Page:History of the Nonjurors.djvu/387

Rh written in the same year, and addressed to. "I sent you word just as I left this place in July, of the opposition made by some Presbyters to the re-union among the Nonjurors, all whose Bishops agreed in it except I. B. a copy of whose letter I send you in this. I must now acquaint you with what passed after I left the Town. Those of their Presbyters that opposed it, drew up a representation against it, a very pompous empty declamation (the penman supposed to be Mr. William Law) and got in several to sign it, who had appeared friends to the union before: but Mr. J. Creyk has a great influence, having the disposal of a great deal of money, left by Mrs. Pincham and others to be distributed to the Nonjurors.

"After this representation was sent, answer was made to it both by Dr. Brett and Mr. Smith of Durham, in which it was proved that what was desired was no alteration, for a declaration of their sense in interpreting any passage of the Liturgy was no alteration in it: nor in reality was the mixture any: for in King Edward's Liturgy, after water had been mixed with the wine, in the sight of all the people, the rubrick went on to say, "Then shall the Priest put the bread and wine on the Table." Here the word wine was certainly used for the mixed cup. In the second Liturgy of King Edward, all this rubrick was left out, and no directions at all given about the cup: and so it stood, till after the Restoration. Then the word "oblations" was added to the Prayer for the Church Militant, and to prevent the Clerk or Sexton's placing the elements on the Altar, which they considered as an oblation, a rubrick was made directing the Priest to place the bread and wine on the Altar. So it stands now; and yet I cannot see that the term