A REPLY TO THE DEFENCE OF Dr. Stillingfleet; BEING A Counter Plot for Union between the Protestants, in opposition to the Project of others for Conjunction with the Church of Rome.  
By the Authors 

Of the Modest and Peaceable Inquiry.  
Of the Reflections, (i.e.) the Country Confor.  
Of the Peaceable Design.    
Then Abner called to Joab and said, shall the sword devour for ever? Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? How long shall it be then ere thou bid the people return from following their Brethren.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercer's Chapel. 1681.   

To the Right Honourable THE EARL of HALLIFAX.  
May it please your Lordship.  
THE Design of these Papers being for the Glory of the King, and the Peace of the Church, we cannot think it dishonourable for any person of moderate Inclinations, and in a capacity to serve so good an end, to favour it. Your Lordship therefore being at present at the Helm in the Administration of the greatest Affairs, will not, as we hope, receive with any Disdain this our humble Dedication.  
Not that we concern your Lordship in our little Contests, as the Book is Controversal, for we know Themistocles cannot fiddle, but he can govern a State: but because the Thing Designed is so momentous, and concerns Statesmen, such as your Lordship is.  
We do intent, no further avocation of your Honour from your other Employment, than to look over only the Preface, and the last Half Sheet of the Book: wherein you will find a Foundation laid, and Materials made ready. There is wanting only the Perfecting skill of some Master builder, and then Hands to work.  
We are sensible of the Meanness of such an Offering to so great and judicious a Person; and being conscious that the blame which we deserve upon that account is too much for One, there are Two of us to bear it.  
Your Lordship's humble Servants John Humphrey, Stephen Lob.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT hath pleased God, that the hearts of most men at this present juncture (or at least their faces) are set upon Union of the Protestants; and it is absolutely necessary that somewhat be done in order to a firm and lasting one among us. Upon this point on all hands we seem to be agreed, We must Unite or we must be undone: but as for the means of obtaining this end, the differences are many.  
Some among the Conformists seem to propose an Execution of the Penal Laws, as a sure way of Uniting us: Others (as this Author of Dean Stillingfleets Defence, etc.) insist on a Submission to the Bishops of the Universal Church to be the only foundation of Unity in the Church. The Dissenters differ from such as are of these Opinions, and in the general assert, That if ever an Union be obtained, it must be by an Insisting only on a Few, Certain, Necessary things as terms of Communion. That the utmost severities of the Magistrate will rather, fill the minds of the Sufferers with Prejudices, against the Dictates of those men whose most powerful Argument is the Sword, than enlighten their Judgements, or Dispose their Souls to any sincere Compliances; and that the Notion of our Author, to wit, the Defender of the Dean of Paul's, is Schismatical.  
Upon this account it is not a little time is spent in a Representing the several Notions there are about the methods of Uniting us to be Ineffectual, the one Party misliking the Proposals made by the Other. But surely this is not the way to heal our breaches, or put an end to the Warm and Indecent Contests, that have been among us. For which Reason, though my principal aim is for Union, yet will not I presume on any thing proposed by us. I will only acquaint the Reader with the Nature of the Ancient Constitution of our Government in Relation to Ecclesiastical Affairs, and thereby show what will most effectually conduce to Unite us in a way the least novel, and most consistent with our Civil Establishment.  
The which I can no sooner compass, but I shall be capacitated to demonstrate to the World, That the Principles of the Dissenter are very much adapted for concord, not only among themselves, but with the moderate Episcoparians, and very advantageous to the State in which they live.  
The Ancient Constitution of our Government about Matters Ecclesiastical, is very excellently described in the Necessary Doctrine, and Erudition of a Christian man composed by several Bishops, and other great Doctors, and approved by Authority in the days of Henry the 8th.  
In this Judicious Tractate 'tis manifest  
1. That Church Government is Jure Divino.  
2. That to the Constituting such a Church Government those Church Officers only are necessary who are mentioned in the New Testament.  
3. That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church Officers, but Priests, and Deacons. That no other Government is of Divine Right, but what is under the Conduct of Bishops, or Priests, i. e. Elders, is evident, in that the New Testament mentioneth no other Governors, as Ecclesiastical, but the Bishops, or Elders; whence, that Government, whose Constitution is such, as that it becomes a Government on no other account, than that the Governors are of humane make, that Government cannot, formally considered, be of Divine Right, 'tis but Humane, though circa Sacra.  
4. That Bishops, or Priests, the sole Governors of the Church are of one, and the same Order, their Power the same, their work the same, which is to preach the Word, Administer Sacraments, and Exercise Discipline  
All this I collect from what is asserted in the aforesaid Necessary Erudition about the Sacrament of Orders, where 'tis said, That Bishops, or Priests, and Deacons are the only Orders mentioned in the New Testament. And of these two ORDERS only, that is to say, Priests, and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention. That all others were afterward added by the Church. That the Duty, and Office of the Bishop, Priest, [or Elder] consisteth in true Preaching and Teaching the word of God unto the People, in Dispensing, and Ministering the Sacraments of Christ; in Losing, and Assoiling from sin, such persons as be sorry and truly Penitent for the same, and EXCOMMUNICATING such, as BE GUILTY IN MANIFEST CRIMES, and WILL NOT BE REFORM OTHERWISE, and finally, in Praying for the Whole Church of Christ, and specially for the flock, committed unto 'em.  
Thus the Order of a Bishop, or Priest is one and the same; whose Office is, not only to Preach, and Administer Sacraments, but moreover to exercise Discipline, namely in Losing, and Assoiling from sin, such persons as be sorry, and truly Penitent, and in Excommunicating the Obstinately Vicious, As much as if it had been said, that Church Government, and the Office of a Bishop, or Elder, is of Divine Right.  
The Office of the Deacons in the Primitive Church was partly in Ministering Meat, and Drink, and other Necessaries to the poor people found of the Church, partly also in Ministering to the Bishops, and Priests, and in doing their duty in the Church.  
Hereby 'tis apparent that Deacons, as they were not by Office Preachers, nor Dispenser's of the Sacraments, neither were they Governors of the Church. The Government of the Church being committed unto the Bishops, or Presbyters only. The which being so, 'twill as I humbly apprehend, follow, That Church Government, according to Christ's 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 Complete 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 Administering the Sacraments. This is not only 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, composed 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, etc. is a true Bishop, although he be not called 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 itself, 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 declared to be the sense of the Church of England as I have evinced 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, Metropolitan, 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 declared 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 Patriarches, Primates, Archbishops, and metropolitans 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 advertised, 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 ONLY, 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 LAWFUL POWER, but PLAIN USURPATION AND TYRANNY. So far the Christian Erudition. From whence 'tis manifest, That according unto them, Diocesan Episcopacy is of Humane Right only (i. e.) Any one Bishops Ruling over another Bishop, or Presbyter, is what the Scriptures do not direct unto, and consequently 'tis not of Divine Right, neither is it any further Lawful, than according unto the Laws of the Land in which 'tis Exercised.  
Though the Power of Diocesane Bishops, as 'tis 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 'tis of an humane make, and so far, but no farther Lawful, than as Sanctioned by the Laws of the Land. Diocesane Bishops as such are not immediately owing unto God, but unto our Civil Governors for their Being, 'tis on them their sole dependence is, and on them they rely 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 Diocese, 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 Kingdom, and consequently the Ancient 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 inferior to some Diocesane Bishop, the exempting such a Presbyter from Episcopal Jurisdiction is out of the power of any man. 'Twas a known Rule in our Land even in the days of Popery; That no Law of man can alter, or disannul 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, 'tis evident that they look not on that Jurisdiction to be of Divine Right.  
But that our Princes judged 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. Burnet's History of the Refor. part. 1. lib. 3. will find, That Ethelbert exempted a Monastery at Canterbury with some Churches belonging unto it from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop, and his Successors. King Ina's Charter to the Abbey of Glassenbury exemps them from the Bishop's Jurisdiction. The like did King Offa concerning the Monastery of St. Alban An. 793. Kenulph King of Mercia that at Abington Anno 821. and Knut, that at St. Edmundbury An. 1020. Yea and there are several places at this very time exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction.  
Whatever our Princes in after Ages might lose as to the Exercise of their just Power, 'tis certain, that Henry 8th. reassumed it, as appears by his dismembering some Dioceses, and by his removing some Churches from one Jurisdiction to another. For this Consult Dr. Burnet's History of Reformation, part 1. lib. 3. page 301. where you'll find the Complaint of the Roman party beyond the Sea concerning the King's encroaching on the Jurisdiction of the Church, etc.— to which 'twas answered, That the Division of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whether of Patriarches, Primates, metropolitans, or Bishops was according to the Roman Law Regulated by the Emperors, Of which the Ancient Councils always approved. And in England when the Bishopric of Lincoln, being judged of too great an extent, the Bishopric of Ely was taken out of it, it was done only by the King, with the consent of his Clergy, and Nobles.  
'Tis also evident out of Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Ref. part 1. l. 3 p. 267. That this great Prince gave cut such a Commission to Bonner, and it may be to others also, as makes it most manifest, that Diocesan Bishops were not of God's, but only of the Magistrate's Institution. Hence Bonner in his Commission from the King most gratefully acknowledges that he received it only from the King's bounty, and must deliver it up again when it should please his Majesty to call for it, even as Justices of the Peace, etc. whose Commission is ad Pacitum. Moreover Laymen had Ecclesiastical Dignities. The E. of Hartford six prebend's promised him, as the Lord Cromwal in H. 8. was made Dean of Wells. A thing very ordinary at that time; Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Refor. part 2.  
Thus a Diocesane Episcopacy at best was judged but an humane Creature, owing to the Magistrate alone for its Rise, and Conservation.  
Secondly, This seems to be the sense of the Reformers in Edward the 6th. time who were under the Influence of that great Divine, and Blessed Martyr Archbishop Cranmer. In Henry 8th. days Cranmer did his Utmost for the promoting a Reformation, the which, he did withal the Speed and Prudence the Illness of the times would permit, further attempt to carry on under King Edward, and what he did, was so highly approved of by all, who were hearty for a Reformation, that whoever considers how Unanimous the truly Protestans Bishops were, in Concurring with this great Prelate Cranmer, cannot but incline to think, That their Principles in most things about Church Discipline were the same, (i. e.) they were for the Divine Right of Bishops or Presbyters, even when they judged the Superiority of a Bishop to a Presbyter to be but Humane.  
That this may appear to be the sense of Cranmer, I will only beseech my Reader to compare what was done under King Edw. 6th. by this great Prelate, with his Judgement concerning a Diocesan Episcopacy under Henry the 8th.  
In Henry 8ths. time Cranmer in answer to that Question, Whether Bishops, or Priests were first? did assert, That the Bishops, and Priest, were at one time, and were no two things, but both One Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion, That in the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a BISHOP or PRIEST, needeth no Cousecration by the Scripture, for ELECTION, or APPOINTING thereto is sufficient. This was then Cranmers' Judgement and I cannot understand that he did at any time in the least vary from it, for in the Necessary Erudition, which he subscribed, there is nothing asserted, but what is either Consistent with, or an approbation of what was the Archbishops: Opinion about these points.  
'Tis true Cranmer was so Zealous an Asserter to the King's Supremacy, that he seemed to be of that Opinion, which doth now appear by the name of Erastianisme, for he held, That a Bishop, or Priest by the Scripture is neither commanded, nor forbidden to Excommunicate, but, where the Laws of any Region give him Authority to Excommunicate, there he ought to use the same, etc. But from this he must be considered to have received, because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition, where 'tis expressed, That a part of the Priests or Bishop's Office is according to the Scriptures to Excommunicate, etc. as well as Teach, and Administer the Sacraments.  
To all this add the Progress Cranmer made under Edw. 6. in the Reformation, how far he went, and how much farther he would have gone, had not the Iniquity of those times been so exceeding great, and the Reign of this worthy Prince so very short. 'Tis well known that he went so far as to tempt Dr. Heylin to conclude King Edward's death no Infelicity to the Church of England, and to provoke Queen Elizabeth to say, That they had stripped the Church too much of its external Splendour and Magnificence, That 'twas requisite to make some alteration in the Articles to the end a Compliance of the Roman Catholics might be more easy. What I have insisted on in this place about Cranmer is taken out of Dr. Burnet's History, and a Record in him ex M.SS. D. Stillingfleet.  
3. Such is the present Prerogative of his Majesty in Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Affairs, that the asserting the Divine Right of a Diocesane Episcopacy is inconsistent with it.  
The King is the Supreme Head of the Church, as well as of the State; for which Reason, he hath Power to appoint Officers to look after the management of Affairs in the One, as in the Other: But if the Diocesan Bishops depend not so much on the Prince for their Superiority and Power in making an Authoritative Inspection into Ecclesiasticalal Affairs, as the Civil Magistrate; who is it that is his Majesty's Commissionated Officer about Ecclesiastical affairs? 'tis either the Diocesane or None. But if the Diocesane as such receives his Commission from Jesus Christ, even as the Apostles did, than they are Gods Officers, and not the Kings. And if so, seeing the King doth nothing but by his Officers, that is, by such as act by a Commission received from him, the King hath in this respect lost at least the Ezercise of his Prerogative. But if they are the King's Officers, and depend as much on the King as the Civil, than their Diocesan Episcopacy is not of Divine, 'tis but of Humane Right.  
We acknowledge that 'tis the sense of the Church of England, that Princes are Ordained of God to Govern Ecclesiastical, as well as other Persons: and that therefore, if we consider such as are appointed by the King to govern under him Circa Sacra, as the Officers of God Fundamentally, and not Formally, it may be granted. But when we speak of the Officers of Christ in Contradistinction to the Officers of the King, we mean such, whose Authority is from God, and remains good, though the Prince should oppose it, as in the case of the Primitive Officers of Divine Institution, who being forbidden to Preach in Christ's name, could reply, Whether we shall obey God or Man Judge ye. The Office of a Presbyter, or Congregational Bishop is so much of God, that what right soever the Magistrate may have concerning Nomination, Election, or Presentation, or Appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers, his Prohibition cannot make void that Commission he hath received from Jesus Christ. But such as are Officers of the King, whether about the matters of the Lord, or about the King (i. e.) whether Circa sacra, or about Civil Affairs, 'tis in the Power of the Supreme Magistrate to give or take his Commission, as it pleaseth him, yea to direct to the Number of such Officers, appointing them their peculiar work, and to alter and change as the necessity of Affairs, and State of the National Constitution shall require.  
There must be a regard had unto the present temper, and state of the Kingdom, in which the Church is, and a suiting the Ecclesiastical Affairs so far as they may have an influence on the State after such a manner, as is most conducive to the more firm establishment of the Fundamental Constitution, and consequently Peace of the State, to which end the Civil Magistrate must still firmly adhere to that known Rule by which King Henry professed to walk, which is expressed in the necessary Erudition, viz. The Scripture doth teach, That all Christian People, as well as Priests and Bishops, as all other should be obedient unto Princes, and Potestates of the World; For the Truth is, that God Constituted and Ordained the Authority of Christian Kings and Princes to be the most High, and Supreme above all other Powers, and Officers in this World, in the Regiment and Government of their People, and committed to them as unto the chief leads of their Commonwealths, the Cure and Oversight of all the People which be in their Realms, and Dominions, without any exception: and to them of Right, and by God's Commandment, belongeth not only to prohibit Unlawful Violence, to correct Offenders by Corporal Death, or other punishment, to Censure Moral Honesty among their Subjects, according to the Laws of their Realms, to defend Justice, and to procure the Public Weal, and Common Peace and Tranquillity in Outward and Earthly things: But Especially and Principally, to Defend the Faith of Christ, and his Religion, to conserve and maintain the true Doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true Preachers and Setters forth thereof, and to abolish all Abuses, Heresies and Idolatries, and to punish with Corporal Pain, such as of malice be the occasion of the same. And Finally, to Oversee, and cause that the said Bishops and Priests, do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully, and especially in those points, which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed unto them; and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof, or would not diligently execute the same, to cause them to redouble and supply their lack. And if they obstinately withstand their Princes kind monition, and will not mend their Faults: then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places. And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and Reverence both Kings, and Princes, and Governors, and all their Laws, not being contrary to the Laws of God, whatsoever they be, and that not only propter iram, but also propter Conscientiam, that is to say, not only for fear of punishment, but also for discharge of Conscience.  
Thus the Power of the Magistrate over all Persons, to wit, Ecclesiastical and Civil, is according to the Ordinance of God; and that 'tis a Part of the Magistrates Office to Defend the Faith of Christ, to maintain the true Doctrine and the Preachers thereof, and to Abolish all Abuses, etc. the which must be done, not only by keeping to the Rule of the Gospel, but in conjunction therewith, by taking a special care, that no unnecessary thing be suffered, that in its Tendency is destructive of the Peace of the State. If the present constitution of the Government of the Church, as it is National, and of humane Right only be in any Respects Inconsistent with the Public Weal of the Kingdom, 'tis necessary, that it be altered; especially when an Alteration in some little things, may abundantly contribute: unto the Lasting Peace, both of Church and State.  
But if the Church Government as Diocesane or National be of Divine Right, there can be no Alteration of it, and consequently, seeing the setting up any of the King's Officers to Inspect Ecclesiastical Affairs, is an Altering the Diocesan Constitution, the Prince durst not, though encouraged by an Act of Parliament, enter on it. What is of Divine Right is Sacred, and must not be touched, 'tis dangerous to come too near that Mount. For which Reason, how mischievous soever the Ecclesiastical-National-Government, may in Process of time be unto the Civil; the Civil, not the Ecclesiastical must be Altered. That there may be an Adjusting matters in debate between the Diocesane, and the State, the State must submit unto the Diocesane. For the King according to this Hypothesis hath nothing to do with Church Affairs, which are wholly by the word of God confined to Churchmen, among whose number the King cannot be justly mentioned, neither may the King take any Cognizance of what is done among them, nor may they hold their Courts in his, but only in their own Name, or rather in Jesus Christ's. A Notion so inconsistent with his Majesty's just Prerogative, and the Powers of Parliaments, that as it doth destroy the Former, in like manner it doth so very much limit the Latter, as to Alter the Fundamental Constitution of our Government.  
By this time I presume it may appear with some Conviction to the Reader.  

1. That a Parochial, or Congregational Church Government is, according to the Church of England, Jure Divino.  
2. That the Diocesane, or National Government as such is Jure Humano, and for its particular Form, must be such in all ages, as our Civil Governors Judge most meet, as a Means for the Preservation of Parochial Discipline, and the great Ends of the Civil Constitution.   
These things being so, A Declaring this true Church of England Principle to be still according to the Sentiments of our Governors, will Relieve tender Consciences among Dissenters, and sufficiently gratify any moderate Conformist to the Ending all our Divisions, without an Embasing his Majesty's Prerogative.  
1. The Establishing a Parochial, or Congregational-Church-Discipline by Law, is the great thing the Dissenters desire, and what may be done consistently with the Ancient Constitution of the Government of this Realm, to the fixing the desired Firm and lasting Union among all sorts of sound Protestants.  
These Assemblies once established, as so many Complete Particular Churches, whose Pastors have full Power for the Administering all Ordinances, and the exercising Discipline over those who do freely and of choice submit thereunto, may notwithstanding lesser Differences, be considered as United unto one another, in that they Profess the same Faith, Preach the same Word, and Administer the same Sacraments. For the Proof hereof consult the Necessary Erudition, where 'tis said, That the Unity of the Holy Church of Christ is not divided by Distance of Place, nor by Diversity of Traditions and Ceremonies, diversesly observed in divers Churches, for good Order of the same: And though in Traditions, Opinions, and Policies, there was some Diversity among them [(i.e.) the Churches of Corinth of Ephese, etc.] likewise as the Church of England, Spain, Italy, Pole, be not separate from the Unity, but be one Church in God, notwithstanding that among them, there is great distance of Place, Diversity of Traditions, not in all things Unity of Opinions, Alteration in Rites, Ceremonies and Ordinances, or Estimation of the same— such Diversity in Opinions, and other outward Manners and Customs of Policy, doth not dissolve and break the Unity which is in One God, One Faith, One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments preserved and kept in these several Churches without any Superiority or Pre-eminence, that one Church by God's Law may, or aught to Challenge over another.  
Thus Particular Parochial, or Congregational Churches may be United in One God, One Faith, One Doctrine of Christ and his Sacraments, even where there is some difference between them in lesser matters. What though in one Parish there is a Liturgy, in another a Directory, shall this hinder Union? Don't even the Papists themselves acknowledge, that the Church of England was very closely United, even among themselves, notwithstanding the several different Offices there were in use among us in the times of Popery? One Office after the use of Sarum, another after the use of York, of Bangor, etc. and yet all United. Moreover what more common than to observe many little differences in Civil Corporations, even where they are all United in one head. A consideration sufficient to evince the Union of Parochial Churches to be Possible, notwithstanding some Remaining Differences in Customs, etc.  
In these Kingdoms there are a multitude of Particular Corporations, and little Policies, whose Customs and modes of Government within themselves, are very Different. The particular Laws by which they are governed as a Particular Body Corporate are of as many different kinds as there are Cities, Towns, or Parishes; but yet All United, in that they swear Allegiance to his Majesty, and submit themselves to the General Laws of the Land. The different Customs of different places do not in the least break the Union of the Nation. And why may it not be so in the Church? What Reason can there be given, why the Union of many a Civil Society or Association may be, notwithstanding the different Customs are among them, but the Union of many Particular-Parochial-Churches cannot be, unless they all agree in every little thing.  
Methinks it is as Reasonable to plead for a destroying the Particular Customs, and Charters of Burroughs, Corporations, and Cities as the only way to Union in the Civil Government, as 'tis to assert, That nothing but an Uniformity among every Parochial or Congregational Church can Unite us in the Ecclesiastical. What though there are some differences among Parochial Churches as to their Customs and modes of Worship, so long as they agree in One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism: So long as they all Profess the same Faith, Preach the same Word, Administer the same Sacraments, and submit unto the same Civil Government: So long as they all Swear Allegiance to to their Prince, and Subscribe any Test to assure the World they are sound Protestants, the which being so, what hinders a firm and lasting Union?  
Certainly, This is enough to show, that their Union, if no more, is as much as that between One City and another, One Corporation and another, and that their differences are no greater, (if so great) than those between one City and another. The which being so, An Altering the Present Laws about Conformity, and an Establishing such New ones, as shall be Judged necessary by our Governors for the defence and safety of a Parochial or Congregational Church-Discipline, as well as for the Regulating his Majesty's Officers Circa Sacra, will Unite us, and put an end to that Horrid sin of Schism, that hath these many years abounded in the midst of us. Let the Dissenters be permitted to Embrace the Laws and Customs of their Forefathers in the Apostles days about Church-Discipline, and the Mode of Worship, and they are Relieved, the which may be done without any Injury to the Conscience of any sound Protestant of the Episcopal Persuasion. I say,  
2. This cannot but satisfy any moderate Episcoparian, who may, if he please, firmly abide by those Ceremonies he now doth. He may still Read the same Prayers among such as are of his own Opinion. He may wear the same Vestments, and address himself to his Majesty's Officer the Lord Bishop, as unto his Ordinary for Council and Advice. And if his Ordinary or Diocesan be an Elder (for that is left to the Supreme Magistrate to appoint) he may look on him [though in truth as such, he being only the King's Officer Circa Sacra] as a Bishop who is of an Order Superior to that of a Presbyter, and so exercise Disciplene as he Receives Encouragement from him.  
If there be any entering on the Ministry, who think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be Jure Divino, and is called unto a Parish or Congregation of the same Judgement. This Candidate may (if the King's Officer be an Elder, and of the same mind with him) apply himself unto him, as unto his Diocesane, and receive Orders from him, and do all things as now, unless our Governors Judge meet to make any Alteration as to the use of some Ceremonies, Only let none be by Law compelled to do so.  
Let those that are so weak, as to think a Diocesane Episcopacy to be of Divine Right enjoy the Liberty of their Consciences, the which being attended but with the vouchsafing the like Liberty unto others, I know not why they may not be satisfied. We are not for the Pulling down Lord Bishops, nor for an Alienating Church Lands. If it seem good to our Governors to continue them, we only desire, that the Nature of their Office be declared to be no other than what it was Anciently in this Kingdom, which is, That they are merely the King's Creatures, That all they do must be in the King's Name, and by virtue of a Commission received from him: That as such they are only the King's Magistrates, that act Circa Sacra, That their work is only to see that the Bishops or Presbyters within their allotted Precincts discharge their Duty not only in leading Godly Lives, but in Preaching the word, administering the Sacraments, and exercising Discipline according to the Rule of the Gospel.  
We are far from pulling down such Bishops, for we rather wish that whereas there is now one, there might be five, nor are we for the alienating Church Land any more than we are for the taking from his Majesties other Civil Officers, those Pensions are allowed them for their great services. A thing we esteem as necessary, and highly expedient as what doth not only conduce very much to the Encouragement of all sorts of Learning: the equal Administration of Justice, but as what advanceth the Honour and Grandeur of the State. But,  
3. This doth no way Embase his Majesty's Prerogative in matters Ecclesiastical, It doth rather make it the more Grand and August. His Majesty is hereby acknowledged to be the Supreme Head of the Church. All Officers Circa Sacra depend as much on his Majesty's Pleasure for their Places as any other Civil Officers. 'Tis in the King's Name they must act, by virtue of a Commission received from him, whereby the King is Recognized as the sole Governor of the Kingdom, and hath no Competitors with him, nor is he in danger of Foreign Usurpations.  
To sum up all, Let all such Particular Congregational, or Parochial Churches, that are of Divine Institution according to the sense of the Old, and most true Church of England, be by Act of Patliament declared to be so, and taken under the Protection of the Laws, and the Dissenters are satisfied: The which (as hath been proved) may be done without any wrong to the consciences of the Conformist.  
This is the utmost I shall propose leaving it to the Wisdom of the Nation to Regulate, and Order the Constitution so far as it is National and of Humane Make, as they Judge most Expedient. The Statesmen know best, how to alter, correct, or amend any thing in the present Frame, for which reason, Modesty doth best become Divines, whonever succeed in any undertakements beyond their Sphere. If no encroachments be made on what is of Divine Institution no wrong can be done us.  
I desire the Dean, and his Substitute to consider this Proposal, which is but a Revival of what was on our first leaving Rome, strenuously asserted, as the Only way to break all the Designs of the Papists about Church Discipline; From the corruptions of which did proceed all the Pope's Tyrannous Usurpations. Certainly the Establishing this Notion cannot but be of extraordinary use, as it Erects a Partition Wall between the Reformation, and the Corruptions of the Roman Church, as it is adjusted for the silencing all Differences among ourselves, the healing our Breaches, and the fixing a firm and lasting Union among all sound Protestants, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, or mere Anabaptist.  
I humbly apprehend this to be enough to evince, That the Dissenters are not such Enemies to Union as some have Asserted, nor are they for the destroying a National Church Government. They are only against Unaccountable Innovations, even such as tend to the Ruin of the Old Protestant National Church, which as such is but of Humane Institution, and in all ages must be of such a Peculiar Form, as is best suited to those great Ends, viz. God's Glory in the Flourishing of particular Parochial, or Congregational Churches and the Peace of the State.  
The Dissenters do know, that as One Particular Church is not to depend on another, as to be Accountable thereunto, when at any time she may abuse her Power, yet All are accountable unto the Magistrate of that Land in which they Live, and that such is the state of things with us, that what person soever is grieved, either by a Presbyter or Bishop, or by any Inferior Officer Circa Sacra, he may make his Appeal to the Supreme Magistrate, with whom all Appeals on Earth are finally Lodged. Whatever the Deans Substitute may assert, 'tis most undoubtedly true, that no Appeal can be justly made from our King unto the Pope, or any College of Catholic Bishops whatsoever. That herein as our Author dissents from the Church of England, we do hearty agree with her.  
That the sound Protestant Party among the Sons of the Church of England do accord with the Dissenters about this great Point, is not only evident from what a Conformist hath written in the following Treatise, but from what is asserted by the Judicious Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation. The which I do the more cheerfully insist on, that the world may see, How the Dissenters have been misrepresented, and How clear they are from any Seditious or Factious Principles concerning Church Discipline.  
In Dr. Burnet's Preface to the History of the Reformation, p. 1. for which the whole Kingdom have given the Dr. thanks: 'tis asserted, That in Henry the 8ths' time, 'twas an Established Principle, That every National Church is a complete Body within itself, so that the Church of England with the Authority and Concurrence of their Head and King, might examine or Reform all Errors or Corruptions, whether in Doctrine or Worship. Moreover in the Preamble of that Act by which this Principle was fixed, 'tis declared, That the Crown of England was Imperial, and that the Nation was a Complete Body within itself, with a full Power to give Justice in all Cases, Spiritual, as well as Temporal. And that in the Spiritualty, as there had been at all times, so there were then men of that Sufficiency and Integrity, that they might Declare and Determine all Doubts within the Kingdom, And that several Kings as Ed. 1. Edw. 3. Ric. 2. and Hen. 4. had by several Laws Preserved the Liberties of the Realm both Spiritual and Temporal from the Annoyance of the See of Rome, and other Foreign Potentates, Hist. Ref. p. 1. p. 127.  
Furthermore, the same Judicious Author, by an Extract out of the Necessary Erudition, and out of the King's Book de Differentia Regiae & Ecclesiasticae Potestatis, out of gardiner's de vera Obedientia, and Bonners Prefixed Epistle, and out of a Letter written by Stokesly Bishop of London, and Tonstall Bishop of Duresm, hath made it evident that the Church in Henry 8. did not only assert the King's Supremacy, but as a Truth in Conjunction therewith, held, That in the Primitive Church, the Bishops in their Counsels made Rules for Ordering their Dioceses which they only called CANONS or RULES, nor had they any Compulsive Authority, but what was derived from the Civil Sanction.  
A sufficient evincement that they did not believe General Councils to be by Jesus Christ made the Regent part of the Catholic Church, neither did they believe their Determinations, or Decrees, to lay any Obligation on the Conscience, unless Sanctioned by the Magistrates command.  
To this Dr. Burnet speaks excellently well in his Preface to the Second Part of the Hist. Refor. The Jurisdiction of Synods or Councils is founded either on the Rules of Expediency or Brotherly Correspondence, or on the force of Civil Laws; For when the Christian Belief had not the support of Law, Every Bishop taught his own Flock the best he could, and gave his Neighbours such an account of his Faith at, or soon after his Consecration, as satisfied them, and so maintained the Unity of the Church. The Formality of Synods grew up in the Church from the Division of the Roman Empire, and the Dignity of the several Cities, which is a thing so well known, and so plainly acknowledged by the Writers of all sides, that it were a needless Imposing on the Readers Patience to spend time to prove it. Such as would understand it more perfectly, will find it in de Marca, the late Archbishop of Paris' Books de Concordia Imperii & Sacerdotii, and in Blondels works the La Primaute de l'Englise, None can Imagine there is a Divine Authority in that, which sprang from such a Beginning. The Major part of Synods cannot be supposed to be in matters of Faith, so assisted from Heaven, that the lesser part must necessarily Acquiesce in their Decrees, or that the Civil powers must always measure their Laws by their Votes, especially where interest doth visibly turn the Scales, so far Dr. Burnet. The contrary unto which being asserted by the Deans Substitute, 'tis Apparent, that he doth abundantly recede from the true Church of England, not only to the Reproach of his Profession, but of the first Reformation, and grief of the sober and moderate Conformist.  
This I thought necessary to suggest, that I might engage the Reader to consider with what Injustice this Author treats, not only those who descent from the Church in some things, but the Sober Conformist also, who is a through Church man, by Reprsenting us all as Enemies both to Church and State, as if the adhering unto Old Protestant Principles about Church Discipline had been the Overt Act of a Spirit Seditious and Fanatical.  
Having thus so fully shown, How easy 'tis to put an end to the mischevous Divisions, which have, for some years past, proved very dangerous to this Kingdom. I will not enlarge on every little thing that our Author may think deserves our Animadversions.  
The Rude, and slovenly methods he hath taken to asperse his Adversaries are such as do rather evince the Feebleness of his cause, than deserve the the Regard of any sober Person.  
His talk about the Impossibility of Union between the Church of England, and the Dissenter, because of the many Important Differences there are among ourselves, is confuted by the Present Union of the Authors of the Ensuing Treatices, who, though they differ in little things as much as any, the One being a Confor. the other a Nonconformist; the third of a Uniting Spirit in the middle between us both, yet are we all hearty agreed in the things that would Unite us. Moreover it were easy to make it appear that the differences among the Dissenters in General about Worship and Discipline are rather Nominal than Real, and that their Union is in a manner already accomplished.  
The Notions we insist on in opposing the Deans Substitute are truly Protestant, such as are owned and embraced by the Famous Hooker, Dr. Feild. Mr. Chilliggworth and Dr. Burnet, and after a Signal manner by the Country Conformist, who hath expressed himself in these Sheets with Gravity and Candour. He is ware of the design of this Author as well as we, as its Tendency is towards Rome, and is sensible, that the methods taken in the opposition some of the Clergy make against the Peaceable Dissenter, do Justify the French in their Rigorous and most cruel Persecutions.  
There is to the letter of Mr. Humphrey to me at the end, his late Paper added Entitled Materials for Union, which together with this Preface if we offered no more will prove the things I have said to be Feasible, and alone serve to that Firm and Lasting Union, which is chief aimed at in these our joint endeavours.  
To conclude, The peace of the Church of England, and the Greatness of the King who is head of it, being things most  to every good Protestant and true Subject, we have in these Papers shown our good will to do something towards the advance thereof: Which being submitted to the Superior thoughts of some one who is in a higher Sphere of Ability for the cultivation of it, and of place for the representing it without prejudice to our Sovereign, we do hope it may both be well accepted by him, and take with every body else, who do truly honour the King, seek Concord, and love good men.  
Sep. 16. 1681. Stephen Lob.   

The Author not being able to attend the Press desires the Candid Reader before be peruses the ensuing Discourse to Correct these momentous Errata.  
Pag. 11. l. 9 r. is to have a Right. p, 17. l. 14. deal them. p. 29. l. 38. for chain r. chair. p. 36. l. 37. for Catholic College, r. Supreme Governing Heads p. 74. before l. 18. r. I'll now consider the Deans third Argument, which is p. 76. before l. 4. r. The Deans fourth Argument, which at this time only deserves Animadversions is, our Divisions give great Advantage to the Papists, and the Dissenters by their Separation have caused the Division. Rep. p. ib. l. 5. for the 2. r. 2d. the l. 7. r. not. p. 78. l. 28. for Form r. Term.   

A Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness, etc.  

CHAP. I. A Reply to the Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.  

SECT. I.  
The Introduction. The Acts of the Enquirers pretended Immodesty Examined. The Dissenter vindicated from the Reproach of ruining King and Kingdom. The Civil War the product of Jesuitical Counsels, as is confessed by Dr. Heylin. The War begun by the Episcopal on both sides. The tendency of the Deans Defence towards Popery, as 'tis a revival of the Grotian Design.  
THE Defence of the Reverend Dean of Paul's Unreasonableness of Separation, containing little in it of Argument, more than what we find in the Dean's own Treatise, might pass unanswered, had not the Author, by a fuller Discovery of the Design of his Party (which are but a few) made it necessary to show to the world, whither it leads. For in this Defence there are hints enough given to tempt an Unprejudiced and Impartial Reader to fear, he hath engaged himself too deeply in that Design that was seemingly but begun by the Dean. For which Reason I will in this, with as much modesty as the subject-matter will admit, and this Author will let me enjoy, show, That as I did not abuse the Dean of Paul's, when in the Modest and peaceable Enquiry, I detected some of his Mistakes; even so, if we must pass a Judgement on the Doctor, answerable to the Character that is to be found of his Substitute in the Defence, 'tis apparent that they are conspiring in a Design, which the Learned and Conformable Clergy will give him little thanks for. The Doctor's Substitute (as hereafter I will from his own words prove) doth sufficiently declare what his party would be at, which is a point, I'm sure, that will meet with opposition from such as are true Sons of the Church, whereby the Controversy, if closely followed, must cease to be between Conformist and Noncormist; it must be between Conformist and Conformist. It looks as if there were among our Churchmen some resolved to revive Laud's Design, as 'tis well known there are many others among them who highly value the Principles and Temper of that great Protestant Prelate Abbot, Laud's Predecessor in the See of Canterbury, between whom the Scussle must at last end.  
That this may with the greater Conviction be evinced, I will in this Reply to the Defence of the Dean, etc. confine myself to the Author's own words, as compared with what is more than suggested in the Writings of Bishop Bramhall, and some other Sons of the Church of England; the which with due clearness I shall not be able to compass, if I follow our Author in his disorderly way of Writing. For which reason I must keep to the Method I took in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry, and bring what calls for my observation, into its proper place. The whole then he hath offered in Answer to the Enquiry, may be reduced to these Heads.  

1. His Reflections on the Title of the Enquiry.  
2. His Censure of the Author's Design.  
3. The Defence of the Dean.   
I'll begin with the First.  
The Author reflects on the Title, as if the Discourse, notwithstanding the specious pretences of the Title, had not been as Modest, nor as Peaceable as suggested; in doing which, he spends one whole Chapter, it may be not f●nding matter enough in the Discourse itself, to enlarge so far, as to write any thing that might deserve the name of an Answer, or countenance the Title given his Great Book.  
I could very easily therefore, as one unconcerned, pass by this first Chapter, if there had not been more in it than the representing me as a person who deserve not the Character of being either Modest or Peaceable. But the Overt acts of Immodesty, which are insisted on by this Author, being such as cannot but be of an ill Tendency, I must consider 'em.  
The first instance of Immodesty is thus expressed, He gins his Epistle to the Dean, with observing how industrious the Papists have been, ever since the Reformation, to ruin England and the Churches of Christ in it, which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days, the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeth's, the Gunpowder Treason in King James', &c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy, which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion, and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof, whether Episcopal or Dissenter. But this modest man (says our Author) takes no notice, That King and Kingdom, Church and State have been once ruined already by such Modest Dissenters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we suffer ourselves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers: We are ware, Sir, what a Popish Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done; and think ourselves concerned, as much as we can, to countermine the Designs of both. But however, I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this, that while men are zealous against Popery, they may fear no danger from any other quarter.  
Rep. Whether the mentioning the Rebellions and Insurrections of the Papists in King Edw. the 6th days, the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeth's, the Gunpowder-Treason in King James', the Hellish Plot of late discovered, be an extraordinary act of Immodesty, or Unpeaceableness, let any temperate man among the Church of England judge that please. Is it an Act of Immodesty to relate such notorious Truths? or of Unpeaceableness, to mention the Dangers we are in, on the account of Popish bloody Plots? This it may be is not the Crime, but what follows, which is,  
This modest man (saith our Author) takes no notice, That King and Kingdom, Church and State, have been once ruined already by such modest Dissenters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we suffer ourselves to be Charmed and Lulled asleep by such Modest Inquirers.  
Rep. Hereby we know what the Author would be at; 'tis as if he had said, This Modest Enquirer is very immodest and quarrelsome, for not imitating the Jesuitical Clubs, who are, contrary to the Act of Oblivion, raking in old sores, calling us to the remembrance of 41. to make us look back on the actings of Archb. Laud and his Faction, the steps they made towards Rome, the bones of contention they cast in between a Protestant Prince, and a Church of England Parliament; the Civil War begun by the Episcopal, who were Chief in each Army. 'Twas this the Enquirer indeed passed over in silence, wishing with his very Soul, that the Episcopal Clergy had been either so wise or honest as to have done their utmost to have prevented those Ruins, which their own Divisions brought on these Nations. For 'tis well known to many hundreds now alive, who they were that had an Influence on those Unnatural Broils and Intestine Quarrels; and whoever will consult Mr. Baxter against Hinekley, or rather Mr. Rushworth, and Dr. Heylin, will see, That the Sons of the Church of England more on both sides the active persons concerned in the very beginning of those Troubles. But those things the Inquirer was loath to mention, it being as Unnecessary, as Unsuitable to his Peaceable Design.  
However, seeing our Author will not be satisfied, unless some notice be taken of those that once already Ruined King and Kingdom, etc. I will out of Dr. Heylin's Life of Laud, a good Record, at least in the sense of the Dean's Defender, show, who they were that did it. In a perusal of which 'twill appear, That 'twas the Papists, who had a sole hand in the Plot; no Protestant, I verily believe, ever designed what was the unhappy product of the Hellish Conspiracies of the bloody Papist. This hath been long ago discovered by Dr. Du Moulm, and since by Dr. Oates, and here most exactly related by Dr. Heylin a Son of the Church, in these words, viz. A Confederacy was form amongst them, [i. e. the Papists] consisting of some of the most subtle heads in the whole fesuitical Party; by whom it was concluded to foment the Broils began in Scotland, and to heighten the Combustions there, that the King being drawn into a War, might give them the opportunity to effect their Enterprise, for sending Him and the Archbishop to the other World. Which being by one of the party on Compunction of Conscience made known to Andrea's ab Habernsfield, who had been Chaplain, as some said, to the Queen of Bohemia, they both together gave intimation of it to Sir William Boswell, his Majesty's Resident at the Hague; having first bound him by his Oath, not to reveal the same to any man living, but to the Archbishop himself, and by the Archbishop to the King. This signified by Boswell's Letters of the 19th of Septemb. together with a general draught of the Design transmitted to Canterbur; under the hand of Hab●●●●field himself, the first Discoverer of the Plot: On the receipt of which Dispatches, the Archbishop giving directions to Boswell to proceed to a further discovery of it, sends the Intelligence with all speed imaginable, by his Letters of the 11th of the same Month, to the King at York, beseeching nothing more than his Secrecy in it, that he would not trust his Pockets with those dangerous Papers, and the business. And so far both the King and he had very good reason to be sensible of the Dangers which were threatened to them. But when the large Discovery was brought unto him, transmitted in Boswell's Letter of the 15th of October, he found some Names in it, which discredited the whole Relation, as well in his Majesty's judgement, as his own. For, besides this naming of some professed Papists, as the Duchess of Buckingham, the Countess's of Arundel and Newport, Montague, Digby and Winter, of whose Fidelity the King was not willing to have any Suspicion, he named the Earl of Arundel, Windebank Principal Secretary of State, and Porter one of the Grooms of the Bedchamber, whom he charged to be the King's utter Enemies, and such as betrayed his Secrets to the Pope's Nuncio upon all occasions; all which his Majesty beheld as men of most approved Loyalty and Affections to him, by reason whereof no further credit being given to the Advertisement which they had from Boswell, the danger, so much feared at first, became more slighted and neglected, than consisted with his Majesty's Safety, and the condition of the times, which were apt to mischief. For, though the Party, who first broke the Ice to this Intelligence, might be mistaken in the Names of some of the Accomplices, which were interessed in the Design, whose relations unto those of the Church of Rome might give some ground for the mistake; yet the Calamities, which soon after fell upon them both, the deplorable Death of the Archbishop first, and his Majesty afterwards, declare sufficiently, That there was some greater reality in the Plot, than some were willing to believe. But it it had been a Maxim with King James, his Father, That Suspicion was the Sickness and Disease of a Tyrant, which laid him open to all the subtle practices of malicious cunning. And it had been taken up by this King for an Axiom also, That it was better to be Deceived than to Distrust; which paved a plain and easy way to all those Misfortunes, which in the whole course of his Reign, especially for ten years' last passed, had been brought upon him. So far Heylin.  
By this 'tis evident, That the Papists were the first Contrivers of all that ruin which befell the King and Kingdom, Church and State; and that the first who received any impressions from their wretched Attempts, were the Sons of the Church, is as evident to such as consult Baxter, Rushworth, etc. who it may be were ignorant of their Hellish Designs; though 'tis evident enough that Laud was acquainted with them: For which reason it seems somewhat surprising, that notwithstanding his being so fully enlightened concerning it, he still inclined to favour the Papist more than the Puritan; concerning which party, they had nothing but their ungrounded Surmises to occasion any ill thoughts of 'em. For in the whole account Heylin gives of their Essays, I find nothing but intimations of their Secret actings, which 'tis like were so secret, that not one Overt Act can be given before there was an open breach between King and Parliament; at which time the Papists come in as Auxiliaries to the King, and the Puritan Party came in as such to the Parliament: the King remaining to the very Death a Resolved Protestant, which animated the Papist to do their utmost for his Ruin; in which after they had in part accomplished their Devilish Design, they strangely triumphed. I question not but that many of the Roman Faction were in both Armies, in the one Openly, in the other under a Covert; and that they attempted to heighten the Division; and at length turned all things into Confusion. This I take to be a true account of the Transaction; but why our Churchmen should thus glory, as if they had no hand in it, is not easy to conjecture: Neither is it over-easy to imagine, what the reason is, that our Author should represent the Papist so favourably, even when his Discourse against the Dissenters is so Invective. For saith he,  
We are ware, Sir, what a Popish Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done, etc. q. d. We are ware of what the Papists would do, not what they have done. What the Papists have done must not be mentioned, not one word of that: Not one word of their old Rebellions and Insurrections; not one word of the Gunpowder Plot; not one word of the Plot discovered by Andrea's ab Habernsfield; not one word of the Murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, of the Assassination of Justice Arnold; not one word of what they have done, only what they would do. A pleasant Insinuation, as if the Papist never yet discovered by any Overtacts their Horrid Design, etc. 'Tis the Factious Zeal only which has done somewhat. But yet this is not to prepare the people to expect a Presbyterian Plot, when there is none among Protestants, but what is carried on by the Sons of the Church: This is not to act suitable to the P●pish Designs, which were to destroy the King, after they had prepared the People to believe the Presbyterians were Resolved for it. Whether this was the Dean's Design in misrepresenting Dissenters, I could not tell; but as to yourself. I must say, That whatever your Design is, if you had been hired by a Popish Plotter, you could not more effectually do his work for him; and that the Protestant Gentry, who mind the Substantial part of their Religion, more than an indifferent Rite, cannot but deeply resent these your Proceed.  
Is it not most obvious, that notwithstanding the loud Cries we have had of the Factious and Seditious Principles of Dissenters, the Dissenters have approved themselves, when under the severest Censures and Pressures of our Clergy, to be men of another Character? That notwithstanding the many Prophetical and Historical Discourses among our Churchmen of a Presbyterian Plot, no such thing could be fastened on a Protestant Dissenter; the Design of the Papists being the real Destruction of hearty Protestants, though Sons of the Church, under the name of Presbyterians? Read Mr. Dangerfield's Discovery of that Sham-Presbyterian Plot, and you'll find My Lord Duke of Monmouth, the Lord Precedent, the Lord of Essex, brought in by the Papists as Presbyterian Plotters: Although 'tis well known, that they are Sons of the Church of England, whose Loyalty to their Prince, and Firmness to the Protestant Religion, doth equalise the greatness of their Honour.  
Methinks, Sir, 'tis now high time to consider, That as all Protestants, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational, etc. are all in one bottom, even so the One cannot be ruined with the preservation of the Other. Ought we not then to entertain better thoughts of each other? What, shall we now quarrel with one another, even when, unless we join in putting our hand to the Pump, the Ship sinks, and we all must perish together? But I must not enlarge on this subject, lest I be thought too Immodest and Unpeaceable.  
A Second Instance of Immodesty now succeeds; 'Twas modestly done (saith the Author) to charge the Dean with a Design of gratifying the Roman Faction, etc. And at the same time to laugh at the Jesuits and Coleman as great Fools, for designing to bring in Popery, by the Tolerating fanatics.  
Rep. How is this that our Author treats the Dean so unmannerly, as to join him thus with the Jesuits and Coleman! Methinks a descending the Dean should be a distinct work from a vindicating the reputation of Jesuits, and the Traitor Coleman. And why, Sir, may I not laugh at the Counsels of some Jesuits, without being immodest to the Doctor? Have you such venerable thoughts of these men, that a laughing at their Devices is a Crime that must not pass without Rebuke?  
But the Dean is represented as a Reviler of Dissenters, and that's immodest.  
Rep. What I suggested as to this, was not without great reason, as may appear from what I insisted on in the Enquiry; but he goes on very pleasantly, as if by Reviling Dissenters I meant Confuting Dissenters. Really Sir, if by Reviling Dissenters I meant a Confuting of them, I fear I should have wronged the Doctor and the Truth also, if I had but said there was any one Reviling passage in the whole Treatise; but the fixing this sense on the words, to the end you may give us an account of your admirable Faculty of Talking very little to the purpose, is an excellency wherein you seem to delight; for I'm sure you are so modest as to fasten your own, which is a foreign sense on my words, and then run on triumphantly, etc. but after so easy a manner, that it deserves not an Answer; and therefore I'll consider the great thing.  
The Doctor is brought in (you say) as one designing to Gratify the Roman Faction.  
Rep. That I might prevent any just offence here, I was express in distinguishing between the Deans own intent, and tendency of his Treatise. Take my words in the Enquiry, I will propose the Design of the Dr's History, [(i. e.) of that account he had given of Dissenters, etc.] being charitably disposed to distinguish between the Finis Operis, and Operantis; For though the End of the work itself cannot but in its tendency prove pernicious to the Protestant Religion, yet I hope the Dr. designed it not as such.  
But though I thought myself obliged to be thus civil in my thoughts of the Reverend Dean, I do not find any Reason to pass the same favourable Censure on you. The Dr. I knew wrote against the Papists; but whether you have not in some Treatises formerly done as much in some respects for 'em, is best known to yourself. Whatever you have done either for or against the Papist formerly, by what I find in your Defence of the Dean, I do very much suspect you. 'Tis very evident, you have in your Notions about the Nature of an Universal Church, the Notion of Schism, etc. fallen in with those that were not ashamed to own, that they were for a going towards Rome, in order to an accommodating the Differences between the Church of England, and the Papist.  
That this may appear to be so, I will faithfully set down your notion of these things, and then compare it with the Design of Archb. Laud and Archb. Bramhall, and leave it to the judgement of the Candid and Impartial Reader, whether you are not of those who ran the Cassandrian way. You say,  
§ 1. That the Catholic Church consists of such Particular Churches, as have all the Essentials of a Church, as to Faith, Government, and Discipline. It consists of all these, as Similar parts, which have the same Nature, and make up one Body by a common Union. This p. 139, 140.  
§ 2. That the Catholic Church, though it consists of all Particular Churches contained in it, yet 'tis not a mere arbitrary combination and confederacy of particular Churches; but is the Root and Fountain of Unity, and in order of nature antecedent to particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches. So that all Particular Churches received their denomination of Catholic Church from the Catholic Church, p. 144, & c.  
Here you assert, That the Universal Church is in order of nature antecedent to Particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, etc. But your Allusion is not ad rem; for you should have given us some instance of some one Universal, that was in order of nature antecedent to its Particulars, which is impossible; it being, in the sense of most, evident, That Universal is unum in multis, that is, in many particulars, which Universal hath no real Existence, but in Particulars; for abstracted from all Particulars, 'tis only an Ens raticnis, having its being in the Eutopian Commonwealth; whence we distinguish between the consideration of an Universal as Formal, and as Fundamental. Fundamentally, and 'tis quid singular; but Formally,; and so 'tis abstracted from all Singulars; the Particulars being the foundation of the Universal, the Root from which the Universal doth proceed. Now if it be the Particulars that are the foundation of the Universal, How can the Universal be the Root of the Particulars? This is the more remarkable in our Author, because he falls in with an old exploded part of Independency, viz. That what person soever is not a Member of a Particular Church, is not so of the Universal Church. Which being so, I would fain know Where this Universal Church should be, when Antecedent to any Particular Church? If he had said, That by a Particular Church, he meant only such as were Organised and fallen into some complete order; and that there were many, who not having arrived to that degree of being complete Church-members of any Particular Church, who yet were Members of the Church Universal; he would have had ground for his Assertion; for there must be Particular Christians before Particular Churches: but to adhere to his Hypothesis, which seems to be but a step to the asserting Diocesan Churches to be in order of nature antecedent to particular Congregations, is ridiculous; especially seeing he asserts, That the Universal Church is an Organised, or Political Body, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Instituted Worship and Discipline; as if there could be Church-Members under Government, antecedent to the being of Particular Churches, even when no one that is not a Member of a Particular Church, is a Member of the Universal: As if a City that consists of many particular Houses were in order of nature antecedent to every particular House.  
§ 3. That the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion. Catholic Unity signifies Catholic Communion. To have a Right to be a Member of the Christian Church, to communicate in all the several Duties and Offices of Religion with all Christians all the World over, and to partake in all the Privileges of Christians, and to be admitted to the freedom of their conversation, to eat, and drink, and discourse, and trade together. So that such as are not Church-Members have no right to trade among Christians; A pleasant Insinuation!  
§ 4. The Unity of the Christian Sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Lords-Supper, prove the Unity of Christian Communion. This is from p. 193. to p. 208.  
§ 5. Unity of Church-Power and Government, doth also prove the Unity of Christian Communion. Under this head he maintains; 

1. That every Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, by his Ordination is made a Minister of the Catholic Church; though for the better edification of the Church, the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confined to some particular place.  
2. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the Catholic Church by Baptism, and shuts out of the Catholic Church by Excommunication.  
3. That the Catholic Church is united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick close together; for which you produce Cyprian.  
4. That the Unity and Peace of the Episcopacy is maintained by their governing their Churches by mutual Consent. Whence you mention the Collegium Episcopale, the Episcopal College, which I take to be a Council of Bishops, which Bishops have an Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, (i.e.) the foreign Bishops, as those of Alexandria and Rome, etc. have an Original Power and Right in relation to the whole Church, even a Right and Power in relation to England.  
5. That every part of the Universal Church is under the Government of the Universal Bishops assembled in their College, or in Council; and what Bishop soever abuse his Power, he shall be accountable to those assembled in Council.  
6. That there is no such thing as the Independency of Bishops, their Independency being almost as inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity, as the Indpendency of single Congregations. Whence the Church of England, called either Archi-Episcopal, National, or Patriarchal, is not Independent, but accountable unto Foreign Bishops, if at any time they abuse their Power.  
7. That this Council of Foreign Bishops, unto which they are accountable, must look on the Bishop of Rome as their Primate; the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome being acknowledged, it seems, by our Author himself, as well as by Bramhall. The Primacy (he saith) out of Cyprian, being given to Peter, that it might appear, that the Church of Christ was One; and the Chair, that is, the Apostolical Office and Power, is One. Thus Cyprian, on whom lay all the care of the Churches, dispatches Letters to Rome, from whence they were sent through all the Catholic Churches. All this is to be found from p. 208 to the end of the Chapter. Thus you agree with Bramhall, though you express not the Notion so well as he doth, and should learn it better.    
Before I proceed therefore, I cannot but desire you to consider what is become of your Protestant Episcopacy; I beseech you, Sir, consider, Is the French Episcopacy, a Protestant Episcopacy? If not, seeing the English Episcopacy, as described by you, is the same with the French, Why call you the one a Popish, and the other a Protestant Episcopacy? Whether you agree not in these respects with the Papists, let the world judge.  
But you go on to assert,  
§ 6. That to be in Commuion with any Church, is to be a Member of it, every Member having equal Right, and equal Obligation to all parts of Christian Communion, even that Communion which is External and Visible, p. 132, & c.  
§ 7. All Christians being bound to communicate with that part of the Catholic Church wherein they live, are guilty of Schism, if they separate; whoever separate from such particular Churches as are members of the Catholic Church, do separate from the Universal Catholic Church, which is Schism. For to divide from any part of the Catholic Church, is to break Catholic communion, i. e. to be a Schismatic. Whence 'tis concluded, 

1. That Schism is a separating from the Catholic Church, which notion taken singly, will stand the Dissenters and all true Christians who must be acknowledged to be members of the Catholic Church, in great stead, freeing them from the odious sin of Schism. The Dissenters divide not themselves from the communion of the Universal Church, Ergo, not Schismatics. But the mischief is, that as this notion of Schism which our Author adheres unto, is the same with that of the Papists, as is to be seen in Filiucius, Azorius, etc. but in an especial manner in Charity maintained by Catholics; even so he closes with the same Popish Faction, in asserting,  
2. That separating from the Church of England is a separating from the Catholic Church, as if the Catholic Church had been as much confined within the bounds of the Church of England, as the Papists says within the limits of Rome. Whence whoever separates from the Church of England, cuts himself from the Catholic Church, puts himself out of a state of salvation; He is extra Ecclesiam, extra quam nulla salus; they are all, while Schismatics, in a state of damnation. But surely if these men believed so much, methinks they should not be at rest until all their unscriptural impositions were removed, unless they have greater kindness for such trifles, than they have for such immortal souls for whom Christ died.    
By this Doctrine we may understand why 'tis that some of our Clergy show greater tenderness towards Drunkards, Swearers, Papists, than towards poor Dissenters: The former may hold communion with the Church of England, and consequently with the Catholic Church; when the others are undoubtedly in a state of damnation; as if we were all in the same state with Heretics.  
I'll not (as easily I might) now enlarge, in showing the weakness which the Dean's Substitute hath discovered in the management of this Grotian or Cassandrian Design; but only tell him, That if he had consulted that excellent Treatise The Grotian Religion discovered, by Mr. Baxter, he might have seen an unanswerable confutation of a great part of his Book; or if he had rather applied himself unto that great Prelate Bishop Bramhall, a man of extraordinary worth for his Learning, he might have better digested his Notion: For there he would have been furnished with such distinctions about Communion, that would have been for his purpose and rectification. In his Defence of the Church of England, Tom. 2. Disp. 2. c. 2. he saith, The Communion of the Christian Catholic Church, is partly internal, partly external. Among many other things, in discoursing of internal communion, 'tis added, That it is to judge charitably one of another. To exclude none from the Catholic Communion and hope of salvation, either Eastern, or Western, or Southern, or Northern Christians, which profess the ancient Faith of the Apostles and primitive Fathers, established in the first General Councils, and comprehended in the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. This granted by our Author, as described by Bramhall, seeing the Faith contained in these Creeds is professed by the Dissenters, 'tis queried, Whether or no this Gentleman doth not fall short in this respect of Catholic internal communion, by excluding the Dissenters from the Catholic communion and hope of salvation? Moreover as to external communion, says Bramhall, There are degrees of exclusion; every one that is excluded, is not cut off from the Catholic Church; for external communion may sometimes be suspended more or less, by the just censures of the Church clavae non errante, as in the primitive times some were excluded a caetu participantium, only from the use of the Sacraments; others a caetu procumbentium, from Sacraments and Prayers also; and others a caetu Audientium, from Sacraments, Prayers, and Sermons; and others a caetu Fil●lium, from the society of Christians, yea and as it may be suspended, it may be waved, or withdrawn by particular Churches or persons, from their Neighbour Churches, or Christians, in their Innovations or Errors. Nor is there so strict and perpetual an adherence required to a particular Church, as to the universal Church. This surely is enough to intimate how sudden our Author's thoughts were: for had he but deliberated on those things as this great Bishop did, he would not assert so confidently, That the separating from a particular Church that is in the Universal, is a separating from the Universal.  
Leaving therefore our Author to receive further light from this Bishop concerning his own notion, I'll make my address to the Reader, beseeching him to apply himself to our Protestant Divines for an answer to what is said against the dependency of the Church of England on Foreign Churches, such as Rome, etc. And as to what he saith concerning Schism from the Universal Church, which p. 256. saith he, is when any shall separate from that part of the Catholic Church where they dwell, and set up any distinct Churches merely for some greater degree of purity. This is so like what the Author of Charity maintained by Catholics, insisted on, that the Memorandums given by the famous Mr. Chillingworth, will be sufficient to enab'e an ordinary capacity to answer the whole he hath asserted about Schism.  
1. That not every separation, but a causeless separation from the external communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism.  
2. That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication, a necessity of professing known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation; and that this is the cause which Protestants allege to justify their separation from the Church of Rome. To which I must add, That this is the cause which Dissenters allege to justify their separation from the Church of England, it being uncontrollably true, That the professing known errors, and the practising known corruptions, is imposed on Dissenters on pain of Excommunication, as hath been proved in Mr. Baxter's first Plea for Peace, never answered, but only nibbled at by some inconsiderate Scribblers. The Dissenters are convinced in conscience, that if they continued in your communion, they should sin against God. What can be offered against this, I know not, unless you'll say unto us thus, viz. If this your pretence of conscience may serve, what Schismatic in the Church, what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom, may not allege the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition? No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience; but we say that they may and aught to rectify and depose such a conscience, which is easy for them to do. This is what hath been frequently urged by the Clergy, yea by the Dean of Paul's. But seeing these words are taken out of the mouth of a Papist, the answer shall be no other than what I find in the mouth of a son of the Church, the famous Chillingworth, who asserts, That whoever is convinced in conscience, that the Church of Rome errs, cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of her errors; and the reason hereof is manifest, because otherwise he must profess what he believes not, and practice what he approves not; which is no more than yourself in thesi have divers times affirmed. For in one place you say, 'tis unlawful to speak any the least untruth. Now he that professes your Religion, and believes it not, what else doth he but live in a perpetual lie? Again, in another, you have called them that profess one thing, and believe another, a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants. And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the profession of those Errors, the belief whereof they had already forsaken, what do you but rail at them for not being a damned crew of Sycophants? [The same may be said as to the Dissenters who are in conscience convinced, that they must profess to believe what really they do not, should they conform]. But as to what the wicked may pretend as to conscience, take the Author's answer: 'Tis said that a pretence of conscience will not serve to justify separation from being Schismatical; which is true, but little to the purpose, (saith Mr. Chil.) seeing it was but an erroneous persuasion, much less an hypocritical pretence, but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience. And therefore though seditious men in the Church and State, may pretend conscience for a cloak of their Rebellion; yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience, rather than the unjust command of his Tyrannous Superiors. Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy? I may add, Otherwise with what colour can the Dean and his Substitute defend their so firmly adhering to the present Constitution?  
But to return to the third Memorandum.  
3. That to leave the Church, and to leave the external communion of the Church at least, as Dr. Potter understands the words (and I think I may safely add, as every Protestant but a Grotian understands) is not the same thing. That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it, as Faith and Obedience; This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and public Worship of God. This little Armour, if it he rightly placed, I am persuaded will repel all those batteries which you threaten shall be so furious. To use the words of Mr. Chil. And for this reason I will now show the Reader,  
That the Model the Deans Substitu ●●a●h given us, is what is not only in itself admirably adjusted to accommodate the difference between one Faction of the Church of England, and the Church [not the Court] of Rome, for that is their Distinction; but moreover 'tis very like that of Archb. Laud, for which he was censured as a Favourer of Popery.  
This I will attempt to perform, by giving you an account of the Charge that was brought in against Laud in the House of Commons by the Lord Faulkland, a true Son of the Church; and the Reply is made thereunto by Dr. Heylin, whereby 'twill appear, that as there is an agreement between Laud's Design and our Authors, even so this as well as that was to bring the Church of Rome and England together.  
§ 1. Take My Lord Fauklkland's Speech made in the House of Commons, as represented by Dr. Heylin in the Life of Archbishop Laud, p. 383. A little search (saith he) will find them to have been the Destruction of Unity, under pretence of Uniformity; To have brought in Superstition and Scandal, under titles of Reverence and Decency; to have defiled our Church, by adorning our Churches; to have slackened the strictness of that Union which was formerly between us and those of our Religion beyond the Seas, an Action as unpolitick as ungodly: Or we shall find them to have resembled the Dog in the Manger, to have neither Preached themselves, nor suffered those that would; to have brought in Catechising, only to thrust out Preaching; and cried down Lecturers by the names of Factions, either because their Industry in that Duty appeared a reproof to their neglect of it; or with intention to have brought in Darkness, that they might the easier sow their Tares while it was Night: And by that introduction of Ignorance, introduce the better that Religion, which accounts it the Mother of Devotion. In which (saith he) they have abused his Majesty, as well as his people; For when he had with great wisdom silenced on both parts those Opinions, which have often tormented the Church, and have and always will trouble the Schools, they made use of this Declaration to tie up one side, and to let the other lose: Whereas they ought either in discretion to have been equally restrained, or in Justice to have been equally tolerated. And 'tis observable, that the party to which they gave this Licence, was that, whose Doctrine, though it was not contrary to Law, was contrary to Custom; and for a long time in this Kingdom was no oftener Preached, than recanted, etc. We find them introducing such Doctrines, as admitting them to be true, the truth could not recompense the Scandal; or such as were so far false, as Sir Thomas Moor says of the Casuists, their business was not to keep men from sinning, but to inform them, Quà propè ad peccatum sine peccato liceat accedere. So it seemed their work was to try, how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery; and to destroy as much of the Gospel, without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by Law. To go yet further, some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome, that they have given great suspicion that in Gratitude they desire to return thither, or at least to meet it half way; Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English, though not a Roman Popery. I mean, not only the out side and dress of it, but equally absolute, a blind dependence of the People upon the Clergy, and of the Clergy upon themselves: And have opposed the Papacy beyond the Seas, that they might settle one beyond the Water.  
§ 2. I'll now proceed to the Reply Dr. Heylin makes to this Speech of the Lord Faulkland.  
1. He produces the several Protestations of the Archbishop made in the Starchamber, [p. 389, 390, etc.] and at his Trial before the Lords; and on the Scaffold just before his going out of this world, of his Innocency as to this. Besides, Dr. Heylin doth insist on his. Conference with Fisher the Jesuit, the enlarging that Conference as an Argument that the Archbishop was no Papist.  
2. Touching the Design of working a Reconciliation betwixt us and Rome, 'tis acknowledged by Heylin, and the Design applauded. Take his own words, I thought when our Saviour said Beati Pacifici, it had been sufficient warrant to any man to endeavour Peace, to build up the Breaches in the Church, and to make Jerusalem like a City, which is at Unity in itself, especially where it may be done not only Saluâ Charitate, without breach of Charity; but Saluâ Fide too, without wrong to Faith. The greatest part of the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome not being in the Fundamentals, or in any Essential point in the Christian Religion, I cannot but look upon it as a most pious work, to endeavour an Atonement in the Superstructures. So far Heylin goes to show both the Lawfulness of the endeavours of a Reconciliation, and then the Possibility of obtaining of it. The which Dr. Heylin no sooner evinces, but he admits that such a Reconciliation was endeavoured betwixt the Agents for both Churches, and gives an hint upon what terms the Agreement was to have been made, and how far they proceeded on it.  
3. As to Reconciliation (saith he out of a Book entitled the Pope's Nuncio, affirmed to have been written by a Venetian Ambassador, at his being in England) between the Churches of England and Rome, there were made some General Propositions and Overtures by the Archbishop's Agents; they assuring, that his Grace was very much disposed thereunto: And that if it was not accomplished in his Life-time, it would prove a work of more difficulty after his Death. That in very truth, for the last three years the Archbishop had introduced some Innovations, approaching near the Rites and Forms of Rome: That the Bishop of Chichester, a great Confident of his Grace, the Lord Treasurer, and eight other Bishops of his Grace's party, did most passionately desire a Reconciliation with the Church of Rome; that they did day by day recede from their ancient Tenants, to accommodate with the Church of Rome; that therefore the Pope ought on his part to make some steps to meet them, and the Court of Rome remit something of its Rigour in Doctrine, or otherwise no accord will be. The Composition on both sides was in so good a forwardness before Panzany left the Kingdom, that the Archbishop and Bishop of Chichester had often said, That there were but two sorts of people likely to impede and hinder the Reconciliation; to wit, the Puritans amongst the Protestants, and the Jesuits amongst the Catholics.  
Let us next see the judgement and relation of another Author, in a Gloss or Comment on the former, entitled The English Pope, Printed at London in the same Year, 1643, and he will tell us, That after Con had undertaken the managing of the Affairs, matters began to grow to some Agreement. The King Required, saith he, such a Dispensation from the then Pope, as that his Catholic Subjects might resort to the Protestant Churches, and to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Fidelity; and that the Pope's Jurisdiction here should be declared to be but of Humane Right. And so far had the Pope consented, that whatever did concern the King therein, should have been really performed, so far as other Catholic Princes usually enjoy and expect as their due: And so far as the Bishops were to be Independent both from King and Pope, there was no fear of breach on the Pope's part. So that upon the point, the Pope was to content himself amongst us in England with a Priority, instead of a Superiority over other Bishops; and with a Primacy instead of a Supremacy in these Parts of Christendom, which I conceive no man of Learning and Sobriety would have grudged to grant him. It was also condescended to in the name of the Pope, that Marriage might be permitted to Priests; that the Communion might be administered sub utraque specie; and that the Liturgy might be officiated in the English Tongue. And though the Author adds not long after, that it was to be suspected, That so far as the Inferior Clergy and the People were concerned, the after performance was to be left to the Pope's discretion; yet this was but his own Suspicion, without ground at all. And to obtain a Reconciliation upon these advantages, the Archbishop had all the reason in the world to do as he did, in ordering the Lords-Table to be placed where the Altar stood, and making the accustomed Reverence in all approaches towards it, and accesses to it: In beautifying and adorning Churches, and celebrating the Divine Service with all due Selemnities; in taking care that all offensive and exasperating passages should be expunged out of such Books as were brought to the Press; and for reducing the extravagancy of some Opinions to an evener temper. His Majesty had the like Reason also for Tolerating lawful Recreations on Sundays and Holydays.  
But the Doctor goes on, If you would know how far they had proceeded towards this happy Reconciliation, the Pope's Nuncio will assure us thus, That the Universities, Bishops, and Divines of this Realm, did daily embrace Catholic Opinions, though they professed not so much with Pen, or Mouth, for fear of the Puritans. For example, They hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church; That the Pope is Superior to all Bishops; That to him it appertains to call General Councils; That 'tis lawful to pray for the Souls of the departed; That Altars ought to be erected of Stone: In sum, That they believe all that is taught by the Church, but not by the Court of Rome. Another of their Authors tells us, (as was elsewhere noted) That those amongst us of greatest Worth, Learning, and Authority, began to love Temper and Moderation: That their Doctrines began to be altered in many things, for which their Progenitors forsook the Visible Church of Christ; As for example, The Pope not Antichrist, Prayers for the Dead, Limbus Patrum, Pictures; That the Church hath Authority in determining Controversies of Faith, and to interpret Scriptures about , Predestination, Universal Grace; That all our Works are not Sins, Merit of good Works, Inherent Justice, Faith alone doth justify, Charity to be preferred before Knowledge, the Authority of Traditions, Commandments possible to be kept: That in Exposition of the Scripture, they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers; And that the once fearful names of Priests and Altars are used willingly in their Talk and Writings. In which compliances, so far forth as they speak the Truth, says Heylin (for in some points, through the Ignorance of the One and the Malice of the Other, they are much mistaken) there is scarce any thing which may not very well consist with the established (though for a time discontinued) Doctrine of the Church of England. The Articles whereof, as the same Jesuit hath observed, seem patiented, or ambitious rather of some sense wherein they may seem Catholic. And such a sense is put upon them by him that calls himself Franciscus â Sancta Clara, as before was said. So far Heylir.  
Thus to carry on this Recenciling Design, all the care imaginable must be taken to humour the Papist, not only by prosecuting the Puritan with the greatest severity; but the Pope must not any longer be stigmatised with the name of Antichrist; all exasperating passages in any Book brought to the Press, must be expunged, not one word of the Gunpowder-Treason; for said Baker the Bishop of London's chaplain, We are not now so angry with the Papists, as we were twenty years ago; and that there was no need to exasperate them; and therefore the Book concerning the Gunpowder-Treason, must by no means be reprinted; the Divine Service must be in some respects altered; that whereas the Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time had a greater kindness for the Pope than those in H. 8. and Ed. 6. manifested by expunging a clause against the Pope, viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord deliver us. Even so in imitation, Archbishop Land changes some phrases in the Book of Prayers for the fifth of November. So far a Church of England Dr. To which I might add several other instances, but I wish there had not been the woeful occasion of insisting on so much.  
By this time the Reader may see cause to suspect at least the Deans Substitute, who in the Defence of the Dr. gives us the scheme of the old Grotian model, so much esteemed by the Archbishop Laud, who in his walking towards Rome, kept most exactly thereunto.  
But notwithstanding this, caution must be had, that we reproach not all the Church of England as if they had been such as this Author; for I do verily believe there are very few this day in England among the Conforming Clergy, who will approve of this man's notion, but probably may judge themselves as much concerned to oppose it, as any among the Dissenters. I'm sure Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury, and Usher Primate of Ireland, were persons of quite another principle and temper.  
And not only Abbot and Usher, but if we may judge of a Queen Elizabeth Protestant by the Writings of the famous Hooker and Dr. Field, we may be sure that this man (to say nothing of the Dean) hath (notwithstanding the great talk of the glory of the first Reformation) forsaken the notion the old church of England had of the church, and of such as are judged Schismatical, falling in with the French Papacy about Church-Government, as I will evince in the next Section.   

SECT. II.  
The Deans Substitutes agreement with the Papists about Schism, even when he differs from the Church of England, detected. His notion about the Government of the Catholic Church the same with that of the French Papist.  
THAT our Author entertains notions about the nature of the Visible Church, and of the Schismatical, very different from what the old Queen Elizabeth Protestant's did, will appear with the greatest conviction to such as will but consult the famous Mr. Hooker and Dr. Field, who do most expressly contradict what is asserted in the Dean's Defence.  
The Dean's Defender doth extremely insist on the Unity of the Universal Church, as what doth consist in more than in the Unity of the Faith, though in combination of those other graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, to wit, in an external communion, Take his own words in answer to a supposed objection.  
P. 183. But though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian Unity, yet Faith in combination with those other graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, make a firm and lasting union. This I readily grant (saith he); but yet must add this one thing, That Christian love, and charity, and peace, in the language of the New Testament, and of the ancient Fathers, when they signify Christian Unity, signify also one communion, that is, the unity of a Body and Society which is external and visible; and doth not only signify the union of souls and affections, but the union of an external and visible communion.  
P. 184. By the union of an external and visible communion, he means the living in Christian communion and fellowship with each other; that is, a worshipping God together after one and the same external and visible manner.  
P. 248. Moreover he adds, That such as separate themselves from the external communion of any particular Church that is part of the Universal, do separate themselves from the Universal visible Church. All Schismatics, in his opinion, cut themselves off from the visible Catholic Church, even as all such as are excommunicated, are cut off.  
This is the notion of the Deans Substitute, which is as agreeable to the sense of the Papist, as 'tis in itself grossly absurd, and different from the doctrine of sound Church of England Protestants.  
That 'tis agreeable to the sense of the Papists, you'll find in a Conference between Dr. Peter Gunning, and Dr. Pierson, with two Disputants of the Romish Profession. All Schismatics (say the Romish Disputants) are out of the Church, and quite separate from it, as a part cut off is separate from the body. Schismatic is a term contradistinct too Catholic. No Schismatics can be true members of the Catholic church; for Schism, as they define it, is a voluntary separation of one part from the whole true visible church of Christ. The correspondency that there is between the Author of the Deans Defence, and those Papists, about the formal reason of Schism, is as much as if the Defender had fetched his Definitition of Schism out of their Writings; which notion, as embraced by one that professes himself a Protestant, is as grossly absurd, as 'tis contrary unto Protestant principles.  
I say, such a notion entertained by a professed Protestant, is grossly absurd; for it exposeth him to the triumph of the roman-catholics, it being impossible that the Papists, notwithstanding their Schismatical Impositions, should be esteemed Schismatical by our Author. For all such as are Schismatical, are (saith he) cut off from the visible Catholic Church, of which the Church of Rome is acknowledged to be a true part, although from it these men, as they are Protestants, separate, and so cut themselves off from the Catholic visible Church; for such as separate from any true part of the Catholic church, according unto him, do cut themselves off from the Catholic church, and are Schismatics.  
Take a view then of the admirable abilities of our Author, who must be considered to assert, either that the Church of Rome is Schismatical, or not. If not Schismatical, the church of England must be so, or otherwise there may be a separation from the external communion of a particular Church that is a part of the Universal, without being guilty of Schism or of separating from the Catholic church. But if the Church of Rome be Schismatical, 'tis either cut off from the visible Catholic church, or not; if not, than Schism consists not in a separating from the visible Catholic church; that is, a man may be a Schismatic, and yet a member of the catholic church, a thing that our Author denies. But if the church of Rome be cut off from the visible Catholic church, than the distressed Papist is in as sad a condition as the Dissenter; he is cut off from the church of Christ, and must be either damned, or saved by another Name than that of Jesus Christ. If the latter, then farewell Christian Religion. If the former, Where shall we find any part of the Universal Church beside the Church of England? All the Protestants beyond the Sea are in the same state with the Dissenter at home; The Church of Rome, and all such as are in Subjection to that See, are cut off from the Visible Catholic Church, and it may be all the Eastern Churches in the World too; that is, the Catholic Visible Church is confined within the Pale of the Church of England. Pure Prelatical Donatism with a witness! Where will not Confidence, when the attendant of Ignorance, lead men. Moreover,  
This Notion as 'tis grossly absurd, in like manner 'tis most contrary to the old Protestant Principles. Consult Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, lib. 3. and you'll find nothing more fully asserted than, That the Visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore One in outward Profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity, and are necessarily required in every particular Christian man.— But we speak now of the Visible Church, whose Children are signed with this mark, One Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm. In whomsoever these things are, the Church doth acknowledge them for her Children. So far Hooker. But you will, it may be, object, That such as are Schismatical, or Excommunicate, may acknowledge One Lord, hold One Faith, and receive One Baptism, And shall such be considered as Members of the Visible Church? Take Mr. Hooker's own words for an Answer, If by external Profession they be Christians, then are they of the Visible Church of Christ; and Christians by external Profession are they all, whose mark of Recognizance hath in it those things which we have mentioned; yea; although they be impious Idolaters, wicked Heretics, Persons Excommunicable, yea and cast out for notorious Improbity.  
Thus 'tis evident, that Mr. Hooker entertained apprehensions quite contrary to those of our Author; yea and Mr. Hooker doth consider the very Notion asserted by our Author to be Popish, which he doth as such most excellently expose. As for the Act of Excommunication, (saith he) it neither shuts out from the Mystical, nor clean from the Visible, but only from the Fellowship with the Visible in holy Duties. In contradiction to which the Dean's Substitute's Assertion is, p. 226. That Excommunication casts a man out of the visible Society of Christ's Church, not of this or that particular Church only, but of the Whole Christian Church.— He that is cast out of one Church, is thereby cast out of all, and separated from the Body of Christ, which is but One.— And therefore such are out of a state of Salvation. As if it had been said in opposition to Mr. Hooker, Such as are Excommunicate are shut out clean from the Visible Church, yea and from the Mystical Church. A Notion that Mr. Hooker considers as held by none but Papists, for he immediately addresseth himself to the Church of Rome, thus; With what congruity then (saith he) doth the Church of Rome deny, that her enemies whom she holds always for Heretics, do at all appertain to the Church of Christ?— How exclude they us from being any part of the Church of Christ, under the colour and pretence of Heresy, when they cannot but grant it possible, even for him [i. e. the Pope] to be as touching his own personal persuasion Heretical, who in their opinion not only is of the Church, but holdeth the chief place of Authority over the same? The like may be said by way of Answer unto our Author. Moreover the Learned and Judicious Dr. Field, Son of the Church, is as full in contradicting what is asserted by our Author. For this Dr. of the Church, discoursing about the Schismatic, says, lib. 1. c. 13. That their departure is not such, but that notwithstanding their Schism, they are and remain parts of the Church of God.— Schismatics, notwithstanding their Separation, remain still conjoined with the rest of God's people, in respect of the profession of the whole saving Truth of God, all outward acts of Religion, and Divine Worship, Power of Order, and Holy Sacraments, which they by virtue thereof administer, and so still are and remain parts of the Church of God.— The like is asserted of such as are cast out by Excommunication, c. 15.  
But I'll not enlarge any further, having sufficiently evinced, that the Opinions of this man, who treats the Dissenters with so much scorn and contempt, are such as were anciently by Queen Elizabeth's Protestant's exploded as Popish; and at this very time, I verily believe, rejected by the greatest part of the Episcopal Clergy; and that the Contest now is not so much between Dissenters and the Church of England, as between a few under the name of the Church of England on the one part, and the greater number of the Church of England, with the Dissenter, on the other. The former under the notion of running down Dissenters, are preparing materials to meet the Papist: The other, to the end they may the more effectually prevent the Designs of Rome, have sent forth their Plea for the Nonconformist, finding themselves concerned to check the Insolence of those, who in this day of common Calamity, would ruin the conscientious Protestant Dissenter.  
This being so, I must beseech the Reader not to misapprehend me in what follows, as if I had been speaking reproachfully of the Church of England; because I cannot but discover, how agreeable the Sentunents of the Deans Substitute about Church-Government are, unto those embraced by the French Papist.  
That I may the more clearly show what are the mischievous Tendencies of our Author's Notion about Church-Government, I will give in short, the most distinct, and truest state of the Controversy I can, showing what is granted by sound Protestants, and what not; What are the Doctrines of the Papists: How far the French and Italian Papist agree, and wherein they differ, and in what respects the Dean's Substitute concurs with the French.  
§ 1. All are so far agreed as to conclude, That God hath had a Church at all times in every Age of the World. We might be very particular in considering the divers Denominations under which the Church falls, answerable to the divers capacities of the Members thereof, and the divers states in which it is and hath been, which I shall at this time pass by.  
§ 2. That the Church is but One, one Body united to one Head.  
§ 3. That this One Church must be considered, as the Members thereof are scattered up and down the World, etc. and as they are joined together in particular Societies. The former is called the Church Universal, the other a Particular Church.  
The Papists themselves do acknowledge, That the Church must be considered as Universal and as Particular; though they looked on the Universal to be such, whose whole existence was in Particulars; as Universal est unum in multis singularibus: Whence it follows, That such as are not members of a Particular Church, they belong not unto the Catholic Visible Church. This very Notion hath been embraced by some, to wit, the Old Independents; but of late it hath been generally exploded by Divines of that name, they leaving it to entertain such as the Dean's Substitute.  
§ 4. That the Church of Christ is under Government. There is such a thing as Church-Government Jure divino.  
The Papists, both French and Italian; The Protestants, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational, or Anabaptist, hearty agree in Thesi about this.  
§ 5. The great difference is concerning what that Church-Government is, which is of Divine Institution: Where 'tis seated, whether in a Particular, or in the Universal Church; and whether it be Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical, or mixed.  
§ 6. The Papists, with whom the Doctor's Substitute doth agree, assert, That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government; That all Church-Officers belong to the Universal Church, and have an Original Right to govern the whole Universal Church.  
Take the notion as found in the Defence. We must (saith he) consider, that all the Apostles had relation to the whole Church; and therefore, though being finite creatures they could not be every where at a time, but betook themselves to different places, and planted Churches in several Countries, and did more peculiarly apply themselves to the government of those Churches which they themselves had planted, and ordained Bishops to succeed them in their care and charge; yet their Original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church, did still remain, which they might reassume when they saw occasion for it; and which did oblige them to take care as far as possibly they could, that the Church of Christ suffered no injury by the heresy or evil practices of any of their Colleagues. P. 212.  
§ 7. The Protestants (excepting some obscure Writers) assert particular Churches to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government; among whom there are these differences.  

1. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from the Congregational and Anabaptistical about the extent of particular Churches, e. g. the latter concluding that their number must be no more than are capable of personal communion; the former contrarily judge, That a company of a greater extent may be included within the confines of a particular Church, who in the management of their discourses concerning it, give too great an advantage unto the Papacy.  
2. The Episcopal and Presbyterian differ from some of the Congregational concerning the nature of Discipline, the Congregational being esteemed as espousers of a Democracy, or Populacy, the other against it.  
3. The Episcopal differs from the Presbyterian, in that the Episcopal are for a Monarchy, the Presbyterian for an Aristocracy.   
§ 8. All Protestants generally agree in asserting the Independency of particular Churches.  
'Tis notorious that the Church of England established by Law; is a particular National Church, independent on any Foreign Power whatsoever. Such is the constitution of our Church, that what Bishop soever is found an abuser of his Power, he is not accountable to any College of Bishops, but such as are convened by his Majesty's Authority; and that what apprehensions soever he may have of his being grieved through any undue procedure, he cannot make any Appeal to any Foreign Power from the King.  
'Tis the King who is the Supreme Head of the Church of England; there is no Power on earth equal unto, or above his in Ecclesiastical Affairs. To appeal unto any Foreign Power, whether unto one Bishop singly, or unto many by consent assembled, 'tis to do what tends to the subverting the present Constitution; yea, 'tis to subvert the very foundation of our Government, as 'tis opposite unto a French or an Italian Papacy.  
Whoever consults the many Laws made in Henry the 8th's time, Edward the 6th's, and Queen Elizabeth's, cannot but be fully satisfied that the Appeal of any Bishop, or any other person, from the King unto any other Foreign Power, is contrary unto the ancient Laws of this Realm; and that such as shall venture the doing so, run themselves into a Praemunire. For 'tis most apparent, that our National Church of England is a particular Independent Church. That neither the Pope of Rome, nor the Bishop of Paris, nor any other Foreign Bishops, have any Original Right or Power in relation to England; and that therefore their assuming any such power, is a sinful Usurpation. All this is undoubtedly true. Yet,  
§ 9 The Deans Substitute exposeth the Independency of Episcopal particular Churches, as what is inconsistent with Catholic Union; and asserts, That if any Bishops abuse their Power, they are accountable unto a General Council, that is, unto a Foreign Power, whereby he doth his utmost to tore up the Church of England by the Roots, to subvert his Majesty's Supremacy, as if all the Laws of the Land concerning it had not been of any force. All this by Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender.  
That this is so, I'll evince from our Authors own words, which are as follow, And now I cannot but wonder (saith he) to find some Learned men very zealous assertors of the Independency of Bishops, and to allege St. Cyprians Authority for it: for what ever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular saying in St. Cyprian, certainly he would never be of this opinion, who asserts but One Chair, One Apostolical Office and Power, which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church; for when the same Power is in ten thousand hands, it can be but One only by Unity of consent in the exercise of it; and 'tis very wild to imagine that any one of these persons who abuse this Power, shall not be accountable to the rest for it, i. e. to the College of Bishops; for (saith he soon after) if we consider the practice of the ancient Church, we shall find that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent, but as liable to the censure of their Colleagues, as Presbyters and Deacons were to the censure of their Bishops. P. 212. So far our Author, who doth as it were expressly assert, That the Archbishop of Canterbury, though Metropolitan and Primate of England, if he abuses his Power, is accountable unto the General Council, when by consent assembled; that is, the Archbishop, who is not in power above any other Bishops, (as is by the Deans Substitute asserted) abusing his Power, is accountable to some Court above any in this Realm, to a General Council, a College of Bishops.  
§ 10. Although the Papists generally assert, That the Universal Church is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Church-Government as hath been already intimated; yet there's a difference between the French and Italian Papist about the kind of the Government; the one insisting on an Aristocracy, the other on a Monarchy, i. e. the French holds, That the pars Regens of the Universal Church is a General Council; the Italian, That it is one single person, viz. the Bishop of Rome.  
There hath been in the Church of Rome for some hundred years, a great contest concerning the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church, Whether it be a General Council, or the Pope. Whether a General Council be above the Pope, or the Pope above a General Council. About which the Church of Rome is fallen into three parts, as Bellarmine asserts.  
1. That the P●pe is the Supreme Head of the Church, and so much above a General Council, that he cannot subject himself thereunto. The Government of the Universal Church, though mixed, being composed of a Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy, yet principally 'tis Monarchical. The Supreme Power being immediately lodged in the Monarch, who is the Bishop of R●me, Christ's Vicar, and Peter's Successor, he is above a General Council, and not accountable to any on earth for any abuse he may be guilty of. Of this opinion, saith Bellarmine, are all the Schoolmen generally, especially Sanctus Antonius, Jeannes de Turrecremata, Alvarus Pelagius, Dominicus Jacobatius, Cajetan, Pighius, Ferrariensis, Augustinus de Aneena, Petrus de Monte, etc. Yea, this is the sense of the Jesuits generally, and of all such as are engaged to support the Court of Rome, as are the Italian Bishops, for which reason I call it Italian Popery.  
2. There are some among the Canonists who assert, That the Pope is above a General Council, but yet may subject himself hereunto.  
3. There are others who assert, That a General Council is above the Pope, that the Supreme Governing-power over the whole Catholic Church is given them immediately; that the Pope, as every other Bishop, is accountable to the General Council.  
This is what hath been asserted by the Council at Constance, Anno 1315. and by that of Basil, Anno 1431. and by many Learned Divines in the Church of Rome, viz. Cardinal Cameracensis, Jeannes Gerson, Jacobus Almain, Nicolas Cusanus, Panormitanus, and his Master Cardinal Florentinus, as also by Abulensis.  
Gerson being a Chancellor at Paris, had many followers among the French, who at this very day assert, That the Supreme Regent part of the Universal Church, is a General Council; for which reason I conclude, that such as assert, That a General Council is the Political Head or Regent part of the Universal Church, are in the number of French Papists.  
Thus Cassander, yea and Grotius, as to Church-Government, were for a French Papacy. Whether the Dean's Substitute be or be not, I'll leave to the impartial censure of the judicious R●●der, who is desired to consider his notion as compared with that of the Parisians.  
1. The Dean's Substitute doth suggest, That the Universal Church is the first Seat of Government; 'tis a political organised Body, in which there is a Pars Imperans & Subdita, the Bishops in their College being the Governors, or Pars Imperans, and all others of the Universal Church the subdite part.  
It may be our Author to gratify the Dean, will deny the Universal Church to be a political organised body, as indeed he doth; but 'tis even when he's resolved to assert, That the Universal church is the Seat of Government and Discipline; as if there could be any Government in any Society, without a governing and governed parts. But so it is, as a National, even so the Universal church with him is not a political body, that is, 'tis not such a body unto whose constitution a pars Imperans and subdita is necessary, even when its constitution is such that it cannot be but there must be in it some Governors, and other Governed. Ther● is not a Regent part in the Catholic Church, but there is a Governing part; that is, there are Governors, viz. the Catholic Bishops in their College, who are the Governors of the Catholic church.  
Thus our Learned Gentleman in one place endeavouring to fetch the Dean off from that difficulty Mr. Humphreys had driven him unto, concerning the constitutive Regent part of the church of England as National, doth say, The Dean answers in my poor opinion, with great judgement and consideration, We deny any necessity of such a constitutive Regent part— For though a National church be one body, yet it is not such a political body as Mr. B. describes, i. e. there is no such Government as cannot be without a Pars Regens & Subdita, p. 562. And yet he grants, That Church-governors united and governing by consent, are the pars Imperans, and christian peoplo in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour, submitting to such government, are the pars subdita. p. 565. All which is true (saith he) without a Constitutive Regent Head, (i. e.) There is a Governing part or a pars Regens; or to speak English, a Constitutive Regent part or Head, without a Constitutive Regent Head. The like is asserted of the Universal Church, namely, That it is a Church governed by the College of Bishops, which College of Bishops are the Pars Imperans, though not the constitutive Regent part. For we must allow him to wallow in his contradictions. But a Governing part there is in the Universal Church, which Governing part is composed of Bishops.  
II. The Governors of the Universal Church are Catholic Bishops in Council, who though they are equals, and as such have no Superiority over one another, p. 213. yet the College, or these Bishops assembled, have Authority and command over any of its colleagues; that is, every single Bishop is under the Authority and command of this Foreign Council.  
III. The Catholic Church is One, when it is not rend and divided, but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick c●ose together, p. 596.  
The result of all is, That the Catholic Church of Christ being one Visible Political Body, it is a completely Organised body on Earth, hath its Governing and Governed parts; The Visible Governing part being a Terrestrial Numerical Head, though collective, viz. A College of Bishops, a General Council.  
A Notion that doth not only subvert the present constitution of the Church of England, that thinks not itself accountable to any such Foreign Power; but moreover in itself as grossly absurd, as 'tis suited to the French, the Cassandrian, or the Grotian Model, leading us all to Unite with all the other parts of the Catholic Church, by rendering an unwarrantable Obedience unto such a Governing Power as is seldom in being, and when so, as dangerous and of as destructive a tendency to the Government of Jesus Christ, as that of the Italian Papacy.  
But whether our Author had a clear prospect of this Intrigue, when at first he was put on it, I'll not venture to determine; it being sufficient that I have fully proved, That the New-modelled Episcopacy of this Gentleman is the same with that of the French; which is as inconsistent with the old-established Episcopacy of our Church, as is the Italian Papacy. For if our Author may safely exceed the bounds of those Laws, that do with the greatest Severity forbidden our Appeal to any Foreign Power, by addressing himself unto a Foreign College, Why may not another presume to make his Appeal to the Court of Rome? What Reason can be given for the One, which will not prove cogent for the Other; especially to such, who, living where they have constant experiences of the excellency of a Monarchical Government in the State, may be easily induced to conclude Monarchy as admirable in the Church, and then farewel Impossibilities, viz. General Councils, a Roman Monarch in the Church being much more desirable.  
Having thus given a true state of the Controversy, whereby we find our Author to agree exactly with the French Papist about Government, asserting the Universal Church as such, to be a Governed Body, in which there is a Governor, and the Governed; 'twill be requisite, that as I have shown what are some of the Absurdities which flow from it, that I do moreover evince it to be in itself unsound and false.  
That this may the more clearly and with the greater conviction be performed, I will be so just, as to do our Author all the right imaginable, by taking notice what he seems to assert, and what he's resolved to deny, and accordingly proceed to the strictest disquisition after the Truth.  
Our Author asserts, That the Universal Church, as such, is the Seat of Government, 'tis a Body under Government; as much as if it had been said, There must be in it a Governing, and a Governed part. It being impossible that Government should be without Order, which Order is secundum sub, & Supra. Wherever there is Government, there must be a Superior part Governing, and an Inferior Governed. There must be Dominus & Subditus. This our Author seems to grant, when he doth to this Assertion of the Government of the Universal Church, add his thoughts about the Governors thereof; which, he says, are the Universal Bishops assembled in Council.  
But alrhough this is what our Author doth assert, he doth notwithstanding resolutely deny the Universal Church to be a Political Body; what he saith of a National, that he asserts of the Universal Church, both which are Governed Societies, but neither a Political Body; p. 564, 565. All which is to fetch off the Dean from Mr. Humphrey's and Mr. B's unanswerable Queries concerning the constitutive Regent part of a National church, whose existence must be acknowledged, if a National church as such be a Governed church, or a Body Politic; but yet this cannot be found out. For which reason they distinguish between a Governed Society and a Body Politic; between a Governing and a Regent part, and assert, That the National church is a Governed Society, but not a Body Politic; that it hath a Governing, but not a Regent part; the like of an Universal church.  
This is the true state of our Author's Judgement, wherein we have an admirable account of the Gentleman's acute distinguishing, the excellency of which I'll leave to the entertainment of his Admirers; and if he please, consider the Notion according to his own stating it: that is, to gratify him, I won't insist on the word Policy, nor Regent, nor constitutive Regent part; but only on government, Governors, and Governed; and so our Enquiry being about the Government of the Universal Church, we must consider what is necessary thereunto, and see whether what our Author asserts be agreeable unto such a constitution; for if not so, 'tis far from Truth.  
To consider what it is that is necessary to the constitution of any Governed Body; that is, what is so necessary, that the absence thereof is destructive to the Constitution? To this I Answer,  
That a Governing, and a Governed part is so necessary unto Goverement, that where either one of these be absent, there can be no Government. A Governed Body cannot be without a Governing part, neither can this be without a part Governed. Government doth necessarily infer both these; remove either one, & the Government is destroyed. Government is a Relation resulting from that mutual respect the Governing and Governed parts have to each other, whence as Sublato uno Relatorum tollitur & alterum; and where there is nor Subject nor Term, (i. e.) nor Relate nor Correlate, there can be no Relation. Remove the Governing part from the Universal or National Church, and the Government ceases. Paternity may be where there is no Father, assoon as Government without a Governing part. Whence I infer, That where there is a Fixed Government, there must be a fixed Governing part.  
This premised, Let us next inquire, whether or not what our Author asserts, be suitable to this undoubted Rule? Doth he show us such a Governing part? The Government is a constant fixed Government, but where is the constant fixed Governing part? 'Tis a General Council, saith he, i. e. the universal Bishops in their College assembled. But is this a fixed Governing part? Is it not evident to an ordinary capacity, that the assembling such a Council of all the Bishops in the World, is a difficulty insuperable; and that without such an Assembly, 'tis impossible they should by joint consent govern the Universal Church. The astembling of the Catholic Bishops is as easy as the gathering together their consent per literas format as, and much more conducive to the desired End; because when assembled they can debate the matters before 'em, and with the greater judgement give their determinations.  
But 'tis well known, that had such an Assembly been possible, yet the Church of God for the first 300 years, had no such Assembly, excepting that in the Apostles days, i. e. it had no such Governing part; which is as if it had been said, There was no Government in the Universal Church the first 300 years.  
To gratify our Author, Let us suppose that the Universal Church is as such a Governed Society, and that it hath its Governors, But though this be so, yet it must be still acknowedged, that a Governor cannot be without Power to Govern; I would therefore beseech my Author to show me, What is that Power with which this College of Bishops are invested? Is it Legislative only, or also Executive? Whether the one or the other, is it in the College Subjectively and Formally, or only in 'em as in fine seu regulante, or supplente, or How? 'Twould be necessary that our Author consult the Parisian Doctors, if he will speak to the purpose, when he espouses their Notion.  
Let our Author assert as it pleaseth him at an adventure, it matters not, for his Notion is such as necessarily directs us to conclude what he must, if he will be consistent with himself, assert, and that is this, All Church-Government is Universal, and as such it must be exercised; no one being a Governor in the Church, but he that is a Catholic Officer: That the due course of exercising this Power is, when it flows originally from the Head unto all its Members. That it flows from the Invisible, or rather unseen Head in Heaven immediately unto the visible Head on Earth, is granted by all those who assert an Universal Church-Government; though there is a Dispute among the Papists, whether this Head be the Council, or the Pope. As it flows immediately from Christ to the visible Head, so it proceeds from this visible Head unto the Patriarches, from thence to the Metropolitans, from thence to the Diocesans. For which Reason if any are injured by their Diocesan, they may Appeal to their Metropolitan, from thence to their Patriarch, from thence to the Pope or Council. This our Author must hold. That there may be no wrong done the Little Ones of Christ, if any be grieved by One, he may Appeal unto an Higher, till he comes unto the Highest Power on Earth; from whence if he find not relief, he must acquiesce, leaving the whole to him who is in Heaven. But if there be no constant visible Head actually existing, where shall the grieved lodge his last Appeal? The Dean's Substitute supposes an equality of Power in Patriarches, Metropolitans, and Diocesans; whence if his Diocesan doth abuse his Power, he is not accountable to any Metropolitan, nor Patriarch, but only unto the Catholic College. The which being so, 'twill follow, That Executive Power must be lodged in some Supreme Head Subjectively, who can receive Appeals: I say Subjectively, or Formally, and not only Virtually; for 'tis an Executive Power only that can relieve in this case; which cannot Actually be, where 'tis only Virtually. For which Reason 'tis evident, that according to our Author, there must be a fixed Governing part invested with an Executive Power, from whom relief is to be expected, if at any time the Diocesan doth abuse his Power; which Governing part must be either a College of Bishops, or one single Person. And if the obtaining the former be, as indeed 'tis impossible, the acknowledging the latter is necessary.  
Thus we see how fairly this Gentleman at length leads us to Rome, or some other Pope, as the only necessary way of governing the Church. In doing which, he doth but carry on the Project, of which Sir Francis Winnington takes notice at the Trial of the Lord Stafford, when he assured the Lords, That as an encouragement to the POPISH PLOTTERS, there did appear in some men too easy and favourable a Disposition towards the PAPISTS. They were grown strangely MODERATE towards these OLD ENEMIES of our Church and State. New PROJECTS of RECONCILING of us were set on foot, and Books were written to distinguish the Church of Rome from the Court of Rome. One of those Books, which was Printed the year before the Discovery of the Plot, pretends, That there ought to be a Difference made between Papists of LOYAL and DISLOYAL Principles. This Book, as it was written more ARTIFICIALLY than the rest, and Published in so Critical and Dangerous a Juncture, deserves, and I doubt not in time will have a particular Consideration. 'Tis easy to believe how great Encouragement this must give to the ROMANISTS, to see how very willing men were to meet them, and how freely the Pen was drawn in their Favour.  
By this time the Reader may easily see who 'tis that is subservient to the Popish Design, and without any further help clearly perceive what is the Tendency of our Author's Discourse. There remaineth only one objection which calls for our observation, the which can be no sooner removed, but the Reader may be fully satisfied in this, viz. That 'tis not impossible for one who Assents and Consents to the Thirty nine Articles, the Book of Common-prayer, and of Homilies, to drive on a French (not to say a Popish) Design.  
The Objection that occurs to a common capacity, is, How can such that give in Assent and Consent to all that is said of the excellency of the present Establishment, do any thing that tends to its subversion?  
The Answer is easy; You must distinguish between the say and the things assented and consented unto. For you do not Assent unto the Say, though about the excellency of the present Establishment, but the Things; for saith he, p. 105. We do not give our Assent to every saying in the Common-prayer-book, but to every thing which is contained in, and prescribed by it; that is, what we are bound to use. Whence observe, That seeing a Papist can comply with all the Ceremonies in use, even when he cannot Assent to all the Say in the Common-prayer-book, he may give in his Assent, and Consent, and be as true a Son of the Church of England as our Author is.   

SECT. III.  
A Third Overt-act of the Enquirers pretended Immodesty, examined. The averseness of the Dean and his Substitute to a Protestant Union, proved. Their falling in with the Dissenters about conscience, considered. Some Remarks on the Author's modest treatment of others.  
THE Enquirer charges the Dean and some of the Episcopal, to be against any compliances with the Dissenter, as if they set a greater value on the Honour and Reputation of men, than on Union, or the relieving tender consciences, which is said to be a malicious and impudent charge. Words very modest, as they drop from our Author's pen!  
To this I'll reply, if possibly, modestly, without passing any further censure on the heat with which the Deans Defender expresseth himself.  
'Tis true I did charge the Dean and some others of the Episcopal, as persons who would not condescend to part with the least jota for Union, for these Reasons: 

1. The Dissenters have used all just means, but without success, for the obtaining of it.  
2. Some of the Episcopal Clergy have for these last Twenty years made it their business to stir up Authority to a severe execution of such Laws as were made against Dissenters.  
3. They were not ashamed to expose His Majesty to the great contempt of His people, when he began to show pity and compassion to the oppressed Dissenters. What Invectives came out after it! What Satirical Declamations against it!  
4. The Dr. himself judged a severe execution of Laws against Dissenters, to be the most effectual means for the obtaining a firm and a lasting Union. And therefore,   

1. Preached that Sermon which has been the shameful occasion of our late contests. Thus they press for a Comformity as the only way to Union, as if there can be no Union among Christians without such Uniformity.  
2. He so states the case between Relief and no Relief to Dissenters, as to incline more for no Relief. He hath but Three Arguments for Relief, and Six against it. Dr. Still. Preface, p. 53, 54.  
3. He inveighs against a boundless Toleration, as the Mother of all confusion; and then tells us, That the suspension of Penal Laws against Protestant Dissenters, is to open the Floodgates to such a boundless Toleration; and yet they are for great Abatements.    
In fine, 'tis remarkable, That notwithstanding the many Protestations made of a propension toward a real union between Conformist and Nonconformist, nothing is more notoriously evident, than that those among the Dissenters who are mostly disposed to some compliances with the Episcopal, are above all others hated and contemned by such as our Author.  
There are some among Dissenters, (namely the Reverend Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Humphrey,) whose Moderation in these things hath been ever since their ejection for their Nonconformity practically discovered to the whole Kingdom. They frequently attend on the Conformists Ministry, not scrupling to be present at their prayers, nor at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Yea, they show with the greatest evidence desirable, That their disposition toward the accommodating the matters in difference between Conformist and Nonconformist is such, that nothing but apparent sin should hinder their conformity. But yet none more exposed to contempt by the Dean and his Substitute, than these men! 'Tis Mr. Baxter who writes in a continued fit of anger. 'Tis he is the man to be pitied; and no wonder, for his Substitute gives great reason for it, viz. Mr. B. is the Judas, the most dangerous Enemy that lodges in the bosom of the Church; a Catiline, a Protean Religionist, who transforms himself into all shapes; and differs from the Hobbist only in this, That the Hobbist is for being always of his Prince's Religion, but he is always for being against it. P. 234.  
This is the character which the Dean's Defender gives of that Reverend and Peaceable Divine, Mr. Baxter, and that principally, because he is so much inclined to unite with the Conformist; as if the Gentleman, and such as are of his Gang, were afraid of a Protestant Union.  
But, Sir, is this the way to Union? Is this the way to peace? What, to let out all your wrath, and rage, and fury, against such as are most peaceable, and ready to unite with you? What thinking and  mind can be persuaded to conclude, That those very men, who after such an unclean and indecent manner revile the peacemaker, are in love with peace? Is it possible that he who considers so complying a person as Mr. Baxter is, to be for that reason a Judas, a Catiline, a Protean Religionist, should be pleased with his compliances?  
This certainly doth but discover, That if the Nonconformists could conscientiously conform to more than really they can, it would not conduce to their relief, if such as our Author could prevent; They must do all you exact, or else no peace to be expected; they must comply with every iota, or no Union. Moreover, when they have conformed to every imposed iota, they must also separate themselves from all the good Christians in the Land that are not of their persuasion in every thing, or be still Schismatical: yea, though a man conforms, if he be more of a C●ristia● temper than our hot and fiery Author, that is, if he be but compassi nate towards Dissenters, showing a tenderness to their Consciences, 'tis enough to make him the object of their rage. Witness he Country Conformist, who notwithstanding the greatness of his Learning, and the excellency of his temper, discovered in his Remarks, is treated by the Dean's Substitute, Pref. p. 6. as one who is for raising a Civil War for the pulling down Church and State, to set up a Presbyterian Parity. Thus they deal with such as are for Peace, and yet would be thought to be for great Abatements for peace sake, as men sincerely disposed to unite with us; that is, they are so, if it may be without parting with one iota for Union.  
The Highflown Conformists, with whom only our present Controversy is, are very much for Union, even when 'tis most obvious, that the utmost they are for, is the exposing the Dissenter: Let the Dissenters do what they can, these men will not be pleased. There are several sizes among the Dissenters, some can Conscientiously do more for Union than others can; but they that do the most, are not freer from the lash of their Tongues and Pens, nor from the execution of their Laws than the other. If they come not to Church, than they are Disobedient, Seditious, Factions, and what not? If they do go to the Church, they are Judasses', Catiline's, Protean Religionists, Hobbists, etc.  
These things considered, Let any moderate man judge, what 'tis they'll part with for Union, what are those Iota's. Not that I accuse all Conformists, but a few, even those only who are of the same stamp with our Author, who seem to raze the foundations of the present Constitution; For I am confident, that there are many of the very Clergy, who desire nothing so much as the Peace of the Church, and the relieving tender Consciences. And as for the Magistracy, 'tis evident, that as few, or none delight to execute the Laws against Dissenters, even so 'tis in the heart of our Sovereign, the House of Lords, and of the Commons of England, that an Expedient be found out for the uniting Protestant's, and the easing those burdens that have so long lain on Dissenters; so that through God's Grace we may see a happy Union among Protestants, even when the Dean and his Substitute will not part with an jota for it.  
But you'll say, the Dr. makes Proposals for Union in the very Preface against which I writ. Answ. 1. If the Doctor contradicts himself, whose fault is that? But 2. 'Tis true the Dean made a Proposal of some Abatements in order unto Union, but unto whom? Let our skilful Interpreter, the Dean's Substitute declare. The Dean saith, We do hearty and sincerely desire Union, etc. The meaning of which is, (saith our Dean's Interpreter) that we are sincerely willing to make any Condescensions for Peace-sake, which will not overthrow the Church of England, nor insinuate a false and scandalous Accusation of the Unlawfulness of our Constitution and Rites of Worship, which we cannot do with a safe Conscience, because we believe the contrary, etc. And we are not so charitable to give ease to other men's Consciences to injure our own, and thereby condemn the Reformation, etc.  
In answer unto this, I must say, what I did unto the Dean, [Enquiry, p. 33.] It must be observed, That Dissenters not Conforming to Episcopacy and Ceremonies, is a judging them Unlawful; which is in the Opinion of our Churchmen, a casting a Reproach and Dishonour on the Reformation of the Church of England, etc. To which I add, That the Churches parting with any of those Rites of Worship, which the Dissenters cannot conscientiously comply with, may insinuate into the minds of some men the Notion of their Unlawfulness. Whence, if there must be no Abatements made, but such as do not insinuate an Unlawfulness in the Episcopal Constitution, nor in the Rites of Worship, what manner of Abatements can there be made? 'Tis evident then, that the Doctor's Proposal made with such Restrictions and Limitations for Union, is but a more plausible way of denying it. But what is the great Reason, why there must be no such compliance, as may be attended with such Insinuations, but this, 'Tis inconsistent with the Honour of the Reformation, or rather of the Reformers: For I remember, that when the talk was about blasting the Honour of the first Reformation, the meaning was, the casting a reproach upon Cramner, Ridley, etc. the first Reformers; And why may we not understand it now in the same sense in this place? And if so, How is the Charge untrue? or how comes it to be either Impudent or Malicious? But here is the Talk of Conscience, They cannot do it with safe Conscience, this surpriseth me. What! Is the Dean and his Defender fal● into such an hot fit of Fanaticisme, as to talk of their not being able to make any Abatements in the fore-described sense with a safe Conscience! How comes this about? I am hereby inclined to think, That they make the Scripture the Rule not only of their Doctrines, but Worship, and Discipline, a Presbyterian Principle. And, that 'tis the Opinion of their Consciences, that Episcopacy is of Divine Right, and consequently Unalterable. For they must not admit of any thing contrary to the Opinion of their Consciences; still Fanaticisme, a justifying the Dissenter, who cannot Consciencously Conform! Only there is an untoward Insinuation in't on the Doctor's part, namely, That the Episcopal Constitution is of Divine Right, and that our Churchmen are not overmuch owing to our Governors for its Establishment; That if our Governors should go about to make any Alteration in the present Constitution, they offend God: For which our Governors won't give them any great thanks. But sure a man's Conscience may permit another, whom he cannot change, to do that which it will not permit himself to do.  
Thus having considered the Overt acts of the Enquirers pretended Immodesty, let our Author make the most on't, and let the Reader judge, Whether there was not somewhat more than the Reflection on the Enquirer, that brought forth his first Chapter? Whether his propensions to favour our Common Enemy the Papist, were not stronger than his Aversions to the Enquirers Immodesty?  
Here I would have put an end unto this Chapter, had it not been requisite to take some notice of the like Treatment which he affords Mr. Baxter, Mr. Humphrey, the Country-Conformist, and Doctor Owen. Not that I design to enlarge on this Subject, but only to give the Reader a Taste of the Modesty of our Author, who accuses others so much of Immodesty.  
1. As for his usage of Mr. Baxter, 'tis such, that how immodest soever I may be esteemed, I must solemnly profess, that I cannot without defiling my Pen express it aright: I will not therefore take any other notice of it than to say, It becomes not a Man, much less a Christian, much less a Presbyter of the Church of England, to treat the unworthiest of men after such a rate as he has treated Mr. B. I am sure, 'tis recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, that Michael the Archangel durst not bring a railing Accusation against the Devil. And Oh, How unmeet then is it for this man of inferior Dignity, to rail at one so eminent in Piety and Learning!  
Methinks 'tis a pitiful shift, when men have nothing but hard words to answer hard Arguments with: A way the most ineffectual to the desired End, viz. the confuting a Learned Adversary; but the best perhaps that can be to come off. For really when there is so little of solid Answer to what Mr. Baxter hath urged against the Dean, this Gentleman's Treatise is beneath Mr. B's notice; and his hard words deserving no other Reply than, The Lord rebuke thee.  
2. Mr. Humphrey and the Country-Conformist must come next under the Gentleman's Pen, They must be Immodest too, as I am, and who can help it?  
But what is the matter? what is it that occasions all this stir? Really I cannot imagine, unless Mr. Humphrey's Faithfulness to the Dean, expressed in a way suitable to his wont Freedom, be the cause. 'Tis true, the Country Conformist takes notice of Mr. H's late Book, giving him thanks for that judicious Tractate, saying, That he had modestly and plainly rebuked the pride of the Dr. and given Mr. Baxter his due praise. From whence our Author takes occasion to run into a Discourse on the Modesty of Mr. Humphrey, and produces several of his expressions, which in the apprehension of some others, who, it may be, do more impartially, yea and more agreeably to the Christian Rule, weigh the nature of the Dean's Discourse, etc. are not so liable to exception as our Author suggests.  
'Tis well known that the Reverend Mr. H. is a grave Minister, it may be twenty years elder than Dr. Stillingfleet, for which reason a reproof (though plain and open) may be proper in him, which would not become me or this Author; especially, considering that this Mr. H. is one whose inclinations to conformity are such, that there can be nothing of humour to keep him from a closure with the Dean, or to provoke him to an unnecessary quarrel; which is enough to engage a judicious person to conclude, That if such a man as Mr. H. treats the Dean severely, there is somewhat extraordinary in the Dr. that called for it.  
In this opinion I am abundantly confirmed, when I remember what Mr. Baxter in the Preface of his Second Defence says of him, which is, That he handles the Dr. somewhat freely, that is, as the Country Conformist interprets it, very honestly, as the Dr. deserved; and for this reason, though our Author, who it may be hath not that sense of Conscientious duties upon him, as these others have, does blame it, yet it may be worthy commendation. For what should tempt so Learned and Judicious a person, as the Country Conformist is, to be so full in approving it, unless the very subject-matter of the Drs. Discourse, or the mode of managing it, did suggest, that the greatest kindness could be shown the Dr. was to deal plainly and uprightly in discovering unto him his sin?  
But this is enough to expose the Country conformist presently to the same lash. He is also immodest; and why? surely for no other reason, that I can imagine, but because he is not afraid to speak the Truth, and to give to the world an assurance, That the Dean's Discourse was not grateful unto every Conformist; and that therefore, whoever would insinuate as if the Dr. had given us the sense of all his Conforming Brethren in that great Book, would abuse and injure some of the most judicious and godly among the Conforming Clergy.  
He hath really done the true Church of England great right, in making not only his Reflections on the Deans Preface, but also his Remarks on the Book itself, a Treatise worthy the observation of the Dean, seeing the answering that, as appears by our Author's silence, is beyond his strength; that is, it is so candidly wrote, as he should be ashamed to except against it.  
I need not say any thing concerning the Reverend Dr. Owen, because as our Author had spoken little of his person (though more than became him) but less by way of answer to his Book. However it must be remembered, That seeing our Author found himself necessitated to run unto the Tents of the French Papist for Armour to batter down the Notion Dr. O. hath established in proving a particular Church to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Church-Government; the Drs. notion abides in its strength, and his Book unanswered in the sense of any sound Protestant; and therefore this Feeble Defence of the Dean of Paul's, is unworthy of so great a persons Animadversions. And that the Dean himself is no way relieved by this Defender, but as much obliged to attempt it himself, as if this Defence had never been published.    

CHAP. II. A Reply to what the Deans Substitute suggests in his censuring the Enquirers Design.  
THIS Gentleman not being able to satisfy himself with his tedious Essay to evince the Enquirer to be a person neither very Modest, nor very Peaceable, gives himself the liberty of censuring the Design, as if it had been rather to reproach the Dr. than to vindicate and clear up the innocency of the Dissenter. Thus he suggests that Mr. Lob wrote what he wrote to expose the Dean to popular odium and fury; to persuade the people never to look into the Deans book, or to stone him as an implacable enemy to all Loyal Dissenters. Pref. p. 30. Book p. 6.  
What reply is necessary to be made unto this charge, is not easy to imagine; for what though I should solemnly declare, That the casting reproach on Dr. Stillingfleet, or any other person, is what I perfectly hate; will he believe me? I can, and hereby do declare so much; but is it possible our Author should give credit to any such protestation, so long as 'tis almost natural for a man of his complexion to judge of others according to those overstrong propensions he finds in himself to such exposing practices?  
However, let me ask the Author what 'tis that provokes him to talk so confidently of the most secret motions of my soul? Why must exposing the Dean to popular edium and fury, be my end? What overtacts were there of such a design? Did I misrepresent the Dean in any one instance? Or did I make it my business to carp at every little thing in his Preface? Did I insist on far-fetched consequences, or force any undue sense on his words? Did I speak all I could to show the Tendency of his Preface, or whole Book? Or did I take notice of any thing more than what was necessary for the clearing up the innocency of the Dissenter? As to these particulars, you cannot fasten your Accusation; But yet my aim must be exposing the Dean; and why exposing him? What, was the Dean exposed, because the charge with which he would load Dissenters, was such, that the very repeating and confuting it, tends to his Reproach? If so, whose fault is that?  
I do freely confess, That I believe the Deans charge against Dissenters to be so indecent, that thereby he hath lost very much of that Esteem he formerly had among Judicious Gentlemen of the Church of England; but this is not my fault, nor an Argument, that what I wrote in the Defence of the Dissenter, was with a design of exposing the Dean. A thing I could have easily done, without either wresting his words, or imposing a foreign sense on 'em.  
How easily could I have imitated the famous Bishop Jewel, and have picked such passages out of the Dean's Discourses, as that Great Prelate did out of Harding, and have showed how unlike himself the Dean acted, in contemning and pitying the Reverend Mr. Baxter, in comparing the judicious Mr. Alsop's Discourse to the Bird of Athens, made up of Face and Feathers; and representing Mr. Alsop himself so, as if all things had not been right, that is, as if he had been mad. Of this I the rather take notice, because a very serious person on the reading the Dean's Book, came to me on purpose, to inquire whether Mr. Alsop was never mad? If not, said he, Why did Dr. Stillingfleet write as if he had? Many other things of a more uncomely aspect I could have taken out of the Dean's Writings, but I waved it, it not being my work in that Enquiry, or this Reply, to acquaint the World with the naevi of the Reverend Doctor; and therefore notwithstanding the many provocations you have given me in your Defence of the Dean, I'm resolved to treat the Dean more civilly than he did Mr. B. or Mr. A. or than you have Mr. B. or Mr. H. and the Country Conformist.  
The exposing men to Popular Odium and Fury, becomes only such who hate Persons more than their Opinions, and who have little to offer against their Adversaries besides hard words. It becomes not men, who pretend to act suitably to the Christian Rule, to use railing Expressions instead of pungent Arguments; nor to expose the Person, instead of confuting his Opinion.  
For this Reason I did in the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry, on a second perusal, expunge all such words as might seem hard or unmeet, treating the Dean with the greatest Candour and Respect, not suffering one passage to go to the Press, that might tend to his reproach, unless rehearsing the charge lain in against the Dissenter as clothed with his own words, and the confuting him, must be esteemed as such.  
'Tis true, I showed the Tendency of his Discourse, which I thought to be for the advancing the Papal Interest. The very thing the Dean's Substitute drives at in the Dean's Defence, wherein our Author goes much further than the Dean, or at least hath expressed his sentiments more freely, and with less caution. But shall this be considered as an exposing you to popular odium and fury? You assert, That the Universal Church is a governed Society; That the Bishops in their College are the governing part; That the Bishops convened in their Assembly, do not meet only for mutual Help and Concord, but for Regiment. The Assembly of Bishops in Council, is not such as that of Princes of several distinct Territories, who meet together in order to the maintaining and conserving a general Union and Peace in the World; for instance, that at Nimmegen, at which Convention the Princes come freely; and when there, the One is not under the Regiment of the Assembly, but each one free to Consent or Dissent to any thing proposed for Peace, their Territories being as so many distinct Independent Governments, whose Governors are not accountable to any General Council of Princes in the World. Such an Assembly of Bishops you are not for: For this, say you, p. 601. makes Christian Communion as Arbitrary a thing, as the Confederacies of Princes; whereas the Episcopal Office is but One, and therefore aught to be administered by the mutual Advice and Consent of Bishops, who all equally share in it; that is, the whole World must be considered as of One and the same Government; that the many particular Princes of distinct Territories, such as England, France, Spain, Denmark, etc. are not Independent in their Government, but are accountable either unto One Universal Emperor, or Di●●, etc. This is what you assert as to Church-Government, 'tis One all the World ever. Though lesser Societies are variously dispersed, yet are all under one and the same Government, the Bishops of the one and of the other are obliged to meet together in their College, or Di●●, where they are all bound to submit unto the Ca●●●, D●●●●, or Determinations of the College; that whoever dissents from the Body of the College is Schismatical.— This is your Notion, and for aught I know the Deans; a Notion that is the same with that of the French Papacy, that doth but fairly lead us to Rome.  
But must the mentioning so much, expose you to the rage and fury of the people? If so, whom can you blame, but yourself? The like may be said to the Dean, to whom I add this one request, which is, to consider the Tendency of his great Book, as well as of this your Defence of him; and if his Aims and the Tendency of either of these Discourses be different, 'twill be apparent that I was not mistaken in my Charity of the Author, when I passed my censure on his Treatise. However 'tis sufficient, that the utmost I did was to expose the evil Tendency of the Book, endeavouring as much as possibly I could, to save the Dean from lying under Reproaeh, distinguishing between the Author and his Work.  
This much may serve as more than enough to our Author's Censure of invisible and unknown Designs.   

CHAP. III. A Reply to the Defence of the Dean of Paul's, so far as it concerns the Modest and Peaceable Enquiry.  

SECT. I.  
The Answer to what the Enquirer insisted on in showing the Deans Mistakes about the Jesuits Doctrine, concerning Spiritual Prayer, Examined. § 1. The present Aids of the Spirit in enabling Ministers in the Exercise of their Function, agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Dr. Burnet's most Christian Reproof to such Ministers, as neglect the inward Motions of the Spirit. § 2. The Ground of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeth's days, the very same with that of the first Reformation from Popery, beginning in Henry the 8th's time, and Sealed after with the Blood of our Martyrs.  
THE Deans Substitute doth at last apply himself to the Defence of the Doctor, in doing which he considers the Reasons I collected out of the Dean's Preface, which the Dean urges to engage the Reader to believe, that the Dissenters are a people carrying on the Popish Designs.  
1. The Dissenters have embraced the Jesuits Principles about Spiritual Prayer, and a more pure way of Worship. This is what I observed out of Dr. Still. But our Author, who hath read over the Doctor's Preface very carefully, can find no such thing urged against the Dissenters, and adds, All that Mr. Lob found'st this Accusation on, is, That the Dean says, It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England: And then goes on to a very decent Censure, saying, That this is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented.  
Sir, If I had insisted on no more than what you here mention as the foundation of my Charge, I must acknowledge, that 'twould not only be imperfectly, but impertinently related: For what connexion is there between the Jesuits Practices, and their Principles?  
Is it not well known, that the Principles they profess, the Doctrines they embrace concerning many a point in Divinity, are one thing, even when their Practice is another? May they not then, in order to the carrying on a further Design, set on Practices contrary to their Doctrines? Yea, surely they may; and this is the whole Defence you make in behalf of the Dean, with which after an unnecessary Harangue, you dismiss the Subject.  
But is this fair, to misrepresent an Adversary, and then confute what needs no Confutation? Doth this redound to the Honour of a Presbyter of the Church of England? Was this all on which Mr. Lob founded his Accusation? Did he not add somewhat more than what you relate? You say, all that Mr. Lob found'st this accusation on is, that the Dean says, It is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of Spiritual Prayer in England; which is mighty falsely and imperfectly repesented. p. 6. Yet whoever will consult the Enguiry will find, that I do out of the Dean add, That there is no improbality of the thing, if we consider the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, to the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits. The Dean suggests, that Spiritual and Free Prayer, even that Spiritual and Free Prayer about which there is such a Pother, is suited to the Doctrines of the Jesuits; to the Doctrine, that is, to their Principles. What difference is there between the Doctrine and the Principles of the Church of England? In like manner I Query, What difference is there between the Doctrines and Principles of the Jesuits? Doth the Dean then assert such an Agreement to be between the Pretences of the Dissenter about Spiritual Prayer, and the Doctrines or Principles of the Jesuits, not only the Practices but Doctrines of the Jesuits? Who then is the impersect or mistaken Reporter?  
The Dean's Charge against Dissenters is, That the Dissenters pretences about Spiritual Prayer, are suited with the Doctrines of the Jesuits. And 'tis our concern to inquire after the truth of this Charge; I say of this charge; to wit, about the Agreeableness that is between our Pretences and their Doctrines. For it is no way momentous to inquire after the practice of a company of Villains, who can transform themselves into a thousand shapes, whenever their Interest obliges them to do so. Was it never known that a Papist crept into some great Preferment in the Church of England, at which time they did both Assent and Consent to the doctrines of the Church of England? What think you of a quondam Bishop of Gloucester, to mention no more? did he not speak well of the Church of England, yea even of the Protestant Religion? Is it therefore Popery?  
For this Reafon it concerns me not to inquire after those Stories insisted on by the Doctor, or to be found in that Pamphlet called Foxes and Firebrands. The great Enquiry must be after the Doctrines of the Jesuit, whether there is any suitableness between the Dissenters pretences and the Jesuits Doctrines. For which Reason the Jesuits Writings were consulted, and the Doctor's Charge found untrue; the Dr. being mistaken as to matter of fact. He represented the Jesuits Doctrines to be other than indeed they are, which, to speak softly, was a Mistake.  
If the Deans Defender would have spoke to the purpose, He should have searched those places I insisted on in Azorius, Filiucius, and Bellarmine, and have showed wherein I had either made a false report of their say, or misinterpreted 'em. But this was impossible.  
There being nothing else of moment in the Reply to what I offered against the Dean about Spiritual Prayer, I might fairly, without saying any thing more, proceed to the next particular. But seeing some have spoken contemptibly of the Spirit of prayer, which is said to assist such as use free or extempore prayer, as if those who spoke of received help from the Spirit in prayer, were Enthusiastical, etc. and because our Author talks as if the Jesuits had the first hand in the Separation of the old Nonconformists from the Church of England, crying down the Common-prayers as a dull, formal, superstitious Worship, and the setting up free prayer in the room of it; I will show,  


1. The sense of the first Reformers about the aid of the Spirit. And  
2. What was the great and chief ground of the First Separation.    
§ 1. Concerning the Aid of the Holy Spirit, by which many are enabled to pray freely or spiritually, it hath been by some of the conforming Ministers asserted, That such as pretend to receive the aid of the Spirit, may as well pretend to inspiration, etc. That then they'll believe that persons can pray by the Spirit, when they hear the unlearned can pray in Latin, Greek, or in some other unknown language; as if the aids the Spirit affords unto such as pray freely, had been extraordinary, etc.  
This I cannot but consider, as what doth very much reflect on the Dispensation of the Spirit, to the great dishonour of true Christian Religion. For such is the present state of true Religion, that whoever speaks contemptibly of the Spirits Aid, must be esteemed not only a Despiser of the first Reformers, but of that part of the present Constitution to which our Clergy on their entrance into their Function are principally concerned.  
1. 'tis well known that what the first Reformers did in the Reforming the Liturgy, was by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons assembled in Parliament, recorded to have been done by the Aid of the Holy Ghost.  
The Parliament in K. Edward's days passing an Act for the confirmation of the Public Liturgy in the preamble thereof, declare, That those who drew up that Order of Divine Worship, did it by the Aid of the Holy Ghost. 'Tis true this expression could not escape the censure of such as were Popishly affected; they thinking it too much that it was said, the Book was drawn by the aid of the Holy Ghost, as if the import of those expressions had been nothing less than that those persons concerned in the drawing it up, had been extraordinarily inspired. But 'twas well answered by such as said, That it must not be so understood; that 'twas only to be taken in that sense as all good motions and consultations are directed or assisted by the secret influences of Gods H. Spirit, which doth often help good men, even in their imperfect actions, where the good that is done is justly ascribed to the grace of God. For this consult that truly Judicious and Deserving Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation, Part 2. lib. 1. p. 94. The same that is said of this expression when applied to the first Composers of the Divine Service, may be said of such as are assisted in free prayer by the secret Influences of the Holy Spirit. Moreover,  
2. The Clergy at their Ordinination were to receive the Holy Ghost. In King Edward's days, whenever a Bishop, or Priest was Ordained, 'twas said, Receive thou the Holy Ghost in the Name of the Father, etc. But to what purpose, if not to aid and assist them in the discharge of their Ministerial Function, viz. in Prayer, in Preaching, in giving private Admenitions, and Exhortations? etc. Hence I argue, The Spirit accordingly is given them, or not. If not, no wonder they reproach its work, and gracious Influences, to say no more? But if they do at their Ordination receive a plentiful portion of the Spirit, how can they talk so much against the Assistances thereof, vouchsafed to others? What, is it confined unto the Clergy only, or unto the Episcopal Clergy, that none without canting must mention One word of the Spirit? But  
3. 'Tis surprising, that any of our Clergy should speak any thing against the secret motions of God's Spirit; for surely such of them as are just, and true, and faithful to God, and their own souls, have actually felt so much of the Internal workings of the Holy Ghost on their souls, that they were thereby quickened, and moved to enter on the work of the Ministry. Thus 'tis with them, or at least, they are conscientiously persuaded of as much; and can such as have felt the power of the Holy Ghost on their own hearts, speak evil of the Assistance it affords unto others? That the honest among the Episcopal Clergy are such as know what 'tis to be moved by the Holy Spirit, as they themselves trust, is evident from the answer they give to the question proposed to them, when they are presented to Orders, which is, Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration to serve God for the promoting his glory, and for the edifying his people? To which the answer is, He trusts he is.  
It may be some may inquire, How comes it to pass then that so many of the Clergy thus ordained, do not only neglect their own work, but by their uncomely discourses reflect on this very spirit? To this no other answer but that of the Learned and Pious Dr. Burnet shall be given, who in his Hist. of the Reformation, Par. 2. l. p. 145. thus expresseth himself: It has been oft lamented, that many come to receive Orders before they have seriously read over these Questions, and examined themselves whether they could with a good conscience make the Answers there prescribed; since it is scarce credible that men of common honesty would lie in the presence of God on so great an occasion; and yet 'tis too visible, that many have not any such inward vocation, nor have ever considered seriously what it is. If it were well apprehended, that heat that many have to get into Orders would soon abate, who perhaps have nothing in their eye but some place of Profit, or Benefice, to which way must be made by that preceding Ceremony; and so enter into Orders as others are associated into Fraternities and Corporations, with little previous sense of that Holy Character they are to receive, when they thus dedicate their Lives and Labours to the Service of God in the Gospel. In the Primitive Church the apprehersion of this made even good and holy men afraid to enter under such bonds, and therefore they were often to be dragged almost by force, or catcht at unawares, and be so initiated; as appears in the Lives of these two Greek Fathers, Nazianzen and Chrys●stome. If men make their first step to the Holy Altar by such a lie, as is their pretending to a motion of the Holy Ghost, concerning which they know little, but that they have nothing at all of it, they have no reason to expect that Blessing which otherwise attends on such Dedications. And it had been happy for the Church if all those that are authorised to confer Orders, had stood on this more critically, and not been contented with a bare putting these Questions to those who come to be Ordained, but had used a due strictness beforehand, suitable to that grave admonition of St. Paul to Timothy, Lay hands suddenly on no man, and be not partakers of other men's sins.  
How would the Church have flourished if this worthy Drs. counsel had been both given and taken at the beginning of the Reformation! If all that entered on the Ministry had felt the mighty power of the Spirit in turning them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God How would they have laboured for the conversion and edification of their hearers! The which work could not prosper in their hands, but such as were born of God, receiving the Spirit, would have been enabled by it to cry Abba Father. Spiritual and free prayer would have been from the beginning so well known, that the suggesting it to have been Jesuitical, would with the greatest contempt and scorn be rejected; and those many rash and indecent epithets given it, would have been considered but as the overtacts of ill-will to the Reformation of the Church of England.  
§. II. The Account our Author gives of the first Separation, is very unrrue. For, 1. It was not the laying aside All forms of prayer, that the old Nonconformists pressed hard for. They were for the amending the Liturgy, but not for the removing all Liturgies. 'Tis true in K. Edward's days there was a contest between Hooper and Ridley, etc. about the old Popish Vestments, but not about Forms of Prayer. In Queen Mary's days at Franckfort there were great contentions among some of them, who before had used the English Liturgy, but not that those who were against the use of the English Liturgy at that time, were against it as it was a Form of Prayer, but they apprehended that they being in foreign parts, they should rather accommodate their worship to those among whom they lived; whence instead of the English Liturgy, they used one near the Geneva and French Forms. Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's time, even long after the Separation, the old Nonconformists declared, that they looked on Forms of Prayer to be lawful. It may be they were grieved to see Q. Elizabeth's Bishops to entertain more favourable thoughts of the Pope than those blessed Martyrs, Cranmer, and Rid●ey did, as is to be seen by their expunging out of Q. Elizabeth's Liturgy what was offensive to the Pope in K. Edward's; but against Forms they were not; or it may be they could not approve of any that would quench the motions of the Spirit they professed to have felt before their Ordination, whether in trusting unto it for help in the exercise of Prayer, or any other parts of their work. But to cry down all Forms in order to the setting up spiritual and free prayer instead of the Liturgy, and for this reason to separate from the Church of England, is more than can be proved.  
2. The great and principal reason of the Separation of the old Nonconformists, was occasioned by their pressing towards that Reformation expressly aimed at by our English Reformers in H. 8. 's time, for the which they were burnt in Smithfield and elsewhere. Whoever would understand the true Reason of the first Separation in Queen Elizabeth's time, must inquire after the first Reformation desired in H. 8. ' s.  
In Henry 8th's days, that wickedness that spread itself throughout the Western part of the World, sadly prevailed in these Northern parts. This part of the earth was in an especial manner troubled with a vicious and sensual Clergy, whose example had a sad influence on the Common people. The offspring of a lewd vicious Clergy, was a profane and extremely wicked Laity; so that if ever, it might now be truly said, The whole world lay in wickedness.  
This being the state of the Clergy and Laity, the fear of God and all true Religion almost lost, it pleased the Father of mercies to open the eyes of some, to show 'em the evil of the times, etc. Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, and others beyond the seas, and Tindal, Frith, Barns, etc. here in England. These Worthies being deeply sensible of the Abominations of the times in which they lived, made diligent search after the causes thereof, in order to the carrying on a Reformation, etc. In which enquiry, they found the viciousness of the people to be occasioned by the sensuality and lewdness of the Clergy; the lewdness of the Clergy to be the product of an uninstituted Hierarchy, which was rather adjusted for Worldly grandeur than the glory of God.  
The great cause of all those Mischiefs was the want of strict and Scriptural Discipline, which (as it had not been in due exercise since the first degeneracy from the Apostolical Institution and Primitive Practice, even so) could not be faithfully exercised but by being reduced to its ancient state. For which Reason Tyndall applies himself to the work, and so did the famous Lambert and Doctor Barnes. All which I will from good Authority evince.  
1. Mr. Tyndall, a blessed Martyr burnt at Brabant for his firm adhering to the Truths of the Gospel, doth in those Discourses of his published by Mr. Fox show, that the many Abominations of his Times proceeded from the viciousness of a Proud, Covetous, & Sensual Clergy, who having forsaken the Apostolical Rule, in process of time through the Bounty of some wealthy persons, who had embraced the Christian Religion, and divers other ways, got an abundance of Riches, which occasioned their Pride and Luxury, to the ruin of the true Religion: Thus in that Treatise of The Obedience of a Christian man, There is no Mischiefs or Disorders (saith he) whether it be in the Temporal Regiment, or in the Spiritual, whereof they [i. e. The Spirituality, the Clergy] are not the chief Causes, and even the very Fountain and Spring, and as we say, the Wellhead: So that 'tis impossible to Preach against Mischief, except thou begin at them; or to set any Reformation in the world, except thou Reform them first. This same Mr. Tyndall in another place shows us, how they occasioned so much mischief, in these words, But after that the Devil was broke lose, and the Bishops began to purchase, and the Deacons to scratch all to them, and the Spirituality to climb on high, then because the Labour, [viz. of examining and confirming the Adult, who had been Baptised in their Infancy] ' seemed too tedious and painful, they neglected it. Tyndal of Sacraments and Ceremonies.  
The Clergy growing rich, laboured that their Honour might equalise their Wealth, which was followed with Idleness, a Neglect of God and their Duty. Hence Preaching is let down, the Ceremonies being esteemed as the most effectual means of Instruction. This occasions the multiplication of significant Ceremonies, which was the great Reason of the dreadful Ignorance, into which the whole European world was plunge, when Popery prevailed. So Mr. Tyndall, I impute this our grievous fall into so extreme and horrible Blindness (wherein we are so deep and so deadly brought asleep) unto nothing so much, as unto the multitude of Ceremonies; for assoon as the Prelates had set up such a rabble of Ceremonies, they thought it superfluous to teach the plain Text any longer, and the Law of God, Faith of Christ, etc. forasmuch as all such things were played before the people's faces daily in the Ceremonies, etc. Tyndall of the Ceremonies of the Mass.  
Thus 'tis evident, that in Henry the 8ths' time the great wickedness of that Age was grievous to such as aimed at Reformation; that these wickednesses were occasioned by the Pride, Covetousness, and Sensuality of the rich Clergy. But  
2. 'Tis as manifest, That the Pride of the Clergy was discovered by their Prelacy, their aspiring after a Dominoon over their Brethren. Whence the One gets the name of Bishop appropriated unto him, and with that name an Unaccountable, yea an Unscriptural Power. So Mr. Tyndall in his Practice of Prelates; The Office of a Bishop was a room at the beginning that no man coveted, and that no man durst take upon him, save he that loved Jesus Christ better than his own Life. For as Christ saith, That no man might be his Disciple, except that he were ready to forsake Life, and all: Even so might that Officer be sure, that it might cost him his Life at one time or another, for bearing record unto the Truth. But after that the multitude of the Christians were increased, and many great men had received the Faith, than both Lands and Rents, as well as other Goods, were given unto the maintenance as well of the Clergy, as of the Poor; because they gave then no Tithes to the Priests, nor yet now do, save in certain Countries. For it is too much to give Alms, Offerings, Lands, and Tithes also. And then the Bishops made them Substitutes under them to help them, which they called Priests, and kept the name of Bishops to themselves.  
But out of the Deacons sprang all the Mischief. For through their hands went all things, they ministered unto the Clergy, they ministered unto the Poor, they were in favour with great and small. And when the Bishop's Office began to have rest and be Honourable, than the Deacons through Favour and Gifts climbed up thereunto, as lightly as he that hath the old Abbot's Treasure succeedeth with us. And by the means of their practice and acquaintance in the world, they were more subtle and worldly wise than the old Bishops, and less learned in God's word, as our Prelates are, when they come from Stewardships in gentlemen's Houses, and from surveying of great men's Lands, etc.— Then, while they that had the Blow by the tail, looked back, the Blow went awry, Faith waxed feeble and faint, Love waxed cold, the Scripture waxed dark, Christ was no more seen; He was in the Mount with Moses, and therefore the Bishops would have a God upon the earth, whom they might see; and thereupon they began to dispute who should be greatest. So far Mr. Tyndal in his Practice of Popish Prelates.  
3. The Malady, and Disease of those times, with their Causes, were no sooner understood, but several Worthy Persons applied themselves to a diligent search after the most proper Remedy, and found, that a Reformation must begin among the Clergy, that all things must be reduced to the Apostolical Institution. Discipline must be strictly exercised, the which could not with effect be accomplished, but by bringing all things to the first Institution; For which reason, Mr. Tyndall makes his enquiry after those Officers the Apostles ordained in Christ's Church, and what their Offices were, concerning which take Mr. Tyndal's own sense, in his discourse of the Practice of Popish Prelates. — Wherefore the Apostles (saith he) following, and obeying the Rule, Doctrine, and Commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, ordained in his Kingdom, and Congregation, Two Officers: One called after the Greek word, Bishop, in English, an Overseer, which same was called Priest after the Greek, Elder in English, because of his Age, Discretion, and sadness; for he was as nigh as could be, always an Elderly man. And this Overseer hath put his hands unto the Blow of God's Word, and said Christ's Flock, and tended them only, without looking unto any other business in the world. Another Officer they chose, and called him Deacon, after the Greek; a Minister in English, to minister the alms of the people unto the poor and needy. For in the Congregation of Christ, love maketh every man's gifts and goods common unto the necessity of his neighbour. Wherefore the love of God being yet hot in the hearts of men, the rich that had the substance of this world's goods, brought of their abundance great plenty unto the sustentation of the poor, and delivered it unto the hands of the Deacons.  
Mr. Tyndall judged, that according to the Apostolical Institution, there were no other Officers in the Church but Elders and Deacons. The Elders being of the same Office and Order with the Bishops, they being two names belonging to one and the same person. There is (saith he) Presbuteros called an Elder by Birth, which same called immediately a Bishop or Overseer to declare what Persons are meant— they were called Elders, because of their Age, Gravity, etc. and Bishops and Overseers by reason of their Offices. And all that were called Elders or Priests (if they so will) were called Bishops also, though they have divided the names now, which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first Chap. of Titus, and the 20th. of the Acts— Those Overseers, which we now call Bishops after the Greek word, were always biding in one place to Govern the Congregation there. (Tyndal of the word Elder.) But Deacons were Overseers of the Poor and crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich.  
Tyndal was not alone in this opinion, it being also the sense of Famous Lambert and Dr. Barns, who strenuously defended, and at the last sealed this Truth with their blood. One of the Articles for which they were burnt, being about the Order of Priesthood.  
I'll give you in the first place Lambert's own answer to the ninth Article, as I find it in Acts and Mon. Vol. 2. As touching Priesthood (saith Lambert) in the Primitive Church, when virtue bore (as ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same) the most room, there were no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishops and Deacons; that is to say, Ministers; as witnesseth, beside Scripture, full apertly Hierome in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul; whereas he saith, That those that we call Priests, were all one, and no other but Bishops; and the Bishops none other but Priests, men ancient both in Age and Learning, so near as they could be chosen. Neither were they institute and chosen as they be now-adays, with small regard of a Bishop or his Officer, only apposing them if they can co●●●e a Collect; but they were chosen not only of the Bishop, but also with the consent of the people among whom they should have their living, as showeth Saint Cyprian; and the people (as he saith) ought to have power to choose their priests, that be men of good Learning, of good and honest report: but alack for pity, such Elections are now banished, and new fashions brought in, which if we should confer with the form of the Election shown of Christ by his Apostle Paul, we should find no small diversity; but all turned upside down. To conclude, I say, the Order or state of Priests and Deacons, was ordained by God; but Subdeacons' and Conjurer's, otherwise called Exorcistae, or Acolitae, which we call Benet and Collect, were instituted by the invention of men; and this you may find in the Law, Dist. 21. and other places, where it is written, Subdiaconatus tempore Apost●lorum non fuit sacer. Subdeaconship in the time of the Apostles was no holy Order.  
Dr. Barns in like manner had the same objected against him in the Articles for which he was burned. I'll give you the Article, and his own sentiments concerning it, as Mr. Fox relates in a Discourse set forth with Mr. Tyndal and John Frith's Works.  
Article 6. I will never believe, nor yet I can never believe, that one man may be by the Law of Ood a Bishop of two or three Cities, yea of an whole Country; for it is contrary to Saint Paul, which saith, I have left thee behind, to set in every City a Bishop. And if you find in one place of Scripture that they be called Episcopi, you shall find in many that they be called Presbyteri.— I was brought before my Lord Cardinal into his Gallery, and there he read all my Articles till he came to this, and there he stopped, and said, That this touched him, and therefore he asked me, if I thought it wrong that one Bishop should have so many Cities underneath him? Unto whom I answered, That I could no farther go than to St. Paul's text, which set in every City a Bishop. Then asked he me, If I thought it now unright (seeing the Ordinance of the Church) that one Bishop should have so many Cities? I answered, That I knew none Ordinance of the Church (as concerning this thing) but St. Paul's saying only. Nevertheless I did see a contrary custom and practice in the world, but I know not the Original thereof. Then said he, That in the Apostles time there were divers Cities, some seven miles, some six miles long, and over them was there set but one Bishop, and of their Suburbs also; so likewise now a Bishop hath also but One City to his Cathedral Church, and the Country about it as Suburbs unto it. Methought this was far-fetched, but I durst not deny it, because it was so great Authority, and of so holy a Father, and of so great a Divine. But this I dare say, that his Holiness could never prove it by Scripture, nor yet by any Authority of Doctors, nor yet by any practice of the Apostles; and yet it must be true, because a Pillar of the Church hath spoken it. But let us see what the Doctors say to mine Article. Athanasius doth declare this Text of the Apostle, I have left thee behind, etc. He would not commit unto one Bishop a whole Ylde, but he did enjoin that every City should have his proper Pastor, supposing that by this means they should more diligently oversee the people, and also that the labour should be more easy to bear, etc. Also chrysostom on that same Text: He would not that a whole Country should be permitted unto one man, but he enjoined to every man his Cure, by that means he knew that his labour should be more easy, and the subjects should be with more diligence governed, if the Teachers were not distract with the governing of many Churches, but had cure and charge of one Church only, etc. Methinks these be plain words, and able to move a man to speak as much as I did. But grant that you may have all these Cities, yet can you make it none Heresy. For my Lord Cardinal granted that it was but against him, and against you, which be no Gods. But I poor man must be an Heretic, there is no remedy, You will have it so, and who is able to say nay? Not all Scripture, nor yet God himself.  
By this time the Reader cannot but be well satisfied, that the great thing aimed at by the first great Lights England had in Henry the 8ths' days, as a most effectual way to carry on a Reformation, was the reducing the Popish Hierarchy to an Apostolical Presbytery. The Presbyterian Discipline, that is, The Government of Gospel-Churches by Presbyters and Deacons, being of Divine Institution, is most admirably suited to the designed End of promoting the Glory of God, the Power of Religion, etc. A Discipline, the truth of which hath been sealed by the blood of blessed Protestant Martyrs, a thing in which our Episcoparians cannot make the●r boast.  
Moreover 'tis manifest, that this was not only the apprehension of tindal, Barnes, and Lambert, but that all the Clergy in Henry the 8ths' time, denied a Diocesan Episcopacy to be of Divine Institution, asserting, that in the New Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers, and Priests or Bishops. This is in a Paper signed by Cromwell, and many others; Yea, and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man, as is acknowledged by the Judicious Dr. Burnet, who in his Addenda to the first part of the Reformation, doth say, That both in this Writing, and in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man, Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office. Though I must confess, that the Dr. doth differ from those Divines; and although he gives us not satisfaction in his Reply, yet he speaks more ingenuously, and more to the purpose, than either this Gentleman, or Dr. Stillingfleet himself.  
4. The old Nonconformists in Queen Elizabeth's days agreeing with those worthy Martyrs, Tyndall, Lambert, and Barnes, concerning the most effectual way of carrying on the Reformation, applied themselves seriously to the Work. The Viciousness of some of the Clergy in Queen Elizabeth's days was as grievous unto the Nonconformist, as unto those glorious Martyrs; a Reformation in Manners, and in order thereunto in Church-Discipline, was what they aimed at.  
'Tis very evident, That a further Reformation than was carried on by Queen Elezabeth, was very desirable; for in some respects she carried it not so far as King Edward himself had done. ' For Queen Elizabeth (as Dr. Burnet most admirably expresseth it) though she had been bred up from her Infancy with a Hatred to the Papacy, and a Love to the Reformation; yet as her first Impressions in her Father's Reign were in favour of such old Rites, as he had still retained, so in her nature she loved State and some Magnificence in Religion, as well as in every thing else: She thought that in her Brother's Reign they had stripped it too much of external Ornaments, and had made their Doctrine too narrow in some Points: Therefore she intended to have some things explained in more general Terms, that so all Parties might be comprehended by them: She inclined to keep up Images in Churches, and to have the manner of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament left in some general words, that those who believe a Corporal Presence, might not be driven away from the Church by too nice an explanation of it. History of Reform. part. 2. l. 3.  
As to this last Particular, the Rubric that explained the Reason for the kneeling at the Sacrament, That thereby no Adoration is intended to any corporal presence of Christ's flesh and blood, because that is only in Heaven; which had been in King Edward's Liturgy, is left out, and kneeling at the Sacrament, to many a Protestant much more offensive than formerly.  
The great Propension in Queen Elizabeth's days to gain over the Popish party to her Communion by those Alterations made in the Liturgy in favour of the Papist, the ordering the Sacramental Bread to be made round in the fashion of the Wafers used in the time of Queen Mary, the requiring the Table to be placed where the Altar stood, etc. was attended with the Conformity of many, who were cordially affected to the Interest of the Church of Rome, at which time there was not a sufficient number of learned men to supply the Cures; which filled the Church (as Heylin saith) with an Ignorant and Illiterate Clergy, whose learning went no further than the Liturgy, or Book of Homilies, though otherwise conformable unto the Rules of the Church.  
The Old Nonconformists still desiring a further Reformation than was carried on in King Edward's days, but ●●●●ing rather a turning toward Rome, could not but be greatly grieved. They in their places wait a while, but at length humbly desire a Parochial Discipline, instead of which they fall under the lash of new Impositions, unto which they could not conscientiously conform; hence many Learned, Jud●●●us, Godly and Faithful Ministers are cast out, even at such a time when the Church had but a company of Illiterate Fellows to officiate in Public. From whence proceedeth the First Separation, as appears from what the old Smith said in his Answer to the Bishop of London's charge, where you will find, that although they separated from the Church, because their faithful Ministers were turned out, yet they even then made it manifest, That they left not the Liturgy, because it contained Forms of Prayer, for they made use of a Form at their Separate Meeting. Take Smith's words in a part of the Register. Indeed as you said even now, for Preaching and ministering the Sacraments, so long as we might have the Word freely Preached, and the Sacraments administered without the preferring of Idolatrous gear about it, we never assembled together in Houses. But when it came to this point, that all our Preachers were displaced by your Law, that would not subscribe to your Apparel and your Law; so that we could not hear none of them in any Church by the space of seven or eight weeks, except Father Coverdale, of whom we have a good opinion; and yet God knows the man was so fearful, that he durst not be known unto us where he Preached, though we sought it at his house. And then were we troubled and commanded to your Courts from day to day, for not coming to your Parish-Churches. Then we bethought us what were best to do; and we remembered that there was a Congregation of us in this City in Queen mary days; and a Congreagation at Geneva, which used a Book, and Order of Preaching, Ministering of the Sacraments and Discipline, most agreeable to the Word of God: which Book is allowed by that Godly and Well-learned man, Mr. Calvin, and the Preachers there, which Book and Order we now hold. And if you can reprove this Book, or any thing that we hold by the Word of God, we will yield to you, and do open Penance at Paul's Cross; if not, we will stand to it by the Grace of God.  
Thus no Parochial Discipline being admitted, but those who desired it being Ejected, even at such a time, when those who remained in Public for the most part were Illiterate and Vicious, the Separation begun. The Ejection of the Godly Now Conformists, the Sensuality of the remaining Clergy, was a great Cause of the first Separation, and not without great Reason. For it being as essential to every true Gospel-Minister, that he Govern the Church of which he is a Pastor, as that he teaches and instructs it; the taking from 'em so essential a part of their Office, which by woeful experience has been of a very ill tendency, could not but occasion the Old Nonconformists to manifest their dislike to such proceed, and refuse the giving in an Assent and Consent thereunto; for which Refusal they being Ejected, the multitude of such as remained being Illiterate, yea and Vicious in their Conversations, the more sober People withdrew from the Public, and run after the Ejected. The Scandals of the Clergy having had no inconsiderable influence on the Separation.  
For which consult the Learned Dr. Burnet, who saith, In the Sponsions made by the Priests, they bind themselves to teach the People committed to their charge, to banish away all erroneous Doctrines, and to use both public and private Monitions and Exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within their Cures, as need shall require, and as occasion shall be given. Such as remember that they have plighted their Faith for this to God, will feel the Pastoral Charge to be a load indeed, and so be far enough from relinquishing it, or hiring it out to a lose or ignorant Mercenary. These are the blemishes and Scandals that lie on our Church, brought on it partly by the corruption of some Simoniacal Patrons, but chief by the Negligence of some, and the Faultiness of other Clergymen: Which could never have lost so much ground in the Nation, upon such trifling accounts, as are the contests since raised about Ceremonies, if it were not that the People, by such palpable faults in the Persons and behaviour of some Churchmen, have been possessed with prejudices, first against them, and then upon their account against the whole Church: So that these corrupt Churchmen are not only to answer to God for all those Souls within their charge, that have perished through their neglect; but in a great degree for all the mischief of the Schism among us; to the nourishing whereof they have given so great and palpable occasion. The importance of those things, made me judge they deserved this Digression.  
Having been thus large in removing the Mistakes the Dr's Substitute seemed to lie under, let the Sober Reader judge, Whether 'tis any way probable that the Jesuits had an hand in the first Separation; or whether the pretence about Spiritual Prayer was any ground of their Separation? that is, Whether they were against a Form of Prayer, crying down the English Liturgy with a Design of setting up Free and Spritual Prayer in its stead.   

SECT. II.  
The Designs of the Jesuit against a Prelatical Episcopacy, found to be none. Some Differences between the first Reformers and our Author. A Letter of Sir Francis Knolles to the Lord Treasurer Cecil, out of which 'tis proved, That there is a Difference between some old Queen Elizabeth's Bishops, and the Dean, etc. The Author's Pretences about Antiquity confuted out of Bishop Jewel.  
HIS Reply to what I offered to the Dean's second Argument, falls now under Consideration.  
The Dean in representing the Dissenter, to the great Disadvantage of the Party, insinuates as if their opposing Prelatical Episcopacy, had been the most effectual way to cast reproach on the first Reformers, and to introduce Popery.  
In Answer unto this I did First prove, 1. That it was not the Principle nor the Interest of the Jesuit to destroy Episcopacy. A Truth the Dean's Substitute doth not deny. 2. That the Reputation of the first Reformation is not in the least blasted by the Dissenter, which I evinced with so much Demonstration, that the whole that is returned by way of Answer, is, His not believing some of those persons, on whose Testimony I insisted, (though he gives no Reason for his Unbelief.) His proving what I granted, and his Extravagant Interpreting an Argument brought to evince, That 'twas not the Jesuits Interest to destroy a Prelatical Episcopal Constitution, to be an admirable Address to the Lords and Commons, to pull down Bishops, and divide their Lands. All which is done partly in his Preface, and partly in the first Chapter of his great Book, to show himself an excellent Methodist. But the whole is so little to the purpose, that if he had not given an occasion to enlighten the Reader concerning some momentous Instances, I would have passed it by as deserving no farther Consideration.  
1. Every thing is said to be Misrepresented. But how the Doctor's own words should misrepresent his own sense, is not overeasie to apprehend. However, Whether there be any Misreport, I'll leave it to the Impartial Reader, and consider what Reply is made to what I offered in Answer to the Doctor's Uncomely Accusation.  
2. He grants, [p. 38.] That the Papists do not so much Envy and Malign the Episcopal Government. Neither is it their Principle nor Interest to destroy it. Why then should they be brought to act so contrary to their Principle and Interest, as to destroy what they so much endeavour to preserve, strengthen and establish? But  
3. He adds, Though they are for Episcopacy, yet they may design the destruction of a Protestant Episcopacy, etc. Reply. I said, That 'twas not the Destruction of Episcopacy, but the possessing themselves of our Bishoprics, that they would be at, which may be without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution, so far as 'tis Episcopal.  
His running then unto France is nothing to the purpose, unless it may be looked on as an intimation of his good will to the Arbitrary proceed of that Country.  
However, I'll desire our Author to consider, That a change of Persons without any alteration of the Episcopal Constitution, may most effectually answer the end of the Jesuit. For hereby they would be capacitated (if ever a Popish Prince should come to the Crown) to argue with the common people concerning the Unreasonableness of a separating from Rome, from the same Topics with the ●ean, thus.  
The Episcopacy is not pulled down, nor destroyed, 'tis rather strengthened, and more firmly established. There is not so vast a deference between the Church of England, and the Church (I do not say the Court) of R●me, as there is between the Romanist and the Factious Presbyterean; behold, you have your Bishops still in all their Glorious Vestments; a Surpliced Clergy; an Excellent English Liturgy [for the Papists in Dublin have their Mass in English, which is exactly correspondent to the terms the Papists made the English in the days of Archbishop Laud] If you submit to the one, when Authority command you, why will you not to the other? What is the difference?  
For this reason I cannot but be pretty confident that the Jesuits acting according to their own Principles and Interest, receive greatest satisfaction from such as are most deeply engaged to represent the Episcopal Constitution as one most Excellent and Admirable.  
Do not the whole Land know what 'tis that gives life unto Jesuitical hopes? What are their designs and expectations from a Popish Successor? and consequently how mischievous the Destruction of Episcopacy would prove unto that sort of People, especially at this Juncture? But I must not insist on this, lest I be censured as an Addresser to the Lords and Commons to pull down Episcopacy, a thing the Jesuit would not be at, he being more unwilling, than by argument unable to oppose it, for which reason (as our learned Author says) Episcopacy is most easily defended against a Roman Catholic, (i. e.) against one that hath no heart to oppose it. But,  
4. Our Author would by all means persuade the world, that the Dissenters cast the greatest Reproaches on the first Reformation, because they manifest some dissatisfaction with such as impede a further Reformation; as if a good work was as soon consummated as begun; or as if it had been either impossible in itself, or contrary to the design of the first Reformers, to carry on the Reformation; or as if the present Constitution of Episcopacy had been in every momentous respect as excellent as that begun in King Edward's days; whereas 'tis well known unto wise men, and fully proved in my Epistle to the Reverend Dean, that 'twas impossible the Reformation should be finished as soon as 'twas entered on; and that the first Reformers in King Edward's days did more in six years than all their successors have since done in almost . All which is prudently passed over by our Author.  
5. They stick much on that great Agreement there is between the Present, and King Edward's Reformation; as if we could not complain on the latter, without reproaching the former. But this is so weakly urged, that any Reader of an ordinary capacity may see the vanity of this way of arguing; for there is a great difference between that and this time; what was almost impossible then, might since be easily done. But, 2. 'tis easy to demonstrate that the begun Reformation in King Edward the 6ths' days was more excellent than the Present; and that instead of carrying on the Reformation, it hath been carried back, to the great grief of sound Protestants.  
This hath been in part proved, when I did show the Propension of Queen Elizabeth to favour Popery, out of Dr. Burnet, and Dr. Heylin, two Sons of the Church; though I fear the mentioning of the latter in Conjunction with the former, may not be so meet; the former being a through Protestant, a man of great Worth; but the heart of the latter towards Rome; for which reason, as their Principles are vastly different, so should they be kept at a distance by me, if Heylin had not acknowledged that to be a truth, which I rather believe, because found in the incomparable Dr. Burnet.  
He now take notice of another considerable difference, between the very Constitution of Episcopacy in King Edward the 6th's time, and that in Queen Elizabeth's: The former was such as was inconsistent with the Pope's Supremacy; for they were to hold all their Courts in the King's Name; but the latter, such as is most easily reduced to the exalting the Court of Rome. The Government of the Church being taken from the Prince, 'tis not so difficult to fix it on the Pope.  
Thus there is a difference between King Edward's, and Queen Elizabeth's Episcopacies. I may also add,  
That there is a great difference between the present Constitution, and that in Queen Elizabeth's, if we may believe the Lord Treasurer Cecil, who suggests, that the Bishops did not look on their Superiority above their Brethren, to be of Divine Right, as the Dean of Paul's, and his Substitute now do: For this I will give you an account we have of the Speeches used in the Parliament by Sir Francis Knolles, and after Written to my Lord Treasurer, Sir William Cecil, as I find it in the end of the Assertion.  
To the end I may inform your Lordship of my dealing in this Parliament-time, against the undue claimed Superiority of the Bishops over their Inferior Brethren: Thus it was,  
Because I was in the Parliament-time, in the 25th year of King Henry the 8th, in which time, first all the Clergy, as well Bishops as others, made an humble Submission to King Henry the 8th, acknowledging his Supremacy, and detesting the Usurpation of the Bishop 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 abridged 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, Counsellors, 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 King's Name: the which Statute was repealed in Queen Mary's days, and was not revived in her Majesty's 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 Pope's 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 knowledge. And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days, to keep their Courts by, in the King's 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 Pope's 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 Queen's 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 God's Ordinance, and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesty's Supreme Government. If this be true, then 'tis 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 Majesty's 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 Pre-eminence to his Apostles, but the Heavenly Rule, which was to Preach the Gospel, saying, Ite, predicate 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 baptised, 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, etc. So belike the Bishop's 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, etc.  
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 Month's 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 'tis an Episcopacy, the same? What is there  to this Episcopal Constitution, that differs from that? Whence if that be Popish, why may not this, seeing 'tis 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 Mary's Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeth's Episcopacy on her first entering 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 this Extrinsecal Consideration sufficient to occasion a Difference that is Intrinsecal? Moreover, to return to his French Monarch; Hath not the Experience of many a year assured us, That when Monarches design not the enlarging their own Monarchies, they have done all they could to preserve other Monarchies? An Aristocracy, or a Democracy, being things detestable in their eye.  
7. His answering the Letter of the Council by transcribing part of Sir Francis Walsingham's Letter, as recorded in Dr. Burnet, b'ing little to the purpose, might have escaped my Consideration, had it not been very necessary to suggest, How prudently he overlooked the great Principles on which the Queen grounded her proceed; the one being, That Consciences cannot be forced, but to be won and reduced by force of Truth, with the aid of time, and use of all good means of Instruction, and Persuasion. A Principle unto which if our Clergy would adhere, it might have conduced very much to the Peace of the Church. This I suppose is a sufficient Reply to the Dean's Substitute.  
The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Ceremonies, notwithstanding their Antiquity, etc. The Doctor's Argument was here set forth to the greatest advantage of his Cause in his own words. To which I replied, That our not embracing Episcopacy, etc. does not advantage the Papist, neither doth our rejecting it, even when it pretends to so much Antiquity. I having shown that there was no such strength in their Argument of Antiquity, if it fell short of an Absolutely Primitive or an Apostolical Antiquity, as theirs really doth; they not being able to show in what part of the Scriptures their Dio●san Episcopacy is found, it being considered as a Creature of Human make, by many a Son of the Church, yea and once by our great Doctor himself; and it hath been proved by other hands unanswerably, That there is no evidence for such an Episcopacy in the Church the first two hundred years; for which reason Mr. Chillingworth's Argument, showing the vanity of such men's pretences about Antiquity, that can ascend no higher than the fifth, or fourth, or third, or second Age, is, it may be, as pertinently urged, as the little intimation of Mr. Ch's sense of the Antiquity of Episcopacy. 'Tis pleasant then to see with what pertness our Author hopes, that our Enquirer will now grow so modest, as not to cite Mr. Chil. any more against an Argument from Antiquity.  
The other part of his Reply is as little to the purpose, unless a declaiming against Protestant Arguments, such as are too strong to receive an Answer, be the most effectual way to ruin Popery. 'Tis true, we reject the Popish pretences about Antiquity as futilous; many Protestants (in the number of which some Nonconformists may be listed) having unanswerably proved Popery to be a Novelty.  
However, If Popery or Episcopacy be not agreeable to the Scriptures, whatever their pretences are to Antiquity, they will be found unworthy the consideration of a solid Divine; and therefore because he sends me to Bishop Jewel, [Part 1. p. mihi, 539, etc.] I'll give the Reader an account of his sense against Harding. The Truth of God (saith the Bishop) is neither furthered by the Face of Antiquity, nor hindered by the Opinion of Novelty. For oftentimes the thing that is New is condemned as Old; and the thing that is indeed Old is condemned as New. If Newness in Religion, in all respects, and every way, were ill, Christ would not have resembled his Doctrine to New Wine, etc. Arnobius saith, The Authority of Religion must be weighed by God, and not by Time. It behoveth us to consider not upon what day, but what things we begin to Worship.— The thing that is true, is never too late. Saint Augustine says, The Heathen say, The Religion that was First, cannot be False; as if Antiquity and old Custom could prevail against the Truth. The old Learned Father Tertullian says, Whatsoever thing savoureth against the Truth, the same is an Heresy, yea although it be a Custom never so Old, etc.  
This surely is the Protestant Doctrine; whence to talk of Antiquity, in order to the countenancing that in Religion, which finds no favour from the Scriptures, is but to advance the Papal Interest; who have but little beside the pretence of Antiquity to support their Abominations.   

SECT. III.  
A search for the Schismatic. A true state of the Difference between the Church of England and the Protestant Dissenter. The Dissenter, according to our Author's Notion, cleared from Schism. The Church of England found Guilty. Some Remarks on several other passages in the Dean's Defence. An Account of some of the Dean's Mistakes. The Dissenter no friend to Popery. The Conclusion.  
1. THAT our Divisions advance the Popish Designs, is acknowledged. But the 2. Enquiry is, Who is the Faulty Divider? It being the Faulty Divider alone who gives the Papist the advantage. The great Enquiry then must be after the Faulty Divider, Whether the Conformist, or the Nonconformist be the Divider?  
The state of the Case was given in the Enquiry, [p. 23.] where the Principle on which the Dissenters proceed was laid down, and improved; this should have been considered by our Author, but he was so prudent as to pass it by: For which Reason, without any Reflections on my Learned Adversary, I must mind him of the state of the Controversy, and show wherein he hath exercised his Wisdom in leaping over what he could not handsomely remove out of the way.  
In the Enquiry after the Faulty Divider, I shown wherein the Parties at variance agreed, and wherein they differed. 1. They agreed in those Points commonly called Docirinal or Substantial, in contradistinction to lesser things, about Worship and Church-Discipline, etc. They differed about what was in the Judgement of the Dissenter Sinful; but in the Opinion of the Episcopal, only Indifferent.  
'Tis true, the Episcopal represent us as a weak People, whose Consciences as to those particulars are Erreneous; that therefore we must cast off these erring Consciences, and submit.  
Our Reply is, We seek Heaven for Counsel, we study hard for the Truth, read with the greatest Impartiality and Freedom the Discourses the Episcopal have written; For we can solemnly and with much sincerity declare, as in the presence of an Heart-searching God, We would with the greatest cheerfulness Conform to all the Impositions, if we thought we could do it without sin. That we are so peevish as to lose the Comforts of a good Benefice, merely to gratify an obstinate Humour; if we are in danger of being biased one way more than another by carnal considerations, 'tis towards Conformity. For if we conform, we are freed from the reproaches and contempt of many, from the continued fear of Imprisonment, and other uncomfortable severities, and in a fair way of abounding with the good things of this life for the supporting ourselves and Families. But if we conform not, we are represented as Factious and Seditious, exposed to the Rage of every vile Informer, in constant danger of Fines, etc. and of more miseries than I can with delight rehearse.  
However, though there are considerations enough from the world to bias our minds, in a seeking for the Truth, to lean towards Conformity; yet desiring to approve ourselves sincere towards God, we find, That we cannot without sin conform; we cannot without sinning deliberately, and knowingly comply with the Episcopal Impositions; and if we should notwithstanding conform to live and die Conformists, we should knowingly, and deliberately sin, yea, and die under the guilt thereof, which is a thing so hazardous to the soul, that we durst not touch with Conformity, lest we die, lest we die eternally.  
We censure not such as do conform, because they not lying under the same convictions of Conscience as we do, may not by their Conformity run that hazard, which we unavoidably must, should we against the light of our Consciences comply. There is a great difference between those that act according to the directions of their Consciences, and such as act contrary thereunto: For which reason I wonder, that our great Churchmen should say, that Mr. Baxter represented all Conformists as a company of Perjured Villains, merely because he showed, that if the Nonconformists should contrary to the Dictates of their Conscience conform, they should be guilty of Perjury, and several other great sins.  
But though this be the truth, yet there are some who will not believe it, who say we, do we what we can for their satisfaction, will count us a pack of Hypocrites. For which reason, that I might anticipate the censure, I laid down the Principle unto which Dissenters do most firmly adhere, the discussing which is what they do most sincerely desire.  
The Principle is this, That the word of God contained in Scripture, is the only Rule of the Whole, and of every part of true Religion. As for external circumstances, as time and place, etc. being no part of, though necessary appendages unto our Religion.  
From this Principle I proceed to this Conclusion, That whatever part of the Service of the Church of England is imposed on us, as so necessary a part of our Religion, as to be a term of Communion, if not agreeable to the word of God in Scripture, that Imposition is sinful.  
Our Adversary considers, that such as live in England, and yet are not of the Church of England, do not belong unto the Catholic Church; that is, they are all in a state of damnation. Hence 'tis we must, according unto him, be a member of the Church of England, or be damned. We are willing with all our hearts to be members of the same Church with them, i. e. to be members of the Catholic Church is what we desire. But this, say they, we cannot be, but by complying with their imposed terms. To which we reply, Let their terms be as Catholic as they pretend their Church is, and we'll comply: i. e. Let them keep to a few, certain, and necessary things; let them not impose as terms of Union, any thing but what is according to the Word of God in Scripture, we are satisfied, the Controversy is at an end. But if they will take on 'em to make that a part of true Religion, yea so necessary a part, as to make it a term of our communion with the Catholic Church, 'tis a sinful encroachment on the Prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ, with which we dare not compl●.  
If they expe●t our compliance, why do they not show the Scriptures that declare the things they impose, to be so necessary a part of true Religion, as to be a form of our communion with the Catholic Church? They must not only show that those things are agreeable to true Religion, but moreover that they are so necessary a part thereof, that whoever conforms not to them when imposed, is ●pso ●●sact. cut off from the Catholic Church. This they can never do, and therefore can never clear themselves from being the Faulty dividers.  
When we provoke 'em to show us what Scriptures direct them to their Impositions, we are turned off with Where is it forbidden? as if they had acted exactly to the Rule 
* Si objiciant in sacris literis non haberi Invocandos esse Sanctos, venerandas Imagines, abstinendum à Carnibus, in't aliquid ej●s●nodi; non ergo ista esse facienda: nos contra objiciamus & quidem Efficacius: H●c Sacris Literis non Prohiberi, atque sine piccato fieri posse, quia ●●hi non est Lex ibi nec pr●evaricatio. Cos●. Irstit. Chri●t. l. 2. c. 1.  Costerus the Jesuit gave his young Scholars. If any object, Where are those points, viz. The Invocation of Saints, The worshipping of Images, The abstaining from flesh, and the like, found in Scripture; and because not found in Scripture, therefore to be rejected. To which, saith the Jesuit, answer thus: Ask where 'tis forbidden in Scripture? if not forbidden in Scripture, 'tis no sin to observe 'em; for where there is no Law, there is no transgression. So far Costerus.  
To whom we rejoin, That the holy Scriptures being the only Rule of the Whole, and of Every part of true Religion, if these things be not according to the Scripture, 'tis because there is no truth in 'em. There must be an exact correspondency and agreeableness between the Rule and its Regulate. The Regulate must be brought to the Rule, and if it doth not agree with it, 'tis because the Regulate is not Right. The word of God in Scripture is the Rule, what Religion soever varies from the Rule, 'tis a false Religion. Rectum est Index sui & obliqui.  
There are some Religions are larger than the Rule. There are other Religions that fall short of the Rule. They who embrace any Notion as a part of their Religion, which is not to be found in Scripture, is too large for the Scripture; and such as reject what the Scripture injoins, have a Religion too short. The one puts the Scripture on the Rack, to stretch it to their Religion; but the other pares off a considerable part of Scripture, that the Rule may not exceed their Religion. But such as keep exactly to the word of God in Scripture, who neither go beyond, nor fall short of it, are in the right.  
To make that a part of our Religion which is not to be found in Scripture, is to take that for a part of our Religion which God hath not made a part thereof, which is sinful. How much more so is the making it a term of communion?  
That the things in controversy between the Church and the Dissenter, are not to be found in Scripture, and consequently are not part of true Religion, is evident, not only because we can't understand where 'tis to be found, nor because the Churchmen cannot direct us where to find it; but because they themselves look on 'em as indifferent, i. e. as what is not enjoined us in the word of God, q. d. as what is not according to the word of God.  
All this being most plain and obvious to an ordinary Capacity that is not biased by Prejudice, etc. Let the world judge who is in the FAULT, They who keep close to Scripture, or they who recede therefrom. They who will do any thing, but Sin, for Peace; Or they who will exercise their Authority, and impose unnecessary things with the greatest Violence imaginable: I say, with the greatest Violence imaginable; for they are imposed with such a severe Threatening anrexed, that whoever refuses a compliance, is cut off from the Catholic Church, and given over to the Devil. Hence 'tis, that they imposing Indifferent things as necessary to Salvation, do according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule, declare themselves to be the Schismatical Dividers.  
I say, according to Dr. Stillingfleet's own Rule, compared with his Substitutes Notion. In the Doctor's Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 213. he saith, That there are three Cases wherens the Scripture allow of Separation. The last of which is, When men make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation, and divide the Church upon that account; and this was the Case of the false Apostles, who urged the Ceremonies of the Law, as necessary to Salvation.— Now although St. Paul himself complied sometimes with the practice of them.— Yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the Observation of them as necessary to Salvation, than he bids the Christians at Philippi to beware of them; i. e. To fly their Communion, and have nothing to do with them.  
From this Rule of Dr. Stillingfleet it must follow, That if the Church of England make things Indifferent Necessary to Salvation, our Separation from the Church is allowed by the Scriptures; yea commanded and enjoined. We must beware of 'em, (i. e.) to fly their Communnion, and have nothing to do with them. But that things Indifferent are made necessary by the Church of England, according to his Doctrine, doth appear irrefragably.  
That which is Necessary to our Communion with the Catholic Church, is, according to his Doctrine, necessary to Salvation. But Indifferent things are Necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is One with the Communion with the Catholic Church, in that, according to him, they are made necessary to our Communion with the Church of England, which is One with the Communion with the Catholic Church, according to his constant Judgement. Ergo.  
Or in other Terms, Whatever is made necessary to our being Members of the Catholic Church, is made necessary to Savation; for to be Members of the Catholic Church, and to be in a state of Salvation, is the same; and to be Members of the particular Church of England, and Members of the Catholic Church is one and the same with our Author, [p. 248.] As if it had been said, To be Members of the Church of England, is to be in a state of Salvation; but not to be Members of the Church of England, is to be out of a state of Salvation. Whence what is made necessary to our being Members of the Church of England, is made necessary to our Salvation; that is, The many indifferent Ceremonies imposed, as terms of our Communion with the Church of England, are made necessary for Salvation, according to our Author.  
For which reason the Scripture allows our Separation, yea the Scripture bids us beware of her, that is, to fly her Communion, and have nothing to do with her. Thus the Doctor in conjunction with his Substitute furnishes us with an unanswerable Argument to clear the Dissenter from the odious Sin of Schism, which in short is this;  
From such as make Indifferent things Necessary to Salvation, we must Separate. This is Dr. Stillingfleet's.  
But the Church of England makes Indifferent things necessary to Salvation. This is the Dr's Substitutes Notion.  
Ergo, We may, yea we must Separate; that is, 'Tis the Will of God we should Separate, or 'tis our Duty, and therefore not our Sin to separate; (i. e.) We are not the Schismatics.  
This is Argumentum ad Hominem; and either this Author must quit his Doctrine, or acquit us of Schism.  
But to treat our Author with the greater Civility, we'll suppose him to be so tenacious of his own Doctrine, that he'll rather discharge us of Schism than abandon his beloved Notions; for which reason, seeing 'tis on all sides acknowledged that there is a Faulty Division among us, and consequently a Faulty Divider, who is the Schismatic; He must be either the Dissenter, or the Conformist; but not the Dissenter, as we have already proved from our Author's own Topics; Ergo, the Conformist. Here we might have put an end to this Discourse, and would do so, had not our Author's fertile Brain furnished us with another Argument, that doth as fully evince the Conformist to be the Schismatic, as the former cleared the Dissenter.  
In the management of this Argument, we'll consider the Netion of Dr. Peter Gunning and Peirson, as compared with our Author.  
The I earned G. and P. in a Conference with the Papists, assert, That a Superiors unjust casting any out of the Church, is Schismatical. If the Governors of the Church do by sinful Impositions, or unjust Excommunications cast any out of the Church, they are Schismatical. This our Author won't deny.  
But according to his Notion, The Church of England are guilty of such Impositions, and do unjustly Excommunicate Dissenters.  
1. That the Impositions are sinful is evident, in that Indifferent things (as has been proved) are made necessary to Salvation. The making any indifferent thing Necessary to Salvation, is sinful. But the imposing indifferent things as terms of Catholic Communion, is the making such things Necessary to Salvation. Ergo, Sinful. Ergo, The Imposer is Schismatical. But  
2. Whoever doth unjustly Excommunicate any, are Schismatical. This is Dr. Gunning's sense. But the Church of England (if they agree with our Author) Excommunicates the Dissenter unjustly. Ergo, etc.  
That the Church of England Excommunicates unjustly, according to the Doctrine of our Author, is demonstrable; even in that the Church doth, as he would have it, by Excommunication cast thousands out of a state of Salvation, for not complying with little uncommanded things. Whence I argue thus, To Excommunicate, or cast us out of a state of Salvation, merely because we cannot comply with what God never commanded us, is to Excommunicate unjustly: But so doth the Church of England, if we may pass a censure on her as our Author provokes us to do; for the Church according unto him doth Excommunicate, that is, shut Heaven-gates against such to whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath promised the opening them.  
To illustrate this with the greater clearness, I beseech the Reader to consider, That Salvation is promised by Jesus Christ unto all such as do sincerely Believe, truly Repent, and lead an Holy Life in all Godliness and Honesty. Though a man may be daily guilty of lesser Evils, yet if he believe in Christ, and renders sincere Obedience to the known Will of God, he shall be saved. All which may be, even with those, who being verily persuaded that their compliances with the present Impositions are sinful, durst not Conform; that is, The Promise of Salvation is made by Christ to many, who do not conform to the Imp●sitions of the Church of England. But Salvation by our Author is denied unto such, their Noncompliance is enough to make 'em Schismatical, to cut them off from Christ, and the hopes of Salvation, which being no ways justifiable in the Conscience of any sober man, the Dissenters are unjustly Excommunicated; and he that so Excommunicates, is Schismatical.  
'Tis most certain, That many good Christians cannot conform to the imposed terms of Communion with the Church, and that for this single Reason they are Excommunicable, if not actually Excommunicated from the Church; that is, put out of a state of Salvation. The which being so, 'twill unavoidably follow, That either the Excommunication is unjust; or, That the Church hath greater Power, than he that is the Lord of it, to open and shut the gates of Heaven. If the latter, than the Church sets itself up above all that is called God in this world, and Christ in the other. For whereas Repentance towards God, and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, is sufficient for our Salvation; these add somewhat more, to wit, an Obedience to new Impositions, threatening the neglect with Damnation. But if the former, if the Excommunication is unjust, then according to Dr. Gunning, with the addition of our Author, Our Ecclesiastical Governors are the Schismatics. The Argument here in short is this;  
He that doth unjustly Excommunicate any out of the Catholic Church, is a Schismatic. This is Dr. Gunning's.  
But the Church of England, shutting those out of Salvation to whom Christ hath promised it, Excommunicates unjustly. This is our Authors.  
Therefore the Church of England, according to the Position of our Author, is the Schismatic.  
Hereby we may easily perceive, what an admirable Defender the Church of England hath, in the Defender of the Dean; and how little the true Protestant Clergy of the Church are beholding to this man, who insists on such Notions as do necessarily lead judicious men to conclude the Church of England Schismatical.  
But to return to our Author, who leaping over all the difficulties, though but hinted in the Enquiry, runs unto another Question, viz. From Ceremonies to Circumstances; form the Parts of their Religion, to the external Appendages thereunto, confounding the one with the other, and then runs triumphantly, assuring his Reader, That 'tis impossible to worship God, or exercise any act of Religion, but it must be in some time, or in some place; it must be done in some circumstances, therefore we may make some things a part of our Religion, which God has not. At this rate he fills up a great part of his Second Chapter. Insisting on nothing but what had its answer in that Enquiry he attempted to confute. Therefore if I should say no more than what I have in giving the true state of the Controversy, it would be sufficient: For it lies on him either to prove to our Conviction, that We may without sin comply with their Impositions, (i. e.) He must so far effectually enlighten our Conscience, as to help us to see, that the Impositions are not sinful, and that we may lawfully Conform; or show, That we must Conform contrary to the Convictions of our Consciences, and render a blind Obedience unto their Commands, Believing as the Church believes; or they ought to remove the Impositions, or acknowledge that our Compliances are not sinful. One of these must be done. Let him do either, and the Controversy will be ended, and the Dissenters freed from Schism. But if he cannot enlighten us to see the Lawfulness of their Impositions, nor persuade us to render a blind Obedience, nor remove the Impositions, but plead for their continuance, 'twill appear, That they by imposing what in their Judgements is but Indifferent, as things necessary to our Salvation, are the Schismatics. This might suffice as a full Answer.  
But that nothing may escape consideration, that our Author may think deserves it, I'll reflect a little on his main strength. If there be any force in this Argument (says he) it consists in these two things: First, That all things which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with. And secondly, That the Opinion of Dissenters, That indifferent things are unlawful in the worship of God, is a just reason for parting with them: For if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent, those who retain the use of some indifferent things, cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers or Schismatics; and if the opinion of Dissenters that all indifferent things are unlawful, be not a sufficient reason for parting with them, than there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not, nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot. p. 9  
First, saith he, If there be any force in this Argument, it consists in two things: First, That all things which are in their own nature indifferent, may without sin be parted with. This is his mistake; he should have said, That if there be any strength in the Enquiry, it lies in this, viz. No one indifferent Ceremony must be made so necessary a part of Religion, as to be a term of Communion. 'Tis this he should have considered. For you sin by insisting on any one, or more indifferent things so zealously as to make 'em terms of Communion with your Church, and consequently with the Church Catholic; so as to deny us a right to Christ and Salvation, for a mere noncompliance. You can part with your indifferent Ceremonies without sin, and open the door of Salvation to the wretched Dissenter if you will, even when they cannot without sin comply with your intolerable Impositions. The indifferent things you impose, you impose as terms of our Communion with you, which you make to be the same with Catholic Communion, that is of Salvation.  
2. You add the second thing, viz. That the Opinion of Dissenters, That Indifferent things are unlawful, is a just reason for parting with them. For if it be not, say you, lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent; those who retain the use of Indifferent things, cannot merely upon that account be called Dividers, or Schismatics, etc.  
You should remember, that I distinguished between Ceremonies and Circumstances, between what is a part of Religion, and  thereunto, and what is  only: But you run to external Circumstances that are necessary in Thesi, which is off from the point in hand.  
You run from what is Indifferent to what is Necessary, as if we called you to part with any necessary thing; whereas there is never any indifferent Ceremony that is grievous to our Consciences, but you may part with, or cease to impose 'em, and yet worship God. But to divide necessary circumstances of Action from the Action, is impossible. A thing we no way desire.  
'Tis true as you assert, A man who is to remove from London to York, is not bound either to go thither on foot, or on horseback, or in a Coach, or in a Wagon, each of these ways are in themselves indifferent; but yet if he will travel to York, he must use one or either of those ways of Motion; not one in particular is necessary, yet one or other is. But what is this to our purpose? What though the Partition-wall between Ceremonies and Circumstances be broken down, and they all mingled together, and all must be considered alike but as Circumstances, What will this help you? To keep to your pretty Allusion with one necessary Addition, viz. One hath not strength to walk on foot from London to York, another cannot bear the riding in Coach, yet to York they must go. If you'll keep to the point before us, you must say to the person that can't walk to York, Some way of Motion is necessary to your going to York, if you'll go thither; therefore you shall walk, or not go thither: And to the other that can't ride in a Coach, if you'll not go thither in a Coach, you shall not go at all; and yet give him the Strappado for not going thither.  
This is the Case; and how easily may they reply unto you on your calling them to hasten to York on these impossible terms, or to the Bisli●ps coalhouse? We would go to York with all our heart on Horseback, or in a Wagon; but to walk or to ride in a Coach we cannot. You can give us leave to go thither on horseback, if you will, but you will not; we would go, but go in Coach, or walk, we cannot. Here is a division, your will not, and our cannot; who now is in fault? That they cannot, is evident because of weakness and Infirmity of body; That you can permit 'em to go on Horseback, is as unquestionable; but yet you will not.  
Thus we have the strength of our Author's Reply; You must get into the visible Catholich Church, or to prison; and you cannot get in, but you must either use some external circumstances in some time, or in some place, etc. therefore this time, or no time; this place or no place. Sir, by your good favour, as you acknowledge this or the other particular circumstance to be indifferent, and that other circumstances may be chosen, if not this; to make either of these indifferent circumstances a necessary t●rm of communion, is sinful and schismatical. To make of a little thing so great a bar to shut thousands out of heaven, is what you will never be able to answer when you shall appear before the Tribunal of a righteous God.  
But as to the true state of the Controversy, 'tis another thing; you make that a part of Religion which God hath not made; you impose uninstituted ceremonies, and in many things recede from the Apostolical Institution, and call on us on pain of damnation to comply with you. We must comply, or be cut off from the Catholic Church, even from the body of Christ, from all hopes of salvation.  
These things being thus plain, I'll gratify our Author's desire in considering his Logic. If the Dissenters can without sin (says he) obey their Governors in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for union, but cannot, who is the Divider? What must be done for Union? Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without sin; or must the Episcopal sin and lose their peace with God for Union? p. 29.  
This is called by our Author an Argument, but why, I cannot imagine; however let it be so, wherein lies its strength, or how comes it to pass, that this cannot be answered, without a showing Sophistry to be where 'tis not?  
If there be any force in this Argument, it must be either in this, viz. That the Impositions are in the judgement of the Dissenters Lawful, or Indifferent, which may be submitted unto without sin. Had this suggestion been true, we would grant him the whole he desires, viz. That the Dissenters refusing to do what is Lawful in their own judgement to be done for Union, they are Faulty. But 'tis notirious, That the imposed terms are of such a nature, that they cannot be submitted unto by the Dissenter, but he must grievously offend the most high God, to the wounding his own conscience.  
If its strength lies not there, it must in this, That the Epis●●pal would be content to part with indifferent things, but cannot. And why can they not? What is the matter that they cannot part with toys and trifles to take many a thousand within the pale of the Church, and thereby help 'em to Heaven? The things are still supposed indifferent by our Author, and therefore a parting with 'em is not contrary to any Law, nor sinful. Why then can they not without sin part with, what they can part with without sin? This is surely mysterious! They cannot part with that without sin, which they can part with without sin, and Yet will not part with it, though according to their own judgement their not parting with their indifferent things tends to the unavoidable destruction of souls. They know the Dissenters, unless these indifferent things be passed by, must be kept out of the Church of England, that is, out of the Catholic Church say they, and remain to the last hour of their life in a state of damnation. Whence then did I say, What must must be done for Union? I may now say, What must be done to save the thousands of Souls for whom Christ died? Must the Episcopal part with what they can without sin, and take the Dissenters into the Catholic Church, and thereby save their Souls; or must the Dissenters sin that they may be saved? What, Is there no way to Heaven for English Dissenters, but their complying with sinful Impositions?" 'twas said in the Apostles days, that We must not do evil, that good may come thereof. Then surely, if we will be of the Apostles judgement, We must not sin, to save our Souls. Our Unrighteousness doth not, cannot commend the Righteousness of God. But  
Before I dismiss this Point, that the Reader may be fully satisfied that I abuse not our Author, I must beseech him to consider;  

1. That our Author hath, in a way different from the greatest, or rather the better part of the Clergy, asserted, That our not holding external communion with the Church of England, is a cutting ourselves off from the Catholic Church, a putting ourselves out of the Way of Salvation. This is the main scope of his discourse. A notion concerning which Dr. Stillingfleet's thoughts are desired.  
2. That notwithstanding the absolute necessity there is of the Dissenters returning to the Church of England, that they may become members of the Universal Church, and be saved, they will not part with any of those things that are in their own judgement little, though it be to save the Dissenters souls. If they would remove what is in their own judgement but little, and what may be done without their sin, but what cannot be complied with by the Dissenter without his great sin, the Controversy is ended, the Schis●● lost, and the Dissenter restored to the Catholic Church, and may be saved. Let the World judge then who is in the fault.   
There remaineth nothing more that is worthy our consideration, unless the many slips of our Author may be esteemed as such, by the Authors insisting on my parallelling Dr. Stillingfleet and Bellarmine, not only in their Dividing Principles, but also in that, even when by their Impositions; they make the greatest rents in the Church imaginable, they speak well of Union, but this is only an overt-act of his inadvertency. For the reason why I mentioned this, was to obviate a common Objection, viz. How can you parallel the Doctor and Bellarmine in this, seeing the Doctor cries up Union so much, as the design of his great Book, as well as of his Sermon? To which I reply, That though the Principles of Bellarmine were Dividing, yet he cries up Union; for which reason though the Doctor applauds Union, yet in doing so, doth no more than Bellarmine, and therefore may be as much a Divider as Bellarmine, notwithstanding those many plausible Discourses concerning the excellency of Union; for Union is a lovely name in the judgement of such as will do nothing to obtain the thing.  
His passing over the most momentous parts of the Enquiry, without saying any thing considerable unto 'em, makes a further Defence, at present, unnecessary; I say for the present, because he seems to threaten, as if I should hear more of it in DUE TIME.  
To close then this discourse, it only remains, that in Charity to our Author, whose Affections to Dr. Stillingfleet have so abundantly blinded his Judgement, that he cannot, though in searching till he hath wearied himself, find out any Mistake in the Dr's Preface, I'll give him an Account of a few among many, and then show what little Reason such of the Church of England, who are for the Grotian, or Bishop Laud's Model, have to reproach Dissenters, as a People carrying on Popish Designs, in blasting the honour of the first Reformation.  
§ 1. An Account of some of those Mistakes, which are found in Dr. Stilling fleet 's Preface to his Unreasonableness of Separation, not to mention any thing of the Parallel between the Dean and the Jesuit, so much insisted on in the Enquiry.  

1. THE Dean asserted, p. 14. a suitableness between the Dissenters Pretences, and the Jesuits Doctrines, about Spiritual Prayer: whereas I have evinced the contrary.  
2. That the Grounds and Reasons of the first Separation of the old Nonconformist from the Church of England, are said to be the Jesuits crying down all Forms of Prayer, and setting up Spiritual Prayer in the room thereof. But I have proved, that the first who separated, did keep to a Form of Prayer.  
3. That the Dissenters do blast the honour of the first Reformation; but they so far countenance it, as to endeavour the carrying it on.  
4. That the Dissenters are the best Proctors the Papists could meet with, their fittest and aptest Instruments; that they were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave, p. 16. All which the Doctor takes out of Archbishop Whitgift. But an unjust Censure, if not a great Mistake.  
5. That the Episcopacy now and in King Edward's days was the same; whereas in King Edward's days they held all their Courts in the King's name, but now in their own.  
6. That there is no considerable difference between the Reformation begun in Edward the 6ths, and that carried on in Queen Elizabeth's time: Whereas 'tis most apparent, that in King Edward's time they judged the Pope to be Antichrist; but in Queen Elizabeth's not a word of it; and many other differences.   
All which relate unto matter of fact, and therefore may be rightly called Historical Mistakes. Many more might be insisted on, but these are sufficient to help our Author to see, that if his eyes had been good, he needed not to weary himself in making a search after them without effect. If this will not satisfy our Author, if he will call for a larger list of the Dean's Mistakes, I do assure him 'tis easy enough to add a multitude more, although I delight not in a detecting the Weaknesses of any.  
§ 2. Thus having given an hint of some of Dr. Stillingfleet's Mistakes found in his Preface; I shall conclude, by showing what little Reason, such as our Author, have to make such a prodigious noise about the Dissenters subserviency to Popish Designs, in blasting the honour of the Reformation.  
Sir, If the case be narrowly searched into, you will find, that in all times since the first Reformation, those called Puritans were a block in the way to the Church of England's passing over towards Rome. Had it not been for the Industry of the Nonconformist, as all the foreign Protestant Churches beyond the Seas are Unchurched by our highflown Episcopal men, even so they should have been abandoned as Heretical, but that the Dissenter makes such a clamour on all occasions about Popery.  
You have very ingeniously distinguished between the Church, and the Court of Rome, and have taken the most effectual care to endeavour that favour might be shown the Church of Rome, even when you cry down Popery; as if the common People had understood by Popery no more than yourself, namely the Court of Rome; whereas they think, that when you cry down Popery, you are enemies to the Church of Rome. A pretty juggle! Popery is an odious thing, even when to be a Roman Catholic is worthy of all applause. Laud was no Papist, he was an enemy to Popery, when a cordial Friend to the Church of Rome. Popery is detestable, when all the care imaginable must be taken, that nothing be done to the disgust of the Roman Church. Consult Bramhall and Heylin, to mention no more, to see whether these be not their Sentiments.  
You boast strangely of King Edward's Reformaton, not considering how short of it, in some things, you are fallen. You represent us as blasters of the Reformation begun in his days, not duly minding what one of your own Faction, Dr. Heylin, hath said on't in his Preface to the History of the Reformation: Take the Character he gives of Edward the 6th, and make the most of it; 'tis this, Scarce had they (saith he) brought it, [viz. the Reformation] to pass, when Edward died, whose death I cannot reckon for an Infelicity to the Church of England. For being ill-principled in himself, and easily inclined to embrace such Counsels as were offered to him, it is not to be thought but that the rest of the Bishoprics (before sufficiently impoverished) must have followed Durham, and the poor Church be left as destitute of Lands and Ornaments, as when she came into the world in her natural Nakedness.  
From these words of Heylin 'tis evident, That such as are of this Grotian Faction, do reflect sufficiently on the Reformation then begun, and also plainly enough suggest, That if K. Edward had lived longer, the Reformation had gone on further than you or your party desire; it may be they would have gone on so far as those you now call Schismatics. If so, how comes it to pass that the Dissenters by acting so agreeably to what King Edwards Protestant's would have done, cast any reproach on that so happily begun Reformation?  
In fine, It cannot but amuse wise men, to observe how prudently Dr. Stilling fleet and his Substitute insist on the Dissenters subserviency to the Popish Interest: Whereas 'tis most manifest, that the Papists themselves do with the greatest confidence conclude none more opposite, nor more injurious to their Designs than the Dissenter. However, seeing one Dissenter spoke but a word for the forbearance of a mere conscientious Papist, this is enough to animate those Gentlemen to load the whole Party with the reproach of being great friends to Popery. The which is the more remarkable, because all this cry is even when a Son of the Church, yea a Reverend Divine of that name hath written a Volume in favour of the Church though not of the Court) of Rome, without any notice taken of it. And the Dean himself in that very Preface in which he so much declaims against the Dissenter, doth speak much more in favour of the Papists, than any Dissenter ever did; for he himself asserts, That it will be thought great hardship when men's heats are ever, for them only (viz. the Papists) to be deprived of the liberty of their Consciences, when the wildest fanatics are allowed it. p. 79.  
Moreover, what is matter of greater surprise is, That all this stir is raised from one word out of a Dissenters mouth, even when great things have been done by some who pretend to be sons of the Church, in favour of the Papist, to the turning the edge of those Laws that were made against Papists on Protestant Dissenters, without any remark; as if it had been highly meritorious in a Churchman to act for all Papists in the general, tho' an unpardonable crime in a Dissenter to speak but one word for the supposed conscientious only.  
That some of the Church of England have acted in favour of all sorts of Papists, to the advancing Popery, is notorious, as hath been observed by Sir Francis Winnington at the Trial of the Lord Stafford. Another encouragement, my Lord (faith Sir Fr. W.) which the Papists had, was, That by the means of those Ministers who were secretly of their Faction, whenever his Majesty was pleased to command the Laws made against them in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth and K. James, to be put in due execution, his good intentions were frustrated, and the severity of those Laws was turned upon the Protestant Dissenters. This was a Master piece of Rome, not only to divert from themselves the edge of those Laws which were designed against them; but to turn them upon the Protestants, and to make them useful to advance the Romish Interest.  
The same is also the sense of the Commons assembled in Parliament, as is to be seen in their Address unto his Majesty, November 29.1680. Where they declare unto his Majesty in these words, At home, if your Majesty did at any time by the advice of your Privy Council, or of your Two Houses of Parliament, command the Laws to be put in execution against Papists, even from thence they gained advantage to their Party, while the edge of those Laws was turned against Protestant Dissenters, and the Papists escaped in a manner untouched.  
Thus many a Son of the Church have heretofore taken an especial care to turn the edge of Laws against Popery, on the Dissenter. But this is not speaking for a forbearance; 'tis but an actual affording forbearance to 'em all in general. Of which one word must not be spoke. As if such men as our Author would that all the Respects which are had for Papists, must be confined to them, who alone without offence may show it 'em.  
But 'tis pretty evident, that there are other Conformists of another mind, as may appear by the Countrey-Conformists further Reply to this Defence, or Vindication, which we have received from him in these Sheets following, and to which I refer my Reader.  
FINIS.     

Mr. PARK HURST,  
HAVING information that you are Printing some 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 concerned 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 judgement and sense. I cannot say that he hath in any thing confuted them; but he doth grossly 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 deal in this kind; and I do foresee how he is like to far 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 gins. The Country Conformist in his Reflections on Dr. Stilling fleet, endeavours to excuse Mr. B. from intending the D. of St. Paul's, 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 Candour 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 withal, 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 Churchmen, 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 Candour 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, and 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 England's 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 Minds: 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 Judgement is too firmly established in the minds of Impartial and  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 adds, As for the latter, (i. e. Learning) I acknowledge myself such a Substitute, as may not compare with the Doctor.  
This 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. Paul's, 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 adds; 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 Avantguards of an Army; he intends now to fall to downright 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 aught 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. Paul's, 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 Controversy 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 to set up a Presbyterian parity, the Country 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 Dioceses 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 Country 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 judge, as can consider as well as read his Book.  
But how comes this Gentleman to know that the Country 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 Churchmen, but he must immediately be reported a secret Traitor 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 villainous manner? 'Tis a word I received from him, I hope he will take it again. Tho' it should be granted the Mitre supports the Crown; yet surely the Errors and Vices of Churchmen 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 buzz of Rebellion that is suggested by some Huffs in the prejudice of such men and their discourses.  
But why did I inquire how this Monsieur came to know that the Country 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 Magic 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 lies; and I hope when he writes again, he will beware of him, and hold better correspondencies for his information.  
Pag. 7. he adds: Our Conformist doth plainly deride the Dean for thinking he can justify 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 again and again, 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 Dioceses 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 Dioceses doth not vary the species of Bishops; and that a great and a little King are specifically the same Governors: But I can by no means believe this to be true of Bishops, whatever it be of Kings: For the Diocese of the Pope is only bigger than that of the Bishop of London, or Worcester, or Lincoln; and yet I think they are Governors 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 Diocese, 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 men's 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, aught to determine the extent of their Diocese. Let their Dioceses 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 profaneness 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 Country 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, etc. 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 Antichristian Bishop of Bishops, or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State to head and govern them, and altars 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 falsehoods. He charges the Country 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, I think this Author hath injured and wronged him, in this report of his judgement.  
And whereas 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 knowledge, he is in his judgement 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 persuaded to part with them; and if some exceptionable passages in the Liturgy and Rubrics 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 Controversy 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 maladministrations, and preserve peace among them. And what is there in this Doctrine that our Author should take such offence at, I am yet to seek.  
He adds, And altars 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 acknowledge, and I believe he is still of the same mind; 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 myself 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 Protestant's 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 Colleague hath Authority over any one of his Colleagues, p. 213. 4. That the Bonds and Combinations of Churches are 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 Catholic 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 form 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 Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Schismatic, 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 Schismatics; and if the Nation refuse to forsake such Bishops, they are all Schismatics also, both they and their Bishops are liable to the same Censure.  
4. That the external Union of the Catholic Church consists in their Union to and with the Bishops thereof; that is, with a General Council. See pag. 595. where he makes Catholic Communion to consist in two things; 

1. In the Agreement and Concord of the Bishops of the Catholic Church among themselves.  
2. In the Communion of particular Churches and Christians with each other. And he adds, That Catholic Communion is no arbitrary thing, but essential to the Church; and whoever violates it by an unreasonable Dissent, he is a Schismatic whoever he be, and no Member of the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 aught 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 Churchof- 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 myself that I have perverted them, or made any ill deductions from them; and if it be his design to unite all protestants in the Decrees of General Councils, and in the Intervals of Councils in the Pope, or three or four Patriarches, 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 that 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 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 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 Perfection.  
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 itself, 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 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 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 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.  
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 Live, and believe their Government and Discipline to be of Divine right, and exercise it on all that are of the same apprehension and judgement: 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 figtree, 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 our 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 satisfy 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 betid 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 Catholic Church: For if there be but one Church, a whole Nation may be Schismatical, as well as single persons, etc. Well then, I am passed 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 Schismatics; 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. Paul's, from what Mr. Humphrey 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 it to shift for itself 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-governors 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 ever 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. Humphrey Mr. Baxter's Echo, when yet Mr. Humfrey's Answer to the Drs. Book, came out before Mr. Baxter's. When the Echo now can be proved to go before the Voice, or the Voice to follow the Echo, 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 cries 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 Country Conformist. The learned D. of St. Paul's 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. Humphrey gives the reasons of those alterations, but withal affirms that 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 judgement in that case. These are his words: He will not own that he hath altered his judgement in the second Impression of his book, from what it was in the first: but people know not men's judgements 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 lie! 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 citys 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 shown 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 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 merely 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 remembered (he says) still, that we do by all men as we would be done by, and that with what measure we meet 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  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. Paul's 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 Country 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 easy 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 Heretics 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 Governors would be able to distinguish between those that err in small things, and those that subvert the Christian Religion. This Answer doth not satisfy our Author, who inquires, (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 ask the same Question again: However I'll venture this once. Many of the Dissenters from the Church of England are sound in their Judgements, 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 Judgements 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 Judgements 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 Heretics, 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 satisfy 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 sometimes admire, that those that never expect to see the one upon Earth, but are very calm and patiented 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 Conventicles; 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, etc. are of the Universal: But if our Author shall please to cut them off from the Catholic (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 satisfy 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 Catholic 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 Heretic, 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 Catholic 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 superior to our Prince, and must be obeyed before him. I fear His Majesty's 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; We 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 Majesty's Pardon, if I choose to obey the God of Heaven, before his Vicegerent here on earth.  
The Catholic 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 persuasions. 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 Catholic 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 judgement 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 Governors would distinguish between those that subvert the Christian Faith, and those that err in small things. Our Gentleman answers: Thus our Governors 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 Governors have made this distinction, I confess the Country 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, I do not inquire; but what the Governors 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 public 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 Heretics, 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 condescensions. But no, saith our Author, if we humour 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. 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 Country 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 Country 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 judgements 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 Country Conformist lays down.  
If it be said, That no difference in opinions must be tolerated, than 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 Country 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 Country Conformist upon my knowledge 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 Churchmen 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 Country 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 Country 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 Country 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 envenomed 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 envenomed 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. Humphrey spoken, notwithstanding the six next pages which are spent in exposing some bare expressions of Mr. Humphrey (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 judge 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 show in the beginning of his Book, upon a comparison of his with Bishop Jewel. The Doctor hath his excellencies other ways, but he hath not Mr. B's. The Doctor's Soul is made of Freestone, 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 Bishopric, 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 man's 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 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 Country Conformist (and there were some sheets done), but because it is indeed but endless, and it will turn to no account, but to ease myself, 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. Job,  
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 do it, and reasons to forbear. Nevertheless if you determine upon it as to your part, I have fetched the Book, and taken my pen and looked it over as to mine. There is but one Chapter wherein I am concerned, 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 Controversy, which is not to be expected from a Conformist, but for the ingenuity of Spirit which he hath shown 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 Author, is but alchemy 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 ware 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 myself to my little task before me.  
It gins, 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 only 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 citys these words of mine, page 559. To be Particular or Universal is Essential to Christ's 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 go to the making our Church National, and consequently the Church of Christ is National only 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 own 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 Supreme Magistrate, to Church purposes. A Metropolitan Church is no combination of them all, and a Patriarchal a combination of more than all. The one and the other may be called Churches, but neither one or other a National Church, which he himself takes to be such a Union.  
But he cannot tell (he says p. 561.) why it is Accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more than to be Universal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more than Universal: but when I tell him that the Body of Christ (which is his Church) may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth, I hope he can see (if he will) how the consideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical, and so National, must be Accidental to it. And as for Christ's command of planting Churches (p. 16.) in the whole world, and so in Nations, and Cities, and Towns, requiring Unity and Communion every where among Christians, it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal, Metropolitical, National, Diocesan, and Parochial Churches to this end, if he please, provided only, that these forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence, and not the Essential form of the Church of Christ according to divine institution.  
To the question whether a National Church be Political, he offers something (p. 562.) and says the Dean in his Opinion hath answered with great Judgement in his denying any necessity of a Constitutive Regent part to be Essential to a National Church. But I will make it appear, that either the Dean or his Defender, do speak here with little Judgement. It is the Notion this Author hath proposed to public consideration, that the Bishops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by consent, that is as Colleagues, per litteras formatas when they convene not, and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation. This he makes throughout his Book to be of Christ's appointment, holding Episcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party. If this than be true, this Author hath found out a Constitutive Regent part, yea an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation, where there are Christians, and Bishops. And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor, how can he thus applaud the Doctor's answer, that denies the Church to have one, or says, there is no necessity of any. When he does prove it to be a Church Political, and the Doctor's answer includes a denial of it to be so, how comes this man to be so full of reverence here with these words in his mouth? To this the Dean answers, in my poor Opinion, with great Judgement and Consideration. It is with great Judgement indeed, is it not, that the Dean hath given up the Cause of the Bishops? And with great Judgement, is it not, that this man hath assumed the Prerogative of the King to their College? Let him take heed lest he bring himself into question.  
Many Churches Associated for mutual help and concord, are a Church only in a lose sense; but those that are constituted of one Regent and subdite part, are Churches in a Political proper sense. It is no body Political without one common Governor Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical. Thus says Mr. Baxter (p. 563.) Unto which says this Author, Herein does his strength (p. 564.) consist.  
Answ. I acknowledge it does, and what hath he to weaken it? I will Transcribe what he says: If we deny this, that though a National Church be one body, yet it is not such a Political body as he describes, (which differs from secular forms of Government, by that ancient Canon of our Saviour, It shall not be so among you) the controversy may be at an end, and a National Church may be one body in an Ecclesiastical, though not in a Civil Political sense.  
This is the help the Dean must expect from his Defender, and if the Doctor be not ashamed of his own answer for this desense sake, I know not what should put any man to shame. This man tells me in his Preface, he will interpose between the Dean and shame in this Controversy. Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him, that he does here manifestly betray a raw ignorance which ought to shame him. He understands the term Political to be Commensurate with Civil; as if a Government Ecclesiastical could not be Political, as well as a Government Civil; that is, as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies. He does yet discover the same more than by words; for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical, and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political, unless it have some Head that is Personal: or as if a Head Collective were not One Head, as well as one that is Monarchical. This man who hath interposed between shame and the Doctor, must take shame upon him, seeing he calls upon me to do my part honestly, in the same place. I say this man hath found an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head of the Church, and that of Christ's own Institution, if he understands what he drives at; and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political. I will advise him to consult with Bishop Gunning, and the excellently learned, and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living, seeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal, or any other who are dead, (as I conjecture) that he may be instructed better, before we hear any more from him.  
Mr. Baxter indeed understands himself throughly, and tells us Association of Churches for Concord (gratia Unitatis,) are no proper Churches: But an United College of Bishops for government (gratia Regiminis) is a formal Ecclesiastical Head, about which was the Original Question. And this, this bold, and herein but half informed Author (who will interpose between shame and the Doctor) doth not understand neither, and as soon as he hath read this, will he own the shame he hath taken upon him? Above all, is there any man (unless so forward a one) would ever have produced that saying of our Saviour, If shall not be so among you, for the proving a National Church to have no Head, or that the Churches of Christ must not therefore be Political? I shall not be blamed I hope therefore if I say now again what I said to the Doctor; That if this man be not ashamed for himself and the Doctor, I must be ashamed for them both. If we deny this (says he) the Controversy were at an end: Well, but when it cannot be denied, we must look farther.  
P. 565. We grant (says he) a National Church is a Political Society; for Government by consent without Superiority is Government. I grant too Church Governors united and governing by consent are the Pars Imperans, and the people submitting to such Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour, are the Pars Subdita, and all this is true without a constitutive Kegent Head. I Answer, if he grants (or rather asserts) thus much, a Government by consent, understanding by it the Episcopal College, or Cyprians One Episcopacy as the Governing part, and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it, then hath he found out a Constitutive Head, and an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head by Christ's Institution: and to say that all this is true without one, is to me a perfect contradiction.  
When he goes on then (p. 566.) to prove that this is all, that is, or can be required to make a National Church One, by two Arguments, I answer, If there be so much as this indeed required, his two Arguments must prove it not only to be One, but one Political proper Church with an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part to it. The Bishops (he says) have equal power by Christ's appointment, and rule not by Superiority, but by Consent, that is not by Superiority over one another, but they do rule by a Superiority (I hope) over the people, and that is an Aristocratical Government: and when the People do consent to Unite in Communion with them, this makes them Members (he says) of that Political body: And these are his two reasons (p. 566, and 567.) which need no other Animadversion, but this notice of them. The great questions only are whether this indeed be the will of Christ, that the Catholic, and so every National Church (as he states the matter) should be ruled by these Bishops as Colleagues, that is by a Government (as he calls it) by consent, and if it be, how it should come to pass that we have not in England such a Government, where there is for certain no such Rule by consent of the College without a Superiority, but by a Superiority (or a Supremacy) of the King, who is the Head of these Bishops themselves, as well as the Nation. This I make not my Province.  
P. 568. He hath four things for the strengthening the Government of his Mintage, and then concludes that if Mr. Baxter can give him one reason why this may not be called one Church, or Ecclesiastical Body Politic without a Constitutive. Regent part, he will think farther of it. To which I answer; and tell him presently why this cannot be called one Church or Ecclesiastical Body Politic without a Constitutive Regent part, the reason is, because it is a Body Politic Ecclesiastical with a Constitutive Regent part; and so he need think no farther of it.  
And this Answer being of another nature then that which he fancies like to be made him in the next page (p. 569.) I need say nothing to that, nor the next (p. 570.) but come on to p. 571. for now he hath prepared the way, as he says, to justify the Doctor. Well, where there is a Political Church says Mr. Baxter, there must be a Constitutive Head. The Doctor answers, there may be the true notion of a Church without one. I Reply, This is a coming off, but the question indeed at the bottom, is, whether it be the true notion of the Church of England?  
The Doctor argues, If it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it, than it unavoidably follows, that there must be a Catholic Visible Head to the Church Catholic Visible. This Argument the Deans Defender thinks unanswerable. But we reply, the Argument is such, as needs no Answer, and it may easily be Answered.  
In the first place it needs no Answer, because the thing it would prove, is but what we can grant him; that is, a Visible Head to the Catholic Church. Christ is that Head we say, and he is Visible. When he was on earth he gave Laws for his Church, and Commissionated Officers, which are Rights of a Head; He after appeared to Paul, and Commissionated him, and is now Visible in Heaven. This is plain proof in Reason, Sense and Scripture, and not to be jeered off, and therefore in the first place the Doctor's Argument needs no Answer.  
In the next place we say farther, it is easily Answered; for we deny the Argument. If it be necessary for a Church to have a Constitutive Head, it follows that the Catholic Church must have a Constitutive one: but it follows not that it must have a Catholic Visible Head or that, that Constitutive Head must be Visible.  
This in truth is introducing four Terms into the Argument which we know is false Arguing. When there is put more into the thing Asserted in the Consequence, than there is to prove it in the Antecedent in an Hypothetical Syllogism, it is all one as to argue with four terms in a Syllogism that is Categorical. But the Doctor (says he) puts more strength in it. The question is about the Catholic Church, whereof particular Churches are parts, and they being Visible do require the Constitutive Regent part to be Visible. I Answer, though here be more words, here is no more strength put into the Argument, I still deny the Consequence. For though the Catholic Church consists of Particular Churches which are Visible, it consists also of that society in heaven which is not Visible, Christ's Body is but one Body, whereof part is in Heaven, and part on Earth, and while the Head is in Heaven, it follows not, that because part of the Body is Visible, therefore the Head must be Visible. It is all one as if he should argue thus. Particular Churches are on Earth, and if Christ be Head of the Catholic Church whereof they are parts, he must not be in Heaven. And when indeed this is one and the same Argument, and we know it to be false, we do justly deny the Doctor's Argument. Suppose a man so high as that his head reached above the clouds, will you argue, that this person hath no head, because his head is not visible? I deny the Argument.  
There is really nothing hard in the Doctor's Argument, but to understand why his Defender (whom I value for his Parts) should come to think it unanswerable. It may be the Doctor's confident word at first, [it undeniably follows] drawn on this apprehension, and he hath fetched the Argument over so long, till he hath put enough in it, to make himself believe it. We are far (says he) from asserting that the Universal Head must be Visible if the Subordinate be so (he should be as far from asserting the Head to be Visible, because Particular Churches or the Members are so:) but this we assert, that if no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Subordinate Visible Head, than the Universal Church cannot be a Visible Church without a Subordinate Catholic Visible Head, p. 574, 575, 576. This he takes to be the Doctor's Argument, and he will make the consequence hold before he has done with it. But against whom does the Doctor and this man argue? Is it not against Mr. Bexter? and did Mr. Baxter ever say this, that there can be no true Church without a Subordinate Head under Christ? Is not Mr. Baxter a Protestant as well as the Doctor, and do they not both maintain the Catholic Church to have one only Supreme Head and no Subordinate one in Earth? If his Defender hath found out one who is not the Pope, but the College of Bishops, I desire Doctor Stillingfleet to appear above board, and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion, and defend his Defender.  
Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politics, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church have such a one: But that having no such a one, a National Church as well as the Catholic may be without a Constitutive Head. This is the Reasoning in the sum (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 Catholic 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 man's Government 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 Catholic 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 than is granted by the Respondent (which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum, for whether the divers 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 pursuit 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 justify the former. But neither of them are in the right. The Church of England, is not a Church by Consent only without a Head, nor a Government by Consent, by the College 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 Supreme Head of the Church. It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent, and sat 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 Supreme Head, and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance. If the King be not the Head accordingly, than must the Clergy generally be both Liars 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  thing, and fit to be tendered 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 direful 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 endured, 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 only the King's Officers (to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings, as this Author so well expresses it, (p. 275.) so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share: I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men, or party (who are designing an Antipodes to it) be at all out of love with it. And seeing there is a draught to this purpose which he alludes to, and (whatsoever the humour be) does style an ingenious proposal, I advise that it be preserved and inserted therefore at the end of the Book if you Print it. The Paper (you know) was prepared against the Sitting of the last Parliament at Oxford, and Entitled Materials for Union.  
And now I have done about myself, you may expect from me some more general censure of the Author and his Book, which I was willing to decline.  
For the Author (whatsoever he else be) I take him to be a man of Ability that requires our regard. By his Style and Undertaking, I guess him to be a man of younger age, (so I hear and believe) though by his reading and compass he fetches for the making good his Notion, he may be some graver Person. In the small game he plays with me I perceive he hath hit me, and I ought not to like him the worse for that. It is where I lay open to him, and left him a blot. But for the defence he makes of the Doctor against me, I think he hath failed in his cast, and thrown out. He is a ●●●n I count hath a Proud Pen, and I am not moved at that: but the Doctor whose Pen is more Prudential, seemed to me to have his contempt within, and that moved me, do what I could, and made me write as I did. There are many (I believe) will think that this man hath despised me so much that it should move me: but I do not think it so much. The man is a bold insolent man, and it is (I think) the taking a ferocious liberty, rather than showing disdain. He hath used Mr. Baxter like a very dog, and when I methinks am but something rightly served, why should I care how he uses me? I will do nothing more to deserve it, and if he despises me, I know then how to be even with him, I wont care if he does.  
For the Book, I think the Bookseller hath done his part. The Paper and Print is to be likeed: but for the matter I think it to dear at the price. Five Shillings (I must tell him with some displeasure) is too unreasonable much for such Controversy. There are three or four things more particularly I have observed in the Reading it.  
In the first place I observe the Design which appears to be in hand. A design which seems specious, being for Union: but that Union is of the Church of England with the Church of Rome, in the French and Cassandrian way, not a Union of Protestant Dissenters and the Conformists with one another. On the contrary, this Gentleman thus discourses. The Christian Church throughout the whole world is One. The Unity of this Church Catholic lies in One Communion. This Communion is exercised in Particular Churches. There are no true Particular Churches of Christ's Institution, and parts of that Catholic, but they must have Bishops. Every man consequently that is not in Communion with his Bishop, is out of the true Catholic Church which consists of such parts, and so not only a Schismatic, but cut off from Salvation. Either this Author now is ware of this Doctrine or not: If not, as soon as he comes to be, he will be ashamed of it: if he already be, he may be ashamed to own such Doctrine as this is.  
In the next place I observe a little, how consistent he is in this Doctrine. For when he hath bestowed a whole Chapter (p. 164.) to tell us that the Unity of the Universal Christian Church consists in one Communion, and descends to explain that Communion by a Communication of the same Divine Service (for when Dr. Owen is speaking of a Communion between the Churches in Faith and Love, He ought to have added (says he) in Religious Worship, for without this there is no Christian Communion, (p, 446.) which he also urges so far as to make a forsaking Communion with the Church of England to be a cutting a man quite off from the Church of Christ; and yet if you turn to p. 305. you shall find these words. The Nature and Essence of the Church does not consist in Religious Assemblies— but it is a Covenant Relation to Christ which Constitutes the Church. Here than we have sounder Doctrine, for these two are different things. If an entering into Covenant with Christ is that really which Constitues a man a member, and unites him to the Body, then is it not this One Communion wherein the Unity of that Body does consist. A man may give himself up to Christ I hope, who yet does not, and cannot communicate with the Church of England, and though he own not the Bishops, may be a Christian for all that.  
In the third place I observe this, that when he hath said some things well about the Text which the Doctor chose for his Sermon (p. 447, 448.) yet is he very unsatisfactory in bringing off the Doctor, or vindicating his judgement in his choice of it for his purpose. There were some in the Apostles time that thought the Jewish Law still obligatory, and that they should sin against God if they did not keep it: and there were others understood the liberty they had from it by the Gospel. The first of these are called the weak brother, the last the perfect. The advice the Apostles gives to the perfect is to use and enjoy that liberty which the Gospel brought them: The advice he gives the weak, is to wait till God should reveal to them the knowledge of this liberty. And in the mean while that they should forbear, seeing, To them who esteem any thing to be sin, it is sin: and this he presses still so far, and with such exceeding caution that the strong Christian himself must refrain his liberty for their sakes, in case that by his example he shall give them occasion to do the same thing, which in regard to their not yet sufficiently informed form consciences would be sin, and destroy their souls. This is the certain sense and diffusive doctrine of St. Paul in his Epistles. I will come then to the Doctor's Text, Whereto we have attained let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, and I must ask his Defender whether the weak and perfect Christian (as before explained) be here both included, I mean whether both of these are alike required in the Text to walk by the same rule? This Author does hold it, and he frames such an interpretation of the words as he must hold it: but I deny it, and that interpretation therefore must be counterfeit. By walking by the same rule he understands the maintaining Church Communion, and this Communion with the Church he counts must be held, howsoever it be we differ. This is therefore a fictitious and certain false application or explication of the Text, for it is directly contrary to the scope of that Doctrine which I have but now delivered as the sum or substance of the Apostle in his Epistles altogether. I say also that this is manifestly here destitute of reason. The Apostle requires that all Christians should walk by the same rule in things whereto they have attained, Therefore they must walk by the same rule in things whereto they have not attained. Such is his force. This walking by the same rule I am persuaded is a phrase or expression only, signifying the doing as others do. Now because they that had the knowledge of their liberty might do as others did, and were to use it, must those that had not that knowledge do so likewise? The contrary is apparent, for they shall sin against their consciences if they do. The like case is here. The Conformist among us looks upon all and every of those things that are enjoined about Uniformity in the Church to be lawful, and he values himself for perfect in this discerning indifferent things, but the Nonconformist thinks these things unlawful, and that he shall sin if he yields to them, and what if herein he be weak, must the weak and perfect, must both these here now walk by the same rule, or do as one another do? Nay must there be a Rule made on purpose by Authority about these very things wherein the difference lies to force them to act both alike, when one of them (if they do) cannot possibly act in faith, and so must needs sin? Nothing more contrary to what I have laid down, Nothing more contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle. I will add, if by this Rule there be more meant than a Phrase, and some Rule he will account there must be, I would fain know why this Rule should be any other then that of the same Apostle otherwhere, As many as walk according to this rule, peace be upon them and the Israel of God. And what is that Rule, but Christianity itself, the great Rule of the Christian Religion, or Doctrine of the Gospel? And what then will follow from thence! The Doctor I remember reflects upon my Peaceable Design for being called an Answer to his Sermon: I will undertake now upon this Supposition, that, that Title was as fit for my Book, as this Text was for his Sermon. Because we must walk according to the general rule of the Christian Religion, in all things that are required of us, as we attain to the knowledge thereof, Therefore we must Conform to the Canons and Liturgy of the Church of England. This is the Doctor's Sermon upon that Text; and I will tell you the Inference now of his Defender upon that Sermon, Therefore must all that Conform not, in the excluding themselves from Communion with the Church of England, be excluded also out of the Catholic Church, and consequently out of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
By the way, since I wrote this, I was reading Doctor Owen, and I find that he falls in with the last Interpretation of the Rule, and he hath these words upon it. Let the Apostles rule be produced (says he) with any probability of proof to be his, and we are ready to subscribe and conform to it. To which Doctor Stillingfleet Replies, This is the Apostles rule, to go as far as they can, and if they can go no farther to sit down, and not to break the peace of the Church. Unto this Dr. Owen Answers, The Apostles rule is not that we should go as far as we can, but that so far as we have attained we must walk by the same rule. I interpose here and say to the Doctor, This is, this must be the rule of the Apostle, supposing that rule be meant as he understands it, that is, of the great rule of faith and love, or law of the Gospel. For this is part of that Rule. It is part of that love we own the Magistrate and our Conforming Brethren to go as far as we can, or to come as near as we can to them. But I answer then to the Dean, It is part also of the same Rule to go no farther than we can. Our duty of love requires the one: Our duty of faith requires the other. We may not do any thing which we cannot do in faith but we break the rule as it is the rule of faith, as well as if we do not do what we can, we shall break the rule, as it is the rule of love. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now when the Dean hereupon goes on, and teaches us, that we must sit down and not break the peace of the Church when we can go no farther, I Reply, there is a breaking the peace of the Church in his sense, or in òurs. If we understand breaking the peace of the Church in his sense, which is going from the Church to our Meetings, I say he is out, and that we must break the peace of the Church if this be the breaking it, for this is that which is required of us in that branch of the Rule, that we must go no farther than we can: But when we go to private Meetings and leave the Church in this case (where we suppose a man cannot act in faith, or with persuasion in his conscience that it is lawful for him to go thither,) it is no breaking the peace of the Church in our sense, but a part of our duty (we say) of going no farther than we can. We go as far as we can with them in holding the same Doctrine and Sacraments, in acknowledging them as true Churches, maintaining a Communion in love with them, and doing all the good offices we can to them, and when we can go no farther, in this lies our duty of going no farther than we can, that we meet for worship otherwhere. To assemble (I say) for worship is one part of the rule: Not to assemble, (but to forbear any thing,) when we cannot act in faith, is another part of the rule: Put them both together and it comes to this, that, To go to other meetings when we cannot go to Church must be walking by the rule (if this rule be the great rule of faith and of love) out of question. This I speak in the person of Doctor Owen, who can and do go to Church myself: but there is one eminent thing said by that eminent great man, and very much accomplished Doctor. We do and shall abide by this Principle (p. 250.) that Communion in faith and love with the administration of the same Sacraments is sufficient to preserve all Christians from the guilt of Schism, though they cannot communicate together in some rites and rules of Worship and Order. If the Doctor makes good this, he does our work: and till the Dean debates this, he says nothing.  
To return, I observe in the fourth place (for the Digression itself does but lead me hither) that this Author does industriously endeavour to bring the Controversy between Conformist and Nonconformist to this issue. If the Church requires of us any things as necessary to her Communion which are sinful, the schism is on her part. If not, the schism is on ours. To what end he does this, unless there be some body else entertaining the task which the Doctor ought, I cannot tell: but if this be supposed the true case between us, than should the business here that Doctor Stillingfleet had to do, have been this, To see what things are alleged by the Nonconformists as Unlawful in the point of Conformity (whereof there was a taste 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 Doctor's 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 myself with one instance to show him this. It is in the matter of Assent and Consent, to. all and every thing contained in, and prescribed by the two Books of the Liturgy and Orders. 'Tis plain by these words, that whatsoever is Asserted in these Books we must give our assent to the truth of it, as whatsoever is prescribed we must consent to the use of it. How vast a Field then have we here for our Objections against this Declaration, and yet does this Author come off thus. We do not give our assent to every saying in the Common Prayer Book, but to every thing contained in and prescribed by it, that is what we are bound to use, p. 105. And does this man now think indeed this enough to satisfy 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 Say 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 satisfy 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 satisfy 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 myself, or respectful enough for the Doctor. I am ready to crave the Doctor's 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 ware 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 merely 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 spoke 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, than 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 divers 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 Persuasion) 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 Union.  
When the Parliament than 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 Governed by the Laws of these General Counsels, are Schismatics. I am much rather therefore, in my mind, for the Notion (which is that in the Embryo the Reverend Dean of St. Paul's seems to me to aim at, if it could be once well form) of an Independent National Church Political, but not to be held, as the Congregationalist supposes his Particular Independent One, and They their Catholic, to be of Divine, but of Humane Institution; for it is manifestly a thing Accidental to the Church of Christ, that the Supreme Magistrate, and the whole Body of a Nation, are Christian.  
It should be declared then in such a Bill of Act of Parliament, that the Church of England consists of the King as the Head, and all the several Assemblies of the Protestants as the Body.  
A Discrimination between the Tolerable and Intolerable is never to be gainsaid by any Wise Man.  
It is not for me, or any One persons, but a Convocation, or Parliament, to prescribe the Terms of National Communion; but I would have all our Assemblies that are Tolerable, to be made Legal by such an Act, and thereby parts of the National Church, as well as the Parochial Congregations.  
That the Bishops should be declared Ecclesiastical Officers under the KING, acting Circa Sacra only by Virtue of His Authority and Commission.  
As Jehoshophat appointed Officers for Government in the Matters of God, and the King's Matters: So should the Bishops be in Our Ecclesiastical, as the Judges are in Civil Matters, the Substitutes of his Majesty, and Execute His Jurisdiction.  
Upon this Account, if any of the Eminent among the Non-conformists were Chosen to be Bishops, they could not refuse it.  
Let two or three the most fit of those Parties be the next that are called to this Function upon such an Act, an commanded to Hold it, and then would UNION indeed Commence.  
Their Work in general, should be to Supervise the Churches of both sorts in their Dioceses, that they all Walk according to their own Order, agreeable to the Gospel, and the Peace of one another.  
I am sensible unto what Distress a Congregational Minister may be brought in the exercise of Discipline over some potent, turbulent, and refractory Members; and what Relief he might find in such a 〈…〉 all Ecclesiastical Officer as this. I am sensible how the many inconveniences (supposed) of Congregational Episcopacy, by this one only means may be salved.  
This shall Advance, and not Lessen, the outward Power and Honour of the Bishops.  
I humbly Motion a Third Clerk for the Convocation, to be added to the Two in every Diocese, and chose out of the Non-conformists for the Unanimous prosecution of Holiness and Concord throughout all the Churches: And the two Provinces of Canterbury and York should Unite in this Convocation, for the making them one National Church, and not two Provincial ones in a divers Assembly.  
By this means should one Organ more 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.  
It were the part of such a Convocation to Decree that neither Church should Unchurch one another; That no members of Either should departed from One Church to the Other without a sufficient peaceable reason; That when a man hath his choice to be of One Church, which he will, in regard to Fixed Communion, he should Occasionally come also to the Other for maintaining this National Union.  
There are these and other things of such a nature as these, I should expect then would be moulded into Canons, that kindly preventing all our scruples, would render the Nation happy, in the satisfaction of both Parties.  
An Act of Parliament to this purpose, would make the Church of England to be in Earnest, such a Church, as the Churchmen would have us still think it, the Best Constituted, the most Exemplary, and the most Glorious of any that is, or indeed that well can be in this World.  
But is not all this at last too Erastian? I answer, No. We suppose that every Parish where there is a Pastor and a Flock does contain in it such a Particular Church as is of Christ's Institution. That Christ committed to every such Church a complete power of Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline. That what Christ hath committed to his Church cannot be taken away by any. That the Authority of the Magistrate is for care and oversight, and so to protect and maintain this power, but not to destroy it. That the Church as National, and Diocesan as part of the National, and Parochial (qua Parochial) as part of the Diocesan, are of Humane institution, and own their power, and preservation of it, to the Supreme Magistrate. That as the Magistrate does not take away or invade, but preserve the power of the Keys (invested in the Miinster, but given with the Pastor himself to the Church), No more can the Diocesans that Derive from him, assume it to themselves, and deprive the Particular Churches of it. That so long as this Power is preserved, there is no Erastianism maintained as to a Particular Church, and as to the National there is no danger of it.  
And thus I have offered my Mite to the Sanctuary; that is, so much as I have, and what I think fit for Cultivation by Others, whom GOD shall make Wise-hearted, and Concerned, for the Welfare of Zion.  
There is Room also here left for the farther Invention of Such, in regard to many the like things as (or greater then) these: For they that will, may see something more in a few Sheets, in part Entitled, Animadversions upon the Debate between Dr. Stillingfleet and Mr. Baxter, Concerning the National Church and Head of it.  
J. H.  
THE END.