A WHIPP A WHIPP, For the Schismatical Animadverter Upon the BISHOP of WORCESTER's LETTER.  
By ROGER L'ESTRANCE.  Aetes' Parentum, pejor Avis, tulit Nos Nequiores; mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem. Horat. 
LONDON: Printed for Henry Brome, at the Gun in Ivy-lane. February the 7 th'. 1662.   

The Preface.  
IF the Bishop of Worcester had not Professed in his late Vindication; that as it was his first, it should be his last; and intimated a Resolution never to dip in the same Ink again; I should not have presumed to thrust my Pen into the Controversy: But finding a Virulent Libel, wherein, most Irreverent Mention is made of the said Bishop, through whose sides the Function itself is invaded, and therein, the Authority of the King: I account myself under a Threefold Obligation, to Cast my Mite into the Public: as I am a Subject to his Majesty; as I am a Son of the Church; and (upon a long Knowledge of the Bishop) as I have a Personal Honour for him. (however wanting in the Complimental, and Waiting part of my Duty to him, since his Majesty's Return.)  
Of the Pamphlet which Occasions me to give the World this Trouble, I shall say little in this place, but that it is All here; though broken into several Insertions, for the Ease, and Satisfaction of the Bea●.  
Concerning Libels in General; let it be considered, that the Last War began with a Paper-Scuffle; and touching This in Particular, that the Murderers of the Late King, first drew blood of a Bishop. That Thought, methinks, should call a stricter Eye upon the Press; to which, Join but the Pulpit, in Favour of any Faction, and they shall overthrow the best Settlement in Nature.  
Truly, where Papers of Public Scandal are not Punished, I think, 'tis fit they should be Answered; People will think they have Reason on their side else, as well as (shall I call it?) Fortune. And yet I know the Fate, and the Reward of this same Wrangling, Scribbling kind of Honesty. But Patience: 'Tis not every man's Lot to Live like a Knave, and Dye like an Honest man.   

A Whipp, etc.  

ANIMADVERSION.  
Honourable and Worthy Sir,  

D. E.  I Am to thank You for the last piece of Divertisement you gave me, in sending the Bishop of Worcester' s Letter, and I wish you would have let me enjoyed the Satisfaction I took in Rea●ing it, without Obliging me to give you my Sense upon it: For, besides my unwillingness to meddle in a Personal Quarrel, it will not, I think, be very Safe for any to Engage against so Angry an Adversary, which I shall be thought to do, though I resolve to speak nothing but Truth in the Character I intent to give of him: And it is briefly this; That, in fewer leaves I n●ver yet read more Passion, which is so very Predominant, that his Disorderly and Abrupt Style doth altogether partake of it; so that the Bishop's best way will be, to get his Heat mistaken for Zeal, for else it may be justly accounted something that 
A Shrewd one.  hath a worse Name, and which in the Dog-days will be very dangerous.  
This being, Sir, my Judgement upon the whole Letter, You may well expect that I should make it good, by an Induction from particular Instances; but before I do this, I must deal impartially, and assure you, that as to the main Controversy, I think the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter: For, if the Question between them, was as Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson do attest, such a command is so evidently lawful, that I shall much wonder if Mr. Baxter did ever dispute it; and till he doth clearly disprove that that 
An Elegance.  was not the thing in Question, I must needs think that he hath much forgot himself in making an imperfect and parlial Relation.  
Setting aside therefore the business of that particular Contest (wherein you see how much I am inclined to Favour the Bishop) there are other things in his Letter, of general concernment, which I think liable to just exception; As,]  
I Am more puzzled what to Call This whiffling Incognito that Libels the Bishop of Worcester, then to prove him any thing almost but what he should be.  
By his Severity upon the Bishop's Passion, I should take him for a Stoic: by That upon his Style; for a Critic: by the Divertisement (he says) the Bishop's Letter gave him, for a Phanatique; and by his Dog-Periphrasis of Madness, I find, the man would gladly be suspected of some Skill in Rhetoric. 
Grammatious, Rhetor, Geometres, Pictor, Aliptes,  
Augur, Schoenobates, Medicus, Magus, omnia novit.   
The Thing, in short; is a Well-willer to the Good-Old-Cause; and gets now and then a Snap at the Bishop of Worcester, under colour of an Account (from Your most Humble Servant D. E. to the Honourable and Worthy, etc.) concerning That Reverend Prelate's Vindication: when Effectually, the Intercourse betwixt the Honourable Sir, and the Humble Servant, is no more than a Dialogue betwixt the Monkey and the Glass. Yet, I warrant ye, 'tis all over England already, how the Animadverter has paid the Bishop; and This Paper-Kite of his with a Candle at's Tail, passes among the Blear-eyed Brethren for a Star of the first Magnitude.  
To deal impartially yet; I do absolutely agree with the Animadverter, that the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter; [Till he doth clearly disprove 
An Elegance of D. Is.  that That was not the Thing in Question.]  
This Purity of Style is not every man's Talon, only I remember an Elegancy like This, in a certain Irish Author that served Me once in the Quality of a Footman. Hoping thereby (says he) that I 
The like of R. W.  should not prosecute him for the Breach of the Non-performance of his Promises made unto me.  
May it now please the Illustrious Unknown, to accept of This account to his Prologue: and to permit Me the Liberty of a short Preface, before I close with his Exceptions.  
Next to No Adversary at all, give Me a Calm Opponent; that knows the Terms of Modesty, and Honour; and yet makes the best of his Cause: Not Passionate, as our Author says, the Bishop is: No no; nor False, nor Treacherous, nor Malicious; nor indeed, Simple, if 'twere possible.  
How far the Animadverter now complies with the Obligations of a Fair Enemy, let any thing that can but Read, and Difference Day from Night, Determine.  
Marque first how This Corrector of Magnificat, Our Christian Stoic; handles the Bishop upon the point of Passion.  
Heat, which in the Dog-days will be very dangerous, 
The S●hismatique à la mode.  [Pag. 1.] The Fatal Example of That one Bishops Usurpations, [Pag. 3.] Impertinent and False, [Pag. 5.] Most False, [ibid.] If any are Choleric and Tasty enough to be of his mind [ibid.] As to Christian Charity the whole thing is but a Letter of Defiance against it, [Pag. 6.] There can be nothing more false, [ibid.] This Malicious and ill-grounded fancy, [ibid.] It is bold and Impious, [Pag. 7.] He does very virulently Instance, [Pag. 8.] Were he either Christian, or Man enough, [Pag. 9] The Reverend Father's deep Wisdom, [Pag. 11.] (an Irony.)  
Here's his Vomit; and in the name of Peace, what stirred this Humour? De Iracundiâ, Magister Iracundissimus disputat.  
The Bishop of Wor'ster, wipes off an Aspersion cast upon him by Mr. Baxter. The Animadverter masks 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 Terms we have showed already; and after a word or two more, we'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 concerned) 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.  


D. E.  [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 Maxim, which he Hints at, and Abuses; came from King James: delivered upon Experience, and since Confirmed, by the Murder of a King, and the Dissolution of Monarchy: Both which were Effected upon the same Grounds, and by Those very Persons that Abolished 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. 'Tis a Rule however that deserves to be Registered, in regard that never any Faction destroyed Bishops, and Saved the Monarch. I wish it were in Capital 
☜  Letters in every Chamber of his Majesty's Palace, No BISHOP no KING.  
But One way or Other; what does This concern the Bishop of Wor'ster? who neither says, nor supposes any thing to This Purpose; for he does not so much as meddle with the Question: but, finding himself Traduced by some that had frequently, and openly defamed the King; [And is it any Wonder (says he) that those that are such Enemies to Kings, should not be Friends to Bishops? This Libeler would have the Face to tell the Sun 'twere Midnight. His next Fetch is a deep one.   


D. E.  [B] You know likewise, Sir, how much my Judgement is for the Order of Bishops; and how Passionate a Lover I am both of the King's Person and Government; but yet, being thus called by You to declare 
Presbyterianissimè.  the Truth, though contrary to my own Humour and Interest, I must needs say, etc.]  
[B] This Cuts a Hair; the Man we see, is Willing but Weak. Alas! You know SIR how much my Judgement, etc.— and how Passionate a Lover, etc.—  
What is there in This Fawning Clause; that the King's 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 a●●ch.  
Marque ●w, what 'tis his Judgement 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 Earl 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 Consecrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now say on.   


D. E.  [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] 'Tis right: Kings flourished 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. E.  [D] 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 pleases, though they be as much Lay Persons as You and I are. It is therefore very injurious to the King's Authority, to aver that He could not otherwise uphold and maintain it, than by preserving the Undue, and, as some think, Antichristian Dignity and Prelation of his in●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 King's 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 King's Laws, as Ministers, they Act by a Divine Commission.  
His Majesty may confer] he says, etc. What may his Majesty Confer? Leave to Elect, not Power to Ordain: 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 Taste 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 Fantastics of his own brain upon the Bishp of Wor'ster: and Then by Sedition, in casting his Audacious and Reproachful Epithets 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 pursues his shadow.   


D. E.  [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 intermeddling in Civil Affairs; by their Absurd and Insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes (of which last they have always made themselves sole Judges) they mangle the King's 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 Regal 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 than 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: 'Tis the Law distinguishes, and so the good man's Absurdity lashes upon the King, not upon the Bishops. He blames likewise their Officious, and scarce war antable intermeddling in Civil Affairs.]  
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 show, Where.  
But do the Bishops Mangle the King's Authority? I hope, not so much as the Schismatics did both That, and his Revenue; nay, and his Person too. Were they Bishops, or Presbyterians, that Preached and Libelled against the Late King; that Seized his Towns, Seduced his People, Levied a War against him, Plundered, Sequestered, and Murdered his Friends, and never left the Chase, till his Royal Blood was spilt upon a Scaffold? Were they Bishops or Presbyterians, that in Ordine adspiritualia, Contrived, Acted, and Warranted the Usurpations of the late War? 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 Jesuit 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 strain the Papal Tyranny, he so much declaims against, to what pitch of Arrogance, and Imposition he pleases, I'll bring him Presbyterian Claims, and Precedents, shall equal it: and when That's done, let him show any One Episcopal Position destructive to Regality, and take the Cause for't. Now have a Care of him; for says He:   


D. E.  [F] [So that if the Bishop of Worcester's R●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, than I must leave it to You to judge, what all those Bishops, ●at are of the Bishop of Worcester's complexion, do rea●y drive at, by the fatal example of that one Bishop's 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 Judged of, by a Particular: and nothing makes more Against. the Animadverter, or for the Bishop, than 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 of't when h'as done,) speaking of Mr. Baxter.  
You have before seen the ingenuity and veracity, 
Pag. 21.  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 persuasion think indeed, etc.  
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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says the Text) Then answered All the People, his Blood be upon us and upon 
Mat. 27. 25.  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 Poet's intention to brand every man that was a Greek for Simon's sake, but to show 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' persuasion; so that if Mr. Baxter be blame-worthy, his Complicates, are scarce Innocent; and he that pretends to justify either, becomes an Advocate for no less than Schism, and Treason.  
His Seditious Hint, of the Bishop's Usurpation, and warping to the Church of Rome, deserves rather a Lash, than an Answer. Yet if he makes out either, I'll bear it for him.    

EXCEPTION II.  


D. E.  [A] THat Assertion, that the Bishop of Worcester (and consequently every other Bishop) is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese, if it be at all defensible, I am sure can be defended only by those Arguments, which are commonly alleged to maintain the Pope's 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 lawful, more or less compass 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 says, the wrong way, to make Truth on't. Indeed the Reverend Prelate says, that it is the Bishop of Wor'ster, and 
Pag. 2. & 3.  not Mr. Baxter that is the Pastor of Kidderminster, as well as of all Other Parochial Churches in that Diocese: and that the Cure of Souls, in That, or any other Parish of That Diocese, was never, either by Himself, or any Other Bishop of Wor'ster, committed to Mr. Baxter, etc.] So that the word Sole, is the Animadverter's Whimsy; and foisted in, only to irritate the Rabble against Prelacy, as tending toward Popery; when not a Syllable ever dropped from the Bishop's 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 lugged in by Head and Shoulders, the Pope's Supremacy, under That Blind (weakly heaven knows) he bestows his Shot upon the Superiority of Bishops; where in fine, all he does is but to Combat an Idol 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 ●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.   


D. E.  [B]. I forbear to ●rge how contrary this Practice is to the Doctrine of the Apostles, 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 Pope's Calendar.]  
[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 Pope's Calendar! and than he Churrs like a Turkeycock 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, etc.— with all the SAINTS, which are in all Achaia, 2 Cor. 1. 1.] Paul, etc.— to the SAINTS which are at Ephesus, etc. 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,   


D. E.  [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, a● Bishop of the Diocese, but) the Spirit of God had 
Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2.  made them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Overseers, or to use the proper stile, Bishops. 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 God's Heritage, but as Patterns of the Flock. From which places we learn, not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Presbyter, are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons, but likewise, that whoever f●d the Flock, are under Christ (whom the Apostle there stil●s the Chief Shepherd) the next and immediate Pastors of the Flock; and to extend the Pastoral Power beyond the actual care of Feeding, is a notion altogether unscriptural, and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix, till we come to ce●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 Diocese.]  
[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 Overseers: (not the Bishop of the Diocese, says 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 (says he) Commands his Fellow-Elders, etc.] Par in Parem non habet Imperium. A Superiority among Equals is a Contradiction. The word in truth is so●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 says) and Oversee, not (like the Bishop of Worcester) etc.] Lording it over God's Heritage, etc.]  
His Railing apart, Marque now his Inferences.  
First, that the Names of Bishop, and Presbyter are without distinction applied to the same Persons.  
Go to then; but can he show me where the Powers are exercised in Common too?  
We do not argue upon Names, but Things. Can Presbyters Ordain? Inflict a Censure; or as Mere 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 Stragglers, etc.— Bishop Andrews will tell you (in his Opuscula Posthuma) that Pastor, in the Latin Church, is always 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 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Shepherd of his People.  
Touching his Universal Pastor: by the same reason we are to have an Universal King.    

EXCEPTION III.  


D. E.  [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 Thiefs and Robbers, aught to be understood of such Ministers, as preach to Congregations without the Bishop's Licence. Which thing, the Bishop (in great heat and Earnestness, as if he had done very well in it) tells us more than once, that it was the Principal reason why he silenced Mr. Baxter.  
[A] SOmebody resolve me whether This Libeler has more Wit, or Honesty, and take the Naked Truth of the Story.  
Baxter (for Brevity sake) throws out one Dancy, the Minister of Kidderminster, from his Living, and seizes it to himself; He Preaches Sedition There, and his Doctrine was but suitable to his Title, for he possessed, and enjoyed it, by an Act of Violence and Rebellion. If this be not Robbery, what is? or, if This be to come in at the Door, what is to creep in at the Window? He Preached without a Licence; and so came not in at the Door: He forcibly took away the Right of another, which is the part of a Robber. Silenced 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 Ordained, and Beneficed, he's not to Preach even in his own Parish without the Introduction of 〈◊〉 Licence: 'Tis 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.   


D. E.  [B] Truly if this practice be justificable, and those who design themselves to preach the Gospel, must, besides their Ordination, procure a Licence from a Bishop, to do that, which a Woe is deuced against, if the● offer to o●t, than 1. I see not what Ordination signifies, ●ce the power that 〈◊〉 is given, ●o Authority from Ma● 〈◊〉 away, any more than dissolve the contract of a Marriage, much less impeach 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 Licence, 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 bloody Words, and Bradshaw is out of hearing.  
Ordination you think sufficient then without a Licence: Well; and speak Truth for Once, what do yo●hink of a Good Living without Ordination? Weak and Spi●l Creature! Ordination Entitles you to the Ministry, but not to the Benefice: It Authorises you, as to the Function itself, but not to the Local, and Circumstantial application of it. The Scripture says, Preach; the Law says, When and Wher●. And it must be the Gospel too: not ●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▪ T●s, which the Bishop, in his own Defence has published at the End of his Letter. But of These, the Animadverter 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 Licence, because he taught Treason by Virtue of his Old one.   


D. E.  [C] For the Bishop's Inst● of our Saviour ' s putting to silence the Scrib●s and Pharisees, is both Imperti●t and False, because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument, which the Bishop may do when ever he is a●le, but what is that to an Authoritative and imperious 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 f●om forbidding the Pharisees to preach, that he commands his Disciples both to hear and to obey their Doctrine. So that since the Bishop wi● 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 M●, 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 ●alse, as being directly 〈◊〉 to their declared Principles) yet the Pharisees taught something worse, and that was 〈◊〉: Yet our Saviour (who sure had more power, and withal more care of his▪ Church ●hen the Bishop of Worcester) did not go about by force to prohibit them]  
[C] Touching our Saviour's 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 says, (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? 'Tis Contrary, insooth, to their Declared Principles] so have been all their Actings, wherefore 'tis True.   


D. E.  [D] I wish therefore, that this Bishop and the rest of his Brethren (if any are Choleric 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 a● the l●st day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it.  
[D] How now? Choleric; Testy; Frivolous; 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 denied them by Christ, the Law is Antichristian: and There the Scandal sticks, let the Law, and the Libeler dispute it.    

EXCEPTION IV,  


D. E.  [A] HOw consistent with the Civil Peace (for as to Christian Charity, the whole thing is but a Letter of defiance against it) the Bishop's Distinction is about the Act of Indemnity, and (●he so much forgotten) Act of 〈◊〉, I hope His Majesty and the Parliament will in due ●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 Coercive Jurisdiction) the Bishop would make us 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, eve● so far as to make a Public 〈◊〉. Here I w●sh the Bishop would have spoken out of the Clouds, and plainly told us what he meant by the Church: For if it be a Congregation of the Faithful met together for the worship of God, as the Definition of Scripture, and of the Church of England in the 39 Articles; this will not at all advantage him, since such a Church hath 〈◊〉 Co●cive or Imposing Power: But if he means the Hierarchy or Ecclesiastical State, ●y Arch-Bishops, Bishops. etc. there can be nothing mor● false, or more dishonourabl● unto o● Civil Government, than to affirm that it lies in their power, not only ●o punsh, but likewise to exact a Recantation, f●r those faults which the King and Parliament have not only pardoned, but und● sever● penalties command● should never more be remembered: And therefore I doubt not, but that they will resent this Malicious and ●ll-grounded Fancy.]  
[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 abused Mercy, 'twill turn his Patience into Fury. To see the same Knots now in Confederacy against himself, that Ruined his Father. The Common Prostitutes of Bradshaw, and Cromwell, are (still the Instruments of the Old Cause) Revived. The same S●blers, Printers, and Stationers for the Press; the same Engines for the Pulpit; and the same Snares for the People. Yes, and The same Caps, 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 Hardiness of the Bishop: whose Position is This; that the King may pardon the Corporal Punishment; but it is God that must pardon the Gild; and the Church the Scandal, (That is, upon Repentance, and Confession:) Where's now the Wonder? Can the King Act beyond the Sphere 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 Public Recantation.  
Let them but stand to their own Rule, I'm satisfied. [Those are to be judged Impenitents; that have 
Publ. Worship. Pag. 67.  Declared their sin, and never declared their Repentance.] And again: [Scandalous offenders are not to be admitted to the Holy Communion, till they 
Except. Pag. 8.  have openly Declared Themselves to have truly Repent and amended their former Naughty Lives.] And This they Press the King to see observed according to his Royal Declaration of Octob. 25. 1660. (But it is a ●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 Accountable.  
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 lie beforehand, if he think otherwise.  
To This point; The Kings of England, never claimed the Power of the Keys; and Church-Censures fall under that Consideration, without offence to the Prerogative Royal. So Gentle Sir,— There's no harm done; unless the selfsame thing, done by a Presbyterian must pass for Discipline, and Conscience: which in a Bishop argues Malice.   


D. E.  [B] And since the Bishop is so overzealous 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 enjoins 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, ●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 mo● enrage 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 Plaster, which the wisdom of our St●-Physitians had provided to ●eal our distempers.]  
[B] To give the Devil his due, the man is struck upon a sudden, into a handsomer veyn of Railing, To see a Divine (says 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 publicly as he Committed it? The Recantation (I perceive) sticks in your Squeamish Conscience; which shows that the Gild does not. I beseech ye look a little nearer.  
The Act of Pardon implies there was a Fault; but does not say where, save only in the Actual Murderers of the late King. At the beginning of the war, the Presbyterian Party pretended to be as much for the King, as who was most; and the Schismatical Teachers carried on the work. When by Libelling, Pulpiting (for Preaching, I cannot call it) and Dissembling, they had made an Interest, they Plundered, Sequestered, 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. 'Tis True; the Faction are not to be Punished; but where the Public Peace depends upon it; are they not to be distinguished? 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 accountable 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 damned; if their misleaders are turned off, or put to recant; 'tis against the Act of Oblivion. If Either; the multitude take Treason for Religion, and finding Matters so well with them Now, believe 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 Heresy; Christian Charity and Obedience, from Schism? Which way can This be done, but by Unwinding the Clew, and unperplexing the People?  
If Those that taught them wrong, would but now tell them that they did so; and take the pains to set them right again, all were well▪ but till that's done, the Common sort continue under the same misperswasion; and for Their Errors the Bishops must answer, whose Office 'tis to see them Instructed better.  
Well well, but [such as He, that make the Law, instead of being a Buckler to Protect Converts, a Sword only to cut off such as were once ●fenders, etc.]  
The Hypocrite is pleasant. Such as He?] As if only the Bishop of Wor'ster stuck in his Stomach, when 'tis the Hierarchy itself he boggles at. The Bishop he says makes the Law a Sword, in stead of a Buckler; but I say, the Schismatique would make both of it: A Buckler, to Traitors; and a Sword to Loyal Subjects.  
This is the way he says to Enrage the People; and render the welfare of his Majesty very Insecure, and Hazardous;] Indeed, to suffer these Mutinous Affronts is the ready way to another Rebellion: but if This Scandalous and Seditious wretch were now made Exemplary, for this Audacious Menace upon the King, who would either help or Pity him?    

EXCEPTION V.  


D. E.  [A] IT is bold and impious (I know not how to express it more mild'y) what he affirms, That I● to command an Act, which by accident may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful, then God himself cannot command any thing. For, though, as I said before, I will by no means own that Assertion, yet, a thing which by accident may become sinful, may be unlawful in another to command, for want of sufficient Authority; whereas God's Sovereign Power doth without dispute or controversy make all his Commands to be just; and therefore his Name ought not to be mentioned in our trivial Disputes, because every such vain use of it, is nothing but a diminution and lessening of his Greatness.  
[A] DId you Learn This Language of your Patron the Precedent; Or did the Good Old Gentleman bequeath you his Conscience; that you so little regard either Authority, or Truth?  
Let the Reader judge of the Libeler. [Bold, and Impious]: and This, from a Pedant to a Prelate; from an Aërian Heretic, to a Grave, Learned, and Orthodox Divine. Where's the Reverence of Government; the Honour of England; the Protection of the Law? nay, Where's the Power of Religion; the Safety of the King; and the Welfare of the People; if such Indignities pass unpunished? The Example is Emboldening, and Contagious; for what can the Rabble think; but either that the Insolence is Lawful, the Reproach just, or the Party Terrible? Where are They whose Duty 'tis to watch the Press? Is the Blood of the Last King so soon Forgotten; or the Security of our present Sovereign so little Regarded; that we should now try the Operation of the same Poison upon the People again, which formerly intoxicated them; and the Effect of the same Popular Madness, upon This King, which so lately destroyed his Royal Father?  
Let not us persuade ourselves neither, that these Luxuriances of Bitterness against the Bishops, are only the overflowings of some Private Humours, merely as dissatisfied to Church-Government. No no; there's more in the Case then so: The Libelers find they get by it; Credit, Countenance, and as by the By, commodious fortunes. Their Mecaenasses are 
☜  too wise to tell the Virtuoso's; look ye, there's This, or That, for such a Gird at the King, or such a Lash at the Bishops. But a word to the Wise: they understand for what, and to distinguish from such hands, betwixt a Reward, and a Bounty: What is This, other then tacitly to keep a Faction in Pay, and to allow a Salary to Sedition? I have digressed too long, but the Animadverter is not forgotten all this while. Now to our Teazer again.  
He challenges the Bishop with affirming, [That if to command an Act, which by accident may prove an occasion of sin, be sinful; then God himself cannot command any thing:] and imputes to him as if either he derogated from God's almightiness, or Trifled with his Holy Name and Majesty. Observe now his Prevarication.  
The Bishop of Worcester Relates a Dispute that passed betwixt Himself, and Mr. Baxter, at the Savoy; concerning Obedience to the Command of a thing in itself Lawful, by Lawful Authority, under no unjust Punishment, and with no evil Circumstance, which the Commander can foresee, or aught to provide against.] Mr. Baxter contends; that the first Act Commanded may be per Accidens, Unlawful, and be Commanded by an unjust Penalty, though no other Act, or Circumstance be such.] (Thus, under his own Hand, in writing.)  
The Bishop, desirous to bring him off, from an Assertion so Weak, and wicked at once; lays before him the Impious tendency of it: Tells him that it is 
Pag. 10.  Destructive of all Authority, Humane, and Divine.]— taking away all Legislative Power not only from 
Pag. 11.  the King, but from God Himself:— for no Act can be so Good of itself but may prove by Accident a Sin; which being admitted, every Command is a Sin. If every Command, than God that cannot Sin, cannot Command.]  
In This manner, does the Bishop Reason with Mr. Baxter, and to divert him from so foul a Mistake, shows him the Horrid, and Blasphemous Consequences of it: and This in fine, does our Spider-catcher deliver to the world for Impious, and Irreverent in the Bishop, which was no other than a Logical Result from Mr. Baxter's Argument.  
Neither is God's Omnipotence the Question, (Cujus Velle, Potentia; Cui Opus, Voluntas) but the Corruption of Depraved Nature: By this Rule, whatsoever we may Abuse must not be Commanded. Bid me Pray— I may Wander. Go to Church— I may sleep. Keep the Sabbath— I may fall into Judaisme. Relieve the Poor Cavaliers— I may do it to be seen of Men: and at This Rate, in In●nitum.  
Our Writer's Pen is in Course, and rather than say Nothing, he is Resolved to say less. Supposing a want of sufficient Authority to Command: which is the Thing Granted in the Proposition.    

EXCEPTION VI.  


D. E.  [A] THat an offence, to which a disproportionable penalty is annexed, is not to be measured by the quality of the Act considered in itself, but by the mischievous consequences it may produce; whether this aught to hold good in Civil Laws, becomes neither the Bishop nor me to dispute: but in Divinity nothing can be more false and dangerous. For to impose in the ●orship of God as necessary circumstances of it, things confessedly trivial and needless; and upon the forbearance of them, to debar any from the benefits first of Christian, and then of Civil Communion; is a thing which hath not the least, pretence of Scripture or Primitive practice to justify it. For, our Saviour te●s us. That whosoever were not against him were for him; and the Apostle bids us to receive our weak Brother, and not to judge, much less to burden his Conscience.]  
[A] QUestionless This Man is In 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 Public Libel? As much as betwixt a Murmur, and a Rebellion: the People's Sins are Mine too, that sin by My Encouragement, or Example.  
We are told that 'tis not Scriptural, to impose things Needless, as Necessary, and to debar from the Communion, for Recusancy.  
A Decency is enjoined: 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; Sat, says another; Stand, a Third. There's no Religion pretended either in choosing This or That, or in forbearing it. Only when the Church commands (for Uniformity sake) That Posture to be observed by All, which was before by many Practised, and without Scandal to the Rest; Then, such a coile there's kept; One can't do This, nor Tother, That, and nothing must be done with Doubting. The thing Imposed, they say, is Trivial: Truth; but the Reason of imposing it, is Considerable. 'Tis Public 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 itself) confessed 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 persuaded 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 'tis but dissolving a General, into Particulars, and whatsoever is virtually contained 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 Apostolic, is a Duty within the Intention of That Precept, Let every thing be done Decently, and in Order.   


D. E.  [B] Unto which sacred Canon nothing can be more directly contrary, than what the Bishop most incompassionately tells us, That the Laws do well to punish, even with non-admission to the Sacrament, such as will not, or perhaps dare not, kneel. And the Reason he gives is equally Apocrypha, Because, saith he, it becomes not the Lawgivers to endanger the Church's peace for their sake: As if first, It did not much more become all Lawgivers in the things of God, to observe the Law of Christ, which is a Law of Love and Liberty. Secondly, As if the Church's 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 in●inged; from hence it follows, that, if we ought not, yet we lawfully may refuse, to sub●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 answered already; but let me add. To Tolerate any Inconformity, by a Law, opens a Gap to all Heresies, and Schisms: 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 Freedom 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 Unwashed 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 Compliance 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.  


D. E.  [A] AS for the Chain of Consequences, which the Bishop li●ks and ti●s together: As that from Diversity in external ●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 tells 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 itself to make up the Comparison.]  
[A] LAying his Gall and Vanity aside; his Virulences, Ropes of Sand, and Firebrands; we'll come to the Intermission of his Fury, (for it takes him by Fits) his Sober Folly.   


D. E.  [B] Nothing is more clear than that there hath been, nay, aught 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 public Worship, were far more different than those, which, by any of the most distant persuasions, are now practised i● England. 2. The State may be preferred, without the least reference to the Church, unless it turns Persecutor of it; as is evident i● 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 Gentiles were equally advanced and favoured. 3. Unity, 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 Cand●d forbearance of one another i● things circumstantial, when we agree in the Essentials of Worship; which is a thing that mere Civility would teach, though Religion were silent in it.]  
[B] Because Diversity of External Forms in several Churches does well enough: Is Uniformity in the same Church therefore the less Laudable; or what Proportion is there betwixt the Apostles Case and Ours? Their business was to Preach the Gospel to all Nations, and lay the Foundation of Christianity: but our Dispute is only, Whether or no we shall Obey their Delegates in Matters Indifferent.  
Again; the Bishop speaks of the English Church, and State, whose Interests are Commixed, and Enterwoven to a degree of Inseverable complication. His slight esteem of Uniformity, sways not at all with me▪ when I consider That Notable, and Divine saying of Sir Francis Bacon, The outward Peace of the Church, distilleth into Peace of Conscience; And it turneth the Labours of Writing, and Reading of Controversies, into Treatises of Mortification, and Devotion.  
Concerning Circumstantials; I think it much more suitable, for the People to Obey, than for the Church to Forbear: and let them say what they please of Agreeing in Essentials, when I see a perverse Posture, I think it no breach of Charity to suspect a Froward Mind.   


D. E.  [C] And whereas the Bishop thinks he hath got some advantage, by reviving the memory of our late Civil ●ars, which (were he either Christian or Man enough, he would wish were eternally buried in silence) I must (to use his own Phrase) tell him in his ear, that our Wars did not arise from the separation of Conscientious dissenters, but from the violence and fury of unconscionable Imposers, who would not allow their Brethren (who desired nothing more than to live peaceably by them) that sob● 〈◊〉 which the Law of God commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of.  
[C] See; now he Raves again, [were he either Christian, or man enough, etc.] still at the Memory of our late Wars, he Starts, and Methinks looks as if that quarter of the House were Haunted. But here he tells the Bishop a tale in his Ear; and as arrant a Tale as ever he told in his Life;  
The Violence, and Fury of Unconscionable Imposers was the Cause of the Warr. He says.] In a Strict sense, 'tis Truth. A Pack of Contriving Knaves, drew in a Rabble of Believing Fools; and against Conscience, Law, Honour, and Gratitude, Levied a War against the King, because he would not give away his Crown, and Betray his People. This is the Short of All. See the Exact Collections, and you shall find who Raised the War, and upon what Pretence.  
Alas! the Brethren only desired to live Peaceably, (he tells us) and to enjoy that Sober Liberty, which the Law of God Commanded, and no Law of Man could justly deprive them of.]  
The Scotch Rebellion was a Sober Liberty; (was it not?) So was the Plunder of Sir John (now Lord) Lucas, and the Lady Rivers: The Tumults Flocking to Whitehal, and Westminster: The Posting up of Those that would not Murder the Earl of Strafford: The Cries of Crucify him, against That Learned, and Reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of Canterbury: The Defacing of Church-Windows, and Monuments: The Defaming, Sequestering, and Murdering of the King.  
All Th●se, were in our Animadverters opinion, Sober Liberties. Where ●oes the Law of God▪ Command These Liberties; so that no Law of Man (as he pretends) can justly hinder them?  
His Sacred Majesty, whom these Libertines Murdered; was of another Judgement. Those with Me 
E● B●. 〈◊〉. 19  had (I think) clearly and ●ndoubtedly for their Justification— the Word of God, and the Laws of the Land, together with their own Oaths.]— Those on the other side are forced to fly to the shifts of some Pretended Fears, and wild Fundamentals of State (as they call them) which Actually overthew the Present Fabric both of Church and State, etc.] These are the Words of that Blessed Martyr: and in the same Meditation again, [I am Guilty in This War of nothing but This; that I gave such Advantages to some Men, by confirming their Power, which they knew not how to use with That Modesty, and Gratitude, which became their Loyalty, and my Confidence.]  
Here we see the Authority of a Nameless Libeler, against Records, Living Witnesses, and the averment of a Dying Prince.  
Put stay, whether his account be True, or False, is but one part of the Question. The Danger, Scope, and malice of it, deserves another Look.  
H●re's first, the Blood of the Last War cast upon the Late King; and Consequently the Regal Rights of the King Regnant, exposed to a Dispute: for 'tis expressed, that the 〈◊〉 Di●enters were denied That Liberty, which no Law of man could deprive them of: which manifestly implies both the Oppression of the Late King, and the Insufficiency of Monarchy itself, as to the Ends of Government. If That Warr was fair on the People's side, Then; so would another upon the same score, be Now: in which regard, the very Hint is Seditious. Further, it casts a Dangerous reflection upon the present Government. These execrable Papers, 'tis odds his Majesty neither sees nor hears of, and what a Scandal is it then, under the Reign of the Son, to see such Libelling Against the Ashes of the Father!  
he'll say perhaps, he only tells what Caused the War, without pretending to Defend it. That shift may serve him, to some purpose, provided he was never formerly engaged with the Faction; if 
☜  he was never Ambitious of testifying to the World his Real Esteem of the singular Worth and Eminence of the greatest Villain in Nature: he's the more capable of Mercy.  
But does not what he is, appear from the whole drift of his Discourse? What does he, but Defame the King under the Visor of his Animadversions upon the Bishop? (For what has the Bishop done without the King's Authority?) Again, under the Cloak of an Exception to One Bishop, what does he but inveigh against the Church: the Episcop● Dignity and Function? and in fine, why against the Bishops? but only as the likeliest way to inflame the People by Degrees against the King? Does not his Majesty enjoin the Practice of Those Ceremonies which he condemns the Bishops for? But what he drives at, will more fully appear from that which follows.   


D. E.  [D] And whether the public maintaining of the very same Positions and Practices, may not in time beget the same Feuds and Animosities, although this Bishop cares not, yet I doubt not but His Majesty, as he now doth, so will always graciously consider.  
[D] These Four Lines well applied, would settle the Nation in perfect happiness: but in another sense than he intends them.  
'Tis very true; the Public Maintaining of the very same Positions, and Practices that raised the last War, will most infallibly produce Another: unless the Sticklers be a little better looked to. They Preached and Libelled up an Army against our Late Sovereign: are they not at it now again for Another? Ceremonies, and Lord- Bishops were mighty Grievances, They are so still. And then the King's Prerogative came in Play. They are fairly offering at it Now to. And what was the Event of All? The Holy men Divided the Spoil; Overthrew the Government, Murdered the King; Beggared and Enslaved the Nation, and Settled Nothing.  
Marque now the Menace of his last Period. What does it say, but This? Let the King take up his Bishops, or look to himself. And to Embitter the People against Bishops) Feuds, and Animosities, he presages (though this Bishop cares not.)    

EXCEPTION VIII.  


D. E.  [A] WHether, as to the matter of Fact, the French Protestants do enjoin standing at the Sacrament; and the Dutch, kneeling; I will labour to inform myself of some more unbiased witness than this Bishop; for in the Ecclesiastical Laws of those Churches, which I have carefully perused, I can find no such matter. But if they did so, this would not at all justify the Imposition of Kneeling; because 1. The Question is de Jure, whether it be lawful to prescribe any one such certain Posture, without submiting to which, it shall not be lawful to admit any to the Sacrament, and till the Affirmative of this be proved by Scriptures, Examples, and Instances from the Practice of men, will not satisfy a doubting conscience. 2. Neither of those forementioned Postures are so much to exception as Kneeling; because this last is manifestly more superstitious, for, 1. It varies most of any from the First Pattern. 2. It hath been monstrously abused by the Papists to Idolatry; which alone renders it most unsafe to be practised, and most Unwarrantable to be imposed: Especially, till it be again explained as in the very first Liturgy of all it was; which I particularly mention, to show how little our Reformation since Edw. 6th. time, hath been improved.]  
[A] HE cannot pass the Bishop without a Reverence; [Some more Unbyass'd Witness then This Bishop, etc.] This is the handsomest lie he has given the Bishop yet. But to our Business; leaving the French, and Dutch to their Pleasure: we have already argued that whatsoever is Deductively in the Scripture, is sufficiently There, to warrant the Practice of it; and we have proved Kneeling to be rationally and evidently comprised in the General Precept of Decency. Now to his Particular Exceptions.  
It varyes (says he) from the First Pattern.] Was it a Pattern for a Posture; or the Institution of a Sacrament? Mind the Text.  
The Lord Jesus in the night when he was betrayed, took Bread; and when he had given Thanks, he broke 
1 Cor. 11. 23  it, and said, Take, Eat, This is my body which is broken for you; THIS DO ye in Remembrance of 
24  Me.] After the same manner also he took the Cup, 
25.  when he had supped, saying: This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, THIS DO as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.  
We have here the Compliment of the Institution. Now see the Extent of the Command. DO THIS. What's That? Take Bread; Give Thanks:— Break it, and say, Take, Eat, etc.— So likewise of the Cup, in such manner as is Prescribed.  
Here's the whole Precept, without any Mention, or the least Hint of other Circumstance, either for Time, Posture, Habit, or the like. All which being left equally Indifferent; why not at Night; in the same Habit, Language, and Syllables, as well as the same Posture?  
But Kneeling (he says) has been abused to Idolatry; and therefore not warrantably Imposed:] Have not Churches been Abused? has not the Holy Scripture itself been misapplyed; and made the ground of Heresy? Are they not therefore Warrantably Used? Finally; the main stumble they make of Kneeling is the Command; now if a Posture of Body may not be Commanded, what may? So that ex professo, their Enmity is not so much Levelled at the Evil, as at the Government.    

EXCEPTION IX.  


D. E.  [A] AS it was needlessly, so was it likewise Uncharitably done, to revile the whole body of Presbyterians for the Faults of Mr. Baxter; upon supposition that either he is a Presbyterian, or so culpable as the Bishop would make him. For since every man is to bear his own Burden, what Bible did the Bishop find it in, that he might, without scruple, asperse a whole order of Men, for the pretended miscarriage of one; who, by the Bishop's own Confession, was not of so Amicable and compliant a Temper as the rest: And therefore certainly they ought not to be brought in as Parties in that crime of Unpeaceableness, from which the Bishop just before had●absolved them: but choler spoils the Memory; and, sure his Brethren the Bishops would not take it well of a Presbyterian, should he cry out Crimine ab uno, disce omnes— See what manner of Spirit these Bishops are of, and judge them all by the Bishop of Wercester' s example. Truly, Sir, I am a little angry, when I consider how much this one man's Indiscretion hath exposed all of the same Order to Censure; For were they all like him (which I do not, nor dare not think) I should not scruple to pray heartily, what the Bishop doth in scorn concerning the Preachers— Lord deliver us from such Bishops. And let all the People say, Amen.  
[A] OF This Cavil we have both had enough, and said enough, in and to his first Exception; and the Animadverter discovers that somewhat has spoiled his Memory too, as well as he says Choler has done the Bishops: which is a Pity, considering how little Pretence the Libeler has for a Bad one, and how much use for a Good one.  
I would Gladly know, in what Bible the Animadverter learned to despise Government, and speak evil of Dignities; to bear false Witness against his Neighbour, etc. He says the Bishop judges Uncharitably in measuring All by One: and that he now condemns whom just before he absolved. Answer; Neither the One, nor the Other. First; his words are only [in Proportion of the whole Party] which does not Imply either All, or in the same Degree. And for the Bishop's Contradicting himself; with what Ingenuity can any man extend his Meaning to All, which in Terminis, is limited to Those of Mr. Baxter's Judgement; and in distinction, from others of a more complying and Peaceable Temper?  
To go on with him; D. E. tells the Honourable Sir, that he is a little Angry, to consider how This one man's Indiscretion exposes all of the same Order to Censure. Gross Impostor! Does he not streyn his little Wit, and huge Confidence to the utmost, only to start a Scandal, and fix a Blot upon the Bishop? with what Temper of Spirit, with what weight, (or in truth, Colour) of Reason, with what Ingenuity, and Affection, he has managed This Discourse, let the Indifferent determine. He concludes his Exceptions with a Prayer; Lord deliver us (says he) from such Bishops: Good God (say I) Preserve his Majesty from Treason, and Deliver the Church from Schism.    

POSTSCRIPT.  


D. E.  [A] THus, Sir, you see how willing I am to serve you in proposing my Exceptions, the fuller prosecution of which I must leave to some other Pen, more able both in Divinity and Policy; who may convince both the Bishop and the World, that it is not yet time to sow such Tares; This Age is a liitle too knowing to be gulled with an A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to take every thing for Oracle which a Bishop's Passion distates. But before I case you of your Trouble in reading this, I will crave leave to give you a Taste of the Reverend Father's deep wisdom in two or three particulars.  
[A] IN truth the man has great reason to recommend the Prosecution of the Cause to a better Advocate, for what he has said, will hardly do the Work, either upon the Bishop, or the World; his Arguments being too Weak for the one Purpose, and his Passion, too Rank, and Open for the other; and any man that compares the Ground of his Displeasure, with the Violence of it, shall easily discern that his Trouble because he cannot find more faults, is greater than his Desire of Reforming any; and that he drives on a Factious Design, against the Office of Bishops, under colour of Taxing them of Misdemeanures.  
Now to his Observations upon [the Reverend Father's deep wisdom] as the pert Pedant plays upon it.   


D. E.  [B] 1. In that he declaims, so fiercely, as if he would crack his Girdle, against all those who force all Communicants to come unto them, and be particularly examined before they admit th●m to the Sacrament. Indeed, Sir, this was an Imposition, as no way Justifiable, so, for aught I can hear, no where practised. The Custom being that men were only once for all examined, at their first coming to the Sacrament; which the Bishop himself allows under other Names of being Catechised and Instructed. It was therefore wisely done of the Bishop, this cold weather to set up a Man of straw, and then get himself heat by threshing it.  
[B] The Reason of That Violence which he himself disallows, we have no need to argue; but for the Practice, although I do not find it Authoritatively enjoined, yet that it was frequently used, is only News (I believe) to the Animadverter.  
Cartwright, and divers others, press the Necessity of Examination; from 2 Chron. 35. 6. [Now Examination (says he) being a part of Preparation, it follows that here is Commandment of the Examination. T. C. l. 1. p. 164.] Only our Author hearing from the Bishop, that it borders upon Auricular Confession, is content to waive it. But This, I hope, will not be denied, that by the Directory, the Ignorant and Scandalous were not to be admitted to the Communion: and how far they had Liberty to Inquire into the One, and Conclude upon the Other, I suppose no body doubts. One Common Question among them was concerning [the Instant of your Call.] A grave Inquisitor of the Party Asked a Fellow how many Folds Christ had in his Flock? And for the Scandal, nothing more ordinary then to deny the Sacrament for refusing the Covenant.  
In the first Century (says Mr. Cann) of Scandalous and lewd Ministers, are commonly reckoned such as had called the House of Commons an unjust. 
S●are broken Pag. 23.  Court, Hypocrites, Schismatical, and Pragmatical fellows, a company of Factious fellows; no Parliament; that their proceeding against the Earl of Straf●ord was wrongful and unjust.  
Enough upon this point; only to the Bishops Cracking of his Girdle, and Threshing a Man of Straw; we do yield, that the Force of the fanatics Tropes, and Figures is not to be resisted.   


D. E.  [C] 2. It is methinks very politicly d●ne to exclaim against the po●r Covenant, and in great zeal to wish all the Books which defend it, were burnt by the Authors, to save the Hangman a labour. For here let his Adversary do what he can, the Bishop will be too hard for him: For if he takes no notice of the Covenant, the Bishop clearly gains the Cause; if he ventures to assert it, he shall presently be confuted with a Confiscation. So that under the shelter of this unanswerable Dilemma I leave him, le●t I should be gored with the Horns of it. And this I speak, Sir, as one that though I never took, but always opposed the Covenant; yet I have a very good opinion of many that did, and withal a great Tenderness for the lawful part of an Oath, after it is o● solemnly taken. I will only add this, That since that Oath hath been so generally taken, even by those that were most active in his late Majesty's service; and several times ventured their lives, to signalise their Loyalty; I think the Ashes of it (since it was burnt by public Authority) had much better have been suffered to rest quietly, than thus to be blown up and scattered abroad by the Bishop's furious breath, when no occasion was given him so much as to mention it.]  
[C] See the peevish, and groundless Insinuation of the Animadverter. What Exclamations against the Poor Covenant? What great Zeal I beseech ye? No, not so much as a Wis●.  
The Bishop takes notice that some have had the 
Pag. 33.  Confidence, Publicly to own the Obligation of the Covenant, even since it hath been condemned to be Burnt by the Parliament. And truly (says the Bishop) I see no Reason why all those Books and Sermen which have been Preached and Printed in defence of the Covenant, or to maintain the same, or worse principles of Sedition, then are in the Covenant; should not be burnt also. Nay, I dare be bold to say, that if the Authors of such Books and Sermons were not still of the same opinions (and if they be, God deliver us from suck Preachers) if they were not still▪ I say, of the same opinions, but did truly Repent of them, and were heartily sorry for the horrible mischief they have done by them, they would wit● those converted Exorcists, Act. 19 19 bring all those Conjuring Books of theirs together, and so save the Hangman a Labour; would publicly burn them with their own hands, etc.—]  
These are the Bishop's words at Length; where's the Distemper? Nay who will oppose the Burning of all such Books, but Those that justify the Matter of them? To what end are they kept in Being, but by asserting one Rebellion to procure another?  
Concerning the Politic Attaque of the Covenant under the Protection of a safe Dilemna: the Bishop does not play the Casuist, but notes the boldness of those People, that blame the Resolution of a Parliament.  
Touching the Good Opinion our Author has of the Covenanters, we do not question it; (Simeon and Levi) and we understand what he means by [the Lawful Part of an Oath, after 'tis once solemnly taken.]  
No Part of an Oath imposed by an unlawful Authority, how Lawful soever in it self, can be reputed binding, as part of such an Oath, without the subsequent Allowance of the Supreme Magistrate. If you swear to worship God; Worship: but for the Duty, not for the Oaths sake, for in swearing to an Usurper, you do tacitly disown your Sovereign; and your persuance of That Oath, is but a Continuation of your Disobedience.  
That divers of the King's Party took the Covenant, is often and Maliciously objected to us.  
Some took it at first, with good Opinion, and Intentions; and served his Majesty according to those Intentions. To These, the Covenant was One thing, and to the Contrivers, another.  
At last, the Covenanters (having suppressed the King and his Forces) put the poor Cavaliers to This Choice, either to Swallow That, or nothing else; to Swear or Starve; (A more Diabolical Cruelty, I defy Story to show me) Those that did take it, have the Plea of Frailty, and as I hope) the Comfort of Repentance. Now see the difference of Their Case from Ours; which the Animadverter would gladly should be understood to have been a joint Conspiracy.  
It was in Them, a Trap, set for the People, baited with Forms of Godliness, and Loyalty; under which Masque, they engaged a heedless well-meaning Party against the King.  
Here's, in the Institution, Treason; in the Matter of it, Profaneness; in the Enforcement of it, Usurpation; and in the Scope of it, Rebellion, and Perjury. Never was there a Pack of such Demure Dam'mees. In Rank, and plain English what does it seem to say but This? Confound us, if we do not. Agree, and Resolve to Serve God and Honour the King. (A thing that might have been done without either Cursing or Swearing) Thus far We're Innocent of the Covenant.  
Further, They destroyed the King by the Covenant; We, if we took it, never pursued the Malicious Ends of it. That is, we did not add Rebellion to Frailty. I do not argue for my self, for I never took either That, or any other Engagement whatsoever from Them.  
By this time, Mr. Animadverter, I think you had as good have let the Covenant alone too.   


D. E.  [D] Lastly, I can never enough commend the Bishop's wisdom, in resolving so angrily never to write again; for he is Old, and hath Traveled far, and knows that it is much easier to speak rash and unjustifiable things than to descend them. And therefore he deals with those, that he ha● provoked; as witty School boys d● with their Companions, first he ●its them a box on the Ear, and then very discreetly retreats, and fairly rungs away. But if Goliath, who ●ook upon him to defy the Host of Israel, should as soon as ever he had done, have sneaked out of the Field, and thought he ●ad done manfully enough in ma●ing a Bold Challenge, and in showing his Teeth at them; I believe the Philistines would hardly have thanked him for that empty show of Valour, whereby he could not conquer, but only enrage the Enemy. And whether the Bishops will not have the same opinion of this overforward and unwary Champion of theirs, I hope, Sir, you will neither inquire yourself, nor desire that I should: For I have already done enough to show how much I am,  
SIR, Your most humble Servant, D. E.   

[D] If the Bishop had the Libelers Experience of speaking more than he could Justify, the Bishop might be of the Libelers Opinion.  
Do you say, that Age and Travail have made the Bishop Wise? The Animadverter (for aught I see yet) has a great way to go, and a long while to Live, before 'twill do as much for him. The Bishop Resolves to write no more. Is that it? Once is enough for His own Honour, and Twice would be too much for Yours.  
My Head for't; the Witty Schoolboy was of his Ushering (The Wit on't!) It is so like the Tutor. A box o'th' Earth, and away? Just so did D. E. serve the Bishop of Worcester. Where is this same D. E.? Who is he? What is he? He forgets that Mr. Baxter struck the first Blow; and that the Bishop was only upon the Defensive.  
But here we'll give him over; The man I perceive has showed all his Tricks; he winds up his Bottom, fastens his End, does his Reverence, and Vanishes.     

REFLECTIONS upon the Whole.  
BEhold the Libeler dissected; and now we'll Read upon him.  
Marque first, the Vizor he puts on; A Passionate Lover 
Pag. 2.  of the King's Person, and Government; and for the Order of Bishops.  
See his Opinions next: The late War (he says) arose 
Pag. 9  from Unconscionable Impositions, which neither the Law of God commanded, nor could the Law of Man justify. Again,  
He Calls the Praelation of Bishops an Undue, and (as 
Pag. 2.  some think) Antichristian Dignity, he had as good have said plain Antichristian without the Parenthesis, for the Hint is but to round the People in the Ear that so it is.  
A Bishop (he says) is but one Minister, and ought not 
Pag. 5.  to silence his Fellow-Minister: If by Arguments ●e can, 'tis well, but not by Authority.  
In his Twelfth Page, speaking of the Covenant; he professes a great Tenderness for the Lawful Part of an Oath, after it is once solemnly taken] which does but insinuate the Obligation of That Diabolical Sacrament.  
Herein first, he does manifestly condemn the Late King, and more than Covertly justify the Late Rebellion: Over and above the denial of his Majesty's Power in matters Indifferent. Secondly, He Disclaims and Reproaches the Authority of Bishops; and finally, in asserting the Covenant, he gives a Box on the Ear to this Present Parliament. So that Briefly; the Power of the King; the Power o● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Power of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This libeler's Reasoning, subjected to the Conclusions (at Fairest) of a Conventicle of Schismatics.  
From his Disguise and judgement; n●w to the Drift of his Design, which must be gathered from the Method he takes to promote it,  
That he's a likely person to Intent 〈◊〉 Mischief, appears first from bis Principles, which we have showed already to be Destructive of all Authority both Ecclesiastical, and Civil.  
'Tis some Presumption too, that he is guilty of Ill meaning, because he does not set his Name to the Pamphlet: but from the Stuff and Matter of it, 'tis most Evident, that his Design is to embroil the Nation.  
First; his Compleints are Levelled at the Faults and Power of Prelates; (and This is a Vein runs through the whole discourse) to draw an Odium, and Envy upon th● Government: too●nk ●nk, without a smack of Conscience; and therefore Popery comes in; (Oh 'tis a dreadful word That Popery) to season the Design; and Encourage a Rebellion for fear of Idolatry.  
When he has showed them the Tyranny of Bishops, and the Danger of their Papal Domination, the People are to be Instructed, first in the Lawfulness of Casting them oft, Then in the Manner of it; and Lastly, They are to be heartened on, by the Easiness of doing it.  
The Lawfulness is hinted in his Ninth Page, [They have the Law of God, and Man on their side] and more expressly, in the Page foregoing [If we ought not, yet we Lawfully may refuse to submit unto such Impositions as God hath no where commanded.] They never consider that it is as Lawful for the One to Impose, us for the Other to do, what God no where commanded.  
The Manner of ejecting them, is suggested in the minding of them how they did it before.  
Does he not effectually threaten his Majesty with [the same Feuds, and Animosities, if These Positions and Practices be maintained? Pag. 10] What Positions? Observe it; These are the very words he strikes at, (and terms so Virulent.)  
From Diversity, grows Dislike; from Dislike, Enmity; 
Bishop of Worst. Pag. 18.  from Enmity, Opposition; and from Opposition, first Separation and Schism in the Church, and then Faction, Sedition, and Rebellion in the State; which is a progress very natural, and I would we had not found it to be so by our own Experience, etc.] So that unless the King will renounce the Right of his Father's Cause, the People are by This miserable Scribbler animated to renounce his Majesty.  
He makes broad Signs too, to the people to stick to their Covenant; Pag. 12. and Commits the Rest to Providence.  
Let it not be said now, that I force his Meaning; and that his words in some places may be taken in a more Favourable Sense; it suffices me, that they fa●ly bear This: and the Worst, which without Violence the Words will bear, may with great Justice be applied to his Meaning, Non quid dixerint, sed quò spectarint, videndum; Libels are to be understood by their Hints, rather than by their Words.  
See first the main Scope of the Libel; which is (in This particular most undeniable) to defame the Bishops, Disaffect the People, and Straighten the Power of the King. Which Seditious Aim being taken for granted; whatsoever may be therein understood in Favour of Mischief, may be very Charitably Concluded for a Contrivance of it. I Argue from These Reasons.  
First, his Concealment is a kind of Flight, and tacitly amounts to a Proof against kim. Next; 'tis agreed that his Intent is evil; and the worst sense holds best Proportion with his Purpose. Here are untoward Circumstances; and yet There's one more which (in my Opinion) outweighs all we have spoken of.  
The Bishop thinks himself ill used by Mr. Baxter, and the Animadverter steps between (at the request we must Imagine of the Honourable) He undertakes to say what he dislikes in the One, what in the Other: and in fine, Many a Quarrel he picks with the Bishop, dividing only in One Point from the Presbyterian. That is (in his own Terms)  
As to the main Controversy, I think the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter: For if the Question between them, was as Dr. Gunning, 
Animad. Pag. 1.  and Dr. P●arson do attest, such a Command is so evidently lawful, that I shall much wonder if Mr. Baxter did ever dispute it]  
We see here what he means by the main Controversy, and wherein the Libeler dissents from Mr. Baxter. (The Rest being only Tempest and Invective against the Bishop, without the least hint of a blame upon the Other.)  
See now wherein they Agree, which must needs be in every thing save That wherein they Differ; that is; in These following Positions, the Animadverter and the Casuist, are Hand and Glove.  

TEN POSITIONS Which (some say) Restored the KING.  
I. IF a Prince want such Understanding, Goodness, or Power; as 
Destructive of all Kings.  the People judge Necessary to the Ends of Government; in the first Case, he is Capable of the Name, but not of the Government; in the Second, he Deposes himself: in the Third, the want of Power deposes him. (Theses. 135, 136, 137.)  
II. If a Prince in a Military State against his People, be by them Conquered; 
The Case of the late King when he was Bou●t and Sold in 〈◊〉.  they are not Obliged to Restore him, without some other Obligation than their Allegiance. (Thes. 145.)  
III. If a Prince be injuriously Expelled, by what Power-soever, that Resolves to Ruin the Commonwealth, rather than he shall be Restored; 
The Case of the King and the Commons in 1650.  and if the Commonwealth may prosper without his Restoring, That Prince is bound to resign his Government; or if he Refuse, the People are to judge him Incapable by Providence. (Thes. 147.)  
IV. If a Prince be so long Out, that the Nation cannot well stand without 
Oliver Chosen by Pro●.  another: Providence has dispossessed the Former, a●d we are to make a new Choice. (Thes. 149.)  
V. If a Prince be thrown out by 〈◊〉 Rebellion; the strongest Rebel may 
oliver's taking the Government upon him was a deed of Charity.  (ex Charitate) undertake the Government. (The Case holds in Good Livings.) (Thes. 150)  
VI Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God, that This is 
Oliver by the Will o● God, though not by the Grace of God.  the Person, by whom we must be Governed; is enough (as joined to God's Laws) to oblige us to consent, and obey him as our Governor. (Thes. 153.)  
VII. And yet All the People have not this right of choosing their Governors, 
The Cavaliers compelled to consent, and the Bret●ea to choose.  but commonly a part of every Nation must be compelled to consent, (Thes. 159.)  
VIII. Those that are known Enemies to the Common good in the chiefest parts of it, are unmeet to Govern, or choose Governors: (else give us 
For fear of the King and his Friends.  up to our Enemies or to Satan:) But such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men.]  
IX. If a People bound by Oath shall dispossess their Prince, and Choose, 
Presbyterian Absolution.  and Covenant with another; they may be Obliged by their Latter, notwithstanding their former Covenant.  
X. Though a Nation wrong their King, and so quoad Meritum Causae, 
The King c● do 〈◊〉 wrong with a Sal●.  they are on the worse side, yet may he not Lawfully war against the Public good, on that account; nor any help him in such a war: because propter finem, he hath the worse cause. (Thes. 352.)  
That these Maxims brought in the King, who questions? A word now to the Rabbi's Doctrine Concerning the English Government.  
1. The real Sovereignty here amongst us was in King, Lords, and Commons, (Pag. 72.) 
The King of England no Monarch.   
2. The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia, supposeth 
The King has the Militia if the People please.  it to be against Enemies, and not against the Commonwealth, nor them that have part of the Sovereignty with him. To resist him here, is not to resist Power, but Usurpation, and private will; in such a case, the Parliament is no more to be resisted then Herald (Thes. 363.)  
3. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration 
The People Judge of the K●g.  of the Dangers of the Commonwealth, the People are to take it as raised against the Commonwealth, (Thes. 358.)  
4. And in that Case (saith he) the King may not only be resisted, but 
And may depose 〈◊〉 resist him as pleasure.  ceaseth to be a King, and entereth into a State of War with the People, (Thes. 368.)  
These, with our Animadverter, pass for unquestionable Fundamentals of Government, but whether a doubting 
Qu●.  soul may be Compelled to Kneel when it hath a mind to sit, That's a nice point indeed.  
To pass over the Libelers Scandalous, and Barefaced Impostures; His Rude and Impetuous Violences, we'll only ask; Why all this Fury, and Contrivement against the Bishop? Is't as a Friend to a silenced Brother; And the main cause? Tho' by the Spite I should suspect a Personal Pique: But there may be something else in't too; and if the man comes off at last, say I'm a Wizard. No matter what it is; he's very much Offended: And no matter for that neither. Offended he is at the Style, I would he had quarreled it in a Better; but at the Bishop's Passion beyond measure.  
Truly, upon Perusal of it more than Once, and weighing it Word by Word, I can find nothing in the Language, that does not very well beseem the Pen, and Dignity of a Prelate. Yet there was Cause enough for a little Sharpness: and here's the Case in short.  
The Bishop of Worcester finding the Parish of Kidderminster infected with Mr. Baxters' Doctrine (who Preached there without either Cure, or Licence) forbids him to Preach there any more, and Preaches there himself, to Disabuse them: hinting the unfaithful dealing they had received, from One in great Authority among them, concerning the King's Cause; The Rites of the Church, and the sinfulness of a Lawful Command, because by Accident it might be the occasion of Sin, etc.  
Hereupon, Mr. Baxter addresses to the Inhabitants of Kidderminster, pretends that he was silenced for denying such a Position; (Which was not so, but for Preaching without a Licence) and charges the Bishop to have delivered in the Pulpit words tending to his Defamation, and neither of Charity, Truth, nor Soberness. This Scandal and some other Partial Relations, short of, and beyond the true State of the Matter, were the occasion of the Bishop's Letter, where I must confess the Bishop of Worcester may be thought thus far Severe to Mr. Baxter, in that he hath foiled him by Proofs not to be denied, and by Reasons not to be answered.   
THE END.   

Books sold by H. Brome at the Gun in Ivy-lane.  
A Geographical Dictionary.  
Justice Revived; being the whole Office of a Country Justice of the Peace.  
Mr. Mortons' Rule of Life.   

Books written by R. L'Estrange Esq  
The Holy Cheat.  
A Caveat to the Cavaliers.  
A Modest Plea.  
The Relapsed Apostate; or, an Answer to the Presbyterian Liturgy.  
State Divinity; or, A Supplement to the Relapsed Apostate.   

Imprimatur libellus hic cui titulus [Pulpit-Conceptions, Popular Deceptions: or, The Grand Debate resumed, in the point of Prayer, etc.] cum laude Dignissimi Authoris. Approbavit  
ROBERTUS PORY S. T. P. Reverendmo in Christo Patri ac Domino, Domino GULIELMO Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, totius Angliae Primati & Metropolitano, Sacellanus Domesticus.   

Page 15. lin. 19, & 20. read thus,— most apt, for the present, to promote—