PREFACE. " t~ tht legal toleration if them, while they lmp within due bounds; that " is, while they do not break in upon the privileges, and rights of th~ " ellablifhed church, by declaring againft all legal ijlablijbments, or the legal " eflablijbment qf the church if England in particular, or by not being ·~ quiet with the preflnt limits of their toleration, or by qffe/Jing pofls of " authority, and thereby breaking down the fences of the church, and plac– e< ing themfllws on a level with it." But whether this would remain a point of prudrnce with his lordjhip, if the boundaries of his epifcopal po~uer were enlarged, is not very difficult to determine. The dijjenters have no envy nor ill-will to the churches if England or Scotland, eftablijhed by la~u (attended with a toleration if all peaceable dif flnters), any jitrther than they encroach on the natural or Jocial rights of mankind; nor are they Jo weak, as not to diftinguijb between high digm·– ties, great authority, and large revenues fecured by law, and a poor main– tmance arijing from the voluntary contributions if the people, that is, be– tween an eftablilhment and a toleration. Hifi. Pur. But I am to attend to the charge of inconftjiency brought againjl myfl!f: Vol. I. P· 55· I had ob(erved, upon the reign of the bloody queen Mary, that an abfolute fu- . premacy over the confciences of men, lodged with a flngle perfon, might as well be prejudicial as ferviceable to true religion : And in the beginning lb. P· 85, if the reign if queen Elizabeth, that the powers then claimed by the ll 6 • kings and queens of England, were in a manner the fame with thofe claimed by the popes in the times preceding the reformation, except the adminiftration of the fpiritual ofiices of the church. This ~vas THAT suPREMACY, which was the gromzd-work if the re[ormatio11; if wbich ! fay, let the reader judge how far theje H 1G H POWERs are agreeable or confijlent ~uith the natural rights if mankind. His lordjhip calls this a prif~!Jed exp?Jing the royal Jupremacy, and the rather, becaufe " THAT " su PR EM ACY was acknowledged, andjworn to by tbe old puritans them– " felves, tbough no1v inconjijlently enough difowned and condemned by their '' hijlorirm." ButJi•rely his lordjl:ip fhould have iliformed his clergy at the fame time, in what Jenje the puritans took the oath, when it was bifore his . eyes, in thefame page; and my words are thefl: " '!'he whole body if the H'~gPur. " papijls refufed the oath if ji1premacy, as inconfiflent with their allegiance Yid:Strype's " to tbe pope, but the puritans took it zmder all theje difadvantages, with the ann. Vol. I. " queen's explication in her injunfliom, that is, that 120 more was intended, P· 159· " than that ber mqjejly, under God, had the Jovereignty and rule over all '' perfons born i?z her realm, either ecclejiajlical or temporal, fo as no fo– " reign power had, or ought to have any Juperiority over them." Where is the inco??ftflency of this condu/J of-the old puritans, or their new hijlorian? Or, where is the d~(fenter in England, who is not ready to fwear to it witb this explication? But
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=