Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Section 1 · Letter 6
Mr. Johnson's Fourth Letter to Mr. Baxter.
SIR,
ALthough I had purposed wholly to have superceded from my former Undertakings, as conceiving them a fruitless Speculation in regard the Ministry may be justified without them; yet, forasmuch as I did defie all Men alive to make full Proof that the Succession ever hath, or ever shall be interrupted; and upon the Occasion of this Defiance, you do rather invite me, than challenge me to renew my Purpose: I cannot tell how I can avoid so much as my own Defiance hath engaged me to. And therefore, though very unwillingly, I shall endeavour, so far as my Defiance hath engaged me, to satisfie your Desire. And because I herein stand upon the Defensive, and by consequence must find some Man that pretends to make full Proof of the Question, before I can discharge that which now I undertake; I cannot tell, where to meet with such an one, unless it be your self in your late Book: And therefore I shall apply my self to examine your Argument, whereby you endeavour to prove that the Succession hath been already interrupted: But before I come to that I shall return you something to what you say in the last Papers. And First, whereas you tell me to my Demand, that you have instanced in many English Writers, who do all plead against the Papists the No-necessity of an uninterrupted Succession, I answer, that amongst those Authors which you quote, I have none by me but Bishop Iewel, and so far as I can discern from the locis allegatis aut alibi, he speaks nothing at all to the Question; what the other do, I shall examine hereafter as I meet with them.
Ad 2um. Whereas you tell me that my not seeing a formal Answer to my Second Argument proceeded from an oversight of the Word [shall] and a Not-observation of the Emphasis in it. To this I answer, that it is indeed true, that I did not take heed enough to the Word, for if I had, I should not so indifferently have sometimes used it, and sometimes put an other Word in its room (which may make it plain that the Word was changed through inanimadvertencey rather than by design); But it was not the Not-observation of the Word, but the Not-understanding of the what the Word contained in it that made the Error: For if I had understood that it contained two Propositions: 1. That Men thus and thus qualified shall preach the Word, or it is the Duty of Men thus and thus qualified to preach the Word. And then 2. That [Men thus and thus qualified, ordinis gratia, shall be set apart to it, or shall be appointed to Preach] I never had made this Animadversion, but should have acknowledged a formal Answer: But I understood it only thus, that Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed, that is, it is their Duty, being so and so qualified to seek for Ordination, or it is their Duty being so and so qualified to be appointed to the Work: which I thought might be true, and yet they no Ministers till they were de facto set apart. But now very well understanding, that it may well bear both Propositions, and the first coming up close to the Question in hand, I shall willingly retract all that I said upon that Point, and acknowledge a formal Answer, which I think may satisfie.
But whereas you say, that by disclaiming my last Argument I denied Imposition of Hands to be so necessary, and by urging something hereabouts did seem to forget what I said anon. I answer, I did never intend to deny Imposition of Hands to be of necessity to legitimate Ordination. I said indeed, an Argument drawn from thence against the Question in Hand was frivolous. But I did not intend to disparage the thing it self any farther than Relatively to the Question then in debate. And whereas you say, that Fasting was not used; I answer, that there never was any Ordination but Fasting was previous to it by the Appointment of the Church in Ember-Weeks, which were constantly kept by the Sons of the Church, though neglected by others, and this I think might serve, though it was not the same Day, and I believe you will say so too. But in these things neither will I be boisterous till I am better informed what may be the substantial or essential Parts of Christ's Ordinances, and what not; which I confess I have not yet such an Idea of; So as to say in every Ordinance what is essential, and what not.
Ad. 3um. Whereas you wonder that upon such slight Grounds I should so tenaciously stand to part of my third Argument. I answer, that I did not intend to inforce that the Case of extream inculpable necessity was the Sectaries Case: But such a Necessity as did inevitably intangle them in their Invasion of the Ministry, which though it doth no ways make them lawful Ministers, yet it makes them inconfutably lawful Ministers, till the Opinions which first made them separate be proved to them to be erroneous; my meaning is this: I think if this Hypothesis be true [that in case of extream Necessity Men may, and some must enter irregularly into the Ministry] it is not possible to convince an Anabaptist that his Invasion of the Ministerial Work is unlawful, till we can first convince him that Anabptism is erroneous. Now hereupon I thought their Hands was much strengthened over what it would have been had that Hypothesis been false. For then we could incontroulably have cleared their Invasion of the Work, though they had in the mean time remained unconvinced of their erroneous Opinion.
But now if we cannot convince them of their Error, but their way still appear Truth to them, then they need do no more to justifie their Practice to themselves, but borrow our Principle; and that sets them right, and so their Invasion is inconfutable from what they borrow from our selves. And so though they do not justifie themselves to us, because we think their Necessity culpable, and through their own default, yet they so far justifie by this very Principle their Practice to themselves, that it renders them unconfutably lawful, till we can prove and make it out plain to them, that their very Opinions are erroneous: So that you mistook while you thought that I intended to prove their Practice lawful, whereas all that I intended was to shew that upon such a Principle their Invasion became less confutable; and their Hands something strengthned over they could have been upon the contrary Hypothesis; by which you may perhaps see what Link of your Chain I intended to break. But enough of this, I shall now come to the Business I first spake of.
First therefore you lay down the Episcopal Principles, pag. 65. viz. That no Church is a true Church without Ministers; and no Man a Minister that is not Ordained by a Bishop, and no Man a Bishop that is not ordained by a Bishop lawfully called, and not deprived again of his Power: And this Bishop must be Ordained by a former Bishop, and he by a former, and so the Succession must be followed up to the Apostles.
Having done thus, you catechize these Seekers, as you call these Doctors: And then proceed to prove that these Reverend, Learned, Pious Bishops, which you acknowledge to be now in this Nation, are no lawful Bishops upon the Principles laid down; because they were ordained by such as had no Authority to ordain. This you prove because they were Ordained at length by the Popish Bishops in Hen. VIII. Time, who had no Authority to Ordain; this you prove, because they derived their Authority from the Pope, who had no Authority to give them any. That the Pope had no Authority you prove by an Interruption of Succession of lawful Bishops in that Chair. That there hath been an Interruption in that Chair you prove by the Instances of Liberius, Honorias, Dame Ione, and many others, as you say, out of Bishop Iewel. The Strength of these Instances depend upon that Hypothesis, that Heresy or notorious Impiety doth evacuate holy Orders.
Now if it can be infallably proved that Heresy or Impiety doth not evacuate Holy Orders; or rather, if you cannot infallably prove as it is my part at this time to deny (I being upon the defensive) that Impiety or Heresy doth evacuate Holy Orders, then it will not follow that there was an Interruption, though Liberius was an Heretick. And if no Interruption, then Pope Clement the Incumbent at Rome in Henry VIII. Days, was, notwithstanding what is urged, in full Power to Ordain: And then if he had Authority, then the Popish Bishops which derived from him had full Authority; and if they had, then our Bishops who at length derive from them have also full Athority: and so the whole Structure will fall at once in that Hypothesis, which is the Foundation of all, shall chance to shake. And therefore, Sir, in the first place, I pray you take notice, that I deny that Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders; and expect the Proof of it.
…But then suppose I should grant this (which I never intend) I may, I conceive, falsly debate, that though there should be an Interruption in the Succession of the Chair at Rome, yet the Pope that now is, or the Pope that sat at Rome in Hen. VIII. Days were fully authorized to ordain, if they were but ordained by such, who neither were Heretical or Impious: For the Authority or Power of Ordination, I conceive, doth not come to any Bishop by Vertue drawn from his Predecessor in sede, but by Vertue derived from him who laid Hands upon him at his Consecration. For Example, that you may understand my meaning; suppose Dr. Winneffe, the late Bishop of Lincoln, was consecrated by the Imposition of the Bishop of Worcestor's Hand: I conceive it is unreasonable to affirm, that this Doctor received his Episcopal Orders rather from Dr. Williams, his Predecessor in the Chair at Lincoln, than from the Bishop of Worcester, who is supposed to lay Hands upon him at his Consecration. Or if the Question be whether he was a lawful Bishop that gave him Orders; I conceive that it is equally unreasonable that we should go and inquire rather after Dr. Williams his Authority who was his Predecessor in sede, than after the Bishop of Worcester, who was, or is supposed in the …a…e to be his Consecrator. Or if Iohn Williams, who was his Predecessor, should have de facto, proved an Arrian or a Conjurer while he sat in the Diocesan Chair a… Lincoln, I think it is every whit as unreasonable to affirm, that therefore Dr. Winneffe, who succeeded him in that Seat, should lose his Episcopal Authority, when as his Consecrator can have no such thing fastened upon him. In like manner, though Liberius was an Arrian while he sat in the Pontifical Chair at Rome; yet if that Bishop, whoever he was, (and look you to that) who consecrated Pope Clement were Orthodox, and so forward till we come to the Apostles, his Authority was good enough, though one, or more of his Predecessors in sede were Heretical. If you shall say that the Case is not alike betwixt the Succession of Popes and other Bishops: I ask, where's the difference? If you say that the difference is in this, that the Pope claims not his Authority from his Consecrator, but from his Predecessor. I answer, That it is very probable that he doth do so: But let him and the Popish Doctors therefore see how they can quit their Hands of this Interruption: For our parts we conceive we need not be engaged in this Controversy: It is enough for us to reply to this asserted Difference. That the Question is not what they lay claim to, but what they ought de jure, to lay claim to. If you say, That de jure, they do challenge their Authority from their Predecessors, I expect that you must prove it, before I will promise you that I will believe it. But if you say, that the Difference is only this, That they do de facio claim their Authority after another manner than other Bishops; then I rejoyn, that it doth not follow, that they have their Authority after another manner than other Bishops; because they say they have. If therefore the facultas Ordinandi doth not come from the Bishop's Predecessor in sede, but from the Bishop who is the Consecrator. Then, Sir, you must prove that some of those Bishops who Consecrated Pope Clement e're the Succession reach the Apostles were Hereticks: It little avails to prove that some of his Predecessors in Cathedre was such, at least to me, who are unwilling to be thought a Protestant.
But then Thirdly, Suppose we should grant this (which we likewise never intend) how will you make it appear that our Bishops in Hen. VIII. Time had their Authority from the then incumbing Pope. If you say, they went over to him for Imposition of Hands, that's improbable; if you say he came over to them, that's intollerable; if you say, that he did delegate his Authority to some of our English Bishops, or sent a Deputy, or Nuncio authorized to those Ends: I answer, that it may be true that he did so. But then the Question will again be, whether our English Bishops had not full Authority to have done all this without his Knowledge; or whether rather an Expectation of a Commission from him were not a Fruit of the Error of those times holding him to be the universal Bishop: If it was, though it be Argumentum ad hominem, and will again, I think, press fore upon the Papists who assert the same) yet it doth nothing trouble us who assert no such Universality. I ask therefore, must we acknowledge the Pope to be universal Bishop; or must we not? if we must, why do we not? If we must not, why should any Man urge that Practice in his own Defence, which he himself judgeth to be erroneous: I speak plainlier, if the Bishops in Hen. VIII. Time had their Authority from the Pope, then this must be pretended, I think, upon others Grounds; either because the Bishops had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission, or because they thought they had none, or because they could not exercise that Power which they both had, and knew they had, without his leave. If you say they had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission: I say, that you are more than a Cassandrian Papist. If you say they had no Power because they judged they had none. I deny the Consequence, and expect you should prove it. Or 3. If you say they had their Authority from him because they could not exercise it without his leave. I shall only propound this Case in answer to you: Suppose General Cromwell should put in so between you and the Exercise of your Ministry that without his leave you should not preach or administer the Sacraments, would you say, if you had leave from him, that you derived your Authority from him, because the external Exercise of your Authority depends upon his Leave? I think you would not.
Well, Sir, I shall now only rehearse what I expect you should prove. And the first thing that is expected is this: That Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders. 2. That the Power of Ordination is derived from the Predecessor in sede. 3. That some of Pope Clement's Consecrators e're his Line reach the Apostles were heretical or impious. 4. You must prove that the Bishops in Hen. VIII. Time did not only judge that they had dependance upon the Pope for Authority, but that indeed they had no Authority but what they derived from him. If you can indeed make good all this, then I shall confess that the Interruption of Succession is made good also. But till then, I shall foreign. Yet in the mean time shall be a very great Admirer of your Worth, and Lover of your Industry,
M. Iohnson. Wamborn, Dec. 8. 1653.
For my Reverend and very Worthy Friend; Mr. Baxter, Minister of the Word at Kidderminster, These.