A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet, Letter 1

A Reply to the Defense of Dr Stillingfleet · Letter 1

p. 95Mr. PARK HURST,

HAVING information that you are Printing ſom Papers of others in Anſwer to the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet, I have thought fit upon advice to ſend you theſe three or four ſheets to put in, as one concern'd among the reſt.

The young Hero that hath written this Defence, hath treated his Antagoniſts with no leſs a ſupercilious contempt than the Dr.; but he hath not written his Book with the like judgment and ſenſe. I cannot ſay that he hath in any thing confuted them; but he doth groſly pervert their words, and give them a meaning which is contrary to their intention, and then drolls upon it, and mightily pleaſes himſelf in his Victory and Succeſs. And this he hath done almoſt throughout his Book.

He that reads the Book, and doth nor compare it with the Authors whom he pretends to Anſwer, may perhaps think there is ſomething in it: But if he ſhall diligently do this, he will alter his opinion. I will inſtance in one particular: Mr. Baxter, among other things, objects the renunciation of the Covenant for our ſelves and others, when we know not their ſenſe. Theſe laſt words he interprets of the Takers of that Covenant, when Mr. B. meant it of the Impoſers; and no wonder then if he makes fine work of it.

The Author of the Reflections hath reaſon to take notice of theſe his dealings in this kind; and I do foreſee how he is like to fare again; yet being one for whom I have ſo near a concern, I cannot refuſe a ſheet or two (having this intimation) in his behalf, eſpecially ſeeing he is a Son of the Church; and 'tis convenient his Brethren ſhould rightly underſtand him.

It is in the Preface I am engaged; and (p. 3.) thus he begins. p. 96The Countrey Conformiſt in his Reflections on Dr. Stilling fleet, endeavours to excuſe Mr. B. from intending the D. of St. Pauls, in that lewd character that he gave, of a m…ſt unskilful, proud, partial, obſtinate, impertinent Adverſary, by making it the deſcription of ſuch Subſtitutes as had neither the Candor nor. Learning of the Doctor.

He did ſo; and how doth this Gentleman prove that he endeavoured it to no purpoſe? Why even thus: However any impartial Reader will ſee cauſe to believe, that Mr. B. had the Dean in his eye, tho' he had not courage enough to apply every thing to him, but left his Readers to apply as much as they pleaſed.

To which I reply, There's no Impartial Reader can believe that Mr. B. intended the Dr. in that lewd Character, as he is pleaſed to call it; and it is a rare faculty this Author hath of miſrepreſenting the words of other men, and to put his ſenſe upon them as he liſts, and then brazen it out. I will add withall, that it ſeems a little ſtrange that Mr. B. that hath courage enough to libel Church and State, as this Author often ſays, and to caſt dirt upon the Church and Church-men, as 'tis in his next page, ſhould be afraid to apply to the Dr. any part of that Character which he thought did belong to him.

The Gentleman proceeds in the ſame page, But ſuppoſe he meant this of ſuch Subſtitutes as had neither the Candor nor Learning of the Dr. I reckon a man may fall many degrees ſhort of the Dr. and yet not deſerve ſuch a character, or be unworthy of Mr. B's notice.

Sir, the queſtion is not, Whether a perſon may not fall many degrees ſhort of the Dr. and yet not deſerve that Character; but whether a perſon may not fall ſo far beneath him, as to deſerve it, and yet officiouſly ſubſtitute himſelf in the place of the Learned Doctor; and whether ſuch an one may not be unworthy of Mr. B's notice?

Our Author adds, p. 4. As for the former (i. e. Candour) I confeſs a very great proportion of that is neceſſary for any man, that will treat Mr. B. with any tolerable Civility, when in all his late Writings he caſts ſo much dirt upon the Church and Churchmen: And this Author will not allow the Dean himſelf any great ſhare of that, though he has very ſparingly, conſidering the frequent provocations, p. 97and very decently and modeſtly, conſidering the occaſions he takes for it, rebuked that huſſing Diſputant.

To this I anſwer, That Mr. B. hath reproved the faults of Churchmen in words pretty plain and ſharp, I do eaſily acknowledge, (and ſo have ſome regular Sons of the Church done alſo; See Englands faithful Reprover and Monitor; and a Book called Ichabod.) But that he hath thrown dirt upon them, (unleſs ſpeaking truth be caſting dirt) I ſhall not eaſily grant; and I am of opinion, if this Author and ſome others had lived in the days of the old Prophets, yea and of the Son of God himſelf, and had heard their Sermons and Diſcourſes, they would have ſaid, That they Defamed the Governors of the Church, and Libelled the State.

That a great deal of candour is neceſſary for thoſe that will treat ſuch as reprove them with Civility, I do eaſily concede, yea and a great deal of Humility, Self-denial, Tenderneſs of Conſcience, and the fear of God too; But all this is no more than their Duty, and if they had any conſiderable meaſure or degree of theſe Virtues, they would find no great difficulty in treating ſuch as reprove them with Reſpect and Kindneſs.

As to what concerns the Learned Doctor, I have always eſteemed him, and do to this day, a perſon of Candour; but good men are ſometimes tranſported, and do ſuch things as are inconſiſtent with the habitual Temper and Conſtitution of their own Mindes: And I hope the excellent Dr. ſuffered ſome ſuch kind of Tranſport, when he replied to Mr. B. in his late Book.

That the Dr. did very ſparingly, decently and modeſtly rebuke Mr. B. which this Author calls a huſſing Diſputant, I ſhall grant alſo, if the Doctor's rebukes be compared with this Authors. For he hath obſerved no Laws of Modeſty, Decency or Decorum therein, but after a moſt profuſe and ſcornful manner hath reproached and deſpiſed him, to his own greater Infamy and Reproach. For Mr. B's Reputation for Learning and Judgment is too firmly eſtabliſhed in the minds of Impartial and Unbiaſſed men, that all that he can ſay to abate it, will be but throwing water on a rock, that will return and daſh himſelf.

In the ſame page he addes, As for the latter, (i. e. Learning) I acknowledg my ſelf ſuch a Subſtitute, as may not compare with the Doctor.

p. 98This I think (bating the Texts of Scripture which he quotes) is one of the trueſt paſſages in all his Book; and I have a Veneration for truth, and will not ſpeak any thing to the diſadvantage of it; but let the Author have the honour of having ſpoke it once at leaſt in a Book of ſix or ſeven hundred Pages.

Page the 5th he ſays, I ſhall begin with the Reflecter, who writes himſelf a Conformiſt Miniſter in the Country; and this is the only thing conſiderable in it, that it is the teſtimony of one of our own Church againſt the Dean of St. Pauls, and for his adverſaries: And for that reaſon Mr. B. at the end of his Anſwers refers his Readers to him, that thoſe may receive that from a Conformiſt, which he will not receive from ſuch an one as he.

And then he addes; But what is this to the purpoſe? If there be ſome ſuch Conformiſts among us now, as there were in 1643, who raiſed a Church-War, and then pulled down Church and State, to ſet up a Presbyterian Party? and ſuch a Conformiſt our Reflecter is, who vindicates Mr. B's Parochial Epiſcopacy, which is but a new name for Presbytery, as I have proved in the following Treatiſe.

To which I anſwer, I had thought our Author had begun with the Reflecter ſome time ſince; but peradventure what he hath hitherunto ſaid, hath been only like the ſlight velitations of the Avant-guards of an Army; he intends now to fall to down-right blows: Be it ſo, 'tis to be hoped the Reflecter may ſurvive his moſt powerful Impreſſions, and the rudeſt of his Aſſaults: For though he talks like one of the Sons of Anak, for ought that I can ſee, be performs as little, and ſomething leſs than other men, that do only but talk.

But to proceed to the matter; I will aſſure him, that the Countrey-Conformiſt gives no teſtimony againſt the Dean of St. Pauls, or for his Adverſaries, but out of the Love and Zeal that he hath for Peace. The Church of God in this Nation is broken into pieces, Ephraim is againſt Manaſſ…h, and Manaſſeh againſt Ephraim; and this I dare ſay is indeed matter of ſad Meditation (for I know him very well) to the Countrey-Conformiſt, who hath no other Controverſie with the Reverend and Learned Doctor, than on the behalf of Peace.

As to what our Author ſays concerning thoſe Conformiſts that raiſed a War in 1643. and pulled down Church and State p. 99to ſet up a Presbyterian parity, the Countrey Conformiſt hath nothing to ſay, unleſs it be to aſſure him, That as he had nothing to do in that, ſo he never intends to have any thing to do in another. He is no admirer of that which this Gentleman calls a Presbyterian Parity; he very well likes of Dicceſan Epiſcopacy, provided their Dioceſſes be no bigger than they were in the firſt two hundred years, yea, than they were in the third and fourth Centuries, in moſt parts of the Chriſtian world. Let us have but ſuch Churches and ſuch Biſhops, with Presbyters and Deacons, as were in the Churches of Corinth, J…r…lem, and Antioch, in the days of Clemens, James, and Ignatius, and the Countrey Conformiſt is ſatisfied, and ſo would Mr. B. and moſt Nonconformiſts in England beſides. Whether this kind of Epiſcopacy be a new name for Presbytery, and whether this Author have proved it, I leave to ſuch Readers to judg, as can conſider as well as read his Book.

But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Countrey Conformiſt is ſuch a one as thoſe that raiſed a Civil War ſome years ago, and pulled down Church and State to ſet up a Preſbytery? Can a man oppoſe nothing that is defended by ſome Church-men, but he muſt immediately be reported a ſecret Traytor or Rebel? Is this becoming Chriſtianity, or the Preachers of it? Do theſe men believe the Goſpel, that dare ſlander and traduce their brethren in ſuch a villanous manner? 'Tis a word I received from him, I hope he will take it agen. Tho' it ſhould be granted the Miter ſupports the Crown; yet ſurely the Errors and Vices of Church-men give no ſupport unto it; and I am of opinion, that a man may ſpeak for peace, and againſt the opinions and corruption of Churches and Churchmen, and yet be a very good ſubject to his Prince, notwithſtanding that perpetual buz of Rebellion that is ſuggeſted by ſome Huffs in the prejudice of ſuch men and their diſcourſes.

But why did I enquire how this Monſieur came to know that the Countrey Conformiſt was ſuch another as thoſe that raiſed the Rebellion in forty three? The nature of the aſſertion betrays the Author of the Information, and there needs no great skill in Magick to find him; yet leſt he ſhould be ignorant of him, I will be ſo kind as to tell his name, he is called Beclzebub the Father of lyes; and I hope when he writes agen, he will beware p. 100of him, and hold better correſpondencies for his information.

Pag. 7. he adds: Our Conformiſt doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can juſtifie our preſent Epiſcopacy; and then quotes his words as followeth: But the Dr. makes no queſtion but he ſhall confute this fanciful man, and make it appear, that our preſent Epiſcopacy (which Mr. B. oppoſes) is agreeable to the inſtitution of Chriſt, and the beſt and moſt flouriſhing Churches. And eaſily he may, if Mr. B. be ſuch a pitiful Antagoniſt.

But what is there in theſe words that ſavour of deriſion? I have read and conſidered them agen and agen, and I cannot find it by all the ſearch that I can make. The Learned Dr. had pitied Mr. B. and given ſufficient evidence of the mean opinion he had of his performances in his late Books, and particularly in his Treatiſe of Epiſcopacy; and is it to deride the Dean to ſay, he may eaſily confute ſo contemptible an Adverſary? This I confeſs I cannot underſtand.

And yet after all I am not ſatisfied, that the Learned Dr. or his Defender hath confuted what Mr. B. hath ſaid in prejudice to our preſent Dioceſan Epiſcopacy; he ſays that the enlargement of Dioceſſes hath varied the ſpecies of Epiſcopacy; and gives many arguments for the proof of it, which neither the Dr. nor this Gentleman hath attempted to anſwer.

I know the latter of them ſays, that the enlargement of Dioceſſes doth not vary the ſpecies of Biſhops; and that a great and a little King are ſpecifically the ſame Governours: But I can by no means believe this to be true of Biſhops, whatever it be of Kings: For the Dioceſs of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Biſhop of London, or Worceſter, or Lincoln; and yet I think they are Governours ſpecifically diſtinct, and I hope this Gentleman thinks ſo too. Yea, give me leave to ſuppoſe that there were but two Biſhops in England, there would be only a gradual difference in their Dioceſs, and yet I ſuſpect ſome men would think that the Government were ſpecifically altered; but let not our Author infer that this ſuppoſition is my deſire (for he is apt to pervert mens words), for I will aſſure him, that I do not deſire it, but would have many more Biſhops, not leſs.

In fine, 'tis my opinion, that the needs of the Church, and the abilities of Biſhops to perform the work of the Epiſcopal Office, p. 101ought to determine the extent of their Dioceſs. Let their Dioceſſes be as big as they can manage and no bugger, and if ſo, I am ſure they muſt be reduced to ſmaller limits than now they are. No Biſhop can diſcharge the proper work of his Office in a thouſand, or five hundred Pariſhes; nay, I will ſay, That there are many ſingle Pariſhes in England that will employ the moſt induſtrious Biſhops on earth.

If it be ſaid, that they do perform the proper work of their Office in many Pariſhes, I utterly deny it, that the work is not done, and thence proceeds the prophaneſs and wickedneſs of particular Churches; and thence follows the Schiſms, and Separations that have and do vex this Church at this day.

Pag. ib. Our Author proceeds: He pleads (i. e. the Countrey Conformiſt) for taking off the Impoſitions (in general without any limitation) to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church, which before he told us, were Subſcriptions, Declarations, &c. and ſome few Alterations beſides: That is, faith our Commentator, either a form of Prayer, or at leaſt our preſent Liturgy, Ceremonies, and Adminiſtration of religious Offices: Now he is an admirable Conformiſt indeed, who at once grants away the Epiſcopal Office, and inſtead of it, ſetteth up a Biſhop in every Pariſh; or either an Anti-Chriſtian Biſhop of Biſhops, or an Eccleſiaſtical Miniſter of State to head and govern them, and alters the whole frame of our Worſhip; and into the bargain leaves every man to do as he ſaith, and all this without injuring our preſent Conſtitution: Nay he concludes, That all thoſe that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with this Church, by continuing the Impoſitions, are Factors for the Pope.

In this paragraph are a great many falſhoods. He charges the Countrey Conformiſt with pleading for the Admiſſion of the Presbyterians into the Church, without any Impoſitions, Subſcriptions, or Declarations. This was very ill done of him, if it be true, which I do a little ſuſpect, becauſe this Gentleman is ſo apt to miſunderſtand, and miſrepreſent the words and meaning of his Adverſaries. The Country Conformiſt hath declared in ſeveral places of his Books, That he pleads the Cauſe of none but tolerable Diſſenters; and for the Admiſſion of none into the Church, but ſuch as can Officiate in our Parochial Aſſemblies; but how this difference can be made without Impoſitions, or Subſcriptions, is not imaginable: And therefore to ſay no more, p. 102I think this Author hath injur'd and wronged him, in this report of his judgment.

And wheras by thoſe few Alterations beſides, that the Country-Conformiſt ſpeaks of, he underſtands either a Form of Prayer, or the preſent Liturgy, Ceremonies, and Adminiſtration of Religious Offices, 'tis his own Comment, and he is not obliged to confute it. Yet thus much I will ſay on his behalf, that upon my knowledg, he is in his judgment for a Form of Prayer in Publique-Offices, and Adminiſtrations, and hath a very hearty eſteem for that of our Church; but I cannot ſay ſo of the Ceremonies; I think he might be eaſily perſwaded to part with them; and if ſome exceptionable paſſages in the Liturgy and Rubricks were altered, I believe he would make no oppoſition to it.

But he charges this admirable Conformiſt (as he is pleaſed to call him) with giving away at once the Epiſcopal Office, and inſtead of it ſets up a Biſhop in every Pariſh, and either an Antichriſtian Biſhop of Biſhops, or an Eccleſiaſtical Miniſter of State to govern them. How little there is of truth in this charge, may be collected from what I have ſaid already. The Conformiſt ſets up no more Biſhops than the neceſſities of the Church and the duty and work of the Epiſcopal-Office requires; and I underſtand not that this is giving away the Epiſcopal Office: And if this Author can free Metropolitan Biſhops from Antichriſtianiſm, which he ſays ſome do derive from the very days of the Apoſtles, and that not without ſome good appearance of Reaſon, I hope the Conformiſt will defend the Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum from that appellation.

As to what he ſays of an Eccleſiaſtical Miniſter of State, the Conformiſt hath no more to reply than this; He hopes this Gentleman will not plead an Exemption for the Clergy from under the Civil Magiſtrates Power and Government; and if this be granted, I know not what can be matter of Controverſie between him and this Author: For he ſuppoſes him to exerciſe no Power over the Biſhops, but what is inherent in the King, and in this Miniſter of State by Delegation; that is in few words, to ſee that they do their own Duty carefully, reprove their Negligence and Male-adminiſtrations, and preſerve peace among them. And what is there in this Doctrine that our p. 103Author ſhould take ſuch offence at, I am yet to ſeek.

He addes, And alters the whole frame of our Worſhip, leaves every man to do as he liſts, and all this without injury to our preſent Conſtitution. In theſe Lines, to ſpeak plainly, there is not one word of truth, as any man may eaſily collect from what I have ſaid already: And this Gentleman himſelf confeſſes in the next page, That the Conformiſt will not indeed allow of univerſal Toleration. How this can be reconciled with Leaving all men to do as they liſt, I am not able to tell.

That the Conformiſt ſaid, That thoſe that hinder the Union of Presbyterians with the Church of England, by continuing the Impoſitions, are Factors for the Pope, I do eaſily acknowledg, and I believe he is ſtill of the ſame minde; and as I remember he gave ſome Reaſons for it too, which this Gentleman takes, no notice of. When he confutes them, perhaps he may hear of a Vindication, if there be juſt reaſon for it.

Pag. the 8th he proceeds thus; He (i.e. the Conform.) pleads for the Indulgence of others, particularly the Independents, who, he ſays, will be content with their own Congregations, and is mightily taken with Mr. Humfreys Project, That the tolerated Churches (ſuch as Independents) be declared parts of the National Church, whereof the King to be the Head.

The Countrey-Conformiſt is ſo great a Lover of Peace, that I do eaſily ſuppoſe he might be pleaſed with Mr. H's Project, as he calls it; and I do aſſure him, that I my ſelf am much more pleaſed with it, ſince I read his Book, than I was before, though I had always a value for it: For I think the Deſign of uniting the Diſſenting Proteſtants in this Nation, is into one National Church, whereof the King to be the Head, more laudable than the deſign of uniting Proteſtants in a General Council, or in a Pope, Primate, or Metropolitan, which ſeems to be the deſign of our Author, though he hath not Courage, or Inſtruction enough as yet to ſpeak it out.

For he affirms, 1. That the Epiſcopal Office and Power is but one, and not reſident in the Biſhops of the Univerſal Church, p. 212. 2. That the Independency of Biſhops is inconſiſtent with Eccleſiaſtical Unity, p. 115. And 3. that although equals have no Authority over one the other, yet a Collegue hath Authority over any one of his Collegues, p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches p. 104are of Divine Right, though the ordering and determination of them be of Humane Prudence, p. 258. 5. That the Unity of the Church is as much of Divine Right, as any Form of Government in it; and that the whole Church may be divided into greater or leſſer parts, as may beſt ſerve the ends of Peace and Unity. And that it ſeems ſtrange to him, that a National or Patriarchal Church ſhould not be thought as much a Divine Inſtitution, as any particular Church, p. 259. And further he adds, When Chriſt and his Apoſtles have inſtituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches, and commanded them all to live in Unity, Peace, Communion, and amicable Correſpondency with each other, the Union and Combination of Churches into one, according to this Inſtitution, to ſerve the ends of Catholick Communion, muſt be thought as much a Divine Inſtitution, as the bounds of particular Churches. For if we will not allow thoſe Churches to be of Divine Inſtitution, which have Officers of Divine Appointment, and are formed according to the general Directions of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, ſo as may ſerve the ends of Church-Government, I know not where to find a Church of Divine Inſtitution in the world, pag. 259, 260.

Theſe are the words of our Author; from whence we may collect many things for our Information.

1. That the Biſhops of the Catholique Church are the regent part thereof, in the ſame ſenſe that the Biſhops of any National Church are the regent part of that Church: For although there be no Superiority among Biſhops, their Power and Office being the ſame; yet Independency among them being inconſiſtent with Eccleſiaſtical Unity, both in the National and in the Univerſal Church, they are bound to unite for the Government of both, and this by Divine Command, Authority and Obligation.

2. That whatſoever is determined by the Biſhops of the Catholick Church, doth oblige all particular Biſhops and all Chriſtians all the world over; provided they determine nothing contrary to the Word of God.

3. That whatever Biſhop ſhall refuſe their Canons and Determinations, and govern his particular Church by other Laws than they ſhall appoint, is a Schiſmatick, and they may Depoſe and Excommunicate him; yea, if a whole combination of Biſhops do refuſe to govern their National Church by their Laws, Appointments and Conſtitutions, they are all Schiſmaticks; and if the Nation refuſe to forſake ſuch Biſhops, p. 105they are all Schiſmaticks alſo, both they and their Biſhops are liable to the ſame Cenſure.

4. That the external Union of the Catholick Church conſiſts in their Union to and with the Biſhops thereof; that is, with a General Council. See pag. 595. where he makes Catholick Communion to conſiſt in two things;

1. In the Agreement and Concord of the Biſhops of the Catholick Church among themſelves.

2. In the Communion of particular Churches and Chriſtians with each other. And he adds, That Catholick Communion is no arbitrary thing, but eſſential to the Church; and whoever violates it by an unreaſonable Diſſent, he is a Schiſmatick whoever he be, and no Member of the Catholick Church, pag. 601.

5. That Metrapolitan & Patriarchal Churches are of Divine Appointment, as much as any other Churches, & muſt govern their Churches by ſuch Laws as are adviſed by a General Council, or by the Biſhops of the Church Univerſal; For although they be not founded on any expreſs Divine Law, yet they are warranted by our obligations to Catholick Unity, p. 293. And for my part, I am not able to ſee any reaſon, why the ſame obligations to Unity may not warrant one Papal Church, as well as three or four Patriarchal Churches in all the Chriſtian world. For the Papiſts think it the moſt effectual way to preſerve Unity, and for ought that I know they may think as wiſely as this Gentleman. I envy neither him nor them the pleaſure of their Dreams; but I hope there are but few Church-of-England-men that do think the ſame thoughts with him: theſe were the thoughts of Hugo Grotius, whom Biſhop Bramhal commends and defends: Unitas antiſtuis optimum eſt adverſus Schiſma remedium, quod & Chriſtus monſtravit, & Experientia comprobavit. Vid. Annot. In conſultat. de Religione, ad Art. Sept.

I have quoted the words of this Author, and I am not conſcious to my ſelf that I have perverted them, or made any ill deductions from them; and if it be his deſign to unite all Preteſtants in the Decrees of General Councils, and in the Intervals of Councils in the Pope, or three or four Patriarchs, who are to govern according to their Canons; I do aſſure him, that I prefer Mr. Humfry's deſign far before it: For I am of opinion, 'tis a more Chriſtian Deſign to untie Proteſtants together and among themſelves, than to unite them with the Papiſts. Mr. Humfry's Deſign I will tranſcribe from his Book, that thoſe p. 106that ſhall read theſe few Sheets, may compare it with that of our Author.

Archbiſhop Uſher hath left us his Model for an Accommodation: And it hath been upon the hearts generally of all moderate perſons, that a reduction of ſuch a Government into our Church, as was in the Primitive Times, (when there was a Conſeſſus Presbyterorum joyn'd with the Biſhop in all his Acts of Ordination and Juriſdiction) were the way, and only effectual way to our true Happineſs and Reformation. Unto which, if one thing more might be added, that is, If the Common-Prayer might be new caſt (it being fit that ſuch a veſſel for the Sanctuary ſhould be all of pure Gold) ſo as the whole of it were compoſed of Scripture-Phraſe altogether, leaving nothing at all liable any more to exception, unleſs the Impoſition of a Form only, (which I doubt not but is alſo juſtifiable by Scripture-Inſtances, as well as ſound Reaſon) it might go near to put an end to all Diſſention among the Sober and Peaceable of the Nation.

It is this I know is apt to recur into the Imaginations of good men; and foraſmuch as there was lately two Bills prepared for Comprehenſion (or Uniting the Pooteſtants), and for Indulgence (or repealing the Penal Statutes); I ſhall not, I hope, incur any blame, if I apprehend, that ſuch men who are moſt conſiderate and intent upon the Intereſt of God, in what they ſeek, do, or did look upon either of ſuch Bills, as no other than an Engliſh Interim, preparative to this higher Concord and Union of the Biſhop with his Presbyters, according to the Primitive Pattern mentioned, aſſoon as more mellow Opportunity, and well-adviſed Piety, ſhould adminiſter unto ſuch farther Per…ection.

Nevertheleſs, in regard there is no Uniting of a Nation can be ſuppoſed by any Model, but ſuch as is of Human Contrivance; and there are multitudes of Holy and Learned Men in this Kingdom, that do believe the way of their Gathered Congregations is after a higher Pattern than this of Primitive Epiſcopacy it ſelf, if there were any hope of the return of it; it is manifeſt that there is no Society, which is National in England, could be formed on theſe terms; becauſe theſe Congregational-men can never recede from that which is of Divine Appointment, p. 107for the ſake of any Antiquity whatſoever. They do hold Particular Churches to be of Chriſt's Inſtitution, and Dioceſan of Eccleſiaſtical Conſent only; and under the Notion of Divine Right, it is Sin to them to ſubmit to any Biſhop.

There is another Notion then that muſt be advanced to take in theſe good Men of This Way, as well as thoſe of the Parochial and Dioceſan Way, into one Political Body, for the making up the National Church of England, whereof the King is Head, as I have been ſpeaking; and that is, by an Act of Parliament Legitimating theſe Meetings of the Nonconformiſts, ſo as to become thereby immediately Parts of the Church, as National, no leſs than Parochial Aſſemblies. It was a good thing in the Houſe of Commons, that they were about to free many Innocent Men from the danger of the Penal Statutes; but the making ſuch Meetings to be Legal, is a Deſign of another Nature, of a far greater, nobler, and vaſt Importance. See page 28, 29, 30, 31. To which add what he ſays, pag. 36. 'If theſe Separate Aſſemblies were made Legal, the Schiſm preſently, in reference to the National Church, were at an end. Schiſm in a Separation from that Church, whereof we ought, or are bound to be Members: If the Supreme Authority then looſe our Obligation to the Pariſh-Meeting, ſo that we are bound no longer, the Iniquity upon that account is not to be found, and the Schiſm gone. It is one Act of Parliament would give a full Anſwer to all mens Arguments.

Mr. H.'s deſign may be eaſily gathered from theſe words, which I have thus largely tranſcribed; and ſhould our Superiors favour and promote it, it would reſtore peace and quiet to a Church and State almoſt broken to pieces by diviſions, animoſities, fears and jealouſies: By this means the ſons of the Church might enjoy their Dignities, Preferments and Livings, and believe their Government and Diſcipline to be of Divine right, and exerciſe it on all that are of the ſame apprehenſion and judgment: The Separate Congregations may enjoy their own opinions concerning their own Government and Churches; and all might live together in love, and every one ſit under his vine and fig-tree, and none make him afraid. A cloſer union I do eaſily grant were deſirable; but I am afraid this is all that is attainaable in this Nation, yea and in the Chriſtian world (whatever p. 108our Author may ſay to the contrary); and that thoſe that will have more, ſhall have leſs. 'Tis with Chriſtian Churches as 'tis with ſome weakly conſtituted bodies, if no violent remedies be uſed, they may drill out for many years; but if you will be tampering, and nothing will ſatisfie you but a perfect health, you will ſoon deſtroy them.

If Churches that have ſome defects may be endured, God may have ſome worſhip, and we may ſee ſome peace among Chriſtians; but if like Eccleſiaſtical Mountebanks we will be perpetually trying experiments upon ſickly and diſeaſed Churches, we may diſturb the peace of Chriſtians, deſtroy the Churches, and leave few to call upon the name of God in the world.

What I have diſcourſed, I think may with ſome probability be expected from Mr. H.'s deſign. But can we expect ſo much from the deſign of this Gentleman? Or is there the leaſt ſhadow for it? For my part I can ſee no ſuch thing; he muſt have better eyes, or worſe, than I have, that can ſee any advantage like to betide Proteſtants by uniting in a General Council, or in a Patriarch or Pope, ruling by the Canons thereof. And yet I think this is that our Author would be at. For he affirms, That it is not enough or ſufficient to Chriſtian Unity, that the Chriſtians of one Nation, or one Congregation be united among themſelves, unleſs they be united to the Catholique Church: For if there be but one Church, a whole Nation may be Schiſmatical, as well as ſingle perſons, &c. Well then, I am paſt all doubt that Proteſtants will never agree to the Canons of a General Council, nor to the Government of a Patriarch or Pope according to thoſe Canons, and then they are all Schiſmaticks; and if the Princes in whoſe Dominions they live, can be prevailed withal to do it, they are to be Proſcribed, Baniſhed, ſent to the Galleys and Mines, or be chaſtiſed at home by Axes and Halters: And I think this is a very pious and charitable Deſign, and becoming a Proteſtant Doctor, and Son of the Church of England!

But by the way, give me leave to add, that whereas this Gentleman hath undertaken to vindicate the Learned Dean of St. Pauls, from what Mr. Humfrey hath ſaid againſt him, concerning the Conſtitutive. Head of this National Church, I am ſhrewdly afraid that he has given up the Doctor's Cauſe, and left p. 109it to ſhift for it ſelf as well as it can, or rather aſſerted that of his Adverſary. The Doctor had ſaid, That we deny any need of a Conſtitutive Regent part, or one Formal Eccleſiaſtical Head as eſſential to a National Church. This Mr. H. confutes, and this Author affirms and defends, but grants a pars imperans & ſubdita, or a ruling and ruled part, p. 567. Church-Governours united, and governing by conſent, ſays he, are the governing part, Chriſtian people in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour, ſubmitting to ſuch Government, are the ruled part; and all this is true without a Conſtitutive Regent Head, pag. ibid.

This methinks looks ſtrange! That the Biſhops by conſent (which conſent they are obliged to by the Laws of Chriſt) ſhould be the pars imperans, and yet not the Conſtitutive Regent Head, is in my opinion a Paradox: For I would fain learn, what it is that makes a Conſtitutive Regent Head to any Body; Is it not Right and Obligation to Rule? Doth not this make Kings and Princes Conſtitutive Heads of their Principalities and Kingdoms? And doth not this make Ariſtocracies and Democracies the eſſential Regent part of thoſe Commonwealths over which they do preſide? Have the Biſhops of this Nation Right and Obligation to rule all the Chriſtian People in it? This I think our Author will grant: And how he will deny them to be the Conſtitutive Head of the National Church, with any conſiſtency of Reaſon, I do not yet underſtand.

This Gentleman indeed ſays, That though a National Church be one body, yet' tis not ſuch a body as he (Mr. B.) deſcribes, nor can be according to its Original Conſtitution, which differs from Secular Forms of Government, by that ancient Church-Canon of our Saviour, It ſhall not be ſo among you. And then adds, A National Church, as governed by conſent, may be one body in an Eccleſiaſtical, though not in a Civil Political ſenſe.

That it cannot be a Body, conſiſting of Head and Members in a Political ſenſe, according to Mr. B's. deſcription, I do not find proved by that Church-Canon of our Saviour.

That the Eccleſiaſtical and Civil Forms of Government do differ, I readily grant; but are there no other Differences but ſuch as are eſſential?

A Regent formal Head and Members, is of the eſſence of political bodies, and that is no body that is without them, whatever p. 110ever this Gentleman ſays to the contrary. Many other defects are conſiſtent with the being of Political bodies; but if they want a Head, they are no Body. The Church differs in many things from Civil Political bodies, and particularly in this, that it is not armed with civil power and juriſdiction, p. 566. by which I ſuppoſe this Author means Coercive power. But what then? Hath the Church no Conſtitutive Head, becauſe it hath no Coercive power? or becauſe it cannot impriſon, fine, and deſtroy its members? Maſters, and Parents, and Tutors, can't do theſe things, and yet moſt men think they are the Regent formal Heads of their Families, children and pupils. Well then, againſt that marvellous Oracle of our Author, That a National Church governed by conſent, may be a body in an Eccleſiaſtical, tho' not in a civil political ſenſe, (i. e. tho' it may be a Church, yet it cannot be a Commonwealth or Kingdom) I will advance this propoſition, That a National Church is a body in a political ſenſe, as well as in an Eccleſiaſtical, or elſe it is no body at all; and that according to his own doctrine. And if he will defend the Deans cauſe, he muſt write a book in his own confutation, which I think he ought to do in revenge on himſelf, that he hath hitherunto betrayed it, as the Dr. has the Church of England's.

Our Author, I remember, ſomewhere calls Mr. Humfrey Mr. Baxter's Eccho, when yet Mr. Humfrey's Anſwer to the Drs. Book, came out before Mr. Baxter's. When the Eccho now can be proved to go before the Voice, or the Voice to follow the Eccho, then ſhall the Deans determination of the queſtion between him and them concerning the Conſtitutive Head of the National Church, be held as unanſwerable as this Gentleman affirms it in one place, and as admirable as he cryes it up in another.

Having ſaid thus much on the behalf of Mr. H. I ſhall add a few lines more before I return to the vindication of the Countrey Conformiſt. The learned D. of St. Pauls had charged the Nonconformiſts with joining with the Papiſts for a general Toleration; and as a proof of what he affirmed, produces ſome few paſſages from a Book written, (tho' not printed) by Mr. H. in the year 1675. and reprinted with ſome alterations 1680. Mr. Humfrey gives the reaſons of thoſe alterations, but withal affirms p. 111that he altered not his opinion. At which our Author makes ſome exceptions (pag. 26. of his Preface), and ſeems to ſuſpect the truth of what Mr. H. had ſaid concerning the alteration of ſome lines in his Book, without altering his judgment in that caſe. Theſe are his words: He will not own that he hath altered his judgment in the ſecond Impreſſion of his book, from what it was in the firſt: but people know not mens judgments but by their words; and the words of his firſt and ſecond Edition contain a very different and contrary ſenſe, which ſhould ſuppoſe ſome alteration.

What a ſpiteful malignant inſinuation were this, if Mr. H. were not known to be one that does not lye! He perſiſts upon the words like toleration, which after Mr. H. hath explained, is nothing but cavil, and I need no more than to repeat Mr. H's own words for the reproof of this Gentleman, who would not have omitted theſe when he cites others, if he had dealt honeſtly by him.

The Dr. thinks or ſpeaks as if the Author (in reprinting the Book) had changed his opinion; wherein I account he is moſt of all out, and moſt to blame. He who drew up the Book, is not one of that humour, as to turn with the times, but rather againſt them. The opinion he offered in the year —75. is the ſame that he holds now in the year —80. Here is an alteration indeed, as to more words, or ſome other words, but the ſame opinion, or ſolution, with the difference only of a further explication of it, and nothing therein (beſides avoiding offence) intended. The Author had been wary in declaring the Toleration he propoſed, to be a limited one, and provided againſt the Jeſuit upon reaſon of State, and ſhewed his dread of Popery in dominion, but had omitted the diſtinction of a toleration, in regard to publick Aſſemblies, and the private exerciſe of a mans Religion. He explains himſelf therefore by way of ſupply, ſignifying that what he ſaid at firſt, ſhould be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papiſt only privately, as his meaning really was then, and is now but fuller expreſſed. This is the opinion he recedes not from (whether peculiar to himſelf, or not) that no man ſhould be perſecuted meerly for his conſcience, if there be no other reaſon. Whether he be a Diſſenter of one kind, or other, the common rule of Chriſtianity muſt be remembred (he ſays) ſtill, that we do p. 112by all men as we would be done by, and that with what meaſure we mete to others, it ſhall be meaſured to us again. Theſe words are in all the Impreſſions.

And to this purpoſe I cannot but note what I find in Mr. B's. 2 l Def. p. 16, who after he hath ſpoken of Mr. H. upon this account, as a man of known Latitude, and Univerſal Charity, and diſcountenancing Cruelty, adds concerning himſelf; And I ſo little fear the noiſe of the Cenſorious, that even now, while tht Plot doth render them moſt odious, I freely ſay; 1. That I would have Papiſts uſed like men, and no worſe than our own Defence requireth. 2. That I would have no man put to death for being a Prieſt. 3. I would not have them by any Law compelled to our Communion and Sacraments. Nor can a man think but the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls himſelf had alſo ſome Compaſſion, Pity and Kindneſs for them, when he condemns ſuch Heats, as tranſport men beyond the juſt bounds of Prudence, Decency and Humanity towards their greateſt Enemies, Pref. pag. 34. And whereas this Gentleman objects, That the alteration was not made in Mr. H's Book till five years after, I hope there is a good reaſon for it, becauſe it was ſo many years before the ſecond Impreſſion: and I know not by what means it could be altered till the Book was Printed a ſecond time.

I return now to the Countrey Conformiſt. The Doctor had ſaid in his Pref. pag. 78. upon the Principles of ſome of our Diſſenting Brethren, Let the Conſtitution be made never ſo eaſie to themſelves, yet others may make uſe of their grounds, and carry on their differences as high as ever. To which the Conformiſt had ſaid, There was no doubt but inſufferable Hereticks might pretend Conſcience and many other things for Indulgence, as well as modeſt and tolerable Diſſenters; but that he thought there was no reaſon that they ſhould have the ſame Conceſſions; and that he hoped our Governours would be able to diſtinguiſh between thoſe that erre in ſmall things, and thoſe that ſubvert the Chriſtian Religion. This Anſwer doth not ſatisfie our Author, who enquires, (pag. 8.) But in the mean time, how doth he anſwer the Deans Argument, that it is not the way to Peace, and Union, and to ſilence Differences?

If I ſhould reply to this Gentleman in other words, and give him another Anſwer, peradventure he may be unſatisfied, and p. 113ask the ſame Queſtion again: However I'll venture this once. Many of the Diſſenters from the Church of England are ſound in their Judgments, and agree with us in all the great Eſſentials of the Chriſtian Religion, and in moſt of the Integrals alſo; theſe would gladly incorporate with us, but that there are ſome Impoſitions that they cannot ſubmit unto; now certainly if theſe things which are the reaſon and cauſe of the Difference between them and their Brethren were removed, the difference were at an end. Others there are that are men of ſound Judgments in the main Articles of the Chriſtian Religion, but cannot incorporate with us in the National Church; if theſe were Legally indulged, they would be free from fear, their minds would be at reſt; amidſt variety of Judgments and Practices, we might live together in Love and Peace. And thus I think I have told this Gentleman, how many of our differences may be ended, and how thoſe that cannot be ended, may yet be laid to ſleep, and perſons made amicable and friendly. As for intolerable Hereticks, I ſhall not be their Patron, only I would have them uſed like men, and that nothing be done to them that is unworthy of the Chriſtian Religion, which is made up in great part of Love, Kindneſs and Compaſſion: And if thus much Union and Peace will not ſatisfie this Author, I ſuppoſe he may look for it in Heaven, but I doubt that he will hardly find it in this world. I am of opinion, that a ceſſation of Differences among Chriſtians and Churches, and a total ceſſation of ſin, will appear at the ſame inſtant. I do ſomtimes admire, that thoſe that never expect to ſee the one upon Earth, but are very calm and patient without it, ſhould ſo paſſionately deſire the other, that they can be content to move Heaven and Earth for the obtaining of it. What Seneca ſaid of particular perſons, I ſay of Churches, Optimus eſt qui minimis urgetur vitiis; He is the beſt man that hath leaſt faults, and there are none without them. Thoſe are the beſt Churches which have the leaſt of defects and imperfections; ſuch as are without fault are not to be found out of Heaven. And as among men, the ſtrong muſt bear the Infirmities of the weak; ſo among Churches, the ſtrongeſt and moſt perfect muſt bear the Weakneſs and Infirmities of thoſe that are more defective and imperfect. If our Author ſhould ſay, that thoſe that I plead for and call Churches, are no Churches, but acompany of Schiſmatical p. 114Conventicles; I anſwer, I am of opinion, that they are as truly Churches, and parts of this National Church (or may be eaſily ſo made) as the Churches of France, Holland, Geneva, Switzerland, &c. are of the Univerſal: But if our Author ſhall pleaſe to cut them off from the Catholique (as I think according to his own Doctrine he muſt do) I ſhall permit him the liberty (for I know not how to hinder it) to cut off theſe from the National Church, having no mind at this time to debate the Juſtice of his Sentence. Only I will beg leave to tell him, that I can by no means believe, that what he doth on Earth will be ratified in Heaven; or that God will damn all that he gives up to the Devil.

If what hath been ſaid doth not ſatisfie our Gentleman; give me leave to ſuppoſe him a Miniſter of the Reformed Church in France, be it at Charenton, Caen, Saumur, or where you pleaſe, and let me ſuppoſe that ſome Gentlemen of the Roman Catholick Religion addreſs themſelves to him after this manner: Sir, We pity your ſtate and condition, and have a kindneſs for you, (for though you be an Heretick, you are one of human race) the King our Maſter will have but one Religion in his Kingdom, and you muſt comply with him, or elſe you are undone; your Eſtate, your Liberty, and peradventure your Life muſt all be ſacrificed to him, for he is reſolved, and peremptory in that reſolution; all muſt ſerve God the ſame way, or they muſt bear the puniſhment of refuſing it: Here are the Subſcriptions that are made by the Catholick Clergy, do but ſet your hand to them, and you're ſafe, and may ſhare with them in the Preferments of the Church.

To this our Author anſwers; Gentlemen, I bear an honour to our Puiſſant and Invincible Monarch, and am very ready to obey all his juſt commands; but in this particular I pray you have me excuſed, God is a King ſuperiour to our Prince, and muſt be obeyed before him. I fear His Majeſties Diſpleaſure and Vengeance, but I am much more afraid of that, of God; the one may hang or break me upon the wheel, but the other will damn me for evermore. I beſeech you therefore interpoſe with his Majeſty on the behalf of me and my Brethren, that we may have the ſame liberty of worſhipping God, as for many years paſt we have enjoyed under him and his Royal Predeceſſors; p. 115We vow all Duty and Allegiance to his Perſon and Government; we will defend them with our Lives and Fortunes; and we have nothing ſo dear to us (unleſs it be our Conſciences) which we are not willing to ſacrifice for his juſt Honour and Advantage. The Subſcription you propoſe I cannot make, without the offence of God and my Conſcience: And I muſt beg his Majeſties Pardon, if I chuſe to obey the God of Heaven, before his Vicegerent here on earth.

The Catholick Gentlemen replies, His Majeſty is willing and reſolved to put an end to all Differences and Controverſies in Religion, he is weary of thoſe eternal Squabbles that are managed by Divines of different perſwaſions. The Temple of Janus ſhall be ſhut, he will have no more Religious Wars among his Subjects. To grant you the Liberty of ſerving God after your own Way, is not a method of ending Differences, but of perpetuating them: For when you are pleaſed, others may ſucceed to you, and under pretence of Conſcience carry on Differences as high as ever.

Let our Author anſwer the Argument of theſe Catholick Meſſieurs, and I do humbly conceive I may be able from his own words to anſwer that of the Doctor, if it be not ſufficiently done already: but let him not miſunderſtand or pervert my words. I do not affirm that the Impoſitions in the Church of England, and thoſe of the Church of Rome are equally wicked, burdenſome and offenſive; all that I ſay is, they are both unlawful in the judgment of thoſe that do refuſe them: and the Arguments againſt relaxing thoſe Impoſitions, or granting Liberty to thoſe that do refuſe them, are the ſame, and muſt receive the ſame Anſwers.

Pag. 9. The Conformiſt had ſaid, That he hoped our Governours would diſtinguiſh between thoſe that ſubvert the Chriſtian Faith, and thoſe that err in ſmall things. Our Gentleman anſwers: Thus our Governours have diſtinguiſhed already, and yet it hath not put an end to our Controverſies; nor is he (the Conformiſt) ſure that once more diſtinguiſhing will do it.

To which I reply, That when and where our Governours have made this diſtinction, I confeſs the Countrey Conformiſt is as ignorant as our Author will needs have him in the Conſtitution of our Church, p. 10. What particular perſons may have done, p. 116I do not enquire; but what the Governours of our Church have done. They have determined the conditions of Communion, and upon what terms the Clergy may miniſter at the Altar; but where by any publick act they have diſtinguiſhed between the great eſſentials of the Chriſtian Religion which muſt be believed, and leſſer errors that may be tolerated, I do not know, and cannot find. If this Gentleman thinks that all things impoſed as conditions of Communion either upon Laity or Clergy in England, are of the eſſence of Chriſtianity, and that all who have other apprehenſions concerning them, are damnable Hereticks, let him enjoy his Faith to himſelf, I am not like to become his proſelyte, nor I think many others.

P. 10. Our Author proceeds; Will not the excluded parties cry as loud for Liberty of Conſcience, and complain of perſecution, as they do now? Either theſe are good arguments, or they are not? If they be, they will hold good in all caſes, that men muſt not ſuffer for their conſciences, but be allowed the free exerciſe of their Religion according to their own perſuaſions. If they be not, let them leave off the pretences of ſcruples and tender conſciences, with that liberty and freedom in exerciſing their Religion which they challenge as their natural birthright, and demand no more of that, than what the merit of their Cauſe requires.

In this diſcourſe there are more ſtrange things than one.

1. He declares, that if thoſe arguments that are brought for free exerciſe of Religion, from ſcruple, and tenderneſs of Conſcience, be good, they muſt be good in all caſes. The meaning is this, One man doubts, whether it be lawful to uſe a Form of Prayer, another whether it be lawful to take the Sacrament kneeling, and the like. Now from theſe things therefore they plead for ſome condeſcentions. But no, ſaith our Author, if we humor and indulge you in this ſcruple, we muſt do the like by ſuch as doubt, whether Jeſus Chriſt be the Saviour of the world: for if the argument from ſcruple of Conſcience, be good in one caſe, 'tis good in all caſes.

2. He ſuppoſes their arguments may not be good; and what muſt they do then? Why, they muſt leave off their pretences of ſcruple, and demand no more than the merit of their Cauſe requires. But what is this? Doth their Cauſe deſerve ſome liberty and indulgence, tho' the reaſons they plead for it, be nothing worth? This I confeſs looks to me unaccountable. p. 117I have been always apt to think, that the merits of a Cauſe were neither more nor leſs than the reaſons that might be produced in favour of it. But cheer up Nonconformiſts, if you will but lay aſide all claim to indulgence, and ſay, you have no reaſon to claim any, you may have it.

Pag. lb. Our Gentleman proceeds. As for what he (the Countrey Conformiſt) adds about the difference between ſubverting Religion, and ſome ſmaller errors, as a juſt foundation for liberty, or reſtraint: Suppoſe our Governors ſhould think Schiſm as deſtructive to Religion, and the ſouls of men, as many hereſies are, it would be an unreaſonable thing to deſire them to eſtabliſh Schiſm by a Law; and yet if they did ſo, they would not be much miſtaken in it.

I anſwer: The Countrey Conformiſt did ſay, that the difference between ſubverting Religion, and ſome ſmaller errors, is a juſt foundation for liberty and reſtraint; and I know nothing this Author hath ſaid in prejudice thereunto. Either all men of differing judgments and apprehenſions muſt have liberty, or only ſome. If all, then is this Gentleman a greater Patron for liberty than I. If only ſome, then muſt they be diſtinguiſhed by the opinions in which they differ, which is that Aſſertion the Countrey Conformiſt lays down.

If it be ſaid, That no difference in opinions muſt be tolerated, then no man muſt be endured: for I much doubt whether there be any two men in the world that are in all things of the ſame mind; and ſo every man's hand will be againſt every man, and the Chriſtian world will be a field of blood.

As to what our Author ſays in the next paragraph, (p. 11, 12.) of the Countrey Conformiſt's Ignorance and Enmity to the Church, Partiality to Diſſenters, his charging the Dr. with haughtineſs, and apologizing for the rude and barbarous treating of an excellent perſon without provocation, I reply. The Countrey Conformiſt upon my knowledg is not ignorant of the Conſtitution of our Church; nor is he any Enemy to any thing in it, but its imperfections, and the pertinacity of thoſe Church-men that do in every thing defend it, and avow nothing in it needing Reformation. He hath no prejudice againſt the Dean, nor partiality for his Adverſaries, any further than he conceives the D.'s Adverſaries to have truth and right on their ſide, and him to be miſtaken. That the D. hath treated the Diſſenters ſeverely in his Sermon, p. 118and his Adverſaries with haughtineſs and contempt in his Book, is not only the opinion of the Countrey Conformiſt, but the ſorrow of many others who are no enemies to him. He hath made no Apology for any thing that is rude and barbarous in the D's Adverſaries (for where that is, he doth not find): He hath only endeavoured to put a true and candid interpretation upon what was otherwiſe liable to be miſunderſtood.

To the next paragraph (p. 13.) I ſhall need to ſay nothing, ſeeing the Gentleman does confeſs that the paſſage quoted by the Countrey Conformiſt out of the Dean's Sermon was ſharp. And foraſmuch as he is brought to this, I am not for that diverting entertainment he would give me, in the enquiry what uſage the Dr. hath met with (from Mr. B. Mr. A. Mr. H.) upon ſo little provocation, as he accounts. There is one paſſage only in reference to the Countrey Conformiſt's Apology for Mr. Baxter as to his way of writing, that I muſt not paſs over. If men (ſays he) revile and reproach without ſpite and anger, as much as other men can do with it; if a quick and earneſt temper of mind, and keen and pungent ſtile, make a man guilty of as unjuſt cenſures and opprobrious reflections as the moſt invenom'd ſpirit, what ſatisfaction is this to the injured perſon?

To which I reply: How a man can revile and reproach without ſpite or anger, I confeſs I cannot tell. Our Saviour ſays, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth ſpeaketh; but how a man may ſpeak plain Engliſh without either one or the other of theſe, and with no invenomed ſpirit at all, I can tell; and that is to ſpeak out of love and zeal to peace, and for the vindication of the innocent and depreſſed. And thus I hope have I, and Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Humfrey ſpoken, notwithſtanding the ſix next pages which are ſpent in expoſing ſome bare expreſſions of Mr. Humfrey (whom he hath alſo named, when he put not his name to his Book) without ſerving any end but the expoſing them, upon my ſaying that Mr. H. had done Mr. Baxter and the Dr. both right, in praiſing the one, and rebuking the other. Mr. H.'s rebukes (ſays he) I confeſs are plain, how modeſt let others judg by a peruſal of ſome of them.

Here he runs out ſix pages in citations. In anſwer to all which, I ſhall only make him this payment. He hath cited, I p. 119will recite Mr. H.'s expreſſions. He hath done nothing but cite them, to ſlur him: I ſhall need nothing but recite them for my own, and his full vindication.

The Doctor is one who may look on himſelf to have Abilities in ſome regard, which Mr. B. hath not: But if he ſhould really value himſelf with Mr. B. upon the account of a profound Divine, he is a man who muſt want that Modeſty in good earneſt, whereof he makes a ſhew in the beginning of his Book, upon a compariſon of his with Biſhop Jewell. The Doctor hath his excellencies other ways, but he hath not Mr. B's. The Doctor's Soul is made of Free-ſtone, you ſhall have from him poliſhed Learning. Mr. B's is made of Flint, you ſhall have from him acute Truth. Mr. B. (I will ſay) is one, like the man in the Neighbourhood who is firſt up, and all the Neighbours come for fire to his houſe; that is, a man indeed extraordinary. From whom the preſent Age do fetch Light, and unto whom the Ages to come will bring Honour. Above all, Mr. B. is a holy man, who will be for ever greater in his once refuſing a Biſhoprick, than the Doctor can be in getting one, if the preſent illmanaging this Cauſe doth not preclude his having any.

Theſe are ſome of Mr H's expreſſions, and of Mr. B's Character, and which in my opinion, are weighed as well as written. I ſhall only add on mine own part thoſe few words of the Apoſtle, This witneſs is true. And ſeeing I have quoted ſo much of that Learned mans words, in point of equal judging; I will not forbear the end of his Book, in point of upright dealing.

The Dr. had no need to lay out his parts upon ſuch a Deſign as that he hath under his hands; nor hath he reaſon to deſpiſe or ſcorn, no nor to ſlight or neglect the meaneſt perſon. For I muſt confeſs, 'tis matter of real offence to me, that a perſon who is ſo learned a man, ſo honoured a man throughout the Nation, ſhould prove a proud man, a diſdainful perſon; which temper if it be indulged, is ſo unendurable by God and man, that it will hurl any man into the duſt. And I cannot do any better ſervice in the earth to this otherwiſe very much worthy, and excellent Doctor, than to contribute the beſt I can to my utmoſt, for the bringing him to ſome ingenuous ſenſe and Amendment of it. Thou ſhalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart; but thou p. 120ſhalt in any wiſe rebuke him, and not ſuffer ſin upon him. Anſwer to Dr. Stillingfleet, ſo far as concerns the Peaceable Deſign.

I ſhould now follow our Author to p. 20. where he returns to the Countrey Conformiſt (and there were ſome ſheets done), but becauſe it is indeed but endleſs, and it will turn to no account, but to eaſe my ſelf, I deſiſt.

Exiſtimat ejus Majeſtas (Rex Jacobus) nullum ad in enndam Concordiam, breviorem fore viam, quam ſi diligenter ſeparentur neceſſaria a non neceſſariis, & ut de neceſſariis conveniat, omnis ope inſumatur: in non neceſſariis libertati Chriſtianae locus detur.

Ep. Cauſaboni ad Card Perroniam, p. 31.

Author of the Reflections. C. Conf.

THE END.