and reduce those she wants that however nothing ought to be omitted for the sake of these that may be profitable to the whole Church nor admitted that may be detrimental to it Because a part ought not to be preferred before the whole Where the Pamphlet out of either ignorace or design takes that absolutely which is spoke only Secundum quid quoting the Doctor against all Alterations when he first allows some and then is against none but such that may be of publick mischief And what is this to our business who are not to give Laws and inflict Penalties on Dissenters but are only to consider what prudent Alterations may possibly win them and give the Church safety but not danger The Sermon p. 26. saith that Alterations should not be made without a cogent necessity and p. 27. utrum autem ecclesia nostra but whether our Church be constrained by such a necessity is not my part to determine where the Doctor is not against Alterations as the Pamphlet vainly insinuates but modestly refuses directly to anticipate the business of a Convocation which our Pamphleter hath face enough to do But that he may give us a sufficent proof not of his impertinency only but of his want either of Judgment or Honesty too he proceeds with the Doctors Sermon till he doth sufficiently lead the Reader to the conclusion of such a necessity which the Pamphlet it self requires viz. This only I dare to affirm that if it be necessary to reduce wandring Sheep into Christs Flock if to take off Scruples from the minds of weak Brethren if to allay hatred appease and as much as may be to suppress all Dissentions concerning Religion if these things saith he seem necessary to any man it will also seem necessary to that man to admit such changes as he is perswaded will conduce to such ends where the Doctor so fairly leads his Reader to the circumstances of our Church and the designs of calling this Synod that he leaves him necessarily to conclude that necessity which himself would not express This shews both his candour and his Rhetorick since in a point so nice and yet so important too here is a Miosis more intended than he thought convenient to speak P. 9. Tells us from the Doctor still that even incommodious Laws ought not to be changed without some urgent necessity We readily grant it but the only question between us viz. whether our Church hath at this time such a necessity or not is as much undetermined as if he had never made any of these Quotations whence I cannot see what service he hath done himself unless to shew the World that he is able to Translate a piece of a Latin Sermon His next Paragraph tells us of an apt allusion of this Learned Doctors but I am sure it is no way apt for his purpose for the Doctor there shews That both the universal and particular Churches have power by their Synods to make Laws as they shall judge expedient for the better Administration of the publick Worship of God But wherein this can serve him who is against all Alterations I can by no means see And in truth were all the parts of his Pamphlet like this which troubles the Doctors Sermon and the World to no purpose I must have spoken him a weak Brother not fit to be received to doubtful Disputations Without peradventure the design of all this pudder is to perswade the World that the Doctor is like himself viz. Learned to no purpose i. e. hath Preached and Printed a Sermon that is not to the Point only because it is more modest than the Pamphlet which presumes to give peremptory injunctions to the Convocation it self against whom we have the judgment as of other learned and unprejudiced men so of the Bishops themselves who judge it so suitable that by their Commands we have a Second Impression Had he followed our Doctors advice p. 30. Nulla praejudicata opinio nulla praesumpta suspicio nulla litium cupido huc afferatur Let no preposessions no presumed suspicions no desire of contentions approach this Synod neither this Pamphlet nor its Author would find any place there In p. 10. he starts this Objection viz. Our Divisions had almost betrayed us to Popery and Slavery for prevention of which danger for the future it is advisable as much as may be to enlarge the terms of our Communion An Objection well put but not so well Answer'd for he says Who betray'd us to those Divisions Were they not such as causlesly separated from us and joyn'd with the common Enemy rather than with the Church of England This we would prove as otherwise so from their addresses to the late King which promised to stand by him with their lives and fortunes and to obey him without reserve Answ Whatever some might do yet it is well known that many leading and prudent Men especially amongst their Laity stood off and were so far from serving the Cause that they dreaded the consequence and did judge the Imprisonment of the Bishops the common danger of the whole Protestant interest not was the Church ever better esteem'd by the main body of Dissenters than when under those Tryals And indeed the advantages that Popery reaps from our Divisions arise not so much from the design of Dividers as from the nature and necessary consequences of Division it self How well those that did Address perform'd their Promises let the World judge Suppose what he asserts yet the very Allegation speaks the necessity of Alterations that hereby we may lessen the number of those who else may endanger us again Our Circumstances are not yet so Altered but that their Uniting against the Church of England may expose us to those dangers now as much as it did then and therefore there is at this time as well a necessity of performing the Bishops Promise as there was then of making it but we acquiesc'd in that and consequently we ought in this Our Saviour says That a Kingdom divided cannot stand yet our Pamphlet would continue our Division in order forsooth to our preservation And certainly if ever there was a time that speaks this Truth if ever a time that requires our Union in order to a common Preservation if ever a time that calls for mutual Condescentions which is the only way to this Union it is this In truth was the Author a profess'd enemy to our Church and Established Religion I should believe there is more of judgment and sincerity in his Answer to this Objection than I can yet discern in it for his Argument lies thus viz. Dissenters by their Division have already endangered us Ergo we should leave them Dissenters still that they may endanger us again as if he wisely design'd to punish their Obstinacy by our own Ruin But he proceeds if some leading Presbyterians are by our Alterations let into the Church and be made Bishops Deans arch-Arch-Deacons c. what security have we that they
will not promote Divisions in the Church This was the reason says p. 11. that the Clergy opposed a Bill for Comprehension contriv'd by Bishop Wilkins and for which and other Reasons the House of Commons cast it out Answ 1 He supposes what he can never prove viz. That such Comprehensions would have made a Division in the Church therefore this being a mere surmise must not be allow'd the repute of an Argument The Security he demands would have been their Preferments which would have made it their interest to support as much as they now think it their interest to pull us down and likewise their Oaths and Penalty of the Laws which would chastise every Deviation from their Rule But however to give strength and colour this suspition he says p. 10. That some Bishops and others preferred under King Charles the Second did attempt this To which we Answer What he calls Division was only a Comprehension design'd by those whose Judgment as well as Moderation we have lately had just cause to admire Such a Division we have in the Church at present and ever shall have so long as there be moderate and judicious men in it and had that Comprehension been established it would have prov'd our security at this very day Call it a Division yet they did only attempt but could not effect it and indeed it is so hard to sway a Constitution that not only the Nature of the thing but this Fruitless undertaking too may justly allay his fears of admitting a few moderate Men into the Church by some reasonable Alterations In p. 3 4. he passionately pleads against all Alterations from the unlikelyhood of gaining one Dissenter who are so stubborn and unreasonable in the terms they propose for an Accommodation and yet here he is afraid of such a number coming in as shall divide and ruin the whole Church which speaks the Author to pursue an Hypothesis but not the Truth and resolv'd by all manner of Pleas agreeing and disagreeing probable and improbable true and false or by any thing else you can imagine to confound and obstruct intended Condescensions It seems very marvellous that these very surmises set on foot by Popish Polititians purposely to hinder our Union at the restoring our Liturgy and the later project of Comprehension should not only be received by some hot men then but be pleaded at this time of the day when we have seen the dismal effects of these Policies which have used the Church against Dissenters and then Dissenters against the Church in order to the ruin of the whole Protestant interest and which at this day do give the greatest advantage to French and Popish designs throughout the World This seems to bode us no good and looks like a fate upon Men which makes them not their own Murderers only but the common Executioners of Protestants and their Religion But in the same Page he pleads against Alterations from another Topick viz reasonable Condescentions to one party is likely to encourage unreasonable Sollicitations from another Answ 1 This produced no such effect formerly Why then should it now This is the way to prevent what he pretends to fear for men are now in expectation and delays may make them clamorous but a present settlement puts a stop to all future expectations But if otherwise yet Such Alterations strengthning the Church will render it more safe for her to reject unreasonable Sollicitations hereafter than to frustrate reasonable expectations at the present But he adds Our frequent changes in some things may make men question all and at last center in the Church of Rome Answ 1 Have any or all former Changes considered together done so If they have produce your instances if they have not Why should one Alteration more do it especially considering it is well known that our Church has always allow'd such Changes Was this probable the Popish party would be wel-willers to Alterations whereas they and their confidents are raised in their expectations from the difficulties that attend this Affair The matter of Fact is undeniable therefore they or himself must be in an Error And if we consider his undertaking and performances we shall easily believe that he is not Infallible Thus you have his Feats whence in the next Paragraph he Triumphs reckoning he has knock'd down his Enemies with this Pamphlet as Sampson did the Philistines with the Jaw-bone of an Ass For thus he proceeds And now let the men that are given to change produce those weighty and important reasons required in the Preface to the Common-Prayer or that great necessity which Dr. Beveridge requires for the Alteration even of commodious Laws A bold Challenge indeed however I shall accept it And will shew these important Reasons and great Necessity of present Alterations from 1. The Sacred Scriptures 2. Our Circumstances 3. The general Sense of the Nation 4. The Duty of doing all we can for the keeping and securing our Flocks And 5. Some things themselves imposed 1. The Sacred Scriptures do determine this controversie against our Pamphlet for St. Paul forbids us to offend a weak Brother in using our power in things indifferent This indeed does not affect us as we are now under the Law but it doth affect the Church when the civil Authority calls her to Explain Alter and Omit those things that do offend But you will say that the Church hath power in all matters indifferent whence results the Duty of the Peoples Submission in all such matters It is true but if the People cannot see the Lawfulness of such Submission the Church ought not to press them any further than a due regard to the Souls of Men will allow or the general Interest of Religion and the common safety of the Church doth require 1 Corinth 10.3 We must not do all things that are Lawful but what things are expedient and edifying upon which Scripture Clem. Alex. Paedag. b. 2. c. 1. hath this Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those who will do all that is Lawful quickly fall into that which is Vnlawful and I am sure it is no Paradox that if the Church will do all she may she certainly doth more than she ought because her power must be tempered by a tender and prudential regard to the weakness of all her Members St. Paul 2 Cor. 10.8 speaks of a power that God hath given for edification not for destruction therefore that Church doth abuse her power which by too strict terms of Communion doth not gather and build up but scatter the Flock Indeed at our last settlement the evils we have suffered were not sufficiently foreseen but since sad experience hath given us such terrible admonitions the Church seems utterly inexcusable if she refuse to the best of her skill and power to apply a suitable remedy 2. That a Kingdom divided cannot stand is a Truth so certain and allowed by all observing Men that our Saviour brought this as a Medium to prove that a
as Duty to grant them something lest they get what we are unwilling to part from Some things imposed are without all controversie an offence to many weak ones and certainly we ought to remove the Stumbling-block so far as the safety of the Church will permit tho' they never Petition for the kindness unless their neglect of what we think is their Duty may excuse our neglect of what we know to be our own And indeed it is a pretty shuffle that because some Men are thought to be stiff therefore the Church owes no regards either to them or any of their Party of whom many may be gained if the fault is not our own But in truth all this is only a blind excuse for not doing what he hath no mind should be done for the close of this Paragraph saith it is declared in the Preface to the Liturgy as also in the Kings Ecclesiastical Commission that Alterations may be made according to the exigency of times and occasions yet he opposes another part of the Preface to both viz. That the Book that is of Common Prayer as it stood before Established by Law doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God or to sound Doctrin or which a godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit to or which is not fairly defensible to which he adds that it hath been altered for the better in some hundreds of places since suggesting hereby that it needs no Alterations now which gives an undoubted evidence 1. Of his inconsistency with himself for he argues against Alterations meerly for want of application from Dissenters and yet under the same Head changes his Topick disputing against such Alterations from the perfection of our Liturgy he would have none because Dissenters ask for none and then because there is need of none Certainly he shifts his Argument because he suspects that the first prpposed will not stand the shock and therefore brings on this as a reserve to support it 2. This speaks his Insincerity for he knows we plead for Alterations from a prudential necessity arising not so much from the Book it self as from the weakness of some who misunderstand and the perversness of others who industriously abuse it What need then of justifying the Book in this argument unless to amuse the Reader with an heap of pleas to no purpose 3. This discovers his grose Inadvertency in that he pleads against Alterations from Dissenters not asking for them and yet in the same Head declares himself absolutely against all Alterations whether they ask or not in that he uses the Kings Commission and the Preface to the Common Prayer against the design of that Commission and that very Liberty which the Preface it self doth give us so fain would he carry on a design which he is ashamed to own i. e. hinder Alteration and yet lay the fault at the Dissenters doors Whatever is at the bottom this is generally the humor amongst Men of this complexion they wish for Peace but will part with nothing for it and the Gentlemen in this Authors Neighbourhood who speak fair but do nothing are like the disobedient Son who said I go but went not for which he had I 'le warrant you as good reasons as these before you 2. He pleads p. 3. That they ought to declare what Alterations will satisfie else they have no reason to make any Answ 1 This some of 'em have done already under Car. 2. and still do by their frequent complaints and the reasons they give of their separation And the late promise of accommodation must respect the Alteration of those things so far as may be that offend the more reasonable and judicious amongst ' em Now after all this for them to make new proposals is not only actum agere but a putting their Cause back which is already known and hath advanced so far as to have gained the promise of a due consideration Therefore there is now nothing wanting on our parts in order to their case and our security but a performance of that Promise By this Paragraph he expects that all parties should agree in their demands which he knows and p. 2. acknowledges is impossible therefore his requiring impossible conditions of peace is no better than a fallacious denial of that peace it selfe Hence he urges the extravagancy of some men that have trampled on Condescensions made in the Year 1661. and others proposed by the present Bishop of Worcester in the Year 1681. which he thinks enough to render the Church justly sour and peevish forever Answ 1 He. withal acknowledges that these are but some that flie such heights and grants us p. 2. that all cannot agree in common Proposals which utterly destroys his argument for as some will not so the very Differences amongst themselves do assure us that others will accept reasonable Condescensions and the gaining a part is not only all we expect but is sufficient to our end too These few he quotes by such unreasonable flights must be presumed to design the obstructing all future Alterations as knowing that this is the ready way to break their Parties Therefore our Pamphlet not only trifles but also gratifies those few hot and designing men who intend not an accommodation but the maintaining of a Faction But p. 4. drives on the same argument quoting a Book of Mr. R. B's which saith There are Forty sinful particulars in our Communion besides Thirty tremendous Principles and Circumstantials which affright Dissenters from it and the healing attempt requires not such abatements as Authority now designs but the admission of their new Model for a Comprehension which is such as will make every Parish Church independent All which things p. 5. assure us that the Convocation neither can nor will alter and yet if any one remain unaltered the Schism will continue Whence he asks Cui bono To what end should any Alterations be made To which he thinks a satisfactory Answer cannot be given But this is an argument of the weakness of his reasoning not of the strength of his Cause for this supposes that all Dissenters are of the same mind which is a poor fallacy called Petitio principii a taking that for granted which he must prove else his whole cause falls to the ground To which we Answer It is well known that Dissenters under the same denomination are of very different minds as to the matters of our Church for some are offended at one thing some at another and some at more which together they think give a just cause of Separation Therefore a few Alterations would leave some no Objection and others too little even in their own judgments to justifie a Schism This supposes that Alterations will gain Dissenters only which we can never grant him because a great part of this Nation stands more or less doubtful and indifferent between the Church and the Conventicle who seeing the peaceable inclination of the Church manifested
Tobit and his Dog suppose that yet why should these do any unless we think it a sufficient discharge of our Duties only to do less evil than others I must think these and all other Pleas this way highly unreasonable unless they can prove that there is worth and weight enough in these Books beyond what there is in Canonical Scripture to compensate all these mischiefs which the Church continually suffers upon their accounts as well as otherwise which I presume the Pamphleter himself will hardly undertake 2. There are some passages in our Liturgy that may be so Altered as to take away many Objections which weakness hath raised and malice improved to a mighty height I need not mention them because the Letter from a Minister in the Country hath already done it in Answer to which our Pamphleter p. 38. by certain explications shews that they are capable of a very fair construction but who denies this The Preface to the Common Prayer doth affirm and our Conformity doth speak it but the Question is Whether it is not expedient so to express them that Weakness may not stumble nor Malice cavil at ' em Our Pamphlet it self to clear them from objections doth explain them a good argument that they are not as he pretends p. 41. self-evident but that they want an explication that is indeed an Alteration And if the Pamphlet may explain them Why may not the Convocation Unless our Pamphleter be so vain as to think his explication must go along with the Liturgy that they may see the one who are offended at the other I must declare it an extream dotage upon Forms and modes of Speech which inclines men to keep in things with so much difficulty and damage that may be so easily and advantagiously parted from It is not for me to instance in all things that may be to very good purpose Altered this is the business of a Convocation and is made in some part the Province of the Minister in the Country who I doubt not will support his Letter against the Attacks of this Pamphlet yet however I shall add some few things not yet in Controversie which seem of moment enough to become the care of a Convocation and they are one Rubrick and one of our Creeds The Rubrick is that after the second Hymn in the Morning-Service and runs thus Then shall be sung or said the Apostles Creed excepting only such days as the Creed of St. Athanasius is appointed Where I shall prove that it is not a meer notion but of a mighty concern to Alter it thus viz. The Creed commonly called the Apostles and so of the other As to the former I grant there was some Creed very early in the Church as appears from Iren. l. 1. c. 2. and c. 19. where it is called REGVLA VERITATIS and from Tertull. de Virgin Veland c. 1. where it is REGVLA FIDEI which Novatian de Trin. explains by Symbolum and again de Praescript Haer. c. 13.14 and from the Constitutions ascribed to Clem. l. 7. c. 42. But I deny that any of these were that we call the Apostles Because 1. These Creeds differ one from another as being not the same but divers nor do any one of them agree with this unless in some main Articles of Faith as all Confessions must do which speaks them only to be Creeds but not the same 2. Tertull. ad Prax. c. 2. Speaking of the Mission of the Holy Ghost saith Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse which Rule must be understood either of the Sacred Scriptures or of some common Creed if the Latter it must be another not this called the Apostles because this speaks of no such Mission at all As we cannot yet meet with this Creed so it is highly unreasonable to suppose that the Apostles ever composed any such thing Because 1. It is not mentioned in the History of the Acts which yet gives an account of a Council Convened and Canons made about things indifferent and therefore certainly would not have omitted a Rule of Faith Baronius boldly saith It was made before the Dispersion from Jerusalem but it is unworthy so great a Man to fix the circumstance of Time but not prove the thing it self 2. Had this always passed for the Apostles since it doth not intimate the Divinity of the Son nor of the Holy Ghost it is not to be supposed but that 1. Simon Mâ—gus Cleobius Menander Cerinthus c who denied Christs Divinity would have pleaded that this Doctrin of theirs was no way contrary to the Apostolical Faith 2. The Arians And 3. The Macodonians who deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost would have done the like But we find no such Plea from those First Hereticks nor from the Arians either before at the Nicene Council or in their Synods under Constantius nor from the Macedonians either Separately or Convened under the same Emperor Ergo we must conclude there was no such thing at all for cany any in their Wits imagin that they who rejected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because these terms are not in the Scriptures would not have rejected them also because not found in that Rule of Faith delivered by the Apostles if any such had been Can any imagine that they would not have endeavoured to have kept this as a standing Rule of Faith exclusive of any that might destroy those darling notions which this leaves undisturbed Can any think that when the Fathers under Constantius pleaded that they could not Alter the Creed of Nice that the Arians would not have replied neither can you add to that of the Apostles 3. St. Hilary Pict Episc lib. de Synod gives us those Confessions of Faith he had then viz. about the middle of the Fourth Century met with but never mentions this 4. We never meet with it either Name or Thing till Ruffinus and St. August both within the Fifth Century Nay 5. Arius himself in Epiphan Adv. Haer. l. 2. Tom. 2. Haer. 69. Num. 7. justifies his Doctrin in that it was not contradictory to that Creed there laid down which he had received from his Ancestors and from Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and can we think he would not much rather have pleaded that his Doctrin was not contradictory to the Apostolick Creed had they then known or believed any such thing Which things together are to me as cogent as a demonstration that the World then knew no Creed under the Apostles Name It was indeed after some Ages ascribed to the Apostles as many things were whose Authors and Origin were not known and likewise because what it doth contain is agreeable to the Apostles Doctrin so Epiphan Tom. 2. Ancorat Num. 120. saith of the Nicene Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Faith was delivered us by the holy Apostles and was confirmed by above Three hundred and ten Bishops Now this Rubrick gives a mighty advantage to the Socinians who plead that as our
Church ascribes this Creed to the Apostles so it suits none but the Vnitarian Doctrin as asserting the Divinity of the Father only and many of our own Writers affirm that it contains all the Credenda necessary to Salvation as the Decalogue doth the Agenda Whence it follows either 1. That the Doctrin of Christs Divinity was not known in the Apostles time Or 2. That the Apostles have given us an imperfect Rule of Faith Or 3. That the Belief of this Doctrin is not necessary to Salvation Whence we must either deny this Creed to be theirs and thereby set up our private light in opposition to the Church and thence fall under that lash which we have laid upon Dissenters or grant that this Apostolical Rule is wanting in some things necessary to Salvation or else yield that this Doctrin if true is yet of no such moment All which absurdities will be avoided only by intituling it the Creed Commonly called the Apostles Moreover it is the observation of the Learned Bishop of Worcester in his Iren. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such a Tradition as came certainly from some Apostle but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only some antient Tradition that came from some Apostle or Apostolick Man And what is true of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as true of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet in our Copies it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in Dr. Duports Version and in our Rubrick it is the Apostles not the Apostolick Creed Which Observation speaks this Alteration the more necessary because hereby we seem to speak it not an antient Creed collected out of the Apostles Writings but a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves Therefore if the honor and judgment of our Church if the checking a growing Heresie which hath lately gained ground by this very Plea is worth the care of a Convocation then it must be worth their care to make this Alteration because this one particular doth wound the Church and advance an Heresie at once 2. The Creed of St. Athanasius This is indeed amongst his works but our Dr. Cave who is so curiously skilled in these monuments of antient Learning speaks it supposititious Du Pin saith that some ascribe it to one some to another but Tout le monde convient qu'il n'est point de ce Pere all Mankind agree that it is none of that Fathers St. Hilary before quoted who was the great Champion against Arianism in the Latin Church as Athanasius was in the Greek tho' he gives us other Creeds touching this Controversie yet never mentions this nor do we any where find it for a long time after Athanasius Indeed Bellar. de Script Eccles saith that St. August Tract in Psal 120. hath these words viz. Filius Dei a Patre solo est non factus nec creatus sed genitus Whence he concludes that St. Augustin must have seen this Creed and Labbey is pleased very much to follow him But these words are not to be found together in St. Augustin and those parts he hath are no more than what we find in the genuine works of Athanasius as in his Epistles ad Serap from whence St. Augustin might have what we find in him as well as out of this Creed had it been then in being Ergo there is no weight or proof in what Bellarmine and Labbey say upon this Argument Vossius saith It did not appear in the World till about the Year One thousand above Three hundred Years after the Death of Athanasius and yet was then reckoned the work of an uncertain Author But Baronius hath a trick for this indeavouring to perswade that it was a long time lost But when such things have happened we find the names of those Tracts or Fragments of 'em in antient Authors before they were lost as in Clemens Rom. Iren. Epist c. whence the World have known there were such things Wrote tho' they could not find 'em but we never meet with the name or any certain Fragments of this Creed in that Age or the next to it in which Athanasius did live therefore what Baronius saith in this Case is but a groundless presumption and like that of Bellarmine and Labbey but now mentioned proves nothing unless that it is easie to confute a Jesuit And certainly by this time it appears highly reasonable to Alter this Rubrick especially since that before this Creed seems doubtful in this matter whence both Rubricks laid together seems to speak the Church fickle and uncertain in her judgment and that even in a Case too clear to admit a Scruple 3. As to the Damnatory Sentence in this Creed this Pamphlet will not have it restrained to the Procession of the holy Ghost or to any particular Article but to respect the whole and consequently not to affect the Greek Church this is a point which I will not grant him nor at present deny because if we suppose what he saith I have yet enough to my purpose since it is generally taken otherwise and many are extreamly scandalized at it therefore it is necessary for the Church to omit this Creed or else to Alter or explain this sentence that so Some may not be affrighted from us and others be enabled to meet together with one mind as well as in one place Since the finishing this Piece there is published a Book Intituled Remarks on Two Letters the Author hath too much Reason to mistake the Case and had he as much Sincerity he would not have Misrepesented it How far he is guilty this way will appear from this Tract as well as what hath been already done by another hand FINIS