Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Title page – Errata
AN ANSWER TO Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlocke; Confuting an Universal Humane Church-Supremacy, Aristocratical and Monarchical; as Church-Tyranny and Popery: And defending Dr. Isaac Barrow's Treatise against it.
By Richard Baxter.
Preparatory to a fuller Treatise against such an Universal Soveraignty, as contrary to Reason, Christianity, the Protestant Profession, and the Church of England; though the Corrupters usurp that Title.
LONDON: Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns, at the lower end of Cheapside, near Mercers Chappel, 1682.
READER,
THough the difference between Mr. Dodwell (and Mr. Thorndike, and such others), and those condemned by them, be very great, I would not have it seem greater than it is. The sum of it is as followeth:
1. Mr. Dodwell thinketh that there is no true Ministry, Church-Sacraments, nor Covenant-right to pardon and salvation, but where there is a Ministry delivering the Sacraments, who were ordained by Bishops (in his sense of Bishops), who had their Ordination from other Bishops, and they from others, by an uninterrupted chain of succession from the Apostles.
We know, that by this Doctrine he condemneth, or unchurcheth, not only the Reformed Churches, the Greeks and other Easterns, but the Church of Rome it self, and leaveth no certainty of the very being of any one Church on earth.
And we maintain, that the sacred Scripture is the universal Law of Christ, in which he hath described and instituted the office and work of the sacred Ministry, and appointed the way of their continuance in the world, by necessary Qualification, Election, Consent, and ordinarily regular Ordination. That as Presbyters now lay on hands with the Bishop, so senior Pastors are the Ordainers, as the Colledg of Physicians license Physicians, and the Convocation of Doctors make Doctors (and man generateth man). But to avoid contention and division, the Churches have used to make one of these Presbyters or Pastors a President, and partly a Ruler in each Colledg and Church, and given him a Negative voice in Ordinations; against which we strive not, but maintain, 1. That his consent is not so necessary, as that no one can be a true Presbyter that hath it not. As the Clergy at Rome in Cyprian's days long governed when they had no Bishop; so if the Bishop be dead, or refuse to ordain, or would ordain none but Here…icks, or uncapable men, or would tyrannize and impose men not consented to, the Ordination is valid that is made without him. And 2. That the true chief Pastor of every particular formed Church, is a true Bishop, though Diocesans should deny it. 3. And that even Ordination it self is necessary but for Order where it may be had, and not to the Being of the Ministry where it cannot be had on lawful terms, no more than Coronation to the King, or publick solemnization to Marriage. 4. And we are assured, that if Regular Ordination were interrupted by death, heresie, refusal, neglect, e. g. at Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, &c. Christs Charter, or Scripture-Law would presently restore it to persons duly qualified, chosen and ordained by the fittest there that can be had. 5. If this were not so (as multitudes of schismatical and unlawful Popes Ordinations at Rome would be invalid, e. g. John 13. and 21. and 23. and Eugenius 4th deposed as a Heretick by a General Council, &c.) so every usurping Bishop that pretendeth falsly, that he was himself lawfully ordained, would nullifie Churches, Ministry and Sacraments of all ordained by him. And many have falsly pretended to Orders. 6. And that if men must refuse the Government and Sacraments of all Bishops and Presbyters that do not prove to them a Regular Ordination uninterrupted for 1600. years, all the Ministry on earth may be refused: and none for so doing should be called Schismaticks. I never yet heard or saw a Bishop prove such a succession, nor ever knew one that would take his Oath on it, that he was a true Bishop on such terms.
II. Mr. Dodwell thinks that the Presbyters, yea and Bishops, were not given by God. Pag. 60. saith he, But where do they find, that God ever gave Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons? Where note, that it is of the Office in specie that we speake.
But we think that God hath made or instituted the Office and its work. And if he did not, 1. Who did? If men, was it Clerg-ymen or Lay-men? If Lay-men, was it Christians or Infidels? And by what Authority? Do the children beget the fathers, and yet may not Presbyters propagate their species? If Clergy-men, who were they? If not Apostles, or Prophets, or Evangelists, they were none. If these, then it seems the Apostles did it not as Bishops; for it is the making of the first Bishops that we question. And what the Apostles did (not as Bishops, but) as commissioned Apostles, Christ did by his Spirit. And they that will do the like, must have the like Office, Authority and Spirit. If God gave not Bishops, because the Apostles made them, then God gave us not the Scripture, because the Apostles and Evangelists wrote it.
And is not this the same or worse Doctrine than that which the Italian Iesuits would have had pass at Trent, against Gods making Bishops or their Office?
And if God gave not Bishops or Presbyters, they that reject them, reject no gift or institution of God.
And if men made them, how come they to be essential to the Church? Did not Christ and his Spirit in the Apostles, institute so much as the Church-essentials?
And if men made Bishops and Presbyters in specie, may not man unmake them?
III. Mr. Dodwell maintaineth, that the power of Presbyters is to be measured by the intention of the Ordainers who give it them, and not by any Scripture-institution, charter or description.
We maintain the contrary, that God having instituted and described the Office of Bishops, Pastors, Presbyters, Gods Law in Scripture is the Rule by which the office-power, and obligation, and work in the essentials, must be known. Otherwise, 1. It would be supposed, that God made not the office of Bishops or Presbyters; which is false.
2. That Ordainers may make new Churches, Bishops or Presbyters in specie; yea, as many species of them as they shall intend.
3. That they may abrogate or change the ancient species. They may make one office only for preaching, another only for praying, another only for Baptism, another only for the Lords Supper, and others for new work of their own. The Papists themselves abhor this Doctrine.
4. Then no man can know the measure of his Authority, not knowing the intentions of the Ordainers. Perhaps three or ten ordainihg Bishops may have three or ten several intents.
5. Then the Bishop may put down Gods Worship or Sacraments, by limiting the Priests power.
6. It's contrary to all Ministerial Investitures. The Investing Minister is not the Owner or the Donor, but delivereth possession of what the Owner and Donor contracted for, or gave. If the Archbishop, Crowning the King, would infringe his Prerogative, it's a Nullity, because he is not the Giver of it; nor is his intention, but the Kingdoms constitution, the measure of it. If the Priest would make the man whom he marrieth to a woman, no governour of her, it's a Nullity: for it is not his intent that makes the power.
7. If this were otherwise, I call and call again (but in vain) to Mr. Dodwell, and all his party, to tell me, how the Bishops and Priests of the Church of England in the days of Henry the 8th, and Edward the 6th, and Queen Elizabeth came to have power to put down the Mass, to set up the Liturgie, to take down Images, and to reform as they did, when it was certainly contrary to the intention of their Ordainers?
8. And setting this point together with the other, (that Ordination of Presbyters is null) I ask them, (and ask again, but all in vain;) 1. Do not Bishops generate their Species, and make Bishops their equals? 2. Who then can give his Office to the Archhishop, if he have no Superior in England, unless his Inferiors give it, or you fly to a Forreign Iurisdiction? 3. Whose Intention is it that giveth power to the Pope, if he be greatest? Or to the General Council, if it be greatest? If there be none above them, either God or Inferiours give them their power? 4. And what if these Inferiours that make Popes, Primates, or Councils, by Intention would take down half their power? Is it then done? What self-contradiction and confusion would some men rather run into, than grant Christ to be Christ? that is, the only Vniversal Head and Legislator to the Church on Earth.
IV. Accordingly Mr. D. holdeth, that there is a supreme Authority in man over the Universal Church, from whose intention and sense it is not lawful for us to appeal so much as to the Sacred Scripture, no nor to the Day of Iudgment, for any practice different from them. See his Reply, p. 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85.
Though we hold that no unjust Appeal should suspend the authorised Acts of a Governour, this Doctrine seems to me to be worse than Antichristian, and to put down God.
If God indeed be the Vniversal Soveraign Lawgiver, and the final Iudge; if God be God, and man be man and not above him, to say that we must not obey him before man, and disobey man that commands what he forbids, or that we must not appeal from mans subordinate Law to his supreme Law, nor from mans judgment to his final judgment; and to say, (as he and Thorndike do) that to do so, and practise accordingly, is inconsistent with all Government, are things that I had hoped my ears or eyes should never have seen or heard delivered by a sober Christian. Papists most commo…ly abhor it, save some few Flatterers of the Pope. If …his be so, a man must not only worship Images, swear to the Pope, and do all that Councils command; but also curse Christ if the Turkish Rulers bid him, blaspheme God if Heathen Rulers bid him, and condemn all the Martyrs as Rebels that did subvert all Government, by practising contrary to it and appealing to God. And then man must be every where of the Rulers Religion, and do whatever wickedness he commandeth, Dan. 1. and 3.6. and the Church for three hundred years and more tell us of other kind of Examples.
V. Mr. D. holdeth this Absolute Destructive Power to be essentially necessary to the Vnity of the Catholick Church: which is the sum of Thorndike's Book.
I would not go further from them or the French, in the point of Vnity, than I needs must. I shall therefore tell you what is our judgment of it.
1. We grant them, that Christ's Church on earth is one, and its Vnity is part of its very essence (as the Vnity of the parts of a House, Ship, &c.)
2. We hold that this essential Vnity consisteth in the Vnion of all Christians with Christ, the only unifying Vniversal Head; and that the Vnity described Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. sufficeth to it, viz. One Body (of Christ) one Spirit, one Hope (of Grace and Glory) one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father, &c. And that all this is prescribed in the Gospel, and every true Christian hath all this.
3. That all must endeavour to keep this Vnity in the bond of peace, and to be in every lesser matter of one mind, as far as they can: And the Pastors of the Churches to beautifie and strengthen the Church, by as much concord as they can well obtain.
4. But that perfect concord being the fruit of personal perfection, will never be had on earth: And the differences of the infirm that cannot be cured, must be tolerated in tender Brotherly Love. And to persecute or destroy Christians, who unite in Christ and the Essentials of Christianity, because they are not of one size of knowledg, and differ in lesser things, is the work of Satan the Enemy of Love, and the great Destroyer.
5. We believe that Synods or Councils are so far good and useful, as they are needful to the foresaid strength and concord of the Churches: But that they are for Agreement, and not for direct Regiment, as Archbishop Usher was wont to say, Councils are not for Government of the several Bishops by the Majority, but for Consultation and Concord: And they that cannot in all things consent to them in Accidentals, or lesser matters, are not therefore cut off from Christ's Vniversal Church: But it is a fault peevishly and causelesly to dissent and be singular, a breach of Christ's general Law, of doing our work as much as we can in Love and Concord.
Plainly, Reader, do you know the difference between the Senate of Rome or Venice, and the Assembly at Nimmegen, Ratisbone, or Frankford? The said Senate is una persona Politica, though plures naturales, and hath the Supreme Government by Vote in Legislation and Iudgment; and it is Rebellion there to disown their Power, and a Crime not to obey it.
At Nimmegen, Ratisbone, &c. many Princes or their Agents meet for Peace and Christian Concord. It is a sin for any of them to be causelesly against any Vote that is useful to those ends. But no one of them, nor the major Vote, is Governour of the rest; nor is any one to be dispossest of his Dominion, that seeth reason to dissent.
This is plain truth; Though Dr. Sherlock find fault with the Learned and Iudicious Dr. Barrow, for asserting it in his Treatise against the Papacy.
And it being not Regiment but Concord that is the end of Synods (as over Bishops) there is no more use than possibility of an Vniversal Council, or one Vniversal Colledge; But the necessity and aptitude of Councils for strengthning concord, must measure their extent.
What Mr. D's opinion is of the degree of corporal punishment, which he would have used to his ends, I know not: Mr. Thorndike is against Death and Banishment. For my part, the two greatest things that have alienated me from Popery are; 1. That it cherisheth Ignorance, and I am sure that is the soil of all wickedness; God, Christ, the Spirit and Scripture, are Light; and Satan is the Prince of Darkness. 2. That it liveth like the Leech on blood, hating and destroying the most holy persons who differ from them: To these my Soul is unreconcilable. I hate cruelty to Papists or Infidels, much more to godly faithful persons, that do hurt to none.
And I think I have convinced Mr. Dodwell himself that I am not inclined for the avoiding of Popery, to run into any contrary Extreme; nor to imitate them tha… ignorantly call Truth, or harmless things, Antichristian or Popish. The name of Popery doth not affright me from any truth of God: What I have written in many Books, especially in the last part of my Catholick Theology, and what censures I have suffered for it, (which never moved me to comply with the Censurers) I think prove it. I again and again profess, That if the Papists, or such as I now deal with, would but prove, that God ever made or allowed such a Church as they plead for in the world, that is an Vniversal Church, constituted or unified by any one Head or Supreme Governing p…r… (Monarchical or Aristocratical) under Christ, the Dispute whether it be Pope, or Council, or Cardinals, or Colledge of Bishops in all the world, shall not hinder me from a chearful and joyful declaring my self a Papist without partiality, fear or shame, in the sense that the word Papist hath still signified with such as I converse with.
These things I have taken the boldness to ask some of the greatest, that on the fore mentioned terms appropriate the name of the Church of England to their Sect or Party, and I could get no answer from them, viz. Whether they took the Councils of Constance and Basil for Papists? And whether they now take the Bishops and Church of France for Papists? And whether they took Gerson, Cusanus, Cassander, Erasmus, for Papists, or not?
2. If yea, What is the difference between the said Papists Church-Form and Government, and that which these call the Church Catholick, and Dispute for?
3. If not, Then is not the Controversie de nomine, Whether the French Bishops and Church, and the said Councils being of the same Form and Religion with the Church of England, (as called by these men) ought to be called Papists, or not? And for that I shall strive with none: Let every man call them as he seeth cause; or if he will, as they will call themselves. Let them be Papists in France, and Protestants in England; I contend not for names. But I wonder not at these Church-men, if they unchurch the French Protestants, and condemn their Ministry and Sacraments as none; How else could their Persecution be justified?
And, O that they would tell us, what Churches they be that they live in communion with? Whether the French, Spanish, Italian, Greeks, Nestorians, Jacobites, Copties, Abassines, be in their Communion, or not? If yea, Whether the Reformed Churches be not as worthy of their communion? If not, whether the Church of England be all the Catholick Church in their account?
O that we could long more for God's righteous final Iudgment, (to which we appeal, though Mr. Dodwell be against it) and for the world of perfect Light, and Love, and Union!
Dated Septemb. 2. 1681. (appointed a Publick Fast for the burning of London.)
I have not time to gather the Errata of the Press; I cast my eye on these, Pag. 9. l. 19. for natures, r. names. p. 10. l. antep. dele and. p. 11. l. antep. r. is in. p. 17. l. 1. for or, r. over. p. 5. l. 29. after excommunicating, r. Christ's servants for not forsaking their faithful Pastors. p. 10. l. ult. for of, r. by. p. 16. l. 32. for our r. one. p. 90. l. 12 r. temerity. p. 139. l. 17. for by, r. to. pag. 151. l. 4. for by, r. my, &c.