Confidence Encountered: OR, A VINDICATION OF THE Lawfulness of PREACHING without Ordination.  
In Answer to a Book published by N. E. a friend of Mr. Tho wiles, ENTITLED, The confident Questionist Questioned.  
Together with An Answer to a Letter of Mr. Tho. wiles, published in the said Book.  
BY WHICH The Lawfulness of Preaching without Ordination is cleared, and the Ordination of the National Ministers proved to be a Nullity.  
By JER. IVES.  
How forcible are right words! but what do your arguings reprove?  Job 6.25. 
As every one hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If ANY MAN speak, let him speak as the oracles of God  1 Pet. 4. ●0, ●●. 
Printed at London; and are to be sold by Dan. White at the seven Stars in Paul's Churchyard; or may be had at the Author's house in Red-Cross-street. 1658.   

To the READER.  
Reader,  
I Have for thy further information in the things of Christ, published an Answer to some counter Queries, which were made by an unknown Author, in the behalf of Mr. Tho. wiles his Doctrine concerning the sinfulness of Preaching without Ordination; in which counter-Queries, thou mayst be acquainted with the Author's Spirit, though by his concealing his Name, thou canst not be acquainted with his Person; and by a strict Observation of what he hath writ, thou mayst see that he hath made good his own words, viz. That he had writ enough to puzzle, 
* See his book page 4.  rather than convince his Adversary; and that appears by his many contradictions: one while he saith, The Clergy is routed; and by and by tells Mr. wiles, The Enemy is routed 
* See his Epist. to the Reader, and compare it with his Epistle Dedicatory. : one while he demands, whether Apollo's was not ordained Minister when he preached publicly, Act. 18. and by and by he demands, if Apollo's knew of any such thing as Ordination from the Apostles, when he preached, Act. 18. one while he demands, if there was a constituted original Church with Officers in it at this time, when Apollo's preached, 
See his book page 22, 23.  Act. 18. and by and by he saith, That it is certain, Apollo's was at this time an Officer; and bids me prove, that he was ever made an Officer after his preaching, Act. 18. Again, he saith, If the Church of Rome was a true Church, than her Ministers were true Ministers, when our Reformers were ordained by her. And demands, why I did not disprove her to be a Church, pag. 41. and yet a little before he saith, That she was as bad when the Ministers did receive Ordination from her, as she was when they left her; and yet he saith, They left her not as she was the Spouse of Christ, but as she was a Harlot, page 39 so that he supposeth Rome to be a Harlot, and Christ's Spouse at one and the same time. Again, he saith, page 37. That the corruptions of the corrupt Dispenser's of Ordinances cannot make them null; and yet he saith, pag. 48. If it be true as Mr. Brookes saith, That the Ministers of England are Antichristian; then all that they have baptised, must be baptised again. Is not this plain contradiction?  
As he abounds with Contradictions, so he doth with Impertinencies, meddling with the Trade that I follow, and my being a Soldier, and suchlike things, that concern not the Question before him. Another while he blames me for that he doth himself, viz. of meddling with this Controversy, and taking it out of Mr. Brookes his hand; when he undertook to answer a particular Paper, which was proper for none else to answer but Mr. wiles.  
Another while he blames me for that I did charge a thing upon Mr. wiles, that I had but one witness for; and yet himself believes the Accused's bare Negation without any witness: for at that time when Mr. Wills desired a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuit, there was none present to witness besides the Gentleman aforesaid, though at our first meeting there was divers.  
Again, one while he saith, Rome had power to ordain Ministers as Christ's Church; and by and by compares them to Thiefs, and to Korah, at the time they ordained the first Reformers.  
Again, his Book is full of unman-like arguings, as appears by his frequent begging the chief things in question; otherwhile, when I demand a proof of those things that are so frequently affirmed by Mr. Willes, he demands how I prove they are not; and so turns the proof of the affirmation from himself, and puts his Respondent to prove Negations. Surely, this is not to give a Reason of our Hope to every one that asketh, with Meekness and Fear.  
Again, he tells his Reader, That the Anabaptists are bloody, pag. 31. and pag. 50. he saith, he ghesses, that they are the men whose hands were most embrued in the blood of the late Wars: When indeed, the Anabaptists were in no capacity at the beginning of these Wars, to blow those sparks of contention into a burning Flame, if they had had a mind to so bad a work.  
Thus I have given thee a taste of that Spirit that inspired him in the writing of his Book, to which I have given an Answer; and though I have not answered to every word, yet I have answered every thing that hath any show or colour of Reason in it, which I desire thee faithfully and impartially to consider, trying all things, and holding fast that which is the best; and that thou mayst so do, is the prayer and desire of  
Thy Friend, Jer. Ives.   

Confidence encountered, etc.  
Mr. N. E.  
ACcording to your desire, I have answered your Counter Queries you sent to me with a Letter; and though you have meddled with a matter that concerns you not, yet know, that it concerns me to answer you, lest you should be confirmed in your folly: and though you contemn my Queries, as slight, and call me an unworthy Enemy, yet I have learned to say,  
Contemptum stulti contemnere maxima laus est;  
Contemni à stulto dedecus esse nego.  
To scorn a Fool's contempt, is praise; and I,  
His scorn, to be disgrace, do quite deny.  
And though you thought you had so routed me, that I would never appear again; yet know, that this was nothing but the violent beat of the Waves and Billows of your ambition, which I thought necessary to put a check to, by this ensuing Answer, lest you should be exalted above measure: for the prevention whereof, I have published this Reply. And therein,  
I Shall first begin with your Title, wherein you call me a Confident Questionist: but if you had read my Epistle, you would have found, that I did question, for Conscience sake, some things that Mr. wiles had delivered; and withal, did propound to the Reader, that if the Answers thereunto did satisfy, I should bless the Father of Lights that had not suffered me to labour in vain. This was the greatest altitude of my Confidence, and the height of my Ambition in that undertaking.  
You proceed to an Epistle, where you tell your Reader, That if he be a Friend to Truth, he probably hath ere this been grieved to see the host of Israel routed, etc. and the Ministry SO MUCH shattered, etc. why then do you glory and cry victoria, if the Clergy, which you call the Host of Israel, be routed? should not you mourn, as well as you would have your Reader? but in stead thereof, you blame your Enemy for glorying, as though he had no occasion; and wear the Laurel yourself, wreathing it upon your own brows, as though you had so routed your Enemy, that he would never rally: what need is there for the Reader to grieve, if Mr. wiles hath routed and shattered the choicest Ranks of his Enemies? (unless you flatter Mr. wiles, and deal truly with your Reader) for is not this strange, that you tell your Reader, 
See his Epistle to Mr. wiles.  the Lords Host is routed; and yet flatter with Mr. wiles, and tell him, the Enemy is routed? And by this you may see, that you are so unfit to be an Armourbearer in this Warfare, that you justly deserve to be chashiered the Camp for your false Intelligence. For you tell Mr. wiles, the Enemy is shattered; and yet tell your Reader the Ministry are shattered. But is the Clergy shattered? no marvel then that the people are shattered: for, like Priest, like People: a shattered Clergy must not look for any thing, but a discomposed people. And truly, that is the greatest Truth in your Packet: for how few of them agree in any thing save in the point of Tithes, common experience can testify, if you had said nothing.  
You go on still in your Epistle, and tell your Reader, That if he be shaken, you have sent him some Counter-Queries, and bid him judge, and try; and then (you say) you hope he will blush at his unconstancy, etc. So he may well, if what you have writ should shake his understanding, than he must needs be one that is carried about with every Airy notion.  
You further tell your Reader, That if he be an enemy to truth, he hath triumphed before the victory, etc. How can that be? when you exhort to grieve, because them that you call the Enemy, have routed the Host: what is that less than Victory, if you speak Truth?  
You go on, and tell your Reader, That if Mr. Brooks or his Church, invited me to be the Patron of their cause, you might guests them to be miserably baffled, etc. First, neither Mr. Brooks nor his Church ever invited me to do them this service; but if they had, if their inviting me to be a Patron to the cause, had argued them to be miserably baffled; how miserably baffled did you fear yourself should be in what you had writ, when you begged Mr. wiles to be your Patron?  
You tell your Reader, That he cannot expect Mr. wiles should hinder his more serious discussion of this weighty point, to take notice of my slight Queries. This, I confess, is an easy way to confute the strongest Arguments, for a man that is contrary minded, to call them slight; and say, he is not at leisure to answer them. If I had answered you thus, surely men would have judged, you had more strength on your side, than you have.  
You go on, and bid your Reader see, if here be not enough to puzzle me, etc. You are now guilty of that which you blamed your Adversary for, but now, viz. of triumphing before the Victory: but it seems then, the end of your writing was to puzzle, and not to convince your Adversary.  
I proceed now to take notice of your Epistle to Mr. wiles, in which you tell him, my grounds are slight, etc. This triumphing of yours, is but like that which Job speaks of, that is but for a moment, Job 20.5.  
You demand of Mr. wiles, in what sense he asserted the baptising the Children of wicked Parents, etc. and you presume he means only such as are Church-Members, and are not cast out, etc. Truly, either your Church are all good, or else you are partakers of their sins in not casting them out: for I have not heard of one vile person, that the Presbyters have excluded.  
There is another Question which you propound to Mr. wiles, viz What were his own words concerning the Fifth-Monarchy-men. About Mr. wiles asserting those words touching the Fifth-Monarchy-men, I have not wronged him, as hereafter shall appear.  
You further ask Mr. wiles, Whether he did positively assert me to be a Jesuit, etc. Surely, you did not think Mr. wiles had so much to do as you made your Reader believe even now, that you ask him so needless a Question: for did I say or intimate that Mr. wiles did positively assert me to be a Jesuit? why did you not ask him whether I had two hands or three? it had been as much to your purpose. But to proceed.  
You tell him, That if any thing appear in print in answer to the whole, it will beg his patronage of its cause, etc. If he did not father it, it would be an Orphan, since the true Father will not be known. But doth not your Logic teach me to believe you feared to be miserably baffled, since you thus beg for his Patronage? Surely, you thought your Wine to be mixed with Water, that you beg Mr. wiles his Bush to hang at your Door, that so it might sell the better, and not be questioned.  
The next thing that followeth in your Book is Mr. wiles his Letter, wherein he tells you, That the people were so rude that it might have proved to my peril, if he had not pacified them, etc. This shows what Spirit your Churches are filled withal, that it is perilous for a man to ask a Question among them, though never so soberly: for no man in his wits will believe that they were of Mr. Brookes his Church that were so much my Enemies, seeing (you say) I came to be a Patron to their cause.  
Mr. wiles tells you further, That he laid down two Principles, as the grounds of my satisfaction:  

1. That Ministers in an ordinary way were to be ordained by Ministers.  
2. That in case of necessity, where there was no Ministers to ordain, fit Persons might become Ministers without Ordination, etc.   
But he doth not tell you, that I asked him by which of these ways he came into the Ministry; and he would not tell me, though I pressed him once and again: for though I grant these two ways of Admission, yet I denied that ever he came in by either. Hereupon he told me, If there was but two ways of coming into a House, and if he were in, I must conclude that he came in at one of them. But is not this a shameful begging the Question? for though I granted these two were to be the ways of entrance, yet I denied him to be come in by either. Now what is it but to beg the Question, when he shall take it for granted he is in by one of the aforesaid ways, when I denied him to be in by either? as himself confesseth in his Letter to you, pag. 7. later end: for he saith, I opposed both; meaning both his entrance by a lawful Ordination, or by necessity. So then, this is your Champion's Argument, which is like Goliah's Sword in his hand, the Proposition being, That he is no Minister of Christ, either by a lawful Ordination, or by any pretended necessity: So that his great Argument (if I may put it in form) is:  
If I am a Minister by one of these ways, than I am a Minister by one of them:  
But I am a Minister by one of them;  
Ergo, I am a Minister by one of them.  
Nothing else can be made of this that he propounds. Now this had been a dilemma indeed, if I had granted him to be a true Minister, and had confessed that a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of the ways aforesaid; then he had reasoned like a man, if he had said, Since I grant him to be a Minister, and withal grant, that none can enter but by the ways aforesaid, than he must needs come in by one of them. But since I denied both, how wildly doth he reason?  
Again, doth not Christ say, That he that comes not in at the door, is a thief and a robber? Now though I granted that there was no other lawful way of coming into the Office, yet a man's being in, doth not prove he came in any of these lawful ways; because Christ supposeth they may get in by climbing up another way.  
The next thing Mr. wiles takes notice of in his Answer to your Letter, is that which he spoke about the baptising the Children of wicked Parents, which he saith are such Children, whose Parents are not juridically ejected by excommunication, etc.  
His Reformation, as I have told, is so good, that none deserves Excommunication; or else so bad, that he doth not execute that Ordinance upon them; or if he do, than all that he doth excommunicate are childless; or else he, contrarily to his Principles, baptizeth their Children; for he refuseth to baptise none. But if his Argument be good, That the Children of wicked Parents are to be baptised, because sometimes God chooseth them that are wicked men's Children, Doth not this Argument plead as much for the Children of those that are excommunicated? may not God choose the Children of such as well the Children of others? and doth not the Children of wicked excommunicated Parents, stand in need of an Obligation to Holiness, as well as the Children of those wicked Parents that are not excommunicated? and yet this man saith, That wicked men's Children, the worse their Parents are, the more need their Children have of Baptism: and yet he denies it to the children of those who are excommunicated. It seems then, you judge them you keep in the Church worse than they you cast out, or else this cannot be a true Maxim, viz. The worse the Parents are, the more need the Children have of Baptism: for if they you cast out are the worst, than it follows, that their Children have the more need, by his Argument: if so, why doth he confine it to none but such as are within the Church?  
Whoever desires further satisfaction in this point, touching the baptising of Infants. I shall refer them to my Book, entitled, Infant's Baptism disproved; by which you will see Mr. wiles his false Aspersion wiped away, viz. That I sought to colour my Opinion, which was against the Baptising of any infants. For not only my Book testifies my willingness to own my Opinion publicly, but I did tell Mr. wiles to his Face, that I would prove it unlawful to baptise any Infant; as many can witness.  
Mr. wiles in his Letter further tells you, That he did decry the Fifth-Monarchy-men among other Sects that cry down their Ministry, as the smoke of the bottomless pit, smelling strong of the Brimstone of Hell: his proof for this is so faint, that he suspects it himself; for he saith, he alluded in that speech to Rev. 9.2, 3. by which text (he saith) such Sects are meant, AS SOME DO INTERPRET. Is not this a brave stroke? do you reckon this one of his fatal blows he hath given the Adversary, by telling them their Breath is as the smoke of the bottomless Pit? but it is but AS SOME DO INTERPRET.  
Miraris Wilsum rixis implêsse theatrum?  
Ingenio Portae convenit ille suae.  
No marvel wiles pulpit fills with railing and debate,  
Since that we see it doth agree with th' genius of his 
* Billingsgate.  gate.  
The last thing of moment that Mr. wiles mentions in his Letter, is, That he never affirmed upon any information that I was a Jesuit; and that he did never instigate any to apprehend mt. For proof of this, I shall refer you to this Gentleman, Mr. Vancourt for a Witness, who is ready to make Oath of the truth thereof; by which Mr. wiles his untruths appear, together with his malice, though he cries out of the malice of others.  
This Gentleman is a man known for Piety, and to bear a good esteem in the National Ministry; and also he is of good Credit in the World: and therefore know, that it was more just for me to believe his Affirmation, then for you to take the Accused's bare Negation. Therefore I judge, my life would lie at stake, if Mr. wiles had as good proof to prove me a Jesuit, as I have to prove that he did advertise this Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuit.  
This shall suffice to this Letter, and to your observation thereon in the later end of your Book.  
I come now to your Epistle Dedicatory, wherein you do excuse your flattering of Mr. wiles: but what do you else, when you tell him you presume to be his Armor-Bearer? and in a Compliment tell him, That you were a spectator of those furious strokes, whereby he shattered the choicest Ranks of his Enemies, and dealt about such fatal blows, that their choicest Champions fell before him, etc.  
Why did you not tell your Reader, if you do not flatter, where those blows were given, and those battels fought? and when it was that this Victory was obtained, that you so much glory in? and what the Names of those choice Champions were, that fell by his fatal blows? Methinks, if you were a Spectator (as you say you were) of these great Conflicts, you can resolve these Questions, that so you may comfort your grieving Reader, who yet doth believe your first words that you told him, viz. That your Army was routed, which you called the host of Israel.  
Your presuming to bear Mr. wiles his Armour, shows how little you have of the Armour of God in this Spiritual Conflict; and your fight under his Shield, shows how little you have of the Shield of Faith: but do you take Mr. wiles his Armour, and fight under his Shield, because you so much desire it; and I will take the Armour of God, and the Shield of Faith, to fight against you, and shall leave the success of the Victory to God: and though you boast upon the putting on of your Armour, as though you were so dreadful, that your Enemy would flee when he heard of you, (for by concealing your Name, you thought I should never see you) yet know, that it had been better and more modest for you to have gloried when you had put your Armour off. But I am not fled yet; and if I do flee, I may be easier found upon the flight, because my Name is known, than you can be who conceal your Name and Place of abode, for no other reason that I know of, but for fear lest you should be apprehended in your flight.  
You now face about, and direct your speech to me; and tell me, That you hope your rashness is not so great, as Eliabs was to David, 1 Sam. 17.18, 28. if you say, that it is my business to carry Loaves and Cheese to the Camp, out of the pride and naughtiness of my Heart, that I above all others should single out a Champion to encounter with, etc. If your rashness be not so great as Eliabs to David, it seems it is rashness, though not so great; as not only your words do intimate, but the story you allude to, 1 Sam. 17.18, 28. by which your Reader may see you compare yourself to Eliab, and me to David, who carried Loaves and Cheese to the Army; and the Army that you called the Host of Israel, you now compare to the uncircumcised Philistines; and the Army that I carry relief to, to the Israel of God, for such was the Army that David carried Loaves and Cheese to; and Mr. wiles the Champion that you say I have singled out to encounter, you very craftily compare him to Goliath: and by this you justify me in my Encounter, and condemn yourself of rashness in judging me, for that I carried some small contribution to the Army of the Lord, as David did to Israel. By this the Reader may see, that you had so great a stomach to be nibbling at the Bread and Cheese, that you had wholly forgot your cause.  
You proceed and tell me, That either I uncivilly took Mr. Brooks his work out of his hand, or else that I highly valued myself as one that could manage it better.  
First, was not all the audience concerned as well as Mr. Brookes, in what Mr. wiles delivered? since he told them how dangerous it was to hear men that were not ordained.  
Secondly, did not Mr. wiles confess, that he invited all that had Objections, to give them in either in word or in writing?  
Thirdly, doth not Mr. Brookes think so of men? if he doth not, why should you? seeing, if I have dealt uncivilly, he is the person offended.  
Fourthly, is not the work still in Mr. Brookes his hands, for all that I have said or done?  
Fifthly, is it not greater incivility for you to take upon you to answer a particular paper, which was particulary directed to Mr. wiles? This surely savours more of arrogancy than any thing that I have done.  
You go on, and ask five Questions, and answer them yourself; by which it appears, you can answer Questions of your own making, easier than you can those that are made by another. I shall take notice of none but the first and last, seeing I have already upon some former occasion, taken notice of all the rest.  
In the first Question you suppose me ask, who you are? Your answer is, That truly you are Homo nullius Nominis: which being Englished, is, That you are a Man of no Name.  
Truly, Sir, I do not blame you for putting no Name to your Book, of you say true, 
I had otherwise interpreted this phrase, had he put a name to his book  that you have no Name. But how was this oversight committed, that your Godfathers' and Godmothers' did not give you one in your Baptism? or are you not yet baptised? if you are not, was it because your Father was excommunicated, or that he was no Christian; and therefore you had no right? if so, you have done enough now to give Mr. wiles a Testimony of your Christianity: therefore I doubt not but he will baptise you; and that you will in your next be homo nominis.  
Your last Question is, But why do you answer me in counter-Queries? Having made this Question, you thus answer it yourself, and tell me, That you answer by counter-Queries, that I may see how easy it is for a fool to ask more questions than a wise man can answer.  
Truly Sir, I shall willingly become a Fool for Christ's sake, that I may be wise; but it seems the foolish things of God hath confounded the wise: for you say, the fool hath asked more Questions then the wise man can answer. Surely, this indeed was the reason why you did not answer positively.  
I come to your Queries. And first, you state the Question as I printed it, it being that upon which many of my Questions are grounded. Herein you tell me, I have dealt ingeniously with Mr. wiles, in the right stating of the difference; and than you propound your first counter-Query, wherein you ask me,  
Quest. 1 Whether that is not 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?  
Answ. I answer, That is a sin which is so practised without a Precept; and therefore Mr. wiles, and you both, do err in laying men under sin for Preaching without Ordination, and in baptising Infants, and in giving the Lord's Supper to profane and scandalous persons: who hath required these (and lay-Elders, with suchlike Innovations) at your hands?  
Quest. 2 Your second Query you make upon mine, is, Must not then unordained men's preaching be sinful, & c?  
Answ. I answer, No: because they have all these Text's here mentioned, 
Mal. 3.16 Heb. 10.25. Heb. 5.12. 1 Cor. 14.13, 14. 1 Pet. 4.10.  to justify such a Practice; but you have none to justify those things that I object against you in my Answer to your first: but to these Texts I shall say more in due place, when I come to weigh your Queries concerning them.  
Quest. 3 In your next you ask, If Titus 1.5. be not an Apostolical institution for ordaining Elders; and whether public teaching be not an act of that Office, as well as baptism, being both in the same commission, Mat. 28.19. etc. and whether unordained men are not usurpers of that Office etc.  
This is the sum of your Question:  
Answ. To which I answer, first, That this Text, though it did prove ordaining Elders to be an Institution; yet it doth not prove, that none but such aught to preach: for would this be a good Argument, Paul left Titus in Crete to ordain Elders in every City; therefore none must preach but Elders? May not a man as well reason, That Titus was commanded to ordain Elders in every City: Ergo, there must be none ordained in Country-Villages?  
Again, though Preaching be an act of Office as well as Baptising, doth it therefore follow that none may Preach out of Office? May not a man as well say, That visiting the sick, and praying, and reproving them that sin, and to exhort in private, are acts of the Ministers Office as well as Baptising? doth it therefore follow, that it is a sin to do these acts out of Office? So that it is one thing to do these acts as Christian, and another thing to invade an Office, that I may do them as an Officer: though the later of these be had, the former is good. Do you not see your rashness now?  
Quest. 4 You ask, If there be not a third thing that I forget, viz. That Approbationers do not preach as gifted brethren, nor as lawfully constituted Officers, but as having consent of Ministers. This you would make out by the similitude of my Boys selling Cheese. You say, If he be not my Apprentice, but is with me upon trial, than he doth not sell as he is fit; for then (you say) every one may sell my Cheese that is so fitted: neither can he sell as an Apprentice, because he is not bound, etc.  
Answ. Now pray consider, this similitude agrees in nothing, unless you will say, That as the Cheese my Boy vends, while he is not my Apprentice, is my Cheese; and therefore he vends it by my leave, and must give me account of it: so in like manner the Approbationers you speak of, vend those Ministers Sermons that give them leave to preach, and not their own. If the case be thus, indeed, I think they ought to have their leave before they vend their Sermons. But if my Boy hath Cheese sent him out of the Country, and given him by his Father, than he may sell it, not as my Apprentice; for he is not bound: nor as my Approbationer; for it is none of my Cheese: therefore datur tertiam, he sells it as he hath right. So may any Boy sell Cheese: and any Man Preach, if his Heavenly Father hath bestowed a Gift upon him.  
Quest. 5 Your fifth Query is, for the first part of it, contained in the later parr of your third Query; therefore let that Answer serve that is there given. The other part of this Query is contained in the first and second Queries, to which Answer is already given: only you ask me, Whether I am in office, and how I came to it, and by whom ordained, etc.  
Answ. I answer, That when I am in Office, I shall tell you how I came in: in the mean time, let this suffice you, that I am no Officer: and when I am, I shall show you my Authority from a divine institution.  
Quest. 6 The former part of this, is the same with the later part of the third Question, to which Answer is given. The next thing then that you demand in this sixth Query, is, How can he preach by virtue of the Ministers consent, in relation to an Office, that owns not their power to ordain him? etc. And how can I be satisfied with the power of the Church to ordain? etc.  
Answ. I answer to the last first, That this is the same with the later part of the fifth Query. However, know, that you might have saved this labour, till you had known that I had been for a popular Ordination. And to the former part I answer, That the Ministers at White-hall do daily approve of such men's preaching whom they know to be able and fit; though they do scruple to be ordained, and do refuse to be ordained, yet they do approve of them; and not suspend them upon that score, if they judge them godly and Orthodox: and they seldom ask them that question.  
Quest. 7 You go on, and ask me to show some law that a man may exercise part of that Office he is not invested in, etc. because I query whether a man should sin to preach out of Office, because he wants some, or hath not all those required qualifications, viz. it may be he wants faithful Children, or it may be he may be soon angry, etc. You seem to counterbalance this query of mine, by saying, There is the same weight in your allegation, as, why may not a man preach that is a drunkard, or hath many wives, etc. and why doth his Highness turn such men out? etc.  
Answ. To this I answer, letting go many of your impertinencies of my box-making, and Souldiering, and my being a Cheesemonger, as not being at all to the question, and do say, That though his Highness do turn out Ministers for drunkenness, and plurality of Wives, and other scandalous offences; yet he doth not turn out men from preaching, because they have not faithful Children, not because they have not so good a command of their passion as they ought, but it may be are soon angry: neither do the Ministers that are Tryers at White-hall keep men out that are gifted, nor turn men out that are gifted, though they have not the later qualifications, viz. faithful Children, or so good a command of their passion as they ought: yet they do keep out, and turn out them that are guilty of drunkenness, and plurality of wives; though their Gifts be never so great. So that by the Judgement of his Highness to whom you refer me, and the Ministers at White-Hall, there is much more reason why a man able and godly, may preach that is not ordained, and shall refuse to be ordained, because he thinks he ought first to obtain some further mastery of his passion, or aught to wait till his Children be reform, etc. then there is why a scandalous man should preach unordained, though he have never so great parts; nay, I shall presume that his Highness and those Ministers at White-Hall, had much rather hear an able unordained Man preach, than a profane Man that is ordained, though otherwise of great abilities: and yet you tell your Reader, That there is as much weight in yours, Why may not a man preach that is profane? as there is in my Query, viz., Why may not a man that is gifted to preach the Gospel to Edification and Comfort, preach out of Office; because he finds himself short of that power to rule the Church of God which that Office requires, or it may be wants faithful Children, or it may be he is soon angry, or the like; and therefore is not free to take that Office upon him. I therefore ask, why this good man may not exercise these Gifts out of Office: and you say, that there is the same foundation for your Why may not a profane person preach? etc.  
This is the sum of my Query, and the substance of your Counter-query upon it, as the Reader may see by comparing Book to Book.  
Quest. 8 You further query, If he that preacheth sins in usurping that act of the ministerial Office, then do not they sin that shall wittingly and willingly submit to this usurpation in hearing? if he have no lawful call to preach, Rom. 10.15. can they have a lawful call to hear? is not the Receiver as bad as the Thief?  
Answ. I answer, That you are forced to beg one Question, to make a ground for another: for I never granted that it was a sin for unordained Men to preach; and as yet you have not proved it, though you have begged this Question over and over. And for your saying, The Receiver is as bad as the Thief; and that because it is as bad in me to hear one that is not ordained, as it is in such a one that is not ordained to preach. The truth is, if one of these be as bad as you make it, the other must needs be as bad also.  
Now pray consider, That to relieve the poor is an act of the Deacons Office, doth it therefore follow, that none but Officers may relieve the poor? should I sin to minister to the poor out of Office? and is he that receives an Alms as bad as a Thief, if he knows he that gives it be out of Office? and yet this is your arguing.  
But it may be you will say, That for a man out of Office to distribute the Church's stock is sinful, if they do not licence him so to do; and than it would be a sin to receive from such a man the stock of the Church.  
I answer, That it is most true: but therefore may he not give of his own, because he cannot as an Officer give of the Churches? So because I may not preach from another Man's stock, may I not preach from my own, and administer according as I have received from God? though I may not administer of that which I have not, according to that 1 Pet. 4.10. Let every man as he hath RECEIVED the gift, minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. And he subjoineth in the next Verse, If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God, Ver. 11. So that by comparing these Verses together, you will find, that a man may as lawfully preach, if he have received a Gift to enable him, as he may distribute this World's Goods: but he ought not to do the one or the other, unless he have received a Gift from God to enable him thereto.  
Quest. 9 You proceed: and whereas I ask whether Apollo's did not preach the Gospel, as is recorded Act. 18.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, etc. you reply by ask me, Whether I ought not to have answered Doctor Seamore and others.  
To this I answer That if I had received satisfaction from them, I should have made no further question. But ought not you by the same rule, to have answered all Books extant against Ordination by Presbyters, before you ask me any more questions in the behalf of it? And if these men you speak of have writ so satisfactorily, why do you trouble yourself any further?  
You proceed, and tell me, page 22. That Apollo's taught where (you say) we read but of two Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, and those Paul brought with him, etc.  
I answer, That our Question is not how few or how many Christians were Apollo's Auditors; but, Whether he did not preach publicly and constantly without Ordination. However, you grant that there was Aquila and Priscilla, and those Christians that Paul brought with him which he preached to, which were enough to make a Christian Congregation, as vain as you seem to make the consequence. Therefore if he did preach to the people aforesaid, (viz. Aquila and Priscilla, and those Christians that Paul brought with him) publicly and constantly, than he did preach publicly and constantly to a Christian-Congregation: but the former is true by your own confession; Ergo, the later followeth.  
But you proceed, and ask me, If a particular example of a Church not constituted, be a rule for ordinary practice in a Church that is, etc. And further you ask, If Apollo's was not in Office, and therefore called a Minister, 1 Cor. 3.5. and how do I prove he was not?  
I answer, First, where do you read of a Christian-Church not constituted?  
Secondly, Do you not say, That Apollo's was an Officer? what then did hinder them from being a constituted Church? The Scriptures say, Christ's Church is his Body: and I never read of a Body constituted, and another unconstituted. And for your saying, Apollo's was in Office, 1 Cor. 3.5. doth this prove he was then in Office? Act 18.  
You go on, and ask me all these negative Questions, viz. How I prove he was not in Office? and how I prove he was no Priest, and that John did not anthorize him? and aught I not to prove that he was not in Office thus? and aught I not to prove there was no necessity? and how do I prove he was not called, or in Office? etc.  
To which I answer, That you are an excellent Armourbearer: Is this your Armour of proof? when a man demands of you how you prove that such a thing was, you answer by ask your Respondent how he proves it was not. Truly, you have more need go to School then write Books. But let's hear what you say for the Affirmative since you say, page 23. That it is certain he was in Office.  
Your first Reason is, He watered the Churches that Paul had planted, 1 Cor. 3.6. 1 Cor. 16.12.  
Let's try this Argument, and put it into a form, and then it will be thus: viz.  
Apollo's did the work of an Evangelist, 1 Cor. 3.6.  
Ergo, it is certain he was in Office at the time Aquila and Priscilla taught him, Act. 18.  
May not a man as well reason thus:  
Mr. wiles preaches at botolph's Billingsgate as an Officer, (if you will believe it:)  
Ergo, it is certain he was an Officer when he was instructed into Religion.  
You go on, and ask me, If Apollo 's worth and name was not the head of a Faction, 1 Cor. 1.12.  
This is your second Argument to prove that certainly he was in Office.  
Is this a good Argument, Apollo's was the Head of a Faction for his worth and name: Ergo, he was an Officer in the Church? will not this prove Mr. Brookes to be an Officer when future times shall read the History of his Life; seeing that he preaches Christ, and is esteemed for his worth and name, and (as yourselves say) he is the Head of a Faction? how dare you deny Mr. Brookes to be an Officer, if this be good Logic?  
Your third Reason is, He is called (you say) in express terms a Minister, in the sense that Paul was, 1 Cor. 3.5. He was an Officer (you say) then sure.  
I have answered this already, by showing, that though he might be an Officer then, yet he was not in Office, Acts 18. and you must prove, and not beg.  
You go on, and bid me prove that Apollo's was ordained after he preached Act. 18.  
What if I cannot? doth this prove he was ordained at that time? do not you prove it for me, when you suppose in the later end of page 20. That he might preach by necessity; and that there was no Organical constituted Church at this time, and Officers to preach in it? and do you not ask me, Whether the Apostolical Institution was practised at that time? or, Whether Apollo's knew of such a thing as Ordination to be had from the Apostles? And do you not further say, Here was evident necessity?  
Now for all these questions that yourself make, to manifest he was not ordained as Paul was, yet you do presently conclude, that he was ordained a Minister in the same sense as Paul was, at the time that he preached in the Synagogue, Act. 18. and bid me show if he was not then ordained, and where was he ordained afterwards? when you say yourself, There was not constituted Church to ordain; and yet conclude he was ordained at this time. Are not these the Questions you told the Reader would puzzle me? I think it will puzzle you to reconcile them, they are so contradictions.  
To your three last Proposals touching Apollo's, where you urge the preaching of Apollo's, rather than Aquila and the brethren's receiving him, Act. 18.27. and his helping them through grace that believed, etc.  
These, you say, prove that he was in Office: but it is but your say so. For doth not the Apostle say, Rom. 16. That Aquila and Priscilla were his helpers in Christ? May I not as well conclude, that both these were Officers, because they were helpers in Christ, as you may conclude Apollo's was an Officer, because he helped them that did believe? Is not this wild reasoning? and doth the brethren's receiving Apollo's, prove therefore that he was an Officer? then if you should have occasion to go to Geneva, and should be received upon wiles his Letter of Recommendation; it seems this would prove you to be an Officer: you say, it was such a receiving as is spoken of, Mat. 10.40. where it is said, He that receiveth the Disciples of Christ, receiveth Christ. I answer, That it is also said, Luke 9.48. That he that receiveth a little child in Christ's name receiveth Christ. May I not then as well conclude from he same Scriptures, That every righteous Man, & every Child that shall be received in Christ's Name, is an Officer in the Church, as you may conclude Apollo's was received, according to Mat. 10.40. Ergo, Apollo's was an Officer? are these your puzzelling Proposals?  
But (say you) why did not Aquila preach rather then Apollo's?  
I demand, whether the mentioning the one doth in reason exclude the other, any more than the Scriptures saying, That he, viz. Apollo's, helped them that believed, doth exclude Aquila from this service?  
Quest. 10 You go on, and ask me, Whether those texts proposed in my tenth Query, Mat. 3.6. Heb. 10.25 prove an authoritative act of preaching?  
I answer, That this is a needless Question, seeing you say there is no preaching without Authority: and you confess, That according to these Texts, Christians ought to meet together and exhort one another. Then I demand, whether Christians met together do not make a Church, if they meet to worship God? if so, than you have given away your cause, by telling of us, that they may exhort one another when they are thus met, which is an act of the Ministers Office: so that then it seems unordained Christians may do acts that are acts of the Ministers Office, by your own confession; so that it be done according to rule, which I think aught to be observed in that and all Christian Duties.  
Quest. 11 You proceed, and seem to resolve my eleventh Query; which shows, that if it be sinful for a man to hear one that is not ordained, then did Mr. wiles sin in hearing Mr. Brookes, which he saith is not ordained.  
And this you do by ask me, Whether that Mr. wiles may not be called to correct him that is not called to preach? etc.  
Here you beg two things: the one is, That Mr. Brook●s is not called to preach; and the other is, That Mr. wiles is called to correct: both which are the main things in question. But where is your Text that gives M. wiles a toleration to hear M. Brooks, if to hear him be sinful? And for your similitudes which you bring in stead of a proof, do not they in the first place take that for granted which you are to prove, viz. That M. wiles is a Captain, & a Shepherd, and a Physician? &c 
* From which you infer, that the Capt the Shepherd, & the Physician may do that which is not lawful for every body, Ergo Mr. wiles may. . But suppose we pity the poor, and give you that you beg for, viz. that he is a Captain; I demand whether a Captain, though he may view the Enemy, whether he may treat with the Enemy; and whether he is not an Offender, if he shall run into the Enemy's quarters without leave from his General? and by the Generals leave a Soldier may go as well as he: and if he shall ride from his Troop or Regiment to view the Enemy, is he not a Transgressor?  
And for your saying, The Shepherd may withstand the Wolf, though the Sheep ought to run.  
Do you not by this make all the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days to be guilty of their own Blood, in that they chose rather to burn then run? were not most of those that opposed the Wolf at that time, Sheep and not Shepherds? for, to their shame be it spoken, the poor Sheep stood by it when most of the Shepherds entered a League with the Wolf?  
And for your similitude of a Physician, do you not say, That a Physician may visit one sick of the plague, but another man may not? etc.  
Doth Christ charge it as a sin upon the Physicians only, that he was sick, and they did not visit him? or doth he not charge it upon the people in general?  
Sir, do you think, that this will excuse you at the day of Christ, that you did not visit his members, because they were sick of the Plague? By this Rule, it would be a sin in Mr. wiles, to visit any of his Parish that should be sick of the Plague, because he is no Physician. For aught that I know, this is the reason of the device of Lay-Elders, that so when any is sick, they may send them, and stay at home themselves.  
Quest. 12 In your twelfth Query that you make upon my Question, grounded upon Heb 5.12. you demand, Whether that Text hath the least ground for gifted brethren's teaching? And all you say first and last amounts but to this, Whether it is understood of actual teaching? etc.  
To which I answer, that these Queries grounded upon my twelfth Question, do come so far short of an Answer, that it doth not counter-query the things that I have proposed: for is actual teaching (to use your unknown phrase) any part of our Question? sure there is not such a word from one end to the other. Methinks you speak now like one that is PUZZELED.  
But yet for all this, you say, It may be understood of Masters that ought to teach their Families.  
I pray, ought not Masters teaching their Families to be actual teaching? and yet you bid me prove it to be of actual teaching.  
But you say, They were not Stewards to provide.  
Pray, doth not a Master in a Family teach as a Steward? and is not every good Christian to give an account of his Stewardship? and doth not the Apostle Peter say, 1 Pet. 4.10. of every good Christian, That he is to minister as a good Steward of the manifold grace of God? and yet you are so ignorant as to tell us, That the Apostle exhorts to teach, but not as Stewards.  
And for your saying, That this Text is spoken in general terms, viz. ye ought to teach, and that therefore it may respect women's teaching in the Church as well as men:  
I answer, so it might, if the Scripture had not said, The Women must keep silence in the Churches, 1 Cor. 14.34. And this he calls a part of their subjection to the Law, which the Hebrew Women were always instructed in; and therefore there was no need of a particular exception in this exhortation.  
Quest. 13 You query from those Queries that I ground upon 1 Cor. 14.1, 24, 31. Why I did not consult the London- Ministers, etc. saying, That it is vainglory in me to make the world believe that these men have done nothing worthy my regard. etc.  
I answer as formerly, If they have done enough, what needs this waste that you make by writing more? could you not in a few lines have referred your Reader to them for the solutions of my Questions, without any more ado?  
But further, you ask, If the gifts that these men had, 1 Cor. 14. were not extraordinary?  
I answer, What is this to the purpose? for it is no part of my Question, to know whether they preached by Gifts extraordinary or ordinary; but, whether they preached as gifted or by Office, let the Gifts be what they will: for surely, the greatness of their Gifts could not tolerate them to Preach contrary to a Divine Institution, seeing there was no necessity, it being a constituted Church (as you call it) that had Officers in it.  
You go on, and say, That they were Prophets, which (you say) is an Office pro tempore, improperly so called.  
Then any one that can prophesy now adays, may preach, by this Argument. But if it be an Office improperly so called, than they that prophesied are improperly called Officers: so that then to speak properly, they did speak to edification and comfort out of Office, and as gifted Brethren.  
And for your similitude of a Judge his place, you say, If such a place fall, all the Sergeants about the Town may seek, for it.  
Which implies, That there was some great Benefice vacant, and that the Apostle would have all the Church to gape for it, when he bids them covet to prophesy; surely, the simile can hold forth little else.  
But pray Sir, though all the Sergeants about the Town may lawfully seek for such a place, may all the people about the Town seek lawfully for a Judge's place when it falls? for this is the case; all the Church are exhorted to covet Prophesying, and not some particular persons: and therefore you see that the simile is besides the matter, since that all a Church may lawfully covet to Prophesy; but all the people in a Commonwealth cannot lawfully covet the place of a Judge.  
Quest. 14 You say, My fourteenth Query is worth nothing, only (you say) why may not our whole Church covet as well to be ordinary Officers as to be preaching gifted Brethren? and if because it is monstrous to have so many ruling Heads, is it not (say you) as monstrous to have as many speaking Tongues?  
Answ. As for your saying, My fourteenth Query is worth nothing: Truly, I might have answered all yours at this rate, had it not been that I feared you would have been wise in your own conceit.  
But further, you say nothing, indeed, to that which is demanded; but ask, Whether for all men to covet to speak be not to make the Body as monstrous as if they did all covet to be Officers?  
To which I answer, That though they are not all to covet to speak as Officers; yet it doth not follow, but they may all covet to speak as God hath enabled them, to the edification of the Body, without making the Body monstrous: for if all were to speak at once, indeed, this were to make the Body of Christ monstrous; but to speak one after another as they are exhorted, to edification and comfort, hath not any thing in it of a monstrous nature.  
Quest. 15 I come to examine, since Mr. wiles told the people, That it is a sin for any to preach that are not ordained, etc. which of those several Ordinations in Christendom, it is that Christ approves of. Hereupon, after some Questions made touching the business of Ordination, which is not at all to the Question before you, you demand of me, Whether you may not say, That all Ordinations in Christendom are approved by Christ, that differ but thus circumst antially? etc.  
I answer, Why did you not say so then, That all the Ordinations in Christendom are accepted by Christ, without ask my leave? But than you must know. That the Church of Rome either err in the essentials of this Ordinance, or in circumstance: if in essentials, than she cannot or●●in at all; if but in circumstance, then if you dare speak out, doth not Christ approve of her Administration of it at this day, by what you say in the later end of this Query? But to proceed to the next, in which,  
Quest. 16 I demand, If a Man might not lawfully by this Opinion be ordained at Rome? And thereupon you query, Whether I dare say that Rome observes that Gospel purity in this Ordinance?  
To which I answer, That this was no part of my Question, viz. Whether it was as purely; but, whether it may lawfully be obtained there?  
But you go on, and say, That the substance may be there, viz. at Rome.  
Then, Sir, by your own Maxim it is approved by Christ, since in this Ordinance they do err but circumstantially.  
But you go on, and say, That three things only excuse in errors circumstantial.  

The first is, when the error is slight, etc.  
The second (you say) is a sincere a●m at the glory of God.  
The third is in case of nocessity, etc. you say, is this our case now? and can we not have it with more purity then at Rome? etc.   
Sir, I am not about to ask you, Whether it may not more purely be had; but, whether it may be had lawfully?  
But to proceed, It seems then by your Query, if a man doth not think the Church of Rome errs in any thing (as those do that go thither for Ordination) than he being ignorant of their errors, may lawfully be ordained there, and that Christ will accept of it: for you say, That a sincere aim at the substance, with ignorance of the errors in circumstance, will excuse.  
So that all that you have said, though it will not justify a man's going to Rome for Ordination, that knows their errors, and knows there is no necessity to go thither, yet it doth justify all that are otherwise minded, and are still ignorant, by your own confession: for you confess, that Christ accepts of all Ordinations that differ but in circumstance: are you not indulging the Church of Rome? But to proceed.  
Quest. 17 I demanded, If the Protestant Ordination be the only lawful Ordination, than which of those, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian or Independent, be that which Christ approves of, etc. Thereupon you query, Whether you may not say, All are approved by Christ?  
But doth all you have said signify Christ's approbation of all these? have you urged any thing but that which is as disputable as the thing in question; and so endeavour to prove one doubtful thing by another? for you ask me, If that I do not easily see all these, viz. the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and the most sober Independents, own the essence of Ordination, that is, (say you) a setting apart men to the Ministry by Ministers, and that they do practise the purity of that Ordinance by setting apart fit men in a Gospel-way, for those ends a Ministry is appointed, without superstitious intermixtures.  
Sir, when you have proved this which you ask me, If I do not easily see, to be in all the Ordinations before mentioned, than I shall grant your consequence, viz. That Christ approves all these Ordinations: but in the mean while I deny the Antecedent; for all you say, I might easily see it: but if it was so easy for me to see, why was it not as easy for you to have proved it? is this to reason rationally? or is it not that which a Scholar, that values either credit or conscience, would scorn, viz. to take it for granted all these Ministers are such, and that all their Ordinations are lawful; and then conclude, that Christ owns them all, and give us no Text to prove any thing you say, though the stress of the Controversy depends upon it.  
Quest. 18 And because I query if all those Ordinations of Episcopacy and Presbytery, etc. were lawful, (as you confess) then why were these Ordinations opposed one to the other, by the several Patrons of them? This was the substance of that Query. You thereupon ask me, If I am not uncharitable to charge the error of one man (meaning, Dr. Taylor, who opposed the Presbyters, as Men that had no power to ordain) upon the rest of the Episcopal way? etc.  
To which I answer, That though I cited him for brevity sake, yet I did refer the Reader to his Book called, Episcopacy asserted, where he citys the Fathers, and the constant Opinion of the Churches, for the proof of what he saith against Ordination by Presbyters; to which you have said nothing, but tell us a story at the third hand of what Bishop Usher told the King of the practice of one particular Church, viz. of Alexandria; and of what the Rubric saith, and of what Dr. Prid. saith. But to these I may answer, That it is nothing to the Opinion of most of the Bishop's way, and that not only in England, but wherever that Government is practised.  
And for your citing the London-Ministers, are not they like to be good Witnesses, seeing they are parties that would fain make all Antiquity speak for the things they profess, that the novelty of them may not be suspected?  
Quest. 19 In my nineteenth Query I ask, If that the Ordination by Bishops was lawful, why then did the Presbyterians throw down Episcopacy, and not rather reform it? This was the sum of this Question. To which, in stead of answering, you ask, If I do still go on in my unchristian charges, whereby you tell me I do not only lay injustice, but blood upon the head of Presbyterians, etc.  
But wherein do I speak any thing unlike a Christian? if that be true as you say, viz. That Episcopal Ordination was good, and that they did practise it in the purity of it, without superstitious mixture, as you confess in your seventeenth Query, then how do I exhibit an unchristian charge against them, by ask why they did not reform the Government, rather than cashier it? etc.  
You go on, and further demand, Whether I dare assert, that the Presbyterians did throw down the Government of Episcopacy, merely for this error in Ordination? etc.  
I answer as before, If they did err in other things, why were not those reform, and Ordination by Bishops still preserved, seeing (you say) that their Ordination was in purity?  
But further, how comes this to pass, that in your seventeenth Query you say, That Episcopal Ordination was in purity; and yet ask me, Whether that Government was thrown down merely for the error in Ordination? how can it be in purity, if it had errors?  
And for your saying, That the Anabaptistical Spirits are bloody, witness those in Germany, etc.  
I answer, This is an unchristian Charge indeed, and therefore you thought you would cry out first, That others were guilty, that yourself might not be suspected: for, what if that story of Germany were true, (which is doubtful in many things) doth not this show what Spirit you are of, laying the cause of the late Wars, at the Anabaptists Doors? have they not been as serviceable to their Power, to free their Country from slavery, as any, both in Purse and Person? were they the cause of the first and second War in Scotland, and the second War in England? was any of them you call Anabaptists in the treasonable Engagement? who of them did join to bring in King Charles again, into Scotland first, and afterwards into England? was it the Anabaptist, or who was it, pray speak out, that made all these Uproars both in City and Country?  
But lest you should err for want of Information, let me show you, That the Presbyters have been inspired with a worse Spirit, to carry on their Presbyterian-Usurpation, than ever the Anabaptists were in Germany; nay, I am sure I should not be rash, if I should say, The same Spirit which they have cried down in their Adversaries the Jesuits, hath been found breathing in them.  
And for proof hereof, I shall refer the Reader to the Histories and Writings that have been writ by great Patrons of the Presbyterian way. I shall begin with Mr. Knox, who in his History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, saith, That without the Reformation which they desired, they (meaning the Covenanters) would never be subject to any mortal man. See Knox History of the Church of Scotland, first Impression in Octavo, page 265.  
They, viz. the Presbyterians, took away the Queens Coining, Irons by force and arms, and did justify the same, Knox Hist, page 308.  
Again, they say, The Commonalty ought to reform Religion, if the King will not. See Knox to the Commonalty, pag. 49, 50. And, That if Princes be Tyrants against God and the truth, their Subjects are freed from their Oaths of Allegiance. Knox to England and Scotland, fol. 78.  
This they learned from Geneva: for when Farellus Viretus, and others, first preached, the Bishop of Geneva was Lord of the City, and had power as a civil Migistrate, as Calvin in his Letter to Cardinal Sadolete writeth, Jus gladii alias civilis jurisdictionis parts, etc. And yet without any Honour or Respect, (which they as Christians were bound to give him as their civil Magistrate) they called him a Thief and an Usurper; and so of themselves, with such assistance as they could get, threw him out of his civil jurisdiction: since which time it hath been a principle among the Presbyters, as appears by Whittingam in his Preface to Goodman's Book, where he saith, That if Kings and Princes refuse to reform Religion, the inferior Magistrates or People, by the direction of the Ministry, might lawfully, and aught (if need require) even by force and arms to reform it themselves. Accordingly they proceeded in Scotland, as you have heard out of Knox, who was one of the Presbyterian Reformers.  
I shall in the next place, cite some of Buchanan his Presbyterian-Maximes, out of his Book, entitled, De Jure Regni, pag. 61. he saith, Populus Rege est praestantior & melior: The People are better than the King, and of greater Authority.  
Again, he saith, Populo jus est, ut imperium cui velit deferat, pag. 13. De Jure Regni: The People have right to bestow the Crown at their pleasure.  
Again, pag. 25. he saith, Penes populum est ut leges ferat, sunt Reges veluti tabulariorum Cestodes: The making of Laws doth belong to the People, and Kings are but as Masters of the Rolls.  
Again, pag. 58. he saith, The people have the same power over the King, that the King hath over any one person. And pag. 40. It were good (saith he) that rewards were appointed by the People, for such as should kill Tyrants, as commonly there is for those, Qui Lupos aut Ursos occiderunt, an't Catulos eorum deprehenderunt: that have killed either Wolves or Bears, or taken their Whelps.  
This Spirit our old Presbyterians in England were inspired with about the same time, as the Author of the Book of Obedience, (but rather of Rebellion) doth manifest, page 215. in these words, saying, If neither the Magistrate nor the greatest part of the People will do their Offices, in punishing, deposing or killing of Princes, (meaning such as should be against the Presbyterian-Reformation, so much then sought after by Calvin) then (saith he) the Minister may excommunicate such a Prince, pag. 186. And in pag. 110. of the said Book, the Author saith, That in case of defection a private man may kill a Tyrant as Moses did the Egyptian, if he have any special inward motion; otherwise, (he saith) a private man may do it, if he be but permitted by the Commonwealth.  
Goodman (who also was in that time as great a stickler for the Presbyterian-Reformation as the rest) saith in his Book, p. 190. Subjects do promise obedience, that the Magistrate may help them; which if they do not, they are discharged of their Obedience. And in pag. 180, 184, 185. he hath many passages to the like purpose; among which, this is observable, The people (saith he) in Numb. 25. did hang up certain of their Heads, etc. which ought (saith he) to be perpetual example of their duty, (meaning the common people) in the like defection from God, to hang up such Rulers as shall draw them from him.  
This Doctrine (of killing and deposing Magistrates by a private person, of the common people, when Magistrates do not reform according to their humours, saith Whittingam in his Preface to Goodman's Book) was approved by the best learned in Geneva; meaning Calvin and the rest of the Genevians, together with some British Patrons of that way: for besides Goodman and Whittingam, there was Anthony Gibly, Miles Coverdale, David Whitehead, and sundry others, who did desire that Goodman's Book might be printed, to which Whittingam made a Preface, greatly commending the aforesaid bloody Doctrine.  
Now whoever shall compare these passages with the practice of Presbytery ever since, both in Scotland and Englend, shall find, that they have throughly studied this point, viz. of imbruing Nations in Blood, and setting up and throwing down Magistrates, according as they judge them fit or unfit for their pretended Reformations. Hath not England and Scotland, to their great grief, found this to be true, by woeful experience? And yet the Anabaptists and Fifth-Monarchy-men, are decried by you and Mr. wiles, as the only State-Hereticks and Incendiaries, as though they were the only men that are against Magistracy; but whoever shall consider of these forecited passages, may conclude, that there was little reason why the Presbyterians should complain of the Jesuits Principles, unless their own were better: for, if that be true which Dr. White saith is their special vow, which he mentions in page 573. of his Reply to the Church of Rome, and pag. 577. and pag. 579. where he saith, That the vows of the Jesuits are to execute the Pope's pleasure in killing the King: and what safety can they have that rely upon such Servants? etc. Which Vow he inserts in Latin in his Margin, out of the Bull of confirmation of the Jesuits, by Pope Paul the third; which is thus much in English: We judge it expedient for the great Devotion to the Sea Apostolic, and more full abnegation of our own Wills and Pleasures, that the professed of this society, besides the common bond of three vows, be further tied by special vow: so that whatsoever the Roman Bishop for the time being shall command pertinent unto the salvation of men's souls, and propagation of the Faith, they shall be bound to execute the same presently, without tergiversation and excuse, whether they shall be sent unto Turks, or unto Infidels, even unto those that are commonly called the Indies, or unto Heretics or Schismatics, etc. Which Vow, though it be bad enough, and not to be approved, yet it hath not more of a bloody Nature than is contained in the forecited passages out of Presbyterian Authors.  
By this you may see, that Mr. wiles and you had so little reason to cry out against the Anabaptists, for being bloody, and against Magistrates, that you and those of your way, had need wash your own hands, before you can with confidence justly cry down the Jesuits, since your Principles are as bad as theirs in this particular.  
And therefore Lysimachus Nicanor, a Jesuit, hath writ a congratulatory Epistle to the Covenanters in Scotland, printed in the year 1640. where, in pag. 1 he saith, He hearty doth congratulate with them, and doth rejoice at their begun-return to their Mother the Church of Rome, in that they have forsaken the erroneous Opinion of the Protestants, concerning the civil Magistrate, and have happily (in that particular) joined with the Church of Rome.  
And in the same page he saith, That they, viz, the Presbyterians, have so well begun at the Head, the civil Magistrate, that they trust they will embrace the other members of the Roman Doctrine.  
By which the Reader may see that the Presbyters have sought to climb into their Authority, by the Jesuits steps, though now they cry out against the same things: which makes me remember an old saying, which is verified in the Presbyters, though it hath been applied to Princes.  
Presbyters enthroned, when once their turns are ended,  
Throw down those stairs by which themselves ascended.  
Quest. 20 But you proceed to the twentieth Query, and therein you tell me, That Bishops did not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers: in answer to my twentieth Query.  
But how do you prove they did not ordain as Bishops? This is a figment of your own brain: for if they did it as Ministers, why then might not any Minister have ordained, as well as they? but they never suffered any such thing among them.  
And for your saying, That they were lawful Ministers of Christ, and therefore you do not distrust his promise of being with them.  
What an Argument is this? may not any body by this Argument cry up themselves for Ministers, (as too many now adays do) and say, That Christ will be with them to the end of the Would?  
Therefore before you go to prove that which I deny not, prove that which is denied, that they are Christ's Ministers: but if they be your Brethren, the Presbyterians have done very ill to throw them out of their Live, and expose their Wives and Children to penury and want, while they enjoy their Places and Revenues. Did ever Christ's Ministers turn any out of their places, that they judged Christ's Ministers? or did ever any of them come to take the profits of another's living without his consent which was the incumbent, than they judged the incumbent Christ's Minister? and yet these things have been done without blushing. So that though you say, Christ hath not devested them of their power, sure some body hath devested them of their profits.  
Quest. 21 In the twenty one Query I demand, why a man may not still go to the Bishops for Ordination, if that their Ordination be of God, since their Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way? which is the sum of this Question: whereupon you query, What I mean by taking away Authority.  
I answer, When they shall be devested thereof, by the Church, for scandalous and enormous crimes.  
You ask, If Episcopal Authority of ordaining as Ministers, is not founded upon God's word?  
I answer, first, If Episcopal Authority to ordain as Ministers be absurd, than it cannot be grounded upon the Word of God; and that it is so, appears: for is it not absurd for you to say, That the Bishop's Authority is of God to ordain Ministers; and yet say, That they must not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers? for if Episcopal Authority be of God, than they may lawfully ordain as Bishops: for all will confess, That a man may lawfully exercise any Authority that comes from God.  
Therefore, how ridiculous are you to confess, That Episcopal Authority is of God; and yet say, they must not ordain as Bishops, but as Ministers?  
And to the later part of your Counter-Query, about the purity of Ordination, I have already answered, by showing you how shamefully you beg the Question, by taking it for granted, that your Presbyterian-Ordination is a purer Ordination than any other, when for the proof thereof, you have not alleged one Text nor Argument, through your whole Book.  
For the third particular in this Question, I shall answer that when I come to speak to the twenty seventh Query.  
Quest. 22 I demand in my twenty second Query, If that Christ had ever two Ordinations in his Church, one contrary to the other; and yet both lawful: for such is the state of Episcopacy and Presbytery.  
In your counter-Query to this, you talk of Logic, and indeed you do but talk of it: for had you observed the Rules of Logic, you would never have begged Questions in stead of answering and proving them.  
But how doth it appear, that I say any thing that is illogical in the last Question, if I do say, The Episcopal and Presbyterian Ordinations cannot be both of Christ's appointment, since they contradict one another? But you think to salve this sore by telling us, That they are not contradictious, since they both agree in an Ordination by Ministers, and differ but in circumstances, etc.  
To this I answer, That they so differ, that where any hath been ordained by mere Presbyters, it hath (in most parts of the Christian World) been esteemed as a rullity: and where Presbyterian Ordination hath been allowed, it hath been but in case of necessity, as appears by the English Bishops Confession to the Bishops of Scotland.  
That it hath been adjudged a nullity, viz. Ordination by Presbyters, I prove, first, from the testimony of Hierom: What (saith he) doth a Bishop, that a Priest doth not, 
Epist. ad Evagrium, Hom. 11. in 1. ad Timot. initio.  EXCEPT ORDINATION? chrysostom saith the same: A Bishop (saith he) exceeds a Priest ONLY IN ORDINATION. Athanasius, speaking of Ischyras, who professed to be a Priest, saith, That he did but boast himself to be one: 
Apolog. 2. Epist. Presbyt. ad flavi.  for (saith he) he is in no sort to be approved of, seeing he was not ordained by a Bishop, but by Coluthius, a Presbyter.  
And the Council of Alexandria, speaking of the same Coluthius, saith, That he died in the SIMPLE DEGREE OF A PRESBYTER; and therefore all the impositions of hands exercised by him were null; and that all those that were ordained by him were but lay Persons; and under that name and title of lay-people, they were admitted to the Holy Communion.  
Again, Epiphanius reckons Ordination by Presbyters as an Arrian Heresy, Her. 75. in as much as Arrius held, That the Presbyters might ordain as well as Bishops, etc.  
And further he saith, That the Episcopal Order is to beget Fathers to the Church; whereas the Priestly (or Presbyterian) Order is to beget Children by the Laver of Regeneration: and therefore (saith he) they (meaning the Presbyters) cannot ordain nor beget Fathers and Doctors to the Church, etc.  
Augustin, Haeres. 53. blames the Arrians for that they had learned of one Arrius, to confound the Order of Priest and Bishop.  
Is it not plain then, that you endeavour to delude your Reader, by saying, That there was no contradiction touching this matter, and that it was the error of one man, meaning Dr. Taylor? when, indeed, your ignorance is very great, if you say, He was alone in this matter. By this the Reader may see, That former times did not esteem both Ordinations lawful, viz That that was done by Bishops, and that that was done by Presbyters; but looked upon the one as a mere nullity: so that whatever you say, there hath been a manifest contradiction; and that the difference was not circumstantial, as you vainly tell your Reader, but essential: for not only the Fathers, but Counsels, judged Ordination by Presbyters a mere nullity, and that Episcopal Ordination was essential to the being of the Ministers Office.  
So that the thing you so much talk of, viz. That both these Ordinations are of God, is a mere fiction. But more of this anon.  
Quest. 23 In my twenty third Query, I demand, If that the Independent-Ordination be of God, wherein is Mr. Brookes to be condemned, if he preach according to the Independent-Ordination? You hereupon tell your old tale, viz That you cannot believe by what I have urged, any Ordination to be according to Rule, but what is done by Ministers.  
To which I answer, That this was no part of my business in the Questions proposed, from first to last: for all my business was to show by the light of those Queries, That it was not sinful to preach without Ordination, and that Mr. wiles his Ordination was a mere nullity that he so much glories in, and that it is not that which Christ approves of, and for your slanders, in saying, That I appear for Independency as a cloak for Anabaptism, etc. Did you not blush when you writ this horrid untruth? Have I not, your own confession, appeared as publicly for that which you call Anabaptism? Do you not tell your Reader, That I did publicly appear at the Disputation held at Clement's, without Temple-Bar, which was against Infant-Baptism? And have I not published my Opinion in print touching this Controversy? and yet you are so impudent as to tell your Reader, I appeared for Independency as a cloak, that my design might be the more plausible. It's no wonder that you conceal your Name, since you can write at this rate.  
Quest. 24 I ask in my twenty fourth Question, If that Ordination by Presbyters were the only Ordination, where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty years ago?  
Your Query thereupon is nothing, but to inquire, Whether Presbyterian and Episcopal-Ordination might not both be lawful? and bid me prove by the next, That Bishops COULD NOT ordain then, and that Presbyters CANNOT ordain mow.  
Oh shameless Disputant! I told you you could talk of Logic; but how little you use, let the Reader judge. My main design in proposing my Questions, was to put some one or other upon the proof of that which was so frequently asserted, viz. That the Ordination by Bishops or by Presbyters, is of God; (meaning that which is practised by the National Ministers.) And you come forth, and bid me prove, That the Bishops could not, and that the Presbyters cannot. If you can dispute no better, you shall never commence Master of Arts.  
Sir, is it not a sad thing, for you to tell your Reader in your Epistle to him, That this Doctrine of Ordination that is now contended for, is a foundation-Doctrine? And when you are demanded a proof of it, you shamefully shuffle, and bid me prove in my next, That it is not, and that they had not power to ordain; or if the Bishops and Presbyters did not ordain true Ministers. Therefore take an Answer: I say, They did not; and charge you in your next to reason like a man, and prove they did.  
Quest. 25 In my twenty fifth Query I demand, Why Mr. wiles did not tell his Hearers, which of those divers kinds of Ordination it is that God approves of? This was the sum of this Query.  
To which you reply, and the sum of all you say, is, That if I have heard Mr. wiles in all his Sermons upon this Subject, I might had understood, that he was not rigid for Episcopacy, Presbytery, nor Independency; but for a Moderation, etc. and that Ordination any of these ways was good, seeing the difference was but in circumstance etc.  
I have answered to this already over and over, that these by your own confession, must all of them be proved to be Christ's Ministers, before their Ordination must be valued; and also you must prove, That Christ ever did allow of Ordinations so palpably contradictious, (as these are, which will further appear in my following Answers) before there be any weight in what you or M. wiles hath said to this Question.  
However, if Mr. wiles doth well in being indifferent in this matter, how evilly hath the generality of our Presbyterians spent their time about such trifling circumstances, while the more weighty matters have been neglected? for how furiously have they opposed the Episcopal and Independent Government and Governors, though they have been such, which you say are Christ's Ministers, and that the differences are but circumstantial?  
For the proof of this, I shall refer the Reader to Mr. Edward's his Gangraena, wherein he as much condemns ordained Ministers in the Independent way, as any other Sect whatever; and this was generally approved of by most of the Presbyterian Race, as appears by the several Letters sent to encourage Mr. Edward's, which he hath printed in his Book, which (he saith) he received from godly Presbyterian-Ministers.  
Nay, is not the noise of this hot difference fresh in the ears of all intelligent Men? which you must needs say was to little purpose, if what you say of all these sorts of Ordinations be true.  
Quest. 26 I further demand, Whether Mr. wiles his Ordination be from the Line of Succession? or whether it was from any necessity? etc.  
And you ask me, Whether I do not grant that a true succession makes true Ministers? and whether there is not a case of necessity when the succession in broke off? and whether such a necessity doth not make true Ministers?  
This is that you call unanswerable. This you challenge me to answer; and therefore I shall soon dismount your confidence, by telling you, That by this Argument I am a true Minister: for either I am one by succession or necessity; if the Line of Succession was broke, than I am a Minister by necessity. Would not this Argument justify all Sects that schismed from Rome, as well as you? And did not all the Sects that departed from Rome into other novel and strange Opinions, worse than those they left, reason thus, That they either had some men which were in religious Orders, that separated with them, and so they pretended that they had a successive Authority; or else they will tell you, That they were the first Reformers; and therefore positive Laws must give place to necessity, and therefore all that succeed from them are a true Ministry?  
I challenge you to answer, Why this is not as good an Argument to prove any company of men that shall departed from Rome to be a true Ministry, as well as any that you plead for? though they should run from the errors of Rome, into other errors that were as bad or worse.  
But I therefore answer further, That though a man cannot be a true Minister but by one of these ways, it doth not therefore follow, (as I have already showed in my Answer to Mr. wiles his Letter, at the beginning of this Book) that Mr. wiles is a Minister either of these ways. For though I grant these two to be the ways of admission into the Ministry, yet I do deny him to be entered by either of them, though he succeed from those you call our first Reformers: for I do deny, that they were true Ministers of Christ either way, or that they had either a lawful Succession or necessity to authorise them. But of this more anon.  
Quest. 27 I demand, If Mr. wiles be a Minister by succession, whether he did not succeed from Rome?  
You thereupon demand, Why there may not be a lawful succession from the Apostles by Rome?  
Your first Reason is, Because the corruptions of the first Receivers could not null this Ordinance, etc.  
To which I answer, What if that be granted? That the corruption of Receivers could not null an Ordinance, this doth not prove that corrupt Receivers of the Ordinance of Baptism can administer Baptism, or that corrupt Receivers of the Lord's Supper can administer it lawfully, after they have been separated from for their corruptions.  
But your second Reason saith, That the corruption of the Dispenser's, could not make the succession cease.  
And this you would prove by many similitudes: you say, The Law doth not lose its force, if it be pronounced by a wicked Judge, etc.  
I answer, If this Judge be lawfully turned out of his place for wickedness, then though the Law doth not lose its force, yet this Judge hath no power to administer it: so I say of your Ordination, That if you had justly ejected the Pope, he had after this no power to administer the Laws of Christ, no more than a Judge that is thrown out hath power to administer the Law of the Land. Thus your simile makes against you.  
And for your simile of Judas and a hypocrite, whence you would infer, That their heart-corruption doth not null God's Ordinances that are administered by them.  
I answer, That it is true, That so long as their sins are like your Name, unknown, if they do administer Ordinances they may be valued; but what if their sins are known, and that they shall be rejected as Heretics or as scandalous Persons, have they then any power to administer sacred things?  
This Answer will serve for all the rest of your similitudes.  
But further, If the Church of Rome was Apostates and Heretics, and the Church of England had ejected her, and separated from her, and judged the Pope to be the great Antichrist, as indeed they did, than it followeth from Scripture, That it is a sin to receive Ordination from them: for the Scripture saith, Matth. 18. If that any refuse to hear the Church, he should be esteemed as a heathen and a publican.  
Now then, if the Church of England did reject Rome for her sin and Idolatry, it was then as lawful for me to go to any Fellow under a Hedge, and be ordained by him; as it is to go to any ejected of excommunicated Persons for it: and if the Church of Rome be not cut off from being a Church, then are you very wicked, in that you have not communion with them while they are of the Body; if they are not of the Body, than any of the Body hath as much power to administer Ordination as they.  
And this is not my single Opinion, but it hath been the Opinion of former times: for Athanasius saith, in Epist. de Conciliis, By what right can any be Bishops, that do receive their Ordination from Heretics?  
And further he saith, That it is impossible that Ordinations made by Secundus, being an Arrian, could have any force in the Church of God.  
And further, If the Pope be rejected as that great Antichrist, it cannot be imagined, that he whom all the Protestants judge to be Christ's greatest Enemy should so far serve the great designs of Christ's Glory, as lawfully to ordain and empower men to preach Christ. So that either you did not leave the Church of Rome, and reject them as Heretics; or if you did, you ought not to be beholding to them for your Ordination.  
And further, the Protestant Calvinists in France, say, in the Confession of their Faith, Confess. Art. 21. That their Calling is extraordinary; and do confirm the same by their practice, in that they ordain anew, such Priests as revolt from Rome: but if the corruption of the Dispenser's did not make their Ordination a nullity, than there was no reason for such a practice in a reformed Church.  
And Mr. Whitaker is of this mind: for saith he, We would not have you think, that we make such reckoning of your Orders, as to hold our Vocation unlawful without them.  
And Mr. Fulk, that famous Opposer of Rome, tells them, That they are deceived highly if they think we esteem of their offices of Bishops, Priests and Deacons-better than Lay-Men. 
See his Answer to a counterfeit Catholic, p. 50  And further, Mr. Fulk saith, That with all our heart we (meaning the Protestants) abhor and detest all your stinking greasy Antichristian Orders. And yet other of you glory in your succession.  
See the contradictions among yourselves! who of you shall a man believe?  
So that if I say, You cannot have a lawful Ordination from Rome, seeing they were by you judged Heretics, and such as were deservedly excluded; I have the Scripture of my side that saith, You should esteem such as Heathens. I have several eminent Lights that shined in the Church of old. I have some of the reformed Churches, and therein many very famous both at home and abroad, which are of my mind.  
Your last Argument you bring to this Point is, That Christianity was professed, and therefore you ask me, If I will say there was not a company of true Believers all the time the Pope ruled here, etc.  
Whence you infer, If they were true believers, than there was a Church; and if a Church, than there must be a Ministry, because (you say) Christ promised, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. That the Saints should have such a Ministry till they come to be a perfect man, etc.  
If this be a good Argument, why do you rail against the Anabaptists? For dare you say, There is not true believers among them? if there be, then by your Logic they are a Church; and if a Church, than they must have Christ's promise fulfilled, and they then must have a true Ministry, till they come to be a perfect man.  
By this Rule, Mr. Brookes his people are a true Church, and must have a true Ministry, or else you must say, The people that walk with him are all Unbelievers.  
Quest. 28 I demanded in my twenty eighth Query, Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her, as when they received their Ordination from her, etc.  
To this you answer, That she was as good when you left her, as she was when Ordination was received from her. And further you say, You did not forsake her as she was a Spouse of Christ, but as she was an HARLOT etc.  
Sir, I see now you are puzzeled, indeed; for you grant she was as good when you left her, as she was when your Predecessors were ordained by her.  
And after you say, She was not forsaken as Christ's Spouse, but as a Whore or Harlot.  
So than it appears by your own grant, That she was none of Christ's Spouse or Church at the time she did ordain your Predecessors: for you say, She was a Harlot when you left her; and than you say, She was as honest as when your Predecessors were ordained by her.  
Is it not a shame then, that you should say, That you are Legitimate? when afer you have taken pains to prove it, you face about, as though it were too hard a Task for you, and in words at length call your Mother a Where: for what do you less, when you call her a Harlot? in pag. 39 at the beginning of it. Is not this madness to a great degree, that you should say, Rome was none of Christ's Spouse, but a Harlot; and yet labour to prove, (if you could) That at this time in the midst of her Whoredoms, she had power to ordain Ministers to preach Christ? Pray tell me, why any man might not have taken upon him to ordain, as well as Rome, if this be true that you say. Did ever our Lord Christ give the power of Ordination of Ministers to any but his Spouse or Church, whereof he is the Head? and whensoever she shall turn Whore, and prostitute herself to other Lovers, hath she not lost this Power and Authority? is she not then like unsavoury Salt, fit for nothing? and yet by your Logic, she hath Authority from Christ to ordain Ministers to preach the Gospel.  
This very saying of yours, viz. That your Mother, the Church of Rome, was a Whore at the time your Predecessors were ordained by her, confutes all your conceits of a lawful Succession.  
Quest. 29 I proceed to the twenty ninth Question, where I demand, If all the Ministers that were in England before Austin the Monk, were not brought into communion with the Roman-Church? And this was the sum of that Question.  
To which you make no answer; but in effect ask me the same thing over again, viz. Whether Gildas doth not report of a Ministry in England, before Austin the Monk? etc. and Whether there might not remain thousands that had not bowed their knee to Baal, and we not know of it?  
To this I answer, That then your Ministry could not be derived from the British Succession, if you did not know whether they did bow their knee or no. But if what you said before was true, That the Church of Rome had a power to ordain in the midst of their pollutions, than it is no great matter whether they did bow to Baal or no, as to the matter in question, seeing that if they had, by your Logic, it could not have hindered your lawful Succession, from them.  
Quest. 30 To my thirtieth Question, which demands, Whether there was in England a Succession of a true Church, separated from Rome, all the time the Papal Power was exercised here? and how it did appear, That the Succession of the Ministry of England, was from this reformed, rather than the Papal Line?  
You answer as before, That there might be a Succession, though we know not of it, etc.  
This being the same with the former, let the same Answer suffice; only let me tell you, That it is very improbable, that a Church should remain in England in opposition to Rome, all the time the Papal Power was here, 
Witness those that were slain at Bangor.  since Austin the Monk by force and arms was restless in subjecting the Britain's in all parts to the See of Rome.  
Quest. 31 I proceed to the next Question, which doth demand, Whether it was not a sin to leave Rome as a Cage of every unclean thing, if she was entrusted with the Administration of Christ's Ordinances, as a Church, etc. This was the substance of the Question.  
Upon which you query, Whether she may not be a Cage of every unclean thing, and yet have Gods sacred Ordinances among them?  
This is the sum of your Question, unto which you would give light by several similitudes: one is, That if a Thief have a Bible in his pocket, he is notwithstanding a Thief, Hence you would infer, That Rome may be possessed with God's Ordinances, though they are Thiefs.  
But have you forgot yourself? did not you say, That the receiver was as bad as the thief? pag. 21. Now then, if this be true, do you not very craftily call the Clergy Thiefs? for they all (you say) did receive their Ordination from them.  
You further say, That the censers Corah burned incense in, were the Lords, etc.  
Hence you would innfer, That Ordination is God's Ordinance, though it be in the hands of unholy persons, etc.  
To which I answer, That the Ordinances are God's, as the Censers were; but as Korah did wickedly in using them, so did the Company that partook with him; and it was not their crying out, That the censers were holy, that would excuse them: so it is not your saying, That Ordination of Ministers is a holy Ordinance, that will excuse Apostates in administering of it, or you in receiving such Administration.  
Remember therefore this example of Korah, and do not you partake of Korah's sin; for though the Censers were holy, he had no right to use them: see therefore how this similitude makes against you, and fully shows your vanity, that all you glory in, is but what you have received from a Korah, a Thief, a Harlot, which had no more right to administer it, than a Thief hath to distribute stolen Goods.  
Quest. 32 I demanded in the next place, How Rome being the Cage of every unclean thing, could administer so sacred an Ordinance, as ordaining Gospel-Ministers? etc.  
You say nothing in your Counter-Query, but what hath been said before; only you urge a fresh similitude that is nothing to your purpose, viz. That if my Accounts that be in my Book be just and right, they ought not to be nulled, because my boy hath naughtily written them, etc.  
Hence you would infer, That Ordination is God's Ordinance, though it hath been defaced by the Church of Rome's uncleanness, etc.  
Which is not any part of my Question: for though my Accounts are not to be disowned because my boy hath blotted them, yet my boy hath not power to dispose of them  to his invention: neither is it lawful for you, if I shall declare him to be a Thief, to receive any of my money from him, or take any discharge or acquittance for any debt that you own me, at his hand. In like manner is it sinful to receive Ordination from Rome: if they have turned Thiefs and Robbers, as you say they are, than the Receiver is as bad as the Thief. So that I shall need no other weapon to fight with you then your own. But to proceed, I come now,  
Quest. 33 To the thirty third Question, wherein I demand, If the Church of Rome had power as a Church, and you did separate because of her corruptions, why then was Mr. Brooks to be blamed in separating from the corruption of the Church of England? etc.  
In your manyheaded Counter-Query, you say nothing that concerns me to answer; but this, viz, That because I say, If Rome was a true Church, etc. Hence you glory, and say, I yield up my weapons, by saying, IF Rome was a true Church.  
You demand then, To what end was all my other Questions? etc.  
I answer, That you had need go to School to learn to distinguish between an Hypothetical and a Categorical Proposition: for is it not one thing to say, The Church of Rome IS a true Church; and another thing to say, IF she be a true Church? Might you not as well have told your Reader, That David said, He COULD take the Wings of the Morning, and fly, because he said, IF I take the wings of the morning, etc.  
This is the ground of your triumph; because I say, If Rome was a true Church; you conclude I said, She was a true Church. O brave Logician! I see now there was a reason why you concealed your Name.  
And for those other questions that you ask me concerning Mr. Brooks his separation, in p. 41, 42. I shall refer you to him, who very likely can give you a better Answer than you have given to my Queries.  
Quest. 34 I demand in the next place, Why the Protestant Shepherds shear the Papists, since they judge them no Sheep of their fold? This is the sum of the Question.  
In your Reply, you say little that concerns me to answer; only, That the Church hath debarred Papists from communion.  
And thereupon you demand, Whether it be not reason then, that they should pay their tithes? etc.  
To this I answer, That there is little reason why any body should pay; but there is less reason why one that is put out of the Fold should pay, than any: nay, there is no colour of reason, why any that are cast out of the Church should be forced to maintain the Minister. Should not you have done well to have proved this, before you went further? viz. That Christ would have men pay tithes to a Minister when they are thrust out of their stock, and are put out of communion?  
The rest of this Question which you ask, relates to Mr. Brooks his practice, of which I have not so particular an information, as an answer to it requires; and therefore I shall refer you to him for an Answer.  
Quest. 35 I demand in the next place, Whether that the reason why you do exclude Papists, which is because they do not reform, be not the reason why Mr. Brooks excludes scandalous persons, viz. because they do not reform? etc.  
Your Answer hereunto, (as far as it doth concern me) is, That Mr. Brooks keeps people out of his Church, because they do not own his Church, and disown their own.  
To this I answer, That this is the reason why you reject Papists: for many of them are such, whose lives are without reproof; so that you keep them out, because they will not own your Church, and disown their own.  
Quest. 36 Your query upon my thirty sixth Question, is nothing but what hath been queried by you before, and is already answered, both in my Answer to M. wiles his Letter, in the beginning of this Book, and also in my Reply to the twenty sixth Counter-Query.  
Quest. 37 I query, since Ordination from Rome was thrown off upon a politic account, what ground the Ministers of the Nation have to plead a necessity to preach without Ordination.  
The substance of your Counter-Query to this, as it relates to your Succession, is answered already in the thirty sixth Query: and for that part of your question that relates to necessity, I answer,  
First, That there was no need of our first Reformers pleading necessity; for they were as idolatrous when they first rend from Rome, as they were when they were in communion with her.  
Secondly, If they had separated from the Church of Rome, because of her uncleanness, than there was no need for them to plead necessity for their preaching without Ordination, since they might have been ordained by the reformed Churches in other Countries, which had forsaken Rome before them.  
And thirdly, if Necessity may be a Warrant to them at that time, it was as good a Warrant to other Sects that revolted from Rome, as well as it was for those you call our first Reformers. So that then, if any Arrians or Socinians, etc. should have Rend from Rome, and gathered into a Congregation, they might have pleaded that they had a lawful Ministry, either by Succession, in that some of them had been Priests before they revolted; or else by virtue of a Necessity, since a positive Law gives place to necessity. Would not you answer these men, that they are Ministers by neither of these ways? and so do I answer you, as I have already done once and again.  
And therefore, when Mr. wiles hath proved himself a lawful Minister, than I shall say, He came in by one of these ways: but till then, let me tell him, and you too, That any Sect that will take it for granted, that they have Ministers among them, may as well justify their Minister's Authority, as Mr. wiles can do his, by taking it for granted he is a Minister of Christ, which he is never able to prove.  
Quest. 38 I demanded, When the Line of Succession was broke, whether then every one might not preach that were able, although it might not have been lawful before? etc.  
This was the sum of this Question.  
To which you say nothing but what hath been already answered over and over; only you ask me, Whether a case of necessity makes any Ministers but those that are fittest, and undertake the charge.  
To which I answer, That if the Men that preach shall be their own Judges, who will not think that he is fit and able?  
And was it not so with those you call our first Reformers? were they not Judges of their own abilities, and so made themselves Ministers of their own heads? and by the same Rule, others may departed from them, as they departed from Rome; and take upon them to be Heads or Guides of a Congregation of people; especially, if they can object considerable errors both in their Lives and Doctrines.  
Quest. 39 My next Question demands, how it can be a sin for any to preach that are able, seeing there is no Ordination on foot now, but what men take up by Necessity, etc.  
This is the substance of the question.  
To which you say nothing, but what hath been said and answered; only you demand, Whether there may not be a lawful succession from those that first took upon them this Office by Necessity? and whether any in an ordinary lawful way can be in office, but those that have it from that succession? etc.  
To this I answer, That if what you here suppose be true, then why did not our first Reformers go to the Ministers of other reformed Churches for Ordination, rather than take it from Mr. Scory, and that Faction? since there was divers reformed Churches where they might have been ordained without receiving it from Rome, or without putting themselves into the Office upon a pretended necessity.  
So that if what you say be true, That there may be a lawful succession from those, who first became Officers by virtue of a necessity, and that it is sinful to pretend to necessity afterwards; then our first Reformers cannot plead Not Guilty, since (as I have said) there was no necessity for them to own an Ordination from Rome, because they might have have had it in more purity from those you call the reformed Churches, which had separated from the Church of Rome before England.  
And secondly, There was no necessity for them to become Officers without Ordination, no more than there is now, because there were many reformed Churches in being, to which they might have applied themselves for Ordination, as in France and Germany, etc.  
Lastly, if there was no true Church in the world that had power to ordain our new Bishops; but they must make use of that which they received from Rome, and that this be a lawful Ordination, as you confess; than you must needs say, That the Churches of France, Germany, Geneva, Scotland, etc. were no true Churches, and had no true and lawful succession; or if they had been true reformed Churches, either by succession or necessity, why then did not our first Reformers go to some of these to be ordained? and since they did not, doth it not manifestly appear, that they were not true Ministers by succession, because they received Ordination from Rome, whom you call a Harlot, when they might have had it from the Ministers of the reformed Churches then in being? and because there was reform Churches in being, where they might have been ordained, they had no reason to plead to any necessity then of preaching without Ordination, any more than Mr. Brooks and others have, whom Mr. wiles and you condemn.  
Quest. 40 I come now to the fortieth Question that I propounded, which demands what Ground Mr. wiles had to baptise the children of wicked parents? etc. And to this you say nothing but what I have answered already; only you beg a question, viz. That children have a right to be members of a visible Church. Which when you have proved it, viz. That infants, while they are in infancy, have an immediate right to be members of a Church in the new Testament, I shall confess they may be baptised; but till then, I shall be against the baptising any infant, for all you think I would conceal my Opinion in this matter.  
Quest. 41 In the next place I demand, Whether to baptise the children of wicked parents, be not contrary to the Opinion of the reformed Churches? You reply, That in the sense M. wiles doth assert the baptising of the children of wicked parents, it is lawful. To which I answer, That I have replied to Mr. wiles his sense about the baptising the children of wicked parents, in my Answer to his Letter, at the beginning of this Book. All that you say to this question, besides what I have answered, doth appertain to some practices of Mr. Brooks, which I shall not meddle with, because I am not acquainted with them, only I take notice, that in p. 48. of your Book, before you end this question, you say, That if the Ministry of England be Antichristian, than it will follow, that those that they have baptised are unlawfully baptised, etc. How shamefully do you contradict yourself? did you not say before, That the corruptions of the dispensers of Ordinances could not make the Ordinances a nullity, though the Administrator was Antichristian? And do you not now in effect say, That baptism is a nullity, if the Administrator be Antichristian? for you say, If the National Ministry be Antichristian, (as Mr. Brooks saith) it will follow, that it is unlawful. Do you not now justify all that I have said, viz. If the first Reformers were ordained by Antichristian Ministers, that then it followeth, that their Ordination is a nullity; and that till they are ordained again, they all of them preach without Ordination from Christ? Thus the Reader may see, that rather than you would want an arrow to shoot at M. Brooks, you would borrow one out of my quiver; and you do as good as confess as much, when you conclude, and say, That your heart trembleth, and you hearty wish, that you could not plead so strongly, to sadden honest hearts, to please me, and such as I am. It seems then, your conscience told you, That you had given away your cause to the grief of yourself and others, because you could not help it; and therefore you wish hearty, that you COULD not plead so much, to please such as I am. So that it seems, you are now forced to yield to your own grief and others of your friends, which you call honest hearts, etc. it seems then, the truth is too strong for you. But to proceed.  
You come now to make Counter-queries, upon my 42, 43, 44, and 45 Queries that are grounded upon Mr. wiles his decrying the Fifth-Monarchy-Men, as the smoke of the bottomless pit: to this I have already given answer. And to the Counter-queries you propound upon my 46 question, touching Mr. wiles his Discourse with me in private, I have already answered in my Reply to M. wiles his Letter.  
And for your Counter-query that you make upon my 47 question about Mr. wiles his persuading a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuit, though you say, I am too blame to receive an information from one man, etc. Sure you are more too blame to believe the Accused's bare negation: but for the truth of what I object against M. wiles, viz. That he did desire a Gentleman to apprehend me for a Jesuit; I shall refer the Reader to the Gentleman aforenamed, who is ready to make oath for his further satisfaction.  
And for your saying, That I did live a concealed life about London for many years; and therefore there might be some ground for people to suspect me. Truly, I think there is more reason why I should suspect you, who are so concealed, as that you refuse to let your Name or place of abode be known; I am sure, this I never did upon any occasion in all my life.  
I come now to take notice of your Postscript, wherein you tell your Reader of some things you have to advertise him.  
The first (you say) is, That it is a great sign of truth, when men of corrupt minds are enraged against it. Truly, than it is a sign that we are in the truth; for men of corrupt minds are against us, witness the rude behaviour of those that threatened to throw me over the Gallery for ask M. wiles a question; and not only those, but such as make a gain of godliness, leaping from one benefice to another, where they can get the best fleece, and most profit; and that without they can have their own demands of their Parish, they will leave them, and go to another. I say, these are the men that cry down that which we profess, as the smoke of the bottomless pit, and would have men apprehended as Jesuits, or any how, so that they can be revenged upon them for not being of their Opinion: I say then, That if this may be called a good Argument, the Truth is of our side: but this is no infallible way of reasoning. In the second place, you tell your Reader, That those that have designs against the truth, have usually some plausible pretence to carry them on, etc. To this I answer, That you are none of those that have plausible designs against the truth; though you have a great many, you have scarce one that is plausible: for if you had, you would never have discovered to the world so much contradiction & folly, as you have done in your Book; neither would you have declared, That your Mother, the Church of Rome, was a Harlot at the time that your Predecessors received Ordination from her; neither would you have compared her to Korah, & to a Thief, as you have done; and yet justify her ordaining Ministers to preach the Gospel. Would you have had your designs plausible, you should never have discovered the Pedigree of your Clergy, by calling their Progenitors Thiefs and Harlots: sure this will not be plausible to any that shall hear it, when they come to know, that your glorious succession you so much boast of, came from such infamous Predecessors. The third thing you inform your Reader in, is, That those that design the propagating of errors, will for the most part oppose, but seldom assert, etc. To this I reply, That this is the reason you answered by counter-queries; and that rather than you would assert any thing positively, you put your respondent to prove negations; when the contrary was found in me: for I offered to assert and prove against M. wiles, and he refused it. The last thing you inform your Reader, is, That this Book is your first, etc. This you use as an argument why he should excuse your mistakes, etc. and truly, Sir, you had need of a pardon: and if you did not hope for it, you might fear to be corrected by a more severe hand than mine, for those many impertinencies, slanders and contradictions that your Book is fraught withal; which I pray God help you to consider of, that you may do nothing against the truth, but for it; which is the desire of,  
Sir, your Friend as far as you are the truth's, JER. IVES.   

AN APPENDIX.  
Reader,  
I Have for thy further satisfaction published some Observations that I have collected, touching the Ordination of the National Ministry, since their revolt from Rome in the time of Hen. 8.  
And first, it is observable, That the Church of England in the time of Hen. 8. did not separate from Rome for conscience, but for base ends, and for filthy lucre sake, as appears by their retaining all the superstitious customs of the Roman Church, and their persecuting to death those that did out of a good conscience oppose them. The truth hereof is plentifully manifested in the Histories of that time.  
Secondly, in the beginning of Edw. 6. his Reign, it is observable, that the whole frame of Religion was altered, and such a Reformation begun, as did agree with the wills of a Committee of twelve Men; and what form of worship should be agreed upon by any seven of these, was to be observed by the whole Nation. This was such great presumption, that the like cannot be paralleled in any Ecclesiastical story; and yet now the Anabaptists are cried down, as Men full of presumption, and such as swerve from the steps of Tradition.  
Thirdly, it is observable, That in the time of Queen Mary, the Roman Religion was by her restored, and the Land was overspread with Popery; and Popish Bishops and Priests were set up in all parts of this Realm, and their Religion confirmed by Act of Parliament: and Cardinal Pool, the Pope's Legite, absolved the Kingdom from the Excommunication, which the Pope had pronounced against the Land.  
Fourthly, it is observable, That when Queen Elizabeth began to Reign, the whole Nation being overspread with Popery; insomuch, that all Bishops that would not take the Oath of Supremacy, were turned out of their Bishoprics; so that by this means, there was a want of Bishops to supply the places of those which the Queen had ejected for Popery: so that from that time to this, our Clergy have been at a loss, touching their Ordination, as appears,  
First, because they sometimes plead an Ordination by succession; and sometimes, they leave succession, and plead to necessity, and an extraordinary Call.  
Now, if they plead they have their Ordination by succession from Rome, than they must justify Rome to be a true Church of Christ; and so are guilty of Schism, in renting, since they say, She was as good when they left her, as she was when they were ordained by her. Again, if that Rome was not a Church of Christ when they were ordained by her, than they are at a loss on the other hand, because that they cannot prove a power of ordaining Ministers, given to any out of the Church So that if their Ordination from Rome by succession be valued, Rome must be justified to be a true Church.  
Again, if they shall plead to necessity and an extraordinary Call, here they are at a loss again; because, first there were many reformed Churches in the World, from whom they might have been ordained, without receiving Orders from Rome: and also, they had no reason to plead necessity of Preaching without Ordination, since they might have had it from those Churches that were reform before them. Lastly, they fear to plead this Argument of necessity, lest they should justify their Adversaries the Anabaptists, and other Sectaries, which have more reason to plead necessity then themselves. This appears by M. wiles his refusal to resolve me, when I was at his House, Whether he was a Minister by a lawful succession, or necessity, because he knew not whether I was a Jesuit or an Anabaptist: for it is usual for them to plead their Ordination by succession, when they would oppose the Anabaptists, and to take up the Anabaptists Argument of necessity when they oppose the Papists: and therefore Dr. Fulk and Whittingam, and divers others when they have had to do with Papists, have inveighed against Ordination from them, as a stinking filthy thing, as I have already observed. So that the great loss they are at among themselves, touching the Derivation of their Authority, is one Reason why it may be questioned, Whether they have any or no?  
The second Reason is their unwillingness to answer those Objections, that their Adversaries the Papists, objected against their Ordination; which is a shrewd sign, they feared it would not abide the trial.  
As, 1. they objected, That the English Reformers in Queen Elizabeth 's time, went to a Popish Irish Bishop that was then Prisoner in the Tower, and promised him his liberty and a sum of money, if he would ordain them Bishops; but he refused.  
2. It is objected by their Adversaries the Papists, That they sought to be ordained by the Bishop of Landaff but he refused it.  
3. It is further objected, That Parker, and others of the Queen's new Bishops, were ordained by one Scory a Priest, at a meeting which they had for this purpose, at the Nags-head-Tavern in Cheapside.  
To these Objections no Answer was given till Bishop Masons time, which was nigh fifty years after when most of the men were dead that were the chief Witnesses to these things, though the Answer at that time much concerned them, these Objections being then the common talk of their Adversaries.  
A third Reason, why they are to be questioned, appears in the Case of the newmade Bishop of Winchester, who indicted Bishop Bonner; to which Bonner pleaded, That Winchester was no Bishop according to any Law; and the Judges in Queen Elizabeth's time did resolve, That Bonner's Plea should be received: See the Abridgement of Dyer's Reports, 7 Eliz. 234. And that they were at this time no Bishops, neither by Statute-Law or Canon-Law, appears by the great industry and care that the new Bishops took to get themselves confirmed by Act of Parliament; the words of the Act are these, All Acts and things heretofore made and done, about the consecration of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, etc. by virtue of the Queen's Letters Patents, since the beginning of her Reign, be and shall be, by Authority of this Parliament, declared and judged good and perfect, etc. And a little after in the same Act it followeth, That all Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, etc. be declared in very deed, by the Authority aforesaid, and enacted to be Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, etc. and rightly made, ordered and consecrated: any Statute-Law, Canon-Law, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding, 8 Eliz. 1. So that you may see that the Clergy of England were no lawful ordained Ministers, neither by Statute nor Canon-Law, till the 8 of Eliz. in the Opinion of the Judges in the Case of Bonner and Horn before mentioned: which I desire may be considered by all judicious Christians; and then I question not but they will see, that the Clergy of England have little reason to glory in their Apostolical succession, and to cry down others that stand upon a more religious foot of account then themselves.  

POSTSCRIPT.  
Reader,  
WHereas Mr. wiles in the forementioned-Letter, tells a story of a man that was in company with me at his house, as though he should say, He had rather hear the Devil than an ordained Minister; Give me leave to tell thee, That this scandal carries enough in the mouth of it, to discover the untruth thereof to all sober and intelligent men: for I think no man in his wits, but had rather hear the worst of men than the Devil himself. And if the Gentleman be points at, be Mr. Vancourt, as I know not who else he should mean, I must tell thee, That his daily hearing such as are ordained in the sense that Mr. wiles calls Ordination, is to all that know him, a sufficient justification. And though Mr. wiles would have put such a sense upon some words that sell from this Gentleman; yet Mr. wiles cannot but remember, that the Gentleman was offended at him, for that he misrepresented him to the company then present; and thereupon Mr. wiles was desired not to misconstrue these words: and he promised that he would not, though since he hath done it, contrary to the Gentleman's then-declared meaning, and his own promise.  
Vale.    

Thou art desired to take notice of these two errors viz. in the Epist read organical for original. pag 20. lin. 20. for Mat road Mal.   

There is an excellent piece lately published, entitled, Gospel-worship no work for infants; clearly proving, the folly, vanity and deceit of infant's Baptism: and that the true Worshippers of God are believing men & women, converted by the preaching of the word, not infants. By H. Haggar.  
Sound Doctrine, or the Doctrine of the Gospel about the extent of Christ's death: with a brief compendium of Doctrine of the holy Scriptures; clearing up the riches of God's love to all mankind, and his desires to save them that yet wilfully perish. By William Pedelsden.  
Both to be sold by Dan. White at the seven Stars in Paul's Churchyard.  
FINIS.