Wisdom Pag. 11. an Irony Here 's his Vomit and in the name of Peace what stirr'd this Humour De Iracundiâ Magister Iracundissimus disputat The Bishop of Wor'ster wipes off an Aspersion cast upon him by Mr. Baxter The Animadverter masques himself like a Son of the Church gives it against Baxter and without any Interest in the Dispute or Provocation to it falls upon the Bishop in what Termes we have shew'd already and after a word or two more wee 'll look into his Reasons Thrice Three are his Exceptions so that we have something Sacred and Mysterious in the Number how loose and weak-soever we find the Matter of them Truly I could wish them either Shorter Fewer or Better for the Readers sake but since that Reverend Prelate is concern'd I would not wish them Other for the Bishops In Truth so foul they are that to say What they are might pass for Railing We shall however expose the Libel every Syllable of it take it in Order and in Pieces confronting every Point Material in it with such Answer as the Quality of it requires And now to his Exceptions which begin with This Charge upon the Bishop EXCEPTION I. 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 'T is 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 to Kings should not be Friends to Bishops This Libeller would have the Face to tell the Sun 't were Midnight His next Fetch is a deep one 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 declaâ—e the Truth though coâ—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 aâ—â—ch Marque â—w what 't is 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 Eâ—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 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 Consâ—crating the Sacrament of the Eucharist Now say on 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 'T is 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 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 inâ—iour Officers D. Infallibly This man is some Lay-Chaplain 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
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 eveâ— so far as to make a Puâ—lick 〈◊〉 Here I wâ—sh the Bishop would have sâ—oken out of the Clouds and plainly told us what he meant by the Church For if it be a Congregaâ—ion of the Faithful met together for the worship of God as the Dâ—finition of Scripture and of the Church of England in the 39 Articles this will not at all advantage him since such a Chuâ—ch hath 〈◊〉 Coâ—cive or Imposing Power But if he means the Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical State â—y Arch-Bishops Bishops c. there can be nothing morâ— false or more dishonourablâ— unto oâ— Civil Government than to affirm that it lies in their power not only â—o puâ—sh but likâ—wise to exact a Recantation fâ—r those faults which the King and Parliament have not only pardoâ—ed but undâ— severâ— penalties commandâ— shâ—uld never more be remembred And therefore I doubt not but that they will resent this Malicious and â—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 't will 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 Sâ—blers Printers and Stationers for the Presse the same Engines for the Pâ—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 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 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 â—od they never meant for themselves 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 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 â—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 moâ— 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 Stâ—-Physitians had provided to â—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 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 'T is 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 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 't is 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
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 't is 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 'T is Publique Order and the Imposing 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 't is 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 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 Sacramenâ— 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 inâ—inged from hence it follows that if we ought not yet we lawfully may refuse to subâ—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 EXCEPTION VII A AS for the Chain of Consequences which the Bishop liâ—ks and tiâ—s together As that from Diversity in external â—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 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 iâ— England 2. The State may be preferâ—ed without the least reference to the Church unlesse it turns Peâ—secuter of it as is evident iâ— 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 Geâ—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 Candâ—d forbeaâ—ance of one another iâ— 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 B Because Diversity of External Formes in several Churches does well enough Is Uniformity in the