A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet, Letter 2

A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet · Letter 2

p. 129Mr. Lob,

I cannot tell whether it be beſt to meddle with this Book, or let it alone. The wiſe may ſays Anſwer a man, and Anſwer not a man. There may be reaſons to doe it, and reaſons to forbear. Nevertheleſs if you determine upon it as to your part, I have fetcht the Book, and taken my pen and lookt it over as to mine. There is but one Chapter wherein I am concern'd, and I have no mind to meddle with any more, though when I am writing I may point at ſome few things beſides.

Of all the Books that came out againſt Dr. Stillingfleet's, there are thoſe few ſheets called Additional Remarks which are ſome of the leaſt taken notice of, and of the moſt value. Not I count for the merits of the Controverſie, which is not to be expected from a Conformiſt, but for the ingenuity of Spirit which he hath ſhewn in ſo ſingular exemplary a charity towards the Diſſenter, and (what I count more peculiar) in ſuch a true candid reſpect to the Doctor, even while he takes ſo natural a freedom as he does with him, that the fawning (for ſo is applauſe to the riſing) of this Authour, is but alchimy to his reprehenſion. I am beholding I muſt confeſs to the Gentleman for my own part for his Reflections, but I muſt commend his Additional Remarks. I will commend them particularly to the Deans Defender, not for an Anſwer, but for his imitation. I do apprehend that in the writing his firſt ſheets, he was not ſo well aware of their being Printed as he was of the other, and that, that was the reaſon of the difference of the ſtyle in regard to the Doctor. It is a kindneſs this worthy good man hath done me by laying in a cenſure of my ſheets before hand, and ſo prevented the ſugillations of this Author. As I need not therefore, ſo I ſhall forbear any retortions of that kind, and addreſs my ſelf to my little task before me.

It begins, page 557. To State this matter, and to lay a foundation for an Anſwer to the Queſtion what the Church of England is, and who is the Conſtitutive Regent part of it, he diſtinguiſhes between a National Church conſidered as a Church, and as incorporated in the State (p. 558.) and then ſpeaks to both.

p. 130For this diſtinction, if he had ſaid the Church of Chriſt may be conſidered in its ſelf, and as incorporated in the State, it had been a good diſtinction, but to ſay the National Church may have this double conſideration, it is not good, becauſe the Church is National onelyonly under the laſt conſideration. The Church of Chriſt conſidered in its ſelf is either Univerſal or Particular, but it muſt be conſidered as incorporated in the State to make it National. This quick Antagoniſt hath the ſagacity to perceive this, and therefore cites theſe words of mine, page 559. To be Particular or Univerſal is Eſſential to Chriſts Church, but to be National is of Accidental conſideration. If this be true (now ſays he) then is my diſtinction (that is this diſtinction) quite out of doors, for it is a Church (that is a National Church) as it is the State (as it is in the State, he ſhould ſay,) and Headed by the Civil Magiſtrate. This is well, and what hath he then to object againſt me, and to ſay for himſelf?

Againſt me, he ſays, There are two things (p. 560.) ſuppoſed in my Argument (which he hath candidly delivered) as neceſſary to the being of a National Church that are not neceſſary, That all the people (that is the generality) of the Nation ſhould be Chriſtian, and that the King ſhould be ſo alſo. Theſe two things, I had ſaid, were Accidental to the Church of Chriſt, and yet goe to the making our Church National, and conſequently the Church of Chriſt is National onelyonly under an Accidental conſideration. But theſe two things he Objects are not to be ſuppoſed neceſſary to a National Church. I anſwer, when we ſpeak of a National Church, our owne is always to be underſtood, about which the diſpute is, and our Church is a National Political Church, no otherwiſe but upon this account, and the ſuppoſition hereof is neceſſary to it.

For himſelf, he ſays, There were great Combinations before Conſtantine's days Patriarchal, Metropolitan, which are of the ſame nature with what we call National Churches. I Anſwer, A Patriarchal Church, and a Metropolitan Church is not a Church National. A Patriarchate may contain in it the Chriſtians of many Nations, A Metropolitan but half the Chriſtians of one, and ſo the one is too big, and the other too little to be a National Church, and a Dioceſan much leſs. By a National Church we commonly underſtand (I apprehend) a Political Church p. 131wherein all the particular Chriſtians and Churches in a Nation, and theſe only, are combined under one Government, through the Supream Magiſtrate, to Church purpoſes. A Metropolitan Church is no combination of them all, and a Patriarchal a combination of more then all. The one and the other may be called Churches, but neither one or other a National Church, which he himſelf takes to be ſuch a Union.

But he cannot tell (he ſays p. 561.) why it is Accidental to the Church of Chriſt to be National any more then to be Univerſal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more then Univerſal: but when I tell him that the Body of Chriſt (which is his Church) may ſubſiſt though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth, I hope he can ſee (if he will) how the conſideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical, and ſo National, muſt be Accidental to it. And as for Chriſts command of planting Churches (p. 16.) in the whole world, and ſo in Nations, and Cities, and Towns, requiring Unity and Communion every where among Chriſtians, it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal, Metropolitical, National, Dioceſan, and Parochial Churches to this end, if he pleaſe, provided only, that theſe forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence, and not the Eſſential form of the Church of Chriſt according to divine inſtitution.

To the queſtion whether a National Church be Political, he offers ſomething (p. 562.) and ſays the Dean in his Opinion hath anſwered with great Judgment in his denying any neceſſity of a Conſtitutive Regent part to be Eſſential to a National Church. But I will make it appear, that either the Dean or his Defender, do ſpeak here with little Judgment. It is the Notion this Author hath propoſed to publick conſideration, that the Biſhops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by conſent, that is as Colleagues, per litteras formatas when they convene not, and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation. This he makes throughout his Book to be of Chriſts appointment, holding Epiſcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party. If this then be true, this Author hath found out a Conſtitutive Regent part, yea an Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation, where there are Chriſtians, and Biſhops. And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor, how can he thus applaud the Doctors anſwer, that denies the Church to have one, or ſayes, p. 132there is no neceſſity of any. When he does prove it to be a Church Political, and the Doctors anſwer includes a denyal of it to be ſo, how comes this man to be ſo full of reverence here with theſe words in his mouth? To this the Dean anſwers, in my poor Opinion, with great Judgment and Conſideration. It is with great Judgment indeed, is it not, that the Dean hath given up the Cauſe of the Biſhops? And with great Judgment, is it not, that this man hath aſſumed the Prerogative of the King to their Colledge? Let him take heed leaſt he bring himſelf into queſtion.

Many Churches Aſſociated for mutual help and concord, are a Church only in a looſe ſenſe; but thoſe that are conſtituted of one Regent and ſubdite part, are Churches in a Political proper ſenſe. It is no body Political without one common Governour Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, or Democratical. Thus ſays Mr. Baxter (p. 563.) Unto which ſays this Author, Herein does his ſtrength (p. 564.) conſiſt.

Anſw. I acknowledge it does, and what hath he to weaken it? I will Tranſcribe what he ſays: If we deny this, that though a National Church be one body, yet it is not ſuch a Political body as he deſcribes, (which differs from ſecular forms of Government, by that ancient Canon of our Saviour, It ſhall not be ſo among you) the controverſie may be at an end, and a National Church may be one body in an Eccleſiaſtical, though not in a Civil Political ſenſe.

This is the help the Dean muſt expect from his Defender, and if the Doctor be not aſhamed of his own anſwer for this deſenſe ſake, I know not what ſhould put any man to ſhame. This man tells me in his Preface, he will interpoſe between the Dean and ſhame in this Controverſie. Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him, that he does here manifeſtly betray a raw ignorance which ought to ſhame him. He underſtands the term Political to be Commenſurate with Civil; as if a Government Eccleſiaſtical could not be Political, as well as a Government Civil; that is, as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies. He does yet diſcover the ſame more then by words; for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Ariſtocratical, and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political, unleſs it have ſome Head that is Perſonal: or as if a Head Collective were not One Head, as vvell as one that is Monarchical. This man vvho hath interpoſed betvveen ſhame p. 133and the Doctor, muſt take ſhame upon him, ſeeing he calls upon me to do my part honeſtly, in the ſame place. I ſay this man hath found an Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutive Head of the Church, and that of Chriſts own Inſtitution, if he underſtands what he drives at; and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political. I will adviſe him to conſult with Biſhop Gunning, and the excellently learned, and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living, ſeeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal, or any other who are dead, (as I conjecture) that he may be inſtructed better, before we hear any more from him.

Mr. Baxter indeed underſtands himſelf throughly, and tells us Aſſociation of Churches for Concord (gratia Unitatis,) are no proper Churches: But an United Colledg of Biſhops for government (gratia Regiminis) is a formal Eccleſiaſtical Head, about which was the Original Queſtion. And this, this bold, and herein but half informed Author (who will interpoſe between ſhame and the Doctor) doth not underſtand neither, and as ſoon as he hath read this, will he own the ſhame he hath taken upon him? Above all, is there any man (unleſs ſo forward a one) would ever have produced that ſaying of our Saviour, If ſhall not be ſo among you, for the proving a National Church to have no Head, or that the Churches of Chriſt muſt not therefore be Political? I ſhall not be blamed I hope therefore if I ſay now again what I ſaid to the Doctor; That if this man be not aſhamed for himſelf and the Doctor, I muſt be aſhamed for them both. If we deny this (ſays he) the Controverſie were at an end: Well, but when it cannot be denyed, we muſt look farther.

P. 565. We grant (ſays he) a National Church is a Political Society; for Government by conſent without Superiority is Government. I grant too Church Governours united and governing by conſent are the Pars Imperans, and the people ſubmitting to ſuch Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour, are the Pars Subdita, and all this is true without a conſtitutive Kegent Head. I Anſwer, if he grants (or rather aſſerts) thus much, a Government by conſent, underſtanding by it the Epiſcopal Colledg, or Cyprians One Epiſcopacy as the Governing part, and the People by the Law of Chriſt ſubdite to it, then hath he found out a Conſtitutive Head, and an Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutive Head by Chriſts Inſtitution: p. 134and to ſay that all this is true without one, is to me a perfect contradiction.

When he goes on then (p. 566.) to prove that this is all, that is, or can be required to make a National Church One, by two Arguments, I anſwer, If there be ſo much as this indeed required, his two Arguments muſt prove it not onelyonly to be One, but one Political proper Church with an Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutive Regent part to it. The Biſhops (he ſays) have equal power by Chriſts appointment, and rule not by Superiority, but by Conſent, that is not by Superiority over one another, but they do rule by a Superiority (I hope) over the people, and that is an Ariſtocratical Government: and when the People do conſent to Unite in Communion with them, this makes them Members (he ſays) of that Political body: And theſe are his two reaſons (p. 566, and 567.) which need no other Animadverſion, but this notice of them. The great queſtions onelyonly are whether this indeed be the will of Chriſt, that the Catholick, and ſo every National Church (as he ſtates the matter) ſhould be ruled by theſe Biſhops as Colleagues, that is by a Government (as he calls it) by conſent, and if it be, how it ſhould come to paſs that we have not in England ſuch a Government, where there is for certain no ſuch Rule by conſent of the Colledg without a Superiority, but by a Superiority (or a Supremacy) of the King, who is the Head of theſe Biſhops themſelves, as well as the Nation. This I make not my Province.

P. 568. He hath four things for the ſtrengthning the Government of his Mintage, and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reaſon why this may not be called one Church, or Eccleſiaſtical Body Politick without a Conſtitutive. Regent part, he will think farther of it. To which I anſwer; and tell him preſently why this cannot be called one Church or Eccleſiaſtical Body Politick without a Conſtitutive Regent part, the reaſon is, becauſe it is a Body Politick Eccleſiaſtical with a Conſtitutive Regent part; and ſo he need think no farther of it.

And this Anſwer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page (p. 569.) I need ſay nothing to that, nor the next (p. 570.) but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way, as he ſays, to juſtify the Doctor. Well, where there is a Political Church ſays p. 135Mr. Baxter, there muſt be a Conſtitutive Head. The Doctor anſwers, there may be the true notion of a Church without one. I Reply, This is a coming off, but the queſtion indeed at the bottome, is, whether it be the true notion of the Church of England?

The Doctor argues, If it be neceſſary that every Church muſt have a Conſtitutive Regent part as eſſential to it, then it unavoidably follows, that there muſt be a Catholick Viſible Head to the Church Catholick Viſible. This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanſwerable. But we reply, the Argument is ſuch, as needs no Anſwer, and it may eaſily be Anſwered.

In the firſt place it needs no Anſwer, becauſe the thing it would prove, is but what we can grant him; that is, a Viſible Head to the Catholick Church. Chriſt is that Head we ſay, and he is Viſible. When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church, and Commiſſionated Officers, which are Rights of a Head; He after appeared to Paul, and Commiſſionated him, and is now Viſible in Heaven. This is plain proof in Reaſon, Senſe and Scripture, and not to be jeered off, and therefore in the firſt place the Doctors Argument needs no Anſwer.

In the next place we ſay farther, it is eaſily Anſwered; for we deny the Argument. If it be neceſſary for a Church to have a Conſtitutive Head, it follows that the Catholick Church muſt have a Conſtitutive one: but it follows not that it muſt have a Catholick Viſible Head or that, that Conſtitutive Head muſt be Viſible.

This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is falſe Arguing. When there is put more into the thing Aſſerted in the Conſequence, then there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogiſme, it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogiſm that is Categorical. But the Doctor (ſays he) puts more ſtrength in it. The queſtion is about the Catholick Church, whereof particular Churches are parts, and they being Viſible do require the Conſtitutive Regent part to be Viſible. I Anſwer, though here be more words, here is no more ſtrength put into the Argument, I ſtill deny the Conſequence. For though the Catholick Church conſiſts of Particular Churches which are Viſible, it conſiſts alſo of that ſociety in heaven which is not Viſible, Chriſts Body is but one Body, whereof part is in Heaven, and part on Earth, and while the Head is in Heaven, p. 136it follows not, that becauſe part of the Body is Viſible, therefore the Head muſt be Viſible. It is all one as if he ſhould argue thus. Particular Churches are on Earth, and if Chriſt be Head of the Catholick Church whereof they are parts, he muſt not be in Heaven. And when indeed this is one and the ſame Argument, and we know it to be falſe, we do juſtly deny the Doctors Argument. Suppoſe a man ſo high as that his head reached above the clouds, will you argue, that this perſon hath no head, becauſe his head is not viſible? I deny the Argument.

There is really nothing hard in the Doctors Argument, but to underſtand why his Defender (whom I value for his Parts) ſhould come to think it unanſwerable. It may be the Doctors confident word at firſt, [it undenyably follows] drew on this apprehenſion, and he hath fetcht the Argument over ſo long, till he hath put enough in it, to make himſelf believe it. We are far (ſays he) from aſſerting that the Univerſal Head muſt be Viſible if the Subordinate be ſo (he ſhould be as far from aſſerting the Head to be Viſible, becauſe Particular Churches or the Members are ſo:) but this we aſſert, that if no Church can be a true Viſible Church without a Subordinate Viſible Head, then the Univerſal Church cannot be a Viſible Church without a Subordinate Catholick Viſible Head, p. 574, 575, 576. This he takes to be the Doctors Argument, and he will make the conſequence hold before he has done with it. But againſt whom does the Doctor and this man argue? Is it not againſt Mr. Bexter? and did Mr. Baxter ever ſay this, that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Chriſt? Is not Mr. Baxter a Proteſtant as well as the Doctor, and do they not both maintain the Catholick Church to have one onelyonly Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth? If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope, but the Colledge of Biſhops, I deſire Doctor Stillingfleet to appear above board, and to let us know whether he will ſet up alſo for that notion, and defend his Defender.

Mr. Baxter is a man who underſtood Politicks, and ſtated what he underſtood, but the Doctor was (at the preſent) raw, and put into his arguing he did not know well what (that is the truth on't,) and foraſmuch as this man hath undertaken to p. 137interpoſe between ſhame and the Doctor. I will tell them both plainly, the Doctor may be aſhamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument, and this man truly takes the ſhame on him, by bringing in a fifth alſo. That which Mr. Baxter ſaid, was this, That every proper Political Church muſt have a Conſtitutive Head, and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper, Political, and brings in the term Viſible: Therefore the Catholick Church (ſays he) muſt have a Conſtitutive Viſible Head. The Interpoſer now to take off this ſhame from the Doctor, hath taken the right courſe (I ſay) for he comes and does worſe, and that is, puts in a fifth term alſo into the Argument. If every Church (when he ſhould ſay every Proper Political Church only, if he ſpeaks to Mr. Baxter) muſt have a Viſible Subordinate Conſtitutive Head, then muſt the Catholick Church have ſuch a one: But that having no ſuch a one, a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Conſtitutive Head. This is the Reaſoning in the ſumm (I ſay in the ſum, for it is no matter for more of his words) that puts me and Mr. Baxter (as he ſays) at ſuch a loſs, as is irrecoverable. And does he not indeed take off the ſhame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himſelf? Suppoſe another ſhould put a ſixth term into the Argument, and argue, If no Church can be a true Viſible Church without a Viſible Subordinate Monarchical Conſtitutive Head, then cannot the Catholick Church viſible be a true Church without a Viſible Subordinate Monarchical Conſtitutive Head, Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter muſt yield to a plain Confutation, or bring in the Pope preſently without remedy? But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Propoſition, from which, this Conſequence, by this means, is indeed made unavoidable? No, you will ſay this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical (and would ſpoil this mans Goverment by Conſent quite:) I ſay likewiſe, that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate, and the Doctor by putting in the term Viſible. Mr. Baxter hath neither of theſe terms in his Aſſertion, and if you cannot argue from what he hath ſaid that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Viſible, you cnanot, argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head, or Viſible, but a Conſtitutive Head only, whether Viſible or Inviſible. It is nothing elſe but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Reſpondent (which I p. 138think we called at the Univerſity Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum, for whether the diverſe things are interrogated or argued the Paralogiſm is the ſame,) that hath made all this pother as this man phraſes it, which ſeeing it is on their ſide, I will give over any farther perſuit of this Chapter.

There is one thing only, and that is the main thing not to be omitted. The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Conſent is ſufficient to the making a National Church, underſtanding by that Conſent, a Conſent to be of it. The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Conſent, meaning by it the Conſent of the Biſhops. Theſe are two contrary things, the one making the Church not Political, and the other makes it an Ariſtocracy, and yet intends to juſtifie the former. But neither of them are in the right. The Church of England, is not a Church by Conſent onelyonly without a Head, nor a Government by Conſent, by the Colledge of Biſhops: but it is a Political Church with a Conſtitutive Regent part, which is the King, according to my Papers.

That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church, as it is called the Church of England. It appears by other Acts that give him the ſame Supremacy the Pope uſurped. It appears by the Firſt Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church. It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent, and ſate in the Convocation as Perſonating the Head of it. It appears by this Reaſon of my Book. Where the Rights of Majeſty are, there muſt the Headſhip be placed. Legiſlation and the Laſt appeal belong to him. It is the King gives Authority to the Canons, in ſo much as when a Law cannot paſs without a Parliament, the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification. And there can be no Appeal in any Eccleſiaſtical cauſe from the King. Again, it appears moſt unanimouſly by the Miniſters Prayers every Sunday, giving him the Title of Supream Head, and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance. If the King be not the Head accordingly, then muſt the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Perſons.

From this truth then (which is beyond oppoſition) it follows, that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of p. 139Divine right that is indiſpenſible: It follows that it belongs not to the Eſſence of the Church of Chriſt to be National, but that this is a conſideration accidental to it. It follows that ſuch a Church may receive its Conſtitution at firſt, and a new form or mould at any time, as is moſt convenient to the State, and moſt conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People. It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing ſome ſuch new form into it as ſhall be more conducive to the ends of Holineſs and Peace than the preſent Form does, were a moſt deſireable thing, and fit to be tendred to the Wiſdom of Parliament. It follows finally that ſeeing the model that is hammering by this Author is propoſed as ſtrictly of Divine Right, which is therefore the moſt direfull Schiſmatical Scheme that can be propoſed in regard to Diſſenters, excluding them thereby out of the body of Chriſt, and conſequently from ſalvation, beſides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magiſtrate, and unanſwerably faulty in many reſpects, ſo that it cannot be received or indured, it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings, and leſs exceptionable in regard to the Conſcience of the Subject, were exhibited in the room of it; and if it be ſuch as would make the Prelates onelyonly the Kings Officers (to execute under him ſuch Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings, as this Author ſo well expreſſes it, (p. 275.) ſo as the Nonconformiſt and Conformiſt may ſhare: I ſhall not for the diſlike of any one or two men, or party (who are deſigning an Antipodes to it) be at all out of love with it. And ſeeing there is a draught to this purpoſe which he alludes to, and (whatſoever the humor be) does ſtyle an ingenious propoſal, I adviſe that it be preſerved and inſerted therefore at the end of the Book if you Print it. The Paper (you know) was prepared againſt the Sitting of the laſt Parliament at Oxford, and Entituled Materials for Union.

And now I have done about my ſelf, you may expect from me ſome more general cenſure of the Author and his Book, which I was willing to decline.

For the Author (whatſoever he elſe be) I take him to be a man of Ability that requires our regard. By his Stile and Undertaking, I gueſs him to be a man of younger age, (ſo I hear and believe) though by his reading and compaſs he fetches for the making good his Notion, he may be ſome graver Perſon. In the ſmall p. 140game he plays with me I perceive he hath hit me, and I ought not to like him the worſe for that. It is where I lay open to him, and left him a blot. But for the defence he makes of the Doctor againſt me, I think he hath failed in his caſt, and thrown out. He is a …n I count hath a Proud Pen, and I am not moved at that: but the Doctor whoſe Pen is more Prudential, ſeemed to me to have his contempt within, and that moved me, do what I could, and made me write as I did. There are many (I believe) will think that this man hath deſpiſed me ſo much that it ſhould move me: but I do not think it ſo much. The man is a bold inſolent man, and it is (I think) the taking a ferocious liberty, rather then ſhewing diſdain. He hath uſed Mr. Baxter like a very dog, and when I methinks am but ſomething rightly ſerved, why ſhould I care how he uſes me? I will do nothing more to deſerve it, and if he deſpiſes me, I know then how to be even with him, I wont care if he does.

For the Book, I think the Bookſeller hath done his part. The Paper and Print is to be like't: but for the matter I think it to dear at the price. Five Shillings (I muſt tell him with ſome diſpleaſure) is too unreaſonable much for ſuch Controverſie. There are three or four things more particularly I have obſerved in the Reading it.

In the firſt place I obſerve the Deſign which appears to be in hand. A deſign which ſeems ſpecious, being for Union: but that Union is of the Church of England with the Church of Rome, in the French and Caſſandrian way, not a Union of Proteſtant Diſſenters and the Conformiſts with one another. On the contrary, this Gentleman thus diſcourſes. The Chriſtian Church throughout the whole world is One. The Unity of this Church Catholick lies in One Communion. This Communion is exerciſed in Particular Churches. There are no true Particular Churches of Chriſts Inſtitution, and parts of that Catholick, but they muſt have Biſhops. Every man conſequently that is not in Communion with his Biſhop, is out of the true Catholick Church which conſiſts of ſuch parts, and ſo not only a Schiſmatick, but cut off from Salvation. Either this Author now is aware of this Doctrine or not: If not, as ſoon as he comes to be, he will be aſhamed of it: if he already be, he may be aſhamed to own ſuch Doctrine as this is.

p. 141In the next place I obſerve a little, how conſiſtent he is in this Doctrine. For when he hath beſtowed a whole Chapter (p. 164.) to tell us that the Unity of the Univerſal Chriſtian Church conſiſts in one Communion, and deſcends to explain that Communion by a Communication of the ſame Divine Service (for when Dr. Owen is ſpeaking of a Communion between the Churches in Faith and Love, He ought to have added (ſays he) in Religious Worſhip, for without this there is no Chriſtian Communion, (p, 446.) which he alſo urges ſo far as to make a forſaking Communion with the Church of England to be a cutting a man quite off from the Church of Chriſt; and yet if you turn to p. 305. you ſhall find theſe words. The Nature and Eſſence of the Church does not conſiſt in Religious Aſſemblies— but it is a Covenant Relation to Chriſt which Conſtitutes the Church. Here then we have ſounder Doctrine, for theſe two are different things. If an entring into Covenant with Chriſt is that really which Conſtitues a man a member, and unites him to the Body, then is it not this One Communion wherein the Unity of that Body does conſiſt. A man may give himſelf up to Chriſt I hope, who yet does not, and cannot communicate with the Church of England, and though he own not the Biſhops, may be a Chriſtian for all that.

In the third place I obſerve this, that when he hath ſaid ſome things well about the Text which the Doctor choſe for his Sermon (p. 447, 448.) yet is he very unſatisfactory in bringing off the Doctor, or vindicating his judgment in his choice of it for his purpoſe. There were ſome in the Apoſtles time that thought the Jewiſh Law ſtill obligatory, and that they ſhould ſin againſt God if they did not keep it: and there were others underſtood the liberty they had from it by the Goſpel. The firſt of theſe are called the weak brother, the laſt the perfect. The advice the Apoſtles gives to the perfect is to uſe and enjoy that liberty which the Goſpel brought them: The advice he gives the weak, is to wait till God ſhould reveal to them the knowledg of this liberty. And in the mean while that they ſhould forbear, ſeeing, To them who eſteem any thing to be ſin, it is ſin: and this he preſſes ſtill ſo far, and with ſuch exceeding caution that the ſtrong Chriſtian himſelf muſt refrain his liberty for their ſakes, in caſe that by his example he ſhall give them occaſion to doe the ſame thing, which in regard to their not yet ſufficiently informed p. 142formed conſciences would be ſin, and deſtroy their ſouls. This is the certain ſenſe and diffuſive doctrine of St. Paul in his Epiſtles. I will come then to the Doctors Text, Whereto we have attained let us walk by the ſame rule, let us mind the ſame thing, and I muſt ask his Defender whether the weak and perfect Chriſtian (as before explained) be here both included, I mean whether both of theſe are alike required in the Text to walk by the ſame rule? This Author does hold it, and he frames ſuch an interpretation of the words as he muſt hold it: but I deny it, and that interpretation therefore muſt be counterfeit. By walking by the ſame rule he underſtands the maintaining Church Communion, and this Communion with the Church he counts muſt be held, howſoever it be we differ. This is therefore a fictitious and certain falſe application or explication of the Text, for it is directly contrary to the ſcope of that Doctrine which I have but now delivered as the ſumme or ſubſtance of the Apoſtle in his Epiſtles altogether. I ſay alſo that this is manifeſtly here deſtitute of reaſon. The Apoſtle requires that all Chriſtians ſhould walk by the ſame rule in things whereto they have attained, Therefore they muſt walk by the ſame rule in things whereto they have not attained. Such is his force. This walking by the ſame rule I am perſwaded is a phraſe or expreſſion onelyonly, ſignifying the doing as others doe. Now becauſe they that had the knowledg of their liberty might doe as others did, and were to uſe it, muſt thoſe that had not that knowledg do ſo likewiſe? The contrary is apparent, for they ſhall ſin againſt their conſciences if they doe. The like caſe is here. The Conformiſt among us looks upon all and every of thoſe things that are injoyned about Uniformity in the Church to be lawfull, and he values himſelf for perfect in this diſcerning indifferent things, but the Nonconformiſt thinks theſe things unlawfull, and that he ſhall ſin if he yields to them, and what if herein he be weak, muſt the weak and perfect, muſt both theſe here now walk by the ſame rule, or do as one another do? Nay muſt there be a Rule made on purpoſe by Authority about theſe very things wherein the difference lies to force them to act both alike, when one of them (if they do) cannot poſſibly act in faith, and ſo muſt needs ſin? Nothing more contrary to what I have laid down, Nothing more contrary to the Doctrine of the Apoſtle. I will add, if by this Rule there be more meant then p. 143a Phraſe, and ſome Rule he will account there muſt be, I would fain know why this Rule ſhould be any other then that of the ſame Apoſtle otherwhere, As many as walk according to this rule, peace be upon them and the Iſrael of God. And what is that Rule, but Chriſtianity it ſelf, the great Rule of the Chriſtian Religion, or Doctrine of the Goſpel? And what then will follow from thence! The Doctor I remember reflects upon my Peaceable Deſign for being called an Anſwer to his Sermon: I will undertake now upon this Suppoſition, that, that Title was as fit for my Book, as this Text was for his Sermon. Becauſe we muſt walk according to the general rule of the Chriſtian Religion, in all things that are required of us, as we attain to the knowledg thereof, Therefore we muſt Conform to the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England. This is the Doctors Sermon upon that Text; and I will tell you the Inference now of his Defender upon that Sermon, Therefore muſt all that Conform not, in the excluding themſelves from Communion with the Church of England, be excluded alſo out of the Catholick Church, and conſequently out of the Kingdome of Heaven.

By the way, ſince I wrote this, I was reading Doctor Owen, and I find that he falls in with the laſt Interpretation of the Rule, and he hath theſe words upon it. Let the Apoſtles rule be produced (ſays he) with any probability of proof to be his, and we are ready to ſubſcribe and conform to it. To which Doctor Stillingfleet Replies, This is the Apoſtles rule, to go as far as they can, and if they can go no farther to ſit down, and not to break the peace of the Church. Unto this Dr. Owen Anſwers, The Apoſtles rule is not that we ſhould go as far as we can, but that ſo far as we have attained we muſt walk by the ſame rule. I interpoſe here and ſay to the Doctor, This is, this muſt be the rule of the Apoſtle, ſuppoſing that rule be meant as he underſtands it, that is, of the great rule of faith and love, or law of the Goſpel. For this is part of that Rule. It is part of that love we owe the Magiſtrate and our Conforming Brethren to go as far as we can, or to come as near as we can to them. But I anſwer then to the Dean, It is part alſo of the ſame Rule to go no farther then we can. Our duty of love requires the one: Our duty of faith requires the other. We may not doe any thing which we cannot doe in faith but we break the rule as it is the rule of faith, as well p. 144as if we do not doe what we can, we ſhall break the rule, as it is the rule of love. Whatſoever is not of faith is ſin. Now when the Dean hereupon goes on, and teaches us, that we muſt ſit down and not break the peace of the Church when we can go no farther, I Reply, there is a breaking the peace of the Church in his ſenſe, or in òurs. If we underſtand breaking the peace of the Church in his ſenſe, which is going from the Church to our Meetings, I ſay he is out, and that we muſt break the peace of the Church if this be the breaking it, for this is that which is required of us in that branch of the Rule, that we muſt go no farther then we can: But when we go to private Meetings and leave the Church in this caſe (where we ſuppoſe a man cannot act in faith, or with perſwaſion in his conſcience that it is lawful for him to go thither,) it is no breaking the peace of the Church in our ſenſe, but a part of our duty (wee ſay) of going no farther then we can. We go as far as we can with them in holding the ſame Doctrine and Sacraments, in acknowledging them as true Churches, maintaining a Communion in love with them, and doing all the good offices we can to them, and when we can go no farther, in this lyes our duty of going no farther then we can, that we meet for worſhip otherwhere. To aſſemble (I ſay) for worſhip is one part of the rule: Not to aſſemble, (but to forbear any thing,) when we cannot act in faith, is another part of the rule: Put them both together and it comes to this, that, To go to other meetings when we cannot go to Church muſt be walking by the rule (if this rule be the great rule of faith and of love) out of queſtion. This I ſpeak in the perſon of Doctor Owen, who can and do go to Church my ſelf: but there is one eminent thing ſaid by that eminent great man, and very much accompliſhed Doctor. We do and ſhall abide by this Principle (p. 250.) that Communion in faith and love with the adminiſtration of the ſame Sacraments is ſufficient to preſerve all Chriſtians from the guilt of Schiſm, though they cannot communicate together in ſome rites and rules of Worſhip and Order. If the Doctor makes good this, he does our work: and till the Dean debates this, he ſays nothing.

To return, I obſerve in the fourth place (for the Digreſſion it ſelf does but lead me hither) that this Authour does induſtriouſly endeavour to bring the Controverſie between Conformiſt p. 145and Nonconformiſt to this iſſue. If the Church requires of us any things as neceſſary to her Communion which are ſinful, the ſchiſm is on her part. If not, the ſchiſm is on ours. To what end he does this, unleſs there be ſome body elſe entertaining the task which the Doctor ought, I cannot tell: but if this be ſuppoſed the true caſe between us, then ſhould the buſineſs here that Doctor Stillingfleet had to doe, have been this, To ſee what things are alledged by the Nonconformiſts as Unlawful in the point of Conformity (whereof there was a taſt firſt in the Peaceable Deſign, and a fuller meaſure after in Mr. Baxters Plea) and then to have anſwered thoſe Allegations. If the Doctor was able ſincerely and ſubſtantially to have done this, then hath he declined his work: if indeed he cannot (at leaſt on the Miniſters part he cannot), then hath he yielded the Nonconformiſt his Cauſe. The Doctors Defender ſeeing this, does endeavour to ſupply his defect, and ſpeaks to many of theſe things: but I muſt tell him he has done it in ſuch an overly way, with ſuch miſrepreſentation of Mr. Baxter, ſuch incidental miſtakes, ſuch ſlight and perfunctory anſwers, that I do not apprehend he believes in his heart that what he hath ſaid can give ſatisfaction. I will content my ſelf with one inſtance to ſhew him this. It is in the matter of Aſſent and Conſent, to.all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the two Books of the Liturgy and Orders. 'Tis plain by theſe words, that whatſoever is Aſſerted in theſe Books we muſt give our aſſent to the truth of it, as whatſoever is preſcribed we muſt conſent to the uſe of it. How vaſt a Field then have we here for our Objections againſt this Declaration, and yet does this Author come off thus. We do not give our aſſent to every ſaying in the Common Prayer Book, but to every thing contained in and preſcribed by it, that is what we are bound to uſe, p. 105. And does this man now think indeed this enough to ſatisfie a Conſcientious man in any thing which he ſcruples upon this account? Is this diſtinction enough to ſalve the matter? We do not aſſent to the Sayings of the Book but to the Things? as if whatſoever is ſaid in the Book were not ſomething that is contained in it: Or as if there was nothing to be aſſented to as true, but what is preſcribed to be uſed. Good Lord! what Healers are we like to have of ſuch men as theſe be? They ſhould ſet themſelves to ſatisfie us, in ſuch Solutions of our Objections, as our Conſciences being convinced of the Solidity p. 146might acquieſs in them: but their care is only to ſatisfie themſelves, and no matter ſo long as they come off with any Evaſion.

In the laſt place, there remains ſome paſſages this Author hath here and there in his Book, and more induſtriouſly in his Preface, on ſet purpoſe to expoſe me, in an ill repreſenting ſome of my expreſſions, without regard to the matter between us, whether it be any thing or nothing; which though it can hardly be well (as to me) to aſperſe a man for the aſperſion ſake, (when as to Mr. Baxter it is (I Judge) even irreligiouſly ill) yet do I readily forgive it him, upon this double account. The one is, becauſe when I wrote theſe ſheets I think I was to blame, that having written them foul, I could not abide to be at the pains to write them over fair, (which yet I thought, to have done) and then I ſhould have caſtigated ſuch expreſſions, that now in his expoſing them again to me do not like me (ſome of them), as indeed not cautious enough for my ſelf, or reſpectful enough for the Doctor. I am ready to crave the Doctors pardon, which is my beſt ſatisfaction for that. The other is becauſe the Author does it out of reſpect to ſo worthy a perſon as him he vindicates (not out of malice to me), and one may think it but a friendly Office for him to do ſo: But I do think alſo that Dr. Stillingfleet himſelf ought not to paſs it ſo lightly, who hath the more cauſe to be aware of him, and to ſay the rather, Get thee behind me Sherlock, thou art one that wouldſt foment my pride, when others (I am to believe) have more honeſtly endeavoured to let me ſee it, that I may be humbled to God for it.

If it was meerly for peace ſake, and out of tenderneſs to the Nonconformiſts, ſeeking their good at his heart as in the ſight of God, that Dr. Stillingfleet Preached his Sermon, and writ his Book, the good Lord pardon every man that hath had but one hard thought, or ſpake one hard word of ſo good and learned a man: but if it was really otherwiſe, if it was to appear ſome body, to ſeek himſelf, and in lifting himſelf up againſt his Brethren without regard to the conſequence, the righteous God is ready to take the leaſt hurt he does them to be all one as done to himſelf, then the good Lord pardon him (for he hath ſinned much), and bring him to ſee (though at laſt) unto whom he is indeed more beholding (or from whom he is indeed like to receive moſt good), either him that licketh up his ſpittle, or him that hath rebuked his fault.

The Author of the Peaceable Deſign.