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
a man as well reason That Titus was commanded to ordain Elders in every City Ergo there must be none ordained in Country-Villages Again though Preaching be an act of Office as well as Baptizing doth it therefore follow that none may Preach out of Office May not a man as well say That visiting the sick and praying and reproving them that sin and to exhort in private are acts of the Ministers Office as well as Baptizing doth it therefore follow that it is a sin to do these acts out of Office So that it is one thing to do these acts as Christian and another thing to invade an Office that I may do them as an Officer though the later of these be had the former is good Do you not see your rashness now Quest 4 You ask If there be not a third thing that I forget viz. That Approbationers do not preach as gifted brethren nor as lawfully constituted Officers but as having consent of Ministers This you would make out by the similitude of my Boys selling Cheese You say If he be not my Apprentice but is with me upon trial then he doth not sell as he is fit for then you say every one may sell my Cheese that is so fitted neither can he sell as an Apprentice because he is not bound c. Answ Now pray consider this similitude agrees in nothing unless you will say That as the Cheese my Boy vends while he is not my Apprentice is my Cheese and therefore he vends it by my leave and must give me account of it so in like manner the Approbationers you speak of vend those Ministers Sermons that give them leave to preach and not their own If the case be thus indeed I think they ought to have their leave before they vend their Sermons But if my Boy hath Cheese sent him out of the Country and given him by his Father then he may sell it not as my Apprentice for he is not bound nor as my Approbationer for it is none of my Cheese therefore datur tertiam he sells it as he hath right So may any Boy sell Cheese and any Man Preach if his Heavenly Father hath bestowed a Gift upon him Quest 5 Your fifth Query is for the first part of it contained in the later parr of your third Query therefore let that Answer serve that is there given The other part of this Query is contained in the first and second Queries to which Answer is already given onely you ask me Whether I am in office and how I came to it and by whom ordained c. Answ I answer That when I am in Office I shall tell you how I came in in the mean time let this suffice you that I am no Officer and when I am I shall shew you my Authority from a divine institution Quest 6 The former part of this is the same with the later part of the third Question to which Answer is given The next thing then that you demand in this sixth Query is How can he preach by vertue of the Ministers consent in relation to an Office that owns not their power to ordain him c. And how can I be satisfied with the power of the Church to ordain c. Answ I answer to the last first That this is the same with the later part of the fifth Query However know that you might have saved this labour till you had known that I had been for a popular Ordination And to the former part I answer That the Ministers at VVhite-Hall do dayly approve of such mens preaching whom they know to be able and fit though they do scruple to be ordained and do refuse to be ordained yet they do approve of them and not suspend them upon that score if they judge them godly and Orthodox and they seldom ask them that question Quest 7 You go on and ask me to shew some law that a man may exercise part of that Office he is not invested in c. because I query whether a man should sin to preach out of Office because he wants some or hath not all those required qualifications viz. it may be he wants faithful Children or it may be he may be soon angry c. You seem to counterbalance this query of mine by saying There is the same weight in your allegation as why may not a man preach that is a drunkard or hath many wives c. and why doth his Highness turn such men out c. Answ To this I answer letting go many of your impertinencies of my box-making and Souldiering and my being a Cheese-monger as not being at all to the question and do say That though his Highness do turn out Ministers for drunkenness and plurality of Wives and other scandalous offences yet he doth not turn out men from preaching because they have not faithful Children not because they have not so good a command of their passion as they ought but it may be are soon angry neither do the Ministers that are Tryers at VVhite-Hall keep men out that are gifted nor turn men out that are gifted though they have not the later qualifications viz. faithful Children or so good a command of their passion as they ought yet they do keep out and turn out them that are guilty of drunkenness and plurality of wives though their Gifts be never so great So that by the Judgement of his Highness to whom you refer me and the Ministers at White-Hall there is much more reason why a man able and godly may preach that is not ordained and shall refuse to be ordained because he thinks he ought first to obtain some further mastery of his passion or ought to wait till his Children be reformed c. then there is why a scandalous man should preach unordained though he have never so great parts nay I shall presume that his Highness and those Ministers at White-Hall had much rather hear an able unordained Man preach then a prophane Man that is ordained though otherwise of great abilities and yet you tell your Reader That there is as much weight in yours Why may not a man preach that is prophane as there is in my Query viz. Why may not a man that is gifted to preach the Gospel to Edification and Comfort preach out of Office because he findes himself short of that power to rule the Church of God which that Office requires or it may be wants faithful Children or it may be he is soon angry or the like and therefore is not free to take that Office upon him I therefore ask why this good man may not exercise these Gifts out of Office and you say that there is the same foundation for your Why may not a prophane person preach c. This is the sum of my Query and the substance of your Counter-query upon it as the Reader may see by comparing Book to Book Quest 8 You further query If he that preacheth sins in usurping that
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
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