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.