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 designe.

CHAP. II. A Reply to what the Deans Substitute suggests in his cen∣suring the Enquirers Design.

THIS Gentleman not being able to satisfie 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. Lobb 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 ea∣sie to imagine; for what though I should solemnly declare, That the casting reproach on Dr. Stillingfleet, or any other per∣son, 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 na∣tural for a man of his complexi••n to judg of others according to those over-strong propensions he finds in himself to such expo∣sing practises?

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 overt-acts were there of such a design? Did I mis∣represent the Dean in any one instance? Or did I make it my bu∣siness to carp at every little thing in his Preface? Did I insist on far-fetcht consequences, or force any undue sense on his words? Did I speak all I could to shew 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 Dissen∣ter? As to these particulars, you cannot fasten your Accusati∣on; But yet my aim must be exposing the Dean; and why ex∣posing

him? What, was the Dean expos'd, because the charge with which he would load Dissenters, was such, that the very re∣peating 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 Argu∣ment, 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 forreign sense on 'em.

How easily could I have imitated the famous Bishop Jewel, and have pick'd such passages out of the Dean's Discourses, as that Great Prelate did out of Harding, and have shewed 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 enquire 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 wav'd it, it not being my work in that Enquiry, or this Reply, to acquaint the World with the naevi of the Reverend Doctor; and there∣fore 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 M••dest 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 cloath'd with his own words, and the confuting him, must be esteem'd as such.

'Tis true, I shew'd 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 popu∣lar odium and fury? You assert, That the Universal Church is a governed Society; That the Bishops in their Colledg are the gover∣ning part; That the Bishops conven'd in their Assembly, do not meet only for mutual Help and Concord, but for Regiment. The As∣sembly 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 Gover∣nours 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 Arbi∣trary a thing, as the Confederacies of Princes; whereas the E∣piscopal Office is but One, and therefore ought to be administred 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 di••tinct Territories, such as England, France, Spain, Den∣mark, &c. are not Independent in their Government, but are ac∣countable either unto One Universal Emperour, or Di••••, &c. 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 oblig'd to meet together in their Col∣ledge, or Di••••, where they are all bound to submit unto the Ca∣••••••, D••••••••, or Determinations of the Colledge; that whoever

dissents from the Body of the Colledge is Schismatical. —This is your Notion, and for ought 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 your self? The like may be said to the Dean, to whom I add this one re∣quest, which is, to consider the Tendency of his great Book, as well as of this your Defence of him; and if his Aimes and the Ten∣dency of either of these Discourses be different, 'twill be apparent that I was not mistaken in my Charity of the Author, when I pass'd 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.