THE Intelligence you were pleased to give me of the Election of Dr. Jane to be Prolocutor of the Convocation, gives great satisfaction to the Clergy of these Parts; and that he was Chosen by much the major part of your Members, is lookt on as a good Omen of Success in your Proceedings for the good of the Church, as by Law established; He being generally known to be a Person extraordinarily well qualified, as well in re­spect of his Parts and Pietȳ, as of Loyalty and Love to the Church. I have (as you desired) been very solicitous to inform my self concerning the Sentiments of the Clergy in my Neighbourhood, whether they think it convenient that there should be Alterations made in the Liturgy, Govern­ment and Discipline of the Church, or not: And although I find them very inclinable to part with several Ceremonies, and to submit to many Alterations for the peace of the [Page 2]Church, and satisfaction of sober Dissenters; yet considering what weightier Matters the Dissenters seek to remove, they suppose it more advisable not to part with any thing to those that will not be satisfied, unless they may carry all: And for this Opinion of theirs, which they humbly submit to the more mature determination of the Convocation, they humbly offer the following Considerations:

1. They think it very reasonable, that such as are ag­grieved should make their Application to the Convocation, to whom His Majesty hath given Power to prepare such Re­medies as may by the Parliament receive the force of a Law; for so says the Commission; So that the things by you so considered and prepared may be in a readiness to be offered to the Convocation at their next meeting; and when ap­proved by them, may be presented to us, and our Two Hou­ses of Parliament; that if it shall be judged fit, they may be established in due form of Law. It cannot be expected that the several Sects should agree in Common Proposals, but that such of them as will be satisfied with what in Reason and Conscience may be granted, and then I should not doubt that they would be gratified, and a good agreement made; for all agree (according to our Subscriptions) that such Ce­remonis as concern Discipline and Order, may, upon just cau­ses, be altered and changed; but whether Alterations should be made when they are like to produce more hurt than good, is what we think worthy of consideration in the present case. And we think we have a Moral assurance, that whatever Concessions the Convocation can make with safety to them­selves, will not only be despised, but cast back as filth in our faces; not only with a Quis requisivit, but with a Pudet haec Opprobria vobis; as if our manner of publick Worship were so corrupt, that we were ashamed of it, and were con­vinced of a necessity to purge it. Whereas though it was declared in the Preface to the Liturgy, as also in the King's [Page 3]Ecclesiastical Commission, as is repeated p. 13. of that Dis­course, That it is reasonable that on weighty and important Considerations, according to the Exigency of times and occasi­ons, such Changes and Alterations may be made, as to those that are in place of Authority should seem necessary or expe­dient: Yet it is there said, We are fully perswaded in our Judgments, that the Book, as it stood before established by Law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine, or which a godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensa­ble against any that shall oppose the same. Though the Book there spoken of hath been altered for the better in some Hun­dreds of places since that Declaration.

2. They think it reasonable, that the End should be consi­dered, before the Means be resolved on. Now the End de­signed by the Alterations to be made, is the Satisfaction of the Consciences of the Dissenters, and reducing them to the Communion of the Church; but what those Alterations are that will give them satisfaction, hath not yet been proposed with any moderation, nor what Concessions will reduce them to our Communion. The Author of a Discourse concern­ing the late Ecclesiastical Commission, p. 18. saith, That in the Year 1661, the Alterations and Additions then made by the Convocation, did amount to the number of about Six hun­dred: Yet that Established Liturgy was rejected by some of the chiefest Dissenters (not without very indecent Reflecti­ons on King Charles the Second, who had promised to leave those things to the Parliament and Convocation) with this reproach, If these be all the Abatements and Amendments ye will admit, ye sell your own Innocency, and the Churches Peace for nothing. In the Year 1681, when Dr. Stilling­fleet, now Bishop of Worcester, made large Overtures to gra­tifie the Dissenters, (viz) That the Cross in Baptism might be either taken off, or consin'd to publick Baptism, and left to the choice of the Parents: That such as could not Kneel [Page 4]might be permitted to stand at the reception of the Sacra­ment of the Lord's Supper: That the Surplice should be ta­ken away: That at Baptism the Fathers should be permitted to joyn with the Sponsors in offering the Child to Baptism, or desire them publickly to present their Child, and the Charge be given to them both: That they should be requi­red to Subscribe only to thirty six of the Articles: That there should be a new Translation of the Psalms for Parish-Chur­ches: That the Apocryphal Lessons should be exchanged for Scriptural: That the Rubrick should be Corrected, with many other Condescentions. They were all thrown, as it were, with spite in his teeth, by those that Answered his Ser­mon and Proposals, with an Habeat sibi & suis. And in a Book of Mr. R. B's, lately Re-printed, being an Account of Non-conformity in the Reigns of Charles the Second and James the Second; it is affirmed, That there are Forty sin­ful Particulars in our Communion, besides Thirty tremen­dous Principles and Circumstantials, which affright the Dis­senters from it; and he reproacheth the Conformists as a company of lying and perjur'd Persons. And the Author of a late Book, called the Healing Attempt, says, they (the Non-conformists) are not satisfied with the Propension of our Governors, to lay aside the Ceremonies, and other more offensive Impositions, unless their new Model for a Compre­hension may be admitted; which is such, as would make every Parish-Church independent, and in a short time turn our Bethel into a Babel of Confusion; whereas therefore it is said in the Preface to the Liturgy, It is reasonable, that on weighty and important Considerations, such Alterations may be made as to those that are in Authority should seem necessary and convenient: Yet it is added in the same Preface, We are fully perswaded in our Judgments (and we here profess it to the World, that the Book, as it stood before established by Law (and we may say the same of the Book now Established af­ter the Six hundred Alterations) doth not contain in it any [Page 5]thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine, or which a godly Man may not with a good Conscience use or sub­mit unto, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same.

Now I take it as granted, that the Convocation neither can nor will alter all those Particulars which some leading Men a­mong the Dissenters do account to be Sinful; nor all those tremendous Circumstantials which will still afright them from our Communion; and that if but a few, if but one such thing, which they account to be Sinful, remain unaltered, the Schism will still be continued: and therefore if I should ask, Cui bo­no? To what end should any Alterations be made? I doubt a satisfactory Answer could not be given by such as plead for them, when they themselves have so plainly declared, that they will not be satisfied.

Object. But herein we may please the King, the Parlia­ment, and a great part of the Dissenting Laity.

Ans. First as to the King, His Majesty hath devolved that Province on the Convocation and Parliament.

2dly, He hath declared his Satisfaction as to the present Constitution.

3. He doth confirm his delared Judgment by his con­stant practice in Communicating with the Church as esta­blished, and frequent Promises to favour and protect it.

2. As to the Parliament, they do generally live in the Communion of the Church; and if any do otherwise, it is contrary to several Acts of preceding Parliaments, against which, though a Toleration be their Security, yet as that hath been formerly exploded, so it may be again, and if they see it fit, abrogated.

And 4hly, Nothing can be obligatory but what shall be enacted by them whose consent we are not assured of.

3. As to the People, though some few may desire Alte­rations, yet they do not agree in what Alterations they will acquiesce: And it is more probable, that the insisting on a [Page 6]Consormity to the present Constitution, will reduce all to an Uniformity, rather than any intended Alterations; for Expe­rience shews, that from the Year 1661, when Uniformity was enjoyned, the People were generally reduced to it; so as in some great Cities scarce three or four persons of any note kept off from our Communion, until the Toleration (procured by the Papists) put all into Disorder again.

Lastly, What the late Commissioners have prepared in or­der to an Alteration, is to us a Non constat, the Reasons are best known to themselves; but though we have no very good opinion of such of them as are said to be of Latitudina­rian Principles, yet they having hitherto lived in a Confor­mity to the Church as established, we hope they will not give up any thing that is substantial, with the Circumstanti­als for Decency and Order; or if they do so, it will be as pardonable in us of the Country, to forsake them, as for some of those eminent Divines, that were joyned in Commission with them: And I am fully perswaded, that on making such Alterations as are said to be prepared by the Commissioners, the Church will run the hazard of offending a greater number of more considerable persons, than they are likely to gratifie thereby.

Object. But such Alterations being made, such as shall thenceforward continue to be Dissenters, will be more inex­cusable.

Ans. This is not very probable, because they will still say, you have only taken off the lesser Offences, but have continu­ed the weighter Matters on their Consciences still, (viz.) such as in their Consciences they account to be Sinful, and their Conformity to them to be Damnable.

And if after such Alterations be established by Law, and any Penalty be annexed for the Sanction of that Law, the Legislators will be reflected on as Persecutors, and their Laws as so many tearing Engines: though I must needs say, there ne­ver yet were such severe Penalties enacted against any sort of [Page 7]Dissenters, though known to be Men of Atheistical and Anti­monarchical Principles, as against some Reverend Fathers and Members of the Church, who are known to be Men of Re­ligious and Peaceable Principles, yet they quietly submit with a Deus providebit.

I may well presume, that no Man living in Communion with our Church, is convinc'd, that there is any thing Sin­ful in that Communion; now these being the greater and the better part, I say with Dr. Beveredge in his Sermon to the Convocation, p. 25. Neque ratio neque perpetua Ecclesiae consuetudo patitur ut pars toti praeferatur; Neither reason, nor the perpetual Custom of the Church, doth permit that a part should be preferred before the whole: And then nothing can justify the Dissenters from Schism in their Separation from us; for as to things that are by them judged Inexpedi­ent, it is fit that the greater and better Part should judge of Expediency for the rest, and not they for themselves or their Betters: And if such Opinionative and Ungovernable People were for a while, by strict Discipline, taught the Duty of Self-denial, as to things in their nature indifferent, and how necessary Obedience to Superiours is in such cases, which e­ven they themselves do practice, and in which sort of things only our Governours have Authority, we might hope for an Uniformity, and not otherwise: And to this end it is very observable what Dr. Beveredge says in his Sermon, p. 26. An­tiquas novis mutare Legibus; To change old Laws for new, is alway dangerous, unless such a Necessity constrain as is o­therwise insuperable.

There was never any Church which hath not inserted in­to her Laws many things (not contrary, but) beside those things which are in the Holy Scripture, and having made such Laws, do establish them by the Sanctions of Ecclesiasti­cal Punishments, p. 23: When therefore that Learned Do­ctor says, p. 27. Ʋtrum Ecclesiae noslra, &c. whether our Church be obliged by a Necessity to change any thing that is [Page 8]by her Laws established, is not his part to determine; but, Prudentis est, and immediately adds, This only I dare to af­firm, That if it be necessary to reduce wandring Sheep into Christ's Flock; if to take off Scruples from the minds of weak Brethren; if to allay Hatred, appease Anger, and as much as may be, to suppress all Dissentions concerning Religion; if to re­call Ecclesiastical Discipline to its Primitive Vigour; if to Defend and Establish the best Church in the World against the Assaults of Men and Devils; if these things (says he) seem necessary to any Man, it will also seem necessary to that Man to admit such Changes as he is perswaded will conduce to such ends; so as the Change be made in such things only which our Church hath constituted by her sole Authority, not in such as the Ʋniversal Church by her common Laws hath Establish­ed.

Here then we say, that to alter the Episcopal Government, to take the Power of Ordination from Bishops, and place it in the hands of Presbyters, to take away a Well-ordered Li­turgy, and bring in Extemporary Prayers for Publick Wor­ship, to give every Minister a Jurisdiction and Power of Ex­communication, and many other things, without which some grave Dissenters will not be comprehended, is more than the Learned Doctor will grant: for of such things he speaks his mind impartially, Has sub quovis praetextu vel extremis digi­tis attingere, &c. To endeavour the removal of these, under any pretence whatsoever, or to touch them with one of our Fingers, is contrary to the Religious Care of all the Churches of God, and of our own.

And to Abrogate or Reject that, which hath been every­where, and at all times observed, is not to change an Ecclesi­astical Rite only, but the Church itself, and to make it dif­fer from all other Churches of God.

But what then is the Doctor's Judgment concerning such Constitutions as are in the Power of a particular Church.

Ans. This the Doctor determined, p. 23. ut supra, and a­gain, p. 26. A Change hath neither been wont, nor ought to be made by any Church at any time, unless some great Necessity do constrain thereto: But of a change of what fort of Laws doth the Doctor speak? That he tells us in the same Page, Neque enim quispiam, &c. There is not any Man so skilful, as by a­ny Art to foresee how many and great dangers are like to arise by the change of incommodious Laws; wherefore to change old Laws for new, is alway dangerous, unless such a necessity urge it as cannot otherwise be overcome; and such as is so manifest to all, that whoever seeth the Change, may also see, Summam ejus rationem & necessitatem, the greatest Reason and necessity for the Change even of those incommo­dious Laws.

To this I shall need to add no more than that apt Allusion of this Learned Doctor, concerning the Obligation of Eccle­siastical Laws, p. 19. As in this Kingdom there are many Cor­porations and inferiour Societies which have a Power granted them, of constituting Laws for themselves and their Members, with this caution, That nothing be done or constituted by them which is contrary to the Statutes of the Realm, the Common Law, or any ancient Custom, which beyond the memory of Man, hath been introduced and received by the whole Kingdom, and thereby hath obtained the force of a Law; (Now though this be in p. 20. applied to the Universal Church, yet in p. 21.) the Doctor applies it to particular Churches: In quacunque provincia sitae sunt; In whatever Province a Church is plant­ed, the Bishops and Pastors of that Province, may, as oft as occasion requires, hold their Synods or Sacred Assemblies to deliberate and consult of things belonging to the Church constituted in that Province: And p. 22. All such Churches, by their Synods, have power to make Laws, as they shall judge expedient for the better Administration of the Publick Worship of God, and of his Word and Sacraments, within their Pro­vince; otherwise it could not well be, that any Provincial or [Page 10]National Church should long subsist, or be at peace. And p. 23. Moreover, it belongs to all the Churches of God, to e­stablish, by Ecclesiastical Penalties, such Canons by them made, lest any thing contrary to them should be without Impunity com­mitted.

Object. But our Divisions had almost betrayed us to Pope­ry and Slavery, for prevention of which danger, for the fu­ture, it is adviseable, as much as may be, to inlarge the Terms of our Communion.

Ans. But who betrayed us to those Divisions? were they not such as causelesly separated from us, and were more rea­dy to joyn with the common Enemy of the Protestant Reli­gion, though they call'd themselves true Protestants, than with the Church of England? Whereof he that wrote the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon of Separation, gave an Account, and even dared the Opponents to call him to the proof of it, (viz.) That Dr. Owen, &c. were entertain'd as Pensioners to the late King, and by him encouraged to con­tinue our Divisions; by which the Papists got great advan­tages against us. And whereto tended the flattering and ful­som Addresses of the Sectaries to the late King, to stand by him with their Lives and Fortunes, and to obey him without Reserve, but to continue those Divisions, and foment those Seeds of Discord which were grown up, and ripen'd almost for the Harvest, to cut us all down, and utterly destroy us? And what if some leading Presbyterians be by our Alterati­ons let into the Church, and advanced to such Preferments as they hope for; to be Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, &c. what security have we, that they will not promote Divisions in the Church, more dangerous, than the Schism they made by Separation from us; as some Bishops, and others that had been sour'd with that Leaven, being preferred in the Reign of Charles the Second, did attempt: A secret Enemy within the Walls of a well Fortified City, is more dangerous than an open Foe in the Field.

I have read in the Life of Judge Hales, written by the pre­sent Bishop of Sarum, p. 71. That there was a Bill for Comprehension contrived by Bishop Wilkins, Sir Orlando Bridg­man, and that Judge, which though it contained more rea­sonable Terms than what are now proposed, (as I have been informed) for the Admission of some Dissenters into our Communion, yet it was opposed by the Clergy, because they thought a Faction within the Church, would prove to be more hurtful than a Schism without it: And when one Par­ty was let in upon Terms not perhaps unreasonable, another Party, upon other Terms less reasonable, would solicite their Admission. And it was objected, That as some might come in, so others, that were in our Communion, might take Of­fence by the Alterations, and desert it; and seeing our fre­quent Changes in some things, they might suppose that there is nothing certain among us; and from the many Disputes about our Liturgy, proceed to question our Articles, and at last fall off to the Church of Rome, which they saw more con­stant to their Principles: For which, and other reasons the Bill was cast out by the Votes of the House of Commons, with whom the same Considerations may still prevail.

And now let the Men that are given to Change, produce those weighty and important Reasons, required in the Pre­face to the Common-Prayer, or that great Necessity which Dr. Beveredge requires for the Alteration, even of incommo­dious Laws.

Is it necessary that an honest Man should voluntarily re­sign his Freehold to a litigious Person, who neither desires nor deserves it, and perhaps would improve the possession of it to his ruine?

Is it necessary that a Parent should yeild to a disobedient Child, upon his own unreasonable terms?

Is it necessary that a good Man should accuse, bear false witness against, and condemn and execute himself, and be a Felo de se?

Is it necessary that the Citizens should suffer a breach to be made in their Wall, to give advantage to an Enemy, when they are ready to open their Gates to let in any that offers a reasonable assurance that he is a Friend?

Is there any necessity to Reform that Church which is con­seft to be the best Reformed Church in the World; that Church to whose Pattern all the rest do desire, and only want power and opportunity to conform their own?

Is it necessary we should do more for those, who wilfully departed from us, and as our Saviour intimates, Not being con­tent to be with us, were against us, than we have done for those forreign Protestants, Men of great Learning and ten­der Consciences, who voluntarily offer themselves to our Communion, without insisting on any Terms with us?

Is it necessary that a Church in which all things necessary to Salvation, may be freely enjoyed, should accuse herself of want of Christian Charity, and of imposing such sinful Terms, for admitting others into her Communion, as were purposely designed to keep them out, and afterward voluntarily cast off those things, and thereby confess themselves guilty of so great Uncharitableness?

Is it necessary that a Church, which hath Authority to judge for itself, what is decent and orderly, should subject herself to the Judgment of her Members, to determine for her or themselves, what is decent and expedient, and what is not; especially when the Exception from Obedience to the Church in such things, ought to be as evident and un­questionable, as the Command to obey them in such Mat­ters is?

Is it necessary that we should give greater Offence to the Papists, from coming into our Communion (now in this juncture of time) by our Variableness and Defect of the Solemnity of Publick Worship, which hitherto they have objected against us?

Is it necessary we should part with any thing to them, whom we have reason to suspect, that they will not leave craving till they have all?

When all these things are proved to be necessary, then shall we be ready to make Alterations in our Ceremonies, and other Circumstances, if the Dissenters will be content to let us injoy what is substantial and necessary to the well-be­ing of our Church: In the mean time we shall account our selves Happy, in the number of those English-men, that know when they are well.

I Have also conferred with my Brethren concerning a Book intituled, A Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission, 1689. Of which we shall not say so much as the Author doth of a former Commission for the like affair, viz. That he never entertain'd a good Opinion of it. We only remark, that this Author hath laid the foundation, which he and some others have framed their superstructure on, viz.

• 1. That the Alterations intended by it are not prejudicial.
• 2. That they are useful, tending to the well-being of the Church.
• 3. That it is a fit juncture for putting the design in execu­tion.

The Author gives several Instances of several Alterations made, as in the Third of Edward the Sixth, when the Com­mon-Prayer-book was composed and altered, the 1st. of Eliz. And a Proclamation for Authorizing an Uniformity of the [Page 15]Book of Common-Prayer; and at the Return of Charles the Second, the Liturgy was reviewed (and altered) by his Com­mission ae the Savoy; but our Author takes no notice of the Penalties to be inflicted on such as should not conform to it, and on such as should defame it, by several Acts of Parlia­ment; nor how little effect it had for the healing the Divi­sions and Schism which some Dissenters had then made; nor how much King James the First was displeased with those Dissenters, that pretended to make good their Objections a­gainst it, which they were not able to perform in the Con­ference at Hampton-Court, whereof the Author speaks, p. 3. Yet this I say of this Author, that he speaks much more mo­destly than the Author of A Glance on the Ecclesiastical Com­mission, who would precipitate the matter, and have an Act of Parliament for a Comprehension first, and then an Act to Authorize the Commission: But our Author pretends only to prepare things, thereby to save Time and Labour, in kind­ness to the Convocation; whatever the Pretence be, the Con­sequence may be very prejudicial to the Members of the Convocation, if any difference should happen for this Dis­course; and several Letters being dispersed into the Coun­tries, where they have their Residence, to prepossess the Minds of Dissenters, that they have occasioned the obstructi­on of the intended Union; and as those Letters import, de­serve to be treated as Enemies.

That Mobile which are already too full of Rankor against them, and have already, in a considerable City, burnt a Bi­shop instead of a Pope, will be ready to affront them, and throw them into the next fire, as they were, when there was rejoycing for the Bishops deliverance out of the Tower: And therefore it had been more prudent, if they had with patience expected the determination of the Convocation, and forborn those ill-boding Reflections, which tend to create an Odium against such Members; though it be well known, they have no power to offer any thing, being limited by the King's Proposals.

Nor hath the Author consulted better for his own Party, when speaking of the Personal Qualifications of the Commis­sioners, p. 8. he tells the Country, how they have been tra­duced as assuming Men, who will think themselves bound in Honour to defend what they shall have done, as Men that have tenderness enough to part with any thing but their Church-preferments; As Men who have a Latitude to con­form to a Church, de facto, which hath Power on its side. And pag. 9. Men who conceal their own inclinations, till it is time to shew them; Men likely to do the Church of En­gland a good turn, when opportunity serves, and which per­haps they imagine now they have, which Characters a­gree well with those who are known to be Latitudinarians indeed, and have Monopolized Church-preferments. Yet our Author says they have no temptation now to shew, that they are Men of Latitude; it seems then they had heretofore. Page 10. our Author mentioneth another Objection, (viz.) That as it may happen, our Church may be changed, alter­ed, and transformed by nine Men, which are the number of the Quorum in the Commission.

Now although I dare not say, there was any partiality used in naming the Commissioners; yet when I consider that ma­ny of those that were named did not appear, and some very considerable persons that did appear, perceiving that some such things, as might in their judgment prove prejudicial to the Church, were proposed, did dissent and withdraw; it was not altogether unlikely that Nine of those who remain­ed might prepare such things, as the Convocation would not approve of, as the Event will shew.

And as for those great and excellent Men, who, as our Author says, are not named in the Commission; it had been a more commendable Office and Duty to have pleaded on their behalf, knowing them to be Men of great Prudence and Fortitude, as well as of Integrity and Affection to the Church; and that they are never like to disturb the Peace of [Page 17]the State, to intercede that some favour might be shewn to them as well as to Dissenters: Seeing if any, they are the Men, who suffer for sake of their Consciences; especially, see­ing our Author says, The Commissioners design nothing so un­reasonable as to fear, that the Alterations would not pass in a free Convocation, if those Reverend and Judicious Prelates were present. But it is our great unhappiness, that though there have been several Convocations called, yet had not an op­portunity of meeting, till these Right Reverend Fathers and others were excluded and made uncapable; what hinderance this may be to the performance of what they promised, (as our Author relates) That they wanted no due tenderness to Dissenters, but were willing to come to such a temper as should be thought fit when that matter should be considered in Parlia­ment and Convocation, I cannot divine, but acquiesce in the judgment of our Author, That if nothing unreasonable were designed, it might then have passed, and a firm Establishment ensued; for doubtless the calm Tempers of those Reverend Fathers would mightily have influenced their Sons.

Page 13. mention is made of the Commission; the Pre­face whereof is the same with what hath been before mentio­ned out of the Preface to the Liturgy, concerning the Altera­tion of Rites and Ceremonies, &c. upon weighty and im­portant Considerations; and the end of it is, to take away all occasions of differences for the future, as well as reconci­ling all Their Majesties Subjects at present. A Blessing! this to be seriously endeavoured by all persons, but rather to be hoped for than expected; for though not only all our Rites and Ceremonies, all things tending to Decency and Order, should be taken away, yet there will be some that will find occasions of difference still; for we are told in the late Healing Attempt, That it is impossible for the Dissenters to unite, if it be still affirmed, That the Bishops and Presby­ters are not of the same Order: That the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of the Bishops: (i. e.) If the Ordina­nation [Page 18]by Presbyters be not as authentick, as that by Bi­shops; or that the Ordination by Presbyters is void; and that the Ordaining them again by Bishops, is not Re-ordina­tion; and he tells us plainly, That it is not the taking away of our Ceremonies, and other Impositions, that will satisfie the Dis­senters; but if a Comprehension may not be had on those other terms, there can be none at all. And a greater Dissenter than he says of Episcopacy, That it is that thorny hedge which he had made his business to pull down and would endeavour it (by going on both sides) as long as he lived. And what dislike some have, not only of the pretended defects in our Liturgy, but to any Liturgy for publick Worship, is too well known by some very late Writings of the Dissenters. And Mr. Bax­ter affirms, That of the Forty sinful Terms for a Commu­nion with us, if Thirty-nine were taken away, and only that Rubrick concerning the Salvation of Infants, dying short­ly after their Baptism were continued, yet they could not con­form.

Now to what purpose should we begin, when we cannot see where to end. Is it not better to endure some inconve­niencies (as in all Constitutions some will be) than to ex­pose our selves to certain mischiefs? And what can we ex­pect when the Six hundred Alterations in 1661, had no com­petent effect, but were rejected with scorn? I wonder how this Author can object to you, as if you proceeded on the same false grounds, as those Papists Heath and Fecknam did in Primo Eliz. in opposing the Act for Uniformity, (viz.) That those changes were departures from the Standard of the Catholick Church; That Points once defined, were not to be brought again into question; That the Church should be constant to it self: For he cannot but know that they opposed the Act for Uniformity Primo Eliz. as excluding the false Doctrines and Superstitions of Rome; whereas we plead for the Preser­vation of Uniformity in Doctrine, Worship and Government, which are all opposed by some sort of Dissenters: I shall [Page 19]leave the indifferent Reader to judge of the Inference which he makes, p. 18. That if the Commissioners in 1661, saw rea­son for making Additions and Alterations to the number of Six hundred; That there is equal, if not greater reason for some fur­ther improvements. I think he might rather conclude, as he doth immediately after; That if they had foreseen what is since come to pass, (viz.) how few of the Dissenters came in upon those Condescentions) they would not have done all that they did. And perhaps on these Concessions, in fa­vour of Dissenters, the Papists had those hopes cherished in them (of which our Author there speaks) of Liberty of Con­science, the removal of the Sanguinary, and then of other Pe­nal Laws, and of Forty Chappels to be opened for them in and about London; for they know the Charity of the Church of England is not confined to one Sect, as that of the Secta­ries is. What he says p. 19. That the Conformists have given their Assent and Consent to the Book of Common-Prayer, whereof the Preface is a part; which says, That in Churches Circum­stantials may from time to time admit of Alteration, is true, but not the whole truth; for it is added, Ʋpon great and im­portant Reasons, which the Author omits; and if he speaks it not, as being in a good Mood, but as his setled Judgment, that our Church, as it is the best constituted Church in the World; then certainly they that cannot conform to our Church, must on the same reason dissent from all the other Reformed Churches. Page 20. he says, He is, in part, of the Opinion that the Prayers cannot be altered for the better by any meer humane composition: But he will not grant it of eve­ry Collect; and what those Collects are, we may have oc­casion to consider hereafter; it is enough, that our constant daily Prayers are beyond exception; His great business (as he calls it) will be but a great burthen to the Dissenters, as well as himself, (viz.) Adding some Offices to the Liturgy, and preparing new ones which are wanting. Seeing we have had so many complaints of the length and tediousness of them [Page 20]formerly, one thing the Author can scarce pardon himself for, when writing of those who he says so angrily, though causelesly, spake against that Work, i. e. of making Alterati­ons; he adds, They must pardon me, if so near after the men­tioning of them, I take notice of the French Papists, who have reviled both the Commission, and the persons named in it. Here­in he scems to joyn all such as are not for Alterations, with the Papists; and whether they must pardon him for this, if the People deal with them as Papists, let him consider, and pardon himself if he can; yet I think the Papists would ve­ry willingly have us make more Alterations, than most Pro­testants think sit to make.

It is a pretty insinuation which he makes, p. 21. That the Conformists will naturally be glad if the House, in which they resolve to live and dye, have all the strength and beauty ad­ded to it, which can be given it by Commission, Convocation, and Parliament.

Ans. The strength and beauty which it now hath, is by all those means confirmed to them; and willingly they would live, and hope they may happily dye in it: But if the Dissen­ters will make breaches in that House, and take possession there­of, deface its Beauty, and undermine its Strength, and force them to leave it, I cannot see how they can naturally be glad of the behaviour of such ill-natur'd Men; and that there are some such besides those whom I have mentioned alrea­dy, the Author speaks of some in Northamptonshire, and I know such in other Counties, who oblige their Communi­cants, and have vowed themselves never to return to the Communion of the Church of England; and if the present generation be so bad, the next is not like (if these Men have their desire) to be better.

In p. 22. the Author considers, That now is a fit juncture of time for Alterations: And his first ground is, the Expediency, for things which may be done, yet are not to be done at a time when they are not expedient: And thus he shews the [Page 21]Expediency; The Passions of Men at this time are in a vehe­ment fermentation; and he that would allay the Feaver, may stay too long, if he forbears to prescribe till the bloud is quiet. But must the Mother be bleeded, if the Children be distem­pered? Must the Passions of Men disturb the Peace of the Church, and no Man endeavour to suppress them? If a sick Man be distempered, and ungovernable, the Physician is his friend, though he cause him to be confin'd or bound for a time.

2. He says the Church hath at this time powerful Enemies. Therefore I think she ought to stand on her guard, and keep strict watch, least they that are so, make too near approaches. And none are more dangerous, than those that are or have been of the same House; And though the Church had of late as implacable Enemies as ever, and they in great Power; yet, by the blessing of God, she hath out-lived them.

Obj. 3. Their Majesties have declared their desires of it.

Ans. The Commission says, Ʋpon weighty and important Reasons; and that the Alterations prepared by the Commissio­ners, may be approved by the Convocation and Parliament. Cannot you wait for that time?

2. Their Majesties desire may be best known by their li­ving in the Communion of the Church as now established, and his former and late Declarations to favour and protect it; for which the Convocation have addressed their Thanks, and doubt not of it.

4. The House of Lords have given us their Sense of it in the Bill of Ʋnion.

Ans. We must expect their Sense, nothing being as yet de­termined by them, as to new Alterations; and the Act for Uniformity stands unrepealed by them.

5. Toleration is already granted by Statute

Ans. That is a greater favour than was granted to the Church-party, in the late Wars, for almost Twenty years to­gether, when Dissenters were in Power; and that should suf­fice them which they accounted too much for others.

2. It is well known at whose instance, and for whose sake Tolerations were formerly granted, (viz.) of such as were professed Papists, and that under a false pretence, That the pressing of Uniformity had not procured the desired success; but the true Reason was, that it was too successful.

3. The Reasons given by a very Religious and Loyal Par­liament against Toleration are irrefragable, which were pas­sed Nemine contradicente, in the Parliament 1662, and may be seen in several Printed Tracts: This Parliament in the Act for Uniformity, did as much as was possible to perpetu­ate the Liturgy then Established, to future Generations, or­dering all Deans and Chapters to procure Copies of it under the Great Seal, and perfect Copies of the Act of Uniformity; and the like were to be kept in the Courts of Westminster, and in the Tower of London, that by them, any Error committed by the Printer might be rectified.

4. The Eyes of the World are upon us, and all the Reform­ed Churches are in expectation of something to be done, which may make for Ʋnion and Peace.

Answ. The Eyes of the Christian World admire, as well the Holiness of our Doctrine, as the Beauty of our Worship and Administration; as also, the great things that God hath done for our Church to preserve it, as hitherto, (blessed be his Name) he hath graciously done against all the violent Attempts of Popish Fury, and Fanatick Zeal. And as for the great Numbers of Irish and French Protestants, which are now among us, if we consult them, they will all acknowledge the great Goodness of God, in preserving our Church to be a Sanctuary unto them, from the Rage of their Persecutors; and heartily joyn with us in all our Ordinances, without any scruple against either our Doctrine or Ceremonies. And this gives us much ease under our domestick Troubles, and hopes that it will be a benefit to us, if well considered by them that are otherwise minded.

No Man can be wise too late, (saith our Author) pag. 24. [Page 23]But it's too late to shut the Stable-door, when the Steed is stollen: Principiis obsta, is a wise Rule. Page 25. After the Year 1661, though there were Writs issued out for a Convoca­tion, yet no Warrant could be procured for the Support and In­couragement of the Church, during the Reigns of Charles the Second, and James the Second.

Answ. The reason was, because the Dissenters of all sorts seared what would be done in the Case of Toleration and In­dulgence, as now they do in the Case of Comprehension, and therefore the Meeting was delayed. And he thinks it no good Advice of them that say, Do nothing now, or as little as may be: when little or much is not the business; but as much as is fit, he should have said, Ʋpon great and important Reasons. He adds, If one Opportunity be neglected, it may discourage the Powers that offer it, from vouchsafing another.

Answ. We have heard indeed, That if the intended Altera­tions be not made by the Convocation, it may be done with­out them in time. If so, it will be their comfort, that they did not put their Hands to the pulling down the Church up­on their own Heads. In the mean time, we of the Country are much amused to hear of your tedious Adjournments, and know not what to guess at, as the occasion of those de­lays; unless it be, to give the Dissenters time to spread a­broad scandalous Reports of such of the Convocation that carried the Election of Dr. Jane to be Prolocutor, against those who Voted for Dean Tillotson; who, as we have heard, claimed it as his Right, belonging to that Deanary; though we have been since informed, that there belongs to that Dea­nary only Jus dirigendi Electionem; which implies, That the Convocation had the Power and Right of Election; and that Dr. Tillotson was not then confirmed in that Deanary; but that the Election was carried only by three or four Voi­ces, and given up by Dr. Tillotson's Party to prevent any di­sturbance: But you have assured us, that it was otherwise, there being Two to One who Voted for Dr. Jane. And now [Page 24]that we see Letter after Letter sent abroad, to cast an Odium on such as shall not Vote for Alterations, though they see not any sufficient cause so to do, but great and important Rea­sons for the contrary, we think that we see the reason of your Adjournments, which have given a Month's time to o­thers, to prepare and disperse such Pamphlets as may tend to your prejudice, and prepossess the People, that you are the Enemies of Peace and Reconciliation; and to this end he complains: First, (as the usual Practice is) of those Church­men, who by means of any Letters or Pamphlets, contain­ing uncharitable Misrepresentations of the Commissioners, or the Work under their hands, are prejudiced against them; for he condemns such as Enemies to Peace, and as having a Zeal not according to Knowledge: but neither this Author, nor any other, since the first meeting of the Convocation, have taken any care to prevent the prejudices that some have endeavoured to raise against the far greatest part of them, for chusing Dr. Jane, rather than Dean Tillotson; and whereas we have not yet seen one Pamphlet, or Printed Letter to perswade us, that there is no necessity of Alterations, we have very many, that not without great Zeal, would incline us to think them necessary. And this Work being done by way of preparation, our hope is, that the Convocation will meet with no more Adjournments, but closely apply themselves to what shall be proposed by their Majesties, and give the Na­tion the Result of their Consultations, and the Reasons of them: And so I joyn with the Author, earnestly beseeching the People, not to give too open an Ear to any such Censures of Things, which they do not yet fully understand, and which for ought they know, may prove a great Blessing to them.

The next Paper whereof I shall give you my thoughts, is, A Letter from a Minister in the Country, to a Member of the Convocation: The Author needed not have told us, that he was a Country-Minister; for though there be in the Coun­try [Page 25]many Ministers, who for their Learning, may be, with­out disparagement, compared with most of the City-Mini­sters; yet the Matter of his Letter, as it is penned, shews, that he is inferiour to many of our Country-Ministers, as will evidently appear, by his handling the particulars which de­serves any remark: He begins with what, he understands, will be first offered to the Convocation, (to wit) The Refor­mation of the Kalender; where he would have the Apocry­phal Lessons exchanged, for as many taken out of the Canon of Scripture, as by the Bishops and other Divines Assembled to consider of that matter, 1641: He doth not say was a­greed; for I find in an Answer to a Petition presented to the King's Majesty, by above a Thousand Ministers, as it was there said, that there was no such concession made; for pag. 14. the Answer to the Objection says, That they are grosly ignorant if they know it not, or wilfully malicious and turbulent, if knowing it to be lawful, they yet oppugne the Reading of the Apocryphal Writings in the Church; Non ad confirmationem fidei sed ad reformationem morum: As the Ancient Fathers speak and approve; for which they quote Hier. Preface in Pro. Cyprian in Symb. in whose days, it seems, they were so read. And they add, That the Articles of Convocation, and the Preface before the Apocryphal Books in the English Bibles, do directly shew; adding, that they give light to the Di­vine History. And in the Account given of the Proceedings of the Commissioners, Printed 1661, where the same Obje­ction was made, p. 55. and the reason given for it: Because the Scriptures contain all things necessary, either in Doctrine to be believed, or in Duty to be practised: They answer, That such a Reason would exclude all Sermons, as well as Apocrypha; And why then so many Sermons, if notwithstanding the sufficien­cy of Scripture, Sermons be necessary? There is no reason why these Apocryphal Lessons should not be useful, most of them con­taining excellent Discourses, and Rules of Morality: It is hear­tily to be wished, that Sermons were as good; and to leave [Page 26]them out, were to cross the Practice of the Church in former Ages. And the Reply of the Dissenters at that time is ob­servable: We asked not, say they, that no Apocryphal Cha­pter may be read in the Church; but, that none may be read as Lessons. If you cite the Apocrypha as you do other Hu­mane Writings, or read them as Homilies, we speak not a­gainst it; and of this, neither those Dissenters, nor any ordinary Country-Minister could be ignorant; the Church having declared, That they are not of equal Authority with the Scriptures; which is known to their own People, who therefore will not have them Bound with their Bibles; besides, no part of the Apocrypha is read on Sundays, but on the Week-days, when there are too few to hear them, and those few better instructed than to think them Canonical. But though this may satisfie all sober persons, yet I do here protest, That were it not that the Dissenters have given us an assu­rance, that tho' these and many other Alterations should be made, it would give them no satisfaction, nor bring them into our Communion, I would use all the Interest I have for such Alterations; and for that end also, part with many of the Ceremonies; but of this there is a deep silence, or rather a loud dissent.

The Letter adds, If those Apocryphal Chapters were ancient­ly read, so were Hermes Pastor, and Clemens Rom. and the Argument holds for reading these.

Answ. The Church have anciently disused them; but if they were now read, or the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, or some select Chapters out of King Charles the Martyr's [...], instead of the Sermons on the Week-days Le­ctures; in which many greater Absurdities tending to Schism and Sedition are injected into the minds of the People; I be­lieve, it would be much more for the Edification of them.

Object. If they, (i. e.) the Apocryphal Lectures, were read, then we know what Mischief ensued from it, &c.

Answ. We know too, what Mischief accidentally arose [Page 27]from Reading the Scriptures; must they therefore be laid a­side? But the Church of Rome hath made them Canonical.

Answ. The People do believe, that many of those false Do­ctrines, many Falshoods, and dangerous Opinions, which are held forth to them in their Conventicles, are as true as the Gospel; and why are not they laid aside? when we know what Mischiefs some Sermons Preached in 41, and 42 produced: Bell and the Dragon, with Tobit and his Dog could not have done such dismal feats. The next thing insisted on, p. 6. is, The Revising of the Psalter, added to the Liturgy, which seems not so defensible, there being a more Correct Copy in our Hands; and an inconsistancy between the two Translati­ons being observed by the Vulgar.

Answ. Though there be Variations in the two Translati­ons, yet they do not contradict one the other; but rather explain and give light to each other; as the divers Commen­taries of Learned Men do.

2. The Translation of the Liturgy-Psalter is taken mostly from the Septuagint, or Greek Copies, which that Church still observes; and it is observable, that our Saviour and the Apostles, when they quote the Scripture of the Old Testa­ment, to confirm their Doctrine, do frequently make use of this Translation, though the Hebrew was as well known to them as the Greek.

3. There are Variae Lectiones even in the Hebrew Copies, which the want of Points hath occasioned; concerning which there are yet great Disputes among the Learned Criticks.

4. The best Translations have many Defects and Incon­sistancies, occasioned by the various Significations of the He­brew words; as the word Barach signifies both to Bless and to Curse: So that though the one should be granted to be more correct than the other, yet because the one serves as a short Paraphrase to explain the other, and the People have the Use of both, this Exception is a meer Cavil: And there is some weight in what the Letter observes, That the People have ma­ny [Page 28]of them learnt the Psalms, as they are daily read Memori­tur, which if disused, they would soon forget. And for this cause our Saviour made use of the Septuagint Translation, because it was best known to that Generation. And if the Septua­gint Translation needs a Review, so doth the other, which is not so Correct, but it may be amended in many places, and so will the best, to the end of the World. That the Author of the Letter may let nothing pass, he omits not the Use of the Ring in Marriage; tho' he says, It is agreed to be but a Civil Right: And therefore I leave him to be civilly treated by the Women.

Page 8. The Letter comes to treat of our Ceremonies; con­cerning which he says, There is a difficulty to proceed in our Dissentions; for without quitting or altering, the Dissenting Party is not to be brought into the Church; and without re­taining them, many of our own will hardly be kept in it: And he considers, That the one may occasion a Schism from the Church, the other a Schism in it. Now a Schism in the Church, will tend more certainly and speedily to its Confu­sion, than that out of the Church. And this Schism is alrea­dy in being, and will not be remedied, tho' all the Ceremo­monies should be taken away; it is therefore very impru­dent, causlesly to begin another Schism in the Church, espe­cially when it is not so much Conscience, as Scruple and Pre­judice, on which the Dissenters dislike our Ceremonies; for when for their Interest, and enjoyment of beneficial Offices, they were required to conform to the Publick Worship, they did it, notwithstanding the Use of Ceremonies; and I know few of them who are not willing that their Children and Re­lations should conform for their advantage; and therefore I shall not trouble the Reader with his impracticable Idea's for Accommodation, and only say, That more than what he pro­poseth hath been offered for an Accommodation, but refused, and that not without scorn.

Page 9. He comes to the business of Reordination, and says, [Page 29] They that have been Ordained by Presbyters (though they are not against Episcopal Orders, yet) think it unlawful to re­nounce them, and to be Reordained.

Answ. This he confesseth to be against a late Act of Parlia­ment yet in force, which hath provided, That none are to be admitted to Officiate in the Church of England, without Epis­copal Ordination: for which reason, if there were no other, I cannot see how any Member of the Convocation can con­sent to it: The first Reason which the Letter gives for it, is, That it was not so before.

Answ. It was ever so in the Church of England, except in some extraordinary Cases, where Ordination by Bishops could not be had; as in the Case of the three Scottish Bishops: but here the Case is altered, there being Bishops ready to give Orders, ever since 1660; wherefore such as have been Or­dained by Presbyters since that time, may be said to do it in Contempt of their Authority in that Case; nor were those that were Ordained before that time deprived of an opportu­nity to take their Orders from the Hands of a Bishop, there being some still ready to confer them; and many in the pre­ceding Years did accept of those Orders from Bishops; which argues, that such as did not refuse it in Contempt, or for their Preferment, which was denyed to some, because they had been Episcopally Ordained; but the main Argument may be taken from Dr. Beveridge's Text, 1 Cor. 11.16. If any Man seem to be contentious, we have no such Custom, neither the Churches of God: for search all the Ecclesiastical Records, and you will find, that, except in case of great necessity, no Ordina­tion hath ever been accounted valid, but such as hath been ad­ministred by the Hands of a Bishop; and if any did contest it, they have been branded as contentious Persons.

This Country-Minister therefore assumes too much to himself, to prescribe to the Convocation in so material a Point, and urge Arguments for it, when the Commissioners were only to prepare Materials for the Convocation to de­termine [Page 30]of. But he pleads farther, p. 10. Quod fieri non de­buit factum valet: Though it ought not to be done, yet being done, it is valid.

This is denied, because both those Presbyters that gave it, and these who received it, were guilty of a Schism, as much then as now (for the Practice is still continued) Episcopal Ordination, being still to be had without any considerable difficulty. And the Author grants, that St. Hierome, (tho' pleading the Cause of Presbyters against Bishops, yet) grants, that it was the sole Prerogative and distinguishing Character of that Order (viz.) of Bishops to Ordain: His words are, Quid enim non faciat Presbyter, quod facit Episcopus excepta Sola Ordinatione: And therefore the Salvo's which he makes for the sake of some particular persons, against the constant practice of the Universal Church, and particularly against the Law of the Land, cannot be excused from being a Plea for the present Schism; and the perpetuating thereof, such Ordinations being still practised.

Page 12. He speaks concerning Declarations and Subscrip­tions: the result whereof is, That he perswades himself, (and I think he will not perswade many others, besides those who already stand out) that what is generally understood by those Subscriptions and Declarations, ought to be more plain­ly expressed: For if it be generally so understood already, as he would have it, what need is there to have it more plainly expressed? (viz.) That the former, i. e. the Decla­ration of Assent and Consent is to the Ʋse of the Common-Prayer; the latter (viz.) Subscription to the Articles, is as to Articles of Peace and Concord, which, he says, is the Sense of Archbishop Laud, as he understands it (against Fisher, p. 51. n. 2.) And without doubt that of Archbishop Bram­hall (Schism guarded, S. 1. C. 11, &c. and Mr. Chilingworth's Answer to Charity Maintained.) But yet, to maintain Schism and Contention, he forms a Case after this manner: Suppose a young Student (not a Dissenter) thinks of entring into Holy [Page 31]Orders; and considering what he is to do, meets first with the Declaration of his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common-Prayer; among which, he finds that the Apocrypha is to be read. (Of this Scruple we have spoken already.) Then he proceeds to the Psalms, and comparing the two Translations, finds some things inconsistent, and sometimes the one to deny what the other affirms.

Ans. And this Case hath been already seanned; but to o­mit nothing of his Objections, he adds, That this young Man finds in the two Translations, some things inconsistent, and the one to deny what the other affirms; and being to use both, in the Desk, he reads, (as Psal. 105.28.) They were not obe­dient to his word; and in the Pulpit, with the Hebrew, and the new Translations, he reads, They rebelled not against his word. To this I answer:

First, There are many seeming Inconsistencies and Con­tradictions in that which he calls the Correct Translation, (namely, from the Hebrew) which have occasioned the wri­ting of divers Books, for the reconciling of them; and none but such as are disposed to Atheism, are offended at them.

2dly, This is such a Blunder, as none but a Man wholly given to Contention, and is able to read the Resolutions of Learned Men, could be guilty of; had he consulted but Mr. P.'s Synopsis on the place, that the words LoMaru admits of an Interrogation, and that is a vehement affirmation, then the sence of this Translation, Did they not rebel? is as much as they did rebel against his word, which is the same with the other Translation, (viz.) They were not obedient, or they re­belled against his word; thus the Hebrew Translation agrees with the Septuagint: And of this among other instances, Mr. Poole gives one, Exod. 8.26. we read, will they not stone us? when without the Interrogation, it would have been tran­slated, They would not have stoned us; but the Septuagint al­so [Page 32]agrees well with the Hebrew Translation, for the Verb plural may have respect to divers precedent Nouns, some whereof speak de rebus & signis, others de personis; Now the Aegyptians, for the conviction of whom God executed the Plagues before spoken of, were not obedient to his word, and so both Translations agree: These and other Resolutions are so clear, that I wonder how any Country-Minister, much less one of the City, should at this time of the day, be ignorant of them; but none so blind as he that will not see; for it looks like a design in the Author, to foment Prejudices and Mi­stakes in the Minds of young Men, to keep up a Schism a­gainst the Church. And so doth his next Plea, p. 14. against the use of the Athanasian Creed, whilst he restrains the Dam­natory Sentences to one Article of the Creed, which is to be referred to the whole, for so says the Preface, This is the Ca­tholick Faith, &c.

Moreover, I think it not necessary to Salvation, that eve­ry Man should believe that Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father to the Son, seeing there are se­veral Articles in the Creed called the Apostles, as we receive it now, which in the most Primitive Times, were not ex­tant in that Creed; for which consult Vossius, Armagh, and Dr. Pearson, the late Bishop of Chester; and therefore I can­not conceive that those Greek Churches were Hereticks, and in a state of Damnation, that held not the Filioque: And to this purpose the Letter makes his second Quere, Whether this be a fundamental Article of the Faith, which except a Man be­lieves he cannot be saved? Seeing as he grants it is not made necessary by Athanasius himself, nor was originally either in the Nicene (truly so called,) or Athanasian Creed; Nor is it so thought by our Church, (says the Letter) which receiving the four first General Councils, agrees with that of Ephesus, (which is the third) which made a peremptory Decree against all Ad­ditions to be made thereafter to the Creed, Concil. Ephes. Part 3. Art. 6. (Which shews that some Additions had been [Page 33]formerly made,) From whence (says he) it follows, that no­thing else was then accounted necessary to be believed, but what was contained in the Nicene: And so the Damnatory Senten­ces not appearing to be the Addition of Athanasius, nor re­specting any particular Article, but what is fundamental and necessary to Salvation; in the whole, the young Man, not­withstanding any thing that the Letter saith, may Subscribe the Athanasian Creed with the Damnatory Sentences, which are applicable only to such as obstinately deny the Fundamen­tal Articles of the Christian Faith contained in that Creed. And I desire the Author of this Objection to consider, what occasion it hath given to the Antitrinitarians to proclaim their Blasphemies against the Blessed Trinity, and consequent­ly against the Christian Religion; for a late Writer says, That Athanasius was drunk when he wrote that Creed; That it is setled by a Tyrannical Dominion, and is a Superstition or Poli­ty, rather than true Religion; That the Follies and Contradicti­ons charged on the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, are neither for Number, Consequence or Greatness, comparable to those im­plied in the Athanasian Creed; And that the Trinity hath the same foundation with Transubstantiation, and we must admit both or neither. This Opinion of the Socinians hath been so confuted by our late Divines, that I shall not repeat their Ar­guments; so apt are our Adversaries, of all sorts, to improve the Objections of Dissenters into very dangerous and destru­ctive Errors.

Page 15. This Country-Minister hath a very modest Re­quest in behalf of himself and the Dissenters, viz. That Pres­bytery may be restored to its ancient Priviledge, and permitted to share in all Acts belonging to their Station. What Acts those are, he sufficiently intimates, but doth not enumerate; they must share in the Jurisdiction and Administration of Discipline; in the issuing forth of Excommunications, and in the power of Conferring Orders; and this, forsooth, for the honour of the Bishops to take off whatever they may suffer [Page 34]by Misgovernment; and I suppose they would quickly draw too much of that Odium upon themselves: Wherefore as he doth, so shall I leave these things to the mature consideration of the Convocation; and how likely it is that the Church would not be the worse for these Alterations.

But concerning this, he raiseth two Objections: the first is, Where are they that would come in upon these Concessions and Alterations? And, 2dly, if they do come in, what advan­tage this will be to the Church? To the first he says, 'tis but to try; and I say, whatever the Church can grant, and not be the worse for it, hath been already tried, and scorn­fully rejected, though the Concessions were more than the Convocation can now with prudence and safety grant them; for these will not stifle their clamours against the Church, who have publickly declared, that they expect greater things: But in justice and integrity, says the Letter, these things ought to be granted; for it was promised by their Bishops, (viz.) that they wanted not due tenderness towards Dissenters, but were willing to come to such a temper as should be thought fit when that matter should be considered and setled in Parliament and Convocation. But as he says they promised it when it was not in their power, and now (the more is the pity) it is not in their power to perform it; but they promised no more than was fit to be granted (i. e.) upon great and important Reasons, nor more than what should be thought fit by a Par­liament and Convocation, to which it is still referred.

2dly, He inquires what benefit this will be to the Church? To which I answer, None at all; if, as he says, when kept out they are Enemies, and when let in they will be no Friends: but when they have more power and opportunity, they may do more mischief. S. M. E. C. T. Y. M. N. W. S. were in the Church in 1641, and did it more hurt than those that were kept out; and there are still such among us, as are not of us, whose Names would make up as terrible a word, as that of Smectymnuus; but I forbear to call Names.

His third General is, That there are such things in our Church, as may be altered for the better.

Ans. Thus some Men have attempted to mend the Mag­nificat; but finding they could not do that, they resolved to lay it aside: And many an unskilful Architect hath under taken to repair a good old Fabrick, and make it better; but by pulling down Beam after Beam, and after a lesser Stone a greater, till the whole Fabrick hath been like to fall; and then (what perhaps was designed at first) he perswades the Owners, that there is a necessity wholly to destroy the old, and erect a new one upon better foundations: And thus the Country-Minister thinks he hath cleared the Point, and may come in for a share in the imployment and benefit. And first he ingageth to make easie and short work of it, and would not have his Country-Brethren to be obliged to their daily labour in the Service of the Church, but to be left free to attend it how and when they please, to perform one part of the Service at one time, and another at another, and to be left to their own discretion, and not tied up to Forms, and to do what is commanded them. Thus he pleads for himself and fellow-labourers, whom he thinks fit to share with the Master-builders; and to that end he thus mis-represents them, p. 20. That they are ready to impose such burthens on others, as they will not touch with themselves; That they only walk from a warm House to a Cathedral, and for half an hour turn over a Service-book, hear a Sermon, and return to a warm Room and good Fare, and know not what it is to do the Service of a Cure perhaps all their life. This would be very edifying Doctrine in a Conventicle, but not so acceptable, when a Country-Minister shall preach it to a Convocation, which consists of the select Clergy of the Land, who are, for the most part, obliged to the Service of God in Cathedrals, or in their own Churches; and moreover, to all those Servi­ces which the Country-Minister is bound to do: And which is as difficult a work, as any of the other, to Oversee those [Page 36]Labourers, least they do more hurt than good by their Idle­ness, Ignorance, or Immorality; for too many such there be, who, if they were kept to their daily duty, might be restrain­ed from many inconveniencies, which are more prejudicial to their Lives, than the appointed Service of God would be. And doubtless the Convocation will not be of the Country-Minister's mind, p. 21. That he should be left to his discretion to read one part of the Service one day, and another another; and in the Afternoon to leave out the first Lesson, or the like; leaving out on Sunday the Communion-Service, and shortning the Liturgy at the Lord's-Prayer. For which he gives this reason, That it was composed peculiarly with respect to a State of Persecution: For which cause it ought rather to be conti­nued; for he asks the Question, p. 27. Are we without dan­ger? and if not, have we less danger to fear now, when we are divided, than when united? But why must the Communion-Service be left out, when the Primitive Church did commu­nicate at their daily Assemblies? And it is the Peoples fault that the Communion is not Administred every Sunday in the Parish-Churches, as well as in the Cathedrals; so that the rea­ding that Service minds the People of their backwardness to partake of so great a Blessing, and both minds and prepares them for it.

But I see not to what end these Offices should be shortned, except it be to yield to the Country-Minister's extemporary Prayers, and tedious Sermons; which if left to his discretion, would doubtless be the consequence. And his desire, That the first Lesson, or the like, may be left out in the Afternoon, that Men may fodder their Cattel; when, I suppose, the turning of the Afternoons Sermon into Catechizing, may better answer that end, and be more profitable to the People, both young and old; and it is more agreeable to Order; and this course would nei­ther hamper their Consciences, nor expose them to the rash Censures of those whom he calls their not over-laborious Bre­thren: Which Epithet some such Country-Ministers as him­self [Page 37]may deserve; p. 19. he would have some of the Convo­cation sent down to some Country-Parishes, to ease the poor Mi­nisters, by reading Prayers and Preaching, &c. As if the Mem­bers of the Convocation never did perform the intire Service of the Church in Praying and Preaching.

The Country-Minister might consider, that a great part of them have travelled, some a hundred, some near two hun­dred Miles, to meet in Convocation, to consult for the com­mon benefit of the Clergy, and sit sometime near the whole day in a cold place, in the depth of Winter: And some Coun­try-Ministers, now of the Convocation, do now see in what great ease and plenty the City-Ministers live, who have their Readers and Lecturers, and frequent Supplies, and sometimes tarry in the Vestry till Prayers be ended, and have great Dig­nities in the Church, besides their rich Parishes in the City.

Having pleaded for the shortning of the Liturgy, he pleads, p. 22. for the prolonging of it, by adding an Office to receive Penitents after an Apostacy, and in case of notorious Scandal: this may concern the Country-Minister. 2. For receiving persons Absolved after Excommunication: this, as he desires, is left to the discretion of the Priest that Officiates. 3. An Office for the Prisoners, which is provided for by the Bi­shops, who generally appoint able Men for that charitable Office. So that all this notwithstanding, he concludes in the words of Dr. Featly, &c. concerning the Liturgy, as it stood before the 600 Amendments in 1661. That the Book of Common-Prayer is the most compleat, perfect and exact Li­turgy in the Christian World, and such as a Godly Man may with a good Conscience use, and not only lawfully, but comforta­bly joyn in. Wherefore it having already received so many Amendments, there should be some important Reasons given why it should admit of more, for his May-be's are no Ar­guments: It may-be some things are obscure, and too doubt­fully express'd; It may be in its Phraseology liable to mis­application; It may be too fanciful: And all these May-be's, [Page 38]may not be, if the most exceptionable Expressions in the whole Liturgy be allowed (as the Preface to it says) such just and favourable construction, as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings.

Page 23. Our Author comes to enquire more nicely into it, but whether more wisely let the Reader judge: He instan­ceth first in what he thinks obscure: As in the Prayer for the Clergy: Who alone workest great Marvels, send down, &c. of which, Who dares deny, saith Dr. Comber, that the assist­ance granted to the Ministers for the conversion of sinners are as marvellous, as was the Creation of Light out of Dark­ness or the Resurrection from the Dead: see Ephes. 1.19. So in the Collect for Trinity Sunday, Who hath given us Grace in the Power of the Divine Majesty, to Worship the Ʋnity. This is not obscure to any that acknowledgeth the Trinity, which is to be worshipped in the Unity of Divine Majesty: As when in the Litany we pray, O holy blessed and glorious Trinity, three Persons and one God.

In the Preface at the Communion for Trinity Sunday, that which we believe of the Glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Glory of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without a­ny difference or inequality, (viz.) as to the Godhead, Christ having said, I and my Father are one: And the Church in all Ages hath professed the same belief in the Father, Son, and Ho­ly Ghost, and ascribes the same Glory to each of them in the Tresagion.

In the Prayer before the Communion: That our sinful Bo­dies may be made clean by his Body, and our Souls washed through his most precious Blood: (i.e.) that both our Souls and Bodies may receive all the benefits of his Death and Passion.

In the Office of Baptism: By the Baptism of thy well be­loved Son in the River Jordan, didst sanstifie Water: (i. e.) didst appoint and consecrate the Element of Water, to be the outward sign of the Grace conferred in that Sacrament by the Blood and Merits of Christ. In the Office of Matrimony: [Page 39] With my Body I thee Worship: Which signifies a civil Respect and Honour, and is more significant than what they would exchange it for, (viz.) I give thee Power over my Body. In that of Burial: Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God to take to himself, &c. By which no more is meant, than what, as some understand, the Scripture says: The Spirit returns to God that gave it: or if it supposeth Discipline; so it expresseth Charity, where Discipline hath not excluded them from the Communion of the Church, that we hope they rest with God. So in the Collect for Easter-Sunday, where the Preface and the Petition want a better Connexion: The Preface and Con­nexion are thus: That as God by Christ hath opened to us the Gate of everlasting Life, so he would (prepare us for that life) putting into our Hearts good Desires, by his special Grace pre­venting us, and by his continual help we may bring the same to good effect. So the first Sunday after Easter, &c. the Preface is, Almighty God who hast given thy only Son to die for our Sins, and to rise for our Justification: The Connexion is: Grant us so to die unto sin, (which is the sense of) to put away the leaven of Malice, that we may serve thee in pureness of living and truth, (i. e.) we may live unto God. 2. He instanceth in some things liable to misapplication; as in the Visitation of the Sick: By his Authority committed to me, I absolve thee; which the Priest having prayed God to do, he applieth in No­mine domini, in the Name of the Father, &c. By the Autho­rity committed to me as God's Minister, I absolve thee, Jo. 20.23. And the Answer in the Catechism: The Body and Bloud of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and recei­ved by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper: (i. e.) in a spiritu­al, but real manner by the faithful Communicants; for there is sufficient caution given against the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation. So in the Exhortation for warning of the Com­munion: Because it is requisite no Man should come to the Ho­ly Communion, but with a full trust in God's Mercy, and with a quiet Conscience: For if St. Paul says, we may not partake [Page 40]of common things with a doubting Conscience, Rom. 14.5. much less of spiritual: And when Men consult the Lawyers for their Estates, and Physitians for their Bodies, why should they not consult the Ministers for their Souls? Such again are those Collects which too much incline to the Pelagian Phrase, laying the force of temptation, and Man's liableness to sin, upon the frailty, and not the corruption of our Nature; as the first and 24th Sunday after Trinity: what they mean by frailty, that first Collect explains, to be such, as that without God we can do no good thing, which is the great corruption of our Nature; and no Doctrine concerning the corruption of Nature is more plain, than that in our Articles. Lastly, Some Collects, he says, are too fanciful, and savour of the Breviary, as those of St. Luke, St. John, Simon and Jude.

Answ. Whatever in the Breviaries are taken out of the Scripture, or Authentick and Ancient Ecclesiastical History, is not therefore to be rejected; and that St. Luke was that be­loved Physitian mentioned Col. 4.14. is the constant assertion of all Interpreters, and the express words of the Scripture; therefore no Legend. Of these he says, That in a sort they need amendment: And so doth the Judgment of this nice En­quirer, who, I fear, hath lost his Rationale, which he might easily supply from Dr. Comber's, or Bishop Sparrow's Discour­ses. A Man would think this Writer to have been hired to betray the Cause of the Dissenters, by his weak and imperti­nent Arguments for its defence: and a great conviction it will be to many, that there need no Alterations to be made, when their prime Advocate insists on such Instances as ren­der him vain and ridiculous. Many things he would add to the Office of Confirmation: viz. An Exhortation on the Sun­day before, and a Discourse about the Nature, Use, and Ob­ligation of it; and a serious Exhortation after it, with some Inlargements of the Collects; by all which he provides to bring down the Bishops to more labour than he would have any Country-Minister to perform, considering what other [Page 41]Offices they usually perform at the same time (viz.) Admi­nistration of the Holy Sacraments, Ordination of Priests and Deacons, &c.

It were easie, saith our Author, to be copious on this Argu­ment: But he hath said enough, by chusing out such instan­ces as are beyond all exceptions for their significancy, and self-evidence; so that the very reading of them, is a sufficient Confutation of this Author's Cavils, and a Justification of them from his frivolous Accusations; which not being very grateful to him (as he confesseth) will be very offensive to others.

Yet (so importune are some sort of Men) he will not leave the point so, but will shew, that this is a fit season for such Alterations) when he hath not shewn the least cause, much less any necessity for making of them; but first he lays the blame on some that are in the Convocation, that should tell him, This is not a season: which he would disprove by this Question: Is there any thing can make that not to be seasona­ble, which is always a Duty: As if it were alway a Duty, to make needless Alterations.

2. Is there any Season in which we are not as much as in us lieth, to seek Peace and ensue it?

Answ. The Peace of the Church is more to be valued, than of those who disquiet themselves and others in vain. Was it a Season for the Representatives of our Church to declare, when they were not in a condition, They wanted not a ten­derness toward Dissenters? And is it not their Season when they are in a condition? (which I heartily wish they were, even for the Dissenters sake) because he hath said, He doubts not but they would agree to the Alterations that are desired.

But suppose, says he, there were never a Dissenter in the Land; I say, we might have a happier and fitter Season, when there would be none that watch for our haltings, and seek oc­casion to accuse us from our own Concessions, and will reject them with scorn and contempt; and so our Liturgy and Worship, which (the Letter says) was compleat and perfect before, be exposed as not only infirm, but so corrupt, that it [Page 42]needed Alterations; and that for very shame the Convocati­on thought it necessary to make them. But our Author find­ing all his arguings to be lost, as in p 28. he betakes himself to a sham-plot against those that are not for Alterations, as if because they said, or rather he for them, That they were not seasonable: they had said, the Parliament was illegal, the Go­vernment precarious, and the Laws no Laws, it becomes not a Country-Minister to be a Minister of Satan, in falsly accu­sing his Brethren, who have all owned the present Authority and Laws, and he that blames the want of Connexion in our Collects, should have been more cautious, then first to raise an Objection of his own, and then infer from it such impertinent conclusions as may be mischievous to others. But what think you, says he, if this Government sink? I think our causless dis­sentions will be one of the greatest causes: Who sunk the Go­vernment under the Royal Martyr? Who had well nigh sunk it a second time under the late King? to whom such multitude of Dissenters addressed Thanks for Suspending the Laws, and promised to obey him without reserve: we have had experience enough who they were that could, after all their Pleas for Li­berty, part with their Consciences to save their Lives, though with the loss of their Religion, Laws, and Liberty; so as their Brethren might perish a little before them. When therefore he would perswade us, that we may have a new Law for the intend­ed Establishment; I think no Man will be perswaded to run such a risque; for having many good Laws already for our E­stablished Worship, we may conclude, that as to certainty the old are better. Having thus treated the Members of the Convo­cation, he takes his Farewel of them, leaving them to their Couch and Consideration; intimating, that they are all become mighty Politicians, or Tools for them that are so. Who have been made and used as Tools by the late unhappy Politicians is as evident as any matter of fact can be, and I wish I could leave this Country-Minister well in his Wits, to consider whether he be not used as a Tool to destroy the Established Church, by some who think themselves mighty Politicians.

NO sooner had I finished my Remarks on the Letter of the Country Minister to a Member of the Convocation, but I were encounter'd with another from a Member of the Convoca­tion to his Friend; in which I feared my Opinion would have been oppugned, not only by a greater Authority, but by sharper Argu­ments than any I had yet met with: But having viewed his Wea­pons, I found that they were flourished and glittered with a Rheto­rical style, yet they wanted that Logical strength that might en­force them. This encouraged me to take my Pen in hand again, and to enter the List against this Master of the Assembly; for I consider­ed, that though his Weapons were keen, yet the Arm that wielded them was but weak, and it was no great danger to wrest them out of his hands, and imploy them against himself: His great flourish was, A Necessity, an absolute Necessity of yielding to many Alterations in our Established Worship. This I thought might prove durum telum; for, Necessity hath no Law, especially when it is Absolute; then, like the Absolute power, it bears down all before it: This lookt somewhat formidably; for I considered that Necessity had destroyed many great and good Men. It was said of that great Hero, the Earl of Strafford, Illum non tulit Lex verum necessitas non habens Legem; And of a greater than he we have a Law (viz.) of the Jews making, and by that Law, Oportet mori, to dye, and dye he did, because it was expedient also for the People.

But that there was an Absolute necessity that Judas should betray his Master; I can no more believe, than that there is a Necessity, That he who is a Member of the Church of Christ, and hath fami­liarly, eaten of her Bread, and born the Bag too, should lift up his heels and kick at her. I considered therefore what kind of Necessi­ty this might be, for our Opponent grants, there is no necessity in respect of the Church her self, that she should make Alterations: Be­cause, saith he, p. 1. nothing is more dangerous to Religion, than frequent­ly to make Alterations. 2. Because an unsteadiness, though in Cir­cumstantials only, which are always alterable, may become an Ar­gument against the whole, the Multitude not being able to judge [Page 44]what is Circumstantial, and what is Essential in our Worship; what is in the Power of the Church to alter, and what is not; and are apt to call every Alteration, though in things indifferent, and by varia­tion of times made totally insignificant, to be a change of Religion it self, and so concluding that we have no firm bottom, become Apostates from us to Popery or Atheism. And therefore he thinks the Church of England may be justified, that it hath not been for­ward on every demand of the Dissenters to unhinge those of her Communion, but hath to the utmost resisted all Alterations, hoping by other less dangerous Methods to heal the Divisions that are among us. By this I perceived the Absolute necessity would not much affect the Church; yet I considered farther, whether there were an Abso­lute necessity from any Precept that did oblige the Church to make Alterations in the external Parts or Rites of Worship; and I found she had a Power by Precept to see that all things be done decently, and according to her Order and Appointment; and another Precept, That the People should Obey those that had the Rule over them. And accor­dingly the most Primitive Church, of which we read Acts 2.45. Con­tinued daily with one accord in the Temple, and in the Apostle's Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayer: Nor would St. Paul endure any Contention about Circumstantials, contrary to the Cu­stom of the Church, 1 Cor. 11.16. Nor can I see this Absolute neces­sity in the things that are to be altered, because they are confessed to be in their own nature indifferent; and when they fall under a Pre­cept of those whose proper work it is to injoyn them, we cannot without Disobedience to our lawful Governors, reject them. Nei­ther can this Necessity affect the Persons for whose sake the Alterati­ons are desired; because if there be nothing sinful in our Communi­on, it is sinful to separate from it; besides, the Dissenters would take it ill of any Man that should say they cannot be saved in that way of Worship which they have chosen for themselves; and then there is no Absolute necessity for the Church to alter her Constitutions to gain them to her Communion: In a Church where Salvation is to be had, we ought to abide, notwithstanding some inconvenient cir­cumstances, whose Amendment is desirable. Though there were great Disputes in the Primitive Church about the Place of Worship, Circumcision, and Meats and Days, yet was there no Separation: And the constant Voice of the Church was, [...], Let ancient Customs prevail. But here Absolute necessity is urged for Alte­rations, because all other means have been tried, and prove ineffe­ctual to heal our Divisions. To which I Answer.

1. The Acts for Uniformity were much more effectual than any Alterations that the Church can justly make will be, seeing the Dis­senters have declared they will not be satisfied with the Alterations of our Ceremonies, &c. but expect greater matters than the Church can grant. 2. Experience shews, that they will not acquiesce in such Alterations as may be granted. 3. Because it was not for want of success, that Toleration was granted against the Act for Unifor­mity; but because it was too successful, and the Common Enemies of our Church perceiving the good effects of that Act, which had well nigh reduced the whole Nation to an Uniformity, with their joynt Interest procured a Toleration; and it needs no proof, That if the Act for Uniformity hath made one Dissenter, Toleration and Alterations have made hundreds; so that as there is no Necessitas praecepti, neither is there Necessitas med [...]i, to obtain the Ends which this Author proposeth.

And thus we have put off the first blow of this Absolute necessi­ty, and the second will be as easily warded; for if there be no Ab­solute necessity to make any Alterations, then 'tis not absolutely ne­cessary that we should make them now: For there is no necessity that we should expose our selves to that reproach, which is endea­voured to be fixed on some of us, of being Ecclesiastical Tinkers, who undertaking to mend one hole, do usually make two or three. We have, by standing our ground, put to flight one formidable Ene­my; and is there an Absolute necessity, that by giving ground, we should bring our selves under the Power of another? And such an Enemy, as our Author says, did (once and therefore may be suspe­cted of doing it again) take shelter in the Camp of out Common Enemy, and joyned with the Papists against us, endangering the Church and State to utter turn, p. 3. This methinks should blunt the edge of his Absolute necessity.

Page 3. The Author makes the excepted Passages in our Liturgy, and the Ceremonies in our Worship, the whole Origine of our Divi­sions. As if the whole blame lay on the Church, whereof be is an Eminent Minister; As if the Ignorance of some Dissenters, and the interest and Obstinacy or others that know more, were in no man­ner culpable; no, not though they rail at our Ceremonies as Super­stitious, and our Bishops as Antichristian and Tyrannical; and con­demn not our Liturgy only, but our Use of our Lord's-Prayer. And our Author, contrary to his hounden Duty, administers incourage­ment to some of these, while he reflection the Penal Laws and Church-censures, which, he says, have [...], and in­creased [Page 46]the Mischiefs which they endeavoured to remove; and that they were executed with an unjustifiable Severity: Though if they had been legally executed against the Papist, and such Dissenters as joyned with them, it might have prevented that greater Severity, which was exercised against some whole Colledges, and the Seven Famous Bishops, who were sent to the Tower, in order to their (and in them, to the) destruction of our Religion, Laws, and Liberties, which by their Constancy they preserved to us, however apt we are to de­spise them, and deal with them as in Forty Two, they were dealt with by the Scottish and Dissenters Malice. What tho' there be some few that are really, but causlesly offended at our Ceremonies, must we for their sakes give offence to the Church of God; we have found concerning the greatest part of the Dissenters, that it is not their Cannot, but their Will not that keeps them from our Commu­nion; and when their Interest and Advantage requires it, they can Conform; And what necessity is there, that for the sake of a few ignorant, or peevish, and unsatisfiable persons, that will not be pleased with all that we can do, we should confirm them in their obstina­cy, by yielding and complying with their humors? Who were not offended at the excepted passages of our Liturgy and Ceremonies onely, but at Episcopacy, at our Doctrine, at the whole Liturgy, and even at our Lord's Prayer, which they disused.

The next for which he says there was a pressing necessity, is the late Act for Toleration, for which he gives these Reasons: 1. Be­cause the Dissenters were driven to take shelter in the Camp of our common Enemy, and joyn with the Papists: Or rather, the Papists by the To­leration sheltred themselves under the Dissenters: However, it is a good confession of this Author, and shews, that they who strained at a Gnat could swallow Camels: And though one Parliament pas­sed an Act for Toleration, yet another gave such Arguments against it, as are not yet, nor, I believe, can be answered; which are late­ly Printed in a Tract entituled, An Answer to the Letter for Tolerati­on, p. 28. Nor is it evident, that by the Act for Toleration, the Dissenters are put on as good a bottom of Legal Right, as the Church is; for it is well known, by what means, and for what end a Toleration hath been more than once obtained, which Coleman's Let­ters do testifie; and Toleration implies somewhat more culpable than the Established Government, and never deserved the like pro­tection, having been often rejected. And whereas he desires a rea­son from him that can give it, Why we should not abate a few excepted passages in our Liturgy, and two or three Ceremonies?

I Answ. Because, as hath been often said, the giving up of these will give the Dissenters no satisfaction; and, because the Remedy hath been worse than the Disease, (i. e.) the retaining of our Cere­monies, and excepted passages, never caused so much Impiety, so many Sects and Errors, as the laying them aside hath done; the Twenty Years War from 40 to 60, and the Thirty Years Animosi­ties last past, had other Causes than what he (very unbecoming a Member of the Church, and, as he calls himself, one of the Convo­cation) terms Trifles, and p. 6. A Bone of Contention: The Cove­nant shews what caused that War, the destruction of Episcopacy Root and Branch, the setting up of Presbytery, the dividing of the Revenues of the Church among themselves, &c. When therefore he calls that unreasonable Rigor, which enjoyned Uniformity in our Worship; he reflects on the Act for Uniformity, and the Canons of the Church, to which he hath subscribed; so that he and his Bre­thren are more like to lose their Reputation with the People, tho' he would cast all the Odium upon us, whom he expects and endea­vours to make to be abhorred of the Nation as the Common Ene­mies of its Peace, and be treated accordingly in every Parish where we live. Did we contend against the Arrians, says he, p. 7. we would not yield them a Letter to end the whole Controversie? And are not the Arrians coming in, when the Athanasian Creed is so ridicul'd, as hath been shewn? And did not the Church in St. Augustin's time, contend as much against the Donatists, who could plead for themselves, as this Author doth for the Dissenters? What Article of Faith? What ne­cessary requisite of our Worship is it in which any Alterations are intended? This St. Augustin granted, Nobiscum estis in Evangelio in Sacramentis idem cantatis Hallelujah, sed hoc solo nomine; For this only cause that they made Divisions and Separations in and from the Church, he excluded them, not only from the Church, but from Salvation; and it is observable, that the Arrians did not only come in among the Donatists, but these joyned with the Arrians against the Church; how confidently soever therefore he would assure us, that the intended Alterations are only in things indifferent; we can­not take his word for it, for many things have been well intended, the consequences whereof have proved fatal and destructive.

Page 8. Our Saviour (he says) prescribed not the particular Rites and Constitutions which the Church made use of: Very true; but when the Church prescribed the Use of them, that all things, in the Publick Worship might be done decently, and in order, they were judged contentious Persons that did not conform to them: and therefore I [Page 48]agree with him, that as long as those Forms of Prayer used in our Church, and those Rites and Constitutions which are received, do answer the Ends of their first Establishment, (viz.) the Honour of God, and Edification of the People, they ought with constancy alway to be retained: And in what Assembly, not only of the Sectaries, but of any Reformed Church in the World, either for purity of Doctrine, fervency in Devotion, and decency in Worship, is the Honour of God, and the Edification of the People better provided for, than in the approved Assemblies of the Church. But in this which follows, I think, no sober Person can agree with him: (viz.) That when either the infirmity or wickedness of Men makes any Alterations, and administer to Schism and Division, then he says, there ariseth a reason altogether as strong for their Alteration, as there was for their Institution: That is, we must alter a godly and well established Worship, as oft as the wickedness of Men requires it: And how such an Established Worship should become mischievous, and so bring on the Church an Obligation (which without guilt cannot be resisted,) to make a change, is a very bold saying: For, Suppose the Papists arguing thus against the Scripture, or against our Liturgy, that it had occasioned many mischievous Schisms and Errors, were it a strong Argument for us to lay them aside? And should we be guilty if we did not?

Page 9. He descends to particulars: And concerning the Cross, p. 10. he says: I think we have an Obligation upon us, not to be resisted from absolute necessity of the thing, either totally to lay this Ceremony aside, or make such Abatements as may allay our Heats of Contention, and Mischiefs of Separation as have been caused thereby.

Answ. If I were of the Judgment of this Convocation Man, I would not tarry any longer in the Communion of that Church, which enjoyns the Use of the Cross, tho' I were a Dean or Arch-Deacon. But how comes this Man to be more scrupulous than Mr. Baxter? who says, He will not condemn Ancients or Moderns that use it, nor make any disturbance about it in the Church: His Opinion is grounded on an unwary Expression, as he calls it, in the Canons: That by it the Person Baptized is dedicated to the Service of Jesus Christ; and so attributes a Sacramental effect to it, which belongs only to Baptism. Sure this Person did never consider, that the Church hath declared that Sacrament sufficiently administred where the Cross is omitted; and had he considered the definition of a Sacrament in the Cate­chism, he might perceive, that no part of that definition agrees with the Cross to make it Sacramental; and when we see that the Dis­putes [Page 49]for laying aside the Cross, have been improved to the layin aside of Baptism, let the Author consider where the guilt doth lie.

As to the Surplice, p. 11. he says, Nothing is more unreasonable than the Cavils against it; yet he would have it totally laid aside, and another Habit appointed: And if that other should be laid aside, for the rea­sons he there gives, we might as easily fit a Garment for the Moon, as one that should please all Men.

Page 11. Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is the last Constitution of the Church, that he says, he should willingly part with: The rest, it seems, may go with his good will; and so may this also, by what follows: (viz.) I can see no reason that savours either of a Chri­stian Temper or Charity, why to communicate standing, may not be allow­ed to weak and scrupulous Persons: He can, it seems, see a reason, why the scrupulous Person should forbear that blessed Sacrament, for fear of a fit and prescribed Ceremony; but can see none, why the Sacra­ment should not be administred to them in their own way. I would ask him, Is it not fit when we pray with the Minister as we ought to do, that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life, to kneel? Or is it decent one should stand, and another kneel? And is not Obedience in such things, better than sacrificing to our own humours, and ma­king confusion in so solemn an Ordinance? Whether the ancient Communicants did stand or kneel, they did in obedience to the Con­stitutions of the Church; and so ought we. Hear Mr. Baxter in this case: If it be lawful to take a Pardon from the King upon our knees, I know not what can make it unlawful, to take a sealed Pardon from Christ upon our knees, See Christian Direct. p. 616. And as for kneeling at the Sacrament, since the Rubrick, my Judgment was ever for it: God having made some Gesture necessary, and confined us to none, but left it to humane determination: I shall submit to Magistrates in their proper work. I am not sure, Christ intended his Example as obligatory; but I am sure he hath commanded me Obedience and Peace. p. 411. of the Five Disputations.

Page 12. The Liturgy, he saith, is the best that ever was used in any Christian Church: If then we cannot joyn with our Church therein, we cannot joyn with any Christian Church: Yet p. 13. he thinks it absolutely necessary, not only that it be altered now, but every thirty Years. And what example doth he set before us, but the Church of Rome, and the Greek Church, which have several Liturgies; because they consist of several National Governments: but from the beginning of the Reformation, under Edw. 6. was the first Law for an uniform Liturgy; And shall we take example from the Church of Rome, or from our Reformers? It was indeed necessary, that it should be re­formed in those days, because all Popish Superstitions could not be [Page 50]cast off at once. He tell us, p. 14. Of many Alterations formerly made, and would fain know a reason why we should not make more.

I Answ. Because there is not such reason, as was to reform the Liturgies in the Reign of Edw. 6. when there was Crisme, and Pray­ers for the Dead, and such other things, which Calvin called, Tolerabi­les ineptias: and Q. Elizabeth kept in some things to bring in the Pa­pists; and it had good effect: But ours being so well accommodated to Truth, Piety, and Devotion, there needs no other Alterations, un­less better reasons can be shewed, it being confessedly the best in the Christian World. But, moreover, what good effect hath followed the six hundred Alterations in 1661? Who desireth them at our hands? And their not desiring them, argues they will not be satis­fied by them; but they expect such things as they are not willing to ask, knowing they cannot be granted. His Objections from Tobit, and the old Translation of the Psalms, have been already considered, and so hath that of the Athanasian Creed: As to the Liturgy, therefore I commend Mr. Baxter to him, and the Dissenters again, p. 76. of Concord: I constantly joyn with my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sa­craments, and hope so to do while I live: I take the Common-Prayer to be bester incomparably, than many of the Sermons and Prayers that I hear.

His next charge, p. 15. is against Excommunication; which he says, Is sometime denounced against the best of our People, right or wrong, for some Penny or Two-penny Cause. This is a gross Scandal, for if any be sued for small matters, if it be due to their Minister, he is very unjust that will with-hold it; and the Excommunication is issued against such, for the contempt of the Authority; which is practised in all other Churches, even in Scotland, as by an Order printed June 1571. ch. 4. Any small Offence (say they) may justly deserve Excommu­nication, by reason of the contempt and disobedience of the Offender.

He comes p. 16. to answer Objections: The first is, That altering any thing in this now Constituted Church, will be like the plucking a Beam but of a well built House, which may endanger the whole Fabrick: To which he answers, If all had been of this mind, we could never have Reformed from Popery. This is very impertinent, for is there no greater reason to reform False Doctrine, and Idolatrous Worship, than to change innocent and lawful Ceremonies in our well consti­tuted Church; there we are sure we altered for the better, here we are not sure but we may alter for the worse.

Object. 2. If we once begin to alter, where shall we stop? his Answer is, When any thing is proposed to us, which is not fit to be done. This An­swer is insufficient upon his grounds, for he will not have the Church to judge what is fit, but to do what is unfitly demanded by the Dis­senters, whom he makes Judges what ought to be altered.

Object. 3. And he says, If we yield now, they will still be craving, till they have taken all away: And there is a crossing of his old Proverb by another: Give an Inch, and they will take an Ell.

Obj. 4. That Alterations are required in some things, as was in the Pri­mitive Church. Answ. We are not hound to observe all that the Pri­mitive Church did, as their Love-Feasts, and Deaconesses; which is the same, as if we were bound to revive the old Saxon and British Laws: To which the Reply in brief is this: When old Laws or U­sages are antiquated and laid aside, by the common consent of those that instituted them, there remains nothing but our due Obedience to those new Ones that are in force. I perceive now, this Champion's Arms grow feeble, and therefore he makes use of his Tongue, and thinks to supply the defect of Reason by railing; and his Bolt is quickly shot; but shot at randome, and hits No-body, for he mi­stakes his Mark: he aimed at the Prolocutor, by an Inuendo, that he was he who had been promoted in the Church, by him whom he stabs with a Motto: Nolumus leges Angliae mutare: Which was not spoken by the Prolocutor, but another person, who owed his Preferment to his own merit, and not another's favour; but whoever spake the words, they could not deserve the name of a stab, unless the telling of a Truth be so; and that ancient saying may excuse him: Ami­cus Socrates Amicus Plato magis amica veritas. But the other stab, that of the Church, is given her by the Author, who complements the Church, as, ( Joab did Abner.) Art thou in health, my Mother? And the words are no sooner out of his mouth, but the Sword is in her Bowels; which, as another Nero, he unnaturally rips up, though he had been long nourished in them; nor doth he spare him whom he intended to vindicate, by changing the Motto into a Volumus leges Angliae mu­tare. And thus he insults over his dying Mother, as if in his judgment her Case were desperate, being reduced to the Ultimus Conatus Na­turae, p. 18. That she sits down quietly, and languisheth to death, rather then she will make the least effort to save herself: But (God be thanked) she hath more dutiful Sons than this unnatural Brutus.

In the sixth Object. p. 18. Our Author having so much mist his mark, is so much in passion, that he is angry with, and as far as a plain contradiction will reach, stabs himself: The Objection is: We have no reason to make Alterations for the sake of the Dissenters, because the fault of our Divisions, is not from any Constitutions of ours, but from their obstinacy and perverseness, in unreasonably dissenting from them. To which his Answer is: I acknowledge all this to be true, that it is not the fault of the Church by any of its Constitutions, or Impositions, which are all ra­tional and good, but they Onely who refuse to conform to them. Whereas in p. 3. he had affirmed, That those excepted passages in the Liturgy, [Page 52]and those Ceremonies in our Worship had given the whole Origine to those prevailing Evils among us, and therefore thinks it necessary to lay aside those Penal Laws, and Church Censures, which have been inflicted with a Severity beyond what we can justifie; and this, he says, hath heightned our Divisions, and increased the Mischiefs which we endeavoured to remove. If ever I read a contradiction, this is one: What then is our Author's Opinion, but that our Penal Laws, and Church Censures must of ab­solute necessity be laid aside, and the Fathers of the Church be recon­ciled to their disobedient Children on their own terms; as if he had never read of those terrible Judgments which were denounced against old Eli, for his fondness towards his profane Sons, who were Sons of Belial, That would endure no Yoke themselves, and made the People to abhor the Offerings of the Lord, 1 Sam. 2.17. And he restrained them not; but though they kicked at the Sacrifices and Offerings of the Lord, yet ho­noured his Sons more than God: Yet notwithstanding this, he char­geth the Church, as being too obstinate, and obstructing the Peace of the Church, and the Salvation of so many Souls; as if the Peace of the Church, and the Salvation of Souls, were not more probably to be promoted in the Church, than out of it; and the Peace of the Church more likely to be procured by a restraining of those that se­parate from it, rather than by complying with them, as he adviseth. He tells us, indeed, That we are Physitians sent to heal those that are sick and infirm; and when they refuse a wholesome Medicine, ought to think of something agreeable to his humor and palate; but if the sick Man become pievish, as he says, and nothing will please him, but what the Physitian knows will endanger his life, the Physitian ought not in compliance with his humor to hazard his life: A gentle restraint is more absolutely necessary in such cases, than a foolish pity; nor can it be called un­reasonable severity; for in such cases, Non persequitur medicus aegrum sed aeger Medicum: saith St. Augustine.

Object. 7. If we make those Alterations, how shall we answer the Papists, who will upbraid us with it? To this he answers: As well as we did in the first of Q. Elizabeth. Reply. Not so well; for she altred some things that were superstitious, and yet kept up such a decency as drew in many Papists to the Communion of the Church; as my Lord Cooke observed. 2. He says, We may alter now, as well as in 1662. And likely no better; for then, notwithstanding the six hundred Alterations, the Dissenters were Dissenters still. 3. We may answer the Papists, he says, by pleading their Alterations at the Council of Trent. Whereas that Council, were so far from complying with the then Dissenters, that they made more severe Canons, and enjoyned them under their Anathemas; when we onely desire to preserve our own Constitutions, which our Author says, Are both Reasonable and Re­ligious.

Object. 8. We shall by these Alterations dissatisfie our own People. Answ. I believe there is more Noise than Truth or Reason in this Objection: There may be, saith he, some few ignorant or weak People that are zealously affected to these matters. But the Apostle accounted them to be the stronger and better instructed Christians, who understood their Chri­stian Liberty as to things indifferent, and were ready to submit to their Governours in such things, for the Peace of the Church, and condem­ned those that were contentious against the use of them; the People ought not to prescribe to the Church in such things, but the Church to them: Nor is it a sinful supposition in them that do obey, for they do not obey as to Divine Institutions, but as to the Constitutions of the Church; and therefore we do not fear that they will desert us, if we keep our ground. Thus far, saith our Author, I have shewn what neces­sity is upon us to consent to the Alterations that will be proposed in this present Convocation: A strange kind of necessity, to consent to what we never knew, be it right or wrong. A great Noise was made of consenting to certain Homilies, that should be set forth by Authority of Church and State; but here we must necessarily consent to what will be proposed by some few Men, who by this Man's Authority may impose what they will upon us; but of this he seems to be ashamed, and therefore proceeds to another reason for this necessity, From the Promise made by the Bishop to K. James; which if not performed, we must expect the general clamour of the People against us, as a base and false sort of Men, who can pro­mise in times of Adversity, and forget all when that is over; and so become the Reproach of every Man. Answ. We are little obliged to this Author for his Misrepresentation of us, and of our Promises, which were con­ditional; if the Parliament and Convocation should agree. And are the Bishops in more prosperity now, than when they made those Pro­mises? Are they in a condition to perform them now, if they were never so willing?

This is the same, as if one man should extort a promise from another in duris, and then so bind him up, that it shall be impossible for him to perform what he promised. The reproach of non-performance will lay on some other and not on him. Let the Bishops be put in statu quo, and then see what they will do; but this Objection our Author suffi­ciently Answers, when he says, There is no assurance that any one of the Dissenters will come over to us (on our Concessions) and therefore it is in vain to proceed on this project; for as for his confidence that many would come in, he must know the minds of those many better than they themselves do, if he be assured of it; for the leaders of that multitude who are guided by them, have declared the contrary. And it being the interest of their Ministers, who have a more plentiful income by their conventicles, as well as greater respects, and a larger power than they [Page 54] [...] hope for in a Church Benefice, will never be such self-denying persons, as to renounce all these Interests, and be brought into the Church to the loss of them. But the people, saith our Author, will forsake them, and come into us if these Alterations be made.

Ans. On the contrary, its more probable that when we make Alte­rations without their desire, the Ministers will tell them, we were a­shamed of our corrupt Worship, and have altered it in some lesser, but have retained the greater matters to which they cannot yeild; there be­ing yet many sinful conditions in our conformity; and as the people are already in this belief, so they will from our voluntary Alterations con­firm them in it, and gain more on their credulity: And from hence the Ministers will not be left without excuse, as long as they pretend any one sinful term for a Communion with us is retained; and that pretence is like to hold as long as it is their interest to suggest it, and so long after all that we can grant, we shall still be vexed with their Clamors.

But, 2ly, it is said, We shall by our Alterations give satisfaction to the Nation, who expects it, the main Body whereof, he says, stand indifferent­ly affected to them and us, and think the things stood upon to be but trifling matters. How the Nation will brook such an accusation, as if like Gallio, they cared not for the solemnity of Divine Worship, and were Lao­diceans, neither hot nor cold, for that which is Established by Law, and hath been so long approved by their practice, let them shew and it were a shame if they should not be as zealous for the Established Worship, as the Dissenters are for that which hath been so often con­demned, though now it be Tolerated.

But there is yet another necessity for Alterations, because if we do it not, most certainly the Parliament will. This man talks as once Cromwel did, who having seized the Keys of the Parliament house, clapt them up, and said, He had now the Parliament in his Pocket. Most certainly the present Parliament will not truckle under such a degenerate Usur­per, and instead of thanks incur the Odium of the Nation, seeing this ve­ry Author says, If it come to their hands they may instead of Circumstantials alter Essentials, and make a breach on Religion it self to the undoing of all; and this I think is a Scandalum Magnatum, and this he fears will be done, not only in the case of Orders, but other Particulars, which he could instance in, of which the least mischief would be totally to extinguish all Con­vocations for the future, and resolve the whole power of the Church into the Two Houses of Parliament, and fix the reproach of the Papists on us, That our Religion is a Parliamentary Religion. For my part I should fear the loss of my Ears if I should have thus slurd that Great Council, this would make what he would have the Church to be, Felo's de se.

This Man (as other venomous Animals) keeps the sting in his Tail, or the conclusion of his Libel, in Answer to a Third Objection, That ha [...] [Page 55]necessary soever his Reasons befor Alterations, yet it is time for it when so many of the Fathers of the Church, whom he acknowledgeth to be excellent and most Religious persons, and other eminent Men of the Clergy, by their Suspension, stand incapacitated to act in this matter; and if this be now done, when their con­sent cannot be had, they will renounce it all, and by sticking to the present Form, create a new Schism in the Church; and this he hears is the reason much insist­ed on to defeat the design and intent of this Convocation. But first I believe, (whatever may be the design of some Men) is not the intent of the Con­vocation; they may intend the better Establishment of the present Con­vocation; they may intend the better Establishment of the present Con­stitution, the Reformation of the Lives and Manners of some of the Cler­gy, by new Canons and Censures, to be provided against the Ignorance and Idleness of some, and the Irregularity and scandalous Behaviour of others, who either already are, or hereafter shall be admitted into the Ministry of the Church. But let us attend to his Answer to this Objecti­on, which we have p. 24. Is it possible to imagine, saith he, that those who have so eminently signaliz'd themselves in defence of the Church, and been Confessors for it, should turn their hands against it? No, It is affirmed before, that if they were admitted into the Convocation, they would agree to the intended Alterati­ons; and if any should then seperate, they are such as are most perversely bent against Reason and Conscience to do all the wickedness they can to gratifie a pee­vish humour; and therefore, he says, they that make this Objection, have a great deal to Answer for the injury which they do them by this slanderous and vile Imputation. For my part, I cannot be so confident, that those excel­lent Men would be so forward to make such Alterations, as this Author says they would; and I see the Objectors are not without Reason on their side; for if they are ready to suffer the loss of all that they have, rather than to offend their Consciences by assenting to some Civil Alte­rations in the State, (which what the Particulars be I cannot imngine, and therefore cannot judge of them) it may well be supposed, that they would be so tenderly conscientious in respect to the Constitutions of the Church, as not to assent to any Alterations that concern the safety, honour, and beauty thereof, without important Reasons. But what if they should adhere to the old Form, and not yield to the intended Al­terations; why then our Author hath advised for their ruine; For their number, saith he, is so small, their Proselytes will be so few, and the Resentments of the State will be so heavy on them, that they will be immediately crushed, and fall to nothing. Which will be very hard measure, that such excel­lent Men should not be allowed so much Liberty of Conscience as Ana­baptists and Quakers are, though they be known to be Men of sound Doctrine, and of peaceable and harmless Lives: But it is yet their hap­piness, that such as our Author is, are not made their Judges; for how we would deal with those Scare-crows (as he terms them) which Knaves [...] lift up, but none but Fools can be frighted with; would probably be [...] like the Knave than the Fool.

And to conclude, he thinks his Argument of Absolute Necessity so plain, that there can be no opposition, but from them that are afraid of their Church-power and Church-promotions, when they hear of Reformation: And in truth, that word was made an Engine of great mischief in the former Age 1642, when the Church-men suffered more than they fear, now under the present Government, whatever this Author and his Abetters may design; for he seems to threaten us, That if we will not be contented with a moderate and just Reformation, he knows not but the Nation may take the matter into their own hands, and bring us to that of Scotland, which, he says, we are so much afraid of, and deprive us of all: And then farewel our Church-promotions, and all their Revenues, which there will not want other Men to share among themselves, when such a thorow Reformation shall be made as the Scots once procured, and have again designed: And therefore I dare not trust the promise of this sin­gle person, whoever he be, (for I fear he hath not been as faithful to his former solemn engagements as he ought) That upon our Alterati­ons we shall find all the good success that can be desired; because, as he says, there are appearances, at present, to the contrary; and they of such an Aspect, as will much abate the Credit which he expects should be given to his promises; we had once very great promises from such a sort of Men, what a glorious King they would make of King Charles the First, and they did it; but it was by Martyrdom; and a godly Reformation was promised in the Church, but it proved a thorow Desolation of E­piscopacy, Liturgy, and all that was Sacred; and as it was their fault then, so it will be ours now, if we by our too great credulity shall expose our selves to ruine a second time, on a bare promse of a faithless Man.

Thus, Sir, I have reflected on these two Killing Letters, and shall not concern my self to enquire the Authors: They may be Papists, who by such Arts seek to divide, that they may destroy us; nor can I perceive any other end in either Letter, but the carrying on a design of Self-in­terest, and Secular advantages, on the ruine of the Church. The first Author discovers his palpable Ignorance, the second his visible Malice: The one fights as Don Quixot, with Windmills disturbing his Brain; The other acts as the Fur praedestinatus under a fatal necessity, by which he would excuse all his Cheats and Robberies, as if he could not do o­therwise, being under the power of an Absolute necessity; I shall leave it to the Convocation to conjecture who may be the Authors of these Letters, but that the One is a Minister of the Established Church, and the Other, as he pretends, of the Present Convocation, I cannot be perswaded, though he should swear to it; because by what is matter of fact, such Men have acted contrary to their Oaths, and solemn Subscriptions; and so I take my leave of them.