Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 5 · Letter 1
Reverend and Worthy Sir,
I Have received your very kind Letter, wherein I hardly know whether I should be more thankful for your approbation or your reproof, both of them being in their kind so useful, and both of them being by you performed with so great civility. I am confident that if our modern disputes had been moderated with that candor, men would certainly have been more peaceful, and very Orthodox, than now we find them. I could very heartily have wished that the opinions wherein we differ, had not been of that nature as to s…parate Communion, (for this I look upon as the only circumstance that can make such differences grievous to a pious person; for as for those others which exasperate many that Dissenters are not so wise to discern the truth, or so fortunate in avoiding prejudices, or lighting on faithful informations, in a time when they are cap…ble of receiving them; or that they are not so submissive as themselves expect to that Pope which Luther has long since observed in every mans …eart, &c. are reasons either sinful, or at least insufficient to excuse the sin of uncharitableness upon such an account) but as they a…e, considering them as tempered with that piety and moderation which may expiate their other malignities, that they are rather alledged as Apologies for your selves, than as obligations on others, rather to excuse your deformity in assisting at our Altars, than erecting others in opposition to them; that you are still i…quisitive and desirous of further information, and ready to lay down your mistakes where you are convinced that they are such; that still you preserve a p…aceable mind, and embrace our Communion it s…lf in voto, though perhaps not actually; these are so valuable considerations, even before God as well as man, for excusing from the guilt of error, as that whatever I may think of your op…nions, I hope it shall not hinder me from a cordial respect and veneration for your person.
As I do very much esteem the good opinion of so great a lover of p…ce and piety as your self, and should have been sorry to have given any ju…t occasion of offence to you▪ so I am not a little glad that upon a review of the particulars mentioned in your Letter, I find my self so very innocent. For as for my Preface, the main parts of it wherein the disrepect of the Clergy is shewn to have been an Introductory to the Atheism of the age we live in; and that the Conformable Clergy, that is, such as would answer the design of the Church not only as to their exterior demeanor in publick solemn Assemblies, but also as to the qualifications of their persons, and the conduct of their whole lives, could not prove either trifling in their Preaching or scandalous in their examples, and therefore that the Church is not responsible for their misdemeanors where they prove otherwise; and that the Laity are in their proportion obliged to the same duties with the Clergy, and therefore may make use of the advices there prescribed; or where the errors of our modern School-Divinity are touched, and some Proposals made for their reformation; in these things, I say, I can see no occasion of offence, but rather some preservatives against it. The only thing I suppose you aim at, is my taxing some opinions of Nonconformists, and that with as little personal reflection as I was able, which I conceived prejudicial to Church-authority; which because you seem to disown, I do not see why you should apprehend your self as particularly concerned, especially there being nothing in the discourse whereby you could conclude either your self or any of your moderate temper to have been intended. I will assure you I intended none but such as were guilty, and with being so, I charged none particularly. But that not only the old Puritans and Separatists of Queen Elizabeths times, &c. but also very many of ours now are guilty of them, is too notorious to suppose you ignorant of it. I could heartily wish that the number of better principled and more peaceable dissenters were greater than I fear it is. Nor do I see that what is there said can make it unuseful even to the persons truly concerned, that value truth more than any, however beloved party; seeing it may either let them see the ill consequence of their Principles, and their influence on that Athei…m and Prophaneness which I am confident themselves do most cordially detest, which I conceive to be more likely to prevail with them than other arguments, as being more suited to their pious disp…sitions; or supposing that my fears were indeed groundless of the introduction of prophaneness by the contempt of Government, or of contempt of Government by their disobedience to it, yet might it at least warn them from confining on such dangerous consequ…nces, or from coming to them unawares by an abuse of Principles generally true, but obnoxious to particular inconveniences when unwarily managed. I mean it may put them in mind of the greater momentousness of good Government and peace than many of their differences, and consequently of the great engagements incumbent on them for their preservation; and that they would therefore so take care to oppose the particular abusive Constitutions of Government, as not to bring their Government into contempt, nor to sugg…st unanswerable Apologies to factious persons for the future, when they are unwilling to be obedient. These are abuses which I believe your self would wish redressed in the Causers of our Church-divisions. But if it could not be useful to them, yet could it not be prejudicial to them, nothing being urged, either invidiously, or imperiously, and therefore no harm being done if I should prove utterly mistaken.
That you should marvel how Reviving Discipline could by me be expected from the constitution of our present Ecclesiastical Government, does seem no less marvellous to me, especially as to the exception you make against it; for if it were impossible to maintain Discipline under a Government so far Monarchical, as to appropriate the Decretory power of the Government of many to a single person, though the execution be intrusted to many; then it would follow, that the secular Discipline under a secular Monarch of any extent, were impossible also to be observed, seeing it is as impossible for any such Prince to have a particular cognizance of every particular Cause, much more of every particular person in his Dominions, as for a Bishop in his Diocess. As there it appears by experience (I shall instance in a Scripture-example, because I know that will be liable to least exception), that David in an extent more vast, and a people more numerous th…n that of the largest Diocesses, 120. Miles in length, and 60▪ Miles in bre…dth, and rather better in David's days, where were accounted 1300000 men sit for War, besides Artificers, and such others, not coming under that account, was yet able to give a go…d account of his Government, without particular inspection into all Causes, or Communication of his pow…r to numerous co-ordinate Presbyteries; so I do not see, why it may not as well hold for a possibility of Discipline, under an Ecclesiastical Monarch of a much narrower extent; for the reason produced by you, seems to proceed from the nature of Government in general, and therefore must proceed with the same force in seculars as Ecclesiasticals, there being no ingredient peculiarly rela…ing to Religion, much less to Christianity▪ which might alter the case, or argue a disparity; for certainly Princes, as well as Bishops, are responsible for the miscarriage of their particular …ubjects; for they may be prevented by moral diligence, and yet you will not thence conclude that every particular must come under his immediate personal care and cognizance; nor is it proved, that the Bishop is otherwise obliged to such a care upon pe…uliar respects Besides, that it is plainly against experience, even in Ecclesistasticals; for as it has fallen out in some places, where there were many Cities, the Bishops were propor…ionally multiplied, as in Affrica and Ireland; so that it was not upon account of the impossibility of managing the charge of much greater multitudes than the Inhabitants of those small Cities, appears, in that even in the very same places the greatness of no City was thought sufficient for multiplying the Bishops, though it was for the Inferior Clergy. I need not tell you how great Rome was▪ and how full of Christians, even in Decius's time, under Cornelius, which required the united endeavours of above a Thousand Clergies, as appears from the said Cornelius's Epistle to Fabius, of Antioch, in Euseb. yet was one Bishop thought sufficient for all; nay, the erecting another in the same See, was thought to be formal Schism, as appears from the controversies of those Ages, betwixt Cornelius, and Novatian, and St. Cyprian, and Felicissimus The same also might have been shewn in several other Cities, exceeding numerous, and abounding with Christians, as Antioch, and Alexandria, and Carthage ▪ &c. which even in those early Ages, when Discipline was at the greatest Rigour, were yet Governed by single Bishops: Nay▪ whole Nations were sometimes Governed only by one, as the Got…s by Vlpilas, and the Indians by Aedesius, and the Arabians by Moses, which is an Argument insisted on by some Presbyterians, for shewing the probability of Ordinations by bare Presby…rs. Y…t are there no complaints of dissolution of Discipline in such places, upon account of the greatness of their charge, which to me seem sufficient convictions, that the multitude of persons governed, is not the reason of our present neglects in that particular.
When I said, that Ignatius's Epistles were questioned by the Presbyterians, I never said, nor intended it concerning all (for I knew of Vedelius's Apology for them), much less did I lay it particularly to your charge: so that if you had here forborn assuming to your self what was spoken of others, many of whose Opinions I am confident you will not undertake to justifie, there had been no occasion of this exception. That other Presbyterians, and those by far the greatest number, have denied them, cannot be questioned.
As for the Reasons for Nonconformity alledged by you, and your Brethren, of the Savoy Conference in 1660. if I might without offence, presume to interpose my own thoughts, they are as followeth: 1. For the approving, not only submitting to such things as you disliked, and that by an Oath, I am sure there are many Conformists themselves, that understand no more to have been intended by the Church, but only an Exterior submission, not an Internal Approbation of the Particulars. And particularly, I have been in…ormed by a Letter from a very worthy credible person, who pretends to have had it from the Bishop himself, that Bishop Sanderson, who was a Member of your Conference, interposed those words in the Act of Parliament, where it is required, that Ministers declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the Book of Common-Prayer, &c. designedly that this Objection might be prevented. The new Article of Faith, inserted in the Rubrick, I do not know, nor can I now get the Books that past betwixt you at the Conference, to find what you mean. That Lay-Chancellors were put down, and that the Bishops did more consult their Presbyteries, I could for my own part h…artily wish. But … cannot think abuses momentous enough to warrant a Schism, and I know your self are for bearing with some things that are not so w…ll liked of, rather than that the Church of God should be divided for them. In brief, I do not understand any of the Six Particulars mentioned as the Reasons that keep you off, though indeed you disapprove them, both because you do not undertake to determine what they might be to others, but only what they are to persons of your mind (though I confess, this may be understood as a modest declining to judg of others); and because you conceive piety the most likely means to unite us, which could not be if we imposed any thing on you against your Consciences. So that the only one may be presumed to have been thought sufficient by you to this purpose, seems to have been another, which because you intimate somewhat obscurely, I do not know whether you would be willing that it should be taken notice of. But however I suppose that it self does I suppose only deprive us of your Clerical, not your Laical Communion. God give us all to discern the things that belong to peace. As for other Questions, we may patiently await our Lords leisure, who when he comes shall tell us all things; and in the mean time preserve Charity, and be wise unto sobriety. I hope, Sir, you will excuse my freedom, and let me know whether I may in any thing be serviceable to you; and above all things reserve a portion in your Prayers for
Trin. Col. near Dublin, Decemb. 14. 1672. Your unfeigned Well-wisher, HENRY DODWELL.