D. E. DEFEATED: OR, A REPLY TO A Late Scurrilous Pamphlet Vented against the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Letter, Whereby he Vindicated himself from Mr. BAXTER'S Misreports.  
By S. H.  
Qui benè audire velit, loquatur benè.  Sen. 
LONDON: Printed for R. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. M.DC.LXII.   

Preface to the READER.  
Courteous Reader,  
THink not that I have presumed to defend his Lordship's Letter, or arrogated to myself the support of his Epistolary treatise. No, I know his Merits to be out of the reach of Detraction, his Person beyond the venom of the most maligning Spleen; and his Letter to transcend all rational Exception. My design therefore is, to stop the mouth of this unmannered Coridon; whose Drift is to build himself a Name in the Slander of Grandees, and to become notorious by exposing deserts to the malice and misprizion of disaffected Persons.  
There are, I know, many inconveniences that might have scared me from the enterprise. I am not unacquainted with the Epidemical fate of those who have engaged into Controversies, in that they commonly encounter an unhappy Dilemma; for upon any (though never so inconsiderable an) Answer, they must either gratify their Adversary by a resolved Silence, or else sweat in the invincible Cacoethes of a frequent Reply. Besides this; to affrighten me, there was a Bear in the way: for the Person (against whom I have raised the weapons) hath incurred an honourable: Scandal in the mouths of some, who have reputed him a  Jesuit; But this difficulty I vanquished in a short and easy meditation, for (although I knew he might easily be induced to make as virulent a Discovery of his Malice, yet) I could never be tempted to believe that a Jesuit would ever have befriended us with such an ample disclosure of his ignorance. And indeed this was the ground on which I overcame one of the forementioned Praemunires of the Press, not dreading even the quotidian iteration of his Reply, whose indiscretion sufficiently satisfied me of my Security. So that the encouragement which animated me to the closure with D.E. (for that is all the ear-mark we have of him) lies obvious and visible. But yet (Gentle Reader) the Suit that sent me to thy Courtesy, remans' still undiscovered.  
Desiring thee therefore to know, that I have dealt more fairly with his, than he with his Lordship's Letter, (not snapping at a few gleaned Particulars; but replying to the most considerable part thereof) I must forestall thy further view with a double Request, (1) That I may be excused in that I have rebandied language of his own Complexion upon him; finding no unsutableness in that advice, viz. Answer a fool according to his folly, etc. (2) That I may be dispensed with, in that I have not made it my business so much to entertain thee with demonstrative Arguments, in behalf of those things which D.E. scruples; as by satisfactory Answers to inform thee of the invalidity of his exceptions. Since I thought it the strongest probation of those assertions, at which he carps, to expose to thy view the vanity and emptiness of his Allegations against them. Moreover, I should probably have wrought him into some partial conceit of himself, had I answered his Pamphlet with a Volume. However, waive not the reading of these few leaves out of any despondency of satisfaction, till thy perusing eye shall acquaint thee with the Contents.  
Thine, etc. S. H.   

D. E. DEFEATED: OR, A REPLY TO A Late Scurrilous Pamphlet Vented against the Lord Bishop of WORCESTER, etc.  
I Am (saith D. E.) to thank you for the last piece of Divertisement you gave me in sending the Bishop of Worcester 's Letter. The Spleen of Democritus was nothing to the humour of this fellow. His life (to whom such solid matters were but Divertisements) was sure very jocular; and the merry temper of other Naturals, falls much beneath it. But he proceeds: And I wish you would have let me enjoyed the satisfaction I took in reading it without engaging me to give you my sense upon it. Sense did he call it? I ever thought Sense to have been a little more of kin to Reason. But I am ready to gratify him so far, as to father the mistake on the Printer, and to suppose it should have been Nonsense. But sense let it be; and let him give his Parron this his sense; I think he was so generous in giving it, that he improvidently reserved none at all for himself. But he annexe●h, For besides my unwillingness to engage in a personal quarrel, I think it will not be very safe meddling with so angry an adversary. Never fear it Man! Never fear it! Scaraboeos contemnunt Aquilae. Think not that he will adopt to himself so much unquietness as to deam of you. What though he be a Man of worth and eminence? yet, his Gravity will not dispense with his entertaining fools in his thoughts, or encouraging a red Cap with notice and observation. Next, D. E. resolves to speak nothing but truth in the Character he intends to give him, and it is briefly this, That in fewer leaves he never read more passion. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis? I thought his sense would come to this anon. He pretends to give us a Character of the Bishop, and he tells us the Contents of his Book. His preceding words promise an apposite Description of his Lordship's person, and his next syllables acquaint us with nothing at all to the purpose, but only, that in fewer leaves D. E. never read more passion. Well, for once then let me present the Reader with a Character of the Bishop; and 'tis briefly this, That D. E. is an arrant Ass. Both descriptions are alike to the purpose. But he tells us, that the Bishop's book is full of passion; And is there not in our Author's Reply, a thousand times more of Malice and Rancour (I dare not say, Passion; for that's solely incident to rational creatures)? But, the Bishop's passion is so predominant, that his disorderly and abrupt stile doth altogether partake of it. He accuses a style composed of Gravity, as blended with abruption and bitterness, whereas his partakes of either (the last especially) in a far more intense degree. 'Twas an Errata sure in the Satirist, Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. For here's one o'er head and ears in Rayllery, whilst he not only pretends to eschew it, but hath the face even to declare against it. Next we are informed, that the Bishop's best way will be to get his heat mistaken for zeal; for else it may justly be accounted somewhat of a worse name, and which in the Dog-days will be very dangerous. Though D. E. belies the Lord Bishop's Letter as savouring of heat; yet I'm sure 'tis far from abuse or scandal, to pronounce the quintessence of D. E. his Pamphlet, vapour and smoke. But may we not justly admire how our Pamphleter came acquainted with the danger of the Dog-days, or the influence of a Star? 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 supposed himself capable of fastening. Indeed he would persuade us, that 'twas 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 equality of Degrees amongst Ecclesiastical Persons; or else the praeeminence and superiority of Lay-Elders, (for I know no other Ecclesiastic state whereunto any have inclined) now what a diametrical antipathy and opposition either of these two Conditions bear to a Regal Supremacy, is easily demonstrated. For, as to the first, should we suppose all Church-people, or Ministers, empowr'd with equal authority, that indistinction would redound no less 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 endamage the King's Temporal Domination. Or, secondly, Were we under the py-balled disposing of Laics; how could they (according to the exaction of their duty) devote themselves to the Church's benefit? Since their double Interests would oblige them to distraction, and a damnable Neutrality that would justify Erasmus his Anomalous state of being. Which, how far it would impair the Church's happiness, and consequently plunder one balance of the King's Sovereignty (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 flourished 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 surpass 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 flourished 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 legacyed 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 Ecclesiastic State, cannot be expected Ecclesiastic Government. But where a King's 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, exotic Nations) may with the same facility dispense with the privation of them? Why should the Sequel be good? Why should other people become a necessary precedent 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 unconfined and absolute, without the least Apocope, mutilation, or restriction of Command. And a King is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or naturally called a King, when his lustre is eclipsed in the derogating from his Sovereignty. 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 Ecclesiastic States (which some have dreamed of) would (as I said before) if not ruin, yet, diminish his Majesty's 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 gross Nonsequitur 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 King's subordinate Ministers, in the Management of Ecclesiastical affairs, which his Majesty may confer upon what order of men he pleaseth, though as much lay-people us you and I. Hence, he concludes that there is no necessity of such a mutual respect between Kings and Bishops. Whether our Pamphleter be a Laic or no? I list not here to inquire, 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 Laic with Ecclesiastic dignities and promotions? but, Whether he may do it without detriment to his Kingdom, and the unavoidable ruins of a Glorious Church, without which his Kingship would be at an ebb? We do not so far detract from his Majesty's Power, as to avow that he cannot substitute Mechanics ' 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, 'tis absolutely false, and nothing deductive from his premises, which D. E. infers, viz. That 'tis very injurious to the King's authority to aver, that he could not otherwise uphold himself, than by preserving the undue, and (as some think) Antichristian praelation of his inferior officers. Speak out man! Some think quoth a? The Man is loath to accuse himself, but presents it to us under the frantic conceit of his Brethren. Antichristian? Methinks, his own thoughts might have convinced 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 King's undoubted Sovereignty than some Bishops. Where we may observe the weakness of his Reason. Some Bishops have abused the King's trust; therefore there is no reason why Episcopacy should be entailed to Kingship. The same reason may be alleged against Nobility, since some Nobles have employed their honours and capacities to the distraction of the Kingdom and the endamagement 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 surmised 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 Appendices 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 King's undoubted Sovereignty. They are so, saith he, either by their scarce warrantable intermeddling in Civil 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 alliance with Ecclesiastical, than Temporal Considerations; their by as directing towards the Church-interest. And as for their meddling with such matters, I see not how D. E. could term them Unwarrantable, or Prejudicial to the King's undoubted Sovereignty. But this is not all the reason of his abusing Bishops, but the second way whereby he deems them the King's Enemies, is, By their absurd and insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes, whereby they mangle the King's 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 Ecclesiastic, be more absurd than the distinguishing of persons into such? Besides, who sees not what a Scandalous lie he hath here vented? With what face could he say that the King is allowed no Sovereignty 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 persuade us the contrary) the Pope's pretensions are of a nature contradistinct to those of our Bishops; since his Supremacy admits of no acknowledgement 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, than 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 persuade 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— (urged by my Lord of Worcester upon The Presbyterians) let me tell him, 'twas 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 fare 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 himself the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese. Deeming that such a position must needs be defended by the Arguments produced in behalf 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 Bishop's superintendency over one particular Diocese, and in subordination to his Majesty's command; and for the Pope to assume the universal command of all churches, without the acknowledgement of any higher Power to which he should submit? 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 make particular inquisition into the execution of their functions; And for A Bishop's adopting to himself a limited number of deputies, whose more neighbouring deportments he may with much facility survey and determine of them according to their known actions? What will any man judge but that D. E. his wits were at Rome all this while? But he informs 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 Calendar The Saints are very little obliged 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 himself 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 instrumental 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 practice and the Apostles Doctrine? O, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them signify the same. 'tis true, sometimes they did signify the same yet they were not always of the Same Extent. Every one that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and no more, might in some sense be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not è converso, Every Bishop or overseer could not be called a Presbyter, and no more. For my part I will not envy the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the most undeserving priest, in its genuine signification. But withal, I would have D. E. know, that a Community of name doth not always involve an indistinction of dignity, or a parity of degree; Else would I inquire, 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. himself tells us): Which two occurrences are so far from patronising 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 informed, 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.) knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formerly was a word equally appropriated to men and Spirits, employed in embassies; but now the eminence of the latter hath engrossed the Name, especially in its translations; as likewise the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kness of the Bishop's 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 pastors of the flock, though his wits were gone a woolgathering, and now I have found them among the flock. In the first of his Exceptions he is strongly provoked against Bishops; as detracting from his Majesty's Ecclesiastic prerogative: And yet here, he thinks it no impeachment to the King's supremacy, to give the most inconsiderable priest the upper hand of him inspiritualls. 'twas 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 Pastor of the Flock be not the Governor of the flock? If that he be (as he cannot deny it), then, whosoever feeds that flock is next and immediately under Christ supreme governor 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 supreme Pastor. So farewell to one of his Majesty's titles. Is not this to be a most affectionate lover of the King's person and Government, as he elsewhere pretended? But he tells us moreover, that, To extend the power beyond the actual care of feeding, is a Notion altogether unscriptural. Unless I am as fare out of the way as our Author and Animadvertour is out of his wits, here is a false 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; wherein he takes it for granted that a Bishop's care is not actual. How unwarily doth he confound those two terms actual and Immediate (which last he would have said, and so have excluded the King's power from most parochial congregations in England) thinking them of the same import and signification. If D. E. did understand what, actual, meant, he would know that a mediate care (such as Episcopal) 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 several 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 actual care of the flock? or that he is not the shepherd more immediate to the Owner? Or that he may not dispose of the more inferior pastors pro arbitrio, always 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 counsel him to the assertion.   

III. EXCEPT.  
HE calls it A light and unseemly trifling with sacred Writ to understand the words spoken concerning th●se that go not in by the door (and are therefore thiefs and Robbers) of such Ministers as preach to Congregations without the Bishop's licence. Little dreams he, that they are called thiefs 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 design to prejudice and plunder the true Shepherd. And indeed such postick eruptions imply something of a malevolent Complexion; and the ensuing practices of such intruders have been an ample Comment on those preceding designs that encouraged them to the Attempt. But he tells us that, If besides ordination there must be a Licence, than (1) He knows not what Ordination mean's. Indeed I am easily induced to believe this latter Clause. He doth not know, that there's a difference between the power and 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 trespass upon other men's enclosures, and undermine and supplant other pastors, (2) Saith he, For one Minister of the Gospel (for Certainly a Bishop is no more). No certainly, he is no more than 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 hail 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 licence (A new licence? 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 fare unacquainted with primitive transactions, as he is at defiance to sound Reason. What if D. E. never read of such a practice in the Church, doth it therefore necessarily follow, that there was no such practice? Or, what if there was no such Custom? Are there no customs 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 its more Virile-constitution doth exact. The uninquisitive humours of men in those days, contented themselves in the fruition of the Gospel, without any pronity to Schism. Men being more sedulous in persuading to a downright faith, did not then require such Cautions towards their preaching, as the now adays unsatisfied Curiosities, which byass'd-men towards distraction, seem to call for.  
Our Saviour (saith our Animadverter) silenced the Pharises by strength of Argument, Which the Bishop of Worcester may do, when he is able. I confess, he would have a difficult task, and D. E. may defy all Christendom 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 rational persuasions 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 crowd whole Volumes with absurdities; And rather than they'll appear destitute of a Reply, their Adversary shall hear of them in D E. his railing Dialect, and in Hucksters Rhetoric. The only way then, of silencing such, must be by constraint. O but, Our Saviour was so far 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) 'twas comparatively, rather to square their lives by the Pharisees doctrine than by their practses, that Christ enjoined his disciples▪ (3) 'Twas to vouchsafe the Pharisees audience, as they were legally authorized, and because they sat in Moses chair: so that the Reason is of a fare different aspect for the not forbidding of the Pharisees, and the toleration of Mr Baxter. Moreover (4) the Pharisees preached the Prophets, which Prophets discovered the Messiah; and so their preaching might advance Christ's Kingdom: whereas the preaching of Nonconformists and such like, would be so far from promoting, that it would bury Christ's Kingdom in the ruins 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 o● 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 speak evil 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 published by them for the propagation of Sedition.   

iv EXCEPT.  
HOw consistent with the Civil Peace (for as to Christian Charity he thinks the whole thing but a letter of defiance against it) the Bishop's 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 Corporal punishment; yet the Church ought not to remit the Scandal till amends were made by Confession. 'Tis pity but D. E were of his Majesty's privy Council, that he might prove his remembrancer. But I pray, what Reason is there, why he who hath been prejudicial to the Church should not make a due acknowledgement of his delinquency, before his readmission to his former privileges? Is there not a grand discrimination between the remission of a man's punishment, and the readmission 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 Church's welfare. And how is this Distinction repugnant to the Civil Peace? Or rather, Is it not more adversant thereunto, to prefer 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 designs; 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, mean? Here D. E. could have wished that the Bishop would have spoken out of the Clouds, and Plainly told whether By the Church, he meant a Congregation of the faithful; or Archbishops, Bishops etc. I see I am mistaken, for I thought that D. E. his foggy brain could have apprehended things spoken in a Cloud, better than those delivered in the clear Sunshine. Well: If I might presume to guess at the Reverend Father's meaning, I would tell D. E. that by the word, Church, he understands neither the Congregation, excluding Archbishops, Bishops etc. 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 'tis that he labours with a false Supposition, That Archbishops, Bishops etc. did exact a recantation, as persons distinct from the Congregation; whereas they only act as Chiefs, Governors, 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 ancient 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 remembered? Alas man, we look not so much on the Acts of hostility already preterlapsed and forgiven; as on those whereunto they stand in a readiness, 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 seems to approve their precedent actings, and to warrant any other proceed 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 Scandal. But we are asked, 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 plasters 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 applied to their Natures. But since his own construction, will scarce authorise 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'm sure, such Empirics 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 pretty 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 sinful, then God himself can command nothing? Since, saith he, A thing which by accident may be sinful, may be unlawful in another to command for want of sufficient Authority. And so is every thing else; Though we should suppose an Injunction utterly devoid of Sin, either in itself or in its consequences; yet would be unlawful, if proceeding from an unlawful 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 unlawful, viz, because it may be unlawful. The Question is, Whether a thing may be unlawful, as it may occasion sin? D. E. answers, that it may be unlawful as it proceeds from an unlawful power. The Quaere is, Whether a thing that is sinful per accidens, under that formality and eò quòd sinful per accidens, be lawful to be commanded? And he tells us, 'Tis unlawful, eò quòd the Authority is unlawful. We inquire, 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 Bishop's consequence, the weakest capacity may see. Still than it remains unshaken, that if a thing being sinful by consequence be ground sufficient to render a thing unlawful; 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 lawful and beyond exception. Only, our Pamphleter had a mind tacitly to hint out treason to us, and to whisper an illegitimacy entailed on the King's Authority, and consequently on all his edicts and Mandamus'   

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 always 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. hay, 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 Laic, But here he personates another man, and pretends to Divinity. How doth he make himself an Ambidexter, an Hermaphrodite of Religion: A two faced pump, hinc Angelum ferens, illinc Cacodaemonem? He would serve for a good post in crosseways, directing to several roads at once. I never took him for any other than a Fool in a Play, and he to justify my conjecture hath here produced his Coat of several colours; I will not say, it shows like Kiderminster stuff. 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 needless is not justifiable. (1). I wonder to what old woman D. E. was lately Confessor? for I think none else would ever have made an acknowledgement 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 confess them trivial or needless. 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 needless is not justifiable; Ergo an offence to which a disproportionable penalty is annexed; must not be judged of by its dangerous consequences. D. E. speaks nothing to the purpose, Ergo, His Lordship's proposition is false in Divinity, And actions should not be judged of by their danger. Yea but  
The Church and its peace, is much more endangered by the pressing of such things doubtful. I wonder who told D. E. That the indifference of any of these things (viz. imposed Circumstances) were questionable or doubtful? or if they were doubtful, who told him that it was not in the Church's power, or that it was not her duty to determine of them? Or that it would incur peril by imposing them? I should rather suppose, that the not giving men leave to descent 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 bulk 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 rebel, but yet he lawfully may rebel. D. E. ought not to show his back to the drum head, and undergo 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 Custom, so much as to show them the falsity of the reason whereon they built their Custom, scil. Supposing that eating with unwashen hands defiled a man; Which opinion our Blessed Saviour refuted by telling the Jews, 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 ratified by Authority, but only introduced by frequent practice and tradition. So that Christ only ran counter to a custom, and that will no way authorise our contradicting an imposition. As for that of St. Paul's refusing to circumcise, 'twas to show the abolition of that Sacrament by the introduction of a new, and this is no precedent 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 scandal to the Jews, among whom he then was. If then D. E. will needs make the Apostle a pattern for imitation in his nonconforming to an abolished Sacrament, and refusing to circumcise Titus when he was among the Gentiles. I see not but why I may with fare 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 conform.   

VII EXCEPT.  
THe Sorites (which D. E. terms a Chain of consequences) used by the Lord Bishop to prove the necessity of imposition, are (to speak Mr. Baxter's Language) the words of truth and Soberness. viz. From diversity in external 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 mere rope of Sand (A pretty good Answer for one that was graveled. Somewhat 'twas 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 chain (it seems, a Rope and a Chain are all one with our Animal: Indeed they are something of Kin, and, if he proceed in his begun courses, the Chain 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 tied by the Tails (I thought something of a Fox was nigh, the discourse did so stink) which course the Bishop hath imituted, not forgetting to put in even the firebrand itself to make up the Comparison. So that this Fellow will needs make the Bishop's book the firebrand. Well, be it so, The firebrand came betwixt the two tails; The Lord Bishop's book came between the Book of Mr. Baxter and D. E. his Pamphlet; how easily then hath D. E. proved 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 forms, 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'll inquire of D. E. where he heard, how he proves, or when he dreamed it? (2.) I'll ask him, what of all that, though we should suppose a difformity in their worship? Peradventure the State of an infant-Church required it. And (though, probably, they did not approve of diversity in Circumstantials, yet) they would not wrangle about Formalities, lest they should deter others from the Fundamentals. But now the case is altered, and a dispensation for recusancy in Circumstance, is so far from gaining others to the Fundamentals, that it encourageth those who have already received the Faith, to the mangling of the Church, and the disjoining of Christ's Mystical Body.  
(2.) He tells us, That the State may be preserved 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 gross Nonsequitur. 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 equal weight with the State, as such. Before Constantine, though all the Church had been massacred, yet might the temporal State have stood, yea and triumphed in their blood; Since those that had the Management of Secular affairs 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 temporal 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 avoidable involves the dissolution of the other. So that when the frabrick of the Church, decays in a Voluminous ruin, the State must also crack in a proportionable Emphasis of a broken frame.  
3. Unity in heart and spirit doth not in the least depend upon Uniformity but on charity, i. e. A Christian and candid forbearance in things circumstantial, while we agree in essentials. I admire, in what Author D. E. read this definition of Charity? we use to term it, Amare Deum, supra omnia, propter seipsum; & vicinum, aequè ac nosmet, propter Deum. So that the part of charity looking towards our Neighbour, teacheth us to love him as ourselves, but still for God's sake. Now, whether this Charity depends upon unity, and consequently on uniformity, or else Unity and uniformity on Charity, will easily appear. If the breach of charity hangs upon disunion, and disunion upon difformity; then Charity dedends upon union, and union on uniformity: But the Antecedent is manifestly true, that the rending of the Church breaks the bonds of Charity, in that it detracts from the honour of God; without which, the love of our Neighbour is no Charity: and that this rending or disunion depends on difformity, in that difference of circumstantials causeth heart-burnings, and an mosities. Whereupon D. E. is clearly mistaken in the dependence; Charity depending on, and being proportioned to Unity, not Unity to Charity. But what if we should concede Unity to depend on Charity? yet still D. E. is in his old non sequitur. For Unity would still depend (though mediately) on Uniformity, since Charity (whereon he would have Unity depend) would be preserved by Uniformity, and broken by Difformity. D. E. his candid forbearance then of one another in Circumstantials, is so far from being Charity, that it is the infringement of it; since such a forbearance or connivance at Non-conformists, would, by the rending of the Church (which would avoidable follow) tend to God's dishonour. But D. E. is not farther out in this, than in that which follows: viz. The Wars did not arise from the Separation of Conscientious dissenters (in this he speaks truth, for it was not Conscience, but Obstinacy counselled them to descent) but from the fury of unconscionable imposers. But sure it was dissenting caused the rigid imposing. And then if it must be Imposing that broached the Wars, it may thank forward Dissenting. Which same dissenting practices whether they may not produce a relapse into their former consequences, I would fain have those recusants consider; Unless they delight in Animosities, and like Salamanders long bathed in flames disgust the influence of a milder Element.   

VIII. EXCEPT.  
D. E. Pretends to have great insight into the Ecclesiastic laws of the French and Dutch Protestants; (And probably he may, for his understanding hath been beyond sea, a long time). But yet he never read of any Imposition of standing, sitting, or any other posture, at the Administration of the Eucharist. But yet if there were, saith he, it doth not justify our imposition of kneeling. (1) Because the question is, de jure, whether it be lawful for them to prescribe any one posture. D. E. might do well to step over, and convince those Churches of their Error. But why may not they enjoin one particular Posture; since an Oleo and mixture of carriage at the reception of the Sacrament is not only undecent; But (when every man shall adopt to himself a frame of deportment) they will approach the Lords Table either with affectation, partially applauding their own judgements, or else with regret malign the dissimilary composure of others. Either of which are enough to render a Man an unworthy receiver. Besides though some have made it their endeavour to prove the carriage of the Apostles discrepant from ours; Yet none ever dreamed that they had a plurality of postures among themselves. (2). Saith D. E. None of those postures, used by other Churches, are so liable to exception, as kneeling. I answer, that they are more liable to exception, Sitting partaking much of irreverence; and standing being not such an ample expression of humility and devotion. In kneeling there is an obligation of Decency. For considering the importance of the ordinance, and the Majesty of the person with whom we have to do; I know no reason but that the most submiss and reverential situation of the body should (even proscinded from an enjoining power) be obligatory, and more than indifferent.  
But why is kneeling so liable to Exception? (1) Because it varies most from the old form. Believe him who will! Which, I pray, doth standing, sitting, or kneeling more border on discumbency? But what though it should most differ from the old form? although D. E. cannot prove it. They in their demeanours consulted conveniency; we, to express our devotion. But (2) Kneeling hath been monstrously abused by the Papists to Idolatry. What though? doth the abuse of a thing argue the illegitimacy of its use? I believe then that D. E. never saith his Prayers on his knees. Or probably he saith them in his sleep, because waking prayers were abused by Papists in their Vigils; and it may be, this made many Presbyterians wink and pray. Or (which is most likely) D. E. never saith any Prayers at all, because Papists have made the Saints groan with their innumerable Supplications, and have made Pictures the Objects of clamorous Peritions. D. E. sure never puts the Bible to the penance of a consultation, because the most damned Heretics have fathered their pretensions thereon, and have had recourse to Scripture for the Patronage of their Positions.   

IX. EXCEPT.  
D. E. complains again of the injury was done in reviling the whole body of Presbyterians for the faults of Mr. Baxter, upon supposition that he is a Presbyterian. Supposition that he is a Presbyterian? Why will any think otherwise? I cannot conceive but Mr. Baxter would repute it a Calumny of the greatest Magnitude, for any to exclude him out of the number, nay not to suppose him their ringleader. Do not others, (yea and his own overweening fancy) look on him as the pillar of their reeling Cause? Do not all stand indicted of He esie in the thoughts of the rest, who swarve from his positions, and comply not with an eager subscription to what he deposeth? It seems (though D. E. scruples not to affirm it) the Age is not too wise to be gulled with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But our Animadverter would have every man bear his own burden. And (although he doth not express it, yet) he hath a pretty good reason for such a request, for he knows Presbyterians to be of that sort of Animals which is very good at bearing. But he wonders, in what Bible the Bishop found that he might asperse a whole order of men for the pretended miscarriage of one? I wonder in what book (I will not say Bible, for I conjecture that he little troubles that) did D. E. read that a man might not reprove a whole Society, for the real misdemeanour of their supposed Chieftain? Or, where did he find that there is reason to rebandy the phrase— Crimine ab uno Disce omnes, upon the order of Episcopacy, because of the Lord of Worcester's dreamt fault; since he pretends not to such an universality on the one side, as Mr. Baxter doth on the other. But not to gratify the petulant and Saucy humour of our Pamphleter, I would beseech him to know that the Sentence by him retorted, is so fare from extending to Disce omnes, that it is not yet come to Crimine ab uno. And D. E. is so fare from truly introducing the rest of the Bishops as guilty, that he hath not yet proved 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? 'Tis scarce, so good as Infoelix lolium. It is some kin to hempseed, and may in time do him a courtesy 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, spoke (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 wisdom. 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 resolved amongst so much nonsense 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 waist-band of his Breeches should trust, which makes him so facilely 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 man's exploding such a Custom? or in vindication of such a Practice? 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 Catechising, and for Presbyterian Examination; Catechising 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 practice. 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 persuasion for the Questions he proposed; Insomuch that if the Answer were found to discover a glimpse of an opinion that swerved from the Maxims of his private and picked Church, it did administer sufficient Occasion of renunciation. Which practice 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! 'tis 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 Counsel. For the Sacrificing and devoting such Books voluntarily to the flames, might in some degree expiate the Authors crimes in a  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 enshrined in those unhappy sheets, wherein they have wrapped its 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 gored with the horns (as he phrases it) of a Syllogismus cornutus, since an Argumentum baculium doth better suit with his capacity. But he hath a great tenderness for the lawful 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 wisdom of the Parliament wholly disallowed. But it hath been taken by those who have ventured their lives to signalise their Loyalty. But have not many of them since given a pregnant testimony how ill they have resented the thing itself, 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 its peaceable interment thinking its Ashes might have rested quietly better than have blown about by the Bishop's furious breath, since it was burnt by public Authority, yet) I would inquire, (Since THAT which was the Cinders from whence great flames had their eruption, and displayed themselves in a general conflagration, is now reduced to ashes) why should those Volumes that have engaged in its patronage preserve its relics unextinct, and gratify the Covenant in a posthume-life?  
3. D. E. Can never enough commend the Bishop's wisdom in resolving never to write again. And I can never sufficiently applaud our Pamphleteer, who took courage to defy one, which not only scorned to foul his fingers with him, but also had determined not to answer. But that which D. E. Ironically speaks; I seriously repeat, as seeing high wisdom in his Lordship's resolve against writing: For why should he grate his days, 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 detractor, and the full satisfaction which his Letter contains and presents to any that should inquire into his belied proceed with Mr. Baxter. And I think there's none can find therein either error or insufficiency (as to the matter it comprehends) unless such as are of D. E. his insolent and pedantic humour, which prompted him so magisterially to vent his Nonsense, even to the glowing of a sober ear. Such, I confess (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 ear whom he knows to be peremptorily resolved against retaliation, and determined 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 wits 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 Schoolboy to a Giant. If saith he, Goliath (he means the Bishop) shall defy Israel, and retire from the field, with only showing his teeth. The Philistines will hardly thank him. But I say, that if Goliath (I mean Mr. Baxter) armed with a weaver's beam (though in his eye) shall thunder defiance 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 show his teeth only and and run away; I would advise him (when ever he is to engage with his Adversary) not to show his teeth, but his ears, the more formidable and scaring objects by fare. 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 Goliath or not? Neither will I contest much about it. Only D. E. his impudence persuades me to believe himself of some affinity with Goliath. For Goliath had an helmet of brass, and our Champion's face is of the same metal.  
Hitherto I have followed the Chase; But since the Dragooner hath pleased 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 courtesy (from whence I first issued and) where I dare not despair of Security and Shelter.   
FINIS.