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.