The Confident Questionist Questioned: OR, The Examination of the DOCTRINE Delivered by Mr. THOMAS wiles in certain QVERIES. Published by Mr. Jeremiah Ives. Examined by COUNTER-QUERIES. By N. E. With a Letter of Mr. Tho. wiles. Gal. 1.6. I marvel, that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel. 7 Which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an Angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you, then that you have received, let him be accursed. 2 Tim. 3.13. Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. LONDON, Printed for Tho. Newberry, and are to be sold at his shop in Sweetings-Rents in Cornhill, near the Exchange 1658. Reader, IF thou art a Friend to the Truth, probably thou hast been somewhat ere this grieved to see the Host of Israel routed, and the Philistims to carry the sacred Ark into their Idol-Temple; to see the Ministry so much shattered, and uncircumcised ones to take the holy Gospel, and dispense it after their own humane inventions. Blessed be God that this Foundation-Truth is undertaken to be rescued, and that by a worthy hand; for thou (if thou hast heard) will't say with many more, that we have cause to bless God for that light and discovery of the truth there hath been, and for that satisfaction that was given to many honest hearts. I doubt not but by this time Mr. Ives his Queries have fallen into thy hands: I shall not so far question thy judgement, as to say that he hath staggered thee in the belief of what Mr. wiles hath delivered; If he hath, to settle thee, who art too soon moved, I have sent thee some Counter-Queries; Judge, and try, and then I hope thou wilt blush at thy inconstancy: And for a further settlement, I advise thee to attend Mr. wiles his Lecture in Crooked-Lane. But if thou art an enemy to the Truth, I am confident thou hast sung many jopaeans, and hast triumphed before the victory's got; Should Mr. Brooks or his Church invite this man to be the Patron of their cause, we might guests them miserably baffled, and that they have too much inclination to his other Errors: thou canst not expect that Mr. wiles by taking notice of these slight Queries, should hinder his more serious discussion of this weighty point, which he hath undertaken in the foresaid Lecture. Seriously and impartially Catechise the Questionist by the Questions a meaner hand hath prepared; try if here is not enough to puzzle him, Modesty forbids to say more. I have printed a letter of Mr. wiles his for thy satisfaction in some things, which I received for my own. If I have mistake in any thing, as a Christian, forgive, because not wilful, and learn not in any thing to attribute the weaknese of the Author to the cause: I could wish that thou and I could prevail with Mr. wiles to publish his solid and serious Discourses concerning this subject, that the enemies may be confounded, Christians established, and directed, the Truth vindicated, seduced one's reduced: For which blessed effect I should join with thee in prayer, who am. Thy Christian Brother, N. E. The Copy of a Letter to Mr. wiles. Mr. wiles, I Lately met with a Book of Mr. Ives, that questions your confidence in the truth; I judge him too bold, if not worse, seeing his grounds and warrant for it are so slight: For truly my mean judgement is scarcely shaken, much less routed by this assault: I beg not therefore your Reply to recruit your Cause, neither do I think any else do cry out for your help but those that are more afraid than hurt: I only desire to be informed of some private and personal transactions which he hints, and of some Expressions he lays to your charge. 1 In what sense you assert the baptising of the children of wicked Parents. Q. 40. I suppose you mean only of those that are Church-members, and not cast out; as having a visible right? 2 I desire to know what were your own words concerning the fifth Monarchy men. Q. 42. 3 Whether did you positively assert him to be a Jesuit or not? Q. 47. 4 And I pray give me some brief account concerning your private discourse with him. An Advertisement concerning these Particulars will be satisfaction both to me and to others. If any thing shall appear in print in answer to the whole; it will beg your Patronage of its cause, your pardon of its weakness: this only I further crave, viz. that you will love, and pray for him who is Your Friend and Servant N. E. The Answer I received to this Letter followeth. THE Copy of Mr. wiles his Letter. Sir, THe Book, or printed Papers you speak of, were sent to my hand, from the Author himself, who (if you know him not) was once a soldier, is now, by Trade, a Cheesmonger, and for Sect, an Anabaptist. He came openly to oppose me at my Lecture at Fish-street-hill, whereby he occasioned a very great disturbance, which might have proved to his own peril. But for the pacification of the tumult, I openly declared to all the people, that if any of them had any thing to object against the Doctrine by me delivered, if they would be pleased to signify their objections to me in Word or Writing, at any convenient time, I would answer all that were material in my further prosecution of that subject at Michael's Crooked-lane. Hereupon Mr. Ives, with some others, came unto me, pretending to desire satisfaction, though (as it afterwards appeared) the intent was rather opposition. The principal thing that Mr. Ives stuck upon, was, the Call of our first Reformers. Two principles I propounded to him as the grounds of his satisfaction, which were no other than what I had publicly delivered, viz. 1 That Ministers in an ordinary way and case were to be ordained by Ministers. 2 That in a case of necessity, where there were no Ministers to ordain, fit persons might become Ministers without ordination. For a positive Law gives place to necessity, Mat. 12. 15. Both these he owned and acknowledged to be true before sundry witnesses, and particularly declared his high esteem of the latter. Hereupon I offered him satisfaction as to the call of our first Reformers, after the prevalency of Popery in the Land. For if he would say the Popish Priests and Bishops were no Ministers of Christ, and had no power to ordain, than did the case of Necessity warrant the Call of our first Reformers; for as much as then there was no such Ordination, as he would acknowledge valid, to be had. But if he should say there was no such Necessity, then must he needs acknowledge the Popish Bishops to have power of Ordination, for as much as there was no other Ministers to ordain; and from them they had received Ordination. So that which way soever he should turn, their Call would appear to be clear and certain. Neither could the opinion of the Receivers null or annihilate the truth of their Call, which could not depend upon their opinion, but must needs consist in the conformity of their Ordination (as to the substance of it) to the primitive Institution, or the necessity of the susception, of the work of the Ministry, as in an extraordinary case, without Ordination; But he refusing either to receive satisfaction from, or to make any direct: Reply unto this fair Proposal, manifested his intents, by offering an open opposition to both in a public Dispute, if he might be admitted thereunto, notwithstanding his Concession of both principles, and thereby manifested his desire of contention, rather than love of Truth and Peace, the great Interests of all good Christians, and upon this account his offer was (and I conceive) most justly rejected. For my part, I know no ground we have in the Gospel to admit the enemies of the Truth, and open opposites to the Gospel-Ministry (as are the Sect of the Anabaptists) publicly to dispute in Christian Assemblies against our Doctrine and Ministry, which we hold forth in concurrence with the universal Christian Church, from the Word and Gospel. Though I do believe there may be a sufficient ground for dispute against the enemies of the Truth, and true Religion, when the Gospel cannot well by other means get footing, or it may be conducible for the further propagation of it amongst such as have not embraced it. What ground there may be for some particular dispute, upon some special occasion, with special Cautions and Rules to regulate it, I shall not here define; but only say, such things are to be ordered by Prudence, according to the general Rules of the holy Scripture. Thus as to that which you last desired, I have, I hope, in the first place, given you some satisfaction. Only this I'll add, that I received from him, and some of those that were with him, what I told them I expected from them, from some words they spoke unto that purpose, even an unchristianlike abuse in slanderous and reproachful reports, that I could not make good my Calling to the Ministry, nor maintain in private what I had delivered in public. But besides the Testimony of persons of credit that were then present, I hope I shall be able (through divine Assistance) to evidence that I can make good the doctrine I have delivered. Now as for your other Questions, I shall answer them in order, 1 As for what I spoke concerning the baptising of the children of wicked Parents; I spoke only (as might plainly appear to them that heard me) of such as being under the outward Administration of the Covenant of Grace, were to be accounted Members of the Visible Church, till juridically ejected by excommunication. And I see no reason why the children of such Parents may not be baptised under the Gospel, as well as the children of the wicked Jews were to be circumcised under the Law. When God in the times of the Gospel doth more largely extend the grace of the Covenant, what ground have we to abridge any of any such Ordinance, whereby that grace may be communicated? And do not we often see that God passes by the children of good and godly Parents, and chooses the children of those that are evil and wicked? And if it be the outward subjection unto the external Administration of the Covenant of grace in the Parents, that gives children right to this outward privilege of Baptism, why are not the children of wicked Parents, living under this outward Administration, to be admitted to Baptism, of equal right with the children of those that are truly godly and religious? Now it must needs be the Parents outward profession of the true Religion, or submission to the Administration of the Covenant of grace, or the inward possession of the grace of the Covenant that must give them right for their children to Baptism. The latter it cannot be, viz. the inward possession of the grace of the Covenant; because this falls not under man's cognizance; but now visible Administration requires some visible Evidence of the party's interest in, or right to that Ordinance which is to be visibly administered. And therefore the latter it must needs be, viz. an outward profession of the true Religion, an outward submission to the Administration of the Covenant of grace. And therefore the children of wicked Parents being members of the Visible Church, and so having a true right (in Foro Ecclesiae) to the Sacrament of Baptism, aught as well to be baptised, as the children of Parents are (to repeat the very words as I delivered them in public) the more need there is that their children should be solemnly engaged to God, I judge it very necessary that a solemn obligation to the duties of Christianity should by Baptism be laid upon them. But I see not why Mr. Ives should enter his exception against the baptising of the children of wicked Parents, as such (unless he sought to colour his opinion which hath ever been exploded in the Christian Church) when it is well known he is against the baptising of any children at all. 2 As for what I spoke of the fifth Monarchy-men (I mean that generation which in these days is called by that name) take my very words at large (which were but briefly rehearsed in the Sermon, excepted against, for the correction of a mistake under which they were censured) take them thus; some there are, that do openly decry the Ministry, their Call, Maintenance and Administrations, as Anti-Evangelical, and Antichristian. Such are these foulmouthed Sectaries, Seducers and Heretics, Quakers, Anabaptists, and Fifth-Monarchy-men, whose breath is the very smoke of the bottomless Pit; smelling strong of the Brimstone of Hell. This I spoke in allusion to that, whereby such like Errors, Heresies, and Blasphemies as are vented now adays by men of these Sects, are prophetically represented, Rev. 9.2, 3. as some do interpret it. If there are not some of all these Sects as bad as I have represented them, I confess I am under a great mistake, and I could hearty wish it was but only my error. 3 And as for that charge that I should tell any Gentleman, that I was informed that Mr. Ives was a Jesuit, and should stir him up, upon that account to apprehend him, I must needs reckon it amongst those slanders and reproaches that have been most injuriously raised against me. For though I suppose you are not ignorant that Mr. Ives is openly and commonly reported to be a Jesuit, though upon what grounds I know not, whether because of his erroneous principles, and extravagant Practices, in his intrusion into the Office, and yet opposing the Call of the true Ministry, as Antichristian, and their doctrines as erroneous, and occasioning disturbances in Christian Assemblies, or upon what other account I do not understand; yet for my part I assure you I never affirmed him upon any information to be a Jesuit, nor did I ever instigate any one to apprehend him, or solicit any prosecution of him upon that account. Neither do I imagine who it should be that should so maliciously raise this slander against me, unless it be that Gentleman, who under the pretence of much Christian moderation and sobriety, did sufficiently discover his malice against the true Ministers of the Gospel, in saying before many witnesses, that he had rather hear the Devil, than an ordained man. If this be the man (as I cannot possibly imagine any other) I discovered so much of his spirit while he was with me, that he well knows, I told him at his departure, I expected no better from him, than the worst reproach he could well invent. And therefore this is no more than I expected. And truly since I perceived so many bitter enemies were enraged against me, I sometimes thought with myself what slander the Devil by his Agents would fasten upon me, as a piece of revenge for that little service I have been instrumental to do the Lord Jesus Christ, against his Kingdom. Now I perceive one is broken out, and what the next will be, I know not. But I desire to quiet myself in an humble confidence in his protection, who hath called me forth unto his service. I should be unworthy to be honoured with the high title of a Minister of Jesus Christ, if I should not be freely content to suffer a thousand reproaches for his sake. Thus I have endeavoured your satisfaction in answer to the Questions propounded. If you or any shall appear in public in answer to that Pamphlet that hath been printed against me, I shall be engaged to them for their pains, and so fare only under take the Patronage of what shall be done in this kind, as it shall fall under the defence of that Doctrine which I am engaged to maintain. In those captious Queries this Sophistical Anabaptist, you may easily perceive, hath not discovered so much strength, as subtlety. And therefore though the wise may easily discern their weakness, yet may they serve for a while to amuse the Vulgar. And therefore I confess I think it not amiss, if any that perceive the weak in danger to stumble, shall spurn away this stumbling block that is cast before them. In this one thing be pleased to know, that Mr. Ives hath dealt ingenuously with me, viz. in a right stateing of the Case, as I laid it down, which he hath truly expressed in the position he hath prefixed to his Queries. Thus committing you to the tuition of the Almighty, and the direction of the Spirit of Truth, craving your earnest prayers for a divine assistance to carry me on in that work which God hath called me unto, who am the meanest and unworthiest of all his servants; I rest, Sir, Your Friend and Servant, in the Gospel of Christ, Tho. wiles. December 22. 1657. For his much esteemed Friend, Mr. N. E. at the sign of the _____ in _____ POSTSCRIPT. SIr, If you desire a more particular Information of what passed betwixt Mr. Ives and me at my house, and any further confirmation of the account thereof which I have given you; be pleased to know that Mr. Goode, Minister of Alhallows Staining, London, Mr. Nathaniel Hawes, Mr. Stace, Mr. Robert Small, Mr. Andrew Hawes, and Mr. John Hawes, Gentlemen of known Integrity, of the Parish of Buttolphs-Billingsgate, were present at that Discourse (in whole or in part) which was held at my house with Mr. Ives, and those that came along with him. If you please to inquire any thing touching this matter of any of these Gentlemen, I assure you, you may safely rest in their Information. The Epistle Dedicatory. To The Reverend, his Worthy Friend Mr THOMAS wiles. Sir, IF I promise to myself in this, the common ends of Dedications, I hope you will not condemn me as unworthy in my aims. I slatter not, as too many fawning Scribblers do, whilst I say this is to testify my love to you; because I hope, through grace, your piety and Doctrine hath tied me to you by spiritual bonds: Neither can I judge myself base in my design, by this to ingratiate myself more into your favour; for I am ambitious of your acquaintance: Neither am I ashamed to say, by this I beg your Patronage; for I am sensible of my own weakness, and you to be not only able, but engaged, to defend this cause. I only presume to be your armourbearer, and whilst I may fight under your shield, I doubt not but to give the enemy a stand; Whilst I was a spectator of those furious shocks, whereby you shattered the choicest ranks of your enemies; and saw you deal about such fatal blows, that their choicest Champions fell before you; I was encouraged to give a diversion to this unworthy enemy that would fall upon you whilst you are engaged in other encounters. Remember therefore I only engage this enemy in ambush, expecting that he will fly as soon as he sees one ready to enter the lists with him; but for the management of the Main Battallia; I Leave it to yourself, and to God, to whom I shall pray for your success, and be ready to serve you and the Truth, in what I am able. N. E. Mr. Ives, I Hope my rashness is not so great as was Eliabs to David, 1 Sam. 17.18,— 28. If I say; seeing it is your business to carry loaves and cheeses to the Camp, out of the pride and naughtiness of your heart, you above all should single out a Champion to encounter with: if you mind Religion, as a Christian, I exhort you to search your heart what was the moving argument: what can I say but that either you were uncivil to take Mr. Brooks his work out of his hands; or that you too highly valued yourself, that you could manage it better; ought we not as Christians to esteem others better than ourselves? Oh! undaunted boldness. And are these the Queries for whose sake such a daring public challenge must be made for disputation! where errors have blinded the eyes of the judgement, men rush on any thing without fear or wit. Sir, I am one that have not only heard, but through grace, received good from Mr. wiles, and therefore cannot but love and honour him; yet if I know my own heart, I side not so much with a party, as with a cause which I judge to be right; and if I, one ex faece— can so easily see the light of truth through that cloud you have cast on it, what a poor mist will it be before an eagle's eye? you are very inquisitive, and therefore I shall answer some Queries you will probably propound to me. Q. 1 Who are you? A. Truly I am homo nullius nominis. Q. 2 But why would not Mr. wiles answer me? A. I suppose I prevented him; truly it is not worthy the while; and is not this your cunning, by such Pamphlets to draw him off by employing him, from further prosecuting this subject? Q. 3 But why will not Mr. wiles dispute with me? A. Alas you see what rashness you are guilty of, by seeing how a mean man can deal with you; and what little need there was of it. Q. 4 But why were the people so rude when I desired public satisfaction? A. It is the trick of the Devil, first to be the cause of an offence, and then to accuse for it. Q. 5 But why do I answer you by Counter-Queries? A. That you may see how easy it is for a fool to ask more Questions than a wise man can answer. The Confident QUESTIONIST QUESTIONED. OR, The Querists Questions, Answered by COUNTER-QUERIES. The Question stated by Mr. Ives. Mr. wiles. 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. SIR, Reply. YOu have so ingenuously stated the Question, that I hope in my following Queries I shall not need upon every occasion to mention the terms [ordinarily and constantly] and the exceptions, viz. the cases of [approbation and necessity.] Query 1. 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. Counter-Query. As that must needs be a sin which is against a Divine Law, 1 Joh. 3.4. so is not that a sin which is practised as a Gospel duty, and hath no law or foundation in the Gospel? Who hath required these things at your hands? Query 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 Brothren, although they were not put upon it by reason of your supposed necessity, or though they should never be ordained to office? Counter-Query. Must not then unordained men's preaching be sinful, seeing they not only have no law for it (if they have, show it) but unwarrantably transgress a Divine institution? Query 3. If there be any Law manifesting such a practice to be sinful, pray tell me where that Law is written, that so I may see my error, and reform. Counter-Query. First, Is not that an Apostolical Institution, for the ordination of Ministers? Tit. 1.5. Ordain Elders in every City. 2 Is not public teaching an act of that office, as well as baptising, being both joined in the same commission, Mat. 28.19. Is there any difference put? 3 Are not unordained men that are teachers, usurpers upon that office, and transgressors of that Divine Institution? do not you see your error by this? Query 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 virtue of Office, while as yet they are not in it? Counter-Query. Is there not a third thing which you forget? viz. that Approbationers preach neither as mere gifted Brethren, nor as lawfully constituted Officers; But as having by consent of Ministers (who have power to confer the Office) leave to preach in relation to an Office? Doth a Boy you take upon liking sell your Cheese as he is fit to sell it; or as your Apprentice? if as fit to sell it, than every boy may have that right that is so fitted? as your Apprentice he can not, because not bound; therefore datur tertium, he sells it with your consent, in relation to be bound. Query 5. If they preach as gifted Brethren before their Ordination, than I quere, How long they may thus preach till their preaching becomes sinful? Counter-Query. Is it not a sin and an usurpation all the while they preach without the forementioned relation? Do you preach as a gifted Brother or not? if as a gifted brother, ought you not to show what law you have expressly to warrant it? if as one in Office, how came you by it? were you ordained by Ministers or not? if by Ministers, whether by Protestant or Popish, that you may assure us of your Office: But if by a Church, I ask, are not Election and Ordination distinct things? do you ever read that the Church did any thing but elect? aught you not to show some authority from a Divine Institution the Church hath to ordain? or else do you not run before sent? Query 6. If you say, Till the Ministry of Presbyters approve them, and are very well satisfied with their abilities and qualifications for that employment: 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? Counter-Query. Seeing Approbationers preach in relation to an Office, ought not others to be accounted rather intruders, than Approbationers? But if truly Approbationers ought they to preach any longer than till approved? can you think Ministers would approve him to be in Office, that owned not their power to ordain him? doth he preach by virtue of the Ministers consent in relation to an Office, that owns not their power? but rather as a gifted brother, and a transgressor of the Gospel Order and Institution? How can you be satisfied with the power of the Church to ordain? had it been the Church's work, why did not the Apostle enjoin the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalanions, to ordain Ministers rather than Timothy and Titus? If it be as you say, why did he mention it at all to these Ministers, Timothy and Titus? and why is he quite silent of it to the Churches in all those Epistles, if it be not rather the Ministers work than the Churches? Query 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 riot; it may be he hath not power over his passion, but may be soon angry, etc. which are those qualifications that Paul tells Timothy and Titus MUST be found in such officers: See 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Tit. 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? Counter-Query. Are you not bound, ere there will be any strength in this Query, to show by some law that a man may exercise a part of that office with which he is not invested? is not your Query in short this? If one be fit for part of the office, but not for the whole; if fit to preach, but not to rule, why may he not exercise that he is fit for out of office? I answer from the same place, 1 Tim. 3.2, 3. what if one be the Husband of many Wives? what if given to Wine, a mere drunkard, and so is unfit to be admitted to office? why may he not exercise his gift of preaching, if God hath blest him with it? why doth His Highness turn such out? why may not ignorant, yea profane persons, that may be fit to rule in your Church at least for some acts of government do that they are able, or fit for? these Queries have the same foundation with yours. Again, ought you not to prove that preaching is not an act of the Ministerial Office? 2 Or that acts of Office may be performed by him that hath not that office? 3 Or that acts of Office may be communicated? 4 Yea and that where the whole Office itself ought not to beconferred? when you were a soldier you left off box-making, when a Cheesmonger, souldiering; and is not this Query one ground why since you were a pretended Minister (as it is reported) you may excuse yourself from what acts of this Office you please, and take the liberty of being a Cheesmonger still? Query 8. And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained, except as before excepted, I quere, Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained? if so, show me where that Law is to be found? Counter-Query. As to your Query concerning the people's sin in hearing unordained men. I Quere, If he that preacheth sinneth 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 hath 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? Query 9 Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel, as is recorded? Act. 18.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. publicly and frequently; and whether he could he an Officer of the Church at that time, seeing he knew ONLY the baptism of John, or was not acquainted with the baptism of the Spirit? therefore pray show us that he was at this time an Officer, or else that he preached for approbation to it, or that he preached by virtue of any necessity. By virtue 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 show how that appears. Counter-Query. Ought you not to have answered what Dr. Seaman, Mr. Gilespy, Chemnitius, etc. have answered to this? is it not the part of an unwise man to ask that which hath been so often answered without the least show of a new cause of dissatisfaction? shall we not suppose you intended to seduce the Vulgar that read not books? But not to shun your strength: Is this a good Argument? Apollo's taught in a Jewish Synagogue, where we read of but two Christians Aquila and Priscilla, and those Paul brought with him; therefore a gifted brother may teach in our Christian Congregations? Can a particular example in a Church not constituted be a rule for ordinary practice in a Church constituted? Again, is it not evident that Apollo's was in Office, and therefore called a Minister? 1 Cor. 3.5. therefore to sift it more narrowly, how will you prove Apollos not to be in Office? 1 Must you not prove either that he was no Priest? for they were the ordinary Teachers in the Synagogues; or that he had not given any testimony to the Jews that he was a Prophet, for these likewise had that liberty (had they not such apprehensions of Christ and his Apostles, because of their miracles?) or else are you not bound to show upon what account besides, the Jews let him teach in the Synagogue? was he not thus in Office? 2 Must you not prove that John did not authorise him to teach, if he was not acquainted, as you say, with the Baptism of the Spirit, if he had not those Gospel gifts that not only enabled, but stirred up men to preach, if he was not informed of such a duty or work? if likewise you consider how suddenly he undertook it as his duty without any solicitations; is it not very probable he was sent by John? and if so, must you not prove that John's mission to Apollo's was not as vallid as his Baptism to Christ; was he not thus in Office? 3 Ought you not to prove, that there was no necessity which we both agree is sufficient to authorise? As 1 Was there any constituted organical Church, and Officers in it to preach? 2 Or was the Apostolical institution as yet practised there? 3 Or were any there to ordain him? 4 Or did he know of such a thing to be had from the Apostles, or others? 5 Was there not need and a way open to teach? was not here evident necessity then if all, or but some of these stand? if so, did he preach as a mere gifted Brother? 4 How will you prove that even than he was not called, or in office, when you consider these particulars? 1 'Tis very certain he was in Office. For, 1 Can you deny but that he did the work of an Evangelist in watering those Churches Paul had planted? 1 Cor. 3.6. and that he was to have been sent by Paul, as Timothy was, 1 Cor. 16.12. 2 Was not his worth and name the head of a faction, as was Paul's, I am of Paul, I of Apollo's, etc. 1 Cor. 1.12. was he than an ordinary gifted brother? 3 Is he not called in express terms a Minister, and that in the same sense that Paul was? 1 Cor. 3.5. He was an Officer then sure. 2 Do you ever find he had any call to this Office after his preaching here? Act. 18.24, 25. if so, show it I pray. 3 Do not these things prove that he was in Office now? 1 Why did not Aquila teach then, and rather than Apollo's? for though Apollo's was eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, yet Aquila taught him, verse 26. give then any rational account why Apollos rather preached than Aquila; if it were not because Apollo's was in Office, and Aquila not; surely Apollo's being so ignorant, his eloquence could not make him more fit to teach than Aquila's knowledge of the Gospel. 2 Was it not upon this account of his Office that the brethren in Achaia are written to, to receive him to help them, v. 27. especially if you compare it with Mat. 10.40, 41.— Where you see that such receiving is put for owning as an Officer? 3 Why may we not say that his HELPING them which believed THROUGH GRACE.; hinteth to us his Office and Call? for thus the word signifieth, Rom. 1.5. & 15.15. 1 Cor, 3.10. All these things lie upon you to consider ere you can evince that this particular Example may be an exception to that positive institut ion; ad more must be said ere you can make this particular instance a foundation for the constant and ordinary practice of unordained men? Query 10. It is said, Mal. 3.16. that THEY that feared the Lord, SPOKE OFTEN one to another, etc. And Heb. 10.25. It is required that we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but exhort one another daily, etc. where by the light of these Texts it doth not appear, 1 That God's people ought to meet often together. 2 That they may and aught 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? Counter-Query. Doth this Text, Mal. 3.16. and Heb. 10.25. prove any authoritative act of preaching to be done by unordained men? where is one such word or rational consequence? do not you know that we acknowledge Christians ought to meet together, to edify one another in mutual exhortations? but ought it not be done according to Gospel order and rule? Query 11. Is it not written, Rom. 2.1, 2. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest dost the same things. Verse 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? Verse 22. Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Whether by the light of these Scriptures, your darkness is not discovered, who told the people how sinful and dangerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks; when yourself hath heard him once and again? And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice, will not be arguments to justify 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. Counter-Query. Though the people are not called to hear him that is not called to preach, Rom. 10.14, with 15. how shall they hear without a sent-Preacher? yet may not Mr. wiles be called to correct him that is not called to preach? is he not called to that very place to instruct and teach? is he not bound to convince gainsayers then? and is he not bound to hear therefore that he may convince them? hath any of the Congregation such a Call as this? may not a Captain, even while his troop is marching up against an enemy, go out of his rank to view the enemy, when it is death to a common soldier? aught not the sheep to run away from the Wolf, yet the Shepherd may stand him, and pursue? May not a Physician go to one sick of the Plague, yet it will be a tempting of providence for others to do it? Hath not the Minister a better Call to pluck up tares, than the people to receive them? But is not this a slander you lay upon Mr. wiles? or do you remember the reasons of his dehortation? Query 12. It is said, Heb. 5.12. That when for the time ye OUGHT to be Teachers, etc. I query from hence, Whether here is not a Duty required, and whether the Duty be not Teaching? Again, whether the persons that the Text saith, OUGHT to teach, were not members out of Office? If so, than I query, whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in public Assemblies, as in private Families: Since neither this, nor any other Text makes the one any more unlawful than the other; provided, they have abilities to the one as well as to the other. Counter-Query. Is there in the 5. of the Heb. 12. the least ground for gifted brethren's teaching? if they ought to be Teachers, ought it not to be according to the Gospel rule? Masters of families to their families, Ministers to their Congregations? But consider, that this Text is meant either that they ought to be able to be Teachers, or to be actually Teachers; if it speak of only the ability and power, it is nothing to your purpose, yet much to the Apostles, who would shame them for their ignorance that had opportunity enough to be more knowing: this sense may be probable. 1 Doth he not plainly blame their ignorance under such means of knowledge; because they were not capable of hard things, Verse 11. so that it is a reproof that they could not understand those mysteries he would tell them; not that they were not Teachers? 2 Had they been such Teachers as they ought, had they not been receivers of strong meat, vers. 12. not stewards to provide it for others? 2 But if you say it is meant of being actually Teachers; you must prove it first, and secondly, That it is not meant of private teaching in families, etc. but if without reason you will say it is meant of actually public teaching, you must prove it ere we shall believe you; is not this spoke in general to all the Jewish Christians? women are not excepted, and ought they to be teachers? 2 If all the Jewish Church ought to be actually public teachers, do not they sin in your Church, that are not so? tell them the next time, as indefinitely as the Text is, all you my Church sin if you do not all actually practice public preaching? if all the Church ought to be a tongue, where will the hearing be? Query 13. It is said, 1 Cor. 14.1. Fellow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts; but rather that ye may PROPHESY, etc. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, etc. and Verse 31. Ye may ALL prophesy 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 Office; then I query, whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office? If it shall be said, That it was by extraordinary Office, than 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 PROPHESY, v. 1. Counter-Query. Is this to ask a Question for conscience sake, when you will not take notice of what Answers have been given unto this, as well as other Queries? is it not vainglory to make the world believe that the London Ministers in their jus Divinum Min. ch. 6. from p. 95. to 103. that Mr. Collins in his vindication, Min. from p. 49. to 56. that Mr. Thomas Hall, p. 56, to 59 and many others who writ concerning this Text, have done nothing worthy Mr. Ives his regard of it? 1 Is not an extraordinary Call by extraordinary gifts such an authority from God, that no ordinary gifted brother as such may presume to have? 2 Were not these in 1 Cor. 14 thus extraordinarily called? 3 Were they not expressly called Prophets, which is an Office (improperly so called) pro tempore: 4 You may all prophesy; can this be meant of any but Prophets? is it an argument then for gifted brethren? but you say: then were all the Church exhorted to covet after extraordinary Offices. Answ. The word Office here is somewhat improper; again, it was but temporary; and well may it be said, that they all ought to seek after these extraordinary gifts which thus qualified them: when a Judge's place falls, all the Sergeants in Town may lawfully seek for it, though all cannot obtain it; God had promised such gifts, and ought they not to seek for them? Query 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 prophesy, 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. Counter-Query. This Query is worth nothing; only I query, why may not your whole Church covet to be all ordinary Officers, as well as to be preaching gifted brethren? if because it is monstrous to have so many ruling heads, is it not as monstrous to have as many speaking tongues in the body of Christ? Query 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? Counter-Query. 1 Is not this the essential of Ordination; viz. a setting apart Men to the Ministry by Ministers? 2 Is not this the purity of it, viz. when fit persons are duly set apart by Gospel Ministers, in that Gospel way, and for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed, there being no superstitious corruption accompanying this Ordinance? 3 May there not be some circumstantial differences even among those that practice this purity in this Ordinance? 4 May we not say then that all the Ordinations in Christendom are approved by Christ that differ but thus circumstantially, as well as men of opinions different in many things are accepted by him? Query 16. Whether one may not by this Opinion, be lawfully ordained at Rome? Counter-Query. 1 Dare you say that Rome observes that Gospel purity in this Ordinance? 2 Though the substance may be there, yet is it not exceeding sinful NOW for US to submit to their impurities? Considering that these three things only excuse in errors circumstantial? 1 When the error is so slight, that it is no prejudice to the substance, nor doth engage to other pernicious errors? doth not Ordination among the Papists do this? doth it not oblige to obedience to, and Mission by that Autichristian See? (Note that the cases following excuse when this cannot be pleaded.) 2 When a sincere aim at the substance is accompanied with ignorance of the errors in circumstance; can we plead ignorance of the errors of Rome? or shall we say that man hath a sincere aim that shall go thither to submit to it NOW? 3 When a case of necessity is, viz. 1 When we are bound to have the Ordinance its self. 2 And when it cannot be elsewhere had but with these errors and impurities. 3 Or when greater evils than those errors would follow. Is this our case NOW with Rome? though Preachers are bound to submit to that Ordinance of Ordination, yet can they not have it else where than at Rome in more purity? Answer, Sir, Is it not in more purity done by the Ministers in England, than by those at Rome? Query 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 empower the Ministers to preach? since all these are Protestants, and greatly differ in this thing. Counter-Query. Do you not easily see by what hath been said, that the Protestant Ordination only is acknowledged to be lawful to us NOW? Do you not as easily see the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and the most sober independent Ministers, own the essence of this Ordinance, viz. that it is a setting apart men to the Ministry by Ministers? 2 That they practise the purity by setting apart fit men in a Gospel way, for those Gospel ends a Ministry is appointed, without superstitious intermixtures? 3. Ought we not then to say that ordination by all or any of them is approved by Christ, and true Christians to empower Ministers to preach, notwithstanding they may differ in some circumstantials? Query 18. 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 only Authoritative Ordination, in opposition to that of the Presbytery? And that they did so, will appear, if you consult Dr. Jer. Taylor, Chaplain to the late King, in his Book called Episcopacy asserted, page 120, 121, 122. It is clear (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 impose Hands for confirmation, which (saith he) was to continue in the Church; and could not be done by the seventy, or any MERE Presbyter. And for this he citys 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? Counter-Query. Is it not unchristian to charge the error of one man (though a worthy man) upon the rest of the Episcopal way? is it not evident that the most of them judged themselves to ordain as Ministers, and not as mere Bishops? Doth not Mr. Baxter say in his second sheet, that Bishop Usher did acknowledge Ordination by Presbyters without a Bishop to be vallid, and that he answered King Charles by an instance that Hierom and Evag. tells us of? viz. that the Presbyters of Alexandria, till the days of Heroclas, and Dionysius took one from among themselves, and made him a Bishop; therefore they may make Presbyters which is less; were not the Bishop's wont to have Presbyters to join with them in this work? Hath not a sheet of this Reverend Bishops written for accommodation at the Isle of Wight, hinted this to be his judgement? Ask the more moderate Presbyterians if they could not close with it? Hath not the Rubric told us, that Bishops ordained as Presbyters? Doctor Prid. in his Fasciculus therefore subscribes himself in the Epistle Dedicatory, Episcopus vester & sympresbyter; Doth not the Vindication of the Ministry by the London Ministers bring abundant testimony of this? Lastly, ask the most rigid Episcopal man in England, and try if he will not say, that Ministers ordained by Presbyters are more lawfully Ministers than those that have a pretended Ordination from Churches? Query 19 Again, if you say, All or any the 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, than cashier it, seeing it was a power by which Ministers might have been authorized to preach, according to God's Ordinance? Counter-Query. Do you go on still to your unchristian charges, whereby you would not only lay injustice, but blood upon the heads of Presbyterians? Dare you assert, speak out, that the Presbyterians did throw down the Government of Episcopacy merely for this error in Ordination? Was this the only reason of such sad miseries? May we not more safely say the Anabaptistical spirits (which usually are bloody, witness those in Germany) egged on to ruin whilst only Reformation was intended? Did not they make the civil wounds turn to fatal deaths? Did not they blow up that unbrotherly fire, which might have been timely quenched, into a destroying flame, and then with joy warmed their hands at it? Query 20. If the Bishops, as Bishops, had this lawful Power, when did any Power from Christ divest them? Counter-Query. If Bishops not as Bishops, but as Ministers had this lawful power, may we not be confident that Christ hath not devested those that are lawfully Ministers of this Power? we will never so fare distrust his promise, as to doubt but he will be with them to the end of the world Matth. 28.20. Query 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? Counter-Query. 1 Can that Authority which is founded upon the Word of God, be taken from any in an Ecclesiastical way? What do you mean? 2 Is not this Episcopal authority of Ordaining as Ministers founded on the Word? 3 Can the contrary opinion either of the Ordainer, or the Ordained, null this lawful authority? 4 May not a man lawfully go to them, if they will Ordain as Ministers? 5 If not, ought he not in conscience, since no necessity binds now to the contrary, take it where 'tis more purely administered? Query 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 Episcopacy and Presbytery in England; one saith, that the Presbytery hath no power to ordain, the other saith they have. Counter-Query. Is not both Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordination the same as to the substance, as is already hinted, and as esteemed lawful the same as to purity, only differing in Circumstances? How irrational then, and me thinks, if Logic be rational, illogical is it to say there is contrariety where there is but one thing, viz. Ordination by Ministers? Surely only two distinct things can be called contraries: Must you not bring better Arguments the next time to prove this, then to say, because some Circumstances differ, therefore there is a contrariety, etc. because Episcopal and Presbyterian Ministers contradict one another, therefore Ordination by each is contrary each to other? If there be such an essential agreement, and only a circumstantial difference, what reason then for such a Query, whether did Christ erect two ways of Ordination? Query 23. If it is that Ordination that is among the Independents, than 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 Master Brooks in this to be condemned? Counter-Query. Have you urged any thing yet that should force us to own any Ordination among Independents but what is according to the Gospel-rule, viz. by Ministers? Would you make the world believe you run for Independency? Are you not passed it, and got to Anabaptism? Would you not feign have this as a cloak, that your design may be the more plausible? Or is it that you tun for the defence of Mr. Brooks only? Must we not necessarily hence suspect either that Mr. Brookes, or his Church were staggered, and that they got you to be their Patron? or that you were guilty of presumption, by intruding into their Cause uncalled? Query 24. Again, If you say, That Ordination by the Presbytery is the only Ordination; then where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty years ago? Counter-Query. Since Ordination, as I have said, is by Ministers, were there not true and lawful Ministers in England thirty years ago? Do you think so easily by your Sophistry to persuade us there cannot be a true Ministry under the name of Episcopacy and Presbytery? As if Bishops thirty years ago could not be true Ministers, and Ordain true Ministers? or as if Presbyters now cannot be true Ministers, nor ordain true Ministers? prove this by the next. Query 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 kinds it is that God approves of? Counter-Query. How Mr. Ives! dare you thus charge Mr. wiles? either you heard him all his Sermons there or not, if not, how durst you say that he never told the people what Ordination he meant? If you did hear him, then, how dare you falsely charge him with that, that hundreds of people can witness against? Did he not publicly declare that they ought to hear none but Ministers ordained by Ministers, and that he was rigidly neither for the aforesaid Independency, Presbytery, or Episcopacy, but for a moderation, seeing they differ in this but circumstantially? and that he held Ordination performed by Ministers of any of these three ways to be valid and good. Be not a Tale-bearer, and take not up a false report against thy Neighbour. Query 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 successive power, there a man may lawfully officiate in the Office of the Ministry 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 Ministry? for you told us, That none could pretend to Necessity, when it might be had by Succession. Counter-Query. Do not you grant, 1 That a true Succession makes true Ministers? 2 That where Succession is broken off, there is a case of necessity? 3 That such a case of Necessity (to which a positive Law gives place) makes true Ministers? Is not here then an unanswerable Argument, that the present Ministry of England are true and lawful Ministers, because the first Reformers were such from whom they received it? For, If the true Line of Succession was quite broke off, than the first Reformers were true Ministers by a case of necessity; If the true Line of Succession was not broke off, than they were true Ministers by Succession; so that if the first Reformers must needs be true Ministers, than these likewise must needs be so that received it from them. Sir, I challenge you to answer this Argument by the next; don't you miserably shuffle off answering by propounding Queries? and do the following Queries any way answer the Argument? If your Queries prove there were no Succession evidently, there was a Necessity; or if they prove no Necessity, must there not needs be a Succession? Are not therefore your Queries to the Fortieth to no purpose? But to follow you. Query 27. If you say, By Succession, then surely you succeed from Rome; if so, than I query, whether the Church of Rome was the Spouse of Christ, and her Ministry and Ordinances the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ, when your Predecessors received their Ordination from them? if so, then, Counter-Query. Why may there not be a lawful Succession from the Apostles by Rome? If you say a Necessity and Succession cannot be consistent at the same time, because if there be a Necessity there can be no Succession, and if a Succession, no Necessity; then I query, whether though there be not an absolute Necessity of the susception of the Office without Ordination, when an Ordination may be had; yet there may not be so far a necessity as to make valid an impurer Ordination, when no better can be had? for as much as the essentials of Ordination may remain, notwithstanding circumstantial corruptions? Consider 1 Have not Ordinances their foundation upon the Word of God? do they not consist in a conformity to the Divine institution? 2 Hath Ordination any dependence as to its essence upon the opinions or practices of men whilst they hold this conformity as to the substance of the Ordinance? 3 Can then the corruptions either of Receiver or of Dispenser null this Ordinance of Ordination? If the corruption of the first Popish corrupt Receivers, or the corruptions of the Popish Dispenser's of it, could not null this Ordinance, than there was a true succession of it, and the Papists could not break off this succession, either in their receiving or giving, and therefore it was truly handed down to our first Reformers. I shall therefore prove, 1 That the corruptions of the first corrupt receivers, that first received this Ordinance from the Apostles or their successors, that did purely administer it, could not null this Ordinance, or break off this line of succession: If because we are corrupt and unholy the Ordinances are no Ordinances, than God's Ordinance depends upon man's holiness: so that if all the world in a sense should be corrupt, God should have no Laws or Ordinances in the world? then you may well recant your Book against the Quakers, and tell us now that we must look to our light and holiness within, more than to the word of God. If so, then, every time any of your Rebaptised one's proves corrupt, or is guilty of any backslidings is drunk, etc. he hath nulled his Baptism, and must be baptised again over and over as often as he sins; or if the corruption of the receiver nulled an Ordinance, than none could be guilty of abusing Ordinances, because his corruption makes it to be no Ordinance; Then none can be guilty of the body and blood of Christ in receiving the Lords Supper, for if he be worthy, he is not guilty, if unworthy, than he is corrupt, and (if the former principle be true) the Sacrament is nulled, and it represents not the body and blood of Christ: But S. Paul hints that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance to one that is a corrupt receiver, and therefore he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 1 Cor. 11, 27. Because a man's a villain, a rogue, etc. may he not therefore have justice from the Law against him that would rob him of Land that he hath a true title to? can the corruption of the receiver null the Law? was that miracle of Christ's not to be esteemed a mercy, because bestowed upon ungrateful blind men? doth it not appear then that the succession was not broke by the corruption of the first corrupt receivers? 2 The corruptions of the corrupt dispensers of it, viz. of Popish Priests could not break this line of succession: A Judge probably may deserve to be hanged for bribery and injustice, doth therefore the Law lose its force, because pronounced by such a one? Suppose Judas had baptised one while he was a traitor in his heart, had it been no Baptism? Suppose that one of your Rebaptizers or Dippers was an errand Hypocrite, Deceiver, etc. was whatever he had done nulled, and must all be dipped again? if this Opinion be true, can we ever be assured that we have true Ordinances? if the Minister that dispenseth it be corrupt, it is no Ordinance, and can I search his heart? or know his head and opinions? Is not this a sad case and condition for Christ to leave his Spouse in? Is not this to make the Ordinances man's, and not God's? If I am assured the Proclamation comes from the supreme Magistrate, am I not bound to obey it, though it be read by a Rebel, if sent to do it? shall gold be gold, though in a dunghill, and shall the Ordinances of God, those rare Jewels, not only lose their lusty, but essence because in wicked hands? Ordinancess have their foundation on the word, and therefore depend not upon the corruption or holiness of any man. Reader, now Judge; If the corruption of the corrupt Popish receivers of Ordination, and the corruption of the corrupt Popish dispensers of it ever since could not break off the line of succession, because it hath not its foundation in men, but in the Word of God: then our first Reformers must needs be true Ministers by succession? and the present Ministry of England true, as having received it from them: Are not the Ordinances and Ministry of Rome, the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ so far as they are according to the Word? Object. But may you say, this is it I wish for, than my sixteenth Query is not answered, may we not go lawfully then to Rome to be ordained? A. View my sixteenth Counter-Query. 1 Dare you say it is lawful to submit to such corruptions that lead to Popery? 2 Since we know it? 3 And that there is no necessity for it, but it may be had purer here? was not this an unpardonable sin in the Israelites, to offer Sacrifice under every green tree, when there was a Temple to Sacrifice in? Remember therefore these things; 1 That Ordination is an Ordinance founded upon the Word. 2 That the corruption of Receivers or Dispenser's cannot null it. 3 That our first Reformers were lawfully ordained by the corrupt Popish Bishops, because it was a case of ignorance or necessity. 4 That it is exceeding sinful and unlawful to receive Ordination NOW, from Popish Bishops, because no such excuse. A second Argument, to prove the line of succession not to be broke. Since Christianity was professed, can you say there were not a company of true Believers, a Church for so many years that England was under Popery? If there was a Church, than she had Ministers or not; if no Ministers, what became of that promise, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. that the Saints shall have a Ministry till they come to a perfect man, etc. If there was a true Ministry, than they were ordained one's, or unordained one's; If ordained ones, we have that we run for, viz. that the line of succession was not broke off; if unordained ones, show us it where they preached, in what Church, who they were; give us an instance in one, during all that time. Query 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? Counter-Query. Probably she was as good, what then? we left her not as she was the Spouse of Christ, but as she was an Harlot; we left not her Ordinances as they were Christ's, but her corruptions and Idolatries. Query 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 Austin the Monk to convert the Saxons than 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, Counter-Query. Doth not Gildas report of a Ministry in England before Austin the Monk was sent over? Might there not then be thousands that had not bowed the knee to Baal, 1 King. 19.14. and we not know of it? Query 30. Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England, who were separated from the Church of Rome? if there was, show 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 than from the Papal Line. Counter-Query. If as before, might not there be a Succession from such, and we not know of it? Is not God wont to make his own ways to flourish most, though many times secretly? aught you not to believe that God hath ordered all for the best? it is more becoming us to wonder at, then search, admire, then sound, the secret works of God. Query 31. If you say, It came from Rome, and not from that presupposed Succession; then I query, if Rome was a little before Henry the Eights time entrusted 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? Counter-Query. But if it came from Rome, and the sacred Ordinances of God were there, may not Rome notwithstanding be accounted a cage of every unclean thing? what if a thief hath a Bible in his pocket, is he not therefore a thief? can the possession of Ordinances make holy? Then never a Minister can be an unholy man. If Rome was unclean, notwithstanding those Ordinances (as indeed she was) ought we not then to departed from her corruptions, Numb. 16.37. the Censers of Korah, and his company, wherein they burned incense to the Lord, were holy, yet the Israelites were to separate from them, that they might be destroyed. Query 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? Counter-Query. Is it not strange that you ask such a Query and not show any reason why? Why could she not dispense such a sacred Ordinance as Ordination, notwithstanding her uncleanness? Must those accounts in your Book, which you know to be just and right be nulled, and may others disowne their debts there, because through the fault of your Boy, they are naughtily written, or blotted and blurred? would you serve God as you would not be served? Query 33. If you say, 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 yourself (if yet it be an evil) which you charge upon Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt and maimed? Counter-Query. If we say she had power as a Church, why did you not disprove it? For if she was a Church, than her Ministers were true Ministers, though corrupt, and the Succession was not broken off. To what end then have all your former Queries been? Reader, thou mayest be the more convinced, that the Line of Succession was not broke, because the adversary yields up his own weapons; thus thou mayest see he hath more of subtlety to puzzle, than of strength to convince. But Sir, do you think by your yielding to draw us into ambush, that Mr. Brooks may separate as well from the halt and maimed, as we from Papists? consider, either he acknowledged his Parishioners of Margarets-New-Fish-street to be a Church, or not; if not, 1 Must he not condemn then Mr. Froysell and other godly Ministers that have acknowledged them a Church, and upon that account were their Ministers, and gave them the Sacrament? 2 Must he not prove that such a company of believers that have been baptised, & thereby admitted Members of a Visible Church, that will still publicly own this Baptism; that were never cast out by any Church Censures, are not a Visible Church, to whom belongs all the Ordinances? 3 Did not he himself acknowledge such as these are to be the matter of a Church (though the former particular proves them actually a Church) to use his own words? Is it not then his duty, either to convince them that they are not believers, that they are scandalous by evident proofs from their lives? (which he never did, yea before he knew them he disclaimed them; yea in a Book called Pills to PURGE Malignants, etc. he unchristianly branded them with vile Names, and this as he confesseth before he knew them: O sad! was this to come as an Ambassador of Christ among them?) or else if he cannot, is it not his very great sin to see stones and timber fit for a spiritual building, and not to build them up to be a Church of Christ? much more must he not be accountable for plucking down, and endeavouring not to leave one stone upon another in that which is already a Church of Christ? 4 Or must he not prove that some corruptions unchurch them? Were not the Corinthians some carnal? 1 Cor. 3.3. some proud? 1 Cor. 4.18. did not some go to law before the unjust? ch. 6.1. were not some defrauders? ch. 6.8. some drunken, ch. 11.21. some unworthy receivers, ch. 11.27, 28, 29. some ignorant of God, and of the resurrection? 1 Cor. 15.34, 35. yet the Corinthians were a Church for all this, as Mr. wiles urged. Thus some of the seven Churches of Asia were corrupt, yet were styled Churches still, Rev. 3.14, 15. some of the Church of Pergamos held the doctrine of Balaam, and of the Nicolaitans; Thyatira, v. 20. suffered the woman Jezebel to seduce. The Laodiceans were lukewar me, etc. 2 But if his Parishioners be a Church; I query, whether doth he separate from them as a Church, or as corrupt? If as a Church, is it not an horrid schism, such as the Protestants justly pled not guilty of to the Papists? or aught he not to let this company of Visible Saints to enjoy their own means and meetingplace, that they may get to themselves a Minister that shall give them the Ordinances? How dares he in conscience hinder a Church of Christ from uniting, and from enjoying his Ordinances which he hath left for it? How will he answer it at the day of judgement before Christ? Ought not his own Church (as he calleth them) to have a meetingplace of their own, and not to rob these of their liberty? How dared he thrust himself upon a flock to shear the fleeces, but will not be their Shepherd? But if he separate only from their corruptions to make your Query sound any thing, ought he not to show his Parishioners that they be guilty of such corruptions as made us separate from Rome? The Papists worship Saints, and Images, and make more Mediators than one: These and more I can make evident upon proof; can Mr. Brooks evidently prove his Parishioners to be guilty of these or such like corruptions? do you read of any that ever suffered so great a Church-punishment (as being kept from the Ordinances is) unless first there were conviction of a notorious scandal? 2 Brotherly admonitions, Matth. 18.15, 16, 17, 18. 3 And a casting out by Church-Censures, 1 Cor. 5. Again, could there have been any Corruptions in that Church but through his neglect? For, hath he not power upon evident conviction to keep back the scandalous? I say, upon evident conviction, for God never intended his Ministers should search the hearts of men, as to say they are formal and wicked, and censure their hearts, when they can evidently prove nothing from their lives? Is it not likewise his duty to instruct the ignorant? Is he not bound in charity to judge all others to be true visible Christians? How then can he plead that he separates from that Church because of her corruptions, seeing it is his duty, and in his power, according to the Rules of the Gospel, to have reform it? Will not these Schisms and separations lie heavy at his door and yours? Ought you not to clear yourselves to the world? Query 34. Whether it hath not been common for those of your way, to separate from the Papists, and yet take their Tithes, and (to use your own phrase) sheer those lame and diseased Sheep, which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you? Counter-Query. Are not Tithes settled in Parishes for the maintenance of those that take the care and charge of those Parishes? Doth not therefore the Tithes belong to those of Master wiles his way, that take this charge? Doth Mr. Brookes do thus? Doth he not declare that he takes no more charge of the Parish as their Minister than of any other? Do those of Mr. wiles his way deny the Papists any thing that is their right and due? Hath not the Church debarred them from communion with us? Is it not equity than they should not deny their due? Doth Master Brooks do thus? When were his Parishioners cut off from Church Communion? how, or by whom? Have not those of Mr. wiles his way the consent of those Parishes they take the charge, from whom they require their maintenance? But hath not Mr. Brookes unworthily crowded in by might, and yet never intended to take the charge for which the Tithes were intended? Yea, and hath he not troubled his Parishioners for the nonpayment of them? Query 35. If you say, They might (if they would reform) have communion with you; I query then, whether this very Objection that causeth you to exclude Papists, be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants, and other profane people, viz. because they do not reform? Counter-Query. We do say, if they would reform and turn Protestants, that the Churches of England would have communion with them; will Mr. Brooks say thus of his Parish? Nay, would it not be a rejoicing to many honest hearts, if he could make it manifest, that he refuseth none but scandalous and profane people, and that because they are such, and will not reform? Doth Mr. Brookes exclude the whole Parish because scandalous and profane? Is it not evident that they are counted profane, and excluded as Papists, because they will not own his Church, and dis-own their own? Would he not own some of these very men, and count them reform one's if they would but own his Schismatical way, to whom he never yet otherwise would tender the Ordinances? Did ever Christ intent that his Ordinances should be tied up to Mr. Brookes his opinion? How will you, or this man excuse his conscience in this? Query 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? Counter-Query. Don't you easily see by this time that we have no need to deny a Succession? and that your Queries have been very vain all the way? Is not this the opinion of the most godly and sober Protestant Ministers? I suppose Mr. wiles did not assert Necessity in opposition to Succession as his opinion, but brought it as one branch of that Dilemma he brought for your satisfaction, viz. that the first Reformers must needs be true Ministers, either by necessity, or by Succession, which you have not answered. Reader, take notice then, that in my answering his following Queries I plead not for Necessity, as if there were no Succession, but to show you, supposing that succession was broken off, how weakly he argues against Necessity. Query 37. If that Ordination from Rome, and receiving Holy Orders from thence, was thrown off upon a politic account, as doubtless it was at first, (though since we have declined it upon more religious considerations) than I query, how any body could pretend to the Argument of Necessity to preach without Ordination? Counter-Query. Have you proved plainly, clearly, and convincingly that there was no true Succession, are you sure of it? Have you done it with the true strength of Argument rather than with subtlety: Is it certain Reader, art thou convinced? Then, hath he not as clearly proved the first Reformers to be Ministers by Necessity? Can you deny it, but that there is a case of Necessity when Ordinationcaned be had from Succession, and doth not such a case of Necessity make them true Ministers, that cannot in the ordinary way be Ordained? why then dare you thus to seem to unsay what you have said, by pleading against Necessity, notwithstanding you have argued that there was no Succession? But if we should suppose Succession was lost, is your Query of any force against Necessity? what if the religious considerations of the first Reformers embraced that opportunity, which Political Interests gave, were they therefore impious? Or what though through ignorance of the loss of Succession they did not pretend to the Argument of Necessity, doth it follow they lost this title therefore? What if a man should not know that the writing is lost whereby he hath a right title to his House, of which he and his Ancestors have had an unquestionable possession an hundred years, doth it follow that because he doth not plead the right of prescription, that therefore he hath not that right? Thus might not the first Reformers be truly Ministers by Necessity (it being supposed) though they pleaded it not? Query 38. Whether or no, when the Line of Succession was broke, it was not lawful THAN 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. Counter-Query. 1. Doth not a case of Necessity rather give that right which a positive Law should give in an ordinary way than make a new Law? 2 Doth not such a case of Necessity then rather put men into office, as doth the positive Law, Tit. 1.5. then give liberty to mere gifted Brethren to preach, for which there is no Law in the whole Word of God? 3 Do not then those that are by a case of Necessity put upon the work of the Ministry act as men in Office, and not as meet gifted Brethren? 4 Or doth this case of Necessity make any Ministers but those that are fittest, and undertake the Ministerial Charge? 5 Do not they then preach without Authority from this case, and so sin, that preach as not in Office by this case, notwithstanding their gifts? Query 39 If it were true (as you say) that none ought to preach while the successive Ordination of Christ remains uninterrupted, 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 necessity, and want of the other by Succession? Counter-Query. Seeing therefore none but those that are in Office, either by lawful Ordination in the ordinary way, or by a Case of Necessity are to preach: is it not a sin for mere gifted brethren to preach? If there was a Case of Necessity, did not this put our first Reformers in Office? 2 (Supposing this Case of Necessity which is not yet granted) you insinuate they did not pretend to that Argument, how could they then through Necessity put themselves upon the Office, would not providence (supposing the Case) plainly put them upon it? 3 Supposing they were actually in Office by this Necessity, is there not at least a lawful Succession from THEM? 4 Can any then in an ordinary lawful way be in Office, but those that have it from that Succession? And are not likewise the present Ministry true and lawful that thus have it? Query 40 Whereas you say, You can baptise the children of wicked Parents; I query, what ground you have in Scripture so to do? Counter-Query. Do you not handsomely and neatly endeavour to delude? one while by pretending to run for Independency, when you are an Anabaptist already; another while by pleading against the baptising of the children of wicked Parents, when you are against the baptising of any children? Do not you acknowledge that those that have a right to be Members of the Visible Church ought to be baptised? may not they then as well baptise the children of those that are Church-Members, as having a right to Membership upon their Principles? Query 41. Whether to baptise the children of wicked Parents, be not contrary to the Opinion of those which yourself calls the Reformed Churches? Counter-Query. In the sense Mr. wiles asserts this Baptism, it is easy to see it belongs to the children of those that are Members of the Church; And do not most Reformed Churches thus judge? I'll propound one Query concerning what you probably know, or at the least wish to be: Whether or no is Mr. Brooks inclinable to Anabaptism? had be not very favourable thoughts of it when he pleaded so much for men of that opinion? Either he owns the Baptism of children, or not: if he doth, why doth he not acknowledge all the Parishioners of Margarets-New-Fish-street to be members of the Visible Church, since they have been baptised, and were never cut off? why hath he ever since he came, without cause, or at least proof of cause, debarred them from those Privileges that belong to them as Members of a Visible Church? If he doth not own paedobaptism; then may we not say this is the reason, why for thus many years he never gave the Lord's Supper to one Master of a Family in his Parish, unless to an Alehousekeeper, who now is dead; notwithstanding there are many sober and godly men there? May we not hence guests the reason why he spoke so many good words for them? may we not hence guess why he denies to baptise so many children, that when they might be engaged by this to be Christ's Disciples, he is unwilling to it, yea, and when he hath nothing to say but the Parents may be as godly, as if they were of his Church? therefore I could wish I knew how to convince myself that he doth not baptise the children of those of his own Church out of self-ends, rather than out of respects to the Ordinance itself. Again, hath he not too evidently asserted that the Ordination of the Ministry of England is Antichristian; it will follow then, that it is unlawful, and that all they have baptised, are unlawfully baptised, must he not then be for Anabaptism? may we not therefore justly fear that he and his are in great danger to fall to Anabaptism, as others of that way have done? how doth my heart tremble whilst thus I argue! I could hearty wish I could not plead so strongly to sadden honest hearts, and to please such as you are. Query 42. Where as you said, that the Fifth-Monarchy-men were as the smoke of the bottomeless pit, and that their Principles did raze the Foundation of Religion; I quere, 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 Rom in 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. Counter-Query. This you speak of may be the reason of the Apellation of Fifth-Monarchy-men; But is it to yours or my purpose to examine whether there is sufficient ground for this Opinion? I do confess there are divers sober men of this judgement. But did not Mr. wiles speak of the Fifth-Monarchy-men that are so infamously famous for decrying both Magistracy and Ministry? what is this but the smoke of the bottomless pit? Query 43. If this principle were grounded upon this and such like say in Scripture, what reason had you to cry out against it? Counter-Query. Was not this reason enough (setting aside that the point its self is so clearly questionable) that with such raving rage they joined together with others to cry down, and more, such standing Ordinances? Query 44. If you say, It was because of the evil practice of some of them in these latter 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 than ever those were like to do you call Fifth-Monarchy-men? but this surely is un-man-like reasoning. Counter-Query. Did Mr. wiles at all speak for or against the Opinion of the Fifth Monarchy-men as such? Did he not so emphatically express Fifth Monarchy-men, and upon such an account and occasion (speaking then against those that decried the Ministry) that you as well as I, and many more, might easily know he meant those that this City not long since rung of so much? those great decryers of Magistracy and Ministry? Is it not unman-like arguing then from so poor an Argument to lay blood upon on the heads of Episcopal-men, and Presbyterians? If the War was carried on by some for a while with honest intentions, yet you may see by my nineteenth Counter-query whose hands I guess to be most embrued in blood. Query 45. Whereas you would seem to blame Mr. Books for harsh Judgement, I query, whether your Judgement was charitable when you decried the Fifth Monarchy-men as so many monstrous Heretics, that raze the Foundation without any kind of exception; especially considering what Ground there is for it in God's Word, and also that it was the opinion of many men both ancient and modern; for Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius the Emperor, asserts the thousand years' Reign of Christ upon Earth; and he further saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon, that is was the belief OF ALL CHRISTIANS exactly Orthodox. And of latter 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. Counter-Query. Do they not strike at the Foundation, whilst they would pluck down such corner stones? Is this harst Judgement? probably to you it is, if you only fear Magistracy, and hate the Ministry. I suppose those you hereafter mention were not guilty of this evil of denying Magistracy and Ministry; Are all these than you mention of the same opinion as to Christ's Personal Reign? But this is not a place now to consider it; as for Mr. Brookes, we may guess him as harsh to Mr. wiles (as by his misrepresenting his words, and insinuating those unchristian charges of Deceiver, Hypocrite, etc. appears) as he is too facile in his judgement to Dr. Everard, to whose Book (which I judge to be very erroneous, I had almost said Blasphemous) he hath writ an Epistle very much commendatory, to which Mr, Barker hath set his hand; and I wonder by what trick they got an Imprimatur to it from that Reverend, Pious, and Learned Mr. Caryl. Query 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 refused 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? etc. 2 Tim. 2.24. Counter-Query. If Arguments would have stopped your mouth, ought you not to have been silent now? Why did you not answer in these Queries that Argument which he urged to you at his house for your satisfaction, which he mentions in his Letter, and which I have laid down in my six and twentieth Counter-Query? But if your tongue be an unruly Member, and will not be quieted with Reason; ought it not to be quieted some other way? And if those that oppose themselves will not be instructed with meekness in an orderly way, ought they then to be allowed in public disorders and oppositions? Are you not sensible that all Churches would be filled with nothing but disputes and disorders? If this should be permitted, may not every man plead for this liberty, as well as you? would you desire this should be, if you had not a design to bring confusions into our public worship, and to trouble the weak with doubtful disputations? Query 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 Highgate, who is ready to witness the truth hereof, That you were informed I was a Jesuit; and therefore told him he would do well to apprehend me. Truly 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 Jesuits, by the Stat. of Eliz. 27.2. or else (if that Gentlemn would have been ruled by you) that I might have been laid in Goal right or wrong, to the undoing of myself and Family, till I could have cleared myself of the supposed Crime in open Sessions. This must needs be your design, otherwise why did you encourage him to apprehend me as a Jesuit? 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 Jesuit, the controversy between us would soon be ended. Counter-Query. Do you not see by Mr. wiles his Letter how much you are to blame; thus in Print, to take up a reproach against him? and that upon the bare information of such a single person? did he ever assert you to be a Jesuit? At the most he only said you were suspected, and this he spoke in private: And indeed who would not suspect that man to be Jesuitical, who was cried out on to be such to his face in a great Congregation at Clements beyond Temple-Bar, that hath the vox populi to accuse him of it? That is reported to have converse with Jesuits? that lived a concealed, I had almost said a suspected life for some years together in and about London, that hath Jesuitical opinions and designs; especially to pluck down the Ministry of England, or to make it odious? That these grounds of suspicion may be had concerning you I shall not assert; but only wish that we had no more ground to suspect you to be Jesuitical, than Mr. wiles to be uncharitable in accusing you, or erroneous in what is here controverted, and I make no question but you would in your next subscribe yourself a friend to Mr. wiles and this Truth, in some measure vindicated. Confess the Truth, and glorify God. Amen. Reader, there are faults in the printing which are not much material, only correct p. 31. l. 4. read with for as. POSTSCRIPT. REader, I thought it necessary to advertise thee of a few things. 1 That to me it is a great sign that that is a Truth, and a Truth of great concernment, which when it is asserted, or taught, men of corrupt minds, are enraged at, and oppose: They would have the Servants sleep, that being their time of sowing Tares: therefore it is very observable, that when ever godliness was most likely to increase, when the Ministry have been most famous and active, than the Devil hath stirred up deadly enemies and opposers: this hath been in all ages, this we sadly experience in our days. Was there ever a more learned, pious, famous Ministry in England, than now there is? I challenge even its enemies, and amongst them Mr. Ives to contradict it if they can: And (shall we not sigh at it) had ever the Ministry of England so great and so many Designers to undermine it? But the Father of Truth usually so blesseth his own cause, that it gets by opposition; thus we can say of this truth of Ordination of Ministers, which in my knowledge hath gotten ground by these late Broils. Gather yourselves together, and you shall be broken in pieces, for the Lord is with us, Isa. 8.9, 10. Mat. 28.20. 2 That those that have Designs against the Truth, have usually some plausible pretence to carry them on: the Devil hath got the Art now adays to wrap himself in a Prophet's Mantle; to appear as an Angel of light in his choicest Instruments, who usually with a seeming religious garb forth up with soft words till they may opportunely change their Courtships into calumnies. Hath not Mr. Ives worthily shown himself for Ordination of Ministers, as he pretends) that would make the world believe that the present godly Ministry is Antichristian if he could? and that hath thus thrust himself into a quarrel against it? 3 That those that design the propagating of their errors, will for the most part oppose: their hands will be against every man; but seldom assert their own opinion, and prove it: is it not, because it is easier to quarrel with truth, than to prove an error? and because that is a time to break in, when the ranks are first shattered; to broach errors when men are staggered in the truth? or is not this the end, viz. to be always accusing of others, that they themselves may never be questioned or called to justify their own practices? Hath not Mr. Ives played his part in this, by opposing every man not of his own way, that we might believe what he asserts to be truth? Hath he not done so in these Queries? where doth he bring the least positive truth, or one Argument to justify his own practice, or to state what is right? Hath he brought one probable Argument to prove that gifted brethren may preach? or that people may hear them? that the Church ought to ordain, and not Ministers? hath he unfolded any of those independent Riddles, viz. that a company of those that are baptised, and own their Baptism, are not Members of a Visible Church? Or that a Minister being such in relation to his Church, acts no longer as in Office, than to his Church, and that at one and the same time and place he preacheth as a mere gifted Brother to those that are not of his Church, and as a Minister to those of his Church? thus thou mayest see his spirit of Opposition, and his design, to cry out on others, that none may suspect his cause; as cutpurses, that they may may not be accused: Ought he not to do otherwise the next time? 4 That this task I have here undertaken is the first, and therefore may be guilty of mistakes, of which I beg thy pardon, and do promise thee, that nothing but what is more than ordinarily material shall provoke me to spend my own time in writing, or thine in reading. Be zealous for the truth; pray for its progress; and be thankful to God for any satisfaction thou shalt receive by him who is, thy concealed Friend N. E. FINIS.