The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by…

Reply. If the Liturgy should be altered, as is here required, and desired by us, that it could be no just offence to the generality (or any) of the soberest and most loyal Children of the Church (as you speak) is easy to be proved, by laying together the considerations following: Because it is by themselves confessed to be alterable, as not having it self its former Constitution, till less than two hundred years ago. 2. And themselves affirm it to be not necessary to salvation, but a thing indifferent, while they exclude all higher institutions from the power of the Church. 3. They confess it lawful to serve God without this Liturgy, without which he was served by other Churches above 1460 years, and without which he is now served by other Churches, when the contrary minded doubt whether with it he be lawfully served. 4. Those that desire the alteration, desire no more than to serve God as the Churches did in the days of the Apostles, that had their most infallible Conduct. 5. And they offer also such Forms as are more unquestionable as to their Congruency to the word of God, and to the nature of the several parts of Worship. 6. And yet though they desire the surest Concord and an universal ⟨p. 54⟩Reformation) they desire not to impose on others what they offer, but can thankfully accept a Liberty to use what is to their own Consciences most unquestionably safe, while other men use that which they like better. So that set all this together, with the consideration of the necessity of the preaching the Word, and Communion that is hereupon denied, and you may see it proved, That to have such a Liturgy so altered, that is confessed alterable, for so desirable an end, to the use only of those that cannot well use it, without urging others to any thing that they do themselves account unlawful, cannot be a matter of just offence to the generality of sober Children of the Church, nor to any one. And as to the reason given, it is apparently none. For, 1. Of those that scruple the unlawfulness of it, there are many that will not peremptorily affirm it unlawful, and condemn all that use it, but they dare not use it doubtingly themselves. 2. When our Papers were before you, we think it not just that you should say, that it's here desired to be altered, on the pretence that it is a direct cause of Schism and a superstitious usage: Have we any such expressions?