Confidence Questioned, Part
ONe thing aſſerted by you, was, That it was not lawful for any to preach ordinarily and conſtantly, but ſuch as were ordained, except it was for approbation, or in caſes of neceſſity, 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 upon 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 Brethren 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 Ordination, 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 qualifications 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 ſatisfied 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 Office 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 qualifications 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 freequently; and whether he could be an Officer of the Church at that time, ſeeing he knew ONELYONLY 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. whether 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 aſſembled. 3. Whether by one another we are not to underſtand 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 inexcuſeable, Oman, whoſoever thou art that judgeſt; for wherein 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 dangerous 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 Temple, 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: provided, 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 propheſying 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 Office, then it follows, That the Apoſtle exhorted the whole Church, to covet after extraordinary Offices, when he exhorted 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 ordinary 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 extraordinary, 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 query: Among thoſe ſeveral Ordinations that are in Chriſtendom, 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 onelyonly Authoritative Ordination, in oppoſition to that of the Presbytery? And that they did ſo, will appear, if you conſult Dr. Jer. Tayler, 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, without which his Preaching is ſinful?
19. Again, if you ſay, All or any the forementioned Ordinations be lawful, then how vain a thing was it for the Presbyterians, to throw down the Government of Epiſcopacy? 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 Ordination, in caſe this Authority was never taken from them in an Eccleſiaſtical way?
22. If you ſay, That both Presbyterian and Epiſcopal Ordination 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 Epiſcopacie and Presbytery in England one ſaith that the Presbytery hath no power to ordain, the other ſaith they have.
23. If it is that Ordination that is among the Independents, 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 onelyonly 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 Succeſſion, or whether it had its Original from Neceſſity, becauſe 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 Predeceſſors 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 received Ordination from her, which was but a little before?
29. If you ſhall ſay, Here was a Succeſſion of Britiſh Miniſters 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 governed 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 preſuppoſed 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 diſpenſe 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 communion 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 prophane 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 Orders 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? becauſe 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-interrupted, 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 neciſſity, 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 Principles did raſe the Foundation of Religion; I query, whether they were not called Fifth-monarchy men, becauſe they did believe, that when the Caldean Monarchy, and the Monarchy 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 ſuchlike ſayings in Scripture, what reaſon had you to cry out againſt 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 reaſoning.
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 thouſand 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. Joſeph 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 animating the people to rudeneſs; for I know no other way, ſeeing you refuſed the firſt: then I query, whether in ſo doing (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 apprehend 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 undoing 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 apprehend me as a Jeſuite? but more of this in a more convenient 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.