Richard Baxter's penitent confession and his necessary vindication in answer to a book called…

But he exclaimeth against it, as that which would have pulled down the Bishops, or cut their Throats. So that if one Bishop may not be said to govern many hundred Churches, when a Lay-Chancellor doth it, without any subordinate Bishop or Presbyters, their Throats are cut. And even the two Agents of our Misery, Sheldon and Morley; (who were entrusted by the King to word this Declaration,) are by this Man ⟨p. 72⟩made their own Cut-throats, by granting some part of Pastoral Power to the Rural Deans and Synods. This is the Church that must not be amended.

But he exclaimeth against it, as that which would have pulled down the Bishops, or cut their Throats. So that if one Bishop may not be said to govern many hundred Churches, when a Lay-Chancellor doth it, without any subordinate Bishop or Presbyters, their Throats are cut. And even the two Agents of our Misery, Sheldon and Morley; (who were intrusted by the King to word this Declaration,) are by this Man ⟨p. 72⟩made their own Cut-throats, by granting some part of Pastoral Power to the Rural Deans and Synods. This is the Church that must not be amended.

He saith, that by this Model [They would have robbed the Bishops of all their power, and taken it to themselves.] And was Archbishop Usher such a Robber of himself, and all the Bishops? Did he motion any thing but the Primitive Episcopacy, with the editions of their large Diocese, Wealth and Honour? What was the power that they would have taken to themselves? Was it to be Diocesans, to rule a Diocese as the smallest Church that had none under it? Would each Man have had this Diocesan Power, or only all, as one Political Body? If each Man, sure England had not Dioceses enough for so many Thousands: If all, as an Aristocracy, could they desire more than Convocations have? Or did they desire so much to all the Ministers of a Diocese, in Conjunction with the Bishop, as his Councils, as every single Lay-Chancellor hath without the Bishop? This is just like the Papists Accusation of Parish-Pastors, that every Man would be a Pope in his own Parish: And their saying of Masters that are for governing their Families, that every one would be a Pope to his own House: And against Self-governing [of our Words and Actions.] that every one would be a Pope to himself: And Idiots perceive not the Contradiction. To be a Pope is to be one that claimeth the Government of all the World, (or Church.) And is governing a Family, or my self, governing all the World? And is governing a Parish-Church under an Archbishop, the governing of many hundred Parishes that are no Churches, but parts of a Diocesan Church?