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.

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 med∣led 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 suf∣fered me to labour in vain. This was the greatest altitude of my Confidence, and the heighth of my Ambition in that undertaking.

You proceed to an Epistle, where you tell your Reader, That if he be a Friend to Truth, he probably hath ere this been grieved to see the host of Israel routed, &c. and the Ministery SO MUCH shattered, &c. why then do you glory and cry victoria, if the Clergy, which you call the Host of Israel, be routed? should not you mourn, as well as you would have your Reader? but in stead thereof, you blame your Enemy for glorying, as though he had no occasion; and wear the Lawrel your self, wreathing it upon your own brows, as though you had so routed your Enemy, that he would never rally: what need is there for the Reader to grieve, if Mr. Willes hath routed and shattered the choicest Ranks of his Enemies? (unless you flatter Mr. Willes, and deal truely with your Rea∣der) for is not this strange, that you tell your Reader, the Lords Host is routed; and yet flat∣ter with Mr. Willes, and tell him, the Enemy is routed? And by this you may see, that you are so unfit to be an Armour-Bearer in this Warfare, that you justly deserve to be chashiered the Camp for your false Intelligence. For you tell Mr. Willes, the Enemy is shattered; and yet tell your Reader the Ministery are shattered. But is the Clergy shattered? no marvel then that the people are shattered: for, like Priest, like People: a shattered Clergy must not look

for any thing, but a discomposed people. And truely, that is the greatest Truth in your Packet: for how few of them agree in any thing save in the point of Tythes, common ex∣perience can testifie, if you had said nothing.

You go on still in your Epistle, and tell your Reader, That if he be shaken, you have sent him some Counter-Queries, and bid him judge, and try; and then (you say) you hope he will blush at his unconstancy, &c. So he may well, if what you have writ should shake his understanding, then he must needs be one that is carried about with every Airy notion.

You further tell your Reader, That if he be an enemy to truth, he hath triumphed before the victory, &c. How can that be? when you exhort to grieve, because them that you call the Enemy, have routed the Host: what is that less then Vi∣ctory, if you speak Truth?

You go on, and tell your Reader, That if Mr. Brookes or his Church, invited me to be the Patron of their cause, you might guess them to be miserably baffled, &c. First, neither Mr. Brookes nor his Church ever invited me to do them this service; but if they had, if their inviting me to be a Patron to the cause, had argued them to be miserably baffled; how miser∣ably baffled did you fear your self should be in what you had writ, when you begged Mr. Willes to be your Patron?

You tell your Reader, That he cannot expect Mr. Willes should hinder his more serious discussion of this weighty point, to take notice of my slight Queries. This, I confess, is an easie way to confute the strongest Arguments, for a man that is contrary minded, to call them slight; and say, he is not at leasure to answer them. If I had answered you thus, surely men would have judged, you had more strength on your side, then you have.

You go on, and bid your Reader see, if here be not e∣nough to puzzle me, &c. You are now guilty of that which you blamed your Adversary for, but now, viz. of triumphing before the Victory: but it seems then, the end of your wri∣ting was to puzzle, and not to convince your Adversary.

I proceed now to take notice of your Epistle to Mr. Willes, in which you tell him, my grounds are slight, &c. This tri∣umphing of yours, is but like that which Job speaks of, that is but for a moment, Job 20.5.

You demand of Mr. Willes, in what sence he asserted the baptizing the Children of wicked Parents, &c. and you presume he means onely such as are Church-Members, and are not cast out, &c. Truely, either your Church are all good, or else you are partakers of their sins in not casting them out: for I have not heard of one vile person, that the Presbyters have excluded.

There is another Question which you propound to Mr. Willes, viz What were his own words concerning the Fifth-Mo∣narchy-men. About Mr. Willes asserting those words touch∣ing the Fifth-Monarchy-men, I have not wronged him, as hereafter shall appear.

You further ask Mr. Willes, Whether he did positively assert me to be a Jesuite, &c. Surely, you did not think Mr. Willes had so much to do as you made your Reader believe even now, that you ask him so needless a Question: for did I say or intimate that Mr. Willes did positively assert me to be a Jesuite? why did you not ask him whether I had two hands or three? it had been as much to your purpose. But to proceed.

You tell him, That if any thing appear in print in answer to the whole, it will beg his patronage of its cause, &c. If he did not father it, it would be an Orphan, since the true Father will not be known. But doth not your Logick teach me to believe you feared to be miserably baffled, since you thus beg for his Patronage? Surely, you thought your Wine to be mix'd with Water, that you beg Mr. Willes his Bush to hang at your Door, that so it might sell the better, and not be questioned.

The next thing that followeth in your Book is Mr. Willes his Letter, wherein he tells you, That the people were so rude

that it might have proved to my peril, if he had not pacified them, &c. This shews what Spirit your Churches are filled with∣al, that it is perillous for a man to ask a Question among them, though never so soberly: for no man in his wits will believe that they were of Mr. Brookes his Church that were so much my Enemies, seeing (you say) I came to be a Patron to their cause.

Mr. Willes tells you further, That he laid down two Prin∣ciples, as the grounds of my satisfaction:

• 1. That Ministers in an ordinary way were to be ordained by Ministers.
• 2. That in case of necessity, where there was no Ministers to ordain, fit Persons might become Ministers without Or∣dination, &c.

But he doth not tell you, that I asked him by which of these ways he came into the Ministery; and he would not tell me, though I prest him once and again: for though I grant these two ways of Admission, yet I denied that ever he came in by either. Hereupon he told me, If there was but two ways of coming into a House, and if he were in, I must conclude that he came in at one of them. But is not this a shameful begging the Question? for though I granted these two were to be the ways of entrance, yet I denied him to be come in by either. Now what is it but to beg the Que∣stion, 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 Mi∣nister 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 excommu∣nication, &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 excommu∣nicated. 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, touch∣ing 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 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 Cham∣pions fell before him, &c.

Why did you not tell your Reader, if you do not flatter, where those blows were given, and those battels 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 Con∣flict; 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 put∣ting on of your Armor, as though you were so dreadful, that your Enemy would flee when he heard of you, (for by con∣cealing 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 com∣pare

to the uncircumcised Philistines; and the Army that I carry relief to, to the Israel of God, for such was the Ar∣my 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 rash∣ness 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 nib∣ling 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 di∣rected 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 ano∣ther. I shall take notice of none but the first and last, see∣ing 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, that you have no Name. But how was this over∣sight 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 posi∣tively.

I come to your Queries. And first, you state the Questi∣on 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 diffe∣rence; 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 Go∣spel-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 with∣out a Precept; and therefore Mr. Willes, and you both, do erre in laying men under sin for Preaching without Ordina∣tion,

and in baptizing Infants, and in giving the Lord's Supper to prophane and scandalous persons: who hath re∣quired 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, 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 A∣postolical 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 unordain∣ed 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 or∣dain Elders in every City; therefore none must preach but Elders? May not a man as well reason, That Titus was com∣manded 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 Christi∣an, 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 Mini∣sters. 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 no∣thing, 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 Ap∣prentice; 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 up∣on him.

[Quest. 5] Your fifth Query is, for the first part of it, con∣tained 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 re∣lation

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 or∣dain? &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 Ortho∣dox: 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. be∣cause I query whether a man should sin to preach out of Of∣fice, 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 counter∣balance 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 imper∣tinencies 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, be∣cause 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 qua∣lifications, 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 scanda∣lous 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 unor∣dained 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 there∣fore 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 or∣dained 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 Of∣fice? 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 ac∣cording 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 en∣able him, as he may distribute this Worlds Goods: but he ought not to do the one or the other, unless he have receiv∣ed a Gift from God to enable him thereto.

[Quest. 9] You proceed: and whereas I ask whether A∣pollos 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 Pri∣scilla, and those Paul brought with him, &c.

I answer, That our Question is not how few or how ma∣ny 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 Con∣gregation, as vain as you seem to make the consequence. Therefore if he did preach to the people aforesaid, (viz. A∣quila and Priscilla, and those Christians that Paul brought with him) publickly and constantly, then he did preach pub∣lickly and constantly to a Christian-Congregation: but the former is true by your own confession; Ergo, the later fol∣loweth.

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 Of∣fice? &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. True∣ly, 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 instru∣cted 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 Act. 18.

What if I cannot? doth this prove he was ordained at that time? do not you prove it for me, when you suppose in the later end of page 20. That he might preach by necessity; and that there was no Organical constituted Church at this time, and Officers to preach in it? and do you not ask me, Whether the Apostolical Institution was practiced at that time? or, Whether Apollos knew of such a thing as Or∣dination to be had from the Apostles? And do you not further say, Here was evident necessity?

Now for all these questions that your self make, to mani∣fest he was not ordained as Paul was, yet you do presently conclude, that he was ordained a Minister in the same sence as Paul was, at the time that he preached in the Synagogue, Act. 18. and bid me shew if he was not then ordained, and where was he ordained afterwards? when you say your self, There was no constituted Church to ordain; and yet conclude he was ordained at this time. Are not these the Questions you told the Reader would puzzle me? I think it will puz∣zle you to reconcile them, they are so contradictions.

To your three last Proposals touching Apollos, where you urge the preaching of Apollos, rather then Aquila and the Bre∣threns receiving him, Act. 18.27. and his helping them through grace that believed, &c.

These, you say, prove that he was in Office: but it is but your say so. For doth not the Apostle say, Rom. 16. That Aquila and Priscilla were his helpers in Christ? May I not as well conclude, that both these were Officers, because they were helpers in Christ, as you may conclude Apollos was an Officer, because he helped them that did believe? Is not this wild reasoning? and doth the Brethrens receiving Apollos, prove therefore that he was an Officer? then if you should have occasion to go to Geneva, and should be received upon

Willes his Letter of Recommendation; it seems this would prove you to be an Officer: you say, it was such a receiving as is spoken of, Mat. 10.40. where it is said, He that receiveth the Disciples of Christ, receiveth Christ. I answer, That it is also said, Luke 9.48. That he that receiveth a little childe in Christs name receiveth Christ. May I not then as well conclude from he same Scriptures, That every righteous Man, & every Childe that shall be received in Christ's Name, is an Officer in the Church, as you may conclude Apollos was received, according to Mat. 10.40. Ergo, Apollos was an Officer? are these your puzzelling Proposals?

But (say you) why did not Aquila preach rather then A∣pollos?

I demand, whether the mentioning the one doth in rea∣son exclude the other, any more then the Scriptures saying, That he, viz. Apollos, helped them that believed, doth exclude Aquila from this service?

[Quest. 10] You go on, and ask me, Whether those texts proposed in my tenth Query, Mat. 3.6. Heb. 10.25 prove an authoritative act of preaching?

I answer, That this is a needless Question, seeing you say there is no preaching without Authority: and you confess, That according to these Texts, Christians ought to meet to∣gether and exhort one another. Then I demand, whether Christians met together do not make a Church, if they meet to worship God? if so, then you have given away your cause, by telling of us, that they may exhort one another when they are thus met, which is an act of the Ministers Office: so that then it seems unordained Christians may do acts that are acts of the Ministers Office, by your own confession; so that it be done according to rule, which I think ought to be ob∣served in that and all Christian Duties.

[Quest. 11] You proceed, and seem to resolve my eleventh Query; which shews, that if it be sinful for a man to hear one that is not ordained, then did Mr. Willes sin in hearing Mr. Brookes, which he saith is not ordained.

And this you do by asking me, Whether that Mr. Willes may not be called to correct him that is not called to preach? &c.

Here you beg two things: the one is, That Mr. Brook••s is not called to preach; and the other is, That Mr. Willes is called to correct: both which are the main things in que∣stion. But where is your Text that gives M. Willes a tolerati∣on to hear M. Brooks, if to hear him be sinful? And for your si∣militudes which you bring in stead of a proof, do not they in the first place take that for granted which you are to prove, viz. That M. Willes is a Captain, & a Shepherd, and a Physitian? &c. But suppose we pity the poor, and give you that you beg for, viz. that he is a Captain; I demand whe∣ther a Captain, though he may view the E∣nemy, whether he may treat with the Ene∣my; and whether he is not an Offender, if he shall run into the Enemies quarters with∣out leave from his General? and by the Generals leave a Souldier may go as well as he: and if he shall ride from his Troop or Regiment to view the Enemie, is he not a Trans∣gressor?

And for your saying, The Shepherd may withstand the Wolf, though the Sheep ought to run.

Do you not by this make all the Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes to be guilty of their own Blood, in that they chose ra∣ther to burn then run? were not most of those that opposed the Wolf at that time, Sheep and not Shepherds? for, to their shame be it spoken, the poor Sheep stood by it when most of the Shepherds entred a League with the Wolf?

And for your similitude of a Physician, do you not say, That a Physician may visit one sick of the plague, but another man may not? &c.

Doth Christ charge it as a sin upon the Physicians onely, that he was sick, and they did not visit him? or doth he not charge it upon the people in general?

Sir, do you think, that this will excuse you at the day of

Christ, that you did not visit his members, because they were sick of the Plague? By this Rule, it would be a sin in Mr. Willes, to visit any of his Parish that should be sick of the Plague, because he is no Physician. For ought that I know, this is the reason of the device of Lay-Elders, that so when a∣ny is sick, they may send them, and stay at home themselves.

[Quest. 12] In your twelfth Query that you make upon my Question, grounded upon Heb 5.12. you demand, Whether that Text hath the least ground for gifted Brethrens teaching? And all you say first and last amounts but to this, Whether it is understood of actual teaching? &c.

To which I answer, that these Queries grounded upon my twelfth Question, do come so far short of an Answer, that it doth not counter-query the things that I have pro∣posed: for is actual teaching (to use your unknown phrase) any part of our Question? sure there is not such a word from one end to the other. Methinks you speak now like one that is PUZZELED.

But yet for all this, you say, It may be understood of Masters that ought to teach their Families.

I pray, ought not Masters teaching their Families to be a∣ctual teaching? and yet you bid me prove it to be of actual teaching.

But you say, They were not Stewards to provide.

Pray, doth not a Master in a Family teach as a Steward? and is not every good Christian to give an account of his Stewardship? and doth not the Apostle Peter say, 1 Pet. 4.10. of every good Christian, That he is to minister as a good Steward of the manifold grace of God? and yet you are so ig∣norant as to tell us, That the Apostle exhorts to teach, but not as Stewards.

And for your saying, That this Text is spoken in general terms, viz. ye ought to teach, and that therefore it may respect womens teaching in the Church as well as men:

I answer, so it might, if the Scripture had not said, The Wo∣men must keep silence in the Churches, 1 Cor. 14.34. And this he calls a part of their subjection to the Law, which the

Hebrew Women were alwayes instructed in; and there∣fore there was no need of a particular exception in this ex∣hortation.

[Quest. 13] You query from those Queries that I ground upon 1 Cor. 14.1, 24, 31. Why I did not consult the London-Ministers, &c. saying, That it is vain-glory in me to make the world believe that these men have done nothing worthy my re∣gard. &c.

I answer as formerly, If they have done enough, what needs this waste that you make by writing more? could you not in a few lines have referred your Reader to them for the solutions of my Questions, without any more ado?

But further, you ask,If the gifts that these men had, 1 Cor. 14. were not extraordinary?

I answer, What is this to the purpose? for it is no part of my Question, to know whether they preached by Gifts ex∣traordinary or ordinary; but, whether they preached as gifted or by Office, let the Gifts be what they will: for sure∣ly, the greatness of their Gifts could not tolerate them to Preach contrary to a Divine Institution, seeing there was no necessity, it being a constituted Church (as you call it) that had Officers in it.

You go on, and say, That they were Prophets, which (you say) is an Office pro tempore, improperly so called.

Then any one that can prophesie now adays, may preach, by this Argument. But if it be an Office improperly so cal∣led, then they that prophesied are improperly called Offi∣cers: so that then to speak properly, they did speak to edi∣fication and comfort out of Office, and as gifted Bre∣thren.

And for your similitude of a Judge his place, you say, If such a place fall, all the Sergeants about the Town may seek, for it.

Which implies, That there was some great Benefice va∣cant, and that the Apostle would have all the Church to gape for it, when he bids them covet to prophesie; surely, the simile can hold forth little else.

But pray Sir, though all the Sergeants about the Town may lawfully seek for such a place, may all the people about the Town seek lawfully for a Judges place when it falls? for this is the case; all the Church are exhorted to covet Pro∣phesying, and not some particular persons: and therefore you see that the simile is besides the matter, since that all a Church may lawfully covet to Prophesie; but all the people in a Commonwealth cannot lawfully covet the place of a Judge.

[Quest. 14] You say, My fourteenth Query is worth nothing, onely (you say) why may not our whole Church covet as well to be ordinary Officers as to be preaching gifted Brethren? and if because it is monstrous to have so many ruling Heads, is it not (say you) as monstrous to have as many speaking Tongues?

[Answ.] As for your saying, My fourteenth Query is worth nothing: Truely, I might have answered all yours at this rate, had it not been that I feared you would have been wise in your own conceit.

But further, you say nothing, indeed, to that which is de∣manded; but ask, Whether for all men to covet to speak be not to make the Body as monstrous as if they did all covet to be Offi∣cers?

To which I answer, That though they are not all to covet to speak as Officers; yet it doth not follow, but they may all covet to speak as God hath enabled them, to the edifica∣tion of the Body, without making the Body monstrous: for if all were to speak at once, indeed, this were to make the Body of Christ monstrous; but to speak one after another as they are exhorted, to edification and comfort, hath not a∣ny thing in it of a monstrous nature.

[Quest. 15] I come to examine, since Mr. Willes told the people, That it is a sin for any to preach that are not ordained, &c. which of those several Ordinations in Christendome, it is that Christ approves of. Hereupon, after some Que∣stions made touching the business of Ordination, which is not at all to the Question before you, you demand of me, Whether you may not say, That all Ordinations in Christen∣dome

are approved by Christ, that differ but thus circumst anti∣ally? &c.

I answer, Why did you not say so then, That all the Ordi∣nations in Christendome are accepted by Christ, without asking my leave? But then you must know. That the Church of Rome either erre in the essentials of this Ordinance, or in circumstance: if in essentials, then she cannot or••••in at all; if but in circumstance, then if you dare speak out, doth not Christ approve of her Administration of it at this day, by what you say in the later end of this Query? But to pro∣ceed to the next, in which,

[Quest. 16] I demand, If a Man might not lawfully by this Opinion be ordained at Rome? And thereupon you query, Whether I dare say that Rome observes that Gospel purity in this Ordinance?

To which I answer, That this was no part of my Questi∣on, viz. Whether it was as purely; but, whether it may lawfully be obtained there?

But you go on, and say, That the substance may be there, viz. at Rome.

Then, Sir, by your own Maxime it is approved by Christ, since in this Ordinance they do erre but circumstan∣tially.

But you go on, and say, That three things onely excuse in errors circumstantial.

• The first is, when the error is slight, &c.
• The second (you say) is a sincere a••m at the glory of God.
• The third is in case of nocessity, &c. you say, is this our case now? and can we not have it with more purity then at Rome? &c.

Sir, I am not about to ask you, Whether it may not more purely be had; but, whether it may be had lawfully?

But to proceed, It seems then by your Query, if a man doth not think the Church of Rome erres in any thing (as those do that go thither for Ordination) then he being ig∣norant of their errors, may lawfully be ordained there, and that Christ will accept of it: for you say, That a sincere

aim at the substance, with ignorance of the errors in circumstance, will excuse.

So that all that you have said, though it will not justifie a mans going to Rome for Ordination, that knows their er∣rors, and knows there is no necessity to go thither, yet it doth justifie all that are otherwise minded, and are still ig∣norant, by your own confession: for you confess, that Christ accepts of all Ordinations that differ but in circumstance: are you not indulging the Church of Rome? But to pro∣ceed.

[Quest. 17] I demanded, If the Protestant Ordination be the onely lawful Ordination, then which of those, whe∣ther Episcopal, Presbyterian or Independent, be that which Christ approves of, &c. Thereupon you query, Whether you may not say, All are approved by Christ?

But doth all you have said signifie Christ's approbation of all these? have you urged any thing but that which is as dis∣putable as the thing in question; and so endeavour to prove one doubtful thing by another? for you ask me, If that I do not easily see all these, viz. the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and the most sober Independents, own the essence of Ordination, that is, (say you) a setting apart men to the Ministery by Ministers, and that they do practice the purity of that Ordinance by setting apart fit men in a Gospel-way, for those ends a Ministery is appointed, without superstitious intermixtures.

Sir, when you have proved this which you ask me, If I do not easily see, to be in all the Ordinations before menti∣oned, then I shall grant your consequence, viz. That Christ approves all these Ordinations: but in the mean while I deny the Antecedent; for all you say, I might easily see it: but if it was so easie for me to see, why was it not as easie for you to have proved it? is this to reason rationally? or is it not that which a Scholar, that values either credit or conscience, would scorn, viz. to take it for granted all these Ministers are such, and that all their Ordinations are lawful; and then conclude, that Christ owns them all, and give us no Text to prove any thing you say, though the stress

of the Controversie depends upon it.

[Quest. 18] And because I query if all those Ordinations of Episcopacie and Presbytery, &c. were lawful, (as you confess) then why were these Ordinations opposed one to the other, by the several Patrons of them? This was the substance of that Query. You thereupon ask me, If I am not uncharitable to charge the error of one man (meaning, Dr. Taylor, who opposed the Presbyters, as Men that had no power to ordain) upon the rest of the Episcopal way? &c.

To which I answer, That though I cited him for brevity sake, yet I did refer the Reader to his Book called, Episco∣pacie asserted, where he cites the Fathers, and the constant Opinion of the Churches, for the proof of what he saith a∣gainst Ordination by Presbyters; to which you have said nothing, but tell us a story at the third hand of what Bishop Usher told the King of the practice of one particular Church, viz. of Alexandria; and of what the Rubrick saith, and of what Dr. Prid. saith. But to these I may answer, That it is no∣thing to the Opinion of most of the Bishops way, and that not onely in England, but where-ever that Government is practised.

And for your citing the London-Ministers, are not they like to be good Witnesses, seeing they are parties that would fain make all Antiquity speak for the things they profess, that the novelty of them may not be suspe∣cted?

[Quest. 19] In my nineteenth Query I ask, If that the Ordination by Bishops was lawful, why then did the Pres∣byterians throw down Episcopacy, and not rather reform it? This was the sum of this Question. To which, in stead of answering, you ask, If I do still go on in my unchristian charges, whereby you tell me I do not onely lay injustice, but blood upon the head of Presbyterians, &c.

But wherein do I speak any thing unlike a Christian? if that be true as you say, viz. That Episcopal Ordination was good, and that they did practice it in the purity of it, without superstitious mixture, as you confess in your seventeenth

Query, then how do I exhibit an unchristian charge against them, by asking why they did not reform the Government, rather then cashier it? &c.

You go on, and further demand, Whether I dare assert, that the Presbyterians did throw down the Government of Episcopacy, meerly for this error in Ordination? &c.

I answer as before, If they did erre in other things, why were not those reformed, and Ordination by Bishops still preserved, seeing (you say) that their Ordination was in pu∣rity?

But further, how comes this to pass, that in your seven∣teenth Query you say, That Episcopal Ordination was in purity; and yet ask me, Whether that Government was thrown down meerly for the error in Ordination? how can it be in pu∣rity, if it had errors?

And for your saying, That the Anabaptistical Spirits are bloody, witness those in Germany, &c.

I answer, This is an unchristian Charge indeed, and therefore you thought you would cry out first, That others were guilty, that your self might not be suspected: for, what if that story of Germany were true, (which is doubtful in many things) doth not this shew what Spirit you are of, laying the cause of the late Wars, at the Anabaptists Doors? have they not been as serviceable to their Power, to free their Country from slavery, as any, both in Purse and Person? were they the cause of the first and second War in Scot∣land, and the second War in England? was any of them you call Anabaptists in the treasonable Engagement? who of them did joyn to bring in King Charles again, into Scot∣land first, and afterwards into England? was it the Anabap∣tist, or who was it, pray speak out, that made all these Up∣roars both in City and Country?

But lest you should erre for want of Information, let me shew you, That the Presbyters have been inspired with a worse Spirit, to carry on their Presbyterian-Usurpation, then ever the Anabaptists were in Germany; nay, I am sure I

should not be rash, if I should say, The same Spirit which they have cried down in their Adversaries the Jesuites, hath been found breathing in them.

And for proof hereof, I shall refer the Reader to the Hi∣stories and Writings that have been writ by great Patrons of the Presbyterian way. I shall begin with Mr. Knox, who in his History of the Reformation of the Church of Scot∣land, saith, That without the Reformation which they desired, they(meaning the Covenanters) would never be subject to any mortal man. See Knox History of the Church of Scotland, first Impression in Octavo, page 265.

They, viz. the Presbyterians, took away the Queens Coyn∣ing, 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 Usur∣per; 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 Mini∣stery, 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 Pres∣byterian-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 Au∣thority.

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 Peo∣ple, for such as should kill Tyrants, as commonly there is for those, Qui Lupos aut Ursos occiderunt, ant Catulos eorum depre∣henderunt: that have killed either Wolves or Bears, or taken their Whelps.

This Spirit our old Presbyterians in England were in∣spired 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 a∣gainst the Presbyterian-Reformation, so much then sought after by Calvin) then (saith he) the Minister may excommuni∣cate 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 speci∣al 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 O∣bedience. 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 de∣fection from God, to hang up such Rulers as shall draw them from him.

This Doctrine (of killing and deposing Magistrates by a pri∣vate 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, to∣gether 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 Whit∣tingam made a Preface, greatly commending the aforesaid bloody Doctrine.

Now whoever shall compare these passages with the pra∣ctice of Presbytery ever since, both in Scotland and Eng∣lend, 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 Eng∣land 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 who∣ever shall consider of these forecited passages, may con∣clude, 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 in∣serts in Latine in his Margent, out of the Bull of confirma∣tion

of the Jesuites, by Pope Paul the third; which is thus much in English: We judge it expedient for the great Devoti∣on 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 com∣mand 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 fore∣cited 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, print∣ed in the yeer 1640. where, in pag. 1 he saith, He heartily doth congratulate with them, and doth rejoyce at their begun-return to their Mother the Church of Rome, in that they have forsaken the erronious Opinion of the Protestants, concerning the civil Magistrate, and have happily (in that particular) joyned with the Church of Rome.

And in the same page he saith, That they, viz, the Pres∣byterians, have so well begun at the Head, the civil Magistrate, that they trust they will imbrace the other members of the Roman Doctrine.

By which the Reader may see that the Presbyters have sought to climbe into their Authority, by the Jesuites steps, though now they cry out against the same things: which makes me remember an old saying, which is verified in the

Presbyters, though it hath been applied to Princes.

Presbyters inthron'd, when once their turns are ended, Throw down those stairs by which themselves ascended.

[Quest. 20] But you proceed to the twentieth Query, and therein you tell me, That Bishops did not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers: in answer to my twentieth Query.

But how do you prove they did not ordain as Bishops? This is a figment of your own brain: for if they did it as Ministers, why then might not any Minister have ordained, as well as they? but they never suffered any such thing among them.

And for your saying, That they were lawful Ministers of Christ, and therefore you do not distrust his promise of being with them.

What an Argument is this? may not any body by this Argument cry up themselves for Ministers, (as too many now adays do) and say, That Christ will be with them to the end of the Would?

Therefore before you go to prove that which I deny not, prove that which is denied, that they are Christ's Ministers: but if they be your Brethren, the Presbyterians have done very ill to throw them out of their Livings, and ex∣pose their Wives and Children to penury and want, while they enjoy their Places and Revenues. Did ever Christ's Ministers turn any out of their places, that they judged Christ's Ministers? or did ever any of them come to take the profits of another's living without his consent which was the incumbent, then they judged the incumbent Christ's Minister? and yet these things have been done without blushing. So that though you say, Christ hath not devested them of their power, sure some body hath devested them of their profits.

[Quest. 21] In the twenty one Query I demand, why a man may not still go to the Bishops for Ordination, if that their Ordination be of God, since their Authority was never

taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way? which is the sum of this Question: whereupon you query, What I mean by taking away Authority.

I answer, When they shall be devested thereof, by the Church, for scandalous and enormous crimes.

You ask, If Episcopal Authority of ordaining as Ministers, is not founded upon Gods word?

I answer, first, If Episcopal Authority to ordain as Mini∣sters be absurd, then it cannot be grounded upon the Word of God; and that it is so, appears: for is it not ab∣surd for you to say, That the Bishops Authority is of God to ordain Ministers; and yet say, That they must not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers? for if Episcopal Authority be of God, then they may lawfully ordain as Bishops: for all will confess, That a man may lawfully exercise any Authority that comes from God.

Therefore, how ridiculous are you to confess, That E∣piscopal Authority is of God; and yet say, they must not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers?

And to the later part of your Counter-Query, about the purity of Ordination, I have already answered, by shewing you how shamefully you beg the Question, by taking it for granted, that your Presbyterian-Ordination is a purer Or∣dination then any other, when for the proof thereof, you have not alledged one Text nor Argument, through your whole Book.

For the third particular in this Question, I shall answer that when I come to speak to the twenty seventh Query.

[Quest. 22] I demand in my twenty second Query, If that Christ had ever two Ordinations in his Church, one contrary to the other; and yet both lawful: for such is the state of E∣piscopacy and Presbytery.

In your counter-Query to this, you talk of Logick, and in∣deed you do but talk of it: for had you observed the Rules of Logick, you would never have begged Questions in stead of answering and proving them.

But how doth it appear, that I say any thing that is illo∣gical

in the last Question, if I do say, The Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordinations cannot be both of Christ's ap∣pointment, since they contradict one another? But you think to salve this sore by telling us, That they are not contra∣dictious, since they both agree in an Ordination by Ministers, and differ but in circumstances, &c.

To this I answer, That they so differ, that where any hath been ordained by meer Presbyters, it hath (in most parts of the Christian World) been esteemed as a rullity: and where Presbyterian Ordination hath been allowed, it hath been but in case of necessity, as appears by the English Bi∣shops Confession to the Bishops of Scotland.

That it hath been adjudged a nullity, viz. Ordination by Presbyters, I prove, first, from the testimony of Hierom: What (saith he) doth a Bishop, that a Priest doth not, EXCEPT ORDINATION? Chrysostome saith the same: A Bishop (saith he) exceeds a Priest ONELY IN ORDINATION. Athanasius, speaking of Ischyras, who profest to be a Priest, saith, That he did but boast himself to be one: for (saith he) he is in no sort to be approved of, seeing he was not ordained by a Bishop, but by Coluthius, a Presbyter.

And the Councel of Alexandria, speaking of the same Coluthius, saith, That he died in the SIMPLE DEGREE OF A PRESBYTER; and therefore all the impositions of hands exercised by him were null; and that all those that were ordained by him were but lay Persons; and under that name and title of lay-Persons, they were admitted to the Holy Com∣munion.

Again, Epiphanius reckons Ordination by Presbyters as an Arrian Heresie, Her. 75. in as much as Arrius held, That the Presbyters might ordain as well as Bishops, &c.

And further he saith, That the Episcopal Order is to beget Fathers to the Church; whereas the Priestly (or Presbyterian) Order is to beget Children by the Laver of Regeneration: and therefore (saith he) they (meaning the Presbyters) cannot or∣dain

nor beget Fathers and Doctors to the Church, &c.

Augustin, Haeres. 53. blames the Arrians for that they had learned of one Arrius, to confound the Order of Priest and Bishop.

Is it not plain then, that you endeavour to delude your Reader, by saying, That there was no contradiction touching this matter, and that it was the error of one man, meaning Dr. Tay∣lor? when, indeed, your ignorance is very great, if you say, He was alone in this matter. By this 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 contra∣diction; 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 In∣dependent-Ordination? You hereupon tell your old tale, viz That you cannot believe by what I have urged, any Or∣dination to be according to Rule, but what is done by Mini∣sters.

To which I answer, That this was no part of my business in the Questions proposed, from first to last: for all my bu∣siness 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 confes∣sion,

appeared as publickly for that which you call Ana∣baptism? Do you not tell your Reader, That I did pub∣lickly appear at the Disputation held at Clements, without Tem∣ple-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, Whe∣ther 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 frequent∣ly asserted, viz. That the Ordination by Bishops or by Presby∣ters, 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 can∣not. 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 Sub∣ject, I might had understood, that he was not rigid for Episco∣pacy, Presbytery, nor Independency; but for a Moderation, &c. and that Ordination any of these ways was good, seeing the diffe∣rence 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 Or∣dinations 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 Que∣stion.

However, if Mr. Willes doth well in being indifferent in this matter, how evilly hath the generality of our Presby∣terians spent their time about such trifling circumstances, while the more weighty matters have been neglected? for how furiously have they opposed the Episcopal and Inde∣pendent 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. Ed∣wards his Gangraena, wherein he as much condemns ordained Ministers in the Independent way, as any other Sect what∣ever; 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 Ordi∣nations be true.

[Quest. 26] I further demand, Whether Mr. Willes his Or∣dination 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 suc∣cession 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 necessi∣ty; if the Line of Succession was broke, then I am a Mini∣ster 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 Or∣ders, 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 Ar∣gument to prove any company of men that shall depart from Rome to be a true Ministery, as well as any that you plead for? though they should run from the errors of Rome, into other errors that were as bad or worse.

But I therefore answer further, That though a man can∣not be a true Minister but by one of these ways, it doth not therefore follow, (as I have already shewed in my Answer to Mr. Willes his Letter, at the beginning of this Book) that Mr. Willes is a Minister either of these wayes. For though I grant these two to be the wayes of admission into the Mi∣nistery, yet I do deny him to be entred by either of them, though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers: for I do deny, that they were true Ministers of Christ either way, or that they had either a lawful Succession or neces∣sity

to authorize them. But of this more anon.

[Quest. 27] I demand, If Mr. Willes be a Minister by succes∣sion, whether he did not succeed from Rome?

You thereupon demand, Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome?

Your first Reason is, Because the corruptions of the first Re∣ceivers could not null this Ordinance, &c.

To which I answer, What if that be granted? That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance, this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism, or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully, after they have been separated from for their corruptions.

But your second Reason saith, That the corruption of the Dispensers, could not make the succession cease.

And this you would prove by many similitudes: you say, The Law doth not lose its force, if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge, &c.

I answer, If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness, then though the Law doth not lose its force, yet this Judge hath no power to administer it: so I say of your Ordination, That if you had justly ejected the Pope, he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ, no more then a Judge that is thrown out hath power to ad∣minister the Law of the Land. Thus your simile makes a∣gainst you.

And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite, whence you would infer, That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administred by them.

I answer, That it is true, That so long as their sins are like your Name, unknown, if they do administer Ordi∣nances they may be valued; but what if their sins are known, and that they shall be rejected as Hereticks or as scandalous Persons, have they then any power to admini∣ster sacred things?

This Answer will serve for all the rest of your simili∣tudes.

But further, If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Hereticks, and the Church of England had ejected her, and separated from her, and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist, as indeed they did, then it followeth from Scri∣pture, That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them: for the Scripture saith, Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church, he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publi∣can.

Now then, if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry, it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge, and be ordained by him; as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it: and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church, then are you very wicked, in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body; if they are not of the Body, then any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they.

And this is not my single Opinion, but it hath been the Opinion of former times: for Athanasius saith, in Epist. de Conciliis, By what right can any be Bishops, that do receive their Ordination from Hereticks?

And further he saith, That it is impossible that Ordina∣tions made by Secundus, being an Arrian, could have any force in the Church of God.

And further, If the Pope be rejected as that great Anti∣christ, it cannot be imagined, that he whom all the Pro∣testants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory, as lawfully to or∣dain and impower men to preach Christ. So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome, and reject them as Here∣ticks; or if you did, you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination.

And further, the Protestant Calvinists in France, say, in the Confession of their Faith, Confes. Art. 21. That their Calling is extraordinary; and do confirm the same by their

practice, in that they ordain anew, such Priests as revolt from Rome: but if the corruption of the Dispensers did not make their Ordination a nullity, then there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church.

And Mr. Whitaker is of this minde: for saith he, We would not have you think, that we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them.

And Mr. Fulk, that famous Opposer of Rome, tells them, That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops, Priests and Deacons-better then Lay-Men. And further, Mr. Fulk saith, That with all our heart we (meaning the Pro∣testants) abhor and detest all your stinking greasie Antichristian Orders. And yet other of you glory in your succession.

See the contradictions among your selves! who of you shall a man believe?

So that if I say, You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome, seeing they were by you judged Hereticks, and such as were deservedly excluded; I have the Scripture of my side that saith, You should esteem such as Heathens. I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old. I have some of the reformed Churches, and therein many very famous both at home and abroad, which are of my minde.

Your last Argument you bring to this Point is, That Chri∣stianity was profest, and therefore you ask me, If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here, &c.

Whence you infer, If they were true believers, then there was a Church; and if a Church, then there must be a Ministery, because (you say) Christ promised, Ephes.4.11, 12, 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministery till they come to be a per∣fect man, &c.

If this be a good Argument, why do you rail against the

Anabaptists? For dare you say, There is not true believers among them? if there be, then by your Logick they are a Church; and if a Church, then they must have Christ's promise fulfilled, and they then must have a true Ministery, till they come to be a perfect man.

By this Rule, Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church, and must have a true Ministery, or else you must say, The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers.

[Quest. 28] I demanded in my twenty eighth Query, Whe∣ther the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her, as when they received their Or∣dination 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 fur∣ther 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 be∣fore Austin the Monk, were not brought into communi∣on 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 de∣rived from the British Succession, if you did not know whe∣ther they did bow their knee or no. But if what you said be∣fore 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 ex∣ercised 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, 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 Ad∣ministration 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 Ordi∣nances, 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 Ordi∣nance, 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 Ordina∣tion of Ministers is a holy Ordinance, that will excuse Apo∣states

in administring of it, or you in receiving such Admi∣nistration.

Remember therefore this example of Korah, and do not you partake of Korah's sin; for though the Censers were ho∣ly, 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 ad∣minister 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 no∣thing 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 unclean∣ness, &c.

Which is not any part of my Question: for though my Accounts are not to be disowned because my boy hath blot∣ted 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 mo∣ney from him, or take 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 wea∣pon 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 Questi∣ons? &c.

I answer, That you had need go to School to learn to di∣stinguish between an Hypothetical and a Categorical Propo∣sition: 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 commu∣nion.

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 Mi∣nister 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 in∣formation, 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 Mini∣sters of the Nation have to plead a necessity to preach with∣out Ordination.

The substance of your Counter-Query to this, as it re∣lates 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 com∣munion 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 Ordina∣tion, since they might have been ordained by the reformed Churches in other Countries, which had forsaken Rome be∣fore them.

And thirdly, if Necessity may be a Warrant to them at that time, it was as good a Warrant to other Sects that re∣volted 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 Con∣gregation, 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 Mini∣ster 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 un∣dertake 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 con∣siderable 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 Ordi∣nation on foot now, but what men take up by Necessity, &c.

This is the substance of the question.

To which you say nothing, but what hath been said and answered; only you demand, Whether there may not be a lawful succession from those that first took upon them this Office by Neces∣sity? and whether any in an ordinary lawful way can be in office, but those that have it from that succession? &c.

To this I answer, That if what you here suppose be true, then why did not our first Reformers go to the Ministers of other reformed Churches for Ordination, rather then take it from Mr. Scory, and that Faction? since there was divers reformed Churches where they might have been ordained without receiving it from Rome, or without putting them∣selves into the Office upon a pretended necessity.

So that if what you say be true, That there may be a law∣ful succession from those, who first became Officers by vertue of a necessity, and that it is sinful to pretend to necessity afterwards; then our first Reformers cannot plead Not Guilty, since (as I have said) there was no necessity for them to own an Ordi∣nation

from Rome, because they might have have had it in more purity from those you call the reformed Churches, which had separated from the Church of Rome before England.

And secondly, There was no necessity for them to become Officers whithout Ordination, no more then there is now, because there were many reformed Churches in being, to which they might have applied themselves for Ordination, as in France and Germany, &c.

Lastly, if there was no true Church in the world that had power to ordain our new Bishops; but they must make use of that which they received from Rome, and that this be a lawful Ordination, as you confess; then you must needs say, That the Churches of France, Germany, Geneva, Scotland, &c. were no true Churches, and had no true and lawful succes∣sion; or if they had been true reformed Churches, either by succession or necessity, why then did not our first Reformers go to some of these to be ordained? and since they did not, doth it not manifestly appear, that they were not true Mini∣sters by succession, because they received Ordination from Rome, whom you call a Harlot, when they might have had it from the Ministers of the reformed Churches then in being? and because there was reformed Churches in being, where they might have been ordained, they had no reason to plead to any necessity then of preaching without Ordination, any more then Mr. Brooks and others have, whom Mr. Willes and you condemn.

[Quest. 40] I come now to the fortieth Question that I propounded, which demands what Ground Mr. Willes had to baptize the children of wicked parents? &c. And to this you say nothing but what I have answered already; only you beg a question, viz. That children have a right to be members of a visible Church. Which when you have proved it, viz. That infants, while they are in infancy, have an immediate right to be members of a Church in the new Testament, I shall con∣fess they may be baptized; but till then, I shall be against the baptizing any infant, for all you think I would conceal my Opinion in this matter.

[Quest. 41] In the next place I demand, Whether to bap∣tize the children of wicked parents, be not contrary to the Opinion of the reformed Churches? You reply, That in the sense M. Willes doth assert the baptizing of the children of wicked parents, it is lawful. To which I answer, That I have replied to Mr. Willes his sense about the baptizing the children of wicked parents, in my Answer to his Letter, at the begin∣ning of this Book. All that you say to this question, besides what I have answered, doth appertain to some practices of Mr. Brooks, which I shall not meddle with, because I am not acquainted with them, only I take notice, that in p. 48. of your Book, before you end this question, you say, That if the Ministery of England be Antichristian, then it will follow, that those that they have baptized are unlawfully baptized, &c. How shamefully do you contradict your self? did you not say be∣fore, That the corruptions of the dispensers of Ordinances could not make the Ordinances a nullity, though the Administrator was Antichristian? And do you not now in effect say, That bap∣tism is a nullity, if the Administrator be Antichristian? for you say, If the National Ministery be Antichristian, (as Mr. Brooks saith) it will follow, that it is unlawful. Do you not now justifie all that I have said, viz. If the first Reformers were ordain∣ed by Antichristian Ministers, that then it followeth, that their Ordination is a nullity; and that till they are ordain∣ed again, they all of them preach without Ordination from Christ? Thus the Reader may see, that rather then you would want an arrow to shoot at M. Brooks, you would borrow one out of my quiver; and you do as good as confess as much, when you conclude, and say, That your heart trembleth, and you heartily wish, that you could not plead so strongly, to sadden honest hearts, to please me, and such as I am. It seems then, your conscience told you, That you had given away your cause to the grief of your self and others, because you could not help it; and therefore you wish heartily, that you COULD not plead so much, to please such as I am. So that it seems, you are now forced to yield to your own grief and others of your friends, which you call honest hearts, &c. it seems then, the truth is too strong for you. But to proceed.

You come now to make Counter-queries, upon my 42, 43, 44, and 45 Queries that are grounded upon Mr. Willes his decrying the Fifth-Monarchy-Men, as the smoak of the bottomless pit: to this I have already given answer. And to the Counter-queries you propound upon my 46 questi∣on, touching Mr. Willes his Discourse with me in private, I have already answered in my Reply to M. Willes his Letter.

And for your Counter-query that you make upon my 47 question about Mr. Willes his perswading a Gentleman to ap∣prehend me for a Jesuite, though you say, I am too blame to re∣ceive an information from one man, &c. Sure you are more too blame to believe the Accused's bare negation: but for the truth of what I object against M. Willes, viz. That he did desire a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuite; I shall refer the Reader to the Gentleman aforenamed, who is ready to make oath for his further satisfaction.

And for your saying, That I did live a concealed life about London for many yeers; and therefore there might be some ground for people to suspect me. Truely, I think there is more reason why I should suspect you, who are so concealed, as that you refuse to let your Name or place of abode be known; I am sure, this I never did upon any occasion in all my life.

I come now to take notice of 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 threat∣ned to throw me over the Gallery for asking M. Willes a que∣stion; and not onely those, but such as make a gain of god∣liness, 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 in∣fallible way of reasoning. In the second place, you tell your Reader, That those that have designs against the truth, have usu∣ally 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 discover∣ed 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 Go∣spel. Would you have had your designs plausible, you should never have discovered the Pedegree of your Clergy, by cal∣ling 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 er∣rors, will for the most part oppose, but seldom assert, &c. To this I reply, That this is the reason you answered by counter-que∣ries; and that rather then you would assert any thing posi∣tively, 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 contra∣dictions 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.

Notes

• See his Epistle to Mr. Willes.
• Billings-gate.
• I had otherwise interpreted this phrase, had he put a name to his book
• Mal. 3.16 Heb. 10.25. Heb. 5.12. 1 Cor. 14.13, 14. 1 Pet. 4.10.
• From which you in∣fer, that the Capt the Shepherd, & the Phy∣sician may do that which is not lawful for every body, Ergo Mr. Willes may.
• Epist. ad Evagri∣um, Hom. 11. in 1. ad Timot. ini∣tio.
• Apolog. 2. Epist. Presbyt. ad fla∣vi.
• See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholick, p. 50
• Witness those that were slain at Bangor.