Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	author_n	word_n	write_v	2,404	5	5.2650	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87226	Confidence encountred: or, A vindication of the lawfulness of preaching without ordination. In answer to a book published by N.E. a friend of Mr. Tho Willes, intituled, The confident questionist questioned. Together with an answer to a letter of Mr. Tho. Willes, published in the said book. By which the lawfulness of preaching without ordination is cleared, and the ordination of the national ministers proved to be a nullity. By Jer. Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1658 (1658)	Wing I1094; Thomason E936_1; ESTC R207711	43,652	64

Confidence Encountred OR A VINDICATION OF THE Lawfulness of PREACHING without Ordination In Answer to a Book published by N. E. a friend of Mr. Tho Willes INTITULED The confident Questionist Questioned Together with An Answer to a Letter of Mr. Tho. Willes published in the said Book BY WHICH The Lawfulness of Preaching without Ordination is cleared and the Ordination of the National Ministers proved to be a Nullity By JER IVES How forcible are right words but what do your arguings re●rove Job 6.25 As every one hath received the gift even so m●nister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God If ANY MAN speak let him speak as the oracl●s of God 1 Pet. 4. ●0 ●● Printed at London and are to be sold by Dan. White at the seven Stars in Paul's Church-yard or may be had at the Authors house in Red-Cross-street 1658. To the READER Reader I Have for thy further information in the things of Christ published an Answer to some counter Queries which were made by an unknown Author in the behalf of Mr. Tho. Willes his Doctrine concerning the sinfulness of Preaching without Ordination in which counter-Queries thou maist be acquainted with the Author's Spirit though by his concealing his Name thou canst not be acquainted with his Person and by a strict Observation of what he hath writ thou maist see that he hath made good his own words viz. That he had writ enough to puzzle * See his book page 4. rather then convince his Adversary and that appears by his many contradictions one while he saith The Clergy is routed and by and by tells Mr. Willes The Enemy is routed * See his Epist to the Reader and compare it with his Epistle Dedicatory one while he demands whether Apollos was not ordained Minister when he preached publickly Act. 18. and by and by he demands if Apollos knew of any such thing as Ordination from the Apostles when he preached Act. 18. one while he demands if there was a constituted original Church with Officers in it at this time when Apollos preached See his book page 22 23. Act. 18. and by and by he saith That it is certain Apollos was at this time an Officer and bids me prove that he was ever made an Officer after his preaching Act. 18. Again he saith If the Church of Rome was a true Church then her Ministers were true Ministers when our Reformers were ordained by her And demands why I did not disprove her to be a Church pag. 41. and yet a little before he saith That she was as bad when the Ministers did receive Ordination from her as she was when they left her and yet he saith They left her not as she was the Spouse of Christ but as she was a Harlot page 39. so that he supposeth Rome to be a Harlot and Christ's Spouse at one and the same time Again he saith page 37. That the corruptions of the corrupt Dispensers of Ordinances cannot make them null and yet he saith pag. 48. If it be true as Mr. Brookes saith That the Ministers of England are Antichristian then all that they have baptized must be baptized again Is not this plain contradiction As he abounds with Contradictions so he doth with Impertinencies medling with the Trade that I follow and my being a Souldier and such-like things that concern not the Question before him Another while he blames me for that he doth himself viz. of meddling with this Controversie and taking it out of Mr. Brookes his hand when he undertook to answer a particular Paper which was proper for none else to answer but Mr. Willes Another while he blames me for that I did charge a thing upon Mr. Willes that I had but one witness for and yet himself believes the Accused's bare Negation without any witness for at that time when Mr. VVilles desired a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite there was none present to witness besides the Gentleman aforesaid though at our first meeting there was divers Again one while he saith Rome had power to ordain Ministers as Christ's Church and by and by compares them to Thieves and to Korah at the time they ordained the first Reformers Again his Book is full of unman-like arguings as appears by his frequent begging the chief things in question otherwhile when I demand a proof of those things that are so frequently affirmed by Mr. VVilles he demands how I prove they are not and so turns the proof of the affirmation from himself and puts his Respondent to prove Negations Surely this is not to give a Reason of our Hope to every one that asketh with Meekness and Fear Again he tells his Reader That the Anabaptists are bloody pag. 31. and pag. 50. he saith he ghesses that they are the men whose hands were most embrued in the blood of the late VVars When indeed the Anabaptists were in no capacity at the beginning of these Wars to blow those sparks of contention into a burning Flame if they had had a minde to so bad a work Thus I have given thee a taste of that Spirit that inspired him in the writing of his Book to which I have given an Answer and though I have not answered to every word yet I have answered every thing that hath any shew or colour of Reason in it which I desire thee faithfully and impartially to consider trying all things and holding fast that which is the best and that thou maist so do is the prayer and desire of Thy Friend Jer. Ives Confidence encountred c. Mr. N. E. ACcording to your desire I have answered your Counter Queries you sent to me with a Letter and though you have medled with a matter that concerns you not yet know that it concerns me to answer you lest you should be confirmed in your folly and though you contemn my Queries as slight and call me an unworthy Enemy yet I have learned to say Contemptum stulti contemnere maxima laus est Contemni à stulto dedecus esse nego To scorn a Fool 's contempt is praise and I His scorn to be disgrace do quite deny And though you thought you had so routed me that I would never appear again yet know that this was nothing but the violent beatings of the Waves and Billows of your ambition which I thought necessary to put a check to by this ensuing Answer lest you should be exalted above measure for the prevention whereof I have published this Reply And therein I Shall first begin with your Title wherein you call me a Confident Questionist but if you had read my Epistle you would have found that I did question for Conscience sake some things that Mr. Willes had delivered and withal did propound to the Reader that if the Answers thereunto did satisfie I should bless the Father of Lights that had not suffered me to labour in vain This was the greatest altitude of my Confidence and

act of the ministerial Office then do not they sin that shall wittingly and willingly submit to this usurpation in hearing if he have no lawful call to preach Rom. 10.15 can they have a lawful call to hear is not the Receiver as bad as the Thief Answ I answer That you are forc'd to beg one Question to make a ground for another for I never granted that it was a sin for unordained Men to preach and as yet you have not proved it though you have begged this Question over and over And for your saying The Receiver is as bad as the Thief and that because it is as bad in me to hear one that is not ordained as it is in such a one that is not ordained to preach The truth is if one of these be as bad as you make it the other must needs be as bad also Now pray consider That to relieve the poor is an act of the Deacons Office doth it therefore follow that none but Officers may relieve the poor should I sin to minister to the poor out of Office and is he that receives an Alms as bad as a Thief if he knows he that gives it be out of Office and yet this is your arguing But it may be you will say That for a man out of Office to distribute the Churches stock is sinful if they do not license him so to do and then it would be a sin to receive from such a man the stock of the Church I answer That it is most true but therefore may he not give of his own because he cannot as an Officer give of the Churches So because I may not preach from another Man's stock may I not preach from my own and administer according as I have received from God though I may not administer of that which I have not according to that 1 Pet. 4.10 Let every man as he hath RECEIVED the gift minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God And he subjoyneth in the next Verse If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God Ver. 11. So that by comparing these Verses together you will finde that a man may as lawfully preach if he have received a Gift to enable him as he may distribute this Worlds Goods but he ought not to do the one or the other unless he have received a Gift from God to enable him thereto Quest 9 You proceed and whereas I ask whether Apollos did not preach the Gospel as is recorded Act. 18.24 25 26 27 28 c. you reply by asking me Whether I ought not to have answered Doctor Seamore and others To this I answer That if I had received satisfaction from them I should have made no further question But ought not you by the same rule to have answered all Books extant against Ordination by Presbyters before you ask me any more questions in the behalf of it And if these men you speak of have writ so satisfactorily why do you trouble your self any further You proceed and tell me page 22. That Apollos taught where you say we read but of two Christians Aquila and Priscilla and those Paul brought with him c. I answer That our Question is not how few or how many Christians were Apollos Auditors but Whether he did not preach publickly and constantly without Ordination However you grant that there was Aquila and Priscilla and those Christians that Paul brought with him which he preached to which were enough to make a Christian Congregation as vain as you seem to make the consequence Therefore if he did preach to the people aforesaid viz. Aquila and Priscilla and those Christians that Paul brought with him publickly and constantly then he did preach publickly and constantly to a Christian-Congregation but the former is true by your own confession Ergo the later followeth But you proceed and ask me If a particular example of a Church not constituted be a rule for ordinary practice in a Church that is c. And further you ask If Apollos was not in Office and therefore called a Minister 1 Cor. 3.5 and how do I prove he was not I answer First where do you read of a Christian-Church not constituted Secondly Do you not say That Apollos was an Officer what then did hinder them from being a constituted Church The Scriptures say Christs Church is his Body and I never read of a Body constituted and another unconstituted And for your saying Apollos was in Office 1 Cor. 3.5 doth this prove he was then in Office Act 18. You go on and ask me all these negative Questions viz. How I prove he was not in Office and how I prove he was no Priest and that John did not anthorize him and ought I not to prove that he was not in Office thus and ought I not to prove there was no necessity and how do I prove he was not called or in Office c. To which I answer That you are an excellent Armour-Bearer Is this your Armour of proof when a man demands of you how you prove that such a thing was you answer by asking your Respondent how he proves it was not Truely you have more need go to School then write Books But let 's hear what you say for the Affirmative since you say page 23. That it is certain he was in Office Your first Reason is He watered the Churches that Paul had planted 1 Cor. 3.6 1 Cor. 16.12 Let 's try this Argument and put it into a form and then it will be thus viz. Apollos did the work of an Evangelist 1 Cor. 3.6 Ergo it is certain he was in Office at the time Aquila and Priscilla taught him Act. 18. May not a man as well reason thus Mr. Willes preaches at Botolphs Billings-gate as an Officer if you will believe it Ergo it is certain he was an Officer when he was instructed into Religion You go on and ask me If Apollo 's worth and name was not the head of a Faction 1 Cor. 1.12 This is your second Argument to prove that certainly he was in Office Is this a good Argument Apollos was the Head of a Faction for his worth and name Ergo he was an Officer in the Church will not this prove Mr. Brookes to be an Officer when future times shall read the History of his Life seeing that he preaches Christ and is esteemed for his worth and name and as your selves say he is the Head of a Faction how dare you deny Mr. Brookes to be an Officer if this be good Logick Your third Reason is He is called you say in express terms a Minister in the sense that Paul was 1 Cor. 3.5 He was an Officer you say then sure I have answered this already by shewing that though he might be an Officer then yet he was not in Office Acts 18. and you must prove and not beg You go on and bid me prove that Apollos was ordained after he preached

took away the Queens Coyning Irons by force and arms and did justifie the same Knox Hist page 308. Again they say The Commonalty ought to reform Religion if the King will not See Knox to the Commonalty pag. 49 50. And That if Princes be Tyrants against God and the truth their Subjects are freed from their Oaths of Allegiance Knox to England and Scotland fol. 78. This they learned from Geneva for when Farellus Viretus and others first preached the Bishop of Geneva was Lord of the City and had power as a civil Migistrate as Calvin in his Letter to Cardinal Sadolete writeth Jus gladii alias civilis jurisdictionis partes c. And yet without any Honour or Respect which they as Christians were bound to give him as their civil Magistrate they called him a Thief and an Usurper and so of themselves with such assistance as they could get threw him out of his civil jurisdiction since which time it hath been a principle among the Presbyters as appears by Whittingam in his Preface to Goodman's Book where he saith That if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion the inferiour Magistrates or People by the direction of the Ministery might lawfully and ought if need require even by force and arms to reform it themselves Accordingly they proceeded in Scotland as you have heard out of Knox who was one of the Presbyterian Reformers I shall in the next place cite some of Buchanan his Presbyterian-Maximes out of his Book entituled De Jure Regni pag. 61. he saith Populus Rege est praestantior melior The People are better then the King and of greater Authority Again he saith Populo jus est ut imperium cui velit deferat pag. 13. De Jure Regni The People have right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure Again pag. 25. he saith Penes populum est ut leges ferat sunt Reges veluti tabulariorum Cestodes The making of Laws doth belong to the People and Kings are but as Masters of the Rolls Again pag. 58. he saith The people have the same power over the King that the King hath over any one person And pag. 40. It were good saith he that rewards were appointed by the People for such as should kill Tyrants as commonly there is for those Qui Lupos aut Ursos occiderunt an t Catulos eorum deprehenderunt that have killed either Wolves or Bears or taken their Whelps This Spirit our old Presbyterians in England were inspired with about the same time as the Author of the Book of Obedience but rather of Rebellion doth manifest page 215. in these words saying If neither the Magistrate nor the greatest part of the People will do their Offices in punishing deposing or killing of Princes meaning such as should be against the Presbyterian-Reformation so much then sought after by Calvin then saith he the Minister may excommunicate such a Prince pag. 186. And in pag. 110. of the said Book the Author saith That in case of defection a private man may kill a Tyrant as Moses did the Egyptian if he have any special inward motion otherwise he saith a private man may do it if he be but permitted by the Commonwealth Goodman who also was in that time as great a stickler for the Presbyterian-Reformation as the rest saith in his Book p. 190. Subjects do promise obedience that the Magistrate may help them which if they do not they are discharged of their Obedience And in pag. 180 184 185. he hath many passages to the like purpose among which this is observable The people saith he in Numb 25 did hang up certain of their Heads c. which ought saith he to be perpetual example of their duty meaning the common people in the like defection from God to hang up such Rulers as shall draw them from him This Doctrine of killing and deposing Magistrates by a private person of the common people when Magistrates do not reform according to their humours saith Whittingam in his Preface to Goodmans Book was approved by the best learned in Geneva meaning Calvin and the rest of the Genevians together with some British Patrons of that way for besides Goodman and Whittingam there was Anthony Gibly Miles Coverdale David Whitehead and sundry others who did desire that Goodman's Book might be printed to which Whittingam made a Preface greatly commending the aforesaid bloody Doctrine Now whoever shall compare these passages with the practice of Presbytery ever since both in Scotland and Englend shall finde that they have throughly studied this point viz. of imbruing Nations in Blood and setting up and throwing down Magistrates according as they judge them fit or unfit for their pretended Reformations Hath not England and Scotland to their great grief found this to be true by woful experience And yet the Anabaptists and Fifth-Monarchy-men are decried by you and Mr. Willes as the onely State-Hereticks and Incendiaries as though they were the onely men that are against Magistracy but whoever shall consider of these forecited passages may conclude that there was little reason why the Presbyterians should complain of the Jesuites Principles unless their own were better for if that be true which Dr. White saith is their special vow which he mentions in page 573. of his Reply to the Church of Rome and pag. 577. and pag. 579. where he saith That the vows of the Jesuites are to execute the Popes pleasure in killing the King and what safety can they have that rely upon such Servants c. Which Vow he inserts in Latine in his Margent out of the Bull of confirmation of the Jesuites by Pope Paul the third which is thus much in English We judge it expedient for the great Devotion to the Sea Apostolike and more full abnegation of our own Wills and Pleasures that the professed of this society besides the common bond of three vows be further tied by special vow so that whatsoever the Roman Bishop for the time being shall command pertinent unto the salvation of mens souls and propagation of the Faith they shall be bound to execute the same presently without tergiversation and excuse whether they shall be sent unto Turks or unto Infidels even unto those that are commonly called the Indies or unto Hereticks or Schismaticks c. Which Vow though it be bad enough and not to be approved yet it hath not more of a bloody Nature then is contained in the forecited passages out of Presbyterian Authors By this you may see that Mr. Willes and you had so little reason to cry out against the Anabaptists for being bloody and against Magistrates that you and those of your way had need wash your own hands before you can with confidence justly cry down the Jesuites since your Principles are as bad as theirs in this particular And therefore Lysimachus Nicanor a Jesuite hath writ a congratulatory Epistle to the Covenanters in Scotland printed in the yeer 1640. where in pag. 1 he saith He

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