IF he be inexcuſable that Judges another, becauſe he condemns himſelf, what excuſe then ſhall he have that condemns another in what he himſelf allows? With what face then can D. E. declame ſo againſt the Biſhop of Worcester's Paſſion, when as were he ſo guilty as D. E would have him; yet in this very thing doth D. E. ſo cleerly outvy the Biſhop that no impartial Reader but muſt grant this phrenſy he hath antidated the Dog-days above four Moneths the uſual ſeaſon? & indeed D. E. ſhall do well to glory in his Victory herein; for unleſſe you grant him his Arguments for propagation of Paganiſ • : you ſhall neither find Senſe nor Reaſon in Animadverſions upon the Biſhops Letter.

The ſecond Paragraph contains a Conceſſion of the Cauſe in controverſie between the Biſhop and Mr. Baxter, upon ſuppoſition it to be ſtated as Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearſon do atteſt: yet is he much unſatisfied with many things of general concernment: as

1. Firſt, That Kings and Biſhops are of ſuch inſeparable dependance, that they muſt needs ſtand and fall together; and all who are enemies to one, muſt needs be Enemies to the other. Nor was this paſſionately affirmed by the Biſhop: for if men may argue a posteriori, from the effect to find out the cauſe, or that men may take warning from others harms, then do I affirm that no where in the Chriſtian world, that ever Chriſtian men (if they be worthy to be called ſo) did ever caſt off their obedience to Epiſcopal Government, but when they acquired force proportionable to their will, they did, or did attempt to ſubvert the State Government either in perſon or Specie; beſides in reaſon if men may arrogate to themſelves a licenciouſneſſe of caſting off their obedience to the Church, what then can reſtrain them to their obedience to the State? for it is the ſame Spirit which commands men to hear the Church, and to ſubmit to Higher powers; and if this were not to the Church governed by Biſhops, I would deſire D. E. to ſhew any Church in Christ endome before Calvin otherwiſe governed; and certainly D. E. upon better conſideration cannot believe our Saviour to have with his blood eſtabliſhed a confuſed Church, to continue till his next coming again, without any Order or Government, eſpecially having the conſtant cuſtome of Chriſtianity to the contrary; and he that is poſſeſt, hath title good enough, untill he be evicted by a better title or arguments than D. E. can find againſt this. How much D. E. is in his Judgement for the Order of Biſhops, will appear by and by in his ſecond Objection againſt the Biſhops aſſertion.

1. D. E, his firſt Argument againſt the Biſhops aſſertion is, that, It is clear from Story, that Kings were in all parts of the World, in their most flouriſhing state, defore ever Biſhops were heard of; and no reaſon can be given; why what hath once been, may not be with the ſame convenience again; a pretty convenient argument this is: why certainly D. E. is not ſo very a Heathen, as not to believe the Biſhop to be a Chriſtian, or that the Biſhop did not ſpeak to Chriſtians, or affirm this of a Chriſtian State? Why let D. E. ſhew that ever in the Chriſtian world, Epiſcopal Government was rejected, and yet Regal continued (unleſs in Scotland, when King James was a child, and made an Inſtrument to advance the Kirks ſeditious ends) and he ſays ſomething; unleſſe D. E. by his convenient argument would utterly aboliſh Chriſtianity from us, and introduce Paganiſm and Heatheniſm again amnog, which he very handſomely proſecutes in his next argument, viz.

2. Biſhops, as they are eſtabliſhed by Law in England, are purely the Kings ſubordinate Miniſters in the management of Eccleſtaſtical affairs which his Majesty may conferr upon whae Order of men he pleaſes, though they be as much Lay perſons at you or I am. It is therefore very injurious to the Kings Authority, to aver that he could not otherwayes uphold and maintain it, than by preſerving the undue, and as ſome think Antichriſtian Dignity and prelation of his inferiour Officers; So that one of theſe two conſequences do inevitably follow, either that Chriſt left no Epiſcopal Power and Miniſters in his Church, or elſe that by the Law eſtabliſhed in England, it and they are utterly ſuppreſſed; and the Biſhops in all acts of Preaching, Baptizing, Conſecrating, Ordaining &c. are not Chriſts but purely the Kings Miniſters. And in truth I do not know any thing which hath rendred Chriſtianity, and all Chriſtian Religion, nay, and Gods taking our Nature upon him, to redeem and ſave mankind, ſo vile as this argument hath done. I deſire to be ſatisfied as a Chriſtian, to know what Chriſt hath eſtabliſhed, that does any way repugn my duty as a man which I ow my King. I am ſure he moſt certainly and poſitively commands all obedience to Kings and higher Powers. I am ſure the Adminiſtration of the Sacrament, the Preaching of Chriſt crucified, the Burial of the Dead, and conſecrating proper places for Gods Worſhip and Service, and Ordaining ſeparated perſons for ſuch purpoſes, no way hinders the Kings Supremany over all the perſons of his Subjects; even in theſe very caſes; but they are as much his Subjects, after ſuch Ordination as before. Nay I affirm, that in a Church planted; the free exerciſe of this power in all Kings Dominions, and all Glebes, and endowments whatſoever are Donations and Conceſſions from them, Nor was the practice of Chriſtians (when there was a Chriſtian Church and no Chriſtian State, though D. E. thinks it abſurd and inſignificant to diſtinguiſh them) ever better to Princes in their obedience than in the primitive times.

Having thus ſhewed that the Biſhops, nor any thing ordained by our Saviour, is any ways injurious to the King. I deſire the Reader to take notice how much D. E. hath verified his Judgement for the Order of Biſhops, which makes it a meer Civil Sanction, and ſo hath not any dependence on, or creation by Chriſt.

3. He ſayes, that Biſhops are of ſo little uſe to ſupport Regal Dignity (which is founded upon a diſtinct Baſis of its own) that upon enquiry it will be found, none have been greater enemies to it than ſome Biſhops; for want of argument to ſhew that Biſhops are no ſupport to Regal power, D. E. here only affirms againſt ſome Biſhops to have been Enemies to it; and I can tell D. E. of twenty times more Biſhops have been active & ſuffered for it; and ſo D. E. if he wil have the perſonal faults of particular men to make Epiſcopacy dangerous to Regality, will have above twenry to one againſt him, and therefore to advance it, it is therefore abſurdly done of him to charge Crimine ab uno Diſce omnes upon the Biſhop here, when as he himſelf hath nothing elſe to make good his exception.

2. For want of argument againſt the Biſhops aſſertion, that the Biſhop is the ſole Paſtor of all Congregations in his Dioceſs, D. E. is ſure he ſays (but it is only upon his own Authority, & Gratis dictum) it can be defended by thoſe arguments which maintain the Popes ſupremacy, which is all one, as if D. E. ſhould be ſure that my going to Church, can only be maintained by thoſe arguments which are alleged to maintain Maſs; and therefore I ſhould never come there; and if he had underſtood a little Logick, he would have found he had proved the Biſhops aſſertion by the practice of Paul and Peter (though no Saints of his) which he brings againſt it; for to bid and command, is the Predicament of Relation to ſomething ſubject to it; and if Paul may bid the Elders of Epheſus, and Peter command his fellow Elders, then neceſſarily, muſt the Elders of Epheſus, and Peter's fellow Elders be ſubject to Paul and Peter, which is (I believe) as much as the Biſhop will deſire.

3. I commend D. E. that in his 3. objection he charges the Biſhop, page 3. that ſuch as come not in by the door, to be Thieves and Robbers ought to be understood of ſuch Miniſters as ſpeak to Congregations without the Biſhops Licenſe; whereas the Biſhop then only charges Mr. Baxter not to come in by the door, but to be a Thief and Robber, becauſe he had not only robbed the Right-full Vicar of Kidderminſter of his Reputation, but of his means and maintenance, D. E. therefore does very well to ſet up a man of ſtraw this cold weather, and get himſelf heat by threſhing of it: but if D. E. be good at Addition, he is no leſs at Subſtraction, and therefore takes no notice of the Biſhops inſtance of Saint Paul and Alexander the Copper-ſmith, and Demas, Philetus, and H • meneus, for D. E. his objection againſt preaching without a Licenſe after Ordination, becauſe it cannot be diſſolved, much leſs hindered in the free uſe, except for moral and notoriouſly vicious miſdemeanors: I grant that power indiſſoluble, becauſe a divine inſtitution; yet does it not therefore follow, that the exerciſe of it may not be ſuſpended upon abuſe of it. However D. E. puts the cart before the horſe, in affirming it impoſſible to be diſſolved, much leſs impeached, or hindred in the free uſe of it. For his 2. objection of being unreaſonable for one Miniſter of the Goſpell to ſilence another, and the Biſhop to be no more. He himſelf before granted it in Paul's bidding, and Peter's commanding the Elders, and Paul and Peter were but Miniſters of the Goſpell; and if Paul and Peter might bid and command, then might Paul and Peter forbid, and ſilence, for cujus eſt velle, ejus eſt nolle. But it is well here he allows the Biſhop to be a Miniſter of the Goſpell, and ſo Chriſts, whereas, page 2. he makes him purely the Kings. And now let me tell D. E. that the Judges of Aſſize are fellow ſubjects with himſelf, yet for ought I know, may proceed againſt, and hang him, if he mends not his manners. Nor hath D. E. got ſo great a Goal of the Biſhop in affirming our Saviour to put the Scribes and Phariſes to ſilence by Argument only; for the Scribes and Phariſes were rightfully in Moſes chair, and had not as Thieves and Robbers invaded the rights and juſt poſſeſſions of other men, as the Presbyterians did; nor in that formality as Presbyterians had they, or now have any right or power to teach the people, and if it be not true (which he ſaith, the Biſhop layes to their charge) of preaching nothing but ſedition and treaſon, as contrary to their principles, I am ſure it is no way contrary to their Practice, and ſo they are the more manifeſt Hypocrites in being ſo.

4. D. E. 4th. objection is injurious and falſe: for in all ages, the Church did, and might in point of Conſcience, injoyn penance for publick, or private faults, although forgiven, or not taken notice of by Temporal Powers, without any breach, or diſturbance of the publick Peace; neither do I find, or believe, that the Biſhop does affirm the Church diſtinct from the State, to have any coercive power.

5. D. E. 5th. objection is ſo wild and impertinent, that I am confident the Biſhop did never dream of ſuch a conſequence as he there puts, where things are commanded by them who have no right, or Authority to do it.

6. And whereas D. E. in his ſixt objection againſt the Biſhop, would have it an unconſcionable thing to go againſt any pretence of Scripture, or practice of Primitive times, and to impoſe in Gods worſhip, things confeſſedly needleſs and trivial; and therefore what the Biſhop uncompaſſionately tells us, that our Laws do well to puniſh, even with nonadmiſſion to the Sacrament, ſuch as will not or perhaps dare not kneel. I am unwilling to diſpute with any man, where the terms of the ſubject matter are not firſt defined, much leſs where my Adverſary, and I, it may be, mean quite contrary things by them. I ſay then by Conſcience, I underſtand alwaies a rightfull power commanding, or forbidding any thing, and if any ſubordinate power to which I am ſubject, commands contrary to it, then to ſubmit to the penalty, but never to reſiſt the power. Now would I know what Law of God forbids me to kneel at the receiving the Sacrament, or otherwiſe I cannot plead conſcience againſt it, if I be injoyned to do it by any Authority to which I am ſubject, and therefore our Laws do well to puniſh thoſe who will not conform; and that kneeling and outward geſtures are not trivial and needleſs (as D. E. is pleas'd to tearm them) in the worſhip and ſervice of God, is evident both by the old Law and Goſpell, and conſent of all men in all ages and places, untill denyed by our late, and now Hypocrites and Reformers. I ſay that outward geſtures are commanded by our Saviour himſelf, in Gods worſhip; for when the Devil tempted our Saviour, he bid him not ask any thing of him, but fall down and worſhip him; which was only an outward geſture; but our Saviour told that, it was writen that thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and him only ſhalt thou ſerve: to worſhip God therefore with an outward worſhip, is commanded by our Saviour. And I pray, what is God jealous of in the ſecond Commandment of falling down and worſhiping any creature, but that that ſhould be given to it, which is only due and proper to him? and by the Authority of all ſtorys, men did ever, whereſoever they apprehended a Deity, worſhip it with outward worſhip. It may be it was a trivial and needleſs thing in Moſes, at another time to put off his ſhooes, it was not ſo when God bid him put them off, becauſe the place was holy. But D. E. hath two reaſons againſt the Biſhops reaſon for non-admiſſion of ſuch as will not kneel at receiving the Sacrament, viz. that it become not the Law-givers to endanger the Churches peace for their ſakes; one is, it did much more become all Law-givers in the things of God, to obſerve the Law of Chriſt, which is a Law of Love and Liberty. When D. E. ſhews that kneeling, or obſerving things duly required of us in Gods ſervice does become deſtructive to Chriſts Law of Love and Liberty, then he ſays ſomething: in the mean time, I think D. E. to be a wondrous proper inſtrument to plead for Love and Liberty in Religion; for his love it appears by his Animadverſion, and for his Liberty, ſure his Religion is yet to chuſe. His ſecond is the Churches peace to be more endangered by preſſing things doubtfull, than by the forbearance of them; for ſince by enforcing of ſuch things as God hath no where commanded, our Christian Liberty is enfringed, from hence it follows, if it ought not, yet we may lawfully refuſe ſuch impoſitions, as our Saviour did, not waſhing his hands before meat, and the Apoſtle Paul in caſe of Circumciſion. What, though God hath not commanded things in his worſhip and ſervice, ſhall therefore nothing be done in it? nothing leſs; for it is ſufficient to me, that God commands me to hear and obey the Church, and commands the Church to do all things decently, and in order, in his worſhip and ſervice; what things therefore the Church commands for decency and order in Gods worſhip, if they be not contrary to Gods Laws, are not things doubtfull, but ought in conſcience to be ſubmitted to, upon penalty of the breach of Gods Law, in not hearing and diſobeying the Church. For D. E. his inſtances of our Saviours, and the Apoſtles refuſing to obſerve the Phariſes in waſhing of hands, and Circumciſſion, it is both blaſphemous and falſe; for our Saviour was in the power of the Phariſes, in reference to the Ceremonial Law; and therefore D. E. cannot aſſume to himſelf like liberty with our Saviour, and Circumciſſion being typical was fulfilled by our Saviour, and the uſe of it a denyal of his coming in the Fleſh.

7. Nor is that a Rope of Sand, which the Biſhop affirms, that from diverſity in external Forms, ariſes diſlike, from diſlike enmity, from enmity oppoſition; thence Schiſm in the Church, and Sedition in the State: For as Socrates objects to Eutyphro, that there muſt neceſſarily be ſomething to which men in difference muſt indifferently ſubmit to, or their diſſentions will be endleſſe: and if the eſtabliſhed Rules in the Church for Gods Worſhip and Service, be not that thing to which D. E. and I muſt indifferently ſubmit to, then is there nothing in the power of D. E. or my ſelf, which can preſcribe another; and ſo by conſequence there can be no decency nor order in the Worſhip and Service of God, but all things therein left in confuſion and diſorder, which is expreſſly againſt the Divine Canon.

Nor did ever D. E. or any ſeditious men, begin at Sedition directly, but alwayes pretended conſcience, and made Religion a ſtalking horſe thereunto, according to that of the Poet, Quoties vis fallere Plebem Finge Deum.

And I chalenge D. E. to inſtance in any Age or Place, where men invaded the Peace of the Church, but they at leaſt attempted the like in the State: and now ſee how vain and Idle • ll 3 of D. E. objections againſt the Biſhops aſſertion are: his firſt reaſon is, that in Diverſity of external Forms, without any diſlike as to the Perſon, the Apoſtles that preached to the Circumciſion, gave the right hand of fellowſhip to the Apostles of the Gentiles; although their outward Rites and publick Worſhip were far more different than thoſe, which by any of the most diſtant perſwaſions, are now practiſed in England. So that D. E. grants the Biſhop, that external Forms in Gods Worſhip is an Apoſtolick practice, without any prejudice to the Biſhop's aſſertion: for, ſince God in our nature hath not left in what external Form he will be worſhiped, but to every Church her liberty; and therefore divers Apoſtles, and divers Churches, ever did, and now do uſe divers external Forms in their Worſhip of God; And therefore the Church of England may uſe one external Form, different from that of France, and that of France, another from that of Greece &c. without any diſlike; yet doth it not therefore follow, that D. E. may raiſe Schiſm in the Church of England or France, any more than that becauſe the Laws of England and France are different, therefore D. E. is not obliged by them, but may make Rebellion and raiſe Sedition in them. Certainly if D. E. had Logick enough to underſtand his Arguments, I would not wiſh the Biſhop a better Advocate.

But whereas D. E. in his ſecond objection, thinks for want of reaſon he hath ſo ſure a Topick in his inſtance of a Pagan State exiſting without Biſhops, and therefore in Triumph he again objects it; give me leave to ſpeak as a man and Chriſtian. I ſay then, as I am a man I acknowedge Regality to be a ſacred Order and founded by God in Nature, and ſo ever continued both before and ſince the Flood in all the world, where it was not invaded and violated by Seditious men: and that by inherent birth-right I ow my Sovereign Lord the King, all Allegiance next under God; and this being founded in Nature, is an indelible Character, and cannot be diſſolved but by God alone, but is due in all places, whether I be in the Kings Dominions or not; but ſince mans fall, there was nothing in Nature left him whereby he might attain that bleſſedneſſe from which he fell; therefore God was pleaſed to take extraordinarily our Nature upon him, to redeem us, that by believing on him, and obſerving his commands, we might attain that happineſſe from which our Parents firſt fell, and I acknowledge it his grace, that I am baptized into this Faith. But becauſe parum eſt jus, niſi ſint qui poſſunt jura gerere, it had been to no purpoſe for our Saviour to have made a will, unleſſe he had made Executors to execute it; he was therefore pleaſed to ordain 12 Apoſtles, and 70 Evangeliſts his Executors, with power to propagate it to others, untill his next coming again. I ſay this power no wayes intrenches upon the Regal, for it only hath reference to Chriſt and him crucified, and Gods Worſhip and Service: And as the Power no wayes intrenches upon Regality, ſo is there nothing in Chriſts will againſt it, but to advance it. For there we are commanded to pay tribute to Caeſar, and are taught that Higher Powers are Gods Ordinance, to which men muſt ſubmit for Conſcience ſake: but as this Ghoſtly Power no wayes intrenches upon the Regal, ſo neither doth the Regal upon Kings Converſion to Chriſtianity, annihilate or divide this power, but it is the ſame, and in the ſame manner propagated after as before, and the executors of it, in their Office are immediately Chriſts Miniſters; and as in the Goſpel, ſo under the old Law, the Levites and Prieſts in the Adminiſtration of their Office, were Gods immediate Miniſters: and though Regal Power over the Children of Iſrael were as intire and abſolute as in other places, yet was Saul rejected and Uzziah ſmote with Leproſie for invading it.

Nor do I ſee why D. E. ſhould be ſo zealous for propagation of a Pagan ſtate, when as it may be he would have found as much occaſion to quarel therein, as againſt the Biſhops in a Chriſtian; for men by the light of Nature, whereſoever they apprehended a Deity, judged it neceſſary to have it worſhiped by ſeparated perſons ordained therunto: and therefore though in Pagan States God was not publickly worſhiped and ſerv'd by Biſhops and Chriſtian Prieſts, yet had they every where ſomething in Analogy thereto, viz. a High Prieſt, and Flamens to ſerve him in their publick Worſhip, and by conſequence were not ſo very Heathens as D. E. And pray what reaſon is there that God under the old Law ſho ld be ſerved by ſeparated perſons ordained thereto, and that moral men by the light of humane Nature, conform thereto, and yet only God in Chriſtian States, is fit to be publickly ſerved by ſuch Cattel as D. E. and his Fellows?

D. E. his third Objection is, that Chriſt's Unity is a Unity in heart and Spirit; whereas actus interior & exterior ea • dem conſtituunt virtutem. And what a Unity in heart and Spirit is, no man can tell, but as it is outwardly expreſſed: and our Saviour himſelf affirms, that he that denies him before men, him will he deny before his Father in Heaven. And what a Unity of Heart and Spirit D. E. is of, appears by the Annimadverſions. And whereas D. E. tels the Biſhop in his ear, that our late wars did not ariſe from the ſeparation of conſciencious diſſentors, but from the violence and fury of unconſcionable Impoſers: I muſt needs tell D. E. it is a loud and ſlanderous lye; for there was nothing impoſed upon the Diſſentors, which was not legally impoſed, and ſo not violently, furiouſly, or unconſcionably done, unleſſe D. E. can ſhew wherein it was directly againſt Divine Laws.

Nor were any of theſe conſciencious Diſſentors furiouſly and violently compelled to hold their Livings, but if they liked not the terms, they might have left them: and for theſe men to promiſe Conformity, that they would dayly offer up the publick ſervice of the Church, Bury the dead, viſit the ſick, baptize Infants, and uprightly inſtruct the cure committed to them by their Dioceſan, and do nothing of theſe, but inſtead of theſe, preach their own Paſſions and Affections, to make factions and ſeditions in Church and State; and yet in conſcience deſire the means of the Church, is like to a man that ſtipluates with D. E. for a ſumm of money to do a thing, and doing nothing of it, in conſcience deſires of D. E. to pay him the mony; ſure D. E. would think this man to have little conſcience, and yet ſuch men muſt be D. E. his Conſciencious Diſſentors. But ſure the King and Parliament will not ſuffer ſuch an affront to paſs unqueſtioned as to make the King governing by the Laws, to be a violent, furious and unconſcionable Impoſer, and the cauſe of our late warr; and a company of Vermine and Hypocrites, who would be governed by no Laws, and yet furiouſly and violently impoſe their own wills and luſts upon their fellow Subjects, to death and utter ruine, to be the conſciencious Diſſentors.

8. I will not queſtion the French Proteſtants ſtanding, nor the Dutches kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, in D. E. his 8 th. objection, nor his profound Learning in the Eccleſiaſtical Laws of thoſe Churches: this I will tell D. E. that by his ignorance in Divinity, he grants the Biſhop, that kneeling is eſſential and neceſſary in receiving the Sacrament; for nothing done to a creature, can be Idolatry, if it were not before due to the Creator: and therefore cannot the Papiſts abuſe kneeling at the Sacrament to Idolatry, if kneeling in the Sacrament were not due to God; and if the abuſe of a thing ſhould take away the uſe of it, then muſt not D. E. ſay his prayers, becauſe the Papiſts do Maſs.

And whereas D. E. in his laſt objection is ſo angry with the Biſhop for aſperſing the whole order of the Presbyterians, with the faults of Mr. Baxter, I will tell D. E. they are ſuch an Order as are in the cards when the Kings are out; I pray who did incorporate them ſo? or from whence do they derive their order? I grant they are a factious conſpiracy known by that name, and the common Parent of all factions, and the Author of all our late calamities. I hope D. E. will not lay the Act of Oblivion to my charge, whereas he hath incorporated the Presbyterians, notwithſtanding the Act would bury all names of difference.

I have done with his objections againſt the Biſhops arguments, I ſhall not take notice of his quarelling with the Biſhops policy; yet cannot I over-ſlip▪ D. E. his tenderneſs of conſcience in his ſecond particular for the lawfull part of the Covenant, and how zealous he ſaw the Covenanters were for reſtitution of his Majeſty; Countrey-men in profering gifts uſually object, upon refuſal, that they know not what to do with them; ſuch was the Covenanters caſe, they had loſt their dominion they had uſurped over their fellow Subjects (and in the Coffeehouſes we define a Presbyterian to be one, who if he may not perſecute other men, cryes out he is perſecuted himſelf)—the Independents, nay they were like to be undone by them; no wonder therefore, when they had loſt all other means, if they endeavoured to erect their Dagon by means of his Majeſty; but ſince a repenting Presbyterian was ſcarce ever heard of, and ſince it is evident to all men, that the whole gang of them retain the ſame temper and metall they ever did, and ſince not only ſo many places in Church, and almoſt all the places of truſt in Court ſwarme • ſo with them, It will not, I hope, be a crime, if good Subjects pray for a proſperous Reign upon his Majeſty, leſt upon any adverſe fortune, thoſe very men ſerve him, as they did his Saint-like, and Martyr'd Father.