872 A Review of the principal fads objebled to the year 1584 according to law, or not ? if not, then the fufpending thofe who fuffered by them, were fo many aéts of church tyranny and op. preflion ; if they were, then there were, penallaws even at that time a- gainft meer non-conforms, for they fuffered for. no other reafon, than re- fufing to fubfcribe hisfécond article, that " the book of common-prayer, " and ordination of priefis and deacons, contained nothing contrary to " the word of God, and that they would ufe it in all their publick miujf- " trations, and no other." But if fufpenfions and deprivations are not to be accounted penal laws, was not the anof 23d Et IZABETH, which laid a fine of k. 20. ä month, upon all perlons who did not come to church to hear common- prayer, a penal law ? Was not the court of high corn. mi on erened in this reign by the government ? And did not this court allume a power not only of fufpending and depriving, but of fining and imprifoning men in a fovereign manner, for meer non-conformity? Are there not numberlefs inftances of their feverities upon record, in this and the two following reigns ? How unguarded then is this afI'ertion, and repugnant to the molt notorious fans, that thegovernment madeno penal laws againfl MEER NON- CONFORMISTS? Of the lenity Our author adds, that where they fill within the reach of the laws ofthegovern- enabled upon repeated plots, confpiracies, and other high provocations, a- went ain l a t s impugners o the a remac and other di urbers. of the tate, thepuritan[, g . p %t, , f fup y, , l f f vindic. they were treated withgreat lenity and mildnefs. But if the puritans were p. x.28. not chargeable with plotting and confpiring againft the ltate, why were they ranked with confpirators ? Was it not poflible to punifh a rebel or traytor againft his queen and country, without including a peaceable and Ioyal non- conformift ? P. 3s.. But the moderate and peaceable non conforms (lays he) were notonly treatedwith lenity but favour ; and though a legal toleration was notgrant- ed them in form, they had an indulgence, which amounted to much more. Whereas Mr. N. for near five hundred pages, has reported little eye but dreadfulfverities.again/t the puritans; exclu/ions,fufpenfions, deprivations; ]bid. and impri%onments, &c. A very melancholy account this ! which our P. 532. congratulates himfelf, Mr. N. has in ten lines entirely confuted ; becaufe he admits, that in theyear 1 586.., theholy dfeiplinewas fubfcribed by above five hundred clergymen, ALL BENEFICED in the church ofEngland, ufeful preachers, andof unfpotted livesand charatiers, among whomwere their chief leaders, Cartwright, Travers, Field, Snape, Johnfon, Sparks, Cawdrey, p. 534.. Udal, &c. What now (lays he) mull the reader think ofthisgentleman'., heavy complaints? .I anfwer, juft as before, until he has difproved the fans recorded in the hory of thepuritans, which he is not fo couragi- ous as to attempt. There were more than twice fivehundred clergymen, who. made afhift to keep their places in the church, but will-led and .pray. ed.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=