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
A VINDICATION Of the Two LETTRES CONCERNING Alterations in the Liturgy IN ANSWER TO VOX CLERI A VINDICATION Of the Two LETTERS CONCERNING Alterations in the Liturgy IN ANSWER TO Vox Cleri By a London Presbyter LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin near the Black Bull in the Old-Baily MDCXC A VINDICATION OF THE Two Letters TO THE CONVOCATION THo' the two Letters concerning the Convocation are sufficient to satisfie any reasonable and unprejudiced Man that alterations in our Liturgy are not only Lawful but in this juncture expedient too Yet a late Pamphlet intituled Vox Cleri gives me a just occasion both of confirming what they have said and also of exposing this Pamphlets little Pleas and Sophistry against so Wise and Charitable an undertaking The very Title viz. Vox Cleri or The Sense of the Clegy speaks the Author both weak and peevish and the Quotation of Prov. 24.21 in the Title page Fear God and the King and meddle not with them that are given to Change is an argument ex abundanti this way For what hath this busie Thing to do with the Sense of the Clergy What Commission hath he to acquaint the World with their Minds The very thing it self betrays the Author to a just suspicion as speaking more of Design than Truth But what Clergy doth he mean It must be either the Convocation or those in his Neighbourhood p. 1. if the former the thing is false for he declares in his Protestation that there is nothing yet proposed to them therefore they have not yet Voted in this matter whence alone we may conclude their Sense if the latter the thing is weak and frivolous because to these we oppose the Vox Cleri or Sense of the Clergy in the City as well as else where who must be allowed to be more considerable than those in a Country Neighbourhood for to mention no more these are few and as we have reason to belieâ—e prejudiced by Leâ—ters misâ—epresenting the whole Affair Indeed his Reflections p. 24. say they have not seen any Pamphlets or Printed Letters against Alterations but this implies that they have seen Written ones else what need of this restriction In truth this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true cause of our present heaâ—s and difficulties which speaks the Sense of some Men to be more a Passion than a true Judgment As to that Scripture Solomon spoke not in reference to Forms and Ceremonies which is our Subject but of substantial Duties to God and the King which affects this Gentleman more than those whom he opposes in that he makes it his business p. 2. c. to sham and put tricks upon His Majesty's Commission therefore his application of it is but an absur'd wresting of the Sacred Text. It is true it hath been sometimes used this way from the general force and signification of the Word which yet speaks more of Phansie than Jugdment but ought not by formal Quotation for this imports the sense the Author uses it in to be the sense of the Holy Pen-man According to this the Author must be of no Church in the World for where is the HoIy-Kiss and Love-Feasts Where are Deaconesse Exorcisms with a multitude or Ceremonies in Baptism as thrice Diping Anointing c. Where is the Water mingled with the Sacramental Wine Where Kneeling in Prayer all the Week in token of the Fall by sin and Standing on Sundays as well as all that space between Easter and Pentecost signifying the Resurrection Which things we frequently meet with both the Greek and Latin Fathers Where is the steddiness of the Greek Church which hath altered her Liturgy so often that a Collection of her several Forms are said by the Letter to a Friend to amount to Twenty Volums Where is the unchangeableness of the Latin Church which hath often altered her publick Service notwithstanding her pretences to an Infallibility Where is the constancy of the Church of England which hath changed not only under Popery but under Edw. 6. Q. Eliz. and Car. 2. therefore this Gentleman with vanity enough advises not to meddlâ— with them that are given to change while he professes himself a Member of that Church that hath changed so often already and allows of farther changes still In the Book it self he saith p. 1. that the Clergy in his Neighbourhood are inclinable to part with several Ceremonies and to submit to many Alterations for the peace of the Church and satisfaction of sober Dissenters Answ 1 The Author is known to be himself a Member of the Covocation therefore this Intelligence of the Election of Dr. Jane which he pretends to have received from one of the Convocation and the great satisfaction he saith it gives to the Clergy of those parts is all but a meer contrivance and may justly be suspected to have more of a Trick than of Truth in it Suppose this true yet what have the Convocation to do with the Sense of this Party more than of anothers Why should they regard a little Plat in the Country more than the Metropolis of this Kingdom Or why should our Pamphleter think to give the Convocation Laws from those four notions which himself and other suggestions have begot in a few of his own Creatures They are to consider what is fit to be done not what a few prejudiced and designing Men would have them do But If they are thus inclined let that inclination appear in those whom they have sent up to this Convocation else we must take all this but as a fair introduction to a foul design and indeed his management of this affair gives us a shrewd suspicion of it For it seems these Gentlemen required two things in order to such condescentions viz. 1. That Dissenters apply themselvs to the Convocation for Alterations lest they should reject the kindness with a Quis requisivit p. 2. and 2. That they declare what Alteration will satifie 'em p. 3. To the former of these we Answer Suppose want of application may be granted to give him a moral assurance as he saith that concessions will be despised yet this affects those as the leading men who are the usual Addressers or at most but some others of the Party not all the People many of whom we are morally assured stand ready for an accommodation Alterations are the thing which many of 'em have long Called and Wrote for it is what they expect from the promise of the Bishops and acquiescence of the Clergy whence they now wait for the performance while many begin to censure and reproach us since they find a difficulty in it Therefore there is neither reason nor temper in his insisting still upon applications Some conceive that some of their leading Men industriously neglect or refuse such applications that hereupon by means of our stiffness as well as otherwise they may gain more than they believe the Church will give them and if so it concerns us in point of Prudence as well
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
by reasonable Condescensions will unite with her and become her supports who else upon our stiffness may joyn with Dissenters and together may find hands to pull her down Therefore we have reason and motives enough in this undertaking tho' we were infallibly certain that not one Dissenter would be gained by it This is so obvious that he immediately starts an Objection which he sees will be certainly made against him viz. that Alterations may please the King the Parliament and a great part of the Dissenting Laity by which we must understand all those that are not in Communion with the Church In Answer to which he Complements the King Lashes the Parliament and like a Law-giver proposes other measures towards the Laity industriously evading that part of the Objection which he dare not undertake to Answer But leaving this a while we will pursue the present argument In this Case we are to consider not what every Dissenter would have which is the way to hinder all Alterations or to leave our selves nothing but what Alterations will take away the greatest occasions of mistake and cavil as knowing that this will reduce some and leave others inexcusable This was the method of the Church before for the Preface to the Common Prayer saith that tho' there were proposals made yet our aim was not to gratifie this or that Party in any their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceive might most tend to the preservation of Peace and Vnity in the Church c. And certainly the Church may Alter things now without any fresh Proposals made much better than she could then without having any regards to them that were made because 1. Those Proposals then made together with Complaints Demands and other Methods since do give us a better understanding of Dissenters than those Proposals could give then therefore without any Proposals now made we have less need of being informed what will satisfie Dissenters than the Church had then even after their Proposals were received 2. Alterations then without regard to their Proposals might exasperate some who might think themselves neglected but Alterations now without fresh Proposals cannot exasperate any but may oblige the more as being evidences of a free inclination to Peace and Unity Therefore if those methods gain'd some these are likely to gain more But 3. Suppose they do not recover one Dissenter yet as we said it is not to be imagined but that they will fix many of the unsetled Multitude who added to the Church will leave Dissenters the objects of our Pity not of our Fear This must be granted and consequently his principal argument against Alterations viz. the improbability of gaining Dissenters is utterly overthrown But our Author p. 5 6. leaves his Usurped Province for instead of giving reasons against Alterations designed for winning Dissenters he is for reducing them by force which methods he saith had left in some great Cities scarce three or four Persons of any note that kept off from our Communion till Toleration disordered all again This very Plea doth farther evidence not only the great presumption of the Man who prescribes to all Authority but of the great necessity of present Alterations too because 1. A Toleration had not unsetled so many had not the strict terms of Communion made them so uneasie therefore there seems to be in our present circumstances an absolute necessity of present abatements that we may reduce those we have lost and keep them we yet have 2. Suppose that nothing but a Toleration makes Alterations now necessary yet if Authority thinks fit to put such a necessity upon us we ought in prudence and duty both to apply our selves to that perhaps only expedient which is now left us whereby to preserve our Church and People If a Toleration made it lately necessary in the judgment of all our Clergy to promise Condescensions why should not a Toleration now render it full as necessary to make them The truth is this Gentleman is of the same mind with the Book lately quoted which is not for parting a Stake but for having all or none and were all Church-men on one band and all Dissenters on the other of the same humor we should find the whole Nation as mad as the Psalmists sinners who when any spoke of Peace were making ready for Battle He grants p. 6. that they know not what the Commissioners have done in order to an Alteration and yet at the same time pleads that the Alterations which are said to be prepared will hazard the offending a greater number than they are likely to gratifie Answ This is the same injustice which the Authors protestation complains of viz. That they were Condemned unheard he censurses the thing and determins the consequences and yet confesses that he knows nothing of the matter only as People say who know as little as himself This we may presume is the effect of those Letters which were sent abroad to prepossess and prejudice the Country-Clergy And indeed it is evil Surmises and wicked Representations of what men know not that is the cause of most of our Heats and Mischiefs I know that some hottest opposers of Alterations have submitted to the particulars prepared when laid before 'em as very reasonable tho' they have represented the whole unknown as Monstrous Innovations And were they made publick I doubt not but they would shame these opprobrious Scandals cast upon the Commissioners and themselves But in the mean time we must expect a great deal of candour in this harangue when the Author is so notoriously guilty himself of what he thinks all his Art and Passion little enough to expose in others In the same Page it is Objected That Alterations will leave incorrigible Dissenters the more inexcusable which he denies saying they will still plead Conscience and under every Penalty still cry out of Persecution Answ They may do so if they will but yet these Pretences and Clamours will have so little colour of Reason and Justice that they will neither gain them new Proselites nor keep all their old ones for which reason incorrigible Dissenters are as much against Alteration as our Author they are in the same cause tho' aiming at different ends and whether he or they are like in our circumstances to be the gainer let the World judge In p. 7. He wheedles with Dr. Beveridges Sermon before the Convocation and by breaking it into bits and shreds would make it speak contrary both to the Letter and design of it Het here quotes p. 25. that a part should not be preferred before the whole Whence he opens against the Schism and would have Dissenters by strict discipline taught the Duty of Self-denial But what is this to the Doctors design or our business His design there is to shew that there are a weak sort of Dissenters in reference to whom the Church ought to make such provision that she may keep those members she hath
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-Deacons c. what security have we that they