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

Reply. You needed not go a fishing for our Charge; what we had to say against the Liturgy, which we now desired you to observe, was here plainly laid before you; Answer to this, and suppose us not to say, what we do not, to make your selves matter of reproaching us with gross and foul slanders. Only we pray ⟨p. 64⟩you answer Mr. Hales, as Mr. Hales, (whom we took to be a Person of much esteem with you), especially that passage of his which you take no notice of, as not being so easy to be answered, for the weight and strength which it carries with it; viz. That the limiting of the Church Communion to things of doubtful disputation, hath been in all Ages the ground of Schism and Separation, and that he that separates from suspected Opinions is not the Separatist. And may we not cite such words of one that we thought you honoured, and would hear without contradicting our Profession, of not intending depravation or reproach against the Book without going against our consciences? If we cite the words of an Author for a particular use (as to persuade you of the evil of laying the Churches Unity upon unnecessary things) must we be responsible therefore for all that you can say against his words in other respects? we suppose you would be loath your words should have such interpretations, and that you should be under such a Law for all your Citations; do as you would be done by.

Reply. You needed not go a fishing for our Charge; what we had to say against the Liturgie, which we now desired you to observe, was here plainly laid before you; Answer to this, and suppose us not to say, what we do not, to make your selves matter of reproaching us with gross and foul slanders. Only we pray ⟨p. 64⟩you answer Mr. Hales, as Mr. Hales, (whom we took to be a Person of much esteem with you), especially that passage of his which you take no notice of, as not being so easie to be answered, for the weight and strength which it carries with it; viz. That the li mitting of the Church Communion to things of doubtful disputation, hath been in all Ages the ground of Schism and Separation, and that he that separates from suspected Opinions is not the Separatist. And may we not cite such words of one that we thought you honored, and would hear without contradicting our Profession, of not intending depravation or reproach against the Book without going against our consciences? If we cite the words of an Author for a particular use (as to perswade you of the evil of laying the Churches Unity upon unnecessary things) must we be responsible therefore for all that you can say against his words in other respects? we suppose you would be loath your words should have such interpretations, and that you should be under such a Law for all your Citations; do as you would be done by.