Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Touching ordination of Miniſters.
Hen. Ainſ.FOr your calling here, if there were that errour onelyonly in your ordination which I intend, and no other fault to be found with you, in reſpect of your former eſtate in England before mentioned, or otherwiſe: I grant that therfore it is not vnlawfull for any to hear you, yet ought this errour, as all other to be acknowledged & forſaken: and they are to be blamed, which leave the church and miniſtery erected according to God, to goe vntounto corruptions.
Wheras to help mine ignorance, you propound reaſons from the book of God: had they been to the point in controverſie, I would have thanked you for ſo doing: and the rather becauſe in the former things, you preſſed me with the names of churches. But your reaſons doe not ſatisfie the queſtion, which was about Authoritie of the Elderſhip of one Church, to make or ordeine miniſters in another. As for mutuall adviſe, counſell, help and the like: I account them good and lawfull.
To your 1. reaſon therfore I anſwer, the help of other churches may be ſought for and vſed, if there be need, for counſel, inſtruction, exhortation, in all holy dueties. But not to doe thoſe actions which are peculiar for every Church to doe in it ſelf: neither doe any of the ſcriptures which you cite prove otherweiſe. Moſes and the Apoſtles had extraordinarie callings of God, to doe things which ordinarie Miniſters may not doe. If Churches at their firſt gathering, want knowledge to do their dutie: let neighbour Churches direct them by the law of God, how to doe it: but not vſurp their power. Elders were to be ordeyned in every Citie, if any were found fit for the charge, Tit. 1.5.6. otherwiſe it were better to ſtay the work, (as the Apoſtle ſtayed and did it not himſelf,) then to have it doen amyſſe. So if the Church be vnfit to doe the works therof, they ſhould ſtay til they be better informed: and not put it over to others, whom God hath not appointed therto. The Churches in the villages of Netherland, may not be vrged for our patterne, vnleſſe they cannot erre in their practiſe: but the Churches in Gods book, obeying him, are to a1 Theſ. 1.6.7.be our example.
The ſame things I anſwer to your ſecond reaſon.
To your third: It appeareth not by Rom. 16.1. that Phaebe the Diaconcſse of the Church at Cenchrea, ſhould execute her office in the Church at Rome: it followeth not becauſe ſhe had buſines there, and needed their aſsiſtance, that therfore ſhe went to doe the work of her miniſterie there. Neyther becauſe the Church at Corinth ſent meſſengers to cary their liberalitie to Ieruſalem. 1 Cor 16.3. doth it follow that their ordinary Deacons were their meſſengers: much leſſe that they ſhould doe their Deacons office in Ieruſalem, to gather and diſtribute the benevolence. Who would not rather think that they delivered their gift to the Church or Officers, and left them to diſpoſe of it? And the ſame anſwer ſerveth vntounto 2 Cor. 8.19.22.24. which you alledge: it proveth not thoſe meſſengers were Deacons of one Church, and did the Deacons office in an other.
To your 4. I grant that the Prophets of one Church, may propheſie in an other, Act. 13.15 and may apply their doctrines, exhortations & prayers, to any actions of the Churches where they ſpeak: but this onelyonly by way of doctrine, &c. not to do the work which belongeth to the Church. It is holden by the Hebrewes, and I think rightly, that bThalmud in Negaghnim, c. 2any wiſe man might ſee the plague of leproſie, and adviſe the Preiſt to pronounce it vnclean or clean, or to ſhut vp: yet none but the Preist himſelf, might pronounce it vnclean or clean, Lev. 13.3.4. Deut. 24.8.
To your 5. I confeſse, and it is our practiſe, that the members of one Church, may receive the Lords ſupper in another, coming thither occaſionally, yet will it not herevpon follow, that the miniſters of one church ſhould adminiſter the Sacraments, or ordeine ministers by vertue of their office, in another Church. My reaſons are: The Miniſters have a peculiar relation to their particular flocks onelyonly, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.17. 1 Pet. 5.1.2. Apostles, and all vniverſall Miniſters, are now ceaſſed. As an huſband is no huſband but to his own wife: a Father, to none but his own children, &c. ſo a ſheepherd or miniſter, to none but his own flock. But for the ſeales of the covenant the caſe is otherwiſe. For a baptiſed perſon is baptiſed not to that particular Church onelyonly, but to all churches: and in every particular Church where he cometh, he hath all the Privileges of a Baptiſed perſon, in reſpect of his Baptiſme, and is ſo to be eſtemed of by them. Now all circumciſed perſons, had right therby cExod. 12.4.48. Deut. 16,1.2.to eat the Paſſover in any ſocietie, in the place which God ſhould chooſe to put his name there: ſo all baptiſed perſons have right to the Lords ſupper, in every true church where God hath ſet his name. But the rulers of particular ſynagogues had not the ſame authoritie in all ſynagogues, nor pastors now in all, flocks. So when a Chriſtian cometh to a flock where their Paſtor feedeth them, he joyneth himſelf to them for that time and action, & is fed with them as one of Chriſts ſheep. Shew you the like warrant for Elderſhips to doe the works peculiar to their office, in other Elderſhips or Churches: ſhew that any elderſhip may ordeine miniſters in their conſiſtories, & ſend them as miniſters to other churches: (though thoſe churches, vponupon trial of their gifts, be content to accept them for their miniſters,) as I have heard the practiſe is of ſome conſiſtories, vntounto the Dorpes or Villages of Netherland, whoſe example you alleged.
To your 6 I anſwer, that the Miniſters now, being over dRev. ch. 2. and 3.particular churches onelyonly, which in reſpect of their particular covenants are diſtinct bodies, as you acknowledge: herein lyeth the reſtreynt of their miniſterie, by the ſpeciall ordinance of God, Act. 20.28. No man may take the honour of miniſtration of holy things, but he that is called eHeb. 5.4.of God as Aaron: but God hath given them no office to adminiſter in other churches. And if th'Apoſtles, who had a large miniſterie over all, yet would not boaſt of things without their f2. Cor. 10 13.16.meaſure, in an other mans line: much leſſe may the miniſters of particular churches. Although in the general bōd of Chriſtianitie, they may afford any help, not paſsing the bounds of their calling, as before I granted. But the ordination or making of miniſters, is a work of power or authoritie, Mat. 28.18.19. Heb. 5.1.4. which power is not given to one Church or miniſter over an other: and therfore cannot, by vertue of the common faith, be by them performed. And wheras you intimate, as if your Church intreated the miniſters of an other church, to performe it in their name, &c. I have cauſe to doubt that the thing was not ſo caried: both for that I have not heard that the miniſters of the other church, (being alſo of an other language,) ever came into your publick congregation, (according to the lawes in your firſt reaſon alleged, Exod. 29.4. Levit. 8.3.4.) to make publick prayers, and to give exhortations to your Officers and people touching their mutual duties, and ſo to ordeyn your miniſters: as alſo becauſe it is not their manner to ordeyn miniſters publickly in their own churches, it being by their gSynod in Graven Haghe anno. 1586 art. 4. & Synod in Midleburgh. anno. 1581 art. 4.canons, to be doen in the claſsical aſſemblies or conſiſtories. I have heard it alſo teſtified by ſome that have been long members both of the Dutch and French: that they never did ſee the ordination of the miniſters, though ſundry were taken into office in their time. Finally, in this your plea, how doe you diſable your own church, and the 3. other Elders that with you were authorized to feed your flock: as if there were not one amongst you, which could performe this work of ordination, or ſhew the miniſter and people their mutuall duties.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.AS I obſerved in my former writing and in my firſt anſwer touching this poynt, ſo you do here yeeld and grant, that it is not vnlawfull for any to heare me, namely in reſpect of the ſuppoſed errour of my ordination if that were all: yet you adde with all, that this errour as all other ought to be acknowledged and forſaken, &c. Now in this your grant, you yeeld me the cauſe and overthrow your ſelf in the maine queſtion betwixt vsus touching the lawfulnes of communion with our Church and miniſtery: for whereas before & after againe you do obiect our want of repentance as the maine ground of your ſeparation from vsus, you do here notwithſtanding confeſſe that this praetended errour of my ordination doth not deſtroy communion with vsus, and yet you know we neither acknowledge it nor forſake it, nor repent for it any more then for the reſt of the errours which you impute vntounto vsus. Thus you do plainely yeeld againſt your ſelf, that there may be publique corruptions and ſins vnrepented of, and yet a lawfull communion with ſuch impenitent perſons. You alledged for your ſeparation from ſin the 10. commandements, Exod. 20. If the errour of my ordination be a corruption to be acknowledged, & forſaken, thē muſt it needes be a tranſgreſſiō of ſome of the ten commandements: and how comes it then that this errour vnrepented of hath a priviledge not to be ſeparated from, rather then other errours and corruptions? you alledged alſo Eph. 5.11. and 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. for a proof of your ſeparation from ſin and communion therewith: if the maner of my ordination be an errour to be repented of as you ſay, then muſt it needes be a worke of darknes: and tell me then I pray you how this work of darkenes vnrepented of gets a diſpenſation not to be ſeparated from rather then other workes of darkenes. Surely your ſeparation is not vnlike the Pope in his diſpenſative, exemptive and tranſcendēt power that can give at pleaſure ſuch ſpeciall indulgence for ſpeciall ſinnes, errours and works of darkenes vnrepented of. You affirme hereafter that this work of ordination executed and done by the Elders of an other congregation is an vſurpation contrary to the ſcriptures Act. 20.28. Mat. 28.18.19. Heb. 5.4. do you not herein then acknowledge that it is lawfull to hold communiō with ſuch as do ſubmit vntounto vſurpers, and do adminiſter the word and Sacraments by vertue of an ordination received and derived from an vſurped power? Mr. Ainſworth, I do earneſtly deſire and require both you and your people in the name of Chriſte that you wil conſider of theſe things without preiudice and partialitie, and ſo doing I doubt not but vponupon this your grant, you wilbe led forward to entertayne more Chriſtian communion with vsus:& that other ſuppoſed errours among vsus ſhall not be a ſtumbling block vntounto you any more then this is. The Lord give you eares to heare and a heart to vnderſtand.
Furthermore whereas I vrged you ſo earneſtly in my former writing to hold vntounto the matters of ſeparation and you alſo profeſſed to do the ſame: how comes it that you inſiſt vponupon this diſpute about my ordination, and yet acknowledge that for this errour it is not vnlawfull for any to heare me? Had you confeſſed ſo much, or had I knowne ſo much at the firſt. I would not have propounded any arguments concerning this poynt, but would have held onelyonly to the pretended cauſes of your ſeparation from vsus. VVhereas you complaine further that my reaſons are not to the poynt in controverſie, &c. I take it they touch the poynt ſufficiently when as they both ſerve to juſtify the maner of my ordination, and to refute your contrary opinion: when as I ſhew againſt you that the mutuall counſell & help of neighbour churches are not onelyonly good and lawfull in generall, as you grant: but alſo in executing & performing this particular work of ordination one for another as need is, and as they are entreated therevnto.
MY firſt argument to warrant the help of neighbour miniſters for performing the work of ordination in other Churches, was taken from the neceſſity of many churches that often want fit perſons among themſelves for the performance thereof, &c. In your anſwer herevnto there are many faults:
1. You pervert my allegation of ſcriptures from Moſes and the Apoſtles, as if I had cited them to prove that ordinary miniſters might imitate them or do as much as they in their extraordinary power which I neither wrote nor thought: But as appeares by my former aPag. 16.writing togather with the note of reference vntounto the Margent, I alledged them onelyonly to ſhew that the work of ordination did conſiſt principally in ſuch publique prayers and exhortations as that many Churches did want fit and able perſons to performe the ſame. And ſo much the bExod. 29.1-35. Levt. 8.1.2. &c. Numb. 27.18.19.23. Deut. 31.7. Act. 6.6. & 13.2.3.ſcriptures therevnto applyed do prove vntounto vsus, neither can you juſtly deny the ſame.
2. VVhereas you ſay, that Elders were to be ordeyned in every citie, if any were found fit for the charge, Tit. 1.5.6. otherwiſe it were better to ſtay the work, &c. And then further infer by way of ſimitude, that So if the Church be vnfit to do the works thereof, they ſhould ſtay till they be better informed, &c. I anſwer, that your compariſon herein is very vnequall: for of miniſters and Elders God hath expreſſely and preciſely required ſundry ſpeciall graces and endowments of his ſpirit, neceſſary for their publique adminiſtration, without which they may not be ordeyned or choſen: It is reaſon their election ſhould be ſtayd, vntill thoſe graces that God requireth be in ſome meaſure diſcerned in them: But as for the other members of the Church, God never exacts of them ſuch abilities of publique exhorting and praying in the congregation; It is ſufficient for them if they have true faith and repentance, though in weak meaſure; And therfore there is no reaſon that they ſhould be deprived of a miniſter ſo long, vntill themſelves be able to preach vntounto their preacher at his ſolemne ordination.
3. VVhereas I alledged, Heb. 3.2. and Eſa. 5.3.4. to ſhew that the wiſedome and faithfulnes of Chriſt in his Fathers houſe would not ſtand with ſo ſtraite an order as you plead for. To theſe ſcriptures you anſwer never a word, but ſmoothly paſſe by them, and ſo avoyd the force of my argument compriſed therein. According to your opinion it will follow that Iſrael of old were in better eſtate for obteyning of miniſters in temple and ſynagogue by the order that Moſes ſet downe, then we are in the new Teſtament by the order that Chriſt hath left vsus: you will have that Chriſt cannot ſing of his vineyard now as he did of old what could I have done more vntounto my vineyard that I have not done vntounto it? Of old there was away vnderunder Moſes to call labourers into the vineyard, though the perſons in ſeverall ſynagogues, could not preach for their ordination: this way is now ſtopped vp by your doctrine.
4. Rather then all the churches be deprived of miniſters by ſtaying till ſome among themſelves were able to preach at their ordination according to your counſell, I would think it meet that miniſters being lawfully choſen ſhould proceed vntounto their adminiſtration without any ſolemne confirmation at all, according to the diſtinction which I propounded in the beginning of this firſt argument, viz, Either ordination is not ſimply neceſsary: or els, &c. For where is there any proof from the ſcriptures for ſuch a neceſsity of ordination that the worke of miniſtery is to be ſtayed for want thereof?
5. As for the Churches in the villages of theſe Netherlands I did not alledge their example for a rule of right that we are bound to imitate, as you would make the reader beleeve: and therfore you have needleſly alledged 1 Theſſ. 6.7. againſt me: but I onelyonly alledged their neceſſitie and their want for an inſtance of that which I had ſayd before to ſhew what evil would follow vponupon your doctrine, to the deſolation of many Churches by with-holding miniſters from them, till they were able to performe the great and weighty dueties of that ſolemne ordination whereof I ſpoke.
6. That which is here ſayd concerning ordination may further appeare if we conſider an other worke of examination which is as b1 Tim. 3.10. & 5.22.requiſite (if not more) in the calling of a miniſter, as is ordination: and doth alſo as much belong to the power of the Church, as ordination: yet experience ſhewes that many godly and ſimple Chriſtians are not able to performe this worke conſidering the ſubtilty of many deceitfull and learned heretiques which creep into churches. And therfore help to do the ſame from the Miniſters of other churches is oft moſt neceſſary, and not onelyonly to informe the churches herein but to performe this action for them.
VNtoUnto my ſecond reaſon which was taken from the like neceſſitie of help in diſcerning and convincing of errours & hereſies, you ſay that you anſwer the ſame things, which you did vntounto my former reaſon. Then will it follow herevpon
1. That vvhen your people ſent vntounto Mr. Robinſon & cAnimad. verſ. p. 133.entreated him to come and help the Lord againſt the mighty, againſtMr. Iohnſon: according to your former anſwer vntounto me, he ought alſo to have anſwered your people, and ſayd: I will give you the beſt help, counſell and adviſe that I can, I will direct & enforme you how to convince Mr. Iohnſon, but to do it my ſelf I may not leaſt I ſhould vſurp the power of the Church. For the conviction of errour is an Eccleſiaſticall action, & it is a work of power belonging to the church, and layd vponupon the Church, as well as is the pronouncing of the cenſure and ſentence againſt ſin convicted. But becauſe he did not vſe this anſwer, but came to do the thing it ſelf, it will follow by your anſwer that therfore he was an vſurper herein, and you alſo guilty of his vſurpation in ſeeking the ſame.
2. It will follow hence alſo, that either ſome learned and ſubtile heretiques ſhall be tolerated in the Church: or els that they muſt be reiected without ſufficient conviction going before: for dayly experience ſhewes that ſome heretiques are ſo learned, and the godly members of ſome congregations are ſo weak that they are not able ſufficiently to convince ſuch great deceivers. Neither is it in this caſe ſufficient for neighbour miniſters to help them with counſell and to informe them vvith arguments vnleſs they come and do the deed themſelves, vnleſs they performe the work of conviction for them: even as it is not ſufficient to put a ſword into a dHeb. 5.11.14. with judg. 8.20.Childes hand and to tell him how he ſhall vſe it to overcome a ſtrong and expert warriour. If Vorſtius had bene miniſter in ſome of the weakeſt congregations in this countrey, which yet I think you acknowledge true churches, and ſhould have ſeduced the wiſeſt and greateſt part of the Church to his manifold errours, what appearance is there that the reſt could by their diſputations have convinced him? If you would allow others in this caſe to come and vndertake the diſputation for their help, then is the Eccleſiaſticall action of convicting a ſinner to be performed and done by the help of other Churches.
MY third reaſon was taken from a like duety of the Deacons and widowes of one church which are to performe ſervice vntounto an other when need requires, &c. In your anſwer herevnto you pervert that I ſayd, and touch not the poynt of my argument at all. As for Phaebe, I ſayd not that ſhe went to do the work of her miniſterie at Rome, but the commendation that Paul gives of her Rom. 16.1. compared with the verſe following proves as much as I ſayd, and that divers wayes. 1, vponupon that commendation of Paul, if ſhe had bene in need, the Deacons and vvidowes of the Church of Rome. were bound to miniſter vntounto her though none of their Church. 2, if being at Rome ſhe had deſired help of that Church for the poore in Corinth; the Deacons of the Romane Church, vponupon that commendation of Paul were bound to have contributed and ſo by her to have performed ſervice vntounto the Corinthian Church. 3, by the commendation that Paul gives her it appeares that ſhe had given hoſpitalitie vntounto many, and conſequently, that the vvidowes of one Church were to performe ſervice vntounto an other in entertayning the ſtrangers that came from them. Touching the meſſengers that were to cary the Corinthian almes vntounto Ieruſalem 1 Cor. 16,3. I ſayd not that they were their ordinary Deacons as your anſwer imports: but ſeing Paul promiſeth to ſend whomſoever they ſhould allow by their letters, this ſhewes that if they had entruſted their Deacons vvith this buſines, he would alſo have ſent them: and ſo this proveth that the Deacons might lawfully have bene ſent and conſequently this ſhewes as much as I ſayd: For .1. if the Deacons might have bene ſent, then though they had neither made any gathering nor further diſtribution at Ieruſalem, but onelyonly delivered their preſent vntounto the Officers there, as you ſay, yet this their labour in travelling ſo long & dangerous a journy even about a 1000. miles from Corinth to Ieruſalem might be a ſufficient teſtimonie, that the Deacons of one Church might performe ſervice to an other, yea happily more ſervice and labour of love, then they ſhould have done at home in a whole twelve month togather if they had not gone. 2, for as much as in the primitive Church there were many eIude, 12. Act. 6.2. & 2.46.love Feaſts and tables provided,where the godly and the poore did eat their meat together with gladnes and ſinglenes of heart, admit now that the Deacons of the Corinthian Church having delivered ſome almes vntounto the Officers of the Church at Ieruſalem, ſhould yet further in the name of thoſe that ſent them have made a love feaſt vntounto ſome afflicted members of that Church and girding them ſelves ſhould have come forth and miniſtred chearefully and lovingly vntounto them; what fault would you finde in this ſervice and miniſtration performed vntounto an other Church? 3, the afflictions, bands and impriſonment of the miniſters & people in thoſe dayes being great, admit that the Deacons of the Church of Corinth, ſhould alſo by the appointment of the church have taken paynes to ſeek them out in their priſons, & ſtayd ſome time both to diſtribute ſome particular gifts vntounto ſome by name and further alſo to miniſter vntounto them for their comfort, as fPhilip. 2.25-30.Epaphroditus g2 Tim. 1.16.17.18., Oneſiphorus & hPhilem. 11.13.Oneſimus did vntounto Paul, what blame could you impute vntounto theſe Deacons that thus ſhould performe ſervice vntounto an other Church? And this ſame reply ſerves alſo to take away your anſwer made vntounto 2. Cor. 8.19.22.24. which I had alledged to the ſame purpoſe with the former place.
IN anſwer to my 4th argument, you yeeld me the cauſe: for while you grant that the Prophets of one Church, may propheſie in an other and apply their doctrines, exhortations and prayers to any actions of the church where they ſpeak; you do alſo grant that the act of ordination which conſiſteth in theſe things is then performed. VVhen you diſtinguiſh that he may thus pray and Propheſy, by way of doctrine, &c. but not to do the work which belongeth to the Church, you do herein contradict your ſelf: for when doctrine, exhortations and prayers are ſolemnely applyed to the perſon elected and to the church electing touching their mutual duety, &c. then is the act of ordination performed and done. If you had thought otherwiſe, you ought to have named the other particulars which are of neceſſity further required: as for the ceremonie of impoſition ofhands. 1, there is no commandement that bindes ſo ſtrictly therevnto, that the act of ordination ſhould be condemned for the want of it. 2, by your owne confeſſion this hath bene heretofore the practiſe of your owne church, iAnimad-verſ. p. 65.the outward ſigne being omitted at the ordination of the miniſter among you, when you had no Elders; and ſtill you ſhew your opinion in the caſe ſpoken of that for the kIbid. p. 66.outward ſigne onelyonly you would not contend. 3. If the Prophets of one congregation may approve the act of an other Church in their ordination, by word in doctrine and prayers, why may they not alſo by their hand declare the ſame approbation? we ſee that the lAct. 13.1.2.3.Prophets in the Church of Antioch, though they were no vniverſall miniſters, did yet lay hands on Paul and Barnabas for their confirmation in that work of miniſterie which was to be exerciſed in other places.
But for your help in this matter, you runne vntounto the Thalmud and from thence you tell me, It is holden by the Hebrewes and you think rightly, that any wiſe man might ſee the plague of Leproſie & adviſe the Prieſt to pronounce it vnclean or clean, or to ſhut it vp▪ Herevnto I anſwer.
Firſt, you give too much honour vntounto theſe authors alledged when you call them Hebrewes, whereas you ſhould rather have called them Thalmudiſts, whoſe lāguage is nSchind. pentaglot. tit.noted as a diſtincte ſpeech from the Hebrew; their ſaying is, oAben Ezra in Eccle. cap. 5. ileſchon mikra lechod, leſchon Thalmud lechod; their language through their diſperſion being degenerate and changed, like vntounto them pNehem. 13.24.that ſpake half in the ſpeach of Aſhdod: A man that vnderſtood the Hebrew perfectly might yet be ignorant of this Thalmudicall barbarous ſpeech. And theſe Thalmudiſts (as you your ſelf do qdefenc. againſt. Mr. Sm. p. 73. to 76acknowledge concerning the Helleniſts) could not ſay with the Apoſtle that they were r2 Cor. 11.22. Phil. 3.5.Ebrewes, or Ebrewes of Ebrues.
Secondly, what have we to do with the opinions of theſe fabulous and blaſphemous Thalmudiſts, whoſe dotages and blaſphemies are innumerable? Cannot the controverſie betwixt vsus be decided by the word of God, and by the voyce of the holyſcriptures, vnleſſe the voyce of this vnholy Thalmud be alſo called for and admitted to ſpeak betwixt vsus?
Thirdly, for this allegation in particular, your forgerie or miſtaking herein is very notable; for in the place of the Thalmud quoted by you, there is no ſuch thing to be found as you mention. There is no ſuch generall mention of any wiſe man as you ſpeak: There is not a word mentioned for the adviſing of the Prieſt to pronounce cleane or vncleane or to ſhut vp any. Equitie requires, that we corrupt not nor falſify the ſayings of the worſt men. He that depends vponupon the Thalmud for his direction ſhalbe fed with the winde and follow after the eaſt winde as ſHoſ. 12.1Ephraim did: But he that gives credit vntounto your allegations of the Thalmud, being like vntounto this, ſhalbe doubly deceyved.
Fourthly, when as I ſearched for your allegation in the Thalmud, in ſtead of that which you ſay, I finde in the ſame place ſuch idle and vaine traditions of the Rabbines as might juſtly ſerve to diſcredit the teſtimonies of ſuch witneſſes: as namely, their appoynting of certaine Canonicall houres whē the plague of leproſy is to be ſeene: tThalmud in Negagh. c. 2. ſec. 2.not in the morning, nor in the evening, nor yet at noone tide, &c. alſo their traditionall rule for the poſition both of the man and womans body when their lepry is to be ſeene, viz. uIbid. ſec. 4.that the man muſt be ſeene as a man that holdes the plow or ſhakes the olives, meaning with the hands and feet ſpread forth, &c. that the woman muſt be ſeene as one that dreſſeth or giveth ſuch to her childe, as one that weaves, &c.
Fiftly, beſide theſe and other vaine traditions, there be alſo ſuch contradictions among them even in the ſame place, as may yet further ſhew what litle credit is to be given vntounto the allegations brought from ſuch diſagreeing witneſſes: as firſt vponupon a Thalmudicall caſe propounded in the beginning of that xIbid. ſec. 1.Chapter, concerning a ſtrong ſpot appearing as the german contract, and as the Ethiopian contract, Rabbi Iſmael expoundes it of a middle colour neither white nor black but betwixt both; R. Akiba expoundes it of divers figures appearing about the ſpot both white and black, and of middle colour, &c. R. Iehudah hath yet an other expoſition, and their chacamim an other different from them all. Againe in the ſame ySec. 2.place, touching the canonicall houres before mētioned, Rabbi Meir notes them to be the third, the fourth, the fift, the ſixt, the ſeventh, the eight and the ninth houres; Rabbi Iuda notes them to be the fourth, the fift, the eight and the ninth; R. Schimeon in his gloſſe vponupon the Thalmud in the ſame place notes the expoſition of R. Ioſe different from the former, namely that theſe howres were the fourth, the fift, the ninth and the tenth: and divers others ſuch like vanities & contradictions might be noted out of the ſame ſhort chapter.
Laſtly, for the thing that you would teach vsus out of the Thalmud, & firſt for any wiſe man ſeing the plague of leproſy, if you meane occaſionally as he meetes a leper, or as it is ſhewed vntounto him, I deny it not; but if you meane that any wiſe man had authoritie to require an other to ſhew him his ſpot or plague ſuſpected, and to diſcover vntounto him his nakednes whereſoever the ſpot was, eſpecially with ſuch a poſition of Body as the Thalmudiſts deſcribe, that remaines to be proved; and 2, for the adviſing of the Prieſt vponupon occaſion to ſhut vp, or to pronounce clean or vnclean, I would eaſily have conſented vntounto you therein, though you had not called for witneſſe vntounto this Lying Thalmud.
Now whereas you adde: yet none but the Priest himſelf might pronounce it vnclean or clean, Lev. 13.3.4. Deut. 24.8. I anſwer.
Firſt, this is not altogather true, for though the ſcriptures alledged do ſhew that the Prieſts might do this thing and with more authoritie to be ſubmitted vntounto, then other men ordinarily could do: yet do not theſe places ſhew that the Prieſt alone might pronounce a leper cleane or vncleane. For what law of God bindes a man from declaring the truth and pronouncing that to be clean or vncleane, which he certainely knowes by the word of God to be ſo? The high Prieſt and other Prieſts are commanded to do many things which yet others might do alſo. And if the Prieſts wreſted the law, might not others declare and pronounce and practiſe otherwiſe? either you muſt grant this or els you muſt in part deſtroy againe that aAnimad-verſ. p. 19.20.proportion which yourſelf have made betwixt the Prieſts & Miniſters, Iſrael of old and the people of Chriſt now, for remooving the leper and putting away the wicked from among them.
Secondly, for the application of this your aſſertion vntounto the queſtion in hand, you ſhew it not at all: for what though none but the Prieſt might pronounce cleane or vncleane? yourſelf confeſs and teach that the work of ordination may be performed by ſuch as are no Miniſters and ſo you practiſe: how then do you draw this argument from the ſpecial miniſteriall power of the Prieſthood vntounto ſuch an action as by your doctrine might be performed without either Prieſt or miniſter.
MY fift reaſon was taken from the mutuall & equall relation that is betweene miniſters and their people togather with your confeſſion that the members of one Church may lawfully vponupon occaſion receive the Lords ſupper in an other Church from the miniſters thereof. This argument you deny. Your reaſons are: The miniſters have a peculiar relation to their particular flocks onelyonly, Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.13 17. 1 Pet. 5.1 2. I anſwer, 1. The people have a peculiar relation to their particular miniſters onelyonly in like maner, and the places here alledged do ſhew a peculiar bond of ſubmiſſion whereby the people are in ſpeciall maner tyed vntounto their owne overſeers that care for them and muſt give an account for their Soules more then for others. 2, as this peculiar relation of the people doth not hinder them from receyving the Lords ſupper at the hands of an other miniſter, ſo neither doth the peculiar relation of a miniſter vntounto his flock hinder him from adminiſtring vntounto others being vponupon occaſion entreated therevnto. You ſay; Apostles and all vniverſall miniſters are ceaſſed. I anſwer that alſo an vniverſall people or members of an vniverſall viſible Church are ceaſſed; & yet as the combining of the peoplevnto their owne peculiar miniſter doth not quite cut off their communion with other miniſters, ſo neither doth the reſtreyning of a miniſter vntounto his peculiar flock quite cut him off frō adminiſtring vponupon occaſion vntounto an other people. Your ſimilitudes from a huſband and a father are againſt your ſelf: for as a huſband notwithſtanding his relation and bond vntounto his owne wife, may yet become a bIob. 31.16.17.18. & 29.12.16.protectour and guide of the poore widow, that wants a huſband to performe theſe dueties: & as a Father notwitſtanding his relation vntounto his owne Children & familie, may yet performe the work of a father vntounto the poore and fatherleſſe: ſo likewiſe a ſheepheard or miniſter notwithſtanding the peculiar relation vntounto his owne flock, may and ought vponupon occaſion to performe the work of a miniſter vntounto an other neighbour flock that have loſt their ſheepheard.
You ſay, all circumciſed perſons, had right thereby cExod. 12.4.48. Deut. 16.1.2.to eat the paſſeover in any ſocietie, in the place which God ſhould chooſe to put his name there: ſo all baptiſed perſons have right to the Lords ſupper, in every true church where God hath ſet his name. I anſwer, 1. The ſcriptures alledged by you ſhew that circumciſed perſons had right to eat the paſſeover, but ſhew not that they had right to eat the ſame in any ſocietie: nay the place quoted by you ſhewes the cō trary, for ſeing the lamb was to be eatē of the ſame houſhould, or if they were too few to eat it, the onelyonly others were to be takē vntounto them, and thoſe alſo of their next neighbours, Exod. 12 4. and ſeing alſo that the paſſeover prepared was by order to be diſtributed d2 Chron. 35.11.12.13.according to the diviſions of the families of the Children of the people: therfore ech perſon was bound to keep himſelf vntounto his owne familie, and could not without diſturbance of this order intrude himſelf into any ſocietie. 2. This your comparing of the ſocieties where the paſſeover was eaten, with every true Church where the Lords ſupper is now adminiſtred, is very vnequall, and yet againſt your ſelf in the poynt of our controverſie: for theſe ſocieties had not ech of them their diſtinct and peculiar miniſters or Prieſts to adminiſter and prepare the paſchal-lambe for them, as ech true Church hath now their owne diſtinct officers: any Prieſt might indifferently prepare the paſſeover for many or any ſocieties, as well for one as an other: if then this type is to be our direction in the poynt of our differēce, any miniſter may now adminiſter the Lords ſupper vntounto baptized perſons in any church.
VVhereas you adde: But the rulers of particular ſynagogues, had not the ſame authoritie in all ſynagogues, nor paſtors now in all flockes, &c. I anſwer, 1. Though paſtours have not the ſame authoritie in all flockes yet this hinders not but vponupon occaſion in time of need they being requeſted may help to performe ſome workes of a miniſter in an other congregation. 2, you make here an vnequal proportion betwixt rulers of the ſynagogues & paſtours of the churches now: for many rulers of the ſynagogues had not povver of adminiſtring the paſſeover even to any of their owne ſynagogue, for as much as we do not read that all the rulers of the ſynagogues were Prieſts who onelyonly might ſprinckle the blood of the paſchall-lamb according to the maner. 3, on th'other ſide ſome of the rulers of particular ſynagogues being Prieſts to teach and governe the people therein, had power alſo to adminiſter the Sacrament vntounto them of other ſynagogues at the time and place apppoynted. 4, what know you but that the rulers of one ſynagogue had a hand in the governement of other ſynagogues alſo by the combination which was in that Church of the Iewes? How know you that either the Prieſts, Levites or other teachets were reſtreyned and bound to one ſynagogue and excluded from the governement of the reſt? If you vvill dravv proportions and patternes for vsus from the rulers of the ſynagogues, ſhevv vsus from the ſcriptures if you can, vvhat calling, election and ordination they had, whereby they vvere ſo ſtrictly tyed and reſtreyned vntounto their ſeverall ſynagogues. The vvarrant vvhichwhich I have already brought to ſhevv that the Elderſhip of one Church may vponupon occaſion performe the vvork of ordination in an other, is not yet infringed by you: But vvhereas you require me to ſhew that any elderſhip may ordeine miniſters in their conſiſtories & ſend them as miniſters to other churches, &c. You aſk that vvhichwhich is quite beſide our queſtion, and your groſſe errour therein vvith your falſe allegations for proofe of the ſame is to be ſhevved ſtraightvvay in that vvhichwhich follovveth.
VVnto my 6t argument taken from the common faith binding all churches, miniſters & people to performe all poſſible help for their mutuall aedification ſo far as they are not reſtreyned by ſome ſpeciall commandement of God: you give anſvver by ſhevving reſtreint from the ſpeciall ordinance of God, Rev. ch. 2. and 3. with Act. 20.28. Heb. 5.4, &c. Herevnto I reply:
1. As for Rev. 2. and 3. with Act. 20.28. though the angels of the Churches be in ſpeciall maner bound to take heed vntounto their ovvne flockes and particular Churches, yet doth not that charge reſtreyne them from taking heed vntounto others vponupon occaſiō for a time of neede. The taking heed vntounto their flocks vvhichwhich Paul requires in this place doth comprehend vnderunder it not onelyonly, the adminiſtration of Sacraments, ordeyning of miniſters & ſuch like actions, but alſo the adminiſtration of the vvord and prayers, godly counſell in private, &c: if then this taking heed muſt be reſtreyned vntounto their owne particular Churches onelyonly you may from hence as wel conclude that it is vnlawfull for a miniſter to make a Sermon or to call vponupon the name of God in any congregation ſave his owne: ſeing both theſe kinds of dueties are in like maner included in this exhortation of Paul.
2. For Heb. 5.4. This condemnes not thoſe that are deſired to help their neighbours in diſtreſſe, but thoſe that intrude themſelves without deſiring: Thoſe Churches that call or entreate a neighbour miniſter to help them vponupon occaſion for a time, they give the honour vntounto him, he takes it not vntounto himſelf.
3. For both theſe places togather, Act. 20. Heb. 5. The Apoſtle ſpeakes in both of a miniſteriall charge & of an office, which every miniſter is to take heed vntounto, and not to vſurp theſame without a calling: But now yourſelf both by eAnimadverſ. p. 51.52.53, &c.writing & practiſe do confeſſe that this act of ordination may be executed and performed by ſuch as have no office or miniſterie in the Church, how then do you reaſon for a reſtraint from theſe places that concerne Officers, as though men vſurped an office and took honour vntounto themſelves in performing ſuch a work as you grant may be done without any office?
4. As for 2 Cor. 10.13.16. it ſhewes that men may not boaſt of things without their meaſure, &c. But, 1. it ſhewes not that thoſe which performe the work of ordination in a neighbour church deſired therevnto, are guilty of ſuch boaſting without their meaſure, in an other mans line, when as there is no other man in that congregation which is fit to performe the ſame, or willing to vndertake that worke. 2, this place doth rather reprove them as boaſters of things without their meaſure which being private men and alſo wanting the gifts of publique doctrine, exhortation & prayer do yet take the ſame vponupon them, ſo as of neceſſitie they muſt do for the ordination of their miniſter or els have no miniſter at all ordeyned among them, whiles by your order you will not allow them to vſe the help of any other neighbour-miniſter or learned man. 3, ſeing the Apoſtle doth further declare his meaning in the ſame place: namely, that ſuch do ſtretch themſelves beyond their meaſure, which boaſt f2 Cor. 10.15.of other mens labours, and gIbid. vers 16.of the things that are prepared already: I wiſh you to conſider that thoſe which by their erroneous doctrine do ſeduce many ſimple people and draw them into their ſchiſme from thoſe that have bene the meanes of their converſion, if they be at all converted: thoſe I ſay boaſt of things without their meaſure & enter into the line of other men: thoſe are they that ſteale the Children out of the cradles, the Children for whoſe new birth they never travelled with paine: like vntounto that h1 Kin. 3.19.20.wicked woman that having overlayd her owne, did ſteale away an other ſonne from the boſome of the true and right mother. Think ſeriouſly with your ſelf Mr. Ainſworth, whether this be not your ſin.
5. VVhereas you plead from Mat 28.18.19. Heb. 5.1.4. that ordination is a work of power or authoritie, not given to one Church or miniſter over an other and therfore cannot by vertue of the common faith, be by them performed. This is not contrary to that which I hold, for I ſayd not that ordination might be performed by vertue of the common faith alone, I noted it to be a work of power and authority in the end of this 6t. reaſon before, when as I ſayd it was to be performed in the name of the Church that deſireth help. But a neighbour miniſter receyving povver and authoritie from the deſire of thoſe that ſeek his help, is then further bound by the common faith and generall bond of Chriſtianitie to perfotme this ſervice vntounto thoſe that need it. If you would have reaſoned to the poynt, you ſhould have ſhevved ſome reaſon why a Church cannot communicate this power vntounto a miniſter or Prophet in an other congregation, as well as vntounto a common member of their owne Church; eſpecially when they want fit members among themſelves to performe this worke.
6. As it was before in generall obſerved, ſo here againe it is more particularly to be noted, that although ſo many tranſgreſſions be committed in the ordination of a miniſter: though he be ordeyned by ſuch as are not appoynted therevnto of the Holy Ghoſt; though he be made a miniſter by ſuch vſurpers as take this honour vntounto themſelves, when they are not called of God therevnto, as Aaron was: though he be ordeyned by them that want authority and power to do it; by them that boaſt of things without their meaſure, in an other mans line: yet do you notwithſtanding this vnlavvfull ordination, (as you yourſelf reaſon againſt it) grant that it is not vnlawfull for any to heare ſuch a miniſter ſo ordeyned. This being well conſidered vvill ſerve to overthrow many grounds of your ſeparatiō. For as the iMaimony comment. in Thalmud tract. Negag. cap. 1. ſec. 2 & R. Moſes Kotſenſ. in SMG. Aſin. 234.Rabbines from Thorath Cohanim deſcribing the 4. ſorts or degrees of that leproſy, which is called Lebanah adamdemeth, wherein the red colour is mixt with the vvhite, do note one to be greater then an other, comparing the firſt kinde toa Cup of milk wherein are 2. drops of blood: the ſecond to a Cup of milk wherein are 4. drops of blood; the third to a Cup of milk, vvherein are 8. drops of blood; the fourth to a Cup of milk wherein are 16. drops of blood: and yet in the diſcerning of theſe do account them all as one, and kThalmud Ibid. ſec. 3.give one judgement of them all, for the ſhutting vp, for the pronouncing of them vncleane, and for the purging of them: even ſo the vnlawfull ordination of miniſters being in your account a ſinfull tranſgreſſion of Gods commandement, & conſequētly an vncleane leproſy; if you were not now more partial then the Rabbines themſelves, you would judge that one kinde of vnlawfull ordinatiō in the cup of any church ſhould be a cauſe of ſeparatiō as vvell as an other, though differing in degree, ſome Churches having more ſpots in their ordination, then ſome others have: eſpecially conſidering that large pretence of ſin vnrepented, which you alledge for a ground of your ſeparation from vsus, as I noted before. But for the preſent I vvill inſiſt no further, reſerving this obſervation vntill further occaſion be given of applying it againſt your ſchiſme & the grounds thereof.
AFter theſe reaſonings againſt the right of ordination performed by the miniſters of an other congregation, you come to ſpeak of the fact it ſelf as it vvas performed among vsus in my ordination: and here you tell vsus of your ſurmiſes and ſuſpicions, as though our Church did not entreat the miniſters of an other Church to performe it in their name, as I had intimated vntounto you, &c. you ſay, you have cauſe to doubt that the thing was not ſo caryed: both for that you have not heard that the miniſters of the other Church, (being alſo of an other language) ever came into our publique congregation, (according to the lawes in your firſt reaſon alleged Exod. 29.4. Lev. 8.3.4) to make publique prayers and to give exhortations, &c. But to deliver you (if it may be) from your vaine coniectures and doubts, I vvill ſhevv you a litle more plainely and expreſſely the maner of my ordination, vvhichwhich vvas this: Being elected to be paſtour of this congregation by the free and voluntary conſent and choyſe of the membersthereof that had vnited themſelves and agreed togather in the Lord for his ſervice and their owne aedification, ſome of them were then appoynted by the reſt to go vntounto the Dutch Elderſhip in this citie and to deſire both their counſell and help for my ordina…ion. Herevpon, three reverend and learned miniſters were deputed by the reſt of their brethren to aſſiſt vsus in this buſines, namely Mr. Plancius Mr. Helmychius of bleſſed memorie who now reſteth in the Lord, and Mr. Lamere, all which did alſo vnderſtand the Engliſh tongue theſe three tooke vntounto them alſo by our deſire a miniſter of the church of Scotland, Mr. Dowglaſſe, who being more able to ſpeak in our language then they, did publiquely preach concerning the mutuall dueties both of people and Paſtour, and accordingly applyed his prayers vntounto the action in hand. And herewithall did the miniſters of the Dutch reformed Church at the ſame time give vntounto me their right hands of fellowſhip in the middes of our people, and in the body of our publique congregation then aſſembled and prayed alſo for the bleſſing of God vponupon this my calling. And this they did at that time of the firſt gathering & eſtabliſhing of our church, not aſſuming authoritie vntounto themſelves over vsus, but in our name and by our requeſt: being now eſtabliſhed when as of late an other miniſter was called vntounto this our congregation, we vſed not their help herein as before, but his ordination was performed by our owne miniſterie and Elderſhip without them.
After this ſurmiſe, you bring a notorious vntruth, and proceed from evill to worſe, from a vaine coniecture vntounto manifeſt falſhood: when vnderunder colour of reaſon for your former gueſſe, you ſay, as alſo becauſe it is not their maner to ordeyn ministers publiquely in their owne Churches, it being by their lSynod in Graven-Haghe An̄o 1586. Art. 4. and Synod in Midleburgh. An̄o 1581. Art. 4.canons to be doen in the Claſsicall aſſemblies or conſiſtories. Anſwer.
Firſt, it is an evident and open vntruth which you affirme touching their maner of ordination: And dayly experience beares witneſſe againſt you: Their maner is to ordeyne miniſters publiquely in their owne Churches.
Secondly, as for the canons of the two Synods which you ſuborne like tvvo falſe vvitneſſes to prove your aſſertion, they are very iniuriouſly perverted and falſifyed by you. That 4th. article of the Synod holden in the Haghe Anno 1586 is directly againſt you, and in expreſſe words ſheweth that the ordination of a miniſter lawfully called muſt be an opentlijcke beveſtinghe voor der Ghemeynte / that is to ſay: an open or publique confirmation of him before the Congregation: it ſhewes further how it is to be performed with convenient ſtipulation, queſtions, exhortations, prayer, &c. and againe it ſhewes that this ordination muſt be done, naer het Formulier daer van zijnde; that is, according to the forme which is preſcribed for that purpoſe, which ſhewes more largely in what maner it is to be performed before the Church. In the end of that article, there is an exception touching the miniſters which are to be ſent out of their countrey into the enimies land, inde Kercken onder t'Crupce / vntounto the perſequuted Churches, diſperſed among the Papiſts in Colen, Antwerp, Bruſſels and ſuch like places, where they have not ſuch liberty for their ſolemne aſſemblies: but this concernes not the Churches in their owne country. As for the Synod in Midleburgh, Anno 1581. art. 4. neither doth it impugne their maner of ordeyning miniſters publiquely in their owne Churches, but onelyonly leaves it free: the vvords of the artickle are, het zy in de Kercke opentlijck ofte nae dat het gheleghen is inden Kercken Raet ofte Claſſe / doch altijdt met openbaere ghebeden / that is to ſay: either in the Church openly, or according as conveniency is, in the Conſiſtory or Claſsis, but alwayes with publique prayer. Beſides, this Synod at Midleburgh being holden five yeares before that of Gravenhaghe, as the date ſhewes, is to be determined according to the later Synod, and therfore doth in no ſort deny the publique maner of ordeyning miniſters in the congregation. And further as appeares in the ſame book of their Synods, there was yet an other Synod holden at Midleburgh ten yeares after the former, agreeing vvith that ofthe Haghe alſo, wherein it is agreed that the mSynod in Midleburgh. An̄o 1591. Art. 5.miniſters after that they have bene propounded fourteene dayes vntounto the congregation without any ſpeciall contradiction ſhall then publiquely be confirmed in their miniſterie, and this naer her Formulier daer van zijnde / which formulier, ſhewes the maner thereof more largely. And thus it may eaſily appeare how vnworthily you abuſe the teſtimonies of Synods, by wreſting them quite contrary to their meaning, and contrary to the truth. In the forefront of this your laſt nPag. 35.writing, you prefixe the ſaying of the Prophet Zacharie, Love the truth, &c. Zach. 8.19. Hereby, Truth ſeemes to be as it were engraven vponupon the lintell or vpper-door-poſte of your houſe, ſo that vntounto thoſe which paſſe by your porch, or draw neere to enter in, your building at the firſt ſight ſeemes to be the Houſe of truth; but vntounto them that enter further to view what deceitfull work is in it, your building may then quickly be diſcerned to be the Houſe of falſhood and forgerie. Fie for ſhame, Mr. Anſworth, that you will thus write either you cannot tell what, or you care not what. It is one of the fouleſt faults that we do juſtly complaine of in Bellarmine & Baronius, the Popiſh champions, that they do vnconſcionably and falſly alledge many teſtimonies & matters of fact, and ſo joyne falſhood with their errour; why feare you not to follow their crooked ſteps? It is great ſin for any to ſpeak vntruth in their owne name; but to make others guilty of vntruth, by perverting their teſtimonie to evill, is double iniquitie.
Yet you inſiſt ſtill, and tell vsus, that you have heard it alſo teſtifyed, by ſome that have bene long members both of the Dutch and French: that they never did ſee the ordination of the miniſters, though ſundry were taken into office in their times. But 1. I pray you who be thoſe apocryphal witneſſes that have thus teſtifyed vntounto you? If they be ſuch as dwell in this citie or in the countrie adjoyning theſe may well bring vponupon themſelves the blame of being negligent and careleſs perſons, who have no better obſerved the practiſe of their owne Churches: eſpecially conſideringthat before the ordination of their miniſters, their names are alwayes propounded vntounto the congregation two or three Lords dayes before, that ſo ech member of the Church may take knowledge of that which is done. 2. Do you but look into the end of many Dutch Bibles where their forme of prayers and adminiſtration of the Sacraments is deſcribed, there may you finde the oForme van beveſtinghe der Dienaren.forme of ordination according to the meaning of the Synods before mentioned▪ there may you ſee what their maner is, and that by the whole tenour of the words, as alſo by the titles or directions before them, the ordination of their miniſters is performed in the middes of their whole congregation. How comes it that you who have lived more then 20. yeares as a neighbour vntounto the Reformed Churches in theſe countries ſhould yet be ſuch a ſtranger vntounto them and ſo ignorant of their eſtate and practiſe? 3. as for the French Churches here alſo, it is their maner likewiſe to ordeyne their miniſters, Elders and Deacons in the publique congregation of the people: The deputies of their Churches were preſent at the generall Synod above mentioned holden in the Haghe Anno 1586, in the time of the earle of Leyceſter, by vvhoſe authoritye that Synod was alſo approved and confirmed: from thence they receyved the formalier of ordination before ſpoken of: and though they have not a forme printed with their Bibles as they Dutch have, yet do they keep it in writing and vſe the ſame every yeare in the ordinatiō of their Elders and Deacons: and of their miniſters when they chooſe them, as in particular of Monſieur Goulart, Morois, Baſſecourt, all which have bene publiquely confirmed in their offices before the people. And if this be not enough, I can yet bring you more plentifull witneſſe, both to help & heale your incredulitie in reſpect of my eſtate, & to convince your falſe aſſertion, and falſe allegations in reſpect of the Reformed Churches.
Finally, for concluſion of this matter, you inferre againſt vsus from this plea, and aſk, how do you diſable your owne church, & the the 3 other Elders that with you were authorized to feed your flock, as if there were not … amongst you, which could performe this work of ordination, or ſhew the miniſter and people their mutual dueties? I anſwer.
1. Our Elders and people are not abaſed nor diſabled, when they profeſſe themſelves vnmeet to performe that work which God hath in no place exacted or layd vponupon them. The work of ordination performed with publique preaching and prayer in the ſolemne congregation (as it ought to be) requires a ſpeciall gift of vnderſtanding and vtterance, as well as any other miniſteriall work that is to be executed in the Church of God. 2. Our Elders alſo and their gifts at that time were not ſo knowne and diſcerned, as ſince; they were not at that time choſen into office, neither were they ordeyned or authorized with me, (as your anſwer imports) but a good while after. 3. It had bene better alſo for your people, if they had not exalted themſelves ſo much as they have don, nor pPſ. 131.1.2.exerciſed themſelves in things that are too hard for them: for example, your ancienteſt and buſieſt Elder Iohn Decluſe being once a member of the French church, affecting the office of the miniſterie, comes vntounto the Elderſhip of that Church, and earneſtly deſires to have his gifts tryed his deſire therein is granted, he is heard divers times and allowed to make propoſitions in their conſiſtory for tryall; but in fine after tryall, he is not allowed by them (though among you he is allowed to preach and Propheſie) they judge him vnmeete for ſo holy a work and that in divers reſpects; herevpon, and not before his diſcontentment appeares: he begins now to quarrel with the Church, and ſo in fine falles into ſchiſme, and renounces the communion of that Church and is receyved of you. How much better had it bene for him, to have kept himſelf within his meaſure, then thus to have bene diſabled by the Church of God? Every man that exalteth himſelf, ſhalbe brought low.Luk. 18.14