Bishop in the Primitive Church bad oppofed or depraved the Sacrifice, he would have been obliged to give Place to an Orthodox Succeffor; and if any fingle Bishop, with the Generality of bis Clergy and Laity, bad agreed together to maim the Chriftian Sacrifice, any Clergyman or Layman, might have removed into another Dioaefe, where the Sacrifice is retained in perfect Parity.

Iren. What then? does he any where charge the Church of England with maiming or depraving the Sacrifice? You have already heard him fpeak the contrary.

Neoph. You are too hafty with me, I was coming to that Having obferved, that nothing of this fort is practicable in this National Church, he infers, that all who are convinced of the Neceffity of the Primitive Sacrifice, and do not think the public Provifion fufficient, are to labour with Prayers to God, and Arguments to Men, for the perfect Reftitution of the Sacrificial oblatory Part of the Chriftian Liturgy di

Iren. I have from my former Citation fhewn, that he thought our prefent Liturgy fufficient: And how does his laying down Rules for them, who thought otherwife, prove, that he has changed his Judgment? If you could fhew, that he has any where retracted what I quoted from him, that would be to the Purpofe; if not, you may fave your felf the Trouble of any more Quotations. And indeed,

as

as long as that Gentleman continues in a Communion, where our prefent Liturgy is us'd, it will be in vain to reafon against Fact.

Neoph. Thou art like the deaf Adder, that ftoppeth her Ear, and refuseth to hear the Voice of the Charmer, charm be ever fo wifely. Iren. What Strength there is in your Arguments has already been feen; and your Conduct has been fo rafh in this whole Difpute, your Notions fo unfettled; that if we come over to you, we know not where we fhall ftop: You pleaded for King Edward's Liturgy first, now you have compos'd Forms of your own, you have brought in Unction in Confirmation, Unction of the Sick, which unless you pretend to the Gift of miraculous Healing Difeafes, you can give no Reafon for; you have other things ftill to wish for, which, what they may be, Time will difcover.One of you is now writing to prove the Neceffity of Purification after Death in the Middle State, which I take in other Words to be the Doctrine of Purgatory: Another, to prove the Neceffity of the Oblatory Prayer, has afferted, that Chrift never offer'd himself, but in the Sacrament, and that his Sufferings on the Crofs. were not his own Act and Deed, but his being forcibly offer'd by the Jews, and no Oblation of himfelf. Thefe are fuch dangerous Tenets, (and what more your Schifm may be teeming with, who knows?) that you muft excufe me, if I think it very unfafe to join in fuch a Communion,

1

munion, and continue to attend the regular Ordinances of my orthodox Paftor Theodorus. Neoph. I challenge Theodorus, I challenge the Author of the No Reafons, I challenge the Author of the No Neceffity, &c. I challenge any of the Favourers of the present imperfect Liturgy, to difpute with me.

Iren. This is Phrenzy; good Sir, compofe your felf, and retire.

Neoph. I'll go home, and write an unanfwerable Book against you, and he that dares to meddle with it, had better thruft his Hands in the Fire.

Iren. Of writing many Books there is no End: If you would would go home, and ftudy in the Fear of God the Commandments he has given against all Divifions and Separations from his Church, it would turn to a much better Account. And, in Hopes you will do so, I bid you heartily Farewell.

FINI S

Just published,

+++ Reflections on modern Fanaticifm. In two Letters to Doctor Brett, and the Author of a late Pamphlet ironically intitled, Mr. Leflie's Defence from fome dangerous and erroneous Principles. By Matthias Earbery, Presbyter of the Church of England. Printed for N. Mift, and fold by John Morphew near Stationers -Hall, and A. Dodd without Temple-Bar. Price 2 s.

THE

APPENDIX.

T

HE preceding Abridgment was first drawn up, at the request, or rather command (for fuch I efteem all his Requefts) of a Gentleman of great Learning and Piety, who thought an Abftract

of this Nature might be very ferviceable to thofe among the Laity, who neither have leifure to read the Controverfy at large, nor Capacity to judge of many of the Arguments therein ufed. He thought, it would be of great Advantage to them, to have the Subftance of what has been wrote on both fides brought into as fhort a Compass as poffible, and reduced to fo clear and plain a Method, that it might be intelligible even to the meanest Capacities, and ferve them for an effectual Antidote against the artful and fubtle Reafonings of our late upftart Reformers. The Book was publish'd in April, 1720. with an Appeal to our Adverfaries themselves for the Fidelity of the Author in propofing their Objections in their full Strength, and having put nothing in their Mouths, but what they have really faid in the Course of the I

Con

Controversy: And no Complaints were then made against it, nor any Suggestions advanc'd to the contrary. But after near two Year's filence, at last, an anonymous Pamphlet fteals into the World, under the artful Title of The common Christian inftructed in fome neceffary Points of Religion; in which the Abridger is accufed of not having faithfully reprefented the Arguments of his Adverfaries, nor fufficiently maintained his own fide of the Queftion. On perufal of the Book, I found little in it, befides general unproved Affertions, and old baffled Objections repeated with as much confidence, as if nothing had been faid to confute them: Upon which I immediately difcern'd, that there was no neceffity to give my felf the trouble of publishing a particular Anfwer to the whole; it being a fufficient Refutation of great Part of that Book, only faithfully to compare it with the Paffages it is wrote against: What requires a more particular Confideration fhall be examined here with as much Brevity, as poffible; yet fo, as to give the Reader a juft Idea of the Spirit and Abilities of this anonymous Author, and of the Depth and Strength of his Performance.

He begins, Page 4, 5, with a grofs Mifreprefentation of what I fay, concerning Tradition; the Controversy about which I thought to be in a great Meafure owing to each fide's misunderstanding the meaning of its Adverfary: For I charitably hoped, that the Effentialifts did not fet Tradition and Scripture on an equal Foot, but only pleaded for interpreting Scripture by fuch Traditions, as have been received by all Chriftians, in all Places, and can be traced up to the Primo-Primitive Apoftolical Age; and against fuch Traditions, I am fure, the CHURCH of ENGLAND does not speak. Vide Abr. Page 4, 5. If I was mistaken in this charitable Conftruction of their Meaning, I ask their pardon; but, I think, it is a very ill Requital for my Candor, to quote what

I Speak

1