Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Letters
A late Letter from Mr. Dodwell, calling for more Answer, with the Answer to it, written since the rest was Printed, though it be here placed.
Reverend Sir,
I Am now in the Country, and as yet in so unsetled a condition, as obliges me to be a Stranger to new Works. However, by the short view I have when I come into Shops, I find you put me off for a Reply to Mr. Clarksons little Pamphlet concerning Diocesan Jurisdiction: I have got it and perused it, and the design of my writing at present is, to acquaint you with the reason why I think my self unconcerned in it, if that be all I must expect from you in Answer to my yet unanswered Letters. You must excuse me, if I cannot think that Book an Answer, which as it was written before them by your own confession, so neither doth it foresee the accounts given in those Letters, nor provide against them: Whether it do so, let the Reader judge.
But to return to the account intended, why I cannot think my self concerned in this new Pamphlet of Mr. Clarkson's, be pleased to understand, that the excellent Dean of St. Pauls being engaged against you on the same Argument of my Letters, was pleased to put himself to the trouble of perusing my Papers, as they came from the Press, purposely that he might avoid repeating what had been said by me. This being so, you may easily understand how far I am concerned in what is said to him, when it was indeed wholly distinct from mine. Not that I should have been unwilling to serve that great Person, but that I know he is in much better hands already. Mr. Clarkson in this Pamphlet, as he has only mentioned Dr. Stillingfleets name, so he hath confined himself to his Arguments, and hath taken notice of nothing in my Letters not considered by the Doctor. If he will be pleased to engage further, I confess I like his temper better than any I have seen of your late Brethren, except Dr. Owen. Such an Adversary I should desire, as would confine himself to the Cause, without digressing to personal Slanders. There is one mistake in him, which you may be pleased to acquaint him with, and that is his translating foreign thousands more than once, and sometimes where his Argument is grounded on it, that it may appear to be his mistake rather than the Printers. The mistake is small and separable from the main Cause, but withal is very evident. But according to his candour in acknowledging it, so I shall see what candour I may expect from him in the main Cause, if he think fit to engage with me in it.
As to your Answers to my Objections against your Ministry in our Oral Debates, had they been unproved Assertions, I should then have thought them sufficiently answered with Denials. But you know the Assertions are proved in the body of my Book; and till I see my Principles unravelled, and Answers more distinctly applied to the junctures, where the proof may seem to fail, I am not likely to see any reason to change my minde. Till you attempt this, I am content the Reader judg, whether what you have done, or shall hereafter do in the like way, deserve the name of a Confutation. If I must never expect any further satisfaction from you for the Slanders you have raised against me, all the return I intend, is my hearty Prayer to God, to qualifie you for your forgiveness, not only of that sin, but of the many others of your late writings, by your re-union to the Church from which you are fallen, on which account alone I have proved that you can expect forgiveness. I am obliged not only on my own account, but to the Publick, to which you have shewn your self an Enemy on this occasion, to reflect on you; but I desire to leave no monuments against you to Posterity. God may yet have mercy on you, and let you see the mischief you are doing, before it be too late. That he will do so, is the most unfeigned request of him, who, notwithstanding your many and great provocations, will still endeavour to approve himself
Shrewsbury, Sept. 19, 1681. Yours, as far as is consistent with his Duty to the Publick, Henry Dodwell.
When you have occasion to write to me, send your Lettrs to be left with Mr. Took
Sir,
I Received not yours of Septemb. 19, 1681. till Octob. 21. through the miscarriage of one that should have delivered it. What you have to say to Mr. Clarkson, write to himself and not to me: As to your call for more Answer to your Books, you shall have more. I had wrote one long ago, and cast it by: Men are weary of our Controversies, and had rather all of us gave over. But if I should shew the errour and impertinency of every such word in your great Book, it might be a years work; when I look not to live so long; and it might make so great a Volume in Folio, that few I think would buy or read! And what great good will it do the world, to tell them how grossly you abuse the Chuch, and how confidently and voluminously you err?
As to your charge of Slandering you, and wronging the Church, and being unqualified for forgiveness, I have the same Accusations from Quakers, Anabaptists, Antinomians and Papists, almost in the same words: Within these two hours an ancient Doctor sent me as hard words [As being a self condemned person, to be forsaken, as opposing the Commands of God, and the Faith of Iesus,] for not yielding to his [asserting of the Seventh-day-Sabbath, and condemning the Lords-days observation.] I have these thirty six years lived under such Accusations: It is no new thing for Seducers to use affrighting words instead of proof, and to say, [Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, you cannot be saved. It's the cry of most Sects, [You cannot be saved but in our way]
Sir, No man living hath more cause to be loath to err, and to be willing to know the Truth. I am as sure, as I can be, if I know any thing of my own minde, that I am not only willing to know the Truth, but to know it at a far dearer rate than it was ever like to cost me in this world. I am sure that I have not been slothful in seeking it: I am sure that I would joyfully recant any Errour that you or any man can convince me of, with hearty thanks for so great a benefit. I have considered your Books; you are confident of my erring and wronging the Church; and I am as confident of yours: that you are a Misleader of an extraordinary size, that would set up an Vniversal humane Supreme Government, which Protestants have taken for Popery and Treason against Christ; and who falsly unchurch the Reformed Churches, and deny them all Covenant-right to Salvation, while you tol… me your self, that It is not for the Christian Interest to hold, th… the Roman Bishops Ordination (as you require it) hath had an intercision. Is it a crime to speak truth of you or a slander to say, That the Doctrine of an Humane, Absolute, Vniversal Soveraignty, is the most Fundamental part of Popery? And is it no Sin or Slander for you to condemn so many Millions falsly, even the purest and holiest of the Churches on Earth? if not the whole (by self-contradiction?) is it a damning sin not to feed, cloath, and visit in Prison one of Christ's little ones? And is it a meritorious virtue in Mr. Dodwell to unchurch, or unchristen, or degrade, if not condemn to Hell all the Reformed Churches, (nominally but not really excepting England?) Yea, and to go about with a persecuting Spirit and Diligence, to provoke Magistrates to lay them in Jayls with Rogues, because they dare not give over Preaching the Gospel, to which they were devoted in their Ordition? Reproach…ng those Magistrates as Contemners of Religion, who will not punish us as Deceivers, as if it were not you that is the Deceiver? Should I presume to judge, that so many and such men through Christendom, as you condemn, were all so ignorant and so bad, as not to know the common Verities necessary to the essence of the Ministry, and to Salvation, and that 'tis I that can teach it them, by such media as Mr Dodwell useth, (while he knoweth that Voetius hath answered a far abler Defender of his Cause) I should sure be reputed a man so extremely proud, as that no complemental humble deportment would excuse.
As for the Question, Whether you are a Papist, what obligation lieth on me to decide it? Why should you expect that I should say you are none? Do you not better know your self? And is not your own word fitter to tell your minde? I do but tell what your Doctrine is.
And I will speak so much plainer than I did, as to say,
That 1. to hold a humane Universal Church-Supremacy, Aristocratical or Monarchical. 2. And that this Power is so absolute, that there is no Appeal from it to Scripture, or Gods Judgment. 3. And that this Power doth make universal Laws for all the Church by General Councils. 4. And that the Pope hath the Primacy or Presidentship in those Councils ordinarily. 5. And that he is the Principium Vnitatis. 6. And that it belongs to the President antecedently to call Councils, and to him alone; so that they are but unlawful Routs, or rebellious, if they assemble without his Call.
And that they are Schismaticks, who dissent and disobey this Supremacy. 8. And that the Reformed Churches, for want of your Episcopal Ordination uninterrupted from the Apostles times▪ are no true Churches, have no true Ministry, or Sacraments, or Covenant-right to Salvation; but by pretending them, do sin against the Holy Ghost. 9 But that the Church of Rome, by vertue of an uninterrupted Episcopal Succession, is a true Church, hath a true Ministry, and Sacraments, and Covenant right to Salvation. 10. And that the French-Church (which we call Papists) are safer than the Protestants there. 11. And imply, that the said French Clergy, and the Councils of Constance and Basil were no Papists. 12. And that the said Protestants being Schismaticks, and sinning against the Holy Ghost, the Magistrates that will not be Contemners of Religion, are bound to punish them.
(As if in England and France your bellows were needful to blow the fire.) These things asserted among you by Bishop Bramhall, Heylin, Mr. Thorndike, and you and such others, the Protestants have been hitherto used to call Popery: But I will not dispute with you a mere question of the fitness of the name. If you had rather, call it Church Tyranny, Cruelty, or Diabolism.
And is all this a Virtue in you? And is it a sin in me to defend Christ's flock, and the true Unity of his Church, and to detect such Deceivers, and bear my testimony for Truth, Love and Concord against such Dividers and Destroyers?
It's a hard case then, that such as … are in, that the more unfeignedly we desire to know God's Will, and the more diligently and impartially we study it, and the more it costeth us, the greater sinners we are: And no sins have been so loudly charged on me, as Praying, and Preaching the Gospel, and laborious vindicating God's Truth and Servants. It doth not follow, if you hate them, or would have them ruined, that every man sinneth that doth not as you do▪
And whereas you would get some countenance to your Writings▪ by the name of Dr. Stillingfleet, as having perused them, &c. Either he is, or is not of your mind? If not, this doth but adde to your deceit. If he be, your Cause will do more against the Conscience and Reputation of Dr. Stillingfleet, than far greater Parts and Reputation than his can do for your Cause.
And Sir, what should I get, should I give a Voluminous Answer to all your books? When I have confuted you as far as I have done, I have but lost my labour. The Church-men that I hear from, despise it, and say, What is Mr. Dodwell to us? He is an unordained man (he knoweth why), and his book was rejected by the Bishop of London. His opinions are odd, and the Church of England is not of his mind: Yea, Mr. Cheny would perswade us, that you are a singular contemned fellow.
But it's a useful way, to set such an one as you to do mens business, and to boast, as Dr Sherlocke and Mr. Morrice do, of your performance, and yet to disown you when their cause requireth it. But it is an abuse of us that dissent from you, to connive only at your published Books, and then to boast of them as unanswerable. And when we have lost our precious time in shewing their deceit and schismatical Love-destroying tendency, then to say to us, You have done nothing: VVhat is this to us? Mr. Dodwell is an odd disowned man, and none of the English Clergy.
If God and Conscience would give me leave, I could presently be a good man, and a pardoned sinner with you: It is but honouring you, and saying as you say; I could so be extoll'd by almost any Sect, Papist, Quaker, &c. But it must be but by one: for all the rest would nevertheless revile, accuse me and condemn me, as you do the Protestant Churches. And the Quakers, like you, say, we sin against the Holy Ghost. The old Sabbatarian Dr. before-named, in his first Letter accused me as aforesaid; and when I profest my self willing to learn of him, as his Disciple, I was in his next, The unwearied Labourer in Christs harvest, and his marvellous joy, &c. And in the rest, when I could not receive his reasonings, I became worse and more m…serable than ever. It's a wonderful meritoriou… excellency with such men, to become their Proselytes and admirers.
As true Charity and Piety would fain propagate Tru…h, Goodness and happiness; so Pride, Self-conceit, and a Sectarian Spirit, are like the inordinate lust of fornicators, impatient longer than they are propagating their spurious kind.
And indeed the inordinate height of your self-conceitedness and confidence in gross confounding error, will make chast souls afraid of your procacious sollicitations. Had you sought my corporal destruction, and not the Churches ruin, for which you profess a zeal, I might silently have let you take your course. But the sober world so well knoweth, that Satan and Papists are so much against the plain and serious preaching of the Gospel, and so much for blood or cruelty towards Dissenters, how faithful and truly religious soever, that if you go on to be like them, 1. In la…bouring us to cease preaching. And 2. To call for punishment (we know what) to those that will not cease, you will cherish men in the opinion that you are a Papist, more than all your friends and talk can make them believe that you are not.
Sir, when sin groweth crying and common, I am one that dare not preach impenitency by hiding it, and saying, it is a doubtful or a little thing, though I expect that guilt should be impatient, and some Doctors should go on to say behind my back, that less than this is unchristian and intemperate passion or abuse.
Methinks you who judg millions of true believers, and lovers of God and holiness, to damnation; and by Printing this, go about to have all men think them such, and consequently to love them no better than the damnable should be loved, should never be so partially tender, as not to endure to be but told what you say and do.
And will you be angry with sober Christians for startling at such a Doctrine, that All our other qualifications, though we believe and love God, &c. will not save us, unless we have the Sacrament from a Minister ordained by a Bishop of your described species, and he from such another, &c. to the beginning? Can Christian ears relish the description of such a Hell as containeth the believing Christian lovers of God and Holiness, who call'd upon his name, and sought first his Kingdom and Righteousness, and forsook all for Christ, but were damned for want of an uninterrupted Diocesan Ordination of the Priest that gave them the Sacrament, and all his predecessors? Sure Christians hitherto han't believed that Diocesans Sacraments will make a Heaven of wicked ungodly men, nor the want of them make a Hell of Saints.
And will you be angry with me, for not believing that God is such a one, as will for ever hate and damn in Hell the souls that loved him above all? Will he take that love from them when they die? Or do they continue in Hell to love him, while he hateth and tormenteth them? Were not that to call him worse than the Devil, whom they do not love? You only tell us, that they cannot be saved for want of your species of Sacramenters. But if you meant not by this their Damnation, but a Purgatory or Annihilation, it's meet you should deal plainly, and tell us what it is.
They are Articles of our Faith and Religion, That whoever believeth (sincerely) in Christ, shall not perish, but have everlasting life: And that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth: And that eye hath not seen, &c. what God hath prepared for them that love him.
When Dr. VVilkins once preached in Pauls Church an excellent Sermon for peace and concord, on mutual forbearance, on Rom. 14.17. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; For he that in these things serveth Christ, is accepted of God and approved of men, he accosted me at the Pulpit foot with these true words, I am sure this Sermon pleased you. If Dr. Tillotson will publish that Sermon, as he hath done Dr. Isaac Barrow's, those two books will more shame your love-killing, schismatical doctrine, than all that I have said against you. And if the fore-mentioned moderating Doctors, go on to publish me to be a man of unpeaceable provoking language, for saying, that such doctrines and practices are great sins, they will seem to me, to take the preaching of Repentance for reviling, and that he is the sinner that tells men of sin; and that the Laity are far happier men, who may be called to Repentance for their vices, than the Clergy, or Church-corrupters, who are heinously wronged if their sins be named, and they be but intreated to consider and repent; yea, if we but tell the reason, why we dare not do as they, in a time when we have cause to study such Texts as Ezek. 9.4. Perhaps God may permit your principles to get the upper hand. But if he do, I shall love them never the better, but the worse, and shall better love the world which forsake not God, nor is forsaken by him.