distinguish between an unlimited liberty of conscience, and an unlimited
freedom of opinion. Then on the other side, the professed firmness of
the Tories for Episcopacy as an apostolical institution: Their aversion
to those sects who lie under the reproach of having once destroyed their
constitution, and who they imagine, by too indiscreet a zeal for
reformation have defaced the primitive model of the Church: Next, their
veneration for monarchical government in the common course of
succession, and their hatred to republican schemes: These, I say, are
principles which not only the nonjuring zealots profess, but even
Papists themselves fall readily in with. And every extreme here
mentioned flings a general scandal upon the whole body it pretends to
adhere to.

But surely no man whatsoever ought in justice or good manners to be
charged with principles he actually disowns, unless his practices do
openly and without the least room for doubt contradict his profession:
Not upon small surmises, or because he has the misfortune to have ill
men sometimes agree with him in a few general sentiments. However,
though the extremes of Whig and Tory seem with little justice to have
drawn religion into their controversies, wherein they have small
concern; yet they both have borrowed one leading principle from the
abuse of it; which is, to have built their several systems of political
faith, not upon enquiries after truth, but upon opposition to each
other, upon injurious appellations, charging their adversaries with
horrid opinions, and then reproaching them for the want of charity; _et
neuter falso_.

In order to remove these prejudices, I have thought nothing could be
more effectual than to describe the sentiments of a Church of England
man with respect to religion and government. This I shall endeavour to