The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…

M. I have told you fully before: Not because we differ in Doctrine, but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription. 2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot, nor his Clergy, nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England, as well as S•bthorp and Mainwaring? Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments, made by the Members, if not Representatives of the Church of England? You know that our late great Defenders of the Church, describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law: And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves? Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limiting Profession: Was he therefore none of the Church? Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church? Was R. Hooker none of the Church? The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth, and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second, and Praised by his Father. And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles. When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power, against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him, he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing. And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome. I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England.

M. I have told you fully before: Not because we differ in Doctrine, but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription. 2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot, nor his Clergy, nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England, as well as S•bthorp and Mainwaring? Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments, made by the Members, if not Representatives of the Church of England? You know that our late great Defenders of the Church, describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law: And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves? Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limitting Profession: Was he therefore none of the Church? Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church? Was R. Hooker none of the Church? The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth, and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second, and Praised by his Father. And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles. When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power, against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him, he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing. And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome. I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England.