Page 133
This Replie standeth all by coniectures: it is certayne that there was no triall had of them, bicause they were sufficiently knowne, and therefore the texte with∣out discretion alleaged, to proue that there oughte to be a tryall of theyr abilitie to instruct &c. If it had bene quoted to proue that suche as were admitted into the function, were méete for the same, bothe sor their lyfe and doctrine, it had bene to some pur∣pose. I thynke it necessarye that suche as bée admitted into the ministerie (vn∣lesse they bée verye well knowne) shoulde be tryed, bothe in learning, and lyfe, but this place maketh nothing at all for that purpose, but rather contrarie, for it spea∣keth of suche two as were well knowne, and therefore néeded no tryall: so that if wée conclude any thyng of that place, it muste bée this, that none oughte to bée admitted into the ministerie, but suche as be well knowne, and néede no tryall.
There was no other cause of presentyng them, than that whyche is expres∣sed in the texte, and it is presumption to make the Scripture serue to maynteyn oure contentions, agaynste the expresse woords and playn meaning.
If thys be a rule to be followed, it muste be followed wholly: for where haue you learned to adde, or take from any lawe or rule prescribed in Gods woorde? or howe doe ye knowe that this example must be followed in one thing, and not in an other? what speciall reuelation haue you to make any suche dismembring of this action? No doubte thys example is extraordinarie, and not of necessitie to bée fol∣lowed.
The woordes of M. Caluine are playne, that there can be no certaine rule gathered of this example, for the electing of ministers, bicause the calling of the Apostles doth some∣thing differ from the calling of other ministers.