unless perhaps by barking against the Moon to which custom he hath not yet bid adieu If I might be of his Counsel I should advise him as his best course not to pretend to Astronomy whom a Cudgel doth better become than a Jacob's staff Our Replicant makes no long abode on the controverted Question either because he did not well understand the State and was loath to display his ignorance Or else because he could not find a plausible occasion to vent that Rancour from the exuberant supplies of which he hath borrowed a Ninefold Exception against some particular occurrences in the Lord Bishop's Letter where he suppos'd himself capable of fastening Indeed he would perswade us that 't was his inclination to Favour the Bishop made him waive the main Dispute But thanks be to his Ignorance rather than his Clemency However though I cannot believe him yet I will not stand to question him but wait upon him in his Exceptions I. EXCEPT HE takes much in dudgeon that Asseveration of the reciprocal alliance between Kings and Bishops in the Proverb No BISHOP no KING Neither doth D. E. see any Dependence they have each on other thinking Episcopacy to contribute little or nothing to the subsistence of the King's Authority But we must desire him to be informed that this Cohaerence doth although something yet not so much result from any positive respect in themselves as from that inconsistency which is between any other Ecclesiastical Government and Kingship For either we must suppose an aequality of Degrees amongst Ecclesiastical Persons or else the praeeminence and superiority of Lay-Elders for I know no other Ecclesiastick state whereunto any have inclined now what a diametrical antipathy and opposition either of these two Conditions bear to a Regall Supremacy is easily demonstrated For as to the first should we suppose all Church-persons or Ministers empowr'd with equal authority that indistinction would redound no lesse to his Majesty's disadvantage in Spirituals every man being in a posture to broach his own opinion or promote another's faction than the Confusion of a secular power in Leveldom would endammage the Kings Temporal Domination Or secondly Were we under the py-ball'd disposing of Laicks how could they according to the exaction of their duty devote themselves to the Churches benefit Since their double Interests would oblige them to distraction and a damnable Neutrality that would justifie Erasmus his Anomalous state of being Which how far it would impair the Churches happiness and consequently plunder one ballance of the Kings Soveraignty whose Ecclesiastical and Temporal State must counterpoise each other that the Crown stand even I leave to the judgement of any rational man But to inquire into our Animadverter's Reasons that prompted him to the disavowing of any such relation 1. Saith he Kings flowrished in all parts of the World before Bishops were ever heard of And there can no reason be Given why what hath once been may not with the same terms of Covenience be again As to the first assertion viz. that the Antiquity of Kings doth far surpasse that of Bishops I must needs acknowledge it the truest proposition in all the Pamphlet For none can be ignorant that Ninus the first Assyrian Monarch flourish't without the least support of a Bishop We know that Zoroastres Magus first King of the Bactrians and the first writer that History presents unto us neither had Bishops in his Kingdom nor yet ever mentioned such a Name in those books he legacy'd to posterity Neither do we read that Croesus Cyrus Darius Philip of Macedon or his Son Alexander made use of Bishops So that had D. E. left us nothing partaking more of falsity than this Position I should never have questioned him But yet when all this is pro confesso I wonder by what Inference and deduction he could tell us that we may with the same terms of convenience admit the same posture of Government again For 1 What though he should tell us that the Mogul Prester John or the Great Cham of Tartary do to this day preserve their Magnificence without the least concurrence of an Episcopal Jurisdiction Doth it therefore follow that a Christian King may They may also subsist without a Church yea and do but is there the same Convenience for a King in Christendom so to do Where there is no Ecclesiastick State cannot be expected Ecclesiastick Government But where a Kings Prerogative hath a double aspect towards Spirituals and towards Temporals there is required some jurisdiction in either to which States of a contrary constitution can neither prescribe Names nor Method Their Regimen without Bishops doth not at all involve any possibility of the same among us 2 What though D. E. could although he never can prove that even Christian Kings have flourished without Bishops Yet doth it follow that England for the Proverb was neither derived from nor is extended to exotick Nations may with the same facility dispence with the privation of them Why should the Sequel be good Why should other people become a necessary president to us Or why should our Capacities be measured by their Discipline Since our humours are of another countenance and for the security of his Majesty may require a Government partaking somewhat of singularity in Church as well as distinct from others in State Or 3 Should we suppose for demonstrationis gratiâ we may suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and impossibles even in England a Power called Kingship without Bishops yet the veracity of the Maxim No Bishop no King would stand firm and unshaken For the Authority of a King as a King is unconfin'd and absolute without the least Apocope mutilation or restriction of Command And a King is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or naturally call'd a King when his lustre is eclips'd in the derogating from his Soveraignty So that I say although we should suppose a Monarchical Government pretending to the name of Kingship to be destitute of Bishops yet it would not follow that it would shine in its due splendour and consequently be Kingship properly so termed without them For the other two Ecclesiastick States which some have dream'd of would as I said before if not ruine yet diminish his Majesties Authority and make his Kingship and Regal Power dwindle into something of a more inconsiderable name So that without his Bishops he would not be a King properly so called We have seen that grosse Non-sequitur of D. E. viz. Kings have flourished without Bishops ergo they may still But this is only the first of his Reasons which made him Scruple the mutual Relation of Kings and Bishops 2. Saith D. E. Bishops as they are by law Established in England are purely the Kings subordinate Ministers in the Management of Ecclesiastical affairs which his Majesty may confer upon what order of men he pleaseth though as much lay-lay-persons us you and I. Hence he concludes that there is no necessity of such a mutual respect between Kings
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