HAving Read and Consider'd the Preface to [The Protestant Reconciler] I now send you these Remarks upon it.

The Author professes Pag. 58. (of that Preface) That he does from his heart Conform to all that is requir'd by the Church of England; and yet a great part of the Preface is employ'd in pro­ducing Testimonies against the Lawfulness not only of [the Imposition it self] but also of [the things Impos'd;] we are told p. 25. out of Beza's Epistle to Bishop Grindal, That Men so oft do grievously Sin, as they do introduce into the Church of God any Ceremonies significative of Spiritual things, and that all Symbolical Rites should be en­tirely excluded from the Christian Church; And this (forsooth) must have a Hand set over against it in the margin, as if it ought to be taken for some very precious and valuable Truth.

We are told also by the same Divine, p. 26. That the Right of Crossing is not to be reckon'd among things Indifferent, but (as a thing) rather to be destroyed than the brazen Serpent of Hezekias. That they do best of all who are as diligent in the [Page 2] Abolishing the Rites of Crossing in Baptism, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, as they would be in Abolishing open Idolatry. And this also is thought fit to be Printed in another Character, and to be mark'd out with a marginal Hand, as if 'twere a Maxim of Infallible Truth.

A great many other Reproaches of our Cere­monies and their Imposition, are transcribed into the following Pages; as p. 27. That the Impo­sing our English Ceremonies, is a falling back to worse than the Ceremonies of Moses; to the Trifles and Refuse of human Traditions. That Queen Elizabeth was carry'd with a Zeal not according to Knowledge, in Commanding the Ʋse of them. Pag. 28. And that by that Imposition, the Fire of Contention was to the incredible offence of the Godly, as it were raised from Hell. That the white Linen Garments requir'd to be Ʋsed in Divine Service, are at the least signs of Idolatry, and Popish Super­stition.—with the Ʋse whereof Ministers defile themselves, and give offence to the Weak by their Example.—That to retain those Garments is to destroy the whole Body of the Church—That they ought not be Imposed (Pag. 30.) because all things are to be abandon'd which may any way▪ either by themselves or by accident, desile Gods Worship,—because they are contrary to the Purity of the Apostolical Worship, and smell of Popish Superstion; [Page 3] and are neither available to the Edification of the Godly, nor to Order, nor for Ornament, except that which is Whorish.—Because all Godly men will be offended with the Decree concerning Apparel.—And, it may much further Ʋngodliness, and at least give occasion of many Evils, and very grie­vous Superstitions: and the very Occasions of Evils are to be shun'd,—because 'tis God's Will (p. 31.) That after the Death of Christ, all Garments of Aaron and Levi should be Abolish'd.—That the Lord himself Commanded that all Ʋngodly and Vain Ceremonies should be driven away, when he charg'd utterly to destroy all things which appertain'd to those who should give Counsel to follow strange Gods; and to burn their Garments and all their Stuff, with Fire, that they might be an execrable thing unto the Lord.—Because the Imposing them ministers Offence to the Consciences of Weak Be­lievers,—which to do is very grievous and di­stastful to the Holy Spirit: and that Paul's Ex­ample of resolving always to abstain from Flesh rather than offend his Brother, gives a general Rule taken out of the Doctrin of Christ, (viz.) That no Indifferent thing is to be admitted, and yielded to, much less to be Ʋrg'd upon others, and least of all to be Commanded by Decree, if in the Admitting, Ʋrging, and Commanding of it, the Minds of Good Men, and Consciences of the Faithful be Offended.

[Page 4]Now this Prefacer did either look upon these kind of (paultry) Argumentations against our Ceremonies, and their Imposition, and these and a great many other Censorious Reproaches of them, as Valid Arguings, and Justifiable Reproach­es, or he did not; if he did not, to what end has he taken the Pains to Transcribe them? un­less he had a Fanatick Design of rendring our Church and State-Constitutions, odious by so doing? But if he does really judge them Valid and Justifiable, he is a strange Man that can from his heart Conform to all that is required by the Church of England, and yet imagine not only [the imposing and requiring] the Use of its Ce­remonies to be both without and against the Command of God, but also [the things requir'd and impos'd] to be some of them Signs of Ido­latry, and Popish Superstition; that Ministers de­file themselves with the use of them,—that they are only for Whorish Ornament; and such as where­at the Minds of Good Men, and the Consciences of the Faithful are Offended; and that such things ought not, for that very reason, either to be Imposed, or so much as Admitted, or Yielded to.

Besides, if he has Transcribed them as Reproach­es, in his own Opinion justifiable, he has by quo­ting those Passages out of other Writings, made them his own; And he has too plainly done so [Page 5] in his re-capitulation, p. 43. where he expresly Affirms, That judicious Beza [truly] saith, that these things (viz. Ceremonies required by the Church of England,) are not only unnecessary, but profitable for little if a Man use them aright. And (as if this were not Reproach enough) this Prefacer has no more Wit nor Judgement than to Add, and when they [Accidentally] do minister to Schisnt and all its fatal Consequences: and then again to Approve it as truly said by Beza, That to im­pose such Ceremonies, is to labour about Hay and Stubble, or rather, things more vain than they: And himself Affirms, That sad Experience shews, that they bring no Profit, but many Evils to the Church: and that 'tis our Duty to shun the Occa­sion of those Evils. By which Approbation of, and Compliance with these Censures of things required and imposed in our Church, I humbly conceive he has incurr'd the Penalty of Excom­munication, which is Decreed by Can. 4. against those who Affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England, Established by Law, and Contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, is a Corrupt, Su­perstitious, or Ʋnlawful Worship of God, or Con­taineth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures. By Can. 6. against those Who Affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of [Page 6] England, by Law Established, are Wicked, Anti­christian, or Superstitious. By Can. 10. Conse­quentially, For that Canon Excommunicated those Separatists from the Church of England, who take upon them the Name of another Church, and pre­sume to publish that this their pretended Church hath a long time Groaned under the Burden of cer­tain Grievances, imposed upon the Members thereof, by the Church of England. And 'tis the drift of this Man's Preface and Book, to load the Church it self with the Burden of this Reproachful Com­plaint.

Besides the Opinion which this Prefacer owns as true, That the Ceremonies required in the Church of England, do bring no Profit, but many Evils to the Church, is a flat Contradiction to the Doctrin of the 30th. Canon, touching the Use of the Cross in Baptism, (viz.) That the Christians shortly after the Apostles Time, used it in all their Actions, thereby making an outward Shew and Pro­fession, even to the Astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to Acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour, who Dyed for them upon the Cross. And this Sign they did not only use them­selves with a kind of Glory, when they met with any Jews; but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned, to dedicate them by that Badge to His Service whose Benefits bestowed upon [Page 7] them in Baptism, the Name of the Cross did re­present; and this Ʋse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one consent and great applause: at what time if any had opposed them­selves against it, they would certainly have been Censur'd as Enemies of the Name of the Cross, and consequently of Christs Merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure.

And what must this Prefacer then be counted, who in complyance with Father Beza, Father Zanchy, and Father Calvin, (as he pretends Pag. 23.) Censur'd this and other Ceremonies as Fooleries, and the endeavouring to uphold them, as Labouring about Hay and Stubble, or rather about things more vain than they: and brands them as things bringing no Profit, but many Evils to the Church: whereas this Canon you see, expresly teaches the contrary; and tho' it Acknowledges that in process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome, especially after the Corruption of Popery had once possessed it, yet withal it affirms that the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the Lawful Ʋse of it. Nay so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England, (says the Canon,) to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in [Page 8] all things which they held and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of Sober Men. In which respect, among some other very Ancient Ceremonies, the sign of the Cross in Baptism, hath been retained in the Church. For the very remembrance of the Cross, which is very precious to all them that rightly Believe in Jesus Christ, and in the other respects mention'd, the Church of England hath retained still the sign of [...]in Baptism; following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches, and ac­counting it a Lawful, Outward Ceremony, and Honourable Badge, whereby the Infant is Dedi­cated to the Service of Him that dy'd upon the Cross.

In the next place I observe that this Prefacer confesses, Pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have no Power to dispense with the Laws [for Uniformity] or to make any Proposals for the healing of our Breaches: and if they have no such Power, I wonder upon what grounds this Author assumes to himself the Power of making such Proposals; and such as would destroy the Act of Uniformity, and Metamorphose the Common-Prayer-Book, into a Directory.

I know he has produced the Testimony of [Page 9] King James, King Charles the First, and King Charles the Second, to justifie the design of his Book; but with how little Reason, Candor, and Ingenuity he has done it, I shall leave you to judge when you have consider'd the reflexions I have to make upon them.

As to that of K. James, it may suffice 1. To remember that notwithstanding that excellent determination (as the Prefacer styles it) his Ma­jesty was so far from changing, or antiquating, or so much as dispensing with the Ceremonies of the Church of England, that he ratified them anew, and gave those Divines who appear'd against them at the Conference at Hampton-Court, a Severe Reprimand for scrupling Conformity to them upon such inconsiderable Reasons as were then urg'd for those Scruples; and this Establish­ment he continued all his Reign.

2. To take Notice that whereas this Writer calls that which Casaubon represents as K. James his Opinion [a golden Sentence] and which fully justifies all which he pleads for; the words of that Golden Sentence as quoted by himself, do only affirm, That those things which by the Constitutions of Men without the Word of God, were for a time received into the Church of God, [may be Changed] Mollified, Antiquated. And this too is so far from being there his [Page 10] Majesties peremptory Determination, that 'tis only said, his Majesty [Thinks, Conceives, Be­lieves] they may be antiquated. Whereas this Writer is not content to think our Church-Con­sti [...]utions May be, but the whole scope of his Book is to prove they Ought to be alter'd and antiquated.

3. That which his Majesty is said to Believe, does in the quotation refer not to All, but only to Most Ecclesiastical Observations, and there­fore it is not evident from that quotation, That our Church-Ceremonial-Observations, are in the number of those which the King Conceived might be antiquated.

For which reasons this first quotation signified little to this Writers purpose, supposing it a Candid and Impartial quotation, which because I have not that Epistle by me, I have not at pre­sent the opportunity of examining.

But if this Prefacer has treated King James, in this Testimony, no more candidly and inge­nuously than he has. King Charles in the next, he has in plain English play'd the Knave with two Kings. For hapning to have the [Exact Col­lections] by me, I consulted the Kings Answer to that Remonstrance of the State of the King­dom, and there found (p. 26. of that Collecti­on) immediately after the words by him quoted, [Page 11] these following:—Provided that this Case be attempted and pursued with that modesty, temper, and submission, that in the mean time the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom be not disturbed, the Decency and Comliness of Gods Service discounte­nanced, nor the Pious, Sober, and Devout Actions of those Reverend Persons, who were the first La­bourers in the Blessed Reformation—scandalised, and defamed. Which Proviso being added, does so cramp and consine the Condescension spoken of in the former words, that they are on that account rendred insignificant to the Writers de­sign; and so they are upon another. For they only say, That his Majesty would willingly comply with the Advice of a Parliament, for the making a Law to Exempt Tender-Consciences from Pu­nishment or Prosecution; but does not say, either that 'twas [the duty] of a Parliament to give him such Advice, nor that [it was his own duty] to comply with it when given: and yet nothing less than this will suffice to make this, or any other Testimony pertinent and adequate to this Authors attempt.

For which reason therefore his next Testimo­ny from the Declaration of King Charles the Second, is as insignificant to his purpose as this: For neither in that from Breda, nor in the other concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, does his Majesty [Page 12] Acknowledge it his Duty at that time not to im­pose the use of the Ceremonies on Tender Con­sciences: nor if he had, would it thence follow, either that it is, or that his Majesty thinks it his duty [now] to gratifie them by such an Indul­gence: and yet even this also is requisite to make Testimonies pertinent to our Authors design; which (as himself words it p. 4. of his Book) is to prove that things indifferent which may be changed and altered without Sin, or violation of Gods Laws, ought not, especially under our present Circumstances, to be imposed by Superiors as the Conditions of Communion: or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things.

Besides, who that has any sense of the mea­sures and obligations of Loyalty, or so much as Civility, can think it tolerable in any man, (espe­cially in a Church-man as this Author is said to be) to treat the King at this rate, and to urge this Declaration in the behalf of Dissenters now, when tis so well known that his Majesty him­self thought fit to vacate it within two years after its publication, by consenting to the Act of Parliament for Uniformity: which Act ac­quaints us that his Majesty had duly considered the Book of Common-Prayer, as then framed (which re-imposed the use of the Ceremonies) and had fully approved and allowed the same, and recom­mended [Page 13] it to that Parliament, that the said Book—should be Appointed to be used—under such Sanctions and Penalties as the House of Parliament should thing fit—From which Approbation and Consent of his Majesty, we ought to con­clude that he was then made very sensible how unworthy the Dissenters were of that Li­berty which he at first designed them, and how mischievous 'twould prove to the Concerns both of Church and State: and that 'twas neither just nor reasonable it should be allowed them. And accordingly that Act assures us, that nothing conduceth more to the setling of the Peace of this Nation—nor to the honour of our Religion, and the Propagation thereof, then an universal Agree­ment in the Publick Worship of Almighty God.

An excellent determination this! and a very golden sentence! and yet this Gentleman pre­tends humbly to conceive the quite contrary (p. 8.) and to think that the united Judgement of the whole Nation cannot frame a better or a more unexceptionable Expedient for a firm and lasting Concord, then the Liberty indulged by the Kings Declaration, which required neither Cere­monies, nor Subscription, nor Oath of Canoni­cal Obedience.

But I confess he speaks there of an Expedi­ent for a firm and lasting Concord of these [Page 14] distracted Churches] by which expression what the man means would perhaps be worth the knowing: and the rather because the word [Churches] is printed in a different Character. A suspicious man may reasonably enough con­jecture that he honours the Conventicles of Sepa­ratists with the Name of Churches, in opposition to Canon 10. before cited; if not, what Churches in England are so distracted, as to render his unexceptionable Expedient necessary to their Concord?

But is not that a very pleasant Question which he puts (p. 9.) If as the Kings Royal Word assures us, the Reverend Bishops in the Year 60. did think such Concessions made by his Royal Person, and Authority, to allay the (then) pre­sent distempers very Just and Reasonable, and cheerfully would conform themselves thereunto, why should we now conceive they should be of another mind in 82?

To which Question I Answer seriously,

1. That the Kings Royal Word, as quoted by this Writer (p. 6.) does not assure us that the Bishops [did] then think so, but only that his Majesty had not the least doubt but that they would think so. However, on supposition he had quoted the Kings Words truly p. 39. I An­swer, 2. We may well conceive it, because his [Page 15] Majesty himself was of another mind in 62. and appears now to be of the same mind he was then, being so far from indulging, that he commands the Laws to be vigorously executed against Dissenters.

But does this man indeed fancy that the Case and Reason of things, is the same now in 82. that those parts of the King's Declaration which he has quoted, represent it to have been in 60? Has he the Simplicity to believe himself, or the Confidence to desire others to believe, that the Dissenters are as innocent now, as that Declara­tion acquaints us, his Majesty then found those whom he Confer'd with?

Can he tell us where these Presbyterians are now to be met with, who shew themselves (as it seems those did at the time there spoken of) Persons full of Affection towards the King, or Zeal for the Peace of the Church and State, and neither Enemies to Episcopacy, nor Liturgy, but modestly desire such Alterations in either, as without shaking the Foundations, may best allay the pre­sent distempers? or can he tell us, where those men of other Persuasions are now to be found, who all approve Episcopacy, and a set Form of Lyturgy? (p. 6.)

Nay, have not the Leaders of several Parties sadly demonstrated themselves to be men of a [Page 16] quite contrary temper, since the discovery of the Popish Plot? some employing the best Reason, some the best Wit they had, others the most un­godly Arts that a lying, slandring, spiteful, ma­licious humor could supply them with, to the prejudice of our Church and its Constitutions, and to the rendring not only its Ceremonies, but also its Episcopacy and Lyturgy, Odious and Ri­diculous.

But whatever others may possibly think of our Bishops, and their averseness from condescen­ding in matters of Ceremony, this Prefacer, p. 9. prosesses to think with the Reverend Dean of Canterbury, that we have no cause to doubt, but the Governours of our Church are Persons of that Piety, and Prudence, that for Peace sake, and in order to a firm Ʋnion among Protestants, they would be content, if that would do it, not to insist on little things, but yield them up to the infir­mity, or importunity of those that differ from them.

Which Passage having been long since inge­niously descanted upon (in a Polio-Pamphlet, whose Title I cannot now call to mind) I shall let it pass, but not without this Profession, that I hope there is now no one Bishop, nor [would-be-Bishop] Living, who would yield, and yield, and yield up so much of the Church-Constitutions [Page 17] to Dissenters, till he has left the Dissenters nothing to yield up to the Church.

In p. 10. the Learned and Judicious Judge Hale, is brought in as a Favourer of Condescen­sion to moderate Non-conformists; and as one who drew up a Bill for Comprehension of some, and a limited Indulgence to others. And this we are told upon the Credit of Dr. Burnet, whose Testimony Valeat quantum valere potest. Nay, he is brought in as one who declar'd it his Judgement, That the only means to heal us was a new Act of Ʋniformity, which should neither leave all at Liberty, nor impose any thing but Necessary—And this we are told upon the Credit of Mr. Baxter, who, I doubt, may say as the Dr. aforesaid does of himself (in the Pre­face p. 8. to his History of the Rights of Princes) I know this will not be the more believed for my saying it.

Now that 'tis not naturally Impossible that such words should be spoken by Judge Hale, who can deny? but that he did actually declare his judgement in those Terms, who can believe, that is at all acquainted with the Parts and In­tellectuals of that Great Man?

For sure he had more Wit than to call that an Act for [Ʋniformity] which would leave [Page 18] men at Liberty, as to the Order, Modes, Cir­cumstances, and Ceremonies of Publick Worship; and more Consideration than not to reflect that an Act which imposes nothing but what's Ne­cessary, will certainly leave men to that Liberty; and a Person of more Skill in the measures of Government, and the needs of Human Society, than to propose That, as the only means for the healing the breaches of this Nation in mat­ters of Religion, which was never yet made use of for the Cementing of any National So­ciety of men, or the effecting Union and Con­cord among them.

For I dare Challenge this Author (if I had the opportunity) to shew me where there is, or ever was such a Society, whose Union, Order, and Government, was conserv'd or design'd to be conserv'd by the imposing on them nothing but necessary things: meaning by [necessary things] such only as God's Word has made so, and as are contra-distinguish'd to all things in their own nature Indifferent; and so this Prefacer must understand this Testimony, if it be pertinent to the design of his Book.

The 16. 17. and 18. Pages are taken up wi [...]h Dr. Stillingfleet's Opinion touching this Affair; which because I had occasion to consider soon after that Book of his [the Ʋnreasonable­ness [Page 19] of Separation] was publish'd, I shall now impart to you the result of that consideration; which was

1. That if any one should affirm That that Preface of the Doctors had destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book: And 2. That it has effectually destroyed that Church of England, which he had taken pains to defend in his Book: I did not see how the Doctor could purge himself from the Accusation.

In the third Part of the Book, and twenty sixth Section, the Doctor defends our Churches Terms of Communion, and proves that there's no Un­lawfulness in them; particularly not in the sign of the Cross, Kneeling at the Communion, the Re­ligious Observation of Holidays, the constant Ʋse of the Lyturgy, nor the Ʋse of God-Fathers, and God-Mothers in Baptism. The Lawfulness of all which▪ except that of the constant Ʋse of the Ly­turgy, which he Acknowledges-done very well to his hand by Dr. Falkner, he defends by Answer­ing whatsoever was urg'd against them by his Adversaries. Pag. 332, 333. &c.

And yet in the Preface, p. 83. he represents it as most adviseable, either wholly to take away the Sign of the Cross, or to leave it Indifferent as the Parents shall desire, or not desire: besides which he would have Kneeling at the Sacrament dis­pensed [Page 20] with as to those that scruple it—and several Alterations made in the setled Practice of our Church, as to the Use of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism. And to justifie this changing of our Church-Constitutions, he makes use of such a Motive and Argument, as the truth is, if it prove any thing, proves those Constitutions unlawful, and therefore that they ought to be abolish'd.

For, 1. What less than this can reasonably be inferr'd from these words of his, p. 82. I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church, to remove those Barrs (that is, the matter of the Dissenters scruplings and excep [...]ings against the Sacramental Offices) from a freedome in joyning in full Communion with us.] The most obvious and pertinent meaning of which words is, That it is such a part of Wisdome and Condescen­sion as Christianity obliges our Governors to; and if they are obliged to it by vertue of the Chri­stian Religion, it is certainly their duty to be so Wise and Condescending.

But 2. in the immediately preceding Lines, he urges this Argument for that Condescension; (viz.) because the Ʋse of Sacraments in a Chri­stian Church [ought] to be the most free from all Exception; and they [ought] to be so Admini­stred, [Page 21] as rather to invite, than discourage scrupu­lous Persons from joyning in them. Which Ar­gument, if valid, will effectually destroy, not only the prescription of those Ceremonies, but several other things of the like kind, which the men of Scruples are, or shall be pleased to except against; particularly, 'twill be as valid against the Use of a set Form of words in those and other sacred Administrations, because even that, discourages abundance of scrupulous Persons from joyning in any of the Publick Services of our Church; all which therefore will be effe­ctually destroyed by that Argumentation.

Besides which, he mentions p. 92. several other mutations for the satisfaction of the scru­pulous, which p. 93. he thinks reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union, As the explain­ing or amending some more doubtful and obscure passages in the Common-Prayer-Book; the use of the New Translation of the Psalms, (in Parochial Churches at least) the charging of the Apochry­pha-Lessons, for portions of Canonical Scripture; the leaving at liberty those Expressions in the Office for Burial, which suppose the good Estate of the Person buried: the restoring the Rubrick about the Salvation of Infants, to its former place in the Office of Confirmation, and so removing the pre­sent exceptions against it: by which last I confess, [Page 22] I do not well know what he means; because I do not discern how the placing it in the Office of Confirmation, will remove the present scruples against it; those scruples being about its truth; and the Proposition contain'd in that Rubrick will certainly be no truer in one Office, than in the other.

Now since 'tis plain that the Preface does thus endeavour to undermine and destroy so many of our Church-Constitutions, which yet the Book endeavours to uphold and maintain; and since he does it by an Argument which if rational and cogent, does as plainly infer the continuing those Constitutions, especially those of them that belong to the Sacraments, to be no part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in our Governours, but inconsistent with it, and with that freeness, from all exceptions, which ought to be the constant Attendant of those Administra­tions, I think 'tis evident that the Preface does, at least virtually, and consequentially, destroy, and render unlawful what the Book defends as lawful.

Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface, and another part; between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary, (Pag. 82. and 93.) and this passage, Pag. 89. which implies [Page 23] they are neither necessary nor reasonable. For there he says, [we do heartily and sincerely desire Ʋnion with our Brethren, if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms; but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it, so as to condemn its Constitution, or make the Ce­remonies unlawful which have been hitherto ob­served and practised in it: if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Conscien­ces, without reflecting on our own; if they can be taken in without Reproach, or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church, I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it.]

Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with, and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices, upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them, whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren; be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church, as to condemn its Constitution, and to make the Ce­remonies unlawful, which have hitherto been observed and practised in it, I leave you to judge; as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms, will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church, which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable, and as such [Page 24] hath ever since continu'd them, without imagi­ning that continu'd Imposition, inconsistent with Christian Wisdom, or with any regard that's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men, relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church. To which trou­blesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of [Brethren] more than once in the later end of the Preface, which is it self, in my Opinion, too absurd a contradiction to that Book, whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks.

He tells us Pag. 364. That 'twas the great Wisdom of our Church, not to make more things ne­cessary as to Practice, than were made so at the Settlement of the Reformation; but whether there be sufficient reason to alter those Terms of Commu­nion, which were then settled, for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless, and endless, I do not (says he) take upon me here to determin.

And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface; especially to determin it, so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church, as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity, in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union, with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless, and which (as himself Affirms p. 372.) might be remov'd by a little Im­partiality, [Page 25] and [...]lue consideration;—there being no depth of Learning, no subtilty of Reasoning, no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them; but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass, that men may see light if they will.

And why ours, or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom, for not complying with such humersom Persons, or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters, I confess I do nor understand.

Now these Premises being duly consider'd, do I think abundantly justifie the first charge, and make it too reasonable to adhere to this con­clusion, that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book.

And in reference to the other charge, that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to de­fend in his Book. The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good, that (for ought I see) no more need to be added to that End, than the bare application of them to that Censure, and to the Doctor's own Notion of the Church of England. For he asserts p. 249. of his Book, that the National Church of England diffusive, is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation, consisting of Pastors and People, agreeing [Page 26] in that Faith, Government and Worship, which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm.—And Pag. 302. All Bishops, Ministers, and People, taken together, who profess the Faith so Establish'd, and worship God according to the Rules so Ap­pointed, make up this National Church of England. And this is [the Church of England] which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book.

If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith, but also from its consent in Worship­ping God, according to such and such Rules, he that would destroy those Rules, will consequently destroy that Church, which is denominated such, and diversified from other Churches, by its em­bracing and adhering to those Rules. But it ap­pears from the premises, that the Doctor's Pre­face would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules, and that upon such an account, and for such reasons, as do consequen­tially destroy that Order, and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law; and there­fore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book.

These are all the things, (says the Dr.) which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Ʋnion: and which I suppose may be Granted [Page 27] without detriment, or dishonour to our Church; And (says this Writer) these are all I plead for in this Book.

But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors; The Reverend Dean supposes they [may be] Granted, but this Author endeavours to prove they [ought] to be Granted.

2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed, yet to make them appear so to others, he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd. And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book, yet the Arguments he makes use of, if they prove any thing, prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions; even all that enjoyn any Indifferents, whereby our Brother is offen­ded. (Chap. 3.)

And therefore whereas he adds here: As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy, and the right Constitution of our Churches, and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop, and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him; I know not how to plead for them, without pleading for Schism, Confusion and Dis­order.

[Page 28]I doubt his Arguments will, if they prove any thing, prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy, and require Obedience to Episcopal Government, as to impose Ceremonies. For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren, are mightily offended with those Constitutions also: And I doubt himself is not so strong and hardy, as to affirm that our Ly­turgy and Diocesan Episcopacy, are things foun­ded on a Divine unchangeable Law. And if they be not, his Arguments will conclude against them, as well as against the imposition of Ce­remonies.

As for the Testimonies which follow pag. 23. 24. &c. my Remarks on them are these:

1. Some of them I confess seem to speak home to this Author's design: and pretend that our Ceremonies ought to be abolish'd: but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mention'd by him, out of the Epistles of Judicious Beza, and Learned Zanchy, I'll be bold to say that it is good for little, but to prove the Author a very weak Brother.

2. He shewed himself too near of kin to such a [...] Brother, in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styl'd our Ceremonies Follies, but owning that [Page 29] affirmed them Tolerable Follies, and then writing a great Book himself to prove them intolerable. But as to that Censure which Calvin is said to pass upon our Ceremonies, see Durell's [Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae] Cap. 12. where he makes it more than probable, That that Censure was not meant of our Ceremonies, nor of the English Lyturgy as it wa in it self at that time: but as it was knavishly represented to him by the English Sectaries of those days.

3. I observe that several of his Testimonies pag. 38. &c. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governours, of this or that particular Church, to bear with, and indulge the Members of their own Church, in matters indifferent, but of the Duty (only) of one Protestant Church (pag. 40. 41.) towards another: viz. That if both Churches agree in Fundamentals—their differences in other matters may be Tolerated. (pag. 38. 40.) The Reformed Churches, say the Geneva-Doctors, (pag. 40.) ought to maintain a Brotherly Affecti­on towards one another, &c.—The Protestant-Churches, says the Transylvanian, (pag. 41.) are to be mov'd, notwithstanding their differences, to exercise Moderation, Compassion, and Mutual Tole­ration—And so the Professors of Aberdeen, (pag. 42. 43.)

The possibility of this Exception the Prefacer [Page 30] himself was aware of, and therefore endeavours to enervate it, pag. 57. by Asking, What reason can be given why these conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches, should not obtain a­mongst the Member of the same Christian Church? And pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamen­tals, which is sufficient to preserve Communion be­twixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies, and Doctrines of inferior moment, may not be suffici­ent also to preserve Communion among the members of the same Church, though disagreeing in like matters?

As if there where no difference, between two Societies, neither of which is subject to, or depen­dant upon the other, nor have any Governour common to them both; and the members of the same Society, or several Societies united under, and subject to such or such a Governour, or Governours. Where two Societies are indepen­dent one upon another, there being no common Governour to take care of Order, and the things relating to it among them; each of them is left to the management of its respective Gover­nour or Governours; and to them the care of the Publick Worship to be perform'd by that Society belongs; who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly, decent, and reverent manner, and to constitute such Modes, [Page 31] Rites and Ceremonies, as they judge most con­venient to that End: And when they have so done, what has any other Church, which, in the Case suppos'd, cannot justly pretend to any superiority over them, I say, what has such a Church to do to call in question their Con­stitutions? in any Authoritative way, I mean. And therefore to talk of its being the duty of one Protestant Church to [tolerate] another, that's Independent upon it, and differs from it in matters of outward Order, is, at least, a very improper way of speaking. If by [tolerating] those Testimonies mean only that they should not Censure and Condemn the other Church that so differs from them, and if this Writer be of the same mind in this with the Authors of those dictates, (and if he be not, why does he quote them as Testimonies favouring his pretensions?) then himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy, a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governours of the Church of England, for their thinking fit to retain such and such Cere­monies.

But what does this Prefacer mean by [Conditi­ons of Communion] and [Preserving Communion] in these questions? Does it follow that because these Testimonies make it the Duty of one Protestant Church so far to Accord with another, [Page 32] that agrees with it in Fundamentals, and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies, or other matters extra-Fundamental, as [not fastidiously to reject, or Anathematise that Church. P. 43.] on Account of any such difference, that therefore they make it the duty of each Church to ad­mit the members of the other Church, to [all sorts] of Communion meerly because they agree in Fundamentals? If he fancy that to be their meaning, let him instance if he can in any one Protestant Church, that will receive others to Sacramental Communion meerly because they hold the Fundamentals of Christian Faith.

This Man has undertaken to maintain, That things Indifferent ought not to be imposed as Conditions of Communion, or as Conditions without which none shall partake of the publick Ordinances; but does he imagine that if he go to Geneva, he shall be admitted to the Com­munion there without submitting to the Cere­monies of Reception, there enjoyn'd? in particular, that they'll give it him unless he [stands] when he receives it? I am sure Durell in the fore­mention'd Vindiciae, Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of Englands imposing Kneeling on all Communicants, tells us that in that it chal­lenges no greater a Power to it self, than other Reformed Churches do. (pag. 235.) And that [Page 33] as the Churches of the Lutheran Confession will give the Communion only to those that Kneel; so the French, and Geneva Churches will give it to none but such as Stand in the Act of Re­ceiving.

Whereas therefore this Author would gladly know (pag. 58.) Why that Agreement in Fun­damentals, which is sufficient to preserve Commu­nion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies—may not be sufficient also to pre­serve Communion among the Members of the same Church, though disagreeing in such Matters?

I Answer, That the Communion which his own Testimonies speak of as preserv'd thereby, is only (for ought I see) that which consists in not Censuring and Anathematising, or Disowning them as True Churches, though differing in such matters; which as it scarce deserves the Name of Communion, so 'tis too far remov'd from the Nature of that Communion which this Book pleads for, to make these Testimonies pertinent to that Plea.

And whereas he pretends in the same Page, that the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ, should be received and owned as Christians, and Brethren of the same Commu­nion with us is, because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christ's Body, [Page 34] I Answer, by denying that to be the true, and adequate Reason; for the true Reason is, be­cause in the Case supposed of two Churches in­dependent one on the other, and not subject to any Common Governour, the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other, and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it meerly for disagreeing from it in matter of Ceremony: but if any of the members of one of the Churches refuse to sub­mit to the Rites appointed by their own proper Governours, their Agreement in Fundamentals is no sufficient ground why either their own, or the other Church, should receive them to Sacra­mental Communion.

He says indeed, that those Differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body:

But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christs Body, ought eo no­mine, to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion? if he does, he must either deny that any real member of Christs Body can do any notorious wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed, or else he must condemn our Church for requiring the Minister of each Parish to repell such a Person from the Communion, till either he makes actual recompence for the Injury, or declare himself fully resolv'd to do it [Page 35] when conveniently he may. If not, then the meer consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christs Body does not oblige any (in whose Power it is) to admit him to all those Privileges.

2. Does he hold that meer agreeing in Fun­damentals is all that's required to the being a real member of Christ? If not, then neither is that sufficient to qualifie a man for all the Pri­vileges of Christian Communion.

3. I suppose he will not deny that there are Practical as well as Speculative Fundamentals; and I presume he is of Opinion, That Obedi­ence to our Lawful Governours, in things Law­ful, is one of the Fundamentals of Practice. If he denies the former, he contradicts the Doctrin of some of his own Testimonies; which affirm▪ That there are Fundamental Articles of Faith; without which, Christian Faith cannot subsist, nor. Everlasting Life be obtain'd: and That there are (also) Fundamental Heads of Discipline. (p. 56.) and that those are so which promote and maintain the means of Salvation, and without which we cannot live a Christian Life. And that whosoever perishes, must be separated from the Foundation by some Fundamental Error in Doctrin, or in Practice: which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice, as well as Belief.

[Page 36]As to the latter, he confesses (pag. 187. of his Book) That in those matters which are not apparently forbidden by the clear Word of God, men ought to yield Obedience to the Commands of their Superiours; and if he will own that they ought to do so on pain of Damnation, as I hope he will, then 'tis a Fundamental Duty, even in his own account. That Christian therefore that does not think it such a Duty, is by this Doctrin guilty of a Fundamental Error in reference to Christian Practice; and he who does think it his duty, and does not Act accordingly, is guilty of a damnable Neglect.

Now I desire to know of this Author

1. Whether meer agreeing to Fundamentals, whether of Belief, or Practice, that is, assenting to them, will constitute, and continue a man a real member of Christs Body, without, at least, resolving to Act accordingly, if there be not time for more, and the performance of that Re­solution if there be?

2. Whether differences in the Fundamentals of Practice, will not hinder men from being real members of Christs Body?

3. Whether though they agree in the Fun­damentals of Practice, that is, own and assent to them, as matter of necessary Duty in order to Salvation, yet if they persist in the Neglect of any [Page 37] part of such Duty, they ought to be own'd by the Church, either as real members of Christ, or as Persons, to whom belong all the Privileges of Christian Communion? If he says they ought, I desire to know

4. Why they should be acknowled'gd as Per­sons rightly qualified for the Privileges of Chri­stianity here, or its Rewards hereafter, who are either so Ignorant as not to know, or so negligent as not to Practise, that which Christia­nity has made Fundamentally necessary to Sal­vation, to be both Known and Practised?

Particularly I would willingly be inform'd by this man, whether account the preservation of the External Unity of the particular Church, whether National, Diocesan, or Parochial, of which men are members, a Fundamental of Practice, or no. If he does, how can he account those Per­sons real members of Christs Body, who are so far from preserving that Unity in either of those Churches, that they industriously destroy it in all of them: not submitting themselves to the Rules of Order and Government, appointed for either of them? If he does not, then why does he 1. expresly Acknowledge, That Schisms and Divisions, do apparently dissolve the Church-Ʋnity? And 2. (by asking those questions, pag. 28. of his Book) implicitely Acknowledge, [Page 38] That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline, and by renouncing Communion with us in our Publick Worship, sup­posing there be nothing Evil in it? And 3. pro­nounce all Separate Congregations Schismatical, for their not being subject to the Government of our Dio­cesans? p. 59. And then 4. Acknowledge the Sin of Schism to be an heinous, destructive, and per­nicious Evil: one of those fleshly works, which they who do, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. (Chap. 2. pag. 24. 25.) It must follow there­fore from his own Principles and Concessions, That they who are guilty of Schism, are guilty of Erring in a Fundamental of Practice.

Now since Schism is by his own Confession so pernicious an Evil; since by his own Con­fession, also refusing to be One with the Church of England, in Communion with its Publick Worship, is a Breach and Dissolution of Church-Unity, since also refusing subjection to the Go­vernment of our Diocesan Bishops, is dissolving the Unity of Discipline, and therefore Schis­matical; and since all separate Congregations in this Nation, are in his own Opinion, guilty of Schism, 'tis evident▪

1. That the members of those Congregati­ons, either do Not Agree in all the Fundamentals of Practice, or else do Not Act suitably to that [Page 39] Agreement, but are so far from it, that they per­sist in Schismatical Practices, contrary to the dictate of their Judgement and Conscience.

2. That they are not of the same Commu­nion with us, and

3. That the Pleas which this Prefacer makes use of in their behalf, pag. 58. (viz.) Their Agreement in Fundamentals, and their being real members of Christs Body, are very insuffi­cient, because by dissolving (as much as in them lie,) the Unity of the Church of England, and its Discipline, they practically differ in a Fun­damental of Christianity. And by being Schis­maticks they disown themselves to be Persons of the same Communion with us, nay are guilty of a capital Error, and a customary Crime, which excludes men while impenitently persever'd in, from the Kingdom of Heaven; and therefore they ought not while in those circumstances, to be accounted persons of the same Communion with us, or real members of Christs Body.

I have now consider'd several things, which I thought fit to be taken notice of in this Preface, and in the many Testimonies quoted by the Prefacer, as so many justifications of the design of his Book. But how ill they are suited to that pur­pose, at least for the generality of them, is I think apparent enough from the Reflexions I have here [Page 40] made upon them. But I wish heartily I had been in or near some Library, where I might have had the opportunity of examining the quo­tations, and consulting the Authors quoted; for then possibly I might have discovered much more impertinency in the quotations, and insincerity in the quoter.

'Tis plain the Author has ingag'd himself in a very bold Attempt. He has undertaken to prove, That things indifferent, which may be changed and altered without sin, ought not, especially under our present Circumstances, to be impos'd by Supe­riours as the Conditions of Communion, or of mini­stration in Sacred Things. And consequently he has undertaken to prove, That all Churches or States, who have so imposed Indifferents, have by that Imposition, been guilty of violating the Law of God.

To Excuse which Attempt from the prejudice of Singularity, he pretends pag. 3. to strengthen it in his Preface, against that and other preju­dices, by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy persons, both of our own and other Churches, who have declar'd themselves (as he would perswade us) to be of the same Judgment, and have pursu'd the same Design.

Now besides all that has been already ob­jected to those Suffrages, if I had the opportunity [Page 41] of doing it, I would challenge the Author to evince, that any tolerable number of the Suffrages which he has produc'd, are pertinent and punctual to his design, as worded by himself.

That design consists of Two Parts, one more general; That things indifferent, which may be alter'd without Sin, ought not to be impos'd as the Condition of Communion, or ministration in Sacred Things. The other more particular, That espe­cially they ought not to be impos'd under our present Circumstances, as the Conditions of Communion with us (of the Church of England.)

The Suffrages produc'd to rescue this design from the imputation of Singularity, (amount in the Contents of the Preface) to about 35. Now let him manifest if he can,

1. That so much as one of those Suffrages speaks particularly of our [present] Circumstances here in England. I mean those Circumstances, that were present to the publishing of his Book.

2. Let him manifest if he can, That among his 35 Suffrages, there are so many as five that affirm it unlawful to make Indifferents, which are Alterable without Sin, the Conditions of Church-Communion, and Ministration. Nay I doubt he cannot manifest that so much as one of them comes fully up to this design of his Book: But if the major part, or two parts in [Page 42] three of the Testimonies be impertinent, what shall we think of that man who has the confi­dence and conscience to write at such a rate, and pretend so much when the proof falls so intole­rably short of the pretense?

Besides, if my memory fail me not, I have seen a Book heretofore, which Answer'd Cressy, against Dr. Pierce's Sermon, meerly by quoting passages out of Authors extant before that Book of Cressy's, which contained sufficient Answers to the most material parts of it. And I believe that this Author could have done the like in reference to this Preface; I mean, that he could have heaped up as many and as pertinent Testimo­nie, out of the Writings of single Persons, and Acknowledgments of Church-Societies, in favour of this Position, That it is lawful to make things Indifferent which may be altered without Sin, the conditions of Church-Communion and Mini­stration, as he has pretended here in favour of the Contradictory; and if he could, I leave it to you to judge with what sincerity he could profess (Pref. pag. 1.) that he was most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church of which he is a member, when he has in this Preface done it the grand dis-service of heaping up such a multitude of (pretended) Testimonies against the lawfulness of her Practice, and omitting the [Page 43] much greater number of pertinent Suffrages, which I have some reason to believe himself could have as easily produced in defence of that Practice.

But this Profession of his is very obnoxious upon another Account; for if he were at all sincere in making it, what ail'd him 1. to Print his Book at such a time? And 2. in English, At such a time? when he Acknowledges (pag. 9.) that the Bishops themselves have neither any Power to make such Concessions, as his Book would have to be made, no nor any Power to make any Pro­posals for the healing of our breaches, till by his Ma­jesty's Authority they meet in Convocation, for that end; And I do not think that this Gentleman had any prospect of a Parliaments being called soon after the publication of his Book; or that it is an Article of his Faith, that his Majesty may summon a Convocation to meet to that end, out of Parliament, and then what could the pub­lishing of such a Book at such a time be, but the promoting on his part, that which has been of late the grand Fanatical Design of such weak Brethren as Baxter, Alsop, Troughton, &c. viz. the rendring our Governors both in Church and State, odious by representing their Constitutions as unlawful, and attempting to prove them contradictory both to the Commands and Ex­ample of Christ and his Apostles? But what ail'd [Page 44] him 2. to compose and print his Book in English? was it because he expected either a Parliament or Convocation, whose major part should be made up of Clergy-men, or Gentlemen so ill bred as not to understand Latin? or did not the Au­thor understand it himself so well as to write a Book in it? or did he publish it in English for the sake of the weak Brethren, and the devout Sisters, that they might be furnished with Argu­ments against Ceremony-Imposing-Laws, from one end of the Gospels and Epistles, to the other? For he has shewed himself so dexterous in dis­cerning and multiplying prejudices, and excepti­ons against such Constitutions, that 'tis to be hoped a little more improvement of his Topical Parts, may gain him Parker's faculty of Espying in those Impositions in general, as he did in the Use of the Cross in particular, a contradiction to all the Ten Commandments.

Now for a man to put forth such a Book against those Impositions for the sake of illite­rate English men, who 1. have no power at present to retrench, or null, the Impositions; nor 2. are ever like to have: who 3. are like to make a most mischievous use of it, to the dishonour, and prejudice of the Church, and yet to pretend himself most unwilling to do the least dis-service to the Church, is so palpably [Page 45] Protestatio contra factum, that hardly any thing can be more so.

But why talks he only of doing dis-service to [the Church?] as if that only were concern'd, when the contents and design of his Book, cast as great a slur upon, and tend as much to the reproach and disparagement of [the State] as of [the Church;] for he knows well enough, that the Laws enjoyning Uniformity, and imposing our Ceremonies, are made by the King, and that with the Consent not only of the Lords Spiri­tual, but Temporal also, and the Commons, so that this Author in thus attempting to prove those Laws repugnant to the Law of God, and inconsistent with so many of the grand momentous obligations of Christianity, is so far from shewing himself un­willing to do dis-service to the Church, that he has spent a great deal of time and pains, and employed (as one may guess) the utmost of his Art and Industry, to do as great a dis-service to that, and the State both, as (for ought I know) he could possibly do it with his Pen; for what greater dis-service can there be done in that way to any Government, than to Assert and Main­tain a Position, from which it follows by unde­niable consequence; That the Governours of this or that Nation, have for multitudes of Years successively agreed, in Enacting Laws contra­dictory [Page 46] to the Practice and Commands, the Exhortations, Arguings, and Examples of both Christ and his Apostles?

For this is the immediate consequent of this Position, and his manner of proving it, That Su­periours ought not to impose things Indifferent and Alterable without Sin, as the Conditions of Church-Communion, and Ministration.

Besides, what greater Affront could be offer'd to the King himself, then to publish such a Book, at that very time when His Majesty gave such de­monstration of his Resolutions to uphold and defend the Act for Uniformity, and of his Zeal for the Church, by requiring a strict and vigorous Execution of the Laws against Dissenters?

This man's undertaking therefore thus manag'd, in contradiction to the Laws of the Land, at a time when the King himself and inferiour Ma­gistrates were more industriously zealous in exe­cuting those Laws, than they have been for many years, is in my Opinion such a daring and impudent pragmaticalness, as ought to be en­countered and chastised with a Punishment as no­torious as the Crime.

Especially since, as was before intimated, I doubt not but this very Writer could have fill'd as many sheets as this Preface contains, with Testimonies justifying the Constitutions of [Page 47] our Church and State in matters indifferent; and I am confident, had I had but my own Li­brary about me, three parts whereof are still at Oxford, I could have done so my self. But in some of the few Books I have here, I meet with such passages, as abundantly confirm me in that Confidence; and withall make me very much suspect this Prefacer's sincerity and ingenuity, in quoting. For whereas he has in this Preface quoted Beza as an Enemy to all Symbolical Rites, (pag. 25) and affirming that they should be en­tirely excluded from the Christian Church; and Zanchy as an Enemy to our Ceremonies—and besides pretended pag. 35. That 'twere endless to set down all that Bucer, Calvin, Chamier, Daneus, Farel, Povanus, Ʋrsin, and Zipper, with many others; have said against the Ʋse and Impo­sition of them, and [pag. 36.] that Cassander testi­fies (without telling us where he so testifies) that most have conceiv'd them fit to be condemned and abolished as foppish, ludicrous, ridiculous, yea as noxious and pernicious. Durell has given us such a different Account of things, as is very opposite to this Prefacer's pretensions.

For in his forementioned Book, Cap. 17. He Affirms that the Christian Church, from the Apostles time to this day, was never without, nor in the judgment of the most Learned and Famous [Page 48] Protestants, either can or ought to be without some significant Ceremonies, pag. 182. to which purpose he quoted the sentiments of Luther, Me­lancthon, and Calvin, pag. 186. and then said: I could here produce very many more of the most Learned, and Renowned Persons in the Reformed Churches, of the same Opinion with Luther, Melancthon and Calvin, in this point. Nor says he, do I remember to have read any Reform'd Writer of any Note, especially of those who were at the beginning of the Reformation, (whose Judgment and Authority is principally to be attended to in this dispute) who Con­demns significant Ceremonies meerly as such, if so be no supernatural vertue be attributed to them, for the producing Spiritual Effects; nor Religion placed in them, nor Merit, or Justifi­cation expected from the use of them. Out of which number he do's not except Beza himself: but proceeds to Vindicate him as to that very Passage which this Prefacer has quoted out of his Epistle to Bishop Grindal, (as if it were for his turn) and manifests that it ought not to be un­derstood of such Symbolical Rites as are de­sign'd to signifie only mens duty, but such only as are meant to signifie and exhibit Spiritual Pri­viledges, and the Divine Grace. And in his Sixteenth Chapter, he largely Answers that Epistle [Page 49] of Zanchy, quoted at large by this Prefacer, pag. 28. &c. against imposing Linnen Garments, and most of his Answers are taken out of Calvin, Bucer, P. Martyr, and Zanchy himself.

And as to our Churches retaining the Use of the Cross in Baptism, its Thirtieth Canon Acquaints us that That resolution and practice hath been allowed and approved—by the Harmony of Con­fessions of later years.

Now this Assertion of the Composers of that Canon, and those other of Durell as to the num­ber of Persons approving the Imposition of Ce­remonies, makes me very much suspect this Au­thor's ingenuity, and honesty in quoting.

And I doubt he has contented himself with quoting many Testimonies (besides those out of Gesselius,) pag 38. &c. only by Retale, and at second hand from others, without examining the quotations himself, and consulting the passa­ges as they lye in the Original Authors; which is an intolerable Neglect in any man that un­dertakes to Write and Publish a Discourse and Preface, of this Nature and Consequence.

And one quotation which makes me suspect this, is that Pag. 45. and 46. out of Baxter's Disput. of Human Ceremonies. Chap. 24. (it should be 14.) Sect. 3. R. 2. where he says: 'Tis shrewdly Argued by Mr. Baxter (against our [Page 50] Ceremonies)—This seems to be coming after Christ, to amend his Laws, correct his Works, and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church, than he himself hath done; for if Christ would have such Rites imposed on the Churches, he could better have done it himself, than have left it to man; for these Rites are equally necessary, or unnecessary throughout all Ages, and in all Places where Chri­stianity obtains. If Crossing, Kneeling, Surplice, he needful to be used in the Church of England, why not in all the Churches of the Saints? If they are needful or expedient, for Order, Ʋniformity, for Reverence and Decency in this Age; Why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd, and through all subsequent Ages of the Church? If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor his Apostles, who form'd the first Church, and deliver'd us his mind, institute and impose these Rites, then either the imposing them is needless, or else you must say that Christ hath omitted what was needful to the due performance of his Worship; which seemeth to imply▪ that either he was ignorant what to do, or careless and neglective of his own Affairs: which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy.

A shrewd▪ Argument I confess, in the conse­quences of it; if allowed for a good Argument, but 'tis really so pitiful a Ratiocination, as to this Prefacer's design in quoting it, that I believe [Page 51] Baxter himself has Wit and Reason enough still left him, if still living, to laugh at any man that should be wheedl'd by it into a perswasion that it is unlawful for any Church or State, to impose such and such Rites and Ceremonies, as it thinks most convenient for Order, Uniformity, Reve­rence, and Decency, Because those Ceremonies were never imposed by Christ, or his Apostles.

But that which I mention it for is this, to ma­nifest what kind of quoter this man hath shewn himself.

Any Reader who views the quotation, and the lines of it mark'd each of them with two little hooks, may justly think that the lines so mark'd consist only of Baxter's words, and in the same order as disposed by Baxter himself in that Chapter, Section, and Reason: but it is so far from being so, that

1. These words [This seems to be coming after Christ, to amend his Laws, correct his Works, and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church, than he himself hath done, are not Baxter's words (in that Paragraph of that Disputation, as Printed with the other four in 1659▪ which I believe is the only Edition of those Disputations of Church-Government) but this man's own; unless he has quoted them at second hand from some falsifyer of Testimonies.

[Page 52]2. Whereas in the quotation 'tis, If they (viz. Crossing, Kneeling, Surplice) are needful or expe­dient for Order, Ʋniformity, for Reverence, and Decency in this Age, why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd, and through all subse­quent Ages of the Church? this Clause also and Question, is not Mr. Baxters, but this mans own or some body's that has imposed upon him.

3. Whereas the Prefacer concludes the quo­tation with these words [which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy] Baxter's words are (only) [which are not to be imagined,]

Now 2. Neither of these variations are allow­able in any Testimony that is published as a just and exact quotation, as any Reader would guess this to be, by the manner of printing it. But

3. The second Clause is such an addition, as is altogether intolerable; for Baxter doth not there dispute against the Ceremonies of Crossing and Sur­plice, considered as expedient for Order, Ʋniformity, Reverence, and Decency. But as (things pretended by him to be) Mystical, Symbolical, Sacramental Rites; and his reasoning (such as it is) is there directed against them only under that Notion: for this Author therefore to quote him as there ap­plying that reasoning to our Ceremonies, con­sidered as Needful or Expedient for Order, Ʋni­formity, [Page 53] &c. is not to quote but to invent and falsifie, and therefore

4. If the rest of this Gentleman's quotations which I have not the opportunity of examining, are of the same complexion with this, he must in all reason be concluded either a Knavish quo­ter himself, or a quoter at second hand, from some body that was so.

But supposing Baxter had reason'd so simply (as for ought I know he may in some other part of his writings) as this Prefacer makes him to do in that Paragraph, against mens appointing such and such Ceremonies, as needful for Order, Uniformity, Reverence, and Decency, I shall annex an wholsome Testimony-Antidote against the venom of it, which I find quoted to my hands from Mr. Calvin (I hope with more honesty and fidelity than this is Mr. Baxter) by Dr. Hooke (in his judicious Answer to Baxter's Petition for Peace, pag. 150. in these words.

Let us hold thsi, That if we see in every Society of men some Policy to be necessary, which may serve to nourish common Peace, and to retain Con­cord; if we see that in the doing of things there is always some Orderly Form which is behoveful for publick honesty, and for very humanity not to be refus'd, the saine ought chiefly to be observ'd in Churches which are both best maintained by a [Page 54] well-fram'd disposition of all things, and without Agreement are no Churches at all. Therefore if we will have the safety of the Church well pro­vided for, we must altogether diligently procure that which St. Paul commandeth, That all things be done Comely, and according to Order. But for­asmuch as there is so great diversity in the manners of men, so great variety in minds, so great disagree­ments in judgements and wits, neither is there any Policy stedfast enough, unless it be Established by certain Laws, nor any orderly usage can be observed without a certain appointed Form; there­fore we are so far off from condemning the Laws that are profitable to this purpose, that we affirm that when these be taken away, Churches are dis­solved from their sinews, and utterly deformed and scatter'd abroad; for this which St. Paul requireth, That all things be done decently and in Order, cannot be had, unless the Order it self and Comeliness, be Established with observations ad­joyned as with certain Bonds.

But this only thing is always to be excepted in those Observations. That they be not either be­lieved to be necessary to Salvation, and so bind Consciences with Religion, or be applyed to the Worship of God, and so Godliness be reposed in them.—But (pag. 152.) it is good yet to de­fine more plainly what is comprehended under that [Page 55] Comeliness which St. Paul commendeth, and also what under Order. The end of Comeliness is partly that when such Ceremomies are used as may pro­cure a Reverence to holy things, we may by such helps be stirred up to Godliness: partly also, that the Modesty and Gravity which ought to be seen in all honest doings, may therein principally appear. In Order, this is the first Point, That they which Govern may know the Rule and Law to Govern well, and the People which are governed may be Ac­custom'd to Obeying of God, and to right Disci­pline. Then, that the state of the Church being well fram'd, Peace and Quietness may be provided for. Verily because the Lord hath in his holy Oracles both faithfully contain'd, and clearly set forth both the whole sum of true Righteousness, and all the parts of the Worshipping of his Divine Majesty, and whatsoever was necessary to Salvation, there­fore in these things, he is only to be heard as our School-Master. But because in outward Discipline and Ceremony, his Will was not to prescribe each thing particularly what we ought to follow, because he foresaw this to hang upon the state of Times, and did not think one Form to be sit for all Ages, herein we must flee to those general Rules which he hath given, that thereby all those things should be tryed which the necessity of the Church shall re­quire to be Commanded for Order and Comeliness. [Page 56] Finally, forasmuch as he hath therefore taught nothing expresly, because these things are not ne­cessary to Salvation, and according to the Manners of every Nation and Age, ought diversly to be applyed to the Edifying of the Church, therefore as the Profit of the Church shall require, it shall be convenient as well to Change and Abrogate those that be used, as to institute New. I grant indeed, that we ought not rashly, nor oft, nor for light Causes to run to Innovation, but what may hurt or edifie, Charity shall best judge, which if we suffer to be the Governess, all shall be safe.

Now it is the duty of Christian People, to keep such things as have been ordain'd according to this Rule with a free Conscience, and without any super­stition, but yet with a godly and easie readiness to obey, not to despise them, nor to pass them over with careless negligence: so far is it off, that they ought by Pride and Obstinacy openly to break them. What manner of Liberty of Conscience, wilt thou say, may there be in so great Observation and Wa­riness? Yes, it shall stand excellently well: when we shall consider, that they are not stedfast and perpetual stayed Laws whereunto we are bound, but outward rudiments for the weakness of men, which though we do not all need, yet we do all use them, because we are mutually bound to one another, to nourish Charity among us.

[Page 57]Thus, says Dr. Hooke, Mr. Calvin delivers his judgment directly contrary to yours, (meaning Mr. Baxter's, as expressed in that Petition for Peace) I add, and directly contrary to that which our Prefacer here quotes as his shrew'd Argumen­tation, but) perfectly consentient to the Church of England, and we find his practice according with his judgment; he put the Yoke of Discipline upon the Neck of the Senate and People of Geneva, and bound them to it with an Oath: and he de­clares for a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites, from which it may not be lawful for the Pastors to depart in their Function.—

You see hereby how far Calvin was from the Opinion, That Churches either should be govern'd without Ceremonies, or indeed can be govern'd, if nothing be imposed on their Members, but what is necessary.

I know 'tis easie to dictate as some men are said to do in this Preface, That all necessary things are so plain in Scripture, that men may soon agree in what is necessary, and conclude the no-necessity of agreeing in more. pag. 12.—That all things necessary to be believed, are done in order to acce­ptance with God, are fully and perspicuously con­tained in Holy Scripture, and therefore 'tis unreaso­nable to exact further of our Brethren, that which is confessed unnecessary, and which neither our [Page 58] Saviour, nor his Apostles imposed on their Disci­ples, (pag. 46.) That necessary points (pag. 20.) may and will by [all honest people] be known and determin'd by the clear Testimony of Scripture, by consent of Fathers, by general Tradition.—(As if all honest People could find out the consent of Fathers, or be so familiarly acquainted with ge­neral Tradition.) and other points need not to be determined.—That all Confessions of particular Churches should be abolished (pag. 53.) and one publick Symbol agreed on, which should be expressed only in the words of Scripture, and want nothing which is necessary to Salvation, to be known or done, nor contain any thing which is not thus ne­cessary to Salvation.—and in unnecessaries there should be a mutual bearing one with another—That consent in Fundamentals ought to be carefully maintain'd, but in other things neglected. (pag. 55.) That there should be nothing in our Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that may give any plausible pretence for Separation or Nonconformity—(pag. 21.)

Now these, I confess, are several of them, very sine Aerial Speculations; such as is no very difficult thing for Mercurial Wits to light on; and 'tis as easie for any Melancholy, Contemplative Man, to warm his Brains into a conceit of their Truth, Worth, and Excellency. But loquere ut videam: I would fain see the Man that either [Page 59] has prov'd them, or can prove them to be Practi­cable Notions. I mean, such as may be prudently applyed to the constituting or continuing of So­cieties, or to the maintaining of a publick consent, or a common order and decorum among 'em. It may be a great Truth that all things necessary to Sal­vation are plainly and clearly revealed in Scripture; but that they are all so plain that all may soon agree in what is necessary, or that all honest People may know and determin all such points, or that only such should be agreed in and en­joyn'd, I shall conclude to be very unpracticable Notions, till this Gentleman or somebody for him, can tell me First, What Person, or Persons, have so much as pretended to give an exact List and Ca­talogue in particular of all those Fundamentals which in general we profess to Believe, plainly contain'd in Scripture. 2. Where that Society of Christians is to be met with, which is govern'd only by union and consent in things absolutely necessary? Or 3. where that Protestant Church is to be found, where nothing of Ceremony is imposed either for Order, Decency, or Unifor­mity?

If no such instance can be produc'd, 'tis a pregnant evidence that such Theories and Prin­ciples, are inflexible to the measure and ends of Government, incompatible with the duty of [Page 60] Governours, and with the necessities of the Per­sons and Societies that are to be govern'd; and therefore they seem calculated only for the Meri­dian of Ʋtopia, or Cracovia, and may serve in­differently for all Latitudinarian Regions, and Anarchical Routs.

You see, Sir, by this Packet how great a trouble your generosity in sending me [The Protestant Reconciler] has drawn upon you; no less than that of reading several Sheets of Animadversions on the Preface; but you may comfort your self with believing that your Trouble will end here, as mine does. For having not my own Books by me, scarce any of them I mean, that might be serviceable for such a purpose, 'twill be a vanity for me to attempt the Confutation of the Prefacer's Book; especially since he has been pleas'd to interess Dr. Womock (a much more considerable Person, and still living I hope) in the Contents of it, insomuch that if he shall think fit to make any Reply to him, his Book will, I believe, neither require, nor deserve any other or better Confutation, than will result from that Defence. It was but the beginning of this Month that I receiv'd it from your kindness; and having since spent all this pains about the Preface, you cannot imagine I have so much as read the Book; But however, I have so far consider'd the [Page 61] Contents of its Chapters, and glanced upon so many parts of the Book, that I conjecture the main stress and turn of the Cause lies in the fourth Chapter, which therefore whosoever solidly Answers, will effectually baffle the design of this Writer, and may let the rest of the Book take its course; and permit the weak Brethren to make the best Advantage they can of it. When you have perused these Papers, I hope you will impartially communicate your sense of them to