Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Dodwell's deceits, and the danger of them do consist.
§. 1. AS to his Method of disputing, that you may detect his fallacies, he hath got this absurd ptetence, p. 90. That there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige men to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretends to have skill in Causes.
Ans. Would you have thought that ever a man should publickly use such a Cothurnus among the Learned? What a man is obliged to mean, is one thing, and what he doth mean is another. And is there any one that knoweth what humane Language is, that knoweth not that almost all words have various significations? Doth he not know by how good reason the Schools oblige Disputants, first to explain their Terms? And what need there is of Definition to explain them? He instanceth in the words Bishops, and the Church of England; And might have added, the Catholick Church. And doth he not know that it is the species of Bishops that we differ about? and will the general name here explain each parties sense? When we are for one sort of Bishops, and against another? And is it not such fraud as souls should not be abused by, to refuse wilfully to define the Episcopacy that he meaneth, and then plead that all should understand him? And why is it not as much ignorance in him not to understand me, as in me not to understand him, when I use distinct explication, which he obstinately refuseth?
And doth not Dr. Stillingfleet's case shame what he saith of the Church of England, who was hardly brought to explain it, and at last denieth the very being of the Church in Mr. Dodwell's sense? which of you was to blame to meddle with the Word till you had skill in Causes, to understand it without a Definition?
And doth not Dr. Stillingfleet take it as the Introduction of Popery, to hold a Constitutive Regent Church-Government, National, or Catholick? and so he, and Mr. Dodwell mean not the same thing by the Church Catholick (nor Bishop Guning, Mr. Thorndike, or the Church of Rome, who are all for an Universal humane Supreme power). And who is he that hath read Dr. Challoners Credo Eccles. Cathol. Chillingworth, Bishop Mortons Grand Imposture, Bishop Bilson, Dr. White, Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Sutliffe, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Carlton, &c. Chamier, Sadeel, Melancthon, Bucer, &c. who knoweth not that the Papists and Prorestants, by the name of the Catholick Church, do mean several things, and that we deny the very being of any such Church as they call the Catholick? And is this the bold and happy Disputant, that will save the Schools and World the labour of explaining Terms, and foreagreeing of the sense, and put men on disputing, where the Subj…ct is denied, and fill a Book with tedious confident Harangues, and then hide all the fraud by saying, that there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige m…n to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretend to have skill in Causes? When the Cause disputed is only managed by words, as they signifie the minds of the Speakers about the real matters▪
§ 2. And as to the material fundamental difference between Mr. Dodwell's party and us, it lyeth in these following things:
I. We totally differ about the nature of Gods Government of man.
II. And about the use of the Holy Scripture, and Gods Laws.
III. About the nature and extent of all humane Government.
IV. About the form of moral good and evil.
V. About the essential form of the Catholick Church.
VI. About Gods ordinary means of saving Grace.
VII. About the use of Preaching.
VIII. About the duty of worshipping God in Sacred Assemblies, or the Communion of Saints.
IX. About the difference of Apostles, and the office of the Bishops.
X. About the office of a Presbyter or Parish-Pastor.
XI. About the Necessaries to Ministry, Churches, Christianity, and ordinary title to Salvation.
XII. And about the final Judgment. If all these be little tollerable differences, why may not we be tollerated? If not, judg Reader who they be that are intollerable, when you hear them plead against tolleration.
§. 3. I. For the first, we judg that there is a God, who is the Governour of the World by an universal Law, which is above all humane Laws or will, and that he is the fountain of all power, and there is none but what he giveth and limiteth, and that no man is above him, nor hath true authority against his Laws.
But Mr. Dodwell saith, That it is irreconcileable to Government in this life, or to due subordination of subjects to superiours, to practice differently, and defend it by pretending Divine authority, and appealing to writings, (Scriptures is our word by excellency so called). And so God shall be God, and be obeyed, if the Clergy please.
§. 4. II. As to the second, we suppose that the Holy Scriptures are Gods Laws, indited and recorded by the Holy Ghost to be the first obliging Rule of Faith, and holy living, which all men are to be obedient to, before and against all contrary Laws of men. But Mr. Dodwell as aforesaid, alloweth no such prime obligation as will warrant an appeal to the Word of God, from the visible Church-Governours that contradict it.
§. 5. III. And for the third, we suppose that all humane Powers are derived from God, and have no authority but what he giveth them, and are more under him and his Laws, than the Justices are under the King and his Laws, and can oblige no man against the Laws of God. But how far Mr. Dodwell thinks otherwise, you have heard. He saith not indeed that we must break Gods Laws, but we must not pretend them, or appeal to them against our Governours. In charity I hope he meaneth no worse, but that we must take our Rulers word or exposition, and judg nothing to be in the Scripture, contrary to their commands. And whether he give them the same dominion also over the Law of Nature, let him tell you. Paul disclaimed dominion over mens saith, and the written Law of God.
§. 6. IV. And for the fourth, We take moral good to be a conformity to Gods Law▪ and moral evil or sin to be a breach of it. But Mr. Dodwell is for measuring them by the Clergies or Governours will, though Gods Law be against theirs.
§. 7. V. And for the fifth, we take the Catholick Church to have no Supreme Government but God, and our Glorified Redeemer God and man; and that there is no such thing as a Catholick-Church of Gods making under any other Supreme Rulers. But that as God is the invisible King of this visible world, and Kings are subordinate Supremes in their Kingdom, but neither one of them, or many conjunct in an Aristocracy, Supreme over all the earth; so Christ is the partly visible, and partly invisible supreme Ruler of the visible Church of Christians, and each Pastor is under him over his proper flock (bound to keep concord and peace); but none under him Supreme over all, whether Monarch (as the Pope) or Aristocracy, as Councils, Cardinals, or 'others. But Mr. Dodwell is for a visible Society, with a visible humane Supreme. But who the Supreme is, I despair of getting him to acquaint us.
§. 8. VI. And for the sixth, we suppose that God sent forth Preachers to convert the world, and turn them from darkness to light, and the power of Satan to God, and that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word preached, and that whoever believeth shall be saved; and the word of God is powerful to this end, and sufficient to make us wise to salvation. But Mr. Dodwell thinks that it is not Preaching, but the delivering men the Sacraments, that giveth them the first true saving grace and title to Salvation. And that none in the world have this Sacrament or Covenant-title to life, but those that receive it from a hand that had an Ordination by Bishops in his sense, of uninterrupted succession from the Apostles by the like Ordination.
§. 8. VII. Accordingly we hold that Preaching is for the converting of souls, and the means of saving faith and holiness. But what he thinks it is good for, I know not well; nor whether he would send the Indians the Sacraments instead of Preachers.
§. 10. VIII. We take it to be our duty, though men forbid us, to confess Christ, and assemble for Gods worship, to read and hear the Scripture, and to praise God: But he thinks we must not practice differently from the ruling Clergies will, if they forbid us, nor alledg Divine authority for it.
§. 11. IX. We suppose that the office of a Prophetical Ministry bringing new Doctrines or Laws from God, and the office of the Teachers and Rulers by these Laws, are greatly different, and must necessarily be distinguished. Moses was a Prophetical Mediator in Legislation, and he confirm…d his Mediation by uncontrouled Miracles. The Prophets afterward came but on particular applicatory messages. But the Priests and Levites as such were no Prophets, nor had power to make any new additions or alterations of the Law, but only to teach it the people, and as guides apply it to their several cases; so Christ and his Apostles commissioned to deliver and record all his Doctrines and Commands to the following ages, did by the Holy Ghost Prophetically deliver to the world that body of Doctrine and Law, which must rule them to the end, and judg them; and thus sealed and confirmed all by a multitude of uncontrouled Miracles; but all following Bishops and Pastors are not to do the like, nor add or alter, nor are such Legislators, being not Prophets nor workers of Miracles, but only to teach and apply the Laws already recorded in Scripture, and guide their Congregations in variable circumstances (time, place, translations, &c.) according to the general rules of Gods Law. This is the truth.
But how much Mr. Dodwell equals the Bishops and Apostles, and sets their words above the Scripture as to obligation, you have seen before.
§. 12. X. And as he giveth Bishops power to silence Presbyters, and forbid the Preaching of the Gospel, and Gods worship, so how little knowledg or godliness, or common sobriety or honesty, he requireth to a saving Sacramenting Priest, who must not be separated from, you heard before, contrary to Cyprian, and many a Councils Canons. But we know that Paul had no power to destruction, but only to edification. And they have no more.
§. 13. XI. We suppose that we must love, honour, and communicate with all such as true Ministers or Churches, who have true faith and repentance, and sincere obedience to Christs Laws, and are able, godly, willing Pastors, chosen or consented to by the flocks, approved and ordained by senior Pastors, (especially in Synods where City-Pastors preside), and especially if also authorized by the Christian Magistrate.) But he thinks if they have not also successiv… Ordination from the Apostles by Bishops of his species, they are no Ministers, or Churches, and have no Sacrament, and Covenant title to Salvation, but are Schismaticks, and by their Ministry sin against the Holy Ghost. And so destroyeth all certainty of title to Salvation, and of Church-communion, Ministry and Sacraments, to all the Christian World.
§. 14 XII. Lastly, we think that men shall be judged by their keeping or breaking Gods Law, and according to what they did in the body. But he would have us obey the Supreme Clergy, and not plead Scripture or Divine authority for our different practice; because the Government that lasteth but for this life, ought not to admit of disputes more lasting than its practice.
§. 15. I conclude with a request to him to resolve me these doubts.
1. Whether Prophets having immediate messages from Heaven, were not differenced from the teaching Priests and Pastors.
2. Whether false Prophets were not grievously threatened among the Iews; and whether Christ did not command us to beware of false Prophets?
3. Whether he be not a false Prophet (worse than a false teacher) that falsely pretendeth to that which is proper to a Prophet?
4. Whether it be not proper to a Prophet to deliver as immediately from God, new Laws to the universal Church, yea or to any Church, which are not in the Scripture, nor are revealed by it as Gods means, (besides the determination of circumstances left to humane prudence variable pro re nata) if Moses and the Apostles in Legislation acted as Prophets, do not they so that pretend to do the like?
5. Whether the General Councils of Bishops and the Pope have not done the work proper to the Prophetical office, when they have made Laws for the unversal Church, and this as by Divine authority, and undertaken to give all the Church the sense of Scripture, which only shall be obligatory to them thereby? For it is the maker of the sense that is the maker of the Law; especially when they pretend to Infallibility, or to be secured from erring in faith, by Divine inspiration, how ignorant or bad soever they be singly. Is not this pretended authority and inspiration that of Prophets, as different from meer Teachers and Guides by Gods Law already made?
6. If it be so, how many such Papal Councils, arrogating such power, have been false Prophets?
7. But if they pretend not Inspiration, nor Prophetical authority from God, nor yet authority given them by the Scriptures, or Laws of God already made, (or falsly pretend such) then is not this to usurp Christs own authority, and so instead of being false Prophets, to be partly Vice-Christs, (or Law-givers to his universal Church) called commonly Antichrists? I would willingly have things so cleared, that men may be freed from all such suspicions.
But if you are still confident that the universal Church hath a visible supreme Government besides Christs, I should be glad, 1. To see it proved. 2. To know whose it is, and how we may know them. 3. And to know its true extent. If you intend no fraud, you cannot refuse me this, when I promise you, if performed, I will let fall the suit, and no more trouble you with lesser Controversies.
I have no Copy of my first Letter to Mr. Dodwell upon a Book which he sent me. This is his Answer.