( 3 i ) nanced himfelfby adhering unto the Dotages of .Monta- vus. It is true, fome of them contended for a Severity ofDif ipline in the Church, but they did it not, upon any pretence of the Neglect of it in them unto whom the Adminiftration of it was committed ; but for the want of etablifhing a falle Principle, Rule, or Erroni- ous Doerrine which they advanced ; namely, that the nzosi fincerepenitents were never more to he admitted into Eccléliaflical Communion ; whereby they did not efta- blifh but overthrow one of the Principal ends of Church Difcipline. They did not therefore preis for the Power or the tife of the Keys, as is pretended, but ad- vanced afallDoarine in prejudice both unto the Power andLife ofthem.They pretended indeed unto the 'Purity ofthe Church, not that there were none impure, wicked, and hypocritical among them, but that none might be admitted who had once fallen, though really made pure by fincere Repentance. This was their Zeal for Purity. Ifa Man were overta4en, ifthey could catch him in fuch a fault, as by the Rules ofthe paffaint Difcipline, he was to be caft out ofthe Church, there they had him fafe for ever. No Evidence ofthe molt fincereRepentance, . could prevail for a Ï eadmiffzon into the Church. And becaufe other Churches would admit them, they renoun- ced all Communionwith them, as noChurches of Chrift. Are thefe our Principles, are thefe our Praätifes ? do we give any countenanceunto them by any thing we fay or do ? I fomewhat wonder that the Dr. from fornegene rai Expreffions, and carting their Pretences under new Appearances fhould feem to think that there is the leaft Coincidence, between what they infìfted on,.. and what we plead in our own Defence. He may fee now more fully, what are the Reafons ofour. PraCtife, and I hope thereon. rr
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=