Chap. III. 7be HISTORY of thePuRITAN~; the commiffioners had to do with perfons of known learning, fobriety, reOliver d bl b I · h d b 1· 1 · Prttelfar, puted orthodoxy, an a p~acea e e 1avwur, t ey ma e ut ttt e enqut1654 . ry into the marks of thetr converlion ; as appears from the example of ~~J Mr. Fuller the hil1orian, who being prelented to a living, was approved by the tl)'ers, without giving any other evidence of the grace of God in him than this, that he made confcience qf bis thoughts. Dr. Walker has publilhed the examinations of two or three clergvmen, 'Thei; pr•~ who were notorious for their malignity and difaffeCtion to the govern- ceedmgs. ment, whom the commiffioners puzzled with dark and abftrufe queftions in divinity, that they might fet them alide, without encounte-ring their political principles ; for when they bad private intimations, of notorious malignants to come before them, they frequently had recourfe to this method; though 'tis not unlikely that upon fome other occafions, they m ight lay too great O:refs upon the internal charaCters of regeneration, the truth of which depend entirely upon the integrity of the, refpondent. But I believe not a fingle inftance can be produced, of any who were rejeCted for infufficiency, without being firft conviCted either of immorality, of obnoxious fentiments in thefocinian or pelagian controverfy, or of dif– afleCl:ion to the prefent government. Mr. Sad/er who was prefented to a living in Do~fttfbire, but rejeCted by tbe tryers, publilhed his examination in a pamphlet, which he calls, InquijitioAnglicana, wherein he endeavours to expofe the commiffioners in a very contemptuous manner ; but Mr. John Nye clerk to the commiffioners, followed him with an anfwer, intitled, Sad/er examined; or his difkuife difto•vered: Shewing the grofs Ath. Ox~ mifl:akes, and mofl: notorious falfehoods, in his deal ings with the commiffioners for approbation of public preachers, in his lnquijitio Anglicana. To which Mr. Sad/er never replied, Doctor George Bates and Dr. Walker, have charged the tryers with fi– mony, upon no other proof, but that Hugh Peters faid once to Mr. Camp/in, a clergyman of Somerfetjhire, upon his applying to him by a friend, for di{patch, has tby friend any money? A fiender proof of fo heavy a charge. They who are acquainted with the jocofe humour of Jlugh Peters, will uot wonder at fuch an expreffion. But I refer the reader to the names and charaCters of the commifiioners, mofl: of whom were men of unquefl:ionable probity, for a fufficient anfwer to this ca– lumny. No doubt the fryers did commit fundry miftakes, which it was hardly Remarks~ poffible to avoid in their ftation. I am far from vindicating all their proceedings; they had a difficult work on their hands, lived in times when the extent of chrifl:ian liberty was not well underfiood, had to deal with men of difKrent principles in religion and politics ; and thofe who were 110t approved, .would @f courfe complain. Had this power been M m m 2 lodged
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=