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 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 T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—-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 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 T was 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 Episcopâ—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 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 thâ—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
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 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 't is absolutely false and nothing deductive from his premisses which D. E. infers viz. That 't is 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 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 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 't was 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
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 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 Bishâ—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 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 T was comparatively rather to square their lives by the Pharisees doctrine than by their practse that Christ enjoyned his disciples 3 'T was 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 oâ— 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 'T is 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 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 't is that he labours with a false Supposition That Archbishops Bishops c. did exact a recantation as persons
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 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 't was 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 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 't was 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 also crack in a proportionable Emphasis of a broken frame 3. Vnity in heart and spirit doth not in the least depend upon Vniformity 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.
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 hath sowed 'T is 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 wast-band 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 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 T is 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 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 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 FINIS
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 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 'T is unlawfull eò quòd the Authority is unlawfull We enquire whether a command be illegitimate because the thing commanded 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 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