but how little you use let the Reader judge My main design in proposing my Questions was to put some one or other upon the proof of that which was so frequently asserted viz. That the Ordination by Bishops or by Presbyters is of God meaning that which is practiced by the National Ministers And you come forth and bid me prove That the Bishops could not and that the Presbyters cannot If you can dispute no better you shall never commence Master of Arts. Sir is it not a sad thing for you to tell your Reader in your Epistle to him That this Doctrine of Ordination that is now contended for is a foundation-Doctrine And when you are demanded a proof of it you shamefully shuffle and bid me prove in my next That it is not and that they had not power to ordain or if the Bishops and Presbyters did not ordain true Ministers Therefore take an Answer I say They did not and charge you in your next to reason like a man and prove they did Quest 25 In my twenty fifth Query I demand Why Mr. Willes did not tell his Hearers which of those divers kindes of Ordination it is that God approves of This was the sum of this Query To which you reply and the sum of all you say is That if I have heard Mr. Willes in all his Sermons upon this Subject I might had understood that he was not rigid for Episcopacy Presbytery nor Independency but for a Moderation c. and that Ordination any of these ways was good seeing the difference was but in circumstance c. I have answered to this already over and over that these by your own confession must all of them be proved to be Christ's Ministers before their Ordination must be valued and also you must prove That Christ ever did allow of Ordinations so palpably contradictious as these are which will further appear in my following Answers before there be any weight in what you or M. Willes hath said to this Question However if Mr. Willes doth well in being indifferent in this matter how evilly hath the generality of our Presbyterians spent their time about such trifling circumstances while the more weighty matters have been neglected for how furiously have they opposed the Episcopal and Independent Government and Governours though they have been such which you say are Christ's Ministers and that the differences are but circumstantial For the proof of this I shall refer the Reader to Mr. Edwards his Gangraena wherein he as much condemns ordained Ministers in the Independent way as any other Sect whatever and this was generally approved of by most of the Presbyterian Race as appears by the several Letters sent to encourage Mr. Edwards which he hath printed in his Book which he saith he received from godly Presbyterian-Ministers Nay is not the noise of this hot difference fresh in the ears of all intelligent Men which you must needs say was to little purpose if what you say of all these sorts of Ordinations be true Quest 26 I further demand Whether Mr. Willes his Ordination be from the Line of Succession or whether it was from any necessity c. And you ask me Whether I do not grant that a true succession makes true Ministers and whether there is not a case of necessity when the succession in broke off and whether such a necessity doth not make true Ministers This is that you call unanswerable This you challenge me to answer and therefore I shall soon dismount your confidence by telling you That by this Argument I am a true Minister for either I am one by succession or necessity if the Line of Succession was broke then I am a Minister by necessity Would not this Argument justifie all Sects that schismed from Rome as well as you And did not all the Sects that departed from Rome into other novel and strange Opinions worse then those they left reason thus That they either had some men which were in religious Orders that separated with them and so they pretended that they had a successive Authority or else they will tell you That they were the first Reformers and therefore positive Laws must give place to necessity and therefore all that succeed from them are a true Ministery I challenge you to answer Why this is not as good an Argument to prove any company of men that shall depart from Rome to be a true Ministery as well as any that you plead for
though they should run from the errors of Rome into other errors that were as bad or worse But I therefore answer further That though a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of these ways it doth not therefore follow as I have already shewed in my Answer to Mr. Willes his Letter at the beginning of this Book that Mr. Willes is a Minister either of these wayes For though I grant these two to be the wayes of admission into the Ministery yet I do deny him to be entred by either of them though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers for I do deny that they were true Ministers of Christ either way or that they had either a lawful Succession or necessity to authorize them But of this more anon Quest 27 I demand If Mr. Willes be a Minister by succession whether he did not succeed from Rome You thereupon demand Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome Your first Reason is Because the corruptions of the first Receivers could not null this Ordinance c. To which I answer What if that be granted That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully after they have been separated from for their corruptions But your second Reason saith That the corruption of the Dispensers could not make the succession cease And this you would prove by many similitudes you say The Law doth not lose its force if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge c. I answer If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness then though the Law doth not lose its force yet this Judge hath no power to administer it so I say of your Ordination That if you had justly ejected the Pope he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ no more then a Judge that is thrown out hath power to administer the Law of the Land Thus your simile makes against you And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite whence you would infer That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administred by them I answer That it is true That so long as their sins are like your Name unknown if they do administer Ordinances they may be valued but what if their sins are known and that they shall be rejected as Hereticks or as scandalous Persons have they then any power to administer sacred things This Answer will serve for all the rest of your similitudes But further If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Hereticks and the Church of England had ejected her and separated from her and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist as indeed they did then it followeth from Scripture That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them for the Scripture saith Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publican Now then if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge and be ordained by him as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church then are you very wicked in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body if they are not of the Body then any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they And this is not my single Opinion but it hath been the Opinion of former times for Athanasius saith in Epist de Conciliis By what right can any be Bishops that do receive their Ordination from Hereticks And further he saith That it is impossible that Ordinations made by Secundus being an Arrian could have any force in the Church of God And further If the Pope be rejected as that great Antichrist it cannot be imagined that he whom all the Protestants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory as lawfully to ordain and impower men to preach Christ So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome and reject them as Hereticks or if you did you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination And further the Protestant Calvinists in France say in the Confession of their Faith Confes Art 21. That their Calling is extraordinary and do confirm the same by their practice in that they ordain anew such Priests as revolt from Rome but if the corruption of the Dispensers did not make their Ordination a nullity then there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church And Mr. Whitaker is of this minde for saith he We would not have you think that we make such reckoning of your Orders as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them And Mr. Fulk that famous Opposer of Rome tells them That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops Priests and Deacons-better then Lay-Men See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick p. 50 And further Mr. Fulk saith That with all our heart we meaning the Protestants abhor and detest all your stinking greasie Antichristian Orders And yet other of you glory in your succession See the contradictions among your selves who of you shall a man believe So that if I say You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome seeing they were by you judged Hereticks and such as were deservedly excluded I have the Scripture of my side that saith You should esteem such as Heathens I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old I have some of the reformed Churches and therein many very famous both at home and abroad which are of my minde Your last Argument you bring to this Point is That Christianity was profest and therefore you ask me If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here c. Whence you infer If they were true believers then there was a Church and if a Church then there must be a Ministery because you say Christ promised Ephes 4.11 12 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministery till they come to be a perfect man c. If this be a good Argument why do you rail against the Anabaptists For dare you say There is not true believers among them if there be then by your Logick they are a Church and if a Church then they must have Christ's promise fulfilled and they then must have a true Ministery till they come to be a perfect man By this Rule Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church and must have a true Ministery or else you must say The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers Quest 28 I demanded in my twenty eighth Query Whether the Church of Rome
any discharge or acquittance for any debt that you owe me at his hand In like manner is it sinful to receive Ordination from Rome if they have turned Thieves and Robbers as you say they are then the Receiver is as bad as the Thief So that I shall need no other weapon to fight with you then your own But to proceed I come now Quest 33 To the thirty third Question wherein I demand If the Church of Rome had power as a Church and you did separate because of her corruptions why then was Mr. Brooks to be blamed in separating from the corruption of the Church of England c. In your many-headed Counter-Query you say nothing that concerns me to answer but this viz That because I say If Rome was a true Church c. Hence you glory and say I yield up my weapons by saying IF Rome was a true Church You demand then To what end was all my other Questions c. I answer That you had need go to School to learn to distinguish between an Hypothetical and a Categorical Proposition for is it not one thing to say The Church of Rome IS a true Church and another thing to say IF she be a true Church Might you not as well have told your Reader That David said He COULD take the Wings of the Morning and flie because he said IF I take the wings of the morning c. This is the ground of your triumph because I say If Rome was a true Church you conclude I said She was a ture Church O brave Logician I see now there was a reason why you concealed your Name And for those other questions that you ask me concerning Mr. Brooks his separation in p. 41 42. I shall refer you to him who very likely can give you a better Answer then you have given to my Queries Quest 34 I demand in the next place Why the Protestant Shepherds shear the Papists since they judge them no Sheep of their fold This is the sum of the Question In your Reply you say little that concerns me to answer onely That the Church hath debarred Papists from communion And thereupon you demand Whether it be not reason then that they should pay their tythes c. To this I answer That there is little reason why any body should pay but there is less reason why one that is put out of the Fold should pay then any nay there is no colour of reason why any that are cast out of the Church should be forced to maintain the Minister Should not you have done well to have proved this before you went further viz. That Christ would have men pay tythes to a Minister when they are thrust out of their stock and are put out of communion The rest of this Question which you ask relates to Mr. Brooks his practice of which I have not so particular an information as an answer to it requires and therefore I shall refer you to him for an Answer Quest 35 I demand in the next place Whether that the reason why you do exclude Papists which is because they do not reform be not the reason why Mr. Brooks excludes scandalous persons viz. because they do not reform c. Your Answer hereunto as far as it doth concern me is That Mr. Brooks keeps people out of his Church because they do not own his Church and disown their own To this I answer That this is the reason why you reject Papists for many of them are such whose lives are without reproof so that you keep them out because they will not own your Church and disown their own Quest 36 Your query upon my thirty sixth Question is nothing but what hath been queried by you before and is already answered both in my Answer to M. Willes his Letter in the beginning of this Book and also in my Reply to the twenty sixth Counter-Query Quest 37 I query since Ordination from Rome was thrown off upon a politick account what ground the Ministers of the Nation have to plead a necessity to preach without Ordination The substance of your Counter-Query to this as it relates to your Succession is answered already in the thirty sixth Query and for that part of your question that relates to necessity I answer First That there was no need of our first Reformers pleading necessity for they were as idolatrous when they first rent from Rome as they were when they were in communion with her Secondly If they had separated from the Church of Rome because of her uncleanness then there was no need for them to plead necessity for their preaching without Ordination since they might have been ordained by the reformed Churches in other Countries which had forsaken Rome before them And thirdly if Necessity may be a Warrant to them at that time it was as good a Warrant to other Sects that revolted from Rome as well as it was for those you call our first Reformers So that then if any Arrians or Socinians c. should have Rent from Rome and gathered into a Congregation they might have pleaded that they had a lawful Ministery either by Succession in that some of them had been Priests before they revolted or else by vertue of a Necessity since a positive Law gives place to necessity Would not you answer these men that they are Ministers by neither of these ways and so do I answer you as I have already done once and again And therefore when Mr. Willes hath proved himself a lawful Minister then I shall say He came in by one of these ways but till then let me tell him and you too That any Sect that will take it for granted that they have Ministers among them may as well justifie their Ministers Authority as Mr. Willes can do his by taking it for granted he is a Minister of Christ which he is never able to prove Quest 38 I demanded When the Line of Succession was broke whether then every one might not preach that were able although it might not have been lawful before c. This was the sum of this Question To which you say nothing but what hath been already answered over and over onely you ask me Whether a case of necessity makes any Ministers but those that are fittest and undertake the charge To which I answer That if the Men that preach shall be their own Judges who will not think that he is fit and able And was it not so with those you call our first Reformers were they not Judges of their own abilities and so made themselves Ministers of their own heads and by the same Rule others may depart from them as they departed from Rome and take upon them to be Heads or Guides of a Congregation of people especially if they can object considerable errors both in their Lives and Doctrines Quest 39 My next Question demands how it can be a sin for any to preach that are able seeing there is no Ordination on foot now
your Postscript wherein you tell your Reader of some things you have to advertise him The first you say is That it is a great sign of truth when men of corrupt mindes are enraged against it Truely then it is a sign that we are in the truth for men of corrupt mindes are against us witness the rude behavior of those that threatned to throw me over the Gallery for asking M. Willes a question and not onely those but such as make a gain of godliness leaping from one benefice to another where they can get the best fleece and most profit and that without they can have their own demands of their Parish they will leave them and go to another I say these are the men that cry down that which we profess as the smoak of the bottomless pit and would have men apprehended as Jesuites or any how so that they can be revenged upon them for not being of their Opinion I say then That if this may be called a good Argument the Truth is of our side but this is no infallible way of reasoning In the second place you tell your Reader That those that have designs against the truth have usually some plausible pretence to carry them on c. To this I answer That you are none of those that have plausible designs against the truth though you have a great many you have scarce one that is plausible for if you had you would never have discovered to the world so much contradiction folly as you have done in your Book neither would you have declared That your Mother the Church of Rome was a Harlot at the time that your Predecessors received Ordination from her neither would you have compared her to Korah to a Thief as you have done and yet justifie her ordaining Ministers to preach the Gospel Would you have had your designs plausible you should never have discovered the Pedegree of your Clergy by calling their Progenitors Thieves and Harlots sure this will not be plausible to any that shall hear it when they come to know that your glorious succession you so much boast of came from such infamous Predecessors The third thing you inform your Reader in is That those that design the propagating of errors will for the most part oppose but seldom assert c. To this I reply That this is the reason you answered by counter-queries and that rather then you would assert any thing positively you put your respondent to prove negations when the contrary was found in me for I offered to assert and prove against M. Willes and he refused it The last thing you inform your Reader is That this Book is your first c. This you use as an argument why he should excuse your mistakes c. and truely Sir you had need of a pardon and if you did not hope for it you might fear to be corrected by a more severe hand then mine for those many impertinencies slanders and contradictions that your Book is fraught withal which I pray God help you to consider of that you may do nothing against the truth but for it which is the desire of Sir your Friend as far as you are the truth's JER IVES AN APPENDIX Reader I Have for thy further satisfaction published some Observations that I have collected touching the Ordination of the National Ministery since their revolt from Rome in the time of Hen. 8. And first it is observable That the Church of England in the time of Hen. 8. did not separate from Rome for conscience but for base ends and for filthy lucre sake as appears by their retaining all the superstitious customs of the Roman Church and their persecuting to death those that did out of a good conscience oppose them The truth hereof is plentifully manifested in the Histories of that time Secondly in the beginning of Edw. 6. his Reign it is observable that the whole frame of Religion was altered and such a Reformation begun as did agree with the wills of a Committee of twelve Men and what form of worship should be agreed upon by any seven of these was to be observed by the whole Nation This was such great presumption that the like cannot be parallel'd in any Ecclesiastical story and yet now the Anabaptists are cried down as Men full of presumption and such as swerve from the steps of Tradition Thirdly it is observable That in the time of Queen Mary the Roman Religion was by her restored and the Land was over-spread with Popery and Popish Bishops and Priests were set up in all parts of this Realm and their Religion confirmed by Act of Parliament and Cardinal Pool the Pope's Legite absolved the Kingdom from the Excommunication which the Pope had pronounced against the Land Fourthly it is observable That when Queen Elizabeth began to Reign the whole Nation being over-spread with Popery insomuch that all Bishops that would not take the Oath of Supremacy were turned out of their Bishopricks so that by this means there was a want of Bishops to supply the places of those which the Queen had ejected for Popery so that from that time to this our Clergy have been at a loss touching their Ordination as appears First because they sometimes plead an Ordination by succession and sometimes they leave succession and plead to necessity and an extraordinary Call Now if they plead they have their Ordination by succession from Rome then they must justifie Rome to be a true Church of Christ and so are guilty of Schism in renting since they say She was as good when they left her as she was when they were ordained by her Again if that Rome was not a Church of Christ when they were ordained by her then they are at a loss on the other hand because that they cannot prove a power of ordaining Ministers given to any out of the Church So that if their Ordination from Rome by succession be valued Rome must be justified to be a true Church Again if they shall plead to necessity and an extraordinary Call here they are at a loss again because first there were many reformed Churches in the World from whom they might have been ordained without receiving Orders from Rome and also they had no reason to plead necessity of Preaching without Ordination since they might have had it from those Churches that were reformed before them Lastly they fear to plead this Argument of necessity lest they should justifie their Adversaries the Anabaptists and other Sectaries which have more reason to plead necessity then themselves This appears by M. Willes his refusal to resolve me when I was at his House Whether he was a Minister by a lawful succession or necessity because he knew not whether I was a Jesuite or an Anabaptist for it is usual for them to plead their Ordination by succession when they would oppose the Anabaptists and to take up the Anabaptists Argument of necessity when they oppose the Papists and therefore Dr.