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 reâ—rove Job 6.25 As every one hath received the gift even so mâ—nister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God If ANY MAN speak let him speak as the oraclâ—s of God 1 Pet. 4. â—0 â—â— 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
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.
what is it but to beg the Question when he shall take it for granted he is in by one of the aforesaid ways when I denied him to be in by either as himself confesseth in his Letter to you pag. 7. later end for he saith I opposed both meaning both his entrance by a lawful Ordination or by necessity So then this is your Champion's Argument which is like Goliah's Sword in his hand the Proposition being That he is no Minister of Christ either by a lawful Ordination or by any pretended necessity So that his great Argument if I may put it in form is If I am a Minister by one of these ways then I am a Minister by one of them But I am a Minister by one of them Ergo I am a Minister by one of them Nothing else can be made of this that he propounds Now this had been a dilemma indeed if I had granted him to be a true Minister and had confessed that a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of the ways aforesaid then he had reasoned like a man if he had said Since I grant him to be a Minister and withal grant that none can enter but by the ways aforesaid then he must needs come in by one of them But since I denied both how wildly doth he reason Again doth not Christ say That he that comes not in at the door is a thief and a robber Now though I granted that there was no other lawful way of coming into the Office yet a mans being in doth not prove he came in any of these lawful ways because Christ supposeth they may get in by climing up another way The next thing Mr. Willes takes notice of in his Answer to your Letter is that which he spake about the baptizing the Children of wicked Parents which he saith are such Children whose Parents are not juridically ejected by excommunication c. His Reformation as I have told is so good that none deserves Excommunication or else so bad that he doth not execute that Ordinance upon them or if he do then all that he doth excommunicate are childless or else he contrarily to his Principles baptizeth their Children for he refuseth to baptize none But if his Argument be good That the Children of wicked Parents are to be baptized because sometimes God chuseth them that are wicked Mens Children Doth not this Argument plead as much for the Children of those that are excommunicated may not God chuse the Children of such as well the Children of others and doth not the Children of wicked excommunicated Parents stand in need of an Obligation to Holiness as well as the Children of those wicked Parents that are not excommunicated and yet this man saith That wicked mens Children the worse their Parents are the more need their Children have of Baptism and yet he denies it to the children of those who are excommunicated It seems then you judge them you keep in the Church worse then they you cast out or else this cannot be a true Maxime viz. The worse the Parents are the more need the Children have of Baptism for if they you cast out are the worst then it follows that their Children have the more need by his Argument if so why doth he confine it to none but such as are within the Church Whoever desires further satisfaction in this point touching the baptizing of Infants I shall refer them to my Book entituled Infants Baptism disproved by which you will see Mr. Willes his false Aspersion wiped away viz. That I sought to colour my Opinion which was against the Baptizing of any infants For not onely my Book testifies my willingness to own my Opinion publickly but I did tell Mr. Willes to his Face that I would prove it unlawful to baptize any Infant as many can witness Mr. Willes in his Letter further tells you That he did decry the Fifth-Monarchy-men among other Sects that cry down their Ministery as the smoak of the bottomless pit smelling strong of the Brimstone of Hell his proof for this is so faint that he suspects it himself for he saith he alluded in that speech to Rev. 9.2 3. by which text he saith such Sects are meant AS SOME DO INTERPRET Is not this a brave stroke do you reckon this one of his fatal blows he hath given the Adversary by telling them their Breath is as the smoak of the bottomless Pit but it is but AS SOME DO INTERPRET Miraris Wilsum rixis implêsse theatrum Ingenio Portae convenit ille suae No marvel Willes pulpit fills with railing and debate Since that we see it doth agree with th' genius of his * Billings-gate gate The last thing of moment that Mr. Willes mentions in his Letter is That he never affirmed upon any information that I was a Jesuite and that he did never instigate any to apprehend mt For proof of this I shall refer you to this Gentleman Mr. Vancourt for a Witness who is ready to make Oath of the truth thereof by which Mr. Willes his untruths appear together with his malice though he cries out of the malice of others This Gentleman is a man known for Piety and to bear a good esteem in the National Ministery and also he is of good Credit in the World and therefore know that it was more just for me to believe his Affirmation then for you to take the Accused's bare Negation Therefore I judge my life would lie at stake if Mr. Willes had as good proof to prove me a Jesuite as I have to prove that he did advertise this Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite This shall suffice to this Letter and to your observation thereon in the later end of your Book I come now to your Epistle Dedicatory wherein you do excuse your flattering of Mr. Willes but what do you else when you tell him you presume to be his Armor-Bearer and in a Complement tell him That you were a spectator of those furious strokes whereby he shattered the choisest Ranks of his Enemies and dealt about such fatal blows that their choisest Champions fell before him c. Why did you not tell your Reader if you do not flatter where those blows were given and those battel 's fought and when it was that this Victory was obtained that you so much glory in and what the Names of those choice Champions were that fell by his fatal blows Methinks if you were a Spectator as you say you were of these great Conflicts you can resolve these Questions that so you may comfort your grieving Reader who yet doth believe your first words that you told him viz. That your Army was routed which you called the host of Israel Your presuming to bear Mr. Willes his Armor shews how little you have of the Armor of God in this Spiritual Conflict and your fighting under his Shield shews how little you have of the Shield of Faith but do you take Mr. Willes his Armor
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
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