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
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
and fight under his Shield because you so much desire it and I will take the Armor of God and the Shield of Faith to fight against you and shall leave the success of the Victory to God and though you boast upon the putting on of your Armor as though you were so dreadful that your Enemy would flee when he heard of you for by concealing your Name you thought I should never see you yet know that it had been better and more modest for you to have gloried when you had put your Armor off But I am not fled yet and if I do flee I may be easier found upon the flight because my Name is known then you can be who conceal your Name and Place of abode for no other reason that I know of but for fear lest you should be apprehended in your flight You now face about and direct your speech to me and tell me That you hope your rashness is not so great as Eliabs was to David 1 Sam. 17.18 28. if you say that it is my business to carry Loaves and Cheese to the Camp out of the pride and naughtiness of my Heart that I above all others should single out a Champion to encounter with c. If your rashness be not so great as Eliabs to David it seems it is rashness though not so great as not onely your words do intimate but the story you allude to 1 Sam. 17.18 28. by which your Reader may see you compare your self to Eliab and me to David who carried Loaves and Cheese to the Army and the Army that you called the Host of Israel you now compare to the uncircumcised Philistines and the Army that I carry relief to to the Israel of God for such was the Army that David carried Loaves and Cheese to and Mr. Willes the Champion that you say I have singled out to encounter you very craftily compare him to Goliah and by this you justifie me in my Encounter and condemn your self of rashness in judging me for that I carried some small contribution to the Army of the Lord as David did to Israel By this the Reader may see that you had so great a stomach to be nibling at the Bread and Cheese that you had wholly forgot your cause You proceed and tell me That either I uncivilly took Mr. Brookes his work out of his hand or else that I highly valued my self as one that could manage it better First was not all the audience concerned as well as Mr. Brookes in what Mr. Willes delivered since he told them how dangerous it was to hear men that were not ordained Secondly did not Mr. Willes confess that he invited all that had Objections to give them in either in word or in writing Thirdly doth not Mr. Brookes think so of men if he doth not why should you seeing if I have dealt uncivilly he is the person offended Fourthly is not the work still in Mr. Brookes his hands for all that I have said or done Fifthly is it not greater incivility for you to take upon you to answer a particular paper which was particulary directed to Mr. Willes This surely savours more of arrogancy then any thing that I have done You go on and ask five Questions and answer them your self by which it appears you can answer Questions of your own making easier then you can those that are made by another I shall take notice of none but the first and last seeing I have already upon some former occasion taken notice of all the rest In the first Question you suppose me asking who you are Your answer is That truely you are Homo nullius Nominis which being Englished is That you are a Man of no Name Truely Sir I do not blame you for putting no Name to your Book of you say true I had otherwise interpreted this phrase had he put a name to his book that you have no Name But how was this oversight committed that your God-Fathers and God-Mothers did not give you one in your Baptism or are you not yet baptized if you are not was it because your Father was excommunicated or that he was no Christian and therefore you had no right if so you have done enough now to give Mr. Willes a Testimony of your Christianity therefore I doubt not but he will baptize you and that you will in your next be homo nominis Your last Question is But why do you answer me in counter-Queries Having made this Question you thus answer it your self and tell me That you answer by counter-Queries that I may see how easie it is for a fool to ask more questions then a wise man can answer Truely Sir I shall willingly become a Fool for Christ's sake that I may be wise but it seems the foolish things of God hath confounded the wise for you say the fool hath asked more Questions then the wise man can answer Surely this indeed was the reason why you did not answer positively I come to your Queries And first you state the Question as I printed it it being that upon which many of my Questions are grounded Herein you tell me I have dealt ingeniously with Mr. Willes in the right stating of the difference and then you propound your first counter-Query wherein you ask me Quest 1 Whether that is not a sin which is practised as a Gospel-duty and hath no Law or Foundation in the Gospel who hath required these things at your hands Answ I answer That is a sin which is so practiced without a Precept and therefore Mr. Willes and you both do erre in laying men under sin for Preaching without Ordination and in baptizing Infants and in giving the Lord's Supper to prophane and scandalous persons who hath required these and lay-Elders with such-like Innovations at your hands Quest 2 Your second Query you make upon mine is Must not then unordained mens preaching be sinful c Answ I answer No because they have all these Text's here mentioned Mal. 3.16 Heb. 10.25 Heb. 5.12 1 Cor. 14.13 14. 1 Pet. 4.10 to justifie such a Practice but you have none to justifie those things that I object against you in my Answer to your first but to these Texts I shall say more in due place when I come to weigh your Queries concerning them Quest 3 In your next you ask If Titus 1.5 be not an Apostolical institution for ordaining Elders and whether publick teaching be not an act of that Office as well as baptism being both in the same commission Mat. 28.19 c. and whether unordained men are not usurpers of that Office c. This is the sum of your Question Answ To which I answer first That this Text though it did prove ordaining Elders to be an Institution yet it doth not prove that none but such ought to preach for would this be a good Argument Paul left Titus in Creete to ordain Elders in every City therefore none must preach but Elders May not
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
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