Account of the Causes of Being Forbidden to Preach, Critiques
A Letter unto a Person of Honour and Quality, Containing some Animadversions upon the Bishop of Worcester's Letter.
Honourable and Worthy Sir,
I Am to thank You for the last piece of Divertisement you gave me, in sending the Bishop of Worcester's Letter, and I wish you would have let me enjoyed the satisfaction I took in reading it, without obliging me to give You my sense upon it: For besides my unwillingness to meddle in a Personal quarrel, it will not, I think, be very safe for any to engage against so angry an Adversary, which I shall be thought to do, though I resolve to speak nothing but Truth in the Character I intend to give of him; And it is briefly this, That, in fewer leaves I never yet read more Passion, which is so very predominant, that his disorderly and abrupt stile doth altogether partake of it; so that the Bishops best way will be, to get his Heat mistaken so Zeal, for else it may justly be accounted something that hath a worse Name, and which, in the Dog-dayes will be very dangerous.
This being, Sir, my Judgement upon the whole Letter, You may well expect that I should make it good, by an Induction from particular instances; but before I do this, I must deal impartially, and assure you, that as to the main Controversie, I think the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter: For if the Question between them, was as D. Gunning, and Dr. Pearson do attest, such a Command is so evidently lawful, that I shall much wonder if Mr. Baxter did ever dispute it; and till he doth clearly disprove that that was not the thing in Question, I must needs think that he hath much forgot himself in making an Imperfect and Partial Relation.
Setting therefore aside the business of that particular Contest (wherein You see how much I am inclined to favour the Bishop) there are other things in his Letter of general Concernment, which I think lyable to just Exception; As,
First, That he supposeth there is so strict an Union, and so inseperable a Dependence between Kings and Bishops, that they must stand and fall together; and all who are Enemies to the one, must needs be Enemies to the other. I know very well this Axiom is much talked of, and some advantage may be taken to confirm it, from the event of our late Wars: You know likewise, Sir, how much my Judgement is for the Order of Bishops; and how Passionate a Lover I am both of the Kings Person and Government, but yet, being thus called by You to declare the truth, though contrary to my own Humour and Interest, I must needs say, 1. It is clear from Story, that Kings were in all parts of the World, in their most flourishing Estate, before ever Bishops were heard of; and no reason can be given, why what hath once been, may not with the same terms of convenience be again? 2. Bishops as they are by Law established in England, are purely the Kings subordinate Ministers, in the management of Ecclesiastical Affairs; which His Majesty may confer upon what order of men he pleases, though they be as much Lay persons as You and I are. It is therefore very injurious to the Kings Authority, to averre that He could not otherwise uphold and maintain it, than by preserving the Undue, and, as some think, Antichristian Dignity and Prelation of His inferiour Officers. 3. Bishops are so little useful to support the Regal Dignity (which is founded upon a distinct Basis of its own) that upon enquiry it will be found, how none have been greater Enemies to the True and Undoubted Soveraignty of Princes, than some Bishops themselves: For by their Officious, and scarce warrantable, intermedling in Civil Affairs; by their Absurd and Insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes (of which last they have alwayes made themselves sole Judges) they mangle the Kings Authority, and as to Church-matters (which may be extended as far as they please) they leave the King nothing of Supremacy but the Name. The Pope of Rome therefore (who is the great Father of all such Bishops) hath improved this Notion and Distinction so far that in ordine ad spiritualia, he hath laboured to subject all Civil Empires unto his sole Jurisdiction. So that if the Bishop of Worcester's Rule hold good, of Crimine ab uno—Disce omnes, i. e. That all men who are of a Party may be Pag. ….judged of by the miscarriages of one, then I must leave it to You to judge, what all those Bishops, that are of the Bishop of Worcester's complexion, do really drive at, by the fatal example of that one Bishops Usurpation? For,
Secondly, That Assertion, That the Bishop of Worcester (and consequently every other Bishop) is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocesse, if it be at all defensible, I am sure can bePag. 2▪ & 3. defended only by those Arguments, which are commonly alledged to maintain the Popes Supremacy over all Churches whatever. For since a Bishop can no otherwise discharge his duty herein, than by providing Substitutes, what hinders but the Bishop of Rome may as well oversee a million of Churches, as the Bishop of Worcester five hundred? Since if Deputation be lawful, more or less compass and circuit of ground doth not at all alter the case. I forbear to urge how contrary this Practise is to the Doctrine of the Apostles, both Paul and Peter (I hope the Bishop will not take it ill that I do not call them Saints, for these Holy men do not need any stile of Honour out of the Popes Kalender.) When Paul had sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, he bidsAct. 20. 28. them to feed the Church of God, over which (not he himself, by his sole Authority, as Bishop of the Diocesse, but) the Spirit of God had made them foreign i. e. Overseers, or to use the proper stile, Bishops. And Peter commands his Fellow-Elders, (for so doth that Apostle condescend to call himself) to feed: the Flock which was among them, foreign Overseeing, or Acting the Bishops, not (like the Bishop of Worcester) as Lording it over Gods Heritage, but as Patterns of the Flock. From which places we learn, not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Presbyter, are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons, but likewise, that whoever feed the Flock, are, under Christ (whom the Apostle there stiles the Chief-Shepherd) the next and immediate Pastors of the Flock; And to extend the Pastoral Power beyond the actual care of Feeding, is a Notion altogether unscriptural, and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix, till we come to center upon some one Universal Pastor, who may claim this Power over the whole World, by the same parity of reason, that a Bishop doth over one Diocesse.
Thirdly, It seems to be a Light, and (to say no more) unseemly trifling with sacred Scripture, to affirm, that those words of our Saviour concerning such as come not in by the Door, and therefore are Pag. 3.Thieves and Robbers, ought to be understood of such Ministers, as preach to Congregations without the Bishops License, Which thing, the Bishop (in great Heat and Earnestnesse, as if he had done very well in it) tells us more than once, that it was theP. 3, 6, 8, & 9. Principal reason why he silenced Mr. Baxter. Truly if this practise be justifiable▪ and those who design themselves to preach the Gospel, must, besides their Ordination, procure a License from a Bishop, to do that, which a Woe is denounced against, if they offer to omit. Then 1. I see not what Ordination signifies, since the Power that then is given, no Authority from Man can take away, any more than dissolve the Contract of a Marriage, much less impeach and hinder the free use of it, except for Moral and notoriously vicious Misdemeanours. 2. For one Minister of the Gospel (for certainly a Bishop is no more) to Silence another, and that for no better Reason, than because his Fellow-Minister is desirous to preach the Gospel without a new License, this is an abuse of Dominion, which as our Saviour doth no where countenance, so the first Ages of the Church, were altogether duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page unacquainted with. For the Bishops instance of our Saviours putting to silence the Scribes and Pharisees, is both Impertinent and False, because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument, which the Bishop may do when ever he is able; but what is that to an Authoritative and Imperious commanding men to be Silent. Besides, even then when our Saviour was most strict in pronouncing Woes against the Pharisees, in that very Chapter, he is so far from forbidding the Pharisees to preach, that he commands his Disciples both to Hear and to Obey their Doctrine. So that since the Bishop will needs have the Presbyterians to be Pharisees, let him but allow them the same Liberty of Teaching the People, as our Saviour did the other, and I believe they will not (at least were I a Presbyterian I should not) envy his Lordship, either his Title or Maintenance, how undue and unmeri…ed soever they …oth be. And though the Bishop is pleased to say that the Presbyterians preach nothing but Sedition and Treason (which is most false, as being directly contrary to their declared Principles) yet the Pharisees taught something worse, and that was Blasphemy: Yet our Saviour (who sure had more power, and withall, more care of his Church than the Bishop of Worcester) did not go about by Force to prohibit them. I wish therefore, th… this bishop and the rest of his Brethren (if any are Cholerick and Testy enough to be of his mind) would consider, that as by silencing their Fellow-Ministers, for such frivolous and slight pretences, they usurp a Power, which Christ never gave, so at the last day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it.
Fourthly, How consistent with the Civil Peace (for as to Christian Charity, the whole thing is but a Letter of defiance against it) the Bishops Distinction is about the Act of Indempnity▪ and (the soPag. 8. much forgotten Act of Oblivion, I hope His Majesty and the Parliament will in due time consider. For he is so hardy as to tell us, That the King by it only pardoned the corporal Punishment; but the Church had not, nor ought not to forgive the Scandal, till honourable amends were made her by Confession and Recantation. Where by speaking of the Church, as distinct from the State (I mean in point of Coercive Jurisdiction) the Bishop would make us believe, that after His Majesty and the Parliament have forgiven men their Civil Crimes, there is still another Power, which he calls the Church, unto which they are still accountable, even so far as to make a Publick Recantation. Here I wish the Bishop would have spoken out of the Clouds, and plainly told us, what he meant by the Church: For i… it b… a Congregation of the Faithful met together for the Worship of God, as t… Defin…ion of Scripture, and of the Church of England is in the 39. Arti…les; this will not at all advantage him, since such a Church hath no Coercive or Imposing Power: But if he means the Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical State, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. There can be nothing more False, or more dishonourable unto our Civil Government, than to affirm that it lies in their power, not only to Punish, but likewise to exact a Recantation, for those Faults which the King and Parliament have not only pardoned, but under severe Penalties commanded should never more be remembred: And therefore I doubt not, but they will resent this Malicious and Ill-grounded Fancy. And since the Bishop is so over-zealous for the very Letter of the Law, when it imposes Ceremonies, give me leave a little to wonder, that one of his Profession and Place in the Church should so unchristianly go against it, when it enjoyns Moderation and Forgiveness as to Civil Injuries. Such as he, who make the Law, instead of being a Buckler to protect Converts, a Sword only to cut off all such as were once Offenders, labour what they can to make men Desperate, and thereby render the Peace of the Nation, and, in that, the prosperity and Welfare of His Majesty very Insecure and Hazardous. For what can more enrage Men to take Wild and Forbidden Courses, than to see even Preachers of the Gospel strive to widen their Wounds, and, contrary to their own former Professions, to pull off that Plaister, which the Wisdom of our State Physicians had provided to heal our Distempers.
Fifthly, It is Bold and Impious (I know not how to express it more mildly) what he affirms, that If to command an Act, which by accident may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful, then God himself cannot command any thing. For, though as I said before, I will by no means own that Assertion, yet, a thing, which by accident may become sinful, may be Unlawful in another to command, for want of sufficient Authority, whereas Gods Soveraign power doth without dispute or controversy make all his Commands to be just; and therefore his Name ought not to be mentioned in our trivial disputes▪ because every such vain Use of it, is nothing but a diminution and lessening of his Greatness.
Sixthly, That an Offence; to which a disproportionable Penalty is annexed, is not to be measured by the Quality of the Act considered in it self, but by the mischievous consequences it may produce▪ wh…ther this ought to hold good in Civil Laws, becomes neither the Bishop nor me to dispute: but in Divinity nothing can be more False and Dangerous. For to impose, in the Worship of God as necessary circumstances of it, things confessedly trivial and needless; and, upon the forbearance of them, to debar any from the benefits first of Christian, and then of Civil Communion, is a thing which hath not the least pretence of Scripture or Primitive practice to justifie it. For our Saviour tells us, That whoever were not against him, were for him; and the Apostle bids us to receive our weak Brother, and not to judge, much less to burden his Conscience. Unto which Sacred Canon; nothing can be more directly contrary, than what the Bishop most Incompassionately tells us, That the Laws do well to punish, even with non-admission to the Sacrament, such as will not, or perhaps dare not, kneel. And the Reason he gives is equally Apocrypha, Because, saith he, it becomes not the Law-givers to endanger the Churches peace for their sake: As if first, It did not much more become all Law-givers, in the things of God, to observe the Law of Christ, which is a Law of Love and Liberty. Secondly, As if the Churches peace would not be much more endangered, by the pressing of things doubtful, than by the forbearance of them. For since by the enforcing of such things, as God hath no where commanded, our Christian liberty is entringed; from hence it follows, that, if we ought not, yet we lawfully may refuse to submit unto such Impositions; as our Saviour did in not washing his hands before Meat; and the Apostle Paul, in the case of Circumcision.
Seventhly, As for the chain of Consequences, which the Bishop links and ties together. As that from Diversity in external Rites, ariseth Dislike; from Dislike, Enmity; from Enmity, Opposition; Pag. 20.thence Schism in the Church, and Sedition in the State; For proof of which, he doth very virulently instance in our Unhappy times. To prevent which, he tells us, That the State cannot be safe without the Church, nor the Church without the Unity, nor Unity without Uniformity, nor Uniformity without a strict and rigorous Imposition. To all this I answer, that it is a meer▪ Rope of Sand, and the Parts of his Chain do as little harg together, as Sampsons Foxes did before they were tied by the Tails, which course the Bishop hath imitated, not forgetting to put in even the Firebrand it self to make up the comparison. For 1. Nothing is more clear than that there hath been, nay ought to be, Diversity in external Forms, without any Dislike at all as to the Person of another: For the Apostles that preached to the Circumcision gave the right hand of Fellowship unto the Apostles of the Gentiles; although their Outward Rites in publick Worship, were far more different, than those, which, by any of the most distant perswasions, are now practised in England. 2. The State may be preserved, without the least reference to the Church, unless it turns Persecuter of it; as is evident in those 300 years before Constantines time, in which there was no Church at all legally countenanced; and for some scores of years after, both the Christians and Gentiles were equally advanced and favoured. 3. Unity, I mean such as Christ came to establish (which is an Unity in heart and spirit) doth not in the least depend upon Uniformity but upon Charity, i. e. a Christian and a Candid forbearance of one another in things Circumstantial, when we agree in the Essentials of Worship; which is a thing, that meer Civility would teach, though Religion were silent in it. And whereas the Bishop thinks he hath got some advantage, by reviving the memory of our late Civil Wars, which, were he either Christian or Man enough, he would wish were eternally buried in silence) I must (to use his own Phrase) tell him in his ear, that our Wars did not arise from the separation of Conscientious Dissentors, but from the violence and Fury of Unconscionable Imposers: Who would not allow their Brethren (who desired nothing more than to live peaceably by them) that sober Liberty, which the Law of God commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of. And whether the publick maintaining of the very same Positions and Practises, may not in time beget the same Feuds and Animosities, although this Bishop cares not, yet I doubt not, but His Majesty, as he now doth, so will alwayes graciously consider.
Eighthly, Whether as to the matter of Fact, the French Protestants do enjoyn standing at the Sacrament; and the Dutch kneeling; I will labour to inform my self of some more Un…yassed witness than this Bishop; for in the Ecclesiastical Laws of those Churches, which I have carefully perused, I can find no such matter. But if they did so, this would not at all justifie the Imposition of Kneeling; because 1. The Question is de Jure, whether it be lawful to prescribe any one such certain Posture, without submiting to which, it shall not be lawful to admit any to the Sacrament; and till the Affirmative of this be proved by Scriptures, Examples, and Instances from the Practice of men, will not satisfie a doubting conscience▪ 2. Neither of those fore-mentioned Postures are so much to exception as Kneeling; because this last is manifestly more superstitious, for 1. It varies most of any from the First Pattern. 2. It hath been monstrously abused by the Papists to Idolatry; which alone renders it most Unsafe to be practised, & most Unwarrantable to be imposed: Especially, till it be again explained, as in the very first Liturgy of all it was; which I particularly mention, to shew how little our Reformation since Edw. 6th. time, hath been improved.
Lastly, As it was Needlesly, so was it likewise Uncharitably done, to revile the whole Body of Presbyterians for the Faults of Mr. Baxter; upon supposition that either he is a Presbyterian, or so culpable as the Bishop would make him. For since every man is to bear his own Burden, what Bible did the Bishop find it in, that he might without scruple, asperse a whole order of Men, for the pretended miscarrige of one; who, by the Bishop's own Confession, was not of so Amicable and com…i…t a Temper as the rest: And therefore certainly they ought not to be brought in as Parties i… that …r…e of Unpeaceableness, from which the Bishop just before had absolved them: but chol… spoils the Memory; and s…e his duplicate page duplicate page Brethren the Bishops would not take it well of a Presbyterian, should he cry out Crimine ab uno, disce omnes—See what manner of Spirit these Bishops are of, and judge them all by the Bishop of Worcester's example. Truly, Sir, I am a little angry, when I confider how much this one mans Indiscretion hath exposed all of the same Order to Censure; For were they all like him, (which I do not, nor dare not think) I should not scruple to pray heartily, what the Bishop doth in scorn concerning the Preachers—Lord deliver us from such Bishops. And let all the People say Amen.
Thus, Sir, you see how willing I am to serve you, in proposing my Exceptions, the fuller prosecution of which, I must leave to some other Pen, more able both in Divinity and Policy, who may convince both the Bishop and the World, that it is not yet time to sow such Tares; This Age is a little too knowing to be gull'd with an foreign, or to take every thing for Oracle which a Bishops Passion dictates. But before I ease you of your Trouble in reading this, I will crave leave to give you a Taste of the Reverend Father's deep wisdom in two or three particulars.—
1. In that he declaims, so fiercely, as if he would crack his Girdle, against all those who force all Communicants to come unto them, and be particularly examined before they admit them to the Sacrament. Indeed, Sir, this was an Imposition, as no way Justifiable, so, for ought I can here, no where practised. The Custom being that men were only once for all examined, at their first coming to the Sacrament; which the Bishop himself allows under other Names of being Catechised and Instructed. It was therefore wisely done of the Bishop, this cold weather, to set up a Man of straw, and then get himself heat by threshing it.
2. It is methinks very Politickly done to Exclaim against the poor Covenant; and, in great zeal, to wish all the Books, which defend it, were burnt by the Authors, to save the Hangman a labour. For here let his Adversary do what he can, the Bishop will be too hard for him: For if he takes no notice of the Covenant, the Bishop clearly gains the Cause, if he ventures to assert it, he shall presently be confuted with a Confiscation. So that under the shelter of this Unanswerable Dilemma, I leave him, lest I should be gored with the Horns of it. And this I speak, Sir, as one that, though I never took, but always opposed the Covenant; yet I have a very good opinion of many that did, and withal a great Tenderness for the lawful Part of an Oath, after it is once solemnly taken. I will only adde this, That since that Oath hath been so generally taken, even by those that were most Active in His Majesties Service; and several times ventured their Lives, to signalize their Loyalty; I think the Ashes of it (since it was burnt by Publick Authority) had much better have been suffered to rest quietly, than thus to be blown up and scattered abrbad by the Bishop's furious breath, when no occasion was given him so much as to mention it.
Lastly, I can never enough commend the Bishops wisdom, in resolving so angrily never to write again▪ for he is Old, and hath Travelled far, and knows that it is much easier to speak rash and unjustifiable things, than to defend them. And therefore he deals with those, that he hath provoked, as witty School-boyes do with their Companions, first he hits them a box on the Ear, and then very discreetly retreats, and fairly runs away. But if Goliah, who took upon him to defie the Host of Israel, should as soon as ever he had dope, have sneaked out of the Field, and thought he had done manfully enough in making a bold Challenge, and in shewing his Teeth at them; I believe the Philistines would hardly have thanked him for that Empty shew of Valour, whereby he could not Conquer, but only Enrage the Enemy. And whether the Bishops will not have the same opinion of this over-forward and unwary Champion of theirs, I hope, Sir, you will neither enquire your self, nor desire that I should: For I have already done enough to shew how much I am,
Jan▪ 21. SIR, Your most humble Servant D. E.
A Second Letter unto a Person of Honour and Quality, containing some Animadversions upon the Bishop of Worcester's Letter. Together with a brief Answer unto all that one L'S— intends to write.
Honourable and worthy Sir,
YOU much surprized me in your last, wherein you acquainted me, that the Letter I sent you (which was the hasty issue of one or two leasure hours, and therefore very unfit for Publick View) was by your self, to prevent the trouble of transcribing, communicated to the World; and the Result, you tell me, is, that many sober Persons (who thought it very fit that the Bishop should be a little humbled) are much satisfied by it, but the Bishop himself so far concerned, that he hath employed one L'S—to answer it. Truly, Sir, I am so taken with this last part of your News, that, instead of prosecuting my resentments against the Reverend Bishop (which nothing but Publick Considerations made me take up (I now begin to pity him; and am heartily sorry he should be driven to so desperate a shift, as that, for want of better Champions, he is forced to commit his Cause to the Patronage of such a Pen, whose Defence will more dishonour him than the sharpest Accusation. For who that knows any thing of Civility and Learning, doth not know, that the Character you give of that L'S—is not more sharp than serious, when you call him a Person so lost to all good Breeding, of so forfeited, so undone a Reputation in point of meet Morality, that for a Bishop, so much as to countenance him▪ is a crime which some Councels have pronounced …n Anathema against; but to employ him, and to think, that either he is fit to manage such Nice Points as that Letter glanceth upon; or that such indigested stuffe as he must needs disgorge, will not create a Nausea and Loathing in all Sober Readers, is altogether as improper, as if the Bishop should set (to use a Phrase which that Gentleman understands) a Hog to play upon his Organs, or appoint a Scavenger to wash his Surplice; the very attempting of which would betray, that he loved neither Musick nor Cleanlinesse.
I must confess Sir, I am very tender of the Bishops Reputation, and there is yet a possibility for him to recover his Credit again; For though he be a little Angry, yet the World must needs acknowledge, that he is a plain dealing man; since his Dudgeon phrase ofPag. 5. this is the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, with such kind of Home-spun. Harmless Elegancies that are scattered in his Letter, Savour very much of the old English Breeding, and call to mind the Trunk-Breeches, and Wooden Daggers of our Ancestors; who I believe, spake all in the same uncounterfeit stile, which it well becomes a Bishop who loves Antiquity, to imitate: But for him now to grow weary of this Primitive simplicity, to suspect his own strength, and to entrust Mounsieur Le Friske the Morice-dancer to undertake his Quarrel; To chuse one for his Champion, who hath been a Fidler in all Governments▪ and would have been a Fidler to the worst of them (for which end he knows how many pitiful Begs and Faces he made, to scrape acquaintance with the Tyrant Oliver) for him now to be suddenly advanced so much beyond his Art, will run the poor man into a dangerous Vertigo; and in the mean while much discredit the Bishops Cause, as if he could get none to maintain it but this common Barreter, this Mercenary Songster, that for two Crowns more will change his Note, and rail against his Patron.
This, Sir, if possible, much more low and mean being my Opinion of that Whiffling and Thin souled Adversary you mention, give me leave to tell you, that I am so little concerned in any thing he intends to write, that since you resolved to divulge the Letter I sent you, I am sorry you did not likewise publish my Name to the World to; that so, another, whom, as you tell me, he designes to fall upon, might not, upon Mistake, have the Credit of his Calumnies; since every Reproach from him (who hath not let any thing Sacred, whether Person or Doctrine, escape his venomous Pasquils) I look upon as a Signal Mark of Honour, beyond what any other Epitaph can give me. As when men scatter Dung upon a Garden, the Flowers grow more Fair and Fragant ever after; So were I ambitious of▪ a Name, I think I could not more speedily procure it among all good men, than by entreating that L'S—to appear against me.
As therefore, Sir, you love my Credit, manage this Design for me, and promote the Work as much as you can; And by divulging my true Name, let not any Jot of the Commendation he designes me, be derived upon that Gentleman you mention, whose Vein, if I mistake not, lies in another way. However, Sir, if there be no Help, but the Innocent must suffer, pray think so Nobly of me, as that I do religiously intend to follow your Advice, and not offer to answer one, who would fain be Answered, that he might appear Considerable. I will not, Sir, by taking any notice of him, suffer him to Rail himself into Reputation: But as hitherto, with all his little Witticismes, and Twenty Good morrows (to shew what Trade he drives) he could never gain so much Respect from any, as to deserve a Confutation; So shall I let him pass still, like Bessus in the Comedy, secure in his own Want of Worth, and by that, safe from Censure. And thus, Sir, I dismiss that Puny Authour, unto his Learned Labours, of which, you tell me, he is now lying in; And if there be any Vertue in Sack (for he drinks and writes in the same measure, only with this Difference, that what goes in Wine, comes out Water) the Women of Turnball-Street shall not long be unfurnished of a Pamphlet.
But, Sir, to conclude with something more serious, I can assure you; that I am perfectly reconciled to the Bishop, and will point him out a Fair and Noble way of righting himself. For, setting aside those Merry Passages in my Letter, which his too much Heat gave but too just an Occasion for, I give you free Leave to acquaint both him and the World, that I intend to make him an Acknowledgment as submiss as any Canon enjones▪ if he will either by Writing, or Conference, make good any of these Positions, which he asserts in his Book, and against which, I have briefly subjoyned my Reasons.
Pos. 1. That Monarchy cannot consist without Episcopacy. Neg. F… Monarchy was many 1000. Years before Episcopacy, and therefore demonstrably may be without it.
Pos. 2. That the Bishop of Worcester is the Sole and Immediate Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocesse. Neg. For it is utterly against Scripture Rule, to extend the Name of Pastor, beyond the Flock which one actually feeds.
Pos. 3. That it is unlawful for any, though Ordained, to preach in the Bishop of Worcester's Diocesse, without his License. Neg. For Ordination is a sufficient License, which runs as the Apostles Commission did, Go preach the Gospel; without being confined to Place, or needing a new License.
Pos. 4. That it is Lawful in the Worship of God, to enjoyn a small thing under a great Penalty. Neg. For we have no Warrant for such an Imposition in the Word of God, which ought to be the sole Rule of all Religious Worship.
Pos. 5. That the Church hath Power to exact Confession and Recantation, for those Crimes which the State hath pardoned. Neg. For, as to Coercive Power and Jurisdiction, there is no difference at all between the Church and State.
Pos. 6. That the Presbyterians (I suppose, he means, not Imposers of their own Formes, but barely Dissenters from those Imposed by others) are all Seditious. Neg. For it is against their publick Confession of Faith; which, as the 39. Articles, and Church-Canons are of the Episcopal, so that ought to be the Test of the Presbyterian Perswasion.
Thus, Sir, You see I am willing to reduce this Controversie unto a Rational and Calm way of Debate, and if the Bishop, or any sober Person for him, will undertake to maintain, either all, or any of the forementioned Positions, I will either make good my Negative, or declare my Conversion.
And because, Sir, it is possible you may be asked, Who it is that thus boldly makes a Challenge unto one of our Learned Prelates? Your personal Knowledge of me can abundantly satisfie them, that he is very much for Bishops, more for the King, most of all for the Purity and Peace of Religion; And were he not for all these, in their Due and Just Subordination, he thinks you would not own him for,
Feb. 6. 1661. SIR, Your most humble Servant, D. E.
POSTSCRIPT.
I Have just now received an Elaborate Piece, written by one that stiles himself J. C. M. D. a man very well read in the Modern Fathers, and of so Elegant and Facete a Style, that I am sorry all the places in Gotham-Colledge are taken up, for this man would be an excellent President of it: I hope the Bishop will be so Charitable as to provide a Sine-Cura for him, for his Employment in Physick will never be able to maintain him in Books and clean Linnen else; I wish neither he may ever want such able Champions, nor they befitting Pensions. Adieu.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, Account of the Causes of Being Forbidden to Preach (1662)