D. E. [A] FIrst, That he supposeth there is so strict an Union, and so insepara­ble a Dependence between Kings and Bishops, that they must stand and fall together, and all who are enemies to the one, must needs be enemies to the other. I know very well this Axiom is much talked of, and some advantage may be taken to confirm it, from the event of our Late Wars.]

[A] THe Maxime, which he Hints at, and Abuses; came from King James: de­liver'd upon Experience, and since Confirm'd, by the Murther of a King, and the Dissolution of Mo­narchy: Both which were Effect'd upon the same Grounds, and by Those very Persons that Abolish'd Episcopacy.

But the saying is; No BISHOP, no KING; and not in the Conversion; as if it were Impossible in Nature for the One to subsist without the Other. 'Tis a Rule however that deserves to be Register'd, in regard that never any Faction destroy'd Bishops, and Sav'd the Monarch. I wish it were in Capital ☜ Letters in every Chamber of his Majesties Palace, No BISHOP no KING.

But One way or Other; what does This concern the Bishop of Wor'ster? who neither sayes, nor sup­poses any thing to This Purpose; for he does not so much as meddle with the Question: but, finding himself Traduc'd by some that had frequently, and openly defam'd the King; [And is it any Wonder (sayes he) that those that are such Enemies [Page 6] to Kings, should not be Friends to Bishops? This Libeller would have the Face to tell the Sun 'twere Midnight. His next Fetch is a deep one.

D. E.[B] You know likewise, Sir, how much my Judgment is for the Order of Bishops; and how Passionate a Lover I am both of the Kings Person and Government; but yet, being thus called by You to decla [...]e Presbyteria­nissimè. the Truth, though co [...]trary to my own Humour and Interest, I must needs say, &c.]

[B] This Cuts a Hair; the Man we see, is Willing but Weak. Alass! You know SIR how much my Judgment, &c.—and how Passionate a Lover, &c.—

What is there in This Fawning Clause; that the Kings Headsman might not set his Hand to? He does not say, you know that I Am, Thus or So, but ☞ you know how much I am; that is, Whether I am, or not. The most Pestilent Enemy the King has might have said a [...] [...]ch.

Marque [...]w, what 'tis his Judgment is so much for. For the Order of Bishops. He will not say, Degree, or Praelation of them; (That he renounces) but the Order of them: a Goodly Shift!

Because every Bishop is a Presbyter, therefore every Presbyter is a Bishop. The King is a Gentle­man; is therefore every Gentleman a King? An E [...]rl is a Baron; but the Baron is not Therefore an Earl. These Differ in Order upon the same pro­portion of Reason, as does a Bishop from a Presbyter. But to clear This point, we are first to agree what's meant by Order.

[Page 7] There is first; Ordo Dignitatis: An Order or Dignity, or Praelation: and in This Respect, A Bishop differs from a Presbyter, as does a Presbyter from a Deacon. It is Otherwise taken for Potestas ad Actum Specialem; a Power, or Enablement for some Special Act: and in This sense, a Bishop differs, Ordine, from a Presbyter, in the Power of Ordinati­on, and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; as a Presbyter does from a Deacon, in the Power of Cons [...]crating the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now say on.

D. E. [C] It is clear from Story, that Kings were in all parts of the world, in their most flourishing Estate, before ever Bishops were heard of; and no reason can be given, why what hath once been, may not with the same terms of convenience be again.]

[C] 'Tis right: Kings flourish'd before either Bi­shops, or Christians were ever heard of; and there­fore, by his Argument we may be as well without Christianity as without Episcopacy: But Here's the Case, Kings have been well, without Bishops, and never well with Presbyterians; which shall they Quit First? To conclude; There is not at this day ex­tant any Christian Monarchy, without Bishops, or the Equivalence of them.

D. E. [D] 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 conferr upon what Order of men he pleases, though they be as much Lay Persons as You and I are. It is therefore very injurious to the Kings Authority, to averr that He could not otherwise uphold and maintain it, than by preserving the Undue, and, as some think, Antichristian Dignity and Prelation of his in [...]iour Officers.]

[D.] Infallibly This man is some Lay-Chaplain; [Page 8] and is now beating the Bush to start a Benefice with­out Ordination.

What does he mean by [Purely the Kings subor­dinate Ministers?] Does he understand by [Pure­ly] as if to all purposes Ecclesiastical, they Acted only by Regal Deputation? The King himself does not pretend to all the Powers they Exercise: The Authority of their External Jurisdiction flows from Him; but their Internal, and Ministerial Power de­rives from God: As Subjects, they proceed by the Kings Laws, as Ministers, they Act by a Divine Commission.

His Majesty may conferr] he sayes, &c. What may his Majesty Conferr? Leave to Elect, not Pow­er to Ordein: That by a Right of Apostolical Suc­cession, descends, and Rests upon the Church.

From This wild, and weak Assertion; he pro­ceeds to give you a Tast of his Morals as well as of his Intellectuals; and to uphold his Argument by Scandal, and Sedition. By Scandal first, in charging the Fictions and Fantastiques of his own brain upon the Bishp of Wor'ster: and Then by Se­dition, in casting his Audacious and Reproachful E­pithetes of Undue, and Antichristian, upon an Order, Instituted by Christ himself, and Incorporate with the Government of this Nation by the Supreme Au­thority. But still he persues his shadow.

D. E. [E.] Bishops are so little usesul to support the Regal Dignity (which is founded upon a distinct Basis of its own) that upon enquiry it will be found, how none have been greater enemies to the True and Undoubted Soveraingty of Princes, than some Bishops themselves: for by their Officious, and fcarce warrantable intermedling in Civil Affairs; by their Absurd and Insignifi­cant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes (of which last [Page 9] they have alwayes made themselves sole Judges) they mangle the Kings Authority, and as to Church-matters (which may be extended as far as they please) they leave the King nothing of Supremacy but the Name. The Pope of Rome therefore (who is the great Father of all such Bishops) hath improved this Notion and Distinction so far, that in ordine ad spiri­tualia, he hath laboured to subject all Civil Empires unto his sole Ju­risdiction.

[E] That Regall and Episcopal Power, have dif­ferent Foundations; who Questions? or that some Bishops have opposed some Kings? But did they ever do't, as Bishops? What fellowship hath Christ with Belial? It were no less then Blasphemy, to entitle Rebellion to the Function, whereof God him­self was the Author.

It concludes little for the Consistorians, that some Bishops have been Enemies to Kings; if they con­sider, that we are yet to seek for the First Presbyte­rian Party that ever were Friends to them. Con­cerning his Cavil at the Distinction between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes: 'Tis the Law distinguishes, and so the good mans Absurdity lashes upon the King, not upon the Bishops. He blames likewise their Officious, and scarce warr antable intermedling in Civil Affaires.]

Do they Challenge, or Act by their own Power, or by the Kings? If only by Derivation; either the King himself wants Power, or They have it: If they extravagate, let him shew, Where.

But do the Bishops Mangle the Kings Authority? I hope, not so much as the Schismatiques did both That, and his Revenue; nay, and his Person too. Were they Bishops, or Presbyterians, that Preach'd and Libell'd against the Late King; that Seiz'd his [Page 10] Towns, Seduc'd his People, Levy'd a Warr against him, Plunder'd, Sequestred, and Murther'd his Friends, and never left the Chase, till his Royall Bloud was spilt upon a Scaffold? Were they Bi­shops or Presbyterians, that in Ordine adspiritualia, Contrived, Acted, and Warranted the Usurpations of the late Warr? In fine; the Memory is Fresh, and bleeding still of a Presbyterian; let him pro­duce One Instance of an Episcopal Rebellion since the Reformation.

He tells us that the Pope of Rome is the great Fa­ther of such Bishops; (If the great Father of Slande­rers, and False-speakers had not stood at his Elbow, he would never have said it) But for Brevity sake; let him bring me the most Pragmatical Jesuite that ever put Pen to Paper, I'll match him with a Pres­byterian. I do not mean for Wit, and Learning; but for the worst of Practices he'll dare to Charge him with. Nay, let him strein the Papal Tyranny, he so much declaims against, to what pitch of Arrogance, and Imposition he pleases, I'll bring him Presbyte­rian Claims, and Presidents, shall equall it: and when That's done, let him shew any One Episcopal Position destructive to Regality, and take the Cause for't. Now have a Care of him; for sayes He:

D. E. [F] [So that if the Bishop of Worcester's R [...]le bold good, of Crimine ab uno—Disce omnes, i. e. That all men who are of a party may be judged of by the miscarriages of one, then I must leave it to You to judge, what all those Bishops, [...]at are of the Bishop of Worcester's com­plexion, do rea [...]y drive at, by the fatal example of that one Bishops Usurpation: For,]

[Page 11] [F] Soft and Fair, I beseech you Sir. The Rule holds very Good, but not the Scandal. The whole Party are to be Judg'd of, by a Particular: and no­thing makes more Against. the Animadverter, or for the Bishop, then the force of that Conclusion, and his Retort; (unless he can prove the Usurpations of the One, and clear the Innocence of the Other; by which the Rest are to be measured.)

Hear the Bishop in his own words; (for This Animal makes the Bishop say what he list, and yet makes nothing on't when h'as done,) speaking of Mr. Baxter.

You have before seen the ingenuity and veracity, Pag. 21. you now see the humility, and the modesty of the Man; and indeed in proportion of the whole Party, for Crimine ab uno,—Disce omnes: But doth Mr. Baxter and the rest of his perswasion think in­deed, &c.

First, take the Words in their proper Import, and Common Acceptation. Does the Whole Party necessarily Imply every Individual, or rather the Influence of a Ruling Vote, which denominates the Result to be the Act of such or such a Party; ex­tending virtually to every Particular, but not Di­stinctly. If Party had been Number, he had said something. [...], (sayes the Text) Then an­swered All the People, his Bloud be upon us and up­on Mat. 27. 25. our Children:] which General expression, evi­dently intended only the Prevailing Part.

Now to his Crimine ab Uno—disce Omnes.

Accipenunc Danaum Insidias, (says Aeneas) et Crimine ab uro, Disce Omnes——It was not [Page 12] the Poets intention to brand every man that was a Greek for Simon's sake, but to shew the suitable Treachery of the People, that made use of so trea­cherous an Instrument. To say that the French are a Vain; the Spaniard, a Proud Nation; does it give to understand that there's not a Modest, or an Humble man in the Country? But This is time lost, for the Bishop restreins his Application in the very next line, to those of Mr. Baxters perswasion; so that if Mr. Baxter be blame-worthy, his Complicates, are scarce Innocent; and he that pretends to justifie either, becomes an Advocate for no lesse then Schisme, and Treason.

His Seditious Hint, of the Bishops Usurpation, and warping to the Church of Rome, deserves rather a Lash, then an Answer. Yet if he makes out either, I'll bear it for him.

D. E. [A] THat Assertion, that the Bishop of Worcester (and consequent­ly every other Bishop) is the sole Pastor of all the Congre­gations in his Diocess, if it be at all defensible, I am sure can be defended only by those Arguments, which are commonly alledged to maintain the Popes Supremacy over all Churches whatever. For since a Bishop can no otherwise discharge his duty berein, than by providing Sub­stitutes, what hinders but the Bishop of Rome may as well oversee a million of Churches, as the Bishop of Worcester five hundred? Since if Deputation be lawfull, more or lesse compasse and circuit of ground doth not at all alter the case.]

[A] NEver in my Life did I meet an Easier Book to confute with Reason, and a harder to handle with Civility: a man must under­derstand [Page 13] every thing he sayes, the wrong way, to make Truth on't. Indeed the Reverend Pre­late sayes, that it is the Bishop of Wor'ster, and Pag. 2. & 3. not Mr. Baxter that is the Pastor of Kidder­minster, as well as of all Other Parochial Churches in that Diocesse: and that the Cure of Souls, in That, or any other Parish of That Diocesse, was never, either by Himself, or any Other Bishop of Wor'ster, committed to Mr. Baxter, &c.] So that the word Sole, is the Animadverter's Whimsie; and foysted in, only to irritate the Rabble against Prelacy, as tending toward Popery; when not a Syllable ever dropp'd from the Bishops Pen in favour of this feigned and frivolous Assertion.

To discover the Forgery, the Reader needs only compare the Quotation with the Text; where he shall find, first, the Notorious Juggle of his mis­allegation; and Then, having lugg'd in by Head and Shoulders, the Popes Supremacy, under That Blind (weakly heaven knows) he bestowes his Shot upon the Superiority of Bishops; where in fine, all he does is but to Combat an Idole of his own Making, and which is yet more pleasant, the Puppet gets the Better of the Rabbi.

The Bishop does not deny Parochial Ministers to be Pastors of their Particular Flocks; (it is not at all the Question) but still they are Subordi­nate, and Delegated by the Bishop, from whom they Receive Institution, and Induction, Reser­ving still to himself the Superintendency of them All.

[Page 14] But the man's for Parity I perceive, and against Deputation. He's Consequently [...]gainst the King; for a Leveller in the Church, never fails to be one in the State. Let him examine himself, and keep his own Counsel.

D. E. [B]. I forbear to [...]rge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostl [...]s, both Paul and Peter (I hope the Bishop will not take it ill that I do not call them Saints, for these Holy men do not need any stile of Honour out of the Popes Kalender.]

[B] The Animadverter does wondrous well to forbear Paul and Peter, for to my Knowledge, they are Two of the greatest Enemies he has. But what a wipe he gives the Bishop, for his Popes Kalen­der! and then he Churrs like a Turky-cock at the Conceit on't, I hope the Bishop will not take it ill (quoth he) that I do not call them Saints.] He's a notable wit I warrant him.

Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, &c.—with all the SAINTS, which are in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1. 1.] Paul, &c.—to the SAINTS which are at Ephe­sus, &c. Eph. 1. 1.] Salute all the SAINTS, Phil. 4. 21.] All the SAINTS Salute you, Phil. 4. 22.] Since we heard of your Faith in Christ Jesus, and of your Love toward all SAINTS, Col. 1. 4.]

Was Paul a Papist? or what signifies SAINT, but Holy? Now for a fling at the Bishop, by the way of Sole Pastor,

D. E. [C] When Paul had sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, he bids them to feed the Church of God, over which (not be himself, by his [Page 15] sole Authority, a [...] Bishop of the Diocess, but) the Spirit of God had Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. made them, [...], i. e. Overseers, or to use the proper stile, Bi [...]hops. And Peter commands his Fellow Elders, (for so doth that Apostle [...] to call himself) to feed the Flock which was among them, [...], Overseeing, or Acting the Bishops, not (like the Bishop of Wor­cester) as Lording it over Gods Heritage, but as Patte [...]ns of the Flock. From which places we learn, not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Pres [...]yter, are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons, but likewise, that whoever f [...]d the Flock, are under Christ (whom the Apostle there stil [...]s the Chief Shepheard) the next and immedi­ate Pastors of the Flock; and to extend the Pastoral Power beyond the actual care of Feeding, is a notion altogether u [...]scriptural, and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix, till we come to ce [...]re upon some one Universal Pastor, who may claim this Power over the whole world, by the same parity of reason, that a Bishop doth over one D [...]ocesse.]

[C] Very good; Paul sends for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus: and they come I hope; so there's Authority, and Obedience. The Apostle gives them their Charge also; to Feed the Flock, whereof the Holy Ghost had made them Over-seers: (not the Bishop of the Diocesse, sayes our Aerius.)

No question of it. Does the Bishop of Wor'ster assume any Personal Privilege in Matters Essential to his Function? Does he pretend to Act by any other Virtue, then That of his Ecclesiastical Mis­sion? If not; his rude Parenthesis is a double Im­pertinence. Again;

Peter (sayes he) Commands his Fellow-Elders, &c.] Par in Parem non habet Imperium. A Su­periority among Equals is a Contradiction. The word in truth is so [...]ter; [...], which intimates rather Exhortation, or Entreaty: and for his Fel­low-Elders, it signifies just as much from the A­postle, as Fellow-Souldiours, from a General. Their Commission is to Feed, (he sayes) and Over-see, [Page 16] not (like the Bishop of Worcester) &c.] Lording it over Gods Heritage, &c.]

His Rayling apart, Marque now his Infe­rences.

First, that the Names of Bishop, and Presbyter are without distinction apply'd to the same Per­sons.

Go to then; but can he shew me where the Powers are exercis'd in Common too?

We do not argue upon Names, but Things. Can Presbyters Ordein? Inflict a Censure; or as Meer Presbyters can they Govern? Let's see a Text for't. If they are Overseers in Respect of their Flocks, They are yet part of the Flock Themselves, in respect of the Diocesan Bishop: They Oversee, and they are Overseen, according to the Scale of Order, and Authority.

His next Deduction is (Haeretical) Church-Parity to which he adds, that the Pastoral Power extends on­ly to the Actual care of Feeding.]

Is't not a Shephard's Duty, as well to Govern his Flock, as to Feed it? To Keep in Straglers, &c.—Bishop Andrews will tell you (in his Opuscula Posthuma) that Pastor, in the Latin Church, is alwayes taken for a Bishop; for one that Governs, as well as Feeds, and Governs even the Feeders of Particular Flocks: In Homer the King himself is call'd [...], The Shepheard of his People.

Touching his Universal Pastor: by the same rea­son we are to have an Universal King.

D. E. [A] IT seems to be a Light, and (to say no more) unseemly trifling with sacred Scripture, to affirm that those words of our Saviour con­cerning such as come not in by the door, and therefore are Thieves and Robbers, ought to be understood of such Ministers, as preach to Congregations without the Bishops License. Which thing, the Bishop (in great heat and Earnestnesse, as if he had done very well in it) tels us more then once, that it was the Principal reason why he silenced Mr. Baxter.

[A] SOmebody resolve me whether This Libeller has more Wit, or Honesty, and take the Na­ked Truth of the Story.

Baxter (for Brevity sake) throwes out one Dancy, the Minister of Kidderminster, from his Living, and seizes it to himself; He Preaches Sedition There, and his Doctrine was but suitable to his Title, for he possess'd, and enjoy'd it, by an Act of Violence and Rebellion. If this be not Robbery, what is? or, if This be to come in at the Dore, what is to creep in at the Window? He Preach'd without a License; and so came not in at the Dore: He for­cibly took away the Right of another, which is the part of a Robber. Silenc'd he was, for Preaching without a Licence, and There's the Clamour.

Does not the Law forbid it? Are there not di­vers Canons of the Church against it? Nay, let him be Ordeyn'd, and Beneficed, he's not to Preach even in his own Parish without the Introduction of [...] Licence: 'Tis criminal, in the Bishop, to suffer it▪ in the Minister, to do it. But Mr. Baxter's Case [Page 18] needs not This Sifting; his fault being not only Con­tumacy, but Usurpation.

D. E. [B] Truly if this practise be justificable, and those who design themselves to preach the Gospel, must, besides their Ordination, procure a License from a Bishop, to do that, which a Woe is de [...]ced against, if the [...] offer to o [...]t, then 1. I see not what Ordination signifies, [...]ce the power that [...] is given, [...]o Authority from Ma [...] [...] away, any more then dissolve the contract of a Mariage, much lesse empeach and hinder the free use of it, except for Moral and? notoriously vicious Misdemeanours. 2. For one Minister of the Gospel (for certainly a Bishop is no more) to Silence another, and that for no better Reason, than because his Fellow-Minister is desirous to preach the Gospel without a new License, this is an abuse of Dominion, which as our Saviour doth no where countenance, so the first Ages of the Church were altogether [...] with.]

[B] Mr. Animadverter, have a care of your Fingers. If this Practice be not justificable, the Constitution is Impious, that allows it, and the King is a Tyrant in Commanding it. These are bloudy Words, and Bradshaw is out of hearing.

Ordinatio [...] you think sufficient then without a License: Well; and speak Truth for Once, what do yo [...]hink of a Good Living without Ordination? Weak and Spi [...]l Creature! Ordination Entitles you to the Ministry, but not to the Benefice: It Authori [...]es you, as to the Function it self, but not to the Local, and Circumstantial application of it. The Scripture sayes, Preach; the Law sayes, When and Wher [...]. And it must be the Gospel too: not [...]t-points betwixt King, and Subject: Holy Positions of Rebellion; Instructing the Well-affected how they may kill the King in the fear of God.

Such as are Mr. Baxters▪ T [...]s, which the Bishop, in his own Defence has published at the End of [Page 19] his Letter. But of These, the Anima [...]verter takes not the least notice, (Doctus spectare Lacunar) or else perchance they lay on the blind side of him.

His bringing up the virtue of Ordination to the Instance of a Contract, and in the Case of Mr. Bax­ter; seems to reason as if an obligation to Marry, were an Authority for a Rape.

Again; that a Bishop is but one Minister of the Gospel (which he urges in Contempt of his Ju­risdiction) is a Mistake. The Law understands a Bishop to be a Corporation: and all the Reason in the World it is, that his Fellow-Minister (as he Phrases Mr. Baxter) should not Preach without a New Li­cense, because he taught Treason by Virtue of his Old one.

D. E. [C] For the Bishop's Inst [...] of our Saviour's putting to silence the Scrib [...]s and Pharisees, is both Imperti [...]t and False, because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument, which the Bishop may do when ever he is a [...]le, but what is that to an Authoritative and im [...]erious commanding men to be Silent. Besides, even then when our Saviour was most strict in pronouncing Woes against the Pharisees in that very Chapter▪ he is so far f [...]om forbidding the Pharisees to preach, that he commands his Disci­ples both to hear and to obey their Doctrine. So that since the Bishop wi [...] needs have the Presbyterians to be Pharisees, let him but allow them the same Liberty of Teaching the People, as our Saviour did the other, and I believe they will not (at least were I a Presbyterian I should not) envy his Lordship either his Title or M [...], how [...] [...] [...] soever they both be. And though the Bishop is pleased to say, That the Presbyterians preach nothing but Sedition and Treason (which is most [...]alse, as being directly [...] to their declared Principles) yet the Pharise [...]s taught something worse, and that was [...]: Yet our Saviour (who sure had more power, and withal more care of his▪ Church [...]hen the Bish [...]p of Worcester) did not go about by force to prohibit them]

[C] Touching our Saviours Silencing the Scribes and Pharisees; (having no ordinary Jurisdiction in [Page 20] the Jewish Church) which way should it be done (without the Interpose of his Divinity) but by Argument? nor does the Bishop imply other: (un­der Correction of his Impertinent, and False:) his Mouth's as foul as if he were in a Course of Sali­vation.

But since the Presbyterians must be Pharisees, he desires they may have the same Liberty of Teaching the People: and so let them, when they sit in Moses Chair.

I must confess, if the Bishop sayes, (which I do not find) That the Presbyterians Preach nothing but Sedition and Treason: I think he does them wrong, for they Preach Nonsense too, and Blasphemy, in a­bundance. This does the Animadverter, (with his usual Modesty) affirm to be most False: and How? 'Tis Contrary, insooth, to their Declared Principles] so have been all their Actings, wherefore 'tis True.

D. E. [D] I wish therefore, that this Bishop and the rest of his Brethren (if any are Ch [...]lerick and Testy enough to be of his mind) would consider, that as by silencing their Fellow Ministers for such frivolous and slight pre­tences, they usurp a Power, which Christ never gave, so a [...] the l [...]st day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it.

[D] How now? Cholerick; Testy; Frivolo [...]s; Usurp? Certainly this Fellow has been taught like a Parrot, to cry nothing but Walk Knave.

If the Bishops in Acting according to the Law of the Land, Usurp a Power deny'd them by Christ, the Law is Antichristian: and There the Scandal sticks, let the Law, and the Libeller dispute it.

D. E. [A] HOw consistent with the Civil Peace (for as to Christian Cha­rity, the whole thing is but a Letter of d [...]fiance against it) the Bishops Distinction is about the Act of I [...]dempnity, and ( [...]he so much fo [...]gotten) Act of [...], I hope His Majesty and the Parlia­ment will in due [...]i ne consider. For he is so hardy as to tell us, That the King by it only pardoned the corporal punishment; but the Church had not, nor ought not to forgive the scandal, till honourable amends were made her by confession and Recantation. Where by speaking of the Church, as distinct from the State (I mean in point of Co [...]rcive Jurisdiction) the Bishop would make us believe, that after His Majesty and the Parlia­ment have forgiven men their Civil Crimes, there is still another Power, which he calls the Church, unto which they are still accountable, eve [...] so far as to make a Pu [...]lick [...]. Here I w [...]sh the Bishop would have s [...]oken out of the Clouds, and plainly told us what he meant by the Church: For if it be a Congrega [...]ion of the Faithful met together for the worship of God, as the D [...]finition of Scripture, and of the Church of England in the 39 Articles; this will not at all advantage him, since such a Chu [...]ch hath [...] Co [...]cive or Imposing Power: But if he means the Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical State, [...]y Arch-Bishops, Bishops. &c. there can be nothing mor [...] false, or more dishonourabl [...] unto o [...] Civil Government, than to affirm that it lies in their power, not only [...]o pu [...]sh, but lik [...]wise to exact a Recantation, f [...]r those faults which the King and Parliament have not only pardo [...]ed, but und [...] sever [...] penalties command [...] sh [...]uld never more be remembred: And therefore I doubt not, but that they will resent this Malicious and [...]ll-grounded Phancy.]

[A] YOu are Merry Sir; be wise too; and do not mind the King too much of the Act of Oblivion; for when he comes to look upon his abus'd Mercy, 'twill turn his Patience into Fury. To see the same Knots now in Confederacy a­gainst himself, that Ruin'd his Father. The Com­mon Prostitutes of Bradshaw, and Cromwell, are (still the Instruments of the Old Cause) Reviv'd. The same S [...]blers, Printers, and Stationers for the [Page 22] Presse; the same Engines for the P [...]lpit; and the same Snares for the People. Yes, and The same Capps, Smiles, and Gracious Looks, to Encourage, Countenance, and Protect them. In your own Words Sir, This [I hope his Majesty and the Parliament will in due time consider.]

Mind here the Hardinesse of the Bishop: whose Position is This; that the King may pardon the Cor­poral Punishment; but it is God that must pardon the Guilt; and the Church the Scandal, (That is, up­on Repentance, and Confession:) Where's now the Wonder? Can the King Act beyond the Sphear of his Regal Jurisdiction? But of all People living, Methinks the Presbyterians should the least scruple this Limitation upon Majesty: shall They that bring their Sovereign to the Stool of Repentance, pretend that he can save others from it, that cannot help himself?

The Animadverter takes it ill that the Church should require a Publique Recantation.

Let them but stand to their own Rule, I'm sa­tisfi'd. [Those are to be judg'd Impenitents; that have Publ. Worship. Pag. 67. Declar'd their sin, and never declar'd their Repen­tance.] And again: [Scandalous offenders are not to be admitted to the Holy Communion, till they Except. Pag. 8. have openly Declar'd Themselves to have truly Re­pented and amended their former Naughty Lives.] And This they Presse the King to see observ'd ac­cording to his Royal Declaration of Octob. 25. 1660. (But it is a [...]od they never meant for them­selves).

[Page 23] The Question now, is only whether a Person that teaches and practices Rebellion for a matter of Twenty year together, and lives by Oppression, be a Scandalous Offender, or no.

His next Quere is concerning the Church, to which the Retractours are to be Accomptable.

By the Church, I suppose the Bishop means the Representative, and Jurisdictive Body of it. But That he takes for an affront to the Civil Government; and gives the Bishop the Ly before-hand, if he think otherwise.

To This point; The Kings of England, never claym'd the Power of the Keyes; and Church-Cen­sures fall under that Consideration, without offence to the Prerogative Royal. So Gentle Sir,—There's no harm done; unlesse the self-same thing, done by a Presbyterian must passe for Discipline, and Consci­ence: which in a Bishop argues Malice.

D. E. [B] And since the Bishop is so over-zealous for the very Letter of the Law, when it imposes Ceremonies, give me leave a little to wonder, that one of his Profession and Place in the Church should so [...] go against it, when it enjoyns Moderation and Forgiveness as to Civil Injuries. Such as he, who make the Law, instead of being a Buckler to protect. Converts, a Sword only to cut off all such as were once Offenders, [...]abour what they can, to make men desperate, and thereby render the peace of the Nation and in that the prosperity and welfare of His Majesty very insecure and ha­zardous. For what can mo [...] inrage Men to take wild and forbidden courses, than to see even Preachers of the Gospel strive to widen their wounds, and contrary to their own former Professions, to pull off that Plaister, which the wisdom of our St [...]-Physitians had provided to [...]eal our distempers.]

[B] To give the Devil his due, the man is struck upon a sodain, into a handsomer veyn of Rayling, To see a Divine (sayes he) and a Bishop; so strict [Page 24] for the Law in one case, and against it in ano­ther?

But how so? Does the Act of Oblivion absolve you from the need of Repentance? or will any true Convert refuse to own his Offence, as publiquely as he Committed it? The Recantation (I perceive) sticks in your Squeamish Conscience; which shews that the Guilt does not. I beseech ye look a little nearer.

The Act of Pardon implyes there was a Fault; but does not say where, save only in the Actual Murtherers of the late King. At the beginning of the warr, the Presbyterian Party pretended to be as much for the King, as who was most; and the Schismatical Teachers carryed on the work. When by Libelling, Pulpiting (for Preaching, I cannot call it) and Dissembling, they had made an Interest, they Plunder'd, Sequestred, and Shot at him: (for his Good) Prosecuting Those as his Enemies, that fought under his Commission for him; and fell, Defending him.

The Fate of the late King we know; and the Clemency of This; which was intended as a mercy for One Rebellion, not a Foundation for another. 'Tis True; the Faction are not to be Punish'd; but where the Publique Peace depends upon it; are they not to be distinguish'd? To think Them Innocent, is to suppose the King Guilty; and under the Masque of the Act of Oblivion, to hide the Difference; is to endeavour it should be thought so.

Are not the Bishops Entrusted with the Care of Souls, and accomptable for all under their Charge, [Page 25] Charge, that they miscarry not through Their De­fault? Returning to the Exercise of their Ecclesi­astical Authority, after a long and forcible depriva­tion, they find their Flocks misled, and in the hands still of the Seducers. If the people go on, they are damn'd; if their misleaders are turn'd off, or put to recant; 'tis against the Act of Oblivion. If Either; the multitude take Treason for Religion, and finding Matters so well with them Now, beleeve they were in the Right before.

Are not the Bishops bound by the Incumbency of their Pastoral Duty, to teach them to distinguish Loyalty, from Faction; Sound Doctrine, from He­resie; Christian Charity and Obedience, from Schism? Which way can This be done, but by Unwinding the Clew, and unperplexing the People?

If Those that taught them wrong, would but now tell them that they did so; and take the payns to set them right again, all were well▪ but till that's done, the Common sort continue under the same mis­perswasion; and for Their Errours the Bishops must answer, whose Office 'tis to see them Instructed better.

Well well, but [such as Hee, that make the Law, instead of being a Buckler to Protect Converts, a Sword only to cut off such as were once [...]fenders, &c.]

The Hypocrite is pleasant. Such as He?] As if on­ly the Bishop of Wor'ster stuck in his Stomack, when 'tis the Hierarchy it self he boggles at. The Bishop he sayes makes the Law a Sword, in stead of a Buck­ler; but I say, the Schismatique would make both [Page 26] of it: A Buckler, to Traytours; and a Sword to Loyal Subjects.

This is the way he sayes to Enrage the People; and render the welfare of his Majesty very Insecure, and Hazzardous;] Indeed, to suffer these Muti­nous Affronts is the ready way to another Rebellion: but if This Scandalous and Seditious w [...]etch were now made Exemplary, for this Audacious Menace upon the King, who would either help or Pitty him?

D. E. [A] IT is bold and impious (I know not how to express it more mild'y) what he affirms, That I [...] to command an Act, which by acci­dent may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful, then God him­self cannot command any thing. For, though, as I said before, I will by no means own that Assertion, yet, a thing which by accident may become sinful, may be unlawful in another to command, for want of sufficient Authori [...]y; whereas God's Sovereign Power doth without dispute or con­troversie make all his Commands to be just; and therefore his Name ought not to be mentioned in our trivial Disputes, because every such vain use of it, is nothing but a diminution and lessening of his Great­ness.

[A] DId you Learn This Language of your Patron the President; Or did the Good Old Gentleman bequeath you his Consci­ence; that you so little regard either Authority, or Truth?

Let the Reader judg of the Libeller. [Bold, and Impious]: and This, from a Pedant to a Prelate; from an Aërian Heretique, to a Grave, Learned, [Page 27] and Orthodox Divine. Where's the Reverence of Government; the Honour of England; the Protecti­on of the Law? nay, Where's the Power of Religi­on; the Safety of the King; and the Welfare of the People; if such Indignities passe unpunish'd? The Example is Emboldening, and Contagious; for what can the Rabble think; but either that the Insolence is Lawful, the Reproch just, or the Party Terrible? Where are They whose Duty 'tis to watch the Presse? Is the Bloud of the Last King so soon For­gotten; or the Security of our present Sovereign so little Regarded; that we should now try the Operation of the same Poyson upon the People again, which formerly intoxicated them; and the Effect of the same Popular Madnesse, upon This King, which so lately destroy'd his Royal Fa­ther?

Let not us perswade our selves neither, that these Luxuriances of Bitternesse against the Bishops, are only the over-flowings of some Private Humours, meerly as dissatisfy'd to Church-Government. No no; there's more in the Case then so: The Libellers find they get by it; Credit, Countenance, and as by the By, commodious fortunes. Their Mecaenasses are ☜ too wise to tell the Virtuoso's; look ye, there's This, or That, for such a Gird at the King, or such a Lash at the Bishops. But a word to the Wise: they understand for what, and to distinguish from such hands, betwixt a Reward, and a Bounty: What is This, other then tacitly to keep a Faction in Pay, and to allow a Salary to Sedition? I have digress'd too long, but the Animadverter is not [Page 28] forgotten all this while. Now to our Teazer again.

He challenges the Bishop with affirming, [That if to command an Act, which by accident may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful; then God himself cannot command any thing:] and imputes to him as if either he derogated from Gods Almightynesse, or Trifled with his Holy Name and Majesty. Observe now his Prevarication.

The Bishop of Worcester Relates a Dispute that pass'd betwixt Himself, and Mr. Baxter, at the Savoy; concerning Obedience to the Command of a thing in it self Lawful, by Lawful Autho­rity, under no unjust Punishment, and with no evil Circumstance, which the Commander can fore-see, or ought to provide against.] Mr. Bax­ter contends; that the first Act Commanded may be per Accidens, Unlawful, and be Commanded by an unjust Penalty, though no other Act, or Cir­cumstance be such.] (Thus, under his own Hand, in writing.)

The Bishop, desirous to bring him off, from an Assertion so Weak, and wicked at once; layes before him the Impious tendency of it: Tells him that it is Pag. 10. Destructive of all Authority, Humane, and Divine.]—taking away all Legislative Power not only from Pag. 11. the King, but from God Himself:—for no Act can be so Good of it self but may prove by Accident a Sin; which being admitted, every Command is a Sin. If every Command, then God that cannot Sin, cannot Command.]

[Page 29] In This manner, does the Bishop Reason with Mr. Baxter, and to divert him from so foul a Mi­stake, shews him the Horrid, and Blasphemous Consequences of it: and This in fine, does our Spider­catcher deliver to the world for Impious, and Ir­reverent in the Bishop, which was no other then a Logical Result from Mr. Baxter's Argu­ment.

Neither is God's Omnipotence the Question, (Cujus Velle, Potentia; Cui Opus, Voluntas) but the Corruption of Deprav'd Nature: By this Rule, whatsoever we may Abuse must not be Commanded. Bid me Pray—I may Wander. Go to Church—I may sleep. Keep the Sabbath—I may fall into Judaisme. Relieve the Poor Cavaliers—I may do it to be seen of Men: and at This Rate, in In [...] ­nitum.

Our Writer's Pen is in Course, and rather then say Nothing, he is Resolv'd to say lesse. Supposing a want of sufficient Authority to Command: which is the Thing Granted in the Proposition.

D. E. [A] THat an offence, to which a disproportionable penalty is an­nexed, is not to be measured by the quality of the Act con­sidered in it self, but by the mischievous consequences it may produce; whether this ought to hold good in Civill Lawes, becomes neither the Bishop nor me to dispute: but in Divinity nothing can be more false and dangerous. For to impose in the [...]orship of God as necessary circum­stances of it, things confessedly trivial and needless; and upon the for­bearance of them, to debar any from the benefits first of Christian, and then of Civil Communion; is a thing which hath not the least, pretence of Scrip­ture or Primitive practice to justifie it. For, our Saviour te [...]s us. That [Page 30] whosoever were not against him were for him; and the Apostle bids us to receive our weak Brother, and not to judge, much less to burden his Conscience.]

[A] QUestionless This Man is In when he's Out, or he has the worst luck that ever man had, to be still on the wrong side.

Is there no Difference betwixt the same Sinful Act, Solitary, or Exemplary? Between Cursing the King in my Heart, or in the Mercat-place? Betwixt a Private Invective against a Bishop, and a Publique Libel? As much as betwixt a Mur­mur, and a Rebellion: the Peoples Sinnes are Mine too, that sin by My Encouragement, or Example.

We are told that 'tis not Scriptural, to impose things Needlesse, as Necessary, and to debar from the Communion, for Recusancy.

A Decency is enjoyn'd: and if the Church (pro hîc & nunc) may not determine of That Decency; who shall? To see Five hundred several Persons, worshipping in as many several Postures: Is This a Decency? Bring them to One; There's Order; I'll Kneel, says One; Sit, says another; Stand, a Third. There's no Religion pretended either in chusing This or That, or in forbearing it. Only when the Church commands (for Uniformity sake) That Posture to be observ'd by All, which was before by many Practis'd, and without Scandal to the Rest; Then, such a Coyle there's kept; One can't do This, nor T'other, That, and nothing must be done with Doubting. The thing Impos'd, they say, is Trivi­all: Truth; but the Reason of imposing it, is Consi­derable. 'Tis Publique Order; and the Imposing [Page 31] Power, within the bounds of Decency and Order, is beyond Question Sacred. But Rest we upon This Issue.

The Thing required, is (in it self) confest on all hands to be Trivial: Now say; whether is more to blame: the Church for Barring you the Com­munion, because you will not do, what they are perswaded you ought to do; or you for Refusing it, rather than do that which you confess you may do.

We shall conclude this Point against him, from his own Text: Whoever is not Against Me, is for Me.] Let him Prove us Against Christ; if not, we are for him: which Argument will not serve him, because as he is not For him in his Scruple, so he is against him in his Disobedience. For 'tis but dissol­ving a General, into Particulars, and whatsoever is virtually conteyn'd in the One, is Deductively found in the Other; upon which ground, I dare be Positive, that to kneel at the Communion, if Ap­pointed by the Church Apostolique, is a Duty with­in the Intention of That Precept, Let every thing be done Decently, and in Order.

D. E. [B] Unto which sacred Canon nothing can be more directly contrary, than what the Bishop most incompassionately tels us, That the Lawes do well to punish, even with non-admission to the Sacramen [...], such as will not, or perhaps dare not, kneel. And the Reason he gives is equally Apocrypha, Because, saith he, it becomes not the Law-givers to endanger the Churches peace for their sake: As if first, It did not 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. Secondly, As if the Churches peace would not be much more endangered, by the pressing of things doubt­ful, than by the forbearance of them. For since by the enforcing of such things, as God hath no where commanded, our Christian liberty is in [...]in­ged; from hence it follows, that, if we ought not, yet we lawfully may [Page 32] refuse, to sub [...]t unto such Impositions; as our Saviour did, in not washing his hands before meat; and the Apostle Paul, in the case of Circumcision.]

[B] This is answer'd already; but let me add. To Tolerate any Inconformity, by a Law, opens a Gap to all Heresies, and Schismes: as the Liberty of Venting Private opinions against the Law, tends manifestly to Seditions, and Rebellion.

The Animadverter tells us of a Law of Love and Liberty. Does he mean, a Liberty to do what we list; or, what we ought? Not the former sure, for such a Freedome were destructive of Love; Not Three men of Three Thousand Naturally Agreeing. But Two or Three lines further, he opens his Mouth, and tells us the mea­ning of the Liberty he would be at. A Liberty, that leaves us so Free, that if we ought not, yet we Lawfully may refuse to submit unto such Imposi­tions.]

To make out This Seditious determination, he brings Two Instances, The One of our Saviour's Ea­ting with Unwash'd hands; which appears to us ra­ther as a Pretermission, than an Opposition: The Other, of St. Paul's Circumcising of Timothy; (as he would have it) in Complyance with the Ceremony; but the Text says otherwise, and that it was to render him more Acceptable to the Jews. Therefore Paul would that he should go forth with him, and took and Circumcised him, because of the Jews, which were in those quarters, Acts 16. 3. (but however the Imposition was not the Question in either Case.)

D. E. [A] AS for the Chain of Consequences, which the Bishop li [...]ks and ti [...]s together: As that from Diversity in external [...]ites, ariseth Dislike; from Dislike, Enmity; from Enmity, Oppositi­on; thence, Sehism in the Church, and Sedition in the State: For [...] of which he doth very virulently instance in our unhappy times. To prevent which he tels us, That the State cannot be safe without the Church, nor the Church without Unity, nor Unity without Uniformity, nor uniformity without a strict and rigorous Imposition. To all this I answer, that it is a [...] Rope of sand, and the parts of his Chain do [...] little hang together; as Sampsons Foxes did before they were tied by the Tails, which course the Bishop hath imitated, not forgetting to put in even the Firebrand it self to make up the Comparison.]

[A] LAying his Gall and Vanity aside; his Viru­lences, Ropes of Sand, and Firebrands; wee'll come to the Intermission of his Fury, (for it takes him by Fits) his Sober Folly.

D. E. [B] Nothing is more clear than that there hath been, nay, ought to be, Diversity in external Forms, without any Dislike at all as to the Person of another: For, the Apostles that preached to the circumcision gave the right hand of Fellowship unto the Apostles of the Gentiles; although their Outward Rites in publick Worship, were far more different than those, which, by any of the most distant perswasions, are now practised i [...] England. 2. The State may be prefer [...]ed, without the least reference to the Church, unlesse it turns Pe [...]secuter of it; as is evident i [...] those 300 years before Constantine's time, in which there was no Church at all legally countenanced; and for some scores of years after, both the Chri­stians and Ge [...]tiles were equally advanced and favoured. 3. Vnity, I mean such as Christ came to establish (which is an Unity in heart and spirit) doth not in the least depend upon Uniformity, but upon Charity, i. e. a Christian and a Cand [...]d forbea [...]ance of one another i [...] things cir­cumstantial, when we agree in the Essentials of Worship; which is a thing that meer Civility would teach, though Religion were silent in it.]

[Page 34] [B] Because Diversity of External Formes in several Churches does well enough: Is Uniformity in the same Church therefore the less Laudable; or what Proportion is there betwixt the Apostles Case and Our's? Their business was to Preach the Gospel to all Nations, and lay the Foundation of Christianity: but our Dispute is only, Whether or no we shall Obey their Delegates in Matters In­different.

Again; the Bishop speaks of the English Church, and State, whose Interests are Commixt, and En­terwoven to a degree of Inseverable complication. His slight esteem of Uniformity, swayes not at all with me▪ when I consider That Notable, and Di­vine saying of Sir Francis Bacon, The outward Peace of the Church, distilleth into Peace of Conscience; And it turneth the Labours of Writing, and Reading of Controversies, into Treatises of Mortification, and Devotion.

Concerning Circumstantials; I think it much more suitable, for the People to Obey, than for the Church to Forbear: and let them say what they please of Agreeing in Essentials, when I see a per­verse Posture, I think it no breach of Charity to suspect a Froward Mind.

D. E. [C] And whereas the Bishop thinks he hath got some advantage, by re­viving the memory of our late Civil [...]ars, which (were he either Christian or Man enough, he would wish were eternally buried in silence) I must (to use his own Phrase) tell him in his ear, that our Wars did not arise from the separation of Conscie [...]tious dissenters, but from the violence and fury of unconscio [...]able Imposers, who would not allow their Brethren (who [Page 35] desired nothing more than to live peacea [...]ly by them) that sob [...] [...] which the Law of God commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of.

[C] See; now he Raves again, [were he either Christian, or man enough, &c.] still at the Memory of our late Warrs, he Starts, and Methinks looks as if that quarter of the House were Haunted. But here he tells the Bishop a tale in his Ear; and as arrant a Tale as ever he told in his Life;

The Violence, and Fury of Unconscionable Impo­sers was the Cause of the Warr. He sayes.] In a Strict sense, 'tis Truth. A Pack of Contriving Knaves, drew in a Rabble of Believing Fools; and against Conscience, Law, Honour, and Gratitude, Levy'd a War against the King, because he would not give away his Crown, and Betray his People. This is the Short of All. See the Exact Collections, and you shall find who Rais'd the Warr, and upon what Pretense.

Alas! the Brethren only desired to live Peaceably, (he tells us) and to enjoy that Sober Liberty, which the Law of God Commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of.]

The Scotch Rebellion was a Sober Liberty; (was it not?) So was the Plunder of Sir John (now Lord) Lu­cas, and the Lady Rivers: The Tumults Flocking to Whitehal, and Westminster: The Posting up of Those that would not Murther the Earl of Strafford: The Cries of Crucifie him, against That Learned, and Reverend Prelate, the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury: The Defacing of Church-Windows, and Monu­ments: [Page 36] The Defaming, Sequestring, and Murthring of the King.

All Th [...]se, were in our Animadverters opinion, Sober Liberties. Where [...]oes the Law of God▪ Command These Liberties; so that no Law of Man (as he pre­tends) can justly hinder them?

His Sacred Majesty, whom these Libertines Mur­ther'd; was of another Judgement. Those with Me E [...] B [...]. [...]. 19. had (I think) cleerly and [...]ndoubtedly for their Justi­fication—the Word of God, and the Lawes of the Land, together with their own Oathes.]—Those on the other side are forc'd to flie to the shifts of some Pretended Fears, and wild Fundamentals of State (as they call them) which Actually overthew the Present Fabrick both of Church and State, &c.] These are the Words of that Blessed Martyr: and in the same Meditation again, [I am Guilty in This Warr of nothing but This; that I gave such Advan­tages to some Men, by confirming their Power, which they knew not how to use with That Modesty, and Gratitude, which became their Loyalty, and my Con­fidence.]

Here we see the Authority of a Nameless Libeller, against Records, Living Witnesses, and the averment of a Dying Prince.

Put stay, whether his accompt be True, or False, is but one part of the Question. The Danger, Scope, and malice of it, deserves another Look.

H [...]re's first, the Bloud of the Last Warr cast upon the Late King; and Consequently the Regal Rights of the King Regnant, expos'd to a Dispute: [Page 37] for 'tis express'd, that the [...] Di [...]enters were deny'd That Liberty, which no Law of man could deprive them of: which manifestly implies both the Oppression of the Late King, and the In­sufficiency of Monarchy it self, as to the Ends of Government. If That Warr was fair on the Peoples side, Then; so would another upon the same score, be Now: in which regard, the very Hint is Sediti­ous. Further, it casts a Dangerous reflexion upon the present Government. These execrable Papers, 'tis odds his Majesty neither sees nor hears of, and what a Scandal is it then, under the Reign of the Son, to see such Libelling Against the Ashes of the Father!

Hee'll say perhaps, he only tells what Caus'd the Warr, without pretending to Defend it. That shift may serve him, to some purpose, provided he was never formerly engag'd with the Faction; if ☜ he was never Ambitious of testifying to the World his Real Esteem of the singular Worth and Eminence of the greatest Villein in Nature: he's the more ca­pable of Mercy.

But does not what he is, appear from the whole drift of his Discourse? What does he, but Defame the King under the Visor of his Animadversions up­on the Bishop? (For what has the Bishop done without the Kings Authority?) Again, under the Cloke of an Exception to One Bishop, what does he but inveigh against the Church: the Episcop [...] Dignity and Function? and in fine, why against the Bishops? but only as the likelyest way to enflame the People by Degrees against the King? Does not [Page 38] his Majesty enjoyn the Practice of Those Cere­monies which he condemns the Bishops for? But what he drives at, will more fully appear from that which follows.

D. E. [D] And whether the publick maintaining of the very same Positions and Practises, may not in time beget the same Feuds and Animosities, although this Bishop cares not, yet I doubt not but His Majesty, as he now doth, so will alwayes graciously consider.

[D] These Four Lines well apply'd, would settle the Nation in perfect happiness: but in another sense then he intends them.

'Tis very true; the Publique Mainteining of the very same Positions, and Practices that rais'd the last War, will most infallibly produce Another: unless the Sticklers be a little better look'd to. They Preach'd and Libell'd up an Army against our Late Sovereign: are they not at it now again for Another? Ceremonies, and Lord-Bishops were mighty Grievances, They are so still. And then the Kings Prerogative came in Play. They are fairly offring at it Now to. And what was the Event of All? The Holy men Divided the Spoyle; Overthrew the Government, Murther'd the King; Begger'd and En­slav'd the Nation, and Setled Nothing.

Marque now the Menace of his last Period. What does it say, but This? Let the King take up his Bi­shops, or look to himself. And to Embitter the People against Bishops) Feuds, and Animosities, he presages (though this Bishop cares not.)

D. E. [A] WHether, as to the matter of Fact, the French Protestants do enjoyn standing at the Sacrament; and the Dutch, kneel­ing; I will labour to enform my self of some more Unbyassed witness than this Bish [...]p; for in the Ecclesiastical Laws of those Churches, which I have carefully perused, I can find no such matter. But if they did so, this would not at all justifie the Imposition of Kneeling; because 1. The Question is de Jure, whether it be lawful to prescribe any one such certain Posture, without submiting to which, it shall not be lawful to admit any to the Sacrament, and till the Affirmative of this be proved by Scriptures, Ex­amples, and Instances from the Practice of men, will not satisfie a doubting conscience. 2. Neither of those fore-mentioned Postures are so much to ex­ception as Kneeling; because this last is manifestly more superstitious, for, 1. It varies most of any from the First Pattern. 2. It hath been monstrously abused by the Papists to Idolatry; which alone renders it most unsafe to be practised, and most Unwarrantable to be imposed: Especially, till it be a­gain explained as in the very first Liturgy of all it was; which I particu­larly mention, to shew how little our Reformation since Edw. 6th. time, hath been improved.]

[A] HE cannot passe the Bishop without a Reve­rence; [Some more Unbyass'd Witnesse then This Bishop, &c.] This is the handsomest Ly he has given the Bishop yet. But to our Businesse; leaving the French, and Dutch to their Pleasure: we have already argu'd that whatsoever is Deductively in the Scripture, is sufficiently There, to warrant the Pra­ctice of it; and we have prov'd Kneeling to be ra­tionally and evidently compriz'd in the General Pre­cept of Decency. Now to his Particular Excep­tions.

It varyes (sayes he) from the First Pattern.] Was it a Pattern for a Posture; or the Institution of a Sa­crament? Mind the Text.

[Page 40] The Lord Jesus in the night when he was betray'd, took Bread; and when he had given Thanks, he brake 1 Cor. 11. 23 it, and said, Take, Eat, This is my body which is broken for you; THIS DO ye in Remembrance of 24 Me.] After the same manner also he took the Cup, 25. when he had supped, saying: This Cup is the New Te­stament in my Bloud, THIS DO as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.

We have here the Complement of the Institution. Now see the Extent of the Command. DO THIS. What's That? Take Bread; Give Thanks:—Break it, and say, Take, Eat, &c.—So likewise of the Cup, in such manner as is Prescrib'd.

Here's the whole Precept, without any Mention, or the least Hint of other Circumstance, either for Time, Posture, Habit, or the like. All which being left equally Indifferent; why not at Night; in the same Habit, Language, and Syllables, as well as the same Posture?

But Kneeling (he says) has been abus'd to Idolatry; and therefore not warrantably Impos'd:] Have not Churches been Abus'd? has not the Holy Scripture it self been misapply'd; and made the ground of He­resie? Are they not therefore Warrantably Used? Finally; the main stumble they make of Kneeling is the Command; now if a Posture of Body may not be Commanded, what may? So that ex professo, their Enmity is not so much Levell'd at the Evil, as at the Government.

D. E. [A] AS it was needlesly, so was it likewise Uncharitably done, to re­vile the whole body of Presbyterians for the Faults of Mr. Bax­ter; upon supposition that either he is a Presbyterian, or so culpable as the Bishop would make him. For since every man is to bear his own Burden, what Bible did the Bishop find it in, that he might, without scruple, asperse a whole order of Men, for the pretended miscarriage of one; who, by the Bishop's own Confession, was not of so Amicable and complyant a Temper as the rest: And therefore certainly they ought not to be brought in as Parties in that crime of Unpeaceableness, from which the Bishop just before had [...]absolved them: but choler spoyls the Memory; and, sure his Brethren the Bishops would not take it well of a Presbyterian, should he cry out Crimine ab uno, disce omnes—See what manner of Spirit these Bishops are of, and judge them all by the Bishop of Wercester's example. Truly, Sir, I am a little angry, when I consider how much this one mans Indiscre­tion hath exposed all of the same Order to Censure; For were they all like him (which I do not, nor dare not think) I should not scruple to pray heartily, what the Bishop doth in scorn concerning the Preachers—Lord deliver us from such Bishops. And let all the People say, Amen.

[A] OF This Cavil we have both had enough, and said enough, in and to his first Ex­ception; and the Animadverter discovers that some­what has spoyl'd his Memory too, as well as he sayes Choler has done the Bishops: which is a Pitty, considering how little Pretense the Libeller has for a Bad one, and how much use for a Good one.

I would Gladly know, in what Bible the Animad­verter learned to despise Government, and speak e­vil of Dignities; to bear false Witnesse against his Neighbour, &c. He sayes the Bishop judges Unchari­tably in measuring All by One: and that he now con­demns whom just before he absolv'd. Answer; Neither the One, nor the Other. First; his words [Page 42] are only [in Proportion of the whole Party] which does not Imply either All, or in the same Degree. And for the Bishop's Contradicting himself; with what Ingenuity can any man extend his Meaning to All, which in Terminis, is limited to Those of Mr. Baxter's Judgement; and in distinction, from others of a more complying and Peaceable Tem­per?

To go on with him; D. E. tells the Honourable Sir, that he is a little Angry, to consider how This one mans Indiscretion exposes all of the same Order to Censure. Grosse Impostour! Does he not streyn his little Wit, and huge Confidence to the utmost, only to start a Scandal, and fix a Blot upon the Bi­shop? with what Temper of Spirit, with what weight, (or in truth, Colour) of Reason, with what Inge­nuity, and Affection, he has menaged This Dis­course, let the Indifferent determine. He concludes his Exceptions with a Prayer; Lord deliver us (says he) from such Bishops: Good God (say I) Preserve his Majesty from Treason, and Deliver the Church from Schism.