THE JUDGEMENT OF THE Foreign Reformed Churches CONCERNING THE RITES and OFFICES OF THE Church of England: SHOWING There is no necessity of Alterations. In a Letter to a Member of the House of Commons.  
Archbishop Bramhill's Works, p. 494. All Protestants both Lutherans and Calvinists did give unto the English Church the Right Hand of Fellowship.  
Casaubon's Prayer, A. D. 1610. Thou, O Lord Jesus, preserve the Church of England, and give a sound mind to the Nonconformists, who deride its Rites and Ceremonies.  
LONDON; Printed for Robert Jenkinson, A. D. 1690.   

To the Honoured A. A. A MEMBER Of the Honourable HOUSE of COMMONS.  
SIR,  
WHEN we parted at the Election, you desired me to give you the Judgement of the Foreign Protestants about the Church of England, and particularly as to the Rites and Offices, of which the Author of the Letter to the Convocation tells us, p. 23. That if the Convocation do not alter them, most certainly the Parliament will. The very talk of Change, you know, breeds a Ferment in the Nation, and be sure the discontented will make their advantage of it; but if the Nation finds the Parliament as steady as the Convocation, the Heats will soon be over, and the Kingdom return to her Settlement and Peace. Nolumus leges Angliae mutare, was an Answer first in Parliament, and that in opposition to some ecclesiastics, who would have introduced several Foreign Rites and Customs, into the room of received and approved Constitutions, quae huc usque usitatae sunt ac approbatae.  
Optatus Milev. l. 3. p. 75. tells us of his time, That there had been a Report spread by some that came from the Emperor, that Alterations should be made in the Liturgy, which startled the People; but when they saw their Solemn Customs and wont Rites observed, and that nothing was changed, added, or diminished in their Divine Service, they were quieted again.  
Those Governments have been observed to continue longest that have been most steady in their Laws; and the Jews who were immediately governed by God, had their very Rites and Ceremonies unaltered for almost 2000 Years, their great Lawgiver foreseeing, that every considerable Alteration in an established Religion, or even its Rites and Modes, would put the State into Convulsions, and endanger a Revolution.  
As to our present Conjuncture, it was a great oversight in those that carried on the Design of a Comprehension, to begin with a Toleration; and its unreasonable to think that the Dissenters will unite with Us, so long as their Separation is allowed. Nothing that you can do, will promote their Union with Us, but that which makes it their Interest, and that can be only done by Rewards and Punishments; and therefore the taking off the Sanctions of the Laws, and making the Separation easy, was beginning at the wrong end, and a certain way to make a Comprehension ineffectual.  
But since the Union proposed is not confined to our Nation, but extended to all the Protestants in the World, that are now united in their Interests; I have here, according to your Desires, given you a true account of the great esteem and veneration they all have for the Church of England, and particularly for those very Rites and Customs that are now disputed, and what Offence and Scandal our Dissenters give them; so that by an impartial Consideration of their Opinions, you, and all the Nation may be satisfied that making of Alterations in the Instances proposed, will be so far from promoting a closer Union with the Foreign Protestants, (who have always esteemed Us, as the very Centre of Union,) that its the most certain way to hinder it.  
For what concerns the late Convocation, I shall refer you to an excellent Paper, Entitled, Remarks from the Country upon the Two Letters relating to the Convocation and Alterations in the Liturgy,  
SIR, I am Your most Humble Servant, N. S.   

THE CONTENTS.  

1. THE Dissenters from the Church of England constantly appeal to the Foreign Protestant Churches, as Persons of their Opinions. p. 2.  
2. Some Inconsiderate or Designing Persons of the Church of England have joined with them in this Appeal and Complaint. p. 3, 4, 5.  
3. This Opinion Confuted in general. p. 6, 7.  
4. The Opinions of Beza, Spanheim, Diodate, Casaubon, Bochart, Dumoulin, etc. concerning the Church of England Established. p. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  
5. The Opinion that the Foreign Reformed Divines have of our Dissenters, particularly the Opinion of Calvin, Beza, Gualther, Casaubon, Bochart, Capellus, etc. p. 12, 13, 14.  
6. These General Opinions applied to the Matters proposed to be Altered by the Authors of the Letters to the Convocation, and in behalf of the Bill of Union, and the Opinion of the Foreign Protestants, is showed as to Reading the Apocryphal Books in the Church. p. 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21.  
7. As to the Rules for finding Easter. p 22, 23, 24, 25.  
8. As to the Names of some old Saints and Bishops in the Calendar. p. 25, 26.  
9 As to the Reading the old Version of the Psalms. p. 26. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.  
10. As to the retaining the Athanasian Creed. p. 32, 33.  
11. As to the Cross in Baptism. p. 34.  
12. As to Godfathers in Baptism. p. 35, 36.  
13. As to Kneeling at the Sacrament. p. 37, 38.  
14. As to Excommunication for Contempt. p. 41.  
15. As to Ordination by Bishops only. p. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52.  
16. As to Set Forms of Prayers. p. 53, 54.  
17. As to Established Rites and Ceremonies, etc. p. 55, 56, 57  
18. One Word to the Dissenters. p. 58. 59    

ERRATA.  
PAge 6. l. 24. Humphred read Humphrys, p. 17. l. 27. Populare read Populari, p. 20. l. 2. Polyglot Latin, read Polyglot Bible, p. 22. l. 35. Venral read Vernal, p. 26. l. 18. Evispine read Crispin, p. 31. l. 24. perpagato read propagato, p. 43. l. 34. pretended read pretenced.   

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE Foreign Reformed Churches CONCERNING THE RITES and OFFICES OF THE Church of England.  
THERE have been Three Reasons much urged of late for making Alterations in the Rites and Offices of the Church of England at this Juncture; the 1st relates to ourselves, the 2d to Dissenters, and the 3d to Foreign Churches. To the 1st it hath been answered, that we do not need Alterations; to the 2d that they do not desire them; and the 3d is the Subject of this Discourse. And though the Learned Books of Durel, Comber, Falkner and others, might have rendered such a design needless, yet so long as the Adversaries of our Peace and Establishment go on to amuse the Nation with old Fictions and Stories, we must not cease to repeat old truths and plain matter of fact to confute them, not doubting but that as truth is great, so it will prevail.  
It hath been the constant practice of the Preshyterian Party to boast of their Harmony and Agreement with the Foreign Reformed Churches, in those things wherein they differ from us, and frequently insinuate to their Followers, that the Protestants abroad were much offended with the Rites and Offices of the Church of England. Thus their great Founder T. C. in his Preface to the Admonition. Out of the Realm they have all the best Reformed Churches in Christendom against them; i. e. The Presbyterians against the Church of England. In his Admonition, he frequently appeals to the best Reformed Churches, and particularly p. 286. Our Ordination by Bishops is strange from the use of all well reformed Churches in the World. In the Solemn League and Covenant, they all Swore, To endeavour the Reformation of Religion, according to the Example of the best Reformed Churches. Ordinance of Parliament, for taking away the Common-Prayer, Jan. 3d, 1644.— Resolving to Reform Religion according to the Example of the best Reformed Churches. Preface to the Directory; The Liturgy of the Church of England hath proved an Offence to the Reformed Churches abroad.— That we may answer the expectation of other reformed Churches.  
The Presbyterians assembled at the Savoy in the Year 1660, declare, That in the Liturgy are things that have given offence to Learned and Judicious Drvines of other Reformed Churches. In their Petition for Peace, p. 9 And if you should reject (which God forbidden) the moderate Proposals which now and formerly we have made, we offer to your consideration, what judgement all the Protestant Churches are likely to pass on your Proceed. And again, p. 10; How strange must it needs seem to the Reformed Churhes, to the whole Christian World, etc.— p. 13. The Pastors of the most Reformed Churches take this Conformity to be Sin. And after this manner they declare all the World on their side, and that the Foreign Churches admire at the stiffness of the Church of England, by which contrivance though never so false, they raise the heats and clamours of the ignorant and unthinking part of the Nation against the Church of England. And still they go on to clamour against us without any proof, though they have been so often urged to it; and I here challenge them all to produce any one Authentic Act of any National Reformed Church in the World, which hath at the least Reflected upon, or Censured the Established Church of England.  
And yet all this, however vile and base, is no more than we might justly have expected from the Professed Enemies of our Peace and Establishment; but that which raised the admiration and astonishment of all Sober Men, was to see the Professed Sons of the Church of England, Men of Rank and Dignity, embarked in the same bottom of mistake and error, and pursuing the same hideous outcries against us; a mistake they could not run into, but for want of good Books or good Company, which would have informed them better, and too much consigning their Studies and their Conversations to that ill sort of Men. So that now our Church may justly take up the complaint of David, Psalm 55. 12, 14, 15. It is not an open Enemy that hath done me this dishonour, for than I could have born it;— but it was even thou my Companion, my Guide, and mine own Familiar Friend: We took sweet Counsel together, and walked in the House of God as Friends.  
Of this sort is the Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Commission, p. 24. The Eyes of all the World be open upon us, all the Reformed Churches are in expectation of something to be done which makes for Union and Peace. And a Letter to a Member of Parliament in favour of the Bill for a Protestant Union, p. 5; For them that have not Episcopal Orders, there will be such a provision made, as will satisfy all the Ministers of the Foreign Protestant Churches. Again p. 6. And for French and Germane, and other Foreign Christians of the Reformed Religion, I am well assured by Letters sent from Holland, Geneva, Switzerland, and other Places (not to speak of the Churches of the Lutheran Communion which writ the same) that they esteem the Conditions proposed in this Bill, (which hath been communicated to them) as Terms fit for uniting of Protestants. Where by the way, I cannot but admire at the speed and diligence of this Persons Correspondence; the King had not accepted of the Government till February, after this the Convention is declared a Parliament; and then after some more necessary things for settling the Government, a project is set on work for a Bill of Union, and yet he had sent a Copy of the Contents of it to Germany, Holland, Geneva, Switzerland, etc. and received their several Approbations of it in March, for that Paper is Licenced April 1st. And yet it's more strange, that even the Churches of the Lutheran Communion should approve the conditions of that Bill of Union: It was not long before, that an excellent Author of undoubted credit; gave us an authentic account of a Letter from several Ministers in Germany, That the greatest part of the Protestants of Europe have been extremely scandalised at our Dissenters,— That the Dissenters ought by no means to have separated themselves for the form of Ecclesiastical Government, nor for Ceremonies;— That the Bishops have justified themselves from the reproach of being Popishly affected, and of Persecuting the Dissenters; they have made it appear that they were only Calumnies invented by their Enemies to render them odious to Protestants;— How much better would it be for the Dissenters to reunite themselves to the Bishops, with whom they differ only in some Points of Discipline? And now quite contrary, all the Reformed Churches expect that we should comply, and unite with the Dissenters.  
But without crossing the Seas, we may make a fair guess at the incredibility of all this Foreign Account, by the very next Pretence, which gives as strange an Account of ourselves at Home. I am not singular in this, for amongst all those who have appeared in the Church's cause, as well against Dissenters as Papists; I do not know one single Person that is not a wellwisher to this Bill, and I believe they will all tell you so. The direct contrary being manifestly true, not only in several of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who were called together to consult of that matter, but also in the far greater part of the whole Convocation. And if that Author be mistaken in the Age he lives in, we have great hopes to think he is as much mistaken in the Ages past, for so it follows, Archbishop Usher, Bishop Sanderson, Dr. Hammond, and a long Order of other most Worthy Men of the last Age, whose Memory is most precious in our Church, had they been now alive, would with all Zeal have promoted this Bill of Union. Which very Paragraph is the reverse of one of Mr. Baxters, in his Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet— I am past doubt that Richard Hooker, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Usher, and such others, were they now alive, would be Nonconformists, yea, I can prove it, etc. and if so, they would not be for the Bill of Union, which hath been generally opposed by the Nonconformists. The Preface to the Directory runs in the same Style. We have no intention to disparage our first Reformers, of whom we are persuaded, that were they now alive, they would join with us in this Work.  
And thus its evident that these Sons of Comprehension join with the Dissenters, to cry it up, that all the World is on their side, and clamour against all that oppose them, as the Thessalonians did against the Apostles, Act. 17. 6. These Men would turn the World up-side down; whenas their despising of us, and magnifying of the Foreign Churches, is like that which OEcolampadius tells us in his Epistles, p. 177. Aliis OEcolampadius, aliis Zuinglius sordebat, atqui nos amici sumus & fuimus semper, & nemo gratificatur nobis qui propter nos dissidium seminat, i. e. Some despise OEcolampadius, and some Zuinglius, but we are, and always were Friends, nor doth any one please us that sow's Discord upon our Accounts.  
Let us therefore take a short view of the judgement of the Foreign Divines, and see what Opinion they have of this stiff, vile, sinful Church of England.  
As the Reformation in general consists of Lutherans and Calvinists, so I find that agreement betwixt them in the most material Things; as that Calvin himself subscribed the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg, and a whole Synod of his Disciples at Charenton in France, in the Year 1631. declared, That there was no Idolatry nor Superstition in the Lutheran Churches, and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them, without renouncing their Opinions or their Practices; so that, though Papists and indiscreet fanatics have endeavoured to set these two great parts of the Reformation as far asunder as possible; yet the more sober Protestants have thought them very reconcilable, and always endeavoured it. Now the Church of England hath been Established in a middle way, betwixt both extremes, and laid aside those things which on either hand gave the greatest Offence; by which means our Established Church hath been looked upon by moderate Men, as the very Centre of Union and Harmony of all the Protestant Churches in the World. For this very reason when Calvin offered his Assistance to Archbishop Cranmer, he was refused by him. The Famous Dr. Humfrede, who was one of those Learned Men that fled abroad in Queen Mary's Reign, in his Prax. Cur. Rom. p. 70. tells us, Nos non sumus Calviniani, nec Reformationem nostram Calvinismum dicimus, We are not Calvinists in England, nor do we call our Reformation Calvinism; and yet this was the Religion established by Queen Elizabeth, when that great Man wrote; and Sir Edwin Sandys who had made a diligent survey of all the Religions in Europe, saith expressly, p. 214. That no Luther, no Calvin was the Square of our Faith. Now for our Church thus happily established, to alter to either extreme, is so far from promoting the Union of the Reformed Churches, that its the most likely way to hinder it.  
If we look upon the Lutheran Churches, they have either Bishops; as Denmark, Norway and Swedland, or else Superintendants, (which is another Name for Bishops) who have power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, as our Bishops in England. They have all set Liturgies and Forms of Prayer, they observe holidays and set-Fasts, have Organs, Hymns and Anthems; they wear Surplices; use the Cross in Baptism; receive the Communion kneeling, and make use of all those Rites which have been objected against the Church of England; so that to alter these, must needs give Offence to all those Churches, and set us at a greater distance from them. And as these Alterations proposed, can never tend to an Union among Protestants, so they must needs look ill at this time, when not only all these Churches are united to us in one common Alliance for the defence of our Religion, but also the very next Branch of our Royal Family is so nearly related to them.  
As for such as propose our Union with the reformed Churches of France, Geneva and Holland, let them consider that the first of these is not, and so we have now less reason than formerly; the second is only a particular City, (for the Swiss are generally Lutherans,) and it's a very unreasonable Project of Union, to have three Kingdoms alter their Religion for conformity with one City; when at the same time they set themselves at a greater Variance with so many Kingdoms of the Reformed Religion. As for Holland, it's well known that they allow of all sorts of Religions, and its impossible that any settled Uniformity amongst ourselves can ever bring us to an Union to such a mixture and variety. The Christian Religion was first planted among them by an English Bishop, and our Reformation was fixed and settled here before theirs began.  
But because the Dissenters boast that the Reformed Churches of France, and Holland, and Geneva, were always on their side, and joined with them in their abhorrence of the Church of England: I will next consider what Opinion the Learned Men, even of those Churches, have had of ours. First, for Geneva. And for his Learning and Eminency, I will begin with the Famous  
1. Beza, Who in his Letter to Archbishop Whitgift hath these Words, The English Church is the Harbour of all the Godly, and the Preserver of all other Reformed Churches.  
2. Spanheim, Professor there, in his Epistle to Archbishop Usher and others. I often call to mind those Fortunate Isles of yours— That Beauteous Face of your Church— That Reverence in the Public Worship of God— The Church of Geneva hath a great affection to the British Churches, whose Bishops we admire; for whose Prosperity we daily Pray, that your Church may continue to praise God as it doth; that the Bishops may continue in their Authority, and your Church in Peace, etc. and this was Written A. D. 1638. Then for his Successor  
3. John Diodate, Professor at Geneva, in his Answer to the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, when they had desired his Opinion about their Proceed. England (in the time of its Episcopacy) was the very Eye and Excellency of all Churches, Christ's own choice and peculiar— What a sad Spectacle is it to see that Church trodden under Feet— An horrid thing (that you have done) and never before heard of amongst the Reformed Churches— We are struck with Horror at the change of the glorious Face of that Church; may God restore your Churches to that high Estate, and pitch of Holiness and Glory in which they have hitherto excelled and outshined all the Churches upon the Earth. And this is the esteem Geneva had for the Episcopal Church of England, and certainly we ought not to alter the best Church in the World, to comply with that, which by their Confession is not so good.  
In the next place let us see the French Divines, I will begin 1. with Casaubon, in his Epistle to King James the I. The Church of England comes nearer the form of the flourishing Christian Church of old, than any other; it hath taken a middle way betwixt those Churches which are amiss, either through excess or defect— If my Judgement doth not deceive me, the most sound part of the whole Reformation is in England.  
2. The learned Bochart, in his Epistle to Bishop Morley. There are none, of the reformed of France, if they happen to be in England, but willingly join with the Church of England as by Law established; and as soon as they can get a competent knowledge of the English Tongue, are present at her Offices, and receive the Holy Communion there, which I have often myself done at London and at Oxford: This is not only my. Opinion, but of all the Pastors of the Reformed Religion in France.  
3. Peter du Moulin in the Preface to his Father's Answer to Perron, The Church of England hath more of the Primitive and Apostolic Church-Government than any other Church in the rest of the world.— The French Protestants have the same good Opinion of it, and desire to enjoy the same Government, if they might be so happy.  
4. Monsieur Claude in his Letter published by Dr. Stillingfleet. The Church of France hath always looked upon and considered the Church of England not only as a Sister, but an elder Sister, for which we have a respect and veneration, and daily pray.  
5. Monsiur Le Moyne in a Letter published by Dr. Stillingfleet, All the Protestants of France, Geneva, Switzerland, Germany and Holland, look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church;— All the Protestant Churches have always had a very great respect for the Purity of the Church of England. And in another Letter to Dr. Brevint, published by Dr. durel, I praise God for our Reformation in France, but I fear not to say, that if we had kept Bishops, and as many Ceremonies as would serve to fix the Attention of the People without Superstition, we should have seen for certain far greater progress of the Reformation. To which I cannot but add what Monsieur Ronee a French Ambassador in England, when he saw our Solemn Services and Rites, told King James the First, That if the Reformed Church of France had kept the same Order among them which we have, he was assured that there would have been many thousands of Protestants more than now there are. And this Observation is so undoubtedly true, that it long since forced this Expression from one of our bitter Enemies,  de Schism. Angl. p. 283. Queen Elizabeth in her Reformation kept many of the Rites and Manners of the ancient Church, which very much conduced to the Firmness and Establishment of her Heresio; for had things been left to the capriciousness of some of the new Clergy that talked much of the Gospel-Liberty, it had all long since vanished into Smoke, but by her Polity was strengthened and supported.  
6. Monsieur De L' Angle in his Letter published by Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 421. I am sure with what an exceeding Joy the Protestant Churches of France would enter into Communion with you (i. e. the Church of England) And in his Letter to Durel, published by him, p. 70, 71. I rejoiced very much at the establishment of the Anglico-Gallicane Church, (i. e. the French Church, with the English Common-Prayer and Rites) that this may make known to the World the Communion that is betwixt us, and that the Reformed Churches of France have not that aversion against the Discipline of the Church of England, which some Men report they have; I am certain my Colleagues are of the same mind with me. And again, p. 143. My Heart did leap for joy when I heard that your Liturgy and ancient Discipline was restored, i. e. in the year 1660.  
To these Testimonies I will add the Observation of Dur●● a Frenchman also, p. 92. When the French Church in London was established with the English Liturgy and Rites, though Providence brought over many Ministers from beyond the Seas, some from Geneva, some from France, some from Germany, some from Poland, some from Lithuania, some from Piedmont, and almost from all the Reformed Churches, we have seen none of them, that made any difficulty to assist at Divine Service, and conform; all of them received the Sacrament kneeling, etc.  
And I cannot but wonder with what Face the Men of this Age press us to make Alterations for the sake of other Reformed Churches, when we see those of the Reformed Religion of France, who are all Calvinists, and who out of Zeal to God's Glory, readily sacrificed all their Secular Interest to their Religion, and come over to this Kingdom, have universally joined with the Church of England, in her Liturgy and Rites, received the Lords Supper on their Knees, had their Children Baptised with Godfathers, and signed with the Sign of the Cross, etc. and all this at a time when the Laws of this Kingdom gave them Liberty to join with what Communion they pleased. Which was such an unanswerable Argument to our Dissenters, God having as it were brought a Nation from another Kingdom to convince them, that it was generally observed throughout all the Kingdom, that the Dissenters were very cold in their Charity towards them.  
If we look into the Churches of Holland, 'tis true all sorts of Religions are allowed; but it's evident that the great and Leading Men there have ever had a great Esteem for the Church of England; witness the great Respect and Honour they had for the English Bishops in the Synod of Dort, when they neither had nor desired any Representatives from our Presbyterians: Witness the two Famous Vossius', Father and Son, who always spoke with all Respect and Honour of the Church of England, and so far approved of our Cathedral Service, as that the Father was Prebendary of Canterbury, the Son Prebendary of Windsor. Witness the Famous Grotius, who always admired the Church of England above all the Churches in the World, and upon his Deathbed recommended it to his Wife, and such others of his Family that were then about him, obliging them to adhere firmly to it, which was readily obeyed by them. Bishop Bramhall ' s Vind. of Grotius, cap. 2. Witness the two Junius' and many others; but I shall only add the present Famous, Living Instance, his present Majesty King William, who was born and always bred in that Church, and yet from his first coming into England, hath readily and constantly joined with the Church of England, used her Liturgy with great Devotion and Honour, and observed all its Rites and Ceremonies, as Kneeling, Standing, etc. in their proper places, and upon all occasions, hath declared himself zealously and hearty in her Praise and Commendations, and promised his Protection of it, and all this at such times, when the contrary Interest wasmost prevalent, and he was daily beset with those that were no Friends to the present Establishment. All which is an undeniable Argument how readily those of Holland would join with us.  
As to the Northern Churches, we have a great Example before us in the Prince of Denmark. And lastly, For the Church of Scotland, not to mention the several Synods and Acts of Parliament by which Bishops, set forms of Prayer, etc. have been established amongst them, and the same Rites as are in the Church of England. Not to mention the great number amongst them that at this time are vigorous Asserters of Episcopacy; Let King James the First speak for all, in his Speech delivered in the Star-Chamber, An. Dom. 1616.— I say in my Conscience, that the Church of England, of any Church that ever I read or knew of, present or past, is most pure and nearest the Primitive and Apostolic Church, in Doctrine and Discipline, and is sureliest founded upon the Word of God, of any Church in Christendom.  
And having thus far seen the great Esteem the Reformed Churches abroad have for the Church of England as by Law established, let us next fee what Opinion they have of the Presbyterians, and other Dissenters amongst us.  
I will begin with Calvin, who in his Book De Necess. Ref. Eccl. saith, If any be found that do not reverence such an Hierarchy, (i. e. such as we have in England) and subject themselves to the same with the lowest Obedience, I confess there is no Anathema whereof he is not worthy. And again, In a well-setled Church, diversities of Customs is not to be suffered. Next for Beza in his Epistle to the English Puritans from Geneva, A. D. 1567. (of his Epistles, p. 97.) I tremble to think that any should perform their Ministerial Duty against the Will of her Majesty and the Bishops. And in another Epistle to Archbishop Grindon, A. D. 1566. speaking of the same Persons, It's in vain for them to pretend weakness in a Kingdom, where the Gospel hath been preached so many years, and been confirmed with the Blood of so many Martyrs.  
Gualterus in his Epistle Dedicatory of his Homilies upon the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, calls those morose and ignorant, who for things indifferent trouble the peace of the Church of England, and separate from her Communion,— Who whilst they endeavour to reduce the Church of England to that model and form which they have fancied, disturb her peace, which we hearty rejoice to see restored among you. To which I will add his Words in his Letter to the Bishop of Ely, A. D. 1572. I would never have sent my Son into England, the only Son by my Wife Zuinglia, (whose memory is dear to me) except I had throughly persuaded myself of our consent and agreement.  
Casaubon in his Ephemeris, A. D. 1610, Nou. 1st, in Moulin's Def. p. 7. hath this Prayer, Thou, O Lord Jesus, preserve the Church of England, and give a sound mind to the Nonconformists, who deride the Rites and Ceremonies of it.  
The Learned Bochart in his Epistle to Durel. Those who refuse to communicate with the Church of England, because of her Ceremonies are Schismatics; find your Liturgy very good, and well ordered.  
Capellus in Thes. Salm. de Liturgia. Of late there arose in England, a froward, scrupulous, and overnice, (not to say Superstitious) Generation of Men, who not only blame, but Cashier and Abolish the Liturgy used hitherto in their Church,— for causes very trivial and almost of no moment at all,— the Lord grant that they may come to a better mind.  
Mr. Claude in his Letter published by Dr. Stilling fleet. The Dissenters holding their Assemblies apart, separating from the public Assemblies, etc. is real Schism, odious to God and Man, of which the Authors and Patrons cannot avoid rendering an account before the Tribunal of God.  
Mr. Le Moyne, in his Letter A. D. 1660, published by durel. If ever any made their ungratefulness notorious, they are the English opposers of Episcopacy.— What good have these troublers of Israel, that are so contrary to Bishops done, for well nigh Twenty Years, that they have ruled? Have not all things grown worse? Heresy grown bold?— Did ever Satan work more mischief than since the time that these Men became Masters,— for a reunion of all the foreign Reformed Churches the King of England must preserve the Bishops. And in his Letter published by Dr. Stillingfleet.— Whence is it that some English Men have so ill an opinion of the Church of England, and divide rashly from her, as they do? Is not this to divide from all the Ancient Churches, from all the Protestant Churches, which have always had a very great respect for the purity of that of England?— I look upon these Men as Disturbers of the State and Church, and who are doubtlessly animated by a Spirit of Sedition;— Societies composed of such Persons, would be extremely dangerous, and could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder, and advancing towards one's own ruin,— to cantonize themselves and make a Schism, to have the liberty to vent such vanities, is very ill conduct.  
Mr. Goyon in his Letter published by durel. Those are in a Dream and dote, who have an Opinion that the Conscience is wounded by living under the English Liturgy; and they wrong us very much, when they quote us to foment a Schism extremely scandalous.  
And thus I have given the judgements of the most eminent Men of the Reformed Religion, of France, Holland and Geneva, and shown what opinion they have of the Church of England as by Law established, and what opinion they have of the Dissenters from it; and whoever seriously considers these things, will find no reason for us to alter our establishment, in order to an union and compliance with the foreign Reformed Churches. It's hard to meet with any one considerable Protestant Writer that speaks ill of the Church of England, besides the Dissenters that live amongst us, and some few that have been prejudiced by them. And should we compare the Eulogies and Praises that these Foreign Divines give the Church of England, with the opprobrious Language it generally receives from our own own Dissenters, we must conclude that they and the Foreign Divines are not of the same judgement. I will mention only the Divines of the Savoy Conference, p. 3. where we have their Synodical Judgement in these words; We take the Common-Prayer to be a Defective, Disorderly and inconvenient mode of Worship, it would be a Sin to use it, etc. How different is their Language from that of the Foreign Divines?  
But lest it be objected that these are only general Expressions I have mentioned, and that notwithstanding all this, the Foreign Churches would be glad to have these Alterations made which have been proposed; I will next consider most of the things that have been insisted on to be changed, and see whether the Foreign Reformed Churches will be better pleased with them as they now are, or as those that delight in change would have them. And because the Calendar is the first thing insisted on to be altered, we will begin with that; and first the Reading of Apocryphal Chapters in the Church, and especially the Book of Tobit, by which (saith one of them,) we give too much countenance to the Church of Rome, and supplant Canonical Scripture, etc. Now to see how very little reason is for this Objection, let it be observed,  
1. That our Church always calls these Books Apocryphal, and thereby sufficiently distinguisheth them from the Canonical, and herself from Popery.  
2. In the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, she declares, That she reads them for example of Life and instruction of Manners, but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine.  
3. All our Divines that have written upon this Subject, especially Reynolds and Cousins, have so Learnedly and unanswerably baffled the Papists, that they have never thought good to reply to them.  
4. Our Church hath taken so great care in this matter to avoid giving offence, that several of these Books are never Read in the Church at all, as the Maccabees, Books of Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, and the famous Fifth Chapter of Tobit, about him and his Dog, which hath been left out of our Church from the beginning of King James the 1st, almost an 100 Years; the other Books that are ordered to be Read in the Church, are never read on Sundays, but only Weekdays.  
Now our Church in allowing of them sometimes to be Read, doth much better agree with the Primitive Church, than she would if they were shut quite out; for 'tis certain that they publicly Read them. Athanasius, or the Author of the Synopsis calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. not received into the Canon, but read in the Church, Ruffinus in Symb. Alii libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, Tobit, Judeth, etc. quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesia voluerunt, non tamen Professi ad Authoritatem fidei confirmandam. i e. There are Books which are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical, as Tobit, Judeth, etc. all which are read in the Church, but not produced to confirm any Article of Faith. Which is exactly agreeable to the words of St. Hierom in his Preface to his Commentary upon Proverbs, and which are quoted and approved of by our Church in the Thirty Nine Articles. Gregorius Magnus in Moral. l. 19 c. 13. Art. 6, may speak for the succeeding Ages, where he calls these Books, though not Canonical, yet published for the Edification of the Church. That they were Read in the African Churches, appears from one of the Carthaginian Councils, at which St. Austin was present, 3 Carthag. Can. 47. That they have been all along read in the Western Churches, appears from Isidore de Eccles. Off. Rabanus de instit. Cler. etc. And lastly, the Lectionarius published by Pamelius, and which goeth under the name of St. Hierom, and hath been of great Use and Authority in the Western Churches, gives an account of particular days, when particular places of the Apocryphal Books were appointed to be read in the Church. As to the Greek Church, besides the author of the Synopsis already mentioned, Origene in his Epistle to Affricanus saith, that the history of Susannah was read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in every Church of Christ. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Churches make use of the book of Tobit. And as to their present practice, besides their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 printed at Venice, A. D. 1596. which contains their several lessons for the whole year, and hath several taken out of the Apocrypha, we have the express authority of one that lived amongst them, Mr. Rycaut in his History of the Greek Church, p. 372. In the Greek Church they receive the Apocryphal Books as we do in England. In the  Churches they read the Athcpocryphal Books, as appears from Ludolfus' History of those Churches; and lastly, by the works of Hippolytus, Origen, St. chrysostom, St. Hierome, Theodore●, Asterius, Leo Magnus, and others, it appears that the Fathers not only wrote Comments upon these books, but frequently preached upon them, and took their Texts thence; not to mention that Conradus Pelican, Drusius, and some other Reformed Divines, have without any offence wrote comments upon them as upon other parts of the Bible.  
If from this general agreement of all the Christian Churches in the World, we consider in the last place the judgement of the Reformed Churches, we shall find them also agree with us. 1. For the Lutheran Churches they gerally use them as we do, and Alsted in Theol. Pol. p. 287. gives this account of them, that they are sacri secundum quid, & populare quadam ratione, & merito proxime a vere divinis locum obtinere possunt, i. e. that they are in a sense sacred, and deserve the next place to the Canonical Scriptures. And Chemnitius in examen. post. 1. de. ser. can. speaking of the Apocryphal Books, saith, A fidelibus in Ecclesiis leguntur, i. e. they are read by the Orthodox in the Churches. And then for the Churches of the Calvinists, first hear Calvin himself in Psychopannichia, Melius nos decent sacrae literae, corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, i. e. the holy Writings teach us better, that the corruptible body oppresseth the Soul. And yet those Sacred Writings are the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, from whence that sentence is taken. Conradus Pelicanus, in his preface to his Comments upon the Apocryphal Books, saith of them that they are Ecclesiastici ac Biblici & in Ecclesia Catholica ab Apostolorum temporibus fuerint cum reverentia lecti, i. e. these books are read in the Church, and bound up with our Bibles, and have with reverence been read in all Christian Churches from the very time of the Apostles, and he was a famous Professor at Zurich. Lud. Capellus in Thes. Salm. expressly approves of the Declaration of our Church in her 39 Articles, and saith that profit may come to the Church by their being read publicly; and so they were read in the Primitive times for the instruction of manners. Episcopius Professor at Leyden, in Tom. 2. Part. 2. p. 75. though the Apocryphal Books cannot serve to confirm an Article of Faith, yet may profitably be read in ' the Church. And indeed, of the Dutch Churches, we have their solemn judgement declared in the Synod of Dort. Art. 6. We make a difference betwixt the Canonical and Apocryphal Books, which last are the 3d and 4th of Esdras, Tobit, Judeth, etc. which the Church may read, and take instructions in them agreeable to Canonical Scripture: The Bibles of Holland, Geneva, and other reformed Churches, have these books printed 
Quere in Deodats, & Ju 〈…〉 Bible's.  and bound up with the Canonical as we have; and in the Preface to the Apocryphal Books, they commend the very sentences of Ruffinus and St. Hierom, which declare for the public reading of them in the Churches. And the like is done by the Publishers of the Harmony of the Confessions of all the Reformed Churches Printed at Geneva; and lastly, the Reformed Churches of France, in their Book of Discipline, p. 391. have this rule, Les liures de la Bible soit Canonique ou autres ne seront transformez en Comedies ou Tragedies, i. e. the books of the Bible, whether Canonical or others, shall not be used in Plays; in which Words, they first call these Apocryphal books part of the Bible, and then take care that they be not profaned. And thus it's evident, that all the Primitive and Purer Ages of the Church, all the Eastern, Western, and African Churches, all the Lutheran and Calvinistical Churches beyond Sea, do either read these books publicly in their Churches, or very expressly approve of it; nor is there any one instance of any Reformed Church that since the Reformation, read them publicly as we have done, but still continues to do so; and our English Dissenters are condemned by all the Churches in the World, in leaving them out of their Bibles, who were the first body of Christians, as far as I can find, that ever did so.  
To make this the more evident, I shall here give a Catalogue of the public large Bibles, of all the Countries I could meet with; in all which, upon examination, I find the Apocryphal added, for the same intent as in ours, viz. For the Example of Life, and the Instruction of Manners.  

A Catalogue of Bibles Printed with the Apocrypha.  
English, with Archbishop Cranmers Preface, Lond. 1541.  
By Coverdale, Lond. 1550.  
By Command of Q. Eliz. Lond. 1578.  
Welch, Lond. 1588.  
Scotch, Edinburgh. 1596.  
English translated by Wicliff a M. S. with a Prologue, in which are these words, Holy Church readeth, Judeth, and Toby, and the Books of Maccabees, but receiveth not them among Holy Scriptures; so the Church readeth the two Books Ecclesiastici and Sapience, to edify the People, not to confirm the Authority of Teaching.  
Bohemian, 1613.  
Danish at Copenhagen, 1550.  
French at Geneva, 1588.  
At Amsterdam, 1669  
Germane, 1604  
Of Luther's Translation.  
Heidelberg, 1617.  
Dutch at Frankfurt, 1580  
Armenian at Amsterdam, 1666  
Spanish by Protestants, Amsterdam, 1602.  
Hungarian, by the Protestant Bishops of Hungary, at Hannover and Oppenheim, 1608  
Muscovitish at Ostrogoth, 1581.  
Italian by Deodate, 1607  
Latin, by Castalion, dedicated to King Edward the 6th. Bas. 1573  
By Junius, dedicated to William Prince of Orange, 1592.  
By Robert Stephens, Paris, 1540  
Critici Sacri 9 Tomis Lond. 1666  
Hebrew. 

Polyglott. 〈◊〉 Lond. 1567.    
Septuagint.  
Syrtach.  
Vulgar Latin.   
And indeed, amongst all the Bibles which I have seen, I find them only left out in the Spanish Bible, examined by the Inquisitors, printed at Ferara 1553, and that of New-England, in the Virginian Tongue, printed at Cambridge in New-England 1663. So that if to comply with our English Dissenters, we must strike out these Apocryphal books, I know no Bibles we shall follow, but that of the Inquisitors of Spain, and the Commissioners of New-England.  
And to conclude this head, I shall put down these five observations:  
First, That no Papist ever made use of this as an Argument that our Church owned these Books as Canonical, so that there could be no feal ground for this objection.  
Secondly, That there neither is, nor ever was any one Christian Church in the whole World that had set Lessons appointed for every day in the year, as we have, but some of them were taken out of the Apocrypha.  
Thirdly, That no one foreign Church whatsoever did ever declare themselves offended with the Church of England in this matter, but as I have showed, generally approve it.  
Fourthly, That these very persons who complain of our reading Apocryphal Chapters for Lessons, make no complaint of having Hymns printed in their Bible's before and after David's Psalms in meeter, and being frequently used in the Church instead of them. Which is agreeable to the practice of Holland, where that Church before Sermon sings a Hymn, composed by one John Wittenhaven, as we do any one of our Psalms.  
Fifthly, That the great Promoters of this objection do not stop here, but urge it to the laying aside Sermons and Homilies, as not being within the Canon; yea, and the Scripture and Lessons themselves, and as we have reason to fear laying aside all public service whatsoever. T. C. in his admonition, p. 221. would have no Homilies read in the Church, because nothing but the voice of God, and holy Scriptures, should sound in his Church; and this will destroy Sermons and Preaching also. The Author answered by Bishop Nicolson in his Apology, p. 184. is angry with our Church for reading two Lessons, and would have but one: And that Lesson also is in danger by the Author of the Letter to the Convocation, p. 21. where he proposeth the leaving out the first Lesson in the Afternoon upon short days, and in Country Parishes to read Prayers without Lessons.  
So that upon the whole, however it seems to some a small, to others a reasonable matter, I do not say to leave out, for than that should have been done at first, but to reject the Apocryphal Lessons, yet in this we shall separate from the Primitive, the Eastern, Western and African Churches, from most of the Reformed Churches; we must alter the 39 Articles of Religion, which have been so generally received and applauded, for they declare that the Church doth read them. We must alter our Apologies and Canons, for there (Canon. 30. Juells' Apol. p. 170.) it's declared, that it was so far from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and other Churches, in all things which they hold and practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it only departed from them in those particular points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches. To this agreeth the Apology for Protestants, by a French Divine, and translated A. D. 1681. p. 23. As to the reproach cast upon our first Reformers, it is one of the greatest injustices in the world, for nothing can be clearer from their own writings, than that it was never their intent to subvert the ancient Government of the Church, nor to abolish those Religious Rites and Holy Ceremonies, which the piety of the primitive Christians had introduced, but only to take away the abuses of them. So that in making unnecessary changes in these things, we shall destroy the very foundation and principle of the Reformation. And that this rule is properly applied to the matter in hand, is evident from the declaration of our Church at the beginning of the Liturgy, where the reading of the Lessons as is appointed, is called a godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers— agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers. Upon all which accowts it is evident, that we ought not to consent to the taking away the Apocryphal Lessons, and that the Reformed Churches do not desire it of us.  
Secondly, As to the Rules and Tables for finding Easter, great objections have been raised against our Church, and some Eminent Dissenters have declared that they could not give their assent and consent to our Liturgy, because these were false. Now by false they do not mean that they are contrary to Scripture, for there are no Rules in the New Testament for this purpose, and that in the Old, for finding their first Months in the Year, by the approaching Harvest, and Offering their First-fruits on the sixteenth of the first Month, cannot possibly agree to us whose Harvest is not ripe till the latter part of the year. But by false, they generally mean that they are not agreeable to themselves, and whereas our rule to find Easter is to keep it on the first Sunday, after the first full Moon, after the twenty first of March, by our very Tables as they say it appears that we frequently keep it otherwise. Now this is a great mistake, and shows the Ignorance of those that object it. The Fathers met at the first Council of Nice, and those before that time also did generally agree, that Easter-day should always be kept on the Sunday, the day of Christ's Resurrection, and therein the Christians differed from the Jews, who kept the Passover any day of the Week. They also agreed to keep it after the Vernal Equinox, and in this they agreed with the Elder Jews, Aristobulus, the Author of the Book of Enoch, Philo, &c, as it is observed by Anatolius in Eusebius. And lastly, at or after the full Moon, according as God ordered the observation of the Passover in the Book of Exodus. Now because these were great disputes about the precise day of the Venral Equinox, and Astronomers have not yet learned to Calculate a New-Moon exactly, and one quarter of an hour near the division of a Day, may make the New-Moon a day sooner or later, therefore the Fathers in the Nicene Council, and other Learned Men since, have esteemed it the best way to appoint a fixed Equinox, and a perpetual rule for the discovery of the New-Moons, which if in long Tract of time should vary from the true Equinox, and the true New-Moons; yet such error would not create that difference and disorder in the Church, which continually arose by their several Calculations, and this was called the Ecclesiastical New-Moon. All Wise men constantly observing that it was not a matter of so great moment, whether we kept Easter a little sooner or later, so that all Churches would agree in the same time, and there might be no Schism in the body. Now the Equinox was fixed by the Nicene Council on the twenty first of March, and that hath been constantly observed by all Christian Churches of the World, as the Vernal Equinox, till A. D. 1582. when it was altered by Pope Gregory the 13th, which was since the beginning of our Reformation, and our rejecting the Papal Supremacy. Then for the discovery of the New-Moons for ever, they having observed that the New-Moons after 19 years returned to the same days of the Month, in a Julian year, and very near the same time of the day, they made a Cycle of New-Moons for 19 years according to the skill of the best Calculators of that Age, and ordered that Cycle to be of perpetual use in the Church for the discovery of the Paschal New-moons. Which for its great use, and establishing peace and union in the Christian Churches, was put down in all their Kalendars in Golden Letters, and thence called the Golden number. Ambrose Epist. 83. Majores nostri convenientes ad Synodum Nicaenam congregatis peritissimis calculandi, novemdecem annorum collegere rationem, & quasi quendam constituere circulum, quem Enneadecaterida vocant, etc. Dionys. Exig. Ep. 1. Venerabiles 318 Pontifices qui Nicaeae convenerent 14mas lunas paschalis observantiae per 19 annorum circulum stabiles, immotesque fixerunt, quae cunctis saeculis eodem quo reponuntur Exordio sine varietatis labuntur excursu, etc.  
Our Church likewise hath taken care to print this very Cycle of New-Moons in the first Column of her Calendar, see Isidor. Orig. p. 967. by which the Ecclesiastical Fullmoon is discovered. And to make all plain, in our great Church Bibles, this is explained in these words; The Golden number is so called, because it was written in the Calendar with letters of Gold, right at the day whereon the Moon changed, and it is the space of 19 years, etc. And tho' in this space of almost 1300 years since that Council, this Cycle of New Moons is too late for the true New-Moons in the Heavens by 4 days and some hours, yet no Christian Church in the world did go about to disturb the peace and quiet of the Church in such a trivial matter, till it was about 100 years since very Schismatically altered by Pope Gregory. To bring this matter to a Conclusion, let it be observed,  
First, That our Calendar is agreeable to itself, and if we find the New-Moons according to this ancient and authentic Cycle, we always keep Easter the first Sunday after the first Fullmoon, after the Vernal Equinox fixed upon the 21st of March.  
Secondly, That in following this method we agree with all the Christian Churches in the World, from the Council of Nice, to A. D. 1582. i. e. for the space of near 1200 years.  
Thirdly, That we now agree with the Greek Church and all the Eastern Christians who keep Easter at the same time as we do. (For the Greek and Armenian Churches, see Mr. Rycaut, p. 416: for  Churches see Ludolfus, etc.) And withal those Protestants whose Reformation was established by the consent and agreement of the Regal authority before the alteration made by Pope Gregory.  
Fourthly, It's an opinion very agreeable to the peace and union of Christian Churches that that which hath been once established by an Universal Council, ought not to be altered by a Provincial Synod, and this matter having been famously settled by the first general Council, and that also as to this particular confirmed by several others, and by the first Council of Antioch all ordered to be excommunicated that disobeyed it, we ought not to make alterations. And I pray let it be observed that our Church did by her representatives give consent to some of those very Councils. At the Council of Arles in France, A. D. 314. were present three English Bishops, and the very first Canon agreed on there was this, Ut uno die & tempore Pascha celebretur, i. e. That Easter should be every where kept the same day. Which seems to have been the very first resolution about this matter in the Council of Nice. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 18. And Constantine's Letter giving an account of the first Council at Nice, expressly gives us the agreement also of the British Churches, to the keeping Easter after that method. Euseb. vit. const. l. 3. c. 19 Socrates Hist. p. 285.  
Lastly, let it be considered, before we change, how we shall alter, for either we must follow the new method of the Church of Rome, and the Decree of Pope Gregory, and therein we shall not only take away our agreement with the Greek and Eastern Churches, but shall more than ever be cried out against by the Dissenters, for complying with the Church of Rome. Or else we must establish a particular method of our own, and that would look very ill, and far from promoting the peace and union of Christian Churches, that in a thing so very indifferent in its own nature, we should fall from and contradict all the Christian Churches in the World. How much such an alteration would tend to promote Faction and Schism, I leave all the World to judge.  
I pass by the silly objection of our keeping two Easters in one year. For if by year we mean the exact revolution of 365 days, according to all rules now used in the Christian World, we must keep two Easters in one year, every third year, or thereabouts. Or if we mean that we keep two Easters betwixt one 25th of March, and the next, this may be easier mended by beginning our year only at Jan. first, as is the more usual way, and so there is never two Easters in one Almanac. And if we kept Easter according to the true New-Moons, and the true Equinox, the same objection would continue, and always must so long as our beginning of the year is betwixt the Paschal Terms, whereof the first was always fixed at the Equinox, which now happens before the 25th of March, this being the nature of movable Feasts.  
I may very well pass by also the objecting of the Saints and Bishops Names continued in our Calendar, which as its generally used in the Lutheran Churches, so is evidently done for a Civil, and not any Religious use, as hath been long since declared in the Preface to Pieces Privatae published by authority, A. D. 1573. The words are, Not that we repute them all for Saints or holy men, but that they may be as notes of some certain things, and fixed seasons, the knowledge of which is very beneficial; of which sort are Hilary, Valentine, David, St. George, Martin, Swithin, Lammas, Giles, Holyrood, Evispine, All-Souls, Leonard. Cicilia, O Sapientia, etc.  
And so as far as I can see, the only way to continue peace and union amongst ourselves, and with other Protestant Churches, is to continue the Calendar as it is.  
Pass we next to the grand objection against the old version of the Psalms, used in the Common-Prayer-Book, and the way proposed for the amending it, not by taking that of our Bibles, which is not liked, but a more correct one in their hands. So the Author of a Letter from the Country, p. 6. The Psalter added to our Liturgy, is not now so defensible, when there is a more correct in our hands— then complains of its manifold variations from the Hebrew, and frequently mistaking the sense— this must needs create no little scruple in men's minds, by having inconsistent and differing Translations. Again, p. 13. in comparing the two Translations of the Psalms, we find them in some things inconsistent, and one time the one to deny what the other affirms, viz. Psal. 105. 28. And again, the Letter to the Convocation, p. 15. must we be forced to read the old Translation of the Psalms, and impose that on the people for true Scripture, which in so great a number of places quite differs from it? Here is in all this complaint not one word of the singing Psalms, which are not only different in Words, and Phrases, from both of them, but in the sense also, as being composed from a more ancient English Version than either of them. And so the Protestant Churches of France continue to Sing the Psalms according to Marrot's composition, full of uncouth words and expressions, Apol. for Prot. p. 76. and read their Bible according to a Version made at the beginning of the Reformation. p. 82. which looks as if the Authors of these Objections were of a Presbyterian Original, i. e. have a great Veneration for Hopkins and Sternhold, and a natural antipathy to the Common-Prayer. However weighty this Argument be to us at home, yet Foreigners are not concerned in it: And though (however we do not do it, most certainly the Parliament will) as saith the Author of the Letter to the Convocation, p. 23. It was far otherwise in Queen Elizabeth's time, when the Convocation was very earnest upon this very design of altering the Translation of the Psalms in the Liturgy, and were by the Parliament seriously dissuaded from it. Hammond L'Estrange's Alliance of Divine Offices, p. 75. But the best is, this confident guesser is here mistaken also, and our old Translation hath outlived that Parliament. Not to mention that if we lay aside this Version, and take a new correct one, never yet Printed, into our Liturgy, the objection remains as at first, and here may be as much difference betwixt the Psalms in the Common-Prayer, of a new more correct Edition, and that in our Bibles, as is now. Nor was it ever proposed, or so much as hinted in the Commission to the Convocation, to have a new Translation of the Bible. As to the Translation used in the Liturgy, it is not made from the Version of the Septuagint, nor from the Vulgar Latin, as is evident to any one that will compare them. And King James' Translators of the Bible, declare of the meanest of our English Translations of the Bible, that they were the Word of God. And though in some places, it seems rather to agree with the Septuagint, yet it seems done chief in such places, where we have great reason to believe, that the Septuagint is more correct, and more agreeable, to the Original Hebrew. So Psalm 14. 5, 6, 7. are not in our present Hebrew Bibles, but yet are quoted thence by St. Paul, Rom. 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. and Psal. 51. 4. our Common-Prayer reads it— and clear when thou art judged; agreeable to St. Paul, Rom. 3. 4. but the Version used in our Bibles is different from both: Clear when thou judgest.  
And if we would but take the pains to compare both Translations of the Psalms, with the common Version of the New Testament, it will be easy to find many places where our old Translation is more agreeable to the New Testament; of which take these few instances:  
Mat. 1. 43. He trusted in God, let him deliver him now if he will have him.  
Psal. 22. 8. in the Liturgy. He trusted in God, that he would deliver him, let him deliver him if he will have him.  
Psal. 22. 8. in the Bible. He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.  
Rom. 10. 18. Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.  
Psal. 19 4. in the Liturgy. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world.  
Psal. 19 4. in the Bible. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.  
Rom. 11. 10. And bow down their back always.  
Psal. 69. 24. in the Liturgy. And ever bow down their backs.  
Psal. 69. 23. in the Bible. And make their loins continually to shake.  
1 Pet. 3. 11. Let him eschew evil.  
Psal. 34. 14. in the Liturgy. Eschew evil.  
Psal. 34. 14. in the Bible. Depart from Evil.  
So that it was no doubt, the wisdom of those that compiled this Version in our Liturgy, to consider the Authentic Translation made by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament; and if we should admit the same Version of the Psalms into the Liturgy, which is in the Bible, these men of scruples might be at as great a loss to reconcile the Psalms, and the second Lesson, read presently after them, as they now are to reconcile the two Versions of the Psalms, and at as great a loss to reconcile both with the Singing Psalms, which were certainly composed by as old, or older Version, than that in the Common-Prayer-Book.  
As to that one place, Psal. 105. 28. which hath been often urged by the Presbyterians, from the very days of Queen Eliz. and as often answered, so that I cannot but admire at the ignorance of the diligent Will. Prynne in this matter, who in his Pacifick Examination of the Common-Prayer, p. 6. where having proposed this objection against the Translation of Psalm 105. 28. tells us, that it was occasioned by the Printers omission of one syllable, to wit, Obedient for Disobedient, not the Translators. But to pass this by, Hooker and Fuller, in Miscel. show that the Translation in the Liturgy best agreeth with the Hebrew, and their judgement is confirmed by the Septuagint, Syriack, Arabic, and  Versions. In the old Latin Versions it was read both ways, as St. Austin observes, Tom. 8. enarrat. in Psal. and yet it made no disturbance in the Church, in that or the following ages. Not to mention that both Versions are very good sense, and not at all contradictory, in the Liturgy, they were not obedient, refers to the Egyptians, mentioned v. 27. In the Bible, they rebelled not, refers to Moses and Aaron, v. 26. and even so our old Version is to be preferred, it being more natural for a Verb to refer to the last verse, than the last but one; but both are very good sense, and as properly retained in our Church, as the different readings were by the Jews preserved in their Bibles. And whoever shall give himself the trouble to compare the Versions of the Bible, shall have far greater objections than this, Deut. 21 12. She shall pair her nails; in the Margin of our Bibles, She shall let them grow. Gal. 2. 3. in the Greek, Titus was not circumcised. In many Latin copies, Titus was circumcised. And again, v. 5. in the Greek, To whom we have not yielded, in the Latin, To whom we have yielded; and this latter was used by Ireneus, l. 3. c. 13. a Greek Father. By Tertullian, l. 5. in Martion. p. 463. St. Ambrose in locum, etc. and many of the Fathers, as St. Hierom, Primasius, Sedulius, Haymo, etc. freely take notice of both readings.  
I might instance also in 1 Cor. 15. 51. where some read, We shall all sleep; of which St. Hierom hath a large discourse. Also in Mat. 2. 6. compared with Micab 5. 2. and many other places; not to mention what those very Translators of the Bible, whose Version is contended for, declared, That they in many places set diversity of senses in the Margin, for that to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (in the judgement of Judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption: As St. Austin saith, That variety of Translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures, so diversity of sense in the Margin, where the Text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary as we are persuaded.  
But if any Learned Person hath taken pains to make a more correct Version than either of these the English Church now useth, I hope he will not envy the Church the benefit of his labours, but will make it public, as Rob. Gell. Printed an Essay towards the amendment of the English Translation of the Bible, Lond. 1659. But I can by no means think it proper to have it proposed to the Convocation, who upon some short examination of it, should Authorise it. When the Clergy are called to the Convocation, they are most of them remote from their Boods, and in London want leisure to examine the many difficulties that will arise. St. Hierom made a more exact Translation of the Psalms than that the Latin Church before used; he made it public, and proposed it to the care and study of Learned Men to examine it, and when an Universal Approbation had for some Ages given it Authority, it was at last received into the Church, instead of the other, but not till some hundreds of years after the time of St. Hierom. And when Gregory the Great, about the year 600, composed Hymns for the use of the Church, it was out of the old Version of the Psalms. Nor can it seem strange that the same Church should use two different Versions of the Psalms, for this was done in all the Western Churches, in the time of Gregory the Great, who in his Epistle Dedicatory, in the beginning of his Comments upon Job, saith, Sedes Apostolica utraque utitur; the Roman Church useth both Editions. Leander, in Spain, about the same age, wrote a comment upon both Versions; and Card. Bona tells us, that the old Version was in frequent use till the time of Pius V is still used in the Church of the Vatiean, and continued in their Breviaries. When only a Catechism was composed, not by a single person, but a whole Assembly of Divines, at Westminster, it was Printed and sent about, and public intimation made to the Assembly in Scotland, that whoever had any objections, might put them in. And when a great many Learned Men were called together, by King James l. to correct and review the Translation of the Bible, they were no less than three years about it, as they themselves tell us in their Preface: So that I hearty desire that Reverend person would publish his new Version, and when time and an universal approbation hath given it authority, it may be received into the use of the Church, not in the Common-prayer-book only, but Bible also. And this hath been done by several who have made excellent composures of the Singing Psalms, and far better than those we now use, and yet the prudence of our Church hath not yet thought fit to give any one of them the stamp and seal of authority; for this reason chief, because the Church hath been long used to these, she hath and can sing many of them by heart. which as its the best reason for the continuance of the old Singing Psalms, so is much more a reason for the continuance of that Version in our Liturgy, which is also sung in our Cathedrals and Colleges, and is much better than the other. Psalterio Hieronymi ex Hebraicis p●propagato Ecclesia Romana locum non concessit, quia veteri certis constricto numeris modulando assuetae Christianorum aures, universeque adeo Ecclesiae alterius novitatem ferre nunquam potuerunt. Huetius de interpret. p. 109. Not to mention that in the year 1660, there was far greater reason to take the new Translation, which only had been in use for 12 years together, into the Liturgy, than to do it now; the old Edition hath been in constant use for thirty years together, and yet that wise Convocation refused to do it then.  
The Translation of the Bible, made in the time of King James I. was upon the importunate complaints of the Puritans, that they could not subscribe to the Common Prayer-Book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there Translaed, which was, as they said, a most corrupted Translation; and yet they were some of the first that quarrelled at it, as soon as it was made, and few or none conformed upon that account; and the Papists presently clamoured against us for altering our Translation so . And the very Translators, after they had examined all the old, and made a new Translation, declared, That there was no need of a new Translation, nor of a bad one, to make a good one, but only to make a good one better.  
Next let us consider the project of leaving out the Athanasian Creed, occasioned by 4 four questions proposed against it, whereof the last is from the Council of Ephesus, against all additions being made to the Creed, and so strikes at the whole Creed, as well as the condemning Sentences. Letter from the Country, p. 14, 15. Must we always pronounce all damned, that do not believe every tittle of Athanasius ' s Creed, Letter to the Convecation, p. 15. And both these give ample encouragement to that Heretical and virulent Book, which at that very time was published against that Creed, and no less against the Trinity itself; the Book sold openly, many of them were given about, and magnified by the party, without any control of that sort of men of Latitudinarian principles, till at length it received a just censure from the honest Clergy of the lower House of Convocation; though at that very time, to the admiration and scandal of all sober men, that very censure was there also by great and leading men opposed. It's objected by the Author of the Letter from the Country, p. 14. he finds a great dispute between the Greek and Latin Church, about the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, now the first question is, whither of these two Churches be in the right? Now the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is in the Nice Creed also, received in our Liturgy, and confirmed by the 39 Articles of our Religion, and Art. 5. expressly declares, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son, and so here is an Article of Faith called into question. Not to mention the exact Harmony and Union of all the Protestant Churches of the World in this point. I except only Arrians, Socinians, and such other Heretics who ought not to be called Protestants. And therefore the leaving out of the Athanasian Creed upon such a reason must needs give great offence to all the Protestant Churches in the World. More particularly the Athanasian Creed is at this day approved of and Authorised, by the Confession of the Reformed Churches of France, first Published A. D. 1561. We receive the three Creeds, Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creed, because they are agreeable to the word of God. By the Belgic Confession of the Synod of Dort. Art. 9 we willingly receive the three Creeds, the Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. By the Confession of the of the Churches of Saxony, Art. 1. we have always constantly embraced the three Creeds, and their natural sense, and by God's help we will always embrace them. By the Confession of Wirtenberg, Art 1. we believe one God and three Persons, as they are explained in the three Creeds, the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasius ' s. By the Confession of the Palatine Churches, Art. 1. we believe all things contained in the Holy Scriptures, as they are explained in the Apostles Creed, Nicene and Athanasius ' s. By the Confession of the Bohemian Churches, Art. 3. particularly we receive the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. By the Confession of the Churches of Poland and Lithuania, who A. D. 1645. expressly received the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. The Russian Churches receive and use these three Creeds, after the Psalms for the day, the Priest readeth the Ten Commandments, and Athanasius ' s Creed out of the Service Book. Pagi●t Christianogr. p. 81. The very Directory drawn up by the Presbyterians at the Savoy A. D. 1661. p. 26. orders the Athanasian Creed to be read in the Church, and lastly when some Arrians would have had Beza left it out at Geneva, he returned this answer. Epist. 56. certe in tuam gratiam non mutabitur in Ecclesia Symbolum Athanasij, nec Nicenum cum nemo adhuc inventus est qui se opponeret quem Deus borrendo judicio non per diderit. i e. certainly for your sake the Church will not change the Athanasian Creed or the Nicene, since no one ever yet opposed them, whom God did not destroy.  
Now let all the World consider what a strange way here is proposed for the Union of all Protestant Churches to the Church of England, viz. by laying aside, or leaving indifferent the use of this Creed, which all the Protestant Churches in the World, even those of Geneva, Holland, and English Presbyterians, do in their very Confessions of Faith and Devotions so hearty retain and magnify.  
Proceed we next to Baptism, and against this Office two things are objected, 1. The use of the Cross, 2. Godfathers.  
1. Against the Cross, it's proposed by the Letter from the Country, p. 8. to leave the case wholly indifferent, to use or not use the Cross. p 9 If the Minister scruples the use of it, let another perform that Service; if any of the Laity let the Minister baptise without it. And the Letter to the Convocation, p. 9 the Cross in Baptism is become not only useless, but also mischievous,— occasions dissensions and schisms, is an ensign of War to make us fight against each other, a Cross of torment whereon to crucify the Lord of Life in his body the Church and rend its bowels asunder by those lamentable divisions which it causeth amongst us,— the Church of England cannot be guiltless if she do not something herein, etc. It's a sad thing that the Cross of Christ should produce all this difference amongst Christians. Well then, let us take away the use of the Cross in Baptism, and see whether there is likely to be a greater Union amongst the Christians. Ask all Churches of the World f●om Christ's time to the beginning of the Reformation, and they generally all of them used the Cross in Baptism for 1500 years, and its strange that all the Christian Churches, for so many years should be guilty of so dangerous an evil, as the sign of the Cross in Baptism, nor do I know of any one Church in the World that condemned, or so much as shown their dislike of it for 1500 years. And for the present age, it's still retained in all the Churches of the Roman Communion, in all the Greek Churches, (Rycant. p. 168.) in the Churches of the Jacobites, brerewood's Enq. p. 153.) in the Churches of Egypt. Pagitt's Chistianogr. p. 104. in the Abissine, or AEthiopian Churches, Ludolfi Hist. AEthiop. l. 3. c. 6. in the Churches of the Muscovites (Joh. Faber. de relig. Muscov.) in the Protestant Churches, of the Ausburg confession, the Sign of the Cross is generally used in Baptism; and for the other Reformed Churches, not one hath declared themselves offended with us for using it, but several eminent amongst them have declared for it. Bucer declared it an ancient and innocent Rite, and that it might be decently and profitably used. The Learned Casaubon, in his answer to Baronius, Exerc. 13. Sect. 33. commends our holy and prudent Bishops, who have retained this use of the Cross amongst us. Peter Martyr declared it lawful to profess ourselves Christians by the Sign of the Cross. Beza himself speaks favourably of it, in his book adversus Baldvinum. And Goulartius of Geneva, declares it to be a ceremony indifferent. Apology for Protestants by a French Divine, p. 87. Touching the Sign of the Cross, which the Church of England retains, to understand it as they do, as a visible mark that the Infant Baptised is enroled as Christ's Soldier, should not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and fight under his Banner— I see no ground at all of exception against this Ceremony.  
And William Durel, in his Sermon on 1 Cor. 11. 16. had amongst other things, given the Reformed of France an account of our using the Sign of the Cross; he by several Letters from De L' Angle Bochart, Daille, and other eminent Divines of the French Church, received its due praise and approbation. And now God's Providence hath settled so many thousands of them amongst us, they readily and willingly make use of it, and approve it.  
Secondly, For Godfathers: I find ●hem not only required in all the Eastern and Western Churches, but more particularly, Zuinglus in his Book de Bapt. is much for the use of them, and saith, that the clamours raised against them, were only by the Anabaptists.  
Calvin, in the form of Baptism, composed for Geneva, and which is still used there, requires Godfathers at Baptism, and they promise for the Child's Christian Education, as in the Church of England. And in an Epistle to Farell, he hath these words, We require of the Godfathers, that they promise to see the Children when grown up, instructed in the Faith they are Baptised in. If there be no Godfathers, it's certain the Baptism is profaned.  
Beza, in his Epistles, frequently declares for the use and necessity of them, and particularly in Ep. 24. reckons them among the Constitutions of the Church that bind the Conscience. And Epist. 8. to the Bishop of London, That Infants be Baptised in the public Congregation, with a set form of Prayer, that there be Godfathers to engage fortheir Christian Education, etc. these are plain and honest Rites, such as give no occasion to Superstition, and who is there that dare condemn them?  
In the Laws of the Church of Geneva Sect. 38. The name of the Infant and Godfather must be Registered by the Minister. (This was heretofore enjojned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Diocese; and I have seen some Registers in that Diocese, whereby it appears that injunction was observed for some time,) Sect. 39 None are to be Godfathers but the faithful, and those of our Confession, Sect. 40. they that are suspended from the Lords Supper must not be Godfathers.  
In the Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France, chap. 11. Sect. 7. Tho we have no express commandment of the Lord for Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism, yet because the custom is ancient, and introduced for a good end, those that will not follow so good an example, but present their Infants themselves, should be earnestly exhorted not to be contentious, but to behave themselves according to this ancient custom, which is good and profitable. Sect. 12th. The Minister shall diligently admonish the Godfathers and Godmothers, to consider the promises they have made at the celebration of Baptism, etc. and to this agreeth the Synod of St. Foy, A. D. 1578. at Samues 1596. at Montpellier 1598. which last saith that Godfathers are obliged not only to instruct the Children in Piety, but also in case of necessity to provide for their maintenance. Sect. 18th, the names of the Godfathers and Godmothers of the Infant shall be registered. Which last thing of Registering them as it's generally practised by the reformed Churches abroad, so is very agreeable to the practice of the Primitive Church, and particularly taken notice of by Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite. To all which I beg leave to add the observation of Monsieur Larroque an eminent Minister of the French reformed Church in his Book entitled, Conformite de la Discipline Ecclesiastic des Protestants de France avec celle des anciens Chietiens. A. D. 1678 and p. 208. he thus writes. L'usage des parriens, etc. i. e. the use of Godfathers and Godmothers to present Children in Baptism is very ancient, Tertullian makes mention of them in his book of Baptism. chap. 18. St. Austin in his 23d Epistle, the pretended Denies, the Areopagite who tells us that they are of Apostolic Institution. Gregory the 1st. in his book of the Sacraments. Caesarius of Arles, in his 12th Homily, the SixthCanon of the Council of Mets. A. D. 888. and indeed the subject of that whole Book is to justify their Discipline from the antiquity of it, and agreement with the primitive Church. I therefore mention this because Arguments of this nature are so very much slighted by our own Dissenters. This author in the Title page of his book prefixeth this sentence from the Laws of Theodosius, Statuimus observari quod prisca Apostolica Disciplina & Canon's veteres eloquuntur i. e. we command that those things be observed which the Apostolic Church and old Canons declare for and appoint. Which I think is more fully explained by St. Austin, Epist. 118. ad Casulan. In iis rebus de quibus nihil statuit scriptura, mos populi Dei, & instituta majorum pro lege Dei tenenda sunt; i. e. in such things as the Scripture hath not determined, the custom of the Christian Church, and the constitutions of our Ancestors should be observed as the Law of God. To return. Godfathers are also used in the Dutch, Rohemian, and all the Lutheran Churches; the professors of L●yden in their Synopsis pur. Theol. p. 616. declare that though there is not an absolute necessity of witnesses in Baptism yet the very nature of the thing, and the custom of all the Primitive Church show it to be profit able, and is probably deduced from the practice of the Jews, Is. 8. 2. Upon which place Junius in his Comment is very express, hinc ritus noster adhibendi testes in Baptismo, i. e. hence came our custom of using Godfathers in Baptism. For the use of Godfathers in the Church of the Muscovites, see Joh: Faber de relig. Muscov. For the use of them in the Ethiopian Churches, see Ludolfus. And now let even our adversaries be judges whether the laying aside the use of Godfathers, or which amounts to the same thing, leaving it as a matter indifferent to the Parents discretion and choice whether he will have any or not, be not a very unlikely method for us to make use of in this Kingdom in order to procure the peace and union of all the Reformed Churches, who no doubt would be highly displeased and offended with us should we do it.  
Kneeling at the Sacrament hath been often objected against by the Dissenters, and the Letter to the Convocation, p. 12. would have us be so indulgent as to give them the Sacrameut in their own way, and not debar them of it for the sake of a posture, to do otherwise will be a Sin. The other Letter, p. 8. would have it wholly indifferent to kneel, stand, or sit in the Lord's Supper. p. 9 The Person that scruples kneeling may have it delivered him in another posture in his Pew, etc. And yet if all this was done we should not satisfy the Presbyterians who declared at the Savoy, p. 61. That Kneeling at the Lords Table is disorderly. And in the Directory. p. 34. The Communion Table is ordered to be so placed that the Communicants may orderly sit about it. Now let us go to the Foreign Protestant Churches and advise with them in this matter, let us go into Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and advise with them and all others strictly called Protestants, and they all receive the Sacrament Kneeling. The confession of the Faith of the Bohemian Churches. Art. 13. Le the ministers distribute the Sacrameut to the Communicants upon their Knees. And as to their practice, it is to be seen in Comenius ratio Disciplinae, etc. Let Hospinian speak for Zurick and the Swiss. Hist Sacr l. 5. c. 8. The Sacrament ought to be received devoutly with bending Knees. At Geneva, and in the French Churches, they refuse to administer the Sacrament to any one that sits, and now they are so many of them in England, they all receive kneeling, which is agreeable to the Apology for the Reformed Churches written by Monsseur Dallee, chap. 12. p. 56. Thanks be to God we are not so ill taught as to scruple the receiving the Sacrament on our Knees: Our Brethren of England never receive it otherwise, and when we communicate with them we readily conform to their order. Also Apology for Protestants written by a French Protestant. p. 88 We must undoubtedly conclude it of great necessity, that the Communion should be received Kneeling, as in the Church of England, and in Germany.— And our Reformers have still been of this opinion, and he quotes Beza, Calvin, Bucer, and Peter Martyr for it. And the Genevians in their Annotations upon the Harmony of Confessions are well contented that every Church should use their Liberty in these points following, viz. Kneeling at the Communion, Organs, and Ember-days, etc. See bancroft's Survey. p. 358. 359.  
The first Person that introduced sitting at the Sacrament in England was John a Lasco an Arrian, and he was the chief Person that disturbed the Churches of Poland with this slovenly, not to say Impious opinion, as appears from Wengersicus' History of the Sclavonick Churches, p. 129. till at last in a great Synod at Petricovia●i▪ A. D. 1578. It was agreed, That because sitting at the Lord's Table is a Rite different from all the Reformed Churches in Europe, and they amongst us were the first Authors of it, who rafhly changing every thing in the Church fell away from us to Arrianism, therefore let us leave this custom to them, who irreverently treat Christ and his Mysteries, I say let us leave this custom as neither agreeing to Decency nor Religion, and to many honest Persons extremely Scandalous. And again in another Synod at Wlodislavia, Anno Dom. 1583. Sitting at the Lord's Table is forbidden in all the Churches of Poland, Lithuania, etc. As not being used by those of the Reformed Religion, and being peculiar to the Arrians. And that we have reason to have the same fear in England, appears from the many Arrians and Socinians amongst us, and more fully by the open Declarations of the Scotch Presbyterians against Kneeling at the Sacrament, They would not at the Communion signify their inferiority to Christ, nor abase themselves, but think themselves equals. Assembly at Perth, p. 38.  
It's true, that the custom of Kneeling hath been abused, in the Church of Rome, to an Idolatrous Adoration of the Sacrament, and so hath sitting and standing also. The Priest that saith Mass, receiveth the Sacrament standing, and yet adores it. At Rome the Pope's Deacon receives standing, and the Pope himself receives it sitting. Card. Bona de rebus Liturg. p. 490. And Espencaeus de● Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 16. declares that the Sacrament may be adored, sitting, standing, lying or kneeling. The care that was taken in the Churches of Poland, was, that there should be an Authentic Declaration, that no adoration of the Elements was intended by those that received kneeling, Harm. confess. p. 237. So the Church of England, took care in the second Edition of the Liturgy, in the Reign of Edward the Sixth, to insert a Rubric, declaring, That no Adoration of the Elements, or Sacrament, was intended by kneeling, and though when the Doctrine of our Church against Transubstantiation and Adoraration was sufficiently known, it was left out in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King James the First, and King Charles the First, yet upon the particular Request of the Presbyterians at the Savoy, p. 94. it was again inserted, with a design to give them satisfaction, and yet they are after all, as forward to object adoration to us, as if there had been no such Declaration made.  
From all which it's evident, that sitting is a posture very ossensive and scandalous to many other Protestant Churches, as well as ours; that kneeling is most generally used, and therefore leaving all postures indifferent, as is now proposed, by some of our own Divines, and was formerly desired by the Presbyterians at the Savoy, p. 56. is a likely way to increase the Disciples of T. F. and the opposers of the Athanasian Creed, but is never likely to work an union amongst the Protestant Churches. Letter relating to the Convocation, p. 12. This must be undeniably allowed, that antiquity never used Kneeling at the Sacrament, it having been the constant practice of all the Churches in the World to communicate standing. If you ask how this appears, they have nothing to say but that the Primitive Christians, in memory of Christ's Resurrection, for some Ages after it, stood at their Prayers on Sunday, and betwixt Easter and Pentecost; by which they suppose that the Sacrament was received in the same posture as they said their Prayers: Their Prayers at other times, were upon their Knees, as indeed this very Order supposeth, Tertull. ad Scap. Quando non geniculationibus nostris siccitates depulsae? i. e. When did not our solemn Prayers, upon our Knees, bring down Rain? Origen. in Num. c. 4. Hom. 5. Nam quod flectimus orantes, etc. where he relates the custom of the Church to pray Kneeling. And in his Book de Orat. p. 157. he saith that they generally kneeled at Prayers, except in case of Sickness. Now the Primitive Christians received the Sacrament on other days than Sunday, or that space betwixt Easter and Pentecost, and that they received it daily, is evident from St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Austin, St. Hierom, and many other Fathers; and by consequence, if they received the Sacrament in a posture of Prayer, they received it Kneeling.  
And that there might be a through Reformation, and no part of the Liturgy left entire, some have had the confidence to except against the Collects themselves, as too short, and not so pertinent: I shall only remind such, of what the Devout and Judicious Dr. Sanderson said of them, viz. That the Collects were the most passionate, proper, and most elegant expressions that any language ever afforded; and that there was in them such Piety, and that so interwoven with Instructions, that they taught us to know the Power, the Wisdom, the Majesty and Mercy of God, and much of our duty both to him and our Neighbour. And if some late Collects are intended as a Specimen, by which the old are to be mended, I believe few will rejoice in the change.  
Excommunication for contempt is complained of in both the Letters to the Convocation as a matter highly scandalous, and that we thrust out of the Church the best of our People for some penny or two penny Cause in our Ecclesiastical Courts. Now this Objection is proposed more peevishly than ever it was done by the Dissenters. After T. C. in his Admonition, p. 175. the Puritans Petition to Kings James I. A. D. 1603. That Men be Excommunicated for Trifles, and Twelve-penny Matters. So that from their Objection of Twelve-penny Matters; this Author hath stretched it to Penny and Twopenny Matters. But let us apply ourselves to the Protestant Divines of the Foreign Churches, and see what they say to it. The Dutch Divines in Sunops. Pur. Theol. p. 710. say, That the Penalty of Excommunication is chief incurred for neglecting and despising the Censures and public Admonitions of the Church. In the Ecclesiastical Laws of Geneva p. 44, 45. They that do not obey the Orders of the Church after due Admonition, are ordered to be Excommunicated. If we look into Scotland, and see Constit. Eccles. Scot cap. de Offensis. A small Offence or Calumny may justly deserve Excommunication, if the Offender be stubborn and contumacious. 1 Book of Discipl. 9 Head. All Families must appear once a Year before the Presbyter to be examined; and if Children or Servants be suffered to continue in wilful Ignorance they must be Excommunicated, etc. And how severe their Excommunication is, appears from the 7th Head. No Person may have any converse with him that is Excommunicated, not Eat nor Drink with him, nor Buy nor Sell with him, nor Salute nor Speak to him; his Children born after the Sentence, may not be admitted to Baptism, etc. And I must say the contempt is the greater, when the occasion of it is so small. Lay aside severe Penalties for Contempt, and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is lost; and to what purpose should any Court have a Power to determine, if there be no power given it to force the Execution of it? If we look upon Foreign Churches, we shall find that they are more strict in having their Canons and Constitutions observed, than we are in England. I will not mention the Severities of the Scotch-Kirk, and New-englands' Discipline, as not being reasonable, nor suited to the Nature of the Thing; but in so plain a Case, let Calvin and Beza, the two great Apostles of Geneva speak for all. calvin's Instit. l. 4. c. 5. sect. 10. Let no one that despiseth the Authority of the Church go unpunished, much less let any Body be permitted to break the Unity of the Church; Christ looks upon such as Deserters and Runnagadoes; a separation from a Church of God, is a renouncing of Christ; nor can there be any greater Crime. Again in his Comment on 1 Cor. 14. It's easy to prove that Ecclesiastical Canons ought not to be accounted for Humane Traditions, since they are founded in the Word of God, and have a manifest approbation from the Mouth of Christ. Beza in Epist. 1. Shall we say that Men ought to have Liberty of Conscience! In no wife, as this Liberty is understood, that every one should Worship God as he pleaseth, for this is a mere Diabolical Opinion to let every one perish that will; it's a Diabolical Liberty which hath filled Poland and Transylvania with so many Heresies. And again, the same Beza in his Epistle 24. to some Dissenters in England. Things in their own Nature indifferent change their Nature when they are commanded, or forbidden by any lawful Authority— Laws about Things indifferent bind the Conscience, so that no one can wilfully break them without Sin. To him agree the Dutch Divines in Synops. Pur. Theol. p. 453. No Body can wilfully disobey the Ecclesiastical Constitutions about indifferent Things without Sin. But because this is a Matter so very evident, I shall only add that in the Directory made by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, p. 9 its expressly declared, That no Persons should absent themselves from the Public Ordinances upon pretence of Private Meetings. And the Words of Mr. Baxter in his Reasons of the Christian Religion, p. 485. No Christian must pretend Holiness against Unity and Peace— And every tender Conscience should be as tender of Church-Divisions and Real Schism, as of Drunkenness, Whoredom, or such other enormous Sins.  
We come next to consider the great Point of Orders, and which seems to have been principally aimed at, viz. The allowing of Presbyterian Orders as valid, the Author of the Letter from the Country, p. 10, 11. proposeth three Expedients, The first is Bishop Bramballs; The second is Hypothetical; The third is that of the Bill of Union. To the first, I answer that Bishop Bramhall did never allow of Presbyterian Ordination, but did actually, and with all the Rites and Methods of our Church, re-ordain such as had been only ordained by Presbyters, as is evident from that very Place in the Life of Bishop Bramhall, from whence this Author quotes a Passage, and what he did for Peace Sake was only this; That in some of their Certificates of their being ordained by him, he declared That this New Ordination did not destroy their former Orders, if they had any, etc. And it's abundantly evidently, that that Bishop did re-ordain many of them. To the last of these three ways I return no Answer, because he himself doth not tell us what it was that was proposed in the Bill of Union. The second was the principal Method insisted on, and that is Hypothetical Re-ordination, in which the Office of Ordination was to be omitted, and the Person kneeling before a Bishop, the Bishop was to say, If thou art not already Ordained, I Ordain thee; or else in these Words, I pray God that thou be ordained, etc. And this is justified by the Instance of Hypothetical Baptism. To all which I reply,  
1. That the Presbyterians (the Persons we are to satisfy) have already declared against Hypothetical Ordination; so the Presbyterians at the Savoy, in their Petition for Peace, p. 2. We earnestly beseech you that Re-ordination whether Absolute or Hypothetical, be not made necessary for the future Exercise of our Ministry: now to grant them what they have already declared against, is no probable way to the Union pretended.  
2. Hypothetical Baptism is of Two sorts, 1st. When 'tis not known that the Child hath had any pretended Baptism with Water in the name of the Trinity, and then the case is not the same as this: Of such hypothetical Rebaptisation the 5th Council of Carthage, c. 3. is to be understood, where they commend the Words of Leo, Iteratum dici non potest quod nescitur ess factum, i. e. That cannot be said to be repeated, which was never known to be done. The 2d is, when all that hath been done is exactly known, but the authority of the Persons Baptising or Authenticalness of what is done, is called in question; and in this case the Presbyterians do not allow of Hypothetical Baptism; witness the Synops. pur. Theol. p. 617, Neque Baptismus conditionalis probandus est, qui a Pontificiis observari solet, i. e. neither do we approve of Hypothetical Baptism which is used by the Papists; for they to gain respect to their own Church, endeavour to persuade such other Christians as are admitted into their Church, to be hypothetically Rebaptised; of which we have one famous instance in the Church of the Abyssines, reported by Ludolfus in Hist. Aethiop. l. 3. c. 6. Patres Societatis Habessinos omnes promiscue rebaptizaverunt, sub conditione tamen, si videlicet prior Baptismus non rite fuisset peractus, quae res magnam illis invidiam conflavit; i. e. The Jesuits rebaptised all the Habessines, with this condition, namely, if their former Baptism was not rightly performed, which thing occasioned great troubles against them: Which troubles he reports, cap. 13. The Habessines hated them for nothing more than their repeating of their Baptism, as if before that they had been Heathens and Publicans. And is it not evident that Hypothetical Re-ordination will produce the same troubles here, when by this very Act our Church plainly supposeth that they were not ordained before?  
But to make all this matter plain, I will first set down the opinion of the English Presbyterians; then the opinion of the Foreign Reformed Churches.  
1. For our English Presbyterians. T. C. the Ringleader of that Party having been ordained by a Bishop, is said to have renounced his orders, and taken new orders from Presbyters in Scotland. The Presbyterians reordained Mr. John Cuningham, formerly ordained Priest by the Bishop of Galloway. Ravil. rediu. p. 29. A whole Synod of the Puritans at Coventry, A. D. 1588., June 10, condemned Ordination by Bishops as unlawful; and farther declared the very calling of Bishops unlawful. Bancroft's Engl. Scotizing. p. 86. T. C. in his Admonition, p. 127, desires the Bishops to be laid aside from ordaining Ministers, and to bring in the true Election by the Congregation. And in his Prayer before his Sermon at Banbury, printed in the Life of Archbishop Whitgift, p. 47. O Lord give us grace and power all as one Man, to set ourselves against the Bishops: Apologetical Narrative. It's a sin to take Episcopal Orders, or to own the Authority of Bishops. And to mention no more; in the Solemn League and Covenant, the Presbyterians of both Nations swore to the Extirpation of Prelacy, i. e. the government of the Church by Bishops. And accordingly in Scotland, the Presbyterians have generally persecuted all those that had Episcopal Ordination.  
2. For the Foreign Reformed Churches, observe, 1sit, That the Churches of Denmark and Norway, are governed by Two Archbishops, and Fourteen Bishops. The Churches of Swedeland are governed by One Archbishop and Six Bishops; the Churches of Hungary and Transylvania are governed by Bishops, the Reformed Churches of Bohemia have a succession of Bishops as we in England:  
Pass we next to the Reformed Churches of Germany, which are in effect governed by Bishops, whom they call Superintendants. Their Office is described in the Harmony of Confess. p. 227. to visit Parochial Ministers, to preside in Synods, to examine and ordain Persons fit for the Ministry, etc. To which agreeth Carpzovins Jurisp. Eccl. l. 1. Comenius in Annot. ad rat. disc. fratr. Bohem. where he observes that St. Hierom calls a Bishop Superintendant; in Armenia the Bishop is called Martabet, which signifieth Superintendant, saith Rycaut Hist. of Arm. Churches, p. 392. And Zanchy saith, that the Protestants have Bishops and Archbishops, but that instead of good Greek Names, they call them by bad Latin ones Superintendants, and general Superintendants. And when in the Book of Policy (A. D. 1581.) for the Kingdom of Scotland, the Office of Superintendants is described; it is in these Words. Imprimis, The Superintendant of Orkney, his Diocese shall be the Isles of Orkney, etc.  
The Superintendant of Rosse, his Diocese shall be Rosse, etc.  
The Superintendant of Edenbrough, his Diocese shall be, etc.  
The Superintendant of Glascow, his Diocese, etc.  
In all Ten Superintendants for that Kingdom.  
Then follows the Function and Power of the Superintendant,— He shall plant and erect Churches, order and appoint Ministers, Visit, etc. See the Proceed at Perth, p. 14, 15. And in all such Churches, where they have Superintendants, there is no Ordination allowed but by them.  
An Account of the Persecuted in Scotland, p. 58. There is not a falser Proposition in the World, than that the Inclinations of the generality of the People in Scotland are against Episcopacy,— and let us have a Poll for it when they will, and you shall quickly see the Demonstration.— Of the Vulgus, the Commonalty not a Third Man throughout the whole Kingdom is a Presbyterian.— And of Persons of better Quality and Education, not a Thirteenth.— In all the Country on the North of Tay, three never was above Three or Four Meeting-Houses, and these too very little frequented. At Perth, where a Presbyterian Minister hath got the Church, not One in Ten go to hear him, not one of the Magistrates. The like at Cowpar in Fife, at saint. Andrews, Sterling, Burnt-Island, etc. Even in Edenbrough, the Presbyterian Ministers are not so much frequented as the Regular Clergy;— Whatever Friends the Presbyterians there had a Year or Two ago, they arethis day diminished by a Third; the People have enough of their Cant, and are weary of their Sermons.  
2. Those Reformed Churches that are not governed by Bishops, earnestly desire them. To this purpose, the Scottish Forbs in his Irenicum, Printed A. D. 1629, p. 202, hath these Words. Such was the condition of Protestants in many Foreign Parts, that being forced by utmost necessity, they allowed Presbyters to ordain; they hearty wished that they might be ordained by Bishops, but when they could not obtain that of the Bishops without wicked conditions, etc. nor could the prohibition of Popish Bishops hinder their Ordination from being valid, since in those Countries the Presbyters and Pastors had the chief power over the Christian i e. Reformed Churches. This they did, not out of any contempt of the ancient Canons, but out of absolute necessity, as appears from the Apology of the Protestants for the Confession at Ausburg, Art. 14. We have often testified that we earnestly desire to retain the ancient Ecclesiastical Polity, and degrees in the Church, but the Bishops, (i. e. Popish,) compel our Priests to renounce their Doctrine, etc. Wherefore in some Places this Polity is destroyed, which we heartity desired to keep,— this we declare before God and the World, that it should not be imputed to us, that we have no Bishops. When at the Synod of Dort, an English Bishop had set forth the usefulness of being governed by Bishops, for repressing Heresy and Schism, etc. the Precedent of the Synod made answer, Nos non samus adeo felices, i. e. We are not so happy.  
Peter Moulin in his Preface to his Father's Answer to Perron, tells us, that the want of Bishops in the French Church was the necessity of their condition, that they desire the same Government we have in England, if they might be so happy.— When they moved Cardinal Richlieu to allow them Bishops, he flatly denied it them;— They could never get of the Civil Power a toleration of Bishops,— their Politic Statesmen would never give way to it;— nothing hath been more eagerly opposed by the Pope and his Creatures, than that the Protestants should have Bishops. The Apology for Protestants, written by a French Divine, p. 60. This may suffice to satisfy the Scruples of those that take offence at Episcopal Government, we have cleared the Point of Episcopacy,— p. 62. The Ordination of Priests ought to be without all dispute the Bishop's work, p. 63. The Superiority of Bishops to Pastors has continued from the very time of the Apostles or their Disciples, as is already made appear. And therefore in England the Papists have always laboured the Destruction of our Bishops as zealously and hearty as the Presbyterians themselves.  
That virulent Papist , in his Book de Schism. Angl. p. 167, confesseth, that nothing would more gratify the Church of Rome, than the pulling down of Bishops, Deans and Prebendaries in England. And Parsons in his Book of the Reformation of England (see Moral Pract. of the Jes. p. 313,) proposeth this as the necessary Method to bring England to the Romish Religion. And Cardinal Barbarini was so sensible of this, that he said, he could be contented that there were none of their Priests in England, so there were no Bishops. Dr. Stillingfleet Pref. to the Unreason. of Separation, p. 9 The Papists returned their Thanks to the Rump Parliament for having delivered them from the Tyranny of the Bishops. (Christian Moderator, p. 32.) And that the Papists had a chief Hand in pulling down our Bishops in England, is confessed by Albius in his Exegesis, p. 145. If Papists may not be believed in this matter, I hope Mr. Baxter may; and he declares in his Grotian Religion, p. 95. That the Papists had a Hand in casting out our Bishops. I shall end this undoubted Truth with the words of Two Eminent Persons of the Church of England; Sir Henry Yeluerton in his Preface, p. 9 It's now sufficiently known,— what wonder the casting out of Bishops was to the Reformed Churches abroad, and what public Triumph to the Roman Conclave. Bishop Sanderson in his first Preface to his Sermons, It's well known what rejoicing the Vote against Bishops brought to the Romish Party, how in Rome itself they sang their Io Paeans upon the Tidings of it, and said Triumphantly, now is the day ours, now is the fatal blow given to the Protestant Religion in England. Upon which account, we have great reason to believe that the Romanists have used their utmost endeavours to hinder the Reformed of France from having Bishops as they hearty desired.  
3. Let us see what opinion the Eminent Divines of the Foreign Reformed Churches have of our English Bishops.  
1st. Calvin in his Book de neces. ref. If they will give us such an Hierarchy in which the Bishops do not refuse to be subject to Christ, have him for their only head, (i. e.) in opposition to the Pope) and be united to the truth of the Gospel; then if there be any that do not reverence such Bishops, and submit to them, I confess there is no Anathema which they do not deserve; and in his Epistle to the Duke of Somerset, etc. he commends our English Bishops as such.  
2d. Bucer de Regno Christi. We see by the perpetual Observation of the Church from the Apostles time, that it pleased the Holy Ghost to have one Person set over the Presbyters, to have the care of the Church and govern it, and therefore he is called a Bishop. And again in his Works, p. 565. These Orders of Bishops, Priests and Deacons have ever been in the Church by the appointment of the Holy Ghost. And again in resp. protest. apud Goldast. Tom. 2. which Bucer was the Author of. How much mischief the Reformed Churches have suffered for want of Bishops, no one can easily find Words to express. (Forbs p. 132.)  
3d. Beza in Ep. p. 18. Speaking of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, adds, the Holy Ghost appointed those Orders. Contra Sarav. ad 518. Art. 3. If England continue to keep her Bishops and Arch-Bishops, let her enjoy that singular Blessing of God, which I wish they may always have. And again, (If there be any that reject all sort of Episcopacy, God forbidden that any but Mad Men should join with them.  
4th. Spanheim in Epist. ad dub. Evang. Vol. 3. At Geneva they have a great esteem for the English Bishops, and daily pray for their Prosperity.  
5th. Le Moyne from Leyden, published by Dr. Stillingfleet, p. 405. As for the Episcopal Government of England, what is there in it that is dangerous, or may alarm men's Consciences? and if this be capable to deprive us of Heaven, who is there that entered there for the space of 1500 Years? for all that time, all the Churches in the World had no other Government, etc.  
6th. When the Presbyterians had in their Solemn League and Covenant condemned Episcopacy, the Ministers at Charenton, and of the other Reformed Churches in France, the Professors, Ministers and Consistory of Geneva, and other Reformed Churches in those Part, were so scandalised, as that they feared it would bring an indelible Scandal upon the Reformed Churches, etc. King Charles' Large Declaration, p. 75.  
4. When any of the Eminent Men of other Reformed Churches censured the Church of England, it was upon our being falsely represented to them. What Calvin wrote against our Liturgy, was only upon the sight of the first Edition of Edward the 6th's Common-Prayer Book; and a Malicious Account he had received from some at Frank fort. Beza in his Letter to Archbishop Whitgift, March 8. 1921. Declared, that in his Writings touching Church Government, he ever opposed the Romish Hierarchy, but never intended to impugn the Eccesiastical Polity of the Church of England, nor to exact of them to frame themselves after the pattern of our Presbyterial Disciplene,— he wisheth that the holy College of our Bishops, may for ever continue and maintain their Right and Title in the Church's Government, etc. And if Beza at any time wrote otherwise, he was abused by slanderous reports, which caused him to do it; saith Bishop Bancroft in his Survey, p. 141. And his Guests we have confirmed by a Letter from Gualther to the Bishop of Ely, A. D. 1572. and Printed by Archbishop Whitgift.— We admonished your Adversaries not to move any Contention in the Church for matters of so small importance, and we thought the matter had been Buried; when contrary to all men's expectations, there came Two English Men from Geneva, and bring from Master Beza (whose Ears they had before filled with forged Accusations, Letters full of Complaints, and desire that we would help the afflicted State of England, and advised me to make a Journey to you; to which was joined the Report of these two, who reported the same things to us, that they had done at Geneva, and set down in Writing many Superstitions which they said were now defended in England;— but afterwards Letters from D. A. a singular honest Man delivered you all from blame.— Since that time we have had nothing to do with those lying busy-bodies, for not long after, it plainly appeared, that they went about, and were the chief Authors of Disturbances in the Palatinate Churches, and brought much trouble and disquiet to them. Wherefore I beseech you, that you would not have any ill opinion of Gualther, who bears a singular affection to the English, and is persuaded of our exact consent and agreement, etc.  
In our late Civil Wars, Milton, and Georgius Hornius (under the Counterfeit Name of Honorius Reggius,) a Professor at Leyden, and some others were hired to give a false and abusive account of the Church of England to the Foreign Churches, and the very Assembly of Divines at Westminster, wrote a Letter, which was sent to the Belgic, French, Helvetian and other Reformed Churches, to assure them, that the King made it his business to root out the Protestant Religion, and used. all means possible to reduce the whole Nation to Popery. Bibl. Regia. p. 64. And of this we have as much reason to complain now as ever, it being notoriously known, that not long since, a Gentleman of considerable quality made a Journey on purpose into France, to represent the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England as Popishly affected, it being the lot of this Church to be misrepresented by Men of Designs and Malice, for both Papists and fanatics, as may best serve the turns of its Enemies in different Seasons.  
5. Let us see what opinion the Universal Church hath of such as in opposition to Bishops, are ordained by Presbyters; the 31st of those that are called Apostles Canons. If any Presbyter despise his Bishop, and set up separate Meetings, let him be Deposed, and the People Excommunicated. The 5th Canon of the Council at Antioch decreed, that if any Presbyter despising his Bishop, separate himself from the Church, and make Meetings of his own; after the First and Second Admonition, he ought to be condemned, and not allowed to Preach, and if he still go on to disturb the Church, he ought to be punished by the Secular Power, as a Seditious Person. This Canon is received into the Code of the Canons of the Universal Church, and was confirmed in the 4th general Council at Chalcedon, Act 4.  
Athanasius in his 2d Apology tells us, that Coluthus a Presbyter passing by the Bishop of Alexandria, ordained several Persons, all his Ordinations were declared void, and all that he had ordained, were reduced to the order of Laics. And I want an instance of any one Reformed Church in the World, where Bishops are established, that Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to them, is allowed as valid; and I think the Church of Rome is the only Church in the World that being governed by Bishops, allows of Presbyterian Ordination, not regularly and of course, but by an extraordinary faculty from the Pope's inexhaustible Power. Of which, see Willet in Synopsi Papis. controv. 16. q 2. Theol. Rhem. in 1 Tim. 4. 14. Forbesii Iren. p. 176, 177, 178, 179. where he largely proves it from the Canonists, Schoolmen, etc. I am sure the Papists have often objected it to us, that we have no Priests, because we have no Bishops, (Bancroft's Survey, p. 166,) and have taken a great deal of Pains to set about the Nagshead Fiction, and destroy the order of our Bishops; which shows how glad they would be to have them all destroyed.  
Lastly, such Eminent Divines of the Foreign Churches that have come into England, and had only Ordination by Presbyters, and received Preferment here, have readily and willingly received Episcopal Ordination; and now it hath pleased God to send over so many French Ministers into our Kingdom, I do not find but that they readily and cheerfully comply with our present Establishment in this particular also: From all which it's evident, that the Presbyterians will not comply with Hypothetical Reordination; that in most of the Protestant Churches, they are not ordained but by Bishops, or Superintendants; that where they have neither, they hearty wish for them and desire them, and account Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to Bishops to be Schismatical, and not allowed in any Protestant Church in the World; and by consequence our doing it in England, cannot be a likely way to promote the Peace and Union of the Protestant Churches.  
A set Form of Prayer was seriously opposed by the Presbyterians at the Savoy, who p. 23. tells us, that serious Godliness is like to be extinguished, if only Forms be allowed in the Church; and p. 55. The Abatement of Ceremonies, with the Exclusion of all Prayers, but what are Read will not satisfy us. The Author of a Letter to the Convocation, would have many of our Prayers and Services left to the discretion and choice of the Minister, p. 21, 22. And the Lords and Commons, A. D. 1644, and 1648, ordained, That if any Person used the Common Prayer Book, he shall forfeit for the 1st Offence 5 l. for the 2d 10 l. and for the 3d Offence a Years Imprisonment;— and every Minister that shall not strictly use the Directory, shall forfeit the Sum of Forty Shillings; and whoever shall Preach, Writ or Print against it, shall forfeit betwixt 5 l. and 50 l.  
The Churches of Denmark, Swedeland, Saxony and all other of the Ausburg Confession, have their set Liturgies, and forms of public Worship; yea the Churches of France, Geneva and Holland have their set Prayers composed by Calvin himself; as Luther composed Prayers for the Germane Churches, and Zuinglius for those of Zurick. The Divines of Holland in Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 36. Sect. 33. declare set Forms not only lawful, but very profitable.— The attention of Auditors is much helped by having a constant form. Some of the Churches of Zealand thus declared themselves to our English Presbyterians, We account it grievous to condemn all those Churches which from the Apostolical times, and the Primitive Church to this day have celebrated the public worship of God, by prescribed Forms;— wherefore we blame the precise singularity of those, who cast out all Forms out of Divine Worship.— In almost all the Reformed Churches, Church-Liturgies, and Forms of Prayers are approved as profitable, and conducing to Edification. Capellus' Professor of Samurs in France,— in Theses Salm. A set Form of Liturgy is highly useful and necessary,— hath been always used in all the Christian Churches in the World for above 1300 Years, and now is used every where, except only by some Upstarts in England, etc. The Greek Church, Armenian, Coptick, Ethiopick, and all the Eastern Churches have set Forms of Prayer. Calvin. Epist. 87. I do very much approve of a set Form of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites, that it be so certain, as that the Ministers shall not recede from it,— that hereby the levity of some Innovators may be hindered, there ought to be a set Form of Prayer, etc. Baxter himself in his Def. of the Cure of Divisions, p. 55. He that separateth from all Churches amongst us on the account of the unlawfulness of our Liturgy, doth separate from them on a reason common to all, or almost all Christian Churches upon Earth.  
As to the Prayer before Sermon, Calvin constantly used the same Form faith Beza in his Life, it's Printed at beginning of his Sermons on Job, so had St. Austin after Sermon. The Ministers of France, Geneva and Holland use a set Form before Sermon. Lavater of the Rites of the Church of Zurich saith, 'Tis not the custom of that Church for the Preacher to contrive new Forms of Prayer, and repeat them in the Public Assemblies, but to keep the usual one. And durel tell us, that there is not one Minister in France but hath made to himself a set Form of Prayer, which he constantly useth before Sermon, and no other. So that in this also, our Presbyterians are singular, that they affect Novelties and extempore Expressions and Variations in their Prayers before Sermons; I say that are singular, and different from the Pastors of most of the Reformed Churches in the World.  
I know it's objected against our Liturgy, that it's taken out of the Mass Book, as if the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, or other parts of our Service, were the worse for being found there also; but yet those that have strictly examined this, find the Objection false. L'Estrange in his Alliance, etc. p. 30. The beginning of our Morning-Prayer, Sentences, Exhortations, Confession, Absolution, rehearsing the Decalogue, etc. are not to be found in the Mass Book, nor any Popish Service. And Dr. Stillingfleet in Antiq. Br. ch. p. 232. All these parts are retained in the excellent Office of our Church; not from the Church of Rome (as our Dissenters weakly imagine,) but from the consent of all the ancient Churches in the use of them, etc. And p. 237. From which discovery it will appear, that our Church of England hath omitted none of those Offices, wherein all the ancient Churches agreed, and that wherein the British and Gallicane Churches differed from the Roman; our Church hath not followed the Roman, but the other, and therefore our Dissenters do unreasonably charge us with taking our Offices from the Church of Rome. And therefore the Romanists have ever been as zealous in opposing our Common-Prayer, as the Presbyterians themselves; Mr. Harding, John Ould, and other Papists wrote Books against it. Several of our Martyrs were put to Death in Queen Mary's Dayss, for using the Book of Common-Prayer, saith Fox in Acts & Mon. And the Author of Calvino Turcismus, p. 360, hath these words. The English Liturgy, as to the substance of it, is more corrupt than the Turkish Alcoran; as to the Form, it in great measure agreeth with it. And it's not probable that the Papists would thus abuse a Book that was so like to their own Mass, as the Presbyterians would have it. Our Common-Prayer Book is now printed in Ten several Languages, which cannot be said of any other Liturgy in the World; and so great was the esteem our Forefathers had of it, that I find in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Coppin and Thacker were both punished for publishing Brown's Book against the Common-Prayer. And now if all the Protestant Churches in the World have their set Liturgies, it must needs be a very improbable way to promote the Peace and Union of the Reformed Churches, by destroying the Liturgy we have always used.  
And to pass by other things, most of the Reformed Churches have declared in their Confessions of Faith, that no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies, where there is an agreement in Doctrine. See Praef. ad Confess. Helu. & Art. 17. 27. Conf. Gallican. Art. 32. Bhoem. c. 15. Argent. c. 14. Augustana, Art. 7. Polon. p. 220. Calvin, Instit. l. 4. c. 10. s. 27. Is so far from condemning Rites and Ceremonies, that he would have them in every Church be fixed and certain, without which the Nerves and Sinews of a Church will quickly be dissolved, etc. O Ecolampadius in his Epistles, p. 169, 177, 182, 184. Is vehement in pressing every particular Church to an Uniformity in Ceremonies, that though they are different in several Countries, yet all that are subject to the same Government should be bound to the same Rites, etc. And how little these eminent Reformers agree with our new Modellers, will appear from the Letter to the Convocation, p. 9 If any of the Laity scruple the Cross in Baptism, the Minister may be permitted to Baptise without it; or if kneeling at the Sacrament, the Person scrupling may have it delivered him in another Posture, and so for Godfathers, p. 15. Let a Rubric be inserted before the Athanasian Creed, signifying that the Creed may be read, (or may be let alone) or with an alias, this or the Nicene, p. 21. Let the Litany be left to the discretion of the Minister to read or omit; let it be left to his discretion one day to read one part, and another day another; that it be permitted in the Afternoon to leave out the first Lesson, or the like, p. 22. That it be left to liberty and discretion to use the Prayers without the Lessons, and the Litany alone on Wednesdays and Fridays; so Preface to the Directory complained, that they were urged to read all the Prayers. And after this manner we must have nothing fixed and settled, but all our Rites and Prayers left indifferent, which is so far from promoting Union and Peace, that its the most likely way in the World to divide us, perpetuate and establish Schism, and make us an easy Prey to our Enemies: Even the Author of naked Truth, p. 23. saith, That a Liberty left to add or detract Ceremonies or Prayers according to the various Opinions and Humours of Men, will certainly cause great Faction and Division. Again, the length of our Liturgy is complained of— Letter to the Convoc. p. 18. It's proposed, that the Sunday Service be shortened, p. 19 It's a tedious and prolix Service; which, though it agreed with the complaints of the Presbyterians, A. D. 1603. Who then desired the longsomness of the Service to be abridged; yet doth so little suit with our later longwinded Presbyterians, that at the Savoy, 1660. p. 9 They complain of the Brevity of the Common-Prayer-Book, and therefore desire to have leave to pray more copiously— and p. 55. They complained of too many Prayers, not too much; so that should we in compliance with this Projector, have shortened our Prayers; we should have displeased, not sweetened the Presbyterians to a Compliance. If we look upon the most eminent Protestant Princes that we have had, they were all for strict Conformity. Queen Elizabeth would have the Discipline of the Church of England, of all Men duly observed, without alteration of the least Ceremony: Life of Archbishop Whitgift, p. 29. And King James the First in his Proclamation, the first Year of his Reign, We admonish all Men that they shall not ex●ect, nor attempt any further alteration in the Common-Prayer— We are not ignorant of the Inconveniences that arise in Government, by admitting Innovations in things once settled by mature Delibaration, and how necessary it is to use Constancy— Such is the unquietness of some Dispositions, affecting every Year new Forms. Our frequent alterations of our Religious Rites, hath been justly laughed at by Foreigners. Erasmus for this very Thing derided the English in his time, and Cardan in Tetrab. c. 3. Tex. 12. saith, That the English are still changing their Rites and Manners of Religious Worship, sometimes to the better, and very often to the worse. Not to mention what St. Austin, Epist. 118. adjan. observed, Ipsa mutatio consuetudines etiam quae adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat, i. e. The very change of a Custom, though to the better, breeds a disturbance by its novelty: Malum [politicum] been positum non est movendum.  
In sine, give me leave to repeat what the Ingenious Lord Faulkland long since told us, viz. That all Mutations are dangerous, even where what is introduced by that Mutation, is such as would have been very profitable upon a primary Foundation; and it is none of the least Dangers of Change, that all the Perils and Inconveniences that it brings, cannot be foreseen; and therefore such as make Title to Wisdom, will not undergo great Dangers, but for great Necessities, such as cannot, I presume, be here pretended.  
Upon all which Accounts its evident that the Convocations complying to make the Alterations proposed, is the most probable way to displease most of the Foreign Protestants that are now in League with us, and make us no longer esteemed, as we hitherto have been, the very Centre of Union.  
I will add but one Reason why we should not make these Alterations for the sake of our own Dissenters, and that is, because they are resolved they w●● have no Union with us; but whensoever we are making Proposals to unite with them, they run farther off, and be sure make fresh Complaints of these very Changes, and steps towards them. For the Alterations made in 1660. Mr. Baxter likes things worse than before, and hath declared frequently in Print, That many of our old Episcoparian Divines, had they been now alive, would have been Nonconformists, and that the new Impositions make the Ministerial Conformity harder than formerly. Def. of Cure of Divis. p. 55. The Presbyterians at the Savoy (after p. 35.) complain of the paucity of Concessions, (though lately said to be 600) And again, In one of your Concessions, in which we suppose you intent to accommodate with us; you rather widen than heal the Breach. When about ten Years since, some of our Church had a project of Comprehension, the Presbyterians were farther off than before; and under the Name of a Plea for Peace, put out bitter Reflections upon the Church of England. Dr. Stillingfleet unreas. of Separate. Pref. p. 36. In Scotland the Presbyterians administered the Solemn League and Covenant to the People, and made them Swear never to hear the Orthodox Ministry more, and gave them the Sacrament thereupon. Ravil. Rediu. p. 29. The like is said to have been lately done at Northampton, and some other Places.  
And how have they behaved themselves in this juncture, we may take it from one of the great Promoters of Alterations, in his Letter for the Bill of Union, p. 4. I do own, that in some of the Dissenters there is more than an appearance of Aversion to this Bill of Union, or else Books leveled against Liturgy and Episcopacy would not come out as they do, in this p juncture, fresh from the Press.  
In a Word, There are two Things that have formerly made the Government very averse from favouring Dissenters, 1. Their Disloyalty. 2. Their readiness upon all Occasions to join with the Popish Interest against the Church of England, as they famously did in the Year 1588. at the time of the Spanish Invasion; and again 1688. in the late Reign of King James II. as appears from their numerous Addresses; their Compliances with the Dispensing Power; their Promises to take off the Test and Penal Laws; their new Ordinations; and their great neglect both in Pulpit and Press, to defend the Articles of the Protestant Religion, against the many Writings of the Papists; two Tracts only amongst the numerous Dissenters, having upon the severest computation, been found published by them, during the whole Reign of that King; we had great reason to hope that these Failings had been both mended, especially at a time that Popery was discouraged, and the Government had been so kind to the Protestant Dissenters; and yet behold quite contrary to all sober men's Expectations, though there are but two Things required of all that are Hearers in Conventicles, in order to a full Toleration, 1. An Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity to the King and Queen. 2. Making and subscribing a Declaration against Popery, and so giving satisfaction to the Government in these two particulars, yet they are still either so steady to their old Principles of Disloyalty, or so far managed by Popish Agents; and withal, so peevishly perverse, and froward in opposing every thing that is commanded them by the Laws; that to this day, so far as I can learn, there is not one in an Hundred of them that hath done either.  
FINIS.