8 8o A Review of the principal facts objected to the The-queftion with Mr. N. is not, whether king EDWARD'S, or the Geneva eftablifhment is the molt comprehenfive, but whether both of them might not have been enlarged ? or whether either of them ought to have been eftablifhed, without a general indulgence to peaceable and loyal diffenters ? If the legiflature may fettle what terms of communion they pleafe for the national church, with exclufions, fufpenfions, and depri- vations, to fnch as refufe to comply ; may they alto fine, imprifon, pro- fcribe and put men to death, for nonconformity ? This is the true Rate of the queftion, which our author muff defend, if he will vindicate the queen, or oppofe Mr. N. But let us goon with his arguments : There was agreat diverfity inper- formingpubiickfrvice ; it was therefore necefï'ary to inforce an uniformi- ty by feverity Some of the common people ridiculed the habits ; there- fore all the clergymutt be obliged to wear them under heavy penalties The controverfy occajioned a great deal ofcontention and abufive language ; it was therefore proper to put an end to it by force ; when it might as well have.been ended by laying the habits afide, according to the apofto- lical canon, that no manput afumbling block, or an occajion to fall, in his brother's way, Rom. xiv. 13. Sadfiate sj When our author was vindicating the queen's wlom in retaining the the clergy at habits, he was pleafed to argue from the great numbers of laity that were the reforma- poffefied in their favour, but now he admits, that the englifh [i. e. the proteftant] laity, were more averfe to the habits than the clergy. Which Vindic. p. averfion he apprehends " war artfully and defignedly railed in their minds 159' " by the puritanpreachers, whoought to have quieted the people, and told " them theywere MATTERS OF IN DIFFERENCE appointed by authority ; " that it did not belong' to them to judge or condemn their miners or bre- " thren,fir obeying the laws made tofupport theprotant religion." Could not the proteftant religion then be fupported without the habits? And does not this writer know, that the puritan preachers were fo far from efteeming them matters ofindTerence, that they were in doubt for tome time, whether they ought not to defert their miniftry rather than wear p. 161. them ? But Mr.N. is charged with vindicating the infults and violences, the conforming clergy met with from the puritans, though he does not re- member a fyllable that can admit ofloch a conftruftion. His words are thefe : " The proteftant populace were fo inflamed, that nothing but an " awful fubjeftion to authority could have kept them within the church. c4 Great numbers refuted to frequent thole places of worfhip where fer- vice was miniftered in that drefs. They would not falute fuch mi- " nifters in the ftreets, nor keep them company ; nay, if we may be- " lieve Dr. Whitgift'sdefence againft Cartwright, they fpit in their faces, " reviled them as they went along the ftreets, and lhewed.foch like rude behaviour.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=