III. The Episcopalian scheme, endorsed and revised by Barlow, included the indulgence of such orthodox Protestants, as could not be comprehended within the Establishment. These, upon registering their names, were to have liberty to worship in public, and to erect edifices for that purpose. Although disabled from holding public offices, they were to be fined for not fulfilling them, and also obliged, "according to their respective qualities," to pay annually for indulgence, a sum not above forty shillings, nor under ten, for any master of a family; not above eight, nor under two, for any other individual,--the tribute to form a fund for church building. Upon producing a certificate, Nonconformists were to be exempted from legal penalties for non-attendance at parish worship; but they were to pay church rates, and it was suggested by Barlow that they should be forbidden to preach against the Establishment. This arrangement was to be limited to three years, and to be confined to such Protestants as are described in Cromwell's Act of Settlement. These intentions were frustrated. Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, mentioned the subject to Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, "hoping to have prevailed for his concurrence in it;" but the latter, availing himself of the communication, did his utmost to defeat the scheme. The Bishops generally were against it. The old Clarendon party was against it.[540] [Sidenote: THORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLES.] Herbert Thorndike wrote his _True Principle of Comprehension_ in the year 1667, just at the time when the question had been taken up by Wilkins and Barlow.[541] He did not at all mince the matter, but began by saying that Presbyterians could not, any more than Papists, be good subjects; an assertion which, if true, would of course render comprehension, in the common meaning of the term, impossible; but it is not in that meaning that he uses the term, and he proceeds to declare most distinctly, that "an Act comprehending Presbyterians, as such, in the Church, would fail of its purpose, and not give satisfaction or peace in matters of religion." The only cure for disputes, he maintained, was to authorize the faith and laws of the Catholic Church, _i.e._, within the first six general Councils, "enacting the same with competent penalties." This proposal really signified that Nonconformists were to retract their opinions altogether, or continue to be persecuted. What the author called the true principle of comprehension was the false principle of coercion. He would have men think with him, and if possible force them into the Church; if they were incorrigible, he would shut them out and punish them. Nor did he leave any doubt as to what he intended by the enactment of "competent penalties;" for he laid down the doctrine, that the Church is justified in having recourse to _the civil power_, to enforce union. [Sidenote: 1668.]