Examination of those Plausible Appearances in the Romish Church, Chapter 32
CHAP: XXXII. That they whom God imployed in the reformation had an outward calling, and that albeit they had not had it, if they were otherwise furnished with the gifts requisite for such a businesse, this defect ought not to be obiected against them.
IF wee iustifie our selues vponupon these tearmes, why should wee be accused of sedition in the Church? If being but priuate persons (as they make of vsus) wee hauehave ventured vponupon the common officers, if being but common souldiers (as they tearme vsus) wee hauehave performed the office of Captaines, so farre, as to deny them our obedience, and to make warre with them, as with the enemies of our King, and disturbers of the peace of his spirituall Commonwealth, and finally, as against traitors. Although in truth, the first repairers of the ruines of the Church, in the time of our forefathers, were not Iackes out of office, or common souldiers, but men imployed in the principall functions of the Church. In England all the Bishops, in Germany the most ren…wned Doctors of the Church, as also in Switzerland, of whom others are descended: Here it is replyed, that if these men, had a true calling, then there is a true calling in their Church, and consequently, they shall be the true Church. To this wee answere, that if there may be a true baptisme without the true Church, why may there not be also a true vocation? Is the vocation lesse compatible with the false Church then Baptisme, doubtlesse, where is baptisme, there is a power to administer it, and where this power is there is a calling. None can seale, vnlesse he be a Keeper of the seales, no man is so, vnlesse he be called to it. The seales of the Church are the sacraments, no man can seale in the Church, but he who hath commission for it. They acknowledge that our baptisme is effectuall, and reiterate it not, what heretickes soever they account vsus: wee pay them the like, when wee make that calling sufficient, which our predecessors receiued from thē, the right of which they hauehave bequeathed to posterity. To allow then our baptisme, what is it, but to confesse that wee may baptise? and what is this but to confesse that we hauehave an ordination, a calling to baptise?
But their reply furnisheth vsus with a stronger argument against themselues, when we presse them either to confesse, that they are not the true Church, or to yeeld that the calling receiued amongst them was lawfull. It cannot be concluded, that there where there is a true calling, there is also the true Church. Witnesse the ten tribes revolted, & the Church of Iudah, in the time of the Idolatrous Kings, in the time of our Sauiour Christ, in which the Levites alwaies had their calling, albeit they executed it amisse. But it will be good logicke to argue that where there is no calling, there is no true Church; witnesse the multitude of Pagans and infidels, amongst whome …here being true calling, there can bee no true Church. Here they are faine to take sanctuary in another shift, that the calling of the first reformers was nullified by the corruption, and alteration of that doctrine, for the preaching of which it was conferred vponupon them. But see they not, that this reply giueth vsus as much as wee desire? namely, that setting aside the question, touching ordination, they accuse vsus for hauing altered, and corrupted the doctrine, of which accusation if we purge our selues, why perplexe they vsus about outward ordination; seeing they yeeld by their reply, that wee hauehave that, prouided, that wee hauehave not lost it, by corruption of doctrine: As also on our side, if wee iustifie not our doctrine, we will yeeld to thē that we hauehave no lawful calling amongst vsus, & that our predecessors lost it, assoone as they brought a change into the Church. If they reply here, that the question is not whether our pastors at the beginning of the reformation, altered the doctrine of the Gospell, but, whether they altered that of the Romish Church, for the preaching of which they were sent. To this wee answer, that the teachers in the Roman Church, are called indeede to publish the doctrine of the same Church, but vnderunder the title of the Gospell of our Lord Iesus Christ. This doctrine then being not commended vntounto them, but as supposed for Euangelicall, if they come to discouer that it is not so, they are no longer bound to teach it, but to teach that doctrine which is correspondent to that title, vnderunder which the other was falsly commended vntounto them.
Surely if our doctrine be true, albeit wee had not the ward calling, yet wee were to be heard: if it be false though wee had this externall mission, (as wee hauehave it) yet wee were not to be hearkned to, but abhorred. Why then come they not directly to this point? why beginne they not with our doctrine? can there bee a better argument against a Phisitian, then to proue that he is vnskilfull, or that he is an impoysoner? or against a Lawier, then that he is ignorant and corrupt? or a better meanes to procure credit, to a Physitian, or authority to a Lawyer, then the proofe of their ability and fidelity? what doe degrees and licences, profit a a Phisitian or Lawyer, if they be both witlesse and dishonest? what doe their not taking of degrees in case of necessity disadvantage them, if otherwise they are skilfull and honest? So it is with the teachers in the Church, if they are of sufficiencie, they are to be receiued, though they hauehave no testimoniall of their externall ordination, and if they hauehave not this sufficiency be it, that they make it appeare, that they were outwardly sent, yet this would be but a humane mission, an authority bestowed by ignorant man, which the Lord disalloweth, who sendeth no man whom he hath not endowed with gifts, necessary for the execution of the charge in which he imployeth him. He is not like those hucksters of degrees, worthy to be banisht out of commonwealths, who for the most part license those, not whom desert, but whom bribes and by respects commend. So then where this diuine mission hath place, there is also suffciency: where sufciency is not found, wee may conclude that there is no diuine mission. Now if this sufficiency be found in our Teachers, if it be not found in the greater part of the Romish pastors; wee shall hauehave on our side an argument and testimony of diuine ordination, they only of an humane; an vncertaine institution, because he that conferreth it, may be either so deceaued by his ignorance, blinded by his affection, or perverted by his malice and wickednesse in such a manner, that he may call him whom God calleth not, and put by him whom God calleth.