Confidence questioned: or, A brief examination of some doctrines delivered by M. Thomas Willes of Bottolphs Billings-Gate, in a sermon preached by him at Margrets New-Fish-Street, the 7th of Decemb. 1657.: Also, some questions touching his pretended call and authority to preach the Gospel. By Jeremiah Ives.

ONe thing asserted by you, was, That it was not law∣ful for any to preach ordinarily and constantly, but such as were ordained, except it was for approbation, or in cases of ne∣cessity, when such Ordination cannot be had.

The first Question that I desire to be resolved in, is,

Whether any thing can be charged as sin upon any, but what is against a Divine Law? since the Apostle saith, Rom. 4.5. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression. 1 John 3.4. Sin is the transgression of a Law.

2. Whether by any Law of God it is a sin for men that are gifted for the Ministry, to preach the truth of Christ to the Edification of their Brethren, although they were not put up∣on it by reason of your supposed necessity, or though they should never be ordained to Office.

3. If there be any Law manifesting such a practise to be sinful, pray tell me where that Law is written; that so I may see my error, and reform.

4. If there be a liberty for gifted men to preach in order to their approbation for Office, as you confess, pray tell me whether they do not preach in the capacity of gifted Bre∣thren before their Ordination; since they cannot preach by vertue of Office, while as yet they are not in it.

5. If they preach as gifted Brethren before their Ordina∣tion, then I quere, How long they may thus preach till their preaching becomes sinful?

6. If you say, Till the Ministry or Presbyters approve them, and are very well satisfied with their abilities and qualifi∣cations for that imployment: then I quere, How if this man whom they approve of, is unsatisfied with their power to ordain him; is it then a sin for him to preach till he is sa∣tisfied with their power?

7. How if a man be gifted and enabled to preach the Gospel to edification and comfort, and yet finds himself very short of a power to rule the Church of God as that Of∣fice requires, or it may be wants faithful Children, such as

are not accused of ryct; it may be he hath not power over his passion, but may be soon angry, &c. which are those qua∣lifications that Paul tells Timothy and Titus MUST be found in such officers: see 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Titus 1.6, 7. I quere from hence, Whether a man should sin to use those gifts (God hath blessed him withal) out of Office, because he hath not all those qualifications that are required, before he be admitted to Office.

And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained, except as before excepted, I quere,

8. Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained? if so, shew me where that Law is to be found.

9. Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel, as is recorded, Act. 18.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. publickly and free∣quently; and whether he could be an Officer of the Church at that time, seeing he knew ONELY the baptisme of John, or was not acquainted with the baptisme of the Spirit? therefore pray shew us that he was at this time an Officer, or else that he preached for approbation to it, or that he preached by vertue of any necessity. By vertue of necessity he did not preach: for, there were able Christians before, such as the Text saith did instruct him. And if he preached at this time as an Officer, or for approbation thereunto, pray shew h••w that appears.

10. It is said, Mal. 3.16. that THEY that feared the Lord SPAKE OFTEN one to another, &c. And Heb. 10 25. It is required that we should not forsake the assembling of our selves together, but exhort one another dayly, &c. whe∣ther by the light of these Texts it doth not appear, 1. That Gods people ought to meet often together. 2. That they may and ought to exhort one another, being thus assem∣bled. 3. Whether by one another we are not to under∣stand any one that hath a word or gift of Exhortation, as well such as are no Officers, as those that are?

11. Is it not written, Rom. 2.1, 2. Therefore thou art inex∣cuseable,

Oman, whosoever thou art that judgest; for where∣in thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self: for thou that judgest doest the same things. Vers. 3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God? Vers. 22. Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacriledge?

Whether by the light of these Scriptures, your darkness is not discoverd, who told the people how sinful and dan∣gerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks; when your self hath heard him once and again? And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice, will not be arguments to justifie others, as well as you? And since you cried the hearing of such Men down, as a general evil, without any exception; pray tell me, (let your pretence in hearing be what it will) how can you do evil that good may come? And whether, by the same pretence that you can make to hear Mr. Brooks, (if to hear him be sinful, which is not yet proved) any man may not hear in an Idols Temple, or eat meat in an Idols Tem∣ple, and so cause his weak brother to be emboldened in his way, and make him to perish for whom Christ died, contrary to that in 1 Cor. 8.10, 11.

12. It is said, Heb. 5.12. That when for the time ye OUGHT to be teachers, &c. I query from hence, Whether here is not a Duty required, and whether that Duty be not Teaching? Again, whether the persons that the Text saith, OUGHT to teach, were not members out of Office? if so, then I query, whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in publick Assemblies, as in private Families: since neither this, nor any other text, makes the one any more unlawful then the other: pro∣vided, they have abilities to the one as well as to the other.

13. It is said, 1 Cor. 14.1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts; but rather that ye may PROPHESIE, &c. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL prophesie, and there come in one that believeth not, &c. and V. 31 Ye may ALL prophesie one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

From these texts I query, whether that this was a prophe∣sying

by Gift or Office? if it shall be said, It was by Offices; then I query, whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office? If it shall be said, That it was by extraordinary Of∣fice, then it follows, That the Apostle exhorted the whole Church, to covet after extraordinary Offices, when he ex∣horted them to follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that THEY might PROPHESIE, v. 1.

14. If it shall be said, That Prophesying here, was an or∣dinary Office; than it follows, That the whole Church are exhorted to covet to be ordinary Officers: which would be, to make the whole Body of Christ monstrous. If it shall be said, That they were not exhorted to Prophesie, as extra∣ordinary, or as ordinary Offices, then I query, whether they were not to do it as gifted Brethren? since we never heard of any other way.

15. Whereas you say, That none ought to preach, but those that are ordained, except as before excepted, I que∣ry: Among those several Ordinations that are in Christen∣dom, which of those, whether some one of them, or all of them, be that which Christ approves of? If you say, All of them; and that the errors of the Administrators in some Circumstances, doth not make the Ordination a Nullity: then I query,

16. Whether one may not by this Opinion, be lawfully ordained at Rome?

17. If you shall say, The Protestant-Ordination is lawful, and that only; then I query, which of those, whether the Episcopal, Presbyterian or Independent-Ordination, be that which is approved by Christ to impower the Ministers to Preach? since all these are Protestants, and greatly differ in this thing▪

If you say, All of these are lawful; then were not the Ministers of the Episcopal way greatly out, in crying up the Ordination by Bishops to be the onely Authoritative Ordination, in opposition to that of the Presbytery? And that they did so, will appear, if you consult Dr. Jer. Tay∣ler, Chaplain to the late King, in his Book called Episcopacy

asserted, page 120, 121, 122. It is cleer (saith he) that Bishops were to do some acts which the Presbyters COULD NOT do; one of which he calls Ordination by imposition of Hands, which he saith was not to be done by Presbyters. Again, the said Doctor saith, That the Apostles did impse Hands for confirmation, which (saith he) was to continue in the Church; and could not be done by the seventy, or any MEER Presbyter. And for this he cites the constant practice of the Fathers, and the Opinions of divers Churches. Therefore pray tell me if this be that Ordination which a man must have, with∣out which his Preaching is sinful?

19. Again, if you say, All or any the forementioned Or∣dinations be lawful, then how vain a thing was it for the Presbyterians, to throw down the Government of Episco∣pacy? why did they not rather reform it then cashier it, seeing it was a power by which Ministers might have been authorized to preach, according to God's Ordinance?

20 If the Bishops, as Bishops, had this lawful Power, when did any Power from Christ devest them?

21. If Episcopal Authority were of God, as the Bishops pretend, why may not a man lawfully go still to them for Or∣dination, in case this Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way?

22. If you say, That both Presbyterian and Episcopal Or∣dination is lawful; then I query, whether that Christ ever erected two ways of Ordination of Ministers, one contrary to the other, and yet both lawful? for such is the state of Epi∣scopacie and Presbytery in England one saith that the Pres∣bytery hath no power to ordain, the other saith they have.

23. If it is that Ordination that is among the Indepen∣dents, then we have that we run for: then if one have their suffrage and Ordination, and this be lawful, (which I think you will not say) then wherein is Mr. Brooks in this to be condemned?

24. Again, If you say, That Ordination by the Presbytery is the onely Ordination; then where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty yeers ago?

25. Is it not very strange that you should tell the people they sin, in hearing those that are not ordained, when you never tell them, whether you mean any Ordination may serve, nor what Ordination of those divers kindes it is that God approves of?

26. Since you say, That none ought to preach, but they must be ordained, except as before excepted; then I query, whether your Ordination be derived from the Line of Suc∣cession, or whether it had its Original from Necessity, be∣cause such an Ordination by Succession could not be had? This Question is grounded, partly upon what you preached, partly upon what you granted me at your House, viz. That where it cannot be had from a lawful successi•••• power, there a man may lawfully officiate in the Office of the Ministery without it, and that because he is put upon it through necessity. Since therefore (you say) there is but these two ways by which a man may be justified in preaching, or the people in hearing; I query now (as I did at your House) by which of these two ways came you into the Ministery? for you told us, That none could pretend to Necessity, when it might be had by Succession.

27. If you say, By Succession; then surely you succeed from Rome: if so, then I query, whether the Church of Rome was the Spouse of Christ, and her Ministery and Ordinances the Ministery and Ordinances of Christ, when your Prede∣cessors received their Ordination from them? if so, then,

28. Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her, as she was when they re∣ceived Ordination from her, which was but a little before?

29. If you shall say, Here was a Succession of British Mi∣nisters in England before the Papal Power had to do here, or before Gregory the Pope sent Austine the Monk to convert the Saxons; then I query, whether all those Ministers were not brought into subjection to the Papal Power, and so were swallowed up in the See of Rome? If not, then,

20. Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England, who were separated from the Church of Rome? if

there was, shew us where that Church was all the time the Papal Power was exercised here, and who were they that go∣verned it; and also how your Ordination proceeded from this reformed, rather then from the Papal Line?

31. If you say, It came from Rome, and not from that pre∣supposed Succession; then I query, if Rome was a little before Hen. 8 's time intrusted with the Administration of Christ's Ordinances, as a Church of Christ, whether it was not your sin to leave her as a cage of every unclean thing?

32. If you say truly of her, (as indeed you do) that she was the cage of every unclean thing; how then could she dis∣pense at that time so sacred an Ordinance as Ordination of Gospel-Ministers is by you judged to be?

33. If you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 She had power as a Church, and you did separate because of her corruptions, that you might serve the Lord with more purity; then I query, whether you are not guilty of that evil your self, (if yet it be an evil) which you charge upon Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt & maimed?

34. Whether it hath not been common for those of your way, to separate from the Papists, and yet take their Tythes, and (to use your own phrase) sheer those lame and diseased Sheep, which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you?

35. If you say, They might (if they would reform) have com∣munion with you; I query then, whether this very Objecti-that causeth you to exclude Papists, be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants and other pro∣phane people, viz. because they do not reform?

36. If you shall deny this Succession, and say, That there was none, and that it was lost; then I query, whether this be not a singular and private Opinion of your own, differing from the rest of your Brethren?

37. If that Ordination from Rome, and receiving holy Or∣ders from thence, was thrown off upon a politick account, as doubtless it was at first, though since we have declined it upon more religious considerations) then I query, how any body could pretend to the Argument of Necessity to preach without Ordination?

38. Whether or no, when the Line of Succession was broke, it was not lawful THEN for every one to preach that could; although it might not have been lawful before? be∣cause Necessity puts one lawfully upon that work, where a successive Ordination cannot be had, by your own Maxim.

39. If it were true (as you say) that none ought to preach while the successive Ordination of Christ remains un-inter∣rupted, but such as are lawfully ordained, (which is the great thing in question) how doth it become a sin for men that are gifted to preach, since there is no such Ordination now on foot, but that which men put themselves upon through ne∣cissity, and want of the other by Succession?

40. Whereas you say, You can baptize the children of wicked Parents; I query, what Ground you have in Scripture so to do?

41. Whether to baptize the children of wicked Parents, be not contrary to the Opinion of those which your self calls the reformed Churches?

42. Whereas you said, That the Fifth-monarchy-men were as the smoak of the bottomless pit, and that their Prin∣ciples did rase the Foundation of Religion; I query, whe∣ther they were not called Fifth-monarchy men, because they did believe, that when the Caldean Monarchy, and the Mo∣narchy of the Medes and Persians, and the Grecian and Roman Monarchy should be wholly extirpated, that then the Lord himself should set up a Fifth monarchy, which should succeed these four, of whose kingdom there should be no end; according to that of Dan. 7.23, 24.

43. If this principle were grounded upon this and such∣like sayings in Scripture, what reason had you to cry out a∣gainst it?

44. If you say, It was because of the evil practice of some of them in these later times; I do thereupon query, If this be a good Argument: Some of their practices were bad; Ergo, their principle is bad. Whether a man might not have said the same both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian way, since that some of them were such as engaged the Nation in War

and Blood, more then ever those were like to do you call Fifth-monarchy-men? but this surely is un-man-like rea∣soning.

45. Whereas you would seem to blame Mr. Brooks for harsh Judgement, I query, whether your Judgement was charitable when you decried the Fifth-monarchy-men as so many monstrous Hereticks, that rase the Foundation, without any kinde of exception; especially considering what Ground there is for it in God's Word, & also that it was the Opinion of many men both ancient and modern: for Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius the Emperour, asserts the thou∣sand yeers Reign of Christ upon Earth: and he further saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon, that it was the belief OF ALL CHRISTIANS exactly Orthodox. And of later times, we have Mr. Robert Matton, Mr. Archer, Mr. Mead, Doctor Twisse, Mr. Ephraim Hewit, Mr. Parker of New-England, Doctor Homes, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and Mr. Jo∣seph Caryl, who upon his perusal of Doctor Homes his Book, saith, That it is Truth confirmed by Scripture, and the testimony of ancient and modern Writers of all sorts.

46. And whereas you told me when I was at your House, you would stop my mouth; I cannot think you meant to stop my mouth with sound Arguments; for that you refuse to do, though I did desire it of you once and again: and if you meant to do it, it must be either by a secular power, or ani∣mating the people to rudeness; for I know no other way, seeing you refused the first: then I query, whether in so do∣ing (supposing me to have erred) you walk according to that Rule that tells you, that with meekness you should instruct those that oppose themselves, &c. 2 Tim. 2.24.

47. Doth not the Scripture say, That the Minister of Christ must be an example to a Believer in charity? 1 Tim. 4.12. I query then, whether backbiting, tale-bearing, and taking up a reproach against your Neighbour, be not contrary to the law of Charity: and whether you were not guilty of this, when you told a Gentleman that lives at High-gate, who is ready to witness the Truth hereof, That you were enformed I was a

Jesuite; and therefore told him he would do well to appre∣hend me. Truely Sir, if you do not tell me who informed you, I shall say it was a slander of your own devising, either thereby to take away my life; for that is the punishment the Law hath provided for Jesuites, by the Stat. of Eliz. 27.2. or else (if that Gentleman would have been ruled by you that I might have been laid in Goal right or wrong, to the undo∣ing of my self and Family, till I could have cleered my self of the supposed crime in open Sessions. This must need be your design, otherwise why did you encourage him to appre∣hend me as a Jesuite? but more of this in a more conveni∣ent place, where I doubt not of reparation: only let me tell you, That if you could as easily prove the Affirmative, viz. That you are sent of God to preach, and that all you preach is true, as I can prove the Negative, that I am no Jesuite, the controversie between us would soon be ended.

These things I leave to your consideration, and shall trust God with the success; and subscribe my self,

London Decemb. 16. 1657.

Your Friend as far as you are the Truths, Jer. Ives.