in Ministring to the Bishops and Priests and in doing their duty in the Church Hereby 't is apparent that Deacons as they were not by Office Preachers nor Dispensers of the Sacraments neither were they Governours of the Church The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops or Presbyters onely The which being so 't will as I humbly apprehend follow That Church Government according to Christs Institution was seated in those Particular Societies which were under the care and conduct of Bishops or Elders every such society call it Parochial or Congregational being a Compleat Gospel Church i.e. a Church whose Elders or Bishops have as Entire a power for the Exercise of Discipline in their Congregations as for the Dispensing the word or Administring the Sacraments This is not onely to be found in the Necessary Erudition but moreover there are Intimations enough in other Discourses published in Henry the Eights time to incline a Judicious mind to conclude That the Office of a Priest and Bishop is One and the same and consequently that Particular Parochial or Congregational Churches are of Divine Institution I have observed in the Sum of Christianity compos'd by Francis Lambert of Avynyon a Treatise Published An. 1536. That the Notion of the Sameness of the Order of a Bishop or Elder appeared in the world with some kind of boldness For although this Lambert in his Epistle to Sebastian Prince of Lausane doth assert That there be MANY Bishops of ONE City for saith he every City hath so many Bishops as it hath true Evangelists or Preachers For every Preacher of the Truth c. is a true Bishop although he be not call'd so of many Bishops be only Prophets of Truth and there should be so many Bishops as the multitude of People requireth Verily Every Parish ought to have its proper Bishop And in the Treatise it self chap. 5. In every City Town and Village there ought to be many Bishops i. e. Evangelists or Preachers after the quantity of places and multitude of people If many Parishes be so great that one Bishop is not sufficient for them let them be divided and to every part a Bishop assigned This and much more in Lambert Notwithstanding which this Treatise is published by Tristram Rewell and dedicated to Queen Anne wife of Henry the 8th A thing that would not have been done but that this Opinion was very common at that time and within seven years after declar'd to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinc'd out of the Necessary Erudition But 5. That the Superiority of one Bishop over another or of a Bishop over a Presbyter is of Humane not of Divine Right Diocesan Bishops Metropolitane or Patriarchal are not found in Sacred writings and concerning this the necessary Erudition is most express in these words And whereas we have thus summarily declar'd what is the Office and ministration which in Holy Scripture hath been committed to Bishops and Priests and in what things it consisteth as is before rehearsed lest peradventure it might be thought to some persons That such Authorities Powers and Jurisdictions as Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitanes now have or heretofore at any time have had Justly and Lawfully over other Bishops were given them by God in holy Scripture We think it expedient and necessary That all men should be advertis'd and taught That all such lawful Powers and Authorities of ANY one Bishop over another were and be given to them by the Consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of men ONELY AND NOT BY ANY ORDINANCE OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE And all other Power and Authority which and Bishop hath used or exercised over another which hath not been given to him by such consent and Ordinance of Men as is aforesaid is in very deed no LAWFULL POWER but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY So far the Christian Erudition From whence 't is manifest That according unto them Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right onely i. e. Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop or Presbyter is what the Scriptures do not direct unto and consequently 't is not of Divine Right neither is it any further Lawful than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 't is Exercis'd Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops as 't is Circa Sacra may be called Ecclesiastical yet if we consider its Origine and Source we shall find it to be but Civil seated primarily in the Civil Magistrate that 't is of an humane make and so far but no farther Lawful than as Sanction'd by the Laws of the Land Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God but unto our Civil Governours for their Being 't is on them their sole dependance is and on them they relie for the Continuance of their Power The King Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament can as they see cause make what Alterations they please in the Episcopal or Diocesan Government Though they cannot alter any Divine Law yet they can change any Law that receives its Being from themselves Though they cannot alter the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop which receives its Being from the Institution or Ordinance of Jesus Christ yet they may correct or amend any thing in the Humane viz. The Diocesane Constitution They can enlarge or narrow any Diocess yea pull down one and Erect another They can add unto or take from the Episcopal Jurisdiction as they judge Expedient That this was the sense of the Church of England in Henry the 8ths time yea and in most ages since an Episcopal Government has been established in this Kingdome and consequently the Antient Constitution of our Government is not only manifest from what hath been already taken out of the Necessary Erudition but from other passages that are in that excellent treatise and some other Considerations that I will insist on As First The Power that hath ever been acknowledged to be seated in the Kings of this Realm concerning the exempting any particular Churches from an Episcopal Jurisdiction evinces it If Episcopal Jurisdiction be of Divine Right it lies not in the power of any Prince to alter it If every Parish Presbyter is according to the Scriptures an Officer inferiour to some Diocesane Bishop the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man 'T was a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery That no Law of man can alter or disanul any Law of God If then our Princes ever thought themselves to have been invested with a Power of exempting any Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction 't is evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right But that our Princes judg'd themselves to have such a Power is notorious from the many Instances that can be given of their exercising it Whosoever consults the Learned Dr. Burnets History of the Refor part 1. lib. 3. will find That Ethelbert exempted a Monastry at Canterbury with some Churches
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 interpose 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 think 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 onely 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 Divine 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 onely 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
of Rome's Authority Upon which Submission of the Clergy the King gave unto the said Bishops the same ample Rule that before they had under the Pope over their Inferior Brethren saving that the same Rule was abridg'd by Statute by this Parenthesis following that is to say without offending the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm in the latter end of the Statute it was added That whosoever offendeth in any one part of that Statute and their Aiders Counsellers and Abetters they did all fall into the penalty of the Praemunire And after I had recited this Statute in the Parliament-House I declared that in King Henry the 8th's days after this there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Inferior Brethren And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions and it is true that the Bishops may Prescribe that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by and that in their own Names And yet they have none other Warrant to keep their Courts as they do now in their own Names to my knowledg And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days to keep their Courts by in the Kings Name Now it is a strange Allegation that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present to keep their Courts in their own Names as they do by Prescription because the Statute of 25. doth restrain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm And no man may justly keep a Court without out a special Warrant from the Crown of England as is aforesaid And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a Warrant by Statute to keep their Courts in the Queens Name as the Bishops did in King Edward's days in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm to be placed in the Two Universities for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Superior Rule in this behalf over his Inferior Brethren And the time hath been that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words but that he must have special words to carry the same by Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names by Prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren lately to be by Gods Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government If this be true then 't is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright where he saith in plain words by the name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is Gods own Institution which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly For Christ truly and plainly confesses John 18.36 That his Kingdom was not of this world and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles but the Heavenly Rule which was to Preach the Gospel saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world whosoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not believe shall be condemned Mar. 16.16 But the Bishops do cry out saying That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government c. So belike the Bishops care for no Government but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles but made them subject to the Rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes that they must rather obey God than men Act. 5.29 And yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the Cross and follow Christ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy c. But to return I would fain know why we may not think honourably of good beginnings even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present that whoever dissents from this must thereby cast a reproach on that Surely the Dean won't say so after so many Months consideration 6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on which will bring off the Dean without all doubt viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy But where lies the Difference What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy and that in Henry the 8ths time Is not the Episcopacy so far as 't is an Episcopacy the same What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution that differs from that Whence if that be Popish why may not this seeing 't is the same with that be in like manner so That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish Bishop Bramhall hath evinced in proving that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome In fine Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Maries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first entring the Throne Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is that though the Episcopacy as such is the same and the Persons in both may be the same yea and their Principles for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th King Edward the 6th Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same But 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 'T is 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 might 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 Materials forVnion WHereas there are three Parties of Protestants in the Nation the Episcopalian the Presbyterian and the Independent or Congregational-Men which are of diverse sorts who do and will ever differ in their Opinions about the Church and Discipline of it in the Question which is of Christ's Institution or Whether the One or the Other is most consonant to Scripture it is not our Disputes about the Church as Particular which are rather to be mutually forborn and every Party left herein to their own Perswasion but a Common Agreement in what we Can Agree and that is in the Church as National must Heal our Divisions It is here we must lay the Foundation-Stone of Vnion When the Parliament then shall set about this business to purpose A Bill should be brought in for Declaring the Constitution of Our Church of England A Parliament is the Representative of the whole People of England and I doubt not but by Consent and Agreement they might Make a New Constitution of the CHURCH as it is National and much more may they Declare the Constitution of it The Papists are for one Universal Organical Church throughout the world whereof the Pope is Head by Christ's Appintment and whosoever consequently is not of this Roman Catholick-Church and Governed by him must be damned There are some of our late Prelatists are for the same Church but under the Diocesan Bishops of the whole Earth who being Convened in a General Council are the Head that must give laws to it and whosoever refuse to be Govern'd by the Laws of these General Counsels are Schismaticks I am much rather therefore in my mind for the Notion which is that in the Embryo the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls seems to me to aim at if it could be once well
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 't is 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 I 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 and 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 will 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 ill-managing 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 't is 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 shalt 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 Mr. 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 For 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 onely 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 onely 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 wherein 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