Part 3 — CASES OF CONSCIENCE, ABOUT MATTERS ECCLESIASTICAL.

Reader,

I have something to say to thee of the number of these cases, somewhat of the order, and somewhat of the manner of handling and resolving them. I. That they are so many is because there are really so many difficulties which all men are not able to resolve. That they are no more, is partly because I could not remember then any more that were necessarily to be handled, and I was not willing to increase so great a book with things unnecessary.

II. As to the order, I have some reasons for the order of most of them, which would be too tedious to open to you. But some of them are placed out of order, because, 1. I could not remember them in due place. 2. And great haste allowed me not time to transpose them. If you say that in such a work I should take time, I answer, You are no competent judges, unless you knew me and the rest of my work, and the likelihood that my time will be but short. They that had rather take my writings with such defects which are the effects of haste, than have none of them, may use them, and the rest are free to despise them and neglect them. Two or three questions about the Scripture, I would have put nearer the beginning if I could have time; but seeing I cannot, it is easy for you to transpose them in the reading.

III. The resolution of these cases so much avoideth all the extremes, that I look they should be displeasing to all that vast number of christians, who involve themselves in the opinions and interests of their several sects as such, and that hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons. But there will be still a certain number of truly catholic, impartial readers, whose favourable acceptance I confidently prognosticate; and who, being out of the dust, and noise, and passions of contending sides and parties, and their interests, will see a self-evidencing light in those solutions, which are put off here briefly, without the pomp of formal argumentation, or persuading oratory. The Eternal Light revealeth himself to us, by Christ who is the Light of the world, and by the illumination of the Spirit and word of light; that we may walk in the light, as the children of light, till we come to the world of glorious everlasting light. And what other defect soever our knowledge have, if any man hath knowledge enough to kindle in him the love of God, the same is known of him, and therefore is beloved by him, and shall be blessed with and in him for ever, 1 Cor. viii. 1-3.

Quest. I. How to know which is the true church, among all pretenders, that a christian's conscience may be quiet in his relation and communion.

I have written so much of this already in four books, (viz. one called, "The Safe Religion," another called, "A Key for Catholics," another called, "The Visibility of the Church," another called, "A true Catholic, and the Catholic Church described,") that I shall say now but a little, and yet enough to an impartial, considerate reader.

The terms must first be opened. 1. By a church is meant a society of christians as such. And it is sometimes taken narrowly, for the body or members as distinct from the head, as the word kingdom is taken for the subjects only as distinct from the king; and sometimes more fully and properly for the whole political society, as constituted of its head and body, or the pars imperans et pars subdita.

2. The word church thus taken, signifieth sometimes the universal church called catholic, which consisteth of Christ and his body politic, or mystical; and sometimes some part only of the universal church. And so it is taken either for a subordinate, political part, or for a community, or a part considered as consociate, but not political; or as many particular, political churches agreeing and holding concord and communion without any common head, save the universal Head.

3. Such political churches are either of divine constitution and policy, or only of human.

2. By christians, I mean such as profess the essentials of the christian religion. For we speak of the church as visible.

3. By true, may be meant, either reality of essence, opposite to that which is not really a church in this univocal acception; or else sound and orthodox, in the integrals, as opposite to erroneous and defiled with much enormity. And now I thus decide that question.

Prop. I. The true catholic church consisteth of Christ the Head, and all christians as his body, or the members. As the kingdom consisteth of the king and his subjects.[206]

Prop. II. As all the sincere heart-covenanters make up the church as regenerate, and mystical or invisible; so all that are christened, that is, baptized, and profess consent to all the essentials of the baptismal covenant, not having apostatized, nor being by lawful power excommunicated, are christians, and make up the church as visible.[207]

Prop. III. Therefore there is but one universal church, because it containeth all christians; and so leaveth out none to be the matter of another.[208]

Prop. IV. It is not ignorance or error about the mere integrals of christianity, which maketh them no christians who hold the essentials, that is, the baptismal covenant.[209]

Prop. V. That the baptismal covenant might be rightly understood and professed, the churches have still used the creed as the explication of the covenant, in point of faith; and taken it for the symbol of the christian belief. And no further profession of faith was or is to be required, as necessary to the being of christianity.[210]

Prop. VI. If proud usurpers or censurers take on them to excommunicate, or unchristian, or unchurch others, without authority and cause, this maketh them not to be no christians, or no churches, that are so used.[211]

Prop. VII. Therefore to know which is the true catholic or universal church, is but to know who are baptized, professed christians.[212]

Prop. VIII. The reformed churches, the Lutherans, the Abassines, the Coptics, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Jacobites, the Georgians, the Maronites, the Greeks, the Moscovites, and the Romanists, do all receive baptism in all its visible essentials, and profess all the essentials of the christian religion, though not with the same integrity.[213]

Prop. IX. He that denieth any one essential part, in itself, is so a heretic as to be no christian, nor true member of the church, if it be justly proved or notorious: that is, none ought to take him for a visible christian, who know the proof of his denying that essential part of christianity, or to whom it is notorious.[214]

Prop. X. He that holdeth the essentials primarily, and with them holdeth some error which by unseen consequence subverteth some essential point, but holdeth the essentials so much faster, that he would forsake his error if he saw the inconsistence, is a christian notwithstanding; and if the name heretic be applicable to him, it is but in such a sense, as is consistent with christianity.[215]

Prop. XI. He that is judged a heretic and no christian justly by others, must be lawfully cited, and heard plead his cause, and be judged upon sufficient proof, and not unheard, or upon rash presumption.[216]

Prop. XII. Christianity and heresy being personal qualities, and no where found but in individuals, nor one man guilty of another's error, it followeth that it is single persons upon personal guilt that must be judged.[217]

Prop. XIII. Any man may judge another to be a christian or heretic, by a private judgment of discerning, or the reason which guideth all human actions; but only church rulers may judge him by that public judgment, which giveth or denieth him his public privileges and communion.[218]

Prop. XIV. If by notorious injustice church rulers condemn christians as no christians, though they may thereby deny them communion with those public assemblies which they govern, yet do they not oblige the people to take such injured persons for no christians. Else they might oblige all to believe a lie, to consent to malicious injuries, and might disoblige the people from truth, righteousness, and charity.[219]

Prop. XV. There is no one natural or collective head and governor of all the churches in the world (the universal church) but Jesus Christ; and therefore there is none that by such governing power, can excommunicate any man out of the universal church; and such usurpation would be treason against Christ, whose prerogative it is.[220]

Prop. XVI. Yet he that deserveth to be excommunicated from one church, deserveth to be excommunicated by and from all, if it be upon a cause common to all; or that nullifieth his christianity.[221]

Prop. XVII. And where neighbour churches are consociate and live in order and concord, he that is orderly excommunicate from one church, and it be notified to the rest, should not be taken into the communion of any of the rest, till he be cleared, or become fit for their communion.[222] But this obligation ariseth but from the concord of consociate churches, and not from the power of one over the rest; and it cannot reach all the world, where the person cometh not, nor was ever known; but only to those who through neighbourhood are capable of just notice, and of giving or denying communion to that person.

Prop. XVIII. From all this it is clear, that it is not either papists alone, or Greeks alone, or protestants alone, or any party of christians, who are the universal church, seeing that church containeth all christians.[223] And that reviling others (yea, whole nations) as heretics, schismatics, and no christians or churches, will no more prove the revilers to be the only church or christians, than want of love will prove a man to be one of Christ's disciples, who by love are known to all men to be his.

Prop. XIX. It is therefore the shameful language of distracted men, to cry out against other christian nations, It is not you, but we that are the catholic or universal church. And our shameful controversy, which of them is the catholic, is no wiser than to question, Whether it be this house or that which is the street? Or this street or that which is the city? Or whether it be the kitchen, or the hall, or the parlour which is the house? Or the hand, or foot, or eye which is the man? O when will God bring distracting teachers to repentance, and distracted people to their wits?[224]

Prop. XX. There is great difference in the purity or soundness of the several parts of the universal church; some being more orthodox and holy, and some defiled with so many errors and sins, as to make it difficult to discern whether they do not deny the very essentials.[225]

Prop. XXI. The reformed churches are the soundest and purest that we know in the world, and therefore their privilege exceeding great, though they are not all the universal church.

Prop. XXII. Particular churches consisting of lawful pastors and christian people associated for personal communion in worship and holy living, are societies or true churches of Christ's institution, and the chief parts of the universal church; as cities and corporations are of the kingdom.[226]

Prop. XXIII. There are thousands of these in the world, and a man may be saved in one, as well as in another; only the purest give him the best advantages for his salvation; and therefore should be preferred by all that are wise and love their souls, so far as they are free to choose their communion.

Prop. XXIV. The case then being easily resolved, (which is the true church?) viz. All christians as christians are the catholic or universal church;[227] and all congregations afore described, of true pastors and christians, being particular true churches, differing only in degrees of purity, he is to be suspected as a designing deceiver and troubler of the world, that pretending to be a learned man and a teacher, doth still perplex the consciences of the ignorant with this frivolous question, and would muddy and obscure this clear state of the case, lest the people should rest in the discerned truth.

Prop. XXV. The papal church as such, being no true church of Christ's institution, (of which by itself anon,) it followeth that a papist as a papist is no member of the church of Christ, that is, no christian.[228] But yet, whether the same person may not be a papist and a christian, and so a member of the catholic church, we shall anon inquire.

Prop. XXVI. There are many things which make up the fitness and desirableness of that particular church, which we should prefer or choose for our ordinary personal communion:[229] as, 1. That it be the church of that place where we dwell; if the place be so happy as to have no divided churches, that it be the sole church there; however, that it be so near as to be fit for our communion. 2. That it be a church which holdeth communion with other neighbour churches, and is not singular or divided from them; or at least not from the generality of the churches of Christ; nor differeth in any great matters from those that are most pure. 3. That it be under the reputation of soundness with the other churches aforesaid, and not under the scandal of heresy, schism, or gross corruption among those that live about.[230] 4. That it be under the countenance and encouraging favour of the christian magistrate. 5. That it be the same church of which the rest of the family which we are of be members; that husband and wife, parents and children, masters and servants, be not of several churches. 6. That the pastors be able teachers, prudent guides, and of holy lives, and diligent in their office. 7. That the pastors be regularly called to their office. 8. That the members be intelligent, peaceable, and of holy, temperate, and righteous lives. But when all these cannot be had together, we must choose that church which hath those qualifications which are most needful, and bear with tolerable imperfections. The most needful are the first, second, and sixth of these qualifications.

Prop. XXVII. He that is free, should choose that church which is the fittest for his own edification; that is, the best pastors, people, and administrations.

Prop. XXVIII. A man's freedom is many ways restrained herein. As, 1. When it will tend to a greater public hurt, by disorder, ill example, division, discouragement, &c. 2. When superiors forbid it; as husbands, parents, masters, magistrates. 3. By some scandal. 4. By the distance or inconvenience of our dwelling. 5. By differences of judgment, and other causes of contention in the said churches; and many other ways.[231]

Prop. XXIX. A free man who removeth from one church to another for his edification, is not therefore a separatist or schismatic; but it must not be done by one that is not free, but upon such necessity as freeth him.

Prop. XXX. It is schism or sinful separation to separate from, 1. A true church as no true church. 2. From lawful worship and communion, as lawful; but of this more in its proper place.

Quest. II. Whether we must esteem the church of Rome a true church? And in what sense some divines affirm it, and some deny it.

Want of some easy distinguishing hath made that seem a controversy here, which is so plain, that it can hardly be any at all to protestants, if the question had been but truly stated.[232]

Remember therefore that by a church is meant, not a mere company of christians, any how related to each other; but a society consisting of an ecclesiastical head and body, such as we call a political society. 2. And that we speak not of an accidental head (such as the king is, because he governeth them suo modo by the sword); for that is not an essential constitutive part; but of a constitutive ecclesiastical head and body. 3. That the question is not, Whether the church of Rome be a part of the church, but whether it be a true church? And now I answer,

1. To affirm the church of Rome to be the catholic or universal church, is more than to affirm it to be a true catholic church, that is, a true part of the catholic church: and is as much as to say that it is the whole and only church, and that there is no other; which is odious falsehood and usurpation, and slander against all other churches.

2. The church of Rome is so called in the question, as it is a policy or church in a general sense; and the meaning of the question is, Whether it be a divine, or a human or diabolical policy; a lawful church.

3. The church of Rome is considered, 1. Formally, as a church or policy. 2. Materially, as the singular persons are qualified. It is the form that denominateth. Therefore the question must be taken of the Roman policy, or of the church of Rome as such; that is, as it is one ruler pretending to be the vicarious, constitutive, governing head of all Christ's visible church on earth, and the body which owneth him in this relation.

4. Therefore I conclude (and so do all protestants) that this policy or church of Rome is no true church of Christ's instituting or approbation, but a human, sinful policy, formed by the temptation of Satan, the prince of pride, deceit, and darkness. The proof of which is the matter of whole loads of protestant writings. And indeed the proof of their policy being incumbent on themselves, they fail in it, and are still fain to fly to pretended, false tradition for proof, in which the sophisters know that either they must be judges themselves, and it must go for truth because they say it; or else that if they can carry the controversy into a thicket or wood of fathers and church history, at least they can confound the ignorant, and evade themselves. Of this see my "Disput. with Johnson," and my "Key for Catholics," &c.

5. The bishop of the English papists, Smith called bishop of Chalcedon, in his Survey, c. v. saith, "To us it sufficeth that the bishop of Rome is St. Peter's successor; and this all the fathers testify, and all the catholic church believeth; but whether it be jure divino or humano, is no point of faith." The like hath Davenport,[233] called Fransc. a Sancta Clara more largely. By this let the reader judge whether we need more words to prove their church to be such as Christ never instituted, when the belief of their divine right is no part of their own faith.

6. If the church of Rome in its formal policy be but of human institution, it is, 1. Unnecessary to salvation. 2. Unlawful; because they that first instituted it had no authority so to do, and were usurpers. For either the makers of it were themselves a church or no church. If no church, they could not lawfully make a church. Infidels or heathens are not to be our church makers. If a church, then there was a church before the church of Rome, and that of another form. And if that former form were of Christ's institution, man might not change it; if not, who made that form? and so on.

7. Our divines therefore that say that the church of Rome is a true church, though corrupt, do not speak of it formally as to the papal policy or headship, but materially. 1. That all papists that are visible christians are visible parts of the universal church. 2. That their particular congregations considered abstractedly from the Roman headship may be true particular churches, though corrupt; which yet being the only difficulty shall be the matter of our next inquiry.

Quest. III. Whether we must take the Romish clergy for true ministers of Christ? And whether their baptism and ordination be nullities?

I join these two distinct questions together for brevity.

I. As true signifieth regularly called, so they are commonly irregular and not true ministers. But as true signifieth real opposed to a nullity, so it is now to be further considered.

The doubt lieth either of the sufficiency of his call, or of somewhat that is supposed to destroy it by contradiction or redundancy. 1. Whether he want any thing of absolute necessity to the office, who is called in the church of Rome? or, 2. Whether there be any thing in his office or entrance, which nullifieth or invalidateth that which else would be sufficient?

For the first doubt, it is not agreed on among papists or protestants what is of necessity to the being of the office. Some think real godliness in the person is necessary; but most think not. Some think that visible, that is, seeming professed godliness, not disproved by mortal sin, is necessary; and some think not. Some think the people's election is necessary, and that ordination is but ad bene esse; and some think ordination necessary ad esse, and election ad bene esse, or not at all; and some think both necessary ad esse, and some neither. Some think the election of the people is necessary, and some think only their consent is necessary, though after election by others; some think it must be the consent of all the flock, or near all; and some only of the major part; and some of the better part, though the minor. Some think the ordination of a diocesan bishop necessary ad esse, and some not. Some think the truth of the ordainers' calling, or power, to be necessary to the validity of his ordination, and some not. Some think the number of two, or three, or more ordainers to be necessary, and some not. Some think it necessary to the validity of the ministry that it come down from the apostles by an uninterrupted succession of truly ordained bishops, and some think not. Some few think that the magistrates' command or licence is necessary, and only it, and most deny both. Johnson, alias Terret, the papist, in his Disputation against me, maintaineth that consecration is not necessary ad esse, nor any one way of election, by these or those, but only the church's reception upon such an election as may give them notice, and which may be different, according to different times, places, and other circumstances.

In the midst of these confusions, what is to be held? I have opened the case as fully and plainly as I can, in my second "Disput. of Church Government," about ordination, to which I must refer the reader: only here briefly touching upon the sum.

1. There are some personal qualifications necessary to the being of the office, (of which anon,) and some only to the well-being.[234]

2. The efficient conveying cause of power or office, is God's will signified in his own established law; in which he determineth that such persons so called shall receive from him such power, and be obliged to such office administrations.[235]

3. Any providence of God which infallibly or satisfactorily notifieth to the church, who these persons are, that receive such power from God, doth oblige them to submit to them as so empowered.

4. God's ordinary established way of regular designation of the person, is by the church's consent, and the senior pastor's ordination.

5. By these actions they are not the proper donors or efficients of the power, or office given, but the consent of the people and the ordination do determine of the recipient, and so are regularly causa sine qua non of his reception. And the ordination is moreover a solemn investiture in the office, as when a servant is sent by delivering a key to deliver possession of a house, by his master's consent, to him that had before the owner's grant; and so it ceremoniously entereth him into visible possession; like the solemnizing of marriage, or the listing of a soldier, &c.

6. The people's consent (before or after) is not only by institution, but naturally necessary, that a man become a pastor to those persons (for no man can learn, obey, &c. without consent): but it is not of necessity to the being of the ministry in general, or in the first instant: a man without it may be authorized as a minister to go preach the gospel for conversion, and baptize and gather churches, though not to be their stated pastor.

7. When death, distance, corruption, heresy, or malignity of pastors within reach, maketh it impossible to have ordination, God's choice of the person may be notified without it: as by, 1. Eminent qualifications. 2. The people's real necessities. 3. And the removal of impediments, and a concurrence of inviting opportunities and advantages. 4. And sometimes the people's desire. 5. And sometimes the magistrate's commission or consent; which though not absolutely necessary in themselves, yet may serve to design the person and invest him, when the ordinary way faileth; which is all that is left to man to do, to the conveyance of the power.

The case being thus stated, as to what is necessary to give the power or office, we may next inquire whether any papist priest have such power, by such means.

And, 1. We have sufficient reason to judge that many of them have all the personal qualifications which are essentially necessary. 2. Many among them have the consent of a sober christian people (of which more anon). And Mr. Jacob, who was against bishops and their ordination, proveth at large, that by election or consent of the people alone, a man may be a true pastor, either without such ordination, or notwithstanding both the vanity and error of it. 3. Many of them have ordination by able and sober bishops; if that also be necessary. 4. In that ordination, they are invested in all that is essential to the pastoral office.

So that I see not that their calling is a nullity through defect of any thing of absolute necessity to its being and validity; though it be many ways irregular and sinful.

II. We are next therefore to inquire whether any contradicting additions make null that which else would be no nullity. And this is the great difficulty. For as we accuse not their religion for having too little, but too much, so this is our chief doubt about their ministry.

And, 1. It is doubted, as to the office itself, whether a mass priest be a true minister, as having another work to do, even to make his Maker, and to give Christ's real flesh with his hands to the people; and to preach the unsound doctrines of their church; and these seem to be essential parts of his function.

The case is very bad and sad; but that which I said about the heresies or errors which may consist with christianity, when they overthrow it but by an undiscerned consequence, must be here also considered. The prime part of their office is that (as to the essentials) which Christ ordained: this they receive, and to this they sew a filthy rag of man's devising; but if they knew this to be inconsistent with christianity or the essentials of the ministry, we may well presume (of many of them) they would not receive it. Therefore as an error which consequentially contradicteth some essential article of faith, nullifieth not his christianity who first and fastest holdeth the faith, and would cast away the error if he saw the contradiction, (as Davenant, Morton, and Hall have showed, Epist. Conciliat.) so is it to be said as to practical error in the present case. They are their grievous errors and sins, but, for aught I see, do not nullify their office to the church. As a mass priest, he is no minister of Christ (as an anabaptist is not as a re-baptizer, nor a separatist as a separater, nor an antinomian, or any erroneous person, as a preacher of that error); but as a christian pastor ordained to preach the gospel, baptize, administer the Lord's supper, pray, praise God, guide the church, he may be.

The same answer serveth to the objection as it extendeth to the erroneous doctrines which they preach, which are but by consequence against the essentials of religion.

2. But it is a greater doubt, Whether any power of the ministry can be conveyed by antichrist, or from him? and whether God will own any of antichrist's administrations? Therefore seeing they profess themselves to have no office but what they receive from the pope, and Christ disowning his usurpation, the same man cannot be the minister of Christ and antichrist; as the same man cannot be an officer in the king's army and his enemies'.

But this will have the same solution as the former. If this antichrist were the open, professed enemy to Christ, then all this were true: because their corrupt additions would not by dark consequences, but so directly contain the denial of christianity or the true ministry, that it were not possible to hold both. But (as our divines commonly note) antichrist is to sit in the temple of God, and the pope's treason is under pretence of the greatest service and friendship to Christ, making himself his vicar-general without his commission. So they that receive power from him, do think him to be Christ's vicar indeed, and so renounce not Christ, but profess their first and chief relation to be to him, and dependence on him, and that they would have nothing to do with the pope, if they knew him to be against Christ. And some of them write, that the power or office is immediately from Christ, and that the pope, ordainers, and electors do but design the person that shall receive it (because else they know not what to say of the election and consecration of the pope himself, who hath no superior). And the Spanish bishops in the council of Trent held so close to this, that the rest were fain to leave it undetermined; so that it is no part of their religion, but a doubtful opinion, Whether the power of bishops be derived from the pope, though they be governed by him?

But as to the other, the case seemeth like this: if a subject in Ireland usurp the lieutenancy, and tell all the people that he hath the king's commission to be his lieutenant, and command all to submit to him, and receive their places from him, and obey him; and the king declareth him a traitor, (antecedently only by the description of his laws,) and maketh it the duty of the subjects to renounce him; those now that know the king's will, and yet adhere to the usurper, though they know that the king is against it, are traitors with him: but those from whom he keepeth the knowledge of the laws, and who for want of full information believe him to be really the king's lieutenant, (and specially living where all believe it,) but yet would renounce him if they knew that he had not the king's commission; these are the king's subjects, though in ignorance they obey a usurper. And on this account it is that Archbishop Usher concluded, that an ignorant papist might be saved, but the learned hardly. But when the learned, through the disadvantages of their education, are under the same ignorance, being learned but on one side but to their greater seduction, the case may be the same.

The same man therefore may receive an office from Christ, who yet ignorantly submitteth to the pope, and receiveth corrupt additions from him.

But suppose I be mistaken in all this, yet to come to the second question,

III. Whether baptism and ordination given by them be nullities? I answer, no; on a further account, 1. Because that the ministry which is a nullity to the receiver, (that is, God will punish him as a usurper,) may yet perform those ministerial acts which are no nullities to the church.[236] Else how confused a case would all churches be in! For it is hard ever to know whether ministers have all things essential to their office. Suppose a man be ignorant, or a heretic against some essential article of faith; or suppose that he feigned orders of ordination when he had none; or that he was ordained by such as really had no power to do it; or suppose he pretended the consent of the majority of the people, when really the greater part were for another: if all this be unknown, his baptizing and other administrations are not thereby made nullities to the church, though they be sins in him. The reason is, because that the church shall not suffer, nor lose her right for another man's sin! When the fault is not theirs, the loss and punishment shall not be theirs. He that is found in possession of the place, performeth valid administration to them that know not his usurpation, and are not guilty of it. Otherwise we should never have done re-baptizing, nor know easily when we receive any valid administrations, while we are so disagreed about the necessaries of the office and call; and when it is so hard in all things to judge of the call of all other men.

2. And as the papists say, that a private man or woman may baptize in extremity, so many learned protestants think, that though a private man's baptism be a sin, yet it is no nullity, though he were known to be no minister.

And what is said of baptism, to avoid tediousness, you may suppose said of ordination, which will carry the first case far, as to the validity of the ministry received by papists' ordination, as well as of baptism and visible christianity received by them. For my part, God used Parson's "Book of Resolution corrected," so much to my good, and I have known so many eminent christians, and some ministers, converted by it, that I am glad that I hear none make a controversy of it, whether the conversion, faith, or love to God be valid, which we receive by the books or means of any papist?

Quest. IV. Whether it be necessary to believe that the pope is the antichrist?

It is one question, whether he be antichrist? and another, whether it be necessary to believe it? To the first I say, 1. There are many antichrists: and we must remove the ambiguity of the name, before we can resolve the question. If by antichrist be meant, one that usurps the office of a universal vicar of Christ, and constituting and governing head of the whole visible church, and hereby layeth the ground of schisms, and contentions, and bloodshed in the world, and would rob Christ of all his members, who are not of the pope's kingdom, and that formeth a multifarious ministry for this service, and corrupteth much of the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the church, in this sense no doubt but the pope is antichrist.

But if by antichrist be meant him particularly described in the Apocalypse and Thessalonians, then the controversy de re, is about the exposition of those dark prophecies. Of which I can say no more but this, 1. That if the pope be not he, he had ill luck to be so like him. 2. That Dr. More's moral arguments, and Bishop Downham's and many others' expository arguments, are such as I cannot answer. 3. But yet my skill is not so great in interpreting those obscure prophecies, as that I can say, I am sure that it is the pope that they speak of, and that Lyra, learned Zanchy, and others that think it is Mahomet, or others that otherwise interpret them, were mistaken.

II. But to the second question, I more boldly say, 1. That every one that indeed knoweth this to be the sense of those texts, is bound to believe it.

2. But that God, who hath not made it of necessity to salvation to understand many hundred plainer texts, nor absolutely to understand more than the articles and fundamentals of our religion, hath much less made it necessary to salvation to understand the darkest prophecies.

3. And that as the suspicion should make all christians cautelous what they receive from Rome, so the obscurity should make all christians take heed, that they draw from it no consequences destructive to love, or order, or any truth, or christian duty. And this is the advice I give to all.

Quest. V. Whether we must hold that a papist may be saved?

This question may be resolved easily from what is said before.

1. A papist as a papist, that is, by popery, will never be saved, no more than a man's life by a leprosy.

2. If a papist be saved, he must be saved against, and from popery, either by turning from the opinion, and then he is no papist, or by preserving his heart from the power of his own opinions.[237] And the same we may say of every error and sin. He that is saved, must be saved from it, at least from the power of it on the heart, and from the guilt of it by forgiveness.

3. Every one that is a true, sincere christian in faith, love, and true obedience, shall be saved, what error soever he hold that doth consist with these.

4. As many antinomians and other erroneous persons, do hold things which by consequence subvert christianity; and yet not seeing the inconsistence, do hold christianity first and faster, in heart and sincere practice, and would renounce their error if they saw the inconsistence, so is it with many papists. And that which they hold first, and fastest, and practically, doth save them from the power, operations, and poison of their own opinions: as an antidote or the strength of nature may save a man from a small quantity of poison.

5. Moreover we have cause to judge that there are millions among the papists, corrupted with many of their lesser errors, who yet hold not their greater; that believe not that none are christians but the pope's subjects, and that Christ's kingdom and the pope's are of the same extent, or that he can remit men's pains in another world, or that the bread and wine are no bread and wine, or that men merit of God in point of commutative justice, or that we must adore or worship the bread, or yet the cross or image itself, &c. or that consent to abundance of the clergy's tyrannical usurpations and abuses: and so being not properly papists, may be saved, if a papist might not. And we the less know how many or few among them are really of the clergy's religion and mind, because by terror they restrain men from manifesting their judgment, and compel them to comply in outward things.

6. But as fewer that have leprosies, or plagues, or that take poison, escape, than of other men, so we have great cause to believe, that much fewer papists are saved, than such as escape their errors. And therefore all that love their souls should avoid them.

7. And the trick of the papists who persuade people that theirs is the safest religion, because we say that a papist may be saved, and they say that a protestant cannot, is so palpable a cheat, that it should rather deter men from their way. For God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God; and all men must know us to be Christ's disciples, by loving one another; and he that saith he loveth God, and loveth not his brother, is a liar; and charity believeth all things credible. That religion is likest to be of God which is most charitable, and not that which is most uncharitable, and malicious, and like to Satan.

To conclude, no man shall be saved for being no papist, much less for being a papist. And all that are truly holy, heavenly, humble lovers of God, and of those that are his servants, shall be saved. But how many such are among the papists, God only knoweth who is their Judge.

The questions whether the Greeks, Abassines, Nestorians, Eutychians, antinomians, anabaptists, &c. may be saved, must be all resolved as this of the papists, allowing for the different degrees of their corruption. And therefore I must desire the reader to take up with this answer for all, and excuse me from unnecessary repetition.

As for such disputers as my antagonist Mr. Johnson, who insisteth on that of Tit. iii. 10, "A man that is an heretic—is condemned of himself;" when he hath proved that the word heretic hath but one signification, I will say as he doth. Till then, if he will try who shall be damned by bare equivocal words, without the definition, let him take his course, for I will be none of his imitators.

Quest. VI. Whether those that are in the church of Rome, are bound to separate from it? And whether it be lawful to go to their mass or other worship?

These two also for brevity I join together.

I. To the first, we must distinguish of separation: 1. It is one thing to judge that evil which is evil, and separate from it in judgment. 2. It is another thing to express this by forbearing to subscribe, swear, or otherwise approve that evil. 3. And another thing to forbear communion with them in the mass and image worship, and gross or known sins. 4. And another thing to forbear all communion with them, even as to baptism and other lawful things. 5. And another thing to use some open detestations or protestations against them.

2. And we must distinguish much of persons, whether they be ministers or people, free or bound, as wives, children, &c. And now I answer,

1. There is no question but it is a duty to judge all that evil which is evil among the papists or any other.

2. It is the duty of all to forbear subscribing, swearing to, or otherwise approving evil.

3. It is the duty of all mass priests to renounce that part of their calling, and not to administer their mass, or any other unlawful thing.

4. It is the duty of all private christians to forbear communion in the mass, because it is a kind of idolatry, while they worship apiece of bread as God; as also image worship, and all other parts of their religion, in which they are put upon sin themselves, or that which is notorious scandal and symbolizing with them in their bread worship, or rather corruptions of the substance of God's ordinances.

5. It is their duty who have fit opportunity, (when it is like to do more good than harm,) to protest against the papal corruptions where they are, and to declare their detestation of them.

6. It is the duty of those that have children to be baptized or catechised, to make use of more lawful and sound ministers, when they may be had, rather than of a papist priest.

7. But in case they cannot remove, or enjoy better, I think it is lawful, 1. To let such baptize their children, rather than leave them unbaptized. 2. To let their children be taught by them to read, or in arts and sciences, or the catechism, and common principles of religion, so they will mix no dangerous errors. 3. And to hear those of them preach, who preach soundly and piously (such as were Gerrhard, Zutphaniensis, Thaulerus, Ferus, and many more). 4. And to read such good books as these now mentioned have written. 5. And to join with them in such prayers as are sound and pious, so they go no further.

8. And wives, children, and such other as are bound, and cannot lawfully remove, may stay among them, and take up with these helps, dealing faithfully in abstaining from the rest.

II. The second question is answered in this. Only I add, that it is one thing to be present as Elias was, in a way of opposition to them; or as disputants are, that open their errors; or as a wise man may go to hear or see what they do, without compliance, as we read their books; and it is another thing to join with them in their sinful worship, or scandalously to encourage them in it by seeming so to do. See Calv. contr. Nicod. &c.

Quest. VII. Whether the true calling of the minister by ordination or election, &c. be necessary to the essence of the church?

By a church here we mean a political society of christians, and not any assembly or community. And no doubt pastor and flock are the constitutive parts of such a church; and where either of them are notoriously wanting, it is notorious that there is no true church. Therefore all the doubt is, whether such parts of his call be necessary to the being of the ministry, or not? And here we must conclude, that the word ministry and church are ambiguous. By a minister or pastor is meant, either one that God so far owneth as to accept and justify his administrations as for himself, even his own good and salvation; or one whose administrations God will own, accept, and bless to the people.

I. In the former sense, 1. He is no true minister that wanteth the essential qualifications of a minister, viz. that hath not, (1.) The understanding and belief of all the essential articles of faith, without heresy. (2.) Tolerable ability to teach these to the people, and perform the other essentials of his office. (3.) Sincere godliness, to do all this in love and obedience to God as his servant, in order to life eternal. 2. And he is thus no true pastor as to God's acceptance of himself, who hath not a lawful calling; that is, (1.) Ordination, when it may be had. (2.) The consent or reception of that church of which he pretendeth to be pastor, which is still necessary, and must be had, if ordination cannot.

II. But in the second sense, he is a pastor so far as that God will own his administrations as to the people's good, who, 1. Hath possession. 2. And seemeth to them to have necessary qualifications, and a lawful call, though it prove otherwise, so be it, it be not through their wilful fault, that he is culpable, or they mistaken in him. If he be not a true believer, but an infidel, or heretic, he is no minister as to himself, that is, God will use him as a usurper that hath no title:[238] but if he profess to be a believer when he is not, he is a true pastor visibly to the people; otherwise they could never know when they have a pastor: even as real faith makes a real christian, and professed faith makes a visible christian, so is it as to the ministry. If he seem to understand the articles of faith, and do not, or if he seem to have due ordination when he hath not, if he be upon this mistake accepted by the people, he is a true visible pastor as to them, that is, as to their duty and benefit, though not as to himself. Yea, the people's consent to his entrance is not necessary ad esse, nor to his relation neither, so far as to justify himself, but to his administrations and to his relation, so far as their own right and benefit are interested in it. So that two things are necessary to such a visible pastor as shall perform valid administrations to the church: 1. Seeming necessary qualifications and calling to it. 2. Possession, by the people's reception or consent to his administrations and relation so far as to their benefit.

And, III. Thus also we must distinguish of the word church. It is, 1. Such an entire christian society as hath a minister or pastor whose office is valid as to himself and them; or it is such a society only as hath a pastor whose office is valid to them but not to himself. Let us not confound the question de re and de nomine. These societies differ as is said. Both may fitly be called true churches.

As it is with a kingdom which hath a rightful prince, and one that hath a usurper, so it is here. 1. If it have a rightful king accepted, it is a kingdom in the fullest sense. 2. If it have a usurper accepted as king, it is a kingdom, but faulty. 3. If the usurper be only so far accepted as that the people consent not to his entrance, no, nor his relation so as to justify his title, but wish him cast out if they could procure it; but yet consent to receive that protection and justice which is their own due from the possessor, and consent to his relation only thus far, this is a kingdom truly, but more defective or maimed than the first. 4. But if the people do not so much as receive him, nor submit to his administrations, he is but a conqueror, and not a king, and it is (in respect to him) no kingdom (though in respect to some other that hath title and consent, without actual possession of the administration, it may be a kingdom). And this is the true and plain solution of this question, which want of distinction doth obscure.

Quest. VIII. Whether sincere faith and godliness be necessary to the being of the ministry? And whether it be lawful to hear a wicked man, or take the sacrament from him, or take him for a minister?

This question receiveth the very same solution with the last foregoing, and therefore I need not say much more to it.

I. The first part is too oft resolved mistakingly on both extremes. Some absolutely saying that godliness or faith is not necessary to the being of the ministry; and some that it is necessary. Whereas the true solution is as aforesaid; sincere faith and godliness are necessary to make a man a minister so far as that God will own and justify him as sent by himself, as to his own duty and benefit: for he cannot be internally and heartily a christian pastor that is no christian, nor a minister of God who is not godly, that is, is not truly resigned to God, obeyeth him not and loveth him not as God. But yet the reality of these are not necessary to make him a visible pastor, as to the people's duty and benefit.

2. But the profession of true faith and godliness is necessary so far, as that without it the people ought not to take him for a visible minister (as the profession of christianity is to a visible christian).

3. And in their choice they ought to prefer him cæteris paribus, whose profession is most credible.

Object. That which maketh a minister is gifts and a calling, which are distinct from grace and real christianity. Answ. Every minister is a christian, though every christian be not a minister or pastor: therefore he that is a visible pastor must visibly or in profession have both.

Object. But a man may be a christian, without saving grace or godliness. Answ. As much as he may be godly without godliness. That is, he may be visibly a christian and godly, without sincere faith or godliness, but not without the profession of both. It is not possible that the profession of christianity in the essentials, can be without the profession of godliness; for it includeth it.

II. To the other question I answer, 1. A man that professeth infidelity or impiety, yea, that professeth not faith and godliness, is not to be taken for a minister, or heard as such.

2. Every one that professeth to stand to his baptismal covenant professeth faith and godliness.

3. He that by a vicious life or bad application of doctrine contradicteth his profession, is to be lawfully accused of it, and heard speak for himself, and to be cast out by true church justice, and not by the private censure of a private person.

4. Till this be done, though a particular private member of the church be not bound to think that the minister is worthy, nor that the church which suffereth and receiveth him doth well, yet they are bound to judge him one who by the church's reception is in possession, and therefore a visible pastor, and to submit to his public administrations; because it is not in a private man's power, but the church's, to determine who shall be the pastor.

5. But if the case be past controversy and notorious, that the man is not only scandalous, and weak, and dull, and negligent, but also either, 1. Intolerably unable; 2. Or an infidel, or gross heretic; 3. Or certainly ungodly; a private man should admonish the church and him, and in case that they proceed in impenitency, should remove himself to a better church and ministry. And the church itself should disown such a man, and commit their souls to one that is fitter for the trust.

6. And that church or person who needlessly owneth such a pastor, or preferreth him before a fitter, doth thereby harden him in his usurpation, and is guilty of the hurt of the people's souls, and of his own, and of the dishonour done to God.

Quest. IX. Whether the people are bound to receive or consent to an ungodly, intolerable, heretical pastor, yea, or one far less fit and worthy than a competitor, if the magistrate command it, or the bishop impose him?

For the deciding of this, take these propositions.

1. The magistrate is authorized by God to govern ministers and churches, according to the orders and laws of Christ (and not against them); but not to ordain or degrade, nor to make ministers or unmake them, nor to deprive the church of the liberty settled on it by the laws of Christ.

2. The bishops or ordainers are authorized by Christ to judge of the fitness of the person to the office in general, and solemnly to invest him in it, but not to deprive the people of their freedom, and exercise of the natural care of their own salvation, or of any liberty given them by Christ.

3. The people's liberty in choosing or consenting to their own pastors, to whom they must commit the care of their souls, is partly founded in nature, (it being they that must have the benefit or loss, and no man being authorized to damn or hazard men's souls, at least against their wills,) and partly settled by Scripture, and continued in the church above a thousand years after Christ, at least in very many parts of it.[239] See Blondel's "Full Proof de jure plebis in regim. Eccles." Hildebertus Cænoman. (alias Turonensis) even in his time showeth, that though the clergy were to lead, and the people to follow, yet no man was to be made a bishop, or put upon the people, without their own consent: Epist. 12. Bibl. Pet. to. iii. p. 179. Filesacus will direct you to more such testimonies. But the thing is past controversy. I need not cite to the learned the commonly cited testimony of Cyprian, Plebs maximam habet potestatem indignos recusandi, &c. And indeed in the nature of the thing it cannot be: for though you may drench a mad-man's body by force, when you give him physic, you cannot so drench men's souls, nor cure them against their wills.

4. Not that the people's consent is necessary to the general office of a gospel minister, to preach and baptize; but only to the appropriation or relation of a minister to themselves; that is, to the being of a pastor of a particular church as such, but not of a minister of Christ as such.

5. A man's soul is of so great value above all the favour of man, or treasures of this world, that no man should be indifferent to what man's care he doth commit it; nor should he hazard it upon the danger of everlasting misery, for fear of displeasing man, or being accused of schism or disorder.

6. There is as great difference between an able, learned, judicious, orthodox, godly, diligent, lively teacher, and an ignorant, heretical, ungodly, dull, and slothful man, as there is between a skilful and an ignorant pilot at sea; or between an able, experienced, faithful physician, and an ignorant, rash, and treacherous one, as to the saving men's lives. And he that would not take a sot or an empiric for his physician, who were like to kill him, and refuse the counsel of an able physician, in obedience to a magistrate or bishop, hath as little reason to do the like by his soul; nor should he set less by that than by his life.[240] And if Paul said, We have this power for edification and not for destruction, we may say so of all magistrates and bishops. Sober divines have lately showed their error who teach men that they must be ready to submit to damnation if God require it, or to suppose that his glory and our salvation are separable ends; because damnation is a thing which nature necessitateth man not to desire or intend! And shall we ascribe more to a magistrate than to God? and say that we must cast our souls on a likelihood of damnation to keep order and in obedience to man? No man can be saved without knowledge and holiness: an ignorant, dead, ungodly minister is far less likely to help us to knowledge and holiness, than an able, holy man. To say God can work by the unfittest instrument is nothing to the purpose; till you prove that God would have us take him for his instrument, and that he useth equally to work by such, as well as by the fit and worthy, or that we expect wonders from God, and that ordinarily without tempting him! yea, when such a usurper of the ministry is like to damn himself, as well as the people.

And here to lenify the minds of Ithacian prelates towards those that seek their own edification, in such a case as this, or that refuse unworthy pastors of their imposing, I will entreat them to censure those near them no more sharply than they do the persons in these following instances. Yea, if a separatist go too far, use him no more uncharitably, than you would do these men.

(1.) Gildas Brit. is called Sapiens, and our eldest writer; and yet he calleth the multitude of the lewd British clergy whom he reprehendeth in his "Acris Correptio," traitors and no priests; and concludeth seriously, that he that calleth them priests, is not eximius christianus, any excellent christian. Yet those few that were pious he excepteth and commendeth. Shall he account them no priests, for their sinfulness, and will you force others, not only to call them priests, but to commit their souls to such men's conduct? when Christ hath said, "If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch?" and Paul, "Take heed unto thyself and unto thy doctrine; for in so doing, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee?"[241]

The second is our second (and first English) historian, Beda, and in him the famous Johannes Episc. Hagulstadensis Eccles. who, as he reporteth, wrought very great miracles, as Eccles. Hist. lib. v. cap. 2-5, is to be read. This man had one Herebaldus in his clergy, after an abbot; who himself told Beda as followeth:—That this Johannes Ep. cured him miraculously of a perilous hurt, taken by disobedient horsemanship; and when he recovered, he asked him, whether he were sure that he was baptized? who answered, That he knew it past doubt, and named the presbyter that baptized him. The bishop answered him, If thou wast baptized by that priest, thou wast not rightly baptized: for I know him, and that when he was ordained presbyter, he was so dull of wit, that he could not learn the ministry of catechising and baptizing. Wherefore I commanded him altogether to give over the presumption of this ministry, which he could not altogether fulfil. And having thus said, he himself took care to catechise me the same hour; and—being cured—vitali etiam unda perfusus sum, I was baptized.

I commend not this example of re-baptizing, the rather because it seems the priest was not deposed till after he had baptized Herebaldus: but if he went so far as to re-baptize, and account the baptism a nullity, which was done by an unable, insufficient presbyter, though rightly ordained, judge but as favourably of men that avoid such presbyters in our age.

The third instance shall be that of Cyprian, and all the worthy bishops in the councils of Carthage in his time, who re-baptized those baptized by heretics. And consider withal that in those times many were called heretics whom we call but schismatics, that drew disciples after them into separated bodies and parties, speaking perverse things, though not contrary to the very essentials of religion, Acts xx. 30. I justify not their opinion: but if so many holy bishops counted the very baptism of such a nullity, be not too severe and censorious against those that go not at all so far from an insufficient, or ungodly, or grossly scandalous man, for the mere preservation of their own souls.

To these I will add the saying of one of the honester sort of Jesuits, Acosta; and in him of an ancienter than he: lib. iv. c. 1. p. 354. de reb. Indic. He extolleth the words of Dionysius Epist. viii. ad Demoph. which are, Si igitur quæ illuminat sacerdotum est sancta distinctio, proculdubio ille a sacerdotali ordine et virtute omnino prolapsus est, qui illuminans non est, multoque sane magis qui neque illuminatus est. Atque mihi quidem videtur audax nimium hujusmodi est, si sacerdotalia munia sibi assumit; neque metuit, neque veretur ea quæ sunt divina præter meritum persequi; putatque ea latere Deum, quorum sibi ipse conscius sit; et se Deum fallere existimat, quem falso nomine appellat patrem; audetque scelestas blasphemias suas (neque enim preces dixerim) sacris aris inferre; easque super signa illa divina, ad Christi similitudinem dicere. Non est iste sacerdos; non est; sed infestus, atrox, dolosus, illusor sui, et lupus in dominicam gregem ovina pelle armatus. His plura aut majora de evangelici ministerii et culmine et præcipitio qui expectat, cuique ad resipiscendum non ista sufficiunt, infatuatum se juxta Domini sententiam, et nullo unquam sale saliri posse demonstrat. I will not English it, lest those take encouragement by it who are bent to the other extreme.

7. Yet it will be a great offence, if any censorious, self-conceited person shall on this pretence set up his judgment of men's parts, to the contempt of authority, or to the vilifying of worthy men; and especially if he thereby make a stir and schism in the church, instead of seeking his own edification.

8. Yea, if a minister be weaker, yea, and colder and worse than another, yet if his ministry be competently fitted to edification, he that cannot leave him and go to a better, without apparent hurt to the church, and the souls of others, by division, or exasperating rulers, or breaking family order, or violating relative duties, must take himself to be at present denied the greater helps that others have, and may trust God in the use of those weaker means, to accept and bless him; because he is in the station where he hath set him. This case therefore must be resolved by a prudent comparing of the good or hurt which is like to follow, and of the accidents or circumstances whence that must be discerned.

Quest. X. What if the magistrate command the people to receive one pastor, and the bishops or ordainers another, which of them must be obeyed?

1. The magistrate, and not the bishop or people, (unless under him,) hath the power and disposal of the circumstantials or accidents of the church; I mean of the temple, the pulpit, the tithes, &c.[242] And he is to determine what ministers are fit either for his own countenance or toleration, and what not. In these therefore he is to be obeyed before the bishops or others.

2. If a pope or prelate of a foreign church, or any that hath no lawful jurisdiction or government over the church that wanteth a pastor, shall command them to receive one, their command is null, and to be contemned.

3. Neither magistrate nor bishop, as is said, may deny the church or people any liberty which God in nature, or Christ in the gospel, hath settled on them, as to the reception of their proper pastors.

4. No bishop, but only the magistrate, can compel by the sword the obedience of his commands.

5. If one of them command the reception of a worthy person, and the other of an intolerable one, the former must prevail, because of obedience to Christ, and care of our souls.

6. But if the persons be equal, or both fit, the magistrate is to be obeyed, if he be peremptory in his commands, and decide the case in order to the peace or protection of the church; both because it is a lawful thing, and because else he will permit no other.

7. And the rather because the magistrate's power is more past controversy, than, whether any bishop, pastor, or synod, can any further than by counsel and persuasion, oblige the people to receive a pastor.

Quest. XI. Whether an uninterrupted succession either of right ordination or of conveyance by jurisdiction, be necessary to the being of the ministry, or of a true church?

The papists have hitherto insisted on the necessity of successive right ordination; but Voetius de desperata Causa Papatus hath in this so handled them, and confuted Jansenius, as hath indeed showed the desperateness of that cause: and they perceive that the papacy itself cannot be upheld by that way; and therefore Johnson, alias Terret, in his rejoinder against me, now concludeth, that it is not for want of a successive consecration that they condemn the church of England, but for want of true jurisdiction, because other bishops had title to the places whilst they were put in; and that successive consecration (which we take to include ordination) is not necessary to the being of ministry or church. And it is most certain to any man acquainted in church history, that their popes have had a succession of neither. Their way of election hath been frequently changed, sometimes being by the people, sometimes by the clergy, sometimes by the emperors, and lastly by the cardinals alone. Ordination they have sometimes wanted, and a layman been chosen; and oft the ordination hath been by such as had no power according to their own laws. And frequent intercisions have been made, sometimes by many years' vacancy, when they had no church (and so there was none on earth, if the pope be the constitutive head) for want of a pope: sometimes by long schisms, when of two or three popes, no one could be known to have more right than another, nor did they otherwise carry it, than by power at last: sometimes by the utter incapacity of the possessors, some being laymen, some heretics and infidels, so judged by councils at Rome, Constance, Basil; and Eugenius the fourth continued after he was so censured, and condemned, and deposed by the general council. I have proved all this at large elsewhere.

And he that will not be cheated with a bare sound of words, but will ask them, whether by a succession of jurisdiction, they mean efficient, conveying jurisdiction in the causers of his call, or received jurisdiction in the office received, will find that they do but hide their desperate cause in confusion and an insignificant noise. For they maintain that none on earth have an efficient jurisdiction in making popes. For the former pope doth not make his successor; and both electors, ordainers, and consecrators, yea, and the people receiving, they hold to be subjects of the pope when made, and therefore make him not by jurisdiction giving him the power. Therefore Johnson tells me, that Christ only, and not man, doth give the power, and they must needs hold that men have nothing to do but design the person recipient by election and reception, and to invest him ceremonially in the possession. So that no efficient jurisdiction is here used at all by man. And for received jurisdiction, 1. No one questioneth but when that office is received which is essentially governing, he that receiveth it receiveth a governing power, or else he did not receive the office. If the question be only, whether the office of a bishop be an office of jurisdiction, or contain essentially a governing power, they make no question of this themselves. So that the noise of successive jurisdiction is vanished into nothing. 2. And with them that deny any jurisdiction to belong to presbyters, this will be nothing as to their case, who have nothing but orders to receive.

They have nothing of sense left them to say but this, That though the efficient jurisdiction which maketh popes be only in Christ, because no men are their superiors, yet bishops and presbyters who have superiors, cannot receive their power but by an efficient power of man, which must come down by uninterrupted succession.

Answ. 1. And so if ever the papal office have an intercision, (as I have proved it hath had as to lawful popes,) the whole catholic church is nullified; and it is impossible to give it a new being, but by a new pope.

But the best is, that by their doctrine indeed they need not to plead for an uninterrupted succession either of popes, bishops, or presbyters, but that they think it a useful cheat to perplex all that are not their subjects. For if the papacy were extinct a hundred years, Christ is still alive; and seeing it is no matter ad esse who be the electors or consecraters, so it be but made known conveniently to the people, and men only elect and receive the person, and Christ only giveth the power, (by his stated law,) what hindereth after the longest extinction or intercision, but that somebody, or some sort of person, may choose a pope again, and so Christ make him pope? And thus the catholic church may die and live again by a new creation, many times over.

And when the pope hath a resurrection after the longest intercision, so may all the bishops and priests in the world, because a new pope can make new bishops, and new bishops can make new priests. And where then is there any show of necessity of an uninterrupted succession of any of them? All that will follow is, that the particular churches die till a resurrection; and so doth the whole church on earth every time the pope dieth, till another be made, if he be the constitutive head.

2. But as they say that Christ only efficiently giveth the power to the pope, so say we to the bishops or pastors of the church. For there is no act of Christ's collation to be proved, but the Scripture law or grant: and if that standing law give power to the pope, when men have but designed the person, the same law will do the same to bishops or pastors; for it establisheth their office in the same sort. Or rather in truth there is no word, that giveth power to any such officer as a universal head or pope, but the law for the pastoral office is uncontrovertible.

And what the Spanish bishops at Trent thought of the Divine right of the bishop's office, I need not mention.

I shall therefore thus truly resolve the question.

1. In all ordinations and elections, man doth but first choose the recipient person. 2. And ceremoniously and ministerially invest him in the possession when God hath given him the power; but the efficient collation or grant of the power is done only by Christ, by the instrumentality of his law or institution. As when the king by a charter saith, Whoever the city shall choose, shall be their mayor, and have such and such power, and be invested in it by the recorder or steward: here the person elected receiveth all his power from the king by his charter, (which is a standing efficient, conveying it to the capable chosen person,) and not from the choosers or recorder; only the last is as a servant to deliver possession. So is it in this case.

2. The regular way of entrance appointed by Christ to make a person capable, is the said election and ordination. And for order sake where that may be had, the unordained are not to be received as pastors.

3. If any get possession, by false, pretended ordination or mission, and be received by the church. I have before told you that he is a pastor as to the church's use and benefit, though not to his own. And so the church is not extinct by every fraudulent usurpation or mistake, and so not by want of a true ordination or mission.

4. If the way of regular ordination fail, God may otherwise (by the church's necessity, and the notorious aptitude of the person) notify his will to the church, what person they shall receive; (as if a layman were cast on the Indian shore and converted thousands, who could have no ordination;) and upon the people's reception or consent, that man will be a true pastor.

And seeing the papists in the conclusion (as Johnson ubi supra) are fain to cast all their cause on the church's reception of the pope, they cannot deny reasonably but ad esse the church's reception may serve also for another officer; and indeed much better than for a pope. For, 1. The universal church is so great, that no man can know when the greater part receiveth him, and when not, except in some notorious declarations. 2. And it is now known, that the far greater part of the universal church (the Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, Coptics, protestants, &c.) do not receive the Roman head. 3. And when one part of Europe received one pope, and another part another pope, for above forty years together, who could tell which of the parties was to be accounted the church? It was not then known, and is not known yet to this day; and no papist can prove it, who affirmeth it.

As a church, e. g. Constantinople, may be gathered, or oriri de novo where there is none before, so may it be restored where it is extinct. And possibly a layman (as Frumentius and Edesius in the Indies) may be the instrument of men's conversion. And if so, they may by consent become their pastors, when regular ordination cannot be had.

I have said more of this in my "Disputations of Church Government," disp. ii. The truth is, the pretence of a necessity of uninterrupted, successive ordination, mission, or jurisdictional collation ad esse, to the being of ministry or church, is but a cheat of men that have an interest of their own which requireth such a plea, when they may easily know, that it would overthrow themselves.

Quest. XII. Whether there be, or ever was, such a thing in the world, as one catholic church, constituted by any head besides or under Christ?

The greatest and first controversy between us and the papists, is not what man or politic person is the head of the whole visible church; but, whether there be any such head at all, either personal, or collective, monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical under Christ, of his appointment or allowance? or any such thing as a catholic church so headed or constituted? Which they affirm and we deny. That neither pope nor general council is such a head, I have proved so fully in my "Key for Catholics" and other books, that I will not here stay to make repetition of it. That the pope is no such head, we may take for granted, 1. Because they bring no proof of it, whatever they vainly pretend. 2. Because our divines have copiously disproved it, to whom I refer you. 3. Because the universal church never received such a head, as I have proved against Johnson. 4. And whether it be the pope, their bishop of Chalcedon, ubi supra, et Sancta Clara, "System. Fid." say is not de fide.

That a council is no such head I have largely proved as aforesaid, part ii. "Key for Catholics." And, 1. The use of it being but for concord proveth it. 2. Most papists confess it. 3. Else there should be seldom any church in the world for want of a head, yea, never any.

For I have proved there and to Johnson, that there never was a true general council of the universal church; but only imperial councils of the churches under one emperor's power, and those that having been under it, had been used to such councils; and that it is not a thing ever to be attempted or expected, as being unlawful and morally impossible.[243]

Quest. XIII. Whether there be such a thing as a visible catholic church? And what it is?

The ancients differently used the terms, a catholic church, and, the catholic church. By the first they meant any particular church which was part of the universal; by the second they meant the universal church itself.[244] And this is it that we now mean. And I answer affirmatively, there is a visible universal church, not only as a community, or as a kingdom distinct from the king, but as a political society.

2. This church is the universality of baptized visible christians headed by Jesus Christ himself.[245]

There is this, and there is no other upon earth. The papists say, that this is no visible church because the Head is not visible.

I answer, 1. It is not necessary that he be seen, but visible: and is not Christ a visible person?

2. This church consisteth of two parts, the triumphant part in glory, and the militant part; and Christ is not only visible but seen by the triumphant part: as the king is not seen by the ten-thousandth part of his kingdoms, but by his courtiers and those about him, and yet he is king of all.

3. Christ was seen on earth for above thirty years; and the kingdom may be called visible, in that the King was once visible on earth, and is now visible in heaven: as if the king would show himself to his people but one year together in all his life.

4. It ill becometh the papists of any men, to say that Christ is not visible, who make him, see him, taste him, handle him, eat him, drink him, digest him in every church, in every mass throughout the year, and throughout the world; and this not as divided, but as whole Christ.

Object. But this is not quatenus regent.

Answ. If you see him that is regent, and see his laws and gospel which are his governing instruments, together with his ministers who are his officers, it is enough to denominate his kingdom visible.

5. The church might be fitly denominated visible secundum quid, if Christ himself were invisible; because the politic body is visible, the dispersed officers, assemblies, and laws are visible. But sure all these together may well serve for the denomination.

Quest. XIV. What is it that maketh a visible member of the universal church? And who are to be accounted such?

1. Baptism maketh a visible member of the universal church; and the baptized (as to entrance, unless they go out again) are to be accounted such.[246]

2. By baptism we mean, open devotion or dedication to God by the baptismal covenant, in which the adult for themselves, and parents for their infants, do profess consent to the covenant of grace; which includeth a belief of all the essential articles of the faith, and a resolution for sincere obedience; and a consent to the relations between God and us, viz. that he be our reconciled Father, our Saviour, and our Sanctifier.

3. The continuance of this consent is necessary to the continuance of our visible membership.

4. He that through ignorance, or incapacity for want of water, or a minister, is not baptized, and yet is solemnly or notoriously dedicated and devoted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the same covenant, though without the outward sign, and professeth openly the same religion, is a visible christian, though not by a complete and regular visibility; as a soldier not listed nor taking his colours, or a marriage not regularly solemnized, &c.

5. He that forsaketh his covenant by apostasy, or is totally and duly excommunicated, ceaseth to be a visible member of the church.

Quest. XV. Whether besides the profession of christianity, either testimony or evidence of conversion, or practical godliness, be necessary to prove a man a member of the universal visible church?

1. As the Mediator is the way to the Father, sent to recover us to God, so christianity includeth godliness; and he professeth not christianity, who professeth not godliness.[247]

2. He that professeth the baptismal covenant, professeth christianity, and godliness, and true conversion. And therefore cannot be rejected for want of a profession of conversion or godliness.

3. But he that is justly suspected not to understand his own profession, but to speak general words, without the sense, may and ought to be examined by him that is to baptize him; and therefore though the apostles among the Jews who had been bred up among the oracles of God, did justly presume of so much understanding, as that they baptized men the same day that they professed to believe in Christ; yet when they baptized converted gentiles, we have reason to think, that they first received a particular account of their converts, that they understood the three essential articles of the covenant.[248] 1. Because the creed is fitted to that use, and hath been ever used thereunto by the churches, as by tradition from the apostles' practice. 2. Because the church in all ages, as far as church history leadeth us upward, hath used catechising before baptizing; yea, and to keep men as catechumens some time for preparation. 3. Because common experience telleth us, that multitudes can say the creed that understand it not.

If any yet urge the apostles' example, I will grant that it obligeth us when the case is the like (and I will not fly to any conceit of their heart-searching, or discerning men's sincerity). When you bring us to a people that before were the visible church of God, and were all their lifetime trained up in the knowledge of God, of sin, of duty, of the promised Messiah, according to all the law and prophets, and want nothing, but to know the Son and the Holy Ghost, that this Jesus is the Christ, who will reconcile us to God, and give us the sanctifying Spirit, then we will also baptize men the same day that they profess to believe in Jesus Christ, and in the Father as reconciled by him, and the Holy Ghost as given by him. But if we have those to deal with who know not God, or sin, or misery, or Scripture prophecies, no nor natural verities, we know no proof that the apostles so hastily baptized such.

Of this I have largely spoken in my "Treatise of Confirmation."

4. It is not necessary to a man's baptism and first church membership, that he give any testimony of an antecedent godly life; because it is repentance and future obedience professed that is his title; and we must not keep men from covenanting, till we first see whether they will keep the covenant which they are to make. For covenanting goeth before covenant keeping: and it is any, the most impious sinner, who repenteth, that is to be washed and justified as soon as he becometh a believer.

5. Yet if any that professeth faith and repentance, should commit whoredom, drunkenness, murder, blasphemy, or any mortal sin, before he is baptized, we have reason to make a stop of that man's baptism, because he contradicteth his own profession, and giveth us cause to take it for hypocritical, till he give us better evidence that he is penitent indeed.[249]

6. Heart covenanting maketh an invisible church member, and verbal covenanting and baptism make a visible church member. And he that maketh a profession of christianity, so far as to declare that he believeth all the articles of the creed particularly and understandingly, (with some tolerable understanding, though not distinct enough and full,) and that he openly devoteth himself to God the Father, Son, and Spirit, in the vow and covenant of baptism, doth produce a sufficient title to the relation of a christian and church member; and no minister may reject him, for want of telling when, and by what arguments, means, order, or degrees he was converted.

7. They that forsake these terms of church entrance, left us by Christ and his apostles, and used by all the churches in the world, and reject those that show the title of such a profession, for want of something more, and set up other, stricter terms of their own, as necessary to discover men's conversion and sincerity, are guilty of church tyranny against men, and usurpation against Christ; and of making engines to divide the churches, seeing there will never be agreement on any human devised terms, but some will be of one side, and some of another, when they forsake the terms of Christ.

8. Yet if the pastor shall see cause upon suspicion of hypocrisy, ad melius esse, to put divers questions to one man more than to another, and to desire further satisfaction, the catechumens ought in conscience to answer him, and endeavour his satisfaction. For a minister is not tied up to speak only such or such words to the penitent; and he that should say, I will answer you no further than to repeat the creed, doth give a man reason to suppose him either ignorant or proud, and to suspend the reception of him, though not to deny it. But still ad esse no terms must be imposed as necessary on the church, but what the Holy Ghost by the apostles hath established.

Quest. XVI. What is necessary to a man's reception into membership in a particular church, over and above this foresaid title? whether any other trials, or covenant, or what?

1. A particular church is a regular part of the universal, as a city of a kingdom, or a troop of an army.

2. Every man that is a member of the particular church, is a member of the universal; but every one that is a member of the universal church, is not a member of a particular.

3. Every particular church hath its own particular pastor, (one or more,) and its own particular place or bounds of habitation or residence; therefore he that will be a member of a particular church, 1. Must cohabit, or live in a proximity capable of communion. 2. And must consent to be a member of that particular church, and to be under the guidance of its particular pastor, in their office work. For he cannot be made a member without his own consent and will; nor can he be a member, that subjecteth not himself to the governor or guide.

4. He therefore that will intrude into their communion and privileges without expressing his consent beforehand to be a member, and to submit to the pastoral oversight, is to be taken for an invader.

5. But no other personal qualification is to be exacted of him as necessary, but that he be a member of the church universal. As he is not to be baptized again, so neither to give again all that account of his faith and repentance particularly which he gave at baptism; much less any higher proofs of his sincerity; but if he continue in the covenant and church state which he was baptized into, he is capable thereby of reception into any particular church upon particular consent. Nor is there any Scripture proof of any new examinations about their conversion or sincerity, at their removals or entrance into a particular church.

6. But yet because he is not now looked on only as a covenant maker, as he was at baptism, but also as a covenant keeper or performer, therefore if any can prove that he is false to his baptismal covenant, by apostasy, heresy, or a wicked life, he is to be refused till he be absolved upon his renewed repentance.

7. He that oft professeth to repent, and by oft revolting into mortal sin, (that is, sin which showeth a state of death,) doth show that he was not sincere, must afterward show his repentance by actual amendment, before he can say, it is his due to be believed.

8. Whether you will call this consent to particular church relation and duty, by the name of a covenant or not, is but lis de nomine: it is more than mutual consent that is necessary to be expressed; and mutual consent expressed may be called a covenant.

9. Ad melius esse, the more express the consent or covenant is, the better: for in so great matters men should know what they do, and deal above-board: especially when experience telleth us, that ignorance and imagery is ready to eat out the heart of religion in almost all the churches in the world. But yet ad esse churches must see that they feign or make no more covenants necessary than God hath made; because human, unnecessary inventions have so long distracted and laid waste the churches of Christ.

10. The pastor's consent must concur with the persons to be received: for it must be mutual consent; and as none can be a member, so none may be a pastor, against his will.[250] And though he be under Christ's laws what persons to receive, and is not arbitrary to do what he list, yet he is the guide of the church, and the discerner of his own duty. And a pastor may have reasons to refuse to take a man into his particular charge, without rejecting him as unworthy. Perhaps he may already have more in number than he can well take care of. And other such reasons may fall out.

11. In those countries where the magistrate's laws and common consent, do take every qualified person for a member of that church where his habitation is, (called a parish,) and to which he ordinarily resorteth, the pastor that undertaketh that charge, doth thereby seem to consent to be pastor to all such persons in that parish. And there cohabitation and ordinary conjunction with the church, may go for a signification of consent, and instead of more particular contract or covenant, by virtue of the exposition of the said laws and customs. Yet so, that a man is not therefore to be taken for a member of the church merely because he liveth in the parish; for so atheists, infidels, heretics, and papists may do; but because he is, 1. A parishioner, 2. Qualified, 3. Joining with the church, and actually submitting to the ministry.

12. Where there is this much only, it is a sinful slander to say that such a parish is no true church of Christ; however there may be many desirable orders wanting to its better being. Who hath the power of trying and receiving we shall show anon.

Quest. XVII. Wherein doth the ministerial office essentially consist?

The office of the sacred ministry is a mixed relation (not a simple).[251] I. As the minister is related to Christ, he is his servant or minister by office; that is, one commissioned by him for that sacred work: where there is, 1. The commission itself (which is not particular, but general, in a general law, applicable to each singular person when qualified). 2. The determination of the individual person who is to receive it: which consisteth in the call, which I have opened before and therefore repeat not. Only note again, 1. That by virtue of the general commission or institution of the office in specie, the power is conveyed from Christ to the individual person, and that the church (electors or ordainers) are not the donors, authorizers, or obligers, but only instruments of designing an apt recipient, and delivering him possession. 2. That by virtue of this institution, charter, or law commission, it is that the acts of a man seemingly or visibly called, are valid to the church, though really he were not ordained or truly called, but deceived them by hypocritical intrusion.[252]

2. The causation or efficiency of Christ in the making any one a minister, is, 1. Dispositive, making him a qualified, fit recipient; 2. Then applying the general commission to him, or giving him the function itself.[253]

1. The dispositive acts of Christ are, 1. Giving him competent knowledge for a minister. 2. Giving him competent goodness; that is, love to God, truth, and souls, and willingness for the work. 3. Giving him competent power and abilities for execution, which is principally in utterance; and so qualifying his intellect, will, and executive power.[254]

2. The immediate conveyance or act of collation, is, 1. An obligation laid on the person to do the work. 2. Authority given him to warrant him, and to oblige others; that is, a jus docendi, gubernandi, &c.

3. The form of the relation is denominated, 1. From the reception of these efficiencies in general. 2. From the subordination which hereby they are placed in to Christ, as their relation is denominated a termino.

1. Formally the office consisteth in, 1. An obligation to do the work of the office. 2. Authority to do it, and to oblige others to submit to it.

2. These make up an office which being denominated also from the terminus, is considered, 1. As to the nearest term, which is the work to be done. 2. The remote, which is the object of that work.

The work is, 1. Teaching: 2. Ruling: 3. Worshipping.[255] And so it is essentially An obligation and power of ministerial teaching, ruling, and worshipping God.

2. As to the object it is, 1. The world to be converted. 2. The converted to be baptized, and congregated or ordered into particular societies (so far as may be). 3. The baptized and congregate to be, (1.) Taught; (2.) Ruled; (3.) Guided in worship.[256]