Confidence questioned: OR, A Brief Examination Of some Doctrines delivered By M. THOMAS wiles of Bottolphs' Billingsgate, In a Sermon preached by him At Margret's New-Fish-Street, the 7th of Decemb. 1657. ALSO, Some QUESTIONS touching his pretended Call and Authority to preach the GOSPEL. By Jeremiah Ives. Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own cause, seemeth just; but his neighbour comes and searcheth him. Rev. 2.2. And hast tried them, which say they are Apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars. Act. 17.11. These were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind; and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. LONDON: Printed for Daniel White, and are to be sold at the seven Stars in Paul's Churchyard; or are to be had at the Author's House in Red-Cross-Street. 1685. To the Impartial Reader. Reader, IT is matter of great admiration, to see men sacrificing their Reasons and Judgements upon the Altar of blind Zeal and Devotion: it is also matter of lamentation, to see men, who would be judged Christians, suck in Opinions, as wild Asses do the Wind, without Trial and Examination; and so become impatient of contradiction: and all this while, forget that blessed Rule, of trying the Spirits, whether they be of God or no. I shall therefore soberly propose some Questions for Conscience sake; which I desire may be weighed and considered: some of which Questions, are those that I had intended to have propounded to Mr. wiles in public, had I not been prevented by a tumultuous Auditory: some, pulling and haling me; others threatening to throw me over the Gallery. If this look like a Spirit of Christianity, I confess myself to be very ignorant of a Christian Spirit: sure this Spirit is more like the Spirit of the Primitive Persecutors, than the Primitive Professors of Christ; and yet these are the Men that cry up a Reformation, according to the Primitive Institution. If the Light of these ensuing Questions, shall give Light to the Conscience of any, or their Answers give Light to my own Conscience, I shall bless the Father of Lights, who hath not suffered me to labour in vain. That some such good, may be the product hereof, is the desire of him, who is thine in the service of Christ, Jer. Ives. Confidence questioned. Mr. wiles, IT hath always been the practice of Deceivers to sow their Tares among the pure Wheat, and to blend their Errors with choice Truths: I shall not say, you did any such thing, by design; but that you did it, the Light of these ensuing Questions will manifest: and if you would have me be so charitable as to think you did not project such a thing, I pray then do not refuse to come to the Light that your deeds may be made manifest: and remember, That Truth seeks no corners: and if therefore you are confident of the truth of what you have delivered, fear not the face of opposition. It is enough for Turks and Jews, Papists and Heretics, to assert that, which they fear publicly to dispute; because they are conscious of the brittleness of such Assertions, and therefore are loft to hazard them in the Fire of Disputation. Let those than fear the Touchstone, whose Coin is counterfeit, and not Men that are Gospel-Preachers, lest Men have occasion to call them counterfeit-Silver. I pray you therefore so far to honour that which you have publicly asserted, (if it be Truth) as to answer these Questions that relate to those things which you then delivered. ONe thing asserted by you, was, That it was not lawful for any to preach ordinarily and constantly, but such as were ordained, except it was for approbation, or in cases of necessity, when such Ordination cannot be had. The first Question that I desire to be resolved in, is, Whether any thing can be charged as sin upon any, but what is against a Divine Law? since the Apostle saith, Rom. 4.5. Where there is no Law, there is no transgression. 1 John 3.4. Sin is the transgression of a Law. 2. Whether by any Law of God it is a sin for men that are gifted for the Ministry, to preach the truth of Christ to the Edification of their Brethren, although they were not put upon it by reason of your supposed necessity, or though they should never be ordained to Office. 3. If there be any Law manifesting such a practice to be sinful, pray tell me where that Law is written; that so I may see my error, and reform. 4. If there be a liberty for gifted men to preach in order to their approbation for Office, as you confess, pray tell me whether they do not preach in the capacity of gifted Brethren before their Ordination; since they cannot preach by virtue of Office, while as yet they are not in it. 5. If they preach as gifted Brethren before their Ordination, than I quere, How long they may thus preach till their preaching becomes sinful? 6. If you say, Till the Ministry or Presbyters approve them, and are very well satisfied with their abilities and qualifications for that employment: then I quere, How if this man whom they approve of, is unsatisfied with their power to ordain him; is it then a sin for him to preach till he is satisfied with their power? 7. How if a man be gifted and enabled to preach the Gospel to edification and comfort, and yet finds himself very short of a power to rule the Church of God as that Office requires, or it may be wants faithful Children, such as are not accused of ryct; it may be he hath not power over his passion, but may be soon angry, etc. which are those qualifications that Paul tells Timothy and Titus MUST be found in such officers: see 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. Titus 1.6, 7. I quere from hence, Whether a man should sin to use those gifts (God hath blessed him withal) out of Office, because he hath not all those qualifications that are required, before he be admitted to Office. And whereas you say it is a sin for people to hear such as are not ordained, except as before excepted, I quere, 8. Whether there is any Law of God broken when I hear the truth of Christ preached by any that are not ordained? if so, show me where that Law is to be found. 9 Whether or no Apollos did not preach the Gospel, as is recorded, Act. 18.24, 25, 26, 27, 28. publicly and freequently; and whether he could be an Officer of the Church at that time, seeing he knew ONLY the baptism of John, or was not acquainted with the baptism of the Spirit? therefore pray show us that he was at this time an Officer, or else that he preached for approbation to it, or that he preached by virtue of any necessity. By virtue of necessity he did not preach: for, there were able Christians before, such as the Text saith did instruct him. And if he preached at this time as an Officer, or for approbation thereunto, pray show h●w that appears. 10. It is said, Mal. 3.16. that THEY that feared the Lord SPOKE OFTEN one to another, etc. And Heb. 10 25. It is required that we should not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but exhort one another daily, etc. whether by the light of these Texts it doth not appear, 1. That God's people ought to meet often together. 2. That they may and aught to exhort one another, being thus assembled. 3. Whether by one another we are not to understand any one that hath a word or gift of Exhortation, as well such as are no Officers, as those that are? 11. Is it not written, Rom. 2.1, 2. Therefore thou art inexcusable, Woman, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest dost the same things. Vers. 3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God? Vers. 22. Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Whether by the light of these Scriptures, your darkness is not discovered, who told the people how sinful and dangerous it was to hear such as Mr. Brooks; when yourself hath heard him once and again? And whether all the excuses that you have for such a practice, will not be arguments to justify others, as well as you? And since you cried the hearing of such Men down, as a general evil, without any exception; pray tell me, (let your pretence in hearing be what it will) how can you do evil that good may come? And whether, by the same pretence that you can make to hear Mr. Brooks, (if to hear him be sinful, which is not yet proved) any man may not hear in an Idols Temple, or eat meat in an Idols Temple, and so cause his weak brother to be emboldened in his way, and make him to perish for whom Christ died, contrary to that in 1 Cor. 8.10, 11. 12. It is said, Heb. 5.12. That when for the time ye OUGHT to be teachers, etc. I query from hence, Whether here is not a Duty required, and whether that Duty be not Teaching? Again, whether the persons that the Text saith, OUGHT to teach, were not members out of Office? if so, than I query, whether that this Teaching might not as lawfully have been performed in public Assemblies, as in private Families: since neither this, nor any other text, makes the one any more unlawful than the other: provided, they have abilities to the one as well as to the other. 13. It is said, 1 Cor. 14.1. Fellow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts; but rather that ye may PROPHESY, etc. compare this Verse with the 24. but if ALL prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, etc. and V 31 Ye may ALL prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. From these texts I query, whether that this was a prophesying by Gift or Office? if it shall be said, It was by Offices; then I query, whether it was by ordinary or extraordinary Office? If it shall be said, That it was by extraordinary Office, than it follows, That the Apostle exhorted the whole Church, to covet after extraordinary Offices, when he exhorted them to follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that THEY might PROPHESY, v. 1. 14. If it shall be said, That Prophesying here, was an ordinary Office; than it follows, That the whole Church are exhorted to covet to be ordinary Officers: which would be, to make the whole Body of Christ monstrous. If it shall be said, That they were not exhorted to Prophesy, as extraordinary, or as ordinary Offices, than I query, whether they were not to do it as gifted Brethren? since we never heard of any other way. 15. Whereas you say, That none ought to preach, but those that are ordained, except as before excepted, I query: Among those several Ordinations that are in Christendom, which of those, whether some one of them, or all of them, be that which Christ approves of? If you say, All of them; and that the errors of the Administrators in some Circumstances, doth not make the Ordination a Nullity: then I query, 16. Whether one may not by this Opinion, be lawfully ordained at Rome? 17. If you shall say, The Protestant-Ordination is lawful, and that only; then I query, which of those, whether the Episcopal, Presbyterian or Independent-Ordination, be that which is approved by Christ to empower the Ministers to Preach? since all these are Protestants, and greatly differ in this thing▪ If you say, All of these are lawful; then were not the Ministers of the Episcopal way greatly out, in crying up the Ordination by Bishops to be the only Authoritative Ordination, in opposition to that of the Presbytery? And that they did so, will appear, if you consult Dr. Jer. Tailor, Chaplain to the late King, in his Book called Episcopacy asserted, page 120, 121, 122. It is clear (saith he) that Bishops were to do some acts which the Presbyters COULD NOT do; one of which he calls Ordination by imposition of Hands, which he saith was not to be done by Presbyters. Again, the said Doctor saith, That the Apostles did impse Hands for confirmation, which (saith he) was to continue in the Church; and could not be done by the seventy, or any MERE Presbyter. And for this he citys the constant practice of the Fathers, and the Opinions of divers Churches. Therefore pray tell me if this be that Ordination which a man must have, without which his Preaching is sinful? 19 Again, if you say, All or any the forementioned Ordinations be lawful, then how vain a thing was it for the Presbyterians, to throw down the Government of Episcopacy? why did they not rather reform it then cashier it, seeing it was a power by which Ministers might have been authorized to preach, according to God's Ordinance? 20 If the Bishops, as Bishops, had this lawful Power, when did any Power from Christ divest them? 21. If Episcopal Authority were of God, as the Bishops pretend, why may not a man lawfully go still to them for Ordination, in case this Authority was never taken from them in an Ecclesiastical way? 22. If you say, That both Presbyterian and Episcopal Ordination is lawful; then I query, whether that Christ ever erected two ways of Ordination of Ministers, one contrary to the other, and yet both lawful? for such is the state of Episcopacy and Presbytery in England one saith that the Presbytery hath no power to ordain, the other saith they have. 23. If it is that Ordination that is among the Independents, than we have that we run for: then if one have their suffrage and Ordination, and this be lawful, (which I think you will not say) then wherein is Mr. Brooks in this to be condemned? 24. Again, If you say, That Ordination by the Presbytery is the only Ordination; then where was an Ordination to be had in England thirty years ago? 25. Is it not very strange that you should tell the people they sin, in hearing those that are not ordained, when you never tell them, whether you mean any Ordination may serve, nor what Ordination of those divers kinds it is that God approves of? 26. Since you say, That none ought to preach, but they must be ordained, except as before excepted; then I query, whether your Ordination be derived from the Line of Succession, or whether it had its Original from Necessity, because such an Ordination by Succession could not be had? This Question is grounded, partly upon what you preached, partly upon what you granted me at your House, viz. That where it cannot be had from a lawful successi●● power, there a man may lawfully officiate in the Office of the Ministry without it, and that because he is put upon it through necessity. Since therefore (you say) there is but these two ways by which a man may be justified in preaching, or the people in hearing; I query now (as I did at your House) by which of these two ways came you into the Ministry? for you told us, That none could pretend to Necessity, when it might be had by Succession. 27. If you say, By Succession; then surely you succeed from Rome: if so, than I query, whether the Church of Rome was the Spouse of Christ, and her Ministry and Ordinances the Ministry and Ordinances of Christ, when your Predecessors received their Ordination from them? if so, then, 28. Whether the Church of Rome was not as good a Church when your Predecessors left her, as she was when they received Ordination from her, which was but a little before? 29. If you shall say, Here was a Succession of British Ministers in England before the Papal Power had to do here, or before Gregory the Pope sent Austin the Monk to convert the Saxons; then I query, whether all those Ministers were not brought into subjection to the Papal Power, and so were swallowed up in the See of Rome? If not, then, 20. Whether there was any Succession of a true Church in England, who were separated from the Church of Rome? if there was, show us where that Church was all the time the Papal Power was exercised here, and who were they that governed it; and also how your Ordination proceeded from this reformed, rather than from the Papal Line? 31. If you say, It came from Rome, and not from that presupposed Succession; then I query, if Rome was a little before Hen. 8 's time entrusted with the Administration of Christ's Ordinances, as a Church of Christ, whether it was not your sin to leave her as a cage of every unclean thing? 32. If you say truly of her, (as indeed you do) that she was the cage of every unclean thing; how then could she dispense at that time so sacred an Ordinance as Ordination of Gospel-Ministers is by you judged to be? 33. If you 〈◊〉 She had power as a Church, and you did separate because of her corruptions, that you might serve the Lord with more purity; then I query, whether you are not guilty of that evil yourself, (if yet it be an evil) which you charge upon Mr. Brooks in separating from the halt & maimed? 34. Whether it hath not been common for those of your way, to separate from the Papists, and yet take their Tithes, and (to use your own phrase) sheer those lame and diseased Sheep, which you have denied to admit into the Fold with you? 35. If you say, They might (if they would reform) have communion with you; I query then, whether this very Objecti-that causeth you to exclude Papists, be not the reason why Mr. Brooks refuseth scandalous Protestants and other profane people, viz. because they do not reform? 36. If you shall deny this Succession, and say, That there was none, and that it was lost; then I query, whether this be not a singular and private Opinion of your own, differing from the rest of your Brethren? 37. If that Ordination from Rome, and receiving holy Orders from thence, was thrown off upon a politic account, as doubtless it was at first, though since we have declined it upon more religious considerations) than I query, how any body could pretend to the Argument of Necessity to preach without Ordination? 38. Whether or no, when the Line of Succession was broke, it was not lawful THAN for every one to preach that could; although it might not have been lawful before? because Necessity puts one lawfully upon that work, where a successive Ordination cannot be had, by your own Maxim. 39 If it were true (as you say) that none ought to preach while the successive Ordination of Christ remains uninterrupted, but such as are lawfully ordained, (which is the great thing in question) how doth it become a sin for men that are gifted to preach, since there is no such Ordination now on foot, but that which men put themselves upon through necissity, and want of the other by Succession? 40. Whereas you say, You can baptise the children of wicked Parents; I query, what Ground you have in Scripture so to do? 41. Whether to baptise the children of wicked Parents, be not contrary to the Opinion of those which yourself calls the reformed Churches? 42. Whereas you said, That the Fifth-monarchy-men were as the smoke of the bottomless pit, and that their Principles did raze the Foundation of Religion; I query, whether they were not called Fifth-monarchy men, because they did believe, that when the Caldean Monarchy, and the Monarchy of the Medes and Persians, and the Grecian and Roman Monarchy should be wholly extirpated, that then the Lord himself should set up a Fifth monarchy, which should succeed these four, of whose kingdom there should be no end; according to that of Dan. 7.23, 24. 43. If this principle were grounded upon this and suchlike say in Scripture, what reason had you to cry out against it? 44. If you say, It was because of the evil practice of some of them in these later times; I do thereupon query, If this be a good Argument: Some of their practices were bad; Ergo, their principle is bad. Whether a man might not have said the same both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian way, since that some of them were such as engaged the Nation in War and Blood, more than ever those were like to do you call Fifth-monarchy-men? but this surely is un-man-like reasoning. 45. Whereas you would seem to blame Mr. Brooks for harsh Judgement, I query, whether your Judgement was charitable when you decried the Fifth-monarchy-men as so many monstrous Heretics, that raze the Foundation, without any kind of exception; especially considering what Ground there is for it in God's Word, & also that it was the Opinion of many men both ancient and modern: for Justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius the Emperor, asserts the thousand year's Reign of Christ upon Earth: and he further saith in his Dialogue against Tryphon, that it was the belief OF ALL CHRISTIANS exactly Orthodox. And of later times, we have Mr. Robert Matton, Mr. Archer, Mr. Mead, Doctor Twisse, Mr. Ephraim Hewit, Mr. Parker of New-England, Doctor Homes, Mr. Thomas Goodwin, and Mr. Joseph Caryl, who upon his perusal of Doctor Homes his Book, saith, That it is Truth confirmed by Scripture, and the testimony of ancient and modern Writers of all sorts. 46. And whereas you told me when I was at your House, you would stop my mouth; I cannot think you meant to stop my mouth with sound Arguments; for that you refuse to do, though I did desire it of you once and again: and if you meant to do it, it must be either by a secular power, or animating the people to rudeness; for I know no other way, seeing you refused the first: then I query, whether in so doing (supposing me to have erred) you walk according to that Rule that tells you, that with meekness you should instruct those that oppose themselves, etc. 2 Tim. 2.24. 47. Doth not the Scripture say, That the Minister of Christ must be an example to a Believer in charity? 1 Tim. 4.12. I query then, whether backbiting, tale-bearing, and taking up a reproach against your Neighbour, be not contrary to the law of Charity: and whether you were not guilty of this, when you told a Gentleman that lives at Highgate, who is ready to witness the Truth hereof, That you were informed I was a Jesuit; and therefore told him he would do well to apprehend me. Truly Sir, if you do not tell me who informed you, I shall say it was a slander of your own devising, either thereby to take away my life; for that is the punishment the Law hath provided for Jesuits, by the Stat. of Eliz. 27.2. or else (if that Gentleman would have been ruled by you that I might have been laid in Goal right or wrong, to the undoing of myself and Family, till I could have cleared myself of the supposed crime in open Sessions. This must need be your design, otherwise why did you encourage him to apprehend me as a Jesuit? but more of this in a more convenient place, where I doubt not of reparation: only let me tell you, That if you could as easily prove the Affirmative, viz. That you are sent of God to preach, and that all you preach is true, as I can prove the Negative, that I am no Jesuit, the controversy between us would soon be ended. These things I leave to your consideration, and shall trust God with the success; and subscribe myself, London Decemb. 16. 1657. Your Friend as far as you are the Truths, Jer. Ives. Postscript. LEst any should think, that I am against Government in the Church of God, and that I am against the Ordination of Ministers, or the like: let me tell them that so think, that they are mistaken: for God hath ordained a Government, and I know we must submit to them that labour among us, and are OVERDO us in the Lord, and esteem them very highly for their works sake, 1 Thess. 5.12, 13. 1 Tim. 5.17. The elders that rule well are worthy of double honour. And whereas some passages herein contained, do relate to somewhat that was spoken by Mr. wiles at his House when I was with him in private; for the Reader's further satisfaction therein, touching the Truth thereof, if he please to call at my House in Red-Cross-street, I shall direct him to those who can sufficiently inform him of the truth thereof, being there present at the same time. And whereas Mr. wiles did tell the people, that none could lawfully preach but those that were ordained, unless it were such as were put upon that work by necessity, where such Ordination could not be had; I thereupon went to his House with some Friends, and did desire him in love to prove himself a Minister of Christ, either by Ordination from a lawful Succession, or else that he was put upon it by any necessity: and this I pressed upon him for an hour and half together, and he refused (as divers can witness) to prove himself a Minister either one way or other. And I further desired him, that he would dispute those things in public that he had so publicly asserted; but this he utterly refused, though I promised him to dispute, according to the known Laws of Disputation. Vale. FINIS. Page 1. line 14. for loft, read 10th pag. 10. l. 9 r. of many good men.