Or (at least) I looked for such moderate desires of due Reformation of what was (indeed) amisse in Church and State, as might still preserve the foundation and essentials of Government in both; not shake and quite overthrow either of them, without any regard to the Laws in force, the wisdom and piety of former Parliaments, the ancient, and universall practice of Christian Churches; the Rights and Priviledges of particular men: Nor yet any thing offered in lieu, or in the room of what must be destroyed, which might at once reach the good end of the others Institution, and also supply its pretended defects, reform its abuses, and satisfie sober and wise men, not with soft and specious words, pretending zeal, and special piety, but with pregnant and solid Reasons, both divine and humane, which might justifie the abruptnesse and necessity of such vast Alterations. But in all their Propositions I can observe little of these kindes, or to these ends: Nothing of any Laws dis-jointed, which are to be restored; of any right invaded; of any justice to be unobstructed; of any compensations to be made; of any impartiall Reformation to be granted: to all or any of which Reason, Religion, true Policy, or any other humane motives might induce Me. But as to the main matters propounded by them at any time, in which is either great novelty or difficulty, I perceive, that what were formerly look'd upon as Factions in the State, and Schisms in the Church, and so punishable by the Laws, have now the confidence, by vulgar clamours, and assistance (chiefly) to demand not onely Tolerations of themselves, in their vanity, novelty, and confusion; but also Abolition of the Laws against them, and a totall extirpation of that Government, whose Rights they have a mind to invade. This as to the main: Other Propositions are (for the most part) but as waste paper in which those are wrapped up, to present them somewhat more handsomly. Nor do I so much wonder at the variety, and horrible noveltie of some Propositions, (there being nothing so monstrous, which some fancies are not prone to long for). This casts me into, not an admiration, but an extasie, how such things should have the fortune to be propounded in the name of the two Houses of the Parliament of England, among whom, I am very confident, there was not a fourth part of the Members of either House, whose Judgements free, single and apart did approve or desire such destructive changes in the Government of the Church. I am perswaded there remains in far the Major part of both Houses (if free and full) so much Learning, Reason, Religion, and just Moderation, as to know how to sever between the use and the abuse of things, the institution and the corruption, the Government and the mis-government, the Primitive Patterns and the aberrations or blottings of after-Copies.