I. EXCEPT.

HE takes much in dudgeon that Asseveration of the reciprocal alliance between Kings and Bishops, in the Proverb, No BISHOP, no KING. Neither doth D. E. see any Dependence they have each on other, thinking Episcopacy to contribute little or nothing to the sub­sistence of the King's Authority. But we must desire him [Page 4]to be informed, that this Cohaerence doth (although something, yet) not so much result from any positive respect in themselves; as from that inconsistency which is between any other Ecclesiastical Government, and Kingship. For either we must suppose an aequality of Degrees amongst Ecclesiastical Persons; or else the prae­eminence and superiority of Lay-Elders, (for I know no other Ecclesiastick state whereunto any have inclined) now what a diametrical antipathy and opposition either of these two Conditions bear to a Regall Supremacy, is easily demonstrated. For, as to the first, should we sup­pose all Church-persons, or Ministers, empowr'd with equal authority, that indistinction would redound no lesse to his Majesty's disadvantage in Spirituals, (every man being in a posture to broach his own opinion, or promote another's faction) than the Confusion of a secu­lar power in Leveldom, would endammage the Kings Temporal Domination. Or, secondly, Were we under the py-ball'd disposing of Laicks; how could they (according to the exaction of their duty) devote themselves to the Churches benefit? Since their double Interests would oblige them to distraction, and a damnable Neutrality that would justifie Erasmus his Anomalous state of be­ing. Which, how far it would impair the Churches hap­piness, and consequently plunder one ballance of the Kings Soveraignty (whose Ecclesiastical and Temporal State must counterpoise each other, that the Crown stand even) I leave to the judgement of any rational man.

But to inquire into our Animadverter's Reasons that prompted him to the disavowing of any such rela­tion.

1. Saith he, Kings flowrished in all parts of the World, before Bishops were ever heard of. And there can no reason be Given, why what hath once been, may not with the same terms of Covenience be again. As to the first assertion ( viz. that the Antiquity of Kings doth far surpasse that of Bishops) I must needs acknowledge it the truest proposition in all [Page 5]the Pamphlet. For none can be ignorant that Ninus the first Assyrian Monarch flourish't without the least support of a Bishop. We know that Zoroastres Magus, first King of the Bactrians, and the first writer that History presents unto us, neither had Bishops in his Kingdom, nor yet ever men­tioned such a Name in those books he legacy'd to poste­rity. Neither do we read that Croesus, Cyrus, Darius, Phi­lip of Macedon, or his Son Alexander, made use of Bishops. So that had D. E. left us nothing partaking more of falsity than this Position, I should never have questioned him. But yet when all this is pro confesso, I wonder by what Infe­rence and deduction, he could tell us that we may with the same terms of convenience admit the same posture of Govern­ment again? For (1) What though he should tell us, that the Mogul, Prester John, or the Great Cham of Tartary, do to this day preserve their Magnificence, without the least concurrence of an Episcopal Jurisdiction? Doth it there­fore follow, that a Christian King may? They may also subsist without a Church, yea and do; but, is there the same Convenience for a King in Christendom, so to do? Where there is no Ecclesiastick State, cannot be expected Ecclesi­astick Government. But where a Kings Prerogative hath a double aspect (towards Spirituals, and towards Tempo­rals) there is required some jurisdiction in either; to which, States of a contrary constitution can neither prescribe Names nor Method. Their Regimen without Bishops, doth not at all involve any possibility of the same among us. (2) What though D. E. could (although he never can) prove, that even Christian Kings have flourished without Bi­shops? Yet, doth it follow that England (for the Proverb was neither derived from nor is extended to, exotick Na­tions) may with the same facility dispence with the pri­vation of them? Why should the Sequel be good? Why should other people become a necessary president to us? Or, why should our Capacities be measured by their Disci­pline? Since our humours are of another countenance, and (for the security of his Majesty) may require a Go­vernment partaking somewhat of singularity in Church; [Page 6]as well as distinct from others in State. Or (3), Should we suppose (for, demonstrationis gratiâ, we may suppose [...] and impossibles) even in England, a Power called King­ship without Bishops; yet the veracity of the Maxim ( No Bishop, no King) would stand firm and unshaken. For the Authority of a King, (as a King) is unconfin'd and absolute, without the least Apocope, mutilation, or re­striction of Command. And a King is not [...], or natu­rally call'd a King, when his lustre is eclips'd in the derogating from his Soveraignty. So that, I say, although we should suppose a Monarchical Government, preten­ding to the name of Kingship, to be destitute of Bishops; yet it would not follow, that it would shine in its due splendour (and consequently be Kingship properly so termed) without them. For the other two Ecclesiastick States (which some have dream'd of) would (as I said be­fore) if not ruine, yet, diminish his Majesties Authority, and make his Kingship and Regal Power dwindle into something of a more inconsiderable name. So that, with­out his Bishops, he would not be a King properly so cal­led. We have seen that grosse Non-sequitur of D. E. viz. Kings have flourished without Bishops; ergo, they may still. But this is only the first of his Reasons which made him Scruple the mutual Relation of Kings and Bi­shops.

2. Saith D. E. 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 pleaseth, though as much lay-persons us you and I. Hence, he concludes that there is no necessity of such a mutual respect between Kings and Bishops. Whether our Pamphleter be a Laick or no? I list not here to enquire, although his Ignorance bespeaks him to be somewhat worse. When he wrote this, he did it in so great simplicity, that his left hand knew not what his right hand did. For the question is not, Whether his Majesty may invest a Laick with Ecclesiastick dignities and promotions? but, Whether he may do it without detri­ment [Page 7] to his Kingdom, and the unavoydable ruines of a Glorious Church, without which his Kingship would be at an ebb? We do not so farr detract from his Majesty's Power, as to avow that he cannot substitute Mechanicks' in Church-discipline; But we say, that if He should do it, it would not a little tend to the disadvantage, prejudice, yea, subversion of his Kingly Power. And whence then doth D. E. conclude the nullity of that coherence be­tween Kings and Bishops? There is a difference between the Kings doing a thing, and his doing it with safety. The King may infringe the connexion betwixt him and Bi­shops, by his discarding them; But he cannot maintain his Regal Authority in such a dis-union. Hence then, 'tis absolutely false, and nothing deductive from his premisses, which D. E. infers, viz. That 'tis very injurious to the King's authority to averr, that he could not otherwise uphold himself, than by preserving the undue, and (as some think) Antichristian praelation of his inferiour officers. Speak out man! Some think quoth a? The Man is loath to accuse himself, but presents it to us under the frantick conceit of his Brethren. Antichristian? Methinks, his own thoughts might have convinc'd him of the falsity of that passion; and he might have concluded a Bishop to have been no kin to Antichrist, since then, A Prelate and D. E. would have been better friends.

3. He will have us believe that Bishops are so little use­ful to support the Regal dignity, that none have been greater enemies to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty than some Bi­shops. Where we may observe the weakness of his Reason. Some Bishops have abused the Kings trust; therefore there is no reason why Episcopacy should be entail'd to King­ship. The same reason may be alleadged against No­bility, since some Nobles have employ'd their honours and capacities to the distraction of the Kingdom and the endammagement of his Majesty; hence might we con­clude (did the method of D. E. hold good), that the King may subsist without his Nobles. Or, what if we should recriminate, on those Presbyterians who have surmis'd [Page 8]a Parliament essential to the Kingly Government, and tell them that some of the Parliament have made Trea­son the design of many consultations, therefore the King might and ought to subsist without any such But­teresses and Appendixes of Domination? Sure, they would much grumble at such an Argument. And D. E. would think little reason in it. But let us see, what ground he had to blemish any of the Bishops, with styling them Enemies to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty. They are so, saith he, either by their scarce warrantable intermedling in Civill af­fairs. Had he but instanced in some of those affairs (as his malice would easily have done, had not his ignorance countermanded it), I should have known better how to Reply. For I know no Secular business wherein any of them have, or do Authoritatively concern themselves, or wherewith they do intermingle; unless the things be such, as, carrying a double nature, have a greater allyance with Ecclesiastical, than Temporal Considerations; their by as directing towards the Church-interest. And as for their medling with such matters, I see not how D. E. could term them Unwarrantable, or Prejudicial to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty. But this is not all the reason of his abusing Bishops, but the second way whereby he deems them the Kings Enemies, is, By their absurd and insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes, whereby they mangle the Kings Authority, leaving him no Supremacy, as to Church-matters, but the Name. Whether our Author be a fit discerner of insignificant di­stinctions, let any judge. Why should the differencing and discriminating of Causes into Civil and Ecclesiastick, be more absurd than the distinguishing of persons into such? Besides, who sees not what a Scandalous lie he hath here vented? Whith what face could he say that the King is al­lowed no Soveraignty in Church-affairs, but only nomi­nal, when his Majesty may and doth like, disapprove, re­gulate, determine, and dispose of them, how and when he himself pleaseth? So that (although D. E. would falsely perswade us the contrary) the Popes pretensions are of a [Page 9]nature contradistinct to those of our Bishops; since his Supremacy admits of no acknowledgment of subordina­tion. So that, the Pope is no more of kin to our Bi­shops, than D. E. to Truth and Honesty. If our Pam­phleter be so good at lying. I should scarce trust him this dear year, lest he should exercise his skill in another fa­culty. But he proceeds: If the Bishop of Worcester's Rule hold good, —Crimine ab uno, Disce omnes, — i. e. that all men of a party may be judged by the miscarriage of one, then you may judge by the Bishop of Worcester, what the rest drive at. What pains doth D. E. take in an expo­sition? He would fain perswade us that he understands Latin; when, it may be, he was obliged to the Civility of a Rider's Dictionary. As for his retorting that sen­tence — Crimine ab uno, Disce omnes — (urg'd by my Lord of Worcester upon The Presbyterians) let me tell him, 'twas done without the least dram of understanding. For, although we should grant to D. E. that this one Bi­shop (though it can never be proved) is guilty of Usur­pation, yet the Phrase cannot with the same reason be rebandied on Episcopacy through his default, who is farre from engrossing the name of Prelacy; as it was objected first against the Presbyterians because of the mis­demeanour of Mr. Baxter, who pretends to the Monopoly of Presbytery, arrogating to himself the antesignation and representment of all the rest.

The Vanity of D. E. his first exception is sufficiently discovered; I shall also make bare the insufficiency of the rest.

II. EXCEPT.

OUR Pamphleter takes it very ill that the Bishop of Worcester should call himselfe the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese. Deeming that such a position must needs be defended by the Arguments produced in behalfe of the Pope's Supremacy. I wonder, what could introduce into his thoughts such a conclusion? or what could suggest that the same must be the Reason for a Bishops superintendency over one particular Diocese, and in sub­ordination to his Majesty's command; and for the Pope to assume the universall command of all churches, without the acknowledgement of any higher Power to which he should submitt? I wonder whence D. E. derives such dreams, as that there should be a parity of reason and Convenience, for his Holynesse's governing the Church by such a populous plurality of Substitutes, as that it is utterly impossible for him to make particular inquisition into the execution of their functions; And for A Bishop's adopting to himselfe a limited number of deputies, whose more neighbouring deportments he may with much facility survay and determine of them according to their known actions? What will any man judge but that D. E. his witts were at Rome all this while? But he informes us That he forbears to urge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostles Paul, and Peter ( hoping the Bishop will not take it angrily, that he did not call them Saints, Since that these holy men did not need any style of honour out of the the Pope's Kalender The Saints are very little oblig'd to the Charity of this irreverent fellow, who will not give them what they deserve, but what they need; And their Necessities, not their Merits, must prescribe a proporti­on to their titles. But why do not Bishops follow the Doctrine of these Apostles? Paul, saith he, had sent for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus bidding them feed the Church [Page 11]of God over which (not be himselfe by his sole authority as, Bishop of the Diocese but) the Spirit had made them [...] i. e. Overseers. And did the Spirit (I wonder) immediately without any instrumentall Cooperation of St. Paul, make them overseers? Or doth the Bishop now pretend to make Men overseers without any respect had to the Influence of the Spirit? Wherein then lies the difference between the Bi­shop's practise and the Apostles Doctrine? O, but [...] and [...] with them signifie the same. Tis true, some­times they did signifie the same yet they were not all­wayes of the Same Extent. Every one that was [...] and no more, might in some sense be calld [...] but not è converso, Every Bishop or overseer could not be calld a Presbyter, and no more. For my part I will not envy the term [...] to the most undeserving priest, in it's genuine signification. But withall, I would have D. E. know, that a Community of name doth not alwayes in­volve an indistinction of dignity, or a parity of degree; Else would I enquire, why St. Paul) who was also [...]) did so imperiously summon the rest? Or what plea St. Peter could produce for his Commanding the ministers to feed the Flock (as D. E. himselfe tells us): Which two occurrences are so far from patronizing our Replicant's Asseverations, that they utterly defeat them; Manifestly holding forth a disparity of eminence and command. I would desire him therefore to be inform'd, that Custom is guilty neither of Blasphemy nor heresy (the Degrees being still the same with those of the Apostles) in the re­striction of the title. A Scholar (I will not say D. E.) knowes that [...] formerly was a word equally appro­priated to men and Spirits, employ'd in embassies; but now the eminence of the latter hath engross'd the Name, especially in it's translations; as likewise the [...] [...]-ness of the Bishops office hath attracted the use of the title [...]

In the next place, we are told (to detract from the Epis­copal power) that Whoever feed the flock are under Christ ( Whom the Apostle terms the Chief-Shepheard) the next and [Page 12]immediate pastours of the flock, though his wits were gone a wool-gathering, and now I have found them among the flock. In the first of his Exceptions he is strongly provok'd against Bishops; as detracting from his Majesty's Ecclesi­astick prerogative: And yet here, he thinks it no impeach­ment to the Kings supremacy, to give the most inconsider­able priest the upper hand of him inspiritualls. Twas well he discovered no more of his name than D. E. else this sentence might chance to have made his neck crack, since it savours little better than reason. For I would willingly know of him, whether the Pastour of the Flock be not the Governour of the flock? If that he be (as he cannot de­ny it), then, whosoever feeds that flock is next and im­mediately under Christ supream governour in Ecclesiasti­cals, and the immediate head of the Church next to God; for D. E. tells us that he is the immediate, and, conse­quently, next to God, the supream Pastour. So farewell to one of his Majesty's titles. Is not this to be a most affectionate lover of the Kings person and Government, as he elsewhere pretended? But he tells us moreover, that, To extend the power beyond the actuall care of feeding, is a Notion altogether unscripturall. Unless I am as farre out of the way as our Authour and Animadvertour is out of his wits, here is a false [...]; wherein he takes it for granted that a Bishops care is not actuall. How unwarily doth he confound those two termes actuall and Immediate (which last he would have said, and so have excluded the Kings power from most parochiall congregations in Eng­land) thinking them of the same import and significa­tion. If D. E. did understand what, actuall, meant, he would know that a mediate care (such as Episcop [...]l) is likewise actual. The word signifying nothing else than, existent and in Act. Let us a little (for illustration) suppose an owner of a great flock dividing them into severall parts, giving them to the tuition of one Pastor; he distributing them to the Care of others, whose executing of their office he supreviseth: Will D. E. say that this Supravisour doth not take an actuall care of the flock? or that he is not the [Page 13]shepheard more immediate to the Owner? Or that he may not dispose of the more inferiour pastours pro arbitrio, alwayes respecting their actions and his Master's permis­sion; Or that there is the same reason for ones feeding by vicegerents, whom by reason of their multitude and remotion he cannot oversee; and for another's depu­tation of feeders, whom by reason of their paucity and vicinity he may easily survey? I think he will not, al­though his indiscretion and malevolence might counsell him to the assertion.

III. EXCEPT.

HE calls it A light and unseemly trifling with sacred Writ to understand the words spoken concerning th [...]se that go not in by the door (and are therefore theeves and Robbers) of such Ministers as preach to Congregations without the Bi­shop's license. Little dreams he, that they are called theeves and (Robbers not as preaching only to Congregations, for so they do but come in the wrong way, but) as they preach out of a designe to prejudice and plunder the true Shep­heard. And indeed such postick irruptions imply some­thing of a malevolent Complexion; and the ensuing practises of such intruders have bin an ample Comment on those preceding designes that encourag'd them to the At­tempt. But he tels us that, If besides ordination there must be a License, then (1) He knows not what Ordination mean's. Indeed I am easily induc'd to believe this latter Clause. He doth not know, that ther's a difference between the power and the place of Ministration, the Capacity and the place wherein to execute the Capacity. The Dignity and office of feeding is conferred at Ordination, but not the power to feed where he list, but where he should have leave; lest he should trespasse upon other mens inclosures, and undermine and supplant other pa­stours, (2) Saith he, For one Minister of the Gospell (for Certainly a Bishop is no more). No certainly, he is no more then one, unless he had the Presbyterian faculty of a double [Page 14]heart and a double tongue: But yet this one is of a more dilated power and pre-eminence; but what of him? For him to silence his Fellow-Minister (But fellow-minister is not hayl fellow well met; they are fellows in the same function, but not in the same degrees of Dignity in that function), for no other reason but for preaching without a new license (A new license? pray first let them have an old one) this is an abuse of dominion and contrary to the first ages of the Church. This we must take gratis, D. E. being as farre unacquainted with primitive transactions, as he is at defiance to sound Reason. What if D. E. never read of such a practise in the Church, doth it therefore necessa­rily follow, that there was no such practise? Or, what if there was no such Custome? Are there no customes laudable, but adequately those which decayed Antiquity hath bequeathed us? Probably, the tender and Infant-Church could not away with a discipline so accurate, as that which it's more Virile-constitution doth exact. The uninquisitive humours of men in those dayes, contented themselves in the fruition of the Gospel, without any pro­nity to Schism. Men being more sedulous in perswading to a down-right faith, did not then require such Cautions towards their preaching, as the now adays unsatisfy'd Cu­riosities, which byass'd-men towards distraction, seem to call for.

Our Saviour (saith our Animadverter) silenc'd the Pha­rises by strength of Argument, Which the Bish [...]p of Wor­cester may do, when he is able. I confesse, he would have a difficult task, and D. E. may defye all Christendome upon the Same account. For the best hopes in such an enterprise would find unhappy frustration. For they may as well pre­sume to silence Thunder, as by rationall perswasions to stop the mouths of those clamorous Presbyterians; who before they will, by a reasonable Silence, seem to relinquish their long since defeated Cause, will not stick to croud whole Volumes with absurdities; And rather then they'l appeare destitute of a Reply, their Adversary shall hear of them in D E. his railing Dialect, and in Hucksters Rheto­rick. [Page 15]The only way then, of silencing such, must be by constraint. O but, Our Saviour was so farr from Silencing the Pharisees from preaching, that he commands his disciples both to hear and obey their Doctrine. But it was to obey their Doctrine, as (1) they preached the Law, not as they vented Schism and declared Faction. (2) Twas compara­tively, rather to square their lives by the Pharisees doctrine than by their practse, that Christ enjoyned his disciples▪ (3) 'Twas to vouchsafe the Pharisees audience, as they were legally authorized, and because they sate in Moses chaire: so that the Reason is of a farre different aspect for the not forbidding of the Pharisees, and the toleration of Mr Baxter. Moreover (4) the Pharisees preach'd the Prophets, which Prophets discovered the Messiah; and so their preaching might advance Christ's Kingdome: whereas the preaching of Nonconformists and such like, would be so farr from promoting, that it would bury Christ's King­dome in the ruines of a distracted Church and a divided Realm. But briefly, since the ends of our Saviour's role­rating the Pharisees are not fully known, conveniency ought somewhat more to be respected, than imitation in this matter. For, should there be a sufferance of preach­ers, though (with the Pharisees) blaspheming; why might not there be an indulging forbearance allowable to persons o [...] ministers, though morally and notoriously offending? Which thing D. E. himself (pag. 5. lin. 2.) acknow­ledgeth, as sufficient ground of Silencing and ejection.

I wish therefore that D. E. and the rest of his tribe (if any be so simple and inconsiderate to be of his Society) would remember, that as, they speake evill of Dignities, and resist the Power which God hath ordained: so, they shall receive their due reward (though no satisfaction) for it? As likewise for all such Pamphlets publish'd by them for the propagation of Sedition.

IV. EXCEPT.

HOw consistent with the Civill Peace (for as to Christian Charity he thinks the whole thing but a letter of defiance against it) the Bishops distinction is about the Act of Indem­nity, He Hopes his Majesty will in due time consider. For the Bishop, saith he, is so hardy as to tell us, that though the King had pardoned the Corporall punishment; yet the Church ought not to remit the Scandall till amends were made by Con­fession. 'Tis pitty but D. E were of his Majesty's privy Councell, that he might prove his remembrancer. But I pray, what Reason is there, why he who hath bin prejudi­ciall to the Church should not make a due acknowledg­ment of his delinquency, before his re-admission to his for­mer priviledges? Is there not a grand discrimination between the remission of a man's punishment, and the re-admission into preferment? We ought to do good to out enemies in forgiving private injuries, but not in pro­moting, them so long as by their non-recantation they seem to avow their former fact, and to maintain a posture contradictory to the Churche's welfare. And how is this Distinction repugnant to the Civill Peace? Or rather, Is it not more adversant thereunto, to preferre the men or forget the injury, when they not confessing do adhere to their for­mer principles? This were for the Church, only to take care that those (who are in a strong probability of doing her an injury) should be put in a Capacity to effect any of their designes; or at least to contribute to their security by taking no notice of them. The Church exacting a Recantation respects not so much their past faults as their present posture of Hostility. But Alas! what doth this word, Church, meane? Here D. E. could have wished thas the Bishop would have spoken out of the Clouds, and Plainly told whether By the Church, he meant a Congregation of the faithfull; or Archbishops, Bishops &c. I see I am mistaken, for I thought that D. E. his foggy braine could have ap­prehended [Page 17]things spoken in a Cloud, better than those deliver'd in the cleer Sunshine. Well: If I might presume to guesse at the Reverend Father's meaning, I would tell D. E. that by the word, Church, he understands neither the Congregation, excluding Archbishops, Bishops &c. nor yet these, abstracted from the Congregation, but both to­gether. So that D. E. (though ignorantly) play's the Sophister, arguing à benè conjunctis ad malè divisa. Hence 'tis that he labours with a false Supposition, That Arch­bishops, Bishops &c. did exact a recantation, as persons distinct from the Congregation; whereas they only act as Chiefs, Governours, and Representatives of the residue of the Church or Congregation. Now if D. E. will say that the Congregation hath no Coercive power at all (as he doth assert), then would I fain know, By what power the antient Church excommunicated; whether it were not by constraint and force? which (if, D. E. understands the word) is all one with Coercive. Yea but,

Why should the Church force a Recantation for such things as the King and Parliament commanded never more to be re­membred? Alas man, we look not so much on the Acts of hostility already preterlapsed and forgiven; as on those whereunto they stand in a readinesse, so long as they declare themselves, unconvinc'd of their Crimes; I know that the non-conformists or others (who have manifested their activity in the late commotions) have their actions forgiven them; but the remission of past facts, doth not secure the Church for futurity, so long as their non-recanting seem's to approve their precedent actings, and to warrant any other proceedings to come, of the same na­ture. The Church may and doth forgive offences past, but is not bound to dispense with those present postures, that seem to allow the late extravagancies, and to maintain the Scandall. But we are ask'd, What can more enrage men to take wild and forbidden Courses than so see preachers strive to widen their wounds, and contrary to their former professions pull off the plaisters which the State, Physicians had provided for our distempers? Had our Pamphleter meant this of the [Page 18] Presbyterian faction, the expressions had been apposite, and well applyed to their Natures. But since his owne construction, will scarce authorize or assent to so much truth, We shall answer his Quaery with another Interroga­tory. What then can more force a Constraint than to see such preachers as Mr. Baxter, (contrary to their iterated declarations) vent sedition, and not only widen the wounds of the Church, but even make them stink? I'me sure, such Empiricks as these, deserve a purgation. As for D. E. I think him to be dangerously troubled with black Choler, for the remedy whereof he hath vomited prety largely against the Fathers of the Church; And as soon as the humour shall increase to the redintegration of his distem­per, we must expect such another Evacuation.

V. EXCEPT.

WIth what irreverence doth D. E. grumble, and call it bold and impious, to assert, That if to command an act, which by accident may prove the occasion of sin, be sin­full, then God himselfe can command nothing? Since, saith he, A thing which by accident may be sinfull, may be unlaw­full in another to command for want of sufficient Authority. And so is every thing else; Though we should suppose an Injunction utterly devoyd of Sin, either in it selfe or in it's consequences; yet would be unlawfull, if proceeding from an unlawfull Authority. So that we see that D. E. never speaks but when his Mouth's open. He gives us a very good reason, why a thing may be unlawfull, viz, because it may be unlawfull. The Question is, Whether a thing may be unlawfull, as it may ocasion sin? D. E. answers, that it may be unlawfull as it proceeds from an unlawfull power. The Quaere is, Whether a thing that is sinfull per accidens, under that formality and eò quòd sinfull per accidens, be lawfull to be commanded? And he tells us, 'Tis un­lawfull, eò quòd the Authority is unlawfull. We enquire, whether a command be illegitimate, because the thing com­manded [Page 19]is sinful accidentally and by consequence? And he replies, that the command is illegitimate, because the Au­thority commanding is so. Which how much it is ad Rhom­bum, let any rational man consider. And how little it impeaches the Lord Bishops consequence, the weakest capa­city may see. Still then it remains unshaken, that if a thing being sinful by consequence be ground sufficient to render a thing unlawfull; God himself can command nothing, since he cannot command any thing but what may by con­sequence be made sin.

Besides, D. E. goes against all rules of dispute falling upon the hypothesis of the Question, for (the dispute being concerning his Majesty) they supposed the power comman­ding to be lawfull and beyond exception. Only, our Pam­phleter had a mind tacitly to hint out treason to us, and to whisper an illegitimacy entaild on the Kings Authority, and consequently on all his edicts and Mandamus's

VI. EXCEPT.

I Cannot but think it a reasonable and very solid Positi­on of the Lord Bishop, That an offence to which a dis­proportionable penalty is annexed, is not to be measured by the abstracted Quality of the Act, but by the mischievous Conse­quences it may produce. Since the forfeiture ought alwaies to bear proportion to the danger, and a greater penalty should be proclaimed to scare men from such actions, which (though puny and contemptible in themselves) are attended with populous and pestilent inconveniencies. But our wise Pamphleter is sure, that in Divinity nothing is more false and dangerous. Hey, pas, presto! Here ye shall have me, and there ye shall have me. In the first Exception, D. E. presents himself in a grey coat, and the false beard of a Laick, But here he personates another man, and pre­tends to Divinity. How doth he make himself an Ambo­dexter, an Hermaphrodite of Religion: A two fac'd [Page 20]pump, hinc Angelum ferens, illinc Cacodaemonem? He would serve for a good post in crosse-waies, directing to severall roads at once. I never took him for any other than a Fool in a Play, and he to justifie my conjecture hath here pro­duced his Coat of several colours; I will not say, it shews like Kiderminster stuffe. But this I am sure, D. E. is a Linsey-Woolsey Pamphleter. But pray let's hear the reason why his Lordship's asseveration is false in Divinity? viz. Because to impose in the worship of God, as necessary circum­stances of it, things confessedly trivial and needlesse is not ju­stifiable. (1). I wonder to what old woman D. E. was lately Confessour? for I think none else would ever have made an acknowledgment that the things were trivial and needless, which should be, or are, imposed. Because that we assert that things, though of small moment in them­selves, may have annexed to them dangerous consequen­ces, therefore D. E. collects that we confesse them tri­viall or needlesse. But (2). Doth not our Author admira­bly prove the falsity of the Lord Bishop's position? Is not his consequence strong? To impose things trivial and need­lesse is not justifiable; Ergo an offence to which a dispro­portionable penalty is annexed; must not be judged of by it's dangerous consequences. D. E. speaks nothing to the purpose, Ergo, His Lordships proposition is false in Divinity, And actions should not be judged of by their danger. Yea but

The Church and it's peace, is much more endangered by the pressing of such things doubtfull. I wonder who told D. E. That the indifference of any of these things ( viz. impo­sed Circumstances) were questionable or doubtful? or if they were doubtful, who told him that it was not in the Churches power, or that it was not her duty to determine of them? Or that it would incurre perill by imposing them? I should rather suppose, that the not giving men leave to dissent in small matters, would keep them from taking oc­casion to cause a division in things of greater importance. Whereas the gratifying some with a little toleration, hath, and would again, animate either them or others to attempt [Page 21]Schisms of greater bulke and proportion. The allowance of an inch makes many presume on an ell. But I pray thee (candid Reader) lend me a little of thy spleen to laugh at a pretty expression of our Pamphleter. From such impositi­ons, saith he, it follows, that (though we ought not) yet we lawfully may refuse to submit unto them. A man, it seems, ought not to rebell, but yet he lawfully may rebell. D. E. ought not to shew his back to the drumme head, and undergoe the Lash, but yet D. E. lawfully may do it. But why may we lawfully refuse to submit to impositions of this nature, viz. Because our Saviour did so, in not washing his hands before meat; And the Apostle (I think he means St. Paul) in the case of Circumcision But I conceive, our Saviour refused to wash, not in disobedience to the Custome, so much as to shew them the falsity of the reason whereon they built their Custome, scil. Supposing that eating with unwashen hands defiled a man; Which opinion our Bles­sed Saviour refuted by telling the Jewes, that (not what went in, but) what came out from the man occasioned his pollution. Besides we do not read that washing of hands was ratify'd by Authority, but only introduced by frequent practise and tradition. So that Christ only ran counter to a custome, and that will no way authorize our contradict­ing an imposition. As for that of St. Paul's refusing to cir­cumcise, 'twas to shew the abolition of that Sacrament by the introduction of a new, and this is no president for non-conformists to refuse subscription to circumstances of long continuance, and of necessary injunction, having not the authority of the Messiah for the introduction of any new ones in their room. Moreover we know that St. Paul did circumcise Timothy, Act. 16.1, 2, 3. that he might not give occasion of scandall to the Jewes, among whom he then was. If then D. E. will needs make the Apostle a pattern for i­mitation in his non-conforming to an abolish'd Sacrament, and refusing to circumcise Titus when he was among the Gentiles. I see not but why I may with farre greater rea­son urge his Example on the contrary. And since St. Paul being among the Jews did circumcise, therefore we may [Page 22]well conclude, that amongst Conformists we ought to conforme.

VII EXCEPT.

THe Sorites (which D. E. termes a Chayn of conse­quences) used by the Lord Bishop to prove the neces­sity of imposition, are (to speake Mr. Baxter's Language) the words of truth and Sobernesse. viz. From diversity in externall rights resulteth dislike, thence enmity, thence opposition, thence Schism in Church, and sedition in State. The State not standing secure without the Church, nor the Church without unity, nor unity without uniformity, nor uniformity without strict imposition. To this D. E. answers, That it is a meer rope of Sand (A pretty good Answer for one that was gra­vell'd. Somewhat 'twas that D. E. was angry with it, he standing not well affected to any Rope but one of Hemp). But he proceds: And the parts of his chaine (it seems, a Rope and a Chaine are all one with our Animal: Indeed they are something of Kin, and, if he proceed in his begun courses, the Chaine may chance to bring him to the Rope). Well but what of the parts? why they do as little hang together, as Samson's Foxes did before they were tyed by the Tayles (I thought something of a Foxe was nigh, the dis­course did so stink) which course the Bishop hath imituted, not forgetting to put in even the firebrand it selfe to make up the Comparison. So that this Fellow will needs make the Bishops book the firebrand. Well, be it so, The fire­brand came betwixt the two tayles; The Lord Bishop's book came between the Book of Mr. Baxter and D. E. his Pamphlet; how easily then hath D. E. prov'd that those two last were the fox-tayles. And indeed the com­parison is close and genuine, since either of them have left a most abominable scent behind them. But to prove the insufficiency of his Lordship's Sorites, we are presented with three observations.

(1.) That there ought to be diversity in external formes, since the Apostles of the Circumcision gave the right hand of followship to the Apostle of the Gentiles. What then? Be­cause the Apostles of the Jews, and those of the Gentiles did agree; ergo, there ought to be diversity of external forms. Still the old conesquences! Yea, but they did agree, Although the external forms of worship were far more different than those of England. (1.) I'le enquire of D. E. where he heard, how he proves, or when he dream'd it? (2.) I'le ask him, what of all that, though we should sup­pose a difformity in their worship? Peradventure the State of an infant-Church requir'd it. And (though, pro­bably, they did not approve of diversity in Circumstanti­als, yet) they would not wrangle about Formalities, lest they should deterr others from the Fundamentals. But now the case is alter'd, and a dispensation for recusancy in Circumstance, is so far from gayning others to the Funda­mentals, that it encourageth those who have already re­ceived the Faith, to the mangling of the Church, and the disjoyning of Christ's Mystical Body.

(2.) He tells us, That the State may be preserv'd with­out the Church, as it is evident in those 300 years before Con­stantine, when there was no Church at all legally Counte­nanced. Still we are troubled with a grosse Non-sequitur. As if there were the same reason for a Church newly in­oculated and a Church concorporated with the State; when the Church, as such, bears an equall weight with the State, as such. Before Constantine, though all the Church had been massacred, yet might the temporall State have stood, yea and triumphed in their bloud; Since those that had the Management of Secular affaires were not members of the Church. But now when discrepancy of worship proves matters of faction; when all that rule in, or submit to, the temporall State, must (as also Church-members) parti­cipate and share in the fortunes of one or other part of the Church; the downfall of the one unavoydably involves the dissolution of the other. So that when the frabrick of the Church, decayes in a Voluminous ruine, the State must [Page 24]also crack in a proportionable Emphasis of a broken frame.

3. Ʋnity in heart and spirit doth not in the least depend upon Ʋniformity but on charity, i. e. A Christian and candid forbearance in things circumstantiall, while we agree in essen­tialls. I admire, in what Authour D. E. read this defi­nition of Charity? we use to terme it, Amare Deum, supra omnia, propter seipsum; & vicinum, aequè ac nosmet, propter Deum. So that the part of charity looking towards our Neighbour, teacheth us to love him as our selves, but still for God's sake. Now, whether this Charity depends upon unity, and consequently on uniformity, or else Uni­ty and uniformity on Charity, will easily appear. If the breach of charity hangs upon disunion, and disunion up­on difformity; then Charity dedends upon union, and union on uniformity: But the Antecedent is manifestly true, that the rending of the Church breaks the bonds of Charity, in that it detracts from the honour of God; with­out which, the love of our Neighbour is no Charity: and that this rending or disunion depends on difformity, in that difference of circumstantials causeth heart-burnings, and an mosities. Whereupon D. E. is clearly mistaken in the dependance; Charity depending on, and being propor­tion'd to Unity, not Unity to Charity. But what if we should concede Unity to depend on Charity? yet still D. E. is in his old non sequitur. For Unity would still de­pend (though mediately) on Uniformity, since Charity (whereon he would have Unity depend) would be pre­served by Uniformity, and broken by Difformity. D. E. his candid forbearance then of one another in Circum­stantials, is so far from being Charity, that it is the infringe­ment of it; since such a forbearance or connivence at Non-conformists, would, by the rending of the Church (which would unavoydably follow) tend to Gods dis­honour. But D. E. is not farther out in this, than in that which follows: viz. The Warrs did not arise from the Se­paration of Conscientious dissenters (in this he speaks truth, for it was not Conscience, but Obstinacy counselled them [Page 25]to dissent) but from the fury of unconscionable imposers. But sure it was dissenting caused the rigid imposing. And then if it must be Imposing that broach'd the Warres, it may thanke forward Dissenting. Which same dissenting practises whether they may not produce a relapse into their former consequences, I would fain have those recusants consider; Unlesse they delight in Animosities, and like Salamanders long bath'd in flames disgust the influence of a milder Ele­ment.

VIII. EXCEPT.

D. E. Pretends to have great insight into the Ecclesi­astick laws of the French and Dutch Protestants; (And probably he may, for his understanding hath been beyond sea, a long time). But yet he never read of any Imposition of standing, sitting, or any other posture, at the Administration of the Eucharist. But yet if there were, saith he, it doth not ju­stifie our imposition of kneeling. (1) Because the question is, de jure, whether it be lawfull for them to prescribe any one po­sture. D. E. might do well to step over, and convince those Churches of their Errour. But why may not they enjoin one particular Posture; since an Oleo and mixture of car­riage at the reception of the Sacrament is not only unde­cent; But (when every man shall adopt to himself a frame of deportment) they will approach the Lords Table ei­ther with affectation, partially applauding their own judg­ments, or else with regret maligne the dissimilary compo­sure of others. Either of which are enough to render a Man an unworthy receiver. Besides though some have made it their endeavour to prove the carriage of the Apostles discrepant from ours; Yet none ever dream'd that they had a plurality of postures among themselves. (2). Saith D. E. None of those postures, us'd by other Churches, are so lyable to exception, as kneeling. I answer, that they are more lyable to exception, Sitting partaking much of ir­reverence; [Page 26]and standing being not such an ample expressi­on of humility and devotion. In kneeling there is an obli­gation of Decency. For considering the importance of the ordinance, and the Majesty of the person with whom we have to do; I know no reason but that the most sub­misse and reverential situation of the body should (even proscinded from an enjoyning power) be obligatory, and more than indifferent.

But why is kneeling so liable to Exception? (1) Because it varies most from the old form. Believe him who will! Which, I pray, doth standing, sitting, or kneeling more bor­der on discumbency? But what though it should most dif­fer from the old form? although D. E. cannot prove it. They in their demeanours consulted conveniency; we, to expresse our devotion. But (2) Kneeling hath been mon­strously abus'd by the Papists to Idolatry. What though? doth the abuse of a thing argue the illegitimacy of it's use? I be­lieve then that D. E. never saith his Praiers on his knees. Or probably he saith them in his sleep, because waking praiers were abus'd by Papists in their Vigils; and it may be, this made many Presbyterians wink and pray. Or (which is most likely) D. E. never saith any Praiers at all, be­cause Papists have made the Saints groan with their innu­merable Supplications, and have made Pictures the Objects of clamorous Peritions. D. E. sure never puts the Bible to the penance of a consultation, because the most dam­ned Hereticks have father'd their pretensions thereon, and have had recourse to Scripture for the Patronage of their Positions.

IX. EXCEPT.

D. E. complains again of the injury was done in revi­ling the whole body of Presbyterians for the faults of Mr. Baxter, upon supposition that he is a Presbyterian. Sup­position that he is a Presbyterian? Why will any think o­therwise? [Page 27]I cannot conceive but Mr. Baxter would repute it a Calumny of the greatest Magnitude, for any to ex­clude him out of the number, nay not to suppose him their ringleader. Do not others, (yea and his own over-weening fancy) look on him as the pillar of their reeling Cause? Do not all stand indicted of He esie in the thoughts of the rest, who swarve from his positions, and comply not with an eager subscription to what he deposeth? It seems (though D. E. scruples not to affirm it) the Age is not too wise to be gull'd with an [...]. But our Animadverter would have every man bear his own burden. And (although he doth not expresse it, yet) he hath a pretty good reason for such a request, for he knows Presbyterians to be of that sort of Animals which is very good at bearing. But he wonders, in what Bible the Bishop found that he might as­perse a whole order of men for the pretended miscarriage of one? I wonder in what book (I will not say Bible, for I con­jecture that he little troubles that) did D. E. read that a man might not reprove a whole Society, for the reall misdemeanour of their supposed Chieftain? Or, where did he find that there is reason to rebandy the phrase— Crimine ab uno Disce omnes, upon the order of Episcopacy, because of the Lord of Worcester's dreamed fault; since he pretends not to such an universality on the one side, as Mr. Baxter doth on the other. But not to gratifie the pe­tulant and Sawcy humour of our Pamphleter, I would be­seech him to know that the Sentence by him retorted, is so farre from extending to Disce omnes, that it is not yet come to Crimine ab uno. And D. E. is so farre from truly introducing the rest of the Bishops as guilty, that he hath not yet prov'd one of them Criminal.

Hitherto D. E. tells us, he was willing to propose his ex­ceptions (or rather to blazon his ignorance) but he will leave it to some abler pen (as he had need) to convince the Bishop and the world that it is not now time to sow tares. No nor any other seed, so long as there are such Geese as D. E. to devour it. I wonder what Seed this is which our Pamphle­ter [Page 28]hath sowed? 'Tis scarce, so good as Infoelix lolium. It is some kin to hemp-seed, and may in time do him a courtesie in the return. But the Reason, I pray, why a man may not in this Age sow tares? O, The Age is too wise to take every thing for Oracle which the Bishop's passion dictates. No, nor yet whatever D. E. shall proclaim; although there be some Reason for it, Since the Spirit in him, spake (like that of Jupiter Hammon) out of an Image.

But yet before parting, D. E. will give us a taste of the Reverend Father's deep wisdome. And I will see how well his shallow wit will be able to fathom it.

1. SAith D. E. The Bishop declaimes so fiercely, as if he would crack his Girdle. Girdle? He was resolv'd a­mongst so much non-sense to have one word that was Ca­nonical. But in the space doth he not strain so hard his rai­ling vein, that he hath burst that point whereto the wast­band of his Britches should trust, which makes him so fa­cily liable to the Lash? But what is that against which there are such Declamations? viz. Against those who force all Communicants to come unto them, and be particularly exa­mined before their Admission to the Sacrament. And what can D. E. say against any mans exploding such a Custome? or in vindication of such a Practise? Only this, That they were but examined once for all, as likewise the Bishop allows Catechising. But I hope there is not the same reason for Catechizing, and for Presbyterian Examination; Catechi­zing being a facile and prescribed way of informing men in their duty, and exhibiting to them a compendious means of knowing the opinion of the Church in matters of faith and practise. Whereas (1). Examinations, whereby Pres­byterians sifted men, was many times in Questions unheard-of and peradventure scarce well understood of the exami­ner. As, How long have you been converted? What method did the Spirit use in your Conversion? And a multitude of Queries of the same Hackle. (2). The main thing that makes their Examination obvious to exception, is; In that [Page 29]the Minister had recourse to his own private principles and single perswasion for the Questions he proposed; Inso­much that if the Answer were found to discover a glimpse of an opinion that swarv'd from the Maxims of his private and pick'd Church, it did administer sufficient Occasion of renunciation. Which practise how laudable it was, let any (but D. E.) judge. This D. E. thinks himself ingeni­ous when he tells us next, That the Bishop did well this cold weather to set up a man of straw, and catch himself a heat with threshing it. To see how much the Man's mistaken! Tis I have been at the pains all this while to thresh this man of straw, although I have not sweat for't.

2. D. E. thinks it inadvertency in the Lord Bishops wish, That the Authors of all such books as defend the Covenant would burn them themselves to save the Hangman a labour. But I cannot enough applaud the Counsell. For the Sacrificing and devoting such Books voluntarily to the flames, might in some degree expiate the Authours crimes in a burnt of­fering. But as yet I see no reason any man hath (though our Pamphleteer thinks the contrary) to bawk the repeti­tion of the Covenant to the infamy of such as perpetuate its remembrance, and keep the memory thereof enshrin'd in those unhappy sheets, wherein they have wrapped it's Apology. I would not have D. E. dread the Dilemma­tical inconveniences that would accrue to those who should attempt the defence of that Oath. Let him not fear be­ing goared with the hornes (as he phrases it) of a Syllogismus cornutus, since an Argumentum baculium doth better suit with his capacity. But he hath a great tendernesse for the lawfull part of an Oath, after that it is solemnly taken. Here he hints to us that some part of the Covenant was lawful, and gives a silent approbation of something in that, which the wisdome of the Parliament wholly disallowed. But it hath been taken by those who have ventured their lives to sig­nalize their Loyalty. But have not many of them since gi­ven a pregnant testimony how ill they have resented the thing it self, as also how utterly they detested that com­pulsive power which forced it upon them, by a spontane­ous [Page 30]and unengaged care for its abolition? Wherefore, (though D. E. like a friend, takes care for it's peaceable interment thinking it's Ashes might have rested quietly better than have blown about by the Bishops furious breath, since it was burnt by publique Authority, yet) I would enquire, (Since THAT which was the Cinders from whence great flames had their eruption, and display'd themselves in a generall conflagration, is now reduc'd to ashes) why should those Volumes that have engaged in it's patronage preserve it's reliques unextinct, and gratifie the Covenant in a posthume-life?

3. D. E. Can never enough commend the Bishop's wisdome in resolving never to write again. And I can never sufficiently applaud our Pamphleteer, who took courage to defie one, which not only scorn'd to foul his fingers with him, but also had determin'd not to answer. But that which D. E. Ironically speaks; I seriously repeat, as seeing high wisdome in his Lordship's resolve against writing: For why should he grate his daies, and waste his Spirits in replying to the in­defatigable Lungs and pens of any railing Presbyterians. Since he might acquiesce in that plenary refuration of his detractour, and the ful satisfaction which his Letter contains and presents to any that should enquire into his belyed pro­ceedings with Mr. Baxter. And I think there's none can finde therein either errour or insufficiency (as to the matter it comprehends) unlesse such as are of D. E. his insolent and pedantique humour, which prompted him so magiste­rially to vent his Non-sense, even to the glowing of a so­ber eare. Such, I confesse (if there be any such) as he may cry out (though ridiculously enough) that the Bishops resol­ved Silence resembles a School boy, who after a box on the ear lent to another, cunningly retreats. But I should suppose it ra­ther School-boy-like to give him a box on the eare whom he knows to be peremptorily resolv'd against retaliation, and determin'd not to strike again. How much doth this Si­militude of the Pamphleteer speak the Author, and suffici­ently evince his understanding to be sub ferula? How doth his extravagant and nil ad rem treatise, argue that his witts [Page 31]play Truant? And his very name ( viz. D. E.) import that he is in his A. B. C.

But to see the vaulting and salacious humour of our A­nimadverter in the skipping of his comparison: from a School-boy to a Gyant. If saith he, Goliah (he means the Bishop) shall defy Israel, and retire from the field, with only shewing his teeth. The Philistins will hardly thank him. But I say, that if Goliah (I mean Mr. Baxter) armed with a weaver's beam (though in his eye) shall thunder defy­ance against the King and his Host, Why may not David retire upon the conquest of his Monstrous foe?

But since D. E. pronounceth it not the part of a Cham­pion to shew his teeth only and and run away; I would ad­vise him (when ever he is to engage with his Adversary) not to shew his teeth, but his eares, the more formidable and scaring objects by farre. Our Author hastening now towards an end, will not stand to determine whether the de­portment of the Bishop may make the rest of the Prelates, judge him of kin to quickly-defeated Goliah or not? Neither will I contest much about it. Only D. E. his impudence per­swades me to believe himself of some affinity with Goliah. For Goliah had an helmet of brasse, and our Champion's face is of the same mettal.

Hitherto I have followed the Chase; But since the Dra­gooner hath pleas'd to retire to the protection of his pre­tended honourable Patron, I shall leave both him and his Letter of intelligence to their Covert, expecting to hear farther the next return. Till when I shall presume to re­treat to the Garrison of the Readers courtesie (from whence I first issued and) where I dare not despair of Security and Shelter.