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

M. 1. I never told you that I took all the Parish-Ministers or People for persecutors. No, nor for Liars: For when they say that ex animo they hold that nothing in the Liturgy or Ceremonies, &c. is contrary to the Word of God, they speak as they think. But it would be a lye in me who am otherwise persuaded. ⟨p. 229⟩And for Perjury; it's one thing grossly to be perjured; I charged them not with that: And it's another thing to say or do somewhat that may make a man some way guilty of other mens perjury: This is it which affrights me from Conformity; but as to them, they understand the words of Oaths, and Promises and Impositions otherwise than I do (as I told you the Earl of Argyle did) and I doubt not but many worthy men, such as Mr. Gurnal, and others known to us, were drawn in, by having leave to declare that they took the impositions in such a sense as they thought Lawful (as the Arians at the Council of Seleucid, and the Acacians drew many in to them by giving them all leave to subscribe in their own sense): And though I can justify none of this; yet what ever their words were, and though they were not faultless, their hearts abhorred Perjury. But I pray you ask your friend these Questions. 1. Did none that are for separation from the Church of England take the Corporation-Oath and Declaration? You know that many of them did. 2. Do they ever since avoid Communion with all those men? You know they do not. And yet none of the Ministers Subscriptions to me seem half so frightful as the Corporation Declaration. Do they not then here show Partiality, and themselves justify our Communion with the Conformists? Yea when Mr. Eaton, and some other Independents wrote against the obligation of the Covenant, and of the Oath of Allegiance, and many called the Covenant an Almanac out of date; did the rest avoid communion with these?

M. 1. I never told you that I took all the Parish-Ministers or People for persecutors. No, nor for Lyers: For when they say that ex animo they hold that nothing in the Liturgy or Ceremonies, &c. is contrary to the Word of God, they speak as they think. But it would be a lye in me who am otherwise perswaded. ⟨p. 229⟩And for Perjury; it's one thing gros•y to be perjured; I charged them not with that: And it's another thing to say or do somewhat that may make a man some way guilty of other mens perjury: This is it which affrights me from Conformity; but as to them, they understand the words of Oaths, and Promises and Impositions otherwise than I do (as I told you the Earl of Aryle did) and I doubt not but many worthy men, such as Mr. Gurnal, and others known to us, were drawn in, by having leave to declare that they took the impositions in such a sence as they thought Lawful (as the Arians at the Council of Seleuci, and the Acacians drew many in to them by giving them all leave to subscribe in their own sence): And though I can justifie none of this; yet what ever their words were, and though they were not faultless, their hearts abhorred Perjury. But I pray you ask your friend these Questions. 1. Did none that are for separation from the Church of England take the Corporation-Oath and Declaration? You know that many of them did. 2. Do they ever since avoid Communion with all those men? You know they do not. And yet none of the Ministers Subscriptions to me seem half so frightful as the Corporation Declaration. Do they not then here shew Partiality, and themselves justify our Communion with the Conformists? Yea when Mr. Eaton, and some other Independants wrote against the obligation of the Covenant, and of the Oath of Allegiance, and many called the Covenant an Almanack out of date; did the rest avoid communion with these?