About that time I had finished a book called Catholic Thoughts; in which I undertake to prove that besides things unrevealed, known to none, and ambiguous words, there is no considerable difference between the Arminians and Calvinists, except some very tolerable difference in the point of perseverance.

What Arminians? what Calvinists?—­It is possible that the guarded language and positions of Arminius himself may be interpreted into a “very tolerable” compatibility with the principles of the milder Calvinists, such as Archbishop Leighton, that true Father of the Church of Christ.  But I more than doubt the possibility of even approximating the principles of Bishop Jeremy Taylor to the fundamental doctrines of Leighton, much more to those of Cartwright, Twiss, or Owen.

Ib. p. 186.

Bishop Barlow told my friend that got my papers for him, that he could hear of nothing that we judged to be sin, but mere inconveniences.  When as above seventeen years ago, we publicly endeavoured to prove the sinfulness even of many of the old impositions.

Clearly an undeterminable controversy; inasmuch as there is no centra-definition possible of sin and inconvenience in religion:  while the exact point, at which an inconvenience, becoming intolerable, passes into sin, must depend on the state and the degree of light, of the individual consciences to which it appears or becomes intolerable.  Besides, a thing may not be only indifferent in itself, but may be declared such by Scripture, and on this indifference the Scripture may have rested a prohibition to Christians to judge each other on the point.  If yet a Pope or Archbishop should force this on the consciences of others, for example, to eat or not to eat animal food, would he not sin in so doing?  And does Scripture permit me to subscribe to an ordinance made in direct contempt of a command of Scripture?

If it were said,—­In all matters indifferent and so not sinful you must comply with lawful authority:—­must I not reply, But you have yourself removed the indifferency by your injunction?  Look in Popish countries for the hideous consequences of the unnatural doctrine—­that the Priest may go to Hell for sinfully commanding, and his parishioners go with him for not obeying that command.

Ib. p. 191.

About this time died my dear friend Mr. Thomas Gouge, of whose life you may see a little in Mr. Clark’s last book of Lives:—­a wonder of sincere industry in works of charity.  It would make a volume to recite at large the charity he used to his poor parishioners at Sepulchre’s, before he was ejected and silenced for non-conformity, &c.

I cannot express how much it grieves me, that our Clergy should still think it fit and expedient to defend the measures of the High Churchmen from Laud to Sheldon, and to speak of the ejected ministers, Calamy, Baxter, Gouge, Howe, and others, as schismatics,