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
notice of what Answers have been given unto this as well as other Queries is it not vain-glory to make the world beleeve that the London Ministers in their jus Divinum Min. ch 6. from p. 95. to 103. that Mr. Collins in his vindication Min. from p. 49. to 56. that Mr. Thomas Hall p. 56 to 59. and many others who writ concerning this Text have done nothing worthy Mr. Ives his regard of it 1 Is not an extraordinary Call by extraordinary gifts such an authority from God that no ordinary gifted brother as such may presume to have 2 Were not these in 1 Cor. 14 thus extraordinarily called 3 Were they not expresly called Prophets which is an Office improperly so called pro tempore 4 You may all prophesie can this be meant of any but Prophets is it an argument then for gifted brethren but you say then were all the Church exhorted to covet after extraordinary Offices Answ The word Office here is somewhat improper again it was but temporary and well may it be said that they all ought to seek after these extraordinary gifts which thus qualified them when a Judges place falls all the Serjeants in Town may lawfully seek for it though all cannot obtain it God had promised such gifts and ought they not to seek for them Query 14 If it shall bee said that prophesying here was an ordinary Office then it follows That the whole Church are exhorted to covet to bee ordinary Officers which would bee to make the whole Body of Christ monstrous If it shall bee said That they were not exhorted to prophesie as extraordinary or as ordinary Offices Then I query whether they were not to do it as gifted Brethren since wee never heard of any other way Counter-Query This Query is worth nothing only I query why may not your whole Church covet to bee all ordinary Officers as well as to bee preaching gifted brethren if because it is monstrous to have so many ruling heads is it not as monstrous to have as many speaking tongues in the body of Christ Query 15. Whereas you say That none ought to preach but those that are ordained except as before excepted I query Among those several Ordinations that are in Christendome which of those whether some one of them or all of them bee that which Christ approves of If you say All of them and that the errours of the Administrators in some Circumstances doth not make the Ordination a Nullity Counter-Query 1 Is not this the essential of Ordination viz. a setting apart Men to the Ministry by Ministers 2 Is not this the purity of it viz. when fit persons are duely set apart by Gospel Ministers in that Gospel way and for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed there being no superstitious corruption accompanying this Ordinance 3 May there not bee some circumstantial differences even among those that practice this purity in this Ordinance 4 May wee not say then that all the Ordinations in Christendome are approved by Christ that differ but thus circumstantially as well as men of opinions different in many things are accepted by him Query 16. Whether one may not by this Opinion bee lawfully ordained at Rome Counter-Query 1 Dare you say that Rome observes that Gospel purity in this Ordinance 2 Though the substance may be there yet is it not exceeding sinful NOW for US to submit to their impurities Considering that these three things only excuse in errours circumstantial 1 When the errour is so slight that it is no prejudice to the substance nor doth engage to other pernicious errours doth not Ordination among the Papists do this doth it not oblige to obedience to and Mission by that Autichristian See Note that the cases following excuse when this cannot bee pleaded 2 When a sincere aime at the substance is accompanied with ignorance of the errours in circumstance can wee plead ignorance of the errours of Rome or shall wee say that man hath a sincere aime that shall go thither to submit to it NOW 3 When a case of necessity is viz. 1 When we are bound to have the Ordinance its self 2 And when it cannot bee elsewhere had but with these errours and impurities 3 Or when greater evils than those errours would follow Is this our case NOW with Rome though Preachers are bound to submit to that Ordinance of Ordination yet can they not have it else where than at Rome in more purity Answer Sir Is it not in more purity done by the Ministers in England than by those at Rome Query 17. If you shall say The Protestant-Ordination is lawful and that only then I query which of those whether the Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent Ordination bee that which is approved by Christ to impower the Ministers to preach since all these are Protestants and greatly differ in this thing Counter-Query Do you not easily see by what hath been said that the Protestant Ordination only is acknowledged to bee lawful to us NOW Do you not as easily see the Episcopal Presbyterian and the most sober independent Ministers own the essence of this Ordinance viz. that it is a setting apart men to the Ministry by Ministers 2 That they practice the purity by setting apart fit men in a Gospel way for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed without superstitious intermixtures 3. Ought wee not then to say that ordination by all or any of them is approved by Christ and true Christians to impower Ministers to preach notwithstanding they may differ in some circumstantials Query 18. If you say All of these are lawful then were not the Ministers of the Episcopal way greatly out in crying up the Ordination by Bishops to bee the onely Authoritative Ordination in opposition to that of the Presbytery And that they did so will appear if you consult Dr. Jer. Taylor Chaplain to the late King in his Book called Episcopacy asserted page 120 121 122. It is cleer saith hee that Bishops were to do some Acts which the Presbyters COULD NOT do one of which hee calls Ordination by imposition of hands which hee saith was not to bee done by Presbyters Again the said Doctor saith That the Apostles did impose Hands for confirmation which saith hee was to continue in the Church and could not bee done by the seventy or any MEER Presbyter And for this hee cites the constant practice of the Fathers and the Opinions of divers Churches Therefore pray tell mee if this be that Ordination which a man must have without which his Preaching is sinful Counter-Query Is it not unchristian to charge the errour of one man though a worthy man upon the rest of the Episcopal way is it not evident that the most of them judged themselves to ordain as Ministers and not as meer Bishops Doth not Mr. Baxter say in his second sheet that Bishop Vsher did acknowledge Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be vallid and that hee answered King Charles by an instance that
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