REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reconciler: IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND.  
LONDON Printed by J. Wallis, for Joanna Brome, at the Gun in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1683.   

SIR,  
HAving Read and Considered 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 required by the Church of England; and yet a great part of the Preface is employed in producing Testimonies against the Lawfulness not only of [the Imposition itself] but also of [the things Imposed;] 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 reckoned 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 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 marked 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 carried with a Zeal not according to Knowledge, in Commanding the Use 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 required to be Used in Divine Service, are at the least signs of Idolatry, and Popish Superstition.— with the Use 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 abandoned which may any way▪ either by themselves or by accident, desile God's Worship,— because they are contrary to the Purity of the Apostolical Worship, and smell of Popish Superstition; 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 Ungodliness, and at least give occasion of many Evils, and very grievous Superstitions: and the very Occasions of Evils are to be shunned,— because 'tis God's Will (p. 31.) That after the Death of Christ, all Garments of Aaron and Levi should be Abolished.— That the Lord himself Commanded that all  and Vain Ceremonies should be driven away, when he charged utterly to destroy all things which appertained 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 distasteful 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 Doctrine of Christ, (viz.) That no Indifferent thing is to be admitted, and yielded to, much less to be Urged upon others, and least of all to be Commanded by Decree, if in the Admitting, Urging, and Commanding of it, the Minds of Good Men, and Consciences of the Faithful be Offended.  
Now this Prefacer did either look upon these kind of (paltry) 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 Fanatic Design of rendering 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 required and imposed] 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 in his re-capitulation, p. 43. where he expressly 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 shows, 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 incurred the Penalty of Excommunication, which is Decreed by Can. 4. against those who Affirm that the Form of God's 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 Unlawful 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 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 itself 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 Doctrine 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 Show and Profession, even to the Astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to Acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour, who Died 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 Christened, to dedicate them by that Badge to His Service whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism, the Name of the Cross did represent; and this Use 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 Censured as Enemies of the Name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ's Merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure.  
And what must this Prefacer then be counted, who in compliance with Father Beza, Father Zanchy, and Father Calvin, (as he pretends Pag. 23.) Censured 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, expressly 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 Use 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 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 mentioned, 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 died 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 King James, King Charles the First, and King Charles the Second, to justify 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 considered the reflections 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 appeared against them at the Conference at Hampton-Court, a Severe Reprimand for scrupling Conformity to them upon such inconsiderable Reasons as were then urged 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 Majesty's 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 altered 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 played the Knave with two Kings. For happening 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, 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 Comeliness of God's 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 confine the Condescension spoken of in the former words, that they are on that account rendered 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 Author's 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 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 gratify them by such an Indulgence: and yet even this also is requisite to make Testimonies pertinent to our Author's 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 God's 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 Churchman 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 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 settling of the Peace of this Nation— nor to the honour of our Religion, and the Propagation thereof, than an universal Agreement in the Public 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, than the Liberty indulged by the King's 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 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 King's 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 King's Words truly p. 39 I Answer, 2. We may well conceive it, because his 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 Conferred with?  
Can he tell us where these Presbyterians are now to be met with, who show 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 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, slandering, spiteful, malicious humour could supply them with, to the prejudice of our Church and its Constitutions, and to the rendering 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 professes to think with the Reverend Dean of Canterbury, that we have no cause to doubt, but the Governors of our Church are Persons of that Piety, and Prudence, that for Peace sake, and in order to a firm Union 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 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 declared it his Judgement, That the only means to heal us was a new Act of Uniformity, 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 [Uniformity] which would leave men at Liberty, as to the Order, Modes, Circumstances, and Ceremonies of Public 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 show me where there is, or ever was such a Society, whose Union, Order, and Government, was conserved or designed to be conserved 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 contradistinguished 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 unreasonableness of Separation] was published, 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 Church's 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 Use of the Lyturgy, nor the Use of Godfathers', and Godmothers' in Baptism. The Lawfulness of all which▪ except that of the constant Use of the Lyturgy, which he Acknowledges-done very well to his hand by Dr. Falkner, he defends by Answering whatsoever was urged against them by his Adversaries. Pag. 332, 333. etc.  
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 with as to those that scruple it— and several Alterations made in the settled Practice of our Church, as to the Use of Godfathers' and Godmothers' in Baptism. And to justify 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 abolished.  
For, 1. What less than this can reasonably be inferred from these words of his, p. 82. I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governors of our Church, to remove those Barrs (that is, the matter of the Dissenters scrupling and excep●ings against the Sacramental Offices) from a freedom in joining in full Communion with us.] The most obvious and pertinent meaning of which words is, That it is such a part of Wisdom and Condescension as Christianity obliges our Governors to; and if they are obliged to it by virtue 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 Use of Sacraments in a Christian Church [aught] to be the most free from all Exception; and they [aught] to be so Administered, as rather to invite, than discourage scrupulous Persons from joining 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 joining in any of the Public 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 Rubric 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, 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 contained in that Rubric 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 Governors, 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  mutations as reasonable and necessary, (Pag. 82. and 93.) and this passage, Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable. For there he says, [we do hearty and sincerely desire Union 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 men's 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 forementioned dispensings with, and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices, upon the forementioned Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them, whom he is pleased 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 hath ever since continued them, without imagining that continued 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 itself, in my Opinion, too absurd a contradiction to that Book, whose main design is to prove them Schismatics.  
He tells us Pag. 364. That 'twas the great Wisdom of our Church, not to make more things necessary as to Practise, 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 determine.  
And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface; especially to determine 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 removed by a little Impartiality, and ●lue consideration;— there being no depth of Learning, no subtlety of Reasoning, no endless quotation of Father's 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 considered, do I think abundantly justify the first charge, and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion, that the Doctor's 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 destroyed 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 aught 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 in that Faith, Government and Worship, which are Established by the Laws of this Realm.— And Pag. 302. All Bishops, Ministers, and People, taken together, who profess the Faith so Established, 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 Union: and which I suppose may be Granted 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 [aught] 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 mentioned. 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 Governors to dispense with a great many more Constitutions; even all that enjoin 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.  
I doubt his Arguments will, if they prove any thing, prove it as unlawful for Governors 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. etc. 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 abolished: but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mentioned 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 shown himself too near of kin to such a● Brother, in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styled our Ceremonies Follies, but owning that 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 was in itself 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. etc. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governors, 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, etc.— The Protestant-Churches, says the Transylvanian, (pag. 41.) are to be moved, 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 himself was ware of, and therefore endeavours to enervate it, pag. 57 by Ask, 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 Governor common to them both; and the members of the same Society, or several Societies united under, and subject to such or such a Governor, or Governors. Where two Societies are independent one upon another, there being no common Governor to take care of Order, and the things relating to it among them; each of them is left to the management of its respective Governor or Governors; and to them the care of the Public Worship to be performed by that Society belongs; who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly, decent, and reverend manner, and to constitute such Modes, 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 supposed, 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?) than himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy, a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governors 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, that agrees with it in Fundamentals, and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies, or other matters extrafundamental, 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 merely 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 merely 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 public 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 enjoined? in particular, that they'll give it him unless he [stands] when he receives it? I am sure durel in the  Vindiciae, Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of England's imposing Kneeling on all Communicants, tells us that in that it challenges no greater a Power to itself, than other Reformed Churches do. (pag. 235.) And that 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 preserved thereby, is only (for aught 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 removed 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, 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 Governor, the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other, and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it merely 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 Governors, 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 Christ's Body:  
But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christ's Body, aught eo nomine, to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion? if he does, he must either deny that any real member of Christ's 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 repel such a Person from the Communion, till either he makes actual recompense for the Injury, or declare himself fully resolved to do it when conveniently he may. If not, than the mere consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christ's Body does not oblige any (in whose Power it is) to admit him to all those Privileges.  
2. Does he hold that mere agreeing in Fundamentals is all that's required to the being a real member of Christ? If not, than neither is that sufficient to qualify 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 Governors, in things Lawful, is one of the Fundamentals of Practice. If he denies the former, he contradicts the Doctrine 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 obtained: 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 Doctrine, or in Practice: which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice, as well as Belief.  
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 Superiors; 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 Doctrine 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 mere agreeing to Fundamentals, whether of Belief, or Practice, that is, assenting to them, will constitute, and continue a man a real member of Christ's 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 Christ's 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 part of such Duty, they ought to be owned 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 informed 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 Christ's 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. expressly Acknowledge, That Schisms and Divisions, do apparently dissolve the Church-Vnity? And 2. (by ask those questions, pag. 28. of his Book) implicitly Acknowledge, That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline, and by renouncing Communion with us in our Public 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 Public 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 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 Christ's 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 Schismatics 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 persevered 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 Christ's Body.  
I have now considered 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 Reflections I have here made upon them. But I wish hearty 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 engaged 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 imposed by Superiors 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 declared themselves (as he would persuade us) to be of the same Judgement, and have pursued the same Design.  
Now besides all that has been already objected to those Suffrages, if I had the opportunity of doing it, I would challenge the Author to evince, that any tolerable number of the Suffrages which he has produced, 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 altered without Sin, ought not to be imposed as the Condition of Communion, or ministration in Sacred Things. The other more particular, That especially they ought not to be imposed under our present Circumstances, as the Conditions of Communion with us (of the Church of England.)  
The Suffrages produced 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 hear 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 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 pretence?  
Besides, if my memory fail me not, I have seen a Book heretofore, which Answered Cressy, against Dr. Pierce's Sermon, merely 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 Testimony, out of the Writings of single Persons, and Acknowledgements 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 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 ailed 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, etc. viz. the rendering 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 ailed 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 Clergymen, 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 showed 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 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 concerned, 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 enjoining 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 showing 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 guests) the utmost of his Art and Industry, to do as great a dis-service to that, and the State both, as (for aught 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 Governors of this or that Nation, have for multitudes of Years successively agreed, in Enacting Laws contradictory 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 Superiors ought not to impose things Indifferent and Alterable without Sin, as the Conditions of Church-Communion, and Ministration.  
Besides, what greater Affront could be offered 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 managed, in contradiction to the Laws of the Land, at a time when the King himself and inferior 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 aught 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 filled as many sheets as this Preface contains, with Testimonies justifying the Constitutions of 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 myself. But in some of the few Books I have here, I meet with such passages, as abundantly confirm me in that Confidence; and withal 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, Vrsin, and Zipper, with many others; have said against the Use and Imposition of them, and [pag. 36.] that Cassander testifies (without telling us where he so testifies) that most have conceived them fit to be condemned and abolished as foppish, ludicrous, ridiculous, yea as noxious and pernicious. durel 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 judgement of the most Learned and Famous Protestants, either can or aught 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 Reformed Writer of any Note, especially of those who were at the beginning of the Reformation, (whose Judgement and Authority is principally to be attended to in this dispute) who Condemns significant Ceremonies merely as such, if so be no supernatural virtue 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 does 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 designed to signify only men's duty, but such only as are meant to signify and exhibit Spiritual Privileges, and the Divine Grace. And in his Sixteenth Chapter, he largely Answers that Epistle of Zanchy, quoted at large by this Prefacer, pag. 28. etc. against imposing Linen 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 durel 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. etc. only by Retale, and at second hand from others, without examining the quotations himself, and consulting the passages as they lie 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 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, Uniformity, for Reverence and Decency in this Age; Why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles lived, and through all subsequent Ages of the Church? If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor his Apostles, who formed the first Church, and delivered 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 Baxter himself has Wit and Reason enough still left him, if still living, to laugh at any man that should be wheedled by it into a persuasion 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 shown himself.  
Any Reader who views the quotation, and the lines of it marked each of them with two little hooks, may justly think that the lines so marked 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.  
2. Whereas in the quotation 'tis, If they (viz. Crossing, Kneeling, Surplice) are needful or expedient for Order, Uniformity, for Reverence, and Decency in this Age, why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles lived, and through all subsequent Ages of the Church? this Clause also and Question, is not Mr. Baxters, but this man's own or some bodies 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 guests 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, Uniformity, 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, Uniformity, etc. is not to quote but to invent and falsify, 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 reasoned so simply (as for aught I know he may in some other part of his writings) as this Prefacer makes him to do in that Paragraph, against men's appointing such and such Ceremonies, as needful for Order, Uniformity, Reverence, and Decency, I shall annex an wholesome 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 public honesty, and for very humanity not to be refused, the sane aught chief to be observed in Churches which are both best maintained by a well-framed 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 steadfast 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 scattered abroad; for this which St. Paul requireth, That all things be done decently and in Order, cannot be had, unless the Order itself and Comeliness, be Established with observations adjoined 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 applied 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 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 do, 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 Accustomed to Obeying of God, and to right Discipline. Then, that the state of the Church being well framed, Peace and Quietness may be provided for. Verily because the Lord hath in his holy Oracles both faithfully contained, 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 Schoolmaster. 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 tried which the necessity of the Church shall require to be Commanded for Order and Comeliness. Finally, forasmuch as he hath therefore taught nothing expressly, because these things are not necessary to Salvation, and according to the Manners of every Nation and Age, ought diversely to be applied 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 edify, 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 ordained according to this Rule with a free Conscience, and without any superstition, but yet with a godly and easy 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 steadfast 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.  
Thus, says Dr. Hooke, Mr. Calvin delivers his judgement 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 shrewd Argumentation, but) perfectly consentient to the Church of England, and we find his practice according with his judgement; 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 departed in their Function.—  
You see hereby how far Calvin was from the Opinion, That Churches either should be governed without Ceremonies, or indeed can be governed, if nothing be imposed on their Members, but what is necessary.  
I know 'tis easy 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 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 determined 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 public 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 maintained, 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 fine Aerial Speculations; such as is no very difficult thing for Mercurial Wits to light on; and 'tis as easy 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 has proved them, or can prove them to be Practicable Notions. I mean, such as may be prudently applied to the constituting or continuing of Societies, or to the maintaining of a public 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 determine all such points, or that only such should be agreed in and enjoined, 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 contained in Scripture. 2. Where that Society of Christians is to be met with, which is governed 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 produced, 'tis a pregnant evidence that such Theories and Principles, are inflexible to the measure and ends of Government, incompatible with the duty of Governors, and with the necessities of the Persons and Societies that are to be governed; and therefore they seem calculated only for the Meridian of Utopia, 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 yourself 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 pleased 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 received 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 considered the 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  
Your Cordial Friend, and Humble Servant, S. T. Febr. 28. 1682/ 3.