AN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet's Book OF THE Unreasonableness OF SEPARATION, So far as it Concerns the Peaceable Design, With Some Animadversions upon the Debate between Him, and Mr. Baxter, concerning the National-Church, and the Head of it.  Against whom hast thou Exalted thy Voice, and Lifted up thine Eyes on High? 
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Three Bibles in Cheap side, near Mercers-Chappel.   

AN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet, etc.  
IN Dr. Stillingfleet's Book, there is one thing I meet with, that I perhaps can better tell how, than another, to Answer. It is in his Preface, where he is going about to make the Nonconformists a kind of Parties with the Papists, as if they were joining with them for the bringing in of Popery; and for the proof of this, he produces one Evidence. I will set down his own words, and Answer the Allegation.  
In Ann. Dom. 1675. there was a Book printed, Entitled, The Peaceable design, or an Account of the Nonconformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London. In it, an Objection is thus put: But what shall we say then to the Papists? His Answer is, The Papist, in our Account, is but one sort of Recusants, & the Conscientious & Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves, that likewise refuse to come to Common-Prayer. What is this but Joining for a Toleration of Popery? If this be not plain enough, these words follow; But as for the Common-Papist, who lives Innocently in his way, he is to Us as other Separatists; and so he comes under the like Toleration.  
This notable Book, with some few Additions & Alterations, hath been since Printed, & with great sincerity called, An Answer to my Sermon. And the Times being Changed since, the former passage is thus Altered: The Papists is one whose Worship to Us is Idolatry, and we cannot therefore allow them the Liberty of Public Assembling themselves as others of the Separation. Is it Idolatry, and not to be Tolerated in 1680? And was it Idolatry, & to be Tolerated in 1675? Or, Was it no Idolatry then, but is become so now, and intolerable Idolatry too? The latter passage hath these Alterations; Instead of He is to Us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration, These are put in, He is to Us (in regard of what he doth in private, in the matter of his God) as other who refuse to come to Common-Prayer. Now we see Toleration struck out for the Papists, but it was not only visible enough before, but that very book was Printed with a design to present it to the Parliament, which was the highest way of owning their Concurrence with the Papists for a general Toleration: And the true Reason of this Alteration is, that Then was Then, and Now is Now.  
For the Answering this Evidence. In the first place, this Book the Doctor mentions, was drawn up by One man (though put out by Others) and the first Mistake of the Doctor is, to lay a Charge on the Party of the Nonconformists, for a passage which indeed concerns but One person only.  
In the next place, the Reason of bringing that passage into the Book was, because the Objection is so Obvious it could not be Balked; and the Consequence appearing to the Author Undeniable, he thought it but Honest to yield it. The Doctor than is mistaken next, that believes (or pretends) the Reason of the bringing in that passage, was on purpose only to Favour, or fall In with the Papists. That which is said in Right to All, ought not to be interpreted in Favour to Any.  
In the Third place, for the Alteration mentioned, it is to be known, that when the Author had drew up this Book, he left it with a Nonconformist Doctor to show it to his Brethren; who returned it after a while, telling him, That they Disliked some passages in it; which made him put it into some other hands, who afterwards, while he was Absent, printed it. They altered nothing, but when it came out, the Author indeed found his Brethren Offended at some things, and that passage most obnoxious to Exception: so that he presenrly made his Emendations, and seeing the Book ill Printed, intended in time to have another Impression. Upon this, it appears the Doctor is again Mistaken, in regard to this Alteration which he Quotes, who judges the Reason of the Change, to be only because of the Times. The True Reason (says he) is, because Then was Then, and Now is Now. The True Reason, as if he knew it, when you see how perfectly he is out in his Confidence, as well as his Conjectures. The making the Emendations which he did, at the present Season, is a Demonstration. The Nonconformists are here Suspected or Impeached by this Doctor, for Favouring & joining with the Papists, because of a passage in that Book; when the very Reason of Altering that passage was, because of their presumed Finding Fault with it.  
In the Last place, we have here, not only a Mistake in the Doctor (which might be born) but an open Wrong or Injury, if it be not want of Consideration. The Doctor Thinks, or Speaks, as if the Author (in Reprinting the Book) had Changed his Opinion; wherein I count he most of all is 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 with what 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 farther Explication of it, and nothing else 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 showed his dread of Popery in Dominion, but had omitted the distinction of a toleration in regard to Public Assemblies, and the Private exercise of a Man's own 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 fullier expressed. This is the Opinion he recedes not from (whether peculiar to himself or not) that No Man should be persecuted merely for his Conscience, if there be no other Reason. Whether a Man be a Dissenter of one kind, or of another, The Common Rule of Christianty must be remembered (he says) still, that we do to all Men, as we would be done by, and that with what Measure we meet to others, it shall be met to us again. These Words remain in all the Impressions.  
And now for the Title, I have this also to Answer. The Book as it came out An. 75. was then gone, and now reprinted against the Parliament Sat; but they not Sitting, was laid by till the Doctor's Sermon coming out, it was thought Seasonable. The Doctor Charges the Nonconformists Meetings with Schism. This Book gives an account of their Meetings, and Vindicates them from Schism: and forasmuch, as something was Inserted in regard to the People (whom his Charge mainly concerns) when the Ministers only were Vindicated in the First Edition, and the first Sheet was new Printed over on purpose, and the Doctor named, it was sent out with this also in the Title. There was no Concealment that it was a former Book, it was still called The Peaceable Design, and said to be Renewed; but there was this Addition, and this Reason. And so I have given an Account of Doctor Stillingfleet's Book, so far as concerns that Author; and do not doubt, but the Doctor will have an Account also from others so far as it concerns them, in due Season. As Mr. Baxter, Mr. Alsop, Dr. Owen.  
And here I had thought to have given over, and got one of these Friends to have put so much for me in one of their Books: but when I remember there is a Postscript to the last Impression of the Book mentioned, and what there is said, and with what openness; I must needs say, that I did expect something from a Candid person, more like a Gentleman; that is, so much Ingenuity as to cover a Fault which was confessed, rather than expose it, if there were any: but I see there is nothing of this Nature, no such Ingenuity I thought, to be expected from the Doctor.  
I am sensible of his Spirit, and that temper I observe in him, from a few Words let out of his Soul here and there, in this Ironical Way of his, which is a sufficient Indication of what kind of Estimation he hath of himself, in his contempt of others. I will give one instance in a place somewhere, where he is speaking of Mr. Alsop. He begins his Sentence, This Learned Man, but before he ends it, he tells us of an Admirable Peice of his Reading: so that when I was thinking him to be in earnest, I find it only to disdain him. I do therefore hate such a counterfeit Epithet as this is, and these fleering Expressions. It is all one in good earnest, as if he should more at large speak thus to his Readers. Readers, you may perhaps think that Mr. Alsop is a Learned Man; but alas, What is he in comparison of me? I am the Man that have all Learning in me. 'Tis I have done such Feats, especially against the Papists. I am the Man that have Killed the Philistine.  
I forbear to mention a place where he Treats this same Worthy Man, after the rate, as if he were some Person distraught, which is a vile Abuse, but that is not the thing I Note.  
Another Instance I must not forbear, in regard to Mr. Baxter, and it is this, That when he at first names that Good Man, he tells us he Pities him. Mr. Baxter belike, is one scarce worthy of the Doctor's Conquest, but fit for his Compassion. And can the Doctor here be in good earnest? Mr. Baxter certainly is not an Enemy so Contemptible, nor the Doctor I hope quite so Elated, as he is Idle. The Doctor is one who may look on himself to have Abilities in some regard, which Mr. Baxter hath not; but if he should really value himself mith Mr. Baxter, upon the account of a Profound Divine (which one may think here he would be at), he is a Man who must want that Modesty in good Earnest, whereof he makes a Show in the Beginning of his Book, upon a Comparison of his with jewel.  
The Doctor hath Learning, and hath apt Words, and is a ready sufficient Man: but Mr. Baxter is really a Man Extraordinary, and whose Talents are of another sort, than the Doctors can reach unto. Mr. Baxter is one, I will say, like the Man in the Neighbourhood, who is first up, and all the Neighbours come for Fire to his House: that is, one from whom the present Age do fetch Light, and unto whom the Ages to come will bring Honour. Neither care I for any Bodies saying this is Odious, for the Old-Proverb shall not hinder me to end the Comparison. The Doctor is one as well as others who may be willing to Learn (or else I am sure be will have the more need to be Taught) of that Man whom he Pities.  
It is fit after I have said this, that I make it good. And there is a Dispute between these Two, concerning the National Church, will help me to do it. If there be a National Church, it must have a Head, a Constitutive-Head, says Mr. Baxter: and therefore asks the Doctor where the Constitutive Regent part of the Church of Eng- is to be placed? It is a matter of Polity the Doctor is put upon: The Question also seems something Perplexed, it may be on purpose to try the Doctor, but this we find, the Doctor is posed, that is flat, for he cannot Answer, but is driven to say there is no such Head, and that there is no need of any; which is the Absurdity unto which the Opponent would drive him. If ever any Boy in the higher Form at School, was posed by his Master, the Doctor here is posed, who is indeed in Mr. Baxter's Hands, no other but such a one, when he takes him on such a point, where his Books, and Polite Style do not serve him.  
That there is a Government in the Church of England, I hope the Doctor does not doubt, who pleads for Conformity to it. Where there is a Government established, there must be a Political Society; Every Political Body consists of a Pars Imperans & subdita. Does, or does not the Doctor know this? If the Church of England then be a Political Church, it must have a Regent part, and this Constitutive Regent part must be Assigned.  
The Doctor here is indeed something more Unfortunate in his Reading, than he uses, or else it need not be so hard for any, to find out, where the Head, or Regent part of every Political Society is, or must be placed, whether Mr. Baxter contradicts it or not. There are therefore certain Rights of Sovereignty, jura Magistatis (as Writers of Politics do call them) or Prerogatives, and where those Rights are invested, there the Headship must be placed. The chief of these Rights is Legislation. Wheresoever then the Power of giving Laws to any Society is found, there must this Constitutive Regent part, which Mr. Baxter inquires for; be Assigned. The Church of England, now we know, hath Her Laws: There are Laws Ecclesiastical, and these are called Canons, or Constitutions. We must then inquire where it is, the Power of Making these does lie. And here we find, that the Archbishop of the Province, with the Bishops and Clerks making up a Convocation, do frame these Canons.  
If the Doctor now could but prove, That the Hierarchy of the Church thus Congregated, were certainly of Divine Institution, so that there needed no other Authority, but of the Convocation only, for their Ratification; then could he perfectly assign to us such a Head as Mr. Baxter seeks. But forasmuch as there is no Authority in the Convocation when they have Composed their Canons, to Impose any of them upon the Church, or to oblige the Conscience of any by them, until they are ratifyed by the Authority of the King; it is manifest both that this Hierarchy of the Nation is but of Human Right, and that the King alone (the Power of Legislation, which proves it, lying only in him) is, and must be, the Head of the Church, in this Kingdom.  
And that this certainly is so, it is declared in the Statute of Henry the Eighth, That the King shall be taken for the only Supreme Head of the Church, called Ecclesia Anglicana. To understand this, The Church may be considered, we are to know, as Universal, and so is Christ the Head of it, and can only give Laws to it: Or as Particular, and so the Pastors are Heads, and Rule it: Or as National, (to wit, as it is according to the Statute Ecclesia Anglicana) and so the Magistrate is Head, and makes Laws for it.  
I will add; There is something Essential to the Church of Christ, and something Accidental. That there should be Persons, who Meet to Worship God and Christ, and be put in Order for it, is of Christ's Appointment, and Necessary to his Church. Of these Particular Persons and Churches, the Catholic Church consists. To be Particular then, or Universal, is of Essential Consideration to Christ's Church: But to be National, is of Accidental Consideration. That all the People of a Land should be Christian, and the Magistrate also, is (I say) an Accidental thing to the Church, which may Exist where that is not: Upon which account, though the Magistrate be none of Christ's proper Officers, yet may he be Head of his Church, and Constitutive Head of it, as undet his Dominions, because he is Head not in any Essential, but in this Accidental Consideration of it.  
I will now set down the Doctor's own Words. Pag. 301. We deny any Necessity of any such Constitutive Regent Part, or one Formal Ecclesiastical Head, as Essential to a National-Church. For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National-Church, as an Universal-Consent to make a Catholick-Church. In this Determination of the Point, when the Doctor denies any Necessity of such a Head, I hope, he is not so frivolous, as to believe One in this Nation, and not to tell it. So long as the Church of England is a Political Church, and hath a Government established, it must have its Regent Part, as well as the Part Ruled; and to deny the Necessity of One, is all one as to say there is None.  
I press the Doctor: Is it a Political-Church, or no? If it be, he must find it a Head: If it be not, than it is only a Community of Christians, amongst whom, it must be supposed, there is no Government (as yet) introduced; and then shall our Ecclesiastical Laws, Canons, and Constitutions, our Bishops and Arch-Bishops, with the whole. Constitution we have already, be hurled in the Dust. The Doctor will be a fine Champion for the Church, if he persists to say this.  
We deny any Necessity of any such Constitutive Regent Part, or one Formal Ecclesiastical Head, as Essential to a National-Church. The Doctor here, who is posed with the Question, is confounded with the Terms. He should distinguish between a He●d, and a Formal Ecclesiastical Head; a Regent Part, and an Ecclesiastical Regent Part; a Constitutive Regent Part, and a Formal Ecclesiastical Head of the Church of England. Though a National- Church hath no Ecclesiastical Head, it hath a Head, a Regent Part, a Constitutive Regent Part, under this Accidental Consideration of the Church as National, though not under the Essential Consideration of it as the Church of Christ.  
If the Doctor had light upon it in some of his Books, that the King of England represents Two Persons, an Ecclesiastical Person while He presides by His Authority in the Convocation, and so is Head of the Church; and a Civil Person, while He sits with the Parliament, and so is Head of the State, and upon the account of both, the Fountain of all Obligation upon the Subject, both from the Canons of the Church, and Statutes of the Realm, I cannot tell how he might have put Mr. Baxter to it: But so long as the King is not indeed both Supreme Magistrate, and Highpriest, as the Maccabees were, and neither of them think otherwise of the King, than Magistrate only, (that is, Supreme Coercive Governor) it is this which is here said, must be the Expedient to remove the Bone from between them.  
It is said in Scripture, That Kings and Queens shall be Nursing-fathers' and Nursing-mothers' to the Church. As they are Fathers, they are Heads: As Nursing-fathers', it shows their Power is not Internal to the Church, but External, as Divines speak, that is of another kind than that which is proper to Spiritual Fathers, the Pastors, or Christ's own Officers. The Authority of Kings over the Church, is Objective, (they say, Circa Sacra) not Formal: That is, it is Objectively Ecclesiastical, and Formally Civil. And as this is so, I apprehend in like manner, that the Society of Christians in a Nation (as the whole Nation are such) is Objectively a Church, and Formally a Kingdom, or Commonwealth of Christians; and so may the Christian Magistrate be the Constitutive Regent Part of it.  
Well! But what Argument hath the Doctor to prove that there is no necessity for a National Church, to have a Constitutive Head, essential to it; that is essential to it, not as the Church of Christ; but under a National Consideration? He hath no Argument, but brings another Instance, and that is of the Catholic Church visible, which he saith, hath no Head neither. The Doctor is miserably driven to the Wall, when he is driven hither. There was never any Protestant doubted, but that jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church; and if he be the Head of it as Universal, he must be the Head of it, whether Visible or Invisible. But Christ is not (says he) a Visible Head. Poor! If this were true, it is enough that he is the Head of those who are Visible: but yet he is out even in this, for though Christ be not Caput Visum, he is Caput Visibile. He is not seen on Earth, but he is seen in Heaven. Nay, he was seen on Earth by Paul and Stephen, and will Appear as he is at the Great Day.  
And what thinks the Doctor of Christ before his Ascension; was he Head then? Nay, did not Christ while upon Earth give Laws for his Church, appoint Officers, and Commission his Apostles to gather Christian Societies in the World? And is not his Government over them, a Visible Ecclesiastical Government, where the Officers are Visible, and the Members Visible; and is not he the Head then of the Church Visible? Are not making Laws, and Appointing Officers, the Rights of a Head?  
When that Article was put in the Creed, I Believe the Catholic Church; I would ask the Doctor, Whether this Distinction of Visible and Invisible was used in the World? And if it was not, when it arose, it could not take off any thing of Christ's Headship. When both Visible and Invisible were but one, he must be Head of both. Again, there are some Learned Men deny a Catholic Church Visible. The Doctor does hold it. And what if they should advance against him this Argument? If there be no Catholic Visible Head, there is no Catholic Church Visible. But there is no Catholic Visible Head. The Minor is the Doctors, and the Major is to be denied of no other but the Doctor.  
Let us proceed to the bottom. We have sounded the Doctor's Invention; let us try his Reason. There is no necessity of such a Head (says he) for a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church, as an Universal Consent to make a Catholic Church. This is the Doctor's Reason. It is Consent alone makes a Church or Society, though it hath no Head. The Consent of a Nation makes a National Church, the Consent of All Christians the Catholic Church, the Consent of a Particular Company, a Particular Church or Congregation. This is his bottom, and it is something, but exceeding rawly spoken.  
Let us understand therefore, where there is a company of Persons, who have no power one over another, that might receive mutual Advantage, if United to that end; such a Company are called a Community. If they agree together for the obtainment of that end, to come into an Order of Superiority and Inferiority, that makes it a Society, or Political Body. If the end be for that good which is only Temporal, it is called a Commonwealth: if for that which is Spiritual, it is a Church. The Doctor now is to be asked, What Consent it is that he means?  
If he means by his Consent, the Agreement which People make at first, when they enter into Society, it is true, that their Consent is the Foundation: but the Doctor here I hope does see that this Consent is for the having a Head, and Government, and the pitching upon the Sort, or Manner of the Government they would have; which Agreement is called the Constitution. It is not this Consent therefore the Doctor should mean, which is not also applicable to the Catholic Church (in which he Instances) whose Head and Government is not of Man's Election, but of the Will of God only.  
By the way for the National Church, It is true, that Particular Churches in a Nation, being of Divine Appointment, the Pastors or Ministers who have the Rule over their Flocks In Actu Primo, that is, the Right of Discipline and Censure, may agree to a delegating that power In Actu Secundo, or the Exercise of it (for Reasons of Prudence) to a Superintendent, called a Bishop, who shall be Supervised by an Archbishop; and that the Archbishop, Bishops, and Clerks, chosen out of themselves, met in a Convocation, shall have the Power of making Laws, or Canons, by which they will be Governed. Upon such a Consent, as this here appears a Political National Church in the Constitution, wherein is an Ecclesiastical Formal Constitutive Regent Part, or Head over an Organical Body for the Administration, and that founded upon the true Bottom, upon which all rightly constituted Societies do stand, the Agreement of the Community. The Regent Part here is placed not in One Person (which does not need) but in One Corporation, or United Assembly, whereof the Archbishop is but a chief part, as the Bishops are: and I would humbly ask Mr. Baxter what he thinks of it. For as for the Doctor, I think not him a Competent Judge, not so much because he is not versed in that sort of Study, as the other is; but because of his departure from himself in the Prudentials of his Irenicum, and being thereby now engaged to maintain the Government of our Church to be of Divine Right, he must not receive this Notion, which, let it show him never so clear and firm a Ground to build the same upon, does make it of Human Institution.  
If by his consent, he means the consent of every Man in particular, to be of such a Church or Society, it is true that a Man's consent does make him a Member, so as without it he could be none: but the Church or Society, must be supposed to be Form before of the Ruling, and Ruled Part, and his Consent to be a Member, is a consent to be Ruled, and to own such a Head, as well as to enjoy the Benefits of such a Society. This Consent is the Condition upon which he hath right to be a Member, it is the Ratio Fundandi of his Membership, and the Condition upon which the Ruler hath Authority over him in particular (when we suppose he may otherwise be at his own choice): but if a Man shall fancy that this Consent does make a Church or Society, as the Form that Constitutes it, as they must do, who suppose a Society to be Made, Form, or Constituted, by this Consent without a Head, or the necessity of one; it is such a raw, injudicious, indigested Conception, as could have never once swum in the Thoughts of so Learned a Person, if he had a faculty for beating out a Notion, so good as he has for Books, and negligence toward others that endeavour it.  
It is true, there is no Political Society, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, but there must be Consent and Union; but it is not this Consent, and Union only makes it a Church or Commonwealth. A Vicinity may have Concord, nay a Herd; and there is Consent in a Society in Fieri, not yet Organised, or Unformed. There is something that gives the Name and Being, and makes a Society to be that which it is, in specie different from others, which is not I say Consent, but it is an Order of Superiority and Inferiority upon Consent, that does this; and that is all one, as to be the Form that Constitutes the Society: And Consequently, when I find the Doctor (being at last drawn to it) come to such a Determination as this about the Point, that There is no necessity of a Constitutive Head, because a National Consent makes a National Church, I must pronounce it such a grave Nothing, such a speaking Nothing with Gravity, and pretence of being Wiser too than his fellows, that if he do not come to be ashamed before Mr. Baxter has done with him, or has reason to be so, I will be exposed to shame myself for my speaking thus freely, plainly, and honestly, as another person perhaps would not do.  
The truth is, it is pity the Doctor did declare his Heart while he was Young against the Divine Right of Episcopacy, seeing he hath occasion now for another Opinion. Whether out of Prudence or Conscience, whether for want of more Light then, or more full Light now; it is God, and himself knows, and I Judge not. But I do perceive this, that it hath exposed him much, and that not only to such a saucy Man as Mr. Alsop, to style him This Weathercock: but to such a serious Man as Mr. Baxter; to drive him into such distress. For so long (I must still say) as the Doctor is engaged to hold the Government of Episcopacy, as it is exercised in the Church of England, to be of Divine Right; he must maintain also her proper Constituting Officers to be of Christ's appointment, and then find out a Constitutive Head of it, or he is gone. And seeing he cannot do this, but is forced to grant there is no such Head, and that there is no need of any, it is plain that his Cause is lost.  
I will sum up my Answer again. The Doctor's Determination is, We deny the necessity of any such Regent Part. For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church, as an Universal Consent to make a Catholic Church. It is well he says, As Sufficient, because, That may excuse him something, if neither of them be Sufficient, as it appears they are not without a Head. I have distinguished therefore two Consents. A Consent that goes to the Making a Society or Church; and a Consent for coming into the same, when it is Made. A Consent that goes to the Constitution, and a Consent, that goes to put a Man under the Administration. When the Doctor Argues from the Catholic, to a National Church; that, As an Universal Consent makes the Catholic Church: So a National Consent the National Church; he must not be understood to mean it of the Former Consent, because there is no such Consent as that imaginable, in regard to the Catholic Church. There can be no coming together possibly of the Community of the whole Christian World, to agree to such a Constitution. The Catholic Church is not made by the consent of men, but is of God's Ordination altogether. Nor can he be understood of the Latter consent, because a consent to be a Member of a Church or Society already Made, is not that consent which goes to the Making it.  
A consent to be a Christian, or of the Church Catholic, is to consent to have Christ for my Lord and Head. But how a consent to have Christ for ones Head, should prove that Consent makes a Church without a Head, is a reasoning I am yet to understand. For the former consent, there is here none of it: And from the latter, there can be no Argument.  
Again, The Catholic Church Visible in its Nature, can never be Organical. It hath a Head, and all the Particular Churches in the Earth, are the parts of it. Nay, there were at first, Universal Officers, gifted with proper Gifts, as the Gifts of Tongues, suitable to such an Office: But these were only to gather Particular Churches throughout the World; and it never was the design of the Head, that there should be a Form of Polity introduced into an Ecumenical Society, that by the Organs of Bishops, Arch-Bishops, Patriarches, General Councils, and a Pope, a Catholic Visible Government should be Administered so, as to make the whole Earth a Political Church. And consequently, the Doctors Arguing from the Catholic to a National Church, cannot be good. Not only because there is no such Constitution as this by consent imaginable (which I shall say principally) as to the Catholic Church (The True Head of this Church being not chosen by Man's consent, and the False Head, I hope, we are never like to choose): But because, upon supposition that the Doctor's Consent (some way or other as he means) did make it, he must suppose this Universal Church, as such, to be on Earth, a complete Organised Body, or he must make the National Church an In-organical Body; and by either way he drops his Cause.  
I do now wonder therefore at the Doctor, what these first Apprehensions of something indeed, he knew not what, in his mind, should mean. How a man, whose Parts are so great, should be so slender in his Reasonings; and why he should undertake the Resolution of such a Point, as he is no body at, at all.  
The Doctor certainly has no reason therefore, to insult over any body, or contemn any, and much less to Pity Mr. Baxter; which Pity, by interpretation, is 'Slight. Mr. Baxter is a man that is not to be Pitied, nor indeed to be Envied; for we usually done't aspire to be equal to Singular persons. The Doctor has his Excellencies other ways, but he hath not Mr. Baxter's. The Doctor's Soul is made of Freestone, you shall have from him Polished Learning; Mr. Baxter's is made of Flint, you shall have from him Acute Truth. It is the Flint, not the Freestone, that strikes Light. A quick Apprehension; a d●ep Judgement, a vast Invention; Exquisite Notion. A Pen consequently, that is but turning the cock, and it will run at any time a Sermon full, or a Book full, as he hath Occasion. There is a Book I understand, of his now sending out, which hath been many a year in Study (He is usually too sudden); it is a Methodical system of Divinity, fit for Students at the University. I believe, that many of our Episcopal-Divines will speak lightly of it, but not read it; For my part, through his having this one Chief Work, happily in Latin, I rejoice from my heart, that Foreign Divines who are not yet Prejudiced, as Ours are, will come to know him. Above all yet, Mr. Baxter is a Holy Man, who will be for ever greater in his own Refusing a Bishopric, than the Doctor can be in Getting one; if the present ill managing of this Cause does not preclude his having any.  
And now, I could not Answer it to myself, if I should leave this Discourse without returning to the Matter, to make some Improvement of it. From this piece of Doctrine then before (wherein I wonder how the Doctor should stumble so at noon day) that the Church of England is so far Erastian, that She will not admit of Two coordinate Powers with respect to the Church and the State of this Nation, but doth choose to Own and Acknowledge the KING to be the only Head of Both; we have a Door opened for Union, which hath hardly been thought on by any of those Pious and Learned men, whose Souls heretofore have so much breathed after it.  
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 in the Primitive Times (when there was a Consessus Presbyterorum joined 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 Dissension 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 Protestants), 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, as soon as more mellow opportunity, and well advised Piety, should administer unto such farther Perfection.  
Nevertheless, in regard there is no Uniting of a Nation, can be supposed by any Model, but such as is of H●man 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 itself, i● there were any hope of the return of it; it is manifest that there is no Society which is National in England, could be form on these terms, because these Congregational Men can never recede from that which is of Divine Appointment, for 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 the 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.  
The Nonconformist as well as Conformist, The Congregationalist as well as Presbyterian, do acknowledge the King's Supremacy, and can take the Oath. The one, as well as the other, therefore do own an External Regiment of the Magistrate over their Churches, so as to be punishable by him▪ for any neglect of the Gospel Order, which themselves profess; or for any Rules they make, or Things they do, which are repugnant to the Peace of the Kingdom.  
If it shall please the King consequently, to commit any part of that Authority of his, which he hath Circa Sacra, to be exercised by the Bishops, as Ecclesiastical Magistrates under him, they can submit to a Visitation under them, upon that account: though they acknowledge them not to be Christ's Officers, bearing, or having any Internal Church-Power from him, over them, or any other, but their own Charge.  
Upon which account it appears further, how the outward Dignity, and Grandeur of the Bishop need not be Diminished, but enhanced; and his Superintendency extended over the Congregational, as well as the Parochial Churches: Provided only, he will but keep within his Line; that is the Line of the King, and meddle not with Christ's Jurisdiction. Neither will they envy him his Barony, and sitting in the Parliament.  
And if it should seem farther good here to a Parliament in one and the same Act, that Legitimates such Meetings, to appoint that unto the two Clerks, which are Elected by the Ministers of every Diocese; there should be one more chose by the Congregationalists, likewise, for every Convocation; to join with them in Consultation, that such Canons, and such only may be framed, as tend to the propagation of Holiness and Peace, throughout all the Churches, as we●l Congregational as Parochial; who does not see, how by this means, one Organ more should be added to this great Political Society, for deriving an influence from this Head, to these Parts of the Body, as well as others, which now seem neglected, and to have no care taken of them.  
And this brings into my mind, a Text of the Apostle. God hath tempered the Body together, having given abundant Honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no Schism in the Body, but that the Members should have the same care of one another. From which Text (if I may go a little about, to come the nearer home) we may understand where the Core of that Evil we call Schism, does lie; and that is mainly in the Want of that Love, and that Care which the Members owe one to another. It will follow, that whosoever they be, whether Conformist or Nonconformist, who do care least for the Concord, and Edification of the whole Body; those are like to be found most Guilty of that Sin in the Sight of God.  
The Nonconformist Minister does often come to the Parish Church, but the Conformist Minister comes never to his Meeting; and, Which then of the Two, is the greater Separatist?  
The Meetings of the one, and of the other, as they are Particular Churches, are Churches of Christ, and Parts of the Universal, and so of Divine, through Quatenus Parochial, of Human Institution. They both agree in the same Doctrine, and the same Sacraments. They have one God, one Hope of our Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. They differ something indeed in Opinion about the Church, as to the external Constitution, and Discipline of it, and about some Rites and Practices, which makes them go into distinct Congregations. But is their going only to two Meetings enough to make Both, or Either of them, to be Guilty of this Sin of Schism?  
Separation I take it, in its self, simply considered, is neither Good nor Evil; and there must be something that makes such a Separation to be Sinful, or else it is not to be accounted Schism. If a Man shall Separate from the Parish Church, upon the persuasion that those Churches are no true Churches, I take such a Separation to be a high breach of Charity, which must therefore render it Sinful, and Consequently Schism. If any shall Separate out of Pride, Contention, or any the like Sinful Cause, or to any Sinful End, as Worldly Gain (for to some, Gain is Godliness), or Vain Glory: this will make such a Separation to be still Sinful, and so Schism.  
It were the part then of such a Convocation before mentioned, that is, of Ministers consisting of both sorts, to be sure to agree upon this, That, Neither Church (or any Members of Either) shall Unchurch one another: and, That no Man should depart from the One Church to the Other, but upon a sufficient peaceable Reason, under the pain of Ecclesiastical Censure.  
They should not permit any person unlearned, till come to very grave Years (which are past Heat and Ostentation) to Exercise in these Meetings: They should decree the Doors of such Meetings to be kept open, that the Magistrate may be secure against Sedition.  
They should determine many things of such a Nature; but especially, that when a Man hath his choice to be of what Congregation he will, in regard to Fixed Communion, as he finds it most conducive to his Soul's Edification; yet should he be allowed, and enjoined to come Occasionally also to the Parish▪ Meetings (so far as he can in point of Conscience), for the testifying his Union with the Body, as the Church is National in this Kingdom. And I would have persons likewise, who come for their Stated Worship to the Parish Church, to go sometimes to the Meetings also without scruple, by the way of Occasional Communion.  
I will here deliver my own Soul. I know that the Laws of the Magistrate that are Good, do Bind the Conscience: but there are two Cases that Lose a Man from Obedience. One is, When that which is Commanded, is against his Conscience: and the Other is, When that which is Commanded, is Superseded by a Duty of greater concernment. I cannot say for my part, that to go to Church, and hear Common-Prayer, is against my Conscience; though a thorough Conformity in all things, on the Minister's part, is like still to be so; seeing the Doctor himself does shrink from a Defence of the Lawfulness of That: but this I can say, that when it is my duty to go to Church, and my duty also to go Preach (supposing I am called to one of these Meetings), the leaving undone that Duty, which is the Less, for the doing the Other that can't be done otherwise, is no Sin, or Evil, as I am persuaded in my Judgement. And it is upon the Plea of the Greater Duty, that the Peaceable Design does stand.  
I know well how my Brethren state Their Case, They will have going to Their Meetings, to be for their Fixed Communion; and allow Occasional Communion with the Parish Church, to defend themselves from Schism: but I, for my part must confess, that I see not, and cannot see my Defence to be so Safe, unless I take the Parish Assembly (where I have convenience) for my Fixed Communion, and my Preaching in the Meetings, and the People's going to them, to be Occasional only, for our Greater or Farther Edification. The Doctor therefore should indeed have taken particular Notice of this, and Providing only against such Preaching to be at that time, when Public Authority requires the General Attendance otherwhere, he should, by giving an Approbation to such a State of Our Cause, have consulted his Own, both with more Judgement, and with more Moderation, then for aught I see he hath done, or was able to do.  
Indeed if the Scene were altered, I need not be so wary. If these Separate Assemblies were made Legal, the Schism presently, in reference to the National Church were at an End. Schism is a Separation from that Church, whereof we ought, or are bound to be Members: If the Supreme Authority then lose 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 men's Arguments.  
In the mean time, the Non-conformists I know, have other Pleas besides One for what they do. They think themselves bound in Conscience to Meet, and Preach, and account it Serving God, and Doing their Duty. The Doctor and others call it Sin and Wickedness. When I Hear such Sayings therefore, and Read such Books, I may still bear Reverence to the Persons, but I do not in my Heart, care one Penny for what they say; for, there is a Conscience within quite above such Words. They may cry, This is Schism; There never was such Horrible Schism, as this Practice, heard of, before in the Christian World says one very serious Author, whom I name not: but I am not moved for all that. I cannot think a Nonconformist Meeting such a Horrible Creature (considering how our case in England now stands) as these Churchmen generally would make it. The great Bear (I must count still) hath been lead so long about the Streets, that the very Children are no longer afraid of it.  
Not but I am sensible of the dangerous consequence into which our Divisions may bring us; but who can help it? Who is the Cause of them? Who is in Fault, is the Question. Who is it can Remedy these Terms imposed on us as necessary to Communion? The Nonconformist hath no Conscience of Sin upon him in the thing; and if he cannot have Peace with his Brethren of the Church, upon any terms but Full Conforming, it is God must be the Judge, and the Bishop and Presbyterian, the Doctor and Mr. Baxter, shall know which of them it is, that are to Blame at the Great Day. And wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?  
The Doctor had no Need to lay out his Parts upon such a Design as that he hath under his hands: Nor has he Reason (I must inculcate) to Despise or Scorn, no nor to 'Slight, or Neglect any body, though the Meanest person.  
There is a late Reverend Conformist (for so I take him to be) who in a certain Book, Entitled, Liberty of Conscience, in its order to Universal Peace, hath deserved better of us. I suppose (says he) there is a Society, or Societies of Christians, that hold Christ the Head, and the great points of Union; but refuse to join in such Opinion or Practice, as they conceive not Allowable by the Word of God; nor can they, that require their Compliance, pretend on their part, that the things are Absolute Necessary to make a Member of the Body of Christ: In this case, I say, he is only the Schismatic that hath not a Love, that hath no Sympathy with the Body; and therefore, if neither hath, they must be both Schismatics. I should not fill so much room with a Quotation, but that I am taken with the Genius of the Writer. He is a man quite Unknown to me, but he hath a fine Spirit, and his Book savours of it: That is, so Generous, so Candid, so Benign towards the Dissenters; as the temper is quite contrary, in the Authors, of the Friendly Debate, the Ecclesiastical Polity, and the Unreasonableness of Separation.  
I am concerned, I must needs say, that I put these three Names together; Not that the Authors of either of the first Books, are men of less bright Parts, or that the Books have less Excellency of their kind, in them, than the last, but because of the reason, why I do it. For I must confess, it is a matter of real Offence to me, that a man who is so Learned a man, so Honoured a man throughout the Nation, should prove a Proud man, a Disdainful, Contemptuous person; Which Temper, if it be Indulged, is so un-endurable by God and Man, that it will hurl any one into the dust: And I cannot do any better Service in the Earth to this otherwise very Worthy and Excellent Doctor, than to contribute the best I can to my utmost, for bringing him to some Ingenuous Sense and Amendment of it. And so I leave him to the World, to judge who is most fit to be Pitied, the Doctor himself, or Mr. Baxter. Thou shalt not Hate thy Brother in thy Heart, but thou shalt in any wife Rebuke him, and not suffer Sin upon him.  
THE END.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. Line 11. in some of the Copies the word Last is put for First. p. 26. l. 3. for shall read still. p. 27. l. 18. for own read once.