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.
[232] See Mr. Barton's and Bp. Hall's contest hereabouts.
[233] System. Fidei.
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]