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
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 'T is criminal in the Bishop to suffer it in the Minister to do it But Mr. Baxter's Case needs not This Sifting his fault being not only Contumacy but Usurpation 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 deâ—ced against if theâ— offer to oâ—t then 1. I see not what Ordination signifies â—ce the power that 〈◊〉 is given â—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 Ordinatioâ— you think sufficient then without a License Well and speak Truth for Once what do yoâ—hink of a Good Living without Ordination Weak and Spiâ—l Creature Ordination Entitles you to the Ministry but not to the Benefice It Authoriâ—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 Wherâ— And it must be the Gospel too not â—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 Tâ—s which the Bishop in his own Defence has published at the End of his Letter But of These the Animaâ—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 C For the Bishop's Instâ— of our Saviour ' s putting to silence the Scribâ—s and Pharisees is both Impertiâ—t and False because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument which the Bishop may do when ever he is aâ—le but what is that to an Authoritative and imâ—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 fâ—om forbidding the Pharisees to preach that he commands his Disciples both to hear and to obey their Doctrine So that since the Bishop wiâ— 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 Mâ— 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 â—alse as being directly 〈◊〉 to their declared Principles yet the Phariseâ—s taught something worse and that was 〈◊〉 Yet our Saviour who sure had more power and withal more care of his Church â—hen the Bishâ—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 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 'T is Contrary insooth to their Declared Principles so have been all their Actings wherefore 't is True D I wish therefore that this Bishop and the rest of his Brethren if any are Châ—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 aâ— the lâ—st day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it D How now Cholerick Testy Frivoloâ—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 EXCEPTION IV A HOw consistent with the Civil Peace for as to Christian Charity the whole thing is but a Letter of dâ—fiance against it the Bishops Distinction is about the Act of Iâ—dempnity and â—he so much foâ—gotten Act of 〈◊〉 I hope His Majesty and the Parliament will in due â—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 Coâ—rcive Jurisdiction the Bishop would make us
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 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 'T is 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 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 F So that if the Bishop of Worcester's Râ—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 â—at are of the Bishop of Worcester's complexion do reaâ—y drive at by the fatal example of that one Bishops Usurpation For 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 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 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 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 EXCâ—PTION II. 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 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 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. But the man 's for Parity I perceive and against Deputation He 's Consequently â—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 B I forbear to â—rge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostlâ—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 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 sole Authority aâ— Bishop of the Diocess but the Spirit of God had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers or to use the proper stile Biâ—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 Patteâ—ns of the Flock From which places we learn not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Presâ—yter are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons but likewise that whoever fâ—d the Flock are under Christ whom the Apostle there stilâ—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 uâ—scriptural and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix till we come to ceâ—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 Dâ—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 soâ—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 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 EXCEPTION III. 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
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