Answer to Dodwell and Sherlock, Chapter 5 · Letter 2
For the Worthy and much Honoured Mr. Henry Dodwell, at Trinity Colledg near Dublin in Ireland.
Worthy Sir,
I Heartily thank you for your patience with my free expressions, and for your grave and kind reply. As to the main cause of the Nonconformists, should I enter upon that which I cannot prosecute, I should greatly injure it, my self and you: I must again crave your patience with my freedom. The sins which they fear (whether justly is the question) are so heinous, that they dare not mention them, lest their condemners and afflicters cannot bear it; and so many, that to open them justly, will require a great Volume, and therefore not by me to be done in a Letter. Only to what you have said, let me mind you in transitu.
1. That you mistake me if you think that I excepted against your Preface as medling with me, any otherwise than as I am one of those Nonconformists with whom I am acquainted, who are mostly of my mind. (And I suppose you would take it for no honour to be thought to be better acquainted with the most of them in England, than I am.)
2. That your intimations about the old Nonconformists are not to our business, seeing the name of Nonconformists maketh not, nor proveth all or many so named to be of the same mind. Nor is your mention of our Treaty or Papers of 1660, more pertinent, it being the old Cause only that we had to do with, the new Laws of Conformity being not then existent, which have made it quite another thing. Only I assure you, if my superiours would not take it for a crime and inj…ry to do what Iustin, … for their mistaken Cause), … it, I would endeavour to shew another …, and Nonconformity, than is commonly taken … also to give you (who so well understand Antiquity) … evidence of our Conformity to the ancient … 300, and mostly for 600 years after Christ. … (…hat I may not say nothing to you) … only employ … lines about your sug…tions concerning the possibility of tru… Disc…pline by D…esans as they are with us. And still you m…st pardon my … of speech. I must say, that it is the c…amity of Churches, when their Prelates and Pastors are men that never were acquainted with the flocks, but spend one half … their days in Schools and Colle…ges, and the other in Noblen… or Gentlemens houses, and then talk confidently of the p…or people whom they know not, and the Discipline which they …ver tryed. Even you whom I honour as a person of extraordinary worth, constrain me by this your Letter to think that I di…pute as about war with one that never stormed a Garison, nor fought a battel; or as about Navigation with one that was never one month at …ea.
I. Our first question is, What the Pastoral Office is, and especially Discipline?
II Our next is, Whether it may be delegated to, or done by one that is not of Gods Institution for the doing of it.
III. And then we shall soon see whether it be possible for our Diocesans to do it, or any considerable part of it?
I. If the Erastians be in the right, that none of our Discipline is necessary besides that by the Sword, (and our Preaching) then we may put up the Controversie on both sides. But if that be the work of Bishops now, which was so in Scripture-times, the matter will hold no long dispute. To shorten th…t work, I desire you to peruse (its like you have done) Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase on all the Texts that mention Bishops and Presbyters, with his Treatise of the Keys, where he will tell you, that it was the Bishops Office to be the ordinary Preacher, to Pray, to celebrate the Eucharist, to visit the Sick, to keep and distribute the alms and offerings of the Church, as Curators for the Poor, with much more work. And that every single Congregation had such a Bishop, that ever met to celebrate Gods publick Worship; and that there was not a mee…ing of a Christian Church without such (for the said Worship in Scripture-times) for he saith that there is no proof that there were any other Presbyters in Scripture-times.
And for Discipline, it is past doubt: 1. That as to the matter of …, i… must consist of a personal watch over each member of …he …; that every one in it that liveth in gross sin, or Infidel, or Heathenish, or Her…tical error and ignorance, be orderly admonished, first m…re privately, afterward more openly, and last…y most …; and that he be by convincing reasons and …xhortations perswaded to repentance. That the penitent mu…t be … and confirmed, the obstinately impenitent rejected, as u…meet for the Communion of the Church. And for the manner, it is agreed that it must be done with condescending tenderness, patience, plain evidence, earnest exhortations, no means left untried to reduce a sinful miserable soul. And all this with the time and patience which so great a work requireth. (And sure if the Congregation must avoid the sinner, they should know why.) One such person will hold the Pastor work from first to last many an hour and day.
N…xt, let us think how many such as by Christs Law must be th…s dealt with, are in a Diocess. I had the most reformed people (as to sins of commission and omission) that ever I knew in England. Our custom being to have each family come by turns to us to be personally Catechised and instructed. I had full opportunity to know them all. Many score of them that came daily to Church, knew not the Essentials of Christianity and Baptism. When I came first to them, I suppose some thousands lived in gross ignorance, open impiety and prophaneness. And even at last some scores I fear lived in gross sin. Some were notorious drunkards, raging weekly twice or thrice in the open streets. Some quieter drunkards. Many profane Swearers. Too many railers, fighters, slanderers, &c. Three or four Apostate-Infidels. The Parishes about me were far worse. A great part of the people know not who Christ is, nor what he doth, as the Saviour of the world, nor understand one of many Articles of the Creed, or Petitions of the Lords Prayer; much less do any thing like Christians for Children or Servants in their Families.
The Diocess that I now live in, hath above 1100 Parishes, some have half as many; some Parishes have 3000, some 10000 People. in London some 20000, 30000, and the Country smaller Parishes usually about 400, 500, or 1000. I do warrantably conjecture that in the Diocess where I now live, there may be about 50000 souls that by Christs Law should be admonished and disciplined for gross sin. And about 80000, or 100000 that are grosly ignorant of Christianity. It's ten to one (experience tells it me) that five Conventions will scarce serve with each obstinate sinner, to bring the work to the issue of a due Excommunication or Absolution. Some parts of the Diocess that I am in, are about 120 miles from other parts. The Diocesan then that doth all this himself, (but there is no such) if he sit half the year, must either speak to 10000, or 20000 persons at once, or in a few minutes, or else he must let all the rest lye and rot in their sins, till he hath done with the first. And indeed (I have tried it) a sober Pastoral course of conviction and discipline with each one, will take up so much time, that seven years are not enough for him to go over all this Diocess if he did as much in a month as ever I knew a Bishop do in his life, except against Godly Nonconformists, or Conscientious Dissenters.
But if you consider how far every accusing Minister and Churchwarden, and every accused sinner, have to travel, some 20, some 40 miles, &c.) and that Witnesses also must travel as far; and how long they must attend, and how few can bear the charge of this; and that the old and weak sort of sinners are unable for the journey, and who shall do the Parish Ministers work the while; and how likely it i… that of 10000 such sinners, 5000 may be dead, or the Witnesses at least, before the re…t are tried and well dispatched; or t…e case grown old, and the same m…n drunken twent… times again, before he can be judged for the first. … al…o how strange a course this is to humble, convince, and save a soul—wonderful!— that it should with any man living be a controversie, Whether one Bishop be sufficient for all this? And what need we more than common experience? The work is every where undone. Lay the blame where you will, not one common gross sinner of a thousand is disciplin'd or judged as in question. That which can be done, and should be done, some one good Bishop will do But none that ever I knew did ever see the face, and speak to one of a thousand gross sinners of his Diocess, (unless perhaps as he preached to one or few Congregations) nor do I know any that take it for their work, (if they could do it), but leave it to the Lay-Chancellor as his part.
If you say that Excommunication must not be on many: I answer,
1. The Bishops trying and conviction of gross sinners is first for their Repentance, and not their Excommunication, except in case of the last obstinacy, which cannot be foreknown till tried.
2. If Christ would not have such Discipline at all, there needs no Bishop to do it. If he would, when twenty drunkards, fornicators, &c. are notoriously guilty, is it his will that one of these only be admonished, convinced, excommunicated, and all the rest let alone that are equally guilty? Sure the Law of God doth not so distinguish, but say of all alike, If any called a brother be a fornicator, &c. And will such partiality either reform men, or honour Religion, or rather make it a scorn, and make him that is singled out, hate the partial Prosecutor.
If you say it's long of Churchwardens that accuse not men: I answer,
1. And it will be so, while the thing is unfeasable; who will be hated to do no good?
2. Some Churchwardens of late to some Articles have presented all the Parish without▪ exception. And so no man heard of it any more.
II. And whether the Bishop may delegate his Office, or do his work per alios, would be no controversie if Scripture were our Rule, or it were known what a Pastors office is. If he may delegate it, either to a Layman in sensu composito, or to a Clergy man: If to a Layman, than a Layman and a Clergy-man are all one. For there is nothing but the work to define the authority and obligation by, which constituteth the Office. A Bishop is one authorized and obliged to do the work of a Bishop, and so is a Layman too by this supposition. If to a Clergyman, either to one of the same order and office with the Bishop, or of another. If of the same (before or now made so) datur quaesitum, then he is not the sole Bishop. If of another in sensu composito, then another Clergy man is not another; For he that is Authorized to the same work, is of the same Office.
If you say that he may not delegate the whole work, de specie, but a part; I ask which part? either the Essential part, or but an Integral common part. If the former? 1 Either …o such as God in Scripture by office authorizeth to that part, or not. If the former, then the Bishop cometh too late to that which God hath done already. And then that is no proper work of Bishops which God hath made common to another Office. If the later, than a man may make new Priestly O…fices and Orders, even to the same work that God hath …ade Officers to do already. And then we need not say, …that Orders are Iure Divino] if the Bishop may make more at his pleasure; but quo jure; and what shall set his bounds and end? This seemeth more (in kind) than the Italians at Trent would have given to the Pope over Bishops. An… if they do not themselves also that same Essential part of their Office which they give to others, they degrade themselves For the ceasing or alienation of an Essential part, changeth the specie….
But I suppose you will say … is Pre…byters to whom they may delegate this work. And …, either it is a wor… which God hath made part of the Presbyters Office, or not. If it be, then that Presbyter doth his ow… … appointed him by God, and not another … not, … he maketh a new Officer, who is …either ….
But the … the Office …, that it may not be … (tho…gh Bishop may Ordain men to an Office of … the King or Church may make new Officers …, Clock keepers Ostiaries, &c.); …, and obligation to personal duty, to be done … person…l abi…ty] as is the Office of a Physician, a Judg, a School …, a Pilot, &c where he that Author…zeth and oblig…th another statedly to do his work, doth thereby make that other a Physician, Judg, School-Master, Pilot, &c. This is but Ordin…tio….
And if a Bishop be but one that may appoint others to do the Episcopal work, then 1. Why is not every King a Bishop, for he may appoint men to do a Bishops work? And why is he not also a Physician, Musician, Pilot, &c. because he may do the like by them? 2. And then the Bishop appointed by the King, is no more a Bishop indeed than one appointed by a Bishop is.
But this delegation that I speak against, is a smaller sin than such men choose. To depute others to exercise Discipline, whom God appointed not de specie thereto, is but Sacriledg and Usurpation, (by alienating it from the true office, and setting up a false one): But yet the thing might some how be done, if any were to do it. But the almost total deposition and destruction of the Discipline it self, and letting none do it, by pretending the sole authority of doing it, is another kind of sin.
Now to your answer from the similitude of Civil Monarchs, I reply, It is no wonder if we never agree about Church-offices, if we no better agree of the general nature of them, and their work. Of which if you will please to read a sheet or two which I wrote the last year to Ludov. Molinaeus, of the difference of Magistracy, and Church-power, and also read the Lord Bacons Considerations, you will excuse me for here passing by what is there said.
I. The standing of the Magistrates Office is by the Law of Nature, which therefore alloweth variety and mutations of inferior Orders, as there is cause. But the standing of the Clergy is by Supernatural Institution. Our Book of Ordination saith there are three Orders, &c. Therefore man may not alter them, or make more of that same kind.
II. Kingly power requireth not ad dispositionem materiae, such Personal ability as the Pastoral-office doth. A child may be a King, and it may serve turn if he be but the head of power, and give others commission to do all the rest of the Governing work. But it is not so with a Judg, a Physician, an Orator, or a Bishop; who is not subjectum capax of the essence of the office, without personal aptitude.
III. God hath described the Bishops office in Scripture as consisting of three parts, viz. Teaching, Priestly, (or about Worship and Sacraments) and ruling; as under Christs Prophetical, Priestly and Kingly Office. And he hath no where made one more proper to a Bishop than another; nor said this is Essential, and that is but Integral. Therefore the Bishop may as well allow a Layman to administer the Sacraments, &c. as one not appointed to it by God, to Rule by the Keys.
IV. The Bishops Pastoral Rule is only by Gods word upon the Conscience (as Bishop Bilson of Obed. sheweth at large, and all Protestants agree), and not by any mulcts or corporal force. If he use the sword, or constraint, it is not as a Bishop, but as a Magistrate. But the Kings is by the sword. And will it follow that because the King may appoint another to apprehend men, and carry them to prison, &c. that therefore a Bishop appointed by God to Preach, Worship and Rule, and therein to draw the Impenitent to Repentance by patient exhortations, and reproofs, &c. may commit this to another, never appointed to it of God?
V. Either it is the Bishops work (as was said) that is delegated by him, or some other. If properly his own, than either he maketh more Bishops, (and that's all we plead for), or else a Presbyter or Layman may do a Bishops proper work. And then what need of a Bishop (to pass by the contradiction.)
VI. But my chief answer to you is, the King as Supreme Magistrate doth appoint and rule by others that are truly Magistrates: They have every one a Judicial power in their several places under him, even every Justice of Peace. But you suppose the Bishop to set up no Bishops, nor no Church-Governours under him at all. A King can rule a Kingdom by Supremo Judgment, when he hath hundreds of Judges under him who do it by his authority. And if this had been all our dispute, whether a Patriarch or Archbishop can rule a thousand Churches by a thousand Inferior Bishops, or Church-rulers, you had said something? But doth it follow that your Church Monarch can over-see them all himself without any sub-oversees, or rule them (by Gods word on the Conscience) without any sub-rulers? You appropriate the Decretory Power to your Monarch; and communicate only the executive. Hold to that. The whole Government is but Legislatio & Iudicium; Legislation now we meddle not with, (yet our Bishops allow it to the Presbyters in Convocation, for they take Canons to be Church-Laws.) It is a lower power that is denied to them, that they grant the higher to. Bare execution is no Government. A Hangman is no Governour. A Governour may also be Executioner, but a meer Executioner is no Governour. The People are Executioners of Excommunications, while they withdraw from the Excommunicate, and with such do not eat, &c. as 1 Cor. 5. And the Parish-Priest is an Executioner, while he (as a Cryer) proclaimeth or readeth the Chancellors Excommunication in the Church, and when he denieth the Sacrament to those that he is bid deny it to. I grant you that this is Communicated. But it is the Judicial power it self which I have been proving the Bishop uncapable of. Exploration is part of the Judicial work. I know you include not that in execution (which follows it) If you did, it would be a sad office for a Bishop to sentence all men, upon other mens trial and word. As if the Bishop must Excommunicate all that some body else saith he must Excommunicate. This turneth Decreeing into a Hangman-like Execution.
And the nature of the cause forbiddeth it. No man is to be Excommunicate for any other crime as such, but for Impenitence in some crime; nor to be absolved after, but upon Repentance. Now if it were, but whether a man de facto have been drunk, or fornicated, or perjured, &c. it were hard judging sententially meerly on trust from others; but yet perhaps that might sometimes be done: But when the case is, Whether the man be penitent, Personal trial is necessary to a Rational and Ecclesiastical administration of the sentence. I conclude therefore, that as a King can judg by many hundred Judges, and a General command an Army by many hundred Commanders, but not without any one by himself alone, having Executioners under him. So is it here.
VII. And I pray you note one other difference: In the Kingdom it is not one subject of an hundred, or many hundreds, that hath Law suits with others once in a year, or seven years, or his life. Nor one of some hundreds (where I have lived) that findeth the Magistrate work as Criminal. And in this we differ even from the Physician, who in a City hath not one of many that is sick, but we are all of a sinning corrupt disposition, and the Pastor hath few of his flock that need not some personal applications in one degree or other. And even as to gross sins lived in, and ignorance or heresie against the very essence of Christianity, it is a good Parish where a considerable part of it are not guilty; so that it is easier for one Justice of Peace to send two or three thieves in a year to a Gaol, and bind two or three to the good behaviour, than for one Bishop to admonish, exhort, convince and judg 10000 impenitent sinners in a little time, and hear all the Witnesses, &c.
If you should have said, that the Parish Priest is to reprove, exhort, convince them first, till he prove them impenitent, and he is to instruct the ignorant, Infidels and Hereticks: I answer, 1. That is more than an executive power. 2. We desire no more at all from Bishop… or any, and know no other Episcopal power over the people, but thus personally to convince men, and declare to the Congregation upon proof, the fitness or unfitnss of men for their Communion, by penitence▪ or impenitence. But this is it that the Ministers are hindred from, or denied. They have no power to speak with any one ignorant, Heretical, Infidel, or scandalous sinner in the Parish, but such as are willing. And few of the guilty are willing. They will neither come to the Minister, nor suffer him to come to them, but shut their doors on him if they know that he cometh on such a work, or else they will not be within. Or if they be, will tell him, that they will not answer him. When I came first to Kederminster, the rabble multitude curst me in the streets, and rose up against me, but for saying, That Infants Originally have that sin and misery which needs a Saviour; yet such (if they scorn to speak with us) must be our Communicants for want of Pastoral power. There is no Law or penalty that I ever knew of, to constrain any to come to us, receive us, hear us, or answer us, if we had never so much cause to question them of, or fortifie them against infidelity, heresie, ignorance, or wicked lives. And if any other accuse them to us (as few will) we must not judg them without trial.
It may be you will say. Would you have them constrained by force to speak with the Pastor, or give him any account of their faith, life, or knowledg, besides coming with others into the Church? I answer, No, we would have no force, as we have none. But then we would not be forced our selves by the Church-Lords and Monarchs to take our selves for the Pastors of such as refuse our Pastoral office, and to give the Sacrament, and all priviledges of Church-Communion, to every one in the Parish, who upon just suspicion of gross scandal, heresie, infidelity or ignorance, obstinately refuseth to speak to us, and give us any account, or to be tried. I that have yearly tried my Parish by Personal Conference, know that thousands and thousands among us know not (and therefore believe not) whether Christ be God or man, or Angel, or what; nor who the Holy Ghost is, or why Christ died, rose; nor scarce any supernaturally revealed article of the Christian faith. And that many that understand them, believe them not. And I desire no Church-power, but not to take those, 1. For Christians; 2. And for my especial Christian flock, 1. Who are no Christians; 2. Who themselves refuse it. Without their consent the Minister is forced on them. They a…e forced by the sword to say that they are Christians, and to come to Church and Communicate. The old Christian Profession was, I will be a Christian, and hold Communion with the Church, though I go to prison or death for it. The Prelatical Christian Profession is, I will rather be a Christian and Communicate, than I will lye in Gaol, and have all my Estate confiscate. Seeing then that we have not the due power of a Pastor to deny our Office-administrations in Sacraments to those that refuse us in the other parts aforesaid, we are utterly disabled from so much as preparing men for the Bishops, or Chancellors Examination.
3. But if it were otherwise, that must not satisfie the Church-Monarch, who must judg himself, and therefore must hear by himself.
But you tell me, It is plainly against experience in Ecclesiasticks.
Ans. It's hard then to know any thing. For I dispute all this while, as if the question were, Whether men in England speak English. And if I herein err, I am uncurable, and therefore I allow you to despair of me. You say, The greatness of no City was thought sufficient to multiply Bishops.
Ans. 1. Gods Institution was, that every Church have a Bishop, Act. 14.23, &c.
2. A particular Church then was, A Society of Neighbour-Christians, combined for Personal Communion in Gods Worship, and holy living, consisting of Pastor and flock.
3. For 250 years I think, you cannot prove that any one Bishop in the world, save at Alexandria and Romr, had more such Congregations and Altars than one; nor these for a long time after the Apostles; nor in many Churches of ome hundred years longer.
4. At Antioch (the third Patriarchate) Ignatius professeth that every Church had one Altar, and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons, fellow-servants. And that in this one Church the Bishop must enquire of all by name, even Servant-men and Maids, and see that they absented not themselves from the Church. Why is not Ignatius confuted if he erred? Vid. Mede on the Point.
5. Alexandria and Rome by not multiplying Bishops as Churches or Converts needed it, began the grand sin and calamity which hath undone us, and therefore are not to be our Pattern. Orbis major est urbe.
6. Were Bishops necessarily to be distributed by Cities, the Empires that have few, or no Cities, must have few, or no Bishops; and an Emperor might, aliud ag…ndo, depose all the Bishops by dis franchizing the Cities.
7. But every Corporation, oppidum, like our Market-Towns, was then truly foreign: And if you will but procure every such City with us, to have a Bishop, and the Office of such Bishops to be to drive men from sin, and not to it, and to silence Blasphemers, and not faithful Preachers of the Gospel, all our controversies of Prelacy are then at an end.
8. And you must remember, that great Cities had long but few Christians, in comparison of the Heathens (till Constantine's time, and mostly long after). And when Patrick with his own hand Ordained Three Hundred and Fifty Bishops in your Ireland, they were but Ecclesiarum fundatores, and with them he founded but septingentas Ecclesias, and Ordained Five Thousand Clerks, if Ioceline be true, Vit. Patri…. cap. 185. and not rather the far more credible report of Antonin. in Chr…n. tit. 11. cap. 18. § 2. and Vincent. specul. histor. lib. 20. cap. 23. who say, that Ecclesias fun…avit 365. …rdinavit Episcopos eodem numero 365. et eo amplius in quibus spiritus Dei crat. Presbyteros autem us que ad 3…00▪ ordinavit A… Vsher …ceth them, de primord. Eccl. Br. p 9…7. which is Ninius number there. So that here is no more Church…s th…n …ishops▪ and about Nine Presbyters to a Bishop.
You tell me of above One thousand Clergy-men at Rome, in Cor…elius's ….
Ans. 1. This was above Two hundred and Fifty years after Christs Birth. 2. I never took all the impotent persons, poor, and Widows in the Church, to be Clergy-men, and Clergy-women. Cornelius his account is, that there are Six and Forty Presbyters, Seven Deacons, Seven Sub-Deacons, Two and Forty Acolytes, Two and Fifty Exorcists, and Readers, with Porters, Widows, and impotent persons, above One thousand and Fifty souls, considering, 1. How their Meetings were then obscure, and small, in Houses (as the tolerated Churches in London). And in so vast a City, in how many distant places. Besides the sub-urbicarian Assemblies▪ 4▪ And how many Presbyters used still to be with the Bishop in the same Assembly? 5. And that here are in all but Seven Deacons. 6. And that many then were Presbyters that used not to Preach, but for privater over-sight, and as the Bishops Assessors. 7. And that the poorer sort most commonly received the Gospel. 8. And that none of these, but the Six and Forty Presbyters, had any power in the Discipline. 9. And that by all this reckoning, the whole Church maintained not, besides the Officers, near a thousand poor; we may probably conjecture, that the whole Church of that Bishop was not bigger than some one London-Parish (Stepney, Giles, Cripplegate, Martins, &c.) where are about Fifty thousand souls. 10. And when none were Christians but persecuted Volunteers, they were the holiest, and best of men; and I have tryed, that Six hundred such make less work for Discipline, than Ten of the Rabble that are driven into our Churches, and choose them rather than the Goal.
But when all's done, Two Cities under the power of great temptation, are not to be our Rule against Gods Word, and the state of all other Churches in the world, and undeniable experience.
It's true that you say, that to erect another Altar was counted Schism; that is, Altare contra altare; because when the Phrase came up, no Church had more than one Altar.
Your Instances intimated of Antioch and Carthage, I believe not; and can give you (had I liberty) a Volume of proof from Antiquity, that for Two hundred and Fifty years, if not much longer, Ignatius's Rule was true, that every Church had one Altar, and one Bishop, at least, except the two aforesaid.
Vlphilas was but an Arrian Bishop, of a few Goths newly turned Arrians, and the first that translated the Scriptures into the Gothick Tongue; so that no Churches among them had the Scripture, till after his translating; and these few were presently persecuted to rhe death by Athanarichus (ut socrat. lib. 4 cap. 32.) You may call these few, a Kingdom, if you please.
How few of the Indians were converted when Frumentius (not Aedesius, as you say) was made their Bishop, it's easie to gather by the History.
Scythia and Persia used to have each a Bishop, and he lived in the Roman Empire, as near them as he durst, as not being tolerated usually in their Land. And as few, it's like, Mos…s had among the Arabians; there being no mention in the History of any thing to perswade us, that he had many Churches under him, that I remember. And the work of these B…shops was to ordain Presbyters, who had the power of the Keys, & exceptae Ordinatione, did all that Bishops did, as Hierome saith. So that then a Diocess had not one sole Church-Governour; and therefore where you gather that yet Discipline was not dissolved: I answer:
1. In all this you leave out a matter of chief consideration: viz. That all the Presbyters then were assistants in Discipline, and had a true Church-Government over the people, which now they have not.
2. It's strange that we that have eyes and ears must be sent to the Indians and ancient History, to know whether one Bishop can hear, and try, and admonish so many thousands at once, as we see by experience are those Objects of Discipline which the Scripture describeth, and when we see that it is not done.
And after all this, we have talk't but of a …hantasm; for it is not one Bishop, but one Lay man, a Chancellor, that useth this Decretory power of the Keys, over all these fouls, so far as they are used, as to the ordinary Court-tryals and exerci…e; and the Bishop rarely medleth with it.
Again, Nonconformists doubt not to prove, that the Diocesan frame, whi…h they dare not swear to, 1. Doth depose the species of Churches of Gods Institution. 2 And the Discipline it self almost totally. 3. And the species of Presbyters. 4. And the old species of Bishops. And instead of each of these, setteth up a new species of man's invention, wholly different, and inconsistent.
And that they are not willing to Swear, Subscribe, or deliberately and solemnly enter into a Church-Covenant, That in their Places and Callings they will never endeavour any alteration of this, no not by a request or word, you may less wonder than if some were then loath to Swear or Covenant never to endeavour to take down the Priests of Dan and Bethel, or reform the high places. It's dangerous making a solemn Ministerial Covenant, Never to obey God in any one great matter, and never to repent of so doing.
Again, our Reasons at the Savoy were, 1. About another ma… ter: 2. Few of them received, or ever published to the world. And all that I have said to you is very little of our Cause; which I will not touch, unless I might prosecute it.
Your information about Bishop Sanderson, and the word, Vse of all things, &c. is as the rest, to conquer our sense and experience. 1. The words in the Act are most plain, and Bishop Sanderson de Iuram, concludeth, That Oaths (and Covenants) must be taken in the plain and proper sense. 2. It is notorious, that after the Lords in a Proviso of another Act, would have so expounded the Act of Uniformity, (that it is meant but of consent to use, &c) and the Commons rejected it as intolerable, and upon a meeting of both Houses satisfied the Lords by their Reasons, who acquiesced in the rejection of that Exposition. And shall we still stretch our sense against the plain words, when the Parliament long after hath rejected such an Exposition?
Sir, it is much more (especially about Separation) which your lines invite me to say, and the cause requireth; but I fear I have wronged you by prolixity already; and much more by my freedom of speech, which is from my inclination to speak of things as they are, and is truly joined with a very great respect and honour of your self, commanded by your excellent Book, and judicious peaceable stile and temper. I rest,
Jan. 5. 1672. Your unworthy Fellow-servant, (worthy to be Silenced), RI. BAXTER.
The short Answer to Mr. Dodwell's long Letter, fully answered in my Treatise of Episcopacy.