en your Majesty took our consent to a
Liturgy to be a foundation that would infer our concord, you meant not
that we should have no concord but by consenting to this Liturgy
without any considerable alteration.

This is forcible reasoning, but which the Bishops could fairly leave for
the King to answer;--the contract tacit or expressed, being between him
and the anti-Prelatic Presbytero-Episcopalian party, to which neither
the Bishops nor the Legislature had acceded or assented. If Baxter and
Calamy were so little imbued with the spirit of the Constitution as to
consider Charles II. as the breath of their nostrils, and this dread
sovereign Breath in its passage gave a snort or a snuffle, or having led
them to expect a snuffle surprised them with a snort, let the reproach
be shared between the Breath's fetid conscience and the nostrils'
nasoductility. The traitors to the liberty of their country who were
swarming and intriguing for favor at Breda when they should have been at
their post in Parliament or in the Lobby preparing terms and
conditions!--Had all the ministers that were afterwards ejected and the
Presbyterian party generally exerted themselves, heart and soul, with
Monk's soldiers, and in collecting those whom Monk had displaced, and,
instead of carrying on treasons against the Government 'de facto' by
mendicant negociations with Charles, had taken open measures to confer
the sceptre on him as the Scotch did,--whose stern and truly loyal
conduct has been most unjustly condemned,--the schism in the Church
might have been prevented and the Revolution of 1688 superseded.

N.B. In the above I speak of the Bishops as men interested in a
litigated estate. God forbid, I should seek to justify them as
Christians.

Ib. p. 369.

'Quaere'. Whether in the 20th Article these words are not
inserted;--'Habet Ecclesia auctoritatem in controversiis fidei'.

Strange, that the evident antithesis between power in respect of
ceremonies, and authority in points of faith, should have been
overlooked!

Ib.

Some have published, That there is a proper sacrifice in the Lord's
Supper, to exhibit Christ's death in the 'post-fact', as there was a
sacrifice to prefigure it in the Old Law in the 'ante-fact', and
therefore that we have a true altar, and not only metaphorically so
called.

Doubtless a gross error, yet pardonable, for to errors nearly as gross
it was opposed.

Ib.

Some have maintained