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. [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.